Changing Family Structures

By Michal Smith-Mello and Peter Schirmer

From The Context of Change
pp. 10-20, published 1994

The families of our nation and our state are changing. While they remain our most valued source of strength and comfort, about which we exult and anguish, families are becoming somewhat amorphous. Our uncertainty about their changing shape has fueled acrimonious political debate and engendered widespread discomfort. Many of us would like families to stay the same or, more accurately, stay the way we thought they were, but demographic trends suggest that change and diversity will continue to characterize American family life for years to come.

Even as family scientists and demographers dispel our mythology of family with facts, we cling to the Ward-and-June-Cleaver vision of the way we were and ought to be. In truth, we never were as perfectly shaped as we thought. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, just 43 percent of families in 1940 were "traditional" in the sense that they had a working father and a homemaker mother and, of course, well-rounded children. Today, less than 20 percent of American families fit nicely into this shape and two-income marriages are now the norm (Otten). Others are blended and step-parent families, single-parent families, and extended families. Still united by the common threads of shared experience and, in the best of circumstances, shared commitment, families have become more elastic. And a growing number of people are choosing to live alone or with partners, friends, co-workers, etc., in what demographers refer to as "nonfamily" households.

Social and economic forces have buffeted families and influenced not only their shape but how and when they are formed and the supporting roles played within them. While we remain strongly committed to the institution of marriage, we have gradually become more comfortable with the possibility of impermanence, as well as the promise of remarriage. Ever the adaptive species, we are delaying marriage, almost three years longer than was typical in the 1950s and 1960s, and family scientists are finding that cohabitation has become a common prelude to marriage. More people appear to want marriage to last in their own lives and to endure as an institution. Nationally, the divorce rate peaked in the late 1970s and has since declined, indicating that a renewed commitment to marriage is well underway.

In and out of marriage, more women are working and forging careers of their own, diminishing the economic incentive to marry. A growing number of them are choosing to have children on their own or not at all. As domestic roles shift to accommodate increasing demands on women, the "battle of the sexes" has moved the debate from who will bring home the bread to who will shop for the ingredients, bake it, clean the kitchen in the aftermath and care for the children while the work is being done. Gradually, the domestic front is becoming more egalitarian.

We are not only adapting to new roles and making new and different choices, an unforgiving economy is pushing more of us toward choices we might not have made otherwise. Women increasingly express preference for home and family over work (Roper) but see no way out financially. Difficult economic circumstances are taking a toll on families, particularly those headed by single parents and young couples. Purchasing power has declined, and costly plans for the future or the unforeseen, including health care and retirement, are often put on a back burner. In effect, parenthood has become too closely associated with poverty for the comfort of many. For children, the consequences of family disruption and the resultant economic decline have been devastating.

As we look to the future before Kentucky families, the timeless wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who observed that nothing endures but change, may offer our only certainty. The challenge before us is to create and advance programs and policies that serve as a catalyst for positive change in the lives of Kentucky families.

The traditional nuclear family began experiencing increased disruption in the mid-1960s when divorce rates increased and, as a consequence, more families fragmented. In spite of widespread perceptions of increased family instability, the U.S. divorce rate actually peaked in 1979, according to Dr. Wilson, and has since declined. However, stress on families has not, and disruption and fragmentation continue to occur, as they have throughout our history.

In response, couples are delaying marriage longer and expressing greater reluctance to form families. Children are a product of choice more than ever before, but they are an option that is being ruled out by many families. The resultant "economic infertility," suggests Ron Crouch, director of the Kentucky State Data Center, has contributed significantly to the rising percentage of married couple households in Kentucky with no children (42 percent). In 1990, they exceeded those with children (38 percent).

Importantly, this trend is also strongly influenced by the increased portion of older married couples whose children have left the nest, which, observes Dr. Ford, is evidence of the persistence and the endurance of the nuclear family. Indeed, Dr. Wilson suggests that our perception of increased family instability is partly a product of the aging of our society. For example, Dr. Wilson notes, Americans actually experienced higher rates of single parenthood in the 1890s because of the early death of spouses. As a consequence of increased longevity, he observes, we are struggling with the difficulty of living in long-term marriages.

When nuclear families break apart, children are often left with the emotional and economic baggage that invariably attends family disruption. While they may become more resilient, more mature, more independent in the process, most agree it is not without a cost. From precipitous declines in their standard of living to evidence of increased emotional and behavioral problems in single-parent families, children have not emerged unscathed from the family disruption we have experienced in recent years. However, recent research has also shown that the quality of parenting, the degree of parental involvement and effort, as well as the ability to cope with stresses, are more important than whether a family is headed by one or two parents. Contrary to popular assumptions about working mothers and their declining effectiveness as parents, the study, which was based on national survey data, concluded that children who should be the focus of greatest concern are those reared in families headed by parents with low education and income levels and those from which fathers are absent or mothers are not in the labor force (Zill).

The emerging patterns that sociologist Andrew Cherlin explored in his 1981 book, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, have, however, persisted and challenged our abilities to adapt. To the consternation of many, the idealized nuclear family, an anomaly of the 1950s in the view of many demographers, has eluded a growing number of us. But our faith in marriage and family has not been shaken. Among family households in Kentucky, 80.4 percent are married couples. As illustrated, Kentuckians have continued to marry at a slightly higher rate than the nation as a whole since 1984; however, the gap between the two appears to be narrowing. By 1992, 13.3 Kentuckians married per 1,000 population, as compared to a U.S. average of 10.

Kentuckians not only marry somewhat more often, they also experience higher rates of divorce. After years of trailing the national average, the number of Kentuckians who divorced began exceeding the national average around 1986. By 1992, Kentucky's divorce rate had risen to 6.4 per 1,000 population while the nation's had declined to half that rate—3.2. While the national trend in divorce rates has moderated as couples marry at later ages and become more deliberative in their choice of partners, Kentucky’s divorce rate remains high. As long as economic stress continues to be acute in the state, family disruption is likely to continue occurring at a higher rate than that experienced by the nation as a whole.

The increased incidence of divorce and a growing number of births to unmarried women mean that more children live in households headed by single parents. From 1970 to 1993, single-parent households grew 64 percent in the United States, from 3.8 million to 10.5 million. Among all family households (those with related individuals) in Kentucky, 10.9 percent were headed by single parents in 1990; however, among family households with children, 21.6 percent were headed by single parents. While the majority of these family households are headed by women (83 percent), men are heading a growing number of single households, as custody decisions no longer automatically favor mothers.

Changes in family structures are far more evident among black family households in Kentucky. By 1990, the portion of black families headed by single parents was more than three times higher (33 percent) than among white families (9 percent), an outcome that is related to the difficult economic circumstances black families confront which, ironically, create yet another obstacle to economic parity. Among black family households with children, 57.3 percent were headed by a single parent in 1990.

Nationally, it is estimated that children who live in households headed by single parents are six times as likely to be poor. Kentucky children who live in households headed by single parents experience disproportionate rates of poverty, a startling 51.8 percent, more than twice the state's already high rate of child poverty (24.5 percent). Families headed by black women experience a comparable 53.7 percent poverty rate. Among the youngest and most vulnerable children, ages five and younger, who live in households headed by women, 68 percent were poor in 1990. While only 11 percent of married couple families with children are poor, 40 percent of women who head families with children are officially poor.

As nuclear families have fragmented, the number of nonfamily households, those occupied by singles or unrelated individuals, has risen dramatically. Today, they are the fastest growing type of household, followed by single-parent households. These households are occupied by people who are delaying marriage, living together as a commonplace prelude to marriage, living alone or with unrelated individuals. In Kentucky, as illustrated, nonfamily households increased their share of all households from 11.6 percent in 1960 to 26.4 percent in 1990. At the same time, family households declined from 88.4 percent of all Kentucky households in 1960 to 73.6 percent in 1990.

Within family households, the change that has had the most devastating economic consequences for children has also occurred at a steadily increasing pace. The percentage of single-parent family households in the state has doubled since 1960, from 5 percent of all Kentucky family households to 10.6 percent in 1990. As the number of single-parent families has risen, married-couple family households with children have steadily declined. In 1960, this type of household comprised more than half of Kentucky family households. Today, only 38.5 percent of family households are married couples with children, a reflection of growing economic pressures that discourage childbearing, as well as the aging of couples whose children are grown.

Also contributing to the state's depressed birth rate are destabilizing influences on the family. The changing circumstances of family life have propelled more and more women into the workplace, placing increasing constraints on time once devoted to childrearing and complicating a family support system long predicated on the caretaking role of women. It is a movement fueled as much by economic necessity as by the expansion of women's roles. More than ever before, families depend on two incomes. Among married couples with children in the state, 57 percent were two wage-earner households in 1990.

In many respects, children are a manifestation of our hope for the future. As our optimism has become clouded by declining wages and increasing demands on working parents, more time and energy is being dedicated to the struggles of today, rather than the promise of tomorrow. Families are under significant stress. These circumstances will continue to influence decisions about childbearing and, in turn, the population that will replenish tomorrow's workforce and sustain economic growth.

The decline in Kentucky's age 0 to 18 population was greater than that in all but two states, West Virginia (-20.7 percent) and Iowa (-13 percent). The state's youth population declined by 11.9 percent, as 128,636 fewer young people numbered among Kentucky residents. The nation as a whole lost fewer than 100,000 young people from its youth population. As illustrated, surrounding states, with the notable exception of Virginia, which experienced a 2.1 percent increase, experienced patterns of decline in their youth population similar to that in Kentucky.

As previously noted, out-migration in the 20-24 age group was evident in virtually every Kentucky county, outside of those with universities and military installations. Many counties also began experiencing out-migration in the 15-19 and younger age groups. The decline of young people in the state is a principal reason for the state's stalled population growth over the 1980-1990 decade. If sustained, this trend could portend deeper population losses over the long term.

Only eight of the state's 120 counties experienced growth in their populations of young people during the 1980s, and eastern Kentucky counties experienced disproportionate decline. Nine of the 10 biggest losses in youth population occurred in eastern counties. Some counties in Kentucky, observes Dr. Price, are virtually depopulating, as deaths exceed the number of births. Previously home to high birth rates and youth populations, the trend for eastern Kentucky is, according to the State Data Center, a signal of closer alignment with the rest of the state, rather than one of alarming decline. The most significant growth in youth populations was registered in four suburban counties that also enjoyed fairly vigorous overall population growth in contrast to the state as a whole: Boone, 10.8 percent; Oldham, 6.5 percent; Grant, 6.2 percent; and Jessamine, 5.2 percent.

The decline in Kentucky's youth population, as noted by the University of Kentucky sociologists Gary Hansen and Lori Garkovich, has significant long-term implications, "Unless either migration into the state or the state's birth rate increases within the next decade or two, there will be significantly fewer people in the prime childbearing ages in the future. This may result in even fewer births." Consequently, high profile support for families and children could become critically important to the state's ability to attract immigrants and retain residents.

Household Formation

Because, as the U.S. Census Bureau's Arthur Norton has suggested, we seldom grasp history while it is being made, serious discussion of the implications of trends often arrives as they wane or moderate. Such is the case with growth in the number of U.S. households. The rapid expansion of households or separate living quarters has triggered widespread but belated attention to the implications for families, the environment and an already fraying community fabric.

The rise in the number of U.S. households experienced its most significant growth during the 1970s. As divorce rates increased and families split, new households were formed at an average rate of 1.7 million per year during the 1970s. During the 1980s, however, the rate of growth moderated to an average of 1.3 million new households each year. In the early 1990s, the pace of growth declined slightly to about 1.2 million new households per year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

As illustrated, Kentucky households are expected to continue growing in number well into the 21st Century, but at a slower pace than experienced during the 1970s. By 2020, the State Data Center projects the number of households in Kentucky at 1.7 million, compared to the 1.4 million recorded in 1990.

The phenomenon of expanding numbers of households occurred as fragmented families formed new households and more individuals chose to live alone. During the 1970s, the number of persons living alone in the United States increased annually by 5.2 percent, a rate of growth that declined significantly during the 1980s to an annual average of 2.3 percent. That relatively low rate persisted and declined slightly in the early 1990s to 2.1 percent.

National trends in household growth were mirrored in Kentucky where they increased at an average annual rate of 2.5 percent over the 1970-1980 decade, less than half the national rate of increase but well ahead of the state's .8 percent average annual rate of population growth for the decade. Over the course of the 1980s, household formation in Kentucky moderated somewhat to an average annual increase of 2.2 percent. Between 1990 and the year 2000, Dr. Price projects that households will likely continue to increase at a faster rate than the population. Estimates are for an average annual increase of 2.1 percent between 1990 and 2000. While the growth of Kentucky households is slow relative to national trends, which demographers view as having moderated, it nevertheless has increased three times faster than population growth since 1960, according to the Population Laboratory at the University of Kentucky (Ilvento et al).

As the number of Kentucky households has increased, the number of persons living in each household has decreased proportionately, from 3.2 in 1970 to 2.6 in 1990. The State Data Center predicts that population per household will continue to decline into the 21st Century, from 2.6 in 1990 to an estimated 2.3 people in 2020. This downward trend seems at odds with those of rising poverty rates and declining family incomes, economic circumstances that would seem to propel often far-flung families to reconnection. Indeed demographic data indicate that, to some extent, such movement is underway.

In the case of young Kentuckians, aged 18 to 34, many of whom have children of their own, 25 percent lived with one or both of their parents in 1990. In an era of slow wage growth and high housing costs, more and more young adults are unable to sustain independent living; particularly single parents. Repayment of student loans has also been cited as an obstacle to economic independence for young adults (Ilvento et al). As the nuclear family has undergone significant stress, other forms of reliance on the extended family also may have increased, particularly among those whose economic circumstances are most adversely affected. A 1990 Urban Institute report on child care in low-income families in the United States found that 29 percent of these families rely on grandparents for child care (Brayfield).

The questions that arise as we examine the implications of rising households are fundamental. They touch family and community as we know it. Are more people forming new households, often in difficult economic circumstances, out of choice or because we have become less willing to share our homes and our lives with others? Or is public policy creating disincentives for extended family household structures? Or, more optimistically, has improved personal income enabled many adults to live alone by choice? Moreover, how far will public infrastructure and strained economies permit us to extend the demand for new households, whatever propels it? As we look to the future, policymakers must respond to these and other questions with creative answers that lend strength to family and community. 

Future Implications

If Kentucky families are to gain sufficient confidence in the future to place more children at its doorstep, the structural issues of adequate wages, benefits, employment and training opportunities, and gender and racial equity must be systematically addressed. Public and private sector policymakers might first look to the workplace, which must become an institution that enables rather than undermines the fruitful co-existence of work and family life. Employers can play a vital role in building a better future for all by extending the same opportunity for flexibility to their employees that they have sought in the marketplace. The returns in higher productivity and morale are well-documented benefits that have advanced progressive employment and human resource policies in nations that are our most formidable rivals. Moreover, some of the nation's most prominent corporations are leading the way in flexible, family-oriented workplace policies.

An essential ingredient in quality work life is attention to the need for time and energy to dedicate to families. On-site or shared industry day care centers, pro-rated benefits for part-time employees, optional overtime, flex-time, job sharing opportunities, and paid parental leave are just some of the ways employers can begin positively influencing our future and policymakers can begin leveraging it.

Because there are and may continue to be fewer children in our society for a number of years, the potential of every child matters as never before. As Jonathan Rauch suggested in a 1989 article, the luxury of perceiving children as "strictly a nonprofit venture" may be obsolete. Increasingly, our state and our nation need children to replenish a workforce that will soon be asked to help support the largest aging, retired and dependent population in the history of the nation. "The two ways that a society provides for its future," University of Maryland economist Frank Levy told Rauch, "are its level of physical capital accumulation and the number and the quality of its kids."

In the latter category, Kentucky’s provisions for the future may be less than adequate. According to the University of Kentucky’s Population Laboratory, Kentucky has been identified as one of six states in the nation predicted to experience a net decline in the number of young adults who will enter the labor force between the years 1990 and 2010 (Hansen & Garkovitch). Moreover, as many as 48 percent of them live at or near the poverty line, according to the Kids Count Consortium. Poverty, observes Dr. Wilson, is disproportionately located with tomorrow’s adults. As a consequence, Kentucky’s future prosperity depends more than ever on its support of families and its commitment to the care and education of young people.

Critical to support for families with children is access to work, which is limited in many rural areas of the state by inadequate child care and the absence of public transportation. Additionally, the quality of available work is a critical factor. An estimated 10 percent of Kentuckians work but their families remain poor. State Demographer Michael Price observes that it is important that current incentives for employers to solve problems by reducing labor costs be removed. At the same time, disincentives for work must be addressed. Dr. Ford observes that our culture is geared increasingly toward reducing, rather than creating, jobs, a shift that is having a significant impact on families.

In order to remove structural obstacles to work, it will be necessary to evaluate policies thoroughly in light of their impact on families, from economic development strategies to human service responses to need. Some states have enacted Family Impact Statements into law, requiring rigorous evaluation of programs and policies prior to their implementation. With or without such a mechanism in place, the imperative of supporting families with children compels rigorous attention to public policy at every level.

A possible strategy for replenishing Kentucky’s youth population while building critical support for families who are here is to identify ways to make Kentucky a more "family friendly" state and construct a programmatic and policy strategy for building and aggressively marketing it. The qualities of such a state might include employer incentives aimed at creating more flexible work environments, opportunities to tap child and adult care, and importantly, education and training opportunities that provide an upward track out of working poverty. Similarly, recruitment strategies could be aimed at companies with demonstrated track records while marketing initiatives could promote the strengths of Kentucky employers who support working families. Complementary state services could also be developed to augment support for families. Again, as Dr. Price notes, the importance of addressing structural disincentives for work, as well as employer incentives for eliminating work, would also be critical to the cultivation of a supportive environment for families.

Professors Hansen and Garkovich suggest that the prospect of fewer children should enable us to ensure the highest quality of services to those who are here. Specifically, a declining youth population offers policymakers the opportunity to move beyond measuring programmatic effectiveness by numbers of participants and to begin evaluating the quality and impact of youth-oriented services, some of which simply do not produce results. With the adoption of best practice models, performance-based standards, and benchmarks by which to measure progress, Kentucky policymakers can invest state dollars in programs that yield positive, measurable results in the lives of children and their families.

Significant reason for greater optimism about the future of families may lie in the ascendance of family issues on the public policy landscape. At the federal level, the expansion of earned income credits to poor families, the enactment of family leave policies, and new child welfare funds each represent incremental gains for families. In Kentucky, the Kentucky Education Reform Act represents a broad-based commitment to improving the future before children in this state. Optimistically, the heightened consciousness that now attends a range of family issues could propel further important and constructive change and perhaps alleviate some of the circumstances that pose the greatest threat to the security of families and to the well-being of their most vulnerable members—children.

To view a list of all chapters in this book, click here.  To read the chapters in sequential order, please follow the arrows below.

  Back to The People of Kentucky

  Ahead to Older and Wiser?