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

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

Demographic Programs

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

P20-547

Children’s Living Arrangements

and Characteristics: March 2002

Population Characteristics

Issued June 2003

Current

Population

Reports

By 

Jason Fields

This report provides information on several characteristics of children, covering

different aspects of their lives. The subjects that are included encompass:

demographic characteristics of the child

population of the United States and family living arrangements, including the

presence of “coresident” grandparents;

parents’ and children’s labor force participation, featuring new estimates of children living with “stay-at-home” fathers

and mothers; and the economic status of

children’s families, including participation

in public assistance programs and health

insurance coverage of children. Finally,

the distribution of the child population

by their nativity status and that of their

parents illustrates the diversity of the

youngest segment of our population.

CHILDREN: NUMBERS AND

LIVING ARRANGEMENTS

In March 2002, 72 million children

(defined as the population under 18)

resided in the United States, up from 

64 million in 1990.1 These children

1 This includes all children except those living in

group quarters, householders, subfamily reference

people, and their spouses. 

The data in this report are from the Annual

Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current

Population Survey. The population represented (the

population universe) is the civilian noninstitutionalized

population of the United States. Members of the

Armed Forces living off post or with their families on

post are included if there is at least one civilian adult

living in the household.

The estimates in this report are based on

responses from a sample of the population. As with

all surveys, estimates may vary from the actual values because of sampling variation or other factors.

All comparisons made in this report have undergone

statistical testing and are significant at the 90-percent confidence level unless otherwise noted.

represented 26 percent of the U.S. noninstitutionalized population, a proportion

that was essentially unchanged from

1990 but down from 36 percent in 1960.

This change is an important demographic

trend, fundamentally related to the babyboom cohort (people born from 1946

through 1964) moving through the age

Why a Report on Children?

Children occupy an important place

in American society. Their welfare is

a concern both to parents and to the

public at large. This report is the

first in the Current Population

Reports P20 series that consolidates

Current Population Survey data on

children into a single report and

presents a broad picture of the characteristics of children across several

domains relating to their well-being.

Some of the data contained in this

report have been, and continue to

be, available separately in other

reports. Beginning with the March

2002 Current Population Survey

(CPS), this report and its future

updates will provide a source of

information on the status of children. It will be published in alternate

years to the American Families and

Living Arrangements Report —

which focuses on adults and families. Detailed and historical tables

on children will be produced annually and made available on the

Internet at: www.census.gov.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 1.

Children by Age and Family Structure: March 20021

(In thousands)

Total under

18 years

90-percent Characteristic confidence

interval Total Total

Num- (Standard Under 1-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17 under 6 6-11

ber error) (±)

2 1 year years years years years years years years years

All children.............................. 72,321 689 3,917 7,917 11,528 11,954 12,669 12,492 11,842 23,363 24,623

Two parents............................. 49,666 600 2,778 5,552 8,028 8,307 8,615 8,521 7,864 16,358 16,922

Child of householder................. 48,843 596 2,710 5,410 7,890 8,191 8,490 8,388 7,766 16,009 16,680

Grandchild of householder . . . . . . . . . . . . 476 64 56 107 89 71 60 64 30 251 131

Other relative of householder . . . . . . . . . . 315 52 12 32 46 42 61 59 63 91 102

Nonrelative of householder . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 17 - 4 3 4 4 11 6 7 8

Householder has an unmarried

partner - parent is not the householder

or partner3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11 - 1 - - 5 6 - 2 5

Mother only ............................. 16,473 368 832 1,723 2,584 2,724 3,032 2,865 2,714 5,139 5,755

Child of householder................. 13,747 338 568 1,274 2,071 2,286 2,641 2,474 2,434 3,913 4,927

Grandchild of householder ............ 1,657 120 215 355 366 246 191 180 104 936 438

Other relative of householder . . . . . . . . . . 524 68 36 61 59 72 74 120 103 155 146

Nonrelative of householder . . . . . . . . . . . . 545 69 13 34 88 120 125 92 73 135 245

Mother is householder in an unmarried

partner household3 ................. 1,430 111 121 234 254 242 258 165 155 608 500

Mother is partner in an unmarried partner

household3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 57 4 10 52 93 89 67 55 65 182

Children under 15 years................. 13,759 338 832 1,723 2,584 2,724 3,032 2,865 (X) 5,139 5,756

In a POSSLQ household4 ............. 1,562 116 129 256 337 350 313 177 (X) 722 663

Father only ............................. 3,297 169 233 402 506 464 544 551 598 1,141 1,007

Child of householder................. 2,851 157 193 340 449 371 479 482 537 982 850

Grandchild of householder . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 49 33 42 47 50 38 44 22 121 87

Other relative of householder . . . . . . . . . . 92 28 5 12 6 15 15 15 24 23 30

Nonrelative of householder . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 26 2 8 5 28 12 9 15 14 40

Father is householder in an unmarried

partner household3 ................. 1,022 94 139 212 222 119 131 110 88 574 250

Father is partner in an unmarried partner

household3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 23 1 2 2 26 11 6 10 6 36

Children under 15 years................. 2,699 153 233 402 506 464 544 551 (X) 1,141 1,008

In a POSSLQ household4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904 89 144 213 214 137 115 80 (X) 572 252

Neither parent ........................... 2,885 158 75 240 410 460 479 555 667 725 939

Grandchild of householder ............ 1,273 105 26 113 196 224 238 243 233 335 462

Other relative of householder . . . . . . . . . . 802 84 24 67 101 97 127 160 226 192 224

Foster child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 45 5 18 38 47 34 49 43 62 81

Nonrelative of householder . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 71 20 41 76 91 80 104 164 137 171

Householder has an unmarried partner3 . . 216 43 9 13 32 36 40 43 43 54 76

Children under 15 years................. 2,218 139 75 240 410 460 479 555 (X) 725 939

In a POSSLQ household4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 40 6 19 38 41 43 40 (X) 62 83

- Represents zero or rounds to zero. X Not applicable.

1

All people under age 18, excluding those living in group quarters, householders, subfamily reference people, and their spouses.

2

This number, when added to or subtracted from the estimated total number of children under 18 in each category, represents the 90-percent confidence

interval around the estimate. 3

If the parent is either the householder with an unmarried partner in the household or the unmarried partner of the householder, they are cohabiting based

on this direct measure. Cohabiting couples where neither partner is the householder are not identified. 4

POSSLQ (Persons of the Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters) is defined by the presence of only two people over age 15 in the household who are

opposite sex, not related, and not married. There can be any number of people under age 15 in the household. The universe of children under age 15 is shown

as the denominator for POSSLQ measurement.

Note: Data based on the Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/tp63rv.pdf.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey.
U.S. Census Bureau 3

structure and affecting the relative

sizes of age groups. Barring significant changes in fertility or migration, we can expect the ratio of children to the elderly to continue to

drop for some time as the babyboom cohort continues to move to

the 65 and over age group. This

change may have important implications for the resources available

to children.2

2 Basic counts of children by race, ethnicity, sex, and age are available in the detailed

Internet tables published with this report.

Children in Families nonrelatives of the householder.

Grandparents play a significant role In 2002, 69 percent of children in the family households of many lived with two parents, 23 percent children even when a parent is pres- lived with only their mother, 5 per- ent. Ten percent of children who cent lived with only their father, and lived with a single mother were another 4 percent lived in house- grandchildren of the householder, holds with neither parent present compared with 8 percent of chil- (see Table 1 and Definition Box 1). dren who lived with single fathers. Among children who lived with two When children lived in households parents, the vast majority (98 per- without either of their parents, very cent) were children of the house- often (44 percent of children) they holder; the remaining children who were living in their grandparent’s lived with two parents were grand- household. Children who were children, other relatives, or

Definition Box 1.

CHILD SINGLE-PARENT FAMILY

In the context of this report, children are people A “single” parent is defined as a parent who is not

under 18 years of age who are not householders, currently living with a spouse. Single parents may

family reference people, or their spouses. The CPS be married and not living with their spouse; they

does not distinguish between biological, step, or may be divorced, widowed, or never married. As

adopted children. Foster children are nonrelatives of with the identification of two parents described

the householder. above, if a second parent is present and not married

to the first, then the child is identified as living with

PARENT a single parent. The indirect measure of cohabitation, POSSLQ (defined below), attempts to identify On each child’s data record, a single person is identi- these additional potential parents. fied as the “parent” of that child. This person is usually the child’s mother, and if she is not present, the COHABITATION

father is identified. This does not identify the biologi- Unmarried partners of the householder can be iden- cal, step, or adopted relationship between this person tified directly through the relationship to household- and the child. When a characteristic of a child’s par- er item collected in the Current Population Survey. ent is presented, such as education, it is usually the Only partners of the householder can be identified, characteristic of this identified parent. Using this link- not all unmarried partners. This measurement of age, the spouse identifier linkage, and the sex of each unmarried partners produces results below that in person, the mother and father can be identified. In other data collections. The reasons for this are certain cases, such as nativity and labor force status numerous, and include the mode of survey adminis- of the parents, the characteristics of both parents are tration, question design, and other sources of bias in used if two parents are present. response and nonresponse. 

TWO-PARENT FAMILY An indirect measure of cohabitation is Persons of the

Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters (POSSLQ). This In the Current Population Survey, children live in a is a household type defined by household composi- two-parent family if they are living with a parent tion. POSSLQ households are defined by the pres- who is married with his or her spouse present. This ence of only two people over age 15 in the house- is not an indicator of the biological relationship hold who are opposite sex, not related, and not between the child and the parents. The parent who married. There can be any number of people under is identified could be a biological, step, or adoptive age 15 in the household. For this reason, the per- parent. If a second parent is present and not mar- centage of children living in POSSLQ households ried to the first parent, then the child is identified as should be calculated on the universe of children

living with a single parent. under age 15 for each characteristic.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

living with their grandparents are

examined in more detail later in this

report.

Single-Parent Families and

Cohabiting-Parent Families

In some cases, the “single-parent”

household is not really a singleadult household. As described in

Definition Box 1, single parent

means that the child’s identified

parent is not married and living

with his or her spouse. This single

parent may be married but the

spouse is absent (including

separated), widowed, divorced, or

never married. The single parent

may be cohabiting with another

adult. Since 1995, the CPS has

been able to identify whether a

person was the unmarried partner

of the householder. 

Determining whether single parents were raising their children

alone is a more difficult analysis.

Data from the CPS do not include

enough information about the

actual interrelationships among

household members to provide a

definitive answer. However, for

children living in an unmarriedpartner household where their parent is either the householder or the

unmarried partner, the assumption

that both the householder and the

partner have some parenting role

is probably reasonable. This direct

measure of cohabitation is a good

indicator of the presence of a second “parent.”3

Cohabiting-couple households can

also be identified indirectly using a

3 See Counting Couples: Improving

Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and

Cohabitation Data in the Federal Statistical

System. Highlights from a National

Workshop, December 13 and 14, 2001,

Sponsored by: The Data Collection

Committee of the Federal Interagency Forum

on Child and Family Statistics. Contact the

Demographic and Behavioral Sciences Branch

of NICHD for print copies of this document.

Phone: 301-496-1174. Also see the Forum’s

Web site: www.childstats.gov.

definition developed at the Census

Bureau in the 1970s. Households

can be identified as those that have

“People of the Opposite Sex Sharing

Living Quarters” (POSSLQ) who are

presumed to be living as unmarried

partners. Because the definition

excludes children 15 to 17 years

old, only children under 15 years

are considered when looking at the

proportion of children in POSSLQ

households. This indirect measure

compares reasonably well with the

direct measure in households with

children present. 

Table 2 presents the overlap

between children living in these two

types of households. There was not

a perfect agreement, but 82 percent

of children under 15 identified as

living with a single parent and his

or her unmarried partner were also

identified as living in a POSSLQ

household. The reverse also has

high agreement: 85 percent of children living in POSSLQ households

Table 2.

Children Under 15 Living With Single Mothers and Fathers in Cohabiting-Couple

Households: March 20021

(In thousands)

Characteristic Total

In an unmarried-partner

household2

Not in an unmarried-partner

household2

All children under 15

Total ...................................... 16,457 2,570 13,887

In a POSSLQ3 household ................. 2,466 2,101 365

Not in a POSSLQ3 household .............

Children under 15 living with single mothers

13,991 469 13,522

Total ...................................... 13,759 1,588 12,171

In a POSSLQ /3 household................ 1,562 1,314 248

Not in a POSSLQ3

household ..............

Children under 15 living with single fathers

12,197 274 11,923

Total ...................................... 2,698 982 1,716

In a POSSLQ /3 household................ 904 787 117

Not in a POSSLQ3 household ............. 1,794 195 1,599

1

The universe for this table is children under age 15 living with single parents. Those not living with single parents, those who are householders, subfamily

reference people or their spouses, and those in group quarters are excluded from this table. 2

Unmarried-partner households are households in which the child’s parent is either the householder with an unmarried partner or the unmarried partner of

the householder. These households are ‘‘directly’’ identified from the relationship to householder item on the survey. 3

POSSLQ (Persons of the Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters) is defined by the presence of only two people 15 years and over in the household who

are opposite sex, not related, and not married. There can be any number of people under age 15 in the household. This is an ‘‘indirect’’ measure of cohabitation, derived from household composition.

Note: Data based on the Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey. For information on confidentiality protection,

sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/tp63rv.pdf.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey..
U.S. Census Bureau 5

were in households where the second adult was specifically identified

as the unmarried partner of the

householder. Situations where the

two measures do not agree arise

when there are other people over

age 15 in the unmarried partner

households, and the cases where

the parent identifies himself or herself or the other adult as a roommate, housemate, or other nonrelative of the householder in POSSLQ

households.

In 2002, 16.5 million children were

living with a single mother, but 

1.8 million (11 percent) lived in a

household with their mother and

her unmarried partner. Children

who lived with a single father 

(3.3 million) were much more likely

to be sharing the household with

his unmarried partner, (33 percent

or 1.1 million children). This finding is consistent with other

research, which shows that fathers

are more likely to live with a cohabiting partner than are mothers.4

Measuring this same likelihood

using the POSSLQ definition yields

the same results. Among the 

13.8 million children under 15

years old who were living with their

mother but not with their father in

2002, 1.6 million (11 percent) were

living in a household with their

mother and a nonmarried, nonrelated adult male. Children under 15

years old who were living with their

father only (2.7 million) were much

more likely to be sharing their

4 See Lynne M. Casper and Suzanne M.

Bianchi. (2002). Continuity & Change In The

American Family. Table 5.1 – page 131.

Thousand Oaks, California: Sage

Publications, Inc.

household with a non-married, nonrelated adult female (33 percent or

904,000 children). 

Figure 1 shows dramatic differences by race and Hispanic origin5

in the proportion of children with

single mothers, single fathers, and

single parents who were living

with an unmarried partner.

Children were more than four

times as likely to live with a single

mother (23 percent) than to live

with a single father (5 percent).

Children living with a single parent

5 People of Hispanic origin may be of any

race. Data for the American Indian and

Alaska Native population are not shown in

this report because of the small sample size

in the Current Population Survey, March 2002.

Based on the March 2002 Current Population

Survey, 4 percent of Black children and 3 percent of Asian and Pacific Islander children are

of Hispanic origin. These percentages are not

significantly different.

Figure 1.

Children With Single Parents and Proportion With 

Cohabiting Single Parent: March 20021

1

 The parent is the householder or partner, in an unmarried-partner household. Single means the parent has no spouse in the household. 2

 People of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey. 

All children 

Non-Hispanic White 

Black 

Asian and Pacific Islander 

Hispanic2

Children living with a

single cohabiting father

Children living with a

single cohabiting mother

Children with

single father

Children with

single mother

Percent of all children with a single parent Percent of children living with a cohabiting single parent 

out of children living with a single parent1 

46

23

16

48

13

25

5 4 5

2

5

11

14

6

11 12

33

29 30

40
6 U.S. Census Bureau

were three times as likely to have

their father cohabiting (33 percent)

than their mother (11 percent).

These large differences by the gender of the parent persist for all of

the groups shown in Figure 1. 

Almost half (48 percent) of Black

children were living with a single

mother — when those children living with a single father (5 percent)

are included, over half (53 percent)

of Black children were living with a

single parent. A larger proportion

of Hispanic children lived with a

single mother than non-Hispanic

White children and Asian and

Pacific Islander children, 25 percent versus 16 percent and 13 percent, respectively. Similarly, a

greater percentage of Hispanic children lived with a single father than

non-Hispanic White children and

Asian and Pacific Islander children,

5 percent versus 4 percent and 

2 percent, respectively. 

For children living with a single

mother, 6 percent of Black children

and 14 percent of non-Hispanic

White children also had the mother’s

partner present. For children living

with a single father, about 30 percent of both non-Hispanic White children and Black children and 46 percent of Hispanic children lived with

a single father and his unmarriedpartner. Across race groups, children living with a single father were

much more likely to be living with

their father and his partner, compared to the proportion of children

living with a single mother who also

lived with her unmarried partner.6

6 For the single mothers: The 14 percent

for non-Hispanic White, 6 percent for Black,

and 12 percent for Hispanic were each not

significantly different from the 11 percent for

Asian and Pacific Islander. For the single

fathers: The 29 percent for non-Hispanic

White, 30 percent for Black, and 46 percent

for Hispanic were each not significantly different from the 40 percent for Asian and Pacific

Islander. The 29 percent for non-Hispanic

White was not significantly different from the

30 percent for Black. The 30 percent for

Black was not significantly different from the

40 percent for Asian and Pacific Islander.

CHILDREN AND CORESIDENT

GRANDPARENTS

Table 3 shows that children live

with a grandparent for a variety of

reasons. First, when children’s parents need help or are unable to live

with their own children, grandparents are an important resource for

assistance and care. Second, many

children live with their grandparents

because the grandparents themselves need assistance. CPS data

are not explicit about the direction

of assistance. Grandparents are

assumed to be providing the assistance if they are the householders,

while they are believed to be receiving assistance when they are living

in someone else’s (usually their

child’s) household. 

Family Types

In 2002, 5.6 million children were

living in households with a grandparent present (8 percent of all

children). Ten percent of children

under 6 years old lived with a

coresident grandparent, compared

with 7 percent of children aged 6

to 11, and 6 percent of children

aged 12 to 17. The majority of

children living with grandparents

lived in households where the

grandparent was the householder

(3.7 million). Although these children were using housing resources

provided by grandparents, 65 percent (2.4 million) had at least one

parent in the household. 

Another distinct group of children

lived in their parent’s household

with a grandparent present (1.8

million). In these households, the

grandparent is probably not primarily responsible for the children,

but he or she may still be providing assistance of some kind, such

as childcare services. The remaining category identifies children in

households where neither the

grandparent nor the parent was

the householder; only 118,000

children lived in this household

structure.

In 2002, Black children were more

likely than children in other groups

to live in single-parent families.

They are also more likely to live in

their grandparent’s household: 

9 percent, compared with 6 percent

for Hispanic children, 4 percent for

non-Hispanic White children, and 

3 percent for Asian and Pacific

Islander children. Regardless of the

presence of parents, two-thirds of

Black children living in their grandparent’s household were living with

only one grandparent, their grandmother. For all other race/ethnicity

groups,7 living in the grandparent’s

household with both a grandmother

and a grandfather present was the

most common type of grandparentgrandchild coresidence, for both

children living with their parents

and those whose parents were not

present. 

Among children who were living in

their parent’s household with at

least one grandparent present,

most often it was with only their

grandmother (two-thirds for each

of the race groups, except Black

children, three-quarters of whom

lived with only their grandmother

when in their parent’s household

with a grandparent present). This

is not surprising, as men have

higher mortality rates than women,

and widowed women may turn to

their adult children for care. The

small group of children who lived

with both a grandparent and a parent, neither one of whom was the

householder, may reflect children

living in extended households. In

7 The percentage of Asian and Pacific

Islander children with parents present in

grandmother-owned households was not significantly different from the percentage in

grandfather owned households, and the percentage of Hispanic children with parents

absent in households owned by both grandparents was not significantly different from

the percentage in grandmother-owned

households.
U.S. Census Bureau 7

Table 3.

Characteristics of Children Who Coreside With Grandparents by Presence of Parents:

March 20021

(In thousands)

With grandparents present

Grandparent is householder Grandparent is not householder

Total Parent present No parents present Parent is householder Characteristic in

Total grand- Grand- Grand- Grandwith par- mother mother mother Parent

grand ent’s and Grand- Grand- and Grand- Grand- and Grand- Grand- is not

par- house- grand- mother father grand- mother father grand- mother father houseTotal ents hold Total father only only Total father only only Total father only only holder

Total ................ 72,321 5,601 3,683 2,409 1,204 1,021 184 1,274 614 591 69 1,801 258 1,231 312 118

Age of child

Under 6 years old ....... 23,363 2,339 1,644 1,309 721 506 82 335 171 138 26 635 109 393 133 61

6 to 11 years old ........ 24,623 1,770 1,118 656 307 293 56 462 240 201 21 619 90 428 101 33

12 to 17 years old ....... 24,335 1,493 920 444 175 223 46 476 202 252 22 547 59 410 78 25

Race and ethnicity of child2

White ................. 56,276 3,674 2,418 1,701 947 601 153 717 429 245 43 1,177 180 784 213 81

Non-Hispanic ......... 44,235 2,408 1,671 1,130 624 405 101 541 332 169 40 707 88 481 138 30

Black ................. 11,646 1,445 1,077 576 178 381 17 501 153 327 21 339 27 253 59 29

Asian and Pacific

Islander .............. 3,223 361 89 67 44 16 7 22 19 3 - 262 48 176 38 9

Hispanic (of any race) .... 12,817 1,341 787 591 328 210 53 196 101 87 8 504 93 324 87 51

Presence of parents

Two parents ............ 49,666 1,706 477 477 255 155 67 (X) (X) (X) (X) 1,217 164 840 213 12

Mother only ............ 16,473 2,249 1,658 1,658 807 753 98 (X) (X) (X) (X) 503 74 337 92 89

Father only............. 3,297 373 275 275 142 114 19 (X) (X) (X) (X) 81 21 53 7 17

Neither parent .......... 2,885 1,273 1,274 (X) (X) (X) (X) 1,274 614 591 69 (X) (X) (X) (X) -

Family income

Under $15,000 .......... 9,516 611 508 178 33 132 13 330 59 256 15 88 - 78 10 14

$15,000 to $29,999 ...... 12,094 995 704 389 111 254 24 315 138 154 23 270 28 190 52 21

$30,000 to $49,999 ...... 15,140 1,278 911 626 249 307 70 285 161 113 11 330 66 217 47 37

$50,000 to $74,999 ...... 14,414 1,190 718 556 298 218 40 162 119 38 54 56 61 305 90 16

$75,000 and over........ 21,157 1,527 840 659 513 110 36 181 137 30 14 657 103 441 113 30

Poverty status

Below 100 percent of

poverty ............... 12,239 988 743 362 106 217 39 381 98 270 13 217 24 158 35 28

100 to 199 percent of

poverty ............... 15,686 1,512 1,088 696 287 357 52 392 174 192 26 382 59 256 67 42

200 percent of poverty

and above ............ 44,396 3,101 1,851 1,350 810 447 93 501 342 129 30 1,203 176 817 210 48

Health insurance coverage

Covered by health

insurance ............. 63,907 4,293 2,673 1,856 914 802 140 817 378 394 45 1,539 213 1,053 273 81

Not covered by health

insurance ............. 8,414 1,309 1,008 551 289 219 43 457 236 197 24 262 46 177 39 38

Household receives public

assistance

Receives assistance ..... 3,372 506 417 202 94 98 10 215 59 146 10 60 2 46 12 28

Does not receive

assistance ............ 68,949 5,096 3,265 2,206 1,110 923 173 1,059 555 445 59 1,741 256 1,185 300 92

Household receives food

stamps

Receives food stamps .... 7,873 908 702 467 174 252 41 235 48 178 9 159 9 128 22 45

Does not receive food

stamps ............... 64,448 4,694 2,980 1,942 1,029 770 143 1,038 565 413 60 1,642 249 1,103 290 73

Household tenure

Owns/buying ........... 48,542 4,091 2,723 1,818 1,019 647 152 905 528 329 48 1,304 202 870 232 64

Rents ................. 22,512 1,448 925 564 165 368 31 361 84 257 20 474 51 349 74 49

No cash rent ........... 1,266 62 34 27 20 6 1 7 2 5 - 22 5 11 6 5

Type of residence3

Central city, in MSA ...... 20,971 2,042 1,376 893 346 487 60 483 189 279 15 602 104 409 89 63

Outside central city, in

MSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,194 2,641 1,577 1,098 647 367 84 479 260 186 33 1,022 137 708 177 42

Outside MSA ........... 13,155 919 727 417 211 167 39 310 165 125 20 178 17 114 47 15

- Represents zero or rounds to zero. X Not applicable

1

All people under age 18, excluding group quarters, householders, subfamily reference people, and their spouses.

2

Data are not shown separately for the American Indian and Alaska Native population because of the small sample size in the Current Population Survey in

March 2002. 3

‘‘MSA’’ refers to Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Note: Data based on the Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey. For information on confidentiality protection,

sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/tp63rv.pdf.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey.
a

8 U.S. Census Bureau

this group, Hispanic children were

over-represented (43 percent) relative to their distribution in all

households with grandparents 

(24 percent). Hispanic children

also composed 36 percent of the

258,000 children living in households that were maintained by

their parents and which had both 

grandmother and a grandfather.8

Table 3 also illustrates differences

in parent-child family types by

whether the child lived in the

grandparent’s or the parent’s home.

Overwhelmingly, when grandchildren lived in the grandparent’s

home with at least one parent, it

was the mother. In comparison,

when a grandparent lived in the

parent’s home, the majority of the

time the grandchildren were living

with both parents present. This

8 The 43 percent of Hispanic children living with their grandparents and parents, neither of which are householders, is not significantly different from the 36 percent of

Hispanic children with parents and grandparents and whose parents are householders.

pattern lends support to the idea

that grandparents may offer housing assistance to their own children

and grandchildren in times of marital disruption or when the child’s

father is absent. On the other

hand, when one or both grandparents lived in a married-couple

household with their grandchild, it

may indicate that two incomes were

needed to support the grandparents

or, in the case of very elderly or

infirm parents, the presence of a

second parent may facilitate the

grandparent’s care.

Economic Characteristics of

Grandparent-Grandchild

Households

Figure 2 compares three measures

of economic hardship by selected

grandparent-grandchild coresidence

arrangements. Children living in a

grandparent’s household without a

parent present were twice as likely

to be in families that were below

the poverty level (30 percent) than

was the case for children living with

both grandparents and a parent —

(15 percent of children living with a

grandparent and parent in the

grandparent’s household and 

12 percent of children who lived

with a grandparent in their parent’s

household were in poverty).9

Children were also at the greatest

risk of not being covered by health

insurance when they resided in

their grandparent’s household without a parent present (36 percent).

Among children living with a grandparent, those living in their parent’s

household had the lowest percent

lacking health insurance coverage,

15 percent. 

Following the same trend, children

in their grandparent’s household

regardless of the presence of

parents were about three times as

likely to be receiving public

9 The 12 percent of children in poverty

who lived with a grandparent in their parent’s household was not significantly different from the 15 percent of children in poverty who lived with a grandparent and a

parent in their grandparent’s household. 

Figure 2.

Percent of Grandchildren in Poverty, Not Covered by Health Insurance, and 

Receiving Public Assistance by Selected Living Arrangements: March 2002

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey. 

All grandchildren 

Living in grandparent's home 

In grandparent's home - parents present 

In grandparent's home - parents absent 

In parent's home - grandparents present

Below 100 percent of poverty Not covered by health insurance Receives public assistance

3

18

20

15

30

12

23

27

23

36

15

9

11

8

17
U.S. Census Bureau 9

assistance (11 percent) as children PARENTS, CHILDREN, AND

in their parent’s household with a THE LABOR FORCE

grandparent present (3 percent).

Children living in their grandparent’s Parental Labor Force Status

household without parents present Most children live in families where

were twice as likely to receive pub- one or both of their parents are in

lic assistance as children who were the labor force (88 percent in

in their grandparent’s household but 2002). Parental participation in the

had parents present, 17 percent and labor force provides a role model

8 percent, respectively. for children and the economic

resources the family needs. Also, These indicators of economic hardemployers are often the source of ship strongly suggest that, in househealth insurance coverage, as well holds maintained by parents, it is

most likely that resources and assis- as other child-related benefits, like

childcare subsidies. In 2002, tance flow from the parents to the

grandparents. Further, these results 97 percent (48 million) of children

show that parents are the primary living with two parents had at least

source of well-being for children. one parent in the labor force, and

Even when parents and children live 62 percent (31 million) were living

in a grandparent’s household, par- in families with two parents in the

ents often contribute to the house- labor force (see Table 4). Of the 

hold economy and provide much of 3.3 million children who lived with

the care for their children. Children only their father, 89 percent (2.9

living in their grandparent’s house- million) lived in families with the

hold without a parent present are at father in the labor force. Among

a distinct economic disadvantage, children who lived with only their

often stretching their grandparent’s mother (16 million), 77 percent —

financial and personal resources. or 13 million — lived in families

with the mother in the labor force. 

Stay-at-Home Parents

Recently, much interest has focused

on children who have “stay-athome” parents. This term typically

describes a family situation where a

father or a mother chooses to stay

home to care for the children while

the other spouse is employed. A

1993 estimate of 2 million stay-athome dads, a figure that has been

widely publicized,10 was based on

the number of fathers providing the

primary childcare arrangements for

their children under 15 years old

while their spouses were at work.

This number, however, includes 

1.6 million dads who actually were

employed.11 This report presents

estimates of the number of children

cared for by stay-at-home dads and

moms based not on the parents’

10 See, for example, reports on the following Web sites (www.babycenter.com, and

www.dadstayhome.com) and in the media

(Washington Post, etc) 11 See Lynne Casper, (1997). My Daddy

Takes Care of Me! Fathers as Care Providers.

Current Population Reports, P70-59

www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/p70-59.pdf

and PPL-53 (U.S. Census Bureau, Washington,

DC , Table 5).

Table 4.

Children by Their Parents' Current Labor Force Status:

(In thousands)

March 20021

Characteristic Number

Percent of all

children

Percent of children by

presence of parents

Total ...................................................... 72,321 100.0 100.0

Two parents . . . ................................................ 49,666 68.7 100.0

Both parents in the labor force ................................. 31,007 42.9 62.4

Father only in the labor force . . . ............................... 14,969 20.7 30.1

Mother only in the labor force.................................. 2,169 3.0 4.4

Neither parent in the labor force................................ 1,520 2.1 3.1

Mother only.................................................... 16,473 22.8 100.0

In the labor force . . . .......................................... 12,706 17.6 77.1

Not in the labor force ......................................... 3,767 5.2 22.9

Father only .................................................... 3,297 4.6 100.0

In the labor force . . . .......................................... 2,925 4.0 88.7

Not in the labor force ......................................... 372 0.5 11.3

Neither parent ................................................. 2,885 4.0 100.0

1

All people under age 18, excluding group quarters, householders, subfamily reference people, and their spouses.

Note: Data based on the Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey. For information on confidentiality protection,

sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/tp63rv.pdf.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey.
10 U.S. Census Bureau

activities as childcare providers but interruptions. Parents who said Children in two-parent families are

rather on the primary reason they that the primary reason why they more likely to have mothers than

were not in the labor force during were out of the labor force was to fathers who are out of the labor

the previous year. In this way, a stay home to care for home and force. In 2002, 13 million children

more direct estimate of the number family members are considered to under age 15 lived with a mother

of children who had parents who be stay-at-home parents, and the who was out of the labor force for

chose to stay at home to care for subgroup with the spouse in the all of the previous year, or about 

them can be obtained. labor force is the most common 31 percent of all children under age

arrangement describing stay-at- 15 living with two parents. Of In 2002, 42 million children under home parents. these children, 12 million lived with age 15 lived with two parents. a mother who was not in the labor Table 5 shows the number of chil- In March 2002, 1.5 million children force primarily to care for her fami- dren with a parent out of the labor under age 15 lived with two par- ly. About 11 million, or about 25 force for all 52 weeks of the prior ents and their fathers were not in percent of children under 15 living year; the number of children with a the labor force for the entire previ- with two married parents, lived parent reported being out of the ous year. Among this group, with a mother who was at home to labor force in order to care for 336,000 had fathers who were not care for her family while the father home and family; and among chil- in the labor force primarily so they was in the labor force for the entire dren with a parent out of the labor could care for the family. Further year. Stay-at-home mothers repre- force for the prior year to care for limiting the population to children sented 5.2 million married mothers home and family, the number of who were living with a father who with children under 15 in 2002. In children whose other parent was in was not in the labor force in order summary, children under age 15 liv- the labor force for the entire previ- to care for his family, but whose ing with both parents were 56 ous year. In addition, the time mothers were in the labor force for times as likely to live with a stay-at- period of the last year rather than all of the previous year revealed a home mother while their father was the past week was selected to group of 189,000 children under in the labor force than they were to avoid overestimates of stay-at- age 15, about 0.5 percent of chil- live with a stay-at-home father home parents who were only out dren under 15 living with two while their mother was in the labor of the labor force for relatively parents. This group comprised force. short periods of time, such as holi- 105,000 married fathers with childays, temporary illness, or job dren under 15.

Table 5.

Children Under Age 15 in Two-Parent Families With a Stay-At-Home Parent:

March 20021

(In thousands)

Characteristic Number Percent

Total living with two parents ..................................................

Mothers

In labor force 1 or more weeks last year . . ...................................

Out of labor force all 52 weeks last year . ....................................

Primary reason - care for home and family. ................................

Father in labor force all 52 weeks last year ..............................

Fathers

In labor force 1 or more weeks last year . . ...................................

Out of labor force all 52 weeks last year . ....................................

Primary reason - care for home and family. ................................

Mother in labor force all 52 weeks last year ..............................

41,802

28,791

13,011

11,808

10,573

40,314

1,487

336

189

100.0

68.9

31.1

28.2

25.3

96.4

3.6

0.8

0.5

1

The universe for this table is children under age 15 living with two parents. Those not living with two parents, those who are householders, subfamily

reference people or their spouses, and those in group quarters are excluded from this table.

Note: Data based on the Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey. For information on confidentiality protection,

sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/tp63rv.pdf.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey.
U.S. Census Bureau 11

Figure 3 shows the trends in chil- children living with a stay-at-home

dren living with a stay-at-home par- father increases the difficulty of

ent and a parent who was in the measuring trends or changes for

labor force all year. Since 1994, the this group.

number of children living with a

stay-at-home mother while their Children in the Labor Force

fathers were in the labor force sigAlthough teenage children spend nificantly increased. This trend

most of their time in school, older does not appear to be the case for

teens often have jobs, possibly to children living with stay-at-home

gain experience, to assist their fam- fathers while their mother was

working. The level in 1994 is not ilies financially, or for other reasons.

Table 6 presents basic characteris- significantly different from the level

tics of older children in the labor in 2002. The small number of

force. Of the 12 million children 15

to 17 years old in 2002, 3 million

children or 25 percent were in the

labor force. As one would expect,

the participation increases over the

age range from 9 percent for 15

year olds, to 26 percent for 16 year

olds, and to 41 percent for 17 year

olds. More female children aged 15

to 17 years (26 percent) than male

children of the same ages (24 percent) participated in the labor force.

The unemployment rate is a good

measure to use in comparing the

abilities of different groups to find

employment. High unemployment

rates (the percentage unemployed

of those in the labor force) imply

an unmet demand for jobs and

may reflect the need for additional

skills and training. For all children

aged 15 to 17 years, the unemployment rate in 2002 was 21 percent. For adults 25 to 54 years

old, the rate was 5 percent in

2002, indicating that proportionately more teens than working-age

adults were looking for work.

Considerable differences existed

among the labor force participation

rates of children by race and ethnicity. In 2002, 29 percent of nonHispanic White children aged 15 to

17 years were in the labor force,

compared with 17 percent of Black

children and Asian and Pacific

Islander children, and 19 percent of

Hispanic children.12 Unemployment

rates shed more light on these differences. The unemployment rate

of non-Hispanic White children 

(18 percent) was significantly lower

than that of Black children (40 percent) or Hispanic children (24 percent).13 Some additional differences

were noted according to a parent’s

education level. Children whose

12 The 17 percent of Black and Asian and

Pacific Islander children was not significantly

different from the 19 percent of Hispanic

children. 13 The Asian and Pacific Islander unemployment rate is not significantly different

from that of White Non-Hispanic children.

Figure 3.

Children Under Age 15 With Married Parents, 

One Stay-At-Home and One in the Labor Force: 

March 2002

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Demographic Supplement to the 

March 2002 Current Population Survey. 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Thousands

Thousands

Children with stay-at-home mothers and 

with fathers in the labor force

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Children with stay-at-home fathers and 

with mothers in the labor force
12 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 6.

Children Age 15 to 17 Years by Their Labor Force Status and Selected Characteristics:

March 20021

(In thousands)

Characteristic

Total

Not in

labor force

In the labor force

Total Employed2 Unemployed

Number

Percent in

the labor

force Full time Part time Total

Unemployment rate4

Children 15-17 years ...............

Age of child

11,842 8,853 2,989 25.2 208 2,158 623 20.8

15 years old ...................... 3,976 3,606 370 9.3 31 245 94 25.4

16 years old ...................... 3,988 2,945 1,042 26.1 61 740 241 23.1

17 years old ......................

Sex of child

3,878 2,302 1,576 40.6 116 1,173 287 18.2

Male ........................... 6,110 4,638 1,472 24.1 129 1,003 340 23.1

Female .........................

Race and ethnicity of child3

5,732 4,214 1,518 26.5 79 1,156 283 18.6

White .......................... 9,298 6,746 2,553 27.5 176 1,906 471 18.4

Non-Hispanic.................. 7,679 5,441 2,237 29.1 115 1,726 396 17.7

Black........................... 1,796 1,490 305 17.0 24 160 121 39.7

Asian and Pacific Islander ........ 570 475 95 16.7 6 74 15 15.8

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

Presence of parents

1,730 1,400 330 19.1 67 183 80 24.2

Two parents..................... 7,864 5,819 2,046 26.0 98 1,597 351 17.2

Mother only ..................... 2,714 2,096 618 22.8 41 395 182 29.4

Father only ..................... 598 456 142 23.7 11 92 39 27.5

Neither parent ...................

Education of parent

667 482 184 27.6 58 75 51 27.7

Less than high school ............ 1,704 1,352 352 20.7 56 197 99 28.1

High school degree .............. 3,486 2,608 878 25.2 38 635 205 23.3

Some college ................... 3,115 2,256 860 27.6 35 655 170 19.8

Bachelor’s degree or more........ 2,871 2,155 716 24.9 21 597 98 13.7

No parents present . . ............

Family income

667 482 184 27.6 58 75 51 27.7

Under $15,000 .................. 1,263 1,056 205 16.2 32 101 72 35.1

$15,000 to $29,999 . . . . .......... 1,705 1,364 341 20.0 17 209 115 33.7

$30,000 to $49,999 . . . . .......... 2,514 1,881 633 25.2 54 429 150 23.7

$50,000 to $74,999 . . ............ 2,342 1,688 653 27.9 46 477 130 19.9

$75,000 and over . . ..............

Type of residence5

4,019 2,862 1,157 28.8 58 943 156 13.5

Central city, in MSA.............. 3,183 2,518 665 20.9 64 437 164 24.7

Outside central city, in MSA....... 6,372 4,657 1,715 26.9 104 1,275 336 19.6

Outside MSA. . .................. 2,288 1,678 610 26.7 40 447 123 20.2

1

The universe for this table is children age 15 to 17 years. Only the population 15 and over have labor force data recorded for them in the CPS. Children

under age 15, householders, subfamily reference people, their spouses, and those in group quarters are excluded from this table. 2

Full-time employment is 35 hours or more of work n the previous week. Part-time employment is less than 35 hours of work in the previous week.

3

Data are not shown separately for the American Indian and Alaska Native population because of the small sample size in the Current Population Survey in

March 2002. 4

The unemployment rate is the percent unemployed of the population in the labor force.

5

‘‘MSA’’ refers to Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Note: Data based on the Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey. For information on confidentiality protection,

sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/tp63rv.pdf.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey.
U.S. Census Bureau 13

parent had less than a high school

education had the lowest labor

force participation rate 

(21 percent).14 Children with a parent who had a bachelor’s degree or

more had the lowest unemployment

rate (14 percent). 

Family income followed a similar

trend: higher proportions of children in the labor force were found

in families with higher family

income levels. This is not surprising because the income from working children is included in the family’s income classification; however,

children’s incomes rarely account

for the majority of the family’s

income. Only 18 percent of children living in families with income

levels under $30,000 were in the

labor force, compared with about

14 The unemployment rate for children

whose parent had less than a high school

diploma was not significantly different from

unemployment rate for children whose parent was a high school graduate, or from children living without either parent.

28 percent of children in families

with incomes of $50,000 or more.

The unemployment rate was also

lowest at the top of the income

range: 14 percent in families with

incomes of $75,000 and over.

Figure 4 shows these differences by

family income. In general, higher

participation in the labor force was

seen for children in families with

higher incomes. Specifically, as family income increased the percentage

of children working part time

increased substantially.

Income, Poverty, and Public

Assistance in Children’s

Families

Recently the family economies of

children’s households have been the

subject of tremendous attention

and research. Some of the more

important issues that affect children’s economic well-being by the

presence or absence of one or both

parents are highlighted in Table 7.

In 2002, 30 percent of all children

lived in families with incomes

below $30,000, and 17 percent of

children were in families living

below 100 percent of poverty (see

Table 7). Five percent of children

(about 3.4 million) lived in households that were receiving public

assistance, and 11 percent of children (7.9 million) were in households that received food stamps. At

the other end of the financial spectrum, 49 percent of children lived in

families with incomes of $50,000

per year or more, and 29 percent

were in families having incomes of

at least $75,000 per year.15 Most

children, 67 percent, were living in

housing that was owned or being

purchased by the householder.

Significant differences in children’s

economic situations emerge when

family living arrangements are

examined. While 30 percent of all

children lived in families with

incomes less than $30,000 per year,

only 15 percent of children in twoparent families fell below that level,

compared with 65 percent of children in single-mother families, 45

percent of children in single-father

families, and 61 percent of children

living in households with neither

parent present. At the other end of

the income spectrum, 39 percent of

children living with two parents

were in families with incomes of

$75,000 per year or more, compared with 6 percent for children in

single-mother families, and 11 percent for both children in singlefather families and children with no

parents present. 

Children living in households without either parent were the most

likely to be in families below 100

percent of the poverty threshold 

(48 percent of children), followed

15 The percentage of children in families

with incomes below $30,000 (30 percent)

was not significantly different from the percentage in families having incomes of at

least $75,000 (29 percent). 

Figure 4.

Labor Force Status of Children 15 to 17 Years 

Old by Family Income: March 2002

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Demographic Supplement to the 

March 2002 Current Population Survey. 

(In percent)

Not in labor force

Unemployed

Employed part-time

Employed full-time

$50,000

and over

$30,000 to

$49,999

$15,000 to

 $29,999

Under

$15,000

4

84

3

8

6

80

1

12

7

75

2

17

6

72

2

22
14 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 7.

Children' s Economic Situation by Family Structure: March 20021

Characteristic Total Two parents Mother only Father only Neither parent

NUMBER

Total . . ....................................

Family income

72,321 49,666 16,473 3,297 2,885

Under $15,000 ............................... 9,516 1,993 5,706 559 1,257

$15,000 to $29,999 ........................... 12,094 5,705 4,933 939 516

$30,000 to $49,999 ........................... 15,140 10,360 3,328 963 489

$50,000 to $74,999 ........................... 14,414 12,160 1,493 455 307

$75,000 and over.............................

Poverty status

21,157 19,447 1,013 380 316

Below 100 percent of poverty .................. 12,239 3,895 6,326 638 1,380

100 to 199 percent of poverty .................. 15,686 9,147 4,949 935 655

200 percent of poverty and above ..............

Household receives public assistance

44,396 36,623 5,199 1,723 851

Receives assistance .......................... 3,372 776 2,101 154 340

Does not receive assistance ...................

Household receives food stamps

68,949 48,889 14,372 3,143 2,545

Receives food stamps......................... 7,873 2,213 4,813 418 430

Does not receive food stamps..................

Household tenure

64,448 47,453 11,660 2,879 2,455

Owns/buying . ................................ 48,542 38,362 6,547 1,808 1,825

Rents ....................................... 22,512 10,366 9,689 1,444 1,012

No cash rent .................................

PERCENT

1,266 938 237 44 48

Total . . ....................................

Family income

100.0 68.7 22.8 4.6 4.0

Under $15,000 ............................... 100.0 20.9 60.0 5.9 13.2

$15,000 to $29,999 ........................... 100.0 47.2 40.8 7.8 4.3

$30,000 to $49,999 ........................... 100.0 68.4 22.0 6.4 3.2

$50,000 to $74,999 ........................... 100.0 84.4 10.4 3.2 2.1

$75,000 and over.............................

Poverty status

100.0 91.9 4.8 1.8 1.5

Below 100 percent of poverty .................. 100.0 31.8 51.7 5.2 11.3

100 to 199 percent of poverty .................. 100.0 58.3 31.6 6.0 4.2

200 percent of poverty and above ..............

Household receives public assistance

100.0 82.5 11.7 3.9 1.9

Receives assistance .......................... 100.0 23.0 62.3 4.6 10.1

Does not receive assistance ...................

Household receives food stamps

100.0 70.9 20.8 4.6 3.7

Receives food stamps......................... 100.0 28.1 61.1 5.3 5.5

Does not receive food stamps..................

Household tenure

100.0 73.6 18.1 4.5 3.8

Owns/buying ................................. 100.0 79.0 13.5 3.7 3.8

Rents ....................................... 100.0 46.0 43.0 6.4 4.5

No cash rent ................................. 100.0 74.1 18.7 3.5 3.8

- Represents zero or rounds to zero.

1

All people under age 18, excluding group quarters, householders, subfamily reference people, and their spouses.

Note: Data based on the Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey. For information on confidentiality protection,

sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/tp63rv.pdf.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey.
U.S. Census Bureau 15

closely by children living in singlemother families — 38 percent of

these children were below the

poverty threshold. Children who

were living with single mothers and

those living without either parent

were also most likely to be in

households receiving public assistance (about 12 percent of children

each), compared with 5 percent for

children living with only their father,

and 2 percent for children living

with two married parents. Food

stamp receipt followed a similar

trend: 29 percent of children who

lived with a single mother, about 

15 percent of children who lived in

households without parents and 

13 percent of children who lived

with a single father, and 4 percent

of children who lived with both parents.16 The majority of children living with a single mother lived in

rented housing, 59 percent, compared with 44 percent of children

with a single father, 35 percent of

children with no parents, and 

21 percent of children living with

two parents. 

FOREIGN-BORN CHILDREN

AND CHILDREN OF

FOREIGN-BORN PARENTS

Demographic Characteristics

The foreign-born population of the

United States has risen dramatically

since 1970.17 These immigrants

have come largely from Latin

America and Asia, increasing the

diversity of children’s cultural backgrounds and the languages they

speak.18 Children with foreign-born

16 The 15 percent of children who lived in

households without parents and received

food stamps and 13 percent of children who

lived with a single father and received food

stamps were not significantly different. 17 See A. Dianne Schmidley. (2001).

Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the

United States: 2000, Current Population

Reports, P23-206. www.census.gov/

prod/2002pubs/p23-206.pdf 18 See Lisa Lollock. (2001). The ForeignBorn Population in the United States: March

2000, Current Population Reports — P20-534.

www.census.gov/prod/2000pubs/p20-534.pdf

parents may need additional

resources at school and at home in

order to progress successfully in

school and to transition to adulthood. 

In 2002, 14 million children lived

with at least one foreign-born parent, representing 19 percent of all

children (see Table 8). About 

2.7 million of these children were

themselves foreign born. Native

children with at least one foreignborn parent composed the largest

segment of this population (12 million). More than one-half of all

children with foreign-born parents

were of Hispanic origin (7.8 million), while another 2.5 million

were Asian and Pacific Islanders.19

As mentioned earlier, one of the

more important measures of children’s resources is the presence of

parents. Children who lived with

foreign-born parents were better

off on the whole than their counterparts who lived with native parents. Eighty-one percent of children living with foreign-born

parents were living with two parents, significantly more than native

children living with two native parents (69 percent). 

The educational level of a child’s

parent affects their resources and

is a strong predictor of their success in school and the nature of

their transition to adulthood.20

Figure 5 presents children’s and

their parent’s nativity status by the

parent’s education level. This figure shows striking differences in

the education of the parent by the

19 The number of Asian and Pacific

Islander children with at least one foreignborn parent is not significantly different

from the number of foreign-born children

with at least one foreign-born parent. 20 See Frank F. Furstenberg, JR., J. 

Brooks-Gunn, and S. Philip Morgan (1987).

“Adolescent Mothers and Their Children in

Later Life.” Family Planning Perspectives,

Volume 19:4, 142-151. Also see: Dennis P.

Hogan and Nan Marie Astone. (1986). “The

Transition to Adulthood.” Annual Review of

Sociology, 12:109-30.

parent-child nativity combination.

Children with at least one foreignborn parent were much more likely

to have a parent with less than a

high school diploma than children

living with native parents. Native

parents of foreign-born children

had the highest education: 59 percent had a bachelor’s degree or

more, while only 27 percent had a

high school education or less.

This group consisted of a high proportion of children who were

adopted by native parents.

Economic Characteristics

Table 8 shows that children with

foreign-born parents were more

often in families with incomes

below $30,000 per year than other

children: 35 percent of native children with foreign-born parents and

43 percent of foreign-born children

with foreign-born parents, compared with only 20 percent of

foreign-born children with native

parents and 27 percent of native

children with native parents.

Children living with neither parent

present were even more likely 

(61 percent) to be in families with

incomes below $30,000 than children in any other living arrangement. Poverty status, predictably,

followed the same pattern: children

with native parents were more likely to be in families at or above 200

percent of poverty, compared with

children who lived with at least one

foreign-born parent.21

Only 65 percent of foreign-born

children with at least one foreignborn parent had health insurance,

slightly more than the 59 percent

of children who were living with

21 The 20 percent of foreign-born children

with native parents and the 27 percent of

native children with native parents are not

significantly different. Additionally, the 77

percent of foreign-born children with native

parents at or above 200 percent of poverty

and the 66 percent of native children with

native parents at or above 200 percent of

poverty are not significantly different.
16 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 8.

Children' s and Parents' Nativity1 and Selected Characteristics: March 20022

(In thousands)

Children with at least Children with native parents one foreign-born parent

Characteristic

Native Foreign- Native Foreign- No parent

Total Total child born child Total child born child present

Total ......................... 72,321 55,264 55,136 128 14,172 11,518 2,654 2,885

Age of child

Under 6 years ................... 23,363 17,664 17,609 55 4,974 4,613 361 725

6-11 years ...................... 24,623 18,801 18,766 35 4,883 3,989 894 938

12-17 years ..................... 24,335 18,799 18,761 38 4,314 2,916 1,398 1,221

Race and ethnicity of child3

White .......................... 56,276 44,338 44,289 49 10,207 8,341 1,866 1,732

Non-Hispanic.................. 44,235 40,230 40,205 25 2,831 2,376 455 1,174

Black........................... 11,646 9,421 9,415 6 1,269 1027 242 956

Asian and Pacific Islander ........ 3,223 589 516 73 2,533 2,006 527 101

Hispanic (of any race).............. 12,817 4,435 4,409 26 7,757 6,294 1,463 626

Presence of parents

Two parents..................... 49,666 38,254 38,172 82 11,411 9,274 2,137 (X)

Mother only ..................... 16,473 14,192 14,154 38 2,281 1,862 419 (X)

Father only ..................... 3,297 2,817 2,810 7 480 382 98 (X)

Neither parent ................... 2,885 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 2,885

Education of parent

Less than high school ............ 10,900 5,670 5,665 5 5,229 4,149 1,080 (X)

High school degree .............. 20,871 17,640 17,610 30 3,231 2,676 555 (X)

Some college ................... 19,315 16,982 16,963 19 2,333 2,028 305 (X)

Bachelor’s degree or more........ 18,351 14,973 14,898 75 3,378 2,664 714 (X)

No parents present . . ............ 2,885 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 2,885

Marital status of parent

Married spouse present .......... 49,666 38,254 38,172 82 11,411 9,274 2,137 (X)

Married spouse absent . . . . . . . . . . . 951 646 646 - 306 221 85 (X)

Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857 697 693 4 160 111 49 (X)

Divorced........................ 6,932 6,282 6,264 18 651 532 119 (X)

Separated ...................... 2,918 2,305 2,299 6 613 489 124 (X)

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,111 7,079 7,063 16 1,032 892 140 (X)

No parent present . . ............. 2,885 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 2,885

Family income

Under $15,000 .................. 9,516 6,411 6,398 13 1,847 1,402 445 1,257

$15,000 to $29,999 . . . . .......... 12,094 8,281 8,268 13 3,297 2,594 703 516

$30,000 to $49,999 . . . . .......... 15,140 11,231 11,214 17 3,420 2,750 670 489

$50,000 and over . . .............. 35,571 29,342 29,257 85 5,606 4,771 835 623

Poverty status

Below 100 percent of poverty ..... 12,239 7,848 7,835 13 3,011 2,300 711 1,380

100 to 199 percent of poverty . .... 15,686 10,812 10,796 16 4,218 3,336 882 655

200 percent of poverty and above . 44,396 36,604 36,506 98 6,942 5,882 1,060 850

Health insurance coverage

Covered by health insurance ...... 63,907 50,941 50,819 122 11,255 9,534 1,721 1,710

Not covered by health insurance . . 8,414 4,323 4,317 6 2,916 1,984 932 1,175

Household receives public

assistance

Receives assistance . . ........... 3,372 2,396 2,390 6 636 514 122 341

Does not receive assistance . . .... 68,949 52,869 52,747 122 13,536 11,004 2,532 2,544

Household tenure

Owns/buying .................... 48,542 39,027 38,925 102 7,690 6,675 1,015 1,825

Rents . . . ....................... 22,512 15,215 15,191 24 6,285 4,693 1,592 1,012

No cash rent . ................... 1,266 1,022 1,021 1 197 150 47 48

Type of residence4

Central city, in MSA.............. 20,971 14,125 14,083 42 5,802 4,698 1,104 1,044

Outside central city, in MSA....... 38,194 29,585 29,514 71 7,376 6,015 1,361 1,233

Outside MSA. . .................. 13,155 11,554 11,539 15 993 805 188 608

- Represents zero or rounds to zero. X Not applicable.

1

A child living with any foreign-born parents is included in the category for foreign-born parent(s). Children living with a single parent are assigned a category

based on the nativity of the coresident parent. Children living with native parents are only living with native parents. 2

All people under age 18, excluding group quarters, householders, subfamily reference people, and their spouses.

3

Data are not shown separately for the American Indian and Alaska Native population because of the small sample size in the Current Population Survey in

March 2002. 4

‘‘MSA’’ refers to Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Note: Data based on the Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey. For information on confidentiality

protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/tp63rv.pdf.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey.
U.S. Census Bureau 17

no parents. Native children with at

least one foreign-born parent were

better off, with 83 percent covered

by health insurance, but they still

fell short of the 92-percent coverage for native children with native

parents. No significant differences

were found in receipt of public

assistance by each nativity type

(about 4 percent), but all were less

than the 12 percent recorded for

children living with neither parent

present. 

Children with at least one foreignborn parent were also less likely to

be in households that were being

bought or were owned (54 percent

compared with 71 percent of children with native parents), and

were more likely to live in central

cities of metropolitan areas than

were children with native parents,

41 percent versus 26 percent,

respectively. This distribution is

consistent with migration patterns

that involve movement through

ethnic enclaves22 and the tendency

of many immigrants to live in central cities initially. Additionally, the

finding reflects the impact of

parental home ownership on the

wealth of subsequent generations,

as a house is often the largest

source of intergenerational wealth

transmission.

22 See Douglas S. Massey, et. al. (1994).

“An Evaluation of International Migration

Theory: The North American Case.”

Population and Development Review, Volume

20:4, 699-751. Also see: Mary M. Kritz and

June Marie Nogel. (1994). “Nativity

Concentration and Internal Migration among

the Foreign-Born.” Demography, Volume

31:3, 509-524. 

Children who were foreign born

but living with native parents represented a very small proportion of

all children, 0.2 percent, and were

distinct from other children in a

number of ways. Many of these

children may have been adopted

from overseas, and would be more

likely to be living with parents who

had more substantial financial

resources. In addition, 57 percent

were Asian and Pacific Islander

children, a characteristic also

noted in Census 2000 data among

foreign-born adopted children who

were living with native parents.23

The characteristics shown in these

data are consistent with data for

children living in families with

more resources. Among foreignborn children with native parents,

66 percent lived in families in the

highest income category ($50,000

or more per year), and 59 percent

lived with a parent with a bachelor’s degree or more.

CHILDREN’S HEALTH

INSURANCE COVERAGE

A key indicator of children’s wellbeing, their health, is not measured

directly by the Current Population

Survey. (The National Center for

Health Statistics (NCHS) collects

detailed data on the health status of

the population.24) The CPS does

provide an indicator of accessibility

to health resources, namely, health

insurance coverage for children.

Children’s health insurance is related

to the presence of parents and their

financial resources, as well as public

assistance programs designed to

provide a safety net for children,

such as the State Children’s Health

Insurance Program (SCHIP). 

23 See the upcoming Census 2000 –

Census Brief on Adopted and Stepchildren by

Rose Kreider. 24 See data and report products from the

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)

at www.cdc.gov/nchs.

Figure 5.

Children's and Parents' Nativity by Parent's 

Education for Children Living With 

At Least One Parent: March 20021

1

 Children with any foreign-born parents are included with foreign-born parent, children 

with native parents only are with native parents.

Education is the mother's, if not available, the father's is used.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Demographic Supplement to the 

March 2002 Current Population Survey. 

(In percent)

Less than high school

Bachelor's degree 

or more

Some college

High school degree

Foreign-born

child with

native parents

Foreign-born

child with at

least one

foreign-born

parent

Native child

with at least

one foreignborn parent

Native child

with native

parents

59

10

32

31

27

36

23

18

23

41

21

11

27

4

23

15
18 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 9 presents data on children’s

health insurance coverage by the

presence of parents. Overall, 

88 percent of children were covered by health insurance. Ninetyone percent of children living with

two parents were covered, compared with 86 percent and 82 percent of children living with single

mothers and single fathers, respectively. Remarkably, 59 percent of

children living in households with

neither parent present were covered by health insurance. 

There was no significant difference

between the health insurance coverage of children who lived with a

single father or children who lived

with a single mother regardless of

whether their parent was living

with an unmarried partner. A single mother’s marital status also

influenced the health insurance

coverage of her children. Children

living with a divorced mother had

the highest coverage rates of children living with a single mother,

89 percent. There were no significant differences between health

insurance coverage by marital status for single fathers.

Children were more likely to be

covered by health insurance if their

parent (see Definition Box 1.) was

a college graduate than if their parent had less than a high school

education. About 96 percent of

children whose parent had a bachelor’s degree or more were covered. As the amount of education

declined, so did the proportion of

children who were covered, dropping to 75 percent for children

with a parent who had less than a

high school degree.

For children in all types of living

arrangements, health coverage

increased as family income

increased. However, children living

in households that were receiving

public assistance were actually

more likely to be covered by health

insurance than children who were

in households that did not, probably because participation in public

assistance programs is often linked

with eligibility for some type of

health insurance safety net for children in low-income families.

SUMMARY

This report presents a series of

basic indicators of children’s wellbeing, their living arrangements,

and their family characteristics.

Based on the information shown in

this report, children living with two

parents were consistently more

economically advantaged than children in other types of living

arrangements. The persistent and

widespread nature of this effect

warrants its restatement although

it is not a new finding. Even

among children living with two

parents, 9 percent lacked health

insurance, 8 percent were in families living below the poverty level,

and 4 percent lived in households

that received food stamps. 

Children in two-parent families

generally had access to more

financial resources and greater

amounts of parental time. They

also were more likely to participate

in extracurricular activities,

progress more steadily in school,

and have more supervision over

their activities such as television

watching.25 The presence of two

parents continues to be one of the

most important factors in children’s

lives.

Additional information about children is available from other data

sources on many of the topics presented in this report, as well as on

25 See Jason Fields, Kristin Smith, Loretta

Bass, Terry Lugaila. (2001). A Child’s Day:

Home, School, and Play (Selected Indicators

of Child Well-Being). Current Population

Reports, P70-68. U.S. Census Bureau,

Washington DC.

www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p70-68.pdf

characteristics and measures not

presented here. The Interagency

Forum on Child and Family

Statistics is a good source of information on federal contacts and

data sources related to children

and their well-being.26

SOURCE OF THE DATA

The population represented (the

population universe) in the Annual

Demographic Supplement to the

March 2002 Current Population

Survey is the civilian noninstitutionalized population of the United

States. Members of the Armed

Forces living off post or with their

families on post are included if

there is at least one civilian adult

living in the household. (Starting

in 2001, the Annual Demographic

Supplement includes some data

collected in February and April; see

the Current Population Survey

Technical Paper 63RV.)27 The institutionalized population, which is

excluded from the population 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).

Two significant changes were

made to the processing of March

2001 and later Current Population

Survey Annual Demographic

Supplements (ADS) that affect the

estimates contained in this report.

The first change was the implementation of population controls

based on the 2000 Census of

Population and Housing, replacing

those based on the 1990 Census

26 See Federal Interagency Forum on Child

and Family Statistics. America’s Children:

Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2002.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and

Family Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office. Also see the

Forum’s website: www.childstats.gov/ 27 See the Current Population Survey

Technical Paper 63RV, Design and

Methodology, TP63RV, Washington DC, March

2002 www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/

tp63rv.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau 19

Table 9.

Children's Health Insurance Coverage by Presence of Parents and Selected

Characteristics: March 20021

(In thousands and percent)

All children Two parents Mother only Father only Neither parent

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Characteristic covered covered covered covered

by by by by Percent

health health health health covered

insur- insur- insur- insur- by health

Total ance Total ance Total ance Total ance Total insurance

Total ................................ 72,321 88.4 49,666 91.3 16,473 85.8 3,297 82.2 2,885 59.3

Age of child

Under 6 years ........................... 23,363 89.3 16,358 92.0 5,139 86.3 1,141 81.4 725 62.3

6-11 years .............................. 24,623 88.8 16,922 91.2 5,755 87.1 1,007 83.5 939 61.4

12-17 years ............................. 24,335 87.1 16,386 90.8 5,579 84.0 1,149 81.7 1,222 55.8

Race and ethnicity of child2

White ................................. 56,276 89.0 41,944 91.5 10,052 85.2 2,548 83.8 1,732 60.5

Non-Hispanic .......................... 44,235 92.7 34,011 94.7 7,124 88.4 1,926 88.0 1,174 67.4

Black ................................. 11,646 86.2 4,481 91.5 5,605 87.8 605 77.4 956 57.3

Asian and Pacific Islander ................... 3,223 88.4 2,637 90.6 419 85.0 65 78.5 102 50.0

Hispanic (of any race) ...................... 12,817 76.0 8,338 77.9 3,212 78.1 641 71.3 626 45.5

Presence of siblings

None ................................. 14,693 86.4 7,937 91.5 4,667 83.1 1,271 81.8 818 61.7

One sibling ............................. 28,498 90.9 20,931 92.9 5,915 87.8 1,177 82.1 475 63.2

Two siblings............................. 18,436 88.6 13,209 91.1 3,772 87.6 591 81.7 863 59.2

Three siblings ........................... 6,965 85.1 4,943 88.8 1,358 82.9 211 83.4 454 51.8

Four siblings ............................ 2,132 84.1 1,480 84.9 492 86.4 24 100.0 137 64.2

Five or more siblings ....................... 1,596 78.9 1,167 81.8 268 78.7 23 91.3 138 52.2

Unmarried-partner household3

Parent is not householder or partner ............ 69,441 88.6 49,666 91.3 14,674 86.1 2,216 83.5 2,885 59.3

Parent is householder or partner ............... 2,880 81.9 (X) (X) 1,799 83.4 1,081 79.5 (X) (X)

Parent is householder..................... 2,452 82.7 (X) (X) 1,430 85.0 1,022 79.5 (X) (X)

Parent is partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428 77.8 (X) (X) 369 77.5 59 79.7 (X) (X)

POSSLQ household4

Not a POSSLQ household ................... 57,826 89.0 41,802 91.3 12,197 86.3 1,795 83.8 2,033 61.3

POSSLQ household ....................... 2,652 81.7 (X) (X) 1,562 85.4 904 79.4 186 60.8

Out of universe - child 15 to 17 years old ......... 11,842 86.9 7,864 91.3 2,714 83.8 598 81.4 667 52.5

Education of parent

Less than high school ...................... 10,900 75.4 6,526 73.5 3,642 79.6 732 70.9 (X) (X)

High school degree ........................ 20,871 89.0 13,573 90.8 5,969 86.1 1,329 83.7 (X) (X)

Some college............................ 19,315 92.2 13,552 94.2 4,925 87.7 838 86.2 (X) (X)

Bachelor’s degree or more ................... 18,351 95.9 16,015 96.5 1,938 91.6 398 89.4 (X) (X)

No parents present ........................ 2,885 59.3 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 2,885 59.3

Marital status of parent

Married spouse present ..................... 49,666 91.3 49,666 91.3 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Married spouse absent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951 75.9 (X) (X) 787 75.5 164 78.0 (X) (X)

Widowed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857 79.8 (X) (X) 720 80.8 137 73.7 (X) (X)

Divorced ............................... 6,932 88.4 (X) (X) 5,593 88.8 1,339 86.9 (X) (X)

Separated .............................. 2,918 83.8 (X) (X) 2,500 84.0 418 83.0 (X) (X)

Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,111 84.6 (X) (X) 6,872 85.8 1,239 78.4 (X) (X)

No parent present......................... 2,885 59.3 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 2,885 59.3

Family income

Under $15,000 ........................... 9,516 78.6 1,993 73.0 5,706 84.5 559 74.2 1,257 62.3

$15,000 to $29,999 ........................ 12,094 81.8 5,705 80.9 4,933 85.9 939 78.0 516 60.1

$30,000 to $49,999 ........................ 15,140 86.5 10,360 87.8 3,328 87.7 963 84.2 489 55.6

$50,000 to $74,999 ........................ 14,414 92.5 12,160 94.1 1,493 87.6 455 90.1 307 54.4

$75,000 and over ......................... 21,157 95.1 19,447 96.4 1,013 83.9 380 90.0 316 57.0

Poverty status

Below 100 percent of poverty ................. 12,239 78.0 3,895 75.1 6,326 84.0 638 74.1 1,380 60.9

100 to 199 percent of poverty ................. 15,686 82.5 9,147 83.3 4,949 85.3 935 78.1 655 56.5

200 percent of poverty and above .............. 44,396 93.3 36,623 95.0 5,199 88.5 1,723 87.4 851 58.6

Household receives public assistance

Receives assistance....................... 3,372 96.5 776 98.2 2,101 98.5 154 92.2 340 82.6

Does not receive assistance .................. 68,949 88.0 48,889 91.2 14,372 83.9 3,143 81.7 2,545 56.2

Household tenure

Owns/buying ............................ 48,542 90.5 38,362 93.3 6,547 84.5 1,808 85.2 1,825 59.6

Rents ................................. 22,512 83.6 10,366 83.9 9,689 86.7 1,444 78.9 1,012 58.4

No cash rent ............................ 1,266 89.6 938 93.1 237 84.0 44 68.2 48 66.7

Type of residence5

Central city, in MSA........................ 20,971 85.6 12,202 88.6 6,621 85.8 1,105 77.6 1,044 57.9

Outside central city, in MSA .................. 38,194 89.9 28,540 92.8 6,944 85.3 1,477 83.6 1,234 55.9

Outside MSA ............................ 13,155 88.4 8,924 90.4 2,908 87.0 716 86.3 608 68.6

X Not applicable

1All people under age 18, excluding group quarters, householders, subfamily reference people, and their spouses.

2Data are not shown separately for the American Indian and Alaska Native population because of the small sample size in the Current Population Survey in March 2001.

3If the parent is either the householder with an unmarried partner in the household, or the unmarried partner of the householder, they are cohabiting based on this direct measure.

Cohabiting couples where neither partner is the householder are not identified. 4POSSLQ (Persons of the Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters) is defined by the presence of only two people over age 15 in the household who are opposite sex, not related, and

not married. There can be any number of people under age 15 in the household. The universe of children under age 15 is shown as the denominator for POSSLQ measurement. 5‘‘MSA’’ refers to Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Note: Data based on the Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling

error, and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/tp63rv.pdf.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Demographic Supplement to the March 2002 Current Population Survey.
U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Washington, DC 20233

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300

FIRST-CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

U.S. Census Bureau

Permit No. G-58

of Population and Housing. The

second was the State Children’s

Health Insurance (SCHIP) sample

expansion. The use of independent survey controls and the SCHIP

expansion are explained in more

detail in Current Population Survey

Technical Paper 63RV, Design and

Methodology, TP63RV, Washington

DC, March 2002.28

ACCURACY OF THE

ESTIMATES

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.

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,

28 ibid.

the wording of questions, review of World Wide Web site

the work of interviewers and (www.census.gov). Once on the

coders, and statistical review of site, click on Subjects A-Z, select

reports to minimize these errors. “C,” and then select “Children’s

data.” From the “Children’s data” The Current Population Survey page, select “Detailed tables” under weighting procedure uses ratio esti- “2002 March CPS” and then choose mation whereby sample estimates from the list of options. are adjusted to independent estimates of the national population by SUGGESTED CITATION

age, race, sex, and Hispanic origin.

This weighting partially corrects for Fields, Jason. 2003. Children’s

bias due to undercoverage, but Living Arrangements and

biases may still be present when Characteristics: March 2002.

people who are missed by the sur- Current Population Reports, P20-

vey differ from those interviewed in 547. U.S. Census Bureau,

ways other than age, race, sex, and Washington, DC.

Hispanic origin. How this weightCONTACTS ing procedure affects other variables in the survey is not precisely Statistical Information Staff:

known. All of these considerations POP@Census.gov, 301-763-2422

affect comparisons across different

Jason Fields: Fertility and Family surveys or data sources.

Statistics Branch.

For further information on statisti- Jason.M.Fields@Census.gov, 

cal standards and the computation 301-763-2416

and use of standard errors, go to

www.bls.census.gov/cps/ads/2002/ USER COMMENTS

S&A_02.pdf or contact Jeffrey The Census Bureau welcomes the Stratton of the Census Bureau’s comments and advice of data and Demographic Statistical Methods report users. If you have any sug- Division on the Internet at gestions or comments, please dsmd.source.and.accuracy@ write to:

census.gov.

Chief, Population Division

MORE INFORMATION U.S. Census Bureau

Washington, DC 20233 Detailed tables from the March

2002 CPS are available on the or send e-mail to: pop@census.gov

Internet, at the Census Bureau’s