4301 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Suite 100

Washington, DC 20008

Phone 202-362-5580

Fax 202-362-5533

www.childtrends.org 
48
Charting Parenthood: 

A Statistical Portrait of Fathers and Mothers in America 

Produced by Child Trends 

Tamara Halle, Ph.D., Project Director 

With support from 

The Ford Foundation 

The Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics 

The Annie E. Casey Foundation 

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation 

The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 

The Administration for Children, Youth, and Families 

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation 

The NICHD Family and Child Well-being Research Network 
Charting Parenthood 2002 

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Project Management at Child Trends

Brett Brown, Co-Principal Investigator 

Tamara Halle, Project Director 

Susan Jekielek, Task Leader: Family Formation 

Akemi Kinukawa, Task Leader: Fertility 

Erik Michelsen, Task Leader: Parenting 

Kristin A. Moore, Co-Principal Investigator 

Contributing Child Trends Staff

Sharon Bzostek 

Julia Calkins 

Stephanie Cochran 

Anne Driscoll 

Carol Emig 

Sarah Garrett 

Angela D. Greene 

Justin Jager 

Amanda Kellar 

Rachel King 

Thomson Ling 

Laura Lippman 

Cristina Lizarazu 

Melissa Long 

Jennifer Manlove 

Eric Moore 

Angela R. Papillo 

Lindsay Pitzer 

Suzanne Ryan 

Juliet Scarpa 

Berkeley Smith 

Elizabeth Terry-Humen 

Sharon Vandivere 

Private Data Providers

Randal Day, Brigham Young University 

Sue Eshleman, S. Eshleman Systems 

Management 

Gary Gates, The Urban Institute 

Kathleen Harris, University of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill 

Sandra Hofferth, University of Maryland 

Edward Laumann, University of Chicago 

John Sandberg, Population Studies 

Center, Institute for Social Research, 

University of Michigan 

Tom Smith, National Opinion Research 

Center 

Murray Straus, University of New 

Hampshire 

Freya Sonenstein, The Urban Institute 

Federal Interagency Forum on Child 

and Family Statistics

Child Trends thanks the member 

agencies for providing funds and 

technical support for the production of 

this report. The following staff are 

particularly to be thanked. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services 

National Center for Health Statistics, 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

Joyce Abma 

Deborah Blackwell 

Matthew Bramlett 

Anjani Chandra 

William Mosher 

Deborah Rose 

Paul Sutton 

Stephanie Ventura 

National Institute of Child Health and 

Human Development, National 

Institutes of Health 

Chris Bachrach 

Natasha Cabrera 

Lynne Casper 

Jeffery Evans 
Charting Parenthood 2002 

iii

Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Planning and Evaluation, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services 

Julia Isaacs 

Linda Mellgren 

Child Care Bureau, Administration for 

Children, Youth and Families 

Ivelisse Martinez-Beck 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Labor 

Thesia Garner 

David Johnson 

National Center for Education 

Statistics, U.S. Department of 

Education 

Patrick Rooney 

Jerry West 

National Institute of Justice, Office of 

Research and Evaluation 

Shelly Jackson 

Cynthia Mamalian 

Population Division, U.S. Census 

Bureau 

Jason Fields 

Timothy Grall 

Robert Kominski 

Child Trends would like to recognize the funders and our federal and private colleagues 

for their sizeable contributions to this effort. Child Trends is solely responsible, however, 

for the content and accuracy of the report. 
iv
Charting Parenthood 2002 

v 

Charting Parenthood: A Statistical Portrait of Fathers and Mothers in 

America 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Index of Tables ................................................................................................................. vii 

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................... xii 

Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 

Who is a Parent? ..................................................................................................................3 

Parenting Section 

Attitudes Towards Parenting 

P1 – Importance of Becoming a Parent ......................................................................7 

P2 – Adult Attitudes About the Value of Children.....................................................9 

P3 – Parents: Can One Be as Good as Two? ...........................................................11 

P4 – Parents’ Beliefs About Raising Children ........................................................12 

P5 – Adults’ Attitudes Toward Spanking ................................................................14 

P6 – Parents’ Responsibility for Children ...............................................................15 

Parenting Practices 

P7 – Limit Setting ....................................................................................................17 

P8 – Conflict Resolution in Families .......................................................................19 

Closeness and Conflict between Parents and Children 

P9 – Degree of Closeness Adolescent Feels Toward Parent ....................................20 

P10 – Warmth and Affection ...................................................................................21 

P11 – Conflict Between Parents and Adolescents ...................................................23 

P12 – Incidence of Harsh Punishment, Violence, or Abuse ....................................24 

Child Care and Other Activities with Children 

P13 – Direct Care of Pre-school Children by Fathers ..............................................25 

P14 – Time Spent with Children ..............................................................................26 

P15 – Parents’ Activities with Children ..................................................................28 

P16 – Religious Activities With Children ...............................................................30 

Parenting and School 

P17 – Parental Participation in Child’s School Activities .......................................32 

P18 – Encouragement of Child(ren)’s School Achievement ...................................33 

Nonresidential Parenting 

P19 – Child Custody Arrangements .........................................................................34 
Charting Parenthood 2002 

vi

P20 – Contact With Nonresident Parent...................................................................36 

Parental Income 

P21 – Earnings and Income ......................................................................................38 

P22 – Receipt of Child Support ................................................................................39 

Endnotes for Parenting Section.................................................................................41 

Family Formation Section 

Marriage and Divorce 

FF1 – Marriage .........................................................................................................49 

FF2 – Divorce ...........................................................................................................51 

FF3 – Age at First Marriage and Divorce.................................................................53 

FF4 – Characteristics of Current Spouse ..................................................................54 

FF5 – Attitudes Toward Divorce..............................................................................55 

Cohabitation 

FF6 – Cohabitation Status ........................................................................................57 

FF7 – Age at First Cohabitation ...............................................................................59 

FF8 – Characteristics of Current Partner ..................................................................60 

FF9 – Attitudes Toward Cohabitation Without Intent to Marry...............................62 

Endnotes for Family Formation Section...................................................................63 

Fertility Section 

Fertility 

F1 – Birth Rates ........................................................................................................67 

F2 – Age at First Birth ..............................................................................................69 

F3 – Number of Pregnancies ....................................................................................71 

F4 – Premarital Birth ................................................................................................73 

Sexual Activity 

F5 – Age at First Sexual Intercourse ........................................................................75 

F6 – Number of Sexual Partners...............................................................................77 

F7.a – Characteristics of Sexual Partners – Type of Relationship............................78 

F7.b – Characteristics of Sexual Partners – Length of Relationships.......................80 

F7.c – Characteristics of Sexual Partners – Race/Ethnicity......................................82 

F7.d – Characteristics of Sexual Partners - Age .......................................................83 

F8 – Regular Sexual Intercourse...............................................................................84 
Charting Parenthood 2002 

vii

Contraception and Abortion 

F9 – Contraceptive Use.............................................................................................86 

F10 – Attitudes Toward Abortion.............................................................................89 

F11 – Incidence of Abortion.....................................................................................91 

Endnotes for Fertility Section...................................................................................93 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Data Dictionary...................................................................................97 

Appendix B: Data Tables for Who is a Parent? .....................................................123 

Appendix C: Data Tables for Parenting Section.....................................................127 

Appendix D: Data Tables for Family Formation Section.......................................163 

Appendix E: Data Tables for Fertility Section ......................................................179 
 Charting Parenthood 2002

viii

 INDEX OF DATA TABLES 

Parenting Tables 

Table 1 Percentage of adults who have ever had a biological child: 2000 ...........125 

Table 2 Percentage of adults living with one or more of their own children 

under age 18: 2001 ........................................................................................126 

Table P1.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who either agree or strongly 

agree that people who have never had children lead empty lives: 1988 & 

1994 ...............................................................................................................129 

Table P1.2 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who either agree or strongly 

agree that a marriage without children is not fully complete: 1988 ..............130 

Table P2.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who either agree or strongly 

agree that watching children grow up is life's greatest joy: 1988 & 1994.....131 

Table P2.2 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who either agree or strongly 

agree that it is better not to have children because they are such a heavy 

financial burden: 1988 ...................................................................................132 

Table P3.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who either agree or strongly 

agree that one parent can bring up a child as well as two parents together: 

1994 ...............................................................................................................133 

Table P4.1 Percentage of parents who reported various qualities as the most 

important for their child (under age 13) to learn to prepare him/her for life: 

1997 ...............................................................................................................134 

Table P5.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who either agree or strongly 

agree that it is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good, hard 

spanking: selected years: 1986-2000.............................................................135 

Table P6.1 Percentage of parents who reported particular responsibility for 

playing with their child(ren) (under age 13): 1997........................................137 

Table P6.2 Percentage of parents who reported particular responsibility for 

disciplining their child(ren) (under age 13): 1997.........................................138 

Table P6.3 Percentage of parents who reported particular responsibility for 

selecting a child care program, preschool, or school for their child(ren) 

(under age 13): 1997......................................................................................139 

Table P7.1 Percentage of parents who reported that they often or very often set 

various limits on their children's activities (ages 3 to 12): 1997 ...................140 

Table P8.1 Percentage of parents of children under age 13 who agree or 

completely agree with various statements about family conflict and 

various resolution styles: 1997 ......................................................................141 

Table P9.1 Degree of closeness child feels to parent: 1996 ................................142 
Charting Parenthood 2002 

ix

Table P10.1 Percentage of parents of children under age 13 who treated their 

children with various forms of warmth and affection every day in the past 

month: 1997...................................................................................................143 

Table P11.1 Percentage of parents who had open disagreements with their 

child age 12 to 18 in the last 12 months about his or her friends, by 

frequency of disagreement: 1988...................................................................144 

Table P11.2 Percentage of parents who had open disagreements with their 

child age 12 to 18 in the last 12 months about how late children stay out at 

night, by frequency of disagreement: 1988 ...................................................145 

Table P12.1 Percentage of parents who reported ever physically abusing their 

child: 1995 .....................................................................................................146 

Table P13.1 Percentage of children ages 0 to 5 whose father is the primary 

care provider while mother is working, looking for work, or attending 

school: 1996 ..................................................................................................147 

Table P14.1 Average daily time in hours children under age 13 are engaged in 

some activity with parents: 1997 ...................................................................148 

Table P15.1 Percentage of parents who engaged in the following activities 

with their child(ren) at least once a week: 1997............................................149 

Table P16.1 Percentage of children who report having gone to a church-related 

event with their parent in the last 4 weeks: 1996...........................................150 

Table P17.1 Percentage of parents with high involvement at their child's school 

(participation in three or four activities): 1996 & 1999.................................151 

Table P18.1 Mean number of days in a typical week parents report the 

following school encouragement behaviors: 1992 ........................................152 

Table P19.1 Type of child custody per most recent agreement (in percents): 

1994 ...............................................................................................................153 

Table P19.2 Type of child custody per most recent agreement (in percents): 

1996 ...............................................................................................................154 

Table P19.3 Type of child custody per most recent agreement (in percents): 

1998 ...............................................................................................................155 

Table P20.1 Percentage of children with contact with nonresident parent in the 

previous year, as reported by resident parent: 1993, 1995, & 1997 ..............156 

Table P20.2 Average number of days in the past year child had contact with 

nonresident parent (among those with any contact), according to resident 

parent: 1993, 1995, & 1997 ...........................................................................157 

Table P21.1 Median adjusted income (2000 Dollars) for families with one or 

more children under age 18 (U.S. Census Bureau) ......................................158 

Table P22.1 Characteristics of child support agreements held by resident 

parents (in percents): 1998.............................................................................159 
 Charting Parenthood 2002

x

Table P22.2 Percentage of resident parents with an agreement who received 

child support payments in the previous year: 1998 .......................................160 

Table P22.3 Mean dollar amounts received in the previous year for families 

receiving child support payments as reported by resident parent: 1998........161 

Family Formation Data Tables 

Table FF1.1 Percentage married among adults ages 18 and older: 1991-2001.....164 

Table FF1.2 Lifetime number of marriages (in percents): 1996 ..........................166 

Table FF2.1 Lifetime number of divorces (in percents): 1990 & 1996................167 

Table FF3.1 Average age at first marriage: 1990 & 1996....................................168 

Table FF3.2 Average age at first divorce: 1996 ...................................................169 

Table FF4.1 Percentage of respondents by spouse characteristics: 2001.............170 

Table FF5.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who agree or strongly agree 

with the following statements about divorce: 1994.......................................172 

Table FF6.1 Percentage of adults cohabiting: 1991-2001....................................173 

Table FF7.1 Average age at first cohabitation: 1988 ...........................................175 

Table FF8.1 Percentage of respondents by current partner characteristics: 2001 

.......................................................................................................................176 

Table FF9.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who agree or strongly agree 

that it is all right for a couple to live together without intending to get 

married: 1994 & 1998....................................................................................178 

Fertility Data Tables 

Table F1.1 Fertility rates for males: selected years: 1980-1999...........................180 

Table F1.2 Fertility and birth rates for females: selected years: 1980-1999 ........181 

Table F2.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 who had their first birth at a 

certain age (among those who have had a live birth): 1992 ..........................182 

Table F3.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 who have had pregnancies: 1992 

.......................................................................................................................183 

Table F4.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 who had their first birth before 

their first marriage: 1992 ..............................................................................184 

Table F5.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 who had their first sexual 

intercourse by the specified age: 1992..........................................................185 

Table F6.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who had two or more sex 

partners in the last 12 months: selected years: 1988-2000 ............................186 

Table F7.1 Seriousness of relationship at first sex with current or most recent 

partner (in percents): 1995.............................................................................188 
Charting Parenthood 2002 

xi

Table F7.2 Length of sexual relationship with first sexual partner (in percents): 

1995 ...............................................................................................................190 

Table F7.3 Length of sexual relationship with current or most recent partner 

(in percents): 1995 .........................................................................................191 

Table F7.4 Race and Hispanic origin of current or most recent sexual partner 

(in percents): 1995 .........................................................................................192 

Table F7.5a Current age of current or most recent female partner in past year 

(in percents), Males: 1988 & 1995 ................................................................193 

Table F7.5b Current age of current or most recent male partner in past year (in 

percents), Females ages 15-44: 1995.............................................................193 

Table F8.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who had sex two or more times a 

month during the last 12 months: selected years, 1989-2000........................194 

Table F9.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 who used contraceptives at their 

first sexual intercourse: 1992.........................................................................195 

Table F9.2 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 who used some form of 

contraception during their most recent intercourse: 1992 .............................196 

Table F10.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who think it should be possible 

for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortion under six different 

reasons: selected years, 1980-2000................................................................197 

Table F10.2 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who think it should be possible 

for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortion if the woman wants it for 

any reason: selected years, 1980 – 2000........................................................198 

Table F11.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 who have ever had an abortion: 

1992 ...............................................................................................................200 
Executive Summary Charting Parenthood 2002

xii

Executive Summary 

The great majority of Americans will become parents at some point in their lives. The statistics presented in 

this volume suggest that for the vast majority of parents, raising children is a central focus of their lives. 

But how much do we know about the experience of parenting in America today, about the decisions and actions 

of fathers and mothers, even about the planning (or lack thereof) that precedes conception and childbearing? 

Where previous efforts have focused largely on the experiences of women and mothers, Charting Parenthood

greatly expands our understanding in these areas by bringing men systematically into the picture and offering 

the best available data that include both men and women, fathers and mothers, for more than 40 indicators of 

parenting, fertility, and family formation. When men and women are both considered we find that, in some 

critical areas, their views and experiences diverge, while in other areas there is surprising agreement. 

The data also provide important insights into the value men place on family life and childrearing, and on the 

multiple contributions that fathers can make to the lives of children. These insights suggest that many men have 

a deep commitment to raising children in the context of marriage, and that substantial percentages of fathers are 

deeply and regularly involved in play, discipline, and primary caregiving. For example: 

3⁄4 Most fathers who live with their children participate regularly in some kind of leisure or play activity 

with them. While mothers are more likely to do “quiet” activities (reading a book or doing a puzzle, 

for example), fathers are more likely to play an outdoor game or sports activity. Very high levels of 

both fathers and mothers report talking at least once a week with their children about their family. 

3⁄4 Substantial percentages of fathers who live with their children are engaged in monitoring their 

children’s daily activities and in setting limits on these activities. For example, 61 percent set limits on 

what television programs their children are allowed to watch. 

3⁄4 Men are much more likely than women to believe that two parents are more effective at raising 

children than one parent alone. 

3⁄4 More than one in five young children in two-parent families have their father as the primary caregiver 

when the mother is at work, attending school, or looking for work. 

3⁄4 While 40 percent of children whose fathers live outside the home have no contact with them, the other 

60 percent had contact an average of 69 days in the last year. 

We highlight below some of the key findings in each of the three major sections of this volume: parenting, 

family formation, and fertility. Unless otherwise specified in this summary, “parents” refers to mothers or 

fathers that live with their children. 

Parenting 

The Value of Raising Children. Americans place great personal value on raising children. Most adults, 

whether or not they are parents, believe that watching children grow up is life’s greatest joy (78 percent of men 

and 83 percent of women in 1994). 

Parental Warmth and Affection. Very high percentages of parents reported showing their children frequent 

warmth and affection, with 87 percent of mothers and 73 percent of fathers reporting that they hugged their 

children or showed them physical affection at least once a day. Similarly high percentages reported telling their 

children daily that they love them. 

Time and Activities With Children. The vast majority of mothers and fathers report sharing responsibility with 

each other for playing with their children, with mothers less likely than fathers to report that playing was a 

shared responsibility. There are, however, domains in which mothers and fathers tend to lead. Mothers are 

more likely to engage children in activities like board games, puzzles, and looking at books; while fathers are 

more likely to play sports or do outdoor activities with children. Mothers are also more likely to be highly 

involved in their children’s schools, perhaps reflecting different employment patterns and work hours between 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Executive Summary

xiii

mothers and fathers. Adolescents also report that they are more likely to attend a religious observance with 

their mother than their father. 

Setting Limits and Administering Discipline. Both mothers and fathers are substantially involved in setting 

limits for their children in various areas, with mothers somewhat more likely than fathers to report setting limits 

for their children on how much television they can watch (48 percent of mothers and 40 percent of fathers); on 

what programs they can watch (71 percent of mothers and 61 percent of fathers); and on who their children can 

spend time with (51 percent of mothers and 40 percent of fathers). The vast majority of mothers and fathers 

report sharing responsibility with each other for disciplining children, with mothers less likely than fathers to 

report that discipline was a shared responsibility. 

Daily Time With Children. Children generally spend more time with their mothers than their fathers on any 

given day, possibly reflecting higher levels of employment among fathers than mothers. In two-parent families, 

this time difference is not terribly large: children ages 12 and under spend on average 2 hours and 21 minutes a 

day with their mothers, compared to 1 hour and 46 minutes with their fathers. In single-parent families, in 

contrast, children spend about one and a quarter hours a day with their mothers, compared to less than half an 

hour with their fathers, presumably reflecting the fact that more children in such families live with single 

mothers than fathers. 

One Parent Versus Two. Men and women differ on whether one parent can bring up a child as well as two 

parents together. In 1994, 42 percent of women agreed that one parent can bring up a child just as effectively as 

two parents together, compared to just 26 percent of men. Interestingly, mothers and fathers were about as 

likely as nonparents to agree, though in neither case did a majority believe that one parent could bring up a child 

as effectively as two parents together. As public debate continues on issues related to single parenthood, it 

would be both interesting and helpful to obtain more recent data on this question. 

Primary Care by Fathers. In 1996, almost one in five children ages birth to five (18 percent) had their fathers 

as their primary caregivers while their mothers were working, attending school, or looking for work. Such 

father care was more common for children in two-parent families than for those raised by a single mothers. The 

likelihood that a father provided primary care also varied by the father’s educational level, with collegeeducated fathers much less likely to provide such care. 

Physical Abuse of Children. A small proportion of parents self-report ever having physically abused their 

children, defined as having hit the child with a fist or kicked the child, thrown the child or knocked them down, 

choked or burned the child, or used a knife or gun against the child (6 percent of mothers and 3 percent of 

fathers). 

Contact with Nonresident Parent. Most children with a parent who lives apart from them have at least some 

contact with that parent: 60 percent had contact with a nonresident father and 78 percent had contact with a 

nonresident mother in 1997. These children were in contact an average of 69 days with their fathers and 86 days 

with their mothers over the course of a year. 

Family Formation 

Marriage. The percentage of men and women who are married declined modestly between 1991 and 2001. 

This trend was also evident among parents: 92 percent of resident fathers were married in 1991, compared to 

88 percent in 2001; 75 percent of resident mothers were married in 1991, compared to 72 percent in 2001. 

Poor men and women were the least likely of any income group to be married, with the proportion married 

increasing as income increases. For example, 41 percent of poor men were married in 2001, compared to 66 

percent of men with incomes at three or more times the poverty level. The marriage gap was even wider for 

women. Only about one in every three poor women is married, while about two of every three women with 

incomes at three or more times the poverty are married. This difference undoubtedly reflects both the more 

advantaged backgrounds of those who marry, and the advantages of having multiple earners in the family that 

marriage can bring. The percentage of poor men and women who are married has also been declining over the 

decade. 
Executive Summary Charting Parenthood 2002

xiv

Divorce. The vast majority of men and women who were married in 1996 had never been divorced (81 percent 

of men and 82 percent of women). Between 1990 and 1996, the percentage of ever-married adults who 

divorced remained about the same among men and declined modestly for women. The likelihood of divorce 

among ever-married men differs little by poverty status. Among ever-married women, however, poor women 

are much more likely to have been divorced than more affluent women. 

About half of all men and women agreed with the statement that “divorce is usually the best solution when a 

couple can’t seem to work out their marriage problems.” Only 20 percent of men and 12 percent of women 

thought that parents who don’t get along should stay together when there are children in the family. Women’s 

views on this question did not vary according to whether or not they were married or had children. In contrast, 

fathers were more likely than men who were childless to think parents should stay together for the children’s 

sake. 

Cohabitation. While marriage has declined slightly, cohabitation has increased. Eleven percent of unmarried 

men cohabited in 1991, rising to 13 percent in 2001. During the same period, the percentage of unmarried 

women who were cohabiting increased from 8 percent to 11 percent. Cohabitation is more common among 

poor men and women, declining markedly at higher income levels. Overall, 40 percent of all cohabiting 

relationships involve parents with children in the home. 

Fertility 

Birth Rates. Overall, birth rates among men and women have declined modestly since 1980. However, this 

modest decline was not consistent across age groups. Between 1980 and 1999, birth rates among men and 

women at older ages (ages 30 and older) have increased, while birth rates among female teens have declined. 

Age at First Birth. One in three females had their first birth in their teens, with females three times as likely to 

be teen parents than males (33 percent compared to 11 percent in 1992). In contrast, almost half of males 

reported that their first birth occurred after age 25, compared to one-quarter of females. 

Premarital Births. The percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 who had a premarital birth prior to their first 

marriage is slightly higher among women than men: 19 percent compared to 15 percent in 1992 (the most recent 

year for which data are available for both men and women). This gender gap is much wider for younger adults. 

Women ages 18 through 24 are more than five times as likely as men in the same age group to have a premarital 

birth (21 percent compared to 4 percent). In general, poor adults were more likely than other adults to have had 

a premarital birth. 

Age at First Sexual Intercourse. Among adults ages 18 to 59 in 1992, 55 percent of men and 43 percent of 

women reported having their first sexual intercourse before age 18. (These percentages may well have changed 

in ensuing years.) Age at first sex varies tremendously by education. Women college graduates are much less 

likely to report having had sex before age 18 than women without a high school education (21 percent 

compared to 67 percent). The gap for men is similar, though less dramatic – 39 percent and 64 percent. 

Contraceptive Use. Younger adults are more likely than older adults to report using any method of 

contraception at first sex, indicating that contraceptive use at first sex has increased over time. For both males 

and females, contraceptive use at first sex increases with educational attainment. 

Conclusion 

This pathbreaking report brings together important information on fathers and mothers, including many new 

analyses produced specifically for the report. While available data leave important gaps in our understanding of 

these issues, federal statistical agencies are making important efforts to fill many of those gaps. Even with 

current limitations, however, the report extends our understanding of fatherhood in particular and parenting as a 

whole, and provides a hint of what might be accomplished in the future. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Introduction

1 

Introduction 

Until quite recently, men and fathers were largely missing from statistical portraits of families. Research and 

data on parenting, fertility, and family formation has focused primarily on women and mothers. In the last 

several years, however, researchers, policy makers, advocates for fathers, and federal agencies have led the 

charge for more and better information on the male role in fertility, parenting, and family formation. The result 

has been several recent ground-breaking efforts, including the production of this report. It provides the public 

with the first comprehensive portrait of mothers and fathers in America, offering a systematic comparison that 

will increase our understanding of and appreciation for the contributions of both parents to the raising of our 

children. 

The report draws on thirteen federal and privately collected national surveys to present information on more 

than 40 measures of parenting, family formation, and fertility in a format that is accessible to broad audiences. 

It is intended to provide a factual foundation to improve public understanding and policymaking in each of 

these areas, and to inform federal agencies as they work to improve the breadth, timeliness, and quality of data 

on fathers and mothers. 

The report was produced by Child Trends, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization dedicated to 

improving the lives of children and youth through better research and improved data collection. The report 

benefited greatly from the support of the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (the 

Forum), whose member agencies provided some data for the report and carefully reviewed relevant sections. 

The Forum, formally established in 1997 to foster coordination and collaboration in the collection and reporting 

of Federal data on children and families, includes 20 federal statistical agencies. 

History of the Report 

Beginning in 1996 the Forum worked in collaboration with private foundations, including the Ford Foundation, 

and leading researchers and research centers, sponsoring a year-long series of related conferences and meetings 

to review current approaches to gathering information on fathers and to explore new ways of conceptualizing, 

measuring and collecting data about fatherhood and male fertility. Products from these activities included a 

series of widely disseminated synthesis reports and a comprehensive final report published in March 1998, titled 

Nurturing Fatherhood: Improving Data and Research on Family Formation and Fatherhood. 

The Nurturing Fatherhood report included ten recommendations or “targets of opportunity” for increasing our 

understanding of male fertility, family formation and fathering, all of which were endorsed by the Forum in 

February 1998. The second of these ten recommendations was: 

To publish a baseline fatherhood indicators report that includes information on male fertility, 

family formation and fathering. 

Child Trends and members of the Forum’s Data Collection Committee began work to identify what data were 

available for such a report, and to assess data quality. Key measures to include in the report were chosen 

through a consultative process involving members of the NICHD Family and Child Well-Being Research 

Network (the Network), Child Trends, and members of the Forum. This initial work was supported with 

funding from the Network and the National Center for Education Statistics. 

In 1999 Child Trends was awarded a grant from the Ford Foundation to produce this report. Additional funding 

and in-kind support was provided by the Forum, the NICHD Family and Child Research Network, the Annie E. 

Casey Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and the Administration for Children and Families 

of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

Overview of the Report 

The report presents information on more than 40 indicators in three broad areas: parenting, family formation, 

and fertility. Each indicator consists of about a page of text beginning with a brief discussion of its importance 
Introduction Charting Parenthood 2002

2

based on current research, followed by a review of basic trends and population subgroup differences. The text 

is supported by one or two data figures. More detailed data are presented in tables in the Appendices. 

Topics related directly to parenting include attitudes about parenting, parenting practices, qualities of the 

parent/child relationship, activities with children, child care, parents and schools, and income. Custody 

arrangements and activities between children and nonresident parents are also covered. The family formation 

section looks at marriage, divorce and cohabitation experience and attitudes, and at the characteristics of 

partners. The fertility section includes pregnancy and birth-related outcomes, sexual activity, and 

contraception. 

While the report grew out of a project to portray data about fathers, contributors understood that such 

information would be more useful in the context of data about mothers as well. The intent of the project was to 

ensure that both mothers and fathers were brought fully into the parenting picture. 

Looking to the Future 

This report is one expression of an ongoing joint effort by private organizations and federal statistical agencies 

to improve our understanding of fatherhood, and to improve our ability to measure and track key aspects of the 

parenting, fertility, and family formation experiences of both sexes. Several ongoing efforts are worth 

mentioning. 

Members of the Forum recently held a “Counting Couples” conference to address how federal statistical 

agencies could improve the way they measures family structure in their surveys and administrative data sources. 

A report from that conference is scheduled for release at the same time as this report. 

Several federal agencies are already making significant changes in their data collection efforts in order to collect 

additional information on men and fathers. For example, the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), 

which is repeated about every 6 years, is the nation’s premier survey for studying the dynamics of fertility and 

family formation. Historically the survey has been limited to females. This year, the National Center for 

Health Statistics, which oversees the survey, is interviewing males as well. They are gathering detailed 

information on men’s fertility history (birth, pregnancies, abortion), sexual activity and contraception, 

characteristics of current partner, and a variety of parenting activities such as feeding, bathing, diapering, and 

playing with infants; eating meals together, going to religious services and outings, and helping with homework. 

This expansion of the NSFG to men, which was funded by a number of agencies within the Forum, represents a 

major advance in the collection of data on fathers, and should substantially enrich our understanding of 

fatherhood. If it is sustained in subsequent rounds of the survey, it will allow us to track changes in fathering 

and male fertility over time and on a regular basis. 

The National Center for Education Statistics has also made a substantial effort to collect new data on fathering 

in the design of its Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort. In addition to information obtained from 

the mother, residential fathers are asked questions about their involvement with the baby. Nonresidential 

fathers who are in regular contact with the baby are also being given a short questionnaire to complete. 

Questions on father involvement are also being collected in the 1997 cohort of the National Longitudinal 

Survey of Youth, a major survey funded by several agencies within the Forum. 

Over the last five years, the public/private partnerships that have formed around the topic of fatherhood have 

borne substantial fruit in the form of new research, expanded data collection, and innovative dissemination. 

Collecting the necessary data is not an inexpensive proposition, however. To secure recent advances and 

implement further improvements, additional financial resources are required. We believe that this report, and 

the other efforts described here, demonstrate the value of such an investment for the public and for better policy. 

They also demonstrate the potential for continued public/private partnerships in this area. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Who is a Parent?

3 

Who is a Parent? 

Who is a parent? This answer is not as obvious as one might think. Definitions of parenthood can include 

genetic, legal, and practical criteria. Throughout this report we do not use any single definition of parenthood. 

For this indicator, however, we define parenthood in two ways: genetically (have you ever had a biological 

child), and practically (are you living with your own child under age 18, regardless of the type of relationship). 

Both measures have their limitations: the genetic definition does not say anything about the current 

relationship, and is doubtless under-reported for men; the practical definition adopted here leaves out 

nonresident parents of minor children, an important group. Together, however, they give us a good starting 

point for the report. 

Estimates for the percentage of adults ages 18 and older who have ever had a biological child come from the 

2000 National Health Interview Survey (refer to Who is a Parent? Table 1). Estimates of the proportion of 

adults ages 18 and older who are living with one or more of their own children (under age 18) come from the 

March 2001 Current Population Survey (refer to Who is a Parent? Table 2). 

Figure 1 Percentage of adults ages 18 and older who have ever had a biological child: 2000 

14

31

62

74

84 86

0

20

40

60

80

100

Males Females

Percent

18 to 24 Years Old

25 to 44 Years Old 

45 and Older

SOURCE: National Health Interview Survey, 2000 

By Gender. In 2000 nearly three quarters (74 

percent) of all women age 18 and older reported 

having had at least one biological child in their 

lifetime, compared to 65 percent among men. 

Interestingly, this gender gap gets smaller with age, 

practically disappearing among those ages 45 and 

older (84 percent for men and 86 percent for 

women, see Figure 1). 

Women are also more likely than men to report 

living with one or more of their own children under 

age 18 (45 percent compared to 38 percent in 

2001). 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. Hispanic women 

report the highest rates of ever having had a child 

(79 percent), followed by black, non-Hispanics (76 

percent); white, non-Hispanics (74 percent); and 

other (mostly Asian) non-Hispanics (70 percent). 

The same pattern exists for men, though the 

differences are even smaller and generally not 

statistically significant. 

Among males, Hispanics and Asian or Pacific 

Islanders are most likely to report living with their 

own children (47 percent and 45 percent, 

respectively), followed by non-Hispanic, white; 

non-Hispanic, blacks; and American Indian and 

Alaskan Natives (at 37, 34, and 36 percent, 

respectively). Among females, Hispanics are the 

most likely to live with their own children (61 

percent) followed by Asian or Pacific Islanders, 

non-Hispanic blacks, and American Indians (53, 

51, and 50 percent). Non-Hispanic white females 

were the least likely to report living with their own 

minor children at 41 percent. 

By Marital Status. Married adults are much more 

likely than single adults to be living with their own 

minor children, though the percentages differ 

substantially by gender. Among those who are not 

married, 11 percent of men and 29 percent of 

females live with their own child. Among those 

who are married, 54 percent of men and 56 percent 
Who is a Parent? Charting Parenthood 2002

4

of women live with at least one of their own 

children. 

By Educational Attainment. Men who have 

graduated from college are more likely to live with 

one or more of their own children than those who 

did not graduate from high school (42 percent 

compared to 33 percent). Women are about 

equally likely to be living with their own children 

regardless of education level, with values ranging 

from 44 percent to 46 percent across education 

levels. 

The patterns are quite different when the measure 

is whether one has ever had a child. Among 

women, more education is associated with a lower 

likelihood of having had a child; 62 percent among 

college graduates compared to 85 percent for those 

with less than a high school degree. Among men, 

rates range from 60 percent to 69 percent, with the 

lowest rates among those with some college. 
Parenting Section
6
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 7 

P1 – Importance of Becoming a Parent 

By the age of 35, it has been estimated that eighty-three percent of adults in the U.S. will be the parent of a 

child.1,2 Research indicates that the proportion of women that expect to be permanently childless remains low, 

and the proportion voluntarily childless even lower.3, 4 

Attitudes about becoming a parent can change over time, and are not perfect predictors of future behavior. 

One study reports that a quarter of women who were “very sure” that they did not want to have children 

changed their minds over just two years.5

 Still, adults’ attitudes about the importance of becoming a parent 

provide insight into how critical being a parent is to feeling fulfilled as an adult. 

In order to assess the attitudes of adults concerning the importance of having children, two questions from the 

General Social Survey (GSS) are examined. Adult respondents were asked to report how much they agreed 

with the following two statements: 1) “People who have never had children lead empty lives;” and 2) “A 

marriage without children is not fully complete.” The first item was measured in 1988 and 1994, while the 

second was only measured in 1988 (refer to Table P1.1 and P1.2). 

Attitudes About The Fulfillment Of Having 

Children 

By Gender. Males and females were just as likely 

to agree or strongly agree that people who never 

have children lead empty lives, although the 

overall percentage is low (about one-fifth of the 

total male and female respondents in 1994). The 

percentage of women in this category dropped 

from 28 to 18 percent between 1988 and 1994. 

By Parental Status. Not surprisingly, parents of 

both sexes were significantly more likely than 

nonparents to believe that people who have never 

had children lead empty lives (28 percent 

compared to 9 percent among males, and 21 

percent compared to 9 percent among females). 

By Age. Those ages 45 and over were 

significantly more likely than younger adults to 

agree or strongly agree that people who have never 

had children lead empty lives. For males in 1994, 

11 percent of respondents ages 18 to 24, 16 percent 

of the respondents ages 25 to 44, and 29 percent of 

respondents ages 45 and older agreed or strongly 

agreed. Among females the percentages were 15, 

11, and 25 percent, respectively. 

By Educational Attainment. Respondents with 

less than a high school education place greater 

emphasis on the importance of having a child than 

those with higher levels of educational attainment 

(see Figure P1.1). In 1994, 41 percent of males 

and 38 percent of females with less than a high 

school education agreed or strongly agreed that 

people who never have children lead empty lives as 

compared to 13 percent of males and 7 percent of 

females with a college degree. 

By Employment Status. Males and females who 

are not in the labor force are considerably more 

likely than others to feel that those without children 

lead empty lives. For example, among males in 

1994 the percentage ranged from 33 percent among 

those not in the labor force to 19 percent for those 

working 35 or more hours per week. 

Attitudes About The Fulfillment of Having 

Children in a Marriage 

By Gender. Almost one-half of all respondents in 

1988 agreed or strongly agreed that a marriage 

without children is not fully complete. There was 

no significant difference between males and 

females. In fact, with few exceptions there was no 

substantial difference between men and women in 

any population category on this issue. 

By Marital Status. Married men were more likely 

(49 percent) than nonmarried men (38 percent) to 

agree or strongly agree that a marriage without 

children was not complete; however, no significant 

difference was noted for women. 

By Parental Status. Parents were substantially 

more likely than nonparent respondents to agree or 

strongly agree that a marriage without children is 

not fully complete (52 percent compared to 28 

percent among males and 49 percent compared to 

30 percent among females). 

By Age. Adults ages 45 and over were more likely 

than younger respondents to believe that a marriage 

without children is not fully complete. For males, 

35 percent of respondents ages 18 to 24, 33 percent 

of the respondents ages 25 to 44, and 59 percent of 

respondents ages 45 and older agreed or strongly 
Parenting Charting Parenthood 2002

8 

agreed. Among females, the numbers were 41, 35, 

and 55 percent, respectively. 

By Educational Attainment. Substantial 

differences were also found by education level. For 

males in 1988, 53 percent of respondents with less 

than a high school education agreed or strongly 

agreed with the statement as compared to 45 

percent of those with a high school diploma or 

equivalent and only 33 percent of college 

graduates. The same pattern emerges for females 

with 56, 44, and 34 percent, respectively. 

By Employment Status. Adults who were not in 

the labor force were significantly more likely to 

agree or strongly agree that a marriage without 

children is not fully complete compared to their 

counterparts who worked more than 35 hours per 

week. In 1988, 55 percent of men and 53 percent 

of women who were not in the labor force agreed 

or strongly agreed with this statement as compared 

to 38 percent of men and 37 percent of women who 

worked 35 hours or more per week. 

Figure P1.1 Percentage of respondents who agree or strongly agree that people who have never had 

children lead empty lives, by level of educational attainment: 1994 

41

38

20

17

12 12 13

7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Males Females

Percent

Less than high school High School/GED Vocational/technical or some college College Graduate

SOURCE: General Social Survey, 1994 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 9 

P2 – Adult Attitudes About the Value of Children 

Parents’ attitudes about children’s worth and importance play a large role in shaping the ways in which they 

interact with their children and the types of expectations that they set for them.6,7 Research suggests that the 

different styles of valuing children that parents adopt are often related to parents’ desired outcomes for their 

children. For instance, parents that value children for their economic utility tend to seek obedience from them, 

and more educated parents tend to encourage their children toward finding good jobs in adolescence and 

adulthood. In contrast, children valued for their love and companionship tend to have parents who are seeking 

pleasant and sociable children. Across these different styles, children who are valued more tend to be less 

likely to end up the victims of maltreatment 8

 or verbal abuse. 9 

More broadly, the degree to which adults value children highly has implications for public policy and social 

programs aimed at the welfare of children. A society that places great emphasis on children and their 

development is more likely to make the social investments critical to children’s well-being. 

In order to assess the attitudes of adults concerning the value of children, two questions from the General 

Social Survey (GSS) are examined. Adult respondents were asked to report how much they agreed with the 

following two statements: 1) “watching children grow up is life’s greatest joy;” and 2) “it is better not to have 

children because they are such a heavy financial burden.” The first item was measured in both 1988 and 1994, 

while the second was only measured in 1988 (refer to Table P2.1 and P2.2). 

Attitudes about the Joys of Watching Children 

Grow Up 

By Gender. The overwhelming majority of adults 

agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that 

“watching children grow up is life’s greatest joy.” 

There was a modest decline between 1988 and 

1994, however, from 84 to 78 percent among 

males, and from 88 to 83 percent among females. 

In both years a greater percentage of females than 

males endorsed this statement (see Figure P2.1). 

Figure P2.1. Percentage of men and women who 

agree or strongly agree that watching children 

grow up is life’s greatest joy: 1988 and 1994 

84

78 83 88

0

20

40

60

80

100

1988 1994

Percent

Males Females

SOURCE: General Social Survey, 1988 and 1994 

By Parental Status. Parents of both genders are 

considerably more likely than nonparents to 

believe that watching children grow up is life’s 

greatest joy. In 1994, 87 percent of fathers 

compared to 62 percent of nonfathers agreed or 

strongly agreed with this statement. The results 

were similar among women.

By Educational Attainment. As educational 

attainment increases, adults are generally less 

likely to agree with the statement that “watching 

children grow up is life’s greatest joy.” In 1994, 

94 percent of women with less than a high school 

education agreed or strongly agreed compared to 

only 62 percent of women who were college 

graduates. The percentages for men were 87 and 

71 percent, respectively. 

Attitudes about Whether It Is Better Not To Have 

Children Because They Are Such A Heavy 

Financial Burden 

By Gender. In general, adults do not tend to think 

that children are such a heavy financial burden that 

they would refrain from having them. In 1988, 

only 5 percent of men and 4 percent of women 

agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that 

“it is better not to have children because they are 

such a heavy financial burden.” 

By Educational Attainment. Men and women 

with less than a high school education are more 

likely than are college graduates to agree or 

strongly agree that it is better not to have children 
Parenting Charting Parenthood 2002

10 

because they are such a heavy financial burden. In 

1988, 16 percent of men and 7 percent of women 

with less than a high school education agreed or 

strongly agreed with the statement, compared to 2 

percent of men and 2 percent of women who were 

college graduates.
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 11 

P3 – Parents: Can One Be as Good as Two? 

The number of children living in households with two biological parents has been steadily declining over the 

past two decades and has only recently begun to level off.10,11 Although the majority of single parents are 

mothers,12 in recent years the number of single-father families has increased, accounting for 18 percent of all 

single parent families with children under age 18 in 1998.13 There are several possible routes – both voluntary 

and involuntary – to single parenthood including getting a divorce, becoming a widow or widower, and being 

an unmarried parent. Regardless of the reason, most researchers agree that the fewer economic resources that 

single parents are able to offer and subsequent time restraints of single parenting place children raised in 

single-parent homes at a disadvantage.14,15,16 Children raised by single parents have lower levels of social and 

academic well-being17,18 and more behavior problems19 than those from intact families. In addition, 

McLanahan and Sandefur (1994, p. 1) report that “...adolescents who have lived apart from one of their 

parents during some period of childhood are twice as likely to drop out of high school, twice as likely to have a 

child before age twenty, and one and a half times as likely to be ’idle’ – out of school or out of work - in their 

late teens and early twenties.”20 It is important to note however, that the absolute differences between children 

with one parent and children with two biological parents are moderate to small.21

In order to assess the attitudes of adults concerning single parenting, one question from the General Social 

Survey (GSS) is examined. Adult respondents were asked to report how much they agreed with the following 

statement – “One parent can bring up a child as well as two parents together.” The question was asked in 

1994 only (refer to Table P3.1). 

By Gender. Women were significantly more likely 

than men to agree or strongly agree that one parent 

can bring up a child as well as two parents 

together, 42 percent of women compared to 26 

percent of men (see Figure P3.1). 

Figure P3.1 Percentage of adults who agree or 

strongly agree that one parent can bring up a 

child as well as two parents together, by gender: 

1994 

26

42

0

10

20

30

40

50

Males Females

Percent

SOURCE: General Social Survey, 1994 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. Differences 

among men by race and Hispanic origin were 

comparatively modest, ranging between 25 and 35 

percent. Among women, however, non-Hispanic 

whites were far less likely than other groups to 

believe that one parent can bring up a child as well 

as two parents together. In 1994, only 38 percent 

of white, non-Hispanic women agreed as compared 

to 64 percent of black, non-Hispanic, 61 percent 

for Hispanic women, and 58 percent for American 

Indian/Alaskan Native women. 

By Parental Status. Interestingly, parents were 

about as likely as nonparents to believe that one 

parent can be just as effective as two in raising a 

child. However, female parents were significantly 

more likely than male parents to believe this (44 

percent compared to 25 percent). 

By Age. Adults ages 45 and older were less likely 

than younger adults to believe that one parent can 

be just as effective in raising a child as two parents. 

Among women in 1994, 32 percent ages 45 and 

older agreed or strongly agreed with this compared 

to 66 percent of those ages 18 to 24. For men, the 

numbers were 18 percent and 34 percent for the 

respective age groups. 

By Employment Status. Differences across 

employment categories were more pronounced 

among women than men. Estimates for men across 

employment categories ranged between 22 and 32 

percent. Among females, however, those who were 

not in the labor force were substantially less likely 

than those in all other employment categories to 

believe that one parent can bring up a child as well 

as two parents together. In 1994, 35 percent of 

females not in the labor force believed that one 

parent can be as effective as two in raising a child 

as compared to 66 percent of those looking for 

work, 51 percent of those working less than 35 

hours a week, and 45 percent of those working 35 

or more hours per week. 
Parenting Charting Parenthood 2002

12 

P4 – Parents’ Beliefs About Raising Children 

The types of values that parents seek to instill in their children provide the foundation and direction for their 

moral and ethical growth. Contemporary research suggests that the development of children’s moral sense is 

contingent upon many factors including experiences with parents and peers and wider cultural influences.22 

Research examining family interactions indicates that children achieve more advanced levels of moral 

reasoning when their parents engage them in rational styles of discourse.23 Evidence suggests that parental 

modeling plays a key role in the formation of prosocial behaviors, such as volunteering and charitable giving,24

and that such influence is well underway by the age of 30 months25. 

Five items from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics - Child Development Supplement (PSID-CDS) are 

examined to assess the sorts of values parents would like to see instilled in their children. Parents were asked 

to report which of five qualities (i.e., obedience, popularity, independence, hard worker, helper) they thought 

was the most important quality for their child (under age 13) to learn to prepare him or her for life. These 

items were all asked in 1997 (refer to Table P4.1).

Figure P4.1 Qualities that fathers think are most important for their child (under age 13) to learn, by 

race of father: 1997 

16

1

59

17

7

28

0

40

26

6

50

9

18 13 11

35

0

29 26

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Obey Be Liked Think for

Oneself

Work Hard Help Others in

Need

Percent

White non-Hispanic Black non-Hispanic Hispanic Other

SOURCE: Panel of Study of Income Dynamics – Child Development Supplement, 1997

By Gender. Mothers and fathers both thought that 

the most important quality for their child to learn to 

prepare him or her for life is the ability to think for 

oneself. Fifty-nine percent of mothers and 52 

percent of fathers thought that this was the most 

important quality for their child to learn. The 

second most important quality ranked by mothers 

(17 percent) and fathers (21 percent) was 

obedience, followed by working hard, helping 

others in need and, finally, being liked. 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. While thinking for 

oneself was most highly prized among white and 

black, non-Hispanic parents, obedience was 

considered most important by Hispanic parents. 

Among fathers, 59 percent of white, nonHispanics, 40 percent of black, non-Hispanics, but 

only 18 percent of Hispanics reported thinking for 

oneself as the most important quality for their child 

to learn. Fifty percent of Hispanic fathers report 

that obedience is the most important quality, 

compared to 16 percent of white, non-Hispanic and 

28 percent of black, non-Hispanic fathers (see 

Figure P4.1). The same pattern is seen with 

mothers. Sixty-eight percent of white, nonHispanic mothers and 41 percent of black, nonHispanic mothers report that thinking for oneself is 

the most important quality that their child can 

learn, compared to 29 percent of Hispanic mothers. 

Forty-three percent of Hispanic mothers favored 

obedience as the most important quality compared 

to 31 percent of black, non-Hispanic and 10 

percent of white, non-Hispanic mothers (see Figure 

P4.2). 

By Poverty Status. Nonpoor mothers and fathers 

were more likely than poor parents to endorse 

thinking for oneself as the most important quality 

for their child to learn, while poor parents were 

more likely to report obedience as the most 

important quality. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 13 

By Educational Attainment. As parental 

education level rises, the appreciation for thinking 

for oneself goes steadily up, while the relative 

importance of obedience decreases. Seventy-four 

percent of mothers with a college degree but only 

35 percent of mothers with less than a high school 

education ranked thinking for oneself as the most 

important quality their child can learn. This can be 

contrasted with the fact that 34 percent of mothers 

with less than a high school education report 

obedience as the most important quality for their 

child to learn, compared to only 8 percent of 

mothers with a college degree. A similar pattern 

exists among fathers. 

By Age. Parents under 25 years of age are 

significantly less likely than parents who are older 

to report that thinking for oneself is the most 

important quality that their child can learn. Thirty 

six percent of fathers and 37 percent of mothers 

under age 25 report that thinking for oneself is the 

most important quality, compared to 61 percent of 

fathers and 67 mothers who are ages 45 and older. 

The fact that young parents are more likely to have 

very young children may account in part for these 

differences. 

Figure P4.2 Qualities that mothers think are most important for their child (under age 13) to learn, by 

race of mother: 1997 

10

0

68

11 11

31

0

41

22

5

43

9

29

8 11 18

2

54

18

8

0

20

40

60

80

Obey Be Liked Think for

Oneself

Work Hard Help Others in

Need

Percent

White non-Hispanic Black non-Hispanic Hispanic Other

SOURCE: Panel of Study of Income Dynamics – Child Development Supplement, 1997
Parenting Charting Parenthood 2002

14 

P5 – Adults’ Attitudes Toward Spanking 

One of the most frequently used strategies to discipline a child, especially a younger child, is spanking.26 

Research suggests that about 90 percent of parents in the United States report having spanked their children.27

At the same time, however, use of corporal punishment is often linked to negative outcomes for children (e.g., 

delinquency, antisocial behavior, and low self-esteem), and may be indicative of ineffective parenting.28, 29

Positive child outcomes can be obtained when parents refrain from spanking and other physical punishment 

and alternatively discipline their children through firm, rational control and nurturing communication.30

Studies show that this type of disciplinary style may foster positive psychological outcomes such as high selfesteem and cooperation with others, as well as improved achievement in school.31

The type of discipline employed is often influenced by both the age and the reasoning ability of the child.32 For 

example, younger children may have greater difficulty responding to rational communicative discipline, 

whereas older children may respond more readily to firm and nurturing communication. For younger children, 

an alternative strategy may be to redirect the child’s attention, rather than use rational communication or 

spanking. 

In order to assess the attitudes of adults about spanking a child, a question from the General Social Survey is 

examined. Adults were asked to report the degree to which they agreed or disagreed that it is sometimes 

necessary to discipline a child with a good, hard spanking. These items were all asked in 1986 and 1988 

through 2000 (refer to Table P5.1). 

By Gender. In the period between 1986 and 2000, 

the percentage of men who agreed that it is 

sometimes necessary to spank a child hard varied 

between 73 and 84 percent, with no clear historical 

pattern. Women exhibited a similar pattern, with 

estimates ranging between 69 and 82 percent. 

Approval of spanking was at its highest in 1986 for 

both sexes. In general, men are more likely than 

women to agree that sometimes it is necessary to 

spank a child. For example, in 2000, 79 percent of 

men agreed that spanking a child is sometimes 

necessary, compared to 71 percent of women. 

By Educational Attainment. Adults who are 

college graduates were less likely than parents 

without a high school diploma or equivalent to say 

that spanking a child is sometimes necessary. In 

2000, 66 percent of men who were college 

graduates agreed that spanking is sometimes 

necessary compared to 87 percent of men with less 

than a high school education. Among women, 55 

percent of college graduates agreed that it was 

sometimes necessary to spank a child, compared to 

80 percent of those who did not graduate from high 

school (see Figure P5.1).

By Race and Hispanic Origin. For both men and 

women, white, non-Hispanic adults are less likely 

than black, non-Hispanic adults to say that 

spanking a child is sometimes necessary. For 

example, in 2000, 87 percent of black men, 

compared to 79 percent of white men, agreed that a 

child sometimes needs a good hard spanking. In 

2000, black men were also more likely than 

Hispanic men (69 percent) to agree that spanking a 

child was sometimes necessary. 

Figure P5.1 Percentage of men and women who agree that it is sometimes necessary to give a child a good 

hard spanking, by educational attainment: 2000 

87 82 80 75 73 66

55

88

0

20

40

60

80

100

Males Females

Percent

Less than high school

High School/GED

Vocational/technical or some college

College graduate

SOURCE: General Social Survey, 2000 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 15 

P6 – Parents’ Responsibility for Children 

Mothers and fathers often assume different roles with regard to their children. Researchers find that fathers 

are more likely to assume a greater role in play activities with young children, while mothers generally assume 

the role of primary caretaker.33,34 Despite these differences, both parents have a significant effect on children’s 

development.35 It is through the gradual developmental process of interpreting, transforming, and evaluating 

the norms of their parents that children acquire their own moral values.36 Similarly, parental input and 

involvement in choosing and engaging in their child’s school is crucial. Children with involved parents are 

more likely to have positive educational outcomes, higher aspirations, and increased graduation rates.37 Father 

involvement, particularly involvement in their children’s school activities, is associated with decreases in 

problem behaviors (e.g., drug use, delinquency) among their children.38 

The responsibilities of parents for their children were assessed by examining three questions from the Panel 

Study of Income Dynamics – Child Development Supplement (PSID-CDS). Parents were asked if they shared, 

performed alone, or if someone else performed three responsibilities for their children (under age 13): 1) 

playing with their children; 2) disciplining their children; and 3) selecting a child care program, preschool, or 

school for their children (refer to Table P6.1, P6.2, and P6.3). These items were all asked in 1997. 

By Gender. The majority of mothers and fathers 

reported that they shared responsibility for playing 

with their children (77 and 91 percent, 

respectively), and for discipline (70 and 89 

percent). When it came to selecting a child care 

program, preschool, or school, however, only 38 

percent of mothers and 60 percent of fathers 

reported sharing responsibility. Sixty percent of 

mothers reported sole responsibility for this 

activity, compared to 7 percent of fathers (see 

Figure P6.1 and P6.2). 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. White, nonHispanic mothers were more likely to report 

sharing responsibility for playing with their child, 

disciplining them, or choosing their care or school 

than were Hispanic or black, non-Hispanic 

mothers. Among fathers, Hispanics were more 

likely than white, non-Hispanic or black, nonHispanic fathers to report having sole 

responsibility for taking care of these three sorts of 

activities with their children. 

By Poverty Status. Poor mothers and fathers were 

more likely than nonpoor parents to report sole 

responsibility for playing with their children, 

disciplining them, and choosing their care program 

or school (refer to Table P6.1, P6.2, and P6.3). For 

example, 55 percent of poor mothers reported sole 

responsibility for disciplining their children 

compared to 22 percent of nonpoor mothers. The 

difference among fathers is less pronounced (18 

percent compared to 7 percent). 

Figure P6.1 Parental responsibility for playing with and disciplining their children, and for choosing a 

child care, preschool, or school according to fathers of children under age 13: 1997 

4 3

34

91 89

60

6 8 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Playing with them Disciplining them Choosing their child care

program, preschool, or school

Percent

Someone Else Shared Father Only

SOURCE: Panel Study of Income Dynamics – Child Development Supplement , 1997 
Parenting Charting Parenthood 2002

16 

Figure P6.2 Parental responsibility for playing with and disciplining their children, and for choosing a 

child care, preschool, or school according to mothers of children under age 13: 1997 

222

77 70

38

20 28

60

0

20

40

60

80

100

Playing with them Disciplining them Choosing their child care

program, preschool, or school

Percent

Someone Else Shared Mother Only

SOURCE: Panel Study of Income Dynamics – Child Development Supplement, 1997 

By Educational Attainment. Mothers and fathers 

with less than a high school education are more 

likely than more educated parents to report having 

sole responsibility for play, discipline, and 

choosing a school or child care provider. For 

example, 42 percent of mothers and 21 percent of 

fathers with less than a high school education 

reported sole responsibility for disciplining their 

children, compared to 15 percent of mothers and 4 

percent of fathers who had graduated from college. 

By Employment Status. Patterns of responsibility 

are similar for working mothers and mothers who 

are not in the labor force. About three quarters of 

mothers in both categories report sharing 

responsibility for discipline, eight in ten share 

responsibility for play, and four in ten share 

responsibility for choosing a child care program, 

preschool, or school. The responsibility of fathers 

for these activities was only modestly affected by 

whether the mother worked or not, with fathers 

slightly more likely to share responsibility for 

discipline and play when the mother worked. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 17 

P7 – Limit Setting 

Setting guidelines or rules for children teaches them the difference between right and wrong and clarifies what 

sorts of behavior are considered acceptable and unacceptable. Thus, limit setting constitutes a critical element 

in shaping children’s judgement, developing conscience, and learning how to understand one’s surroundings.39

In addition, it has been found that parenting that combines limit setting and responsiveness to a child’s needs 

(i.e., “authoritative parenting”) is associated with positive outcomes for children. Limit setting not only 

enhances child development, but also increases the likelihood of compliance with parental expectations.40,41

In order to gauge the limit setting patterns of adults, three questions from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics 

– Child Development Supplement (PSID-CDS) are examined. Parents of children ages 3 to 12 were asked to 

report how often they: 1) set limits on the time their children can watch TV in a day; 2) set limits on what 

television programs their children watch; and 3) control who their children spend time with (refer to Table 

P7.1). These items were all asked in 1997. 

Figure P7.1 Percentage of fathers and mothers of children ages 3 to 12 who (often or very often) set limits 

on who their children spend time with, by race and Hispanic origin: 1997 

41

53

60

52

21

37 38

49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fathers Mothers

White non-Hispanic

Black non-Hispanic

Hispanic

Other

SOURCE: Panel Study of Income Dynamics – Child Development Supplement, 1997 

By Gender. Mothers are somewhat more likely to 

set all three types of limits for their children than 

are fathers. For example, in 1997, 48 percent of 

mothers and 40 percent of fathers set limits often or 

very often on how many hours of television their 

children could watch in a day. Seventy one percent 

of mothers and 61 percent of fathers set limits often 

or very often on the types of programs their 

children can watch on television. The same pattern 

is seen for the percentage of mothers and fathers 

who regulate their children’s interactions with 

peers. In 1997, 51 percent of mothers and 40 

percent of fathers often or very often controlled 

with whom their children spent time. 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. There are 

considerable differences in patterns of limit setting 

among mothers and fathers of different 

racial/ethnic backgrounds. Hispanic fathers (30 

percent) are less likely to set limits on what 

television programs their children watch compared 

to fathers of other racial/ethnic backgrounds (64, 

68, and 65 percent, respectively, for white, black, 

and other racial/ethnic groups), while white, nonHispanic mothers (78 percent) are the most likely 

to set limits on what television programs their 

children watch, compared to mothers of other 

racial/ethnic backgrounds (61, 48, and 58 percent, 

respectively, for black, Hispanic, and other 

racial/ethnic groups). Black, non-Hispanic fathers 

(60 percent) are the most likely and Hispanic 

fathers (21 percent) are the least likely to set limits 

on who their children spend time with. Similarly, 

Hispanic mothers (37 percent) are less likely than 

other mothers to set limits on who their children 

spend time with (see Figure P7.1). 

By Educational Attainment. Parents who are 

college graduates are generally more likely than 

parents without a high school education to set 

limits for their children. For each of the activities 

examined, mothers with college degrees were more 

likely than mothers with less than a high school 

education to set limits. For instance, while only 56 

percent of mothers with less than a high school 

education often or very often set limits on the types 
Parenting Charting Parenthood 2002

18 

of television programs their children watch, 80 

percent of mothers who are college graduates do 

so. For fathers, this pattern holds true for the 

degree to which they set limits on whom their 

children spend time with and which television 

programs they allow their children to watch, but 

not for the amount of time they allow their children 

to spend watching television. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 19 

P8 – Conflict Resolution in Families 

Children who are exposed to styles of conflict resolution that involve positive verbal communication are more 

obedient and less belligerent than those who are not.42 Research points to poor communication and problemsolving skills for resolving disputes as a contributing factor to negative outcomes, such as an increased 

likelihood of adolescent criminal behavior.43 When examining conflict resolution, researchers have primarily 

focused on how parents and children respond to conflict with one another.44 

To evaluate the conflict resolution tactics of parents, three questions from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics 

–Child Development Supplement (PSID-CDS) are examined. Parents of children under age 13 were asked to 

report if they agreed or disagreed with three statements: 1) we fight a lot in our family; 2) family members 

hardly ever lose their tempers; and 3) family members always calmly discuss problems. These items were all 

asked in 1997 (refer to Table P8.1). 

By Gender. More than half of mothers (52 

percent) and fathers (56 percent) report “calmly 

discussing problems” as a way of resolving family 

conflicts. Twelve percent of both mothers and 

fathers report that there is a lot a fighting in their 

family. 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. Hispanic mothers 

and fathers are more likely to report a lot of family 

fighting than are white, non-Hispanic or black, 

non-Hispanic mothers and fathers. Twenty-one 

percent of Hispanic mothers report that they fight a 

lot in their family, compared to 7 percent of black, 

non-Hispanic and 13 percent of white, nonHispanic mothers. Similarly, 20 percent of 

Hispanic fathers report that they fight a lot in their 

family compared to 8 percent of black, nonHispanic fathers and 11 percent of white, nonHispanic fathers. 

By Poverty Status. While there do not appear to 

be significant differences between poor and 

nonpoor fathers in the degree to which they are 

likely to report “fighting a lot” in their family, or 

“calmly discussing problems,” the same does not 

hold true for mothers. Poor mothers (18 percent) 

are more likely to report “a lot of family fighting” 

than are nonpoor mothers (11 percent). However, 

poor mothers (60 percent) are also more likely than 

nonpoor mothers (50 percent) to report “calmly 

discussing problems” in their family. 

By Educational Attainment. The same pattern 

that emerges for poor compared to nonpoor 

mothers regarding their reported conflict resolution 

styles emerges for mothers with less than a high 

school education compared to mothers who are 

college graduates (see Figure P8.1). Nineteen 

percent of mothers with less than a high school 

education, compared to only 8 percent of mothers 

with a college degree, report a lot of family 

fighting. Seventy percent of mothers with less than 

a high school education report calmly discussing 

family problems compared to 46 percent of 

mothers with a college degree. Fathers with less 

than a high school education (24 percent) are 

significantly more likely than fathers who are 

college graduates (8 percent) to report a lot of 

family fighting. 

 

Figure P8.1 Percentage of parents of children under age 13 who report that the family fights a lot, by 

educational attainment: 1997 

19

24

11 10 13

8 8 11

0

10

20

30

40

50

Mothers Fathers

Percent

Less than high school

High school diploma or GED

Vocational/technical or some college

College graduate

SOURCE: Panel Study of Income Dynamics – Child Development Supplement, 1997 
Parenting Charting Parenting 2002

20 

P9 – Degree of Closeness Adolescent Feels Toward Parent 

Recent research suggests that a positive, close relationship between parents and adolescents is related to lower 

rates of adolescent early sexual activity, drug use, and emotional distress.45 Negative relationships, on the other 

hand, have been found to be related to negative psychological functioning.46 Research also shows that 

adolescents may react differently to certain types of parental behavior depending on whether it involves the 

mother or the father.47 Adolescents tend to express negative feelings for mothers who demonstrate high levels 

of control, but have more positive feelings for fathers who show high levels of control. 

In order to assess the degree to which adolescents feel close to their parents, a question from the National 

Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health is examined. Adolescents in grades 7 through 12 in 1995 (Wave I) and 

in grades 8 through 12 in 1996 (Wave II) were asked to report the degree of closeness they feel toward their 

parents. Closeness was reported on a scale from 1 to 5 (1- not close at all, 2 - not very close, 3 - somewhat 

close, 4 - quite close, 5 - extremely close; refer to Table P9.1). 

Figure P9.1 Degree of closeness adolescent feels toward his or her parent, by residence of parent: 1996 

4.45

4.18

3.87

3.19

4.32

3.89

3.49

2.86

1

2

3

4

5

Resident Mother Resident Father Nonresident Mother Nonresident Father

Level of Closeness

Boys

Girls

SOURCE: National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), Wave II, 1996

By Gender. Boys and girls reported feeling very 

close to both their resident parents but adolescents 

of both sexes also report being somewhat closer to 

their mothers than to their fathers. The same 

pattern holds true for feelings toward nonresident 

parents. 

By Residential Status of Parent. Adolescents of 

both genders report being closer to their resident 

mothers and fathers than to their nonresident 

counterparts (see Figure P9.1). They are least 

close to nonresident fathers. 

By Biological or Step Relationship. Among 

adolescents in two-parent families, relationships 

with biological parents are closer than those with 

step-parents, regardless of the sex of the parent. 

By Gender of Child. Boys report being somewhat 

closer to their mothers and their fathers than do 

girls. This finding holds regardless of parental 

residential status. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 21 

P10 – Warmth and Affection 

Many studies have shown that warmth in the parent-child relationship predicts positive child outcomes. Higher 

self-esteem, better parent-child communication, and fewer psychological and behavior problems have been 

linked to warmth and affection between parent and child.48 Parental warmth and affection is also positively 

related to adolescent academic competence and negatively related to teen pregnancy and associations with 

deviant peers.49 Parental warmth is even found to encourage children’s use of social support and proactive, 

problem-focused coping styles.50 Conversely, receiving insufficient levels of parental support fosters feelings of 

alienation, expressions of hostility and aggression, diminished self-esteem, and antisocial and risk behaviors.51

To assess the amount of warmth and affection parents show their children, three questions from the Panel Study 

of Income Dynamics – Child Development Supplement (PSID-CDS) are examined. Parents of children ages 12 

and younger who are living with their children were asked to report how often, in the past month, they: 1) 

hugged or showed physical affection to their child; 2) told their child that they loved him/her; and 3) told their 

child that they appreciated something he/she did. These items were all asked in 1997 (refer to Table P10.1). 

Figure P10.1. Percentage of resident fathers and mothers of children under age 13 who hugged their child 

every day in the past month: 1997 

90 98

84

93

70

87

50

74

0

20

40

60

80

100

Fathers Mothers

0 to 2 years old

3 to 5 years old

6 to 9 years old

10 to 12 years old

SOURCE: Panel Study of Income Dynamics – Child Development Supplement (CPS), 1997 

By Gender. Mothers are more likely than fathers 

to report showing their children warmth across all 

three behaviors. Eighty-seven percent of mothers 

compared to 73 percent of fathers hug or show 

physical affection to their child at least once a day. 

Eighty-five percent of mothers and 62 percent of 

fathers tell their child that they love him or her at 

least once a day. Though the percentage of 

mothers and fathers who tell their child that they 

appreciate something he or she did is lower than 

the previous two behaviors, the difference between 

mothers and fathers is found here as well (55 

percent and 37 percent, respectively). 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. White, nonHispanic mothers were more likely than Hispanic 

and black, non-Hispanic mothers to report daily 

hugging and telling their child that he or she is 

loved. For example, 93 percent of white, nonHispanic mothers report hugging their child at least 

once a day, compared to 81 percent of Hispanic 

mothers and 75 percent of black, non-Hispanic 

mothers. Among fathers, more white, nonHispanics and Hispanics report daily hugging (76 

percent and 73 percent, respectively) than do black, 

non-Hispanics (56 percent). White, non-Hispanic 

and Hispanic fathers (65 percent and 63 percent, 

respectively) are also more likely than black, nonHispanic fathers (45 percent) to tell their child he 

or she is loved. The percentage of parents 

reporting that they told their child that they 

appreciated something he or she did varied little 

across these groups for mothers or fathers. 

By Age of Child. Overall, displays of warmth by 

both mothers and fathers decrease with the 

increased age of the child for all three behaviors. 

For example, over 90 percent of mothers and 

fathers report hugging children under the age of 3 

on a daily basis, compared to 74 percent for 

mothers and 50 percent for fathers of children ages 

10 to 12 (see Figure P10.1). 
Parenting Charting Parenthood 2002

22 

By Educational Attainment. For all three 

behaviors, mothers with less than a high school 

education are less likely to show their child warmth 

than are parents with higher levels of educational 

attainment. For example, 75 percent of mothers 

with less than a high school education hug or show 

physical affection to their child at least once a day, 

compared to 87 percent of mothers with a high 

school diploma, 91 percent of mothers with some 

college, and 94 percent of mothers with college 

degrees. Among fathers, educational attainment 

generally did not seem to affect the amount of 

warmth and affection directed to children. 

However, more college-educated fathers (77 

percent) report hugging their child daily than do 

fathers with less than a high school education (68 

percent) or fathers with a high school diploma (70 

percent).
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 23 

P11 – Conflict Between Parents and Adolescents 

Conflict between parents and youth is a routine aspect of family life, and it should be understood as a process 

that can have both positive and negative effects for the youth and the entire family.52 As they become older, 

adolescents often show a greater willingness to openly disagree with parents, feel less close, and question 

parental authority.53 Conflict with parents is a normal part of the development process for adolescents, 

however, and can be positive within the context of a warm and supportive parent-child relationship.54

Data from the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) are used to assess parent-adolescent 

conflict. Parents were asked to report the frequency with which they had disagreements in the last 12 months 

with their adolescent (ages 12-18) regarding: 1) his or her friends; and 2) how late the child stays out at night 

(refer to Table P11.1 and P11.2). 

By Gender. The overall frequency of 

disagreement between parents and adolescents on 

these subjects is relatively modest, with only 10 

percent of fathers and 11 percent of mothers 

reporting disagreements once a week or more often 

about staying out too late (see Figure P11.2). Eight 

percent of fathers and 10 percent of mothers 

reported disagreements about the youth’s friends at 

that level. 

Figure P11.1 Percentage of parents that report 

disagreements between parents and adolescents 

regarding friends, by frequency of 

disagreements: 1988 

7

1

8

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

About Once a

Week

Several Times a

Week or More

Percent

Fathers Mothers

SOURCE: National Survey of Families and 

Households, 1988 

By Family Structure. Disagreements over staying 

out late are more common in single-parent families 

than in two-parent families. Twenty-two percent of 

mothers in single-parent families reported 

disagreeing once per week or more on this topic 

compared to 8 percent of mothers in two-parent 

families. The percentages for fathers are 20 

percent and 9 percent, respectively. 

Figure P11.2 Percentage of parents that report 

disagreements between parents and adolescents 

regarding staying out late, by frequency of 

disagreements: 1988 

8

2

9

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

About Once a

Week

Several Times a

Week or More

Percent

Fathers Mothers

SOURCE: National Survey of Families and 

Households, 1988 

By Educational Attainment. Parents who have 

graduated from college reported a lower level of 

disagreement regarding the adolescent’s friends 

and staying out late than parents with less than a 

high school education. For example, among those 

with a college degree, 6 percent of mothers and 7 

percent of fathers reported disagreeing once per 

week or more about friends, compared to 15 

percent of mothers and 18 percent of fathers with 

less than a high school education (refer to Table 

P11.1). Similar differences exist for disagreements 

over staying out late (refer to Table P11.2). 

 
Parenting Charting Parenthood 2002

24 

P12 – Incidence of Harsh Punishment, Violence, or Abuse 

In 1999, approximately 826,000 children were identified as victims of substantiated (i.e.,. confirmed) or 

indicated (i.e.,. reported) abuse or neglect.55 Research shows that abused children lag behind nonabused 

children in learning new cognitive and social skills and have shown delayed academic achievement.56 Current 

findings indicate that children who are hit repeatedly and with more frequency develop behavior problems, 

especially aggression, and have more emotional and mental health problems, particularly with depression, and 

are more likely to experience future family violence.57,58,59 Childhood abuse predicts higher rates of criminality 

and arrests for violent offenses in adolescence and adulthood.60 

The incidence of harsh punishment and physical abuse is based on data from a 1995 Gallup Survey on 

Disciplining Children in America.61 The rates are derived from the Physical Abuse subscale on the Conflict 

Tactics Scale (CTS)62 which includes a number of items assessing physical abuse. Parents responded either 

“ever” or “never” when asked if they had used any of the following forms of physical abuse: hitting child with 

fist or kicking, throwing child or knocking them down, beating up child, hitting child with hard objects not on 

the bottom, choking child, burning child, or using a knife or gun on child (refer to Table P12.1). 

By Gender. Few parents report ever having 

physically abused their children: 6 percent among 

mothers and 3 percent among fathers (see Figure 

P12.1). 

Figure P12.1 Percentage of fathers and mothers 

who have ever physically abused their child: 

1995 

3

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent

Fathers

Mothers

SOURCE: Gallup Survey on Disciplining Children 

in America, 1995 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. Eighteen percent 

of black, non-Hispanic mothers report having ever 

physically abused their child, as compared to 4 

percent of White, non-Hispanic mothers and 4 

percent of Hispanic mothers. Differences among 

fathers are modest and not statistically significant. 

 

By Annual Household Income. Mothers living in 

a household with less than $20,000 in income a 

year are more likely to report physically abusing 

their child (10 percent) than are mothers in 

households with over $20,000 in annual income (4 

percent). Differences among fathers are not 

statistically significant. 

By Family Structure. Children, while generally 

unlikely to be abused, are more likely to be 

physically abused by their mothers in single-parent 

families than in two-parent families. Nine percent 

of mothers in single-parent families report ever 

physically abusing their child compared to 4 

percent of mothers in two-parent families. The 

differences between fathers in single- and twoparent families were similar in magnitude, but not 

statistically significant. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 25 

P13 – Direct Care of Pre-school Children by Fathers 

Child care is a particularly relevant issue in contemporary America. Many mothers no longer fulfill the 

traditional primary caregiver role; they populate the work force in increasingly high numbers and take 

significantly shorter leaves from employment following the birth of a child. 63 

Research shows that, nationally, fathers are spending more time providing care for children while mothers are 

engaged outside of the home.64,65 This phenomenon seems promising, as father-child relations may have 

significant effects on certain positive child outcomes (e.g. social competence,66 academic success,67 and 

personality development68) that are distinct from the effects of mother-child relations. 

Data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 1996, are used to calculate the percentage 

of children ages 0 to 5 whose fathers provide primary care for them while their mothers are working, looking 

for work or attending school.69 In the surveys, mothers were asked for child care information, including usage 

of a particular type of care arrangement (yes/no), and number of hours each type of care was used. Such 

questions were asked for eleven types of child care arrangements (e.g., father, grandparent, day care center, 

nursery/preschool, Head Start program) for up to five children ages 0 to 5.70 If a respondent reported the most 

hours for using father care among all types of arrangements, father care was considered the “primary 

arrangement”71 (refer to Table P13.1). 

By Gender. In 1996, approximately 18 percent of 

children ages 0 to 5 had their fathers as their 

primary caregivers while their mothers were 

working, attending school, or looking for work. 

Nineteen percent of preschool boys and 18 percent 

of preschool girls had their fathers as primary 

caregivers in 1996. 

By Race and Hispanic Origin of Mother. White, 

non-Hispanic mothers (21 percent) are more likely 

than are black, non-Hispanic (10 percent) or 

Hispanic (15 percent) mothers to rely on 

preschoolers’ fathers for providing primary care 

while they are at work, school, or looking for work. 

Hispanic mothers are also more likely than black 

non-Hispanic mothers to report fathers as primary 

caregivers of their preschoolers. 

By Poverty Status. Mothers who are living at or 

below the poverty threshold are less likely than 

mothers who are not poor to report fathers as 

primary caregivers of their preschoolers. For 

example, 23 percent of nonpoor mothers report 

fathers as primary caregivers, compared to 18 

percent of poor mothers. 

By Family Structure.72 Preschoolers in twoparent families are far more likely than children in 

single mother households to have their father as 

their primary caregiver (23 percent compared to 6 

percent). 

Figure P13.1 Percentage of preschoolers whose 

fathers are their primary care giver, by father’s 

educational attainment: 1996 

27

24 24

18

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Less than

high

school

High

School or

GED

Voc/tech

or some

college

College

graduate

SOURCE: Survey of Income and Program 

Participation, 1996, TM2 and TM4 

By Educational Attainment of Father. Fathers 

with college degrees are less likely than those with 

any other level of educational attainment to provide 

primary care for their child (see Figure P13.1). For 

example, in 1996, 27 percent of fathers with less 

than a high school education were primary 

caregivers to their preschoolers, compared to 18 

percent of college-educated fathers. Fathers with 

high school or some college-level training were 

also more likely than college-educated fathers to be 

children’s primary caregivers when mothers were 

at school or working (24 percent, respectively). 

The likelihood of fathers being primary caregivers 

to their preschoolers does not vary by mothers’ 

level of educational attainment. 
Parenting Charting Parenthood 2002

26 

P14 – Time Spent with Children 

The time that parents and children spend together is instrumental in the social and intellectual development of 

the child.73,74 It is during this time that children benefit from important emotional supports and exposure to 

parental values and behavior. 

On average, mothers occupy the majority of the total parental hours spent in direct care in two-parent 

families.75 Nonetheless, children who spend a substantial amount of time with their fathers benefit greatly. 

Research finds that children whose fathers assumed 40 percent or more of the family’s care tasks had greater 

positive outcomes (e.g., better performance on tests and cognitive achievement), than those children whose 

fathers were less involved.76 Overall, studies show that involvement by both parents yields the most positive 

effects on the development of children.77

Data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics – Child Development Supplement, 1997 are used to calculate 

the average daily time children under age 13 spend with their parents doing some type of activity (refer to 

Table P14.1). The data are presented for two-parent families and for single-parent families. 

By Gender. Children spend more time with their 

mothers than with their fathers. In two-parent 

families, the average daily time spent with a 

mother is 2 hours and 21 minutes, and 1 hour and 

46 minutes with fathers. In single-parent families, 

children spend about one and a quarter hours daily 

with mothers, compared to less than half an hour 

with fathers. 

By Family Structure. Children in two-parent 

families spend far more time with their parents 

than do those in single-parent families (see Figure 

P14.1). The average time spent with fathers is four 

times greater for children in two-parent families 

than for those in single-parent families, which are 

often headed by mothers (1 hour and 46 minutes 

compared to 25 minutes). The average time spent 

with mothers is almost twice as high for children in 

two-parent families as for those in single-parent 

families (2 hours and 21 minutes compared to 1 

hour and 16 minutes). 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. Black, nonHispanic children spend less time with their 

mothers and fathers than parents from other racial 

and ethnic backgrounds. This is the case for 

children in two-parent and single-parent families. 

For example, for children in two-parent families 

the average daily time spent by black, nonHispanic children with their fathers was an hour 

and 11 minutes, compared to slightly more than an 

hour and 45 minutes for white, non-Hispanic and 

Hispanic children, and about 2 hours for children 

of other racial/ethnic backgrounds. 

Figure P14.1 Average daily time children under age 13 spend with their mothers and fathers in an 

activity, by family structure: 1997 

1:46

0:25

2:21

1:16

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

Two Parents Single Parent

Time

Fathers Mothers

SOURCE: Panel Study of Income Dynamics – Child Development Supplement, 1997 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 27 

By Poverty Status. Poor children in two-parent 

families spend less time with their fathers than do 

those in two-parent families with relatively high 

incomes. The average time spent per day with 

fathers was about an hour and a half for poor 

children compared to an hour and 51 minutes for 

those in families with incomes at 3 times the 

poverty level. By contrast, The time children 

spend with mothers in single- and two-parent 

families does not differ by their poverty status.78 

By Educational Attainment. Children in twoparent families whose fathers have a college degree 

spend more time with their fathers than those 

whose fathers have less than a high school 

education (an hour and 52 minutes compared to an 

hour and 38 minutes). The time spent by children 

with mothers in single- or two-parent families does 

not substantially differ by the level of mother’s 

educational attainment.79 

By Employment Status. Children in two-parent 

families with mothers who are not in the labor 

force spend more time with their mothers (slightly 

more than 2 hours and a half) than those with 

mothers working part-time or full-time (about 2 

hours and 15 minutes) or mothers looking for work 

(an hour and 51 minutes). Time spent with fathers 

in two-parent families does not vary significantly 

by fathers employment status. Among children in 

single-parent families, those with mothers who 

work either part-time or full-time spend 

substantially less time with their mothers than 

those with mothers who are not in the labor force 

or who are looking for work.80

 

By Age of Child. As children get older they spend 

less time with their parents. For example, children 

in two-parent families spend 3 hours and 14 

minutes per day with their mother at ages 0 to 2, 

compared to an hour and 45 minutes by ages 9 to 

12. Time with father in two-parent families 

decreases from two hours and 7 minutes at ages 0 

to 2 to one and one-half hours by ages 9 to 12. (see 

Figure P14.2). A similar pattern emerges for 

children in single-parent families. 

Figure P14.2 Average daily time children under age 13 in two-parent families spend with mothers and 

fathers in an activity, by age of child: 1997 

2:07

3:14

1:53

2:29

1:36

2:04

1:30

1:45

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

Fathers Mothers

0 to 2 years old

3 to 5 years old

6 to 9 years old

10 to 12 years old

SOURCE: Panel Study of Income Dynamics – Child Development Supplement, 1997 
Parenting Charting Parenthood 2002

28 

P15 – Parents’ Activities with Children 

Parents’ participation in activities with their children is an important part of healthy cognitive, social, and 

emotional development. The range of activities in which children engage with their parents can span from the 

academic (e.g., reading books, helping with homework), to sports and games, to simply going to the store or 

movies. Research suggests that parent-child literacy activities in the home improve children’s language skills 

and their interest in books, and enhance parent’s self-esteem and sense of efficacy.81,82 In addition, children 

who are high academic achievers tend to have parents who use more specific strategies to help their children 

with their schoolwork and who have more supportive conversations with them.83 Similarly, higher levels of 

parent-child number-related activities at home (e.g., helping with math homework, counting exercises) 

improved young children’s performance on tests of early mathematical ability.84 Fathers’ participation in play 

activities with their children especially contributes to the formation of a secure father-child relationship.85

In order to track the frequency that parents engage in various activities with their children, four questions from 

the Panel Study of Income Dynamics – Child Development Supplement (PSID-CDS) are examined. Parents of 

children ages 3 to 12 were asked to report how often they engaged in the following activities with their child: 1) 

played a board game, card game, or did puzzles; 2) looked at books; 3) talked about family; or 4) played sports 

or did outdoor activities. These items were all asked in 1997 (refer to Table P15.1). 

Figure P15.1 Percentage of mothers and fathers of children ages 3 to 12 participating in various activities 

with their children at least once a week: 1997 

33 39

72 68

44

55

81

54

0

20

40

60

80

100

Played board or card

game, did puzzles

Looked at books Talked about family Played sports or

outdoor activities

Percent

Fathers Mothers

SOURCE: Panel Study of Income Dynamics – Child Development Supplement, 1997 

By Gender. Mothers are generally more likely to 

engage in activities with their children than are 

fathers, though there are domains in which fathers 

participate more frequently. Mothers are more 

likely than fathers to play board games, cards, or 

puzzles with their children; look at books with their 

children; and have conversations with their 

children about the family at least once a week (see

Figure P15.1). Fathers are more likely than 

mothers to play sports or do outdoor activities with 

their children at least once a week. 

By Age of Child. Parents tend to spend more time 

in activities with their younger children than with 

their older children. For example, more fathers of 

children ages 3 to 5 play sports and outdoor 

activities with their children at least once a week 

(81 percent) than do fathers of children ages 6 to 9 

(68 percent) or 10 to 12 (57 percent). Similarly, 

more mothers of children ages 3 to 5 play board 

games, cards, or puzzles with their children at least 

once a week (55 percent) than do mothers of 

children ages 6 to 9 (47 percent) or 10 to 12 (30 

percent). This same pattern holds true for parents’ 

book reading activities with children. For talk 

about the family, fewer parents have conversations 

with their 10- to 12-year-old children than with 

younger children ages 3 to 9. 

By Educational Attainment. Mothers who have a 

high school education or equivalent are more likely 

to engage in activities with their children than are 

mothers who have less than a high school 

education. This pattern was true of fathers also, 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 29 

but only for two of the four activities: looking at 

books and playing games. For example, 56 percent 

of mothers (and 42 percent of fathers) who attained 

a high school diploma or equivalent looked at 

books with their children at least once a week, 

compared to 39 percent of mothers (and 27 percent 

of fathers) with less than a high school education. 

Fathers who are college graduates are more likely 

to play sports (72 percent) and talk about the 

family (76 percent) with their children than are 

fathers with less than a high school education (60 

and 68 percent, respectively). 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. Among fathers, 

activities with children do not seem to vary across 

racial/ethnic groups. For example, Hispanic 

fathers are just as likely as white and black, nonHispanic fathers to play games, talk about their 

family, and play sports or outdoor activities with 

their children. There is more variation among 

mothers of different racial/ethnic backgrounds, 

however. Hispanic mothers are less likely than 

white, non-Hispanic mothers to engage in activities 

such as playing games, looking at books, talking 

about the family, and playing sports with their 

children. For example, only 40 percent of Hispanic 

mothers looked at books with their children, 

compared to 60 percent of white, non-Hispanic 

mothers. Hispanic mothers are also less likely than 

black, non-Hispanic mothers to play games or look 

at books with their children. Hispanic fathers are 

less likely than white and black non-Hispanic 

fathers to look at books with their children (26 

percent, compared to 40 and 45 percent, 

respectively). 

By Family Structure. Interestingly, there is no 

difference between single mothers and mothers in 

two-parent households in the degree to which 

mothers engage in activities such as playing games, 

looking at books, talking about family, or playing 

sports with their children. There is insufficient 

data to report on single father families. 
Parenting Charting Parenthood 2002

30 

P16 – Religious Activities With Children 

For many, a key component of fostering moral and spiritual guidance in children and youth is participation in 

religious activities (e.g. attending church, synagogue, mosque, or temple) on a regular basis. Religiosity has 

been found to be positively related to volunteering,86 positive mother-child relationships,87 openness, and 

friendliness.88 Research suggests that a significant portion of men experience important changes in external 

behaviors (e.g., church attendance) and commitment to religion after becoming fathers.89 However, evidence 

suggests that mothers’ personal religious practices are a more powerful predictor of children’s religiosity than 

are those of their fathers.90 Higher parental religiosity is associated with more cohesive family relationships, 

lower levels of interparental conflict, and fewer behavior problems among children.91 

In order to assess the extent to which adolescents participated in religious activities with their parents, a 

question from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) is examined. Adolescents in 

grades 7 through 12 in the 1994 and 1995 (Wave I) and in grades 8-12 in 1996 (Wave II) were asked to report 

if they had gone to a church-related event with their parent in the last four weeks (refer to Table P16.1). 

Figure P16.1. Percentage of students in grades 8-12 who report having gone to a church-related event 

with their parent in the last 4 weeks: 1996 

34

28

12 8

39

29

13 9

0

20

40

60

80

100

Resident Mother Resident Father Nonresident Mother Nonresident Father

Percent

Boys

Girls

SOURCE: National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Wave II 1996 

By Gender. Adolescents are more likely to attend 

religious activities with their mothers than with 

their fathers, regardless of residential status. For 

instance, in 1996, 39 percent of girls attended a 

church-related event with their resident mother 

compared to 29 percent who attended an event with 

their resident father. In addition, a significantly 

larger percentage of girls attended religious 

activities with their nonresident mothers (13 

percent) than with their nonresident fathers (9 

percent). A similar pattern is found for boys’ 

activities with their mothers and fathers. For 

example, 34 percent of boys attended events with 

resident mothers compared to 28 percent who 

attended with resident fathers (see Figure P16.1). 

By Parental Residence Status. Adolescents are 

far more likely to attend religious activities with 

resident parents than with nonresident parents (see

Figure P16.1). For example, in 1996, 39 percent of 

girls attended a church-related event with their 

resident mother, whereas only 13 percent of girls 

attended such events with their nonresident mother. 

By Age of Child. Younger adolescents are 

somewhat more likely to engage in religious 

activities with their resident parents than are older 

adolescents. In 1996, 38 percent of boys and 43 

percent of girls under age 15 attended a religious 

activity with their resident mothers in a four-week 

period. Thirty-three percent of boys and 37 percent 

of girls age 15 and older did so. 

By Education Attainment. In general, children of 

college graduates are more likely to attend 

religious activities with their parents than are 

children of less well-educated parents. For 

example, in 1996, 39 percent of adolescent boys 

who had at least one parent with a college degree 

attended a church-related event with their resident 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 31 

father. Only 18 percent of boys whose most 

educated parent had only a high school diploma or 

equivalent attended religious activities with their 

resident father. A similar pattern emerges for girls’ 

religious activities with their parents, regardless of 

residential status. However, this pattern does not 

hold true for nonresident fathers and their sons. 
Parenting Charting Parenthood 2002

32 

P17 – Parental Participation in Child’s School Activities 

Studies report that children whose parents are involved in their schooling are more likely to earn high grades 

and enjoy school than children whose parents are not involved in their children’s schooling. This result holds 

for students in both elementary and secondary school.92,93 Children of involved parents are also more likely to 

have higher educational aspirations and motivation to achieve.94 In addition, parent involvement in school is 

related to fewer student suspensions and expulsions, and higher levels of student participation in 

extracurricular activities. Data also suggest that schools that welcome parental involvement are more likely to 

have highly involved parents.95 

To assess parental participation in their child’s school, data from the National Household Education Survey 

Program (NHES) were examined. The question asked if parents of children ages 3 to 17 participated in any or 

all of the following activities: a general school meeting, parent-teacher conference, class event, and 

volunteering at school. Parents who responded “yes” to 3 or 4 of the activities were categorized as “highly 

involved.” This question was asked in 1996 and 1999 (refer to Table 17.1). 

Figure P17.1 Percentage of fathers and mothers who are highly involved in their child’s school, by age of 

child: 1999 

22

33 25

56 65

41

0

20

40

60

80

100

3 to 5 years 6 to 11 years 12 to 17 years

Age of Child

Percent

Fathers

Mothers

SOURCE: National Household Education Survey Program, 1999 

By Gender. Mothers are much more likely to be 

highly involved (i.e., participate in three or four of 

the following school activities: general school 

meeting, parent-teacher conference, class event, or 

volunteering at school) in their children’s school 

than are fathers, regardless of the age of the child. 

For example, in 1999, among parents of 6- to 11-

year-olds, 65 percent of mothers and 33 percent of 

fathers were highly involved in their children’s 

school.

By Age of Child. Parents are more likely to be 

highly involved in their children’s school when 

their children are between the ages of 6 to 11 than 

when they are older (see Figure P17.1). In 1999, 

33 percent of fathers of 6- to 11-year-olds were 

highly involved as compared to 25 percent of 

fathers of 12- to 17-year-olds. Among mothers, the 

gap was even larger. In 1999, 65 percent of 

mothers of 6- to 11-year-olds were highly 

involved, while only 41 percent of mothers of 12- 

to 17-year-olds were highly involved. 

By Educational Attainment. Better educated 

parents are generally more likely to be highly 

involved than are less educated parents. In 1999, 

10 percent of fathers of 6- to 11-year-olds with less 

than a high school education were highly involved, 

compared to 25 percent of high school graduates, 

and 44 percent of college graduates. Similarly, for 

children ages 6 to 11, 42 percent of mothers with 

less than a high school education were highly 

involved, compared to 78 percent of mothers with a 

college degree. 

By Age of Parent. In 1999, the youngest parents 

(ages 18 to 24) were less likely to be highly 

involved in their children’s schools than were older 

parents. For example, 6 percent of fathers ages 18 

to 24 were highly involved in their 6- to 11-yearolds’ schools compared to 32 percent of fathers 

ages 25 to 44 and 35 percent of fathers ages 45 to 

65. This pattern held true for mothers and fathers 

of 3- to 5-year-olds and 6- to 11-year olds in 1999. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 33 

P18 – Encouragement of Child(ren)’s School Achievement 

Children’s academic achievement, including their competitiveness and drive to succeed, is largely influenced by 

their experience at home. For example, children whose parents encourage them and stimulate their intellect 

through enriching materials at home are more likely to have higher educational aspirations.96 In addition, 

involvement of parents in their child’s education, at home and in school, serves as a form of social capital for 

that child, improving the quality and density of the relationships that he or she can utilize.97 Based on existing 

research, it has been hypothesized that maternal involvement is beneficial for the social and emotional 

adjustment of children to school, and that the involvement of fathers, while often less frequent but more 

engaged, is critical for academic achievement.98 Most research uses parental education and income as 

indicators of a child’s educational success, but there are other ways parents influence a child’s academic 

success, such as quality parental involvement in school-related activities. 

Data from the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) is presented. Three variables are 

examined: 1) the number of days in a typical week that the parent talks with his/her child about the things 

she/he has learned in school; 2) the number of days in a typical week the parent talks with his/her child about 

school activities or events; and 3) the number of days in a typical week the parent checks whether his/her child 

did homework or other school assignments. These items were all asked in 199299 (refer to Table P18.1). 

Figure P18.1 Number of days per week mothers and fathers talk about school-related events with their 

child: 1992 

3.5 3.6 3.5 4.2 4.4 4.3

0

2

4

6

Things child has learned in

school

School activities or events Check on homework

Topic

Days per Week

Fathers

Mothers

SOURCE: National Survey of Families and Households, 1992 

By Gender. Mothers appear to be more likely than 

fathers to talk with their child about school-related 

events and about things that he or she has learned 

in school. Mothers talk to their child about these 

topics about 4.3 days during the week compared to 

fathers, who do so about three and a half days a 

week. Mothers are also more likely than fathers to 

check on whether or not their child has done 

homework or other school assignments (see Figure 

P18.1). 

By Age of Parent. Generally, younger mothers 

and fathers spend more time talking to their 

children about school and checking on their 

assignments than do older parents. For example, 

fathers ages 25 to 44 talk with their child about 

things they learned in school about 3.6 days a 

week, and fathers ages 45 and older talk about 

these things 3 days a week. 

By Educational Attainment. Parents with a 

college degree generally talk with their child about 

school more frequently than parents without a high 

school education. This difference is particularly 

pronounced among fathers. Fathers with a college 

degree talk with their child about school activities 

4.2 days a week, and about the things she or he has 

learned in school about 3.7 days a week, which is a 

day more a week than fathers with less than a high 

school education (3 days and 2.7 days, 

respectively). 
Parenting Charting Parenthood 2002

34 

P19 – Child Custody Arrangements 

Child custody can most easily be divided into two categories: legal custody and physical custody. Legal 

custody refers to “the parental right to make major decisions regarding the child’s health, education and 

welfare,” while physical custody refers exclusively to the living arrangements of the child.100 These privileges 

can be awarded to either or both parents. Sole custody is the most common arrangement currently in the 

United States, and is most often awarded to the mother. Joint custody is a less common but increasingly 

popular arrangement, especially in states that encourage its application. Joint physical custody, in which the 

child spends roughly 25 or more of his or her time at each parent’s home,101 was the chosen arrangement in 

over 20 percent of post-divorce families in the late 1990’s.102 Other forms of custody exist but are awarded 

rather infrequently compared to sole and joint arrangements. Split custody, which allows “one or more 

children [to] live with one parent while the remaining live with the other parent,” is uncommon because courts 

discourage the separation of siblings.103 Divided, or alternating, custody is similarly uncommon. This 

arrangement alternately gives each parent full custody of the child over long periods of time, often of one to two 

years. Each parent maintains visiting rights during their off-custody period.104

Theoretically, all types of custody arrangements have the potential to be beneficial for the child. Several 

studies indicate that it is ultimately the quality of parent-child contact within these arrangements that determine 

child outcomes.105 See indicators on “Contact with Nonresident Parent” and “Parental Time with Children” 

for further discussion of the influences of parental contact on child well-being. 

Data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), April Supplement, 1994, 1996, and 1998 are used to describe 

the types of custody awarded under the most recent agreement in the previous year. The percentages are 

calculated only for households with a child (under age 21) who lives with one biological parent and whose 

other parent is absent from the household. The data are presented by the socio-demographic characteristics of 

the resident parent who reported the information (refer to Table P19.1, P19.2, and P19.3).106

By Gender. Sole legal and physical custody 

awarded to mothers was the most common 

arrangement in 1994, 1996, and 1998. Sixty-eight 

percent of households with nonresident parents 

reported that mothers had sole custody. The 

percentage in each arrangement remained virtually 

the same between 1994 and 1998 except for a 

slight decline in the award of physical custody to 

fathers (12 percent compared to 10 percent).

By Poverty Status of Resident Parent. Poor 

mothers are more likely to have full custody 

whereas poor fathers are less likely to have full 

custody (see Figure P19.1). In 1998, 82 percent of 

poor resident parents reported mothers had sole 

custody compared to 55 percent of those in the 

highest income bracket (incomes at 3 times the 

poverty level or above). On the other hand, parents 

with relatively high incomes are more likely than 

poor parents to report other types of arrangements. 

For instance, 15 percent of resident parents with 

incomes at three times the poverty level or more 

reported father’s physical custody (with either sole 

or joint legal custody) whereas 4 percent of poor 

resident parents reported the same arrangement 

(see Figure P19.1). 

Figure P19.1 Type of custody by poverty status 

of resident parent: 1998 

82

72

63

55

4

11 13 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 to 99%

of

poverty

100 to

199% of

poverty

200 to

299% of

poverty

300+ of

poverty

Percent

Mother Legal and Physical Custody

Father Physical (both joint and sole legal)

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, April 

Supplement, 1998 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 35 

By Employment Status of Resident Parent. 

Mothers who are working full-time are less likely 

to have full custody of their children than mothers 

in all other employment categories. In 1998, only 

62 percent of households where the mother works 

full-time reported that the mother had legal and 

physical custody compared to 77 percent of those 

working part-time, 77 percent of those looking for 

work, and 79 percent of those not in the labor 

force. On the other hand, full-time workers are 

more likely than those who are not working to 

report other types of arrangements including joint 

and sole father custody, except the “other” 

arrangements (e.g., split custody). For example, 12 

percent of resident parents who work full-time 

reported a joint custody arrangement compared to 4 

percent of those who were not working in 1998. 

By Marital Status of Resident Parent. Resident 

mothers who have never married are more likely to 

have sole custody of their children than resident 

mothers who are currently married or who were 

once married (85 percent compared to 65 percent 

and 58 percent, respectively) (see Figure P19.2). 

On the other hand, resident parents who were once 

married are more likely to have joint custody than 

those with another marital status. Similarly, 

resident fathers who were previously married are 

more likely to have physical custody of their 

children than resident fathers with another marital 

status. 

By Educational Attainment of Resident Parent. 

Custody arrangements differ by educational 

attainment of the resident parent. Sole custody by 

mother is more frequently reported among 

households where the resident parent has less than 

a high school education (77 percent) than when a 

parent has a college degree (53 percent). Bettereducated parents are more likely to have joint 

custody, or joint legal custody with mother’s 

physical custody. The likelihood of fathers being 

awarded physical custody (with either sole or joint 

legal custody) does not substantially differ by level 

of educational attainment.

By Race and Hispanic Origin of Resident 

Parent. Black, non-Hispanics are more likely to 

report mothers having sole custody of their 

children than most other ethnic groups (excluding 

American Indians and Alaskan Natives). Eightyfive percent of non-Hispanic black resident parents 

report the sole custody of mothers compared to 60 

percent of non-Hispanic whites, 72 percent of 

Hispanics, and 62 percent of Asians. On the other 

hand, non-Hispanic whites are more likely than 

non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics to have other 

types of arrangements, including mother physical 

and joint legal custody, joint custody, and father’s 

sole custody. This statement does not hold true 

however when comparing non-Hispanic whites and 

Hispanics where the father has physical custody. 

Figure P19.2 Type of custody by marital status 

of resident parent: 1998 

83

58

65

7

15

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Never

Married

Single,

Previously

Married

Currently

Married

Percent

Mother Legal and Physical Custody

Father Physical (both joint and sole legal)

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, April 

Supplement, 1998 

By Age of Resident Parent. Younger resident 

mothers are more likely to have sole custody of 

their children than are older mothers. In 1998, 84 

percent of resident parents under age 25 were 

mothers with sole custody compared to 60 percent 

of parents ages 45 and older. On the other hand, 

resident parents that are 45 and older are more 

likely to have joint custody than parents under the 

age of 25 (12 percent of parents age 45 and older 

compared to 3 percent of those under age 25). 

Older resident parents are more likely to have 

agreements where the father has physical custody 

or sole custody of their children than younger 

parents. Eighteen percent of resident parents ages 

45 and older are fathers with physical custody or 

full custody, compared to 4 percent of parents 

under age 25. 
Parenting Charting Parenthood 2002

36 

P20 – Contact With Nonresident Parent 

Due to the increase in divorce, separation, and nonmarital childbearing over recent years, a significant number 

of children in the United States today have experienced living separately from at least one biological parent 

during their childhood. This phenomenon has inspired a great deal of research regarding contact between 

children and their nonresident parent. Most of this work investigates contact experiences of fathers, who 

represent 85 percent of nonresident parents.107 

There are many factors that influence whether nonresident parents maintain contact with their child. 

Employment status, level of education, age at birth of the child, the character of the relationship with resident 

parent, the geographical proximity to the child,108 and the presence of a step-parent in the residential home all 

affect the likelihood as well as the frequency of visitation and phone or letter contact.109 The likelihood and 

frequency of contact between nonresident parents and their children also varies over time and by the age of the 

child. Specifically, several studies show that contact becomes less frequent with time after marital 

separation.110,111 In addition, several studies have found contact between unwed fathers and their children to be 

relatively frequent soon after the child’s birth, but contact declines significantly as the child reaches school age.

112,113 

Regular contact with a nonabusive, nonresident parent has the potential to encourage positive development and 

life satisfaction in the child.114 Indeed, several studies have shown that involvement of the nonresident parent is 

beneficial to children’s cognitive and social development.115

Data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), April Supplement, 1994, 1996, and 1998116 were used to 

calculate a) the percentage of children who had contact with their nonresident parent in the previous calendar 

year, and b) of those who had any contact, the average number of days children had contact with their 

nonresident parent in the previous calendar year. The percentages were calculated only for households with a 

child (under age 21) who lives with one biological parent and whose other parent is absent from the household. 

The data are presented by the socio-demographic characteristics of resident parents who reported the 

information (refer to Table P20.1 and Table P20.2). 

By Gender. The majority of children with a 

nonresident parent have at least some contact with 

that parent: 60 percent in the case of fathers and 78 

percent for mothers in 1997. The number of days 

they have contact with such parents also varies by the 

gender of the parent; 69 days with the father and 86 

days with the mother. 

Figure P20.1 Percentage of children with contact with their nonresident parent, by poverty status of the 

resident parent: 1997 

50

72

58 66 70 77 71

84

0

20

40

60

80

100

Contact with nonresident father Contact with nonresident mother

Percent

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 100% to 199% of poverty 

200% to 299% of poverty 300% or more of poverty

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, April Supplement 1998
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 37 

By Poverty Status of Resident Parent. Children in 

poor families are less likely than those in high 

income (300 percent or more above poverty) families 

to have contact with their nonresident parent: 50 

percent compared to 71 percent in the case of 

nonresident fathers, and 72 percent compared to 84 

percent for nonresident mothers (see Figure P20.1). 

Among those who do have contact, poverty status is 

not related to the number of days of contact with 

nonresident fathers, but is strongly related to days of 

contact with nonresident mothers (58 days for poor 

children compared to 91 days for those living at 300 

percent or more above poverty). 

By Educational Attainment of Resident Parent. 

Children who are living with better-educated parents 

are more likely to have contact with their nonresident 

parent. In 1997, the percent that have contact with a 

nonresident father ranges from 44 percent of those 

living with a parent who has not graduated from high 

school to 74 percent for those living with a parent 

who has graduated from college. Percentages are 

higher for nonresident mothers (69 percent and 88 

percent, respectively). For those who have some 

contact, the number of days with nonresident fathers 

does not differ by education level. For nonresident 

mothers, however, education level is a factor. 

Children living with a father who did not complete 

high school spend fewer days with their nonresident 

mother than those living with fathers who completed 

college (63 days compared to 96 days). 

By Race and Hispanic Origin of Resident Parent. 

The children of white, non-Hispanic resident parents 

are more likely than Hispanic children or children of 

other races to have contact with their nonresident 

parent. For nonresident fathers and mothers in 1997 

the percentages are, respectively, 68 percent and 81 

percent for non-Hispanic whites, 51 percent and 70 

percent for non-Hispanic blacks, and 48 percent and 

63 percent for Hispanics. 
Parenting Charting Parenthood 2002

38 

P21 – Earnings and Income 

A family’s income can affect children in a variety of ways. Family income, which is influenced by parental 

education and employment, affects the family’s material level of living; neighborhood and housing quality; and 

opportunities for stimulating recreation and cultural experiences. Money can be used to buy things which 

promote children’s cognitive growth and physical development, and to purchase health insurance and health 

care, which are associated with positive health outcomes for children and families. Economic advantage is also 

associated with increased academic success among children.117,118 Income is also related to the psychological 

well-being of the parent. 119,120,121,122,123 In addition, the ability of parents to provide an emotionally stable home 

for their children is related to economic stability, as lower income is associated with higher levels of marital 

conflict.124

The median income data provided are from the Current Population Survey and include families with at least 

one child under 18 years of age. The data are for 1987 and 1990-2000 and are presented in constant year 2000 

dollars (refer to Table P21.1).

Figure P21.1 Median income for families with children, by race and Hispanic origin (in constant 2000 

dollars): Selected years 1987-2001 

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

1987199019911992199319941995199619971998

1999

2000

Dollars (2000)

Total

White, nonHispanic

Black, nonHispanic

Hispanic

SOURCE: Current Population Survey (CPS), 1987, 1990-2001 

Trends. In the period from 1987 through 1996, the 

median income of all families with at least one 

child under 18 fluctuated between a low of $42,579 

in 1993 and a high of $44,931 in 1995. However, 

after 1996, the median income rose almost $6,000, 

to $50,777 in 2000. Overall there has been a 13 

percent increase in median family income between 

1987 to 2000 (see Figure 21.1). 

By Family Structure. From 1987 to 2000, the 

median family income for female-headed 

households where no husband was present 

increased from $16,575 to $21,520, a 30 percent 

increase. Married couple families enjoyed an 

income increase as well, approximately 18 percent 

from $53,124 to $62,934. Conversely, male 

householders with no wife present have actually 

shown a slight decline in real wages from 1987 to 

2000 from $33,832 to $32,490. Still, male 

householders enjoy an income about 51 percent 

greater than female householders. 

By Race and Hispanic Origin.125 The median 

income for white, non-Hispanic families with 

children under 18 is considerably higher than that 

of blacks and Hispanics. For instance, in 2000, 

white, non-Hispanic families ($60,225) had 95 

percent higher income than black families 

($30,839) and 81 percent higher income than 

Hispanic families ($33,285).

Since 1987, female householders of all racial and 

ethnic backgrounds where no husband is present 

have seen increases in their income levels. Over 

that period the income of single, white, nonHispanic women has increased by 23 percent (from 

$21,066 to $25,977 in 2000 dollars), the income of 

single, black women by 45 percent (from $12,618 

to $18,250), and the income of single, Hispanic 

women by 56 percent (from $12,116 to $18,841). 

Among married couples, white, non-Hispanic 

couples have had the greatest income increase 

since 1987 (over $13,000 or 24 percent), whereas 

Hispanic married families have only seen an 11 

percent increase ($4,073) in income. Black 

married couples have had an 18 percent income 

increase ($7,963). 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 39 

P22 – Receipt of Child Support 

In 1997, roughly a third of American children had a parent living outside of the home.126 About half of all 

nonresident parents have a legal agreement to pay child support, the amount of which is determined by a 

variety of factors.127 In addition, a small percentage of nonresident parents have an informal agreement to pay 

support, while the remainder have no agreement.128 Certain factors have been shown to influence the 

likelihood of receiving child support payments. For example, those nonresident parents in a legally binding 

contract are twice as likely to pay child support as those without.129 However, almost 40 percent of legal child 

support agreements are satisfied irregularly.130 Furthermore, the amount of child support received is strongly 

associated with the amount initially established in each agreement. 

Child support can benefit all types of families, as its receipt is positively related to child outcomes such as 

educational attainment, standardized test scores, school behavior, and access to health care and nutrition.131 

However, children in certain families may especially benefit from the protective effects that child support can 

have against poverty.132 Many poor families rely on child support for over one-quarter of their income.133 

Payment of child support has other added benefits as well. The nonresident parent’s payment of child support 

is positively related to contact with the child, a sense of involvement in the child’s upbringing, and a positive 

relationship with the resident parent.134

Research from the early 1990s indicates that women who are black, Hispanic, never-married, less educated, of 

lower socioeconomic status, and/or who began childbearing as teens are markedly less likely to arrange child 

support agreements and, therefore, are less likely to receive payments; 135,136 this population is also much less 

likely to win large support awards.137 

In order to examine the characteristics of child support and those who receive child support payments, three 

variables from the Current Population Survey (CPS) are reviewed: the characteristics of child support 

agreements held by resident parents; the percent of resident parents with an agreement who receive child 

support payments; and the mean dollar amount received in the previous year for families receiving child 

support (refer to Table P22.1, P22.2, and P22.3). These data were collected in 1998. 

By Gender. Resident mothers (50 percent) are 

more likely than resident fathers (35 percent) to 

have a child support agreement (refer to Table 

P22.1). Among resident parents who have an 

agreement, less than half are likely to receive full 

payment. Specifically, mothers are also more 

likely than fathers to receive full child support 

payments (48 percent and 35 percent, respectively) 

(refer to Table P22.2). Among families receiving 

child support payments, mothers receive more than 

fathers, ($3,702 compared to $3,185, respectively) 

(refer to Table P22.3).

By the Presence or Absence of an Agreement. 

Resident mothers who have child support 

agreements receive larger child support payments 

than resident mothers without agreements (refer to 

Table P22.3). In 1998, resident mothers with an 

agreement received almost 50 percent more 

annually than those without agreements ($3,978 

and $2,681, respectively). 

By Age. Mothers who are older are more likely 

than younger mothers to receive full child support 

payments (refer to Table P22.2). Only 36 percent 

of mothers 18- to 24- years old receive full 

payment, compared to 48 percent of 25- to 44-yearold mothers and 55 percent of mothers 45 or older. 

In addition, mothers 18- to 24- years old are less 

likely than older mothers to have a child support 

agreement. 

By Educational Attainment. Education is 

strongly related to receipt of child support for 

resident mothers but not resident fathers. For 

example, mothers with a college degree (63 

percent) are more likely to have a child support 

agreement than are mothers with less than a high 

school education (36 percent); this is not the case 

for fathers (refer to Table P22.1). However, both 

mothers and fathers with a college education are 

more likely than mothers and fathers without a 

high school education to receive full child support 

payment. 
Parenting Charting Parenthood 2002

40 

Figure P22.1 Percentage of resident mothers 

with an agreement, by marital status: 1998 

38

64

46

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Never married

Single, previously married

Currently married

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, 1998 

Figure P22.2 Percentage of resident mothers 

with an agreement who received the full amount 

last year, by marital status: 1998 

32

48

58

0

20

40

60

80

100 Percent

Never married

Single, previously married

Currently married

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, 1998 

By Marital Status. Among mothers, those that 

were never married were less likely to have an 

agreement, less likely to receive full support 

payments if they had an agreement, and most likely 

to receive the least amount of money compared to 

mothers that were single but previously married or 

those that were currently married (see Figures 

P22.1 and P22.2). Mothers that were single but 

previously married were the most likely to have an 

agreement and those that were never married were 

least likely to have an agreement (64 percent and 

38 percent, respectively). Those with an agreement 

that were currently married were most likely to 

receive full payment (58 percent). Mothers that 

were single but previously married and those that 

were currently married received about the same 

amount annually in child support payments ($4,263 

and $4,162, respectively) while mothers that were 

never married received less than half the amount of 

money as mothers in the other two categories 

($1,990). 

Among fathers, those that were currently married 

were the least likely to have a child support 

agreement. Fathers that had an agreement were 

equally as likely to receive full payment and the 

amount of money received did not vary 

significantly by marital status. 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. White, nonHispanic mothers are more likely than black, nonHispanic, and Hispanic mothers to have a child 

support agreement and to receive full payment of 

support. For example, 61 percent of white, nonHispanic mothers have a child support agreement, 

compared to 40 percent of black, non-Hispanic and 

34 percent of Hispanic mothers. In addition, the 

amount of child support received is higher for 

white, non-Hispanic mothers than it is for black, 

non-Hispanic mothers and Hispanic mothers. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 41 

Endnotes for Parenting Section 

 

1

 Includes custodial, noncustodial, biological and nonbiological parents. 

2

 Berkowitz King, R. (1999). Time spent in parenthood status among adults in the United States. Demography,

36(3), 377-385. 

3

 4.2 percent of ever-married women in 1995. 

4

 Abma, J. & Martinez, G. (2002, May). Childlessness in the U.S.: Trends, gender role attitudes, and 

community influences. Paper to be presented at the Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America, 

May 9-11, 2002. 

5

 Abma, J. & Peterson, L. (1995, April) Voluntary childlessness among U.S. women: Recent trends and 

determinants. Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America, San Francisco, CA. 6

 Hoffman, L. (1989). The value of children to parents and childrearing patterns. Social Behaviour, 2, 123-141. 7

 Padmawidjaja, I. (1999). Maternal factors in children’s school behavior: An inter-cultural approach. 

Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 0412. 8

 D’Antonio, I., Darwish, A., & McLean, M. (1993). Child maltreatment: International perspectives. MaternalChild Nursing Journal, 21, 39-52. 9

 Ney, P. (1987). Does verbal abuse leave deeper scars: A study of children. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 

32, 371-378. 10 Phillips, D., & Shonkoff, J., eds. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood 

development. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. 11 Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2001). America’s children: Key national 

indicators of well-being 2001. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

12 Phillips, D. & Shonkoff, J. eds. (2000) 

13 Casper & Bryson, 1998, as cited in Peters, H., Peterson, G., Steinmetz, S., & Day, R. (2000). Fatherhood: 

Research, interventions and policies. New York: The Haworth Press Inc. 14 However, McLanahan & Sandefur (1994, p. 77) found that “children raised by widowed mothers do better 

across most dimensions than children raised by other single mothers.” 

15 Amato, P.R. (1993). Children’s adjustment to divorce: Theories, hypotheses, and empirical support. Journal 

of Marriage and the Family, 55, 23-28. 16 Levine-Coley, 1998 as cited in Peters, H., Peterson, G., Steinmetz, S., & Day, R. (2000). Fatherhood: 

Research, interventions and policies. New York: The Haworth Press Inc.; McLanahan, S. & Sandefur, G., 

(1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 17 Cherlin, 1999; as cited in Phillips, D., and Shonkoff, J., eds., (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The 

science of early childhood development. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. 18 McLanahan S. & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. 

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 19 Cooksey, 1997; McLanahan, 1997 as cited in Phillips, D., and Shonkoff, J., eds., (2000). From neurons to 

neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. 20 McLanahan S. & Sandefur, G. (1994). 21 Zill, Morrison & Coiro,(1993) as cited in Halle, T., Moore, K., Greene, A., & LeMenestrel, S., (1998) What 

policymakers need to know about fathers. Policy & Practice, 56(3). 22 Hart, D., & Killen, M. (1999). Perspectives on morality in everyday life. M. Killen and D. Hart (Eds.) 

Morality in everyday life (pg. 7). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

23 Walker, L., & Taylor, J. (1991). Family interactions and the development of moral reasoning. Child 

Development, 62, 264-283. 24 Lichang, L., Piliavin, J., & Call, V. (1999). Giving time, money, and blood: Similarities and differences. 

Social Psychology Quarterly, 62, 276-290. 25 Fung, H. (1999). Becoming a moral child. Ethos, 27, 180-209. 26 Day, R., Peterson, G., & McCracken, C. (1998). Predicting spanking of younger and older children by 

mothers and fathers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 79-94. 27 Simons, R., Johnson, C., & Conger, R. (1994). Harsh corporal punishment versus quality of parental 

involvement as an explanation of adolescent maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 591-607. 28 McCord, J. (1995). Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives. New York: Cambridge University 

Press. 
Parenting Charting Parenthood 2002

42 

 29 Straus, M.A. (2001). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families and its 

effects on children (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. 30 Baumrind, D. (1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In P. Cowan & M. 

Hetherington (Eds.), Family Transitions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 31 Baumrind, D. (1991). 

32 Petersen, G., & Rollins, B. (1987). Parent-child socialization. In M. Sussman and S. Steinmetz (Eds.), 

Handbook of Marriage and the Family. New York: Plenum. 33 Parke, R. D., (1996). Fatherhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 34 Parke, R. D., & Tinsley, B. J. (1987). Parent-infant interaction. In J. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of Infancy. 

New York: Wiley. 

35 Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., & Levine, J. A. (1986). Effects of increased paternal involvement on children in 

two-parent families. In R. A. Lewis & R. E. Salt (Eds.), Men in families (pp. 141-158). Beverly Hills, CA: 

Sage Publications. 

36 Killen, M., & Hart, D. (1999). Morality in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 37 Trusty, J. (1999). Effects of eighth-grade parental involvement on later adolescents’ educational expectations. 

Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32, 224-233. 38 Zimmerman, M. A., Salem, D. A., & Notaro, P. C. (2000). Make room for daddy II: The positive effects of 

fathers’ role in adolescent development. In R. D. Taylor & M. C. Wang, et al. (Eds.), Resilience across 

contexts: Family, work, culture, and community (pp. 233-253). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 

Inc. 

39 Millstein, K.H. (1993). Limit setting, coping and adaptation: A theoretical context for clinicians and 

caregivers. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 10, 289-300. 40 Kuczynski, L., & Kochanska, G. (1995). Function and content of maternal demands: Developmental 

significance of early demands for competent action. Child Development, 66, 616-628. 41 Dermer, S., & Pruett, K. (1999). The encyclopedia of parenting theory and research. Connecticut: 

Greenwood Press. 

42 Fry, D. (1993). The intergenerational transmission of disciplinary practices and approaches to conflict. 

Human Organization, 52, 176-185. 43 Schaeffer, C., & Borduin, C. (1999). Mother-adolescent-sibling conflict in families of juvenile felons. 

Journal of Genetic Psychology, 160(1), 115-118. 44 Wasserman, D. & Arkin, C.F. (1999). The encyclopedia of parenting theory and research. Connecticut: 

Greenwood Press. 45 Resnick, M.D., Bearman, P.S., Blum, R.W. et al, (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from 

the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278 (10), 

823-832. 

46 Phares, V., & Renk, K. (1998). Perceptions of parents: A measure of adolescents’ feelings about their 

parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 646-659. 47 Rossi, A., & Rossi, P. (1990). Of human bonding. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 48 Cox, M. (forthcoming). Parent-child relationships. In M. Bornstein, L. Davidson, C. Keyes, and K. Moore 

(Eds.), Well-being: positive development across the lifespan. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 49 Scaramella, L.V., Conger, R.D., Simons, R.L., & Whitbeck, L.B. (1998). Predicting risk for pregnancy by 

late adolescence: A social contextual perspective. Developmental Psychology, 34(6), pp. 1233-1245. 50 McIntyre, J.G. & Dusek, J.B. (1995). Perceived parental rearing practices and styles of coping. Journal of 

Youth and Adolescence, 24(4), pp. 499-509. 51 Young, M.H., Miller, B.C., Norton, M.C., & Hill, E.J. (1995). The effect of parental supportive behaviors on 

life satisfaction of adolescent offspring. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 813-822. 52 Acock, A. and Demo, D. (1999). Dimensions of family conflict and their influence on child and adolescent 

adjustment. Sociological Inquiry, 69(4): 641-658 53 Fuligni, Andrew J. (1998). Authority, autonomy and parent-adolescent conflict and cohesion: A study of 

adolescents for Mexican, Chinese, Filipino, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 34(4): 782-

792. 

54 Cooper, C.R. (1988). Commentary: The role of conflict in adolescent-parent relationships. In M.R. Gunnar 

and W.A. Collins (Eds), 21st Minnesota symposium on child psychology. (pp 181-187). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 43 

 55 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Child maltreatment 1999: Reports from the states to 

the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 56 Myers-Walls, J.A. (1999) The encyclopedia of parenting theory and research. Connecticut: Greenwood 

Press. 

57 Straus, M., & Gelles, R.J. (Eds). (1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and 

adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. 58 Strassberg, Z., Dodge,K., Pettit, G. & Bates, J. (1994). Spanking in the home and children’s subsequent 

aggression toward kindergarten peers. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 445-461. 59 Durant, R.H., Getts, A., Cadenhead, C. & Emans, S.J. (1995). Exposure to violence and victimization and 

depression, hopelessness, and purpose in life among adolescents living in and around public housing. Journal of 

Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 16, 233-237. 60 Myers-Walls, J.A. (1999) The encyclopedia of parenting theory and research. Connecticut: Greenwood 

Press.; Widom, C.S. (February 2001). An update on the “cycle of violence,” Research in Brief. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184894. 

61 The Gallup Organization. (1995). Disciplining children in America: A Gallup poll report. Princeton, NJ: 

The Gallup Organization. 

62 Straus, M.A., Hamby, S.L., Finkelhor, D., Moore, D.W., & Runyan, D. (1998). Identification of child 

maltreatment with the parent-child Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and psychometric data for a national 

sample of American parents. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 249-270. 63 Barnett, R.C. & Rivers, C. (1998). She works/he works: How two-income families are happy, healthy, and 

thriving. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.; Presser, H.B. (1989). Can we make time for children? 

The economy, work schedules, and child care. Population Association of America, 1989 Presidential Address. 64 Daly, K. (2000). It keeps getting faster: Changing patterns of time in families. Ontario, Canada: Vanier 

Institute of the Family. 

65 Casper, L.M. (1997). My daddy takes care of me! Fathers as care providers. Current Population Report. 

Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census. P70-59. 

66 Rice, K.G., Cunningham, T.J. & Young, M.B. (1997). Attachment to parents, social competence, and 

emotional wellbeing: A comparison of black and white late adolescents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 

44(1), 89-101. 67 Nord, C.W., Brimhall, D. & West, J. (1997). Father’s involvement in schools. Washington, DC: US 

Department of Education. 

68 Kerns, K.A. & Stevens, A. C. (1995). Parent-child attachment in late adolescence: Links to social relations 

and personality. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25(3), 323-342. 69 Although SIPP has collected this information in previous years, historical data are not presented due to the 

fact that data were not collected at comparable times during the year. Child care arrangement data were 

collected in the spring in 1996, whereas in previous years these data were collected in the fall. 

70 Data were collected for children of female respondents only. 

71 When father care was tied with other types of care for “primary arrangement,” one of the “tied” types of care 

was randomly chosen as the primary arrangement. 

72 All demographic information is based on Wave 2 of 1996 SIPP data. Since the information on child care was 

collected during Wave 4, there is an 8 month difference between the demographic data and child care data. In 

particular, residential status of parents may have changed between the two waves but households were classified 

into two parent families or single parent families based on the residential status of parents at Wave 2. 

73 Danziger, S.K., & Radin, N. (1990). Absent does not equal uninvolved: Predictors of fathering in teen mother 

families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 636-642. 74 Casper, L.M. (1997). My daddy takes care of me! Fathers as care providers. Current Population Report, P70-

59. Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census. 75 Bryant, W.K., & Zick, C.D. (1996). A new look at parents’ time spent in child care: Primary and secondary 

time use. Social Science Research, 25, 260-280. 76 Le Menestrel, S. (2000). What do fathers contribute to children’s well-being? Washington, DC: Child 

Trends. 

77 Amato, P.R. (1998). More than money? Men’s contributions to their children’s lives. In Booth, A., & 

Crouter, A.C., (Eds.) Men in families: When do they get involved? What difference does it make? (P241-278). 

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 
Parenting Charting Parenthood 2002

44 

 78 There are too few cases of single-father families to perform statistical analyses on differences by poverty 

level. 

79 There are too few cases of single-father families to perform statistical analyses on differences by educational 

attainment. 

80 There are too few cases of single-father families to perform statistical analyses on differences by employment 

status. 

81 Primavera, J. (2000). Enhancing family competence through literacy activities. Journal of Prevention and 

Intervention in the Community, 20, 85-101. 82 Morrow, L. & Young, J. (1997). A family literacy program connecting school and home: Effects on attitude, 

motivation, and literacy achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 736-742. 83 Gutman, L. & McLoyd, V. (2000). Parents’ management of their children’s education within the home, at 

school, and in the community: An examination of African-American families living in poverty. Urban Review, 

32, 1-24. 84 Blevins-Kanbe, B. & Musun-Miller, L. (1996). Number use at home by children and their parents and its 

relationship to early mathematical performance. Early Development and Parenting, 5, 35-45 85 Kazura, K. (2000). Fathers’ qualitative and quantitative involvement: An investigation of attachment, play, 

and social interactions. Journal of Men’s Studies, 9, 41-57. 86 Wilson, J. & Musick, M. (1997). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American 

Sociological Review, 62, 694-713. 87 Pearce, L. & Axinn, W. (1998). The impact of family religious life on the quality of mother-child relations. 

American Sociological Review, 63, 810-828. 88 Ellison, C. (1992). Are religious people nice people? Evidence from the National Survey of Black Americans. 

Social Forces, 71, 411-430. 89 Palkovitz, R., & Palm, G. (1998). Fatherhood and faith in formation: The developmental effects of fathering 

on religiosity, morals, and values. Journal of Men’s Studies, 7, 33-51. 90 Francis, L. & Gibson, H. (1993). Parental influence and adolescent religiosity: A study of church attendance 

and attitude toward Christianity among adolescents 11 to 12 and 15 to 16 years old. International Journal for 

the Psychology of Religion, 3, 214-153. 91 Brody, G., Stoneman, Z., & Flor, D. (1996). Parental religiosity, family processes, and youth competence in 

rural, two-parent families. Developmental Psychology, 32, 696-706. 92 Nord, C. W., Brimhall, D., & West, J. (1997). Father’s involvement in their children’s schools. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education (NCES 98-091). 

93 Nord, C.W. & West, J. (2001). Fathers' and mothers' involvement in their children's schools by family type 

and resident status. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES 2001-032). 

94 Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships: Implications for 

understanding motivation at school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (1), 76-97. 95 Epstein, J., & Dauber, S. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in inner-city 

elementary and middle schools. The Elementary School Journal, 91, 289-305. 96 Teachman, J., & Paasch, K. (1998). The family and educational aspirations. Journal of Marriage and the 

Family, 60, 704-714. 97 Lee, S. (1993). Family structure effects on student outcomes. In B. Schneider and J. Coleman (Eds.) Parents, 

their children, and schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 98 Nord, C., Brimhall, D., & West, J. (1997). Fathers’ involvement in their children’s schools. Washington, 

DC.: U.S Department of Education 

99 Significance tests were not performed on the data. 

100 Kelly, J.B. (n.d). The determination of child custody in the USA. Retrieved November, 2001 from 

http://wwlia.org/us-cus3.htm 

101 Kelly, (n.d.). 102 Children’s Rights Council.(n.d). Joint custody and shared parenting: What the research says, what parents 

say. Retrieved November, 2001 from http://www.gocrc.com/research/ 103 Kelly, (n.d.). 104 Kelly, (n.d.). 105 Stewart, S.D. (1999). Disneyland dads, Disneyland moms? How nonresident parents spend time with absent 

children. Journal of Family Issues, 20(4), 539-556. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Parenting

 45 

 106 Households are classified into having one of the following 5 types of custody: 1) physical and legal custody 

awarded to mother, 2) physical custody awarded to mother combined with joint legal custody, 3) physical and 

legal custody awarded to father or joint legal custody, 4) joint physical and legal custody, and 5) other types 

(e.g., split custody). The categories are mutually exclusive, meaning that households are classified into having 

one type of agreement or another. For households with multiple arrangements, one of the arrangements was 

selected by a hierarchical decision rule. For instance, if a household had both written and verbal agreements, 

the written agreement took precedence over the verbal agreement, and the household was classified according to 

the written agreement. 

107 Stewart, S.D. (1999). Nonresident mothers’ and fathers’ social contact with children. Journal of Marriage 

and the Family, 61, 894-907. 108 Halle, T., Moore, K., Greene, A., & LeMenestrel, S.M. (1998). What policymakers need to know about 

fathers. Policy Practice, December 1998, 21-35 109 Seltzer, J.A. & Bianchi, S.M. (1988). Children’s contact with absent parents. Journal of Marriage and the 

Family, 50, 663-677. 110 Stewart (1999). 111 Seltzer, J.A. & Bianchi, S.M. (1988). 112 Mott, F. L. (1990). When is a father really gone? Paternal-child conduct in father-absent homes. 

Demography, 27, 499-517. 113 McLanahan, S., Garfinkel, I., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Zhao, H.Z. (1998). Unwed fathers and fragile families. 

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Chicago, IL. 

114 Amato, P.R. (1998). More than money? Men’s contributions to their children’s lives. In Booth, A., & 

Crouter, A.C., (Eds.) Men in families: When do they get involved? What difference does it make? (pp. 241-278). 

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 

115 Danziger, S.K. & Radin, N. (1990). Absent does not equal uninvolved: Predictors of fathering in teen mother 

families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 636-642. 116 Income and custody arrangements reflect status as of the year prior to interview. 117 Salomon, A., & Strobel, M. (1997). Social network, interpersonal concerns and help-seeking in primary 

grade school children as a function of sex, performance and economic status. European Journal of Psychology 

of Education, 12(3), 331-347. 118 Thompson, M., Alexander, K., & Entwisle, D. (1988). Household composition, parental expectations, and 

school achievement. Social Forces, 67, 424-451. 119 Pong, S., & Ju, D. (2000). The effects of change in family structure and income on dropping out of middle 

and high school. Journal of Family Issues, 21(2), 147-169. 120 Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J., (Eds.). (1997). The consequences of growing up poor. Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage. 

121 Huston, A. C., (Ed). (1994). Children in poverty. New York: Cambridge University Press. 122 Korbin, J., Coulton, C., Chard, S., Platt-Houston, C.& Su, M. (1998). Impoverishment and child 

maltreatment in African-American and European-American neighborhoods. Development and 

Psychopathology, 10, 215-233. 123 Hill, M. S., & Sandfort, J. R. (1995). Effects of childhood poverty on productivity later life: Implications for 

public policy. Children and Youth Services Review, 17, 91-126. 124 Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Elder, G. H. (1997). Family economic hardship and adolescent adjustment: 

Mediating and moderating processes. In G. J. Duncan and J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up 

poor (pp.288-310). New York, NY: Russell-Sage. 

125 Estimates for blacks include persons of Hispanic origin. Estimates for whites do not. Persons of Hispanic 

origin may be of any race. 

126 Sorensen, E., & Zibman, C. (2000). Child support offers some protection against poverty. Series B, No. B10, March 2000. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. 

127 The Administration for Children and Families: Office of Child Support Enforcement. (n.d.) Summary of 

findings, conclusions, and recommendations. In Evaluation of child support guidelines (chap. 4). Retrieved 

November, 2001 from http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/rpt/gdl_m.htm 128 Grall, T. (2000). Current population reports: Child support for custodial mothers and fathers, 1997. 

Washington, D.C.: US Census Bureau. 

129 Sorensen & Zibman, (2000). 
Parenting Charting Parenthood 2002

46 

 130 Peterson, J. L. & Nord, C. W. (1990). The regular receipt of child support : A multistep process. Journal of 

Marriage & Family, 52(2), pp. 539-551. 131 Amato, P.R. (1998). More than money? Men’s contributions to their children’s lives. Chapter in Booth, A., 

& Crouter, A.C., (Eds.). Men in families: When do they get involved? What difference does it make? New 

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 241-278. 

132 Sorensen & Zibman, (2000). 133 Grall, (2000). 134 Amato (1998). 135 Peterson, J. L. & Nord, C. W. (1990). 136Teachman, J. D. (1991). Who pays? Receipt of child support in the United States. Journal of Marriage & 

Family, 53(3), pp. 759-772. 137 Peterson, J. L. & Nord, C. W. (1990). 
Family Formation Section
48
Charting Parenthood 2002 Family Formation

 49 

FF1 – Marriage 

Marriage is one of the most beneficial resources for adults and children alike. Children in married parent 

families tend to have fewer behavior problems, better emotional well-being, and better academic outcomes, on 

average, than children in single parent or divorced families.1,2 Marriage is less beneficial for children’s 

emotional and behavioral well-being in families marked by high parental conflict.3,4 Fathers’ attachments to 

their children are often contingent upon marriage - fathers tend to disengage from children they no longer live 

with, making less frequent visits and calls to them over time.5

 The benefits of marriage for adults help shape a 

positive environment for their children. For example, married men and women have higher levels of wealth 

than those who are separated, divorced, widowed or never married; and married people, men in particular, 

engage in healthier behaviors than those who divorce.6

 

Since marriage extends many resources that benefit child well-being, it is important to monitor trends in the 

marital status of adults. The Current Population Survey is used to track the current marital status of males and 

females, 18 years old and older, over the period of 1991 through 2001 (refer to Table FF1.1). The Survey of 

Income and Program Participation is used to report a more comprehensive classification of marital status – 

lifetime number of marriages – for the most recent year available, 1996 (refer to Table FF1.2). 

By Gender. The percentage of men and women 

who are married declined modestly between 1991 

and 2001 from 64 percent to 61 percent. 

Importantly for children, this trend is also evident 

among parents. Ninety-two percent of fathers were 

married in 1991, whereas 88 percent were married 

in 2001; seventy-five percent of mothers were 

married in 1991, whereas 72 percent were married 

in 2001. These numbers indicate that not only has 

the percentage of single parents risen for both men 

and women since 1991, but also that there is a 

higher percentage of single mothers than single 

fathers. 

By Parental Status. Most fathers and mothers 

have been married at some point in their life. In 

1996, 97 percent of fathers and 91 percent of 

mothers report that they have been married at least 

once in their lifetime. Among single parents, 

however, 94 percent of single fathers have been 

married previously, but only 74 percent of single 

mothers have. 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. Among men and 

women, black, non-Hispanics are the least likely to 

be married. In 2001, 46 percent of black, nonHispanic men were married, compared to 64 

percent of white, non-Hispanics, 60 percent of 

Hispanic origin, 64 percent of Asians or Pacific 

Islanders, and 52 percent of American Indians or 

Alaskan natives. Among women, 38 percent of 

black, non-Hispanics were married, compared to 

about 60 percent of white, non-Hispanics and 

women of Hispanic origin, 65 percent of Asians or 

Pacific Islanders, and 56 percent of American 

Indians or Alaskan natives. When considering 

lifetime number of marriages, black, non-Hispanic 

men and women are still less likely than others to 

ever marry. 

By Age. The likelihood of being married increases 

with age for both men and women. However, 

among younger adults, women are more likely to 

be married than men. Twenty percent of women 

under 25 were married in 2001, compared to only 

10 percent of men. Further, among those ages 45 

and older, the odds of having two or more 

marriages go up to about 1 in 4. 

By Poverty Status. Only 41 percent of poor men 

were married in 2001, and as income rises, so does 

one’s probability of being married, such that 66 

percent of men living at 300 percent of the poverty 

level were married in 2001. The marriage gap 

between women who are poor and those who are 

not is even wider. One out of every 3 poor women 

is married, while about 2 out of every 3 women at 

300 or more percent of the poverty level are 

married. The difference between poor women and 

poor men is also notable: forty-one percent of poor 

men were married in 2001, compared to 33 percent 

of poor women. 

Furthermore, the percentage of poor men and 

women who were married declined between 1991 

and 2001, from 48 percent to 41 percent for men, 

and 37 percent to 33 percent for women. At the 

other end of economic stability, the percentage of 

men and women with incomes at 300 percent or 

more of the poverty level stayed about the same 

(67 percent of men and 69 percent of women at this 

income bracket were married in 1991). 
Family Formation Charting Parenthood 2002

50 

By Educational Attainment. Seventy-two

percent of men with a college education were 

married in 2001, compared to 59 percent of men 

with a high school diploma or equivalent and only 

55 percent with less than 12 years of schooling. 

This pattern is similar for women: Sixty-five 

percent of women with a college degree were 

married in 2001, compared to 60 percent of women 

with a high school diploma or equivalent and 46 

percent with less than 12 years of schooling. 

Persons with less than a high school education are 

less likely to be married than they were ten years 

ago. For example, 61 percent of men and 50 

percent of women with less than a high school 

education were married in 1991, compared to 55 

percent of men and 46 percent of women of this 

level of education in 2001. Conversely, the percent 

of married men and married women with a college 

education remained relatively stable between 1991 

and 2001 (72 percent of college educated men and 

64 percent of college educated women were 

married in 1991). 

Figure FF1.1 Percentage of married adults by poverty status and educational attainment: 1991 & 2001 

48

67 61

72

41

66

55

72

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Poor

Nonpoor 

Less than High School

College Graduate

Males

Percent

1991 2001

 

37

69

50

64

33

68

46

65

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Poor

Nonpoor 

Less than High School

College Graduate

Females

Percent

1991 2001

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, 1991 and 2001 March Supplement 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Family Formation

 51 

FF2 – Divorce 

Divorce is linked to behavior problems among children, including depression, antisocial behavior, 

impulsive/hyperactive behavior, and school behavior problems.7

It places daughters at greater risk of having 

nonmarital births.8

 Often these outcomes are the result of the processes that are set into motion when parents 

divorce. Children living with one parent are more likely to have household income below the poverty line than 

children living with both parents9

, and these children are often uprooted to new neighborhoods and schools 

supported by fewer financial resources.10 Spending time in a family that is not headed by two married parents 

increases the likelihood that a child will experience subsequent changes in his or her family status.11 Thus, 

changes in a child’s family situation can cause short-term instability and also interrupt important pathways for 

a child’s social-economic well-being in adulthood. 

Data from The Survey of Income and Program Participation is used to report the prevalence of divorce among 

adults who have ever married. We include information for the years 1990 and 1996 (refer to Table FF2.1). 

By Gender. Between 1990 and 1996, the 

percentage of ever-married adults who divorced 

remained about the same among men and declined 

modestly for women. In addition, only slightly 

more ever-married women than men reported 

having experienced a divorce (32 percent of evermarried females compared to 30 percent of evermarried males in 1996). 

By Parental Status. Resident parents are less 

likely to have experienced divorce than those 

without children: Seventy-nine percent of evermarried fathers had never divorced by 1996 

compared to 61 percent of ever-married men 

without children; 72 percent of ever-married 

mothers have never divorced by 1996 compared to 

63 percent of ever-married women without 

children (see Figure FF2.1). 

Figure FF2.1 Percentage of ever-married parents and nonparents who have never divorced: 1996 

79

61

72

63

0

20

40

60

80

100

Parent Nonparent

Percent

Males Females

SOURCE: Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1996 

By Marital Status. The majority of those who 

were married in 1996 had never had a divorce (81 

percent of men and 82 percent of women). 

Experiencing one divorce, however, may lead to 

another divorce. About 27 percent of previously 

married men and women had actually experienced 

two divorces or more. 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. Hispanics are the 

least likely to divorce among race and ethnic 

groups. In 1996, seventy-nine percent of Hispanic 

males (and 75 percent of females) had never 

divorced, 69 percent of white, non-Hispanic males 

(68 percent of females), and 63 percent of black, 

non-Hispanic males (58 percent of females). 

By Poverty Status. For ever-married men, the 

likelihood of divorce differs little by poverty status 

(see figure FF2.2). Among ever-married women, 

however, the poor are more likely than higher 

income women to have been divorced at least once 

(44 percent among the poor compared to 29 

percent for those at or above 300 percent of the 

poverty line in 1996). 
Family Formation Charting Parenthood 2002

52 

The likelihood of divorce among ever-married men 

and women who are currently poor decreased 

slightly between 1990 and 1996. Among women, 

for example, the percentage decreased from 53 

percent to 44 percent. 

Figure FF2.2 Percentage of ever-married adults who have experienced divorce, by poverty status: 1996 

32

44

30

29

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Males

Females

Percent

Poor Nonpoor

SOURCE: Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1996 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Family Formation

 53 

FF3 – Age at First Marriage and Divorce 

The age at which parents marry helps determine the stability of a child’s living arrangements. Marriage at a 

young age increases the likelihood of future instability. For example, 59 percent of marriages to brides under 

age 18 end in separation or divorce within 15 years, compared to 36 percent of those married at age 20 or 

over. 12 When women delay marriage in pursuit of higher education and stable employment, this may foster the 

attainment of economic resources that make them attractive marriage partners; these resources also bode well 

for child health, social and emotional well-being, and academic achievement.13 The probability of remarriage is 

significantly higher for women who are younger at divorce, although, once again, a younger age at remarriage 

(e.g., under 25) places women at higher risk of experiencing future marital dissolution.14

Data from The Survey of Income and Program Participation is used to track age at first marriage for 

respondents in the years 1990 and 1996, and age at first divorce in 1996 (refer to Tables FF3.1 and FF3.2). 

Age at First Marriage 

By Gender. Consistent with traditional patterns, 

men marry at a later age than women. In 1996, the 

average age at first marriage for men was 25 years; 

women first married at 23, on average. 

By Parental Status. Age at first marriage is 

similar for those who are currently parents than it is 

for men and women who do not have children. 

However, between 1990 and 1996, it did rise one 

full year for parents. Fathers married, on average, 

at the age of 24 in 1990 and 25 in 1996. Mothers 

married, on average, at the age of 22 in 1990 and 

23 in 1996. 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. In 1996, black, 

non-Hispanics had the highest ages at first 

marriage (26 and 23 years for males and females, 

respectively). They are followed by Hispanics (25 

for men and 23 for women), and white, nonHispanics (25 for men and 22 for women). 

By Educational Attainment. College educated 

women first married at an average age of 25 years, 

while those with a high school education or 

equivalent married at 22, on average, and those 

with less than that first married at 21 years of age, 

on average. Among men, differences by level of 

education are more modest (see Figure FF3.1). 

Age at First Divorce 

By Gender. The age at first divorce is higher for 

men than it is for women. Men first divorce at an 

average age of about 34, while women first divorce 

at an average age of about 31. There is little 

difference across any of the other subgroups 

studied. 

Figure FF3.1 Average age at first marriage by educational attainment: 1996 

24.6

21.3

24.3

21.9

26.3

24.8

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Males Females

Years of Age

Less than High School

High School Graduate

College Graduate

SOURCE: Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1996 
Family Formation Charting Parenthood 2002

54 

FF4 – Characteristics of Current Spouse 

The characteristics of parents provide resources for their children. The stable employment of both spouses 

gives families an economic advantage over other families. Higher levels of education and age among parents 

yield an increased ability to garner not only economic resources, but also other resources needed by families.15

For example, higher levels of income and education may provide family members with more knowledge of good 

health habits and better access to health and preventive services, and is related to higher educational 

achievement in children.16 Higher levels of men’s education appear to support marriage and increase its 

stability, which bodes well for children.17 

The Current Population Survey is used to track the characteristics of the spouses of males and females in 2001 

(refer to Table FF4.1). 

By Age. While men and women tend to marry 

other men and women of the same general age 

group, men tend to marry spouses younger than 

themselves. For example, 58 percent of married 

women under age 25 have a spouse who is 25- to 

44-years-old. Only 18 percent of married men 

under 25 years of age have a spouse who is 25- to 

44-years-old. 

By Employment Status. Fifty-four percent of 

men working 35 or more hours a week have a wife 

who also works those same hours. However, 85 

percent of wives working full-time have husbands 

who work full-time. When the wives of full-time 

working husbands aren’t working full-time 

themselves, they are mainly out of the labor force 

(27 percent), or working less than 35 hours a week 

(17 percent). (see Figure FF4.1). 

Figure FF4.1 Employment status of spouse for 

men and women working full-time: 2001

17

2

54

27

4 2

9

85

0

20

40

60

80

100

Not working

Looking for work

Less than 35 hours

Full-time

Percent

Males Females

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, 2001 

March Supplement 

By Educational Attainment. Men and women are 

both most likely to marry someone with the same 

level of educational attainment. In the year 2001, 

college graduates are far more likely to marry each 

other than to marry someone with less education: 

60 percent of male college graduates and 69 

percent of female college graduates have spouses 

that are college graduates. Only 15 percent of male 

college graduates (and 13 percent of female college 

graduates) marry spouses with a high school 

education or less. 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. The majority of 

married white, non-Hispanics; black, nonHispanics; Hispanics; and Asian and Pacific 

Islanders have spouses of the same racial 

background. American Indians and Alaskan 

Natives, however, are equally likely to marry 

white, non-Hispanics as they are to marry someone 

of their same race. 

 

Other differences also emerge. Black, nonHispanic men are less likely to have a black, nonHispanic spouse than are black, non-Hispanic 

women (92 percent compared to 96 percent). In 

addition, when black, non-Hispanic men do not 

marry other black, non-Hispanics, they are more 

likely than black, non-Hispanic women to have a 

white, non-Hispanic spouse (6 percent compared to 

2 percent, respectively). 

The opposite pattern seems to be true for Asian and 

Pacific Islanders. Ninety percent of these men, but 

only 83 percent of these women, have a spouse of 

the same ethnic background. Fifteen percent of 

Asian and Pacific Islander women are married to 

white, non-Hispanic spouses, whereas only 8 

percent of Asian and Pacific Islander men have a 

white, non-Hispanic spouse. Hispanic men and 

women are about equally likely to have a Hispanic 

spouse (85 and 83 percent, respectively). White, 

non-Hispanic men and women are the most likely 

to have a spouse of the same race (96 and 97 

percent, respectively). 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Family Formation

 55 

FF5 – Attitudes Toward Divorce

Public attitudes toward divorce became more favorable in the mid-1970’s, and they likely helped contribute 

toward the passing of no-fault divorce legislation.18 Since the 1970’s, Americans have held attitudes that are by 

and large tolerant of divorce and divorce rates have remained quite high.19 At the same time that the public is 

tolerant of divorce, most young and old Americans place great emphasis on marriage and children and plan to 

devote much of their lives to their roles as parent and spouse.20

Children with divorced parents score lower on average than children with continuously married parents on 

measures of academic success, conduct, psychological adjustment, social competence, and long-term health 

outcomes.21 Nevertheless, the great majority of children from divorced families do well, and the differences in 

well-being between children from divorced families and those from intact families tend to be moderate to 

small.22 

Two questions from the General Social Survey (GSS) are used to depict adult attitudes toward divorce. 

Respondents were asked to report how much they agreed with the following two statements: 1) “When there are 

children in the family, parents should stay together even if they don’t get along” and 2) “Divorce is usually the 

best solution when a couple can’t seem to work out their marriage problems.” Both items were measured in 

1994 (refer to Table FF5.1). It is worth noting that these two questions represent divorce in two circumstances; 

these attitudes are not necessarily indicative of all attitudes such as cases involving child and spousal abuse or 

infidelity. 

Attitudes about divorce when there are children in 

the family 

By Gender. A minority of men (20 percent) agree 

or strongly agree with the statement that “when 

there are children in the family, parents should stay 

together even if they don’t get along.” Even fewer 

women support this notion (12 percent). 

By Marital and Parental Status. Women’s low 

levels of support for the notion that parents should 

stay together even if they don’t get along does not 

vary according to their marital or parental status. 

However, parenthood does have an effect on 

men— only 14 percent of male nonparents believe 

that parents should stay together even if they don’t 

get along, compared to 23 percent of fathers (see 

Figure FF5.1). 

By Educational Attainment. Support for 

maintaining a troubled marriage if it involves 

children varies according to educational status. 

Males and females with less than a high school 

education are much more likely than others to 

agree or strongly agree that parents should stay 

together even if they don’t get along. For example, 

37 percent of men with less than a high school 

education support this notion, compared to 14 

percent of men with a high school education or 

equivalent and 17 percent of men with a college 

education; 25 percent of females with less than a 

high school education agree or strongly agree with 

this notion, compared to 9 percent with a high 

school education or equivalent and 12 percent with 

a college education. 

Figure FF5.1 Percentage of respondents who 

agree or strongly agree with the statement that 

“when there are children in the family, parents 

should stay together even if they don’t get 

along,” by gender and parental status: 1994 

23

12 14 13

0

10

20

30

40

50

Males Females

Percent

Parents Nonparent

SOURCE: General Social Survey, 1994 
Family Formation Charting Parenthood 2002

56 

Attitudes about divorce when a couple can’t seem 

to work it out. 

By Gender. About half of all men and women 

agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that 

“divorce is usually the best solution when a couple 

can’t seem to work out their marriage problems.” 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. Over half (62 

percent) of black, non-Hispanic women agree or 

strongly agree that divorce is the best solution 

when a couple can’t seem to work out their 

marriage problems, while less than half of white, 

non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and American Indian/ 

Alaskan Native women support this statement.23 In 

addition, about 50 percent more black, nonHispanic women than black, non-Hispanic men 

support divorce. 

By Marital and Parental Status. About fifty 

percent of men, regardless of their marital or 

parental status, agree with the statement that 

divorce is the best solution to marital problems. 

Women who are married, however, are somewhat 

less likely to endorse this view than unmarried 

women (44 percent compared to 51 percent). 

Women who do not have children are less likely 

than mothers to agree with this point of view (37 

compared to 51 percent). 

By Age. Tolerance of divorce varies by age among 

women. Women under 25 years old are less likely 

to endorse divorce than females age 45 or older 

(35 percent and 55 percent, respectively). Men, 

however, hold about the same opinion of divorce, 

regardless of age. 

By Employment Status. Men and women who 

work full-time are less likely than others to support 

divorce. Forty-seven percent of men working fulltime agree or strongly agree that divorce is a good 

solution in the face of marital problems compared 

to 62 percent of men who work less than 35 hours a 

week. Forty-two percent of women working fulltime agree that divorce is a good solution to marital 

problems compared to 56 percent of women 

working less than 35 hours a week and 53 percent 

who are not in the labor force. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Family Formation

 57 

FF6 – Cohabitation Status 

Cohabitation among adults is an increasingly common element in the formation of children’s families. The 

majority of marriages and remarriages now begin as cohabiting relationships.24 Among cohabitating couples 

with children, 70 percent have the biological children of only one partner.25 Further, about 40 percent of all 

‘nonmarital’ births can actually be attributed to cohabiting couples. 26 The birth of a child to a cohabiting 

couple tends to lead to marriage for white, non-Hispanic parents, but not for black, non-Hispanic parents.27 

While some research suggests that children living in cohabiting families are worse off economically compared 

to children living with married parents28 and are at risk of experiencing future instability in their living 

arrangements,29 it is important to note that children already disadvantaged in terms of parental income and 

education are relatively more likely to experience this family form.30,31 

Data from the Current Population Survey March Supplements are used to track current cohabitation status in 

the years 1991 through 2001 (refer to Table FF6.1). 

By Gender. The percentage of adult men and 

women who cohabit rose between 1991 and 2001 

(see Figure FF6.1). Four percent of all men 

cohabited in 1991, rising to about 5 percent in 

2001. Three percent of all women cohabited in 

1991, rising to about 5 percent in 2001. 

These percentages are higher when considering 

only those who are “available” to cohabit – men 

and women who are not married. Eleven percent 

of unmarried men cohabitated in 1991, rising to 13 

percent in 2001. Eight percent of unmarried 

women cohabitated in 1991, rising to 11 percent in 

2001 (see Figure FF6.1). 

By Poverty Status. Cohabitation is clearly linked 

to poverty status. Thirteen percent of poor men 

and 11 percent of poor women cohabited in 2001. 

These percentages shrink at higher income levels, 

such that only 3 percent of men and women with 

family incomes at 3 times the poverty level 

cohabited in 2001 (see Figure FF6.2). 

Figure FF6.1 Percentage of cohabitors, by gender: 1991-2001 

13

11

5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Percent

Unmarried Males Unmarried Females Total Males Total Females

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, 1991-2001 March Supplement 
Family Formation Charting Parenthood 2002

58 

By Parental Status. Men cohabit at similar rates, 

whether or not they are parents (about 5 percent in 

2001). However, mothers cohabit at lower rates (4 

percent in 2001) than women with no children (5 

percent in 2001). Overall, 40 percent of all 

cohabitations among men and women involve 

parents with children in the household.32 

By Age. Females under age 25 are more likely to 

cohabit than men of the same age (9 percent of 

females and 6 percent of men), mirroring patterns 

of age at marriage by gender. Also, the proportion 

of cohabitors among those ages 45 and older is 

much smaller than among those under 45 years old. 

Only three percent of men and two percent of 

women ages 45 or older cohabited in 2001. 

Figure FF6.2 Percentage of cohabitors, by poverty status: 2001

13

8

6

3

11

6 6

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Poor Nonpoor 100-199%

of Poverty Level

Nonpoor 200-299%

of Poverty Level

Nonpoor 300% + of

Poverty Level

Percent

Males

Females

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, 2001 March Supplement 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Family Formation

 59 

FF7 – Age at First Cohabitation 

Although marriage rates have been on the decline, increasing rates of cohabitation have largely offset this 

trend.33 Furthermore, the proportion of births to unmarried women in cohabiting families increased in the 

period between 1980-84 and 1990-94, accounting for almost all of the increase in unmarried childbearing.34 In 

short, cohabitation has increasingly become an alternative to marriage for couples, and may influence child 

development. Cohabitation at a young age may increase the likelihood of a nonmarital birth, and children born 

into cohabiting unions are likely to experience future instability in their living arrangements.35 Births to older, 

and likely more economically stable, cohabitors may have different implications for children’s living 

arrangements. 

Data from The National Survey of Families and Households are used to track age at first cohabitation for 

respondents in 1988 (refer to Table FF7.1). 

By Gender. The average age at first cohabitation 

was about one-and-a-half-years older for men than 

women in 1988. In general, it is notable that age at 

first cohabitation did not vary widely across other 

demographic groups. College graduates and high 

income men and women (300+ percent of poverty) 

first cohabited at older ages, on average, than those 

with less than a college degree or who were living 

in poverty (see Figure FF7.1). 

Compared to Age at First Marriage. Age at first 

cohabitation was about one year lower for both 

men and women compared to age at first marriage 

in the late eighties. The average age at first 

cohabitation was 23 for men and 21 for women in 

1988 (refer to Table FF7.1). The average age at 

first marriage was about 24 for men and 22 for 

women in 1990 (refer to Table FF3). 

Figure FF7.1 Average age at first cohabitation: 1988 

24.8

22 22.2

23.6

22.3

23.7

20.2

19.3

22.4

20.3

15

17

19

21

23

25

Poor

Nonpoor

Less than high school

High school/GED

College Graduate

Years of Age

Males

Females

SOURCE: National Survey of Families and Households, 1988 
Family Formation Charting Parenthood 2002

60 

FF8 – Characteristics of Current Partner 

Cohabitation is often short-lived—about 50 percent of these couples are likely to marry or disrupt their 

relationship within one year, and up to 90 percent within the first five years.36 Parents of children in cohabiting 

unions typically have much lower earnings and higher rates of poverty than parents of children in married 

couple families.37 Cohabiting parents are likely to have lower levels of parental education and income than 

married parents,38 and their children may not have legal access to paternal resources. 

The Current Population Survey (CPS) is used to identify the characteristics of men’s and women’s opposite-sex 

partners in 2001 (refer to Table FF8.1). The CPS is also used to identify the characteristics of men’s and 

women’s spouses (refer to Table FF4.1). 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. Like married 

adults, the majority of men and women cohabit 

with someone of their same race; however, it 

appears that there is slightly more heterogeneity 

among cohabiting couples than among married 

couples (see Figures FF8.1 and FF8.2). Ninetytwo percent of married black, non-Hispanic men 

have a black, non-Hispanic spouse, whereas only 

82 percent of cohabiting black, non-Hispanic men 

have a black, non-Hispanic partner. Eighty-five 

percent of married Hispanic men have a Hispanic 

spouse, whereas only 74 percent of cohabiting 

Hispanic men have an Hispanic partner. Ninetyseven percent of married white, non-Hispanic 

women have a white, non-Hispanic spouse, 

whereas only 91 percent of cohabiting white, nonHispanic women have a white, non-Hispanic 

partner. Finally, 90 percent of married Asian or 

Pacific Islander men (and 83 percent of women) 

marry someone of the same ethnicity, whereas only 

63 percent of cohabiting men (and 46 percent of 

women) have a partner who is also of Asian or 

Pacific Islander descent. 

Figure FF8.1 Percentage of married/cohabiting 

men who have spouses of the same race or 

ethnicity, by race/ethnicity of respondent: 2001 

47

90

85

92

96

45

63

74

82

93

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

American Indian

Asian

Hispanic

Black non-Hispanic

White non-Hispanic

Percent

Married Cohabiting

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, 2001 

March Supplement 

Figure FF8.2 Percentage of married/cohabiting 

women who have spouses of the same race or 

ethnicity, by race/ethnicity of respondent: 2001 

83 83

96 97

56

42

46

74

95

91

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

American Indian

Asian

Hispanic

Black non-Hispanic

White non-Hispanic

Percent

Married Cohabiting

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, 2001 

March Supplement 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Family Formation

 61 

By Age. Like married adults, the majority of 

cohabiting men and women have partners their 

own age. However, it appears that there is more 

heterogeneity in cohabiting partners, especially 

among those ages 45 and older. Ninety-six percent 

of married women 45 or older have a spouse in 

their same age group, whereas only 78 percent of 

cohabiting women have a partner in this age group, 

and 22 percent have younger partners. Eighty-five 

percent of married men 45 and older have a spouse 

of the same age group, whereas only 68 percent of 

cohabiting men have a partner in this age group. 

Among younger cohabitors, as among married 

couples, women tend to cohabit with older men. 

Forty-six percent of cohabiting women ages 15 to 

24 have a partner ages 25 to 44, whereas only 20 

percent of cohabiting men ages 15 to 24 have a 

partner ages 25 to 44. 

By Educational Attainment. Married women 

with college educations are more likely to have a 

college-educated spouse than cohabiting collegeeducated women. Sixty-nine percent of married 

women with college degrees have a spouse who is 

a college graduate, whereas only 56 percent of 

cohabiting women with a college degree have a 

partner with a college degree. 

By Employment Status. Married women who 

work full-time are more likely to have a spouse 

who also works full-time than cohabiting women 

with full-time jobs. Eighty-five percent of married 

women working full-time have a spouse who is 

also working full-time, whereas only 79 percent of 

cohabiting women have a partner who also works 

full-time. However, only 54 percent of married 

men working full-time have a spouse who is also 

working full-time, and 68 percent of cohabiting 

men who work full-time have a partner who also 

works full-time. 
Family Formation Charting Parenthood 2002

62 

FF9 – Attitudes Toward Cohabitation Without Intent to Marry 

Approximately 4 in 10 children will spend some of their childhood living in families headed by a cohabiting 

couple.39 Children living in cohabiting families are more likely to be worse off economically than children 

living with married parents,40 and are at a higher risk of experiencing future instability in their living 

arrangements as well as fewer legal claims to child support or to other sources of family income.41 

Furthermore, parental attitudes and experiences, including those related to marriage, are associated with their 

children’s behaviors throughout their lives.42 For example, young females whose mothers believed cohabitation 

was acceptable cohabited at higher rates than young females whose mothers opposed cohabitation.43 

Cohabitation between adults, and births to unmarried cohabiting couples, have risen in the 1990s. It is 

essential to monitor attitudes towards cohabitation, as well as current policies that affect an adult or child’s 

experience of this event. To capture adult attitudes toward cohabitation without intent to marry, respondents of 

the General Social Survey (GSS) were asked to report how much they agreed with the following statement: “it 

is all right for a couple to live together without intending to get married.” This item was measured in 1994 and 

1998 (refer to Table FF9.1).

By Gender. Women are substantially less likely to 

support cohabitation without intent to marry than 

men. For example, in 1998, only 38 percent of 

women either agreed or strongly agreed with the 

statement that “it is all right for a couple to live 

together without intending to get married,” whereas 

about half of men supported cohabitation without 

the intent to marry. 

By Marital Status. Married men and women are 

less likely to support cohabitation without an 

intention to marry than those who are not married. 

For instance, only 40 percent of married men 

supported cohabitation in 1998 compared to 59 

percent of unmarried men. Similarly, only 30 

percent of married women compared to 42 percent 

of unmarried women supported cohabitation in 

1998. 

By Parental Status. Fathers and mothers are less 

likely than nonparents to support living together 

without an intention to marry (see Figure FF9.1). 

For instance, 44 percent of fathers supported 

cohabitation in 1998 compared to 64 percent of 

men who were not parents. Similarly, only 32 

percent of mothers supported cohabitation 

compared to 57 percent of women who did not 

have children. 

By Age. Those who were young adults in 1998 

were more likely than older men and women to 

agree that living together without intending to get 

married was all right. Seventy-seven percent of 

males under age 25 in 1998 supported cohabitation 

without intent to marry compared to 58 percent of 

males ages 25 to 44, and 39 percent of those aged 

45- to 65-years-old. Females show a similar 

pattern, albeit with lower percentages in each age 

group. 

By Employment Status. Men and women who 

are not in the labor force are less likely than those 

who work to believe that it is all right to live 

together without intending to get married, though 

that relationship is partly accounted for by the fact 

that those not in the labor force are more likely to 

be older and retired. 

Figure FF9.1 Percentage of respondents who 

agree or strongly agree that it is all right for a 

couple to live together without intending to get 

married, by parental status: 1998 

44

32

64

57

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Males Females

Percent

Parent Nonparent

SOURCE: General Social Survey, 1998
Charting Parenthood 2002 Family Formation

 63 

Endnotes for Family Formation Section

 

1

 Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and the 

Family, 62(4), 1269-1287. 2

 McLanahan, S. & G. Sandefur. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps? 

Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 

3

 Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1985). Effects of divorce on parents and children. In M. E. Lamb 

(Ed.), Nontraditional families (pp 233-288). Lawrence Erlbaum. 4

 Amato, P.R., Loomis, L.S., & Booth, A. (1995). Parental divorce, marital conflict and offspring well-being 

during early adulthood. Social Forces 73, 895-915. 5

 Seltzer, Judith A. (1994). The consequences of marital dissolution for children. Annual Review of Sociology, 

20, 235-266. 6

 Waite, L. (1995). Does marriage matter? Demography, 32(4), 483-507. 7

 Peterson, J.L., & Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in 

children. Journal of Marriage and the Family 48, 295-307. 8

 Bianchi, S., & McArthur, E. (January 1991). Family disruption and economic hardship, the short-run picture 

for children. Census Bureau Current Population Reports, P-70, No. 23. 9

 Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. America’s children: Key national indicators of 

well-being, 1999. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

10 McLanahan, S. & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps? 

Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 

11 Wu, L.L. & Martinson, B. (1993). Family structure and the risk of a premarital birth. American Sociological 

Review 58, 210-232. 12 Bramlett MD & Mosher WD. (2001). First marriage dissolution, divorce, and remarriage: United States. 

Advance data from vital and health statistics; no. 323. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health 

Statistics. 

13 White, L., & Rogers, S.J. (2000). Economic circumstances and family outcomes: A review of the 1990s. 

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1035-1051. 14 Bramlett et al. (2001). 

15 Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C.E. (1989). Social causes of psychological distress. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 16 National Center for Health Statistics (1997). Health and selected socioeconomic characteristics of the family: 

United States, 1988-90. 17 Goldsheider, F.K., & Waite, L.J. (1991). New families, no families?: The transformation of the American 

home. Los Angeles: University of California Press. 18 Cherlin, A. (1992). Marriage, divorce, remarriage. Harvard University Press: Cambridge. 19 Thornton, A. & Young-DeMarco, L. (2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the 

United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63(4), 1009-1037. 20 Thornton, A. & Young-DeMarco, L. (2001). 

21 Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and the 

Family,62(4), 1269-1287. 22 Amato, P.R. (2000). 

23 Differences not significant compared to Hispanic women. 

24 Smock, P. J. (2000). Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and 

implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 1-20. 25 Smock, P.J. (2000). 

26Bumpass, L., & H.H. Lu. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in 

the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29-41. 27 Brien, Michael J., Lee A. Lillard, & Linda J. Waite. (1999). Interrelated family-building behaviors: 

cohabitation, marriage and nonmarital conception. Demography, 36(4), 535-551. 28 Manning, W. D., & Lichter, D.T. (1996). Parental cohabitation and children’s economic well-being. Journal 

of Marriage and the Family, 58, 998-1010. 29 Graefe, D.R. & D.T. Lichter. (1999). Life course transitions of American children: parental cohabitation, 

marriage and single motherhood. Demography, 36(2), 205-217. 30 Bumpass, L., & H.H. Lu. (2000) (as summarized by Smock). 

31 Graefe, D.R. & D.T. Lichter. (2000) (as summarized by Smock). 
Family Formation Charting Parenthood 2002

64 

 32 Statistic calculated by Child Trends based on March 2001 Current Population Survey data. 

33 Bumpass, L.L., Sweet J.A., & Cherlin A. (1991). The role of cohabitation in declining rates of marriage. 

Journal of Marriage and the Family 53(4), 913-27. 34 Bumpass, L., & H.H. Lu. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in 

the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29-41. 35 Graefe, D.R. & D.T. Lichter. (1999). Life course transitions of American children: parental cohabitation, 

marriage and single motherhood.” Demography, 36(2), 205-217. 36 Bumpass, L., & Lu, H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the 

United States. Population Studies, 54, pp.29-41. 37 Manning, Wendy & Dan T. Lichter. (1996). Parental cohabitation and children’s economic well-being. 

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 998-1010. 38 Graefe, D.R. & D.T. Lichter. (1999). Life course transitions of American children: Parental cohabitation, 

marriage and single motherhood. Demography, 36(2), 205-217. 39 Bumpass, L., & H.H. Lu. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in 

the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29-41. 40 Manning, W. D., & Lichter, D.T. (1996). Parental cohabitation and children’s economic well-being. Journal 

of Marriage and the Family 58, 998-1010. 41 Graefe, D.R. & D.T. Lichter. (1999). Life course transitions of American children: Parental cohabitation, 

marriage and single motherhood. Demography 36(2), 205-217. 42 Korbin, F.E. & L.J. Waite. (1984). Effects of childhood family structure on the transition to marriage. Journal 

of Marriage and the Family, 46, 807-816. 43 Axinn, W.G. & A. Thornton. (1993). Mothers, children, and cohabitation: The intergenerational effects of 

attitudes and behaviors. American Sociological Review, 58, 233-246. 
Fertility Section
66
Charting Parenthood 2002 Fertility

 67 

F1 – Birth Rates 

The birth rate measures the number of births that occur to 1,000 adults of reproductive age in any given year. 

The characteristics of parents at the time of birth, such as age and marital status, are strong predictors of 

children’s developmental outcomes.1

 For example, teenage fathers tend to be emotionally and financially less 

prepared for undertaking parental responsibilities,2

 and thus have a lower level of involvement in parenting. 

Teenage mothers are less likely to complete school, more likely to be a single parent, and more likely to be 

poor.3

 

Birth rates are based on information collected from birth certificates, combined with population estimates 

generated by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Rates for males should be interpreted with caution, however, due 

to potential biases from underreporting. Over 14 percent of births in 1998, for example, did not have the age of 

fathers listed on the birth certificate.4

 This is due in part to restrictions on reporting paternal information for 

birth certificates when the parent are not married.5

 Refer to Tables F1.1 and F1.2 for birth and fertility rates 

from the National Vital Statistics Report. 

Trends. In general, birth and fertility rates of 

males and females have declined modestly since 

1980. For example, the fertility rate for females 

(the number of births per 1,000 females ages 15 to 

44) decreased from 68.4 births in 1980 to 65.9 

births in 1999. Rates for males (reported for males 

ages 15 to 54) declined from 57.0 to 50.8 during 

that same period. The birth rates for males are 

based on the population up to age 54 rather than 

44, and are thus not directly comparable to the 

estimates for females. 

Figure F1.1 Birth rates by age and gender: 1999 

21.0

114.8

101.6

54.9

21.0

7.2

49.6

111.0

7.4 0.4

83.8

38.3

89.6

117.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 

Age in Years

Rate (per 1,000)

Males Females

SOURCE: Ventura, S. J. et al. (2001). Births: Final data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Report, 49(1). 

Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 

By Age. Males tend to have children at older ages 

than females (see Figure F1.1). While rates for 

both sexes now peak at ages 25 to 29, females have 

higher rates than males for ages 15 to 29 and males 

have higher rates than females beyond that age. 

Birth rates among teenage females are more than 

twice as high as teenage males (49.6 compared to 

21.0 per 1,000 in 1999), which may reflect both the 

under-identification of teen fathers on birth 

certificates, and the fact that the fathers of the 

children of teen mothers are often not teens 

themselves.6

 By ages 35 to 39, birth rates are 1.4 

times higher for males than females (54.9 

compared to 38.3 in 1999). 

While birth rates declined overall between 1980 

and 1999, they increased for males and females at 

older ages, particularly for females. Among 

females ages 30 to 34, rates increased from 61.9 to 

89.6 per 1,000 during that period, and from 19.8 to 

38.3 per 1,000 females ages 35 to 39. Increases for 

males were more modest, from 91.0 to 101.6 births 

per 1,000 males ages 30 to 34, and from 42.8 to 

54.9 per 1,000 males ages 35 to 39. 
Fertility Charting Parenthood 2002

68 

At the other end of the age spectrum, rates among 

young males and females ages 15 to 19 rose 

between 1980 and the 1990s before declining 

again. By 1999, birth rates for teenage females 

were slightly below their 1980 rates while those for 

teenage males were slightly above. 

Figure F1.2 Birth rates for females of reproductive ages by race and Hispanic origin1

: 1980 - 1999 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Number of births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44

White Black

Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander

American Indian

1

Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Estimates for all race categories include persons of Hispanic 

origin. 

SOURCE: Ventura, S. J. et al. (2001). Births: Final data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Report, 49(1). 

Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. During the past 

two decades, among females birth rates were 

highest among Hispanics, lowest among whites and 

Asian or Pacific Islanders, with blacks and 

American Indians in between (see Figure F1.2). 

The differences between Hispanics and other 

racial/ethnic groups have been increasing due to 

opposing trends. Since 1980, birth rates among 

females have fallen by 17 percent for blacks, 16 

percent for American Indians, and 10 percent for 

Asian or Pacific Islanders, and have remained 

relatively constant among whites. During the same 

time period the rates for Hispanic females rose 

from 95.4 births per 1,000 Hispanic women to 

102.0. 

For males, published birth rates are available only 

for whites and blacks. Rates for black males were 

substantially higher relative to white males 

throughout the period with rates of 66.9 births per 

1,000 black men ages 15 to 54 compared to 48.2 

per 1,000 white men ages 15 to 54 in 1999. Birth 

rates have declined for both groups, but more 

dramatically among black males, dropping from a 

high of 84.9 births per 1,000 black males in 1990 

to 66.9 per 1,000 in 1999. 

By Marital Status. Birth rates among unmarried 

females have increased substantially from 29.4 

births per 1,000 unmarried females ages 15 to 44 in 

1980 to 44.4 births per 1,000 in 1999. During the 

same period, rates for married females fell from 

97.0 births per 1,000 married females ages 15 to 44 

to 86.5 per 1,000. Birth rates by the marital status 

of males are not available at this time. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Fertility

 69 

F2 – Age at First Birth 

The timing of childbearing has significant implications for the well-being of parents and children. Early 

childbearing often reflects socioeconomic disadvantage.7

 Although it is difficult to disentangle the relative 

effects of early childbearing and preexisting socioeconomic disadvantage, young mothers face more negative 

educational and employment outcomes than women who delay childbearing.8

 The effect of early childbearing 

may not be as strong for fathers as for mothers. For example, one study indicates that early fatherhood is 

associated with lower levels of schooling, income, and working hours, but its impact disappears when other 

socio-economic factors are taken into account.9

 

Young parents have limited economic, social, and developmental resources available for children, which may 

have negative effects on their development. Younger mothers have a higher risk of having a low birthweight 

infant, and their children are more likely to experience long-term morbidity and infant mortality.10 Children 

born to teenage mothers are more likely to repeat a grade in high school, less likely to graduate from high 

school, and more likely to become victims of abuse and neglect than are those born to older parents;11 they are 

also more likely themselves to have a teenage birth.12

Although childbearing at older ages has become more common compared to several decades ago, mothers 

older than 45 are still at higher risk of having a low birthweight infant, mainly due to their higher likelihood of 

having multiple births.13 

This section presents the data from the National Health and Social Life Survey, 1992, one of the few surveys 

that collected fertility information from both males and females (refer to Table F2.1). 

By Gender. Females were three times more likely 

than males to experience their first birth before age 

20 (33 percent compared to 11 percent), suggesting 

that teenage mothers’ partners are not necessarily 

teenagers themselves. Almost half of males have 

their first birth after age 25 compared to a quarter 

of females (see Figure F2.1). This is due in part to 

the tendency of some unmarried females to not 

report paternal information for birth certificates.14

By Race and Hispanic Origin. Regardless of 

gender, black, non-Hispanics and Hispanics are 

more likely than white, non-Hispanics and Asians 

to have had their first birth before age 20. Among 

females, the percentage having a birth before age 

20 was 57 percent for black, non-Hispanics and 41 

percent for Hispanics, compared to 28 percent for 

white, non-Hispanics and 8 percent for Asians. 

The same pattern holds true for males although 

they have lower percentages in each racial group. 

Figure F2.1 Age at first birth by gender: 1992 

11

41

32

11

5

33

41

19

5 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 54 

Age in Years

Percent

Males

Females

SOURCE: National Health and Social Life Survey, 1992 
Fertility Charting Parenthood 2002

70 

By Marital Status. Currently unmarried adults are 

more likely than married adults to have had the 

first birth before age 20 (see Figure F2.2). Almost 

half (45 percent) of mothers who are not currently 

married had their first birth before age 20 

compared to 29 percent of currently married 

mothers. The same pattern holds true for fathers. 

By Poverty Status. Poor parents, particularly 

mothers, are more likely to have had their first 

birth during adolescence (see Figure F2.2). 

Slightly more than half of mothers in poverty had 

their first birth before age 20 compared to 29 

percent of nonpoor mothers. The same pattern 

holds true for fathers. Fathers in poverty are twice 

as likely as nonpoor fathers to have had their first 

birth before age 20 (21 percent compared to 10 

percent). 

By Employment Status. Early childbearing 

(before age 20) is related to the current 

employment status of mothers. Mothers working 

full-time are more likely to have had their first 

birth before age 20 than part-time workers (36 

percent compared to 28 percent). The percentage 

having children before age 20 does not differ by 

employment status for males. 

Figure F2.2 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 who had the first birth before age 20 by poverty status, 

marital status, and gender: 1992 

10

21

10

17

29

53

29

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nonpoor Poor Currently Married Not Currently

Married

Percent

Males

Females

SOURCE: National Health and Social Life Survey, 1992 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Fertility

 71 

F3 – Number of Pregnancies 

Information about pregnancy has typically been available only for women. Increased attention to the roles of 

men as they become fathers has led to an interest in basic descriptive information on male fertility. Here we 

present comparable data for males and females on the incidence of pregnancy by varied social and 

demographic factors. 

Although we do not present data here on pregnancy intention, many studies have found negative consequences 

related to unintended pregnancies and births. Females with an unintended pregnancy are more likely to 

experience maternal depression during the pregnancy, 15 less likely to receive prenatal care, and more likely to 

engage in behaviors such as smoking that may cause health problems related to pregnancy and birth.16,17 

Reflecting these disadvantages, research has also found that children who were unwanted or mistimed are more 

likely to receive fewer developmental resources at home during their childhood.18,19 Little is known about the 

effects of unintended births on the fathers or about the implications of paternal intentions for children.20 

This section reviews data from the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), one of only a few 

national surveys that collected fertility information from both males and females (refer to Table F3.1). (Note: 

Analyses of survey data indicate that abortions and pregnancies are underreported in surveys. However, 

certain analyses of NHSLS data suggest that responses are not “systematically biased downward,” and that 

discrepancies may, in fact, reflect individuals’ and medical institutions’ dissimilar definitions of these events.21 

We report these data because they are currently the only data on pregnancy for adult males.22) 

By Gender. Females are more likely than males to 

report pregnancies. In 1992, 44 percent of females 

and 29 percent of males reported three or more 

pregnancies. Conversely, 34 percent of males 

reported no pregnancies compared to 21 percent of 

females. 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. Non-Hispanic 

white females are less likely to report ever having 

been pregnant than non-Hispanic black females. In 

1992, 78 percent of white, non-Hispanic females 

reported that they had any pregnancies compared to 

87 percent of black, non-Hispanic females. 

Additionally, black, non-Hispanic females are 

about 1.7 times more likely than non-Hispanic 

white and Hispanic females to report five or more 

pregnancies. Little variation by race or ethnicity in 

the number of pregnancies is found among males. 

By Age. Not surprisingly, the number of females 

and males reporting any pregnancies increases with 

age. Ninety-two percent of females ages 45 to 59 

report at least one pregnancy compared to 85 

percent of females ages 25 to 44, and 40 percent of 

females ages 18 to 25. The pattern is similar for 

males, except that fewer males report one 

pregnancy or more. 

By Poverty Status. Males in poverty are less 

likely to report any pregnancies (56 percent) than 

nonpoor males (71 percent). Females are just as 

likely to report any pregnancies, regardless of 

poverty status (78 percent of poor women, 

compared to 81 percent of nonpoor women). 

By Marital Status. Not unexpectedly, those who 

are currently married are more likely to have had 

pregnancies than those who are not married. At 

least 90 percent of married males and females 

reported at least one pregnancy (see Figure F3.1). 

Among those who are not currently married, 

females are more likely than males to report one or 

more pregnancies. One-third of unmarried males 

reported one or more pregnancies, compared to 56 

percent of females. 

Figure F3.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 

reporting one pregnancy or more by marital 

status and gender: 1992 

33

90

56

92

0

20

40

60

80

100

Not Currently

Married

Currently Married

Percent

Male Female

SOURCE: National Health and Social Life Survey, 

1992 
Fertility Charting Parenthood 2002

72 

By Educational Attainment. The percentage of 

females reporting three pregnancies or more 

decreases substantially as education increases (see 

Figure F3.2), though a similar pattern is not found 

among males. In 1992, 32 percent of females with 

a college degree reported three or more 

pregnancies compared to 63 percent for those 

without a high school education. 

By Employment Status. Current employment 

status is strongly related to pregnancy among 

males, but not among females. In 1992, close to 

half (45 percent) of part-time male workers 

reported any pregnancy compared to 73 percent of 

full-time workers. 

Figure F3.2 Percentages of adults ages 18 to 59 reporting three pregnancies or more by educational 

attainment and gender: 1992 

35 30 26 30

63

48

39 32

0

20

40

60

80

100

Less than high school High School/GED Vocational/techinical or

some college

College Graduate

Percent

Males Females

SOURCE: National Health and Social Life Survey, 1992 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Fertility

 73 

F4 – Premarital Birth 

Childbearing outside of marriage has continuously increased for several decades among women of all ages.23 

Premarital births, births occurring before first marriage, have received considerable attention24 due to socioeconomic disadvantages prevalent among unmarried parents and their children.25 Marital status at first birth 

is strongly associated with poverty status and welfare receipt, regardless of the age of the mother.26 Similarly, 

women with nonmarital births are more likely to have lower educational attainments, less likely to work fulltime, and more likely to earn lower incomes.27 It is important to note, however, that women who have 

nonmarital births tend to be disadvantaged before the birth28 and therefore it is difficult to clearly differentiate 

the effects of nonmarital births from their pre-existing disadvantages. 

Children born to unmarried parents are more likely to be disadvantaged than children born to married 

parents.29 Children born to unmarried parents are more likely to grow up in a single-parent family,30,31 which 

has been associated with poverty status32 and lower educational attainment.33 Research suggests that twoparent families are more likely to provide more developmental resources for children than single-parent 

families.34 Nonmarital births increasingly occur to cohabiting couples.35 Therefore, being born to unmarried 

parents does not necessarily mean that the child is growing up in a single-parent household. However, 

cohabiting relationships tend to last for a relatively short period of time.36 Instability in family structure, such 

as multiple living arrangements among children born to unmarried parents, has been found to be associated 

with recurring risky sexual behaviors, such as premarital sex during adolescence, as well as having a 

premarital birth.37,38,39 

This section reviews the percentages of premarital births40 among males and females ages 18 to 59 from the 

1992 National Health and Social Life Survey, which is one of the few national datasets that collect fertility 

information from both males and females (refer to Table F4.1). 

By Gender. The percentage of adults ages 18 to 

59 who had a premarital birth is slightly higher 

among females than males (19 percent compared to 

15 percent). The difference is larger for younger 

adults. Females ages 18 and 24 are more than five 

times as likely as their male counterparts to have a 

premarital birth (21 percent compared to 4 

percent), which may indicate that male partners of 

unmarried mothers are older. 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. Non-Hispanic

blacks are more likely to report a premarital birth 

than other racial/ethnic groups. Slightly more than 

half of non-Hispanic black females reported a 

premarital birth compared to 28 percent of 

Hispanics, 12 percent of non-Hispanic whites, and 

6 percent of Asians or Pacific Islanders. These 

estimates for women ages 18 to 59 in 1992 are 

similar to the estimates obtained from women ages 

15 to 44, as reported in the National Survey of 

Family Growth, 1995 (see Figure F4.1). A similar 

pattern holds true for males, with non-Hispanic 

blacks being more likely than men from other 

racial/ethnic backgrounds to have had a premarital 

birth. 

Figure F4.1 Percentage of females ages 15 to 44 

who had a pre-marital birth by race and 

Hispanic origin: 1995 

10

45

22

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

White nonHispanicBlack nonHispanicHispanic

Percent

SOURCE: National Survey of Family Growth, 

199541 

By Educational Attainment. The percentage of 

females with a premarital birth declines 

significantly as education increases (see Figure 

F4.2). Thirty-five percent of females without a 

high school education reported a premarital birth 

compared to 24 percent of high school graduates or 
Fertility Charting Parenthood 2002

74 

GED recipients, 14 percent of those with 

vocational or technical training or some college 

education, and 10 percent of college graduates. A 

similar pattern is found among males. Males with a 

high school education or less were more likely to 

report a premarital birth than males with some 

college, vocational/technical school or college 

degree. 

By Poverty Status. Poor adults are far more likely 

than nonpoor adults to have had a premarital birth 

(22 percent of males and 35 percent of females in 

poverty compared to 15 percent of nonpoor males 

and females). 

By Marital Status. Current martial status is 

related to having had a premarital birth, but in 

opposite directions for males and females. 

Currently married males are more likely than 

unmarried males to have had a premarital birth (18 

percent compared to 10 percent) whereas 

unmarried females are more likely than married 

females to have had a premarital birth (24 percent 

compared to 17 percent). 

Figure F4.2 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 who had a pre-marital birth by educational attainment 

and gender: 1992 

19 18

11 13

35

24

14 10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Less than high school High School/GED Vocational/techinical or

some college

College Graduate

Percent

Males Females

SOURCE: National Health and Social Life Survey, 1992 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Fertility

 75 

F5 – Age at First Sexual Intercourse 

An indicator of age at first sexual intercourse compares the characteristics of those who had an early sexual 

debut with those who delayed first sexual intercourse. It also shows the proportion of sexually experienced 

populations by age. Because of the negative consequences of early sexual initiation, monitoring early sexual 

initiation has been of great interest to researchers and policy makers. Those who become sexually active at an 

earlier age have a longer period of exposure to risks such as unintended pregnancies.42 Furthermore, early 

initiation of sex has been found to increase the likelihood of having more sexual partners and the frequency of 

sexual intercourse,43,44 which in turn increases the chances of contracting sexually transmitted diseases and 

experiencing unintended pregnancy.45 

This section reviews data from the National Health and Social Life Survey, 1992, one of the few national 

surveys that collected fertility information from both males and females (refer to Table F5.1). 

By Gender. Among adults ages 18 to 59 in 1992, 

over half (55 percent) of males and 43 percent of 

females reported having their first sexual 

intercourse before age 18 (see Figure F5.1). 

Fifteen percent of males and 6 percent of females 

report early sexual initiation (sexual intercourse 

prior to age 15). By age 18-19, 78 percent of males 

and 71 percent of females are sexually experienced 

(i.e., have ever had sexual intercourse). 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. Non-Hispanic 

blacks were more likely than other racial/ethnic 

groups to report first sexual intercourse before they 

turn 18 (see Figure 5.2). Before age 18, over three 

quarters of non-Hispanic black males had their first 

sexual intercourse compared to 60 percent of 

Hispanics, 52 percent of white, non-Hispanics, 36 

percent of American Indians and 21 percent of 

Asian Americans. A quarter of non-Hispanic black 

males reported having their first sexual intercourse 

between the age of 13 and 14 compared to 16 

percent of Hispanics and 10 percent of nonHispanic whites. 

Asians and Pacific Islanders were far more likely 

to delay their first sexual intercourse until at least 

age 18 than other racial groups. The vast majority 

of Asian females (84 percent) had their first sexual 

intercourse after they turned 18, whereas 57 

percent of Hispanics, 54 percent of non-Hispanic 

whites, and 37 percent of non-Hispanic blacks did 

the same. In particular, 23 percent of Asian 

females did not have their first sexual intercourse 

until they turned 25 compared to between 1 and 9 

percent for other racial groups. The same pattern 

holds true for males. 

Figure F5.1 Percentage of adults age 18 to 59 who had their first sexual intercourse by the specified age, 

by gender: 1992 

97

6

43

72

94

3

15

55

78

97

1

93

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

8 to 12 13 to 14 15 to 17 18 to 19 20 to 24 25 or More 

Age in Years

Percent

Males Females

SOURCE: National Health and Social Life Survey, 1992 
Fertility Charting Parenthood 2002

76 

Figure F5.2 Percentage of males ages 18 to 59 who had sexual intercourse by the specified age, by race 

and Hispanic origin: 1992 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

8 to 12 13 to 14 15 to 17 18 to 19 20 to 24 25+ 

Age in Years

Percent

White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic

Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander

American Indian/Alaskan Native

SOURCE: National Health and Social Life Survey, 1992 

By Educational Attainment. College graduates 

are far more likely than those without a high school 

education to delay their first sexual intercourse 

until they turn 18. The differences are particularly 

pronounced among females. Twenty-one percent 

of females with a college degree had their first 

intercourse prior to age 18 compared to 67 percent 

of females without a high school education. For 

males, the rates are 39 percent and 64 percent, 

respectively. 

By Poverty Status. Females in poverty are more 

likely to have their first sexual intercourse at a very 

young age than those who are not poor. Fourteen 

percent of poor females had their first sexual 

intercourse before age 15 compared to 6 percent of 

nonpoor females. The same pattern holds true for 

males but the difference is not statistically 

significant. 

By Age. Average age at first sexual intercourse 

has been declining. Sixty-eight percent of males 

ages 18 to 24 had their first sexual intercourse 

before age 18 compared to 41 percent of males 

ages 45 and older. The same pattern also holds 

true for females (56 percent of younger females 

compared to 30 percent of older females). 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Fertility

 77 

F6 – Number of Sexual Partners 

Having sexual intercourse with multiple partners increases the chances of being exposed to, contracting, and 

transmitting STDs and AIDS. Even a person with a single partner can be at a high risk of sexually transmitted 

infestations when their partner is involved in other sexual relationships.46 The high number of sexual partners 

among adolescents, particularly adolescent males,47 is of special concern for these reasons. Additionally, a 

strong association has been found between having multiple sexual partners and other risk behaviors among 

youth including the use of alcohol and illicit drugs, early sexual initiation,48 and violence and aggression.49 

Data from the General Social Survey, 1988 to 2000, are used for this indicator. The data show the percentages 

of males and females ages 18 to 65 who had two or more sexual partners (either concurrent or serially) in the 

last 12 months (refer to Table F6.1).

By Gender. The percentage of adults who report 

having two or more sexual partners in the last 12 

months remained fairly stable during the last 

decade. In 1988, males were almost twice as likely 

as females to report having two or more sexual 

partners (22 percent of males compared to 12 

percent of females). The percentages remained 

virtually the same a decade later (22 percent of 

males in 2000 compared to 11 percent of females). 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. Racial/ethnic 

differences are found only among males. NonHispanic black males are more likely to report 

having two or more partners than other 

racial/ethnic groups except Hispanics (see Figure 

F6.1). In 2000, 33 percent of non-Hispanic black, 

20 percent of non-Hispanic white, and 13 percent 

of Asian or Pacific Islander and American Indian 

males had at least two sexual partners. The 

percentage of Hispanics with multiple partners (34 

percent) is also higher than most other racial 

groups but the difference between Hispanics and 

non-Hispanic whites is not statistically significant.

By Age. Adults ages 45 and older are far less 

likely than adults under the age of 45 to report 

having multiple sexual partners. In 2000, 11 

percent of males age 45 and older had two or more 

partners compared to 39 percent of males ages 18 

to 24 and 29 percent of males ages 25 to 44. The 

same pattern holds true for females. 

By Marital Status. Not surprisingly, single adults 

are far more likely than those who are married to 

report having multiple sexual partners within the 

last 12 months. Thirty three percent of single 

males and 4 percent of married males had two or 

more sexual partners in the past 12 months. 

Although less frequent, the same pattern holds true 

for females (15 percent of single females compared 

to 2 percent of married females). 

Figure F6.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 

reporting two or more sexual partners in the 

last 12 months by race and Hispanic origin and 

gender: 2000 

20

33

34

13

13

9

15

12

11

16

0 10 20 30 40 50

White non-Hispanic

Black non-Hispanic

Hispanic

Asian/ Pacific Islander

American Indian/ Alaskan

Native

Males Females Percent

SOURCE: General Social Survey, 2000 

By Parental Status. Males without children were 

twice as likely as fathers to report having two or 

more partners in the last 12 months (31 percent 

compared to 15 percent). The same pattern holds 

true for females (15 percent compared to 9 percent 

respectively). 

By Employment Status. The number of sexual 

partners in the past 12 months differs by 

employment status. Males who are not in the labor 

force are far less likely than full- or part-time 

workers to report having multiple sexual partners 

in the last 12 months. In 2000, 8 percent of those 

who were not in labor force, 27 percent of full-time 

workers and 18 percent of part-time workers had 

two or more partners in the past 12 months. Some 

variations are also found among females but 

differences are often not statistically significant. 
Fertility Charting Parenthood 2002

78 

F7.a – Characteristics of Sexual Partners – Type of Relationship 

This section reviews four indicators related to the characteristics of sexual partners: (1) seriousness of 

relationship with the current or most recent sexual partner, (2) length of relationship with the first and 

current or most recent sexual partner, (3) race/ethnicity of the current or most recent sexual partner, and (4). 

age of the current or most recent sexual partner. 

The level of seriousness of sexual relationships has been found to be associated with sexual behaviors, 

particularly contraceptive use.50 Females in steady relationships are more likely to report contraceptive use 

than those who are “just friends with,” or who “just met” their sexual partners.51 On the other hand, steady 

and close relationships have been found to be inversely related to the use of condoms among males.52 Males 

are more likely to use contraceptives to prevent sexually transmitted diseases in casual relationships than in 

more serious, committed relationships.53

This section reviews data on the seriousness of relationships at first sexual intercourse with the current or most 

recent sexual partner. Data for males and females are reviewed separately except for adolescents due to the 

lack of comparable data. Two national surveys asked the same question but to different age groups: the 

National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) collected data from females ages 15 to 44 and the National Survey 

of Adolescent Males (NSAM) collected data from males ages 15 to 19 and 21 to 27 (refer to Table F7.1). The 

NSFG is expected to start collecting comparable data from both genders in 2002. 

Adolescents. Adolescent males and females are 

most likely to wait to have sexual intercourse until 

their relationship has become somewhat formalized 

(going together or going steady) (see Figure F7a.1). 

However, of those who report first sexual 

intercourse at earlier stages, adolescent males are 

more likely than females to report a casual 

relationship at first sexual intercourse with their 

current or more recent sexual partner. Of the three 

categories of casual relationships (just met, just 

friends and went out once in a while) males were 

significantly more likely than females to report 

sexual intercourse at the just friends and going out 

stages. 

Figure F7a.1 Percentage of males and females ages 15 to 19 reporting the seriousness of relationship with 

the most recent sexual partner at the first sexual intercourse: 1995 

 Just Met Just Friends Went Out Once 

in a While 

Going 

Together/ 

Going Steady

Engaged Married 

Males 6 18 16 57 2 1 

Females 4 10 11 69 4 2 

SOURCES: For males, National Survey of Adolescent Males, 1995. Population estimates calculated by the 

Urban Institute. For females, National Survey of Family Growth, 1995. Population estimates calculated by the 

National Center for Health Statistics. 

Males Ages 15 to 19 and Ages 21 to 27 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. White, nonHispanic teenage males are more likely than black, 

non-Hispanic males to report a serious relationship 

(going together/going steady, engaged, married or 

living together) at the time of first sexual 

intercourse with their current or most recent sexual 

partner (see Figure F7a.2). In 1995, 63 percent of 

white, non-Hispanic adolescent males reported a 

formal relationship compared to 51 percent of 

black, non-Hispanic adolescent males. 

Black, non-Hispanic males ages 15 to 19 are more 

likely than white, non-Hispanic males in that age 

group to report casual relationships (just met, just 

friends, went out once in a while) at first sexual 

intercourse with their most recent partner. In 

contrast, there is no significant difference between 

non-Hispanic blacks and whites in the 21 to 27 

year age group. The percentages of those reporting 

first sexual intercourse within a casual relationship 

are not substantially different across race/ethnicity 

categories. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Fertility

 79 

Figure F7a.2 Seriousness of relationship with the current or most recent sexual partner at the first sexual 

intercourse by race and Hispanic origin for males ages 15 to 19: 1995 

37

64

48 51

40

60

0

20

40

60

80

100

Casual Serious

Seriousness of Relationship

Percent

White non-Hispanic Black non-Hispanic Hispanic

SOURCE: National Survey of Adolescent Males, 1995. Population estimates calculated by Urban Institute. 

Females Ages 15 to 44 

Total. About three quarters of females ages 15 to 

44 were relatively committed to their current 

partner the first time they has sexual intercourse 

with them. In 1995, more than half of females (55 

percent) were “going steady,” 8 percent were 

engaged, and 12 percent were married when they 

first had sexual intercourse with their current or 

most recent partner (refer to Table F7.1). 

Relatively few (5 percent) reported having casual 

sexual intercourse with someone they just met. 

By Poverty Status. Females in the highest income 

bracket (incomes at 3 times the poverty level or 

more) are more likely than those in extreme 

poverty (incomes at 50 percent of the poverty line 

or less) to report a relatively stable and exclusive 

relationship with their current partner (i.e., going 

steady, engaged or married) when they first had 

sexual intercourse. For example, at the time of first 

sexual intercourse with their most recent partner 58 

percent of females in the highest income bracket 

were going steady compared to 50 percent of 

females in extreme poverty, 8 percent were 

engaged (compared to 4 percent in extreme 

poverty) and 12 percent were married (compared to 

4 percent in extreme poverty). 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. Although some 

racial/ethnic variations are found, the majority of 

females in any racial/ethnic group report an 

exclusive relationship with their most recent sexual 

partner. Seventy-eight percent of Hispanic 

females, 76 percent of white, non-Hispanic females 

and 67 percent of black, non-Hispanic females 

were in a committed relationship (i.e., going 

steady, engaged or married) with their current or 

most recent partner when they first has sexual 

intercourse with them. Hispanic females (34 

percent) and those in the “other” category (26 

percent) are more likely to be married when they 

first have sex with their current partner than are 

white, non-Hispanic (11 percent) and black, nonHispanic females (4 percent). 
Fertility Charting Parenthood 2002

80 

F7.b – Characteristics of Sexual Partner – Length of Relationships 

The duration of an individual's first sexual relationship provides one measure of the circumstances of their first 

sexual experience. The length of an individual’s most recent sexual relationship provides a snapshot of other 

sexual relationships that an individual may have had. 

The length of relationships has been associated with sexual behaviors that directly affect pregnancy and birth 

rates, including contraceptive use, although findings differ by types of contraceptives. For example, longer 

relationships were associated with an increased likelihood of contraceptive use among unmarried young males 

and females54 but were associated with reduced condom use among young males.55 Furthermore, the length of 

sexual relationships may be associated with a reduced perceived risk of contracting sexually transmitted 

diseases (STDs) from a partner,56 which in turn may affect sexual behaviors. 

Data from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) 1995, are used to estimate the length of sexual 

relationship with one’s first partner as well as current or most recent partner.57 Data were reported by females 

ages 15 to 44 only (refer to Table F7.2 and F7.3). The NSFG did not collect information from males but is 

expected to start collecting comparable data for both genders in 2002.

The first sexual relationship of most females (62 

percent), lasted a year or more. In particular, 36 

percent of females reported their first sexual 

relationship lasted four years or more. 

Nevertheless, for 21 percent of females, the first 

sexual relationship lasted for two months or less. 

(see Figure F7b.1). 

Most recent or current sexual relationships have 

lasted for four years or more for the majority of 

females (64 percent). Fifteen percent reported that 

their relationship has lasted for less than a year (see 

Figure F7b.1). 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. For Hispanic 

females, first sexual relationships are more likely 

to be long-term and less likely to be short-term 

than for non-Hispanic whites or blacks. In 1995, 

half of Hispanic females reported that their first 

relationship lasted for 4 years or more compared to 

30 percent of non-Hispanic blacks and 34 percent 

of non-Hispanic whites. Fourteen percent of 

Hispanic women reported that their relationship 

with their first sexual partner lasted for 2 months or 

less compared to more than one fifth of nonHispanic blacks and whites. 

The racial/ethnic pattern is different for the most 

recent relationship. For black, non-Hispanic 

females, the length of current or most recent sexual 

relationship is less likely to be long-term than any 

other race/ethnicity. About half (52 percent) of 

non-Hispanic blacks reported that their current or 

most recent sexual relationship had lasted for four 

years or more compared to approximately two 

thirds of Hispanics, non-Hispanic whites and 

females in the “other” race category. 

Figure F7b.1 Percentage of females ages 15 to 

44 reporting length of sexual relationships: 1995 

21

17

26

36

6 9

21

64

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2 months

or less

3 to 11

months

12 to 47

months

48

months

or more

Percent

First Sexual Partner

Current or Most Recent Sexual Partner

SOURCE: National Survey of Family Growth, 

1995. The percentages calculated by National 

Center for Health Statistics. 

By Parental Status. Parents are two and a half 

times more likely than nonparents to report longterm first sexual relationships that lasted for four 

years or more (46 percent compared to 18 percent), 

and less likely to report short-term first 

relationships that lasted for 2 months or less (18 

percent compared to 26 percent). A similar pattern 

holds true for the current or most recent sexual 

relationship. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Fertility

 81 

By Age. For younger females, first sexual 

intercourse is more likely to occur in a short-term 

relationship than for older females. Nearly half of 

young females ages 15 to 25 reported that their first 

relationship lasted for less than a year. 

Specifically, 28 percent of young females reported 

their length of first sexual relationship lasted for 

two months or less compared to 19 percent of older 

females ages 25 to 44. Older females are also more 

likely to report that their first sexual relationship 

lasted for 4 years or more (43 percent of older 

females compared to 14 percent of younger 

females). It should be noted that the length of the 

first relationship may be underestimated for those, 

particularly for younger females, whose current 

partner may be the same as the first partner. 

Differences in relationship length by age are even 

larger for the most recent or current sexual 

relationship. Not surprisingly, older females are 

more likely than younger females to report a longterm relationship lasting for four years or more (76 

percent compared to 21 percent). The magnitude 

of the difference shows the degree to which the 

nature of sexual relationships change as women get 

older. 

By Poverty Status. Substantial differences in 

relationship length by poverty status are found only 

for the most recent or current relationship. 

Females in poverty, and particularly those in 

extreme poverty, are much less likely than nonpoor 

females to be in a long-term relationship lasting for 

four years or more. Forty-nine percent of poor 

females, 38 percent of females in extreme poverty, 

and 66 percent of nonpoor females have current or 

most recent sexual relationships that lasted 4 years 

or more. 

By Educational Attainment. Substantial 

differences by educational attainment are also 

found only for the current or most recent sexual 

relationship. For females without a high school 

diploma length of most recent relationship is more 

likely to be short-term and less likely to be longterm than for females with any other educational 

status. For example, 11 percent of females without 

a high school diploma compared to 4 percent of 

college graduates report their most recent sexual 

relationship was short-term and lasted for 2 months 

or less. Half (49 percent) of respondents with less 

than a high school diploma report long-term sexual 

relationships lasting for four years or more, 

compared to 68 percent of college graduates. 

By Marital Status. Not surprisingly, married 

females’ current or most recent sexual relationships 

are mostly long-term. In 1995, 87 percent of 

married females reported long-term relationships 

lasting for four years or more compared to 23 

percent of nonmarried females. 

The same pattern holds true for first sexual 

relationships. Females who are currently married 

are far more likely to have had long-lived first 

sexual relationships than unmarried females (49 

percent compared to 19 percent lasting four years 

or more). 
Fertility Charting Parenthood 2002

82 

F7.c – Characteristics of Sexual Partners – Race/Ethnicity 

The characteristics of sexual partners often influence decisions about contraceptive use, and risk of pregnancy 

and childbearing.58 Additionally, shifts in racial/ethnic patterns in choosing sexual partners can reflect larger 

social and demographic trends. For example, the degree to which certain racial/ethnic groups choose sexual 

partners from within or outside their own race/ethnicity may mirror larger patterns in society. 

The data for males and females are presented separately because they come from two different national data 

files. In 1995, the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) collected data from females ages 15 to 44 and the 

National Survey of Adolescent Males collected data from males 15 to 19 and 21 to 27. The NSFG will collect 

comparable data from both genders in 2002 (refer to Table F7.4).

By Gender. Figure F7.1 shows the percentage of 

males and females with a current or most recent 

sexual partner outside their own racial/ethnic 

group. Hispanics are more likely than nonHispanic whites and blacks to have a sexual partner 

outside of their own racial/ethnic group. In 1995, 

29 percent of Hispanic females ages 15 to 44 

reported a current or most recent sexual 

relationship with males outside of their own 

racial/ethnic group, compared to 6 percent of black, 

non-Hispanic females and 7 percent of white, nonHispanic females. Hispanic males were even more 

likely than Hispanic females to report an interracial 

sexual partner. For example, almost half of 

Hispanic males ages 21 to 27 (48 percent) reported 

that their current or most recent sexual partner was 

outside of their own ethnic group, compared to 8 

percent of white, non-Hispanic males and 19 

percent of black, non-Hispanic males. Males ages 

15 to 19 show a similar pattern. 

When Hispanics have partners outside of their own 

ethnic group, their partners are more likely to be 

white, non-Hispanic than black, non-Hispanic. For 

example, 23 percent of Hispanic females ages 15 to 

44 reported that their current or most recent sexual 

partner was white, non-Hispanic, while 4 percent 

had a black, non-Hispanic partner. Likewise, 35 

percent of Hispanic males ages 21 to 27 had a 

white, non-Hispanic partner whereas 4 percent had 

a black, non-Hispanic partner. It should be noted, 

however, that a large difference in the population 

size between, non-Hispanic whites and blacks may 

have affected this pattern. 

Black, non-Hispanic males in their twenties are 

more than twice as likely as white, non-Hispanic 

males to have a sexual partner outside of their own 

racial/ethnic group (21 percent of non-Hispanic 

blacks aged 15-19 compared to 8 percent of nonHispanic whites). No substantial difference is 

found between black, non-Hispanic and white, 

non-Hispanic females (see Figure F7c.1). 

Figure F7c.1 Percentage of interracial/ethnic sexual partners by race and Hispanic origin59 and gender: 

1995 

Percentage of males and females with a current or most recent sexual 

partner outside their own racial/ethnic group 

Race and Hispanic Origin 

of Respondents Males 15 to 19 Males 21 to 27 Females 15 to 44 

White, non-Hispanic 8 8 7 

Black, non-Hispanic 21 19 6 

Hispanic 35 48 29 

SOURCE: For males, National Survey of Adolescent Males, 1995; the percentages were calculated by Urban 

Institute. For females, National Survey of Family Growth, 1995; the percentages were calculated by National 

Center for Health Statistics. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Fertility

 83 

F7.d – Characteristics of Sexual Partners - Age 

Age of partners, and the age differences between partners in particular, may affect the nature of relationships, 

which in turn may affect sexual behaviors. Female adolescents with an older partner are less likely to report 

using contraception at their first sexual intercourse60 as well as at their most recent sexual intercourse, and are 

more likely to become pregnant than female adolescents with a partner closer in age.61

Data for males and females are reviewed separately due to the lack of comparable data. Two national surveys 

asked the same question but to different age groups. The 1995 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) 

collected data from females ages 15 to 44. The National Survey of Adolescent Males (NSAM) collected data 

from males ages 15 to 19 and 21 to 27 in 1988 and 1995. The NSFG is expected to start collecting comparable 

data from both genders in 2002 (refer to Table F7.5).

Males. Although the percentage of adolescent 

males reporting a current or most recent sexual 

partner under age 20 remained about the same 

(92 and 91 percent) between 1988 and 1995, the 

percentage of adolescent males ages 15 to 19 with 

a current or most recent sexual partner under age 

15 doubled from 4 percent in 1988 to 8 percent in 

1995 (see Figure F7d.1). 

Figure F7d.1 Percentage of males ages 15 to 19 

and 21 to 27 by most recent partner’s age: 1988 

& 1995 

Age of Partner 

Age of 

respondents 

Under 

age 20 

Under 

age 15 

Ages 

15 to 19 

15 to 19 in 1988 92 4 88 

15 to 19 in 1995 91 8 83 

21 to 27 in 1995 9 0 9 

SOURCE: National Survey of Adolescent Males, 

1988 and 1995. The estimates were calculated by 

Urban Institute. 

Females. Among sexually experienced females 

ages 15 to 19, 22 percent reported their current or 

most recent sexual partner was age 20 or older. A 

fairly large percentage (16 percent) of females ages 

25 to 44 reported having an adolescent partner 

under age 20 (see Figure F7d.2). 

Figure F7d.2 Percentage of females ages 15 to 44 

reporting a most recent sexual partner under 

age 20: 1995 

Age of respondents 

15 to 19 in 1995 78 

20 to 24 in 1995 41 

25 to 44 in 1995 16 

 

SOURCE: National Survey of Family Growth, 

1995. The estimates were calculated by National 

Center for Health Statistics
Fertility Charting Parenthood 2002

84 

F8 – Regular Sexual Intercourse 

The frequency of sexual intercourse is a primary indicator of pregnancy risk and risk of sexual transmitted 

diseases (STDs).62,63 Individuals who engage in sexual intercourse more frequently and those who do so 

consistently (e.g., on a regular basis) are more frequently exposed to the risk of becoming pregnant or 

contracting STDs. It is worth noting however, that although those who are married (or monogamous) may be 

more likely to report frequent sexual intercourse, they are not necessarily at higher risk of unintended 

pregnancy or STDs. These individuals may, in fact, be more likely to practice contraception and/or safe-sex 

habits.64 

Data from the General Social Survey, 1989 to 2000, show the percentages of all males and females ages 18 to 

65 who had sexual intercourse two times or more per month during the last 12 months65 (refer to Table F8.1). 

Trends. The percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 

who had regular sexual intercourse has remained 

fairly constant for the last decade with slightly 

more than 60 percent of males and about half of 

females reporting having had sexual intercourse 

more than once a month during the last 12 months.

By Gender. Males report a higher likelihood of 

regular sexual activity than females. In 2000, 60 

percent of males compared to 48 percent of 

females reported having sexual intercourse twice or 

more per month during the last 12 months. 

By Age. The percentage of adults having regular 

sexual intercourse declines significantly with age 

for females (more than three-quarters of females 

ages 18 to 24 compared to slightly more than a 

quarter of those age 45 and older) (see Figure 

F8.1). The pattern is somewhat different for males. 

The percentage of males having regular sexual 

intercourse was not significantly different between 

the two younger age groups. The percentage of 

males having regular sexual intercourse was lower 

among males ages 45 and older (46 percent) than 

among those ages 25-44 (74 percent) or ages 18-24 

(65 percent). Older males are more likely to report 

having regular sexual intercourse than their female 

counterparts (46 percent compared to 27 percent at 

ages 45 and older). 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. Hispanic females 

are more likely than non-Hispanic black and white 

females to report having regular sexual intercourse 

(69 percent of Hispanic females compared to 48 

percent of non-Hispanic black females and 46 

percent of white, non-Hispanic females). For 

males, non-Hispanic blacks are more likely to 

report regular sexual intercourse than non-Hispanic 

whites (72 percent and 58 percent respectively). 

The percentage of Hispanic males having regular 

sexual intercourse is also high but the differences 

with other races are not statistically significant. 

Figure F8.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 

who report having sexual intercourse two or 

more times a month for the last 12 months, by 

age and gender: 2000

65

74

46

76

67

27

0

20

40

60

80

100

18 to 24 25 to 44 45 and Older

Age in Years

Percent

Males Females

SOURCE: General Social Survey, 2000 

By Marital Status. Not surprisingly, married 

adults are much more likely than single adults to 

report having regular sexual intercourse. In 2000, 

78 percent of married males and 73 percent of 

married females reported having regular sexual 

intercourse compared to about half of single males 

and 37 percent of single females.

By Poverty Status. Nonpoor males report a higher 

level of sexual activity than males in poverty. In 

1993 (the last year in which estimates were 

available by poverty status), 65 percent of nonpoor 

males compared to 43 percent of those in poverty 

reported having regular sexual intercourse. The 

same pattern holds true for females; however, 

differences by poverty status are not statistically 

significant among females. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Fertility

 85 

By Educational Attainment. Adults without a 

high school education are much less likely to report 

having regular sexual intercourse than those with 

other levels of educational attainment. In 2000, 45 

percent of males without a high school education 

reported having sexual intercourse two or more 

times a month compared to 59 percent of college 

graduates. For females, 30 percent with less than a 

high school education reported sexual intercourse 

compared to 53 percent of females with a college 

degree. 

By Employment Status. Those who are not in the 

labor force are about half as likely as full-time 

workers to report having regular sexual intercourse, 

regardless of gender. For males, 35 percent of 

those who were not in the labor force reported 

regular sexual intercourse compared to 70 percent 

of full-time workers. For females, 31 percent who 

were not in the labor force compared to 59 percent 

of full-time workers reported regular sexual 

intercourse.
Fertility Charting Parenthood 2002

86 

F9 – Contraceptive Use

The use of contraceptives has significant implications for pregnancy rates, birth rates, and the prevention of 

sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).66 Consistent contraceptive use reduces unintended pregnancy,67 and 

consequently reduces abortions and unwanted, mistimed, or unplanned births. Unintended pregnancies 

continue to affect many in the United States. An analysis of the National Survey of Family Growth, 1995, found 

that half of all pregnancies were unintended, and almost half of unintended pregnancies occurred to women 

who did not use any contraceptives.68 Therefore, proper contraceptive use and the adequate provision of 

contraceptives and services are of critical concern to the public. 

Data on the types of contraceptives used have implications for STD contraction. The methods that are most 

effective against unintended pregnancies, such as oral contraceptives, are often different from the methods that 

are most effective against STDs,69 such as condoms.70 

Although many national surveys collect information on contraceptive use among women, this section uses data 

from the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey, one of the few national surveys that collect contraceptive 

data from both women and men. The percentages were calculated for adults ages 18 to 59 who ever had sexual 

intercourse. 

Contraceptive use at first sexual intercourse is an important marker of unintended pregnancy risk.71 

Furthermore, contraceptive use at first sexual intercourse is a strong predictor of subsequent contraceptive 

use.72 Contraceptive use at most recent sexual intercourse is a better proxy for regular or current use of 

contraceptives. Three measures of contraceptive use are presented: 1) any contraceptive use at first sexual 

intercourse, 2) any contraceptive use at most recent sexual intercourse, and 3) the type of method used at most 

recent sexual intercourse73 (refer to Tables F 9.1 and F 9.2). For questions about “most recent sexual 

intercourse” respondents were asked about “the most recent time they had sex in the last 12 months.” 

Contraceptive Use at First Sexual Intercourse 

By Gender. About one-third of males and females 

ages 18 to 59 used contraception at first sexual 

intercourse (34 percent of males and 37 percent of 

females). 

By Age. Contraceptive use at first sexual 

intercourse has increased over time and is more 

prevalent among younger adults than older adults 

(see Figure F9.1). Half of males and females ages 

18 to 24 used any method of contraception at first 

sexual intercourse compared to 26 percent of males 

and 32 percent of females ages 45 to 59. 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. Non-Hispanic 

white males are more likely than non-Hispanic 

black or Hispanic males to have used any method 

of contraception at first sexual intercourse (37 

percent of non-Hispanic whites compared to 24 

percent of non-Hispanic blacks and 20 percent of 

Hispanics). The same pattern holds true for 

females, but the differences are not statistically 

significant. 

Figure F9.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 

who used contraceptives at first sexual 

intercourse, by age and gender: 1992 

50

32

26

50

36

32

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

18 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 59 

Age in Years

Percent

Males

Females

SOURCE: National Health and Social Life Survey, 

1992 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Fertility

 87 

By Educational Attainment. Contraceptive use at 

first sexual intercourse among females increases 

with education (see Figure F9.2). Females with a 

college degree are twice as likely as females 

without a high school education to have used any 

method of contraception at first sexual intercourse 

(46 percent compared to 23 percent). A similar 

pattern is found among males. 

Figure F9.2 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 

who used contraceptives at first sexual 

intercourse, by educational attainment and 

gender: 1992 

26

24

41

39

23

32

43

46

0 50 100

Less than high

school

High School/GED

Vocational/techinical

or some college

College Graduate

Percent

Males Females

SOURCE: National Health and Social Life Survey, 

1992

Contraceptive Use at the Most Recent Sexual 

Intercourse 

By Gender. Both males and females are much 

more likely to have used some form of 

contraceptive at their most recent sexual 

intercourse than at first sexual intercourse (see 

Figure F9.3). At their most recent sexual 

intercourse, half of males and 56 percent of 

females used contraception, whereas 34 percent of 

males and 37 percent of females used any method 

of contraception at first sexual intercourse. 

Males and females were equally likely to report 

condom use at the most recent sexual intercourse 

(17 percent of males and 15 percent of females). 

However, females are more likely than males to 

have used other types of contraceptives (45 percent 

of females compared to 36 percent of males) (see 

Figure F9.3). 

By Age. Contraceptive use decreases with age (see 

Figure F9.4). Males under 25 years old are more 

than twice as likely as those ages 45 to 59 to have 

used any contraception at their most recent sexual 

intercourse (74 percent compared to 33 percent). 

In particular, 35 percent of males under age 25 

compared to 5 percent of males ages 45 to 59 used 

condoms. The same pattern holds true for 

females. 

By Marital Status. Contraceptive use at most 

recent sexual intercourse differs significantly by 

marital status, particularly among males (see 

Figure F9.3). Unmarried males are far more likely 

to have used contraception at most recent sexual 

intercourse than married males (69 percent 

compared to 41 percent). Interestingly, married 

females are more likely than married males to 

report using contraceptives (53 percent compared 

to 41 percent). 

Unmarried males are three times more likely than 

married males to use condoms (32 percent 

compared to 9 percent). Condom use shows a 

similar pattern by marital status among females as 

among males. However, the percentage of females 

using other types of contraceptives does not differ 

by marital status. 
Fertility Charting Parenthood 2002

88 

Figure F9.3. Percentage of adults ages 18 and 59 who used contraceptives at first and most recent sexual 

intercourse: 1992 

 At First Sex At Most Recent Sex 

 Males Females Males Females 

 Any Any Condoms Other Any Condoms Other Any 

 

Total 34 37 17 36 50 15 45 56 

Current Marital Status 

Not Married 39 38 32 44 69 26 46 64 

Married 30 37 9 32 41 11 44 53 

 

SOURCE: National Health and Social Life Survey, 1992 

By Race and Hispanic Origin. Non-Hispanic 

black males are more likely to have used condoms 

at their most recent sexual intercourse than nonHispanic white or Hispanic males (28 percent 

compared to 16 percent, and 12 percent 

respectively). Similarly, black, non-Hispanic 

females are more likely than white, non-Hispanic 

females to report condom use at most recent sexual 

intercourse (20 percent compared to 14 percent). 

By Poverty Status. Poverty status shows 

significant differences for condom use among 

males only. Males in poverty are more likely to 

have used condoms at their most recent sexual 

intercourse than nonpoor males (25 percent 

compared to 15 percent). 

By Parental Status. Contraceptive use at most 

recent sexual intercourse differs by parental status 

but only for males. Males without children are 

more likely than males with children to have used 

any method of contraception at most recent sexual 

intercourse (54 percent compared to 47 percent). 

The difference was mostly due to the difference in 

condom use (20 percent of nonfathers compared to 

13 percent of fathers). 

Figure F9.4 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 

who used contraception at their most recent 

sexual intercourse, by age and gender: 1992 

74

51

33

70

58

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

18 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 59 

Age in Years

Percent

Males

Females

SOURCE: National Health and Social Life Survey, 

1992 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Fertility

 89 

F10 – Attitudes Toward Abortion 

Abortion remains one of the most controversial social issues in the United States, lending increased importance 

to, and interest in, public opinion regarding abortion. Studies have indicated that public opinion affects 

abortion rates primarily through its influence on abortion policies and access to abortion services.74 Higher 

levels of public support have been linked to the formation of more lenient laws and public policy related to 

abortion,75 more access to abortion services and higher utilization, which in turn may affect abortion rates. 

One study suggests that the recent decline in abortion rates may be, at least partially, attributed to the 

enactment of more restrictive laws.76 

Attitudes on abortion may vary depending on the reason cited for having an abortion. Furthermore, when 

women receive abortions, the vast majority of them cite multiple socioeconomic and family-related factors in 

their decision to obtain an abortion.77

To assess attitudes towards abortion as a function of the reasons cited for the abortion, several questions from 

the General Social Survey (GSS) are examined. Adult respondents were asked whether they felt it should be 

possible for a woman to obtain a legal abortion if: 1) there is a strong chance of serious defect in the baby, 2) 

the woman is not married and does not want to marry the man, 3) the family has a very low income and cannot 

afford any more children, 4) the woman’s own health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy, 5) the woman 

is married and does not want any more children, 6) the woman became pregnant as a result of rape, and 7) the 

woman wants an abortion for any reason. The items were measured in selected years between 1980 and 2000 

(refer to Table F10.1 and F10.2). 

By Gender. Males and females have strikingly 

similar attitudes toward abortion (see Figure 

F10.1). The vast majority of adults ages 18 to 65 

(87 percent of females and 91 percent of males) 

support legal abortion when the woman’s health is 

endangered. About 80 percent of adults support 

legal abortion when the woman became pregnant 

as a result of rape (79 percent of females and 84 

percent of males) or when there is a strong chance 

of serious defect in the baby (77 percent of females 

and 82 percent of males). On the other hand, only 

about 40 percent of adults support legal abortion 

for any reason or the following three reasons: 1) 

the woman’s desire not to marry the man, 2) low 

income, and 3) the woman’s desire not to have 

more children. 

Figure F10.1 Percentage of respondents supporting abortion for six different reasons: 2000 

Male Female 

The woman’s health is endangered by the pregnancy 91 87 

The woman became pregnant as a result of rape 84 79 

There is a strong chance of serious defect in the baby 82 77 

The woman does not want to marry the man 41 39 

The family cannot afford any more children 44 43 

The woman is married and does not want any more children 44 39 

Any reason 40 41 

SOURCE: General Social Survey, 2000 
Fertility Charting Parenthood 2002

90 

Support For Abortion 

Trends. Attitudes towards abortion have generally 

remained stable and similar across gender over the 

last two decades. However, the levels of support 

for abortion have been slowly declining since 1980 

for three circumstances: 1) the woman does not 

want to marry the man, 2) the woman is not 

married and does not want any more children, and 

3) the family cannot afford any more children 

(although the difference between 1980 and 2000 

was not statistically significant for males). For 

example, in 1980, 53 percent of males supported 

legal abortion “when the family cannot afford any 

more children,” and the level of support decreased 

to 44 percent in 2000.

For the remainder of the reasons for having an 

abortion, attitudes essentially remained the same. 

For example, about 38 percent of females and 41 

percent of males supported legal abortion for any 

reason in 1980. The percentages remained 

virtually the same a decade later (41 percent of 

females and 43 percent of males in 1990) and two 

decades later (41 percent of females and 40 percent 

of males in 2000). The following sections review 

the support for abortion for any reason by sociodemographic characteristics. 

By Parental Status. Parents are less likely to 

support abortion for any reason (see Figure F10.2). 

Slightly more than half of females who were not 

parents supported legal abortion for any reason in 

2000 compared to 38 percent of mothers. The 

same pattern holds true for males (45 percent of 

nonparents compared to 37 percent of fathers). 

By Educational Attainment. Adults with higher 

educational attainment are much more likely to 

support legal abortion for any reason than those 

with lower educational attainment (see Figure 

F10.2). In 2000, slightly more than half of college 

graduates supported legal abortion for any reason 

compared to about 30 percent of those without a 

high school education. 

By Employment Status. Attitudes toward 

abortion differ by employment status but only 

among females. Females with full-time work are 

more likely to support legal abortion than those 

who are not in the labor force. In 2000, 46 percent 

of female full-time workers supported legal 

abortion for any reasons compared to 34 percent of 

those who were not in labor force. 

Figure F10.2 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who support legal abortion for any reason, by parental 

status and educational attainment: 2000 

45

37

32

38 35

52 51

38

31

40 41

52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nonparent

Parent

Less than high school

High School/GED

Vocational/ techinical or some college

College Graduate

Percent

Males

Females

SOURCE: General Social Survey, 2000 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Fertility

 91 

F11 – Incidence of Abortion 

Reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and consequently the number of abortions continues to be a 

challenging policy goal. According to analyses of the National Survey of Family Growth, half of all 

pregnancies in 1994 were unintended, and half of these unintended pregnancies ended in abortion.78 

Unintended pregnancies have been found to be the primary reason for abortions.79 Other factors, most 

associated with the woman’s perceived financial, social, and opportunity costs of parenthood, appear to predict 

the incidence of abortion as well. Characteristics such as being under 20 years old, over 35 years old, 

unmarried, without previous conception, and/or more highly educated or from a highly educated family are 

associated with higher rates of abortion.80 

It is important to note that, compared to counts reported by abortion providers, abortions are underreported in 

national surveys.81,82 This may be due to individual reluctance to report having had an abortion, or to 

differences in the way that individuals and medical institutions define abortion.83 

This section reviews the data from the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), one of few 

national surveys that collect fertility information from both males and females. Two types of data are 

presented: 1) the percentage of all adults who ever had an abortion; and 2) of adults who had pregnancies, the 

percentage of those who ever had an abortion. The first indicator shows the overall patterns of abortions while 

the second indicator shows what percent of adults resort to abortions when they experience pregnancies, and 

whether such percentages differ by socio-demographic characteristics (refer to Table F11.1). 

By Gender. Among all adults ages 18 through 59, 

16 percent of females and 12 percent of males have 

ever had a pregnancy terminated by an abortion. 

For those who have experienced a pregnancy, the 

numbers increase to 21 and 18 percent, 

respectively.

By Age. Among males who ever caused a 

pregnancy and females who have ever had a 

pregnancy, the likelihood of having an abortion 

decreases with age (see Figure F11.1). Among 

females in this group, 39 percent of those under 

age 25 have had an abortion compared to 24 

percent among those ages 25 to 44, and 9 percent 

for ages 45 through 59. The pattern is similar 

among men. When considering all adults, 

regardless of pregnancy history, males and females 

ages 18 to 24 are somewhat less likely than those 

ages 25 to 44 to have had an abortion due to the 

fact that fewer of them have ever been pregnant. 

By Educational Attainment. Adults without a 

high school education are less likely to report 

having had an abortion than those with at least 

some college or more (see Figure F11.2). Among 

females who have ever had a pregnancy, 15 percent 

of those without a high school education had had 

an abortion compared to 26 percent of college 

graduates. Among males, the rates are 13 percent 

and 21 percent, respectively. 

Figure F11.1 Percentage of females ages 18 to 59 

who ever had an abortion by age: 1992 

16 15

20

8

21

39

24

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total 18 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 59 

Age in Years

Percent

All Females Females Who Had Pregnancies

SOURCE: National Health and Social Life Survey, 

1992
Fertility Charting Parenthood 2002

92 

Figure F11.2 Of those who had pregnancies, 

percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 who ever had 

an abortion, by educational attainment and 

gender: 1992 

13

14

22

21

15

19

23

26

0 10 20 30 40 50

Less than

high school

High

School/GED

Vocational/

techinical or

some college

College

Graduate

Percent

Males Females

SOURCE: National Health and Social Survey, 

1992 

By Marital Status. While the likelihood of an 

abortion does not differ significantly by marital 

status for the population as a whole, among those 

who have ever had a pregnancy the rates are far 

higher among those who are not currently married 

than for married adults (for example, 39 percent 

compared to 13 percent among males). 

By Poverty Status. Nonpoor males are twice as 

likely as poor males to report an abortion (20 

percent compared to 10 percent among those who 

have ever had pregnancies). For females, the 

difference by poverty status was much smaller and 

not statistically significant. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Fertility

 93 

Endnotes for Fertility Section 

 

1 Moore, K. A., Miller, B. C., Morrison, D. R, and Glei, D. (1995). Adolescent sex, contraception, and 

childbearing: A review of recent research. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends. 2

 Furstenberg, F. F., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Chase-Lansdale, L. (1989). Teenaged pregnancy and childbearing. 

American Psychologist, 44, 313-320. 3

 Kirby, D. (1997). No easy answers: Research findings on programs to reduce teen pregnancy. Washington, 

DC: the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. 

4

 Ventura, S. J. et al. (2000). Births: Final data for 1998. National Vital Statistics Report, 48 (3) Hyattsville, 

MD.: National Center for Health Statistics. 

5

 Ventura, S.J., and Bachrach, C.A. Nonmarital childbearing in the united states, 1940-1999. National Vital 

Statistics Reports, 48 (16). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 6

 Landry, D.J., and Forrest, J.D. (1995). How old are U.S. fathers? Family Planning Perspectives, 27, 159-165. 7

 Moore, K.A., Myers, D., Morrison, D.R., Nord, C., Brown, B., & Edmonstron, B. (1993). Age at first 

childbirth and later poverty. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3(4), 393-422. 8

 Hotz, V.J., McElroy, S.W., & Sanders, S.G. (1996). The impacts of teenage childbearing on the mothers and 

the consequences of those impacts for government. In Maynard, R.A. (ed) (1996). Kids having kids: Economic 

costs and social consequences of teen pregnancy. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. 9

 Brien, M.J. & Willis, R.J. (1996). Costs and consequences for the fathers. In Maynard, R.A. (Ed.) (1996). 

Kids having kids: Economic costs and social consequences of teen pregnancy. Washington, DC: The Urban 

Institute Press. 

10 Ventura, S.J., Martin, J.A., Curtin, S.C., Menacker, F. & Hamilton, B.E. (2001). Births: final data for 1999. 

National Vital Statistics Reports, 49(1). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 11 Moore, K.A., Morrison, D.R., & Greene, A.D. (1996). Effects on the children born to adolescent mothers. In 

In Maynard, R.A. (ed) (1996). Kids having kids: Economic costs and social consequences of teen pregnancy. 

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. 

12 Manlove, J., Terry, E., Gitelson, L., Papillo, A.R., & Russell, S. (2000). Explaining demographic trends in 

teenage fertility, 1980 –1995. Family Planning Perspectives, 32(4)166-175. 13 Ventura, S.J., Martin, J.A., Curtin, S.C., Menacker, F. & Hamilton, B.E. (2001). Births: final data for 1999. 

National Vital Statistics Reports, 49(1). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 14 Ventura, S.J., Martin, J.A., Curtin, S.C., Menacker, F. & Hamilton, B.E. (2001). 15 Brown, S.S. & Eisenberg, L. (1995). The best intentions: Unintended pregnancy and the well-being of 

children and families. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 16 Baydar, N. (1995). Consequences for children of their birth planning status. Family Planning Perspectives, 

27(6), 228-234 & 245; Brown, S.S. & Eisenberg, L. (1995). 17 Brown, S.S. & Eisenberg, L. (1995). 

18 Baydar, N. (1995). 

19 Brown, S.S. & Eisenberg, L. (1995). 20 Brown, S.S. & Eisenberg, L. (1995). 

21Michael, R. T. (2001). Abortion decisions in the United States. In E. O. Laumann and R. T. Michael (Eds.), 

Sex, love, and health in the United States (pp. 377-438). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 22 Fu, H., Darroch, J. E., Henshaw, S. K. & Kolb, E. (1998). Measuring the extent of abortion underreporting in 

the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Family Planning Perspectives, 30(3), 128-133 & 138. 23 Bachu, A. (1999). Trends in premarital childbearing: 1930 to 1994. Current Population Reports, P23-197. 

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. 

24 Bachu, A. (1999). 

25 Terry-Humen, E., Manlove, J., & Moore, K.A. (2001). Births outside of marriages: Perceptions vs. reality. 

Child Trends research brief, Washington, DC: Child Trends. 26 Maynard, R.A. (ed) (1996). Kids having kids: Economic costs and social consequences of teen pregnancy. 

New York, NY:The Robin Hood Foundation. 

27 Driscoll, A.K., Hearn, G.K., Evans, V.J., Moore, K.A., Sugland, B.W., & Call, V. (1999). Nonmarital 

childbearing among adult women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(1), 178-187. 28 Terry-Humen, E., Manlove, J., & Moore, K.A. (2001). 

29 Terry-Humen, E., Manlove, J., & Moore, K.A. (2001). 

30 Bumpass, L., & Lu, H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the 

United States. Population Studies, 29-41. 
Fertility Charting Parenthood 2002

94 

 31 Bennett, N.G., Bloom, D.E., & Miller, C.K. (1995). The influence of nonmarital childbearing on the 

formation of first marriages. Demography, 32(1), 47-62. 32 McLanahan, S. (1995). The consequences of nonmarital childbearing for women, children, and society. In 

National Center for Health Statistics, Report to Congress on out-of-wedlock childbearing. Hyattsville, MD: 

National Center for Health Statistics. 

33 Knox, V. & Bane, M.J. (1994). Child support and schooling. In Garfindkel, I., Mclanahan, S., Robins, P. 

(Eds.). Child support and child well-being. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 34 McLanahan, S.S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. 

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press. 

35 Terry-Humen, E., Manlove, J., & Moore, K.A. (2001). 

36 Terry-Humen, E., Manlove, J., & Moore, K.A. (2001). 

37 Aquilino, WS. (1996). The life course of children born to unmarried mothers: Childhood living arrangements 

and young adult outcomes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(2), 293 –310. 38 Wu, L.L. (1996). Effects of family instability, income, and income stability on the risk of a premarital birth. 

American Sociological Review, 61(2), 386-406. 39 Moore, K.A., Morrison, D.R. & Glei, D. (1995). Welfare and adolescent sex: The effects of family history, 

benefit levels and community context. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 16(2, 3), 207-238. 40 The percentages were calculated for those who had their first birth before their first marriage or those who 

had a birth but were never married. 

41 Abma, J., Chandra, A., Mosher, W., Peterson, L., & Piccinino, L. (1997). Fertility, family planning , and 

women's health: New data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. National Center for Health 

Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics Series 23(19). 42 Moore, K.A., Miller, B.C., Glei, D., & Morrison, D.R. (1995). Adolescent sex, contraception, and 

childbearing: A review of recent research. Washington, DC: Child Trends. 43 Koyle, P., Jensen, L., Olsen, J., & Cundick, B. (1989). Comparison of sexual behaviors among adolescents 

having an early, middle, and late first intercourse experience. Youth and Society, 20(4), 461-475. 44 Seidman, S.N., Mosher, W.D., & Aral, S.D. (1994). Predictors of high-risk behavior in unmarried American 

women: Adolescent environment as a risk factor. Journal of Adolescent Health, 15, 126-132. 45 Moore, K.A., Miller, B.C., Glei, D., & Morrison, D.R. (1995). 

46 Finer, L.B., Darroch, J.E., & Singh, S. (1999). Sexual partnership patterns as a behavioral risk factor for 

sexually transmitted diseases. Family Planning Perspectives, 31(5), 228-236. 47 Laumann, E. L., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The Social organization of sexuality. 

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

48 Santelli, J. S., Brener, N.D., Lowry, R., Bhatt, A., & Zabin, L.S. (1998). Multiple sexual partners among U.S. 

adolescents and young adults. Family Planning Perspectives, 30 (6), 271-275. 49 Valois, R.F., Oeltmann, J., Waller, J., & Hussey, J. (1999). Relationship between number of sexual 

intercourse partners and selected health risk behaviors among public high school adolescents. Journal of 

Adolescent Health 25(5), 328 –335. 50 Kirby, D. (2001). Emerging answers: Research findings on programs to reduce teen pregnancy. 

Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. 

51 Manning, W.D., Longmore, M.A., & Giordano, P.C. (2000). The relationship context of contraceptive use at 

first intercourse. Family Planning Perspectives, 32(3), 104-110. 52 Pleck, J.H., Sonenstein, F.L., & Swain, S.O. (1988). Adolescent males’ sexual behavior and contraceptive 

use: Implications for male responsibility. Journal of Adolescent Research, 3(3-4), 275-284. 53 Forste, R. & Morgan, J. (1998). How relationships of U.S. men affect contraceptive use and efforts to 

prevent sexually transmitted diseases. Family Planning Perspectives, 30(2), 56-62. 54 Sack, A.R., Billingham, R.E., & Howard, R.D. (1985). Premarital contraceptive use: A discriminant analysis 

approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14 (2), 165-182. 55 Ku, L., Sonenstein, F.L., & Pleck, J.H. (1994). The dynamics of young men’s condom use during and across 

relationships. Family Planning Perspectives, 26(6), 246-251. 56 Reisen, C.A. & Poppen, P.J. (1999). Partner-specific risk perception: a new conceptualization of perceived 

vulnerability to STDs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 667-684. 57 The length of relationships was calculated as the number of months between the first sexual intercourse and 

the last sexual intercourse with a partner, or the date of the interview if the partner was considered to be a 

current partner at the time of interview.
Charting Parenthood 2002 Fertility

 95 

 58 Kirby, D. (2001). Emerging answers: Research findings on programs to reduce teen pregnancy. 

Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. 

59 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. 

60 Abma, J., Discoll, A., & Moore, K. (1998). Young women’s degree of control over first intercourse: An 

exploratory analysis. Family Planning Perspectives, 30(1), 12-18. 61 Darroch, J.E., Landry, D.J., & Oslak, S. (1999). Age differences between sexual partners in the United 

States. Family Planning Perspectives, 31(4), 160-167. 62 The Alan Guttmacher Institute (1999). Why is teenage pregnancy declining? The roles of abstinence, sexual 

activity and contraceptive use. New York: the Alan Guttmacher Institute. 63 Moore, K.A., Miller, B.C., Glei, D. & Morrison, D.R. (1995). Adolescent sex, contraception, and 

childbearing: A review of recent research. Washington, DC: Child Trends. 64 Chandra, A., Abma, J., & Mosher, W, personal communication, Feb. 12, 2002. 

65 It should be noted that a limitation of this survey question is the long recall period for the respondents. 

Respondents with more irregular patterns of sexual activity may find it harder to average their experience over a 

12 month period of time. 

66 Piccinino, L.J. & Mosher, W.D. (1998). Trends in contraceptive use in the United States: 1982-1995. Family 

Planning Perspectives, 30 (1), 4-10 & 46. 67 Kirby, D. (2001). Emerging answers: Research findings on programs to reduce teen pregnancy. 

Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. 

68 Henshaw, S.K. (1998). Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives, 30 (1), 

24-29 & 46. 

69 Santelli, J.S., Warren, C.W., Lowry, R., Sogolow, E., Collins, J., Kann, L., Kaufmann, R.B. & Celentano, 

D.D. (1997). The use of condoms with other contraceptive methods among young men and women. Family 

Planning Perspectives, 29(6), 261-267. 70 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1995). HIV/AIDS surveillance report. CDC: Washington, DC. 71 Moore, K. A., Miller, B.C., Glei, D., & Morrison, D.R. (1995). Adolescent sex, contraception, and 

childbearing: A review of recent research. Washington, DC: Child Trends. 72 Pleck, J.H., Sonenstein, F.L., & Swain, S.O. (1988). Adolescent males; sexual behavior and contraceptive 

use: Implications for male responsibility. Journal of Adolescent Research, 3(3-4): 275-284. 73 Respondents may have used both condoms and other types of contraceptives simultaneously, and in such 

cases, the same respondent was counted twice and included in both percentages. Thus, the aggregated 

percentage for condom users and ‘other methods’ users is either equal to or greater than the percentage of 

respondents who used ‘any’ contraceptives. 

74 Wetstein, M. & Albritton, R.B. (1995). Effects of public opinion on abortion policies and use in the 

American states. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 25(4), 91-105. 75 Wetstein, M. & Albritton, R.B. (1995). 

76 The Alan Guttmacher Institute. (1994). Sex and America’s teenagers. New York, NY: The Alan Guttmacher 

Institute. 

77 The Alan Guttmacher Institute. (1997). The limitations of U.S. statistics on abortion. New York, NY: The 

Alan Guttmacher Institute. 

78 Henshaw, S. K. (1998). Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives, 30(1), 

24-29 & 46. 

79 Fu, H., Darroch, J.E., Henshaw, S.K., & Kolb, E. (1998). Measuring the extent of abortion underreporting in 

the 1995 National Surveys of Family Growth. Family Planning Perspectives, 30(3), 128-133 &138. 80Michael, R. T. Abortion decisions in the United States. In E. O. Laumann and R. T. Michael (Eds.), Sex, love, 

and health in the United States (pp. 377-438). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. 81 The Alan Guttmacher Institute (1997). Issues in brief – The limitations of U.S. statistics on abortion, 1. 82 Jones E.J., & Forrest J.D. (1992). Underreporting of abortion in surveys of U.S. women: 1976 to 1988, 

Demography, 29(1):113–126; cited in Fu, H., Darroch, J.E., Henshaw, S.K., & Kolb, E. (1998). Measuring the 

extent of abortion underreporting in the 1995 National Surveys of Family Growth. Family Planning 

Perspectives, 30(3), 128-133 &138. 83 Michael, R. T. (2001). Abortion decisions in the United States. In E. O. Laumann and R. T. Michael (Eds.), 

Sex, love, and health in the United States (pp. 377-438). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 
96
Appendix A: 

Data Dictionary 
98
Charting Parenthood 2002 Data Dictionary

 99 

Data Source Descriptions 

Data tables in this report have been pulled from thirteen nationally-representative data sources. This section 

presents both general and detailed information about each data source to facilitate a more comprehensive 

understanding of the data presented in this book. Definitions apply to data presented in this book only, not the 

capability of the data set as a whole. 

General information on each data source is provided, including the funder, principal investigator(s), the design 

of the survey, population, and sample selection. Information specific to the data presented in this book is also 

provided, including the unit of analysis, estimate restrictions, age of the respondent, and age of the child. In this 

book we have attempted to show the data in a consistent, comparable format across data sets. As such, data is 

presented for several standard demographic breaks. These breaks and their descriptions are provided in the 

table below. In those cases where the standard definitions do not apply or where further clarification is required 

to accurately define the data that is presented from a particular data source, more detail is provided in the 

section titled “unique demographic definitions.” Finally, a list of the indicators from each data set is provided. 

It is important to note that the reference period for each data set varies. For example, depending on the survey, 

respondents may be asked how many hours they worked in the last week, month, or year. Data are presented to 

reflect the status during the reference year, unless otherwise noted. 

Demographic 

Break 

Standard Description Standard Breaks 

Race Race of the respondent White non-Hispanic 

Black non-Hispanic 

Hispanic 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

American Indian/Alaskan Native 

Poverty Poverty measures compare the respondent 

report of household income to the official U.S. 

poverty thresholds for household size based on 

the year of survey. 

Poor (0-99% of poverty) 

 Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 

Nonpoor 

 100 to 199% of poverty 

 200 to 299% of poverty 

 300% or more of poverty 

Parental Status This measure varies across data sets. This 

demographic break may describe whether the 

respondent has ever had a child or whether the 

respondent lives with a child. In most cases, a 

respondent is considered a parent if they live 

with one or more of their own children under 

age 18. See unique demographic definitions to 

determine how parent was defined for each 

data set. 

Resident parent 

Nonparent 

Age of 

Respondent 

Age of respondent at time of survey 18 to 24 years old (or Under 25 years old) 

25 to 44 years old 

45 years and older 

Age of Child Age of child(ren) referenced for the particular 

indicator. This is provided only if a question 

is asked about a specific child. 

0 to 2 years old 

3 to 5 years old 

6 to 9 years old 

10 to 12 years old 
DataDictionary Charting Parenthood 2002

100 

Demographic 

Break 

Standard Description Standard Breaks 

Marital Status Current marital status of respondent Currently married 

Not currently married 

Family Structure Number of parents living in household with a 

child 

One parent 

Two parent 

Educational 

Attainment 

Highest level of educational attainment at time 

of survey 

Less than high school 

High school diploma or GED 

Vocational/technical or some college 

College graduate 

Employment 

Status 

Average number of hours worked per week in 

the reference period 

Not in labor force 

Looking for work 

Less than 35 hours per week 

35 hours or more per week 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Data Dictionary

 101 

Current Population Survey (CPS) 

Name: Current Population Survey (CPS) 

Funder(s): The core survey is funded by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics. The supplements are also funded by a variety of sponsors 

including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of 

Education, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human 

Development. 

Principal Investigator: U.S. Bureau of the Census 

General Description: The CPS is primarily designed to supply estimates of employment, 

unemployment and other characteristics of the general labor force, the 

population as a whole, and various subgroups of the population. In addition to 

collection of labor force data, the CPS's basic funding provides annual data on 

work experience, income, and migration (the annual March income and 

demographic supplement), and school enrollment of the population (the 

October supplement). Other supplements are conducted including the child 

support and alimony supplement (April), the fertility and birth expectations 

supplement (June), and the supplement on the immunization status of the 

population (most recently collected in September 1995). 

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; 

mode of administration): 

Cross-sectional; The CPS has been conducted monthly since 1942. The 

fieldwork is conducted during the calendar week that includes the 19th of the 

month. In January 1994 a redesigned questionnaire was introduced for the 

development of official CPS estimates. This was the most substantial change 

to the survey since its inception. This new survey included longer and more 

detailed questions allowing for more accurate and detailed estimates. The CPS 

questionnaire is a completely computerized document that is administered by 

Census Bureau field representatives across the country through both personal 

and telephone interviews. Households are in the survey for four consecutive 

months, out for eight, and then return for another four months before leaving 

the sample permanently. 

Population: The CPS is representative of the civilian, non-institutionalized population of 

the U.S. 

Sample Selection and 

Description: 

The CPS is administered using a scientifically selected sample of some 50,000 

occupied households nationwide. The CPS design over-sampled for Hispanics 

only. (For more detail see Design and Methodology: 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/tp63rv.pdf) 

Website: http://www.bls.census.gov/cps/cpsmain.htm 

Unit of Analysis: Data are collected for all household members. Employment and earnings 

information are collected for persons ages 15 and over, but tabulated for all 

persons 16 and over. One member of each household contacted is the 

respondent, and this individual must be a knowledgeable household member 

15 years or older. 

Estimate Restrictions: Estimates based on a weighted denominator (row size) less than 75,000 are not 

reported. 

Age of Respondent: Respondents are 15 years and older. It is this primary respondent who 

provides information for each household member. No upper age limit is used, 

and full-time students are treated the same as non-students. For this report the 

age of the adult population is 18 years and older. 

Age of Child: 0 to 17 years old 
DataDictionary Charting Parenthood 2002

102 

Unique Demographic Descriptions: 

Parental Status - Parent is defined as an adult living with one or more of their own children 

under age 18. An individual who has had a child but is not currently living 

with a child would be classified as nonparent. 

Poverty- Families and unrelated individuals are classified as being above or below the 

poverty level using an adjusting index that takes into account family size, 

number of children, and age of the family householder or unrelated individual. 

The poverty cutoffs are updated each year to reflect changes in the Consumer 

Price Index. For a more detailed explanation please see Current Population 

Reports, Series P-60, No. 154, Money, Income, and Poverty Status of Persons 

in the U.S.: 1988. 

Employment - Respondents are classified as full time if they worked 35 or more hours per 

week during a majority of the weeks in which they worked during the year. 

Respondents are classified as part-time if they worked less than 35 hours per 

week for a majority of the weeks worked during the year. Respondents 

classified as looking for work are those persons during the survey week who 

have no employment but are available for work, and satisfy one or more of the 

three following conditions: 1) have sought a job in the last 4 weeks, 2) are 

waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off, or 3) are 

waiting to report to a new job within 30 days. All respondents who lack 

employment and who fail to meet the criteria of unemployment “looking for 

work” outlined above are classified as not in labor force. 

Cohabitation - Cohabitation was coded using adjusted persons of the opposite sex sharing 

living quarters (POSSLQ). Households with a reference person and 1) one 

other adult (age 15+) of the opposite sex who is not in a related subfamily, not 

a secondary individual in group quarters, and not related to, or a foster child of, 

the reference person; and 2) no other adults (age 15+) except foster children, 

children or other relatives of the reference person, or children of unrelated 

subfamilies. See Casper, L.M., Cohen, P.N. & Simmons, T. (1999, May). How 

does POSSLQ measure up?: Historical estimates of cohabitation (Population 

Division Working Paper No. 36). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. 

Significance Level: All statements discussed in the text are significant at the .05 level, using twotailed t-tests. 

Indicators: Who is a Parent? 

P19 - Child Custody Arrangements 

P20 - Contact With Non-Resident parent 

P21 - Earnings and Income 

P22 - Receipt of Child Support 

FF1 - Marriage 

FF4 - Characteristics of Current Spouse 

FF6 - Cohabitation Status 

FF8 - Characteristics of Current Partner 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Data Dictionary

 103 

Gallup Child Abuse Survey 

Name: Gallup Child Abuse Survey 

Funder(s): Gallup Organization 

Principal Investigator: Murray Straus, Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, 

Durham, NH 03824 

General Description: The Child Abuse Survey is part of the Gallup Organization’s National Social 

Audit Program. The overall purpose of this study was to measure the 

incidence of family violence nationally and look at the underlying causes of 

child abuse and family violence. 

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; 

mode of administration): 

Cross-sectional; The Gallup Child Abuse Survey was conducted in 1995 via a 

one-time telephone survey. 

Population: The Gallup Child Abuse Study represents households with one or more 

children under age 18 living in the household. 

Sample Selection and 

Description: 

Telephone numbers were randomly selected to ensure all telephone households 

in continental U.S. have equal probability of selection. In two-parent 

households, one parent was randomly selected for the interview. In multi-child 

households, one child was randomly identified, and a parent of that child 

interviewed. There were 1,000 parents in the sample. 

Website: www.unh.edu/frl

Unit of Analysis: Parents 

Estimate Restrictions: Estimates based on row sizes less than 20 are not reported. 

Age of Respondent: Respondents range from 18 to 72 years old 

Age of Child: Under age 18 

Unique Demographic Descriptions: 

Parental Status - Parent is defined as an adult having one or more children under age 18 living 

in the household. An individual who has had a child but is not currently living 

with a child would be classified as nonparent. 

Family Structure - Presented in terms of the number of parents living in the household with the 

child. 

Poverty - Poverty status can not be created for this data set due to income being 

categorical, not continuous. Income ranges are reported instead. 

Employment - No employment variable available. 

Significance Level: All statements discussed in the text are significant at the .05 level, using twotailed t-tests. 

Indicators: P12 - Incidence of Harsh Punishment, Violence, Abuse 
DataDictionary Charting Parenthood 2002

104 

General Social Survey (GSS) 

Name: General Social Survey (GSS) 

Funder(s): National Science Foundation 

Principal Investigator: James A. Davis (NORC), Tom W. Smith (NORC), and Peter Marsden 

(Harvard University); Data collection by National Opinion Research Center 

(NORC) 

General Description: The General Social Survey (GSS) is a major source of data on social attitudes 

and behaviors facilitating the study of social trends. Additionally, it is a source 

of trend data on family-related attitudes, marital happiness, and satisfaction 

with family. 

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; 

mode of administration): 

Cross-sectional; The GSS was conducted annually from 1972 until 1978, then 

again in 1980, 1982 through 1991, 1993 and biennially since 1994. The most 

recent data was collected in 2000. The survey is conducted through personal 

interviews. Since 1985 the GSS has also had a cross-national component, the 

International Social Survey Program (www.issp.org) which measures many 

items on families, children, and fatherhood. 

Population: The GSS represents the total noninstitutionalized population of the U.S. ages 

18 and older. 

Sample Selection and 

Description: 

An adult is randomly selected as the respondent. Individuals in households 

containing many adults are less likely to be selected for an interview. The fullprobability GSS samples used since 1975 are designed to give each household 

an equal probability of inclusion in the sample. Thus for household-level 

variables, the GSS sample is self-weighting. In those households which are 

selected, selection procedures within the household give each eligible 

individual equal probability of being interviewed. There were over-samples of 

blacks in 1982 and 1987. There is a weight factor to adjust for all sampling 

issues. 

Website: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS

Unit of Analysis: Adult respondent. 

Estimate Restrictions: Estimates based on row sizes less than 20 are not reported. 

Age of Respondent: 18 years and older 

Age of Child: 0 to 17 years old 

Unique Demographic Descriptions: 

Parental Status - Those who have had one or more children, ever, counting all those that were 

born alive at any time (including any from a previous marriage). 

Poverty - GSS respondents reported their income in categories therefore, it was unclear 

whether income for some respondents fell above or below the poverty 

threshold. These cases were designated “borderline poor.” Poverty was not 

calculated for 1994, 1996, 1998, and 2000. For more detail see Ligon, E. 

(1988, September). Rationale and construction of poverty measures in the 

General Social Survey. Chicago: NORC. 

Employment - Respondents were asked "Last week were you working full time, part time, 

going to school, keeping house, or what?" Working Full time, Working Part 

time, Looking for work (Unemployed, laid off, looking for work), Not in Labor 

Force (retired, in school, keeping house, other). Respondents who did not work 

within the last week, but normally do were categorized accordingly. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Data Dictionary

 105 

Significance Level: All statements discussed in the text are significant at the .05 level, using twotailed t-tests. 

Indicators: P1 - Importance of Becoming a Parent 

P2 - Adults’ Attitudes About the Value of Children 

P3 - Parents: Can One Be As Good As Two? 

P5 - Adults’ Attitudes Toward Spanking 

FF5 - Attitudes Toward Divorce 

FF9 - Attitudes Toward Cohabitation 

F6 - Number of Sexual Partners 

F8 - Regular Sexual Intercourse 

F10 - Attitudes Toward Abortion 
DataDictionary Charting Parenthood 2002

106 

National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 

Name: National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 

Funder(s): Data collection is conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census under an 

interagency agreement with the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). 

Principal Investigator: National Center for Health Statistics 

General Description: The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is the most comprehensive 

source of data about the health status and conditions of residents of the United 

States. Data are collected at the household, family, and person levels, and 

range from information about past and current disabilities and illnesses to 

health-related behaviors and occupation and income. In addition to the 

information collected about each person within each family, one adult and one 

child from each family are randomly selected as sample respondents and are 

asked a more detailed and extensive list of questions. 

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; 

mode of administration): 

Cross-sectional; NHIS is a survey of a nationally-representative sample of 

households in the United States. The sample is based on a stratified multistage 

sampling design that is changed following each decennial census. The NHIS 

began in 1957 and has been conducted each year since then, with data released 

annually. Data used for this analysis were from interviews with one sample 

adult randomly selected from each family. Data are collected through personal 

household interviews with each family. 

Population: Civilian, non-institutionalized households within the United States 

Sample Selection and 

Description: 

The 2000 sample adult section of the NHIS had 32,374 respondents. The 

survey over-sampled for blacks and Hispanics. 

Website: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm 

Unit of Analysis: Adult respondents 

Estimate Restrictions: None 

Age of Respondent: 18 and older 

Age of Child: Children not included in analysis 

Unique Demographic Descriptions: 

Employment - Persons who reported working at a job or business last week were asked how 

many hours they worked last week. Respondents who worked at least 35 hours 

last week were considered to be working full-time. 

Race and Hispanic 

OriginCategories include white non-Hispanic, black non-Hispanic, Hispanic and 

other non-Hispanic 

Poverty - Extreme poverty is defined as below 50% of the poverty level 

Significance Level: All statements discussed in the text are significant at the .05 level, using twotailed t-tests. 

Indicators: Who is a Parent? 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Data Dictionary

 107 

National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) 

Name: National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) 

Funder(s): Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation of 

Menlo Park, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Andrew Mellon Foundation, the 

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the New York Community 

Trust, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, and the Ford Foundation. 

Principal Investigator: Edward Laumann (University of Chicago), Robert Michael (University of 

Chicago), Stuart Michaels (University of Chicago), and John Gagnon (SUNYStony Brook); data collection by the National Opinion Research Center 

(NORC) - University of Chicago 

General Description: The NHSLS was conducted in order to provide useful and comprehensive 

information on the sexual behavior of the general population in the U.S. 

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; 

mode of administration): 

Cross-sectional; The NHSLS was conducted from February to September of 

1992. The survey was administered through one-time face-to-face interviews. 

Population: The NHSLS is representative of the population of all persons aged 18 to 59 

with adequate English proficiency living in households located in the 50 states 

and DC. Persons living in institutions or groups quarters were excluded from 

the sample. 

Sample Selection and 

Description: 

An adult aged 18-59 was selected randomly from each household. The final 

data set contains 1,604 variables from a nationwide sample of 3,432 adults. 

Multistage area probability sampling design produced a cross-sectional sample 

of 3,159; and over-sampling of blacks and Hispanics produced a supplemental 

sample of 273. 

Website: http://cloud9.norc.uchicago.edu/faqs/sex.htm

Unit of Analysis: Adult respondent. 

Estimate Restrictions: Estimates based on row sizes less than 20 are not reported. 

Age of Respondent: 18 to 59 years old 

Age of Child: Not applicable 

Unique Demographic Descriptions: 

Parental Status - Parent is defined as an adult having one or more children under age 18 living 

in the household. An individual who has had a child but is not currently living 

with a child would be classified as nonparent. 

Poverty - Poverty is a pre-defined variable in NHSLS, a dichotomous variable indicating 

whether respondent household income was less than the poverty line in the 

previous year. 

Employment - Employment status was determined by number of hours at job per week. 

Respondents were asked: if they worked for pay in a usual week, how many 

hours they worked for pay last week, at all jobs. It was not possible to break 

out 'not employed' respondents. 

Significance Level: All statements discussed in the text are significant at the .05 level, using twotailed t-tests. 
DataDictionary Charting Parenthood 2002

108 

Indicators: F2 - Age at First Birth 

F3 - Number of Pregnancies 

F4 - Premarital Brith 

F5 - Age at First Sexual Intercourse 

F9 - Contraceptive Use 

F11 - Incidence of Abortion 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Data Dictionary

 109 

National Household Education Survey Program (NHES) 

Name: National Household Education Survey Program (NHES) 

Funder(s): National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of 

Education 

Principal Investigator: Chris Chapman, NCES 

General Description: The National Household Education Survey Program provides information on 

education-related issues, such as the care arrangements and educational 

experiences of young children, children's educational activities and the role of 

the family in the children's learning, and parental involvement in their 

children's schooling. 

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; 

mode of administration): 

Cross-sectional; The NHES was conducted in 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1999, 

and 2001 via computer-assisted telephone interviews. There are plans to 

continue in 2003 and periodically thereafter. 

Population: The NHES is a representative sample of the non-institutionalized civilian 

population of the U.S. 

Sample Selection and 

Description: 

In each survey, between 54,000 and 64,000 households are screened. One or 

more household members may be selected to complete more extensive 

interviews on specific topics. The NHES design also over-samples minorities 

for reliable estimates for these groups. In 1996, 21,000 parents of children 

from age 3 through 12th grade were interviewed. In 1999, 24,000 parents of 

children from newborns up to 12th grade were interviewed. 

Website: http://nces.ed.gov/nhes 

Unit of Analysis: Child 

Estimate Restrictions: Estimates based on row sizes less than 30 are not reported. 

Age of Respondent: 18 to 65 years old 

Age of Child: In 1996 questions were asked about children 3 years old up to 12th grade. In 

1999 questions were asked about newborn children up to 12th grade. 

Unique Demographic Descriptions: 

Parental Status - Parent is defined as an adult having one or more of their own children, under 

age 18, living in the household. An individual who has had a child but is not 

currently living with a child would be classified as nonparent. Parental status 

is based on the household member’s relationship to the sampled child. 

Family Structure - Based on whether a father and mother reside in the home with the child. 

Poverty - Poverty estimates for 1991 and 1993 are not comparable to later years because 

respondents were not asked about their exact household income. 

Significance Level: All statements discussed in the text are significant at the .05 level, using twotailed t-tests. Bonferroni adjustments were made for statements requiring 

multiple t-tests. 

Indicators: P17 - Parental Participation in Child’s School Activities 
DataDictionary Charting Parenthood 2002

110 

National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) 

Name: National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) 

Funder(s): National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and 17 

other federal agencies 

Principal Investigator: J. Richard Udry (University of North Carolina); Fieldwork was conducted by 

the National Opinion Research Center - University of Chicago. 

General Description: The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) focuses 

on the causes of health-related behaviors of adolescents, collecting data from 

surveys of students, parents, and school administrators. 

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; 

mode of administration): 

Longitudinal; Four surveys were conducted during Wave I (1994 through 

1995) consisting of in-school, in-home, school administrator, and parent 

surveys. Wave II (1996) consisted of in-home and school administrator 

surveys. Wave III (expected to be available in Fall 2002) will consist of an inhome survey. Wave I (1995) was made up of subjects in grades 7-12. Wave II 

(1996) was made up of these subjects one year later (grades 8-12), but did not 

include those who were 12th graders at Wave I. Already existing databases 

provided information about neighborhoods and communities. Questionnaires 

were administered directly to students using Computer-Assisted Personal 

Interview (CAPI) and Computer-Assisted Self-Interview (CASI) systems. 

Population: Representative sample of students in grades 7 through 12 in the U.S. 

Sample Selection and 

Description: 

The Wave I In-School Survey collected information from 90,188 students in 80 

pairs of schools (each pair consisted of one high school and one of its feeder 

middle schools, or a single school if it included grades 7 to 12). 

Approximately 200 adolescents from each school pair were selected for inhome interviews at Wave I; however, in 16 schools, in-home interviews were 

conducted with all students in order to collect information about adolescent 

social networks. The sample size for the Wave I In-home Survey was 20,745. 

The Wave II In-Home Survey sampled 14,738 adolescents who participated in 

the Wave I survey. The study over-sampled African Americans with collegeeducated parents, Chinese, Cuban, Puerto Rican, and physically-disabled 

adolescents (although this sample seems to be less reliable than the others) as 

well as genetic samples of pairs of siblings who resided in the same household 

(twins, full and half-siblings, and unrelated teens in the same household). In 

addition, in-home interviews were conducted with all students from 16 samples 

schools (versus the approximately 200 adolescents selected for in-home 

interviews from each of the other pairs of schools) in order to collect 

information about adolescent social networks. 

Website: http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/ 

Unit of Analysis: Adolescent respondent 

Estimate Restrictions: Estimates based on row sizes less than 25 are note reported. 

Age of Respondent: Adolescents in grades 7 to 12 

Unique Demographic Descriptions: 

Family Structure - Family structure is based on the living arrangements of the adolescent. The 

step-parent category includes cohabiting (nonmarried) partners of the 

biological parent. 

Significance Level: All statements discussed in the text are significant at the .05 level, using twotailed t-tests. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Data Dictionary

 111 

Indicators: P9 - Degree of Closeness Adolescent Feels Toward Parent 

P16 - Religious Activities With Children 
DataDictionary Charting Parenthood 2002

112 

National Survey of Adolescent Males (NSAM) 

Name: National Survey of Adolescent Males (NSAM) 

Funder(s): National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) 

Principal Investigator: Freya L. Sonenstein, Ph.D.,Director, Population Studies Center, The Urban 

Institute 

General Description: The NSAM provides information on the adolescent male population including: 

demographic characteristics, family background, educational history and 

aspirations; sexual, contraceptive and HIV-related behaviors; use of alcohol 

and drugs, attitudes about condom use; gender role attitudes; and knowledge 

about sex, AIDS and contraception. 

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; 

mode of administration): 

Longitudinal; Data was collected for two cohorts. The first cohort was 

collected in three waves: 1988, 1990-1991, and 1995. Data for the second 

cohort was collected in 1995 only. It is a household-based survey collected 

primarily through face-to-face interviews and the most sensitive topics were 

assessed with self-administered questionnaires. 

Population: The two cohorts of the NSAM represent the adolescent male population 

ranging from age 15 to 27 in the U.S. Only never married, noninstitutionalized males were sampled. 

Sample Selection and 

Description: 

Old cohort: 1,880 males age 15-19 in 1988; 1,676 males age 16-21 in 1990-

1991; and 1,377 males age 21-27 in 1995. New cohort: 1,729 males age 15-19 

in 1995. The survey over-sampled for blacks and Hispanics. For the estimates 

provided in this report the sample was limited to those who have ever had sex. 

Website: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/cpr/dbs/res_national3.htm

Unit of Analysis: Adolescent male 

Estimate Restrictions: Estimates based on cell sizes less than 25 are not reported. 

Age of Respondent: 15 to 27 years old 

Unique Demographic Descriptions: 

Parental Status - Parent is defined as having had a live birth or adopting a child by the time of 

interview. 

Significance Level: All statements discussed in the text are significant at the .05 level, using twotailed t-tests. 

Indicators: F7 - Characteristics of Sexual Partners 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Data Dictionary

 113 

National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) 

Name: National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) 

Funder(s): Wave 1: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 

(NICHD), Center for Population Research 

Wave 2: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 

(NICHD) & National Institute on Aging 

Principal Investigator: Larry Bumpass and Jim Sweet (University of Wisconsin-Madison). Field work 

carried out by Institute for Survey Research of Temple University. 

General Description: The National Survey of Families and Household (NSFH) was developed to 

gain more information on the causes and consequences of the changes in 

American family and household structure. 

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; 

mode of administration): 

Longitudinal; Wave I data collection took place from 1987 to 1988. In Wave I, 

information about the primary respondent for each family was collected using 

a combination of personal interviews and self-administered questionnaires. A 

shorter self-administered questionnaire was also given to the primary 

respondent’s spouse/partner. In addition information about one focal child (if 

there were any children in the family) was collected from the primary 

respondent. The Wave II, Five-Year Follow-Up was conducted from 1992 to 

1994. In Wave II, personal interviews were conducted with the original 

respondent and his or her partner. Telephone interviews were conducted with 

the focal child and a randomly-selected parent of the original respondent. For 

original respondents with focal children ages 18 to 33 in 2001 – 2002, the 

NSFH Wave III Follow-Up will include telephone interviews with primary 

respondents, their spouses or cohabiting partners, and the eligible focal 

children. For original respondents without focal children ages 18 to 33 in 

2001-2002, the Wave III Follow-Up will include only telephone interviews 

with primary respondents who are ages 45 or older and their 

spouses/cohabiting partners. 

Population: The NSFH is representative of the U.S. population of noninstitutionalized 

adults ages 19 and older who were able to be interviewed in either English or 

Spanish. Persons under the age of 19 were ineligible to be interviewed unless 

they were currently married or no one in the household was over age 19. 

Sample Selection and 

Description: 

Wave I consisted of a nationally-representative sample of 13,007 primary 

respondents, representing 9,637 households. The survey over-sampled 

minorities, single-parent families, parents with step-children, cohabiting 

persons and recently married persons. The sample size for Wave II was 

10,008. 

Website: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/nsfh/home.htm 

Unit of Analysis: For this report, the individual adult respondent 

Estimate Restrictions: Estimates based on row sizes less than 20 are not reported. 

Age of Respondent: Primary respondent was 19 years old or older, cohabiter/spouse age was not 

limited. 

Age of Child: At Wave I - 0 to18 years old 

At Wave II - only those 10 to 17 years old (short focal interview) or 18 to 23 

years old (full focal interview) 

Unique Demographic Descriptions: 

Parental Status - Parent is defined as an adult having one or more of their own children, under 

age 18, living in the household. An individual who has had a child but is not 
DataDictionary Charting Parenthood 2002

114 

currently living with a child would be classified as nonparent. 

Family Structure - Presented in terms of the number of parents living in the household with the 

child. 

Poverty - The Poverty threshold is computed only if the primary respondent is the 

householder or spouse/partner of the householder. In Wave I published 

poverty thresholds for 1984 were used and adjusted to 1986 dollars [adjusting 

for the increase in the CPI]. For Wave II 1992 CPS data was used. Cohabiting 

couple households were treated in exactly the same way as married couple 

households in computing the poverty threshold. 

Employment - Employment was coded as standard occupation codes with some additions for 

military. The initial code structure tied employment to number of hours 

working per the last week before the interview as the entrée into employment 

status. 

Cohabitation - A respondent is considered to be “cohabiting” if they are living together with a 

partner and are not married to that partner. 

Significance Level: All statements discussed in the text are significant at the .05 level, using twotailed t-tests. 

Indicators: P11 - Conflict Between Parents and Adolescents 

P18 - Encouragement of Children’s School Achievement 

FF7 - Age at First Cohabitation 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Data Dictionary

 115 

National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) 

Name: National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) 

Funder(s): For Cycle 5: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) - Office 

of Population Affairs, Office of the Secretary, and the Children’s Bureau, 

Administration for Children and Families (ACF); Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC) - National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and 

National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHSTP); National 

Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute for Child Health and Human 

Development (NICHD). 

For Cycle 6: Funders included those listed above as well as the CDC –

Division of Reproductive Health (DRH) and the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (OASPE). 

Principal Investigator: William Mosher, National Center for Health Statistics 

General Description: The NSFG was primarily designed to provide national information on 

childbearing, factors which affect childbearing, and related aspects of maternal 

and child health, particularly marriage, divorce, contraception, and infertility. 

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; 

mode of administration): 

Cross-sectional; Survey conducted in 1973, 1976, 1982, 1988, and 1995. 

Personal interviews were conducted in the homes of a national sample of 

women (ages 15 to 44). In 2002 the NSFG will be conducted again, this time 

interviewing both men and women ages 15 to 44. Questionnaires for men and 

women will be similar but not identical. The interview will include a selfadministered section done on laptop computers. 

Population: The NSFG is representative of the civilian, non-institutionalized population of 

the U.S. 

Sample Selection and 

Description: 

10,847 women were included in the 1995 sample. In 2002, up to 19,000 

interviews will be conducted (including both men and women). The 1995 

survey over-sampled for black and Latino women. 

Website: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg.htm 

Unit of Analysis: Adult 

Estimate Restrictions: Estimates based on a denominator less than 100 are not reported. In these 

tables, no denominators are smaller than 100, so no cells are suppressed. 

Age of Respondent: Interviewed women ages 15 to 44 of all marital statuses. 

Unique Demographic Descriptions: 

Parental Status - Women are coded as parent if they had ever had a live birth by the time of the 

interview and coded as nonparent otherwise. 

Significance Level: All statements discussed in the text are significant at the .05 level, using twotailed t-tests. 

Indicators: F7 - Characteristics of Sexual Partner 
DataDictionary Charting Parenthood 2002

116 

Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) 

Name: Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) – Child Development Supplement 

(CDS) 

Funder(s): Original funding agency: Office of Economic Opportunity of the U.S. 

Department of Commerce. Current major funding source: National Science 

Foundation. Additional funders: the National Institute on Aging, the National 

Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the 

U.S. Department of Labor. 

Principal Investigator: Frank Stafford, Jacquelyn S. Eccles, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Hiromi Ono; 

Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan 

General Description: The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) emphasizes the dynamic aspects 

of economic and demographic behavior. The Child Development Supplement, 

which was used for this report, aims to provide comprehensive data on children 

and their families with which to study the dynamic process of early human 

capital formation. 

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; 

mode of administration): 

Longitudinal; The data were collected annually from 1968 to 1997, and 

biennially starting in 1999. Information on 0 to 12 year old children was 

collected from the parents, teachers, and from the children themselves in 1997. 

The Child Development Supplement provides data on parents and their 0- to 

12-year-old children, http://www.isr.umich.edu/src/childdevelopment/home.html#A 

Population: The PSID reports on a representative sample of U.S. individuals (men, women, 

and children) and the family units in which they reside. 

Sample Selection and 

Description: 

Based on a probability sample of about 4,800 households, a combination of a 

cross-section of about 3,000 families selected from the Survey Research 

Center's master sampling frame and a subsample of about 2,000 families from 

the Census Bureau's Survey of Economic Opportunity. If the family has a 

child age twelve or younger, the entire PSID Household Unit was eligible for 

the Child Development Supplement. The Supplement had a sample of 2,394 

child households and about 3,600 children. The data collection includes the 

following: (1) reliable, age graded assessments of the cognitive, behavioral, 

and health status of 3,563 children (including about 329 immigrant children), 

obtained from the mother, a second caregiver, an absent parent, the teacher, the 

school administrator, and the child; (2) a comprehensive accounting of parental 

and caregiver time inputs to children as well as other aspects of the way 

children and adolescents spend their time; (3) teacher-reported time use in 

elementary and preschool programs; and (4) other-than-time use measures of 

other resources for example, the learning environment in the home, teacher and 

administrator reports of school resources, and decennial-census-based 

measurement of neighborhood resources. 

Website: http://www.isr.umich.edu/src/psid/ 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Data Dictionary

 117 

Unit of Analysis: P4 - All children ages 0-12 P6 - All children ages 0-12 

P7 - All children ages 3-12 P8 - All children ages 0-12 

P10 - All children ages 0-12 P14 – All children ages 0-12 

P15 - All children ages 3-12 

Estimate Restrictions: Estimates based on row sizes less than 20 are not reported. 

Age of Respondent: 18 to 65 years old 

Age of Child: 0 to 12 years old. Age of child calculated based on months. 

Unique Demographic Descriptions: 

Parental Status - Parent is defined as an adult having one or more of their own children under 

age 12 living in the household. An individual who has had a child but is not 

currently living with a child would be classified as nonparent. 

Family Structure - Questions were asked of resident parents only. Family structure reflects the 

living arrangements the child, not the biological relationship to the child. For 

most indicators, the number of “father only” families was too small to report 

and are therefore not shown in the tables. 

Poverty - Poverty status based on income in the previous year. 

Employment - Employment status based on average hours worked over the last year. Due to 

the limited number of cases mothers and fathers who were working are not 

broken into “less than 35 hours per week” and “35 hours per week or more.” 

Significance Level: All statements discussed in the text are significant at the .05 level, using twotailed t-tests. 

Indicators: P4 - Parents’ Beliefs About Raising Children 

P6 - Parents’ Responsibility For Children 

P7 - Limit Setting 

P8 - Conflict Resolution Styles in Families 

P10 - Warmth and Affection 

P14 - Time Spent With Children 

P15 - Parents’ Activities With Children 
DataDictionary Charting Parenthood 2002

118 

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) 

Name: Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) 

Funder(s): U.S. Bureau of the Census 

Principal Investigator: U.S. Bureau of the Census 

General Description: The Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) is a major source of 

information on the economic and demographic situation of persons and 

families in the U.S. 

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; 

mode of administration): 

Longitudinal; This is a continuous survey in which overlapping panels are 

added and existing panels are rotated out after completing their period of 

approximately two and a half to four years in the sample. From 1984 to 1993 

the duration for each panel was approximately two and a half years. In 1996 a 

four year panel was introduced. In general each assigned household is 

interviewed once every four months and the reference period is the preceding 

four months. The four-month period of interviewing that it takes to give the 

entire panel the same interview schedule is called a wave. Beginning in 

February 1992, Waves 1, 2, and 6 are personal interviews, but Waves 3, 4, 5, 7, 

and 8 are conducted by telephone. In addition to the core section, several 

“topical modules” are included. Topics covered by theses modules include 

personal history, child care, wealth, program eligibility, child support, 

disability, school enrollment, taxes, and annual income. 

Population: The SIPP represents the non-institutionalized civilian population (adults 15 

years or older). 

Sample Selection and 

Description: 

Multi-staged stratified sample. Sample size ranges from approximately 14,000 

to 36,700 interviewed households. The survey over-sampled for blacks, 

Hispanics and women with no spouse present and living with relatives. 

Households under 150% of the poverty level were also over-sampled. 

In this report estimates are provided from the two topical modules: Child Care 

and Personal History. The Child Care Topical Module is asked of respondents 

who are the designated parents or guardians of children under age 15 who are 

living in the household. The Child Care Topical Module is asked of every 

panel. The Personal History Topical Module consists of eight submodules, of 

which one is reported in this book marital history. The Personal History 

Topical Module is asked of all persons age 15 years and older in the 

household. This module is asked once in every panel. 

Website: http://www.sipp.census.gov/sipp/ 

Unit of Analysis: Indicators FF1, FF2, FF3 – Adult 

Indicator P13 – Child. For this indicator all demographic information is based 

on Wave 2 of 1996 SIPP data. Since the information on child care was 

collected during the Wave 4, there is an 8 months difference between the 

demographic data and child care data. In particular, residential status of 

parents may have changed between the two waves but households were 

classified into two-parent families or single-parent families based on the 

residential status of parents at Wave 2. 

Estimate Restrictions: Estimates based on weighted cell sizes less than 20 are not reported. 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Data Dictionary

 119 

Age of Respondent: All household members 15 years old and over are interviewed by selfresponse, if possible; proxy response is permitted when household members 

are not available for interviewing. In this report, estimates are restricted to 

those respondents 18 years or older. 

Age of Child: P13 - Direct Care by Fathers indicator is based on children ages 0 to 5 years 

old. 
DataDictionary Charting Parenthood 2002

120 

Unique Demographic Descriptions: 

Parental Status 

 

Parent is defined as an adult living with one or more of their own children 

under age 18. An individual who has had a child but is not currently living 

with a child would be classified as nonparent. 

Significance Level: All statements discussed in the text are significant at the .05 level, using twotailed t-tests. 

Indicators: P13 - Direct Care by Fathers 

FF1 - Marriage 

FF2 - Divorce 

FF3 - Age at First Marriage and Divorce 
Charting Parenthood 2002 Data Dictionary

 121 

Vital Statistics 

Name: Vital Statistics 

Funder(s): National Center for Health Statistics, Division of Vital Statistics; U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Principal Investigator: National Center for Health Statistics 

General Description: Vital Statistics is a major collection of data at the federal, state, and sub-state 

levels of births and deaths from the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

Design (cross-sectional vs. 

longitudinal; periodicity; 

mode of administration): 

Data collection is continuous. Data is collected via birth, death, and fetal death 

records. All certificates are collected from the 50 states and the District of 

Columbia and reported to the Division of Vital Statistics. Monthly and annual 

reports of provisional data and annual and special subject reports based on final 

data are issued. All states have been included in the birth registration area 

since 1933. 

Population: All certificates are collected from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 

the territories, and reported to the Division of Vital Statistics. 

Sample Selection and 

Description: 

Not applicable 

Website: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm 

Unit of Analysis: Individual 

Estimate Restrictions: Not applicable. Data are collected from actual records. 

Age of Respondent: Records are included for all persons who have had a child. 

Significance Level: All statements discussed in the text are significant at the .05 level, using twotailed t-tests. 

Indicators: F1 Birth Rates 
122 
Appendix B: 

Who is a Parent? – Data Tables 
124
125

Males Females

 Total 65 74

Race and Hispanic Origin1 

White non-Hispanic 65 74

Black non-Hispanic 65 76

Hispanic 68 79

Other non-Hispanic 61 69

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 57 77

Extreme Poverty (less than 50%) 49 70

Nonpoor

100 to 199% of poverty 68 81

200 to 299% of poverty 67 78

300% or more of poverty 66 70

Marital Status 

Currently married 84 85

Not currently married 36 61

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 14 31

25 to 44 years old 62 74

45 years and older 84 86

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 69 85

High school diploma or GED 67 81

Vocational/technical or some college 60 70

College graduate 66 62

Employment

Not working last week 68 82

Less than 35 hours last week 51 71

35 hours or more last week 66 67

Source: Original analysis by Child Trends of 2000 National Health Interview Survey data 

1

 Estimates for all race categories exclude persons of Hispanic origin. Persons of Hispanic origin may 

be of any race.

Table 1 Percentage of adults who have ever had a biological child: 2000
126

Males Females

 Total 38 45

Race and Hispanic Origin1 

White non-Hispanic 37 41

Black non-Hispanic 34 51

Hispanic 47 61

Asian/Pacific Islander 45 53

American Indian/Alaskan Native 36 50

Poverty Status2

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 34 45

Extreme Poverty (at 50% or less) 31 48

Nonpoor

100 to 199% of poverty 37 44

200 to 299% of poverty 39 46

300% or more of poverty 38 44

Marital Status 

Not currently married 11 29

Currently married 54 56

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 9 24

25 to 44 yearsold 51 68

45 years and older 34 31

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 33 44

High school diploma or GED 38 46

Vocational/technical or some college 36 45

College graduate 42 44

Employment

Not in labor force 17 37

Looking for work 32 53

Less than 35 hours per week 17 49

35 hours or more per week 48 50

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 2001 Current Population 

Survey, March Supplement

1

 Estimates for all race categories exclude persons of Hispanic origin. Persons of Hispanic origin may 

be of any race.

2 Income and poverty status is based on data from the previous year 

Table 2 Percentage of adults living with one or more of their own children 

under age 18: 2001
Appendix C: 

Parenting Section – Data Tables 
128
129

1988 1994 1988 1994

Total 25 21 28 18

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 25 21 28 17

Black non-Hispanic 21 24 23 19

Hispanic 22 26 37 20

Asian/Pacific Islander * * * *

American Indian/Alaskan Native 28 * 18 17

Poverty Status

Poor 34 na 34 na

Borderline poor

2 42 na 35 na

Non-poor 24 na 27 na

Marital Status 

Currently married 30 24 25 17

Not currently married 20 19 30 19

Parental Status 

Parent 32 28 32 21

Non-parent 12 9 16 9

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 10 11 16 15

25 to 44 years old 17 16 20 11

45 to 65 years old 40 29 38 25

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 43 41 44 38

High school diploma or GED 21 20 26 17

Vocational/technical or some college 20 12 27 12

College graduate 16 13 11 7

Employment Status

Not in labor force 42 33 34 30

Looking for work * 8 * 20

Less than 35 hours per week 18 17 24 16

35 hours or more per week 19 19 23 8

Note: Scores based on three categories - Strongly Agree or Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, and Disagree or Strongly Disagree. 1

Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

2

Since GSS respondents reported their income in categories, it was unclear whether some respondents' incomes 

 fell above or below the poverty threshhold. These cases were designated "borderline poor". 

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

na = data not available

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1988 and 1994 General Social Surveys.

Males Females

Table P1.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who either agree or strongly agree that people who have never had 

children lead empty lives: 1988 & 1994
130

Males Females

Total 43 45

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 43 46

Black non-Hispanic 49 44

Hispanic 46 45

Asian/Pacific Islander * *

American Indian/Alaskan Native 33 30

Poverty Status

Poor 51 48

Borderline poor2 54 59

Nonpoor 42 44

Marital Status 

Currently married 49 46

Not Currently Married 38 45

Parental Status 

Parent 52 49

Nonparent 28 30

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 35 41

25 to 44 years old 33 35

45 to 65 years old 59 55

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 53 56

High school diploma or GED 45 44

Vocational/technical or some college 34 39

College graduate 33 34

Employment Status

Not in labor force 55 53

Looking for work * *

Less than 35 hours per week 46 44

35 hours or more per week 38 37

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

2

Since GSS respondents reported their income in categories, it was unclear whether some 

respondents' incomes fell above or below the poverty threshhold. These cases were designated 

"borderline poor."

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1988 General Social 

Survey.

Table P1.2 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who either agree or strongly 

agree that a marriage without children is not fully complete: 1988

Note: Scores based on three categories - Strongly Agree or Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, and 

Disagree or Strongly Disagree.

1

Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may 

be of any race.
131

1988 1994 1988 1994

Total 84 78 88 83

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 83 77 87 81

Black non-Hispanic 86 85 89 87

Hispanic 81 73 91 90

Asian/Pacific Islander * * * *

American Indian/Alaskan Native 98 * 87 96

Poverty Status

Poor 88 na 94 na

Borderline poor

2 88 na 82 na

Nonpoor 84 na 87 na

Marital Status 

Currently married 90 83 88 87

Not Currently Married 78 74 88 80

Parental Status 

Parent 90 87 91 89

Nonparent 73 62 77 61

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 77 82 88 89

25 to 44 years old 85 76 87 80

45 to 65 years old 85 81 89 84

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 89 86 92 94

High school diploma or GED 86 79 89 87

Vocational/technical or some college 76 76 95 91

College graduate 78 71 75 62

Employment Status

Not in labor force 87 86 91 91

Looking for work * 87 * 87

Less than 35 hours per week 75 71 88 79

35 hours or more per week 84 76 85 76

1

Estimates for all rece categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

2

Since GSS respondents reported their income in categories, it was unclear whether some respondents' incomes 

 fell above or below the poverty threshhold. These cases were designated "borderline poor." 

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

na = data not available

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1988 and 1994 General Social Surveys.

Males Females

Table P2.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who either agree or strongly agree that watching 

children grow up is life's greatest joy: 1988 & 1994

Note: Scores based on three categories - Strongly Agree or Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, and Disagree or Strongly Disagree.
132

Males Females

Total 5 4

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 5 4

Black non-Hispanic 1 1

Hispanic 17 10

Asian/Pacific Islander * *

American Indian/Alaskan Native 3 0

Poverty Status

Poor 9 5

Borderline poor2 8 7

Nonpoor 5 4

Marital Status 

Currently married 3 3

Not Currently Married 8 5

Parental Status 

Parent 5 4

Nonparent 6 5

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 6 5

25 to 44 years old 4 2

45 to 65 years old 7 6

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 16 7

High school diploma or GED 3 3

Vocational/technical or some college 0 16

College graduate 2 2

Employment Status

Not in labor force 8 5

Looking for work * *

Less than 35 hours per week 8 2

35 hours or more per week 4 4

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

2

Since GSS respondents reported their income in categories, it was unclear whether some 

respondents' incomes fell above or below the poverty threshhold. These cases were designated 

"borderline poor." 

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1988 General Social 

Survey.

Table P2.2 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who either agree or strongly 

agree that it is better not to have children because they are such a heavy 

financial burden: 1988

Note: Scores based on three categories - Strongly Agree or Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, and 

Disagree or Strongly Disagree.

1

Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may 

be of any race.
133

Males Females

Total 26 42

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 25 38

Black non-Hispanic 35 64

Hispanic 29 61

Asian/Pacific Islander * *

American Indian/Alaskan Native * 58

Poverty Status

Poor na na

Borderline poor na na

Nonpoor na na

Marital Status 

Currently married 20 37

Not Currently Married 32 46

Parental Status 

Parent 25 44

Nonparent 27 39

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 34 66

25 to 44 years old 32 51

45 to 65 years old 18 32

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 23 44

High school diploma or GED 28 45

Vocational/technical or some college 32 49

College graduate 24 33

Employment Status

Not in labor force 22 35

Looking for work 32 66

Less than 35 hours per week 23 51

35 hours or more per week 27 45

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

na = data not available

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1994 General Social 

Survey.

Table P3.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who either agree or strongly 

agree that one parent can bring up a child as well as two parents together: 

1994

Note: Scores based on three categories - Strongly Agree or Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, and 

Disagree or Strongly Disagree.

1

Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may 

be of any race.
134

Obey Be Liked

Think for 

Oneself

Work 

Hard

Help 

Others 

in Need Obey Be Liked

Think for 

Oneself

Work 

Hard

Help 

Others 

in Need

Total 21 1 52 18 7 17 1 59 13 10

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 16 1 59 17 7 10 0 68 11 11

Black non-Hispanic 28 0 40 26 6 31 0 41 22 5

Hispanic 50 9 18 13 11 43 9 29 8 11

Other 35 0 29 26 10 18 2 54 18 8

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 44 5 20 17 13 28 2 42 17 11

Extreme Poverty (at 50% or less) 37 10 14 17 21 32 1 39 12 16

Nonpoor 18 1 56 18 7 15 1 63 11 10

100% to 199% of poverty 28 4 39 18 12 24 1 53 13 9

200% to 299% of poverty 16 0 55 23 5 19 2 59 9 11

300% or more of poverty 15 0 64 16 5 8 1 70 12 10

Family Structure

Two parents 21 1 52 18 7 17 1 59 11 11

Both biological and/or adoptive 20 1 53 18 7 16 1 60 12 11

Mother only - - - - - 19 1 56 17 7

Age of Child's Mother in Household

18 to 24 years old 16 0 26 42 16 23 1 37 16 22

25 to 44 years old 21 1 53 17 7 16 1 61 13 9

45 to 65 years old 11 0 73 12 4 6 0 67 10 18

Age of Child's Father in Household

18 to 24 years old 26 0 36 33 4 22 0 53 10 15

25 to 44 years old 22 1 53 18 7 16 2 60 12 11

45 to 65 years old 15 0 61 13 11 14 0 69 9 8

Educational Attainment of Child's 

Mother in Household

Less than high school 40 6 21 22 11 34 5 35 12 14

High school diploma or GED 24 0 47 22 6 18 1 53 16 12

Vocational/technical or some college 19 1 56 15 8 13 1 67 13 8

College graduate 11 0 71 13 6 8 0 74 10 9

Educational Attainment of Child's 

Father in Household

Less than high school 36 5 27 22 9 30 7 42 12 9

High school diploma or GED 26 0 44 22 7 20 1 52 13 14

Vocational/technical or some college 15 0 60 17 8 11 0 67 10 12

College graduate 13 0 68 13 6 9 0 72 11 8

Employment Status of Child's Mother 

in Household

Not in labor force 27 1 48 12 12 20 3 52 11 14

Looking for work 27 8 25 37 4 29 6 47 7 12

Working 17 1 57 20 5 13 0 65 14 8

Employment Status of Child's Father in 

Household

Not in labor force 28 0 36 29 7 14 0 56 20 10

Looking for work 42 0 30 7 21 12 3 65 7 13

Working 20 1 55 18 7 16 1 61 11 10

1

Estimates for whites and blacks exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Estimates supplied by Sandra Hofferth, Univeristy of Maryland, based on data from the 1997 Panel Study of Income Dynamics - Child Development Supplement

Fathers Mothers

Table P4.1 Percentage of parents who reported various qualities as the most important for their child (under age 13) to learn to prepare 

him/her for life: 1997
135

1986 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000

Total 84 81 83 82 78 73 78 73 77 79Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 84 80 83 82 75 73 76 73 75 79Black non-Hispanic 80 93 80 93 91 80 90 82 90 87Hispanic 80 * * * * * 79 55 75 69Asian/Pacific Islander * * * * * * * * 72 *American Indian/Alaskan Native * 81 * * * * * 75 84 91

Poverty Status

Poor 84 76 80 79 80 69 na na na naBorderline poor2 * * * * * * na na na na

Nonpoor 83 81 82 82 78 74 na na na na

Marital Status 

Currently married 86 86 82 82 82 74 78 75 78 78Not currently married 81 77 83 82 74 72 78 72 76 79

Parental Status 

Parent 82 84 82 84 83 76 80 74 78 79Nonparent 87 77 83 80 70 69 76 71 75 79

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 83 71 85 76 73 67 58 69 79 7925 to 44 years old 84 81 81 81 75 74 79 73 76 7645 to 65 years Old 83 84 83 86 82 73 81 74 77 81

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 83 85 80 87 80 74 78 77 85 87High school diploma or GED 84 82 85 86 79 76 81 75 79 82Vocational/technical or some college 78 88 * 81 81 82 86 72 75 88College graduate 83 76 78 74 70 66 72 68 69 66

Employment Status

Not in labor force 86 81 83 82 82 75 76 73 77 77Looking for work 72 72 76 72 58 66 73 67 71 85Less than 35 hours per week * * * * * 74 95 76 71 7335 hours or more per week 81 82 84 86 75 71 83 76 77 84

Note: Scores based on two categories: Strongly Agree or Agree, and Disagree or Strongly Disagree.

1Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.2Since GSS respondents reported their income in categories, it was unclear whether some respondents' incomes fell above or below the poverty threshhold. These cases were designated "borderline poor." 

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.na = data not availableSource: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1986 and 1988 to 2000 General Social Surveys.

Males

Table P5.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who either agree or strongly agree that it is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good, hard spanking: selected years: 1986 and 1988-2000
136

1986 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000

Total 82 76 75 77 69 72 69 70 69 71Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 80 74 72 74 64 69 66 67 66 67Black non-Hispanic 92 88 88 93 84 88 87 84 82 84Hispanic 81 77 86 * 83 66 65 67 73 76Asian/Pacific Islander * * * * * * * * 55 62American Indian/Alaskan Native 92 85 * * * 69 65 81 76 78

Poverty Status

Poor 87 77 81 81 77 76 na na na naBorderline poor2 77 81 90 80 86 85 na na na na

Nonpoor 81 76 73 76 65 70 na na na na

Marital Status 

Currently married 82 77 71 74 72 72 68 70 71 70Not currently married 82 76 77 78 67 71 69 71 67 72

Parental Status 

Parent 84 77 76 77 71 73 70 71 70 73Nonparent 75 73 71 75 61 68 65 68 65 64

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 86 75 68 70 72 72 65 60 71 6725 to 44 years old 81 76 73 78 69 72 69 70 67 7345 to 65 years Old 82 77 77 77 68 72 69 72 70 70

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 86 85 80 84 80 83 77 82 77 80High school diploma or GED 81 77 76 77 69 71 73 71 69 75Vocational/technical or some college * 68 69 73 69 70 69 71 73 73College graduate 76 61 63 69 53 63 54 58 61 55

Employment Status

Not in labor force 81 79 75 81 68 68 70 70 67 72Looking for work 89 71 67 68 66 65 55 66 59 67Less than 35 hours per week * * * * * * 64 64 * 71

35 hours or more per week 82 75 76 75 70 75 72 72 73 72

Note: Scores based on two categories: Strongly Agree or Agree, and Disagree or Strongly Disagree.

1Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.2Since GSS respondents reported their income in categories, it was unclear whether some respondents' incomes fell above or below the poverty threshhold. These cases were designated "borderline poor." 

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.na = data not availableSource: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1986 and 1988 to 2000 General Social Surveys.

Females

Table P5.1 (con't) Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who either agree or strongly agree that it is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good, hard spanking: selected years: 1986 and 1988-2000
137

Someone Else

Shared 

Responsibility

Father-Only 

Responsibility Someone Else

Shared 

Responsibility

Mother-Only 

Responsibility

Total 4 91 6 2 77 20

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 4 94 2 1 84 15

Black non-Hispanic 10 86 5 4 60 36

Hispanic 0 70 30 8 57 34

Other 2 86 12 2 76 22

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 1 84 15 4 58 38

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 3 82 14 2 61 37

Nonpoor 4 92 4 2 82 16

100% to 199% of poverty 4 87 9 3 71 26

200% to 299% of poverty 7 87 6 1 80 19

300% or more of poverty 3 96 1 1 88 10

Family Structure

Two parents 3 91 5 2 85 13

Both biological and/or adoptive 3 91 5 2 86 12

Mother only - - - 2 46 52

Age of Child's Mother in Household

18 to 24 years old 5 91 5 1 70 29

25 to 44 years old 4 91 5 2 80 18

45 to 65 years old 5 92 3 2 69 29

Age of Child's Father in Household

18 to 24 years old 1 90 10 3 86 10

25 to 44 years old 3 92 5 2 87 11

45 to 65 years old 10 84 6 3 74 23

Educational Attainment of Child's 

Mother in Household

Less than high school 5 73 22 5 63 31

High school diploma or GED 5 90 5 2 78 20

Vocational/technical or some college 1 97 2 1 79 20

College graduate 3 95 2 1 87 12

Educational Attainment of Child's 

Father in Household

Less than high school 8 73 19 8 71 21

High school diploma or GED 3 94 2 1 86 12

Vocational/technical or some college 1 94 5 2 86 12

College graduate 4 94 2 1 89 11

Employment Status of Child's Mother 

in Household

Not in labor force 3 89 8 2 80 18

Looking for work 10 75 15 3 50 47

Working 4 94 3 2 80 18

Employment Status of Child's Father in 

Household

Not in labor force 21 74 4 0 75 24

Looking for work 0 90 10 2 70 28

Working 3 92 5 2 86 12

1

Estimates for whites and blacks exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Estimates supplied by Sandra Hofferth, Univeristy of Maryland, based on data from the 1997 Panel Study of Income Dynamics - Child Development Supplement

Fathers Mothers

Table P6.1 Percentage of parents who reported particular responsibility for playing with their child(ren) (under age 13): 1997
138

Someone Else

Shared 

Responsibility

Father-Only 

Responsibility Someone Else

Shared 

Responsibility

Mother-Only 

Responsibility

Total 3 89 8 2 70 28

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 3 94 3 1 79 21

Black non-Hispanic 6 84 10 3 42 55

Hispanic 1 67 32 4 60 36

Other 4 73 23 4 61 35

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 3 79 18 2 43 55

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 0 85 15 1 37 62

Nonpoor 3 90 7 1 77 22

100% to 199% of poverty 1 84 15 2 63 35

200% to 299% of poverty 6 89 5 2 75 24

300% or more of poverty 3 94 3 1 85 14

Family Structure

Two parents 3 89 8 2 83 15

Both biological and/or adoptive 2 90 8 2 85 14

Mother only - - - 1 19 81

Age of Child's Mother in Household

18 to 24 years old 7 90 2 2 61 37

25 to 44 years old 3 89 8 1 73 25

45 to 65 years old 1 96 3 0 60 40

Age of Child's Father in Household

18 to 24 years old 0 99 1 3 76 20

25 to 44 years old 3 90 7 1 86 13

45 to 65 years old 0 91 9 3 71 26

Educational Attainment of Child's 

Mother in Household

Less than high school 5 73 22 3 55 42

High school diploma or GED 3 88 9 2 67 31

Vocational/technical or some college 3 92 4 1 72 27

College graduate 2 96 2 0 85 15

Educational Attainment of Child's 

Father in Household

Less than high school 3 76 21 4 64 32

High school diploma or GED 1 92 7 1 86 12

Vocational/technical or some college 3 94 3 1 86 13

College graduate 4 92 4 1 89 11

Employment Status of Child's Mother 

in Household

Not in labor force 3 87 10 1 74 25

Looking for work 0 82 18 6 44 50

Working 3 92 5 1 73 26

Employment Status of Child's Father in 

Household

Not in labor force 1 82 17 0 79 21

Looking for work 0 86 14 1 72 27

Working 3 91 7 2 85 14

1

Estimates for whites and blacks exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Estimates supplied by Sandra Hofferth, Univeristy of Maryland, based on data from the 1997 Panel Study of Income Dynamics - Child Development Supplement

Fathers Mothers

Table P6.2 Percentage of parents who reported particular responsibility for disciplining their child(ren) (under age 13): 1997
139

Someone Else

Shared 

Responsibility

Father-Only 

Responsibility Someone Else

Shared 

Responsibility

Mother-Only 

Responsibility

Total 34 60 7 2 38 60

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 37 60 3 1 43 56

Black non-Hispanic 41 54 5 3 18 79

Hispanic 17 60 23 3 29 68

Other 15 61 24 3 42 54

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 24 59 17 3 18 78

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 23 56 21 3 22 75

Nonpoor 35 60 5 2 42 56

100% to 199% of poverty 34 55 11 3 32 65

200% to 299% of poverty 34 59 7 2 34 64

300% or more of poverty 36 62 2 1 51 48

Family Structure

Two parents 34 60 6 2 46 53

Both biological and/or adoptive 33 61 6 2 47 51

Mother only - - - 2 6 92

Age of Child's Mother in Household

18 to 24 years old 28 65 8 1 30 69

25 to 44 years old 34 59 6 1 39 60

45 to 65 years old 41 58 1 5 39 56

Age of Child's Father in Household

18 to 24 years old 20 76 4 3 38 59

25 to 44 years old 34 60 6 1 48 51

45 to 65 years old 37 58 6 4 40 57

Educational Attainment of Child's 

Mother in Household

Less than high school 24 54 22 1 21 78

High school diploma or GED 33 59 7 1 37 62

Vocational/technical or some college 37 60 3 2 41 57

College graduate 38 62 1 1 47 52

Educational Attainment of Child's 

Father in Household

Less than high school 31 54 15 3 31 66

High school diploma or GED 33 58 8 1 46 53

Vocational/technical or some college 35 62 3 2 41 57

College graduate 35 63 2 1 56 43

Employment Status of Child's Mother 

in Household

Not in labor force 32 57 10 1 39 60

Looking for work 37 53 10 2 18 81

Working 35 61 4 2 40 58

Employment Status of Child's Father in 

Household

Not in labor force 34 46 21 6 35 59

Looking for work 38 41 22 0 30 70

Working 34 61 5 1 48 51

1

Estimates for whites and blacks exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Estimates supplied by Sandra Hofferth, Univeristy of Maryland, based on data from the 1997 Panel Study of Income Dynamics - Child Development Supplement

Fathers Mothers

Table P6.3 Percentage of parents who reported particular responsibility for selecting a child care program, preschool, or school for their 

child(ren) (under age 13): 1997
140

How much time 

their children can 

watch TV in a 

day 

What TV 

programs their 

children watch

Who their 

children 

spend time 

with

How much time 

their children can 

watch TV in a day 

What TV 

programs their 

children watch

Who their 

children spend 

time with

Total 40 61 40 48 71 51

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 37 64 41 49 78 53

Black non-Hispanic 49 68 60 42 61 52

Hispanic 42 30 21 45 48 37

Other 50 65 38 49 58 49

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 41 48 34 46 59 47

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 52 45 34 51 59 49

Nonpoor 39 63 41 48 73 52

100% to 199% of poverty 35 59 48 45 66 54

200% to 299% of poverty 42 67 39 46 73 56

300% or more of poverty 40 63 39 50 77 49

Family Structure

Two parents 39 61 40 48 72 50

Both biological and/or adoptive 40 61 40 48 72 52

Mother only - - - 45 65 53

Age of Child's Mother in Household

18 to 24 years old 27 50 52 46 68 60

25 to 44 years old 40 61 40 48 71 51

45 to 65 years old 50 68 37 46 69 47

Age of Child's Father in Household

18 to 24 years old * * * * * *

25 to 44 years old 40 61 41 49 73 51

45 to 65 years old 47 67 41 47 69 55

Educational Attainment of Child's 

Mother in Household

Less than high school 33 45 27 44 56 38

High school diploma or GED 35 66 45 41 66 54

Vocational/technical or some college 39 56 44 47 76 55

College graduate 49 68 39 59 80 48

Educational Attainment of Child's 

Father in Household

Less than high school 42 45 28 40 56 50

High school diploma or GED 34 61 49 41 71 58

Vocational/technical or some college 42 68 38 51 76 52

College graduate 45 67 43 57 79 48

Employment Status of Child's Mother 

in Household

Not in labor force 47 61 47 54 74 59

Looking for work 36 41 38 51 57 48

Working 36 63 37 45 71 57

Employment Status of Child's Father in 

Household

Not in labor force 33 61 67 40 67 56

Looking for work 43 49 45 37 47 32

Working 41 62 40 50 74 52

Note: Scores based on two categories: 'very often' or 'often', and 'sometimes', 'seldom, or 'never'.

1

Estimates for whites and blacks exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

Source: Estimates supplied by Sandra Hofferth, Univeristy of Maryland, based on data from the 1997 Panel Study of Income Dynamics - Child Development Supplement

Fathers Mothers

Table P7.1 Percentage of parents who reported that they often or very often set various limits on their children's activities (children ages 3 

to 12): 1997
141

We Fight A Lot 

in Our Family

Family 

Members 

Hardly Ever 

Lose Temper

Family 

Members 

Always Calmly 

Discuss 

Problems

We Fight A Lot 

in Our Family

Family 

Members 

Hardly Ever 

Lose Temper

Family 

Members 

Always Calmly 

Discuss 

Problems

Total 12 44 56 12 46 52

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 11 45 51 13 44 43

Black non-Hispanic 8 33 61 7 35 65

Hispanic 20 57 78 21 66 76

Other 14 29 82 6 51 72

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 9 55 64 18 47 60

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 14 36 59 15 37 57

Nonpoor 12 43 55 11 45 50

100% to 199% of poverty 19 35 58 15 43 57

200% to 299% of poverty 11 40 55 10 44 55

300% or more of poverty 9 47 54 9 47 44

Family Structure

Two parents 12 44 56 12 48 51

Both biological and/or adoptive 11 45 57 12 48 51

Mother only - - - 13 38 55

Age of Child's Mother in Household

18 to 24 years old 18 49 59 19 48 52

25 to 44 years old 12 43 57 11 46 52

45 to 65 years old 4 45 41 13 48 46

Age of Child's Father in Household

18 to 24 years old 34 49 55 24 40 46

25 to 44 years old 12 42 57 12 48 53

45 to 65 years old 8 49 49 12 46 41

Educational Attainment of Child's 

Mother in Household

Less than high school 18 49 64 19 50 70

High school diploma or GED 9 37 53 11 47 51

Vocational/technical or some college 14 46 57 11 45 49

College graduate 8 46 56 8 44 46

Educational Attainment of Child's 

Father in Household

Less than high school 24 40 62 16 51 58

High school diploma or GED 10 42 56 15 48 50

Vocational/technical or some college 13 43 53 12 49 47

College graduate 8 47 56 8 45 51

Employment Status of Child's Mother 

in Household

Not in labor force 9 53 61 12 45 55

Looking for work 33 41 64 18 45 65

Working 11 38 53 11 46 49

Employment Status of Child's Father in 

Household

Not in labor force 9 24 51 26 39 26

Looking for work 27 27 70 40 48 55

Working 12 45 56 11 48 52

Note: Scores based on two categories: 'Completely agree' or 'agree', and 'Completely disagree' or 'disagree'.

1

Estimates for whites and blacks exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

Source: Estimates supplied by Sandra Hofferth, Univeristy of Maryland, based on data from the 1997 Panel Study of Income Dynamics - Child Development Supplement

Fathers Mothers

Table P8.1 Percentage of parents of children under age 13 who agree or completely agree with various statements about family conflict 

and various resolution styles: 1997
142 Resident 

Mom

Resident 

Dad

Nonresident 

Mom

Nonresident 

Dad

Resident 

Mom

Resident 

Dad

Nonnesident 

Mom

Nonresident 

Dad

Total 4.5 4.2 3.9 3.2 4.3 3.9 3.5 2.9Race/Ethnicity of Child1

White non-Hispanic 4.4 4.2 3.9 3.2 4.3 3.9 3.4 2.8Black non-Hispanic 4.7 4.2 4.1 3.2 4.4 3.8 3.7 3.0Hispanic 4.6 4.2 3.8 3.2 4.3 3.8 3.6 2.8Asian/Pacific Islander 4.4 4.1 3.6 3.5 4.0 3.8 3.9 3.2Other 4.3 4.1 * * 4.4 4.3 * 2.4

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 4.6 4.2 4.0 3.1 4.4 3.8 3.5 2.8

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 4.6 4.2 4.2 3.3 4.4 3.8 3.6 2.9

Nonpoor 4.4 4.2 3.8 3.2 4.3 3.9 3.5 2.8

100% to 199% of poverty 4.5 4.1 3.6 3.1 4.3 3.9 3.7 2.8200% to 299% of poverty 4.4 4.2 4.0 3.2 4.3 3.9 3.4 2.7300% or more of poverty 4.4 4.2 3.9 3.4 4.3 3.9 3.5 2.9

Family Structure

Two parents

Both biological and/or adoptive 4.4 4.3 * * 4.3 4.0 * *Biological mother and step father 4.6 3.6 - 3.2 4.4 3.5 - 2.7Biological father and step mother 3.4 4.4 3.8 - 3.7 4.2 3.3 -

Mother only 4.5 - * 3.1 4.4 - * 2.9Father only - 4.1 3.9 * - 3.8 3.3 *No parent/surrogate parents 4.5 4.2 4.0 3.3 4.3 3.8 3.7 3.0

Age of Child

Less than 15 years old 4.5 4.4 4.3 3.4 4.5 4.1 3.3 3.015 years and older 4.4 4.1 3.8 3.1 4.3 3.8 3.5 2.8Less than high school 4.5 4.1 3.8 3.1 4.3 3.9 3.7 2.9High school diploma or GED 4.5 4.2 4.0 3.1 4.4 3.9 3.4 2.9Vocational/technical or some college 4.5 4.2 3.7 3.2 4.3 3.9 3.4 2.7College graduate 4.4 4.2 4.0 3.4 4.3 3.9 3.5 2.9

Note: Closeness was reported on scale from 1 (not close at all) to 5 (extremely close).

1Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.Source: Estimates provided by Suzanne Ryan based on data from Wave I and Wave II of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.

Table P9.1 Degree of closeness child feels to parent (1-5 scale with 1 = not close at all and 5 = extremely close): 1996

Educational Attainment of BetterEducated Parent

Boys Girls
143

Hugged or 

showed 

physical 

affection to 

their children

Told their child 

that they love 

him/her 

Told their 

child that 

they 

appreciated 

something 

he or she did

Hugged or 

showed 

physical 

affection to 

their children

Told their 

child that 

they love 

him/her 

Told their 

child that 

they 

appreciated 

something 

he or she did

Total 73 62 37 87 85 55

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 76 65 36 93 91 56

Black non-Hispanic 56 45 40 75 76 56

Hispanic 73 63 41 81 77 52

Other 61 40 32 78 76 53

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 67 63 44 78 80 55

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 58 60 47 78 80 49

Nonpoor 74 61 36 90 87 55

100% to 199% of poverty 74 60 43 88 85 58

200% to 299% of poverty 73 58 32 86 86 53

300% or more of poverty 74 64 34 93 88 55

Family Structure

Two parents 73 62 37 89 86 55

Both biological and/or adoptive 75 63 37 89 86 55

Mother only - - - 81 83 56

Age of Child

0 to 2 years old 90 80 56 98 95 73

3 to 5 years old 84 69 44 93 91 66

6 to 9 years old 70 55 31 87 85 48

10 to 12 years old 50 45 17 74 72 39

Age of Child's Mother in Household

18 to 24 years old 88 82 55 94 93 70

25 to 44 years old 73 61 35 87 86 55

45 to 65 years old 57 47 27 77 65 37

Age of Child's Father in Household

18 to 24 years old 89 86 63 93 91 75

25 to 44 years old 74 61 36 89 87 55

45 to 65 years old 62 54 29 87 78 49

Educational Attainment of Child's 

Less than high school 67 58 45 75 75 46

High school diploma or GED 71 60 33 87 87 56

Vocational/technical or some college 76 63 35 91 90 60

College graduate 75 63 37 94 88 54

Educational Attainment of Child's 

Less than high school 68 63 38 86 82 55

High school diploma or GED 70 59 37 87 85 56

Vocational/technical or some college 75 63 37 90 87 52

College graduate 77 62 34 95 90 58

Employment Status of Child's Mother 

Not in labor force 78 67 44 86 82 57

Looking for work 49 31 21 81 80 59

Working 71 60 32 89 88 54

Employment Status of Child's Father in 

Household

Not in labor force 61 46 36 81 75 52

Looking for work 60 41 36 86 77 68

Working 74 62 36 90 87 55

1

Estimates for whites and blacks exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Estimates supplied by Sandra Hofferth, Univeristy of Maryland, based on data from the 1997 Panel Study of Income Dynamics - Child Development Supplement

Fathers Mothers

Table P10.1 Percentage of parents of children under age 13 who treated their children with various forms of warmth and 

affection every day in the past month: 1997
144

Monthly or 

Less Often

About Once 

a Week 

Several 

Times a 

Week or 

More

Monthly or 

Less Often

About Once 

a Week 

Several 

Times a 

Week or 

More

 Total 92 7 1 89 8 2

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 93 6 1 91 8 2

Black non-Hispanic 91 8 2 84 12 4

Hispanic 93 8 0 86 11 3

Asian/Pacific Islander * * * * * *

American Indian/Alaskan Native * * * * * *

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 92 8 0 87 10 4

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 86 14 0 84 10 6

Nonpoor 93 6 1 90 8 2

100% to 199% of poverty 96 3 1 89 9 2

200% to 299% of poverty 86 13 1 86 10 4

300% or more of poverty 94 5 1 92 7 1

Family Structure

Two parents 92 6 1 92 7 1

Single parent 93 7 0 84 12 4

Age of Parent

18 to 24 years old * * * * * *

25 to 44 years old 91 9 1 89 9 2

45 year and older 93 4 2 91 7 2

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 82 13 5 85 11 4

High school diploma or GED 94 6 0 88 9 3

Vocational/technical or some college 95 5 0 92 7 0

College graduate 93 6 1 94 4 2

Employment Status

Not in labor force 87 6 7 90 8 2

Looking for work * * * 92 7 2

Less than 35 hours per week 90 10 0 92 8 1

35 hours or more per week 93 7 1 88 9 3

Note: Response categories were combined as follows: 'Monthly or less often' reflects responses of "never or rarely" and "once a month or less"; 

 'About once a week' reflects responses of "several times a month" and "about once a week"; and 'Several times a week or more' 

 reflects responses of "several times a week" and "once a day."

1

Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

Source: Estimates supplied by R. Day, School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, based on data from the 1988 National Survey of Families and Households.

Fathers Mothers 

Table P11.1 Percentage of parents who had open disagreements with their child age 12 to 18 in the last 12 months about his 

or her friends, by frequency of disagreement: 1988
145

Monthly or 

Less Often

About Once 

a Week 

Several 

Times a 

Week or 

More

Monthly or 

Less Often

About Once 

a Week 

Several 

Times a 

Week or 

More

 Total 90 8 2 88 9 2

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 89 9 2 90 8 2

Black non-Hispanic 91 9 0 82 13 5

Hispanic 97 3 0 89 9 1

Asian/Pacific Islander * * * * * *

American Indian/Alaskan Native * * * * * *

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 96 4 0 83 14 3

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 93 7 0 77 18 5

Nonpoor 90 9 1 90 8 2

100% to 199% of poverty 96 4 0 89 9 2

200% to 299% of poverty 82 15 3 89 8 3

300% or more of poverty 91 9 1 90 8 2

Family Structure

Two parents 91 8 2 92 7 1

Single parent 80 20 0 78 17 5

Age of Parent

18 to 24 years old * * * * * *

25 to 44 years old 89 9 2 87 10 3

45 years and older 91 7 1 93 6 1

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 83 12 5 86 12 2

High school diploma or GED 89 10 1 89 9 3

Vocational/technical or some college 90 7 3 86 11 3

College graduate 93 6 1 97 3 0

Employment Status

Not in labor force 91 2 7 92 5 3

Looking for work * * * 84 15 2

Less than 35 hours per week 95 0 5 90 8 1

35 hours or more per week 89 9 1 87 11 3

Note: Response categories were combined as follows: 'Monthly or less often' reflects responses of "never or rarely" and "once a month or less"; 

 'About once a week' reflects responses of "several times a month" and "about once a week"; and 'Several times a week or more' reflects 

responses of "several times a week" and "once a day."

1

Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

Source: Estimates supplied by R. Day, School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, based on data from the 1988 National Survey of Families and Households.

Fathers Mothers 

Table P11.2 Percentage of parents who had open disagreements with their child age 12 to 18 in the last 12 months about how 

late children stay out at night, by frequency of disagreement: 1988
146

Fathers Mothers

 Total 3 6

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 2 4

Black non-Hispanic 7 18

Hispanic 5 4

Other * *

Annual Household Income

Less than $20,000 per year 3 10

$20,000 to $49,999 per year 3 4

$50,000 or more per year 2 4

Marital Status 

Currently married 2 3

Not currently married 6 10

Family Structure

Two parents 2 4

Single parent 7 9

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old * 8

25 to 44 years old 2 7

45 to 72 years old 5 1

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 0 9

High school diploma or GED 3 7

Vocational/technical or some college 2 6

College graduate 3 3

Employment Status

Not in labor force na na

Looking for work na na

Less than 35 hours per week na na

35 hours or more per week na na

na = data not available

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

1

Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may 

be of any race.

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1995 Gallup Child Abuse 

Survey.

Table P12.1 Percentage of parents who reported ever physically abusing 

their child: 1995

Note: Physical abuse measured by parent report of ever doing any of the following: hitting with fist

or kicking child, throwing or knocking child down, beating up child, or hitting with a hard object on 

some other part of the body besides the bottom, choking child, burning child, or using a knife or gun 

on child.
147

Boys Girls All Children

Total 19 18 18

Race and Hispanic Origin3

White non-Hispanic 22 20 21

Black non-Hispanic 11 10 10

Hispanic 16 15 15

Asian/Pacific Islander * * *

American Indian/Alaskan Native * * *

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 20 15 18

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 16 12 14

Nonpoor

100% to 199% of poverty 24 21 23

200% to 299% of poverty 24 23 23

300% or more of poverty 13 13 13

Family Structure

Two parents 23 22 23

Both biological and/or adoptive 23 22 23

Mother only 5 6 6

Father only * * *

Other 0 * 2

Educational Attainment of Child's Mother in 

Household

Less than high school 15 17 16

High school diploma or GED 20 18 19

Vocational/technical or some college 20 21 21

College graduate 20 17 18

Educational Attainment of Child's Father in 

Household

Less than high school 26 29 27

High school diploma or GED 23 25 24

Vocational/technical or some college 27 21 24

College graduate 18 17 18

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

Table P13.1 Percentage of children ages 0 to 5 whose father is the primary care provider while mother is 

working, looking for work, or attending school: 19961, 2

3 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Estimates supplied by S.Eshleman Systems Management, based on data from the 1996 Survey of Income Program Participation, Wave 4 - 

Topical Module 4

1 1996 SIPP, Wave 4, had a considerable number of imputed data. Imputed cases are excluded from the calculation of the percentages. 2 All demographic information is based on Wave 2 of 1996 SIPP data. Since the information on child care was collected during the Wave 4, there is 

an 8 months difference between the demographic data and child care data. In particular, residential status of parents may have changed between 

the two waves but households were classified into two-parent families or single-parent families based on the residential status of parents at Wave 2.
148

Fathers Mothers Fathers Mothers

Total 1:46 2:21 0:25 1:16

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 1:48 2:21 0:31 1:13

Black non-Hispanic 1:11 1:55 0:17 1:12

Hispanic 1:46 2:32 0:32 2:09

Other 2:06 2:33 0:24 1:06

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 1:28 2:23 0:26 1:23

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 1:27 2:27 0:29 1:26

Nonpoor

100% to 199% of poverty 1:48 2:26 0:25 1:09

200% to 299% of poverty 1:41 2:15 0:15 1:15

300% or more of poverty 1:51 2:21 0:30 1:09

Age of Child

0 to 2 years old 2:07 3:14 0:45 2:16

3 to 5 years old 1:53 2:29 0:24 1:34

6 to 9 years old 1:36 2:04 0:18 0:57

10 to 12 years old 1:30 1:45 0:20 0:44

Age of Parent in Household

18 to 24 years old 2:19 3:07 * 1:56

25 to 44 years old 1:49 2:19 * 1:10

45 to 65 years old 1:21 1:57 * 0:55

Educational Attainment of Parent in Household

Less than high school 1:38 2:22 * 1:10

High school diploma or GED 1:45 2:17 * 1:15

Vocational/technical or some college 1:42 2:20 * 1:14

College graduate 1:52 2:27 * 1:16

Employment Status of Parent in Household

Not in labor force 1:25 2:34 * 1:42

Looking for work 1:41 1:51 * 1:39

Less than 35 hours per week 1:42 2:16 * 1:14

35 hours or more per week 1:48 2:13 * 0:55

1

Estimates for whites and blacks exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

Source: Estimates supplied by J. Sandberg, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, based on data from the 1997 Panel 

Study of Income Dynamics - Child Development Supplement.

Two-Parent Families Single-Parent Families

Table P14.1 Average daily time in hours children under age 13 are engaged in some activity with 

parents: 1997
149

Played 

board 

games, 

puzzles

Looked at 

books

Talked 

about 

family

Played 

sports, 

outdoor 

activities

Played 

board 

games, 

puzzles

Looked at 

books

Talked 

about 

family

Played 

sports, 

outdoor 

activities

Total 33 39 72 68 44 55 81 54

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 33 40 72 70 49 60 84 60

Black non-Hispanic 37 45 75 67 45 50 80 46

Hispanic 26 26 74 63 26 40 75 42

Other 37 44 66 50 31 54 64 39

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 40 26 70 67 39 52 82 44

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 56 37 71 78 39 49 75 38

Nonpoor 32 40 72 68 45 56 81 56

100% to 199% of poverty 32 41 69 60 42 53 77 48

200% to 299% of poverty 39 41 76 65 45 52 81 53

300% or more of poverty 29 40 73 73 47 60 84 62

Family Structure

Two parents 33 39 72 68 43 56 81 54

Both biological and/or adoptive 33 40 74 70 44 57 81 55

Mother only * * * * 46 54 83 53

Age of Child

3 to 5 years old 43 60 79 81 55 79 84 71

6 to 9 years old 33 40 74 68 47 65 83 52

10 to 12 years old 25 18 65 57 30 24 77 39

Age of Child's Mother in Household

18 to 24 years old * * 83 * 61 76 71 55

25 to 44 years old 32 39 72 69 44 56 82 54

45 to 65 years old 31 31 67 51 30 35 72 44

Age of Child's Father in Household

18 to 24 years old * * * * * * * *

25 to 44 years old 35 40 73 71 44 58 81 55

45 to 65 years old 25 34 68 56 39 46 78 45

Less than high school 30 31 72 60 39 39 70 37

High school diploma or GED 36 39 71 68 46 56 83 53

Vocational/technical or some college 26 35 71 71 45 58 84 59

College graduate 36 46 76 70 45 65 86 62

Less than high school 26 27 68 60 34 49 75 44

High school diploma or GED 36 42 71 67 46 54 78 52

Vocational/technical or some college 32 34 74 72 42 54 80 53

College graduate 35 45 76 72 49 65 87 63

Not in labor force 38 46 78 72 45 56 80 52

Looking for work 25 17 46 44 39 50 63 40

Working 31 36 71 68 44 56 83 56

Not in labor force 37 42 82 48 28 49 75 28

Looking for work * * 60 * 37 43 72 26

Working 33 39 73 70 45 57 81 56

Note: Scores based on two categories: (A) 'not in the past month' or '1 or 2 times in the past month', and (B) 'about once a week', 'several times a week', or 'every day'. 

1

Estimates for whites and blacks exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

Source: Estimates supplied by Sandra Hofferth, Univeristy of Maryland, based on data from the 1997 Panel Study of Income Dynamics - Child Development Supplement

Table P15.1 Percentage of parents of children ages 3 to 12 who engaged in the following activities with their child(ren) at least once a 

week: 1997

Employment Status of Child's Mother in Household

Employment Status of Child's Father in Household

Fathers Mothers

Educational Attainment of Child's Mother in Household

Educational Attainment of Child's Father in Household
150

Total 34 28 12 8 39 29 13 9Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 33 28 11 10 37 29 11 9Black non-Hispanic 41 33 19 8 48 31 19 9Hispanic 36 25 8 6 35 27 14 6Asian/Pacific Islander 39 31 6 0 39 39 8 11

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 30 24 9 6 29 16 12 3

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 26 21 7 7 34 14 21 8

Nonpoor 36 29 11 9 41 31 13 11

100% to 199% of poverty 33 26 14 6 39 27 9 9200% to 299% of poverty 35 29 7 7 43 30 19 12300% or more of poverty 38 30 11 14 42 33 14 11

Family Structure

Two parents

Both biological and/or adoptive 40 32 * * 45 33 * *Biological mother and step father 26 15 - 13 27 16 - 8Biological father and step mother 19 17 11 - 24 19 11 -

Mother only 27 - * 5 34 - * 10Father only - 13 11 * - 18 7 *No parent/surrogate parents 30 22 12 9 31 19 15 9

Age of Child

Less than 15 years old 38 31 11 10 43 33 18 1515 years and older 33 27 12 8 37 27 12 7

Educational Attainment of Better-Educated Parent

Less than high school 24 17 13 8 26 17 12 7High school diploma or GED 25 18 9 7 34 22 13 7Vocational/technical or some college 37 28 16 11 40 26 8 13College graduate 46 39 13 10 49 39 17 11

1Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.Source: Estimates provided by Suzanne Ryan based on data from Wave I and Wave II of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.

Resident Mom Resident Dad

Nonresident 

Mom

Nonresident 

Dad Resident Dad

Nonresident 

Mom

Nonresident 

Dad

Girls

Resident Mom

Table P16.1 Percentage of adolescents who report having gone to a church-related event with their parent in the last 4 weeks: 1996

Boys
151

1996 1999 1996 1999 1996 1999 1996 1999 1996 1999 1996 1999

Total 23 22 32 33 24 25 56 56 66 65 42 41

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 24 23 33 35 26 27 58 59 71 70 45 46Black non-Hispanic 25 23 27 27 18 21 57 48 54 56 36 35Hispanic 16 19 23 22 15 17 49 52 56 52 32 27Asian/Pacific Islander 20 25 41 29 26 15 44 50 57 52 34 25American Indian/Alaskan Native * * 27 52 17 27 * * 57 79 34 48

Poverty Status

Poor (0-99% poverty) 15 15 20 17 12 14 50 43 52 50 31 26

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 21 19 18 21 12 14 50 38 50 49 29 22

Nonpoor 24 23 34 35 26 26 58 59 70 69 44 45

Family Structure

Two parents 22 23 31 33 23 25 58 58 69 67 43 44Single parent 45 19 55 27 39 18 53 50 59 59 38 33

Age of Parent

18 to 24 years old 17 16 18 6 * * 44 42 58 56 * *25 to 44 years old 23 22 32 32 22 24 58 57 66 65 41 4045 to 65 years old 24 30 33 35 27 26 37 63 65 71 45 44

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 13 10 12 10 10 10 34 41 41 42 23 19High school diploma or GED 17 17 27 25 16 19 56 51 62 58 36 38Vocational/technical or some college 25 23 34 36 26 26 57 53 70 69 46 42College graduate 30 28 43 44 36 36 66 66 81 78 57 55

Employment Status

Not in labor force 31 17 27 36 15 18 58 61 64 67 37 36Looking for work 21 20 23 28 20 16 54 43 62 54 34 39Less than 35 hours per week 19 21 37 38 26 23 61 62 76 71 47 4835 hours or more per week 23 23 32 32 25 26 53 50 62 62 42 41

Note: Activities include: General school meeting, parent-teacher conference, class event, and volunteering at school. Estimates exclude children who are home-schooled and children living with nonparent guardians. Also, for children not yet in kindergarten, the estimates are restricted to children who attend a center-based program (e.g., preschool, nursery school, Head Start, or early childhood education program) .

1Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* Indicates that the information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.Source: Estimates supplied by U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, based on data from the 1996 & 1999 National Household Education Survey Program.

Table P17.1 Percentage of parents with high involvement at their child's school (participation in three or four activities): 1996 & 1999

Fathers Mothers

3 to 5 6 to 11 12 to 17 3 to 5 6 to 11 12 to 17
152

Talking with Child 

about Things 

Learned in School

Talking with Child 

about School 

Activities or Events

Checking if Child 

Did Homework or 

Other School 

Assignments

Talking with Child 

about Things 

Learned in School

Talking with Child 

about School 

Activities or Events

Checking if Child 

Did Homework or 

Other School 

Assignments

Total 3.5 3.6 3.5 4.2 4.4 4.3Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 3.6 3.8 3.5 4.3 4.5 4.2Black non-Hispanic 3.3 3.3 3.6 4.2 4.2 4.6Hispanic 2.8 2.9 3.4 4.2 4.1 4.2Asian/Pacific Islander * * * 4.1 4.5 3.4American Indian/Alaskan Native * * * * * *

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 3.4 3.4 3.5 4.3 4.4 4.3

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.2 4.4 4.3

Nonpoor 3.5 3.7 3.5 4.2 4.5 4.2

100% to 199% of poverty 3.4 3.4 3.6 4.1 4.3 4.2200% to 299% of poverty 3.3 3.6 3.4 4.4 4.7 4.1300% or more of poverty 3.6 4.1 3.4 4.1 4.7 4.2

Family Structure

Single parent 3.8 3.5 3.6 4.1 4.3 4.2Two parents 3.4 3.7 3.5 4.3 4.5 4.3

Age of Parent

18 to 24 years old * * * * * *25 to 44 years old 3.6 3.7 3.5 4.3 4.5 4.345 years and older 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.9 4.2 3.8

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 2.7 3.0 3.1 4.0 4.1 4.1High school diploma or GED 3.4 3.3 3.5 4.2 4.3 4.3Vocational/technical or some college 3.6 3.5 3.6 4.2 4.6 4.3College graduate 3.7 4.2 3.4 4.4 4.9 4.4

Employment Status

Not in labor force 3.5 3.5 3.6 4.3 4.4 4.3Looking for work * * * * * *Less than 35 hours per week * * * 4.4 4.6 4.3

35 hours or more per week 3.4 3.6 3.4 4.2 4.4 4.2

1Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.Source: Estimates supplied by R. Day, School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, based on data from the 1992 National Survey of Families and Households.

Fathers Mothers

Table P18.1 Mean number of days in a typical week parents report the following school encouragement behaviors: 1992
153

Mother Legal 

and Physical 

Custody

Mother Physical, 

Joint Legal 

Custody

Father Physical 

(both joint and 

sole legal)

Joint Physical 

and Legal 

Custody

Other (includes 

split, etc.)

Total 68 8 12 8 4

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White non-Hispanic 60 11 14 10 5

Black non-Hispanic 84 2 7 3 3

Hispanic 72 6 10 7 5

Asian/Pacific Islander 68 7 13 10 2

American Indian/Alaskan Native 75 5 15 2 3

Poverty Status3

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 81 4 6 4 5

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 83 3 4 4 6

Nonpoor

100% to 199% of poverty 71 7 10 7 5

200% to 299% of poverty 63 9 14 8 6

300% or more of poverty 53 12 19 13 3

Marital Status

Never married 85 3 6 2 4

Single, previously married 63 12 13 11 2

Currently married 62 7 15 9 7

Age of Resident Parent

18 to 24 years old 83 6 4 3 5

25 to 44 years old 68 8 11 8 5

45 years and older 55 9 23 10 2

Educational Attainment of Resident Parent

Less than high school 79 2 9 4 6

High school diploma or GED 70 7 13 6 4

Vocational/technical or some college 65 10 12 9 5

College graduate 52 14 16 16 3

Employment Status of Resident Parent

Not in labor force 81 5 3 5 6

Looking for work 78 5 10 5 3

Less than 35 hours per week 72 11 6 7 4

35 hours or more per week 60 9 17 9 4

1

 Estimates are calculated only for households with a child (under age 21) who lives with one biological parent and whose other parent is absent. 

2 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

3 Income and poverty status are based on data from the previous year.

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1994 April Supplement of the Current Population Survey.

Table P19.1 Type of child custody per most recent agreement (in percents): 19941
154

Mother Legal 

and Physical 

Custody

Mother Physical, 

Joint Legal 

Custody

Father Physical 

(both joint and 

sole legal)

Joint Physical 

and Legal 

Custody

Other (includes 

split, etc.)

Total 65 10 11 9 5

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White non-Hispanic 57 12 12 13 5

Black non-Hispanic 78 5 9 4 4

Hispanic 75 6 9 4 6

Asian/Pacific Islander 52 18 15 11 4

American Indian/Alaskan Native 69 4 11 5 10

Poverty Status3

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 77 5 6 6 6

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 78 5 5 6 7

Nonpoor

100% to 199% of poverty 70 8 10 7 5

200% to 299% of poverty 57 13 13 12 5

300% or more of poverty 52 14 16 14 4

Marital Status

Never married 82 4 8 2 4

Single, previously married 56 14 14 14 2

Currently married 62 9 10 10 9

Age of Resident Parent

18 to 24 years old 84 3 4 4 4

25 to 44 years old 64 11 10 9 6

45 years and older 56 8 18 15 3

Educational Attainment of Resident Parent

Less than high school 74 4 12 3 6

High school diploma or GED 67 7 11 9 5

Vocational/technical or some college 63 12 9 11 4

College graduate 48 19 11 17 4

Employment Status of Resident Parent

Not in labor force 77 7 6 5 6

Looking for work 76 4 10 5 4

Less than 35 hours per week 70 12 6 8 5

35 hours or more per week 58 11 14 12 5

1

 Estimates are calculated only for households with a child (under age 21) who lives with one biological parent and whose other parent is absent. 

2 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

3 Income and poverty status are based on data from the previous year.

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1996 April Supplement of the Current Population Survey.

Table P19.2 Type of child custody per most recent agreement (in percents): 19961
155

Mother Legal 

and Physical 

Custody

Mother Physical, 

Joint Legal 

Custody

Father Physical 

(both joint and 

sole legal)

Joint Physical 

and Legal 

Custody

Other (includes 

split, etc.)

Total 68 7 10 9 6

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White non-Hispanic 60 10 13 12 5

Black non-Hispanic 85 1 5 4 5

Hispanic 72 3 10 5 9

Asian/Pacific Islander 62 11 10 12 5

American Indian/Alaskan Native 75 0 14 2 9

Poverty Status3

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 82 3 4 4 7

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 83 2 4 4 7

Nonpoor

100% to 199% of poverty 72 6 11 6 6

200% to 299% of poverty 63 8 13 11 6

300% or more of poverty 55 10 15 15 5

Marital Status

Never married 83 2 7 3 4

Single, previously married 58 10 15 14 4

Currently married 65 7 9 10 9

Age of Resident Parent

18 to 24 years old 84 3 4 3 6

25 to 44 years old 67 7 10 9 7

45 years and older 60 7 18 12 3

Educational Attainment of Resident Parent

Less than high school 77 2 10 3 8

High school diploma or GED 69 5 11 8 6

Vocational/technical or some college 68 8 9 10 5

College graduate 53 14 11 18 4

Employment Status of Resident Parent

Not in labor force 79 4 5 4 8

Looking for work 77 5 9 4 5

Less than 35 hours per week 77 5 3 8 6

35 hours or more per week 62 8 14 12 5

1

 Estimates are calculated only for households with a child (under age 21) who lives with one biological parent and whose other parent is absent. 

2 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

3 Income and poverty status are based on data from the previous year.

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1998 April Supplement of the Current Population Survey.

Table P19.3 Type of child custody per most recent agreement (in percents): 19981
156

1993 1995 1997 1993 1995 1997

Total 61 64 60 75 74 78

Race and Hispanic Origin of Resident Parent3

White non-Hispanic 69 72 68 79 79 81

Black non-Hispanic 55 57 51 60 64 70

Hispanic 45 44 48 69 62 63

Asian/Pacific Islander 47 61 53 * * *

American Indian/Alaskan Native 62 50 50 * * *

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 52 53 50 60 61 72

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 52 51 47 68 64 69

Nonpoor

100% to 199% of poverty 60 63 58 77 71 70

200% to 299% of poverty 66 71 66 74 72 77

300% or more of poverty 75 73 71 80 81 84

Marital Status

Never married 50 54 51 59 66 75

Single, previously married 68 69 67 82 77 77

Currently married 64 66 63 74 74 81

Age of Oldest Child

0 to 5 years 60 61 61 65 71 76

6 to 11 years 62 66 63 73 76 87

12 to 17 years 61 63 60 79 74 73

18 to 20 years 60 64 55 79 76 83

Age of Resident Parent

18 to 24 years old 59 62 60 59 65 71

25 to 44 years old 62 63 60 73 75 78

45 years and older 59 65 61 84 74 78

Educational Attainment of Resident Parent

Less than high school 48 47 44 72 59 69

High school diploma or GED 59 63 61 76 75 76

Vocational/technical or some college 68 70 65 72 78 81

College graduate 76 79 74 83 85 88

Employment Status of Resident Parent

Not in labor force 52 55 51 77 65 61

Looking for work 55 55 57 57 57 72

Less than 35 hours per week 65 65 60 64 70 77

35 hours or more per week 67 69 65 77 77 80

1 All demographic characteristics (excluding income and poverty status) are as of March the following year.

2 Estimates are calculated only for households with a child (under age 21) who lives with one biological parent and whose other parent is absent. 

3 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1994, 1996, & 1998 April Supplements of the Current Population Survey.

Contact with nonresident father Contact with nonresident mother

Table P20.1 Percentage of children with any contact with nonresident parent in the previous year, as reported by resident 

parent: 1993, 1995, & 19971,2
157

1993 1995 1997 1993 1995 1997

Total 70 73 69 84 79 86

Race and Hispanic Origin of Resident Parent3

White non-Hispanic 74 70 70 87 81 88

Black non-Hispanic 67 80 72 78 65 97

Hispanic 57 73 63 69 72 61

Asian/Pacific Islander * 57 87 * * *

American Indian/Alaskan Native * 92 * * * *

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 80 83 69 66 74 58

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 78 91 70 70 * 66

Nonpoor

100% to 199% of poverty 68 72 68 89 68 75

200% to 299% of poverty 59 74 73 85 86 97

300% or more of poverty 68 62 69 85 82 91

Marital Status

Never married 76 83 79 92 115 88

Single, previously married 62 69 64 85 76 76

Currently married 74 70 67 81 70 98

Age of Oldest Child

0 to 5 years 87 88 79 96 110 100

6 to 11 years 70 77 74 86 82 94

12 to 17 years 67 69 64 84 70 73

18 to 20 years 66 70 71 72 74 95

Age of Resident Parent

18 to 24 years old 89 93 79 * * *

25 to 44 years old 67 70 70 87 80 86

45 years and older 68 66 58 71 72 80

Educational Attainment of Resident Parent

Less than high school 80 80 71 93 74 63

High school diploma or GED 70 74 68 81 75 85

Vocational/technical or some college 65 70 69 80 82 90

College graduate 70 67 74 86 90 96

Employment Status of Resident Parent

Not in labor force 75 79 61 66 75 61

Looking for work 74 81 85 * * 110

Less than 35 hours per week 82 75 78 * 66 91

35 hours or more per week 64 69 68 87 80 86

1 All demographic characteristics (excluding income and poverty status) are as of March the following year.

2 Estimates are calculated only for households with a child (under age 21) who lives with one biological parent and whose other parent is absent. 

3 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1994, 1996, & 1998 April Supplements of the Current Population Survey.

Contact with nonresident father Contact with nonresident mother

Table P20.2 Average number of days in the past year child had contact with nonresident parent (among those with any contact), 

according to resident parent: 1993, 1995, & 19971,2
1581987 2 1990 1991 1992 3 1993 4 1994 5 1995 6 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Total $44,975 $43,950 $43,338 $42,874 $42,579 $43,652 $44,931 $44,803 $46,592 $47,951 $49,560 $50,777

By Race

White 47,887 46,866 46,693 46,631 46,857 47,403 48,384 48,675 50,043 51,576 53,347 54,773Black 24,741 24,856 23,313 22,292 21,961 24,645 25,456 25,046 27,002 27,268 28,711 30,839Hispanic 28,071 28,251 27,328 26,923 26,015 26,525 25,900 26,912 27,948 29,274 32,020 33,285White, non-Hispanic 50,425 49,498 49,633 49,625 49,668 50,429 52,184 52,639 54,514 55,892 58,539 60,225

By Family Type

Total Married Couple 53,124 52,977 52,657 53,322 53,575 54,378 56,107 56,590 58,201 60,170 62,189 62,934 Single Mother 16,575 16,810 16,116 16,009 15,846 17,152 18,229 17,916 18,463 19,425 20,604 21,520 Single Father 33,832 32,370 29,938 26,807 26,286 27,730 30,305 28,970 30,674 32,573 33,516 32,490White Married Couple 54,018 53,522 53,481 54,357 54,549 55,561 56,808 57,230 59,097 61,146 62,878 64,018 Single Mother 19,207 19,090 19,214 18,724 18,843 19,261 20,322 19,829 20,264 21,947 23,320 24,058 Single Father 41,564 33,599 30,354 29,150 28,549 29,976 31,648 30,274 32,314 34,406 34,996 35,197Black Married Couple 44,068 45,865 43,794 43,788 43,119 48,440 49,344 46,674 50,964 51,216 52,718 52,031 Single Mother 12,618 13,233 11,659 12,447 12,203 13,713 14,584 14,918 16,168 16,204 16,528 18,250 Single Father 24,540 26,405 25,911 21,683 22,180 21,995 25,055 24,298 23,341 26,393 31,025 28,531Hispanic Married Couple 36,184 35,276 33,808 33,876 33,521 33,880 33,318 34,557 35,558 36,133 38,368 40,257 Single Mother 12,116 13,022 12,653 13,464 12,347 12,814 13,256 12,288 13,891 14,860 17,095 18,841 Single Father 26,064 26,674 23,759 18,740 20,978 19,971 21,900 24,654 21,429 26,022 26,333 27,486White, non-Hispanic Married Couple 55,782 55,681 55,865 56,505 57,195 58,331 59,550 60,872 63,030 64,928 67,027 69,003 Single Mother 21,066 20,701 20,750 20,218 21,047 21,096 23,335 22,381 22,493 23,880 25,200 25,977 Single Father 36,617 34,442 32,097 31,210 30,091 32,165 33,406 32,116 34,237 37,525 37,807 37,048

CPI-U since 1978 into a single, uniform series. See Money Income in the United States: 1999 or the appendix of Money Income in the United States: 1998 for more information. 

2 Data reflect implementation of a new March CPS processing system.3 Data reflect implementation of 1990 census population controls.5 Data reflect introduction of 1990 census-based sample design.6 Data reflect full implementation of the 1990 census-based sample design and metropolitan definitions, 7,000 household sample reduction, and revised race edits.

Table P21.1 Median adjusted income (2000 Dollars) for families with one or more children under age 18 (U.S. Census Bureau) 

Source: Current Population Survey, Historical Income Tables 1987, 1990-2000

1

1 Families as of March the following year. Income in 2000 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars. The CPI-U-RS is a price index of inflation that incorporates most of the improvements in methodology made to the current 4 Data collection method changed from paper and pencil to computer-assisted interviewing. In addition, the March 1994 income supplement was revised to allow for the coding of different income amounts on selected questionnaire items. 

Child support and alimony limits decreased to $49,999. Limits increased in the following categories: earnings to $999,999; social security to $49,999; supplemental security income and public assistance income to $24,999; and veterans' benefits to $99,999.
159

% with a Child 

Support 

Agreement

% of 

Agreements that 

are Voluntary

% with Visitation 

Arrangement 

Specified in 

Agreement

% of Agreements 

that Include Health 

Insurance 

Coverage for Child

% with a Child 

Support 

Agreement

% of 

Agreements that 

are Voluntary

% with Visitation 

Arrangement 

Specified in 

Agreement

% of Agreements 

that Include Health 

Insurance 

Coverage for Child

Total 35 4 86 97 50 6 83 97

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White non-Hispanic 36 4 85 96 61 4 85 97Black non-Hispanic 41 0 96 * 40 8 78 94Hispanic 30 * * * 34 9 81 98Asian/Pacific Islander * * * * 50 * * *American Indian/Alaskan Native * * * * 26 * * *

Poverty Status3

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 32 * * * 42 4 75 75

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 29 * * * 40 5 68 94

Nonpoor

100% to 199% of poverty 35 4 83 * 44 9 81 96200% to 299% of poverty 41 8 84 95 58 4 87 99300% or more of poverty 33 2 92 100 64 5 90 99

Marital Status

Never married 44 5 85 * 38 9 73 96Single, previously married 38 4 86 99 64 4 88 97Currently married 26 2 85 94 46 6 84 97

Age of Resident Parent

18 to 24 years old 40 * * * 39 8 75 9925 to 44 years old 35 2 88 96 51 5 83 9745 years and older 35 7 85 100 55 5 86 96

Educational Attainment of Resident Parent

Less than high school 29 6 79 * 36 8 72 91High school diploma or GED 39 5 84 99 49 6 84 96Vocational/technical or some college 33 3 84 96 57 5 83 99College graduate 37 0 100 * 63 6 90 98

Employment Status of Resident Parent

Not in labor force 38 * * * 39 6 73 95Looking for work 47 * * * 43 3 78 88Less than 35 hours per week 30 * * * 51 5 82 9835 hours or more per week 35 4 87 99 55 6 86 98

1 Estimates reflect agreements EVER in place and not necessarily those currently enforced.2 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.3 Income and poverty status are based on data from the previous year.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1998 April Supplement of the Current Population Survey.

Fathers Mothers

Table P22.1 Characteristics of child support agreements held by resident parents (in percents): 19981
160

Full Payment 

Received

Partial Payment 

Received

Did Not Receive 

Payments

Child Support 

Not Awarded

Full Payment 

Received

Partial Payment 

Received

Did Not Receive 

Payments

Child Support 

Not Awarded

Total 35 21 29 16 48 23 26 4Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 38 20 27 15 53 25 20 3Black non-Hispanic 24 22 34 20 33 18 42 7Hispanic 22 27 33 17 44 24 29 4Asian/Pacific Islander * * * * * * * *American Indian/Alaskan Native * * * * * * * *

Poverty Status2

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 28 18 39 15 30 21 44 5

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) * * * * 26 16 54 5

Nonpoor

100% to 199% of poverty 31 20 33 16 47 25 23 5200% to 299% of poverty 31 24 33 13 52 24 22 2300% or more of poverty 43 20 20 17 61 23 14 3

Marital Status

Never married 24 33 30 12 32 20 42 6Single, previously married 35 17 28 20 48 23 25 4Currently married 43 20 28 10 58 25 15 2

Age of Resident Parent

18 to 24 years old * * * * 36 21 39 425 to 44 years old 33 23 30 13 48 25 24 445 years and older 38 14 27 21 55 17 24 4

Educational Attainment of Resident Parent

Less than high school 17 28 41 13 31 19 46 4High school diploma or GED 37 22 26 16 49 20 27 4Vocational/technical or some college 30 18 36 16 47 28 22 3College graduate 49 18 17 16 60 22 13 5

Employment Status of Resident Parent

Not in labor force * * * * 39 19 38 4Looking for work * * * * 37 21 39 4Less than 35 hours per week * * * * 47 26 24 3

35 hours or more per week 36 22 24 18 51 24 21 4

1 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.2 Income and poverty status are based on data from the previous year.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1998 April Supplement of the Current Population Survey.

Mothers Fathers

Table P22.2 Percentage of resident parents with an agreement who receive child support payments in the previous year: 1998
161

Total

Families with 

Agreements

Families 

without 

Agreements Total

Families with 

Agreements

Families 

without 

Agreements

Total $3,185 $3,051 $3,298 $3,702 $3,978 $2,681

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 3,135 3,360 2,804 4,194 4,406 2,918

Black non-Hispanic * * * 2,446 2,630 2,272

Hispanic * * * 2,970 3,385 2,692

Asian/Pacific Islander * * * * * *

American Indian/Alaskan Native * * * * * *

Poverty Status2

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) * * * 2,219 2,279 2,157

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) * * * 2,015 1,817 2,306

Nonpoor

100% to 199% of poverty 3,801 * * 2,806 3,244 2,267

200% to 299% of poverty 2,959 * * 4,789 4,810 2,678

300% or more of poverty 3,122 3,375 2,809 4,771 5,328 4,258

Marital Status

Never married 2,372 2,069 * 1,990 1,989 2,051

Single, previously married 3,353 3,077 3,693 4,263 4,548 3,307

Currently married 3,665 * 3,032 4,132 4,658 2,737

Age of Resident Parent

18 to 24 years old * * * 1,523 1,757 1,062

25 to 44 years old 2,858 2,611 3,029 3,768 3,964 2,819

45 years and older 4,565 * * 4,781 5,284 3,623

Educational Attainment of Resident Parent

Less than high school * * * 2,181 2,325 1,921

High school diploma or GED 3,240 3,309 * 3,681 3,699 2,150

Vocational/technical or some college 2,546 2,610 * 3,581 3,798 3,233

College graduate 3,603 * * 5,222 6,049 3,820

Employment Status of Resident Parent

Not in labor force * * * 3,115 3,276 2,452

Looking for work * * * 2,526 2,560 2,235

Less than 35 hours per week * * * 4,450 4,930 3,025

35 hours or more per week 3,300 3,190 3,422 3,838 4,074 2,768

1 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

2 Income and poverty status are based on data from the previous year.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1998 April Supplement of the Current Population Survey.

Table P22.3 Mean dollar amounts received in the previous year for families receiving child support payments as reported by resident 

parent: 1998

Fathers Mothers
162
Appendix D: 

Family Formation Section – Data Tables 
164 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

 Total 64 63 63 63 63 62 61 62 62 62 61

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 66 66 66 66 66 65 65 65 64 64 64Black non-Hispanic 47 46 46 46 47 45 45 45 45 46 46Hispanic 60 60 60 56 58 56 57 57 60 60 60Asian/Pacific Islander 64 64 63 65 63 60 61 64 61 62 64American Indian/Alaskan Native 60 63 54 54 59 49 46 54 58 55 52

Poverty Status2

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 48 46 46 46 45 42 43 42 43 42 41

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 42 41 41 40 41 39 39 37 38 36 36

Nonpoor

100 to 199% of poverty 59 58 57 58 57 56 54 55 55 55 54200 to 299% of poverty 65 65 65 63 63 62 62 60 60 60 59300% or more of poverty 67 67 68 67 67 67 66 67 66 66 66

Parental Status 

Resident parent 92 91 91 91 90 89 89 89 89 89 88Nonparent 45 45 46 44 45 45 44 44 45 45 45

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 15 14 14 14 14 13 12 11 12 11 1025 to 44 years old 65 64 64 63 63 62 62 62 61 62 6245 years and older 79 79 79 79 79 78 76 77 77 77 76

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 61 60 59 58 58 56 56 56 55 55 55High school diploma or GED 63 64 64 62 62 62 61 61 60 61 59Vocational/technical or some college 58 58 59 58 59 58 57 57 58 58 57College graduate 72 71 71 71 71 71 72 72 72 72 72

Employment

Not in labor force 59 60 60 59 59 57 56 57 57 57 56Looking for work 44 45 44 43 42 38 40 40 38 37 39Less than 35 hours per week 40 40 39 39 40 42 40 38 41 38 38

35 hours or more per week 69 69 69 68 68 67 67 67 66 66 66

1 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.2 Income and poverty status are based on data from the previous year.

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1991-2001, March Supplement, Current Population Survey. 

Males

Table FF1.1 Percentage married among adults ages 18 and older: 1991-2001
165

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

 Total 59 59 59 59 59 58 58 58 58 58 57

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 62 62 62 62 62 61 61 60 61 60 60Black non-Hispanic 41 40 41 40 40 40 40 39 38 38 38Hispanic 62 61 61 60 61 60 59 60 59 61 59Asian/Pacific Islander 64 65 66 64 66 63 64 65 63 63 65American Indian/Alaskan Native 50 57 52 53 54 46 51 54 51 52 56

Poverty Status2

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 37 36 36 36 36 35 34 33 34 33 33

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 37 37 35 33 35 35 33 31 33 30 31

Nonpoor

100 to 199% of poverty 49 49 49 49 48 47 45 46 45 44 44200 to 299% of poverty 60 61 60 60 60 58 58 56 56 56 54300% or more of poverty 69 69 70 70 70 70 70 69 68 68 68

Parental Status 

Resident parent 75 75 74 73 74 73 72 72 72 72 72Nonparent 45 45 46 46 46 46 45 45 45 46 45

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 27 26 25 25 24 22 21 21 20 20 2025 to 44 years old 69 69 69 68 69 68 68 67 67 67 6745 years and older 59 59 59 60 60 60 59 59 60 60 59

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 50 50 49 49 49 48 48 48 47 47 46High school diploma or GED 63 64 64 63 63 62 61 61 61 61 60Vocational/technical or some college 57 56 56 56 57 56 55 54 54 54 54College graduate 64 64 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65

Employment

Not in labor force 58 57 57 56 57 56 55 56 56 56 56Looking for work 51 52 49 47 51 46 43 47 44 44 43Less than 35 hours per week 63 62 63 64 64 63 61 60 60 61 61

35 hours or more per week 60 61 61 60 61 60 60 59 59 58 58

1 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.2 Income and poverty status are based on data from the previous year.

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1991-2001, March Supplement, Current Population Survey. 

Females

Table FF1.1 (cont'd) Percentage married among adults ages 18 and older: 1991-2001
166 Males Females Zero One Two Three Four+ Zero One Two Three Four+

Total 26 57 13 3 1 19 63 14 3 1Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 23 59 15 3 1 16 65 15 3 1Black non-Hispanic 41 46 12 2 0 36 51 11 1 0Hispanic 33 56 9 1 0 24 65 10 1 0Asian/Pacific Islander ***** *****American Indian/Alaskan Native ***** *****

Poverty Status2

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 34 52 11 2 1 27 57 13 2 1

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 39 50 10 1 0 34 52 11 2 1

Nonpoor

100 to 199% of poverty 27 57 12 2 1 19 63 14 3 1200 to 299% of poverty 25 58 14 3 1 18 65 15 2 1300% or more of poverty 25 58 14 3 1 18 64 15 3 1

Marital Status 

Currently married - 78 18 3 1 - 79 17 3 1

Not currently married 66 25 7 1 0 44 43 10 2 1

Parental Status 

Resident parent 3 78 16 3 0 9 74 14 2 0Single parent only 6 69 20 4 1 26 58 13 2 1Nonparent 40 45 12 3 1 27 55 14 3 1

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 87 13 0 0 0 75 24 1 0 0

25 to 44 years old 27 60 11 1 0 19 65 13 2 045 years and older 6 68 20 5 1 5 72 18 4 1

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 25 58 14 3 1 15 66 15 3 1

High school diploma or GED 27 55 14 3 1 17 65 15 3 1Vocational/technical or some college 29 53 14 3 1 23 58 15 3 1

College graduate 20 66 12 2 0 20 67 11 1 0

Employment

Not in labor force 21 60 15 3 1 12 70 14 3 1Looking for work 57 37 5 1 0 39 47 13 1 1Less than 35 hours per week 63 29 6 1 1 36 50 11 1 135 hours or more per week 26 58 13 2 1 23 60 14 2 1

1 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.2 Income and poverty status are based on data from the previous year.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.Source: Estimates supplied by S. Eshleman Systems Management, based on data from the 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation

Table FF1.2 Lifetime number of marriages (in percents): 1996
167

Zero One Two or More Zero One Two or More Zero One Two or More Zero One Two or More

 Total 70 24 6 70 23 7 66 28 7 68 25 7

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White non-Hispanic 70 24 6 69 24 7 66 27 7 68 25 8Black non-Hispanic 62 31 7 63 31 5 54 40 6 57 36 6Hispanic 74 22 5 79 17 4 69 27 4 75 21 4Asian/Pacific Islander * * * ** * * * * ** *

American Indian/Alaskan Native * * * ** * * * * ** *

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 64 27 9 69 24 8 47 42 11 56 32 12

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 65 27 9 69 25 6 47 44 9 55 35 11

Nonpoor

100 to 199% of poverty 70 23 6 71 22 7 60 31 8 65 27 8200 to 299% of poverty 71 23 6 71 22 7 66 27 7 68 25 6300% or more of poverty 70 24 6 70 24 6 71 24 5 71 23 6

Marital Status 

Currently married 79 17 3 81 16 4 80 17 3 82 15 3Not currently married - 74 26 - 73 27 - 77 23 - 72 27

Parental Status 

Resident parent 77 19 4 79 18 4 71 24 5 72 23 5Nonparent 65 28 8 61 29 9 62 30 8 63 28 9

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 90 9 0 93 6 0 86 13 1 91 9 025 to 44 years old 71 24 5 73 23 4 67 26 6 70 25 545 years and older 67 25 8 67 24 9 62 31 8 64 26 9

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 67 26 7 71 22 7 59 31 10 67 24 9High school diploma or GED 68 26 6 67 26 7 66 27 6 69 25 7Vocational/technical or some college 68 24 7 67 25 8 63 31 6 62 29 9College graduate 76 20 5 78 19 4 76 21 3 76 20 4

Employment

Not in labor force 68 25 8 70 22 8 68 26 6 74 20 6

Looking for work 61 33 6 69 25 6 58 33 9 57 35 8Less than 35 hours per week 74 19 7 73 19 8 73 22 5 70 24 5

35 hours or more per week 71 24 5 70 24 6 61 31 7 65 27 7

1 Population for this table is respondents who have ever been married.2 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.Source: Estimates supplied by S. Eshleman Systems Management, based on data from the 1990 and 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation

Table FF2.1 Lifetime number of divorces (in percents): 1990 & 19961

Males Females

1990 1996 1990 1996
168

1990 1996 1990 1996

 Total 24.1 24.9 21.9 22.5

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White non-Hispanic 24.0 24.7 21.7 22.3

Black non-Hispanic 24.6 26.1 22.4 23.2

Hispanic 23.9 25.2 21.9 22.8

Asian/Pacific Islander ** **

American Indian/Alaskan Native ** **

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 23.6 25.0 21.2 22.0

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 23.5 24.9 20.9 22.1

Nonpoor

100 to 199% of poverty 23.9 24.7 21.3 22.1

200 to 299% of poverty 23.9 24.6 21.6 22.2

300% or more of poverty 24.4 25.1 22.3 23.0

Marital Status 

Currently married 24.2 25.1 22.0 22.8

Not currently married 23.7 24.3 21.6 21.9

Parental Status 

Resident parent 23.7 24.9 21.5 22.5

Nonparent 24.4 25.0 22.1 22.6

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 20.8 20.9 19.7 20.0

25 to 44 years old 23.8 24.9 21.9 23.0

45 years and older 24.6 25.2 22.0 22.4

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 23.6 24.6 20.9 21.3

High school diploma or GED 23.6 24.3 21.4 21.9

Vocational/technical or some college 24.0 24.5 22.1 22.4

College graduate 25.5 26.3 24.1 24.8

Employment

Not in labor force 24.9 25.6 22.0 22.4

Looking for work 23.6 25.3 21.2 22.3

Less than 35 hours per week 24.9 24.7 21.7 22.3

35 hours or more per week 23.8 24.7 21.7 22.6

1 This table is limited to the ever-married population.

2 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

Source: Estimates supplied by S. Eshleman Systems Management, based on data from the 1990 and 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation

Males Females

Table FF3.1 Average age at first marriage: 1990 & 19961
169

Males Females

 Total 33.7 31.2

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White non-Hispanic 33.8 31.1

Black non-Hispanic 33.7 31.7

Hispanic 33.3 31.2

Asian/Pacific Islander * *

American Indian/Alaskan Native * *

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 33.3 31.0

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 33.2 30.5

Nonpoor

100 to 199% of poverty 33.7 31.0

200 to 299% of poverty 33.6 31.4

300% or more of poverty 33.9 31.2

Marital Status 

Currently married 33.3 29.7

Not currently married 34.3 32.3

Parental Status 

Resident parent 30.7 29.0

Nonparent 35.4 33.0

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 21.2 20.8

25 to 44 years old 28.6 27.4

45 years and older 37.5 34.7

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 35.9 31.9

High school diploma or GED 32.6 30.8

Vocational/technical or some college 32.5 30.3

College graduate 36.0 32.9

Employment

Not in labor force 39.7 33.4

Looking for work 34.2 28.4

Less than 35 hours per week 36.2 29.6

35 hours or more per week 32.1 30.2

1 This table is limited to the ever-divorced population.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

Table FF3.2 Average age at first divorce: 19961

2 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin 

may be of any race.

Source: Estimates supplied by S. Eshleman Systems Management, based on data from the 1996 

Survey of Income and Program Participation
170

Males

White nonHispanicBlack nonHispanic HispanicAsian/ Pacific 

Islander

American 

Indian/ 

Alaskan 

Native

Race and Hispanic Origin of Respondent3

White non-Hispanic 96 0211

Black non-Hispanic 6 92 200

Hispanic 13 1 85 1 0

Asian/Pacific Islander 8 0 1 90 0

American Indian/Alaskan Native 45 3 4 1 47

18 to 24 

years old

25 to 44 

years old

45 years and 

older

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 81 18 1

25 to 44 years old 6 89 5

45 years and older 0 15 85

Less than 

high school

High school 

diploma or 

GED

Vocational/ 

technical or 

some college

College 

graduate

Educational Attainment of Respondent

Less than high school 53 32 12 3

High school diploma or GED 10 58 23 9

Vocational/technical or some college 5 31 44 19

College graduate 1 14 24 60

Not in labor 

force

Looking for 

work

Less than 35 

hours per 

week

35 hours or 

more per 

week

Employment of Respondent

Not in labor force 74 1 7 18

Looking for work 27 10 15 48

Less than 35 hours per week 39 2 24 36

35 hours or more per week 27 2 17 54

2 Due to rounding, 0% in the table may represent any percentage less than 0.5.

3 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 2001, March Supplement, Current Population Survey. 

Educational Attainment of Spouse

Employment of Spouse

Table FF4.1 Percentage of respondents by spouse characteristics: 20011,2

1 Although the numerator (the number of cases) is the same for both males and females the percentages in the male and female tables should not be 

expected to match due to different denominators in each table which produce different estimates. 

Age of Spouse

Race and Hispanic Origin of Spouse
171

Females

White nonHispanicBlack nonHispanic HispanicAsian/ Pacific 

Islander

American 

Indian/ 

Alaskan 

Native

Race and Hispanic Origin of Respondent3

White non-Hispanic 97 1200

Black non-Hispanic 2 96 100

Hispanic 15 1 83 0 0

Asian/Pacific Islander 15 1 1 83 0

American Indian/Alaskan Native 50 2 6 1 42

18 to 24 

years old

25 to 44 

years old

45 years and 

older

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 41 58 1

25 to 44 years old 1 81 19

45 years and older 0 4 96

Less than 

high school

High school 

diploma or 

GED

Vocational/ 

technical or 

some college

College 

graduate

Educational Attainment of Respondent

Less than high school 61 25 11 3

High school diploma or GED 13 51 23 12

Vocational/technical or some college 6 26 40 27

College graduate 2 11 18 69

Not in labor 

force

Looking for 

work

Less than 35 

hours per 

week

35 hours or 

more per 

week

Employment of Respondent

Not in labor force 44 2 5 50

Looking for work 9 13 4 73

Less than 35 hours per week 11 2 7 80

35 hours or more per week 9 2 4 85

2 Due to rounding, 0% in the table may represent any percentage less than 0.5.

3 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 2001, March Supplement, Current Population Survey. 

Table FF4.1 (cont'd) Percentage of respondents by spouse characteristics: 20011,2

1 Although the numerator (the number of cases) is the same for both males and females the percentages in the male and female tables should not be 

expected to match due to different denominators in each table which produce different estimates. 

Employment of Spouse

Age of Spouse

Educational Attainment of Spouse

Race and Hispanic Origin of Spouse
172

Males Females Males Females

 Total 20 12 49 48

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 19 11 52 46

Black non-Hispanic 21 19 43 62

Hispanic 22 7 38 46

Asian/Pacific Islander * * * *

American Indian/Alaskan Native * 8 * 40

Poverty Status

Poor na na na na

Borderline poor na na na na

Nonpoor na na na na

Marital Status 

Currently married 21 11 48 44

Not currently married 19 13 51 51

Parental Status 

Parent 23 12 49 51

Nonparent 14 13 51 37

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 20 9 49 35

25 to 44 years old 16 10 44 43

45 to 65 years old 24 15 56 54

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 37 25 57 53

High school diploma or GED 14 9 48 50

Vocational/technical or some college 25 6 41 42

College graduate 17 12 48 42

Employment

Not in labor force 31 17 57 53

Looking for work 4 13 36 46

Less than 35 hours per week 15 13 62 56

35 hour or more per week 18 8 47 42

Note: Scores based on three categories - Strongly Agree or Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, and Disagree or Strongly Disagree. 1

Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

na = data not available

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1994 General Social Surveys

When there are children 

in the family, parents 

should stay together 

even if they don't get 

along.

Divorce is usually the 

best solution when a 

couple can't seem to 

work out their marriage 

problems.

Table FF5.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who agree or strongly agree with the following 

statements about divorce: 1994
173

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

 Total 44554555555

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5Black non-Hispanic 7 7 8 8 6 7 8 7 7 8 8Hispanic 4 4 6 5 5 5 5 5555Asian/Pacific Islander 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3American Indian/Alaskan Native 9 7 8 10 10 8 10 7 7 10 10

Poverty Status2

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 10 11 13 12 11 13 12 14 13 14 13

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 13 15 18 16 15 6 16 17 15 16 19

Nonpoor

100 to 199% of poverty 6 6 7 7 6 7 7 7788

200 to 299% of poverty 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 6 6 6 6300% or more of poverty 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Marital Status

Currently married 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Not currently married 11 12 13 13 12 13 13 13 13 14 13

Parental Status 

Resident parent 4 4 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5Nonparent 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 4 5 6 6 5 6 5 6666

25 to 44 years old 6 6 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 8 745 years and older 22232333333

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 6High school diploma or GED 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6666

Vocational/technical or some college 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5College graduate 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4

Employment

Not in labor force 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3Looking for work 7 8 8 8 7 8 8 8 8 8 9Less than 35 hours/week 4555455444535 hour or more per week 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6

1 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.2 Income and poverty status are based on data from the previous year.

Table FF6.1 Percentage of adults cohabiting: 1991-2001

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1991-2001, March Supplement, Current Population Survey. 

Males
174 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

 Total 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 555

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5Black non-Hispanic 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 6Hispanic 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5Asian/Pacific Islander 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 4American Indian/Alaskan Native 8 7 9 7 9 9 7 8 6 9 8

Poverty Status2

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 9 10 13 11 11 7 12 13 14 14 15

Nonpoor

100 to 199% of poverty 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6200 to 299% of poverty 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6300% or more of poverty 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3

Marital Status

Currently married 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Not currently married 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 11

Parental Status 

Resident parent 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4Nonparent 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 925 to 44 years old 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 645 years and older 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 222

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4High school diploma or GED 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5Vocational/technical or some college 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5College graduate 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4

Employment

Not in labor force 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3Looking for work 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 7 8 8 10Less than 35 hours/week 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 444

35 hour or more per week 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7

1 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.2 Income and poverty status are based on data from the previous year.

Table FF6.1 (cont'd) Percentage of adults cohabiting: 1991-2001

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1991-2001, March Supplement, Current Population Survey. 

Females
175

Males Females

 Total 23 21

Race and Hispanic Origin1 

White non-Hispanic 23 21

Black non-Hispanic 23 21

Hispanic 22 21

Asian/Pacific Islander * *

American Indian/Alaskan Native * *

Poverty Status 

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 22 20

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 23 20

Nonpoor 23 22

100 to 199% of poverty 22 20

200 to 299% of poverty 21 21

300% or more of poverty 24 22

Parental Status 

Resident Parent 24 23

Nonparent 22 21

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 19 18

25 to 44 years old 23 22

45 years and older 27 24

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 22 19

High school diploma or GED 22 20

Vocational/technical or some college 22 22

College graduate 25 24

Employment

Not in labor force 23 21

Looking for work 21 19

Less than 35 hours per week 23 21

35 hours or more per week 23 22

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

Table FF7.1 Average age at first cohabitation: 1988

1 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin 

may be of any race.

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1988 National Survey of 

Families and Households
176

Males

White nonHispanicBlack nonHispanic HispanicAsian/ Pacific 

Islander

American 

Indian/ Alaskan 

Native

Race and Hispanic Origin of Respondent3

White non-Hispanic 93 1321

Black non-Hispanic 13 82 320

Hispanic 23 1 74 2 0

Asian/Pacific Islander 29 3 5 63 0

American Indian/Alaskan Native 53 0 2 0 45

18 to 24 years 

old

25 to 44 years 

old

45 years and 

older

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 77 20 3

25 to 44 years old 20 72 8

45 years and older 1 32 67

Less than high 

school

High school 

diploma or GED

Vocational/ 

technical or 

some college

College 

graduate

Educational Attainment of Respondent

Less than high school 41 38 20 1

High school diploma or GED 13 50 29 8

7 27 46 20

College graduate 3 11 24 61

Not in labor 

force

Looking for 

work

Less than 35 

hours per week

35 hours or 

more per week

Employment of Respondent

Not in labor force 41 3 10 45

Looking for work 15 15 18 52

Less than 35 hours per week 15 6 21 58

35 hours or more per week 17 4 11 68

3 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 2001, March Supplement, Current Population Survey. 

1 Although the numerator (the number of cases) is the same for both males and females the percentages in the male and female tables should not be expected to 

match due to different denominators in each table which produce different estimates. 

2 Due to rounding, 0% in the table may represent any percentage less than 0.5.

Table FF8.1 Percentage of respondents by current partner characteristics: 20011,2

Vocational/technical or some college

Employment of Current Partner

Race and Hispanic Origin of Current Partner

Age of Current Partner

Educational Attainment of Current Partner
177

Females

White nonHispanicBlack nonHispanic HispanicAsian/ Pacific 

Islander

American 

Indian/ Alaskan 

Native

Race and Hispanic Origin of Respondent3

White non-Hispanic 91 3411

Black non-Hispanic 4 95 110

Hispanic 21 4 74 1 0

Asian/Pacific Islander 39 8 7 46 0

American Indian/Alaskan Native * * * * *

18 to 24 years 

old

25 to 44 years 

old

45 years and 

older

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 53 46 1

25 to 44 years old 6 78 16

45 years and older 2 20 78

Less than high 

school

High school 

diploma or GED

Vocational/ 

technical or 

some college

College 

graduate

Educational Attainment of Respondent

Less than high school 51 33 12 4

High school diploma or GED 20 55 19 6

12 36 38 14

College graduate 1 16 27 56

Not in labor 

force

Looking for 

work

Less than 35 

hours per week

35 hours or 

more per week

Employment of Respondent

Not in labor force 29 5 5 62

Looking for work 10 19 8 63

Less than 35 hours per week 12 9 11 68

35 hours or more per week 11 5 5 79

2 Due to rounding, 0% in the table may represent any percentage less than 0.5.

3 Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 2001, March Supplement, Current Population Survey. 

Table FF8.1 (cont'd) Percentage of respondents by current partner characteristics: 20011,2

1 Although the numerator (the number of cases) is the same for both males and females the percentages in the male and female tables should not be expected to 

match due to different denominators in each table which produce different estimates. 

Employment of Current Partner

Race and Hispanic Origin of Current Partner

Vocational/technical or some college

Educational Attainment of Current Partner

Age of Current Partner
178

1994 1998 1994 1998

 Total 49 51 37 38

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 51 53 38 39

Black non-Hispanic 44 36 31 32

Hispanic 44 55 46 46

Asian/Pacific Islander * * * 44

American Indian/Alaskan Native * * 39 22

Poverty Status

Poor na na na na

Borderline poor na na na na

Nonpoor na na na na

Marital Status 

Currently married 38 40 34 30

Not currently married 58 59 39 42

Parental Status 

Parent 40 44 35 32

Nonparent 66 64 47 57

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 71 77 61 56

25 to 44 years old 61 58 52 49

45 to 65 years old 32 39 21 24

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 38 47 32 38

High school diploma or GED 54 52 37 34

Vocational/technical or some college 60 49 36 45

College graduate 46 55 43 44

Employment

Not in labor force 33 35 22 28

Looking for work 72 * 53 *

Less than 35 hours per week 62 58 43 37

35 hours or more per week 51 55 49 47

Note: Scores based on three categories - Strongly Agree or Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, and Disagree or Strongly Disagree. 1

Estimates for all race categories exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

na = data not available

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1994 and 1998 General Social Surveys.

Males Females

Table FF9.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who agree or strongly agree that it is all right for a 

couple to live together without intending to get married: 1994 & 1998
Appendix E: 

Fertility Section – Data Tables 
180 1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Total (ages 15-54)1 57.0 55.6 58.4 57.1 55.8 54.4 53.2 52.0 51.1 50.4 51.0 50.8

Age2

15-19 18.8 18.0 23.5 24.8 24.6 24.8 25.0 24.3 23.0 22.2 21.6 21.0

15-1718-19

20-24 92.0 81.2 88.0 88.0 87.7 87.1 87.3 86.0 84.4 83.4 84.8 83.825-29 123.1 112.3 116.4 114.7 113.1 110.8 108.8 107.2 107.7 108.5 112.6 114.830-34 91.0 91.1 97.8 95.1 94.2 93.5 93.3 93.3 94.3 95.7 99.2 101.635-39 42.8 47.3 53.0 51.8 51.3 51.1 50.9 51.0 51.5 52.1 53.9 54.940-44 17.1 18.1 21.0 20.2 20.4 20.2 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.6 20.9 21.045-49 6.1 6.6 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.250-54 2.2 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Race and Hispanic Origin3

White (includes Hispanic) 53.4 52.6 54.6 53.3 52.2 50.9 50.0 49.2 48.4 47.7 48.3 48.2Black (includes Hispanic) 83.0 77.2 84.9 83.4 81.0 78.3 74.9 70.1 68.3 68.0 68.1 66.9Hispanic4 na na na na na na na na na na na na

Asian/Pacific Islander (includes Hispanic) na na na na na na na na na na na naAmerican Indian (includes Hispanic) na na na na na na na na na na na na

Marital Status5

Currently married na na na na na na na na na na na naNot currently married na na na na na na na na na na na na

1Number of births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 or 1,000 men ages 15 to 54.2Number of live births to women/men in a specified age group per 1,000 women/men in the same age group.3Number of live births to women/men with a specified race or ethnicity per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 or men ages 15 to 54 with the same race/ethnicity. 

 Race and Hispanic origin are reported separately on birth certificates. In the table for males, all men (including Hispanic men) are classified only according to their race. 

4Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.5Number of live births to women with a specified marital status per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 with the same status.

na = data not availableSource: Ventura, S. J. et al. (2001). Births: Final data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Report, 49 (1) Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

 Ventura, S.J., Bachrach C.A. (2000). Nonmarital childbearing in the United States, 1940-99. National Vital Statistics Reports , 48(16). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Males

Table F1.1 Fertility rates for males: selected years: 1980-1999
181

1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Total (ages 15-44)1 68.4 66.3 70.9 69.6 68.9 67.6 66.7 65.6 65.3 65.0 65.6 65.9

Age2

15-19 53.0 51.0 59.9 62.1 60.7 59.6 58.9 56.8 54.4 52.3 51.1 49.6

15-17 32.5 31.0 37.5 38.7 37.8 37.8 37.6 36.0 33.8 32.1 30.4 28.718-19 82.1 79.6 88.6 94.4 94.5 92.1 91.5 89.1 86.0 83.6 82.0 80.3

20-24 115.1 108.3 116.5 115.7 114.6 112.6 111.1 109.8 110.4 110.4 111.2 111.025-29 112.9 111.0 120.2 118.2 117.4 115.5 113.9 112.2 113.1 113.8 115.9 117.830-34 61.9 69.1 80.8 79.5 80.2 80.8 81.5 82.5 83.9 85.3 87.4 89.635-39 19.8 24.0 31.7 32.0 32.5 32.9 33.7 34.3 35.3 36.1 37.4 38.340-44 3.9 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.9 6.1 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.1 7.3 7.445-49 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4

Race and Hispanic Origin3

White (includes Hispanic) 65.6 64.1 68.3 67.0 66.5 65.4 64.9 64.4 64.3 63.9 64.6 65.1Black (includes Hispanic) 84.7 78.8 86.8 85.2 83.2 80.5 76.9 72.3 70.7 70.7 71.0 70.1Hispanic4 95.4 94.0 107.7 108.1 108.6 106.9 105.6 105.0 104.9 102.8 101.1 102.0

Asian/Pacific Islander (includes Hispanic) 73.2 68.4 69.6 67.6 67.2 66.7 66.8 66.4 65.9 66.3 64.0 65.6American Indian (includes Hispanic) 82.7 78.6 76.2 75.1 75.4 73.4 70.9 69.1 68.7 69.1 70.7 69.7

Marital Status5

Currently married 97.0 93.3 93.2 89.9 89.0 86.8 83.8 83.7 83.7 84.3 85.7 86.5Not currently married 29.4 32.8 43.8 45.2 45.2 45.3 46.9 45.1 44.8 44.0 44.3 44.4

1Number of births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 or 1,000 men ages 15 to 54.2Number of live births to women/men in a specified age group per 1,000 women/men in the same age group.3Number of live births to women/men with a specified race or ethnicity per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 or men ages 15 to 54 with the same race/ethnicity. 

Race and Hispanic origin are reported separately on birth certificates. In the table for males, all men (inluding Hispanic men) are classified only according to their race. 

4Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.5Number of live births to women with a specified marital status per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 with the same status.

Source: Ventura, S. J. et al. (2001). Births: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Report, 49 (1) Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

 Ventura, S.J., Bachrach C.A. (2000). Nonmarital childbearing in the United States, 1940-99. National Vital Statistics Reports , 48(16). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Females

Table F1.2 Fertility and birth rates for females: selected years, 1980-1999
182 10 to 19 

years old

20 to 24 

years old

25 to 29 

years old

30 to 34 

years old

35 to 54 

years old

10 to 19 

years old

20 to 24 

years old

25 to 29 

years old

30 to 34 

years old

35 to 54 

years old

Total 11 41 32 11 5 33 41 19 5 2Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 9 40 34 11 6 28 43 22 5 2Black non-Hispanic 18 47 21 13 1 57 32 9 2 1Hispanic 21 45 30 1 4 41 39 13 5 2Asian/Pacific Islander 2 43 33 22 0 8 50 18 24 0American Indian/Alaskan Native * * * * * 48 42 10 0 0

Poverty Status

Poor 21 38 21 17 2 53 35 8 2 2Nonpoor 10 41 33 11 5 29 44 21 5 2

Marital Status 

Currently married 10 40 34 10 5 29 42 21 6 2Not currently married 17 48 21 9 4 45 39 11 3 1

Parental Status2

Resident parent 9 37 34 13 6 30 39 21 7 2Nonparent 15 49 28 6 2 40 45 13 1 1

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 45 55 0 0 0 62 38 0 0 025 to 44 years old 11 41 30 13 5 31 40 21 6 245 to 59 years old 9 40 37 8 6 31 43 19 4 3

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 30 42 18 7 3 69 25 5 1 1High school diploma or GED 14 48 27 7 4 37 44 14 3 1Vocational/technical or some college 4 45 37 9 5 25 48 22 4 1College graduate 6 29 40 17 8 5 39 37 14 6

Employment Status3

Less than 40 hours per week 17 36 32 5 9 28 44 20 6 240 or more hours per week 11 42 32 11 4 36 39 19 5 1

2Parental status was determined by the number of children in a household at the time of interview. Nonparent refers to those with nonresident children (including those given to adoption or foster care) or deceased children.3Estimates calculated among those working for pay in the last week.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey.

Males Females

Table F2.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 who had their first birth at a certain age (among those who have had a live birth): 1992

1 Estimates for all race categories exclude persons of Hispanic origin. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. 
183

None One Two Three or more None One Two Three or more

 Total 34 17 21 29 21 15 21 44

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 34 16 22 28 23 15 22 41Black non-Hispanic 34 17 15 34 13 16 15 56Hispanic 28 20 17 35 20 10 23 48Asian/Pacific Islander 37 22 16 25 15 23 20 41American Indian/Alaskan Native 54 5 12 28 8 5 23 65

Poverty Status

Poor 43 15 15 26 22 12 15 51Nonpoor 29 18 22 31 19 16 22 43

Marital Status 

Currently married 10 19 28 43 8 14 24 54Not currently married 68 13 9 11 44 16 14 26

Parental Status2

Resident parent 12 18 27 43 6 14 27 53Nonparent 51 16 15 18 39 15 13 32

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 78 17 4 2 60 18 13 925 to 44 years old 30 19 22 28 15 16 25 4445 to 59 years old 9 10 29 52 7 9 18 65

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 33 15 17 35 14 8 14 63High school diploma or GED 33 18 19 30 14 13 25 48Vocational/technical or some college 37 18 20 26 25 17 19 39College graduate 31 14 25 30 28 18 23 32

Employment Status3

Less than 40 hours per week 55 15 13 17 19 13 23 4540 or more hours per week 28 17 23 33 20 16 20 44

2Parental status was determined by the number of children in a household at the time of interview. Nonparent refers to those with nonresident children (including those given to adoption or foster care) or deceased children3 Estimates calculated among those working for pay in the last week.

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey.

Males Females

Table F3.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 who have had pregnancies: 1992

1 Estimates for all race categories exclude persons of Hispanic origin. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. 
184

Males Females

 Total 15 19

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 12 12

Black non-Hispanic 31 53

Hispanic 20 28

Asian/Pacific Islander 13 6

American Indian/Alaskan Native 14 48

Poverty Status

Poor 22 35

Nonpoor 15 15

Marital Status 

Currently married 18 17

Not currently married 10 24

Parental Status 2

Resident parent 22 27

Nonparent 9 10

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 4 21

25 to 44 years old 19 21

45 to 59 years old 14 14

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 19 35

High school diploma or GED 18 24

Vocational/technical or some college 11 14

College graduate 13 10

Employment Status3

Less than 40 hours per week 13 20

40 or more hours per week 16 20

3 Estimates calculated among those working for pay in the last week.

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey.

Table F4.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 who had their first birth 

before their first marriage: 1992

2

Parental status was determined by the number of children in a household at the time of interview. Nonparent refers to those 

with nonresident children (including those given to adoption or foster care) or deceased.

1

 Estimates for all race categories exclude persons of Hispanic origin. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. 
185

Never

8 to 12 

years old

13 to 14 

years old

15 to 17 

years old

18 to 19 

years old

20 to 24 

years old

25 years 

or older Never

8 to 12 

years old

13 to 14 

years old

15 to 17 

years old

18 to 19 

years old

20 to 24 

years old

25 years 

or older

Total 4 3 12 40 23 16 3 4 1 5 37 28 21 4Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 4 2 10 40 24 17 3 4 1 4 37 29 22 3Black non-Hispanic 5 6 25 45 15 5 0 4 2 11 46 23 13 1Hispanic 3 3 16 41 22 12 3 4 2 6 31 33 19 5Asian/Pacific Islander 8 1 0 20 24 31 17 5 0 0 12 25 36 23American Indian/Alaskan Native 22 0 0 36 30 12 0 0 1 11 22 38 17 9

Poverty Status

Poor 5 6 15 39 24 11 2 1 4 10 43 25 12 3Nonpoor 3 2 12 41 22 17 3 3 1 5 37 30 21 4

Marital Status 

Currently married 0 3 12 35 27 19 5 0 1 5 36 29 24 4Not currently married 10 3 12 46 17 12 1 9 1 6 38 27 14 4

Parental Status 

Resident parent 2 3 12 41 24 15 4 3 1 6 41 26 20 3Nonparent 6 2 12 39 22 17 3 5 2 4 32 31 21 5

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 14 2 14 52 12 5 0 11 1 9 46 26 7 025 to 44 years old 3 3 11 41 24 16 3 2 1 6 39 28 20 445 to 59 years old 1 2 11 28 27 24 6 3 1 3 26 31 31 6

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 5 5 20 39 17 10 3 7 2 11 54 18 6 2High school diploma or GED 6 4 12 40 22 13 3 3 1 6 36 31 21 2Vocational/technical or some college 5 2 10 46 22 13 2 3 1 5 40 31 17 3College graduate 1 1 8 30 28 26 6 3 1 2 18 29 39 8

Employment Status2

Less than 40 hours per week 11 3 10 40 22 12 1 4 1 5 38 27 23 440 or more hours per week 3 3 11 39 24 17 4 3 1 6 36 30 19 4

2 Estimates calculated among those working for pay in the last week.

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey.

Males Females

Table F5.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 who had their first sexual intercourse by the specified age: 1992

1 Estimates for all race categories exclude persons of Hispanic origin. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. 
186 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000

Total 22 23 24 21 17 20 24 21 22Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 19 22 23 16 18 17 22 20 20Black non-Hispanic 40 40 32 57 28 38 40 30 33Hispanic 33 35 30 * * 39 16 30 34Asian/Pacific Islander * * * * * 17 * 7 13American Indian/Alaskan Native 22 19 20 * 3 21 32 25 13

Poverty Status

Poor 26 33 37 60 20 na na na naBorderline Poor2 23 * * * * na na na na

Nonpoor 21 23 22 17 18 na na na na

Marital Status 

Currently married 5 6 8 3 3 3 6 4 4Not currently married 38 44 39 36 32 34 37 32 33

Parental Status 

Parent 16 15 15 17 12 13 16 14 15Nonparent 33 37 38 28 28 31 39 34 31

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 50 43 42 43 36 49 41 42 3925 to 44 years old 23 27 30 24 20 25 31 28 2945 to 65 years old 12 14 10 12 12 10 12 10 11

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 23 23 27 35 21 13 21 16 17High school diploma or GED 19 24 23 22 18 24 24 25 22Vocational/technical or some college 46 20 37 * 4 19 34 24 26College graduate 19 21 20 15 18 16 23 15 23

Employment Status

Not in labor force 18 18 9 23 12 14 17 12 8Looking for work * * * * 18 30 45 45 22Less than 35 hours per week 25 39 23 * 31 27 19 32 18

35 hours or more per week 21 23 28 18 18 21 25 22 27

1 Estimates for all race categories exclude persons of Hispanic origin. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. 2Since GSS respondents reported their income in categories, it was unclear whether some respondents' incomes fell above or below the poverty threshhold. These cases were designated "borderline poor". 

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.na = data not availableSource: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1988 through 2000 General Social Surveys.

Males

Table F6.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who had two or more sex partners in the last 12 months: selected years: 1988-2000
187

1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000

Total 12 8 10 8 10 11 12 11 11Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 10 8 9 6 9 10 10 8 9Black non-Hispanic 19 13 13 14 19 18 19 18 15Hispanic 13 7 22 15 1 24 22 21 12Asian/Pacific Islander * * * * * 0 * 3 11American Indian/Alaskan Native 13 11 10 * 23 12 9 12 16

Poverty Status

Poor 20 10 14 13 17 na na na naBorderline Poor2 0 8 22 * 14 na na na na

Nonpoor 11 8 8 6 9 na na na na

Marital Status 

Currently married 3 2 4 2 2 2 3 2 2Not currently married 17 12 13 11 16 17 17 15 15

Parental Status 

Parent 10 7 8 7 8 10 11 10 9Nonparent 19 14 13 11 17 16 16 13 15

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 32 28 29 31 25 31 33 35 2425 to 44 years old 18 13 13 10 17 17 17 14 1645 to 65 years old 324124434

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 6 9 5 5 5 9 12 12 12High school diploma or GED 14 9 11 8 13 13 14 11 12Vocational/technical or some college 8 11 11 * 16 14 10 11 12College graduate 16 4 10 6 7 9 11 8 7

Employment Status

Not in labor force 10 5 6 4 5 6 8 7 6Looking for work * * * * * 33 20 * 19Less than 35 hours per week 10 14 10 12 12 16 15 13 12

35 hours or more per week 15 12 13 7 15 14 15 13 14

1 Estimates for all race categories exclude persons of Hispanic origin. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. 2Since GSS respondents reported their income in categories, it was unclear whether some respondents' incomes fell above or below the poverty threshhold. These cases were designated "borderline poor". 

* = Sample size too small to reportna = data not availableSource: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1988 through 2000 General Social Surveys.

Females

Table F6.1 (cont'd) Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who had two or more sex partners in the last 12 months: selected years: 1988-2000
188

Just Met Just friends

Going out 

once in a 

while

Going 

together or 

going steady

Engaged but 

not living 

together Married

Living 

together in 

romantic, 

sexual 

relationship

Total (ages 15 to 19) 6 18 16 57 2 1 1

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 6 15 16 60 2 1 1

Black non-Hispanic 5 26 17 48 1 0 2

Hispanic 7 17 16 55 3 0 2

Other non-Hispanic *******

Parental Status 

Parent 4 10 10 65 2 9 1

Nonparent 6 18 16 56 2 0 1

Educational Attainment 

Less than high school 6 18 17 56 1 0 1

High school diploma or GED 6 17 12 59 3 2 1

Vocational/technical or some college 2 15 19 60 0 0 5

College graduate na na na na na na na

Total (ages 21 to 27) 8 17 14 50 4 3 4

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 7 17 13 50 4 3 5

Black non-Hispanic 4 18 16 57 1 3 1

Hispanic 9 12 22 44 6 4 3

Other non-Hispanic 24 23 5 31 8 9 1

Parental Status 

Parent 3 10 10 57 7 6 8

Nonparent 9 19 16 48 3 3 3

Educational Attainment 

Less than high school 7 16 17 50 0 7 2

High school diploma or GED 4 16 15 50 3 6 6

Vocational/technical or some college 12 19 12 46 4 2 5

College graduate 4 15 16 56 6 1 1

Employment Status

Not in labor force 3 20 16 47 7 6 2

Looking for work 14 21 7 49 0 5 3

Less than 35 hours per week 9 26 15 48 0 1 1

35 hours or more per week 7 14 15 51 4 4 5

1

Estimates for whites, blacks, and other races exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

na = data not available

Source: Estimates supplied by the Urban Institute, based on data from the 1995 National Survey of Adolescent Males.

Table F7.1 Seriousness of relationship at first sex with current or most recent partner (in percents): 1995

Males
189

Just Met Just Friends

Going Out

Once in a 

While

Going 

Steady Engaged Married

Total 5 10 10 55 8 12

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 5 9 10 57 8 11

Black non-Hispanic 4 16 13 59 4 4

Hispanic 3 9 9 44 8 26

Other non-Hispanic 4 12 7 35 7 34

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 7 16 11 50 6 10

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 9 19 12 50 4 4

Nonpoor 4 10 10 55 8 13

100% to 199% of poverty 5 12 11 51 8 14

200% to 299% of poverty 5 9 9 54 9 14

300% or more of poverty 4 9 11 58 8 12

Parental Status

Parent 4 9 10 52 9 15

Nonparent 5 12 12 61 4 6

Age

15 to 25 years old 4 11 10 65 5 6

15 to 19 years old 4 10 11 69 4 2

20 to 24 years old 5 12 9 63 5 7

25 to 44 years old 5 10 11 52 9 14

Educational Attainment 

Less than high school 7 13 11 52 6 11

High school diploma or GED 5 11 10 54 9 11

Some college 4 10 10 57 9 11

College graduate 4 8 11 56 6 16

Employment Status

Not in labor force 5 10 9 51 8 16

Looking for work 5 14 24 50 4 2

Less than 35 hours per week 4 8 8 58 8 14

35 hours or more per week 4 11 11 56 8 10

1

Estimates for whites, blacks, and other races exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Estimates supplied by the National Center for Health Statistics, based on data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.

Table F7.1 (con't) Seriousness of relationship at first sex with current or most recent partner (in percents): 1995

Females
190

0-2 months 3-11 months

12-47 

months

48 months 

or more

Total (ages 15-44) 21 17 26 36

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 22 18 26 34

Black non-Hispanic 23 16 31 30

Hispanic 14 11 26 50

Other non-Hispanic 16 14 23 48

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 22 14 29 36

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 21 16 33 30

Nonpoor 21 17 26 36

100% to 199% of poverty 23 16 25 36

200% to 299% of poverty 21 17 26 36

300% or more of poverty 21 18 27 35

Marital Status

Married 17 13 22 49

Not Married 27 21 33 19

Parental Status

Parent 18 13 22 46

Nonparent 26 22 34 18

Age

15 to 25 years old 28 21 37 14

25 to 44 years old 19 15 23 43

Educational Attainment 

Less than high school 26 15 27 33

High school diploma or GED 21 16 24 40

Some college 22 18 28 33

College graduate 18 17 29 35

Employment Status

Not in labor force 21 16 25 38

Looking for work 23 14 28 35

Less than 35 hours per week 24 16 27 33

35 hours or more per week 20 17 27 36

1

Estimates for whites, blacks, and other races exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Estimates supplied by the National Center for Health Statistics, based on data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.

Females

Table F7.2 Length of sexual relationship with first sexual partner (in percents): 1995
191

0-2 months 3-11 months

12-47 

months

48 months 

or more

Total (ages 15-44) 6 9 21 64

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 6 9 20 66

Black non-Hispanic 7 13 28 52

Hispanic 5 8 21 67

Other non-Hispanic 4 4 23 69

Poverty Status

Poor (0 to 99% poverty) 11 13 27 49

Extreme poverty (at 50% or less) 18 14 30 38

Nonpoor 6 8 20 66

100% to 199% of poverty 8 10 22 59

200% to 299% of poverty 6 9 21 64

300% or more of poverty 4 7 19 70

Marital Status

Married 0 1 12 87

Not Married 17 23 36 23

Parental Status

Parent 3 5 15 77

Nonparent 13 17 33 37

Age

15 to 25 years old 17 22 40 21

25 to 44 years old 3 6 15 76

Educational Attainment 

Less than high school 11 15 25 49

High school diploma or GED 5 8 19 69

Some college 7 9 21 63

College graduate 4 7 21 68

Employment Status

Not in labor force 7 9 19 65

Looking for work 9 20 35 36

Less than 35 hours per week 8 8 20 65

35 hours or more per week 5 9 22 64

1

Estimates for whites, blacks, and other races exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Estimates supplied by the National Center for Health Statistics, based on data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.

Females

Table F7.3 Length of sexual relationship with current or most recent partner (in percents): 1995
192

Race and Hispanic origin of partner1

White nonHispanicBlack nonHispanic HispanicOther nonHispanic

Total (15 to19 years old) 63 18 14 5

Race and Hispanic Origin of Respondent1

White non-Hispanic 92 1 4 3

Black non-Hispanic 13 80 5 3

Hispanic 25 6 64 4

Other non-Hispanic * * * *

 Total (21 to 27 years old) 73 13 6 8

Race and Hispanic Origin of Respondent1

White non-Hispanic 92 0 1 7

Black non-Hispanic 10 81 2 7

Hispanic 35 4 52 9

Other non-Hispanic 60 3 7 30

1

Estimates for whites, blacks, and other races exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

Source: Estimates supplied by the Urban Institute, based on data from the 1995 National Survey of Adolescent Males.

Race and Hispanic origin of partner1

White nonHispanicBlack nonHispanic HispanicOther nonHispanic

Total (15 to 44 years old) 73 13 10 4

Race and Hispanic Origin of Respondent1

White non-Hispanic 93 2 3 2

Black non-Hispanic 4 94 1 1

Hispanic 23 4 71 2

Other non-Hispanic 33 4 4 59

1

Estimates for whites, blacks, and other races exclude Hispanics of those races. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: Estimates supplied by the National Center for Health Statistics, based on data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.

Table F7.4 Race and Hispanic origin of current or most recent sexual partner (in percents): 1995

Females

Males
193

Under 15 

years old

15 to 19 

years old

20 to 24 

years old

25 to 29 

years old

30 years 

and older

Under 15 

years old

15 to 19 

years old

20 to 24 

years old

25 to 29 

years old

30 years 

and older

Age of respondent

15 to 19 years old 3.9 87.5 7.0 1.4 0.3 7.9 82.6 7.4 1.7 0.421 to 27 years old na na na na na 0.0 9.0 64.4 21.9 4.7

na = data not availableSource: National Survey of Adolescent Males 1988, 1995; tables prepared by the Urban Institute

Under 20 

years old

20 to 24 

years old

25 to 44 

years old

44 years 

and older

Total 23.8 6.2 59.9 10.1Age of respondent

15 to 19 years old 77.6 18.9 3.5 0.020 to 24 years old 40.7 25.0 34.1 0.225 to 44 years old 15.9 1.7 69.6 12.8

Source: Estimates supplied by the National Center for Health Statistics, based on data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.

Age of Partner

Age of Partner

Table F7.5a Current age of current or most recent female partner in past year, Males (in percents): 1988 & 1995Table 7.5b Current age of current or most recent male partner in past year, Females ages 15-44 (in percents): 1995

1988 1995
194 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000

Total 69 63 63 63 62 66 60 60 50 53 49 50 51 53 48 48Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 68 61 62 62 60 64 59 58 48 51 44 48 48 52 46 46Black non-Hispanic 81 61 73 71 77 71 67 72 51 56 54 55 56 54 51 48Hispanic * * * * 71 75 70 68 57 * 82 54 62 69 66 69Asian/Pacific Islander * * * * 50 * 66 52 * * * * 62 * 38 60American Indian/Alaskan Native * * * 67 66 70 62 60 79 * * 50 73 46 60 53

Poverty Status

Poor 61 36 55 43 na na na na 46 59 47 44 na na na naBorderline Poor2 * * * * na na na na 15 * 35 39 na na na na

Nonpoor 70 66 64 65 na na na na 53 54 50 52 na na na na

Marital Status 

Currently married 80 75 74 77 75 79 74 78 73 83 76 74 75 79 72 73Not currently married 56 51 53 49 52 56 51 49 37 35 33 36 38 40 36 37

Parental Status 

Parent 76 67 65 65 66 68 65 64 51 55 49 49 50 53 47 47Nonparent 58 56 57 59 56 61 51 54 47 49 46 53 54 55 51 53

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 61 64 75 65 70 76 65 65 72 72 80 78 82 78 72 7625 to 44 years old 81 77 75 77 73 72 68 74 73 77 69 74 71 70 69 6745 to 65 years old 56 46 44 47 50 56 50 46 28 28 23 24 28 31 23 27

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 60 64 55 51 42 59 43 45 36 47 33 29 37 33 34 30High school diploma or GED 70 60 66 65 67 67 63 65 54 56 52 52 53 56 49 50Vocational/technical or some college 72 * 66 58 75 75 64 63 68 * 71 70 62 58 58 61College graduate 72 65 63 69 64 64 63 59 56 52 54 57 54 59 53 53

Employment Status

Not in labor force 44 27 37 28 38 46 32 35 36 39 36 33 35 38 34 31Looking for work * * * 67 74 76 65 55 * * * * 62 53 * 72Less than 35 hours per week 62 * 61 59 64 48 54 50 55 76 60 62 57 62 55 5735 hours or more per week 77 76 74 75 70 72 69 70 66 62 58 62 61 62 58 59

1 Estimates for all race categories exclude persons of Hispanic origin. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. 2Since GSS respondents reported their income in categories, it was unclear whether some respondents' incomes fell above or below the poverty threshhold. These cases were designated "borderline poor." 

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.na = data not availableSource: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1989 through 2000 General Social Surveys.

Males Females

Table F8.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who had sex two or more times a month during the last 12 months: selected years, 1989-2000
195

Males Females

 Total 34 37

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 37 40

Black non-Hispanic 24 35

Hispanic 20 29

Asian/Pacific Islander 26 28

American Indian/Alaskan Native * 13

Poverty Status

Poor 39 32

Nonpoor 34 39

Marital Status 

Currently married 30 37

Not currently married 39 38

Parental Status 

Resident parent 31 37

Nonparent 36 38

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 50 50

25 to 44 years old 32 36

45 to 59 years old 26 32

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 26 23

High school diploma or GED 24 32

Vocational/technical or some college 41 43

College graduate 39 46

Employment Status2

Less than 40 hours per week 40 39

40 or more hours per week 32 37

2 Estimates calculated among those working for pay in the last week.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

Table F9.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 who used contraceptives at 

their first sexual intercourse: 1992

1

 Estimates for all race categories exclude persons of Hispanic origin. Persons of Hispanic origin 

may be of any race. 

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1992 National Health and 

Social Life Survey.
196

Condoms Other Any Condoms Other Any

Total 17 36 50 15 45 56Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 16 39 52 14 46 57Black non-Hispanic 28 23 46 20 32 48Hispanic 12 34 44 17 46 57Asian/Pacific Islander 25 20 44 16 59 71American Indian/Alaskan Native * * * * * *

Poverty Status

Poor 25 34 52 19 41 56Nonpoor 15 38 51 15 46 57

Marital Status 

Currently married 9 32 41 11 44 53Not currently married 32 44 69 26 46 64

Parental Status 

Resident parent 20 37 54 13 44 54Nonparent 13 36 47 17 45 58

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 35 46 74 28 48 7025 to 44 years old 17 37 51 16 46 5845 to 59 years old 5 29 33 5 38 41

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 14 25 38 9 41 49High school diploma or GED 17 33 48 13 45 53Vocational/technical or some college 20 43 58 17 49 62College graduate 15 39 52 19 41 57

Employment Status2

Less than 40 hours per week 26 44 65 17 42 5540 or more hours per week 15 35 47 13 46 55

2 Estimates calculated among those working for pay in the last week.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey.

Males Females

Table F9.2 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 who used some form of contraception during their most recent intercourse: 1992

1 Estimates for all race categories exclude persons of Hispanic origin. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. 
197

1980 1982 1983 1984 1985 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000

If there is a strong chance of serious defect in the baby 81 81 76 80 77 79 79 80 78 82 84 79 78 77 82If she is married and does not want any more children 48 48 42 45 45 47 42 48 46 51 47 49 44 43 44If the family has a very low income and cannot afford any more children 53 50 45 47 46 49 41 50 47 53 51 49 45 44 44If the woman's own health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy 89 91 87 90 91 88 90 88 90 90 90 88 89 86 91If she is not married and does not want to marry the man 47 48 40 47 42 46 40 49 45 50 49 48 43 44 41If she became pregnant as a result of rape 82 83 81 83 81 80 80 82 84 86 83 82 82 79 84

1980 1982 1983 1984 1985 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000

If there is a strong chance of serious defect in the baby 79 81 77 77 74 76 75 77 78 78 78 79 80 76 77If she is married and does not want any more children 44 44 35 40 35 37 38 39 43 39 44 45 46 40 39If the family has a very low income and cannot afford any more children 47 48 42 44 40 41 41 43 46 43 46 49 46 43 43If the woman's own health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy 86 87 87 86 83 82 83 88 87 88 84 87 88 83 87If she is not married and does not want to marry the man 47 47 38 42 38 37 36 40 42 39 45 46 44 39 39If she became pregnant as a result of rape 79 82 80 76 76 75 74 79 79 80 78 80 81 75 79

na = data not availableSource: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1980 through 2000 General Social Surveys.

Males

Females

Table F10.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who think it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortion under six different reasons: selected years, 1980-2000
198

1980 1982 1983 1984 1985 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000

Total 41 41 35 40 38 44 35 43 43 47 45 46 43 41 40Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 43 44 36 42 38 47 35 44 44 48 44 48 43 44 43Black non-Hispanic 23 25 28 34 42 34 32 32 41 45 59 33 49 34 33Hispanic 32 43 26 * 24 24 40 * 46 * * 41 38 34 24Asian/Pacific Islander * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *American Indian/Alaskan Native 40 * * * * 14 * * 36 * * 34 33 24 27

Poverty Status

Poor 36 25 23 28 31 26 17 24 38 47 55 na na na naBorderline Poor2 44 38 * 20 * * * * * * * na na na na

Nonpoor 41 43 36 43 39 46 37 45 44 48 44 na na na na

Marital Status 

Currently married 38 38 32 35 36 38 30 39 39 38 39 39 39 39 39Not currently married 45 45 39 45 40 49 40 47 47 55 51 52 45 42 41

Parental Status 

Parent 36 39 33 35 33 37 31 38 38 42 41 38 38 37 37Nonparent 49 48 39 50 47 56 41 50 50 54 52 59 51 48 45

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 34 34 36 29 39 47 44 36 42 59 40 54 49 43 4225 to 44 years old 47 46 39 51 43 51 36 49 45 49 49 49 43 41 4045 to 65 years old 36 38 31 32 33 35 31 38 41 42 42 40 41 41 40

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 31 35 21 26 28 31 30 16 22 32 35 31 27 31 32High school diploma or GED 39 42 35 38 38 39 26 46 44 47 47 48 42 38 38Vocational/technical or some college * 60 22 * 32 37 25 38 47 * 51 47 42 54 35College graduate 60 46 56 60 49 67 61 58 58 60 49 51 54 49 51

Employment Status

Not in labor force 32 34 22 29 31 36 35 35 38 43 39 43 42 41 40Looking for work 45 44 24 42 43 49 * * * * * 39 48 61 30Less than 35 hours per week 45 44 39 49 56 41 31 54 54 47 49 51 24 41 29

35 hours or more per week 43 44 40 43 37 47 36 43 43 49 48 47 44 40 42

1 Estimates for all race categories exclude persons of Hispanic origin. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. 2Since GSS respondents reported their income in categories, it was unclear whether some respondents' incomes fell above or below the poverty threshhold. These cases were designated "borderline poor". 

Table F10.2 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who think it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortio

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.na = data not availableSource: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1980 through 2000 General Social Surveys.

n if the woman wants it for any reason: selected 

years, 1980 - 2000

Males
199

1980 1982 1983 1984 1985 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1998 2000

Total 38 39 34 37 34 35 35 37 42 38 42 45 43 39 41Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 38 40 34 41 36 36 37 37 41 40 43 45 45 41 42Black non-Hispanic 37 32 36 21 30 35 35 42 50 31 37 42 41 35 38Hispanic 37 42 22 27 17 20 26 30 45 31 33 47 42 32 37Asian/Pacific Islander * * * * * * * * * * * 60 * 42 47American Indian/Alaskan Native 52 24 * 27 26 31 17 * 48 * 45 28 23 13 44

Poverty Status

Poor 34 27 34 17 25 22 25 19 33 30 35 na na na naBorderline Poor2 24 15 11 31 26 35 25 * 23 26 22 na na na na

Nonpoor 41 44 35 42 36 38 37 39 45 40 45 na na na na

Marital Status 

Currently married 37 38 31 33 34 33 30 32 39 36 38 45 40 37 37Not currently married 39 40 36 40 33 37 38 40 44 39 44 45 45 39 43

Parental Status 

Parent 38 35 31 34 31 32 31 32 40 35 38 44 39 36 38Nonparent 41 52 41 46 43 44 49 51 47 46 55 49 55 48 52

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 49 39 39 42 33 40 39 42 42 46 51 39 47 45 3925 to 44 years old 46 51 38 46 42 44 44 46 52 40 48 50 48 46 4645 to 65 years old 31 29 29 28 27 27 27 30 34 34 37 41 38 31 37

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 27 21 21 20 22 18 18 21 26 21 25 28 31 20 31High school diploma or GED 41 44 35 39 34 38 37 37 42 40 39 45 43 36 40Vocational/technical or some college 45 38 36 60 56 33 41 53 65 33 55 46 44 53 41College graduate 57 63 51 60 50 57 55 58 54 52 65 59 53 54 52

Employment Status

Not in labor force 31 30 28 26 28 26 26 27 32 32 33 38 32 29 34Looking for work * 28 37 * * * * * * * * 40 * * *Less than 35 hours per week 41 40 42 43 28 35 37 38 47 48 35 48 47 36 44

35 hours or more per week 48 50 39 46 43 45 45 49 50 41 53 50 51 47 46

1 Estimates for all race categories exclude persons of Hispanic origin. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. 2Since GSS respondents reported their income in categories, it was unclear whether some respondents' incomes fell above or below the poverty threshhold. These cases were designated "borderline poor". 

Table F10.2 (cont'd) Percentage of adults ages 18 to 65 who think it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.na = data not availableSource: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1980 through 2000 General Social Surveys.

 abortion if the woman wants it for any reason: 

selected years, 1980 - 2000

Females
200

Among the entire 

population

Among those 

who have had a 

pregnancy

Among the entire 

population

Among those 

who have had a 

pregnancy

Total 12 18 16 21

Race and Hispanic Origin1

White non-Hispanic 11 16 15 20

Black non-Hispanic 12 18 16 19

Hispanic 19 26 19 25

Asian/Pacific Islander 15 24 31 38

American Indian/Alaskan Native 15 * 13 14

Poverty Status

Poor 5 10 14 18

Nonpoor 14 20 18 23

Marital Status 

Currently married 11 13 15 16

Not currently married 12 39 18 35

Parental Status 

Resident Parent 13 15 19 20

Nonparent 11 23 13 23

Age of Respondent

18 to 24 years old 9 44 15 39

25 to 44 years old 14 21 20 24

45 to 59 years old 88 89

Educational Attainment

Less than high school 8 13 13 15

High school diploma or GED 9 14 16 19

Vocational/technical or some college 13 22 17 23

College graduate 14 21 18 26

Employment Status2

Less than 40 hours per week 9 21 14 18

40 or more hours per week 12 17 18 24

2 Estimates calculated among those working for pay in the last week.

* = This information has been suppressed due to an insufficient number of cases.

Source: Estimates calculated by Child Trends based on analyses of the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey.

Males Females

Table F11.1 Percentage of adults ages 18 to 59 who have ever had an abortion: 1992

1

 Estimates for all race categories exclude persons of Hispanic origin. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. 
201
202
48
4301 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Suite 100

Washington, DC 20008

Phone 202-362-5580

Fax 202-362-5533

www.childtrends.org