Issued May 2013

ACS-21

American Community Survey Reports

Social and Economic Characteristics of Currently 

Unmarried Women With a Recent Birth: 2011

By Rachel M. Shattuck and Rose M. Kreider

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

census.gov

INTRODUCTION

Births to women living in the United States are tracked 

throughout the year by the National Vital Statistics 

System (NVSS), which is overseen by the National 

Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). While the NVSS 

provides administrative counts of births in the United 

States and basic characteristics of the mothers such as 

age, race, and marital status, other characteristics of 

the mother may provide a fuller profile of differences 

among groups of mothers.1 This report focuses on survey data from the American Community Survey (ACS) 

that is unavailable in administrative birth records and 

highlights the characteristics of currently unmarried 

women who report having had a birth in the last year.2

The percentage of U.S. births to unmarried women 

has been increasing steadily since the 1940s and has 

increased even more markedly in recent years. According to NCHS, the birth rate for unmarried women in 

2007 was 80 percent higher than it was in 1980 and 

increased 20 percent between 2002 and 2007.3 Trends 

in nonmarital fertility reflect changing norms regarding sexual behavior and family formation. The increase 

in nonmarital fertility may be due to both an increase 

in pregnancies conceived outside of marriage and to 

a decrease in marriage rates overall. Social scientists, 

journalists, and policy makers consider nonmarital 

1 For a detailed comparison of NVSS data with ACS, see Appendix A 

on page 17 of the “Fertility of American Women: 2008” report available 

at <www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-563.pdf>. 2 To access administrative birth data from the NVSS, go to 

<www.cdc.gov/nchs/births.htm>. 3 Stephanie J. Ventura, “Changing Patterns of Nonmarital 

Childbearing in the United States,” NCHS Data Brief No. 18 (May 2009).

fertility to be an important topic because it is linked to 

measures of child well-being.4

Births outside of marriage are often associated with 

disadvantage for both children and their parents. 

Women and men who have children outside of marriage 

are younger on average, have less education, and have 

lower income than married parents.5 Children who are 

born to unmarried parents are more likely to live in 

poverty and to have poor developmental outcomes.6

Shifts away from childbearing in the context of marriage may be largely due to an increase in cohabitation. 

According to one estimate, two-fifths of all children in 

the United States will live in a cohabiting household 

by age 12, and this proportion continues to grow.7 The 

poorer developmental and behavioral outcomes experienced by children living in cohabiting households may 

be due in part to family instability.8 An estimated 40 

4 See Jason DeParle, “Two Classes, Divided by ‘I Do’,” New York 

Times, July 14, 2012 <www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes

-in-america-divided-by-i-do.html?pagewanted=all>.

Cynthia Osborne and Sara McLanahan, “Partnership Instability and 

Child Well-Being,” Journal of Marriage and Family 69.4 (November 

2007).

Jane Waldfogel, Terry-Ann Craigie, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, 

“Fragile Families and Child Well-Being,” Future of Children 20.2 (Fall 

2010). 5 See Sara McLanahan, “Fragile Families and the Reproduction of 

Poverty,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social 

Science 621 (January 2009). 6 See Rebecca M. Ryan, “Marital Birth and Early Child Outcomes: 

The Moderating Influence of Marriage Propensity,” Child Development 

83.3 (May/June 2010). 7 Sheela Kennedy and Larry Bumpass, “Cohabitation and Children’s 

Living Arrangements: New Estimates from the United States,” 

Demographic Research 19 (September 2008). 8 R. Kelly Raley and Elizabeth Wildsmith, “Cohabitation and 

Children’s Family Instability,” Journal of Marriage and Family 66 

(February 2004).
2 U.S. Census Bureau

percent of children may see their 

parents break up by the time they 

are 15.9

The data analyzed in this report 

come from the 2011 ACS. This 

report discusses women aged 15 to 

50 who gave birth in the last year 

and who were unmarried at the 

time of the survey.10 Estimates of 

numbers and percentages of recent 

births to unmarried women are 

presented at the national and state 

levels, with an additional table with 

metropolitan area level estimates 

provided on the Internet. The mothers discussed in this report include 

both women who do not live with 

the father of their child and women 

in cohabiting unions living in 

households in which the father of 

the child may be present. 

NATIONAL FINDINGS

This section presents nationallevel estimates and explains how 

the ACS estimates differ from the 

administrative data published by 

NCHS. In 2011, 4.1 million women 

reported that they had a birth in 

the last year (see Table 1). Of these 

women, 35.7 percent were unmarried at the time of the survey.11 The 

percentage of women who had a 

birth in the last year and who were 

unmarried has been tracked in the 

ACS since 2005, when an estimated 

30.6 percent of recent births were 

to unmarried women. 

National-level ACS estimates of the 

percentages of women with a birth 

in the last year who are unmarried, 

as well as state-level estimates 

discussed later in this report, differ from the NCHS vital statistics 

9 Andrew Cherlin. 2005. The Marriage GoRound: The State of Marriage and the Family 

in America Today. Knopf. 10 In this report, we use the term unmarried to refer to women who were widowed, 

divorced, or never married at the time of the 

survey. 11 The majority of these women were 

never married. At the national level, 87 percent of the currently unmarried women with a 

recent birth were never married.

estimates of nonmarital births 

for two main reasons. First, while 

the NCHS’s vital statistics system 

records information on all births, 

the ACS is a survey, and while it is 

nationally representative, it does 

not have information on every birth 

that occurred in the United States. 

Second, the time frames covered 

by vital statistics and the ACS 

are quite different. Birth records 

reported through the vital statistics 

system are collected at the time of 

the birth itself and reported for a 

1-year period. The ACS interviews 

respondents throughout a calendar 

year, asking them whether they 

had a birth in the 12 months prior 

to the interview. So births reported 

in the 2011 1-year ACS data could 

have occurred as early as January 

2010 or as late as December 2011. 

The difference in timeframe affects 

other characteristics as well, including marital status and place of 

residence. ACS survey respondents 

report their marital status at the 

time of the interview, which may 

differ from their marital status at 

the time of the birth. Thus it is possible that some of the respondents 

who indicate in the ACS that they 

are unmarried and had a birth in 

the last 12 months may have been 

married at the time of the birth 

even though they were unmarried 

at the time of the survey. It is also 

possible that some of the respondents who indicated that they are 

married and had a birth in the last 

year were unmarried at the time of 

the birth and got married before 

the survey date. Another source of 

differences between vital statistics 

counts and ACS estimates is that 

birth certificates are filed at the 

place where the birth occurred, 

while the ACS records the place the 

mother is living at the time of the 

survey. 

Despite these differences, the ACS 

offers the important advantage 

of collecting social, demographic, 

and economic information about 

the women to whom these births 

occurred and the households in 

which they lived. We discuss some 

of these characteristics below, 

before looking at the geographic 

variation by state and metropolitan 

area.12

12 For detailed tables showing characteristics of women with a birth in the last 12 

months, search for “fertility” in 

American FactFinder: <http://factfinder2

.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages

/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t>.

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 had a 2011 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>.
U.S. Census Bureau 3

Table 1.

Recent Births to Unmarried Women Aged 15 to 50, by State: 2011

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

State

Total Nonmarital births Percent nonmarital births

Number

Margin of 

error1 Number

Margin of 

error1 Percent

Margin of 

error1

 U.S. total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,113,472 38,124 1,467,435 22,785 35.7 0.5

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,601 4,956 28,385 2,828 40.2 3.5

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,883 2,123 4,573 1,155 35.5 7.7

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84,696 6,441 33,440 4,002 39.5 3.5

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,586 3,760 13,167 2,092 36.0 4.3

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518,722 12,551 175,858 7,386 33.9 1.1

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,261 5,050 21,980 2,729 29.2 3.1

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39,770 3,134 15,167 2,324 38.1 4.2

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,066 1,528 4,106 1,099 40.8 8.3

District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,070 1,539 3,591 1,117 50.8 10.1

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206,786 9,924 82,756 6,766 40.0 2.4

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135,886 6,729 52,417 4,205 38.6 2.5

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,942 2,229 6,804 1,428 29.7 5.5

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,418 3,145 8,210 1,836 29.9 5.7

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161,456 7,195 58,402 4,639 36.2 2.0

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88,441 4,365 34,754 2,793 39.3 2.6

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,621 2,983 11,847 1,798 31.5 3.8

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,443 3,262 13,239 1,795 30.5 3.7

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56,213 3,774 21,347 2,754 38.0 3.9

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65,280 4,243 31,761 3,841 48.7 4.5

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,843 1,731 4,577 1,000 33.1 5.8

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78,351 4,707 30,221 3,134 38.6 3.2

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79,641 4,641 26,201 2,833 32.9 3.1

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122,324 5,410 45,304 3,400 37.0 2.3

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74,548 4,049 22,873 2,464 30.7 2.7

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,711 3,079 17,673 2,290 48.1 4.3

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78,269 4,764 28,929 3,213 37.0 3.1

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,558 1,567 2,988 865 23.8 6.0

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,777 2,129 6,509 962 25.3 3.3

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,270 3,347 12,121 1,895 34.4 4.3

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,182 2,156 2,779 837 19.6 5.4

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108,843 5,368 30,917 2,711 28.4 2.2

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,765 3,335 14,181 2,370 47.6 6.0

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247,202 8,018 86,053 5,379 34.8 1.9

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133,512 7,165 48,543 4,698 36.4 3.0

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,400 1,586 3,131 827 30.1 6.6

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142,781 5,673 56,278 3,795 39.4 2.1

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,718 2,766 21,333 2,265 39.7 3.3

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49,012 4,085 15,256 2,214 31.1 3.8

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147,720 5,553 59,696 3,515 40.4 1.9

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,199 1,918 5,844 1,265 44.3 6.4

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,937 4,391 30,275 3,445 43.9 3.8

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,258 1,892 4,210 1,061 37.4 7.5

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85,632 4,922 32,345 3,507 37.8 3.1

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384,330 12,633 137,495 7,636 35.8 1.5

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,272 3,509 7,559 1,446 14.7 2.5

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,255 1,016 1,767 482 28.2 7.1

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110,163 5,732 34,591 3,114 31.4 2.5

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92,152 4,902 25,538 2,538 27.7 2.2

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,305 2,228 6,518 1,339 35.6 5.7

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,390 3,718 21,713 2,089 31.3 2.5

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,011 1,344 2,213 791 31.6 8.6

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 or subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent confidence 

interval. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

CHARACTERISTICS OF 

UNMARRIED WOMEN WITH 

A RECENT BIRTH

Education: Among women who 

had a birth in the last year, those 

with more education had lower percentages of nonmarital births (Table 

2). Although births to women with 

less than a high school degree 

constituted the smallest number of 

total births by educational group 

out of the national total, these 

women had the largest percentage

unmarried (57.0 percent) compared 

with the other education groups. 

Women with a bachelor’s degree or 

higher who had a birth in the last 

year had the lowest level who were 

unmarried, 8.8 percent. 

Household income: Percentages of women with a birth in 

the last year who were unmarried 

decreased with each sequentially 

higher income level. Women with a 

birth in the last year at the lowest 

Table 2.

Recent Births to Unmarried Women Aged 15 to 50, by Selected Characteristics: 2011

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

Characteristics

Total births Nonmarital births Percent nonmarital births

Number

Margin of 

error1 Number

Margin of 

error1 Percent

Margin of 

error1

 U.S. total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,113,472 38,125 1,467,435 22,785 35.7 0.5

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Less than high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675,127 16,572 384,605 11,099 57.0 1.1

High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941,463 16,769 460,974 12,446 49.0 1.0

Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,295,505 21,041 515,912 13,326 39.8 0.7

Bachelor’s degree or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,201,377 19,043 105,944 6,032 8.8 0.5

HOUSEHOLD INCOME2

Less than $10,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314,630 9,766 216,777 8,709 68.9 1.5

$10,000 to $14,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190,684 6,978 116,416 6,133 61.1 2.1

$15,000 to $24,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419,568 12,612 221,662 8,141 52.8 1.4

$25,000 to $34,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406,314 12,153 188,907 7,850 46.5 1.3

$35,000 to $49,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546,395 14,937 215,029 9,390 39.4 1.3

$50,000 to $74,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 748,000 16,248 221,478 10,035 29.6 1.1

$75,000 to $99,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533,085 13,094 117,818 7,286 22.1 1.2

$100,000 to $149,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558,394 13,624 102,425 6,440 18.3 1.0

$150,000 to $199,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197,011 8,056 27,250 3,374 13.8 1.5

$200,000 and above . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166,796 7,549 15,045 2,186 9.0 1.2

AGE

15 to 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251,460 9,487 216,436 9,153 86.1 1.2

20 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871,445 14,724 535,779 14,226 61.5 1.0

25 to 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,094,949 18,613 349,305 10,714 31.9 0.8

30 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,032,090 16,703 199,462 8,237 19.3 0.7

35 to 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565,148 13,991 98,284 6,218 17.4 1.0

40 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208,275 8,159 43,266 3,566 20.8 1.5

45 to 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90,105 5,040 24,903 2,798 27.6 2.7

RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN

White alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,812,958 34,048 820,975 18,327 29.2 0.5

White, non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,209,244 29,691 575,107 15,915 26.0 0.6

Black alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595,983 12,796 403,820 11,025 67.8 1.2

American Indian or Alaska Native alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,902 3,502 30,040 3,015 64.0 3.5

Asian alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243,814 8,865 27,514 3,180 11.3 1.2

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone . . . . . . . 11,602 2,089 4,703 1,436 40.5 9.6

Some Other Race alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289,582 11,028 130,111 7,164 44.9 1.9

Two or More Races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112,631 5,777 50,272 3,693 44.6 2.7

Hispanic (any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944,717 21,698 405,836 12,987 43.0 1.1

NATIVITY

Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,264,025 33,520 1,266,807 20,939 38.8 0.5

Foreign born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849,447 18,705 200,628 8,983 23.6 0.9

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 or subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent confidence 

interval. 2

 Only women living in households have household income. Women living in group quarters are not included.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey.
U.S. Census Bureau 5

household income level—less than 

$10,000 per year—had the highest percentage, 68.9 percent, who 

were unmarried. In contrast, just 

9 percent of women whose household income in 2010 was $200,000 

or above and had a recent birth 

were unmarried. 

Age: Younger mothers had higher 

percentages of nonmarital births. 

Among women aged 15 to 19 with 

a birth in the last year, 86.1 percent 

were unmarried, while 61.5 percent of women aged 20 to 24 were 

unmarried. Women aged 35 to 39 

with a birth in the last year had the 

lowest percentage unmarried, at 

17.4 percent. 

Race and Hispanic Origin: Percentages of women with a birth in 

the last year who were unmarried 

varied by race and Hispanic origin. Among those who listed their 

race as Black or African-American 

alone and who had a birth in the 

last year, 67.8 percent (the highest 

percentage) were unmarried.

Among those who listed their race 

as Asian alone and who had a birth 

in the last year, 11.3 percent (the 

lowest percentage) were unmarried. Forty-three percent of recent 

births to Hispanic women and 26 

percent of recent births to nonHispanic Whites were to unmarried 

women. 

Nativity: Native-born women had 

a higher percentage of nonmarital 

births than women born outside 

of the United States. While 38.8 

percent of native-born women with 

a recent birth were unmarried, this 

was true of 23.6 percent of foreignborn women with a recent birth. 

STATE FINDINGS

Table 1 shows estimates of the 

percentage of recent births to 

unmarried women by state. The 

areas with the highest percentages 

of currently unmarried women who 

had a birth in the last year include 

the District of Columbia (50.8 

percent), Louisiana (48.7 percent), 

Mississippi (48.1 percent), and New 

Mexico (47.6 percent).13 Among 

the states with the lowest percentage of women with a birth in the 

last year who were unmarried were 

New Hampshire (19.6 percent) and 

Utah (14.7 percent).14

State-level percentages of unmarried women with a birth in the 

last year are also shown in the 

map in Figure 1. Coastal states 

in the south—Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, 

Florida, and South Carolina—had 

levels that were significantly 

higher than the national average. 

In contrast, states on the west 

coast—Washington, Oregon, and 

California—had significantly lower 

proportions of recent births that 

were to unmarried women than 

in the nation as a whole. Another 

group of states in the middle of 

the country also had levels that 

were below the national average, 

including Utah, Colorado, Kansas, 

Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, and 

Wisconsin.

Research has shown that income is 

negatively related to the likelihood 

of having a nonmarital birth.15

Table 3 shows state-level estimates 

of income, poverty, and educational 

attainment. It shows the median 

household income for all people 

living in each state, as well as the 

percentage of individuals in each 

state who lived in households 

13 These states also do not differ statistically from each other, and each of these 

states also does not differ statistically from 

some of the other states. 14 Estimates for Utah and New Hampshire 

do not differ statistically from each other. The 

estimate for New Hampshire does not differ 

statistically from that of several other states. 15 Lawrence L. Wu, “Effects of Family 

Instability, Income, and Income Instability 

on the Risk of a Premarital Birth,” American 

Sociological Review 61.3 (June 1996).

Saul D. Hoffman and Michael E. Foster, 

“Economic Correlates of Nonmarital 

Childbearing Among Adult Women,” Family 

Planning Perspectives 29.3 (May/June 1997).

below the poverty level. The 

Pearson’s r correlation between the 

percentage of recent births that 

were to unmarried women and the 

percent of people in households 

below the poverty line was about 

.6 at the state level. It also shows 

the percentage of all women aged 

15 to 50 within each state who had 

a bachelor’s degree or more and 

the percentage of all women aged 

15 to 50 within each state who 

had less than a high school degree. 

Educational attainment is linked, on 

average, to earnings and economic 

well-being.16

Since, on average, higher income 

tends to be associated with a lower 

likelihood of nonmarital births, 

we expect that states with higher 

median income and a lower percentage in poverty would also 

have lower percentages of unmarried women with a recent birth. 

Women with more education are 

less likely to have a nonmarital 

birth, so we would expect states 

with high proportions of women 

with a bachelor’s degree to have 

lower proportions of recent births 

to unmarried women. Mississippi’s 

poverty rate was among the highest (21.2 percent), while it had the 

lowest median income ($36,919) 

and one of the lowest percentages 

of women aged 15 to 50 with a 

bachelor’s degree or more (17.9 

percent). As shown earlier in Table 

1, Mississippi also had one of the 

highest percentages of women with 

a recent birth who were unmarried. 

Another state with one of the highest proportions of recent births to 

unmarried women—New Mexico—

had a high percentage of residents 

16 Tiffany Julian and Robert Kominski, 

“Education and Synthetic Work-Life Earnings 

Estimates,” American Community Survey 

Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, September 

2011, available at <www.census.gov

/prod/2011pubs/acs-14.pdf>.
6 U.S. Census Bureau

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

TX

CA

MT

AZ

ID

NV

KS

CO

NM

OR

UT

SD

IL

WY

NE IA

FL

MN

OK

ND

WI

WA

GA AL

MO

PA

AR

LA

NC

MS

NY

IN

MI

VA

TN

KY

SC

OH

ME

WV

VT

NH

NJ

MD

MA

CT

DE

RI

DC

AK

HI

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey.

0 500 Miles

0 100 Miles

0 100 Miles

Significance as

compared to the

national average

Significantly higher

No difference

Significantly lower

Percent of Women With A Recent Birth Who are Unmarried

by State: 2011

U.S. percent is 35.7

Figure 1.

living in poverty (20.3 percent)17

and a high percentage of women 

aged 15 to 50 with less than a high 

school degree (22.5 percent). It was 

also among the states with a lower 

percentage of women aged 15 to 

50 with a bachelor’s degree or more 

(19.6 percent). In addition to its 

high level of nonmarital births, 

Louisiana also had a high poverty 

rate, with 19.3 percent of its residents living in poverty. 

The exception was the District of 

Columbia which had a high proportion of births to unmarried women 

(50.8 percent) as well as one of the 

highest median incomes ($63,124), 

one of the highest percentages 

of women aged 15 to 50 with a 

17 The percentage of residents in poverty 

in Mississippi and New Mexico does not differ 

statistically.

bachelor’s degree or more (50.2 

percent), and one of the lowest percentages of women aged 15 to 50 

with less than a high school degree 

(11 percent). 

New Hampshire, which had one of 

the lowest percentages of nonmarital births also had one of the lowest 

percentages of its residents living in 

poverty (7.9 percent), as well as a 

relatively low percentage of women 

aged 15 to 50 with less than a high 

school degree (13 percent). 

Statistical models allow the opportunity to assess the level of association among various characteristics 

simultaneously. Due to the high 

level of intercorrelation among the 

various income and education variables in Table 3, it is not advisable 

to put all of them into one model. 

However, the model makes it possible to assess the relationship among 

the proportion of recent births to 

unmarried women and educational 

and income levels across states. By 

including a measure of the proportion of unmarried women in the 

model as well, we can control for 

that basic demographic condition, 

and assess the effects of education 

and income, net of the basic demography. The results of this regression 

model based on state levels, show 

that the proportion of women who 

have less than a high school degree 

in a state is positively associated 

with the level of recent births to 

unmarried women. The opposite 

relationship holds for income; states 

with higher median income have 

a lower proportion, in general, of 

recent births to unmarried women. 
U.S. Census Bureau 7

Table 3. 

Recent Births to Unmarried Women Aged 15 to 50 by State, With Other State-Level 

Characteristics: 2011

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

State

Percent nonmarital 

births

Median household 

income Percent in poverty1

Percent of women 

15–50 with a 

bachelor’s degree 

or more

Percent of women 

15–50 with less than 

a high school degree

Percent

Margin of 

error2

In 2011 

dollars

Margin of 

error2 Percent

Margin of 

error2 Percent

Margin of 

error2 Percent

Margin of 

error2

 U.S. total. . . . . . . . . . 35.7 0.5 50,502 73 15.1 0.1 26.2 0.1 18.3 0.1

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.2 3.5 41,415 550 18.0 0.5 20.8 0.6 19.5 0.6

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.5 7.7 67,825 1,948 8.8 0.8 23.9 1.6 15.5 0.9

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.5 3.5 46,709 554 17.9 0.6 21.4 0.6 21.7 0.6

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.0 4.3 38,758 761 18.2 0.6 18.8 0.7 18.8 0.7

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.9 1.1 57,287 279 15.2 0.2 25.8 0.2 22.6 0.2

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.2 3.1 55,387 605 12.4 0.4 31.9 0.7 16.1 0.5

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.1 4.2 65,753 854 9.7 0.5 33.4 0.8 15.9 0.5

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.8 8.3 58,814 1,586 10.6 0.9 26.9 1.5 16.1 1.1

District of Columbia . . . . . . . . 50.8 10.1 63,124 2,407 16.3 1.3 50.2 1.6 11.0 0.8

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.0 2.4 44,299 406 15.7 0.3 23.2 0.4 17.5 0.3

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.6 2.5 46,007 454 17.9 0.4 25.0 0.6 19.2 0.5

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.7 5.5 61,821 1,035 10.4 0.9 26.0 1.0 13.0 0.7

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.9 5.7 43,341 1,320 15.7 0.9 20.9 1.5 17.3 0.9

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.2 2.0 53,234 511 14.0 0.3 30.2 0.4 17.3 0.3

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.3 2.6 46,438 455 14.8 0.4 21.5 0.5 18.6 0.5

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.5 3.8 49,427 693 11.8 0.4 26.0 0.8 15.3 0.5

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.5 3.7 48,964 756 12.7 0.5 28.2 0.7 16.4 0.5

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.0 3.9 41,141 464 17.9 0.6 20.9 0.8 17.9 0.6

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.7 4.5 41,734 528 19.3 0.5 19.7 0.8 20.1 0.7

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.1 5.8 46,033 802 12.8 0.7 26.6 1.0 13.2 0.6

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.6 3.2 70,004 804 9.0 0.4 34.4 0.6 14.8 0.4

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.9 3.1 62,859 902 10.5 0.4 36.6 0.6 14.3 0.4

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.0 2.3 45,981 330 16.2 0.3 24.0 0.4 16.6 0.3

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.7 2.7 56,954 488 10.7 0.3 31.4 0.5 14.4 0.4

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.1 4.3 36,919 583 21.2 0.7 17.9 0.9 20.5 0.7

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.0 3.1 45,247 529 14.6 0.4 25.5 0.7 17.1 0.4

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.8 6.0 44,222 1,078 13.2 0.9 25.7 1.5 13.9 0.9

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.3 3.3 50,296 687 12.2 0.6 27.1 1.0 15.7 0.6

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.4 4.3 48,927 1,020 14.4 0.8 18.7 1.0 22.9 0.9

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . 19.6 5.4 62,647 1,415 7.9 0.7 31.0 1.2 13.0 0.6

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.4 2.2 67,458 721 9.6 0.3 33.8 0.4 15.8 0.3

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.6 6.0 41,963 803 20.3 0.9 19.6 0.9 22.5 1.1

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.8 1.9 55,246 398 14.6 0.2 32.6 0.3 17.6 0.2

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.4 3.0 43,916 519 16.6 0.4 25.4 0.6 17.8 0.4

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.1 6.6 51,704 1,260 11.0 0.8 28.0 1.6 12.0 0.8

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.4 2.1 45,749 319 15.3 0.3 23.6 0.4 16.7 0.3

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.7 3.3 43,225 607 16.1 0.5 21.6 0.6 18.8 0.4

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.1 3.8 46,816 711 15.8 0.6 25.5 0.6 17.5 0.6

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.4 1.9 50,228 292 12.5 0.3 27.3 0.4 15.5 0.3

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.3 6.4 53,636 1,699 13.2 0.9 27.9 1.4 16.0 0.9

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.9 3.8 42,367 559 17.8 0.5 21.6 0.6 17.8 0.6

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.4 7.5 48,321 1,598 12.5 0.9 24.8 1.3 16.8 1.2

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.8 3.1 41,693 423 17.1 0.5 23.1 0.6 17.0 0.4

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.8 1.5 49,392 391 17.4 0.2 22.6 0.3 22.8 0.3

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.7 2.5 55,869 805 12.7 0.7 22.1 0.8 16.9 0.6

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3 7.1 52,776 1,420 10.3 0.9 32.0 1.4 12.1 0.7

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.4 2.5 61,882 507 10.5 0.3 32.9 0.5 15.0 0.4

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.7 2.2 56,835 569 12.6 0.3 26.8 0.6 16.6 0.4

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.6 5.7 38,482 875 17.2 0.8 19.3 1.0 17.5 0.9

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3 2.5 50,395 428 12.2 0.4 25.5 0.5 15.3 0.3

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.6 8.6 56,322 1,890 10.7 1.1 22.5 1.9 14.9 1.4

1

 This reflects the poverty level of the householder for all people in the listed geographic area. 2

 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 or subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent confidence 

interval. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey.
8 U.S. Census Bureau

While the model does not explain 

all of the variance in recent births 

to unmarried women, it explains 

about 67 percent, indicating that 

educational level and income are 

important factors associated with 

the occurrence of recent births to 

unmarried women. Clearly, however, these two factors alone do 

not account for all of the variation 

that is observed across states. 

In short, there are other unmeasured factors which also affect the 

proportion of births to unmarried 

women at the state level.

METRO FINDINGS

Figure 2 shows percentages of 

women with a birth in the last 

year who are unmarried for the 

metropolitan statistical areas in 

the United States.18 Since having a 

birth in the 12 months prior to the 

survey is a relatively rare event, 

estimates of the proportions of 

these births that are to unmarried 

women can be quite variable, even 

at the metropolitan level. Because 

of this, we show only whether 

estimates differ significantly from 

the national average, rather than 

showing a range of values. 

Among the metropolitan areas with 

estimates at least 10 percentage 

points higher than the national 

average are Flagstaff, Arizona (74.6 

percent), Greenville, North Carolina 

(69.4 percent), Lima, Ohio (67.5 

percent), Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle 

Beach-Conway, South Carolina (67.4 

percent), and Danville, VA (67.3 

percent). None of these estimates 

18 By Census Bureau definition, metropolitan areas require the presence of a distinct 

city with 50,000 or more inhabitants or the 

presence of an urban area (more than a single 

city or town) with a total population of at 

least 100,000. For more information on the 

366 metropolitan statistical areas, lists of 

these areas, and definitions, see 

<http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta

/long_metro.htm>. Two metropolitan areas 

did not meet the population threshold of 

65,000 in the ACS 2011 1-year file and so are 

not shown in this report: Carson city, NV, and 

Lewiston, ID-WA. 

differs statistically from each other, 

and they also do not differ from 

estimates for some other metropolitan areas. But all of the areas 

listed above are significantly higher 

than the U.S. average value of 

35.7 percent. 

Among the metropolitan areas with 

percentages of unmarried women 

with a birth in the last year that 

are at least 10 percentage points 

below the national average are 

Provo-Orem, Utah (8.2 percent), 

Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, 

Washington (12.2 percent), 

Bremerton-Silverdale, Washington 

(12.5 percent), and Lake Havasu 

City-Kingman, Arizona (12.7 

percent). None of these estimates 

differs statistically from each other, 

and they also do not differ from 

some estimates for other metropolitan areas.19 A complete list of percentages of women with a birth in 

the last year who were unmarried, 

for metropolitan areas is available 

in Table A available on the Internet 

at <www.census.gov/hhes/fertility

/data/acs/>.

As demonstrated above at the 

state level, a statistical model can 

quantify the amount of association 

19 Some other metropolitan areas also 

have estimates at least 10 percentage points 

below the national average but have a coefficient of variation of at least .6, and so are 

not discussed here.

Table 4. 

Selected Metropolitan Statistical Areas With Among the 

Highest and Lowest Percentages of Recent Births to 

Unmarried Women Aged 15 to 50: 2011

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, 

and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www

State

Percent nonmarital births

Percent Margin of error1

 U.S. total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.7 0.5

Among the highest2

Flagstaff, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.6 15.2

Greenville, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.4 15.2

Lima, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.5 13.7

Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC . . . . . . . 67.4 17.9

Danville, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.3 24.0

Brunswick, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.2 35.2

Redding, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.8 30.8

Monroe, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.5 17.7

Sumter, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.6 24.9

Albany, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.5 17.0

Among the lowest2

Cheyenne, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 8.5

Palm Coast, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 14.4

Jonesboro, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 12.8

Provo-Orem, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 4.5

Missoula, MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 11.3

St. George, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 15.9

Logan, UT-ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 10.3

Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 10.4

Bremerton-Silverdale, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 8.1

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.7 11.3

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 or subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent 

confidence interval. 2

 Estimates shown in this table may not differ statistically from one another or from estimates for other 

metropolitan statistical areas.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey.
U.S. Census Bureau

9

Source: U.S. Census Bureau,

2011 American Community Survey.

0 500Miles

0 100 Miles

0 100 Miles

Significance ascompared to the national average

No difference

Significantly lower

Notes: Metropolitan Statistical Areas defined

by the Office of Management and Budget 

as of December 2009.

Data are only shown for Metropolitan Statistical

Areas that have a population of 65,000 or more.

Significantly higher

Percent of Women With A Recent Birth Who are Unmarriedby Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2011

Figure 2.

U.S. percent is 35.7

Data not shown
10 U.S. Census Bureau

among several factors. The same 

model that was used for states 

was estimated for metropolitan 

areas and shows the same pattern 

of positive association between the 

proportion of women with less than 

a high school degree and the proportion of recent births to unmarried women. We also see the same 

negative association with income, 

such that metropolitan areas with 

higher median income have lower 

proportions of recent births to 

unmarried women, in general. With 

the larger number of metropolitan 

areas compared with states, there 

was an increase in the variance 

of the proportion of recent births 

to unmarried women. The model 

explains roughly 27 percent of the 

variance, less than was explained 

in the state-level model mentioned 

above. So, while the model shows 

women’s educational levels and 

household income to be related to 

the proportion of recent births to 

unmarried women over and above 

the area’s proportion of unmarried 

women, it also demonstrates again 

that there are other factors related 

to the proportion of recent births to 

unmarried women. 

SOURCE AND ACCURACY

The data presented in this report 

are based on the ACS sample 

interviewed in 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>.