Monday, June 4, 2001

Mr. William G. Barron, Jr.
Director
U.S. Census Bureau - 2049-FB3
Washington, D.C. 20233

Mr. John F. Long
Chief, Population Division
U.S. Census Bureau - 2011-FB3
Washington, D.C. 20233


Dear Mr. Barron and Mr. Long:

We are writing in regard to the recent Census Bureau Report entitled Living Arrangements of Children, Fall 1996, in which the change from 1991 to 1996 in the percentage of U. S. children in "traditional nuclear families" was reported. According to the report, the percentage increased, from 51 to 56. This information may be useful for some purposes, for instance for marketing, but given the definition used for "traditional nuclear families" in the report, knowledge of the reported trend is not useful to family social scientists. The problem is that the indicated trend confounds two component trends which have very different implications for child development and well-being. The purpose of this letter is to request that you decompose the reported trend into its two major components so that its meaning can be assessed.

Apparently, the reported trend could have resulted from (a) a decline in extended family members and/or unrelated individuals in family households, and/or from (b) an increase in the proportion of children living with their married biological or adoptive parents. The latter trend, if real, has clear and important implications for child development and well-being, but the former does not. The effects of "extra" persons in the household no doubt depend on who those persons are, but on average the effects are likely to be neutral, or nearly so. In contrast, there is now a significant body of evidence indicating that, everything else being equal, living with their married parents is a distinctly favorable living arrangement for children.

We understand that the two component trends of the reported trend were not separated from one another because the original tabulations of the 1991 data did not allow for such decomposition. We believe, however, that a retabulation of the 1991 data would be enormously useful to social scientists and others with an interest in what is happening to American families. The importance of releasing such information is especially great, given the fact that media reports based on the Census report almost all arrived at the erroneous conclusion that the data showed a return to more traditional families. Depending on one's values, such a return may be considered bad or good, but everyone deserves to have accurate information about whether that change has occurred.

Thank you for considering this request. We look forward to your response.


Sincerely,

Norval D. Glenn
Ashbel Smith Professor and
Stiles Professor in America Studies
University of Texas at Austin

Linda J. Waite
Professor of Sociology
University of Chicago


Additional Signatories

Paul Amato,
Professor of Sociology,
Penn State University

Don Browning,
Alexander Campbell Professor of
Religious Ethics and the Social Sciences,
University of Chicago Divinity School

William Galston,
Professor of Public Affairs,
University of Maryland

Sara McLanahan,
Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs,
Office of Population Research,
Princeton University

David Popenoe,
Professor of Sociology and Co-Director,
National Marriage Project,
Rutgers University

J. Richard Udry,
Kenan Professor of Maternal and Child Health,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Judith Wallerstein,
Founder and Director,
Center for the Family in Transition and
Author, "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce"
 

Back to Top | The Family Rebound that Wasn't and the Census Bureau Report that Failed | Census Bureau Response  | New York Times article | U.S. News and World Report article |