In 2023, there were about 15.09 million children living with a single mother in the United States, and about 3.05 million children living with a single father. The number of children living with a single mother is down from its peak in 2012, and the number of children living with a single father is down from its peak in 2005.

Marriage and divorce in the United States

Despite popular opinion in the United States that “half of all marriages end in divorce,” the divorce rate in the U.S. has fallen significantly since 1992. The marriage rate, which has also been decreasing since the 1990s, was still higher than the divorce rate in 2021. Half of all marriages may not end in divorce, but it does seem that fewer people are choosing to get married in the first place.

New family structures

In addition to a falling marriage rate, fewer people in the U.S. have children under the age of 18 living in the house in comparison to 1970. Over the past decade, the share of families with children under 18, whether that be married couples or single parents, has stayed mostly steady, although the number of births in the U.S. has also fallen.

In 2022, there were about 4.15 million Black families in the United States with a single mother. This is an increase from 1990 levels, when there were about 3.4 million Black families with a single mother.

Single parenthood

The typical family is comprised of two parents and at least one child. However, that is not the case in every single situation. A single parent is someone who has a child but no spouse or partner. Single parenthood occurs for different reasons, including divorce, death, abandonment, or single-person adoption. Historically, single parenthood was common due to mortality rates due to war, diseases, and maternal mortality. However, divorce was not as common back then, depending on the culture.

Single parent wellbeing

In countries where social welfare programs are not strong, single parents tend to suffer more financially, emotionally, and mentally. In the United States, most single parents are mothers. The struggles that single parents face are greater than those in two parent households. The number of families with a single mother in the United States has increased since 1990, but the poverty rate of black families with a single mother has significantly decreased since that same year. In comparison, the poverty rate of Asian families with a single mother, and the percentage of white, non-Hispanic families with a single mother who live below the poverty level in the United States have both been fluctuating since 2002.

In 2023, there were about 1.18 million Black families with a single father living in the United States. This is an increase from 1990, when there were 472,000 Black families with a single father in the U.S.

SCA47 - Children Living in a Single Parent Family Unit. Published by Central Statistics Office. Available under the license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY-4.0).Children Living in a Single Parent Family Unit...

This report was written in collaboration between the Mayor's Office of Innovation and the Rochester Monroe Anti-Poverty Initiative (RMAPI) and released in December 2019. Executive SummaryThe Rochester Monroe Anti-Poverty Initiative (RMAPI) has selected single female headed households with children as one of its key target populations in which to focus strategy and its next phase of initiatives. This report is intended to provide additional insight on this population to support the next phase of RMAPI’s strategic planning as well as broader advocacy efforts on behalf of this population.

We begin with a brief summary of historic policy and societal factors known to have contributed to the current day inequities, written in collaboration with content experts from RMAPI.

The core of this report is a fact sheet based on analysis of US Census data. Major findings include:

Finding 1: Families headed by unmarried parents are a significant segment of the city population and account for the majority of individuals living below the poverty level in the city.

Finding 2: Unmarried households with children experience lower incomes, lower rates of home ownership, and higher rent burdens compared to their married counterparts

Finding 3: Women and people of color are overrepresented among the heads of unmarried households with children.

Finding 4: Four in ten unmarried householders with children have less than a high school education. Nearly 80 percent of those without a high school education are in poverty.

Finding 5: Unmarried householders with children in poverty are more likely to be disabled or face other common barriers to employment.

Finding 6: The more adults present in unmarried households with children, the less likely that household is to be in poverty. This trend amplifies when considering the number of employed adults.

Finding 7: Unmarried parents under age 40 head the majority of all households with children in Rochester. Younger householders correlate with higher poverty rates regardless of marriage status.

Finding 8: A birth before age 20, being unmarried, and having not completed high school education are three factors that, when compounded, are associated with poor economic outcomes.

Finding 9: The highest densities of unmarried householders with children are clustered in the highest poverty neighborhoods in the city of Rochester

We end with a discussion of the gaps in available data, acknowledging that there is room for further investigation and interpretation, data collection, and insights. We recommend readers to think critically about what is presented and how it might impact their own work in poverty reduction efforts. We present a series of questions that are a jumping off point for new inquiry and reflection. Methodology can be found in the Appendix.

Data Source:2017 Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Public Microdata SampleData and documentation can be accessed here:https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data/pums.html

In the United States, significantly more children under the age of 18 live with a female divorced parent than a male divorced parent. In 2021, about ****** children under the age of one lived with their divorced, single father, compared with ****** children of the same age who lived with their divorced single mother.

In 2015, most of households in France were composed by one or two people. That year more than 10 million households were one-person households. This number shows a demographic evolution in France, as well as in other European countries. The share of French people living alone went from 14.9 percent in 2007 up to 16.4 percent only ten years later.

Who are the French who live alone?

According to French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE), the majority of people living alone were seniors aged from 65 years old and older. The growing life expectancy might be one of the reasons of the increase in the number of people living alone in France. On the other hand, the extension of studies seems to also have an impact on the proportion of single households in the country. Millennials have their first job at a later stage; they remain students for a longer time than before and are therefore more willing to live alone. In 2015, nearly 20 percent of French citizens aged between 20 and 24 years old were living alone.

Families in France

Even though a lot of French people live alone, it appears that France is the European country which had the highest number of private households with three children or more. In 2015, there were more than 8 million families in France, of which more than 6.2 million were composed of a couple with children. Family structure is evolving in France with more children born-out-wedlock who are being raised in single-parent families.

The California Families Project (CFP) is an ongoing longitudinal study of Mexican origin families in Northern California. This study uses community, school, family, and individual characteristics to examine developmental pathways that increase risk for and resilience to drug use in Mexican-origin youth. This study also examines the impact that economic disadvantage and cultural traditions have in Mexican-origin youth. The CFP includes a community-based sample of 674 families and children of Mexican origin living in Northern California, and includes annual assessments of parents and children. Participants with Mexican surnames were drawn at random from school rosters of students during the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school year. Data collection included multi-method assessments of a broad range of psychological, familial, scholastic, cultural, and neighborhood factors. Initiation of the research at age 10 was designed to assess the focal children before the onset of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use, thus enabling the evaluation of how hypothesized risk and resilience mechanisms operate to exacerbate early onset during adolescence or help prevent its occurrence. This study includes a diversity of families that represent a wide range of incomes, education, family history, and family structures, including two-parent and single-parent families.The accompanying data file consists of 674 family cases with each case representing a focal child and at least one parent (Two-parent: n=549, 82 percent; Single-parent: n=125, 18 percent). Of the 3,139 total variables, 839 pertain to the focal child, 1,376 correspond to the mother, and 908 items pertain to the father.Please note: While the California Families Project is a longitudinal study, only the baseline data are currently available in this data collection.

We examine the consequences of survey underreporting of transfer programs for prototypical analyses of low-income populations. We link administrative data for four transfer programs to the CPS to correct its severe understatement of transfer dollars received. Using survey data sharply understates the income of poor households, distorts our understanding of program targeting, and greatly understates the effects of anti-poverty programs. Using the combined data, the poverty-reducing effect of all programs together is nearly doubled. The effect of housing assistance is tripled. Correcting survey error often reduces the share of single mothers falling through the safety net by one-half or more.

The purpose of this study was to assess the physical, social, and psychological well-being of American children, to develop a national profile of the way children in the United States live, to permit analysis of the relationships between the conditions of children's lives and measures of child development, and to examine the effects of marital disruption on the development of children and on the operation of single and multi-parent families. Information is provided on the child's well-being, family, experiences with family disruption, behavior, physical health, and mental health.

This table contains data on the number of licensed day care center slots (facility capacity) per 1,000 children aged 0-5 years in California, its regions, counties, cities, towns, and census tracts. The table contains 2015 data, and includes type of facility (day care center or infant center). Access to child care has become a critical support for working families. Many working families find high-quality child care unaffordable, and the increasing cost of child care can be crippling for low-income families and single parents. These barriers can impact parental choices of child care. Increased availability of child care facilities can positively impact families by providing more choices of child care in terms of price and quality. Estimates for this indicator are provided for the total population, and are not available by race/ethnicity. More information on the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the Data and Resources section. The licensed day care centers table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project (HCI) of the Office of Health Equity. The goal of HCI is to enhance public health by providing data, a standardized set of statistical measures, and tools that a broad array of sectors can use for planning healthy communities and evaluating the impact of plans, projects, policy, and environmental changes on community health. The creation of healthy social, economic, and physical environments that promote healthy behaviors and healthy outcomes requires coordination and collaboration across multiple sectors, including transportation, housing, education, agriculture and others. Statistical metrics, or indicators, are needed to help local, regional, and state public health and partner agencies assess community environments and plan for healthy communities that optimize public health. More information on HCI can be found here: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OHE/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Accessible%202%20CDPH_Healthy_Community_Indicators1pager5-16-12.pdf

The format of the licensed day care centers table is based on the standardized data format for all HCI indicators. As a result, this data table contains certain variables used in the HCI project (e.g., indicator ID, and indicator definition). Some of these variables may contain the same value for all observations.

The National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH), Wave 1 (1987-1988) is the first of three waves in a longitudinal survey that was designed to study the causes and consequences of changes happening in families and households within the United States. At a time when the range of family structures was becoming more and more diverse, this study permitted a close examination of the resulting family compositions and household operations. One adult per household was randomly selected as the primary respondent, and there was a total of 13,007 respondents. In addition to the main interview conducted with the primary respondent, a shorter, self-administered questionnaire was given to the spouse or cohabitating partner, and also administered to the householder if he or she was a relative of the primary respondent. A considerable amount of life-history information was collected, such as the respondent's family living arrangements in childhood, departures and returns to the parental home, and histories of marriage, separation, divorce, cohabitation, adoption, child custody arrangements, and stepfamily relations. Respondents were also asked about the relationship of household members to each other and the quality of their relationships with their parents, children, and in-laws. Information on economic well-being was also collected, including earnings from wages, self-employment income, interest, dividends, investments, pensions, Social Security, public assistance, and child support/alimony. Demographic information collected includes sex, age, marital status, education, and employment. The National Survey of Families and Households main sample was a national, multi-stage area probability sample containing about 17,000 housing units drawn from 100 sampling areas in the 48 contiguous states in the U.S. Wave one had 13,017 respondents, of which 10 invalid/duplicate cases were removed, for a final total of 13,007 respondents. The sample included a main cross-section sample of 9,643 households. The oversample of blacks, Puerto Ricans, Mexican Americans, single-parent families and families with stepchildren, cohabiting couples and recently married was accomplished by doubling the number of households selected within the 100 sampling areas. For more information on sampling, please see Appendix L: National Survey of Families and Households: A Sampling Report within the P.I. Codebook. face-to-face interview; self-enumerated questionnaireTwo percent of the interviews were conducted in Spanish.Fieldwork for Wave 1 of the National Survey of Families and Households was completed by the Institute for Survey Research at Temple UniversityThe second and third waves of NSFH can be accessed by visiting ICPSR 6906 and ICPSR 171 respectively.For additional information on the National Survey of Families and Households, please visit the NSFH Web site. This study has been undertaken explicitly to provide a data resource for the research community at large and was designed with advice from a large number of consultants and correspondents. The substantive coverage has been kept broad to permit the holistic analysis of family experience from an array of theoretical perspectives. Non-institutionalized, English or Spanish speaking population aged 19 and older, living in households within the United States. Smallest Geographic Unit: Region The data are not weighted, however, this study contains three weight variables (SAMWT, AWEIGHT, and SPWEIGHT) that should be used in any analysis. Datasets: DS1: National Survey of Families and Households, Wave 1: 1987-1988, [United States] The study design is cross-sectional, with several retrospective sequences. Response Rates: 74.3%

The aim of our study was to assess the economic, social, and health impacts of the pandemic on families both expecting babies, and those with children under five living in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

Interview data was collected as part of the second phase of the research; a repeated longitudinal qualitative panel of 20 households purposively sampled from the Wave 1 survey to represent different household structures and types. In-depth interviews were conducted via video or telephone with up to 2 adults per household (mothers and fathers. Wave 1 of the panel interviews took place between January 2021 and April 2021 with wave 2 between September - December 2021.

Our sampling strategy was carefully constructed to ensure representation of the following dimensions: Household type (single, couple, multi-generational); Income (low, moderate, and high); Ethnicity (White, South Asian, Other ethnic groups). Only one household member could complete the survey. If sampled, they were then contacted to take part in the qualitative panel along with other adult members of their households.

The qualitative interviews utilised supporting interactive activities and focused on children’s development in the context of family’s everyday lives during the pandemic, how parents and kin supported each other emotionally and practically, and how families are engaged in their communities during the Covid-19 era.

Interviews were focused on target child [under 5 years old at wave 1], identified as CHILD A in transcripts.

Households were interviewed approximately 6 months later.

Adverse direct and indirect impacts of the current COVID-19 pandemic will disproportionately fall on individuals and families from poorer backgrounds, those in public facing jobs and living in higher density housing. Tower Hamlets, the site of this study, with its pre-existing stark income and health inequalities is already a high-risk inner city area, placed in one of the richest global cities. This project will focus on the impacts of the lockdown, and its aftermath for the borough's young children, who are likely to experience new health and educational inequalities as a result of the unprecedented restrictions on mobility associated with slowing the spread of COVID-19 introduced on 23 March 2020. Tower Hamlets has a highly diverse population profile, with residents from a wide range of ethnicities and social and economic backgrounds, which offers an opportunity to identify how families deploy their interpersonal, economic and social resources to manage risks associated with living in lockdown and in recovery from lockdown. In close partnership with the borough Public Health and children's services team, we will run a repeat survey of 2000 couple and single parent families with children aged 0-4, and pregnant women; a longitudinal qualitative panel with approximately 60 household members including fathers and wider kin; and examine changing family support services, and emergent community resources such as mutual aid and peer networks. We are interested in families' cultural and inter-personal assets as well as their vulnerabilities: what new forms of managing family and community life have emerged and how are these novel methods helping young children? We will include two groups defined as vulnerable; pregnant women and shielded children. The survey tools chosen are those being run by the concurrent Born in Bradford (BiB) cohort study and by the International Network on Leave Policies and Research offering robust comparisons. Findings will help guide the borough's deployment of scarce resources in the recovery phase of the pandemic and will have relevance to all inner-city areas.

The typical American picture of a family with 2.5 kids might not be as relevant as it once was: In 2023, there was an average of 1.94 children under 18 per family in the United States. This is a decrease from 2.33 children under 18 per family in 1960.

Familial structure in the United States

If there’s one thing the United States is known for, it’s diversity. Whether this is diversity in ethnicity, culture, or family structure, there is something for everyone in the U.S. Two-parent households in the U.S. are declining, and the number of families with no children are increasing. The number of families with children has stayed more or less constant since 2000.

Adoptions in the U.S.

Families in the U.S. don’t necessarily consist of parents and their own biological children. In 2021, around 35,940 children were adopted by married couples, and 13,307 children were adopted by single women.

Abstract

Household Budget Survey has been conducted annually by Statistics Lithuania since 1996. The HBS methodology was improved in 2003. Some changes were introduced into the design of the sample and recording of households' income and expenditures.

The main objectives of the survey are:
-to obtain weights for Consumer Price Index, -to estimate household expenditure for National Accounts, -to study the general structure of household incomes and expenditures, -to study income and expenditure patterns of disadvantaged groups, including pensioner households, single parent households, etc., -to study income and expenditure disparities among socio-economic groups, -to study consumer behavior among socio-economic groups, -to study effects of policy changes, especially tax changes on income and expenditure.

The target population of Household Budget Survey is based on private households in Lithuania. Households are selected using the random sampling method from the Populations Register. Participation of the selected households in the survey takes one month. After one month other households replace them.

Data is collected through face-to-face interviews and expenditure diaries.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Households,
• Individuals.

Universe

The universe of the survey is private households in Lithuania. Persons living in the institutional households (elderly people nursing homes, imprisonment institutions, army, etc.) have been excluded from the survey.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

1. Main Household Questionnaire.
2. Diary of Household Expenditure.
3. Individual Questionnaire.
4. Housing Questionnaire.

The project was launched in 1987 to investigate the human consequences of the Farm Crisis that began in the late 1970s and continued to affect rural America up to 1997, a decline more drastic than any downswing since the 1930s. The core project is directed by Rand Conger of Iowa State University while Elder serves as a co-principal investigator and director of the "Rural Social Change" component of the project. Data collection began in 1989 with a sample of 451 two-parent families from eight north central counties of Iowa. The counties were selected for their rural farm economies and proximity to the project's home at the Family Research Center in Ames, Iowa. In order to facilitate the recruitment of farm families and minimize variations in family structure, the study design called for two-parent families with a 7th-grader and a near sibling (within four years of age). The initial pool of families was defined in terms of 7th grade students who were enrolled in public and private schools during the fall term of 1989. The 7th grade criterion provided a match to the sample used in the study Children of the Great Depression (Elder, 1974). The sample has been followed up annually from 1989 to 1992, then again in 1994 (senior year of high school), 1995, 1997, and 2000. Parents and children were surveyed in each of these years, and in most of the years family interactions were videotaped. The videotapes provide the basis for behavioral ratings of husband-wife interaction, sib interaction, and family interaction. Shortly after the project began two additional samples were added to the project sample; a sample of 107 single-parent families in 1991 and approximately 900 grandparents in 1994. The grandparents were contacted again in 1998 with a subsample participating in an in-depth, face-to-face interview. As of 1999, approximately 500 families are still active participants in the project. The Iowa project is widely regarded as having the richest archive of life record data on rural families and children in the United States, and it is likely to continue for some time to come. Most of the target children are approximately 26 years at present, and periodic data collection is planned over the next five years with support from the National Institute of Mental Health. The Iowa State and UNC teams have worked out a division of labor which reflects the unique strengths and interests of each group. The members of the Ames group share a primary interest in family interactive processes and personal adaptation whereas the Chapel Hill team has developed a program of research concerned with social change in families and lives, with emphasis on the life course and health outcomes.

Note: For information on data collection, confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation..Due to COVID-19 restrictions impacting data collection for the 2020 Census of American Samoa, data tables reporting social and economic characteristics do not include the group quarters population in the table universe. As a result, impacted 2020 data tables should not be compared to 2010 and other past census data tables reporting the same characteristics. The Census Bureau advises data users to verify table universes are the same before comparing data across census years. For more information about data collection limitations and the impacts on American Samoa's data products, see the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation..Note: Subfamilies include opposite-sex married couples (living with or without never married children under age 18) of which one of the spouses is related to the householder or single parents 15 years and over related to the householder who are living with never married children under age 18. For a detailed definition of subfamilies, see the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation..Explanation of Symbols: 1.An "-" means the statistic could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of observations. 2. An "-" following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.3. An "+" following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.4. An "N" means data are not displayed for the selected geographic area due to concerns with statistical reliability or an insufficient number of cases.5. An "(X)" means not applicable..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census, American Samoa.

There is more to housing affordability than the rent or mortgage you pay. Transportation costs are the second-biggest budget item for most families, but it can be difficult for people to fully factor transportation costs into decisions about where to live and work. The Location Affordability Index (LAI) is a user-friendly source of standardized data at the neighborhood (census tract) level on combined housing and transportation costs to help consumers, policymakers, and developers make more informed decisions about where to live, work, and invest. Compare eight household profiles (see table below) —which vary by household income, size, and number of commuters—and see the impact of the built environment on affordability in a given location while holding household demographics constant.*$11,880 for a single person household in 2016 according to US Dept. of Health and Human Services: https://aspe.hhs.gov/computations-2016-poverty-guidelinesThis layer is symbolized by the percentage of housing and transportation costs as a percentage of income for the Median-Income Family profile, but the costs as a percentage of income for all household profiles are listed in the pop-up:Also available is a gallery of 8 web maps (one for each household profile) all symbolized the same way for easy comparison: Median-Income Family, Very Low-Income Individual, Working Individual, Single Professional, Retired Couple, Single-Parent Family, Moderate-Income Family, and Dual-Professional Family.An accompanying story map provides side-by-side comparisons and additional context.--Variables used in HUD's calculations include 24 measures such as people per household, average number of rooms per housing unit, monthly housing costs (mortgage/rent as well as utility and maintenance expenses), average number of cars per household, median commute distance, vehicle miles traveled per year, percent of trips taken on transit, street connectivity and walkability (measured by block density), and many more.To learn more about the Location Affordability Index (v.3) visit: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/location-affordability-index/. There you will find some background and an FAQ page, which includes the question:"Manhattan, San Francisco, and downtown Boston are some of the most expensive places to live in the country, yet the LAI shows them as affordable for the typical regional household. Why?" These areas have some of the lowest transportation costs in the country, which helps offset the high cost of housing. The area median income (AMI) in these regions is also high, so when costs are shown as a percent of income for the typical regional household these neighborhoods appear affordable; however, they are generally unaffordable to households earning less than the AMI.Date of Coverage: 2012-2016 Date Released: March 2019Date Downloaded from HUD Open Data: 4/18/19Further Documentation:LAI Version 3 Data and MethodologyLAI Version 3 Technical Documentation_**The documentation below is in reference to this items placement in the NM Supply Chain Data Hub. The documentation is of use to understanding the source of this item, and how to reproduce it for updates**

Title: Location Affordability Index - NMCDC Copy

Summary: This layer contains the Location Affordability Index from U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - standardized household, housing, and transportation cost estimates by census tract for 8 household profiles.

Notes: This map is copied from source map: https://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=de341c1338c5447da400c4e8c51ae1f6, created by dianaclavery_uo, and identified in Living Atlas.

Prepared by: dianaclavery_uo, copied by EMcRae_NMCDC

Source: This map is copied from source map: https://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=de341c1338c5447da400c4e8c51ae1f6, created by dianaclavery_uo, and identified in Living Atlas. Check the source documentation or other details above for more information about data sources.

Feature Service: https://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=447a461f048845979f30a2478b9e65bb

UID: 73

Data Requested: Family income spent on basic need

Method of Acquisition: Search for Location Affordability Index in the Living Atlas. Make a copy of most recent map available. To update this map, copy the most recent map available. In a new tab, open the AGOL Assistant Portal tool and use the functions in the portal to copy the new maps JSON, and paste it over the old map (this map with item id

Date Acquired: Map copied on May 10, 2022

Priority rank as Identified in 2022 (scale of 1 being the highest priority, to 11 being the lowest priority): 6

Tags: PENDING

The percentage of births to unmarried women in the United States has more than doubled since 1980, reaching 40 percent in 2023. This significant shift in family structure reflects changing societal norms and demographic trends over the past four decades. The rise in births outside of marriage has implications for family dynamics, social support systems, and public policy. Age and ethnicity factors in birth rates While the overall percentage of births to unmarried women has stabilized around 40 percent in recent years, birth rates vary significantly across age groups and ethnicities. Unsurprisingly, in 2023, women between 20 and 34 years old had the highest birth rate at 83 births per 1,000 women, while teenagers aged 15 to 19 had the lowest rate at 8 births per 1,000 women. Additionally, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander women had the highest fertility rate among all race/ethnicities in 2022, with approximately 2,237.5 births per 1,000 women, compared to the national average of 1,656.5 births per 1,000 women. Changing household structures The increase in births to unmarried women has contributed to evolving household structures in the United States. In 2023, there were approximately 15.18 million families with a single mother, a significant increase from previous decades. This trend aligns with the overall rise in births outside of marriage and suggests a growing need for support systems and policies that address the unique challenges faced by single-parent households.

10 families of different types (SES) and structures (e.g. nuclear, extended, single-parent) were observed. The data provide insight into family members’ ideological positions that can be congruent or conflictual and which may cause conflicting views about how to raise bilingual children. Interactional data capture the actual language practices in families across the communities. The data also allow us to observe the silent cultural conversations among family members, and to identify the critical moments of policy enactment.

The project locates Family Language Policy (FLP) as a field of inquiry to generate new knowledge on one of the fundamental dimensions of society: the family. FLP addresses three interrelated aspects of children’s multilingual development: language ideology (what family members believe about language), language practices (what they do with language), and language management (what efforts they make to maintain language). 1. Research questions: Employing a multi-level, multi-community and multi-type of family design, the project looks into: 1) How do mobility and on-going changes in sociocultural contexts impact on FLP and linguistic configurations of transnational and non-transnational families in the current UK society? 2) What are the ideological factors that shape the formation of FLPs and to what extent does the dynamic interrelationship between FLP and other social forces, including macro-national/political and meso-educational language policies, influence the decision making processes of FLP? 3) What are the implicit and explicit management measures and interventions employed by caregivers to enrich their children’s multi-language development or to deal with potential incomplete acquisition or loss of the heritage languages? 4) How do similarities and differences between communities with regard to migration histories, linguistic environments, cultural conditions, and socio-political system affect the decision making processes in families? 5) How do families of different types in different communities with (dis)similar access to knowledge and resources deal with the rhythms and realities of everyday life in their different languages and through multiliteracy practices, including social media and computer-mediated communications?