In 2023, there were about 15.09 million children living with a single mother in the United States, and about 3.05 million children living with a single father. The number of children living with a single mother is down from its peak in 2012, and the number of children living with a single father is down from its peak in 2005.

Marriage and divorce in the United States

Despite popular opinion in the United States that “half of all marriages end in divorce,” the divorce rate in the U.S. has fallen significantly since 1992. The marriage rate, which has also been decreasing since the 1990s, was still higher than the divorce rate in 2021. Half of all marriages may not end in divorce, but it does seem that fewer people are choosing to get married in the first place.

New family structures

In addition to a falling marriage rate, fewer people in the U.S. have children under the age of 18 living in the house in comparison to 1970. Over the past decade, the share of families with children under 18, whether that be married couples or single parents, has stayed mostly steady, although the number of births in the U.S. has also fallen.

In 2022, there were about 4.15 million Black families in the United States with a single mother. This is an increase from 1990 levels, when there were about 3.4 million Black families with a single mother.

Single parenthood

The typical family is comprised of two parents and at least one child. However, that is not the case in every single situation. A single parent is someone who has a child but no spouse or partner. Single parenthood occurs for different reasons, including divorce, death, abandonment, or single-person adoption. Historically, single parenthood was common due to mortality rates due to war, diseases, and maternal mortality. However, divorce was not as common back then, depending on the culture.

Single parent wellbeing

In countries where social welfare programs are not strong, single parents tend to suffer more financially, emotionally, and mentally. In the United States, most single parents are mothers. The struggles that single parents face are greater than those in two parent households. The number of families with a single mother in the United States has increased since 1990, but the poverty rate of black families with a single mother has significantly decreased since that same year. In comparison, the poverty rate of Asian families with a single mother, and the percentage of white, non-Hispanic families with a single mother who live below the poverty level in the United States have both been fluctuating since 2002.

In 2023, there were about 1.18 million Black families with a single father living in the United States. This is an increase from 1990, when there were 472,000 Black families with a single father in the U.S.

SCA47 - Children Living in a Single Parent Family Unit. Published by Department of Children, Disability and Equality. Available under the license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY-4.0).Children Living in a Single Parent Family Unit...

In the United States, significantly more children under the age of 18 live with a female divorced parent than a male divorced parent. In 2021, about 14,000 children under the age of one lived with their divorced, single father, compared with 34,000 children of the same age who lived with their divorced single mother.

We examine the consequences of survey underreporting of transfer programs for prototypical analyses of low-income populations. We link administrative data for four transfer programs to the CPS to correct its severe understatement of transfer dollars received. Using survey data sharply understates the income of poor households, distorts our understanding of program targeting, and greatly understates the effects of anti-poverty programs. Using the combined data, the poverty-reducing effect of all programs together is nearly doubled. The effect of housing assistance is tripled. Correcting survey error often reduces the share of single mothers falling through the safety net by one-half or more.

The California Families Project (CFP) is an ongoing longitudinal study of Mexican origin families in Northern California. This study uses community, school, family, and individual characteristics to examine developmental pathways that increase risk for and resilience to drug use in Mexican-origin youth. This study also examines the impact that economic disadvantage and cultural traditions have in Mexican-origin youth. The CFP includes a community-based sample of 674 families and children of Mexican origin living in Northern California, and includes annual assessments of parents and children. Participants with Mexican surnames were drawn at random from school rosters of students during the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school year. Data collection included multi-method assessments of a broad range of psychological, familial, scholastic, cultural, and neighborhood factors. Initiation of the research at age 10 was designed to assess the focal children before the onset of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use, thus enabling the evaluation of how hypothesized risk and resilience mechanisms operate to exacerbate early onset during adolescence or help prevent its occurrence. This study includes a diversity of families that represent a wide range of incomes, education, family history, and family structures, including two-parent and single-parent families.The accompanying data file consists of 674 family cases with each case representing a focal child and at least one parent (Two-parent: n=549, 82 percent; Single-parent: n=125, 18 percent). Of the 3,139 total variables, 839 pertain to the focal child, 1,376 correspond to the mother, and 908 items pertain to the father.Please note: While the California Families Project is a longitudinal study, only the baseline data are currently available in this data collection.

This table contains data on the number of licensed day care center slots (facility capacity) per 1,000 children aged 0-5 years in California, its regions, counties, cities, towns, and census tracts. The table contains 2015 data, and includes type of facility (day care center or infant center). Access to child care has become a critical support for working families. Many working families find high-quality child care unaffordable, and the increasing cost of child care can be crippling for low-income families and single parents. These barriers can impact parental choices of child care. Increased availability of child care facilities can positively impact families by providing more choices of child care in terms of price and quality. Estimates for this indicator are provided for the total population, and are not available by race/ethnicity. More information on the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the Data and Resources section. The licensed day care centers table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project (HCI) of the Office of Health Equity. The goal of HCI is to enhance public health by providing data, a standardized set of statistical measures, and tools that a broad array of sectors can use for planning healthy communities and evaluating the impact of plans, projects, policy, and environmental changes on community health. The creation of healthy social, economic, and physical environments that promote healthy behaviors and healthy outcomes requires coordination and collaboration across multiple sectors, including transportation, housing, education, agriculture and others. Statistical metrics, or indicators, are needed to help local, regional, and state public health and partner agencies assess community environments and plan for healthy communities that optimize public health. More information on HCI can be found here: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OHE/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Accessible%202%20CDPH_Healthy_Community_Indicators1pager5-16-12.pdf

The format of the licensed day care centers table is based on the standardized data format for all HCI indicators. As a result, this data table contains certain variables used in the HCI project (e.g., indicator ID, and indicator definition). Some of these variables may contain the same value for all observations.

The typical American picture of a family with 2.5 kids might not be as relevant as it once was: In 2023, there was an average of 1.94 children under 18 per family in the United States. This is a decrease from 2.33 children under 18 per family in 1960.

Familial structure in the United States

If there’s one thing the United States is known for, it’s diversity. Whether this is diversity in ethnicity, culture, or family structure, there is something for everyone in the U.S. Two-parent households in the U.S. are declining, and the number of families with no children are increasing. The number of families with children has stayed more or less constant since 2000.

Adoptions in the U.S.

Families in the U.S. don’t necessarily consist of parents and their own biological children. In 2021, around 35,940 children were adopted by married couples, and 13,307 children were adopted by single women.

Abstract

Household Budget Survey has been conducted annually by Statistics Lithuania since 1996. The HBS methodology was improved in 2003. Some changes were introduced into the design of the sample and recording of households' income and expenditures.

The main objectives of the survey are:
-to obtain weights for Consumer Price Index, -to estimate household expenditure for National Accounts, -to study the general structure of household incomes and expenditures, -to study income and expenditure patterns of disadvantaged groups, including pensioner households, single parent households, etc., -to study income and expenditure disparities among socio-economic groups, -to study consumer behavior among socio-economic groups, -to study effects of policy changes, especially tax changes on income and expenditure.

The target population of Household Budget Survey is based on private households in Lithuania. Households are selected using the random sampling method from the Populations Register. Participation of the selected households in the survey takes one month. After one month other households replace them.

Data is collected through face-to-face interviews and expenditure diaries.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Households,
• Individuals.

Universe

The universe of the survey is private households in Lithuania. Persons living in the institutional households (elderly people nursing homes, imprisonment institutions, army, etc.) have been excluded from the survey.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

New sample design 2003 have not increased the number of respondents. However, the sample has been redistributed by county. The new sample allows estimation of the HBS indicators by county. Since the sample is not large, just essential indicators whose errors are the least can be estimated. Also, calculation methodology of estimates was changed. Calculation of errors has been adjusted to the new sample design and new calculation method of estimates.

Target population is all private households of Lithuania. For the 2003 survey, 10,692 households were selected, of which 7,826 participated in the survey.

The population register was used as a sampling frame. Stratified sample design with simple random sample and two-stage cluster sample was used in strata. All Lithuanian territory was divided in 31 not overlapping groups - strata. The biggest towns of Lithuania counties, medium, small towns and rural areas of counties are divided in separate strata. Sample of households was selected from each stratum. Different sample design was used in each stratum.

A simple random sample of persons 16 and older is drawn from the Population Register in major county towns. Only the households abiding according to the address of the selected person are under the scope of the survey. Accordingly, 4,620 households were selected in the biggest towns of counties. Sample size in Vilnius was 1,320 households, in Kaunas - 1,188 households, in Klaipeda - 528 households, in Šiauliai and Panevežys - 396 households in each, in Taurage, Utena, Mažeikiai, Marijampole, Šilale, Jurbarkas - 132 households in each.

Two-stage cluster sample design was used in the medium and small towns of counties. The Pareto sample with probability a proportional to the cluster size was used in the first stage. Each town is a cluster. A simple random sampling of persons 16 and older withdrawn from the Population Register was used in already selected clusters in the second stage. Households, which live at the selected person's address, were surveyed. 2,376 households were selected in small and medium towns of Lithuania counties, 264 households in each strata.

A similar sample design like in the medium and small towns was used in rural areas of counties. Cluster is a territorial unit "seniunija" (local government) in this case. 3,564 households were selected in rural area. In the counties of Vilnius, Kaunas and Šiauliai 432 households were selected in each. 324 households were selected in each other county.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Since 2003 two types of documents have been used in Lithuania Household Budget Survey.

1. Main Household Questionnaire. The aim of this questionnaire is to collect social and economic information on household members, their living conditions and income. The interviewer shall complete the Main Household Questionnaire by asking questions and recording the answers received.

2. Diary of Household Expenditure. This diary aims at the collection of household expenditure on food and non-food products and services. Two pages of the diary are meant for everyday records in tables for food, clothing and other non-food goods. For the rest days of the month only expenditure on non- food products and services is registered. Half of the surveyed households record expenditure on food in the first half of the month, while the other - in the second.

Each household that participated in the survey shall be remunerated in the amount of 15 percent of the Minimum Standard of Living.

In 2015, most of households in France were composed by one or two people. That year more than 10 million households were one-person households. This number shows a demographic evolution in France, as well as in other European countries. The share of French people living alone went from 14.9 percent in 2007 up to 16.4 percent only ten years later.

Who are the French who live alone?

According to French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE), the majority of people living alone were seniors aged from 65 years old and older. The growing life expectancy might be one of the reasons of the increase in the number of people living alone in France. On the other hand, the extension of studies seems to also have an impact on the proportion of single households in the country. Millennials have their first job at a later stage; they remain students for a longer time than before and are therefore more willing to live alone. In 2015, nearly 20 percent of French citizens aged between 20 and 24 years old were living alone.

Families in France

Even though a lot of French people live alone, it appears that France is the European country which had the highest number of private households with three children or more. In 2015, there were more than 8 million families in France, of which more than 6.2 million were composed of a couple with children. Family structure is evolving in France with more children born-out-wedlock who are being raised in single-parent families.

The census is Canada's largest and most comprehensive data source conducted by Statistics Canada every five years. The Census of Population collects demographics and linguistic information on every man, woman and child living in Canada. The data shown here is provided by Statistics Canada from the 2001 Census as a custom profile data order for the City of Vancouver, using the City's 22 local planning areas. The data may be reproduced provided they are credited to Statistics Canada, Census 2001, custom order for City of Vancouver Local Areas.Data AccessThis dataset has not yet been converted to a format compatible with our new platform. Please use the links below to access the files from our legacy site. Census local area profiles 2001 (CSV) Census local area profiles 2001 (XLS) Dataset schema (Attributes) Please see the Census local area profiles 2001 attributes page. NoteThe 22 Local Areas is defined by the Census blocks and is equal to the City'​s 22 local planning areas and includes the Musqueam 2 reserve.Vancouver CSD (Census Subdivision) is defined by the City of Vancouver municipal boundary which excludes the Musqueam 2 reserve but includes Stanley Park.Vancouver CMA (Census Metropolitan Area) is defined by the Metro Vancouver boundary which includes the following Census Subdivisions: Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby, Richmond, Coquitlam, District of Langley, Delta, District of North Vancouver, Maple Ridge, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, City of North Vancouver, West Vancouver, Port Moody, City of Langley, White Rock, Pitt Meadows, Greater Vancouver A, Bowen Island, Capilano 5, Anmore, Musqueam 2, Burrard Inlet 3, Lions Bay, Tsawwassen, Belcarra, Mission 1, Matsqui 4, Katzie 1, Semiahmoo, Seymour Creek 2, McMillian Island 6, Coquitlam 1, Musqueam 4, Coquitlam 2, Katzie 2, Whonnock 1, Barnston Island 3, and Langley 5. Data products that are identified as 20% sample data refer to information that was collected using the long census questionnaire. For the most part, these data were collected from 20% of the households; however they also include some areas, such as First Nations communities and remote areas, where long census form data were collected from 100% of the households. The following changes were made to the census family concept for 2001 and account for some of the increase in the total number of families, single parent families and children living at home: Two persons living in a same-sex common law relationship are now considered a family. Children living at home now include previously married children, provided they are not currently living with a spouse or common-law partner. A grandchild living in a three generation household where the parent (middle generation) was never married is now considered a child of the census family. A grandchild of a three-generation household where the middle generation is not present is now considered a child of the census family.Mode of transportation to work data is not reliable for the 2001 Census due to the TransLink Transit Strike that occurred during the data collection period. Data currencyThe data for Census 2001 was collected in May 2001. Data accuracyStatistics Canada is committed to protect the privacy of all Canadians and the confidentiality of the data they provide to us. As part of this commitment, some population counts of geographic areas are adjusted in order to ensure confidentiality. Counts of the total population are rounded to a base of 5 for any dissemination block having a population less than 15. Population counts for all standard geographic areas above the dissemination block level are derived by summing the adjusted dissemination block counts. The adjustment of dissemination block counts is controlled to ensure that the population counts for dissemination areas will always be within 5 of the actual values. The adjustment has no impact on the population counts of census divisions and large census subdivisions. Websites for further information Statistics Canada 2001 Census Dictionary Local area boundary dataset

This round of Euro-Barometer surveys focused on the current status of the European Community (EC), assessing respondents' awareness of and attitudes toward (1) the EC's activities and institutions, (2) various aspects of the Maastricht Treaty and the European Union, (3) EC policies, and (4) the European Parliament's work. A special set of questions focused on issues facing European societies, including family values and attitudes toward immigrants and people in other countries. Respondents were asked to rank their level of interest in European politics, and to indicate their level of support for the unification of Western Europe, including: (a) the degree to which they found European unification personally important, (b) whether they thought membership in the EC was a good thing, (c) whether membership would benefit their country, and (d) how they would feel if the EC were eliminated. They also rated how well they thought democracy worked in the EC and in their own country. Awareness of European institutions was measured by questions on how much respondents knew about the European Parliament, the European Council, the European Court, the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, and others. Several questions concerned the presidency of the EC's Council of Ministers, then held by Denmark. In addition, participants were asked about their knowledge of and attitudes toward the Maastricht Treaty on European Union and the proposed European Monetary Union. This section of the questionnaire explored the Maastricht Treaty's implications for national and EC control of drug traffic, crime, defense, immigration, and a number of other areas of public policy. With regard to defense policy, respondents were asked specifically whether the EC should intervene militarily in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Opinions were obtained on the formation of a European Union with a European government responsible to the European Parliament. The Single European Market, in operation since January 1, 1993, was the topic of several questions, including whether respondents regarded the Single Market with hope or fear, and whether they had yet had any direct experience with the Single Market. In anticipation of the first general election of a European Parliament by the European Community's citizens in June 1994, the survey assessed respondents' awareness of the European Parliament, their overall impressions of its work, and opinions about its role in policymaking. Participants' intentions to vote and reasons for not voting in the upcoming election were also solicited. A special focus of this Euro-Barometer was the family, its composition and personal importance to respondents, and family values. The respective roles of mother and father in various parenting tasks were explored. The trend for grown children to stay at home longer was evaluated by respondents as good or bad for the children and the parents. Respondents assessed the priority for government policy on a number of family issues, such as infant care leave, availability of child care, availability of housing, and flexible working hours. Citizens' opinions of other European peoples and countries were sought through questions asking how much trust respondents placed in the people of various EC countries (as well as the United States, Japan, and Russia), which countries they favored becoming part of the European Community, and which citizens of other countries ought to be able to work and reside in the European Community. A number of questions concerned immigration and its effects on the European Community. Opinions were also solicited about Summer Time, a move to prolong daylight by putting clocks forward one hour from the last Sunday in March to the last Sunday in September. As in previous Euro-Barometers, questions on political party preference asked respondents which party they felt closest to, how they voted in their country's last general election, and how they would vote if a general election were held the next day. Additional information was gathered on life satisfaction, family income, number of people residing in the home, size of locality, home ownership, trade union membership, region of residence, occupation of the head of household, and the respondent's age, sex, education, religion, religiosity, subjective social class standing, socio-professional status, languages spoken, access to and use of media, left-right political self-placement, and opinion leadership. (Source: downloaded from ICPSR 7/13/10)

Please Note: This dataset is part of the historical CISER Data Archive Collection and is also available at ICPSR at https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06195.v4. We highly recommend using the ICPSR version as they may make this dataset available in multiple data formats in the future.

Russia had approximately 55.38 million households in 2020. The household count increased by nearly 46 thousand from the previous year. The number of households recorded in the country's cities was more than three times higher than in rural areas.

What is a typical household structure in Russia?

Most Russians lived in extended households, which included parents and children as well as other relatives. Slightly less than one quarter of the population resided in a household with two parents and a child or several children. Every tenth inhabitant had a single-person household. Russia's average household size was measured at 3.2 persons.

How high is the household income in Russia?

Russia ranked lower than other European countries by household net adjusted disposable income. In 2019, it amounted to 19.2 thousand U.S. dollars, compared to 40.7 thousand U.S. dollars in Germany or 26.2 thousand U.S. dollars in Czechia. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on poverty levels in the country. Even after social benefits to support the inhabitants during the crisis were paid, nearly 30 percent of the population living in households with children under three years old found themselves under the poverty line.