Indicators of Child, Family, and 

Community Connections 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Contract No.: HHS-100-01-0011 

Produced by 

Laura Lippman, Project Director

Acknowledgements 

We would like to especially acknowledge the Expert Panel for their thoughtful 

review and valuable comments throughout this project. The Expert Panel guided 

the selection of both the indicators and paper topics. Members of the Expert Panel 

included: 

Patrick Fagan, William H. G. Fitzgerald Research Fellow in Family and Cultural Issues, 

The Heritage Foundation 

Ron Haskins, Senior Fellow: Economic Studies, The Brookings Institution

Donald Hernandez, Professor, Department of Sociology, State University of New York, 

Albany 

Sandra Hofferth, Professor, Department of Family Studies, University of Maryland 

Velma McBride Murry, Professor, Associate Professor of Child and Family 

Development, Co-Director of the Center of Family Research in the Institute for 

Behavioral Research, University of Georgia 

David Murphey, Senior Policy Analyst, Vermont Agency of Human Services 

Steven Nock, Professor, Department of Sociology, Director of the Marriage Matters 

project, University of Virginia 

Shepherd Smith, President and Founder, Institute for Youth Development 

Gary Stangler, Executive Director, Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative 

James Youniss, Professor, Department of Psychology, Catholic University of America 

Nicholas Zill, Vice President, Westat, Inc. 

Project Director 

Laura Lippman, Child Trends 

Chartbook Manager 

Stephanie Cochran, Child Trends 

Indicator analysts and writers included: Sharon Bzostek, Julie Dombrowski, Kerry 

Franzetta, Sarah Garrett, Lina Guzman, Susan Jekielek, Akemi Kinukawa, Erik 

Michelsen, Suzanne Ryan, and Sharon Vandivere, Child Trends. Lina Guzman provided 

technical review. Harriet Scarupa edited the chartbook. We would like to thank Brett 

Brown and Kristin Moore, Child Trends, and Christine Ross, Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc. for their valuable review and comments. 

We would also like to thank the following members of the Department of Health and 

Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, 

Office of Human Services Policy: Don Winstead, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Human Service Policy, Barbara Broman, Deputy to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Julia 

Isaacs, Director, Division of Data and Technical Analysis, Martha Moorehouse, Director, 

Division of Children and Youth Policy, Sonia Chessen, Senior Policy Analyst, Anne 

Fletcher, Project Officer, Social Science Analyst, Kelleen Kaye, Project Officer, Senior 

Program Analyst. 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections i
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................................................................................I

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................III

AVAILABILITY OF TREND DATA......................................................................... XII

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK...............................................................................XIII

FAMILY STRUCTURE................................................................................................... 1

FAMILY FUNCTIONING ............................................................................................ 10

FAMILY, WORK, AND CHILD CARE...................................................................... 21

SCHOOL INVOLVEMENT AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT..................................... 30

RELIGIOSITY................................................................................................................ 43

SOCIAL CONNECTIONS ............................................................................................ 48

APPENDIX A: DATA SOURCES ................................................................................ 57

ii Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Introduction 

This chartbook has been prepared for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Planning and Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and with 

the assistance of a panel of experts. Its purpose is to present examples of indicators of the 

social context of families that can be developed from currently available data, as well as 

to help identify critical gaps where such data are meager or do not yet exist. The 

chartbook does not seek to provide a comprehensive or exhaustive list of all available 

indicators, nor do these examples imply a judgment as to which are the most critical 

indicators to describe the family, instead, it is part of an exploratory effort to characterize 

families in their social context. This exploratory effort includes (1) synthesizing research 

on the multiple dimensions of the social context of families (see the Conceptual 

Framework in this volume); (2) identifying data sources and indicators to describe and 

monitor these dimensions (as summarized in this chartbook); and (3) identifying critical 

gaps in knowledge and data, as well as future directions for measuring and monitoring 

these dimensions (see discussion at end of this introduction, including references to the 

four papers prepared under this project). 

The indicators in this chartbook expand the traditional set of indicators used to 

describe families, characterizing both the situation within families and how families 

relate to the community at large. A representative set of key indicators from the various 

social contexts of families are provided in this chartbook to illustrate the range of 

indicators as well as the value of the information that a broader effort might provide. 

This chartbook differs in several ways from America’s Children and other 

recurring indicator volumes. This project is an exploratory effort, and an important goal 

was to uncover data gaps. Thus, consideration of indicators was not limited strictly to 

measures from nationally representative data sets, or data that were recent or recurring, 

but rather included other measures of interest for which the data may be less than perfect. 

In addition, the list of measures presented in this chartbook does not represent a 

committee consensus as to the best measures; rather it is an illustrative list of the types of 

indicators that would be important for the domains listed below. 

The indicators were selected through a process that involved multiple steps, 

including a thorough review of research and data sources, development of a conceptual 

framework to guide the selection of indicators, and input from a panel of experts. 

Selection criteria were then applied, resulting in 110 potential indicators, of which 25 are 

presented in this chartbook. The list focused primarily on measures that were readily 

available, due the relatively small scale of this project. The steps in the process and the 

criteria applied are detailed below. 

A review of the literature was conducted on the social context of families, 

including reviews of research in the domains of family structure, labor market 

participation, family functioning, volunteerism and civic/neighborhood involvement, 

youth development, religiosity, and social connections. A review of data sources was 

also conducted which identified sources in each of these areas, the periodicity of data 

collections, the availability of data for population groups of children, and family 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections iii
background characteristics. From these reviews of research and data, a conceptual 

framework document was developed which outlined and described the most salient 

research pertaining to developing indicators of the social context of families. The 

development of the conceptual framework and a preliminary list of potential indicators 

was the first step in exploring what would ideally be included in the final chartbook. 

The second step was to select and assemble a panel of experts to provide 

additional expertise and a variety of viewpoints to help inform the decision of which 

indicators would be presented. The primary objective of this review was to gather a 

broad range of perspectives, rather than to reach complete consensus. The expert panel 

reviewed the conceptual framework and the recommended list of indicators (see 

acknowledgements), as well as recommended additional topics of potential measurement. 

Based on the panel’s suggestions, additional potential indicators and data sources were

identified and located. Subsequently, 25 indicators were selected based on the following 

criteria: 

• Adequate coverage of each domain of the conceptual framework and 

maintaining a balance across the domains; 

• Strength of the research on the indicator’s relationship to child and family 

well-being; 

• Representation of both parent and child perspectives; 

• Preference for family-based rather than individual-based indicators; 

• Inclusion of both attitudes and behaviors; 

• Variability in the indicator; 

• Data quality and currency, with preferences for data collections using 

nationally representative samples, periodic versus one time collections, recent 

data, and for data sets allowing analysis by parental status; 

• Policy interest or relevance; 

• Importance to the expert panel; and 

• Whether the indicator would make a unique contribution to portraying how 

families connect to each other and to the world around them. 

The final list of indicators were organized into six broad areas: 

Family Structure. Indicators in this area include a traditional measure of living 

arrangements, as well as more complex measures capturing an array of familial 

relationships: 

Children’s living arrangements, Family structure change, Families with 

grandparents who live nearby, Births to unmarried teens 

Family Functioning. Specific measures examine amount of family time together and 

quality of relationships: 

iv Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Parental warmth and affection, Positive parent-adolescent relationships, Parental 

awareness of adolescents’ friends and activities, Time spent with parents, Contact 

with nonresident parents 

Family, Work, and Child Care. This broad area includes traditional measures of

employment status and hours of work for both parents, as well as measures pertaining to 

the impact of job stress: 

Parental employment by family structure, Work-family stress, Family income, 

Patterns of child care 

School Involvement and Civic Engagement. These measures include parental and 

student engagement with child’s school, and family and student civic engagement: 

Parental involvement in school, Volunteering as a family, Student participation in 

community service, Parental voting, Youth connection to school peers, School 

supportiveness 

Religiosity. Indicators of religiosity include a measure of participation in religious 

services, as well as a measure of participation in a broader group of religious activities as 

a family. 

Parental religious service attendance, Adolescent participation in religious 

activities with their families 

Social Connections. These measures describe the extent to which families have a sense 

of community in their neighborhoods and among friends: 

Neighborhood community, Community of friends, Concern for safety, Residential 

mobility

Each indicator includes a figure that highlights the data for the total population as 

well as for one subgroup. Subgroups were chosen based upon the availability of 

subgroup data, the salience of the subgroup to the indicator, and upon a review of the data 

so that interesting differences across population groups were highlighted. A data table 

accompanies each indicator, typically presenting several subgroups. The indicator text

describes patterns in the data, and all differences mentioned are statistically significant, 

except where noted. 

The data that have been chosen for each indicator were carefully selected for 

quality and currency. However, it is not possible to present each indicator systematically 

for the same years, or for the same subgroups, since the availability of the data varies by 

data set. This indicator volume is intended only to represent examples of indicators that 

are possible given currently available data, rather than a complete and comparable set of

indicators. 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections v
Data Sources 

As noted above, the data presented in this chartbook come from many different 

sources. These include both well-known data sets such as the Current Population Survey 

(CPS) and the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) as well as lesser-known sources 

such as Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey. The data sources used for each 

indicator are listed below and described in more detail in Appendix A: 

 Current Population Survey 

 Giving and Volunteering in the United States 

 National Household Education Survey Programs 

 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health 

 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth-1997 

 National Study of the Changing Workforce 

 National Survey of America’s Families 

 National Survey of Families and Households 

 Panel Study of Income Dynamics 

 National Vital Statistics System

 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey 

In addition, there are many other data sets that have the potential to inform our 

view of the social context of families that are not represented here due to the limited scale 

of the project. These include, among others: 

 National Survey of Family Growth

 Survey of Income and Program Participation 

 National Health Interview Survey 

 American Community Survey 

 Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey-Kindergarten and Birth cohorts 

 Fragile Families Survey

 Monitoring the Future 

 General Social Survey 

 National Compensation Survey 

 The Civic and Political Health of the Nation 

 National Family Violence Survey 

 National Crime Victimization Survey

Data Gaps 

While the indicators in this chartbook make important strides in describing the 

social context of families, gaps remain in our ability to measure and report on the 

domains listed above. In some cases currently available data are insufficient to measure 

an important concept. In other cases data may be available but additional conceptual 

work is needed to define an appropriate measure. In addition, for some important 

constructs such as family structure, measures are widely available but defined 

inconsistently across data sets. There are also gaps that reach across all of the areas of 

investigation, such as our ability to present data on trends over a consistent time period, 

vi Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
across a consistent set of population groups and across cultures, or by stage of family 

development. The following section identifies gaps within each domain by comparing 

the critical measurement areas discussed in the conceptual framework or suggested by the 

expert panel with available data and measures. Additional gaps became apparent while 

working with the data for this chartbook. 

Examples of Gaps Within the Domain of Family Structure 

• A basic indicator to accurately portray the complexity of family composition in 

America today is lacking. There is no current source of data available that 

adequately combines information on whether the parents are married or 

cohabitating, whether they are biological, step, or adoptive parents of the children 

in their household, and whether other relatives are living with the family in the 

same household. The National Health Interview Survey is developing such a 

cross-sectional measure. Furthermore, additional measures are needed to reflect 

the complexity of not only measuring trends over time, but also tracking families 

longitudinally. Some currently available data sets have some of these pieces, for 

some years, but no one data set can yet present this complete portrait on a regular

basis over time. 

• It is not currently possible to define family structure consistently across data sets 

that address the social context of families. This makes it impossible to accurately 

compare family types across indicators. 

• Many indicators in this report rely on data for which it is difficult, and in some

cases impossible, to analyze with families or parents as the unit of analysis. 

Surveys often use the household head as the respondent and reference person for 

household relationships, but this procedure does not always accurately identify 

whether other members of the household are parents of children in the household. 

Therefore, special analyses were needed requiring different assumptions across 

data sets in order to create estimates for parents. In some data sets, such as the 

Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, it was not possible to portray 

parents at all, but only adults. 

• We lack both data and measures to fully reflect the process of couple formation 

and related changes in patterns of courtship and dating, attitudes toward marriage 

and cohabitation, sexual relationships prior to marriage, and barriers to marriage. 

(See the paper written for this project by Steven Nock, The New Chronology of 

Union Formation: Strategies for Measuring Changing Pathways for a strategy to

develop such measures). Similarly, the indicators in this volume do not address 

the growing proportion of families that are stepfamilies resulting from

remarriages.

• Family structure transitions are known to be stressful on families, yet the measure 

available in the Panel Survey of Income Dynamics which is included in this 

chartbook, combines divorce and remarriage along with births and adoptions over 

a two-year period in a family’s life. A more finely-tuned measure of transitions is 

needed that would separate entrances and departures from unions, such as 

marriage and divorce, and the entrances of new family members (including 

births/adoptions and immigration) as well as departures from the family 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections vii
(including deaths, and those leaving home) over a longer period of time in the life 

of a family. 

• Data that capture marriage and divorce events at the subnational level are 

currently not readily available. Counting Couples, a forum sponsored by the 

Federal Inter-Agency Forum on Child and Family Statistics has identified several 

targets of opportunity for improving these data, but significant changes are several 

years off. 

Examples of Gaps Within the Domain of Family Functioning 

• Marital quality is key to healthy family functioning, yet measures of marital 

quality are just now being developed and have not yet been fielded in national 

surveys.

• Available measures of family conflict, including punishment, child abuse and 

domestic violence lack rigor and currency. Better measures need to be developed 

and fielded in such a way that biases are minimized in order to adequately 

monitor this critical area of family functioning

• There is anecdotal evidence that parental stress is increasing, and that mothers are 

particularly stressed. New ways of incorporating biological measures of stress 

within surveys are being explored, and could be extremely useful for the study of 

stress among parents in various social contexts in the future.

• Research demonstrates that children who are exposed to parental risk behaviors 

such as smoking, drug and alcohol abuse are at higher risk of developing these 

habits themselves. Creating indicators of parental risk behaviors in the home for 

children from existing data can be done, but it requires complex and timeconsuming analyses.

• An index of turbulence in residence, school, and family structure would be an 

important contribution to this study, yet it is not possible to create from one 

existing data source.

• Family routines, rituals, and time together are key components of family 

functioning (see the paper written for this project by Lina Guzman and Susan 

Jekeliek, Family Time) but there are few such measures fielded in national 

surveys. Furthermore, measures are needed at the family level rather than at the 

individual level in order to capture interactions between family members.

• Although the chartbook contains indicators on parenting characteristics that have 

been related to positive outcomes for children, such as warmth and awareness, 

cultural variation in effective parenting is not captured in currently available 

measures.

• While a general measure of parent-child communication quality is available, 

measures of specific types of communication are needed.

• Parents provide gate keeping, resource management, and networking functions for 

their family, yet these functions are not captured in available national surveys.

Examples of Gaps Within the Domain of Family, Work and Child Care 

viii Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
• While an attitudinal measure of work-family stress is included in this volume, 

consistent trend data on the number of hours spent at work and the corresponding 

effect on the number of hours spent with family, for both mothers and fathers, are 

not available. In addition, commuting times to work are increasing for adults, but 

this information is not available by parental status, which limits the ability to 

analyze the extent to which commuting infringes upon family time. 

• More measures are needed of the various ways in which parents arrange their 

work and child care schedules, and the extent to which the diverse arrangements 

made by parents reflect parental preferences or economic necessity. For example, 

while there are data showing the widespread use of care by relatives, there are not 

good data on the extent to which use of this care is influenced by availability of 

relatives outside the household, cultural values, personal preferences, high costs 

of formal care, lack of access to subsidies, or other factors. Similar questions can 

be asked about the use of multiple arrangements, after-school care, work during 

non-traditional hours, part-time work, etc. 

• More generally, indicators of parental satisfaction with child care arrangements 

have been developed for small scale studies, and have been incorporated in the 

National Household Education Survey of 2001, but they fail to correct for 

parental biases toward their current child care provider, so that a true national 

assessment of parental satisfaction with child care remains elusive. 

• There are non-economic costs associated with nonparental child care that may 

impact family strengths, such as time family members spend together, for which 

indicators need to be developed. 

Examples of Gaps Within the Domain of School Involvement and Civic Engagement 

• Detailed data on youth civic engagement are not available after 1999, the last time 

that the Youth Supplement was administered of the National Household 

Education Survey. Data collection in this area is needed in the future in order to 

monitor trends over time. New studies on civic engagement that incorporate 

promising and broader measures of civic engagement, such as The Civic and 

Political Health of the Nation: A Generational Portrait, can only be analyzed at 

the individual level, and parents and youth are not identifiable separately, nor can 

families be analyzed as a unit.

• More specific data are needed on families volunteering together, including the 

number and ages of family members involved, and whether the volunteering is 

initiated by the family or by an organization to which they belong, such as a 

school, church or community service organization. The stages in a family life 

cycle during which families are likely to volunteer is also important to know. For 

these reasons, data need to be collected on volunteering with families as the unit 

of analysis.

• Family structure variables differ between the November Current Population 

Survey, the data source used for the voting behavior indicator, and the March 

Current Population Survey, which is typically used to portray family structure. 

Thus, it is not possible to portray voting behavior with the same family structure 

definitions across months of the same survey.

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections ix
Examples of Gaps Within the Domain of Religiosity 

• There is no current source of trend data on youth participation in religiousoriented youth groups. Monitoring the Future used to ask the question, but 

stopped including the question after 1996.

• Data and measures are needed on the prevalence of couples that do not share 

religious affiliation, and the affiliation of their children. Indicators are needed on 

how family religiosity changes over the life cycle of the family, but data are rarely 

collected this way.

• Current measures of religiosity are largely limited to attendance at religious 

services, affiliation, and importance of religion. A much more diverse set of 

measures is needed to accurately portray current family religious practices (see 

the paper written for this project, The Measurement of Family Religiosity and 

Spirituality, by Laura Lippman, Erik Michelsen, and Eugene Roehlkepartain). 

Examples of Gaps Within the Domain of Social Connections 

• For three of the four key indicators within the domain of social connections, 

including neighborhood community, community of friends, and concern for 

safety, data are only available for individuals. Data are not available for parents, 

youth, or families. 

• Although a measure of residential mobility in the last year is included in the 

chartbook, data sources do not allow analyses of mobility over a longer time 

period. 

• An indicator of residential segregation by socioeconomic status needs to be 

developed. 

• Better measures of social networks and community resources need to be fielded in 

national surveys, including those that are valid for various cultural and immigrant 

groups. 

Across all of the areas of study, it is possible to develop some indicators of trends, either 

from published data or by conducting new analyses. Included in this chartbook is a table 

that identifies the availability of trend data for each indicator. For the majority of the 

indicators, some trend measures could be developed through further analyses, though 

trends could not be monitored over a consistent time period across indicators. For a few 

indicators, trend data are not currently available at all. 

Just as important, but even less available than trend data, is detail for each indicator by 

the family life cycle stage, as pictured in Chart B of the Conceptual Framework. In order 

to understand how and when families interact with their environments and how these 

interactions affect children in families, the age of children in the family needs to be 

known. It is also important to track changes over the life course of a family by 

developing longitudinal measures of key constructs that are already measured in crosssectional surveys. 

x Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
A number of important issues and potential avenues for further development are 

discussed in a series of papers written by noted researchers in the field of family 

indicators. These papers are available in a separate volume and include: 

• The Measurement of Family Religiosity and Spirituality, by Laura Lippman, Erik 

Michelson, and Eugene Roehlkepartain 

• Family Time, by Lina Guzman and Susan Jekielek 

• Longitudinal Indicators of the Social Context of Families: Beyond the Snapshot, 

by Kristin Anderson Moore and Sharon Vandivere 

• The New Chronology of Union Formation: Strategies for Measuring Changing 

Pathways, by Steven Nock 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections xi
Availability of Trend Data 

INDICATORS

Trend in

ASPE

Chartbook

Trends 

Published

Trends Can be

Calculated

Using Existing 

Data

Trend Data

Not 

Available 

Family Structure

Family structure *

Family structure change *

Families with grandparents who live nearby *

Births to unmarried teens * *

Family Functioning

Parental warmth and affection with younger children *

Positive parent-adolescent relationships *

Parental awareness of adolescents' friends and 

activities

*

Time spent with parents *

Contact with non-resident parents * *

Family, Work, and Child Care

Parental employment by family structure *

Work-family stress *

Family income *

Patterns of child care *

School Involvement & Civic Engagement 

Parental involvement in school * * *

Volunteering as a family *

Student participation in community service * *

Parental voting *

Youth connection to school peers *

School supportiveness *

Religiosity

Parental religious service attendance *

Adolescent participation in religious activities with 

their families

*

Social Connections

Neighborhood community *

Community of Friends *

Concern for safety *

Residential mobility *

AVAILABILITY OF TREND MEASURES

xii Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections xiii

period effects on individual family members and their roles within the family. 

Conceptual Framework

I. Introduction 

Indicators of the social context of families can be developed from a framework 

based upon current research and theory on families and their interaction with their social 

environment. First, we present the theory underlying the conceptual framework, and 

second, the stages in the life cycle of the family that should be considered in indicator 

development. Third, each element in the social ecology of families is identified, and 

critical considerations for developing indicators are reviewed.

II. Theory 

This framework is based on an ecological model of human development, in which 

individual development occurs within concentric circles of environmental influence, 

which include the family, the school, peer, neighborhood, community and nation 

(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). “The ecological model environment is conceived as a set of 

nested structures, each inside the other like a set of Russian dolls” (Bronfenbrenner, 

1979, p.3). These structures within the ecological model are systems in themselves, yet 

are not independent of each other, so that, for example, the family circle overlaps with the 

school, neighborhood, and peer circles (Coatsworth, 2002). Further removed from the 

individual in the model is the parent job context; parent support networks including child 

care and families of peers; and neighborhood, community and religious organizations and 

opportunities. Still further removed in the ecosystem are the social, cultural, political, 

and economic contexts of the larger society. (See Chart A). 

More recently, this ecological model has evolved to recognize that the process of 

interaction between the individual and the environment is central to human development, 

and that this process will vary with characteristics of the person, their environmental 

contexts, and the time periods, both within an individual’s life course and historical 

times, in which the processes take place (Bronfenbrenner, 1998). 

It is useful to apply this concept of an individual’s life course to families. “The 

life course is conceived as an age-graded sequence of socially defined roles and events 

that are enacted and even recast over time. It consists of multiple, interlocking 

trajectories, such as work and family, with their transitions or changes in states” (Elder, 

1998, p.983). A family cycle has been conceived of as stages of parenthood, including 

marriage, birth of the first child, the preschool period, children’s entry into school and 

transitions through each level of school, and the transitions to the empty nest (Elder, 

1978). This concept of a single, smooth family cycle describes a decreasing proportion 

of families, however, as more children are raised outside of marriage because of increases 

in nonmarital births, cohabitation, and divorce, and changes in the order of the stages as 

experienced by parents (a birth before a marriage, for example). Therefore, in this 

framework, married couple families as well as other family types are considered. In 

addition, recent research on the life course takes into consideration cohort as well as 
In conceptualizing measures of the so ial context of families, this framework 

rom the study of family strengths. There is an emerging 

consensus in the family strengths literature that: 

• 

a

• The nature of family strengths is influenced by the social and economic context of 

ironment; and 

• The role of culture affects family processes and relationships in ways that remain 

lly experience when they 

have any children at each of these stages. 

ontext,

hich 

es

c

utilizes lessons emerging f

Measures of family strengths need to address different developmental periods of

family life; 

• Multiple measures are necessary to provide a complete picture of the status of

family or groups of households; 

• Both the quality of family relationships and the nature of family behaviors are

important in the consideration of family strengths; 

the social env

poorly understood (Moore, Chalk, Scarpa, & Vandivere, 2002, p.i) 

III. Stages in the Family Life Cycle. 

Indicators of the social context of families will need to be developed with 

consideration of the life cycle stages of the family, determined by the presence and ages 

of the children in the family. The stages that we recommend include a) conception and 

the prenatal period and, b) families with preschool-aged children (ages 0-5), c) families

with elementary school-aged children (ages 6-11), d) families with children in middle and

high school (ages 12-17), and e) families with young adults (ages 18-24) (see Chart B). 

Obviously, many families have children who fit in several age categories, but it is useful 

to consider special situations and contexts that families typica

We have chosen to focus on children as the determinant of life cycle states, 

because families with children are the focus of the project. Nevertheless, it is also 

important to note how the age of the parents typically interacts with these life cycle 

stages, and how that also influences the needs of families. 

Each of these stages can be sub-divided into two stages. These stages (0-2, 3-5, 

6-8, 9-11, 12-14, 15-17, and 18-24) reflect more finely detailed developmental stages, 

and may represent useful categories when considering varied aspects of family c

such as parental employment patterns, monitoring, and parent-child communication. 

Data are not currently collected consistently for many potential indicators 

according to these developmental stages, or by the more finely detailed age breaks, w

will become apparent once the data for recommended indicators are made available. 

Nevertheless, conceptually, these categories can guide thinking and planning. 

IV. Elements in the Ecological Model of the Social Context of Families 

This framework begins by addressing the various types of family structure and

transitions between structures, and then considers critical aspects of how famili

xiv Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
function as a unit. The interaction of family members with the world of work, including 

child c

their 

n, are considered. Finally, the 

imp ta

A.

Indicat n need to take into

con e

pregna for the stability of the union as well as the 

qua

more li s, and to

ave access to more limited social, economic, and emotional resources (McLanahan,

newly unwed parents, McLanahan et al (2001) 

found that half of unmarried mothers are living with the fathers of their children, and that 

the par ny 

step-parent, and one biological parent with a 

cohabiting partner. Children living in the latter types of two-parent families appear to

have ou ore, 

tion 

ion

conomic benefits, sharing of 

household chores and parenting responsibilities, and emotional support and 

compan

family before age 16—and this likelihood is higher among certain groups of children, 

particu biting

to perform

orse in school, to drop out of high school, and to have a birth while a teen, and are less 

likely t r

vement 

are considerations, and the involvement of parents in school will be addressed.

Important aspects of how families, in general, and youth, in particular, engage with

neighborhoods and communities, and their religio

or nce of social connections for families is summarized. 

Family Structure 

Family Formation. A nuclear family is formed with a first birth to a couple. 

ors of this first step in the process of family formatio

sid ration current trends in marital status at birth, as well as the intendedness of the 

ncy. Both have important implications 

lity of parenting (Brown & Eisenberg, 1995). Children born to unmarried mothers are

kely to be of low birthweight, which can lead to developmental delay

h

1995). In a study of “fragile families,” or

ents are committed to each other and to their child. However, they face ma

barriers to marriage, including unemployment or incarceration of fathers, and poor 

relationship skills. 

Family Types. Existing indicators of family structure typically include an 

indicator on the proportion of children living with two parents (Federal Interagency 

Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2002). However, research indicates that living 

with both biological parents gives children an advantage over other types of two-parent

families, including one biological and one

tcomes that are more similar to children living in single-parent families (Mo

Jekielek, & Emig, 2002). In developing indicators for families, however, considera

must be given to the well-being of all family members, and remarriage and cohabitat

can have important benefits for a single parent, including e

ionship.

Cohabitation is an increasingly common experience for children—it has been 

estimated that at least two-fifths of all children will spend some time in a cohabiting 

larly among black children (Bumpass & Lu, 2000). Children living in coha

families tend to be worse off economically compared to children living with married 

parents, and they are at higher risk of experiencing future instability in their living 

arrangements (Manning & Lichter, 1996; Graefe & Lichter, 1999). 

Youth who have spent time in single-parent families are more likely

w

o enroll in college or to be working as young adults, even after adjusting for othe

family background characteristics (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). Parental invol

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections xv
and supervision in high school is lower among single parents than in other family types, 

and community resources available to single-parent families are weaker. Loss of incom

and higher residential mobility are two of the negative effects of family disruption that 

help explain differences among youth outcomes in single versus two-parent famil

(McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). 

e

ies

Family Structure. Children involved in divorce are also more 

kely to experience problems with behavior, social competence, and psychological 

adjustm ll

ical wellms in 

& Rivara, 1993). Maternal imprisonment, in particular, can result in 

ajor changes in family structure, such as children being put into kinship care 

arrange g &

n

,

as well as

arent families (DeLeire & Kalil, 2002; Wilson & Tolson,1990). 

Therefore, the presence of extended family members, and the nature and extent of their 

involve

ine, 2000; Collins, 

Maccoby, Steinberg, & Hetherington, 2000; Miller, 1998; Kirby, 1999). Considerable 

researc

Transitions in

li

ent (Amato, 2000). Divorce has major negative consequences for adults as we

as children in a family, including economic hardship, lower levels of psycholog

being, and difficulty with parenting; but there can also be positive consequences, 

including higher levels of autonomy, personal growth, and happiness (Amato, 2000). 

Transitions and instability in family structure, per se, can lead to negative 

outcomes for young adult well-being. For example, instability in family structure was

found to be more predictive of premarital births among young adults than specific 

experiences of family disruption (Wu & Martinson, 1993). 

Parental incarceration is also associated with psychosocial and health proble

the family (Kemper

m

ments with grandparents or other relatives, or placed into foster care (Youn

Smith, 2000; Johnson & Waldfogel, 2002). 

Therefore, monitoring the incidence of family structure transitions (other than 

births and adoptions) is important. Grandparents and other extended family members ca

provide critical support during times of family transitions or crises, such as marital 

disruption, parental unemployment, and imprisonment (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1986; 

Hill, 1999), and often provide child care while parents work. According to some studies

in families where no biological father is present, the presence of extended family 

members in the home tends to offset the absence of the father. Children from families 

with a grandmother, aunt, or other family member in the house tend to thrive

those from two-p

ment in the structure and function of a family are important to measure in 

portraying the social context of families. 

B. Family Functioning 

Research studies consistently find that family factors influence children's 

development (e.g., National Research Council, & Institute of Medic

h indicates that parents are very important to children's development and that the

types of influences that parents have are broad and occur throughout childhood 

(Borkowsky, Ramey & Bristol-Powers, 2000). Here we highlight some of the crucial 

elements of family functioning that affect children's development. 

xvi Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
The relationship of the child with their parent(s) is a crucial predictor of children's

development (Hair et al., 2002). This holds not only for the relationship of the child wit

their residential parents, but with their biological parents outside of the home (if any).

Among young children, this is ofte

h

n referred to as "attachment," while "connectedness" 

or "parent-child relationship" is often noted among school-age children. It is important to 

note th e

dich,

he quality of the marital or partner relationship between the child's parents or 

parent

al

Fincham & Beach, 2000). 

This indicates that in addition to measuring family structure and whether or not the child 

resides

t.

nce represents a more extreme topic but it is 

an important extension of the construct of the quality of family relationships and 

interac

nson

d

of

y, 1999), child care (Howes & Hamilton, 1993), 

family structure (Cherlin, 1999), and residence have each been found to be associated 

r children.

other

m

icularly

ss this. Likewise,

at this relationship continues to be important throughout childhood and into th

transition to adulthood, as well as throughout the life course (Peterson, Madden-Der

& Leonard, 2000). Parental warmth is a related aspect of family functioning, which has 

been found to be associated with more positive development for children (Demo & Cox, 

2000). 

T

and step-parent or partner has also been regularly found to affect children's

development and contributes to the quality of parenting (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; 

Amato, 2000; Simons & Johnson, 1996). In addition, marital satisfaction is a critic

component of life satisfaction for adults as well (Bradbury,

with both biological parents, it is important to assess the quality of the 

relationship that exists between the residential parents. It is also important to assess the 

frequency of contact and the relationship between the child and an absent paren

The issue of family or domestic viole

tions. Research consistently finds an association between exposure to family 

violence and poorer developmental outcomes for children and adults, though the 

magnitude of the effect on children of observing violence is described as small (Joh

& Ferraro, 2000). At the low end, marital and family disagreements and conflict 

resolution can be issues, while, at the high end, physical abuse and injury are concerns. 

Family routines represent another important element of family functioning 

(Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992), for a variety of reasons. Families with regular patterns an

habits may be more likely to provide for children's needs and also to create a sense

stability and trust. From the opposite perspective, turbulence has been found to 

undermine children's development (Moore, Vandivere & Redd, forthcoming). 

Turbulence in schools (Pribesh & Downe

with poorer outcomes fo

Monitoring and supervision of children's friends and activities represent an

aspect of family functioning that is important for children's development. However, in 

cross-sectional studies, high levels of monitoring are often found associated with proble

behaviors, presumably because children with behavior problems are monitored more 

closely. Catsambis & Beveridge (2001) found that parental monitoring was part

beneficial to students in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Of course, appropriate 

monitoring varies substantially by age, and measures need to addre

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections xvii
gatekeeping, resource management, and networking are important functions that parents 

perform

amily represents another critical element of family 

functioning (Miller et al., 1998). This communication may occur between the parents, 

betwee

at

lace

rs.

addition, secure parental employment can contribute to healthy family functioning and 

psycho ent,

n

e affected 

lower likelihood of being present or involved with 

their families (Wilson & Tolson, 1990). One measure of secure employment is whether 

at least

hen

ift their

s

 for their children that influence child outcomes (Furstenberg et al., 1999). 

Parenting style is a categorization of parental approaches, which examines 

responsiveness and demandingness together (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Authoritative

parents are "high in both demandingness and responsiveness," while authoritarian parents 

are "high in demandingness but low in responsiveness;" indulgent parents are "high in 

responsiveness but low in demandingness;" and neglecting parents are "low in both 

responsiveness and demandingness" (Darling & Steinberg, 1993, p. 491). 

Communication in the f

n parents and children, or among all family members. Positive constructive 

communication is regularly recommended for families; but it is important to note th

both the quality and quantity of communication are important. A particular case of

parent-child communication is communication about school. When parents communicate 

with their children about school and about their expectations for their children, children

tend to perform better in school and have higher educational expectations themselves 

(Fan & Chen, 1999; Trusty, 1999). 

C. Family, Work and Child Care 

Measures of the interaction of families with the world of work need to extend 

beyond traditional measures of employment to the status of family-friendly workp

policies and the availability of quality child care for parents during their working hou

Secure parental employment is critical for a family’s economic stability. Not only

does it provide steady income, but also a secure job is more likely to offer health,

retirement and other benefits for the employee and his or her family members. In 

logical well-being, and protect against the stress associated with unemploym

underemployment, and poverty (Mayer, 1997; Smith et al, 1997). 

Parental employment status is related to the economic status of children i

mother-headed single-parent families. The economic security of children can b

by gaps in non-resident fathers and custodial mothers’ income and employment (Bianchi, 

Subaiya, & Kahn, J.,1999). Furthermore, a high rate of joblessness among black males

has been found to be related to their

one parent is employed full-time, full year (Federal Interagency Forum on Child 

and Family Statistics, 2002). 

The quality, not just the stability, of a parental job is important to measure. W

working parents earn below minimum wage and have jobs without benefits, they are 

often not fully able to provide for the needs of their families, and are unable to l

family above the poverty threshold. This is particularly problematic for single mother

xviii Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
who enter low-complexity jobs, where there is evidence of a lower quality home

environment as well (Menahan & Parcel, 1995) 

Juggling family and work responsibilities, parents want control over their w

schedules. Their needs include having to coordinate child care coverage with another 

parent or child care provider, to timing arrival at home with the return of children from 

school, to attending teacher conferences and children’s doctor appointments. The degre

to which parents feel that they can arrange their schedules to meet their family’s need

an important aspect of family well-being. While there are many informal a

ork

e

s is

rrangements 

that data systems are not yet able to capture, the availability of flextime schedules to 

worker is an

ts

e

f

rs, and the duration of the marriage. 

s well as paid maternity/paternity leave are workplace 

olicies that allow families to care for newborns and seriously ill family members while 

mainta y

hile monitoring the use and availability of these family-friendly policies 

indicat

asures

e

milies Project, and 

Roper polls. Studies have found that being overworked leads to more work-life conflict, 

less suc ct, lost

ccess to good quality child care is a critical component of balancing work and 

family

t,

s is an important piece that is measurable. The age of children in the family

important feature to consider in this indicator, though flexibility can be crucial for paren

with older as well as younger children. 

Shift work is quite different than flexible scheduling and has been found to b

related to marital instability among couples with children, particularly if the non-standard 

working hours occur during the week rather than the weekend (Presser, 2000). Factors 

that are related to marital instability include the type of schedule worked, the gender o

the parent working nonstandard hou

Family and medical leave a

p

ining their jobs (Joesch, 1997). It would be important to monitor the availabilit

and use of these policies for all working parents, as well as for working poor parents. 

W

es how parents are using them to juggle their responsibilities, a measure of workfamily stress would be important to include in order to capture the degree to which

current workplace policies are not going far enough to address parents’ needs. Me

of the degree to which parents feel overworked, or feel that the demands of their jobs ar

interfering with their family lives have appeared in various sources, including the 

National Study of the Changing Workforce, the Iowa Youth and Fa

cessful relationships with family members and friends, increased self-negle

sleep, increased health problems, and higher levels of stress (Galinsky, Kim, & Bond, 

2001). 

New research on the interplay between the social contexts of working parents’ 

everyday lives at work, at home, and in public, and their stress levels as measured by 

cortisol levels in each setting, points to a potential direction for developing new measures

of parental stress in each setting (Adam, 2002). 

A

responsibilities. A few studies have found a negative relationship between 

extensive early maternal employment during a child’s first year of life and children’s 

cognitive outcomes (Brooks Gunn, Han, & Waldfogel, 2002), suggesting that tracking 

full-time and overtime maternal employment during a child’s first year may be importan

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections xix
though a single measure of work hours may not be the best indicator, if the associ

driven by child care quality, stress, conflict, or in

ation is

flexible work hours. Good quality child 

care can mediate negative effects of maternal employment, so it is critical to measure the 

availab .

to 

ways in which parents interact with a 

community-based institution, as well as their children’s peers and their parents. Parental 

involve

2001). Most

parents attend some meetings or events at their children’s school, and rates of 

involve

ivic engagement can take many forms and can have a positive influence on 

childre ne way

s that

d are

ke

s to charitable or educational organizations. 

ral process include voting in elections, 

volunteering for a candidate or a political organization, persuading others on electoral 

issues,

are

ility of child care, and the trust and confidence that parents have in their provider

Also, family work patterns, more than individual work patterns, may be more relevant 

the quality of care and nurturing that children receive. The age of children is an 

important consideration for these measures. For older children, the availability of beforeand after-school programs is a more salient concern. 

D. School Involvement and Civic Engagement 

Families connect to their communities in many ways. Parental involvement in 

their children’s school is one of the key

ment can be measured as participation in general school meetings, attending 

conferences with teachers, attending school events, and volunteering or fundraising for 

the school. Studies find that students of parents who are involved in their school are 

more likely to have positive educational outcomes, including higher grades, and avoid 

grade repetition, suspension, expulsion, and dropping out (Nord & West,

ment are highest in primary school but decline at higher grade levels. Only a 

minority of parents, however, takes time to volunteer in their children’s school (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2001). 

C

n’s development as well as on the community (Zaff & Michelsen, 2002). O

that families connect to their communities is to work together with others in their 

community to solve problems where they live. Interestingly, some research suggest

high levels of family-community involvement exist in many of the most disadvantaged 

neighborhoods (Rankin & Quane, 2000), suggesting that these families have taken it 

upon themselves to rectify the disorder and deterioration in their neighborhoods, an

making concerted efforts to seek out safe and supervised activities for their children. 

Another form is to raise funds for charity, or to do volunteer work for organizations on a 

regular basis, or to be an active member of an organization that works on community 

service projects (Keeter et al, 2002). A less active form of engagement is simply to ma

donation

Participation in electoral politics is key to our democratic process, and, for 

families, elections can influence the development of child and family policies and 

programs. Measures of engagement in the electo

displaying support through signs, buttons, etc., or contributing money to a party 

on political candidate (Keeter et al, 2002). The percentage of eligible parents who

registered to vote is a measure of intent to participate in elections. 

xx Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
In addition to the above more formal expressions of civic and political 

engagement, families can express their political voice in informal ways such as writing 

letters or contacting officials or the media, signing petitions, protesting or canvassing 

neighborhoods, or boycotting products because of conditions under which the product is 

made or by which the company operates (Keeter et al, 2002). 

As with many other family characteristics, parents provide a role model of civic 

involvement and compassion for others when they volunteer (Vandivere et al., 2000).

Parental civic engagement is positively associated with the civic engagement of their high 

tion, 1996). In general, research that

oroughly controls for the range of confounding influences is lacking, and it appears that 

self-sel

at parental 

us

to

g, and values. This sense of connection to something 

larger than oneself or one’s community has been found to benefit individual efficacy and 

positiv

s. But many religious observances 

and spiritual practices take place in the home, and these are not captured by such 

measur mple, 

home,

 it 

ure other forms of 

spirituality besides prayer, such as meditation, yoga, or chanting, which families can do

together, or parents can model for their children.

school-aged children (U.S. Department of Educa

th

ection may account for a portion on the associations that have been found. 

Nevertheless, multivariate and a few experimental studies support the notion th

involvement in school (Redd, Brooks, & McGarvey, 2002) and civic engagement (Zaff &

Michelsen, 2002) are positive influences on children’s development. 

E. Religiosity 

Family engagement with religion can be conceptualized as a special case of

connection to community, when characterized by family participation in religio

services or membership in a religious organization. However, the observance of a 

religious or spiritual practice transcends any one community, and ties family members

a sense of higher purpose, meanin

e development among adults as well as youth (Bridges & Moore, 2002; Damon, 

2002), and is no doubt related to positive family functioning as well. 

Research shows that parental religiosity is related to positive outcomes among 

children, including cognitive and social competence, higher levels of adolescent social 

responsibility, and avoidance of early sexual activity, delinquency, and depression 

(Benson & Scales, 2003; Moore, Chalk, Scarpa, & Vandivere, 2002). Adolescent 

religiosity can positively influence their sense of autonomy and their involvement with

community service (ibid). 

Most commonly, religiosity is measured by the frequency of attendance at 

religious services, both for individuals and for familie

es, yet they are particularly germane to the study of family context. For exa

Jewish families observe the Sabbath and religious holidays such as Passover in the

and Hindus and Buddhists often have shrines at which they pray in the home. Muslims 

answer the call to prayer several times a day, regardless of their location. For families,

would also be important to measure the frequency with which they pray together 

informally, for example, saying grace before dinner in a Christian home, or saying the 

blessings after meals in a Jewish home. It is also important to capt

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections xxi
Attitudes toward religion and its salience and importance (Benson & Scales, 

2003) are important to capture as well, and measures currently exist on whether adults

and young adults consider themselves to be religious persons (Moore et al., 2002). 

F. Youth Development 

Similarly, when 

youth can identify two or more close friends, it is an important indicator of their social 

d or

en

n

s (National 

Research Council, 2002). 

way

articipating, can actually foster positive development and civic 

engagement independent of family background (Torney-Purta et al, 2002; National 

Researc as

cial

While many measures of youth development are embedded in the discussions 

above, it is worth mentioning some important independent ways in which youth connect 

to their social environment. 

Youth connectedness to school has been well-researched in the National 

Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (Add Health). The degree to which youth feel 

connected to peers in their school turns out to be highly predictive of their success in 

school and protective against risky behaviors (McNeely et al., 2002).

adjustment. 

Youth who are consistently engaged in extracurricular activities (school-base

community-based) are more likely to enroll in college, to volunteer, and to vote wh

eligible (Zaff, Moore, Papillo, & Williams, 2001). In addition, youth who engage i

volunteer activities have higher levels of knowledge of civics, leadership skills, and 

tolerance towards others (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). Youth need the 

opportunity to belong and to build skills for adulthood, both in school and in their 

communities, and this can be measured both by their involvement in extracurricular 

school activities as well as in civic and religious youth group activitie

As youth move toward independence, the safety of their environment becomes 

increasingly important. A measure of whether youth feel unsafe in school or on the

to and from school can capture this aspect of their environment. Furthermore, a 

supportive school environment, and a classroom that fosters open discussions where 

students feel comfortable p

h Council, 2002). Measures of whether school rules and treatment are seen

fair by youth can also tap into their perceptions of the school environment. 

G. Social Connections

Families have social capital, or access to resources and beneficial relationships 

through their personal or organizational networks (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 1995). 

These networks prove critical for meeting a variety of individual’s personal and so

needs. Recent research examining the amount of social capital, interpersonal resources

and connections present in American communities suggests that there have been 

significant declines over the past several decades in the degree to which Americans 

xxii Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
socialize with their neighbors and trust other people, along with a loosening of bonds 

within

ir

ense of community, and their concern for their safety are important factors in 

In addition, participating in formal and informal social 

etworks in a neighborhood provide families with more social connections, which, in 

turn, ca in

1993; Pinderhughes et al., 2001).

which

end

arents with support they may be missing from natural social networks 

(DePanfilis, 1996), so ensuring access to those services is essential. 

een

n the 

rks

g

e of the childcare responsibilities, for example, that parents 

might otherwise bear by themselves (Chen et al, 2000). Individuals who have networks 

in whic t,

etworks

physical

access to community resources. Research suggests that, for urban residents, access to 

significant factor in determining participation in the labor 

market (Sanchez, 1999). Technological and transportation advances in society have 

served

texts 

t

yond

reas

in a neighborhood can support families in positive ways (Pinderhughes et al., 2001). In 

the family (Putnam, 2001). 

The degree to which family members trust others in their neighborhoods, the

s

community involvement.

n

n support good parenting (Sampson, 1992). Families can feel socially isolated

communities where such networks are nonexistent, which, in turn, can negatively affect 

parenting (Furstenberg et al.,

The interpersonal networks shared by family members, and the degree to

individuals are socially connected to the community can play a role in coping with 

hardships and in providing opportunities to succeed. For instance, neglectful parents t

to have fewer connections to others than their non-neglecting counterparts, and as such,

fewer potential sources of support (Coohey, 1996). Formal social service interventions

can provide p

Research has found that the composition of interpersonal networks is related to

family well-being. A network comprised of friends rather than family members has b

found more likely to be associated with a parent’s perceptions of support from the 

network. Furthermore, the composition of the network proved more important tha

size of the network (Tracy, 1990). This finding suggests that kin-dominated netwo

tend to be more obligatory than voluntary when contrasted with friend-dominated 

networks. However, cross-cultural research suggests that the presence of kin livin

nearby can help share som

h a large proportion of the members are critical of them report less social suppor

while reciprocal helping relationships are positively related to perceptions of support. 

Single parents seem to perceive less support and generally have more conflicted n

(Tracy, 1990). Having a diverse social network has even been found to be related to 

higher resistance to upper respiratory infections such as the common cold (Cohen et al., 

1997). 

As social attachment to others affects individual well-being, so does

public transportation is a

to expand the scope of individuals' social networks beyond the neighborhood, as

people's workplaces, houses of worship, and other social groupings take place in con

that are more spatially dispersed (Rankin & Quane, 2000). Therefore, for those withou

their own transportation, ready access to public transit from home to work is a critical 

factor in their employment options, as well as in their access to social networks be

their neighborhood. Also, the presence of community centers and safe recreational a

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections xxiii
addition, anecdotal reports indicate that internet connections such as email and instant

messaging can be important to disabled adolescents who are home-bound. 

loyed or

. There

en

s

icted by poverty. Many

high-poverty neighborhoods have experienced the flight of community institutions, such 

as busin

lth of theory and 

research upon which to draw within each domain of family interaction. An indicator 

chartbo

of

by Kristin Anderson Moore and Sharon Vandivere 

• 

Often compounding low-income families’ access to networks is the finding that

residents of poor neighborhoods tend to have fewer friends who are stably emp

college-educated, and more who are on public assistance (Rankin & Quane, 2000)

are thus less resources for parents to draw upon, fewer role models for children, and ev

negative neighborhood effects on parental warmth have been found, after controlling for 

family socioeconomic status (Pinderhughes et al., 2001). A related phenomenon involve

the disruption of social organization in communities deeply affl

esses, churches, social clubs, and community associations. These institutional 

resources can have substantial benefits for families, particularly those that have few

resources of their own (Wilson, 1996). 

H. Summary 

In sum, indicators of the social context of families have a wea

ok based upon this research for each of these domains follows as a starting point

for consideration. All of the indicators presented have a source of data from which 

indicators could be developed. However, this project has also focused on the 

development of indicators for which there are no current measures or data sources. 

Working papers have been written to explore important gaps in measurement and data 

availability that limit our ability to portray a complete picture of the social context

families. They are:

• The Measurement of Family Religiosity and Spirituality, by Laura Lippman, Erik

Michelsen, and Eugene Roehlkepartain 

• Family Time, by Lina Guzman and Susan Jekielek 

• Longitudinal Indicators of the Social Context of Families: Beyond the Snapshot, 

The New Chronology of Union Formation: Strategies for Measuring Changing

Pathways, by Steven Nock 

xxiv Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Chart A: Social Ecological Model of Development 

Source: Coatsworth, J.D. (2002) 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections xxv
xxvi Indicators of Child, Family

Contextual Domains 

, and Community Connections 

Chart B: Family Life Cycle Stages 

Prenatal 

(Family Formation) 

Pre-School 

(Child 0-5) 

Elementary 

(Child 6-11)

Secondary 

School 

(Child 12-17) 

Young Adults 

(18-24) 

Family Structure Family Functioning Family, Work, and Childcare School Involvement and Civic Engagement Religiosity Youth Development Social Connections 
Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections xxvii

References

Adam, E.K. (2002). Cortisol activity in the everyday lives of working parents. In B. 

Schneider and L. Waite (Eds.), Families Working: Time Apart, Time Together. 

Amato, P. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage 

and the Family, 62, (4), 1269-88.

Benson, P., Scales, P., Sesma, A, & Roehlkepartain, E. (2003). Adolescent spiritua

presented at the Child Trends Indicators of Positive Development Conference, March 12, 

2003. 

Bianchi, S., Subaiya, L., & Kahn, J. (1999). The gender gap in the economic well-being of 

nonresident fathers and custodial mothers. Demography, 36, 195-204. 

Borkowski, J. G., Ramey, S. L., & Bristol-Powers, M. (2002). Parenting and the child's 

world: Influence on academic, intellectual, and socioemotional development. Mahwah, NJ: 

. 

R.H. (2000). Research on the nature and 

inants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the 

ges, L oore, K. (2002). Religion and spirituality in childhood and adolescence. 

aldfogel, J. (2002) Maternal employment and child cognitive 

es in the first three years of life: The NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Child

(4). 

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In 

Damon, W., and Lerner, R. (Eds.) Handbook of child psychology, fifth edition, volume 1: 

Theoretical models of human development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 

 

Bronfenbren U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and 

design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brown, S., & Eisenberg, L. (Eds.). (1995). The intentions: Unintended pregnancy and

the well-being of children and families. 

Bumpass, L., & Lu, Hsien-Hen. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for 

children’s fam tion Stud

Catsambis, S., & Beveridge, A. (2001). Does neighborhood matter?

and school influences on eight-grade ma nt. , 435-

457. 

Erlbaum

Bradbury, T.N., Fincham, F.D., & Beach, S.

determ

Family, 62

Brid

Washington, DC: Child Trends. 

Brooks Gunn, J., Han, W., & W

outcom

Developmen

(4), 964-980. 

., & M

t 73

ner,

best

Popula

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

thematics achievem

ily contexts in the United States. ies, 54, 29-41. 

 Fam

Sociological Focus, 34

ily, neighborhood, 

e

lity. Paper 
Cherlin, A.J. (1999). Going to extremes: Family structure, children's well-being, and social 

herlin, A., & Furstenberg, F. (1986). The new American grandparent: A place in the 

hen, F., Short, S., & Entwistle, B. (2000). The impact of grandparental proximity on 

orth, J.D. (2002). Promoting Resilience in Children of Poverty Through Effective 

reventive Interventions. Presentation to the Annual Meetings of the National Council on 

ohen, S., Doyle, W., Skoner, D., Rabin, B., & Gwaltney Jr, G. (1997). Social ties and 

oleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of 

, E. E., Steinberg, L., & Hetherington, E. M. (2000). Contemporary 

search on parenting: The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 5, 218-232. 

tment: Testing the social isolation hypothesis. Child Abuse 

nd Neglect, 20, 241-254. 

, DC. 

eLeire, T., & Kalil, A. (2002). Good things come in threes: Single-parent multigenerational 

ePanfilis, D. (1996). Social isolation and neglectful families: A review of social support 

emo, D.H., & Cox, M.J. (2000). Families with young children: A review of research in the 

lder, G.H. (1998). The life course and human development. In Damon, W., and Lerner, R. 

science. Demography, 36, 421-28. 

C

family, a life apart. New York: Basic Books. 

C

maternal childcare in China. Population Research and Policy Review, 19, 571-590. 

Coatsw

P

Family Relations, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA. 

C

susceptibility to the common cold. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 

1940-1944. 

C

Sociology, 94, S95-S120. 

Collins, W. A., Maccoby

re

Coohey, C. (1996). Child maltrea

a

Damon, W. (2002). Character development. Presentation to the Positive Psychology 

Summit. Washington

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. 

Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496. 

D

family structure and adolescent adjustment. Demography, 39(2), 393-412. 

D

assessment and intervention models. Child Maltreatment, 1, 37-52. 

D

1990s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 876-895. 

E

(Eds.) Handbook of child psychology, fifth edition, volume 1: Theoretical models of human 

development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 

xxviii Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Elder,G.H. (1978). Family history and the life course. In T.K. Haraven (Ed.), Transitions 

an, X., & Chen, M. (1999). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: a 

al

Educational Psychology Review, 13 (1). 

mily 

Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

sity of Chicago Press. 

3).

n

ogy and the public agenda (pp 231-238). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

o

milies and Work Institute. 

e parent-adolescent relationship scale in the national 

ngitudinal survey of youth - 1997 (Paper prepared for the Positive Outcomes Conference 

alle, T. (2002). Charting parenthood: A statistical portrait of fathers and mothers in

arris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New 

etherington, E.M., & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or for worse: Divorce reconsidered. New 

ill, Robert B. (1999). The strengths of African American Families: Twenty-five Years 

offman, L., & Youngblade, L.M. (1999). Mothers at work: Effects on children’s well-

(pp. 17-64). New York: Academic Press. 

F

meta-analysis. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annu

Meeting, Montreal, Canada. Later published in

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. America’s children: Key 

national indicators of well-being, 2002. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Fa

Furstenberg, F., Jr., Cook, T., Eccles, J., Elder, G., & Sameroff, A. (1999). Managing to 

make it: Urban families and adolescent success. Chicago: The Univer

Furstenberg, F., Belzer, A., Davis, C., Levine, J.A., Morrow, K., & Washington, M. (199

How families manage risk and opportunity in dangerous neighborhoods. In W.J. Wilso

(Ed.), Sociol

Galinsky, E.; Kim, S., & Bond, J. (2001). Feeling Overworked: When Work Becomes To

Much. New York, NY: Fa

Graefe, D. R., & Lichter, D. T. (1999). Life course transitions of American children: 

Parental cohabitation, marriage and single motherhood. Demography, 36(2), 205-217. 

Hair, E. C., Moore, K. A., Garrett, S., Kinukawa, A., Lippman, L., & Michelsen, E. (2002). 

Psychometric Analysis of th

lo

March 2003). Washington, DC: Child Trends. 

H

America. Washington, DC: Child Trends. 

H

York, NY: The Free Press. 

H

York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. 

H

Later. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. 

H

being. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections xxix
Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. (1993). The changing experience of child care: Changes in 

teachers and in teacher-child relationships and children's social competence with peers. Early 

hildhood Research Quarterly, 8, 15-32. 

tions

hnson, M.P., & Ferraro, K.J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making 

eeter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M., & Jenkina, K. (2002). The civic and political health of 

emper, K., & Rivara, F. (1993). Parents in jail. Pediatrics, 92, 261-264. 

edents of adolescent sexual riskking, pregnancy, and childbearing. Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen 

accoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1992). Dividing the child: Social and legal dilemmas of 

y, 58, 998-1010. 

tors of children’s well-being. New York, NY: 

ussell Sage Press. 

onsequences of nonmarital childbearing for women, children, 

nd society. In Report to Congress on out-of wedlock childbearing. Hyattsville, MD: 

cLanahan, S., Garfinkel I., and Mincey, R.B. (2001). Fragile families, welfare reform, and 

ngs

hat

C

Joesch, J. (1997). Paid leave and the timing of women's employment before and after birth.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 1008-1021. 

Johnson, E., & Waldfogel, J. (2002). Parental incarceration: Recent trends and implica

for child welfare. Social Service Review, 76, 460-479. 

Jo

distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 948-963. 

K

the nation: a generational portrait. College Park, MD: CIRCLE, The Center for 

Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. 

K

Kirby, D. (1999). Looking for reasons why: The antec

ta

Pregnancy. 

M

custody. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Manning, W. D., & Lichter, D. T. (1996). Parental cohabitation and children's economic 

well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Famil

Mayer, S.E. (1997). Income, employment and the support of children. In Hauser,R.M.,

Brown, B.V., and Prosser, W.(Eds.), Indica

R

McLanahan, S. (1995) The c

a

National Center for Health Statistics.

M

marriage. Welfare Reform and Beyond Policy Brief, #10. Washington, DC: The Brooki

Institute. 

McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G., (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, w

helps. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 

xxx Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
McNeely, C.A., Nonnemaker, J.M., & Blum, R.W. (2002). Promoting student connecte

to school: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of 

School Health, 72(4). 

dness

periences and family conditions. 

ournal of Marriage and Family, 57 (1). 

sis of family influences on adolescent 

regnancy. Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. 

Pubertal development, 

arental communication, and sexual values in relation to adolescent sexual behaviors. 

Child’s Perspective: How

oes Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do About It? Research Brief. 

mily 

oore, K. A., Vandivere, S., & Redd, Z. (forthcoming). Cumulative measures of stress, risk, 

Washington, DC: National 

cademy Press. 

science of early childhood development. J. P. Shonkoff & D. A. Phillips 

Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

ools

shington, DC: National Center for Education

tatistics, U.S. Department of Education. 

. In S. J. Price, P. C. McKenry & M. J. Murphy (Eds.), Families across time (pp. 

87-203). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company. 

s, D., Bierman, K.L., Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A., 

reenberg, M., Lochman, J.E., & McMahon, R.J. (2001). Parenting in context: Impact of 

neighborhood poverty, residential stability, public services, social networks, and danger on 

parental behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63(4). 

Menaghan, E., & Parcel, T. (1995). Social sources of change in children’s home 

environments: The effects of parental occupational ex

J

Miller, B.C. (1998). Families matter, a research synthe

p

Miller, B.C., Norton, M.C., Fan, I., & Christopherson, C.R. (1998).

p

Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 27-52. 

Moore, K.A.; Jekielek, S., & Emig, C. (2002). Marriage from a

D

Washington, DC: Child Trends, Inc. 

Moore, K.A., Chalk, R., Scarpa, J., & Vandivere, S. (2002). Preliminary research on fa

strengths: A Kids Count working paper. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation. 

M

turbulence and community connectedness: Item choice, reliability and validity. Washington, 

DC: Child Trends. 

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2002). Community programs to 

promote youth development. Eccles, J., & Gootman, J.A. (Eds.).

A

National Research Council, & Institute of Medicine. (2000). From neurons to 

neighborhoods: The

(

Nord, C., & West, J., (2001). Fathers’ and mothers’ involvement in their children’s sch

by family type and resident status. Wa

S

Peterson, G.W., Madden-Derdich, D., & Leonard, S. (2000). Parent-child relations across the

life course

1

Pinderhughes, E.E., Nix, R., Foster, E.M., Jone

G

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections xxxi
Presser, H. (2000). Nonstandard work schedules and marital instability. Journal of 

Marriage and the Family, 62, pp. 93-110. 

ted with

utnam, R. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New 

utnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of 

ood poverty and the social isolation of inner-city 

frican American families. Social Forces, 79, 139-164. 

ashington, DC: Child Trends.

s in

riminological theory, Vol. 3, pp. 63-93. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. 

a. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65, 284-296. 

n

and the family. New York: Plenum Press. 

d children. In

d

002 Annual Meeting of the American Political 

cience Association, Boston, August 29-September 1, 2002. 

Pribesh, S., & Downey, D. (1999). Why are residential and school moves associa

poor school performance? Demography, 36, 521-34. 

P

York, NY: Simon & Schuster. 

P

Democracy, 6, 65-78. 

Rankin, B., & Quane, J. (2000). Neighborh

A

Redd, Z., Brooks, J., & McGarvey, A. (2002, August). Educating America's youth: What 

makes a difference. Research Brief. W

Sampson, R.J. (1992). Family management and child development: Insights from social 

disorganization theory. In J. McCord (Ed.), Facts, frameworks and forecasts: Advance

c

Sanchez, T. (1999). The connection between public transit and employment in the case of 

Portland and Atlant

Simon, R.L. & Johnson, C. (1996). The impact of marital and social network support o

quality of parenting (1996). In G.R. Pierce, B.R. Sarason, & I.G. Sarason, (Eds.) Handbook 

of social support

Smith, J.R., Brooks Gunn, J., & Jackson, A.P. (1997). Parental employment an

Hauser, R.M., Brown, B.V., and Prosser, W. (Eds.), Indicators of children’s well-being. 

New York: Russell Sage Press. 

Torney-Purta, J., & Klandl Richardson, W. (2002). Trust in government and civic 

engagement among adolescents in Australia, England, Greece, Norway and the Unite

States. Paper prepared for delivery at the 2

S

Tracy, E. (1990). Identifying social support resources of at-risk families. Social Work, 252-

258. 

Trusty, J. (1999). Effects of eighth-grader parental involvement on late adolescents’ 

educational expectations. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32. 

xxxii Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). The 

.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). NAEP 1998 

andivere, S., Moore, K.A., & Zaslow, M. (2000). Children’s family environment: 

s

n Institute.

w York:

aff, J., & Michelsen, E. (2002). Background for community-level work on positive 

Development, Minneapolis,

N.

Condition of Education, 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 

U

Civics Report Card. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 

V

Findings from the National Survey of America’s Families. Snapshots of America’s Familie

II. Washington, DC: The Urba

Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. Ne

Knopf. 

Wilson, M. N., & Tolson, T. F.J. (1990). Familial support in the black community. Journal

of Clinical Child Psychology, 19(4), 347-355. 

Wu, L., & Martinson, B.C. (1993). Family structure and the risk of premarital birth. 

American Sociological Review, 58(2), 210-232. 

Young, D., & Smith, C. (2000). When moms are incarcerated: The needs of children, 

mothers, and caregivers. Families in Society, 81, 130-141. 

Z

citizenship in adolescence: Reviewing the literature on contributing factors - executive 

summary and report. Washington, DC: Child Trends. 

Zaff, J, Moore, K., Papillo, A., & Williams, S. (2001). The longitudinal effects of

extracurricular activities on academic achievement and civic involvement. Paper presented 

at the biennial conference of the Society for Research in Child

M

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections xxxiii
DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................I

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................III

...... XII

............................................................................. 1

y structure change........................................................................................................ 4 

Families with grandparents who live nearby ........................................................................ 6 

...................................................................... 10

........ 11 

................................................................... 13 

Parental awareness of adolescents’ friends and activities................................................... 15 

....... 17

.................................................. 19 

AMILY, WORK, AND CHILD CARE............................................................................ 21

.... 22 

......................................................... 24 

Family income .................................................................................................................... 26 

............. 28 

ental involvement in school........................................................................................... 31 

Volunteering as a family..................................................................................................... 33

Student participation in community service ....................................................................... 35 

Parental voting .................................................................................................................... 37 

Youth connection to school peers....................................................................................... 39 

School supportiveness......................................................................................................... 41 

RELIGIOSITY...................................................................................................................... 43

Parental religious service attendance .................................................................................. 44 

Adolescent participation in religious activities with their families .................................... 46 

SOCIAL CONNECTIONS .................................................................................................. 48

Neighborhood community .................................................................................................. 49 

Community of friends......................................................................................................... 51

Concern for safety............................................................................................................... 53 

Residential mobility............................................................................................................ 55 

APPENDIX A: DATA SOURCES .................................................................................. A-57 

AVAILABILITY OF TREND DATA.........................................................................

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK.....................................................................................XIII

FAMILY STRUCTURE............................

Family structure .................................................................................................................... 2 

Famil

Births to unmarried teens...................................................................................................... 8

FAMILY FUNCTIONING ............................

Parental warmth and affection with younger children................................................

Positive parent-adolescent relationships..........

Time spent with parents...............................................................................................

Contact with nonresident parents......................................

F

Parental employment by family structure .......................................................................

Work-family stress.....................................................

Patterns of child care..............................................................................................

SCHOOL INVOLVEMENT AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT........................................... 30

Par

xxxiv Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
LIST OF TABLES 

Family Structure .................................................................................................1 

experienced a change in family structure during the past two years, by 

Fa

Table 1. Percentage of children under age 18 by presence of married parents in 

household, by race and Hispanic origin: selected years 1980-20023

Table 2. Percentage of families with children 2-17 years of age that have 

selected characteristics: 2001....................................................................5 

Table 3. Percentage of families with children age 24 and under in the 

household that had grandparents who lived nearby, by selected

characteristics: 1992-1993.........................................................................7 

Table 4. Births per 1,000 unmarried teen women within age groups, by race: 

1960-2001 ....................................................................................................9 

Family Functioning...........................................................................................11 

Table 5a. Percentage of parents of children under age 13 who expressed various 

forms of warmth and affection every day in the past month, by 

selected characteristics: 1997..................................................................13 

Table 5b. Percentage of adolescents with positive relationships with their 

resident parent, by selected characteristics: 1999.................................15 

Table 6. Percentage of adolescents who report that their parents are aware of 

their friends and activities, by gender and selected characteristics: 

2000............................................................................................................17 

Table 7. Average amount of time (in hours and minutes) per day that children 

under age 13 are engaged in some activity with parents, by selected 

characteristics: 1997 ................................................................................19

Table 8. Percentage of children with any contact with nonresident parent in 

the previous year, by selected characteristics, as reported by resident 

parent: 1997..............................................................................................21 

mily, Work, and Child Care........................................................................23 

Table 9. Distribution of families with children under age 18 by family structure 

and parental employment, by age of child: 2002 .................................25 

Table 10. Percentage of working parents who report that they do not have 

enough time for their family because of their job, by gender and

selected characteristics: 1997..................................................................27 

Table 11. Median family income among households with a related child under 

18 years old, by selected characteristics: 2001 ......................................29 

Table 12. Percentage of children from birth through age 6, not yet in 

kindergarten, by type of care arrangement, by selected 

characteristics: 2001 ................................................................................31 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections xxxv
School Involvement and Civic .............................................33 

e past 

Table 14b.

Table 15. ho 

Religiosity...........................................................................................................47 

Table 17a.

....49

Table 17b.

1

Social Connect

f

Table 19.

Engagement......

Table 13. Percentage of students in grades K through 12 whose parents report 

involvement in their child's school, by selected characteristics: 1996 & 

1999.........................................................................................................35 

Table 14a. Percentage of adults who volunteered with family members in th

year, by race and Hispanic origin: 2001 .............................................37 

Percentage of students in grades 6 through 12 participating in 

community service, by selected characteristics: 1996 & 1999 ..........39 

Percentage of parents with children under 18 in the household w

voted in the last election, by selected characteristics: 2000...............41 

Table 16a. Percentage of youth who feel connected to peers in their school, by 

selected characteristics: 1995-1996......................................................43 

Table 16b. Percentage of youth who perceive their school to be supportive, by 

selected characteristics: 1995-1996......................................................45 

Percentage of parents attending religious services weekly or more 

often, by selected characteristics: 1997, 1999, and 2002................

Percentage of adolescents who participate in religious activities (e.g., 

going to a worship service, praying, reading scripture) with their 

families weekly or more often, by selected characteristics: 2000 .....5

ions............................................................................................53 

Table 18a. Percentage of adults with people in their neighborhood who give them

a sense of community, by selected characteristics: 2000 ...................55 

Table 18b. Percentage of adults with old or new friends who give them a sense o

community, by selected characteristics: 2000 ....................................57 

Percentage of adults who list concern for their safety as an obstacle 

that makes it difficult to be involved in their community, by selected 

characteristics: 2000 .............................................................................59 

Table 20. Percentage of families with children under 18 that moved in the past 

year, by selected characteristics: 2002 ................................................61 

xxxvi Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Family Structure 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 1

1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001a 2002a

tal

Two married parents

b 77 74 73 69 68 68 68 68 69 69 69

Mother onlyc 18 21 22 23 24 24 23 23 22 22 23

Father onlyc 223 44444 445

No parent 433 44444 444

te, non-Hispanic

Two married parents

b - - 81 78 77 77 76 77 77 78 77

Mother onlyc - - 15 16 16 17 16 16 16 16 16

Father onlyc - - 3 34454 444

No parent - - 2 33333 323

lack, non-Hispanic

Two married parents

b 42 39 38 33 33 35 36 35 38 38 38

Mother onlyc 44 51 51 52 53 52 51 52 49 48 48

Father onlyc 234 44544 455

No parent 1278 11989 10 9 10 8

spanic

d

Two married parents

b 75 68 67 63 62 64 64 63 65 65 65

Mother onlyc 20 27 27 28 29 27 27 27 25 25 25

Father onlyc 2 2 4 5 455

No parent 3 3 5 5 565

- = not available

b

 Excludes families where parents are not living as a married couple.

able 1. Percentage of children under age 18 by presence of married parents in household, by race and

 Hispanic origin: selected years 1980-2002

a

 Beginning with March 2001, data are from the expanded Current Population Survey sample and use

population controls based on Census 2000.

c Because of data limitations, includes some families where both parents are present in the household but living

as unmarried partners. d

 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

NOTE: Family structure refers to the presence of biological, adoptive, and stepparents in the child's household. 

Thus, a child with a biological mother and stepfather living in the household is said to have two married

parents.

Two married parents family: In the Current Population Survey, children live in a two-parent family if they are 

living with a parent who is married with his or her spouse present. This is not an indicator of the biological

relationship between the child and the parents. The parent who is identified could be a biological, step, or 

adoptive parent. If a second parent is present and not married to the first parent, then the child is identified as

living with a single parent. 

Single parent family: A "single" parent is defined as a parent who is not currently living with a spouse. Single

parents may be married and not living with their spouse, they may be divorced, widowed, or never married. As

with the identification of two-parents described above, if a second parent is present and not married to the first, 

then the child is identified as living with a single parent.

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, March Current Population Survey and Federal Interagency Forum on Child and

Family Statistics. (2003). America's children: Key national indicators of well-being, 2003 . Washington, DC: 

Author

T

 

To

Whi

B

Hi

3 4 4 4

3 4 5 5

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 3
Family structure change

ren

cluding the birth of a child. It also includes changes in marital status from

d a change in family composition in the following two years, compared with only 

one-fifth (19 percent) of families with incomes at or above the poverty level. This poverty 

differen

te,

d a change

 the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, 2001. 

Among families with children between the ages of 2 and 17, twenty-two percent 

experienced a change in the composition of their family between 1999 and 2001. Family 

structure change refers to any entrance or exit of related and non-related adults and child

from the family, in

cohabiting to married. Analyses exclude children under the age of 2 because the reported 

family structure change may have occurred before they were born. Poor families have a 

much higher likelihood of experiencing family structure change than do non-poor families.

More than two-fifths (43 percent) of families with incomes below the poverty level in 1999 

experience

tial is reflected in differences by race and Hispanic origin as well. Black, nonHispanic families, who had the highest poverty rates in 1999, were more likely than whi

non-Hispanics to have experienced family structure change (28 percent compared with 20 

percent).

Percentage of families with one or more children ages 2 to 17 that experience

in family structure during the past two years, by 1999 poverty status: 2001 

Source: Child Trends’ analyses of

21.9

42.5

19.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total Below poverty At or above poverty

Poverty Status

Percent

4 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Percent

Total 21.9

Race and Hispanic Originb

White, non-Hispanic 20.5

Black, non-Hispanic 27.9

Hispanic 19.9

Asian or Other

c 28.0

Poverty Status

d

Below poverty level 42.5

At or above poverty level 19.1

Age of Youngest Child

2-5 years 23.9

6-11 years 19.3

12-17 years 22.9

SOURCE: Child Trends' analyses of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, 

2001.

 two years, by selected characteristics:

a

 2001

b Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Refers to the race and 

Hispanic origin of the household head.

d Poverty status is based on 1999 total family income relative to the official

federal poverty threshold for the family's size.

a

 Family structure change refers to any entrance or exit of related and nonrelated adults and children from the family, including the birth of a child. It

also includes changes in marital status from cohabiting to married. 

NOTE: Analyses are limited to families that have children between the ages 

of 2 and 17 living in the household. Analyses exclude children under the age 

of 2 because the reported family structure change may have occurred before 

they were born.

c "Other" category includes American Indians, Aleuts, Eskimos, people who 

mentioned a color other than black or white, and those who did not nominate

themselves into any of the other categories.

Table 2. Percentage of families with children 2-17 years of age that

 have experienced a change in family structure during the past

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 5
Families with grandparents who live nearby 

Fifty-six percent of families with resident children ages 24 and under lived within 50 

miles of a grandparent in 1992-1993. 

Families with younger children are more likely than families with older children to 

live near a grandparent. While 63 percent of families with children ages 0 to 5 lived near a 

grandparent in 1992-1993, 57 percent of families with children ages 6 to 11, fifty-two percent 

of those with children ages 12 to 17, and 37 percent of families with children ages 18 to 24 

lived near a grandparent. 

 

Geographic proximity to grandparents also varied by race and Hispanic origin, as 

well as family structure. Black, non-Hispanic families were more likely than white, nonHispanic and Hispanic families to live near a grandparent (62 percent compared with 55 

percent and 51 percent, respectively) in 1992-1993. 

In general, one-parent families were more likely than two-parent families to live 

within close proximity of a grandparent. Sixty-two percent of one-parent families and 55 

percent of two-parent families lived near a grandparent. 

 

Percentage of families with resident children age 24 and under that had grandparents 

who live nearby, by age of child: 1992-1993 

55.6

63.3

57.4

51.9

37

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total 0-5 years 6-11 years 12-17 years 18-24 years

Age of Child 

Percent

Note: Data are presented for children up to age 24 since a large proportion remain living at home and benefit 

from proximity to a grandparent. 

Source: Child Trends’ analyses of the National Survey of Families and Households, 1992-93.

6 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Total

Race and Hispanic Originb

White, non-Hispanic

Black, non-Hispanic

Hispanic

Other

c

Family Structured

49.0

 in the household that had grandparents who lived nearby, 

 by selected characteristics:

a

 1992-1993

Percent

55.6

55.3

62.0

50.8

Two parents

One parent

6-11 years

12-17 years

18-24 years

e

 Child refers to the randomly selected child (among all children age 24

and under) of the respondent.

d

 Includes families where cohabiting partners are regarded as parents.

61.7

SOURCE: Child Trends' analyses of the National Survey of Families 

and Households, 1992-1993.

51.9

37.0

57.4

b

 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Refers to the race and 

Hispanic origin of the parent.

54.6

a Living nearby is defined as living within 50 miles. 

c Most in this category are Asian or American Indian.

Table 3. Percentage of families with children age 24 and under

Age of Childe

0-5 years 63.3

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 7
Births to unmarried teens 

Birth rates among unmarried teens rose from 27.6 in 1980 to 45.8 in 1994, and have 

since declined to 35.4 in 2002. Among unmarried females ages 15 to 17 the birth rate 

increased from 20.6 in 1980 to 31.7 in 1994, and then declined to back to 1980 levels to 20.8 

by 2002. Among unmarried young women ages 18 and 19, the birth rate increased from 39.0 

in 1980 to 69.7 in 1994, and then declined to 58.6 by 2002. Hispanic and black unmarried 

teens have had consistently higher birth rates than non-Hispanic whites, although the rates for 

all races have declined in recent years, particularly among blacks. Nevertheless, the 

unmarried teen birth rate for Hispanics ages 15-17 was 43.3 in 2002 and for blacks it was 

39.9, compared with 11.5 for white, non-Hispanic teens of that age group. Among unmarried 

teens ages 18 to 19, the birth rate was 105.3 for Hispanic women, 104.1 for black women, 

and 38.8 for white, non-Hispanic women in 2002. 

Births per 1,000 unmarried teens within age groups: 1960-2001 

Source: National Center for Health Statistics. (2000). Nonmarital childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999. 

National Vital Statistics Reports, 48(16); and National Center for Health Statistics. (2003). Births: Final data 

for 2001. National Vital Statistics Reports, 51(2).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1980

198119821983

1984

19851986

1987

198819891990

199119921993

199419951996

1997

19981999

2000

20012002

Year

Births per 1,000 women

Total Ages 15-19 Ages 15-17 Ages 18-19

8 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
 9

es Black White

White, nonHispanicc Hi c n- cc ani

68.8 12.0 - 39.0 -65.9 12.6 - 39.0 -66.3 13.1 - 39.6 -66.8 13.6 - 40.7 -66.5 13.7 - 42.5 -66.8 14.5 - 45.9 31.2 -67.0 14.9 - 48.0 33.5 -69.9 16.2 - 48.9 34.5 -73.5 17.6 - 51.5 36.8 -78.9 19.3 - 56.0 40.2 -

78.8 20.4 16.2 60.7 44.9 98.9

79.9 21.7 - 65.4 49.4 107.477.3 21.5 - 66.7 51.1 106.676.0 21.9 - 66.1 51.9 109.1

74.0 23.9 18.0 69.7 55.7 116.0

67.5 23.3 17.6 66.5 54.6 109.6

62.8 22.3 16.9 64.9 53.4 102.7

59.2 22.0 16.2 63.9 52.8 100.9

55.2 21.5 15.6 63.7 53.0 101.4

50.1 20.7 14.6 62.4 52.8 100.1

48.3 19.7 13.6 62.2 53.1 102.2

43.8 18.1 12.1 60.6 52.1 104.3

39.9 17.5 11.5 58.6 51.0 105.3

ed on 100 percent of births in selected States d on rcent s rths i tes.

tates and the District of Columbia that reported His igin o certif

in of any race.

 Statistics. (2003). Births: Final data for 2002. National Vital Statistics Reports, 52 (

 teen women within age groups, b

s was not reported have been inferred and in ded w a from ning S

Ages 15-17 A

cc, d Hisp White

White, no

Hispani

24.1 -24.6 -25.3 -26.4 -27.9 -

-----

37.0

---

44.9

44.4

43.8

43.1

42.9

42.5

42.1

40.3

38.8

n all other Sta

icate. 

10).

tates.

ges 18-19

es Black

118.2114.2112.7111.9113.6117.9121.1123.0130.5140.9

143.7

147.6146.2139.7

139.2

128.7

126.8

124.5

121.0

115.3

115.0

110.2

104.1

ample of bi

n the birth

 the remai

All rac

27.6 20.627.9 20.928.7 21.529.5 22.030.0 21.931.4 22.432.3 22.833.8 24.536.4 26.440.1 28.742.5 29.6

44.6 30.844.2 30.244.0 30.345.8 31.7

43.8 30.1

42.2 28.5

41.4 27.7

40.9 26.5

39.7 25.0

39.0 23.9

37.0 22.0

35.4 20.8

- No v le

b Data for 1980 through 1984 are basc Rates f r 1990 based on data for 48 Sd Include ll persons of Hispanic orig

SOURCE: National Center for Health

Tab ths per 1,000 unmarried

a Data fo tates in which marital statu

tal Ages 15-19

All races spanic

----------

45.9

49.549.249.5

55.5

52.5

49.6

50.5

49.7

48.6

47.0

44.2

43.0

 an

ace

clu

c, d

: 1980-2002

All ra

 a 50-pe

panic or

a, b

ith dat

19801981198219831984198519861987198819891990

1991199219931994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

t a

le

ailab

o

s a

 4. Bir

T

r S

o

y r

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections
Family Functioning 

10 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Parental warmth and affection with younger children 

m

viors.

The majority of parents with children under the age of 13 demonstrate some

expression of warmth and affection to their child daily, such as hugging or showing the

physical affection, telling them that they love them, and telling them that they appreciate 

something that they did. Mothers are more likely than fathers to report showing their 

children warmth and affection. For example, in 1997, eighty-five percent of mothers told 

their child that they love him/her, compared with 62 percent of fathers. These displays of 

warmth by both mothers and fathers decreased as children got older for all three beha

Percentage of parents of children under age 13 who expressed various forms of warmth 

and affection to their child every day in the past month, by parent gender: 1997 

87 85

55

73

62

37

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Hugged or showed

physical affection to their

children

Told their child that they

love him/her

Told their child that they

appreciated something he

or she did

Activity

Percent

Mothers Fathers

100

Source: Estimates supplied by Sandra Hofferth, University of Maryland, based on data from the 1997 Panel 

Study of Income Dynamics - Child Development Supplement. As reported in Child Trends. (2002). Charting 

parenthood: A statistical portrait of fathers and mothers in America. Washington, DC: Author. 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 11
12 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 

Mothers Fathers Mothers Fathers Mothers Fath

Total 87 73 85 62 55 37

Race and Hispanic Origin a

White, non-Hispanic 93 76 91 65 56 36

Black, non-Hispanic 75 56 76 45 56 40

Hispanic 81 73 77 63 52 41

Other 78 61 76 40 53 32

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 78 67 80 63 55 44

47

36

43

32

34

56

44

31

17

ers

 Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 78 58 80 60 49

Nonpoor 90 74 87 61 55

 100% to 199% of poverty 88 74 85 60 58

 200% to 299% of poverty 86 73 86 58 53

 300% or more of poverty 93 74 88 64 55

Age of Child

0-2 years 98 90 95 80 73

3-5 years 93 84 91 69 66

6-9 years 87 70 85 55 48

10-12 years 74 50 72 45 39

a

 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

SOURCE: Estimates provided by Sandra Hofferth, University of Maryland, based on data from the 1997 

Income Dynamics - Child Development Supplement. As reported in Child Trends. (2002). Charting pare

statistical portrait of fathers and mothers in America. Washington, DC: Author.

Panel Study of

nthood: A 

Table 5a. Percentage of parents of children under age 13 who expressed various forms of warmth

 and affection every day in the past month, by selected characteristics: 1997

Hugged or showed

physical affection to 

their child

Told their child that

they love him/her

Told their child that they 

appreciated something he 

or she did
Positive parent-adolescent relationships

Overall, in 1999, the majority of adolescents reported positive relationships with their 

sident parents (more than 60 percent). Positive relationships between adolescents and their 

arents, both mothers and fathers, were more common when both resident parents were the 

iological parents of the child than when there was a single biological parent or one 

iological and one nonbiological parent. Note that for single parents, relationships are 

easured among a different group of children for the mother than for the father. For these 

milies, differences in outcomes between mothers and fathers could be due to characteristics 

f the parents, or characteristics of the children that live with them. Also note that for 

iological/other parent families, a greater share of biological parents are mothers and a 

reater share of other parents are fathers.

ercentage of adolescents with a positive relationship with their resident parent, by 

amily structure: 1999 

Note: For this indicator, a positive parent-adolescent relationship is based on a youth-reported scale of parental

behaviors toward the youth (e.g., praising, helping, criticizing, or blaming the youth; canceling plans with the 

youth). Adolescents are reporting on parents and parent figures who live with the adolescent.

Source: Child Trends' analyses of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth - 1997, Rounds 1 and 3.

re

p

b

b

m

fa

o

b

g

P

f

71.5

62.6 61.8

65.9

54.0

59.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

In two-parent bio families In two-parent bio/other families In single parent families

Family Structure

Percent

Relationship with resident mother (or mother figure) Relationship with resident father (or father figure)

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 13
14 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 

Mother Father

Total 67.6 63.5

Race and Hispanic Originb

White, non-Hispanic 69.3 65.0

Black, non-Hispanic 68.0 55.6

Hispanic 61.9 60.8

Two biological parents 71.5 65.9

Two parents (biological and other)c 62.6 54.0

One biological parent 61.8 59.6

Parent's Highest Level of Educationd

Less than high school degree 61.7 60.2

High school degree 65.8 58.6

Some college 67.3 64.5

College graduate 71.6 67.3

SOURCE: Child Trends' analyses of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth - 1997, Rounds

1 and 3.

d In two-parent households, "parental education" refers to the highest level of education attained

between the two resident parents/parent figures. 

s,

differences in outcomes between mothers and fathers could be due to characteristics of the 

parents, or characteristics of the children that live with them. 

nships with their resident parent, 

 by selected characteristics: 1999

a

 A positive relationship is measured as a score of 15 or greater on a parental supportiveness scale 

of 20. This score corresponds roughly to a response of "usually" on questions about parents 

praising and helping the adolescent, and "almost never" to questions about parents criticizing,

blaming, or canceling plans with the adolescent.

b

 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. c This includes families with one biological parent and one nonbiological parent figure in the 

household. This resident nonbiological parent figure can be a step-parent, adoptive parent, foster 

parent, spouse or romantic partner of the biological parent, or a relative or other adult who is

"like a parent" to the respondent. A greater share of biological parents are mothers and a greater 

share of other parents are fathers.

Table 5b. Percentage of adolescents with positivea

 relatio

Other 56.3 63.5

Family Structure

NOTE: Analyses are based on a universe of adolescents aged 12-14, who lived with a mother or 

mother figure, or father or father figure in 1999. For single parents, relationships are measured 

among a different group of children for the mother than for the father. For these familie
Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 15

Parental awareness of adolescents’ friends and activities 

Mothers are more likely than fathers to be aware of their adolescents’ close friends, as 

well as their activities, regardless of family structure. Data for 2000 indicate that mothers 

were slightly more likely to be aware of their adolescent’s friends and activities when they 

resided with the biological father of the child (57 percent) than when they were the sole 

biological parent, or part of a biological parent/nonbiological parent couple (51 percent 

each). Fathers in either two-parent or one-parent biological families had higher levels of 

awareness (31 percent) than did fathers who were part of a one biological and one 

nonbiological parent couple (20 percent). Note that for single parents, awareness is 

measured among a different group of children for the mother than for the father. For these 

families, differences in outcomes between mothers and fathers could be due to characteristics 

of the parents, or characteristics of the children that live with them. Also note that for 

biological/other parent families, a greater share of biological parents are mothers and a 

greater share of other parents are fathers. 

Percentage of adolescents who report that their parents are aware of their friends and 

activities, by family structure: 2000 

Note: For this indicator, parental awareness is measured by the adolescent’s report of the degree to which their 

parents know “some” or “most” things about their close friends, close friends’ parents, company when not at

home, and teachers and school activities. Adolescents are reporting on parents and parent figures who live with

the adolescent. 

Source: Child Trends' analyses of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth - 1997, Rounds 1 and 4.

57.3

51.4 51.5

31.2

19.5

30.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

In two-parent bio families In two-parent bio/other families In single parent families

Family Structure

Percent

Awareness of resident mother (or mother figure)

Awareness of resident father (or father figure)
16 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 

Mother Father

Total 55.0 29.2

Race and Hispanic Originb

White, non-Hispanic 56.0 29.4

Black, non-Hispanic 55.6 27.0

Hispanic 53.2 32.4

Other 42.9 23.7

Family Structure

Two biological parents 57.3 31.2

Two parents (biological and other)c 51.4 19.5

One biological parent 51.5 30.9

Parental Educationd

Less than high school degree 51.5 29.2

High school degree 55.0 28.9

Some college 55.6 29.4

College graduate 55.5 29.3

NOTE: Analyses are based on a universe of adolescents, aged 12-14, who lived with a 

mother or mother figure, or father or father figure in 2000. For single parents, awareness

is measured among a different group of children for the mother than for the father. For 

these families, differences in outcomes between mothers and fathers could be due to 

characteristics of the parents, or characteristics of the children that live with them. 

ho report that their parents are aware of 

 their friends and activities, by gender and selected characteristics:

a

 2000

a Awareness is measured as a score of 10 or greater on a parental awareness and 

monitoring scale of 0-16. This score corresponds roughly to a youth report of the parent

knowing "some" to "most" things about the youth's (a) close friends, (b) close friends'

parents, (c) company when not at home, and (d) teachers and school activities.

d In two-parent households, "parental education" refers to the highest level of education 

attained between the two residential parents/parent figures. 

b Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. c This includes families with one biological parent and one nonbiological parent figure in

the household. This resident nonbiological parent figure can be a step-parent, adoptive 

parent, foster parent, spouse or romantic partner of the biological parent, or a relative or 

other adult who is "like a parent" to the respondent. A greater share of biological parents

are mothers and a greater share of other parents are fathers.

Table 6. Percentage of adolescents w

SOURCE: Child Trends' analyses of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth - 1997, 

Rounds 1 and 4.
Time spent with parents 

In two-parent families, children under age 13 spent an average of 1 hour and 46 

minutes engaged in activities with their fathers and 2 hours and 21 minutes doing so with 

their mothers on a daily basis in 1997. This was substantially more time than children in 

single-parent families spent with their fathers (25 minutes) and mothers (1 hour and 16

minutes). Note that children in both family types spent more time with their mothers than 

with their fathers. Also, the amount of time that children spent with either parent generally 

decreased with age. Nonresidential parents are not presented in this indicator. 

Average amount of time children under age 13 are engaged in some activity with 

parents per day, by family structure: 1997 

1:46

0:25

2:21

1:16

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

Two-parent families Single-parent families

Family Structure

Time in Hours

Fathers Mothers

Source: Estimates supplied by J. Sandberg, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, based on data 

from the 1997 Panel Study of Income Dynamics - Child Development Supplement. As reported in Child 

Trends. (2002). Charting parenthood: A statistical portrait of fathers and mothers in America. Washington,

DC: Author. 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 17
Fathers Mothers Fathers Mothers

Total 1:46 2:21 0:25 1:16

Race and Hispanic Origina

White, non-Hispanic 1:48 2:21 0:31 1:13

Black, non-Hispanic 1:11 1:55 0:17 1:12

Hispanic 1:46 2:32 0:32 2:09

Other 2:06 2:33 0:24 1:06

Age of Child

0-2 years

Two-parent families Single-parent families

2:07 3:14 0:45 2:16

3-5 years 1:53 2:29 0:24 1:34

1:30 1:45 0:20 0:44

day that children under age 

 13 are engaged in some activity with parents, by selected characteristics: 1997

SOURCE: Estimates supplied by J. Sandberg, Institute for Social Research, University of

Michigan, based on data from the 1997 Panel Study of Income Dynamics - Child Development

Supplement. As reported in Child Trends. (2002). Charting parenthood: A statistical portrait

of fathers and mothers in America . Washington, DC: Author.

a

 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Table 7. Average amount of time (in hours and minutes) per

6-9 years 1:36 2:04 0:18 0:57

10-12 years

18 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Contact with nonresident parents 

Overall, 60 percent of children from non-intact families had some contact with their 

nonresident fathers and 78 percent had contact with their nonresident mothers in 1997. 

Children living with a parent with higher levels of education were more likely to have had 

contact with their nonresident parent. Seventy-four percent of children whose resident 

mother had a college degree had contact with their nonresident father in the previous year, 

compared with 44 percent of children whose mothers had less than a high school degree. 

Likewise, 88 percent of children whose resident father had graduated college had contact 

with their nonresident mother, compared with 69 percent of those living with fathers who had 

not graduated from high school. 

Percentage of children with any contact with nonresident parent in the previous year, 

by educational attainment of resident parent: 1997 

60

44

61

65

74

78

69

76

81

88

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total Less than high

school

High school

graduate or

equivalent

Some college College graduate

Educational Attainment of Resident Parent

Percent

Contact with nonresident father Contact with nonresident mother

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1998 April Supplement of the Current

Population Survey. As reported in Child Trends. (2002). Charting parenthood: A statistical portrait of fathers 

and mothers in America. Washington, DC: Author. 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 19
Contact with

nonresident father

Contact with

nonresident mother

Total 60 78

Race and Hispanic Origin d

White, non-Hispanic 68 81

Black, non-Hispanic 51 70

Hispanic 48 63

Asian/Pacific Islander 53 *

American Indian/Alaskan Native 50 *

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 50 72

 Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 47 69

Nonpoor

 100% to 199% of poverty 58 70

 200% to 299% of poverty 66 77

 300% or more of poverty 71 84

Resident Parent's Highest Level of Education

Less than high school 44 69

High school graduate or equivalent 61 76

Some college

e 65 81

College graduate 74 88

SOURCE: Child Trends' analysis of the 1998 April Supplement of the Current Population

Survey. As reported in Child Trends. (2002). Charting Parenthood: A Statistical Portrait

of Fathers and Mothers in America. Washing n, DC: Author.

Table 8. Percentage of children with any contacta with nonresident parent in the

 previous year, by selected characteristics, as reported by resident parent: 

 1997 b,c

b

 All demographic characteristics (excluding income and poverty status) are as of March of

the following year.

c

 Estimates are calculated only for households with a child (under age 21) who lives with

one biological parent and whose other parent is absent. d

 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* This information is not reported due to an insufficient number of cases.

e

 Some college includes vocational or technical school after high school, as well as college

attendance.

a

 "Contact" indicates that the child spent time with his/her nonresident father/mother on at 

least one day of the previous year.

to

20 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Family, Work, and Child Care 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 21
Parental employment by family structure 

The majority of families with children have at least one parent who is employed. In 

2002, forty-four percent of families with children had two employed parents either full- or

part-time; 25 percent had one employed and one nonemployed parent; and 3 percent had two 

nonemployed parents. Twenty-one percent of families with children had one employed 

single parent and 7 percent had one nonemployed single parent. 

The distribution of full-time parental employment activity varies by age of youngest 

child in the household. Among families with a child under age 6, twenty-eight percent had 

one full-time working parent and one nonworking parent, but only 21 percent had two fulltime working parents in 2002. The opposite was true for families with older children in 

2002: only 17 percent had one full-time working parent and one nonworking parent, whereas 

29 percent of these families had two full-time working parents. 

Distribution of families with children under age 18, by family structure and parental 

employment: 2002 

Two Parents, Both 

Employed

44%

Two Parents, One 

Employed

25%

Single Parent,

Employed

21%

Single Parent, Nonemployed

7%

Two Parents, Both

Non-employed

3%

Source: Child Trends’ analyses of March 2002 Current Population Survey data. 

22 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 23

Total

a 100.0 100.0 100.0

Two Parents in Household 72.2 74.9 70.2

Two employed parents 43.8 39.4 47.2

Both full-time 25.5 21.1 28.8

One full-time, one part-time

Both part-time

Youngest child 

ages 6-17

Youngest child 

Total under 6

16.4 16.4 16.4

2.0 1.9 2.0

4.3 3.1

No employed parent 3.0 3.6 2.6

One Parent in Household 27.8 25.1 29.8

One employed parent 20.8 17.4 23.3

Full-time 15.8 12.6 18.2

Part-time 5.0 4.8 5.1

No employed parent 7.0 7.6 6.5

SOURCE: Child Trends' analyses of March 2002 Current Population Survey data.

dren under age 18 by family structure and parental 

 employment, by age of child: 2002 

NOTE: Estimates of two-parent households include only married couples, and exclude families with 

unmarried partners. Parents in the armed forces are not considered in the labor force. Among those who

were working but not at their jobs the previous week, part-time versus full-time employment was determined

using the number of hours that the person usually works each week at his/her main job.

a Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Table 9. Distribution of families with chil

 

One employed parent, one nonemployed parent 25.4 32.0 20.4

Full-time 21.8 27.7 17.4

Part-time 3.6
Work-family stress 

In 1997, approximately a third of mothers and fathers reported that they did not have 

enough time for their family because of their jobs. Mothers who worked full-time were more 

likely than mothers who worked part-time to report that their jobs interfered with their family 

life. Thirty-seven percent of mothers employed full-time and 14 percent of mothers 

employed part-time in 1997 reported that they “often” or “very often” did not have enough 

time for their families because of their jobs. 

 

Percentage of working mothers who report that they do not have enough time for their 

families because of their jobs, by employment status: 1997 

32.2

14.1

36.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total Part-time Full-time

Employment Status

Percent

Source: Child Trends’ analyses of the National Study of the Changing Workforce, 1997. 

24 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Mothers Fathers

Total 32.2 33.1

Employment Status

Part-time 14.1 47.1

Full-time 36.6 32.9

Marital Status

Married 33.1 32.0

Non-married 30.6 40.1

SOURCE: Child Trends' analyses of the National Study of the Changing

Workforce, 1997.

Table 10. Percentage of working parents ho report that they do not 

 have enough time for their family because of their job, by

 gender and selected characteristics:

b 1997

b

 Job interference with family life corresponds to parents' reports of not

having enough time "often" or "very often" for their family because of their

jobs. 

a

 Parents include respondents with residential children under the age of 18.

a

 w

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 25
Family income 

In 2001, the median total money income for households with a related child under 1

years old was $52,177. Households headed by a married couple with a related child under 18

had a median income of $65,319, while unmarried couple households had a median incom

of $ 39,886. Households headed by a male with no spouse had a

8

e

median income of $36,922, 

and households headed by a female with no spouse had a median income of $25,167. 

Median total money income in households with a related child under 18 years old, by 

family structure: 2001 

$52,177

$65,319

$39,886

$25,167

$36,922

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$70,000

Total Married couple

household

Unmarried

couple

household

Female

householder,

no spouse

Male

householder,

no spouse

Family Structure

Income in D

ollars

Note: Unmarried couples may also be included in the categories of female householder no spouse present, and 

male householder, no spouse present, if children of the householder are present.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2002. 

(http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032002/hhinc/new04_000.htm)

$60,000

26 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Dollars

Total $52,177

Race and Hispanic Origina

White, non-Hispanic $61,707

Black $32,315

Hispanic $35,000

Family Structure

Married couple household $65,319

Unmarried couple household $39,886

Female householder, no spouse $25,167

Male householder, no spouse $36,922

a Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Table 11. Median family income among households with a related

 child under 18 years old, by selected characteristics: 2001

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2002. 

(http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032002/hhinc/new04_000.htm)

NOTE: Unmarried couples may also be included in the categories of

female householder no spouse present, and male householder, no spouse

present, if children of the householder are present.

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 27
Patterns of child care

to the

tively) or a nonrelative (18 and 14 percent, 

uch higher percentages of 3-6 than 0-2 year olds participated in center-based 

ercentage of children from birth through age 6, not yet in kindergarten, by type of 

care arrangement and age group: 2001 

In 2001, thirty-nine percent of children from birth through age 6 were cared for solely

by a parent, while 61 percent participated in some sort of nonparental care. Children under 3 

years of age were more likely to be in parental care only than children ages 3 to 6 years (48 

percent compared to 26 percent). The type of care arrangement chosen also is related

child’s age. While similar percentages of 0-2 year olds and 3-6 year olds were cared for in a

home by a relative (23 and 22 percent, respec

respectively), m

programs (56 percent compared with 17 percent). 

P

48

52

23

18 17

26

74

22

14

56

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Parental care

only

Nonparental

care

Care in a home

by a relative

Care in a home

by a nonrelative

Center-based

programs

Type of Care Arrangement

Percent

Note: Some children participate in more than one type of arrangement, so the sum of all arrangement types 

exceeds the total percentage in nonparental care. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program

Participation Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program, 2001. As reported in Federal

Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2003). America's children: Key national indicators of wellbeing, 2003. Washington, DC: Author. 

0-2 years old 3-6 years old, not yet in kindergarten

28 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 29

Total in 

rental care only nonparental care a By a relative By a nonrelative Center-based programc

39 61 23 16 34

52 23 18 17

26 74 22 14 56

46 54 26 10 27

37 63 22 18 35

56 44 21 9 21

43 58 26 14 28

37 64 25 16 36

32 69 17 23 42

e in either the child's own home or another home. 

me are excluded from estimates of mother's highest level of education.

ational Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey of the National 

 As reported in Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2003). America's children:

. Washington, DC: Author.

 type of nonparental care arrangement. Thus, detailed percentages do not sum to the total percentage of

ters, prekindergartens, nursery schools, Head Start programs, and other early childhood education 

h through age 6, not yet in kindergarten, by type of care arrangement, by selected characteristics:

Care in a homeb

al school after high school, as well as college attendance.

Pa

TotalAge/Grade in School

0-2 483-6, not yet in kindergarten

Poverty Status

Below povertyAt or above poverty

Mother's Highest Level of Education d

Less than high schoolHigh school graduate or equivalentSome collegee

College graduate

b Relative and nonrelative care can take placd Those few children without a mother in the ho

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, NHousehold Education Surveys Program, 2001. Key national indicators of well-being, 2003

a Some children participate in more than one

children in nonparental care.

c Center-based programs include day care cenprograms.

Table 12. Percentage of children from birt

 2001

e Some college includes vocational or technic
School Involvement and Civic Engagement

30 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Parental involvement in school 

In 1999, ninety-two percent of students had parents who were involved in at least one 

of four types of activities in their children’s school: attending general meetings, attending 

scheduled meetings with a teacher, attending a school event, or acting as a volunteer or 

serving on a committee. The majority of students had parents who attended meetings or 

events in all three school levels, but only a minority of students in all levels had parents who 

volunteered or served on a committee. Parents were most likely to attend meetings and 

events or to volunteer in their child’s school when their children were in kindergarten 

through 5th grade (96 percent), and participation rates were somewhat lower among parents 

of children in middle school (92 percent) and in high school (83 percent). 

Percentage of students in grades K through 12 whose parents reported involvement in 

their child's school, by activity type and school level: 1999 

84.6 87.5

70.4 67.3

51.3

57.3

25.6

96.3

47.6

29.1

65.7

70.4

79.6

92.1

83.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Indicated

involvement in any

of the four

activities

Attended general

meeting

Attended

scheduled

meeting with

teacher

Attended school

event

Acted as a

volunteer or

served on a

committee

Activity

Percent

Grades K-5 Grades 6-8 Grades 9-12

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family

Involvement in Education/Civic Involvement Survey (PFI/CI:1996) and Parent Survey (Parent:1999) of the 

National Household Education Surveys Program, 1996 & 1999 and the Child Trends Databank. (2003). 

(www.childtrendsdatabank.org/indicators/39parentalinvolvementinschools.cfm) 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 31
, and Community Connections 

1999 1996 1999 1996 1999

78.3 71.8 72.8 66.7 65.4

84.6 86.1 87.5 71.7 70.4

79.6 69.5 70.4 65.7 65.7

67.3 49.7 51.3 59.1 57.3

80.5 72.6 73.6 71.6 71.6

74.6 68.8 71.1 56.4 53.8

76.6 71.6 73.1 64.2 62.3

57.3 62.7 59.9 42.2 37.7

72.7 69.2 69.7 60.2 58.7 2

79.1 72.5 73.7 69.2 66.9 3

87.3 77.4 80.3 76.4 75.6 4

88.9 76.3 76.0 81.9 78.9 5

 participation during the school year in any of the above activities at least

hool after high school, as well as college attendance.

l Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Educatio ivic In

he National Household Education Surveys Program, 1996 & 1999 and the Tren

linvolvementinschools.cfm)

eschooled are not included in this analysis; these students accounted for 1.6 cent of

n be included in more than one type of involvement.

rough 12 whose parents report involvementa in their child's school, cted 999

nded general 

meeting

Attended scheduled

meeting with teacher

Attended school

event

 a vol

rved

m

ny

ties

1996

Total 76.9Student's Gra

K-5 83.26-8 77.99-12 65.4

Race and Hisp

White, non-Hi 79.0Black, non-Hi 71.6Other 73.2

Parents' Highe of E ation

Less than high 57.5High school g alent 71.5Some collegec 77.9

College gradu 87.4Graduate or prof s 88.5

a Parental invo sc is defined as parentb Persons of His in y be of any race.c Some college i vo nal or technical sc

SOURCE: U.S. nt Education, Nationa

(PFI/CI:1996) an Su (Parent:1999) of t(www.childtrend .o ndicators/39parentaNOTE: Ungr ildren who are hom

Percentages may o because parents caTable 13. P nts in grades K th

Atte

1999 1996 1999

36.8 91.7 91.5

47.6 96.2 96.3

29.1 91.5 92.125.6 84.2 83.4

42.7 93.5 93.8

26.2 86.4 87.0

30.6 89.9 90.3

13.0 79.1 75.9

6.0 89.3 88.4

7.4 92.9 93.1

9.8 96.8 97.1

4.3 97.2 96.8

volvement Survey

ds Databank. (2003).

the students in grades K-12. 

 characteristics: 1996 & 1

unteer 

 on a 

ittee

Indicated 

involvement in a

of the four activi

1996

38.7

48.9

30.428.4

44.1

26.9

35.4

16.9

30.1

39.2

52.3

56.7

 once.

n/C

Child

per

by sele

Acted as

or se

com

32 Indicators of Child, Family

de

anic Orig

spanic

spanic

st Level

 school

raduate or eq

ate

essional

lvement in 

panic orig

ncludes a

 Departme

d Parent

sdatabank

aded students

not sum t

ercentage of s

inb

duc

uiv

chool

hool

ma

catio

 of

rvey

rg/i

or ch

100 

tude
Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections

Volunteerin

Approxim

blacks and 29 percent of Hispanics did so. Vol

in som

can be perform

even strangers. 

Percentage of adults w

and Hispanic origin: 2001 

 33

g as a family 

Overall, 37 percent of adults volunteered with family members in 2001. 

ately 39 percent of whites volunteered with family members, while 34 percent of

unteering is defined here as actually working 

e way to help others, and not just belonging to a service organization. Volunteerism

ed in an organized group, or individually for children, neighbors, friends, or 

ho volunteered with family members in the past year, by race 

37.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total

Percent

38.6

34.1

29.4

White Black Hispanic

Race and Hispanic Origin

s includes Hispanics. 

ppe, Independent Sector, based on data from the 2001 Giving and 

Note: Estimates for whites and black

Source: Estimates supplied by C. To

Volunteering in the United States Survey. 
Percent

Total 37.2

Race and Hispanic Origina

White 38.6

Black 34.1

Hispanic 29.4

SOURCE: Estimates supplied by C. Toppe, Independent

Sector, based on data from the 2001 Giving and 

Volunteering in the United States Survey.

Table 14a. Percentage of adults who volunteered

 with family members in the past year, by 

 race and Hispanic origin: 2001

a Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Estimates

for blacks and whites include Hispanics.

34 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Student participation in community service

ho

uage

In 1999, fifty-two percent of students in grades 6-12 participated in community 

service. Those who spoke English in the home were more likely (54 percent) than those w

spoke another language in the home (34 percent) to participate in community service. 

Participation increased slightly between 1996 and 1999 in general, and was substantially 

higher among students with college-educated parents in both years. 

Percentage of students in grades 6-12 participating in community service, by lang

spoken in the home: 1996 & 1999 

49

52 50

54

32 34

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1996 1999

Year

Percent

Total English language Other language

90

100

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Youth Civic Involvement

Survey of the National Household Education Surveys (NHES) Program, 1996, and the Youth Survey of the 

NHES Program, 1999. As reported in National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Youth service-learning

and community service among 6th-12thgrade students in the United States: 1996 and 1999. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Education. 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 35
36 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 

1996 1999

Total 49 52

Student's Grade

6-8 47 48

9-10 45 50

11-12 56 61

Language Spoken Most at Home by Student

English 50 54

Other 32 34

Parents' Highest Level of Education

Less than high school 34 37

High school graduate or equivalent 42 45

Some college

a 48 50

College graduate 58 62

Graduate or professional school 64 65

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

Youth Civic Involvement Survey of the National Household Education Surveys

(NHES) Program, 1996 and the Youth Survey of the NHES Program, 1999. As

reported in National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Youth service-learning 

and community service among 6th-12th grade students in the United States: 1996 

and 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Table 14b. Percentage of students in grades 6 through 12 participating in 

 community service, by selected characteristics: 1996 & 1999

a

 Some college includes those who attended a vocational or technical training

school after high school, as well as college attendance.
Parental voting 

Among eligible voters, 60 percent of parents with their own children in th

voted in the last presidential election in 2000. 

Voting is much more common among parents with higher levels of education than it 

is among parents with less education. Eighty percent of parents with at least a college degre

reported voting in the 2000 election, compared with 64 percent of those with some college 

education, 49 pe

e household

e

rcent of those with high school diplomas, and 28 percent of parents with less 

an a high school degree.

rt voting in the last election. In 2000, seventy percent of parents 

ages 50 and over reported voting in the Novem er election, compared with 65 percent of 

those ages 31-49, forty-six percent of those ages 26-30, and 33 percent of parents ages 18-25. 

Married parents are more likely to vote than unmarried parents (64 percent and 45 

percent, respectively). 

Percentage of parentsa with children under 18 in the household who voted in the last 

election, by educational attainment: 2000 

th

Voting behavior among parents also varies by age, with older parents more likely 

than younger parents to repo

b

60.3

28.3

49.5

63.9

80.4

0

40

60

80

100

Total Less than high

school

High school

diploma or GED

Some education

after high school

College graduate

Educational Attainment of Parent

Percent

a

Parents include householders and spouses with own children under 18 in the household; therefore, this

indicator includes data on all parents in the family. 

Note: Analysis includes only eligible voters (those who were at least 18 years of age and citizens). 

Source: Child Trends’ analyses of November 2000 Current Population Survey data

20

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 37
Percent

All Parents 60.3

Highest Level of Education

Less than high school 28.3

High school diploma or GED 49.5

Some education after high school 63.9

College graduate 80.4

Age of Parent

18-25 years 33.2

26-30 years 45.9

31-49 years 64.8

50 years and over 69.9

Immigrant Status

Native-born 61.3

Foreign-born 46.2

Martial Status

Married (spouse present) 64.0

Unmarried (or married with spouse absent) 44.9

Table 15. Percentage of parentsa

 with children under 18 in the household 

 who voted in the last election, by selected characteristics: 2000

NOTE: Analysis includes only eligible voters (those who were at least 18 years

of age and citizens). 

SOURCE: Child Trends' analyses of November 2000 Current Population Survey

data.

a Parents include householders and spouses with own children under 18 living in

the household.

38 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Youth connection to school peers 

Overall, 56 percent of youth felt connected to peers in their school in the 1995-9

school year. Approximately 60 percent of students attending middle or mixeda

 schools 

reported feeling connected to peers in their school, and 54 percent of high school studen

reported feelings of connection. This difference in reported rates of connection to peers b

school level is not statistically significant. 

6

ts

y

Percentage of youth who feel connected to peers in their school, by level of school: 1995-

1996 

56.3

59.4 60.4

53.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total Middle school Mixed High school

School Level

a

Percent

a A mixed school contains both middle and high school grade levels. 

Source: Child Trends’ analyses of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health Wave 1, 1995-1996. 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 39
Percent

Total 56.3

Gender

Male 57.7

Female 54.8

Immigrant Status

c

Native-born 56.5

Foreign-born 53.6

School Leveld

Middle school 59.4

Mixed 60.4

High school 53.8

d A middle school ends at or before the 9th grade. A high school begins at or 

after the 9th grade. A mixed school contains both middle and high school

grade levels.

SOURCE: Child Trends' analyses of the National Longitudinal Study of

Adolescent Health Wave 1, 1995-1996.

Table 16a. Percentage of youtha

 who feel connected to peers in their 

 school, by selected characteristics:

b

 1995-1996

a

 Youth in grades 7-12. b Perceptions of connectedness to peers are based on a three-item scale that 

includes measures of whether students feel close to people at school, feel part

of their school, and feel happy at their school.

c Native-born includes U.S. citizens born in foreign countries.

40 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
School supportiveness 

In the 1995-96 school year, 47 percent of youth in grades 7-12 perceived their school 

to be supportive. Foreign-born youth were more likely than native-born youth to feel that 

their sc

ess (52 percent) than non-Hispanic whites (48 percent), nonHispan

1995-1

hool environment was supportive. Fifty-nine percent of foreign-born teens viewed 

their school as supportive, compared with 47 percent of native-born teens. Racial and ethnic 

differences in students’ perceptions of their school environments reflect this same pattern. 

Specifically, Hispanic teens, who are more likely to be foreign-born, reported slightly higher 

levels of school supportiven

ic blacks (45 percent), Native Americans (38 percent), or teens of other races (39 

percent). 

Percentage of youth who perceive their school to be supportive, by immigrant status: 

996

47.5 46.9

59.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

100

Total Native-born Foreign-born

Immigrant Status

Percent

Source: Child Trends’ analyses of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health Wave 1, 1995-1996. 

90

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 41
Percent

Total 47.5

Race and Hispanic Originc

White, non-Hispanic 48.0

Black, non-Hispanic 44.6

Hispanic 51.8

Asian 49.2

Native American 37.8

Other, non-Hispanic 39.4

Immigrant Status

d

Native-born 46.9

Foreign-born 59.0

Type of School

e

Middle school 51.5

Mixed 51.8

High school 43.8

a

 Youth in grades 7-12.

SOURCE: Child Trends' analyses of the National Longitudinal Study of

Adolescent Health Wave 1, 1995-1996.

Table 16b. Percentage of youtha who perceive their school to be

 supportive, by selected characteristics:b

 1995-1996

b Perceptions of school supportiveness are based on a three-item scale 

including whether students have trouble getting along with teachers 

(reverse coded), feel like teachers treat students fairly, and feel that 

teachers care about them.

c Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

d Native-born includes U.S. citizens born in foreign countries. e A middle school ends at or before the 9th grade. A high school begins at

or after the 9th grade. A mixed school contains both middle and high 

school grade levels.

42 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Religiosity 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 43
Parental religious service attendance 

Slightly more than one-third of parents (36 percent) attended religious services at 

least once a week in 2002. This percentage represents a small decline from 1997, when 38 

percent of parents attended religious services at least weekly.

Parental religious attendance differs according to the parent’s educational attainment. 

In 2002, fewer than one-third of parents who had not completed high school (28 percent) 

reported attending religious services weekly, compared with 44 percent of those who had 

graduated from college. Poor families were less likely than nonpoor families to have a parent

attending religious services weekly in 2002 (28 percent compared with 38 percent). 

Married parents were more likely to attend services weekly than parents who were 

not married (40 percent compared with 26 percent). 

Percentage of parents attending religious services weekly or more often, by parental 

educational attainment: 2002 

36.3

28.3

32.1

37.3

43.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total Less than high

school

High school

diploma or GED

Some education

after high school

College graduate

Educational Attainment of the Parent

Percent

Note: Parents include primary caregivers between the ages of 18 and 64 for children under age 18; therefore,

this indicator includes data on one adult per household. In more than 95 percent of cases, this adult is a 

biological, adoptive, or stepparent, and in 80 percent of cases this adult is the mother. 

Source: Child Trends’ analyses of the National Survey of America’s Families, 2002. 

44 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 45

1997 1999 2002

Total 37.7 37.5 36.3

Age of Childb

 0-5 years 34.2 33.9 32.8

 6-11 years 39.5 38.6 37.6

 12-17 years 39.6 39.9 38.7

M

 Marri

arital Statusc

ed 41.1 41.3 40.0

ily Structured

 Two parents 40.5 40.6 39.3

 One parent 30.1 28.7 27.7

 Other 46.9 42.3 45.2

Highest Level of Educationc

 Less than high school 30.2 31.1 28.3

 High school diploma or GED 35.0 32.7 32.1

 Some education after high school 39.1 39.1 37.3

 College graduate 43.6 44.9 43.7

Poverty Status

 Below poverty 32.5 30.1 28.3

 At or above poverty 38.9 38.9 37.7

Race and Hispanic Originc

 White, non-Hispanic 35.6 35.7 35.2

 Black, non-Hispanic 45.7 45.8 44.7

 Hispanic 40.0 38.6 34.4

 Other 37.1 33.3 33.1

SOURCE: Child Trends' analyses of the National Survey of America's Families, 1997, 1999, and 2002.

 Two-parent families include two biological/adoptive parents or stepfamilies. One-parent families

include one biological or adoptive parent.

arentsa

 attending religious services weekly or more often, by selected 

aracteristics: 1997, 1999, and 2002

a

 Parents include primary caregivers between the ages of 18 and 64 for children under age 18; therefore, 

this indicator includes data on one adult per household. In more than 95 percent of cases, this adult is a 

biological, adoptive, or step-parent, and in 80 percent of cases this adult is the mother.

b

 The age grouping is based on the age of one randomly selected child in each family.

c 

Table 17a. Percentage of p

 ch

 Not married 27.8 26.5 26.4

Fam

d

Of the parent whose religious attendance is reported.
Adolescent participation in religious activities with their families 

Overall, in 2000, half of all adolescents participated in religious activities with their 

families (e.g., going to a worship service, praying, reading scripture). The frequency varies 

by the adolescent’s race and Hispanic origin. Non-Hispanic black adolescents were 

considerably more likely to participate in religious activities with their families—weekly or 

more often (73 percent)—than were their peers of non-Hispanic white (45 percent), Hispanic 

(55 percent), or other racial or ethnic origin (48 percent). Hispanics were more likely to 

participate than non-Hispanic whites. 

Percentage of adolescents participating in religious activities with their families weekly 

or more often, by race and Hispanic origin: 2000 

50.9

45.5

72.6

54.8

48.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total White, nonHispanicBlack, nonHispanicHispanic Other

Race and Hispanic Origin

Percent

Source: Child Trends' analyses of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth - 1997, Rounds 1 and 4.

46 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Percent

Total 50.9

Race and Hispanic Originb

White, non-Hispanic 45.5

Black, non-Hispanic 72.6

Hispanic 54.8

Other 48.3

Family Structure

Two biological parents 56.1

Two parents (biological parent and other)c 37.7

One biological parent 45.4

Parent's Highest Level of Educationd

Less than high school degree 53.8

High school degree 46.0

Some college education 49.8

College graduate 55.8

b Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

SOURCE: Child Trends' analyses of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth -

1997, Rounds 1 and 4.

Table 17b. Percentage of adolescents who participate in religious activities

 (e.g., going to a worship service, praying, reading scripture) a 

 with their families weekly or more often, by selected 

 characteristics: 2000

d

 In two-parent households, "parental education" refers to the highest level of

education attained between the two residential parents/parent figures. 

NOTE: Analyses are based on a universe of adolescents, 12-14, who lived with a 

parent or guardian in 2000. 

c This includes families with one biological parent and one nonbiological parent

figure in the household. This resident nonbiological parent figure can be a stepparent, adoptive parent, foster parent, spouse or romantic partner of the biological

parent, or a relative or other adult who is "like a parent" to the respondent. A

greater share of biological parents are mothers and a greater share of other parents

are fathers.

a These activities are included in the wording of the survey item.

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 47
Social Connections 

48 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Neighborhood community 

Eighty percent of adults reported in 2000 that they have people in their neighborhood 

who give them a sense of community. White non-Hispanics and Hispanics, (82 percent and 

77 percent respectively) were more likely than black non-Hispanics (71 percent) to report 

having people in their neighborhood who gave them a sense of community. 

Percentage of adults with people in their neighborhood who give them a sense of

community, by race and Hispanic origin: 2000 

 

80 82

71

77

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic

Race and Hispanic Origin

Percent

Source: The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey 2000, National Survey data

(http://www.cfsv.org/communitysurvey/docs/marginals.pdf). 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 49
Percent

Total 80

Race and Hispanic Origina

White, non-Hispanic

 community, by selected characteristics: 2000

82

Black, non-Hispanic 71

18-34 years 75

35-49 years 83

50-64 years 82

65 years and over 83

Highest Level of Education

High school or less 79

Some college 80

College degree or more 81

 neighborhood who give them a sense of 

a Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

SOURCE: Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, 2000, 

National Survey data. 

http://www.cfsv.org/communitysurvey/docs/marginals.pdf

Table 18a. Percentage of adults with people in their 

Hispanic 77

Age

50 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Community of friends 

Eighty-nine percent of adults reported in the year 2000 that they have old or new 

friends who provide them with a sense of community, regardless of their geographic 

proximity. While the vast majority of white and black non-Hispanics as well as Hispanics 

reported that they had a community of friends, white non-Hispanics were more likely than 

Hispanics to report having such a community, (91 percent compared with 83 percent), while 

black non-Hispanics fell in between at 86 percent. 

Percentage of adults with old or new friends who give them a sense of community, by 

race and Hispanic origin: 2000 

89 91

86

83

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic

Race and Hispanic Origin

Percent

Source: The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey 2000, National Survey data

(http://www.cfsv.org/communitysurvey/docs/marginals.pdf). 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 51
Percent

Total 89

Race and Hispanic Origina

White, non-Hispanic 91

Black, non-Hispanic 86

Hispanic 83

Age

18-34 years 90

35-49 years 90

50-64 years 91

65 years and over 83

Highest Level of Education

High school or less 88

Some college 90

College degree or more 90

Table 18b. Percentage of adults with old or new friends who give them

 a sense of community, by selected characteristics: 2000

a Persons of Hispanic

SOURCE: Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, 2000, National

Survey data. http://www.cfsv.org/communitysurvey/docs/marginals.pdf

origin may be of any race.

52 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Concern for safety 

In 2000, twenty-seven percent of adults listed concern for their safety as either a 

somewhat or very important obstacle that made it difficult to be involved in their community.

This concern was greater among those with less education. Thirty-two percent of those wi

a high school degree or less reported concern for their safety as an obstacle,

th

compared with 

18 percent of those with a college degree or more. 

afety as an obstacle that makes it 

fficult to be involved in their community, by level of education: 2000 

Percentage of adults who list concern for their s

di

27

32 29

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total High school or less Some college College degree or

more

Educational Attainment

Percent

Source: The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey 2000, National Survey data

(http://www.cfsv.org/communitysurvey/docs/marginals.pdf). 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 53
Percent

Total 27

Race and Hispanic Origina

White, non-Hispanic 26

Black, non-Hispanic 37

Hispanic 28

Age

18-34 years 31

35-49 years 25

50-64 years 24

65 years and over 29

Highest Level of Education

High school or less 32

Some college 29

College degree or more 18

Table 19. Percentage of adults who list concern for their

 safety as an obstacle that makes it difficult to be

 involved in their community, by selected 

 characteristics: 2000

a Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

SOURCE: Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, 2000, 

National Survey data. 

http://www.cfsv.org/communitysurvey/docs/marginals.pdf

54 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Residential mobility 

ructure. 

s

In 2002, sixteen percent of families with children reported that they changed 

residence in the past year. Residential mobility varies by poverty status and family st

Twice as many families with incomes below the poverty line moved, compared with familie

with incomes at or above the poverty line (29 percent and 14 percent, respectively). In 

addition, twice as many single-parent families moved compared with two-parent families (26

percent and 13 percent, respectively).

Percentage of families with children under age 18 that moved in the past year, by

poverty status: 2002 

16.2

29.1

14.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

Total Below poverty At or above poverty

Percent

Poverty Status

Source: Child Trends’ analyses of March 2002 Current Population Survey data. 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 55
Percent

Total 16.2

Family Structure

Two parents

b 12.6

One parent 25.5

Poverty Status

Below poverty 29.1

At or above poverty 14.3

Age of Youngest Child

Under 6 years 21.9

 6-17 years 11.8

NOTE: This analysis excludes related and unrelated subfamilies. For this

reason, it is possible that residental mobility among families in

households is slightly underestimated.

b

Estimates of two-parent families include only married couples, and

exclude families with unmarried partners. Families with unmarried 

partners are included as one-parent families. 

Table 20. Percentage of families with children under 18 that moved 

 in the past year, by selected characteristics:

a 2002

a A family was considered to have moved in the past year if its family

reference person reported changing residences in the past year.

SOURCE: Child Trends' analysis of March 2002 Current Population

Survey data.

56 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Appendix A: Data Sources 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 57
Current Population Survey (CPS) 

Name: Current Population Survey 

Funder(s): The core survey is funded by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The supplements 

are also funded by a variety of sponsors including the Department of Health

and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the National Institute 

of Child Health and Human Development.

General Description: The CPS is primarily designed to supply estimates of employment, 

unemployment and other characteristics of the general labor force, the 

population as a whole, and various subgroups of the population. In addition to

collection of labor force data, the core funding of the CPS provides for 

collection of annual data on work experience, income, and migration (the

annual March income and demographic supplement), and school enrollment of

the population (the October supplement). Other supplements conducted

include the voting and registration supplement (November of Congressional

and presidential election years), the child support and alimony supplement

(April), the fertility and birth expectations supplement (June), and the 

supplement on the immunization status of the population (most recently 

collected in September 1995). 

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; 

mode of administration): 

Cross-sectional. The CPS has been conducted monthly since 1942. The 

fieldwork is conducted during the calendar week that includes the 19th of the 

month. In January 1994 a redesigned questionnaire was introduced. This was 

the most substantial change to the survey since its inception. This new survey 

includes longer and more detailed questions allowing for more accurate and 

detailed estimates. The CPS questionnaire is a completely computerized

document that is administered by Census Bureau field representatives across 

the country through both personal and telephone interviews. Households are 

in the survey for four consecutive months, out for eight, and then return for 

another four months before leaving the sample permanently. 

Population: The CPS is representative of the civilian, non-institution zed population of 

the U.S. 

Sample Selection and

Description: 

Data are collected for all household members. Employment and earnings

information is collected for persons ages 15 and over, but tabulated for all 

persons 16 and over. One member of each household contacted is the

respondent, and this individual must be a knowledgeable household member

15 years or older. The CPS is administered using a scientifically selected

sample of some 50,000 occupied households nationwide. The CPS design

over-sampled for Hispanics only. (For more detail see Design and 

Methodology: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/tp63rv.pdf) 

Website: http://www.bls.census.gov/cps/cpsmain.htm

ali

Age of Respondent: Respondents are 15 years and older. This primary respondent provides 

information for each household member. No upper age limit is used, and fulltime students are treated the same as non-students. For this report, the age of 

the adult population is 18 years and older.

Age of Child: 0 to 17 years old

Indicators: Family structure 

Contact with nonresident parents 

Parental employment by family structure 

Family income

Parental voting 

Residential mobility 

58 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
Giving and Volunteering in the United States 

Name: 

F

G

t

 during the year 2000. 

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

lo

m

Cross-sectional. The Giving and Volunteering in the United States survey is a 

July. The survey was conducted biennially from 1988 through 1998. In order 

to move the survey away from traditional elections years, the survey was 

administered in 1999 and will continue to be collected biennially. 

Population: This survey is representative of all noninstitutionalized adults 21 years of age 

or older in the U.S.

Sample Selection and

Description: 

The sample included 4,216 adults 21 years of age or older. The survey oversampled for of Hispanics, blacks, and affluent Americans with household 

incomes of $100,000 or higher. Subsampling of males was also implemented 

in order to increase their probability of selection to boost the ratio of males 

versus females in the final sample. 

Questions about contributions were asked at the household level, whereas 

questions about volunteer activities were asked at the individual level. 

Attitudinal or opinion questions were also asked at the individual level. 

Website: http://www.independentsector.org/programs/research/gv01main.html

Giving and Volunteering in the United States

under(s): The Independent Sector 

eneral Description: The Giving and Volunteering in the United States survey collects information 

on the giving and volunteering habits of Americans. The survey asks abou

individual volunteering habits in the 12 months prior to the survey and about

household giving

ngitudinal; periodicity; 

ode of administration): 

random digit dial (RDD) telephone survey administered between May and

Age of Respondent: 21 years and older 

Age of Child: Not applicable 

Indicators: Volunteering as a family 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 59
National Household Education Survey Program (NHES) 

Name: National Household Education Survey Program 

Funder(s): National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of 

Education 

General Description: The National Household Education Survey Program provides information on

education-related issues, such as the care arrangements and educational 

experiences of young children, children's educational activities and the role of 

the family in the children's learning, and parental involvement in their 

children's schooling. The NHES is designed to provide comparative data 

across survey years, repeating topical surveys on a rotating basis. New topics

are added as particular issues gain importance. 

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; 

mode of administration): 

Cross-sectional. The NHES was conducted in 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1999, 

2001, and 2003. This random digit-dialed, computer-assisted telephone 

interview includes all 50 states and the District of Columbia. There are plans 

to continue the survey periodically in the future. 

Population: The NHES is a representative sample of the non-institutionalized civilian

population of the U.S. 

Sample Selection and

Description: 

In each survey, between 54,000 and 64,000 households are screened to identify 

eligible respondents for one of the topics. One or more household members 

may be selected to complete more extensive interviews on specific topics. In

general, two topical surveys are conducted in each administration and 5,000 to

25,000 interviews are completed for each survey. The NHES design oversamples minorities for reliable estimates for these groups. Approximately

8,000 youth in grades 6 through 12 were interviewed for the Youth Civic 

Involvement Survey in 1996 and another 8,000 for the Youth Survey in 1999. 

The sample sizes for the parent interview varied by year: in 1996, more than

20,000 parents of children age 3 up through 12th grade responded and in 1999, 

more than 24,000 parents of children from newborns up through 12th grade 

responded. In 2001, almost 7,000 parents were interviewed for the Early

Childhood Program Participation Survey. 

Website: http://nces.ed.gov/nhes

Unit of Analysis: Adults, parents, or youth depending on the survey administered. 

Age of Respondent: Depending on the survey administered, respondents are either adults 18 to 65

years old, parents of any age, or youth in grades 6 through 12. 

Age of Child: For the parent interviews, in 1996, questions were asked about children 3 years 

old up through 12th grade; in 1999, questions were asked about newborn 

children up through 12th grade, and, in 2001, questions were asked about

children 0-6, not yet in kindergarten and children enrolled in kindergarten

through 8th grade (in this report child care is reported only for children 0-6, not 

yet in kindergarten). The 1996 and 1999 youth surveys asked youth in grades 

6-12 about themselves. 

Indicators: Patterns of child care 

Parental involvement in school 

Student participation in community service 

60 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health)

Name: National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health

Funder(s): National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and 17

other federal agencies 

General Description: Add Health focuses on the causes of health-related behaviors of adolescents, 

collecting data from surveys of students, parents, and school administrators. 

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; 

mode of administration): 

Longitudinal. Four surveys were conducted during Wave I (1994 through

1995): in-school, in-home, school administrator, and parent surveys. Wave II 

(1996) consisted of in-home and school administrator surveys. Wave III 

(August 2001 through April 2002) consisted of an in-home survey. Already

existing databases provided information about neighborhoods and

communities. Questionnaires were administered directly to students using 

Computer-Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) and Computer-Assisted SelfInterview (CASI) systems. 

Population: Add Health is representative of students in the U.S. in grades 7 through 12 in

1997. 

Sample Selection and

Description: 

The Wave I In-School Survey collected information from 90,188 students in 80

pairs of schools (each pair consisted of one high school and one of its feeder

middle schools, or a single school if it included grades 7 to 12). 

Approximately 200 adolescents from each school pair were selected for inhome interviews at Wave I; however, in 16 schools, in-home interviews were 

conducted with all students in order to collect information about adolescent 

social networks. The sample size for the Wave I In-home Survey was 20,745. 

The Wave II In-Home Survey sample consisted of 14,738 adolescents who

participated in the Wave I survey. The Wave III In-Home Survey sample 

consisted of 15,197 young adults who participated in the Wave I survey. The 

study over-sampled African Americans with college-educated parents, 

Chinese, Cuban, Puerto Rican, and physically-disabled adolescents as well as 

genetic samples of pairs of siblings who resided in the same household (twins,

full and half-siblings, and unrelated teens in the same household). 

Website: http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/

Age of Respondent: Wave I (1995) was made up of subjects in grades 7-12. Wave II (1996) was 

made up of these subjects one year later (grades 8-12), but did not include

those who were 12th graders at Wave I. In Wave III, the respondents were 18

to 26 years old. 

Age of Child: See “Age of Respondent” 

Indicators: Youth connection to school peers 

School supportiveness 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 61
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth – 1997 (NLSY97)

N N f Youth - 1997

F U

O

Ju

an and Human Development 

of

G T nd 

in

be

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; 

mode of administration): 

L

co

E

ed

m h

ab t of

pu

as ectations, time use, criminal behavior, and 

al sis. 

A

cr

Population: T

ye

Sample Selection and

Description: 

D

yo

In

w on on

members of the youth's household and on his or her immediate family

m

9, who were 12 to 16 years old as of December 31, 1996. 

Su d

2, 

sa

Website: ht

ame: ational Longitudinal Survey o

under(s): . S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Partial funding support is provided by the 

ffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department of 

stice, the National School to Work Office of the Departments of Education 

d Labor, and the National Institute of Child Health

 the Department of Health and Human Services. 

eneral Description: he NLSY97 is designed to examine the transition from school to work a

to adulthood. It collects extensive information about youths’ labor market 

havior and educational experiences over time. 

ongitudinal. The NLSY97 is a nationally representative survey designed to

llect information on the transition from school to work and into adulthood. 

xtensive information is collected about youths' labor market behavior and

ucational experiences over time. The survey also collects information on 

any other topics, for example: youths' relationships with parents, contact wit

sent parents, marital and fertility histories, dating, sexual activity, onse

berty, employment or job skills training, participation in government

sistance programs, life-course exp

cohol and drug use. Youths complete personal interviews on an annual ba

reas of the survey that are potentially sensitive, such as sexual activity and 

iminal behavior, comprise the self-administered portion of the interview. 

he NLSY97 is representative of individuals in the U.S. who were 12 to 16

ars old as of December 31, 1996. 

uring Round 1 of the survey, which took place in 1997, both the eligible 

uth and one of that youth's parents completed hour-long personal interviews. 

addition, during the screening process, an extensive two-part questionnaire 

as administered that listed and gathered demographic informati

embers living elsewhere. The Round 1 sample consisted of approximately 

000 youths 

bsequently, the sample size has decreased due to attrition to 8,386 in Roun

to 8,209 in Round 3, to 8,081 in Round 4. The NLSY97 design overmpled for black and Hispanic respondents. 

tp://www.bls.gov/nls/nlsy97.htm

ound 1: 12 to 16 year old adolescents and one parent of the adolescent 

ound 2: 13 to 17 year old adolescents 

ound 3: 14 to 18 year old adolescents and young adults

Age of Respondent: R

R

R

Round 4: 15 to 19 year old adolescents and young adults

R ng adults

A Se

Indicators: Po

Pa d activities 

Adolescent participation in religious activities with their families 

ound 5: 16 to 20 year old adolescents and you

ge of Child: e “Age of Respondent” 

sitive parent-adolescent relationships

rental awareness of adolescents’ friends an

62 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
National Study of the Changing Workforce (NSCW)

Name: National Study of the Changing Workforce 

Funder(s): Families and Work Institute, New York

) 

ng business perspective and broader 

.

mode of administration): 

ith

ion and

Description: 

 a 

hone. One householder was randomly 

le.

General Description: The NSCW collects information on how work, family, and personal life fit

together. The survey is based upon the Quality of Employment Survey (QES

conducted by the Department of Labor from 1969 through 1977. The NSCW

addresses the issues in the QES with a stro

social and economic perspectives. 

Cross-sectional. The NSCW is a nationally representative survey of the 

nation’s labor force conducted every five years. The first survey was 

conducted in 1992 with subsequent surveys in 1997 and 2002 (not yet 

released). The NSCW is a random-digit dial survey of households w

Design (cross-sectional vs

longitudinal; periodicity; 

telephones. Interviews are conducted using computer-assisted telephone 

interviewing (CATI) technology. 

Population:

Sample Select

The NSCW is representative of employed workers in the U.S. 

Sample eligibility was limited to people who 1) worked at a paid job or

operated an income-producing business, 2) were 18 years or older, 3) were in

the civilian labor force, 4) resided in the contiguous 48 states, and 5) lived in

noninstitutional residence with a telep

selected to be interviewed in houses where more than one person was eligib

The 1992 sample consisted of 3,718 respondents and the 1997 sample 

consisted of 3,551 respondents. 

Website: http://www.familiesandwork.org/nationalstudy.html

Age of Respondent: 18 years and older 

Age of Child: Under 18 years of age 

Indicators: Work-family stress 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 63
National Survey of America’s Families (NSAF) 

Name: National Survey of America’s Families 

Funder(s): Annie E. Casey Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Henry J. Kaiser Fam

Foundation

ily

, Ford Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur

General Description: 

ith a focus on low-income 

.

longitudinal; periodicity; 

nistration): 

. Three rounds of the survey

Population: tive of the noninstitutionalized, civilian population 

Sample Selection and

Description: t

e 

Website:

Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, David and Lucile Packard

Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the

Weingart Foundation, the McKnight Foundation, the Fund for New Jersey, The 

Stuart Foundation, the Bulova Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, the 

Joyce Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

The NSAF is a nationally representative survey that collects information on

child, adult and family well-being in America, w

families. The survey asks questions related to economic security, health and 

health care, child well-being, family environment, as well as other topics. 

Cross-sectional. The NSAF is a random-digit dial survey conducted via 

computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI)

Design (cross-sectional vs

mode of admi have been collected – 1997, 1999, and 2002. 

The NSAF is representa

under age 65 in the U.S. and in 13 states: Alabama, California, Colorado, 

Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New 

York, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. 

The sample of random-digit dialed households with telephones was 

supplemented with a second (area probability) sample of households withou

telephones. In each year, interviews were obtained from more than 40,000

households, providing information on more than 109,000 persons under ag

65. The surveys over-sample families with incomes below 200 percent of the 

federal poverty level. 

http://www.urban.org/Content/Research/NewFederalism/NSAF/Overview/NS

AFOverview.htm

Age of Respondent: Adults under 65 years of age 

Age of Child:

Indicators: Parental religious service attendance 

Under 18 years of age 

64 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) 

Name: National Survey of Families and Households 

Funder(s): Wave I: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 

(NICHD), Center for Population Research

.

longitudinal; periodicity; 

mode of administration): 

ave

 the 

r all household members, including the primary

ed with the original respondent and his or her partner. In Wave III,

Population: in

Sample Selection and

Description: 

Website:

Wave II and Wave III: National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development (NICHD) & National Institute on Aging 

General Description: 

Design (cross-sectional vs

The NSFH was developed to gain more information on the causes and 

consequences of the changes in American family and household structure. 

Longitudinal. Wave I data collection took place from 1987 to 1988. In W

I, information about the primary respondent for each family was collected 

using a combination of personal interviews and self-administered

questionnaires. A shorter self-administered questionnaire was also given to

primary respondent’s spouse/partner. In addition, basic socio-demographic 

information was collected fo

respondents’ children at both Waves I and II. The Wave II, Five-Year FollowUp was conducted from 1992 to 1994. In Wave II, personal interviews were

conduct

data were collected from original respondents with children who are young

adults (ages 18 to 33). Release of Wave III data is expected early in 2004. 

The NSFH is representative of noninstitutionalized adults ages 19 and older

the U.S. who could be interviewed in either English or Spanish. Persons under 

the age of 19 were ineligible to be interviewed unless they were currently

married or no one in the household was over age 19. 

Wave I consisted of a nationally representative sample of 13,007 primary

respondents, representing 9,637 households. The survey over-sampled 

minorities, single-parent families, parents with step-children, cohabiting

persons and recently married persons. The sample size for Wave II was

10,008. 

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/nsfh/home.htm

Age of Respondent: r, cohabiter/spouse age was not 

Indicators: 

Primary respondent was 19 years old or olde

limited. 

Age of Child: 0 to 24 years old

Families with grandparents who live nearby

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 65
Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) 

Name: Panel Study of Income Dynamics – Core Survey and Child Development

Funder(s): 

the Office of the Assistant 

e 

d

d

ool resources, and decennial-censussectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; 

mode of administration): -old

Population:

Sample Selection and

Description: f about 3,000 families selected 

aster sampling frame and a subsample of 

ureau's Survey of Economic

own

ample size has grown from 4,800

child age 12 or

the Child

 of 2,394 child

0 children. 

Supplement (CDS) 

Original funding agency: Office of Economic Opportunity of the U.S. 

Department of Commerce. Current major funding source: National Science 

Foundation. Additional funders: the National Institute on Aging, the National 

Institute of Child Health and Human Development,

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and th

U.S. Department of Labor. 

General Description: The PSID emphasizes the dynamic aspects of economic and demographic

behavior. The core survey collects data on income sources and amounts,

employment, family composition changes, and residential location. The Chil

Development Supplement provides comprehensive data on children and their 

families with which to study the dynamic process of early human capital 

formation. The data collection for the Child Development Supplement

includes the following: (1) age-graded assessments of the cognitive, 

behavioral, and health status of 3,563 children (including about 329 immigrant

children), obtained from various adults involved with the child, and the child;

(2) parental and caregiver time inputs to children as well as how children and

adolescents spend their time; (3) teacher-reported time use in elementary an

preschool programs; and (4) measures of other resources, for example, the 

learning environment in the home, sch

based measurement of neighborhood resources. 

Longitudinal. The data were collected annually from 1968 to 1997, and 

biennially starting in 1999. The Child Development Supplement (administered

in 1997 and 2002-2003) provides data on parents and their 0- to 12-year

children.

The PSID reports on a representative sample of individuals (men, women, and

children) in the U.S. and the family units in which they reside. 

The original sample was based on a probability sample of about 4,800 

households, a combination of a cross-section o

Design (crossfrom the Survey Research Center's m

about 2,000 families from the Census B

Opportunity. Because family members, such as children, who form their

households continue in the sample, the s

families in 1968 to 7,406 families in 2001. If a family has a 

younger, the entire PSID Household Unit was eligible for

Development Supplement. The Supplement had a sample

households and about 3,60

Website: http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/ 

18 to 65 years old 

2 to 17 years old for Family structure change 

Age of Respondent: 

Age of Child:

0 to 13 years old for Parental warmth and affection 

0 to 13 years old for Time spent with parents 

Indicators: Family structure change 

Parental warmth and affection with younger children

Time spent with parents 

66 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 
National Vital Statistics System 

Name: National Vital Statistics System

Funder(s): National Center for Health Statistics, Division of Vital Statistics, Centers for 

General Description: 

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; llected from the 50 states and the District 

ts based 

ration

Population: nd 

ision of Vital Statistics. 

tion and

Disease Control of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Vital Statistics is a major collection of data at the federal, state, and sub-state 

levels of births and deaths from the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

Data collection is continuous. Data are collected via birth, death, and fetal 

death records. All certificates are co

mode of administration): of Columbia and reported to the Division of Vital Statistics. Monthly and 

annual reports of provisional data and annual and special subject repor

on final data are issued. All states have been included in the birth regist

area since 1933. 

All certificates are collected from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, a

the territories, and reported to the Div

Sample Selec

Description: 

Website:

Not applicable. Data are collected from actual records. 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm

Records are collected for all persons who have had a child. Data for mothers 

age 15 to 19 years old are included in this report. 

Births to 15-19-year-old females 

Births to unmarried teens 

Age of Respondent: 

Age of Child:

Indicators: 

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections 67
Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCB)

Name: Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey

nta, Baton 

o,

General Description: 

report by the Saguaro Seminar, 

d

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; 

: 

ween July and November of 

hich to

t. 

Population:

lection and

n: 

les in 40 communities nationwide (across 29 states) 

respondents were interviewed. In the national 

rvals are plus or minus 2.1 percentage points for the 

us or minus 5 percentage points for Hispanics and 

Website: http://www.cfsv.org/communitysurvey/

Funder(s): Saguaro Seminar at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard 

University and three-dozen community foundations in Phoenix, Atla

Rouge, Birmingham, Boston, Boulder, Los Angeles, Charlotte, Syracuse,

Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Delaware, Denver, East Tennessee, Fremont

(MI), Grand Rapids, Greensboro, Houston, Indiana, Kanawha Valley (WV), 

Kalamazoo, Maine (Lewiston-Auburn), Montana, New Hampshire, Peninsula 

Silicon Valley (CA), Rochester, St. Paul, San Diego, San Francisc

Southeastern Michigan (Detroit), Winston-Salem, York (PA), Bismarck, 

central Oregon, Minneapolis, North Minneapolis, South Dakota, Seattle, and

Yakima. 

The SCCB is the first step in a campaign by over three dozen community 

foundations to rebuild levels of connectedness in their communities. This

collaboration builds on the work of Professor Robert D. Putnam (author of 

Bowling alone: Collapse and revival of the American community), and the 

strategies for civic revitalization outlined in a

Better Together. The survey collects information on the relative strengths an

areas for improvement in communities’ civic behavior. 

Cross-sectional. Random-digit dialed telephone interviews were conducted by

Taylor Nelson Sofres Intersearch Corporation bet

mode of administration) 2000. This one-time survey is expected to serve as a baseline with w

compare future progress. The survey was developed by the Saguaro Seminar 

at the John F. Kennedy School of Government with the involvement of a

Scientific Advisory Group consisting of experts on social capital measuremen

The SCCB is representative of adults, 18 years and older. 

Sample Se

Descriptio

The national sample consists of 3,000 respondents. The survey includes a twotimes over-sample of Hispanics and African-Americans. In addition,

representative samp

covering an additional 26,200

sample, confidence inte

total population, and pl

African-Americans. 

Age of Respondent: 18 years and older 

Age of Child: Not applicable 

Indicators: Neighborhood community 

Community of friends 

Concern for safety 

68 Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections