Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Forgotten FamiliesEnding the Growing Crisis Confronting Children and Working Parents in the Global Economy$

Jody Heymann

Print publication date: 2006

Print ISBN-13: 9780195156591

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2012

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195156591.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 26 February 2017

Appendix B Special Topic Large-Scale Surveys Conducted

Appendix B Special Topic Large-Scale Surveys Conducted

Source:
Forgotten Families
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

Work and Caregiving Crisis: The Case of Botswana

The global AIDS pandemic is presenting one of the greatest threats to human health in centuries. Worldwide, 38 million people are infected. In six countries throughout southern Africa, over 20 percent of reproductive-age adults are infected. Where the infection rates are highest, HIV/AIDS undermines the ability of families to economically survive and dramatically raises caregiving burdens while taking lives. Botswana is one of the countries at the epicenter of the epidemic with 37 percent of adults infected.43 As part of the Project on Global Working Families, we conducted the Botswana Family and Health Needs Survey to better understand the conditions faced at work, at home, and in the community by people who are themselves HIV infected or by those who are caring for others with HIV/AIDS. The project systematically examined the social and structural ways in which the work and social environments in Botswana affect HIV care as well as other care for adults and children.

In 2002, 1,077 individuals waiting to see a health-care provider at outpatient clinics in government hospitals in Gaborone, the capital city; Lobatse, a large town; and Molepolole, an urban village, were invited to participate. The residency characteristics of the sample interviewed reflected the general population in Botswana in which 40 percent live in cities, 16 percent live in major towns, and 44 percent live in urban villages.44 In Gaborone, 426 individuals were recruited, and the response rate was 95 percent. In Lobatse, 171 individuals were recruited, and the response rate was 97 percent. In Molepolole, 480 individuals were recruited, and the response rate was 95 percent. The survey consisted of 167 questions, the majority of which were focused on the issues surrounding caregiving (p.236) and working among families including those with a member who was HIV positive. Twelve questions pertained to the respondent’s own experience of HIV infection.

Please see table B–1 for a description of this sample.

Transnational Working Families: The Case of Mexico

While migration and family separation across borders is a global phenomenon,45 the U.S.-Mexican border is a particularly active border. In no other OECD country does the number of immigrants even approach that of Mexicans entering the United States.46 The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) states that there were 2.25 million authorized entries of Mexicans into the United States in the 1990 s.47 Undocumented entries number millions more. Migration from Mexico to the United States is transforming the social fabric of both the sending and receiving communities.48 Yet, far more research has focused on the United States than on Mexico, and that which has examined the impact on Mexico has focused on the monetary remittances that are sent from the American side.49 The impact of migration on the family members who remain in Mexico has been largely unexamined.50

In 2004, we conducted the Transnational Working Families Survey to examine how the families of migrant workers in Mexico cope with the departure of a parent or other adult. We developed and administered a closed-ended survey with 257 questions to investigate the impact on the health and welfare of families of transnational life and the role of labor and social conditions in determining health and well-being in transnational families in Mexico. The overall response rate was 81 percent.

We surveyed a representative sample of families residing in municipalities with high migration rates. The sample frame consisted of the municipalities in Mexico that have a population of at least 50,000 (based on the 2000 census) and where at least 20 percent of the households had a member migrate to the United States in the prior five years.51 In Mexico, five municipalities of 50,000 or more have this high migration rate: Rio Grande, Zacatecas; La Barca, Jalisco; Comonfort, Guanajuato; Romita, Guanajuato; and Ixmiquilpan, Hidalgo.

In total, 1,509 households with working caregivers were interviewed. A total of 755 had a member of the household who had migrated in the last five years, and 754 did not. Note that in the survey, households with migrants were over-sampled to obtain equal numbers of migrant and nonmigrant households; all households with a working primary caregiver in which there was a household member who had migrated to the United States were interviewed, while (p.237)

Table B–1. Sample of Respondents in Our Family and Health Needs Survey in Botswana

Percentage of overall sample of respondents

Percentage of parents with a 0–17-year-old in he household

Percentage of respondents affected by HIV (caregiver or infected)

Highest education level achieved

None

14

14

12

Primary

24

25

25

Secondary

35

34

35

Certificate

13

13

12

Diploma

10

12

13

University degree

3

3

3

Marital status

Married

23

30

28

Living with partner

12

14

11

Separated

17

11

13

Divorced

2

2

2

Widowed

5

5

4

Single

40

37

42

Number of children under 18 in household

0

18

0

15

1

18

18

14

2

22

27

21

3 or more

42

55

50

Age of children in household

At least one child between 0 and 5 in household

50

64

55

At least one child between 6 and 14 in household

65

81

71

At least one child between 15 and 17 in household

33

42

37

Per capita household income

Below $10/day

82

88

83

At or above $10/day

18

12

17

Respondents wage income

Below $10/day

37

37

31

At or above $10/day

63

63

69

(p.238) one in three of the households in which there was no migrant were asked to participate.

Please see table B–2 for a description of this sample.

The Survey of Midlife in the United States and the National Study of Daily Experiences

With our colleagues at the MacArthur Foundation Network on Successful Midlife Development, we developed survey instruments addressing work and caregiving, including sections in the Survey of Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) and in the National Study of Daily Experiences (NSDE). The members of the MacArthur Foundation Network on Successful Midlife Development, consisting of researchers from across the United States and Europe, conducted the MIDUS survey, which involved a nationally representative sample of more than 3,500 adults aged twenty-five to seventy-four and 1,100 employed adults caring for children, parents, or parents-in-law. The survey included both a telephone interview and a lengthy written questionnaire. The telephone survey had a response rate of 70 percent, and 86.8 percent of those completing the telephone survey completed the self-administered survey as well. The MIDUS survey included information on working conditions, work-family interactions, relationships with coworkers and supervisors, and workplace and outside support.

As part of the NSDE with David Almeida, we conducted the first national daily telephone survey of people regarding how their work was disrupted by family needs. A randomized subsample of 1,242 MIDUS respondents were contacted for the NSDE; 83 percent agreed to participate in the daily telephone diary survey. Of the more than 1,000 national respondents, 870 were working. Study participants were asked whether they had cut back on any of their normal activities during the previous twenty-four hours because a family member needed their help. Follow-up questions were asked to explore what happened and how much it interfered with their usual activities. The respondents to the daily diaries study were telephoned for eight days in a row. When study participants were away from their homes, they were given a toll-free number to call and report their experiences. Eighty-seven percent of the respondents completed six or more days.

See table B–3 for a description of the survey samples we analyzed. (p.239)

Table B–2. Sample of Households in Our Transnational Working Families Survey in Mexico

Percentage of overall sample of households

Percentage of households with a U.S. migrant

Percentage of households without a U.S. migrant

Highest education level achieved of respondent

None

7

6

7

Primary

39

43

35

Junior secondary/middle school

31

32

30

Senior secondary/high school

13

12

14

College

10

6

14

Graduate school

1

0

1

Marital status of respondent

Married

64

53

74

Living with partner

3

2

3

Separated

18

31

5

Divorced

2

2

1

Widowed

5

5

5

Single

9

8

10

Race/ethnicity of respondent

Latino or Mestizo

96

95

96

Indigenous

4

5

4

Number of children under 18 in household

1

23

25

21

2

32

34

31

3 or more

44

41

48

Age of children in household

At least one child between 0 and 5 in household

56

56

56

At least one child between 6 and 14 in household

78

77

79

At least one child between 15 and 17 in household

26

25

28

Per capita household income

Below $10/day

97

98

95

At or above $10/day

3

2

5

Respondent’s wage income

Below $10/day

73

76

69

At or above $10/day

27

24

31

(p.240)

Table B–3. Sample of Employed Adults in the National Study of Daily Experiences

Percentage of employed adults

Percentage of employed caregivers*

Percentage of employed parents

Highest education level achieved

GED, some high school, or less

8

8

8

High school graduate

28

29

30

Some college

27

28

28

College degree

26

26

25

Some graduate school or graduate degree

12

10

10

Marital status

Married

64

71

78

Living with partner

4

4

3

Separated

2

3

3

Divorced

15

15

13

Widowed

4

2

1

Single

10

5

2

Race/Ethnicity

White

90

88

88

Black

6

7

8

Native American

1

1

1

Asian or Pacific Islander

1

1

1

Other

2

2

2

Multiracial

1

1

1

Number of children under 18 in household

0

56

23

0

1

17

30

42

2

18

32

39

3 or more

9

15

19

Age of children in household

At least one child between 0 and 5 in household

15

28

36

At least one child between 6 and 14 in household

27

49

64

At least one child between 15 and 17 in household

13

24

31

Per capita household income

Below $10/day

5

8

7

At or above $10/day

95

92

93

Below $20/day

12

17

15

At or above $20/day

88

83

85

Respondentts wage income

Below $10/day

14

12

13

At or above $10/day

86

88

87

Below $20/day

20

18

19

At or above $20/day

80

82

81

(*) Caregivers are those adults who have at least one child younger than 18 in the household or are providing 8 or more hours of unpaid assistance to a parent or parent-in-law.

(p.241) Notes on Tables

Wherever data allowed, parallel demographic characteristics are provided for all surveys in the tables. Surveys reliably provided data on household members’ age, education, marital status, and family structure. Data on race, ethnicity, and job sector varied in availability. In some cases only individual income was available and in others only household income.

Income data reported in each survey have been converted to a common currency using the World Bank’s purchasing power parity (PPP) conversion factors, which are estimates of the number of units of a country’s currency that would be needed to purchase the same amount of goods and services in the local economy as a U.S. dollar would buy in the United States. This PPP adjustment equalizes the purchasing power of different currencies and eliminates differences in price levels across countries.

All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. As a result of rounding, percentages may not always sum to 100. Tables report the ages of children in the households to provide important information on the frequency of households with preschool, young school-age, and older school-age children. These percentages may sum to over 100 because households with multiple children would fall into multiple categories if their children are in different age groupings.

Notes:

(43.) UNAIDS, 2004 Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic (Geneva, Switzerland: UNAIDS, June 2004). Available online at http://www.unaids.org/bangkok2004/GAR2004_pdf/UNAIDS GlobalReport2004_en.pdf (accessed October 24, 2005). (p.292)

(44.) Botswana population figures are from the 2001 Botswana Census as published in 2002 Population and Housing Census: Population of Towns, Villages and Associated Localities in August 2001 (Botswana: Central Statistics Office, Botswana Government, 2002).

(45.) D. F. Bryceson and U. Vuorela, “Transnational Families in the Twenty-first Century,” in The Transnational Family: New European Frontiers and Global Networks, ed. D. F. Bryceson and U. Vuorela, pp. 7–9 (Oxford: Berg, 2002). S. George, “‘Dirty Nurses’ and ‘Men Who Play’: Gender and Class in Transnational Migration,” in Global Ethnography: Forces, Connections, and Imaginations in a Post-modern World, ed. M. Burawoy, 144–74 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000). Nina Glick Schiller and Georges Eugene Fouron, Georges Woke UpLaughing: Long-Distance Nationalism and the Search for Home (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2001).

(46.) OECD, Trends in International Migration 2001 (Paris: OECD, 2003). Available online at http://wwwi.oecd.org/publications/e-book/8101131E.pdf (accessed February 20, 2003).

(47.) J. Bustamante et al., “Mexico-to-U.S. Migrant Characteristics from Mexican Data Sources,” in Migration between the United States and Mexico: Binational Study, ed. Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs and U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, pp. 779–817 (Austin, TX: Morgan Printing, 1998).

(48.) M. Greenwood and M. Tienda, “U.S. Impacts of Mexican Immigration,” in Migration between the United States and Mexico: Binational Study, ed. Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs and U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, pp. 251–394 (Austin, TX: Morgan Printing, 1998). G. Verduzco and K. Unger, “Impacts of Migration in Mexico,” in Migration between the United States and Mexico: Binational Study, ed. Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs and U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, pp. 395–436 (Austin, TX: Morgan Printing, 1998).

(49.) R. De la Garza and B. Lowell, Sending Money Home: Hispanic Remittances and Community Development (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002); R. Alarcón et al., Impacto de la migracinóy las remesas en elcrecimiento económico regional (Mexico City: Senado de la República, Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 1999).

(50.) A remarkable exception is a twenty-page brochure published by the University of Guanajuato on the living conditions of women in rural communities with high out-migration: M. Cebada, Genero, Familia y Migración: La condición de la mujer en comunidades rurales de migrantes hacia Estados Unidos (Guanajuato, Mexico: Universidad de Guanajuato, 1997).

(51.) Our source was CONAPO, the National Population Council of Mexico. The migration tables and methodology can be found online in Spanish at http://www.conapo.gob.mx/publicaciones/migra4.htm (accessed June 7, 2005). (p.293)