COVID-19 - Government income support and benefits of census family units by census family type and number of children (1, 2, 3, 4)Frequency: OccasionalTable: 11-10-0100-01Release date: 2023-07-12Geography: Canada, Province or territory, Census metropolitan area, Census agglomeration, Census metropolitan area part, Census agglomeration partFootnotes: 1 The data source for this table is the final version of the T1 Family File, created by the Centre for Income and Socio-Economic Well-being Statistics of Statistics Canada. Because they are based on a different methodology, estimates of the number of individuals and census families presented in this table differ from estimates produced by the Centre for Demography. Information on the data source, the historical availability, definitions of the terms used, and the geographies available can be found at https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/72-212-X" rel="external noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"> Technical Reference Guide for the Annual Income Estimates for Census Families2 This table should only be used in conjunction with income statistics produced using the T1 Family File. Because the counts available in this table are based on a different methodology, the family and person counts will differ from estimates produced by the Centre for Demography.3 COVID Benefits are benefits provided by the federal and provincial government during the pandemic to support individuals and families in 2020. More information is available from the https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/72-212-X" rel="external noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"> Technical Reference Guide for the Annual Income Estimates for Census Families4 Statistics are calculated based on families who received COVID benefits only.5 The Census Standard Geographical Classification (SGC) is used for data dissemination of the census metropolitan areas and the census agglomerations: from 2016 to 2020, SGC 2016; as of 2021, SGC 2021. 6 Census families are comprised of: 1) couples (married or common-law, including same-sex couples) living in the same dwelling with or without children, and 2) single parents (male or female) living with one or more children. Persons who are not matched to a family become persons not in census families. They may be living alone, with a family to whom they are related, with a family to whom they are unrelated or with other persons not in census families.7 A couple family consists of a couple living together (married or common-law, including same-sex couples) living at the same address with or without children.8 A lone-parent family is a family with only one parent, male or female, and with at least one child.9 A person not in census families is an individual who is not part of a census family, couple family or lone-parent family. Persons not in census families may live with their married children or with their children who have children of their own. They may be living with a family to whom they are related or unrelated. They may also be living alone or with other non-family persons.10 Children are tax filers or imputed persons in couple and lone-parent families. Tax filing children do not live with their spouse, have no children of their own and live with their parent(s). Most children are identified from the Canada Child Tax Benefit file, a provincial births file or a previous T1 family file.11 Median is the middle number in a group of numbers. Where a median income, for example, is given as $26,000, it means that exactly half of the incomes reported are greater than or equal to $26,000, and that the other half is less than or equal to the median amount. 12 Total income is income from all sources. As of 2020, COVID-19 - Government income support and benefits are included in income estimates. A detailed definition of what is included in total income is available from the Technical Reference Guide for the Preliminary Estimates from the T1 Family File (T1FF) - opens in a new browser window."

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.

U.S. citizens with a professional degree had the highest median household income in 2023, at 172,100 U.S. dollars. In comparison, those with less than a 9th grade education made significantly less money, at 35,690 U.S. dollars. Household income The median household income in the United States has fluctuated since 1990, but rose to around 70,000 U.S. dollars in 2021. Maryland had the highest median household income in the United States in 2021. Maryland’s high levels of wealth is due to several reasons, and includes the state's proximity to the nation's capital. Household income and ethnicity The median income of white non-Hispanic households in the United States had been on the rise since 1990, but declining since 2019. While income has also been on the rise, the median income of Hispanic households was much lower than those of white, non-Hispanic private households. However, the median income of Black households is even lower than Hispanic households. Income inequality is a problem without an easy solution in the United States, especially since ethnicity is a contributing factor. Systemic racism contributes to the non-White population suffering from income inequality, which causes the opportunity for growth to stagnate.

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

Familial structure in the United States

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

Adoptions in the U.S.

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

Footnotes: 1 The data source for this table is the final version of the T1 Family File, created by the Centre for Income and Socio-Economic Well-being Statistics of Statistics Canada. Because they are based on a different methodology, estimates of the number of individuals and census families presented in this table differ from estimates produced by the Centre for Demography. Information on the data source, the historical availability, definitions of the terms used, and the geographies available can be found at Technical Reference Guide for the Annual Income Estimates for Census Families Individuals and Seniors - opens in a new browser window."2 Families are comprised of: 1) couples (married or common-law, including same-sex couples) living in the same dwelling with or without children, and 2) single parents (male or female) living with one or more children. Persons who are not matched to a family become persons not in census families. They may be living alone, with a family to whom they are related, with a family to whom they are unrelated or with other persons not in census families. Beginning in 2001, same-sex couples reporting as couples are counted as couple families. 3 Characteristics such as age are as of December 31 of the reference year. 4 A couple family consists of a couple living together (married or common-law, including same-sex couples) living at the same address with or without children. Beginning in 2001, same-sex couples reporting as couples are counted as couple families. 5 Children are tax filers or imputed persons in couple and lone-parent families. Tax filing children do not live with their spouse, have no children of their own and live with their parent(s). Most children are identified from a file pertaining to Federal Child Benefits, a provincial births file or a previous T1 Family File. 6 A lone-parent family is a family with only one parent, male or female, and with at least one child. 7 This table should only be used in conjunction with income statistics produced using the T1 Family File. Because the counts available in this table are based on a different methodology, the family and person counts will differ from estimates produced by the Centre for Demography. 8 The Census Standard Geographical Classification (SGC) is used for data dissemination of the census metropolitan areas and the census agglomerations: from 1997 to 2001, SGC 1996; from 2002 to 2006, SGC 2001; from 2007 to 2011, SGC 2006; from 2012 to 2015, SGC 2011; as of 2016, SGC 2016. Please note that census agglomerations were introduced in this CANSIM table in 2008.

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

The study charted the views of Finnish people on family policy and included themes such as family benefits, taxation, parenting, gender roles and work-life balance. The respondents were first asked some questions about their situation, for example, whether they had any children and how many children under the ages of 18 and 10 they had. Those respondents who had children were asked whether they or the other parent had been on care leave (after parental leave, granted by the employer), how the family usually spent the child benefit and what things had been particularly important and challenging when they had had their first child. The way expenses and bills were paid between the respondent and their spouse was investigated as well as how satisfied the respondent was with various services for families with children. One question surveyed whether the respondents had regularly helped a relative not living in their household in the previous 12 months. Opinions on the ideal number of children were surveyed. Relating to social policy in general, the respondents were asked whether Finnish social security benefits should be universal or directed at those with financial difficulties, what their opinion on the amount of taxes was and whether income tax could be increased if the increase in revenue were directed at certain purposes (e.g. care for the elderly). Relating to family policy, views were surveyed on how tax income should specifically be allocated if it was used to support families with children (e.g. on day care services, child health care), how child benefit should be paid based on the income of the family as well as the importance of various measures that could be taken to improve the circumstances of families with children and the importance of measures to develop family leave and work-life balance. The respondents were also asked how fathers could be encouraged to take paternal leaves, to what extent they agreed with a number of statements relating to gender roles and whether care leave/home care allowance should also be granted to relatives other than parents who look after a small child and to people who are working and caring for their own parents. Opinions on the best type of taxation for families with children were charted. Background variables included, among others, the respondent's date of birth, gender, mother tongue, marital status, household composition, level of education, economic activity and occupational status, employer type, previous occupational status, membership in a trade union/professional organisation, self-placement on a left - right axis, self-perceived social class, personal gross annual income and place of residence. Further background variables included the mother tongues of the members of the household, household size, number and ages of children in the household, gross annual income of the household, type of accommodation, housing tenure and the respondent's/family's financial situation.

The housing situation of children in the Federal Republic from the perspective of parents. Topics: detailed description of residence; monthly burden or rent costs and additional costs; having a yard; individual rooms for the children; assumed satisfaction of the child with the children´s room; consideration of children´s interests in furnishing the room; new acquisition of items or use of older item of furniture; tasks and duties of child in household; detailed information on place of stay of child in the course of the day and when doing homework, receiving friends and playing; housing desires and ideas about an optimum residence concept; preferred design or preferred style for chairs, tables, desks, bed, closet, shelves and lamps by means of sample pictures; preferred color for setting up a children´s room; attitude to individual room for the child; problems in setting up a children´s room; ideas about a residence suitable for children; sources of information about furnishings for children´s rooms and about raising children; vacation with children; social conduct and social surroundings of the child; relationship to teachers and classmates; hobbies of the child; friends of the child; possession of pet and desire of child for a pet; child-raising style and child-raising goals (scales); reward and punishment; prohibitions and requirements; family climate and conflicts within the family; characterization of the child; amount of pocket-money for the child; vacation together with children; judgement on the political situation of the FRG and the most child-oriented party; largest and second largest room; secondary use of bedroom and living room; frequency of moving; Demography: age (classified); school and occupational training of parents; household income; Interviewer rating: city size; residence size; number of rooms; residence furnishings; city vicinity and age of residence; state. Beyond this after viewing the children´s room the interviewer provided a detailed description of the room regarding window surface, wall composition, floors and pieces of furniture. Die Wohnsituation der Kinder in der Bundesrepublik aus der Sicht der Eltern. Themen: Detaillierte Beschreibung der Wohnung; monatliche Belastung bzw. Mietkosten und Nebenkosten; Gartenbesitz; Einzelzimmer für die Kinder; vermutete Zufriedenheit des Kindes mit dem Kinderzimmer; Berücksichtigung der Kinderinteressen bei der Einrichtung des Zimmers; Neuanschaffung der Gegenstände oder Verwendung älterer Einrichtungsgegenstände; Aufgaben und Pflichten des Kindes im Haushalt; detaillierte Angaben über den Aufenthaltsort des Kindes im Tagesablauf und bei Verrichtung von Schularbeiten, beim Empfang von Freunden und beim Spielen; Wohnwünsche und Vorstellungen über eine optimale Wohnungskonzeption; präferiertes Design oder präferierter Stil für Stühle, Tische, Schreibtische, Bett, Schrank, Regale und Lampen anhand von Bildvorlagen; präferierte Farbgebung für die Einrichtung eines Kinderzimmers; Einstellung zum Einzelzimmer für das Kind; Probleme bei der Einrichtung eines Kinderzimmers; Vorstellungen über eine kindergerechte Wohnung; Informationsquellen über Kinderzimmereinrichtungen und über Kindererziehung; Urlaub mit Kindern; Sozialverhalten und soziales Umfeld des Kindes; Verhältnis zu Lehrern und Mitschülern; Hobbies des Kindes; Freunde des Kindes; Haustierbesitz und Haustierwunsch des Kindes; Erziehungsstil und Erziehungsziele(Skalen); Belohnung und Bestrafung; Verbote und Gebote; Familienklima und Konflikte innerhalb der Familie; Charakterisierung des Kindes; Höhe des Taschengelds für das Kind; gemeinsamer Urlaub mit den Kindern; Beurteilung der politischen Lage der BRD und der kinderfreundlichsten Partei; größtes und zweitgrößtes Zimmer; Sekundärnutzung von Schlafzimmer und Wohnzimmer; Umzugshäufigkeit. Demographie: Alter (klassiert); Schulbildung und Berufsausbildung der Eltern; Haushaltseinkommen. Interviewerrating: Ortsgröße; Wohnungsgröße; Anzahl der Wohnräume; Wohnungsausstattung; Stadtnähe und Alter der Wohnung; Bundesland. Darüberhinaus wurde vom Interviewer nach einer Besichtigung des Kinderzimmers eine detaillierte Beschreibung des Raumes bezüglich Fensterfläche, Wandbeschaffenheit, Fußboden und Möbelstücke gegeben.

Abstract

The KwaZulu-Natal Income Dynamics Study (KIDS) is a panel study that follows a random sample of households who lived in the South African province of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) in 1993. These households and those who have split off from them were interviewed again in 1998 and 2004. This document summarizes the main features of the third wave of KIDS conducted in 2004.

Geographic coverage

The Province of Kwazulu-Natal

Analysis unit

individuals, communities

Universe

The sample covered on African and Indian Households.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Due to the geographic concentration of African and Indian households, KIDS-unlike the PSLSD-limits its scope to African and Indian households. In the KwaZulu-Natal province, Africans represent 85 percent of the population and Indians represent 12 percent. Compared with their representation nationally, White and Coloured people are underrepresented in KwaZulu-Natal. Effectively, the numbers of White and Coloureds in the KwaZulu-Natal sample are too small, and too geographically concentrated in a few clusters, to permit meaningful inference. The KIDS study has thus been limited to the first two population groups.

PSLSD was a survey of households. However, households are a complicated object to define, particularly in longitudinal studies. To transform KIDS from a single-round household survey into a longitudinal household panel study required a redefinition of the sampling unit. In 1998, a decision was made to follow the core household members with the intention of capturing the major decision makers within the household.

A household member is a core person if he/she satisfied any of the following criteria: - The self-declared head of household from the 1993 survey - A spouse/partner of the self-declared head of household (from the 1993 survey) - Lives in a three generation household and all of the following are true: - Child of the self-declared household head, son/daughter-in-law of the household head, or niece/nephew of self-declared head - At least 30 years old - Have at least one child living in household - Spouse/partner of person satisfying criterion.

Thus all heads of households and spouses of heads are automatically classified as core and, in some three-generation households, adult children are also included in this cateogry. In this way, we can see the 1993 survey as the baseline information for a random sample of dynasties. The efforts of the 1998 and 2004 surveyors to find the location of the 1993 core members can then be seen as a way to keep track of the 1993 dynasties.

In 2004, due to the aging of the core members and the high prevalence of HIV/AIDS in South Africa, the study was extended in a complementary way to track and interview the households of the children of the core or the next generation. These are sons and daughters of core members older than 18, who have established a "new" household since 1993 (labeled as "K"). By establishing a new household we mean that these children are now living away from their own parents with their own children, or with the children of their partner. Using the next generation to keep track of family "dynasties" provides a way of refreshing the panel and establishing a generational transition. In addition, due to our interest in the impact on children of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the 2004 wave followed foster children to their new households. This group is defined as children aged less than 18 years old of core and next generation household members who no longer live with their parents i.e. no longer live in core or next generation households (labeled as "N"). As described in Appendix A, different questionnaire modules were administered in the core, next generation, and foster child households.

As the goal of the 2004 wave of KIDS was to find and interview the households of the children of the core and the foster children in addition to those of the regular core members, we had three ways in which we could contact the 1993 dynasties. In 1998, almost 84% of the 1993 dynasties were found as documented by May et al. (2000). From the 1132 dynasties interviewed in 1998, the 2004 wave found 841, yielding a response rate of 74%. Most of these dynasties were still composed of the original core members (760) however some of them were represented by the next generation of household members (K) or foster children (N).

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Household Questionnaire containing the following sections:

Household Roster Household Services Food Spending and Consumption Non-Food Spending and Assets Remittances Household Income from Non-Employment Sources Economic Shocks, Agriculture Employment Health Social Capital and Trust Children Tests of Learning and Anthropometry

Response rate

In 1998, almost 84% of the 1993 dynasties were found as documented by May et al. (2000). From the 1132 dynasties interviewed in 1998, the 2004 wave found 841, yielding a response rate of 74%. Most of these dynasties were still composed of the original core members (760) however some of them were represented by the next generation of household members (K) or foster children (N).

This special topic poll, conducted April 14-23, 2005, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. The focus of this data collection was respondents' experiences as mothers living in the Washington, DC, area. Respondents, all female, were queried on their choices as mothers such as whether to stay at home or work outside of the home, whether those in two parent households factored each person's income into the decision of who, if anyone, would stay at home to care for the children, whether they ever had doubts about their decision to have children, and whether they ever had doubts about their decisions related to which parent would stay home to care for the children. Further questions addressed the division of child care and responsibilities, the level of accommodation received from employers to address their responsibilities as parents, balancing the responsibilities of motherhood and responsibility/necessity of finding personal time for oneself, and balancing the responsibilities of motherhood and those of their jobs. Additional issues addressed the emotional health and experiences involved in motherhood, their satisfaction with being mothers, the expectations of mothers compared to times past, and the judgment and advice received from others relative to their parenting decisions. Background information includes age, education, household income, race, and sex.

The figures presented here are from the End Child Poverty Coalition are based on tax credit data, used to estimate the percentage of children on low incomes in local authorities, parliamentary constituencies and wards across the UK. They also use national trends in worklessness to estimate recent changes in the number of children who are in poverty because their parents have lost their jobs, to update the local tax credit data which is more than two years old. This is not a direct measure of exactly how many children are in poverty on the official definition, but is based on the closest to an equivalent measure we have of local levels of child poverty. The data have been adjusted to produce figures compatible with the measures derived from the national survey of income, showing how many children live in households with below 60 per cent of median income. Specifically, the adjustments ensure that the total reported level of child poverty, before and after housing costs, is similar when adding up all the local figures as the official national totals. Thus, the local data gives an idea of the relative poverty levels in different areas, but are adjusted to estimate what these actual levels would be if they could be measured on the same basis as the national household income survey. The local data starts by classifying children in poverty if they live in families in receipt of out of work benefits or in receipt of in-work tax credits where their reported family income is less than 60 per cent of median income. This indicator, compiled officially as a local estimate of child poverty, has been reported for August 2011 by HMRC. However, on its own it is provides an inaccurate picture of actual child poverty, considerably overstating the numbers in out-of-work poverty and understating the numbers in working poverty. While these factors may balance out overall, they can seriously misrepresent the overall trend where working and non-working poverty change in different ways, as well as misrepresenting local differences where working poverty is relatively more important in some areas than others. Therefore, the figures include an upward adjustment in the in-work figure and a downward adjustment in the out-of-work figure. The adjustments are made separately to for AHC and BHC estimates, in each case according to how the total of the local estimates compare to the actual national measure. Figures are then updated, taking into account Labour Force Survey data on the number of children in non-working households for the final quarter of 2013. Additional metadata: - Licence: http://reference.data.gov.uk/id/open-government-licence

Families of tax filers; Distribution of total income by census family type and age of older partner, parent or individual (final T1 Family File; T1FF).

Abstract

China Living Standards Survey (CLSS) consists of one household survey and one community (village) survey, conducted in Hebei and Liaoning Provinces (northern and northeast China) in July 1995 and July 1997 respectively. Five villages from each three sample counties of each province were selected (six were selected in Liaoyang County of Liaoning Province because of administrative area change). About 880 farm households were selected from total thirty-one sample villages for the household survey. The same thirty-one villages formed the samples of community survey. This document provides information on the content of different questionnaires, the survey design and implementation, data processing activities, and the different available data sets.

Geographic coverage

The China Living Standards Survey (CLSS) was conducted only in Hebei and Liaoning Provinces (northern and northeast China).

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The CLSS sample is not a rigorous random sample drawn from a well-defined population. Instead it is only a rough approximation of the rural population in Hebei and Liaoning provinces in Northeastern China. The reason for this is that part of the motivation for the survey was to compare the current conditions with conditions that existed in Hebei and Liaoning in the 1930’s. Because of this, three counties in Hebei and three counties in Liaoning were selected as "primary sampling units" because data had been collected from those six counties by the Japanese occupation government in the 1930’s. Within each of these six counties (xian) five villages (cun) were selected, for an overall total of 30 villages (in fact, an administrative change in one village led to 31 villages being selected). In each county a "main village" was selected that was in fact a village that had been surveyed in the 1930s. Because of the interest in these villages 50 households were selected from each of these six villages (one for each of the six counties). In addition, four other villages were selected in each county. These other villages were not drawn randomly but were selected so as to "represent" variation within the county. Within each of these villages 20 households were selected for interviews. Thus the intended sample size was 780 households, 130 from each county.

Unlike county and village selection, the selection of households within each village was done according to standard sample selection procedures. In each village, a list of all households in the village was obtained from village leaders. An "interval" was calculated as the number of the households in the village divided by the number of households desired for the sample (50 for main villages and 20 for other villages). For the list of households, a random number was drawn between 1 and the interval number. This was used as a starting point. The interval was then added to this number to get a second number, then the interval was added to this second number to get a third number, and so on. The set of numbers produced were the numbers used to select the households, in terms of their order on the list.

In fact, the number of households in the sample is 785, as opposed to 780. Most of this difference is due to a village in which 24 households were interviewed, as opposed to the goal of 20 households

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Household Questionnaire

The household questionnaire contains sections that collect data on household demographic structure, education, housing conditions, land, agricultural management, household non-agricultural business, household expenditures, gifts, remittances and other income sources, and saving and loans. For some sections (general household information, schooling, housing, gift-exchange, remittance, other income, and credit and savings) the individual designated by the household members as the household head provided responses. For some other sections (farm land, agricultural management, family-run non-farm business, and household consumption expenditure) a member identified as the most knowledgeable provided responses. Identification codes for respondents of different sections indicate who provided the information. In sections where the information collected pertains to individuals (employment), whenever possible, each member of the household was asked to respond for himself or herself, except that parents were allowed to respond for younger children. Therefore, in the case of the employment section it is possible that the information was not provided by the relevant person; variables in this section indicate when this is true.

The household questionnaire was completed in a one-time interview in the summer of 1995. The survey was designed so that more sensitive issues such as credit and savings were discussed near the end. The content of each section is briefly described below.

Section 0 SURVEY INFORMATION

This section mainly summarizes the results of the survey visits. The following information was entered into the computer: whether the survey and the data entry were completed, codes of supervisor’s brief comments on interviewer, data entry operator, and related revising suggestion (e.g., 1. good, 2. revise at office, and 3. re-interview needed). Information about the date of interview, the names of interviewer, supervisor, data enterer, and detail notes of interviewer and supervisor were not entered into the computer.

Section 1 GENERAL HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION

1A HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE 1B INFORMATION ABOUT THE HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS’ PARENTS 1C INFORMATION ABOUT THE CHILDREN WHO ARE NOT LIVING IN HOME

Section 1A lists the personal id code, sex, relationship to the household head, ethnic group, type of resident permit (agricultural [nongye], non-agricultural [fei nongye], or no resident permit), date of birth, marital status of all people who spent the previous night in that household and for household members who are temporarily away from home. The household head is listed first and receives the personal id code 1. Household members were defined to include “all the people who normally live and eat their meals together in this dwelling.” Those who were absent more than nine of the last twelve months were excluded, except for the head of household. For individuals who are married and whose spouse resides in the household, the personal id number of the spouse is noted. By doing so, information on the spouse can be collected by appropriately merging information from the section 1A and other parts of the survey.

Section 1B collects information on the parents of all household members. For individuals whose parents reside in the household, parents’ personal id numbers are noted, and information can be obtained by appropriately merging information from other parts of the survey. For individuals whose parents do not reside in the household, information is recorded on whether each parent is alive, as well as their schooling and occupation.

Section 1C collects information for children of household members who are not living in home. Children who have died are not included. The information on the name, sex, types of resident permit, age, education level, education cost, reasons not living in home, current living place, and type of job of each such child is recorded.

Section 2 SCHOOLING

In Section 2, information about literacy and numeracy, school attendance, completion, and current enrollment for all household members of preschool age and older. The interpretation of pre-school age appears to have varied, with the result that while education information is available for some children of pre-school age, not all pre-school children were included in this section. But for ages 6 and above information is available for nearly all individuals, so in essence the data on schooling can be said to apply all persons 6 age and above. For those who were enrolled in school at the time of the survey, information was also collected on school attendance, expenses, and scholarships. If applicable, information on serving as an apprentice, technical or professional training was also collected.

Section 3 EMPLOYMENT

3A GENERAL INFORMATION 3B MAJOR NON-FARM JOB IN 1994 3C THE SECOND NON-FARM JOB IN 1994 3D OTHER EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES IN 1994 3E SEARCHING FOR NON-FARM JOB 3F PROCESS FOR GETTING MAJOR NON-FARM JOB 3G CORVEE LABOR

All individuals age thirteen and above were asked to respond to the employment activity questions in Section 3. Section 3A collects general information on farm and non-farm employment, such as whether or not the household member worked on household own farm in 1994, when was the last year the member worked on own farm if he/she did not work in 1994, work days and hours during busy season, occupation and sector codes of the major, second, and third non-farm jobs, work days and total income of these non-farm jobs. There is a variable which indicates whether or not the individual responded for himself or herself.

Sections 3B and 3C collect detailed information on the major and the second non-farm job. Information includes number of months worked and which month in 1994 the member worked on these jobs, average works days (or hours) per month (per day), total number of years worked for these jobs by the end of 1994, different components of income, type of employment contracts. Information on employer’s ownership type and location was also collected.

Section 3D collects information on average hours spent doing chores and housework at home every day during non-busy and busy season. The chores refer to cooking, laundry, cleaning, shopping, cutting woods, as well as small-scale farm yard animals raising, for example, pigs or chickens. Large-scale animal

The survey studied how different generations help each other in Finland, focusing on help received by Finnish adults aged 18-46. The respondents were asked what was the main reason for moving away from their childhood home, and with whom they lived at the time of the survey. They were also asked whether certain changes had occurred in their life or in the life of their spouse during the past year (e.g. starting studying, buying an apartment, losing a job, birth of a child). Further questions covered communication and help received: how far the close relatives lived, how often the respondents communicated with them on the phone, how often they had met with them during the past year, what was the basis of being in contact with them, etc. The respondents were asked to give an estimate of the economic position of the close relatives who had helped them, in what matters they had received help during the past year, and how they had experienced this help. The respondents were asked in what kinds of phases of life they had received financial help from their parents and those of the spouse. Welfare benefits and income transfers received were surveyed. The respondents were asked how they thought the main responsibility for the care of children and the elderly should be divided in the near future: whether society, private organisations/church, or family/relatives shoud be responsible for that. After this, the respondents were asked for an estimate of how the need for help will change in the coming years, and whether they had helped close relatives during the past year with, for instance, household chores or by giving advice. The most important areas in the respondents' lives and leisure activities of their close relatives were charted. The respondents were asked in which types of communities they had lived, and whether their close relatives had had to take care of their ageing parents during the past year. In conclusion, opinions on co-operation between parents and grown-up children in general were surveyed. Background variables included the respondent's gender, marital status, education, own and spouse's economic activity, household income, information about the respondent's and spouse's family (e.g. number and gender of siblings, education, occupation, parents' health at the moment).

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The Parents' Demand for Childcare surveys study the demand for childcare among parents of children aged 14 years and under. As such, they form part of the ongoing evaluation of the Government's National Childcare Strategy. The first survey was conducted in 1999, and formed a baseline survey for comparison with the second wave, which was conducted in 2001. A further wave is planned for 2004. Users should note that whereas the 1999 survey was conducted in England and Wales, the 2001 survey was restricted to England. The survey series was designed to investigate the use of childcare by parents and to explore the factors that influence their decision to use childcare and how these relate to their participation in the labour market. Specifically, the aims of the research are as follows:to establish the level of usage and take-up of childcare by parents with children aged 0-14to discover what influences a parent's decision to use childcareto assess the financial cost of paid-for childcareto assess parents' satisfaction with current childcare arrangementsto establish parents' unmet demand for childcareto identify parents' ideal childcare provisionto assess parents' knowledge of the availability of childcare in their local areato ascertain the extent to which their current childcare arrangements enable parents to take up paid work, education and training and what activities are associated with the use of childcare. Because of policy interest in a number of sub-groups of parents, for the 2001 survey it was deemed necessary to over-sample certain sub-populations. An additional sample of households was selected from the Child Benefit records, and were included in the survey if they fell into one of three groups: student parents; parents whose children used out-of-school clubs; parents who received the childcare tax credit. Main Topics: The data files include child, household and provider-level information on usage and perceptions of childcare. Demographic information such as ethnicity, household income, employment status and number of dependent children is also present. Multi-stage stratified random sample The sample was drawn from the Department for Work and Pensions' Child Benefit records. It comprised a National and an additional Booster sample. For further details please see Abstract section above and the documentation. Face-to-face interview

Household income statistics by structural type of dwelling (single-detached house, apartments, other attached dwelling) and household type (couple family, lone-parent family, non-census family households) for Canada, provinces and territories, census divisions and census subdivisions.

Footnotes: 1 The data source for this table is the final version of the T1 Family File, created by the Centre for Income and Socio-Economic Well-being Statistics of Statistics Canada. Because they are based on a different methodology, estimates of the number of individuals and census families presented in this table differ from estimates produced by the Centre for Demography. Information on the data source, the historical availability, definitions of the terms used, and the geographies available can be found at Technical Reference Guide for the Annual Income Estimates for Census Families Individuals and Seniors - opens in a new browser window." 2 Families are comprised of: 1) couples (married or common-law, including same-sex couples) living in the same dwelling with or without children, and 2) single parents (male or female) living with one or more children. Persons who are not matched to a family become persons not in census families. They may be living alone, with a family to whom they are related, with a family to whom they are unrelated or with other persons not in census families. Beginning in 2001, same-sex couples reporting as couples are counted as couple families. 3 Characteristics such as age are as of December 31 of the reference year. 4 A couple family consists of a couple living together (married or common-law, including same-sex couples) living at the same address with or without children. Beginning in 2001, same-sex couples reporting as couples are counted as couple families. 5 Children are tax filers or imputed persons in couple and lone-parent families. Tax filing children do not live with their spouse, have no children of their own and live with their parent(s). Most children are identified from a file pertaining to Federal Child Benefits, a provincial births file or a previous T1 Family File. 6 A lone-parent family is a family with only one parent, male or female, and with at least one child. 7 This table should only be used in conjunction with income statistics produced using the T1 Family File. Because the counts available in this table are based on a different methodology, the family and person counts will differ from estimates produced by the Centre for Demography. 8 The Census Standard Geographical Classification (SGC) is used for data dissemination of the census metropolitan areas and the census agglomerations: from 1997 to 2001, SGC 1996; from 2002 to 2006, SGC 2001; from 2007 to 2011, SGC 2006; from 2012 to 2015, SGC 2011; as of 2016, SGC 2016. Please note that census agglomerations were introduced in this CANSIM table in 2008. 9 Tax filers are people who filed a tax return for the reference year and were alive at the end of the year. 10 Dependant is a member of a family who did not file a personal income tax return for the referenced year. 11 A person not in census families is an individual who is not part of a census family, couple family or lone-parent family. Persons not in census families may live with their married children or with their children who have children of their own. They may be living with a family to whom they are related or unrelated. They may also be living alone or with other non-family persons.

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) Parent Study Public Use collection includes data gathered as part of the Add Health longitudinal survey of adolescents. The original Add Health survey is a longitudinal study of a nationally representative sample of adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-1995 school year. In Wave 1 of the Add Health Study (1994-1995), a parent of each Add Health Sample Member (AHSM) was interviewed. The Add Health Parent Study gathered social, behavioral, and health survey data in 2015-2017 from the parents of Add Health Sample members who were originally interviewed at Wave 1 (1994-1995). Wave 1 Parents were asked about their adolescent children, their relationships with them, and their own health. The Add Health Parent Study interview is a comprehensive survey of Add Health parents' family relations, education, religious beliefs, physical and mental health, social support, and community involvement experiences. In addition, survey data contains cognitive assessments, a medications log linked to a medications database lookup table, and household financial information collection. The survey also includes permission for administrative data linkages and includes data from a Family Health History Leave-Behind questionnaire. Interviews were conducted with parents' spouse/partner when available. Research domains targeted in the survey and research questions that may be addressed using the Add Health Parent Study data include: Health Behaviors and Risks Many health conditions and behaviors run in families; for example, cardiovascular disease, obesity and substance abuse. How are health risks and behaviors transmitted across generations or clustered within families? How can we use information on the parents' health and health behavior to better understand the determinants of their (adult) children's health trajectories? Cognitive Functioning and Non-Cognitive Personality Traits What role does the intergenerational transmission of personality and locus of control play in generating intergenerational persistence in education, family status, income and health? How do the personality traits of parents and children, and how they interact, influence the extent and quality of intergenerational relationships and the prevalence of assistance across generations? Decision-Making, Expectations, and Risk Preferences Do intergenerational correlations in risk preferences represent intergenerational transmission of preferences? If so, are the transmission mechanisms a factor in biological and environmental vulnerabilities? Does the extent of genetic liability vary in response to both family-specific and generation-specific environmental pressures? Family Support, Relationship Quality and Ties of Obligation How does family complexity affect intergenerational obligations and the strength of relationship ties? As parents near retirement: What roles do they play in their children's lives and their children in their lives? What assistance are they providing to their adult children and grandchildren? What do they receive in return? And how do these ties vary with divorce, remarriage and familial estrangement? Economic Status and Capacities What are the economic capacities of the parents' generation as they reach their retirement years? How have fared through the wealth and employment shocks of the Great Recession? Are parents able to provide for their own financial need? And, do they have the time and financial resources to help support their children and grandchildren and are they prepared to do so?

COVID-19 - Government income support and benefits of census family units by census family type and number of children (1, 2, 3, 4)Frequency: OccasionalTable: 11-10-0100-01Release date: 2023-07-12Geography: Canada, Province or territory, Census metropolitan area, Census agglomeration, Census metropolitan area part, Census agglomeration partFootnotes: 1 The data source for this table is the final version of the T1 Family File, created by the Centre for Income and Socio-Economic Well-being Statistics of Statistics Canada. Because they are based on a different methodology, estimates of the number of individuals and census families presented in this table differ from estimates produced by the Centre for Demography. Information on the data source, the historical availability, definitions of the terms used, and the geographies available can be found at https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/72-212-X" rel="external noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"> Technical Reference Guide for the Annual Income Estimates for Census Families2 This table should only be used in conjunction with income statistics produced using the T1 Family File. Because the counts available in this table are based on a different methodology, the family and person counts will differ from estimates produced by the Centre for Demography.3 COVID Benefits are benefits provided by the federal and provincial government during the pandemic to support individuals and families in 2020. More information is available from the https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/72-212-X" rel="external noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"> Technical Reference Guide for the Annual Income Estimates for Census Families4 Statistics are calculated based on families who received COVID benefits only.5 The Census Standard Geographical Classification (SGC) is used for data dissemination of the census metropolitan areas and the census agglomerations: from 2016 to 2020, SGC 2016; as of 2021, SGC 2021. 6 Census families are comprised of: 1) couples (married or common-law, including same-sex couples) living in the same dwelling with or without children, and 2) single parents (male or female) living with one or more children. Persons who are not matched to a family become persons not in census families. They may be living alone, with a family to whom they are related, with a family to whom they are unrelated or with other persons not in census families.7 A couple family consists of a couple living together (married or common-law, including same-sex couples) living at the same address with or without children.8 A lone-parent family is a family with only one parent, male or female, and with at least one child.9 A person not in census families is an individual who is not part of a census family, couple family or lone-parent family. Persons not in census families may live with their married children or with their children who have children of their own. They may be living with a family to whom they are related or unrelated. They may also be living alone or with other non-family persons.10 Children are tax filers or imputed persons in couple and lone-parent families. Tax filing children do not live with their spouse, have no children of their own and live with their parent(s). Most children are identified from the Canada Child Tax Benefit file, a provincial births file or a previous T1 family file.11 Median is the middle number in a group of numbers. Where a median income, for example, is given as $26,000, it means that exactly half of the incomes reported are greater than or equal to $26,000, and that the other half is less than or equal to the median amount. 12 Total income is income from all sources. As of 2020, COVID-19 - Government income support and benefits are included in income estimates. A detailed definition of what is included in total income is available from the Technical Reference Guide for the Preliminary Estimates from the T1 Family File (T1FF) - opens in a new browser window."

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