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.

Abstract

Multiple causes for displacement, all too often underpinned by violence and persecution, has led to over 800,000 Central Americans fleeing their homes, beginning in 2013. Year after year, there has been an increase in individuals fleeing. This was marked initially by especially large numbers of unaccompanied children, then joined in around 2018 with dramatic increases in families units fleeing Central America. Families are forced to flee together as violent threats and persecution by criminal groups in communities extend beyond individuals to entire family units.

Given these shifting dynamics in human mobility in these countries, UNHCR and UNICEF, through the Interdisciplinary Development Consultants, CID Gallup, decided to undertake this study with the aim of understanding and giving visibility to the forced displacement of families that flee northern Central America. In addition, the study also seeks to shed light on the current trends, protection risks and factors associated to the forced displacement and migration of unaccompanied and separated children.

For this purpose, Gallup conducted 3,104 surveys, complemented by focus group sessions segmented according to the geography of displacement in the region: country of origin, of transit and of asylum. Additionally, interviews were undertaken with families who were part of large mixed movement "caravans" that left Honduras at the beginning of 2020.

Analysis unit

Household

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A significant sample was taken of each profile interviewed for a total of 3,104 surveys conducted in Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico. The content of each survey was focused on the following profiles:

Families and children and adolescents at risk of displacement in countries of origin: a total of 789 surveys were carried out with families identified from a non-probabilistic sampling. The surveys were taken in areas with the highest criminality and violence rates in countries of origin (El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala), which were also areas with a prior history of forced displacement identified through previous studies. The survey questions focused on risks faced by families in their places of origin, including those that would compel them to flee, particularly those related to violence and poverty.

Families and children and adolescents in transit: a total of 836 surveys were carried out with families identified from a non-probabilistic sampling. The surveys were taken at locations where persons in transit were typically found in Guatemala and Mexico, such as Casas de Migrantes. For the quantitative component, data of unaccompanied children and adolescents was gatheredin Casa Nuestras Raices in Guatemala City and Quetzaltenango. This segment of the population was surveyed on the risks they faced during transit as well as the causes of displacement from their countries of origin.

Families and children and adolescents in country of destination: through non-probabilistic sampling methods, 453 people were surveyed, the majority of whom were recognized as refugees or asylum seekers in Mexico. Several interviews were facilitated by the UNHCR Office in Mexico in areas with this population profile: Casa del Migrante Monsenor-Oluta Veracruz, Scalabrinianas Mision con Migrantes y Refugiados, State DIF, Municipal DIF, among others. The survey questions for this population focused on the asylum procedure and their living conditions in the country.

Deported families and children and adolescents: non-probability cluster sampling. Interviews were conducted with 1,026 families that had been detained and deported during the 12 months prior to the survey. Locations included the Guatemalan Air Force base, outside of the Center for the Comprehensive Assistance to Migrants (CAIM for its acronym in Spanish) and outside of the following locations in Honduras: Center for the Assistance of Migrant Children and Families in Belen, and Center for the Assistance to the Returned Migrant (CAMR) and CAMR-OMOA.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The questionnaire contains the following sections: household characteristics, individual characteristics, details on deportation, risks, transit, settled households.

The financial situation of Russian families worsened with the birth of another child in 2020. Above 90 percent of parents were ready to pay for essential medicines, purchase new clothes, and consume meat and fish products regardless of the number of children they had. However, in the case of unplanned expenses, about 55 percent of families with one child had the possibilities to cope with them, while only 44 percent of parents with more than two children could overcome such situations.

Almost 80 percent of Peruvian respondents who participated in a survey by IPSOS said that 2020 had been a bad year for them personally and their family. This is the highest percentage among the Latin American countries included in the survey. Overall, Latin American respondents were prone to thinking negatively of 2020. When asked about the year balance as a country, Argentinians were the most pessimistic about 2020.

County Board District and 2020 Census Tract boundaries enriched with demographic data. Data layers in this feature service include:1. CBD_Enrich: County board district boundary enriched with Population, Race, Hispanic origin, Housing, Families and Households and Group Quarters Census data. 2. Population_Census_Tract: 2020 Census Tract boundary enriched with population data including: 2020 Census Population DensityPopulation Percent Change from the 2010 Census to the 2020 Census 2020 Census percent population aged 18 years and overAmerican Community Survey (ACS - 2021) five-years estimate of the population aged 65 years and over 3. Race_Alone_Census_Tract: 2020 Census Tract boundary enriched with 2020 Census percent of the total population with one race, including:WhiteBlack or African AmericanAmerican Indian AsianNative Hawaiian and other pacific islanderSome other race 4. Race_Alone_ or_Combination_Census_Tract: 2020 Census Tract boundary enriched with 2020 Census percent of the total population with a combination of two or more races5. Hispanic_Origin_Census_Tract: 2020 Census Tract boundary enriched with 2020 Census percent Hispanic origin data. Hispanic origin data include:Hispanic or LatinoNot Hispanic or Latino6. Housing_Census_Tract: 2020 Census Tract boundary enriched with housing data. Housing data include:2020 Census Occupied housing units.American Community Survey (ACS - 2021) five-years estimate of the total Owner occupied housing units 7. Group_Quarters_Census_Tract: 2020 Census Tract boundary enriched with the 2020 census Group Quarters (GQ) population. GQ population data include: Group quarters populationInstitutionalized GQ populationNon-institutionalized GQ population 8. Familes_Cencus_Tract: 2020 Census Tract boundary enriched with Families and household data, Including :American Community Survey (ACS - 2021) five-years estimate of the number of Family Households.American Community Survey (ACS - 2021) five-years estimate of the number of Non-family Households.American Community Survey (ACS - 2021) five-years estimate of the 1-pesrson Non-family HouseholdsAmerican Community Survey (ACS - 2021) five-years estimate of the total population in Married-Couple Family Households

[1] The Progress by Population Group analysis is a component of the Healthy People 2020 (HP2020) Final Review. The analysis included subsets of the 1,111 measurable HP2020 objectives that have data available for any of six broad population characteristics: sex, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, family income, disability status, and geographic location. Progress toward meeting HP2020 targets is presented for up to 24 population groups within these characteristics, based on objective data aggregated across HP2020 topic areas. The Progress by Population Group data are also available at the individual objective level in the downloadable data set. [2] The final value was generally based on data available on the HP2020 website as of January 2020. For objectives that are continuing into HP2030, more recent data will be included on the HP2030 website as it becomes available: https://health.gov/healthypeople. [3] For more information on the HP2020 methodology for measuring progress toward target attainment and the elimination of health disparities, see: Healthy People Statistical Notes, no 27; available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statnt/statnt27.pdf. [4] Status for objectives included in the HP2020 Progress by Population Group analysis was determined using the baseline, final, and target value. The progress status categories used in HP2020 were: a. Target met or exceeded—One of the following applies: (i) At baseline, the target was not met or exceeded, and the most recent value was equal to or exceeded the target (the percentage of targeted change achieved was equal to or greater than 100%); (ii) The baseline and most recent values were equal to or exceeded the target (the percentage of targeted change achieved was not assessed). b. Improved—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were available, and the percentage of targeted change achieved was statistically significant; (ii) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had achieved 10% or more of the targeted change. c. Little or no detectable change—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were available, and the percentage of targeted change achieved was not statistically significant; (ii) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had achieved less than 10% of the targeted change; (iii) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were available, and the percent change relative to the baseline was not statistically significant; (iv) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had moved less than 10% relative to the baseline; (v) No change was observed between the baseline and the final data point. d. Got worse—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were available, and the percent change relative to the baseline was statistically significant; (ii) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had moved 10% or more relative to the baseline. NOTE: Measurable objectives had baseline data. SOURCE: National Center for Health Statistics, Healthy People 2020 Progress by Population Group database.

Performance metrics for by year No. of Children Referred to Family Support Services by GP

Performance metrics for by year No. of Children Referred to Family Support Services by Voluntary Agency

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.

Note: For information on data collection, confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, subject definitions, and guidance on using the data, visit the 2020 Census Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (DHC) Technical Documentation webpage..To protect respondent confidentiality, data have undergone disclosure avoidance methods which add "statistical noise" - small, random additions or subtractions - to the data so that no one can reliably link the published data to a specific person or household. The Census Bureau encourages data users to aggregate small populations and geographies to improve accuracy and diminish implausible results.."Families" consist of a householder and one or more other people related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption.."Own children" includes biological, adopted, and stepchildren of the householder..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (DHC)

The Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS, formerly known as the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study) follows a cohort of nearly 5,000 children born in large, U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000. The study oversampled births to unmarried couples; and, when weighted, the data are representative of births in large U.S. cities at the turn of the century. The FFCWS was originally designed to address four questions of great interest to researchers and policy makers: What are the conditions and capabilities of unmarried parents, especially fathers? What is the nature of the relationships between unmarried parents? How do children born into these families fare? How do policies and environmental conditions affect families and children? The FFCWS consists of interviews with mothers, fathers, and/or primary caregivers at birth and again when children are ages 1, 3, 5, 9, 15, and 22. The parent interviews collected information on attitudes, relationships, parenting behavior, demographic characteristics, health (mental and physical), economic and employment status, neighborhood characteristics, and program participation. Beginning at age 9, children were interviewed directly (either during the home visit or on the telephone). The direct child interviews collected data on family relationships, home routines, schools, peers, and physical and mental health, as well as health behaviors. A collaborative study of the FFCWS, the In-Home Longitudinal Study of Pre-School Aged Children (In-Home Study) collected data from a subset of the FFCWS Core respondents at the Year 3 and 5 follow-ups to ask how parental resources in the form of parental presence or absence, time, and money influence children under the age of 5. The In-Home Study collected information on a variety of domains of the child's environment, including: the physical environment (quality of housing, nutrition and food security, health care, adequacy of clothing and supervision) and parenting (parental discipline, parental attachment, and cognitive stimulation). In addition, the In-Home Study also collected information on several important child outcomes, including anthropometrics, child behaviors, and cognitive ability. This information was collected through interviews with the child's primary caregiver, and direct observation of the child's home environment and the child's interactions with his or her caregiver. Similar activities were conducted during the Year 9 follow-up. At the Year 15 follow-up, a condensed set of home visit activities were conducted with a subsample of approximately 1,000 teens. Teens who participated in the In-Home Study were also invited to participate in a Sleep Study and were asked to wear an accelerometer on their non-dominant wrist for seven consecutive days to track their sleep (Sleep Actigraphy Data) and that day's behaviors and mood (Daily Sleep Actigraphy and Diary Survey Data). An additional collaborative study collected data from the child care provider (Year 3) and teacher (Years 9 and 15) through mail-based surveys. Saliva samples were collected at Year 9 and 15 (Biomarker file and Polygenic Scores). The Study of Adolescent Neural Development (SAND) COVID Study began data collection in May 2020 following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It included online surveys with the young adult and their primary caregiver. The FFCWS began its seventh wave of data collection in October 2020, around the focal child's 22nd birthday. Data collection and interviews continued through January 2024. The Year 22 wave included a young adult (YA) survey with the original focal child and a primary caregiver (PCG) survey. Data were also collected on the children of the original focal child (referred to as Generation 3, or G3). Documentation for these files is available on the FFCWS website located here. For details of updates made to the FFCWS data files, please see the project's Data Alerts page. Data collection for the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers R01HD36916, R01HD39135, and R01HD40421, as well as a consortium of private foundations.

the dataset contains the statistical data relating to the families residing in Palermo registered as at 31/12/2020 divided by census section and citizenship of the family holder

No. of Children Referred to Family Support Services by Voluntary Agency 2020. Published by Tusla. Available under the license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY-4.0).Performance metrics for by year No. of Children Referred to Family Support Services by Voluntary Agency...

Historical Dataset of Dynamic Family Services is provided by PublicSchoolReview and contain statistics on metrics:Total Students Trends Over Years (2014-2020),Asian Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2019-2020),Hispanic Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2015-2020),Black Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2014-2016),White Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2015-2020),Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2019-2020),Two or More Races Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2016-2018),Diversity Score Comparison Over Years (2015-2020)

The Overview of Health Disparities analysis is a component of the Healthy People 2020 (HP2020) Final Review. The analysis included 611 objectives in HP2020. This file contains summary level information used for the evaluation of changes in disparities during HP2020, including calculations for the disparities measures and the disparities change categories for all objectives and population characteristics in the analysis. See Technical Notes for the Healthy People 2020 Overview of Health Disparities (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/healthy_people/hp2020/health-disparities-technical-notes.htm) for additional information and criteria for objectives, data years, and population characteristics included in the analysis and statistical formulas and definitions for the disparities measures. Data for additional years during the HP2020 tracking period that are not included in the Overview of Health Disparities are available on the HP2020 website (https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/). Note that “rate” as used may refer to a statistical rate expressed per unit population or a proportion, depending on how the HP2020 objective was defined.

This dataset was developed by the Research & Analytics Group at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau across all standard and custom geographies at statewide summary level where applicable.

For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the ACS 2016-2020 Data Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics.

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)

s

Significance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed

Suffixes:

_e20

Estimate from 2016-20 ACS

_m20

Margin of Error from 2016-20 ACS

_e10

2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography

_m10

Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography

_e10_20

Change, 2010-20 (holding constant at 2020 geography)

Geographies

AAA = Area Agency on Aging (12 geographic units formed from counties providing statewide coverage)

ARWDB7 = Atlanta Regional Workforce Development Board (7 counties merged to a single geographic unit)

Census Tracts (statewide)

CFGA23 = Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta (23 counties merged to a single geographic unit)

City (statewide)

City of Atlanta Council Districts (City of Atlanta)

City of Atlanta Neighborhood Planning Unit (City of Atlanta)

City of Atlanta Neighborhood Planning Unit STV (subarea of City of Atlanta)

City of Atlanta Neighborhood Statistical Areas (City of Atlanta)

County (statewide)

Georgia House (statewide)

Georgia Senate (statewide)

MetroWater15 = Atlanta Metropolitan Water District (15 counties merged to a single geographic unit)

Regional Commissions (statewide)

State of Georgia (statewide)

Superdistrict (ARC region)

US Congress (statewide)

UWGA13 = United Way of Greater Atlanta (13 counties merged to a single geographic unit)

WFF = Westside Future Fund (subarea of City of Atlanta)

ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (statewide)

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 2016-2020). 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.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional Commission Date: 2016-2020 Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)

Link to the manifest: https://opendata.atlantaregional.com/documents/GARC::acs-2020-data-manifest/about

[1] Status is determined using the baseline, final, and target value. The statuses used in Healthy People 2020 were: 1 - Target met or exceeded—One of the following applies: (i) At baseline, the target was not met or exceeded, and the most recent value was equal to or exceeded the target. (The percentage of targeted change achieved was equal to or greater than 100%.); (ii) The baseline and most recent values were equal to or exceeded the target. (The percentage of targeted change achieved was not assessed.) 2 - Improved—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were available, and the percentage of targeted change achieved was statistically significant; (ii) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had achieved 10% or more of the targeted change. 3 - Little or no detectable change—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were available, and the percentage of targeted change achieved was not statistically significant; (ii) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had achieved less than 10% of the targeted change; (iii) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were available, and the percent change relative to the baseline was not statistically significant; (iv) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had moved less than 10% relative to the baseline; (v) No change was observed between the baseline and the final data point. 4 - Got worse—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were available, and the percent change relative to the baseline was statistically significant; (ii) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had moved 10% or more relative to the baseline. 5 - Baseline only—The objective only had one data point, so progress toward target attainment could not be assessed. Note that if additional data points did not meet the criteria for statistical reliability, data quality, or confidentiality, the objective was categorized as baseline only. 6 - Informational—A target was not set for this objective, so progress toward target attainment could not be assessed. [2] The final value is generally based on data available on the Healthy People 2020 website as of January 2020. For objectives that are continuing into Healthy People 2030, more recent data are available on the Healthy People 2030 website: https://health.gov/healthypeople. [3] For objectives that moved toward their targets, movement toward the target was measured as the percentage of targeted change achieved (unless the target was already met or exceeded at baseline): Percentage of targeted change achieved = (Final value - Baseline value) / (HP2020 target - Baseline value) * 100 [4] For objectives that were not improving, did not meet or exceed their targets, and did not move towards their targets, movement away from the baseline was measured as the magnitude of the percent change from baseline: Magnitude of percent change from baseline = |Final value - Baseline value| / Baseline value * 100 [5] Statistical significance was tested when the objective had a target, at least two data points (of unequal value), and available standard errors of the data. A normal distribution was assumed. All available digits were used to test statistical significance. Statistical significance of the percentage of targeted change achieved or the magnitude of the percentage change from baseline was assessed at the 0.05 level using a normal one-sided test. [6] For more information on the Healthy People 2020 methodology for measuring progress toward target attainment and the elimination of health disparities, see: Healthy People Statistical Notes, no 27; available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/sta

This is the first in a series of follow up reports to the Mental Health and Young People Survey (MHCYP) 2017, exploring the mental health of children and young people in July 2020, during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and changes since 2017. Experiences of family life, education and services, and worries and anxieties during the COVID-19 pandemic are also examined. The sample for the Mental Health Survey for Children and Young People, 2020 (MHCYP 2020), wave 1 follow up was based on 3,570 children and young people who took part in the MHCYP 2017 survey, with both surveys also drawing on information collected from parents. Cross-sectional analyses are presented, addressing two primary aims: Aim 1: Comparing mental health between 2017 and 2020 – the likelihood of a mental disorder has been assessed against completion of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in both years in Topic 1 by various demographics. Aim 2: Describing life during the COVID-19 pandemic - the report examines the circumstances and experiences of children and young people in July 2020 and the preceding months, covering: Family dynamics (Topic 2) Parent and child anxieties about COVID-19, and well-being (Topic 3) Access to education and health services (Topic 4) Changes in circumstances and activities (Topic 5) The data is broken down by gender and age bands of 5 to 10 year olds and 11 to 16 year olds for all categories, and 17 to 22 years old for certain categories, as well as by whether a child is unlikely to have a mental health disorder, possibly has a mental health disorder and probably has a mental health disorder. This study was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, commissioned by NHS Digital, and carried out by the Office for National Statistics, the National Centre for Social Research, University of Cambridge and University of Exeter. Note: On 21 December 2020 the pdf was amended to ensure that Figure 5.6 was displaying the correct figures from the underlying data table.