A National Portrait of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use Author(s): John P. Hoffmann and Robert A.

Johnson Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Aug., 1998), pp. 633-645 Published by: National Council on Family Relations Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/353534 . Accessed: 30/05/2013 03:13
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.230.238.12 on Thu, 30 May 2013 03:13:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JOHN P. HOFFMANN AND ROBERT A. JOHNSON

National Opinion Research Center

A National Portraitof Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use

Using 3 years of data from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, we examine the distribution of drug use among adolescents aged 12-17 years by family structure. In addition, we investigate the plausibility of two hypotheses that purport to explain the association between family structure and adolescent behavior, namely economic resources and residential mobility. The results of cross-tabulations and multivariate logistic regression models indicate that the risk of drug use, including problem use, is highest among adolescents infather-custody families (father-only and father-stepmotherfamilies), even after controlling for the effects of sex, age, race-ethnicity, family income, and residential mobility. The risk of drug use is lowest in mother-fatherfamilies. Economic resources and residential mobility fail to explain these relationships, thus casting doubt on their ability to explain the association between family structure and an important adolescent behavior. The development and consequences of adolescent drug use are important social issues. Adolescents who use drugs are at heightened risk of low academic achievement, high school dropout, early

National Opinion Research Center, Washington Office, 1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036 (hoffmann@norcmail.uchicago.edu). Key Words: adolescent, alcohol, drug use, family structure, marijuana.

sexual initiation, teenage nonmarital pregnancy, troubled interpersonal relationships, and marital disruption in adulthood (Johnson & Kaplan, 1990; Newcomb & Bentler, 1988). A parallel line of research demonstrates that each of these outcomes is also associated with residence in singleparent or stepparent families (Astone & McLanahan, 1991, 1994; Downey, 1994, 1995; Downey & Powell, 1993; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Wu, 1996). Although the link between family structureand adolescent drug use has been explored in a numberof previous studies (Flewelling & Bauman, 1990; Hoffmann, 1994, 1995; Needle, Su, & Doherty, 1990; Thomas, Farrell, & Barnes, 1996), there are several lessons from the more general research on family structurethat should be applied to research on adolescent drug use. The first lesson is that research on the relationship between family structureand adolescent drug use requires large samples to distinguish precise effects. Most studies have been forced to rely on categorization schemes that do not recognize potential differences between father-custody and mother-custody families. For example, much of the research in this area has assessed differences between single-mother families and mother-father families (Hoffmann, 1993; Thomas et al., 1996) or among single-parent, stepparent,and mother-father families (Flewelling & Bauman, 1990; Hoffmann, 1995; Needle et al., 1990). Yet a key result that has emerged from the general literature about family structure is that there are important differences between adolescents in mother-stepfather

Journal of Marriage and the Family 60 (August 1998): 633-645

633

This content downloaded from 193.230.238.12 on Thu, 30 May 2013 03:13:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

634 and father-stepmother families and between those in single-mother and single-father families (Ambert, 1986; Downey, 1995; Downey & Powell, 1993; Lee, Burkham, Zimiles, & Ladewski, 1994). In general, adolescents who reside with their mothers fare better than those who reside with their fathers in both single-parent and stepparent families. Given the small proportion of adolescents who reside with fathers but not with mothers (Bianchi, 1995; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993), it is not surprising that many studies of family structure and adolescent drug use, which often rely on small samples, have not heretofore distinguished the effects of father versus mother absence from the family. A second lesson concerns the theoretical models used to explain the effects of family structure on adolescent outcomes. Much of the research on family structure and adolescent drug use has been descriptive. A typical approach is to examine the distribution of drug use by family structure and then control for various demographic characteristics to determine if the relationships persist. Although this provides important information about the association between family structure and drug use, it fails to explain theoretically why this association exists. The general literature on family structureprovides several hypotheses that may be appropriate for explaining family effects on adolescent drug use (Hoffmann, 1995; Thomas et al., 1996). Four hypotheses that have emerged from this literature concern economic resources, residential mobility, parent-child socialization, and stress (Astone & McLanahan, 1994; Downey, 1995; Thomson, McLanahan, & Curtin, 1992; Thomson, Hanson, & McLanahan, 1994). We examine the first two of these four hypotheses that are designed to explain the effects of family structure. Assuming that adolescents from mother-fatherfamilies are less likely than adolescents from other types of families to use illicit drugs (Hoffmann, 1993, 1995; Needle et al., 1990; Thomas et al., 1996), these two explanations suggest that differences in economic resourcesoften measured as family income-or residential mobility explain much of the association between family structure and negative outcomes among adolescents (Astone & McLanahan, 1994; Downey, 1995; Thomson et al., 1994). The economic resources hypothesis suggests that single-parent families, especially single-mother families, tend to have relatively less income than other families. This is both because family disruption leads to income loss and because low income increases the

Journal of Marriage and the Family risk of family disruption (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Wu, 1996). For example, the median family incomes of mother-father,single-father, and singlemother families in 1992 were $44,192, $22,217, and $13,268, respectively (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996). Moreover, although only about 10% of mother-father families live below the poverty line, 47% of single-mother families and 22% of single-father families live below the poverty line (Bianchi, 1995). Low income is presumed to affect adolescent development negatively, especially academic achievement and motivation, by making it more difficult for parents to support activities that benefit the adolescent (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Thomson et al., 1994). A similar argument applies to adolescent drug use. Greater economic hardship makes supervision and parental support more difficult, thus increasing the likelihood of drug use (Conger et al., 1991; Johnson, Su, Gerstein, Shin, & Hoffmann, 1995). Although the economic resources hypothesis suggests why single-parent families, in particular single-mother families, affect certain adolescent outcomes, it is not as useful for describing why adolescents from stepparent families also suffer from negative outcomes (Downey, 1995). The median family income of stepparent families is relatively close to the median family income of mother-father families (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). However, a recent finding is that stepparent families and single-parent families tend to change residences more often than mother-father families (Astone & McLanahan, 1994; Long, 1992), and stepparent families tend to change residences more often than single-parent families (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). A change in family structure often forces at least part of the family to relocate. For example, when a parent remarries, she and her children often move into her new spouse's residence. Moreover, a divorce usually requires one parent to move out of the home but also may cause a custodial parent to move because the family's income is no longer sufficient to afford the residence (Furstenberg & Cherlin, 1991). Even when income is adequate and families move to communities with greater resources, residential mobility is thought to disrupt adolescent development by severing social and community ties, thus leading to social isolation and marginalization and possibly friendships with other marginal peers who affect behavior (Astone & McLanahan, 1994; Raviv, Keinan, Abazon, & Raviv, 1990). Literature on residential mobility supports this interpretation. Adolescents who

This content downloaded from 193.230.238.12 on Thu, 30 May 2013 03:13:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use move frequently are more likely than those who are stable to have behavioral, emotional, and academic problems (Reynolds, 1989; Wood, Halfon, Scarlata, Newacheck, & Nessim, 1993). However, research has not explored the link between residential mobility and adolescent drug use. Much of the theoretical basis of the links among family structure, economic resources, and mobility relies on a social capital argument. Parents with more economic resources and stronger ties to the community (which are often severed by a family breakupor reconfiguration)are able to invest more resources in their children's social and intellectual development, thus making aberrantbehavior less likely (Biblarz & Raftery, 1993; Coleman, 1988). However, a social capital argument also points to the potential overlap of economic resources and residential mobility. That is, families with greater economic resources tend to change residences for different reasons (e.g., movement to a better neighborhood) than those with fewer resources (e.g., less income forces movement to a poorer neighborhood). This implies that there may be an interaction between economic resources and residential mobility that should be considered in any examination of the effects of family structure. One might reasonably expect residential mobility to affect adolescent drug use only when economic resources are lacking. The two other hypotheses that are used to describe family structure effects-stress and socialization-overlap substantially with the economic resources and mobility hypotheses. That is, a lack of economic resources and greater residential mobility-as well as changes in family structureoften are conceptualized as stressful events in the lives of adolescents (Raviv et al., 1990; Shuval, 1982), and stressful life events are related significantly to adolescent drug use (Conger et al., 1991; Hoffmann & Su, 1997). Moreover, socialization of adolescents by parents may be damaged by economic hardship, greater mobility, and changes in family structure. These interrelated phenomena make childrearing more difficult. Each may lead to greater stress for parents, and economic hardship and single parenthood make the monitoring of adolescent behavior more demanding (Amato, 1987; Conger et al., 1991; Hoffmann, 1995). Given data limitations, we explore only the direct implications of the economic resources and mobility hypotheses. However, an implicit assumption is that factors of stress and socialization may explain why the effect of family structure on adolescent drug use is influenced by economic circumstances and residential mobility.

635 In sum, we propose to examine the relationships between a variety of family structures and adolescent drug use. Using a large, nationally representative data source, we compare the prevalence of drug use among adolescents from motherfather families with the prevalence of use among adolescents from single-parent families, stepparent families, and other family types. Given the large sample size, a key advantage of this comparison is the ability to examine mother-custody and father-custody families. Moreover, we test the utility of the economic resources and residential mobility hypotheses as explanations of the relationship between family structure and drug use by examining whether the introductionof family income and changes in residence attenuates the association between family structure and adolescent drug use in a multivariate model. We also explore the interaction of economic resources and residential mobility to determine whether their potential effects on adolescent drug use are conditional and whether such an interaction explains any of the effects of family structure.
DATA AND METHODS

The data used to test the relationship between family structureand drug use are derived from the combined 1991-1993 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA), the principal source of data on the prevalence of drug use in the United States (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1995b). Based on a multistage area probability sample, the annual surveys are cross-sectional and are designed to represent the noninstitutionalized population of the U.S. aged 12 years and older. The target population is thought to represent more than 98% of the total U.S. population aged 12 years and older. We use data from the combined 1991-1993 NHSDA on adolescents, aged 12-17. Of the 87,915 respondents in the 1991-1993 surveys, 22,237 were adolescents. These 12- to 17-year-old respondents represent approximately 20.7 million adolescents in the U.S. (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1995b). Each NHSDA interview takes about 1 hour to complete and is designed to maximize honest reporting of drug use. Adolescent respondents are allowed to participate only after the interviewer has received parentalpermission. Self-administered answer sheets are used by respondents for all questions about alcohol and illicit drug use, so that responses are not revealed to the interviewer or to

This content downloaded from 193.230.238.12 on Thu, 30 May 2013 03:13:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

636 other persons who may be present at the interview. Self-administered questionnaires tend to reduce underreportingof drug use, especially among adolescents (Turner,Lessler, & Devore, 1992). Measurement of Variables One of the limitations of previous research on the relationship between family structure and adolescent drug use is the reliance on relatively small samples. Most samples, whether based on the U.S. or on regional populations, do not include enough father-custody families to obtain precise estimates of drug use in single-father or fatherstepmother families. Moreover, in much of the research on family structure, the presence of other adults in the home is not considered (Downey, 1994). If we are truly interested in the effects of living with a single mother, a single father, or a mother and a father, then the presence of other adults should be considered (Hoffmann, 1995; Kellam, Adams, Brown, & Ensminger, 1982). The large size of the 1991-1993 NHSDA sample allows relatively pure measures of which adults reside in the home. Furthermore, the NHSDA includes a much larger sample of father-custody families than most other nationally representative data sets. Therefore, this database allows us to precisely estimate patterns of drug use among adolescents who live in this rapidly growing type of family. (See Bianchi, 1995.) Family structure is measured by seven questions that ask about the presence or absence of the following people in the family home: mother, father, stepmother, stepfather, other relative (not including the respondent's own children, siblings, or parents-in-law), nonrelative, and spouse. The questions addressing "mothers" and "fathers" do not distinguish between biological and adoptive parents. However, data from the Current Population Survey indicate that, in 1990, only about 2% of children living in mother-father families were adopted (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992b). The category, "other relative," can include the adolescent's grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle, and so on, but it does not include the adolescent's mother, father, stepfather, stepmother, spouse, siblings, children, and parents-in-law because each is asked about separately. A cross-classification of these seven dichotomous items results in 128 possible family types. Of these, we identified 50 that are represented in the NHSDA. We then developed nine mutually exclusive categories that focused on the most

Journal of Marriage and the Family common types of families: mother-father only (mother and father, but no other adult relative or nonrelative, reside in the home), mother-fatherother relative, mother-stepfather, father-stepmother, mother-only, father-only, mother-other relative, other relative only, and other family types. Each category was "pure" in the sense that, by definition, other adult relatives or nonrelatives did not live in the home unless specified. For example, in mother-only families, adolescents reported the presence of their mothers but no other adult relative or nonrelative. The category of "other family types" included a heterogeneous group of families in which adolescents lived with various combinations of relatives, nonrelatives, and spouses (199 adolescents, representing about 160,000 people in the U.S., reported the presence of a spouse in the home). Table 1 shows the distribution of the nine family types. As indicated in the final two rows, the first eight types represent almost 94% of the U.S. population of adolescents (approximately 19.3 million adolescents). To validate the distributions of family structure in the NHSDA, we compared the distributions of similar family types in the NHSDA with the 1991-1993 Current Population Survey conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1991, 1992a, 1993). The Current Population Survey included the following family types: mother-father, mother-only, father-only, and neither parent present. We developed comparable family types with the NHSDA data. Comparisons were made for the total adolescent samples, aged 12-17, and by sex and race (White, African American, and Hispanic). Based on two-sample t tests, we found modest differences between the two nationally representative data sources: The 1992 and 1993 NHSDA estimate a slightly smaller percentage of adolescents living with "both parents" (72.9% and 72.7% vs. 69.4% and 69.6%), and all 3 years of NHSDA data reveal a smaller percentage living in "father-only" families (2.7%, 2.2%, and 2.8% vs. 3.6%, 3.6%, and 3.5%). These differences were more pronounced among African American and Hispanic adolescents than in the total sample, but, on balance, the similarities suggest that the NHSDA provides a good representation of family structuresin the U.S. In order to test the economic resources and mobility hypotheses, we use measures of family income in the past year and residential mobility in the past 5 years. Family income is stratified into quartiles (25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles) based on extensive information derived from household

This content downloaded from 193.230.238.12 on Thu, 30 May 2013 03:13:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NATIONAL HOUSEHO 1. DISTRIBUTION USEBYFAMILY TABLE OF AND ADOLESCENT DRUG DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS STRUCTURE, Family Type lotherFather 52.4 47.6 14.4 77.0 8.3 10.5 4.1 17.6 24.0 28.5 29.9 0.6 6.9 6.2 8.3 4.5 11,260 11.77 56.9 MotherFatherOther 51.0 49.0 14.4 47.7 18.3 24.8 9.2 33.2 28.1 26.9 11.8 0.8 8.4 6.3 6.8 3.4 1,181 0.85 4.1 MotherStepfather 45.4 54.6 14.5 78.4 10.5 9.2 2.0 19.9 27.6 29.1 23.4 1.5 10.0 10.2 11.4 5.3 1,268 1.55 7.5 FatherStepmother 48.2 51.8 14.5 80.0 10.1 6.9 3.0 10.0 31.8 35.1 23.1 1.6 16.8 15.4 15.5 11.8 267 0.32 1.5 Mother Only 49.9 50.1 14.5 53.2 32.0 11.9 2.9 38.3 24.1 19.9 17.7 1.2 Father Only 56.7 43.2 14.6

Variable Sex (%) Male Female Mean age Race-ethnicity(%) White AfricanAmerican Hispanic Othera Family income (%) Less than$17,000 $17,000-$29,999 $30,000-$48,000 More than$48,000 Mean numberof moves in past 5 years Drug use in past year (%) Marijuana Otherillicit drugsb Drunkthreeor more times Problemusec Sample size Estimatedpopulationsize (in millions) Percentageof population

Mothe Other Relativ 49.0 51.0 14.6

74.4 8.9 10.8 5.8 19.4 12.0 27.2 41.4 1.6 17.1 14.9 14.4 11.0 469 0.39 1.9

36.6 41.4 16.1 2.8 47.9 28.2 16.7 7.2 1.0 12.4 7.7 9.5 6.0

11.5 7.9 9.6 5.7 4,285 3.23 15.6

1,112

0.66 3.2

alncludesAsians and Pacific Islanders,Native Americans, and others. bIncludesuse of cocaine, inhalants,hallucinogens, amphetamine use of alcohol, marijuana, and otherillicit drugs. See the text for a furtherdefinition.

This content downloaded from 193.230.238.12 on Thu, 30 May 2013 03:13:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

638 members about all sources of income. This strategy divides the sample into the following income groups (monetary values are approximate): < $30,000-$48,000, $17,000, $17,000-$29,999, and > $48,000. Due to data limitations, a continuous measure of family income was not available for use in the analysis. Nevertheless, the distribution of income groups found in the NHSDA corresponds closely to the distribution of family incomes reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census for 1991-1993 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996). Residential mobility is measured by a single item asking how many times in the previous 5 years the adolescent has moved. Responses to this question ranged from zero to 20 times. The mean number of times the adolescents in the sample moved in the past 5 years was about one. The NHSDA asks questions about numerous types of drug use. We assess use of marijuanaand other illicit drugs in the past year (any past-year use of cocaine, amphetamines, inhalants, barbiturates, or opiates). Because family structure may have stronger implications for more serious forms of drug use (Needle et al., 1990; Stein, Newcomb, & Bentler, 1987), we also examine variables that measure being drunk three or more times in the past year and problem drug use in the past year. Problem drug use is designed to assess negative behavioral consequences and symptoms of dependence among respondents. The items that the NHSDA employs to examine problem use coincide closely with items used in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1987) to measure psychoactive substance use disorder. The questionnaire asks whether one's drug use in the past year or month caused one to (a) feel depressed or lose interest, (b) get involved in arguments or fights, (c) feel lonely or isolated, (d) feel nervous or anxious, (e) develop health problems, (f) experience difficulty in thinking clearly, or (g) feel irritable or upset. These questions were asked for alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drugs. Responses to these questions were combined with responses to questions about "trying to cut down" and using more of the drug to "get the same effect" in order to define five criteria for problem drug use: (a) the drug caused one or more of the seven consequences or symptoms, and the drug was used in the past month; (b) the drug caused the adolescent to get less work done during the past year, and the drug was used in the past year; (c) the adolescent was unable to reduce his or her use of the drug in the past year; (d) the adolescent

Journal of Marriage and the Family needed more of the drug to get the same effect in the past year; (e) the adolescent felt sick when he or she tried to cut down on use in the past year. Respondents were classified as problem users during the past year if two or more of the five criteria were satisfied. (See the discussion of this measure in Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1996.) Overall, 5% of the sample met the criteria for problem drug use. Family structure is clearly related to race and ethnicity (Bianchi, 1995), so it is important to control for these effects in the model. We distinguish four racial and ethnic groups in the analyses: Whites (69%), African Americans (15%), Hispanics (12%), and others (e.g., Asian, Native American, 4%). We also control for the effects of sex and age because each may affect the relationship between family structure and drug use (Downey, 1995). Age is treated as a continuous variable and ranges from 12 to 17 years. There are other variables that affect the relationship between family structure and adolescent behavior. In particular, parent-child relations and economic resources beyond income (e.g., books in the home) may mediate the effects of family structure on educational outcomes and adolescent behavior (Downey, 1995; Hoffmann, 1995). It is also importantto consider changes in family structure because the immediate aftermath of a change may be the most risky period for adolescent misbehavior (Furstenberg & Cherlin, 1991). Unfortunately, the NHSDA does not include questions that allow the measurement of these variables. The survey is designed to determine the prevalence of drug use, ratherthan the process by which drug use emerges. Moreover, the analyses do not control for local community-level or school-level effects on adolescent behavior. (See McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994, Chapter 7.) Therefore, the analyses present a limited examination of the association between family structureand adolescent drug use. Given the large sample size and the representative nature of the data, however, the results provide an important picture of how family structure affects drug use during adolescence. Statistical Analyses All estimates reported here are based on the weighted NHSDA data. Therefore, the estimates are nationally representative. Point estimates and standarderrorstake into account the complex sampling design used in the NHSDA. SUDAAN 6.3 is used to derive these estimates (Shah et al., 1993).

This content downloaded from 193.230.238.12 on Thu, 30 May 2013 03:13:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use The first step in the analysis is to cross-classify demographic data and drug use by family structure. Next, in order to examine the effects of family structureon adolescent drug use while controlling for demographic characteristics,we estimate logistic regression models to determine the odds of drug use by adolescents in the various family types. Mother-father families are the reference group in this analysis. The logistic regression parameters are exponentiated to express the results in terms of odds ratios, specifically the odds of drug use by adolescents from the various family types divided by the odds of drug use by adolescents in motherfather families (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 1989; Kleinbaum, 1994). In order to test the economic resources and mobility hypotheses, we introduce family income and residential mobility stepwise into the models and, finally, as an interaction term. If family structure affects drug use because of its association with family income or mobility, we expect to see an attenuated effect of family structure in the models once these variables are included (cf. Astone & McLanahan, 1994).
RESULTS

639

Table 1 presents the distribution of demographic characteristics and adolescent drug use by family structure. Overall, about 57% of adolescents live with a mother and a father (representing almost 12 million adolescents), almost 16% live with a mother only, and about 2% live with a father only. The distributions of sex and age are fairly uniform by family structure, although males are slightly overrepresented in father-only families, and females are overrepresented in mother-stepfather families. The racial distributions support past research in showing that African American youths are more likely than White youths to live in mother-only families and mother-other relative families (Bianchi, 1995). Moreover, African American and Hispanic adolescents are overrepresented in other relative-only families. The distribution of family income and residential mobility also supports previous research in demonstrating that mother-father families are more likely than mother-only or stepparent families to be in the higher income brackets. A comparison of mother-only and father-only families confirms that the former are relatively impover-

TABLE 2. ESTIMATED EFFECTS ONMARIJUANA YEAR AMONG OFFAMILY STRUCTURE USEINPAST ADOLESCENTS, NATIONAL ONDRUG 1991-1993 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ABUSE, ExplanatoryVariable Family structurea Mother-father-other relative Mother-stepfather Father-stepmother Motheronly Fatheronly Mother-other relative Otherrelative only Male Age Race-ethnicityb AfricanAmerican Hispanic Other Family incomec Less than $17,000 $17,000-$29,999 $30,000-$48,000 Numberof moves in past 5 years R2 Model 1 1.24 1.50** 2.73** 1.75** 2.79** 1.92** 2.41** Model 2 1.32 1.51** 2.86** 1.93** 2.72** 2.10** 2.36** 1.27** 1.73** 0.70** 1.01 0.66* Model 3 1.31 1.51** 2.83** 1.95** 2.77** 2.10** 2.34** 1.27** 1.73** 0.69** 1.08 0.66* 1.03 1.08 1.13 .02 .12 .12 Model 4 1.28 1.34* 2.44** 1.77** 2.36** 1.90** 2.01** 1.30** 1.75** 0.71** 1.03 0.62* 0.96 1.04 1.11 1.16** .12

Note: Sample size is 22,230. The estimates are odds ratios derived from a logistic regression model. Odds ratios greater than 1.0 (less than 1.0) imply that marijuana use is more likely (less likely) than in the reference category, after controlling for the effects of otherexplanatoryvariablesin the model. aReferencegroupis mother-father families. bReferencegroupis White adolescents.CReference groupis over $48,000 (upperquartileof income distribution). *p<.05. **p<.01.

This content downloaded from 193.230.238.12 on Thu, 30 May 2013 03:13:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

640 ished, and the latter are relatively well off financially (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). Whereas almost 40% of mother-only families are in the lowest income quartile, more than 40% of fatheronly families are in the highest income quartile. Stepparent families and father-only families tend to be more mobile than other family types, with the mean number of moves in the past 5 years at about 1.5 or higher (Astone & McLanahan, 1994). Furthermore, as other research has shown (Astone & McLanahan, 1994; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994), stepparent families are, on balance, more mobile than single-parent families, but this holds only for the comparisonbetween motherstepfather and mother-only families (1.5 vs. 1.2, difference significant at p < .05 level). Father-only families are just as mobile as father-stepmother families (g = 1.6 for each). The distribution of drug use also confirms past research.The lowest prevalence of use of marijuana and other illicit drugs is reported by adolescents who live in mother-fatherfamilies. Adolescents in mother-fatherfamilies also report a relatively low prevalence of being drunk and problem drug use in the past year. The highest prevalence of mari-

Journal of Marriage and the Family juana use, other drug use, and problem use is reported by adolescents in father-stepmother,fatheronly, and other relative-only families (cf. Flewelling & Bauman, 1990; Hoffmann, 1993; Needle et al., 1990; Thomas et al., 1996). However, given that these family types are also highly mobile, it is unclear whether family structure or residential mobility is driving these patterns. Tables 2-5 present the results of the logistic regression models. The first model in each table examines only the effects of family structure on drug use. Model 2 introduces sex, age, and raceethnicity into the model. Model 3 includes family income, and Model 4 includes residential mobility. (The interaction effects of income by number of moves are not shown in the tables because they were not significant. Their inclusion did not change the other results in any of the models.) The R2 statistic equals the proportion of deviance, gauged by the log likelihood chi-square statistic, that is explained by the models (Shah et al., 1993). Model 1 of Table 2 shows that adolescents from mother-stepfather families are 1.50 times as likely as adolescents from mother-father families to report marijuana use in the past year. More-

TABLE 3. ESTIMATED EFFECTS OF FAMILY STRUCTURE ON OTHER ILLICIT DRUG USE IN THE PAST YEAR AMONG ADOLESCENTS,

NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ONDRUGABUSE, 1991-1993

Variable Explanatory Family structurea relative Mother-father-other Mother-stepfather Father-stepmother Motheronly Fatheronly Mother-other relative Otherrelative only Male Age Race-ethnicityb AfricanAmerican Hispanic Other Family incomec Less than $17,000 $17,000-$29,999 $30,000-$48,000 Numberof moves in past 5 years
R2

Model 1 1.01 1.70** 2.75** 1.29* 2.63** 1.26 1.85**

Model 2 1.08 1.68** 2.75** 1.46** 2.59** 1.48 2.05** 0.87 1.28** 0.51** 1.00 0.72

Model 3 1.09 1.70** 2.75** 1.48** 2.61** 1.51 2.08** 0.87 1.28** 0.52** 1.02 0.72 0.90 1.02 0.93

Model 4 1.08 1.49** 2.34** 1.34** 2.18** 1.35 1.75** 0.87 1.30** 0.53** 1.03 0.68 0.83 0.97 0.91 1.16**

.01 .04 .04 .05 Note: Sample size is 22,230. The estimates are odds ratios derived from a logistic regressionmodel. Odds ratios greater than 1.0 (less than 1.0) imply that other illicit drug use is more likely (less likely) than in the reference category, after controlling for the effects of other explanatoryvariables in the model. Other illicit drugs include cocaine, hallucinogens, inhalants,barbiturates, amphetamines,and opiates. aReferencegroup is mother-fatherfamilies. bReferencegroup is White adolescents. CReference group is over $48,000 (upperquartileof income distribution). *p<.05. **p<.Ol.

This content downloaded from 193.230.238.12 on Thu, 30 May 2013 03:13:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use over, adolescents from father-stepmotherfamilies and adolescents from father-only families are over twice as likely as adolescents from motherfather families to report marijuana use in the past year. These effects persist and, in the case of fatherstepmother families, increase, once controls are introduced for sex, age, and race-ethnicity. Contrary to what the economic resources and mobility hypotheses predict, family income and residential moves have little effect on the association between family structure and marijuana use. However, mobility has an independent effect on marijuana use. More residential moves are associated with an increased likelihood of marijuanause. Tables 3 and 4 show patterns similar to Table 2. Adolescents in father-stepmother families and father-only families have the highest likelihood of illicit drug use and drunkenness in the past year. These associations are affected only modestly by the introduction of family income and residential mobility. Although the results thus far suggest that living in mother-father families offers a lower risk of drug use, any use of marijuanaor even other illicit drugs in the past year may not be problematic for a large portion of adolescents. (See Newcomb

641 & Bentler, 1989.) A question that remains is whether the absence of a mother or father from a family increases the risks of more problematic forms of use. The information in Table 5 is intended to investigate this question by examining the associations of family structure with problem drug use, a measure designed to mimic the DSMIII-R (1987) evaluation of psychoactive substance use disorder. Problem drug use is relatively rare among adolescents. Only about 5% report problem use. However, the association of drug use and father-custody families persists, even for this more serious form of use. Table 5 demonstrates that adolescents living in father-stepmother families and in father-only families are over two times as likely as adolescents living in father-mother families to report problem drug use, even after controlling for the effects of demographic characteristics, family income, and residential mobility. Residential mobility has a modest attenuating effect, but it fails to explain the association between family structure and problem drug use (cf. McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). Mother-only families are associated with only a slightly higher risk of problem use (cf. Needle et al., 1990; Thomas et al., 1996).

TABLE 4. ESTIMATED EFFECTS OF FAMILY STRUCTURE ON BEING DRUNK THREE OR MORE TIMES IN THE PAST YEAR,

NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ONDRUGABUSE, 1991-1993

ExplanatoryVariable Family structurea Mother-father-other relative Mother-stepfather Father-stepmother Motheronly Fatheronly Mother-other relative Otherrelative only Male Age Race-ethnicityb AfricanAmerican Hispanic Other Family incomec Less than $17,000 $17,000-$29,999 $30,000-$48,000 Numberof moves in past 5 years R2

Model 1 0.81 1.42* 2.02** 1.17 1.85** 1.16 1.34

Model 2 0.91 1.43* 2.11** 1.42** 1.79* 1.46 1.45 1.22* 1.92** 0.38** 0.77** 0.66

Model 3 0.93 1.46* 2.14* 1.43** 1.73* 1.49 1.48 1.23* 1.92** 0.38** 0.78* 0.67 0.90 0.78* 0.89

Model 4 0.92 1.32 1.88* 1.32** 1.49* 1.36 1.28 1.25* 1.92** 0.39** 0.78* 0.64* 0.85 0.75* 0.87 1.13** .14

.01

.14

.14

Note: Sample size is 22,230. The estimates are odds ratios derived from a logistic regressionmodel. Odds ratios greater than 1.0 (less than 1.0) imply that reporteddrunkennessis more likely (less likely) than in the referencecategory, after controllingfor the effects of otherexplanatoryvariablesin the model. aReferencegroup is mother-fatherfamilies. bReferencegroup is White adolescents. CReference group is over $48,000 (upperquartileof income distribution). *p<.05. **p<.01.

This content downloaded from 193.230.238.12 on Thu, 30 May 2013 03:13:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

642 DISCUSSION Research has demonstrated the existence of a significant relationship between family structure and adolescent drug use. Our results confirm the finding that living with a mother and a father decreases the risk of several types of drug use, from episodes of drunkenness to problem drug use. However, a key issue that has not been addressed well in previous studies is whether economic resources or residential stability explain these robust relationships. In several studies, the lower income of singlemother families and the greaterresidential mobility of stepparentfamilies explain much of the effect of family structure on adolescent outcomes, such as high school completion and nonmarital childbearing (Astone & McLanahan, 1994; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Wu, 1996). Lower income and higher mobility may be latent indicators of a lack of social capital needed for successful adolescent development (Coleman, 1988), and thus they negatively affect several milestones that mark the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Although the economic resources and mobility hypotheses have not been applied to research on family structure and drug use, they offer plausible

Journal of Marriage and the Family explanations for at least part of the association between family structure and drug use. If one assumes that fewer economic resources and greater residential mobility are disruptive to family life because they produce more stress for parents and adolescents, reduce the amount of time that family members can spend together, and upset social ties by marginalizing adolescents (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994), then the lower income of singlemother families and the diminished residential stability of stepparent families might explain the association between family structure and various types of drug use. However, our models examined these hypotheses directly and found a general lack of support for either an economic resources explanation or a mobility explanation. (Even the interaction between income and mobility failed to show an effect.) Adolescents from certain types of family structures, in particular those from father-custody families, continued to show a significantly heightened risk of drug use, even after controlling for the effects of several demographic characteristics, family income, and residential mobility. Unlike the results obtained when other outcomes, such as

TABLE 5. ESTIMATED EFFECTS OF FAMILY STRUCTURE ON PROBLEM DRUG USE AMONG ADOLESCENTS,

NATIONAL SURVEY ONDRUG HOUSEHOLD 1991-1993 ABUSE, ExplanatoryVariable Family structurea Mother-father-other relative Mother-stepfather Father-stepmother Motheronly Fatheronly Mother-other relative Otherrelative only Male Age Race-ethnicityb African American Hispanic Other Family incomec Less than $17,000 $17,000-$29,999 $30,000-$48,000 Numberof moves in past 5 years R2 Model 1 0.80 1.20 2.87** 1.31 2.64** 1.37 1.65 Model 2 0.94 1.19 2.86** 1.58** 2.61** 1.80* 1.97* 1.16 1.58** 0.34** 0.76* 0.30** Model 3 0.92 1.16 2.86** 1.54** 2.64** 1.72* 1.90* 1.16 1.58** 0.32** 0.73* 0.30** 1.26 1.14 1.11 .01 .09 .09 Model 4 0.90 1.03 2.46** 1.41* 2.25** 1.54 1.60 1.19 1.60** 0.33** 0.74** 0.27** 1.19 1.09 1.08 1.15** .10

Note: Sample size is 22,230. The estimates are odds ratios derived from a logistic regressionmodel. Odds ratios greater than 1.0 (less than 1.0) imply that problem drug use is more likely (less likely) than in the reference category, after controlling for the effects of other explanatoryvariables in the model. Includes problem use of alcohol, marijuana,or any illicit drug. See the text for a definition of problemuse. aReferencegroup is mother-fatherfamilies. bReferencegroup is White adolescents. CReference group is over $48,000 (upperquartileof income distribution). *p<.05. **p <.01.

This content downloaded from 193.230.238.12 on Thu, 30 May 2013 03:13:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use high school graduation or premaritalchildbearing, are analyzed, the results presented in this article show that mobility and income do not account for the association between family structure and adolescent drug use (cf. Astone & McLanahan, 1994; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). The lack of support for the hypotheses might be traced to the distinctive etiologies of adolescent drug use and other outcome measures. Although adolescent drug users are at heightened risk of dropping out of high school and premarital childbearing (Johnson & Kaplan, 1990), the effects of family structure on drug use may be distinct. For example, adolescent drug use is closely linked to peer behavior, availability of drugs, and perceptions of risk associated with use (Hoffmann, 1995; Kandel, 1996). If family structure also has some direct or indirect effect on these intervening variables, then family structureeffects would persist, even after controlling for economic resources and residential mobility. Moreover, family income is strongly associated with high school graduation and premaritalchildbearing (Astone & McLanahan, 1994), but it is only weakly associated with drug use (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1995b). Thus, we have at least some evidence that the correlates of drug use and other outcomes differ. One promising path that may elaborate the link between family structure and drug use is to explore the mediating effects of patterns of parentchild socialization (Hoffmann, 1995). Family structure, especially when changes occur, affects relations between parents and adolescents (Cherlin, 1992; Furstenberg & Cherlin, 1991; Thomson et al., 1992). Changes in family structure are linked to heightened stress in the family, and this stress may lead to behavioral problems such as the initiation or escalation of drug use (Hoffmann & Su, 1997; Needle et al., 1990). Because the data used in this analysis do not have information on changes in family structure, stress, or parentadolescent relations, we cannot test this hypothesis. A second path is to examine why adolescents who live in father-custody families (father-only or father-stepmother) consistently have the highest risk of drug use. Given our results showing that residential mobility does not explain these effects, we can only speculate about the mechanisms that lead to heightened risk of drug use and problem use in father-only and father-stepmother families. One possibility is that stepmothers tend to be relatively detached from stepchildren (Thomson et al., 1992). Maternalforms of supportmay be especially

643 important in preventing drug use, so a lack of attachment to stepmothers could lead to a greater likelihood of drug use. However, a more plausible explanation is that the courts tend to give fathers custody of children who have already evidenced a predispositionor a manifestationof problem behaviors. One variable that affects custody decisionsfrom both the parents' and the courts' perspectives-is a perception of how well the parents can cope with a child or adolescent who shows signs of behavioral problems (Crosby-Currie, 1996; Fox & Kelly, 1995; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992). It is plausible that an adolescent with a history of behavioral problems, which might include drug use, is more likely to live with or be placed with his or her father. Therefore, we would expect such adolescents to report higher risks of drug use and problem use. A careful examination of this explanation requires longitudinal data that follows adolescents through changes in family structure and determines their behavior before and after families are formed (Furstenberg & Cherlin, 1991). The NHSDA data are not appropriatefor examining this hypothesis. Although we have found a protective influence of mother-father families and a risky influence of father-custody families on adolescent drug use, there are several limitations to our analysis, some of which have already been mentioned, that require additional research to overcome. Most important, the NHSDA data are cross-sectional and provide no information about changes in family structure or at what point the adolescent began to live in the specific family structure. Second, we could not consider the effects of parent-child interactions, other family interactions, peer relations, resources in the home (e.g., computers, books), or stressful life events, even though each of these factors affects the likelihood of adolescent drug use and other outcomes (Downey, 1994, 1995; Kandel, 1996; Thomas et al., 1996). A likely path from family structureto drug use includes the mediating effects of parent and peer relations. Nevertheless, these results provide a national picture of family structure and adolescent drug use and point toward the need to determine the precise psychosocial mechanisms that link these two variables. Given that a growing number of adolescents live in single-parent and stepparent families, especially in single-father families (Bianchi, 1995; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993), we must continue to consider their adjustment and well-being. The confirmed relationship between family structure and a host of develop-

This content downloaded from 193.230.238.12 on Thu, 30 May 2013 03:13:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

644 mental outcomes, including educational achievement, sexual behavior, and drug use, demands that we not ignore the living arrangementsof adolescents when developing and implementing prevention programs, treatment policies, and other activities designed to enhance adolescent development. It also suggests that conceptual models built to explain adolescent behavior should include the particularfamily structure within which adolescents reside.
NOTE

Journal of Marriage and the Family Downey, D. B., & Powell, B. (1993). Do childrenin households farebetterliving with samesingle-parent
sex parents? Journal of Marriage and Family, 55, 55-

71. Flewelling, R. L., & Bauman, K. E. (1990). Family as a predictorof initial substanceuse and structure sexual intercoursein early adolescence.Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 52, 171-181. Fox, G. L., & Kelly, R. F. (1995). Determinants of child custody after divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 693-708. Furstenberg,F. F., & Cherlin, A. J. (1991). Divided families: What happens to children when parents part. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

J. P. (1993).Exploring the directandindirect Hoffmann,

family effects on adolescent drug use. Journal of Drug Issues, 23, 535-557. Hoffmann, J. P. (1994). Investigating the age effects of family structureon adolescent marijuanause. Journal of Youthand Adolescence, 23, 215-235. Hoffmann, J. P. (1995). The effects of family structure and family relations on adolescent marijuana use. International Journal of the Addictions, 30, 1207-1241.

We wouldlike to thankDean R. Gerstein, FeliciaGray, S. Susan Su, and several anonymous reviewers for valuablecommentson previousdraftsof this article.
REFERENCES

Amato,P. (1987). Familyprocessesin one parent,stepparent,and intactfamilies.Journalof Marriageand theFamily,49, 327-337. A. (1986). Being a stepparent: Live-inandvisAmbert, Journalof Marriageand the Famiting stepchildren. ily, 49, 327-337. AmericanPsychiatricAssociation (1987). Diagnostic and statisticalmanualof mentaldisorders(3rd ed.). DC: Author. Washington, Astone, N. M., & McLanahan,S. S. (1991). Family structure, parental practicesand high school completion.American SociologicalReview,56, 309-320. Astone, N. M., & McLanahan,S. S. (1994). Family residential A structure, mobility,and school dropout: research note.Demography, 31, 575-584. and Bianchi,S. M. (1995). The changingdemographic socioeconomiccharacteristics of single-parent families. Marriage& FamilyReview,20, 71-97. Biblarz,T. J., & Raftery,A. E. (1993). The effects of on socialmobility. American Sociofamilydisruption logicalReview,58, 97-109. Cherlin,A. J. (1992). Marriage, divorce, remarriage MA:Harvard Press. (Rev.ed.). Cambridge, University Coleman,J. S. (1988). Social capitalin the creationof humancapital.AmericanJournal of Sociology, 94, S94-S120. Conger,R. D., Lorenz,F. O., Elder,G. H., Melby,J. N., Simons, R. L., & Conger, K. J. (1991). A process modelof familyeconomicpressure andearlyadolescent alcohol use. Journalof EarlyAdolescence,11, 430-449. C. A. (1996). Children's involvement in Crosby-Currie, contestedcustodycases:Practices andexperiences of legal and mental health professionals. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 289-311. of chilDowney,D. B. (1994). The schoolperformance dren from single-mother and single-fatherfamilies: Economic or interpersonal Journal of deprivation? FamilyIssues,15, 129-147. Downey, D. B. (1995). Understanding academic achievement The amongchildrenin stephouseholds: role of parental and sex resources,sex of stepparent, of child.SocialForces, 73, 875-894.

J. P., & Su, S. S. (1997). The conditional efHoffmann,

fects of stress on delinquency and drug use: A strain theory assessment of sex differences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 46-78. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Johnson,R. A., Su, S. S., Gerstein,D. R., Shin, H., &

Hoffmann, J. P. (1995). Parental influences on deviant behavior in early adolescence: A logistic response analysis of age-and gender-differentiated effects. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11, 167-193. Johnson, R. J., & Kaplan, H. B. (1990). Stability of psychological symptoms: Drug use consequences and intervening processes. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 31, 277-291. Kandel, D. B. (1996). The parental and peer contexts of

adolescentdeviance:An algebraof interpersonal influences. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 289-315. Kellam, S. G., Adams, R., Brown, C. H., & Ensminger, M. E. (1982). The long-term evolution of the family structure on teenage and older mothers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 539-554. Kleinbaum, D. G. (1994). Logistic regression. New

York:Springer-Verlag.
Lee, V. E., Burkam, D. T., Zimiles, H., & Ladewski, B. (1994). Family structure and its effect on behavioral and emotional problems in young adults. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 405-437. Long, L. (1992). International perspectives on the residential mobility of America's children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 861-869. Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1992). Dividing the child: Social and legal dilemmas of custody. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press. McLanahan, S. S., & Sandefur, G. D. (1994). Growing up with a single parent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Needle, R. H., Su, S. S., & Doherty, W. (1990). Divorce, remarriage, and adolescent substance use: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 157-169.

This content downloaded from 193.230.238.12 on Thu, 30 May 2013 03:13:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use

Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Consequences of adolescent drug use: Impact on the lives of young adults. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1989). Substance use and abuse among children and teenagers. American Psychologist, 44, 242-248. Raviv, A., Keinan, G., Abazon, Y., & Raviv, A. (1990). Moving as a stressful life event for adolescents. Journal of CommunityPsychology, 18, 130-140. Reynolds, A. J. (1989). A structuralmodel of first-grade outcomes for an urban, low socioeconomic status, minority population. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 594-603. Shah, B., Folsom, R. E., LaVange, L. M., Wheeless, S. C., Boyle, K. E., & Williams, R. L. (1993). Statisticalmethods and mathematical algorithms used in SUDAAN. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute. Shuval, J. T. (1982). Migration and stress. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 677-691). New York: Free Press. Stein, J. A., Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1987). An 8-year study of multiple influences on drug use and drug use consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1094-1105. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (1993). National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main findings 1991. Rockville, MD: Author. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (1995a). National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Mainfindings 1992. Rockville, MD: Author. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (1995b). National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main findings 1993. Rockville, MD: Author. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (1996). Mental health estimates from the 1994 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Rockville, MD: Author. Thomas, G., Farrell, M. P., & Barnes, G. M. (1996). The effects of single-mother families and nonresident fathers on delinquency and substance abuse in Black and White adolescents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 884-894.

645
Thomson, E., Hanson, T. L., & McLanahan, S. S. (1994). Family structure and child well-being: Economic resources vs. parental behaviors. Social Forces, 73, 221-242. Thomson, E., McLanahan, S. S., & Curtin, R. B. (1992). Family structure, gender, and parental socialization. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 368-378. Turner, C. F., Lessler, J. T., & Devore, J. W. (1992). Effects of mode of administration and wording on reporting of drug use. In C. F. Turner, J. T. Lessler, & J. C. Gfroerer (Eds.), Survey measurement of drug use: Methodological issues (pp. 177-219). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1991). Marital status and living arrangements: 1991 (Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 461). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1992a). Marital status and living arrangements: 1992 (Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 468). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1992b). Marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the 1990s (CurrentPopulation Reports, Series P-23, No. 180). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1993). Marital status and living arrangements: 1993 (Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 478). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1996). Money income in the United States (Current Population Reports, Series P60, No. 193). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Wood, D., Halfon, N., Scarlata, D., Newacheck, P., & Nessim, S. (1993). Impact of family relocation on children's growth, development, school function, and behavior. Journal of the American Medical Association, 270, 1334-1338. Wu, L. L. (1996). Effects of marital instability, income, and income instability on the risk of premarital birth. American Sociological Review, 61, 386-406.

FAMILYLIFE EDUCATION CURRICULUMGUIDELINES

REVISED AND EXPANDED!
Offers guidelines for developing or assessing family life education programs over the life span. A must-have for anyone involved in family life education program development or assessment. Editor David J. Bredehoft, Ph.D., has revised and expanded the contents of the NCFR Family Life Education Curriculum Guidelines to include a number of excellent resources for anyone G it Guideworking in family life education. Contents include: University 7and Collegc Cturricullum lines, A FramleworkforLife-Span Family Life Ediication, a K-12 sexuality curriculum guide, an evaluation guide, a parent education program guide, and family life education references and resources.
f.

$14.95 CFLE/NCFR member * $17.95 Non-member

Contact the NCFR office for ordering information. 3989 CentralAve. N.E., #550 * Minneapolis.MN 55421 Toll Free:(888) 781-9331 * (612)781-9331 * FAX (612) 781-9348 E-mail:ncfr3989@ncfr.com* Web:www.ncfr.com

National Council on Family Relations

llE

JMF 898

This content downloaded from 193.230.238.12 on Thu, 30 May 2013 03:13:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions