A-2

Appendix A

The third major element is the various supplements
or topical modules that are included during selected
household visits. The topical modules cover areas that
need not be examined every 4 months. Certain modules
are considered to be so important that they are viewed
as an integral part of the overall survey. Other topical
modules have more specific and more limited purposes.
The household relationships topical module, adminis-
tered during the second wave of the 1991 SIPP panel,
was used to produce the data shown in this report.

SAMPLE DESIGN

Each household in the SIPP sample is scheduled to
be interviewed at 4-month periods. The reference period
for most of the core income and labor force items is the
4-month period preceding the interview. For example,
households interviewed in June 1991 were asked ques-
tions for the months February, March, April, and May.
Since the information collected in the household rela-
tionships module refer to the interview month, the
period covered in this report is June through September
1991.

The sample households within a given panel are
divided into four subsamples of nearly equal size. These
subsamples are called rotation groups, and one rotation
group is interviewed each month. In general, one cycle
of four interviews covering the entire sample, using the
same questionnaire, is called a wave. This design was
chosen because it provides a smooth and steady work
load for data collection and processing.

SURVEY OPERATIONS

Data collection operations are managed through the
Census Bureau’s 12 permanent regional offices. A staff
of interviewers assigned to SIPP conduct interviews by
personal visit each month with most interviewing com-
pleted during the first 2 weeks of that month. Completed
questionnaires are transmitted to the regional offices
where they undergo an extensive clerical edit before
being entered into the Bureau’s SIPP data processing

system. Upon entering this processing system, the data
are subjected to a detailed computer edit. Errors iden-
tified in this phase are corrected and computer process-
ing continues.

Two of the major steps of computer processing are
the assignment of weights to each sample person and
imputation for missing survey responses. The weighting
procedures assure that SIPP estimates of the number of
persons agree with independent estimates of the popu-
lation within specified age, race, and sex categories.
The procedures also assure close correspondence with
monthly CPS estimates of households. In almost all
cases, a survey nonresponse is assigned a value in the
imputation phase of processing. The imputation for
missing responses is based on procedures generally
referred to as the “hot deck” approach. This approach
assigns values for nonresponses from sample persons
who did provide responses and who have characteris-
tics similar to those of the nonrespondents.

The longitudinal design of the SIPP dictates that all
persons 15 years old and over present as household
members at the time of the first interview be part of the
survey throughout the entire 2.5-year period. To meet
this goal, the survey collects information useful in
locating persons who move. In addition, field proce-
dures were established that allow for the transfer of
sample cases between regional offices. Persons mov-
ing within a 100-mile radius of an original sampling area
(a county or group of counties) are followed and con-
tinue with the normal personal interviews at 4-month
intervals. Those moving to a new residence that falls
outside the 100-mile radius of any SIPP sampling area
are interviewed by telephone. The geographic areas
defined by these rules contain more than 95 percent of
the U.S. population.

Because most types of analysis using SIPP data will
be dependent not on data for individuals but on groups
of individuals (households, families, etc.), provisions
were made to interview all “new” persons living with
original sample persons (those interviewed in the first
wave). These new sample persons entering the survey
through contact with original sample persons are con-
sidered as part of the sample only while residing with
the original sample person.


8 Diverse Living Arrangements of Children

Table 7. Children Living in Extended Families, by Relationship of Household Members to Child, Race, and
Hispanic Origin: Summer 1991

[Numbers in thousands]

Children living with one or both parents
One parent
Living arrangements
Total Two parents Total Mother only Father only
Number} Percent] Number} Percent} Number] Percent} Number| Percent] Number} Percent
AI LACES 0. eee eee eee eee 63,754 100.0} 47,826 100.0] 15,748 100.0} 13,955 100.0 1,793 100.0
Children living in an extended
household . 7,951 12.5 3,235 68 4,716 29.9 4,092 29.3 624 34.8
Relationship of extended
household members to chil
Relatives only. . . 5,749 9.0 2,594 5.4 3,155 20.0 2,803 20.1 352 19.6
1,891 3.0 542 14 1,349 8.6 1,099 7.9 250 13.9
313 05 100 - 213 14 191 14 22 1.2
White oo eee eee eee 50,914 100.0] 40,995 100.0 9,919 100.0 8,503 100.0 1,416 100.0
Children living in an extended
household....... 66... eee eee ee 5,210 10.2 2,350 5.7 2,861 28.8 2,383 28.0 478 33.8
Relationship of extended
household members to chil
Relatives only... 3,373 6.6 1,827 45 1,546 15.6 1,277 15.0 269 19.0
Nonrelatives only. 1,582 3.1 423 1.0 1,159 11.7 960 11.3 199 14.1
Both..... 255 05 100 - 155 1.6 145 1.7 10 07
Black 0... eee cece eee eee ee 9,600 100.0 4,404 100.0 5,196 100.0 4,938 100.0 258 100.0
Children living in an extended
household............. cee eee 2,100 21.9 444 10.1 1,656 31.9 1,550 31.4 106 414
Relationship of extended
household members to child:
Relatives only... 1,861 19.4 389 8.8 1,473 28.3 1,411 28.6 62 24.0
208 2.2 55 1.2 154 3.0 116 23 38 14.7
30 - - - 30 06 23 05 7 27
Hispanic origin* 7,163 100.0 4,826 100.0 2,337 100.0 2,141 100.0 196 100.0
Children living
household............0e eee e ee 1,795 25.1 858 178 937 40.1 820 38.3 117 59.7
Relationship of extended
household members to child:
Relatives only... 1,357 18.9 649 13.4 708 30.3 626 29.2 82 418
Nonrelatives only. 279 3.9 144 3.0 136 5.8 100 47 36 18.4
Both 160 22 65 1.3 95 44 95 44 - -

- Represents zero or a number that rounds to zero.
*Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race,

Are children more likely to live in an extended family 10 percent of those in two-parent families. Hispanic
if they live with one parent rather than with two parents? children were twice as likely to live in an extended family
The difference illustrated in figure 5 is striking: Children if they lived with one parent (40 percent) rather than with
in one-parent families were four times more likely to live two parents (18 percent).
in an extended family than were children living with two Finally, we compare the types of extended family
parents (30 percent compared with 7 percent). Very members living in a household by whether children lived
large differences are found when we examine each with one or two parents. Among children in two-parent
racial and ethnic group separately, although, except for families, 5 percent lived in households that included
White children, they are not of the same magnitude as other relatives only, and an additional 1 percent lived
that found for children in general. The likelihood of living with at least one nonrelative. Black and Hispanic chil-
in an extended family was about five times greater for dren (9 percent and 14 percent) were roughly two to
White children in one-parent families (29 percent) than three times as likely as Whites (5 percent) to live in a
for those who lived with two parents (6 percent). In household extended by other relatives. When we turn to
contrast, 32 percent of Black children living with a single children living with one parent, we find that 20 percent
parent also lived in an extended family, compared with lived in a household extended by relatives only, 9



Appendix C

C-3

Table 2. 1992 CPS Coverage Ratios

All persons Non-Black Black

Total | Males | Females | Males | Females | Males | Females

0.958} 0.957] 0.959] 0.963] 0.965] 0.927] 0.926
0.948| 0.952] 0.944; 0.962} 0.949] 0.899] 0.919
0.947} 0.962} 0.932 0.969] 0.936] 0.923] 0.907
0.966} 0.975} 0.957] 0.981} 0.975| 0.945] 0.862
0.922| 0.930] 0.913] 0.999] 0.926] 0.883] 0.846
0.853 | 0.844] 0.861| 0.860] 0.872] 0.754} 0.801
0.901| 0.889} 0.913| 0.913] 0.927| 0.734] 0.882
0.914| 0.897} 0.931] 0.927} 0.940) 0.688] 0.877
0.914] 0.885} 0.941] 0.910] 0.954] 0.707| 0.864
0.905 | 0.870} 0.939] 0.893] 0.948] 0.691] 0.883
0.919| 0.895] 0.942] 0.910] 0.949] 0.763] 0.899
0,933] 0.919] 0.946] 0.929] 0.951] 0.824) 0.906
0.958 | 0.951] 0.965] 0.956] 0.966] 0.903) 0.956
0.940| 0.927] 0.951] 0.940] 0.961] 0.807) 0.877
0.930] 0.932] 0.928] 0.944] 0.941] 0.826/ 0.825
0.946] 0.948] 0.944] 0.965] 0.956] 0.792] 0.850
0.894] 0.884] 0.903] 0.905| 0.907] 0.669) 0.872
0.947| 0.921} 0.969] 0.935] 0.979] 0.783) 0.875
0.923] 0.913] 0.931] 0.925] 0,942] 0.789] 0.831
0.962] 0.920/ 0.995] 0.926] 0.993] 0.856] 1.014
0.975| 0.961] 0.983] 0.977] 0.989] 0.764] 0.912
0.929| 0.912} 0.944| 0.928] 0.953] 0.782] 0.883
0.935 | 0.923} 0.947] 0.936] 0.955] 0.827| 0.895

15+.
OF..

Comparability with other estimates. Exercise cau-
tion when comparing data from this report with data
from other SIPP publications or with data from other
surveys. Comparability problems are from varying sea-
sonal patterns for many characteristics, different non-
sampling errors, and different concepts and procedures.
Refer to the S/PP Quality Profile for known differences
with data from other sources and further discussion.

Sampling variability. Standard errors indicate the mag-
nitude of the sampling error. They also partially measure
the effect of some nonsampling errors in response and
enumeration, but do not measure any systematic biases
in the data. The standard errors mostly measure the
variations that occurred by chance because we sur-
veyed a sample rather than the entire population.

USES AND COMPUTATION OF STANDARD
ERRORS

Confidence intervals. The sample estimate and its
standard error enable one to construct confidence
intervals, ranges that would include the average result
of all possible samples with a known probability. For
example, if we selected all possible samples and sur-
veyed each of these under essentially the same condi-
tions and with the same sample design, and if we
calculated an estimate and its standard error from each
sample, then—

1.. Approximately 68 percent of the intervals from one
standard error below the estimate to one standard
error above the estimate would include the average
result of all possible samples.

2. Approximately 90 percent of the intervals from
1.645 standard errors below the estimate to 1.645
standard errors above the estimate would include
the average result of all possible samples.

3. Approximately 95 percent of the intervals from
1.960 standard errors below the estimate to 1.960
standard errors above the estimate would include
the average result of all possible samples.

The average estimate derived from all possible samples
is or is not contained in any particular computed interval.
However, for a particular sample, one can say with a
specified confidence that the confidence interval includes
the average estimate derived from all possible samples.

Hypothesis testing. One may also use standard errors
for hypothesis testing. Hypothesis testing is a procedure
for distinguishing between population characteristics
using sample estimates. The most common type of
hypothesis tested is (1) the population characteristics
are identical versus (2) they are different. One can
perform tests at various levels of significance, where a
level of significance is the probability of concluding that
the characteristics are different when, in fact, they are
identical.

Unless noted otherwise, all statements of compari-
son in the report passed a hypothesis test at the 0.10
level of significance or better. This means that, for
differences cited in the report, the estimated absolute
difference between parameters is greater than 1.645
times the standard error of the difference.

To perform the most common test, compute the
difference X, - Xg, where X, and Xg are sample
estimates of the characteristics of interest. A later
section explains how to derive an estimate of the
standard error of the difference X, - Xg. Let that
standard error be Spjr- If X, - Xg is between -1.645
times Spier and +1.645 times Spire, no conclusion about
the characteristics is justified at the 10-percent signifi-
cance level. If, on the other hand, X, - Xp is smaller than
-1.645 times spp or larger than +1.645 Spr, the
observed difference is significant at the 10-percent
level. In this event, it is commonly accepted practice to
say that the characteristics are different. Of course,
sometimes this conclusion will be wrong. When the
characteristics are, in fact, the same, there is a 10-percent
chance of concluding that they are different.

Note that as we perform more tests, more erroneous
significant differences will occur. For example, at the
10-percent significance level, if we perform 100 inde-
pendent hypothesis tests in which there are no real
differences, it is likely that about 10 erroneous differ-
ences will occur. Therefore, interpret the significance of
any single test cautiously.

Note concerning small estimates and small differ-
ences. We show summary measures in the report only
when the base is 200,000 or greater. Because of the


Contents

Page
Introduction and Highlights 1
Living Arrangements of Children. . 2
The Traditional Nuclear Family 3
Nontraditional Families ..............csceeeneeeeeene eee eeeeere ee ee eee ee eens eee neeentererens errs ee 4
Children Living With Two Paren iological, Step, Adoptive, and Foster Relationships... 4
Children in Blended Families ow 4
Adopted Children... 5
The Extended Family 7
Additional Adults in Single-Parent Households 9
Additional Relatives by Detailed Type.......... an]
Multi-generational Households. abl
Related Reports .. 1
User Comments... 12
FIGURES
1. Children by Presence of Parents: Summer 1991 2
2. Children Living in Traditional Nuclear Families: Summer 1991 3
3. Children Living in Blended Families: Summer 1991............ 6
4. Children Living With Parent, in Extended Families: Summer 1991..... 7
5. Children Living in Extended Families by Presence of Parents: Summer 1991 9
TABLES
1. Living Arrangements of Children Under 18 Years, by Race and Hispanic Origin:
Summer 1991 3
2. Children Living with Two Parents by their Biological, Step, Adoptive, and Foster
Status, by Race and Hispanic Origin: Summer 1991........--..::0eseeeerereete nee eeee 4
3. Children by Presence of Nuclear Family Members, by Type of Relationship, Race,
and Hispanic Origin: Summer 1991...........::seceeceee ese ese eee ers ees eee tener eeaees 5
4. Children Living in Blended Families, by Composition of Family, Race, and Hispanic
Origin: Summer 1991 6
5. Children Living in Blended Families by Presence of Parents, Race, and Hispanic
Origin: Summer 1991 6
6. Adopted Children by Race, Hispanic Origin, and Living Arrangements: Summer
1991. 7
7. Children | iving in Extended Families by Relationship of Household Members to
Child, Race, and Hispanic Origin: Summer 1991 ........--.-+s2seeeeeseeeeee reer eee eeee 8
8. Children Living with Single Parents, by Presence of Adults of the Opposite Sex,
Race, and Hispanic Origin: Summer 1991 ...........:ssesseeeeeeeeee seen eeeee eet eeees 10
9. Children Living with Single Parents, by Presence of Adults of the Same Sex, Race,
and Hispanic Origin: Summer 1991.....-..-..-:seceeseeeeee reese eee eee nee ee eee eeeeeees 10
10. Children Living in Extended Families, by Type of Relative Present, Race, and
Hispanic Origin: Summer 1991........-.:-seeseeresees nese eet eee eee een een etee erent eee ees an]


Appendix B. Definitions and Explanations

Population coverage. The estimates in this report are
restricted to the civilian noninstitutional population of
the United States and members of the Armed Forces
living off post or with their families on post. The esti-
mates exclude persons living in group quarters.

Race. The population is divided into three groups on
the basis of race: White, Black, and “other races.” The
last category includes American Indians, Asian/Pacific
Islanders, and any other race except White and Black.

Persons of Hispanic origin. Hispanic origin was deter-
mined on the basis of a question that asked for self-
identification of the person’s origin or descent. Respon-
dents were asked to select their origin (or the origin of
some other household member) from a “flash card”
listing ethnic origins. Persons of Hispanic origin were
those who indicated that their origin was Mexican,
Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or
some other Spanish origin. It should be noted that
persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Householder. The person (or one of the persons) in
whose name the home is owned or rented. If the house
is owned jointly by a married couple, the householder
may be either the husband or the wife. One person in
each household is designated as the “householder.”
The number of householders, therefore, is equal to the
number of households.

Household. A household consists of all persons who
occupy a housing unit. A house, an apartment or other
group of rooms, or a single room is regarded as a
housing unit when it is occupied or intended for occu-
pancy as separate living quarters; that is, when the
occupants do not live and eat with any other persons in
the structure and there is either (1) direct access from
the outside or through a common hall or (2) a kitchen or
cooking equipment for the exclusive use of the occu-
pants.

For this report, the household composition was deter-
mined as of the interview date. A household includes
the related family members and all unrelated persons, if
any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employ-
ees who share the housing unit. A person living alone in
a housing unit or two or more unrelated persons sharing
a housing unit is also counted as a household. However,

the count of households excludes group quarters. Examples
of group quarters include rooming and boarding houses,
college dormitories, and convents and monasteries.

Family. In this report, “family” and “household” are
used interchangeably.

Parent. Unless specified otherwise, a parent is a child’s
biological, step-, adoptive, or foster mother or father.

Child. Children are all persons under age 18 at the time
of the survey, regardless of their marital status or
whether or not they are parents.

Nuclear family. The nuclear family is composed of two
parents and their children. The parent-child relationship
may be biological, step-, adoptive, or foster. Sibling ties
may be biological, step-, half-, or adoptive. The parents
are not necessarily married. No additional relatives or
non-relatives are present in the household.

Traditional nuclear family. A traditional nuclear family
consists of a married couple and their biological chil-
d(ren). Therefore, a child in a traditional nuclear family
lives with both biological parents and, if siblings are
present, only full brothers and sisters (i.e., siblings who
share the same two biological parents). No others are
present in the household (i.e., no step-relatives, foster
and adopted children, half-siblings, other relatives, non-
relatives).

Extended family/extended household. An extended
family/household includes at least one parent, one or
more children, and one or more members (related or
unrelated) other than a parent or sibling. Parent-child
and sibling relationships may be biological, step, adop-
tive, or foster.

Blended family/blended household: A blended
family/household must include at least one stepparent,
stepsibling, and/or half-sibling. A stepparent is the
spouse of a child’s biological parent, but is not the
child’s biological parent. Stepsiblings do not share a
common biological parent; the biological parent of one
child is the stepparent of the other. Half-siblings share
only one biological parent.


D-1

Appendix D. Data Quality

The household relationships topical module is admin-
istered once per SIPP panel, during the second 4-month
cycle of interviews. The time period covered in this
report is June through September, 1991. Respondents
(usually the householder or the householder’s spouse)
are asked to describe the relationships among all
members of the household as of the interview date.
Information is collected for a maximum of 14 persons,
regardless of the total size of the household. Since none
of the children in the 1991 file lived in a household that
large, no information was lost because of this restric-
tion.

Please refer to appendix E for facsimiles of the
questionnaire and the flash card. Interviewers were
instructed to ask respondents to select the category
that most appropriately described the relationship of
one person to another. Valid responses include general
categories such as “Other mother” or “Other child,”
and “Don’t know.” To provide researchers with maxi-
mum opportunity to analyze data as they deem appro-
priate, responses of “Other” and “Don’t know” have
not been imputed except, in general, for consistency

with data on sex. It should also be noted that the
responses reflect how the respondent characterized the
relationship. For example, “father” might in some cases
refer to a man who assumed a parental role, though
lacked biological or legal ties to the child.

Information is missing for a sizeable proportion of
children in the 1991 file: 8 percent of all children lived
with at least one person whose relationship to the child
was completely unknown (table D-1). Slightly higher
proportions of Black (10 percent) and Hispanic (13
percent) children had incomplete records, compared
with Whites (8 percent). Children who lived with neither
parent nor a grandparent most frequently had data
missing (19 percent). A fairly high percentage of chil-
dren living with single fathers also had incomplete
records (13 percent), compared with those in two-
parent or single-mother families (8 percent).

In this report, children for whom information was
lacking on all relationships were placed in the “Unknown”
category in table 1, and were excluded from subsequent
tables. Those with partially complete files were ana-
lyzed on the basis of the information available.


C-2

Appendix C

WEIGHTING PROCEDURE

We derived SIPP person weights in each panel from
several stages of weight adjustments. In the first wave,
we gave each person a base weight equal to the inverse
of his/her probability of selection. For each subsequent
interview, the Bureau gave each person a base weight
that accounted for following movers.

We applied a factor to each interviewed person’s
weight to account for the SIPP sample areas not having
the same population distribution as the strata they are
from.

We applied a noninterview adjustment factor to the
weight of every occupant of interviewed households to
account for persons in noninterviewed occupied house-
holds that were eligible for the sample. (The Bureau
treated individual nonresponse within partially inter-
viewed households with imputation. We made no spe-
cial adjustment for noninterviews in group quarters.)

The Bureau used complex techniques to adjust the
weights for nonresponse. For a further explanation of
the techniques used, see the Nonresponse Adjustment
Methods for Demographic Surveys at the U.S. Bureau of
the Census, November 1988, Working paper 8823, by
R. Singh and R. Petroni. The success of these tech-
niques in avoiding bias is unknown. An example of
successfully avoiding bias is in “Current Nonresponse
Research for the Survey of Income and Participation”
(paper by Petroni, presented at the Second Interna-
tional Workshop on Household Survey Nonresponse,
October 1991).

We performed an additional stage of adjustment to
persons’ weights to reduce the mean square errors of
the survey estimates. We accomplished this by ratio
adjusting the sample estimates to agree with monthly
Current Population Survey (CPS) type estimates of the
civilian (and some military) noninstitutional population of
the United States at the national level by demographic
characteristics including age, sex, and race as of the
specified date. The Bureau brought CPS estimates by
age, sex, and race into agreement with adjusted esti-
mates from the 1980 decennial census. Adjustments to
the 1980 decennial census estimates reflect births,
deaths, immigration, emigration, and changes in the
Armed Forces since 1980. In addition, we controlled
SIPP estimates to independent Hispanic controls and
made an adjustment to assign equal weights to hus-
bands and wives within the same household. We imple-
mented all of the above adjustments for each reference
month and the interview month.

ACCURACY OF ESTIMATES

We base SIPP estimates on a sample. The estimates
may differ somewhat from the values obtained from
administering a complete census using the same ques-
tionnaire, instructions, and enumerators. The difference
occurs because with an estimate based on a sample

survey two types of errors are possible: nonsampling
and sampling. We can provide estimates of the magni-
tude of the SIPP sampling error, but this is not true of
nonsampling error. The next few sections describe SIPP
nonsampling error sources, followed by a discussion of
sampling error, its estimation, and its use in data
analysis.

Nonsampling variability. We attribute nonsampling errors
to many sources, they include the following:

a. Inability to obtain information about all cases in the
sample.

b. Definitional difficulties.
Differences in the interpretation of questions.

Inability or unwillingness on the part of the respon-
dents to provide correct information.

e. Inability to recall information.

f. Errors made in collection (e.g., recording or coding
the data).

g. Errors made in processing the data.
h. Errors made in estimating values for missing data.

i. Biases resulting from the differing recall periods
caused by the interviewing pattern used.

j. Undercoverage.

We used quality control and edit procedures to
reduce errors made by respondents, coders, and inter-
viewers. More detailed discussions of the existence and
control of nonsampling errors in the SIPP are in the
SIPP Quality Profile.

Undercoverage in SIPP resulted from missed living
quarters and missed persons within sample house-
holds. It is known that undercoverage varies with age,
race, and sex. Generally, undercoverage is larger for
males than for females and larger for Blacks than for
non-Blacks. Ratio estimation to independent age-race-
sex population controls partially corrects for the bias
resulting from survey undercoverage. However, biases
exist in the estimates when persons in missed house-
holds or missed persons in interviewed households
have characteristics different from those of interviewed
persons in the same age-race-sex group. Further, we
did not adjust the independent population controls for
undercoverage in the census.

A common measure of survey coverage is the cov-
erage ratio, the estimated population before ratio adjust-
ment divided by the independent population control.
Table 2 shows CPS coverage ratios for age-sex-race
groups for 1992. The CPS coverage ratios can exhibit
some variability from month to month, but these are a
typical set of coverage ratios. Other Census Bureau
household surveys like the SIPP experience similar
coverage.


a Lee

12

Diverse Living Arrangements of Children

Table 11. Children Living in Multi-generational Households, by Race and Hispanic Origin: Summer 1991

[Numbers in thousands]

Living arrangements All races White Black Hispanic origin’
Children living in multi-generational households . 3,775 2,378 1,077 831
Percent of all children under 18 years. 5.7 46 10.2 11.0
With parent and grandparen 3,634 2,904 1,009 808
With parent and own child 127 66 61 23
Other’. 14 8 7 -
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
With parent and grandparer 96.3 96.9 93.7 97.2
With parent and own child . 3.4 28 5.7 28
Other’. - - 0.6 :
- Represents zero or a number that rounds to zero.
‘Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
2Children living in four-generation households or with a grandparent and an own child.
Table 12. Children Living with Grandparents, by Race and Hispanic Origin: Summer 1991
[Numbers in thousands]
Living arrangements All races White Black Hispanic origin’
Children living with at least one grandparent 4,737 2,777 1,580 908
Percent of all children under 18 years. 7.2 5.3 14.9 12.1
Presence of parents:
Living with both parents 1,459 1,112 118 336
Grandparent is the householder 555 454 63 82
Percent.......... 38.0 40.8 53.4 24.4
Living with mother only. . 1,876 971 839 396
Grandparent is the househol 1,520 837 651 280
Percent.........- 81.0 86.2 77.6 70.7
Living with father only. 303 225 53 76
Grandparent is the householder 255 189 47 65
Percent. . 84.2 84.0 88.7 85.5
Living with neither parent. 1,099 469 570 100
Percent. . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Living with both parents . 30.8 40.0 75 37.0
Living with mother only. 39.6 35.0 53.1 43.6
Living with father only. 6.4 8.4 34 84
Living with neither parent 23.2 16.9 36.1 11.0

‘Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

demographic and economic information pertaining to
children from the 1990 Census. A chartbook illustrating
demographic, social and economic trends that have
influenced the characteristics of households and fami-
lies (with special emphasis on children) is available in
Households, Families and Children: A Thirty Year Per-
spective, Current Population Reports, Series P23-181.

Detailed statistics on household type and composi-
tion for 1993 and historical data back to 1947 on
households and families by type are presented in Series
P-20, No. 477, Household and Family Characteristics:
March .1993. Projections for the United States of the
number of households and families were published in
Series P-25, No. 986, Projections of the Number of
Households and Families: 1986 to 2000, but are
currently being updated.

Estimates of the number and characteristics of house-
hold and families that remain intact, dissolve, and/or are
newly formed over 1-year and 2-year periods are pre-
sented in Current Population Reports, Series P23-179,
When Households Continue, Discontinue, and Form.
The most up-to-date information on the recent marital
history of the population may be found in Current
Population Reports, Series P23-180, Marriage, Divorce,
and Remarriage in the 1990's.

USER COMMENTS

We are interested in your reaction to the usefulness
of the information presented here, and welcome recom-
mendations for improving our survey work. If you have
suggestions or comments, please complete the attached
user survey form in front of the report and mail as
indicated.


Diverse Living Arrangements of Children

White counterparts, though not to the degree that is
suggested by the first panel, which is based on all
children.

NONTRADITIONAL FAMILIES

Children Living With Two Parents: Biological,
Step, Adoptive, and Foster Relationships

Although in 1991 most children lived in two-parent
families, a substantial portion did not live with both
biological parents. Here we examine the extent to which
children lived with biological, step, adoptive, and foster®
parents.°

Approximately 85 percent of children in two-parent
families lived with both biological parents (table 2). An
additional 10 percent lived with a biological parent and
a stepparent, most frequently with a biological mother
and stepfather. Children who lived with a biological
parent and an adoptive parent (i.e., related adoptions),
were placed in a biological parent/stepparent category
in order to be consistent with survey instructions.'° Less
than 2 percent of children lived with foster or adoptive
parents: one-half million children lived with two adoptive

®Respondents were asked to identify foster relationships as those
that involved an official placement by a government agency or a rep-
resentative of a government agency. We assume, however, that some
respondents also reported children who were informally fostered.

°The data contained in table 7 are estimates based on questions
that ask the respondent to identify a parent-child relationship as
biological, step, foster, or adoptive. Earlier Census Bureau reports
published indirect estimates based on the 1990 Current Population
Survey (CPS). The CPS and the SIPP yield very different results.
Overall, the direct question used in the SIPP produces an estimate of
children living with a biological mother and stepfather that is one-half
as large as the estimates obtained indirectly using birth and marital
histories from the CPS. The difference is particularly pronounced for
Black children: the SIPP estimates that 8 percent of Black children in
two-parent families lived with a biological mother and stepfather,
compared with 31 percent from the CPS. Correspondingly, the
proportion of Black children in two-parent families who lived with two
biological parents is far higher in the SIPP than in the CPS (81 percent
compared with 64 percent). Also, the SIPP produces lower estimates
of children with two adoptive parents than does the CPS (974,000
compared with 582,000 from the SIPP).

It seems likely that estimates of the number of step relationships from
the CPS are more accurate than estimates from the SIPP, to the
extent that couples have children within marriage. The methodology
used with the CPS, however, does not recognize as two biological
parents those couples who delay marriage until after the birth of their
child, or who never marry but cohabit. In the 1996 SIPP panel, new
procedures will be adopted to improve the identification of step
relationships.

Source for 1990 CPS data: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current
Population Reports, P23-180, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in
the 1990’s, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1992.
For information on indirect estimation techniques using the CPS, se
Louisa F. Miller and Jeanne E. Moorman. “Married Couple Families
With Children” in Studies in Marriage and the Family, U.S. Bureau of
the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 162, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1989.

‘Please refer to the section, “Adopted Children” for estimates of
related versus unrelated adoptions.

Table 2. Children Living with Two Parents by their
Biological, Step, Adoptive, and Foster
Status, by Race and Hispanic Origi
Summer 1991

[Numbers in thousands]

All Hispanic

Characteristics of parents races| White] Black| origin’

Children living with two

Parents.......-...eee eens 47,826| 40,995} 4,404 4,826
Biological mother and
father ...........+.---- 40,553| 35,002| 3,576 4,129
Biological mother and
stepfather...........-.. 3,672| 3,195. 351 367
Biological father and
stepmother ........---5 830 740 40 43
Adoptive mother and
father®...........0.000+ 582 387 103 42
Foster mother and
father®, 195 147 48 -
Other. . 1,994] 1,524 286 245
Percent distribution ........ 100.0} 100.0] 100.0 100.0
Biological mother and
father ...... 2.2.22 sees 84.8 85.4 81.2 85.6
Biological mother and
stepfather............+ 77 78 8.0 76
Biological father and
stepmother . 17 1.8 0.9 0.9
Adoptive mother ar
father?,........cseee eee 1.2 0.9 23 09
Foster mother and
father’. - - V1
Other. . 42 3.7 6.5 54

- Represents zero or a number that rounds to zero.

‘Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

2Children living with one biological parent and one adoptive parent
have been placed in a biological parent/stepparent category.

Foster relationships only include official placements by a govern-
ment agency or representative of a government agency.

parents, and 195,000 lived with two foster parents.
Similar patterns were found when examining White,
Black, and Hispanic children separately.12

Children in Blended Families

In this report, a child lived in a blended family or
blended household if he or she lived with at least one
stepparent, stepsibling, and/or half-sibling. A steppar-
ent is the spouse of the child’s natural mother or father,
but lacks biological ties to the child. In this section, as in
the previous one, parents who have adopted their
stepchildren are considered stepparents, not adoptive

“The SIPP estimates that in 1991 there were 207,000 foster
children under age 18 (0.31 percent of all children), of which 195,000
lived with two foster parents. The remaining children lived with a single
foster parent. We discourage researchers from using the 1991 SIPP to
study foster children since extremely few cases were present in the
file.

12Black children in two-parent families were slightly less likely to
live with both biological parents and, consequently, more likely to live
with foster or adoptive parents.


Appendix E

E-2

ig
i
H
is

H

3
i
i
i
é
3

cc [oree|___ fore) _feore] __ [rare]
[rase|__fewoe|_[oove|__fatee] eros] _ Frese}
[esse|__fouse|___[evee] __fovos|__[vve]
[cc I Od cr

[eese, oases] _ [vase]

[osse|_ [rss]

[res]

[ess [esc] Lases, F656) [ree [eas
[ers [ezss [asa [e335 ‘[rss6] [esse]
Tess] Teves) [e89| [ese] [ress] Peo
eae [arse [eos [sos] [rss PE
[ease [esse [ese [ess [ress [ese
[ess6] [esse] [avs bez [ose] ie
[ess [aes [arse [ors LE [ese
[eers} Tosve, [ears [eee ico [eave
[ese Tas, Le [ears] Peo

[aes ico Frere! bez

[esse [eee [ses

[rsee| wee

Le 3 a Foss} [aaa] are iz}

(Penupe0g) SaIHSNOLLVTaY GTONASNON — Hed

{PenUAUOD) STINGOW TWOIdOl — s uoReeS

(Penupuey) SAINGOW IVOIdOA — GuCHDeS

“U.S. Government Printing Office: 1984 — 900-557/00050


The Diverse Living Arrangements of Children:

Summer 1991

INTRODUCTION AND HIGHLIGHTS

This report is the first to present findings on the
diverse living arrangements of children from the Survey
of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). Although
many surveys collect information on the relationship of
children to the householder, the SIPP is unique in that it
records how each person is related to everyone else in
the household. Beyond the nuclear family, we can
determine, for example, whether a child lives with a
grandparent, aunt, uncle, or cousin. Detailed informa-
tion on parent-child relationships is also provided, allow-
ing us to identify biological, step, foster, and adoptive
ties. Similar data are collected for siblings. With this
additional information, we now are able to examine
family structure in more detail than was possible in
previous Bureau of the Census reports. Topics dis-
cussed in this report include nuclear families, extended
families (including multi-generational families), stepfami-
lies, and adoption.

The statistics presented in this report are based on
national-level estimates of children under 18 and their
living situations, for the period June through September,
1991.1 The findings in this report pertain to all children,
regardless of the child's marital or parental status. Since
this report is based on a sample survey, its results are
subject to sampling variability. In particular, estimates
for subgroups under 200,000 and small differences
between groups should be interpreted with caution.

The major findings of this report include the following:

* In 1991, 47.8 (+0.4) million children under age 18
lived with two parents (730.8 percent); 15.7 (+ 0.5)
million lived with one parent (24-+0.7 percent); and an

‘The estimates for 1991 in this report are inflated to national
Population controls by age, race, sex, and Hispanic origin. The
population controls are based on results of the 1980 census carried
forward to 1991. The estimates in this report, therefore, may differ
from estimates that would have been obtained using the 1990 census
results brought forward to the survey date. Population controls
incorporating 1990 results will be used for survey estimation beginning
in 1993,

All demographic surveys, including the Current Population Survey
(CPS) and the SIPP, suffer from undercoverage of the population. This
undercoverage results from missed housing units and missed persons
within sample households. Compared with the level of the 1980
Decennial Census, overall CPS and SIPP undercoverage is about 7
percent. Undercoverage varies with age, sex, and race. For some
groups such as 20-to-24-year-old Black males, the undercoverage is
as high as about 35 percent. The weighting procedures used by the
Census Bureau partially correct for the bias resulting from undercov-
erage. However, its final impact on estimates is unknown. For details,
see appendix C, Source and Accuracy of Estimates.

additional 1.8 (0.2) million lived with neither parent
(80.3 percent).? Although the majority of children
living with a single parent were White (63+ 1.7
percent), Black children were 2.5 times more likely to
live in a one-parent family than were White children
(Blacks, 49+2.2 percent; Whites, 19-+0.8 percent).

One out of two children lived in a nuclear family
composed solely of both biological parents and full
brothers and sisters (51 +0.9 percent). The remaining
children lived in a home that included, for example, a
single parent, stepparent, grandparent, or another
relative or non-relative.

Fifteen (-£0.6) percent of all children (9.80.4 mil-
lion) lived in blended families (i.e., homes in which
children lived with at least one stepparent, stepsib-
ling, or half-sibling). More children lived with at least
one half-brother or half-sister (70.4 million) than
with a stepparent (4.60.3 million) or with at least
one stepsibling (980,000+ 140,000).

* Living in a blended family was equally likely for
children in one-parent families (15.5+1.3 percent)
and children in two-parent families (15.2+0.7 per-
cent).

Approximately 1.1 (0.1) million children lived with at
least one adoptive parent.

Of children living with at least one parent, 8.0 (40.4)
million (12.5+0.6 percent) lived in an extended house-
hold. Approximately 5.7 million (0.3) children lived
in households extended by relatives only, compared
with 1.9 million (0.2) in homes extended by non-
relatives only, and 313,000 (+80,00) in those extended
by both relatives and nonrelatives.

.

Children in one-parent families were four times more
likely to live in an extended family (29.9+ 1.6 percent)
than were children living with two parents (6.80.5
percent).

¢ Among children in single-mother families, 20 (1.5)
percent also lived with an adult male (related or

The values shown in parentheses represent the 90-percent
confidence interval, which is the standard used by the Census Bureau
for the comparison of statistics based on sample surveys. All of the
statements in this report meet this requirement. See appendix C for a
more detailed discussion of sampling error and how it may affect the
data.


11. Children Living in Multi-generational Households, by Race and Hispanic Origin:
Summer 1991 .........ccccceeseceseeeeseeeeueeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeaes cece eeeteseeeaeeeeeees 12
12. — Children Living with Grandparents, by Race and Hispanic Origin: Summer 1991 ..... 12

APPENDIXES

A. Overview of the SIPP Program..
Background ..........
Survey Content.
Sample Design
Survey Operations .

B. Definitions and Explanations

c. Source and Accuracy of Estimates

D. Data Quality........... cee D-1
E. Facsimile of the Household Relationships Questionnaire E-t



Appendix A. Overview of the SIPP Program

BACKGROUND

The Survey of Income and Program Participation
(SIPP) provides a major expansion in the kind and
amount of information available to analyze the eco-
nomic situation of households and persons in the United
States. The information supplied by this survey is expected
to provide a better understanding of the level and
changes in the level of well-being of the population and
of how economic situations are related to the demo-
graphic and social characteristics of individuals. The
data collected in the SIPP is especially useful in study-
ing Federal transfer programs, estimating program cost
and effectiveness, and assessing the effect of proposed
changes in program regulations and benefit levels.
Analysis of other important national issues such as tax
reform, Social Security program costs, and national
health insurance can be expanded and refined, based
on the information from this survey.

The first interviews in the SIPP took place in October
1983, nearly 8 years after the research and develop-
mental phase, the Income Survey Development Pro-
gram (ISDP), was initiated by the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare in 1975. Between 1975 and
1980, extensive research was undertaken to design and
test new procedures for collecting income and related
socioeconomic data on a subannual basis and in a
longitudinal framework. Much of the work centered
around four experimental field tests that were con-
ducted in collaboration with the Bureau of the Census to
examine different concepts, procedures, questionnaires,
and recall periods. Two of the tests were restricted to a
small number of geographic sites; the other two were
nationwide. In the first nationwide test, the 1978 Research
Panel, approximately 2,000 households were interviewed.
Because of the relatively small number of interviews,
controlled experimental comparisons of alternatives were
not possible; however, the panel did demonstrate that
many new ideas and methods were feasible. It also laid
a foundation for the largest and most complex test: the
1979 Research Panel. This panel consisted of a nation-
ally representative sample of 8,200 households and
provided a vehicle for feasibility tests and controlled
experiments of alternative design features.

In the fall of 1981, virtually all funding for ISDP
research and planning of the continuing SIPP program
was deleted from the budget of the Social Security
Administration. The loss of funding for fiscal year 1982

brought all work on the new survey to a halt. In fiscal
year 1983, however, money for initiation of the new
survey was allotted in the budget of the Bureau of the
Census. Work began almost immediately in preparation
for the survey to start in October 1983. The design of
the questionnaire for the first interview was similar in
structure to that used in the 1979 ISDP panel study with
two important exceptions. First, the reference period for
the questions was extended from 3 months to 4 months
in order to reduce the number of interviews and, there-
fore, lower costs. Second, the questions covering labor
force activity were expanded in order to provide esti-
mates that were closer, on a conceptual basis, to those
derived from the Current Population Survey (CPS). The
design also incorporated a number of other modifica-
tions resulting from experience with the 1979 pilot study.

SURVEY CONTENT

There are three basic elements in the overall design
of the survey. The first is a control card that serves
several important functions. The control card is used to
record basic social and demographic characteristics for
each person in the household at the time of the initial
interview. Because households are interviewed a total
of eight or nine times, the card is also used to record
changes in characteristics such as age, educational
attainment, and marital status and to record the dates
when persons enter or leave the household. Finally,
during each interview, information on each source of
income received and the name of each job or business
is transcribed to the card so that this information can be
used in the updating process in subsequent interviews.

The second major element of the survey content is
the core portion of the questionnaire. The core ques-
tions are repeated at each interview and cover labor
force activity, the types and amounts of income received
during the 4-month reference period, and participation
status in various programs. Some of the important
elements of labor force activity are recorded separately
for each week of the period. Income recipiency and
amounts are recorded on a monthly basis with the
exception of amounts of property income (interest,
dividends, rent, etc.). Data for these types are recorded
as totals for the 4-month period. The core also contains
questions covering attendance in post secondary schools,
private health insurance coverage, public or subsidized
rental housing, low-income energy assistance, and school
breakfast and lunch participation.


Diverse Living Arrangements of Children

Table 1. Living Arrangements of Children Under
18 Years, by Race and Hispanic Origin:
Summer 1991

{Numbers in thousands]

a All Hispanic
Living arrangements races} White! Black] origin’
Children under 18 years....| 65,727] 51,944) 10,571 7,525
Living with—

Two parents ...........5 47,826| 40,995] 4,404] 4,826
In a traditional nuclear
family? 33,403) 29,292) 2,741 2,846
One parent 15,748| 9,919] 5,196] 2,337
Mother only. 13,955] 8,503) 4,938] 2,141
Father only . 1,793] 1,416 258 196
Grandparents only . 1,099] 469} 570 100
Other. . 689 385 262 110
Unknown? 365] 175] = 138 152
Percent....00....c.cceeeee 400.0} 100.0} 100.0] 100.0
Living with—
Two parents ............ 728| 789, 41.7) 64.4
In a traditional nuclear
family. . 50.8 56.4 25.9 378
‘One parent 240| 194] 49.2) 34.4
Mother only 21.2 16.4 46.7 28.5
Father only 27 27 24 26
Grandparents only . 17 0.9 54 13
Other. . 1.0 07 25 15
Unknown‘ 0.6 0.3 1.3 2.0

‘Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Children in a traditional nuclear family live with both biological
parents and, if siblings are present, with full brothers and sisters. No
other household members are present.

Data on living arrangements are missing for these children.

THE TRADITIONAL NUCLEAR FAMILY

The “decline” of the American family continues to be
a controversial topic, both in the academic literature and
in the popular press. Although we will not explore the
debate in this report®, we present estimates of what
many consider to be the “traditional” family. By this, we
refer to nuclear families in which children live with both
biological parents and, if siblings are present, with only
full siblings (i.e., brothers and sisters who share the
same biological parents). No other persons are present
in the household. Both parents are currently married,
though not necessarily to their first spouse, and both
may be employed.”

One-half of all children lived in nuclear families
composed of only two parents and their biological
children (table 1). White children were much more likely

®See David Popenoe, “American Family Decline, 1960-1990: A
Review and Appraisal,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 55
(August 1993), pp. 14-22. Also see responses by Norvail D. Glenn,
Judith Stacey, and Philip A. Cowan that follow the article.

7Please refer to Donald J. Hernandez, America’s Children: Resources
from Family, Government, and the Economy (New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 1993), for a discussion of traditional breadwinner-homemaker
families, popularly known as “Ozzie and Harriet” families (two-parent
families with all children born after the parents’ only marriage, the
father works full-time year-round, and the mother is not in the labor
force).

Figure 2.

Children Living in Traditional
Nuclear Families: Summer 1991
(In percent)

All children

Total Be ae E08

White Reps epee creep | 58-4
——

Black ee | 25.9

Hispanic” ee 37.8

Children living with two parents

Total 69.8

White 71.5

Black 62.2
Hispanic* 59.0

*Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: Table 1.

than were Black and Hispanic children to live in this type
of family (56 percent for Whites, 26 percent for Blacks,
and 38 percent for Hispanics). These differences, how-
ever, reflect variations in the propensity to live with two
parents as well as the composition of two-parent fami-
lies. Since White children were far more likely than were
Black children to live with two parents, it is not surprising
to find large differences by race in the proportion of
children living in a traditional nuclear family. Simply put,
a child cannot live in a traditional nuclear family if one or
both parents are absent. Also, some of the variation is
because of the composition of two-parent families.
Following our definition, children who, for example, lived
with two parents in a nuclear step-family or in an
extended family were identified as members of a “non-
traditional” household. If we focus only on children in
two-parent families, do we continue to find such large
differences in family composition?

In general, the likelihood of living in a traditional
nuclear family is much greater for children in two-parent
homes (70 percent) than for children as a whole (51
percent). When we examine only those children who
lived in two-parent families, race and ethnic differences
are smaller: 72 percent of White children lived in tradi-
tional nuclear families, compared with 62 percent of
Blacks, and 59 percent of Hispanics. As shown in figure
2, this measure varies widely depending on the universe
of children in question. Black and Hispanic children
living in two-parent families vary significantly from their


C-4

Appendix C

large standard errors involved, there is little chance that
the estimates will reveal useful information when com-
puted on a base smaller than 200,000. Also, honsam-
Pling error in one or more of the small number of cases
providing the estimate can cause large relative error in
that particular estimate. We show estimated numbers,
however, even though the relative standard errors of
these numbers are larger than those for the correspond-
ing percentages. We provide smaller estimates primarily
to permit such combinations of the categories as serve
each user’s needs. Therefore, be careful in the interpre-
tation of small differences since even a small amount of
nonsampling error can cause a borderline difference to
appear significant or not, thus distorting a seemingly
valid hypothesis test.

Standard error parameters and tables and their use.

Most SIPP estimates have greater standard errors than
those obtained through a simple random sample because
we sampled clusters of living quarters for the SIPP. To
derive standard errors at a moderate cost and appli-
cable to a wide variety of estimates, we made a number
of approximations. We grouped estimates with similar
standard error behavior and developed two parameters
(denoted “a” and “b”) to approximate the standard
error behavior of each group of estimates. Because the
actual standard error behavior was not identical for all
estimates within a group, the standard errors we com-
puted from these parameters provide an indication of
the order of magnitude of the standard error for any
specific estimate. The “a” and “b” parameters found in
table 3 are for Wave 2 1991 panel estimates of the living
arrangements of children.

For those users who wish further simplification, we
also provide general standard errors in tables 4 and 5.
The standard errors taken from these tables are less
accurate. Methods for using the parameters and tables
for computation of standard errors are given in the
following sections.

Standard errors of estimated numbers. There are
two ways to compute the approximate standard error,
s,, of an estimated number shown in this report. The first
method is to look up the standard error of the estimate
obtained by interpolation from table 4. Alternatively,
approximate s, using the formula

8, = Var? + bx (1)

from which we calculated the standard errors in table 4.
Here x is the size of the estimate and “a” and “‘b” are
the parameters in table 3. Direct calculation with formula
1 will provide more accurate results than interpolating
values from table 4.

Mustration. Suppose SIPP estimates show that 13,955,000
children under age 18 lived in single-mother families in
1991. The “a” and “‘b” parameters from table 3 and the
appropriate general standard error found by interpola-
tion from table 4 are a = -0.0001340, b = 7,514, s, =
279,000.

The 90-percent confidence interval as shown is from
13,496,000 to 14,414,000. Using formula (1), the approxi-
mate standard error is

V/(—0.0001340) (13,955,000)? + (7,514) (13,955,000) = 281,000

The 90-percent confidence interval as shown is from
13,493,000 to 14,417,000. Therefore, a conclusion that
the average estimate derived from all possible samples
lies within a range computed in this way would be
correct for roughly 90 percent of all samples.

Standard errors of estimates percentages. The reli-
ability of an estimated percentage, computed using
sample data for both numerator and denominator, depends
on the size of the percentage and its base. One way to
find the approximate standard error, S;.-), of an esti-
mated percentage p, which is the percentage of per-
sons with a particular characteristic, is by interpolating
values from table 5.
Alternatively, approximate it by the formula—

ib
Scxp) = {2.100-») (2)

from which we calculated the standard errors in table 5.
Here x is the total number of persons in the base of the
percentage, p is the percentage (0 < p < 100), andb
is the “b” parameter in table 3. Use of this formula will
give more accurate results than interpolating values
from table 5.

Mustration. Suppose that SIPP estimates 1 out of every
5 children or 20 percent, in single-mother families lived
with at least one adult male in the household. The base
for this percentage is 13,955,000. The ‘‘b” parameter
from table 3 and the appropriate general standard error
found by interpolation from table 5 are

b = 7,514 and s, = 0.9 percent

Using formula (2), the approximate standard error is

V 7,514
73,055,000 20(100—20) = 0.9 percent

The 90-percent confidence interval as shown is from
19 to 21 percent. Therefore, a conclusion that the
average percentage derived from all possible samples
lies within a range computed in this way would be
correct for roughly 90 percent of all samples.


CURRENT POPULATION REPORTS

Household Economic Studies
P70-38

The Diverse Living Arrangements
of Children: Summer 1991

Survey of Income and Program Participation

by Stacy Furukawa

U.S. Department of Commerce
Economics and Statistics Administration
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS



Diverse Living Arrangements of Children

Table 4. Children Living in Blended Families,
by Composition of Family, Race, and
Hispanic Origin: Summer 1991

[Numbers in thousands)

All Hispanic

Living arrangements races| White] Black} origin’

Children living in a

blended family. . 9,807} 7,298] 2,101 1,016
Percent of all
under 18 years....... 14.9 14.0 19.9 13.5
Type of blended family:
‘Stepparent only2. 2,068] 1,848 152 166
Stepsibling only . 235 55 173 5
Half-sibling only . 4,966! 3,271 1,485 593,
Stepparent and
stepsibling ............. 517| 409 62 32
Stepparent and half-
sibling vee] 1,794] 1,540 176 203
Stepsibling and half-
SIDING... .eeeeeeee eee 13 - 13 -
Stepparent, stepsibling,
and half-sibling......... 216 175 40 16

100.0] 100.0) 100.0 100.0
21.41 25.3 7.2 16.3
24 08 8.2 0.5

‘Stepparent only”.
Stepsibling only .

Half-sibling only . 50.6 44.8 70.7, 58.4
Stepparent and
il 5.3 5.6 3.0 3.4
18.3 214 8.4 20.0
Stepsibling and half-
sibling . - - 0.6 -
Stepparent, stepsibling,
and half-sibling......... 22 24 1.9 1.6

- Represents zero or a number that rounds to zero.

‘Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

2Children living with one biological parent and one adoptive parent
are considered to live with a stepparent in order to be consistent with
survey instructions

provide this information.'+ Certainly our figure. underes-
timates the true number of adoptions, particularly chil-
dren who were adopted by a stepparent. In the SIPP,
respondents were instructed to identify parents who
were both step- and adoptive as stepparents, though

‘4Christine Bachrach and colleagues estimate that 1.1 million
children were adopted (in any year) based on information collected
from 20-54 year old women responding to the 1987 National Health
Interview Survey. Citations for earlier articles by Bachrach using the
National Survey of Family Growth can be found at the end of that
report. Please refer to the National Committee For Adoption’s Fact-
book for information on adoption at the state level. For a recent
discussion of data sources, see Kathy Stolley's chapter, “Statistics on
Adoption in the United States,” in The Future of Children: Adoption.

Bachrach, C.A.,Adams, P.F., Sambrano, S., and London, K.A. Advance
data: Adoption in the 1980’s. Advance data from vital and health
statistics; no 181. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statis-
tics, 1990.

National Committee For Adoption. 1989 Adoption Factbook: United
States Data, Issues, Regulations, and Resources. Washington, D.C.,
National Committee For Adoption, 1989.

Behrman, Richard E., M.D, The Future of Children: Adoption. Vol. 3,
No. 1. Los Altos, CA: Center for the Future of Children, The David and
Lucile Packard Foundation, 1993.

Figure 3.
Children Living in Blended Families:
Summer 1991
(In percent)
All children
Total ee Hie ] 14.9
White [> teiareeees 14.0
Black [see sree at j19.9
Hispanic’ | “| 13.5

Children living with two parents

Total 15.2

White 14.9

Black 18.5
Hispanic* 13.8

Children living with one parent

Total 15.5

White 11.4

Black 23.5
Hispanic* 14.3

“Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: Table 4 and 5.

Table 5. Children Living in Blended Families by
Presence of Parents, Race, and Hispanic
Origin: Summer 1991

[Numbers in thousands]

Living with—
Living arrangements Two One Neither
parents parent parent
All races 47,826 15,748 1,788
Living in a blended family . 7,249 2,448 110
Percent in a blended family . 15.2 16.5 6.2
White 40,995 9,919 854
Living in a blended family . 6,120 1,135, 43
Percent in a blended family . 14.9 11.4 5.0
Black .........-. 4,404 5,196 832
Living in a blended family . 813 1221 68
Percent in a blended family . 18.5 23.5 8.2
4,826 2,337 210
Living in a blended 668 334 13
Percent in a blended family . 13.8 14.3 6.2

Persons of Hispaic origin may be of any race.


Diverse Living Arrangements of Children

parents. Half-siblings share only one biological parent,
whereas stepsiblings do not have any biological parents
in common.

Before discussing the composition of blended fami-
lies in detail, we examine the extent to which children
lived with stepparents, stepsiblings, and half-siblings.
When we look at all children, we find that more lived
with a half-sibling (11 percent) than with a stepparent (7
percent) or a stepsibling (1 percent) (table 3). Please
note that these categories are not mutually exclusive—they
represent children living with “at least one” of the
relatives specified. Although the patterns for White
children were similar to those found for all children,
Blacks (4 percent) were less likely to live with a step-
parent, as were Hispanic children (6 percent), and more
likely to live with a half-sibling (16 percent). Hispanic
children (11 percent) were as likely as all children to live
with a half-sibling.

In 1991, 9.8 million children lived in a blended family,
a home in which at least one stepparent, stepsibling, or
half-sibling was present (table 4). Although children
living in a blended family represented 15 percent of all
children, this reflects only the composition of the house-
hold in which they lived, not the complete network of
family ties. A somewhat higher percentage of Black
children lived in a blended family (20 percent) than did
White or Hispanic children (14 percent).13

Table 4 also shows the distribution of children in
blended families by all possible combinations of step-
and half-relatives who were present in the home. Among
children living in blended families, the most common

*SThe proportion of White and Hispanic children living in a blended
family (14 percent) does not differ from that of all children (15
percent).

situation, regardless of race or ethnicity, was the one in
which children lived with at least one half-sibling, but
with neither a stepparent nor a stepsibling (50 percent
or 5 million children). Black children in blended families,
in particular, were far more likely to live with a half-
sibling only (71 percent) than were White (45 percent) or
Hispanic children in blended families (58 percent). An
additional one-fifth of children in blended families lived
with a stepparent only (2.1 million), and, similarly, another
one-fifth lived with a stepparent and a half-sibling (1.8
million). Few children in blended families lived with a
stepsibling only (2 percent) or in the remaining catego-
ries shown in table 4.

Surprisingly, children living in one-parent families
were about as likely to live in a blended family as were
children in two-parent families (16 percent and 15
percent, respectively) (figure 3 and table 5). There are
only slight differences in these proportions by race. The
proportion of White children in one-parent families living
in a blended family (11 percent) is slightly smaller than
the comparable measure for those in two-parent fami-
lies (15 percent). Black children in one-parent families
were somewhat more likely to live in a blended family
than their counterparts in two-parent families (24 per-
cent and 19 percent). No difference was found for
Hispanic children.

Adopted Children

It is very difficult to determine how many adopted
children live in the United States. Since a comprehen-
sive federal registry system for adoptions does not yet
exist, we must rely on surveys such as the SIPP to

Table 3. Children by Presence of Nuclear Family Members, by Type of Relationship, Race, and Hispanic

Origin: Summer 1991
[Numbers in thousands]

All races White Black Hispanic origin’
Living arrangements
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

All children under 18 years .......... 65,727 100.0 51,944 100.0 10,571 100.0 7,525 100.0
Presence of Parent
Living with at least one parent 63,574 96.7 50,914 98.0 9,600 90.8 7,163 95.2

Living with at least one stepy 4,594 7.0 3,972 76 431 41 418 5.6
Neither parent is present . 2,153 3.3 1,030 2.0 971 9.2 362 48
Presence of Brothers and Sisters
Living with at least one sibling 49,728 75.7 39,607 76.2 7,661 72.5 5,956 79.1

Living with at least one stepsil 980 15 639 1.2 289 53 0.7

Living with at least one half-siblin 6,989 10.6 4,986 9.6 1,714 . 813 10.8
Living with no brothers or sisters ..... 15,999 24.3 12,337 23.8 2,910 27.5 1,569 20.9

- Represents zero or a number that rounds to zero.
*Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

2Children living with one biological parent and one adoptive parent are considered to live with a stepparent in order to be consistent with survey

instructions.


Diverse Living Arrangements of Children

unrelated) present in the household; 37 (5.1) per-
cent of children living with a single father also lived
with an adult female (related or unrelated).

Seven (+0.5) percent of all children (4.70.3 million)
lived with at least one grandparent. Of children living
with a single parent and a grandparent, most lived in
the grandparent’s home (81 +3.8 percent); but among
children in two-parent families with a grandparent in
the home, most lived in the parents’ home (625.7
percent).

LIVING ARRANGEMENTS OF CHILDREN

The living patterns of children have changed dramati-
cally over the past three decades. With a growing
proportion of women bearing children out of wedlock,
along with high divorce rates, more children than ever
are spending at least part of their childhood in single-
parent families.

In 1991, 73 percent of the 65.7 million children under
18 lived with two parents®, 21 percent lived with their
mother only, 3 percent lived with their father only, and 3
percent lived with neither parent. (See figure 1 and
table 1.) Throughout this report, unless a specific type is
designated, “parent” refers to a biological, step, adop-
tive, or foster parent. Although most children lived with
two parents, this varied sharply by race and ethnicity: 79
percent of all White children lived with two parents,
compared with 42 percent of Black and 64 percent of
Hispanicé children.

Approximately 15.7 million children lived with one
parent. Although the majority of children living with a
single parent were White (63 percent), Black children

This group includes 688,000 children who lived with two unmar-
ried parents.

“The data presented in table 1 are roughly comparable with
estimates yielded by the March 1991 Current Population Survey
(CPS). However, in contrast to the CPS, the SIPP estimated more
Black children living in two-parent families, and fewer Black children
living in single-mother families (see below). It should be noted that the
‘SIPP and the CPS estimates are not based on the same universe of
children: the CPS figures exclude children who maintained their own
household or family group. Their inclusion in the SIPP estimates only
accounts for a minor portion of the difference. It may be that asking for
detailed information on a parent-child relationship {i.e., biological,
step, foster, and adoptive) encourages the reporting of parental
presence, but this is speculative.

SIPP cps
Characteristic

Number} Percent} Number] Percent

10,571) 100.0] 10,209 100.0

4,404 417| 3,669 35.9
4,938 46.7] 5,516 54.0
Living with father only. . . 258 24 358 3.5

Source of 1991 CPS data: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population
Reports, Series P-20, No. 461, Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March
1991, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1992.

Children of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Figure 1.
Children by Presence of Parents:

Summer 1991
Other
Father only
Mother only

Two parents

(In percent)

ereceernntd
ere
eens
EEE
eee seeeses

All White Black
races

Hispanic*

*Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: Table 1.

were 2.5 times more likely to live in a one-parent family
than were White children. One-half of all Black children
lived with one parent (49 percent), whereas nearly
one-fifth of White children (19 percent) and one-third of
Hispanic children (31 percent) lived in single-parent
families. A disproportionate share of Black children lived
with a lone parent: 16 percent of all children were Black,
yet Blacks constituted one-third of all children living in
one-parent families.

About 1.8 million children lived with neither parent.
The majority of these children lived with one or both
grandparents (61 percent); the others lived with other
relatives and/or nonrelatives. Black children comprised
one-half of all children living with a grandparent, but
without a parent in the home.


C-1

Appendix C. Source and Accuracy of Estimates

SOURCE OF DATA

The SIPP universe is the noninstitutionalized resident
population living in the United States. This population
includes persons living in group quarters, such as
dormitories, rooming houses, and religious group dwell-
ings. Crew members of merchant vessels, Armed Forces
personnel living in military barracks, and institutionalized
persons, such as correctional facility inmates and nurs-
ing home residents, are not eligible to be in the survey.
Also not eligible are United States citizens residing
abroad. Foreign visitors who work or attend school in
this country and their families are eligible; all others are
not eligible. With the exceptions noted above, field
representatives interview eligible persons who are at
least 15 years of age at the time of the interview.

The 1991 SIPP panel is located in 230 Primary
Sampling Units (PSU’s) each consisting of a county or a
group of contiguous counties. Within these PSU’s, we
systematically selected expected clusters of two living
quarters from lists of addresses prepared for the 1980
decennial census to form the bulk of the sample. To
account for living quarters built within each of the
sample areas after the 1980 census, we selected a
sample containing clusters of four living quarters from
permits issued for construction of residential living quar-
ters up until shortly before the beginning of the panel.

In jurisdictions that have incomplete addresses or do
not issue building permits, we sampled small land areas,
listed expected clusters of four living quarters, and then
subsampled. In addition, we selected a sample of living
quarters from a supplemental frame that included living
quarters identified as missed in the 1980 census.

The first interview occurred during February, March,
April, and May of 1991. Interviews for approximately
one-fourth of the sample took place in each of these
months. For the remainder of the panel, interviews for
each person occurred every 4 months. At each inter-
view the reference period was the 4 months preceding
the interview month.

Occupants of about 93 percent of all eligible living
quarters participated in the first interview of the panel.
For later interviews, field representatives interviewed
only original sample persons (those in Wave 1 sample
households and interviewed in Wave 1) and persons
living with them. The Bureau automatically designated
all first wave noninterviewed households as noninter-
views for all subsequent interviews. We followed original

sample persons if they moved to a new address, unless
the new address was more than 100 miles from a SIPP
sample area. If the original sample persons moved
farther than 100 miles from a SIPP sample area, we
attempted telephone interviews. When the original sample
persons moved to remote parts of the country and were
unreachable by telephone, moved without leaving a
forwarding address, or refused the interview, additional
noninterviews resulted.

As a part of most waves, we cover subjects that are
important to meet SIPP goals and do not require repeated
measurement during the panel. The data on these
subjects are of particular interest to data users and
policy makers. We cover these subjects once during the
panel or annually. By collecting data once for the panel
or annually, we reduce respondent burden. We call a
Specific set of questions on a subject a topical module.
For this report, the topical module analyzed includes
questions on the living arrangements of children. We
implemented them in wave 2 of the 1991 panel.

Noninterviews. Tabulations in this report were drawn
from interviews conducted from June through Septem-
ber 1991. Table 1 summarizes information on nonre-
sponse for the interview months in which we collected
the data used to produce this report.

Table 1. Household Sample Size by Month and
Interview Status

Nonre-

sponse

Month Inter- | Noninter- rate
Eligible viewed viewed| (percent)

June 1991.. 4,000 3,400 600 15.0
July 1991 3,900 3,400 500 13.6
August 1991...... 4,000 3,400 500 13.0
September 1991 .. 3,900 3,400 500 13.7

‘Because of rounding of all numbers to the nearest 100, there are
some inconsistencies. We calculated the percentage using unrounded
numbers.

Some respondents do not respond to some of the
questions. Therefore, the overall nonresponse rate for
some items is higher than the nonresponse rates in
table 1. For more discussion of nonresponse, see the
Quality Profile for the Survey of Income and Program
Participation, May 1990, by T. Jabine, K. King, and
R. Petroni, available from Customer Services, Data
Users Services Division, of the U.S. Census Bureau
(301-763-6100).


D-2 Appendix D

Table D-1. Children With Incomplete Household Records, by Race and Hispanic Origin
[Number in thousands]

Incomplete data
Living arrangements
Total children Number Percent
65,727 5,544 8.4
47,826 3,609 75
15,748 1,393 8.8
Mother only 13,955 1,164 8.3
Father only. 1,793 229 12.8
Grandparents only . 1,099 43 3.9
689 134 19.4
365 365 100.0
51,944 4,092 7.9
Living with—
Two parents. 40,995 2,917 7A
One parent. 9,919 897 9.0
Mother only 8,503 727 85
Father only... . 1,416 170 12.0
Grandparents only . 469 26 5.5
Other. . 385 7 20.0
Unknown, 175 175 100.0
Black. . 10,571 1,078 10.2
Living with—
Two parents. 4,404 401 9.1
One parent. 5,196 465 8.9
Mother only 4,938 422 85
Father only. 258 43 16.7
Grandparents only . 570 17 3.0
Other... 262 57 218
Unknown 138 138 100.0
Hispanic origin’ 7,525 983 13.1
Living with—
‘Two parents. 4,826 574 11.9
One parent. 2,337 213 941
Mother only 2,141 189 88
Father only. 196 24 12.2
Grandparents only . 100 21 21.0
Other. . 110 24 21.8
Unknown 152 152 100.0

Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.


osscy

e)

cA

><
Economics and Statistics BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
Administration Harry A. Scarr, Acting Director

Everett M. Ehrlich, Under Secretary

for Economic Affairs -_
William P. Butz, Associate Director

for Demographic Programs

POPULATION DIVISION
Arthur J. Norton, Chief

SUGGESTED CITATION

Furukawa, Stacy. The Diverse Living Arrangements of Children: Summer 1991. U.S. Bureau of
the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P70, No. 38. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC, 1994.

For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.


Diverse Living Arrangements of Children

EE EEE EEE OOOO OL

Figure 5.

Children Living in Extended Families
by Presence of Parents: Summer
1991

(In percent)

All races

Two parents | 6.8

One parent : Pe | 29.9

Two parents

One parent

Black

Two parents 10.1

One parent 31.9

Hispanic*

Two parents 17.8

One parent 40.1

“Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: Table 7.

percent lived with nonrelatives only, and 1 percent lived
with both relatives and nonrelatives. Among children in
one-parent families, Whites (16 percent) were less likely
than Blacks (28 percent) or, similarly, Hispanics (30
percent) to live with relatives only. However, White
children in one-parent families (12 percent) were more
likely than either Black (3 percent) or Hispanic (6
percent) children to live with nonrelatives only.

Additional Adults in Single-Parent Households. Table
8 presents estimates of the number of children who
lived in single-parent households that were extended by
at least one additional adult. Such adults represent
potential sources of household support, with contribu-
tions including financial assistance and child care. Since
households are extended if they include anyone beyond
the nuclear family (i.e., someone who is not the child’s
parent, brother, or sister), we do not consider a child’s
adult brother or sister to be an “‘additional adult” in this

section. First, we discuss the extent to which children in
one-parent families lived in households that included
adults of the opposite sex (e.g., children living with a
single mother and at least one adult male), then we turn
to single-parent families in which the additional adult is
of the same sex as the parent.

One out of every five children (20 percent) in single-
mother families lived with at least one adult male in the
household, although this occurred more frequently among
Whites (23 percent) and, similarly, Hispanics (21 per-
cent) than among Blacks (14 percent) (table 8). Ten
percent of all children in single-mother families lived
with at least one male relative, 7 percent lived with a
male nonrelative, and 3 percent lived with a male of
unknown relation. (Please note that these categories
are not mutually exclusive; for example, children living
with a relative and a nonrelative were included in both
categories.) Of all children who lived with a single
mother, the proportion who, in addition, resided with at
least one adult male relative in the home was similar for
Whites (10 percent), Blacks (11 percent), and Hispanics
(13 percent). In contrast, White children in mother-only
families were more likely than Blacks to have at least
one unrelated adult in the household (11 percent and 2
percent). Although our data do not allow us to determine
what proportion of the single mothers and unrelated
men were unmarried partners, we assume that many
were cohabitors. Beginning in 1996 the SIPP will more
explicitly identify such relationships.1¢

In contrast, children living with a single father were
twice as likely as children in single-mother families (37
percent and 20 percent, respectively) to live with an
adult of the opposite sex of the parent (table 8). Among
White children, one-third lived with a single father and at
least one adult female, but the values for Black and
Hispanic children are unreliable because of small sample
sizes. Approximately one-fifth (19 percent) of children in
single-father families lived with at least one adult female
relative, 13 percent lived with an unrelated adult female,
and 6 percent lived with a female of unknown relation.'7

Children in mother-only families are extremely similar
to their counterparts in father-only families in the pro-
portions living with an additional adult of the same sex
as the parent. (19 percent) (table 9). Moreover, the two
groups did not differ in the terms of how each additional
adult was related to the child: 16 percent of children in
single-mother homes lived with at least one female

‘For a discussion of the extent to which cohabitation patterns
affect the classification of women and children in single-parent
families, see L. L. Bumpass and R. K. Raley, “Trends in the Duration
of Single-Parent Families." NSFH Working Paper No. 58 (1993),
National Survey of Families and Households, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, Wisconsin.

‘The proportion of children who lived with a single mother and an
adult male (related or unrelated) does not differ from the proportion of
children who lived with a single father and at least one adult female
relative present in the household.


Diverse Living Arrangements of Children

11

relative, and 14 percent of those in single-father homes
lived with at least one male relative.

Additional Relatives by Detailed Type. Which rela-
tives do children in extended families most frequently
live with? One might imagine that these households
most often include grandparents, and this is indeed
what is shown in table 10. (Note: the categories in table
10 are not mutually exclusive.) Regardless of race or
origin, 46 percent of children in extended families lived
with at least one grandparent, and more children lived
with only a grandmother (25 percent) than with both a
grandmother and a grandfather (17 percent). Approxi-
mately three times as many Black and Hispanic children
lived with one grandparent as with two grandparents,
compared with 1.5 times as many for Whites.

Of the 8.0 million children living in an extended family,
similar proportions lived with at least one uncle (19
percent) or an aunt (20 percent). Another one-fifth lived
with a cousin, although the proportion was particularly
large for Black children, about one-third of whom lived
with a cousin (35 percent).

Multi-generational Households. Many children living
in extended families also live in multi-generational house-
holds. In 1991, 3.8 million children lived in three- or four

Table 10. Children Living in Extended Families,
by Type of Relative Present, Race, and
Hispanic Origin: Summer 1991

[Numbers in thousands]

All Hispanic

Living arrangements races) White] Black} origin’

Total children in extended

families? .......... 6.25605 7,951 5,210} 2,100 1,795
Living with at least one—

Grandmother and grand-

father .. 1,323 914 280 197
Grandmot 2,004) 1,137 680 532
Grandfather only. 312 257 49 79
Uncle 1,506 825 438 513
Aunt . 1,567 868 512 542
Nephew . 451 196 231 143
Niece 486 182 276 167
Father-in-law . 15 5 9 .
Mother-in-law 13 7 - -
Brother-in-law 32 19 - 4
Sister-in-law, 64 18 24
Cousin 1,704 788 729 461

Percent. . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Grandmother and grand-

father ar 16.6 17.5 13.3 11.0
Grandmother only . 26.2 21.8 32.4 29.6
Grandfather only. 3.9 49 2.3 44
Uncle 18.9 15.8 20.9 28.6

19.7 16.7 24.4 30.2
5.7 3.8 11.0 8.0
6.1 3.5 13.1 9.3
141 1.2 0.9 1.3

214 15.1 34.7 25.7

- Represents zero or a number that rounds to zero.

‘Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
2At least one parent lives in the household,

generation families, almost all of whom lived with a
parent and a grandparent (96 percent, table 11). The
remaining children lived with a parent and an own child,
with a grandparent and an own child, or in a four-
generation household.

lf all children are considered, not only those in
extended families, 4.7 million lived with a grandparent (7
percent of all children under 18) (table 12). One million
children were raised by their grandparents without a
parent present in the household, constituting about
one-fourth of all children living with a grandparent. The
largest proportion of children living with grandparents,
however, lived with single mothers (40 percent); 31
percent lived with both parents.

The proportion of children living with a grandparent
differs by race and Hispanic origin. Black children were
three times more likely than were White children to live
with a grandparent (15 percent compared with 5 per-
cent); Hispanic children were twice as likely as Whites to
live with a grandparent (12 percent). Among Black
children living with a grandparent, the overwhelming
majority had either one or neither parent in the house-
hold (93 percent). In contrast, approximately 60 percent
of White and Hispanic children lived in a home with a
grandparent and one or neither parent.

When children live with their parents and grandpar-
ents, which generation is the householder? The results
are quite different depending on whether the children
live with one or both parents. According to table 12,
among children living in three-generation, two-parent
families, less than half lived in the grandparent’s home
(38 percent), but 81 percent of children living in three-
generation, one-parent families lived in the grandparent’s
home. Does this suggest, then, that in multi-generational
households, two-parent families may be more likely to
provide care to the older generation, whereas single
mothers and fathers may be more apt to obtain support
from their own parents? This pattern, while certainly
intriguing, cannot be supported by the information shown
in table 12. This question requires further research at
the family level; our findings only describe characteris-
tics of children, not of each individual family or house-
hold. In other words, since children are the unit of
analysis, the characteristics of a five-child family are
represented five times in table 12, whereas an only child
is represented only once.

RELATED REPORTS

Additional information on the living arrangements of
children is presented in Current Population Reports,
Series P20-478, Marital Status and Living Arrange-
ments: March 1993. Based on the Current Population
Survey, this report includes more detail on the age of
the children and characteristics of their parents. We, the
American Children, WE-10, provides a brief summary of


CURRENT POPULATION REPORTS
Household Economic Studies

P70-38
Issued September 1994

The Diverse Living Arrangements
of Children: Summer 1991

by Stacy Furukawa

7
Sy

U.S. Department of Commerce
Ronald H. Brown, Secretary
David J. Barram, Deputy Secretary

Economics and Statistics Administration
Everett M. Ehrlich, Under Secretary
for Economic Affairs

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
Harry A. Scarr, Acting Director


Appendix C

C-5

Standard error of a difference. The standard error of
a difference between two sample estimates, x and y, is
approximately equal to

Su_y = Vs, + 87—2r8,8y (3)

where s, and s, are the standard errors of the estimates
x and y and r is the correlation coefficient between the
characteristics estimated by x and y. The estimates can
be numbers, averages, percents, ratios, etc. Underesti-
mates or overestimates of the standard error of differ-
ences result if the estimated correlation coefficient is
overestimated or underestimated, respectively. In this
report, r is assumed to be 0.

Mustration. Suppose we need the difference in the
percentage of White children who lived with two parents
and Black children who lived with two parents in 1991.
From the 51,944,000 White children and the 10,571,000
Black children, 79 percent and 42 percent, respectively,
lived with two parents in 1991. Using formula 2 and the
“b” parameter, the standard errors of these percent-
ages are approximately 0.5 percent and 1.3 percent,
respectively.

Now, we compute the standard error of the differ-
ence using the above two standard errors. The correla-
tion between these estimates is assumed to be zero.
Therefore, we compute the standard error of the differ-
ence using formula 3.

Say) = VV (0.5)? + (1.3)? = 1.4 percent

Suppose that it is desired to test at the 10-percent
significance level whether the two percentages differ
significantly. To perform the test, compare the differ-
ence of 37 percent to. the product of 1.645 x 1.4 percent
= 2.3 percent. Since the difference is larger than 1.645
times the standard error of the difference, the data show
that the estimates of 79 and 42 percent differ signifi-
cantly at the 10-percent level.

Table 3. SIPP Topical Module Generalized Variance
Parameters for the 1991 Panel

Characteristics a b

Children 0 to 17 years...............- -0.0001340 7,514

Table 4. Standard Errors of Estimated Numbers of
Persons

(Numbers in thousands)

Standard error

39
47
61
86
120
146
185
221
248
287
323
314
294
258
228
202
168
89
24

Size of estimate

60,000 ..

Table 5. Standard Errors of Estimated Percentages

of Persons
Estimated percentages
Base of estimated
percentage (thousands)| <1 or| 2or| 5or| 10 o0r| 25 or

> 99] 98} 95; 90] 75| 50

1.93] 2.71] 4.22] 5.81] 8.39} 9.69
1.57| 2.22) 3.45] 4.75] 6.85] 7.91
1.22| 1.72) 2.67] 3.68] 5.31} 6.13
0.86] 1.21] 1.89] 2.60) 3.75) 4.33
0.61] 0.86) 1.34} 1.84] 2.65) 3.06
0.50} 0.70} 1.09; 1.50] 2.17] 2.50
0.39] 0.54) 0.84) 1.16] 1.68) 1.94
0.31] 0.44] 0.69) 0.95] 1.37] 1.58
0.27! 0.38] 0.60) 0.82] 1.19] 1.37
0.22} 0.31] 0.49) 0.67} 0.97) 1.12
0.17] 0.24] 0.38] 0.52} 0.75| 0.87
0.15} 0.21} 0.32} 0.44) 0.63) 0.73
0.14] 0.19} 0.30} 0.41] 0.59] 0.69
0.13} 0.18] 0.28] 0.39] 0.56] 0.65
0.12] 0.18] 0.27] 0.38) 0.54] 0.63
0.12] 0.17] 0.27} 0.37] 0.53} 0.61
0.12] 0.17] 0.26] 0.36] 0.52) 0.60
0.12] 0.16] 0.25] 0.35] 0.51) 0.58
0.11} 0.16) 0.24) 0.34) 0.48) 0.56
0.11} 0.15} 0.23) 0.32] 0.47] 0.54
0.11} 0.15} 0.23] 0.32] 0.46] 0.53



Acknowledgments

This report was prepared in the Population Division, under the general direction of
Donald J. Hernandez, Chief, Marriage and Family Statistics Branch. Arthur J. Norton,
Chief, and Suzanne M. Bianchi, Assistant Chief, Population Division, provided overall
direction. Catherine O’Brien and Edith Reeves provided statistical assistance. Lynne
Casper and Arlene Saluter of the Population Division reviewed the contents of this
report.

Donald Fischer, formerly Chief, Income Surveys Branch, Demographic Surveys
Division, coordinated the survey design and data operations.

Donna Riccini, Chief, Income Surveys Programming Branch, Demographic Surveys
Division, directed data processing activities.

Bureau of the Census interviewers conducted the data collection, under the overall
direction of Paula J. Schneider, formerly Chief, Field Division.

Under the supervision of Rita Petroni, Demographic Statistical Methods Division,
Tracy James conducted the sampling review and prepared appendix C.

The staff of the Administrative and Publication Services Division, Walter C. Odom,
Chief, performed publication planning, editorial review, design, and printing planning
and procurement. Linda Ambill edited and coordinated the publication.


E-1

Appendix E. Facsimile of Household Relationships

Questionnaire

CARD HH

WAVE 2, 1991 PANEL

HOUSEHOLD RELATIONSHIPS

SPOUSE:

PARENT:

CHILD:

SIBLING:

GRANDPARENT:

GRANDCHILD:

UNCLE/AUNT:

NEPHEW/NIECE:

IN-LAWS:

OTHER RELATIVE:

NONRELATIVE:

FORM SIPP-11208 (2-1-91),

Sister: 34 Full sister (share two biologi

01 Husband
02 Wife

Father: 10 Natural father (biological)

41 Stepfather (husband of biological mother of child)
12 Adoptive father (legal)

13 Foster father (officially designated by a government agency)

18 Unknown parent type

Mother: 14 Natural mother (biological)

15. Stepmother (wife of biological father of child)
46 Adoptive mother (legal)

17 Foster mother (officially designated by a government agency)

18 Unknown parent type

Son: 20 Natural son (biological)

21 Stepson

22 Adopted son

23 Foster son

28 - Unknown child type

Daughter: 24 Natural daughter (biological)

25 Stepdaughter
26 Adopted daughter
27 Foster daughter
28 Unknown child type

Brother: 30 Full brother (share two biological parents)

31 Half brother (share one biological parent)
32 Stepbrother (no common biological parents)
33 Adoptive brother

38 Unknown sibling type

I parents)
35 Half sister (share one biological parent)
36 Stepsister (no common biological parents)
37 Adoptive sister

38 Unknown sibling type

40 Grandfather (biological, step, or adopted)
41° Grandmother (biological, step, or adopted)

42 Grandson (biological, step, or adopted)
43 Granddaughter (biological, step, or adopted)

44 Uncle (brother of the person’s mother or father or the
husband of the sister of the person’s mother or father)

45 Aunt (sister of the person's mother or father or the wife of
the brother of the person’s mother or father)

46 Nephew (son of the person's brother or sister)
47 Niece (daughter of the person’s brother or sister)

50 Father-in-law

51 > Mother-in-law

52 Son-in-law Include biological, step, or
53 Daughter-in-law f adoptive relationships

54 = Brother-in-law

55  Sister-in-law

60 Cousin, etc. (cousin, great grandparent, great
aunt, great uncle, etc.)

70 Not related (by blood, marriage or adoption)
99 No response


Diverse Living Arrangements of Children

Figure 4.

Children Living With

Parent in Extended [1 Relatives only

Families: HB) Nonrelatives only
Summer 1991 [] Relatives and
(In percent) Nonrelatives

10.2

All White Black
races

Hispanic*

*Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: Table 7.

Table 6. Adopted Children by Race, Hispanic
Origin, and Living Arrangements:
Summer 1991

[Numbers in thousands]

Characteristics Number Percent
1,062 100.0
805 75.8
130 12.2
127 12.0
65 6.1
3. 997 93.9

Living arrangement
936 88.1
Two adoptive parents. . 581 54.7
One adoptive and one biological. . . 324 30.5
One adoptive and one other. . 31 29
One parent. . 126 11.9
Mother only 110 10.4
Father only... 16 41.5

‘Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

some reported an adoptive relationship. For consis-
tency, children who lived with one biological parent and
one adoptive parent were recoded as stepchildren in
the two previous sections. Here, however, we accept
the original response and consider them as related
adoptions, children who have been adopted by a step-
parent. Respondents were also asked to identify only
legal adoptions, though surely some also included

informal adoptions. With these qualifications, we esti-
mate that 1.1 million children lived with at least one
adoptive parent in 1991 (table 6). One-half of all adopted
children lived with two adoptive parents, and one-third
lived with one biological and one adoptive parent.
Twelve percent of all adopted children lived with single
parents.

In general, we do not encourage the use of the SIPP
to study adopted children, simply because too few
cases exist to permit much beyond the level of descrip-
tion shown in table 6. Anything more complex, even a
cross-tabulation of this group by age, race, and sex, will
almost certainly produce estimates that are too small to
be reliable.

The Extended Family: An Overview

A variety of factors influence whether or not a
household is extended. Among the most important are
economic factors such as poverty, unemployment, and
the shortage of affordable housing, but cultural factors
must also be considered.’5 In this report, we identify a
child as living in an extended family if at least one parent
as well as someone beyond the nuclear family (related
or unrelated to the child) also lived in the household. In
this section, the term “nuclear family” refers to a family
composed only of a child’s parent(s) and siblings.
Parent-child and sibling relationships may be biological,
step-, half-, adoptive, or foster. (In contrast, the tradi-
tional nuclear family definition used earlier in this report
required that all parental and sibling ties be biological.)
This definition excludes 1.8 million children who lived in
a household with neither parent, but with at least one
relative or non-relative.

In 1991, 8.0 million children lived in extended fami-
lies, representing 12.5 percent of all children living with
at least one parent (figure 4 and table 7). White children
were half as likely to live in an extended family as Black
and Hispanic children (10 percent, 22 percent, and 25
percent, respectively).

Figure 4 also shows the relationship of extended
household members to the child. Of all children living
with at least one parent, 9 percent lived with extended
household members who were relatives only (e.g.,
grandparents, in-laws, aunts, uncles). Far fewer children
lived with nonrelatives only (3 percent), and less than
one percent lived with both relatives and nonrelatives.
Black (19 percent) and Hispanic children (19 percent)
were more likely to live in a household extended by
relatives only than were White children (7 percent).
Small proportions of White, Black, and Hispanic children
lived with nonrelatives only or with both relatives and
nonrelatives.

‘®For a recent review of research on African-American extended
families, please see Steven Ruggles, “The Origins of African-American
Family Structure,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 59 (February
1994), pp. 136-151.


10

Diverse Living Arrangements of Children

Table 8. Children Living with Single Parents, by Presence of Adults of the Opposite Sex, Race, and

Hispanic Origin: Summer 1991

[Numbers in thousands]

All races White Black Hispanic origin’
Living arrangements
Number} Percent; Number] Percent} Number] Percent} Number Percent
Living with mother only 13,955 100.0 8,503 100.0 4,938 100.0 2,141 100.0
Presence of at least one adult male, other
than brothers 2.0.0.0... ecseeeeeeeeee eee 2,816 20.2 2,023 23.8 696 14.4 458 21.4
Relationship of adult male to
child:
Living with at least one—
Relative . . 1,455, 10.4 853 10.0 520 10.5 279 13.0
Nonrelative . 1,018 7.3 902 10.6 110 2.2 145 68
Relationship 401 29 320 3.8 73 15 34 1.6
Living with father only. 1,793 100.0 1,416 100.0 258 100.0 196 100.0
Presence of at least one adult female,
other than sisters. 661 36.9 500 35.3 121 46.9 131 66.8
Relationship of adult female to child:
Living with at least one—
Relative . . 342 19.4 255 18.0 61 23.6 82 418
Nonrelative 227 12.7 171 12.1 38 14.7 36 18.4
Relationship unknown - 114 6.4 85 6.0 at 81 13 66

‘Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Table 9. Children Living with Single Parents, by Presence of Adults of Same Sex, Race, and Hispanic

Origin: Summer 1991
[Numbers in thousands]

All races White Black Hispanic origin’
Living arrangements
Number| Percent] Number! Percent] Number} Percent} Number Percent
Living with mother only .....-..-.--2.00.0e5 13,955 100.0 8,503 100.0 4,938 100.0 2,141 100.0
Presence of at least one adult
female, other than mother or sisters...... 2,639 18.9 1,429 16.8 1,085 22.0 558 26.1
Relationship of adult female to child:
Living with at least one—
Relative . . 2,283 16.4 1,146 13.5 1,035 21.0 511 23.9
Nonrelative . 289 24 237 28 13 : 96 45
Relationship unknown ........ 181 1.3 138 16 36 07 31 1.4
Living with father only............--2.2-. 008 1,793 100.0 1,416 100.0 258 100.0 196 100.0
Presence of at least one adult male,
other than father or brothers............. 335 18.7 256 18.1 52 20.2 54 276
Relationship of adult male to child:
Living with at least one—
Relative . . 258 14.4 185 13.4 46 17.8 48 24.5
Nonrelative 50 28 43 3.0 7 27 : :
Relationship unknow! 34 1.9 28 2.0 6 23 6 34

- Represents zero or a number that rounds to zero.

‘Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.