Archive for the ‘statistics’ Category

Unmarried votes should be prized in redistricting

Yesterday the Census Bureau announced it had beaten the deadline to provide redistricting data to all 50 states. Politicians around the country will soon be looking at new district boundaries. Marital status is recognized as a very strong predictor of voting patterns, so legislators facing redistricting should be very interested in how many unmarried people they represent, and what those people think. The 2010 Census information about marital status and household composition has not yet been released (though data about race and ethnicity are available now). However, we can use other recent data to estimate where unmarried potential voters might have the biggest impact.

First, what is redistricting? In a nutshell, the population both grows and moves around, but there are only 435 seats in the House of Representative. So state officials use Census redistricting data to draw new borders for Congressional (and other legislative) districts so that each district contains roughly the same number of people. (Since every state must have at least one district, the districts do not have exactly the same number of people (calling that whole one-person-one-vote thing into question, but that’s for someone else’s blog)). Typically, party loyalists try to draw boundaries that encircle constituencies most likely to vote for their party. That often means creating districts with very strange shapes.

The four states that will gain or lose the most seats are New York (loses 2), Ohio (loses 2), Florida (gains 2), and Texas (gains 4). If you love demographics, politics and technology, check out this awesome map (click the tab called ‘apportionment’).

Second, where might unmarried constituents get the most attention? There are lots of ways to come up with estimates – here’s one:

I used the 2009 American Community Survey to look up the number of unmarried individuals and unmarried partner households in every Congressional district in NY, OH, FL and TX. The data on individuals includes all people age 15 and over – this is always a source of controversy and frustration. Obviously, most 15-18 year olds are unmarried; more importantly, they can’t vote. It would take a couple hours to extract them; I’d love to coach a volunteer on how to do that.

The following districts are in the top quartile on both measures – i.e., they have more unmarried individuals as a percentage of all individuals, and more unmarried partner households as a percentage of all households, than the remaining three-quarters of all districts in all four states. (One could use other criteria to pick key districts; I’m happy to share the data with anyone who wants to do more analysis.) Click the district name to see its current map and who represents it.

Florida 3 6.7% of households are headed by unmarried partners, 60.7% of individuals are unmarried
Florida 11 7.5% - 59.1%
Florida 23 6.5% - 60.0%
New York 12 6.7% - 57.6%
New York 16 7.0% - 68.0%
New York 21 8.2% – 53.3%
New York 28 6.6% - 60.3%
Ohio 10 7.2% - 54.3%
Texas 18 6.7% - 55.9%
Texas 25 6.7% - 53.2%
Texas 30 6.9% - 57.9%

Do you live in one of these districts? Is your Representative sensitive to the concerns of unmarried voters? How can we help you get their attention?

Perhaps they all live alone

A quip about marketing to single people caught my eye this morning, in a light-hearted article about housewares: “A visitor from another planet… might have the following impressions. These Earth people love coffee and little brightly colored, high-tech coffee makers, but perhaps they all live alone, for they seem obsessed with something called “single-serve units.””

Curious about whether the living-alone numbers had recently changed, I dug into the five-year estimates of the American Community Survey. (Statistics about un/marriage remain the 2nd most popular topic among visitors to this website. I’d love to know more about what you’re looking for and whether you find it. Please take a moment to give us valuable feedback!)

For the record, here’s how many of us really do live alone, and how the rest of us live:

Responses to mixed-race and unmarried

Thanks so much to everyone who took the quiz! So far, your 39 responses paint this picture:

45% of you identify as multi-racial or multi-ethnic; among you multis, 24% of your parents were unmarried when you were born (compared to 15% of parents of the total group). Your ages range from 19 to 74, with 46% of you still under age 40. 90% of you are unmarried, and 47% of you have multiracial/ethnic children of your own.

Among the 28 of you who have committed romantic relationships, 74% are different-sex, 6% are same-sex, and 19% are poly. Of the 37 partners you described, 22% are themselves multiracial/ethnic, and 51% identify with just one race/ethnicity but that one is different from yours. So 73% of your relationships are interracial/ethnic.

Of course, this is not a scientific sample! But it is fascinating to see such big numbers. Your personal comments are also fascinating. Here are just a few:

Although my family of origin was marriage-based and white, there are lots of multiracial families among my extended family. We all feel just as much like family even though we all look different and have different last names, and we joke a lot about the benefits of “hybrid vitality.”

… our real difference are the economic/ parenting styles we experienced growing up.

I have a biracial child and am a single parent. My child attends a predominantly black school and has been having some identity issues due to her bi-racial status and we are working through them little by little each day

Board member Kevin Maillard has written extensively on the topic of unmarried mixed-race relationships. He sent this commentary:

The NY Times’ recent article on multiracial identity places great weight on intermarriage as the catalyst for the “biracial baby boom.” But is this true? It would suggest that the multiracial population did not take off until 1967, when the Supreme Court ruled antimiscegenation laws unconstitutional in Loving V. Virginia. This is an easy way to imagine the origins of mixed race in America, but it overlooks unmarried relationships that produced the bulk of the historical mixed race population.

Marriage is only one way of recognizing relationships, and it is also a convenient way to ignore them, too. By prohibiting marriage between people of different races, states did not have to recognize the legal legitimacy of multiracial children. Because the parents did not have a legally recognized relationship, the state could deny benefits and support. In all kinds of court cases, people used antimiscegenation laws to invalidate and prevent equal treatment of the law. For example, white men tried to evade divorce obligations from black women, landlords excluded Amer-asian families, and collateral heirs argued that wills were invalid. By saying that such relationships were illegitimate, people relied upon law to erase the legal existence of multiracial people. They were not counted in the census, and the children weren’t either.

But during this entire historical period, families continued to blend outside of marriage. States’ goals of keeping the races separate only worked for preventing official recognition. As people, we’ve always known that marriage isn’t the only way to make a family.

The big tax deal shorted singles, again

While I’m on the topic of how your marital status shapes the way you’re affected by major federal legislation – let’s talk taxes! At the end of the year, Congress passed and the President signed a complicated tax package. In covering that news, many media reports mentioned the so-called “marriage penalty.” So let’s get that out of the way first. The Congressional Research Service says

“At all but the lowest and very highest income levels, singles pay higher taxes than married couples. The analysis of the marriage penalty indicates that marriage penalties have largely been eliminated for those without children throughout the middle-income range, but this change has inevitably expanded marriage bonuses. Marriage penalties remain at the high and low income levels and could also apply to those with children, where the penalty or bonus is not very well defined. But by and large, the current system is likely to encourage rather than discourage marriage and favors married couples over singles.”

This CRS report is a brand new update of the 2004 report that was the basis for AtMP’ s original tax policy analysis. If you value this kind of analysis, please donate $30 so I can purchase the new report, read the full detail and update our materials!

Speaking of details, did you know that 56% of taxpayers are unmarried? Due to our lower incomes (simplistically speaking), we paid 27% of all taxes after credits. (I calculated these 2008 figures from IRS data)

The fact that so many unmarried people have relatively low incomes means that we really got the short end of the stick in December’s big tax package. Our friend Shawn Fremstad does a great job of explaining how

some 51 million taxpayers will see their taxes go up in 2011. The vast majority of them—40 million tax units—are low-wage workers with incomes below $35,000. Low-income workers are the only income group that will lose income this year compared to 2010 under the deal.

I agree with Shawn’s suggested solution of “an increase in the EITC for low-wage workers without children.” The EITC, or Earned Income Tax Credit, is often called the U.S.’s biggest anti-poverty program (right up there with Social Security). The excessive impact of marital status on EITC is one policy area where complete ideological opposites can find common ground. I even find myself agreeing with Sam Brownback (and that’s REALLY funny!)

By the way, if you’re thrilled at the thought of further researching marital status & EITC, this student paper from Colgate University has a very nice bibliography and lit review.

2010 was a good year for scholarly papers on marriage and taxes. Puckett could have used our help seeing through the tired “case for marriage,” but I certainly like his conclusion:

The joint return (and special rates for married taxpayers) should be abolished as an incoherent penalty and subsidy of marriage. Joint filing is indefensible as a component of a progressive tax system. Marriage has many benefits, but the benefit most deserving of support is marriage’s connection with parenting. The contemporary reality is that parenting will occur outside of marriage, and parenting has high social benefits and high private costs. Although increased refundable child credits would be the most progressive method of implementing a parenting subsidy, simply retaining head of household status seems more likely.

I couldn’t bring myself to read all of Kornhauser‘s latest article. There’s no debating this, and I choose to see it as a call to action (whether or not that’s what she intended):

The nature of family, marriage, and religion are also important issues in America and the tax debates about the marital unit are an important area in which they are expressed. Consequently, congressional actions and rhetoric regarding the marital unit and marriage penalty—even if primarily symbolic — reaffirm a national commitment to marriage as instrumental to American democracy and tacitly acknowledge a similar importance of religion (which supports marriage).

Predictions for 2011

If you’re on our email list, you recently saw my hopeful predictions for 2011. Here’s a bit more detail about what they mean and why I think they could come true.

Political candidates in majority-unmarried districts will drop their old “families first” slogans and start campaigning “for every single one of us.” An important use of the decennial Census is to redraw Congressional district lines so that each district contains roughly 1/435th of the population (that’s a simplification, of course). After the 2000 Census, our friends at Unmarried America produced a wonderful list of unmarried majority cities. We already have two volunteers willing to help crunch the latest Census figures, and we already have great feedback about what unmarried voters want candidates to say. We’ve sketched out a plan to find and draw attention to Congressional districts where most adults are unmarried. If you’re good with data and/or publicity, we can use your help to get this off the ground!

Scientists will discover that marital status discrimination is bad for people’s health, urging companies to treat unmarried employees fairly as a way to reduce healthcare costs. A fantastic advisory committee is helping us develop a research framework that could demonstrate the impact of marital status discrimination on public health. Our objective is to build widespread, high-level recognition that correlations between marital status and health outcomes are caused by laws or regulations that use marital status to determine access to healthcare. Demonstrating causality will support AtMP’s position that marital status discrimination in healthcare is a social justice problem to be solved.

Congress will rewrite the welfare law, replacing the 1990′s “marriage-only” preamble with words like: “the most important factor in a child’s upbringing is whether the child is brought up in a loving, healthy, supportive environment.” Those very words are in the preamble of the House bill mentioned in my last post – it gained 39 co-sponsors and supportive feedback from the administration last year. AtMP started advocating these changes a decade ago and we’re committed to seeing it through to success.

Major foundations will give AtMP grants to hire a full-time researcher / organizer to advance these and other projects. For the first time, a well-known LGBT foundation has invited AtMP to request a grant, and an experienced grant writer has volunteered to help me write a most compelling proposal. Wish us luck!

Here at AtMP we’re positively psyched about 2011. Here are some of my hopeful predictions, plus a little bit about why I believe they could come true:

C Political candidates in majority-unmarried districts will drop their old “families first” slogans and start campaigning “for every single one of us.” We already have two volunteers crunching the latest Census figures, and we’ve sketched out a plan to find and draw attention to Congressional districts where most adults are unmarried.

C Scientists will discover that marital status discrimination is bad for people’s health, urging companies to treat unmarried employees fairly as a way to reduce healthcare costs. A fantastic advisory committee is helping us develop a research framework that could demonstrate the impact of marital status discrimination on public health.

C Congress will rewrite the welfare law, replacing the 1990′s “marriage-only” preamble with words like: “the most important factor in a child’s upbringing is whether the child is brought up in a loving, healthy, supportive environment.” Those words were in the preamble of a House bill that gained 39 co-sponsors and supportive feedback from the administration last year. AtMP started advocating these changes a decade ago and we’re committed to seeing it through to success.

C Major foundations will give AtMP grants to hire a full-time researcher / organizer to advance these and other projects. A well-known LGBT foundation has invited AtMP to request a grant, and an experienced grant writer is helping me write a most compelling proposal.

Of course, I’ll announce the results of this work on the Unmarried Blog,

Calling all number-lovers

The Census Bureau is starting to release lots of new data, plus new tools for finding and using data. AtMP needs volunteers to find and compile the new numbers about people who live alone, live together, live with extended families, etc. If you can help, please contact us! (Hint – this is a great project for students between semesters!)

Today the Census is releasing American Community Survey (ACS) estimates covering a five year period (2005-2009). Think of the ACS as a “long form” questionnaire that is given to a sample of a few hundred thousand people in order to estimate what the whole country probably looks like. While the decennial Census counts everyone’s age, race, and where they live, the ACS estimates details like education, income, whether people were formerly married, whether they’ve had children, etc. And there are many other surveys and estimates too.

Last week the Census used data on births and deaths, international migration and Medicare enrollment to construct estimates of the population that are totally separate from the (still unannounced) results of the 2010 Census. This yielded five different estimates of the number of people resident in the United States, from 305,684,000 to 312,713,000. The Census press release says they really want people to understand “the uncertainty in these figures. The 2010 Census provides the official population count, but demographic analysis provides an honest presentation of alternative estimates.”

In January, American FactFinder gets a total overhaul, which is important because it is our primary tool to access all the new 2010 Census data as well as other key data sets such as the ACS. They’re offering an online video and a tutorial to demonstrate the enhanced features and functions of the new and improved FactFinder, including how to conduct a basic text search, view search results and select a data product to view.

The geek in me is very excited about all this. In September, I attended a Census Bureau presentation for the media and asked whether the five-year or three-year ACS estimates are superior to the most recent one-year estimate. They said that the one-year ACS is as precise as you need to be when you want to describe the nation as a whole; but for smaller areas the three- or five-year figures are more precise. This corrects my previous understanding.

The executive in me needs to know that some smart, reliable AtMP members are ready to help digest all the new info, so we can promptly and accurately update the ever-popular statistics section of our website.

Americans’ varying definitions of family

Book Review: Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans’ Definitions of Family by Brian Powell, Catherine Bolzendahl, Claudia Geist and Lala Carr Steelman

BY JANELLE BRAZINGTON

In their book Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans’ Definitions of Family, the authors Brian Powell, Catherine Bolzendahl, Claudia Geist, and Lala Carr Steelman publish the results of an in-depth study called “Constructing the Family Survey” conducted in both 2003 and 2006 regarding what domestic structures constitute families in America. The study surveyed 712 and 815 Americans, respectively, about their views regarding gay couples, cohabiting couples, gay marriage, gay adoption, the extension of marital/family rights to gay or cohabiting couples, and finally what Americans count as families.

Counted Out begins with the results of the study being divided into three categories—the Exclusionists, Moderates and Inclusionists. Exclusionists hold the most rigid view of family and require marriage, the legal contract between a man and a woman, as the foundation for their definition of family. The Exclusionists’ family may or may not have children. But even with children, their definition of family leaves out unmarried couples or even married same-sex couples. Exclusionists used words relating to the religious and legal aspects of marriage in defining what counts as a family.

In contrast, Moderates will include any combination of adults, but children must be present for the combination to be considered a family. The survey asked a series of closed-ended questions followed by open-ended questions. The Moderates, at times, found that they had conflicting views. Their closed-ended questions revealed one viewpoint, but the open-ended questions where they could talk through their answers without having to choose one option revealed a broader acceptance of varying family systems. Finally, Inclusionists counted all structures as family, but focused on the quality of the relationship. Intimacy, cooperation, love—how the members feel about each other and treat each other—defined a family for Inclusionists regardless of a legal marriage, the presence of children or the gender of the adults in the home.

Correlations in the data were found in levels of education; whether or not people believed the Bible to be the actual word of God, the inspired word of God or a book of fables; in racial differences; and urban vs. rural and/or regional differences. Interestingly enough, having gay friends or relatives had a significant impact on one’s views of what constitutes a family, with many Exclusionists not having any gay friends or family. In addition to analyzing people’s views on what domestic structures count as families, the study also collected data regarding Americans’ views on religion and sexuality, gender and parenting, and changing one’s name as a result of marrying.

While religion and/or the legality of marriage influences many Americans’ opinions on what counts as a family, the authors point out that over the time between the two phases of the study (2003 to 2006), there was a significant decrease in the number of people who hold the Exclusionist viewpoint in a relatively short period of time. And during the opened-ended questions, many respondents revealed their viewpoints as being tied directly to their comfort level with certain words, phrases or concepts. This shift might suggest that as more people are exposed to ways of life and love that are different or foreign to their experiences, people will be more open in what they count as a family.

Counted Out is an in-depth presentation of thoroughly-analyzed data but in an easy-to-read format and language. This book could be used as a text for classroom discussion, a monthly selection for your book club, or an insightful read over your next holiday. While academic in its approach and integrity, Counted Out is an engaging book. Through this presentation of data, we can see a more tolerant and accepting world in our near future. A world where individuals choose their own family structures and these varying structures are respected and accepted in society.

*The term ‘gay’ is used instead of ‘same-sex’ or ‘LGBTQ’ in accordance to the authors’ usage in the text.
Janelle Brazington lives with Matt, her cohabiting partner, in Kansas, where they are raising her daughter.

A close look at today’s families

Book review: Families As They Really Are edited by Barbara J. Risman

BY MICHAEL ORTIZ

Many of us harbor this sort of normative image of the “ideal” American family as a married, co-parental, child-producing, child-rearing, cohabiting, heterosexual, democratic, working or middle class unit which assumes an essential nature of its own and can prevail through policy and law. However, the strong message that Barbara J. Risman sends out in Families As They Really Are is that contemporary families come in all different forms, shapes, and sizes; outright defying any notion that non-traditional families represent some sort of social crisis. Various types of families have come to be defined as their members see fit; thus making for greater human connectivity and qualitative social bonds.

Families As They Really Are is an anthology consisting of 40 essays written by members of the Council on Contemporary Families with the intention of exploring families as they truly exist, why they exist in the ways that they do, and how the needs of these families can best be met. The purpose of this book, as stated by Risman, is to make a genuine difference in peoples’ lives by getting them to understand the circumstances in which they find themselves so that they may live their lives to the fullest extent possible. By breaking through all stereotypes and boundaries on personal, institutional, and state levels, families will indeed be able to exist and flourish as they really are.

The anthology is divided into five sections that focus specifically on certain aspects of family such as family conceptions, family creation, family resilience, and family relationships. What’s great about the book is that Risman begins part one by explaining scientific, causal, and correlative theories and approaches as they relate to the observed world around us; thus setting the foundation for how the anthology is constructed. For example, chapter three studies the correlation between unwed, single parent households and behavioral problems in children, but then explains how single parenthood is not the cause of children’s behavioral issues. In this way, we can begin to study and account for the social structure that encapsulates all familial phenomena.

Part two predominantly talks about the historical emergence of American family systems, marriage, gender, motherhood, and child socialization as they relate to developing economic production, exchange, land ownership, and patriarchal ideological structure. Chapter eight in particular explores the legal ramifications for changing family structures, and shows how new family forms challenge legal conceptualizations and traditional definitions of biologically-based families. This section also includes great work on interracial marriage and discusses childhood as a period of development that is not necessarily universal to all children, but rather, is socially constructed as it relates to existing social conditions.

Parts three and four generally focus on family quality in its many forms, as opposed to the promotion of one particular nuclear family structure as the ideal pinnacle. Chapter thirteen does a phenomenal job in studying cohabitation as “the most common form of co-residential romantic relationships” among U.S. households. It suggests that the state as an ideological apparatus has real problems viewing non-martial cohabitation as being legitimate. However, further studies in this section show that whether families are married or cohabiting, positive parental effects lead to better cognitive development of children and an overall positive household atmosphere. These sections cover an extensive amount of information beginning with the study of immigrant, gay and lesbian, low income, and divorced families, but ends up driving home the point that public policy reflects a real anxiety about sexual freedom, ability of people to marry, and redefined family forms.

Finally, part five is devoted exclusively to gender. In chapter 30, Risman does excellent work examining just how gender behavior plays out amongst middle school children. She shows how gender policing among children is really a form of socialization leading to the hegemonic reproduction of “normal” families. In this manner, dominant concepts of family are internalized. This section also touches on women’s involvement in the labor force, men’s involvement in the household, and domestic violence as an expression of patriarchal power in the family.

Families As They Really Are does a superb job in explaining the history of American families, illustrating diverse family forms, examining the intricate details of family interaction, and assessing the legal policies that directly affect all families. Risman arms her readers with the tools they need to dissect, analyze, and understand race, class, gender, and family formation. Those looking for ample evidence that family diversity is a good thing, will feel encouraged by what they discover in the pages of this fantastic anthology.

This book happens to be a great source for students and academics alike seeing as Risman also includes in depth review questions and exercises at the end of each section. Another great feature of the book is that Risman includes newspaper and media articles between certain essays. Hence, adding to the wealth of information already devoted to each topic. Once readers get through the entire text, they very well might feel as if they are connected to all types of families mentioned in the book; leading to the conclusion that we are all indeed part of one large human family.

Michael Ortiz is a Sociology grad student at CUNY Brooklyn College where he is currently working on a project studying conceptions of race amongst college students.

How big are we?

Today the Census Bureau sent a bunch of statistics to the media to help reporters write attention-getting articles about National Unmarried and Single Americans Week – the third full week of September (Sept. 19-25 in 2010).

To borrow a line from our friend Tom Coleman: much of the data in this press release is based on the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of only 50,000 households conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Because this sample is so small, it is subject to much greater error than the American Community Survey. Until all the data has been gathered and processed from the 2010 Census, we’ll keep using the 2006 – 2008 American Community Survey three-year estimates as our best source of information. The ACS uses a much bigger sample size, and combining three years of data makes it even bigger and more reliable.

For example, the 2008 3-year ACS estimates that less than half – 49.566% – of all households in the U.S. are occupied by married couples (with or without children or other people).

I haven’t yet found an ACS data-point for marital status of householder, though it is possible to work backwards into it. The CPS does report the marital status of householders, finding 3,348,000 married individuals who maintain households without their spouses. Some might be separated, or long-distance commuters, or married to someone who is in the military or incarcerated or just plain missing.

We think about these numbers a lot, because it means a lot to people to be “in the majority.” Somehow, there’s validation in numbers: people instinctively conflate “majority” and “average” with “normal” and “okay.” Of course, AtMP is here to say that unmarried people are perfectly normal and okay no matter how the stats tick up or down over the years. And of course, we celebrate the solidly consistent trends showing the unmarried community’s growth and diversity.

Behind the numbers of single black women

If you like charts and percentages, you’ll love this collection of figures comparing marriage rates by race & gender with a focus on people with high incomes / educations.

« Older Entries

Main Menu

Ways to be Unmarried

Donate

RSS

Meta

Archive for the ‘statistics’ Category

Unmarried votes should be prized in redistricting

Perhaps they all live alone

Responses to mixed-race and unmarried

The big tax deal shorted singles, again

Predictions for 2011

Calling all number-lovers

Americans’ varying definitions of family

A close look at today’s families

How big are we?

Behind the numbers of single black women

Search our Blog

Search our Website

Recent Posts

Categories

Blogroll

Editors