North America (Part Four)
 

Estimated Number of Printed Pages: 40+
 
This information duplicates items from the rest of The Factbook, selecting only those items that relate to North America. However, numbers don't mean much without a comparison to family life in other continents. And that is why we may have included a lot of information on certain issues, but it seems like we have less regional information for others. Actually, that isn't the case – we just chose what were for us notable commonalities or exceptions, cross-culturally. For further information about a particular region, see the regional studies we've referenced in the footnotes: they probably have any additional information you might need on a particular country or region.
 
 
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.
 
 
 

ANALYSIS OF FAMILY AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

 
 
 
In his essay "Tuning In, Tuning Out, The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America," Robert Putnam introduced his theory that American society was becoming a society that was "bowling alone" – a society where people were increasingly isolated and increasingly less involved in civic activities such as joining bowling leagues. 1.
 
At the time, Putnam did not believe that the time pressures, the changing role of women, or the breakdown of the traditional family unit were to blame for this. He did not credit family instability for being responsible for the breakdown of civil engagement and larger social trends, because, essentially, he dated the the breakdown of civic engagement as having predated the rising divorce rates. Instead, disintegration of marriage, he offered, was probably "an accessory to the crime, but not the major villain of the piece." 2.
 
Putnam reportedly subsequently concluded that time / money pressures such as a dual-career family, are partly to blame for this breakdown of civic engagement. 3.
 
 
But here's the thing, for decades, it has been a consistent argument amongst (primarily conservative) defenders of the family, that it is, in fact, the rise of civic / social institutions is responsible for transformation, if not the decline of the family. So Putnam gets it, from this perspective, completely backwards. Because in this viewpoint, it's not that families or their transformation are to blame of the changing larger societal involvement, but that the larger societal involvement is to blame for the changing / transformation of the family. While Putnam dismisses the family as a "key form of social capital," these authors argued that it is Putnam-mourned social institutions that are the major villain of the piece! 4.
 
 
In a similarly intriguing vein, Ethan Watters, in his book, Urban Tribes, responds to Putnam's argument by saying that – while there may be a decline in participation in formalized activities – there are informal, non-consanguinal substitute-familial forms that are heavily invested in social capital. These forms, Watters argues, are taking place of families in certain roles, such as matchmaking, but are complimentary to the family in others. While not in diametric opposition to the familialists, that view is another form of stark contrast to the Putnam position. 6.
 
Consider that as you read some of the following quotes – most of which were written during or before the rise of the social institutions mourned by Putnam.
 
 
 

ANALYSIS OF FAMILY AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

 

EXCERPTS ON FAMILY AS AN INSTITUTION

 
 
 
According to sociologist William F. Ogburn, the family – under the pressures of urbanization and industrialization – was stripped of many of its traditional functions until its only remaining functions were psychological: "to socialize children and to provide emotional sustenance and support for family members." 7.
 
 
 
"After World War II, Talcott Parsons played a central role in defining the issues that informed the study of the family. He treated the family as a small group that served basic functions for the larger society, including reproduction, regulation of sexual behavior, socialization into adult roles, and emotional support. He argued that small, isolated nuclear families in which men specialized in instrumental, goal-oriented activities and women specialized in expressive, relationship oriented activities were particularly well adapted to the demands of an urban, industrial society. Parsonian structural-functionalism was profoundly ahistorical, and discouraged historical analysis of the family. It treated the family as a static unit . . . ." 8.
 
 
 
In 1930, a Harper’s Monthly Magazine essayist wrote: “To-day social and civic agencies, in taking over most of these parental responsibilities, have deprived the parents of an important bond of mutual understanding. In the ‘higher life’ of the family there is now little opportunity for the sharing of ex-perience between husband and wife. Professional groups, lecture courses, literary and religious societies, Chambers of Commerce, civic organizations, and clubs have absorbed their time and energies. Modern husbands have also lost the opportunity to know and value their wives as personalities in the simpler daily affairs of the household. In the field of hospital married partners of yesterday had another sphere in which they could appreciate one another’s true resources. But neighborly calls are to-day almost obsolete, while the gathering of guests within the home is being re-placed by the practice of entertaining at hotels, theaters, and other places of amusement. In every sphere of par-ticipation between husband and wife, life is becoming more intellectually and spiritually barren. . . . Almost the only personal needs which each finds satisfied through the other are those of financial income and of sex. the influences which are estranging wives and husbands are also producing a gulf between successive generations. Parents and children cannot know one another as intimately as in former days.” 9.
 
 
 
In 1930, the essayist continued: “If, through our segmentalized manner of living, the child is deprived of the steadying influence of the the parent, it is no less certain that the parent is losing the child. Should I wish really to know my boy or girl (and this will be increasingly true as they grow older), I must go out into the community to gain my knowledge. I must go to the playground supervisor or to the Y.M.C.A. in order to discover his athletic and social adjustments. . . What he is, in himself, as apart from all these pigeonholds and compartments, I have no way of knowing. He has ceased to be, for me, an intimately experienced personality, but has become a case study. I am no longer a parent, but a social worker. . . . ¶ Just as the bond between husband and wife is tending to become one merely of sex love, so the contact between parents an children is narrowing down to an intense but purely emotional affection. The break-up of home life does not, as some think, liberate the young from the tyranny and repression of an older gen-eration. For what really enslaves the young is not the customs of the past, but too narrow a love.” 10.
 
 
 
In 1930, the essayist continued: “It, therefore becomes necessary to forego parenthood, at least for a considerable time, and to conceive of marriage purely as a relation-shop for comradeship and sexual satisfaction. Hence, there are arising more liberal views of sexual morality. The institutions of trial marriage and the companionate . . are being welcomed both in theory and practice. ¶ Strangely enough this new conception of marriage, which as arisen as a necessity, has come to be acclaimed as a virtue . . . . a revolt against the narrow morality of the past and against a society which demanded continuous propagation as the expense of individual happiness. . . I am inclined to think that the renunciation of parenthood, has for the most part, been forced upon us by the conditions under which we live rather than selected by freedom of choice. When we remove from the home nearly all the activities in which husbands and wives can participate on behalf of their children, the rearing of offspring, even when it is not financially precluded, becomes a tiresome and irrelevant process. Having rendered parenthood difficult and meaningless, our next logical step is to abolish it A man and woman who have been thus divested of the prospects of household and children are spoken of euphemistically as ‘the new family.’ . . . ¶ . . . The restlessness felt by so many married couples is cue not so much to the choice of the wrong partner or to the disturbing presence of children as to the break-up and dissemination of their interests throughout the greater community . . . Now that both husband and wife are seeking career away from each other and their home, now that they have stripped off the burdens of children and household encumbrances, what is left for them to be companionable about? Some social genius of the future may work out a scheme for true self-realization in wedlock. but surely the current proposal of the revamping of family institutions are fraught with no large promise of success.” 11.
 
 
 
In 1930, the essayist continued: “You cannot cure institutions by institutions. . . The content of family life, however, is not changing; it is disappearing. When people shall have ceased to live and to participate in the freedom of face-to-face association, when they shall have scattered their interests into diverse organizations throughout the great society, we cannot say that the family as altered; we can only say that it has tone. No salvaging of conjugal and filial customs, no skill exerted in promoting co-operation between the parents and the community will bring it back. All the ingenuity and resources of the Government will be of little avail. . . . . We have set up vast corporate organizations and associations of every conceivable public function; but the life which these institutions were developed to foster is crushed and scattered beneath their weight. We have erected a stupendous civilization; but we have not learned how to use it.” 12.
 
 
 
In 1940, a sociologist wrote that “. . . the specific functions which the family once performed within these categories have been largely transferred to other insti-tutions, while at the same time new specific functions, elaborations, refine-ments, and additions have developed within the family. ¶ Recreational functions are being transferred, some to and some from the family. Many activities formerly car-ried on in the backyard or in the family living room have been moved to schools, churches, and group-work institutions. Yet at the same time the radio, the automobile, the growing practice of having play and game rooms, and the enforced economy of the depression have operated to restore recreation to the home. . . . In so far as housing becomes more spacious and adequate, the additional space will probably be used largely for leisure-time activities. Families of higher economic status carry on hobbies and other recreations in the house or on the grounds, which among the poorer classes must be conducted in the settle-ment house, the park, or the street. While activities themselves may be largely outside, the home becomes more important as a telephonic center for preparation and making contacts, and as a storage place for equipment. The organization of the individuals leisure life increasingly centers in the home as homes become more adequate and living standards rise.” 13.
 
 
 
In 1947, Senior Scholastic editorialized: "Families no longer 'do things together' automatically like the way our grandparents' did. So the Marshes constantly think up new things that the family can do as a unit. " 14.
 
 

In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “The home is the center of family life, and the hope [ironic sic] of most working-class families is a single-family dwelling with a yard; but a fifth to one-half are forced to live in multiple dwelling units with inadequate space for family living. Added to this is the working-class mos that one is obligated to give shelter and care in a crisis to a husband’s or wife’s relatives or to a married child. Thus, in a considerable percentage [sic] of these families the home is shared with some relative. Then, too., resources are stringently limited, so when a family is faced with unemployment, illness, and death it must turn to someone for help. In such crises, a relative is called upon in most instances before some public agency. The relative normally has little to offer, but in most cases that little is shared with the family in need, even though grudgingly. ¶ While crises draw family members to-gether, they also act as divisive agents; for when a family has to share its lim-ited living space and meager income with relative, kin ties are soon strained, often to the breaking point. One family is not able to give aid to another on an extensive scale without impairing its won standard of living; possibly its own security may be jeopardized. In view of this risk, some persons do everything short of absolute refusal to aid a rela-tive in distress . . . This ordinarily results in the permanent destruction of kin ties, but it is justified by the belief that ones won family’s needs come first.” 15.

KEEPING UP WITH THE JONESES

 
 
 
In 1926, Mary Ross elegantly complained: “Men and women whose grandparents measured their income in barrels of apples and potatoes stored in the cellar for winter use; in rows of hams hanging from the rafters; in the bags of wool from sheep-shearing; in piled wood in the dooryard and the corn in the silo; and the hay stacked high to the peak of the barn; in butter and wool and preserves, now see that income in terms of the pay envelope at the end of the week, and what that will buy at the chain grocery, the five-and-ten, the department store.”

By 1950, sociologist Ray H. Abrams criticized the middle-class family of “constantly endeavoring to raise its standard of living by securing better houses, auto-mobiles, medication, radio and television sets, and in a not too aggressive fashion by attempting to climb the social ladder with all of its neat class stratifications. To marry off one’s sons and daughters into ‘nice’ and ‘successful’ families is an achievement highly to be desired.” *
 
 
 

RICH VS. POOR

 
 
 
$44,389
The U.S. Median household income in 2004. 1.
 
 
 
$10,264
Median income of a U.S. household in the lowest quintile of income. 2.
 
 
 
$151,593
Median income of a U.S. household in the highest quintile of income. 3.
 
 
 
3.4 percent
of combined U.S. household incomes are held by the households in the lowest quintile of income. 4.
 
 
 
50.1 percent
of combined U.S. household incomes are held by the households in the highest quintile of income. 5.
 
 
 
The chart on the left illustrates the unequal distribution of income within U.S. households – a fifth of the households take home over one-half of all households' earnings. The wealthiest two-fifths of U.S. households take home 73.3 percent of all household income earnings – while the bottom two-fifths of households have just 12.1 percent of the earnings. 6.

 
 
At least the rich don't always get richer, and the poor don't always get poorer –

49.5 percent of the people in the U.S. who were in poverty in 1996, were not in poverty in 1999. 7.
 
Of households in the lowest income quintile in 1996, 38 percent of them were in a higher quintile by 1999. 8.
 
Of the households in the highest income quintile in 1996, 34 percent of them were in a lower quintile by 1999. 9.

 
 
New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, and Minnesota –
The states with highest median household incomes – $57,352, $56,772, $56,763, $55,970 , and $55,914, respectively. 10.
 
 
 
West Virginia, Arkansas and Mississippi –
The states with the lowest median household incomes – $32,589, $33,948 and $33,659, respectively. 11.
 
 
 
 

RACE VS. RACE

 
 
 
Making less than the national median household income –
Blacks, Native Americans and Alaskans, Hispanics. 12.
 
 
 
Making more than the national median household income –
Whites, Non-Hispanic Whites, Asians, and Pacific Islanders. Okay, so there was one surprise in the group. 13.
 
 
 
The table at the left is a U.S. Census report on the median household income over a three- or two- year average. Note that the Census Department considers "Hispanic" to be an ethnicity, not a race, which is why there are two categories for White, and which means that the Hispanic entry may include Hispanics of any race. 14.

 
$30,355 –
Median household income for Blacks in the U.S. – which was 62 percent of the median for non- Hispanic White households ($48,977). 15.
 
 
 
45 percent
of Asians in the U.S. work in management, professional, or related occupations – above the U.S. national rate of 34 percent. Once again, Asian Indians are even further ahead: 59.9 percent are in management, professional, or related occupations. 16.
 
 
 
$57,518 –
Median household income for Asians in the U.S. – which was 117 percent of the median for non-Hispanic White households ($48,977). 17.
 
 
 
$40,700
Median income for Asian men in the U.S. in 2000 – higher than the national median of $37,100. For Asian Indian men, the median income is even higher still: $51,900. 18.
 
 
 
$31,000
Median income for Asian women in the U.S. in 2000 – higher than the national median of $27,200. For Asian Indian women, the median income is even higher still: $35,200. 19.
 
 
 
$9,000
Amount the median income of Asian families in the U.S. in 2000 was higher than the U.S. national median for families ($59,000 vs. $50,000). But it depends on the Asian group: Asian Indian and Japanese median incomes are $70,000, whereas the Hmong median is only $32,400. 20.
 
 
 

MEN VS. WOMEN

 
 
 
81.5 million
Number of U.S. men aged 15 and older who were working in 2004. An estimated 73.7 percent of them worked full-time, year-round. 21.
 
 
 
72.0 million
Number of women age 15 and older was 72.0 million who were working in 2004. About 58.8 percent of them worked full-time, year-round. 22.
 
 
 
$40,798
The median earnings of U.S. men in 2004. 23.
 
 
 
$31,223
The median earnings of U.S. women in 2004. 24.
 
 
 
61 percent
of Pacific Islander women in the U.S. are employed – higher than the national average of 58 percent. 25.
 
 
 
Just over 71 percent
of Pacific Islander men in the U.S. are employed – almost exactly the national average. 26.
 
 
 
$34,241 –
Median household income for U.S. Hispanics in 2004 – which was just 70 percent of the median for non-Hispanic White households ($48,977). 27.
 
 
 
 
$21,600
The median income for a Hispanic woman in the U.S., compared to the national median of $27,200. 28.
 
 
 
$25,400
The median income for a Hispanic man in the U.S., compared to the national median of $37,100. 29.
 
 
 
$34,000
The median income for a U.S. Hispanic family in 1999. 30.
 
 
14.6 percent
of Hispanic men in the U.S. are in management, professional, and related occupations, behind the U.S. total population (31.4 percent). 31.
 
 
22.9 percent
of Hispanic women in the U.S. are in management, professional, and related occupations, behind the U.S. national rate (36.2 percent). 32.
 
 
 
$31,000
The median income for a Pacific Islander male in the U.S., under the national men's median of $37,100. 33.
 
 
 
$25,700
The median income for a Pacific Islander female in the U.S., under the national women's median of $27,200. 34.
 
 
 
$45,900
The median income for a Pacific Islander family in the U.S., under the national median of $50,000. 35.
 
 
 
Median Income for Pacific Islanders in the U.S.
is lower than the median for Asian households, but it is higher than the medians for Black households, Hispanic households, and American Indian and Alaska Native households and wasn't statistically different from the median for non-Hispanic White households. 36.
 
 
 
 

HAVE VS. HAVE NOT –
Health Insurance Child Care Expenses

 
 
 
In other words, there's less to go around, and it has to go around farther.
In the Netherlands, couples who don't yet have children and those whose children have already grown and moved out have substantially better economic positions than when these couples have children. Because these couples with children have less participation in work, and less income, but that lower income is being shared by a higher number of family members. In fact, families with children have as much as a quarter to one third less purchasing power than couples who aren't raising children. 37.
 
 
 
$55,327
The median household income for U.S. families in 2004. 38.
 
 
 
$63,813
The median household income for 58,000 U.S. married-couple families in 2004. 39.
 
 
 
$29,826
The median household income in 2004 for the 14,000 U.S. families with a female householder and no husband present. 40
 
 
 
$44,923
The median household income in 2004 for 4,900 U.S. families with a male householder and no wife present. 41.
 
 
 
$59,544
what a family in Boston would need to get by on just to meet basic needs. 42.
 
 
 
Just 30 percent
of basic costs of living are covered by welfare-leaver earnings, in a survey of 10 U.S. communities. 43.
 
 
 
A $10 an hour job
in Boston would cover just 42 percent of basic costs of living. 44.
 
 
 
17 percent
of Australian couple families with children are spending more money each week than they earn. They make the difference by living off savings, money from others, or just going into debt. 45.
 
 
 
Almost 30 percent
of Australian single parents with children are spending more money each week than they earn. They make the difference by living off savings, money from others, or just going into debt. 46.
 
 
 
 
Health Insurance
 
 
 
245.3 million
people in the U.S. have health insurance coverage – an increase of 2.0 million since 2003. That is 84.3 percent of the population. 47.
 
 
 
45.8 million
people in the U.S. don't have health insurance coverage. And those that "have not" also saw an increase since 2003, though a much smaller 0.8 million. 48.
 
 
 
Texas
State with the highest percentage of people without health insurance: 25.1 percent don't have any coverage. 49.
 
 
 
Minnesota
State with the highest percentage of people with health insurance: 91.5 percent have coverage. 50.
 
 
 
5.6 months –
the average length of time it took for someone without health insurance to get coverage. 51.
 
 
 
Child Care Expenses
 
 
 
6 percent
of a U.S. middle class family’s income goes to the cost of child care. 52.
 
 
 
13 percent
of a U.S. working class family’s income goes to the cost of child care. 53.
 
 
 
Almost one-third
of a U.S. working poor family’s income goes to the cost of child care. 54.
 
 

HOUSING PROBLEMS

 
 
 
 
Twice as many –
Americans have housing problems than as those who don't have health insurance. 1.
 
 
 
For nearly two million
of the households in U.S., the housing itself is severely inadequate. 2.
 
 
 
For one in 50
U.S. households, that housing is seriously substandard. 3.
 
 
 
95 million
Americans have housing cost burdens or are living in crowded or inadequate conditions. 4.
 
 
 
One in seven poor families
live in housing that is severely deficient, meaning it may not have hot water, no electricity, no toilet, or neither a bathtub nor a shower. 5.
 
 
 
2.5-2.5 million
of people in the U.S. are homeless at some point in a given year – 850,000 people are homeless on any given night. 6.
 
 
 
Just 12 percent
of U.S. families eligible housing aid or public housing actually receive it. 7.
 
 
 
A commitment with "bad business"–
– according to an 1926 magazine article – was the source of the ‘own your home’ movement – which wrongly, in the editors' view – espoused that even a poor one family home was better than not having a home of your own. The article alleged that within "city planning circles there has been a conscious, though un-admitted, compromise with business, and frequently with bad business, with the idea that any sort of house was better than no house. Some housing workers have clung to the fallacy that even a poor one family house was better than any kind of multi-family house.¶ I would be the last to discount the merits of good one-family houses or to over look the deficiencies of multi-family houses as frequently built by unscrupulous speculative build-ers. It is time, however, that we should look facts in the face. Sentimental nonsense has too long kept our mind on an impossible ideal, and has diverted our attention from the real facts and the real changes which are taking place in urban conditions. ¶ Traditional housing takes place in various distinct forms in different communities where tradition and custom act to compromise in one way or another the ideals of a bygone age. The transition from single to solid row houses, as in Philadelphia is less effective in both cost saving and lang congestion that the transition, as in St. Louis, from the single house to the four-family flat or the six-family three-decker. Both are inevitable and, as Rubinow has shown in Philadelphia, at least one has become ineffective in meeting the present emergency.” 47.
 
 
 
The "veterans' housing project" –
the housing arrangement that was most characteristic of young U.S. postwar families, according to 1950's The Survey. 48
 
 
 
In the mid-1940s
one-third of all American homes didn't have running water. Two-fifths of the homes didn't have flush toilets, and half didn't have electric refrigerators. 49.
 
 
 
"Excruciating"
– how young married couples profiled in a magazine article in 1950 described the first type of housing they'd been forced into because of the housing shortage. What was so awful? They were living with their parents. Compared to that, the couples moved – escaped – into anything – even trailers, boarding houses, or someone else's uninsulated attic. 50.
 
 
 

RENT OR OWN

 
 
 
Actually, we already are an ownership society­
There are more homeowners in the U.S. than renters in all but 36 (1.1 percent) of the 3,141 counties and equivalent areas of the U.S. 8.

 
 
66.2 percent
of housing is U.S. owner-occupied (including those with mortgages and those owning free and clear) in 2000. That’s 69.8 million households, or two out of three. 9.
 
 
 
73 percent
of U.S. families are owner-occupiers. 10.
 
 
 
Less than half ­
of United States households owned their homes in 1890. The [U.S.] homeownership rate declined from 1890 to 1920. 11.
 
 
 
43.6 percent
The lowest U.S. homeownership in of the century ­ in 1940, at the height of the Great Depression. 12.
 
 
 
Over 60 percent
of households owned their own homes following the Post WWII boom. 13.
 
 
 
64 percent
of U.S. households owned their homes in 1990. 14.
 
 
 
Four out of five married couples
are owner-occupiers of a home. 15.
 
 
 
76.9 percent
of married couples with children are owner-occupiers of a home. Married couples without children, or those whose children were out on their own were even more likely to own a home: 84.8 percent. 16.
 
 
 
53.2 percent
of Asians in the U.S. who are owner-occupiers of their homes, less than the national average. 51.
 
 
 
54 percent
of Hispanics in the U.S. are renters, compared with the national average of 34 percent. 52.
 
 
 
Renters outnumber owners in five U.S. cities:
Jersey City, New Jersey (30.7 percent); New York, New York (34.7 percent); Los Angeles-Long Beach, California (47.9 percent); San Francisco, California (49.0 percent); and Bryan-College Station, Texas (home of Texas A&M University.) (45.6 percent). 17.
 
 
 
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston ­
renters outnumber homeowners in each of the U.S.'s four largest cities. 18.
 
 
 
34 percent
of those in the U.S. rent the place they live in. 19.
 

 
1.3 million
Average net number of new U.S. households each year since 2000. 20.
 
 
 
It isn't your imagination: they really all are "luxury" apartments ­
For the past 10 years, the U.S. rental housing construction has been disproportionately building rental units for the Top Fifth of the market. In 2001, almost half of the rental units built since 1990 were renting for at least $750, compared with only 29 percent of those built earlier. According to a Harvard report on housing, the difference is not fully explained by the increased age of the other units. Instead, it's that the newer units have more amenities. After 1990, almost half of units had two or more bathrooms and three-quarters of them had central air conditioning. Only 15 percent of unit built before 1990 had more than one bathroom, and only 40 percent had central air. 21.
 
 
 
55.4 percent of single men-headed households
are homeowners, compared to 49.6 percent of U.S. families maintained by single women. 22.
 
 
 
Older householders are more likely to be homeowners –
78 percent of American householders 65 and over – especially those 65 to 74 – own a home. 23.
 
 
 

HOUSING COSTS

 
 
 
The most affordable housing metropolitan area in the U.S.: Buffalo / Niagara Falls, New York.
At a median price of $75,000, almost 90 percent of the new and existing homes sold during the second quarter of 2005 were affordable to families making the area’s median income of $57,000. Out of cities with a population greater than 50,000.
 
 
 
The least affordable housing area in the U.S.: Los Angeles / Long Beach / Glendale, California
At a median price of $461,000, just 3.6 percent of the new and existing homes sold in the Los Angeles area during the second quarter of 2005 were affordable to families making the area’s median income of $$54,500.
 
 
 
Your best shot: Ohio
In the second quarter of 2005, four of the top ten cities with populations larger than 500,000 with the most affordable housing were in Ohio. And three Ohio cities with populations under 500,000 made that list for most affordable, as well.
 
 
 
Your worst nightmare: California
In the second quarter of 2005, eight of the top ten cities with populations larger than 500,000 with the least affordable housing were in California. And if you think that small-town living is the answer, think again: nine of the top ten areas with populations under 500,000 were also in California.
 
 
 
21.7 percent
The median monthly owner costs as a percentage of monthly income for American homeowners with a mortgage. 24.
 
 
 
One-third
of all U.S. households spend 30 percent or more of their incomes on housing. A 30 percent housing expenditure is considered "financially burdensome." 25.
 
 
 
13 percent
of U.S. households spend at least 50 percent of their income on their housing. 26.
 
 
 
The West reported the highest median monthly costs at $1,289, closely followed by the Northeast at $1,274. The Midwest ($976) and the South ($967) have monthly owner costs far below the national median of $1,088. 27.
 
 
 
45.9 percent
of homes in the U.S. are affordable to a family earning that city's median income. 28.
 
 
 
Almost 90 percent
of homes in Buffalo-Niagara Falls were affordable to families earning the area’s median income of $57,000 – making that the most affordable market in the U.S. The median price of homes sold in Buffalo: $75,000. 29.
 
 
 
3.6 percent
of homes in Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, Calif. were affordable to families earning the area’s median income of $54,000 – making that the least affordable metropolitan market in the U.S. The median price of homes sold in that area: $461,000.  30.
 
 
 
California –
is the least affordable state for housing overall. California had out eight of the 10 of its cities across the nation on the least affordable list among markets with over 500,000 people, and nine out of 10 metros on the list for markets with a population less than 500,000. 31.
 
 
 
$1,088
The national median monthly mortgage costs in the U.S. in 2000. In the U.S., Asian mortgage-holders had median monthly costs of $1,540, above the national medians. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander householders, Two or more races householders, and Non-Hispanic White householders also reported medians above those of all householders ($1,261, $1,137, and $1,095, respectively). Monthly homeowner costs were lowest for American Indian and Alaska Native ($879) and Black or African American ($937). 32.
 
 
 
$44,000
The minimum household income needed to purchase a median-priced home at $188,900 in the U.S. in December 2004. 33.
 
 
 
$124,320
The minimum household income needed to purchase a median-priced home ($530,430) in California in August 2005 – an increase of over $15,000 in just one year. That is based on an average effective mortgage interest rate of 5.76 percent with a 20 percent downpayment. 34.
 
 
 
$70,480
The difference between the median household income in Southern California ($53,840) and the qualifying income ($124,320) needed for the median priced home ($530,430 ) during the second quarter of 2005. 35.
 
 
 
$102,230
The difference between the median household income in San Francisco ($68,140) and the qualifying income (170,370) needed for the median priced home ($726,920) during the second quarter of 2005. 36.
 
 
 
$15.37
The U.S. national hourly "Housing Wage," ($31,970 a year), i.e. the amount of money needed to be made, such that a fair market rental of a two bedroom home equals no more than the recommended 30 percent of income. That is almost three times the federal minimum wage. 37.
 
 
 
$6.21
Starr County, Texas's "Housing Wage," i.e. the amount of money needed to be made, per hour, such that a fair market rental of a two bedroom home equals no more than the recommended 30 percent of income. 38.
 
 
 
$5.90
The "Housing Wage" i.e. the amount of money needed to be made, per hour, for sections of Puerto Rico. In Puerto Rico, $5.90 is greater than the median hourly wage. 39.

 
 
$29.60
San Francisco's "Housing Wage," i.e. the amount of money needed to be made, per hour, such that a fair market rental of a two bedroom home equals no more than the recommended 30 percent of income. 40.
 
 
 
1.0 to 1.5 million lire a month -
Rent for the smallest of Italian apartments. Which it means its out of reach for most: it takes young people about four years to find a job, while white collar professionals such as teachers and architects make about two million lire a month (about US$955). 41.
 
 
 
Almost 79 percent
of renter households in the U.S. would have to work over 80 hours each week at the local minimum wage to afford a two bedroom apartment at the Fair Market Rent. 42.
 
 
 
202 hours each week
Number of hours required to work at a California minimum wage job ($6.75 per hour) in order to pay for a fair market rental two-bedroom apartment in San Francisco. 43.

 
 
100 hours
Number of hours each week required to work at a California minimum wage job ($6.75 per hour) in order to pay for a fair market rental one-bedroom apartment in California. 44.
 
 
 
126 hours
Number of hours each week required to work at a California minimum wage job ($6.75 per hour) in order to pay for a fair market rental two-bedroom apartment in the state of California. 45.
 
 
 
160 hours
Number of hours each week required to work at a California minimum wage job ($6.75 per hour) in order to pay for a fair market rental one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco. 46.
 
 
 

POVERTY IN THE U.S.

 
 
 
12.7 percent
The U.S. official poverty rate in 2004. The rate has increased for four consecutive years, most recently from 12.5 percent in 2003. 1.
 
 
 
37.0 million
Number of people in the U.S. in 2004 who were in poverty – an increase of 1.1 million from 2003. 2.
 
 
 
7.9 million
U.S. families – 10.2 percent of all families – are in poverty. 3.
 
 
 
55 percent
of American families going to food pantries have children in their family. 4.
 
 
 
The poverty threshold is –
an amount of total income for a household where any household earning less than that amount is considered to be in poverty. 5.
 
 
 
The poverty threshold is scaled by the size of a family –
So, for example, a family of four adults (aged 18 or over) with a combined household income of less than $19,307 is considered in poverty. If it's a family of four, but two of them are kids, then the threshold goes down slightly – to $19,157. A single person's poverty threshold is $9,827. 6.
 
 
 
And the poverty threshold is a maximum –
those in poverty usually earn far less than the threshold. In fact, on the average, a poor American family makes about $7,775 less than the amount of their poverty threshold. 7.
 
 
 
15.6 million
Number of people in the U.S. whose income less than half of their respective poverty thresholds. These very poor are 5.4 percent of the total population and 42.3 percent of the poverty population. 8.
 
 
 
4.4 percent
of American families make less than 50 percent of the income at the poverty threshold. 9.
 
 
 
Over $28,000
The annual cost for basic needs for an American family of four, according to the Children's Defense Fund. An amount almost $9,000 higher than the poverty threshold. 10.
 
 
 
An average of just 34 percent
of a family's basic costs of living are covered by a full-time minimum wage job, according to a survey of 10 U.S. communities. 11.
 
 
 
Nowhere –
A full-time minimum-wage wasn't enough for a family to make ends meet in any of 10 U.S. communities surveyed. 12.
 
 
 
28.4 percent
of all American families with a female householder and no husband present are below the poverty line. 13.
 
 
 
13.5 percent
of all American families with a male householder and no wife present are below the poverty line. 14.
 
 
 
5.5 percent
of all American married-couple families are below the poverty line. 15.
 
 
 
3.2 million
married-couple families in the U.S. – 5.5 percent – are in poverty. 16.
 
 
 
4.0 million
Number of households in the U.S. with a female-householder and no-husband present families in the U.S. that are in poverty. 17.
 
 
 
658,000
Number of households in the U.S. with a male-householder and no-wife present families in the U.S. that are in poverty. 18.
 
 
 
21.1 percent
of California’s working families with children in 2002 were low-income. 8.6 percent were very low-income. 19.
 
 
 
18.6 percent
of U.S. working families with children were low-income, with 6.6 percent were very low-income. 20.
 
 
 
24.7 percent
Poverty rates for U.S. Blacks in 2004. and Hispanics (21.9 percent), rose for non-Hispanic Whites (8.6 percent in 2004, up from 8.2 percent in 2003), and decreased for Asians (9.8 percent in 2004, down from 11.8 percent in 2003). 21.
 
 
 
8.6 percent
Poverty rates for the U.S.'s non-Hispanic Whites in 2004. 22.
 
 
 
9.0 million
Blacks in the U.S. are in poverty. 44.
 
 
 
9.8 percent
Poverty rates for Asians in the U.S. 2004. 23.
 
 
12.6 percent
U.S. Poverty rate of the total Asian population in the U.S. in 1999, closely compared to the national rate of 12.4 percent. But the rate varied significantly within the Asian community: A whopping 29.3 percent of Cambodians and 37.8 percent of Hmong in the U.S. are in poverty. 37.
 
 
 
1.2 million
Asians in the U.S. are in poverty. 38.
 
 
17.7 percent
of Pacific Islanders in the U.S. live below the poverty threshold, 5.3 percent higher than the national average. 39.
 
 
 
21.9 percent
Poverty rates for Hispanics in the U.S. in 2004. 24.
 
 
9.1 million
Hispanics in the U.S. are in poverty. 40.
 
 
 
22.6 percent
of the Hispanic population in the United States was in poverty in 1999, compared with 12.4 percent for the total population. Among Latino groups, the poverty rate ranged from a high of 27.5 percent among Dominicans to lows of 14.6 percent for Cubans and 12.8 percent for Spaniards. 41.
 
 
 
27.8 percent
of Hispanics under 18 years of age were in poverty in 1999. Young Hispanics were more likely to live in poverty in 1999 than all those in the U.S. under 18 —over 1 in 4 [27.8 percent] compared with 1 in 6 [16.6 percent]. About 1 in 3 Dominicans and Puerto Ricans under 18 lived below the poverty level in 1999. 42.
 
 
 
19.6 percent
of the Hispanic population 65 years and over was in poverty in 1999 – compared with 9.9 percent of the total older population. 28.6 percent of Dominicans over the age of 65 were in poverty, while the rate fell to 16.4 percent for South Americans and 12.0 percent for Spaniards. 43.
 
 
 
The chart on the right illustrates the percentage of those within a given race / ethnicity who are in poverty within the United States. The first column, in red, shows the U.S. national average for those below the poverty threshold – 12.7 percent. However, 8.6 percent of U.S. Non-Hispanics Whites are in poverty, while 24.7 percent of U.S. Blacks are in poverty. All of the data except for the Native American population information is as of 2004: for the Native American population, it is a three-year average rate (of 24.3 percent). 25.

 
 
In this chart, we've compared the percentage of the race / ethnicity in poverty to the percentage of it in the overall population – which dramatically illustrates the disproportionate effect poverty has within particular races. This is further confirmed when you consider that, because of its majority in the total population, the Non-Hispanic Whites should be 67 percent of the poor in the U.S. But instead, they are just 45.6 percent of those in poverty. 26.

 
 
 

NAPERVILLE SOCIAL AND FAMILY INFORMATION

 
 
 
Naperville is 28 miles outside of Chicago, so it's considered part of the Chicago environs. 1.
 
 
 
Its 2003 Population is 137,894, up 7.4 percent from 2000. 2.
 
 
 
According, to the Convention and Visitors’ Bureau website, Naperville is a “master planned community.” 3.
 
 
 
"Oh, To Be a Kid in Naperville!"
– Headline for 2004 U.S. Census press release, in light of how Naperville consistently was at the top, or near it, in the nation for good stats, and had the lowest or almost lowest ranking for the bad stats. 4.

 
 
According to the U.S. Census, “If you were a child living in Naperville, Ill., your chances of living with two married parents, a householder in the labor force, in an owned home or above the poverty level were highest or next to highest among children in all [U.S.] cities with at least 100,000 people . . . . " 5.
 
 
 
Fewest children in unmarried partner families –
Naperville had only one percent of children living in unmarried-partner households, compared to the national average of 5.7 percent. Only two percent were not sons or daughters of the householder. 6.
 
 
 
Fewest children not living with two married parents –
Only 9 percent of children in Naperville ... did not live with two married parents, compared to the national average of 32 percent. 7.
 
 
 
Second highest
Naperville has the second highest percent of married households in the country: 69.2 percent. 8.
 
 
 
More Ozzies –
Naperville was among the cities with the lowest percentage of children living with a householder not in the labor force. 9.

 
 
– and more Harriets –
Just 45.2 percent of Naperville’s families are dual-earner families, while the national rate is 58.6 percent. 10.
 
 
 
Fewest children in poverty –
Also, the city had one of the lowest poverty rates for children under 18 – just two percent compared to the national average of 17.5 percent. And they have the lowest rate of children in homes receiving public assistance – 0.4 percent (and the national average is 5.7 percent.). 11.
 
 
 
Almost 85 percent participation –
Naperville's recycling rate. Which is one of the highest in the nation. Well, of course, it is. Is it just us, or are you starting to hate these people, too? 12.
 
 
 
No. 1 "Outstanding Library in the Country"
was, for the fifth consecutive year, you guessed, it, in Naperville. 13.
 
 
 
Zero Population Growth has named Naperville, depending on the year, No. 1 or No. 2 as the most "Kid-Friendly" City in America. 14.
 
 
 
Okay, fine. But does all that mean their kids are better than ours? Well . . .

Schools have a 96.6 percent graduation rate.
 
98 percent of the Naperville kids plan to go to college.
 
Their test scores are 20-30 percent higher than the state average.
 
The schools gotten national and international awards / recognition.
 
In 1999, an international study ranked Naperville 8th graders as No. 1 in the world for science. 15.
 

 
 
 

NAPERVILLE ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION

 
 
While Naperville was originally settled in 1831, by Joseph Naper, things apparently took off in 1966, when AT&T built a lab there.

Since then, other companies have also built large facilities around the place. 16.

 
The property tax is around six percent, depending on your exact location. They say that’s the lowest rates in the Chicago area. 17.
 
 
 
79.7 percent
of Naperville residents 25 and older are high school graduates, compared to the national average of 66.2 percent. 18.
 
 
 
96.3 percent
of Naperville residents 25 and older are high school graduates, compared to the national average of 80.4 percent. 19.
 
 
 
60.6 percent
of Naperville residents 25 and older are college graduates, compared to the national average of 24.4 percent. 20.
 
 
 
Uh, but hey – if it makes you feel any better – at least it takes them longer to get to work . . . by seven minutes or so . . . . 21.
 
 
 

THE MEDIA REPORTED "TREND": POST-BOOMERS THINK THEY'LL BE WORSE OFF
POST-BOOMERS CAN'T BE THE FIRST TO EXPECT TO DO WORSE
POST-BOOMERS DON'T EXPECT TO DO WORSE, AFTER ALL

 
 
 
THE TREND AS IDENTIFIED IN MASS MEDIA:

The post-Boomer generation is the first generation that expects to – and probably will – be worse off economically than its parents.
 
HOW THEY GET IT WRONG:
 
Point 1: The post-Boomer generation can't be the first generation to expect to be worse off than its parents – and it isn't.
 
I think this theme started really catching on following President Bill Clinton's 1991-1992 campaign statements that he didn't want his daughter's generation to do worse off than his. At least that's when I remember first hearing it. But there – notwithstanding my loyalist tendencies – he was expressly articulating his viewpoint as a concerned parent. He wasn't saying, as far as I can find, that he believed Chelsea's generation would be worse off, nor that the majority believed that. Instead, he was saying that we can't let things get that far. 1.
 
Things get more concrete in 1994. Then Republican Senator from Texas Phil Gramm that "recent polling data, showing that for the first time, Americans do not believe they are better off than their parents were." 2. I can't find that poll, but I'll take him at his word.
 
And the media's / pundits have been using that idea ever since – that this is the first generation that expects to do worse off than its parents.
 
In 1980, 14 years earlier, Newsweek did a special report on "An Economic Dream in Peril," writing:
 
"And no longer do Americans share the great expectations of generations past. For the first time, public-opinion polls show that the average U.S. citizen is not at all sure that his children's lot will be better than – or even as good as – his own." 3.
 
Which should not be surprising, because there was an economic downturn leading into the 1980s recession.
 
According to The New York Times, the oldest ongoing poll on public sentiment only dates back to 1951. 4. Not only is that decades after the Great Depression, years after WWII, but it was at the beginning of the American post-WWII economic boom. So the polling results would be inherently more optimistic – have an inflated belief of coming success.
 
Had polling existed during the Depression or either World War, I find it unlikely that people would have been so sure their children would live in a better world and that they'd be better off financially. They would have wanted that to be true – hoped it was, prayed it was. But did they actually expect it to be true? Then, once you start thinking about it historically (uh, slavery? war? a history of recessions and every 20 year cycle of bank failures in the 1800s?), I think it quickly becomes a sort of ridiculous statement. It's the American Dream – not the American Expectation.
 
Point 2: Actually, polls in done in the last decade consistently show that the post-Boomer generation expects to do as well or even better than their parents.
 
Again, I believe that Senator Gramm was accurately enough representing the New York Times poll – but 1994 was in an economic downturn, so it was an atypical moment of doubt.
 
Because actually most Boomer and now post-Boomer parents expect their kids to do as well or better than they are doing – and their children share that view.
 
We tried to find all those negative reports – and we simply couldn't find them. But we were so sure of the gloomy pessimism of our peers, that we couldn't believe that, thought it was our research that was wrong. So we went back and looked again. And again. And we never did find them.
 
Instead, we found that in survey after survey – from those done in the United States to those in Canada and the United Kingdom – the clear majority believe they will do as well or better than their parents. Even in 1995, less than a year after Gramm gave that speech, parents who believed their children were back into the majority. 5. And since then, it hasn't even been a close call. It's usually 60 percent who thought things would be better or the same. In one survey we found, taken in 2002, over 80 percent of college students thought they would do better than their parents. 6.
 
 
 
 

URBANIZATION BY THE NUMBERS

 
 
 
28 percent
of the U.S. population lived in metropolitan areas in 1910. 10.
 
 
 
80 percent
of the U.S. population lived in metropolitan areas in 2000. 11.
 
 
 
Near one-third
of Americans lived in a metropolitan area with five million or more residents in 2000. 12.
 
 
 
25 percent in cities, 75 percent in rural areas
of blacks in the U.S. lived in rural areas in 1910. 13.
 
 
 
75 percent in cities, 25 percent in rural areas
In just 50 years, that had completely reversed – 75 percent of U.S. blacks lived in cities by 1960. 14.
 
 
 
 


On the left is our chart illustrating the change in urbanization, by continent. The red column is the urbanized population in 1950, the blue is today's percentage, and the green is the United Nations's projected percentages by the year 2030.

By this, you can see that the percentage of those living in urban environments has more than doubled in Africa and Asia in the past 50 years, and Latin America's is almost double.

Already comparatively urbanized, Europe and North American urbanization is continuing, but at a less dramatic rate. 20.

 
 
 
 
59 percent
of the Mexican population lived in urban areas in 1970. 42.
 
 
 
71 percent
of the Mexican population lived in urban areas in 2000. 43.
 
 
 
 

WHO IS MIGRATING?

 
 
 
They are children –

 
 
 
13 percent
of children adopted in the U.S. are foreign-born. 16.
 
 
 
Four percent
of children in the U.S. who live with their biological parents are foreign-born. 17.
 
 
 
Four percent
of children in the U.S. who live with stepparents are foreign-born. 18.
 
 
 
 
1.6 million
children in the U.S. are undocumented immigrants. Another 3 million children are U.S. citizens, with parents who are undocumented. 19.

 
 

WHERE ARE THEY GOING?

 
 
 
The United States


33.5 million
the foreign born population in the United States in 2002, up from 31 million in 2000, and from 19.8 million in 1990. This group constituted 11.7 percent of the population in the highest percentage since 1930 – when they composed 11.6 percent of the total population. But that still is substantially below 1890's 14.8 percent foreign-born population. 31.
 
 
 
53.3 percent
of the U.S. foreign born population in the United States were born in Latin America. 25.0 percent of them were born in Asia, 13.7 percent in Europe, and the remaining 8.0 percent in other regions of the world. 32.
 
 
 
21.3 million
of them arrive and then initially live in six "gateway" states: California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey. Over 1 million foreign-born people reside in each of these states. That amount would, if the states weren't states, but European countries, put them near the top E.U. nations with the highest numbers of foreign-born populations. In California in 2000, the number of foreign-born residents was just under 1.2 million – equivalent to the entire U.S. annual increase of foreign-born population. 33.
 
 
 
Over 1.2 million
the number of new immigrants to the U.S. each year since 2000, according to government estimates. 34.
 
 
 
13.6 percent
of the U.S. foreign born in the U.S. in 2003, had entered the United States since 2000. 35.
 
 
 
Approximately 40 percent
of the U.S. foreign born population aged 5 and over are United States citizens. 36.
 
 
 
 
Approximately 26 percent
of the U.S. foreign born population are undocumented immigrants. 37.
 
 
 
Over 10 million
The estimated number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Of these, 60-75 percent entered the U.S. illegally, while the remaining 25-40 percent entered on a legal basis, but subsequently overstayed their visa or otherwise violated the terms of their admission (e.g. they had student visas but are working, etc.). 38.
 
 
Approximately five percent
of the U.S. work force is undocumented immigrants. 39.
 
 
 
17 percent
of U.S. children lived with a foreign-born householder in 2000. 40.
 
 
 
5.6 Million
Number of foreign-born people who moved to the United States from abroad in the period of 1995 and 2000. 41.
 
 
 
Two out of five–
foreign-born Hispanics in the U.S. – 46 percent – entered the United States between 1990 and 2000. 42.
 
 
 
40 percent
of Hispanics in the U.S. in 2000 were foreign born. About 71 percent – seven out of every 10 Hispanics residing in the United States – were either native or naturalized citizens, compared with 93.4 percent – over 9 out of every 10 people – in the total population. 43.
 
 
 
43 percent
of the Asian population in the U.S. entered the country between the years 1990 to 2000. 44.
 
 
 
69 percent
of all Asians in the U.S. are foreign born, compared to the total U.S. population of 11.1 percent. 45.
 
 
 
But 65.4 percent
of Asians in the U.S. are either native or naturalized citizens. 46.
 
 
 
44 percent
of Pacific Islanders who are foreign born and in the U.S. arrived between 1990 and 2000. 47.

 
 
 

THE GREAT MIGRATION

 
 
The Great Migration
is the term often used to describe the movement of U.S. African-Americans, the vast majority of whom lived in the Southern states, to the Northern and Western states. It happened in two phases, from 1915-1930, ending with the Depression, and 1940-1965, resuming with the economic boom of the WWII and post-War period. Therefore, some historians refer to this entire movement, as "The Great Migration," while others refer to both periods individually (i.e., The First and Second Great Migrations). As many as 6 million blacks left the South during this period. Actually, even more whites left the South than blacks during this same period, but the term, "Great Migration" does not include U.S. white population movements that occurred at the same time, because it is the rapid, dramatic dispersal of the blacks in the U.S. throughout the United States that was so historic. 88.
 
 
 
At least 1.25 million, up to as many as 2 million
Blacks in the U.S. relocated from Southern states to Northern states in the years 1915-1930. 89.
 
 
 
More than 4 million
Blacks in the U.S. relocated from Southern states to Northern states in the years 1940-1965. 90.
 
 
 
90 percent
of blacks in the U.S. lived in Southern states in 1900-1910. 91.
 
 
 
60 percent
of blacks in the U.S. lived in Southern states in 1960. 92.
 
 
 
55 percent
of blacks in the U.S. lived in Southern states in 1994. 93.
 
 
 
15,000
The number of blacks living in Chicago in 1890. 94.
 
 
 
44,000
The number of blacks living in Chicago in 1910. 96.
 
 
 
About 60,000
blacks moved to Chicago just from 1916 to 1919. 97.
 
 
 
110,000
The number of blacks living in Chicago in 1920 – an increase of almost 150 percent in a single decade. 98.
 
 
 
More than 230,000
The number of blacks living in Chicago in 1930. 99.
 
 
 
77 percent
the increase in the black population in Chicago during the 1940s – from 278,000 to 492,000. 100.
 
 
 
Another 65 percent
the increase in the black population in Chicago during the 1950s – from 492,000 to 813,000. At one point, more than 2,000 blacks a week were moving there. 101.
 
 
 
34,451
The number of blacks living in Cleveland in 1920. 102.
 
 
 
85,000
The number of blacks living in Cleveland in 1940. 103.
 
 
 
251,000
The number of blacks living in Cleveland in 1960. 104.
 
 
 
 

THE LARGEST MIGRATION IN THE WORLD TODAY – Mexicans Move North

 
 
 
"Mexican migration to the U.S. is currently the largest sustained international population movement in the world, and in some areas of Mexico migration has become a common and massive phenomenon." 105.
 
 
 
875 percent
The increase of the number of foreign-born Mexicans living in the U.S. from 1970 to 2000. 106.
 
 
 
20.9 million
Number of Mexicans in the U.S. as of 2000 – making them more than half of all U.S. Hispanics (59.3 percent). 107.
 
 
 
Over 300,000
The average number of people who left Mexico every year from 1995 to 2000. To put that in perspective, just a tenth of that, 30,000 annually left Guatemala during that same period, 12,000 from Nicaragua, and 8,000 from El Salvador. Specifically, that is the countries' annual net, out-migration, from 1995 to 2000. 108.
 
 
 
40 percent
of household heads in Western Mexico have some migration experience to the U.S. In some Mexican communities, over 70 percent of all household heads have migrated to the U.S. at least once. 109.
 
 
 
0.8 million
Number of foreign-born Mexicans living in the U.S. in 1970. 111.
 
 
 
7.8 million
Number of foreign-born Mexicans living in the U.S. in 2000. By point of comparison, that is roughly the same amount that left the entire European continent in the 15 years following WWII. 112.
 
 
 
Over 3.8 million
of the foreign-born Mexicans living in the U.S. – 49 percent – emigrated to the U.S. between the years 1990 and 2000. 113.
 
 
 
Over 75 percent
of U.S. Hispanics speak a language other than English at home. Almost all of them - 99 percent – speak Spanish. 114.
 
 
 
Almost $7 billion
The amount that, upon his election in 2000, Mexican President Vicente Fox said Mexicans in the United States remitted annually to their families in Mexico. 115.
 
 
 
Over 72 percent
of Mexican migrants in Mexico send money home while they are in the U.S. 116.
 
 
 
$222
The average amount Mexicans in the U.S. send home each month. 117.
 
 
 
Nearly 65 percent
of Mexican migrants who had returned to Mexico had sent money home when they were in the U.S. 118.
 
 
 
Just over $1,000
of Mexican migrants who had returned to Mexico had sent money home when they were in the U.S. 119.
 
 
 
The real thing they bring home doesn't seem to be money, but entrepreneurism –
Men who have returned to Mexico after having been gone for at least two years are 15 percent more likely to own a house, 67 percent more likely to start a business, and 82 percent more likely to acquire land. 120.
 
 
 
" . . for men in Western Mexico migration has become a central strategy for achieving family objectives." 121.
 
 
 
Mexican migrants are less likely to get married when they are abroad, but having lived in the U.S. increases the likelihood that a migrant will marry when he returns to Mexico. 122.
 
 
 
An "oversupply" of women –
There is a such a high rate of Mexican men migrating to the U.S., that there is an oversupply of marriageable women left in Mexico. Which means, particularly in Western Mexico, that the men remaining there are less willing to make a commitment to marriage. 123.
 
 
 
23 years old
The median age for marriage migrating men in Mexico, which is a year earlier than the median age for non-migrating men. 75 percent of migrating men are married by 27, which is almost two years earlier than non-migrating men. And only 5 percent of migrating men don’t marry, compared to 11 percent of non-migrating men. 124.
 
 
 
5.3 million
The estimated number of undocumented Mexicans in the U.S. – 57 percent of all those without legal status. 125.
 
 
 
 

THE IMPACT OF MIGRATION ON FAMILY LIVES

 
 
 
57.2 percent
of the U.S. foreign born are married, compared to 52.2 percent of native citizens. Among the U.S. foreign-born population, foreign-born naturalized citizens are more likely than non-citizens to be married (66.3 percent compared with 57.5 percent). 151.
 
 
 
23 percent
of children in the U.S. who live with a foreign-born householder speak only English at home – compared to 93 percent of those living with a native householder spoke. Children living with a foreign-born householder were more likely to live with a householder who did not have a high school diploma (46 percent) than were children living with a native householder (14 percent). 158.
 
 
 
Almost four times as likely
Children in the U.S. who live with a foreign-born householder are much more likely to be living with a householder who is much less educated than the population as a whole. For 46 percent of these children, the householder who did not have a high school diploma (46 percent) – compared to just 14 percent of children of native householders. 159.
 
 

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF MIGRATION

 
 
 
 
16.6 percent
of the U.S.'s foreign born population in the lives below the poverty level, compared with 11.5 percent of natives. Those who were not citizens are twice as likely to be in poverty as those foreign-born who are citizens – 20.7 percent to 10 percent, respectively. And actually, those who become citizens have a slightly lower percent in poverty than the national average (11.5 percent). 163.
 
 
 
23 percent
of children in the U.S. who live with a foreign-born householder are in poverty. That's a substantially higher rate than the national average of 15 percent. 164.
 
 
 
"In all cases [of South American migration], but more so when the migratory flow is to the economic North, remittances are part of the picture, although among the countries in South America, the economic significance of remittances is not as high as in Central America, the Caribbean and Mexico." 166.
 
 
 
 

THE RISE OF SUBURBIA

 
 
 
 
While the suburbs of the 1950s had tended to exclusively residential neighborhoods, populated mostly by white, middle-class families, within 20 years, there was a substantial variation these communities – from class (working class suburbs to wealthy communities) to race (with white and black suburbia). By the 1990s, suburbs included industrial and commercial centers, business communities that meant people commuted from suburb to another suburb for work, instead of from suburb to the city. 2.
 
 
 
Less than a third –
28 percent – of the U.S. population lived in metropolitan areas in 1910. 3.
 
 
 
More than half
of the U.S. population lived in metropolitan areas by 1950. 4.
 
 
 
80 percent
of the U.S. population lived in metropolitan areas by 2000. 5.
 
 
 
Almost one-third of Americans
lived in a metropolitan area of at least five million or more in 2000. 6.
 
 
 
Half
of the U.S. population lives in suburbs. 7.
 
 
 
21 percent
of the total U.S. population lived in central cities in 1910. 8.
 
 
 
Seven percent
of the U.S. population lived in suburbs in 1910. 9.
 
 
 
30.3 percent
of the total U.S. population lived in central cities in 2000. 10.
 
 
 
Half percent
of the U.S. population in 2000 lived in suburbs. 11.
 
 
About half
of U.S. adults 65 and over lived in the suburbs in 2000. 12.
 
 
 
60.2 percent
of all U.S. housing units built between 1990 and 2001 were built in suburban areas. 13.
 
 
 
6.3 percent
In 1980, blacks made up just 6.3 percent of suburban residents, but they were 23.4 percent of city residents. 14.
 
 
 
In 1969, about the same percentage of poor whites lived in suburbs as those who lived in central cities (23.5 to 25.3 percent respectively). But just 11.9 percent of poor blacks lived in the suburbs, while 42.5 percent lived in central cities. 15.
 
 
More than one-half
of whites and Asians in the U.S. lived in suburbs in 1995. 16.
 
 
 
43 percent
of Hispanics in the U.S. lived in suburbs in 1995. 17.
 
 
 
Educational attainment

Historically, for U.S. Nonhispanic whites, Hispanics and Asians those with a higher educational attainment have lived in the suburbs. However, in the 1980s-1990s, college-educated whites were actually slightly more likely to live in cities, than the suburbs. 18.
 
 
On the other hand, educational attainment didn't seem to have a direct relationship with educational attainment for U.S. blacks: they stayed in the cities. Until the 1980s – when the percentage of blacks with college degrees who lived in the suburbs increased. 19.

 
 
32 percent
of blacks in the U.S. lived in suburbs in 1990. 20.
 
 
Less than one-third
of blacks in the U.S. lived in suburbs in 1995. 21.
 
 
 
99 percent
of Milwaukee's suburbs are racially segregated. The city itself is more integrated – 21.7 percent there live in integrated blocks. 22.
 
 
Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Boston,
Examples of U.S. metropolitan areas where the suburbs are more racially segregated than are the central cities. For example, in the central city of Minneapolis, 23 percent of its population lives on black-white integrated blocks, but that falls to just six percent for the entire Minneapolis-St. Paul area. Similarly, 12 percent of those in Boston's city proper live on black-white integrated blocks, but just four percent do in the entire metro area (meaning, including outlying suburbs). 23.
 
 
 
Washington, DC, and Atlanta
Examples of U.S. metropolitan areas where the suburbs are less racially segregated than are its central cities. In central Washington, just 11 percent live on integrated blocks, but if the suburbs are included, 20 percent live in integrated blocks. Only nine percent of Atlanta's urban population live on integrated blocks, but, it's double that – 18 percent – for the entire metro area. 24.
 
 
 
8.2 percent
of surburbanites were in poverty in 2001 (up from 7.8 percent in 2000) – compared to 16.5 percent of city residents. 25.
 
 
 
8.2 percent
of surburbanites were in poverty in 2001 (up from 7.8 percent in 2000) – compared to 16.5 percent of city residents. 26.
 
 

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
Prevalence Costs / Financial Impact


 
Intimate Partner Violence in the US – Prevalence
 
 
 
33 percent
of all violent crimes recorded by police in 18 States and the District of Columbia in 2000 – over 207,000 reported crimes – were incidents of family violence. Of these incidents, about half (53 percent, or 110,000) were crimes between spouses. 1.
 
 
 
20 percent
of all nonfatal violent crime experienced by women in 2001 was due to violence of an intimate partner – defined as a spouse, former spouse, current or former boyfriend or girlfriend. 2.
 
 
 
Approximately 1.5 million women and 834,700 men
are estimated to be raped or physically assaulted by an intimate partner in the United States each year. 3.
 
 
 
Almost 5.3 million
Annual number of victimizations of U.S. women age 18 and older, by an intimate partner. 4.
 
 
 
These 5.3 million incidents will cause almost 2.0 million injuries and almost 1,300 deaths. Of the injuries, over 555,000 will be serious enough to receive medical attention – and of these, more than 145,000 will require hospitalization for at least one night. 5.
 
 
 
Intimate partner violence occurs in all social, economic, religious, or cultural groups. 6.
 
 
 
Almost 25 percent
of U.S. women are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner during their lifetimes. 7.
 
 
 
Almost 7.8 million
women will be raped by an intimate partner at some point in their lives. 8.
 
 
 
201,394
Estimated number of U.S. women raped by an intimate partner each year. The average victim was raped 1.6 times in a year – for a total of 322,230 intimate partner rapes. 9.
 
 
 
Just under 25.7 million
Estimated number of American women who will be victims of intimate partner violence at some point in their lifetimes. 10.
 
 
 
76 percent
of the U.S. women who were the victim of a rape or physical assault said that their assailant was a current or former spouse, a cohabiting partner, or a date. Only 18 percent of men said that their assailant fell into one of the same categories. 11.
 
 
 
1,252
Estimated number of women killed by an intimate partner each year. A third of all female homicides are killed by an intimate partner while intimate partners are responsible for only four percent of male homicides. 12.
 
 
 
22 percent
of the 86,500 convicted violent offenders in local jails in 2002 were incarcerated because of family violence. Of these family violence offenders, most (60 percent) of these – approximately 18,700 inmates – were in jail for an aggravated assault. 13.
 
 
 
Sorry, You Don't Want to Hear This, Guys – But it's the Men's Fault:
An American woman in an opposite sex relationship were nearly twice as likely to report that they had been victimized by a male parter than a woman in same sex relationship had been victimized by a female partner. Women in a same-sex relationship are three times more likely to report that they had been victimized by a male partner, than a female partner. More men than women also victimize their male intimate partners. 14.
 
 
 
503,485 women and 185,496 men
are stalked by an intimate partner in the U.S. every year. 15.
 
 
 
Scot Free
Of the 322,230 estimated annual rapes of women by their partners, just over 55,000 of them are reported to the police. Over 10,000 of the perpetrators – almost all men – were convicted. But just 7,000 of them received jail time. 16.
 
 
 
Scot Free (redux)
Of the 4.5 million estimated assaults against women by their partners, almost 1.2 million of them would be reported to the police. Only 324,000 of the would be criminally prosecuted, and 155,600 of them – almost all men – would be convicted. Still, just 55,405 received a jail sentence. 17.
 
 
 
American Indian/Alaska Native women and men
report more violent victimization than do those of other racial backgrounds. However, researchers aren't yet sure if that is due to a significantly higher prevalence of victimization, or it is because members of other racial backgrounds aren't as willing to admit that they have been victimized. 18.



Hispanic women are "significantly" more likely to report intimate partner rape than non-Hispanic women. 19.
 

 
324,000
Estimated number of women in the U.S. each year who are victims of intimate partner violence while pregnant. 20.


 
Firearms
the major weapon type used in intimate partner homicides from 1981 to 1998. 21.

 
 
4.5
Average number of rapes committed by a male intimate partner against a woman over the course of an ongoing abusive relationship – usually lasting 3.8 years. 22.
 
 
 
6.9
Average number of physical assaults committed by a male intimate partner against a woman over the course of an ongoing abusive relationship – usually lasting 4.5 years. 23.
 
 
 
4.4
Average number of physical assaults committed by a female intimate partner against a man over the course of an ongoing abusive relationship – usually lasting 3.6 years. 24.
 
 
 
1.3 million
Estimated number of American women physically assaulted each year by an intimate partner. 25.
 
 
 
3.4
Average number of separate assault incidents that each of those 1.3 million women have suffered in a year. That is almost 4.5 million physical assaults. 26.
 
 

While men are also victims, women are two to three times more likely to report an intimate partner pushed grabbed or shoved them, and seven to 14 times more likely to report that their intimate partner beat them up, choked them, or tied them down. 27.

 
 
23.1 percent
of men in same-sex cohabiting relationships reported that they had been raped, physically assaulted, and or stalked by a marital / cohabiting partner at some point in their lives, while just 7.4 percent of men in opposite sex cohabitation reported a victimization. 28.
 
 
 
39.2 percent
of women in same-sex cohabiting relationships reported that they had been raped, physically assaulted, and or stalked by a marital / cohabiting partner at some point in their lives, when 21.7 percent of women in opposite sex cohabitation reported a victimization. 29.
 
 
 
Intimate Partner Violence in the US – Costs and Financial Impact
 
 
$5.8 billion
Estimated annual total costs of intimate partner violence against women in the United States, including almost $4.1 billion in medical care and $0.9 billion in lost productivity. 30.

 
 
47,339 person-years
The total amount of lost time and productivity due to intimate partner violence in a single year. The study was conducted in 1995; that is the year the amount was calculated for. 31.
 
 
 
Almost 8 million
Estimated number of days lost from paid work each year by female victims of intimate partner violence. That is 32,114 full-time jobs. 32.
 
 
 
$727.8 million
Estimated value of the lost income from paid work due to female intimate partner victimization. 33.
 
 
 
Over 5.56 million
Estimated number of days lost from household chores each year by female victims of intimate partner violence. 34.
 
 
 
$130.8 million
Estimated value of the lost income from paid work due to female intimate partner victimization. 35.
 
 
 
 

FAMILY VIOLENCE (INTERNATIONAL)
Prevalence of Violence, Internationally Social Justification for Abuse

 
 
Prevalence of Violence, Internationally
 
 
 
29 percent
of women in Canada are physically abused by an intimate partner during their lifetime. In a survey, of those abused, one-third said that they feared being killed by their batterer. 36.
 
 
 
 
 
27 percent
of women in Guadalajara, Mexico are physically abused by an intimate partner during their lifetime, while 23 percent are sexually assaulted by their partners. 41.
 
 
Social Justification for Abuse
 
 
 
Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, the United Republic of Tanzania and Zimbabwe –
nations where men see the ability to inflict physical punishment on his wife as a right, according to various studies. 52.
 
 
 
 

WHAT EXPERTS HAVE SAID ABOUT FAMILY DISSOLUTIONS

 
 
In the present,
we think things have been going downhill since the 1950s.
 
In the 1950s,
they thought things had been going downhill since . . . the Civil War.
 
 
 
As sociologist Ray H. Abrams wrote in 1950: “Another popular assumption is that in the United States family stability has been steadily going down hill since shortly after the Civil War inasmuch as the general trend of the divorce rate has been going up rather consistently since that time. However, the belief that there was a Golden Age of family life in America does not appeal to the historians . . . . Any careful survey reveals that since the settlement of this country there have been periods of stresses and strains. . . .” 1.
 
 
 
It hasn't changed –
the average or median duration of marriage hasn't changed. It's what effects the duration – death, divorce, separation, life expectancy – that has changed. For example, life expectancy for a white American increased over 25 years during the Twentieth Century. For non-white Americans, the increase was even higher: over 30 years. And that increase is greater than the total increase of the 250 years before that. 2.
 
 
 
As of 1993, ". . . despite the recent increase in the divorce rate, the rate of family dissolution--by death, desertion, or divorce--is no greater today than it was a century ago . . . ." 3.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Ray H. Abrams wrote, “If we were to add to the divorce rate the desertions, the separations, and those who would like to sever the mar-riage bonds but for one reason or an-other do not, the sum total of marital disorganization would be at least two to three times that represented by the divorce statistics. Whatever our norm may be, it can scarely be maintained that the marriage and family system in this country is very stable.” 4.
 
 
 
Divorce
is considered by at least one expert as a no longer valid way to measure couples' stability – because it fails to take into account couples who live together and separate. Which if included would increase the number of separations and dissolutions. 5.
 
 
 
"Not unable, but unwilling" –
How in 1905 Charities Magazine described the "ordinary deserter" of his wife and family. Since 50 percent of them were skilled laborers – some were literate, or had specialized skills, the magazine sadly determined that these men were "not unable, but unwilling, to fulfil [sic] his duty to his family." 6.
 
 
 
50 to 60 percent
of the working class families were broken "once, and often more, by de-sertion, divorce, death, or separation, often due to imprisonment of the man, between marriage, legal or companion-ate, and its normal dissolution through the marriage of adult children and the death of aged parents." And the sociologist who made this report, August B. Hollingshead, had also decided these families also suffered from "amoral behavior that ranges from the flagrant violation of conventional sex mores to open rebellion against formal agencies of social control.” 7.
 


In 1950, sociologist Abrams wrote,“However, there is little concerted effort to face and come to grips with the problem of love and the stability of marriage . . . When the cult of romantic love is pro-moted, it is thought that everything else will take care of itself. the argument goes on this way: If people are really in love they can make a go of their marriage. If their marriage does not succeed, then they did not try hard enough or they were not really in love.” 8.

 
 
In 1950, sociologist Abrams went further: “Ever before us is the blind worship of social institutions and the failure to re-alize that these institutions do not necessarily give us genuine stability.” 9.

 
 
And sometimes, stability is a synonym for fear –
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead determined that the established American upper-class was very stable, but it was because of extreme internal social and family pressures. It kept itself in check by an elaborate network of kin and more importantly, trust funds. In one community, he found were 37 separate nuclear families benefiting from a single trust fund – and that these families considered themselves as a single unit. So did their community. And the entire family was proud of the fact that there had not been a single non-Protestant marriage in the family for seven generations. One was proposed – but elders in the family stopped it. There had been five divorces and possibly a desertion – but none of these were ever discussed, as if if they'd never occurred. All of which was made more important because the wealthy only married within their community: at least a third were also receiving money from another family's trust fund. 10.

 

He also wrote that the nuclear upper-middle-class and lower class families – a husband, wife and two or three dependent children – were very stable units. "Divorce is rare, desertion by the husband or wife is most infrequent, and premature death rates are low,” he wrote. But this was true not just because of the family unit – which was generally a happy unit – but also because of moral pressures from family and professional colleagues, and concerns for the husband's career – his success being the motivating goal for all of a family's life. 11.

 
 
A plowshare and a sword –
Working class families in 1950 were helped by extended family members – but they were also driven apart by them. They shared the scant resources they had – but with so few resources between them – that "sharing" brought families to the breaking point. 12.

 

In 1950, sociologist Ray H. Abrams wrote, “ . . . part of the confusion in our thinking con-cerning what constitutes a ‘stable’ or ‘ideal’ family type. What is the truly ‘ideal’ family? Are the popularly conceived ‘ideal’ or ‘model’ families always stable units, do they actually function on all levels of human experience, or do they frequently simply go through the motions . . . ?” 13.

 
 
In 1950, sociologist Abrams wrote, “The concepts of family solidarity, of unity, and of stability are certainly confused.” 14.


 
Americans have always had a much higher rate of divorce than European nations. As sociologist Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr. explained: “Many scholars who have studied the matter believe that divorce is an inevitable byproduct of a marriage system that puts a high premium on voluntary choice and that values emotional satisfaction above all. . . . Even before the industrial revolution, Americans were unusually willing to give young people a high amount of discretion in mate selection. Broader kinship concerns figured little into marriage decisions, and parents exercised minimal control either in the timing of marriage or in children’s choice of a partner. “ 15.
 
 
 
“The more that marriage was touted for its personal benefits, the less stability was valued for its own sake. As emotional gratification became the sine qua non of marriage, divorce became in an indispensable element in the institution of matrimony, permitting couples to rectify poor choice. Gradually, the standard shifted from one which required couples to remain married even if they were not in love to one which virtually demanded divorce unless they remained in love.” 16.

 
 

FACTS ABOUT FAMILY DISSOLUTIONS

 
 
 
Total rate of marital dissolutions – marriages ending in death or divorce – in 1860:
33.2 per 1000 marriages. 17.
 
 
 
Total rate of marital dissolutions in 1970:
34.5 per 1000 marriages. 18.
 
 
 
Total rate of marital dissolutions in 1970s:
41 per 1000 marriages. Approximately. 19.
 
 
 
Total rate of marital dissolutions in 1989:
38.7 per 1000 marriages. 20.
 
 
 
Most Common Endpoint of a Marriage –

before to the 20th century – was death. 21.
 
during the 20th century – was divorce. 22.

 
 
In 1900,
death ended two-thirds of all marriages within 40 years. 23.
 
 
 
1974
was the year when the U.S. made the switch having from more marriages end in death to more marriages end in divorce. 24.
 
 
 
In 1976,
death ended just one-third of all marriages within 40 years. 25.
 
 

The Seven Year Itch –
one-fourth of U.S. marriages will dissolve by the seventh year. 26.
 
 
 
By the twentieth year –
approximately half of all American marriages will have ended by divorce or separation. 27.
 
 
 
A golden anniversary –
The remaining half of marriages will last until the death of a spouse – probably another 10 to 30 years. 28.
 
 
 
A child born in the U.S. in 1996 may have a marriage of 60 years or more. 29.
 
 
 
About a quarter –
of U.S. children living at the turn of the Twentieth century had had one or both parents die by the time the child had reached 15 years old. 30.
 
 
 
Less than one in ten –
of U.S. children living in the middle of the Twentieth century had had one or both parents die by the time the child had reached 15 years old. 31.
 
 
 
An estimated one-third –
Through parental death, divorce, and desertion, an estimated one-third of U.S. children in the early 1900s lived in a single parent families by the time they were teenagers. 32.
 
 
 
An estimated one-fourth –
Through parental death, divorce, and desertion, an estimated one-fourth of U.S. children born in the 1940s and 1950s lived in single parent families by the time they'd been teenagers. 33.
 
 
 
In 1905, Charities Magazine reported that desertions by husbands were responsible for

– ten percent of U.S. families who needed to turn to charities for financial aid. 34.
 
– more than 30 percent of the applications filed in 1905 in order to commit children to New York City's Department of Charities – making the child a ward of the city – were due to their father's desertions. 35.

 
 
12.9 percent –
of U.S. brides and grooms' marriages in 1910-1919 were remarriages for at least one of them. 36.
 
 
 
Nine percent –
of brides in the U.S. in 1930 were divorced. 37.
 
 
 
32 percent –
of brides in the U.S. in 1987 were divorced. 38.
 
 
 
40 percent –
of U.S. marriages in 1994 were a remarriage for at least one of the two spouses. 39.
 
 
 
Stablizing, or even decreasing –
by the 1990s, the rate at which couples have been divorcing in Northern Europe, in the United Kingdom and the United States. 40.
 
 
 
613,000 divorces –
Number of divorces in the U.S. in 1946. 41.
 
 
 
In 1948, Newsweek reported, "The largest 30 cities in the United States average nearly one divorce for every two marriages, and the national average – the world's highest – is nearly one divorce for three. Worried sociologists estimate that by 1963, 31 per cent of all marriages will end in divorce. In several cities, divorces already outstrip marriages. In Chattanooga, Tenn., for example, they are three and a half times as numerous." 42.
 
 
 
In 1948, Parents' Magazine reported, “In 1946, the peak of 613,000 divorces was reached, and in 1947 there were about 450,000. However, these record divorces figures also reflect the record increase in the num-ber of marriages in recent years. ¶ Our young people marry early; they choose their own marriages; some make mistakes because they are not pre-pared for marriage and family life. With the risks inherent in marriage, it is comforting that more than three-quarters of all marriages stick. ¶ More important than divorce is the problem of marital separation. Last year there were 750,000 homes from which the husband was absent and more than 300,000 homes from which the wife was absent. In some of these families the husband is working far from home; in some the husband or the wife is in prison or in an institu-tion for mental or chronic disease; in some the separation is due to other causes. The number of these families is almost 50 percent greater than the number headed by a divorced person.” 43.
 
 
 
Three-quarters of a million homes –
were headed by divorced persons in 1948. 44.
 
 
 
Studies have shown that combat veterans – (WWII, Korean, and Vietnam) historically have a higher rate of divorce. One 1990 study determined that the unstable marriages of servicemen had a lot to do with the high post war rate of divorce. In that study, it wasn't the young, but the older recruits who were getting divorced, which they explain in part may be because of the increased stress of the responsibilities they had. (whereas a younger family would not be as set in its ways/expectations). 45.
 
 
 
In 1934, a sociologist determined that “. . . roughly one sixth or one seventh of all relief families . . . did not include both husband and wife; that is, they consisted of a man and his chil-dren, a woman and her children, either of these groups with other persons in addition, or several adults without children. These families may be termed ‘broken families.’ About five sixths of all relief families where ‘normal families’ in the sense that they centered in a married couple. Broken families were a somewhat larger frac-tion of all relief families in urban than in rural areas. Also, they were rela-tively more numerous among Negro than among white relief families." 46.
 
 
 
One-fourth to one-third
of the working class families raising children in 1950 were broken by divorce, desertion, and death of a marital partner before those children had left the family home on their own. 47.
 
 
 
One in nine children under 18
lived in a "broken family" in 1948, according to Parents' Magazine, which observed that “these children often lose the opportunity for an education and are more readily ex-posed to delinquency.” 48.
 
 
 
A million homes –
where the husband and wife had separated in 1948. 49.
 
 
 
Almost 4.8 million –
2.2 percentof American population 15 years and over in 2000 – who were separated from their spouse. 50.
 
 
 
Too expensive to get–
Divorces, during the Great Depression. So people didn't divorce – they just separated or even outright abandoned their spouses. 51.
 
 
 
Over 1.5 million
married women were living apart from their husbands in 1940. 52.
 
 
 
Five percent
of U.S. Blacks were separated. 53.
 
 
 
Seven percent
of U.S. Blacks were widowed. 54.
 
 
 
11 percent
of U.S. Blacks were divorced. 55.
 
 
 
10 percent
of U.S. Black women are widowed, compared to just three percent of Black men. 56.
 
 
 
Five percent
of Hispanics women are separated. Hispanic women are more likely to remain separated without getting a legal divorce than are women of most other groups. 57.
 
 
 
More are separated
Blacks and Hispanic women in the U.S. have the highest percentages separated: six percent and five percent of those women are separated from spouses, respectively. That does not, however, indicate they have a greater willingness to split up. Instead, research has shown that Black and Hispanic women are more likely to remain permanently separated from their spouses, but never proceeding to get a legal divorce, while women in other ethnic groups are more likely to ultimately get a divorce. 58.
 
 
 
14.1 percent
of Hispanics in the U.S. in 2000 who were separated, widowed, or divorced, less than the national total of 18.5 percent. 59.
 
 

A LITTLE DIRTY LAUNDRY ABOUT TIMES AND SOCIETIES WITH MORE STABLE MARRIAGES

 
 
 
 
 
Sex, alcohol and a consuming career –
How American married men in 1950 handled unhappy family lives – each of which being a way of coping that was not as available to wives. 65.
 
 
 
Maybe we're the real Victorians –
since, in that era, they had a "vast amount" of prostitution. 66.
 
 
 
"Free" Love colonies, Mormon polygamy
were other American movements revolting against the "traditional nuclear family." 67.
 
 
 
 
 

SELECTED HISTORICAL QUOTES ON THE STATE OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY

 
 
 
In 1875, the New York Times reported that a minister had lectured, "The entire moral life of the country and the state of things brought about by our material development of resources, and by prosperous times, the domestic and social ambition which animates our people, the pride of life, the high-living so general, the dangerous competition in business, the corrupting of morals, the seperation [sic] of husbands and wives, the one providing the means, the other spending it to keep up extravagant household expenditure, the separation of children from any knowledge or participation in family life, the early sense of personal importance they imbibe, the gradual weakening of self-denial, the false views of life and character – all these these things were presented as the result of our national prosperity. And it had been asked, How could parents, wearied with business anxiety and social solicitude, have any time for the direct labors and systematic training of their children?" 1.
 
 
 
In 1916, an essayist in Harper's Monthly Magazine wrote on the "Break-up of the Family": “By being freer within matrimony men and women view more tolerantly breaches of the matrimonial code. . . . What English is coming to is to a lesser regard for the marriage bond, to a recognition that people have the right to rebel against their yoke. There totters the family, for marriage is its base, and the more English society receives in its ranks those who have flouted it, the more it will be shaken by the new spirit which bids human creates live together, but also with the rest of the world. Women as kept within the family by treats, by banishment, by ostracism, but now she easily earns forgiveness. . . At the root is a decaying respect for the marriage bond, a growing respect for rebellion. That tendency is everywhere, and it is becoming more and more common for husband and wife to take separate holidays; . . . Late marriages one of the most potent causes of the break-up of the family, for now women are no longer caught and rushed young; they are no longer burdened matrons at thirty. . . Now men prefer women of twenty-seven or twenty-eighth, forsake the bachfisch for her mother, because the mother has personality, experience, can stimulate, amuse, and accompany. Only the older and more formed woman is no longer willing to enter the family as a jail; she will enter it only as a hotel.” 2.
 
 
 
In 1947, Science Digest asked in an article title, “Family Life Ruined by 2000 A.D.?” in an article on sociologist Carle C. Zimmerman’s dire report that the decline of family is akin to that in ancient (and fallen) Greece and Rome, and that, without steps to stop it, the crisis would hit by the end of the century. 3.
 
 
 
In 1947, Senior Scholastic wrote, "Some people would say that . . . everybody looks too happy. They would have you believe that the rise in divorces, juvenile delinquency, and mental cases means that happy families are as extinct as the dodo bird. But there are still many really happy homes in America– and not just in movies or magazine stories." 4.
 
 
 
In 1947, Senior Scholastic wrote, "Over and over again, the case records in family agencies tell this story: many divorces, juvenile crimes, and other family breakdowns could have been avoided if young people were better prepared for marriage." 5.
 
 
 
In 1947, celebrated historian Henry Steele Commager explained in 1947 that the American family was changing. The chief causes: families are shrinking in size because they are getting married later and are moving to urban environments, and women have a choice between career or marriage. 6.
 
 
 
In 1947, Life Magazine did a huge feature on "The American Family in Trouble," from that introduction: “From such statistics emerges an unmistakable fact: the U.S. family, deep in the millrace of social and technological change, is itself deep in trouble ¶ The root of the trouble is found in another fact: in the last 100 years the pattern of American life has profoundly altered. A century ago the U.S. was largely agricultural . . Life was not always easy, but economic interdependence and common interests formed a hard base for close family unity. But the trustee-type family could not with-stand the march of industrialization. Its extra members went packing of to the booming cities to evolve a new family type, the so-called domestic family – smaller, no longer self-sufficient but still closely knit. in-stead of making their own shows and soap, individuals found they could buy these things with their high industrial wages and have time left over to develop a variety of social interest both within and outside of the family group. ¶ Today the forces of social change have further broken down the family. It is now tiny – a husband, a wife and one or two children. Its members do little more than sleep and eat together. They buy everything – food, laundry, entertainment – and produce nothing by the money for these purchases. the outward pull of movies, automobiles, bridge clubs, and Elks constantly threatens what little family unity remains. The individual now looks outside his home for his interest. He is atomistic, an individualized fragment rather than part of a unified whole.” 7.
 
 
 
In 1948, a Parents' Magazine essayist/expert wrote, “We have long been hearing critical comments by those who say that American family life is deteriorating. ¶¶ But if we look at the facts care-fully we shall find that there is much more right than there is wrong with the American family. On the whole, the position of the family in our society has grown stronger, not weaker. It is the foundation of our national strength. At this time, when there is so much uncertainty and insecurity on the domestic and international fronts, it should be a source of confidence that we can count upon its sound-ness and stability.” 8.
 
 
 
Under the headline, "Abolish family?" in 1949, Science Digest wrote, that there had been an international congress of mental health and social scientists. According to Science Digest, “All agree that the family has been experiencing profound changes during the industrial revolution. Big families in which three generations live together under one roof are now disappearing. Urbanized families are now built around the married pairs. Many sociologists here and abroad seem to mistake changing the family for dissolving the family.” “Abolition of the family as an out-worn social unit was seriously recommended by some social scientists at the International Congress on Mental Health at London, while several others weighted the possibility that the family would inevitably dissolve under the pressure of industrial society . . . .” The Digest cautioned, however, “It should be stressed that the great majority of the 2,000 delegates to the Congress strongly favor not only the survival of the family but great social support for it. Some world-minded delegates, however, favor breaking or weakening family bonds, arguing that narrow family loyalties block loyalty groups." 9.
 
 
 
"American Family Is Changing Radically" – article in The Christian Century, in 1959. The cause of this dramatic change? Members of families were living longer: they reported that family units that had been dissolved by the death of one of its members had been cut some 40 percent since 1900. 10.
 
 
 

SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE IDEALIZATION OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY

 
 
In 1969, sociologist Ruth Harriet Jacobs wrote, "It has become a sociological cliche that the dominant and growing American family pattern is nuclear and that the importance of ethnicity decreases as sub-cultures are homogenized into the middle class mainstream. However, because the transition to the nuclear family is still in process, it is important for those studying or work-ing with family to be aware of the pat-terns and tensions of certain transitional, semi-extended families." 11.
 
 
 
In 1998, Donald Hernandez, a former Chief of the Marriage and Statistics Branch of the U.S. Bureau of the Census wrote: “In my analysis of historical census data, I looked at the rise and fall of the ‘Ozzie and Harriet’ families . . . . I characterized Ozzie and Harriet families as those where the father worked full-time year-round, the mother was not in the paid labor force, and all the children were born after the parents’ only marriage. I found that this type of family structure declined and fell before we knew it. It is in fact a myth that the majority of children anytime [sic] since 1940 have lived in Ozzie and Harriet families. For kids born in 1940, only 41 percent were from Ozzie and Harriet families. These figures grew only slightly in the 1950s and 1960s, but never reached 50 percent for newborn children. Today, Ozzie and Harriet families account for only about 15 percent of the family situations of children. So this notion of living in Ozzie and Harriet families maybe [sic] a cultural ideal, but the empirical reality is that it has not been the norm, or the case for the majority of kids any time since the Great Depression.” 12.
 
 
 
In 1992, sociologist Andrew Cherlin explained, “. . .the family values of the 1950s contained elements of a more individualistic ethos that would help transform family life again a generation later. Under that ethos . . . individuals increasingly have sought meaning in life through self-fulfillment and intimacy. The family form celebrated in the 1950s was the isolated nuclear family consisting of only parents and children. It fit the ethos by providing a more private setting for personal life – an escape from grandparents, uncles, aunts, and other kin. As bonds to a wider network of kin weakened, the relationship between husbands and wives became highly charged emotionally and sexually. A person’s satisfaction came from intimate relations with his or her spouse and from the gratification of raising children together. But there is no reason why indiviudalism should stop with the nuclear family . . .Since the mid-1960s, the quest for self-fulfillment and intimacy has taken an even more individualistic tone . . . even if it clashes with the needs of spouses and children and even if it leads to the break-up of a marriage.” 13.
 
 
 
Cherlin further wrote that “. . . the kinds of families the new suburbanites created were unlike the working-class model. The distinctive characteristics of working-class families are greater emphasis on ties to a network of kin, lesser emphasis on marital closeness, adult-centeredness, and higher value on obedience in childrearing. In contrast, the families celebrated in the media and constructed in the suburbs were isolated, child-centered families with a heavy emotional investment in the husband-wife bond. They were breadwinner-homemaker families– the self-sufficient, emotionally in-tense, child-oriented middle-class ideal in which the wife ran the home and the husband earned the money. This was the idea that spread through the suburbs. Attaining this style of family life was the goal of the millions of newly prosperous homeowners.” 14.
 
 
 
He said, “It is still not clear why the breadwinner-homemaker family became such a powerful ideal in the 1950s. Perhaps it was the unattainable style to which many aspired during the difficult years of the depression and the war, and which they rushed to achieve as soon as they had the means to do so.” and, also that, “ . . . the heyday of the breadwinner-homemaker family concealed contradictions that led to its rapid demise after the mid-1960s. At the same time that the media were promoting single-earner family values, more and more married women were taking jobs outside the home.” 15.
 
 
 
Cherlin summarized his analysis by saying: “. . . I argue that the 1950s were the more unusual time, that the timing of marriage in the 1970s and 1980s was closer to the typical twentieth-century pattern than was the case in the 1950s. In addtion, the rate of childbearing in the 1960s was unusually high by twentieth-century standards. In some ways the 1970s and 1980s were more consistent with long-term trends in family life than were the 1950s.” 16.
 
 

LONGEVITY OF MARRIAGE AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF DIVORCE

 
 
 
The common assumption is that longer life-spans will mean longer marriages. But, in western industrialized nations, that doesn't appear to be holding true. Instead, what is changing is the cause of the end of the marriage has changed from death to divorce. So the average length of the marriage is actually staying substantially the same. 1.
 
 
 
One-half –
a “reasonable” approximate estimate of the U.S. marriages that will end by divorce or separation before the couple's 20th wedding anniversaries. The remaining half of marriages will probably last another 40 to 50 years after that, only ending in one of the spouse's deaths. 2.
 
 
 
20 percent
The likelihood of a U.S. first marriage ending in separation or divorce is highest during the first five years of marriage – 20 percent. 3.
 
 
 
33 percent
The likelihood of a ten-year old U.S. first marriage ending in separation or divorce lowers to 33 percent. 4.
 
 
 
40th Wedding Anniversary –
Because of rising life expectancies – which balance out divorce rates – American marriages are more likely to reach a 40th wedding anniversary now than ever before in history. 5.
 
 
 
In the U.S., 91 percent of separated white women will divorce after three years of separation. By contrast, only 77 percent of Hispanic women and 67 percent of black women will file: instead, they remain separated without the divorce. 6.
 
 
 
20 percent
of all U.S. first marriages have disrupted after five years, either because of separation or divorce. After ten years, separation or divorce have disrupted one-third of all American first marriages. 7.
 
 
 
One-third
of U.S. women's first marriages have dissolved after 10 years, either because of separation or divorce. But the rates vary considerably by ethnic group. For white women, 32 percent of their marriages have ended. For black women, the rate is higher – 47 percent. For Asian women – it's considerably lower – 20 percent. 8.
 
 
 
54 percent
of U.S. divorced women remarry within five years. 75 percent of divorced women remarry within 10 years. 9.
 
 
 
15 percent
of remarriages in the U.S. end after three years. Almost a quarter end after five years. 10.
 
 
 
12 years
In Greece, among divorce couples in the late 1990s, the mean number of years how long the marriage lasted before the couple got the divorce. In 1980, the mean had been 15 years. 11.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Jacobson wrote,“In 1948, for example, about 55 per cent of the total decrees were granted to couples married less than 7 years.” 74.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Paul H. Jacobson wrote, "“In general, the divorce-frequency is highest in the early period of married life. in 1948, the rate was at a maximum of 26 per 1,000 couples in the third year of marriage (duration 2-3 years), dropped sharply through the 7th year, and thereafter declined less rapidly but almost steadily with each advance of matrimonial duration. But the 20th wedding anniversary, the the rate was down to 8 per 1,000. Even after the golden wedding anniversary, some marital ties were dissolved by divorce.” 75.
 
 
 

LONGEVITY OF MARRIAGE AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF DIVORCE
DIVORCE (IN THE U.S.)
DIVORCE (INTERNATIONAL)

 
 

FACTORS FOR DIVORCING

 
 
 
 
Not surprisingly, American marriages last longer if the women:
grew up in an intact two-parent family;
consider religion to play an important role in their lives;
have a high family income; and
live in a community with high median family income, low male unemployment, and low poverty. Those factors increase the duration of a cohabiting relationship as well. 12.
 

 
 
12 percentage points
The difference in percentage points that a U.S. white women's first marriage will likely dissolve if she did and did not grow up in a two-parent intact family. White women who were raised by a two-parent family have a 29-percent chance that their marriage will end after 10 years of marriage. But a white woman who was raised without an intact family has a 41-percent chance that her marriage will end in the same period. Similarly, for black women, having an intact family-background decreases the likelihood of a woman's divorce by 13 percentage points, and for Hispanic women, the intact family background decreases the likelihood of divorce by 17 percentage points. 13.
 
 
 
Kids do keep couples together –
Not that it's a reason to have kids, or stay married, but it turns out that couples with children are less likely to divorce than those without them. And for every child in a family, the likelihood that couple will divorce goes down. Which is particularly interesting because study after study show that happiness in a marriage decreases once children are born. 14.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Paul H. Jacobson wrote, “About 313,000 children under the age of 21 were in involved in the 421,000 divorces and annulments granted in 1948, or roughly three children for every four marriages dissolved. However, close to three-fifths of the divorced couples had no children. This means that more than two-fifths had children, and among them there was an average of 1.78 children per couple.” 76.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Jacobson wrote, “For couples without children, the divorce rate in 1948 was 15.3 per 1,000. Where one child was present, the estimate rate was 11.6 per 1,000. The figure thus continues to decrease, and in families with four or more children, it was 4.6. Al-together, the rate for couples with children was 8.8 per 1,000. In other words, the rate for ‘childless’ couples was almost double the rate for families with children. . . . ” 77.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Jacobson wrote, “The divorce rate for parent-couples climbs to a maximum of 15 per 1,000 at duration 3-4 years, whereas the rate for couples without children reaches a peak of 44 per 1,000 one year later. the chances for divorce among the ‘childless’ couples fall off so much more rapidly after the peak . . . “ 78.
 
 
 
Because he’s a bloody pain in the arse, that’s why –
Of divorces filed in England and Wales in 2003, 69 percent of them were at the wife's behest. The most frequently cited fact for the basis of the divorce for women? Her husband's "unreasonable behavior." For those men filing for divorce, on the other hand, it was a two-year long separation that was the most frequent reason for their request for a divorce. 15.
 
 
 
Top reasons why American women said they'd gotten divorced –
communication problems (69.7 percent);
unhappiness (59.9 percent);
incompatible with spouse (56.4 percent);
emotional abuse (55.5 percent);
financial problems (32.9 percent);
sexual problems (32.1 percent);
spouse's alcohol abuse (30.0 percent);
spousal infidelity (25.2 percent); and
physical abuse (21.7 percent). 16.

 
 
Top reasons why American men said they'd gotten divorced –
communication problems (59.3 percent);
incompatible with spouse (44.7 percent);
unhappiness (46.9 percent);
emotional abuse (24.7 percent);
financial problems (28.7 percent); and
sexual problems (30.2 percent). 17.

 
 
Because more men cheat –
In the study, more than 25 percent of the women said that their husbands' unfaithfulness was a factor in their divorce. Less than half as many men (10.5 percent) said it was their wives' infidelity which was a cause of their divorce. In fact, more men said that their wives' in-laws were a reason for the divorce (11.6 percent) than said it was because their wives had had an affair. 18.
 
 
 
Apparently, those boots weren't made for walking, after all.
Women weren't walking out on men because of the Women's Movement. Actually, it was the other way around. In the divorce study – done at the height of the period (1980-1981) – only 3.0 percent of the women surveyed said that "Women's lib" was a reason they'd ended their marriage. But more than four times as many men – 14.5 percent – said that was one of the reasons they'd gotten divorced. 19.
 
 
 
14 times more likely –
Separated and divorced women are 14 times more likely than married women to report that they were victims of violence by their spouse or ex-spouse. 20.
 
 
 
22 percent of middle class divorces –
state that violence is the reason for the divorce. 21.
 
 
 
80 percent –
No, that's not a typo – studies have found that 80 percent of wives suing for divorce cited that they had been physically abused by their husbands. 22.

 
 
75 percent
of women who suffer severe abuse in a marriage get divorced – more than three times the divorce rate for women who were not abused (15 percent), according to a Canadian study. 24.
 
 
 
50 percent
of divorced women are victims of abuse, according to the same Canadian study. 25.
 
 
In 1957, Science News Letter reported a UCLA study determined that there were eight basic factors in marital failure: “1. low self-opinion; 2. adolescence ‘hangover;’ 3. early condition-ing against marriage; 4. cumulative ego strain; 5. homosexual tendency or male passivity; 6. sex dissatisfaction and projection; 7. revolt against feminity; and 8. flight into rejection.” 84.
 
 
 

LONGEVITY OF MARRIAGE AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF DIVORCE
FACTORS FOR DIVORCING
DIVORCE (INTERNATIONAL)

 
 

DIVORCE IN THE U.S.

 
 
19.8
U.S. Divorce rate in 1995. The divorce rate more than doubled from 9.2 divorces per year per 1,000 married women in 1960 to a divorce rate of 22.6 in 1980. 26.
 
 
 
4.0
U.S. Divorce rate (i.e. Rate of Divorces per 1,000 population in 2001 (46 reporting States and D.C.).
 
 
34 percent
of ever-married U.S. adults have been divorced, doubling from 17 percent in 1972.
 
 
In 1948, Newsweek reported, "Until the wartime flood of divorces over-whelmed it, Milwaukee, Wis., was the only major city in the United States whose divorce rate was declining. Last week, al-though the rest of the country had reason to wonder if family life in America was on its way into nostalgia to join the mustache cup and the old-fashioned sampler, Milwaukee's rate was again down." 85.
 
 
1974
The first year when more U.S. marriages ended in divorce, rather than in death. 27.
 
 
 
34 percent
of American adults who have been ever been divorced, according to a 2002 estimate. That's double what it was in 1972 (17 percent). 28.
 
 
 
It slowed, but not enough –
The rate of divorces slowed in the 1980s and 1990s – but it's still double what it was in 1960. 29.
 
 
 
34 percent
The proportion of ever-married U.S. adults who have been divorced. That is twice what it was in 1972 (17 percent). 30.
 
 
 
Maybe we really can't commit –
Between 1970 and 2000, the proportion of American women who were divorced more than doubled. Bad enough. But the proportion of U.S. divorced men more than tripled in the same period of time. 31.
 
 
 
9.7 percent
of the American population 15 years and over were divorced in 2000 (21,560,308). That does not include those who have previously been divorced but were remarried – that's just those who were divorced at the time of the Census. Census didn't ask if those about remarriages. Of those divorced, 15 years and over percent that were female (5.6 percent)(12,305,294). 32.
 
 
 
Alimony is over-rated –
Spousal support awards are given in less than 15 percent of U.S. divorces. And it usually only lasts long enough until the spouse (usually woman) can obtain gainful employment or other support, notwithstanding the impact that lower employment / continuing familial responsibilities, etc, will keep it low. 33.
 
 
 
One million
Estimated number of children in the U.S. each year who go through their parents' divorce. And there are increasing number of children who, will as children, who are expected to go through more than one divorce during their childhood, as parents are increasingly remarrying ... and re-divorcing. 34.
 
 
 
Good News –
About 70 percent of divorced men and women will remarry. 35.
 
 
 
– Bad News
Remarriages are even more likely to end in divorce than first marriages are. 36.
 
 
 
19.8
out of every thousand American married women got divorced in 1995. The 1990s were a slowing of the divorce rate from the decade before: In 1980, it had reached 22.6 per 1,000 married women. But even the 1990s decrease is a dramatic rise from earlier years. In 1960, it was just 9.2 divorces per 1,000 married women. 37.
 
 
 
Eight percent
Pacific Islanders in the U.S. are divorced. 83.
 
 
 
4.2 percent
of Asians in the U.S. are divorced – seven percent of women and four percent of the men much lower than the national total of 9.7 percent. Just 2.4 percent of Asian Indians and 2.1 percent of Pakistanis in the U.S. are divorced. 38.
 
 
 
American Indians and Alaska Natives –
have the highest percentage divorced of any major ethnic or racial group in the U.S. – 11 percent for men and 14 percent for women. 39.
 
 
 
The chart on the left is from a Centers for Disease Control report, which measures the likelihood of a first marriage ending by separation or divorce for a marriage cohort (meaning the marriages within a given period of years, e.g. 1950 to 1954). 40.

 
 
 
In 1949, Science News Letter reported, “England and Wales, which 35 years ago had a divorce rate only one-fiftieth of ours, now has a rate half as large as that of the U.S. In 1913, England and Wales had only 2.2 divorces for every 1,000 in the annual marriage record. ¶ At the outbreak of World War II, the ratio had increased 10 times or about 20 per 1,000. By 1946, the rate had climbed another four times to 81.0 and in 1947 divorces had climbed to 138.5 per 1,000 marriages. ¶ In Scotland, the ratio of divorces to marriages was nine times as high in 1946 as in 1910. In Canada, the rise was even sharper – from 7.2 per 1,000 in 1920 to 50.0 per 1,000 in 1948.” It was further reported that the French divorce rate in 1948 was 207.2 divorces per 1,000 average annual marriages, which was almost three times the rate in 1944, and more than double what it had been just the year before. 82.
 
 
 

SELECTED HISTORICAL QUOTES ON THE STATE OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY

 
 
 
In 1875, the New York Times reported that a minister had lectured, "The entire moral life of the country and the state of things brought about by our material development of resources, and by prosperous times, the domestic and social ambition which animates our people, the pride of life, the high-living so general, the dangerous competition in business, the corrupting of morals, the seperation [sic] of husbands and wives, the one providing the means, the other spending it to keep up extravagant household expenditure, the separation of children from any knowledge or participation in family life, the early sense of personal importance they imbibe, the gradual weakening of self-denial, the false views of life and character – all these these things were presented as the result of our national prosperity. And it had been asked, How could parents, wearied with business anxiety and social solicitude, have any time for the direct labors and systematic training of their children?" 1.
 
 
 
In 1916, an essayist in Harper's Monthly Magazine wrote on the "Break-up of the Family": “By being freer within matrimony men and women view more tolerantly breaches of the matrimonial code. . . . What English is coming to is to a lesser regard for the marriage bond, to a recognition that people have the right to rebel against their yoke. There totters the family, for marriage is its base, and the more English society receives in its ranks those who have flouted it, the more it will be shaken by the new spirit which bids human creates live together, but also with the rest of the world. Women as kept within the family by treats, by banishment, by ostracism, but now she easily earns forgiveness. . . At the root is a decaying respect for the marriage bond, a growing respect for rebellion. That tendency is everywhere, and it is becoming more and more common for husband and wife to take separate holidays; . . . Late marriages one of the most potent causes of the break-up of the family, for now women are no longer caught and rushed young; they are no longer burdened matrons at thirty. . . Now men prefer women of twenty-seven or twenty-eighth, forsake the bachfisch for her mother, because the mother has personality, experience, can stimulate, amuse, and accompany. Only the older and more formed woman is no longer willing to enter the family as a jail; she will enter it only as a hotel.” 2.
 
 
 
In 1947, Science Digest asked in an article title, “Family Life Ruined by 2000 A.D.?” in an article on sociologist Carle C. Zimmerman’s dire report that the decline of family is akin to that in ancient (and fallen) Greece and Rome, and that, without steps to stop it, the crisis would hit by the end of the century. 3.
 
 
 
In 1947, Senior Scholastic wrote, "Some people would say that . . . everybody looks too happy. They would have you believe that the rise in divorces, juvenile delinquency, and mental cases means that happy families are as extinct as the dodo bird. But there are still many really happy homes in America– and not just in movies or magazine stories." 4.
 
 
 
In 1947, Senior Scholastic wrote, "Over and over again, the case records in family agencies tell this story: many divorces, juvenile crimes, and other family breakdowns could have been avoided if young people were better prepared for marriage." 5.
 
 
 
In 1947, celebrated historian Henry Steele Commager explained in 1947 that the American family was changing. The chief causes: families are shrinking in size because they are getting married later and are moving to urban environments, and women have a choice between career or marriage. 6.
 
 
 
In 1947, Life Magazine did a huge feature on "The American Family in Trouble," from that introduction: “From such statistics emerges an unmistakable fact: the U.S. family, deep in the millrace of social and technological change, is itself deep in trouble ¶ The root of the trouble is found in another fact: in the last 100 years the pattern of American life has profoundly altered. A century ago the U.S. was largely agricultural . . Life was not always easy, but economic interdependence and common interests formed a hard base for close family unity. But the trustee-type family could not with-stand the march of industrialization. Its extra members went packing of to the booming cities to evolve a new family type, the so-called domestic family – smaller, no longer self-sufficient but still closely knit. in-stead of making their own shows and soap, individuals found they could buy these things with their high industrial wages and have time left over to develop a variety of social interest both within and outside of the family group. ¶ Today the forces of social change have further broken down the family. It is now tiny – a husband, a wife and one or two children. Its members do little more than sleep and eat together. They buy everything – food, laundry, entertainment – and produce nothing by the money for these purchases. the outward pull of movies, automobiles, bridge clubs, and Elks constantly threatens what little family unity remains. The individual now looks outside his home for his interest. He is atomistic, an individualized fragment rather than part of a unified whole.” 7.
 
 
 
In 1948, a Parents' Magazine essayist/expert wrote, “We have long been hearing critical comments by those who say that American family life is deteriorating. ¶¶ But if we look at the facts care-fully we shall find that there is much more right than there is wrong with the American family. On the whole, the position of the family in our society has grown stronger, not weaker. It is the foundation of our national strength. At this time, when there is so much uncertainty and insecurity on the domestic and international fronts, it should be a source of confidence that we can count upon its sound-ness and stability.” 8.
 
 
 
Under the headline, "Abolish family?" in 1949, Science Digest wrote, that there had been an international congress of mental health and social scientists. According to Science Digest, “All agree that the family has been experiencing profound changes during the industrial revolution. Big families in which three generations live together under one roof are now disappearing. Urbanized families are now built around the married pairs. Many sociologists here and abroad seem to mistake changing the family for dissolving the family.” “Abolition of the family as an out-worn social unit was seriously recommended by some social scientists at the International Congress on Mental Health at London, while several others weighted the possibility that the family would inevitably dissolve under the pressure of industrial society . . . .” The Digest cautioned, however, “It should be stressed that the great majority of the 2,000 delegates to the Congress strongly favor not only the survival of the family but great social support for it. Some world-minded delegates, however, favor breaking or weakening family bonds, arguing that narrow family loyalties block loyalty groups." 9.
 
 
 
"American Family Is Changing Radically" – article in The Christian Century, in 1959. The cause of this dramatic change? Members of families were living longer: they reported that family units that had been dissolved by the death of one of its members had been cut some 40 percent since 1900. 10.
 
 
 

SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE IDEALIZATION OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY

 
 
In 1969, sociologist Ruth Harriet Jacobs wrote, "It has become a sociological cliche that the dominant and growing American family pattern is nuclear and that the importance of ethnicity decreases as sub-cultures are homogenized into the middle class mainstream. However, because the transition to the nuclear family is still in process, it is important for those studying or work-ing with family to be aware of the pat-terns and tensions of certain transitional, semi-extended families." 11.
 
 
 
In 1998, Donald Hernandez, a former Chief of the Marriage and Statistics Branch of the U.S. Bureau of the Census wrote: “In my analysis of historical census data, I looked at the rise and fall of the ‘Ozzie and Harriet’ families . . . . I characterized Ozzie and Harriet families as those where the father worked full-time year-round, the mother was not in the paid labor force, and all the children were born after the parents’ only marriage. I found that this type of family structure declined and fell before we knew it. It is in fact a myth that the majority of children anytime [sic] since 1940 have lived in Ozzie and Harriet families. For kids born in 1940, only 41 percent were from Ozzie and Harriet families. These figures grew only slightly in the 1950s and 1960s, but never reached 50 percent for newborn children. Today, Ozzie and Harriet families account for only about 15 percent of the family situations of children. So this notion of living in Ozzie and Harriet families maybe [sic] a cultural ideal, but the empirical reality is that it has not been the norm, or the case for the majority of kids any time since the Great Depression.” 12.
 
 
 
In 1992, sociologist Andrew Cherlin explained, “. . .the family values of the 1950s contained elements of a more individualistic ethos that would help transform family life again a generation later. Under that ethos . . . individuals increasingly have sought meaning in life through self-fulfillment and intimacy. The family form celebrated in the 1950s was the isolated nuclear family consisting of only parents and children. It fit the ethos by providing a more private setting for personal life – an escape from grandparents, uncles, aunts, and other kin. As bonds to a wider network of kin weakened, the relationship between husbands and wives became highly charged emotionally and sexually. A person’s satisfaction came from intimate relations with his or her spouse and from the gratification of raising children together. But there is no reason why indiviudalism should stop with the nuclear family . . .Since the mid-1960s, the quest for self-fulfillment and intimacy has taken an even more individualistic tone . . . even if it clashes with the needs of spouses and children and even if it leads to the break-up of a marriage.” 13.
 
 
 
Cherlin further wrote that “. . . the kinds of families the new suburbanites created were unlike the working-class model. The distinctive characteristics of working-class families are greater emphasis on ties to a network of kin, lesser emphasis on marital closeness, adult-centeredness, and higher value on obedience in childrearing. In contrast, the families celebrated in the media and constructed in the suburbs were isolated, child-centered families with a heavy emotional investment in the husband-wife bond. They were breadwinner-homemaker families– the self-sufficient, emotionally in-tense, child-oriented middle-class ideal in which the wife ran the home and the husband earned the money. This was the idea that spread through the suburbs. Attaining this style of family life was the goal of the millions of newly prosperous homeowners.” 14.
 
 
 
He said, “It is still not clear why the breadwinner-homemaker family became such a powerful ideal in the 1950s. Perhaps it was the unattainable style to which many aspired during the difficult years of the depression and the war, and which they rushed to achieve as soon as they had the means to do so.” and, also that, “ . . . the heyday of the breadwinner-homemaker family concealed contradictions that led to its rapid demise after the mid-1960s. At the same time that the media were promoting single-earner family values, more and more married women were taking jobs outside the home.” 15.
 
 
 
Cherlin summarized his analysis by saying: “. . . I argue that the 1950s were the more unusual time, that the timing of marriage in the 1970s and 1980s was closer to the typical twentieth-century pattern than was the case in the 1950s. In addtion, the rate of childbearing in the 1960s was unusually high by twentieth-century standards. In some ways the 1970s and 1980s were more consistent with long-term trends in family life than were the 1950s.” 16.
 
 

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.
 
 
 

SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS OVER TIME

 
 
 
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. 61.
 
 
 
 
 
29 percent
of Canadian families were childless in 1961. 74.
 
 
 
35 percent
of Canadian families were childless in 1991. 75.
 
 
 
Seven percent
of Canadian women age 35 to 39 had never married in 1961. 76.
 
 
 
13 percent
of Canadian women age 35 to 39 had never married in 1991. 77.
 
 
 
In the U.S. and Western Europe, "Some authors (Rivera, 1994) even predict that the one-parent family headed by the mother will become the future family pattern or, at least, one of the most frequent family types. This would mean that the pre-hominid mother-child bond would become again the basic unit of society. It is important, however, to not confuse one-parent households with one-parent families. Coresidence is not necessarily a good indicator of the functional roles of parents. Fathers who no longer live with mothers may still be active fathers, and joint or shared custody may become more prevalent. Modern working conditions leave more time to working fathers to enjoy their role of caregivers. Men may not wish to abdicate as fathers when they cease to function as husbands."
 
 
 
In the U.S. and Western Europe, "Thus, it appears safe to say that, with the exception of a decreasing minority of families, a generalised return to the traditional family with father as breadwinner and mother as housekeeper, must be regarded as unlikely. The biological, economic and cultural basis for such a return is simply no longer available. Mortality and fertility control and new insights on man and society have eroded the functional basis of traditional relationships."
 
 
 
In the U.S. and Western Europe, "This does not mean that some of the current development tendencies of family formation might not lead to a partial countermove. Sustained very low fertility, by generalising the one-child family, could produce unfavourable social effects in the long run, particularly regarding intergenerational continuity and intergenerational transfers. Therefore it is possible that future generations will draw lessons from the reproductive behaviour of former generations and increase their fertility spontaneously. It is likely that the state will try to prevent a sustained very low fertility and will expand or extend a wide range of family supporting measures (Roussel, 1991). But the number of children in a family is not the main issue. The main issue is the evolution in partnership roles, and even a two- or three-child family does not imply a return to the traditional family."
 
_________________________________________________________________________
 
 
1. Robert D. Putnam, "Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America," 1995 Annual Meeting Highlights, The 1995 Ithiel de Sola Pool Lecture, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 664-683 (December 1995), pp. 670-671, 677. Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1049-0965%28199512%2928%3A4%3C664%3ATITOTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7
2. Robert D. Putnam, "Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America," 1995 Annual Meeting Highlights, The 1995 Ithiel de Sola Pool Lecture, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 664-683 (December 1995), pp. 670-671, 677. Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1049-0965%28199512%2928%3A4%3C664%3ATITOTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7
3. See discussion, Ethan Watters, Urban Tribes. Bloomsbury USA (2003), pp. 96-97. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1582342644/ref=lpr_g_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
4. Robert D. Putnam, "Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America," 1995 Annual Meeting Highlights, The 1995 Ithiel de Sola Pool Lecture, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 664-683 (December 1995), p. 671. Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1049-0965%28199512%2928%3A4%3C664%3ATITOTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7
6. See, for example, Ethan Watters, Urban Tribes. Bloomsbury USA (2003), pp. 96-97, et seq. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1582342644/ref=lpr_g_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 See also, Watters interview, ________, "The New Thirtysomethings," To the Best of Our Knowledge, Program 04-05-16-A, Wisconsin Public Radio (May 16, 2004). Archived at: http://wpr.org/book/040516a.html
7. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993). See also________, "Arranged Marriages and the Place They Have in Today's Culture," NPR Talk of the Nation trans. (July 20, 1999). Archived at: http://www.newsbank.com ("So that changes, as in the 19th century, work leaves home. Women get downgraded to servants where before they had been work partners. The farmer really did require a farm wife and the fisherman really did require a fish wife to handle the books and take the fish to market. Women were no longer business partners, but started being the servants instead of overseeing the servants, and men left home to go to work. So what did the two have in common really anymore but their inner lives?")
8. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
9. Floyd H. Allport, “Must We Scrap The Family?” Harper’s Monthly Magazine, pp. 186-194 (July 1930), pp. 186.
10. Floyd H. Allport, “Must We Scrap The Family?” Harper’s Monthly Magazine, pp. 186-194 (July 1930), pp. 187.
11. Floyd H. Allport, “Must We Scrap The Family?” Harper’s Monthly Magazine, pp. 186-194 (July 1930), pp. 188-189.
12. Floyd H. Allport, “Must We Scrap The Family?” Harper’s Monthly Magazine, pp. 186-194 (July 1930), pp. 193-194.
13. Joseph Kirk Folsom, “The Changing Role of the Family,” Annals of the Amer. Acad of Political and Social Science, Vol. 212, pp. 64-71 (November 1940), p. 64.
14. ________, Article, Senior Scholastic, p. 8 (May 5, 1947).
15. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950). p. 45.
* Mary Ross, “Shall We Join the Gentlemen?,” The Survey, p. 264, (Dec. 1, 1926). Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950).
1. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 3. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
2. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), Table A-3. Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion: 1967 to 2004 , p. 40. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
3. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), Table A-3. Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion: 1967 to 2004 , p. 40. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
4. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), Table A-3. Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion: 1967 to 2004 , p. 40. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
5. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), Table A-3. Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion: 1967 to 2004 , p. 40. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
6. Source of data for chart: Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 8. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
7. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
8. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
9. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
10. Based on a three-year average. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 22-23, "Table 9. Income of Households by State Using 2- and 3-Year-Average Medians: 2002 to 2004." Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
11. Based on a three-year average. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 22-23, "Table 9. Income of Households by State Using 2- and 3-Year-Average Medians: 2002 to 2004." Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
12. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 6. "Table 1. Income of Households by Race . . . ." Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
13. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 6, "Table 1. Income of Households by Race . . . ." Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
14. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 6. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
15. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p.5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
16. Terrance J. Reeves and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Asians in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-17. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 14. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-17.pdf
17. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
18. Terrance J. Reeves and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Asians in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-17. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 15. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-17.pdf
19. Terrance J. Reeves and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Asians in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-17. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 15. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-17.pdf
20. Terrance J. Reeves and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Asians in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-17. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 16. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-17.pdf
21. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 6. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
22. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 8. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
23. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 8. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
24. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 8. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
25. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 4, "Table 1: Income and Earnings . . . ." Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
26. Philip M. Harris and Nicholas A. Jones, "We the People: Pacific Islanders in the United States," Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-26. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 13. Archived at: http://www.census.gov./prod/2005pubs/censr-26.pdf
27. Philip M. Harris and Nicholas A. Jones, "We the People: Pacific Islanders in the United States," Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-26. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 13. Archived at: http://www.census.gov./prod/2005pubs/censr-26.pdf
28. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
29. Roberto R. Ramirez, We the People: Hispanics in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-18. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), pp. 15. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf
30. Roberto R. Ramirez, We the People: Hispanics in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-18. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), pp. 15. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf
31. Roberto R. Ramirez, We the People: Hispanics in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-18. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 14. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf
32. Roberto R. Ramirez, We the People: Hispanics in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-18. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 13. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf
33. Roberto R. Ramirez, We the People: Hispanics in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-18. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 13. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf
34. Philip M. Harris and Nicholas A. Jones, "We the People: Pacific Islanders in the United States," Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-26. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov./prod/2005pubs/censr-26.pdf
35. Philip M. Harris and Nicholas A. Jones, "We the People: Pacific Islanders in the United States," Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-26. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov./prod/2005pubs/censr-26.pdf
36. Philip M. Harris and Nicholas A. Jones, "We the People: Pacific Islanders in the United States," Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-26. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov./prod/2005pubs/censr-26.pdf
37. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 6. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
38. Hans-Joachim Schulze and Peter Cuyvers, The Situation of Families in The Netherlands in 2001, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), pp. 3-4 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_01_netherlands_schulze_cuyvers.pdf
39. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 4, "Table 1: Income and Earnings . . . ." Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
40. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 4, "Table 1: Income and Earnings . . . ." Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
41. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 4, "Table 1: Income and Earnings . . . ." Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
42. _______, Coming Up Short: A Comparison of Wages and Work Supports in 10 American Communities, Report by Wider Opportunities for Women, Washington, DC (Summer / Fall 2004), p. 4. Archived at: http://wowonline.org/docs/dynamic-CTTA-43.pdf
43. _______, Coming Up Short: A Comparison of Wages and Work Supports in 10 American Communities, Report by Wider Opportunities for Women, Washington, DC (Summer / Fall 2004), p. 4. Archived at: http://wowonline.org/docs/dynamic-CTTA-43.pdf
44. _______, Coming Up Short: A Comparison of Wages and Work Supports in 10 American Communities, Report by Wider Opportunities for Women, Washington, DC (Summer / Fall 2004), p. 4. Archived at: http://wowonline.org/docs/dynamic-CTTA-43.pdf
45. According to 1998-1999 national survey. David De Vaus, "Australian Families," Handbook of World Families, Bert N. Adams and Jan Trost (eds). Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 67-98 (2005), p. 84 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761927638/qid=1123855404/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
46. According to 1998-1999 national survey. David De Vaus, "Australian Families," Handbook of World Families, Bert N. Adams and Jan Trost (eds). Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 67-98 (2005), p. 84 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761927638/qid=1123855404/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
47. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 16. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
48. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 16. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
49. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 27, "Table 11. Percentage of People Without Health Insurance Coverage by State Using 2- and 3-Year Averages: 2002 to 2004." Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
50. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 27, "Table 11. Percentage of People Without Health Insurance Coverage by State Using 2- and 3-Year Averages: 2002 to 2004." Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
51. During the 1996–1999 period. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
52. Among those who use paid care. Diana M. Pearce, How Work Supports Impact Family Budgets: An Analysis of the Interaction of Public Policies and Wages, Center for Women’s Welfare, School of Social Work, University of Washington, Wider Opportunities for Women (July 2004). p. 3 (citations omitted). Archived at: http://www.wowonline.org/docs/dynamic-CTTA-45.pdf
53. Among those who use paid care. Diana M. Pearce, How Work Supports Impact Family Budgets: An Analysis of the Interaction of Public Policies and Wages, Center for Women’s Welfare, School of Social Work, University of Washington, Wider Opportunities for Women (July 2004). p. 3 (citations omitted). Archived at: http://www.wowonline.org/docs/dynamic-CTTA-45.pdf
54. Among those who use paid care. Diana M. Pearce, How Work Supports Impact Family Budgets: An Analysis of the Interaction of Public Policies and Wages, Center for Women’s Welfare, School of Social Work, University of Washington, Wider Opportunities for Women (July 2004). p. 3 (citations omitted). Archived at: http://www.wowonline.org/docs/dynamic-CTTA-45.pdf
* The information predates Hurricane Katrina, which will no doubt have a serious effect on housing needs in the Gulf states for years to come.
1. ________, The State of the Nation’s Housing, 2004, Report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (2004), p. 23. Accessed at: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2004.pdf on August 15, 2005.
2. ________, The State of the Nation’s Housing, 2004, Report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (2004), p. 4. Accessed at: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2004.pdf on August 15, 2005.
3. ________, The State of the Nation’s Housing, 2004, Report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (2004), p. 25. Accessed at: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2004.pdf on August 15, 2005.
4. As of 2001. ________, The State of the Nation’s Housing, 2004, Report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (2004), p. 23. Accessed at: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2004.pdf on August 15, 2005.
5. ________, Fact sheet, Habitat for Humanity Website, citing The 1993 U.S. Census Housing Survey. Accessed at: http://www.habitat.org/how/stats.aspx?print=true#P20_2837 on September 5, 2005.
6. ________, The State of the Nation’s Housing, 2004, Report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (2004). p. 4, 25. Accessed at: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2004.pdf on August 15, 2005.
7. Pearce, Diana M., How Work Supports Impact Family Budgets: An Analysis of the Interaction of Public Policies and Wages, Center for Women’s Welfare, School of Social Work, University of Washington, Wider Opportunities for Women (July 2004), p. 18 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.wowonline.org/docs/dynamic-CTTA-45.pdf
8. Jeanne Woodward and Bonnie Damon, Housing Characteristics: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-01-13. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2001), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-13.pdf
9. Jeanne Woodward and Bonnie Damon, Housing Characteristics: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-01-13. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2001), p. 3. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-13.pdf
10. Jeanne Woodward and Bonnie Damon, Housing Characteristics: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-01-13. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2001), pp. 5-7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-13.pdf
11. Jeanne Woodward and Bonnie Damon, Housing Characteristics: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-01-13. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2001), p. 3. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-13.pdf
12. Jeanne Woodward and Bonnie Damon, Housing Characteristics: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-01-13. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2001), p. 3. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-13.pdf
13. Jeanne Woodward and Bonnie Damon, Housing Characteristics: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-01-13. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2001), p. 3. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-13.pdf
14. Jeanne Woodward and Bonnie Damon, Housing Characteristics: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-01-13. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2001), p. 3. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-13.pdf
15. Jeanne Woodward and Bonnie Damon, Housing Characteristics: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-01-13. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2001), pp. 5-7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-13.pdf
16. Jeanne Woodward and Bonnie Damon, Housing Characteristics: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-01-13. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2001), pp. 5-7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-13.pdf
17. Jeanne Woodward and Bonnie Damon, Housing Characteristics: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-01-13. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2001), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-13.pdf
18. Jeanne Woodward and Bonnie Damon, Housing Characteristics: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-01-13. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2001), pp. 5-7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-13.pdf
19. Roberto R. Ramirez, We the People: Hispanics in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-18. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 17. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf
20. ________, The State of the Nation’s Housing, 2004, Report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (2004), p. 11. Accessed at: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2004.pdf on August 15, 2005.
21. ________, The State of the Nation's Housing, 2004, Report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (2004), p. 23. Accessed at http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2004.pdf on August 15, 2005.
22. Jeanne Woodward and Bonnie Damon, Housing Characteristics: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-01-13. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2001), pp. 5-7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-13.pdf
23. Yvonne J. Gist and Lisa I. Hetzel, We the People: Aging in the United States, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-19. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-19.pdf
24. Robert Bonnette, Housing Costs of Homeowners: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-27. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), pp. 4-5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-27.pdf
25. ________, The State of the Nation’s Housing, 2004, Report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (2004), p. 4. Accessed at: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2004.pdf on August 15, 2005.
26. ________, The State of the Nation’s Housing, 2004, Report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (2004), p. 4. Accessed at: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2004.pdf on August 15, 2005.
27. Robert Bonnette, Housing Costs of Homeowners: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-27. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-27.pdf
28. Based on the second quarter of 2005. _______, "Buffalo, N.Y. Rated Most Affordable Major U.S. Housing Market: Ohio Dominates Top-10 List of Most Affordable Metros," National Assoc. of Home Builders/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index (August 25, 2005). Accessed at http://www.nahb.org/news_details.aspx?sectionID=135&newsID=1567 on September 1, 2005.
29. Based on the second quarter of 2005. _______, "Buffalo, N.Y. Rated Most Affordable Major U.S. Housing Market: Ohio Dominates Top-10 List of Most Affordable Metros," National Assoc. of Home Builders/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index (August 25, 2005). Accessed at http://www.nahb.org/news_details.aspx?sectionID=135&newsID=1567 on September 1, 2005.
30. Based on the second quarter of 2005. _______, "Buffalo, N.Y. Rated Most Affordable Major U.S. Housing Market: Ohio Dominates Top-10 List of Most Affordable Metros," National Assoc. of Home Builders/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index (August 25, 2005). Accessed at http://www.nahb.org/news_details.aspx?sectionID=135&newsID=1567 on September 1, 2005.
31. Based on the second quarter of 2005. _______, "Buffalo, N.Y. Rated Most Affordable Major U.S. Housing Market: Ohio Dominates Top-10 List of Most Affordable Metros," National Assoc. of Home Builders/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index (August 25, 2005). Accessed at http://www.nahb.org/news_details.aspx?sectionID=135&newsID=1567 on September 1, 2005.
32. Robert Bonnette, Housing Costs of Homeowners: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-27. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 3. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-27.pdf
33. ________, "California's Housing Affordability Index at 19 percent in December; down four points from year ago," Press Release, Calif. Assoc. of Realtors (Release date: February 10, 2005).
34. ________, "C.A.R. survey reveals California households fall $70,480 short in income needed to purchase home," Press Release, Calif. Assoc. of Realtors (Release date: August 2, 2005) Accessed at: http://www.car.org/index.php?id=MzUyNzE=# on September 1, 2005.
35. ________, "C.A.R. survey reveals California households fall $70,480 short in income needed to purchase home," Press Release, Calif. Assoc. of Realtors (Release date: August 2, 2005). Accessed at: http://www.car.org/index.php?id=MzUyNzE=# on September 1, 2005.
36. ________, "C.A.R. survey reveals California households fall $70,480 short in income needed to purchase home," Press Release, Calif. Assoc. of Realtors (Release date: August 2, 2005). Accessed at: http://www.car.org/index.php?id=MzUyNzE=# on September 1, 2005.
37. ________, Report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach 2004. Available at: http://www.nlihc.org/oor2004/
38. ________, Report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach 2004. Available at: http://www.nlihc.org/oor2004/
39. ________, Report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach 2004 http://www.nlihc.org/oor2004/
40. ________, Report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach 2004. Available at: http://www.nlihc.org/oor2004/
41. Carla Power, "Staying Home With Mamma," Newsweek International (August 14, 2000). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:64076546
42. ________, Report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach 2004. Available at: http://www.nlihc.org/oor2004/
43. Erin Riches, Locked Out 2004: California’s Affordable Housing Crisis, Report by the California Budget Project (January 2004), p. 27. Archived at: http://www.cbp.org/2004/lockedout2004.pdf
44. Erin Riches, Locked Out 2004: California’s Affordable Housing Crisis, Report by the California Budget Project (January 2004), p. 27. Archived at: http://www.cbp.org/2004/lockedout2004.pdf
45. Erin Riches, Locked Out 2004: California’s Affordable Housing Crisis, Report by the California Budget Project (January 2004), p. 27. Archived at: http://www.cbp.org/2004/lockedout2004.pdf
46. Erin Riches, Locked Out 2004: California’s Affordable Housing Crisis, Report by the California Budget Project (January 2004), p. 27. Archived at: http://www.cbp.org/2004/lockedout2004.pdf
47. ______, “Communities: Housing: How Much For How Much?” The Survey, p. 673, (Mar. 15, 1926)
48. Kathryn Close, "Young Families in 1950," The Survey p. 17, et seq. (January 1950) p. 676.
49. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 35 (citations omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
50. Kathryn Close, "Young Families in 1950," The Survey p. 17, et seq. (January 1950) p. 676.
51. Terrance J. Reeves and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Asians in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-17. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 18. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-17.pdf
52. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
Ivo Mozny and Tomas Katrnak, "The Czech Family," Handbook of World Families, Bert N. Adams and Jan Trost (eds). Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 235-261 (2005), pp. 241. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761927638/qid=1123855404/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
________, Buffalo, N.Y. Rated Most Affordable Major U.S. Housing Market, Press Release, National Association of Home Builders (August 20, 2005). Accessed at: http://www.nahb.org/news_details.aspx?sectionID=148&newsID=1567 on October 16, 2005.
________, Buffalo, N.Y. Rated Most Affordable Major U.S. Housing Market, Press Release, National Association of Home Builders (August 20, 2005). Accessed at: http://www.nahb.org/news_details.aspx?sectionID=148&newsID=1567 on October 16, 2005.
________, Buffalo, N.Y. Rated Most Affordable Major U.S. Housing Market, Press Release, National Association of Home Builders (August 20, 2005). Accessed at: http://www.nahb.org/news_details.aspx?sectionID=148&newsID=1567 on October 16, 2005.
________, Buffalo, N.Y. Rated Most Affordable Major U.S. Housing Market, Press Release, National Association of Home Builders (August 20, 2005). Accessed at: http://www.nahb.org/news_details.aspx?sectionID=148&newsID=1567 on October 16, 2005.
1. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
2. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
3. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 11, p. 58, Table B-3, "Poverty Status of Families by Type of Family: 1959 to 2004." Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
4. ________, "Many Working Families with Children Rely on Food Pantries," Urban Institute (April 28, 2004). Archived at: http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=900704
5. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 45. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
6. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 45. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
7. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 14. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
8. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 13. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
9. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 14. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
10. ________, “Defining Poverty and Why It Matters For Children,” Children’s Defense Fund (August 2004), p. 2. Available at: http://www.childrensdefense.org/familyincome/childpoverty/definingpoverty.pdf
11. _______, Coming Up Short: A Comparison of Wages and Work Supports in 10 American Communities, Report by Wider Opportunities for Women, Washington, DC (Summer / Fall 2004), p. 4. Archived at: http://wowonline.org/docs/dynamic-CTTA-43.pdf
12. _______, Coming Up Short: A Comparison of Wages and Work Supports in 10 American Communities, Report by Wider Opportunities for Women, Washington, DC (Summer / Fall 2004), p. 4. Archived at: http://wowonline.org/docs/dynamic-CTTA-43.pdf
13. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 58, Table B-3, "Poverty Status of Families by Type of Family: 1959 to 2004." Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
14. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 58, Table B-3, "Poverty Status of Families by Type of Family: 1959 to 2004." Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
15. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 58, Table B-3, "Poverty Status of Families by Type of Family: 1959 to 2004." Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
16. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 11. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
17. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 11. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
18. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 11. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
19. ________, Executive Summary of California Budget Project Report, Working Hard, Falling Short: Investing in California’s Working Families (January 2005), p. 3. Available at: http://www.cbp.org/2005/0412wpfExecSumm.pdf
20. ________, Executive Summary of California Budget Project Report, Working Hard, Falling Short: Investing in California’s Working Families (January 2005), p. 3. Available at: http://www.cbp.org/2005/0412wpfExecSumm.pdf
21. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
22. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
23. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
24. Note that the U.S. Census bureau considers "Hispanic" to be an ethnicity, not a race, so Hispanic may include those who are White, Black, or another race. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
25. Note that the U.S. Census bureau considers "Hispanic" to be an ethnicity, not a race, so Hispanic may include those who are White, Black, or another race. Source of data for chart: Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
26. Note that the U.S. Census bureau considers Hispanic to be an ethnicity, not a race, so Hispanic may include those who are White, Black, or another race. Source of data for chart: Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
37. Terrance J. Reeves and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Asians in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-17. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 17. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-17.pdf
38. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 11. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
39. Philip M. Harris and Nicholas A. Jones, "We the People: Pacific Islanders in the United States," Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-26. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov./prod/2005pubs/censr-26.pdf
40. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 11. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
41. Roberto R. Ramirez, We the People: Hispanics in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-18. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 16. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf
42. Roberto R. Ramirez, We the People: Hispanics in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-18. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 16. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf
43. Roberto R. Ramirez, We the People: Hispanics in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-18. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 17. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf
44. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 11. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
1. _________, "Official Naperville Visitor Website," Naperville Visitor and Convention Center bureau. Accessed at: http://www.visitnaperville.com/index.htm
2. _______, "Naperville: Quick Facts," U.S. Census. Accessed at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1751622.html on October 6, 2005.
3. _________, "Official Naperville Visitor Website," Naperville Visitor and Convention Center bureau. Accessed at: http://www.visitnaperville.com/index.htm
4. ________, "Oh, To Be A Kid in Naperville: Census Bureau Reports on Children And Their Homes," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (March 16, 2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/census_2000/001713.html
5. ________, "Oh, To Be A Kid in Naperville: Census Bureau Reports on Children And Their Homes," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (March 16, 2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/census_2000/001713.html
6. ________, "Oh, To Be A Kid in Naperville: Census Bureau Reports on Children And Their Homes," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (March 16, 2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/census_2000/001713.html
7. ________, "Oh, To Be A Kid in Naperville: Census Bureau Reports on Children And Their Homes," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (March 16, 2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/census_2000/001713.html
8. "Oh, To Be A Kid in Naperville: Census Bureau Reports on Children And Their Homes," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (March 16, 2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/census_2000/001713.html and Tavia Simmons and Martin O’Connell, Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-5 U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (February 2003). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf
9. ________, "Oh, To Be A Kid in Naperville: Census Bureau Reports on Children And Their Homes," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (March 16, 2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/census_2000/001713.html
10. ________, "Oh, To Be A Kid in Naperville: Census Bureau Reports on Children And Their Homes," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (March 16, 2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/census_2000/001713.html See also Fields, Jason, Children and their Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March 2002, Current Population Reports P20-547, US Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-547.pdf
11. ________, "Oh, To Be A Kid in Naperville: Census Bureau Reports on Children And Their Homes," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (March 16, 2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/census_2000/001713.html See also Fields, Jason, Children and their Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March 2002, Current Population Reports P20-547, US Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-547.pdf
12. _________, "Official Naperville Visitor Website," Naperville Visitor and Convention Center bureau. Accessed at: http://www.visitnaperville.com/index.htm on October 5, 2005.
13. _________, "Official Naperville Visitor Website," Naperville Visitor and Convention Center bureau. Accessed at: http://www.visitnaperville.com/index.htm on October 5, 2005.
14. _________, "Official Naperville Visitor Website," Naperville Visitor and Convention Center bureau. Accessed at: http://www.visitnaperville.com/index.htm on October 6, 2005.
15. _________, "District 203 Facts," Naperville School District webpage. Accessed at http://www.ncusd203.org/!general/facts.shtml on October 6, 2005. _________, "Official Naperville Visitor Website," Naperville Visitor and Convention Center bureau. Accessed at: http://www.visitnaperville.com/index.htm on October 6, 2005.
16. _________, "Official Naperville Visitor Website," Naperville Visitor and Convention Center bureau. Accessed at: http://www.visitnaperville.com/index.htm on October 6, 2005.
17. _________, "Official Naperville Visitor Website," Naperville Visitor and Convention Center bureau. Accessed at: http://www.visitnaperville.com/index.htm on October 6, 2005.
18. _______, "Naperville: Quick Facts," U.S. Census. Accessed at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1751622.html on October 6, 2005. _______, "USA: Quick Facts," U.S. Census. Accessed at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html on October 6, 2005.
19. _______, "Naperville: Quick Facts," U.S. Census. Accessed at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1751622.html on October 6, 2005. _______, "USA: Quick Facts," U.S. Census. Accessed at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html on October 6, 2005.
20. _______, "Naperville: Quick Facts," U.S. Census. Accessed at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1751622.html on October 6, 2005. _______, "USA: Quick Facts," U.S. Census. Accessed at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html on October 6, 2005.
21. _______, "Naperville: Quick Facts," U.S. Census. Accessed at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1751622.html on October 6, 2005. _______, "USA: Quick Facts," U.S. Census. Accessed at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html on October 6, 2005.
1. As President Clinton explained, "You know, when I ran for President, I did so out of a sense of obligation to the next generation. I often said in 1992 I did not want my daughter to grow up in a country in which she was part of the first generation of Americans to do worse than her parents and in which her beloved land was coming apart when it ought to be coming together." William Jefferson Clinton, "Remarks By the President At The Congressional Black Caucus Dinner," The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Washington DC (September 17, 1994). Archived at: http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/091794-speech-by-president-congressional-black-caucus-dinner.htm
2. Phil Gramm, "Rethinking the American Dream," Speech to the Daughters of the American Revolution, on Townhall.com Issue Spotlight (April 20, 1994). Accessed at http://www.townhall.com/spotlights/archive/8-28-95/gramspee.html on August 15, 2005.
3. M. Sheils, "Economic Dream in Peril," Newsweek, Vol. 96, pp. 50-2 (September 8, 1980).
4. Louis Uchitelle, "Three Decades of Dwindling Hope for Prosperity," The New York Times, p. E1 (May 9. 1993). Archived at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=116053345&sid=9&Fmt=2&clientId=63432&RQT=309&VName=HNP
5. _________, A National Public Opinion Survey Conducted for the Council for Excellence in Government, Research Firms of Peter D. Hart and Robert M. Teeter (March 1995). Accessed at: http://www.excelgov.org/usermedia/images/uploads/PDFs/1995full_report.pdf on September 15, 2005.
6. _________, "Despite the Shaky Economy, 81 Percent of College Students Think They Will Be Better Off Than Their Parents," Press Release, Ernst & Young (September 9, 2002).
10. 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. 7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.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. 7. 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. 7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf
13. New York Public Library and Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, "The Great Migration," "The Diaspora," The New York Public Library African American Desk Reference, . New York, New York, J. Wiley & Sons (1999) p. 101. Available at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471239240/104-4683855-3160754?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance
14. New York Public Library and Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, "The Great Migration," "The Diaspora," The New York Public Library African American Desk Reference, . New York, New York, J. Wiley & Sons (1999) p. 101. Available at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471239240/104-4683855-3160754?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance
15. Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision and World Urbanization Prospects: The 2003 Revision. Accessed at: http://esa.un.org/unpp on November 9, 2005.
16. Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision and World Urbanization Prospects: The 2003 Revision. Accessed at: http://esa.un.org/unpp on November 9, 2005.
17. Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision and World Urbanization Prospects: The 2003 Revision. Accessed at: http://esa.un.org/unpp on November 9, 2005.
20. Source of Data: Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision and World Urbanization Prospects: The 2003 Revision. Accessed at: http://esa.un.org/unpp on November 9, 2005.
21. Indralal De Silva, Table 17, "Percentage of Population Residing in Urban Areas by South Asian Countries." "Demographic and Social Trends Affecting Families in the South and Central Asian Region," 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 (May 2003). Tables archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtscatables.pdf
22. 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. 22 (citations omitted). Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
23. Indralal De Silva, "Demographic and Social Trends Affecting Families in the South and Central Asian Region," 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 (May 2003), p. 12. Report archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtdesilva.pdf Tables archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtscatables.pdf
42. Godfrey St. Bernard, "Table 9: Percentage of Population Living In Urban Areas – Central America and the Caribbean," Major Trends Affecting Families in Central America and the Caribbean," 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 (May 23, 2003)(citation omitted). Tables archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtstbtables.pdf
43. Godfrey St. Bernard, "Table 9: Percentage of Population Living In Urban Areas – Central America and the Caribbean," Major Trends Affecting Families in Central America and the Caribbean," 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 (May 23, 2003)(citation omitted). Tables archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtstbtables.pdf
1. Johannes Pflegerl, "Family and Migration. Research Developments in Europe: A General Overview," Working Paper (February 1, 2002), pp. 11-12 (citations omitted). Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/wp21_migration.pdf
2. Johannes Pflegerl, "Family and Migration. Research Developments in Europe: A General Overview," Working Paper (February 1, 2002), pp. 11-12 (citations omitted). Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/wp21_migration.pdf
3. Johannes Pflegerl, "Family and Migration. Research Developments in Europe: A General Overview," Working Paper (February 1, 2002), pp. 11-12 (citations omitted). Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/wp21_migration.pdf
4. Johannes Pflegerl, "Family and Migration. Research Developments in Europe: A General Overview," Working Paper (February 1, 2002), p. 26 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/wp21_migration.pdf
5. Johannes Pflegerl, "Family and Migration. Research Developments in Europe: A General Overview," Working Paper (February 1, 2002), p. 26 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/wp21_migration.pdf
6. Indralal De Silva, "Demographic and Social Trends Affecting Families in the South and Central Asian Region," 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 (May 2003), p. 44. Report archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtdesilva.pdf Tables archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtscatables.pdf
7. 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. 9 (Arabic language citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtbadran.pdf See also Nazek Nosseir, "Family in the New Millennium: Major Trends Affecting Families in North Africa," 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. 13. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtnosseir.pdf
8. Betty Bigombe and Gilbert M. Khadiagala, "Major Trends Affecting Families in Sub-Saharan Africa," 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. 12. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtbigombe.pdf
9. Indralal De Silva, "Demographic and Social Trends Affecting Families in the South and Central Asian Region," 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 (May 2003), pp. 10-11. Report archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtdesilva.pdf Tables archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtscatables.pdf
10. Gabriel Kiely, The Situation of Families in Ireland, 1996-2001, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), pp. 3-4 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_01_ireland_kiely_en.pdf
11. Christos Bagavos, The Situation of Families in Greece, 2001, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), p. 4 (citations omitted). Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_01_greece_bagavos.pdf
12. ________, "Key Facts on Conflict," Press Kit for State of the World's Children, 2005, UNICEF. Accessed at http://www.unicef.org/sowc05/english/press_facts2.html on September 18, 2005.
13. Sheila B. Kamerman, Michelle Neuman, Jane Waldfogel, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Social Policies, Family Types, and Child Outcomes in Selected OECD Countries, OECD Social, Employment, and Migration Working Papers, No.6 (May 20, 2003), p. 32 (citations omitted). Archived at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/46/2955844.pdf
14. Johannes Pflegerl, Synthesis, Immigration and Family Annual Seminar 2002, Austrian Institute for Family Studies, European Observatory on the Social Situation, Demography and Family Helsinki, Finland, p. 50 et seq. (2002), p. 52. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/helsinki_synthesis02_en_de.pdf
15. Gabriel Kiely, The Situation of Families in Ireland, 1996-2001, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), pp. 3-4 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_01_ireland_kiely_en.pdf
16. ________, "Facts for Features: National Adoption Month," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (September 20, 2004). Accessed at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/002683.html on August 15, 2005.
17. ________, "Facts for Features: National Adoption Month," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (September 20, 2004). Accessed at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/002683.html on August 15, 2005.
18. ________, "Facts for Features: National Adoption Month," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (September 20, 2004). Accessed at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/002683.html on August 15, 2005.
19. Jeffrey S. Passel, Randy Capps, and Michael Fix, Undocumented Immgrants: Facts and Figures, Urban Institute Immigration Studies Program, Urban Institute, Washington DC (January 12, 2004), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1000587_undoc_immigrants_facts.pdf
20. Dimiter Philipov, "Major Trends Affecting Families in Central and Eastern Europe," 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. 14 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtphilipov.pdf
21. According to a 1999 study. Dimiter Philipov, "Major Trends Affecting Families in Central and Eastern Europe," 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. 13 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtphilipov.pdf
22. Nazek Nosseir, "Family in the New Millennium: Major Trends Affecting Families in North Africa," 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. 9. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtnosseir.pdf
23. Johannes Pflegerl, Synthesis, Immigration and Family Annual Seminar 2002, Austrian Institute for Family Studies, European Observatory on the Social Situation, Demography and Family Helsinki, Finland, p. 50 et seq. (2002), p. 51. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/helsinki_synthesis02_en_de.pdf
24. Indralal De Silva, "Demographic and Social Trends Affecting Families in the South and Central Asian Region," 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 (May 2003), p.10. Report archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtdesilva.pdf Tables archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtscatables.pdf
25. Kwang-Kyu Lee, "South Korean Families," Handbook of World Families, Bert N. Adams and Jan Trost (eds). Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 167-176 (2005), p. 169. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761927638/qid=1123855404/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
26. 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. 10. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtbadran.pdf
27. Indralal De Silva, "Demographic and Social Trends Affecting Families in the South and Central Asian Region," 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 (May 2003), p. 9. Report archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtdesilva.pdf Tables archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtscatables.pdf
28. Indralal De Silva, "Demographic and Social Trends Affecting Families in the South and Central Asian Region," 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 (May 2003), p. 9. Report archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtdesilva.pdf Tables archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtscatables.pdf
29. Johannes Pflegerl, "Family and Migration. Research Developments in Europe: A General Overview," Working Paper (February 1, 2002), p. 4. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/wp21_migration.pdf
30. _________, World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision, Highlights, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, United Nations (February 24, 2005), p. xi. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2004/2004Highlights_finalrevised.pdf
31. Compare Luke J. Larsen, Foreign Born Population in the United States: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-551. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 1 Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-551.pdf, Marc J. Perry and Jason P. Schachter, Migration of Natives and the Foreign Born, Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-11. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 1. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-11.pdf and A. Dianne Schmidley and Campbell Gibson, Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 1997, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series P23-195, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (1999) pp. 8-9. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/p23-195.pdf
32. Luke J. Larsen, Foreign Born Population in the United States: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-551. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), pp. 1-2 (citations omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-551.pdf
33. Marc J. Perry and Jason P. Schachter, Migration of Natives and the Foreign Born, Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-11. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), pp. 2-4. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-11.pdf and Johannes Pflegerl, "Family and Migration. Research Developments in Europe: A General Overview," Working Paper (February 1, 2002), pp. 6-7. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/wp21_migration.pdf
34. ________, The State of the Nation’s Housing, 2004, Report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (2004), p. 11. Accessed at: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2004.pdf on August 15, 2005.
35. Marc J. Perry and Jason P. Schachter, Migration of Natives and the Foreign Born, Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-11. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 3. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-11.pdf
36. As of 2000. Marc J. Perry and Jason P. Schachter, Migration of Natives and the Foreign Born, Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-11. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-11.pdf
37. Terry Lugaila and Julia Overturf, Children and the Households They Live In: 2000, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-14. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 14. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-14.pdf
38. Jeffrey S. Passel, Randy Capps, and Michael Fix, Undocumented Immgrants: Facts and Figures, Urban Institute Immigration Studies Program, Urban Institute, Washington DC (January 12, 2004), p. 1. Archived at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1000587_undoc_immigrants_facts.pdf
39. Randolph Capps and Michael E. Fix, Undocumented Immigrants: Myths and Reality, Urban Institute, Washington, DC (November 1, 2005). Archived at: http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=900898
40. Jeffrey S. Passel, Randy Capps, and Michael Fix, Undocumented Immgrants: Facts and Figures, Urban Institute Immigration Studies Program, Urban Institute, Washington DC (January 12, 2004), p. 1. Archived at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1000587_undoc_immigrants_facts.pdf
41. Marc J. Perry and Jason P. Schachter, Migration of Natives and the Foreign Born, Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-11. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 4. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-11.pdf
42. Roberto R. Ramirez, We the People: Hispanics in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-18. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf
43. Roberto R. Ramirez, We the People: Hispanics in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-18. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf
44. Terrance J. Reeves and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Asians in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-17. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 10. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-17.pdf
45. Terrance J. Reeves and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Asians in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-17. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-17.pdf
46. Terrance J. Reeves and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Asians in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-17. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-17.pdf
47. Philip M. Harris and Nicholas A. Jones, "We the People: Pacific Islanders in the United States," Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-26. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 10. Archived at: http://www.census.gov./prod/2005pubs/censr-26.pdf
89. James N. Gregory, "Southernizing the American Working Class: Post-War Episodes of Regional and Class Tranformation," Labor History (May 1998). Available at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0348/is_n2_v39/ai_20951172
90. New York Public Library and Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, "The Great Migration," "The Diaspora," The New York Public Library African American Desk Reference, . New York, New York, J. Wiley & Sons (1999) p. 101. Available at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471239240/104-4683855-3160754?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance and Carlo Rotello, "Migration, Industrialization, and the City," African Americans in the Modern Era, The African American Years: Chronologies of American History and Experience, Gabriel Burns Stepto, ed. Scribner, New York, New York (2003), p. 316. Available at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684312573/104-4683855-3160754?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance and Robert L. Boyd, "Demographic Change and Entrepreneurial Occupation: African Americans in Northern Cities, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology (April 1996). Available at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_n2_v55/ai_18262049
91. New York Public Library and Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, "The Great Migration," "The Diaspora," The New York Public Library African American Desk Reference, . New York, New York, J. Wiley & Sons (1999) p. 101. Available at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471239240/104-4683855-3160754?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance and Carlo Rotello, "Migration, Industrialization, and the City," African Americans in the Modern Era, The African American Years: Chronologies of American History and Experience, Gabriel Burns Stepto, ed. Scribner, New York, New York (2003), p. 316. Available at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684312573/104-4683855-3160754?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance and Robert L. Boyd, "Demographic Change and Entrepreneurial Occupation: African Americans in Northern Cities, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology (April 1996). Available at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_n2_v55/ai_18262049
92. _______. "Migration," The African-American Mosaic: A Library of Congress Resource Guide for the Study of Black History & Culture, Debra Newman Ham, ed. Library of Congress Exhibition (July 2005). Accessed at: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/african/afam008.html on October 11, 2005, and New York Public Library and Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, "The Great Migration," "The Diaspora," The New York Public Library African American Desk Reference, . New York, New York, J. Wiley & Sons (1999) p. 101. Available at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471239240/104-4683855-3160754?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance
93. New York Public Library and Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, "The Great Migration," "The Diaspora," The New York Public Library African American Desk Reference, . New York, New York, J. Wiley & Sons (1999) p. 101. Available at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471239240/104-4683855-3160754?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance
94. New York Public Library and Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, "The Great Migration," "The Diaspora," The New York Public Library African American Desk Reference, . New York, New York, J. Wiley & Sons (1999) p. 101. Available at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471239240/104-4683855-3160754?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance
95. Anne Meis Knupfer, Toward A Tenderer Humanity and Nobler Womanhood: African American Women's Women's Clubs in Turn-of-the-Century Chicago, New York University Press, New York, New York (1996).
96. Michael Flug, "Introduction," Chicago Renaissance: 1932-1950, A Flowering of Afro-American Culture, Chicago Public Library Digital Collections (April 2000). Accessed at: http://www.chipublib.org/digital/chiren/introduction.html on October 11, 2005. Anne Meis Knupfer, Toward A Tenderer Humanity and Nobler Womanhood: African American Women's Women's Clubs in Turn-of-the-Century Chicago, New York University Press, New York, New York (1996), p. 40.
97. Carlo Rotello, "Migration, Industrialization, and the City," African Americans in the Modern Era, The African American Years: Chronologies of American History and Experience, Gabriel Burns Stepto, ed. Scribner, New York, New York (2003), p. 316. Available at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684312573/104-4683855-3160754?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance
98. Anne Meis Knupfer, Toward A Tenderer Humanity and Nobler Womanhood: African American Women's Women's Clubs in Turn-of-the-Century Chicago, New York University Press, New York, New York (1996), p. 30, 40.
99. Michael Flug, "Introduction," Chicago Renaissance: 1932-1950, A Flowering of Afro-American Culture, Chicago Public Library Digital Collections (April 2000). Accessed at: http://www.chipublib.org/digital/chiren/introduction.html on October 11, 2005.
100. John Lowney, "'A Material Collapse that is Construction,' History and Counter-Memory in Gwendolyn Brooks's In the Mecca," Melus (Fall 1998) note 3 (citation omitted). Available at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2278/is_3_23/ai_54925291
101. John Lowney, "'A Material Collapse that is Construction,' History and Counter-Memory in Gwendolyn Brooks's In the Mecca," Melus (Fall 1998) note 3 (citation omitted). Available at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2278/is_3_23/ai_54925291
102. John J. Grabowski, "Immigration and Migration," Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, John J. Grabowski and David D. Tassel, eds, Case Western University. Accessed at: http://ech.cwru.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=IAM on October 11, 2005.
103. John J. Grabowski, "Immigration and Migration," Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, John J. Grabowski and David D. Tassel, eds, Case Western University. Accessed at: http://ech.cwru.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=IAM on October 11, 2005.
104. John J. Grabowski, "Immigration and Migration," Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, John J. Grabowski and David D. Tassel, eds, Case Western University. Accessed at: http://ech.cwru.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=IAM on October 11, 2005.
105. Emilio A. Parrado, "International Migration and Men's Marriage in Western Mexico," Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 1, p. 51 (Winter 2004), p. 51. Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:113302753
106. Emilio A. Parrado, "International Migration and Men's Marriage in Western Mexico," Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 1, p. 51 (Winter 2004), p. 51. Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:113302753
107. Roberto R. Ramirez, , We the People: Hispanics in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-18. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), pp. 1, 3. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf
108. Godfrey St. Bernard, "Major Trends Affecting Families in Central America and the Caribbean," 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 (May 23, 2003), p. 13. Report archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtstbernard.pdf and Tables archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtstbtables.pdf
109. Emilio A. Parrado, "International Migration and Men's Marriage in Western Mexico," Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 1, p. 51 (Winter 2004), p. 51. Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:113302753
110. Emilio A. Parrado, "International Migration and Men's Marriage in Western Mexico," Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 1, p. 51 (Winter 2004), p. 51. Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:113302753
111. Emilio A. Parrado, "International Migration and Men's Marriage in Western Mexico," Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 1, p. 51 (Winter 2004), p. 51. Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:113302753
112. Roberto R. Ramirez, We the People: Hispanics in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-18. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf
113. Roberto R. Ramirez, We the People: Hispanics in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-18. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf
114. Amount in U.S. Dollars. Godfrey St. Bernard, "Major Trends Affecting Families in Central America and the Caribbean," 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 (May 23, 2003), p. 13. Report archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtstbernard.pdf and Tables archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtstbtables.pdf
115. According to a study. Emilio A. Parrado, "International Migration and Men's Marriage in Western Mexico," Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 1, p. 51 (Winter 2004), p. 64. Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:113302753
116. Amount in U.S. Dollars, according to a study. Emilio A. Parrado, "International Migration and Men's Marriage in Western Mexico," Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 1, p. 51 (Winter 2004), p. 64. Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:113302753
117. Emilio A. Parrado, "International Migration and Men's Marriage in Western Mexico," Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 1, p. 51 (Winter 2004), p. 51. Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:113302753
118. Amount in U.S. Dollars, according to a study. Emilio A. Parrado, "International Migration and Men's Marriage in Western Mexico," Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 1, p. 51 (Winter 2004), p. 64. Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:113302753
119. Emilio A. Parrado, "International Migration and Men's Marriage in Western Mexico," Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 1, p. 51 (Winter 2004), p. 65. Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:113302753
120. Emilio A. Parrado, "International Migration and Men's Marriage in Western Mexico," Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 1, p. 51 (Winter 2004), p. 52. Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:113302753
121. Emilio A. Parrado, "International Migration and Men's Marriage in Western Mexico," Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 1, p. 51 (Winter 2004), p. 62. Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:113302753
122. Emilio A. Parrado, "International Migration and Men's Marriage in Western Mexico," Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 1, p. 51 (Winter 2004), pp. 66-67. Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:113302753
123. Emilio A. Parrado, "International Migration and Men's Marriage in Western Mexico," Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 1, p. 51 (Winter 2004), p. 63. Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:113302753
124. Jeffrey S. Passel, Randy Capps, and Michael Fix, Undocumented Immgrants: Facts and Figures, Urban Institute Immigration Studies Program, Urban Institute, Washington DC (January 12, 2004). Archived at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1000587_undoc_immigrants_facts.pdf
143. 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. 21 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtcliquet.pdf and Johannes Pflegerl, "Family and Migration. Research Developments in Europe: A General Overview," Working Paper (February 1, 2002), p. 24 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/wp21_migration.pdf
144. 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. 20. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtcliquet.pdf
147. 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. 21 (citations omitted). Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtcliquet.pdf See also Johannes Pflegerl, "Family and Migration. Research Developments in Europe: A General Overview," Working Paper (February 1, 2002), p. 24 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/wp21_migration.pdf
148. Luke J. Larsen, Foreign Born Population in the United States: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-551. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 4 (citations omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-551.pdf
150. 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. 17. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf and Johannes Pflegerl, Synthesis, Immigration and Family Annual Seminar 2002, Austrian Institute for Family Studies, European Observatory on the Social Situation, Demography and Family Helsinki, Finland, p. 50 et seq. (2002), p. 50. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/helsinki_synthesis02_en_de.pdf
155. See 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. 19 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf; 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. 10. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtbadran.pdf; relating to language acquisition of emigrants in the U.S. and their educational attainment, see Roberto R. Ramirez, We the People: Hispanics in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-18. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf and A. Dianne Schmidley and Campbell Gibson, Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 1997, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series P23-195, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (1999). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/p23-195.pdf and personal observations of Ashley Merryman.
156. Terry Lugaila and Julia Overturf, Children and the Households They Live In: 2000, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-14. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), pp. 14-16. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-14.pdf
157. Terry Lugaila and Julia Overturf, Children and the Households They Live In: 2000, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-14. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), pp. 14-16. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-14.pdf
161. As of 2002. Luke J. Larsen, Foreign Born Population in the United States: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-551. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-551.pdf
162. Terry Lugaila and Julia Overturf, Children and the Households They Live In: 2000, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-14. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), pp. 14-16. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-14.pdf
164. 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) pp. 17-18. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
166. Amount in U.S. Dollars, according to a study. 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. 18 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
2. William Sharpe and Leonard Wallock, "Bold New City or Built-Up 'Burb? Redefining Contemporary Suburbia," American Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 1., pp. 1-30 (March 1994), pp. 1-2, 7. Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0678%28199403%2946%3A1%3C1%3ABNCOB%27%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V and Robert Fishman, "Urbanity and Suburbanity: Rethinking the 'Burbs," Comments: [Bold New City or Built-Up 'Burb? Redefining Contemporary Suburbia], American Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 1. pp. 35-39 (March 1994), pp. 35-37. Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0678%28199403%2946%3A1%3C35%3AUASRT%27%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S
3. 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. 33. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf
4. 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. 33. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf
5. 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. 33. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf
6. 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. 7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf
7. 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. 7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.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. 33. 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. 33. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf
10. 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. 33. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.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. 33. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf
12. ________, "Country's Older Population Profiled by the U.S. Census Bureau," Press Release, Census Bureau (June 1, 2001). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/mobility_of_the_population/000335.html
13. ________, "Housing: Physical Characteristics," American FactFinder, U.S. Census Bureau (last revised: November 15, 2004)(citations omitted). Accessed at: http://factfinder.census.gov/jsp/saff/SAFFInfo.jsp?_pageId=tp13_housing_physical
14. William Sharpe and Leonard Wallock, "Bold New City or Built-Up 'Burb? Redefining Contemporary Suburbia," American Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 1., pp. 1-30 (March 1994), p. 7. Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0678%28199403%2946%3A1%3C1%3ABNCOB%27%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V
15. ________, Poverty In the United States: 1959 to 1968, Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 68, U.S. Census Bureau, Government Printing Office, Washington DC (1969), p. 7. Archived at: http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-68a.pdf
16. William H. Frey and Elaine L. Fielding, "Changing Urban Populations: Regional Restructuring, Racial Polarization, and Poverty Concentration," Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development • Office of Policy Development and Research • Volume 1, No. 2 (June 1995), pp. 16-17. Archived at: http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/cityscpe/vol1num2/ch1.pdf
17. William H. Frey and Elaine L. Fielding, "Changing Urban Populations: Regional Restructuring, Racial Polarization, and Poverty Concentration," Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development • Office of Policy Development and Research • Volume 1, No. 2 (June 1995), pp. 16-17. Archived at: http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/cityscpe/vol1num2/ch1.pdf
18. William H. Frey and Elaine L. Fielding, "Changing Urban Populations: Regional Restructuring, Racial Polarization, and Poverty Concentration," Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development • Office of Policy Development and Research • Volume 1, No. 2 (June 1995), pp. 18-19. Archived at: http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/cityscpe/vol1num2/ch1.pdf
19. William H. Frey and Elaine L. Fielding, "Changing Urban Populations: Regional Restructuring, Racial Polarization, and Poverty Concentration," Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development • Office of Policy Development and Research • Volume 1, No. 2 (June 1995), pp. 18-19. Archived at: http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/cityscpe/vol1num2/ch1.pdf
20. William H. Frey and Elaine L. Fielding, "Changing Urban Populations: Regional Restructuring, Racial Polarization, and Poverty Concentration," Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development • Office of Policy Development and Research • Volume 1, No. 2 (June 1995), p. 17. Archived at: http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/cityscpe/vol1num2/ch1.pdf
21. William H. Frey and Elaine L. Fielding, "Changing Urban Populations: Regional Restructuring, Racial Polarization, and Poverty Concentration," Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development • Office of Policy Development and Research • Volume 1, No. 2 (June 1995), pp. 16-17. Archived at: http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/cityscpe/vol1num2/ch1.pdf
22. Based on a block-by-block analysis. John Goering, "Segregation, Race and Bias: The Role of the US Census," Comments (Undated), p. 9 (citing Quinn report) Archived at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/housing_patterns/pdf/goering.pdf p. 9, and Lois M. Quinn and John Pawasarat, Racial Integration in Urban America: A Block Level Analysis of African American and White Housing Patterns, Employment and Training Institute, School of Continuing Education, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (December 2002, revised January 2003), p. 11. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/housing_patterns/pdf/quinn.pdf
23. Lois M. Quinn and John Pawasarat, Racial Integration in Urban America: A Block Level Analysis of African American and White Housing Patterns, Employment and Training Institute, School of Continuing Education, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (December 2002, revised January 2003), p. 11. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/housing_patterns/pdf/quinn.pdf
24. Lois M. Quinn and John Pawasarat, Racial Integration in Urban America: A Block Level Analysis of African American and White Housing Patterns, Employment and Training Institute, School of Continuing Education, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (December 2002, revised January 2003), p. 11. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/housing_patterns/pdf/quinn.pdf
25. Bernadette D. Proctor and Joseph Dalaker, Poverty in the United States: 2001, Current Population Reports, P60-219. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (September 2002). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p60-219.pdf p. 8
26. Bernadette D. Proctor and Joseph Dalaker, Poverty in the United States: 2001, Current Population Reports, P60-219. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (September 2002). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p60-219.pdf p. 8
1. Matthew R. Durose, Caroline Wolf Harlow, Patrick A. Langan, Mark Motivans, Ramona R. Rantala, and Erica L. Smith, Family Violence Statistics, NCJ 207846 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (6/2005), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvs.pdf
2. Callie Marie Rennison, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993–2001. Publication No. NCJ197838. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. (2003). Archived at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ipv01.pdf
3. Laney, Garrine P., Violence Against Women Act: History and Federal Funding, CRS Report for Congress, Report No. RL30871, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC (3/18/2005), p. 2 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.opencrs.com/rpts/RL30871_20050318.pdf
4. ________, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (2003), p. 3, 19. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/ipv.htm.
5. ________, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (2003), p. 19. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/ipv.htm.
6. ________, Intimate Partner Violence: Fact Sheet, Center for Disease Control's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm citing Heise L, Garcia-Moreno C. Violence by intimate partners. World Report on Violence and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002. See also Bergen, Raquel Kennedy, "Marital Rape," Domestic Violence Applied Research Documents, VAWNet, National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, Harrisburg, PA (3/1999). (citations omitted). Accessed at: http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/VAWnetDocs/AR_mrape.php on 8/15/2005.(citations omitted).
7. ________, Intimate Partner Violence: Fact Sheet, Center for Disease Control's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm citing (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000b). Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (2003), p. 1, 21. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/ipv.htm. and Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, And Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From The National Violence Against Women Survey, Research Report. Report for grant 93-IJ-CX-0012, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Publication No. NCJ 181867, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2000), pp. 9-10. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
8. ________, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (2003), p. 1, 21. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/ipv.htm. and Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, And Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From The National Violence Against Women Survey, Research Report. Report for grant 93-IJ-CX-0012, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Publication No. NCJ 181867, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2000), pp. 9-10. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
9. Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (2003), pp. 13-14. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/ipv.htm. Only one-fifth of these would have been reported to the police, and only 7.5 percent of the rapes would have been criminally prosecuted. Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, And Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From The National Violence Against Women Survey, Research Report. Report for grant 93-IJ-CX-0012, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Publication No. NCJ 181867, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2000), p. 49, 52. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
10. ________, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (2003), p. 1, 21. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/ipv.htm. and Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, And Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From The National Violence Against Women Survey, Research Report. Report for grant 93-IJ-CX-0012, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Publication No. NCJ 181867, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2000), pp. 9-10. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
11. Laney, Garrine P., Violence Against Women Act: History and Federal Funding, CRS Report for Congress, Report No. RL30871, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC (3/18/2005), p. 2 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.opencrs.com/rpts/RL30871_20050318.pdf
12. ________, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (2003), pp. 3, 31. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/ipv.htm.
13. Matthew R. Durose, Caroline Wolf Harlow, Patrick A. Langan, Mark Motivans, Ramona R. Rantala, and Erica L. Smith, Family Violence Statistics, NCJ 207846 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (6/2005), p. 3. Archived at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvs.pdf
14. Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, And Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From The National Violence Against Women Survey, Research Report. Report for grant 93-IJ-CX-0012, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Publication No. NCJ 181867, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2000), pp. 30-31. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
15. Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, And Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From The National Violence Against Women Survey, Research Report. Report for grant 93-IJ-CX-0012, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Publication No. NCJ 181867, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2000), pp. 55. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
16. Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, And Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From The National Violence Against Women Survey, Research Report. Report for grant 93-IJ-CX-0012, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Publication No. NCJ 181867, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2000), pp. 52-53. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
17. Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, And Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From The National Violence Against Women Survey, Research Report. Report for grant 93-IJ-CX-0012, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Publication No. NCJ 181867, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2000), pp. 52-53. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
18. Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, And Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From The National Violence Against Women Survey, Research Report. Report for grant 93-IJ-CX-0012, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Publication No. NCJ 181867, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2000), p. 26. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
19. Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, And Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From The National Violence Against Women Survey, Research Report. Report for grant 93-IJ-CX-0012, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Publication No. NCJ 181867, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2000), p. 26. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf See also Laney, Garrine P., Violence Against Women Act: History and Federal Funding, CRS Report for Congress, Report No. RL30871, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC (3/18/2005), p. 2 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.opencrs.com/rpts/RL30871_20050318.pdf
20. ________, Intimate Partner Violence: Fact Sheet, Center for Disease Control's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm citing Gazmararian JA, Petersen R, Spitz AM, Goodwin MM, Saltzman LE, Marks JS. "Violence and Reproductive Health: Current Knowledge and Future Research Directions," Maternal and Child Health Journal 2000;4(2):79–84.
21. ________, Intimate Partner Violence: Fact Sheet, Center for Disease Control's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm citing Paulozzi LJ, Saltzman LA, Thompson MJ, Holmgreen P., "Surveillance for Homicide Among Intimate Partners—United States, 1981–1998." CDC Surveillance Summaries 2001;50(SS-3):1–1.
22. Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, And Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From The National Violence Against Women Survey, Research Report. Report for grant 93-IJ-CX-0012, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Publication No. NCJ 181867, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2000), pp. 39-40. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
23. Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, And Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From The National Violence Against Women Survey, Research Report. Report for grant 93-IJ-CX-0012, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Publication No. NCJ 181867, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2000), pp. 39-40. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
24. Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, And Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From The National Violence Against Women Survey, Research Report. Report for grant 93-IJ-CX-0012, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Publication No. NCJ 181867, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2000), pp. 39-40. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
25. Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (2003), p.14. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/ipv.htm.
26. Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (2003), p. 14. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/ipv.htm.
27. Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, And Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From The National Violence Against Women Survey, Research Report. Report for grant 93-IJ-CX-0012, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Publication No. NCJ 181867, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2000), p. 17. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
28. Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, And Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From The National Violence Against Women Survey, Research Report. Report for grant 93-IJ-CX-0012, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Publication No. NCJ 181867, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2000), p. 30. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
29. Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, And Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From The National Violence Against Women Survey, Research Report. Report for grant 93-IJ-CX-0012, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Publication No. NCJ 181867, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2000), p. 30. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
30. ________, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (2003), p. 32. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/ipv.htm.
31. ________, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (2003), pp. 26, 31. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/ipv.htm.
32. ________, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (2003), pp. 26, 31. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/ipv.htm.
33. ________, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (2003), pp. 26, 31. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/ipv.htm.
34. ________, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (2003), pp. 26, 31. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/ipv.htm.
35. ________, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (2003), pp. 26, 31. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/ipv.htm.
36. Based on a 1993 survey of women years old and over. Etienne G. Krug, Linda L. Dahlberg, James A. Mercy, Anthony B. Zwi and Rafael Lozano (eds.), World Report on Violence and Health, World Health Organization, Geneva (2002), p. 90 (citation omitted). Accessed at: http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/full_en.pdf on August 18, 2005.
37. Based on a 1993 survey of women 16 years old and over. Etienne G. Krug, Linda L. Dahlberg, James A. Mercy, Anthony B. Zwi and Rafael Lozano (eds.), World Report on Violence and Health, World Health Organization, Geneva (2002), pp. 89-91, 152. (citations omitted). Accessed at: http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/full_en.pdf on August 18, 2005.
38. Based on a 1994-1996 survey of women 20 to 60 years old. Etienne G. Krug, Linda L. Dahlberg, James A. Mercy, Anthony B. Zwi and Rafael Lozano (eds.), World Report on Violence and Health, World Health Organization, Geneva (2002), p. 90 (citation omitted). Accessed at: http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/full_en.pdf on August 18, 2005.
41. Based on a 1996 survey of women 15 years old and over. Etienne G. Krug, Linda L. Dahlberg, James A. Mercy, Anthony B. Zwi and Rafael Lozano (eds.), World Report on Violence and Health, World Health Organization, Geneva (2002), pp. 90, 152 (citation omitted). Accessed at: http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/full_en.pdf on August 18, 2005.
52. Etienne G. Krug, Linda L. Dahlberg, James A. Mercy, Anthony B. Zwi and Rafael Lozano (eds.), World Report on Violence and Health, World Health Organization, Geneva (2002), pp. 94-95 (citations omitted). Accessed at: http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/full_en.pdf on August 18, 2005.
1. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 2.
2. 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 (citation omitted)
3. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
4. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 2.
5. 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. 5. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtcliquet.pdf
6. William Baldwin, "Family Desertion and Non-Support Laws," Charities, pp. 660-665 (April 15, 1905), p. 660.
7. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950), p. 44.
8. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 4.
9. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 5.
10. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950), pp. 41-42.
11. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950), pp. 42-43.
12. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950), p. 45.
13. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 1 .
14. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 1 .
15. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., “Divorce and the American Family,” Annual Review of Sociology, vol 16, p 380 (citations omitted.) (1990)
16. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., “Divorce and the American Family,” Annual Review of Sociology, vol 16, p 380 (citations omitted.) (1990)
17. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 25 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
18. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 25 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
19. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 25 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
20. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 25 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
21. 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 (citation omitted)
22. 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 (citation omitted)
23. 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 (citation omitted)
24. 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 (citation omitted)
25. 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 (citation omitted)
26. 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 (citation omitted)
27. 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 (citation omitted)
28. 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. See also Stephanie Coontz, "The American Family and The Nostalgia Trap," Phi Delta Kappan (March 1, 1995). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:16765761
29. Kimberly A. Faust and Jerome N. McKibben, "Marital Dissolution: Divorce, Separation, Annulment and Widowhood," Handbook of Marriage and the Family, 2nd ed, Marvin Sussman, Suzanne K. Steinmetz, and Gary W. Peterson (eds.), Plenum Press, New York (1999), p. 480. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0306457547/qid=1123777024/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
30. Frank F. Furstenberg Jr., "Divorce and the American Family," Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 16, pp. 379-403 (1990), p 383 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0360-0572%281990%2916%3C379%3ADATAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G
31. Frank F. Furstenberg Jr., "Divorce and the American Family," Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 16, pp. 379-403 (1990), p 383 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0360-0572%281990%2916%3C379%3ADATAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G
32 Frank F. Furstenberg Jr., "Divorce and the American Family," Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 16, pp. 379-403 (1990), p 383 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0360-0572%281990%2916%3C379%3ADATAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G
33. Frank F. Furstenberg Jr., "Divorce and the American Family," Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 16, pp. 379-403 (1990), p 383 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0360-0572%281990%2916%3C379%3ADATAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G
34. William Baldwin, "Family Desertion and Non-Support Laws," Charities, pp. 660-665 (April 15, 1905), p. 660.
35. ________, "Conference of Family Desertions," Charities, pp. 483-486 (May 9, 1903).
36. Samuel H. Preston and John McDonald, "The Incidence of Divorce Within Cohorts of American Marriages Contracted Since the Civil War," Demography, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 1-25 (February 1979), p. 5 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0070-3370%28197902%2916%3A1%3C1%3ATIODWC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T
37. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 27. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
38. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 27. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
39. Carl L.Bankston and R. Kent Rasmussen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Family Life (5 vols.) Salem Press (1999) p. 1133.
40. 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. 5. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtcliquet.pdf
41. ________, Facts on File Yearbook, 1947, Facts On File, Inc., p. 428 (1950).
42. ________, "Marriages Patched Up," Newsweek. p. 27 (January 26, 1948).
43. Louis I. Dublin, “Look at the Bright Side of Marriage: Some Facts and Figures Concerning American Family Life,” Parents' Magazine, Vol. 23, pp. 11, 68-70 (December 1948). p. 68.
44. Louis I. Dublin, “Look at the Bright Side of Marriage: Some Facts and Figures Concerning American Family Life,” Parents' Magazine, Vol. 23, pp. 11, 68-70 (December 1948). p. 68.
45. ________, "World War II and Divorce: A Life-Course Perspective," Amer. Journal of Sociology, p 1218 (1990) pp. 1227, 1229 (citation omitted).
46. Corrington Gill, “A Study of Three Million Families on Relief in October 1933,” Annals of the Amer. Acad of Political and Social Science, pp. 25-36 (November 1934). p. 33. Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162%28193411%29176%3C25%3AASOTTM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y
47. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950), p. 44.
48. Louis I. Dublin, “Look at the Bright Side of Marriage: Some Facts and Figures Concerning American Family Life,” Parents' Magazine, Vol. 23, pp. 11, 68-70 (December 1948). p. 68.
49. Louis I. Dublin, “Look at the Bright Side of Marriage: Some Facts and Figures Concerning American Family Life,” Parents' Magazine, Vol. 23, pp. 11, 68-70 (December 1948). p. 68.
50. ________, Table DP-1, "Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000, Geographic Area: United States." U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/tables/dp_us_2000.PDF
51. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
52. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
53. Rose M. Kreider, Marital Status: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-30. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 24 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-30.pdf
54. As of 2000. Jesse D. McKinnon and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Blacks in the United States, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-25. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-25.pdf
55. As of 2000. Jesse D. McKinnon and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Blacks in the United States, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-25. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-25.pdf
56. As of 2000. Jesse D. McKinnon and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Blacks in the United States, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-25. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-25.pdf
57. As of 2000. Jesse D. McKinnon and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Blacks in the United States, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-25. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-25.pdf
58. Rose M. Kreider, Marital Status: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-30. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 24 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-30.pdf
59. Roberto R. Ramirez, We the People: Hispanics in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-18. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 6. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf
65. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 3 (citation omitted) .
66. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 3 (citation omitted) .
1. 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
2. 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
3. Sandra S. Smith, "NCHS Dataline," Public Health Reports (March 1, 2002)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:94042640
4. Sandra S. Smith, "NCHS Dataline," Public Health Reports (March 1, 2002)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:94042640
5. Stephanie Coontz, "The American Family and The Nostalgia Trap," Phi Delta Kappan (March 1, 1995). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:16765761
6. Sandra S.Smith, "NCHS Dataline," Public Health Reports (March 1, 2002)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:94042640
7. MD Bramlett and WD Mosher, Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002), p. 17. Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
8. MD Bramlett and WD Mosher, Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002), p. 17. Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
9. MD Bramlett and WD Mosher, Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002), p. 22. Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
10. MD Bramlett and WD Mosher, Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002), p. 24. Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
11. Christos Bagavos, The Situation of Families in Greece, 2001, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), p. 2. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_01_greece_bagavos.pdf
12. Sandra S. Smith, "NCHS Dataline," Public Health Reports (March 1, 2002)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:94042640
13. MD Bramlett and WD Mosher, Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002), p. 18. Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
14. Kimberly A. Faust and Jerome N. McKibben, "Marital Dissolution: Divorce, Separation, Annulment and Widowhood," Handbook of Marriage and the Family, 2nd ed, Marvin Sussman, Suzanne K. Steinmetz, and Gary W. Peterson (eds.), Plenum Press, New York (1999), p. 483. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0306457547/qid=1123777024/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
15. ________, "Society: Divorces," National Statistics Online, National Statistics, United Kingdom (August 31, 2004). Accessed at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget_print.asp?ID=170 on August 26, 2005.
16. According to a 1985 study. Totals do not add up to 100 percent because respondents could select every reason that was applicable. Margaret Guminski Cleek and T. Allan Pearson, "Perceived Causes of Divorce: An Analysis of Interrelationships," Journal of Marriage and the Family (February 1985) p. 179, 181.
17. According to a 1985 study. Totals do not add up to 100 percent because respondents could select every reason that was applicable. Margaret Guminski Cleek and T. Allan Pearson, "Perceived Causes of Divorce: An Analysis of Interrelationships," Journal of Marriage and the Family (February 1985) p. 179, 181.
18. Margaret Guminski Cleek and T. Allan Pearson, "Perceived Causes of Divorce: An Analysis of Interrelationships," Journal of Marriage and the Family (February 1985) p. 179, 181.
19. Margaret Guminski Cleek and T. Allan Pearson, "Perceived Causes of Divorce: An Analysis of Interrelationships," Journal of Marriage and the Family (February 1985) p. 179, 181.
20. ________, Fact Sheet on Domestic Violence, American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence citing Bureau of Justice Statistics, Female Victims of Violent Crime, 1991. Accessed at http://www.abanet.org/domviol/stats.html on September 21, 2005.
21. ________, Eaton County Prosecuting Attorney Website on Domestic Violence http://www.eatoncounty.org/ECPA/domviol.htm citing EAP Digest Nov./Dec. 1991.
22. Rita Thaemert, "Till Violence Do Us Part," State Legislatures. National Conference of State Legislatures (March 1, 1993). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:13834300
23. _______, Northern Ireland Women’s Aid Federation Webpage citing Borkowski, M., Murch, M. and Walker, V. (1983), Marital Violence: the Community Response. Tavistock. Accessed at: http://www.niwaf.org/Domesticviolence/factsfigures.htm on August 15, 2005.
24. ________, National Organization for Women New York website citing Domestic Violence, Employment and Divorce by Audra J. Bowlus.   The University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics, London, Ontario N6A 5C2. Accessed at http://www.nownys.org/frstats.html#1 on August 15, 2005.
25. ________, National Organization for Women New York website citing Domestic Violence, Employment and Divorce by Audra J. Bowlus.   The University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics, London, Ontario N6A 5C2. Accessed at http://www.nownys.org/frstats.html#1 on August 15, 2005.
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
29. 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
30. 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
31. 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. 6. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-20.pdf
32. ________, Table DP-1, "Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000, Geographic Area: United States." U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/tables/dp_us_2000.PDF
33. Kimberly A. Faust and Jerome N. McKibben, "Marital Dissolution: Divorce, Separation, Annulment and Widowhood," Handbook of Marriage and the Family, 2nd ed, Marvin Sussman, Suzanne K. Steinmetz, and Gary W. Peterson (eds.), Plenum Press, New York (1999), p. 481. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0306457547/qid=1123777024/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
34. Maggie Martin, "Reinventing Adolescence: New Rules for the Changing Family," Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association (June 22, 2004)(citations omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:119114082
35. Kimberly A. Faust and Jerome N. McKibben, "Marital Dissolution: Divorce, Separation, Annulment and Widowhood," Handbook of Marriage and the Family, 2nd ed, Marvin Sussman, Suzanne K. Steinmetz, and Gary W. Peterson (eds.), Plenum Press, New York (1999), p. 486. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0306457547/qid=1123777024/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
36. Kimberly A. Faust and Jerome N. McKibben, "Marital Dissolution: Divorce, Separation, Annulment and Widowhood," Handbook of Marriage and the Family, 2nd ed, Marvin Sussman, Suzanne K. Steinmetz, and Gary W. Peterson (eds.), Plenum Press, New York (1999), p. 486. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0306457547/qid=1123777024/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
37. 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
38. Terrance J. Reeves and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Asians in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-17. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 7 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-17.pdf and Rose M. Kreider, Marital Status: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-30. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p, 4 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-30.pdf
39. As of 2000. Rose M. Kreider, Marital Status: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-30. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p, 4 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-30.pdf
40. MD Bramlett and WD Mosher, Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002), p. 27. Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
82. “Divorce Rates Climbing,” Science News Letter, May 21, 1949 (p. 326)
1. ________, "Family Life and Training . . . ," New York Times, New York, NY, p. 5 (February 1, 1875). Archived at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=82754138&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientId=63432&RQT=309&VName=HNP
2. Walter Lionel George, “The Break-up of the Family,” Harper’s Monthly Magazine, pp. 249-59 (July 1916), 256.
3. ________, “Family Life Ruined by 2000 A.D.?” Science Digest, p. 65 (March 1947).
4. ________, Article, Senior Scholastic, p. 8 (May 5, 1947).
5. ________, Article, Senior Scholastic, p. 8 (May 5, 1947).
6. Henry Steele Commanger, "The Changing American Family," Senior Scholastic, p. 7 (May 5, 1947).
7. ________, "The American Family in Trouble,” Life, Vol. 25, p. 83 (July 26, 1948).
8. Louis I. Dublin, “Look at the Bright Side of Marriage: Some Facts and Figures Concerning American Family Life,” Parents' Magazine, Vol. 23, pp. 11, 68-70 (December 1948), p. 68.
9. ________, "Abolish Family?" Science Digest, Vol. 25, p. 40 (January 1949), pp. 40-41.
10. ________, "American Family Is Changing Radically." The Christian Century, p. 508 (April 29, 1959).
Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 37). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
11. Ruth Harriet Jacobs, "Mobility Pains: A Family in Transition," The Family Coordinator, National Council on Family Relations, Vol. 18. No. 2, pp. 129-134 (April 1969), p. 129. Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-7124%28196904%2918%3AMPTAFIT%3E2.0.C)%3B2-Y
12. Donald Hernandez essay in Families, Youth and children’s Well Being, Issue Series on Research and Social Policy, Amer. Sociological Assn., pp. 19-20. (1998)
13. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 38. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
14. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), pp. 36-37. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
15. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 37. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
16. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 7. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
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
69. ________, "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.
70. ________, "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.
71. ________, "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.
72. 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
73. 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
74. 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
75. 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
76. 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
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
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. 26. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtcliquet.pdf
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. 25. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtcliquet.pdf
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. 25. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtcliquet.pdf