How to do this Annotated Bibliography on Multi-generational Families

V O L . 1 0 2 ■ N O . 1 ■ 2 0 1 0 J F C S 7 3

Nearly 3,000 adults were surveyed on aspects of everyday life with comparisons among four age subgroups (18–29, 30–49, 50–64, 65+ years) as to expectations of the three younger groups and the actual experiences of the older group. The younger groups expect that the negative bench- marks of aging (i.e., memory loss, inability to drive, struggles with loneliness, illness) will be part of their later lives more frequently than is the reality as reported by the actual experiences of the older group. For example, 57% of the younger group (n � 1,631) expected memory loss while only 25% of those 65+ reported actual memory loss (n � 1,332)—this was the largest gap. As to the benefits of aging, the largest gaps between expectations were for doing volunteer work (80% expected to do it, 52% were actually doing it), travel (77% expected to do more traveling while 52% were), and having a second career (expected by 39% while being experienced by 14%). The older group identified spending more time with family and grandchildren as the best benefit.

To counter the challenge that the older group does not represent those who are in care settings

or who cannot participate in a 20-minute survey, adult children were asked about the current situa- tions of their parents. This was to provide a pro- file of the oldest group—it was not to match responses of adult children to those of their par- ents. For those 65–74, the perceptions of this age cohort and of adult children were not significantly different—8% in each group indicated help was needed in handling their affairs. The percentages increased as did the gap between the age cohorts and the reporting of adult children with the 75–84 and 85+ age groups.

The major trends examined included percep- tions of old age, daily lives of older Americans, family and friends, intergenerational relations within families (time and other intergenerational exchanges), and work and retirement. Each of these topics gives important perspectives on the adult population and suggests that some of the commonly held perspectives may be myths. FCS professionals should review this report whether to understand the characteristics of the age groups worked with or to explore dynamics within one’s own family and workplace.

Explorations of social trends are frequently reported by the Pew Research Center (http:// pewsocialtrends.org) after surveying a wide spec- trum of the population and examining databases. In 2009, they issued more than 20 trend reports, many that addressed trends on topics highly

relevant to FCS such as family, employment, the generations, and economic impact. Reports in 2010 have looked at the Millennial Generation in relation to confidence, connectedness, change, and the new economics of marriage. Two recent reports are included here.

I N

B R

I E

F

The Return of the Multi-Generational Family Household (March 2010) This report uses data from the previous one as well as from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Surveys (2006, 2007, and 2008). Compared to 1980 when 28 million or 12% of the population was living in multi-generational family households, in 2008, 49 million or 16% of the population are in multi-generational households.

This is a reversal of a trend that had peaked in 1940 when 25% of Americans were in such households. Multi-generational family households are those with two or more generations of adults and also the “skipped generations”—grandparents and grand children (who may be adults) without the parental generation.

Growing Old in America: Expectations vs. Reality (June 2009)

JFCS-102-1-15-InBrief_100020.qxp 4/30/10 1:05 PM Page 73

With the current focus on health care policy, the local picture may get less attention. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute have col- laborated to evaluate health status by county in a project to “mobilize action toward community health” www.countyhealthrankings.org/). What is the rank of your county, as to health outcomes and health factors, in your state? Higher ranks indicate the healthiest counties.

Health outcomes are measures of length of life (premature deaths before age 75) and quality of life (overall health, physical and mental health, and birth outcomes). Health factors include meas- ures in four areas. Health behaviors include diet and exercise, tobacco use, alcohol use, and unsafe sex (30% of the score). Quality and access to health care are the factor of clinical care (20% of the score). The social and economic factors include education, employment income, family and social support, and community safety (40%). The fourth factor is the physical environment

including environmental quality and the built environment (10%).

This website includes tables and graphics of each state providing visuals for easy comparisons. In addition, there is a library of nearly 80 pro- grams and policies that work locally. These vary from limiting access to non-nutritious foods in school to expansion of child development pro- grams to pedestrian/bicycle plans.

To illustrate two counties AAFCS can identify with—AAFCS headquarters is in Fairfax County Virginia, the county ranks 1st of 132 counties for health outcomes and 7th of 132 for health factors in Virginia. With the upcoming AAFCS Conference and Expo in Cleveland, OH, we find that Cuya- hoga County ranks 77th of 88 for health outcomes and 47th of 88 for health factors. An observation: counties with large cities seem to rank lower than areas of lesser population density as in Colorado, the County of Denver (also the city) ranked 47th on outcomes and 50th on factors of 56 counties (data were not available for 8 other counties).

What explains changes in the trend? Growing numbers of immigrants (primarily Latin Ameri- cans and Asians), increasing median age at first marriage (5 years older than in 1970), and more recently high unemployment and foreclosure rates. One of 5 adults in the age groups 25–34 (more men than women) and 65 and older (more women than men) live in multi-generational family households. At the same time, there are more sin- gle person households (10.3% in 2008) with 27%

of those 65 and over living in single person house- holds (this peaked at 29% in 1990).

This report suggests the importance of consid- ering the variety of family household types that we have in society and work with on a daily basis. With multi-generational and one person house- holds accounting for 1 in 4 households, there are also two generations—parent(s) and children, married and cohabiting couples, and unrelated person households.

County Health Rankings

7 4 V O L . 1 0 2 ■ N O . 1 ■ 2 0 1 0 J F C S

JFCS-102-1-15-InBrief_100020.qxp 4/30/10 1:05 PM Page 74

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.