Hispanic Families: Stability and Change

Abstract

Spurred in part by the rapid growth of the Hispanic population, considerable progress has been made over the past several decades in documenting the family behavior of Hispanics. Scholars increasingly recognize the importance of disaggregating the Hispanic population by national origin and generation, but the literature remains inconsistent in this regard. With an emphasis on demographic indicators of family behavior, this review summarizes trends in marriage, fertility, and family/household structure among the major Hispanic subgroups and identifies key issues in the literature that attempts to explain existing patterns. The role of generation is systematically addressed, as are the shortcomings of the standard practice of using cross-sectional data on generation to draw inferences about assimilation. We conclude that new research designs are needed to address the complexities of the migration process and their links to family patterns. In addition, future research should push toward greater integration of cultural and structural perspectives on how Hispanic families are shaped.

Cohabitation and children's living arrangements

“…Rates from the late 1990s suggest a median union survival of more than two years for Hispanic women compared to about one and a half years for non-Hispanic white women. This finding is consistent with research characterizing Hispanic cohabitation as a temporary substitute for marriage, and may reflect both higher cohabiting fertility rates and the longer duration of Hispanic cohabiting unions with children (Landale and Oropesa 2007;Manning 2004;Smock 2000;Wildsmith and Raley 2006). Note, however, that the large majority of Hispanic cohabiting unions still transition to marriage or dissolve within five years, and thus for most couples cohabitation is a temporary state.…”

“…When possible, we compare our results with alternative sources, including vital statistics, in order to identify any potential discrepancies. Unfortunately, sample sizes do not allow us to analyze important national-origin differences in Hispanic family structure (Landale and Oropesa 2007). The educational composition of the sample also changed substantially between the two surveys.…”

“…Table 1 compares the background characteristics of the NSFG V and NSFG VI (female) samples-here, as elsewhere, the estimates are weighted (see 3.2). The period between the two surveys was one of rapid growth in the Hispanic population (Chapa and De La Rosa 2004), a population with unique family patterns (Landale and Oropesa 2007). Accordingly, the weighted proportion of Hispanics among NSFG respondents rose substantially, from 11 percent to 15 percent, while the proportion of non-Hispanic whites declined to 66 percent.…”

“…Furthermore, the role that cohabitation plays in the family varies by education, income, and race and ethnicity. For instance, collegeeducated women are the least likely to ever-cohabit (Bumpass and Lu 2000), while Hispanic cohabitation is uniquely linked to reproduction (Landale and Oropesa 2007).F 3…”

Age, relationship status, and the planning status of births

“…The umbrella term "Hispanic" includes both foreign-born and native-born women from a variety of national origins; fertility and family formation behavior vary substantially within these subgroups (Landale and Oropesa 2007). Sample sizes in the NSFG are not large enough to subdivide Hispanic women by both nativity and national origin, but we do distinguish between foreign-born and native-born Hispanic women.…”