Download & Other Tools
Download & Other Tools
- Definition: Housing situation among public school students in grades 7, 9, 11, and non-traditional programs, by sexual orientation (e.g., in 2017-2019, an estimated 4.5% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students in grades 7, 9, 11, and non-traditional programs in California lived in multi-family homes).
- Data Source: WestEd, California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) & Biennial State CHKS. California Dept. of Education (Aug. 2020).
- Footnote: Years presented comprise two school years (e.g., 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years are shown as 2017-2019). County- and state-level data are weighted estimates; school district-level data are unweighted. Students in non-traditional programs are those enrolled in community day schools or continuation education. Permanent, transitional, and temporary living arrangements not captured in other categories—including shelters, campgrounds, and cars—are classified as 'other' housing situations. Use caution when comparing data for gay/lesbian/bisexual and straight groups across time periods, as the wording of the sexual orientation question changed in 2017-2019. The notation S refers to (a) data for school districts that have been suppressed because there were fewer than 10 respondents in that group, and (b) data for counties that have been suppressed because the sample was too small to be representative. N/A means that data are not available.
Learn More About Family Structure
- Measures of Family Structure on Kidsdata.org
-
On kidsdata.org, measures of children's family and household structure come from the American Community Survey and Current Population Survey. Depending on the measure, data are provided as one-, two-, and/or five-year estimates for the nation, state, counties, cities, school districts, and/or legislative districts. The following indicators are available:
- Households with children ages 0-17
- Children living with parents or other relatives overall and by race/ethnicity
- Children in cohabitating couple households
- Children in same-sex couple households
- Children in the care of grandparents
In addition, kidsdata.org's measures of youth housing situation present characteristics of where and with whom students in grades 7, 9, 11, and non-traditional programs live. These estimates come from the California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) and are based on youth self-reports by grade level, gender, level of school connectedness,* parent education level, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation.*Levels of school connectedness are based on a scale created from responses to five questions about feeling safe, close to people, and a part of school, being happy at school, and about teachers treating students fairly.
State-level CHKS estimates, although derived from the Biennial State CHKS, may differ from data published in Biennial State CHKS reports due to differences in grade-level classification of students in continuation high schools. -
- Family Structure
-
- Households with and without Children
- Living Arrangement for Children, by Presence of Parents
- Living Arrangement for Children, by Presence of Parents and Race/Ethnicity (California & U.S. Only)
- Children in Cohabitating Couple Households
- Children in Same-Sex Couple Households
- Children in the Care of Grandparents
- Youth Housing Situation, by Grade Level
- Homelessness
- Childhood Adversity and Resilience
-
- Children with Adverse Experiences (Parent Reported), by Number (CA & U.S. Only)
- Children with Adverse Experiences (Parent Reported), by Type (CA & U.S. Only)
- Children with Two or More Adverse Experiences (Parent Reported), by Race/Ethnicity (CA & U.S. Only)
- Prevalence of Childhood Hardships (Maternal Retrospective)
- Parental Divorce or Separation (Maternal Retrospective)
- Moved Due to Problems Paying Rent or Mortgage (Maternal Retrospective)
- Foster Care Placement (Maternal Retrospective)
- Prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences (Adult Retrospective; CA Only)
- Housing Affordability and Resources
- Foster Care
- Why This Topic Is Important
-
Child well being is influenced strongly by the family environment and the presence of caring adults (1, 2). Children can thrive in any type of family—e.g., in the care of grandparents, single parents, same-sex parents, etc.—more important than family structure are factors related to family stability and strong, secure relationships with primary caregivers (1, 2, 3, 4). Research shows that unstable home environments and parental relationships can adversely affect children's health and functioning (1, 2, 5). Financial stability is important, too, and is linked to family structure (2). For example, single parents are more likely than married or cohabitating parents to experience financial difficulty, housing instability, and food insecurity (2, 4). Financial hardship can cause family stress and hinder a family's ability to provide the environment and experiences a child needs for optimal cognitive, emotional, and physical development (2, 6).
Other factors related to children's home environments can put them at risk for negative health outcomes. For example, youth living in multi-family (overcrowded) homes, in hotels/motels, or with friends may be homeless or at risk of homelessness. Poverty and housing insecurity can impact young people's development and well-being throughout life (2, 6). Additionally, youth living in foster care or group homes are a particularly vulnerable population, facing increased risks for emotional, physical, and behavioral health problems (2).For more information, see kidsdata.org’s Research & Links section.
Sources for this narrative:
1. Garner, A., et al. (2021). Preventing childhood toxic stress: Partnering with families and communities to promote relational health. Pediatrics, 148(2), e2021052582. Retrieved from: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/148/2/e2021052582/179805/Preventing-Childhood-Toxic-Stress-Partnering-With
2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Vibrant and healthy kids: Aligning science, practice, and policy to advance health equity. National Academies Press. Retrieved from: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25466/vibrant-and-healthy-kids-aligning-science-practice-and-policy-to
3. Quintigliano, M., et al. (2022). Adolescent development and the parent-adolescent relationship in diverse family forms created by assisted reproduction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(24), 16758. Retrieved from: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/24/16758
4. Golombok, S., et al. (2021). Single mothers by choice: Parenting and child adjustment in middle childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(2), 192-202. Retrieved from: https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2020-69295-001.html
5. Coe, J. L., et al. (2020). Understanding the nature of associations between family instability, unsupportive parenting, and children's externalizing symptoms. Development and Psychopathology, 32(1), 257-269. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6687571
6. American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Community Pediatrics. (2021). Poverty and child health in the United States. Pediatrics, 137(4), e20160339. Retrieved from: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/137/4/e20160339/81482/Poverty-and-Child-Health-in-the-United-States - How Children Are Faring
-
The share of California households with children ages 0-17 was 34% in 2016-2020, down from 38% a decade earlier in 2006-2010. State estimates over this period followed national trends but were consistently higher than U.S. figures. In 2016-2020, 9% of California children in households lived with unmarried couples (of the same or opposite sex), 0.5% lived with same-sex couples (married or unmarried), and 3% lived with grandparents. Across counties with data, estimates of children in cohabitating couple households ranged from 4% to 15%, children in same-sex couple households from 0.2% to 1.1%, and children in the care of grandparents from 1% to 10%.
Statewide, 64% of children in households lived with two parents in 2018, 24% lived with their mother only, 8% with their father only, and 4% with non-parent relatives. Like other measures of family structure, these estimates vary widely by region and demographic group. For example, the percentage of children living with two parents ranged from 54% (Mendocino) to 77% (Placer) across California counties with data for 2014-2018, and, at the state and national level, from fewer than 45% (African American/black) to more than 80% (Asian/Pacific Islander) among racial/ethnic groups with data for 2018-2019.
According to a survey of California youth, more than 85% of students in grades 7, 9, and 11 lived in a home with one or more parents or guardians in 2017-2019. During the same period, fewer than 1 in 15 lived in a home with more than one family, and fewer than 1 in 40 lived in the home of another relative. Students in non-traditional programs, those with low levels of school connectedness, and those whose parents did not finish high school are less likely to live in a parent's or guardian's home than their peers in other groups. - Policy Implications
-
Families and caregivers provide an essential safety net for children and a foundation for their growth and development. Public policy can help support and reinforce that foundation for the good of families and society at large. While children can thrive in any type of family structure, stable and nurturing family environments and relationships are critical for optimal child development (1, 2). Financial and housing security also are important, as children and youth who experience hardship or instability are at risk for adverse health outcomes over their life course (2, 3).
Family types have become increasingly diverse in recent decades, and research indicates that some families may need more support than others (2). Single-parent families, for example, are more likely to live in poverty than cohabiting- or married-parent families (2). In addition, non-parental caregivers, such as grandparents, may need information, financial and emotional support, and authority to provide for children in their care (4). Further, families headed by same-sex parents may face challenges with social stigma and discrimination (2, 5, 6).
Policy options that could support vulnerable families and increase their stability include:- Strengthening the financial safety net for low-income families, in tandem with other policies that reduce stress and promote stable environments for children, e.g., through adequate cash and food assistance, paid family leave, and child care supports (2, 7, 8)
- Ensuring that evidence-based, trauma-informed family resources and supports are in place, such as skill-based parent training, home visiting, and mental health services (2, 9)
- Advancing effective, comprehensive fatherhood programs tailored to male caregivers’ unique needs and roles in children's lives; these programs should address—beyond parenting skills, employment, and child support issues—broader social and cultural contexts of fatherhood (2)
- Supporting improved access to family planning services and long-acting reversible contraception, along with other policies to reduce unintended pregnancies, which are associated with less stable families (2, 8)
- Ensuring that policies and programs are in place to boost parents’ educational attainment—a key predictor of family stability and positive child outcomes—particularly among low-income parents and young mothers (2)
- Advancing policies and strategies to ensure that foster parents and kinship caregivers (e.g., grandparents) have the full range of support needed to provide for children, meet their education and health needs, and, if possible, avoid placement in non-relative foster care (4, 10)
- Eliminating policies that discriminate against and stigmatize LGBTQ populations and contribute to anti-gay attitudes that negatively affect same-sex parents, their children, and LGBTQ youth (5, 6, 10)
- Supporting policies, programs, and services to ensure stable housing for vulnerable youth, including youth in the foster care or juvenile justice systems, LGBTQ youth, and those who are disconnected from school and work (10)
- Promoting family residential stability through cross-sector and local-state collaboration to increase investments in affordable permanent housing, address restrictive zoning and planning regulations, and provide rental assistance and legal aid to families who are experiencing housing insecurity or are at risk for homelessness (7, 11)
For more information, see kidsdata.org’s Research & Links section. Also see policy implications for kidsdata.org's Demographics, Foster Care, and Family Economics topics.
Sources for this narrative:
1. Garner, A., et al. (2021). Preventing childhood toxic stress: Partnering with families and communities to promote relational health. Pediatrics, 148(2), e2021052582. Retrieved from: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/148/2/e2021052582/179805/Preventing-Childhood-Toxic-Stress-Partnering-With
2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Vibrant and healthy kids: Aligning science, practice, and policy to advance health equity. National Academies Press. Retrieved from: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25466/vibrant-and-healthy-kids-aligning-science-practice-and-policy-to
3. American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Community Pediatrics. (2021). Poverty and child health in the United States. Pediatrics, 137(4), e20160339. Retrieved from: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/137/4/e20160339/81482/Poverty-and-Child-Health-in-the-United-States
4. Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2022). Kinship care and the child welfare system. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from: https://www.childwelfare.gov/resources/kinship-care-and-child-welfare-system
5. Meyer, I. H. (2019). Experiences of discrimination among lesbian, gay and bisexual people in the U.S. Williams Institute. Retrieved from: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgb-discrimination-experiences
6. Perrin, E. C., et al. (2019). Barriers and stigma experienced by gay fathers and their children. Pediatrics, 143(2), e20180683. Retrieved from: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/143/2/e20180683/37346/Barriers-and-Stigma-Experienced-by-Gay-Fathers-and
7. California Budget and Policy Center. (2023). The 2023-24 California state budget explained. Retrieved from: https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/state-budget-explained-california
8. Reeves, R. V., & Pulliam, C. (2020). Middle class marriage is declining, and likely deepening inequality. Brookings Institution. Retrieved from: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/middle-class-marriage-is-declining-and-likely-deepening-inequality
9. Bhushan, D., et al. (2020). Roadmap for resilience: The California Surgeon General's report on adverse childhood experiences, toxic stress, and health. Office of the California Surgeon General. Retrieved from: https://osg.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/266/2022/05/Roadmap-For-Resilience_CA-Surgeon-Generals-Report-on-ACEs-Toxic-Stress-and-Health_12092020.pdf
10. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). The promise of adolescence: Realizing opportunity for all youth. National Academies Press. Retrieved from: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25388/the-promise-of-adolescence-realizing-opportunity-for-all-youth
11. Johnson, H., et al. (2020). California's future: Housing. Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from: https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-future-housing - Research & Links
-
- Websites with Related Information
-
- California Coalition for Youth
- California Dept. of Social Services: Foster Care
- Casey Family Programs
- Child Trends: Families
- Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE)
- Council on Contemporary Families. University of Texas at Austin.
- Grandfamilies.org. American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, et al.
- Housing Matters. Urban Institute.
- National Center for Family and Marriage Research. Bowling Green State University.
- Pew Research Center: Household Structure and Family Roles
- Williams Institute. UCLA School of Law.
- Key Reports and Research
-
- Barriers and Stigma Experienced by Gay Fathers and Their Children. (2019). Pediatrics. Perrin, E. C., et al.
- Children Living Apart from Their Parents: Highlights from the National Survey of Children in Nonparental Care. (2016). U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Radel, L., et al.
- Cohabiting Parents Differ from Married Ones in Three Big Ways. (2017). Brookings Institution. Reeves, R. V., & Krause, E.
- Family Structure Experiences and Child Socioemotional Development During the First Nine Years of Life: Examining Heterogeneity by Family Structure at Birth. (2017). Demography. Bzostek, S. H., & Berger, L. M.
- Health and Well-Being of Children in Kinship Care: Findings from the National Survey of Children in Nonparental Care. (2017). Child Welfare. Bramlett, M. D., et al.
- How Many Same-Sex Couples in the U.S. Are Raising Children? (2018). Williams Institute. Goldberg, S. K., & Conron, K. J.
- Keeping Families Together: Why All Americans Should Care About What Happens to Unauthorized Immigrants. (2017). Center for American Progress. Mathema, S.
- Living Arrangements of Children: 2019. (2022). U.S. Census Bureau. Anderson, L. R., et al.
- Middle Class Marriage is Declining, and Likely Deepening Inequality. (2020). Brookings Institution. Reeves, R. V., & Pulliam, C.
- Same-Sex and Different-Sex Parent Households and Child Health Outcomes: Findings from the National Survey of Children's Health. (2016). Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. Bos, H. M. W., et al.
- Single Mothers by Choice: Parenting and Child Adjustment in Middle Childhood. (2021). Journal of Family Psychology. Golombok, S., et al.
- State of Grandfamilies in America Annual Reports. Generations United.
- The Changing Profile of Unmarried Parents. (2018). Pew Research Center. Livingston, G.
- The Demography of Families: A Review of Patterns and Change. (2020). Journal of Marriage and Family. Smock, P. J., & Schwartz, C. R.
- What Does the Scholarly Research Say About the Well-Being of Children with Gay or Lesbian Parents? Cornell University Center for the Study of Inequality.
- County/Regional Reports
-
- Community Health Profiles. Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Health.
- Important Facts About Kern’s Children. Kern County Network for Children.
- San Mateo County All Together Better. San Mateo County Health.
- Santa Monica Youth Wellbeing Report Card. Santa Monica Cradle to Career.
- More Data Sources For Family Structure
-
- 2024 KIDS COUNT Data Book: State Trends in Child Well-Being. Annie E. Casey Foundation.
- California Health Interview Survey. UCLA Center for Health Policy Research.
- California Strong Start Index. First 5 Association of California & Children’s Data Network.
- Childstats.gov. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics.
- Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Princeton University & Columbia University.
- National Survey of Children in Nonparental Care. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
- U.S. Census Bureau: Families and Living Arrangements
Receive Kidsdata News
New and notable data findings delivered regularly to your inbox.