The average American family in 2023 consisted of 3.15 persons. Families in the United States According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a family is a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together; all such people (including related subfamily members) are considered as members of one family. As of 2023, the U.S. Census Bureau counted about 84.33 million families in the United States. The average family consisted of 3.15 persons in 2021, down from 3.7 in the 1960s. This is reflected in the decrease of children in family households overall. In 1970, about 56 percent of all family households had children under the age of 18 living in the household. This percentage declined to about 40 percent in 2020. The average size of a family household varies greatly from state to state. The largest average families can be found in Utah, California, and Hawaii, while the smallest families can be found in Wisconsin, Vermont and Maine.

In 2023, about **** million family households in the United States had their own children between three and five years of age living in the household. In that same year, almost ** million U.S. family households were living with their own children aged 12 to 17 years old.

In 2021, the average size of families in Utah was 3.51 people, the largest out of any state. California, Hawaii, Texas, and Alaska rounded out the top five states with the largest average family size in that year. Nationwide, the average family size was 3.15 people.

In 2023, about 39.47 percent of all family households in the United States had their own children under age 18 living in the household. This is compared to the approximate 48.5 percent of female-led households with their own children under 18.

Graph and download economic data for Total Families with Children under 18 Years Old with Married Couple (FMLWCUMC) from 1950 to 2024 about married, 18 years +, family, child, household survey, and USA.

The data on relationship to householder were derived from answers to Question 2 in the 2015 American Community Survey (ACS), which was asked of all people in housing units. The question on relationship is essential for classifying the population information on families and other groups. Information about changes in the composition of the American family, from the number of people living alone to the number of children living with only one parent, is essential for planning and carrying out a number of federal programs.

The responses to this question were used to determine the relationships of all persons to the householder, as well as household type (married couple family, nonfamily, etc.). From responses to this question, we were able to determine numbers of related children, own children, unmarried partner households, and multi-generational households. We calculated average household and family size. When relationship was not reported, it was imputed using the age difference between the householder and the person, sex, and marital status.

Household – A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit. (People not living in households are classified as living in group quarters.) A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any other people in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated people who share living arrangements.

Average Household Size – A measure obtained by dividing the number of people in households by the number of households. In cases where people in households are cross-classified by race or Hispanic origin, people in the household are classified by the race or Hispanic origin of the householder rather than the race or Hispanic origin of each individual.

Average household size is rounded to the nearest hundredth.

Comparability – The relationship categories for the most part can be compared to previous ACS years and to similar data collected in the decennial census, CPS, and SIPP. With the change in 2008 from “In-law” to the two categories of “Parent-in-law” and “Son-in-law or daughter-in-law,” caution should be exercised when comparing data on in-laws from previous years. “In-law” encompassed any type of in-law such as sister-in-law. Combining “Parent-in-law” and “son-in-law or daughter-in-law” does not represent all “in-laws” in 2008.

The same can be said of comparing the three categories of “biological” “step,” and “adopted” child in 2008 to “Child” in previous years. Before 2008, respondents may have considered anyone under 18 as “child” and chosen that category. The ACS includes “foster child” as a category. However, the 2010 Census did not contain this category, and “foster children” were included in the “Other nonrelative” category. Therefore, comparison of “foster child” cannot be made to the 2010 Census. Beginning in 2013, the “spouse” category includes same-sex spouses.

The 1955 Growth of American Families survey was the first in a series of surveys (later becoming the National Fertility Survey) that measured women's attitudes on various topics related to fertility and family planning. The sample was composed of 2,713 married women aged 18-39 living in the United States. The survey included the following main subjects: residence history, marital history, education, income, occupation and employment, religiosity, family background, attitude toward contraception, contraception use, pregnancies and births, fecundity, opinions on childbearing and rearing, and fertility expectations. Respondents were asked questions pertaining to their residence history, including if they owned or rented their home, and if they lived on a farm. A series of questions also dealt with the respondents' marital history, including when they first married and the month and year of subsequent marriages. Respondents were also asked to describe the level of education they had attained and that of their husbands. Respondents were also asked to give information with respect to income, both individual and household, and if their financial situation was better now compared to five years ago. Respondents were queried on their occupation, specifically on what exactly they did and in what kind of business. Similar questions were asked about their husbands' occupations. Also, they were asked what their reasons were for working. The survey sought information about the respondents' religious affiliation and with what frequency they attended church. Respondents were asked how many brothers and sisters they had as well as their attitude about the number of siblings in their household. Also included was a series of questions regarding the respondents' attitudes toward family planning. Respondents were asked if they and their husband thought it was acceptable for couples to use contraceptives to limit the size of their family. They were also queried about what specific methods of contraception they had used in the past, and after which pregnancy they started using a particular method. Respondents were asked whether they or their husband had had surgery to make them sterile and if there was any other reason to believe that they could not have children. Respondents were also asked if they thought raising a family was easier or harder now than when they were a child. Respondents were also asked what they believed was the ideal number of children for the average American family and what the ideal number of children would be, if at age 45, they could start their married life over. Other questions addressed how many children respondents expected to have before their family was completed and their reason for not wanting more or less than that number. Each respondent was also asked when she expected her next child.

The 1960 Growth of American Families survey was the second in a series of two surveys that measured women's attitudes on various topics relating to fertility and family planning for 3,256 currently married White women aged 18-44 living in private households, previously married White women aged 23-44, who were married and living with their husband in 1960, and currently married non-White women aged 18-39, living with their husband. Main topics in the survey included residence history, marital history, education, employment and income, parent's characteristics, religiosity, siblings, attitude towards contraception, past use of contraceptives, fertility history, fecundity, attitudes and opinions on childbearing and rearing, desired family size, fertility intentions, and fertility expectations. Respondent's were asked to give detailed information pertaining to their residence history dating back to their birth. They were also asked if they ever lived on a farm. Respondents were also queried on their marital history, specifically, when their marriage(s) took place, ended, and how they ended. Respondents were asked to report their level of education, if they ever attended a school or college that belonged to a church or a religious group, and if so, what specific church or religious group. Respondents were also queried about their employment and income. Specifically, they were asked to report their own and their husband's occupation and industry. They were also queried on whether they worked between their pregnancies and if the work was part-time or full-time. They were asked to state their total family income and their husband's earnings. Characteristics of the respondent's parents were also asked for including nationality, occupation while respondent was growing up, and religious preference. Respondent's religiosity was also explored with questions about religious activities in their daily lives, as well as her own and her husband's religious preferences. Respondents were asked if they had attended Sunday school as a child and if their children currently attended Sunday school. Respondents were asked how many brothers and sisters they had while growing up as well as their attitude on the number of siblings in their household. Their attitude toward contraception was measured with questions that asked if it would be okay if couples did something to limit the number of pregnancies they had or to control the time when they get pregnant. They were also asked if they approved of couples using the rhythm method to keep from getting pregnant. They were also queried on what specific types of contraception they had used in the past and between pregnancies. Furthermore, they were asked if they ever used methods together. Fecundity was also explored with questions about whether they or their husband had had treatments or an operation that made them sterile. Respondents were also asked what they thought was the ideal number of children for the average American family. Desired family size was queried in a number of other ways including the number of children the respondent and her husband wanted before marriage, how many children the respondent wanted a year after the first child was born, and how many children the respondent expected in all.

The average American household consisted of 2.51 people in 2023.

Households in the U.S.

As shown in the statistic, the number of people per household has decreased over the past decades.

The U.S. Census Bureau defines a household as follows: “a household includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence. A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from outside the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements. (People not living in households are classified as living in group quarters.).”

The population of the United States has been growing steadily for decades. Since 1960, the number of households more than doubled from 53 million to over 131 million households in 2023.

Most of these households, about 34 percent, are two-person households. The distribution of U.S. households has changed over the years though. The percentage of single-person households has been on the rise since 1970 and made up the second largest proportion of households in the U.S. in 2022, at 28.88 percent.

In concordance with the rise of single-person households, the percentage of family households with own children living in the household has declined since 1970 from 56 percent to 40.26 percent in 2022.

The graph illustrates the number of babies born in the United States from 1995 to 2025. The x-axis represents the years, labeled from '95 to '25, while the y-axis shows the annual number of births. Over this 30-year period, birth numbers peaked at 4,316,233 in 2007 and reached a low of 3,596,017 in 2023. The data reveals relatively stable birth rates from 1995 to 2010, with slight fluctuations, followed by a gradual decline starting around 2017. The information is presented in a line graph format, effectively highlighting the long-term downward trend in U.S. birth numbers over the specified timeframe.

Families of tax filers; Single-earner and dual-earner census families by number of children (final T1 Family File; T1FF).

In 2024, 34.59 percent of all households in the United States were two person households. In 1970, this figure was at 28.92 percent. Single households Single mother households are usually the most common households with children under 18 years old found in the United States. As of 2021, the District of Columbia and North Dakota had the highest share of single-person households in the United States. Household size in the United States has decreased over the past century, due to customs and traditions changing. Families are typically more nuclear, whereas in the past, multigenerational households were more common. Furthermore, fertility rates have also decreased, meaning that women do not have as many children as they used to. Average households in Utah Out of all states in the U.S., Utah was reported to have the largest average household size. This predominately Mormon state has about three million inhabitants. The Church of the Latter-Day Saints, or Mormonism, plays a large role in Utah, and can contribute to the high birth rate and household size in Utah. The Church of Latter-Day Saints promotes having many children and tight-knit families. Furthermore, Utah has a relatively young population, due to Mormons typically marrying and starting large families younger than those in other states.

In 2021, the birth rate in the United States was highest in families that had under 10,000 U.S. dollars in income per year, at 62.75 births per 1,000 women. As the income scale increases, the birth rate decreases, with families making 200,000 U.S. dollars or more per year having the second-lowest birth rate, at 47.57 births per 1,000 women. Income and the birth rate Income and high birth rates are strongly linked, not just in the United States, but around the world. Women in lower income brackets tend to have higher birth rates across the board. There are many factors at play in birth rates, such as the education level of the mother, ethnicity of the mother, and even where someone lives. The fertility rate in the United States The fertility rate in the United States has declined in recent years, and it seems that more and more women are waiting longer to begin having children. Studies have shown that the average age of the mother at the birth of their first child in the United States was 27.4 years old, although this figure varies for different ethnic origins.

The American Community Survey Education Tabulation (ACS-ED) is a custom tabulation of the ACS produced for the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES) by the U.S. Census Bureau. The ACS-ED provides a rich collection of social, economic, demographic, and housing characteristics for school systems, school-age children, and the parents of school-age children. In addition to focusing on school-age children, the ACS-ED provides enrollment iterations for children enrolled in public school. The data profiles include percentages (along with associated margins of error) that allow for comparison of school district-level conditions across the U.S. For more information about the NCES ACS-ED collection, visit the NCES Education Demographic and Geographic Estimates (EDGE) program at: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/edge/Demographic/ACS

This study examines links between psychopathology in children and domestic violence in families. One of the primary goals was to understand how children's problems manifest themselves in homes where domestic violence occurs and to examine whether strong bonds within the family (as demonstrated by attachment to the mother or a sibling) serve to mediate the effects of violence in the home. Three waves of research were conducted in a large Southwestern city from 1991-1996. The sample includes 365 battered and non-battered women and one of each of their children. There were 183 male and 182 female children interviewed in all. Mothers had an average age of 33 years old and had completed an average of 12 years of education. The sample was ethnically diverse: 53% Euro-Americans, 35% Mexican-American, 6% African American, 4% Native American, and 2% Asian-American/Other. Among fathers in the sample, 54% were biologically related to the children, 27% were step-fathers, and the remaining 19% were legally and biologically unrelated. Families had average of 2.9 children in the home, and children ranged from six to twelve years old. Women were recruited through battered women's shelters (n=64) and community sources (stores, churches, and social service agencies) where they were screened for the presence of violence in the home (n=102). The control sample (n=199) was recruited by putting up posters and fliers in the community, seeking women with children between six and twelve years old to participate in a "study on the family." Participants were contacted and completed the intake by telephone before interviews were scheduled. Initial interviews lasted two to three hours on average. Hispanic participants were interviewed by Hispanic, Spanish-speaking interviewers, and interviews were conducted in Spanish when preferred. Subjects were asked about abuse in the home, support, support and closeness within the nuclear family, and general status of mental health among mothers and children. Participants' mental health status was evaluated using measures from this study. Measures used to assess child psychopathology include the Child Behavior Checklist and the Child Assessment Schedule. Maternal psychopathology was measured by the Conflict Tactics Scale and the Brief Symptom Inventory, administered during interview rather than questionnaire format. Information on education, income, employment status and rank, and other demographic information, such as length in current relationship was also collected. The qualitative materials related to this study are not yet available for use. See the "Detailed Usage Agreement" for further details.

The difference between mean Egyptian and mean American composite scores in each subtest of Bayley Scales.

The Office of Family Assistance, Division of Tribal TANF has posted National Tribal TANF characteristics data for fiscal years (FY) 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 The characteristics data has been produced in tables for the following categories of information: Number of individuals participating in Tribal TANF work activities, by activity; Adults by work participation status; Adults by relationship to head of household; Types of families receiving assistance (e.g., one-parent, two-parent, child-only); Families by the number of children in the family; Average age of recipient children.

Units of Response: Tribal TANF Programs

Type of Data: Administrative

Tribal Data: Yes

COVID-19 Data: No

Periodicity: Annual

SORN: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/04/02/2015-07440/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records-notice

Data Use Agreement: Unavailable

Data Use Agreement Location: Unavailable

Equity Indicators: Disability;Household Size;Indigenous Population

Granularity: Tribe

Spatial: United States

Geocoding: Region;Tribe

This layer was developed by the Research & Analytics Group of the Atlanta Regional Commission, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 5-year estimates for 2013-2017, to show population in poverty by census tract in the Atlanta region.

The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent.

The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2013-2017). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available.

For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.

Naming conventions:

Prefixes:

None

Count

p

Percent

r

Rate

m

Median

a

Mean (average)

t

Aggregate (total)

ch

Change in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)

pch

Percent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)

chp

Change in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)

Suffixes:

None

Change over two periods

_e

Estimate from most recent ACS

_m

Margin of Error from most recent ACS

_00

Decennial 2000

Attributes:

SumLevel

Summary level of geographic unit (e.g., County, Tract, NSA, NPU, DSNI, SuperDistrict, etc)

GEOID

Census tract Federal Information Processing Series (FIPS) code

NAME

Name of geographic unit

Planning_Region

Planning region designation for ARC purposes

Acres

Total area within the tract (in acres)

SqMi

Total area within the tract (in square miles)

County

County identifier (combination of Federal Information Processing Series (FIPS) codes for state and county)

CountyName

County Name

PopPovDet_e

# Population for whom poverty status is determined, 2017

PopPovDet_m

# Population for whom poverty status is determined, 2017 (MOE)

PopPov_e

# Population below poverty, 2017

PopPov_m

# Population below poverty, 2017 (MOE)

pPopPov_e

% Population below poverty, 2017

pPopPov_m

% Population below poverty, 2017 (MOE)

PopPovU18Det_e

# Population under 18 years for whom poverty status is determined, 2017

PopPovU18Det_m

# Population under 18 years for whom poverty status is determined, 2017 (MOE)

PopPovU18_e

# Population under 18 years below poverty, 2017

PopPovU18_m

# Population under 18 years below poverty, 2017 (MOE)

pPopPovU18_e

% Population under 18 years below poverty, 2017

pPopPovU18_m

% Population under 18 years below poverty, 2017 (MOE)

PopPov18_64Det_e

# Population 18 to 64 years for whom poverty status is determined, 2017

PopPov18_64Det_m

# Population 18 to 64 years for whom poverty status is determined, 2017 (MOE)

PopPov18_64_e

# Population 18 to 64 years below poverty, 2017

PopPov18_64_m

# Population 18 to 64 years below poverty, 2017 (MOE)

pPopPov18_64_e

% Population 18 to 64 years below poverty, 2017

pPopPov18_64_m

% Population 18 to 64 years below poverty, 2017 (MOE)

PopPov65PDet_e

# Population 65 years and over for whom poverty status is determined, 2017

PopPov65PDet_m

# Population 65 years and over for whom poverty status is determined, 2017 (MOE)

PopPov65P_e

# Population 65 years and over below poverty, 2017

PopPov65P_m

# Population 65 years and over below poverty, 2017 (MOE)

pPopPov65P_e

% Population 65 years and over below poverty, 2017

pPopPov65P_m

% Population 65 years and over below poverty, 2017 (MOE)

FamWChildPovStat_e

# Families with related children, 2017

FamWChildPovStat_m

# Families with related children, 2017 (MOE)

FamWChild150Pov_e

# Families with related children below 150 percent of the poverty line, 2017

FamWChild150Pov_m

# Families with related children below 150 percent of the poverty line, 2017 (MOE)

pFamWChild150Pov_e

% Families with related children below 150 percent of the poverty line, 2017

pFamWChild150Pov_m

% Families with related children below 150 percent of the poverty line, 2017 (MOE)

ChildPovStatRatio_e

# Children for whom poverty status is determined, 2017

ChildPovStatRatio_m

# Children for whom poverty status is determined, 2017 (MOE)

ChildInFam200Pov_e

# Children in families below 200 percent of the poverty line, 2017

ChildInFam200Pov_m

# Children in families below 200 percent of the poverty line, 2017 (MOE)

pChildInFam200Pov_e

% Children in families below 200 percent of the poverty line, 2017

pChildInFam200Pov_m

% Children in families below 200 percent of the poverty line, 2017 (MOE)

last_edited_date

Last date the feature was edited by ARC

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional Commission

Date: 2013-2017

For additional information, please visit the Census ACS website.

Summary

The State of Early Education and Care in Boston: Supply, Demand, Affordability, and Quality, is the first in what is planned as a recurrent landscape survey of early childhood, preschool and childcare programs in every neighborhood of Boston. It focuses on potential supply, demand and gaps in child-care seats (availability, quality and affordability). This report’s estimates set a baseline understanding to help focus and track investments and policy changes for early childhood in the city.

This publication is a culmination of efforts by a diverse data committee representing providers, parents, funding agencies, policymakers, advocates, and researchers. The report includes data from several sources, such as American Community Survey, Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care, Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education, Boston Public Health Commission, City of Boston, among others. For detailed information on methodology, findings and recommendations, please access the full report here

The first dataset contains all Census data used in the publication. Data is presented by neighborhoods:

• Population 0 – 5 years;
• Population 0 – 2 years;
• Population 3 – 5 years;
• Race/ethnicity for children 0 – 4 years (White, non-Hispanic; Black; Asian; Hispanic/Latinx);
• Family type (married couples, female householder, male householder);
• Poverty status;
• Family median income in the past 12 months;
• Average cost of care as a percentage of median family income (infant, preschool);
• Share of families that cannot afford care (infant, preschool)

The Boston Planning & Development Agency Research Division analyzed 2013-2017 American Community Survey data to estimate numbers by ZIP-Code. The Boston Opportunity Agenda combined that data by the approximate neighborhoods and estimated cost of care and affordability.

Additional notes:

• Record Type: Each record represents a ZIP-Code defined neighborhood. See list below for detailed information on Boston ZIP-Codes used to create each one of the 15 neighborhoods.
• Data Quality: Numbers presented here came from 2013-2017 American Community Survey data. Therefore, these are ESTIMATES and have margin of errors. The smaller the geographical unit, the greater the margin of error. The Boston Planning & Development Agency analyzed the data to estimate numbers by ZIP-Code.
• Race/Ethnicity: Non-White Hispanics may be double counted due to data limitations.
• Cost of Care: The average cost of care as a percentage of median family income was computed assuming the annual average cost of infant care was $19,877 and the average cost of preschool care was $ 13,771 (Childcare Aware of America, 2019). For each neighborhood we estimated the impact of child care (infant and preschool) on its median annual family income.
• Affordability: The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) sets a standard regarding the affordability of child care, where the annual cost of child care should not exceed 10 percent of household annual income. Using this 10% threshold, we estimated that to afford market rate infant care, a family’s annual income would have to be at least $198,770. The census income bracket closest to this income was a family income of $150,000– 199,999. To afford preschool care, a family's annual income should be at least $137,710. Thus, the census income bracket that encompass this income is $125,000 - 149,999. For both infant and preschool care, we underestimated the number of families that can afford care.