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

Helping You Make Informed Decisions •1902-2002

Demographic Programs

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Fertility and Program Participation

in the United States: 1996

Household Economic Studies

Issued May 2002

Current

Population

Reports

By Jane Lawler Dye

P70-82

INTRODUCTION

1996 Program coverage: 

AFDC, Food Stamps, WIC, 

and Medicaid

This report presents data from the

Survey of Income and Program

Participation (SIPP) about the fertility and

socioeconomic characteristics of mothers

in 1996 related to participation in four

programs: Aid to Families with

Dependent Children (AFDC); food

stamps; the Special Supplemental

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,

and Children (WIC); and Medicaid (see the

definition box at the end of the report).

Information on mothers’ participation in

public assistance programs from three

Census Bureau statistical briefs based on

SIPP data in 19931 have been extended to

mothers in 1996. Expanding the scope

of the previously released briefs, 1996

data on mothers’ participation in

Medicaid have been included. Because

this report focuses on the fertility differences between mothers in their childbearing ages, its findings are limited to

women 15 to 44 years old in 1996 who

had given birth to one or more children.

These data take on added importance

because in 1996 Congress passed the

Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act

(PRWORA).2 So, the 1996 SIPP data provide a pre-welfare reform benchmark

from which to study the impact of this

legislative change on mothers’ fertility

and socioeconomic characteristics at the

national level. Subsequent SIPP data providing information similar to that found

in this report was collected in 2001 and

will be available for future analysis. In

addition, the Census Bureau is conducting the Survey of Program Dynamics

(SPD), a longitudinal survey specifically

designed to evaluate welfare reform.

More detailed information on the effect

of PRWORA and changes in program participation and family characteristics will

1 U.S. Census Bureau. Mothers Who Receive AFDC

Payments: Fertility and Socioeconomic

Characteristics, SB/95-2. Washington, DC, 1995;

Mothers Who Receive Food Stamps: Fertility and

Socioeconomic Characteristics, SB/95-22.

Washington, DC, 1995; Mothers Who Receive WIC

Benefits: Fertility and Socioeconomic Characteristics,

SB/95-29. Washington, DC, 1995. 2 U.S. Congress, Public Law 104-193: Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

of 1996: H.R. 3734, 1996. 

What’s in This Report?

INTRODUCTION

FERTILITY CHARACTERISTICS OF

PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS

MARITAL STATUS AND PROGRAM

PARTICIPATION

HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

AND LIVING ARRANGEMENTS

TEENAGE CHILDBEARING

RACE, ETHNICITY, AND

NATIVITY

LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION,

EDUCATION, AND ECONOMIC

STATUS

SUMMARY
be available when these data files

are released.

FERTILITY

CHARACTERISTICS OF

PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS

Lifetime fertility rates

declined from 1993 to 1996.

Childbearing data are presented for

mothers participating in each public assistance program at the time

of their interviews in 1993 and

1996, as well as for mothers who

were not participants when interviewed. Fertility data are shown

for mothers only,3 since much of

the legislative interest in these programs is focused on child and family well-being.

Lifetime fertility rates for mothers

15 to 44 years old declined slightly

between 1993 and 1996. Mothers 

2 U.S. Census Bureau

3 Childless but pregnant women may also

receive WIC benefits. The SIPP, however,

does not collect information on the pregnancy status of respondents, so WIC participants

who are childless are excluded from this

analysis.

4 The estimates in this report are based

on responses from a sample of the population. As with all surveys, estimates may

vary from the actual (population) values

because of sampling variation, or other factors. All statements made in this report

have undergone statistical testing and meet

Census Bureau standards for statistical accuracy. 5 Based on demographic convention, fertility rates in the tables are presented as

births or children ever born per 1,000 mothers in the group being studied. In the text,

fertility rates are expressed as an average

number of births per mother.

in 1996 averaged about 2.1 births4

during their lifetime to date, different from the 1993 average of 2.2

children ever born (Table 1).5

Furthermore, in both years, nonparticipants generally had a lower

average number of children ever

born than did mothers participating in public assistance programs,

except for mothers participating in

the WIC program, where no differences were found between participants and nonparticipants.

Both 1993 and 1996 data show

that mothers receiving AFDC and

food stamps averaged about 2.5 to

2.6 children each, higher than the

2.1 to 2.2 range of births per

mother for mothers who were WIC

participants. However, AFDC and

food stamp participants were older

than WIC participants and, hence,

had more years of cumulative

childbearing experience. In 1996,

48 percent of AFDC participants

and 53 percent of food stamp participants were 30 to 44 years old,

compared with only 22 percent of

WIC participants.6

More than one in five mothers

in 1996 were program

participants.

In 1996, 8 million mothers 15 to

44 years old participated in at least

one of the four public assistance

programs highlighted in this

report, or 22 percent of the 

35.5 million mothers in the childbearing age group (Table 2). The

participation of mothers in one

program often overlapped with eligibility and participation in other

programs. Figure 1 shows, in

6 Detailed tabulations by age for participants in different programs can be found on

the internet at www.census.gov. Click on

“People” then “Fertility.”

Tabl e 1.

Children Ever Born Per 1,000 Mothers1 by Program Participation Status: 1993 and 1996

Program status

1996 1993

Children ever

born per

1,000

mothers

90-percent

confidence interval

Children ever

born per

1,000

mothers

90-percent

confidence interval

Lower bound Upper bound Lower bound Upper bound

All mothers ...............................

Program Participants2

2,136 2,118 2,154 2,171 2,153 2,189

AFDC.................................... 2,543 2,409 2,677 2,586 2,469 2,703

Food stamps.............................. 2,505 2,408 2,602 2,577 2,481 2,673

WIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nonparticipants3

2,083 1,880 2,286 2,228 2,090 2,366

AFDC.................................... 2,100 2,079 2,121 2,123 2,101 2,145

Food stamps.............................. 2,074 2,050 2,098 2,101 2,077 2,125

WIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,138 2,119 2,157 2,167 2,147 2,187

1

Mothers are defined as women 15 to 44 who have had one or more births.

2

For comparison purposes with the 1993 data, Medicaid participation is not included in the 1996 data in this table.

3

Nonparticipants are mothers not participating in the specified program only.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, Wave 2 1993 and Wave 2 1996.
detail, that 9 percent of all mothers age 15 to 44 were enrolled in

one program, 6 percent were in

two programs, 7 percent received

assistance from three programs,

and 1 percent were in all four programs. Almost everyone who

received AFDC also enrolled in

Medicaid, and almost everyone

getting food stamps got Medicaid,

as well. However, there was no

complete overlap of participation

in more than one program by any

of the participants.7 Of the 

U.S. Census Bureau 3

7 The internet tables show details for participation in specific individual programs.

8 million mothers who received

assistance from one or more of

these programs, 6.8 million were

in Medicaid, 5.1 million mothers

received food stamps, 2.9 million

received AFDC, and only 1.1 million received assistance through

WIC (Table 2). 

It is important to note that the SIPP

data represent program participation at one point in time — the fall

of 1996. They do not represent

annual caseloads or the total number of people who may have participated in these programs at any time

during the year.8

8 Differences may be noted between program participation shown in this report and

the estimates presented from agency reports

which administer these programs. In addition to different universe definitions of participants (this analysis includes only mothers

15 to 44 years old), the SIPP data are based

on participation at one point in time, rather

than total participation in a calendar year.

For example, administrative data show that

there were 4.6 million families on AFDC during the1996 calendar year and 1.6 million

women receiving WIC benefits. U.S. House of

Representatives, 1998 Green Book:

Background Material and Data on Programs

within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on

Ways and Means: WMCP 104-14, 1998.

(Table 7-6). 

Tabl e 2.

Fertility Characteristics of Mothers by Program Participation Status: 1996

Type of program Total

(in thousands)

Percent of

all mothers

Children ever

born per

1,000 mothers

Percent with

birth in the

last year

Percent with

nonmarital

first birth

All mothers ....................................

Program Participants

35,492 100.0 2,136 10.9 32.2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,952 22.4 2,361 19.7 58.5

AFDC ......................................... 2,888 8.1 2,543 15.5 70.8

Food stamps .................................. 5,104 14.4 2,505 16.0 64.4

WIC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,080 3.0 2,083 57.3 56.3

Medicaid ......................................

Nonparticipants

6,805 19.2 2,377 18.7 60.1

Total1 ...................................... 27,540 77.6 2,071 8.3 24.7

1

Mothers not participating in any of the four specified programs.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, Wave 2 1996.

Figure 1.

Mothers Age 15 to 44 by Participation in 

Public Assistance Programs: 1996

Note: The four public assistance programs included are AFDC, food stamps, WIC, and 

Medicaid. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, Wave 2 1996.

(Percent of all mothers)

No programs 78%

1 program 9%

2 programs 6%

3 programs 7%

4 programs 1%

Participated in:
Program participants had

higher fertility rates than

other mothers.

Table 2 indicates that fertility was

higher among program participants

than among mothers who did not

receive assistance (an average of

2.4 births compared with 2.1

births per mother, respectively).

Mothers who were program participants were also more likely to

have given birth to three or more

children (39 percent) compared

with mothers who were nonparticipants (26 percent).9 The percentage of mothers who had a nonmarital first-birth was more than twice

as high for program participants

(59 percent) as for nonparticipants

(25 percent). 

4 U.S. Census Bureau

9 Based on author’s tabulations not

shown in tables.

Young mothers with infants

were more likely in need of

assistance.

Twenty percent of mothers receiving

assistance had given birth within a

year of the interview, compared with

8 percent of nonparticipants (Figure

2). Forty-one percent of mothers

with infants were receiving public

assistance in 1996. Program participants with a recent birth were also

less likely to be married at the time

of the survey than nonparticipants —

one-half compared with one-eighth.

Furthermore, nonmarital childbearing

was more prevalent among younger

women, regardless of program participation status, than among older

women. These data suggest that

when mothers have an infant to care

for and particularly when they are

young themselves and unmarried,

they may be more likely to need public assistance.

MARITAL STATUS AND

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

Unmarried mothers are exposed to

a greater risk of poverty than married mothers.10 Therefore, policy

makers want to track marriage and

fertility patterns, to facilitate the

planning and evaluation of public

assistance programs. 

Almost half of program

participants were currently

married, but many had an

absent husband.

In 1996, 48 percent of mothers

who received public assistance

were currently married (Table 3).

However, 26 percent of these 

10 U.S. Census Bureau; “Historical Tables

(Table 4) Poverty Status of Families, by Type

of Family, Presence of Related Children, Race

and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 1999;” updated

Jan 18, 2001; http://www.census.gov/hhes/

poverty/histpov/hstpov4.html.

Figure 2.

Mothers by Program Participation Status and Age, Who Had a 

Birth in the Last Year by Current Marital Status: 1996

Note: The percent currently married and the percent unmarried may not add to the total percent with a birth in the last year because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, Wave 2 1996.

(Percent of mothers in specified category with a birth in the last year)

10

11

18

13

10

4

3

7

10

16

16

11

4

10

46

17

8 4 3

23

5

Total 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 Total 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44

Age group

Program participants

Age group

Nonparticipants

Currently married

Unmarried

20

57

34

21

13

7

4

8

33

21

18

11

5

2
3.8 million married mothers receiv- determine the potential needs of

ing assistance did not live in the families is to look at their living

same households as their hus- arrangements. 

bands. In contrast, 81 percent of

mothers who were not receiving Program participants tended

to have more dependents assistance were married, and only under the age of 18. 5 percent of these 22.3 million

mothers were not living with their Families or households with larger

spouses. Never-married mothers numbers of children generally

tend to be younger and especially require more income and a greater

vulnerable to economic insecurity: expenditure of time by parents or

36 percent of mothers who were other adults to provide for the chilprogram participants had never dren’s well-being. Some families

been married, compared with only include children who are not the

7 percent of nonparticipants. biological children of the houseRegardless of marital status, fertility holder, such as foster children, or

rates were higher among program the children of other relatives or

participants than nonparticipants. adults in the household. In 1996,

mothers receiving public assisMore than half of program tance were more likely to have

participants were unmarried three or more children living with when they had their first child. them (36 percent) than were mothWhile high levels of nonmarital ers not receiving assistance (19

first-births occurred in 1996 across percent). In addition, program parall socioeconomic groups, the pro- ticipant mothers were three times

portion of mothers who had a non- as likely as nonparticipants to be

marital first-birth was generally the only adult living in the househigher among mothers receiving hold (Figure 3).

public assistance. Fifty-nine percent of program participants were Program participants were

more likely to live with unwed when they had their first related adults and unmarried child, compared with 25 percent of partners. nonparticipants. 

Mothers living with an adult relative Higher than average proportions of (other than a spouse) may receive nonmarital first-births for program additional support or, conversely, participants were also found increased strain on family among mothers who were 20 to 24 resources. For example, some years old (70 percent), Black households include a grandparent (85 percent), in poverty (64 per- who helps the parent by providing cent), not high school graduates financial or in-kind support, such as (64 percent), or living in central childcare, while in other households

cities of metropolitan areas the grandparent may require addi- (67 percent). tional resources and care because

of old age or disability. Figure 3 HOUSEHOLD shows that significant proportions CHARACTERISTICS AND of mothers lived with relatives: LIVING ARRANGEMENTS 24 percent of all mothers participatHousehold composition, such as ing in a program had one or more

the ratio of working-age adults to adult relatives residing with them,

children, directly affects family compared with 12 percent of all

economic well-being. One way to nonparticipant mothers. 

Cohabitation is an increasingly

common living arrangement.11 In

1996, 1.5 million mothers age 15

to 44 lived with an unmarried partner, which decreases the dependency ratio of children to adults.

Figure 3 shows that those who participated in one or more programs

were more likely than nonparticipating mothers to cohabit with an

unmarried partner (7 percent and 

3 percent, respectively). Program

participants living with an unmarried partner had a higher average

number of births (2.4 children ever

born) than mothers who were not

program participants (2.0 children

ever born). They were also more

likely to have had three or more

births. Twenty-seven percent of

the 591,000 program participants

living with an unmarried partner

had three or more children in 1996

compared with 8 percent of the

941,000 nonparticipants with

unmarried partners. Finally, mothers receiving assistance and living

with an unmarried partner were

more likely to have had a nonmarital first-birth compared to nonparticipants with an unmarried partner

(75 percent and 53 percent,

respectively).

The living arrangements of women

with infants are of particular interest because these mothers may be

more likely to need family support

and public assistance. In 1996, 

24 percent of program participant

mothers who lived with a spouse

had given birth within the last

year, not significantly different

from mothers who were living with

an unmarried partner (27 percent).

Among nonparticipant mothers,

U.S. Census Bureau 5

11 Data from decennial censuses indicates

that the number of unmarried-partner households increased significantly in the past

decade. Tavia Simmons and Grace O’Neill.

“Households and Families.” Census 2000

Brief, C2KBR/01-8. U.S. Census Bureau:

Washington, DC, 2001.
6 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 3.

Mothers 15 to 44 Years Old by Program Participation Status and Selected

Characteristics: 1996

Characteristic

Program participants Nonparticipants

Percent

of all

mothers

who are

program

participants

Total

(in

thousands)

Percent

of

program

participants

Children

ever

born

per

1,000

mothers

Percent

with

birth in

the last

year

Percent

with

nonmarital

first

birth

Total

(in

thousands)

Percent

of

nonparticipants

Children

ever

born

per

1,000

mothers

Percent

with

birth in

the last

year

Percent

with

nonmarital

first

birth

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

Age

7,952 100.0 2,361 19.7 58.5 27,540 100.0 2,071 8.3 24.7 22.4

15 to 19 years ............. 479 6.0 1,251 56.9 88.8 203 0.7 1,139 32.6 80.4 70.2

20 to 24 years ............. 1,708 21.5 1,664 34.3 70.3 1,579 5.7 1,440 21.2 56.2 52.0

25 to 29 years ............. 1,749 22.0 2,339 20.8 61.6 3,868 14.0 1,719 17.8 31.8 31.1

30 to 34 years ............. 1,596 20.1 2,631 13.3 53.6 6,446 23.4 2,022 11.3 24.7 19.8

35 to 39 years ............. 1,397 17.6 2,868 6.7 45.6 7,778 28.2 2,225 4.6 19.4 15.2

40 to 44 years .............

Marital Status

1,023 12.9 2,971 3.8 44.9 7,666 27.8 2,288 1.6 18.4 11.8

Currently married........... 3,826 48.1 2,582 21.1 35.4 22,321 81.0 2,139 9.1 18.0 14.6

Married, husband present . 2,818 35.4 2,508 23.9 31.1 21,165 76.9 2,141 9.2 17.5 11.7

Married, husband absent1 . 1,008 12.7 2,789 13.2 47.5 1,156 4.2 2,109 6.9 27.9 46.6

Divorced .................. 1,144 14.4 2,529 7.4 32.7 2,947 10.7 1,917 1.4 22.7 28.0

Widowed . . ............... 93 1.2 (B) (B) (B) 223 0.8 2,480 0.0 21.4 29.4

Never married .............

Household Characteristics

Number of people under 18

in the household2

2,890 36.3 1,977 23.2 100.0 2,049 7.4 1,501 10.7 100.0 58.5

One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,332 29.3 1,386 17.6 58.3 8,915 32.4 1,378 8.7 25.9 20.7

Two. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,336 29.4 2,162 18.2 55.9 10,272 37.3 2,114 7.4 20.0 18.5

Three or more ...........

No other person 18 years

2,841 35.7 3,359 23.6 60.1 5,275 19.2 3,312 11.9 25.8 35.0

and over present .......... 2,542 32.0 2,475 10.4 69.0 2,806 10.2 1,793 2.6 39.7 47.5

Other adult present3 ........ 5,410 68.0 2,308 24.1 53.6 24,734 89.8 2,102 9.0 23.0 17.9

Living with spouse........

Living with adult

2,818 35.4 2,508 23.9 31.1 21,165 76.9 2,141 9.2 17.5 11.7

relative(s) ..............

Living with an unmarried

1,926 24.2 2,150 21.9 73.2 3,360 12.2 2,089 7.1 44.8 36.4

partner.................

Living with other adult

591 7.4 2,352 27.0 74.7 941 3.4 1,951 7.9 53.3 38.6

nonrelative(s) ...........

Race and Ethnicity

384 4.8 1,934 28.0 78.5 692 2.5 1,814 5.9 47.3 35.7

White . . . .................. 5,154 64.8 2,313 22.2 47.5 23,028 83.6 2,075 8.6 20.0 18.3

Non-Hispanic ............ 3,948 49.6 2,203 22.0 45.6 20,920 76.0 2,038 8.6 19.1 15.9

Black . . ................... 2,374 29.9 2,427 14.8 84.6 3,195 11.6 2,050 6.5 58.9 42.6

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

Place of Birth

1,325 16.7 2,670 21.9 56.6 2,261 8.2 2,454 8.5 29.8 36.9

Native4.................... 6,714 84.4 2,302 18.9 61.5 24,161 87.7 2,051 8.2 24.4 21.7

Foreign born............... 1,238 15.6 2,682 24.0 42.8 3,379 12.3 2,211 9.2 26.5 26.8

Naturalized citizen........ 182 2.3 (B) (B) (B) 1,209 4.4 2,110 7.7 19.8 13.1

Not a citizen . . ...........

Labor Force Status

Had a job during last 4

1,056 13.3 2,648 23.2 42.7 2,169 7.9 2,268 10.0 30.2 32.8

months................... 3,822 48.1 2,228 15.6 57.9 21,981 79.8 2,025 7.4 25.3 14.8

No job last 4 months........ 4,130 51.9 2,484 23.6 59.1 5,559 20.2 2,251 11.9 22.1 42.6

Unable to find work .......

Not able to work due to

314 4.0 2,291 8.8 72.3 187 0.7 (B) (B) (B) 62.6

disability ...............

Educational Attainment

537 6.8 2,580 7.3 62.1 208 0.8 2,163 1.2 27.7 72.1

Not a high school graduate . . 2,753 34.6 2,676 21.9 64.3 2,851 10.4 2,511 7.6 41.7 49.1

High school, 4 years ........ 2,980 37.5 2,233 20.7 57.7 8,881 32.2 2,073 6.1 28.2 25.1

College, 1 or more years ....

Job Training

Received job training in

2,219 27.9 2,143 15.6 52.5 15,809 57.4 1,990 9.7 19.6 12.3

past 12 months ...........

Sponsored by the

671 8.4 2,248 12.1 65.0 1,295 4.7 1,940 6.7 28.7 34.1

government ............. 384 4.8 2,396 10.6 69.3 148 0.5 (B) (B) (B) 72.2

See footnotes at end of table.
the percent who had given birth PRWORA. Having a child as a The majority of teenage

during the last year was lower, teenager may interrupt a young mothers were program

participants. compared with participants, for woman’s educational pursuits and

both mothers living with a spouse put her at risk of economic hard- Of the estimated 682,000 teenage

(9 percent) and mothers living with ship. In addition, early childbearing mothers in 1996, 70 percent were

an unmarried partner (8 percent). can lead to higher levels of lifetime enrolled in one or more of the

fertility by the end of a woman’s public assistance programs examTEENAGE CHILDBEARING reproductive life. Larger family size ined in this report (Table 3). Six

Teenage childbearing was identified may increase the financial burdens percent of participant mothers

as both a significant social issue of the household, and increase the were teenagers compared with 

and a factor associated with long- likelihood of receiving public assis- 1 percent of nonparticipant mothterm receipt of public assistance in tance in later years. ers. Adolescent mothers were less

U.S. Census Bureau 7

Table 3.

Mothers 15 to 44 Years Old by Program Participation Status and Selected

Characteristics: 1996Con.

Characteristic

Program participants Nonparticipants

Percent

of all

mothers

who are

program

participants

Total

(in

thousands)

Percent

of

program

participants

Children

ever

born

per

1,000

mothers

Percent

with

birth in

the last

year

Percent

with

nonmarital

first

birth

Total

(in

thousands)

Percent

of

nonparticipants

Children

ever

born

per

1,000

mothers

Percent

with

birth in

the last

year

Percent

with

nonmarital

first

birth

Monthly Family Income5

Less than $500 ............ 1,323 16.6 2,237 18.8 71.5 467 1.7 1,965 7.8 37.9 73.9

$500 to $1,499............. 3,476 43.7 2,463 16.8 60.4 2,690 9.8 2,003 5.3 43.4 56.4

$1,500 and over............

Child Support6

2,945 37.0 2,309 21.7 49.3 24,087 87.5 2,082 8.6 21.9 10.9

Received payments......... 1,151 14.5 2,389 13.4 59.0 2,852 10.4 1,998 3.4 32.2 28.8

Did not receive payments . . .

Poverty Level5

3,924 49.3 2,317 17.7 76.5 3,934 14.3 1,961 6.1 55.0 49.9

Below poverty level.........

100 to 199 percent of

4,253 53.5 2,578 17.8 64.2 2,021 7.3 2,322 7.7 41.1 67.8

poverty level..............

200 percent of poverty level

2,372 29.8 2,215 19.6 51.7 5,658 20.5 2,311 7.7 34.6 29.5

or higher .................

Metropolitan Residence

1,120 14.1 1,879 22.1 48.3 19,565 71.0 1,977 8.6 19.6 5.4

Metropolitan ............... 6,029 75.8 2,359 20.0 60.8 22,230 80.7 2,055 8.8 25.3 21.3

In central city ............ 3,311 41.6 2,387 17.5 67.0 6,956 25.3 2,058 9.9 33.9 32.2

Not in central city......... 2,718 34.2 2,325 23.1 53.2 15,274 55.5 2,054 8.3 21.3 15.1

Nonmetropolitan............ 1,923 24.2 2,369 18.8 51.5 5,310 19.3 2,137 6.4 22.1 26.6

B Base less than 200,000 is too small to show derived statistics.

1

Includes separated women.

2

Numbers may not add to total since category excludes mothers whose children are 18 years and over or who live elsewhere.

3

Categories under ‘‘Other adult present’’ are not mutually exclusive.

4

Includes people born in U.S. outlying areas and abroad to parents who are U.S. citizens.

5

Excludes those who did not report income.

6

Data only shown for mothers who were not married or not living with a spouse.

Note: Participation status is defined as participating in at least one program (AFDC, food stamps, WIC or Medicaid) or participating in

none.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, Wave 2 1996.
likely than older mothers to be

married at the time of their first

birth, regardless of their program

participation status. Among program participants, 89 percent of

teen mothers had a nonmarital

first-birth, not statistically different

from that of nonparticipant teen

mothers (80 percent).12 In addition, teenage mothers may have

greater need for public assistance

if they have very young children,

which is commonly the case. Fiftyseven percent of teen mothers

receiving public assistance had a

child within 1 year of the survey,

compared with 33 percent receiving no assistance.

8 U.S. Census Bureau

12 These proportions are not statistically

different because there are large standard

errors associated with estimates based on

small samples (89 percent of 479,000 teen

program participants and 80 percent of

203,000 teen nonparticipants). 

Figure 3.

Mothers Living in Selected Living Arrangements by 

Program Participation Status: 1996

* Excluding spouses.

Note: Percentages may sum to more than 100 percent because more than one type of 

adult may live in a household.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, Wave 2 1996.

(Percent living in selected arrangements)

10

77

12

3 3

32 35

24

7 5

With other

adult

nonrelative

With a

cohabiting

partner 

With one or

more adult

relatives*

With no With spouse

other adult

Program participant

Nonparticipant

Tabl e 4.

Living Arrangements of Teenage Mothers by Program Participation Status: 1996

(Percent)

90-percent confidence interval 90-percent confidence interval

Type of living arrangement Program Nonparticiparticipants Lower bound Upper bound pants Lower bound Upper bound

Number of mothers (in thousands) .... 479 418 540 203 163 243

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 - - 100.0 - -

No adult present .................... 12.8 8.5 17.1 6.3 1.5 11.1

Adult present1 ...................... 87.2 82.9 91.5 93.7 88.9 98.5

Living with spouse................. 16.0 11.3 20.7 27.7 18.9 36.5

Other related adult(s) in the

household2 ...................... 56.4 50.0 62.8 59.4 49.7 69.1

Living with an unmarried partner .... 7.3 4.0 10.6 5.6 1.1 10.1

Living with other adult

nonrelative(s)3 ................... 11.9 7.7 16.1 16.4 9.1 23.7

- Represents or rounds to zero.

1

Adults includes all people 18 years and over plus spouses and unmarried partners 15 years and over.

2

Excludes spouses.

3

Excludes unmarried partners.

Note: Teen mothers who were program participants and living with related adults, an unmarried partner, or other adult nonrelative were

not significantly different than teen mothers who were nonparticipants in these living arrangements.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, Wave 2 1996.
Most teen mothers lived with

an adult relative.

The living arrangements of teenage

mothers in 1996 differed slightly by

their program participation status:

13 percent of teen mothers receiving public assistance lived with no

one else age 18 or older, while only

6 percent of teenage nonparticipants lived with no other adults

(Table 4). Sixteen percent of teen

mothers participating in programs

were living with a spouse, compared with 28 percent of nonparticipant teen mothers. The majority of

teen mothers lived with one or

more adult relatives — 56 percent

of program participants and 59 percent of nonparticipants — differences which are not statistically significant. On average, among

participants and nonparticipants,

only a small proportion of teen

mothers lived with an unmarried

partner (about 7 percent), while

around 14 percent of teen mothers

lived with an adult nonrelative who

was not an unmarried partner, usually a roommate or housemate.

RACE, ETHNICITY, AND

NATIVITY 

Regardless of program

participation status, Hispanic

mothers had the highest

average number of births. 

Receipt of public assistance among

mothers in 1996 differed by race

and Hispanic origin.13 One-half of

the mothers who received public

U.S. Census Bureau 9

13 Data for American Indian and Alaska

Native and Asian and Pacific Islander populations are not shown in this report because of

the small sample size in the SIPP. Based on

the population of women between the ages

of 15 and 44 in the Wave 2, 1996 Panel,

11.8 percent of the White population, and

3.3 percent of the Black population were

also of Hispanic origin.

assistance but three-fourths of the

mothers who did not receive assistance were White, non-Hispanic

(Table 3). Recipients were much

more likely to be Black (30 percent)

or Hispanic (17 percent) than

mothers who did not receive assistance (12 percent and 8 percent,

respectively).14

Overall, Black mothers and

Hispanic mothers had higher average numbers of births per mother

than White, non-Hispanic mothers

in 1996. Among program participants, Black mothers averaged 

2.4 births, while Hispanic mothers

averaged 2.7 births (Figure 4).

White, non-Hispanic mothers

receiving assistance had an average of 2.2 births. Among nonparticipants, the average number of

births to White, non-Hispanics and

Blacks were not significantly different from each other (2.0 and 2.1

births, respectively), but were less

than the average number of births

among Hispanic mothers who were

nonparticipants (2.5 births). 

Blacks were more likely to have

had a nonmarital first-birth 

(85 percent of program participants and 59 percent of nonparticipants) than were White, nonHispanic mothers (46 percent and

19 percent, respectively) (Table 3).

The percentage of Hispanic mothers who had a nonmarital firstbirth was 57 percent among program participants and 30 percent

among nonparticipants. 

Program participants were

only slightly more likely to be

foreign-born.

Fertility is generally higher among

foreign-born mothers than among

native mothers, and program

14 Hispanic mothers may be of any race.

Figure 4.

Average Number of Lifetime Births to Mothers by 

Race, Hispanic Origin and Program 

Participation Status: 1996

Note: Hispanics may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, Wave 2 1996.

(Births per mother 15 to 44 years old)

2.1 2.0 2.1

2.5

2.3 2.2

2.4

2.7

White White, non-Hispanic Black Hispanic

Program participant

Nonparticipant
participants were slightly more

likely than nonparticipants to be

foreign-born (16 percent and 

12 percent, respectively). Foreignborn mothers with higher fertility

may be more likely to need financial help and public assistance.

Foreign-born mothers participating

in programs averaged 2.7 total

births compared with 2.2 births

among foreign-born nonparticipants. The difference was smaller

for native mothers, who had an

average of 2.3 births among mothers receiving assistance and 2.1

births among nonrecipients. 

In addition, foreign-born mothers

who are not naturalized citizens

may experience more economic

hardship in adjusting to life in a

new country than either native

mothers, who do not have to make

this adjustment, or foreign-born

mothers who have become naturalized citizens and typically have

lived in the United States for several

years. As a result, they may

depend more on public assistance

programs. Of the 3.2 million foreign-born mothers who were not

citizens in 1996, 1.1 million 

(33 percent) were enrolled in public

assistance programs. However,

among the 1.4 million foreign-born

mothers who had become naturalized citizens, the level of program

participation was only 13 percent.

In comparison, the proportion of

native mothers enrolled in one or

more public assistance programs

was 22 percent of 30.9 million. 

Among program participants, native

mothers were more likely than foreign-born mothers to have had a

nonmarital first-birth (62 percent and

43 percent, respectively). Among

nonparticipants, however, the percentage of women with a nonmarital

first-birth did not differ significantly

by nativity status (24 percent of

native mothers versus 27 percent of

foreign-born mothers).

LABOR FORCE reported being unable to find work

PARTICIPATION, EDUCATION, and 13 percent were not able to

AND ECONOMIC STATUS work due to a disability (Table 3).

Among nonparticipants, less than Families obtain their economic sup- 4 percent of unemployed mothers port through various sources of reported either one of these prob- income. These sources can include

lems. mother’s earnings, husband’s earnings, child support, public assis- Fertility rates were higher among

tance, and other sources of income, mothers who were not working.

including help from relatives and For program participants, mothers

friends. In general, mothers receiv- who were not working had an avering public assistance had lower age of 2.5 births, while employed

family incomes, lower levels of participant mothers had an average

labor force participation, and less of 2.2 births. A similar pattern

education than nonparticipant existed for nonrecipients, where the

mothers. average mother who was not working had 2.3 births, and the average Almost half of the program employed mother had 2.0 births. participants in 1996 were

employed. More than one-quarter of the

Almost half of program participants program participants had

some college education. and four-fifths of nonparticipants

were working during the 4 month Figure 5 shows that 35 percent of

reference period (Figure 5). Among mothers receiving assistance had

the 4.1 million program participants not completed high school, comwho did not have a job, 8 percent pared with only 10 percent of

10 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 5.

Selected Employment, Educational, and Economic 

Characteristics of Mothers by Program 

Participation Status: 1996

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, Wave 2 1996.

(Percent with selected characteristics)

80

10

32

57

5 7

48

35 38

28

8

54

Below

poverty

level

Received

job training

in past year

College, 1

or more

years

High

school,

4 years

Not HS

graduate

Employed

during past

month

Program participant

Nonparticipant
nonparticipant mothers. However, job training in the 12 months

28 percent of mothers who were preceding their interview in 1996

participating in a public assistance (Figure 5). The government funded

program had completed 1 or more more than half (57 percent) of the

years of college. The proportion of 671,000 job-training slots used by

nonparticipant mothers with some program participants and 11 percollege education was twice as cent of the 1.3 million used by nonhigh, 57 percent. participants (Table 3).

Mothers with less education tend to No fertility differences exist

have higher fertility rates. In 1996, among mothers with incomes

mothers with less than a high above poverty by participation

school diploma had the highest fer- status.

tility rates. Among them, program Mothers who participated in 1 or participants had about 2.7 births more programs were highly likely to while those who were nonpartici- have family incomes below the fed- pants had about 2.5 births (Table eral poverty level: 54 percent of 3). Participant and nonparticipant program participants were in pover- mothers with 1 or more years of ty compared with only 7 percent of college had lower fertility rates (2.1 nonparticipants (Figure 5). Fertility and 2.0 births, respectively) than rates tended to be higher among mothers who did not graduate from mothers living in poorer economic high school or mothers with a high conditions, regardless of program school diploma and no college who participation status. Program par- had an average of 2.2 births for ticipant mothers with incomes participants and 2.1 births for non- below the poverty level averaged participants. 2.6 births, compared with an averThe proportion of program partici- age of 1.9 births for program particpant mothers who had a nonmarital ipant mothers with incomes of at

first-birth differed by educational least 200 percent of the poverty

attainment. Sixty-four percent of level. Similarly, among nonparticimothers who were receiving assis- pant mothers, the fertility rates

tance and did not graduate from were higher for mothers in poverty

high school had a nonmarital first- compared with mothers with

birth, compared with 58 percent of incomes of at least 200 percent of

program participant mothers who the poverty level (2.3 and 2.0,

finished high school and 53 percent respectively). These figures reveal

who had 1 or more years of college. that, while fertility rates tend to be

The range in nonmarital fertility by higher among mothers on public

educational attainment was wider assistance, fertility rates were not

among nonparticipant mothers: 42 statistically different between nonpercent of nonparticipant mothers participant mothers and participant

who did not complete high school mothers who had incomes above

had a nonmarital first-birth, com- the poverty line (Table 3). 

pared with only 20 percent of nonparticipant mothers with 1 or more Child support was an

important source of income. years of college. 

Economic support from fathers is

A small proportion of mothers another important source of income had recent job training. for mothers who were not married

Only 8 percent of mothers receiving or not living with a spouse. Only 

public assistance and 5 percent of 23 percent of participant mothers

nonparticipant mothers had been in and 42 percent of nonparticipant

mothers not living with a spouse

were receiving child support in

1996.15 One-half of the mothers

who did not receive child support

were receiving public assistance.

SUMMARY

This report has examined fertility

among mothers according to their

participation in selected public

assistance programs. Of the 35.5

million mothers 15 to 44 years old

in 1996, 8 million (22 percent)

were participants in either AFDC,

food stamps, WIC, or Medicaid programs. More than half of mothers

participating in any of these assistance programs were enrolled in

two or more programs. 

Mothers enrolled in assistance programs tended to have relatively

high fertility rates and many

supported and cared for several

children, a large proportion of

whom were infants. Among the

mothers with babies under 1 year

old, 41 percent were program participants. Many mothers relying on

public assistance were solely

responsible for caring for these

children. Only 35 percent of mothers participating in programs were

currently married and living with

their spouse, compared with 

77 percent of mothers not enrolled

in any programs. One out of every

nine teenage mothers was living

with no other adult in the household. Furthermore, half of the

mothers not living with a spouse

and not receiving child support

were receiving public assistance.

Mothers receiving assistance were

more likely than other mothers to

live with an adult relative, which

could be a benefit or a drain on

the household’s resources.

U.S. Census Bureau 11

15 Mothers who are not married or not living with a spouse in this section of the report

are defined as being divorced, widowed, married spouse absent, or never married.
Program participants were also

more likely than nonparticipant

mothers to live with an unmarried

partner (7 percent and 3 percent,

respectively), potentially putting

them at greater risk of having

another baby. 

Program participants in 1996 were

racially and ethnically diverse. Fifty

percent of mothers receiving assistance were White, non-Hispanic,

while Blacks made up 30 percent

and Hispanics made up 17 percent

of program participants. However,

Black and Hispanic mothers were

more likely than White, nonHispanic mothers to rely on public

assistance. Hispanic program participants had the highest average

number of births per mother (2.7

births), followed by Black participants (2.4 births) and White, nonHispanic participants (2.2 births). 

Foreign-born program participants

had a higher average number of

births per mother (2.7 births) than

native mothers (2.3 births), but

were much less likely to have had a

nonmarital first-birth (43 percent

and 62 percent, respectively). In

1996, foreign-born mothers who

were not naturalized citizens were

particularly vulnerable to economic

hardship leading one-third of these

mothers to participate in public

assistance programs.

A sizable proportion of mothers

receiving assistance were employed

and had some college education,

but at lower levels than nonparticipant mothers. Factors driving

mothers to participate in public

assistance programs included not

having another adult in the household, and not having enough education, employment or child support.

For many of these mothers, participation in public assistance programs represented a transitional

time in their lives when they needed financial help.16 

SOURCE OF DATA

The estimates in this report come

from the Survey of Income and

Program Participation (SIPP), a longitudinal survey conducted at 4-

month intervals, and are based on

data collected from August through

November of 1996 by the U.S.

Census Bureau. The data highlighted in this report come primarily

from the core and the fertility history topical module in the second

interview (wave) of the 1996 SIPP

panel. Data from the 1993 SIPP

panel also were collected in the second wave for the 4-month period

from June to September 1993.

Although the main focus of the SIPP

is information on labor force participation, jobs, income, and participation in federal assistance programs,

12 U.S. Census Bureau

16 The median duration female householders with children spent on AFDC, Food

Stamps, and Medicaid programs in the early

1990s was about 12 months (see Jan Tin.

Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Program

Participation, 1992-1993. Current Population

Reports, Series P70-58. U.S. Census Bureau:

Washington, DC, 1999, Table B).

information on other topics is also

collected in topical modules on a

rotating basis.

ACCURACY OF THE

ESTIMATES

All statistics from sample surveys

are subject to sampling error and

nonsampling error. All comparisons

presented in this report have taken

sampling error into account and

meet the Census Bureau’s standards

for statistical significance.

Nonsampling error in surveys may

be attributed to a variety of

sources, such as how the survey

was designed, how respondents

interpreted questions, how able and

willing respondents were to provide

correct answers, and how accurately answers were coded and classified. The Census Bureau employs

quality control procedures throughout the production process, including: the overall design of surveys,

testing the wording of questions,

review of the work of interviewers

and coders, and statistical review of

reports.

The SIPP employs ratio estimation,

whereby sample estimates are

adjusted to independent estimates

of the national population by age,

sex, race, and Hispanic origin.

This weighting partially corrects

for bias due to under coverage,

but how it affects different variables in the survey is not precisely

known. Moreover, biases may also

be present when people who are
U.S. Census Bureau 13

The following descriptions explain federal programs

as they existed at the time the SIPP data were collected in 1996.1 Passage of the PRWORA in 1996

required states subsequently to change many elements of public assistance programs. 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children

(AFDC)

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was

a program administered and funded by both federal

and state governments to provide financial assistance to needy families. Participant families in 1996

had to meet certain financial hardship criteria determined by the state and to have a dependent child

under 18 living in the household. To qualify, the

child must have been (1) deprived of financial support from one of his or her parents due to the parent’s death, continued absence, incapacity, or unemployment, (2) a resident of the state, and (3) a U.S.

citizen or an alien who was permanently and lawfully residing in the United States. 

Food Stamps

The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, provides low-income

households with access to a low-cost diet. The value

of food stamps received by eligible households is

based on the stipulation that people are expected to

contribute about 30 percent of their income to the

purchase of food. In 1996, people who were eligible

for AFDC were, in general, automatically eligible for

food stamps, although not all AFDC participants

received food stamps. 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides nutritional assistance to low-income pregnant and postpartum women, their infants, and their children

under 5 years of age. To be eligible, recipients must

have had family incomes at or below 185 percent of

poverty ($23,155 for a family of three in 1996) and

must have been nutritionally at risk. Benefits included food assistance (actual food items or vouchers

for specific food items), nutritional screening and

education, and breast-feeding support. 

Medicaid

Medicaid provides access to health care for significant numbers of low-income families. In 1996,

states were required to provide Medicaid to families

receiving AFDC. Medicaid covered pregnant women

and children under age 6 with family incomes up to

133 percent of the poverty level ($16,646 for a family of three in 1996). Furthermore, states had the

option of covering pregnant women and infants with

incomes up to 185 percent of the poverty level.

PROGRAM COVERAGE

1 More detailed information on the eligibility requirements

for these programs can be found in U.S. House of

Representatives, 1996 Green Book: Background Material and

Data on Programs within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on

Ways and Means: WMCP 104-14, 1996.
missed in the survey differ from MORE INFORMATION USER COMMENTS

those interviewed in ways other The report as well as four additional The Census Bureau welcomes the than the categories used in weight- detailed tables are available on the comments and advice of data and ing (age, sex, race, and Hispanic Internet (www.census.gov); search report users. If you have any origin). All of these considerations for this report by clicking on the suggestions or comments, please affect comparisons across different word “People” on the Web page and write to: surveys or data sources. selecting “Fertility.” Chief, Population Division Please contact Earl Letourneau of U.S. Census Bureau the Demographic Statistical CONTACTS

Washington, DC 20233 or send Methods Division via Internet For additional information on fertil- e-mail to: pop@census.gov e-mail at earl.j.letourneau@ ity and program participation, concensus.gov for information on the tact the author of this report in the SUGGESTED CITATION

source of the data, the accuracy of Fertility and Family Statistics Dye, Jane Lawler, 2001. Fertility the estimates, the use of standard Branch, on 301-457-2416, or by and Program Participation in the errors, and the computation of e-mail. United States: 1996. Current standard errors.

Jane Lawler Dye Population Reports, P70-82. U.S.

jane.l.dye@census.gov Census Bureau, Washington, DC.

14 U.S. Census Bureau
U.S. Department of Commerce

FIRST-CLASS MAIL Economics and Statistics Administration POSTAGE & FEES PAID

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU U.S. Census Bureau

Washington, DC 20233 Permit No. G-58

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300