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 10882 FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS & INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSFERS hypothesize that past assistance to family mem- bers encourages immediate or future repayment of assistance. Henretta et al. (1997) examined this issue among unmarried HRS participants with a need for personal care and more than one child. They found a substantial relationship between financial help from a parent to a particular child and later help from that child to the parent. Among children who received large money gifts from a parent in the past, nearly 50 percent were providing financial help to the parent, compared with slightly more than one-fourth of their siblings who had not received gifts. These findings are consistent with the reciprocity hypothesis. Participants’ Transfers to Parents Transfers flow not only to and from HRS partici- pants and their children and grandchildren, but also in many cases, from the participants to their own parents. Table 4-2 presents the pattern of such transfers from HRS participants under the age of 80. In 2002, nearly 7 in 10 HRS partici- pants under age 65 with living parents gave no assistance in the form of money or help with care or chores to their parents. Fifteen percent of HRS participants under age 65 helped their parents with chores only, and about 11 percent made monetary transfers (either only money or money in conjunction with other forms of assistance). HRS participants age 65 and older were slightly less likely than younger participants to provide most forms of assistance to their parents, and three-fourths of the older participants provided no assistance to their very old parents. Trade-Offs Between Employment and Care The family traditionally has been the leading source of care for its older members, but as FIG. 4-6 proximity to children, by age of respondent: 2002 Ages 55-64 Ages 65-74 Ages 75-84 Age 85+ No Children Resident Children At Least One Child No Children Within 10 Miles Within 10 Miles 48.4% 55.0% 49.8% 53.6% 28.6% 30.4% 27.3% 30.4% 7.3% 15.6% 7.1% 7.5% 13.0% 9.9% 7.0% 9.0% Note: Data may not sum to 100% due to rounding. of the participant, and 51 percent of households had at least one child living within 10 miles. Figure 4-6 shows fairly small differences by age of HRS participant. There is an increase with age in the percent without living children, and a notable decline in the proportion with resident children at ages 65 to 74 compared with ages 55 to 64. Reciprocity and Intergenerational Transfers Intergenerational transfers and help from children are related because families engage in a web of transfers that encourage reciprocity. Sociologists and economists who have examined this issue