Hearth and Home: The Living Arrangements of Mexican Immigrants and U. S.

-Born Mexican Americans Author(s): Susan Blank Source: Sociological Forum, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), pp. 35-59 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/684924 Accessed: 11/05/2010 01:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. 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.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Forum.

http://www.jstor.org

Sociological Forum, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1998

Hearth and Home: The Living Arrangements of Mexican Immigrants and U.S.-Born Mexican Americans1
Susan Blank2'3

Utilizingdata from the nationally representative,1990 Panel Study of Income Dynamics-Latino Sample, this paper examines the living arrangements of Mexican heritagepersons in the US., comparing immigrants to US. natives. Mexican immigrants are most likely to live with extended kin and unrelated persons upon recent arival to the US. As time in the US. increases, such arrangementsbecome less common. Threecompeting explanationsfor this pattem are addressed. While economic resourcesand life course stages are clearly linked to household formation for immigrants and US. natives, the findings indicate limited supportfor an acculturation hypothesis.
KEY WORDS: households; Mexican immigrants; economic resources; life course; culture.

INTRODUCTION A recurring theme in immigration studies is the collectivist nature of the migration process (Morawska, 1990). Researchers emphasize that family networks play an important role in the adaptation and settlement process of all immigrant groups (Howe, 1976; Massey et al., 1994; Portes and Bach, 1985; Portes and Rumbaut, 1990; Smith, 1985; U.S. Immigration Commission, 1911). Mexican immigrants, for example, often rely on relatives for assistance in crossing the border (Chavez, 1992; Massey et al., 1987; Palerm, 1991), a place to stay once in the U.S. (Browning and Rodriguez, 1985;
1A similar version of this paper was presented at the 20th Annual Center for Studies of the Family Conference, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, October 13-14, 1993. 2Program in Social Relations, University of California, Irvine. 3To whom correspondence should be addressed at University of California, Irvine, School of Social Sciences, Social Science Tower, 6th Floor, Irvine, California 92715. 35
0884-8971/98/0300-0035$15.00/0 e 1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation

36

Blank

Chavez, 1992; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994; Massey et al., 1987; Palerm, 1991; Tienda, 1980), help in securing a job (Browning and Rodriguez, 1985; Chavez, 1992; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994; Massey et al., 1987; Palerm, 1991), and child care (Chavez, 1985, 1990, 1992). Despite extensive scholarly attention to the role of the family in the Mexican immigration experience, we know little about how Mexican immigrants form their households once in the United States. Although there have been a few large-scale demographic studies of the living arrangements of Mexican Americans, these studies have failed to disaggregate between immigrants and U.S. natives (Bean and Tienda, 1988; California State Employment Development Department, 1986; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991) or between recent and long-term immigrants (Burr and Mutchler, 1993). A few local ethnographic studies have documented that recent immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, often share households with extended-kin and multiple families (Chavez, 1985; Browning and Rodriguez, 1985). However, such a pattern has yet to be documented with national-level data, and a systematic analysis clarifying why recent immigrants are more likely than long-term immigrants to live with extended kin and nonfamily has yet to be tackled. This study examines three explanations for the household patterns of Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Mexican Americans. The first explanation involves cultural assimilation, suggesting that a decline in extendedfamily and nonfamily living arrangements over years and generations in the U.S. reflects acculturation to the family norms and values of U.S. mainstream culture. Second, the study examines economic resources, expecting that the greater one's access to economic resources, the less likely an individual will be to share housing with extended kin or nonfamily. Finally, the study proposes a life course theory, explaining that household formation may reflect the opportunities, constraints, and preferences associated with life course events and stages. While already established in local studies, this analysis reexamines the general hypothesis that the longer a Mexican immigrant resides in the United States, the less likely she or he will be to share a household with extended-kin, nonfamily members, and/or another family. This research is unique in that it provides a national-level comparative analysis of the living arrangements of Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Mexican Americans, while differentiating immigrants according to length of U.S. residence. It is anticipated that this refined analysis will reveal that the living arrangements of longer established immigrants are similar to those of U.S. natives, rather than recent immigrants. Moreover, this paper examines whether acculturation, economic resources, or life course can best account for the

Hearth and Home

37

varying living arrangements of recent immigrants, longer established immigrants, and U.S.-born Mexican Americans. The study utilizes a unique data set, the nationally representative "1990 Panel Study of Income Dynamics-Latino National Political Survey" (PSID/LNPS) Early Release File (Duncan et al., 1992). The analysis employs logistic regression to test the main research hypothesis and the strength of the three suggested explanations. A more detailed discussion of the research models follows in the methods section of this paper.

THEORY/RATIONALE Upon arrival to the United States, Mexican immigrants often initially reside with extended-kin and multiple families (Chavez, 1990; HondagneuSotelo, 1994; Villar, 1990). From a cultural assimilation perspective, such household behavior seems unsurprising.These extended households appear to reflect Mexican social and cultural norms that encourage family support and attachment (Hurtado, 1995; Tienda and Angel, 1982; Tienda and Glass, 1985). According to Gordon (1978), cultural assimilation-learning the English language and acquiring U.S. mainstream behavioral patterns-has been the dominant pattern for U.S. immigrants and their children. In fact, American ideology has always strongly supported the notion of cultural assimilation, including beliefs, lifestyles, and attitudes (Farley, 1995). Cultural assimilation, or acculturation, is often the first type of assimilation that a minority group experiences and may or may not be accompanied by structural assimilation-entry of the minority group into the social networks and institutions of the primary or dominant group (Gordon, 1978). However, according to Gordon (1978), "structuralassimilation inevitably produces acculturation" (178). Following such a perspective, we might expect that extended-kin relations would become weaker and less important with acculturation and socioeconomic advancement. In 1991, over 80% of U.S. households consisted of nuclear family members or single individuals (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992). Thus, for Mexican immigrants an increase in simple household living-living with only nuclear family members or alone-with time could be seen as following a general assimilation pattern, where living arrangements reflect one dimension of a process of acculturation to mainstream U.S. culture developing over years and generations in the U.S. Some scholars, however, have suggested that such a model is too simplistic and may not fit for Mexican Americans (Keefe and Padilla, 1987; Tapia, 1991; Velez-Ibanez, 1989).

38

Blank

A second explanation suggests that the living arrangements of Mexican immigrants reflect economic resources. Demographic data indicate that nuclear family households are the preferred living arrangement in Mexico. In 1987, 68% of households in Mexico consisted only of nuclear family members (Diaz, 1992; Osaki, 1991). And Goode (1970, 1982) has observed that nuclear families in industrialized or industrializing societies prefer to live in their own nuclear households. Yet, Mexican immigrants, particularly those most recently arrived, often experience an economically tenuous existence, which may make setting up an independent household difficult. Because they typically lack strong English language skills, have little formal education, and experience racial discrimination, many Mexican immigrants face limited economic opportunities in the U.S. (Chavez, 1992; Portes and Bach, 1985). The jobs they find are relatively low-paying, offer few benefits, and are oftentimes temporary (Chavez, 1992; Massey et al., 1987; Portes and Bach, 1985). Yet, the initial stages of settlement require substantial investment (Chavez, 1990; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994; Villar, 1990). Housing, furniture, clothing, and utensils, even at a minimal, are expensive items. Living costs are even higher for younger families with children because child care is needed, clothes must be replaced more often, and the illnesses must be treated more frequently (Browning and Rodriguez, 1985; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994). As a result, it is difficult for immigrant families or individuals, especially the newly arrived, to afford independent housing. Sharing a household with others serves as a strategy for lowering the cost of living (Browning and Rodriguez, 1985; Chavez, 1992; HondagneuSotelo, 1994). Two families may share a single residence, a family may take in borders who sleep in the living room or garage, or several single adults may share a one bedroom apartment (Chavez, 1985; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994). Sharing accommodations is a manageable way to provide for (or avoid completely) the rental down payment, it allows immigrants to split the cost of the monthly rent, and it serves as a safety in case of unemployment or unexpected medical bills (others in the household can make the rent payment). Chavez (1992) notes that bringing in relatives, such as sisters or nieces, also functions as an affordable child care strategy, especially for parents who otherwise might not be able to pay for child care while working outside the home. However, such crowded conditions are stressful and should be seen as a temporary, economic strategy of early migration, not as a fixed and enduring condition of immigrant life. As financial resources increase, an immigrant should be more likely to live in a simple household arrangement, that is, residing alone or only with nuclear family members. Simple households should be more common among settled immigrants, since one's economic situation is likely to improve with increased U.S. work experience (Chiswick, 1984) and English fluency (Massey, 1987).

Hearth and Home

39

A third explanation suggests that the living arrangements of Mexican immigrants parallel life course stages and events that reflect shifting levels of dependence, economic need, and desire for privacy within the household (Massey et al., 1987). In Mexico, children typically live with their parents in nuclear family households. Only after marriage do young adults set up their own independent households, and some live temporarily with parents until a first or second child is born (Massey et al., 1987; Dinerman, 1978). Thus, a standard life course for Mexicans would include timely achievement of adult roles expressed in living arrangements-financial independence, marriage and childbearing, and coresidence with a spouse and children. At the end of the life course, older persons may reside with children when they can no longer care for themselves because of medical or financial constraints. Thus, life course indicators such as age, marriage, and children should be linked to household arrangements. Young, single, adult immigrants should be likely to live with other adults or families as they are not apt to have developed the work experience necessary for economic independence and have yet to enter into the stages of the life course where privacy is most desired. In fact, Chavez (1992) noted that some young, single migrants share housing precisely so that they can save enough money to marry. After marriage, however, privacy should be more important and economic independence more likely, making independent family living more desirable and feasible. Villar (1990) noted that once reunited with a spouse or children, immigrants prefer to set up an independent home, even if they thereby incur new costs that make saving more difficult. Similarly, single immigrants who eventually marry find they prefer the "privacy"and "freedom" afforded by an independent household (Villar, 1990). However, after the birth of children, needs change. Younger immigrants with newly formed families are at the most vulnerable stage of the life course when child costs are highest and child care needs are greatest (Browning and Rodriguez, 1985; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994). As a result of the special needs associated with young children, parents may have to forgo the privacy of independent housing until children are older. Because recent immigrants tend to be young (Massey and Schnabel, 1983) and in a stage of the life course when they have yet to establish an independent household, it would not be surprising to find more extended-family and nonkin living among recent immigrants compared to longer established immigrants. However, because the life course of migrants-especially recent migrants-is often disrupted, life course stages may not accurately predict the household arrangements of Mexican immigrants. For example, migrants typically marry at older ages than nonmigrants (Paz, 1985), and thus may be sharing a household with extended kin at an age when they would otherwise have established their own

40

Blank

independent household. Husbands and wives are often separated, living hundreds or thousands of miles apart (Dinerman, 1978; Massey et al., 1987; Melville, 1978; Portes and Bach, 1985; Tienda, 1980). As a result, both the level and timing of fertility are disrupted, so that migrants have fewer children than nonmigrants (Massey and Mullen, 1984). With fewer or no children, the necessity and desire for independent housing should be less (Dinerman, 1978). If they leave their children in Mexico while they work in the U.S., immigrants are separated from their children at a time in their lives when they would typically be residing with them (Baca et al., 1989; Melville, 1978; Portes and Bach, 1985). Finally, migrant men sometimes find themselves supporting two families-one in the U.S. and one at home in Mexico (Villar, 1990). Because recent Mexican immigrants frequently experience a disrupted life course, we would not expect life course stages to accurately reflect their living arrangements. However, life course events should predict the household formation of long-term immigrants and U.S.-born Mexican Americans, because they are unlikely to experience the life course disruption associated with recent international migration. Once married, Mexican Americans typically reside in independent households with a spouse and children, and extended family households are uncommon (Keefe and Padilla, 1987). In summary, this study addresses three differing explanations for the living arrangements of Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Mexican Americans over time. The acculturation perspective suggests that an increase in simple household living over years and generations in the U.S. reflects a process of assimilation to mainstream U.S. culture, historically, the dominant pattern for most U.S. immigrant groups. On the other hand, the economic resource explanation proposes that household arrangements reflect access to economic resources, which improve over the migration and settlement process, making independent housing more affordable. Finally, the life course explanation suggests that the shift to simple household living reflects the relative youth of the migrant population at the time of arrival and the specific life course stages that they pass through over time in the U.S. Because recent immigrants often experience a disrupted life course, I predict that the life course will have explanatory power only for long-term immigrants and U.S. natives.

DATA AND SAMPLE SELECTION The data for this study come from the PSID/LNPS Early Release File. The sample contains a nationally representative selection of 2043 Latino households successfully followed from the 1989 Latino National Political

Hearth and Home

41

Survey (LNPS) sample. LNPS researchers selected households from a multistage, area probability sampling procedure, based on 1980 Census data. After screening the households for eligible Latino residents, LNPS researchers randomly selected one Latino adult from each household to be interviewed between July 1989 and March 1990. To be eligible for selection, Latino adults had to be residing in the U.S. and have at least one parent solely of Mexican, Cuban, or Puerto Rican ancestry. Interviews elicited information about the respondents and their households. In the summer and fall of 1990, PSID investigators took over the sample, relocating the original LNPS respondents and interviewing the "heads" of their households. Of the 1546 Mexican respondents who took part in the first round of interviewing, PSID researchers successfully collected data on the households of 1128 of these participants during the second round of interviews. The PSID/LNPS data set provides a uinique opportunity to study the household formations of Mexican Americans. Because information was gathered about each household member, researchers are able to determine the relationships between individuals within the household, obtaining detailed information about living arrangements. The data set is also rare in that it distinguishes between immigrants and the U.S. born. Moreover, it is the first nationally representative sample that contains information about the length of stay in the U.S. for immigrants. Compared to the U.S. Census, it provides a broader range of acculturation and assimilation indicators, including, for example, years of U.S. schooling. The sample is part of a larger longitudinal project, and data from 1991 and 1992 interview waves have just been released, promising great potential for following individual migrants over time.

MODEL SPECIFICATION AND METHODS This study provides an individual-level, rather than household-level, analysis. Although the PSID/LNPS surveys collected limited information on all household members, measurements for generation and time in the U.S. were compiled only for the original LNPS Respondent and the PSID Head of Household. Because using head of household as the unit of analysis would underrepresent women and young adults, the LNPS respondent was chosen as the unit of analysis. The study utilizes data from both the 1989 LNPS and 1990 PSID surveys. Variables pertaining to household formation, marital status, number of children, and age refer to questions from the PSID survey and are thus as of 1990. The variables concerning length of stay and generation represent responses to LNPS questions.

42

Blank

Appendix 1 describes the research variables. The dependent variable is simple household, and for the purposes of regression, it is coded as a "dummy"variable consisting of two categories: simple household and other. A simple household is defined as one that includes a head (with or without a spouse) and/or minor children of the head (or the spouse). To qualify as living in a simple household, no adult children,4 extended kin, nor nonrelatives may be present in the household. A respondent coded as living in a simple household could be the head or the spouse of the head. Cohabitors of the head who have been residing with the head for at least one year are treated as a "spouse," and thus are also included in the simple household. Single adults living alone and nuclear families (including single-parent) are categorized together as the goal of the research is to compare the conditions associated with living independently (either alone or with a nuclear family) to those experienced by immigrants who reside in more complex arrangements-such as with extended kin or unrelated persons. Appendix 2 provides a more detailed breakdown of living arrangements and associations with English fluency, income, and age. The primary independent variable is years in the U.S. This variable measures the number of years since an immigrant first arrived in the U.S. In addition, the analysis contains three sets of additional explanatory variables. The first set represents acculturation and includes spoken English ability and years of U.S. schooling. Language in general, and English proficiency specifically, are well established in the literature as good proxies for determining the level of cultural isolation experienced by immigrants in the host society and the extent of their own ethnic identification (Stevens, 1991; Alba, 1990; Burr and Mutchler, 1993). Because U.S. schools transmit the values, norms, beliefs, and attitudes of dominant U.S. culture (Sadker and Sadker, 1994), and aim to integrate immigrants into the mainstream of American life, the study also uses U.S. schooling as an indicator of acculturation. The more years of U.S. schooling one has completed, the more highly acculturated I assume her or him to be. If household formation reflects a process of acculturation, then English ability and U.S. schooling should be significantly related to living arrangements. The second set of indicators, those reflecting economic resources, include individual income, spouse/cohabitor's income, family income, and whether or not the respondent is employed. If economic resources enable
4Households with adult children are excluded from the simple household category because the presence of adult children may affect the economic status and stability of the household. Of the sample respondents, 7% (n = 83) are the adult children of the household head and another 19% (n = 211) share their home with an adult child of the head. Of the adult children present in the respondents' households, 58% were employed at the time of the 1990 interview. In 1989, these employed adult children earned a mean income of $9000.

Hearth and Home

43

an individual to afford independent living-either as a single adult or with a nuclear family-then these variables should have a positive, significant relationship with simple household living. Because correlations between these variables are less than r = 0.64, all four economic indicators are included in the logistic models. The third set of variables consists of life course measurements such as the respondent's age and whether or not married.5 Life course variables also include whether or not the respondent is a parent, whether or not a child is a member of the respondent's family unit, and whether or not a young child of less than 6 years belongs to the respondent's family unit. Living with children and young children, rather than simply having children, is included in the analysis because previous research indicates that living arrangements should be most closely associated with these life course circumstances (Chavez, 1992; Dinerman, 1978; Villar, 1990). Since children can live in simple households or other arrangements, a built-in relationship between children or young children in the family unit and simple household living is unlikely. Simple household is not based on the presence of children, but rather on the lack of extended kin and nonrelatives. If the life course explanation holds, these five life course variables should be significantly related to living arrangements, and the relationship between living arrangements and time in the U.S. should disappear once these variables are introduced into the analysis. Recent research emphasizes the need to view international migration as a gendered process (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994; Pedraza, 1991; Tienda and Booth, 1991). A graph of the percentage of respondents residing in a simple household by time in the U.S. and sex indicates that immigrant women are more likely than immigrant men to reside in a simple household at each time period (Fig. 1). This makes sense in terms of the immigration process, particularly for family stage migration, where first-time female immigrants typically come to the U.S. to join or return with a husband or fiance who has already lived in the U.S. for several years (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994; Massey et al., 1987; Melville, 1978). Because recent female immigrants often come to the U.S. to live with men who are farther along in the immigration process, establishing an independent household is feasible more quickly for women than for recent male immigrants. Because of these gender differences in the immigration process, sex is included in the analysis as a control variable.
5Among married respondents, only 11 (2%) were not living with their spouse at the time of

the 1990 interview. Of these 11, 9 were male, 4 were immigrants of 10 or fewer years, another 3 were immigrants of more than 10 years, and 4 were U.S. natives. Ten parents were included among these married respondents living away from their spouse, but only 3 were residing with their children at the time of the interview.

44

Blank

tL

In

0.

ID 0
40

10

20

30

50

60

70

Fig. 1.

0-5 yrs

Percentage 6-10 of yrs

101

respondents Time residing 11-20 or in yrs a simple Generation in the 21+ household yrs U.S. by g

2nd gen years/generations in the U.S. and sex. 3rd+ gen

| U

female

male

Hearth and Home

45

Number of persons in the family unit is also included as a control variable. Its presence allows us to examine the relationship between family income and simple household while controlling for family unit size. This should help to better capture the magnitude of the resources individuals and families consider when making decisions about living arrangements. More detailed descriptions of the research variables can be found in Appendix 1. The analysis utilizes a set of multivariate models to test the main research hypothesis and the explanations involving acculturation, economic resources and the life course. Because the dependent variable-simple household-is dichotomous, logistic regression is used to estimate the odds of a household arrangement occurring. The models are applied to three groups: recent Mexican immigrants, longer established Mexican immigrants, and U.S. natives of Mexican heritage. While recent immigrants are those who first arrived in the U.S. no more than 10 years ago, longer established immigrants are those who first arrived more than 10 years ago.

FINDINGS Summary Characteristics Table I presents the summary statistics for the sample respondents. The table shows that the percentage of simple households is similar for immigrants and U.S. natives; there is no statistically significant difference. After disaggregating for sex, however, variation appears. Only 48% of male Mexican immigrants reside in a simple household, whereas 62% of Mexican American men who were born in the U.S. live in such a household. In contrast, female immigrants are more likely than U.S.-born women to form simple households. While 61% of female immigrants live in a household without extended kin or nonfamily members, only 51% of U.S. native women reside in such a home. Compared to Mexican Americans born in the U.S., Mexican immigrants are more likely to be married and living with their spouse or a cohabitor. Whereas only 57% of the U.S. born are married, 68% of the immigrants are married. Likewise, 56% of the U.S. natives share their home with a spouse or long-term cohabitor, compared to 68% of the immigrants. It remains to be seen how these differences in relational opportunities and constraints affect living arrangements. Not surprisingly, education and English fluency levels are lower for immigrants than for the U.S. born. Immigrants complete a mean of seven

46 Table I. Sample Characteristics of Immigrants by Place of Birth and Sex' Immigrants Variables % in simple household Mean years since first in U.S. % fluent in spoken English Mean years of U.S. schooling Mean years of total schooling Mean 1989 individual income' Mean 1989 spouse's incomee Mean 1989 family income % employed Mean age % married % with spouse/cohabitator in household % parent % with child in family unit % with young child in family unit Mean number of persons in family unit Total Malec (n =533)d (n =249) 55% 19 17% 2 7 $13,000 $15,000 $23,000 59% 38 68% 68% 81% 75% 46% 4.3 48% 17 19% 2 7 $16,000 $9,000 $26,000 84% 37 75% 74% 71% 71% 47% 4.3 Female (n=284) 61% 20 16% 2 7 $9,000 $18,000 $21,000 38% 40 62% 64% 89% 80% 46% 4.3 U.S. Natives

Blank

Total Male Female (n =484) (n = 185) (n =299) 56% 90% 11 11 $15,000 $20,000 $28,000 56% 39 57% 56% 76% 62% 30% 3.5 62% 89% 12 12 $20,000 $14,000 $32,000 68% 39 69% 65% 68% 55% 24% 3.2 51% 91% 11 11 $11,000 $24,000 $26,000 48% 40 50% 50% 82% 67% 34% 3.6

aThe data is from the 1990 Panel Study of Income Dynamics Latino Sample. After weighting the data to represent the U.S. Mexican-descent population, no differences appear between the weighted data and the sample data for the characteristics presented in this table. bAll associations between place of origin and the sample characteristics are significant at the p < .05 level with the following exceptions: for Total group-simple family household, parent, employed; for Males-spouse/cohabitator in household, parent, married; for Females-age. cWithin place of birth and sample characteristics, all gender differences are significant at the p < .05 level with the following exceptions: for Immigrants-years in U.S., fluent, U.S. schooling, total schooling, age, young child in family unit, number of persons in family unit; for U.S. Natives-fluent, age. dThe value of n varies slightly for each variable category due to missing values within categories. eThis statistic is based only on those who received an income in 1989. Income included earnings and transfer payments.

years of total schooling, while Mexican Americans born in the U.S. finish a mean of 11 years of formal education. Just about one-sixth of Mexican immigrants speak English fluently. In contrast, 90% of U.S.-native Mexican Americans speak fluent English. U.S. natives also earn a higher mean income than immigrants ($15,000 compared to $13,000, respectively) and reside in smaller households.

Hearth and Home

47

Results from Logistic Regression Analysis Logistic regression provides a closer examination of the relationship between years in the U.S. and household composition. The models also examine the explanatory cultural, economic, and life course variables, while controlling for sex and family unit size. Recent Immigrants As illustrated in Table II, a significant positive relationship exists between years in the U.S. and the likelihood of living in a simple household but only for the recent immigrant group. Even after acculturation variables, economic indicators, life course events and stages, sex and family unit size are included in the model, recent immigrants still have an increased likelihood of living in a simple household as time in the U.S. increases. While there is no relationship between cultural indicators and household formation, income matters. Controlling for family size, recent immigrants are more likely to live with extended family or nonrelatives if family income is high. This suggests that newly arrived immigrants are willing to forgo privacy and put up with the crowded conditions of some extended households when the arrangement provides economic security. Likewise, the data suggest that it is the more economically stable families who open up their homes to recently arrived family and friends. Keefe and Padilla (1987) argue that wealthier Mexican Americans provide the greatest familial support to extended kin because they are in the best position to do so. One's position in the life course is also important for understanding the household arrangements newly arrived immigrants choose. A married recent immigrant is five times more likely6 to live in a simple household than such an immigrant who is unmarried. This finding supports the observations of Villar (1990) that, once reunited or married, Mexican immigrant couples prefer to set up their own independent households. Likewise, recent immigrants with children are 14 times more likely than those without to opt for private households lacking extended kin and nonrelatives. Regardless of children's age, families with children prefer the privacy of independent housing. Although the association is not statisticallysignificant (p > Itl = .174), recent female immigrants are three times more likely than their male counterparts to live in simple households. The tendency of male immigrants to live in other arrangementswith extended kin and nonrelatives reflects, in part,
6The odds ratio of living in a simple household compared to not living in a simple household is calculated by computing the inverse natural log of the beta coefficient (e beta).

48

Blank

Table II. Logit Coefficients for the Likelihood of Simple Household Arrangements Among Mexican Americans' Recent Immigrantsb Variables Years in the U.S.e Cultural indicators Speaks some Englishf Speaks fluent Englishg Years of U.S. schooling Economic resource indicators Individual incomeh Spouse's incomeh Family incomeh Employed Life course indicators Age Married Parent Child in family unit Young child in family unit Control variable Sexf Number of persons in family unit Beta Coeff.
.34k

Longer Established Immigrantsc Beta Coeff. SE

U.S. Nativesd Beta Coeff. SE

SE 0.12 0.68 1.38 0.11 0.077 0.054 0.049 0.73 0.033 0.69 0.85 1.17 0.79 0.79 0.25

0.018 0.26 -0.028' 0.14 0.097 -0.12i -0.054 -0.019 1.57' 0.22 2.64' 1.13 -1.09
_.84k

1.54k

-0.076 0.24' 0.27'

-0.23k

0.49 0.044 0.045 0.044 0.040 0.36 0.013 0.41 0.51 0.56 0.37 0.41 0.12

0.012 -0.0066 .16' .18' -.18' -0.17 -0.0096 1.30' -0.11 1.08' 0.37 0.48 -.60

0.50 0.048 0.034 0.033 0.033 0.30 0.013 0.33 0.47 0.43 0.34 0.32 0.12

-0.05 0.015 0.51 -0.31 1.10 1.38' -0.58 -.49'

n =118 df= 14 Log likelihood = -47

n =342 df= 12 Log likelihood = -159

n =430 df= 12 Log likelihood = -211

"The data is from the 1990 Panel Study of Income Dynamics Latino Sample. bFirst arrived in the U.S. 10 or fewer years ago. cFirst arrived in the U.S. more than 10 years ago. dBorn in the U.S. eYears in the U.S. has been omitted from the model for longer established immigrants because it is highly correlated with age (r = 0.79). In addition, an earlier bivariate logit analysis indicated that years in the U.S. is not significantly related to living in a simple household (beta coeff. = 0.0063; p > ItI = 0.40). fSpeaks some English has been omitted form the models for longer established immigrants and U.S. natives because of collinearity with speaks fluent English. The correlation coefficients are -0.63 and -0.93, respectively. gThe omitted category is speaks no English. hIncomes have been divided by 1000. 'Male = 1 and female = 0. 'p < .05.
kp < .01. Ip < .001.

Hearth and Home

49

the temporary nature of their stay in the U.S. and their young age (Table I). Disruption in their life course since migration often prohibits young men from marryingand establishing independent households (Chavez, 1990; Paz, 1985). Conversely, female Mexican immigrants often migrate to the U.S. to join or return with a husband or fiance who has lived in the U.S. for several years and is farther along in the migration process and perhaps in a better position to establish an independent household (Massey et al., 1987; Melville, 1978; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994). These results confirm the importance of viewing international migration as a gendered process in which the adaptation experiences of women and men may differ (Blank and Torrecilha, forthcoming; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1995; Sluzki, 1979; Toro-Morn, 1995).

Longer Established Immigrants Once a Mexican immigrant has lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years, additional years of residence no longer increase the odds of simple family living. A bivariate logit analysis indicated that, for these immigrants, years in the U.S. is not significantly related to living in a simple household (beta coeff. = .0063; (p > ItI = 0.40). However, because years in the U.S. is highly correlated with age (r = 0.79), it is not included in the multivariate model for longer established immigrants. As indicated in Table II, spoken English fluency, the three income measurements, a young child in the family unit, and family size are significantly related to living arrangements for longer established immigrants. The results suggest that similar to recent immigrants, long-term immigrants reside with extended family and nonrelatives when it is economically beneficial to do so. Family income is negatively related to living in a simple household after controlling for family size. In contrast to recent immigrants, significant, positive relationships also exist between individual income and simple household living and spousal income and the simple household pattern. These findings imply that when sharing a home with extended kin or nonrelatives makes little difference in family income, those individuals and married couples with higher incomes opt for independent, simple households. In other words, immigrants live with extended kin and nonrelatives when it enhances their economic security or when they can not afford to live alone. The acculturation variable, "speaks fluent English," is statistically significant, although U.S. schooling is not related to simple household living for long-term immigrants. Fluent English speakers are almost five times more likely than are those who speak little or no English to reside in a simple household. This finding reflects some degree of acculturation to U.S.

50

Blank

society-more fluent, long-term immigrants may be more acculturated and thus more likely to live in household arrangements typical of other Americans with whom they share a preference for independent housing. In this respect, long-term and recent immigrants differ: recent immigrants show no relationship between English ability and simple household formation. For long-term immigrants, the increased likelihood of those with young children to live in a simple household (compared to those without young children) conflicts with the research hypothesis. Having young children does not make one more likely to share a household with extended kin or other adults. Regardless of one's financial resources or marital status, parents with young children still prefer the privacy of a simple household arrangement. Other life course predictors, such as age and marital status, are not related to household structure for longer established immigrants. U.S. Natives For U.S.-born Mexican Americans, income and life course events dominate household formation. Similar to the findings for recent and longterm immigrants, family income is negatively related to the odds of simple household formation. U.S. natives, like immigrants, are apt to live with extended family and nonkin when such arrangements provide economic benefits. However, individual and spousal income are positively related to simple household living. As with long-term immigrants, this suggests that when extended family arrangements provide no added economic security, U.S. natives with higher incomes prefer to live alone or only with nuclear family members. For U.S.-born Mexican Americans, the life course is also important for understanding household arrangements. Married U.S. natives are more than three times as likely to be a member of a simple living arrangement as are those who are unmarried. Likewise, U.S. natives with children are three times as likely as those without children to reside in homes that include no extended family or nonrelatives. These results are consistent with Goode's theory (1970, 1982) that nuclear families in industrialized or industrializing societies prefer to live in their own nuclear households. In this respect, Mexican Americans are apparently no different from non-Hispanic whites. Neither English language fluency nor U.S. schooling account for living with extended kin or nonfamily. In contrast, income and life course events play a more important role in household formation than does familiarity with these aspects of U.S. culture.

Hearth and Home

51

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Inaccurate public perceptions and xenophobia often cloud understanding of Mexican immigrant household formation. The "common-sense" understanding of immigrants is that they live in large households because they prefer large families. Natives often portray these living arrangements as a "problem," seeing them as crowded, unhygienic, and a source of crime (Chavez, 1990). Some cities have created household density regulations, prohibiting more than a specific number of occupants per household room. Policies such as these are often based on misperceptions. In contrast, this study teases out the influences on living arrangements, comparing Mexican immigrants to U.S.-born Mexican Americans. The findings question the popularly held assumption that Mexican Americans live with extended family because they like to or because it is part of "their culture." Sharing a home with extended kin or nonrelatives is not the norm for immigrants or U.S. natives of Mexican heritage. While living in a simple household arrangement (no extended kin or nonfamily) becomes significantly more likely the longer an immigrant resides in the U.S., the relationship holds only for recent immigrants who have been in the U.S. no longer than 10 years. Of the three explanatory hypotheses tested in this study, the data provide the greatest support for the economic resource and life course explanations. The data indicate only limited support for the acculturation hypothesis. Economic resources and life course events are key to understanding the household arrangements of Mexican-heritage persons in the U.S. The data suggest that both immigrants and U.S. natives move in with extended kin or nonrelatives-or invite these individuals to share their home-when it is economically advantageous to do so. In this sense, sharing a home with extended-family or other nonrelated adults is an economic strategy for creating a more financially secure environment for oneself or one's family. Such households may reflect a resource generating strategy aimed at correcting differential access to economic resources-which disadvantaged groups, Mexican American, or otherwise, tend to experience (Stapples and Mirande, 1981; Bean and Tienda, 1987; Bianchi, 1980). However, when sharing a home with extended kin or nonrelatives makes little difference in one's family income, long-term immigrants and U.S. natives with higher incomes are more likely to choose simple household arrangements. In other words, Mexican Americans are apt to put up with the crowded conditions and lack of privacy that exist in many extended households only when the arrangement provides increased economic security. The living arrangements of Mexican Americans represent a response to structural or socioeconomic conditions, regardless of level of acculturation (Vega, 1990).

52

Blank

As Mexican Americans, immigrants or not, pass through the life course, they experience specific living patterns reflective of the needs and demands of their life course stage. For recent immigrants and U.S. natives, having a child of any age in the family significantly increases one's odds of living in a simple household. For longer established immigrants, the relationship is only significant when children are young, less than age 6. Likewise, being married increases one's odds of simple household living, but only for recent immigrants and the U.S. born. With marriage and the birth of a child, needs change. Privacy becomes more important and independent housing is more desirable. The communal living situations which were acceptable as a young adult without children, become less favorable, regardless of financial status. The results discount the explanatory power of acculturation, revealing a relationship between acculturation indicators and household formation only for longer established immigrants. Long term immigrants who speak English fluently are more likely than those who do not to live in a simple household. While this finding may reflect an association between simple household living and acculturation to the norms of mainstream U.S. society, data from Mexico suggest caution at drawing such an inference. According to the 1987 Mexican Fecundity and Health Survey, 5% of the households in Mexico consisted of single individuals and 68% were nuclear family households (Diaz, 1992; Osaki, 1991). Thus, 73% of the households in Mexico in 1987 were either solitaire or nuclear family arrangements. Although Mexico's rates are based on households, and the rates in this investigation are for individuals, they can be compared because each respondent in this study represents a single, randomly selected household. The high percentage of solitaire/nuclear family homes in Mexico suggest that a shift to simple household living with increased English skills does not necessarily reflect an adoption of U.S. mainstream cultural norms-simple households are also the norm in Mexico. However, advanced English skills no doubt serve as a valuable tool for securing independent housing by allowing immigrants to negotiate with landlords or to apply for a loan. English proficiency may also provide immigrants with a broader social network that could facilitate acquiring independent housing. The research findings provide little evidence that Mexican Americans live in extended households because of "their culture." For recent immigrants, the relationship between years in the U.S. and simple household living remains even after introducing the acculturation, economic resource, and life course indicators. What else, then, might explain the transition from complex to simple household living with time in the U.S.? Despite cultural preferences for independent households (Diaz, 1992; Keefe and Padilla, 1987; Villar, 1990), newly arrived immigrants are

Hearth and Home

53

frequently unable to establish such a household, because specific goals and responsibilities associated with early migration take precedence in the lives of migrants. As Chavez (1992) explains, for an individual or a family new to the U.S., sharing a household with extended kin, friends, or another family provides a way to share rent and thus meet the goals of living cheaply, saving earnings, and sending money back to Mexico. Living with kin and friends from home may help recent immigrants who lack established credit to secure housing. For immigrants who are often thousands of miles away from spouses, children, and other close relatives and friends, sharing housing with extended kin or friends may serve to reduce loneliness and feelings of alienation. Finally, recent immigrants may open their homes to relatives from their home communities in Mexico out of familial responsibility or to repay debts. Thus, specific goals and responsibilities associated with the early stages of the migration process may carry greater weight in determining the living arrangements of recent immigrants than acculturation, economic resources, or the life course. Of course, this investigation is not longitudinal, but cross-sectional. Individuals were not followed over time; rather, groups of individuals at different stages in the immigration process and of different generations were compared to each other. To what extent, then, can we assume that the recent immigrants of 1990 will, in 10 years, look like the longer established immigrants of 1990? Examining historical conditions is a logical way to address this issue. One historical event that has directly affected Mexican immigrants is the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. About 3 million immigrants applied for legal residency, and the law made it illegal for employers to hire undocumented immigrants (Bean et al., 1989). Chavez's work (1985, 1990) was based on regional data collected in the early 1980s, before IRCA. The similarity between the conclusions from his pre-IRCA local studies and this post-IRCA national study seems to indicate that these findings are quite generalizable and reflect an immigration process, rather than an epoch. Another reasonable objection to this cross-sectional analysis is that it cannot take account of possibly selective return migration. Some newcomers do not settle in the U.S., so we cannot discount the possibility that the longer established Mexican immigrants in this study are those immigrants who have always tended toward settlement and, perhaps, simple living arrangements. Research, however, suggests that settlement occurs in a variety of circumstances and patterns (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994; Villar, 1990). Thus, it is difficult to anticipate how or even whether return migration might effect the study results. Future analysis of recently released 1991 and 1992 PSID files will allow researchers to follow individual immigrants over time, and those data should support the findings from this project.

54

Blank

The subject of undocumented immigration bears mentioning. Because of the sample design, undocumented immigrants are probably underrepresented among the sample. Other researchers have found it very difficult to contact and interview undocumented immigrants because of their fears of being deported (Cornelius, 1982). Thus, one would expect the percentage of undocumented immigrants in this sample to be lower than the percentage among the U.S. Mexican immigrant population. However, adding these missing undocumented immigrants to the sample, if that were possible, would most likely not change the study findings. It is undocumented immigrants who have the greatest need to form complex living arrangements in order to meet early migration goals. With a national-level approach and explanatory analysis, this paper provides a powerful complement to earlier ethnographic work on the living arrangements of Mexican immigrants. The results demonstrate that immigrants are most likely to reside with extended kin or nonrelatives upon recent arrival to the U.S. This pattern should be viewed in terms of the immigration process, as well as in terms of the specific goals of recent immigrants, which are often accomplished through sharing a household. For longer established immigrants and U.S. natives, living arrangements most clearly reflect a strategy for maximizing economic resources and meeting the needs of life course stages.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was supported, in part, by the School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine.

REFERENCES
Alba, Richard D. 1990 Ethnic Identity: The Transformation of White Americans. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Baca, Reynaldo, Dexter Bryan, Clair McLean, and Francisco Gomez 1989 "Mexican immigration and the portof-entry school." International Migration Review 23:3-23. Bean, Frank and Marta Tienda 1987 The Hispanic Population of the U.S. New York: Russel Sage. Bean, Frank, Georges Vernez, and Charles Keely 1989 Opening and Closing the Doors: Evaluating Immigration Reform and Control. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation and the Urban Institute. Bianchi, Susan M. 1980 "Racial differences in per capita income, 1960-1976: The importance of household size, headship, and labor force participation." Demography 17:129-143.

Hearth and Home Blank, Susan and Ramon Torrecilha forth- "Understanding the living arrangecom- ments of latino immigrants: A life course approach." International Miing gration Review. Briody, Elizabeth K. 1987 "Patterns of household Immigration into South Texas." International Migration Review 21:27-47. Browning, Harley L. and Nestor Rodriguez 1985 "The migration of Mexican Indocumentados as a settlement process: Implications for work." In George Borjas and Marta Tienda (eds.), Hispanics in the U.S. Economy: 277-297. New York: Academic Press. Burr, Jeffrey A. and Jan E. Mutchler 1992 "The living arrangements of unmarried elderly hispanic females." Demography 29:93-112. 1993 "Ethnic living arrangements: Cultural convergence or cultural manifestation?" Social Forces 72:169-179. California State Employment Development Department 1986 Socio-Economic Trends in California, 1940-1980. Chavez, Leo 1985 "Household migration and labor market participation: The adaptation of Mexicans to life in the United States." Urban Anthropology 14:301-346. 1990 "Coresidence and resistance: Strategies for survival among undocumented Mexicans and Central Americans in the United States." Urban Anthropology 19:31-61. 1992 Shadowed Lives: Undocumented Immigrants in American Society. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Chiswick, Barry R. 1984 "Illegal aliens in the U.S. labor market: An analysis of occupational attainment and earnings." International Migration Review 18:714-732. Cornelius, Wayne 1979 "La migracion ilegal mexicana a los Estados Unidos: conclusiones de investigaciones recientes, implicaciones politicas y prioridades de investigacion." In Indocumentados: mitos and realidades: 69-109. Mexico DF: El

55 Colegio de Mexico, Centro de Estudios Internacionales. 1982 "Interviewing undocumented immigrants: Methodological reflections based on fieldwork in Mexico and the United States." International Migration Review 16:378-411. Diaz, Felix Acosta 1992 "Hogares mas pobres con jefaturas femeninas." Demos: Carta demografica sobre Mexico 5:30-31. Dinerman, Ina 1978 "Patterns of adaptation among households of U.S.-bound migrants from Michoacan, Mexico." International Migration Review 12:485-501. Duncan, Greg J., Marta Hill, James Lekowski, Rodolfo de la Garza, Angelo Falcon, Chris Garcia, and John Garcia 1992 PANEL STUDY OF INCOME DYNAMICS, 1968-1988, LATINO SAMPLE, Early Release File [computer file]. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Center, University of Michigan [producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. Farley, John E. 1995 Majority-Minority Relations. New York: Prentice-Hall. Goode, William J. 1970 World Revolutions and Family Pattern. New York: The Free Press. 1982 The Family. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gordon, Milton 1978 Human Nature, Class, and Ethnicity. New York: Oxford University Press. Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette 1993 "Regulating the unregulated?: Domestic workers' social networks." Social Problems 41:50-64. 1994 Gendered Transitions: Mexican Experiences of Immigration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Howe, Irving 1976 World of Our Fathers. New York: Simon & Schuster. Hurtado, Aida 1995 "Variations, combinations, and evolutions: Latino families in the United States." In Ruth E. Zambrana (ed.), Understanding Latino Families: Schol-

56 arship, Policy, and Practice: 40-61. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Keefe, Susan E. and Amado M. Padilla 1987 Chicano Ethnicity. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Massey, Douglas S. 1987 "Do undocumented migrants earn lower wages than legal immigrants? New evidence from Mexico." International Migration Review 21:1498-1522. Massey, Douglas S., Rafael Alarcon, Jorge Durand, and Humberto Gonzalez 1987 Return to Aztlan. Berkeley: University of California Press. Massey, Douglas S., Joaquin Arango, Graeme Hugo, Ali Kouaouci, Adela Pellegrino, and J. Edward Taylor 1994 "An evaluation of international migration theory: The North American case." Population and Development Review 20:699-751. Massey, Douglas S. and Brendan P. Mullan 1984 "A demonstration of the effect of seasonal migration on fertility." Demography 21:501-517. Massey, Douglas S. and Kathleen M. Schnabel 1983 "Recent trends in Hispanic immigration to the United States." International Migration Review 17:212-244. Melville, Margarita B. 1978 "Mexican Women Adapt to Migration." International Migration Review 12:225-235. Moll, Luis C., Javier Tapia, and Kathryn Whitmore 1993 "Living knowledge: The social distribution of cultural resources for thinking." In Gavriel Salomon (ed.), Distributed Cognitions: 139-163. New York: Cambridge University Press. Morawska, Ewa 1990 The sociology and historiography of In Virginia Yansimmigration. McLaughlin (ed.), Immigration Reconsidered: History, Sociology and Politics: 187-238. New York: Oxford University Press. Osaki, Keiko-Ono 1991 "Female headed households in developing countries: by choice or by circumstances." Paper prepared for the Demographic and Health Surveys World Conference, August 5-7, Washington, DC.

Blank Palerm, Juan Vicente 1991 Farm Labor Needs and Farm Workers in California, 1970 to 1989. Report prepared for the California State Employment Development Department. Paz, Carlos Brambila 1985 Migraciony formacion familiaren Mexico. Mexico DF: El Colegio de Mexico. Pedraza, Silvia 1991 "Women and migration: The social consequences of gender."-Annual Review of Sociology 17:303-325. Portes, Alejandro and Robert L. Bach 1985 Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexican Immigrants in the United States. University of California Press. Portes, Alejandro and Ruben Rumbaut 1990 Immigrant America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ramirez, 0. 1980 "Extended family support and mental health status among Mexicans in Detroit." La Red 28:2. Sadker, Myra and David Sadker 1994 Failing at Fairness: How America's Schools Cheat Girls. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Sluzki, Carlos 1979 "Migration and family conflict." Family Process 18:379-390. Smith, Judith 1985 Family Connections: A History of Italian and Jewish Lives in Providence, Rhode Island, 1900-1940. New York: SUNY Press. Stapples, Robert and Alfredo Mirande 1981 "Racial and cultural variation among American families: A decennial review of the literature on minority families." Journal of Marriage and Family 42:887-903. Stevens, Gillian 1991 "The social and demographic context of language use in the United States." American Sociological Review 57:383408. Tapia, Javier 1991 Cultural Reproduction and Funds of Knowledge in U.S. Mexican Households. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, Tuscon. Tienda, Marta 1980 "Familism and structural assimilation of Mexican immigrants in the U.S." International Migration Review 14:383-408.

Hearth and Home Tienda, Marta and Ronald J. Angel 1982 "Headship and household composition among Blacks, Hispanics, and other Whites." Social Forces 61:508-531. Tienda, Marta and Karen Booth 1991 "Gender, migration and social change." International Sociology 6:5172. Tienda, Marta and Jennifer Glass 1985 "Household structure and labor force participation of Black, Hispanic, and White mothers." Demography 22:381394. Tienda, Marta and Lisa Niedert 1980 "Segmented markets and earnings inequality of native and immigrant Hispanics in the United States." Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Social Statistics Section, 72-81. Toro-Morn, Maura I. 1995 "Gender, class, family, and migration: Puerto Rican women in Chicago." Gender and Society 9:712-726.

57 U.S. Bureau of the Census 1991 The Hispanic Population in the United States. Current Population Re-

ports, Series p-20, No. 455. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1992 Current Population Reports, Series p20, No. 458. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Immigration Commission 1911 Immigrants in Industries. Washington, DC. Velez-Ibanez, Carlos G. 1989 Plural Strategies of Survival and Cultural Formation in U.S. Mexican Households in a Region of Dynamic Transformation: The U.S.-Mexico Borderlands. University of Arizona. Villar, Maria de Lourdes 1990 "Rethinking settlement processes: The experience of Mexican undocumented migrants in Chicago." Urban Anthropology 19:63-79.

58

Blank

dA bIn Sex Age cThe Some Years Child Young Parent Family Years Years Fluent Simple family during Married in Number unitd in Spouse's of of family family families. EmployedIndividual of aHousehold eCohabiting child addition the household both omitted unitd Variable unit of Englishc income total U.S. Englishc in family income is the members. head U.S. household Spouse/cohabitator income is persons an partner unitd in family in 1989 category "legal" schooling schooling is Family based and includes on A individual a units spouse, The The The The The Total The The The The The The The Age, Total Total 1990 or speaks (or time PSID in also no the of labor, labor, Calculated labor, number group number "spouse" interview. respondent number by individual household the individual individual years, individual of cohabitator of of respondent of respondent interviews.English. include respondent'sis respondent's respondent's of asset, that asset, asset, spouse). a 1990 and came refers who wasthe was sex. speaks years speaks andandandyears to categorization to persons has a of "family "family subtracting Does individuals the her/his parent. since includes where a married interview. employed transfer the English, not Cohabitators been English cohabitators.e an transfer U.S. transfer unit" unit" at individual the living residing as at are A spouse at schoolingbut heada in the living include or highest cohabitator.e Appendix head the the incomeincomefrom not well income the those with 1. contains contains with together is time the as as immigrant of time at at or grade or household the of time all the who earnedcompleted earnedyears well first of of or the at least least cohabitator by in as better householdsVariable the are of the individuals without the year husband respondent's one one contains with 1990 a arrived Definition of 1989. total 1990 or were 1990 members than respondent he/she in livingone time related of adult family in foror by person person of the male school he/she spouseb Definitions a interview. family speaks residing unit the schooling one interview. U.S. interview. more at under in under blood, spouse/cohabitator children. partner year Does 1990 speaks and/or unitd the the the the in in or family completed Spanish. in not achieved ageage at minor marriage-like time same 1989. marriage, most by of of more, 1989. Spanish. of units. the interview. or 6. 18. or include the the children time husband who household of 1990 the relationship. at was adoption, wife the or respondent. the and cohabitators.e head residing may 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 in = = = = = = = = = = permanent = the include yes,yes, yes, yes,yes,yes, yes,yes, yes, male, 0 0 0 0 0 0 female 0 0 0 = Coding = = = = = = = = extended cohabitation household no no no no no no no no no

Hearth and Home

59

'All bFor variable. fluent,

No Spouse

No is NoOther

or

Simple

Solitaire head present, adult present present, spouse, (extended (extended of spouse, With/without no theassociations no adult Living household present, kin kin arrangements Spouse/cohabitator Spouse/cohabitator sum adult residing residing adult children spouse, of between and/or and and/or household spouse/cohabitator, residing with with the adult n living children childrenpresent, Arrangement with minor arrangements minor no other Appendix 2. Living
(n

parent(s) other children present present nonrelatives) nonrelatives) adults children minor children for who adults arrangement the values and "yes" the 8 and sample "no" 16 14 16 2 4 35 5 7
=

14

11

33

11

Yes 629")
(n
=

Fluent Arrangement in English (%) (with Spoken Detailed

categories characteristics vary are 12 12 13 slightly significant from at 11 15 the the p total < n .05 value 11 level. due to one 12 missing 17 10

No 498)
(n

37

10

13

31

Individual $10,000 Categorization) (n (%) by = Income No > 615) Sample

(n =

Yes 513)

27

0.4

23

12

12

Yes Age 540) >

(n =

35 No (%)

Charactreristicsa

10

44

588)
(n

value for the 12 14 13 5 6 34 8 8

Total

(%) 1128)