What happens when grandma isn't around?

I often get calls from researchers, reporters, etc. regarding the common forms of child care. It is often quickly apparent that the standard definition of child care and the perceived and maybe even more "public" definition of child care very different.

I analyze child care used by both working and non-working mothers and broadly define child care providers under two groups: relative or nonrelative. Relatives includes mothers, fathers, siblings, grandparents, etc. Whereas nonrelatives includes babysitters, neighbors/friends, child care centers, nursery schools, etc.

I find the "public" perception of child care is usually limited to nonrelative care, namely organized child care such as centers and nursery/preschools. Certainly organized child care use has grown over the last twenty years, but relatives still play a vital role in helping working mothers. Grandparents prehaps play the biggest role. In 2005, 4.6 million preschoolers were cared for by their grandparents (Who's Minding the Kids: Spring 2005).

This brings me to Allison Gilbert's recent book, Parentless Parents. Gilbert examines how the lack of grandparents impacts families. Changes in fertility and mobility have made it increasingly likely that parents may not have access to their own parents to help look after their children or pass on family traditions. It's an interesting and often ignored issue. I suggest checking the book out, plus I think Gilbert cites me but I can't promise what I said was any near brilliant ;)

Comparing Measures: Child care costs, CPS, and SIPP

As part of the Census Bureau's mission to develop a supplemental poverty measure, a colleague and I recently completed a working paper comparing child care costs between the 2010 Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC) and the 2004 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) Child Care topical module.

The CPS ASEC is one of the main surveys used by the Census Bureau (and the bench mark for much of the federal government) to measure poverty. Child care expenses are an important part of the supplemental poverty measure and it is important that accurate data is collected. New questions regarding child care costs were added to the 2010 CPS ASEC. Our paper compare those results with SIPP (the best source of child care related expenses).

We found that costs estimates collected by CPS ASEC were similar to SIPP, with a few limitations.

The full paper can be found here.

Census Data Release Schedule 2010-2011

The folks over at Data Detectives complied a schedule for data and statistical releases for the next year for the 2010 Census, the American Community Survey (ACS), and other Census products. So, instead of reinventing the wheel, I will just share their handy information for all you data geeks.

Late September 2010
2009 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year estimates for areas with a population of 65,000 or more.

Mid-December 2010
2005-9 5-years estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS) for geographies down to the block group level.

December 2010
2010 demographic analysis estimates of national population by age, sex, and race (Black and nonblack). Not from the 2010 Census, but estimates based on historical data on births and deaths and estimates of immigration and emigration. This information is used, in part, to estimate the accuracy of the 2010 Census.

By December 31, 2010
The apportionment counts will be delivered to the President will be delivered to the President within nine months of Census Day (on or before December 31, 2010), as required by law. This report will show the apportionment population counts, by state, and the number of seats in the US House of Representatives apportioned to each state.

February-March 2011
2010 Census Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File - redistricting data to the 50 states consisting of small-area data the states will need to redraw districts for the state legislature:
* State population counts for race and Hispanic or Latino categories
* State housing unit counts by occupancy status (occupied units, vacant units)
Media: Internet tables, DVD, download capability
Lowest level of geography: Blocks

April 2011
National Summary File of Redistricting Data:
* Population and housing unit counts for the United States, regions, divisions, and American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Areas
Media: Internet tables, download capability
Lowest level of geography: American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian areas

May 2011
Demographic Profile:
* Selected population and housing characteristics
* Includes Congressional Districts of the 111th Congress
Media: Internet quick tables, download capability
Lowest level of geography: Places/Functioning Minor Civil Divisions

June-August 2011
Summary File 1 (SF 1) for States:
* Population counts for 63 race categories and Hispanic or Latino down to block level.
* Population counts for many detailed race and Hispanic or Latino categories, and American Indian and Alaska Native tribes down to Census tracts.
* Selected population and housing characteristics down to blocks/Census tracts.

November 2011
Summary File 1 (SF 1) National Update:
* Counts for the United States, regions, divisions, and geographic areas that cross state lines such as American Indian Areas and Core-Based Statistical Areas.

December 2011-April 2012
Summary File 2 (SF 2):
* Population and housing characteristics iterated for many detailed race and Hispanic or Latino categories, and American Indian and Alaska Native tribes down to Census tracts.

Dates To Be Determined
Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) Files
* Includes age, sex, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, household type and relationship, and tenure data with identifying information removed, down to PUMAs of 100,000+ population.
Media: DVD, download capability

Summer child care arrangements vary

At last! My report is now public. From the press release:

Children are less likely to have regular child care arrangements during the school break in the summer — about 55 percent of preschoolers and 58 percent of grade-schoolers were not in a regular child care placement during the summer of 2006. According to a new U.S. Census Bureau report, those children who do have regular arrangements typically spend more hours in child care during the summer than the rest of the year.

Relatives continued to play an important role in child care during the summer with half of preschoolers and nearly half of all grade-schoolers of employed mothers receiving child care from relatives. These findings are in a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau based on the 2005-2006 Survey of Income and Program Participation.

The report, Who's Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: Spring 2005/Summer 2006 [PDF], provides an analysis of data released in February 2008. These data show the number and characteristics of children in different types of child care arrangements, the differences between child care for preschoolers and older children and the extent of self-care. Information is also provided about the cost of child care arrangements and the number of fathers providing care for their children. Additionally, the report examines new topics such as summer child care arrangements for both preschoolers and grade-schoolers.

“The most recent data provide us with a unique opportunity to examine child care arrangements during summer months and shed light on how families manage the gap between the school year and summer,” said Lynda Laughlin, a family demographer with the Census Bureau.

Several factors can explain the difference between child care in the summer and the rest of the year. For example, school itself is an important source of child care; children are not typically enrolled in school during the summer. Other factors include the closing of child care facilities, the irregularity of work schedules and the occurrence of vacations.

The amount of time spent in organized care for grade-schoolers increased from three hours per week in spring 2005 to 13 hours per week in summer 2006.

Overall, employed mothers were more likely to have regular child care arrangements than nonemployed mothers. In summer 2006, of the 23.7 million grade school-age children whose mothers were employed, 52 percent were in a regular arrangement, compared with 20 percent of the 12.3 million grade school-age children of nonemployed mothers.

Other highlights:

• In spring 2005, 23 percent of preschoolers were regularly cared for by a grandparent and 16 percent were cared for by their father.
• Self-care was much more prevalent among middle school-age children than among those in elementary school: 6 percent of children ages 5 to 11, and 37 percent of ages 12 to 14, regularly cared for themselves. Among all children, the average time spent in self-care was six hours per week.
• Families with an employed mother and children younger than age 15 paid an average of $6,000 a year for child care, an increase of more than $1,000 from a generation ago.
• Families in poverty who paid for child care in 2005 spent a greater portion of their monthly income on child care than did families at or above the poverty level (29 percent compared with 7 percent).
• The percent of the family monthly income spent on child care stayed relatively constant between 1997 and 2005, at around 7 percent.

More child care information can be found on the Census Child Care webpage.

Children are "economically worthless but emotionally priceless"

Maybe it just me, but it seems like interwebs are full of pieces about the hassle of children and the growth of childless couples. I used to think I wanted children, but that was when I was in a different relationship status. Now, I don't know what I think about this whole baby thing. Does it make me selfish? Would having children make me happy? Maybe, maybe not. According to a recent article in the New York Magazine...children are making my generation miserable. Oh, the torture of modern life.

From the article:
"From the perspective of the species, it’s perfectly unmysterious why people have children. From the perspective of the individual, however, it’s more of a mystery than one might think. Most people assume that having children will make them happier. Yet a wide variety of academic research shows that parents are not happier than their childless peers, and in many cases are less so. This finding is surprisingly consistent, showing up across a range of disciplines."

The whole article reminds of the brilliant book, The Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz. We continue hold up the family of the past as this relic and something to be admired and achieved. Yet, there are benefits and disadvantages to every new generation of families and it's time that researchers, especially demographers and sociologists, push to examine and define families in a new light. Children don't serve as workers anymore for the family farm, but have became an emotional investment. For some, the emotional investment is just not worth the time or money...but it certainly doesn't make childless people any less worthy or interesting than those with children. It just means that we are forming different types of families and need new definitions and policies to support all groups appropriately. In the mean time, try not to be sad about the children that you do or don't have.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

It seems like everyday a new study comes out regarding the new challenges of modern fertility for American women. If you want too long to have a baby, then you risk having twins, a child with a disability, or just being an old mom. Now new research suggests that women who wait until their 30s to have children fare better economically than women who have their first child in their 20s.

From USA Today:

"Researchers at the University of Maryland in College Park and the University of California at Los Angeles reviewed 35 years of data from some 2,200 women born between 1944 and 1954, and found that women who had kids in the early- to mid-20s or even younger didn't fare as well economically as those who delayed."

One of the authors of the study, Joan Kahn goes on to explain:

"The point, she says, is that women who are younger when they have kids and attempt to get back into the workforce later may not have that up-front investment in education and training, which those who have kids later benefit from. They earned equivalent wages and had higher status occupations just like women who were childless.

"Women get trapped, based on their early decisions," Kahn says."

As I see it, women are trapped either way. Should women challenge their biological clocks and wait to have children, or have children when it biological easier and safer. The biology of child bearing has not evolved with the changing labor force participation of women or even with the fact that women and men are living longer. I hope the take away message from this study is not that women should wait until their mid-30s to have children, but we as a nation need comprehensive work and family policies to support workers and their families.

Economists are not the only social scientists

A recent piece in the Wall Street Journal highlights how the social sciences are experiencing a rebirth. Part of this rebirth is due to popular books such as The Tipping Point or Freakonomics.

It's not entirely surprising to me that the article focuses primarily on the gaining popularity of economists. There is little mention of sociology. While much of the research performed by sociologists is easily applicable to everyday issues, sociology still struggles to become more public. Certainly part of blame rests on sociologists themselves. When I was in graduate school the only viable job option was to become a professor. However, I quickly realized that was easier said than done and started to broaden my job search outside of the academy. Sociology departments need to be realistic about the "real" job market available to sociology students. While I don't always agree with economic theory and methods, it always seems easier for the public (and employers) to embrace economists. Sociologists are lovable too, we're just a bit judgmental until we get to know you.

You've got the form...Now fill it out and mail it back!

The official 2010 Census form arrived in mailboxes across the country starting March 15th. It took my maybe 2 minutes to fill it out. So now that you've got the form, mail it back!

A better poverty measure

Pretty exciting news from the Census Bureau. The Census will begin developing an alternative way to measure poverty. Currently poverty is based on a formal developed in the 1960s, when food costs where a larger share of a household's income. Now food is less expensive and housing, child care, and medical expenses dominate.

While this is a big step forward in terms of better understanding the nature of poverty in the United States, changing the official poverty measure will most likely take years and a lot of political wrangling.

For more detailed information about this change see the Center for American Progress

Depending on how you measure it, marriage has and still benefits men

A new report from Pew shows that married women have made large gains in earnings and education, sometimes out earning their husbands. Maybe it's because I have been listening to too much punk rock lately, but this quote about the report really set me off today:

"What's radically changed is that marriage now is a better deal for men," said Richard Fry, co-author of the report, published by the Pew Research Center. "Now when men marry, often their spouse works quite a bit. Often she is better-educated than the guy." In 1970, unmarried men "had a higher economic status than married guys," he said, "but no longer." (Source: Washington Post)

Apparently Mr. Fry hasn't had a chance to review work by Heidi Hartmann or Nancy Folbre, but marriage has traditionally benefited men. Stay-at-home wives/mothers don't earn a "wage" for housework and child care but these acts of emotional labor certainly benefit husbands/fathers. Or maybe Mr. Fry also forgot Arlie Hochschild's work on how working wives not only work an 8-hour day but then come home to work a "second shift" of caring for the house and children.

The amount of time fathers spend on housework and child care has increased in the last few decades, but we are still a long ways off from having balanced families where all responsibilities are equally shared. As I see it, neither wives or husbands are gaining as the average family struggles to find affordable housing, must endure long commutes to work, and face an insufficient social welfare system that does not value ALL types of families.

Federal statistics are a bargain for taxpayers

The New Republic reports the 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act signed by President Obama. The act will provide additional financial support to agencies that generate demographic, economic, and social statistical data. The largest amount goes to the Census Bureau to ensure better data collection and timely products from the 2010 Census, the American Community Survey, and the Local Employment Dynamics Program.

Data from federal surveys is free and easy to use, so this is a win-win for the federal statistical agencies and public data users. Data geeks unite!

Preview the 2010 Census

Before you now it, the 2010 Census will be here and it is critical that you and your household fill it out. The 2010 Census is the one of the shortest forms in history, with only 10 questions. Most of the detailed social and economic data is now collected by the American Community Survey.

Beginning in March, the Census Bureau will deliver a short 10-question form to every household in America. Respondents should fill out the form to account for everyone living at his/her address as of April 1, 2010. The 2010 Census includes a prepaid envelope with the form, so respondents can mail it back as soon as possible.

You can check out the form here.

Father Involvement with Children Following Marital and Non-Marital Separations

A paper that I co-authored with Danielle Farrie and Jay Fagan has finally been published in the journal Fathering.

Abstract
Using data from the Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study, the present study examines levels of father involvement with children between married and cohabiting couples post-separation. Differences in father involvement were analyzed using three hypotheses and one research question- repartnering,traditional values, human capital, and relationship quality. Multiple regression analysis revealed that previously cohabitating fathers were more involved with children than previously married fathers, although not all measures of involvement were significantly related to prior marital status. Findings point to several policy implications for low income couples with children.

To cite:
Laughlin, L., Farrie, D., and Fagan, J. (2009). Father Involvement with Children Following Marital and Non-Marital Separations. Fathering, 73(3), 226-248.

The article can be found here.

Employment Opportunities in the New Economy for PhDs

I will be speaking about employment opportunities outside of academics at the upcoming Sociologists for Women in Society meeting in San Fransisco. I will talk about employment opportunities for sociologists in the government sector as well as the difference between a government and non-government job search. I will also discuss the role of "public" sociology and how to increase the presence of sociologists beyond the ivory tower. If you, or your students, will be at the SWS meeting or the Annual American Sociological Association meeting, I hope you will stop by.


A full description of the panel is below:
Saturday, August 8th
12:30pm

"Beyond the Tenure-Track: Employment Opportunities in the New Economy for PhDs"

Panelists: Lynda Laughlin, Eleanor Lyon, Christine Morton, and Margaret Weigers Vitullo

Co-sponsored by SWS Student Concerns and Career Development Committees.

A group of experts who have held a range of positions provide information and ideas about finding, attaining, and succeeding in a range of jobs including government positions, non-governmental organizations, consulting, and research organizations. Panelists also discuss how to develop professional networks outside academia, how to recognize and develop the skills that are in demand, and how to translate ourselves, skills, and interests to a wider marketplace.

Michele Bachmann is an Idiot

A co-worker recently brought to my attention what an idiot Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is when it comes to national data. Bachmann told a local news station in Minneapolis that she won't provide any information, beyond the number of individuals in her household, on the upcoming 2010 Census. The Representative cites concerns about the government collecting social and economic information. How nice of her to at least fill out how individuals live in her household, since it is the population count that determines the location of congressional districts. I guess she knows that her job depends on the size of her Congressional district.

Her statements regarding the Census and federal statistical data in general, are dissapointing especially because she is an elected official and should know better. Census data is a vital community tool and provides imporant social and economic information that can be used to improve schools, roads, and other services that individuals in congressional districts like Bachmann's use on daily. If she doen't want the governement to know how much her household makes, does that mean she refuses to file her taxes with the IRS? Compared to corporate American, the federal statistical surveys only provide basic information about the American public. The credit care industry knows more about the income and spending habits of the American public, as do grocery stores. One swipe of the bounus card tracks your spending habits and personal shopping desires. Which probably explains why I get a lot of spam regarding feline care and natural peanut butter.

The Census helps to document the pluse of America and provides vital information about the livliehood of American communities, data that is critical during these economic times. The information provided to the Census is highly protected and privacy is of the upmost concern of the Census and its employees. Bachmann's statements regarding the Decennial Census are insluting to the American people and the good people at the Census Bureau who take their jobs seriously.

Don't listen to Bachmann and fill out your Census come next April. Your community depends on it.

Maybe this is why pregnaut mothers are smug? They're older and know what they want.

New data from the National Center for Health Statistics shows the number of children born out of wedlock has risen sharply over the past decade. The trend is being driven primarily by women in their 20s and 30s. Single mothers, while still economically disadvantaged, defining who is a single mother is changing. During the 1980s and 1990s, the educational, employment, and occupational attainment of single mothers increased. Thus, women are becoming more financially independent, often putting off marriage, and having children later. Additionally, determining who is a single mother can be difficult. Some single mothers are cohabiting, some live with their parents or other relatives, and many nonresident fathers are very involved in parenting. Families are changing and so are single mama's.

***********************************************************************************

Number of Unwed Mothers Has Risen Sharply in U.S.
Women in 20s, 30s Are Driving Trend, Report Shows

By Rob Stein and Donna St. George
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 14, 2009

Katrina Stanfield, 25, is raising her 3-year-old daughter in Middletown, Md., without a husband because she and her boyfriend decided that marriage would not work for them.

Heidy Gonzalez, 21, is living with her two children and their father in Mount Rainier, but tying the knot is not a priority for them now.

Emily Smatchetti, 38, is a single mother of a toddler in Miami because she had not found the right man and worried that time was running out. So she found a sperm donor.

The mothers are part of a far-reaching social trend unfolding across the United States: The number of children being born out of wedlock has risen sharply in recent years, driven primarily by women in their 20s and 30s opting to have children without getting married. Nearly four out of every 10 births are now to unmarried women.

"It's been a huge increase -- a dramatic increase," said Stephanie J. Ventura of the National Center for Health Statistics, which documented the shift in detail yesterday for the first time, based on an analysis of birth certificates nationwide. "It's quite striking."

Although the report did not examine the reasons for the increase, Ventura and other experts cite a confluence of factors, including a lessening of the social stigma associated with unmarried motherhood, an increase in couples delaying or forgoing marriage, and growing numbers of financially independent women and older and single women deciding to have children on their own after delaying childbearing.

"I think this is the tipping point," said Rosanna Hertz, a professor of sociology and women's studies at Wellesley College. "This is becoming increasingly the norm. The old adage that 'first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes baby in the baby carriage' just no longer holds true."

The trend has unfolded despite decades of political and social hand-wringing over the issue, such as Vice President Dan Quayle's attack on the unmarried television mother Murphy Brown, President Bill Clinton's revamp of welfare and President George W. Bush's focus on "family values." President Obama has said that one of his priorities is reducing abortions, in part by helping women who become pregnant and want to keep their children.

Some experts said the trend represents a positive change for many women, allowing them to avoid becoming social outcasts, being forced to give up their babies for adoption or having abortions, and letting them raise children in nontraditional families.

"Women can have children on their own, and it's not going to destroy your employment, and it's not going to mean that you'll be made a pariah by the community," Hertz said. "It's much more socially acceptable."

But others said the trend is disturbing because children who grow up without stable, two-parent families tend not to fare as well in many ways.

"I look at this and say, maybe this trend is what young adults want or stumble into, but it's not in the best interest of children," said Sarah Brown, chief executive of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

About 1.7 million babies were born to unmarried women in 2007, a 26 percent rise from 1.4 million in 2002 and more than double the number in 1980, according to the new report. Unmarried women accounted for 39.7 percent of all U.S. births in 2007 -- up from 34 percent in 2002 and more than double the percentage in 1980.

"If you see 10 babies in the room, four them were born to women who were not married," Ventura said.

Although experts have been concerned about a recent uptick in births to older teenagers after years of decline, that is not the driving force in the overall trend but more likely a reflection of it, Ventura said. Instead, much of the rise is due to significant increases in births among unmarried women in their 20s and 30s. Between 2002 and 2006, the rate at which unmarried women in that age group were having babies increased between 13 percent and 34 percent, the report found.

The rates increased for all races, but they remained highest and rose fastest for Hispanics and blacks. There were 106 births to every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women in 2006, 72 per 1,000 blacks, 32 per 1,000 whites and 26 per 1,000 Asians, the report showed.

The percentage of babies born to unmarried women in the United States is starting to look more like that in many European countries, the data shows. For example, the proportion of babies born to unmarried women is about 66 percent in Iceland, 55 percent in Sweden, 50 percent in France and 44 percent in the United Kingdom.

In many of those countries, couples are living together instead of getting married, which is also the case in the United States. Previous research indicates that about 40 percent of births to unmarried women occur in households where couples are cohabitating.

Gonzalez, the mother who lives with her children's father in Mount Rainier, said marriage has not loomed as a necessity for them. "Time goes by and we think about other stuff -- and we think about rent," she said. This holds true, she said, for most of her friends. "Most of the people I know just live with their baby's father or boyfriend and don't get married," she said.

Other couples today feel less compelled to marry just because they are having a child.

"It seems to be more wrong to be in a marriage with someone who you don't love and consider to be your best friend than not to be in a marriage at all," said Barbara Katz Rothman, a professor of sociology at the City University of New York. "It's not that people care less about marriage. In some ways, it's because they care more."

Stanfield and her boyfriend tried living together after she got pregnant, but he moved out when it became clear to both of them that they were not compatible, she said.

"He's a good dad and a good person, but he's just not right for me," Stanfield said.

In New Carrollton, Natrice McKenzie, 25, a teller supervisor at a bank, said she did not set out to become a single mother but has no regrets.

"Getting married was something I had in mind, but that basically was not what happened," said McKenzie, pregnant with her third child. She said it can be difficult, and she knows she is far from unique. "Nowadays it's becoming more like, single moms are everywhere," she said.

Alana Hill, 33, sees family history as an important influence. A single mother in Silver Spring who works as a dancer and a dance teacher, Hill was raised by a single mother and was part of a large extended family in which most of the mothers were not married. Except for grandparents, "I didn't have a role model of a husband and a wife who were married for years," she said. Even when she was very young, her foremost wish, she said, was motherhood, not marriage. "I knew I wanted a child," she said.

Smatchetti, who works as a U.S. attorney in Miami, said she is glad that she had the option of using a sperm donor after a long-term relationship ended.

"I didn't want to pick the wrong person just to have kid, so I just decided to go ahead and do it and work on the relationship later," she said. "It's hard, but in a good way."

So what if you are going to be a mom....

Yeah, so you're going to have a baby. Well, here's a song for you.

I have a crush on an economist.

It's true, I have a undeniable crush on an economist. I usually find most economists undesriable because of their strict adherence to economic models that don't allow for irrational thoughts or behavior. But this economist is different. Oh Peter Orzsag, you had me at your first power-point slide at the recent National Academies meeting on the federal statistical system.

Orszag is the director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Basically, he's the budget guy for the entire federal government. He has also held positions with the Congressional Budget Office and the Brookings Institution.

Apparently, I am not alone. He's clearly a smart and accomplished individual and it's no surprise that he has developed a following. However, my crush on him is mostly academic. Dr. Orszag was invited to the National Academies meeting to discuss the importance of the national statistical system. He spoke of the important of having good data in order to make informed policy decisions. Programs that have measured outcomes should be evaluated and funded if they meet their stated goals. Whereas programs that don't have measurable outcomes should be cut (i.e. abstinence only programs). Yes, all fine and dandy, but Dr. Orszag had me at his mention of the importance of sociology. My most basic problem with economists is their reliance on equations that assume that individuals make rational decisions. Models of human action must also take into account sociological and psychological characteristics. While most of us would like to think we act rationally 100 percent of the time, it is highly unlikely we do. Our decisions regarding food, housing, education, employment, family, etc. often are the result of socioeconomic differences and personal desires. In his talk, Orszag highlighted how economics could learn a lot from the other social scientists. Decisions regarding health care, employment, child care, and education can not be made using simple economic models. They are issues that will require a holistic approach if we are going to truly make any kind of difference. My crush on Orszag aside, with the economy in crisis, it is reassuring that a well-rounded economist is over seeing the national budget.

Detroit: Rebuild, Restore, Reconsider!

I recently went to Detroit for the annual Population Association of America meeting. It was a great meeting. A number of informative presentations and I met a number of individuals that I hope to stay in touch with both professionally and personally. However, the most important part of the trip for me was Detroit. Detroit, at the most basic level, is hurting.  The downtown was virtual empty, even during the work week. Businesses, cab drivers and residents I that met were happy that our conference was in town because it meant at least some business.  I hope other professional associations will consider Detroit as a meeting destination. The city has so much to offer and if Detroit is to survive it will take the creative minds of Americans across the land. Quoting Sufjan Stevens, “Detroit lift your weary head. Rebuild, Restore, Reconsider!

Similar to other cities in the Rust Belt, Detroit has seen a decline in population. The city's population increased more than sixfold during the first half of the twentieth century, fed largely by an influx of Eastern European, Lebanese and Southern migrants to work in the burgeoning automobile industry. However, since 1950 the city has seen a major shift in its population to the suburbs. The city population dropped from its peak in 1950 with a population of 1.8 million to 916,952 in 2007.

My short visit to Detroit reminded me of my passion for sociology my goal with this blog as well as other blogs I write for (namely Greater Greater Washington). It’s one thing to teach in a classroom, to work with Census data on a daily basis, but a whole different thing to practice public sociology. So here I am to share with you my observations and thoughts about Detroit and my hope for it’s future.

I only had enough time to explore downtown Detroit. My fellow sociologist, Vincent Louis, and I rode the People Mover and explored the empty city streets. We got coffee at a great little coffee shop called Jazzy Café at 212 E. Grand River. The owner, Michael, made me a delicious vanilla latte and is a bit of a sociologist himself. We learned a lot about the troubles Detroit is facing. However, Michael was very optimistic about the future and believes with a little redirection, Detroit can recreate itself. While I didn’t get a chance to get into the more residential parts of Detroit, there blocks upon blocks of vacant homes across Detroit. The NYT recently ran a piece about the possibility of tearing down the vacant homes and returning the land to farming. I say why not go even further, and put solar panels on the land or wind turbines and sell the energy to the power grid. 

From there, we made a stop at very vibrant barber shop on Broadway so Vincent could get a haircut with a barber that Michael recommended, Tony T.  The place was buzzing with conversations about the days events. Vincent waited a least an hour for his cut, but it was well worth it! 

My visit to Detroit also involved a baseball game to see the Tigers, Greektown (highly recommend Astoria Bakery) and a fabulous bar called the Grand Trunk. The most memorable moment of the trip was when the bartender at Grand Trunk exclaimed, "I love my empty city!" on a Friday night to a nearly empty bar.  Oh, and yes I did make it to a couple of sessions at the PAA meeting, but Detroit is a temptress and I can't wait to go back!

Younger women saying yes to motherhood?

There has been a lot of press about the slight decline in the average age at which women are having their first baby. In 2006, the average age fell to 25.0 from 25.2 in 2005. The author of the article (see below) rightly points out that a one year decline does not represent a trend. It will be interesting to see what the new data shows and how the downturn in the economy may affect the choice to join the mommy club.

***********************************************************************************

No Waiting: Younger Women Are Saying Yes to Motherhood
By Sue Shellenbarer
Wall Street Journal

For nearly 40 years, women have been delaying childbirth longer and longer, partly to launch careers. Now, this trend may be ending.

For the first time since government records have been kept, the average age at which women have their first babies posted a decline -- according to newly released data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Mothers' mean age at their first childbirth fell to 25.0 years in 2006, the most recent figures available, from 25.2 in 2005. Women ages 20 to 24 led the shift, with a 5% increase in the rate of first births.

A one-year reversal doesn't make a trend, of course. But the study lends weight to anecdotal evidence that young women are tuning in more closely to their biological clocks. "It's the first time it's ever gone down, and certainly that's noteworthy," says Brady Hamilton, co-author of the study.

Other factors are at work too, including rising numbers of Hispanics, who tend to start families sooner, says Steven Martin, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Maryland. A 4% rise in the rate of first births to older teens, ages 15 to 19, is also playing a role. And the sheer size of the baby boomlet generation, now entering the child-bearing years, may be skewing new mothers' mean age lower.

But some experts also see a shift in attitudes. More young women today just assume they'll have both a career and a family, and on their own timetable, says Stephanie Coontz, director of research for the Council on Contemporary Families. Young women feel less compelled to spend a decade proving themselves on the job before kids, she says.

Sarah Distel, an at-home mother in Oxford, Ohio, and her husband, Christopher, a research technician, had their two children, now 1 and 3, in their mid-20s. Ms. Distel, a college graduate, sees her generation as unique. "We weren't fighting for careers like the older generation. It was something we take for granted," she says. After watching the struggles she has seen older moms face juggling established careers and child-care, Ms. Distel has decided to wait to launch her own planned career in library administration until her children are in school.

Candace Parker, the biggest star in women's basketball, shocked league officials and fans last month by announcing she was pregnant -- at the age of 22. If anyone had a career reason to defer child-bearing, Ms. Parker did; she was the 2008 league MVP and Rookie of the Year for the Los Angeles Sparks and had become the face of the sport in various marketing campaigns.

But after years spent striving to please others, says Ms. Parker, who is married to Sacramento Kings forward Shelden Williams, "this decision obviously was for myself and my husband and my family." Ms. Parker's parents were in their 30s when she was born, and "I kind of missed out" on shooting hoops with her dad and other shared play, she says. She wants her children to have the benefit of young parents.

Close bonds with their own grandparents are important to young women, too. Heather Allen of St. Cloud, Minn., an art teacher whose husband is still in college, had her first baby at 21. She wants her children, now 4 and 1, to know their great-grandmother, 76; she considers extended family "part of the village" it takes to raise a child.

It's unclear whether the country's current economic woes will affect the move toward younger child-bearing. Historically, recessions have reduced family size, but their impact on the age at which women start families is less clear. In any event, Dr. Martin says, "demographers will continue paying very close attention" to whether a cultural sea change is under way.

Write to Sue Shellenbarger at sue.shellenbarger@wsj.com