This graph shows the Percentage of households led by a female householder with no spouse present with own children under 18 years living in the household in the U.S. in 2021, by state. In 2021, about 4.24 percent of Californian households were single mother households with at least one child.

Additional information on single mother households and poverty in the United States

For most single mothers a constant battle persists between finding the time and energy to raise their children and the demands of working to supply an income to house and feed their families. The pressures of a single income and the high costs of childcare mean that the risk of poverty for these families is a tragic reality. Comparison of the overall United States poverty rate since 1990 with that of the poverty rate for families with a female householder shows that poverty is much more prevalent in the latter. In 2021, while the overall rate was at 11.6 percent, the rate of poverty for single mother families was 23 percent. Moreover, the degree of fluctuation tends to be lower for single female household families, suggesting the rate of poverty for these groups is less affected by economic conditions.

The sharp rise in the number of children living with a single mother or single father in the United States from 1970 to 2022 suggests more must be done to ensure that families in such situations are able to avoid poverty. Moreover, attention should also be placed on overall racial income inequality given the higher rate of poverty for Hispanic single mother families than their white or Asian counterparts.

Since 1960, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided estimates of expenditures on children from birth through age 17. This technical report presents the most recent estimates for married- couple and single-parent families using data from the 2011-15 Consumer Expenditure Survey (all data presented in 2015 dollars). Data and methods used in calculating annual child-rearing expenses are described. Estimates are provided for married-couple and single-parent families with two children for major components of the budget by age of child, family income, and region of residence. For the overall United States, annual child-rearing expense estimates ranged between $12,350 and $13,900 for a child in a two-child, married-couple family in the middle-income group. Adjustment factors for households with less than or greater than two children are also provided. Expenses vary considerably by household income level, region, and composition, emphasizing that a single estimate may not be applicable to all families. Results of this study may be of use in developing State child support and foster care guidelines, as well as public health and family-centered educational programs.
i

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.

A national sample survey dataset covering a wide variety of issues on American family life beginning in 1987-88 and at two subsequent timepoints1992-93 and 2001-03. Topics covered included detailed household composition, family background, adult family transitions, couple interactions, parent-child interactions, education and work, health, economic and psychological well-being, and family attitudes. The first wave interviewed 13,017 respondents, including a main cross-section sample of 9,643 persons aged 19 and over plus an oversample of minorities and households containing single-parent families, step-families, recently married couples, and cohabiting couples. In each household, a randomly selected adult was interviewed. In addition, a shorter, self-administered questionnaire was filled out by the spouse or cohabiting partner of the primary respondent. Interviews averaged about 100 minutes, although interview length varied considerably with the complexity of the respondent''s family history. In 1992-94, an in-person interview was conducted of all surviving members of the original sample, the current spouse or cohabiting partner, and with the baseline spouse or partner in cases where the relationship had ended. Telephone interviews were conducted with focal children who were aged 5-12 and 13-18 at baseline. Short proxy interviews were conducted with a surviving spouse or other relative in cases where the original respondent died or was too ill to interview. A telephone interview was conducted with one randomly selected parent of the main respondent. In 2001-03, telephone interviews were conducted with: Surviving members of the original respondents who had a focal child age 5 or over at baseline; the baseline spouse/partner of these original respondents, whether or not the couple was still together; the focal children who were in the household and aged 5-18 at baselinemost of whom were interviewed at wave 2; and all other original respondents age 45 or older in 2000, and their baseline spouse/partner. Oversamples: Blacks, 9.2%; Mexican-Americans, 2.4%; Puerto Ricans, 0.7% * Dates of Study: 1987-2003 * Study Features: Longitudinal, Minority Oversampling * Sample Size (original respondents): ** Wave I (1987-88): 13,017 ** Wave II (1992-93): 10,007 ** Wave III (2001-03): 8,990 Links: * Wave I (ICPSR): http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/06041 * Wave II (ICPSR): http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/06906 * Wave III (ICPSR): http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/00171

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

The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) provides federal money to states and territories to provide assistance to low-income families, to obtain quality child care so they can work, attend training, or receive education. Within the broad federal parameters, states and territories set the detailed policies. Those details determine whether a particular family will or will not be eligible for subsidies, how much the family will have to pay for the care, how families apply for and retain subsidies, the maximum amounts that child care providers will be reimbursed, and the administrative procedures that providers must follow. Thus, while CCDF is a single program from the perspective of federal law, it is in practice a different program in every state and territory. The CCDF Policies Database project is a comprehensive, up-to-date database of CCDF policy information that supports the needs of a variety of audiences through (1) analytic data files, (2) a project website and search tool, and (3) an annual report (Book of Tables). These resources are made available to researchers, administrators, and policymakers with the goal of addressing important questions concerning the effects of child care subsidy policies and practices on the children and families served. A description of the data files, project website and search tool, and Book of Tables is provided below: 1. Detailed, longitudinal analytic data files provide CCDF policy information for all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the United States Territories and outlying areas that capture the policies actually in effect at a point in time, rather than proposals or legislation. They capture changes throughout each year, allowing users to access the policies in place at any point in time between October 2009 and the most recent data release. The data are organized into 32 categories with each category of variables separated into its own dataset. The categories span five general areas of policy including: Eligibility Requirements for Families and Children (Datasets 1-5) Family Application, Terms of Authorization, and Redetermination (Datasets 6-13) Family Payments (Datasets 14-18) Policies for Providers, Including Maximum Reimbursement Rates (Datasets 19-27) Overall Administrative and Quality Information Plans (Datasets 28-32) The information in the data files is based primarily on the documents that caseworkers use as they work with families and providers (often termed "caseworker manuals"). The caseworker manuals generally provide much more detailed information on eligibility, family payments, and provider-related policies than the CCDF Plans submitted by states and territories to the federal government. The caseworker manuals also provide ongoing detail for periods in between CCDF Plan dates. Each dataset contains a series of variables designed to capture the intricacies of the rules covered in the category. The variables include a mix of categorical, numeric, and text variables. Most variables have a corresponding notes field to capture additional details related to that particular variable. In addition, each category has an additional notes field to capture any information regarding the rules that is not already outlined in the category's variables. 2. The project website and search tool provide access to a point-and-click user interface. Users can select from the full set of public data to create custom tables. The website also provides access to the full range of reports and products released under the CCDF Policies Database project. The project website and search tool and the data files provide a more detailed set of information than what the Book of Tables provides, including a wider selection of variables and policies over time. 3. The annual Book of Tables provides key policy information for October 1 of each year. The report presents policy variations across the states and territories and is available on the project website. The Book of Tables summarizes a subset of the information available in the full database and data files, and includes information about eligibility requirements for families; application, redetermination, priority, and waiting list policies; family co-payments; and provider policies and reimbursement rates. In many cases, a variable in the Book of Tables will correspond to a single variable in the data files. Usuall

This administrative dataset provides descriptive information about the families and children served through the federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). CCDF dollars are provided to states, territories, and tribes to provide assistance to low-income families receiving or in transition from temporary public assistance, to obtain quality child care so they can work, or depending on their state's policy, to attend training or receive education. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 requires states and territories to collect information on all family units receiving assistance through the CCDF and to submit monthly case-level data to the Office of Child Care. States are permitted to report case-level data for the entire population, or a sample of the population, under approved sampling guidelines. The Summary Records file contains monthly state-level summary information including the number of families served. The Family Records file contains family-level data including single parent status of the head of household, monthly co-payment amount, date on which child care assistance began, reasons for care (e.g., employment, training/education, protective services, etc.), income used to determine eligibility, source of income, and the family size on which eligibility is based. The Child Records file contains child-level data including ethnicity, race, and date of birth. The Setting Records file contains information about the type of child care setting, the total amount paid to the provider, and the total number of hours of care received by the child. The Pooling Factor file provides state-level data on the percentage of child care funds that is provided through the CCDF, the federal Head Start region the grantee (state) is in and is monitored by, and the state FIPS code for the grantee. Units of Response: United States and Territories, CCDF Family Recipients, CCDF Children Recipients Type of Data: Administrative Tribal Data: No Periodicity: Annual Demographic Indicators: Ethnicity;Household Income;Household Size;Race SORN: Not Applicable Data Use Agreement: Not Applicable Data Use Agreement Location: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/rpxlogin Granularity: Family;Individual Spatial: United States Geocoding: Tribe

The goal of this study was to test specific hypotheses illustrating the relationships among serious victimization experiences, the mental health effects of victimization, substance abuse/use, and delinquent behavior in adolescents. The study assessed familial and nonfamilial types of violence. It was designed as a telephone survey of American youth aged 12-17 living in United States households and residing with a parent or guardian. One parent or guardian in each household was interviewed briefly to establish rapport, secure permission to interview the targeted adolescent, and to ensure the collection of comparative data to examine potential nonresponse bias from households without adolescent participation. All interviews with both parents and adolescents were conducted using Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) technology. From the surveys of parents and adolescents, the principal investigators created one data file by attaching the data from the parents to the records of their respective adolescents. Adolescents were asked whether violence and drug abuse were problems in their schools and communities and what types of violence they had personally witnessed. They were also asked about other stressful events in their lives, such as the loss of a family member, divorce, unemployment, moving to a new home or school, serious illness or injury, and natural disaster. Questions regarding history of sexual assault, physical assault, and harsh physical discipline elicited a description of the event and perpetrator, extent of injuries, age at abuse, whether alcohol or drugs were involved, and who was informed of the incident. Information was also gathered on the delinquent behavior of respondents and their friends, including destruction of property, assault, theft, sexual assault, and gang activity. Other questions covered history of personal and family substance use and mental health indicators, such as major depression, post-traumatic stress disorders, weight changes, sleeping disorders, and problems concentrating. Demographic information was gathered from the adolescents on age, race, gender, number of people living in household, and grade in school. Parents were asked whether they were concerned about violent crime, affordable child care, drug abuse, educational quality, gangs, and the safety of their children at school. In addition, they were questioned about their own victimization experiences and whether they discussed personal safety issues with their children. Parents also supplied demographic information on gender, marital status, number of children, employment status, education, race, and income.

The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) provides federal money to states and territories to provide assistance to low-income families, to obtain quality child care so they can work, attend training, or receive education. Within the broad federal parameters, states and territories set the detailed policies. Those details determine whether a particular family will or will not be eligible for subsidies, how much the family will have to pay for the care, how families apply for and retain subsidies, the maximum amounts that child care providers will be reimbursed, and the administrative procedures that providers must follow. Thus, while CCDF is a single program from the perspective of federal law, it is in practice a different program in every state and territory. The CCDF Policies Database project is a comprehensive, up-to-date database of CCDF policy information that supports the needs of a variety of audiences through (1) analytic data files, (2) a project website and search tool, and (3) an annual report (Book of Tables). These resources are made available to researchers, administrators, and policymakers with the goal of addressing important questions concerning the effects of child care subsidy policies and practices on the children and families served. A description of the data files, project website and search tool, and Book of Tables is provided below: 1. Detailed, longitudinal analytic data files provide CCDF policy information for all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the United States Territories and outlying areas that capture the policies actually in effect at a point in time, rather than proposals or legislation. They capture changes throughout each year, allowing users to access the policies in place at any point in time between October 2009 and the most recent data release. The data are organized into 32 categories with each category of variables separated into its own dataset. The categories span five general areas of policy including: Eligibility Requirements for Families and Children (Datasets 1-5) Family Application, Terms of Authorization, and Redetermination (Datasets 6-13) Family Payments (Datasets 14-18) Policies for Providers, Including Maximum Reimbursement Rates (Datasets 19-27) Overall Administrative and Quality Information Plans (Datasets 28-32) The information in the data files is based primarily on the documents that caseworkers use as they work with families and providers (often termed "caseworker manuals"). The caseworker manuals generally provide much more detailed information on eligibility, family payments, and provider-related policies than the CCDF Plans submitted by states and territories to the federal government. The caseworker manuals also provide ongoing detail for periods in between CCDF Plan dates. Each dataset contains a series of variables designed to capture the intricacies of the rules covered in the category. The variables include a mix of categorical, numeric, and text variables. Most variables have a corresponding notes field to capture additional details related to that particular variable. In addition, each category has an additional notes field to capture any information regarding the rules that is not already outlined in the category's variables. 2. The project website and search tool provide access to a point-and-click user interface. Users can select from the full set of public data to create custom tables. The website also provides access to the full range of reports and products released under the CCDF Policies Database project. The project website and search tool and the data files provide a more detailed set of information than what the Book of Tables provides, including a wider selection of variables and policies over time. 3. The annual Book of Tables provides key policy information for October 1 of each year. The report presents policy variations across the states and territories and is available on the project website. The Book of Tables summarizes a subset of the information available in the full database and data files, and includes information about eligibility requirements for families; application, redetermination, priority, and waiting list policies; family co-payments; and provider policies and reimbursement rates. In many cases, a variable in the Book of Tables will correspond to a single variable in the data files. Usuall

Subcounty-level family type estimates for family households, including presence of children in family households, single-parent households, and families with female or male householders without a spouse or partner present. Estimates are accompanied by margins of error, coefficients of variation, and percentages. Geometry source: 2020 Census. Attribute source: 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, table B11003. Date of last data update: 2024-01-04 This is official RLIS data. Contact Person: Joe Gordon joe.gordon@oregonmetro.gov 503-797-1587 RLIS Metadata Viewer: https://gis.oregonmetro.gov/rlis-metadata/#/details/3828 RLIS Terms of Use: https://rlisdiscovery.oregonmetro.gov/pages/terms-of-use

County-level family type estimates for family households, including presence of children in family households, single-parent households, and families with female or male householders without a spouse or partner present. Estimates are accompanied by margins of error, coefficients of variation, and percentages. Geometry source: 2020 Census. Attribute source: 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, table B11003. Date of last data update: 2024-01-04 This is official RLIS data. Contact Person: Joe Gordon joe.gordon@oregonmetro.gov 503-797-1587 RLIS Metadata Viewer: https://gis.oregonmetro.gov/rlis-metadata/#/details/3837 RLIS Terms of Use: https://rlisdiscovery.oregonmetro.gov/pages/terms-of-use

In 1990, the United States Congress authorized a major program designed to enhance the early public school transitions of former Head Start children and their families. Former Head Start children, like many other children living in poverty, were at risk for poor school achievement. This new program was launched to test the value of extending comprehensive, Head Start-like supports "upward" through the first four years of elementary school. This project, administered by the Head Start Bureau of the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, funded 31 local Transition Demonstration Programs in 30 states and the Navajo Nation from the 1991-1992 school year through the 1997-1998 school year and involved more than 450 public schools. The National Transition Demonstration Study was conducted to provide information about the implementation of this program and its impact on children, families, schools, and communities. More than 7,500 former Head Start children and families were enrolled in the National Study. Thousands of other children and families, however, participated in the Transition Demonstration Program, since supports and educational enhancements were offered to all children and families in the classrooms. The datasets are organized into four broad categories: Family Units -- There are six family unit files. A "family unit" record consists of information about a child or family as the result of source data taken from family interviews, records of child test scores on a child instrument, school archival records, or teacher questionnaires (Part B). If data were available from any combination of these source documents, a family unit record was generated. A broad range of variables are included under this heading. Variables range from simple demographics to standardized scores of social skill ratings as well as neighborhood factor scores and child outcome scores in reading and mathematics. These files are associated with each year of the child's schooling (kindergarten through third grade).; School Unit -- There are five school unit files, organized around the year of data collection. A "school unit" record consists of information about a school as the result of source data captured from family interviews, a classroom teacher, or the school principal. The structure of this data file is different from others in that rather than being merged on a common key, the records are actually stacked one upon the other in groups. The first part of the file consists of family data, the middle portion consists of teacher data, and the final portion consists of principal data. A key variable to the construction of this dataset is the REC_SRC (record source) variable. It informs the user as to the source of the data in the record. The abbreviations are "fi," "ta," and "qp" for family interview, teacher questionnaire (Part A), and questionnaire for principals, respectively. The data viewed as the centerpiece of these datasets are the school climate survey variables and their associated factor scores.; Classroom Unit -- There are five classroom unit files organized around the year of data collection. The data recorded focus on the classroom and are from the following sources: classroom composition, assessment profile, a developmentally appropriate practice template, and a teacher questionnaire (part a). Some of the data available address the social skills the teacher views as important to his or her particular classroom. Variables addressing diversity of both gender and ethnicity within a single classroom are included when available.; Exit Interviews -- There are five Exit Interviews. Exit information was collected from the following groups: experimental and control families, family service specialists, school principals, and classroom teachers. These exit interviews were conducted upon exit from the third grade, and have been combined for both cohorts. ; Community Characteristics Data -- The community characteristics dataset is a hierarchical file having four distinct levels of data. The type of information available in this file may include data that describe the site, county, school district, or study school.; Users of these data are strongly encouraged to consult the accompanying documentation before attempting to use these files.

The National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH), Wave 1 (1987-1988) is the first of three waves in a longitudinal survey that was designed to study the causes and consequences of changes happening in families and households within the United States. At a time when the range of family structures was becoming more and more diverse, this study permitted a close examination of the resulting family compositions and household operations. One adult per household was randomly selected as the primary respondent, and there was a total of 13,007 respondents. In addition to the main interview conducted with the primary respondent, a shorter, self-administered questionnaire was given to the spouse or cohabitating partner, and also administered to the householder if he or she was a relative of the primary respondent. A considerable amount of life-history information was collected, such as the respondent's family living arrangements in childhood, departures and returns to the parental home, and histories of marriage, separation, divorce, cohabitation, adoption, child custody arrangements, and stepfamily relations. Respondents were also asked about the relationship of household members to each other and the quality of their relationships with their parents, children, and in-laws. Information on economic well-being was also collected, including earnings from wages, self-employment income, interest, dividends, investments, pensions, Social Security, public assistance, and child support/alimony. Demographic information collected includes sex, age, marital status, education, and employment. The National Survey of Families and Households main sample was a national, multi-stage area probability sample containing about 17,000 housing units drawn from 100 sampling areas in the 48 contiguous states in the U.S. Wave one had 13,017 respondents, of which 10 invalid/duplicate cases were removed, for a final total of 13,007 respondents. The sample included a main cross-section sample of 9,643 households. The oversample of blacks, Puerto Ricans, Mexican Americans, single-parent families and families with stepchildren, cohabiting couples and recently married was accomplished by doubling the number of households selected within the 100 sampling areas. For more information on sampling, please see Appendix L: National Survey of Families and Households: A Sampling Report within the P.I. Codebook. face-to-face interview; self-enumerated questionnaireTwo percent of the interviews were conducted in Spanish.Fieldwork for Wave 1 of the National Survey of Families and Households was completed by the Institute for Survey Research at Temple UniversityThe second and third waves of NSFH can be accessed by visiting ICPSR 6906 and ICPSR 171 respectively.For additional information on the National Survey of Families and Households, please visit the NSFH Web site. This study has been undertaken explicitly to provide a data resource for the research community at large and was designed with advice from a large number of consultants and correspondents. The substantive coverage has been kept broad to permit the holistic analysis of family experience from an array of theoretical perspectives. Non-institutionalized, English or Spanish speaking population aged 19 and older, living in households within the United States. Smallest Geographic Unit: Region The data are not weighted, however, this study contains three weight variables (SAMWT, AWEIGHT, and SPWEIGHT) that should be used in any analysis. Datasets: DS1: National Survey of Families and Households, Wave 1: 1987-1988, [United States] The study design is cross-sectional, with several retrospective sequences. Response Rates: 74.3%

Data SourcesAmerican Community Survey (ACS):Conducted by: U.S. Census BureauDescription: The ACS is an ongoing survey that provides detailed demographic and socio-economic data on the population and housing characteristics of the United States.Content: The survey collects information on various topics such as income, education, employment, health insurance coverage, and housing costs and conditions.Frequency: The ACS offers more frequent and up-to-date information compared to the decennial census, with annual estimates produced based on a rolling sample of households.Purpose: ACS data is essential for policymakers, researchers, and communities to make informed decisions and address the evolving needs of the population.CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI):Created by: ATSDR’s Geospatial Research, Analysis & Services Program (GRASP)Utilized by: CDCDescription: The SVI is designed to identify and map communities that are most likely to need support before, during, and after hazardous events.Content: SVI ranks U.S. Census tracts based on 15 social factors, including unemployment, minority status, and disability, and groups them into four related themes. Each tract receives rankings for each Census variable and for each theme, as well as an overall ranking, indicating its relative vulnerability.Purpose: SVI data provides insights into the social vulnerability of communities at both the tract and zip code levels, helping public health officials and emergency response planners allocate resources effectively.Utilization and IntegrationBy integrating data from both the ACS and the SVI, this dataset enables an in-depth analysis and understanding of various socio-economic and demographic indicators at the census tract level. This integrated data is valuable for research, policymaking, and community planning purposes, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of social and economic dynamics across different geographical areas in the United States.ApplicationsTargeted Interventions: Facilitates the development of targeted interventions to address the needs of vulnerable populations within specific zip codes.Resource Allocation: Assists emergency response planners in allocating resources more effectively based on community vulnerability at the zip code level.Research: Provides a rich dataset for academic and applied research in socio-economic and demographic studies at a granular zip code level.Community Planning: Supports the planning and development of community programs and initiatives aimed at improving living conditions and reducing vulnerabilities within specific zip code areas.Note: Due to limitations in the data environment, variable names may be truncated. Refer to the provided table for a clear understanding of the variables. CSV Variable NameShapefile Variable NameDescriptionStateNameStateNameName of the stateStateFipsStateFipsState-level FIPS codeState nameStateNameName of the stateCountyNameCountyNameName of the countyCensusFipsCensusFipsCounty-level FIPS codeState abbreviationStateFipsState abbreviationCountyFipsCountyFipsCounty-level FIPS codeCensusFipsCensusFipsCounty-level FIPS codeCounty nameCountyNameName of the countyAREA_SQMIAREA_SQMITract area in square milesE_TOTPOPE_TOTPOPPopulation estimates, 2013-2017 ACSEP_POVEP_POVPercentage of persons below poverty estimateEP_UNEMPEP_UNEMPUnemployment Rate estimateEP_HBURDEP_HBURDHousing cost burdened occupied housing units with annual income less than $75,000EP_UNINSUREP_UNINSURUninsured in the total civilian noninstitutionalized population estimate, 2013-2017 ACSEP_PCIEP_PCIPer capita income estimate, 2013-2017 ACSEP_DISABLEP_DISABLPercentage of civilian noninstitutionalized population with a disability estimate, 2013-2017 ACSEP_SNGPNTEP_SNGPNTPercentage of single parent households with children under 18 estimate, 2013-2017 ACSEP_MINRTYEP_MINRTYPercentage minority (all persons except white, non-Hispanic) estimate, 2013-2017 ACSEP_LIMENGEP_LIMENGPercentage of persons (age 5+) who speak English "less than well" estimate, 2013-2017 ACSEP_MUNITEP_MUNITPercentage of housing in structures with 10 or more units estimateEP_MOBILEEP_MOBILEPercentage of mobile homes estimateEP_CROWDEP_CROWDPercentage of occupied housing units with more people than rooms estimateEP_NOVEHEP_NOVEHPercentage of households with no vehicle available estimateEP_GROUPQEP_GROUPQPercentage of persons in group quarters estimate, 2014-2018 ACSBelow_5_yrBelow_5_yrUnder 5 years: Percentage of Total populationBelow_18_yrBelow_18_yrUnder 18 years: Percentage of Total population18-39_yr18_39_yr18-39 years: Percentage of Total population40-64_yr40_64_yr40-64 years: Percentage of Total populationAbove_65_yrAbove_65_yrAbove 65 years: Percentage of Total populationPop_malePop_malePercentage of total population malePop_femalePop_femalePercentage of total population femaleWhitewhitePercentage population of white aloneBlackblackPercentage population of black or African American aloneAmerican_indianamerican_iPercentage population of American Indian and Alaska native aloneAsianasianPercentage population of Asian aloneHawaiian_pacific_islanderhawaiian_pPercentage population of Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander aloneSome_othersome_otherPercentage population of some other race aloneMedian_tot_householdsmedian_totMedian household income in the past 12 months (in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars) by household size – total householdsLess_than_high_schoolLess_than_Percentage of Educational attainment for the population less than 9th grades and 9th to 12th grade, no diploma estimateHigh_schoolHigh_schooPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of High school graduate (includes equivalency)Some_collegeSome_collePercentage of Educational attainment for the population of Some college, no degreeAssociates_degreeAssociatesPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of associate degreeBachelor’s_degreeBachelor_sPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of Bachelor’s degreeMaster’s_degreeMaster_s_dPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of Graduate or professional degreecomp_devicescomp_devicPercentage of Household having one or more types of computing devicesInternetInternetPercentage of Household with an Internet subscriptionBroadbandBroadbandPercentage of Household having Broadband of any typeSatelite_internetSatelite_iPercentage of Household having Satellite Internet serviceNo_internetNo_internePercentage of Household having No Internet accessNo_computerNo_computePercentage of Household having No computerThis table provides a mapping between the CSV variable names and the shapefile variable names, along with a brief description of each variable.

This dataset contains replication files for "The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility Since 1940" by Raj Chetty, David Grusky, Maximilian Hell, Nathaniel Hendren, Robert Manduca, and Jimmy Narang. For more information, see https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/the-fading-american-dream/. A summary of the related publication follows. One of the defining features of the “American Dream” is the ideal that children have a higher standard of living than their parents. We assess whether the U.S. is living up to this ideal by estimating rates of “absolute income mobility” – the fraction of children who earn more than their parents – since 1940. We measure absolute mobility by comparing children’s household incomes at age 30 (adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index) with their parents’ household incomes at age 30. We find that rates of absolute mobility have fallen from approximately 90% for children born in 1940 to 50% for children born in the 1980s. Absolute income mobility has fallen across the entire income distribution, with the largest declines for families in the middle class. These findings are unaffected by using alternative price indices to adjust for inflation, accounting for taxes and transfers, measuring income at later ages, and adjusting for changes in household size. Absolute mobility fell in all 50 states, although the rate of decline varied, with the largest declines concentrated in states in the industrial Midwest, such as Michigan and Illinois. The decline in absolute mobility is especially steep – from 95% for children born in 1940 to 41% for children born in 1984 – when we compare the sons’ earnings to their fathers’ earnings. Why have rates of upward income mobility fallen so sharply over the past half-century? There have been two important trends that have affected the incomes of children born in the 1980s relative to those born in the 1940s and 1950s: lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rates and greater inequality in the distribution of growth. We find that most of the decline in absolute mobility is driven by the more unequal distribution of economic growth rather than the slowdown in aggregate growth rates. When we simulate an economy that restores GDP growth to the levels experienced in the 1940s and 1950s but distributes that growth across income groups as it is distributed today, absolute mobility only increases to 62%. In contrast, maintaining GDP at its current level but distributing it more broadly across income groups – at it was distributed for children born in the 1940s – would increase absolute mobility to 80%, thereby reversing more than two-thirds of the decline in absolute mobility. These findings show that higher growth rates alone are insufficient to restore absolute mobility to the levels experienced in mid-century America. Under the current distribution of GDP, we would need real GDP growth rates above 6% per year to return to rates of absolute mobility in the 1940s. Intuitively, because a large fraction of GDP goes to a small fraction of high-income households today, higher GDP growth does not substantially increase the number of children who earn more than their parents. Of course, this does not mean that GDP growth does not matter: changing the distribution of growth naturally has smaller effects on absolute mobility when there is very little growth to be distributed. The key point is that increasing absolute mobility substantially would require more broad-based economic growth. We conclude that absolute mobility has declined sharply in America over the past half-century primarily because of the growth in inequality. If one wants to revive the “American Dream” of high rates of absolute mobility, one must have an interest in growth that is shared more broadly across the income distribution.

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 2006 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 2006, custom order for City of Vancouver Local Areas. Data accessThis dataset has not yet been converted to a format compatible with our new platform. The following links provide access to the files from our legacy site: Census local area profiles 2006 (CSV) Census local area profiles 2006 (XLS)Dataset schema (Attributes)Please see the Census local area profiles 2006 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. In 2006 there were changes made to the definition of households. A number of Single Room Occupancy and Seniors facilities were considered to be dwellings in 2001, and collective dwellings in 2006. As a result the residents of those buildings would not be considered to be households in 2006. There is a high likelihood that residents of such facilities have low incomes, and there will have been an impact on the count of households considered to have a low income.A number of changes were made to the census family concept for 2001 which account for some of the increase in the total number of families, single parent families and children living at home.Occupied Dwellings are those with a household living in them. The change to the definition of households (already noted) also affects the number of occupied dwellings.In 2006 there was a change made to the definition of duplex. While it is still defined as a dwelling in a building with two dwellings, one above the other, in 2001 these were only detached properties. In 2006 the definition changed so they could be joined to other similar properties. In 2006 Statistics Canada also seem to have identified more duplexes than before.In 2006 Statistics Canada conducted the Census with a mail-in or online response. To facilitate this, they identified more secondary addresses in houses. This probably also contributes to the increase from 2001 in the number of duplexes, and the reduction in the number of single-family dwellings.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. Data currencyThe data for Census 2006 was collected in May 2006. 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 2006 Census Dictionary Local area boundary dataset

This administrative dataset provides descriptive information about the families and children served through the federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). CCDF dollars are provided to states, territories, and tribes to provide assistance to low-income families receiving or in transition from temporary public assistance, to obtain quality child care so they can work, or depending on their state's policy, to attend training or receive education. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 requires states and territories to collect information on all family units receiving assistance through the CCDF and to submit monthly case-level data to the Office of Child Care. States are permitted to report case-level data for the entire population, or a sample of the population, under approved sampling guidelines. The Summary Records file contains monthly state-level summary information including the number of families served. The Family Records file contains family-level data including single parent status of the head of household, monthly co-payment amount, date on which child care assistance began, reasons for care (e.g., employment, training/education, protective services, etc.), income used to determine eligibility, source of income, and the family size on which eligibility is based. The Child Records file contains child-level data including ethnicity, race, gender, and date of birth. The Setting Records file contains information about the type of child care setting, the total amount paid to the provider, and the total number of hours of care received by the child. The Pooling Factor file provides state-level data on the percentage of child care funds that is provided through the CCDF, the federal Head Start region the grantee (state) is in and is monitored by, and the state FIPS code for the grantee.

The 2014 Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey, or FACES 2014, is the sixth in a series of national studies of Head Start, with earlier studies conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2009. FACES 2014 used a new study design that differs from earlier rounds of FACES in several important ways: (1) it included larger program and classroom samples, (2) all data were collected in a single program year, (3) the baseline sample of children included both children enrolled in their first and second year of Head Start, and (4) several special studies were conducted along with the main (Classroom + Child Outcomes Core and Classroom Core) study to collect more detailed information about a given topic, to study new populations of Head Start programs and participants, and to evaluate measures for possible use in future rounds of FACES. For example, the Family Engagement Plus study collected information from parents and staff (teachers and family services staff) on family engagement efforts and service provision in Head Start programs. The FACES 2014 Family Engagement Plus study took place in spring 2015 within the 60 programs that participated in the child-level data collection in the Classroom + Child Outcomes Core study. This Plus study describes family engagement practices in Head Start from the perspectives of parents and Head Start staff. It examines how practices align with the Head Start Parent, Family, and Community Engagement (PFCE) Framework and targeted family outcomes. It also explores how programs engage with community partners to provide comprehensive services to families and how parents and staff characterize their relationships with one another. It includes semi-structured interviews with parents and family services staff (FSS) as well as supplemental content added to the Core parent and teacher surveys. This release includes open-ended qualitative data from the semi-structured interviews included in the Family Engagement Plus study. The primary research questions for the Family Engagement Plus study are as follows: What do family engagement efforts look like in Head Start? How are families engaged in Head Start and in their children's learning and development at home and in the community? What staff are involved in family engagement efforts, and in what ways are they involved in those efforts? How are comprehensive family services provided in Head Start? How do parents and staff characterize their relationships and interactions with one another? How do family engagement efforts and service provisions align with the Head Start Parent, Family, and Community Engagement (PFCE) Framework? The User's Manual provides detailed information about the Family Engagement Plus study design, execution, and data to inform and assist researchers who may be interested in using the data for future analyses or pairing the Family Engagement qualitative data collection sources with other FACES 2014 sources.