Indicators of Welfare Dependence:  Annual Report to Congress, 2004

Chapter III.
Predictors and Risk Factors
Associated with Welfare Receipt

[ Main page of Report | Contents of Report ]

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 Included
  • 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
• Non-Marital Birth Risk Factors
  • BIRTH 1. Births to Unmarried Women
  • BIRTH 2. Births to Unmarried Teens
  • BIRTH 3. Unmarried Teen Birth Rates within Age Groups
  • 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 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 non-marital 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, reductions in welfare caseloads can increase poverty and other deprivation measures, to the extent that former welfare families are left with fewer economic resources.

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 ECON 4). The chapter also includes data on the length of poverty episodes or spells (ECON 5). A ten-year measure of poverty (ECON 6 in last year’s report) has been dropped due to reductions in the frequency and detail of data collection under the PSID.

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, 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 seven factors related to employment and barriers to employment. These measures include data on overall labor force attachment and the 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 levels 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 young adult 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 becoming 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 place a strain on a family’s economic resources.

Non-Marital Birth Risk Factors (BIRTH). The final group of risk factors addresses out-of-wedlock childbearing. The tables and figures in this subsection are labeled with the BIRTH prefix. This category includes long-term time trends in births to unmarried women (BIRTH 1), births to unmarried teens (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 dependence, 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 dependence discussion 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: 1959-2002

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-222 and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.

• The official poverty rate was 12.1 percent in 2002, an increase over the rate of 11.7 percent in 2001. Even so, the percentage of persons living in poverty in 2002 was below the poverty rates experienced in most of the 1980s and 1990s.
• Children under 18 had a poverty rate of 16.7 percent in 2002, statistically unchanged from 2001. As in past years, the child poverty rate is considerably higher than the overall poverty rate.
• The poverty rate for the elderly (persons ages 65 and over) was 10.4 percent in 2002, an increase over the 2001 rate. This was a lower poverty rate than the rate for children under 18 (16.7 percent) and statistically indistinguishable from that of adults ages 18-64.
• Poverty rates by race are affected by a change in the questionnaire that allows individuals to report one or more races. The poverty rate for individuals reporting black race alone was 24.1 percent, as shown in Table ECON 1; the rate for those reporting black alone or in combination with other races was 23.9 percent (data not shown). Under either measurement, the gap between black and white poverty rates was close to 14 percentage points, slightly higher than the historic low of 13 percentage points in 2000 and 2001; but significantly lower than the early 1990s, when it exceeded 21 percentage points.

[Go To Contents]

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 2.
DEEP POVERTY RATES

Figure ECON 2.
Percentage of Total Population Below 50 and 100 Percent of Poverty Level 1975-2002

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2002” Current Population Reports, Series P60-222 and unpublished tables available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.

• The percentage of the population in “deep poverty” (with incomes below 50 percent of the federal poverty level) was 4.9 percent in 2002, compared to an overall poverty rate of 12.1 percent.
• In general, the percentage of the population with incomes below 50 percent of the poverty threshold has followed a pattern that reflects the trend in the overall poverty rate, as shown in Figure ECON 2. The percentage of people below 50 percent of poverty rose in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but then, after falling slightly, rose to a second peak in 1993. The overall poverty rate followed a somewhat similar pattern with more pronounced peaks and valleys.
• Over the past two decades, there has been an overall increase in the proportion of the poverty population in deep poverty. From a low of 28 percent of the poverty population in 1976, this population rose to nearly 41 percent in 2002.
• The total number of poor people in 2002 was 34.6 million, as shown in Table ECON 2. While higher than the previous year, this number was 4.7 million lower than the peak of 39.3 million in 1993.

Table ECON 2.
Number and Percentage of Total Population Below 50, 75, 100, and 125 Percent of Poverty Level:
Selected Years

Year	Total Population (thousands)	Below 50 percent		Below 75 percent		Below 100 percent		Below 125 percent
		Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent
1959	176,600	NA	NA	NA	NA	39,500	22.4	54,900	31.1
1961	181,300	NA	NA	NA	NA	39,600	21.9	54,300	30.0
1963	187,300	NA	NA	NA	NA	36,400	19.5	50,800	27.1
1965	191,400	NA	NA	NA	NA	33,200	17.3	46,200	24.1
1967	195,700	NA	NA	NA	NA	27,800	14.2	39,200	20.0
1969	199,500	9,600	4.8	16,400	8.2	24,100	12.1	34,700	17.4
1971	204,600	NA	NA	NA	NA	25,600	12.5	36,500	17.8
1973	208,500	NA	NA	NA	NA	23,000	11.1	32,800	15.8
1975	210,900	7,700	3.7	15,400	7.3	25,900	12.3	37,100	17.6
1976	212,300	7,000	3.3	14,900	7.0	25,000	11.8	35,500	16.7
1977	213,900	7,500	3.5	15,000	7.0	24,700	11.6	35,700	16.7
1978	215,700	7,700	3.6	14,900	6.9	24,500	11.4	34,100	15.8
1979	222,900	8,600	3.8	16,300	7.3	26,100	11.7	36,600	16.4
1980	225,000	9,800	4.4	18,700	8.3	29,300	13.0	40,700	18.1
1981	227,200	11,200	4.9	20,700	9.1	31,800	14.0	43,800	19.3
1982	229,400	12,800	5.6	23,200	10.1	34,400	15.0	46,600	20.3
1983	231,700	13,600	5.9	23,600	10.2	35,300	15.2	47,000	20.3
1984	233,800	12,800	5.5	22,700	9.7	33,700	14.4	45,400	19.4
1985	236,600	12,400	5.2	22,200	9.4	33,100	13.6	44,200	18.7
1986	238,600	12,700	5.3	22,400	9.4	32,400	14.0	44,600	18.7
1987	241,000	12,500	5.2	21,700	9.0	32,200	13.4	43,100	17.9
1988	243,500	12,700	5.2	21,400	8.8	31,700	13.0	42,600	17.5
1989	246,000	12,000	4.9	20,700	8.4	31,500	12.8	42,600	17.3
1990	248,600	12,900	5.2	22,600	9.1	33,600	13.5	44,800	18.0
1991	251,200	14,100	5.6	24,400	9.7	35,700	14.2	47,500	18.9
1992	256,500	15,500	6.1	26,200	10.2	38,000	14.8	50,500	19.7
1993	259,300	16,000	6.2	27,200	10.5	39,300	15.1	51,900	20.0
1994	261,600	15,400	5.9	26,400	10.1	38,100	14.5	50,500	19.3
1995	263,700	13,900	5.3	24,500	9.3	36,400	13.8	48,800	18.5
1996	266,200	14,400	5.4	24,800	9.3	36,500	13.7	49,300	18.5
1997	268,500	14,600	5.4	24,200	9.0	35,600	13.3	47,800	17.8
1998	271,100	13,900	5.1	23,000	8.5	34,500	12.7	46,000	17.0
1999	276,200	12,900	4.7	21,800	7.9	32,800	11.9	45,000	16.3
2000	278,900	12,600	4.5	20,500	7.4	31,100	11.3	43,500	15.8
2001	281,500	13,400	4.8	22,000	7.8	32,900	11.7	45,300	16.1
2002	285,300	14,100	4.9	23,100	8.1	34,600	12.1	47,100	16.5
Note: The number of persons below 50 percent and 75 percent of poverty for 1969 are estimated based on the distribution of persons below 50 percent and 75 percent for 1969 taken from the 1970 decennial census. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-222, unpublished tables available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html, and 1970 Census of Population, Volume 1, Social and Economic Characteristics, Table 259.

[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: 2002

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-222, available online at http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-222.pdf, and unpublished CPS data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

• Three experimental measures of poverty (developed by the 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 the inclusion of certain out-of-pocket health costs in these measures.
• All three alternative measures shown in Figure Econ 3 take into account geographic adjustments (GA) in housing costs; the measures can also be calculated with no geographic adjustment (NGA), as shown in Tables ECON 3a and 3b. See note to Table ECON 3a.

Table ECON 3a.
Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using Various Experimental Poverty
Measures, by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2002

	Official	Alt1 MSI- NGA	Alt2 MIT- NGA	Alt3 CMB- NGA	Alt1 MSI- GA	Alt2 MIT- GA	Alt3 CMB- GA
All Persons	12.1	12.4	13.0	13.0	12.3	12.8	12.9
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	8.0	8.9	9.2	9.4	8.4	8.5	8.8
Non-Hispanic Black	24.1	21.2	22.2	22.3	20.6	21.1	21.3
Hispanic	21.8	21.09	22.7	22.2	23.3	25.4	24.8
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-17	16.7	13.8	15.3	14.7	13.9	15.2	14.6
Adults Ages 18-64	10.6	10.8	11.6	11.3	10.8	11.5	11.3
Adults Age 65 and over	10.4	16.7	14.4	17.6	16.0	13.4	16.9
Note: These experimental poverty measures implement changes recommended by a 1995 NAS panel, including: counting non-cash income as benefits; subtracting from income certain work-related, health, and child care expenses; and adjusting poverty thresholds for family size and geographic differences in housing costs. The three alternative measures are similar, except that each account for out-of-pocket medical expenses differently. For the first alternative (“MOOP subtracted from income” or MSI), medical out-of-pocket expenses (MOOP) are subtracted 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). These experimental measures are different from those reported in last year’s report because the Census Bureau changed its methodology based on research conducted to refine the NAS panel’s experimental methods. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Non-Hispanic Whites and Non-Hispanic Blacks are for persons reporting a single-race only. Persons who reported more than one race, such as “White and Asian,” 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 also are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Poverty in the United States: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-222, available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-222.pdf, and unpublished CPS data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Table ECON 3b.
Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using Various Experimental Poverty Measures:
1999-2002

	1999	2000	2001	2002
Official Measure	11.9	11.3	11.7	12.1
No Geographic Adjustment of Thresholds
Medical costs alternative 1 (MSI-NGA)	12.2	12.1	12.4	12.4
Medical costs alternative 2 (MIT-NGA)	12.8	12.7	12.8	13.0
Medical costs alternative 3 (CMB-NGA)	12.9	12.8	13.0	13.0
Geographic Adjustment of Thresholds
Medical costs alternative 1 (MSI-GA)	12.1	12.0	12.3	12.3
Medical costs alternative 2 (MIT-GA)	12.7	12.5	12.7	12.8
Medical costs alternative 3 (CMB-GA)	12.8	12.6	12.9	12.9
See above for note and source.

[Go To Contents]

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 4.
POVERTY RATES WITH VARIOUS MEANS-TESTED BENEFITS INCLUDED

Figure ECON 4.
Percentage of Total Population in Poverty with Various Means-Tested Benefits
Added to Total Cash Income: 1979-2002

Source: Congressional Budget Office tabulations of March CPS data. Additional calculations by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

• The official definition of poverty — which includes means-tested cash assistance (primarily TANF and SSI) in addition to pre-tax cash income and social insurance — was 12.1 percent in 2002, as shown in the bold line with empty boxes in Figure ECON 4. Without cash welfare, the 2002 poverty rate would be 12.8 percent, as shown by the top line in the figure above.
• Adding other non-cash, public assistance benefits to this definition has the effect of lowering the percentage of people who have incomes below the official poverty rate. Adding in the value of food and housing benefits reduces the poverty rate to 10.9 percent in 2002.
• When income is defined as including benefits from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and federal taxes, the percentage of the total population in poverty decreases to 10.0 percent in 2002. Taxes have had a net effect of reducing poverty rates since the significant increases in the size of the EITC in 1993 and 1995.
• The combined effect of means-tested cash assistance, food and housing benefits, EITC and taxes was to reduce the poverty rate in 2002 by 2.8 percentage points, as shown in Table ECON 4. Net reductions in poverty rates were somewhat lower during the recession of the early 1980s, and somewhat higher in the mid-1990s, largely due to expansions in the EITC.

Table ECON 4.
Percentage of Total Population in Poverty with Various Means-Tested Benefits
Added to Total Cash Income: Selected Years

	1979	1983	1986	1989	1992	1995	1998	2000	2002
Cash Income Plus All Social Insurance	12.8	16.0	14.5	13.8	15.6	14.9	13.5	12.0	12.8
Plus Means-Tested Cash Assistance	11.6	15.2	13.6	12.8	14.5	13.8	12.7	11.3	12.1
Plus Food and Housing Benefits	9.7	13.7	12.2	11.2	12.9	12.0	11.3	10.1	10.9
Plus EITC and Federal Taxes	10.0	14.7	13.1	11.8	13.0	11.5	10.4	9.5	10.0
Reduction in Poverty Rate	2.8	1.3	1.4	2.0	2.6	3.4	3.1	2.5	2.8
Note: The four measures of income are as follows: 1) “Cash Income plus All Social Insurance” is earnings and other private cash income, plus social security, workers’ compensation, and other social insurance programs. It does not include means-tested cash transfers; (2) “Plus Means-Tested Assistance” shows the official poverty rate, which takes into account means-tested assistance, primarily AFDC/TANF and SSI; (3) “Plus Food and Housing Benefits” shows how poverty would be lower if the cash value of food and housing benefits were counted as income; and (4); “Plus EITC and Federal Taxes” is the most comprehensive poverty rate shown. EITC refers to the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, which is always a positive adjustment to income whereas Federal payroll and income taxes are a negative adjustment. The fungible value of Medicare and Medicaid is not included. Source: Congressional Budget Office tabulations of March CPS data. Additional calculations by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

[Go To Contents]

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 5.
POVERTY SPELLS

Figure ECON 5.
Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty During the 1993 and 1996 SIPP Panels,
by Length of Spell

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1996 Panel.

• About half of all poverty spells that began during the 1996 SIPP panel ended within four months, and 80 percent ended within one year. Only 11 percent of all such spells were longer than 20 months.
• Spells of poverty that began between 1993 and 1995 were slightly longer; 47 percent ended within four months and 16 percent were longer than 20 months.
• Poverty spells among adults age 65 and older were more likely to last longer than 20 months (17 percent) than spells among other age groups, as shown in Table ECON 5a.

Table ECON 5a.
Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty During the 1996 SIPP Panel,
by Length of Spell, Race/Ethnicity, and Age

	Spells <=4 Months	Spells 5-12 Months	Spells 13-20 Months	Spells >20 Months
All Persons	51.3	29.0	8.3	11.4
Racial/Ethnic Categories	51.3	29.0	8.3	11.4
Non-Hispanic White	54.6	28.1	7.6	9.7
Non-Hispanic Black	45.5	27.7	10.1	16.7
Hispanic	46.8	32.9	8.6	11.7
Age Categories
Ages 0 to 5 Years	46.8	29.6	10.8	12.9
Ages 6 to 10 Years	47.1	29.7	9.2	14.0
Ages 11 to 15 Years	49.5	30.9	7.9	11.7
Women Ages 16-64 years	50.7	29.3	8.5	11.5
Men Ages 16-64 Years	55.7	28.9	7.0	8.4
Adults Age 65 Years and Older	51.1	23.8	7.7	17.4
Note: Spell length categories are not 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. 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 data from the SIPP, 1996 panels.

Table ECON 5b.
Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty During the 1993 and 1996 SIPP Panels,
by Length of Spell and Year

	Spells <=4 Months	Spells 5-12 Months	Spells 13-20 Months	Spells >20 Months
1993 Panel All Persons	47.3	28.1	8.9	15.7
1996 Panel All Persons	51.3	29.0	8.3	11.4
Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1993 and 1996 panels.

[Go To Contents]

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 6.
CHILD SUPPORT

Figure ECON 6.
Total, Non-AFDC/TANF, and AFDC/TANF Title IV-D Child Support Collections: 1978-2002

Source: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Child Support Collections: 2003 TANF Report to Congress (and earlier years), Washington, DC.

• Collections paid through the Child Support Enforcement system (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act) totaled $20.1 billion in 2002, over $1 billion more than in 2001. Since 1990, child support collections grew rapidly, at an average rate of almost $1.1 billion a year.
• In recent years, non-TANF collections have generally increased as a percentage of overall collections by the IV-D program. (Non-TANF collections include collections paid to former TANF families and families with no contact with the welfare system.) However, between 2001 and 2002, the $878 million growth in non-TANF collections was smaller in percentage terms than $302 million growth in TANF collections (5 percent compared to over 11 percent).
• A number of states have opted to pass through some or all of collections to the custodial TANF family, even though the 1996 welfare reform repealed the former requirement for a $50 “pass-through” to families. In recent years, the amount of TANF collections paid to TANF families has been difficult to track because of changes in data reporting forms. Available data suggest these payments declined in fiscal years 1997-2000, with a 100 percent increase shown in fiscal year 2001 and a 122 percent increase in 2002, as shown in Table ECON 6.
• Almost 75 percent of TANF collections (collections on behalf of TANF recipients and for past due support assigned to the state by former TANF recipients) were retained in 2002 to reimburse the state and federal governments for the cost of welfare benefits.

Table ECON 6.
Total, Non-AFDC/TANF, and AFDC/TANF Title IV-D Child Support Collections: 1978-2002

Fiscal Year	Total Collections (in millions)						Total IV-D Administrative Expenditures
	Total		AFDC/TANF Collections			Non-AFDC/TANF Collections
	Current Dollars	Constant '02 Dollars	Total	Payments to AFDC/TANF Families	Federal & State Share of Collections
1978	$1,047	$2,829	$472	$13	$459	$575	$312
1979	1,333	3,307	597	12	584	736	383
1980	1,478	3,288	603	10	593	874	466
1981	1,629	3,300	671	12	659	958	526
1982	1,771	3,349	786	15	771	985	612
1983	2,024	3,676	880	15	865	1,144	691
1984	2,378	4,138	1,000	17	983	1,378	723
1985	2,694	4,520	1,090	189	901	1,604	814
1986	3,249	5,311	1,225	275	955	2,019	941
1987	3,917	6,235	1,349	278	1,070	2,569	1,066
1988	4,605	7,054	1,486	289	1,188	3,128	1,171
1989	5,241	7,647	1,593	307	1,286	3,648	1,363
1990	6,010	8,354	1,750	334	1,416	4,260	1,606
1991	6,886	9,111	1,984	381	1,603	4,902	1,804
1992	7,964	10,228	2,259	435	1,824	5,705	1,995
1993	8,907	11,104	2,416	446	1,971	6,491	2,241
1994	9,850	11,963	2,550	457	2,093	7,300	2,556
1995	10,827	12,794	2,689	474	2,215	8,138	3,012
1996	12,020	13,820	2,855	480	2,375	9,165	3,049
1997	13,364	14,961	2,843	157	2,685	10,521	3,428
1998	14,348	15,805	2,650	152	2,498	11,698	3,585
1999	15,901	17,189	2,482	113	2,368	13,421	4,039
2000	17,854	18,701	2,593	165	2,428	15,261	4,526
2001	18,958	19,237	2,592	332	2,259	16,366	4,835
2002	20,137	20,137	2,893	737	2,156	17,244	5,183
Note: Not all states report current child support collections in all years. Constant dollar adjustments to the 2000 level were made using a CPI-U-X1 fiscal year average price index. Due to changes in data reporting forms, data for fiscal years 1999 and thereafter relating to the Federal and State Share of TANF collections include assistance reimbursement for former TANF families and may not be exactly comparable to that of previous years. The total collection of payments to AFDC/TANF families can also include payments made to Medicaid only recipients. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Child Support Collections: 2003 TANF Report to Congress (and earlier years), Washington, DC.

[Go To Contents]

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 7.
FOOD INSECURITY

Figure ECON 7.
Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 2002

Source: Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002.

• A large majority (89 percent) of American households was food secure in 2002 — that is, showed little or no evidence of concern about food supply or reduction in food intake.
• The prevalence of food insecurity with hunger in 2002 was estimated to be 3.5 percent. During the twelve months ending in December 2002, one or more members of these households experienced reduced food intake and hunger as a result of financial constraints. Food insecurity would be lower measured over a monthly basis.
• An additional 7.6 percent of households experienced food insecurity, but were without hunger, during the twelve months ending in December 2002. Although these households showed signs of food insecurity in their concerns and in adjustments to household food management, little or no reduction in food intake was reported.
• Poor households have a higher rate of food insecurity with hunger (14.3 percent) than the 3.5 percent rate among the general population, as shown in Table ECON 7a. Only 1.5 percent of families with incomes at or above 185 percent of the poverty level showed evidence of food insecurity with hunger.

Table ECON 7a.
Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status and Selected Characteristics: 2002

	Food Secure	Food Insecure Total	Food Insecure Without Hunger	Food Insecure With Hunger
All Households	88.9	11.1	7.6	3.5
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	92.0	8.0	5.3	2.6
Non-Hispanic Black	78.0	22.0	14.8	7.2
Hispanic	78.3	21.7	16.0	5.7
Households, by Age
Households with Children Under 6	82.2	17.8	14.4	3.4
Households with Children Under 18	83.5	16.5	12.7	3.8
Households with Elderly(1)	93.7	6.3	4.4	1.9
Household Income-to-Poverty Ratio
Under 1.00	61.9	38.1	23.8	14.3
Under 1.30	66.3	33.7	21.6	12.1
Under 1.85	70.8	29.2	19.5	9.7
1.85 and over	94.9	5.1	3.6	1.5
Note: Food secure households show little or no evidence of concern about food supply or reduction in food intake. Households classified as food insecure without hunger report food-related concerns, adjustments to household food management, and reduced variety and desirability of diet, but report little or no reduction in food intake. Households classified as food insecure with hunger report recurring reductions in food intake or hunger by one or more persons in the household. 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: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002.

Table ECON 7b.
Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 1998-2002

Year	Food Secure	Food Insecure Total	Food Insecure Without Hunger	Food Insecure With Hunger
1998	88.2	11.8	8.1	3.7
1999	89.9	10.1	7.1	3.0
2000	89.5	10.5	7.3	3.1
2001	89.3	10.7	7.4	3.3
2002	88.9	11.1	7.6	3.5
See above for note and source.

[Go To Contents]

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 8.
LACK OF HEALTH INSURANCE

Figure ECON 8.
Percentage of Persons without Health Insurance, by Income: 2002

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-223 (March 2003 Current Population Survey). Online: Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-223.pdf

• Poor persons were twice as likely as all persons to be without health insurance in 2002 (30 percent compared to 15 percent). While the ratio varied across categories, persons with family income at or below the poverty line were more likely to be without health insurance regardless of race/ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, or age.
• Hispanics were the ethnic group least likely to have health insurance in 2002, among both the general population and those with incomes below the poverty line. While white individuals in general were more likely to have insurance than black individuals, poor black individuals were more likely to have insurance than poor white individuals.
• Among all persons, the amount of education was inversely related to health insurance coverage. However, among poor persons, educational attainment made little difference as to whether individuals had health insurance.
• As shown in Table ECON 8, nearly half of poor people ages 25 to 34 are without health insurance. Among the general population, individuals ages 18 to 24 are the most likely to be without health insurance.

Table ECON 8.
Percentage of Persons without Health Insurance, by Income and Selected Characteristics: 2002

	All Persons	Poor Persons
All Persons	15.2	30.4
Sex
Male	16.7	33.3
Female	13.9	28.1
Race/Ethnicity
White	14.2	31.4
Black	20.2	26.4
Hispanic	32.4	42.8
Education
No High School Diploma	28.0	37.9
High School Graduate, No College	18.8	36.4
College Graduate	8.4	32.3
Age
Age 18 and under	11.6	20.1
Ages 18-24	29.6	43.9
Ages 25-34	24.9	48.6
Ages 35-44	17.7	46.0
Ages 45-64	13.5	33.1
Age 65 and over	0.8	1.9
Note: "Poor persons" are defined as those with total family incomes at or below the poverty rate. 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, such as “White and Asian,” 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 also are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-223 (March 2003 Current Population Survey). Online: Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-223.pdf

[Go To Contents]

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-RELATED RISK FACTOR 1.
LABOR FORCE ATTACHMENT

Figure WORK 1.
Percentage of Individuals in Families with Labor Force Participants, by Race/Ethnicity: 2002

Source: Unpublished tabulations of March CPS data.

• In 2002, 71 percent of the total population lived in families with at least one person working on a full-time, full-year basis, as shown in Table WORK 1a. The percent of full-time full-year workers was slightly lower than in 2001, although still higher than during most of the 1990s, as shown in Table WORK 1b.
• Overall, 14 percent of the population lived in families with no labor force participants and 15 percent lived in families with part-time and/or part-year labor force participants in 2002.
• Persons of Hispanic origin were less likely than non-Hispanic whites or non-Hispanic blacks to live in families with no one in the labor force in 2002 (10 percent compared to 15 and 17 percent, respectively).
• Working-age women in 2002 were more likely than working-age men to live in families with no one in the labor force (9 percent compared to 7 percent), as shown in Table Work 1a. Men were more likely than women to live in families with at least one full-time, full-year worker (80 percent compared to 76 percent).

Table WORK 1a.
Percentage of Individuals in Families with Labor Force Participants,
by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2002

	No One in LF During Year	At Least One in LF No One FT/FY	At Least One FT/FY Worker
All Persons	14.2	14.7	71.1
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	15.0	13.9	71.1
Non-Hispanic Black	17.3	18.0	64.7
Hispanic	9.7	15.4	74.9
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5	5.5	16.2	78.3
Children Ages 6-10	5.9	14.8	79.3
Children Ages 11-15	5.9	13.6	80.5
Women Ages 16-64	8.8	15.5	75.7
Men Ages 16-64	6.8	13.7	79.5
Adults Age 65 and over	65.5	14.3	20.2
Note: Full-time, full-year workers 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, such as “White and Asian,” 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 also are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately. Source: Unpublished tabulations of March CPS data.

[Go To Contents]

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-RELATED RISK FACTOR 2.
EMPLOYMENT AMONG THE LOW-SKILLED

Figure WORK 2.
Percentage of All Persons Ages 18 to 65 with No More than a High School Education
Who Were Employed: 1969-2002"

Source: ASPE tabulations of March CPS data.

• Employment rates for women with a high school education or less continued to drop in 2002, following several years of rising employment, particularly among non-Hispanic black and Hispanic women. Low-skilled non-Hispanic white women continued to have the highest employment level (70 percent in 2002) among the three racial/ethnic groups.
• Employment levels for non-Hispanic white and Hispanic men with no more than a high school education have remained close to 85 percent for nearly to two decades. In contrast, employment levels for low-skilled non-Hispanic black men have varied over the same period. Between 1968 and 1983, employment rates for non-Hispanic black men with no more than high school education fell by 20 percentage points. Since 2000, these rates have fallen by more than 5 percentage points.
• As shown in Figure and Table WORK 2, employment levels for non-Hispanic black men with a high school education or less were 3 percentage points higher than those of similarly educated non-Hispanic black women in 2002. In contrast, there was a 13 percentage point difference in employment levels of non-Hispanic white men and women with a high school education or less, and a 28 percentage point difference between similarly educated Hispanic men and women.

Table WORK 2.
Percentage of All Persons Ages 18 to 65 with No More than a High School Education
Who Were Employed: 1969-2002

Year	Men			Women
	Non-Hispanic White	Non-Hispanic Black	Hispanic	Non-Hispanic White	Non-Hispanic Black	Hispanic
1968	92.8	89.9	N/A	55.8	65.8	N/A
1969	92.1	89.2	N/A	56.1	64.9	N/A
1971	90.9	86.1	N/A	55.2	59.4	N/A
1972	91.1	84.3	N/A	55.6	58.1	N/A
1975	88.2	78.8	86.2	58.3	57.2	49.7
1977	88.3	78.1	89.2	61.4	57.6	52.2
1979	88.5	78.7	89.4	62.9	58.9	55.0
1980	88.0	75.2	86.8	64.1	57.6	53.7
1981	87.4	74.5	87.6	64.0	57.5	53.0
1982	85.6	71.1	85.3	62.7	56.6	51.1
1983	84.8	70.2	85.2	63.5	55.3	51.7
1984	86.5	71.9	83.9	65.0	58.9	54.0
1985	86.1	74.6	83.9	66.0	59.4	52.9
1986	86.4	74.3	86.5	66.8	61.0	54.0
1987	86.7	73.9	85.6	67.3	59.9	54.0
1988	86.3	74.0	87.8	68.0	61.4	54.6
1989	87.7	75.3	86.6	68.8	61.1	55.8
1990	87.7	75.6	85.4	68.5	60.7	55.0
1991	86.4	73.9	85.0	68.3	61.0	54.6
1992	85.7	71.5	83.7	67.8	57.8	53.3
1993	84.6	71.2	83.5	68.6	60.0	52.2
1994	85.0	69.1	83.2	69.0	60.9	53.3
1995	85.9	70.1	83.3	69.6	60.1	53.9
1996	85.9	70.3	84.0	70.2	64.1	55.4
1997	85.3	72.0	85.0	69.9	66.6	56.9
1998	85.3	71.8	85.5	70.4	67.1	57.1
1999	84.5	72.0	86.4	71.4	68.4	58.8
2000	84.7	72.7	86.4	70.6	67.7	61.0
2001	83.4	69.9	85.5	69.8	64.8	59.2
2002	82.5	67.3	85.1	69.5	64.4	57.5
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 included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately. Hispanic origin was not available until 1975. Source: ASPE tabulations of March CPS data.

[Go To Contents]

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-RELATED RISK FACTOR 3.
EARNINGS OF LOW-SKILLED WORKERS

Figure WORK 3.

Source: ASPE tabulations of March CPS data.

• Women’s average weekly wages were lower than those of low-skilled men, across all race groups. In 2002, non-Hispanic white women had the highest average weekly wages among low-skilled women working full-time, full-year ($529). This level is a 15 percent increase over non-Hispanic white women’s 1980 average weekly wages ($459 inflation adjusted). Non-Hispanic black women and Hispanic women’s weekly wages increased at slower rate than non-Hispanic white women since 1980 (12 percent and 3 percent, respectively).
• For men, the gap between mean weekly wages for non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black men with low education levels has narrowed over time. In 1980, the mean weekly wage for low-skilled non-Hispanic black men working full-time was $564 (in 2002 dollars), or 74 percent of the $758 average for non-Hispanic white men. However, full-time working non-Hispanic black men with no more than a high school education received 78 percent of the mean weekly wages of non-Hispanic white men in 2002 ($578 compared to $745).
• Over the past fifteen years, both Hispanic women and men’s wages have lagged behind non-Hispanic whites and blacks among low-skilled full-time workers. In 2002, Hispanic women’s wages were 24 percent lower than non-Hispanic white women and 14 percent lower than non-Hispanic black women. Hispanic men had higher weekly wages than women but still trailed non-Hispanic white men by 29 percent and non-Hispanic black men by 8 percent.

Table WORK 3.
Mean Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time, Full-Year
with No More than a High School Education, by Race (2002 Dollars): Selected Years

Year	Women			Men
	Non-Hispanic White	Non-Hispanic Black	Hispanic	Non-Hispanic White	Non-Hispanic Black	Hispanic
1980	459	419	392	758	564	572
1981	448	405	397	747	556	562
1982	455	414	397	734	542	542
1983	461	418	398	733	528	554
1984	464	433	404	748	526	558
1985	477	433	397	741	549	547
1986	483	434	419	759	551	532
1987	489	451	404	754	560	528
1988	488	434	402	748	586	531
1989	483	454	411	730	545	512
1990	482	442	387	698	539	497
1991	476	430	386	685	537	478
1992	483	432	400	691	526	489
1993	478	417	387	675	517	474
1994	485	430	389	684	529	469
1995	487	428	376	704	534	469
1996	490	451	388	721	555	466
1997	497	424	397	732	556	502
1998	516	430	400	716	561	498
1999	494	431	392	734	599	495
2000	511	435	382	753	593	505
2001	520	458	400	747	574	509
2002	529	471	404	745	578	531
Note: Full-time, full-year workers work at least 48 weeks per year and 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 included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately. Source: ASPE tabulations of March CPS data.

[Go To Contents]

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-RELATED RISK FACTOR 4.
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Figure WORK 4.
Percentage of Adults Age 25 and Over, by Level of Educational Attainment:1960-2002

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Educational Attainment in the United States: March 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series PPL-169, March 2003, and earlier reports.

• There has been a marked decline over the past 40 years in the percentage of the population that has not received a high school education. This percentage fell from 59 percent in 1960 to 16 percent in 2002.
• The percentage of the population receiving a high school education only (with no subsequent college) was 25 percent in 1960 and rose to 39 percent in 1988. Since then this figure has fallen to 32 percent in 2002, although some of this decline is a result of a change in the survey methodology in 1992 (see note to Table WORK 4).
• Between 1960 and 1990, the percentage of the population with some college (one to three years) doubled, from 9 percent to 18 percent. The apparent jump in 1992 is a result of a change in the survey methodology (see note to Table WORK 4), but the trend continued upward, reaching 25 percent in 2002.
• The percentage of the population completing four or more years of college has more than tripled from 1960 to 2002, rising steadily from 8 percent to 27 percent.

Table WORK 4.
Percentage of Adults Age 25 and Over, by Level of Educational Attainment,
Selected Years

Year	Not a High School Graduate	Finished High School, No College	One to Three Years of College	Four or More Years of College
1940	76	14	5	5
1950	67	20	7	6
1960	59	25	9	8
1965	51	31	9	9
1970	45	34	10	11
1975	37	36	12	14
1980	31	37	15	17
1981	30	38	15	17
1982	29	38	15	18
1983	28	38	16	19
1984	27	38	16	19
1985	26	38	16	19
1986	25	38	17	19
1987	24	39	17	20
1988	24	39	17	20
1989	23	38	17	21
1990	22	38	18	21
1991	22	39	18	21
1992	21	36	22	21
1993	20	35	23	22
1994	19	34	24	22
1995	18	34	25	23
1996	18	34	25	24
1997	18	34	24	24
1998	17	34	25	24
1999	17	33	25	25
2000	16	33	25	26
2001	16	33	26	26
2002	16	32	25	27
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 Finished High School, 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. Bureau of the Census, “Educational Attainment in the United States: March 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series PPL-169, March 2003, and earlier reports.

[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/Ethnicity: Selected Years

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000 and earlier years (based on Current Population Survey data from the October supplement).

• With the exception of a small upward movement in 1988, the dropout rates for teens in grades 10 to 12 declined steadily from 1979 to 1991. From a low of 4.0 percent, the rate began rising to a peak of 5.7 percent in 1995. Following this upturn, the overall rate again declined to 4.6 percent in 1997; since then it has fluctuated, moving up to 5.0 percent in 1999 and then back down again to 4.8 percent in 2000.
• Dropout rates among Hispanic and non-Hispanic black teens have fluctuated considerably over this period. Still, dropout rates are generally highest for Hispanic teens and lowest for non-Hispanic white teens. In 2000, the dropout rate was 7.4 percent for Hispanic teens, compared to 6.1 percent for non-Hispanic black teens and 4.1 percent for non-Hispanic white teens.

Table 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/Ethnicity: Selected Years

Year	Total	Non-Hispanic White	Non-Hispanic Black	Hispanic
1972	6.1	5.3	9.5	11.2
1973	6.3	5.5	9.9	10.0
1974	6.7	5.8	11.6	9.9
1975	5.8	5.0	8.7	10.9
1976	5.9	5.6	7.4	7.3
1977	6.5	6.1	8.6	7.8
1978	6.7	5.8	10.2	12.3
1979	6.7	6.0	9.9	9.8
1980	6.1	5.2	8.2	11.7
1981	5.9	4.8	9.7	10.7
1982	5.5	4.7	7.8	9.2
1983	5.2	4.4	7.0	10.1
1984	5.1	4.4	5.7	11.1
1985	5.2	4.3	7.8	9.8
1986	4.7	3.7	5.4	11.9
1987	4.1	3.5	6.4	5.4
1988	4.8	4.2	5.9	10.4
1989	4.5	3.5	7.8	7.8
1990	4.0	3.3	5.0	7.9
1991	4.0	3.2	6.0	7.3
1992	4.4	3.7	5.0	8.2
1993	4.5	3.9	5.8	6.7
1994	5.3	4.2	6.6	10.0
1995	5.7	4.5	6.4	12.3
1996	5.0	4.1	6.7	9.0
1997	4.6	3.6	5.0	9.5
1998	4.8	3.9	5.2	9.4
1999	5.0	4.0	6.5	7.8
2000	4.8	4.1	6.1	7.4
Note: Beginning in 1987, the Bureau of the Census 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 CPS. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives and Asian/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: 2000 and earlier years (based on Current Population Survey data from the October supplement).

[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: 2002

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

• In 2002, young adults (ages 18 to 25) were more likely than older adults to report alcohol abuse, marijuana use, or cocaine use in the past month. More than one in six (17 percent) of adults 18 to 25 reported using marijuana in the past month during 2002, compared with 8 percent of adults 26 to 34 and 3 percent of adults 35 and older. Young adults were also significantly more likely to abuse alcohol than older adults.
• The percentage of persons reporting binge alcohol use was significantly larger than the percentages for all other reported behaviors across all age groups, as shown in Table WORK 6.
• Among all adult age categories, the use of cocaine, marijuana and alcohol abuse increased in 2002 to the highest level in 4 years, as shown in Table Work 6.

Table WORK 6.
Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol,by Age: 1999 - 2002

	1999	2000	2001	2002
Cocaine
Ages 18-25	1.7	1.4	1.9	2.0
Ages 26-34	1.2	0.8	1.1	1.2
Age 35 and Over	0.4	0.3	0.5	0.6
Marijuana
Ages 18-25	14.2	13.6	16.0	17.3
Ages 26-34	5.4	5.9	6.8	7.7
Age 35 and Over	2.2	2.3	2.4	3.1
Binge Alcohol Use
Ages 18-25	37.9	37.8	38.7	40.9
Ages 26-34	29.3	30.3	30.1	33.1
Age 35 and Over	16.0	16.4	16.2	18.6
Heavy Alcohol Use
Ages 18-25	13.3	12.8	13.6	14.9
Ages 26-34	7.5	7.6	7.8	9.0
Age 35 and Over	4.2	4.1	4.2	5.2
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. "Occasion" means at the same time or within a couple hours of each other. “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, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

[Go To Contents]

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-RELATED RISK FACTOR 7.
ADULT AND CHILD DISABILITY

Figure WORK 7.
Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting a Disability, by Age and Race/Ethnicity: 2002

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey.

• In 2002, non-elderly adults were more likely than children to have an activity limitation, 11.4 percent compared to 7.5 percent.
• While non-elderly adults were more likely than children to report an activity limitation, a higher percentage of children than adults were actually recipients of disability program benefits in 2002 (6.2 percent compared to 4.6 percent), as shown in Table WORK 7.
• Among both non-elderly adults and children, rates of activity limitation were somewhat similar for non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks in 2002, but lower for Hispanics, as shown in Table WORK 7.

Table WORK 7.
Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting a Disability,
by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2002

	Activity Limitation	Work Disability	Long-Term Care Needs	Disability Program Recipient
All Persons
Adults Ages 18-64	11.4	8.5	2.1	4.6
Children Ages 0-17	7.5	NA	NA	6.2
Racial/Ethnic Categories (Adults Ages 18-64)
Non-Hispanic White	11.9	8.9	2.1	4.4
Non-Hispanic Black	13.7	10.2	2.9	7.7
Hispanic	7.9	5.8	1.6	3.8
Racial/Ethnic Categories (Children Ages 0-17)
Non-Hispanic White	7.7	NA	NA	6.4
Non-Hispanic Black	9.4	NA	NA	7.9
Hispanic	5.9	NA	NA	5.0
Note: Respondents were defined as having an activity limitation if they answered positively to any of the questions regarding: (1) work disability (see definition below); (2) long-term care needs (see definition below); (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. 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. 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: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics,National Health Interview Survey.

[Go To Contents]

NON-MARITAL BIRTH RISK FACTOR 1.
BIRTHS TO UNMARRIED WOMEN

Figure BIRTH 1.
Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women, by Age Group: 1940-2002

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 2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52 (10), December 2003.

• The percentage of children born outside of marriage to women of all ages has increased over the past six decades, from 3.8 percent in 1940 to 34.0 percent in 2002. This increase reflects changes in several factors: 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 is especially high among teen women and women ages 20-24. Four-fifths (80 percent) of all births to teens and a little over half (52 percent) to women ages 20-24 took place outside of marriage in 2002.
• Since 1994, the upward growth in percentage of unmarried births to all women has begun to level off. The growth in percentage of unmarried births to teen mothers also has slowed since 1994, although it is still rising (from 76 percent in 1994 to 80 percent in 2002). The steepest growth since 1994 is among the 20 to 24 year old age group, where the percentage of births to unmarried women has increased from 45 to 52 percent.
• Recently, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births has leveled off 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 non-marital birth data by age and race).

Table BIRTH 1.
Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women, by Age Group: Selected Years

Year	Under 15	15-17 Years	18-19 Years	All Teens	20-24 Years	All Women
1940	64.5	N/A	N/A	14.0	3.4	3.8
1945	70.0	N/A	N/A	18.2	4.7	4.3
1950	63.7	22.6	9.4	13.9	3.7	4.0
1955	66.3	23.2	10.3	14.9	4.3	4.5
1960	67.8	24.0	10.7	15.4	4.8	5.3
1965	78.5	32.8	15.3	21.6	6.8	7.7
1970	80.8	43.0	22.4	30.5	8.9	10.7
1975	87.0	51.4	29.8	39.3	12.3	14.2
1980	88.7	61.5	39.8	48.3	19.3	18.4
1981	89.2	63.3	41.4	49.9	20.4	18.9
1982	89.2	65.0	43.0	51.4	21.3	19.4
1983	90.4	67.5	45.7	54.1	22.9	20.3
1984	91.1	69.2	48.1	56.3	24.5	21.0
1985	91.8	70.9	50.7	58.7	26.3	22.0
1986	92.5	73.3	53.6	61.5	28.7	23.4
1987	92.9	76.2	55.8	64.0	30.8	24.5
1988	93.6	77.1	58.5	65.9	32.9	25.7
1989	92.4	77.7	60.4	67.2	35.1	27.1
1990	91.6	77.7	61.3	67.6	36.9	28.0
1991	91.3	78.7	63.2	69.3	39.4	29.5
1992	91.3	79.2	64.6	70.5	40.7	30.1
1993	91.3	79.9	66.1	71.8	42.2	31.0
1994	94.5	84.1	70.0	75.9	44.9	32.6
1995	93.5	83.7	69.8	75.6	44.7	32.2
1996	93.8	84.4	70.8	76.3	45.6	32.4
1997	95.7	86.7	72.5	78.2	46.6	32.4
1998	96.6	87.5	73.6	78.9	47.7	32.8
1999	96.5	87.7	74.0	79.0	48.5	33.0
2000	96.5	87.7	74.3	79.1	49.5	33.2
2001	96.3	87.8	74.6	79.2	50.4	33.5
2002	97.0	88.5	75.8	80.2	51.6	34.0
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 Health Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Final Data for 2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52 (10), December 2003.

[Go To Contents]

NON-MARITAL BIRTH RISK FACTOR 2.
BIRTHS TO UNMARRIED TEENS

Figure BIRTH 2.
Percentage of All Births to Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 19, by Race and Ethnicity 1940-2002

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 2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52 (10), December 2003.

• In contrast to the earlier Figure BIRTH 1, which showed births to unmarried teens as a percentage of all teen births, Figure BIRTH 2 shows births to unmarried teens as a percentage of births to all women. This percentage fell in the last four years, from 9.7 to 8.5 percent, reversing a long upward trend since 1940. This rate may be 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 has also dropped among white women over the past four years, declining to 7.2 percent in 2002. This drop is in contrast to the long upward trend, from less than 1 percent in 1960 to nearly 8 percent in 1998.
• Among black women, the percentage of all births that were to unmarried teens fell to 16.7 percent in 2002, the lowest percentage since 1969. This rate has varied greatly since 1940, rising sharply to a peak of 24 percent in 1975, and showing a gradual decline in most years since then. The sharp increase in the late 1960s and early 1970s reflects a 30 percent rise in non-marital teen births among black women concurrent with a 6 perce