In 2022, about 60 percent of Hispanic origin children lived with two married parents in the United States. On the other hand, about 4.3 percent of Hispanic origin children in the country lived with their father only.

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.

This graph shows the Percentage of households led by a female householder with no spouse present with own children under 18 years living in the household in the U.S. in 2021, by state. In 2021, about 4.24 percent of Californian households were single mother households with at least one child.

Additional information on single mother households and poverty in the United States

For most single mothers a constant battle persists between finding the time and energy to raise their children and the demands of working to supply an income to house and feed their families. The pressures of a single income and the high costs of childcare mean that the risk of poverty for these families is a tragic reality. Comparison of the overall United States poverty rate since 1990 with that of the poverty rate for families with a female householder shows that poverty is much more prevalent in the latter. In 2021, while the overall rate was at 11.6 percent, the rate of poverty for single mother families was 23 percent. Moreover, the degree of fluctuation tends to be lower for single female household families, suggesting the rate of poverty for these groups is less affected by economic conditions.

The sharp rise in the number of children living with a single mother or single father in the United States from 1970 to 2022 suggests more must be done to ensure that families in such situations are able to avoid poverty. Moreover, attention should also be placed on overall racial income inequality given the higher rate of poverty for Hispanic single mother families than their white or Asian counterparts.

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.

The data on relationship to householder were derived from answers to Question 2 in the 2015 American Community Survey (ACS), which was asked of all people in housing units. The question on relationship is essential for classifying the population information on families and other groups. Information about changes in the composition of the American family, from the number of people living alone to the number of children living with only one parent, is essential for planning and carrying out a number of federal programs.

The responses to this question were used to determine the relationships of all persons to the householder, as well as household type (married couple family, nonfamily, etc.). From responses to this question, we were able to determine numbers of related children, own children, unmarried partner households, and multi-generational households. We calculated average household and family size. When relationship was not reported, it was imputed using the age difference between the householder and the person, sex, and marital status.

Household – A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit. (People not living in households are classified as living in group quarters.) A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any other people in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated people who share living arrangements.

Average Household Size – A measure obtained by dividing the number of people in households by the number of households. In cases where people in households are cross-classified by race or Hispanic origin, people in the household are classified by the race or Hispanic origin of the householder rather than the race or Hispanic origin of each individual.

Average household size is rounded to the nearest hundredth.

Comparability – The relationship categories for the most part can be compared to previous ACS years and to similar data collected in the decennial census, CPS, and SIPP. With the change in 2008 from “In-law” to the two categories of “Parent-in-law” and “Son-in-law or daughter-in-law,” caution should be exercised when comparing data on in-laws from previous years. “In-law” encompassed any type of in-law such as sister-in-law. Combining “Parent-in-law” and “son-in-law or daughter-in-law” does not represent all “in-laws” in 2008.

The same can be said of comparing the three categories of “biological” “step,” and “adopted” child in 2008 to “Child” in previous years. Before 2008, respondents may have considered anyone under 18 as “child” and chosen that category. The ACS includes “foster child” as a category. However, the 2010 Census did not contain this category, and “foster children” were included in the “Other nonrelative” category. Therefore, comparison of “foster child” cannot be made to the 2010 Census. Beginning in 2013, the “spouse” category includes same-sex spouses.

This special topic poll, conducted April 14-23, 2005, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. The focus of this data collection was respondents' experiences as mothers living in the Washington, DC, area. Respondents, all female, were queried on their choices as mothers such as whether to stay at home or work outside of the home, whether those in two parent households factored each person's income into the decision of who, if anyone, would stay at home to care for the children, whether they ever had doubts about their decision to have children, and whether they ever had doubts about their decisions related to which parent would stay home to care for the children. Further questions addressed the division of child care and responsibilities, the level of accommodation received from employers to address their responsibilities as parents, balancing the responsibilities of motherhood and responsibility/necessity of finding personal time for oneself, and balancing the responsibilities of motherhood and those of their jobs. Additional issues addressed the emotional health and experiences involved in motherhood, their satisfaction with being mothers, the expectations of mothers compared to times past, and the judgment and advice received from others relative to their parenting decisions. Background information includes age, education, household income, race, and sex.

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.

Summary File 4 is repeated or iterated for the total population and 335 additional population groups: 132 race groups,78 American Indian and Alaska Native tribe categories, 39 Hispanic or Latino groups, and 86 ancestry groups.Tables for any population group excluded from SF 2 because the group's total population in a specific geographic area did not meet the SF 2 threshold of 100 people are excluded from SF 4. Tables in SF 4 shown for any of the above population groups will only be shown if there are at least 50 unweighted sample cases in a specific geographic area. The same 50 unweighted sample cases also applied to ancestry iterations. In an iterated file such as SF 4, the universes households, families, and occupied housing units are classified by the race or ethnic group of the householder. The universe subfamilies is classified by the race or ethnic group of the reference person for the subfamily. In a husband/wife subfamily, the reference person is the husband; in a parent/child subfamily, the reference person is always the parent. The universes population in households, population in families, and population in subfamilies are classified by the race or ethnic group of the inidviduals within the household, family, or subfamily without regard to the race or ethnicity of the householder. Notes follow selected tables to make the classification of the universe clear. In any population table where there is no note, the universe classification is always based on the race or ethnicity of the person. In all housing tables, the universe classification is based on the race or ethnicity of the householder.

Project Overview The coronavirus outbreak fundamentally transformed the way education took place in New York State and across the nation. In March of 2020, schools and businesses were shuttered in New York State due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many parents found themselves in a situation where they were working, either at home or as essential workers, while also overseeing their children’s education. For many of these parents working from home was an entirely new experience as was overseeing their children’s education. In the context of COVID- 19, unprecedented numbers of parents were working and teaching their children from home simultaneously. Although homeschooling in US has attracted some parents, remote schooling caused by the pandemic was different from homeschooling in many aspects. First, remote schooling, unlike homeschooling, was not a choice of parents. Second, remote schooling is based upon a curriculum provided by schools and teachers rather than the parents’ choice of curriculum and finally remote schooling during the lockdown has been taking place in a situation when many parents are working full time either remotely or as essential workers, meaning that they may be less engaged in their children’s work than when children are homeschooled. Although more women these days are working in the market on a par with men, their roles have been also extended to serve being both a breadwinner and a homemaker. Hence, understanding the experiences of mothers during the coronavirus outbreak is important in terms of understanding the social and gender consequences of COVID-19. This project reflects the collective effort at understanding mothers’ experiences of work and home- schooling in the Syracuse area during the Coronavirus outbreak though semi-structured deidentified interviews. Data and Data Collection Overview A qualitative study design with semi-structured interviews was used to understand the experiences, challenges, coping and rewards of parenting during the coronavirus outbreak. Phone interviews with 65 parents (and a few grandparents) of school-age children were conducted with mostly working mothers, in Spring (April-June) 2020 when at-home education started in the Syracuse, NY area. The study was advertised on various Facebook groups and listservs including parenting, babysitting, school PTA, health care industry, and church groups as well as contacted personal contacts. While initially it was intended to interview parents including fathers and mothers, but most of the respondents to the ads were mothers as the topic of study resonated strongly with mothers. In a few cases custodial grandmothers, who were raising their grandchildren were interviewed. These grandmothers were going beyond the typical grandmother relationship to provide the level of care normally provided by a parent. Of those interviewed, 59 were mothers, 3 were grandmothers, 1 was a father, and 1 was a couple interviewed together. In terms of race/ethnicity, 67% respondents were White, 20% were Black, 4.5% were Asian, 1.5% were Middle Eastern, 3% were Latina, and 3% identified as both Black and Latina. In terms of education 57% respondents had at least a bachelor’s degree while 43% of respondents had less than a bachelor’s degree. The vast majority of those interviewed were working; only 7 (11%) were not. In 51% of the families either the respondent or their spouse/partner was an essential worker, meaning that they were legally working outside of the home during the coronavirus outbreak in Spring 2020. For essential workers, working outside the home meant trading off between two parents, using a babysitter or older children, or in one case, bringing a child to work. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Necessary redactions were applied to mask the revealing information of respondent. After the interviews were complete, two doctoral students at Syracuse University helped code the interviews and write up the findings. Selection and Organization of Shared Data The data files shared here encompass the 64 de-identified interview transcripts labeled by pseudonyms. The documentation files shared consist of the original informed consent used, the interview questionnaire, a Data Narrative and an administrative README file.

This data collection contains two data files created from manuscript census returns. Part 1 is an aggregation of social characteristics of Spanish-surnamed and Mexican-born families in the city of Los Angeles from 1844-1880. The data were used to study family composition and socioeconomic mobility. Data items include real property held by head of household (1844, 1850, and 1880 missing), number of children in household, number of adults who were literate in household (no data for 1844), last name of head of household, place of birth of head of household, and occupational category (i.e., rancher or farmer, professional, mercantile, clerk, skilled, and unskilled). Part 2 is composed of data used to study the socioeconomic development of the Mexican-American community in Los Angeles. The main emphasis was on an analysis of literacy, occupational mobility, schooling, family structure, demographic changes, and property mobility. Data items include last name, first name, age, sex, occupational code, real property, personal property, place of birth, literacy, race, head of household, wife of head, child of head, parent of head, sibling of head, and common law spouse. Definitions of family types and discussion of the methodology and rationale used to generate the data in both files can be found in Appendix A of del Castillo, Richard Griswold. "La Raza Hispano Americana: The Emergence of an Urban Culture Among the Spanish Speaking of Los Angeles, 1850-1880." Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 1974.

The data this week comes from the National Database of Childcare Prices.

Data Dictionary

childcare_costs.csv

The 1901 Census of Canada was the fourth Census conducted . The Canadian Families Project has a broad mandate. Their re-investigation of family in Canada includes the study of discourses of family; class, ethnicity and region as they relate to family; the history of single parenthood and fragmented families; fertility decline; language, education and family; religion and family; family and community in rural Canada; the social geography of urban families; family income and standards of living. Basic to the work of the Project is the study of families in the past. The Project begins by creating a large database of information from the 1901 census of Canada. The database will include all information from Schedules 1 and 2 of the census for five percent of individuals and families in the whole of Canada (as it existed in 1901). Schedule 1 contains the nominal returns - the enumeration of the population by name. Schedule 2 is a continuation of Schedule 1 and it gives information of buildings and lands held by persons enumerated in Schedule 1. The 5 percent sample will include information on approximately 268,500 persons. (Summary derived from User Guide)

Main Topics: Variables Household composition: whether single or multiple family dwelling, total number of residents, total number of children of the head of household (age and sex is given for each child), number of parents or parents-in-law of the head of household residing in household, number of other related adults (i.e. over 14 years of age) in household, number of other related children (i.e. 14 or less years of age) in household, number of boarders or roomers in household and finally number of children listed as employed. The following data are given for head of household; sex, age, race (10 categories), occupation (12 occupational cohorts), birthplace (i.e. US state or other country). Information also includes: birthplace of head of household's parents, residence (i.e. same household, another household), age, race and occupation of head of household's spouse, and birthplaces of spouse's parents. Geographical information: county in which household resided, township, village or city in which household resided (together with 1850 population figure for each) and type of locale (9 categories - e.g. 'rural - less than 250', 'city of 2,500 - 4,999 persons' etc.). Stratified with disproportionate probability (overweighting Detroit) Compilation or synthesis of existing material

The Family Exchanges Study (FESI) began in 2008 conducted by the Institute for Survey Research at Temple University. The original "target" or core sample was recruited from African American and White respondents aged 40-60 living in Philadelphia and the surrounding counties--Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery. To be eligible for the study, respondents had to have at least one living parent and one living offspring over 18 years of age. Temple University sought to recruit the parents, spouse, and up to three offspring over 18 years of age into the study. All target, parent, and spouse surveys were conducted by telephone. Offspring were given the option of completing the survey by telephone or web. For the Wave 2 data collection, the Survey Research Center at Pennsylvania State University attempted to contact all FESI respondents again, as well as collect updated information for spouses/romantic partners, parents, and up to 4 age-eligible offspring. The survey instruments were drawn largely from the first wave of data collection. This collection includes eight data files. These data files include five main study datasets: target, spouse, spouse without target, parent, and offspring. This collection also includes three diary datasets: target diary, parent diary, offspring diary. For each participant, there are data related to relationships with other family members, perceptions of family members, and views on key social issues. Demographic information includes gender, marital status, education level, religion, age, race, ethnicity, and employment status.

we utilized data from two main sources: the United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI).American Community Survey (ACS):Conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACS is an ongoing survey that provides detailed demographic and socio-economic data on the population and housing characteristics of the United States.The survey collects information on various topics such as income, education, employment, health insurance coverage, and housing costs and conditions.It offers more frequent and up-to-date information compared to the decennial census, with annual estimates produced based on a rolling sample of households.The ACS data is essential for policymakers, researchers, and communities to make informed decisions and address the evolving needs of the population.CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI):Created by ATSDR’s Geospatial Research, Analysis & Services Program (GRASP) and utilized by the CDC, the SVI is designed to identify and map communities that are most likely to need support before, during, and after hazardous events.SVI ranks U.S. Census tracts based on 15 social factors, including unemployment, minority status, and disability, and groups them into four related themesEach tract receives rankings for each Census variable and for each theme, as well as an overall ranking, indicating its relative vulnerability.SVI data provides insights into the social vulnerability of communities at both the tract and county levels, helping public health officials and emergency response planners allocate resources effectively. In our utilization of these sources, we likely integrated data from both the ACS and the SVI to analyze and understand various socio-economic and demographic indicators at the state, county, and possibly tract levels. This integrated data would have been valuable for research, policymaking, and community planning purposes, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of social and economic dynamics across different geographical areas in the United StatesNote: Due to limitations in the ArcGIS Pro environment, the data variable names may be truncated. Refer to the provided table for a clear understanding of the variables.CSV Variable NameShapefile Variable NameDescriptionStateNameStateNameName of the stateStateFipsStateFipsState-level FIPS codeState nameStateNameName of the stateCountyNameCountyNameName of the countyCensusFipsCensusFipsCounty-level FIPS codeState abbreviationStateFipsState abbreviationCountyFipsCountyFipsCounty-level FIPS codeCensusFipsCensusFipsCounty-level FIPS codeCounty nameCountyNameName of the countyAREA_SQMIAREA_SQMITract area in square milesE_TOTPOPE_TOTPOPPopulation estimates, 2014-2018 ACSEP_POVEP_POVPercentage of persons below poverty estimateEP_UNEMPEP_UNEMPUnemployment Rate estimateEP_HBURDEP_HBURDHousing cost burdened occupied housing units with annual income less than $75,000EP_UNINSUREP_UNINSURUninsured in the total civilian noninstitutionalized population estimate, 2015-2019 ACSEP_PCIEP_PCIPer capita income estimate, 2015-2019 ACSEP_DISABLEP_DISABLPercentage of civilian noninstitutionalized population with a disability estimate, 2015-2019 ACSEP_SNGPNTEP_SNGPNTPercentage of single parent households with children under 18 estimate, 2015-2019 ACSEP_MINRTYEP_MINRTYPercentage minority (all persons except white, non-Hispanic) estimate, 2015-2019 ACSEP_LIMENGEP_LIMENGPercentage of persons (age 5+) who speak English "less than well" estimate, 2015-2019 ACSEP_MUNITEP_MUNITPercentage of housing in structures with 10 or more units estimateEP_MOBILEEP_MOBILEPercentage of mobile homes estimateEP_CROWDEP_CROWDPercentage of occupied housing units with more people than rooms estimateEP_NOVEHEP_NOVEHPercentage of households with no vehicle available estimateEP_GROUPQEP_GROUPQPercentage of persons in group quarters estimate, 2014-2018 ACSBelow_5_yrBelow_5_yrUnder 5 years: Percentage of Total populationBelow_18_yrBelow_18_yrUnder 18 years: Percentage of Total population18-39_yr18_39_yr18-39 years: Percentage of Total population40-64_yr40_64_yr40-64 years: Percentage of Total populationAbove_65_yrAbove_65_yrAbove 65 years: Percentage of Total populationPop_malePop_malePercentage of total population malePop_femalePop_femalePercentage of total population femaleWhitewhitePercentage population of white aloneBlackblackPercentage population of black or African American aloneAmerican_indianamerican_iPercentage population of American Indian and Alaska native aloneAsianasianPercentage population of Asian aloneHawaiian_pacific_islanderhawaiian_pPercentage population of Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander aloneSome_othersome_otherPercentage population of some other race aloneMedian_tot_householdsmedian_totMedian household income in the past 12 months (in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars) by household size – total householdsLess_than_high_schoolLess_than_Percentage of Educational attainment for the population less than 9th grades and 9th to 12th grade, no diploma estimateHigh_schoolHigh_schooPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of High school graduate (includes equivalency)Some_collegeSome_collePercentage of Educational attainment for the population of Some college, no degreeAssociates_degreeAssociatesPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of associate degreeBachelor’s_degreeBachelor_sPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of Bachelor’s degreeMaster’s_degreeMaster_s_dPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of Graduate or professional degreecomp_devicescomp_devicPercentage of Household having one or more types of computing devicesInternetInternetPercentage of Household with an Internet subscriptionBroadbandBroadbandPercentage of Household having Broadband of any typeSatelite_internetSatelite_iPercentage of Household having Satellite Internet serviceNo_internetNo_internePercentage of Household having No Internet accessNo_computerNo_computePercentage of Household having No computerThis table provides a mapping between the CSV variable names and the shapefile variable names, along with a brief description of each variable.

The New Hope Project gathered information on respondents over eight years using several data sources. This collection consists of three datasets: (1) Adults, (2) Child and Family Study (CFS) Parents, and (3) Youth. Information was collected on respondent's employment history, job characteristics and security, other sources of income, feelings about respondent's financial situation, material hardship, respondent's access to health care, as well as experiences with the New Hope program. Furthermore, families with at least one child between the ages of 1 and 10 at initial random assignment were selected for the Child and Family Study (CFS). The CFS independently surveyed parents/primary caregivers and up to two focal children when applicable, and collected information about the parents' and the child's well-being. Additionally, teachers of school-aged children were mailed surveys and asked to rate the child's performance and behavior. Demographic variables include age, gender, race, nationality, citizenship, educational attainment, employment status, income, marital status, parent-child relations, and household composition.

Families represent a foundational context contributing to the early development of young children. Warm, supportive parent-child relationships contribute to children’s adaptive development and serve as a protective factor in the face of contextual risks. Recognizing the importance of families, Early Head Start (EHS) home-based services support parents and promote parenting behaviors that contribute to positive child outcomes. As such, the relationships formed between families and EHS home visitors are important for facilitating these healthy, resilient family interactions. Although there are strong literature bases that focus on dyadic relationships within families, and some research examining relationships between families and HS/EHS caregivers broadly, we know far less about the patterns across these relationships for families receiving EHS home-based services. Specifically, we have limited knowledge of how parents’ relationships with home visitors are experienced in conjunction with their relationship with their child(ren), and how these relational patterns provide benefits to children and families. Understanding how families are experiencing these relationships, alongside family and program contextual factors and parent/child functioning, can help guide EHS programs in adapting their approach to effectively interact with and support families.

The proposed project plans to address this gap by analyzing secondary data from the 2022 Early Head Start and Child Experiences Survey (Baby FACES). With a sample of 915 children and families receiving home-based services across 99 EHS programs, the current proposal aims to address the following questions:

1) What are the relational patterns that families engaging in EHS home-based services experience within and across parent-child (closeness, conflict) and parent-home visitor (support, tasking, bonding, goal setting) relationships?

2) How are these patterns of relationships associated with salient contextual factors of the family and EHS program? a. How do family sociocultural factors (e.g., poverty, parent education, employment, & marital status; child biological sex, age, and parent & child race/ethnicity) co-mingle with these relational patterns? b. Are these profiles associated with the organizational climate of EHS programs (cohesion, communication, stress, leader support)?

3) As parents are key links across family-EHS contexts, how are these relational profiles associated with factors related to parents’ fostering a supportive home environment; that is, parents’ mental health (depression, parental distress, parent-child dysfunctional interactions, and difficult child) and parent-child interactions (supportive, unsupportive)

4) How are these family-centered relational patterns associated with children’s early language (comprehension, production), social-emotional competence, and behavioral functioning?

Users can download or order data regarding adolescent health and well-being and the factors that influence the adolescent transition into adulthood. Background The Add Health Study, conducted by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, began during the 1994-1995 school year with a nationally representative sample of students in grades 7-12. The cohort has been followed into adulthood. Participants' social, physical, economic and psychological information is ascertained within the contexts of their family, neighborhood, school, peer groups, friendships and romantic relationships. The original purpose of the study was to understand factors that may influence adolescent behaviors, but as the study has continued, it was evolved to gather information on the factors related to the transition into adulthood. User Functionality Users can download or order the CD-Rom of the public use data sets (which include only a subset of the sample). To do so, users must generate a free log in with Data Sharing for Demographic Research, which is part of the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, or users must contact Sociometrics. Links to both data warehouses are provided. Data Notes The study began in 1994; respondents were followed up with in 1996, 2001-2 002, and 2007-2008. In addition to the cohort members, parents, siblings, fellow students, school administrators, and romantic partners are also interviewed.

The study analyzes the forces leading to or impeding the assimilation of 18- to 32-year-olds from immigrant backgrounds that vary in terms of race, language, and the mix of skills and liabilities their parents brought to the United States. To make sure that what we find derives specifically from growing up in an immigrant family, rather than simply being a young person in New York, a comparison group of people from native born White, Black, and Puerto Rican backgrounds was also studied. The sample was drawn from New York City (except for Staten Island) and the surrounding counties in the inner part of the New York-New Jersey metropolitan region where the vast majority of immigrants and native born minority group members live and grow up. The study groups make possible a number of interesting comparisons. Unlike many other immigrant groups, the West Indian first generation speaks English, but the dominant society racially classifies them as Black. The study explored how their experiences resemble or differ from native born African Americans. Dominicans and the Colombian-Peruvian-Ecuadoran population both speak Spanish, but live in different parts of New York, have different class backgrounds prior to immigration, and, quite often, different skin tones. The study compared them to Puerto Rican young people, who, along with their parents, have the benefit of citizenship. Chinese immigrants from the mainland tend to have little education, while young people with overseas Chinese parents come from families with higher incomes, more education, and more English fluency. Respondents were divided into eight groups depending on their parents' origin. Those of immigrant ancestry include: Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union; Chinese immigrants from the mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the Chinese Diaspora; immigrants from the Dominican Republic; immigrants from the English-speaking countries of the West Indies (including Guyana but excluding Haiti and those of Indian origin); and immigrants from Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. These groups composed 44 percent of the 2000 second-generation population in the defined sample area. For comparative purposes, Whites, Blacks, and Puerto Ricans who were born in the United States and whose parents were born in the United States or Puerto Rico were also interviewed. To be eligible, a respondent had to have a parent from one of these groups. If the respondent was eligible for two groups, he or she was asked which designation he or she preferred. The ability to compare these groups with native born Whites, Blacks, and Puerto Ricans permits researchers to investigate the effects of nativity while controlling for race and language background. About two-thirds of second-generation respondents were born in the United States, mostly in New York City, while one-third were born abroad but arrived in the United States by age 12 and had lived in the country for at least 10 years, except for those from the former Soviet Union, some of whom arrived past the age of 12. The project began with a pilot study in July 1996. Survey data collection took place between November 1999 and December 1999. The study includes demographic variables such as race, ethnicity, language, age, education, income, family size, country of origin, and citizenship status.

This survey of minority groups was part of a larger project to investigate the patterns, predictors, and consequences of midlife development in the areas of physical health, psychological well-being, and social responsibility. Conducted in Chicago and New York City, the survey was designed to assess the well-being of middle-aged, urban, ethnic minority adults living in both hyper-segregated neighborhoods and in areas with lower concentrations of minorities. Respondents' views were sought on issues relevant to quality of life, including health, childhood and family background, religion, race and ethnicity, personal beliefs, work experiences, marital and close relationships, financial situation, children, community involvement, and neighborhood characteristics. Questions on health explored the respondents' physical and emotional well-being, past and future attitudes toward health, physical limitations, energy level and appetite, amount of time spent worrying about health, and physical reactions to those worries. Questions about childhood and family background elicited information on family structure, the role of the parents with regard to child rearing, parental education, employment status, and supervisory responsibilities at work, the family financial situation including experiences with the welfare system, relationships with siblings, and whether as a child the respondent slept in the same bed as a parent or adult relative. Questions on religion covered religious preference, whether it is good to explore different religious teachings, and the role of religion in daily decision-making. Questions about race and ethnicity investigated respondents' backgrounds and experiences as minorities, including whether respondents preferred to be with people of the same racial group, how important they thought it was to marry within one's racial or ethnic group, citizenship, reasons for moving to the United States and the challenges faced since their arrival, their native language, how they would rate the work ethic of certain ethnic groups, their views on race relations, and their experiences with discrimination. Questions on personal beliefs probed for respondents' satisfaction with life and confidence in their opinions. Respondents were asked whether they had control over changing their life or their personality, and what age they viewed as the ideal age. They also rated people in their late 20s in the areas of physical health, contribution to the welfare and well-being of others, marriage and close relationships, relationships with their children, work situation, and financial situation. Questions on work experiences covered respondents' employment status, employment history, future employment goals, number of hours worked weekly, number of nights away from home due to work, exposure to the risk of accident or injury, relationships with coworkers and supervisors, work-related stress, and experience with discrimination in the workplace. A series of questions was posed on marriage and close relationships, including marital status, quality and length of relationships, whether the respondent had control over his or her relationships, and spouse/partner's education, physical and mental health, employment status, and work schedule. Questions on finance explored respondents' financial situation, financial planning, household income, retirement plans, insurance coverage, and whether the household had enough money. Questions on children included the number of children in the household, quality of respondents' relationships with their children, prospects for their children's future, child care coverage, and whether respondents had changed their work schedules to accommodate a child's illness. Additional topics focused on children's identification with their culture, their relationships with friends of different backgrounds, and their experiences with racism. Community involvement was another area of investigation, with items on respondents' role in child-rearing, participation on a jury, voting behavior, involvement in charitable organizations, volunteer experiences, whether they made monetary or clothing donations, and experiences living in an institutional setting or being homeless. Respondents were also queried about their neighborhoods, with items on neighborhood problems including racism, vandalism, crime, drugs, poor schools, teenag