Love, Marriage... and Baby Carriages?









COUNCIL ON CONTEMPORARY FAMILIES RELEASES NEW ANALYSIS OF FERTILITY

TRENDS







Feb 11, 2008, 00:00 ET from Council on Contemporary Families

    CHICAGO, Feb. 11 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Just in time for
 Valentine's Day, demographer Steven Martin analyzes the latest data on
 childbearing trends among American women. In a briefing paper prepared for
 the Council on Contemporary Families, Martin explains:
 
 
 
     -- Although fertility rose in 2006, we are NOT witnessing the start of
 another baby boom. But we have reached the level at which the population is
 reproducing itself without added immigration.
 
     -- Love, baby carriage, and no marriage? Almost all the increase in
 births was accounted for by non-marital births, although educated women and
 very rich women, who are more likely to be married, also increased their
 birth rates.
 
     -- There has been a significant rise in the proportion of 3 and 4 child
 families among the super-rich, but this is confined to such a small sliver
 of the population that it does not affect national fertility rates.
 
     -- Women are increasingly delaying childbearing, and the fertility
 rates of educated and uneducated women seem to be undergoing a slow
 convergence.
 
     -- Higher birth rates of immigrants account for only a small part of
 the recent fertility rise.
 
     -- American women are more successful than women in most other
 industrial countries in being able to pursue higher education and develop
 careers without foregoing childbearing.
 
 
 
     Read the full briefing paper below and scroll to the bottom to contact
 Professor Martin. We have also included a list of other experts on related
 topics.
 
 
 
     Recent Changes in Fertility Rates in the United States: What Do They
 Tell Us about American's Changing Families?
 
     A Briefing Paper Prepared for the Council on Contemporary Families
 
     By Steven Martin, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of
 Maryland February 11, 2008
 
 
 
     The number of births in the US increased by 3 percent in 2006, and has
 now reached levels not seen since the baby boom (1961), according to a
 recent report released by the National Center for Health Statistics. (1)
 This development has generated considerable excitement, because the slow
 but persistent revival of fertility over the past several years has finally
 reached an average of 2.1 children per woman, crossing the threshold that
 puts us at above-replacement birth rates.
 
 
 
     For the first time in 35 years, the rate of births to American women
 averages out to a level at which the population will reproduce itself by
 births alone, without counting any population growth fueled by the arrival
 of new immigrants. Reaching that threshold is extremely significant because
 most other wealthy countries, from Canada, to Europe, to Japan, to Korea,
 have seen their fertility fall well below replacement level. (Our closest
 European counterpart is France, which has seen its fertility rate rise from
 1.66 in 1993 to 1.98 in 2007).
 
 
 
     Adding to the excitement has been a series of reports suggesting that
 in several big cities, there has been an increase in the number of affluent
 families with lots of children. (2) The Council on Contemporary Families
 has fielded hundreds of media calls asking "Is Three -or even Four - the
 new Two?" We have been asked to determine whether affluent families are
 spearheading a return to larger, more traditional families.
 
 
 
     This briefing paper provides answers to these and other questions that
 the press and public have been asking. It shows that the uptick in 3 and 4
 child families among the affluent is confined to only a tiny sliver of the
 population, not enough to affect the overall fertility rates, and is not
 typical of what is happening for the other 98 percent of the population.
 But it also shows that there have been very significant changes in the
 fertility patterns of well-educated (but not super-rich) women and of
 poorly educated, low-income women. The paper also addresses several other
 commonly asked questions about contemporary fertility patterns.
 
 
 
     I. Does the increase in fertility in 2006 show that we are witnessing
 the start of another baby boom, and that the United States is returning to
 more traditional family patterns?
 
 
 
     No.
 
 
 
     First, the total number of births may be larger than we have seen since
 the baby boom, but that is because the population is much larger. Fertility
 is rising in part because the number of women and men of childbearing age
 keeps rising due to an earlier baby boomlet now coming of age and in part
 because of more recent immigration.
 
 
 
     The increase in the number of potential mothers explains about 1/3 of
 the 2006 increase, with rising birth rates among potential mothers
 explaining the other 2/3. But there is no evidence to suggest that 3-child
 families are once again becoming as widespread as they were during the
 1950s. Indeed, the actual rise in fertility is not dramatic. The Total
 Fertility Rate has been hovering around 2.0 since 1990. It rose to 2.05 in
 2005 and 2.1 in 2006. This is a rather modest increase, worth noting
 primarily because it put us into the category where population would
 continue to rise even without any additional immigration or adoption from
 abroad.
 
 
 
     Furthermore, the increase in fertility is concentrated among a very
 non-traditional part of the female population. Almost all of the increase
 in births from 2005 to 2006 was in nonmarital births. Marital births
 increased from 2,611,000 in 2005 to 2,624,000 in 2006, or an increase of
 13,000. Nonmarital births increased from 1,527,000 to 1,642,000, or an
 increase of 117,000. Whatever the other issues associated with non-marital
 childbearing, it seems to be an important part of what has pushed America's
 fertility above the replacement rate.
 
 
 
     Most of these nonmarital births are to women in their 20s and 30s.
 Birth rates of teens are lower than they were in 1991. However, in 2006 the
 birth rate for teenagers rose by 3 percent after 14 years of decline. This
 might be a one-year aberration, but perhaps not. While teen birth rates
 declined in 2004 and 2005, those declines were smaller than any declines in
 the previous twelve years, so the increase in teen births in 2006 raised
 the teen birth rate to above 2003 levels. It is too early to explain the
 origins of the increase in teen births, which may stem from factors unique
 to that population. As soon as we have any data that will help answer this
 question, we will issue another research brief.
 
 
 
     II. Is the rise in birth rates due to the higher fertility rates of
 America's immigrants, or among Hispanics, an ethnic group with a large
 immigrant population?
 
 
 
     This question is difficult to answer precisely, because while the U.S.
 has pretty good records of births, it is difficult to get a representative
 sample of all immigrant women (who may or may not be mothers). Some
 government studies have estimated Total Fertility Rates as high as 2.9 for
 non-US-born women and for Hispanic women. (3) In contrast, Current
 Population Survey data from 2006 show average completed fertility at only
 2.1 children for non-US-born women age 40-44, and 2.3 children for Hispanic
 women age 40-44. These levels of completed fertility are higher than for
 the overall population (1.86 children), so immigration is having some
 effect on overall fertility. In a minor technical note, completed fertility
 levels are slightly lower than Total Fertility Rates for all races because
 completed fertility is affected by the slightly lower total fertility rates
 of the past three decades.
 
 
 
     III. What about the news stories suggesting that affluent families are
 leading a trend toward larger families?
 
 
 
     It depends how you define affluent. Families in the top 10 percent or
 even top 5 percent of household earnings aren't having detectably larger
 families. However, surveys that are able to distinguish families with
 earnings in the top 1 to 11/2 percent have shown some evidence for an
 increase. Two comparable surveys from 1996 and 2004 report that among women
 age 40-49 in the top 1.3 percent of household earnings, 29 percent had
 three or more children in 1996, but 41 percent had three or more children
 in 2004. These earnings levels work out to $300,000 per year in 1996 and
 $400,000 per year in 2004 (it takes more to be in the top 1.3 percent
 nowadays). The high proportion of 3 and 4 child families among the
 super-rich can affect the demographics in parts of Manhattan, but since it
 is confined to the very top 1.3 percent of households, it cannot explain
 measurable shifts in fertility at the national level. Moreover, historians
 point out that the super rich have historically tended to have more
 children than the middle layers of society, so this is hardly as
 unprecedented as some observers have assumed. Contemporary figures continue
 to confirm a long-standing pattern in industrial societies whereby the
 people in the top half of the income distribution tend to have fewer
 children than people in the bottom half.
 
 
 
     IV. So what's the REAL news here?
 
 
 
     Much more newsworthy than what may be happening to the 1.3 percent of
 the population in super-rich households are two trends that may mean much
 more to most Americans. One trend is the continuing increase in non-marital
 births I mentioned already. The other is a continuation of a long-term rise
 in delayed fertility. Birth rates for women age 30-34, 35-39, and 40-44
 increased 2 percent, 2 percent, and 3 percent respectively in 2006, and
 have been increasing for several decades. America is having more success
 than most advanced countries in allowing women to pursue higher education,
 delay marriage, and develop careers without having to forego childbearing.
 And despite the overall rise in non-marital births, women who pursue higher
 education are less likely than other women to have a child out of wedlock.
 
 
 
     One upshot of continued delays in fertility is a slow convergence in
 child-bearing rates between women in most economic categories and
 educational levels. If we go back to 1990, women who had not completed high
 school had an average of 2.7 children by their early forties, compared to
 only 1.5 children for women with a master's or professional degree. By
 2006, those numbers had closed to 2.5 children and 1.6 children
 respectively - a small convergence, but one that is playing out across the
 educational spectrum. In contrast to the increasing economic inequality
 over the past 10 years, we seem to be seeing a reduction in demographic
 inequality between women.
 
 
 
     1.) Brady E. Hamilton, Ph.D.; Joyce A. Martin, M.P.H.; and Stephanie J.
 Ventura, M.A., Division of Vital Statistics. 2007. Births: Preliminary Data
 for 2006. National Vital Statistics Reports 56(7).
 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_07.pdf
 
 
 
     2.) Sam Roberts. 2007. In Surge in Manhattan Toddlers, Rich White
 Families Lead Way. New York Times, March 23, 2007.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/nyregion/23kid.html
 
 
 
     3.) Author's Tabulations are from the June 1990 and June 2006 Current
 Population Surveys (CPS), and from the 1996 and 2004 Surveys of Income and
 Program Participation (SIPP). The CPS and the SIPP conducted by the US
 Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau. See also: American
 Community Survey Report ACS - 03. 2007. The American Community-Hispanics:
 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration.
 www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/acs-03.pdf
 
 
 
     For more information on this report, please contact Steven Martin at
 301-405-3464 or smartin@socy.umd.edu
 
 
 
     For further information on related topics:
 
     For further information on the socio-cultural consequences of late
 motherhood, please contact Michele Pridmore-Brown, Research Scholar, Gender
 and Women's Studies, University of California at Berkeley, mpb@berkeley.edu
 or michelepridmorebrown@gmail.com, 650-906-0108.
 
 
 
     On childbearing among cohabiting couples and social class differences
 in the family context of childbearing, contact Pamela Smock, Professor of
 Sociology and Associate Vice President for Research, University of
 Michigan-Ann Arbor, pjsmock@umich.edu or 734-763-1290.
 
 
 
     On the diversity of immigrant childbearing and family patterns, and the
 political and ideological implications of these, please contact Karen Pyke,
 Associate Professor, University of California, Riverside,
 karen.pyke@ucr.edu, 951-248-9197 (home, Pacific Coast time).
 
 
 
     For information on the barriers to marriage and stable relationships
 facing unwed low-income women who have a child, contact Paula England,
 Professor of Sociology, Stanford University, pengland@stanford.edu,
 650-723-4912 or 650-815-9308.
 
 
 
     On the decision-making process of women in their thirties and forties
 who are economically stable (heterosexual and lesbian) and consciously
 choosing single motherhood, please contact Rosanna Hertz, Luella LaMer
 Professor of Sociology and Women's Studies, Wellesley College,
 rhertz@wellesley.edu, 617-566-4331.
 
 
 
     For historical trends and international comparisons of women's work,
 marriage, and childbearing, contact Stephanie Coontz, Professor of History
 and Family Studies, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA, at
 coontzs@msnn.com, 360-556-9223.
 
 
 
     The Council on Contemporary Families, based at the University of
 Illinois at Chicago, is a non-profit, non-partisan association of prominent
 family researchers and clinicians whose aim is to make accessible to the
 press and public recent research on family formation, marriage, divorce,
 childhood and family diversity. For more information on CCF, go to
 http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org or contact Stephanie Coontz, Director
 of Research and Public Education, Council on Contemporary Families:
 coontzs@msn.com. Phone: 360 352-8117.
 
 
 
     MEDIA AWARDS: The CCF annual media awards nomination submission
 deadline is February 8, 2008. For information about how to submit, please
 visit
 www.contemporaryfamilies.org/subtemplate.php?t=pressReleases&ext=mediaaward
 s
 
 
 
     MARK YOUR CALENDARS FOR CCF CONFERENCE April 25-26: Family issues in
 Contention
 
     Family scholars--including historians, sociologists, psychologists,
 therapists, social workers, political scientists, and economists--meet this
 spring for the 11th annual conference of the Council on Contemporary
 Families. The conference, held April 25-26 at the University of
 Illinois-Chicago, will explore the latest research on youthful sex,
 adoption, cohabitation, and divorce. The program includes:
 
     -- A panel on the teen phenomenon of "hooking-up" with new research and
 commentators from diverse perspectives.
 
     -- Another workshop on the thorny question, "Is Transracial and
 Transnational Adoption the Right Policy for Parents? Children? Society?"
 
     -- Still another panel of demographers and clinical psychologists
 examines whether cohabitation is "good" for love or for marriage.
 
     -- And in an ongoing consideration of a complicated question, the
 latest thoughts of researchers and clinicians on divorce versus "sticking
 it out."
 
 
 
     Please watch our website, www.contemporaryfamilies.org for conference
 updates. Press may receive complimentary registration by contacting
 Stephanie Coontz at coontzs@msn.com.
 
 
 
     Media Contact: Stephanie Coontz
 
     coontzs@msn.com; 360 556-9223
 
 
 

SOURCE Council on Contemporary Families
    CHICAGO, Feb. 11 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Just in time for
 Valentine's Day, demographer Steven Martin analyzes the latest data on
 childbearing trends among American women. In a briefing paper prepared for
 the Council on Contemporary Families, Martin explains:
 
 
 
     -- Although fertility rose in 2006, we are NOT witnessing the start of
 another baby boom. But we have reached the level at which the population is
 reproducing itself without added immigration.
 
     -- Love, baby carriage, and no marriage? Almost all the increase in
 births was accounted for by non-marital births, although educated women and
 very rich women, who are more likely to be married, also increased their
 birth rates.
 
     -- There has been a significant rise in the proportion of 3 and 4 child
 families among the super-rich, but this is confined to such a small sliver
 of the population that it does not affect national fertility rates.
 
     -- Women are increasingly delaying childbearing, and the fertility
 rates of educated and uneducated women seem to be undergoing a slow
 convergence.
 
     -- Higher birth rates of immigrants account for only a small part of
 the recent fertility rise.
 
     -- American women are more successful than women in most other
 industrial countries in being able to pursue higher education and develop
 careers without foregoing childbearing.
 
 
 
     Read the full briefing paper below and scroll to the bottom to contact
 Professor Martin. We have also included a list of other experts on related
 topics.
 
 
 
     Recent Changes in Fertility Rates in the United States: What Do They
 Tell Us about American's Changing Families?
 
     A Briefing Paper Prepared for the Council on Contemporary Families
 
     By Steven Martin, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of
 Maryland February 11, 2008
 
 
 
     The number of births in the US increased by 3 percent in 2006, and has
 now reached levels not seen since the baby boom (1961), according to a
 recent report released by the National Center for Health Statistics. (1)
 This development has generated considerable excitement, because the slow
 but persistent revival of fertility over the past several years has finally
 reached an average of 2.1 children per woman, crossing the threshold that
 puts us at above-replacement birth rates.
 
 
 
     For the first time in 35 years, the rate of births to American women
 averages out to a level at which the population will reproduce itself by
 births alone, without counting any population growth fueled by the arrival
 of new immigrants. Reaching that threshold is extremely significant because
 most other wealthy countries, from Canada, to Europe, to Japan, to Korea,
 have seen their fertility fall well below replacement level. (Our closest
 European counterpart is France, which has seen its fertility rate rise from
 1.66 in 1993 to 1.98 in 2007).
 
 
 
     Adding to the excitement has been a series of reports suggesting that
 in several big cities, there has been an increase in the number of affluent
 families with lots of children. (2) The Council on Contemporary Families
 has fielded hundreds of media calls asking "Is Three -or even Four - the
 new Two?" We have been asked to determine whether affluent families are
 spearheading a return to larger, more traditional families.
 
 
 
     This briefing paper provides answers to these and other questions that
 the press and public have been asking. It shows that the uptick in 3 and 4
 child families among the affluent is confined to only a tiny sliver of the
 population, not enough to affect the overall fertility rates, and is not
 typical of what is happening for the other 98 percent of the population.
 But it also shows that there have been very significant changes in the
 fertility patterns of well-educated (but not super-rich) women and of
 poorly educated, low-income women. The paper also addresses several other
 commonly asked questions about contemporary fertility patterns.
 
 
 
     I. Does the increase in fertility in 2006 show that we are witnessing
 the start of another baby boom, and that the United States is returning to
 more traditional family patterns?
 
 
 
     No.
 
 
 
     First, the total number of births may be larger than we have seen since
 the baby boom, but that is because the population is much larger. Fertility
 is rising in part because the number of women and men of childbearing age
 keeps rising due to an earlier baby boomlet now coming of age and in part
 because of more recent immigration.
 
 
 
     The increase in the number of potential mothers explains about 1/3 of
 the 2006 increase, with rising birth rates among potential mothers
 explaining the other 2/3. But there is no evidence to suggest that 3-child
 families are once again becoming as widespread as they were during the
 1950s. Indeed, the actual rise in fertility is not dramatic. The Total
 Fertility Rate has been hovering around 2.0 since 1990. It rose to 2.05 in
 2005 and 2.1 in 2006. This is a rather modest increase, worth noting
 primarily because it put us into the category where population would
 continue to rise even without any additional immigration or adoption from
 abroad.
 
 
 
     Furthermore, the increase in fertility is concentrated among a very
 non-traditional part of the female population. Almost all of the increase
 in births from 2005 to 2006 was in nonmarital births. Marital births
 increased from 2,611,000 in 2005 to 2,624,000 in 2006, or an increase of
 13,000. Nonmarital births increased from 1,527,000 to 1,642,000, or an
 increase of 117,000. Whatever the other issues associated with non-marital
 childbearing, it seems to be an important part of what has pushed America's
 fertility above the replacement rate.
 
 
 
     Most of these nonmarital births are to women in their 20s and 30s.
 Birth rates of teens are lower than they were in 1991. However, in 2006 the
 birth rate for teenagers rose by 3 percent after 14 years of decline. This
 might be a one-year aberration, but perhaps not. While teen birth rates
 declined in 2004 and 2005, those declines were smaller than any declines in
 the previous twelve years, so the increase in teen births in 2006 raised
 the teen birth rate to above 2003 levels. It is too early to explain the
 origins of the increase in teen births, which may stem from factors unique
 to that population. As soon as we have any data that will help answer this
 question, we will issue another research brief.
 
 
 
     II. Is the rise in birth rates due to the higher fertility rates of
 America's immigrants, or among Hispanics, an ethnic group with a large
 immigrant population?
 
 
 
     This question is difficult to answer precisely, because while the U.S.
 has pretty good records of births, it is difficult to get a representative
 sample of all immigrant women (who may or may not be mothers). Some
 government studies have estimated Total Fertility Rates as high as 2.9 for
 non-US-born women and for Hispanic women. (3) In contrast, Current
 Population Survey data from 2006 show average completed fertility at only
 2.1 children for non-US-born women age 40-44, and 2.3 children for Hispanic
 women age 40-44. These levels of completed fertility are higher than for
 the overall population (1.86 children), so immigration is having some
 effect on overall fertility. In a minor technical note, completed fertility
 levels are slightly lower than Total Fertility Rates for all races because
 completed fertility is affected by the slightly lower total fertility rates
 of the past three decades.
 
 
 
     III. What about the news stories suggesting that affluent families are
 leading a trend toward larger families?
 
 
 
     It depends how you define affluent. Families in the top 10 percent or
 even top 5 percent of household earnings aren't having detectably larger
 families. However, surveys that are able to distinguish families with
 earnings in the top 1 to 11/2 percent have shown some evidence for an
 increase. Two comparable surveys from 1996 and 2004 report that among women
 age 40-49 in the top 1.3 percent of household earnings, 29 percent had
 three or more children in 1996, but 41 percent had three or more children
 in 2004. These earnings levels work out to $300,000 per year in 1996 and
 $400,000 per year in 2004 (it takes more to be in the top 1.3 percent
 nowadays). The high proportion of 3 and 4 child families among the
 super-rich can affect the demographics in parts of Manhattan, but since it
 is confined to the very top 1.3 percent of households, it cannot explain
 measurable shifts in fertility at the national level. Moreover, historians
 point out that the super rich have historically tended to have more
 children than the middle layers of society, so this is hardly as
 unprecedented as some observers have assumed. Contemporary figures continue
 to confirm a long-standing pattern in industrial societies whereby the
 people in the top half of the income distribution tend to have fewer
 children than people in the bottom half.
 
 
 
     IV. So what's the REAL news here?
 
 
 
     Much more newsworthy than what may be happening to the 1.3 percent of
 the population in super-rich households are two trends that may mean much
 more to most Americans. One trend is the continuing increase in non-marital
 births I mentioned already. The other is a continuation of a long-term rise
 in delayed fertility. Birth rates for women age 30-34, 35-39, and 40-44
 increased 2 percent, 2 percent, and 3 percent respectively in 2006, and
 have been increasing for several decades. America is having more success
 than most advanced countries in allowing women to pursue higher education,
 delay marriage, and develop careers without having to forego childbearing.
 And despite the overall rise in non-marital births, women who pursue higher
 education are less likely than other women to have a child out of wedlock.
 
 
 
     One upshot of continued delays in fertility is a slow convergence in
 child-bearing rates between women in most economic categories and
 educational levels. If we go back to 1990, women who had not completed high
 school had an average of 2.7 children by their early forties, compared to
 only 1.5 children for women with a master's or professional degree. By
 2006, those numbers had closed to 2.5 children and 1.6 children
 respectively - a small convergence, but one that is playing out across the
 educational spectrum. In contrast to the increasing economic inequality
 over the past 10 years, we seem to be seeing a reduction in demographic
 inequality between women.
 
 
 
     1.) Brady E. Hamilton, Ph.D.; Joyce A. Martin, M.P.H.; and Stephanie J.
 Ventura, M.A., Division of Vital Statistics. 2007. Births: Preliminary Data
 for 2006. National Vital Statistics Reports 56(7).
 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_07.pdf
 
 
 
     2.) Sam Roberts. 2007. In Surge in Manhattan Toddlers, Rich White
 Families Lead Way. New York Times, March 23, 2007.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/nyregion/23kid.html
 
 
 
     3.) Author's Tabulations are from the June 1990 and June 2006 Current
 Population Surveys (CPS), and from the 1996 and 2004 Surveys of Income and
 Program Participation (SIPP). The CPS and the SIPP conducted by the US
 Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau. See also: American
 Community Survey Report ACS - 03. 2007. The American Community-Hispanics:
 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration.
 www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/acs-03.pdf
 
 
 
     For more information on this report, please contact Steven Martin at
 301-405-3464 or smartin@socy.umd.edu
 
 
 
     For further information on related topics:
 
     For further information on the socio-cultural consequences of late
 motherhood, please contact Michele Pridmore-Brown, Research Scholar, Gender
 and Women's Studies, University of California at Berkeley, mpb@berkeley.edu
 or michelepridmorebrown@gmail.com, 650-906-0108.
 
 
 
     On childbearing among cohabiting couples and social class differences
 in the family context of childbearing, contact Pamela Smock, Professor of
 Sociology and Associate Vice President for Research, University of
 Michigan-Ann Arbor, pjsmock@umich.edu or 734-763-1290.
 
 
 
     On the diversity of immigrant childbearing and family patterns, and the
 political and ideological implications of these, please contact Karen Pyke,
 Associate Professor, University of California, Riverside,
 karen.pyke@ucr.edu, 951-248-9197 (home, Pacific Coast time).
 
 
 
     For information on the barriers to marriage and stable relationships
 facing unwed low-income women who have a child, contact Paula England,
 Professor of Sociology, Stanford University, pengland@stanford.edu,
 650-723-4912 or 650-815-9308.
 
 
 
     On the decision-making process of women in their thirties and forties
 who are economically stable (heterosexual and lesbian) and consciously
 choosing single motherhood, please contact Rosanna Hertz, Luella LaMer
 Professor of Sociology and Women's Studies, Wellesley College,
 rhertz@wellesley.edu, 617-566-4331.
 
 
 
     For historical trends and international comparisons of women's work,
 marriage, and childbearing, contact Stephanie Coontz, Professor of History
 and Family Studies, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA, at
 coontzs@msnn.com, 360-556-9223.
 
 
 
     The Council on Contemporary Families, based at the University of
 Illinois at Chicago, is a non-profit, non-partisan association of prominent
 family researchers and clinicians whose aim is to make accessible to the
 press and public recent research on family formation, marriage, divorce,
 childhood and family diversity. For more information on CCF, go to
 http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org or contact Stephanie Coontz, Director
 of Research and Public Education, Council on Contemporary Families:
 coontzs@msn.com. Phone: 360 352-8117.
 
 
 
     MEDIA AWARDS: The CCF annual media awards nomination submission
 deadline is February 8, 2008. For information about how to submit, please
 visit
 www.contemporaryfamilies.org/subtemplate.php?t=pressReleases&ext=mediaaward
 s
 
 
 
     MARK YOUR CALENDARS FOR CCF CONFERENCE April 25-26: Family issues in
 Contention
 
     Family scholars--including historians, sociologists, psychologists,
 therapists, social workers, political scientists, and economists--meet this
 spring for the 11th annual conference of the Council on Contemporary
 Families. The conference, held April 25-26 at the University of
 Illinois-Chicago, will explore the latest research on youthful sex,
 adoption, cohabitation, and divorce. The program includes:
 
     -- A panel on the teen phenomenon of "hooking-up" with new research and
 commentators from diverse perspectives.
 
     -- Another workshop on the thorny question, "Is Transracial and
 Transnational Adoption the Right Policy for Parents? Children? Society?"
 
     -- Still another panel of demographers and clinical psychologists
 examines whether cohabitation is "good" for love or for marriage.
 
     -- And in an ongoing consideration of a complicated question, the
 latest thoughts of researchers and clinicians on divorce versus "sticking
 it out."
 
 
 
     Please watch our website, www.contemporaryfamilies.org for conference
 updates. Press may receive complimentary registration by contacting
 Stephanie Coontz at coontzs@msn.com.
 
 
 
     Media Contact: Stephanie Coontz
 
     coontzs@msn.com; 360 556-9223
 
 
 SOURCE Council on Contemporary Families