2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence

Chapter III.
Predictors and Risk Factors Associated with Welfare Receipt

[ Main Page of Report | Main Contents ]

Contents

• Economic Security Risk Factors
  • ECON 1.  Poverty Rates
  • ECON 2.  Deep Poverty Rates
  • ECON 3.  Experimental Poverty Measures
  • ECON 4.  Poverty Rates with Various Means-Tested Benefits Counted as Income
  • ECON 5.  Poverty Spells
  • ECON 6.  Child Support
  • ECON 7.  Food Insecurity
  • ECON 8.  Lack of Health Insurance
• Employment and Work-Related Risk Factors
  • WORK 1.  Labor Force Attachment
  • WORK 2.  Employment among the Low-Skilled
  • WORK 3.  Earnings of Low-Skilled Workers
  • WORK 4.  Educational Attainment
  • WORK 5.  High School Dropout Rates
  • WORK 6.  Adult Alcohol and Substance Abuse
  • WORK 7.  Adult and Child Disability
  • WORK 8.  Labor Force Participation of Women with Children under 18
• NonMarital Birth Risk Factors
  • BIRTH 1.  Nonmarital Births
  • BIRTH 2.  Nonmarital Teen Births
  • BIRTH 3.  Nonmarital Teen Births Rates
  • BIRTH 4.  Never-Married Family Status

The Welfare Indicators Act challenges the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to identify and set forth not only indicators of welfare dependence and welfare duration but also predictors and causes of welfare receipt. However, welfare research has not established clear and definitive causes of welfare receipt and dependence.  Instead, it has identified a number of risk factors associated with welfare use. For the purposes of this report, the terms “predictors” and “risk factors” are used somewhat interchangeably.

Following the recommendation of the Advisory Board, this chapter includes a wide range of possible predictors and risk factors.  As research advances, some of the “predictors” included in this chapter may turn out to be simply correlates of welfare receipt, some may have a causal relationship, some may be consequences, and some may have predictive value.

The predictors/risk factors included in this chapter are grouped into three categories:  economic security risk factors, employment-related risk factors, and risk factors associated with nonmarital childbearing.

Economic Security Risk Factors (ECON)

The first group includes eight measures associated with economic security.  This group encompasses five measures of poverty, as well as measures of child support receipt, food insecurity, and lack of health insurance.  The tables and figures illustrating measures of economic security are labeled with the prefix ECON throughout this chapter.

Poverty measures are important predictors of dependence, because families with fewer economic resources are more likely to be dependent on means-tested assistance.  In addition, poverty and other measures of deprivation, such as food insecurity, are important to assess in conjunction with the measures of dependence outlined in Chapter II.

Reductions in caseloads and dependence can reduce poverty, to the extent that such reductions are associated with greater work activity and higher economic resources for former welfare families.  However, if former welfare families are left with fewer economic resources, reductions in welfare caseloads may not lead to decreases in poverty.

Several aspects of poverty are examined in this chapter.  Those that can be updated annually using the Current Population Survey include: overall poverty rates (ECON 1); the percentage of individuals in deep poverty (ECON 2), and poverty rates using alternative definitions of income (ECON 3 and 4).  The chapter also includes data on the length of poverty episodes or spells (ECON 5).

This chapter also includes data on child support collections (ECON 6), which can play an important role in reducing dependence on government assistance and thus serve as a predictor of dependence.  Household food insecurity (ECON 7) is an important measure of deprivation that, although correlated with general income poverty, provides an alternative measure of tracking the incidence of material hardship and need, and how it may change over time.  Finally, lack of health insurance (ECON 8) is tied to the income level of the family, and may be a precursor to future health problems among adults and children.

Employment and Work-Related Risk Factors (WORK)

The second grouping, labeled with the WORK prefix, includes eight factors related to employment and barriers to employment.  These measures include data on overall labor force attachment and employment and earnings for low-skilled workers, as well as data on barriers to work.  The latter category includes incidence of adult and child disabilities, adult substance abuse, and levels of educational attainment and school drop-out rates.

Employment and earnings provide many families with an escape from dependence.  It is important, therefore, to look both at overall labor force attachment (WORK 1), and at employment and earnings for those with low education levels (WORK 2 and WORK 3).  The economic condition of the low-skill labor market is a key predictor of the ability of men and women to support families without receiving means-tested assistance.

The next two measures in this group (WORK 4 and WORK 5) focus on educational attainment.  Individuals with less than a high school education have the lowest amount of human capital and are at the greatest risk of being poor, despite their work effort.

Measures of barriers to employment provide indicators of potential work limitations, which may be predictors of greater dependence.  Substance abuse (WORK 6) and disabling conditions among children and adults (WORK 7) all have the potential of limiting the ability of the adults in the household to work.  In addition, debilitating health conditions and high medical expenditures can strain a family’s economic resources.  The labor force participation of women with children (WORK 8) is also a predictor of dependence.

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factors (BIRTH)

The final group of risk factors addresses nonmarital childbearing. The tables and figures in this subsection are labeled with the BIRTH prefix.  This category includes long-term time trends in nonmarital births (BIRTH 1), nonmarital teen births (BIRTH 2 and BIRTH 3), and children living in families with never-married parents (BIRTH 4).  Children living in families with never-married mothers are at high risk of becoming dependent as adults, and it is therefore important to track changes in the size of this vulnerable population.

As noted above, the predictors/risk factors included in this chapter do not represent an exhaustive list of measures.  They are merely a sampling of available data that address in some way the question of how a family is faring on the scale of deprivation and well-being.  Such questions are a necessary part of the discussion on dependence as researchers assess the effects of welfare reform.

[ Go to Contents ]

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 1.
Poverty Rates

Figure ECON 1.
Percentage of Persons in Poverty by Age: 1959-2006

Note:  Last data point is 2006.  All persons under 18 include related children (own children, including stepchildren and adopted children, plus all other children in the household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption), unrelated individuals under 18 (persons who are not living with any relatives), and householders or spouses under age 18.

Source:  U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006,” Current Population Reports, SeriesP60-233, and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.

• Figure ECON 1 shows the percentage of persons in poverty by age from 1959 to 2006.  The official poverty rate was 12.3 percent in 2006.  The percentage of persons living in poverty in 2006 was lower than poverty rates during all of the 1980s and most of the 1990s.
• Children under 18 had a poverty rate of 17.4 percent in 2006.  As in past years, the child poverty rate is higher than the overall poverty rate.
• Table ECON 1 shows the percentage of persons in poverty by age and family type for selected years.
• The poverty rate for the elderly (persons ages 65 and over) was 9.4 percent and the poverty rate for other adults (persons ages 18 to 64) was 10.8 percent in 2006.
• Related children from birth to age five have had the highest poverty rate among all age groups throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and into the 2000s.  In 2006, 20.0 percent of related children from birth to age 5 lived below the poverty line.
• The poverty rates for persons in both married-couple families and female-headed families have decreased over time.  In 1959, 18.2 percent of persons in married-couple families and 49.4 percent of persons in female-headed families were poor.  By 2006, 5.7 percent of persons in married-couple families and 30.5 percent of persons in female-headed families were poor.

[ Go to Contents ]

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 2.
Deep Poverty Rates

Figure ECON 2.  Percentage of Total Population below 50, 100, and 125 Percent of Poverty Level

Source:  U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States:  2006,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-233, and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.

• Figure ECON 2 shows the percentage of the population below 50, 100, and 125 percent of the poverty level over time.  The percentage of the population in “deep poverty” (with incomes below 50 percent of the federal poverty level) was 5.2 percent in 2006, compared to an overall poverty rate of 12.3 percent.
• Five (4.5) percent of the population was “near-poor;” they had incomes at or above 100 percent but below 125 percent of the federal poverty level in 2006.
• Table ECON 2 shows the number and percentage of the population below 50, 75, and 125 percent of the poverty level for selected years.  In general, the percentage of the population with incomes below 50 percent of the poverty level has followed a pattern that reflects the trend in the overall poverty rate.
• The percentage of people below 50 percent of the poverty level rose in the late 1970s and early 1980s to 5.9 percent, and then after falling, rose to a second peak of 6.2 percent in 1993.  The rates for 100 percent and 125 percent of the poverty level followed a somewhat similar pattern with more pronounced peaks and valleys.
• Over the past two decades, the proportion of the poverty population in “deep poverty” has increased.  From a low of 28 percent of the poverty population in 1976, this population rose to just over 42 percent in 2006.
• The total number of poor people in 2006 was 36.5 million.  This number was 2.8 million lower than the recent peak of 39.3 million in 1993.

[ Go to Contents ]

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 3.
Experimental Poverty Measures

Figure ECON 3.
Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using Various Experimental Poverty Measures by Age:  2006

Note:  These measures use versions of 1999 CE-based poverty thresholds that are adjusted for inflation using the CPI-U.

These experimental poverty measures implement changes recommended by a 1995 NAS panel, including: counting certain non-cash income as benefits; subtracting from income certain work-related, health and child care expenses; introducing new poverty thresholds; and adjusting those thresholds for geographic differences in housing costs.  The three alternative measures are similar, except that each accounts for medical out-of-pocket expenses (MOOP) differently.  The first alternative (MOOP subtracted from income or MSI) subtracts out-of-pocket medical expenses from income.  The second alternative (MOOP in the threshold or MIT) increases the poverty thresholds to take MOOP expenses into account.  The third measure, CMB for combined methods, combines attributes of the previous two measures.  Each of the three measures is calculated with and without accounting for geographic adjustments (GA and NGA).

Source:  U.S. Census Bureau, “Alternative Poverty Estimates Based on National Academy of Sciences Recommendations, by Geographic and Inflationary Adjustments,” available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/povmeas/altmeas06/nas_measures_2005_2006_comparison.xls, and unpublished CPS data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

• Figure ECON 3 shows the percentage of persons in poverty using various experimental poverty measures by age in 2006.  Three experimental measures of poverty (developed by the U.S. Census Bureau in response to the recommendation of a 1995 panel of the National Academy of Sciences) yield poverty rates that are similar to the official poverty measure overall, but differ by age and other characteristics.
• Experimental measures generally show lower poverty rates among children than the official measure, partly because they take into account non-cash benefits that many children receive. Conversely, experimental measures show higher rates of poverty among the elderly than the official measure, in part due to taking into account certain out-of-pocket health costs for these measures.
• All three alternative measures shown in Figure ECON 3 are versions that do not take into account geographic adjustments for housing costs (NGA); there also are versions that do take into account those geographic adjustments (GA), as shown in Tables ECON 3a and 3b.

[ Go to Contents ]

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 4.
Poverty Rates with Various Means-Tested Transfers Counted as Income

Figure ECON 4.
Percentage of Total Population in Poverty with Various Means-Tested Transfers Counted as Income: 1979-2006

Note:  The four measures of income are as follows: (1) “Pre-transfer cash income plus social insurance cash transfers” is earnings and other pre-transfer (“private” or “market”) cash income, plus social security, workers compensation, and other social insurance cash transfers.  It does not include means-tested cash transfers; (2) “Plus means-tested cash transfers” is the official Census Bureau income definition, which includes means-tested cash transfers, primarily AFDC/TANF and SSI; (3) “Plus food and housing benefits” counts the cash value of means-tested food and housing benefits as income; and (4) “Plus EITC and federal taxes” is the most comprehensive income measure used.  It adds the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to income, while subtracting federal payroll and income taxes.  The fungible value of Medicare and Medicaid is not included in any of the income measures.

Source:  Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1980-2007, analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office.

• Figure ECON 4 shows the percentage of the population in poverty with various means-tested transfers counted as income for the years 1979 to 2006.  The official poverty rate – using the official income definition, which includes means-tested cash transfers (primarily TANF and SSI) in addition to pre-transfer cash income and social insurance cash transfers – was 12.3 percent in 2006.  Without cash welfare, the 2006 poverty rate would be 13.0 percent.
• Adding non-cash, means-tested transfers to the official income definition has the effect of lowering the percentage of people with incomes below the official poverty line.  Including the value of food and housing benefits in total income would reduce the poverty rate to 11.0 percent in 2006.
• When income is defined to include the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the effect of federal taxes, the percentage of people in poverty would decrease to 10.0 percent in 2006.  Federal taxes and the EITC have had the net effect of reducing poverty rates following the EITC expansions in 1993 and 1995.
• Table ECON 4 shows the percentage of the population in poverty with various means-tested transfers counted as income for selected years.  The combined effect of means-tested cash transfers, food and housing benefits, the EITC, and federal taxes was to reduce the poverty rate in 2006 by 3 percentage points.  Net reductions in poverty rates were smaller during the 1981 to 1982 recession, and higher in the mid-1990s, largely due to expansions in the EITC.

[ Go to Contents ]

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 5.
Poverty Spells

Figure ECON 5.
Percentage of Poverty Spells for Persons Entering Poverty during the 2001 – 2003 Period by Length of Spell

Note:  Spell length categories are mutually exclusive.  Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells.  Due to the length of the observation period, actual spell lengths for spells that lasted more than 20 months cannot be observed.

Source:  Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 panel.

• Figure ECON 5 shows the percentage of poverty spells that are of various lengths for persons who became poor during the 2001 to 2003 period.  Nearly half (49.2 percent) of poverty spells that began between 2001 and 2003 ended within 4 months.  More than three-quarters (76.9 percent) of poverty spells during this period ended within one year while 15.5 percent of spells lasted more than 20 months.
• Table ECON 5a shows the percentage of poverty spells for persons entering poverty during the 2001 to 2003 period by length of spell and demographic characteristics.
• Among racial and ethnic groups, a larger percentage of Non-Hispanic Whites had short spells of poverty (52.3 percent) than Non-Hispanic Blacks (42.1 percent) or Hispanics of any race (45.7 percent).  For poverty spells greater than 20 months, a larger percentage of Non-Hispanic Blacks had longer poverty spells (21.1 percent) compared to Non-Hispanic Whites (13.5 percent) and Hispanics of any race (16.8 percent).
• Among age categories, the difference in the percentage of poverty spells among adults 65 years or older and other adults is notable.  Twenty-one (21.2) percent of adults ages 65 years and over had poverty spells that lasted more than 20 months as compared to 14.4 percent of women ages 16 to 64 and 12.1 percent of men ages 16 to 64.

[ Go to Contents ]

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 6.
Child Support

Figure ECON 6.
Percentage of Families Receiving Child Support Collections by Receipt of IV-D Services and Other Public Assistance: 1993-2005

Note:  AFDC/TANF families are families who have reported receiving cash assistance for any month during the 12-month period.  Therefore, not all the child support reported received was necessarily received while the family was receiving cash assistance. Data limitations do not allow a month-by-month breakdown.  Families receiving SSI, food stamps, Medicaid or housing assistance are limited to families not receiving AFDC/TANF.  Families receiving services through the IV-D system are estimated according to the methodology described in technical appendices to the ASPE-published report Characteristics of Families Using Title IV-D Services in 1999 and 2001, available at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/CSE-Char04/index.htm and previous reports.

Source:  Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Child Support Supplement, 1994-2006.

• Figure ECON 6 shows the percentage of all families that receive child support collections by receipt of title IV-D services and other public assistance between 1993 and 2005. Title IV-D of the Social Security Act authorizes state programs to assist custodial parents in establishing paternity and child support awards, and collecting child support payments. The total amount of child support received by custodial parents through the IV-D system in 2005 was $17.2 billion (constant 2005 dollars) or 65.9 percent of all child support payments received by custodial parents.
• In total for 2005, custodial parents reported receiving $26.1 billion in child support payments from non-resident parents.[1] Total child support collections have increased by 19.2 percent since 1993, after adjusting for inflation. 
• Table ECON 6 shows greater detail on child support collections by receipt of IV-D services and other assistance.  Child support payments received through IV-D by custodial parents who also received AFDC/TANF cash assistance, declined from $3.3 billion (constant 2005 dollars) in 1993 to $1.8 billion in 2005.[2]
• Child support payments to custodial parents who did not receive TANF but received another form of public assistance (food stamps, SSI, Medicaid or housing assistance) increased from $2.2 billion (in constant 2005 dollars) to $5.9 billion between 1993 and 2005.  This group of custodial parents includes former TANF recipients as well as those eligible for cash assistance.  The increased collections for this group offset the decline in payments to TANF families.

[1] This amount represents current year support received for a twelve-month period and does not include amounts paid for prior periods (arrearages) or amounts retained by the federal and state governments to recoup welfare costs.

[2] The decline partly reflects the decrease in AFDC/TANF caseloads.  Also, some states no longer “pass-through” any child support payments to custodial parents receiving TANF.  Prior to the enactment of PRWORA in 1996, states were required to pass-through the first $50 of any child support collected.

[ Go to Contents ]

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 7.
Food Insecurity

Figure ECON 7.
Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 2006

Note:  Food secure households had consistent access to enough food for active, healthy lives for all household members at all times during the year.  Households with low food security obtained enough food to avoid substantial disruptions in eating patterns and food intake, using a variety of coping strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries or emergency kitchens.  Households with very low food security reported reduced food intake of some household members and their normal eating patterns were disrupted because of the lack of money and other resources.

Source:  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2006.

• Figure ECON 7 shows the percentage of households that were food secure, had low food security, and had very low food security in 2006.  The majority of U.S. households (89.1 percent) was food secure in 2006; that is, they showed little or no evidence of concern about food supply or reduction in food intake.
• Seven (6.9) percent of U.S. households experienced low food security and 4.0 percent were classified as having very low food security.  Very low food security is defined as having reduced food intake and having normal eating patterns disrupted because of financial constraints.
• Table ECON 7a shows the percentage of households classified by food security status by selected demographic characteristics.
• For households by age categories, households with elderly were more food secure (94.0 percent) than were households with children under six (83.3 percent) or households with children under 18 (84.4 percent).
• There is a relationship between poverty and food security.  Sixty-four (63.7) percent of poor households were food secure compared to 66.9 percent of households below 130 percent of the poverty level, 72.7 percent of households below 185 percent of the poverty level, and 92.9 percent of households at or above 185 percent of the poverty level.
• Married-couple households were less likely to experience food insecurity than female-headed households.  Ten (10.1) percent of married-couple households were food insecure in 2006 compared to 30.4 percent of female-headed households.
• Table ECON 7b shows the percentage of households classified by food security status between 1998 and 2006.  The percentage of households with food insecurity (both low and very low food insecurity) has fluctuated over time from a low of 10.1 percent in 1999 to a high of 11.9 percent in 2004.

[ Go to Contents ]

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 8.
Lack of Health Insurance

Figure ECON 8.
Percentage of Persons without Health Insurance by Poverty Status: 2006

Note:  "Poor persons" are defined as those with total family incomes at or below the federal poverty threshold.  Health insurance rates for the education categories include only adults age 18 and over.

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category.  Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.  Some of the race categories presented for ECON 8 have been changed slightly from prior year reports to provide more internal consistency throughout this report; in reports prior to 2006, the race categories for Black and White included persons of Hispanic origin.

Source:  Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2007.

• Figure ECON 8 shows the percentage of persons without health insurance by race and ethnicity, educational attainment, and poverty status for 2006.  Thirty-two (31.6) percent of poor persons were without health insurance as compared to 13.6 percent of non-poor persons. 
• Among race and ethnic groups, poor Hispanics of any race had higher rates of being uninsured (42.9 percent) than did poor Non-Hispanic Whites (27.0 percent) and poor Non-Hispanic Blacks (28.1 percent).
• For non-poor persons, as education increases, the rate of being uninsured decreases.  Twenty-nine (28.5) percent of the non-poor who were not high school graduates were uninsured compared to 17.6 percent of high school graduates, and 6.6 percent of college graduates.
• Among the poor, 41.5 percent of persons who were not high school graduates, 39.9 percent of high school graduates, and 32.5 percent of college graduates were uninsured.
• Table ECON 8 shows the percentage of persons without health insurance by poverty status and demographic characteristics.  Across all demographic categories, poor persons were more likely than non-poor persons to be uninsured regardless of race and ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, age, or family category.
• For poor persons, 19.3 percent of children 17 years of age or less were without health insurance as compared to 51.3 percent of poor adults 25 to 34 years of age. The 25 to 34 year age category had the highest percentage of uninsured among poor persons.
• For non-poor persons, 10.0 percent of the children 17 years of age or less were without health insurance as compared to 26.2 percent of adults 18 to 24 years of age. The 18 to 24 year age category had the highest percentage of uninsured among non-poor persons.

[ Go to Contents ]

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-RELATED RISK FACTOR 1.
Labor Force Attachment

Figure WORK 1.
Percentage of Persons in Families with Labor Force Participants by Race and Ethnicity: 2006

Note:  Full-time, full-year workers (FT/FY) are defined as those who usually worked for 35 or more hours per week, for at least 50 weeks in a given year. Part-time and part-year labor force participation includes part-time workers and individuals who are unemployed, laid off, and/or looking for work for part or all of the year.  This indicator represents annual measures of labor force participation, and thus cannot be compared to monthly measures of labor force participation in Indicator 2.  Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category.  Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source:  Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2007.

• Figure WORK 1 shows the percentage of persons in families with labor force participants by race and ethnicity.  In 2006, Hispanics of any race were more likely to live in families with at least one full-time, full-year labor force participant (77.8 percent) than were Non-Hispanic Whites (72.3 percent) or Non-Hispanic Blacks (66.8 percent). 
• Table WORK 1a shows the percentage of persons in families with labor force participants by demographic characteristics.   In 2006, children ages 6 to 15 were more likely to live in families with at least one full- time, full-year labor force participant (80.7 percent) than were children from birth to 5 years of age (78.5 percent).   
• Among family types, persons living in married-couple families were more likely than persons living in other family types to live in families with at least one full-time, full-year labor force participant. 
• Table WORK 1b shows the percentage of persons in families with labor force participants for select years between 1990 and 2006.  The percentage of persons living in families with at least one full-time, full-year labor force participant has fluctuated over time.  The percentage increased from a low of 67.6 percent in 1992 to a high of 73.3 percent in 2000.  In 2006, 72.8 percent of persons lived in families with at least one full-time, full-year worker. 

[ Go to Contents ]

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-RELATED RISK FACTOR 2.
Employment among the Low-Skilled

Figure WORK 2.
Percentage of Persons Ages 18 to 65 with No More than a High School Education Who Were Employed at Any Time during Year by Race and Ethnicity: 1968-2006

Note:  All data include both full and partial year employment for the given calendar year.  Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are not shown separately. Hispanic origin was not available until 1975.

Source:  Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1969-2007.

• Figure WORK 2 shows the employment rate of low-skilled workers ages 18 to 65 (those with a high school education or less) by gender and race and ethnicity between 1968 and 2006.  This measure of low skill is based only on educational attainment and does not take other skills based on work experience, training or other credentials into account.[1]
• In 1968, 65.8 percent of Non-Hispanic Black women and 55.8 percent of Non-Hispanic White women with a high school education or less were employed.  In the 1970s, however, Non-Hispanic White women reached parity with their Non-Hispanic Black counterparts and then surpassed them. 
• Employment rates for women with a high school education or less increased during the 1980s and 1990s.  By the 2000s, however, the employment rate for women with a high school education or less peaked and in 2006, the rate declined to 66.5 percent for Non-Hispanic White women, 63.2 percent for Non-Hispanic Black women, and 56.8 percent for Hispanic women of any race.
• In 1968, 92.8 percent of Non-Hispanic White men and 89.9 percent of Non-Hispanic Black men with a high school education or less were employed. 
• Beginning in the 1970s, the employment rates for men with a high school education or less declined and the employment rates between Non-Hispanic White and Non-Hispanic Black men with a high school education or less began to diverge.  In 2006, 80.6 percent of Non-Hispanic White men as compared to 65.6 percent of Non-Hispanic Black men with a high school education or less were employed.
• Over the time period, Hispanic men with a high school education or less have had employment rates similar to Non-Hispanic White men.  In 1998, among men with a high school education or less, the employment rate for Hispanic men surpassed the rate for Non-Hispanic White men.  In 2006, 86.4 percent of Hispanic men with a high school education or less were employed compared to 80.6 percent of Non-Hispanic White men.

[1] This education–based measure of low skill is from the work of Rebecca Blank in “It Takes a Nation: A New Agenda for Fighting Poverty,” 1998.

[ Go to Contents ]

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-RELATED RISK FACTOR 3.
Earnings of Low-Skilled Workers

Figure WORK 3.
Mean Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time, Full-Year with No More than a High School Education
by Race and Ethnicity (2006 Dollars): 1980-2006

Note:  Last data point is 2006.  Full-time, full-year workers work at least 48 weeks per year and usually work 35 hours per week.

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are not shown separately.

Source:  Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1981-2007.

• Figure WORK 3 shows the mean weekly wages in 2006 dollars of low-skilled women and men (those with a high school education or less) working full-time, full-year by race and ethnicity for selected years.  This measure of low skill is based only on educational attainment and does not take other skills based on work experience, training or other credentials into account.[1]
• In 2006, Non-Hispanic White women with a high school education or less working full-time, full-year earned $574 in an average week compared to $503 for similar Non-Hispanic Black women and $447 for similar Hispanic women of any race.  Among men working full-time, full-year with a high school education or less, Non-Hispanic White men earned $821 in an average week, compared to $639 for Non-Hispanic Black men and $578 for Hispanic men of any race.
• Table WORK 3 provides the detailed estimates used for Figure WORK 3.  In 2006, Non-Hispanic White women had the highest average weekly wages among women working full-time, full-year with a high school education or less at $574.  This represents a 17.4 percent increase in their mean weekly wages between 1980 and 2006.  Over the same time period, similar Non-Hispanic Black women experienced a 12.5 percent increase in their mean weekly wages while similar Hispanic women of any race experienced a 6.9 percent increase.
• Among men working full-time, full-year with a high school education or less, average weekly wages increased 1.5 percent among Non-Hispanic White men and 6.1 percent among Non-Hispanic Black men between 1980 and 2006.  Hispanic men working full-time, full-year with a high school education or less experienced a 5.2 percent decrease in average weekly wages over the same time period.

[1] This education-based measure of low skill is from the work of Rebecca Blank in “It Takes a Nation:  A New Agenda for Fighting Poverty,” 1998.

[ Go to Contents ]

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-RELATED RISK FACTOR 4.
Educational Attainment

Figure WORK 4.
Percentage of Adults Ages 25 and over by Level of Educational Attainment: 1960-2006

Note:  Completing the GED is not considered completing high school for this table.  Beginning with data for 1992, a new survey question results in different categories than for prior years.  Data shown as “High school graduate, no college” were previously from the category “High school, 4 years” and are now from the category “High school graduate.”  Data shown as “One to three years of college” were previously from the category “College 1 to 3 years” and are now the sum of the categories: “Some college” and two separate “Associate degree” categories.  Data shown as “Four or more years of college” were previously from the category “College 4 years or more,” and are now the sum of the categories: “Bachelor's degree,” “Master's degree,” “Doctorate degree” and “Professional degree.”

Source:  U.S. Census Bureau, “Educational Attainment in the United States, 2006,” Current Population Reports and earlier reports.

• Figure WORK 4 shows educational attainment for adults 25 years and older between 1960 and 2006.  Table WORK 4 shows the corresponding point estimates for select years. 
• The percentage of the population without at least a high school education has declined over the past 45 years, from 59.0 percent in 1960 to 14.5 percent in 2006.
• The percentage of the population receiving a high school education (with no post secondary education) was 24.6 percent in 1960 and rose to 38.9 percent in 1988.  Since 1988, this figure has fallen to 31.7 percent in 2006.
• Between 1960 and 1990, the percentage of the population with some college (one to three years) doubled, from 8.8 percent to 17.9 percent.  The increase in 1992 is partially the result of a change in survey methodology, but the trend continued upward reaching 25.7 percent in 2006.
• The percentage of the population completing four or more years of college has more than tripled between 1960 and 2006, rising from 7.7 percent to 28.0 percent.

[ Go to Contents ]

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-RELATED RISK FACTOR 5.
High School Dropout Rates

Figure WORK 5.
Percentage of Students Enrolled in Grades 10 to 12 in the Previous Year Who Were Not Enrolled and Had Not Graduated in the Survey Year
by Race and Ethnicity: 1995-2005

Note:  Beginning in 1987, the U.S. Census Bureau instituted new editing procedures for cases with missing data on school enrollment. Beginning in 1992, the data reflect new wording of the educational attainment item in the Current Population Survey (CPS).

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race.  Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total but are not shown separately.

Source:  U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2005 and earlier years (based on Current Population Survey data from the October supplement).

• Figure WORK 5 shows the percentage of students who were enrolled in grades 10 through 12 in the previous year but were not enrolled and had not graduated in the survey year by race and ethnicity for the time period 1995 to 2005.  With the exception of Non-Hispanic Blacks, there has been a general downward trend in dropout rates.
• In 2005, the dropout rate was 5.0 percent for Hispanic students of any race, 7.3 percent for Non-Hispanic Black students, and 2.8 percent for Non-Hispanic White students.
• Between 2003 and 2005, Non-Hispanic Blacks experienced an increase in the percentage of students dropping out of school, from 4.8 percent in 2003 to 7.3 percent in 2005.
• Table WORK 5 provides trend data on dropout rates beginning in 1972.  The dropout rate for all races was highest in 1978 and 1979 (6.7 percent) and then declined to 3.6 percent in 2002, a 30-year low.  Since 2002, the dropout rate for students of all races has risen somewhat to 3.8 percent in 2005. 
• Dropout rates among Hispanic students of any race have fluctuated since 1972.  Despite this fluctuation, Hispanic dropout rates were higher than rates for Non-Hispanic White students in all years since 1972 and higher than rates for Non-Hispanic Black students in all reported years except 2005.

[ Go to Contents ]

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-RELATED RISK FACTOR 6.
Adult Alcohol and Substance Abuse

Figure WORK 6.
Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol by Age: 2006

Note:  Cocaine and marijuana use is defined as use during the past month.  “Binge alcohol use” is defined as drinking five or more drinks on the same occasion on at least one day in the past 30 days.  “Heavy alcohol use” is defined as drinking five or more drinks on the same occasion on each of five or more days in the past 30 days; all heavy alcohol users are also binge alcohol users.

Source:  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2007.

• Figure WORK 6 shows the percentage of adults who used cocaine, the percentage who used marijuana, and the percentage who abused alcohol by age group in 2006.  Adults 18 to 25 years of age were more likely than older adults to report cocaine, marijuana, binge alcohol or heavy alcohol use in the prior month.  For example, 16.3 percent reported using marijuana in the past month during 2006, compared with 8.5 percent of adults 26 to 34 years of age and 3.2 percent of adults 35 years and over.
• The percentage of adults reporting binge alcohol use was larger than the percentages for all other reported behaviors across all age groups.  Among those reporting binge alcohol use, however, this behavior was more prevalent among adults 18 to 25 years of age than among adults in other age categories.
• Table WORK 6 shows trend data for cocaine, marijuana, binge alcohol and heavy alcohol use for the years 1999 to 2006.
• For adults in all age groups, alcohol abuse increased between 2005 and 2006.  Cocaine use increased for adults 26 to 34 years of age, and marijuana use increased for adults ages 35 and over during the same two-year period.

[ Go to Contents ]

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-RELATED RISK FACTOR 7.
Adult and Child Disability

Figure WORK 7.
Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting an Activity Limitation by Selected Characteristics: 2006

Note:  Work disability is defined as limitations in or the inability to work as a result of a physical, mental or emotional health condition.  Individuals are identified as having long-term care needs if they need the help of others in handling either personal care needs (eating, bathing, dressing, getting around the home) or routine needs (household chores, shopping, getting around for business or other purposes).  Disability program recipients include persons covered by Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), Special Education Services, Early Intervention Services and/or disability pensions.

Respondents were defined as having an activity limitation if they answered positively to any of the questions regarding:  (1) work disability (see definition above; (2) long-term care needs (see definition above); (3) difficulty walking; (4) difficulty remembering; (5) for children under 5, limitations in the amount of play activities they can participate in because of physical, mental or emotional problems; (6) for children 3 and over, receipt of Special Educational or Early Intervention Services; and, (7) any other limitations due to physical, mental or emotional problems.

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source:  Unpublished tabulations from the National Health Interview Survey, 2007.

• Figure WORK 7 shows the percentage of non-elderly adults and children reporting an activity limitation by race and ethnicity in 2006.  Non-elderly adults were more likely than children to have an activity limitation, 10.9 percent compared to 7.6 percent.
• Table WORK 7 shows the percentage of the non-elderly population reporting a disability by selected demographic characteristics.  While non-elderly adults were more likely than children to report an activity limitation, a higher percentage of children (6.5 percent) than adults (4.9 percent) were actually recipients of disability program benefits in 2006.
• For both non-elderly adults and children, the percentage of Non-Hispanic Blacks with an activity limitation was higher than the percentages for Non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanics.
• Among non-elderly adults, rates of work disability and long-term care needs were lower for Hispanics (5.4 and 1.3 percent, respectively) than for Non-Hispanic Whites (8.9 and 2.3 percent, respectively) and Non-Hispanic Blacks (10.4 and 2.9 percent, respectively).

[ Go to Contents ]

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-RELATED RISK FACTOR 8.
Labor Force Participation of Women with Children under 18

Figure WORK 8.
Labor Force Participation of Women with Children under 18: 1975-2006

Note:  The labor force participation rate includes all women who are employed, laid off or unemployed but looking for work. The employment rate includes only those women who are employed. The population of mothers with children under age 18 includes those 16 years of age and older.

Source:  U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1976-2007.

• Figure WORK 8 shows the labor force participation rates for mothers with children under 18 years of age by marital status between 1975 and 2006.  In 2006, regardless of marital status, the majority of mothers in the U.S. were engaged in the labor force. 
• Historically, divorced, widowed and separated mothers have had the highest rates of labor force participation among mothers.  In 1975, 62.8 percent of divorced, widowed or separated mothers were in the labor force as compared to 44.9 percent of married mothers with spouses present and 42.2 percent of never-married mothers.  In 2006, divorced, widowed and separated mothers remained more likely than other mothers to participate in the labor force.
• Between 1992 and 2002, labor force participation rates for never-married mothers with children under 18 markedly increased—rising from 52.5 percent in 1992 to 75.3 percent in 2002.  Since 1998, labor force participation rates for never-married mothers have exceeded the rates for married mothers.
• The labor force participation rate of married mothers with children under 18 followed an upward trend from 1975 until 1997 when it peaked at 71.1 percent.  In 2006, 68.4 percent of married mothers with spouses present were in the labor force.
• Table WORK 1 shows both the labor force participation rate and the employment rate of mothers with children under 18 years of age between 1975 and 2006.
• The employment rate for all mothers increased over the time period.  The employment rate for married mothers with a spouse present was 40.5 percent in 1975; in 2006 the employment rate was 66.2 percent.  The employment rate for divorced, widowed and separated mothers was 54.9 percent in 1975; in 2006 the employment rate was 75.4 percent.  The employment rate for never- married mothers was to 32.1 percent in 1975; in 2006 the rate climbed to 62.5 percent.

[ Go to Contents ]

NONMARITAL BIRTH RISK FACTOR 1.
Nonmarital Births

Figure BIRTH 1.
Percentage of Births that are Nonmarital by Age: 1940-2006

Note:   Trends in non-marital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring non-marital births when marital status is not reported.

Source:  National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Preliminary Data for 2006,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 56 (7), December 2007, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_07.pdf.

• Figure BIRTH 1 shows the percentage of births that were nonmarital by age group from 1940 to 2006 and Table BIRTH 1 shows corresponding estimates for selected years.  Changes in nonmarital births reflect changes in the rate at which unmarried women have children, the rate at which married women have children and the rate at which women marry.  The percentage of children born outside of marriage to women of all ages has increased over the past 60 years.  In 1940, 3.8 percent of births were to unmarried women.  In 2006, the percentage increased to 38.5 percent.
• Teen births, as shown in Figure BIRTH 1 and Table BIRTH 1, show nonmarital teen births as a percentage of all teen births.  In 1940, 14.0 percent of births to teens were nonmarital.  While the percentage of all teen births that are nonmarital has increased since the mid-1960s, growth in the percentage slowed in the mid- to late- 1990s before rising to 84.4 percent in 2006.
• Over the past 10 years, the percentage of nonmarital births among all births to women 20 to 24 years of age increased by 27.0 percent from 45.6 percent in 1996 to 57.9 percent in 2006. This compares to an increase of 10.6 percent in the percentage of nonmarital births among teen births over the same period. 
• Since 1994, the percentage of births that are nonmarital remains steady among Black teens and all Black women. Among White teens and all White women, the trend continues upward (see Table C-1 in Appendix C for nonmarital birth data by age and race).

[ Go to Contents ]

NONMARITAL BIRTH RISK FACTOR 2.
Nonmarital Teen Births

Figure BIRTH 2.
Percentage of All Births to Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 19 by Race and Ethnicity: 1940-2005

Note:  Trends in nonmarital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring nonmarital births when marital status is not reported.  Beginning in 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the mother. Prior to 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the child.  Teens are defined as people ages 15 to 19.

Race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity.  Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Prior to 1969, race data were available for Whites and Non-Whites only.

Source:  National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940 - 1999,” National Vital Health Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Final Data for 2005,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 56 (6), December 2007 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_06.pdf.

• Figure BIRTH 2 shows the percentage of all births to unmarried teens 15 to 19 years of age by race and ethnicity, and Table BIRTH 2 shows corresponding estimates for selected years between 1940 and 2005.  Unlike BIRTH 1, which showed nonmarital teen births as a percentage of all teen births, BIRTH 2 shows births to unmarried teens as a percentage of births to all women.  This percentage is affected by several factors: the age distribution of women, the marriage rate among teens, the birth rate among unmarried teens and the birth rate among all other women.
• The percentage of all births that were to unmarried teens fell over the last eight years, from 9.7 in 1997 to 8.3 percent in 2005.   
• Among Black women, the percentage of all births that were nonmarital teen births fell to 15.8 percent in 2005.  This is the lowest percentage since 1969, the first year in which data on Black women were collected.
• Among White women, the percentage of all births that were to unmarried White teens ages 15 to 19 remained virtually unchanged between 2002 and 2005 at approximately 7.2 percent.
• Among Hispanic women, the percentage of all births that were to unmarried teens increased from a low of 9.8 percent in 1990 to a high of 12.1 percent in 1998 before declining to 11.0 percent in 2005.

[ Go to Contents ]

NONMARITAL BIRTH RISK FACTOR 3.
Nonmarital Teen Birth Rates

Figure BIRTH 3a.
Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 17 by Race: 1960-2005

Figure BIRTH 3b.
Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 18 and 19 by Race: 1960-2005

Note:  Rates are per 1,000 unmarried women in specified group. Trends in non-marital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring non-marital births when marital status is not reported.  Beginning in 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the mother.  Prior to 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the child.

Race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Prior to 1969, race data were available for Whites and Non-Whites only.

Source:  National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Final Data for 2005,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 56 (6), December 2006.  Birthrates for 1950 to 1965 computed by ASPE staff from NCHS birth and Census population estimates.

• Figures BIRTH 3a and 3b show births per thousand unmarried teens between the ages of 15 to 17 and 18 to 19 from 1960 to 2005.  Table BIRTH 3 shows corresponding estimates for selected years between 1950 and 2005.  The birth rate per thousand unmarried teens ages 15 to 17 fell in 2005 for both Black and White teens.  The rate for Black teens ages 15 to 17 has been cut by more than half from 79.9 per thousand in 1991 to 35.4 per thousand in 2005.  This 2005 rate of 35.4 per thousand is lower than in any other year since 1969, the first year in which data on Black women were collected.
• The birth rates of unmarried teens in the older age group (18 and 19 years) showed a slight increase between 2002 and 2005.  For Black teens ages 18 and 19, the birth rate fell from a high of 147.7 per thousand in 1991 to a low of 100.4 per thousand in 2003 before increasing to 101.6 births per thousand in 2005.
• Prior to 1994, birth rates among unmarried White teens in both age groups rose steadily for over four decades.  For White teens 15 to 17 years of age, the birth rate increased from 3.4 births per thousand unmarried teens in 1950 to 23.9 births per thousand unmarried teens in 1994. For the 18 to 19 year olds, the rate increased from 8.5 births per thousand unmarried teens in 1950 to 55.7 births per thousand unmarried teens in 1994.  Since 1994, rates for both age groups have generally followed a downward trend.
• While birth rates among unmarried Black teens remain high compared to rates for unmarried White teens, the gap between Black and White teens narrowed during the 1990s and 2000s.

[ Go to Contents ]

NONMARITAL BIRTH RISK FACTOR 4.
Never-Married Family Status

Figure BIRTH 4.
Percentage of All Children Living in Families with a Never-Married Female Head by Race and Ethnicity: 1982-2007

Note:  Data are for all children under 18 who are not family heads (excludes householders, subfamily reference persons and their spouses).  Inmates of institutions also are excluded. Children who are living with neither of their parents are excluded from the denominator.  Based on Current Population Survey (CPS) data.

Race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category.  Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source:  U.S. Census Bureau, “Marital Status and Living Arrangements, ”Current Population Reports, Series P20-212, 287, 365, 380, 399, 418, 423, 433, 445, 450, 461, 468, 478, 484, 491, 496, 506, 514 and “America’s Families and Living Arrangements,” Current Population Reports, Series P20-537, 547, 553 and ASPE tabulations of the CPS for 2007.

• Figure BIRTH 4 shows the percentage of all children living in families with a never-married female head of household by race and ethnicity from 1982 to 2007.  Table BIRTH 4 shows corresponding estimates for selected years between 1960 and 2007.  The percentage of children living in families with never-married female heads increased from 4.6 percent in 1982 to 11.0 percent in 2007.
• The percentage of White children living in families headed by never-married women has increased fourfold over the past 25 years, from 1.6 percent in 1982 to 6.6 percent in 2007. 
• Among Hispanics of all races, the percentage of children living with a never-married female head of household tripled over the past 25 years, from 5.7 percent in 1982 to 12.9 percent in 2007.
• The percentage of Black children living in families with a never-married female head of household has been higher than the percentages for other groups throughout the time period.  In 2007, 34.6 percent of Black children lived in families with a never-married female head of household compared to 6.6 percent for White children and 12.9 percent for Hispanic children.

Where to?

Top of Page | Contents
Main Page of Report | Contents of Report

Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)