U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

A Child’s Day: 2003 

(Selected Indicators of Child Well-Being)

Household Economic Studies

P70-109

Issued January 2007

Current

Population

Reports

By

Jane Lawler Dye 

and 

Tallese Johnson 

INTRODUCTION

This report is the third examination of

children’s well-being and their daily activities based on data from the Survey of

Income and Program Participation (SIPP).

It addresses children’s living arrangements and their family’s characteristics,

early child care experiences, daily interaction with parents, extracurricular activities, academic experience, and parents’

educational expectations. 

The data in this report were collected by

the U.S. Census Bureau from February

through May 2003 in the seventh wave

(interview) of the 2001 Panel of the SIPP.1

The population represented is the civilian

noninstitutionalized population living in

the United States. The statistics in this

report are based on data collected in the

child well-being topical module. The

2003 data were collected from a national

sample of 9,925 “designated parents”

(see definition box) and their 18,413

children. This sample represented 72.7

million children living in households with

at least one designated parent (Table 1).2

1 A description of the SIPP survey design and the

wording of the questions on the child well-being topical module can be found on the Internet at

<www.sipp.census.gov/SIPP>. 2 The estimates in this report (which may be

shown in text, figures, and tables) are based on

responses from a sample of the population and may

differ from the actual values because of sampling

variability or other factors. As a result, apparent differences between the estimates for two or more

groups may not be statistically significant. All comparative statements have undergone statistical testing and are significant at the 90-percent confidence

level unless otherwise noted.

Designated Parent

Respondents in the Survey of

Income and Program Participation

(SIPP) child well-being topical module are parents of children under 18

years old. In households where

both parents are present, the

mother is the designated parent.

Questions for each child are asked

of the designated parent. If the

mother is not available for an interview, the father of the child can

give proxy responses for her. In

single-parent families, the resident

parent is the designated parent. If

neither parent is in the household,

the guardian is the designated parent. Designated parents include

biological, step, and adoptive parents, and may also include other

relatives or nonrelatives acting as a

guardian for the child in the

absence of parents. In this module,

96 percent of the children had a

female designated parent, usually

the mother. Data from males who

were the designated parent are

included with the data from

females. Respondents 15 to 17

years old, who themselves may be

parents, have their childhood wellbeing history reported by their parents when they live with them in

the household. In this report,

unless otherwise noted, the term

parent is used to refer to the designated parent.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 1.

Living Arrangements and Family Characteristics of Children Under 18 and Their

Designated Parents: 2003

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic

All children Under 6

years

6 to 11

years

12 to 17

years

Number

Margin1 of error Number

Margin1 of error Number

Margin1 of error NumberMargin1 of error

Total children, 2003 . . . . . . .

CHILD

Sex

72,658 64 23,596 478 24,211 481 24,851 484

Female . . . ........................ 35,432 510 11,520 372 11,834 376 12,078 380

Male . . . ..........................

Race and Hispanic Origin

37,225 510 12,076 379 12,376 383 12,773 388

White . . . . . ....................... 56,733 424 18,247 442 18,936 448 19,550 452

Non-Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 44,585 498 14,134 404 14,647 409 15,804 421

Black. . . .......................... 11,744 375 3,847 228 3,958 231 3,939 231

Asian and Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . 3,044 204 1,134 126 955 116 955 116

Hispanic (any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DESIGNATED PARENT

Marital Status

13,281 394 4,491 245 4,689 250 4,101 235

Married2 .......................... 51,750 464 17,258 434 17,238 434 17,254 434

Separated, divorced, widowed. . . . . . . 12,507 385 2,302 178 4,213 238 5,992 280

Never married . . . ..................

Educational Attainment

8,401 326 4,036 233 2,760 195 1,605 150

Less than high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,783 376 3,780 226 3,922 230 4,081 235

High school graduate . . . . . . . . ...... 20,325 458 6,069 282 6,772 296 7,484 310

Some college . . . . . . . . . ............

Vocational certificate or associate’s

13,460 396 4,240 239 4,630 249 4,590 248

degree . . . . . ..................... 9,675 346 3,028 204 3,398 215 3,249 211

Bachelor’s degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,235 381 4,527 246 3,862 229 3,846 228

Advanced degree. . . . . . . . . . . .......

FAMILY

Poverty Status3

5,180 262 1,952 165 1,627 151 1,601 150

Below poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,812 388 4,563 247 4,441 244 3,808 227

At or above poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . 57,964 412 18,253 442 19,190 450 20,521 459

100 to 199 percent of poverty . . . . . 16,876 431 5,545 271 5,908 279 5,423 268

200 percent of poverty or higher. . .

Program Participation4

Received aid from at least one of the

41,088 506 12,708 387 13,282 394 15,098 414

following: . . . ..................... 40,337 508 9,508 344 16,106 423 14,723 410

TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,347 180 875 111 874 111 598 92

Food stamps . . . . . . . . ............ 8,287 324 3,084 205 2,913 200 2,290 178

WIC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,808 253 4,759 252 (X) (X) 49 26

Medicaid. . . ..................... 18,175 442 7,064 302 5,798 276 5,313 265

National School Lunch Program . . . 30,023 502 1,583 149 15,065 413 13,375 395

Did not receive aid. ................ 32,320 507 14,088 403 8,104 321 10,128 353

Total children, 2000 . . . . . . . 71,663 593 23,385 395 24,581 404 23,697 398

(X) Not applicable.

1 This figure added to or subtracted from the estimate provides the 90-percent confidence interval. 2 Married includes married, spouse present and married, spouse absent (excluding separated). 3 Includes only children in households for which poverty status was determined. 4 For families with income reported, programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); food stamps; Special Supplemental Nutrition

Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); Medicaid; and the National School Lunch Program.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data) and 1996 panel, Wave 12 (2000 data).
HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILY

CHARACTERISTICS 

Table 1 presents a profile of the

children, their designated parents,

and some of their family’s social

and economic characteristics in

2003. Seventy million children

lived with a female designated parent, while 2.8 million children lived

with a male designated parent.3

Most children, 51.8 million, were

living with a designated parent who

was currently married; hence, they

were living in a two-parent family.

Another 12.5 million children were

U.S. Census Bureau 3

3 Detailed Table 1. This and all of the following detailed tables mentioned in this

report can be found under Children’s WellBeing, Detailed Tables: 2003 on the Web

at <www.census.gov/population/www

/socdemo/children.html>.

living with a designated parent who

was separated, divorced, or

widowed, while 8.4 million were living with a designated parent who

had never married. 

Fifteen percent (10.7 million) of

children lived in families with

monthly incomes of less than

$1,500 per month. Another 13.7

million (19 percent) lived in families

with monthly incomes of $3,000 to

$4,499, and 20.3 million (28 percent) lived in families with monthly

incomes of $6,000 and above.4

Around 18 percent (12.8 million) of

children lived in families with

incomes that fell below the poverty

level. Twenty-three percent (16.9

million) lived in a household at 100

4 Detailed Table 2.

to 199 percent of poverty and 

57 percent (41.1 million) lived in a

household at 200 percent of

poverty or higher. 

More than one-half (56 percent) of

children lived in households that

participated in at least one or more

of the following government aid

programs: Temporary Assistance for

Needy Families (TANF); the Food

Stamp Program; the Special

Supplemental Nutrition Program for

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC);

Medicaid; and the National School

Lunch Program. The largest number

of children who lived in households

that received government aid participated in the National School Lunch

Program (30 million), followed by

the Medicaid program (18.2 million), food stamps (8.3 million), the

Table 2.

Children Under 18 Ever in Nonrelative Child Care Arrangements by Characteristics of

Children and Designated Parents: 2003

Characteristic

Percent ever in nonrelative child care arrangement

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

Total children, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHILD

Sex

24.2 47.0 40.3 32.3

Female . . . . . ......................................... 23.3 45.7 39.4 32.1

Male . . . . . . ..........................................

Race and Hispanic Origin

25.1 48.3 41.1 32.6

White . . . ............................................ 23.3 45.9 39.9 31.8

Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................... 25.5 49.9 44.6 35.0

Black . . . . . . .......................................... 32.8 53.2 44.5 36.6

Asian and Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . ..................... 18.1 41.1 28.5 23.1

Hispanic (any race) . . . . . . . . ...........................

DESIGNATED PARENT

Marital Status

15.7 33.9 24.0 19.1

Married1

.............................................. 23.3 44.8 37.4 30.5

Separated, divorced, widowed . . . . . . . . .................. 31.4 57.5 47.0 36.8

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Educational Attainment

25.1 49.3 47.6 36.0

Less than high school . . . . . . . . ......................... 15.2 30.8 24.1 18.9

High school graduate . . . . . . . . ......................... 19.3 46.2 37.1 29.2

Some college . . . . . ................................... 26.5 49.8 45.5 37.5

Vocational certificate or associate’s degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.4 48.9 45.5 36.0

Bachelor’s degree . . . . . . . . . ........................... 27.2 53.9 47.0 37.6

Advanced degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.9 57.6 50.3 46.5

1 Married includes married, spouse present and married, spouse absent (excluding separated).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data).
WIC program (4.8 million), and

TANF (2.3 million).5

Nonrelative Child Care

In 2003, 18 million children (38

percent) under 12 years old had

been cared for regularly in a nonrelative child care arrangement at

some point in their childhood.6

Among children less than 3 years

old, 24 percent had experienced a

regular nonrelative child care

arrangement, compared with 

47 percent of 3- to 5-year-olds

(Table 2). Among the older age

groups, 40 percent of 6- to 11-

year-olds had participated in nonrelative child care arrangements,

and 32 percent of 12- to 17-year4 U.S. Census Bureau

5 In fiscal year 2003, 5.8 million infants

and children received WIC benefits,

<www.fns.usda.gov/wic/WIC-Fact-Sheet.pdf>,

and 28 million children were enrolled in the

National School Lunch Program,

<www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/default.htm>,

according to the administrative records

collected by the agencies administering 

these programs. 6 Detailed Table 3.

olds had been cared for in a nonrelative child care arrangement. 

In general, the older children (6 to

11 years and 12 to 17 years) may

have had lower child care participation rates because of the lower

labor force participation of women

in past decades.7 Among

preschoolers, children 3 to 5 years

old had the highest rates of participation in nonrelative child care

most likely because many begin

preschool at this age. Parents may

use preschool programs to prepare

their children for school or to supplement half-day kindergarten.

Since children 3 to 5 years old

have the highest rates of participation, this group will be highlighted

in the ensuing discussion. 

7 For example, 50.5 percent of women

with children under 6 in 1983 were in the

labor force, compared with 57.9 percent in

1993 and 62.9 percent in 2003. (U.S. Bureau

of Labor Statistics, Women in the Labor

Force: A Databook. Washington, DC: 2005,

Table 7.)

Among 3- to 5-year-olds, 47 percent

had ever been in a nonrelative child

care arrangement. Black children

were more likely to be in a nonrelative child care arrangement (53 percent) than non-Hispanic White children, Asian and Pacific Islander

children, or Hispanic children (50

percent, 41 percent, and 34 percent, respectively). The majority of

children (58 percent) who were living with separated, widowed, or

divorced parents had at some time

been in a nonrelative child care

arrangement, followed by children

living with never-married parents

(49 percent) and children living with

married parents (45 percent).

Children 3 to 5 years old whose

designated parent had completed a

bachelor’s degree (54 percent) or

more education (58 percent) were

more likely to have ever been in a

nonrelative child care arrangement

than children whose parent had a

high school education (46 percent)

or less (31 percent). Children of

parents who worked full-time in

Table 3.

Children Under 18 Ever in Nonrelative Child Care Arrangements by Characteristics of

Families: 2003

Characteristic

Percent ever in nonrelative child care arrangement

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

Total children, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.2 47.0 40.3 32.3

FAMILY

Poverty Status1

Below poverty level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4 37.6 34.9 26.2

At or above poverty level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.2 49.3 41.9 33.6

100 to 199 percent of poverty. . . . . . . . ................. 19.7 41.5 34.2 25.3

200 percent of poverty or higher . . . . . . . . .............. 28.8 52.9 45.3 36.6

Program Participation2

Received aid from at least one of the following: . . . . . . . . . . . 20.1 44.9 42.2 34.7

TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.8 55.1 41.2 26.4

Food stamps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 21.5 44.8 40.8 32.7

WIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.0 41.6 (X) (X)

Medicaid . . . . ....................................... 20.4 43.8 37.5 30.1

National School Lunch Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) 47.1 43.1 35.5

Did not receive aid . . . . . . . . ............................ 26.9 48.6 36.3 29.0

(X) Not applicable.

1 Includes only children in households for which poverty status was determined. 2 For families with income reported, programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); food stamps; Special Supplemental Nutrition

Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); Medicaid; and the National School Lunch Program.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data).
the month prior to the survey were

more likely ever to have been

cared for in a nonrelative child care

arrangement (59 percent) than the

children of parents who worked

part-time (49 percent) or had not

worked in the previous month 

(35 percent).8

Among 3- to 5-year-olds, higher

income families were more likely

than lower income families to use

a nonrelative child care arrangement. Fifty-four percent of children living in families with a

monthly income of $6,000 and

higher had been cared for in a regular nonrelative child care arrangement, compared with 41 percent of

children living in families with a

monthly income less than $1,500.9

U.S. Census Bureau 5

8 Detailed Table 3.

9 Detailed Table 4.

A similar pattern of nonrelative

child care usage is evident by the

poverty status of the child’s family

(Table 3). Overall, 49 percent of 3-

to 5-year-olds not living in poverty

had ever been in nonrelative child

care arrangements, compared with

38 percent of children living in

poverty. Figure 1 shows that

among children 3 to 5 years old

living in a household below the

poverty level, children from families that received government

assistance (TANF, food stamps,

WIC, Medicaid, and/or National

School Lunch Program) were more

likely ever to have been cared for

in a nonrelative child care arrangement (39 percent) than children

from families that did not receive

government assistance (34 percent). Among children living in

households at 100 to 199 percent

of the poverty level, 43 percent of

children from families that received

government assistance had ever

been cared for in a nonrelative

child care arrangement, compared

with 39 percent of children from

families that did not receive government assistance. 

PARENT-CHILD

INTERACTION

Research shows that positive

parental involvement has a direct

influence on children that results in

fewer behavioral problems.10 This

section addresses interactions

between parents and children,

such as eating together, giving

praise, and playing together.

Designated parents will be referred

to as “mothers” or “fathers” for

ease of discussion. (The definition

box provides more detail.) 

Meals

Overall, more than half of all children under 6 years old ate breakfast with one or both parents 7

days a week (57 percent, Table 4).

Children under 6 years old were

more likely to eat breakfast with

their mothers every day than with

their fathers. Among children

under 6 living with married parents, 61 percent ate breakfast with

their mother every day, compared

with 30 percent who ate breakfast

with their father every day.

Among children under 6 living with

an unmarried mother, 50 percent

ate breakfast together every day.

The corresponding number for

children living with unmarried

fathers was 41 percent. 

10 For a more detailed discussion of the

effects of parental involvement on children,

see P.R. Amato and F. Rivera, “Paternal

Involvement and Children’s Behavior

Problems,” Journal of Marriage & the Family,

Vol. 61, No. 2 (1999): 375–384.

Figure 1.

Percent of Children 3 to 5 Years Old Ever in 

Nonrelative Child Care by Poverty Status and 

Receipt of Government Assistance: 2003

Note: For families with income reported, government programs include Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); food stamps; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program

for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); Medicaid; and the National School Lunch Program.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7.

200 percent of poverty or higher

No aid

With aid

100 to 199 percent of poverty

At or above poverty

No aid

With aid

Below poverty

Total

52.9

47.0

37.6

38.7

33.9

49.3

41.5

43.3

39.3
6 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 4.

Children Under 18 Eating Together With Designated Parent or With Father/Stepfather if

Present by Marital Status of Designated Parent: 2003

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic

Living with married

designated parent2

Living with unmarried

designated parent3

Total1 Female Male Total Female Male

Children under 6 years old . . . . . . .

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

Parent Ate Breakfast With Child in

Typical Week

23,596 16,273 16,273 6,338 6,005 333

No days . . . . ............................. 10.3 9.5 22.9 12.4 12.6 9.9

1 to 2 days . . . ........................... 17.6 15.3 32.0 22.5 22.0 31.2

3 to 6 days . . . ........................... 14.7 14.3 15.2 15.9 15.8 17.4

7 days . . . ................................

Parent Ate Dinner With Child in

Typical Week

57.4 60.9 29.8 49.2 49.6 41.4

No days . . . . ............................. 4.1 4.0 6.6 4.6 4.6 4.2

1 to 2 days . . . ........................... 3.5 2.8 7.1 5.0 5.1 2.1

3 to 6 days . . . ........................... 13.5 12.3 22.3 16.4 15.8 27.9

7 days . . . ................................ 78.9 81.0 64.0 74.1 74.6 65.5

Children 6 to 11 years old . . . . . . . .

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

Parent Ate Breakfast With Child in

Typical Week

24,211 16,377 16,377 6,973 6,256 717

No days . . . . ............................. 15.6 13.8 25.5 19.6 19.8 18.2

1 to 2 days . . . ........................... 28.4 26.1 36.4 32.7 32.7 32.2

3 to 6 days . . . ........................... 19.5 19.8 15.7 19.3 19.1 20.5

7 days . . . ................................

Parent Ate Dinner With Child in

Typical Week

36.5 40.4 22.4 28.5 28.4 29.1

No days . . . . ............................. 2.5 2.1 4.5 3.2 2.8 6.3

1 to 2 days . . . ........................... 3.8 3.5 9.0 4.7 4.3 8.1

3 to 6 days . . . ........................... 20.9 20.5 28.3 22.5 22.4 23.3

7 days . . . ................................ 72.8 73.9 58.3 69.7 70.5 62.4

Children 12 to 17 years old . . . . . . .

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

Parent Ate Breakfast With Child in

Typical Week

24,851 16,281 16,281 7,597 6,463 1,134

No days . . . . ............................. 24.5 22.4 32.8 28.7 28.9 27.6

1 to 2 days . . . ........................... 32.0 31.3 34.1 33.1 33.6 30.2

3 to 6 days . . . ........................... 19.7 19.9 15.7 19.4 19.4 19.7

7 days . . . ................................

Parent Ate Dinner With Child in

Typical Week

23.8 26.4 17.4 18.8 18.1 22.5

No days . . . . ............................. 3.4 3.2 5.9 3.8 3.9 3.3

1 to 2 days . . . ........................... 7.5 6.8 9.9 8.6 8.8 7.1

3 to 6 days . . . ........................... 31.1 31.0 34.1 32.2 32.7 29.2

7 days . . . ................................ 58.0 59.1 50.1 55.5 54.6 60.5

1 Totals given refer to questions of designated parents, regardless of the sex or marital status of the parent. 2 Includes only children identified as living with married-spouse-present designated parent. In a married-couple household, the female is always the

designated parent (biological mother, stepmother, or other female relative or guardian). The male parent in a married-couple household is a biological, step, or

other male relative or guardian. 3 Includes only children identified as living with a designated parent who is never married, widowed, divorced, or separated.

Note: Percent of children eating meals with fathers does not represent presence of both parents at the meals.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data).
Children under 6 years old were

more likely to eat dinner (79 percent) than breakfast (57 percent)

with their parents and similarly,

were more likely to have dinner

with their mother than their father

on a daily basis. Among children

living with married parents, 81

percent of children under 6 ate

dinner with their mothers every

day, while 64 percent ate dinner

with their fathers every day.

Among children living with unmarried parents, the comparable percentages were 75 percent and 66

percent, respectively.

Older children were less likely to

have meals with their parents than

were younger children. Thirtyseven percent of children 6 to 11

years old ate breakfast with a parent every day, while 73 percent ate

dinner together every day, compared with 57 percent and 79 percent, respectively, for children

under 6 years old. For children 6 to

11 years old, eating meals together

occurred more often with mothers

than fathers. One exception is

noted for children living with

unmarried parents, where no difference is found in the proportion of

children having breakfast with their

mother or with their father (about

29 percent ate breakfast with their

mother or father 7 days a week). 

Eating with a parent was less likely

to occur for teenagers than children

under 6 years old—24 percent of

children 12 to 17 years old ate

breakfast with a parent every day in

a typical week, while 58 percent ate

dinner together. For teenagers living with unmarried parents, eating

both breakfast and dinner every day

of the week was more common if

they lived with their father rather

than their mother.

Praise

While mealtimes can provide structured opportunities for daily contact between parents and children,

interactions can occur throughout

the day. Ninety-one percent of

children under 6 years old were

praised by a parent at least once

every day (Table 5). Seven of ten

were praised three or more times

per day (72 percent). Also, young

children living with married parents were more likely to be praised

three or more times per day by

their mothers (74 percent) than by

their fathers (63 percent). Among

children living with unmarried parents, praise three or more times

daily was more frequently given by

mothers (69 percent) than by

fathers (57 percent). 

Conversation and Play

The child well-being module also

collected information on how often

parents talked to or played with

their child for 5 minutes or more

daily just for fun. Twenty percent

were talked to or played with once

or twice per day, while 72 percent

of children under 6 years old were

talked to or played with three or

more times per day. As with other

interactions, talking or playing

three or more times each day was

more frequently reported by mothers than fathers for children with

married parents.

About half of children 6 to 11

years old were praised by a parent

(51 percent) or talked to or played

with for 5 minutes or more just for

fun (49 percent) three or more

times per day,11 compared with 

U.S. Census Bureau 7

11 The percents of 6- to 11-year-olds

praised by a parent or talked to or played

with for 5 minutes or more just for fun three

or more times per day (51 percent and 49

percent, respectively) were not statistically

different from each other.

37 percent and 41 percent, respectively for 12- to 17-year-olds. 

Overall, data on parent-child interactions generally indicate that daily

contacts at mealtimes or on a conversational basis are less frequently noted for teenagers than

for younger children 6 to 11 years

old. This pattern persists for children living with married parents or

with single parents.

Reading Habits

Another indicator of the nature of

the family environment is the number of times family members read

to children. Table 6 shows the proportion of children 1 to 2 years old

and 3 to 5 years old who were

never read to in the past week and

who were read to seven or more

times in the past week, as well as

the average number of times they

were read to in the past week.

Children 1 to 2 years old were read

to an average of 7.8 times in the

previous week, while children 3 to

5 years old were read to an average

of 6.8 times in the previous week. 

The percentage of Hispanic children who had not been read to in

the past week (22 percent of 1- to

2-year-olds and 15 percent of 3- to

5-year-olds) was four times higher

than the proportion of nonHispanic White children (5 percent

of 1- to 2-year-olds and 4 percent

of 3- to 5-year-olds, respectively).

Non-Hispanic White children were

more likely to be read to seven or

more times in the past week (61

percent for 1- to 2-year-olds and

57 percent for 3- to 5-year-olds)

compared with 38 percent of Black

children in both age groups. 
8 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 5.

Selected Indicators of Daily Interaction of Children Under 18 With Designated Parent or

With Father/Stepfather if Present by Marital Status of Designated Parent: 2003

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic

Living with married

designated parent2

Living with unmarried

designated parent3

Total1 Female Male Total Female Male

Children under 6 years old . . . . . . .

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

Child Praised by Parent

23,596 16,273 16,273 6,338 6,005 333

Never to once a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 1.5 3.0 2.8 2.9 0.6

A few times per week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 6.7 11.0 8.9 8.8 11.7

Once or twice per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.8 18.0 22.8 20.1 19.5 30.9

Three or more times per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Child Talked to or Played With for

5 Minutes or More Just for Fun

71.9 73.8 63.1 68.2 68.8 56.8

Never to once a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.9 2.6 2.0 2.2 (B)

A few times per week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 6.4 11.9 7.7 7.5 11.4

Once or twice per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.0 19.3 27.9 20.8 20.6 24.6

Three or more times per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.1 73.4 57.6 69.5 69.8 64.0

Children 6 to 11 years old . . . . . . . .

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

Child Praised by Parent

24,211 16,377 16,377 6,973 6,256 717

Never to once a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 2.1 5.8 2.2 2.1 2.5

A few times per week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.2 15.6 21.2 19.9 19.7 21.6

Once or twice per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.2 30.9 28.9 29.0 28.3 35.7

Three or more times per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Child Talked to or Played With for

5 Minutes or More Just for Fun

50.5 51.3 44.1 48.9 49.9 40.3

Never to once a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 2.7 6.0 3.5 3.6 2.2

A few times per week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.8 15.8 23.5 19.0 18.5 24.0

Once or twice per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.0 31.9 33.1 29.1 29.0 30.7

Three or more times per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.3 49.6 37.4 48.4 48.9 43.2

Children 12 to 17 years old . . . . . . .

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

Child Praised by Parent

24,851 16,281 16,281 7,597 6,463 1,134

Never to once a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 5.4 8.9 7.3 7.6 5.9

A few times per week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.2 25.3 30.8 25.4 25.3 26.5

Once or twice per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.8 32.1 28.7 31.4 31.2 33.0

Three or more times per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Child Talked to or Played With for

5 Minutes or More Just for Fun

36.9 37.1 31.5 35.8 36.0 34.7

Never to once a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 6.0 8.4 8.2 8.4 6.8

A few times per week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.8 19.5 24.8 20.7 20.6 21.5

Once or twice per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.5 32.7 34.8 32.2 32.2 32.4

Three or more times per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.0 41.7 32.0 38.9 38.8 39.3

(B) Base less than 100,000 or numerator too small for comparison.

1 Totals given refer to questions of designated parents, regardless of the sex or marital status of the parent. 2 Includes only children identified as living with married-spouse-present designated parent. In a married-couple household the female is always the

designated parent (biological mother, stepmother, or other female relative or guardian). The male parent in a married-couple household is a biological, step, or

other male relative or guardian. 3 Includes only children identified as living with a designated parent who is never married, widowed, divorced, or separated.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data).
U.S. Census Bureau 9

Table 6.

Reading to Children Aged 1 to 5 by Any Family Member by Characteristics of

Children and Designated Parents: 1994 to 2003

Characteristic

Family reading practices

Percent never read to

last week

Percent read to

7 or more times

last week

Average times read to

last week1

1 to 2 years 3 to 5 years 1 to 2 years 3 to 5 years 1 to 2 years 3 to 5 years

Total children, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHILD

Sex

10.2 6.9 51.0 49.8 7.8 6.8

Female . . . . . ............................. 10.3 7.0 50.9 50.4 7.5 6.8

Male . . . . . . ..............................

Race and Hispanic Origin

10.1 6.8 51.0 49.2 8.0 6.8

White . . . ................................ 8.6 6.4 53.9 52.7 8.1 7.0

Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... 4.6 3.6 60.5 57.0 8.5 7.4

Black . . . . . . .............................. 16.7 10.1 38.3 38.2 6.4 6.0

Asian and Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . ......... 12.7 3.6 49.4 53.3 7.3 6.8

Hispanic (any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DESIGNATED PARENT

Marital Status

22.0 14.8 32.4 39.2 6.8 5.8

Married2 ................................. 8.3 5.9 53.8 53.5 7.9 7.1

Separated, divorced, widowed . . . . . . . . ...... 14.4 8.8 43.3 40.8 7.7 6.0

Never married . . . . . . . . ....................

Education

15.6 10.5 43.1 39.7 7.3 6.2

Less than high school . . . . . . . . ............. 22.7 18.4 35.2 35.3 6.7 5.7

High school graduate . . . . . . . . ............. 11.2 6.6 42.1 44.8 6.9 6.3

Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 4.8 51.6 47.1 7.6 6.5

Vocational certificate or associate’s degree . . . 9.4 5.7 54.6 52.7 7.9 6.8

Bachelor’s degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 3.0 68.4 61.9 9.6 7.9

Advanced degree . . . . . . . . . . ...............

FAMILY

Poverty Status3

3.9 1.1 62.4 70.3 7.9 8.5

Below poverty level . . . . . . . . ............... 16.4 10.8 40.8 41.3 6.4 6.0

At or above poverty level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 5.9 53.4 51.9 8.1 7.0

100 to 199 percent of poverty . . . . . . . . .... 13.8 10.0 44.1 42.2 7.5 6.4

200 percent of poverty or higher . . . . . . . . . .

Program Participation4

Received aid from at least one of the

6.2 4.0 57.4 56.4 8.4 7.3

following: . . . . ........................... 17.6 10.8 41.6 41.6 7.1 6.0

TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3 14.6 27.7 38.0 6.4 6.5

Food stamps . . . ........................ 21.3 12.0 33.8 38.3 6.9 5.8

WIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.9 16.8 39.5 35.3 6.5 5.9

Medicaid . . . . ........................... 17.9 11.6 41.3 40.6 6.7 5.9

National School Lunch Program . . . . . . . . . . (X) 9.3 (X) 45.3 (X) 6.0

Did not receive aid . . . . . . . . . ............... 5.4 4.2 56.9 55.6 8.2 7.3

Total children, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 7.4 54.8 49.0 7.6 6.8

Total children, 1998 . . . . . . . . ...... 9.3 9.0 51.9 45.9 7.9 6.6

Total children, 19945 ............. 12.8 9.1 48.2 46.5 8.9 6.8

(X) Not applicable.

1 Based on children reported as being read to one or more times per week. 2 Married includes married, spouse present and married, spouse absent (excluding separated). 3 Includes only children in households for which poverty status was determined. 4 For families with income reported, programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); food stamps; Special Supplemental Nutrition

Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); Medicaid; and the National School Lunch Program. 5 Based on those children for whom valid answers were reported (no imputation for nonresponse).

Note: Family members include either parent or any other relative.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data); 1996 Panel, Waves 6 and 12 (1998 and 2000

data); Current Population Reports, P70-68, Table 5 (1994 data).
Household living arrangements

may be related to the frequency of

adults being available to read to

children. Children of married parents have both mothers and

fathers as potential readers, in

contrast with children with single

parents. Children whose designated parent was married were

more likely to have been read to

seven or more times in the past

week (54 percent for both age

groups) than children with a nevermarried parent (43 percent for 1-

to 2-year-olds and 40 percent for

3- to 5-year-olds).

The extent of reading to children

was also related to the designated

parent’s educational attainment.

Twenty-three percent of 1- to 2-

year-olds whose parents did not

complete high school were never

read to, compared with 4 percent

whose parent had an advanced

degree. Designated parents with a

bachelor’s degree or advanced

degree were most likely to have

read to their 1- to 2-year-old children seven or more times in the

past week12 (68 percent and 62

percent, respectively), amounting

to an average of 9.6 and 7.9 times

in the past week. Among parents

without a high school diploma, 35

percent had read to their 1- to 2-

year-old children seven or more

times in the past week, with an

average of 6.7 times per week. 

Forty-one percent of children aged

1 to 2 and 3 to 5 with family

incomes below the poverty level

were read to seven or more times

in the past week. More than half

10 U.S. Census Bureau

12 The percentage of children whose

parents had a bachelor’s degree and advanced

degree and who were read to an average of

seven or more times per week were not significantly different from each other. Similarly,

the percentage of children whose parents had

a vocational certificate or associate's degree

was not significantly different from those with

an advanced degree, and those with a vocational certificate or associate's degree were

not significantly different from those with

some college.

of children 1 to 5 years old 

(57 percent of 1- to 2-year-olds and

56 percent of 3- to 5-year-olds)

whose family income was 200 percent of the poverty level or higher

were read to seven or more times

in the past week. About 18 percent of children 1 to 2 years old

whose families received some type

of public assistance had not been

read to in the past week. Among

children whose families did not

receive aid, 5 percent of 1- to 2-

year-olds were never read to in the

previous week.

These data present a fairly consistent portrait of children whose parents read to them on a regular

basis. They suggest that children

living with parents who are married, have relatively higher levels

of educational attainment and family income, and are not enrolled in

benefit programs have higher frequency of reading experiences

than other children. 

TELEVISION VIEWING

In 1992, the American

Psychological Association Task

Force on Television and Society

published a report entitled Big

World, Small Screen: The Role of

Television in American Society,

which showed a link between

excessive TV viewing, particularly

violent TV, and negative behavior

in children like fearful, insensitive,

and aggressive activity.13 Although

the SIPP did not collect data on the

content of television shows viewed

by children, the child well-being

topical module inquired about the

amount and type of constraints

placed on children’s TV viewing.

Parents were asked if they had

13 A more detailed discussion of TV

watching and children is provided in A.C.

Huston, E. Donnerstein, H. Fairchild, N.D.

Feshbach, P.A. Katz, J. P. Murray, E.A.

Rubinstein, B. Wilcox, and D. Zuckerman, Big

World, Small Screen: The Role of Television in

American Society, University of Nebraska

Press, Lincoln, NE, 1992.

Figure 2.

Percent of Children With Television Rules

by Type of Rule and Age: 2003

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7.

Number of hours

watched

Time of day

program viewed

Type of program

watched

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

50.2

84.9 85.8

62.2

83.3

87.6

67.7

71.4 72.0
rules about the type of program among preschool- and elementarychildren could watch, the time of school-aged children than children

day (how early or late) the TV was 12 to 17 years old—middle school

on, and the number of hours and high school age. Eighty-five

watched. Of the 60.8 million chil- percent of children 3 to 5 years old

dren 3 to 17 years old, 58 percent had a rule about the type of prohad all three types of TV rules gram they could watch, not statis-

(Table 7). About two-thirds of chil- tically different from the propordren 3 to 5 years old and 6 to 11 tion of children 6 to 11 years old

years old had parents who used all (86 percent). In contrast, 62 perthree TV rules, compared with 44 cent of children 12 to 17 years old

percent for children 12 to 17 years had this rule. Time-of-day televiold. Parents have been more likely sion rules were most often found

to impose TV rules in the last for elementary-school-aged childecade, especially for young chil- dren 6 to 11 years old (88 perdren. For example, in 1994, 54 cent), followed by 3- to 5-yearpercent of 3- to 5-year-olds had all olds (83 percent) and 12- to 17-

three TV rules, compared with 67 year-olds (68 percent). The perpercent in 2003. For 6- to 11- centage of children who had rules

year-olds, 60 percent had all three on the number of hours they were TV rules in 1994, compared with allowed to watch TV were about

68 percent in 2003. For 12- to the same for children 3 to 5 years 17-year-olds, 40 percent had all old and 6 to 11 years old (71 per- three TV rules in 1994, compared cent and 72 percent, respectively), with 44 percent in 2003. compared with 50 percent for chilFigure 2 shows the percentage of dren 12 to 17 years old. Table 7

children with TV rules by the type shows that among 6- to 11-yearof rule and age of the child. olds, Black children had a higher

Overall, parental rules governing percentage with three TV rules 

television were more often found (74 percent), than non-Hispanic

White children and Hispanic children (about 67 percent each).14

Overall, children living with married parents tended to have more

restrictions on TV viewing than

children of never-married parents.

Sixty-nine percent of 3- to 5-yearolds with married parents had their

TV watching regulated with all

three TV rules, compared with 

58 percent of children with nevermarried parents. The proportion

of children with three TV rules was

generally higher among children

with parents who had completed

an advanced degree. For example,

59 percent of children 3 to 5 years

old whose parents did not complete high school had three TV

rules, compared with 78 percent of

children whose parents had an

advanced degree. 

Sixty-eight percent of children 3 to

5 years old with family incomes

above 200 percent of poverty had

three TV rules, compared to 63

percent of children whose parents

had family incomes below poverty.

Among children 3 to 5 years old

whose families received public

assistance, 66 percent had all three

TV rules, not statistically different

from the percentage reported for

children whose families did not

receive any aid (68 percent). 

Figure 3 shows the relationship

between the number of times children 3 to 5 years old were read to

in the past week and the presence

of TV rules for children. Children

with no TV rules were read to less

often than children with TV rules.

Seventeen percent of children with

no TV rules were not read to at all

during the previous week, compared with 8 percent of children

with one or two types of TV rules

U.S. Census Bureau 11

14 The percentage of Asian and Pacific

Islander children with three TV rules were

not statistically different from Black children.

Figure 3.

Percent Distribution of Number of Times Per Week 

Family Members Read to Children 3 to 5 Years Old 

by Presence of Television Rules: 2003

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

2001 Panel, Wave 7.

All 3 types

of TV rules

1 or 2 types

of TV rules

No TV rules

Total

Not read 

to at all

Read to 1 to 6 

times per week

Read to 7 or more 

times per week

52.1

6.9 43.3 49.8

17.2 43.1 39.7

7.7 44.8 47.5

5.1 42.8
12 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 7.

Family Television Rules for Children Aged 3 to 17 by Characteristics of Children and

Designated Parents: 1994 to 2003

Characteristic

Percent with all three types of television rules1

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

Total children, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHILD

Sex

67.0 68.2 43.7

Female. . . ..................................................... 67.2 67.6 45.2

Male . . . .......................................................

Race and Hispanic Origin

66.7 68.7 42.3

White . . . ...................................................... 67.3 67.5 43.4

Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................... 67.0 67.4 41.9

Black . . . . . . ................................................... 68.3 73.7 46.5

Asian and Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.0 68.8 46.3

Hispanic (any race). . . . . . . . . ....................................

DESIGNATED PARENT

Marital Status

67.2 67.3 49.2

Married2

....................................................... 68.6 69.5 45.2

Separated, divorced, widowed . . . . . . . . ........................... 69.3 64.9 40.2

Never married . . . . . . . . . . .......................................

Education

57.8 64.9 41.4

Less than high school. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 59.1 62.6 40.0

High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 63.6 67.0 41.7

Some college . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................... 69.9 68.0 46.2

Vocational certificate or associate’s degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 66.1 68.6 44.2

Bachelor’s degree . . . . . . . . . . .................................... 72.0 73.6 45.9

Advanced degree . . . . . . . . . . ....................................

FAMILY

Poverty Status3

77.8 73.8 49.5

Below poverty level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 63.2 68.8 44.5

At or above poverty level. . . . . . . . ................................ 68.0 68.0 43.3

100 to 199 percent of poverty. . . . . . . . .......................... 67.3 67.5 45.7

200 percent of poverty or higher . . . . . . . . .......................

Program Participation4

68.3 68.2 42.5

Received aid from at least one of the following: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.7 67.1 44.6

TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.5 65.6 47.5

Food stamps. . . . . . . . . ........................................ 62.7 68.8 43.8

WIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.6 (X) (B)

Medicaid . . . . ................................................ 64.6 70.4 46.2

National School Lunch Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 73.9 67.2 45.3

Did not receive aid . . . . . . . . . .................................... 67.8 70.0 41.7

Total children, 2000 . . . . . . . . ............................... 64.4 69.0 41.7

Total children, 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 61.6 65.2 41.0

Total children, 19945

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.0 60.3 40.2

(B) Base less than 100,000 or numerator too small for comparison. (X) Not applicable.

1 The three types of television rules are 1) what television programs children may watch, 2) the time of day children may watch, and 3) how many hours

children may watch. 2 Married includes married, spouse present and married, spouse absent (excluding separated). 3 Includes only children in households for which poverty status was determined. 4 For families with income reported, programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); food stamps; Special Supplemental Nutrition

Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); Medicaid; and the National School Lunch Program. 5 Based on those children for whom valid answers were reported (no imputation for nonresponse).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data); 1996 Panel, Waves 6 and 12 (1998 and 2000

data); Current Population Reports, P70-68, Table 8 (1994 data).
and 5 percent of children with all

three types of TV rules. Fifty-two

percent of parents who used three

TV rules read to their children

seven or more times each week,

compared with 40 percent of parents who had no TV rules for 

their children.

PARTICIPATION IN

EXTRACURRICULAR

ACTIVITIES

Research shows that children

involved in extracurricular activities are less likely to engage in

antisocial behavior15 and tend to

score higher on standardized

tests.16 In this report, data about

participation in extracurricular

activities were limited to children 6

U.S. Census Bureau 13

15 A more in-depth discussion is in Joseph

Mahoney, “School Extracurricular Activity

Participation as a Moderator in the

Development of Antisocial Patterns,” Child

Development, Vol. 71, No. 2 (March/April

2000): 502–516. 16 Further information can be found in

National Institute of Child Health and Human

to 17 years old and were based on

parental responses to questions

about children’s involvement in

three types of activities: sports,

clubs, and lessons. Participation in

sports includes athletic activities

sponsored by schools or by organized leagues. Clubs include Boy

Scouts and Girl Scouts, religious

groups, Girls and Boys Clubs, or 4-

H activities. Lessons were interpreted very broadly and include

those taken after school or on the

weekend in subjects like music,

dance, language, computers, 

or religion. 

Overall, sports were the most popular extracurricular activity, regardless of the children’s age (Table 8).

Children 12 to 17 years old were

Development Early Child Care and Youth

Development Research Network (NICHD),

“Are Child Developmental Outcomes Related

to Before- and After-School Care

Arrangements? Results From the NICHD

Study of Early Child Care,” Child

Development, Vol. 75, No. 1

(January/February 2004): 280–295.

more likely than children 6 to 11

years old to participate in sports

(42 percent and 36 percent, respectively). About one-third of both 6-

to 11-year-olds and 12- to 17-yearolds participated in club activities

(33 percent and 34 percent, respectively). Younger children 6 to 11

years old were more likely than

older children to participate in lessons (32 percent for 6- to 11-yearolds, compared with 29 percent for

12- to 17-year-olds). 

Boys in both age groups were

more likely than girls to participate

in sports. Among 6- to 11-yearolds, the proportions of children

participating in sports were 42 percent of boys and 30 percent of

girls. Among 12- to 17-year-olds,

the proportions were 46 percent of

boys and 37 percent of girls. Girls

in both age groups were more

likely than boys to participate in

clubs and lessons. For example,

37 percent of girls 6 to 11 years

old took lessons, compared with

27 percent of boys in that age

group. Among 6- to 11-year-olds,

35 percent of girls were in clubs,

compared with 32 percent of boys.

Non-Hispanic White children were

more likely than Black children to

participate in sports (45 percent of

both 6- to 11- and 12- to 17-yearold non-Hispanic White children;

and 24 percent to 35 percent of

Black children 6 to 17 years old).

Also, non-Hispanic White children

were more likely than Black children to participate in club activities

(38 percent to 40 percent of nonHispanic White children 6 to 17

years old and about 30 percent of

Black children 6 to 17 years old). 

Children with married parents were

more likely than other children to

participate in each of the three

types of extracurricular activities

shown in Table 8. For example, 45

percent of children 12 to 17 years

Figure 4.

Percent of Children 6 to 17 Years Old Participating in 

Extracurricular Activities by Poverty Status: 2003

Note: Activity categories are not mutually exclusive, therefore percents do not sum to 100. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7.

In all 3 types

of activities

Any activity Clubs Sports Lessons

Below poverty level 100 to 199 percent 

of poverty level 

200 percent of poverty 

level or higher

13.3

45.8

52.8

70.1

23.5

27.9

38.8

26.1

31.3

46.2

19.4

24.0

36.4

5.0 6.6
14 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 8.

Extracurricular Activities of School-Aged Children by Characteristics of Children and

Designated Parents: 1994 to 2003

Characteristic

Percent participating in specified extracurricular activity

Sports Clubs Lessons

6 to 11

years

12 to 17

years

6 to 11

years

12 to 17

years

6 to 11

years

12 to 17

years

Total children, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHILD

Sex

36.2 41.8 33.4 33.7 32.2 28.6

Female. . . ................................ 30.4 37.2 34.5 39.0 37.4 32.8

Male . . . . . . ..............................

Race and Hispanic Origin

41.7 46.2 32.4 28.6 27.3 24.7

White . . . ................................ 39.5 43.5 34.9 35.2 33.7 29.4

Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.1 45.4 39.5 38.2 37.4 30.9

Black . . . . . . .............................. 23.8 35.0 29.8 29.5 25.6 25.0

Asian and Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . ......... 25.5 41.9 24.4 24.6 39.7 34.1

Hispanic (any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DESIGNATED PARENT

Marital Status

20.8 35.1 19.3 23.1 21.5 22.9

Married1 ................................. 38.9 45.4 35.5 36.8 35.8 31.4

Separated, divorced, widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3 34.5 31.7 26.7 24.8 23.6

Never married . . . . . . . . ....................

Education

26.1 30.6 23.1 25.9 21.7 17.8

Less than high school . . . . . . . . ............. 17.2 30.2 18.9 18.9 17.5 16.9

High school graduate . . . . . . . . ............. 31.5 38.5 27.5 28.0 23.8 21.7

Some college . . . ......................... 38.4 42.6 36.2 38.7 31.6 30.0

Vocational certificate or associate’s degree . . . 40.1 43.8 37.3 37.8 34.2 32.9

Bachelor’s degree . . . . . . . . . ............... 51.5 51.1 45.2 46.2 52.1 41.2

Advanced degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FAMILY

Poverty Status2

50.3 58.8 49.0 44.4 53.5 48.1

Below poverty level . . . . . . . . ............... 22.7 30.5 24.3 23.1 19.5 19.7

At or above poverty level . . . . . . . . .......... 39.9 44.2 35.8 35.9 35.5 30.6

100 to 199 percent of poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.1 34.1 27.8 28.3 26.3 21.7

200 percent of poverty or higher . . . . . . . . . .

Program Participation3

Received aid from at least one of

44.7 47.9 39.4 38.6 39.6 33.7

the following: . . . . . . . . . ................... 32.8 39.3 31.1 30.9 28.2 26.0

TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.9 23.6 19.0 20.8 14.2 18.2

Food stamps . . . ........................ 21.3 28.9 23.7 19.5 18.8 16.4

Medicaid . . . . ........................... 23.0 30.3 25.3 23.0 21.2 18.6

National School Lunch Program . . . . . . . . . . 33.5 40.2 31.5 31.5 28.6 26.6

Did not receive aid . . . . . . .................. 42.8 45.6 38.1 37.6 40.2 32.4

Total children, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.6 37.2 33.8 34.4 32.0 26.2

Total children, 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.7 39.4 34.4 35.3 30.8 26.9

Total children, 19944 ............. 34.3 42.2 38.8 42.5 23.7 19.1

1 Married includes married, spouse present and married, spouse absent (excluding separated). 2 Includes only children in households for which poverty status was determined. 3 For families with income reported, programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); food stamps; Medicaid; and the National School

Lunch Program. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is excluded here since it applies to children under 5. 4 Number of children varied by activity depending on those reporting valid answers and were approximately 19.4 million 6- to 11-year-olds and 17.6 million

12- to 17-year-olds.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data); 1996 Panel, Waves 6 and 12 (1998 and 2000

data); Current Population Reports, P70-68, Table 11 (1994 data).
old with married parents played in all three types of extracurricular

sports, compared with 31 percent activities, while only 5 percent of

of children with never-married par- children in poverty participated in

ents. In general, participation in all three. 

extracurricular activities was associ- Children receiving government ated with parents having higher assistance were less likely to partici- levels of education. More children pate in each of the three extracur- whose parent had an advanced ricular activities shown in Table 8. degree (50 percent of 6- to 11-year- For example, 39 percent of 12- to olds and 59 percent of 12- to 17- 17-year-olds who received govern- year-olds) were involved in sports, ment assistance played sports, compared with 17 percent of chil- compared with 46 percent of those dren 6 to 11 years old and 30 per- who did not receive government cent of children 12 to 17 years old assistance. In the 10 years prior to whose parent did not finish high the survey, the percentage of chil- school. A similar pattern existed dren enrolled in lessons increased. for participation in clubs and les- In 1994, 24 percent of 6- to 11- sons. Around 17 percent of chil- year-olds were enrolled in lessons; dren 6 to 17 years old whose par- by 2003, the percentage had ent did not complete high school increased to 32 percent. The per- were enrolled in lessons, compared centage of 12- to 17-year-olds who with 54 percent of children 6 to 11 were enrolled in lessons also years old and 48 percent of children increased—from 19 percent in 1994 12 to 17 years old whose parent to 29 percent in 2003. had an advanced degree.

As with patterns found with read- In every age group, children whose ing experiences, children living family incomes were above 200 with married parents with higher percent of the poverty threshold levels of educational attainment were more likely to be involved in and economic status participated activities after school than children in more extracurricular activities living below poverty. This finding than other children. is not unexpected as participation

in these activities often involves ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE expenditures as well as parental

time, both of which may be more In this report, children’s academic

difficult for children in poverty to experience is analyzed by considafford. Figure 4 shows the rela- ering outcomes such as being acationship between poverty status demically “on-track” (i.e., enrolled

and children’s participation in in school at or above the modal

sports, clubs, and lessons. About grade level for their age), taking

1 of 5 children (19 percent to classes for gifted students, chang26 percent) below poverty partici- ing schools, repeating grades, and

pated in these activities, compared being suspended.

with about 36 percent to 46 perAcademically On-Track cent of children with family

incomes at 200 percent of poverty Nationally, 75 percent of children

or higher. Some children com- 12 to 17 years old currently

bined several extracurricular activi- enrolled in school were academities. Thirteen percent of children cally on-track (Table 9). This reprewith family incomes at 200 percent sents a 3 percentage-point increase

of poverty or higher were involved since the previous SIPP child 

well-being module was conducted

in 2000 and a 6 percentage-point

increase since the first SIPP child

well-being module was conducted

in 1994.17 Girls were more likely to

be on-track than boys (78 percent

and 72 percent, respectively).

Children 12 to 17 years old whose

parents were married (76 percent)

were more likely to be on-track than

those with separated, divorced, or

widowed parents (73 percent), or

those with never-married parents

(69 percent). Suspension from

school, which can be an indicator of

emotional or adjustment problems,

was also related to being academically on-track: 67 percent of children who had been suspended were

on-track, compared with 76 percent

of children who had never been

suspended. The poverty status of

families was also related to whether

children were on-track: 69 percent

of children living in families below

the poverty level were academically

on-track, compared with 78 percent

of children living in families at 

200 percent of poverty or higher. 

Special or Gifted Classes

The SIPP child well-being module

asked parents if their children were

in a special class for gifted students or did advanced work in any

subjects (Table 10). Thirteen percent of children 6 to 11 years old

and 24 percent of children 12 to

17 years old were in such classes,

which include honors and

advanced placement classes in

high school. For 12- to 17-yearolds, this represents a 2 percentage-point increase since the last

child well-being module conducted

U.S. Census Bureau 15

17 Any differences noted in this report

between 1994 and 2003 can be attributed to

the fact that the editing process differed in

these two surveys. In 1994, nonresponses

were not imputed, while in 2003 respondents not providing an answer to any of the

items in this table were imputed a response.
16 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 9.

Academically On-Track Children Aged 12 to 17 by Selected Characteristics:

1994 to 2003

(Numbers in thousands)

Number of children Number of children Percent Characteristic currently enrolled on-track on-track

Total children, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,116 18,067 74.9

CHILD

Sex

Female . . . . . .................................................. 11,748 9,118 77.6

Male . . . . . . ................................................... 12,368 8,949 72.4

Race and Hispanic Origin

White . . . ..................................................... 18,972 14,220 75.0

Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................... 15,325 11,489 75.0

Black . . . . . . ................................................... 3,838 2,730 71.1

Asian and Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . .............................. 926 804 86.8

Hispanic (any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 3,983 3,004 75.4

Family Television Rules

No TV rules . . . . ............................................... 6,108 4,629 75.8

One to two TV rules . . . . . . . . ................................... 7,342 5,373 73.2

Three types of TV rules . . . . . . . . . . .............................. 10,666 8,065 75.6

Participation in Extracurricular Activities

Participated in at least one activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,182 6,399 78.2

Did not participate in any activity . . . . . . . . ........................ 15,934 11,668 73.2

Ever Changed Schools1

Changed . . . .................................................. 9,888 7,275 73.6

Did not change. . . .............................................. 14,228 10,792 75.9

Ever Suspended From School

Suspended . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................................ 2,698 1,800 66.7

Never suspended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,418 16,268 76.0

DESIGNATED PARENT

Marital Status

Married2 ...................................................... 16,732 12,738 76.1

Separated, divorced, widowed . . . . . . . . ........................... 5,825 4,260 73.1

Never married . . . . . . . . ......................................... 1,559 1,069 68.6

FAMILY

Poverty Status3

Below poverty level . . . . . . . . .................................... 3,637 2,517 69.2

At or above poverty level . . . . . . . . ............................... 19,980 15,200 76.1

100 to 199 percent of poverty . . . . . . . . ......................... 5,199 3,674 70.7

200 percent of poverty or higher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... 14,781 11,526 78.0

Income not reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498 351 70.5

Program Participation4

Received aid from at least one of the following: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,400 10,469 72.7

TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586 428 73.0

Food stamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ 2,199 1,422 64.7

Medicaid . . . . ................................................ 5,155 3,494 67.8

National School Lunch Program . . . . . . . . ....................... 13,144 9,585 72.9

Did not receive aid . . . . . . . . . .................................... 9,716 7,598 78.2

Total children, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,008 16,520 71.8

Total children, 1998 . . . . . . . . ........................... 22,782 16,198 71.1

Total children, 19945 .................................. 18,118 12,556 69.3

1 Does not include the normal progression and graduation from elementary and middle schools. 2 Married includes married, spouse present and married, spouse absent (excluding separated). 3 Includes only children in households for which poverty status was determined. 4 For families with income reported, programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); food stamps; Medicaid; and the National School

Lunch Program. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is excluded here since it applies to children under 5. 5 Based on those children for whom valid answers were reported (no imputation for nonresponse); includes children who are not currently enrolled.

Note: Children are generally considered on-track when they are enrolled at or above the modal grade for their age (the grade in which most children of a

given age are enrolled).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data); 1996 Panel, Waves 6 and 12 (1998 and 2000

data); Current Population Reports, P70-68, Table 15 (1994 data).
U.S. Census Bureau 17

Table 10.

Academic Performance of School-Aged Children by Selected Characteristics: 1994 to 2003

Characteristic

Percent in

gifted classes1

Percent

changed schools2

Percent

ever repeated

a grade3

Percent

ever

suspended

from school1

6 to 11

years

12 to 17

years

6 to 11

years

12 to 17

years

6 to 11

years

12 to 17

years

12 to 17

years

Total children, 2003 . . . . . . . . . .

CHILD

Sex

13.4 23.5 23.8 41.0 5.7 10.4 11.2

Female . . . ........................... 14.1 24.9 23.1 40.7 4.7 8.2 8.1

Male . . . .............................

Race and Hispanic Origin

12.7 22.1 24.4 41.3 6.8 12.5 14.2

White . . . ............................ 13.6 24.2 22.9 40.1 5.4 9.0 10.2

Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . ............ 14.9 26.0 23.1 40.7 5.3 8.8 10.4

Black . . . ............................ 13.5 19.7 27.4 44.1 7.8 18.0 17.4

Asian and Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . ..... 9.6 29.0 23.2 40.0 3.0 5.2 4.8

Hispanic (any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DESIGNATED PARENT

Marital Status

9.7 17.3 23.0 39.1 5.8 10.3 9.7

Married4 ............................. 14.0 25.0 22.0 39.4 5.1 8.4 9.0

Separated, divorced, widowed . . . . . . . . . 12.5 22.1 28.2 44.3 8.1 13.4 15.0

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

10.9 12.6 28.0 45.9 6.3 21.2 20.3

Less than high school . . . . . . . . . ........ 7.6 10.3 21.8 39.4 9.0 17.5 15.4

High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 18.0 23.8 40.0 6.0 12.0 12.2

Some college, no degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vocational certificate or associate’s

15.2 24.8 28.8 43.8 5.0 8.0 11.0

degree . . . .......................... 12.3 24.2 22.7 42.3 5.7 8.5 9.1

Bachelor’s degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.6 36.9 22.6 42.2 3.9 6.6 8.3

Advanced degree . . . . . . . . . ............

FAMILY

Poverty Status5

24.6 45.1 19.7 36.2 3.5 5.1 7.5

Below poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 14.7 26.7 41.3 8.9 17.7 17.6

At or above poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.5 25.4 23.1 40.8 4.8 8.9 9.8

100 to 199 percent of poverty . . . . . . . . 10.7 18.0 24.7 42.9 5.9 12.1 10.8

200 percent of poverty or higher . . . . . 16.2 28.0 22.4 40.1 4.3 7.8 9.5

Income not reported . . . . . . . . ..........

Program Participation6

Received aid from at least one of

8.2 10.2 23.3 46.8 10.9 15.7 19.9

the following: . . . .................... 12.4 21.0 25.0 41.7 6.8 13.2 12.3

TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 15.4 30.5 48.8 13.3 19.8 23.7

Food stamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 12.7 31.7 44.4 11.9 22.8 21.1

Medicaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 14.3 26.5 43.6 10.1 19.2 18.3

National School Lunch Program . . . . . . 12.7 21.4 25.2 41.6 6.8 13.1 12.0

Did not receive aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 27.1 21.3 40.0 3.6 6.4 9.6

Total children, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . 12.7 21.8 23.3 40.1 5.3 10.7 10.4

Total children, 1998 . . . . . . . . . . 12.7 21.4 18.7 43.5 5.8 12.1 11.8

Total children, 19947 . . . . . . . . . 12.5 (NA) 29.5 51.6 6.6 15.9 10.3

(NA) Not available.

1 Includes children currently enrolled in school. 2 Includes children who have ever attended or been enrolled in first grade or higher. Does not include the normal progression and graduation from

elementary and middle schools. 3 Includes children who have ever attended or been enrolled in kindergarten or higher. 4 Married includes married, spouse present and married, spouse absent (excluding separated). 5 Includes only children in households for which poverty status was determined. 6 For families with income reported, programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); food stamps; Medicaid; and the National School

Lunch Program. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is excluded here since it applies to children under 5. 7 Based on those children for whom valid answers were reported (no imputation for nonresponse). The question on gifted classes was not asked of children

12 to 17 years old in 1994.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data); 1996 Panel, Waves 6 and 12 (1998 and 2000

data); Current Population Reports, P70-68, Table 13 (1994 data).
in 2000. Forty-five percent of children 12 to 17 years old whose parent had an advanced degree were

in gifted classes, compared with

10 percent of children in this age

group whose parent had less than

a high school education. 

The proportion in gifted classes

was also higher for children 12 to

17 years old whose parents were

married (25 percent) or separated,

divorced, or widowed (22 percent)

than for children living with nevermarried parents (13 percent).

Among 12- to 17-year-olds whose

family was living at 200 percent of

poverty or higher, 28 percent were

attending gifted classes, compared

with 15 percent of children living

below the poverty level. Of 12- to

17-year-olds whose family did not

receive government assistance, 

27 percent were attending gifted

classes, compared with 21 percent

of children who received government assistance (TANF, food

stamps, WIC, Medicaid, and/or

National School Lunch Program). It

is possible that differences in

gifted-class enrollment reflect the

availability of classes offered at the

schools the children were attending in addition to any enrollment

variations associated with the family characteristics of the children.

Changing Schools

Not including the normal progression through elementary and middle schools, 24 percent of children

6 to 11 years old and 41 percent

of children 12 to 17 years old who

had ever attended or been enrolled

in first grade or higher had

changed schools at some time in

their academic career (Table 10).

The higher proportion for older

children reflects the fact that these

children have had more time to

experience a change. For both age

groups, no differences in these

percentages were noted since

2000, although both were lower

than those reported in 1994.

Changing schools can be disruptive. A change in schools could be

prompted by a variety of reasons

including a residential move, a

modification of school-district

boundaries, failure at another

school, or a change in the family’s

household structure or finances.

For example, among children 12 to

17 years old, those with married

parents were less likely to change

schools (39 percent) than were

children whose parents were separated, divorced, or widowed (44

percent) and children with a nevermarried parent (46 percent). 

Among children 6 to 11 years old,

a higher proportion of Black

children changed schools (27 percent) than did non-Hispanic White

or Hispanic children (about 23 percent each).18 Also among 12- to

17-year-olds, higher proportions of

Black children changed schools

than did Hispanic children (44 percent and 39 percent, respectively).

Among teenagers, children in families at 200 percent of poverty or

higher changed schools as often as

those below the poverty level

(about 41 percent). Forty percent

of teenagers in families not receiving government aid changed

schools; similarly, 42 percent of

teenagers receiving aid from at

least one program changed schools.

18 U.S. Census Bureau

18 The percentage of Asian and Pacific

Islander children who changed schools was

not statistically different from Black children.

Figure 5.

Educational Expectations of Parents for Their 

Children Under 18 Years Old by Designated 

Parent's Educational Level: 2003

Note: Activity categories are not mutually exclusive, therefore percents do not sum to 100. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7.

Advanced

degree

Bachelor's

degree

Vocational

certificate or

associate's

degree

Some

college

High school

graduate

Less than

high school

Parent would like 

more education and training 

for child after college

Parent thinks child will achieve 

more education and training 

after college

45.2

22.7

17.1

25.1

18.5

31.2

23.6

31.7

24.8

38.8

31.9

52.1

(In percent)
Repeating Grades and not receive government assistance

Suspension From Schools (6 percent). 

Six percent of children 6 to 11 Parents of children 12 to 17 years

years old and 10 percent of chil- old were asked if their children had

dren 12 to 17 years old had ever ever been expelled or suspended

repeated a grade. Among 12- to from school. Eleven percent of chil17-year-olds, repeating a grade dren 12 to 17 years old (2.7 million)

was more common for Black chil- had been suspended at least once.

dren (18 percent) than for non- Boys were more likely than girls to

Hispanic White (9 percent), Asian have been suspended (14 percent

and Pacific Islander (5 percent), or and 8 percent, respectively). The

Hispanic (10 percent) children. proportion suspended was higher

for Black children (17 percent) than Children 12 to 17 years old living non-Hispanic White children and below the poverty level were about Hispanic children (both 10 percent) twice as likely to have repeated a and Asian and Pacific Islander chil- grade (18 percent) as children dren (5 percent). whose family lived at 200 percent

of poverty or higher (8 percent). A lower proportion of children livChildren 12 to 17 years old whose ing with married parents had ever

family received government assis- been suspended (9 percent) than

tance were also twice as likely to children living with separated,

have repeated a grade (13 percent) divorced, or widowed parents 

as were children whose family did (15 percent), or those living with

never-married parents (20 percent).

Among children whose parent had

earned a bachelor’s degree or an

advanced degree, 8 percent had

ever been suspended, compared

with 15 percent of those whose

parent had less than a high school

education. Eighteen percent of

children whose family lived below

the poverty level had ever been

suspended from school, compared

with 10 percent of children whose

family lived at 200 percent of

poverty or higher.

EDUCATIONAL

EXPECTATIONS OF PARENTS

The SIPP child well-being module

asked parents about their educational expectations for each child.

Parents were asked how far they

would like their child to go in

school and the educational level

they thought their child would

actually achieve. 

Figure 5 shows that the proportion

of children whose parents want

them to receive an education

beyond college differed according

to the parent’s level of education.

Parents with advanced degrees 

(52 percent) were twice as likely as

parents with a high school education (25 percent) to want their

children to get an education

beyond college. 

Regardless of the parent’s level of

educational attainment, parental

expectations about what their children would achieve fell below what

they desired for their children. For

example, expected achievement

levels for progress beyond college

were 7 percentage points lower

than desired levels for children

whose parents had an advanced

degree (45 percent) and about 6

percentage points lower for children whose parents had less than

a high school degree (17 percent).

U.S. Census Bureau 19

Figure 6.

Percent of Children Under 18 Who Were Kept Inside 

as Much as Possible Because of the Dangers in the 

Neighborhood by Metropolitan Status, Race, 

and Hispanic Origin: 2003

* For Asian and Pacific Islanders in nonmetropolitan areas, the data are not shown because 

the base is less than 100,000.

Note: This report based on the 2001 SIPP Panel does not reflect the revised metropolitan 

status boundaries from the 2000 census or current metropolitan status boundaries.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7.

Asian and Pacific Hispanic

Islander*

Non-Hispanic Black

White

White

In central city Metropolitan outside

central city

Nonmetropolitan

24.5

35.4

19.0 17.8

24.8

14.7 17.3

38.5

24.9

34.4

24.4 24.5

48.1

32.5
FAMILIES AND

NEIGHBORHOODS

Neighborhood quality plays an

important role in child development. Neighborhoods that parents

consider safe, with neighbors who

can be trusted to look out for children, are a standard measure of

child well-being. The SIPP questionnaire asked parents a series of

questions about the perceived levels of safety and trust in their community. One of those questions

measured neighborhood safety by

asking parents if they kept their

children inside as a much as possible because of dangers in the

neighborhood. 

Figure 6 shows that the highest

percentage of children kept inside

because of danger in the community were those living in central

cities. Forty-eight percent of

Hispanic children who lived in the

central city were kept inside

because of parents’ perception of

danger in the community, followed

by 39 percent of Black children, 24

percent of Asian children, and 25

percent of non-Hispanic White children. Thirty-three percent of

Hispanic children who lived in metropolitan areas outside central

cities were kept inside because of

danger, followed by 25 percent of

Blacks and 15 percent of nonHispanic Whites.19 In nonmetropolitan areas, Black children had the

highest percentage kept inside

because of danger, 34 percent,

compared with 25 percent of

Hispanics and 17 percent of nonHispanic Whites. Studies have

shown that racial and ethnic

minorities in nonmetropolitan

areas have high rates of poverty

and underemployment, which may

20 U.S. Census Bureau

19 The percentage of Asian and Pacific

Islander children who lived outside central

cities who were kept inside because of danger was not statistically different from

Hispanic children.

lead to higher incidences of crime

in these neighborhoods.20

SUMMARY

This report highlights many aspects

of children’s lives that are related to

their well-being, such as children’s

living arrangements and their family’s characteristics, early child care

experiences, daily interaction with

parents, extracurricular activities,

academic experience, and parents’

educational expectations. These

data show that income and family

structure affect various aspects of

children’s everyday life. Children living in families below the poverty

level, children whose parents have

lower levels of educational attainment, and children in families with

single parents tend to have less

daily interaction with their parents,

such as talking, being read to, or

sharing daily meals, than their

counterparts in other situations.

Children whose families live below

poverty and with lower levels of

family income are less likely to participate in extracurricular activities

and to be academically on-track

than children living in families

above poverty and with higher levels of family income. 

SOURCE OF THE DATA

The population represented (the

population universe) in the 2001

SIPP is the civilian noninstitutionalized population living in the United

States. The SIPP is a longitudinal

survey conducted at 4-month intervals. The data in this report were

collected from February through

May 2003 in the seventh wave of

the 2001 SIPP Panel. The institutionalized population, which is

excluded from the population

20 A more in-depth discussion of race and

ethnicity in nonmetropolitan areas can be

found in Tim Slack and Leif Jensen, “Race,

Ethnicity, and Underemployment in Nonmetropolitan America: A 30-Year Profile,” Rural

Sociology, Vol. 67, No.2 (2002): 208–233.

universe, is composed primarily of

the population in correctional institutions and nursing homes (91 percent of the 4.1 million institutionalized population in Census 2000).

Although the main focus of the

SIPP is information on labor force

participation, jobs, income, and

participation in federal assistance

programs, information on other

topics is also collected in topical

modules on a rotating basis. 

ACCURACY OF THE DATA

Statistics from surveys are subject

to sampling and nonsampling error.

All comparisons presented in this

report have taken sampling error

into account and are significant at

the 90-percent confidence level

unless otherwise noted. This means

the 90-percent confidence interval

for the difference between the estimates being compared does not

include zero. Nonsampling errors

in surveys may be attributed to a

variety of sources, such as how the

survey was designed, how respondents interpret questions, how able

and willing respondents are to provide correct answers, and how

accurately the answers are coded

and classified. The Census Bureau

employs quality control procedures

throughout the production

process—including the overall

design of surveys, the wording of

questions, review of the work of

interviewers and coders, and statistical review of reports—to minimize

these errors. The SIPP weighting

procedure uses ratio estimation,

whereby sample estimates are

adjusted to independent estimates

of the national population by age,

race, sex, and Hispanic origin. This

weighting partially corrects for bias

due to undercoverage, but biases

may still be present when people

who are missed by the survey differ

from those interviewed in ways

other than age, race, sex, and
Hispanic origin. How this weighting MORE INFORMATION CONTACT

procedure affects other variables in The report and the detailed tables For additional child well-being the survey is not precisely known. are available on the Internet information, you may contact the All of these considerations affect <www.census.gov>; search for child authors of this report in the comparisons across different sur- well-being data by clicking on the Fertility and Family Statistics veys or data sources. The SIPP letter “W” in the “Subjects A to Z” Branch at 301-763-2416. You may 2001 Panel Wave 7 round had expe- also contact the authors of this section on the Web page and select rienced a 28.9 percent attrition of report by e-mail. “Well-Being/Dynamics of Economic the original sample since Wave 1 Well-Being.” The previous reports A and had a nonresponse rate of Jane Lawler Dye

Child’s Day: 2000 (Selected 16.1 percent for this round. <Jane.L.Dye@census.gov>

Indicators of Child Well-Being) and A

Tallese D. Johnson For further information on the Child’s Day: Home, School, and Play <Tallese.D.Johnson@census.gov> source of the data and accuracy of (Selected Indicators of Child Wellthe estimates, including standard Being) with 1994 data are also USER COMMENTS errors and confidence intervals, go found on this page. to <www.sipp.census.gov/sipp The Census Bureau welcomes the

/sourceac/S&A01_w1tow6_cross Other information on child well- comments and advice of users of

_puf.pdf> or contact Heather Haas being from the SIPP can be found its data and reports. If you have

or Mahdi S. Sundukchi of the in the following reports: Jason M. any suggestions or comments,

Census Bureau’s Demographic Fields and Kristin E. Smith, Poverty, please write to:

Statistical Methods Division via Family Structure, and Child Well- Chief, Housing and Household e-mail at Being: Indicators From the SIPP, Economic Statistics Division <Heather.L.Haas@census.gov> or Population Division Working Paper U.S. Census Bureau <Mahdi.S.Sundukchi@census.gov>. Series, No. 23, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233

Washington DC, 1998; Kristen E. Additional information on the SIPP Or send an e-mail inquiry to Smith, Loretta E. Bass, and Jason can be found at the following Web <hhes@census.gov>. M. Fields, Child Well-Being sites: <www.sipp.census.gov

/sipp/> (main SIPP Web site), Indicators From the SIPP, SUGGESTED CITATION

<www.sipp.census.gov/sipp Population Division Working Paper

Series No. 24, U.S. Census Bureau, Dye, Jane Lawler and Tallese D. /workpapr/wp230.pdf> 

Washington DC, 1998. Both of Johnson, 2006. A Child’s Day: (SIPP Quality Profile), and

2003 (Selected Indicators of Child <www.sipp.census.gov/sipp these papers are also on the

Well-Being). Current Population /usrguide/sipp2001.pdf> Internet within the “Population—

Reports, P70-109. U.S. Census (SIPP User’s Guide). Working Paper,” section under

Bureau, Washington, DC. “Subjects A to Z.”

U.S. Census Bureau 21
U.S. Department of Commerce

FIRST-CLASS MAIL Economics and Statistics Administration POSTAGE & FEES PAID

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU U.S. Census Bureau

Washington, DC 20233 Permit No. G-58

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300