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

WHO’S HELPING OUT?

Financial Support Networks Among

American Households: 1997

Household Economic Studies

Issued May 2002

Current

Population

Reports

By Wilfred T. Masumura

P70-84

What financial aid do households directly

provide to other households within the

United States? This report covers monetary assistance regularly furnished by

households to specific individuals in separate households, especially child support resulting from divorce or separation. The report does not cover sporadic

financial aid or nonmonetary support,

such as services or tangible gifts. 

This report uses data collected during

the months of August through November

1997 for the 1996 panel

of the Survey of Income

and Program Participation

(SIPP), a national longitudinal survey conducted

by the Census Bureau.1

Some comparisons are

made with the 1988 data

appearing in the previous

report of this series on

“helping out.”2

HIGHLIGHTS

Substantial differences

were evident in the

1 The estimates of this report

are based on responses from a

sample of the population. As with

all surveys, estimates may vary

from the actual values because of

sampling variation or other factors. All statements in this report

have undergone statistical testing

and passed the Census Bureau’s

standards for statistical accuracy. 2 Jennings, Jerry and Robert

Bennefield, Who’s Helping Out?

Support Networks Among

American Families: 1988, Current

Population Reports, P-70, No. 28,

1993.

regular financial support provided to

designated individuals residing in different households. Several notable differences among providers are the following.

• Financial aid and household income

were correlated. Higher-income

providers supplied more outside monetary assistance in absolute dollars,

yet such aid was a lower percentage

of their household income (Figures 

1a, 1b).

Figure 1a.

Median Support Provided by Household 

Income Quartile: 1997

Figure 1b.

Amount of Support Provided as a 

Percentage of Household Income by 

Household Income Quartile: 1997

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program 

Participation, 1996 panel, Wave 5 topical module.

(Thousands of dollars)

Lowest quartile

2nd quartile

3rd quartile

Highest quartile

Lowest quartile

2nd quartile

3rd quartile

Highest quartile

$4.0

$3.0

$2.4

$1.8

3.6%

6.0%

8.3%

12.5%
• On average, Hispanics supported

more recipients than did Blacks,

who, in turn, supported more

people outside their households

than did non-Hispanic Whites3

(Figure 1c).

• On average, recipients of male

providers received larger monetary aid than did those financially

assisted by women (Figure 1d).

RECIPIENTS

As shown in Figure 2, at least 

90 percent of individuals obtaining

regular financial support from outside their households (and reporting

a relationship) may have previously

been members of the providers’

household. These recipients included children, parents, spouses, exspouses, and “other relatives,” such

as siblings.

More than three-quarters (78 percent) of all recipients of regular

financial support were the children

of the support providers, compared

with nearly two-thirds (66 percent)

supported in 1988. Readers should

keep this in mind when interpreting

the information on the financial

providers, since their characteristics

were related to the recipients they

supported.

Of the remaining recipients, the

largest group was parents, with 

9 percent in 1997 and 13 percent in

1988 receiving support. 

2 U.S. Census Bureau

3 Because Hispanics may be of any race,

data in this report for Hispanics overlap

slightly with data for the Black population

and for the Asian and Pacific Islander population. Based on Wave 5 of the 1996 Survey

of Income and Program Participation (SIPP),

1.5 percent of the Black population 18 years

and over and 0.4 percent of the Asian and

Pacific Islander population 18 years and over

were of Hispanic origin. Data for the

American Indian and Alaska Native population are not shown in this report because of

their small sample size in the SIPP.

NUMBER OF PEOPLE providers, non-Hispanic Whites, on

SUPPORTED BY THE average, supported fewer recipients

PROVIDERS than did Blacks, but Blacks supported slightly fewer recipients than In 1997, 7.2 million people, or Hispanics. 3.7 percent of the U.S. population

18 years of age and over, provided Sex. Among providers of regular

regular financial support to others financial aid, men supported someoutside their immediate household. what more people than did women.

As Table A shows, on average, 1.5

Age. Not unexpectedly, among the recipients were assisted by a single

four age categories of monetary financial provider, suggesting that

providers, those in the oldest age one or two individuals were the

most frequent number of recipients. bracket, 65 years of age and over,

supported, on average, the least

Household Income. As shown in number of recipients.

Table A, the numbers of recipients

Marital Status. Complementing the per provider were similar across

above finding with regard to age, income categories.

providers who were widowed typiRace and Ethnicity. Table A also cally supported the fewest number

shows that, among financial of recipients.

Figure 1c.

Average Number of People Supported by Race

and Ethnicity of Provider: 1997

Figure 1d.

Amount of Support Provided by Gender 

of Provider: 1997

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

Wave 5 topical module.

Hispanic,

all races

Black

Non-Hispanic

White

Male

Female

1.4

1.5

1.6

$1,800

$3,000
AMOUNT OF REGULAR Household Income. There are two

ANNUAL FINANCIAL contrasting findings here. The highSUPPORT er the income bracket, or quartile,

the greater the absolute amounts Table A also reports the median given by the provider. However, the annual amount of support provided higher the income bracket, the ($2,940), as well as the median per- lower the financial support given as centage of support provided relative a proportion of household income. to the provider’s annual household That is, those with the lowest income (6 percent). Because many income paid out proportionally providers assisted more than one more. As noted earlier, the number recipient, the average amount pro- of people financially assisted does vided to a single recipient was con- not vary significantly by household siderably less than $2,900. The income of the provider. amounts and percentages varied,

however, by the characteristics of Race and Ethnicity. In absolute

both providers and recipients. amounts, non-Hispanic Whites

provided more financial support

than either Hispanics or Blacks.

However, comparing the proportions of median annual financial

support relative to the median

annual household income of

providers shows no statistically significant differences between any of

the groups with regard to proportional financial support. That is,

among providers, each of the three

racial and ethnic groups furnished

financial aid proportional to their

household incomes. Thus, on average, non-Hispanic Whites provided

the most monetary support because

they had considerably higher

household incomes.

Sex. Both the absolute amounts and

the percentages tell the same story

with regard to gender differences.

Among financial providers, women

furnished less assistance overall.

Despite being in households with

comparable median annual household income, women provided substantially less than men did. Among

financial providers, women proportionally supported only 13 percent

fewer people (1.3 vs. 1.5), but their

ratio of annual financial support to

annual household income was 

41 percent less (4.2 percent vs. 

7.1 percent). In cases of divorce 

and separation, however, women

may more often have custody of

their own children in their own

households.

Age. Financial providers in their

prime working years (aged 25 to

64) supplied more outside support

to nonhousehold members in

absolute dollars. Despite the apparent variations in the percentages of

household income used for outside

financial support; there are no statistically significant differences in

providing financial aid among the

four age categories. This is partly

U.S. Census Bureau 3

Figure 2.

Nonhousehold Financial Support Recipients by 

Relationship to Provider: 1997 and 1988

*People for whom no relationship data were obtained. Information was collected only for 

first two mentioned people other than own children.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1987 panel, 

Wave 3 topical module and 1996 panel, Wave 5 topical module.

Unspecified*

Unrelated

Other relatives

Ex-spouses

Spouses

Parents

Own children

(Percent distribution) 1988

1997

65.9

77.6

13.4

8.8

1.6

2.0

4.3

2.2

9.0

5.6

2.0

0.9

3.7

2.9
due to the small numbers of furnished no more financial assis- provider attributes such as race and

providers in the youngest and the tance than did the widowed or ethnicity, sex, age, marital status

oldest age brackets and thus the never married. and household income, the distribulower statistical reliability of the tion of support between 1988 and

derived percentages (see Table B). DISTRIBUTION OF 1997 has remained the same.

SUPPORT PROVIDERS

Marital Status. Since approximately Race and Ethnicity. Both in 1988

As shown in Table B, in 1988 and three-fourths of the recipients were and 1997, regular financial assis1997, approximately 4 percent of own children, it is to be expected tance providers were found proporthe adult population provided regu- that providers giving the most mon- tionally more often among

lar financial support to designated etary support would be married, Hispanics than non-Hispanic Whites.

individuals outside their household. divorced, or separated, as appears (The difference between Hispanics

Though the difference could be con- in Table A. Among the differences in and Blacks in 1988 was not statistisidered small, a larger number and proportions of household income cally significant.)

proportion of the adult population given, the only one that is statistiwere support providers in 1988, as Sex. There was a gender gap among cally significant is that between the

compared to 1997. Moreover, these providers in 1988 and 1997. Just as divorced and the married, with

providers were not evenly distrib- women provided substantially less divorced people providing more

uted throughout the adult popula- support than men did, considerably monetary assistance, presumably

tion. On the other hand, one can fewer women provided any regular for alimony and child support.

also see from Table B that by financial assistance. Proportionally, married people

4 U.S. Census Bureau

Table A.

Financial Support and the Number of People Supported by Nonhousehold Members: 1997

Characteristic

Median

household

income of

providers

(dollars)

Median financial support given by providers

Mean number of

people supportedAmount

(dollars)

Percentage of

household

income Standard error

All providers ..................................

Race/ethnicity:

43,488 2,940 6.4 .66 1.5

Non-Hispanic White........................... 46,656 3,000 6.6 .79 1.4

Black........................................ 36,384 2,400 6.7 2.02 1.5

Hispanic, all races ............................

Sex:

35,400 2,335 5.9 1.77 1.6

Male ........................................ 43,416 3,000 7.1 .78 1.5

Female ......................................

Age:

44,184 1,800 4.2 1.15 1.3

18-24 years .................................. 47,640 1,800 4.0 2.59 1.4

25-44 years .................................. 41,064 3,000 6.8 .86 1.5

45-64 years .................................. 53,244 3,024 6.0 1.20 1.4

65 years and over ............................

Marital status:

32,844 1,800 5.6 2.67 1.2

Married, spouse present....................... 51,912 2,756 5.0 .90 1.4

Separated* .................................. 32,640 3,000 7.7 2.25 1.8

Divorced..................................... 40,512 3,600 8.5 1.33 1.5

Widowed .................................... 29,844 1,200 5.1 3.90 1.1

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

Household income:

36,480 2,000 5.7 1.81 1.3

Lowest quartile ............................... 15,840 1,800 12.5 2.15 1.5

Second quartile .............................. 31,128 2,400 8.3 1.44 1.5

Third quartile................................. 50,628 3,000 6.0 1.21 1.5

Highest quartile .............................. 91,464 4,000 3.6 .97 1.4

*Includes married, spouse absent.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation.
Age. In 1988 and 1997, compared Household Income. As mentioned into account and meet the U.S.

with other age groups, those in a before, among providers, those in Census Bureau’s standards for staprime working age bracket, aged the lowest household income brack- tistical significance. Nonsampling

25-44, had the highest percentage et, or quartile, bore the greatest errors in surveys may be attributed

of providers. People in the other burden. However, proportionally to a variety of sources, such as how

principal working age bracket, aged fewer people in that income bracket the survey was designed, how

45-64, had the next highest propor- were found among regular financial much nonresponse occurs, how

tion of providers. providers. respondents interpret questions,

how able and willing respondents Marital Status. As expected, in ACCURACY OF THE are to provide correct answers, and 1988 and 1997, the divorced and ESTIMATES how accurately the answers are separated were represented among coded and classified. The Census Statistics from surveys are subject providers proportionally much more Bureau employs quality control pro- to sampling and nonsampling error. often than people of other marital cedures throughout the production All comparisons presented in this statuses. process including the overall design report have taken sampling error

U.S. Census Bureau 5

Table B.

Selected Characteristics of Providers of Financial Support for Nonhousehold Members:

1997 and 1988

Characteristic

Total population 18

years and over (1,000)

Support providers

Number (1,000) Percent Standard

error Percent Standard

error

1988 1997 1988 1997 1988 1988 1997 1997

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

Race/ethnicity:

179,324 196,145 8,008 7,210 4.5 .29 3.7 .10

Non-Hispanic White .............. 141,335 146,853 5,923 5,190 4.2 .31 3.5 .11

Black........................... 19,794 22,831 909 838 4.6 .53 3.7 .29

Hispanic, all races ...............

Sex:

12,840 19,392 889 971 7.0 .80 5.0 .37

Male ........................... 85,620 94,343 6,082 5,618 7.1 .51 6.0 .18

Female .........................

Age:

93,704 101,802 1,925 1,592 2.1 .27 1.6 .09

18-24 years ..................... 25,688 24,893 292 301 1.2 .40 1.2 .16

25-44 years ..................... 79,062 83,887 4,660 4,430 5.9 .49 5.3 .18

45-64 years ..................... 45,819 55,211 2,327 2,080 5.1 .60 3.8 .19

65 years and over ...............

Marital status:

28,756 32,064 730 391 2.3 .52 1.2 .14

Married, spouse present .......... 105,274 110,447 3,859 3,111 3.7 .34 2.8 .11

Separated*...................... 6,090 6,874 785 743 12.9 2.51 10.8 .86

Divorced........................ 15,138 19,236 2,144 2,235 14.2 1.66 12.1 .54

Widowed ....................... 13,124 13,933 421 168 3.2 .90 1.2 .21

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

Household income:1

39,698 45,655 798 864 2.1 .42 1.9 .15

Lowest quartile .................. (NA) 49,516 (NA) 1,251 (NA) (NA) 2.5 (NA)

Second quartile.................. (NA) 49,142 (NA) 1,946 (NA) (NA) 4.0 (NA)

Third quartile .................... (NA) 49,057 (NA) 2,022 (NA) (NA) 4.1 (NA)

Highest quartile.................. (NA) 48,430 (NA) 1,949 (NA) (NA) 4.0 (NA)

NA Not available for 1988.

* Includes married, spouse absent.

1

Income quartiles were not used in the earlier 1993 cited report that used 1988 data and therefore comparisons between the two years is not possible.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1988 and 1996.
of surveys, the wording of ques- due to undercoverage, but how it For further information on statistical

tions, review of the work of inter- affects different variables in the sur- standards and the computation and

viewers and coders, and statistical vey is not precisely known. use of standard errors, contact

review of reports. Moreover, biases may also be pres- Mahdi Sundukchi at 301-457-4192.

ent when people who are missed in The Survey of Income and Program Data Contact: the survey differ from those inter- Participation (SIPP) employs ratio Wilfred T. Masumura viewed in ways other than the cate- estimation, whereby estimates are 301-457-6685 gories used in weighting (age, race, adjusted to independent measures wilfred.t.masumura@census.gov sex, and Hispanic origin). All of of the national population by age, these considerations affect compar- race, sex, and Hispanic origin. This isons across different surveys or weighting partially corrects for bias data sources.

6 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