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.

This dataset includes birth rates for unmarried women by age group, race, and Hispanic origin in the United States since 1970. Methods for collecting information on marital status changed over the reporting period and have been documented in: • Ventura SJ, Bachrach CA. Nonmarital childbearing in the United States, 1940–99. National vital statistics reports; vol 48 no 16. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. 2000. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_16.pdf. • National Center for Health Statistics. User guide to the 2013 natality public use file. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. 2014. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/VitalStatsOnline.htm. National data on births by Hispanics origin exclude data for Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma in 1989; for New Hampshire and Oklahoma in 1990; for New Hampshire in 1991 and 1992. Information on reporting Hispanic origin is detailed in the Technical Appendix for the 1999 public-use natality data file (see (ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/Dataset_Documentation/DVS/natality/Nat1999doc.pdf.) All birth data by race before 1980 are based on race of the child. Starting in 1980, birth data by race are based on race of the mother. SOURCES CDC/NCHS, National Vital Statistics System, birth data (see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/births.htm); public-use data files (see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/Vitalstatsonline.htm); and CDC WONDER (see http://wonder.cdc.gov/). REFERENCES Curtin SC, Ventura SJ, Martinez GM. Recent declines in nonmarital childbearing in the United States. NCHS data brief, no 162. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2014. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.pdf. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, et al. Births: Final data for 2015. National vital statistics reports; vol 66 no 1. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2017. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr66/nvsr66_01.pdf.

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

This dataset provides expenditures on Children by Families provides estimates of the cost of raising children from birth through age 17 for major budgetary components.

This dataset includes live births, birth rates, and fertility rates by race of mother in the United States since 1960. Data availability varies by race and ethnicity groups. All birth data by race before 1980 are based on race of the child. Since 1980, birth data by race are based on race of the mother. For race, data are available for Black and White births since 1960, and for American Indians/Alaska Native and Asian/Pacific Islander births since 1980. Data on Hispanic origin are available since 1989. Teen birth rates for specific racial and ethnic categories are also available since 1989. From 2003 through 2015, the birth data by race were based on the “bridged” race categories (5). Starting in 2016, the race categories for reporting birth data changed; the new race and Hispanic origin categories are: Non-Hispanic, Single Race White; Non-Hispanic, Single Race Black; Non-Hispanic, Single Race American Indian/Alaska Native; Non-Hispanic, Single Race Asian; and, Non-Hispanic, Single Race Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (5,6). Birth data by the prior, “bridged” race (and Hispanic origin) categories are included through 2018 for comparison. SOURCES NCHS, National Vital Statistics System, birth data (see https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/births.htm); public-use data files (see https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/VitalStatsOnline.htm); and CDC WONDER (see http://wonder.cdc.gov/). REFERENCES National Office of Vital Statistics. Vital Statistics of the United States, 1950, Volume I. 1954. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1950_1.pdf. Hetzel AM. U.S. vital statistics system: major activities and developments, 1950-95. National Center for Health Statistics. 1997. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/usvss.pdf. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Statistics of the United States, 1967, Volume I–Natality. 1969. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/nat67_1.pdf. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, et al. Births: Final data for 2015. National vital statistics reports; vol 66 no 1. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2017. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr66/nvsr66_01.pdf. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK, Drake P. Births: Final data for 2016. National Vital Statistics Reports; vol 67 no 1. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2018. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_01.pdf. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK, Births: Final data for 2018. National vital statistics reports; vol 68 no 13. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2019. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_13.pdf.

Dataset available only to University of Arizona affiliates. To obtain access, you must log in to ReDATA with your NetID. Data is for research use by each individual downloader only. Sharing and/or redistribution of any portion of this dataset is prohibited.This ReferenceUSA dataset from Data Axle (formerly Infogroup) contains household data about US consumers in annual snapshots from 2006-2021. It includes details such as family demographics, income, home ownership status, lifestyle, location and more, which can help users to create marketing plans and conduct competitive analyses.Consumer profiles are described with 58-66 indicators. Data for all states are combined into single files for each year between 2006 and 2012 while there is a file for each state in 2013-2021. The Layout - Consumer DB Historical 2006-2012.xlsx in Documentation.zip applies to 2006-2012. Codebooks for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2021 are not included but files in 2013-2021 have similar layouts therefore 2016 Historical Residential File Layout.xlsx and 2020 Historical Residential File Layout.xlsx in Documentation.zip apply to 2013-2021.The University of Arizona University Libraries also subscribe to Data Axle Reference Solutions which provides this data in a searchable, online database with historical data available going back to 2003.NOTE: The uncompressed datasets are very large.Detailed file descriptions and MD5 hash values for each file can be found in the README.txt file.For inquiries regarding the contents of this dataset, please contact the Corresponding Author listed in the README.txt file. Administrative inquiries (e.g., removal requests, trouble downloading, etc.) can be directed to data-management@arizona.edu

The 2006 Second Edition TIGER/Line files are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the Census TIGER database. The geographic coverage for a single TIGER/Line file is a county or statistical equivalent entity, with the coverage area based on the latest available governmental unit boundaries. The Census TIGER database represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts. However, each county-based TIGER/Line file is designed to stand alone as an independent data set or the files can be combined to cover the whole Nation. The 2006 Second Edition TIGER/Line files consist of line segments representing physical features and governmental and statistical boundaries. This shapefile represents the current State Senate Districts for New Mexico as posted on the Census Bureau website for 2006.

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.

Note: Updates to this data product are discontinued. Over 1 in 4 rural children are living in families that are poor, according to the official poverty measure, up from 1 in 5 in 1999, but this change was uneven across the rural landscape. Counties with high vulnerability to child poverty, those with both low young adult education levels and high proportions of children in single-parent families, were generally the most hard-hit by the recession of the past decade and experienced substantial increases in their already high child poverty rates. Along with the recession, an increase in rural children in single-parent households, continuing from the 1990s, was a major contributor to the rise in child poverty after 2000. Three factors that shape the geography of high and increasing rural child poverty are explored below: economic conditions, young adult education levels, and family structure. This collection of maps complements the July 2015 Amber Waves feature, Understanding the Geography of Growth in Rural Child Poverty.

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 Priority Neighborhoods dataset is a part of the City of Oakland Department of Transportation's (OakDOT's) Geographic Equity Toolbox. The Priority Neighborhoods GIS dataset relies upon demographic data from the American Community Survey (ACS). This dataset assigns each census tract in Oakland a numerical priority value and a quantile from lowest and highest, as determined by the following seven weighted demographic factors (with weights in brackets "[XX%]"): • People of Color [25%] • Low-income Households (<50% of Area Median Income for a 4-person household) [25%] • People with Disability [10%] • Seniors 65 Years and Over [10%] • Single Parent Families [10%] • Severely Rent-Burdened Households [10%] • Low Educational Attainment (less than a bachelor's degree) [10%]

This dataset was last updated in October 2024 with data from the 2022 5-year (i.e., averaged from 2018 through 2022) American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is managed by the United States Census Bureau; learn more about the ACS at: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs.

See the online map and read the methodology at: https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/oakdot-geographic-equity-toolbox. This dataset is maintained by the OakDOT Race and Equity Team; learn more about the team at: https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/oakdot-race-and-equity-team.

Field Descriptions: • TRACT: Census Tract Number • QUINTILE: Priority Quintile (calculated) • PLAN_AREA: OakDOT Planning Area • POPULATION: Population (average from 2018 through 2022) • PCT_POC: Percent People of Color • PCT_INC: Percent Low Income • PCT_SRB: Percent Severely Rent-Burdened • PCT_PWD: People with a Disability • PCT_SENIOR: Percent Seniors • PCT_SPH: Percent Single Parent Households • PCT_EDU: Percent Low Educational Attainment • RAT_POC: Ratio of People of Color (compared to Citywide average) • RAT_INC: Ratio of Low Income (compared to Citywide average) • RAT_SRB: Ratio of Severely Rent-Burdened (compared to Citywide average) • RAT_PWD: Ratio of People with a Disability (compared to Citywide average) • RAT_SENIOR: Ratio of Seniors (compared to Citywide average) • RAT_SPH: Ratio of Single Parent Households (compared to Citywide average) • RAT_EDU: Ratio of Low Educational Attainment (compared to Citywide average) • RAT_SCORE: Priority Ratio (compared to Citywide average) • ALAND: Land Area in square feet

City of Oakland, Department of Transportation (OakDOT) 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 4314 | Oakland, CA 94612

This dataset includes teen birth rates for females by age group, race, and Hispanic origin in the United States since 1960.

Data availability varies by race and ethnicity groups. All birth data by race before 1980 are based on race of the child. Since 1980, birth data by race are based on race of the mother. For race, data are available for Black and White births since 1960, and for American Indians/Alaska Native and Asian/Pacific Islander births since 1980. Data on Hispanic origin are available since 1989. Teen birth rates for specific racial and ethnic categories are also available since 1989. From 2003 through 2015, the birth data by race were based on the “bridged” race categories (5). Starting in 2016, the race categories for reporting birth data changed; the new race and Hispanic origin categories are: Non-Hispanic, Single Race White; Non-Hispanic, Single Race Black; Non-Hispanic, Single Race American Indian/Alaska Native; Non-Hispanic, Single Race Asian; and, Non-Hispanic, Single Race Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (5,6). Birth data by the prior, “bridged” race (and Hispanic origin) categories are included through 2018 for comparison.

National data on births by Hispanic origin exclude data for Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma in 1989; New Hampshire and Oklahoma in 1990; and New Hampshire in 1991 and 1992. Birth and fertility rates for the Central and South American population includes other and unknown Hispanic. Information on reporting Hispanic origin is detailed in the Technical Appendix for the 1999 public-use natality data file (see ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/Dataset_Documentation/DVS/natality/Nat1999doc.pdf).

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

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%

The 2006 Second Edition TIGER/Line files are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the Census TIGER database. The geographic coverage for a single TIGER/Line file is a county or statistical equivalent entity, with the coverage area based on the latest available governmental unit boundaries. The Census TIGER database represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts. However, each county-based TIGER/Line file is designed to stand alone as an independent data set or the files can be combined to cover the whole Nation. The 2006 Second Edition TIGER/Line files consist of line segments representing physical features and governmental and statistical boundaries. This shapefile represents the current State Senate Districts for New Mexico as posted on the Census Bureau website for 2006.

The 2006 Second Edition TIGER/Line files are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the Census TIGER database. The geographic coverage for a single TIGER/Line file is a county or statistical equivalent entity, with the coverage area based on the latest available governmental unit boundaries. The Census TIGER database represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts. However, each county-based TIGER/Line file is designed to stand alone as an independent data set or the files can be combined to cover the whole Nation. The 2006 Second Edition TIGER/Line files consist of line segments representing physical features and governmental and statistical boundaries. This shapefile represents the current State House Districts for New Mexico as posted on the Census Bureau website for 2006.

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

The 2006 Second Edition TIGER/Line files are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the Census TIGER database. The geographic coverage for a single TIGER/Line file is a county or statistical equivalent entity, with the coverage area based on the latest available governmental unit boundaries. The Census TIGER database represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts. However, each county-based TIGER/Line file is designed to stand alone as an independent data set or the files can be combined to cover the whole Nation. The 2006 Second Edition TIGER/Line files consist of line segments representing physical features and governmental and statistical boundaries. This shapefile represents the current State Senate Districts for New Mexico as posted on the Census Bureau website for 2006.

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.

The 2006 Second Edition TIGER/Line files are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the Census TIGER database. The geographic coverage for a single TIGER/Line file is a county or statistical equivalent entity, with the coverage area based on the latest available governmental unit boundaries. The Census TIGER database represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts. However, each county-based TIGER/Line file is designed to stand alone as an independent data set or the files can be combined to cover the whole Nation. The 2006 Second Edition TIGER/Line files consist of line segments representing physical features and governmental and statistical boundaries. This shapefile represents the current State House Districts for New Mexico as posted on the Census Bureau website for 2006.