Download & Other Tools
Download & Other Tools
- Definition: Estimated percentage of children under age 18 in households, by household type (e.g., in 2014, 18.6% of California children lived in female-headed households).
- Data Source: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey microdata files (Nov. 2015).
- Footnote: Estimates are for children living in households and exclude those in group quarters (e.g., student dormitories). The same-sex couple category combines both unmarried and married partners due to small sample sizes. “Other households” include children living alone or with nonrelatives. Data are displayed for geographies with at least 65,000 people based on 2014 population estimates. These estimates are based on a survey of the population and are subject to both sampling and nonsampling error. LNE (Low Number Event) refers to estimates that have been suppressed because the margin of error was greater than 5 percentage points. N/A means that data are not available. Some regions listed are Census Designated Places (CDPs), such as East Los Angeles; CDPs are communities within the unincorporated part of a county.
- Measures of Family Structure on Kidsdata.org
On kidsdata.org, measures of family structure include: households with and without children under age 18; family structure for children, overall, and by race/ethnicity; and children in the care of grandparents. These data are estimates based on the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS). Data are available for:
Family structure estimates are for children living in households and exclude those in group quarters (e.g., student dormitories). A “female-headed household” is a household maintained by a female with related children present. The female head of household typically is the children’s mother but also may be their grandmother, aunt, older sibling, or another relative. The definition of "male-headed household" is comparable. The same-sex couple category combines both unmarried and married partners due to small sample sizes. “Other households” include youth living alone or with nonrelatives.
- Cities, school districts, and counties with 65,000+ residents, as single-year estimates;
- Cities, school districts, and counties with 10,000+ residents, as 5-year estimates (however, for family structure by race/ethnicity, data are provided as 5-year estimates for regions of 50,000+ residents); and
- Legislative districts, as 5-year estimates.
- Family Structure
- Households with and without Children, by City, School District and County (65,000 Residents or More)
- Family Structure for Children in Households, by City, School District and County (65,000 Residents or More)
- Children in the Care of Grandparents, by City, School District and County (65,000 Residents or More)
- Births Outside of Marriage (California & U.S. Only)
- Child Population (Regions of 65,000 Residents or More)
- Children in Rural and Urban Areas (California & U.S. Only)
- Child Population, by County
- Total Population
- Public School Enrollment
- Family Income and Poverty
- Children in Poverty, by Race/Ethnicity (Regions of 65,000 Residents or More)
- Children Living in Areas of Concentrated Poverty
- Children in Deep Poverty (Regions of 65,000 Residents or More)
- Median Family Income, by Family Type (Regions of 65,000 Residents or More)
- Income Level for Children Relative to Poverty (Regions of 65,000 Residents or More)
- Income Level for Children Relative to Poverty, by Family Type (Regions of 65,000 Residents or More)
- Children Living in Low-Income Working Families (Regions of 65,000 Residents or More)
- Children in Poverty - Supplemental Poverty Measure (California & U.S. Only)
- Self-Sufficiency Standard
- Children Participating in CalWORKs
- Food Security
- English Learners
- Childhood Adversity and Resilience
- Children with Two or More Adverse Experiences (Parent Reported)
- Children Who Are Resilient (Parent Reported)
- Prevalence of Childhood Hardships (Maternal Retrospective)
- by Family Income (CA Only)
- by Maternal Age (CA Only)
- by Prenatal Insurance Coverage (CA Only)
- by Race/Ethnicity (CA Only)
- Parental Divorce or Separation
- Parental Divorce or Separation, by Family Income (CA Only)
- Parental Divorce or Separation, by Maternal Age (CA Only)
- Parental Divorce or Separation, by Prenatal Insurance Coverage (CA Only)
- Parental Divorce or Separation, by Race/Ethnicity (CA Only)
- Moved Due to Financial Problems
- Moved Due to Financial Problems, by Family Income (CA Only)
- Moved Due to Financial Problems, by Maternal Age (CA Only)
- Moved Due to Financial Problems, by Prenatal Insurance Coverage (CA Only)
- Moved Due to Financial Problems, by Race/Ethnicity (CA Only)
- Prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences (Adult Retrospective)
- Children Living in Limited English-Speaking Households (65,000 Residents or More)
- Children Living with Foreign-Born Parents (65,000 Residents or More)
- Children Living with Foreign-Born Parents, by Income Level (65,000 Residents or More)
- Foreign-Born Population, by Age Group (65,000 Residents or More)
- Teen Births
- Why This Topic Is Important
Child well being is influenced by the family environment and the presence of caring, stable adults. Family structure and the nature of the family relationships, in particular, are important factors in child development (1, 2). For example, single-parent families are more likely than two-parent families to have lower incomes and experience financial hardship (3). Financial hardship can affect families’ ability to provide the environment and experiences a child needs for optimal cognitive, emotional, and physical development (4). In addition to adequate family income, positive child development is influenced by factors such as parental affection, responsiveness, and consistency, as well as high quality relationships between parents or significant adults (2). These factors are more critical than the family structure itself (3).
Over the past 30 years, the percentage of children living in households with two married parents has declined nationwide, while the percentage in families headed by a single parent or grandparents has increased (3, 5). Though it is not clear if the percentage of children living with same-sex partners has increased in recent decades (due to data limitations), research shows that children in these families are as well adjusted as children with heterosexual parents (2). Studies indicate that child development is not influenced by the gender or sexual orientation of parents (2).For more information about family structure see kidsdata.org’s Research & Links section.
Sources for this narrative:
1. Child Trends Databank. (2015). Family structure. Retrieved from: http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=family-structure
2. Lamb, M. E. (2012). Mothers, fathers, families, and circumstances: Factors affecting children’s adjustment. Applied Developmental Science, 16(2), 98-111. Retrieved from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10888691.2012.667344
3. Coontz, S. (Ed.). (2015). Moynihan+50: Family structure still not the problem. Council on Contemporary Families. Retrieved from: https://contemporaryfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2015_Symposium_Family_Structure.pdf
4. Redd, Z., et al. (2011). Two generations in poverty: Status and trends among parents and children in the United States, 2000-2010 (Research Brief No. 2011-25). Child Trends. Retrieved from: http://www.childtrends.org/?publications=two-generations-in-poverty-status-and-trends-among-parents-and-children-in-the-united-states-2000-2010-2
5. U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Table CH-7. Grandchildren under age 18 living in the home of their grandparents: 1970 to 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/children.html
- How Children Are Faring
In 2014, more than one-third of California households (36%) included children, similar to previous years. About two-thirds (67%) of California children lived in households headed by married couples of the opposite sex in 2014; the remaining percentage lived in households headed by single women (19%), single men (5%), unmarried couples of the opposite sex (9%), and married or unmarried same-sex couples (0.2%). Family structure varies by race/ethnicity. In 2010-14, an estimated 10% of Asian/Pacific Islander children in California lived in households headed by single women, while the same was true for about 49% of African American/black children. In 2014, an estimated 3% of California's children lived in the care of grandparents, similar to previous years, but percentages vary by county.
- Policy Implications
Family provides an essential safety net for children, and public policy can help support and reinforce that safety net for the good of the family, and for society at large. In California, about two-thirds of households with children are headed by married couples, while 23% of children live in households headed by a single parent (1). Children can thrive in any type of family structure. However, research shows that single-parent households tend to be less financially secure or stable than those with married parents (2, 3).
A small percentage of children are raised by other caregivers, such as grandparents, who often need information, financial and emotional support, and authority to nurture, feed, house, and educate the children in their care (4). Some children are raised in households headed by same-sex couples; while research shows that these children do as well as children of heterosexual couples, they can face discrimination (5, 6).
Policy options that could promote child well being in homes with a single parent, kinship caregiver, or same-sex parents include:
For more policy ideas and links to research and websites with related information, see kidsdata.org’s Research & Links section.
- Strengthening the social and financial safety net for single custodial parents through policies that support balancing work and caring for children, provide adequate cash assistance for low-income families in need, and effectively enforce child support obligations (2, 3, 7)
- Ensuring that kinship caregivers (such as grandparents) have the full range of support needed to provide for children in their care, enroll them in school, ensure that they receive regular medical care, and avoid placement in non-relative foster care (4)
- Eliminating legislation that discriminates against gay and lesbian populations, as anti-gay legislation and attitudes can negatively affect the mental health of gay and lesbian parents, which can affect the emotional and behavioral health of their children (6, 8)
- Developing and implementing responsible fatherhood programs that are comprehensive and address child support collection issues, paternal employment, relationship skills, parenting skills, and domestic violence concerns (2, 3, 9)
Sources for this narrative:
1. As cited on kidsdata.org, Family structure for children in households, by city, school district and county (65,000 residents or more). (2015). U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Retrieved from: http://factfinder.census.gov
2. Waldfogel, J., et al. (2010). Fragile families and child wellbeing. The Future of Children, 20(2), 87-112. Retrieved from: http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=73&articleid=532
3. McLanahan, S., et al. (2010). Strengthening fragile families (Policy Brief). The Future of Children. Retrieved from: http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2010/10/27-fragile-families-foc
4. Sakai, C., et al. (2011). Health outcomes and family services in kinship care: Analysis of a national sample of children in the child welfare system. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 165(2), 159-165. Retrieved from: http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=384260
5. Lamb, M. E. (2012). Mothers, fathers, families, and circumstances: Factors affecting children’s adjustment. Applied Developmental Science, 16(2), 98-111. Retrieved from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10888691.2012.667344
6. Pennings, G. (2011). Evaluating the welfare of the child in same-sex families. Human Reproduction, 26(7), 1609-1615. Retrieved from: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/7/1609
7. Cancian, M., et al. (2010). Promising antipoverty strategies for families. Urban Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.urban.org/research/publication/promising-antipoverty-strategies-families
8. Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2011). Stigma, social context, and mental health: Lesbian and gay couples across the transition to adoptive parenthood. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(1), 139-150. Retrieved from: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/parenting/stigma-social-context-and-mental-health-lesbian-and-gay-couples-across-the-transition-to-adoptive-parenthood
9. Knox, V., et al. (2010). Policies that strengthen fatherhood and family relationships: What do we know and what do we need to know? MDRC. Retrieved from: http://www.mdrc.org/publication/policies-strengthen-fatherhood-and-family-relationships
- Websites with Related Information
- California Dept. of Social Services: Kinship Care
- Casey Family Programs
- Child Trends: Families and Parenting
- Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE)
- Council on Contemporary Families, University of Texas at Austin
- Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, Princeton University & Columbia University
- National Center for Family & Marriage Research, Bowling Green State University
- Pew Research Center Social and Demographic Trends: Household and Family Structure
- U.S. Census Bureau: Families & Living Arrangements
- Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law
- Key Reports and Research
- Children Living Apart from Their Parents: Highlights from the National Survey of Children in Nonparental Care, 2016, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Radel, L., et al.
- Demographics of Married and Unmarried Same-Sex Couples: Analyses of the 2013 American Community Survey, 2015, Williams Institute, Gates, G. J.
- Family Diversity is the New Normal for America’s Children, 2014, Council on Contemporary Families, Cohen, P.
- Family Structure and Multiple Domains of Child Well-Being in the United States: A Cross-Sectional Study, 2015, Population Health Metrics, Krueger, P. M.
- Keeping Families Together: Why All Americans Should Care About What Happens to Unauthorized Immigrants, 2017, Center for American Progress, Mathema, S.
- Marriage and Child Wellbeing Revisited, 2015, The Future of Children
- Moynihan+50: Family Structure Still Not The Problem, 2015, Council on Contemporary Families, Coontz, S. (Ed.)
- New Patterns of Poverty in the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Community, 2013, Williams Institute, Badgett, M. V. L., et al.
- Parenting in America: The American Family Today, 2015, Pew Research Center
- Research Report on LGB-Parent Families, 2014, Williams Institute, Goldberg, A. E., et al.
- The Role of the Family and Family-Centered Programs and Policies, 2015, The Future of Children, Berger, L. M., & Font, S. A.
- World Family Map 2017: Mapping Family Change and Child Well-Being Outcomes, 2017, Social Trends Institute and Institute for Family Studies
- County/Regional Reports
- 2014 Solano Children's Report Card, Children's Network of Solano County
- 2017 Kern County Report Card, Kern County Network for Children
- Key Indicators of Health by Service Planning Area, 2017, Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Health
- San Mateo County All Together Better, San Mateo County Health
- Santa Monica Youth Wellbeing Report Card, Santa Monica Cradle to Career
- More Data Sources For Family Structure
- 2018 KIDS COUNT Data Book, Annie E. Casey Foundation
- California Health Interview Survey, UCLA Center for Health Policy Research
- Childstats.gov, Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics
- National Survey of Children in Nonparental Care, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- U.S. Census Bureau: Families & Living Arrangements
Receive Kidsdata News
Regular emails featuring notable data findings and new features. Visit our Kidsdata News archive for examples.