American Community Survey Briefs

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

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

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

Employment Status of Married-Couple 

Families by Presence of Own Children 

Under 18 Years: 2008 and 2009

INTRODUCTION

Although the current recession has 

impacted the country in a variety of 

ways, a common scenario emerging from this economic climate is an 

increase in the number of women 

who are the sole worker within a 

married-couple family.1 In some 

cases, husbands have lost their 

jobs while their wives have not. In 

others, wives have reentered the 

labor force to help off set lost family 

income after their husbands’ job 

loss. Between 2008 and 2009, the 

largest job losses were reported in 

male-dominated industries such as 

construction and manufacturing, 

whereas female-dominated industries such as healthcare have fared 

relatively better over the course of 

the recession.2 

According to data from the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics (BLS), the unemployment rate for women was 2.2 

percentage points lower than the rate for 

men in 2009, one of the largest unemployment rate gender gaps reported by 

BLS.3 Reinforcing this diff erence in unemployment rates is the increasing likelihood that women possess education 

1 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Characteristics of Families, Economic News Release, Table 

4. Families with own children: Employment status 

of parents by age of youngest child and family type, 

2008-09 annual averages. 2 Hipple, Steven F., “The Labor Market in 2009: 

Recession Drags On,” Monthly Labor Review, March 

2010, Vol. 133, No.3, pp. 3–22 and U.S. Census 

Bureau, American Community Surveys, 2008 and 

2009, table S2403. 3 Bureau of Labor Statistics CPS Annual Averages: 

<bls.gov/cps/cpsaat2.pdf>.

levels, such as advanced degrees, 

required to attain and hold on to jobs in 

today’s evolving economy.4 The unemployment rate gender gap may have 

consequences for family spending power 

since, on average, women earn less than 

4 For example, between 2008 and 2009, the number of females over the age of 25 with a graduate or 

professional degree increased 3.7 percent while the 

number of male graduate and professional degree 

holders over the age of 25 remained unchanged (U.S. 

Census Bureau, American Community Surveys, 2008 

and 2009, author’s tabulations). Also see McQueen, 

M. P., “Better Education Shields Women from Worst 

of Job Cuts,” The Wall Street Journal, February 12, 

2010, at <online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB 

:SB100014240527487033890045750337624821141

90.html> and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational 

Outlook Handbook, 2010–11 Edition, <www.bls.gov

/oco/oco2003.htm>. 

Issued October 2010

ACSBR/09-10

By

Braedyn K. Woodring Unemployed: All civilians 16 years old 

and over are classifi ed as unemployed if 

they (1) were neither “at work” nor “with a 

job but not at work” during the reference 

week, and (2) were actively looking 

for work during the last 4 weeks, and 

(3) were available to accept a job. Also 

included as unemployed are civilians who 

did not work at all during the reference 

week, were waiting to be called back to 

a job from which they had been laid off , 

and were available for work except for 

temporary illness.

Own children: A child under 18 years 

old who is a son or daughter by birth, 

marriage (stepchild), or adoption. 

Family: A group of two or more people 

who reside together and who are related 

by birth, marriage, or adoption.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

men do.5 Given the rising costs of 

education, childcare, and healthcare, married-couple families with 

children will face an even greater 

strain on their family budgets. 

CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT 

STATUS FOR MARRIEDCOUPLE FAMILIES WITH 

OWN CHILDREN

Nationally, 3.4 percent of marriedcouple families with own children 

under 18 years old had an unemployed husband and employed wife 

in 2009—up from 1.8 percent in 

2008.6 Between 2008 and 2009, 41 

states saw an increase in the per5 “Men’s and Women’s Earnings for States 

and Metropolitan Statistical Areas: 2009,” 

American Community Survey Briefs, <www

.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acsbr09-3.pdf>. 6 Nationally, there were 23,411,061 

married-couple families with own children 

under 18 years old in 2009. 

centage of married-couple families 

in this situation.

Compared with the national 

increase of 1.6 percentage points, 

Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Michigan, 

Massachusetts, North Carolina, 

Ohio, and Oregon all reported a 

larger increase in the percentage 

of married-couple families with 

own children with an unemployed 

husband and employed wife. Six of 

these states (Arizona, Florida, 

Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, 

and Oregon) experienced larger 

percentage decreases in total 

construction and manufacturing 

employment than the nation (see 

Figure 2).7 Employment losses in 

7 Although Hawaii did not experience a 

signifi cantly larger decrease in total construction and manufacturing employment compared to the nation, the state did experience 

a signifi cantly larger decrease in construction 

employment separately. Between 2008 and 

2009, Hawaii reported a 27 percent decrease 

construction and manufacturing 

industries, which are consistently 

male-dominated industries, may 

have contributed to larger increases 

in the percentage of marriedcouple families with own children 

with an unemployed husband and 

employed wife for these states.8

While male-dominated industries 

experienced considerable employment losses over the past year, 

in construction employment. Information 

on industry classifi cations can be found at 

<www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Def

.htm>. The decrease in construction and 

manufacturing employment for 

Massachusetts was not signifi cantly diff erent 

than the decrease for the United States. 8 According to American Community 

Survey data, males made up 78.6 percent of 

construction and manufacturing employment 

in 2009. Please see table C24030 for additional information at <http://factfi nder

.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&

-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2009_1YR

_G00_&-_ang=en&-mt_name=ACS_2009_1YR

_G2000_C24030&-format=&-CONTEXT=dt>.

MT

AK

NM

OR MN

KS

SD

ND

MO

WA

FL

IL IN

WI NY

PA

MI

OH

IA

ME

MA

CT 

AZ

NV

TX

CA CO

WY

UT

ID

NE

OK

GA

AR

AL

NC

MS

LA

TN

KY

VA

SC

WV

RI 

DE 

MD 

DC 

NJ 

Figure 1.

Employment Status of Married-Couple Families With Own 

Children by State and Puerto Rico: 2008 Versus 2009 

VT

HI

NH

United States = 1.6 percentage points

(Percentage point change in married-couple families with 

own children with an unemployed husband and employed wife)

Above national change

Not statistically different 

Below national change

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009, Puerto Rico Community Survey, 2009.

PR
U.S. Census Bureau 3

female-dominated industries fared 

relatively better between 2008 

and 2009. For example, national 

employment in the educational 

services and health care and social 

assistance industry group increased 

nearly 1.0 percent between 2008 

and 2009, compared with a 3.7 

percent decline in total national 

employment during the same time 

period.9 Given diff erences in gender 

composition between industries, 

in addition to diff erences in educational attainment between men and 

women, women have been more 

likely to maintain current employment or reenter the labor force, 

likely contributing to the increase 

in married-couple families with 

9 According to American Community 

Survey data, females made up 74.8 percent 

of employment in the educational services 

and health care and social assistance industry 

group in 2009. 

own children with an unemployed 

husband and employed wife.10

SOURCE AND ACCURACY

Data presented in this report are 

based on people and households 

that responded to the ACS in 2008 

and 2009. The resulting estimates 

are representative of the entire 

population. All comparisons presented in this report have taken 

sampling error into account and 

are signifi cant at the 90 percent 

10 Women in the prime working age group 

of 25 to 54 experienced increases in labor 

force participation between 2008 and 2009 

while men of the same age experienced 

decreases. For more information, see “Labor 

Force Participation Rate for Selected Age 

Groups: 2008 and 2009,” American 

Community Survey Briefs, <www.census.gov

/prod/2010pubs/acsbr09-9.pdf>. Also see 

Greenhouse, Steven, “Recession Drives 

Women Back to the Work Force,” The New 

York Times, September 18, 2009, at <www

.nytimes.com/2009/09/19

/business/19women.html>.

confi dence level unless otherwise 

noted. 

Due to rounding, some details may 

not sum to totals. For information 

on sampling and estimation methods, confi dentiality protection, and 

sampling and nonsampling errors, 

please see the “2009 ACS Accuracy 

of the Data” document located at 

<www.census.gov/acs

/www/Downloads/data

_documentation/Accuracy/ACS

_Accuracy_of_Data_2009.pdf>. 

Figure 2. 

Percent Change in Total Construction and Manufacturing Employment for 

Select States and the Nation, 2008–09

*Statistically different from the change for the United States at the 90 percent confidence level.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Surveys, 2008 and 2009.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

North Ohio* Oregon*

Carolina*

United States Arizona* Florida* Hawaii Massachusetts Michigan*

Percent change in construction/manufacturing
4 U.S. Census Bureau

Employment Status of Married-Couple Families With Own Children Under 18 Years and 

Percent Change in Total Employment in Select Industries

(In percent)

Area

Married-couple families with own children Employment change in select industries 

2009 2008

Percentage point 

change 

2008–2009

Percent change 

2008–2009

Percent change 

2008–2009

Husband 

unemployed/

wife 

employed

Margin 

of error1 

(±)

Husband 

unemployed/

wife 

employed

Margin 

of error1

(±)

Husband 

unemployed/

wife 

employed

Margin 

of error1 

(±)

Construction 

and 

manufacturing 

employment

Margin 

of error1 

(±)

Educational 

services and 

health care and 

social 

assistance

Margin 

of error1 

(±)

 United States . . 3.4 0.1 1.8 0.1 *1.6 0.1 *–10.8 0.4 *0.9 0.4

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 0.4 0.9 0.2 *1.5 0.5 *–11.0 3.4 –1.0 3.1

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 1.1 1.4 0.6 1.0 1.3 *–13.4 11.8 6.9 8.1

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 0.4 1.4 0.3 *2.7 0.5 *–14.9 3.4 *4.3 3.0

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 0.6 1.5 0.4 *1.3 0.7 *–5.0 4.2 4.0 4.3

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 0.2 2.2 0.1 *1.5 0.2 *–8.9 1.3 –0.8 1.3

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 0.4 1.2 0.3 *1.6 0.5 *–12.5 3.2 2.6 3.1

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 0.6 1.5 0.4 *2.0 0.7 *–5.8 3.9 *5.1 3.6

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 1.3 2.1 1.1 1.1 1.7 *–9.4 7.8 *11.1 7.3

District of Columbia . . . . . 4.3 2.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.3 *–19.3 18.6 –4.6 9.0

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 0.3 2.5 0.2 *2.3 0.4 *–14.6 2.4 1.6 1.7

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 0.4 1.7 0.3 *1.6 0.5 *–13.3 2.3 1.7 2.6

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 1.1 1.0 0.5 *2.9 1.2 *–18.2 8.5 5.8 6.6

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 0.8 2.4 0.7 *1.1 1.1 *–14.8 4.9 2.8 5.3

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 0.3 2.2 0.2 *1.9 0.4 *–11.6 1.9 1.2 1.9

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 0.5 2.5 0.3 *1.6 0.6 *–10.4 2.3 1.9 2.4

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 0.4 1.2 0.4 *1.5 0.6 *–8.6 3.1 –1.5 3.2

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 0.6 1.1 0.3 *1.7 0.7 *–7.5 3.9 *–6.2 3.2

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 0.5 1.7 0.4 *1.2 0.6 *–11.5 3.1 *5.2 3.1

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 0.5 1.0 0.2 *0.8 0.6 –1.8 3.6 *7.2 3.4

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 0.8 2.0 0.6 *1.3 1.1 *–8.0 5.1 1.9 5.1

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 0.4 1.7 0.3 *1.0 0.5 *–9.7 3.5 –0.5 2.6

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . 4.1 0.5 1.9 0.3 *2.3 0.6 *–8.6 3.1 1.7 2.5

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 0.4 3.0 0.3 *2.9 0.5 *–16.6 2.0 *–2.3 1.9

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 0.4 1.9 0.3 *1.8 0.5 *–9.1 2.2 *3.4 2.4

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 0.6 1.4 0.5 *1.1 0.8 *–11.3 4.3 –3.2 4.4

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 0.4 2.0 0.3 *1.4 0.5 *–10.1 2.6 1.5 2.6

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 0.7 1.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 *–20.6 7.8 –4.8 5.4

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 0.5 0.8 0.3 *1.1 0.6 *–8.3 4.6 0.8 4.4

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 0.9 2.2 0.6 *2.4 1.1 *–21.2 5.5 *9.0 5.8

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . 2.5 0.6 1.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 *–9.4 5.1 –0.8 5.0

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 0.3 1.7 0.2 *1.9 0.4 *–12.4 2.7 *–4.7 2.1

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 0.8 1.6 0.6 *1.5 1.0 *–15.9 6.1 –2.9 4.6

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 0.2 1.8 0.2 *0.7 0.2 *–9.4 2.0 0.3 1.5

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . 3.9 0.4 1.7 0.2 *2.1 0.4 *–13.2 2.2 –0.7 2.2

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 –1.0 8.3 3.5 5.5

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 0.3 2.0 0.3 *2.3 0.4 *–13.4 1.6 1.0 1.8

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 0.4 1.3 0.4 *0.8 0.6 *–9.9 3.4 2.2 3.9

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 0.5 2.3 0.4 *2.4 0.7 *–17.3 3.5 0.6 3.9

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 0.2 1.8 0.2 *1.5 0.3 *–8.1 1.8 1.1 1.6

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 1.2 3.0 1.0 0.7 1.6 *–10.5 6.9 3.8 6.3

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . 3.7 0.6 1.7 0.4 *2.0 0.7 *–13.4 3.3 1.4 3.5

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.6 0.9 *–11.7 7.9 –5.6 6.2

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 0.4 1.8 0.3 *1.4 0.5 *–14.7 2.8 –0.4 2.8

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 0.2 1.3 0.1 *1.4 0.2 *–7.0 1.6 *3.3 1.5

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 0.5 0.9 0.3 *1.2 0.6 *–6.1 4.1 –0.5 4.0

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 1.0 2.2 0.9 1.0 1.4 *–9.6 6.7 –4.6 4.9

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 0.3 1.3 0.3 *0.9 0.4 *–9.4 3.0 0.7 2.8

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 0.4 1.5 0.2 *2.0 0.5 *–11.2 2.7 2.0 3.0

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 0.7 1.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 *–9.7 5.9 1.0 4.8

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 0.4 1.7 0.3 *1.9 0.5 *–12.4 2.1 2.0 2.3

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 *0.8 0.8 –4.7 11.2 8.3 9.0

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 0.6 2.5 0.5 *0.8 0.8 *–11.3 4.7 *–4.3 4.1

* Statistically different at the 90 percent confi dence level.

1

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to 

the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. This number when added to and subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent confi dence interval.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Surveys, 2008 and 2009, Puerto Rico Community Surveys, 2008 and 2009.
U.S. Census Bureau 5

WHAT IS THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY?

The American Community Survey (ACS) is a nationwide survey 

designed to provide communities with reliable and timely demographic, social, economic, and housing data for the nation, states, 

congressional districts, counties, places, and other localities every 

year. It has an annual sample size of about 3 million addresses across 

the United States and Puerto Rico and includes both housing units 

and group quarters (e.g., nursing facilities and prisons). The ACS is 

conducted in every county throughout the nation, and every municipio in Puerto Rico, where it is called the Puerto Rico Community 

Survey. Beginning in 2006, ACS data for 2005 were released for geographic areas with populations of 65,000 and greater. For information 

on the ACS sample design and other topics, visit <www.census.gov

/acs/www>.