1 William Mosher, PhD, NCHS NCHS Data User’s Conference, Session 38, July 11, 2006, 3:30 pm K: 2006DUC-Relig-V1 Using data on Religious affiliation and religiosity on the National Survey of Family Growth

2 Outline of Today’s talk Purpose & scope of NSFG Types of data on religious affiliation and religious participation in NSFG Illustrative findings, potential for research Some main points

3 The NSFG focuses on fertility, HIV & STD risk, & Fatherhood & Family Life Fertility marriage, divorce, sexual activity contraception, infertility birth and other pregnancy outcomes HIV & STD’s: sexual & drug risk-taking Fatherhood & Family Life Father involvement with children Attitudes toward family, marriage, children

4 CycleYearScope Number of Interviews Over-Samples Average Length Incen- tive Ever-Married Women ,797Black Women 60 Minutes No Ever-Married Women ,611Black Women 60 Minutes No 31982All Women ,969 Black Women Teens 60 Minutes No 41988All Women ,450Black Women 70 Minutes No 51995All Women ,847 Black Women Hispanic Women 100 Minutes $ Women Men ,571 W = 7,643 M = 4,928 Blacks Hispanics Ages W = 85 M = 60 $40 NSFG history in brief

5 Contractor: Institute for Social Research (ISR), Univ. of Michigan Blacks, Hispanics, teens over-sampled In-person interviews using laptop computers Interviews in both English and Spanish (970 respondents were interviewed in Spanish) Response rate: 79% (80% for women, 78% for men) How the 2002 NSFG data were collected

6 Why does the NSFG collect data on religious affiliation and participation? Since fertility surveys began in 1955, religious variables have been among the best correlates of fertility, contraception, marriage, and health-related behaviors. Old pattern (1950’s -1970’s): Catholic-Protestant differences New pattern (1980’s –present): Religiosity—importance, attendance

7 Measures Religion in which R* was raised. Current religious affiliation. Importance of religion in daily life. Attendance at religious services-now For ages 15-24: Attendance at religious services at age 14 *R=Respondent (the person interviewed)

8 RELCURR (Current religious affiliation) on the NSFG Cycle 6 public use data file 1No religion2,079 2Catholic3,715 3Baptist, Southern Baptist2,187 4Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopal1,537 5Fundamentalist Protestant 725 6Other Protestant Denomination 776 7Protestant-No specific denomination 684 8Other religion Refused 27 99Don’t Know 13 TOTAL12,571

9 Categories typically used in analysis —religion raised or current religious affiliation No religion Fundamentalist Protestant (Assemblies of God, Church of the Nazarene, Church of God, 7 th Day Adventist, United Pentecostal Church, Pentecostal Assemblies, Jehovah’s Witness.) Other Protestant Denominations (includes Latter Day Saints/Mormon) Catholic Other religions (Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Unitarian, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc)

10 Importance of Religion “Currently, how important is religion in your daily life? Would you say it is very important, somewhat important, or not important?” Very important.5,725 Somewhat important3,925 Not important. 812 Inapplicable—No religion2,084 Refused or Don’t Know 25

11 Frequency of attendance “About how often do you attend religious services?” More than once a week1,367 Once a week2, times per month2,044 Less than once a month3,429 Never3,224 Refused, Don’t know 25 TOTAL 12,571

12 Percent of women who have had 3 or more children, by religion in which she was raised: US, 2002

13 Percent of non-Hispanic white women 15-44, who ever had a tubal sterilization, by religion raised: US, 2002 Source: Table 72.

14 Percent who agree or strongly agree that, “It is all right for unmarried 18 year olds to have sexual relations if they have strong affection for each other,” by importance of religion

15 Percent who strongly agree or agree that, “A young couple should not live together unless they are married,” by importance of religion Table 39.

16 Percent who disagree or strongly disagree with the statement, “It is okay for an unmarried female to have a child,” by importance of religion: US, 2002 Tables 91, 92.

17 Percent of fathers with children 5-18 who attended religious services with their children once a month or more in the last year, by importance of religion: US, 2002

18 Percent of men who agreed with the statement, “Gay and Lesbian adults should have the right to adopt children,” by current religion

19 Strengths of NSFG data Measures at 2 points in time: While growing up: religion raised; & attendance at age 14 At date of interview: religious denomination, attendance, and importance of religion in daily life. Time series back to 1973 for religious denomination and attendance.-

20 Limitations of NSFG data No direct data on specific beliefs considered too sensitive Sample size is too small to show separately: Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Mormon, others. Disclosure concerns: groups that are small, geographically concentrated, and visible must not be shown separately on public use files to protect confidentiality.

21 Studying Smaller religious groups For groups too small to show separately on the public use file, you can combine cycles and access the Cycle 6 data on the smaller groups through the NCHS Research Data Center (RDC). Access to RDC is not free; charges apply and an application is required. Contact for

22 Some Main Points-1 1. NSFG has collected national data on factors related to birth rates & STD’s since NSFG has always used in-person interviewing because the survey is sensitive and complex. 3. NSFG has collected data on current religious affiliation & attendance since Cycle 1 in NSFG added “religion raised” and importance of religion in Cycle 5 (1995) and 6 (2002).

23 Main Points-2 1.NSFG included men for the first time in 2002, to study topics like HIV risk, fatherhood roles, and men’s attitudes toward families, kids, marriage, etc. 2. Public use files for Cycles 1-6 available free on CD-ROM, at

24 How to learn more about the NSFG: or (leave message) NSFG, NCHS, 3311 Toledo Road, Room 7318 Hyattsville, MD Visit: NSFG team is: Joyce Abma, PhD Anjani Chandra, PhD Jo Jones, PhD Gladys Martinez, PhD Brittany McGill, MPP Bill Mosher, PhD