Council on Contemporary Families

Aging

Same-Sex Couples Devote More Attention to End-of-Life Plans than Heterosexual Couples

A Research Brief Prepared for the University of Texas at Austin Population Research Center Research Brief Series

Download a PDF of the Brief

Mieke Beth Thomeer, Rachel Donnelly, Corinne Reczek, and Debra Umberson

Introduction

End-of-life planning enhances the quality of later-life caregiving, health, and death. Ideally, informal planning—conversation with loved ones about future care and end-of-life preferences—and formal planning—wills, healthcare proxies, advance care directives, and other legal documents—begins long before the end of life process. Planning is most beneficial when implemented in midlife before people are confronted with debilitating conditions or difficult decisions. Yet only about one-fourth of adults in midlife have advance care directives.

The institution of marriage, particularly heterosexual marriage, involves socially established and legally sustained patterns of norms, roles, values, and behaviors that provide spouses with informal guides to their roles and obligations. Yet norms about husbands and wives taking care of each other “in sickness and in health” may interfere with actually discussing and planning such care prior to serious illness or infirmity. Indeed, studies repeatedly show that heterosexual married couples often do not know each other’s wishes, do not always provide care for each other or receive adequate care from children and extended family, and sometimes even face interference from families.

On the other hand, the institution of marriage is less-established for same-sex couples—marriage only recently became a right and the spouses do not necessarily conform to the marital norms often seen in different-sex couples—which may change the incentives for end-of-life planning. For example, same-sex couples may be less likely to expect end-of-life care from a spouse and therefore be more likely to discuss their expectations for the end of life. In addition, same-sex spouses may worry about encountering discrimination that could lead to family interference and lack of family support and therefore take proactive steps to protect themselves at the end of life. Conversely, they may be wary of going to a lawyer or asking for help from family members because of those same fears of discrimination.

Therefore, formal and informal end-of-life planning unfolds differently for same-sex and different-sex spouses due to different incentives and disincentives that result from the institutional aspects of marriage and higher levels of discrimination against sexual minorities. Thinking about the end of life can be difficult for anyone but you can look at this latest infographic to see how you can slow down your mind’s perception of time, in order to make you feel more in control.

The authors conducted in-depth interviews with 90 spouses at midlife in 45 gay, lesbian, and heterosexual marriages. All respondents were Massachusetts residents at the time of the study (2012–2013); Massachusetts was the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage, in 2004. At the time of the interviews, same-sex marriage was not federally protected and was not legal in the majority of U.S. states.

Key Findings

  • Informal planning conversations and formal end-of-life plans differ for same-sex and different-sex couples. Same-sex spouses devote considerable attention to both informal and formal end-of-life planning, while heterosexual spouses report minimal informal or formal planning. Two key motivators explain this difference:
    • Weaker legal protections for same-sex relationships: Greater engagement in end-of-life planning among gay and lesbian couples has been largely motivated by the weaker legal protections around same-sex relationships, especially prior to legalization of same-sex marriage across the U.S.
    • Concerns about family interference and a lack of family support:
      • Same-sex couples—especially lesbian couples—expressed concerns about family interference and about a lack of support from extended family at the end of life.
      • Heterosexual couples were largely unconcerned about the potential for extended family going against their end-of-life wishes. Therefore, heterosexual couples may be unprepared if they do encounter family interference.
  • Couples have different assumptions about what their spouse knows and what family will do at the end of life.
    • Heterosexual couples tended to assume that their spouses knew their wishes and that family members (especially adult children) would provide end-of-life care.
    • Gay and lesbian couples did not make these same assumptions and instead relied on multiple explicit conversations with spouses and friends about their plans and wishes.
      • Same-sex couples often created plans for multiple hypothetical scenarios and worked with lawyers to put legal protections in place.
      • Most gay and lesbian couples did not discuss being concerned about lack of family support. Rather, they talked about building strong friendship networks and having explicit conversations with those friends about providing future care.

Thomeer brief figure

Click here to expand figure

Policy Implications

The norms and expectations of heterosexual marriage serve as disincentives for different-sex couples to plan for later-life care and end of life. On the other hand, while gay and lesbian couples may be better prepared for death, their greater planning for end of life may reflect valid concerns about the need for more protection. Recent state initiatives—such as Florida’s proposed bill that would allow hospices to refuse to serve lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adults—indicate that the end of life may actually be a time of heightened discrimination for gay and lesbian couples. Initiatives should aim towards more equality at the end of life. Indeed, policymakers should develop end-of-life planning incentives for all—as well as those not in long-term relationships—which would have the potential to increase well-being for the dying and the bereaved.

Reference

Thomeer, M.B., Donnelly, R., Reczek, C. & Umberson, D. (2017). Planning for Future Care and the End of Life: A Qualitative Analysis of Gay, Lesbian, and Heterosexual Couples. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 58(4):473-487.

Suggested Citation

Thomeer, M.B., Donnelly, R., Reczek, C. & Umberson, D. (2018). Same-sex couples devote more attention to end-of-life plans than heterosexual couples. PRC Research Brief 3(8). DOI: 10.15781/T2RF5KZ8Q.

About the Authors

Mieke Beth Thomeer (mthomeer@uab.edu) is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Rachel Donnelly is a doctoral student in the Department of Sociology and the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin; Corinne Reczek is an associate professor of sociology and women’s, gender, and sexuality studies and a faculty affiliate at the Institute for Population Research at The Ohio State University; and Debra Umberson is a sociology professor and director of the Population Research Center at UT Austin. Thomeer and Reczek are also former Population Research Center NICHD Predoctoral Trainees.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported, in part, by an Investigator in Health Policy Research Award to Debra Umberson from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; grant R21AG044585 from the National Institute on Aging (PI: Debra Umberson); grant P2CHD042849 awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; and grant T32 HD007081, Training Program in Population Studies, awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Black Deaths Matter: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Racial Disparities in Relationship Loss and Health

A Research Brief Prepared for the University of Texas at Austin Population Research Center Research Brief Series

Debra Umberson

Introduction

Black Americans are more likely than white Americans to experience the premature death of mothers, fathers, siblings, children, and other relatives and friends. These disparities begin in childhood and are repeated throughout life in ways that likely contribute to lifelong disadvantage in social ties as well as adverse effects on health and well-being.

Close relationships, or social ties, benefit mental health, physical health, and longevity. Yet, strained and conflicted social ties undermine health and well-being, and the loss of close relationships, particularly through death, can be devastating. In this brief, the author demonstrates that while social ties are a resource for health and well-being, this resource is unequally distributed in the population: black Americans suffer more loss and disruption to social ties than white Americans.

Racial disparities in exposure to the deaths of friends and loved ones is a unique type of stress for black Americans that destroys important social connections. This type of stress launches a lifelong cascade of psychological, social, behavioral, and biological consequences that undermine other relationships, as well as health, over the life course (see figure). A life course perspective broadens the focus on racial disparities in life expectancy in the United States to include the impact of such disparities on surviving children, adults, and families.

Umberson research brief image

This figure shows how bereavement and loss are unique stressors that shape social ties, health, and well-being through interconnected social, psychological, behavioral, and biological pathways.1

Conceptual Model, Explained

Exposure to death and relationship loss may undermine health and well-being through a complex interplay of psychological, behavioral, social, and biological pathways.

Psychological Pathways. The death of a significant other is associated with increased psychological distress and anxiety which erode a number of life outcomes. For example, distress may make it more difficult for bereaved children to focus in class or to attend school and this can have negative effects on long-term educational outcomes. Lower educational attainment, in turn, is strongly associated with poorer health and shorter life expectancy. Distress and anxiety also strain close social relationships.

Behavioral Pathways. Loss may affect health behaviors in several ways. First, to deal with emotional upset and distress, people may self-medicate with drugs or alcohol or self-comfort with overeating. Second, bereaved individuals may take behavioral risks (for example, reckless driving, risky sexual behavior) because they care less about their own well-being and survival after losing someone they care about. Third, the trauma of loss disrupts some behaviors that people have little control over, such as sleep patterns. Self-medication and risky behaviors also strain social relationships.

Social Pathways. Exposure to death can undermine health through the loss of socioeconomic status and lead to other social stressors. For example, the death of a parent may cause a family to lose wages, to move to a less expensive and less desirable neighborhood, or to shift responsibilities and require older siblings to care for younger siblings. As a result, decreased socioeconomic success, increased neighborhood stress, and other chronic strains impose stress on relationships and erode health and well-being.

Biological Pathways. Stressful events and chronic stress activate a physiologic response that, if prolonged, leads to dysregulated cardiovascular, immune, and endocrine functioning. Exposure to prolonged stress also leads to cumulative wear and tear on physiological systems that then accelerates biological aging and undermines health.

Social Ties. A central premise of the conceptual model is that death exposures weaken the potential for social connection during one’s life. This is indicated by the arrows across the top of the figure. The interconnected pathways described above undermine health in part by contributing to strain in surviving social relationships, interfering with the formation of close social ties, increasing social isolation, increasing the risk of relationship dissolution, and diminishing opportunities for supportive social ties.

An example of interconnected social and behavioral pathways would be self-medication and risk-taking behaviors that impose strain on relationships with parents, intimate partners, and children. This strain could potentially lead to additional relationship losses through divorce, breakups, and loss of contact. Behavioral and social pathways intersect again when the loss of significant others means the loss of positive social influences that might prevent health-compromising behaviors and promote health-enhancing behaviors.

In sum, early and repeated exposure to loss activate multiple and intersecting life course pathways that add to disadvantage in social connections and health throughout the life course. This disadvantage is disproportionately experienced by black Americans, beginning in childhood.

Policy Implications

Basic research and policies that address racial and ethnic disparities in loss, along with social and political action, have the power to disrupt a vicious loop of life course stress and loss that likely undermine social connections, health, and well-being across generations.

Research. Documentation of racial disparities in loss and the consequences of loss require large, representative data sets with substantial numbers of men and women from diverse racial-ethnic groups. In addition to black Americans, other populations are likely to be at increased risk for relationship loss. Indeed, the life expectancy gap between native American and white populations is even greater than the black-white gap in life expectancy. Understanding the pathways through which loss affects health and well-being also requires data sets with sophisticated measures of psychological, behavioral, social, and biological processes.

Policy. Scholarship on this topic should result in the translation of research into concrete strategies for policymakers, politicians, and practitioners who will work to reduce racial disparities caused by premature deaths of loved ones.

Reference

1Umberson, D. (2017). Black deaths matter: Race, relationship loss, and effects on survivors. Journal of Health and Social Behavior: 1-16.

Suggested Citation

Umberson, D. (2018). Black deaths matter: A conceptual framework for understanding racial disparities in relationship loss and health. PRC Research Brief 3(1). DOI: 10.15781/T2K06XH6D.

About the Author

Debra Umberson (umberson@prc.utexas.edu) is professor of sociology and director of the Population Research Center, The University of Texas at Austin.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by an infrastructure grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD, P2C HD042849) awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin and grant R01 AG026613 from the National Institute on Aging.

Gray Divorce: A Growing Risk Regardless of Class or Education

Source: Bart Booms via Flickr Creative Commons https://flic.kr/p/mRY6sa
Source: Bart Booms via Flickr Creative Commons
https://flic.kr/p/mRY6sa

By Susan L. Brown and I-Fen Lin
Bowling Green State University

In contrast to the seeming stabilization of divorce rates for the general population over the past two decades, the gray divorce rate has doubled: Married individuals aged 50 and older, including the college-educated, are twice as likely to experience a divorce today as they were in 1990. For married individuals aged 65 and older, the risk of divorce has more than doubled since 1990. Researchers explain why.

Contrary to the popular notion that divorce is increasing in the United States, the divorce rate has changed relatively little in recent decades. Marriages are not much more likely to end through divorce these days than they were 30 years ago. Yet this overall pattern of stability obscures important variations by class and age.

Generally, education tends to be protective against divorce. In fact, the marriages of college-educated couples seem to be lasting longer than they were 30 years ago. Among couples aged 40-49, the divorce rate for those with a college degree is about 50 percent lower than the rate for those with a high school diploma. This differential holds for younger adults ages 25-39, too.

But in contrast to the seeming stabilization of divorce rates for the general population over the past two decades, the gray divorce rate has doubled: Married individuals aged 50 and older, including the college-educated, are twice as likely to experience a divorce today as they were in 1990. For married individuals aged 65 and older, the risk of divorce has more than doubled since 1990.

 

Higher standards, more opportunities, longer lives, women at work help explain the trend

One reason for this is what we might call the divorce echo effect. Older individuals are more often in remarriages, not first marriages, and remarriages have long been more likely than first marriages to end through divorce. People who have been divorced in the past are more willing to divorce again in the event a marriage becomes unsatisfying. In contrast, some proportion of those in first marriages are unwilling to divorce even if they have an unsatisfying marriage.

But we are also seeing an increase in the breakup rate of older people in their first marriages. More than half of gray divorces are to couples in first marriages. Long-term marriages are not immune to divorce-more than 55 percent of gray divorces involved a split for couples who had been married more than 20 years. Many of these marriages have not been marked by severe discord. Rather, the partners have simply grown apart. There is no evidence that there are more such “empty shell” marriages than in the past, but fewer older adults seem willing to remain in them.

In part, this reflects the shifting meaning of marriage in contemporary America. Today, most people hold marriage to a higher standard than in the past. Being a good provider or a good homemaker is not enough. Spouses are supposed to be best friends and confidantes. Marriage should be a source of personal happiness and fulfillment. If spouses no longer derive satisfaction from their marriage, divorce is seen as a viable solution and carries far less social stigma then the past.

It may also be that the barriers to divorce at an older age have fallen markedly because Americans are living longer and healthier lives. For one thing, couples in their 60s can expect to live another 20 or more years, which is a long time to spend with someone you don’t have much in common with anymore. For another, disability rates have been declining. Additionally, because of longer life spans and larger numbers of divorced people in the population, the opportunities for people in their 50s, 60s, and 70s to meet new partners are much greater than in earlier eras. Online dating is surging among this demographic.

Finally, the rise in female labor force participation over the past several decades offers women in particular a way out of marriage that was not as widely available in the past. This is another reason why gray divorce is increasing. At all ages, women are more likely than men to express dissatisfaction with their marriages and to initiate divorce. It is unlikely that women over 50 are more unhappy than in the past, but these women are less likely to be financially dependent on their husbands and more likely to have the resources to call it quits.

Education doesn’t protect for gray divorce

Gray divorce is a recent phenomenon and scholars are just beginning to investigate its antecedents and consequences. For the most part, factors traditionally associated with divorce also appear to be predictive of gray divorce. But there is one notable exception: education. As noted above, on average, education tends to be protective against divorce. As a proxy for socioeconomic status, it is indicative of financial security. Education facilitates economic security, which helps to stabilize marriages. Not surprisingly, many couples who get divorced point to disputes over money as the reason why they broke up. Having plenty of money means one less thing for couples to fight about.

But this linkage only holds for younger and middle aged adults. For older adults, the risk of divorce does not differ much by education level. A college degree does not provide protection against later life divorce. The older college graduate, even one in a first marriage, faces essentially the same divorce rate as the older high school graduate.

Perhaps the economic advantages that stabilized college graduates’ marriages in the child-raising years now work in the opposite direction, making it financially possible for dissatisfied couples to split up, whereas those with fewer resources (i.e., the high school educated) feel compelled to stay together for financial reasons. Their careers are winding down, and they would not have time to recoup the economic losses often associated with divorce. Nor may they be as likely to have the savings cushion to minimize the financial shock.

Alternatively, this pattern simply may reflect the fact that for older adults, the level of financial resources one has is less tied to education level. It is younger cohorts for whom education level is closely linked to earnings (which is why so many young people are pursuing a college degree). The role of education for economic security differs across cohorts, and this has ramifications for how education is linked to the risk of divorce across the life course.

Consequences of gray divorce related to financial security and health

The consequences of a gray divorce are also likely to be different than those of early divorce. For individuals in their prime, people who are healthy and financially secure, divorce can bring a new lease on life. Spouses who felt tied down and constrained are now able to pursue their own goals, reinventing themselves in their third age.

At the other end of the spectrum, those without adequate economic resources or who are in poor health face a tremendous struggle following divorce. Now they must go it alone without the buffer of social and economic support that spouses provide. Older adults are unlikely to recoup financial losses associated with divorce, and this is particularly true for women who were out of the labor force for decades. A woman who divorces in her 20s and 30s may experience a financial loss, but she has time to improve her earnings power, often through increased education or longer work hours, and she also has a better chance of remarrying someone with higher income than her first husband. For older women, the time horizon is simply too short-they can’t spend 20 years in the labor force building up their savings.

Our research shows that, on average, gray divorceds have only 20 percent as much wealth as older married couples. Older divorceds are also disadvantaged relative to widoweds. The net wealth of those who were widowed after age 50 is more than twice as high as the net wealth of gray divorceds. In short, individuals who divorce later in life and remain single typically do not enjoy the economic cushion that marrieds and even widoweds experience. And when it comes to divorce and Social Security benefits, Social Security payments do not close the gap-on average, gray divorceds can count on less than $14,000 per year from Social Security.

Today, one out of every four people experiencing divorce is over age 50. Nearly one in ten is 65 or older. This raises critical questions about how gray divorce is reshaping the aging experience in the U.S. Although for some older adults a gray divorce may be liberating, for others who are less advantaged it is a devastating experience with long-term negative consequences for their own lives and for society as a whole. It is essential that we investigate in more detail the distinctive dynamics of late life divorce, along with the factors that allow some adults, but not others, to successfully steer their marriages through the new terrain of aging in contemporary America.

For Further Information

Susan L. Brown, Professor and Chair, Department of Sociology
Bowling Green State University
(419) 372-9521; brownsl@bgsu.edu

I-Fen Lin. Associate Professor, Department of Sociology
Bowling Green State University
(419) 372-8517; ifenlin@bgsu.edu

Aging Alone in America

Stacy Torres
New York University

[button link=”https://sites.utexas.edu/contemporaryfamilies/files/2013/10/2012_Briefing_Klinenberg_Aging-alone-in-america.pdf” color=”red” target=”new” size=”default” icon_before=”pdf”]Download Full Report as a PDF [/button] [button link=”https://contemporaryfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2012_Briefing_Klinenberg_Aging-alone-in-america.docx” color=”primary” target=”_self” size=”default” title=”Download DOC” icon_before=”doc”]Download Full Report as a Word Document[/button]

In just eight years, there will be more Americans over age sixty-five than under age fifteen. By 2030 the number of people over sixty-five will double, while the number of those over eighty will nearly triple.

It’s not just the number of elders in America that is unprecedented: There has also been a revolution in how and where the elderly live. One hundred years ago, 70 percent of American widows and widowers moved in with their families. Today nearly the same proportion of widows and widowers live alone. As late as 1950, only 10 percent of all Americans over age 65 lived alone. Today, by contrast, a full third of all older Americans live alone, a figure that rises to 40 percent for those 85 and older. Furthermore, the variety of senior living choices has also grown and diversified to meet the varying needs of the ageing population. The practice is likely to accelerate with the graying of the baby boom generation, whose first members turned sixty-five last year. This generation is legendary and as they grow into old age, they are now in need of electrical devices such as an electric scooter from Scooters ‘N Chairs, medical equipment such as this is supportive of this generation as they grow into old age.

This is a not a bad news story about the younger generation refusing to take in their aging parents. In fact, a recent Pew Research Center survey found that more of the younger generation than the elder generation believes that young people have an obligation to take in their aging parents. Older Americans typically prefer to remain in their own homes, a trend gerontologists call “aging in place.” A 2005 AARP survey of 1,005 adults fifty and older found that 89 percent wanted to age in place. Indeed, those who age alone often say that their sense of dignity and integrity depends on their capacity to maintain their own home. If bad health or economic insecurity forced them to move in with family or, worse, a nursing home, they say, this would be a devastating loss of face as well as privacy.

Before social security, most widowed or unmarried elders had to move in with relatives or go to “rest homes” because they simply could not afford otherwise. In the 1950s, 35 percent of older people lived in poverty. The poverty rate for older people had fallen to 15 percent by the 1970s and has hovered between 10 and 12.5 percent since the 1980s, a trend that has correlated with rising levels of independent living among widowed and divorced elders.

Many elderly people may decide to move into independent living homes similar to La Posada, (you can learn more here) when circumstances mean that they can no longer stay at home. This could be because they are unable to afford their mortgage, or that they have recently lost their loved ones and they are looking to interact with a community who may be going through something similar. Independent living communities such as this one offer everything that their residents may need to live a long and active life.

The preference for solo living seems to be an international trend, even in cultures that have traditionally valued multigenerational households. In Seoul, Korea, the number of elders living alone has soared by more than 129 percent since 2000. A 2010 survey found that more elderly Koreans (30.4 percent) would rather live in nursing homes then move in with their children (21.5 percent).

Living alone does not equal social isolation. Life course transitions such as retirement provide people with more free time to socialize, and social participation and volunteering actually increase with age. Contrary to stereotype, older people who live alone are more likely than their married counterparts to spend time with friends and neighbors.

Elders today maintain their physical capabilities longer than ever, and the cognitive and physiological declines that people experience as they grow older are often overstated. Disability rates have been falling. And a 2009 Pew Research Center survey found that the percentage of young and middle-aged adults who expected to experience problems associated with old age such as memory loss, serious illness, or lack of sexual activity was much higher than the percentage of older adults who reported actually dealing with these issues.

Still, living alone poses real challenges to elders. Deteriorating mental or physical health may limit a person’s ability participate in social interactions outside the home. Having no children, or living far away from them, especially increases the risk of social isolation.

Living alone is a financial strain for elders who must meet maintenance expenses, property taxes — and often mortgage payments as well — on a fixed income. This is a particular problem for the 20 percent of older Americans who have no other source of income. Medicare does not reimburse long-term visits of home care aides which is a shame as home care is extremely popular within the elderly community. Home care means that your loved ones can live in the comforts of their own home whilst still receiving the care that they need. If you know someone who could benefit from home care, visit https://www.assistinghands.com/3/florida/bocadelray/ to learn more. An individual who has less than $2,000 in savings can have a public home care aide provided by the government, but anyone with more than this has to spend down all their assets (with the exception of their home, their car, and $2,000 in the bank) to become eligible for such assistance.

Aging alone is especially difficult for renters. Only seven percent of Americans between the ages of 62 and 82 receive rental subsidies. In Los Angeles, rental costs account for more than half of the expenses faced by the average older renter who lives alone. No wonder that, according to research by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, 70 percent of older renters living alone in California struggle to make ends meet.

The vulnerabilities of older Americans differ by gender, race and ethnicity. Women are more likely to age alone: 37 percent of American women sixty-five and older live alone, compared to 19 percent of men the same age. Almost half (47 percent) of women seventy-five and older live alone. While 43 percent of men aged ninety and older are married, only 6 percent of same aged women are. Black women become widows in greater numbers and at younger ages because on average black men die earlier than white men.

Elderly women have some advantages when it comes to living alone. Women are better at cultivating and maintaining social ties, and as a consequence they are less likely to be socially isolated. A 2007 study funded by the Economic and Social Research Council found that women over sixty who lived alone expressed more happiness with their lives than married women of the same age.

But women are also more vulnerable to poverty than men. In 2009, the overall poverty rate for women over sixty-five was 10.7 percent, compared to 6.6 percent for older men. And poverty rates for older women of color are particularly high. Thirty-eight percent of black women and 41 percent of Hispanic women who live alone are poor.

Race, ethnicity, and gender interact with aging in complicated ways. Older men living alone have lower poverty rates than their female counterparts but face greater difficulties maintaining social networks. For example, widowers typically lose contact with the social circles that their wives maintained. Older white men are better off economically than older black and Hispanic men, but white, widowed, older men face the greatest risk of suicide. The suicide rate for white men over the age of eighty is six times the overall suicide rate and three times higher than that of same-aged African-American men!

The desire to age in place shows no sign of subsiding. Rising rates of lifelong singlehood and divorce will only further the trend of going solo: While divorce rates have fallen for younger Americans over the past 30 years, the divorce rate for people over 65 has doubled since 1990.

Are we ready to accommodate the needs of future Americans aging alone? Not really. Although the private sector has ample capacity to provide long-term home caregivers, meal deliveries, and other such services for affluent elders who go solo, the monthly checks from Social Security and the Supplemental Security Income program come nowhere near covering such expenses for those without substantial other sources of income. Today these economically vulnerable Americans represent the majority of those aging alone. As the numbers of older solo dwellers increase, providing more care and support for those who choose or are obliged to live alone will become a major policy challenge.

[button link=”https://sites.utexas.edu/contemporaryfamilies/files/2013/10/2012_Briefing_Klinenberg_Aging-alone-in-america.pdf” color=”red” target=”new” size=”default” icon_before=”pdf”]Download Full Report as a PDF [/button] [button link=”https://contemporaryfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2012_Briefing_Klinenberg_Aging-alone-in-america.docx” color=”primary” target=”_self” size=”default” title=”Download DOC” icon_before=”doc”]Download Full Report as a Word Document[/button] [divider style=”shadow”]

About CCF

The Council on Contemporary Families is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to providing the press and public with the latest research and best-practice findings about American families. Our members include demographers, economists, family therapists, historians, political scientists, psychologists, social workers, sociologists, as well as other family social scientists and practitioners.

Founded in 1996 and now based in the School of Education and Human Development at the University of Miami, the Council’s mission is to enhance the national understanding of how and why contemporary families are changing, what needs and challenges they face, and how these needs can best be met. To fulfill that mission, the Council holds annual conferences, open to the public, and issues periodic briefing papers and fact sheets.

Older Americans Month: Valuing the Contributions of America’s Elders

May 11, 2011

Senior-Woman-Shopping-with-Caregiver

By Rachel Adams
Council on Contemporary Families Research Intern
The Evergreen State College

Elders Provide Critical Support for Contemporary Families and Society

When Senior Citizens Month was established in May 1963 (the name was changed to “Older Americans Month” in 1980), there were only 17 million living Americans who had reached their 65th birthday. Today there are more than 38 million Americans 65 and older. Census data project that by 2030, nearly one in five Americans will be 65 or older.

This year the official theme for Older Americans Month is “Connecting to the Community.” Much has been written about the “burden” of supporting an aging population, but we hear far less about the many critical contributions older people make to their families and their communities. A good deal of this work is unpaid, but its value is no less significant.

Volunteering and Charitable Contributions

A report released by the Pew Research Center in 2009 found that 59 percent of Americans aged 65-74, 48 percent of those aged 75-84, and an impressive 36 percent of those over age 85 do volunteer work. According to a 2008 AARP survey, the top three areas of interest are working for faith-based groups, tutoring or mentoring young people (an activity that has been shown to help reduce school dropout rates) and helping the elderly live independently. These numbers may be just a taste of what older Americans have to offer, since research shows that when individuals are asked to volunteer, 81 percent of them do so.

A study by the University of Chicago conducted from 2005 to 2006 found that social engagement in the community may increase with age: people in their 80s were twice as likely as those in their 50s to socialize with their neighbors, volunteer, or attend religious services or meetings of other organized groups one or more times a week. Nearly 40 percent of Baby Boomers say that they are involved in combating “neighborhood problems,” compared to only one third of respondents from Generation X (age 29-44).

Not only do older Americans volunteer, but a majority of them contribute to charity as well. A survey conducted by AARP in 2009 found that about 73 percent of both Baby Boomers (age 45-63) and members of the Silent Generation (age 64-80) have donated to charity.

Helping out with Families

Almost 10 percent of all children in the U.S. live with a grandparent, and more than 2.5 million grandparents are responsible for providing the basic needs of their grandchildren. In addition, 39 percent of Americans 65 and older who have grandchildren report helping with child care.

According to 2008 Census data, 30 percent of children under age five who have working mothers – 3.3 million children – are cared for by grandparents for some amount of time each week and 4.7 million children aged 5-14 are regularly cared for by their grandparents. These figures have probably increased since the recession, as more families have doubled up and others have had to rely more on kin networks for child care. Many two-earner couples and single parents could not meet their work responsibilities and remain economically self-sufficient if grandparents did not step in to help out with the children.

Older Americans also help out their adult children. A Pew research survey released in June 2009 found that 51 percent of older Americans had given money to their adult children in the past year. Only 14 percent reported having received money from their adult children in the same period.

For Further Information

For further information, contact CCF Board Member Ashton Applewhite:  646-644-4040, ashton.applewhite@gmail.com

About CCF

The Council on Contemporary Families, based at the University of Miami, is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of family researchers, mental health and social practitioners, and clinicians dedicated to providing the press and public with the latest research and best practice findings about American families. To learn more, go to the website, https://contemporaryfamilies.org, or contact Stephanie Coontz, CCF’s Co-Chair and Director of Research and Public Education and Professor of History and Family Studies at The Evergreen State College: coontzs@msn.com.

Older Americans Month: A Council on Contemporary Families Fact Sheet

May 10, 2010

Asian_older_adult

Back in 1963, when 17 million Americans aged 65 and older represented just 9 percent of the population, President John F. Kennedy designated May as Senior Citizens Month. Today there are almost 40 million Americans aged 65 and older, a number that is projected to increase to 88.5 million by 2050. By then they will make up 20 percent of the total population, and nearly 1 in 4 will be over 85. (By comparison, in 1900 only 4 percent of women and 3 percent of men lived to be 90.)

We now know that they hate being called “senior citizens.” (President Carter changed the name to Older Americans Month in 1980.) Their numbers are swelling. What else do we know about older Americans? Increasingly, older Americans are preparing for the final stages of their lives and contacting someone like a Rochester Hills Estate Planning Attorney to help organize their estate ahead of time to ensure their wishes will be abided when they are gone. Here are some surprising facts from researchers at the Council on Contemporary Families:

Americans over 65 are living not just longer but better.

Disability rates continue to decline. More than half of the “oldest old” (eighty-five and older) report no significant physical disability whatsoever and need no help with everyday activities.

More are working, by choice or by necessity.

Sixteen percent, or 6.2 million, were in the labor force in 2008, a number projected to increase to 10.1 million by 2016.

A full 70 percent of working adults between ages 45 and 74 plan to work during retirement or never retire at all.

Widespread age discrimination in the workplace persists, despite the excellent performance of older workers and projected “seasoned talent” shortages.

They’re more independent than you think.

In 2008, 68 percent lived in households with relatives. Twenty-seven percent lived alone, 5 percent lived in group quarters, and 2 percent with people they weren’t related to.

Only 4 percent of people 65 and older lived in nursing/skilled nursing facilities in 2008.

Fifty percent of those 1.6 million people in nursing facilities have Alzheimer’s, the most common form of dementia. Current estimates are that no more than ten percent of all elderly people (aged 65 to 100 or more) are Alzheimer’s patients.

They’re less lonely than often assumed.

In 2009, 56 percent were married (as opposed to widowed or divorced without remarriage). In fact, unlike the past, elders are now more likely to be currently married than any other age group, because both men and women are living longer and because the mortality gap between sexes is narrowing. In addition, older people who have been divorced or widowed are more likely to remarry than in the past — although unmarried elders are also much more likely to cohabit today than formerly.

Sex is important to their quality of life – especially for Hispanics.

A new AARP Sex Survey released this month shows this is true for most people in their 50s and 60s – and also for people in their 70s if they have a partner. Hispanics were the most likely to say that sex is important to them – more than 80 percent of Hispanic people, at all age levels, said sex was important.

They’re much less likely to be poor than in the past.

This is largely thanks to Social Security programs. However, the income of almost a quarter of the over-65 population is less than $39/day. Women are many times more likely to be poor because they earn less, they’re penalized for time out of the labor force, and because Social Security was designed for single-breadwinner, married couples. Single women of color over 65 are the poorest of the poor.

Their grandchildren want to help.

A recent Pew research poll found that 60 percent of young people aged 18-34 (compared to just 40 percent of 60+ adults) say that families have the responsibility to take in an elderly parent if the parent wishes to move in. But most young people cannot afford to support their aging parents or grandparents without assistance from programs such as Social Security, which are critical in maintaining the gains that elders have made over the past half century.

For Further Information

On historical changes in the experience, social status, and family lives of the elderly: Stephanie Coontz, Professor of History and Family Studies, The Evergreen State College; coontzs@msn.com; 360 556-9223.

The effect of the longevity boom on the role of grandparents: Joshua Coleman, psychologist, author, and Co-Chair of CCF; drjoshuacoleman@comcast.net, 510 547-6500.

Sexuality among older Americans: Pepper Schwartz, Professor of Sociology, University of Washington, CCF Board Member, and AARP’s sex and relationship expert; couples@u.washington.edu; 206 543-4036.

The oldest old in the workforce, ageism in American culture: Ashton Applewhite, author and CCF Board Member; http://www.stayingvertical.com; 646-644-4040.

On older adults and their families preparing for the end-of-life; aging mothers and daughters relationships; and factors that help older widows and widowers adjust successfully to the loss of a spouse: Deborah Carr, Professor of Sociology, Rutgers University; carrds@sociology.rutgers.edu; 732-932-4068.

On intergenerational relationships between older Americans and adult children: Ruth Nemzoff, Resident Scholar, Brandeis Women’s Studies Research Center; rnemzoff@brandeis.edu; 617-879-1959.

About CCF

The Council on Contemporary Families is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of family researchers and practitioners dedicated to providing the press and public with the latest research and best-practice findings about American families. Founded in 1996 and based at the University of Miami, the Council’s mission is to enhance the national conversation about how and why contemporary families are changing, what needs and challenges they face, and how these needs can best be met.

To receive regular briefing papers from the Council, or a complimentary press pass to CCF conferences, contact CCF’s Director of Research and Public Education, Stephanie Coontz, at coontzs@msn.com.

Media Contact: Virginia Rutter/Framingham State College Sociology; vrutter@gmail.com; 508 626 4863

×