Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 10880 FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS & INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSFERS Transfers of Time and Help One would expect that disability among HRS participants would correlate with assistance from their children. Figure 4-4 contrasts intergenera- tional transfers from adult children to their par- ents who have activity of daily living (ADL) limita- tions (i.e., disability) with transfers to non-limited parents. In 2002, regardless of ADL limitations, single HRS participants were more likely than married parents to receive help from their children across all transfer dimensions. Parents with ADL limitations were somewhat more likely than non- limited parents to receive money from a child, but this form of transfer was uncommon. Transfers of time were much more important to disabled parents. Households in which a parent had an ADL limitation were 10 times more likely than non-limited households to receive help (i.e., time) from their children, and even more so when grandchildren, other relatives, and paid home help were factored in. Roughly 4 in 10 unmarried parents with ADL limitations, compared with 1 in 7 married parents with ADL limitations, received time help from a child. When assistance from others was added to that from children, more than half of unmarried and married people received help in the form of time. A natural follow-on issue relates to the effective- ness of assistance that children provide. HRS data from the mid-1990s indicate that the receipt of regular ADL assistance from children signifi- cantly reduced the likelihood of a parent having to enter a nursing home (Lo Sasso and Johnson 2002). Disabled individuals age 70 and older were 60 percent less likely to experience nursing home care if they received help from a child in the form of basic personal care all or most of the time, compared with those who did not receive such help. Notes: “Other” includes grandchildren, spouse if married, and paid home help. Co-residence may be with a child or another person. ADL limitation refers to problems with one or more activities of daily living. FIG. 4-4 receipt of money, time, and co-residence, for respondents with and without adl limitation: 2002 Co-residence Time (From Children and/or Other) Time (From Children Only) Money 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Co-residence Time (From Children and/or Other) Time (From Children Only) Money 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percent Receiving Help Couple Single WITH ADL LIMITATION WITHOUT ADL LIMITATION