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

Single parenthood

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

Single parent wellbeing

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

In 1990, 48.1 percent of all Black families with a single mother in the United States lived below the poverty level. In 2023, that figure had decreased to 25.9 percent. This is significantly higher than white households with a single mother. Poverty is the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money. Absolute poverty or destitution is inability to afford basic human needs, which commonly includes clean and fresh water, nutrition, health care, education, clothing and shelter.

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.

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

Marriage and divorce in the United States

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

New family structures

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

In 2023, there were about 6.65 million white, non-Hispanic families with a single mother living in the United States. This is a slight increase from 1990, when there were 6.4 million white families with a single mother living in the U.S.

This statistic shows the number of children living with single divorced parents in the United States in 2020, by race. In 2020, 42,000 Asian children lived with their divorced single father.

The data on relationship to householder were derived from answers to Question 2 in the 2015 American Community Survey (ACS), which was asked of all people in housing units. The question on relationship is essential for classifying the population information on families and other groups. Information about changes in the composition of the American family, from the number of people living alone to the number of children living with only one parent, is essential for planning and carrying out a number of federal programs.

The responses to this question were used to determine the relationships of all persons to the householder, as well as household type (married couple family, nonfamily, etc.). From responses to this question, we were able to determine numbers of related children, own children, unmarried partner households, and multi-generational households. We calculated average household and family size. When relationship was not reported, it was imputed using the age difference between the householder and the person, sex, and marital status.

Household – A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit. (People not living in households are classified as living in group quarters.) A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any other people in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated people who share living arrangements.

Average Household Size – A measure obtained by dividing the number of people in households by the number of households. In cases where people in households are cross-classified by race or Hispanic origin, people in the household are classified by the race or Hispanic origin of the householder rather than the race or Hispanic origin of each individual.

Average household size is rounded to the nearest hundredth.

Comparability – The relationship categories for the most part can be compared to previous ACS years and to similar data collected in the decennial census, CPS, and SIPP. With the change in 2008 from “In-law” to the two categories of “Parent-in-law” and “Son-in-law or daughter-in-law,” caution should be exercised when comparing data on in-laws from previous years. “In-law” encompassed any type of in-law such as sister-in-law. Combining “Parent-in-law” and “son-in-law or daughter-in-law” does not represent all “in-laws” in 2008.

The same can be said of comparing the three categories of “biological” “step,” and “adopted” child in 2008 to “Child” in previous years. Before 2008, respondents may have considered anyone under 18 as “child” and chosen that category. The ACS includes “foster child” as a category. However, the 2010 Census did not contain this category, and “foster children” were included in the “Other nonrelative” category. Therefore, comparison of “foster child” cannot be made to the 2010 Census. Beginning in 2013, the “spouse” category includes same-sex spouses.

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

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

This layer was developed by the Research & Analytics Group of the Atlanta Regional Commission, using data from the U.S. Census, to show various demographic and housing data by state House district in the state of Georgia (including the following categories: population, households, housing characteristics, age, and race/ethnicity), for 2000 and 2010.- - - - - -Base Attributes:DISTRICT = GA House DistrictPOPULATION = District Population (2010 Census)Name = GA House District NameTotal_Population_2011_2015_ACS = Total Population, 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS)profile_url = Web address of district profile - - - - - -Attributes from Census Bureau:Family_households = Family households, 2010Pct_Family_households = % Family households, 2010Family_HH_wOwnChild_un18yr = Family households with own children under 18 years, 2010Pct_Family_HH_wOwnChild_un18yr = % Family households with own children under 18 years, 2010Husband_wife_families = Husband-wife families, 2010Pct_Husband_wife_families = % Husband-wife families, 2010Hus_wife_families_wChild = Husband-wife families with children, 2010Pct_hus_wife_families_wChild = % Husband-wife families with children, 2010Single_parent_households = Single parent households, 2010Pct_Single_parent_households = % Single parent households, 2010Nonfamily_households = Nonfamily households, 2010Pct_Nonfamily_households = % Nonfamily households, 2010HH_with_individuals_un18yr = Households with individuals under 18 years, 2010Pct_HH_with_individuals_un18yr = % Households with individuals under 18 years, 2010- - - - - -Total_housing_units = Total housing units, 2010Occupied_housing_units = #, Occupied housing units, 2010Percent_Occupied_housing_units = %, Occupied housing units, 2010Vacant_housing_units = #, Vacant housing units, 2010Percent_Vacant_housing_units = %, Vacant housing units, 2010Owner_occupied_housing_units = #, Owner occupied housing units, 2010Pct_Owner_Occ_HousUnits = %, Owner occupied housing units, 2010Renter_occupied_housing_units = #, Renter occupied housing units, 2010Pct_Renter_Occ_Units = %, Renter occupied housing units, 2010- - - - - -Pop_under_age_19_2010 = Population under age 19, 2010Pop_ages_20_34_2010 = Population ages 20-34, 2010Pop_ages_35_44_2010 = Population ages 35-44, 2010Pop_ages_45_64_2010 = Population ages 45-64, 2010Pop_ages_65_over_2010 = Population ages 65 and over, 2010Pct_Pop_under_age_19_2010 = % Population under age 19, 2010Pct_Pop_ages_20_34_2010 = % Population ages 20-34, 2010Pct_Pop_ages_35_44_2010 = % Population ages 35-44, 2010Pct_Pop_ages_45_64_2010 = % Population ages 45-64, 2010Pct_Pop_ages_65_over_2010 = % Population ages 65 and over, 2010Pop_under_age_19_2000 = Population under age 19, 2000Pop_ages_20_34_2000 = Population ages 20-34, 2000Pop_ages_35_44_2000 = Population ages 35-44, 2000Pop_ages_45_64_2000 = Population ages 45-64, 2000Pop_ages_65_over_2000 = Population ages 65 and over, 2000Pct_Pop_under_age_19_2000 = % Population under age 19, 2000Pct_Pop_ages_20_34_2000 = % Population ages 20-34, 2000Pct_Pop_ages_35_44_2000 = % Population ages 35-44, 2000Pct_Pop_ages_45_64_2000 = % Population ages 45-64, 2000Pct_Pop_ages_65_over_2000 = % Population ages 65 and over, 2000Chg_Pop_Under_19 = Change in Population Under 19 (2000-2010)Chg_Pct_Pop_Under_19 = Change in Percent Population Under 19 (2000-2010)Chg_Pct_pop_ages_20_34 = Change in Percent population ages 20-34 (2000-2010)Chg_Pct_pop_ages_20_34 = Change in Percent population ages 20-34 (2000-2010)Chg_pop_ages_35_44 = Change in population ages 35-44 (2000-2010)Chg_Pct_pop_ages_35_44 = Change in Percent population ages 35-44 (2000-2010)Chg_pop_ages_45_64 = Change in population ages 45-64 (2000-2010)Chg_Pct_pop_ages_45_64 = Change in Percent population ages 45-64 (2000-2010)Chg_pop_ages_65_over = Change in population ages 65 and over (2000-2010)Chg_Pct_pop_ages_65_over = Change in Percent population ages 65 and over (2000-2010)- - - - - -Non_Hisp_White_2010 = Non-Hispanic White, 2010Non_Hisp_Black_2010 = Non-Hispanic Black, 2010Non_Hisp_AsianPI_2010 = Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander, 2010Non_Hisp_Other_Biracial_2010 = Non-Hispanic Other Races (includes biracial), 2010Hisp_All_races_2010 = Hispanic, All races, 2010Pct_Non_Hisp_White_2010 = % Non-Hispanic White, 2010Pct_Non_Hisp_Black_2010 = % Non-Hispanic Black, 2010Pct_Non_Hisp_AsianPI_2010 = % Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander, 2010Pct_Non_Hisp_Other_Bi_2010 = % Non-Hispanic Other Races (includes biracial), 2010Pct_Hisp_All_races_2010 = % Hispanic, All races, 2010Non_Hisp_White_2000 = Non-Hispanic White, 2000Non_Hisp_Black_2000 = Non-Hispanic Black, 2000Non_Hisp_AsianPI_2000 = Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander, 2000Non_Hisp_Other_Biracial_2000 = Non-Hispanic Other Races (includes biracial), 2000Hisp_All_races_2000 = Hispanic, All races, 2000Pct_Non_Hisp_White_2000 = % Non-Hispanic White, 2000Pct_Non_Hisp_Black_2000 = % Non-Hispanic Black, 2000Pct_Non_Hisp_AsianPI_2000 = % Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander, 2000Pct_Non_Hisp_Other_Bi_2000 = % Non-Hispanic Other Races (includes biracial), 2000Pct_Hisp_All_races_2000 = % Hispanic, All races, 2000Chg_Non_Hisp_White = Change in Non-Hispanic White Population (2000-2010)Chg_Non_Hisp_Black = Change in Non-Hispanic Black Population (2000-2010)Chg_Non_Hisp_AsianPI = Change in Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Population (2000-2010)Chg_Non_Hisp_Other_Biracial = Change in Non-Hispanic Other (includes biracial) Population (2000-2010)Chg_Hisp_Population = Change in Hispanic Population (2000-2010)Chg_Pct_Non_Hisp_White = Change in Percent Non-Hispanic White (2000-2010)Chg_Pct_Non_Hisp_Black = Change in Percent Non-Hispanic Black (2000-2010)Chg_Pct_Non_Hisp_AsianPI = Change in Percent Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander (2000-2010)Chg_Pct_Non_Hisp_Other_Biracial = Change in Percent Non-Hispanic Other (includes biracial) (2000-2010)Chg_Pct_Hisp_Population = Change in Percent Hispanic Population (2000-2010)- - - - - -Population_2010 = Population, 2010Population_2000 = Population, 2000Population_Change_2000_2010 = Population Change, 2000-2010Pct_Population_Change_2000_2010 = % Population Change, 2000-2010- - - - - -Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional CommissionDates: 2000, 2010For additional information, please visit the Atlanta Regional Commission at www.atlantaregional.com.

The percentage of births to unmarried women in the United States has more than doubled since 1980, reaching 40 percent in 2023. This significant shift in family structure reflects changing societal norms and demographic trends over the past four decades. The rise in births outside of marriage has implications for family dynamics, social support systems, and public policy. Age and ethnicity factors in birth rates While the overall percentage of births to unmarried women has stabilized around 40 percent in recent years, birth rates vary significantly across age groups and ethnicities. Unsurprisingly, in 2023, women between 20 and 34 years old had the highest birth rate at 83 births per 1,000 women, while teenagers aged 15 to 19 had the lowest rate at 8 births per 1,000 women. Additionally, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander women had the highest fertility rate among all race/ethnicities in 2022, with approximately 2,237.5 births per 1,000 women, compared to the national average of 1,656.5 births per 1,000 women. Changing household structures The increase in births to unmarried women has contributed to evolving household structures in the United States. In 2023, there were approximately 15.18 million families with a single mother, a significant increase from previous decades. This trend aligns with the overall rise in births outside of marriage and suggests a growing need for support systems and policies that address the unique challenges faced by single-parent households.

This graph presents the percentage of single-parent families with children under 18 years of age in France from 1990 to 2020. It appears that the share of single-parents families went from 12.4 percent in 1990 to 24.7 percent in 2020.

This paper examines the association between the Great Recession and real assets among families with young children. Real assets such as homes and cars are key indicators of economic well-being that may be especially valuable to low-income families. Using longitudinal data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (N = 4,898), we investigate the association between the city unemployment rate and home and car ownership and how the relationship varies by family structure (married, cohabiting, and single parents) and by race/ethnicity (White, Black, and Hispanic mothers). Using mother fixed-effects models, we find that a one percentage point increase in the unemployment rate is associated with a -0.5 percentage point decline in the probability of home ownership and a -0.7 percentage point decline in the probability of car ownership. We also find that the recession was associated with lower levels of home ownership for cohabiting families and for Hispanic families, as well as lower car ownership among single mothers and among Black mothers, whereas no change was observed among married families or White households. Considering that homes and cars are the most important assets among middle and low-income households in the U.S., these results suggest that the rise in the unemployment rate during the Great Recession may have increased household asset inequality across family structures and race/ethnicities, limiting economic mobility, and exacerbating the cycle of poverty.

The 1901 Census of Canada was the fourth Census conducted . The Canadian Families Project has a broad mandate. Their re-investigation of family in Canada includes the study of discourses of family; class, ethnicity and region as they relate to family; the history of single parenthood and fragmented families; fertility decline; language, education and family; religion and family; family and community in rural Canada; the social geography of urban families; family income and standards of living. Basic to the work of the Project is the study of families in the past. The Project begins by creating a large database of information from the 1901 census of Canada. The database will include all information from Schedules 1 and 2 of the census for five percent of individuals and families in the whole of Canada (as it existed in 1901). Schedule 1 contains the nominal returns - the enumeration of the population by name. Schedule 2 is a continuation of Schedule 1 and it gives information of buildings and lands held by persons enumerated in Schedule 1. The 5 percent sample will include information on approximately 268,500 persons. (Summary derived from User Guide)

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

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 the census tract level, 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.ApplicationsLocalized Interventions: Facilitates the development of localized interventions to address the needs of vulnerable populations within specific census tracts.Resource Allocation: Assists emergency response planners in allocating resources more effectively based on community vulnerability at the census tract level.Research: Provides a detailed dataset for academic and applied research in socio-economic and demographic studies at a granular census tract level.Community Planning: Supports the planning and development of community programs and initiatives aimed at improving living conditions and reducing vulnerabilities within specific census tract 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, 2014-2018 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, 2014-2018 ACSEP_PCIEP_PCIPer capita income estimate, 2014-2018 ACSEP_DISABLEP_DISABLPercentage of civilian noninstitutionalized population with a disability estimate, 2014-2018 ACSEP_SNGPNTEP_SNGPNTPercentage of single parent households with children under 18 estimate, 2014-2018 ACSEP_MINRTYEP_MINRTYPercentage minority (all persons except white, non-Hispanic) estimate, 2014-2018 ACSEP_LIMENGEP_LIMENGPercentage of persons (age 5+) who speak English "less than well" estimate, 2014-2018 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 computer

This special topic poll, conducted March 20-21, 1996, 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. Respondents of this poll were asked to give their opinions about whether they thought it was possible to start out poor and become rich in this country, whether all Americans had equal opportunities, and whether there were more opportunities for Americans now than in the past. Respondents of this poll were asked to personally evaluate their lives and give their opinions on whether they had more opportunities than most Americans, and whether their lives at that time were the result of luck or fate. This poll also solicited respondents' opinions about how important certain factors were to getting ahead in life. These factors included hard work, knowing the right people, having educated parents, having strong religious faith, having a good education, and the number of years of education. Respondents' opinions were also collected on the importance of having strong religious faith. Other questions sought respondents' opinions on the difficulty of overcoming various situations in order to get ahead in life. These situations included overcoming having a parent that abused alcohol or drugs, living in a high-crime neighborhood, being a victim of physical abuse, growing up in a single parent household and growing up on welfare. Demographic variables include sex, race, age, marital status, employment status, whether respondents grew up in a single parent household, household income, education level, type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural), presence of children and teenagers in the household, political party affiliation, religious preference, and political philosophy.

In 2023, about 3.52 million Hispanic families with a single mother were living in the United States. This is an increase from 1990, when there were about 1.19 million Hispanic families with a single mother in the U.S.

This special topic poll, conducted July 13-27, 2003, 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 to assess the opinions and responses of people identified as being of Hispanic origin or ancestry. Respondents were asked to assess the performance of United States President George W. Bush, his administration's foreign policy, his efforts toward creating employment opportunities in the United States, and his efforts toward increasing trade and providing assistance to Mexico and Latin America. Respondents were queried on political issues such as whether they preferred federal budget cuts or federal tax cuts, whether the United States should establish diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba, whether removing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power was worth the effort, and whether they approved of affirmative action measures and programs that address past discrimination. Respondents were polled for their opinions on a variety of social issues, including how Hispanics are portrayed on television news and entertainment programs, the importance of preserving cultural traditions and values, moral and economic differences between generations, working and single mothers, labor unions, the Catholic Church, the importance of a political candidate's ability to speak Spanish in choosing whether to vote for that candidate, and the likelihood of experiencing discrimination. Background variables include age, country of ancestral origin, country of birth, education, employment status, ethnicity, first language spoken, household income, labor union membership status, language(s) spoken in the home, marital status, party affiliation, political ideology, religious orientation, residential status, sex, and voter registration status.

we utilized data from two main sources: the United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI).American Community Survey (ACS):Conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACS is an ongoing survey that provides detailed demographic and socio-economic data on the population and housing characteristics of the United States.The survey collects information on various topics such as income, education, employment, health insurance coverage, and housing costs and conditions.It offers more frequent and up-to-date information compared to the decennial census, with annual estimates produced based on a rolling sample of households.The 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) and utilized by the CDC, the SVI is designed to identify and map communities that are most likely to need support before, during, and after hazardous events.