America's Families and Living Arrangements 2022

Population Characteristics

Current Population Reports

By Paul F. Hemez, Chanell N. Washington, and Rose M. Kreider

P20-587

Issued May 2024

INTRODUCTION

This report provides a demographic profile of the households and living arrangements of Americans, and how these have changed over time. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic affected the economic well-being of millions of families, as many businesses operated under reduced hours or were lost, causing many people to become underemployed or unemployed. Thus, a secondary goal of this report is to examine changes in the economic well-being of American families before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This report uses data from the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC).¹ It capitalizes on the strengths of both datasets, using ACS data about how basic family and household characteristics vary across types of living arrangements and geography, and CPS detailed information about how family structures and characteristics vary over time. Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on data collection across surveys,² ACS estimates are limited to 2019 and discussions of historical trends in the CPS ASEC do not include data collected in 2020.

The report contains four sections: (1) households and living arrangements; (2) families; (3) spouses and partners; and (4) the economic well-being of children and couples before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

HIGHLIGHTS

• About 47 percent of households were married-couple households in 2022, down from 71 percent in 1970.
• Between 1970 and 2022, the proportion of households that contain one person increased by about 4 percentage points for households with a woman living alone, and by about 8 percentage points for households with a man living alone.
• In 2022, about 57 percent of men and 55 percent of women aged 18-24 lived in their parents’ home, compared to 52 percent of men and 35 percent of women that age in 1960.
• Less than two-thirds of all family groups with children under the age of 18 were maintained by married parents.
• About 74 percent of mothers and 91 percent of fathers were living with their child’s other parent in 2022.
• In 2019, about 17 percent of children lived in a household that received food stamps in the previous year, compared to 20 percent in 2021.
• The share of children with no coresident parent(s) in the labor force increased from about 7 percent to 8 percent between 2019 and 2021.

AMERICA’S HOUSEHOLDS AND LIVING ARRANGEMENTS

Several factors influence the size of households, as well as who lives together. These factors include demographic trends that affect the overall size of the population, such as fertility, mortality, and migration, and changing laws and social norms that influence the types of romantic partnerships that people form, such as marriage and cohabitation. Household size and composition are also affected by the economic circumstances of individuals, as those who have low-income jobs or are unemployed may not be able to afford to live on their own, and may have to live with parents or roommates. This section of the report highlights several historical changes in America’s households and living arrangements.

In 2019, most households were family households.

Table 1 shows that there were about 123 million households in the United States in 2019. Almost two-thirds of households (about 80 million) were family households, of which about 58 million were married-couple households. About 6 million family households had a male householder with no spouse present, and 15 million had a female householder with no spouse present. Nonfamily households made up about 43 million households, with about 20 million having a male householder and 23 million having a female householder. Of the 43 million nonfamily households, four-fifths (approximately 35 million) were composed of individuals living alone.

DEFINITIONS

A household contains one or more people. Everyone living in a housing unit makes up a household. One of the people who owns or rents the residence is usually designated as the householder, who must be at least 15 years old. For the purposes of examining family and household composition, two types of households are defined—family and nonfamily.

A family household has at least two members related by birth, marriage, or adoption, one of whom is the householder. This definition extends beyond households with spouses, parents, and children, as those with other relatives (such as grandparents or aunts and uncles) are also considered family households.

Family households are maintained by married couples or by a man or woman living with other relatives—children may or may not be present. In contrast, nonfamily households are maintained only by men or women with no relatives at home.

A nonfamily household can be either a person living alone or a householder who shares the housing unit with only nonrelatives; for example, housemates, roommates, or cohabiting partners. The nonrelatives of the householder may be related to each other.

Own children are a subset of all children—they are the biological, step, or adopted children of the householder or family reference person (in the case of subfamilies) for the universe being considered, whether household, family, or family group. Own children are also limited to those children who have never been married and are under the age of 18 and, in the case of the Current Population Survey, also are not themselves a family reference person. Foster children are not included as own children since they are not considered to be related to the householder.

Households can contain more than one married-couple or single-parent family, and nonfamily households can contain families that are not related to the owner or renter. In 1970, the U.S. Census Bureau developed the concept of the family group to count all of these types of families.

Family groups include family households plus all family groups that do not include the householder (subfamilies). These subfamilies may consist of either married couples or parent-child units. An individual may be counted in two different family groups. For example, the householder and their adult daughter and granddaughter form one family group. The adult daughter and her child form a second family group, a mother-child subfamily.

Reference people are the members of a household around whom family units are organized. In family households, the householder is always the reference person for the primary family, while another member of the household would be the reference person for a subfamily.

• X Not applicable.
• 1 Includes any person who is under 18 years old and related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption.
• 2 Includes never married biological, step, and adopted children of the householder under 18 years old.
• Note: For further information on the accuracy of the data, refer to <https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/tech_docs/accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data_2019.pdf>.
• Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey, 1-year estimates.

Households with a Black householder were more likely to be family households with a female householder with no spouse present, and less likely to be married-couple households than households with White, Asian, and Hispanic householders.

Black households³ were significantly more likely to be family households maintained by women without a spouse present. About one-quarter of Black households fell into this category, compared to only about 9 percent of non-Hispanic White and Asian households. Almost 20 percent of Hispanic households were other family households with a female householder with no spouse in the home. Furthermore, 27 percent of Black households were married-couple households, compared to one-half of White households, about 60 percent of Asian households, and almost half (47 percent) of Hispanic households.

In 2022, a greater proportion of households were nonfamily and other family households, and a lower proportion were married-couple households with children, compared to 1970.

Figure 1 depicts households by type, from 1970 until 2022. The top three sections of the figure represent nonfamily households (other nonfamily households, women living alone, and men living alone), while the lower three sections represent family households (other family households, married couples without own children under the age of 18, and married couples with own children under the age of 18 present). Nonfamily households were about 19 percent of all households in 1970, but by 2022, they made up more than one-third (36 percent) of all households. Women living alone made up the largest percentage of nonfamily households in both 1970 and 2022. In 1970, about 12 percent of households were women living alone, compared to roughly 16 percent in 2022. The share of households with men living alone grew by about 8 percentage points (from about 6 percent in 1970 to about 13 percent in 2022), the largest percentage-point change of the three nonfamily household groups. Other nonfamily households made up the smallest share of nonfamily households. However, that share grew by about 5 percentage points from 1970 to 2022 (from 2 percent to 7 percent).

Figure 1. Households by Type: 1970 to 2022 (In percent)

Stacked bar chart showing the percent of all households in each of six household types for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2022. The values are reproduced in the following table.

Figure 1 data: percent of households by type, 1970 to 2022

Household type	1970	1980	1990	2000	2010	2022
Other nonfamily households	1.7	3.6	4.6	5.7	6.2	6.9
Women living alone	11.5	14.0	14.9	14.8	14.8	15.7
Men living alone	5.6	8.6	9.7	10.7	11.9	13.2
Other family households	10.6	12.9	14.8	16.0	17.4	17.4
Married couples without children	30.3	29.9	29.8	28.7	28.8	29.0
Married couples with children	40.3	30.9	26.3	24.1	20.9	17.8

Family households made up about 81 percent of all households in 1970, but by 2022, that share declined to about 64 percent of all households. Most of the decline came from reductions in married-couple households with children. In 1970, about two-fifths were households with married couples with children under the age of 18. By 2022, married-couple households with children under the age of 18 made up approximately 18 percent of all households, a decline of about 23 percentage points. Households with married couples without children did not decrease to the same extent; there was a 1 percentage-point decline in married-couple households without children, as a percentage of all households from 1970 to 2022. While married-couple households became less common, other family households (e.g., family households without a married householder) increased during the same period. About 11 percent of all households were other family households in 1970, compared to about 17 percent in 2022.

Men aged 15–64 made up the largest share of one-person households in 2022.

Figure 2 shows the composition of one-person households by age and sex, from 1970 to 2022. Overall, it shows that a higher proportion of one-person households in 2022 were composed of a man living alone than in 1970. For example, 23 percent of one-person households were a man aged 15-64 in 1970, which increased to 31 percent in 2022. Conversely, the proportion of one-person households with a woman aged 15 and over living alone declined over the same period, from about two-thirds (66 percent) of one-person households to about 54 percent. While the proportion of one-person households that were women aged 65 and over decreased from about 36 percent in 1970 to about 27 percent in 2022, the corresponding proportion of men aged 65 and over increased from about 10 percent to 15 percent. Increases in men’s life expectancy over the period may have contributed to a higher proportion of one-person households being older men, but also a lower proportion being older women, since their husbands lived longer.

Figure 2. One-Person Households by Age and Sex: 1970 to 2022 (In percent)

Stacked bar chart showing the percent of one-person households in each of six age and sex groups for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2022. The values are reproduced in the following table.

Figure 2 data: percent of one-person households by age and sex, 1970 to 2022

Age and sex group	1970	1980	1990	2000	2010	2022
Women 75+	15.9	15.6	17.1	16.6	16.0	14.2
Women 65–74	19.6	16.2	14.4	11.2	9.9	12.6
Women 15–64	30.9	29.8	29.2	30.4	29.6	27.6
Men 75+	4.8	3.6	3.9	4.7	5.1	6.1
Men 65–74	5.6	4.0	4.5	4.1	5.1	8.6
Men 15–64	23.2	30.6	30.9	33.0	34.3	30.9

One- and two-person households have become more prevalent over time.

Households have become smaller in recent decades (Figure 3). Those with three or more people have declined since 1970, whereas those with one or two people have increased. Households with three or more people made up more than half (54 percent) of all households in 1970, compared to about 36 percent in 2022. Of those households, the largest decline occurred among households with five or more people. These households were the second most common type of household in 1970 (after households with two people). Over one-fifth of households had five or more people that year, compared to less than one-tenth in 2022. In contrast, one- and two-person households became more common over this period. Households with one or two people made up 46 percent of all households in 1970, but by 2022 that share increased to almost two-thirds of households (64 percent). Most of this growth came from the increase in one-person households. These households grew by about 12 percentage points (from 17 percent to 29 percent) from 1970 to 2022, while two-person households increased less dramatically, by about 6 percentage points (from 29 percent to 35 percent).

Figure 3. Households by Size: 1970 to 2022 (In percent)

Stacked bar chart showing the percent of all households in each household-size category for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2022. The values are reproduced in the following table.

Figure 3 data: percent of households by size, 1970 to 2022

Household size	1970	1980	1990	2000	2010	2022
5 or more people	20.9	12.8	10.4	10.4	10.1	9.0
4 people	15.8	15.7	15.5	14.6	13.7	12.3
3 people	17.3	17.5	17.3	16.4	15.9	15.1
2 people	28.9	31.4	32.3	33.1	33.6	34.7
1 person	17.1	22.7	24.6	25.5	26.7	28.9

In 2022, among those aged 18 to 34, living with a spouse was more common for women than men, but among those 65 and older, living with a spouse was more common for men than women.

Table 2 shows the living arrangements of younger (aged 18-34) and older (aged 65 and over) adults by age and sex. Among those aged 18 to 34, women were more likely than men to live with a spouse. About 29 percent of women lived with a spouse in 2022, compared to about 23 percent of men. Living with an unmarried partner was also more common among women in this age group; about 16 percent of women lived with an unmarried partner, while 14 percent of men did so. Living alone, however, was slightly more common among men than women, with about 10 percent of men and 8 percent of women living alone.

• 1 The Current Population Survey counts students living in dormitories as living in their parents’ home.
• Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2022 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

Among those aged 25 to 34, living with a spouse was the most prevalent living arrangement, with about 34 percent of men and 43 percent of women residing with a spouse. These differences reflect a trend in which women typically marry at younger ages than men.⁴ Living with an unmarried partner was less common and did not significantly differ by sex, with about 17 percent of both women and men residing with an unmarried partner.

Living with a spouse was also the most prevalent living arrangement among those aged 65 and older. However, unlike for those aged 18 to 34, living with a spouse was more common for men in this age group than women. About 68 percent of older men lived with a spouse, while only 47 percent of women did so. In contrast, women 65 and older were more likely than men in this age group to live alone (about 33 percent and 22 percent, respectively). That men were more likely than women to live with a spouse at older ages was likely due to the longer life expectancy of women.⁵ That is, women were more likely to outlive their spouses, contributing to a greater share of older women than men living alone.

The living arrangements of adults by age group, from 1967 until 2022, are depicted in Figure 4. Over this period, the percentage of 18- to 34-year-old adults who lived with a spouse declined significantly, from about 62 percent to 26 percent, which was largely due to an increase in the age at first marriage.⁶ Among those aged 18 to 34, living alone was also more common in 2022 than in 1967, as about 3 percent of young adults lived alone in 1967, compared to about 9 percent in 2022. Living alone also became more common among those aged 65 and older, although it only increased by about 4 percentage points from 1967 to 2022 (from about 24 percent in 1967 to about 28 percent in 2022). More than half of older adults lived with a spouse from 1967 to 2022, with about 52 percent residing with a spouse in 1967 and 57 percent in 2022. Men’s life expectancy has been catching up to women’s,⁷ resulting in a greater share of adults living with a spouse now than in 1967. In conjunction with men’s life expectancy catching up to women’s, older men are also more likely to remarry following a divorce than older women,⁸ which also contributed to a rising share of older adults residing with spouses.

Figure 4. Living Arrangements of Adults Aged 18–34 and 65 and Over: 1967 to 2022 (In percent)

Line chart with four series: Living with a spouse: 18–34; Living alone: 18–34; Living with a spouse: 65+; Living alone: 65+. The vertical axis runs from 0 to 70 percent with gridlines at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70. The horizontal axis marks the years 1967, 1972, 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012, 2017, and 2022. Exact yearly values are not printed on the chart. The series for adults aged 18 to 34 living with a spouse starts highest, at about 62 percent in 1967, and declines steadily across the period to about 26 percent in 2022. The series for adults aged 65 and over living with a spouse stays above one-half throughout, rising gradually from about 52 percent in 1967 to about 57 percent in 2022 and remaining the highest series in later years. The series for adults aged 65 and over living alone rises modestly from about 24 percent in 1967 to about 28 percent in 2022. The series for adults aged 18 to 34 living alone remains the lowest throughout, rising from about 3 percent in 1967 to about 9 percent in 2022.

Living in the parental home has increased for both male and female young adults.

Figure 5 shows the percentage of young adults living in their parents’ home from 1960 until 2022 by age and sex. For both 18- to 24-year-olds and 25- to 34-year-olds, living in the parental home increased over this time. These trends in young adult living arrangements follow a broader pattern in the United States in which young adults are experiencing the traditional markers of adulthood, such as leaving the parental home, starting a family, and establishing stable careers, later in life than previous generations did.^{9, 10}

In 1960, there were significantly more 18- to 24-year-old men than women living with their parents. About half (52 percent) of men lived with their parents in 1960, while only about 35 percent of women did, a 17 percentage-point difference. Part of the reason why this gender gap was so large is because men were more likely than women to be enrolled in college. This gender gap has since shifted, as women are now more likely to be enrolled in college than men.^{11, 12} About 57 percent of men aged 18-24 lived with their parents in 2022, compared to 55 percent of women in that age group.

Figure 5. Young Adults Living in Their Parents' Home: 1960 to 2022 (In percent)

Line chart with four series: Men 18–24 years old; Women 18–24 years old; Men 25–34 years old; Women 25–34 years old. The vertical axis runs from 0 to 70 percent with gridlines at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70. The horizontal axis marks the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 ‘22. Exact yearly values are not printed on the chart. All four series rise over the period. Men aged 18 to 24 remain the highest series, from about 52 percent in 1960 to about 57 percent in 2022. Women aged 18 to 24 start at about 35 percent in 1960 and rise to about 55 percent in 2022, nearly closing the gap with men of the same age. The two series for those aged 25 to 34 are much lower: men rise from about 11 percent in 1960 to about 19 percent in 2022, and women rise from about 7 percent in 1960 to about 12 percent in 2022.

Although living with parents is much less common among 25- to 34-year-olds than among younger adults, this living arrangement has also increased for this group. Only about 11 percent of men and 7 percent of women aged 25-34 lived in their parents’ home in 1960, but by 2022 these figures increased to about 19 percent and 12 percent, respectively.¹³ Thus, over the past several decades, living with parents has become more common for many young adults.

AMERICA’S FAMILIES

The family is a vital institution in American society and serves as a major source of support and socialization for individuals, especially children. The CPS can identify family units, regardless of whether they include the householder. Individuals can be included in more than one family group. For example, if a mother and child live in the home of the mother’s parents, then the mother and her parents are considered one family group, while the mother and her child are considered a separate family group. The term “family groups” is used when referring to all family units, whether or not they include the householder (refer to the Definitions text box). This section of the report documents trends in America’s families and family groups.

There were approximately 89 million family groups in 2022 (Table 3). About 71 percent (63 million) of all family groups were opposite-sex married couples.

• Z Rounds to zero.
• 1 These couples have at least one joint never-married child under 18 years old.
• 2 Parents may have a cohabiting partner, but none of their children are also identified as the child of their cohabiting partner.
• 3 Subcategories of “householder and other relative” are not mutually exclusive.
• Note: Details may not sum to total due to rounding.
• Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2022 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

Of opposite-sex married couples, about 38 percent had children under the age of 18, down from about 40 percent in 2012.¹⁴ After married opposite-sex couples, householders living with other relatives such as their parent(s) or grandparent(s) (14 percent) and mothers with their own children (10 percent) made up the second- and third-largest family groups. Unmarried-parent couples made up roughly 2 percent of all family groups, while married same-sex couples were just 1 percent of all family groups.

The distribution of family groups varied by race and Hispanic origin. Among Asian and non-Hispanic White family groups,¹⁵ married couples were the most common type, composing 80 percent and 78 percent of all family groups, respectively. Married opposite-sex couple family groups were significantly less prevalent among Blacks and Hispanics (45 percent and 60 percent, respectively) than among non-Hispanic Whites and Asians. Of all racial and Hispanic origin groups, Blacks had the highest percentage of mother-only family groups with children under the age of 18 (24 percent), while Asians had the lowest (5 percent). Similarly, while a substantively small percentage, family groups that comprised a grandparent householder living with grandchildren under the age of 18 were most common among Black family groups (3 percent). Thus, although married families were the most common family arrangement, there was significant variation in the types of family groups individuals lived in by race and Hispanic origin.

Married parents were more economically advantaged than their unmarried counterparts.

Table 4 shows the characteristics of approximately 37 million family groups with children under the age of 18.¹⁶ Married parents accounted for the largest share of family groups with children under the age of 18 (65 percent), followed by mothers (23 percent) and fathers (6 percent) with no spouse or partner present, and two unmarried parents (6 percent).¹⁷ It is important to note that parents without a spouse or partner present may be in a romantic relationship or married but their spouse was stationed overseas, for example.

Married parents and father-only family groups tended to be older than two unmarried-parent couples and mother-only family groups. About one-third (33 percent) of married-parent family groups and 37 percent of father-only family groups had a reference person who was 45 years or older, compared to just 17 percent of two unmarried-parent couples and 23 percent of mother-only family groups. Conversely, just 2 percent of married couples with children and 4 percent of father-only family groups included a reference person under 25 years old, compared to about 10 percent of two unmarried-parent couples and 8 percent of mother-only family groups.¹⁸ These percentages show that unmarried-parent couples with children under the age of 18 tended to be younger than those who were married as well as unpartnered mothers and fathers.

• X Not applicable.
• Z Rounds to zero.
• 1 Includes never-married biological, step, and adopted children under 18 years old.
• 2 Includes opposite-sex and same-sex parent couples.
• 3 Includes unmarried couples who have at least one joint never-married child under 18 years old.
• 4 In same-sex couples, one partner’s estimate is given for the education of male, and the other is given for the education of female.
• 5 In same-sex couples, one partner’s estimate is given for the employment of male, and the other is given for the employment of female.
• 6 “No cash rent” is included with rented home.
• 7 For both primary families and subfamilies, poverty status of the primary family is shown.
• Note: Details may not sum to total due to rounding.
• Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2022 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

While Table 4 shows the distribution of race and Hispanic origin for particular types of family groups, it is also possible to look at the racial/ethnic distribution within a single type of family group. Of married parents with children, over three-fifths (61 percent) had non-Hispanic White family reference people, compared to 45 percent of two unmarried-parent couples and 39 percent of mother-only family groups. The share of family groups with a Black reference person was highest among mother-only family groups (31 percent) and lowest among married-parent groups (8 percent). Asians made up 9 percent of married-parent family groups but only 2 percent of two unmarried-parent couples with children and 3 percent of mother-only family groups. About one-third (35 percent) of two unmarried-parent family groups and 25 percent of mother-only family groups were Hispanic.

Married parents tended to fare better than their unmarried counterparts on a variety of economic indicators, including educational attainment, employment status, and poverty status. These findings are consistent with research showing that marriage is associated with greater wealth and that people who get married have increasingly been those with higher socioeconomic status.¹⁹

Levels of economic advantage were not consistent across family groups (Table 4). Married parents were more likely to have a bachelor’s degree or higher (46 percent of men and 52 percent of women) than their unmarried counterparts. These percentages have increased since 2012, when 38 percent of married men and 40 percent of married women living with their children under the age of 18 had a bachelor's degree or higher.²⁰ In contrast, only 12 percent of fathers and 16 percent of mothers in two-unmarried-parent family groups held a bachelor’s degree or higher. Among one-parent family groups, the percentage of men and women who had a bachelor’s degree or more did not significantly differ (about 23 percent of single mothers and fathers had a bachelor’s degree or more).

Family groups with married parents had the smallest share of parents with less than a high school diploma or equivalent (8 percent of fathers and 7 percent of mothers), while unmarried parents were most likely to have less than a high school diploma (19 percent of fathers and 17 percent of mothers). Among one-parent family groups, the 13 percent of men who had less than a high school diploma did not significantly differ from the 11 percent of women who did so.

Regarding employment status, married parents were also advantaged compared to the other family groups. The overwhelming majority (92 percent) of married fathers were employed, compared to 87 percent of fathers in two-unmarried-parent family groups and 83 percent of fathers in father-only family groups. This pattern differed for mothers. Mothers in mother-only family groups were most likely to be employed (74 percent), compared to 70 percent of mothers in married-parent family groups and 62 percent of mothers in two-unmarried-parent family groups.

Food stamp receipt in the previous year was most prevalent in mother-only family groups. About two-fifths (39 percent) of mother-only family groups received food stamps, while 29 percent of unmarried-parent couples, 15 percent of father-only, and 9 percent of married-parent family groups did so. Married-parent family groups were also the most likely to own their home (77 percent), followed by father-only family groups (56 percent), unmarried-parent couples (44 percent), and mother-only family groups (40 percent).²¹

Married parents were the least likely family group to have been in poverty in the previous year, which was related to the fact that they were typically older, had higher levels of education, and were more likely to be employed than unmarried-parent couples. Only 5 percent of these parents lived below the poverty line. Two-unmarried-parent couples were more likely to be in poverty than married parents. About one-third (34 percent) of unmarried-parent couples lived below the poverty line. Mother-only family groups were significantly more likely than father-only family groups to live below the poverty line. About 28 percent of mother-only family groups lived below the poverty line, while 15 percent of father-only family groups did so.

Mothers were almost four times more likely to live alone with their child(ren) than fathers.

Figure 6 shows the living arrangements of mothers and fathers with coresident children under the age of 18 in 2022. Mothers were less likely than fathers to live with their child’s other parent. About three-quarters (74 percent) of mothers lived with their child’s other parent, whereas 91 percent of fathers did so. Following the birth of a child, research has shown that women are more likely than men to participate in housework and child care,²² which may create more dissatisfaction in relationships among mothers than fathers. In support of this, research has also found that women are more likely than men to initiate divorce.²³ Additionally, mothers were four times as likely to live alone with their child(ren) than fathers were—roughly one-quarter (23 percent) of mothers lived alone with their child(ren), compared to just 6 percent of fathers. That mothers were more likely than fathers to live alone with their children was due to mothers being more likely than fathers to be the custodial parent of their children in the event of a relationship dissolution.²⁴

Figure 6. Living Arrangements of Mothers and Fathers With Coresident Children Under 18 Years Old: 2022 (In percent)

Two stacked bars, one for mothers and one for fathers, showing the percent of each group in three living arrangements. Mothers: with child's other parent, 74.4 percent; with child and another adult, 3.0 percent; alone with child, 22.6 percent. Fathers: with child's other parent, 91.2 percent; with child and another adult, 2.9 percent; alone with child, 6.0 percent.

AMERICA’S SPOUSES AND PARTNERS

Intimate relationships form an integral element of adult life and are an important source of support and well-being. Indeed, 69 percent of young men and 76 percent of young women expected to marry at some point in their lives.²⁵ This report considers four types of spouses and partners: (1) opposite-sex spouses, (2) opposite-sex unmarried partners, (3) same-sex spouses, and (4) same-sex unmarried partners.

Estimates in Table 5 suggest that among those with an opposite-sex partner, cohabitation was more prevalent during young adulthood, while marriage was more prevalent later in adulthood, which Table 2 reinforces by showing the living arrangements of younger and older adults. For example, over two-fifths of cohabiting men and women (43 percent and 49 percent, respectively) were under the age of 35, compared with less than one-fifth of married men and women (12 percent and 16 percent, respectively). Overall, married men and women with an opposite-sex spouse were better educated—over one-third had a bachelor’s degree or higher—than their cohabiting counterparts.

However, married and cohabiting women with an opposite-sex partner were better educated than men. About 64 percent of female cohabiters had some college or a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 54 percent of male cohabiters. Two-thirds (66 percent) of men and 69 percent of women married to a spouse of the opposite sex had at least some college.

Men and women living with an unmarried partner of the opposite sex were over three times more likely to be in poverty than those with a spouse.

Table 5 shows that among those in an opposite-sex coresident union, cohabiters were more likely to be employed than spouses, although this difference did not necessarily translate to better economic standing. About 81 percent of male cohabiters were employed, compared to 72 percent of male spouses. However, 36 percent of these cohabiting men lived below 200 percent of the poverty level, whereas, about 15 percent of married men lived below 200 percent of the poverty line. One reason for the discrepancy in employment is that spouses were older than cohabiters. Thus, a higher proportion of married individuals may have been retired and out of the labor force.

• Z Rounds to zero.
• 1 May be biological, step, or adopted children of the householder.
• 2 Those who are 15 years old are not included in the employment status universe.
• 3 The data collection period for the 2019 ACS spanned January to December 2019. Poverty status is determined for the previous 12 months from when the data are collected, which could include months in 2018.
• Note: Details may not sum to total due to rounding. For further information on the accuracy of the data, refer to <https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/tech_docs/accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data_2019.pdf>.
• Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey, 1-year estimates.

In general, patterns observed for those with opposite-sex partners and spouses also extended to parents.²⁶ Cohabiting parents were younger than spouses. About 7 percent of cohabiting men and 11 percent of cohabiting women living with a child of the householder were between the ages of 15 and 24; the corresponding estimates for male and female spouses were 1 percent and 2 percent, respectively. Married parents were also better educated. Among women living with their own child under the age of 18, about 48 percent of those with a male spouse had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to about 18 percent of those with a male cohabiting partner.

Among both married and unmarried same-sex couples, it was more common for women than men to live with children under the age of 18.

Table 6 reports the characteristics of men and women with same-sex cohabiting partners and spouses. Like those in opposite-sex coresident unions, adults married to a same-sex spouse were older than cohabiters. Many people may delay marriage until certain criteria are met, including completing their education or obtaining a well-paying job.²⁷ Thus, married people tended to be older than cohabiters. Specifically, about 35 percent of men and 32 percent of women with a same-sex spouse were 55 or older, compared to 24 percent and 22 percent of cohabiters, respectively.

Married men and women with a same-sex spouse were also more educated than their cohabiting counterparts. For example, about 48 percent of women with a same-sex spouse had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to about 40 percent of women with a same-sex cohabiting partner. These educational differences corresponded with the economic security of adults in same-sex coresident unions. About 28 percent of women who cohabited with a female partner lived at least 400 percent above the poverty line, but among women with a same-sex spouse, 62 percent had a poverty status at least 400 percent of the poverty level. Spouses and partners in same-sex unions living with children under the age of 18 were more likely to be women than men, as 17 percent of these female cohabiters and 26 percent of female spouses lived with a child, compared to 3 percent of the male cohabiters and 9 percent of male spouses. Men in a same-sex union and living with a child were also older than their female counterparts. Among same-sex spouses with a child of the householder present, 40 percent of men and 29 percent of women were 45 or older.

• 1 May be biological, step, or adopted children of the householder.
• 2 Race groups are combined due to small sample sizes.
• 3 Those who are 15 years old are not included in the employment status universe.
• 4 The data collection period for the 2019 ACS spanned January to December 2019. Poverty status is determined for the previous 12 months from when the data are collected, which could include months in 2018.
• Note: Details may not sum to total due to rounding. For further information on the accuracy of the data, refer to <https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/tech_docs/accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data_2019.pdf>.
• Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey, 1-year estimates.

ECONOMIC WELL-BEING AND THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

This section focuses on changes in living arrangements and economic well-being of children and couples around the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. These factors are important to consider as social, economic, and developmental experiences during childhood can have lasting consequences through later life.²⁸ To examine pandemic-related changes, we compared differences in estimates prior to and during the pandemic.

From 2019 to 2021, there was an increase in the share of men and women aged 18 to 24 living in their parents’ home (Figure 5). In 2019, about 56 percent of men aged 18 to 24 and 53 percent of women that age lived with their parents. By 2021, these estimates increased to 60 percent of men and 55 percent of women aged 18 to 24. This is consistent with other research showing that living with parents was the most common living arrangement among young adults in multigenerational households.²⁹ These increases in the proportion of young adults residing with their parents were likely at least partially attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, which began to spread across the nation in 2020. As millions of Americans had their work hours reduced or became unemployed, sharing a household with parents became an economic necessity for many.

The economic circumstances of Black, White, Asian, and Hispanic children are presented in Table 7. Overall, the share of children living below 200 percent of the poverty threshold declined from 38 percent in 2018 to 36 percent in 2020.³⁰ However, considering the overall share of children masks differences by race and Hispanic origin. In 2020, more than one-half of Black (54 percent) and Hispanic (52 percent) children lived below 200 percent of the poverty threshold.³¹ Nearly 1 in 4 (24 percent) White children and more than 1 in 5 (22 percent) Asian children lived below 200 percent of the poverty threshold.³² Among White children, the percentage below 200 percent of the poverty threshold did not significantly change between 2018 and 2020. At the other end of the economic spectrum, the percentage living with incomes of 400 percent of the poverty threshold and above significantly increased for each of the groups reported in Table 7.

Although Black children were most likely to have their parent(s) in the labor force, they were also more likely to live in a household experiencing economic hardships.

The percentage of children in a household that received food stamps significantly increased between 2018 and 2020 across each of the racial and Hispanic origin groups reported, except for non-Hispanic Asian children (Table 7). In 2020, more than 1 in 5 children lived in a household that received food stamps. Non-Hispanic Black children were most likely to live in a household that received food stamps in 2020 (39 percent), while non-Hispanic Asian children were least likely to live in such a household (11 percent).

In 2018, compared to children of other racial and Hispanic origin groups, a higher share of non‑Hispanic Black children lived in a household that received cash public assistance, such as Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), or welfare. However, the percentage of children living in a household that received public assistance did not significantly increase between 2018 and 2020 for any of the racial and Hispanic origin groups reported in Table 7. Although Medicaid expanded during the pandemic to help low-income families, the measure of public assistance reported in Table 7 does not include Medicaid.

• N Not available. Prior to 2020, children who were “Not in Poverty Universe” were not distinguished from those “Below 100 percent of poverty.”
• 1 All people under the age of 18, excluding group quarters, householders, subfamily reference people, and their spouses or unmarried partners.
• 2 For children in both primary families and subfamilies, poverty status of the primary family is shown.
• 3 “No cash rent” is included with rented home.
• 4 Children with same-sex parents are grouped with those with no parents present due to small sample sizes.
• Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2019 and 2021 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

The share of children with no coresident parent(s) in the labor force increased from 7 percent to 8 percent between 2019 and 2021. Among children living with one parent, about 22 percent lived with a parent who was not in the labor force in 2021. Among children living with two opposite-sex parents, 36 percent had only one coresident parent in the labor force, and 4 percent had none. In 2021, the share of children for whom all coresident parents were in the labor force—whether they lived with one parent or two opposite-sex parents—was greatest for non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White children (70 percent and 68 percent, respectively), and lowest among non-Hispanic Asian and Hispanic children (60 percent and 59 percent, respectively).^{33, 34}

Households with at least one unemployed parent rose by 67 percent nationally between 2019 and 2021.

Figure 7 presents state-level changes in the percentage of parents living with their own children under the age of 18 who were unemployed between 2019 and 2021. As a whole, the share of these parents rose by 67 percent across the United States, from 2.4 percent to 4.1 percent. States that experienced a larger increase than the national average included Nevada (359 percent), New Jersey (353 percent), New York (175 percent), and Texas (172 percent). States that experienced a change that was significantly less than the national average were Virginia (1 percent decline)³⁵ and Missouri (28 percent decline). It should be noted that Figure 7 only represents U.S. parents who had never-married biological, step, or adopted children under the age of 18 present.

Figure 7. Change in Percentage of Unemployed Parents With Own Children Between 2019 and 2021

Map of the United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia, in which each state is shaded by the statistical significance of its change as compared to the national average: significantly higher, no difference, significantly lower, or data withheld to avoid disclosure. The map notes that the U.S. change is 1.65 percentage points. The state-level percentages and significance indicators shown on the map are listed in Appendix Table 4.

Married couples had higher levels of household income, homeownership, and health insurance coverage than cohabiting couples.

Table 8 reports the economic well-being of coresident couples before and during the pandemic. Although the economic circumstances of couples shifted following the start of the pandemic, married couples tended to remain more economically secure than unmarried cohabiting couples. In 2020, for example, more than half (51 percent) of married couples had a household income of $100,000 or more, compared to 38 percent of cohabiters.

Economic differences were also reflected in homeownership, as about half (49 percent) of cohabiting couples owned their home, whereas over 4 in 5 (81 percent) married couples did so in 2020. Reliance on food stamps significantly increased for both married and cohabiting couples. In 2018, about 5 percent of married couples and 15 percent of cohabiting couples received food stamps. By 2020, about 6 percent of married couples and 16 percent of cohabiting couples received food stamps, representing about 7 percent of all couples. However, no such increase occurred in the receipt of public assistance.

Unemployment of spouses and partners also increased from 2019 to 2021, likely due to the closure of businesses during the pandemic. This increase was more severe for cohabiting couples. Among couples in which both members were in the labor force, the share of cohabiting couples with at least one unemployed partner increased by 5 percentage points, from 8 percent to 13 percent during the pandemic. This shift was significantly smaller for married couples who had two spouses in the labor force, as the share with at least one unemployed partner grew 3 percentage points, from 4 percent to 7 percent. These changes appear to indicate that the pandemic exacerbated levels of economic insecurity among couples who were already most vulnerable.

However, Table 8 also presents evidence that certain dimensions of economic well-being remained stable. The share of cohabiting and married couples living above poverty, for example, did not change significantly. The stable circumstances among some groups could have resulted from government assistance programs that were introduced in response to the pandemic (such as stimulus payments and expanded refundability of the Child Tax Credit), which lifted millions of people out of poverty.³⁶

• 1 “No cash rent” is included with rented home.
• Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2019 and 2021 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

SUMMARY

This report uses data from the Current Population Survey and the American Community Survey to describe trends in living arrangements and the composition of families and households in the United States. The report highlights the complexity and variety of contemporary families and living arrangements and illustrates how they have changed over time.

Over the last few decades, the trend in the United States has been toward smaller households, fewer family and married-couple households, and more people living alone, especially at older ages. Although married families tend to be economically better off than other families, economic well-being shifted across family types following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. These trends showcase the importance of collecting detailed demographic and economic information about how the situation of American families and households changes over time.

SOURCE OF THE DATA

The data in this report are from the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) and the Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) of the Current Population Surveys (CPS).

The CPS is the longest-running survey conducted by the Census Bureau. The CPS is a household survey primarily used to collect employment data. The sample universe for the basic CPS consists of the resident civilian, noninstitutionalized population of the United States. People in institutions (such as prisons or long-term care hospitals) and nursing homes are not eligible to be interviewed in the CPS. Students living in dormitories are included in the estimates only if information about them is reported in an interview at their parents’ home. Because the CPS is a household survey, people who are homeless and not living in shelters are not included in the sample.

The CPS ASEC collects data in February, March, and April each year, asking detailed questions that categorize income into over 50 sources. The key purpose of the survey is to provide timely and comprehensive estimates of income, poverty, and health insurance and to measure change in these national-level estimates.

This report also presents data from the 2019 ACS. The population represented (the population universe) in the ACS is the population living in both households and group quarters—that is, the resident population. The group quarters population consists of the institutionalized population (such as people in correctional institutions or nursing homes) and the noninstitutionalized population (most of whom are in college dormitories). For tabulation purposes in this report, ACS data are shown only for the population living in households. This report uses the 2019 ACS, 1-year data.

ACCURACY OF THE ESTIMATES

Statistics from surveys are subject to sampling and nonsampling error. All comparisons presented in this report have taken sampling error into account and are significant at the 90 percent confidence level, unless otherwise indicated. This means the 90 percent confidence interval for the difference between the estimates being compared does not include zero. Nonsampling errors in surveys may be attributed to a variety of sources, such as how the survey is designed, how respondents interpret questions, how able and willing respondents are to provide correct answers, and how accurately the answers are coded and classified. The Census Bureau employs quality control procedures throughout the production process—including overall survey design, question wording, review of interviewers’ and coders’ work, and statistical review of reports—to minimize these errors.

The CPS weighting procedure uses ratio estimation, whereby sample estimates are adjusted to independent estimates of the national population by age, race, sex, and Hispanic origin. This weighting partially corrects for bias due to under-coverage, but biases may still be present; for example, when people who are missed by the survey differ from those interviewed in ways other than age, race, sex, and Hispanic origin. How this weighting procedure affects other variables in the survey is not precisely known. All of these considerations affect comparisons across different surveys or data sources. Additionally, CPS estimates are rounded to a maximum of four significant digits for disclosure protection purposes.

Further information about the CPS ASEC and the source and accuracy of the estimates is available at <https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsmar22.pdf>.

The final ACS population estimates are adjusted in the weighting procedure for coverage error by controlling specific survey estimates to independent population controls by age, race, sex, and Hispanic origin. The final ACS estimates of housing units are controlled to be consistent with independent estimates of total housing. This weighting partially corrects for bias due to over- or under-coverage, but biases may still be present; for example, when people who are missed by the survey differ from those interviewed in ways other than age, race, sex, and Hispanic origin. How this weighting procedure affects other variables in the survey is not precisely known. All of these considerations affect comparisons across different surveys or data sources. Additionally, ACS estimates are rounded to a maximum of four significant digits for disclosure protection purposes.

More information on sampling and estimation methods, confidentiality protection, and sampling and nonsampling errors, is available in the 2019 ACS Accuracy of the Data document located at <https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/tech_docs/accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data_2019.pdf>.

CONTACTS

Contact the Census Bureau’s Customer Service Center at 1-800-923-8282 (toll-free) or online at <https://ask.census.gov> for further information. For further information on the content of this report, contact:

Paul F. Hemez
<Paul.Hemez@census.gov>

Chanell N. Washington
<Chanell.Washington@census.gov>

Rose M. Kreider
<Rose.Kreider@census.gov>

Fertility and Family Statistics Branch
301-763-2416

SUGGESTED CITATION

Hemez, Paul F., Chanell N. Washington, and Rose M. Kreider, “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2022,” Current Population Reports, P20-587, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2024.

Appendix Tables

• X Not applicable.
• Z Rounds to zero.
• 1 Includes any person who is under 18 years old and related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption.
• 2 Includes never married biological, step, and adopted children of the householder who are under 18 years old.
• Note: For further information on the accuracy of the data, refer to <https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/tech_docs/accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data_2019.pdf>.
• Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey, 1-year estimates.

• X Not applicable.
• 1 May be biological, step, or adopted children of the householder.
• 2 Those who are 15 years old are not included in the employment status universe.
• 3 The data collection period for the 2019 ACS spanned January to December 2019. Poverty status is determined for the previous 12 months from when the data are collected, which could include months in 2018.
• Note: For further information on the accuracy of the data, refer to <https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/tech_docs/accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data_2019.pdf>.
• Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey, 1-year estimates.

• 1 May be biological, step, or adopted children of the householder.
• 2 Race groups are combined due to small sample sizes.
• 3 Those who are 15 years old are not included in the employment status universe.
• 4 The data collection period for the 2019 ACS spanned January to December 2019. Poverty status is determined for the previous 12 months from when the data are collected, which could include months in 2018.
• Note: For further information on the accuracy of the data, refer to <https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/tech_docs/accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data_2019.pdf>.
• Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey, 1-year estimates.

• * Indicates a significant difference from the national average at the 90 percent confidence level.
• D Data withheld to avoid disclosure.
• Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2019 and 2021 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

Footnotes

1. The U.S. Census Bureau has reviewed this data product for unauthorized disclosure of confidential information and approved the disclosure avoidance practices applied to this release. CBDRB-FY24-SEHSD003-033. Decennial census data are used in Figure 5 of this report.
2. C. A. Villa Ross, H. B. Shin, and M. C. Marlay, “Pandemic Impact on 2020 American Community Survey 1-Year Data,” 2021, retrieved from <www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2021/10/pandemic-impact-on-2020-acs-1-year-data.html>. Also refer to J. Rothbaum and A. Bee, “Coronavirus Infects Surveys, Too: Survey Nonresponse Bias and the Coronavirus Pandemic,” 2021, retrieved from <www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2020/demo/sehsd-wp2020-10.pdf>.
3. Note that only the race of the householder is reflected when the text mentions “Black households” or “Asian households.” For example, other household members could be of different racial groups.
4. In 2022, the estimated median age at first marriage was 30.1 for men and 28.2 for women. Refer to U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, Table MS-2, Median Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to the Present. Retrieved from <www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/marital.html>.
5. B. Tejada-Vera, B. Salant, and E. Arias, “U.S. Life Expectancy by State and Sex for 2020,” National Center for Health Statistics, 2022, retrieved from <www.cdc.gov/nchs/data-visualization/state-life-expectancy/index_2020.htm>.
6. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, Table MS-2, Median Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to the Present. Retrieved from <www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/marital.html>.
7. L. D. Medina, S. Sabo, and J. Vespa, “Living Longer: Historical and Projected Life Expectancy in the United States, 1960 to 2060,” Current Population Reports, P25-1145, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2020, available at <www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p25-1145.pdf>.
8. S. L. Brown, I. F. Lin, A. M. Hammersmith, and M. R. Wright, “Repartnering Following Gray Divorce: The Roles of Resources and Constraints for Women and Men,” Demography, 56, 2019, pp. 503–523.
9. A. J. Cherlin, “The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage,” Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 2004, pp. 848–861.
10. J. Vespa, “The Changing Economics and Demographics of Young Adulthood: 1975–2016,” Current Population Reports, P20-579, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2017.
11. M. H. Lopez and A. Gonzalez-Barrera, “Women’s College Enrollment Gains Leave Men Behind,” Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2014, retrieved from <www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/06/womens-college-enrollment-gains-leave-men-behind/>.
12. U.S. Census Bureau, “Educational Attainment in the United States: 2021,” retrieved from <www.census.gov/data/tables/2021/demo/educational-attainment/cps-detailed-tables.html>.
13. The decennial census counts those in college dormitories as living in group quarters, while the CPS counts them as living in their parents’ home, so some of the apparent increase is due to this difference in measurement.
14. Refer to Table 4 in J. Vespa, J. M. Lewis, and R. M. Kreider, “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2012,” Current Population Reports, P20-570, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2013, available at <www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2013/demo/p20-570.pdf>.
15. Note that only the race of the reference person of the family group is reflected in this discussion.
16. Same-sex couples with children were included in estimates of two married and two unmarried parents.
17. The percentage of family groups with children under the age of 18 that were fathers with no spouse or partner present did not significantly differ from the percentage that were two unmarried parents.
18. The percentage of unmarried-parent family groups with children under the age of 18 with a reference person who was less than 25 years old did not significantly differ from the percentage of mother-only family groups with a reference person who was less than 25 years old.
19. L. J. Waite, “Does Marriage Matter?” Demography, 32, 483-507, 1995. Also refer to A. Killewald and M. Gough, “Does Specialization Explain Marriage Penalties and Premiums?” American Sociological Review, 78, 2013, pp. 477–502.
20. Refer to Table 5 in J. Vespa, J. M. Lewis, and R. M. Kreider, “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2012,” Current Population Reports, P20-570, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2013, available at <www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2013/demo/p20-570.pdf>.
21. The percentage of unmarried-parent family groups who live in an owned home did not significantly differ from the percentage of mother-only family groups who did so.
22. J. E. Yavorsky, C. M. Kamp Dush, and S. J. Schoppe-Sullivan, “The Production of Inequality: The Gender Division of Labor Across the Transition to Parenthood,” Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 2015, pp. 662–679.
23. M. J. Rosenfeld, “Who Wants the Breakup? Gender and Breakup in Heterosexual Couples,” In Social Networks and the Life Course: Integrating the Development of Human Lives and Social Relational Networks, Springer, 2017, pp. 221–243.
24. T. Grall, “Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2017,” Current Population Reports, P60-269, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2020, available at <www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-269.pdf>.
25. A. R. Brown, “High School Seniors’ Expectations to Marry, 2020,” Family Profiles, FP-22-04, National Center for Family and Marriage Research, Bowling Green, OH, 2022.
26. In the ACS, respondents only report the relationship of each household member to the householder, so we do not know the exact relationship between the unmarried partner of the householder and the children of the householder, for example.
27. P. J. Smock, W. D. Manning, and M. Porter, “’Everything’s There Except Money’: How Money Shapes Decisions to Marriage Among Cohabitors,” Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 2005, pp. 680–696.
28. D. Lee and S. McLanahan, “Family Structure and Child Development: Instability, Selection, and Population Heterogeneity,” American Sociological Review, 80, 2015, pp. 738–763. Also refer to S. L. Brown, “Family Structure Transitions and Adolescent Well-Being,” Demography, 43, 2006, 447–461. Also refer to W. D. Manning and S. Brown, “Children’s Economic Well-Being in Married and Cohabiting Parent Families,” Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 2006, pp. 345–362. Also refer to R. K. Raley and E. Wildsmith, “Cohabitation and Children’s Family Instability,” Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 2004, pp. 210–219.
29. R. Fry, “Young Adults in U.S. Are Much More Likely Than 50 Years Ago to Be Living in a Multigenerational Household,” Washington, DC, Pew Research Center, 2022, retrieved from <www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/07/20/young-adults-in-u-s-are-much-more-likely-than-50-years-ago-to-be-living-in-a-multigenerational-household/>.
30. Poverty status, income, public assistance, and food stamp receipt are in reference to the previous calendar year.
31. The percentage of non-Hispanic Black children who lived below 200 percent of the poverty level in 2020 did not significantly differ from the percentage of Hispanic children who did so.
32. The percentage of non-Hispanic White children who lived below 200 percent of the poverty level in 2020 did not significantly differ from the percentage of non-Hispanic Asian children who did so.
33. The percentage of non-Hispanic Asian children living only with parents in the labor force did not significantly differ from the percentage of Hispanic children who did so.
34. Since labor force participation varies for men and women, it is shown for male/female parent couples, and children with same-sex parents are included with those with no parents in the household.
35. In Virginia, the change in the percentage of households with children under the age of 18 with an unemployed parent from 2019 to 2021 was not statistically significant.
36. J. Creamer, E. A. Shrider, K. Burns, and F. Chen, “Poverty in the United States: 2021,” Current Population Reports, P20-570, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC, 2022, available at <www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2013/demo/p20-570.pdf>. Also refer to a related America Counts story at <www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/09/who-was-lifted-out-of-poverty-by-stimulus-payments.html>.