Statistical Policy Working Paper1		

Improved	Measurement	of	Household	

Relationships	in	Federal	Surveys	

Paper	1.	Measuring	Same‐Sex	Co‐Residential	Relationships	

September	2014	

Interagency	Working	Group	on	

Measuring	Relationships	in	Federal	Household	Surveys	(MRFHS)

                                                            

1 This working paper is intended to inform interested parties and to encourage discussion of Federal statistical

policy issues and standards. It does not represent any change to Federal policy. Any views expressed herein are

those of the authors.
ii

Executive Summary

The latter half of the 20th century saw dramatic changes in family configurations, living arrangements,

and marital and household relationships in the United States. These changes accelerated during the

1960s and have continued into the 21st century. The reasons are varied and complex.  

Federal data play a key role in understanding household change, stability, and instability, yet measures

of household relationships in Federal surveys have not kept pace with these changes. The questions

Federal agencies ask and the data they collect determine our ability to describe American households

and families, but in an ever‐evolving American society, asking the “right” questions is not always easy.

Ultimately, the accurate measurement of household relationships is critical to understanding society

and the potential impacts of Federal, State, and local government programs targeted to improve the

well‐being of households and families. Accurate measurement of household relationships is critical even

where explicit policy and programs are absent: measurement can inform understanding of group

outcomes as they differ over time. The U.S. is a broad and diversifying society, and enabling

understanding of outcomes for all Americans is in the public interest.  

The Interagency Working Group on Measuring Relationships in Federal Household Surveys (MRFHS) was

established in 2010 to address the long‐term challenges in measuring household relationships, including

same‐sex couples. It was convened and chaired by the Statistical and Science Policy Branch of the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB). Because any major change to a fundamental measurement item

such as household relationship would impact virtually all Federal surveys and have possible implications

for descriptive, planning and funding purposes, MRFHS was created to ensure that the full range of

affected agency users and producers of household relationship data could be represented in discussions

to identify the issues and possible action strategies moving forward. The working group includes

approximately 30 representatives from a variety of Federal agencies involved in the collection,

dissemination and/or use of household relationship data.  

This report summarizes the initial work of the MRFHS working group, which has focused on the

measurement of same‐sex married and unmarried couples living in the same household. It addresses

the following primary questions:

 How are household relationships in Federal surveys currently measured?

 How do Federal agencies use household relationship data collected in Federal surveys?

 How robust are current measures of household relationships in Federal surveys?

 What would a plan to test changes in the measurement of household relationships look like?

The MRFHS working group reviewed more than 55 surveys and supplements from 10 Federal agencies

to evaluate how Federal agencies measure marital status, cohabitation and household relationships. In

comparing Federal surveys the group noted several key measurement differences that may affect survey

estimates. These include: 1) variation in response categories (for example, more categories and/or

different category wording); 2) inconsistent measurement of relationship to child; 3) infrequent

measurement of interrelationship of all household members; 4) inconsistent measurement of

cohabitation; 5) infrequent measurement of sex for all household members; and 6) inconsistent

inclusion of State of current residence and State where married. Such measurement variation can

contribute to differences in estimates of family and household relationships across Federal surveys.  
iii

The working group also examined how Federal household data are used by Federal agencies. By and

large, government agencies use household relationship and marital status data for descriptive, planning,

and funding purposes. Descriptive purposes—seen largely in statistical offices such as the Bureau of

Labor Statistics; the Census Bureau; and the Social Security Administration’s Office of Research,

Evaluation, and Statistics—include providing the public and other agencies with detailed information

and analysis about the state of and trends in areas including household composition and derivative

measures. Planning purposes—exemplified by the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, the Department

of Commerce’s National Telecommunications Information Administration, and the Department of

Defense—include agencies using household composition and derivative data to strategize future

program tests, changes, and management. Lastly, funding purposes—demonstrated by, for example, the

Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Section 8 Housing Assistance and Community

Development Block Grant programs, the Department of Education’s Title 3 funding program, and the

Department of Health and Human Service’s Administration for Children and Families’ Community

Service Block Grants program—use household composition and derivative data to allocate Federal funds

to States, localities, and organizations.  

The working group then reviewed a series of research studies on measuring relationships in Federal

demographic surveys, several of which were conducted under the auspices of the working group. Most

of the research was sponsored by Federal agencies and much of it focuses on measurement of same‐sex

couples or families that include same‐sex parents. Although the focus is predominantly on relationships

within households, members also discussed the topic of measuring relationships between households.

Through our review of current measures, data uses, and research on measurement strategies, the

MRFHS working group has arrived at several suggestions for improved measurement of same‐sex

household relationships. First, question wording should incorporate sex‐neutral language wherever

possible.2 Second, Federal surveys should continue working to collect information on intimate

relationships other than opposite‐sex marriage. Examples of question wording and response categories

developed from the current research are provided and should be further tested in large‐scale field tests.

Third, Federal agencies should review their current use of editing and processing procedures with

respect to sex, relationship, and marital status. Where these items are edited in Federal surveys, we

encourage Federal agencies to consider the effects that their editing procedures may have on produced

estimates of same‐sex relationships. Further, if existing editing and processing procedures will continue

to be used for a particular survey, Federal agencies are expected to document these procedures and,

where possible, incorporate metadata such as flagging the affected cases, consistent with professional

practice. Additionally, we suggest that a broader scope be adopted moving forward. Although

measurement issues regarding same‐sex couples are quite important in their own right, they represent a

small part of a much larger, complex set of concerns related to relationship measurement, all of which

deserve attention and inquiry. Finally, results from tests and discussions should be widely shared, not

only among Federal agencies but also with other interested parties such as academic and policy research

organizations. When applied together, revised questions, continued testing, transparent procedures, a

broadened focus, and collaborative sharing will ensure that progress continues on this important and

evolving issue. Through the convening of the working group and its systematic work, a research agenda

has developed and better practices have been identified. Nonetheless, at the present time the working

group does not recommend a single measurement approach that addresses all of the issues identified.

                                                            

2 In this paper, sex neutral language refers to language that does not restrict survey responses on the basis of

biological sex (i.e., male or female) or gender role (i.e., father or mother) categories.  
iv

Table	of	Contents	

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents......................................................................................................................................... iv

Chapter I. Introduction and Scope of the Report ......................................................................................... 1

A. Changing Household Composition in the U.S.................................................................................. 1

1. Increase in One‐Person Households.............................................................................................. 1

2. Decrease in Family Households..................................................................................................... 2

3. Greater Diversity in Living Arrangements of Children................................................................... 2

B. Measurement Challenges ................................................................................................................ 4

C. Motivation for This Report .............................................................................................................. 5

D. The Interagency Working Group on Measuring Relationships in Federal Household Surveys.....7

E. Organization of this Report.............................................................................................................. 7

Chapter 2. Measurement of Household Relationships in Federal Household Surveys................................ 9

A. Introduction......................................................................................................................................9

B. Scope.................................................................................................................................................9

C. Household Roster............................................................................................................................. 9

D. Marital Status.................................................................................................................................12

E. Cohabitation...................................................................................................................................12

F. Sex of Respondent and Household Members............................................................................... 14

G. Data Editing and Processing........................................................................................................... 14

H. Conclusion/Data Gaps and Limitations......................................................................................... 16

Chapter 3. Uses of Relationship Information by Federal Agencies ............................................................ 18

A. Frame Development....................................................................................................................... 18

B. Survey Design and Methodology................................................................................................... 18

C. Results.............................................................................................................................................19

1. Department of Agriculture.......................................................................................................... 19

2. Department of Commerce........................................................................................................... 20

3. Department of Defense............................................................................................................... 21

4. Department of Education............................................................................................................ 21

5. Department of Health and Human Services................................................................................ 22

6. Department of Housing and Urban Development ...................................................................... 23
v

7. Department of Justice ................................................................................................................. 24

8. Department of Labor................................................................................................................... 24

9. Social Security Administration .................................................................................................... 25

10. Department of Transportation................................................................................................ 25

11. Department of the Treasury.................................................................................................... 26

D. Data Gaps and Limitations............................................................................................................. 26

Chapter 4. Research on Measuring Household Relationships.................................................................... 28

A. Relationship to Householder ......................................................................................................... 28

B. Relationship to Child Research ...................................................................................................... 30

C. Marital Status Research ................................................................................................................. 31

D. Cohabitation Item Research .......................................................................................................... 32

E. Measuring Diverse Relationships .................................................................................................. 33

F. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................34

Chapter 5. Considerations for Household Surveys in a Diverse Society..................................................... 35

A. The Purpose of the Interagency Working Group .............................................................................. 35

B. General Considerations...................................................................................................................... 35

C. Improving the Measurement of Household Relationships............................................................... 36

1. Utilize Proposed Changes to Existing Measures ............................................................................. 36

2. Identify Opportunities for Further Testing ...................................................................................... 37

3. Expand the Scope of Research ........................................................................................................ 38

4. Share Knowledge to Move Forward................................................................................................ 40

D. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................41

Works Cited.................................................................................................................................................43

APPENDIX 1. Summary of Federal Household Relationship Measures for Selected Surveys, by Agency ..46

APPENDIX 2. MRFHS Survey of Federal Agencies Using Household Relationship Statistics.......................59

APPENDIX 3. Letter from Commerce Secretary Locke to OMB Director Orzag Requesting the

Establishment of an Interagency Task Force .............................................................................................. 60

APPENDIX 4. English and Spanish Questions for 2012 National Household Education Survey (NHES)......61

APPENDIX 5. English and Spanish Questions for 2013 American Community Survey‐Questionnaire Design

Test (ACS‐QDT)............................................................................................................................................63

APPENDIX 6. English and Spanish Questions for 2013 American Housing Survey (AHS) ...........................65
vi

APPENDIX 7. English Questions for 2013 Survey of Income and Program Participation‐Event History

Calendar (SIPP‐EHC)....................................................................................................................................67

APPENDIX 8. English Control and Experimental Questions for 2020 Census Testing.................................69
1

Chapter I. Introduction and Scope of the Report

U.S. Federal statistical agencies’ household surveys provide critical information on the social and

economic conditions of society that informs decisions by policymakers, businesses, governments, and

individuals. Demographers and academic researchers also rely on data from these Federal household

surveys to describe and explain changing societal conditions. As society changes, our tools for

measurement must also change and adapt in order to better capture current and future conditions.  

A. Changing Household Composition in the U.S.

In the United States, the latter half of the 20th century saw dramatic changes in family configurations,

living arrangements, and marital and household relationships.3 These changes accelerated during the

1960s and have continued into the 21st century.

The reasons for these changes are varied and complex. In part, recent household relationship changes

may reflect the changing status of women in our society: women (and men) now have more socially

acceptable alternatives to life‐long marriage, including remaining single, delaying marriage, separating,

divorcing and remarrying. Some have opined that change in household relationships, particularly

increases in cohabitation‐‐especially among those persons with lower income, may be related to long

periods of unemployment and economic uncertainty (Kreider, 2010). Increased incarceration is also

important to understanding instability in household relationships. These persons may or may not return

to their households at time of re‐entry. Cultural and social differences in living arrangements among

indigenous Americans, recent immigrants, doubled‐up, multiple‐family, and “boomerang” households

(that is, households with young adults who return to their parental home) contribute additional

dimensions to changes in household relationships.  

The exact cause of these changes notwithstanding, a number of high‐level changes in U.S. household

composition have occurred over the last half century.

1. Increase in One‐Person Households

One of the biggest changes in household composition has been the increase in one‐person households.

In 1940, just eight percent of households were someone living alone; in contrast, more than one quarter

of households currently contains just one person. Since these households are nonfamily by definition,

they affect the overall distribution of households by type and size. The largest group of one‐person

households is persons age 65 or older, but 22 percent of one‐person households comprise persons

under age 25 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1940‐2010) (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010).

The increase in one‐person households and recent declines in fertility have led to a decline in average

household size. Although households had an average of 3.7 people in 1940, this declined to 2.6 in 2010

(U.S. Census Bureau, 1940‐2010).  

                                                            

3 See Box 1.
2

2. Decrease in Family Households

The decrease in family households varied depending on the particular type of family. Since 1970,

married couple households with children under 18 have decreased, while married couple households

without children under 18 remained roughly constant as a proportion of all households. Other family

households have increased during this time, most of them involving an unmarried parent with children

under age 18. (Vespa, et al., 2013)

Although a small percentage overall, nonfamily households that contain more than one person have also

increased. This type includes cohabiting couples who do not have children (or any other relative of the

householder) present, as well as households consisting of unrelated housemates or roommates.

The decline in married couples with children is also affected by the increase in the median age at first

marriage. Young adults wait longer to marry and may live as cohabiting couples before they have

children (nonfamily household) or begin having children before they marry (for example, family

household if both of the cohabitors are the parents, or if one parent is the householder; nonfamily

household if the non‐parental partner is the householder). The increasing age at first marriage also

affects non‐marital childbearing. The median age at first birth is now earlier than the median age at first

marriage. This is reflected in the increase in “other family households,” many of which consist of an

unmarried parent and his/ her children.

3. Greater Diversity in Living Arrangements of Children

Diversity in living arrangements of children among American households has increased, although part of

the rise may actually reflect an improved ability to measure the relationships among household

members. Major shifts in living arrangements occurred between 1970 and 1990, when the proportion of

children living with their mother without their father present doubled from 11 percent to 22 percent.

During the same period, the percentage of children living with two parents declined from 85 percent to

73 percent. Since 1990, the changes in children’s living arrangements have continued, albeit at much

slower rates. In 2009, 69 percent of children lived with two parents, and most of these children lived

with two biological or adoptive parents. During the same period, 27 percent of children lived with one

parent, and most of these children lived with mothers not living with a partner. Further, most of the four

percent of children living with no parents lived with a grandparent. (Kreider & Ellis, 2011)

4. Growth in Co‐residential Unmarried Couples

Another change in American households is the rising number of couples living together as unmarried

partners. The number of unmarried, opposite‐sex couples increased from 2.9 million in 1996 to 7.5

million in 2010. The proportion of unmarried, opposite‐sex couples who do not have children has also

increased to 62 percent. (U.S. Census Bureau, 1996‐2010)

In particular, the data show a sharp increase in the total number of opposite‐sex unmarried couples

between 2006 and 2007 (from 6.7 million to 7.5 million); however, this jump is actually due to a fairly

simple change in data collection methods. (Kreider, 2010) In 2007, the Census Bureau introduced a

direct question on the Current Population Survey (CPS) that allows inclusion of couples in which neither

partner is the householder. Additionally, asking the direct question—“Do you have a boyfriend/girlfriend

or partner in this household?”—resulted in a higher number of reports of an unmarried partner for the

householder. This relatively small change in data collection wording made a sizable difference in the

estimates.  
3

5. Greater Recognition of Same‐Sex Couples

In 1990, the Census Bureau first provided “unmarried partner”

as an answer category to the question regarding relationship to

householder. However, couples who reported they were the

same sex and that they were married were edited and shown as

opposite‐sex married couples in 1990. To provide a more

accurate representation of same‐sex couples, rather than

assuming they were opposite‐sex couples who had mismarked

sex for one spouse, the Census Bureau changed the processing of

the 2000 and 2010 Censuses by showing couples who reported as

same‐sex married couples as same‐sex unmarried partners.

(Simmons & O'Connell, 2003) (O'Connell & Gooding, 2007)

(O'Connell & Feliz, 2011) The Census Bureau has also released

special tabulations and reports examining the effect of processing

and editing on relationship and other content. (O'Connell & Feliz,

2011) (O'Connell & Gooding, 2007)

Same‐sex couple households are a growing group, partially due

to increasing social and legal recognition of same‐sex marriages

in a number of States in recent years.4 Approximately one

percent of all coupled households nationwide are same‐sex

couples, although there is considerable variation at the State

level. The percentage of same‐sex couple households across the

country for the 50 States and the District of Columbia ranged

from 0.29 percent for Wyoming to 4.01 percent for the District of

Columbia. (Lofquist, 2011)

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prohibited Federal

recognition of same‐sex married couples for some Federal

programs and benefits. This affected the degree to which Federal

agencies had a policy need for Federal data regarding same‐sex

couples. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruling struck down

DOMA as a means to prohibit Federal programs and benefits to

same‐sex couples but upheld State determination of legal

recognition of marriage. This ruling and its interpretation likely

will affect the data processing procedures and the estimates

published by Federal agencies.  

   

                                                            

4 According to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same‐sex_marriage_in_the_United_States, accessed July 9,

2014, the following States provide limited or full recognition of same‐sex marriage or civil unions: Massachusetts:

2003; California: 2008; Connecticut: 2008; Iowa: 2009; Vermont: 2009; New Hampshire: 2009; Washington, D.C.:

2009; New York: 2011; Washington: 2012; Maine: 2012; Maryland: 2012; Rhode Island: 2013; Delaware: 2013;

Minnesota: 2013; New Jersey: 2013; Hawaii: 2013; Illinois: 2013; New Mexico: 2013;  Oregon: 2014; and

Pennsylvania: 2014.

Box 1. What is a Household

Relationship?

Defining and measuring

relationships has long been a

challenge for social scientists

and survey methodologists.

Relationships within households

are no exception. Household

relationships are of particular

interest to researchers and

policy makers because of the

many policies and programs

designed to benefit households

and families. The nature of these

relationships may be legal,

economic, biological, social,

emotional, romantic, sexual,

religious, simply residential, or

include many of these aspects.

For the purposes of this report,

household relationships include

all individuals living in the same

housing unit. As discussed in

Chapter 2, household

relationship measurement

necessarily will vary according

to the purpose of measurement.
4

B. Measurement Challenges

Federal data play a key role in understanding household change, stability and instability, yet measures of

household relationships in Federal surveys have not kept pace with these changes. The questions we ask

and the data we collect determine our ability to describe American households and families. In an ever‐

evolving American society, however, asking the “right” questions is not always easy. There are a number

of challenges to improved measurement of household relationships:  

 Official definitions may not be known or used always by the general public. For example, the legal

definitions of or distinctions between a civil union and a common‐law marriage may not be well

understood.  

 There may also be differences in meaning of shared, but unofficial, terminology. For example,

cohabiting couples may be more likely to consider their household relationship as “girlfriend or

boyfriend” rather than “unmarried partner.”  

 Similarly, there may be difficulties in determining the usual residence for sexual partners who

cohabit between two households.  

 Context may also make a difference in perceptions or reporting. For example, it is unclear how

legally married same‐sex partners who reside in a State that does not recognize same‐sex marriage

would or should describe their relationship.

 Perceived social desirability and stigma may also play a role in the selection of measures. Some

relationships may be seen as unconventional by others, and sensitivity concerns may affect the

likelihood of posing the question as well as answering it, particularly for certain data collection

modes.

 Some household types are comparatively small groups. For example, since there are far more

opposite‐sex married couples than same‐sex couples, a small error rate among opposite‐sex married

couples can result in wide swings in the estimates of same‐sex couples.

 Changes to the definition of family or marriage could affect other aspects of the data. Some couples

currently listed as unmarried partners would be family households if they were shown as married

couples—although some unmarried partners are already classified as family households, often due

to the presence of children in the household.

For example, counting same‐sex married couples as families would translate into different poverty

rates for some families since it would include the additional income of more household members. It

also would affect the number of parents present for children of the householder in some cases.

Currently, we consider the spouse as a parent of the children in the family automatically. Before

instituting changes, we must consider how subfamilies5 are organized; for example, under what

                                                            

5

A subfamily is either a married couple (with or without children under 18) OR a parent/child group where the

children are under 18, and the household reference person (i.e., the person selected as the unit of reference when

rostering a household) is not included in the family unit.  
5

conditions could we assume a same‐sex married couple is a subfamily in surveys where we are not

asking for the identification of a spouse directly?

Additionally, our understanding of other characteristics of families might not be consistent if the

State definition of a family differs from the Federal definition. In these cases, estimates of certain

types of family groups may indicate they are not receiving a particular benefit, while in fact, they are

not eligible for the benefit given State definitions of family. This mismatch already exists in the

reverse6 and could affect benefits and services distributed through such programs as food stamps

and health insurance. Characteristics that are reported by family type, like home ownership or the

presence of parents, would also be affected.  

Ultimately, the accurate measurement of household relationships is critical to understanding society

and the potential impacts of Federal, State, and local government programs targeted to improve the

well‐being of households and families. Available data from Federal household surveys can be used in a

variety of ways in this context, including the following:

 The research and policy community use available household relationship data to monitor program

outreach by estimating the number of potentially eligible recipients and their participation in

programs.  

 Programs use available data to project the future caseload for the program, suggesting future

program costs.  

 Policymakers use available data to understand the impact of alternative program rules and policies

affecting individuals, families, households, or larger groups.  

Where data gaps exist, programs and policies can be limited in their ability to use evidence to guide

decision‐making. Moreover, accurate measurement of household relationships is critical even where

explicit policy and programs are absent. Measurement can inform understanding of group outcomes as

they differ over time. The U.S. is a broad and diverse society, and enabling understanding of outcomes

for all Americans is in the public interest.  

C. Motivation for This Report

Same‐sex marriage and civil unions were not legally recognized in the U.S. at the time of the 2000

Census. By 2009, several States permitted same‐sex marriage or civil unions, and questions and

concerns were raised about how same‐sex couples would be counted in the 2010 Census. In particular,

the Census Bureau and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) received inquiries from Congress and

others concerned about the questions on the Census form and the American Community Survey (ACS).7

In addition, questions were raised about the procedures that the Census Bureau was using to edit data if

                                                            

6 In this scenario, certain types of family groups are not eligible for a particular benefit according to Federal

definitions, but are eligible to receive them according to State definitions. 7 The ACS replaced the Census “long form” after 2000 to gather more frequent and detailed socio‐demographic

and economic information from a sample of households.
6

a respondent indicated that a household member of

the same‐sex was his/her husband or wife.8

  

In an August 2009 letter, the Secretary of Commerce,

Gary Locke, asked the Director of OMB, Peter Orszag,

in accordance with OMB’s responsibilities for

developing and issuing standards for the collection

and tabulation of Federal statistics, to establish an

interagency task force to examine issues related to

collecting and tabulating data on relationships,

including same‐sex household relationships (See

Appendix 3.).9

    

   

Given the timing of decennial census preparations,

improved measurement of household relationships

could not advance quickly enough to be

implemented in the 2010 Census, nor could the

processing operations be easily changed. However,

the Census Bureau and OMB agreed that several

steps could be taken:

 The Census Bureau would review the

estimates and, if possible, release additional

tabulations and special reports on married and

unmarried same‐sex couples measured by the

American Community Survey (ACS) and the 2010

Decennial Census. These reports, described in greater

detail in Chapter 4, explored estimation of same‐sex

household relationships with data processing

procedures that did not alter reported marital status.  

 The Chief Statistician at OMB convened an

interagency working group to address the longer‐

term challenges in measuring household

relationships, including same‐sex couples. Because

any meaningful examination of the measurement of

household relationships necessitates a dialogue

among agencies that use these kinds of data to

develop policies or monitor and administer programs

                                                            

8 Long‐established data editing procedures did not permit measurement or reporting of same‐sex marital

relationships using census data; records of persons identifying as same‐sex and married to each other were edited

for sex, or, more recently, as unmarried in the final data file.   9 Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (USC 44 35 3504 (e) (3)) and other legal authorities, the Director of

OMB has the authority to implement Government‐wide policies, principles, standards and guidelines concerning

statistical collection procedures and methods, statistical data classification, and statistical information

presentation and dissemination.

Box 2. Members of the Interagency Working

Group on Measuring Relationships in Federal

Household Surveys (MRFHS)

The following agencies provided representatives

to MRFHS. Asterisks denote involvement of the

agency representative in the writing of this

report. We thank all who have contributed their

time and effort toward this task.		

Administration for Children and Families (ACF)

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

(ASPE)*

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)		

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)*

Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)

Census Bureau*

Department of Labor (DOL)*

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC)

Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Economic Research Service (ERS)*

Federal Reserve Board (FRB)

Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD)*

Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB)

National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS)

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)*

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)*

National Institutes of Health (NIH)*

National Center for Science and Engineering

Statistics (NCSES)

Office of Management and Budget (OMB)*

Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

Statistics of Income (SOI), Internal Revenue

Service

Social Security Administration (SSA)*
7

as well as the statistical agencies that collect these data, both users and producers of household

relationship data were sought to participate in the interagency working group.  

D. The Interagency Working Group on Measuring Relationships in Federal Household Surveys  

The Interagency Working Group on Measuring Relationships in Federal Household Surveys (MRFHS) was

established in 2010 and is convened and chaired by the Statistical and Science Policy Branch of OMB.

Because any major change to a fundamental measurement item such as household relationship would

impact virtually all Federal surveys and have possible implications for policy and implementation,

MRFHS was created to ensure that the full range of affected agencies could be represented in

discussions to identify the issues and possible action strategies for moving forward. The working group

includes approximately 30 representatives from a variety of Federal agencies involved in the collection,

dissemination and/or use of household relationship data. A list of agencies that provided

representatives to the working group is shown in Box 2.  

MRFHS was charged to  

 research the complex facets of the measurement of marital and household relationships,  

 consider the uses of the data and implications and effects for programs and for measurement,

and

 prepare recommendations to OMB and other Federal agencies for the development, testing,

and use of questions that more accurately capture data on marriage and family relationships.  

  

This report summarizes the initial work of the MRFHS working group through summer 2014, which has

focused on the measurement of same‐sex married and unmarried couples living in the same household.

Measurement issues in the area of household relationships are broad, complex, and continue to change.

Therefore, this working group or its successors may produce subsequent reports on related topics, each

with a somewhat different focus.

  

E. Organization of this Report

Although the scope of the group’s charge was broad, the group initially focused on the measurement of

same‐sex household relationship measurement. To establish a baseline of knowledge, the working

group focused the current report on answering the following questions:

 How are household relationships in Federal surveys currently measured? Across the span of

these surveys, are commonalities in measurement found? Are certain commonalities more likely

among surveys of a particular content area, such as employment surveys or health surveys? Are

commonalities related to intra‐agency objectives or inter‐agency collaboration? Among more

recent surveys, do we see greater variation or convergence in household relationship

measurement? How frequently are household relationship data editing procedures used among

the Federal surveys included in this report, and what is the nature of those edits? What does this

tell us about opportunities for testing or measurement change? Are some measures more

comprehensive and better able to assess the diversity of relationships and household structures

that currently exist?  

These questions are examined in Chapter 2, which describes the major Federal household

surveys collecting information on household relationships for policy or research purposes. The
8

chapter reviews commonalities and differences in measurement among surveys and makes

special note of innovative or otherwise particularly strong measurement practices.

Measurement trends and considerations for implementing measurement change are discussed.

 How do Federal agencies use household relationship data collected in Federal surveys? Among

Federal uses, are household relationship data primarily used for descriptive purposes, benefit

allocation planning, program funding, or policy evaluation? Which data sources correspond most

strongly to which purpose? What data gaps exist, and what solutions are used to meet these?

What does this tell us about possible impact of measurement change?

These questions are examined in Chapter 3. The report describes the wide range of

programmatic uses by Federal agencies and the data sources central to key policy uses. The

discussion informs and is informed by the ways in which Federal surveys measure relationships.

The chapter identifies some notable data gaps and innovative applications, and discusses

implications for change among core indicators.  

 How robust are current measures of household relationships in Federal surveys? Do

respondents generally understand how to answer the household relationship questions we pose?

Do respondents generally find the questions and categories meaningful? If new measures of

household relationships were to be developed, what characteristics would they possess? What

has been tested to date that can inform changes to household measures?

Chapter 4 examines these questions, reviewing the recent scientific literature on household

relationship measurement in household surveys. Much of the research described was conducted

by agencies participating in the MRFHS working group.  

 What would a plan to test and implement changes in the measurement of household

relationships look like? What are the criteria that would demonstrate improved measurement?

How do our findings (Chapter 4) correspond to those criteria? Which elements remain to be

tested? What are effective ways of testing those elements? How does our review of current

measures (Chapter 2) and current uses (Chapter 3) inform which content areas and surveys

might be strong candidates for pilot tests of household relationship measures?  

Chapter 5 explores these questions, and discusses potential research venues and vehicles.  

Lastly, we thank the Federal agencies and their staffs who devoted their time and expertise to develop

this report. Their willingness, thoughtfulness, and hard work exemplify the best in interagency

collaboration.  

   
9

Chapter 2. Measurement of Household Relationships in Federal

Household Surveys

A. Introduction

This chapter documents the measurement of household and family relationships by Federal agencies.

Many Federal agencies use household and relationship data to inform both Federal policy and ongoing

initiatives. We reviewed more than 55 surveys and supplements from 10 Federal agencies to evaluate

how Federal agencies measure marital status, cohabitation and household relationships. This chapter

first describes the survey universe and then reviews the use of a household roster and measures of

marital status and cohabitation. We discuss the importance of collecting data on the sex of respondent

and household members and the impact of editing on publicly released data for the accurate

measurement of same‐sex couples. We conclude by identifying data gaps and limitations of current

surveys. A condensed matrix of the Federal surveys reviewed is included in Appendix 1.  

B. Scope

This chapter examines the methods used to collect household relationship information (for example,

through household rosters or direct questioning) and the questions used to measure the nature of those

household relationships (for example, asking marital status).  

Although the Federal government provides funding support for many surveys, including those carried

out by, for example, academic researchers the scope of this assessment includes only Federal surveys

that are administered on behalf of the Federal government. We limited our review to established

surveys that are generally repeated over time as either longitudinal surveys or repeated cross‐sectional

surveys. Further, we observed that many surveys we initially considered collected household

relationship data merely for use as a demographic control variable rather than a key research or policy

component. Therefore, we limited our assessment to include only those surveys that collect data on

marital and household relationships for descriptive, policy planning, or program funding purposes.  

C. Household Roster

Household rosters serve multiple functions in Federal surveys. Household rosters can simply refer to a

listing of all household members or, of interest here, can include detailed relationship and demographic

data on household members. Out of the 55 surveys and supplements reviewed for this chapter, 13 did

not include a household roster.10 This chapter focuses on household rosters that include data on the

relationship of household members to either the householder or other household members.  

Collection of the household roster often begins with listing the householder or household reference

                                                            

10 The following Federal surveys do not include some form of a household roster: National Compensation Survey

(NCS); National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS); Teacher Follow‐up Survey (TFS); National Survey of

College Graduates (NSCG); National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG); Survey of Doctorate Recipients

(SDR); Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED); Family Medical & Leave Act Survey (FMLA); Medicare Current

Beneficiary Survey (MCBS); Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS); Agricultural Resource Management

Survey (ARMS); and Census of Agriculture. Note that some of these surveys are not household surveys but rather

individual‐level surveys.  
10

person, who may not be the respondent to the survey. Procedures vary across surveys regarding

persons eligible for listing as the householder. For example, the American Community Survey 2014

instructions state that this person should be “the household member living or staying [t]here in whose

name the house or apartment is owned, being bought, or rented. If there is no such person, any adult

household member can be [the householder].” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014) Additionally, the roster may

be self‐reported or instructions may not be followed, leading to the possibility of children or subfamily

members being listed as the householder. Selection of the householder affects the relationship

information collected, particularly for those surveys that collect relationship information only with

regard to the householder.  

Further, detailed household rosters collect relationship data in several different ways, including

relationship to householder, relationship to child, and interrelationships within households. The

majority of Federal surveys ask how household members are related to either the householder or

reference person. Although the questions do not vary much across surveys, the response categories

differ. For example, a common question asked is “How is [name] related to [you/reference person]?”

Some surveys offer short, condensed answer categories, while others are more detailed. All surveys we

reviewed that collect household rosters include the following answer categories: reference

person/householder, husband/wife/spouse, son/daughter/child, mother/father/parent, brother or

sister, grandchild, other relative, and nonrelative.  

Not all surveys use the same terminology for the response categories. For example, some survey options

include “spouse” while others have “husband” or “wife.” The majority of the surveys include additional

answer categories, such as: biological, step, or adopted child; parent‐in‐law; son‐in‐law or daughter‐in‐

law; boyfriend/girlfriend/unmarried partner; housemate/roommate; and roomer/boarder. A few

surveys include many more additional answer categories. For example, the National Longitudinal Survey

of Youth 1979 (NLSY79) and National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) offer the previously‐discussed

answer categories and further distinguish between the different types of family members and

relationships to other nonrelatives.  

A number of Federal surveys also use a household roster to determine relationship to a child. These

surveys serve as an indirect measure of same‐sex couples, since they include a household roster that

measures the householder’s and other household members’ relationship to the child. (For example, two

fathers in a household could be identified by their relationship to the child.) Many of these surveys ask

about both “relationship to householder” and “relationship to child.” The surveys with both of these

measures include: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79); High School Longitudinal

Study(HSLS); National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES); National Health Interview

Survey (NHIS); National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH)

; National Survey of Children with Special

Health Care Needs (NS‐CSHCN)*

; Child Well‐Being and Welfare Module (CWBW)*; Health Module*;

National Survey of Adoptive Parents (NSAP) *

; National Survey of Adoptive Parents of Children with

Special Health Care Needs (NSAP‐SN)*

; and the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES).  

                                                            

 These surveys were conducted through the State Local Area Integrated Telephone Survey using the National

Immunization Survey Frame.
11

The following surveys only ask about relationship to child:

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97); National

Household Education Survey (NHES)– sections include: Adult

Education (AE‐NHES), After‐School Programs and Activities Survey

(ASPA‐NHES), Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP‐

NHES), Household and Library Use (HHL‐NHES), Parent and Family

Involvement in Education (PFI‐NHES), School Readiness (SR‐

NHES), and School Safety and Discipline (SS&D‐NHES); Influenza

Vaccination Module for Children (IVMC)

; National Asthma Survey

(NAS)*

; National Survey of Early Childhood Health (NSECH)*; and

Survey of Pathways to Diagnosis and Services‐2011 (SPDS)*

. Most

of these surveys focus specifically on collecting data about

children.

From the surveys we reviewed, there are three ways that the

relationship to child can be identified. They are: 1) “What is

[your/person’s] relationship to [child]?”; 2) “How is [1st child]

related to [2nd child]?”; and 3) “What is [PERSON’s] relationship to

you?” Most Federal surveys that ask about relationship to child

ask how a person is related to the child (option 1). Only two

surveys ask how a child is related to an adult: the National Health

and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and National Health

Interview Survey (NHIS). Both of these surveys ask “Is [name],

[reference person/head of household/mother/father’s] biological,

adoptive, step, foster child, or son/daughter‐in‐law?” This

question would allow the identification of same‐sex couples

through their answer to the question and their reported sex.

Data on the interrelationships of household members are

collected by only three of the large Federal surveys: National

Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79), Survey of Income

and Program Participation (SIPP), and the Head Start Family and

Child Experiences Survey (FACES). Only SIPP clearly asks how all

household members are related to each other. These surveys ask

“What is the exact relationship of [household member] to [household member]?” Unlike SIPP, the other

two surveys measure the interrelationships by first asking the relationship of all household members to

a reference person and then asking about the household member’s relationship to the respondent.

However, the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey also asks how the children in the

household are related to each other.

Although they do not include a direct household roster, the following surveys include questions

regarding household membership: Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study (BTLS); the Early Childhood

Longitudinal Study‐Birth Cohort (ECLS‐B), and the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study ‐Kindergarten Class

of 1998‐1999 (ECLS‐K). Two examples of questions asking about household membership include: “Do

you have a spouse or partner who lives in the same household as you and [TEENAGER]?” and “[BIRTH

                                                            

 Id.

Box 3. Most Common Marital

Status Format  

Are you now married, widowed,

divorced, separated, or have

you never been married?  

 Married

 Widowed

 Divorced  

 Separated

 Never Married

Box 4. Marital Status Categories

on Cohabitation

 Living with a partner?

(FMLA, NHANES, NHIS,

RECS)

 Not married but living with

partner of the opposite sex?

(NSFG)

 Living in a marriage‐like

relationship? (SESTAT)

 Living with a partner in a

marriage‐like relationship?

(BTLS, TFS)

 Living in a domestic

partnership? (HSLS)  
12

CERTIFICATE MOTHER] has not been identified as the parent respondent. Where is the child’s birth

mother living?” The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) features a derived variable created from

household responses. The variable comprises 32 categories describing the sex of the reference person

and presence of children and other adults (related and unrelated to the respondent) in the household.

Surveys that include household rosters and relationship data facilitate the measurement of established

as well as emergent household types. By measuring the relationships of household members to each

other, researchers and policymakers are able to identify diverse families such as single parents,

cohabiting couples, and same‐sex couples. The next section discusses the measurement of marriage and

cohabitation in the surveys reviewed.  

D. Marital Status

Marital status is the most common measure of family relationship collected in household surveys. Of the

55 surveys and supplements reviewed, 44 asked questions about the respondent’s marital status. Box 3

provides the most common format used for the question.

Only one response item can be checked in this format, even though the categories are not necessarily

mutually exclusive. One can be widowed and (re‐)married, divorced and (re‐)married, and by definition

separated and currently married. Only a few surveys provide clarification of what these terms mean on

the survey document itself. For example, the response categories for two Census Bureau surveys, the

Current Population Survey (CPS) and the Survey of Program Participation (SIPP), include “Married,

Spouse Present” and “Married, Spouse Absent.” The option category of “Married, Spouse Absent,” is not

shown to the respondent; instead, it is provided for the interviewer to use it if mentioned by the

respondent, or it is coded when the respondent does not identify a spouse present in the household.

An important distinction to be made about the measurement of marital status is legal status. Most

surveys do not explicitly ask about “legal” marital status. The following surveys do ask about “legal”

marital status: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 and National Longitudinal Survey of Youth

1997. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY 79) marital status response categories use

“Legally separated,” while the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97) adds the “legal” qualifier

to the marital status question stub “Just to confirm our information, what is your current [marital] legal

status?” A few surveys ask a simplified marital status question. For example, the U.S. Department of

Energy Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) asks, “Are you living with a spouse or partner?”

This form of the question is less likely to capture exclusively legal marital status, as the term “partner”

does not necessarily imply a legal marriage.

Others surveys include definitions of legal marital status in the interviewer instructions or guide to

respondents. One example of this is the Health and Human Services (HHS) National Survey on Drug Use

and Health, which combines the Divorced and Separated categories, and provides the interviewer with

definitions to use. Both the wording of the questions and the instructions provided can influence the

meaning of the marriage question and the response provided.  

E. Cohabitation

A number of surveys have added an additional category to the marital status question to capture co‐

habitation. These include: Family and Medical Leave Act Survey (FMLA), National Survey of Family

Growth (NSFG), National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), National Health Interview
13

Survey (NHIS), Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT), Beginning Teacher Longitudinal

Survey (BTLS), Teacher Follow‐up Survey (TFS), and High School Longitudinal Survey (HSLS). The

language and the placement of the response category varies (for examples, see Box 4). It should be

noted that the surveys that do ask about cohabitation are not necessarily limited to couples living

together as unmarried partners or boyfriends/girlfriends. They could also capture those couples who are

living in a domestic partnership or civil union. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is currently considering

including domestic partnership information in its National Crime Victimization Study.  

Adding a category to the marital status response is the most common way of measuring cohabitation.

Nine of the 15 surveys that measure cohabitation do this. Although this is the most frequent way of

measuring cohabitation, it is not the only way surveys capture this relationship status. As discussed

above, the inclusion of the response category “unmarried partner” in the relationship question is one

method for identifying cohabiting couples. Also, several surveys that focus extensively on family

relationships include detailed questions about relationships instead of, or in addition to, the expansion

of the marital status response categories. The Departments of Education, Health and Human Services,

Justice, and Labor, as well as the Census Bureau, all utilize this alternative strategy.  

Five of the components of the Department of Education’s National Household Education Surveys (NHES)

ask the question “Are you currently living with a partner?” Those NHES components are the Adult

Education Survey, After‐School Program and Activities Survey, the Early Childhood Program Participation

Survey, the Parent and Family Involvement in Education Survey, and the School Readiness Survey. None

of these surveys includes cohabitation as a part of the marital status response categories.

HHS surveys ask about cohabitation in a variety of ways. For example, the NSFG asks about cohabitation

both in the marital status responses and as a question imbedded in the cohabitation/marital history. The

National Survey of Children’s Health and the National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs

ask several questions about the focal child’s parental living situation. Questions include, but are not

limited to: “Are you and [sample child]’s [father/mother type] currently living together as partners?”

and “Are [sample child]’s [mother type] and [father type] currently living together as partners?” The

State and Local Area Integrated Telephone Survey (SLAITS) Influenza Vaccination Module for Children

(IVMC) also asks: “Are you currently living with a partner?”  

The Department of Justice conducts the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities

(SISFCF). This is not a “household survey” in the usual sense because its sample is comprised of

individuals in group quarters, in this particular case, correctional institutions. SISFCF asks a series of

questions about the inmate’s household of residence prior to incarceration, including the persons with

whom they were living and the inmate’s relationship to them. The list of responses includes “spouse,”

“girlfriend,” and “boyfriend” as separate categories. It is worth noting that this approach might also be

considered a roster but is not constructed in the usual way because the unit of reference is the inmate

rather than the household.

The Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys, the NLSY79 and NLSY97, do not include

cohabitation categories in their marital status responses, but do ask extensive questions about

cohabitation. However, the questions are not quite identical. The NLSY97 asks questions about marriage

and marriage‐like relationships and then specifically asks “So just to check, are you still living with this

partner in a marriage‐like relationship where you have established one household together?” and “What

describes your current relationship with [dating partner/spouse]?” with one response category being

“We are currently living together but not married.” The NLSY79 asks “Are you currently living as a
14

partner with someone?” Both surveys ask cohabitation as well as marriage history questions.  

Within the National Science Foundation, four surveys of the National Center for Science and Engineering

Statistics collect household relationship information. In addition to sex and marital status, the National

Survey of College Graduates (NSCG), the National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG), the

Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR), and the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) also ask whether the

respondent is “living in a marriage‐like relationship.”

Since 2007, the Current population Survey (CPS) has included an “unmarried partner” category on the

relationship to householder question, along with a direct question about cohabitation: “Do you have a

boyfriend/ girlfriend or partner in the household?” Starting in 2014, the redesigned Survey of Income

and Program Participation also asks this question of respondents to find out whether they cohabited

with a partner during the reference period.

The inclusion of cohabitation questions in Federal surveys allows researchers to identify diverse family

patterns involving both opposite sex and same‐sex partners. Whether or not a survey can be used to

measure same‐sex couple relationships depends on a number of factors including whether the survey

collects data on the sex of partners and/or household members.  

F. Sex of Respondent and Household Members

The inclusion of survey questions on sex of all household members allows for the measurement of

same‐sex households. Current household rosters and questions on marital status and cohabitation can

be used to capture same‐sex couple relationships only if the sex of the household members is collected.

It is not possible to accurately determine sex based solely on a household member’s name.  

Of the surveys included in this review some, but not all, ask the sex of the householder and other

household members. Based on the questions reviewed, it is likely that 24 of the surveys have the

potential to identify same‐sex couples. All but one of these surveys would be able to distinguish

between marital and cohabiting couples, as questions are asked about the sex of the householder and

other household members and there are relationship questions as part of the roster and/or marital

status questions.  

However, just asking the questions may not be sufficient. Identifying same‐sex couples may require the

raw, unedited data. That is, the identification of same‐sex couples is also dependent on the edit

processes used in cleaning the data.

G. Data Editing and Processing

Federal agencies have varying protocols for editing and processing data. This can have consequences for

the types of households that can be identified in surveys sponsored by different agencies. Further,

different types of data files are available from the different Federal agencies. These data files include:

raw data files, edited internal data files, edited restricted‐use data files (available to the public through

access agreements), and edited public‐use data files. Editing strategies vary as well: relationships may be

‘silently’ edited in the processed data or the observation may be edited and then flagged. Editing flags

allow data users to identify which cases were edited on a particular variable, and sometimes, the nature

of the change made. In addition, for groups with characteristics that are comparatively rare, data may

not be publicly available for smaller geographic units, such as census tracts or counties, due to statistical
15

reliability or confidentiality risk concerns.  

In many surveys, household relationships are one of the first items edited: these measures are

fundamental to other coding procedures. Depending on which dimension of the household relationship

is edited, this process has different downstream consequences. For example, changes in household

relationships may have consequences for family size and poverty calculations.  

Data editing procedures can reflect legal definitions of relationships such as marriage. Until the past

decade, no State granted marriage licenses to same‐sex couples in the United States. Prior to 2000, the

editing procedures for the decennial census recorded same‐sex marriage as opposite‐sex marriage. It

was not until 2003 that Massachusetts became the first State in the Nation to legalize same‐sex

marriage. As of 2014, nineteen States and the District of Columbia have legalized same‐sex marriage and

other States are working toward similar legislation.  

A cursory look at Census Bureau surveys demonstrates how the data editing process can affect the

identification of same‐sex couples. In these surveys, same‐sex couples are identified through the

household relationship and sex questions. If a person reports being of the same‐sex as the householder

and the husband/wife or unmarried partner of the householder, then they are identified as a same‐sex

couple. As of 2012, the Decennial Census, American Community Survey, Current Population Survey and

Survey of Income Program Participation editing routines for the relationship item assign respondents

who originally reported being the same‐sex spouse of the householder to being a same‐sex unmarried

partner. The 2012 ACS included a flag (SSPA) which allowed same‐sex married couples to be identified

for the first time on the public use microdata sample (PUMS). The Current Population Survey, which also

has a direct cohabitation question, allows for further identification of same‐sex couples. The release of

the preferred estimates11 based on the 2010 Decennial Census marked the first time the Census Bureau

released same‐sex spousal data using decennial data (see www.census.gov/hhes/samesex/).

The National Center for Health Statistics employs different data processing rules for same‐sex couples.

Sex and marital status are not edited for same‐sex couples. For example, the National Health Interview

Survey (NHIS) does not currently contain any variable or recode that identifies same‐sex partners,

regardless of their marital status; however, same‐sex couples can be identified through public data use

files by checking whether spouses or partners are of the same‐sex. It can then be inferred that these

couples are either same‐sex spouses or same‐sex unmarried partners. Identifying same‐sex couples this

way can be problematic because there is an assumption of no error in reports of marital/relationship

status and sex by the respondents. The internal NHIS data files do contain a family structure recode that

identifies same‐sex married and unmarried couples who do not have or live with children.  

In other cases, agencies do not release public datasets identifying same‐sex couples due to disclosure

concerns. Many Federal surveys collect data under a pledge of confidentiality, meaning that the

information is collected exclusively for statistical purposes, and no information will be published or

released that would permit identification of a particular respondent. This requirement is specified in

                                                            

11 As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4, Census Bureau investigations into apparent discrepancies in

estimates of the same‐sex couple population as measured by the 2010 Census and the 2010 ACS (later attributed

to differences in instrument formatting and automatic editing procedures) led to the subsequent release of

preferred estimates.
16

several laws with penalties for unauthorized disclosure of confidential statistical information.12 The

release of microdata or data tables must therefore be examined to ensure that inadvertent disclosure of

confidential information is prevented. Even when personal identifiers are stripped from the data, the

combination of variables could lead to individual identification. The data resulting from the

measurement of same‐sex couples are likely to require careful consideration prior to release to prevent

inadvertent disclosure. The relatively small number of cases, particularly in smaller data sets or

geographic areas, may necessitate analysis through a Research Data Center or similar agreement that

permits analysis of restricted data with a careful review of output to safeguard confidentiality.  

For example, NCHS’ National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) asks about

relationships between individuals with a family, along with asking about the sex of each household

member. The relationship of family members is not released in the NHANES public use files due to

disclosure concerns, but the data are available in internal data files. Therefore, it is possible to obtain

these data through a Research Data Center (RDC) proposal. Similarly, the National Survey of Family

Growth (NSFG) collects a basic household roster comprising age, sex, and relationship of each household

member to the reference person. Due to disclosure concerns, the household roster data (and thus,

potential identification of same‐sex partners, regardless of marital status) are not available on the public

use files. The household roster in the NSFG interview is the only place where the respondent could

report a same‐sex marriage or cohabitation using the provided sex and relationship categories. The

questions on marital/cohabiting status in the NSFG are based only on opposite‐sex partnerships.

Therefore, the data publicly released for those reported as married and cohabiting are limited to only

opposite‐sex couples. However, the roster data are available to researchers through the RDC.

H. Conclusion/Data Gaps and Limitations

This chapter has provided an overview of the types of household relationship measures found in Federal

surveys. Both commonalities and differences in the measurement of relationships are noted. Of the

Federal surveys reviewed, those that incorporate the most detailed measurements include the NLSY79,

SISFCF, NLSY97, SIPP and NCES. All of these surveys collect detailed household and relationship data.

SISFCF is the most unique of the surveys reviewed. It collects retrospective household and relationship

data from respondents in correctional institutions.  

In comparing Federal surveys, several key measurement differences are observed that may affect survey

estimates. These include: 1) variation in response categories (e.g., more categories and/or different

category wording); 2) inconsistent measurement of relationship to child; 3) infrequent measurement of

interrelationships of all household members; 4) inconsistent measurement of cohabitation;  

5) infrequent measurement of sex for all household members; and 6) inconsistent inclusion of State of

current residence and State where married. Such measurement variation can contribute to differences

in estimates of family and household relationships across Federal surveys.  

                                                            

12 See Title V of the E‐Government Act of 2002, the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency

Act of 2002 (CIPSEA) (Pub. L. 107‐347, title V; 116 Stat. 2962, Dec. 17, 2002); Implementation Guidance for Title V

of the E‐Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (72 FR 33362,

33368, June 15, 2007); and several agency‐specific laws, such as 13 U.S.C. 9 (Census Bureau), 42 U.S.C. 1873

(National Science Foundation), and the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107‐279, Nov. 5, 2002;

National Center for Education Statistics).
17

We also observe differences in data processing procedures across agencies. In some cases, these

processing routines regarding household relationships relate to legal definitions, which have changed

dramatically in a comparatively short period of time. In other cases, data access to less common

household relationships is limited to avoid disclosure risk for persons who provided their information

under a pledge of confidentiality.

Variation in agency priorities and interests shapes data collection efforts. We did not ask agencies for

their exact rationales in how their questions were asked or why they chose their specific response

categories. In addition, we did not collect information on the editing process for all of the surveys

discussed in this chapter. There is a variety of reasons for the variation in household relationship data

collected across Federal agencies. Different agencies have different traditions about how questions are

asked, along with what answer categories are offered. By keeping with these question and answer

categories, data users more easily are able to calculate trends over time. Nonetheless, over the years

questions and answer categories have and will continue to change—either due to opportunities for

innovation or as a result of new Federal or State policies.
18

Chapter 3. Uses of Relationship Information by Federal Agencies

This chapter documents the uses of relationship and family data by Federal agencies and explores how

these data contribute to agencies’ missions, products, and funding distribution. Relationship data are

the cornerstone of many Federal projects and processes; however, as seen in Chapter 2, surveys do not

collect these data in a uniform manner across Federal surveys. While some of this variation is intentional

and allows different programs to address diverse needs, some of it is unintended and leads to data gaps

that Federal agencies must navigate.  

The findings presented in this chapter come from a qualitative survey, described below and

administered by the authors of this chapter. First, the method through which a frame of “user agencies”

was created is provided. This is followed by a description of the data collection process. Findings are

presented by department and agency, detailing data uses and gaps.

A. Frame Development

Before Federal agencies could be surveyed on their uses of relationship data, a frame containing these

agencies had to be created. The first decision regarding this frame dealt with its scope: whether non‐

Federal groups (such as academia, non‐profit organizations, and private firms) that direct surveys of

household relationships or conduct Federal household surveys would be included. Following a

discussion, MRFHS decided that the scope of this report would be limited exclusively to Federal

agencies.  

Clearly, the most complete way of determining how Federal agencies use relationship data would be to

survey every agency across the entire Federal government. However, given the time and resources

available, a frame development method known as “snowball sampling” was adopted. Accordingly, an

initial list of data users was derived from a condensed list of Federal statistical surveys which collect

information about household relationships. From this list, personal knowledge was used to create an

initial frame of known users of those surveys, yielding an initial frame containing 8 agencies or

departments. Each of these was then contacted not only to administer the qualitative survey, but also to

increase the frame through snowball sampling. The final frame includes 24 agencies in 10 departments.

Please note that these 24 data user agencies do not completely overlap with the 10 data producer

agencies discussed in Chapter 2.

B. Survey Design and Methodology

A qualitative design for the survey was used, as more open‐ended questions would provide deeper and

broader information regarding the agencies’ uses. A questionnaire that members could easily administer

via email or telephone to agency contacts was designed. Appendix 2 contains the final questionnaire,

which includes questions on uses and sources of relationship data, as well as data gaps or limitations

and how agencies manage these limitations. The questionnaire also asks about the agency’s or

program’s need for same‐sex couples’ data. The subgroup divided responsibility for the initial frame

among its members. The members then interviewed agency contacts and followed up on other users

identified through snowball sampling. The group members reported their findings to the team and

completed results compilation and follow‐up as necessary. The findings are detailed below by

department.
19

C. Results

By and large, the results from this qualitative study indicate that government agencies use household

relationship and marital status data for descriptive, planning, and funding purposes. Descriptive

purposes—seen largely in statistical agencies or offices such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the

Census Bureau, and the Social Security Administration’s Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics—

include providing the public and other agencies with detailed information and analysis about the state

of and trends in areas including household composition and derivative measures (such as poverty, see

Box 5). Planning purposes—exemplified below by the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, the

Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications Information Administration, and the

Department of Defense—include agencies using household composition and derivative data to develop

strategy for future program tests, changes, and management. This type of use also includes the

production of various analytic and policy reports that agencies release to Congress and the public (see

Box 6). Lastly, funding purposes—demonstrated by, for example, the Department of Housing and Urban

Development’s Section 8 Housing Assistance and Community Development Block Grant programs, the

Department of Education’s Title 3 funding program, and the Department of Health and Human Service’s

Administration for Children and Family’s Community Service Block Grants program—use household

composition and derivative data to allocate Federal funds to States, localities, and organizations.  

It should be noted that the qualitative survey did not explicitly ask responding agencies about whether

they consider data processing when selecting data sources or applying household relationship statistics

in their work. However, follow‐up conversations with some respondents indicated that it was not clear

how data processing edits applied by statistical agencies impact the user agencies’ work and products.

Therefore, this chapter likely underestimates (to some degree) the type and range of impact of such

processing.13 The programmatic agencies largely trust the statistical agencies to provide them with high‐

quality data and appear to assume that any production procedures are thoroughly reviewed and tested

before data are released.

1. Department of Agriculture

The Economic Research Service (ERS), the USDA’s research arm, analyzes trends in the distribution of

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) funds. The SNAP

analyses use relationship, income, and program participation data from Census Bureau and Bureau of

Labor Statistics surveys. These data include Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), Current

Population Survey (CPS), American Community Survey (ACS), and American Time Use Survey (ATUS)

information on the relationship of individuals to the reference person, as well as the identification of the

mother (from SIPP). The SNAP legislation identifies as a household a unit that eats and prepares food

together. Therefore, ERS and the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS, which administers SNAP) use

subfamily identifications to closely estimate the SNAP household. A resulting data limitation is that ERS

and FNS have a difficult time extrapolating multi‐adult households into subfamilies. The current SIPP has

this needed information, but CPS and ACS do not.  

In addition to administering SNAP, the FNS releases a series of reports known as “The Food Security

                                                            

13 As discussed later in this chapter, removing the edit for the CE would impact the sample used for CPI‐E weights

and the DOD cost‐of‐living adjustments.
20

Studies.14 The analysis behind these reports uses the CPS Food Security supplement for the relationship

to the reference person and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)

confidential household roster relationship information.

The USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion releases an annual report on the cost of raising a

child.15 These “Expenditures on Children by Families” reports use BLS Consumer Expenditure (CE) data

for calculations, with household relationship as a key variable. Specifically, the analysis uses CE data on

married families and single‐parent households: USDA examines only couples classified as married in the

CE data and single parents with no other adults present in the household. States use these USDA cost

data to allocate child support and other transfer payments.  

2. Department of Commerce

Within the Department of Commerce, the Census Bureau not only produces data on families and

relationships (as detailed in Chapter 2) but also uses those data for a variety of mandatory and

programmatic purposes. Its Population Estimates Program uses American Community Survey (ACS) and

Decennial Census relationship and marital status data as calculation inputs. According to Title 13, the

Census Bureau officially updates the Population Estimates once a year, providing the estimated national,

State, and sub‐State populations on July 1.16 Within the Federal statistical system, these estimates assist

in constructing population weights for a number of surveys, including the ACS, CPS, and CE. Various

programmatic agencies also use the estimates in their funding formulas.

The Census Bureau also uses household relationship and marital status data from the ACS, Decennial

Census, CPS, and SIPP in the design of other post‐censal demographic surveys. Primarily, these data

allow the Census Bureau to stratify and select primary sampling units in various stages of sampling.17

The poverty oversample of the SIPP itself relies on household relationship data from the ACS and the

Decennial Census.

The Census Bureau and Department of Health and Human Services official poverty measurement18 uses

household relationship data from the ACS and CPS to assign cases to various poverty thresholds.

Additionally, the Census Bureau uses CE data as part of the calculations going into the Supplemental

Poverty Measure (SPM).19 The data sampled for the SPM use the number of adults present in the

household regardless of marital status.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Federal Communications

Commission use household relationship data (as well as the derivative poverty data) to map and plan

policies to expand universal telephone and broadband access.20

                                                            

14 See http://www.fns.usda.gov/Ora/menu/Published/FoodSecurity/FoodSecurity.htm   15 See http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/expendituresonchildrenbyfamilies.htm   16 13 USC 181(a). 17 13 USC 182. 18 13 USC 141 and 42 USC 9902(2). 19 13 USC 193. 20 47 USC 151 and 254.
21

3. Department of Defense

The Department of Defense (DOD) uses survey

information they collect or obtain under contract on

service members, their spouses, and their children to

measure and determine cost‐of‐living

allowances. Unmarried partners are not included in

the analysis. The Defense Department also uses special

tabulations from the BLS Consumer Expenditure

Survey data for service members, their spouses, and

their children to calculate expenditure shares.

Additionally, the Defense Travel Management Office

uses three surveys (the CE, a DOD survey of overseas

personnel, and a contractor survey of within‐the‐U.S.

service population) to determine Cost‐Of‐Living

Adjustment (COLA) payments and travel allowances.

The surveys do not ask about unmarried partners,

because they were designed under policies that

limited allowances to married partners.

4. Department of Education

Across the Department of Education, both household

relationship and marital status data serve a number of

purposes. Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (known as the No Child Left Behind Act

in its current authorization) provides funding for

schools with disproportionately large numbers of

students in poverty.21 The National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES) processes ACS household

relationship data (alongside income and age data), so

that the Department can allocate funds to school

districts.

Title 3 of the Elementary Secondary Education Act

provides funding for school districts with

disproportionately large populations of immigrant and

limited English language proficiency students.22 The

Department bases the allocation of these funds on

both marital status and household relationship data

from the ACS.

Other provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act also rely on various sources of

household relationship and marital status data, primarily from the Census Bureau. For instance, some

                                                            

21 P.L. 107‐110, Section 1124; 20 USC 6333, 6334, 6335, and 6337. 22 20 USC 6821, 6841, and 6974 and 20 USC 9224.

Box 5. How the Census Bureau and HHS

Measure Poverty

Following OMB’s Statistical Policy Directive 14,

the Census Bureau calculates a number of

income thresholds that take family size and

composition into account. The poverty

thresholds are for the Nation and do not vary by

geographies such as States or metropolitan

areas. All households in a survey are placed in

one of 48 possible household

composition/family size categories and are

categorized as either in‐poverty or not in‐

poverty depending on that cell’s threshold

(please see the 2012 thresholds, for example, at

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/dat

a/threshld/thresh12.xls). The original thresholds

were created in 1964, and were based largely on

food budgets. The Census Bureau updates the

thresholds annually using the Consumer Price

Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI‐U). The

official poverty rate uses data from the Current

Population Survey and its Annual Social and

Economic Supplement. Poverty is also calculated

using the American Community Survey, though a

slightly different adjustment is used due to the

monthly panel structure of the ACS.

For administrative purposes, the Department of

Health and Human Services releases official

poverty guidelines annually. These guidelines are

simplified derivatives that consider only family

size. HHS releases guidelines for the contiguous

48 States, for Alaska, and for Hawaii, usually in

January. Besides HHS, a number of programs

across other Federal departments use these

guidelines in the administration of their

programs. For more information on these

guidelines, please see

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/faq.shtml.
22

funds are allocated based on the population of school‐aged children or number of children per housing

unit either in or not in poverty. These funding decisions rely on models using household relationship and

marital status data of a reference person.

5. Department of Health and Human Services

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) uses information on household relationships and

marital status for a number of regulatory, statistical, and programmatic purposes. Sources of data for

this information include the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), the Decennial Census,

the Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC), as well as HHS

population surveys and grantee reporting requirements. Relationship information is used for the

poverty guidelines, which are updated periodically in the Federal Register by HHS.23 The guidelines are a

simplification of the poverty thresholds updated each year by the Census Bureau and are used for

administrative purposes, such as determining eligibility for certain Federal programs. Specific uses of

relationship data by the HHS operating (or program) divisions are provided below.

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) uses information on household relationships and

marital status as a measure for the High Performance Bonus Awards program under the Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.24 The agency also uses these data to investigate matters

related to child welfare and for funding purposes by the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program

(LIHEAP).25 For the administration of the Community Services Block Grant program, the ACF uses

relationship information for formula allocations, specifically for Community Food and Nutrition grants to

States.26 Information on relationships and marital status also serves programmatic purposes under the

Older Americans Act to distinguish households in which a grandparent has primary responsibility for a

grandchild or grandchildren.27

The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) uses relationship information to designate

Health Professional Shortage Areas, which takes into consideration the ratio of available health

professionals to the population and other indicators of need. HRSHA also uses relationship information

to designate Medically Underserved Populations, which are populations with shortages of personal

health services. Only such communities are eligible for certain HHS programs, such as the National

Health Service Corps, Community Health Centers, and Rural Health Clinics.28 Additionally, HRSA’s

Maternal and Child Health Bureau uses relationship information in determining populations to be served

and funding allocations to States for the Title V Maternal and Child Health Block Grant.

The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) uses relationship information in agency statistical

programs related to the collection of vital, social, and health statistics, and as a denominator for

computing certain vital statistics rates.29 As described in Chapter 2, NCHS collects information on

household relationships and marital status to aid its analysis of health status, health‐related behaviors,

                                                            

23 Under the authority of 42 USC 9902(2). 24 45 CFR 270.4(f). 25 42 USC 621(c) and 42 USC 8629(a), respectively. 26 42 USC 9908(b) and (c)(1)(A)(i), 9917(b)(1) and (2) and 9922(b). 27 13 USC 141, which explicitly calls for the use of decennial census or American Community Survey data for this

information.

28 42 USC 254(b)(3)(A) and (B), 42 USC 254e(b) and (d) and 42 USC 254f‐1, respectively. 29 42 USC 242k(b)(h) and (1).
23

access to care and insurance coverage, and other health topics. For example, marital status is an

important predictor of having health insurance coverage for certain subgroups of the population, in all

poverty status groups.  

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) uses relationship data across a number of its constituent

institutes and their programs. For instance, the National Institute on Aging and the Eunice Kennedy

Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development use relationship information for

programmatic purposes in the administration of research grants investigating determinants and

consequences of fertility and other population characteristics.30 The National Institute of Mental Health

uses relationship information to support research grant funding activities on service delivery for

children.31

The Office of Public Health and Science uses relationship data for programmatic purposes in funding

demonstration and research grants for targeted populations.32

The Administration on Aging, which is part of the Administration for Community Living, facilitates the

use of relationship data by State and local agencies in order to determine segments of the older

population that have the greatest need for certain services under the Older Americans Act category of

“greatest social need.”33  

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services uses information on household relationships for

estimating the cost of practice indexes and other types of payments adjustment and analyses.34

Furthermore, its Current Medicare Beneficiary Survey requires information on relationships for analytic

and statistical purposes.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) use information on

household relationships and marital status from the ACS and Decennial Census to improve the sample

design, weighting, and small area estimation procedures for the National Survey on Drug Use and Health

(NSDUH).35

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality uses household relationship information collected by

the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) to research medical cost expenditures, health insurance

coverage, health service utilization, and access to care.

6. Department of Housing and Urban Development

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) uses both household relationship and

marital status in the administration of a number of block grant programs and analytical products. As

noted with other departments, the major way HUD uses these data is in the form of poverty estimates,

which use household composition as a key variable.  

                                                            

30 42 USC 241, 285e‐1(b) and 285g. 31 42 USC 241 and 285p. 32 42 USC 300a‐2. 33 42 USC 3002 (28)‐(30), 3025(a)(1)(E) and (2)(E), and 3026(a)(1). 34 42 USC 1395w‐4(e)(1). 35 42 USC 290aa‐4.
24

For instance, with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), HUD uses poverty estimates and household size to

establish Qualified Census Tracts and Difficult Development Areas for the Low Income Housing Tax

Credit Program.36 In addition to the tax credits available through this program, the Difficult Development

Area designation allows local and State governments to apply for other sources of HUD funding. Other

agencies across the Federal government also use these Qualified Census Tracts, such as the Small

Business Administration in their Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) program that

provides small businesses extra opportunities to compete for Federal contracts.37

One of the largest HUD programs that uses poverty estimates and household composition is the Section

8 Housing Assistance Program.38 HUD receives special tabulations of ACS data comparing income,

housing cost, and household size. It then uses these special tabulations to calculate the income limits for

Section 8 program participation and the Fair Market Rents that determine the amount of assistance a

family can receive. Like the previously Qualified Census Tracts mentioned, other Federal agencies use

these Income Limits and Fair Market Rents to administer their programs. For instance, the USDA’s Rural

Development Service uses the Fair Market Rents to establish rates for rural housing assistance

programs.

Other HUD programs that use household composition, poverty, and marital status data include the

Community Development Block Grant, the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, and the

HOME Investment Grant programs.39

7. Department of Justice

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) uses relationship data in their National Crime Victimization Survey

program to produce detailed family and household‐based analysis of nonfatal criminal victimizations.

8. Department of Labor

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, within the Department of Labor, both produces and uses data on

relationships, primarily for descriptive and analytical purposes. Many of the agency’s uses aim to

produce and facilitate analytical research on a variety of topics. For instance, both Federal and academic

researchers studying how individuals allocate time use the American Time Use (ATUS) data. Marital

status is a key identifier in this research and in published tabulations. ATUS currently uses edited CPS

data to identify married couples.

Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) data on marital status are used by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for

cost weights, as well as by the Department of Defense, the IRS, Congressional researchers, and by the

Census Bureau for the Supplemental Poverty Measure. The CPI itself does not collect relationship data in

its household survey used to measure rent and owners’ equivalent rent inflation. The CPI uses CE data

for married households based on age to determine when a subset of the data meets the definition for

                                                            

36 26 USC 42. 37 15 USC 648. 38 42 USC 1437. 39 42 USC 5302, 42 USC 12705, and 42 USC 12747, respectively.
25

the CPI‐Experimental40 for the elderly.  

9. Social Security Administration

Overall, The Social Security Administration uses the Current Population Survey (CPS) and the Survey of

Income and Program Participation (SIPP) for descriptive analysis. The CPS is also used for benefit

allocation and the SIPP is also used for program evaluation. The actuaries use the decennial census for

program costs, the CPS for children per family, and the American Community Survey (ACS) for marital

status data. The Social Security Act41 requires the Board of Trustees to annually report to Congress on

the actuarial (financial) status of Old‐Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI)

Trust Funds. Social Security benefits reflect lifetime earnings of insured workers and auxiliary benefits

provided to their dependents as spouses and survivors. The Office of the Chief Actuary (OCACT)

prepares the projections for this legally‐mandated report using household survey data on family

relations, including marriage, divorce, and children. OCACT notes that needed data are not available on

marriage in the last 12 months (and age at marriage), divorce in the last 12 months (age at marriage and

length of marriage) and spouse’s current age.  

The Office of Retirement Policy (ORP) in the Office of Retirement and Disability Policy (ORDP) prepares

estimates of the impact of alternative reforms on the Social Security program with respect to access to

and amount of benefits. To do this, ORP uses household survey data on family relationships of insured

workers and their families. ORP notes data limitations regarding estimates of grandparents, same‐sex

couples, and parents of survey respondents as well as how many children a person has and if he or she is

residing in the household in a given year. There also is insufficient information on Social Security

benefits for children under age 15, the characteristics of adult parents, and cohabiting partners.

The Office of Research Evaluation and Statistics (ORES) in ORDP prepares analyses of the economic well‐

being of beneficiary populations, projections of future beneficiaries, and effects of alternative Social

Security rules through micro‐simulation modeling. The main data limitation faced by ORES is the lack of

complete marital histories. Incomplete information on past marriages can be obtained using restricted‐

use SIPP data. A lack of data on same‐sex couples is a concern for modeling. Ideally, ORES would have

access to survey data which record couples’ legal status under State law. However, even if these data

were available, the sample sizes of same‐sex couples with useable marital histories would likely be

limited.  

10. Department of Transportation

A number of programs administered by the Department of Transportation use household relationships

in policy and funding decisions, particularly in the form of poverty numbers released by the Census

Bureau and the Department of Health and Human Services. For example, the Federal Transit

Administration’s (FTA) Job Access and Reverse Commuting Program provides funds to States and

transportation authorities that plan for and provide reverse commuting incentives for impoverished

populations that live outside (but work inside) a city core.42 Other FTA programs use household

                                                            

40 The CPI‐Experimental pertains to the population where the reference person is aged 62 or over, or the spouse of

the reference person is aged 62 or over. 41 P.L. 74‐271, codified in 42 USC Chapter 7. 42 49 USC 5316.
26

relationship to model family size and

transportation demand, including the

Metropolitan and Statewide Planning

Program and the Urbanized Area Formula

Program.43  

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics

(BTS) uses household composition and

poverty in a number of analyses to model

the maintenance and expansion needs of

the transportation infrastructure.44

The Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA) uses household relationship data

to model household composition for the

requirement of the Highway Safety Act. For

instance, the FHWA provides simulation

and model data from the Transportation

Analysis Simulation System to States so

that they can submit planning documents

that allow them to compete for various

DOT funding sources.45

11. Department of the Treasury

In addition to the Low Income Tax Credit

program mentioned above, the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS) uses CE data based

on the number of people in the household

and their total income to determine sales

tax standard deductions. The number of

people present—regardless of marital

status—determines the size of the

household. The reported income is for the

entire household.

D. Data Gaps and Limitations

Overall, very few agencies noted data gaps

or limitations. Research showed three

limitations:

                                                            

43 49 USC 5303‐5305 and 49 USC 5307, respectively. 44 49 USC 111. 45 23 USC 134 and 135.

Box 6. Federal Reports Using Household Relationship and

Marital Status Data

In addition to the uses mentioned throughout this chapter,

it is important to note that many Federal agencies use

household relationship and marital status data to generate

reports for audiences from Congress to the general public.

Some examples of these reports are:

 The Impact of Marital and Relationship Status on Social

Outcomes for Returning Prisoners (HHS, ASPE)

 Homelessness: Programs and the People they Serve

(HUD, PD&R)

It is also quite important to note that statistical agencies

such as the Census Bureau and the National Center for

Health Statistics, which collect household relationship and

marital status data, publish a number of informational

reports and analytic papers on these topics. For example:

 First Marriages in the United States: Data from the

2006‐2010 National Survey of Family Growth (NCHS)

 Employment Characteristics of Families—2011 (BLS)

 To see table packages, reports and conference papers

on these topics, see the Census Bureau’s Families and

Living Arrangements website at:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/; the Marriage

and Divorce website at:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/ ;

and the Same‐Sex Couples website at:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/samesex/. For example,

the Households and Families: 2010 Census Brief:

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br‐

14.pdf; America’s Families and Living Arrangements:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/cps.html;

Number, Timing and Duration of Marriages and

Divorces: 2009:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70‐125.pdf;

and Marital Events of Americans: 2009:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs‐13.pdf.
27

1) The largest limitation, mentioned by a number of agencies, is that the surveys that provide the

timeliest data at the smallest geographies (such as the CPS and the ACS) do not include the full

range of possible household relationships. For instance, the Census Bureau’s condensed coding

for subfamilies in the ACS requires more assumptions on the part of programmatic agencies

than do other coding methods to assign subfamily relationships among participating

households, since the questionnaire does not directly ask all adults to identify their spouses and

parents. However, all agencies were able to obtain the data they needed, in some form, from

the various Federal statistical agencies.

2) The second gap noted was between the current and potential uses of same‐sex couple and

household data for funding allocation and research. At the time of the study, nearly all the

agencies surveyed who need marriage data for funding use noted that because of then‐current

Federal law—namely the Defense of Marriage Act46, or DOMA—they could not use same‐sex

data for allocating funds. However, most did want the data for analytical purposes. At the time,

they noted that if DOMA were overturned in the future, they would need same‐sex household

and marital status data to administer their programs accurately. Now that key provisions in

DOMA have been overturned and many Federal marriage benefits are now available to legally‐

married same‐sex couples, programmatic agencies across the government are re‐examining

their data needs and the resulting data gaps they may have. For instance, because the

relationship status of same‐sex couples was edited from spouses to unmarried partners in

Census Bureau surveys and censuses, agencies using these data (including those that allocate

funds based on marital status) are unable to identify and analyze such households. Research on

both improving the validity of the marital status and household relationship measures, as well as

on the effects of this and other editing procedures, is discussed in the next chapter of this

report.

3) The final gap noted in relationship data is the relative lack of complete information on marriage

length. The Social Security Administration qualifies divorced potential benefit recipients for

spouse/survivor benefits based on the length of the marriage. Actuaries need information on

marriage and divorce in the last 12 months and spouse’s current age. Without underlying source

data, the SSA faces limits on accurately estimating future benefit recipients. This concern has

been addressed as of fall 2013, when the first 5‐year ACS data for these characteristics became

available at all relevant levels of geographic detail.

                                                            

46 P.L. 104‐199, 28 USC 1783C.
28

Chapter 4. Research on Measuring Household Relationships

In this chapter, we summarize recent research on measuring relationships in Federal demographic

surveys. Most of the research was sponsored by Federal agencies and much of it focuses on

measurement of same‐sex couples or families that include same‐sex parents. Since its inception, much

of the committee’s discussion has revolved around the measurement of same‐sex couples, as this

subpopulation is specifically mentioned in the Department of Commerce letter to OMB requesting the

committee’s establishment (See Appendix 3). Although we focus predominantly on relationships within

households, members also discussed the topic of measuring less traditionally‐defined relationships

between households. As such, while this topic was not the central focus of the committee, we point to

several ethnographic studies conducted prior to the establishment of the committee that relay findings

from this area.  

As noted in Chapter 3, agencies use a variety of household definitions for analysis depending on the

program implemented. Until recently, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevented treating same‐sex

married couples as married for mandated program purposes. For this reason, many programs did not

collect data on same‐sex married couples despite the interest for non‐mandated analysis. However, with

the recent Supreme Court decision overturning the provision in DOMA that prevented same‐sex married

couples from receiving the Federal benefits offered to opposite‐sex married couples, there is a greater

need to accurately measure same‐sex married households within many of the Federal collections. As a

result, a number of agencies have undertaken research to address this issue. We summarize five related

topic areas of survey measurement research on relationships: relationship of household members to the

householder, relationship of household members to children in the household, measurement of marital

status, measurement of cohabitation status, and measurement of non‐traditional or “complex”

households. We discuss research to ascertain the accuracy of current measures, research to improve

measures, and development and testing of new alternatives.  

A. Relationship to Householder

In the case of the American Community Survey (ACS) and decennial census, same‐sex couples are

measured by way of two questions: relationship to the householder and sex. The current categories

available for couples to describe an intimate relationship include “husband or wife” and “unmarried

partner.” Several studies have speculated that same‐sex couple estimates based on these two items are

inflated due to accidental mismarking on sex by a very small proportion of opposite‐sex married

couples. As opposite‐sex couples are larger in number than same‐sex couples, this would result in a

large overcount of same‐sex couples (O’Connell & Gooding, 2006) (Black, et al., 2007) (Gates &

Steinberger, 2009) (DeMaio, et al., 2013).  

Research around the accuracy of measuring same‐sex couples comes primarily from the ACS. Using data

from the 2005‐2008 ACS, the Census Bureau conducted research to assess several operational and

questionnaire design changes made to the survey. According to O’Connell et al., a decline in the number

of same‐sex spouses was reported between the 2007 and 2008 ACS. (O’Connell, et al., 2010) This

appears to be due to improvements in processing, edit rules, and the format and layout of the

questionnaire. Thus, the decline in 2008 estimates is thought to reflect an improvement in data quality.

Two practical recommendations coming from the study and relevant to a paper‐administered

questionnaire include: 1) using a sequential layout rather than a grid; and 2) for questions that have two
29

response categories, arranging the categories horizontally rather than vertically to reduce mismarks.

A second study attempted to assess the accuracy of same‐sex couple estimates from the 2010 Census. In

particular, why were estimates of same‐sex couples, especially same‐sex spousal households,

substantially higher in the census compared to the 2010 ACS (349,000 same‐sex spousal households in

the census versus 152,000 in ACS)? What did this say about the quality of estimates coming from the

2010 Census? To answer this question, the 2010 Census and 2010 ACS same‐sex couple data were

compared by mode and phase of data collection. (O'Connell & Feliz, 2011) The study also evaluated the

quality of data using a statistical “names directory” indicating the probability that the sex for a particular

name had been incorrectly marked. According to the study, about 28 percent of 2010 Census same‐sex

couple households were the result of mismarks and were probably opposite‐sex couples. The study

concluded that the grid‐based questionnaire format of the 2010 Census nonresponse follow‐up form

mostly contributed to the overcounts. Conversely, the presence of automated edits in the telephone

and personal‐visit data collection phases of the ACS appeared to greatly reduce same‐sex couple over‐

reports. These discoveries led the Census Bureau to release a set of 2010 Census State‐level “preferred

estimates” for same‐sex households (see

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb11‐cn181.html).

A second hypothesis behind the higher number of same‐sex spousal households in the census is that

more unmarried same‐sex couples may be adopting the term husband/wife to describe their partners.

However, a study sponsored by the Williams Institute soon after the 2010 Census reported a high

degree of consistency in how same‐sex couples identified their relationship status on the census form

and their legal relationship status in their State of residence (Gates, 2010). Nearly all individuals who

had no legal relationship reported using unmarried partner on the census form (97 percent), and only 16

percent of couples in civil unions or registered domestic partnerships selected husband/wife.

A more recent study of ACS data examined the consistency between same‐sex couples’ reporting of

relationship and marital status (unlike the Decennial Census, the ACS also collects marital status for

those 15 and older). (Lofquist, 2012) Substantial consistency was found between same‐sex couples’

responses to the relationship and marital status questions. That is, couples who identified as unmarried

partners tend to report themselves as something other than “now married,” and couples who report

themselves as spouses tend to report being “now married” (even if they reside in a State that does not

recognize same‐sex marriage).

These survey findings are echoed by focus groups with individuals from same‐sex couples. Bates et al.

reported that respondents perceive the census relationship question to be asking about a legal status

and, consequently, answers on census forms tend to align with legal partner status. (Bates, et al., 2010)

Other key findings included: 1) respondents desire new categories to reflect other legal unions for same‐

sex couples (e.g., civil unions and domestic partnerships); 2) respondents desire to move the “unmarried

partner” category up in the list; and 3) many interpreted the term “partner” to apply more to same‐sex

intimate relationships; however, opposite‐sex unmarried couples were still comfortable selecting

“unmarried partner” as their relationship category.

   
30

Based on these

qualitative studies, the

Census Bureau developed

two alternative

relationship questions for

cognitive testing. Both

versions were tested in

cognitive interviews

conducted by the Census

Bureau (DeMaio & Bates,

2011) and one version

was tested in interviews

conducted by the

National Center for

Health Statistics (NCHS)

(Ridolfo, 2011). In both

studies, most respondents mapped their answers according to legal partnership status. The relationship

question recommended for future quantitative tests is presented in Box 7. In addition to testing well

during the cognitive interviews, this version should reduce the occurrence of different‐sex couples

misreporting sex because of the added sex check in the delineated spouse and partner categories. The

2013 American Housing Survey (AHS) included an interviewer‐administered, split panel test of this

revised relationship question (and marital status question—see below) with a nationally‐representative

sample of approximately 160,000 households. Detailed results of the experiment will be documented in

a separate, joint Census Bureau and HUD report (forthcoming). However, at the time of this writing, we

can report that unit nonresponse was no different between the test and control panels. Further, the

item nonresponse rate (that is, the proportion who didn’t know the answer or refused to provide it) for

the relationship item was very low when using both the new (0.4 percent) and control (0.3 percent)

versions.  

B. Relationship to Child Research

In some Federal studies, the household is rostered in relation to a reference child rather than an adult.

This is often done to look at the reference child’s home environment. In these measurements, it is

possible to have multiple people serving as a parent or guardian to the child. Historically, surveys

attempted to identify a mother and father in the household. Recent qualitative work sought to broaden

the measure to include other combinations, such as same‐sex parents, a biological parent and

grandparent co‐raising a child, and a mother and unmarried partner raising a child. (Grady & McPhee,

2011) This work led to the development of a series of parent 1 / parent 2 living in household items

shown in box 8. These items were tested during the National Household Education Survey (NHES) field

test, a large scale test that took place January‐May 2012. The results indicated that the Parent 1 / Parent

2 model yielded higher identification of same‐sex parent and grandparent‐led households. It also

reduced item non‐response (Grady & Redford, 2012).

Box 7. Census’ Proposed Alternative Relationship Questions

How is this person related to Person 1? Mark (X) ONE box.  

[  ] Opposite‐sex husband/wife/spouse [  ] Grandchild

[  ] Opposite‐sex unmarried partner [  ] Parent ‐in‐law

[  ] Same‐sex husband/wife/spouse   [  ] Son‐in‐law or daughter‐in‐law

[  ] Same‐sex unmarried partner    [  ] Other relative

[  ] Biological son or daughter    [  ] Roomer or boarder

[  ] Adopted son or daughter    [  ] Housemate or roommate

[  ] Stepson or stepdaughter    [  ] Foster child

[  ] Brother or sister       [  ] Other nonrelative
31

C. Marital Status Research

Within‐household relationships are also defined by

cohabiting couples’ legal relationship statuses. The

ACS captures this by asking marital status of persons

15 years old or over. Categories include: now

married, widowed, divorced, separated, and never

married. Focus groups with participants from same‐

sex couples revealed key insights to this traditional

measure (Bates, et al., 2010). First, participants

usually interpreted the question to be asking about a

legally‐defined marriage sanctioned by the State.

However, same‐sex couples that had been legally

married anywhere tended to select “now married”

even when the marriage was not recognized by their

State of residence. Finally, respondents complained

the current categories do not accommodate same‐sex

couples who are not legally married but wish to

indicate a committed relationship status. For

example, couples who could not be legally married

are forced to choose “never married” or a category

describing a past opposite‐sex marital status.

Likewise, couples in domestic partnerships or civil

unions have no option to indicate so.  

Based on this work, the Census Bureau developed

two new versions of the ACS marital status sequence.

Both versions added a measure to reflect registered

domestic partnerships/civil unions. Both versions

were tested in cognitive interviews conducted by the

Census Bureau (DeMaio & Bates, 2011) and one

version was tested in interviews conducted by the

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) (Ridolfo,

2011). Results indicated that although respondents

reacted positively to the new relationship category,

both gay and straight respondents had

misperceptions and confusion around the meaning of

“domestic partnership or civil union.” There was also

some sensitivity toward the new category in

traditionally conservative geographic areas. Based on

this research, the Census Bureau has recommended

that agencies conduct large scale quantitative tests

using the version in Box 9 as a starting point. As

described above, the 2013 AHS included an

interviewer‐administered, split panel test of the

revised marital status question (as well as the revised

relationship question) with a nationally‐

Box 8. Alternative Relationship to Child

Questions

PARENT 1 LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD Answer

these questions about yourself if you are

the child’s parent or guardian.

If you are not the child’s parent or

guardian, answer these questions about

one of this child’s parents or guardians

living in this household.

Is this parent or guardian the child’s...

Biological parent

Adoptive parent

Stepparent

Foster parent

Grandparent

Other guardian

Is this person male or female?

Male

Female

PARENT 2 LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD Answer

these questions about a second parent or

guardian living in the household.

Is there a second parent or guardian

living in this household?

No ➔ skip these items

Yes

Is this person the child’s...

Biological parent

Adoptive parent

Stepparent

Foster parent

Grandparent

Other guardian

Is this person male or female?

Male

Female
32

representative sample of approximately 160,000 households.

Detailed results of the experiment will be documented in a

separate, joint Census Bureau and HUD report (forthcoming).

However, at the time of this writing, we can report that unit

nonresponse was no different between the test and control

panels. In addition, the item nonresponse rate was not

statistically different in the experimental (1.5 percent) versus

the control panel (1.6 percent).  

D. Cohabitation Item Research

Currently, cohabitation is captured in the decennial census and ACS through the question on

relationship to the householder. Respondents can select the category for “unmarried partner” to

indicate a person is in a romantic relationship with the householder. Infrequently, some other Federal

surveys (e.g., CPS) have measured cohabitation status using a direct question. Hunter (Hunter, 2005a)

discusses difficulties in measuring cohabitation that current questions do not adequately address.

Terminology presents a key challenge. Cohabiting couples may be undercounted if some respondents do

not recognize the language used in question wording (Hunter, 2005b).  

Two studies identify differences in cohabitation term acceptance. The phrase now used in Federal

surveys—“unmarried partner”—is better recognized by higher‐income respondents than those who

earn less (Hunter, 2005a). Opposite‐sex couples more often endorse the terms “girlfriend/boyfriend”

(Hunter, 2005b), whereas lesbian/gay couples more often use “partner.” Same‐sex couples, however,

have some sensitivity around the term “unmarried partner,” as it can suggest free choice of marital

status (Hunter, 2005a) (Hunter, 2005b). Hunter recommends developing wording sensitive to diverse

interpretations in the population, and also suggests reconsidering the term “unmarried partner."

However, she is unable to suggest a single best alternative.

A second issue is where to ask about cohabitation status. Two options are identified (Hunter, 2005a).

The first includes a category for “unmarried partner” in the marital status question. The second

measures cohabitation using a separate question. Both alternatives offer an advantage over the

relationship to householder question. Whereas this question only identifies cohabiting couples when

one member is the householder (Hunter, 2005b), the alternatives capture other types of cohabiting

couples.  

Two studies evaluated the measurement of cohabitation status as part of the marital status question

versus in a separate item. The overall aim was to develop a direct cohabitation question that is sex‐

Box 9. Alternative

Marital/Cohabitation Status Sequence

1. What is this person’s current

marital status?  Mark (X) one

box.

[  ] Now Married – Skip to Q3.

[  ] Widowed

[  ] Divorced

[  ] Separated

[  ] Never married

2. Does this person have a

boyfriend, girlfriend, or partner

in this household?

3. Is this person currently living in a

registered domestic partnership

or civil union?
33

neutral, non‐offensive, and generally applicable. Hunter first conducted cognitive testing through semi‐

structured interviews with 19 cohabiting respondents (Hunter, 2005b). Following this, question wording

for cohabitation status was quantitatively tested as part of the 2004 Questionnaire Design Experimental

Research Survey (QDERS). (O’Connell, et al., 2005)  

Both studies conclude that the separate item for cohabitation status is preferable to the combined

marital status/cohabitation question. The combined marital/cohabitation status question can create

ambiguity; a follow‐up question would be needed to determine precise marital status for cohabitors.

(Hunter, 2005b). Confusion arises when a married person cohabits with someone other than her/his

spouse (Hunter, 2005a). Further, several respondents first identified as cohabiting but later claimed to

be married when receiving the combined question (O’Connell, et al., 2005). Finally, the separate item

yields higher rates of cohabitation. The sequence in Box 9 satisfies these recommendations.

Cognitive interviews also tested a separate cohabitation question as part of the revised marital history

series mentioned earlier. (DeMaio & Bates, 2011) Results indicated that cohabiting same‐sex couples

without a legal relationship status usually defined themselves as “currently living with a

boyfriend/girlfriend or partner.” The study recommended asking a separate cohabitation question when

possible to allow these couples to indicate a committed relationship status. The preferred ordering of

the item is after the marital status question but before the new domestic partnership/civil union

question. Once more, the sequence in Box 9 satisfies these recommendations.

E. Measuring Diverse Relationships

Prior to the establishment of MRFHS, the Census Bureau sponsored ethnographic research on

relationships and household structure, cultural conceptions of households, and who is considered a

household member and/or a family member (Schwede, 2004). Research was also conducted on

“complex households,” that is, households with persons other than, or in addition to, nuclear family

relatives (Schwede, 2004) (Schwede, et al., 2006). Complex households increased from 18.4 percent in

1990 to 21 percent in 2000 (Schwede, 2008). Other research documented wide variation in household

and family size and structure across race/ethnic groups and how this might be changing as the U.S.

moves toward a majority‐minority society in the 2040s, if current trends continue. (Schwede, 2007)

(Schwede, 2012) Additionally, there are external academic studies on households, marriage, and family

structures, many of which were highlighted during the 2011 Counting Couples, Counting Families

conference. These stress the importance of measuring family structures that account for union

instability, family ties across households, intergenerational and multigenerational households, and

complex family households such as doubled‐up families and subfamilies and “boomerang” households

with young adults (Harris, 2011) (Brown & Manning, 2011) (Hofferth, 2011) (Elliott, et al., 2011)

(Mykyta, 2012).  

Many of these studies suggest that the traditional way of measuring relationships in the decennial

census and ACS is inadequate for classifying a wider range of household types including subfamilies and

relationships that extend beyond cohabiting household members, such as distant kin networks.

Although some Federal surveys collect inter‐relationships among and between all household members

(like the SIPP), most do not because of the complexities and respondent burden associated with

rostering and asking these questions in a self‐administered mode. (One exception is the self‐

administered UK census form, which collects the relationship of each person to each of the household

members, not just the householder.)
34

F. Conclusion

This chapter has reviewed research to improve measurement of household relationships, particularly for

same‐sex couples, in Federal household surveys. Much of this research stemmed from issues identified

with the measurement of same‐sex couples in two of the key U.S. population studies: the decennial

census and American Community Survey. Following analysis of these data using qualitative and

quantitative means by Census Bureau staff and others, a set of revised relationship, marital status and

cohabitation questions has been developed that offers promise in improving the measurement of

diverse households, particularly for same‐sex couples. Field tests currently underway or which have

recently returned from the field will provide some assessment of how well the questions perform,

although further testing of measurement of these less common households is still desirable.  

Work has also been underway to improve measurement of relationships of children to the reference

person in households, particularly for same‐sex couples and other non‐opposite sex, married parental

combinations such as parent/grandparent or parent/unmarried partner. Field testing that has been

completed shows positive results‐‐more reporting of same‐sex parent and grandparent‐led households

and lower item nonresponse.   
35

Chapter 5. Considerations for Household Surveys in a Diverse Society

A. The Purpose of the Interagency Working Group

Changes in family law, societal norms, the economy, and demographic trends have led to greater

complexity in living arrangements and relationships between and among household members.

Measurement of household relationships in Federal surveys, however, has been slower to adapt to

changes in family life. Current measurement practice misses some key relationships, or, put simply, does

not adequately reflect reality. The Measuring Relationships in Federal Household Surveys (MRFHS)

group was created to consider ways of improving measurement of household relationships in Federal

data collection and reporting. Improved measurement, in turn, will enhance our understanding of family

life and better inform social policy and programs.

MRFHS members were drawn from a variety of Federal agencies, both those that collect data and those

that use data to manage Federal programs and policies. This paper summarizes the group’s work, to

date, to identify and begin to address shortcomings in the measurement of marital and household

relationships. Chapter 2 identified, compared, and contrasted measures of household relationships

currently used in Federal surveys. Chapter 3 provided a review of the various descriptive and

programmatic uses for these items. Recent Federal research on relationship measurement was

discussed in Chapter 4, including qualitative and quantitative testing of alternate relationship items. This

chapter provides the groundwork for future endeavors in related areas. Although the working group

recognizes the broad scope of capturing household relationships, the focus of this initial report is on

improving measurement of same‐sex couples and related content. The working group believes that the

recommendations made here will also be useful for accurately capturing relationships other than same‐

sex couples.

B. General Considerations

Although more research and discussion will be required to resolve the broad array of issues relating to

the measurement of household relationships, at this time, agencies should consider the following when

conducting or sponsoring household surveys:

 Question wording should incorporate sex‐inclusive/neutral language wherever possible. This is

important when measuring intimate, familial, and/or nonfamily relationships.

Use of sex‐inclusive/neutral language helps ensure that respondents find a meaningful category

among an item’s response options. In addition, such language can broaden measures to capture

combinations other than male‐female.

 Federal surveys should continue working to collect information on intimate relationships other

than opposite‐sex marriage. One aspect of this is measurement of same‐sex marriages. In

addition, it is important to capture nonmarital relationships including cohabiting unions,

domestic partnerships, and civil unions.

Until recently, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prohibited the recognition of same‐sex

married couples for Federal programs. Although the repercussions of the recent Supreme Court

decision partially overturning DOMA are not yet fully understood, it may be that information on
36

same‐sex spouses may soon be used for programmatic purposes. Regardless, this information is

important for statistical purposes and the accurate portrayal of the American population. In

addition, States have independent and varying legislation regarding same‐sex marriage. Beyond

marriage, State authorization and recognition of alternative legal union statuses, both for same‐ 

and opposite‐sex couples, have been expanding. Thus, data collectors must be ready to

implement alternative relationship items on relatively short notice.

C. Improving the Measurement of Household Relationships  

1. Utilize Proposed Changes to Existing Measures

Chapter 4 identified questions measuring relationship and marital status that satisfy our

recommendations for sex‐inclusive language and improved measurement of diverse household

relationships more broadly. The principle of sex‐neutral language is applied in the measurement of

relationship to child by shifting the focus from identifying a mother and father to identifying a first and

(where applicable) second parent.47 This principle is applied in the measurement of relationship to

householder by expanding the response for “Husband or wife” to include the term “spouse.”48

The relationship to householder and marital status questions collect information on intimate

relationships more broadly. Two changes to the relationship to householder question address this issue.

First, although the response option for “Unmarried partner” was previously offered, here it has been

moved up the list to appear just below the option for “Husband/wife/spouse.” Second, these response

options were expanded to create separate choices for same‐ and opposite‐sex couples.49

In the marital status sequence, non‐marital relationships are captured using additional questions. The

first question in the sequence is similar to items on marital status currently in use. By revising rather

than completely overhauling this item, comparisons between new and historical data can be made.

However, the second and third questions are new. The second question directly measures cohabitation

and the third question captures domestic partnerships and civil unions.50

   

Based on existing research, the newly developed questions and answer categories proposed in this

report appear to be the best candidates at this time for improvement of household relationship

measurement in Federal surveys. These items not only provide for improved measurement of same‐sex

married and unmarried couples, but may also improve the measurement of opposite‐sex couples and

relationships in general. They collect detailed information regarding other legal union statuses such as

domestic partnerships and civil unions, as well as the less formal but common relationship status of

cohabitation. Nonetheless, further quantitative research is needed to assess the differences between

these items and existing measures, and the working group recognizes such further research may yield

additional improvements or different approaches. Additionally, adoption of these items may vary

according to the scope, purpose, and length of a given survey. For example, a survey focused on family

remittances may implement the relationship to householder and marital status sequence in full,

whereas a survey on household energy consumption may wish only to modify the relationship to

                                                            

47 See Appendix 4 for an example of question wording and response categories. 48 See Appendix 5 for an example of question wording and response categories. 49 Id. 50 Id.
37

householder item. However, all agencies are encouraged to carefully consider the items proposed here,

as family living arrangements are relevant for a broad array of social phenomena.  

2. Identify Opportunities for Further Testing

Given the limited amount of testing resources available, the working group recommends that more

testing opportunities be identified and utilized wherever and whenever possible. The items we present

as strong candidates to improve measurement of household relationships were developed using largely

exploratory and qualitative techniques. Since the incidence of some household relationships is relatively

low in the general population, these recommended items need to be tested with large, representative

samples prior to routine use in data collection instruments. Such testing should examine issues of

measurement error and mode of collection, along with potential implications on response rates. Where

qualitative research did not provide a clear recommendation, split‐panel testing can be used to test

alternative wording of potential items.  

Tests of the proposed relationship and marital status questions are complete with results pending in

four surveys, including the 2012 National Household Education Survey (NHES), 2013 American

Community Survey‐Questionnaire Design Test (ACS‐QDT), 2013 American Housing Survey (AHS), and the

2013 Survey of Income and Program Participation‐Event History Calendar (SIPP‐EHC). See Appendices 4‐

7 for the exact question wording tested in each survey. The 2012 NHES, which is representative of

children living in households, was fielded in January 2012 to about 159,000 households. The ACS‐QDT

was fielded from June through August 2013, surveying a sample of 50,000 households, with about

10,000 households receiving the revised questions. The 2013 AHS was fielded in summer 2013, yielding

a sample of approximately 160,000 households, about half of which were asked to respond to the

revised questions. The SIPP‐EHC is a longitudinal survey representing the civilian, non‐institutionalized

population. Data from its 2013 field test will allow comparison of the proposed relationship and marital

status questions based on responses from 2,200 sampled households.  

In addition to tests completed (and soon‐to‐be‐completed, with results pending), two additional tests

are planned. In preparation for the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau is testing the new relationship

question during summer 2014. Typically, this would involve a large‐scale test in multiple collection

modes. A split‐panel study will compare the new question featuring explicit categories for opposite‐sex

and same‐sex spouses or partners with a control question that has only one category each for spouse or

partner. See Appendix 8 for the control and experimental versions of the question. In addition, the

Census Bureau aims to test both the revised relationship to householder question and

marital/relationship status series in the next American Community Survey (ACS) content test, currently

scheduled for March 2016. This content test would survey a national sample of 60,000‐70,000

addresses.

As OMB becomes aware of other testing opportunities through its review of agency information

collections under the Paperwork Reduction Act, the working group suggests it provide guidance in

appropriate contextual situations. A main goal of continued testing should be ongoing evaluation of our

“best” option at any given moment. In addition to quantitative testing of the question wording and

response categories presented here, the following additional testing related to the relationship and

marital status items would be useful:

 Conduct cognitive testing of translations in Spanish and other languages used in surveys.

Assess translations of question wording and response categories for the proposed relationship to
38

child, relationship to householder, and marital status items.

To date, cognitive testing of the proposed relationship to householder and marital status

questions has focused primarily on the English version of the items. Although professional

translators prepared a Spanish translation of an early version of the questions, cognitive testing

among the target population is needed. An earlier Spanish version of the relationship to child

item was cognitively tested. However, some changes made to the translation since then should

also be cognitively tested.

 Test branching patterns for the answer categories of the relationship to householder question.

That is, develop and test internet instruments that present an initial, condensed set of categories

that can expand to the full list.

Social survey techniques must adapt to the changing habits of the target population. One result

of this is the development of internet instruments in recent years. However, most current

instruments were designed for use on a desktop or laptop with a full screen. As the use of

smartphones and tablets grows, it is important to adapt survey items to fit on these smaller

screens.

 Estimate the impact of discontinuing the practice of editing same‐sex spouses to same‐sex

unmarried partners, as well as other data processing operations that impact these and other

estimates of household relationships. First, assess the impact on estimates of same‐sex spouses.

Then, assess the effect on other related estimates.

At this time, we do not know the likely impact of maintaining the responses of same‐sex couples

who report as spouses. This could affect many other estimates in addition to same‐sex spouses.

For example, estimates of families living below poverty level would change. Because all married‐

couple households are classified as families, whereas unmarried‐couple households are

classified as such only if another person related to the householder is present, the universe of

families living below poverty would also change.

Although additional research on editing and other processing operations is needed, there are

steps that Federal agencies can take at this time. First, we suggest that agencies review and

become familiar with their editing and processing procedures, including the practice of editing

same‐sex spouses to unmarried partners. Second, we encourage agencies to provide better

documentation on editing and processing procedures, including the creation of flags on public‐

use data sets that enable data users to identify edited cases.

3. Expand the Scope of Research

This report has focused mainly on relationship measurement of same‐sex couples, and the committee

did not conduct a thorough literature review of research regarding measurement of other family

structures and relationships that fall outside those captured in most Federal household surveys. Given

the narrow focus of this report and outstanding research questions, we recommend continued

investigation of research gaps in relationship measurement. Below, we do not intend to present a

specific research agenda. Rather, we suggest possible topics for further research and discussion,

including:
39

 Defining and measuring family and household relationships. What type(s) of families and

households are Federal agencies interested in measuring? How expansive should relationship

categories be?

There is no one single, universal definition of “family.” Families can be nuclear—that is,

comprised of two parents and their biological children—or extended—that is, containing

additional relatives. Households with distant relatives may be lineally extended and contain

relatives from additional generations such as grandparents or great‐grandchildren, and/or

laterally extended, including relatives from the same generation such as siblings‐in‐law or

cousins. Further, families can be defined in terms of biological, legal, and/or social ties. People

typically count among their family members those related to them by birth, marriage, or

adoption. Some also count those with whom they lack a biological or legal tie, but who are

important sources of social support including caregiving, emotional support, or financial

exchange. Examples of these are “social fathers,” informally adopted children, and fictive kin.  

A related issue is the level of detail needed in relationship categories. If an agency were only

interested in nuclear families, categories for spouses and types of children would suffice. If

interested in extended families or ties that are solely social in nature, additional categories are

needed. A particular issue is whether a specific relationship type needs its own category or can

be subsumed under “Other relative” or “Other nonrelative.”

 Determining whether to measure families, households, or both.

A family is often defined as those related by birth, marriage, or adoption, whereas a household

consists of those sharing a physical residence. Although families and households often overlap,

this is not always the case. Some households, including family households, include nonrelatives

such as boarders or roommates. In other cases, family ties cross households. For example, a

minor child may have a nonresident parent who provides financial and/or social support.

Despite the fact that this parent lives elsewhere, the child may still consider him or her to be

family. Persons who live in other households but share in domestic functions and support may

function as “households without walls” in some contexts, particularly among minority groups

such as American Indians, African Americans, and Native Hawaiians. (Schwede, 2004) A separate

issue involves households that contain more than one family.

 Determining residence rules. Who does and does not count as a household member?

Most Federal surveys create a household roster, or list of household members, early in the

survey to decide about whom to gather information. Residence rules determine who should be

listed on the roster. Some surveys, like the ACS, utilize a “current” residence concept, while

others, like the CPS, utilize a “usual” residence concept. Although determining residence is

straightforward in either case for those who have one residence where they live full‐time, it is

more difficult for short‐term or part‐time residents. For example, college‐aged children living in

dormitories during the school year may or may not be counted as members of their parents’

households or consumer units. Further, children in joint custody may move back and forth

between the homes of parents and/or caregivers, making it difficult to determine whether they

should be rostered in sample housing units. In surveys using a “current” residence concept,

deployed military personnel may not be counted as members of their households in the U.S.,

thus underestimating military families, couples, and parents.
40

 Determining adequacy of keying household relationships to a single household member.

Should additional relationships be collected?

When creating household rosters, many Federal surveys ask about how one person is related to

all others in the household. Typically, this person is the householder, also known as the

reference person or “person 1.” Sometimes, the roster lists relationships to a focal child. Thus,

although a survey of a 3‐person household collects information on how person 1 is related to

persons 2 and 3, we may not know the exact relationship between persons 2 and 3. For

example, a survey may identify an unmarried partner and biological child of the householder. It

may also be informative to know how the partner and child are related to another, such as

whether the partner identifies as a biological parent, stepparent, or nonrelative of the child.

 Determining whether to measure relationship status, history, or both.

Like many social phenomena, relationships are subject to change over time. Whereas

relationship status captures one’s relationships at a single point in time, relationship history

refers to consistency and change in bonds across time. Shifts, of course, can occur in romantic

relationships, because of events including marriage, divorce, widowhood, and cohabitation.

These same events can also alter filial relationships, as children lose or gain parental figures.

Although relationship status is a useful measure, relationship histories are required when

studying family instability.

 Understanding the data by comparing with administrative records.

The measurement of household relationships on any Federal survey is subject to the properties

of the survey design and individual reporting. Research comparing survey data with

administrative records could provide a better understanding of the characteristics of both

datasets. Studies could be on a small or large scale, depending on the complexity of the data

and the availability of data for certain geographies. Potential administrative datasets that could

provide relevant comparisons include marital status in tax data from the Internal Revenue

Service (IRS), State or county marriage licenses and divorce filings, birth certificates for

parentage, and perhaps death certificates to determine widowhood. Research utilizing

administrative data would inform population differences in the estimates of marital status and

parent‐child relationships and other characteristics of the data.  

These topics are offered as potential items to discuss and/or investigate, rather than as a recommended

research agenda. Further discussion is needed to develop such an agenda. A good starting point may be

to compare the definitions and practices raised here across Federal agencies and surveys. All future

discussion and research will need to weigh programmatic and research needs against respondent

burden and survey cost. Although it is important to promote research of relevant topics, agencies must,

as much as possible, try to minimize the length and cost of surveys.

4. Share Knowledge to Move Forward

One of the biggest challenges to the working group has been identifying and bringing together relevant

parties to this discussion. This task requires consideration of legal and programmatic data needs, as well

as the research data wants of various parties. Some issues may have greater imperative than others
41

may, but all of the knowledge gathered by the working group should help to ensure that MRFHS

members are not expending scarce resources in redundant and inefficient ways. Continued recognition

and support by OMB and agencies with research support funding will ensure that the broad array of

subtopics relevant to household relationships continues to receive attention.  

To enable ongoing information exchange, a continuing working group on household relationship

measurement should be maintained. As data and evaluation results from various tests and

implementations become available, they should be circulated among group members. This group or a

successor group need not be chaired by OMB, but would benefit from OMB’s continued involvement

given OMB’s coordination role across Federal agencies. Contingent on financial support and interest, it

might well be a functional activity emerging from one of the Federal funding sources relevant to the

topic (e.g., HHS or NICHD), and perhaps even organizationally located at a relevant academic research

center. In this way, cooperative development and information exchange could be accomplished within

both the Federal sector and the academic research community. 51

A large number of academic and policy research organizations, in addition to Federal agencies, have a

stake in this topic. In some cases, these groups are working in conjunction with Federal agencies on

implementation activities to achieve programmatic goals. In other cases, the interest may be more

intellectual than applied. Thus far, MRFHS has concentrated on knowledge from and research by Federal

agencies. Future efforts should consider how to incorporate academic and policy studies, especially

research using Federal survey data. Awareness of the various activities and organizations working on

improved relationship measurement is necessary, as it will provide additional insight and allow us to

leverage current knowledge from the field.  

D. Conclusion

Over the past four years, participants from 23 Federal agencies have worked together to examine issues

related to measuring relationships in Federal household surveys. Specifically, we have discussed

approaches to ensure that measurement keeps pace with social changes in American family life.

Through our review of current measures, data uses, and research on measurement strategies, the

MRFHS has arrived at two recommendations: First, question wording should incorporate sex‐neutral

language wherever possible. Second, Federal surveys should continue working to collect information on

intimate relationships other than opposite‐sex marriage.

More work remains to be done. Although we have presented examples of question wording and

response categories to be used in the future, we recognize the need for additional testing of these

revised relationship and marital status items.  

We further recommend that a broader scope be adopted moving forward. Although measurement

issues regarding same‐sex couples are quite important in their own right, they represent a small part of

a much larger complex of concerns relating to relationship measurement. Finally, results from tests and

discussions should be widely shared, not only among Federal agencies but also with other interested

parties such as academic and policy research organizations. Together, use of revised questions,

continued testing, a broadened focus, and collaborative sharing will ensure that progress continues,

                                                            

51 If this approach were to be adopted, we acknowledge possible implications vis‐à‐vis the Federal Advisory

Committee Act.
42

rather than stagnates on this important and evolving issue.  
   

43

Works	Cited	

Bates, N., DeMaio, T. J., Robins, C. & Hicks, W., 2010. Classifying Relationship and Marital Status Among

Same‐Sex Couples. s.l., Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section. American Statistical

Association, pp. 5822‐5836.

Black, D., Gates, G. J., Sanders, S. G. & Lowel, T., 2007. The Measurement Error of Same‐Sex Unmarried

Partner Couples in the U.S. Census., s.l.: California Center for Population Research.

Brown, S. & Manning, W., 2011. Counting Couples, Counting Families: Executive Summary. Bethesda,

MD, Counting Families Conference at National Institutes of Health.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010. ASEC, Current Population Survey, s.l.: s.n.

DeMaio, T. & Bates, N., 2011. New Relationship and Marital Status Questions: A Reflection of Changes to

the Social and Legal Recognition of Same‐Sex Couples in the U.S. Phoenix, AZ, Paper presented at the

Annual Meetings of the American Association for Public Opinion Research.

DeMaio, T. J., Bates, N. & O'Connell, M., 2013. Exploring Measurement Error Issues in Reporting of

Same‐Sex Couples. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 77(Special Issue), pp. 145‐158.

Elliott, D., Young, R. & Dye, J., 2011. Variation in the Formation of Complex Family Households during the

Recession. Orlando, FL, Symposium Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations Annual

Conference; U.S. Census Bureau. SEHSD Working Paper Number 2011‐32.

Gates, G. J., 2010. Same‐sex couples in U.S. Census Bureau Data: Who gets counted and why?, Los

Angeles, CA: Williams Institute.

Gates, G. J. & Steinberger, M. D., 2009. Same‐Sex Unmarried Partner Couples in the ACS: The Role of

Misreporting, Miscoding, and Misallocation. Detroit, MI, Paper presented at the Population Association

of America Meeting.

Grady, S. & McPhee, C., 2011. Enumerating Parents in a Household Survey: Challenges with

Nontraditional Households, Same‐Sex Parents, and Spanish Speakers. Phoenix, AZ, Poster presented at

the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research.

Grady, S. & Redford, J., 2012. Collecting Information About Every Kind of Household from a Self‐

Administered Questionnaire. Orlando, FL, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Association for Public Opinion Research.

Harris, K. M., 2011. Family Structure and Instability Measures in Federal Data Collection Efforts.

Bethesda, MD, Counting Families Conference at National Institutes of Health.

Hofferth, S., 2011. Family Ties Across Households. Bethesda, MD, Counting Families Conference at

National Institutes of Health, National Center for Family & Marriage Research.
   

44

Hunter, J. E., 2005a. Cohabitation Measures. In: S. J. Radcliff & B. Best, eds. Polling America: An

Encyclopedia of Public Opinion. s.l.:s.n., pp. 98‐102.

Hunter, J. E., 2005b. Report on Cognitive Testing of Cohabitation Questions, Statisical Research Division,

U.S. Bureau of the Census: Study Series Report Survey Methodology #2005‐06.

Kreider, R. M., 2010. Increase in opposite‐sex cohabiting couples from 2009‐2010 in the Annual Social

and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS), s.l.: U.S. Census Bureau.

Kreider, R. M. & Ellis, R., 2011. Living Arrangements of Children: 2009. Current Population Reports, U.S.

Census Bureau, pp. 70‐126. Accessible online at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70‐126.pdf.

Lofquist, D., 2011. Same‐Sex Couple Households, s.l.: US Census Bureau.

Lofquist, D., 2012. Same‐sex Couples’ Consistency in Reports of Marital Status. San Francisco, CA, Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America.

Mykyta, L., 2012. Economic Downturns and the Failure to Launch: The Living Arrangements of Young

Adults in the U.S. 1995‐2011. Washington, D.C., SEHSD Working Paper 2012‐24; U.S. Census Bureau..

O’Connell, M. & Gooding, G., 2006. The Use of First Names to Evaluate Reports of Gender and Its Effect

on the Distribution of Married and Unmarried Couple Households. Los Angeles, CA, Paper presented at

the Population Association of America Meeting.

O’Connell, M., Johnson, T. & Hunter, J. E., 2005. An Analysis of the Cohabitation Questions in the 2004

QDERS Test Survey, Internal Memorandum: U.S. Bureau of the Census.

O’Connell, M., Lofquist, D., Simmons, T. & Lugaila, T., 2010. New Estimates of Same‐Sex Couple

Households from the American Community Survey. Dallas, TX, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of

the Population Association of America.

O'Connell, M. & Feliz, S., 2011. Same‐sex Couple Household Statistics from the 2010 Census, s.l.: SEHSD

Working Paper Number 2011‐26.

O'Connell, M. & Gooding, G., 2007. Editing Unmarried Couples in Census Bureau Data, s.l.: Housing and

Household Economics Statisics Division, U.S. Census Bureau.

Ridolfo, H., 2011. Testing of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System Results of Interviews

Conducted 1/13/2011‐ 4/5/2011, Unpublished report: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention.

Schwede, L., 2004. Household Types and Relationships in Six Race/Ethnic Groups: Conceptual and

Methodological Issues. s.l., Joint Statistical Association Proceedings of the American Association for

Public Opinion Research, Section on Survey Research Methods, pp. 4991‐4998.
   

45

Schwede, L., 2007. A New Focus: Studying Linkages among Household Structure, Race/Ethnicity, and

Geographical Levels, with Implications for Census Coverage, s.l.: Statistical Research Division Research

report Series (Survey Methodology #2007‐38).

Schwede, L., 2008. Complex and Noncomplex Household Structure Typology with Census Data from 1990

and 2000., s.l.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Unpublished tables.

Schwede, L., 2012. Measuring Relationships and Complex Household Types across Race/Ethnic Groups in

the Census as the U.S. Diversifies. Washington, D.C., Invited presentation to the Interagency Working

Group on Measuring Relationships in Federal Surveys.

Schwede, L., Blumberg, R. L. & Chan, A. Y., 2006. Complex Ethnic Households in America. Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Simmons, T. & O'Connell, M., 2003. Married‐Couple and Unmarried‐Partner Households: 2000., s.l.:

Census 2000 Special Reports.

U.S. Census Bureau, 1940‐2010. U.S. Decennial Censuses, s.l.: s.n.

U.S. Census Bureau, 1996‐2010. Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements,

s.l.: s.n.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. Your Guide for The American Community Survey. [Online]  

Available at: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/questionnaires/2014/Guide14.pdf.

Vespa, J., Lewis, J. & Kreider, R. M., 2013. America’s Families and Living Arrangements:2012, U.S. Census

Bureau, 2013. Current Population Reports, pp. 20‐570.
APPENDIX 1. Summary of Federal Household Relationship Measures for Selected Sur

Department Agency Survey

Sex Household Roster Mari

House‐ 

holder

Roster/

Partner

Relation‐

ship to

House‐

holder

Relationship

to Child

Interrelation‐

ships within

Households

Curren

Marita

Statu

Child Adult

Department ofAgriculture

NationalAgriculturalStatisticsAdministration

ARMS:AgriculturalResourceManagementSurvey

▪ ▪

Department of

Agriculture

NationalAgriculturalStatisticsAdministration

Census of

Agriculture

▪

Department ofCommerce

Census Bureau ACS: American

CommunitySurvey

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 

Department of

Commerce

Census Bureau AHS: American

Housing Survey ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

 How is <person> related to the <child>? How is <child> related to <person>?
Department Agency Survey

Sex Household Roster Mari

House‐ 

holder

Roster/

Partner

Relation‐

ship to

House‐

holder

Relationship

to Child

Interrelation‐

ships within

Households

Curren

Marita

Statu

Child Adult

Department ofCommerce

Census Bureau CPS: Current

PopulationSurvey

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 

Department of

Commerce

Census Bureau Decennial

Census: United

States Census

Bureau

▪ ▪ ▪

Department ofCommerce

Census Bureau FHWAR: National

Survey of Fishing,Hunting, andWildlife‐AssociatedRecreation

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Department of

Commerce

Census Bureau SIPP: Survey of

Income and

ProgramParticipation

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 

Department ofEducation

National Centerfor EducationStatistics

AE‐NHES: AdultEducation‐NationalHouseholdEducation Survey

▪ ▪ 
Department Agency Survey

Sex Household Roster Mari

House‐ 

holder

Roster/

Partner

Relation‐

ship to

House‐

holder

Relationship

to Child

Interrelation‐

ships within

Households

Curren

Marita

Statu

Child Adult

Department of

Education

National Centerfor Education

Statistics

ASPA‐NHES:

After‐School

Programs andActivities Survey‐

NationalHousehold

Education Survey

▪ ▪ 

Department ofEducation

National Centerfor EducationStatistics

BTLS: BeginningTeacherLongitudinalStudy

▪ ▪

Department of

Education

National Centerfor Education

Statistics

ECLS‐B: The birthcohort of the

Early Childhood

LongitudinalStudy

▪ ▪ ▪

Department ofEducation

National Centerfor EducationStatistics

ECLS‐K: The EarlyChildhoodLongitudinalStudy,KindergartenClass of 1998‐99

▪ ▪ ▪
Department Agency Survey

Sex Household Roster Mari

House‐ 

holder

Roster/

Partner

Relation‐

ship to

House‐

holder

Relationship

to Child

Interrelation‐

ships within

Households

Curren

Marita

Statu

Child Adult

Department of

Education

National Centerfor Education

Statistics

ECPP‐NHES: EarlyChildhoodProgramParticipation‐NationalHousehold

Education Survey

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 

Department ofEducation

National Centerfor EducationStatistics

HHL‐NHES:Household andLibrary Use‐NationalHouseholdEducation Survey

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Department of

Education

National Centerfor Education

Statistics

HSLS (Student

and Parent): High

SchoolLongitudinalStudy

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 

Department ofEducation

National Centerfor EducationStatistics

NPSAS: NationalPostsecondaryStudent AidStudy
Department Agency Survey

Sex Household Roster Mari

House‐ 

holder

Roster/

Partner

Relation‐

ship to

House‐

holder

Relationship

to Child

Interrelation‐

ships within

Households

Curren

Marita

Statu

Child Adult

Department of

Education

National Centerfor Education

Statistics

PFI‐NHES: Parent

and Family

Involvement in

Education‐NationalHouseholdEducation Survey

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 

Department ofEducation

National Centerfor EducationStatistics

SR‐NHES: SchoolReadiness‐NationalHouseholdEducation Survey

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 

Department of

Education

National Centerfor Education

Statistics

SS&D‐NHES:School Safety andDiscipline‐NationalHousehold

Education Survey

▪ ▪ ▪

Department ofEducation

National Centerfor EducationStatistics

TFS: TeacherFollow‐up Survey 
Department Agency Survey

Sex Household Roster Mari

House‐ 

holder

Roster/

Partner

Relation‐

ship to

House‐

holder

Relationship

to Child

Interrelation‐

ships within

Households

Curren

Marita

Statu

Child Adult

Department of

Education

National Centerfor Education

Statistics

Youth‐NHES:Youth‐NationalHousehold

Education Survey

▪

Department ofEnergy

U.S. EnergyInformationAdministration

RECS: ResidentialEnergyConsumptionSurvey

▪ 

Department of

Health andHuman Services

Administrationfor Children

and Families

FACES: The Head

Start Family and

Child Experiences

Survey

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Department ofHealth andHuman Services

Agency forHealthcareResearch &Quality

MEPS: MedicalExpenditurePanel Survey ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Department of

Health and

Human Services

Centers for

Medicare &

MedicaidServices

MCBS: MedicareCurrentBeneficiarySurvey

▪
Department Agency Survey

Sex Household Roster Mari

House‐ 

holder

Roster/

Partner

Relation‐

ship to

House‐

holder

Relationship

to Child

Interrelation‐

ships within

Households

Curren

Marita

Statu

Child Adult

Department ofHealth andHuman Services

National Centerfor HealthStatistics

CWBW: ChildWell‐Being andWelfare Modulefor Texas (pilot‐tested 1998‐99)and an additionalsample ofMedicaid andMinnesota CareParticipants inMinnesota.

▪ ▪ ▪ 

Department of

Health and

Human Services

National Centerfor Health

Statistics

Health Module(Pilot study

conducted in

Iowa and

WashingtonState)

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Department ofHealth andHuman Services

National Centerfor HealthStatistics

IVMC: InfluenzaVaccinationModule forChildren

▪ ▪ 
Department Agency Survey

Sex Household Roster Mari

House‐ 

holder

Roster/

Partner

Relation‐

ship to

House‐

holder

Relationship

to Child

Interrelation‐

ships within

Households

Curren

Marita

Statu

Child Adult

Department of

Health and

Human Services

National Centerfor Health

Statistics

NAS: NationalAsthma Survey ▪ ▪

Department ofHealth andHuman Services

National Centerfor HealthStatistics

NHANES:National Healthand NutritionExaminationSurvey

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Department of

Health and

Human Services

National Centerfor Health

Statistics

NHIS: National

Health Interview

Survey

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 

Department ofHealth andHuman Services

National Centerfor HealthStatistics

NS‐CSHCN:National Surveyof Children withSpecial HealthCare Needs

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 

Department of

Health and

Human Services

National Centerfor Health

Statistics

NSAP: NationalSurvey ofAdoptive Parents

▪ ▪ ▪
Department Agency Survey

Sex Household Roster Mari

House‐ 

holder

Roster/

Partner

Relation‐

ship to

House‐

holder

Relationship

to Child

Interrelation‐

ships within

Households

Curren

Marita

Statu

Child Adult

Department ofHealth andHuman Services

National Centerfor HealthStatistics

NSAP‐SN:National Surveyof AdoptiveParents ofChildren withSpecial HealthCare Needs

▪ ▪ ▪ 

Department of

Health and

Human Services

National Centerfor Health

Statistics

NSCH: National

Survey of

Children’s Health

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 

Department ofHealth andHuman Services

National Centerfor HealthStatistics

NSECH: NationalSurvey of EarlyChildhood Health

▪ ▪

Department of

Health and

Human Services

National Centerfor Health

Statistics

NSFG: NationalSurvey of Family

Growth

▪(restric‐ted file)

▪  ▪  

Department ofHealth andHuman Services

National Centerfor HealthStatistics

SATH: Survey ofAdult Transitionand Health

▪ ▪
Department Agency Survey

Sex Household Roster Mari

House‐ 

holder

Roster/

Partner

Relation‐

ship to

House‐

holder

Relationship

to Child

Interrelation‐

ships within

Households

Curren

Marita

Statu

Child Adult

Department of

Health and

Human Services

National Centerfor Health

Statistics

SLAITS: State and

Local Area

IntegratedTelephoneSurvey

Department ofHealth andHuman Services

National Centerfor HealthStatistics

SPDS: Survey ofPathways toDiagnosis andServices (2011)

▪

Department of

Health and

Human Services

SubstanceAbuse &

Mental Health

ServicesAdministration

NSDUH: National

Survey on Drug

Use and Health ▪ ▪ ▪ 

Department ofJustice

Bureau ofJusticeStatistics

NCVS: NationalCrimeVictimizationSurvey – Mainand Supplements

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 

¥Marital history can be obtained indirectly using panel survey data; it is not collected directly.
Department Agency Survey

Sex Household Roster Mari

House‐ 

holder

Roster/

Partner

Relation‐

ship to

House‐

holder

Relationship

to Child

Interrelation‐

ships within

Households

Curren

Marita

Statu

Child Adult

Department of

Justice

Bureau ofJusticeStatistics

SISFCF: Survey of

Inmates in Stateand FederalCorrectional

Facilities

▪

Department ofLabor

Bureau ofLabor Statistics

ATUS: AmericanTime Use Survey ▪ ▪ ▪† ▪‡ 

Department of

Labor

Bureau ofLabor Statistics

CE: Consumer

ExpenditureSurvey

▪ ▪ ▪† ▪ 

Department ofLabor

Bureau ofLabor Statistics

NCS: NationalCompensationSurvey

Department of

Labor

Bureau ofLabor Statistics

NLSY79: National

LongitudinalSurvey of Youth

79

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 

†Roster is based on relationship to a reference person, not necessarily a householder.‡Marital status only if present in the household.
Department Agency Survey

Sex Household Roster Mari

House‐ 

holder

Roster/

Partner

Relation‐

ship to

House‐

holder

Relationship

to Child

Interrelation‐

ships within

Households

Curren

Marita

Statu

Child Adult

Department ofLabor

Bureau ofLabor Statistics

NLSY97: NationalLongitudinalSurvey of Youth97

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 

Department of

Labor

Bureau ofLabor Statistics

TPOPS:

Telephone Point

of Purchase

Survey

▪ ▪ ▪

Department ofLabor

Wage and HourDivision

FMLA: FamilyMedical & LeaveAct Survey

▪ ▪

IndependentAgency

NationalScienceFoundation

NSCG: National

Survey of College

Graduates

▪ ▪ 

IndependentAgency

NationalScienceFoundation

NSRCG: NationalSurvey of RecentCollegeGraduates

▪ ▪ 

IndependentAgency

NationalScienceFoundation

SDR: Survey of

Doctorate

Recipients

▪ ▪ 
Department Agency Survey

Sex Household Roster Mari

House‐ 

holder

Roster/

Partner

Relation‐

ship to

House‐

holder

Relationship

to Child

Interrelation‐

ships within

Households

Curren

Marita

Statu

Child Adult

IndependentAgency

NationalScienceFoundation

SED: Survey ofEarnedDoctorates

▪ ▪ 
59

APPENDIX 2. MRFHS Survey of Federal Agencies Using Household

Relationship Statistics

1. Does your program/agency use relationship data?   

a. Yes [Go to 2]

b. No [Go to 8]

2. What relationship data do you use and how?  

3. What is the source of your relationship data?

RECORD SOURCE

a. [If source is non‐Federal, or administrative record source of information, go to 8]

b. [If source is a Federal survey go to 4]

4. Are there any limitations with the relationship data that you use?  Explain.

a. Yes [Go to 5]

b. No [Go to 6]

5. How do you overcome these limitations?

6. Are there specific relationship data your program could use but is not currently available?

7. Same‐sex issue‐‐ 

a. Do you need same‐sex data?

b. Are the data you need available?

c. What same‐sex data would you like to have available?

8. Do you know of any other agencies or individuals we should reach out to regarding the use of

relationship data?

Thank you for your assistance!
60

APPENDIX 3. Letter from Commerce Secretary Locke to OMB Director

Orzag Requesting the Establishment of an Interagency Task Force
61

APPENDIX 4. English and Spanish Questions for 2012 National

Household Education Survey (NHES)

PARENT 1 LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD Answer questions 93 to109 about yourself if you are the child’s parent

or guardian.

If you are not the child’s parent or guardian, answer questions 93 to 109 about one of this child’s parents

or guardians living in this household.

UNO DE LOS PADRES QUE VIVE EN EL HOGAR Si usted es el padre, la madre o el tutor legal de este

niño(a), conteste las preguntas 93 a 109 con sus datos personales.

Si usted no es el padre, la madre ni el tutor legal de este niño(a), responda las preguntas 93 a 109 con los

datos de uno de los padres o tutores legales de este niño(a) que viva en este hogar.

93. Is this parent or guardian the child’s...

Biological parent

Adoptive parent

Stepparent

Foster parent

Grandparent

Other guardian

       Es esta persona...

el padre (o madre) biológico

el padre (o madre) adoptivo

el padrastro o madrastra

el padre (o madre) de custodia temporal (Foster)

el abuelo o abuela

otro tutor legal

94. Is this person male or female?

Male

Female

       ¿Es esta persona de sexo masculino o femenino?

Masculino

Femenino

   
62

PARENT 2 LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD Answer questions 110 to 127 about a second parent or guardian living

in the household.

OTRO DE LOS PADRES QUE VIVE EN EL HOGAR Usted ya ha respondido acerca de uno de los padres de

este niño(a), sea éste su padre, madre o tutor legal. Ahora, responda por favor las preguntas 110 a 127

pensando en la segunda persona que también es padre, madre o tutor legal de este niño(a) y que vive en

el hogar.

110. Is there a second parent or guardian living in this household?

No ➔ GO TO question 128

Yes

         ¿Hay otro padre, madre o tutor que vive en este hogar?

No ➔ PASE a la pregunta 128

Sí

111. Is this person the child’s...

Biological parent

Adoptive parent

Stepparent

Foster parent

Grandparent

Other guardian

         Esta persona es...

el padre (o madre) biológico

el padre (o madre) adoptivo

el padrastro o madrastra

el padre (o madre) de custodia temporal (Foster)

el abuelo o abuela

otro tutor legal

112. Is this person male or female?

Male

Female

         ¿Es esta persona de sexo masculino o femenino?

Masculino

Femenino
63

APPENDIX 5. English and Spanish Questions for 2013 American

Community Survey‐Questionnaire Design Test (ACS‐QDT)

2.  How is (name) related to (reference person)?

Opposite‐sex husband/wife/spouse    Grandchild

Opposite‐sex unmarried partner    Parent‐in‐law

Same‐sex husband/wife/spouse     Son‐in‐law or daughter‐in‐law

Same‐sex unmarried partner     Other relative

Biological son or daughter     Roomer or boarder

Adopted son or daughter     Housemate or roommate

Stepson or stepdaughter     Foster child

Brother or sister     Other nonrelative

Father or mother

     ¿Cómo está (Name) relacionado(a) con (reference person)?

Esposa/esposo/cónyuge del sexo opuesto Nieto(a)

Pareja no casada del sexo opuesto    Suegro(a)

Esposa/esposo/cónyuge del mismo sexo Yerno o nuera

Pareja no casada del mismo sexo    Otro pariente

Hijo(a) biológico(a)       Inquilino(a) o pupilo(a)

Hijo(a) adoptivo(a)       Compañero(a) de casa o de cuarto

Hijastro(a)         Hijo(a) de crianza (foster)

Hermano(a)         Otro no pariente

Padre o madre

Note: Those who are age 15 or over receive the next question.

20 a. What is (name’s) current marital status?

             Now married  

Widowed

Divorced

Separated

Never married

          ¿Cuál es el estado civil actual de (name)?

Casado(a) actualmente

Viudo(a)   

Divorciado(a)

Separado(a)

Nunca se ha casado

Note: Those who answer ‘Now married’ or ‘Casado(a) actualmente’ are skipped to the next full question.

       

   
64

     b. Is (name) currently living with a boyfriend/girlfriend or partner in this household?

Yes

No

         ¿Vive (name) actualmente con su novio/novia o pareja en este hogar?

Sí

No

     c. Is (name) currently in a registered domestic partnership or civil union?

Yes

No

     

         ¿Está (name) actualmente inscrito(a) en una unión de hecho o unión civil?

Sí

No
65

APPENDIX 6. English and Spanish Questions for 2013 American Housing

Survey (AHS)

       

      What is (your/(Name’s)) relationship to (reference person)?

Opposite‐sex husband/wife/spouse    Brother or sister

Opposite‐sex unmarried partner    Parent‐in‐law

Same‐sex husband/wife/spouse     Son‐in‐law or daughter‐in‐law

Same‐sex unmarried partner     Other relative

Biological son or daughter     Foster child

Adopted son or daughter     Housemate/roommate

Stepson or stepdaughter     Roomer/boarder

Grandchild         Other nonrelative

Father or mother

      ¿Cuál es la relación entre (usted/(Name)) y (reference person)?

Esposo/esposa/cónyuge del sexo opuesto Hermano o hermana

Pareja no casada del sexo opuesto    Suegro o suegra

Esposo/esposa/cónyuge del mismo sexo Yerno o nuera

Pareja no casada del mismo sexo    Otro pariente

Hijo o hija biológica       Hijo de crianza

Hijo o hija adoptada       Compañero(a) de casa/campanero(a) de

Hijastro o hijastra          cuarto

Nieto o nieta         Inquilino

Padre o madre         Otra persona que no es pariente

Note: Those who are age 14 or over receive the next question.

     

      (Are you/is (Name)) now married, widowed, divorced, separated or never married?

             Married, SPOUSE PRESENT

Married, SPOUSE ABSENT

Widowed

Divorced

Separated

Never married

    

      ¿Está es (usted/(Name)) ahora casado/a, viudo/a, divorciado/a, separado/a o soltero/a?

Casado/a, ESPOSA/O PRESENTE

Casado/a, ESPOSA/O AUSENTE

Viudo/a

Divorciado/a

Separado/a

Soltero/a

Note: Those who answer ‘Married, SPOUSE PRESENT’ or ‘Casado/a, ESPOSA/O PRESENTE’ receive the

next question.
66

      Who is (your/(Name’s)) spouse?

      ¿Quién es el/la esposo/a de (usted/(Name))?

Note: Those who are unmarried and age 14 or over receive the next question.

      Is (Name) currently living with a boyfriend, girlfriend, or partner?   

Yes

No

   

      ¿(Name) vive actualmente con un novio, una novia o una pareja?

Sí

No

Note: Those who answer ‘Yes’ or ‘Sí’ receive the next two questions.

      Who is that?

      ¿Quién es esta persona?

      Are (Name) and (Name) currently living in a registered domestic partnership or civil union?

Yes

No

  

      ¿(Name) y (Name) actualmente conviven en una unión libre o de hecho (una unión legal no   

      matrimonial?     

Sí

No
67

APPENDIX 7. English Questions for 2013 Survey of Income and Program

Participation‐Event History Calendar (SIPP‐EHC)

Note: The SIPP‐EHC does not have a Spanish language instrument.

      (Does (Name)/Do you) have a parent in the household?

Yes

No

Note: Those who answer ‘No’ are skipped to the next section.

      Who is that?

      (Is (Name)/Are you) (your/(Name’s)) biological, step, or adopted child?  

Biological child

Stepchild

Adopted child

Foster child

      (Does (Name)/Do you) have another parent in the household?

Yes

No

Note: Those who answer ‘No’ are skipped to the next section.

      Who is that?

      (Is (Name)/Are you) (your/(Name’s)) biological, step, or adopted child?  

Biological child

Stepchild

Adopted child

Foster child

       

   
68

      What is (Name’s) relationship to (you/(Name))?

(Current or former) opposite sex   Parent/Child In‐law (mother/father,

  husband/wife/spouse     son/daughter in‐law)   

(Current or former) opposite sex unmarried Brother/Sister in‐law  

  partner         Aunt/Uncle, Niece/Nephew

(Current or former) same‐sex     Other relative                                   

  husband/wife/spouse       Foster Child

(Current or former) same‐sex unmarried   Housemate/Roommate

  partner         Roomer/Boarder

Child           Other non‐relative

Grandchild          

Parent            

Sibling              

       

Note: Those who are age 15 or over receive the next question.

(Is (Name)/Are you) currently married, widowed, divorced, separated or (has (he/she)/have you)

never married?

Married

Married, spouse absent – DO NOT READ

Widowed

Divorced

Separated

Never married

Note: Those who answer ‘Married’ receive the next question.

      Who is (your/(Name’s)) spouse?

Note: Those who report a marital status other than ‘Married’ receive the next question.

      During this period, did (you/(Name)) have a boyfriend, girlfriend, or partner who lived in the

      household?

Yes      

No    

Note: Those who answer ‘Yes’ receive the next two questions.

      Who (is/was) (your/(Name’s)) boyfriend, girlfriend or partner?

      (Is/Was) (your/(Name’s)) relationship with ((Name)/this person) a registered domestic partnership  

      or civil union?

Yes    

No

   
69

APPENDIX 8. English Control and Experimental Questions for 2020

Census Testing

Control Question:

      ((Roster person) is/you are) (your/(reference person’s)) __________.

Husband or wife       Parent‐in‐law

Unmarried partner       Son‐in‐law or daughter‐in‐law

Biological son or daughter     Other relative

Adopted son or daughter     Roomer or boarder

Stepson or stepdaughter     Housemate or roommate

Brother or sister     Foster Child

Father or mother       Other nonrelative

              Grandchild   

Experimental Question:

      ((Roster person) is/you are) (your/(reference person’s)) __________.

Opposite‐sex husband/wife/spouse    Grandchild

Opposite‐sex unmarried partner    Parent‐in‐law

Same‐sex husband/wife/spouse     Son‐in‐law or daughter‐in‐law

Same‐sex unmarried partner     Other relative

Biological son or daughter     Roomer or boarder

Adopted son or daughter     Housemate or roommate

Stepson or stepdaughter     Foster Child

Brother or sister     Other nonrelative

Father or mother