Noting Family Names for the Current Three Living Generations

J Marriage Fam. Writer manuscript; bachelor in PMC 2013 Sep six.

Published in terminal edited class as:

J Marriage Fam. 2012 Oct 1; 74(5): 931–943.

Published online 2012 Sep 24.

PMCID: PMC3765068

NIHMSID: NIHMS474822

Three Generation Family Households: Differences by Family Structure at Birth

Natasha V. Pilkauskas

^aNatasha Pilkauskas, PhD is a Postdoctoral Research Scientist at Columbia University'due south School of Social Work and the Columbia Population Research Centre, 1255 Amsterdam Ave., New York, NY 10027 (ude.aibmuloc@7422pn).

Abstract

Using information from the Fragile Families and Child Well-beingness Study (N=4,898), this study investigates how the share, correlates, transition patterns, and duration of 3 generation households vary by mother's relationship status at birth. Nine pct of married mothers, 17 % of cohabiting, and 45% of single mothers alive in a 3 generation family unit household at the birth of the child. Incidence over time is much college and most common among single mother households, threescore% live in a three generation family household in at least one wave. Economic need, civilization, and generational needs are associated with living in a 3 generation household and correlates vary past mother'due south human relationship condition. 3 generation family households are short lived and transitions are frequent. Kin support through coresidence is an of import source of back up for families with young children and in particular families that are unwed at the nascence of their kid.

Keywords: Coresidence, Family Structure, Fragile Families, Grandparents, Multigenerational

Vern Bengtson (2001) in his Burgess Award Lecture to the National Quango on Family Relations boldly stated: "For many Americans multigenerational bonds are becoming more of import than nuclear family ties for well-being and support over the grade of their lives" (Bengtson, 2001: 5). Whether more than of import than nuclear family ties, multigenerational ties are an essential role of the family unit system (Swartz, 2009) and multigenerational family households (where two or more adult generations coreside) have recently increased in prevalence (Taylor et al, 2010). This newspaper focuses on 1 type of type of multigenerational household, a 3 generation family unit household where a grandparent, parent, and kid coreside. The share of children in three generation households has been increasing: In 2001, 6 % of Us children lived in a three generation family household and by 2011, 8 % did (author'southward calculation using CPS data).

Despite ascent trends in intergenerational coresidence, research on 3 generation family households is relatively slim. In fact, enquiry has shown that non-nuclear family relationships are frequently overlooked in family literature and that nearly 80% of manufactures on families focus on couples or parents (Fingerman & Hay, 2002). This paper seeks to add to the descriptive literature on three generation family households. Every bit studies have constitute that living in a three generation household is associated with outcomes for children and families, understanding the dynamics and determinants of these circuitous households can inform family related research.

Bengtson argued that changes in family construction, equally well equally greater longevity, take led to an increased reliance on kin to perform family unit functions. Today, about 40% of births are to unwed mothers and nearly half of those births are to cohabiting couples (Ventura, 2009; Manlove, Ryan, Wildsmith & Franzetta, 2010). Using data from the Delicate Families and Child Wellbeing Written report (FF), this study investigates differences by family structure in ane type of kin back up, three generation coresidence. If Bengtson is correct, and family unit structure changes have led to increased reliance on kin support, we might expect to meet differences in three generation coresidence by mother'due south human relationship status. The oversample of nonmarital births in the FF information provides a unique opportunity to written report differences in 3 generation coresidence between fragile families (unmarried parents and their children) and married families. Specifically, this newspaper documents the share of families living in three generation family households by female parent'due south relationship condition and estimates incidence in this population over time. 2nd, this study is the first to examine correlates of iii generation family coresidence and whether they vary by mother's relationship status. Third, this research documents patterns of transition and duration of 3 generation coresidence and differences by mother'southward relationship condition at birth.

Literature Review and Theoretical Perspectives

Recent cross exclusive estimates evidence that about 3.8% of households include 3 or more than generations (US Census, 2010) and that in 2010, vii.8% of children lived in a three generation family household (Kreider & Ellis, 2011). Still cantankerous sectional statistics do not requite a sense of incidence, or how common these household arrangements are, over time. Older studies have shown that the prevalence of three generation family unit households is iii-4 times higher in longitudinal data than in a cross section (Beck & Beck, 1989, 1984). Although this study cannot provide national estimates of prevalence, understanding how common three generation family household living arrangements are for fragile families every bit compared to married couple families is especially important as fragile families are more disadvantaged both at the birth and over fourth dimension. Bengtson (2001) argued that changes in family structure take led to increased reliance between generations to perform family functions. Thus nosotros expect that fragile families are likely to need more kin support than married families as fragile families are probable to have fewer resources.

This increased reliance on kin among frail families is in part due to variation in economic, parental, and community resources by mother'south relationship status (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). Every bit married mothers take the most resource, information technology is likely they volition take the lowest rates of coresidence with grandparents (Beck & Brook, 1989; Tienda & Angel, 1982; Aquilino, 1990). Single mothers commonly take fewer resource and demand the most support from kin (Hofferth, 1984; Affections & Tienda, 1982; Jayakody, Chatters, & Taylor, 1993), whereas cohabitors fall somewhere in between (Cherlin, 2009). Married adults have also been found to take fewer intergenerational ties, and cultural norms around matrimony (i.e. independence) may in part explain this difference (Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2008).

No studies have looked at correlates of three generation family unit households in detail, although several studies have looked at correlates of multigenerational households more broadly (Kamo, 2000; Ruggles, 2003, 2007, Choi, 2003; Cohen & Casper, 2002). This literature found that correlates fell into iii broad categories: economical demand, civilisation, and generational needs. Families with fewer economic resources (less education or lower income) may need to live in a three generation family household to combine resources and accept advantage of economies of scale (Kamo, 2000; Cohen, 2002; Cohen & Casper, 2002). Cultural factors and norms may also be correlated with three generation coresidence (Hawkins & Eggebeen, 1991). Blackness and Hispanic families are more likely to reside with kin than White families (Angel & Tienda, 1982; Hofferth, 1984; Hogan, Hao & Parish, 1990; Pebly & Rudkin, 1999; Cohen & Casper, 2002). Families that are more familistic in orientation (east.g. Hispanics, Catholics, or those that grew up in a married family unit) are also more likely to coreside (Baca Zinn & Wells, 2000; Oropesa & Landale, 2004). Members of certain immigrant communities may be more than likely to live in a three generation family unit household or if individuals have immigrated without their families, less probable. Similarly, religion may influence coresidence depending on customs norms and values.

Generational needs, such every bit the needs of the parent generation may also influence the determination to coreside (Aquilino, 1990). Immature mothers or those having their starting time child may be more likely to live with their ain parents (Hogan, Hao & Parish, 1990; Trent & Harlan, 1994). Mothers in poor health or with a needy baby (depression birth weight or disabled) may also need to coreside. Equally, the needs of the grandparent generation, such as poor physical or mental wellness, may also influence the decision to coreside (Choi, 2003; Cohen & Casper, 2002). Research has shown that help generally flows from the grandparent to the parent generation (Fingerman, Miller, Birdit, & Zarit, 2009; Grundy, 2005) thus we might expect that the needs of the parent generation to exist more highly correlated with coresidence (Aquilino, 1990).

Different factors may be correlated with coresidence depending upon a female parent's relationship status as family resources, cultural meaning and norms differ for married, cohabiting and single mothers. Economic needs are likely to play a more significant role for unmarried or cohabiting mothers than married mothers who are generally better off financially; whereas cultural factors (race, immigrant status, organized religion) likely play a similar role beyond family structures. Generational needs may play a different role depending on relationship condition; for married families who are economically stable and norms of independence are stronger (Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2008), nosotros may find that grandparent needs more strongly predict coresidence, whereas amongst single mothers the parent's demand may be a stronger correlate.

Research on kid wellbeing has shown that the stability of households plays an of import role (eastward.g. Wu & Martinson, 1993). Yet little is known almost the stability or duration of 3 generation family unit households. Research has constitute that three generation households are short lived, last less than two years (Brook & Brook, 1989), and transitions are common for immature mothers (Oberlander, Shebl, Madger & Black, 2009). Differences in transition patterns by mother's relationship status at the birth may besides exist; married mother's relationships are generally more stable and iii generation coresidence may be longer lasting for them than for fragile families where changes in romantic relationships are common.

Method

Data

This commodity used data from the Frail Families and Child Well-being Report (FF), a study that was designed to be representative of births in cities with populations over 200,000. Births were randomly sampled in 20 US cities (in fifteen states) between 1998 and 2000 with an oversample of nonmarital births (Reichman, Teitler, Garfinkel & McLanahan, 2001). Mothers and fathers were interviewed presently after the nativity of the focal child and follow upward interviews were conducted when the child was approximately ane, 3, 5, and 9 years erstwhile.

This report utilized the mother'south surveys every bit they were more than consummate than the begetter interviews and mothers were more likely to be residing with their child. The sample for the baseline survey was 4,898; 4,364 for the twelvemonth 1 follow upwards; 4,231 for the year 3 follow up; iv,139 for the year v follow up, and three,511 for the year 9 follow upward. The response charge per unit for the 1-year mother's survey was xc%, 88% for the 3-year follow upwards, 87% for the v-yr follow upwardly, and 76% for the 9-year follow up. Analyses of transitions and duration (Table 4) were restricted to mothers who were interviewed in all 5 survey waves, a sample of 2,986.

Tabular array 4

Incidence Over Time, Patterns of Transition, and Duration of Iii Generation Family Households by Mother's Relationship Condition (N=2986)

	Full (1)	Married (2)	Cohabiting (iii)	Single (iv)
Console A: Incidence over Time¹ N	2986	747	1055	1184
Three generation household at to the lowest degree 1 wave	42.63	21.82	37.63	threescore.22
Panel B: Patterns of Transition ¹
Never 3 generation	57.37	78.18	62.37	39.78
Consistently iii generation	one.81	0.94	0.76	3.29
3 generation → Not three generation	eighteen.03	5.22	12.13	31.42
Not 3 generation → 3 generation	4.52	4.95	4.74	4.05
2 transitions (into or out)	13.44	8.43	16.11	14.19
Three or iv transitions (into or out)	iv.82	two.27	3.88	7.26
Panel C: Duration ² N	1273	163	397	713
1 wave only	45.33	58.nine	55.16	36.75
Multiple waves - not sequent	19.4	fourteen.12	16.63	22.16
Multiple waves - consecutive	35.27	26.99	28.21	41.09
Two consecutive waves	xvi.97	xv.34	15.11	18.37
Three sequent waves	8.33	4.29	6.viii	x.1
Four consecutive waves	v.73	three.07	4.28	7.15
V consecutive waves	4.24	4.29	2.02	five.47

Analyses of attrition showed that mothers who attrited were more than disadvantaged than those who remained in the sample. Attriters were less educated, had lower income to needs ratios, and were more probable to be immigrants and Hispanic. To deal with the attrition, the data were multiple imputed (Allison, 2002; Rubin, 1976). Multiple imputation uses the observed data to impute values for individuals who have missing information. Five data sets were imputed (using the ice command in STATA 12) and the estimates were averaged over these data. The descriptive results were virtually identical in the observed and imputed analyses (rates of transition were about 1/2 a percent point college in the imputed data). To take a more conservative approach and not utilize the data that imputed the upshot of interest (3 generation family household status), the unimputed results for the descriptive tables (Tables 1 and 4) are reported. In the multivariate analyses (Table two that describes the sample and Table three the regression results), the imputed data were utilized to retain respondents who had missing data on covariates. Analyses were run using listwise deletion as well and the results were substantively similar.

Table ane

Percent of Three Generation Family Households by Age of the Kid and by Female parent's Human relationship Status

	Nascence n=4898	Age i n=4364	Historic period 3 n=4231	Age 5 north=4139	Age 9 n=3511
Total iii generation
Unweighted	25.93	20.14	fourteen.72	12.08	11.26
Weighted ^a	17.55	17.fifty	12.x	9.11	7.63^c
Three generation by relationship status at baseline
Married	9.01	8.58	7.41	seven.21	7.93
Cohabiting	16.77	sixteen.14	12.54	10.42	9.65
Single ^b	44.81	31.xiii	21.42	sixteen.60	fourteen.71

Table 2

Sample Characteristics past Three Generation Household and Female parent'due south Relationship Status at the Nascence of the Child (N=4,898)

	All		Married		Cohabiting		Single
Iii Generation	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yep	No	Yeah	No
Economics N	1270	3628	108	1082	299	1481	864	1064
Mother'southward education
Less than loftier schoolhouse	40.33	29.66	20.55	14.67	49.93	35.14	39.35	38.74
High schoolhouse degree	31.38	29.81	25.87	eighteen.94	26.43	35.85	33.83	33.33
Some college	24.59	26.16	37.43	28.52	22.ten	25.44	23.89	24.52
Higher and above	three.69	14.36	16.xv	37.87	i.53	iii.57	two.93	three.41
Grandmother's pedagogy
Less than High School	18.01	22.74	28.26	21.81	24.84	25.27	14.31	20.06
Loftier School	57.xiv	51.39	50.64	42.09	56.43	52.93	58.xx	59.77
Some college	14.33	xiii.54	7.34	16.35	x.89	12.65	16.42	xi.64
Higher and above	10.51	12.33	13.76	19.75	7.83	9.15	11.06	eight.52
Culture
Mothers' race/ethnicity
White non-Hispanic	13.91	25.24	34.77	45.60	17.01	19.32	xi.48	10.63
Black not-Hispanic	56.81	44.21	29.36	23.75	43.63	44.78	64.90	66.83
Hispanic	25.78	26.92	26.fifteen	23.58	35.86	33.88	20.89	20.44
Other not-Hispanic	three.50	3.63	ix.72	7.07	3.50	2.02	two.73	2.10
Mother lived with both
parents at age 15	38.81	46.08	61.47	65.77	37.96	41.25	36.30	30.69
Mother is an immigrant	10.11	17.81	33.21	25.08	14.33	17.26	5.75	ten.thirty
Grandparent is an immigrant	16.58	21.82	42.38	28.52	19.42	22.16	12.38	13.62
Religion
No faith	11.50	ten.49	7.52	6.09	10.63	12.08	12.30	13.22
Protestant	55.xvi	49.33	39.82	42.69	49.75	47.87	58.99	59.08
Catholic	26.04	xxx.68	37.43	36.74	34.59	33.36	21.58	19.75
Other	vii.30	ix.50	xv.23	fourteen.48	five.03	6.69	seven.13	7.95
Generational needs
Mother's age at nativity (years)	22.08	26.38	26.68	29.62	21.76	24.64	21.63	25.23
Mother'south showtime birth	55.09	32.66	33.39	35.41	46.24	33.67	sixty.93	28.03
Baby low nascency weight	10.86	9.26	4.95	v.67	8.73	ix.81	12.36	12.53
Grandparent depression	29.92	32.52	30.83	33.54	33.31	32.62	28.60	31.21
Grandparent substance abuse	33.54	34.70	35.59	28.88	35.xvi	38.43	32.71	35.84
Relationship status
Married	eight.36	31.59	-	-	-	-	-	-
Cohabiting	24.09	forty.85	-	-	-	-	-	-
Single	67.55	27.56	-	-	-	-	-	-

Table 3

Correlates of Living in a Three Generation Family Household at the Birth of the Child - Logistic Regressions (N=4898)

	Total Sample			Married			Cohabiting			Single
Economic science	B	SE B	OR	B	SE B	OR	B	SE B	OR	B	SE B	OR
Mother's education
Less than loftier school ^a, ^b	0.xviii⁺	(0.09)	i.nineteen	0.17	(0.33)	ane.19	0.52^**	(0.16)	i.68	0.04	(0.12)	i.04
Some higher	0.04	(0.10)	i.04	0.21	(0.28)	1.23	0.eighteen	(0.19)	one.xix	−0.07	(0.14)	0.93
Higher and higher up	−0.64^**	(0.20)	0.53	−0.92^*	(0.38)	0.40	−0.35	(0.l)	0.71	−0.12	(0.31)	0.89
Grandmother's education
Less than High School	−0.12	(0.14)	0.89	−0.36	(0.34)	0.70	−0.03	(0.21)	0.97	−0.xviii	(0.eighteen)	0.83
Some college ^b, ^c	0.01	(0.11)	one.01	−0.lxx⁺	(0.41)	0.50	−0.21	(0.22)	0.81	0.28	(0.17)	1.32
College and above ^b, ^c	0.08	(0.14)	1.08	−0.17	(0.35)	0.85	−0.eighteen	(0.25)	0.83	0.29	(0.21)	1.33
Culture
Black not-Hispanic	0.29^*	(0.12)	i.34	0.41	(0.thirty)	ane.l	0.twenty	(0.20)	i.22	0.xix	(0.17)	1.xx
Hispanic	0.28⁺	(0.xiv)	1.33	0.35	(0.36)	1.41	0.16	(0.23)	one.xviii	0.23	(0.21)	1.26
Other not-Hispanic	0.75^**	(0.22)	2.12	0.91⁺	(0.45)	ii.48	0.98^*	(0.39)	ii.65	0.42	(0.34)	1.52
Lived with both parents at xv	0.24^**	(0.08)	1.27	0.09	(0.24)	one.10	0.08	(0.14)	1.09	0.43^**	(0.11)	1.54
Female parent immigrant ^b, ^c	−0.threescore^**	(0.15)	0.55	−0.39	(0.34)	0.68	−0.34	(0.25)	0.71	-1.02^**	(0.24)	0.36
Grandparent immigrant ^a	0.nineteen	(0.14)	one.21	0.75^*	(0.32)	2.12	−0.19	(0.25)	0.83	0.23	(0.21)	1.26
Protestant	0.16	(0.13)	1.17	−0.22	(0.47)	0.lxxx	0.xviii	(0.23)	1.xx	0.15	(0.16)	ane.17
Cosmic	0.17	(0.15)	1.19	−0.35	(0.48)	0.seventy	0.30	(0.26)	i.35	0.17	(0.21)	ane.18
Other	0.07	(0.18)	1.07	−0.xviii	(0.50)	0.84	0.06	(0.36)	1.06	0.08	(0.25)	1.08
Generational needs
Historic period : Under 18^a	one.09^**	(0.22)	two.97				0.72⁺	(0.42)	2.05	1.14^**	(0.28)	iii.11
18-19	0.35^*	(0.fifteen)	1.41	0.31	(0.64)	1.37	0.17	(0.25)	1.18	0.42^*	(0.20)	i.53
twenty-24	0.12	(0.eleven)	one.12	0.30	(0.34)	1.35	−0.04	(0.19)	0.96	0.16	(0.fifteen)	1.xviii
25-34^a,^b	−0.68^**	(0.12)	0.51	−0.xix	(0.thirty)	0.83	−0.70^**	(0.23)	0.l	−0.77^**	(0.17)	0.46
Female parent'south outset nascency ^a, ^b, ^c	0.71^**	(0.08)	2.03	0.11	(0.24)	i.xi	0.46^**	(0.14)	1.58	1.00^**	(0.11)	two.72
Low birth weight baby	0.02	(0.12)	1.02	−0.fifteen	(0.49)	0.86	−0.13	(0.23)	0.88	0.xi	(0.fifteen)	ane.12
Grandparent low	−0.03	(0.09)	0.97	−0.28	(0.26)	0.76	0.14	(0.16)	one.xv	−0.07	(0.12)	0.93
Grandparent substance abuse ^a	−0.07	(0.09)	0.93	0.twoscore	(0.26)	one.50	−0.24	(0.15)	0.79	−0.07	(0.12)	0.93
Relationship status
Cohabiting	0.22	(0.xiii)	1.25
Single	i.56^**	(0.thirteen)	iv.77
Constant	−2.51^**	(0.21)	0.08	−two.30^**	(0.59)	0.10	−two.08^**	(0.34)	0.12	−ane.01^**	(0.27)	0.36
Observations	4898			1190			1780			1928

Measures

Iii Generation Family Structure

At each survey wave a measure out of three generation family construction was constructed equally a dummy variable set to one if a gramps, a grandmother, or both were listed in the household roster.

Mother's Human relationship Condition

Relationship status was constructed based on mother's relationship status at the birth of the child. Mothers were coded as married, cohabiting with the baby's male parent, or single. Single mothers may have been in a romantic relationship with the baby'southward father (or another partner) only were not coresident. Unlike three generation family structure, this variable does non modify over time; it is a measure of the relationship status at the birth. Using relationship status at birth allowed for an investigation of differences in the reliance on kin networks between fragile families and married families over time. Both cohabiting and single mothers are considered frail families because they were unwed at the birth of the child.

Economic Demand

Two measures of economical need were included in the analyses: mother's education and grandmother's educational activity. Education was specified as less than high schoolhouse, high school (reference), some higher, and a bachelor's degree or higher. Pedagogy was used instead of family unit income considering income is likely to be endogenous (afflicted by three generation status).

Culture

Cultural factors include race, immigrant status, mother's family background and religion. Race or ethnicity was coded every bit a serial of dummy variables for not-Hispanic White (reference category), non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and other non-Hispanic race. Dichotomous variables indicating whether the mother is an immigrant and whether either grandparent is an immigrant were included. A dichotomous measure indicating whether the mother lived with both her parents at age fifteen was used equally a measure of family unit background. Faith was coded into four categories: Protestant, Cosmic, other, and no faith (reference).

Generational Demand

The needs of the parent generation were captured with several variables. Mother'south age, entered as a set up of dummies (14-17, 18-19, 20-24, 25-35, and 35+ − reference), a dummy variable indicating whether she was having her start kid, and a dummy variable indicating whether the baby was low birth weight (<2500 grams). Grandparent's needs were captured using a mensurate of whether the grandparent had a drug or alcohol problem and whether the grandparent had depression when the mother was growing upwards.

Transition Patterns

In order to make up one's mind complete patterns of transition, this variable was restricted to respondents who were nowadays in all survey waves (N=2,986). Patterns of transition coded respondents into 6 categories: (a) always 3 generation (in a three generation family household at baseline, years - i,- 3, - 5, and - 9), (b) never 3 generation, (c) start in a three generation household and transition out (regardless of when the transition actually occurred), (d) start out of a three generation household and transition in, (e) two transitions in or out of a 3 generation family household (regardless of starting position), and (f) three or 4 transitions into or out of a three generation family household. Distinguishing the number of transitions captures stability. For families with a single transition (codes c and d), distinguishing the starting betoken (coresident or not) highlights differences between families who needed some assistance at the nascence of the child and moved out, versus those who moved in later, likely equally a upshot of some crunch.

Duration

In order to assess the duration of three generation family households (from baseline to year 9) respondents were coded as coresident 1 wave only, ii nonconsecutive waves, 2 consecutive waves, 3 nonconsecutive waves, iii consecutive waves, four nonconsecutive waves, four consecutive waves, and v consecutive waves.

Analytic Strategy

This study is descriptive in nature and utilizes bivariate (weighted and unweighted) statistics to document the share of families in a three generation family household and differences by mother'south relationship condition at the birth of the kid. In gild to investigate correlates of three generation family unit coresidence at the nascence of a child, a multivariate analysis was conducted utilizing logistic regression. Equation (1) shows the regression model:

Y_i = β₀ + β₁Economic_i + β_twoCultural_i + β₃Generational Needs_i + ε_i

(1)

where Y_i is the outcome of interest – living in a iii generation family household at the birth of the child, and Economical, Cultural, and Generational Needs are characteristics that may be associated with living in a three generation family household. These analyses were repeated stratifying the sample by mother'southward human relationship status at the nascency of the focal child to investigate whether the correlates of iii generation coresidence varied by relationship condition. Lastly, the analyses of patterns of transition and elapsing utilized bivariate descriptive statistics.

The FF data collection started at the nativity of the child; living arrangements of families prior to the birth were non observed, therefore the independent variables were restricted to characteristics that are more often than not unchanging, or predate the birth to avoid issues of reverse causality. This arroyo has its limitations, chiefly that many of the potential covariates that might be correlated moving into a three generation family household are measured at the same time every bit the household structure and are therefore endogenous to the outcome of interest (similar household income or employment) and are excluded from these analyses.

Results

Share and Correlates

Table 1 shows the percent of respondents who lived in a three generation family household by the age of the child. Both the unweighted and weighted percentages are reported for the overall share of iii generation families. Similar to other studies, three generation coresidence was nearly common when children were very young (Bryson & Casper, 1999; Pebly & Rudkin, 1999; Mutchler & Bakery, 2004). Nearly 26% of respondents lived with at least one grandparent at the birth of the focal child and past year ix this had decreased to eleven%. The weighted results have into business relationship the oversample of nonmarital births to make the information nationally representative of births in large US cities. Even after weighting, nearly 18% of respondents lived in a iii generation family unit household at the birth of the child, suggesting many urban families rely on grandparent support at the fourth dimension of the birth of a new child.

As anticipated, the frequency of living in a three-generation household varied profoundly by the human relationship condition of the mother. Among mothers who were married at the birth, nine% lived in a three generation family household at the nascence of the child; this share decreased over time to almost seven%. Interestingly, the share of married mothers living in a three generation family unit household increased betwixt historic period v and 9 by about one percentage point. The year nine information were nerveless from 2007-2010 and coincided with the Groovy Recession. The increment among married mothers may reflect increased doubling up due to the economical crisis. Among cohabiting mothers, the share that lived in a three generation family household at the nativity of the kid was nigh double (17%) that of married mothers, and by historic period nine, it was withal higher than for married mothers at most 10%. Lastly, as expected, a much higher share – 45% – of unmarried mothers lived in a three generation family unit household at the birth of the focal child just this dropped to about fifteen% by age 9. These findings propose that among mothers who were married at the birth, their reliance on kin was somewhat stable over fourth dimension, whereas for frail families, kin back up was specially important when they had a very young child.

Table 2 reports the sample characteristics at the birth of the kid. Similar to prior literature, economical, cultural, and generational needs differed for individuals in 3 generation family households and those who were not. Mothers and grandmothers in three generation family households had lower levels of instruction than those non in three generation family households. Cultural factors as well differed; mothers in three generation family households were less likely to exist White, more probable to exist Blackness, and less likely to have lived with both parents at age 15. Lastly, in terms of generational needs, mothers in three generation family households were significantly younger and more than likely to have had a first birth than other mothers. Grandparents in three generation family households were less likely to have been depressed than those non in a 3 generation family household. Coresident mothers were too more than likely to be single and less likely to exist married.

Once the sample was divided by mother's relationship status, some differences emerged. In fact, the only characteristic that was statistically unlike between mothers in 3 generation family households versus those who are non beyond all relationship statuses was mothers' historic period; mothers who resided in a iii generation family unit household were younger than those who did not. To more fully investigate what characteristics were associated with three generation family households and how these differed past mother's human relationship status, Table 3 reports the results of logistic regressions predicting iii generation coresidence at the nativity of the child by mother's relationship status.

Table 3 reports the B, the standard error on B, and the odds ratio for logistic regressions predicting three generation family coresidence. Word is focused on the odds ratios that indicate whether a particular characteristic is associated with a greater or lesser likelihood of living in a particular type of household as compared to the reference category. To test whether differences by human relationship status were significantly different from each other, Chow tests were conducted on the fully interacted models comparing each group (married versus single, married versus cohabiting, cohabiting versus single) and pregnant differences are noted in Table three.

In the full sample, economic needs of the mother predicted coresidence (mother'southward lower instruction is marginally associated with increased odds and higher education is significantly associated with decreased odds), but grandmother'due south instruction did not. Several cultural correlates were associated with iii generation family households. As has been found in studies of multigenerational households generally, mothers who were Black, Hispanic, or other race or ethnicity were all significantly more likely to reside in a 3 generation family household than Whites. Mothers who lived with both parents at historic period 15 were more than likely to coreside whereas immigrants were less likely than their peers. In terms of generational needs, the needs of the parent generation mattered, whereas those of the grandparent generation did not: younger mothers (especially teen mothers) were more likely to alive in a three generation family unit household whereas older (25-34) ones were less likely. Mothers who had a first nascency were two times every bit likely to coreside. In comparison with married mothers, single mothers were 4.7 times as likely to accept lived in a three generation family household.

Stratifying the sample by female parent's human relationship condition revealed a few different patterns. As predicted, among married mothers, economical need did non play a very meaning role in determining coresidence. In comparison, amidst cohabiting mothers, economical factors played a significant role in predicting coresidence; cohabiting mothers with less than a high school educational activity were 68% more likely to live in a three generation family household than those with a loftier schoolhouse teaching. Counter to expectation, economical factors did not play a role among single mothers. It may be that the economic factors investigated here only capture one role of economic need and other factors not available in these information are predictive of coresidence.

Differences in cultural correlates past mother's relationship condition were not expected, yet some differences emerged. Interestingly, race or ethnicity was not associated with coresidence for any of the groups except for mothers who were "other" race once the analyses were stratified but differences between relationship groups were not pregnant. Among married mothers, those who had parents (grandparents) who were immigrants were 2 times as likely to alive in a three generation family household, yet this was not associated with coresidence for cohabiting mothers. For single mothers being an immigrant was negatively associated with three generation coresidence.

Generational needs of the parent generation were predictive of coresidence, but not those of the grandparent generation (this may be in office due to a lack of sufficient measures of grandparent needs). Older mothers who were cohabiting or single were less likely to alive in a iii generation family unit household whereas this was non the case for married mothers. Across relationship categories mothers who were having a kickoff birth were all more probable to live in a three generation family unit household but differences in the magnitude varied by mother's relationship status: Single mothers who were having a first birth were 2 and a half times as likely to coreside, cohabiting mothers 58% more likely, and married mothers just 11% more likely. Thus, information technology appears that the needs of the parent generation predict coresidence more strongly than the needs of the grandparent generation.

Patterns of Transition and Duration

To fully understand the complexity of three generation family households and the apply of kin support among fragile every bit compared to married families it is of import to expect at incidence over time, transition patterns, and duration. Figure 1 illustrates the patterns of transitions into, and out of, three generation family households. Mothers were plotted every bit 3 generation (left) or not (correct) at baseline and their transitions were plotted over fourth dimension (moving down). In club to provide complete information on transitions, the sample was restricted to only mothers who were interviewed in all five survey waves. The widths of the lines connecting the transitions were drawn to approximately represent their relative sample sizes.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is nihms-474822-f0001.jpg

Flow Chart of Mothers in a Iii Generation Family Household over five Survey Waves (N=2986)

Note: Sample restricted to mothers in all survey waves.

Figure i demonstrates the fluidity of iii generation household arrangements and the volume of transitions into and out of three generation family unit households amid this population. Strikingly, nearly 43% of this sample (and 40% of the total sample) lived in a three generation family household in at least one of the five survey waves. Although 26% of respondents coresided with a grandparent at the birth of the child and this percentage decreased over time, in fact many more than families relied on kin for support at some signal in time.

Figure 1 plots the transitions for all mothers regardless of human relationship status; Tabular array 4 displays patterns of transition by female parent's human relationship status. Panel A of Table 4 shows the pct of mothers who ever reported living in a three generation family household by mother's relationship status. Again, the sample was restricted to those who were interviewed in all waves of the survey. Threescore-percent of mothers who were unmarried at the birth coresided with a grandparent in at least one moving ridge, 38% of cohabiting mothers, and only 22% of married mothers. Kin support was of import across family unit types and was virtually important for fragile families.

Console B of Table 4 documents patterns of transition by human relationship condition. Very few mothers lived in a three generation family household consistently over the 5 survey waves (1.8%) and single mothers were by far the most probable to exercise so (3%). Starting out in a 3 generation family unit household and so leaving that household was the virtually common pattern observed in these data. This pattern corresponds to the idea that early in a child's life, families may require additional aid from kin, only they later on motion out of the three generation family household and remain exterior of the household. Single mothers were past far the nigh likely to follow this pattern (31%) and 12% of cohabiters did the aforementioned, but but 5% of married mothers. Starting outside of a three generation household and then moving into one implies a different mechanism. Mothers who moved in may accept experienced a shock of some sort that led them to move in with kin. Thus, we did non expect to see differences in this blueprint across mother's human relationship status and this was the instance with four-5% post-obit this blueprint. Eighteen percent of the sample fabricated two or more transitions into (or out of) a three generation family household. Fragile families were expected to make the well-nigh transitions as their relationship statuses are more than likely to change over fourth dimension and as their financial situation may be more precarious than married mothers, and this was the case. Eleven per centum of married mothers fabricated two or more transitions into or out of a 3 generation family household, whereas 20% of cohabiting or single mothers did the same. Unmarried mothers had the most transitions with 7% of the sample making three or 4 transitions.

Panel C of Table 4 reports the number of consecutive (and not consecutive) waves of coresidence to approximate the duration of three generation households. Among mothers who ever reported living in a three generation family household, 45% only reported doing and so in one survey moving ridge. Once again there were differences past mother's relationship status just not necessarily as expected. Unmarried mothers were the least likely to coreside but for one wave, whereas 59% of married mothers but coresided one moving ridge. In terms of the number of sequent waves of coresidence, none of the differences by relationship status were statistically significant although single mothers overall were more than likely to reside in a 3 generation family household consecutively.

Decision

Bengtson argued that multigenerational bonds are condign more than important for the wellbeing of families and as a source of support. The findings of this report certainly back up the assertion that multigenerational support is widespread. Close to half (43%) of families in the study lived in a three generation family unit household in at least one survey wave and this finding probable underestimates the true incidence among this population as there were long intervals betwixt survey waves. Frail families (unmarried parents and their children) were near likely to rely on coresidence with kin both at the nativity and over time. Sixty-percent of unmarried mothers in the report lived in a 3 generation family household at to the lowest degree once over the get-go 9 years of the focal child's life. The demand for intergenerational support likewise appears to be higher when children are younger. At the birth of the kid 26% of the sample resided in a 3 generation family household (eighteen% of the weighted sample) and only 11% did as well at age 9. Together, these statistics suggest that urban families and delicate families in item, rely a bang-up deal on intergenerational support through coresidence.

Mother's relationship condition was associated with three generation family coresidence. Moreover, the factors correlated with coresidence varied past female parent's relationship status. Economic factors were not correlated with coresidence among single mothers only were associated with coresidence for cohabiting mothers. Cultural factors associated with coresidence also varied by female parent'southward relationship status. As anticipated, race or ethnicity was correlated with coresidence similarly across relationship groups, but for single mothers being an immigrant herself was associated with decreased odds.

Regardless of mother's human relationship status, the needs of the parent generation appeared to be more strongly associated with coresidence than the needs of the grandparent generation (although that may in part exist due to incomplete data on potential needs – such as the health of the grandparent generation). Mothers who were younger were more than likely to coreside with a grandparent, and across all relationship statuses, mothers who had a beginning birth were more probable to coreside although single mothers with a first nascency were the most likely.

Lastly, this written report investigated the patterns of transition and duration of three generation family households. Families transitioned into and out of three generation family unit households very ofttimes (18% transition two or more times) and transitions were more common amongst fragile families. Three generation family households were more often than not curt-lived. Among the families who lived in a iii generation family household, nearly one-half did then only at 1 survey wave. Although the tenure of three generation households was brusque, given the frequency of their occurrence, and their likelihood of reoccurrence, these households likely play an important office in the lives of children, mothers, and grandparents. Other inquiry has documented the importance of returning home for adult children, in particular middle class children (Newman, 2012), but these findings propose that families also provide an of import condom net for developed children with kids, and among the economically disadvantaged also. As Bengtson suggested, multigenerational support is of import.

This study has several limitations. First, the sample while focused on urban, primarily depression income mothers, a population that is very likely to alive in a iii generation family household, is not nationally representative. Time to come studies should utilize nationally representative data to see if these differences betwixt fragile families and married families hold. Second, although the analyses of the correlates of 3 generation family unit coresidence are suggestive, FF data accept merely limited data on the families prior to coresidence. Time to come research that looks at predictors of three generation families would ideally have more data on families prior to coresidence and additional variables that capture economical and generational needs (in item grandparent needs such every bit physical health). Lastly, the data were collected periodically and cannot capture three generation family coresidence betwixt waves; therefore it is probable that the percentages presented hither are underestimates.

Despite these limitations, the findings from this study are suggestive for time to come inquiry and policy making. Many families today, peculiarly when they have a very immature kid, live in a three generation family household and rely on kin support throughout early childhood. Three generation family households appear to be very transitory and research on nuclear family transitions suggests that instability is not good for children, but this may non be the case at the multigenerational family level. Hereafter research should consider transitions not only at the nuclear family level but also at the three generation family level. Moving in with grandparents may provide stability (economically or emotionally) in times of crunch or perhaps, equally is the example with nuclear family transitions, these disruptions are detrimental to child development. Policies are ofttimes targeted at the household level and recognizing the complexity of households is important.

This study is the first to investigate correlates of living in a three generation family unit household and patterns of transitions and duration of these households. It is also the get-go to examine differences in iii generation family households by mother's human relationship condition comparing fragile families to married families. This study sheds light on the complexity of this increasingly mutual household organisation, 1 that is probable to become more of import in years to come, as the population ages and as out of marriage birth rates remain steady or ascension.

Acknowledgments

The author thank you the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Found of Child Health and Homo Development for support through Award R24HD058486. The author also thanks Jane Waldfogel for her thoughtful feedback on drafts of this article, Lenna Nepomnyaschy for inspiring the graph, and Marty Moore for design assistance.

References

Allison PD. Missing data. Vol. 136. Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 2002. [Google Scholar]
Angel R, Tienda Thou. Determinants of extended household structure – cultural pattern or economic need. American Journal of Sociology. 1982;87:1360–1383. [Google Scholar]
Aquilino WS. The likelihood of parent developed kid coresidence: Furnishings of family-construction and parental characteristics. Periodical of Marriage and the Family. 1990;52:405–419. [Google Scholar]
Baca Zinn M, Wells B. Variety within Latino families: New lessons for family social science. In: Demo David H., Allen Katherine R., Fine Mark A., editors. Handbook of Family Diverseness. Oxford University Printing; 2000. [Google Scholar]
Beck SH, Brook RW. The formation of extended households during centre-age. Journal of Marriage and the Family unit. 1984;46:277–287. [Google Scholar]
______ The incidence of extended households among middle-anile black and white women – Estimates from a 15-year panel study. Periodical of Family Issues. 1989;x:147–168. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bengtson VL. Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2001;63:1–16. [Google Scholar]
Bryson Thou, Casper LM. Coresident grandparents and grandchildren. Census Bureau, U.South. Section of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration; 1999. [Google Scholar]
Cherlin AJ. The union-go-round the state of marriage and the family in America today. Alfred A Knopf; New York: 2009. [Google Scholar]
Choi NG. Coresidence between unmarried aging parents and their developed children-Who moved in with whom and why? Research on Crumbling. 2003;25:384–404. [Google Scholar]
Cohen PN. Extended households at work: Living arrangements and inequality in single mothers' employment. Sociological Forum. 2002;17:445–463. [Google Scholar]
Cohen PN, Casper LM. In whose home? Multigenerational families in the United States, 1998-2000. Sociological Perspectives. 2002;45:1–20. [Google Scholar]
Fingerman KL, Hay EL. Searching under the streetlight? Age biases in the personal and family relationships literature. Personal Relationships. 2002;9:415–433. [Google Scholar]
Fingerman KL, Miller 50, Birditt G, Zarit Southward. Giving to the good and the needy: Parental support of grown children. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2009;71:1220–1233. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Grundy E. Reciprocity in relationships: Socio-economical and wellness influences on intergenerational exchanges betwixt Third Age parents and their adult children in Smashing Britain. British Journal of Sociology. 2005;56:233–255. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hogan DP, Hao LX, Parish WL. Race, kin networks, and assistance to mother-headed families. Social Forces. 1990;68:797–812. [Google Scholar]
Hawkins AJ, Eggebeen DJ. Are fathers fungible? Patterns of co-resident adult men in maritally disrupted families and young children's well-existence. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1991;53:958–972. [Google Scholar]
Hofferth SL. Kin networks, race and family construction. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1984;46:791–806. [Google Scholar]
Jayakody R, Chatters LM, Taylor RJ. Family support to unmarried and married African American mothers: The provision of financial, emotional and kid care help. Journal of Wedlock and Family. 1993;55:261–276. [Google Scholar]
Kamo Y. Racial and ethnic differences in extended family households. Sociological Perspectives. 2000;43:211–229. [Google Scholar]
Kreider RM, Ellis R. Current Population Reports. Us Census Bureau; Washington DC: 2011. Living arrangements of children: 2009; pp. lxx–126. [Google Scholar]
Manlove J, Ryan Southward, Wildsmith E, Franzetta K. The relationship context of nonmarital childbearing in the United States. Demographic Research. 2010;23:615–654. [Google Scholar]
McLanahan SS, Sandefur GD. Growing up with a single parent: What hurts? What helps? Harvard University Press; Cambridge, MA: 1994. [Google Scholar]
Mutchler JE, Bakery LA. A demographic examination of grandparent caregivers in the Demography 2000 Supplementary Survey. Population Research and Policy Review. 2004;23:359–377. [Google Scholar]
Newman K. The accordion family: Boomerang kids, anxious parents, and the private toll of global competition. Beacon Press; Boston, MA: 2012. [Google Scholar]
Oberlander SE, Shebl FM, Magder LS, Black MM. Adolescent mothers leaving multi-generational households. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2009;38:62–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Oropesa RS, Landale NS. The futurity of marriage and Hispanics. Journal of Marriage and Family unit. 2004;66:901–920. [Google Scholar]
Pebley AR, Rudkin LL. Grandparents caring for grandchildren-What do we know? Journal of Family unit Issues. 1999;twenty:218–242. [Google Scholar]
Reichman NE, Teitler JO, Garfinkel I, McLanahan SS. Delicate families: Sample and design. Children and Youth Services Review. 2001;23:303–326. [Google Scholar]
Rubin D. Inference and missing data. Biometrika. 1976;63:581–592. [Google Scholar]
Ruggles S. Multigenerational families in nineteenth-century America. Continuity and Change. 2003;eighteen:139–165. [Google Scholar]
Ruggles Southward. The refuse of intergenerational coresidence in the United states, 1850-2000. American Sociological Review. 2007;72:964–989. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Sarkisian North, Gerstel North. Till marriage practise us part: Adult children'south relationships with their parents. Journal of Wedlock and Family unit. 2008;70:360–376. [Google Scholar]
Swartz TT. Intergenerational family relations in adulthood: patterns, variations, and implications in the contemporary United States. Annual Review of Sociology. 2009;35:191–212. [Google Scholar]
Taylor P, Passel J, et al. A social and demographic trends written report. Pew Research Middle; Washington DC: 2010. The return of the multi-generational family household. [Google Scholar]
Tienda G, Angel R. Headship and household composition among Blacks, Hispanics and other Whites. Social Forces. 1982;61:508–531. [Google Scholar]
Trent K, Harlan SL. Teenage mothers in nuclear and extended households – differences by marital condition and race ethnicity. Journal of Family Problems. 1994;15:309–337. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
U.S. Demography Bureau American Community Survey Highlights. 2010 Retrieved from: https://www.google.com/search?q=American+community+survey+highlights&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a.
U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey, 2010 Almanac Social and Economic Supplement. 2010.
Ventura SJ. NCHS Information Brief No. eighteen. National Middle for Wellness Statistics; Hyattsville, MD: 2009. Changing patterns of nonmarital childbearing in the United States. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Wu LL, Martinson BC. Family construction and the chance of a premarital nativity. American Sociological Review. 1993;58:210–232. [Google Scholar]

gallowaymancien.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3765068/