U S C E N S U S B U R E A U Helping You Make Informed Decisions U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. CENSUS BUREAU A Child’s Day: 2003 (Selected Indicators of Child Well-Being) Household Economic Studies P70-109 Issued January 2007 Current Population Reports By Jane Lawler Dye and Tallese Johnson INTRODUCTION This report is the third examination of children’s well-being and their daily activ- ities based on data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). It addresses children’s living arrange- ments and their family’s characteristics, early child care experiences, daily inter- action with parents, extracurricular activ- ities, academic experience, and parents’ educational expectations. The data in this report were collected by the U.S. Census Bureau from February through May 2003 in the seventh wave (interview) of the 2001 Panel of the SIPP. 1 The population represented is the civilian noninstitutionalized population living in the United States. The statistics in this report are based on data collected in the child well-being topical module. The 2003 data were collected from a national sample of 9,925 “designated parents” (see definition box) and their 18,413 children. This sample represented 72.7 million children living in households with at least one designated parent (Table 1). 2 1 A description of the SIPP survey design and the wording of the questions on the child well-being top- ical module can be found on the Internet at <www.sipp.census.gov/SIPP>. 2 The estimates in this report (which may be shown in text, figures, and tables) are based on responses from a sample of the population and may differ from the actual values because of sampling variability or other factors. As a result, apparent dif- ferences between the estimates for two or more groups may not be statistically significant. All com- parative statements have undergone statistical test- ing and are significant at the 90-percent confidence level unless otherwise noted. Designated Parent Respondents in the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) child well-being topical mod- ule are parents of children under 18 years old. In households where both parents are present, the mother is the designated parent. Questions for each child are asked of the designated parent. If the mother is not available for an inter- view, the father of the child can give proxy responses for her. In single-parent families, the resident parent is the designated parent. If neither parent is in the household, the guardian is the designated par- ent. Designated parents include biological, step, and adoptive par- ents, and may also include other relatives or nonrelatives acting as a guardian for the child in the absence of parents. In this module, 96 percent of the children had a female designated parent, usually the mother. Data from males who were the designated parent are included with the data from females. Respondents 15 to 17 years old, who themselves may be parents, have their childhood well- being history reported by their par- ents when they live with them in the household. In this report, unless otherwise noted, the term parent is used to refer to the desig- nated parent.
Transcript
U S C E N S U S B U R E A UHelping You Make Informed Decisions
U.S.Department of CommerceEconomics and Statistics Administration
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
A Child’s Day: 2003 (Selected Indicators of Child Well-Being)
Household Economic StudiesP70-109
Issued January 2007
CurrentPopulationReports
ByJane Lawler Dye and Tallese Johnson
INTRODUCTION
This report is the third examination ofchildren’s well-being and their daily activ-ities based on data from the Survey ofIncome and Program Participation (SIPP).It addresses children’s living arrange-ments and their family’s characteristics,early child care experiences, daily inter-action with parents, extracurricular activ-ities, academic experience, and parents’educational expectations.
The data in this report were collected bythe U.S. Census Bureau from Februarythrough May 2003 in the seventh wave(interview) of the 2001 Panel of the SIPP.1
The population represented is the civiliannoninstitutionalized population living inthe United States. The statistics in thisreport are based on data collected in thechild well-being topical module. The2003 data were collected from a nationalsample of 9,925 “designated parents”(see definition box) and their 18,413children. This sample represented 72.7million children living in households withat least one designated parent (Table 1).2
1 A description of the SIPP survey design and thewording of the questions on the child well-being top-ical module can be found on the Internet at<www.sipp.census.gov/SIPP>.
2 The estimates in this report (which may beshown in text, figures, and tables) are based onresponses from a sample of the population and maydiffer from the actual values because of samplingvariability or other factors. As a result, apparent dif-ferences between the estimates for two or moregroups may not be statistically significant. All com-parative statements have undergone statistical test-ing and are significant at the 90-percent confidencelevel unless otherwise noted.
Designated Parent
Respondents in the Survey ofIncome and Program Participation(SIPP) child well-being topical mod-ule are parents of children under 18years old. In households whereboth parents are present, themother is the designated parent.Questions for each child are askedof the designated parent. If themother is not available for an inter-view, the father of the child cangive proxy responses for her. Insingle-parent families, the residentparent is the designated parent. Ifneither parent is in the household,the guardian is the designated par-ent. Designated parents includebiological, step, and adoptive par-ents, and may also include otherrelatives or nonrelatives acting as aguardian for the child in theabsence of parents. In this module,96 percent of the children had afemale designated parent, usuallythe mother. Data from males whowere the designated parent areincluded with the data fromfemales. Respondents 15 to 17years old, who themselves may beparents, have their childhood well-being history reported by their par-ents when they live with them inthe household. In this report,unless otherwise noted, the termparent is used to refer to the desig-nated parent.
2 U.S. Census Bureau
Table 1.Living Arrangements and Family Characteristics of Children Under 18 and TheirDesignated Parents: 2003(Numbers in thousands)
(X) Not applicable.1 This figure added to or subtracted from the estimate provides the 90-percent confidence interval.2 Married includes married, spouse present and married, spouse absent (excluding separated).3 Includes only children in households for which poverty status was determined.4 For families with income reported, programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); food stamps; Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); Medicaid; and the National School Lunch Program.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data) and 1996 panel, Wave 12 (2000 data).
HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILYCHARACTERISTICS
Table 1 presents a profile of thechildren, their designated parents,and some of their family’s socialand economic characteristics in2003. Seventy million childrenlived with a female designated par-ent, while 2.8 million children livedwith a male designated parent.3
Most children, 51.8 million, wereliving with a designated parent whowas currently married; hence, theywere living in a two-parent family.Another 12.5 million children were
U.S. Census Bureau 3
3 Detailed Table 1. This and all of the fol-lowing detailed tables mentioned in thisreport can be found under Children’s Well-Being, Detailed Tables: 2003 on the Webat <www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/children.html>.
living with a designated parent whowas separated, divorced, orwidowed, while 8.4 million were liv-ing with a designated parent whohad never married.
Fifteen percent (10.7 million) ofchildren lived in families withmonthly incomes of less than$1,500 per month. Another 13.7million (19 percent) lived in familieswith monthly incomes of $3,000 to$4,499, and 20.3 million (28 per-cent) lived in families with monthlyincomes of $6,000 and above.4
Around 18 percent (12.8 million) ofchildren lived in families withincomes that fell below the povertylevel. Twenty-three percent (16.9million) lived in a household at 100
4 Detailed Table 2.
to 199 percent of poverty and 57 percent (41.1 million) lived in ahousehold at 200 percent ofpoverty or higher.
More than one-half (56 percent) ofchildren lived in households thatparticipated in at least one or moreof the following government aidprograms: Temporary Assistance forNeedy Families (TANF); the FoodStamp Program; the SpecialSupplemental Nutrition Program forWomen, Infants, and Children (WIC);Medicaid; and the National SchoolLunch Program. The largest numberof children who lived in householdsthat received government aid partic-ipated in the National School LunchProgram (30 million), followed bythe Medicaid program (18.2 mil-lion), food stamps (8.3 million), the
Table 2.Children Under 18 Ever in Nonrelative Child Care Arrangements by Characteristics ofChildren and Designated Parents: 2003
CharacteristicPercent ever in nonrelative child care arrangement
Less than 3 years 3 to 5 years 6 to 11 years 12 to 17 years
1 Married includes married, spouse present and married, spouse absent (excluding separated).Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data).
WIC program (4.8 million), andTANF (2.3 million).5
Nonrelative Child Care
In 2003, 18 million children (38percent) under 12 years old hadbeen cared for regularly in a non-relative child care arrangement atsome point in their childhood.6
Among children less than 3 yearsold, 24 percent had experienced aregular nonrelative child carearrangement, compared with 47 percent of 3- to 5-year-olds(Table 2). Among the older agegroups, 40 percent of 6- to 11-year-olds had participated in non-relative child care arrangements,and 32 percent of 12- to 17-year-
4 U.S. Census Bureau
5 In fiscal year 2003, 5.8 million infantsand children received WIC benefits,<www.fns.usda.gov/wic/WIC-Fact-Sheet.pdf>,and 28 million children were enrolled in theNational School Lunch Program,<www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/default.htm>,according to the administrative recordscollected by the agencies administering these programs.
6 Detailed Table 3.
olds had been cared for in a non-relative child care arrangement.
In general, the older children (6 to11 years and 12 to 17 years) mayhave had lower child care partici-pation rates because of the lowerlabor force participation of womenin past decades.7 Amongpreschoolers, children 3 to 5 yearsold had the highest rates of partici-pation in nonrelative child caremost likely because many beginpreschool at this age. Parents mayuse preschool programs to preparetheir children for school or to sup-plement half-day kindergarten.Since children 3 to 5 years oldhave the highest rates of participa-tion, this group will be highlightedin the ensuing discussion.
7 For example, 50.5 percent of womenwith children under 6 in 1983 were in thelabor force, compared with 57.9 percent in1993 and 62.9 percent in 2003. (U.S. Bureauof Labor Statistics, Women in the LaborForce: A Databook. Washington, DC: 2005,Table 7.)
Among 3- to 5-year-olds, 47 percenthad ever been in a nonrelative childcare arrangement. Black childrenwere more likely to be in a nonrela-tive child care arrangement (53 per-cent) than non-Hispanic White chil-dren, Asian and Pacific Islanderchildren, or Hispanic children (50percent, 41 percent, and 34 per-cent, respectively). The majority ofchildren (58 percent) who were liv-ing with separated, widowed, ordivorced parents had at some timebeen in a nonrelative child carearrangement, followed by childrenliving with never-married parents(49 percent) and children living withmarried parents (45 percent).
Children 3 to 5 years old whosedesignated parent had completed abachelor’s degree (54 percent) ormore education (58 percent) weremore likely to have ever been in anonrelative child care arrangementthan children whose parent had ahigh school education (46 percent)or less (31 percent). Children ofparents who worked full-time in
Table 3.Children Under 18 Ever in Nonrelative Child Care Arrangements by Characteristics ofFamilies: 2003
CharacteristicPercent ever in nonrelative child care arrangement
Less than 3 years 3 to 5 years 6 to 11 years 12 to 17 years
(X) Not applicable.1 Includes only children in households for which poverty status was determined.2 For families with income reported, programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); food stamps; Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); Medicaid; and the National School Lunch Program.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data).
the month prior to the survey weremore likely ever to have beencared for in a nonrelative child carearrangement (59 percent) than thechildren of parents who workedpart-time (49 percent) or had notworked in the previous month (35 percent).8
Among 3- to 5-year-olds, higherincome families were more likelythan lower income families to usea nonrelative child care arrange-ment. Fifty-four percent of chil-dren living in families with amonthly income of $6,000 andhigher had been cared for in a reg-ular nonrelative child care arrange-ment, compared with 41 percent ofchildren living in families with amonthly income less than $1,500.9
U.S. Census Bureau 5
8 Detailed Table 3.9 Detailed Table 4.
A similar pattern of nonrelativechild care usage is evident by thepoverty status of the child’s family(Table 3). Overall, 49 percent of 3-to 5-year-olds not living in povertyhad ever been in nonrelative childcare arrangements, compared with38 percent of children living inpoverty. Figure 1 shows thatamong children 3 to 5 years oldliving in a household below thepoverty level, children from fami-lies that received governmentassistance (TANF, food stamps,WIC, Medicaid, and/or NationalSchool Lunch Program) were morelikely ever to have been cared forin a nonrelative child care arrange-ment (39 percent) than childrenfrom families that did not receivegovernment assistance (34 per-cent). Among children living in
households at 100 to 199 percentof the poverty level, 43 percent ofchildren from families that receivedgovernment assistance had everbeen cared for in a nonrelativechild care arrangement, comparedwith 39 percent of children fromfamilies that did not receive gov-ernment assistance.
PARENT-CHILDINTERACTION
Research shows that positiveparental involvement has a directinfluence on children that results infewer behavioral problems.10 Thissection addresses interactionsbetween parents and children,such as eating together, givingpraise, and playing together.Designated parents will be referredto as “mothers” or “fathers” forease of discussion. (The definitionbox provides more detail.)
Meals
Overall, more than half of all chil-dren under 6 years old ate break-fast with one or both parents 7days a week (57 percent, Table 4).Children under 6 years old weremore likely to eat breakfast withtheir mothers every day than withtheir fathers. Among childrenunder 6 living with married par-ents, 61 percent ate breakfast withtheir mother every day, comparedwith 30 percent who ate breakfastwith their father every day.Among children under 6 living withan unmarried mother, 50 percentate breakfast together every day.The corresponding number forchildren living with unmarriedfathers was 41 percent.
10 For a more detailed discussion of theeffects of parental involvement on children,see P.R. Amato and F. Rivera, “PaternalInvolvement and Children’s BehaviorProblems,” Journal of Marriage & the Family,Vol. 61, No. 2 (1999): 375–384.
Figure 1.Percent of Children 3 to 5 Years Old Ever in Nonrelative Child Care by Poverty Status and Receipt of Government Assistance: 2003
Note: For families with income reported, government programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); food stamps; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); Medicaid; and the National School Lunch Program.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7.
200 percent of poverty or higher
No aid
With aid
100 to 199 percent of poverty
At or above poverty
No aid
With aid
Below poverty
Total
52.9
47.0
37.6
38.7
33.9
49.3
41.5
43.3
39.3
6 U.S. Census Bureau
Table 4.Children Under 18 Eating Together With Designated Parent or With Father/Stepfather ifPresent by Marital Status of Designated Parent: 2003(Numbers in thousands)
1 Totals given refer to questions of designated parents, regardless of the sex or marital status of the parent.2 Includes only children identified as living with married-spouse-present designated parent. In a married-couple household, the female is always the
designated parent (biological mother, stepmother, or other female relative or guardian). The male parent in a married-couple household is a biological, step, orother male relative or guardian.
3 Includes only children identified as living with a designated parent who is never married, widowed, divorced, or separated.Note: Percent of children eating meals with fathers does not represent presence of both parents at the meals.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data).
Children under 6 years old weremore likely to eat dinner (79 per-cent) than breakfast (57 percent)with their parents and similarly,were more likely to have dinnerwith their mother than their fatheron a daily basis. Among childrenliving with married parents, 81percent of children under 6 atedinner with their mothers everyday, while 64 percent ate dinnerwith their fathers every day.Among children living with unmar-ried parents, the comparable per-centages were 75 percent and 66percent, respectively.
Older children were less likely tohave meals with their parents thanwere younger children. Thirty-seven percent of children 6 to 11years old ate breakfast with a par-ent every day, while 73 percent atedinner together every day, com-pared with 57 percent and 79 per-cent, respectively, for childrenunder 6 years old. For children 6 to11 years old, eating meals togetheroccurred more often with mothersthan fathers. One exception isnoted for children living withunmarried parents, where no differ-ence is found in the proportion ofchildren having breakfast with theirmother or with their father (about29 percent ate breakfast with theirmother or father 7 days a week).
Eating with a parent was less likelyto occur for teenagers than childrenunder 6 years old—24 percent ofchildren 12 to 17 years old atebreakfast with a parent every day ina typical week, while 58 percent atedinner together. For teenagers liv-ing with unmarried parents, eatingboth breakfast and dinner every dayof the week was more common ifthey lived with their father ratherthan their mother.
Praise
While mealtimes can provide struc-tured opportunities for daily con-tact between parents and children,interactions can occur throughoutthe day. Ninety-one percent ofchildren under 6 years old werepraised by a parent at least onceevery day (Table 5). Seven of tenwere praised three or more timesper day (72 percent). Also, youngchildren living with married par-ents were more likely to be praisedthree or more times per day bytheir mothers (74 percent) than bytheir fathers (63 percent). Amongchildren living with unmarried par-ents, praise three or more timesdaily was more frequently given bymothers (69 percent) than byfathers (57 percent).
Conversation and Play
The child well-being module alsocollected information on how oftenparents talked to or played withtheir child for 5 minutes or moredaily just for fun. Twenty percentwere talked to or played with onceor twice per day, while 72 percentof children under 6 years old weretalked to or played with three ormore times per day. As with otherinteractions, talking or playingthree or more times each day wasmore frequently reported by moth-ers than fathers for children withmarried parents.
About half of children 6 to 11years old were praised by a parent(51 percent) or talked to or playedwith for 5 minutes or more just forfun (49 percent) three or moretimes per day,11 compared with
U.S. Census Bureau 7
11 The percents of 6- to 11-year-oldspraised by a parent or talked to or playedwith for 5 minutes or more just for fun threeor more times per day (51 percent and 49percent, respectively) were not statisticallydifferent from each other.
37 percent and 41 percent, respec-tively for 12- to 17-year-olds.
Overall, data on parent-child inter-actions generally indicate that dailycontacts at mealtimes or on a con-versational basis are less fre-quently noted for teenagers thanfor younger children 6 to 11 yearsold. This pattern persists for chil-dren living with married parents orwith single parents.
Reading Habits
Another indicator of the nature ofthe family environment is the num-ber of times family members readto children. Table 6 shows the pro-portion of children 1 to 2 years oldand 3 to 5 years old who werenever read to in the past week andwho were read to seven or moretimes in the past week, as well asthe average number of times theywere read to in the past week.Children 1 to 2 years old were readto an average of 7.8 times in theprevious week, while children 3 to5 years old were read to an averageof 6.8 times in the previous week.
The percentage of Hispanic chil-dren who had not been read to inthe past week (22 percent of 1- to2-year-olds and 15 percent of 3- to5-year-olds) was four times higherthan the proportion of non-Hispanic White children (5 percentof 1- to 2-year-olds and 4 percentof 3- to 5-year-olds, respectively).Non-Hispanic White children weremore likely to be read to seven ormore times in the past week (61percent for 1- to 2-year-olds and57 percent for 3- to 5-year-olds)compared with 38 percent of Blackchildren in both age groups.
8 U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5.Selected Indicators of Daily Interaction of Children Under 18 With Designated Parent orWith Father/Stepfather if Present by Marital Status of Designated Parent: 2003(Numbers in thousands)
Characteristic
Living with marrieddesignated parent2
Living with unmarrieddesignated parent3
Total1 Female Male Total Female Male
Children under 6 years old . . . . . . .
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
Child Praised by Parent
23,596 16,273 16,273 6,338 6,005 333
Never to once a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 1.5 3.0 2.8 2.9 0.6A few times per week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 6.7 11.0 8.9 8.8 11.7Once or twice per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.8 18.0 22.8 20.1 19.5 30.9Three or more times per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Child Talked to or Played With for5 Minutes or More Just for Fun
71.9 73.8 63.1 68.2 68.8 56.8
Never to once a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.9 2.6 2.0 2.2 (B)A few times per week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 6.4 11.9 7.7 7.5 11.4Once or twice per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.0 19.3 27.9 20.8 20.6 24.6Three or more times per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.1 73.4 57.6 69.5 69.8 64.0
Children 6 to 11 years old . . . . . . . .
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
Child Praised by Parent
24,211 16,377 16,377 6,973 6,256 717
Never to once a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 2.1 5.8 2.2 2.1 2.5A few times per week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.2 15.6 21.2 19.9 19.7 21.6Once or twice per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.2 30.9 28.9 29.0 28.3 35.7Three or more times per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Child Talked to or Played With for5 Minutes or More Just for Fun
50.5 51.3 44.1 48.9 49.9 40.3
Never to once a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 2.7 6.0 3.5 3.6 2.2A few times per week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.8 15.8 23.5 19.0 18.5 24.0Once or twice per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.0 31.9 33.1 29.1 29.0 30.7Three or more times per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.3 49.6 37.4 48.4 48.9 43.2
Children 12 to 17 years old . . . . . . .
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
Child Praised by Parent
24,851 16,281 16,281 7,597 6,463 1,134
Never to once a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 5.4 8.9 7.3 7.6 5.9A few times per week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.2 25.3 30.8 25.4 25.3 26.5Once or twice per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.8 32.1 28.7 31.4 31.2 33.0Three or more times per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Child Talked to or Played With for5 Minutes or More Just for Fun
36.9 37.1 31.5 35.8 36.0 34.7
Never to once a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 6.0 8.4 8.2 8.4 6.8A few times per week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.8 19.5 24.8 20.7 20.6 21.5Once or twice per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.5 32.7 34.8 32.2 32.2 32.4Three or more times per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.0 41.7 32.0 38.9 38.8 39.3
(B) Base less than 100,000 or numerator too small for comparison.1 Totals given refer to questions of designated parents, regardless of the sex or marital status of the parent.2 Includes only children identified as living with married-spouse-present designated parent. In a married-couple household the female is always the
designated parent (biological mother, stepmother, or other female relative or guardian). The male parent in a married-couple household is a biological, step, orother male relative or guardian.
3 Includes only children identified as living with a designated parent who is never married, widowed, divorced, or separated.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data).
U.S. Census Bureau 9
Table 6.Reading to Children Aged 1 to 5 by Any Family Member by Characteristics ofChildren and Designated Parents: 1994 to 2003
Characteristic
Family reading practices
Percent never read tolast week
Percent read to7 or more times
last week
Average times read tolast week1
1 to 2 years 3 to 5 years 1 to 2 years 3 to 5 years 1 to 2 years 3 to 5 years
(X) Not applicable.1 Based on children reported as being read to one or more times per week.2 Married includes married, spouse present and married, spouse absent (excluding separated).3 Includes only children in households for which poverty status was determined.4 For families with income reported, programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); food stamps; Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); Medicaid; and the National School Lunch Program.5 Based on those children for whom valid answers were reported (no imputation for nonresponse).Note: Family members include either parent or any other relative.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data); 1996 Panel, Waves 6 and 12 (1998 and 2000
data); Current Population Reports, P70-68, Table 5 (1994 data).
Household living arrangementsmay be related to the frequency ofadults being available to read tochildren. Children of married par-ents have both mothers andfathers as potential readers, incontrast with children with singleparents. Children whose desig-nated parent was married weremore likely to have been read toseven or more times in the pastweek (54 percent for both agegroups) than children with a never-married parent (43 percent for 1-to 2-year-olds and 40 percent for3- to 5-year-olds).
The extent of reading to childrenwas also related to the designatedparent’s educational attainment.Twenty-three percent of 1- to 2-year-olds whose parents did notcomplete high school were neverread to, compared with 4 percentwhose parent had an advanceddegree. Designated parents with abachelor’s degree or advanceddegree were most likely to haveread to their 1- to 2-year-old chil-dren seven or more times in thepast week12 (68 percent and 62percent, respectively), amountingto an average of 9.6 and 7.9 timesin the past week. Among parentswithout a high school diploma, 35percent had read to their 1- to 2-year-old children seven or moretimes in the past week, with anaverage of 6.7 times per week.
Forty-one percent of children aged1 to 2 and 3 to 5 with familyincomes below the poverty levelwere read to seven or more timesin the past week. More than half
10 U.S. Census Bureau
12 The percentage of children whoseparents had a bachelor’s degree and advanceddegree and who were read to an average ofseven or more times per week were not sig-nificantly different from each other. Similarly,the percentage of children whose parents hada vocational certificate or associate's degreewas not significantly different from those withan advanced degree, and those with a voca-tional certificate or associate's degree werenot significantly different from those withsome college.
of children 1 to 5 years old (57 percent of 1- to 2-year-olds and56 percent of 3- to 5-year-olds)whose family income was 200 per-cent of the poverty level or higherwere read to seven or more timesin the past week. About 18 per-cent of children 1 to 2 years oldwhose families received some typeof public assistance had not beenread to in the past week. Amongchildren whose families did notreceive aid, 5 percent of 1- to 2-year-olds were never read to in theprevious week.
These data present a fairly consis-tent portrait of children whose par-ents read to them on a regularbasis. They suggest that childrenliving with parents who are mar-ried, have relatively higher levelsof educational attainment and fam-ily income, and are not enrolled inbenefit programs have higher fre-quency of reading experiencesthan other children.
TELEVISION VIEWING
In 1992, the AmericanPsychological Association TaskForce on Television and Societypublished a report entitled BigWorld, Small Screen: The Role ofTelevision in American Society,which showed a link betweenexcessive TV viewing, particularlyviolent TV, and negative behaviorin children like fearful, insensitive,and aggressive activity.13 Althoughthe SIPP did not collect data on thecontent of television shows viewedby children, the child well-beingtopical module inquired about theamount and type of constraintsplaced on children’s TV viewing.Parents were asked if they had
13 A more detailed discussion of TVwatching and children is provided in A.C.Huston, E. Donnerstein, H. Fairchild, N.D.Feshbach, P.A. Katz, J. P. Murray, E.A.Rubinstein, B. Wilcox, and D. Zuckerman, BigWorld, Small Screen: The Role of Television inAmerican Society, University of NebraskaPress, Lincoln, NE, 1992.
Figure 2.Percent of Children With Television Rulesby Type of Rule and Age: 2003
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7.
Number of hourswatched
Time of dayprogram viewed
Type of programwatched
3 to 5 years old 6 to 11 years old 12 to 17 years old
50.2
84.9 85.8
62.2
83.387.6
67.771.4 72.0
rules about the type of program among preschool- and elementary-children could watch, the time of school-aged children than childrenday (how early or late) the TV was 12 to 17 years old—middle schoolon, and the number of hours and high school age. Eighty-fivewatched. Of the 60.8 million chil- percent of children 3 to 5 years olddren 3 to 17 years old, 58 percent had a rule about the type of pro-had all three types of TV rules gram they could watch, not statis-(Table 7). About two-thirds of chil- tically different from the propor-dren 3 to 5 years old and 6 to 11 tion of children 6 to 11 years oldyears old had parents who used all (86 percent). In contrast, 62 per-three TV rules, compared with 44 cent of children 12 to 17 years oldpercent for children 12 to 17 years had this rule. Time-of-day televi-old. Parents have been more likely sion rules were most often foundto impose TV rules in the last for elementary-school-aged chil-decade, especially for young chil- dren 6 to 11 years old (88 per-dren. For example, in 1994, 54 cent), followed by 3- to 5-year-percent of 3- to 5-year-olds had all olds (83 percent) and 12- to 17-three TV rules, compared with 67 year-olds (68 percent). The per-percent in 2003. For 6- to 11- centage of children who had rulesyear-olds, 60 percent had all three on the number of hours they wereTV rules in 1994, compared with allowed to watch TV were about68 percent in 2003. For 12- to the same for children 3 to 5 years17-year-olds, 40 percent had all old and 6 to 11 years old (71 per-three TV rules in 1994, compared cent and 72 percent, respectively),with 44 percent in 2003. compared with 50 percent for chil-
Figure 2 shows the percentage of dren 12 to 17 years old. Table 7
children with TV rules by the type shows that among 6- to 11-year-
of rule and age of the child. olds, Black children had a higher
Overall, parental rules governing percentage with three TV rules
television were more often found (74 percent), than non-Hispanic
White children and Hispanic chil-dren (about 67 percent each).14
Overall, children living with mar-ried parents tended to have morerestrictions on TV viewing thanchildren of never-married parents.Sixty-nine percent of 3- to 5-year-olds with married parents had theirTV watching regulated with allthree TV rules, compared with 58 percent of children with never-married parents. The proportionof children with three TV rules wasgenerally higher among childrenwith parents who had completedan advanced degree. For example,59 percent of children 3 to 5 yearsold whose parents did not com-plete high school had three TVrules, compared with 78 percent ofchildren whose parents had anadvanced degree.
Sixty-eight percent of children 3 to5 years old with family incomesabove 200 percent of poverty hadthree TV rules, compared to 63percent of children whose parentshad family incomes below poverty.Among children 3 to 5 years oldwhose families received publicassistance, 66 percent had all threeTV rules, not statistically differentfrom the percentage reported forchildren whose families did notreceive any aid (68 percent).
Figure 3 shows the relationshipbetween the number of times chil-dren 3 to 5 years old were read toin the past week and the presenceof TV rules for children. Childrenwith no TV rules were read to lessoften than children with TV rules.Seventeen percent of children withno TV rules were not read to at allduring the previous week, com-pared with 8 percent of childrenwith one or two types of TV rules
U.S. Census Bureau 11
14 The percentage of Asian and PacificIslander children with three TV rules werenot statistically different from Black children.
Figure 3.Percent Distribution of Number of Times Per Week Family Members Read to Children 3 to 5 Years Old by Presence of Television Rules: 2003
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7.
All 3 typesof TV rules
1 or 2 typesof TV rules
No TV rules
Total
Not read to at all
Read to 1 to 6 times per week
Read to 7 or more times per week
52.1
6.9 43.3 49.8
17.2 43.1 39.7
7.7 44.8 47.5
5.1 42.8
12 U.S. Census Bureau
Table 7.Family Television Rules for Children Aged 3 to 17 by Characteristics of Children andDesignated Parents: 1994 to 2003
CharacteristicPercent with all three types of television rules1
(B) Base less than 100,000 or numerator too small for comparison. (X) Not applicable.1 The three types of television rules are 1) what television programs children may watch, 2) the time of day children may watch, and 3) how many hours
children may watch.2 Married includes married, spouse present and married, spouse absent (excluding separated).3 Includes only children in households for which poverty status was determined.4 For families with income reported, programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); food stamps; Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); Medicaid; and the National School Lunch Program.5 Based on those children for whom valid answers were reported (no imputation for nonresponse).Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data); 1996 Panel, Waves 6 and 12 (1998 and 2000
data); Current Population Reports, P70-68, Table 8 (1994 data).
and 5 percent of children with allthree types of TV rules. Fifty-twopercent of parents who used threeTV rules read to their childrenseven or more times each week,compared with 40 percent of par-ents who had no TV rules for their children.
PARTICIPATION INEXTRACURRICULARACTIVITIES
Research shows that childreninvolved in extracurricular activi-ties are less likely to engage inantisocial behavior15 and tend toscore higher on standardizedtests.16 In this report, data aboutparticipation in extracurricularactivities were limited to children 6
U.S. Census Bureau 13
15 A more in-depth discussion is in JosephMahoney, “School Extracurricular ActivityParticipation as a Moderator in theDevelopment of Antisocial Patterns,” ChildDevelopment, Vol. 71, No. 2 (March/April2000): 502–516.
16 Further information can be found inNational Institute of Child Health and Human
to 17 years old and were based onparental responses to questionsabout children’s involvement inthree types of activities: sports,clubs, and lessons. Participation insports includes athletic activitiessponsored by schools or by organ-ized leagues. Clubs include BoyScouts and Girl Scouts, religiousgroups, Girls and Boys Clubs, or 4-H activities. Lessons were inter-preted very broadly and includethose taken after school or on theweekend in subjects like music,dance, language, computers, or religion.
Overall, sports were the most popu-lar extracurricular activity, regard-less of the children’s age (Table 8).Children 12 to 17 years old were
Development Early Child Care and YouthDevelopment Research Network (NICHD),“Are Child Developmental Outcomes Relatedto Before- and After-School CareArrangements? Results From the NICHDStudy of Early Child Care,” ChildDevelopment, Vol. 75, No. 1(January/February 2004): 280–295.
more likely than children 6 to 11years old to participate in sports(42 percent and 36 percent, respec-tively). About one-third of both 6-to 11-year-olds and 12- to 17-year-olds participated in club activities(33 percent and 34 percent, respec-tively). Younger children 6 to 11years old were more likely thanolder children to participate in les-sons (32 percent for 6- to 11-year-olds, compared with 29 percent for12- to 17-year-olds).
Boys in both age groups weremore likely than girls to participatein sports. Among 6- to 11-year-olds, the proportions of childrenparticipating in sports were 42 per-cent of boys and 30 percent ofgirls. Among 12- to 17-year-olds,the proportions were 46 percent ofboys and 37 percent of girls. Girlsin both age groups were morelikely than boys to participate inclubs and lessons. For example,37 percent of girls 6 to 11 yearsold took lessons, compared with27 percent of boys in that agegroup. Among 6- to 11-year-olds,35 percent of girls were in clubs,compared with 32 percent of boys.
Non-Hispanic White children weremore likely than Black children toparticipate in sports (45 percent ofboth 6- to 11- and 12- to 17-year-old non-Hispanic White children;and 24 percent to 35 percent ofBlack children 6 to 17 years old).Also, non-Hispanic White childrenwere more likely than Black chil-dren to participate in club activities(38 percent to 40 percent of non-Hispanic White children 6 to 17years old and about 30 percent ofBlack children 6 to 17 years old).
Children with married parents weremore likely than other children toparticipate in each of the threetypes of extracurricular activitiesshown in Table 8. For example, 45percent of children 12 to 17 years
Figure 4.Percent of Children 6 to 17 Years Old Participating in Extracurricular Activities by Poverty Status: 2003
Note: Activity categories are not mutually exclusive, therefore percents do not sum to 100. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7.
In all 3 typesof activities
LessonsSportsClubsAny activity
Below poverty level 100 to 199 percent of poverty level
200 percent of poverty level or higher
13.3
45.8
52.8
70.1
23.527.9
38.8
26.131.3
46.2
19.424.0
36.4
5.0 6.6
14 U.S. Census Bureau
Table 8.Extracurricular Activities of School-Aged Children by Characteristics of Children andDesignated Parents: 1994 to 2003
Characteristic
Percent participating in specified extracurricular activity
1 Married includes married, spouse present and married, spouse absent (excluding separated).2 Includes only children in households for which poverty status was determined.3 For families with income reported, programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); food stamps; Medicaid; and the National School
Lunch Program. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is excluded here since it applies to children under 5.4 Number of children varied by activity depending on those reporting valid answers and were approximately 19.4 million 6- to 11-year-olds and 17.6 million
12- to 17-year-olds.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data); 1996 Panel, Waves 6 and 12 (1998 and 2000
data); Current Population Reports, P70-68, Table 11 (1994 data).
old with married parents played in all three types of extracurricularsports, compared with 31 percent activities, while only 5 percent ofof children with never-married par- children in poverty participated inents. In general, participation in all three. extracurricular activities was associ-
Children receiving governmentated with parents having higher
assistance were less likely to partici-levels of education. More children
pate in each of the three extracur-whose parent had an advanced
ricular activities shown in Table 8.degree (50 percent of 6- to 11-year-
For example, 39 percent of 12- toolds and 59 percent of 12- to 17-
17-year-olds who received govern-year-olds) were involved in sports,
ment assistance played sports,compared with 17 percent of chil-
compared with 46 percent of thosedren 6 to 11 years old and 30 per-
who did not receive governmentcent of children 12 to 17 years old
assistance. In the 10 years prior towhose parent did not finish high
the survey, the percentage of chil-school. A similar pattern existed
dren enrolled in lessons increased.for participation in clubs and les-
In 1994, 24 percent of 6- to 11-sons. Around 17 percent of chil-
year-olds were enrolled in lessons;dren 6 to 17 years old whose par-
by 2003, the percentage hadent did not complete high school
increased to 32 percent. The per-were enrolled in lessons, compared
centage of 12- to 17-year-olds whowith 54 percent of children 6 to 11
were enrolled in lessons alsoyears old and 48 percent of children
increased—from 19 percent in 199412 to 17 years old whose parent
to 29 percent in 2003. had an advanced degree.
As with patterns found with read-In every age group, children whose
ing experiences, children livingfamily incomes were above 200
with married parents with higherpercent of the poverty threshold
levels of educational attainmentwere more likely to be involved in
and economic status participatedactivities after school than children
in more extracurricular activitiesliving below poverty. This finding
than other children.is not unexpected as participationin these activities often involves
ACADEMIC EXPERIENCEexpenditures as well as parentaltime, both of which may be more In this report, children’s academic
difficult for children in poverty to experience is analyzed by consid-
afford. Figure 4 shows the rela- ering outcomes such as being aca-
tionship between poverty status demically “on-track” (i.e., enrolled
and children’s participation in in school at or above the modal
sports, clubs, and lessons. About grade level for their age), taking
1 of 5 children (19 percent to classes for gifted students, chang-
26 percent) below poverty partici- ing schools, repeating grades, and
pated in these activities, compared being suspended.
with about 36 percent to 46 per-Academically On-Trackcent of children with family
incomes at 200 percent of poverty Nationally, 75 percent of childrenor higher. Some children com- 12 to 17 years old currentlybined several extracurricular activi- enrolled in school were academi-ties. Thirteen percent of children cally on-track (Table 9). This repre-with family incomes at 200 percent sents a 3 percentage-point increaseof poverty or higher were involved since the previous SIPP child
well-being module was conductedin 2000 and a 6 percentage-pointincrease since the first SIPP childwell-being module was conductedin 1994.17 Girls were more likely tobe on-track than boys (78 percentand 72 percent, respectively).Children 12 to 17 years old whoseparents were married (76 percent)were more likely to be on-track thanthose with separated, divorced, orwidowed parents (73 percent), orthose with never-married parents(69 percent). Suspension fromschool, which can be an indicator ofemotional or adjustment problems,was also related to being academi-cally on-track: 67 percent of chil-dren who had been suspended wereon-track, compared with 76 percentof children who had never beensuspended. The poverty status offamilies was also related to whetherchildren were on-track: 69 percentof children living in families belowthe poverty level were academicallyon-track, compared with 78 percentof children living in families at 200 percent of poverty or higher.
Special or Gifted Classes
The SIPP child well-being moduleasked parents if their children werein a special class for gifted stu-dents or did advanced work in anysubjects (Table 10). Thirteen per-cent of children 6 to 11 years oldand 24 percent of children 12 to17 years old were in such classes,which include honors andadvanced placement classes inhigh school. For 12- to 17-year-olds, this represents a 2 percent-age-point increase since the lastchild well-being module conducted
U.S. Census Bureau 15
17 Any differences noted in this reportbetween 1994 and 2003 can be attributed tothe fact that the editing process differed inthese two surveys. In 1994, nonresponseswere not imputed, while in 2003 respon-dents not providing an answer to any of theitems in this table were imputed a response.
16 U.S. Census Bureau
Table 9.Academically On-Track Children Aged 12 to 17 by Selected Characteristics:1994 to 2003(Numbers in thousands)
Number of children Number of children PercentCharacteristic currently enrolled on-track on-track
1 Does not include the normal progression and graduation from elementary and middle schools.2 Married includes married, spouse present and married, spouse absent (excluding separated).3 Includes only children in households for which poverty status was determined.4 For families with income reported, programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); food stamps; Medicaid; and the National School
Lunch Program. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is excluded here since it applies to children under 5.5 Based on those children for whom valid answers were reported (no imputation for nonresponse); includes children who are not currently enrolled.Note: Children are generally considered on-track when they are enrolled at or above the modal grade for their age (the grade in which most children of a
given age are enrolled).Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data); 1996 Panel, Waves 6 and 12 (1998 and 2000
data); Current Population Reports, P70-68, Table 15 (1994 data).
U.S. Census Bureau 17
Table 10.Academic Performance of School-Aged Children by Selected Characteristics: 1994 to 2003
(NA) Not available.1 Includes children currently enrolled in school.2 Includes children who have ever attended or been enrolled in first grade or higher. Does not include the normal progression and graduation from
elementary and middle schools.3 Includes children who have ever attended or been enrolled in kindergarten or higher.4 Married includes married, spouse present and married, spouse absent (excluding separated).5 Includes only children in households for which poverty status was determined.6 For families with income reported, programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); food stamps; Medicaid; and the National School
Lunch Program. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is excluded here since it applies to children under 5.7 Based on those children for whom valid answers were reported (no imputation for nonresponse). The question on gifted classes was not asked of children
12 to 17 years old in 1994.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7 (2003 data); 1996 Panel, Waves 6 and 12 (1998 and 2000
data); Current Population Reports, P70-68, Table 13 (1994 data).
in 2000. Forty-five percent of chil-dren 12 to 17 years old whose par-ent had an advanced degree werein gifted classes, compared with10 percent of children in this agegroup whose parent had less thana high school education.
The proportion in gifted classeswas also higher for children 12 to17 years old whose parents weremarried (25 percent) or separated,divorced, or widowed (22 percent)than for children living with never-married parents (13 percent).Among 12- to 17-year-olds whosefamily was living at 200 percent ofpoverty or higher, 28 percent wereattending gifted classes, comparedwith 15 percent of children livingbelow the poverty level. Of 12- to17-year-olds whose family did notreceive government assistance, 27 percent were attending giftedclasses, compared with 21 percentof children who received govern-ment assistance (TANF, foodstamps, WIC, Medicaid, and/orNational School Lunch Program). Itis possible that differences ingifted-class enrollment reflect theavailability of classes offered at theschools the children were attend-ing in addition to any enrollmentvariations associated with the fam-ily characteristics of the children.
Changing Schools
Not including the normal progres-sion through elementary and mid-dle schools, 24 percent of children6 to 11 years old and 41 percentof children 12 to 17 years old whohad ever attended or been enrolledin first grade or higher hadchanged schools at some time intheir academic career (Table 10).The higher proportion for olderchildren reflects the fact that thesechildren have had more time toexperience a change. For both age
groups, no differences in thesepercentages were noted since2000, although both were lowerthan those reported in 1994.
Changing schools can be disrup-tive. A change in schools could beprompted by a variety of reasonsincluding a residential move, amodification of school-districtboundaries, failure at anotherschool, or a change in the family’shousehold structure or finances.For example, among children 12 to17 years old, those with marriedparents were less likely to changeschools (39 percent) than werechildren whose parents were sepa-rated, divorced, or widowed (44percent) and children with a never-married parent (46 percent).
Among children 6 to 11 years old,a higher proportion of Black
children changed schools (27 per-cent) than did non-Hispanic Whiteor Hispanic children (about 23 per-cent each).18 Also among 12- to17-year-olds, higher proportions ofBlack children changed schoolsthan did Hispanic children (44 per-cent and 39 percent, respectively).
Among teenagers, children in fami-lies at 200 percent of poverty orhigher changed schools as often asthose below the poverty level(about 41 percent). Forty percentof teenagers in families not receiv-ing government aid changedschools; similarly, 42 percent ofteenagers receiving aid from atleast one program changed schools.
18 U.S. Census Bureau
18 The percentage of Asian and PacificIslander children who changed schools wasnot statistically different from Black children.
Figure 5.Educational Expectations of Parents for Their Children Under 18 Years Old by Designated Parent's Educational Level: 2003
Note: Activity categories are not mutually exclusive, therefore percents do not sum to 100. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7.
Advanceddegree
Bachelor'sdegree
Vocationalcertificate orassociate's
degree
Somecollege
High schoolgraduate
Less thanhigh school
Parent would like more education and training for child after college
Parent thinks child will achieve more education and training after college
45.2
22.717.1
25.1
18.5
31.2
23.6
31.7
24.8
38.8
31.9
52.1
(In percent)
Repeating Grades and not receive government assistanceSuspension From Schools (6 percent).
Six percent of children 6 to 11 Parents of children 12 to 17 yearsyears old and 10 percent of chil- old were asked if their children haddren 12 to 17 years old had ever ever been expelled or suspendedrepeated a grade. Among 12- to from school. Eleven percent of chil-17-year-olds, repeating a grade dren 12 to 17 years old (2.7 million)was more common for Black chil- had been suspended at least once.dren (18 percent) than for non- Boys were more likely than girls toHispanic White (9 percent), Asian have been suspended (14 percentand Pacific Islander (5 percent), or and 8 percent, respectively). TheHispanic (10 percent) children. proportion suspended was higher
for Black children (17 percent) thanChildren 12 to 17 years old living
non-Hispanic White children andbelow the poverty level were about
Hispanic children (both 10 percent)twice as likely to have repeated a
and Asian and Pacific Islander chil-grade (18 percent) as children
dren (5 percent). whose family lived at 200 percentof poverty or higher (8 percent). A lower proportion of children liv-Children 12 to 17 years old whose ing with married parents had everfamily received government assis- been suspended (9 percent) thantance were also twice as likely to children living with separated,have repeated a grade (13 percent) divorced, or widowed parents as were children whose family did (15 percent), or those living with
never-married parents (20 percent).Among children whose parent hadearned a bachelor’s degree or anadvanced degree, 8 percent hadever been suspended, comparedwith 15 percent of those whoseparent had less than a high schooleducation. Eighteen percent ofchildren whose family lived belowthe poverty level had ever beensuspended from school, comparedwith 10 percent of children whosefamily lived at 200 percent ofpoverty or higher.
EDUCATIONALEXPECTATIONS OF PARENTS
The SIPP child well-being moduleasked parents about their educa-tional expectations for each child.Parents were asked how far theywould like their child to go inschool and the educational levelthey thought their child wouldactually achieve.
Figure 5 shows that the proportionof children whose parents wantthem to receive an educationbeyond college differed accordingto the parent’s level of education.Parents with advanced degrees (52 percent) were twice as likely asparents with a high school educa-tion (25 percent) to want theirchildren to get an educationbeyond college.
Regardless of the parent’s level ofeducational attainment, parentalexpectations about what their chil-dren would achieve fell below whatthey desired for their children. Forexample, expected achievementlevels for progress beyond collegewere 7 percentage points lowerthan desired levels for childrenwhose parents had an advanceddegree (45 percent) and about 6percentage points lower for chil-dren whose parents had less thana high school degree (17 percent).
U.S. Census Bureau 19
Figure 6.Percent of Children Under 18 Who Were Kept Inside as Much as Possible Because of the Dangers in the Neighborhood by Metropolitan Status, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 2003
* For Asian and Pacific Islanders in nonmetropolitan areas, the data are not shown because the base is less than 100,000.Note: This report based on the 2001 SIPP Panel does not reflect the revised metropolitan status boundaries from the 2000 census or current metropolitan status boundaries.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 7.
HispanicAsian and PacificIslander*
BlackNon-HispanicWhite
White
In central city Metropolitan outsidecentral city
Nonmetropolitan
24.5
35.4
19.0 17.8
24.8
14.717.3
38.5
24.9
34.4
24.4 24.5
48.1
32.5
FAMILIES ANDNEIGHBORHOODS
Neighborhood quality plays animportant role in child develop-ment. Neighborhoods that parentsconsider safe, with neighbors whocan be trusted to look out for chil-dren, are a standard measure ofchild well-being. The SIPP ques-tionnaire asked parents a series ofquestions about the perceived lev-els of safety and trust in their com-munity. One of those questionsmeasured neighborhood safety byasking parents if they kept theirchildren inside as a much as possi-ble because of dangers in theneighborhood.
Figure 6 shows that the highestpercentage of children kept insidebecause of danger in the commu-nity were those living in centralcities. Forty-eight percent ofHispanic children who lived in thecentral city were kept insidebecause of parents’ perception ofdanger in the community, followedby 39 percent of Black children, 24percent of Asian children, and 25percent of non-Hispanic White chil-dren. Thirty-three percent ofHispanic children who lived in met-ropolitan areas outside centralcities were kept inside because ofdanger, followed by 25 percent ofBlacks and 15 percent of non-Hispanic Whites.19 In nonmetropol-itan areas, Black children had thehighest percentage kept insidebecause of danger, 34 percent,compared with 25 percent ofHispanics and 17 percent of non-Hispanic Whites. Studies haveshown that racial and ethnicminorities in nonmetropolitanareas have high rates of povertyand underemployment, which may
20 U.S. Census Bureau
19 The percentage of Asian and PacificIslander children who lived outside centralcities who were kept inside because of dan-ger was not statistically different fromHispanic children.
lead to higher incidences of crimein these neighborhoods.20
SUMMARY
This report highlights many aspectsof children’s lives that are related totheir well-being, such as children’sliving arrangements and their fam-ily’s characteristics, early child careexperiences, daily interaction withparents, extracurricular activities,academic experience, and parents’educational expectations. Thesedata show that income and familystructure affect various aspects ofchildren’s everyday life. Children liv-ing in families below the povertylevel, children whose parents havelower levels of educational attain-ment, and children in families withsingle parents tend to have lessdaily interaction with their parents,such as talking, being read to, orsharing daily meals, than theircounterparts in other situations.Children whose families live belowpoverty and with lower levels offamily income are less likely to par-ticipate in extracurricular activitiesand to be academically on-trackthan children living in familiesabove poverty and with higher lev-els of family income.
SOURCE OF THE DATA
The population represented (thepopulation universe) in the 2001SIPP is the civilian noninstitutional-ized population living in the UnitedStates. The SIPP is a longitudinalsurvey conducted at 4-month inter-vals. The data in this report werecollected from February throughMay 2003 in the seventh wave ofthe 2001 SIPP Panel. The institu-tionalized population, which isexcluded from the population
20 A more in-depth discussion of race andethnicity in nonmetropolitan areas can befound in Tim Slack and Leif Jensen, “Race,Ethnicity, and Underemployment in Nonmetro-politan America: A 30-Year Profile,” RuralSociology, Vol. 67, No.2 (2002): 208–233.
universe, is composed primarily ofthe population in correctional insti-tutions and nursing homes (91 per-cent of the 4.1 million institutional-ized population in Census 2000).
Although the main focus of theSIPP is information on labor forceparticipation, jobs, income, andparticipation in federal assistanceprograms, information on othertopics is also collected in topicalmodules on a rotating basis.
ACCURACY OF THE DATA
Statistics from surveys are subjectto sampling and nonsampling error.All comparisons presented in thisreport have taken sampling errorinto account and are significant atthe 90-percent confidence levelunless otherwise noted. This meansthe 90-percent confidence intervalfor the difference between the esti-mates being compared does notinclude zero. Nonsampling errorsin surveys may be attributed to avariety of sources, such as how thesurvey was designed, how respon-dents interpret questions, how ableand willing respondents are to pro-vide correct answers, and howaccurately the answers are codedand classified. The Census Bureauemploys quality control proceduresthroughout the productionprocess—including the overalldesign of surveys, the wording ofquestions, review of the work ofinterviewers and coders, and statis-tical review of reports—to minimizethese errors. The SIPP weightingprocedure uses ratio estimation,whereby sample estimates areadjusted to independent estimatesof the national population by age,race, sex, and Hispanic origin. Thisweighting partially corrects for biasdue to undercoverage, but biasesmay still be present when peoplewho are missed by the survey differfrom those interviewed in waysother than age, race, sex, and
Hispanic origin. How this weighting MORE INFORMATION CONTACTprocedure affects other variables in
The report and the detailed tables For additional child well-beingthe survey is not precisely known.
are available on the Internet information, you may contact theAll of these considerations affect
<www.census.gov>; search for child authors of this report in thecomparisons across different sur-
well-being data by clicking on the Fertility and Family Statisticsveys or data sources. The SIPP
letter “W” in the “Subjects A to Z” Branch at 301-763-2416. You may2001 Panel Wave 7 round had expe- also contact the authors of thissection on the Web page and selectrienced a 28.9 percent attrition of report by e-mail.“Well-Being/Dynamics of Economicthe original sample since Wave 1
Well-Being.” The previous reports Aand had a nonresponse rate of Jane Lawler DyeChild’s Day: 2000 (Selected16.1 percent for this round. <[email protected]>Indicators of Child Well-Being) and A
Tallese D. JohnsonFor further information on the Child’s Day: Home, School, and Play<[email protected]>source of the data and accuracy of (Selected Indicators of Child Well-
the estimates, including standard Being) with 1994 data are also USER COMMENTSerrors and confidence intervals, go found on this page.to <www.sipp.census.gov/sipp The Census Bureau welcomes the/sourceac/S&A01_w1tow6_cross Other information on child well- comments and advice of users of_puf.pdf> or contact Heather Haas being from the SIPP can be found its data and reports. If you haveor Mahdi S. Sundukchi of the in the following reports: Jason M. any suggestions or comments,Census Bureau’s Demographic Fields and Kristin E. Smith, Poverty, please write to:Statistical Methods Division via Family Structure, and Child Well- Chief, Housing and Household e-mail at Being: Indicators From the SIPP, Economic Statistics Division<[email protected]> or Population Division Working Paper U.S. Census Bureau<[email protected]>. Series, No. 23, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233
Washington DC, 1998; Kristen E.Additional information on the SIPP Or send an e-mail inquiry toSmith, Loretta E. Bass, and Jasoncan be found at the following Web <[email protected]>.M. Fields, Child Well-Beingsites: <www.sipp.census.gov
/sipp/> (main SIPP Web site), Indicators From the SIPP, SUGGESTED CITATION<www.sipp.census.gov/sipp Population Division Working Paper
Series No. 24, U.S. Census Bureau, Dye, Jane Lawler and Tallese D./workpapr/wp230.pdf> Washington DC, 1998. Both of Johnson, 2006. A Child’s Day:(SIPP Quality Profile), and
2003 (Selected Indicators of Child<www.sipp.census.gov/sipp these papers are also on theWell-Being). Current Population/usrguide/sipp2001.pdf> Internet within the “Population—Reports, P70-109. U.S. Census(SIPP User’s Guide). Working Paper,” section underBureau, Washington, DC.“Subjects A to Z.”
U.S. Census Bureau 21
U.S. Department of CommerceFIRST-CLASS MAILEconomics and Statistics Administration
POSTAGE & FEES PAIDU.S. CENSUS BUREAU U.S. Census BureauWashington, DC 20233 Permit No. G-58
