Marriage and Cohabitation

in the United States: A

Statistical Portrait Based

on Cycle 6 (2002) of the

National Survey of Family

Growth

2010 yuarebrF 28 Number 23, iesSer
Copyright information

All material appearing in this report is in the public domain and may be

reproduced or copied without permission; citation as to source, however, is

appreciated.

Suggested citation

Goodwin PY, Mosher WD, Chandra A. Marriage and cohabitation in the

United States: A statistical portrait based on Cycle 6 (2002) of the

National Survey of Family Growth. National Center for Health Statistics.

Vital Health Stat 23(28). 2010.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Marriage and cohabitation in the United States : a statistical portrait based on

cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth.

p. cm. (DHHS publication ; no. PHS 2010-1980) (Vital and health statistics ;

Series 23, no. 28)

ISBN 0-8406-0636-2

1. Marriage—United States—Statistics. 2. Unmarried couples—United States—

Statistics. 3. Divorce—United States—Statistics. 4. Remarriage—United States—

Statistics. 5. Family life surveys—United States. I. National Survey of Family

Growth (U.S.) II. National Center for Health Statistics (U.S.)

HB1125.M35 2010

306.80973’090511—dc22 2010000348

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents

Mail Stop: SSOP

Washington, DC 20402–9328

Printed on acid-free paper.
Series 23, Number 28

Marriage and Cohabitation in the

United States: A Statistical Portrait

Based on Cycle 6 (2002) of the

National Survey of Family Growth

Data From the National Survey of

Family Growth

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Health Statistics

Hyattsville, Maryland

February 2010

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2010–1980
National Center for Health Statistics

Edward J. Sondik, Ph.D., Director

Jennifer H. Madans, Ph.D., Associate Director for Science

Division of Vital Statistics

Charles J. Rothwell, M.S., Director
Contents
 

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................... vi 
 

Abstract ................................................................................................. 1 
 

Overview and Highlights ................................................................................... 1 
 

What Are the Current and Past Marital and Cohabiting Statuses of Men and Women? ................................ 1 
 

What Are the Patterns of Cohabitation and Marriage? .......................................................... 2 
 

How Are Selected Background Characteristics of Men and Women Associated With the Outcomes of Their First
 

Marriages and Cohabitations?............................................................................. 2 
 

What Are the Characteristics of Married and Cohabiting Persons’ Partners? ........................................ 3 
 

How Long Do First Marriages and First Cohabitations Last? .................................................... 3 
 

Introduction .............................................................................................. 3 
 

In This Report .......................................................................................... 5 
 

Comparison With Previous Reports ......................................................................... 6 
 

Data and Methods ......................................................................................... 6 
 

Source of Data.......................................................................................... 6 
 

Strengths and Limitations of the Data ....................................................................... 7 
 

National Estimates....................................................................................... 8 
 

Life Table Analysis ...................................................................................... 9 
 

Results .................................................................................................. 9 
 

Current Marital and Cohabiting Status....................................................................... 9 
 

Overall Experience With Marriage and Cohabitation ........................................................... 10 
 

Sequencing of Cohabitation and Marriage .................................................................... 11 
 

Spouse and Partner Characteristics.......................................................................... 11 
 

Duration and Outcomes of First Marriages and Cohabitations.................................................... 12 
 

Discussion ............................................................................................... 14 
 

References ............................................................................................... 15 
 

Appendixes

Appendix I............................................................................................... 38 
 

Technical Notes ......................................................................................... 38 
 

Appendix II .............................................................................................. 41 
 

Definitions of Terms ..................................................................................... 41 
 

Figures

1.	 Percentages currently married among men and women aged 15–44, by race and Hispanic origin: United States,
 

2002.............................................................................................. 2 
 

2.	 Percentages currently married among men and women aged 22–44, by educational attainment: United States,
 

2002.............................................................................................. 2 
 

3.	 Percentages currently cohabiting among men and women aged 22–44, by educational attainment: United States,
 

2002.............................................................................................. 3 
 

iii
4.	 Percentages currently married among women aged 15–44, by parental living arrangements at age 14 and by race
 

and Hispanic origin: United States, 2002 ................................................................ 3 
 

5.	 Percentages currently married among men aged 15–44, by parental living arrangements at age 14 and by race
 

and Hispanic origin: United States, 2002 ................................................................ 4 
 

6.	 Percentages of women and men aged 25–44 who have been married two or more times, by current age:
 

United States, 2002.................................................................................. 4 
 

7.	 Percentage of women aged 15–44 who have ever married or ever cohabited, by race and Hispanic origin:
 

United States, 2002.................................................................................. 5 
 

8.	 Percentage of men aged 15–44 who have ever married or ever cohabited, by race and Hispanic origin:
 

United States, 2002.................................................................................. 5 
 

9.	 Percentage of women aged 22–44 who have had two or more cohabiting relationships, by her level of education:
 

United States, 2002.................................................................................. 6 
 

10.	 Percentages of men and women aged 15–44 who have ever married but not cohabited, by parental living
 

arrangements at age 14: United States, 2002 ............................................................. 6 
 

11.	 Percentages of currently married or cohabiting women aged 15–44, with specified spouse or partner characteristics:
 

United States, 2002.................................................................................. 7 
 

12.	 Percentages of currently married or cohabiting men aged 15–44, with specified spouse or partner characteristics:
 

United States, 2002.................................................................................. 7 
 

13.	 Probability that a woman’s first marriage will remain intact for 10, 15, and 20 years: United States, 1995 and
 

2002.............................................................................................. 8 
 

14.	 Probability that a woman’s first marriage will remain intact for 10 years, by race and Hispanic origin:
 

United States, 1995 and 2002 ......................................................................... 8 
 

15.	 Probability that a woman’s first cohabitation will remain intact (without marriage or disruption) for 1, 3, and
 

5 years, by race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2002................................................... 9 
 

16.	 Probability that a man’s first cohabitation will remain intact (without marriage or disruption) for 1, 3, and 5 years,
 

by race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2002.......................................................... 10 
 

17.	 Probability that a first cohabitation remains intact for 3 or more years, by gender and educational attainment:
 

United States, 2002.................................................................................. 11 
 

18.	 Probability that a first cohabitation transitions to marriage within 3 years, by gender and educational attainment:
 

United States, 2002.................................................................................. 12 
 

19.	 Probability that a woman’s first cohabitation transitions to marriage, by duration of cohabitation and by race and
 

Hispanic origin: United States, 2002 .................................................................... 13 
 

20.	 Probability that a man’s first cohabitation transitions to marriage, by duration of cohabitation and by race and
 

Hispanic origin: United States, 2002 .................................................................... 14 
 

Detailed Tables

1.	 Number of women aged 15–44 and percent distribution by current marital or cohabiting status, according to
 

selected characteristics: United States, 2002 .............................................................. 17 
 

2.	 Number of men aged 15–44 and percent distribution by current marital or cohabiting status, according to selected
 

characteristics: United States, 2002 ..................................................................... 18 
 

3.	 Number of non-Hispanic white women aged 15–44 and percent distribution by current marital or cohabiting status,
 

according to selected characteristics: United States, 2002 ................................................... 19 
 

4.	 Number of non-Hispanic white men aged 15–44 and percent distribution by current marital or cohabiting status,
 

according to selected characteristics: United States, 2002 ................................................... 20 
 

5.	 Number of non-Hispanic black women aged 15–44 and percent distribution by current marital or cohabiting status,
 

according to selected characteristics: United States, 2002 ................................................... 21 
 

6.	 Number of non-Hispanic black men aged 15–44 and percent distribution by current marital or cohabiting status,
 

according to selected characteristics: United States, 2002 ................................................... 22 
 

7.	 Number of Hispanic/Latina women aged 15–44 and percent distribution by current marital or cohabiting status,
 

according to selected characteristics: United States, 2002 ................................................... 23 
 

8.	 Number of Hispanic/Latino men aged 15–44 and percent distribution by current marital or cohabiting status,
 

according to selected characteristics: United States, 2002 ................................................... 24 
 

9.	 Number of women aged 15–44 and percent distribution by formal marital experience and number of husbands,
 

according to selected characteristics: United States, 2002 ................................................... 25 
 

10.	 Number of men aged 15–44 and percent distribution by formal marital experience and number of wives, according
 

to selected characteristics: United States, 2002............................................................ 26 
 

iv
11.	 Number of women aged 15–44 and percent distribution by cohabiting experience and number of cohabiting
 

partners, according to selected characteristics: United States, 2002 ........................................... 27 
 

12.	 Number of men aged 15–44 and percent distribution by cohabiting experience and number of cohabiting partners,
 

according to selected characteristics: United States, 2002 ................................................... 28 
 

13.	 Number of women aged 15–44 and percent distribution by cohabitation status relative to first marriage, according
 

to selected characteristics: United States, 2002............................................................ 29 
 

14.	 Number of men aged 15–44 and percent distribution by cohabitation status relative to first marriage, according to
 

selected characteristics: United States, 2002 .............................................................. 30 
 

15.	 Number of currently married or cohabiting women and men aged 15–44 and percent distribution by selected
 

spouse or partner characteristics: United States, 2002 ...................................................... 31 
 

16.	 Probability that a first marriage will remain intact (survive) at specified durations, by selected characteristics and
 

with standard errors, for women aged 15–44: United States, 2002 ............................................ 32 
 

17.	 Probability that a first marriage will remain intact (survive) at specified durations, by selected characteristics and
 

with standard errors, for men aged 15–44: United States, 2002 .............................................. 33 
 

18.	 Probability that a first cohabitation will remain intact (survive without marriage or disruption) for 1, 3, and 5 years,
 

by selected characteristics and with standard errors, for women aged 15–44: United States 2002 ................... 34 
 

19.	 Probability that a first cohabitation will remain intact (survive without marriage or dissolution) for 1, 3, and 5 years,
 

by selected characteristics and with standard errors, for men aged 15–44: United States, 2002 ..................... 35 
 

20.	 Probability that a first cohabitation will transition to marriage in 1, 3, and 5 years, by selected characteristics, for
 

women aged 15–44: United States, 2002 ................................................................ 36 
 

21.	 Probability that a first cohabitation will transition to marriage in 1, 3, and 5 years, by selected characteristics, for
 

men aged 15–44: United States, 2002 ................................................................... 37 
 

Appendix Tables

I.	 Probability that a first marriage (occurring between July 1972 and September 1995) will remain intact, by duration of
 

marriage, for women aged 15–44: United States, 1995 and 2002 ............................................. 39 
 

II.	 NSFG sample sizes by race and Hispanic origin, for females: United States, 2002............................... 39 
 

III.	 NSFG sample sizes by race and Hispanic origin, for males: United States, 2002 ................................ 40 
 

v
Acknowledgments
 

Cycle 6 (2002) of the National

Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) was

conducted by the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention’s (CDC)

National Center for Health Statistics

(NCHS), with the support and assistance

of a number of other organizations and

individuals. Interviewing, data

processing, and other tasks were carried

out by the University of Michigan’s

Institute for Social Research, under a

contract with NCHS.

The Cycle 6 (2002) NSFG was

jointly planned and funded by the

following programs and agencies of the

U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services:

+	 The Eunice Kennedy Shriver

National Institute for Child Health

and Human Development (NICHD),

National Institutes of Health

+	 Office of Population Affairs

+	 CDC’s National Center for Health

Statistics (CDC/NCHS)

+	 CDC’s Division of HIV/AIDS

Prevention (CDC/DHAP)

+	 CDC’s Division of Sexually

Transmitted Disease Prevention

(CDC/DSTDP)

+	 CDC’s Division of Reproductive

Health (CDC/DRH)

+	 Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Planning and Evaluation (OASPE)

+	 Children’s Bureau of the

Administration for Children and

Families.

NCHS gratefully acknowledges the

contributions of these programs and

agencies, and all others who assisted in

designing and carrying out NSFG.

This report was prepared under the

general direction of Charles J. Rothwell,

Director of NCHS’s Division of Vital

Statistics (DVS), and Stephanie J.

Ventura, Chief of the Reproductive

Statistics Branch of DVS. The authors

are also grateful for the helpful

comments provided by Julia Holmes,

DVS’s Associate Director for Science,

and Jennifer Madans, NCHS’s Associate

Director for Science.

The report was edited by Barbara J.

Wassell and Laura Drescher, CDC/

NCHM/Division of Creative Services,

Writer-Editor Services Branch; it was

typeset by Zung T. Le, CDC/NCHM/

Division of Creative Services, Graphic

Services Branch; and the graphics were

produced by Odell D. Eldridge,

CDC/NCHM/Division of Creative

Services, Graphic Services Branch,

NOVA contractor.

vi
Objective

This report provides an overview of

marital and cohabiting relationships in

the United States among men and

women aged 15–44 in 2002, by a

variety of characteristics. National

estimates are provided that highlight

formal and informal marital status,

previous experience with marriage

and cohabitation, the sequencing of

marriage and cohabitation, and the

stability of cohabitations and

marriages.

Methods

The analyses presented in this

report are based on a nationally

representative sample of 12,571 men

and women aged 15–44 living in

households in the United States in

2002, based on the National Survey

of Family Growth, Cycle 6.

Results

Over 40% of men and women aged

15–44 were currently married at the

date of interview, compared with

about 9% who were currently

cohabiting. Men and women were,

however, likely to cohabit prior to

becoming married. Marriages were

longer lasting than cohabiting unions;

about 78% of marriages lasted 5

years or more, compared with less

than 30% of cohabitations.

Cohabitations were shorter-lived than

marriages in part because about half

of cohabitations transitioned to

marriage within 3 years. Variations—

often large variations—in marital and

cohabiting relationships and durations

were found by race and Hispanic

origin, education, family background,

and other factors.

Keywords: marriage c cohabitation c

divorce c demographics

Marriage and Cohabitation in

the United States: A Statistical

Portrait Based on Cycle 6

(2002) of the National Survey

of Family Growth

by Paula Y. Goodwin, Ph.D., William D. Mosher, Ph.D., and

Anjani Chandra, Ph.D., Division of Vital Statistics

Overview and

Highlights

This report describes the marital

and cohabiting relationships of men and

women aged 15–44, based on data from

Cycle 6 of the National Survey of

Family Growth (NSFG) conducted in

2002. Included are tables and charts

describing several aspects of marriage

and cohabitation for men and women:

current marital and cohabiting status,

previous marriage and cohabitation

experience, the sequencing of

cohabitation and marriage, and the

characteristics of partners of married

and cohabiting persons. Selected tables

address the probability that a first

marriage or first cohabitation will

remain intact for specified durations and

the probability that a first cohabitation

will transition to marriage.

A number of background

characteristics are used here to examine

marital and cohabiting relationships,

including educational attainment and

race and Hispanic origin. For the first

time in NSFG, a sample of male

respondents was included in Cycle 6. As

a result, separate tables are shown for

men and women. Several specific

questions are addressed for persons aged

15–44:

+	 What are the current and past

marital and cohabiting statuses of

men and women?

+	 What are the patterns of

cohabitation and marriage?

+	 How are selected background

characteristics of men and women

associated with the outcomes of

their first marriages and

cohabitations?

+	 What are the characteristics of

married and cohabiting persons’

partners?

+	 How long do first marriages and

first cohabitations last?

What Are the Current

and Past Marital and

Cohabiting Statuses of

Men and Women?

About 46% of women aged 15–44

in 2002 were currently married, and 9%

were cohabiting (defined in this report

as a man and woman living together in

a sexual relationship without being

married) (Table 1). Among men, 42%

were married and 9% were cohabiting

(Table 2). The percentages currently

married were much higher among

non-Hispanic white than non-Hispanic

black men and women (Figure 1).

Percentages for Hispanic men and

women fell between those for white and

black men and women. The proportion

currently married was greater for men

and women who had a bachelor’s

degree or higher than for those with no

high school diploma or General

Educational Development high school

Page 1
44 

51 

32 

26 

43 

45 

0 

10 

20 

Percent 30 

40 

50 

60 

Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black Hispanic 

Men Women 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Tables 1 and 2 in this report. 

Figure 1. Percentages currently married among men and women aged 15–44, by race and

Hispanic origin: United States, 2002

Page 2 [ Series 23, No. 28

equivalency diploma (GED) (Figure 2).

The proportion currently cohabiting was

highest among those with no high

school diploma or GED and lowest for

those with a bachelor’s degree or higher

(Figure 3). Other characteristics, such as

family background, were also associated

with current marital status (Figures 4

and 5). Among men and women aged

25–44, most had been married only

once. The proportion of men and

women who had been married two or

more times, however, reached 27% for

women and 26% for men at ages 40–44

(Figure 6). Non-Hispanic black women

were much less likely to have ever

married than non-Hispanic white or

Hispanic women but were about as

likely to have cohabited (Figure 7).

Non-Hispanic black men were also less

likely than non-Hispanic white or

Hispanic men to have married and were

about as likely to have cohabited as

others (Figure 8). Women aged 22–44

with no high school diploma or GED

were more likely (28%) to have

cohabited two or more times than

women in the same age group with a

bachelor’s degree or higher (11%)

(Figure 9).

What Are the Patterns of

Cohabitation and Marriage?

Among both men and women aged

15–44 who had ever cohabited and/or

married, the largest proportion

cohabited before their first marriage.

Approximately 28% of men and

women cohabited before their first

marriage, whereas 23% of women and

18% of men married without ever

cohabiting. About 15% of men and

women had only cohabited (without

ever marrying), and less than 7% of

men and women first cohabited after

their first marriages ended (Tables 13

and 14).

How Are Selected

Background Characteristics

of Men and Women

Associated With the

Outcomes of Their

First Marriages and

Cohabitations?

Certain background characteristics

of men and women were closely

associated with patterns of

cohabitation and marriage. For

example, the proportion of women

who had married but did not cohabit

before their first marriage was higher

for women who lived with both

parents at age 14 (26%) than for other

women (12%) (Figure 10). Differences

for men were smaller.

Percent 

Men Women 

NOTE: GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma. 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Tables 1 and 2 in this report. 

53 

49 

54 

57 

49 

57 

62 63 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

No high school 

diploma or GED 

High school 

diploma or GED 

Some college Bachelor’s degree 

or higher 

0 

Figure 2. Percentages currently married among men and women aged 22–44, by

educational attainment: United States, 2002
Percent 

Men Women 

NOTE: GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma. 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Tables 1 and 2 in this report. 

17 17 

12 

11 

10 

8 

7 

5 

0 

4 

8 

12 

16 

20 

No high school 

diploma or GED 

High school 

diploma or GED 

Some college Bachelor’s degree 

or higher 

Figure 3. Percentages currently cohabiting among men and women aged 22–44, by

educational attainment: United States, 2002	 

60 Lived with both parents at age 14 Other

52 

Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black Hispanic 

50
 

45
 46 

42 

40 

Percent 30 29

20 

20 

10 

0 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Tables 3, 5, and 7 in this report. 

Figure 4. Percentages currently married among women aged 15–44, by parental living

arrangements at age 14 and by race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2002

Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 3

What Are the Characteristics

of Married and Cohabiting

Persons’ Partners?

About 8% of currently married

women’s husbands were not employed

at the date of interview in 2002, while

15% of currently cohabiting women’s

male partners were not employed

(Figure 11). Cohabiting men and

women were more likely than married

men and women to report that their

partners were previously married and

that their partners had children before

the current relationship (Figures 11

and 12).

How Long Do First

Marriages and First

Cohabitations Last?

Data from NSFG Cycle 6 show that

approximately two-thirds of first

marriages lasted 10 years or more,

whereas the remaining one-third ended

in divorce or separation before reaching

the 10th anniversary (Figure 13). Both

the 1995 and 2002 surveys showed that

the marriages of non-Hispanic black

women were less likely to last 10 years

than those of white and Hispanic

women (Figure 14). The data for men

show that the probability that a first

marriage will last 10 years or more is

higher among Hispanic men (75%) than

among non-Hispanic white (64%) or

non-Hispanic black (51%) men

(Table 17).

In contrast to marriages, only about

a quarter of men’s and one-third of

women’s first cohabitations were

estimated to last 3 years without either

disrupting or transitioning to marriage

(Tables 18 and 19). More than half of

first cohabitations were expected to

transition to marriage within 3 years

(Tables 20 and 21). The first

cohabitations of men and women with

no high school diploma or GED were

the most likely to remain intact for at

least 3 years (Figure 17), whereas the

first cohabitations of men and women

with a bachelor’s degree or higher were

more likely to transition to marriage

within 3 years (Figure 18). NonHispanic white men and women were

more likely than their Hispanic and

non-Hispanic black counterparts to have

their first cohabitations transition to

marriage within 3 or 5 years (Figures 19

and 20).

Introduction

This report provides a statistical

portrait of the marital and cohabiting

behaviors of persons between the ages

of 15 and 44 years in 2002 in the

United States, building on earlier

analyses using data from the 1995 and

2002 National Survey of Family Growth

(NSFG) (1–5). Specifically, the report

focuses on the following:
+ The current marital and cohabiting

status of men and women.

+ Their past experience with

cohabitation and marriage.

+ The sequencing and timing of

marriage and cohabitation.

+ The characteristics of marital and

cohabiting partners.

+ The stability and duration of

marriages and cohabitations.

Union formation, by marriage or

cohabitation, is one of the primary

events in adulthood. The occurrence and

sequencing of marriage and cohabitation

can have implications for later life

events and outcomes, such as nonmarital

childbearing and child and adult health

and well-being. Research findings (6–8)

consistently document associations

between formal marital status and health

and well-being. Married persons have

generally better mental and physical

health outcomes compared with

unmarried persons (9). Married persons

also live longer (10), have higher rates

of health insurance coverage (11), and

lower prevalence of cardiovascular

disease (12) than unmarried persons.

Research also indicates that marriage is

positively associated with the health and

well-being of children. Children born to

unmarried mothers are at greater risk

than children born to married mothers

for poverty, teen childbearing, poor

school achievement, and marital

disruption in adulthood (6,7,13–16).

In addition to marriage, this report

provides detailed information on

cohabitation. Over the past several

decades, there have been large increases

in the number of persons who have ever

cohabited, that is, lived together with a

sexual partner of the opposite sex. From

1987 to 2002, the percentages of women

between ages 35 and 39 who had ever

cohabited doubled, from 30% to

61% (3,17). Cohabitation is increasingly

becoming the first co-residential union

formed among young adults. Over half

of marriages from 1990 to 1994 among

women aged 19–44 began as a

cohabitation (17). As a result of the

growing prevalence of cohabitation,

the number of children born to

unmarried cohabiting parents has also

increased (17,18). By 2001, the

majority of nonmarital births (52%)

occurred within cohabiting unions,

compared with the 33% of nonmarital

births between 1980 and 1984 that

occurred within cohabiting unions (19).

Young children are also more likely than

in the past to live in a cohabiting

household. In 2002, 2.9 million children

under age 15 lived with an unmarried

parent and his or her unmarried

partner (20). Estimates suggest that

about two-fifths of all children will

spend some time in a cohabiting

household before age 16 years (17).

Despite the growing prevalence of

cohabitation, little is known about the

health and well-being outcomes related

to cohabitation compared with marriage.

One reason for this dearth of knowledge

is that in many analyses cohabitors are

included with other unmarried persons,

which includes the never married,

divorced, widowed, and separated.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Tables 4, 6, and 8 in this report.

Lived with both parents at age 14 Other

Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black Hispanic

45

43

32

30

45

34

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent

Figure 5. Percentages currently married among men aged 15–44, by parental living

arrangements at age 14 and by race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2002

Figure 6. Percentages of women and men aged 25–44 who have been married two or more

times, by current age: United States, 2002

Page 4 [ Series 23, No. 28
Cohabitations are also generally

shorter-lived unions, often ending in

marriage or disruption (4,17), so the

long-term effects of cohabitation are

difficult to document. Yet studies have

emerged that suggest that cohabitors do

not show the same level of health

benefits as married persons but may

show greater health benefits than

divorced, separated, widowed, and

never-married persons (21). Cohabitors

also report lower levels of relationship

quality (22) and lower household

incomes than married couples (23).

Some data also suggest that

cohabitation may have a negative effect

on later marriage and on children’s

outcomes (6,16). Previous studies (4,24)

have found that persons who cohabit

prior to marriage are more likely to

have their marriages dissolve than those

who did not cohabit premaritally.

Studies comparing child academic

outcomes and behaviors in cohabiting

and married parent households conclude

that children living in families where the

mother is cohabiting do not fare as well

as those where the mother is

married (25–27). Poorer child outcomes

in cohabiting unions compared with

marital unions have been linked to

lower household incomes and greater

instability in cohabiting unions (26,28).

In This Report

This report provides national

estimates of the marital and cohabiting

status of men and women aged 15–44 in

2002 in the United States and the

characteristics associated with these

unions. Separate estimates are provided

for men and women and also for

different groups classified by race and

Hispanic origin and by other

demographic characteristics. These

factors are reviewed briefly to explain

why they are included in this report.

Numerous studies (e.g., references

1, 3, 29, and 30) have documented

divergent marriage behaviors among

racial and ethnic groups. Racial and

ethnic differences are also found in the

probabilities of marital dissolution (4).

Some research suggests that the factors

affecting marriage and outcomes vary

among racial and ethnic groups. For

example, premarital cohabitation, age at

marriage, and premarital conception

were found to have different effects on

white, black, and Hispanic (i.e.,

Mexican American) women (31). Thus,

when sample sizes permit, the current

report examines marital and cohabiting

behaviors within racial and ethnic

groups, as well as among them.

Individual characteristics such as

age, education, parity (women), children

fathered (men), childhood living

arrangements, prior cohabiting and

marital experiences, timing of first birth,

poverty status, importance of religion,

and nativity are included in analyses

when appropriate because all have been

shown to be related to marital and

cohabitation status and history (4,5).

Some characteristics of spouses and

partners—such as whether the spouse

was previously married or had children

prior to the marriage—are also included,

for the same reason (31–33).

Percent 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Tables 9 and 11 in this report. 

63 

39 

58 

51 51 

49 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

Ever married Ever cohabited 

Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black Hispanic 

Figure 7. Percentage of women aged 15–44 who have ever married or ever cohabited, by

race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2002

Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 5

42 

53 

50 

47 

53 

49 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black Hispanic 

Ever married Ever cohabited 

Percent 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Tables 10 and 12 in this report. 

Figure 8. Percentage of men aged 15–44 who have ever married or ever cohabited, by race

and Hispanic origin: United States, 2002
Percent 

No high school 

diploma or GED 

High school 

diploma or GED 

Some college Bachelor’s degree 

or higher 

NOTE: GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma. 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Table 11 in this report. 

28 

26 

21 

11 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

Figure 9. Percentage of women aged 22–44 who have had two or more cohabiting

relationships, by her level of education: United States, 2002

Page 6 [ Series 23, No. 28

19 

14 

26 

12 

0 

10 

20 

30 

Men Women 

Lived with both parents at age 14 Other 

Percent 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Tables 13 and 14 in this report. 

Figure 10. Percentages of men and women aged 15–44 who have ever married but not

cohabited, by parental living arrangements at age 14: United States, 2002

Comparison With Previous

Reports

The current report, using data from

the Cycle 6 (2002) NSFG, updates and

extends previous analyses on

cohabitation and marriage that used data

from Cycles 5 and 6 of NSFG (1–5).

For the first time, the 2002 NSFG

included a sample of men aged 15–44.

Thus, this report provides information

on the marital and cohabiting behaviors

of both men and women.

Because of the smaller sample of

women in the 2002 NSFG (N = 7,643)

compared with the 1995 survey

(N = 10,847), separate probability

analyses of marriage and cohabitation

dissolution for Hispanic and nonHispanic black women were not

possible. Furthermore, smaller sample

sizes of men and women did not allow

for estimates of the probabilities of

unions remaining intact for up to 15 or

20 years, as could be done in the

previous 1995-based report (4,5).

Instead, marriage probabilities were

estimated with the 2002 NSFG data for

up to 10 years, and cohabitation-related

probabilities were estimated for up to 5

years. In addition to probability tables,

the current report includes prevalence

estimates of marriage and cohabitation.

Data and Methods

Source of Data

The statistics presented in this

report are from the 2002 NSFG (also

known as Cycle 6). The 2002 NSFG

was based on a nationally representative

multistage area probability sample

drawn from 121 areas across the

country. The final sample consisted of

12,571 respondents (7,643 females and

4,928 males) aged 15–44. One person

per household was interviewed in each

selected household. Teenagers and black

and Hispanic adults were sampled at

higher rates than others in the Cycle 6

NSFG. The overall response rate for the

survey was 79% (80% for females and

78% for males).

Data were collected by computerassisted interviewing. The majority of

questions were administered by a female

interviewer, using a technique called

computer-assisted personal interviewing

(CAPI), in which the interviewer reads

questions from a computer screen and

enters the respondent’s answers.

More sensitive questions were collected

using audio computer-assisted selfinterviewing (ACASI)—a private mode

of data collection in which respondents

hear the questions and response choices

through headphones or read them on the

screen. Respondents are able to enter

responses without the interviewer or

anyone else knowing the response.

Unless noted, data presented in this

report come from the CAPI or

interviewer-administered portion of the

survey.
In the 2002 NSFG, interviews

averaged 85 minutes in length for

females and 60 minutes for males

(including about 20 minutes for

ACASI). Respondents were offered $40

as a ‘‘token of appreciation’’ for their

participation. For unmarried teens aged

15–17, both parental consent and signed

respondent assent were obtained. Further

details regarding the methods and

procedures of NSFG are provided in the

Technical Notes (Appendix I) and in the

report, ‘‘Plan and Operation of Cycle 6

of the National Survey of Family

Growth’’ (34).

Public-use files based on the

Cycle 6 NSFG are available at no

charge on CD–ROM, upon request to

NSFG staff (nsfg@cdc.gov or

301–458–4222). Data and documentation

files are also viewable and downloadable on the NSFG webpage at:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg.htm.

Strengths and Limitations

of the Data

The NSFG data used for this report

have several strengths:

+	 Full marriage and cohabitation

histories—NSFG is nationally

representative and includes full

histories of both marriage and

cohabitation (not just current marital

status) for persons aged 15–44. A

history is a complete count of all

marriages or cohabitations that a

person has experienced, along with

characteristics of each marriage or

cohabitation, such as the date it

began and ended and its outcome.

+	 Breadth of information—NSFG

collects data on a variety of

characteristics with which marital

and cohabiting behaviors can be

compared and studied, including

race and ethnicity, education, and

family background.

+	 Effective fieldwork procedures—The

interviews in each cycle of NSFG

were conducted by female

interviewers who received thorough

training on the survey, so the quality

of the data is generally good. The

response rates are high, at 80% for

women aged 15–44 and 78% for

men in the same age group.

Limitations of NSFG data include

the following:

+	 Descriptive findings only—This

report provides basic descriptive

statistics on several issues regarding

family formation. These statistics do

not demonstrate causation or explain

why associations exist between

variables.

+	 Age of respondents—NSFG is

primarily a survey about

childbearing and reproductive health,

so it is limited to women and men

aged 15–44. Thus, we can only

examine what happens up to age 44,

rather than provide lifetime

measures. This is particularly

important for marriage dissolution

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Table 15 in this report. 

8 

15 

20 

32 

19 

32 

19 

13 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

Different 

race/ethnicity 

Not employed Married before Had children from 

previous relationships 

Percent 

Married Cohabiting

Figure 11. Percentages of currently married or cohabiting women aged 15–44, with

specified spouse or partner characteristics: United States, 2002

40 Married Cohabiting 

36 

33 32 

30 28 

21 21

Percent 20 18

12 

10 

0 Different Not employed Married before Had children from 

race/ethnicity previous relationships 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Table 15 in this report. 

Figure 12. Percentages of currently married or cohabiting men aged 15–44, with specified

spouse or partner characteristics: United States, 2002

Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 7
0.64 

0.67 

0.57 

0.50 

0.0 

0.2 

0.4 

0.6 

0.8 

10 years (2002) 10 years (1995) 15 years (1995) 20 years (1995) 

Probability 

SOURCES: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Table 16 in this report, and Vital Health Stat 

23(22), 2002. 

Figure 13. Probability that a woman’s first marriage will remain intact for 10, 15, and 20

years: United States, 1995 and 2002

Page 8 [ Series 23, No. 28

1995 2002 

Probability 

0.68 

0.64 

0.47 

0.51 

0.66 0.68 

0.0 

0.2 

0.4 

0.6 

0.8 

Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black Hispanic 

SOURCES: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Table 16 in this report, and Vital Health Stat 

23(22), 2002. 

Figure 14. Probability that a woman’s first marriage will remain intact for 10 years, by race

and Hispanic origin: United States, 1995 and 2002

and higher-order marriages that may

occur beyond age 44. The data in

this report show the probability that

marriages will last up to 10 years,

not the probability that a marriage

will last a lifetime.

+	 Incorrect routing for marriage

dissolution—Due to an error in the

2002 NSFG interview specifications

for females, a number of female

respondents whose marriages had

ended (n = 509) were mistakenly

skipped past questions on how and

when their marriages ended. In

instances where respondents were

erroneously routed past these

questions, the missing data were

imputed. This limitation applies only

to the study of the dissolution of a

first marriage; it does not affect any

other measurement presented in this

report. For further information, see

Appendix I.

National Estimates

The numbers, percentages,

probabilities, and other statistics shown

in this report are weighted national

estimates. The weights account for

different sampling rates and for

nonresponse, and they are adjusted to

agree with control totals provided by the

U.S. Census Bureau. The 7,643 women

and 4,928 men in the Cycle 6 NSFG

represent the 61.6 million women and

61.1 million men aged 15–44 in the

household population of the United

States in 2002. Thus, on average, each

woman in the survey represents about

8,000 women in the population and each

man in the survey represents about

12,000 men in the population. The

number each man and woman represents

is called his or her sampling weight.

Sample weights may vary considerably

from this average value, depending on

the respondent’s age, Hispanic origin

and race, the response rate for similar

respondents, and other factors.

As with any sample survey, the

estimates in this report are subject to

sampling variability. Significance tests

on NSFG data should be performed

taking into account the sampling design.

All differences that are described as

differences in this report are statistically

significant at the 0.05 level. Percentages

presented in the description of the

results are shown rounded to the nearest

whole percent. For the cross-tabulations

in this report, percentages are not shown

if the denominator is less than 50 cases

or the numerator is less than 5 cases.

Estimates based on effective sample

sizes of less than 50 cases are not

shown for life table analysis. When a

percentage or other statistic is not

shown for this reason, the table contains

a footnote that indicates, ‘‘Figure does

not meet standards of reliability or

precision.’’ For most statistics, the

numerators, denominators, and effective

sample sizes are much larger. Further

details on the statistical analyses used

for this report are provided in

Appendix I.
Nonsampling errors were minimized

by stringent quality control procedures

that included thorough interviewer

training, checking the consistency of

answers during and after the interview,

imputing missing data on selected

variables, and adjusting the sampling

weights for nonresponse and to match

national totals. Estimates of sampling

errors and other statistical aspects of the

survey are described in more detail in a

separate report (35).

This report presents statistics by

several demographic characteristics

associated with marriage and

cohabitation, such as age, education,

poverty status, and race and Hispanic

origin. Education and poverty results are

limited to persons aged 22–44. This age

limitation allows respondents the

potential to report four-year college

degrees and increases the accuracy of

household income reporting, which is

used to compute poverty status.

Although a full or multivariate analysis

of all demographic variables associated

with marriage and cohabitation is

beyond the scope of this report, a

number of individual and spousal and

partner characteristics are examined.

Detailed definitions of all variables

used in this report are provided in

Appendix II.

Life Table Analysis

The 2002 NSFG collected nearly

complete retrospective histories of the

cohabitation, marriage, and marriage

dissolution experiences of women and

men aged 15–44 (34). These histories

included the beginning and ending dates

of each cohabitation and marriage and

the outcome of each union.

For marriages, the retrospective

histories for men and women are

complete and include data on premarital

cohabitations, if applicable. For

cohabitations with partners to whom

respondents were never married, detailed

information was collected for up to four

cohabitations for women, but this

resulted in very little truncation of the

cohabitation history for women because

only 20 cases out of 7,643 (0.3%) had

more than four cohabitations with

nonmarital partners. For men, detailed

information was collected on

cohabitations with up to three

nonmarital partners in the last 12

months and on the first cohabitation if

outside the 12-month window.

Given these data, the probabilities

shown in this report were estimated

using life table or survival techniques.

The life table is a tool that demographers and statisticians often use to

study mortality, but it may also be

applied to the study of other events and

outcomes. In this report, three events are

studied: first marriage disruption, first

cohabitation disruption, and transition to

marriage from a first cohabitation. The

life table analyses take a life cycle

approach to estimate the probabilities,

for women and men, that

+	 A first marriage (occurring between

ages 15 and 44) will remain intact.

+	 A first cohabitation (in that age

group) will remain intact.

+	 A first cohabitation (in that age

group) will transition to marriage.

In the description of the results, these

probabilities are often converted to

percentages or proportions, such as

the percentage of first marriages

remaining intact until 5 years or the

proportion of first cohabitations

transitioning to marriage within

3 years.

0.0 

0.2 

0.4 

0.6 

0.8 

Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black Hispanic/Latina

1 3 5 

0.75 

0.46 

0.44 

0.61 

0.26 

0.12 

0.26 

0.71 

0.30 

Probability 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Table 18 in this report. 

Duration in years 

Figure 15. Probability that a woman’s first cohabitation will remain intact (without marriage

or disruption) for 1, 3, and 5 years, by race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2002

Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 9

For further details on life table

methodology and sample sizes for this

NSFG-based analysis, see Appendix I.

Results

Current Marital and

Cohabiting Status

The majority of men and women

aged 25–44 are currently married or

cohabiting (i.e., in a sexual union with a

partner of the opposite sex). Among

women aged 18–19, cohabitation was

more common than marriage as a union

form, with 11% of these women

cohabiting and 5% married. For women

aged 25–44, marriage was the dominant

union type, with 62% currently married

and 8% currently cohabiting (Table 1).

Similar patterns in current marriage and

cohabitation with respect to age were

found among men. Among men aged

25–44, 59% were currently married

while only 10% were currently

cohabiting (Table 2).

Racial and ethnic groups

The percent distribution of men and

women aged 15–44 by marital and
0.0 

0.2 

0.4 

0.6 

0.8 

1 3 5 

0.53 

0.19 

0.08 

0.57 

0.29 

0.18 

0.68 

0.41 

0.27 

Probability 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Table 19 in this report. 

Duration in years 

Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black Hispanic/Latino 

Figure 16. Probability that a man’s first cohabitation will remain intact (without marriage or

disruption) for 1, 3, and 5 years, by race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2002

Page 10 [ Series 23, No. 28

cohabitation status differed among racial

and ethnic groups (Tables 1–8). Looking

at the full age range of 15–44 years,

lower percentages of non-Hispanic black

women were currently married (26%)

than were Hispanic women (45%) and

non-Hispanic white women (51%)

(Table 1 and Figure 1). Among Hispanic

women, 13% were currently cohabiting,

compared with 10% of non-Hispanic

black women and 8% of non-Hispanic

white women (Table 1).

Although not as distinct as the

racial and ethnic differences in current

union statuses among women, similar

distributions were found among men

(Table 2 and Figure 1). Smaller

percentages of non-Hispanic black men

were currently married (32%) than

non-Hispanic white (44%) and Hispanic

men (43%). Hispanic men had higher

percentages who were currently

cohabiting (14%) than non-Hispanic

white men (8%) (Table 2).

Other characteristics

Differences in marital and

cohabiting status were also found by

other characteristics (Tables 1–8). For

example, women who did not live with

both of their biological or adoptive

parents at age 14 were less likely to

be married at the date of interview

(36% vs. 48%) and more likely to be

cohabiting (14% vs. 8%) than those who

grew up with both parents (Table 1).

Differences in marital and cohabiting

status among men and women were also

seen by education, household poverty

status, importance of religion, and

whether U.S. born or foreign born

(Table 1). However, these differences

were not always statistically significant

in subgroups by race/ethnicity and

gender (Tables 2–8).

Education

Tables 1 and 2 and Figure 2 show

data for men and women aged 22–44 by

education. Women with bachelor’s

degrees or higher were more likely to be

currently married (63%) than those who

did not have a high school diploma or

GED (49%). Comparable percentages for

men were 62% and 53%, respectively

(Figure 2). Figure 3 shows that 17% of

women aged 22–44 who did not have a

high school diploma or GED were

currently cohabiting, compared with 5%

of women with bachelor’s degrees or

higher.

Family background

Whether the respondent was living

with both parents at age 14 is shown in

Tables 1 and 2 and Figure 4. Women

who lived with both parents at age 14

were more likely to be married at the

date of interview than those who did

not, regardless of race and Hispanic

origin (Figure 4). Among men, the

differences were not significant for

white and black men but were larger

and statistically significant for Hispanic

men compared with non-Hispanic white

or black men (Figure 5).

Importance of religion

Respondents in NSFG were asked,

‘‘Currently, how important is religion in

your daily life? Would you say very

important, somewhat important, or not

important?’’ This simple measure,

defined at the time of interview, is

strongly associated with the percentage

currently married, the percentage

currently cohabiting, and the percentage

never married (Tables 1–8). For

example, 60% of non-Hispanic white

women for whom religion was ‘‘very

important’’ in their daily lives were

currently married, compared with 36%

of white women for whom religion was

‘‘not important.’’ Similar patterns in

marital or cohabiting status by

importance of religion were found for

non-Hispanic men and women, black

men, and Hispanic men and women.

Only black women (Table 5) did not

show this pattern.

As stated above, this report presents

descriptive statistics, not causal models,

so these data alone do not demonstrate

that importance of religion causes these

differences in marital patterns. But

literature based on other data sources

(e.g., references 2 and 36–39) suggests

that religious involvement (also known

as religiosity) is often associated with

marriage, cohabitation, and related

behaviors and attitudes, and many of

religion’s effects may first occur in the

early decades of life.

Overall Experience With

Marriage and Cohabitation

Tables 9 and 10 show the

percentages of men and women aged

15–44 who had ever married and the

percent distribution by their number of

spouses. Tables 11 and 12 show the
percentages of men and women who

had ever cohabited with an opposite-sex

partner and the percent distribution by

their number of cohabiting partners.

About 63% of women aged 25–44 had

been married once, whereas 16% had

been married two or more times

(Table 9). The proportion of women

married two or more times increased

from 4% at age 25–29 to 27% at age

40–44. The increase for men was from

1% at age 25–29 to 26% at age 40–44

(Figure 6).

Data by race and Hispanic origin

(Tables 9 and 11 and Figure 7) show a

striking contrast in the percentages who

had ever married. The proportion of

black women who had ever married

(39%) was much lower than the

proportion of white (63%) and

Hispanic (58%) women (Figure 7). But

the proportion of women who had ever

cohabited was essentially equal in all

three groups, at 49%–51% (Figure 7).

Among men, racial differences in

the percentage of those who had ever

married and who had ever cohabited

were evident, but to a lesser degree than

among women (Figure 8). For example,

non-Hispanic black men (42%) were

less likely to have ever married than

non-Hispanic white men (53%) and

Hispanic men (50%). Men of different

racial and ethnic groups were about

equally likely to have ever cohabited:

53% of non-Hispanic black men, 49%

of non-Hispanic white men, and 47% of

Hispanic men (Tables 11 and 12).

Differences in patterns of

cohabitation were also seen by factors

other than race (Tables 11 and 12). For

example, women with bachelor’s

degrees or higher were much less likely

to have had two or more cohabiting

relationships (11%) than those with less

education (21%–28%) (Figure 9 and

Table 11). For men, those who lived

with both of their parents at age 14

were much less likely (19%) to have

had two or more cohabiting

relationships than men who did not live

with both parents at age 14 (29%)

(Table 12).

The percentage who had ever

cohabited also varied, for both men and

women, by whether the respondent

considered religion very important,

somewhat important, or not important in

their daily lives. Among women who

said that religion is very important, 43%

had ever cohabited; in contrast, 63% of

women who said that religion is not

important had cohabited. Among men,

the comparable percentages were 42%

and 57%, respectively.

Sequencing of Cohabitation

and Marriage

Tables 13 and 14 describe the

sequencing of cohabitation and marriage

in men and women aged 15–44 in 2002,

using five categories. For example, 27%

of women aged 15–44 had never

married or cohabited, 15% had

cohabited but never married, 23% had

married but not cohabited, 28% had

cohabited and then married, and 7% had

married and then cohabited some time

after the marriage dissolved (Table 13).

Variations by race and other

characteristics are particularly strong in

the percentages that had married but had

never cohabited. Hispanic women (28%)

and non-Hispanic white women (24%)

had larger proportions of women who

first married without ever cohabiting

than non-Hispanic black women (12%)

(Table 13). Smaller percentages of

non-Hispanic black men had married

only without ever cohabiting (11%) than

Hispanic men (23%) or non-Hispanic

white men (18%) (Table 14). Especially

among women, the proportion who

married without cohabiting also differed

by other characteristics: whether the

respondent lived with both parents at

age 14 (Figure 10), education, income,

and importance of religion (Tables 13

and 14).

Spouse and Partner

Characteristics

Married men and women were more

likely than cohabiting men and women

to share demographic characteristics

with their partners, specifically age,

education, and race and Hispanic origin

(Table 15). Although the majority of

currently married and cohabiting persons

had partners with similar characteristics

as themselves, a larger proportion of

cohabitors than married persons had

partners who were of a different race or

ethnicity (for example, 19% of

cohabiting women compared with 13%

of married women) (Table 15 and

Figure 11). Cohabiting men and women

also differed from married men and

women with respect to other

characteristics of their partners.

Cohabiting women were more likely

than married women to have partners

0.38 

0.43 

0.29 

0.32 

0.19 

0.31 

0.13 

0.21 

0.0 

0.1 

0.2 

0.3 

0.4 

0.5 Men Women 

No high school 

diploma or GED 

High school 

diploma or GED 

Some college Bachelor’s degree 

or higher 

Probability 

NOTE: GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma. 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Tables 18 and 19 in this report. 

Figure 17. Probability that a first cohabitation remains intact for 3 or more years, by gender

and educational attainment: United States, 2002

Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 11
0.34 

0.37 

0.56 

0.51 

0.68 

0.64 

0.50 0.50 

0.0 

0.2 

0.4 

0.6 

0.8 Men Women 

No high school 

diploma or GED 

High school 

diploma or GED 

Some college Bachelor’s degree 

or higher 

NOTE: GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma. 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Tables 20 and 21 in this report. Probability 

Figure 18. Probability that a first cohabitation transitions to marriage within 3 years, by

gender and educational attainment: United States, 2002

Page 12 [ Series 23, No. 28

who were not employed (15%), who had

been married before (32%), and who

had children from previous relationships

(32%) (Table 15 and Figure 11).

Cohabiting men and married men did

not differ with regard to their partners’

employment status but showed similar

patterns to women with regard to their

partners’ being previously married or

having children from prior relationships

(Table 15 and Figure 12).

Duration and Outcomes of

First Marriages and

Cohabitations

Duration of first marriages

Tables 1–15 of this report show

percentages; however, Tables 16–21

show a different statistic: life table

probabilities, as described earlier (see

the Data and Methods section, ‘‘Life

Table Analysis,’’ and Appendix I,

Technical Notes, for more details).

Because there were adequate numbers of

men and women in the NSFG Cycle 6

sample who had been married for 10

years or more, Tables 16 and 17 focus

on the probability that a marriage will

last 10 years. These statistics are not the

probability that the marriage will last a

lifetime. A previous report using the

1995 NSFG gave estimates for women

for up to 20 years of marriage (5), but

the 1995 survey had 3,200 more female

respondents than the 2002 sample

(10,847 compared with 7,643), making

it statistically feasible to provide

estimates for longer durations of

marriage.

The probability that the first

marriages of women and men will

survive to at least 10 years was 0.64 (or

64%) for women and 0.66 for men in

2002; the remainder of first marriages

dissolved through divorce or separation

within 10 years (Tables 16 and 17).

Figure 13 shows a comparison of results

for women from the 1995 NSFG and

the 2002 NSFG. The proportion of

marriages still intact at 10 years is quite

similar in the two surveys: 64% and

67%. As indicated above, it is not

possible to estimate reliably the

proportion of women’s first marriages

that will last 15 or 20 years from the

2002 NSFG, but the larger sample sizes

of the 1995 survey did allow those

estimates: 57% intact at 15 years and

50% intact at 20 years (Figure 13).

Figure 14 compares the results for

women of the 1995 and 2002 surveys,

showing the proportion of first

marriages still intact at 10 years for

non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black,

and Hispanic women. Taking into

account the sampling errors of the

estimates, the results are quite similar, at

least at marriage durations up to 10

years. This suggests that the results on

first marriage dissolution based on the

2002 data (shown for women in

Table 16) and those shown in reports

based on the 1995 data (4,5) are

essentially equal for durations up to 10

years. For marital durations over 10

years, the results from the 1995 NSFG

must be used. Data for men are

available only in the 2002 survey. The

following is a brief summary of the

results from the 2002 NSFG.

Consistent with results from the

1995 NSFG (4,5), individual

characteristics such as race and

ethnicity, age, timing of first birth, and

cohabitation were related to the

probability of a first marriage surviving

to 10 years (Tables 16 and 17). Overall,

non-Hispanic black men and women had

lower chances that their first marriage

would last 10 years than did nonHispanic white or Hispanic men and

women. Hispanic men had the highest

probability that their first marriages

would last 10 years or more (75%)—

higher than any other race and ethnic

group and higher than Hispanic women.

The probability of non-Hispanic black

men’s and women’s first marriages

remaining intact for at least 10 years

was about 50%. This compares with

probabilities of 64% for white men’s

and women’s first marriages, 68% for

Hispanic women’s first marriages, and

75% for Hispanic men’s first marriages

remaining intact for at least 10 years.

Age at marriage affected the

probability of men’s and women’s first

marriages lasting for 10 years or more.

Men and women who married in the

teen years (i.e., between ages 15 and 19)

had a lower probability of their

marriages lasting 10 years than those

who married at age 20 or older.

Similarly, men and women marrying for

the first time between ages 20 and 25

had a lower probability of their

marriages lasting 10 years or more than

those who first married at age 26 or

higher.

The timing of the birth of a

woman’s first child also affected the
chance of her first marriage lasting at

least 10 years: women who gave birth to

their first child 8 months or more after

they began their first marriage (and

during the marriage) had a 79% chance

of their marriages lasting to the 10th

anniversary, compared with about a 34%

chance for women who had no first

birth during their first marriage, a 55%

chance for women who had a premarital

first birth, and 54% for women who had

a premarital conception (i.e., first birth

0–7 months after marriage). Similar

patterns were seen for men: a 79%

probability of survival to 10 years for

first marriages of men whose first child

was born 8 months or more after

marriage (and during the marriage), a

65% chance for men whose first child

was born before first marriage, and a

37% probability of survival for men

who had no first birth during their first

marriage.

Previous cohabitation experience

was significantly associated with

marriage survival probabilities for men.

In general, men who cohabited prior to

their first marriage had lower

probabilities of the marriage surviving

to the 10th anniversary than those who

did not cohabit prior to their first

marriage. However, those men who

were engaged at the time of cohabitation

with their soon-to-be first wife had

similar probabilities that their marriage

would last 10 years as did those who

did not cohabit prior to marriage: 71%

for men who were engaged at

cohabitation and 69% for men who had

never cohabited before their first

marriage.

In Table 16, as in the 1995 NSFG

data (4), the probability that a woman’s

marriage would last at least 10 years

was lower for those who cohabited

before marriage (60%) than for those

who did not cohabit before marriage

(66%). However, in the 2002 data, the

difference was not statistically

significant at the 5% level (p = 0.06). If

the couple were engaged when they

began cohabiting, the probability that a

woman’s marriage would survive for 10

years was similar (65%) to the

probability for couples who did not

cohabit at all (66%). In contrast, the

probability that the marriage would

survive 10 years or more was lower if

the couple were not engaged when they

began cohabiting (55%).

Duration and outcomes of first

cohabitations

Tables 18 and 19 show the

probabilities that a first cohabitation will

remain intact (without disruption or

transition to marriage) for 1, 3, and 5

years. Overall, first cohabitations were

shorter-lived than first marriages. The

probability of women remaining in their

first cohabiting union for 3 years or

more was 0.31 (or 31%); for men it was

0.24 (or 24%). Hispanic women (44%)

and non-Hispanic black women (46%)

had a higher probability of remaining in

their first cohabiting union for at least 3

years than did non-Hispanic white

women (26%) (Figure 15). Hispanic

men had the highest chance of their first

cohabitations remaining intact for 3

years or more (Figure 16 and Table 19).

Differences in the length of

cohabitation by educational attainment

were large: women with no high school

diploma or GED had the highest

probability of remaining in a cohabiting

relationship for 3 years (43%), and

women with a bachelor’s degree or

higher had the lowest probability of

doing so (21%) (Figure 17). Compared

Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 13

with men with a bachelor’s degree or

higher, less educated men remained in

cohabiting unions longer: for example,

the probability of men with no high

school diploma or GED remaining in a

cohabiting union for 3 years or more

was 38%, compared with 13% for men

with a bachelor’s degree or higher

(Figure 18).

Tables 20 and 21 (and Figure 18)

help to explain the results in Tables 19

and 20 by showing the probability that a

first cohabitation will transition to

marriage in 1, 3, and 5 years. These

results show that the characteristics of

cohabiting men and women are strongly

associated with the chance that the

cohabitation will become a marriage.

Overall, there was approximately a 65%

chance that first cohabitations for men

and women would transition to marriage

within 5 years (Table 20 and 21); within

3 years, the chance of marriage was

0.51 or 51% for both men and women.

The probability of a first cohabitation

transitioning to marriage within 5 years

was higher for non-Hispanic white men

and women than for non-Hispanic black

or Hispanic men and women (Figures 19

and 20). The probability of nonHispanic white women’s and men’s first

cohabitations transitioning to marriage

within 5 years was about 73%,

0.0 

0.2 

0.4 

0.6 

0.8 

1 3 5 

Probability 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Table 20 in this report. 

Duration in years 

Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black Hispanic/Latina

0.27 

0.59 

0.73 

0.14 

0.31 

0.46 

0.21 

0.41 

0.53 

Figure 19. Probability that a woman’s first cohabitation transitions to marriage, by duration

of cohabitation and by race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2002
0.0 

0.2 

0.4 

0.6 

0.8 

Probability 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002). Table 21 in this report. 

1 3 5 

0.28 

0.59 

0.73 

0.14 

0.52 

0.50 

0.20 

0.38 

0.38 

Duration in years 

Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black Hispanic/Latino

Figure 20. Probability that a man’s first cohabitation transitions to marriage, by duration of

cohabitation and by race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2002

Page 14 [ Series 23, No. 28

compared with 40% or less for Hispanic

and non-Hispanic black men and

women’s first cohabitations (Tables 20

and 21). Women with a bachelor’s

degree or higher had a much greater

probability that their first cohabitations

would transition to marriage within 3

years (64%) than women with less

education (e.g., 37% of women with no

high school diploma or GED) (Table 20

and Figure 18). The percentages for men

were equally striking, with 68% of first

cohabitations transitioning to marriage

within 3 years among men with a

bachelor’s degree or higher, compared

with 34% of those with no high school

diploma or GED (Table 21 and

Figure 18).

Discussion

This report has presented data from

the 2002 NSFG on the marital and

cohabiting behaviors of men and women

aged 15–44 in the United States. Over

the last several decades, the percentage

of Americans who marry has changed

and the percentage ever cohabiting has

increased. This has led to discussion of

the demographic changes in—and the

meaning of—marriage and cohabitation

in contemporary society (6,30,40).

Research findings have consistently

shown a positive relationship between

marriage and health outcomes and

well-being for children and adults,

whereas the link between cohabitation

and health is less definitive.

According to NSFG data, in 2002

about two-thirds of men and women

aged 15–44 were currently married,

compared with 10% or less who were

currently cohabiting. In sharp contrast,

about half of men and women had ever

cohabited, but a majority of these

cohabitations were short lived, came

before a first marriage, and often

resulted in marriage rather than

replacing it. By the fifth year, 65% of

first cohabitations had resulted in

marriage for both men and women.

Some of the findings from the

present report were consistent with

findings from the marriage report based

on the Cycle 5 (1995) NSFG data (4).

Analysis of the 1995 NSFG found that

the probability of the first marriages of

women aged 15–44 lasting at least 10

years was 67%, whereas the current

report based on the Cycle 6 (2002)

NSFG found a 64% probability that

women’s first marriages would last 10

years or more. Similar to the 1995

report, the current report also found that

the marital and cohabiting behaviors of

women varied according to race and

Hispanic origin. For example,

non-Hispanic black women had a lower

percentage currently married in 2002

and a lower probability that their

marriages would remain intact for 10

years. In 2002, Hispanic men had the

highest probability of their marriages

remaining intact for 10 years, compared

with men and women of other racial

groups and with Hispanic women.

Cohabitations among Hispanic men

and women were more likely to last 5

years (without disruption or

transitioning to marriage) than those

of other racial and ethnic groups.

Non-Hispanic white men and women

had higher probabilities of their first

cohabitations transitioning to marriage

than non-Hispanic black or Hispanic

men and women.

Overall, the relationships between

marital and cohabiting behaviors and the

demographic variables included in the

current report were similar for men and

women. For example, both men and

women who had a bachelor’s degree or

higher at the time of interview had

higher probabilities of their first

cohabitations transitioning to marriage

and higher probabilities of their

marriages remaining intact for 10 years

or more than those with less education.

Also, both men and women who

married later (i.e., at age 26 or over)

had a higher likelihood of their

marriages lasting 10 years or more than

men and women who married during

their teen years.

This report shows that NSFG is a

rich source of data for the study of

marriage and cohabitation. It is hoped

that the findings presented here will

prompt research questions and further

studies that will yield new insights into

marriage and cohabitation and their

effects on the lives of adults and

children in the United States.
Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 15

References

1.Goodwin P, McGill B, Chandra A.

Who marries and when? Age at first

marriage in the United States: 2002.

NCHS data brief, no 19. Hyattsville,

MD: National Center for Health

Statistics. 2009. Available from:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/

db19.pdf.

2.Martinez GM, Chandra A, Abma JC, et

al. Fertility, contraception, and

fatherhood: Data on men and women

from Cycle 6 (2002) of the National

Survey of Family Growth. National

Center for Health Statistics. Vital

Health Stat 23(26). 2006. Available

from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/

series/sr_23/sr23_026.pdf.

3.Chandra A, Martinez GM, Mosher WD,

et al. Fertility, family planning, and

reproductive health of U.S. women:

Data from the 2002 National Survey of

Family Growth. National Center for

Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat

23(25). 2005. Available from:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/

sr_23/sr23_025.pdf.

4.Bramlett MD, Mosher WD.

Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and

remarriage in the United States.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Vital Health Stat 23(22). 2002.

Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/

nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf.

5.Bramlett MD, Mosher WD. First

marriage dissolution, divorce, and

remarriage: United States. Advance

data from vital and health statistics, no

323. Hyattsville, MD: National Center

for Health Statistics. 2001. Available

from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/

ad323.pdf.

6.Popenoe D. Cohabitation, marriage, and

child wellbeing: A cross-national

perspective. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers

University, National Marriage Project.

2008.

7.Institute for American Values.

Executive summary. In: Why

marriage matters: Twenty-six

conclusions from the social sciences.

2nd ed. New York, NY: Institute for

American Values. 2005. Available

from: http://www.americanvalues.org/

pdfs/wmmexsumm.pdf.

8.Wood RG, Goesling B, Avellar S. The

effects of marriage on health: A

synthesis of recent research evidence.

Report prepared for the Department of

Health and Human Services by

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.,

Washington, DC (contract no

233–02–0086). 2007. Available from:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/

marriageonhealth/report.pdf.

9.Schoenborn CA. Marital status and

health: United States, 1999–2002.

Advance data from vital and health

statistics, no 351. Hyattsville, MD:

National Center for Health Statistics.

2004. Available from: http://

www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad351.pdf.

10.Kaplan RM, Kronick RG. Marital

status and longevity in the United

States population. J Epidemiol

Community Health 60(9):760–5. 2006.

11.Bernstein AB, Cohen RA, Brett KM,

Bush MA. Marital status is associated

with health insurance coverage for

working-age women at all income

levels, 2007. NCHS data brief, no 11.

Hyattsville, MD: National Center for

Health Statistics. 2008. Available from:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/

db11.pdf.

12.Zhang Z, Hayward MD. Gender, the

marital life course, and cardiovascular

disease in late midlife. J Marriage Fam

68(3):639–57. 2006.

13.Terry-Humen E, Manlove J, Moore

KA. Births outside of marriage:

Perceptions vs. reality. Research brief.

Washington, DC: Child Trends. 2001.

Available from: http://www.childtrends.

org/files/rb_032601.pdf.

14.Haveman R, Wolfe B, Pence K.

Intergenerational effects of nonmarital

and early childbearing. In: Wu LL,

Wolfe B, eds. Out of wedlock: Causes

and consequences of nonmarital

fertility. New York, NY: Russell Sage

Foundation, 287–316. 2001.

15.Teachman JD. The childhood living

arrangements of children and the

characteristics of their marriages. J Fam

Issues 25(1):86–111. 2004.

16.McLanahan S, Sandefur G. Growing up

with a single parent: What hurts, what

helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press. 1994.

17.Bumpass L, Lu H-H. Trends in

cohabitation and implications for

children’s family contexts in the United

States. Popul Stud 54(1):29–41. 2000.

18.Raley RK. Increasing fertility in

cohabiting unions: Evidence for the

second demographic transition in the

United States? Demography 38(1):59–

66. 2001.

19.Mincieli L, Manlove J, McGarrett M,

et al. The relationship context of births

outside of marriage: The rise of

cohabitation. Research brief, no

2007–13. Washington, DC: Child

Trends. 2007. Available from:

http://www.childtrends.org/Files//

Child_Trends-2007_05_14_RB_

OutsideBirths.pdf.

20.Fields J. Children’s living arrangements

and characteristics: March 2002. U.S.

Census Bureau, Current Population

Reports, P20–547. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office. 2003.

Available from: http://www.census.gov/

prod/2003pubs/p20-547.pdf.

21.Wu Z, Penning MJ, Pollard MS, Hart

R. ‘‘In sickness and in health’’: Does

cohabitation count? J Fam Issues

24(6):811–38. 2003.

22.Brown SL, Booth A. Cohabitation

versus marriage: A comparison of

relationship quality. J Marriage Fam

58(3):668–78. 1996.

23.Light A. Gender differences in the

marriage and cohabitation income

premium. Demography 41(2):263–84.

2004.

24.Smock PJ. Cohabitation in the United

States: An appraisal of research themes,

findings, and implications. Annu Rev

Sociol 26:1–20. 2000.

25.Dunifon R, Kowaleski-Jones L. Who’s

in the house? Race differences in

cohabitation, single parenthood, and

child development. Child Dev

73(4):1249–64. 2002.

26.Manning WD, Lamb KA. Adolescent

well-being in cohabiting, married, and

single-parent families. J Marriage Fam

65(4):876–93. 2003.

27.Nelson S, Clark RL, Acs G. Beyond

the two-parent family: How teenagers

fare in cohabiting couple and blended

families. In: New Federalism: National

Survey of America’s Families. Series

B, no B–31. Washington, DC: Urban

Institute. 2001.

28.Graefe DR, Lichter DT. Life course

transitions of American children:

Parental cohabitation, marriage, and

single motherhood. Demography

36(2):205–17. 1999.

29.Tucker MB, Mitchell-Kernan C, eds.

The decline in marriage among African

Americans: Causes, consequences, and

policy implications. New York, NY:

Russell Sage Foundation. 1995.

30.Cherlin AJ. Marriage, divorce,

remarriage. 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press. 1992.

31.Phillips JA, Sweeney MM. Premarital

cohabitation and marital disruption

among white, black, and Mexican

American women. J Marriage Fam

67(2):296–314. 2005.
Page 16 [ Series 23, No. 28

32.Bratter JL, King RB. ‘‘But will it

last?’’: Marital instability among

interracial and same-race couples. Fam

Relat 57(2):160–71. 2008.

33.Blackwell DL, Lichter DT. Homogamy

among dating, cohabiting, and married

couples. Sociol Q 45(4):719–37. 2004.

34.Groves RM, Benson G, Mosher WD, et

al. Plan and operation of Cycle 6 of the

National Survey of Family Growth.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Vital Health Stat 1(42). 2005. Available

from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/

series/sr_01/sr01_042.pdf.

35.Lepkowski JM, Mosher WD,

Davis KE, et al. National Survey of

Family Growth, Cycle 6: Sample

design, weighting, imputation, and

variance estimation. National Center

for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat

2(142). 2006. Available from:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/

sr_02/sr02_142.pdf.

36.Koenig HG, McCullough ME, Larson

DB. Handbook of religion and health.

New York, NY: Oxford University

Press. 2001.

37.Regnerus MD. Forbidden fruit: Sex and

religion in the lives of American

teenagers. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press. 2007.

38.Smith C. Theorizing religious effects

among American adolescents. J Sci

Study Relig 42(1):17–30. 2003.

39.Whitehead BD, Wilcox BL, Rostosky

SS. Keeping the faith: The role of

religion and faith communities in

preventing teen pregnancy. Washington,

DC: National Campaign to Prevent

Teen Pregnancy. 2001.

40.Manning WD, Smock PJ. First comes

cohabitation and then comes marriage?

J Fam Issues 23(8):1065–87. 2002.

41.Teachman J. Complex life course

patterns and the risk of divorce in

second marriages. J Marriage Fam

70(2):294–305. 2008.

42.Lehrer EL. Age at marriage and marital

instability: Revisiting the Becker–

Landes–Michael hypothesis. J Popul

Econ 21(2):463–84. 2008.

43.Allison PD. Event history analysis:

Regression for longitudinal event data.

In: Sage University Paper series on

Quantitative Applications in the Social

Sciences, no 07–046. Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage. 1984.

44.Proctor BD, Dalaker J.

Poverty in the United States: 2001.

U.S. Census Bureau, Current

Population Reports, P60–219.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office. 2002. Available from:

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/

p60-219.pdf.
Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 17

Table 1. Number of women aged 15–44 and percent distribution by current marital or cohabiting status, according to selected

characteristics: United States, 2002

In a union Nonunion

Number

in Union Nonunion Never

Characteristic thousands Total subtotal Married Cohabiting subtotal married Divorced Separated Widowed

Percent distribution

Total1 ............................ 61,561 100.0 55.1 46.0 9.1 44.9 35.0 6.8 2.7 0.4

Age

15–19 years........................ 9,834 100.0 7.6 2.0 5.6 92.4 92.0 * * –

15–17 years ...................... 5,819 100.0 2.1 * 2.0 97.9 97.9 – – –

18–19 years ...................... 4,015 100.0 15.6 4.8 10.8 84.4 83.4 * * –

20–24 years........................ 9,840 100.0 38.8 23.1 15.7 61.2 57.7 1.4 2.0 *

25–44 years........................ 41,887 100.0 70.0 61.7 8.3 30.0 16.3 9.6 3.4 0.6

25–29 years ...................... 9,249 100.0 64.5 51.6 12.9 35.5 28.5 4.0 2.7 0.3

30–34 years ...................... 10,272 100.0 69.7 61.8 7.9 30.3 17.4 7.6 5.2 *

35–39 years ...................... 10,853 100.0 71.1 64.4 6.7 28.9 13.6 12.0 2.5 0.9

40–44 years ...................... 11,512 100.0 73.8 67.2 6.6 26.2 8.2 13.7 3.3 1.0

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latina .................... 9,107 100.0 58.8 45.4 13.4 41.2 31.3 4.3 4.8 0.8

Not Hispanic or Latina:

White, single race. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39,498 100.0 58.7 50.8 7.9 41.3 31.8 7.4 1.8 0.3

Black or African American, single race ...... 8,250 100.0 35.4 25.9 9.6 64.6 52.8 7.0 4.4 0.4

Parity

0 births........................... 25,622 100.0 29.0 20.1 8.9 71.0 67.2 2.8 0.9 *

1 or more births ..................... 35,938 100.0 73.7 64.5 9.1 26.4 12.1 9.6 4.0 0.7

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents .......... 49,939 100.0 56.2 48.3 7.9 43.8 33.8 6.8 2.7 0.4

Other ............................ 11,622 100.0 50.2 36.1 14.1 49.8 40.2 6.7 2.5 0.5

Education2

No high school diploma or GED ........... 5,627 100.0 66.3 49.1 17.2 33.7 19.4 6.6 6.6 1.1

High school diploma or GED ............. 14,264 100.0 68.0 56.7 11.3 32.0 18.5 9.4 3.3 0.8

Some college, no bachelor’s degree......... 14,279 100.0 65.0 57.4 7.6 35.0 19.9 11.2 3.5 0.5

Bachelor’s degree or higher .............. 13,551 100.0 68.2 62.9 5.4 31.8 23.9 6.1 1.6 *

Percent of poverty level2

0–149% .......................... 13,028 100.0 53.9 40.9 13.0 46.1 26.9 11.5 6.6 1.1

0–99%.......................... 8,183 100.0 52.3 39.1 13.1 47.7 28.4 9.6 8.4 1.3

150–299%......................... 13,456 100.0 70.3 60.4 9.9 29.7 18.2 8.4 2.6 0.5

300% or higher...................... 21,237 100.0 72.9 66.5 6.4 27.1 18.1 7.1 1.7 0.2

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 30,556 100.0 58.6 51.6 6.9 41.5 32.0 6.1 2.8 0.6

Somewhat important .................. 19,020 100.0 53.5 43.8 9.7 46.5 36.9 7.0 2.4 0.2

Not important ....................... 11,852 100.0 48.5 35.0 13.6 51.5 39.9 8.1 3.0 0.5

Nativity

U.S. born ......................... 52,641 100.0 53.3 44.6 8.8 46.7 36.6 7.3 2.4 0.4

Foreign born ....................... 8,819 100.0 65.5 54.9 10.6 34.5 25.6 3.9 4.4 0.7

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.
 

– Quantity zero.
 

1Includes women of other or multiple race and origin groups and women with missing information on nativity or importance of religion.
 

2Limited to women aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).
 
Page 18 [ Series 23, No. 28

Table 2. Number of men aged 15–44 and percent distribution by current marital or cohabiting status, according to selected characteristics:

United States, 2002

In a union Nonunion

Number

in Union Nonunion Never

Characteristic thousands Total subtotal Married Cohabiting subtotal married Divorced Separated Widowed

Percent distribution

Total1 ............................ 61,147 100.0 51.5 42.2 9.2 48.6 41.6 5.4 1.5 0.1

Age

15–19 years........................ 10,208 100.0 2.3 0.4 1.9 97.7 97.5 – * –

15–17 years ...................... 5,748 100.0 0.9 * * 99.1 98.9 – * –

18–19 years ...................... 4,460 100.0 4.1 0.7 3.4 95.9 95.6 – * –

20–24 years........................ 9,883 100.0 28.8 15.4 13.4 71.2 69.8 * 1.2 –

25–44 years........................ 41,056 100.0 69.1 59.1 10.1 30.9 20.9 7.9 1.9 0.1

25–29 years ...................... 9,226 100.0 63.0 45.3 17.8 37.0 33.0 2.6 1.3 –

30–34 years ...................... 10,138 100.0 70.2 60.6 9.6 29.8 21.9 5.7 1.9 *

35–39 years ...................... 10,557 100.0 73.7 65.6 8.2 26.3 16.5 7.6 2.0 *

40–44 years ...................... 11,135 100.0 68.9 62.9 6.0 31.1 14.0 14.6 2.4 *

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latino .................... 10,188 100.0 56.7 42.7 14.0 43.3 38.1 3.3 2.0 –

Not Hispanic or Latino:

White, single race. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,738 100.0 52.3 44.4 7.9 47.7 40.3 6.0 1.4 *

Black or African American, single race ...... 6,940 100.0 41.5 31.5 10.0 58.5 50.0 5.7 2.6 *

Number of biological children

None ............................ 32,593 100.0 24.7 16.9 7.9 75.3 72.4 2.3 0.5 *

1 or more ......................... 28,554 100.0 82.0 71.2 10.8 18.0 6.4 8.8 2.7 0.1

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents .......... 50,596 100.0 51.7 43.0 8.7 48.3 41.4 5.3 1.6 0.1

Other ............................ 10,551 100.0 50.3 38.3 12.0 49.7 42.2 5.9 1.5 *

Education2

No high school diploma or GED ........... 6,355 100.0 69.8 53.2 16.6 30.2 22.4 5.1 2.7 *

High school diploma or GED ............. 15,659 100.0 66.2 53.9 12.3 33.8 20.9 10.2 2.6 *

Some college, no bachelor’s degree......... 13,104 100.0 58.5 48.7 9.8 41.5 33.3 6.6 1.5 *

Bachelor’s degree or higher .............. 11,901 100.0 68.7 61.7 7.0 31.3 26.1 4.2 1.0 *

Percent of poverty level2

0–149% .......................... 9,744 100.0 64.5 50.1 14.5 35.5 26.3 7.3 1.8 *

0–99%.......................... 5,790 100.0 61.4 43.3 18.1 38.6 28.6 7.6 2.2 *

150–299%......................... 13,282 100.0 66.7 55.4 11.3 33.3 24.8 6.6 1.8 *

300% or higher...................... 23,992 100.0 64.5 55.4 9.1 35.5 26.3 7.1 2.0 0.1

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 23,586 100.0 59.2 50.9 8.3 40.8 34.5 4.6 1.6 *

Somewhat important .................. 20,010 100.0 48.5 40.6 7.9 51.5 44.2 5.6 1.6 *

Not important ....................... 17,466 100.0 44.4 32.4 12.1 55.6 48.0 6.0 1.4 0.2

Nativity

U.S. born ......................... 51,639 100.0 49.8 40.7 9.1 50.2 42.9 5.7 1.5 0.1

Foreign born ....................... 9,372 100.0 60.6 50.8 9.8 39.4 34.2 3.6 1.6 –

– Quantity zero.
 

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.
 

1Includes men of other or multiple race and origin groups and men with missing information on nativity or importance of religion.
 

2Limited to men aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).
 
Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 19

Table 3. Number of non-Hispanic white women aged 15–44 and percent distribution by current marital or cohabiting status, according to

selected characteristics: United States, 2002

In a union Nonunion

Number

in Union Nonunion Never

Characteristic thousands Total subtotal Married Cohabiting subtotal married Divorced Separated Widowed

Percent distribution

Total1 ............................ 39,498 100.0 58.7 50.8 7.9 41.3 31.8 7.4 1.8 0.3

Age

15–19 years........................ 6,070 100.0 7.5 2.0 5.5 92.5 92.2 * * –

15–17 years ...................... 3,563 100.0 * 0.0 * 98.7 98.7 – – –

18–19 years ...................... 2,507 100.0 16.3 4.7 11.6 83.7 82.9 * * –

20–24 years........................ 5,938 100.0 38.6 23.4 15.2 61.4 57.6 2.0 1.8 –

25–44 years ....................... 27,491 100.0 74.3 67.5 6.8 25.7 12.8 10.2 2.2 0.5

25–29 years ...................... 5,613 100.0 68.6 56.9 11.7 31.4 24.9 4.6 1.8 *

30–34 years ...................... 6,461 100.0 73.7 67.8 5.9 26.4 14.1 7.9 4.2 *

35–39 years ...................... 7,249 100.0 75.7 70.6 5.1 24.3 10.0 12.2 1.3 0.8

40–44 years ...................... 8,169 100.0 77.4 71.8 5.7 22.6 6.0 14.2 1.7 0.7

Parity

0 births........................... 17,451 100.0 33.0 23.3 9.7 67.0 63.4 2.9 0.7 *

1 or more births ..................... 22,048 100.0 79.0 72.5 6.4 21.0 6.7 11.1 2.7 0.5

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents .......... 33,797 100.0 58.0 51.7 6.4 42.0 32.1 7.7 1.9 0.3

Other ............................ 5,701 100.0 62.3 45.4 16.9 37.7 30.0 5.9 1.5 *

Education2

No high school diploma or GED ........... 1,963 100.0 66.0 48.9 17.1 34.0 15.6 12.4 5.3 0.7

High school diploma or GED ............. 9,031 100.0 74.1 64.9 9.2 25.9 12.2 10.6 2.3 0.9

Some college, no bachelor’s degree......... 9,676 100.0 70.0 63.0 7.0 30.0 15.5 11.6 2.8 0.1

Bachelor’s degree or higher .............. 10,221 100.0 70.8 65.5 5.3 29.2 22.5 5.7 0.8 *

Percent of poverty level2

0–149% .......................... 5,911 100.0 53.4 42.9 10.5 46.6 23.6 17.1 4.6 1.3

0–99%.......................... 3,338 100.0 52.0 40.5 11.5 48.0 25.2 14.3 6.8 1.7

150–299%......................... 8,555 100.0 74.5 65.4 9.1 25.5 14.0 9.1 2.2 0.3

300% or higher...................... 16,426 100.0 75.9 69.9 6.0 24.1 15.9 6.8 1.3 *

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 17,242 100.0 64.7 60.1 4.6 35.3 27.0 6.2 1.6 0.5

Somewhat important .................. 13,462 100.0 57.2 48.2 9.0 42.8 33.1 7.7 1.9 0.2

Not important ....................... 8,742 100.0 49.0 36.3 12.6 51.0 39.1 9.5 2.1 *

Nativity

U.S. born ......................... 37,792 100.0 58.3 50.3 7.9 41.7 32.1 7.5 1.8 0.3

Foreign born ....................... 1,658 100.0 67.8 61.7 6.1 32.2 23.5 6.7 1.5 *

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.
 

– Quantity zero.
 

1Includes women with missing information on nativity or importance of religion.
 

2Limited to women aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).
Page 20 [ Series 23, No. 28

Table 4. Number of non-Hispanic white men aged 15–44 and percent distribution by current marital or cohabiting status, according to

selected characteristics: United States, 2002

In a union Nonunion

Number

in Union Nonunion Never

Characteristic thousands Total subtotal Married Cohabiting subtotal married Divorced Separated Widowed

Percent distribution

Total1 ............................ 38,738 100.0 52.3 44.4 7.9 47.7 40.3 6.0 1.4 *

Age

15–19 years........................ 6,324 100.0 2.1 * 1.8 97.9 97.6 – * –

15–17 years ...................... 3,584 100.0 * * * 99.2 99.0 – * –

18–19 years ...................... 2,740 100.0 3.9 * 3.5 96.1 95.9 – * –

20–24 years........................ 5,987 100.0 29.1 16.3 12.8 70.9 70.3 * 0.5 –

25–44 years........................ 26,428 100.0 69.5 61.2 8.3 30.5 19.8 8.7 1.8 *

25–29 years ...................... 5,159 100.0 66.8 50.4 16.4 33.2 29.1 2.7 1.5 –

30–34 years ...................... 6,536 100.0 70.3 62.9 7.4 29.7 21.3 6.2 1.9 *

35–39 years ...................... 6,997 100.0 74.0 68.3 5.7 26.0 16.3 8.1 1.5 *

40–44 years ...................... 7,736 100.0 66.7 60.7 6.0 33.3 15.6 15.4 2.3 –

Number of biological children

None ............................ 21,741 100.0 28.5 19.5 9.0 71.6 68.5 2.6 0.5 *

1 or more ......................... 16,998 100.0 82.7 76.2 6.6 17.3 4.4 10.3 2.5 *

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents .......... 33,350 100.0 52.1 44.7 7.5 47.9 40.7 5.7 1.4 *

Other ............................ 5,388 100.0 53.1 42.5 10.6 46.9 38.1 7.7 0.8 *

Education2

No high school diploma or GED ........... 2,702 100.0 63.9 52.8 11.1 36.1 26.7 6.8 2.5 *

High school diploma or GED ............. 9,524 100.0 66.6 55.5 11.1 33.4 19.0 11.8 2.5 *

Some college, no bachelor’s degree......... 8,657 100.0 59.9 51.7 8.2 40.1 31.7 7.2 1.2 –

Bachelor’s degree or higher .............. 9,183 100.0 71.8 64.6 7.2 28.2 22.9 4.2 1.1 *

Percent of poverty level2

0–149% .......................... 4,062 100.0 59.9 48.2 11.8 40.1 27.7 10.3 1.9 *

0–99%.......................... 2,266 100.0 53.1 39.9 13.2 46.9 32.7 11.2 3.0 –

150–299%......................... 7,818 100.0 66.7 57.5 9.2 33.3 24.1 8.3 0.8 *

300% or higher...................... 18,187 100.0 67.0 58.6 8.4 33.0 24.0 6.8 2.0 *

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 12,185 100.0 60.6 55.0 5.6 39.4 32.8 5.4 1.2 *

Somewhat important .................. 13,509 100.0 49.9 43.4 6.5 50.2 41.9 6.5 1.8 –

Not important ....................... 12,998 100.0 47.0 35.4 11.6 53.0 45.7 6.0 1.1 *

Nativity

U.S. born ......................... 37,100 100.0 52.1 43.9 8.2 47.9 40.5 6.0 1.3 *

Foreign born ....................... 1,580 100.0 56.9 55.7 1.1 43.1 36.9 4.0 2.2 –

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.
 

– Quantity zero.
 

1Includes men with missing information on nativity or importance of religion.
 

2Limited to men aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).
 
Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 21

Table 5. Number of non-Hispanic black women aged 15–44 and percent distribution by current marital or cohabiting status, according to

selected characteristics: United States, 2002

In a union Nonunion

Number

in Union Nonunion Never

Characteristic thousands Total subtotal Married Cohabiting subtotal married Divorced Separated Widowed

Percent distribution

Total1 ............................ 8,250 100.0 35.4 25.9 9.6 64.6 52.8 7.0 4.4 0.4

Age

15–19 years........................ 1,409 100.0 2.3 * 2.1 97.7 97.7 – – –

15–17 years ...................... 852 100.0 * – * 99.6 99.6 – – –

18–19 years ...................... 558 100.0 5.2 * 4.7 94.8 94.8 – – –

20–24 years........................ 1,396 100.0 26.2 10.8 15.5 73.8 71.6 * 1.2 –

25–44 years........................ 5,445 100.0 46.4 36.4 10.0 53.6 36.3 10.4 6.3 0.7

25–29 years ...................... 1,256 100.0 42.4 31.4 11.0 57.6 50.4 2.8 4.4 –

30–34 years ...................... 1,331 100.0 46.9 34.9 11.9 53.1 38.5 6.8 7.8 –

35–39 years ...................... 1,434 100.0 42.6 34.2 8.4 57.4 37.2 14.5 4.7 *

40–44 years ...................... 1,423 100.0 53.2 44.3 8.9 46.8 21.0 16.2 8.2 1.5

Parity

0 births........................... 3,032 100.0 14.1 8.2 5.9 85.9 80.7 3.3 1.8 *

1 or more births ..................... 5,218 100.0 47.8 36.1 11.7 52.2 36.5 9.2 5.8 0.6

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents .......... 5,081 100.0 38.8 29.4 9.4 61.2 48.8 6.7 5.3 0.5

Other ............................ 3,170 100.0 30.0 20.2 9.8 70.0 59.2 7.5 2.9 0.4

Education2

No high school diploma or GED ........... 926 100.0 45.9 30.4 15.5 54.1 41.4 3.3 7.7 *

High school diploma or GED ............. 2,252 100.0 40.9 27.8 13.1 59.1 47.7 6.2 4.8 *

Some college, no bachelor’s degree......... 2,030 100.0 43.6 34.9 8.7 56.4 36.0 13.4 6.5 *

Bachelor’s degree or higher .............. 1,089 100.0 48.4 43.7 4.7 51.6 35.1 12.6 3.9

Percent of poverty level2

0–149% .......................... 2,619 100.0 36.0 23.9 12.1 64.0 48.3 6.8 8.3 *

0–99%.......................... 1,787 100.0 35.5 24.0 11.5 64.5 49.4 5.5 8.7 *

150–299%......................... 1,795 100.0 45.9 34.4 11.6 54.1 40.1 10.0 3.1 0.8

300% or higher...................... 1,883 100.0 52.7 45.1 7.6 47.3 31.1 11.6 4.3 *

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 5,866 100.0 37.4 29.5 7.9 62.6 49.8 7.9 4.4 0.4

Somewhat important .................. 1,479 100.0 26.5 12.0 14.5 73.5 63.3 6.0 4.2 –

Not important ....................... 858 100.0 36.2 22.9 13.2 63.8 55.3 2.7 4.4 *

Nativity

U.S. born ......................... 7,350 100.0 34.2 24.6 9.6 65.8 53.2 7.5 4.6 0.5

Foreign born ....................... 884 100.0 45.5 36.2 9.4 54.5 49.9 3.1 * –

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.
 

– Quantity zero.
 

1Includes women with missing information on nativity or importance of religion.
 

2Limited to women aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).
 
Page 22 [ Series 23, No. 28

Table 6. Number of non-Hispanic black men aged 15–44 and percent distribution by current marital or cohabiting status, according to

selected characteristics: United States, 2002

In a union Nonunion

Number

in Union Nonunion Never

Characteristic thousands Total subtotal Married Cohabiting subtotal married Divorced Separated Widowed

Percent distribution

Total1 ............................ 6,940 100.0 41.5 31.5 10.0 58.5 50.0 5.7 2.6 *

Age

15–19 years........................ 1,352 100.0 * * * 98.5 98.5 – – –

15–17 years ...................... 813 100.0 – – – 100.0 100.0 – – –

18–19 years ...................... 539 100.0 * * * 96.3 96.3 – – –

20–24 years........................ 1,198 100.0 22.5 11.5 11.0 77.5 75.5 – 2.0 –

25–44 years........................ 4,390 100.0 59.0 46.6 12.5 41.0 28.1 9.0 3.5 *

25–29 years ...................... 974 100.0 48.2 26.9 21.3 51.8 48.4 * * –

30–34 years ...................... 1,077 100.0 57.2 42.6 14.5 42.8 32.4 8.2 * *

35–39 years ...................... 1,160 100.0 66.5 59.8 6.7 33.5 19.3 8.1 5.8 *

40–44 years ...................... 1,179 100.0 62.3 53.3 9.0 37.7 16.1 16.6 4.1 *

Number of biological children

None ............................ 3,510 100.0 13.8 8.4 5.4 86.2 83.0 2.3 0.7 *

1 or more ......................... 3,439 100.0 69.7 55.0 14.7 30.3 16.4 9.2 4.5 *

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents .......... 4,733 100.0 42.5 32.2 10.3 57.5 49.2 5.5 2.5 *

Other ............................ 2,207 100.0 39.3 30.0 9.3 60.7 51.7 6.2 2.7 *

Education2

No high school diploma or GED ........... 675 100.0 57.6 38.3 19.3 42.4 32.7 5.4 * –

High school diploma or GED ............. 2,351 100.0 54.9 43.0 11.9 45.1 30.2 10.4 4.4 *

Some college, no bachelor’s degree......... 1,486 100.0 48.4 40.2 8.2 51.6 44.2 3.9 2.6 *

Bachelor’s degree or higher .............. 698 100.0 57.9 42.7 15.2 42.1 33.1 8.1 * –

Percent of poverty level2

0–149% .......................... 1,507 100.0 53.2 41.1 12.1 46.8 39.3 5.0 1.9 *

0–99%.......................... 907 100.0 49.6 36.5 13.1 50.4 40.3 6.6 2.6 *

150–299%......................... 1,628 100.0 55.0 44.2 10.8 45.1 33.7 6.2 4.9 *

300% or higher...................... 2,075 100.0 53.4 39.8 13.6 46.6 32.6 10.5 3.2 *

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 4,339 100.0 45.7 38.5 7.2 54.3 47.1 5.2 1.8 *

Somewhat important .................. 1,403 100.0 39.7 26.6 13.1 60.3 51.3 6.1 2.7 *

Not important ....................... 1,186 100.0 28.1 11.3 16.8 71.9 59.2 7.1 5.4 *

Nativity

U.S. born ......................... 6,192 100.0 40.7 30.2 10.5 59.4 51.0 5.4 2.6 *

Foreign born ....................... 715 100.0 48.0 43.3 4.7 52.1 41.9 8.1 * –

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.
 

– Quantity zero.
 

1Includes men with missing information on nativity or importance of religion.
 

2Limited to men aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).
 
Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 23

Table 7. Number of Hispanic/Latina women aged 15–44 and percent distribution by current marital or cohabiting status, according to

selected characteristics: United States, 2002

In a union Nonunion

Number

in Union Nonunion Never

Characteristic thousands Total subtotal Married Cohabiting subtotal married Divorced Separated Widowed

Percent distribution

Total1 ............................ 9,107 100.0 58.9 45.4 13.4 41.2 31.3 4.3 4.8 0.8

Age

15–19 years........................ 1,521 100.0 13.0 3.9 9.1 87.0 86.1 – * –

15–17 years ...................... 912 100.0 6.6 * 6.1 93.5 93.5 – – –

18–19 years ...................... 608 100.0 22.7 9.2 13.5 77.3 75.0 – 2.3 –

20–24 years........................ 1,632 100.0 53.1 32.4 20.7 46.9 42.4 * 3.4 *

25–44 years........................ 5,954 100.0 72.1 59.6 12.5 27.9 14.2 6.4 6.3 1.0

25–29 years ...................... 1,654 100.0 68.0 48.6 19.3 32.0 23.1 2.7 5.1 *

30–34 years ...................... 1,595 100.0 75.1 64.2 10.8 24.9 13.4 5.4 5.9 *

35–39 years ...................... 1,448 100.0 73.7 62.3 11.4 26.3 9.7 9.1 6.8 *

40–44 years ...................... 1,258 100.0 72.0 65.1 7.0 28.0 8.7 9.6 7.7 2.0

Parity

0 births........................... 2,948 100.0 24.2 16.0 8.3 75.8 73.5 1.3 1.0 –

1 or more births ..................... 6,159 100.0 75.4 59.6 15.9 24.6 11.0 5.7 6.7 1.1

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents .......... 7,344 100.0 59.3 46.3 13.0 40.7 31.2 3.6 5.1 0.7

Other ............................ 1,763 100.0 56.8 41.7 15.1 43.2 31.3 7.2 3.8 *

Education2

No high school diploma or GED ........... 2,519 100.0 74.3 56.4 17.9 25.7 14.7 2.7 7.2 1.1

High school diploma or GED ............. 2,030 100.0 71.0 56.2 14.9 29.0 15.3 7.4 5.7 *

Some college, no bachelor’s degree......... 1,571 100.0 65.4 56.4 9.1 34.6 19.9 8.5 4.2 1.9

Bachelor’s degree or higher .............. 817 100.0 64.3 58.0 6.3 35.7 24.0 4.8 6.9 –

Percent of poverty level2

0–149% .......................... 3,508 100.0 66.9 51.0 15.9 33.1 17.4 5.4 9.1 1.2

0–99%.......................... 2,540 100.0 64.5 49.1 15.4 35.5 18.5 5.2 10.5 1.4

150–299%......................... 2,008 100.0 75.8 63.1 12.7 24.2 13.8 6.1 3.3 *

300% or higher...................... 1,421 100.0 70.3 60.8 9.4 29.7 21.1 5.7 2.5 *

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 4,985 100.0 65.4 51.5 13.9 34.6 24.6 4.2 5.0 0.8

Somewhat important .................. 2,768 100.0 52.5 42.0 10.5 47.5 39.1 4.2 3.8 *

Not important ....................... 1,330 100.0 48.0 30.1 17.9 52.0 39.5 5.1 6.4 *

Nativity

U.S. born ......................... 4,560 100.0 48.8 37.2 11.7 51.1 41.9 5.4 3.0 0.7

Foreign born ....................... 4,518 100.0 69.0 53.8 15.2 31.0 20.3 3.2 6.7 0.8

– Quantity zero.
 

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.
 

1Includes women with missing information on nativity or importance of religion.
 

2Limited to women aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).
Page 24 [ Series 23, No. 28

Table 8. Number of Hispanic/Latino men aged 15–44 and percent distribution by current marital or cohabiting status, according to selected

characteristics: United States, 2002

In a union Nonunion

Number

in Union Nonunion Never

Characteristic thousands Total subtotal Married Cohabiting subtotal married Divorced Separated Widowed

Percent distribution

Total1 ............................ 10,188 100.0 56.7 42.7 14.0 43.3 38.1 3.3 2.0 –

Age

15–19 years........................ 1,628 100.0 3.5 * 2.6 96.5 95.9 0.0 * –

15–17 years ...................... 852 100.0 * 0.0 * 98.5 98.5 0.0 0.0 –

18–19 years ...................... 775 100.0 5.8 * 3.9 94.3 92.9 0.0 * –

20–24 years........................ 1,952 100.0 33.6 17.7 15.9 66.4 62.2 * 3.5 –

25–44 years........................ 6,609 100.0 76.6 60.4 16.2 23.4 16.8 4.8 1.9 –

25–29 years ...................... 1,935 100.0 71.6 49.6 21.9 28.4 24.6 2.9 * –

30–34 years ...................... 1,790 100.0 78.6 61.7 16.9 21.4 15.5 3.7 2.2 –

35–39 years ...................... 1,571 100.0 77.6 61.5 16.1 22.4 16.2 4.6 1.6 –

40–44 years ...................... 1,312 100.0 80.0 73.1 6.8 20.0 7.5 9.4 3.2 –

Number of biological children

None ............................ 4,536 100.0 20.9 13.8 7.1 79.1 77.0 1.5 0.6 –

1 or more ......................... 5,652 100.0 85.4 65.9 19.5 14.6 6.9 4.7 3.1 –

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents .......... 8,302 100.0 57.5 44.6 12.9 42.5 37.3 3.4 1.8 –

Other ............................ 1,886 100.0 53.0 34.3 18.7 47.0 41.5 2.7 2.8 –

Education2

No high school diploma or GED ........... 2,685 100.0 78.7 57.2 21.5 21.3 15.7 3.1 2.5 –

High school diploma or GED ............. 2,676 100.0 72.7 56.2 16.5 27.3 21.4 3.8 2.1 –

Some college, no bachelor’s degree......... 1,557 100.0 57.4 40.9 16.6 42.6 33.6 6.6 2.3 –

Bachelor’s degree or higher .............. 820 100.0 67.5 61.5 6.0 32.5 25.8 5.1 * –

Percent of poverty level2

0–149% .......................... 2,885 100.0 74.2 53.9 20.2 25.9 20.8 3.0 2.1 –

0–99%.......................... 1,835 100.0 73.2 47.1 26.2 26.8 22.8 1.8 2.1 –

150–299%......................... 2,765 100.0 74.2 57.7 16.5 25.8 19.0 3.5 3.3 –

300% or higher...................... 2,088 100.0 63.0 49.2 13.8 37.0 28.8 7.1 1.1 –

Importance of religion

Very important ...................... 4,708 100.0 67.1 53.2 13.9 32.9 27.1 2.8 3.0 –

Somewhat important .................. 3,554 100.0 48.7 35.3 13.4 51.3 47.2 3.2 1.0 –

Not important ....................... 1,913 100.0 46.2 30.7 15.5 53.8 48.1 4.3 1.4 –

Nativity

U.S. born ......................... 4,700 100.0 42.8 30.8 12.0 57.2 51.5 3.4 2.3 –

Foreign born ....................... 5,444 100.0 68.6 52.9 15.7 31.5 26.6 3.1 1.8 –

– Quantity zero.

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.

0.0 Quantity more than zero but less than 0.05.
 

1Includes men with missing information on nativity or importance of religion.
 

2Limited to men aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).
Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 25

Table 9. Number of women aged 15–44 and percent distribution by formal marital experience and number of husbands, according to

selected characteristics: United States, 2002

Number of husbands

Number in Never Ever

Characteristic thousands Total married married 1 2 3 or more

Percent distribution

Total1

................................. 61,561 100.0 41.8 58.2 47.2 8.8 2.3

Age

15–19 years ............................ 9,834 100.0 97.6 2.4 2.4 – –

20–24 years ............................ 9,840 100.0 72.7 27.3 26.7 0.6 –

25–44 years ............................ 41,887 100.0 21.4 78.6 62.5 12.8 3.3

25–29 years ........................... 9,249 100.0 39.8 60.2 55.7 4.4 *

30–34 years ........................... 10,272 100.0 22.4 77.6 66.6 9.2 1.8

35–39 years ........................... 10,853 100.0 16.7 83.3 64.5 15.2 3.6

40–44 years ........................... 11,512 100.0 10.1 89.9 62.4 20.4 7.1

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latina ......................... 9,107 100.0 42.1 57.9 50.0 7.6 0.3

Not Hispanic or Latina:

White, single race ....................... 39,498 100.0 37.2 62.8 49.3 10.3 3.2

Black or African American, single race .......... 8,250 100.0 60.7 39.3 34.1 4.7 0.6

Parity

0 births ............................... 25,622 100.0 75.2 24.8 22.2 2.1 0.5

1 or more births .......................... 35,938 100.0 17.9 82.1 65.0 13.6 3.5

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents............... 49,939 100.0 39.5 60.5 49.7 9.0 1.8

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,622 100.0 51.4 48.6 36.3 7.9 4.5

Education2

No high school diploma or GED ................ 5,627 100.0 32.2 67.8 54.1 11.3 2.3

High school diploma or GED .................. 14,264 100.0 25.1 75.0 53.8 15.9 5.2

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ............. 14,279 100.0 24.9 75.1 61.1 11.4 2.6

Bachelor’s degree or higher................... 13,551 100.0 28.2 71.8 64.2 6.5 1.2

Percent of poverty level2

0–149% ............................... 13,028 100.0 35.4 64.6 52.9 9.1 2.6

0–99% .............................. 8,183 100.0 37.5 62.6 51.1 8.5 2.9

150–299% ............................. 13,456 100.0 24.6 75.4 58.0 13.2 4.2

300% or higher .......................... 21,237 100.0 22.8 77.2 63.3 11.6 2.4

Importance of religion

Very important ........................... 30,556 100.0 36.5 63.5 51.7 9.3 2.5

Somewhat important ....................... 19,020 100.0 44.4 55.6 44.1 9.2 2.3

Not important. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,852 100.0 51.1 48.9 40.2 7.0 1.7

– Quantity zero.
 

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.
 

1Includes women of other or multiple race and origin groups and women with missing information on nativity or importance of religion.
 

2Limited to women aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

NOTE: Percentages with 1, 2, or 3 or more husbands may not add to percent ‘‘ever married’’ due to rounding.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).
Page 26 [ Series 23, No. 28

Table 10. Number of men aged 15–44 and percent distribution by formal marital experience and number of wives, according to selected

characteristics: United States, 2002

Number of wives

Number in Never Ever

Characteristic thousands Total married married 1 2 3 or more

Percent distribution

Total1

................................. 61,147 100.0 49.4 50.7 41.9 6.9 2.0

Age

15–19 years ............................ 10,208 100.0 99.3 0.7 0.7 – –

20–24 years ............................ 9,883 100.0 83.2 16.8 16.8 – –

25–44 years ............................ 41,056 100.0 28.8 71.2 58.1 10.2 2.9

25–29 years ........................... 9,226 100.0 50.3 49.8 48.6 1.1 –

30–34 years ........................... 10,137 100.0 29.9 70.1 61.0 8.4 0.8

35–39 years ........................... 10,557 100.0 21.8 78.2 64.1 12.6 1.6

40–44 years ........................... 11,135 100.0 16.6 83.4 57.8 17.2 8.5

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latino ......................... 10,188 100.0 50.3 49.7 44.8 4.2 0.7

Not Hispanic or Latino:

White, single race ....................... 38,739 100.0 46.8 53.2 43.1 7.4 2.7

Black or African American, single race .......... 6,940 100.0 58.3 41.7 33.3 6.9 *

Number of biological children

None ................................. 32,593 100.0 79.7 20.3 18.2 1.9 0.4

1 or more .............................. 28,554 100.0 14.7 85.3 68.9 12.5 3.9

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents............... 50,597 100.0 48.7 51.3 42.4 7.0 1.9

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,551 100.0 52.3 47.7 39.5 6.0 2.2

Education2

No high school diploma or GED ................ 6,355 100.0 36.5 63.5 50.7 9.6 3.3

High school diploma or GED .................. 15,659 100.0 31.1 68.9 52.8 11.2 4.9

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ............. 13,104 100.0 41.3 58.7 48.6 8.9 1.3

Bachelor’s degree or higher................... 11,901 100.0 31.7 68.3 62.4 5.6 *

Percent of poverty level2

0–149% ............................... 9,744 100.0 39.0 61.0 49.2 8.9 2.9

0–99% .............................. 5,790 100.0 44.3 55.7 43.6 8.3 3.9

150–299% ............................. 13,282 100.0 34.0 66.0 53.4 9.9 2.6

300% or higher .......................... 23,992 100.0 33.5 66.5 55.8 8.4 2.3

Importance of religion

Very important ........................... 23,586 100.0 41.6 58.4 47.8 8.3 2.3

Somewhat important ....................... 20,010 100.0 51.2 48.8 39.9 6.8 2.1

Not important. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,466 100.0 57.8 42.2 36.0 5.0 1.2

– Quantity zero.
 

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.
 

1Includes men of other or multiple race and origin groups and men with missing information on nativity or importance of religion.
 

2Limited to men aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

NOTE: Percentages with 1, 2, or 3 or more wives may not add to percent ‘‘ever married’’ due to rounding.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).
Table 11. Number of women aged 15–44 and percent distribution by cohabiting experience and number of cohabiting partners, according to

selected characteristics: United States, 2002

Characteristic

Number in

thousands Total

Never

cohabited

Ever

cohabited

Number of cohabiting partners

1 2 3 or more

Total1

.................................

Age

15–19 years ............................

20–24 years ............................

25–44 years ............................

25–29 years ...........................

30–34 years ...........................

35–39 years ...........................

40–44 years ...........................

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latina .........................

Not Hispanic or Latina:

White, single race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black or African American, single race ...........

Parity

0 births ...............................

1 or more births ..........................

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents...............

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education2

No high school diploma or GED ................

High school diploma or GED ..................

Some college, no bachelor’s degree .............

Bachelor’s degree or higher...................

Percent of poverty level2

0–149% ...............................

0–99% ..............................

150–299% .............................

300% or higher ..........................

Importance of religion

Very important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Somewhat important .......................

Not important. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61,561

9,834

9,840

41,887

9,249

10,272

10,853

11,512

9,107

39,498

8,250

25,622

35,938

49,939

11,622

5,627

14,264

14,279

13,551

13,028

8,183

13,456

21,237

30,556

19,020

11,852

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

50.0

88.3

56.9

39.4

39.1

36.8

38.7

42.6

51.2

49.5

48.9

68.2

37.0

52.5

39.3

30.7

31.5

41.8

53.7

36.9

36.8

41.1

42.9

56.8

46.9

37.2

Percent distribution

50.0

11.7

43.1

60.6

60.9

63.2

61.3

57.4

48.8

50.5

51.1

31.8

63.0

47.5

60.8

69.4

68.5

58.3

46.3

63.1

63.2

58.9

57.1

43.2

53.2

62.8

33.5

8.9

34.9

39.0

42.4

38.1

39.8

36.2

36.3

33.0

35.3

22.5

41.4

32.1

39.5

41.9

42.4

37.7

35.1

38.9

38.2

38.2

39.2

29.9

36.3

38.4

11.3

2.4

6.1

14.7

14.1

17.3

13.8

13.6

8.8

11.7

11.9

6.5

14.8

10.8

13.6

18.6

16.1

15.1

8.4

15.7

15.4

14.0

12.7

8.8

12.0

17.0

5.3

0.5

2.1

7.1

4.5

7.9

7.9

7.8

3.8

5.8

4.1

2.9

7.0

4.7

7.6

9.0

10.2

5.6

2.9

8.5

9.4

6.8

5.3

4.7

5.0

7.2

1Includes women of other or multiple race and origin groups and women with missing information on number of cohabiting partners, nativity, or importance of religion.

2Limited to women aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.

NOTE: Percentages with 1, 2, or 3 or more cohabiting partners may not add to percent ‘‘ever cohabited’’ due to rounding or due to missing information on numbers of cohabiting partners.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).

Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 27
Table 12. Number of men aged 15–44 and percent distribution by cohabiting experience and number of cohabiting partners, according to

selected characteristics: United States, 2002

Characteristic

Number in

thousands Total

Never

cohabited

Ever

cohabited

Number of cohabiting partners

1 2 3 or more

Total1

.................................

Age

15–19 years ............................

20–24 years ............................

25–44 years ............................

25–29 years ...........................

30–34 years ...........................

35–39 years ...........................

40–44 years ...........................

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latino .........................

Not Hispanic or Latino:

White, single race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black or African American, single race ..........

Number of biological children

None .................................

1 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents...............

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education2

No high school diploma or GED ................

High school diploma or GED ..................

Some college, no bachelor’s degree .............

Bachelor’s degree or higher...................

Percent of poverty level2

0–149% ...............................

0–99% ..............................

150–299% .............................

300% or higher ..........................

Importance of religion

Very important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Somewhat important .......................

Not important. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61,147

10,208

9,883

41,056

9,226

10,137

10,557

11,135

10,188

38,738

6,940

32,593

28,554

50,596

10,551

6,355

15,659

13,104

11,901

9,744

5,790

13,282

23,992

23,586

20,010

17,466

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

51.2

94.5

66.1

36.8

41.5

37.7

35.4

33.5

52.8

50.6

47.4

67.4

32.6

52.3

45.6

32.8

33.4

45.0

46.0

39.4

38.6

41.3

39.0

57.6

50.5

43.2

Percent distribution

48.8

5.5

33.9

63.2

58.5

62.3

64.7

66.5

47.3

49.4

52.6

32.6

67.4

47.7

54.4

67.2

66.6

55.0

54.0

60.6

61.4

58.7

61.0

42.4

49.5

56.8

28.0

4.7

24.1

34.7

38.7

36.3

33.6

31.1

31.1

27.8

25.8

19.2

38.0

28.5

25.5

37.2

33.0

30.6

36.9

30.3

28.0

31.8

36.4

24.6

29.8

30.6

11.2

0.5

6.7

15.0

12.4

13.8

14.9

18.3

8.6

12.0

11.8

8.0

14.9

10.5

14.9

12.3

16.2

15.1

11.6

14.1

13.7

12.8

15.1

8.3

10.6

15.8

9.6

0.3

3.0

13.4

7.4

12.1

16.2

17.0

7.4

9.3

14.3

5.3

14.5

8.6

14.1

17.6

17.3

9.3

5.5

16.1

19.5

14.0

9.5

9.4

9.0

10.4

1Includes men of other or multiple race and origin groups and men with missing information on number of cohabiting partners, nativity, or importance of religion.

2Limited to men aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.

NOTE: Percentages with 1, 2, or 3 or more cohabiting partners may not add to percent ‘‘ever cohabited’’ due to rounding or due to missing information on numbers of cohabiting partners.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).

Page 28 [ Series 23, No. 28
Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 29

Table 13. Number of women aged 15–44 and percent distribution by cohabitation status relative to first marriage, according to selected

characteristics: United States, 2002

Cohabitation status relative to first marriage

Number in Never married Cohabitation Marriage Premarital Postmarital

Characteristic thousands Total or cohabited only only cohabitation cohabitation

Percent distribution

Total1

................................. 61,561 100.0 26.7 15.1 23.3 28.1 6.9

Age

15–19 years ............................ 9,834 100.0 86.7 10.9 1.5 0.8 *

20–24 years ............................ 9,840 100.0 44.5 28.2 12.4 14.6 0.3

25–44 years ............................ 41,887 100.0 8.4 13.0 30.9 37.6 10.0

25–29 years ........................... 9,249 100.0 14.9 25.0 24.2 33.6 2.4

30–34 years ........................... 10,272 100.0 8.8 13.6 28.0 44.2 5.4

35–39 years ........................... 10,853 100.0 6.3 10.4 32.4 39.8 11.1

40–44 years ........................... 11,512 100.0 4.9 5.2 37.7 33.0 19.3

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latina ......................... 9,107 100.0 23.3 18.8 27.9 24.7 5.3

Not Hispanic or Latina:

White, single race ....................... 39,498 100.0 25.2 12.0 24.3 30.6 8.0

Black or African American, single race .......... 8,250 100.0 36.6 24.1 12.3 22.2 4.8

Parity

0 births ............................... 25,622 100.0 58.2 17.0 10.0 13.1 1.7

1 or more births .......................... 35,938 100.0 4.2 13.7 32.8 38.8 10.6

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents............... 49,939 100.0 26.5 13.1 26.0 28.0 6.5

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,622 100.0 27.6 23.8 11.7 28.4 8.6

Education2

No high school diploma or GED ................ 5,627 100.0 7.8 24.4 22.9 36.1 8.8

High school diploma or GED .................. 14,264 100.0 7.5 17.5 24.0 37.1 13.9

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ............. 14,279 100.0 11.6 13.3 30.2 36.4 8.6

Bachelor’s degree or higher................... 13,551 100.0 17.8 10.5 35.9 32.1 3.8

Percent of poverty level2

0–149% ............................... 13,028 100.0 12.0 23.4 25.0 31.1 8.5

0–99% .............................. 8,183 100.0 12.7 24.8 24.2 30.5 7.9

150–299% ............................. 13,456 100.0 10.6 14.0 30.5 34.0 11.0

300% or higher .......................... 21,237 100.0 12.1 10.6 30.8 38.8 7.7

Importance of religion

Very important ........................... 30,556 100.0 25.1 11.5 31.7 24.7 7.0

Somewhat important ....................... 19,020 100.0 28.9 15.5 18.0 30.3 7.3

Not important. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,852 100.0 27.4 23.7 9.9 33.1 5.9

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.
 

1Includes women of other or multiple race and origin groups and women with missing information on importance of religion.
 

2Limited to women aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).
Page 30 [ Series 23, No. 28

Table 14. Number of men aged 15–44 and percent distribution by cohabitation status relative to first marriage, according to selected

characteristics: United States, 2002

Cohabitation status relative to first marriage

Number in Never married Cohabitation Marriage Premarital Postmarital

Characteristic thousands Total or cohabited only only cohabitation cohabitation

Total1

................................. 61,147 100.0 32.8 16.5 18.4 28.3 4.0

Age

15–19 years ............................ 10,208 100.0 94.2 5.1 * 0.4 –

20–24 years ............................ 9,883 100.0 55.8 27.5 10.4 6.3 *

25–44 years ............................ 41,056 100.0 12.0 16.7 24.8 40.6 5.9

25–29 years ........................... 9,226 100.0 20.4 29.8 21.1 27.6 1.1

30–34 years ........................... 10,138 100.0 12.4 17.5 25.3 42.4 2.4

35–39 years ........................... 10,557 100.0 9.0 12.8 26.4 46.2 5.6

40–44 years ........................... 11,135 100.0 7.7 8.9 25.9 44.3 13.3

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latino ......................... 10,188 100.0 30.1 20.2 22.7 24.2 2.8

Not Hispanic or Latino:

White, single race ....................... 38,738 100.0 32.2 14.6 18.4 30.1 4.7

Black or African American, single race .......... 6,940 100.0 36.6 21.7 10.8 28.0 3.0

Number of biological children

None ................................. 32,593 100.0 60.3 19.4 7.1 12.3 0.9

1 or more .............................. 28,554 100.0 1.5 13.3 31.2 46.6 7.5

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents............... 50,596 100.0 33.0 15.7 19.3 27.8 4.2

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,551 100.0 31.9 20.4 13.7 30.9 3.1

Education2

No high school diploma or GED ................ 6,355 100.0 11.6 24.9 21.2 36.8 5.6

High school diploma or GED .................. 15,659 100.0 11.7 19.3 21.7 39.0 8.2

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ............. 13,104 100.0 22.1 19.2 23.0 31.3 4.5

Bachelor’s degree or higher................... 11,901 100.0 18.2 13.5 27.8 38.9 1.7

Percent of poverty level2

0–149% ............................... 9,744 100.0 16.3 22.6 23.1 33.6 4.4

0–99% .............................. 5,790 100.0 17.9 26.4 20.8 29.6 5.4

150–299% ............................. 13,282 100.0 15.4 18.7 26.0 33.8 6.3

300% or higher .......................... 23,992 100.0 16.7 16.8 22.3 39.3 4.9

Importance of religion

Very important ........................... 23,586 100.0 28.3 13.3 29.3 25.9 3.2

Somewhat important ....................... 20,010 100.0 36.4 14.8 14.1 29.7 5.0

Not important. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,466 100.0 34.9 22.9 8.3 30.1 3.8

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.
 

– Quantity zero.
 

1Includes men of other or multiple race and origin groups and men with missing information on importance of religion.
 

2Limited to men aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).
Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 31

Table 15. Number of currently married or cohabiting women and men aged 15–44 and percent distribution by selected spouse or partner

characteristics: United States, 2002

Women Men

Number in thousands

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

Age

Spouse or partner is older ...........................

1–3 years older ................................

4–6 years older ................................

7 or more years older ............................

Same age .....................................

Spouse or partner is younger .........................

1–3 years younger ..............................

4–6 years younger ..............................

7 or more years younger ..........................

Race and Hispanic origin

Same........................................

Different . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education

Spouse or partner has more education ...................

Same education .................................

Spouse or partner has less education ....................

Spouse or partner’s employment status

Employed .....................................

Not employed...................................

Spouse or partner was married before

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Spouse or partner has children from previous relationship

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Currently

married

100.0

67.0

35.7

16.5

14.7

12.9

20.2

12.9

5.0

2.3

87.0

13.0

25.3

50.7

24.0

92.1

7.9

20.1

79.9

18.6

81.4

Currently

cohabiting

100.0

69.2

31.8

15.9

21.5

9.1

21.7

13.7

5.0

2.9

81.3

18.7

27.7

45.7

26.6

84.6

15.4

31.7

68.3

32.3

67.7

Currently

married

100.0

26.9

16.7

5.9

4.3

14.0

59.2

34.3

16.3

8.6

87.7

12.4

29.5

49.6

20.8

68.2

31.8

20.8

79.2

21.2

78.8

Currently

cohabiting

100.0

33.4

20.5

5.3

7.7

13.4

53.2

28.0

13.2

12.0

81.8

18.2

29.0

48.1

23.0

66.9

33.1

27.6

72.4

36.3

63.7

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).
Page 32 [ Series 23, No. 28

Table 16. Probability that a first marriage will remain intact (survive) at specified durations, by selected characteristics and with standard

errors, for women aged 15–44: United States, 2002

1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Probability Probability Probability Probability

Characteristic of survival SE of survival SE of survival SE of survival SE

Total1

................................. 0.94 0.004 0.85 0.006 0.78 0.008 0.64 0.015

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latina ......................... 0.95 0.005 0.86 0.008 0.80 0.010 0.68 0.017

Non-Hispanic white, single race ................ 0.95 0.005 0.86 0.008 0.78 0.011 0.64 0.019

Non-Hispanic black or African American, single race.... 0.92 0.012 0.81 0.018 0.73 0.026 0.51 0.025

Education2

No high school diploma or GED ................ 0.92 0.011 0.82 0.015 0.74 0.020 0.63 0.022

High school diploma or GED .................. 0.93 0.008 0.83 0.011 0.73 0.015 0.54 0.031

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ............. 0.94 0.006 0.84 0.011 0.77 0.013 0.62 0.019

Bachelor’s degree or higher................... 0.97 0.004 0.91 0.007 0.86 0.010 0.78 0.015

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents............... 0.95 0.004 0.86 0.006 0.79 0.008 0.67 0.012

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.93 0.008 0.82 0.019 0.72 0.021 0.48 0.045

Age at first marriage

Under 20 years .......................... 0.91 0.008 0.78 0.015 0.68 0.018 0.54 0.022

20–25 years ............................ 0.95 0.005 0.86 0.007 0.79 0.010 0.64 0.021

26 years and over......................... 0.96 0.006 0.92 0.007 0.86 0.009 0.76 0.019

Parity at time of first marriage

0 births ............................... 0.95 0.004 0.87 0.006 0.80 0.009 0.65 0.017

1 or more births .......................... 0.91 0.011 0.77 0.015 0.67 0.016 0.55 0.020

Timing of first birth relative to first marriage

No birth during first marriage .................. 0.85 0.010 0.69 0.013 0.54 0.017 0.34 0.018

Birth before marriage ....................... 0.91 0.011 0.77 0.015 0.67 0.016 0.55 0.020

Birth during marriage ....................... 0.99 0.001 0.94 0.006 0.88 0.009 0.74 0.019

0–7 months after ........................ 0.97 0.006 0.85 0.019 0.72 0.027 0.54 0.033

8 or more months after .................... 1.00 0.001 0.96 0.005 0.92 0.008 0.79 0.021

Ever cohabited before first marriage

Yes .................................. 0.94 0.005 0.84 0.008 0.75 0.009 0.60 0.012

No .................................. 0.95 0.005 0.87 0.008 0.80 0.011 0.66 0.020

Cohabited premaritally with first husband

Yes .................................. 0.94 0.005 0.84 0.009 0.76 0.010 0.61 0.011

No .................................. 0.95 0.005 0.87 0.009 0.79 0.011 0.66 0.019

Engaged to first husband when

premarital cohabitation began

Yes .................................. 0.94 0.005 0.86 0.008 0.79 0.009 0.65 0.013

No .................................. 0.94 0.005 0.80 0.011 0.71 0.014 0.55 0.015

First husband ever married before this marriage

Yes .................................. 0.93 0.012 0.84 0.014 0.73 0.017 0.60 0.022

No .................................. 0.95 0.004 0.86 0.007 0.78 0.009 0.64 0.016

First husband had any children from

previous relationships when they married

Yes .................................. 0.92 0.010 0.76 0.016 0.69 0.016 0.54 0.022

No .................................. 0.95 0.004 0.87 0.006 0.79 0.008 0.65 0.015

First husband’s race and Hispanic origin

Same as wife............................ 0.95 0.004 0.86 0.006 0.79 0.009 0.65 0.015

Different from wife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.90 0.014 0.79 0.017 0.68 0.019 0.54 0.021

1Includes women of other or multiple race and origin groups and women with missing information on other characteristics shown.
 

2Limited to women aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

NOTE: SE is standard error.
 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).
 
Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 33

Table 17. Probability that a first marriage will remain intact (survive) at specified durations, by selected characteristics and with standard

errors, for men aged 15–44: United States, 2002

1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years

Probability Probability Probability Probability

Characteristic of survival SE of survival SE of survival SE of survival SE

Total1

................................. 0.94 0.006 0.84 0.008 0.78 0.008 0.66 0.009

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latino ......................... 0.95 0.008 0.87 0.009 0.82 0.011 0.75 0.014

Non-Hispanic white, single race ................ 0.94 0.007 0.84 0.013 0.77 0.012 0.64 0.012

Non-Hispanic black or African American, single race.... 0.94 0.011 0.82 0.024 0.74 0.022 0.51 0.036

Education2

No high school diploma or GED ................ 0.90 0.009 0.79 0.013 0.71 0.021 0.61 0.024

High school diploma or GED .................. 0.94 0.012 0.81 0.016 0.74 0.015 0.56 0.021

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ............. 0.94 0.007 0.83 0.021 0.78 0.021 0.64 0.026

Bachelor’s degree or higher................... 0.97 0.013 0.92 0.015 0.88 0.016 0.81 0.017

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents............... 0.94 0.006 0.85 0.010 0.79 0.009 0.66 0.011

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.93 0.019 0.81 0.029 0.73 0.030 0.63 0.030

Age at first marriage

Under 20 years .......................... 0.84 0.028 0.64 0.031 0.55 0.029 0.47 0.029

20–25 years ............................ 0.94 0.007 0.84 0.012 0.78 0.012 0.65 0.015

26 years and over......................... 0.97 0.008 0.91 0.009 0.87 0.011 0.73 0.015

Number of biological children at time of first marriage

None ................................. 0.95 0.007 0.84 0.009 0.78 0.009 0.65 0.010

1 or more .............................. 0.91 0.017 0.83 0.020 0.81 0.021 0.65 0.028

Timing of first child’s birth to first marriage

No birth during first marriage .................. 0.87 0.015 0.64 0.021 0.52 0.020 0.37 0.023

Birth before marriage ....................... 0.91 0.017 0.83 0.020 0.81 0.021 0.65 0.028

Birth during marriage ....................... 0.98 0.006 0.92 0.010 0.87 0.011 0.74 0.013

0–7 months after ........................ 0.91 0.026 0.77 0.048 0.69 0.047 * *

8 or more months after .................... 1.00 0.000 0.96 0.008 0.91 0.009 0.79 0.012

Ever cohabited before first marriage

Yes .................................. 0.94 0.008 0.84 0.013 0.77 0.013 0.62 0.015

No .................................. 0.94 0.008 0.84 0.015 0.78 0.016 0.69 0.017

Cohabited premaritally with first wife

Yes .................................. 0.95 0.008 0.85 0.015 0.78 0.016 0.63 0.017

No .................................. 0.95 0.008 0.85 0.016 0.79 0.017 0.69 0.018

Engaged to first wife when premarital

cohabitation began

Yes .................................. 0.96 0.004 0.90 0.006 0.82 0.010 0.71 0.015

No .................................. 0.94 0.014 0.78 0.021 0.72 0.020 0.53 0.017

First wife ever married before

this marriage

Yes .................................. 0.96 0.009 0.84 0.028 0.74 0.030 * *

No .................................. 0.94 0.007 0.85 0.012 0.80 0.012 0.69 0.014

First wife had any children from previous

relationships when they married

Yes .................................. 0.93 0.020 0.79 0.028 0.71 0.028 * *

No .................................. 0.95 0.006 0.86 0.012 0.80 0.012 0.70 0.014

First wife’s race and Hispanic origin

Same as husband......................... 0.95 0.006 0.85 0.011 0.80 0.011 0.68 0.014

Different from husband ...................... 0.94 0.022 0.83 0.032 0.73 0.035 0.59 0.046

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.
 

1Includes men of other or multiple race and origin groups and men with missing information on other characteristics shown.
 

2Limited to men aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

NOTE: SE is standard error.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).
Page 34 [ Series 23, No. 28

Table 18. Probability that a first cohabitation will remain intact (survive without marriage or disruption) for 1, 3, and 5 years, by selected

characteristics and with standard errors, for women aged 15–44: United States, 2002

1 year 3 years 5 years

Probability Probability Probability

Characteristic of survival SE of survival SE of survival SE

Total1 ................................... 0.65 0.007 0.31 0.009 0.16 0.007

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latina ........................... 0.71 0.009 0.44 0.013 0.30 0.012

Non-Hispanic white, single race................... 0.61 0.010 0.26 0.011 0.12 0.009

Non-Hispanic black or African American, single race ...... 0.75 0.013 0.46 0.019 0.26 0.020

Education2

No high school diploma or GED................... 0.68 0.015 0.43 0.016 0.28 0.014

High school diploma or GED..................... 0.67 0.015 0.32 0.015 0.16 0.012

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ................ 0.64 0.014 0.31 0.015 0.16 0.012

Bachelor’s degree or higher ..................... 0.61 0.015 0.21 0.017 0.09 0.013

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents ................. 0.63 0.007 0.29 0.010 0.16 0.008

Other ................................... 0.72 0.018 0.37 0.020 0.20 0.013

Age at first cohabitation

Under 20 years ............................. 0.65 0.013 0.32 0.012 0.17 0.009

20–25 years ............................... 0.65 0.011 0.30 0.013 0.14 0.009

26 years and over ........................... 0.64 0.022 0.32 0.024 0.20 0.024

Timing of cohabitation relative to first marriage

Before first marriage.......................... 0.65 0.007 0.30 0.008 0.16 0.006

After first marriage ........................... 0.68 0.025 0.36 0.038 0.20 0.030

Parity at time of first cohabitation

0 births .................................. 0.64 0.008 0.28 0.008 0.14 0.006

1 or more births ............................ 0.69 0.017 0.40 0.026 0.23 0.021

Timing of first birth relative to first cohabitation

Never had a birth or first birth occurred after

cohabitation .............................. 0.57 0.009 0.20 0.009 0.08 0.006

Birth before cohabitation ....................... 0.69 0.017 0.40 0.026 0.23 0.021

Birth during cohabitation ....................... 0.91 0.015 0.62 0.016 0.39 0.016

1Includes women of other or multiple race and origin groups and women with missing information on other characteristics shown.
 

2Limited to women aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

NOTE: SE is standard error.
 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).
 
Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 35

Table 19. Probability that a first cohabitation will remain intact (survive without marriage or dissolution) for 1, 3, and 5 years, by selected

characteristics and with standard errors, for men aged 15–44: United States, 2002

1 year 3 years 5 years

Probability Probability Probability

Characteristic of survival SE of survival SE of survival SE

Total1 ................................... 0.56 0.012 0.24 0.008 0.13 0.009

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latino ........................... 0.68 0.016 0.41 0.017 0.27 0.017

Non-Hispanic white, single race................... 0.53 0.015 0.19 0.010 0.08 0.008

Non-Hispanic black or African American, single race ...... 0.57 0.022 0.29 0.019 0.18 0.019

Education2

No high school diploma or GED................... 0.60 0.019 0.38 0.020 0.27 0.019

High school diploma or GED..................... 0.58 0.021 0.29 0.020 0.15 0.019

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ................ 0.55 0.026 0.19 0.016 * *

Bachelor’s degree or higher ..................... 0.50 0.021 0.13 0.014 * *

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents ................. 0.55 0.013 0.24 0.010 0.12 0.009

Other ................................... 0.57 0.024 0.25 0.018 0.16 0.015

Age at first cohabitation

Under 20 years ............................. 0.58 0.020 0.27 0.013 0.16 0.014

20–25 years ............................... 0.55 0.019 0.24 0.015 0.12 0.011

26 years and over ........................... 0.53 0.027 0.19 0.022 * *

Number of biological children at time of first cohabitation

None ................................... 0.56 0.013 0.24 0.009 0.12 0.009

1 or more ................................ 0.53 0.030 0.30 0.029 * *

Timing of first birth relative to first cohabitation

Never had a birth or first birth occurred after

cohabitation .............................. 0.50 0.013 0.16 0.008 0.06 0.005

Birth before cohabitation ....................... 0.53 0.030 0.30 0.029 * *

Birth during cohabitation ....................... 0.94 0.009 0.68 0.024 0.47 0.034

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.
 

1Includes men of other or multiple race and origin groups and men with missing information on other characteristics shown.
 

2Limited to men aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

NOTE: SE is standard error.
 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).
 
Table 20. Probability that a first cohabitation will transition to marriage in 1, 3, and 5 years, by selected characteristics, for women aged

15–44: United States, 2002

1 year 3 years 5 years

Characteristic Probability SE Probability SE Probability SE

Total1 ...................................

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latina ...........................

Non-Hispanic white, single race...................

Non-Hispanic black or African American, single race ......

Education2

No high school diploma or GED...................

High school diploma or GED.....................

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ................

Bachelor’s degree or higher .....................

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents .................

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age at first cohabitation

Under 20 years .............................

20–25 years ...............................

26 years and over ...........................

Timing of cohabitation relative to first marriage

Before first marriage..........................

After first marriage ...........................

Parity at time of first cohabitation

0 births ..................................

1 or more births ............................

Timing of first birth relative to first cohabitation

Never had a birth or first birth occurred after

cohabitation ..............................

Birth before cohabitation .......................

Birth during cohabitation .......................

0.24

0.21

0.27

0.14

0.20

0.22

0.25

0.28

0.26

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.29

0.23

0.25

0.24

0.21

0.29

0.21

0.06

0.006

0.010

0.009

0.011

0.013

0.013

0.013

0.013

0.007

0.014

0.011

0.011

0.020

0.006

0.024

0.007

0.016

0.009

0.016

0.012

0.51

0.41

0.59

0.31

0.37

0.50

0.51

0.64

0.54

0.42

0.43

0.55

0.58

0.51

0.54

0.53

0.46

0.62

0.46

0.23

0.011

0.016

0.015

0.019

0.016

0.022

0.017

0.021

0.010

0.032

0.013

0.016

0.034

0.009

0.050

0.009

0.034

0.012

0.034

0.015

0.65

0.53

0.73

0.46

0.49

0.64

0.67

0.79

0.68

0.56

0.58

0.71

0.66

0.65

0.68

0.68

0.59

0.77

0.59

0.39

0.010

0.017

0.013

0.026

0.021

0.021

0.018

0.020

0.010

0.029

0.015

0.013

0.031

0.009

0.045

0.010

0.032

0.010

0.032

0.019

1Includes women of other or multiple race and origin groups and women with missing information on other characteristics shown.

2Limited to women aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.

NOTE: SE is standard error.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).

Page 36 [ Series 23, No. 28
Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 37

Table 21. Probability that a first cohabitation will transition to marriage in 1, 3, and 5 years, by selected characteristics, for men aged 15–44:

United States, 2002

1 year 3 years 5 years

Characteristic Probability SE Probability SE Probability SE

Total1 ................................... 0.25 0.012 0.51 0.014 0.65 0.016

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latino ........................... 0.20 0.011 0.38 0.017 0.50 0.022

Non-Hispanic white, single race................... 0.28 0.016 0.59 0.020 0.73 0.022

Non-Hispanic black or African American, single race ...... 0.14 0.024 0.38 0.042 0.52 0.044

Education2

No high school diploma or GED................... 0.20 0.019 0.34 0.029 0.48 0.031

High school diploma or GED..................... 0.23 0.023 0.50 0.031 0.63 0.033

Some college, no bachelor’s degree ................ 0.21 0.030 0.56 0.030 * *

Bachelor’s degree or higher ..................... 0.34 0.024 0.68 0.028 * *

Parental living arrangements at age 14

Two biological or adoptive parents ................. 0.26 0.014 0.53 0.017 0.66 0.019

Other ................................... 0.18 0.025 0.42 0.038 0.57 0.032

Age at first cohabitation

Under 20 years ............................. 0.20 0.023 0.43 0.031 0.53 0.028

20–25 years ............................... 0.25 0.018 0.52 0.023 0.68 0.024

26 years and over ........................... 0.33 0.030 0.67 0.031 * *

Number of biological children at time of first cohabitation

None ................................... 0.24 0.012 0.51 0.015 0.66 0.017

1 or more ................................ 0.31 0.044 0.50 0.041 * *

Timing of first birth relative to first cohabitation

Never had a birth or first birth occurred after

cohabitation .............................. 0.28 0.014 0.58 0.016 0.73 0.016

Birth before cohabitation ....................... 0.31 0.044 0.50 0.041 * *

Birth during cohabitation ....................... 0.05 0.009 0.26 0.029 0.40 0.032

* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision.
 

1Includes men of other or multiple race and origin groups and men with missing information on other characteristics shown.
 

2Limited to men aged 22–44 at time of interview. GED is General Educational Development high school equivalency diploma.
 

NOTE: SE is standard error.

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (2002).
Page 38 [ Series 23, No. 28

Appendix I
 

Technical Notes

Sample design and fieldwork

procedures

Cycle 6 of the National Survey of

Family Growth (NSFG) was based on

12,571 interviews with persons aged

15–44 (4,928 men and 7,643 women) in

the household population of the United

States. More than 250 female

interviewers were hired and trained by

the survey contractor, the University of

Michigan’s Institute for Social Research,

under the supervision of NCHS.

Interviewing occurred from March 2002

until the end of February 2003. The

interviews were administered in person

in the selected participants’ homes. The

2002 sample is a nationally

representative multistage area

probability sample drawn from 121

areas across the country. The sample is

designed to produce national, not state,

estimates.

Participants were selected for NSFG

in five major steps:

1.	 Large areas (counties and cities)

were chosen at random.

2.	 Within each large area or Primary

Sampling Unit, groups of adjacent

blocks called segments were chosen

at random.

3.	 Within segments, addresses were

listed, and some addresses were

selected at random.

4.	 The selected addresses were visited

in person, and a short ‘‘screener’’

interview was conducted to see if

anyone aged 15–44 lived there.

5.	 If one or more qualified participants

resided at the address, one person

was chosen at random for the

interview and was offered a chance

to participate.

To protect the respondent’s privacy, only

one person was interviewed in each

selected household. In the 2002 survey,

teenagers and black and Hispanic adults

were sampled at higher rates than

others.

The NSFG questionnaires and

materials were reviewed and approved

by the CDC/NCHS Research Ethics

Review Board (formerly known as an

institutional review board, or IRB) and

by a similar board at the University of

Michigan. All procedures for the survey

were reviewed and approved by the

Office of Management and Budget. The

female interview lasted an average of 85

minutes, and the male interview lasted

an average of about 60 minutes.

All respondents were given written

and oral information about the survey

and were informed that participation

was voluntary. Adult respondents aged

18–44 were asked to sign a consent

form but were not required to do so. For

minors aged 15–17, signed consent was

required first from a parent or guardian,

and then signed assent was required

from the minor in order for the

interview to be conducted. Respondents

in the 2002 survey were offered $40 as

a token of appreciation for their

participation. The overall response rate

for the survey was about 79%–80% for

women and 78% for men.

More detailed information about the

methods and procedures of the 2002

NSFG, including imputation of recodes

and variance estimation, is available in

previous reports (34,35).

Statistical analysis

Statistics for this report were

produced using SAS software, version

9.1 (http://www.sas.com). Standard

errors were calculated, and tests of

significance performed, for selected

comparisons. Standard errors were

calculated using the SUDAAN statistical

package (http://www.rti.org/sudaan)

because it takes into account the effects

of complex sample designs. The

significance of differences between

subgroups was determined by two-tailed

t-tests at the 5% level. No adjustments

were made for multiple comparisons.

Terms such as ‘‘greater than’’ and ‘‘less

than’’ indicate that a statistically

significant difference was found. Terms

such as ‘‘similar’’ or ‘‘no difference’’

indicate that the statistics being

compared were not significantly

different. Lack of comment regarding

the difference between any two statistics

does not mean that significance was

tested and ruled out.

Routing errors with marriage

dissolution information

An error in the interview

specifications for the 2002 NSFG

resulted in a significant number of

female respondents whose first marriage

had ended being mistakenly skipped

past questions on how and when their

marriage ended. This routing error

differentially affected females who

reported that their husbands had children

from previous relationships. As a result

of this routing error, 509 women—

roughly one-third of women whose first

marriage had ended—had to have values

imputed using multiple regression

procedures for the century month when

their first marriage ended (recode

MARDIS01). Thus, the duration of first

marriages used in the life table analysis

for estimating the probability that a first

marriage remains intact is calculated

using these imputed values of the recode

MARDIS01, along with the majority of

values that were directly reported.

Analyses were done to examine

whether the estimates of marriage

duration produced using the more

frequently imputed data from female

respondents in the 2002 NSFG data

were comparable with estimates

produced from female respondents in

the 1995 NSFG for marriages beginning

in the same years. Comparable marriage

dates from the 1995 and 2002 surveys

were used to produce estimates of

marriages that began during the same

time period—specifically, July 1972 to

September 1995.

Results of these analyses (Table I)

indicate that the estimates of marital

duration are comparable and that the

large number of imputations in the

2002 data did not result in an over- or

underestimation of the probabilities

that women’s marriages would remain

intact for a specified amount of time.

The imputed marriage dissolution

dates for women in Cycle 6 NSFG

have also been used in analyses by

other researchers who have concluded

that the imputed estimates did not lead

to biases in the estimates (41,42).
Table I. Probability that a first marriage (occurring between July 1972 and September 1995) will

remain intact, by duration of marriage, for women aged 15–44: United States, 1995 and 2002

1995 2002

Duration Probability SE Probability SE

1 year .................... 0.9534 0.0031 0.9435 0.0044

3 years ................... 0.8529 0.0054 0.8477 0.0075

5 years ................... 0.7799 0.0064 0.7689 0.0091

NOTE: SE is standard error.
 

SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 5 (1995) and Cycle 6 (2002).
 

Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 39

Life table methodology and

sample sizes

In studying union formation and

dissolution (such as in marriages or

cohabitations), the life table summarizes

the union histories of a given cohort (in

the case of the Cycle 6 NSFG, the

cohorts are the unions of men and

women aged 15–44 in 2002). As the

duration of marriages and cohabitations

grows, these unions are subjected to the

dissolution rates specific to unions that

have remained intact for that amount of

time (e.g., those married for 6 years, 7

years, 8 years, etc.). At each interval,

the duration-specific dissolution rate for

that interval is used to calculate how

many unions of the cohort fail (i.e.,

disrupt) during that interval. The number

of unions that dissolve is subtracted

from the count of unions in the cohort,

and the result is the number of cohort

unions that survive (i.e., remain intact)

to go on to the next interval.

Because NSFG is limited to women

and men aged 15–44, the lifetime

marriage and cohabitation histories are

incomplete. For respondents whose

union has not ended as of the date of

interview, the potential end date of the

union is unknown, and it is not known

how long the union will last; the

duration of such unions is referred to in

statistical literature as censored. Life

table analysis can handle censored cases

by keeping such cases in the analysis as

long as they are at risk of experiencing

the event and then dropping them out

once the risk is unknown (4,43). For

example, when calculating the

proportion of marriages that disrupt in

each duration interval, a marriage that

has existed for 24 months and remains

intact at interview would remain in the

denominator for each duration interval

until 24 months of duration is reached;

after that, the case would no longer be

used in the calculations.

Survival estimates in this report

predict the probability that a union will

experience an event at a given time.

Three events are studied: first marriage

disruption, first cohabitation disruption,

and transition to marriage from a first

cohabitation. The life table analyses in

this report take a life cycle approach to

estimate the probabilities for women and

men that

+	 A first marriage will remain intact.

+	 A first cohabitation will remain intact.

+	 A first cohabitation will transition to

marriage.

For the probability that a first

marriage will remain intact, the duration

is measured from the start of the

marriage until separation or divorce.

Marriages that end in widowhood or are

still intact at the time of interview are

censored because (a) the time that the

marriage would have endured is

unknown because the spouse died or

(b) the interview occurred before the

first marriage ended.

This report based on 2002 NSFG

data uses a different measure of

cohabitation duration for analyses

assessing the probability that a first

cohabitation will remain intact than the

previous 1995 NSFG marriage

report (4). Instead of calculating

cohabitation duration from the start of

cohabitation until the cohabitation

disrupted (or, if married, until the

marriage disrupted), cohabitation

duration is simply measured from the

start of cohabitation to the end of

cohabitation (whether it ended through

disruption or marriage). Cohabitations

ending in the death of the partner are

still considered intact at interview and

are censored, although this was

extremely rare in the NSFG sample. By

measuring cohabitation duration in this

way, it is possible to distinguish those

whose cohabitations are of long duration

and might be an alternative to marriage

from those who have a short

cohabitation and then marry. For the

transition from first cohabitation to

marriage, duration is measured from the

start of the cohabitation to the start of

marriage. Cohabitations that end through

disruption or the death of the partner, or

cohabitations that are still intact at the

time of interview, are all censored.

Females

Estimates of the probability that a

first marriage would remain intact were

based on a sample of 4,126 women who

had ever married. Estimates of the

probability that a first cohabitation will

remain intact without disrupting or

transitioning to marriage were based on

a sample of 3,904 women who had ever

cohabited. Estimates of the probability

that a first cohabitation would transition

to marriage were also based on 3,904

women who had ever cohabited. Sample

sizes for each of these independent

variables, by race and ethnicity, are

presented in Table II.

Table II. NSFG sample sizes by race and Hispanic origin, for females: United States, 2002

Non- Non- NonHispanic Hispanic Hispanic

Sample Total Hispanic white black other

All women ........................ 7,643 1,589 4,038 1,471 545

First marriages ..................... 4,126 891 2,389 557 289

First cohabitations ................... 3,904 815 2,058 783 248

First marriages that ended in: 1,550 299 878 266 107

Separation ....................... 260 89 85 65 21

Divorce ......................... 1,232 189 771 191 81

Death .......................... 58 21 22 10 5

NOTE: NSFG is National Survey of Family Growth.
Page 40 [ Series 23, No. 28

Table III. NSFG sample sizes by race and Hispanic origin, for males: United States, 2002
 

Non- Non- NonHispanic Hispanic Hispanic

Sample Total Hispanic white black other

All men .......................... 
 

First marriages .....................

First cohabitations ...................

First marriages that ended in:

Separation ....................... 
 

Divorce ......................... 
 

Death .......................... 
 

4,928

1,754 
 

2,115 
 

703
 

109 
 

582 
 

12 
 

1,123

460 
 

499 
 

135
 

32 
 

103 
 

0 
 

2,526 884 395 
 

892 282 120 
 

1,035 437 144 
 

384 138 46
 

45 28 4 
 

333 105 41 
 

6 5 1 
 

NOTE: NSFG is National Survey of Family Growth.

Males

The sample sizes for the

independent variables, by race and

ethnicity, for males are presented in

Table III. The samples sizes used in

estimating the probability that a first

marriage would remain intact were

based on a sample of 1,754 men who

had ever been married. Estimates that a

first cohabitation would remain intact

without disruption or transitioning to

marriage, and estimates that a first

cohabitation would transition to

marriage, were based on a sample of

2,115 men who had ever cohabited.
Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 41

Appendix II
 

Definitions of Terms

ACASI—Audio computer-assisted

self-interviewing (ACASI) is a data

collection mode in which the respondent

reads the question and response

categories on a computer screen (or

hears them through headphones) and

then enters his or her response directly

into the computer, providing greater

privacy for the respondent.

Age—Age (recode = AGER) was

classified based on the respondent’s age

at the time of interview. Sampled

persons were eligible for the Cycle 6

NSFG if they were aged 15–44 at the

time of the household screener visit.

With the exception of a few respondents

who may have turned 45 by the time of

interview, all were still 15–44 at

interview.

Censored—A case is termed censored if

it is removed from the risk of an event

before that event has occurred. For a

marriage that is intact at interview, the

eventual date of marital disruption is

unknown, and it is therefore referred to

as ‘‘censored by interview.’’ For a

marriage that ended in widowhood, the

eventual (possible) date of marital

disruption had the spouse survived is

unknown and it is referred to as

‘‘censored by widowhood.’’ For further

explanation, see Appendix I.

Century months—In the NSFG

interview, dates of events were recorded

as month and year (with the exception

of the respondent’s date of birth, which

also recorded the day). In the data file,

month and year for most dates reported

in the interview were converted to

‘‘century months’’ by subtracting 1900

from the year, then multiplying the

remainder by 12 and adding the number

of the month, where January = 1,

February = 2, and so on. For example,

the century month code for March 1970

is (70 × 12) + 3 = 843, and the century

month code for January 2002 is

(102 × 12) + 1 = 1225.

Children fathered—The computed

variable BIOKIDS indicates the number

of biological children the male

respondent had fathered as of the date

he was interviewed. A man classified as

‘‘BIOKIDS = 0’’ had not reported

fathering any children; a man with

‘‘BIOKIDS ≥ 1’’ had fathered at least

one child at the time of interview.

Cohabitation experiences—To reflect the

cohabitation experience of respondents,

variables were created that assessed

whether respondents had ever cohabited,

whether they had a premarital cohabitation

with their first spouse, and whether they

were engaged at the premarital

cohabitation with their first spouse.

+	 Ever cohabited—Recode

COHEVER was used to determine

whether the respondent had ever

cohabited. (See Ever cohabited for

more details.)

+	 Premarital cohabitation with first

spouse—Married respondents were

asked, ‘‘Some couples live together

without being married. By living

together, we mean having a sexual

relationship while sharing the same

usual address. Did you and your

[husband/wife] live together before

you got married?’’ Respondents who

indicated that they had lived

together before their marriage were

classified as having a premarital

cohabitation with their first spouse.

+	 Engaged at cohabitation—

Respondents who indicated that they

had had a premarital cohabitation

with their first spouse were asked,

‘‘At the time you first [started/

began] living together with [your

husband/your wife], were you and

[he/she] engaged to be married or

did you have definite plans to get

married?’’ Respondents who

answered ‘‘yes’’ were classified as

being engaged at cohabitation.

Those respondents who indicated

that they had a premarital

cohabitation but were not engaged at

cohabitation were classified as not

being engaged at cohabitation. The

‘‘engaged at cohabitation’’ question

was only applicable to those who

had had a premarital cohabitation

with their first spouse.

Cohabitation status relative to

marriage—The recode COHSTAT

distinguishes three groups: ‘‘never

cohabited outside of marriage,’’ ‘‘ever

cohabited before first marriage’’

(premarital cohabitation), and ‘‘first

cohabited after first marriage ended’’

(postmarital cohabitation). This report

further distinguishes those who have

never married or cohabited (recode =

EVMARCOH) from those who have

only cohabited but never married and

those who have only married and never

cohabited.

Education: Highest grade or

degree—The recode HIEDUC is based

on a series of questions that measure the

highest degree received, as well as the

grade or year of school completed at the

time of interview. The education

categories were defined as follows:

+	 No high school diploma or

GED—The respondent had not

received a high school degree,

General Educational Development

high school equivalency diploma

(GED), or college diploma.

+	 High school diploma or GED—The

highest degree the respondent had

obtained was a high school diploma

or GED, and the respondent’s

highest completed grade of school

was 12 or lower.

+	 Some college, no bachelor’s

degree—The highest degree the

respondent obtained was a high

school diploma or GED, but the

highest grade of school completed

was higher than 12, or the highest

degree was an associate’s degree.

+	 Bachelor’s degree or higher—The

respondent reported having a college

or university degree at the

bachelor’s level or higher, regardless

of the highest grade completed.

In some instances, the ‘‘Some college,

no bachelor’s degree’’ and ‘‘Bachelor’s

degree or higher’’ categories were

collapsed to ‘‘More than high school

diploma or GED’’ because of sample

sizes.

The tables in this report show data

by education only for respondents aged

22–44 at interview because larger

percentages of respondents aged 15–21

are still attending school. Using the full
Page 42 [ Series 23, No. 28

age range of 15–44 would potentially

underestimate the percentage of women

with a college degree.

Ever married—The computed variable

EVRMARRY indicates whether the

respondent has ever been married.

It is based on two directly asked

questions: AB-1 MARSTAT and AB-2

FMARSTAT. MARSTAT determines the

respondent’s marital or cohabiting

status, including a category for ‘‘never

been married.’’ For those who report on

MARSTAT that they are currently

cohabiting, FMARSTAT is a follow-up

question asked to determine their formal

marital status. Those who report ‘‘never

been married’’ on either MARSTAT or

FMARSTAT are coded ‘‘no’’ on

EVRMARRY; all others are considered

to have ever been legally married.

Ever cohabited—The recode

COHEVER was used to indicate

whether the respondent has ever

cohabited outside of marriage. This

recode was based on interview questions

that asked about all cohabitations,

including premarital and postmarital

cohabitations.

First cohabitation duration—

Cohabitation duration was calculated as

the number of months from the

beginning of cohabitation to the date

that the cohabitating relationship ended

(either through disruption or marriage).

If the cohabitation had not disrupted or

transitioned to marriage by the date of

the interview (censored cases),

cohabitation duration was calculated as

the number of months from the

beginning of cohabitation to the date of

interview.

First marriage duration—The duration

of first marriage was calculated as the

number of months between the

beginning of first marriage and the date

of separation or divorce. If the first

marriage had not dissolved by

separation or divorce by the date of the

interview (censored cases), the duration

of first marriage was calculated as the

number of months between the

beginning of first marriage and the date

of interview.

Hispanic origin and race—Hispanic

origin and race are based on recode

HISPRACE and raw variable

NUMRACE. HISPRACE classifies

respondents as Hispanic, non-Hispanic

white, non-Hispanic black, or

non-Hispanic other race, based on two

other recoded variables, HISPANIC and

RACE. All respondents who answered

‘‘yes’’ to the following question were

coded as Hispanic: ‘‘Are you Hispanic

or [Latino/Latina], or of Spanish

origin?’’

The RACE recode was based on

responses to the following question:

‘‘Which of the groups (below) describe

your racial background? Please select

one or more groups.’’

The race groups offered were as

follows:

+	 American Indian or Alaska Native.

+	 Asian.

+	 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander.

+	 Black or African American.

+	 White.

After reporting their Hispanic

origin, respondents could report as many

races as might apply. The Office of

Management and Budget guidelines on

the classification of race require

statistical reports to separate those who

reported only one race from those who

reported more than one race. Large data

sets such as the U.S. Census, the

National Vital Statistics System, and

other very large surveys can produce

reliable statistics on multiple-race

respondents. Unfortunately, the 2002

NSFG sample size of 7,643 female

respondents and 4,928 male respondents

cannot produce reliable statistics for

very small subgroups, such as

multiple-race respondents. However, to

establish a baseline for future reports

that use the new racial classification,

data using this classification are shown

in this report. Respondents who reported

only one race were classified based on

the HISPRACE recode described above.

All non-Hispanic respondents who

reported more than one race are

included in the totals but cannot be

shown separately due to sample size.

The following categories are shown in

this report:

+	 Hispanic or Latina/Latino.

+	 Not Hispanic or Latina/Latino:

– White, single race.

– Black or African American, single

race.

– Other.

Because of their limited sample

size, American Indian or Alaska Native,

Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other

Pacific Islander respondents also were

not shown as separate categories in this

report. These groups are included in the

totals of all tables. They are included in

the Hispanic category if they reported

being of Hispanic origin as well, and

they are included in ‘‘non-Hispanic,

other races’’ if they did not report being

of Hispanic origin.

Importance of religion—This indicator

was based on the raw variable

RELDLIFE, which contained responses

to the question, ‘‘Currently, how

important is religion in your daily life?

Would you say it is very important,

somewhat important, or not important?’’

Possible responses to this question were

as follows:

+	 Very important.

+	 Somewhat important.

+	 Not important.

This question was asked only of

respondents who had reported a current

religious affiliation (as indicated by the

raw variable RELNOW). Respondents

who did not report a current religious

affiliation were classified in the ‘‘not

important’’ category. Respondents who

responded ‘‘don’t know’’ or ‘‘refused’’

were excluded.

Life table—A statistical methodology

that estimates probabilities of an event

(e.g., death) at each duration of

exposure (or time interval). Life tables

were adapted for marital and

cohabitation stability analysis to

estimate probabilities that an individual

relationship will ‘‘survive’’ or not

experience a dissolution event given that

the relationship has remained intact a

certain amount of time (e.g., 5 years or

10 years). For further definition of life

table, see the Methods section.
Series 23, No. 28 [ Page 43

Marital or cohabiting status at

interview—The recode RMARITAL

variable, sometimes referred to as

‘‘informal marital status,’’ is based on

the following question in the interview:

‘‘Now I’d like to ask about your marital

status. Please look at Card 1. What is

your current marital status?’’ Possible

responses to this question were

+	 Married.

+	 Not married but living together with

a partner of the opposite sex.

+	 Widowed.

+	 Divorced.

+	 Separated because you and your

spouse are not getting along.

+	 Never been married.

Those who responded ‘‘not married but

living together with a partner of the

opposite sex’’ are shown in this report

as ‘‘currently cohabiting.’’ Those

respondents who were either currently

‘‘married’’ or ‘‘living together with a

partner of the opposite sex’’ were

classified as being in a ‘‘union.’’ In

some instances, those who were

widowed, divorced, or separated are

grouped as ‘‘formerly or previously

married.’’

Nativity—The raw variable BRNOUT

was used to determine nativity or

whether the respondent was born outside

of the United States. Respondents were

asked, ‘‘Were you born outside the

United States?’’ ‘‘The United States’’

was defined as including the 50 states,

Washington, D.C., and U.S. possessions

and territories such as Puerto Rico,

Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Number of spouses/cohabiting

partners—The recode FMARNO, which

measures the number of times a

respondent has been married (including

the current marriage), was used to

determine the number of spouses

respondents had had thus far in their

lives. The number of cohabiting partners

a respondent had by the time of

interview was determined by summing

the number of premarital cohabitations,

the number of cohabitations that did not

lead to marriage (nonmarital

cohabitations), and, if applicable, the

current cohabitation.

Parental living arrangements at age

14—The recode PARAGE14 indicates

the presence and relationship to the

respondent of male and female parents

or parental figures living in the

respondent’s household when the

respondent was age 14. The recode is

based on two separate questions asking

about the male and female parent or

parent figure with whom the respondent

lived when he or she was age 14. For

this report, the categories of the recode

PARAGE14 were combined as (a) both

biological parents or adoptive parents or

a biological parent and an adoptive

parent or stepparent and (b) other

parental situation or a nonparental

situation.

Parity—The PARITY recode indicates

the number of live-born children the

woman has ever had. For example, a

woman classified as ‘‘PARITY = 0’’ has

never had a live birth; ‘‘PARITY = 1’’

means she has had one live birth.

Multiple births (e.g., twins) are counted

as separate births, although they

represent a single pregnancy.

Poverty level at interview—Recode

POVERTY indicates the poverty level at

the time of interview. The poverty index

ratio (or percentage of poverty level, as

it is labeled in the tables) was calculated

by dividing the total family income by

the weighted average threshold income

of families whose head of household

was under age 65, based on the 2001

poverty levels defined by the U.S.

Census Bureau (44). This definition of

poverty status takes into account the

number of persons in the family. Total

family income includes income from all

sources for all members of the

respondent’s family.

For example, for a family of four in

2001, the Census Bureau poverty level

was $18,104. Thus, if the respondent’s

family had an income of $40,000, its

poverty level would be ($40,000/18,104)

× 100, or 220%, and the respondent

would be classified in the category

‘‘150%–299%.’’ That is, their household

income is 150%–299% of the poverty

level for a family of their size.

The tables in this report show data

by percent of poverty level for

respondents aged 22–44 at interview

because reports of income by younger

respondents are likely to be less

accurate. One reason is that younger

respondents are more likely to be trying

to report the income of their parent(s)

and less likely to be contributors to

family income themselves. For 1,044 of

the 12,571 respondents (8.3%), total

family income at the date of interview

in NSFG Cycle 6 was not ascertained

and was imputed.

Spouse or cohabiting partner’s

characteristics—Respondents provided

information pertaining to the

characteristics of their first and/or

current spouse or partner. Demographic

characteristics such as date of birth, race

and Hispanic origin, education, whether

they had been married previously, and

whether they had children from previous

relationships were collected.

Spouse or cohabiting partner’s

age—Current spouse and partner ages

were constructed using information

provided by respondents on the date of

birth of their current spouse or

cohabiting partner. For women, current

husbands’ and partners’ ages were

calculated as the number of months

between the date of interview and the

date of husband/partner birth, divided by

12 and truncated to the integer value

(e.g., INT ((CMINTVW–CMDOBCH)/

12))). For men, the corresponding

computed variable (CWPAGE) was used

for the current wife or partner’s age.

The ages of the current spouse or

partner were then subtracted from the

respondent’s age to create age

differences.

Spouse or cohabiting partner’s

education—The education of the

respondent’s current spouse or partner

was determined by asking, ‘‘Please look

at Card 11. What is the highest level of

education [husband/curr cohab partner]

has completed?’’ The response

categories were as follows:

+	 Less than high school.

+	 High school graduate or GED.

+	 Some college but no degree.

+	 2-year college degree (e.g.,

associate’s degree).

+	 4-year college graduate (e.g., B.A.,

B.S.).

+	 Graduate or professional school.
Page 44 [ Series 23, No. 28

Education categories were classified

to match the classification schema of the

respondent’s education (see Education).

The categories ‘‘some college but no

degree’’ and ‘‘2-year college degree’’

were combined to create the ‘‘Some

college, no bachelor’s degree’’ category,

and the ‘‘4-year college graduate’’ and

‘‘graduate or professional school’’

categories were combined to create the

‘‘Bachelor’s degree or higher’’ category.

Current spouse’s or partner’s education

was then compared with the

respondent’s education to determine

whether the respondent had more

education, the same education, or less

education than his or her current spouse

or partner.

Spouse or cohabiting partner’s

employment status—Current spouse or

partner’s employment status was

determined using the computed variable

SPWRKST. Respondents were asked,

‘‘Please look at the Card 82/81. Last

week, what was [CHPNAME] doing?

Was [he/she] working, keeping house,

going to school, or something else?’’

Possible responses were as follows:

+	 Working.

+	 Not working at job due to temporary

illness, vacation, strike, etc.

+	 On paternity/maternity or family

leave from job.

+	 Unemployed, laid off, or looking for

work.

+	 Keeping house.

+	 Taking care of family.

+	 Going to school.

+	 On permanent disability.

+	 Something else.

Respondents who chose responses the

first three responses were classified as

having a spouse or partner who was

employed. All other responses were

classified as having a spouse or partner

who was not employed.

Spouse or cohabiting partner’s former

marital experience—Raw female

variables MARBEFHX and

CPMARBEF, and raw male variable

CWPMARBF, were used to determine if

the respondent’s current spouse or

partner had ever married before the

union. The respective questions read:

‘‘At the time you and he/she were

married, had [husband/wife] been

married before?’’

and

‘‘Has [current partner] ever been

married?’’

Affirmative answers on either of these

questions indicated that the current

spouse or partner had been married

before the marriage or cohabitation

began.

Spouse or cohabiting partner’s

Hispanic origin and race—The same

classification used for the respondent’s

Hispanic origin and race (see Hispanic

origin and race) was used for the

Hispanic origin of the first spouse

and/or partner and the current spouse or

partner. The race/ethnicity of the

respondent was then compared with the

race/ethnicity of his or her spouse or

partner to determine whether they were

of the same race/ethnicity. Note that

members of Hispanic couples were

compared to determine whether they

were of the same ethnicity. It is possible

that couples involving Hispanic and

non-Hispanic persons could have

identified as the same race (e.g., white

or black) but have different ethnicities.

Spouse or cohabiting partner’s children

from previous relationships—In both

the male and female surveys, currently

married or cohabiting respondents were

asked whether their current spouses or

partners had any children from previous

relationships. In the female survey, this

information is drawn from the

appropriate variable from the KIDSHX

array corresponding to the current

husband or from the CPKIDS variable

for the current cohabiting partner. The

KIDSHX question reads:

‘‘When you and he got married, did

he have any children, either

biological or adopted, from any

previous relationships?’’

The CPKIDS question reads:

‘‘When you and [current partner] first

began living together, did he have any

children, either biological or adopted,

from any previous relationships?’’

In the male survey, the variable

CWPOTKID is used.

‘‘Now I would like to ask you about

any other children, whether

biological, adopted, foster or legally

guarded children, that [wife/current

partner] may have had. Please be

sure to include all of her children,

even if they never lived with you.’’

‘‘When you began living with

[wife/current partner], did she have

any other children?’’

An affirmative answer on any of these

questions meant that the current spouse

or current partner had a child or

children from previous relationships at

the start of the union.

Timing of first birth relative to union

(first cohabitation, first marriage)—For

respondents who had not had a first

birth or had not fathered any children at

the time of interview (female PARITY = 0

or male BIOKIDS = 0), the timing

variable was classified as having ‘‘no

first birth.’’ Respondents who gave birth

to or fathered their first child before

their first marriage or cohabitation

(DATBABY1 < MARDAT01 or

DATBABY1 < COHAB1) were

classified as having their first birth

‘‘before marriage’’ or ‘‘before

cohabitation.’’ If the first birth occurred

on or after the respondent’s first

marriage or cohabitation and before the

first marriage or cohabitation ended (if

first marriage or first cohabitation

dissolved), then the birth was classified

as occurring ‘‘during marriage’’ or

‘‘during cohabitation.’’ The ‘‘during

marriage’’ category was further

classified into births occurring ‘‘0–7

months after marriage’’ and ‘‘8 or more

months after marriage,’’ to account for

possible preunion conceptions. Births

that occurred 0–7 months after marriage

were considered as premarital

conceptions. First births that occurred

after the first marriage or first

cohabitation dissolved were not included

in the analyses.

Transition to marriage—The duration

of the transition from cohabitation to

marriage is measured as the number of
Series 23, No. 28

[ Page 45

months between the date of the

beginning of the first premarital

cohabitation and the date of the first

marriage. If the first cohabitation

remained intact by the date of the

interview, or if the first cohabitation

disrupted without transitioning to

marriage (censored cases), the duration

of the transition was measured as the

number of months between the date of

the beginning of the first cohabitation

and the date of interview or date of first

cohabitation disruption, respectively.
Vital and Health Statistics

series descriptions

SERIES 1.	 Programs and Collection Procedures—These reports

describe the data collection programs of the National Center

for Health Statistics. They include descriptions of the methods

used to collect and process the data, definitions, and other

material necessary for understanding the data.

SERIES 2.	 Data Evaluation and Methods Research—These reports

are studies of new statistical methods and include analytical

techniques, objective evaluations of reliability of collected

data, and contributions to statistical theory. These studies

also include experimental tests of new survey methods and

comparisons of U.S. methodology with those of other

countries.

SERIES 3.	 Analytical and Epidemiological Studies—These reports

present analytical or interpretive studies based on vital and

health statistics. These reports carry the analyses further than

the expository types of reports in the other series.

SERIES 4.	 Documents and Committee Reports—These are final

reports of major committees concerned with vital and health

statistics and documents such as recommended model vital

registration laws and revised birth and death certificates.

SERIES 5.	 International Vital and Health Statistics Reports—These

reports are analytical or descriptive reports that compare U.S.

vital and health statistics with those of other countries or

present other international data of relevance to the health

statistics system of the United States.

SERIES 6.	 Cognition and Survey Measurement—These reports are

from the National Laboratory for Collaborative Research in

Cognition and Survey Measurement. They use methods of

cognitive science to design, evaluate, and test survey

instruments.

SERIES 10.	 Data From the National Health Interview Survey—These

reports contain statistics on illness; unintentional injuries;

disability; use of hospital, medical, and other health services;

and a wide range of special current health topics covering

many aspects of health behaviors, health status, and health

care utilization. They are based on data collected in a

continuing national household interview survey.

SERIES 11.	 Data From the National Health Examination Survey, the

National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, and

the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey—

Data from direct examination, testing, and measurement on

representative samples of the civilian noninstitutionalized

population provide the basis for (1) medically defined total

prevalence of specific diseases or conditions in the United

States and the distributions of the population with respect to

physical, physiological, and psychological characteristics, and

(2) analyses of trends and relationships among various

measurements and between survey periods.

SERIES 12.	 Data From the Institutionalized Population Surveys—

Discontinued in 1975. Reports from these surveys are

included in Series 13.

SERIES 13.	 Data From the National Health Care Survey—These

reports contain statistics on health resources and the public’s

use of health care resources including ambulatory, hospital,

and long-term care services based on data collected directly

from health care providers and provider records.

SERIES 14.	 Data on Health Resources: Manpower and Facilities—

Discontinued in 1990. Reports on the numbers, geographic

distribution, and characteristics of health resources are now

included in Series 13.

SERIES 15.	 Data From Special Surveys—These reports contain

statistics on health and health-related topics collected in

special surveys that are not part of the continuing data

systems of the National Center for Health Statistics.

SERIES 16.	 Compilations of Advance Data From Vital and Health

Statistics—Advance Data Reports provide early release of

information from the National Center for Health Statistics’

health and demographic surveys. They are compiled in the

order in which they are published. Some of these releases

may be followed by detailed reports in Series 10–13.

SERIES 20.	 Data on Mortality—These reports contain statistics on

mortality that are not included in regular, annual, or monthly

reports. Special analyses by cause of death, age, other

demographic variables, and geographic and trend analyses

are included.

SERIES 21.	 Data on Natality, Marriage, and Divorce—These reports

contain statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce that are

not included in regular, annual, or monthly reports. Special

analyses by health and demographic variables and

geographic and trend analyses are included.

SERIES 22.	 Data From the National Mortality and Natality Surveys—

Discontinued in 1975. Reports from these sample surveys,

based on vital records, are now published in Series 20 or 21.

SERIES 23.	 Data From the National Survey of Family Growth—These

reports contain statistics on factors that affect birth rates,

including contraception, infertility, cohabitation, marriage,

divorce, and remarriage; adoption; use of medical care for

family planning and infertility; and related maternal and infant

health topics. These statistics are based on national surveys

of women and men of childbearing age.

SERIES 24.	 Compilations of Data on Natality, Mortality, Marriage, and

Divorce—These include advance reports of births, deaths,

marriages, and divorces based on final data from the National

Vital Statistics System that were published as National Vital

Statistics Reports (NVSR), formerly Monthly Vital Statistics

Report. These reports provide highlights and summaries of

detailed data subsequently published in Vital Statistics of the

United States. Other special reports published here provide

selected findings based on final data from the National Vital

Statistics System and may be followed by detailed reports in

Series 20 or 21.

For answers to questions about this report or for a list of reports published

in these series, contact:

Information Dissemination Staff

National Center for Health Statistics

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

3311 Toledo Road, Room 5412

Hyattsville, MD 20782

1–800–232–4636
 

E-mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov
 

Internet: www.cdc.gov/nchs
 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Health Statistics

3311 Toledo Road

Hyattsville, Maryland 20782

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

MEDIA MAIL
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

CDC/NCHS
 

PERMIT NO. G-284
 

CS208698

T35895 (02/2010)

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2010–1980, Series 23, No. 28