U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

census.gov

Multigenerational Households: 2009–2011

American Community Survey Briefs

Issued October 2012

ACSBR/11-03

By Daphne A. Lofquist

INTRODUCTION

A topic of growing interest is that of multigenerational 

families—defined here as family households consisting 

of three or more generations. In 2000, 3.7 percent 

of households in the United States were multigenerational.1 By 2010, multigenerational households 

increased to 4.0 percent.2

Multigenerational households may be more likely to 

reside in areas where new immigrants live with their 

relatives, in areas where housing shortages or high 

costs force families to double up their living arrangements, or in areas that have relatively high percentages 

of children born to unmarried mothers who live with 

their children in their parents’ homes.3 This brief provides information by state on three types of multigenerational households and differences by race or 

Hispanic origin of the householder in multigenerational 

households. It also examines the geographic distribution of multigenerational households as a percentage of 

family households by county. We concentrate on family 

households in order to remove the differential proportion of nonfamily households across states. More than 

one-quarter of all American households are one person 

living alone, and this proportion varies by state.4

This report is one of a series produced to highlight 

results from the 2009–2011 American Community 

Survey (ACS). The ACS provides detailed estimates of 

1 Simmons, Tavia and Grace O’Neill, “Households and Families: 

2000,” <www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-8.pdf>. 2 Lofquist, Daphne, Terry Lugaila, Martin O’Connell, and Sarah Feliz, 

“Households and Families: 2010,” <www.census.gov/prod/cen2010

/briefs/c2010br-14.pdf>. 3 See Lofquist, Lugaila, O’Connell, and Feliz, op. cit.

4 See Lofquist, Lugaila, O’Connell, and Feliz, op. cit.

demographic, social, economic, and housing characteristics for congressional districts, counties, places, 

and other localities every year. A description of the 

ACS is provided in the text box “What Is the American 

Community Survey?”

MULTIGENERATIONAL HOUSEHOLDS

In the 2009–2011 3-year ACS data file, there were over 

76 million family households. Of these, approximately 

4.3 million (5.6 percent) were multigenerational households (Table 1). Hawaii had the highest percentage of 

multigenerational households, accounting for 11.1 

percent of all family households in that state. Over 

85 percent of states exceeding the national level of 

Multigenerational Households

These households are family households 

consisting of three or more generations.

Three types of multigenerational households 

are discussed in this brief: 

1. Includes a householder, a parent or parentin-law of the householder, and a child of 

the householder. 

2. Includes a householder, a child of the 

householder, and a grandchild of the 

householder. 

3. Includes a householder, a parent or parentin-law of the householder, a child of the 

householder, and a grandchild of the 

householder.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

5.6 percent were in the South and 

West. Southern states with percentages above the national level 

include the District of Columbia (a 

state equivalent), Florida, Georgia, 

Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, 

and Texas. These states ranged 

from 5.9 percent to 7.3 percent. 

The states in the West with higher 

than the national level of multigenerational households include 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, 

and New Mexico, with a range 

from 6.2 percent to 11.1 percent. 

In the Northeast, New Jersey and 

New York had percentages above 

the national level.5 The state with 

the smallest percentage of multigenerational households was North 

Dakota (1.9 percent). 

Using ACS data, we can distinguish 

three types of multigenerational 

households. Among multigenerational households nationally, 64.6 

percent included a householder, 

a child of the householder, and 

a grandchild of the householder. 

The percentage of multigenerational households that were of this 

type varied from 50.8 percent for 

New Jersey to 81.7 percent for 

South Dakota, which is one of the 

highest.6 These multigenerational 

households were located primarily 

in the Midwest and South. 

Thirty-four percent of multigenerational households containing a householder, a parent or 

5 There are four census regions 

(Northeast, Midwest, South, and West). The 

Northeast region includes Connecticut, 

Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

and Vermont. The Midwest region includes 

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, 

Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. The 

South region includes Alabama, Arkansas, 

Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West 

Virginia. The West region includes Alaska, 

Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, 

Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. 6 New Jersey is not statistically different 

from Nevada.

parent-in-law, and a child tended to 

be in the Northeast and West. The 

percentage of multigenerational 

households that were of this type 

for the 50 states and the District 

of Columbia ranged from about 

18.0 percent for Mississippi, West 

Virginia, and South Dakota, which 

were among the lowest, to 47.9 

percent for New Jersey. 

Only 1.7 percent of multigenerational households contained a parent or parent-in-law, a householder, 

a child of the householder, and a 

grandchild of the householder. 

MULTIGENERATIONAL 

HOUSEHOLDS BY COUNTY

Figure 1 shows multigenerational 

households as a percentage of family households by county. This map 

reveals a concentration of multigenerational households located in 

the South, West, and eastern coastline. The South and West tend to 

have high concentrations of lower 

income populations and Hispanics. 

Recent immigrants, those experiencing economic distress, and 

those hit hard by the housing 

crisis may be more likely to live 

in multigenerational households.7

States having a high proportion 

of American Indians and Alaska 

Natives (such as New Mexico and 

Arizona) also had a high percentage of multigenerational households. Data from Census 2000 

also showed a higher proportion 

of multigenerational households in 

these regions.8

MULTIGENERATIONAL 

HOUSEHOLDS BY RACE

Table 2 shows multigenerational 

households as a percentage of 

family households by the race of 

7 Kochhar, Rakesh, and D’Vera Cohn, 

“Fighting Poverty in a Tough Economy, 

Americans Move in With Their Relatives,” Pew 

Social and Demographic Trends Publication, 

2011, <www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2011

/10/Multigenerational-Households-Final1.pdf>. 8 See Simmons and O’Neill, op. cit.

the householder. The percentage 

of family households that were 

multigenerational ranged from 3.7 

percent for non-Hispanic White 

alone households to 13.0 percent 

for Native Hawaiian and Pacific 

Islanders. Over 10 percent of 

Hispanic and American Indian and 

Alaska Native (AIAN) households 

were multigenerational, while over 

9 percent of Black and Asian households were multigenerational.9,10

About 8 percent of households 

with a multiracial householder were 

multigenerational. 

American Indian and Alaska 

Native households in states with 

large AIAN populations tended to 

have higher percentages than the 

national level that were multigenerational, such as Alaska, 

Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, 

South Dakota, and Wyoming. This 

may be related to larger American 

Indian populations concentrated 

on reservation lands where cultural norms may encourage multigenerational living, and economic 

conditions may make it difficult for 

younger people to establish their 

own households. 

States with high percentages of 

Asian multigenerational households 

were often those that also contained a high proportion of Asians, 

such as California, Hawaii, and New 

York. Similarly, states with high percentages of Hispanic multigenerational households were often those 

where Hispanics are likely to live, 

including California and New York. 

Counter to this trend is Florida, 

which had a lower than national 

level of Hispanic family households 

that were multigenerational.

9 The percentage of American Indian 

and Alaska Native households and Hispanic 

households are not statistically different from 

each other. 10 The percentage of Black households and 

Asian households are not statistically different from each other.
U.S. Census Bureau 3

Table 1.

Multigenerational Households by Type: 2009–2011

(In percent. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www)

Area

Family households Percentage distribution of types 

of multigenerational households

Total Multigenerational households Householder with 

parent and child

Householder with 

child and grandchild

Householder with 

parent, child, and 

grandchild

Estimate

Margin 

of error1

(±) Estimate

Margin 

of error1 

(±) Percent

Margin 

of error1 

(±) Percent

Margin 

of error1

(±) Percent

Margin 

of error1 

(±) Percent

Margin 

of error1

(±)

 United States . . . . . . 76,427,605 90,368 4,306,159 21,369 5.6 0.0 33.7 0.2 64.6 0.2 1.7 0.1

Region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,685,050 22,768 753,167 8,025 5.5 0.1 40.6 0.5 57.8 0.5 1.6 0.1

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,010,672 29,771 706,307 6,128 4.2 0.0 28.6 0.5 70.1 0.5 1.3 0.1

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,660,500 44,092 1,708,756 11,641 6.0 0.0 29.5 0.3 68.7 0.4 1.8 0.1

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,071,383 25,398 1,137,929 10,983 6.7 0.1 38.7 0.4 59.6 0.4 1.8 0.1

State

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,248,202 7,188 70,215 2,602 5.6 0.2 22.0 1.5 76.9 1.5 1.1 0.3

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172,018 2,324 8,581 564 5.0 0.3 26.6 4.2 72.9 4.3 0.5 0.4

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,547,223 7,153 96,106 3,394 6.2 0.2 31.0 1.6 67.8 1.5 1.2 0.4

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767,807 4,584 35,607 1,661 4.6 0.2 21.7 2.4 77.1 2.3 1.2 0.5

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,519,098 14,832 696,401 7,771 8.2 0.1 42.4 0.5 55.7 0.5 1.9 0.1

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,256,199 5,846 51,502 2,049 4.1 0.2 34.1 2.1 64.2 2.1 1.7 0.6

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903,946 4,832 46,357 1,957 5.1 0.2 42.5 2.0 55.5 2.1 2.0 0.5

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225,081 2,629 12,603 776 5.6 0.4 26.9 3.3 71.0 3.4 2.1 1.1

District of Columbia . . . . . . . 107,624 2,106 7,694 653 7.1 0.6 21.7 4.7 76.6 4.6 1.7 1.2

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,587,009 14,615 268,641 4,473 5.9 0.1 39.2 1.0 58.7 1.0 2.1 0.3

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,395,988 9,558 151,297 3,334 6.3 0.1 31.1 1.3 67.5 1.3 1.4 0.3

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309,667 2,881 34,395 1,357 11.1 0.4 34.1 2.0 62.5 2.0 3.4 0.7

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403,054 3,713 15,962 1,218 4.0 0.3 32.8 3.9 66.7 3.9 0.5 0.4

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,135,022 9,109 175,048 3,504 5.6 0.1 33.2 1.1 65.4 1.1 1.4 0.2

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,653,530 7,348 72,747 2,234 4.4 0.1 24.8 1.5 73.7 1.4 1.5 0.3

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 794,680 3,815 20,766 1,200 2.6 0.2 27.5 2.4 70.8 2.4 1.7 0.8

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726,561 4,416 26,167 1,213 3.6 0.2 28.3 2.5 70.6 2.6 1.1 0.5

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,132,279 6,225 51,533 1,813 4.6 0.2 23.2 1.6 75.2 1.7 1.6 0.6

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,128,741 6,708 74,818 2,408 6.6 0.2 20.6 1.6 77.9 1.6 1.5 0.4

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353,030 2,490 10,138 782 2.9 0.2 29.8 3.7 68.8 3.6 1.4 0.7

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,424,804 6,695 94,699 2,985 6.6 0.2 34.9 1.5 63.2 1.5 1.9 0.4

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . 1,597,420 6,184 80,679 2,456 5.1 0.2 42.2 1.5 56.5 1.6 1.3 0.4

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,510,752 7,313 111,436 2,970 4.4 0.1 27.8 1.1 71.0 1.1 1.2 0.2

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,363,703 5,052 38,079 1,547 2.8 0.1 32.1 2.2 67.0 2.1 0.9 0.4

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749,972 5,143 54,684 2,102 7.3 0.3 17.8 1.6 80.3 1.7 1.9 0.6

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,545,471 6,243 64,810 1,877 4.2 0.1 26.0 1.5 72.9 1.5 1.1 0.3

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256,603 2,742 8,414 892 3.3 0.3 24.1 4.3 72.9 4.4 3.0 2.1

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469,284 3,190 13,623 888 2.9 0.2 23.9 2.9 74.2 3.0 1.8 1.0

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642,580 4,694 43,132 1,641 6.7 0.3 42.8 2.5 55.5 2.7 1.7 0.7

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . 346,717 3,173 12,364 815 3.6 0.2 40.3 3.9 58.1 3.8 1.5 0.8

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,197,169 7,791 132,718 3,334 6.0 0.1 47.9 1.4 50.8 1.4 1.4 0.3

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501,457 3,870 31,642 1,810 6.3 0.4 20.2 2.6 77.9 2.8 1.9 0.6

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,643,681 11,942 302,534 4,884 6.5 0.1 41.2 0.8 57.1 0.8 1.7 0.2

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 2,458,587 10,297 119,521 3,167 4.9 0.1 27.1 1.3 71.2 1.3 1.7 0.4

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . 172,876 1,966 3,340 443 1.9 0.3 28.6 6.6 70.6 6.6 0.7 0.8

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,957,868 8,618 129,406 2,652 4.4 0.1 26.6 1.0 72.2 1.0 1.2 0.2

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959,984 5,344 45,742 1,644 4.8 0.2 24.7 1.4 73.9 1.5 1.3 0.4

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 965,628 5,617 39,906 1,643 4.1 0.2 33.9 2.4 64.3 2.4 1.8 0.6

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,224,808 9,155 150,916 2,763 4.7 0.1 33.1 1.0 65.4 1.0 1.5 0.3

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . 255,172 2,820 13,035 896 5.1 0.4 35.6 3.9 63.6 4.0 0.8 0.6

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 1,191,384 6,952 68,703 2,731 5.8 0.2 23.4 1.6 74.9 1.6 1.8 0.4

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . 207,690 2,103 6,604 612 3.2 0.3 18.2 4.1 81.7 4.1 0.1 0.1

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,649,103 7,893 89,553 2,604 5.4 0.2 25.0 1.4 73.5 1.4 1.5 0.3

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,130,559 14,612 432,549 5,783 7.1 0.1 29.8 0.7 68.0 0.8 2.2 0.3

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662,527 3,335 35,293 1,361 5.3 0.2 25.6 2.1 73.2 2.1 1.2 0.5

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163,107 1,620 4,426 498 2.7 0.3 31.5 5.0 67.4 4.9 1.1 0.7

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,018,359 8,999 108,876 3,335 5.4 0.2 35.5 1.6 63.0 1.6 1.5 0.4

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,687,849 6,827 71,996 2,121 4.3 0.1 38.2 1.6 60.8 1.6 1.0 0.3

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . 485,017 3,996 22,021 1,227 4.5 0.3 19.0 2.4 80.2 2.3 0.8 0.5

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,473,235 5,452 44,281 1,413 3.0 0.1 28.8 1.7 69.6 1.7 1.6 0.6

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147,480 2,000 4,599 669 3.1 0.4 26.4 5.9 73.3 5.9 0.3 0.4

1

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

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

Note: Due to rounding some margin of errors round to zero, even though they are not actually zero.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009–2011 American Community Survey.
4 U.S. Census Bureau Fi Multigenerational Households as a Percentage of Family Households by County: 2009–2011 gure 1. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009–2011 American Community Survey. U.S. percent is 5.6 Note: Data are only shown for counties with a populaton of 20,000 or more. The term “county” refers to a county or statistically equivalent entity. 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles 0 500 Miles Percent by county 10.4 or more 5.7–10.3 3.3–5.6 Less than 3.3 Data not shown
U.S. Census Bureau 

5

Table 2.Multigenerational Households as a Percentage of Family Households by Race of the Householder: 2009–2011—Con.(In percent. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www)

Area

White alone Non-Hispanic White alone Black or African American alone American Indian and Alaska Native alone Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander alone Some other race alone Two or More Races Hispanic or Latino of any race

Percent

Margin

 of 

error1

 (±) Percent

Margin

 of 

error1

 (±) Percent

Margin

 of 

error1

 (±) Percent

Margin

 of 

error1

 (±) Percent

Margin

 of 

error1

 (±) Percent

Margin

 of 

error1

 (±) Percent

Margin

 of 

error1

 (±) Percent

Margin

 of 

error1

 (±) Percent

Margin

 of 

error1

 (±)

Total Households (number) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89,774,347 78,720 81,037,314 68,434 13,800,839 21,329 808,748 7,084 4,630,530 14,775 134,166 2,681 3,900,419 18,036 1,882,815 18,269 13,368,963 26,315

Total Family Households (number) . . . . . . . . . 59,233,901 65,894 52,474,821 58,777 8,762,701 20,007 556,814 6,122 3,435,656 12,366 104,362 2,314 3,105,051 16,169 1,229,120 13,394 10,386,016 24,131

Multigenerational Households (percent) . . 4.5 0.0 3.7 0.0 9.5 0.1 10.7 0.3 9.4 0.1 13.0 0.9 10.6 0.2 7.6 0.2 10.3 0.1

RegionNortheast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 0.1 3.8 0.1 10.5 0.2 6.8 0.9 9.5 0.3 6.4 4.0 10.6 0.4 8.4 0.4 9.9 0.3Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 0.0 3.2 0.0 9.0 0.2 10.1 0.7 8.4 0.4 7.2 3.6 9.3 0.5 5.9 0.4 8.4 0.3

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 0.0 4.1 0.0 9.6 0.1 8.1 0.5 8.0 0.3 8.4 2.0 9.2 0.3 7.5 0.4 9.7 0.1

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 0.1 3.8 0.1 8.3 0.3 13.2 0.6 10.3 0.2 14.4 1.1 11.7 0.3 8.2 0.4 11.5 0.2StateAlabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 0.2 4.3 0.2 9.7 0.6 3.7 1.4 5.1 1.8 8.4 11.9 6.5 3.1 6.0 1.6 5.5 1.4

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 0.3 2.8 0.4 6.9 3.1 14.9 1.5 11.5 2.8 21.2 9.5 3.5 3.1 7.0 3.1 2.7 1.4

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 0.2 3.8 0.2 8.1 1.3 16.4 1.2 6.1 1.2 8.1 5.7 11.1 1.0 6.6 1.6 10.8 0.6Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 0.2 3.9 0.2 7.7 0.7 5.8 3.4 5.8 2.7 22.1 13.7 6.3 2.5 5.8 2.0 6.3 1.4

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 0.1 4.2 0.1 8.9 0.4 10.6 1.2 10.6 0.2 13.8 1.9 12.6 0.3 8.3 0.5 12.7 0.2Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 0.2 2.8 0.2 7.7 1.4 8.9 2.4 6.8 1.4 5.7 4.5 8.9 1.2 5.4 1.2 8.4 0.6

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 0.2 3.8 0.2 10.5 1.1 6.4 6.4 8.8 1.6 0.0 16.9 7.7 1.4 7.6 2.2 8.1 0.8

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 0.4 4.3 0.4 9.5 1.1 5.0 7.0 5.8 2.2 0.0 25.7 5.7 3.0 7.7 5.0 7.6 2.3

District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.4 11.2 1.1 4.6 8.3 2.9 2.6 0.0 35.2 4.2 2.6 (NA) (NA) 5.0 2.2

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 0.1 3.7 0.1 10.1 0.4 7.8 2.1 8.5 0.7 12.8 7.3 9.5 0.9 9.7 1.1 9.4 0.3

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 0.2 4.7 0.2 9.4 0.3 4.3 1.9 7.9 1.0 10.4 7.4 6.3 1.1 7.1 1.6 7.5 0.6

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 0.6 4.8 0.6 5.3 2.9 12.5 12.5 13.1 0.8 17.8 2.0 5.3 3.0 14.3 1.3 10.6 1.9Idaho ........................................ 3.8 0.3 3.4 0.3 1.0 1.7 10.7 3.4 4.3 2.4 12.4 16.4 9.8 4.1 5.2 3.0 8.5 1.6

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 0.1 3.3 0.1 11.8 0.6 9.2 3.3 9.0 0.7 22.0 19.4 11.1 0.9 6.9 1.0 10.3 0.5Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 0.1 3.9 0.1 7.8 0.8 4.0 1.9 7.6 1.8 5.4 10.4 6.1 1.3 6.8 1.9 6.5 0.8

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 0.1 2.3 0.1 5.4 2.0 5.3 3.2 7.7 1.8 37.9 43.1 8.0 3.0 2.5 1.3 7.6 1.4

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 0.2 2.9 0.2 5.9 1.1 4.5 2.0 7.9 1.9 0.0 15.5 6.9 1.9 5.8 1.9 7.8 1.0

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 0.2 4.3 0.2 6.6 0.7 1.9 2.4 6.2 2.3 20.0 18.4 6.0 2.4 5.9 2.0 6.3 1.5

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 0.2 4.6 0.2 10.9 0.5 11.5 3.6 10.3 2.3 2.5 4.0 5.0 2.6 7.9 1.9 6.1 1.1

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 0.2 2.7 0.2 3.0 2.7 3.7 2.3 11.7 7.2 0.0 60.2 7.5 8.3 11.2 4.9 3.8 2.4

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 0.2 4.5 0.2 10.2 0.6 7.7 3.4 8.2 0.9 7.0 14.3 11.8 2.0 6.4 1.5 10.4 1.0Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 0.2 4.1 0.2 9.7 0.9 8.6 3.9 8.2 0.9 0.0 20.0 8.8 1.1 6.4 1.5 8.8 0.7

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 0.1 3.5 0.1 8.9 0.5 7.4 1.8 8.0 1.0 1.3 2.1 9.9 1.8 6.0 1.0 7.6 0.9

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 0.1 2.0 0.1 7.1 1.2 11.5 2.1 10.1 1.3 2.7 4.4 8.9 1.9 4.7 1.5 7.4 1.0

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 0.3 4.9 0.3 11.9 0.6 9.3 4.3 3.6 1.6 0.0 54.0 7.5 4.9 7.6 3.2 5.9 2.2

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 0.1 3.6 0.1 8.4 0.7 3.5 2.0 7.2 1.5 2.6 3.9 7.2 2.5 4.8 1.3 5.7 1.0

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 0.3 2.7 0.3 4.0 5.4 14.2 2.9 2.1 3.4 0.0 35.0 7.3 6.9 3.7 2.9 2.5 1.5

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 0.2 2.3 0.2 5.8 1.3 10.1 3.1 7.4 2.6 1.6 3.9 4.4 1.9 7.2 3.0 6.5 1.3

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8 0.3 4.7 0.3 8.4 1.5 10.6 2.9 10.1 1.6 12.7 6.9 11.0 1.7 7.7 2.2 10.3 0.7New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 0.2 3.4 0.2 1.6 1.9 0.7 1.6 6.7 2.5 0.0 64.0 6.8 5.4 8.2 3.8 7.2 2.9

See footnote at end of table.
6 U.S. Census Bureau Table 2. Multigenerational Households as a Percentage of Family Households by Race of the Householder: 2009–2011—Con. (In percent. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www) Area White alone Non-Hispanic White alone Black or African American alone American Indian and Alaska Native alone Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander alone Some other race alone Two or More Races Hispanic or Latino of any race Percent Margin of error1 (±) Percent Margin of error1 (±) Percent Margin of error1 (±) Percent Margin of error1 (±) Percent Margin of error1 (±) Percent Margin of error1 (±) Percent Margin of error1 (±) Percent Margin of error1 (±) Percent Margin of error1 (±) State—Con. New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 0.2 4.2 0.1 9.4 0.5 7.7 3.1 8.8 0.6 15.7 15.8 9.3 0.9 9.6 1.2 9.2 0.5 New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 0.3 3.1 0.3 6.2 2.7 17.6 1.5 4.3 2.6 10.0 6.3 7.3 1.0 5.3 1.8 8.0 0.6 New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 0.1 3.8 0.1 11.6 0.4 7.1 1.7 10.4 0.5 7.6 6.5 11.8 0.6 8.9 0.7 10.9 0.3 North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 0.1 3.4 0.1 8.6 0.4 9.6 1.6 8.3 1.3 4.4 3.6 7.0 1.0 8.2 1.7 6.7 0.6 North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 0.3 1.5 0.3 2.4 2.6 10.2 2.3 4.6 4.3 0.0 38.6 0.0 3.9 0.5 0.8 2.3 2.7 Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 0.1 3.9 0.1 7.4 0.4 10.2 3.9 6.6 0.9 10.2 12.0 6.6 1.3 6.4 1.3 5.7 0.9 Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 0.2 3.9 0.2 7.5 0.9 7.8 0.7 8.2 2.1 10.3 9.2 7.7 1.6 6.3 0.9 6.9 0.8 Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 0.2 3.5 0.2 6.0 1.8 9.8 2.4 7.9 1.4 3.9 3.1 8.7 1.7 5.9 1.6 7.8 1.0 Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 0.1 3.7 0.1 9.8 0.5 6.8 3.1 9.5 0.9 0.0 12.0 10.6 1.3 8.1 1.4 9.5 0.7 Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 0.3 4.1 0.4 8.8 2.1 7.0 8.7 8.9 3.0 0.0 29.2 9.8 2.6 7.2 3.9 9.6 1.7 South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 0.3 4.2 0.3 9.9 0.5 7.0 3.6 5.4 1.5 6.6 11.9 5.5 2.2 5.5 2.1 5.7 1.3 South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 0.3 1.7 0.3 12.3 7.8 20.2 2.9 1.9 3.9 0.0 36.1 5.8 6.9 5.5 4.7 8.3 4.1 Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 0.2 4.6 0.2 9.6 0.6 5.3 3.0 9.2 1.8 7.1 8.8 6.1 1.9 6.3 1.4 5.4 1.0 Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 0.1 4.1 0.1 8.8 0.3 10.1 1.8 8.0 0.5 6.1 3.1 10.5 0.5 8.3 0.8 10.9 0.2 Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 0.2 4.6 0.2 9.9 4.1 9.0 2.9 6.9 1.8 17.7 4.5 11.1 2.3 6.1 1.9 9.3 1.0 Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 0.3 2.5 0.3 8.8 6.3 5.0 4.8 11.9 7.9 0.0 100.0 8.2 10.5 6.2 3.4 6.8 5.2 Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 0.2 4.0 0.2 9.1 0.5 6.4 2.9 8.1 0.8 4.5 4.5 8.5 1.7 6.9 1.2 7.4 0.7 Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 0.1 3.4 0.1 5.6 1.0 9.6 1.7 8.0 0.8 10.7 3.3 7.9 1.2 5.7 1.0 7.1 0.7 West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 0.3 4.4 0.3 7.8 2.4 10.6 10.6 9.9 5.6 0.0 45.7 0.0 8.2 6.1 2.4 5.5 3.5 Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 0.1 2.3 0.1 8.4 0.9 7.9 1.6 10.2 1.8 7.8 11.5 6.9 1.7 5.2 1.7 7.1 0.8 Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 0.5 2.6 0.4 3.9 4.9 15.5 4.4 12.6 9.7 0.0 49.9 3.0 1.7 4.8 3.8 5.5 1.9 (NA) Not available. (The denominator as well as the numerator are zero, therefore the margin of error cannot be calculated.) 1 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error is in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. This number when added to and subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent interval. Note: Due to rounding some margin of errors round to zero, even though they are not actually zero. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009–2011 American Community Survey.
U.S. Census Bureau 7

SOURCE AND ACCURACY

The data presented in this report 

are based on the ACS sample interviewed in 2009, 2010, and 2011. 

The estimates based on this sample 

approximate the actual values and 

represent the entire household 

and group quarters population. 

Sampling error is the difference 

between an estimate based in a 

sample and the corresponding 

value that would be obtained if the 

estimate were based on the entire 

population (as from a census). 

Measures of the sampling errors 

are provided in the form of margins 

of error for all estimates included 

in this report. All comparative 

statements in this report have 

undergone statistical testing, and 

comparisons are significant at the 

90 percent level unless otherwise 

noted. In addition to sampling 

error, nonsampling error may be 

introduced during any of the operations used to collect and process 

survey data such as editing, reviewing, or keying data from questionnaires. For more information on 

sampling and estimation methods, 

confidentiality protection, and 

sampling and nonsampling errors, 

please see the 2011 ACS Accuracy 

of the Data document located at 

<www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation

/Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data

_2011.pdf>.

What Is the American Community Survey?

The American Community Survey (ACS) is a nationwide survey 

designed to provide communities with reliable and timely 

demographic, social, economic, and housing data for the nation, 

states, congressional districts, counties, places, and other localities 

every year. It has an annual sample size of about 3.3 million 

addresses across the United States and Puerto Rico and includes 

both housing units and group quarters (e.g., nursing facilities and 

prisons). The ACS is conducted in every county throughout the 

nation, and every municipio in Puerto Rico, where it is called the 

Puerto Rico Community Survey. Beginning in 2006, ACS data for 

2005 were released for geographic areas with populations of 65,000 

and greater. For information on the ACS sample design and other 

topics, visit <www.census.gov/acs/www>.