Fertility of American Women: June 2008, Current Population Reports P20-563

Attachment B3

Fertility of American Women: 2008

Issued November 2010

Population Characteristics
P20-563

This report describes the fertility patterns of American women. It is the second
report in this series, which incorporates
fertility data collected in the June Supplement to the Current Population Survey
(CPS)1 and the American Community
Survey (ACS). The large sample size of the
ACS (3 million households) makes it possible to analyze fertility characteristics on
a state-by-state basis.2
A historical perspective showing the
cumulative fertility experience of women
to date is first presented based on data
collected in the June 2008 Supplement to
the CPS. CPS fertility data are collected
every 2 years from two survey questions asked of women 15 to 44 years old:
(1) “How many children have you ever
had?” and (2) “What is the date of birth
of your last child?” Annual fertility rates
derived from the CPS refer to the number
of women who had a birth between July
2007 and June 2008 per 1,000 women.
The current fertility experiences of women
with a birth in the last year are shown
at the national and state levels based on
data collected from the 2008 ACS. The
ACS fertility data are from a single survey
question asked of women 15 to 50 years
The data in this report are from the Fertility
Supplement to the June 2008 Current Population
­Survey (CPS) and the American Community Survey
(ACS) 2008. The population represented by the CPS
(the population universe) is the civilian noninstitutionalized population living in the United States. The CPS
sections of the report focus on the female population between the ages of 15 and 44. The population
represented by the ACS is the household and group
quarters population living in the United States or
Puerto Rico. The ACS sections of the report focus on
the female population 15 to 50 years old.
2
For more details on the ACS including its sample
size and questions, see .
1

old: “Has this person given birth to any
children in the past 12 months?”
This report provides estimates of cumulative fertility, completed fertility, and
current fertility by citizenship and
employment status, as well as geographic
differences in fertility. This report also
examines new topics such as delayed
fertility patterns for women with higher
education and fertility rates of Hispanic
women by nativity status. The CPS also
collected data on cohabitation with a
new question in 2008, which allows us to
show fertility patterns by women in both
marital and cohabitational living
arrangements.
Some highlights of the report are:
There were 425,000 mothers with a birth
last year living in cohabitational relationships. They made up 28 percent of births
to women who were not married, who
were separated, or married but with an
absent spouse.
The proportion of mothers with a
recent birth who were in the labor force
increased from 57 percent in 2006 to
61 percent in 2008.
One-in-four mothers with a recent birth
were in poverty in 2008. However, only
6 percent of new mothers received public
assistance.
One quarter of all births to noncitizens
were to women who lived in California
(164,000).
Montana, West Virginia, and the southern
tier of the states from Arizona to South
Carolina all had higher than average

USCENSUSBUREAU
Helping You Make Informed Decisions

U.S. Department of Commerce
Economics and Statistics Administration
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Current
Population
Reports
By
Jane Lawler Dye

percentages of women living in
poverty that had a birth in the last
year.
Among states with higher than
average levels of new mothers
who were unemployed, the highest
proportions were in Alabama (10
percent) and Michigan (9 percent),
along with several states in the
southeast United States.
New Hampshire (48 percent),
­Massachusetts and Connecticut
(42 percent), and New Jersey and
Maryland (39 percent) had higher
than average proportions of mothers with a birth in the last year who
had a bachelor’s degree.
Cumulative Fertility
The first section of this report discusses data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) that illustrates
the childbearing patterns of women
over time and their cumulative fertility up to the time of the survey.
Table 1 shows that in June 2008
there were 61.7 million women in
the principal childbearing ages of
15 to 44, and 46 percent of them
were childless.3 Levels of childlessness ranged from 94 percent
for teenagers 15 to 19 years old
to 18 percent among women 40
to 44 years old. Childlessness has
been increasing steadily since 1976
when 35 percent of women in the
childbearing ages were childless.4
Additionally in June 2008, 17
3
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 actual
values because of sampling variability or
other factors. As a result, apparent differences between the estimates for two or more
groups may not be statistically significant.
All comparative statements have undergone
statistical testing and are significant at the
90 percent confidence level unless otherwise
noted.
4
See Supplemental Table 1 at
. Data for 1976 were only
collected for women 18 to 44 years old.

2

percent of women aged 15 to 44
had one child, 21 percent had two,
11 percent had three, 4 percent
had four, and 2 percent had five or
more children. Hispanic mothers
were more likely to have had one
or more children (62 percent) compared with Black alone (59 percent),
or White alone, non-Hispanic (52
percent), and Asian alone women
(54 percent).5
Women near the end of their childbearing years, 40 to 44 years old
as of June 2008, had an average of
1.9 children. In 1976, the average
for women in the same age group
was 3.1 children.6 This shift in the
average number of children ever
born reflects the decline in the
number of women having higher
order births (three or more children) over the past 3 decades from
5
The proportion of White alone, nonHispanic mothers with one or more children
was not statistically different than Asian alone
mothers.
Federal surveys now give respondents
the option of reporting more than one race.
Therefore, two basic ways of defining a
race group are possible. A group such as
Asian may be defined as those who reported
Asian and no other race (the race-alone
or single-race concept) or as those who
reported Asian regardless of whether they
also reported another race (the race-aloneor-in-combination concept). The body of this
report (text, figures, and tables) shows data
using the first approach (race alone). Use of
the single-race population does not imply
that it is the preferred method of presenting
or analyzing data. The Census Bureau uses
a variety of approaches. All comparative
statements regarding race in the text are
based on the race-alone concept and, unless
noted to the contrary, are also true in terms
of statistical significance for the race aloneor-in-combination concept. In this report, the
term “non-Hispanic White” refers to people
who are not Hispanic and who reported White
and no other race. The Census Bureau uses
non-Hispanic Whites as the comparison group
for other race groups and Hispanics. Because
Hispanics may be any race, data in this report
for Hispanics overlap with data for racial
groups. Based on the June 2008 CPS, being
Hispanic was reported by 19.5 percent of
White women 15 to 44 who reported only one
race, 4.1 percent of Black women, 0.5 percent
of Asian women, and 20.4 percent of women
15 to 44 of another race who reported only
one race.
6
See Supplemental Table 2 at
.

59 percent in 1976 to 28 percent in
2008 and also the increase in the
proportion of women not having
any births (from 10 percent in 1976
to 18 percent in 2008).
Table 2 shows that in June 2008,
Hispanic women and Black women
aged 40 to 44 had replacement
level fertility (2.1 births per
woman), while non-Hispanic White
and Asian women 40 to 44 years
old had fertility levels below the
replacement level (1.8 births per
woman).7
The CPS asks respondents how
many children they have ever
had, which allows us to study
the completed fertility of women
near the end of their childbearing years. Table 2 shows data on
lifetime fertility of women aged 40
to 44 by selected characteristics.
Childbearing levels were higher for
foreign-born women than for native
women (2.1 births and 1.8 births,
respectively). In June 2008, women
with a graduate or professional
degree were ending their childbearing years with an average of 1.6
births, almost one child fewer than
women who were not high school
graduates (2.4 births). In addition,
22 percent of post-college graduates who were 40 to 44 years old
were childless, compared with 15
percent of women that age who did
not graduate high school.
In addition to providing a picture
of completed fertility levels,
Table 2 shows demographic, social,
and economic factors related to
whether women aged 40 to 44 had
never married. In June 2008, 1-in-7
women in this age group were
never married. Some groups with
7
The fertility levels of non-Hispanic White
40 to 44 year old women were not statistically different than the fertility levels of Asian
women in this age group. Further, Hispanic
and Black fertility levels for this age group
were not statistically different.

U.S. Census Bureau

Table 1.

Children Ever Born Per 1,000 Women 15 to 44 Years Old by Age, Race, and Hispanic
Origin: June 2008
(Numbers in thousands. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/apsd
/techdoc/cps/cpsjun08.pdf)

Characteristic

AGE
     Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 to 19 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20 to 24 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25 to 29 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30 to 34 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35 to 39 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40 to 44 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

First
Percent distribution of women by number of children ever born
Chilbirth
dren
in the
ever
last 12
born
months
Five or
per
per
Nummore
1,000 Margin
1,000
One
Two
Three
Four
ber of
Total
None
child children children children children
women women of error1 women
61,692
10,405
10,156
10,362
9,618
10,403
10,748

1,164
90
460
1,027
1,601
1,898
1,901

12
5
14
25
38
42
42

25.3
23.1
46.8
42.7
27.6
9.5
3.5

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

45.7
93.7
70.6
46.2
26.8
19.4
17.8

17.0
4.4
17.4
22.2
21.4
18.4
18.4

21.1
1.4
8.5
19.5
28.5
32.2
36.2

10.6
0.4
2.5
8.3
15.4
18.7
17.8

3.9
0.1
0.7
2.9
5.6
7.7
6.1

1.8
–
0.2
0.9
2.3
3.6
3.7

     White alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 to 19 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20 to 24 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25 to 29 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30 to 34 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35 to 39 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40 to 44 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47,616
7,924
7,840
7,977
7,362
8,050
8,462

1,138
84
421
975
1,569
1,876
1,867

13
5
14
27
43
48
46

24.8
18.7
45.5
43.6
30.4
9.3
3.7

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

46.4
94.4
72.6
48.0
27.0
19.5
18.0

16.3
3.6
16.2
21.8
21.2
17.5
17.8

21.8
1.5
8.4
19.2
29.6
33.9
37.5

10.4
0.4
2.2
7.7
15.1
18.5
17.9

3.7
0.1
0.5
2.9
5.3
7.6
5.8

1.4
–
0.1
0.5
1.8
3.0
3.0

     White alone, non-Hispanic. .
15 to 19 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20 to 24 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25 to 29 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30 to 34 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35 to 39 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40 to 44 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37,846
6,206
6,266
6,251
5,655
6,438
7,029

1,065
66
337
857
1,459
1,786
1,806

14
5
14
28
46
51
49

24.4
15.6
42.1
45.6
33.4
10.1
3.6

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

48.5
95.5
77.3
52.8
29.6
21.1
17.9

16.0
2.8
14.1
21.0
21.8
18.1
18.5

21.9
1.3
6.8
17.1
29.4
34.9
39.6

9.4
0.2
1.4
6.6
13.3
16.9
16.9

3.1
0.1
0.5
2.0
4.5
6.6
4.8

1.1
–
–
0.5
1.3
2.4
2.3

     Black alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 to 19 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20 to 24 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25 to 29 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30 to 34 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35 to 39 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40 to 44 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8,940
1,663
1,529
1,511
1,350
1,426
1,461

1,341
122
714
1,398
1,886
2,093
2,088

34
14
49
85
117
125
123

28.9
46.4
65.2
30.4
12.6
10.0
2.8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

41.4
90.2
56.5
32.6
23.9
17.7
18.0

19.9
8.2
25.9
25.1
19.4
20.9
21.3

17.6
1.0
10.8
23.0
25.2
22.3
26.5

12.5
0.4
3.7
13.1
18.5
22.7
19.3

5.0
0.2
2.3
3.2
7.9
9.8
7.5

3.7
–
0.7
2.9
5.1
6.6
7.4

     Asian alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 to 19 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20 to 24 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25 to 29 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30 to 34 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35 to 39 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40 to 44 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3,276
403
457
542
629
644
601

1,054
66
230
579
1,315
1,658
1,849

45
20
40
69
125
151
172

24.5
9.4
21.6
60.3
38.3
13.1
2.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

46.1
95.7
86.6
63.3
28.4
20.3
12.6

19.4
2.0
7.3
19.5
31.1
24.3
22.9

23.2
2.3
2.5
14.4
26.7
36.8
42.4

7.1
–
3.6
1.6
8.9
11.5
13.2

3.1
–
–
1.1
4.0
4.4
7.2

1.0
–
–
0.1
0.8
2.8
1.7

     Hispanic (any race). . . . . . . .
15 to 19 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20 to 24 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25 to 29 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30 to 34 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35 to 39 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40 to 44 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10,586
1,864
1,728
1,866
1,841
1,739
1,549

1,422
161
742
1,383
1,956
2,246
2,188

33
16
47
76
103
120
124

26.1
29.8
58.1
36.1
19.6
6.8
3.7

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

38.1
89.5
54.4
30.9
18.4
12.9
18.9

17.5
6.7
24.7
25.2
19.1
15.7
13.7

21.4
2.5
14.8
25.7
29.3
29.3
27.9

14.2
1.1
5.0
11.9
21.0
25.3
22.1

6.0
0.2
0.5
5.7
8.5
11.3
10.4

2.8
0.1
0.6
0.7
3.7
5.5
7.1

RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN

– Represents or rounds to zero.
1

This number, when added to or subtracted from the estimate, represents the 90 percent confidence interval around the estimate.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, June 2008.

U.S. Census Bureau

3

Table 2.

Completed Fertility for Women 40 to 44 Years Old by Selected Characteristics: June 2008
(Numbers in thousands. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/apsd
/techdoc/cps/cpsjun08.pdf)
Total

Percent
never married

Percent
childless

Children ever born
per 1,000 women

     Total women 40 to 44 . . . . . . . .

10,748

13.5

17.8

1,901

RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN
White alone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White alone, non-Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . .
Black alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Asian alone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other race. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hispanic (any race). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8,462
7,029
1,461
601
224
1,549

10.8
10.1
28.9
8.1
28.1
15.4

18.0
17.9
18.0
12.6
21.2
18.9

1,867
1,806
2,088
1,849
2,118
2,188

NATIVITY AND CITIZENSHIP
Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Foreign born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  Naturalized citizen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  Not a citizen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8,767
1,981
936
1,045

14.0
11.0
9.7
12.1

18.6
13.9
13.6
14.2

1,849
2,131
2,119
2,142

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Not a high school graduate. . . . . . . . . . . .
High school, 4 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
College, 1 or more years . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Some college, no degree. . . . . . . . . . .
Associate’s degree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bachelor’s degree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Graduate or professional degree . . . . .

1,095
3,132
6,521
1,924
1,183
2,308
1,105

21.2
14.0
11.9
13.3
9.4
13.1
9.8

15.0
14.7
19.7
16.7
17.0
22.8
21.5

2,452
1,970
1,776
1,870
1,921
1,704
1,606

LABOR FORCE STATUS
In labor force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Employed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Not in labor force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8,314
7,986
328
2,434

13.5
13.3
17.7
13.5

18.5
18.6
16.6
15.2

1,843
1,831
2,130
2,099

ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME1
Under $20,000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$20,000 to $29,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$30,000 to $49,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$50,000 to $74,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$75,000 to $99,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$100,000 and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Not ascertained. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,008
1,143
1,134
1,843
1,413
2,326
1,882

28.8
20.7
15.8
12.7
6.5
4.7
16.4

16.9
19.9
20.8
18.5
16.9
14.8
18.8

2,207
2,008
1,798
1,830
1,920
1,836
1,869

REGION OF RESIDENCE2
Northeast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Midwest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
South. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2,096
2,179
3,945
2,528

14.1
12.9
13.1
14.1

17.9
17.3
17.1
19.1

1,799
1,973
1,900
1,926

Characteristic

1
Family income is asked of all respondents regardless of living arrangements. For people living alone, the income data are for these individuals. For other
people living in nonfamily households (i.e., households with no members who are related to the householder), it is presumed that the respondent listed only his or
her own income.
2
Region is defined as the four groupings of states (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West) established by the Census Bureau in 1942 for the presentation of
census data. Northeast Region: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. South
Region: Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas,
Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. Midwest Region: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan,
Indiana, and Ohio. West Region: Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, and Hawaii.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, June 2008.

4

U.S. Census Bureau

above average proportions never
being married were Black women
(29 percent), women who had less
than a high school education (21
percent), women who had a family
income of less than $20,000 (29
percent), and women who had
an income between $20,000 and
$29,999 (21 percent). Even though
these populations all have an above
average proportion who were never
married, they all have above average rates of children ever born.
Groups that had 10 percent or
lower proportions of women 40
to 44 years old and never married
included: Asian women, women
with a graduate or professional
degree or an associate’s degree,
women with annual family incomes
of $75,000 or more, and those foreign born women who had become
naturalized citizens.

NATIONAL LEVEL
ESTIMATES
Current Fertility
Current fertility rates are based on
the number of women reporting
a birth in the previous 12 months
per 1,000 women in the specified
group and provide a picture of
recent childbearing experiences
among different populations.
According to the American
Community Survey (ACS), in 2008
there were 4.4 million women
between the ages of 15 and 50
who had a birth in the past 12
months (Table 3).8 The fertility
levels measured by the ACS from
2000 to 2008 ranged from an
overall high of 59 births per 1,000
women aged 15 to 50 in 2000 to
8
The preliminary number of births in
calendar year 2008 from the National Center
for Health Statistics is 4.3 million. Hamilton,
B.E., J.A. Martin, S.J. Ventura, Births: Preliminary data for 2008, National Vital Statistics
Reports, Vol. 58, No. 16, National Center for
Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD, 2010.

U.S. Census Bureau

the lowest level of 54 births per
1,000 in 2003.9 The fertility rate
in 2008 was 58 births per 1,000
women aged 15 to 50.
Standardizing for differences in the
number of women in different age
groups, the total fertility rate for
women in 2008 was 2,182 births
per 1,000 women aged 15 to 50.
This number indicates the projected number of births per 1,000
women at the end of their childbearing years if they were to have
children throughout their lifetime at
the rates prevailing in 2008.10
The teen fertility rate for 2008
was 29 births per 1,000 women
aged 15 to 19, significantly lower
than the fertility rate in 2000 of
41 births per 1,000 women but up
from 26 per 1,000 in 2006.11, 12 In
2008, the peak childbearing age
for women was 25 to 29 years old
with a rate of 122 births per 1,000
women.
The first birth is an important indicator of when and under what circumstances women tend to begin
childbearing. The average age of
first birth has increased 3.6 years
between 1970 and 2006.13 In many
9
U.S. Census Bureau, American
­ ommunity Survey, American FactFinder
C
2002–2008 Data Profiles, and Census 2000
Supplementary Survey (C2SS) Detailed Tables.
10
This rate is computed from Table 3 by
summing the births in the last year per 1,000
women in age groups 15 to 19 through 45
to 50 and multiplying that summation by 5
representing the number of years in each age
group, with the exception of the final age
group which contains 6 years.
11
Ibid.
12
A recent report from the National Center
for Health Statistics also shows an increase
in the teen birth rate between 2006 and
2007. Hamilton, B.E., J.A. Martin, S.J. Ventura,
Births: Preliminary data for 2007, National
Vital Statistics Reports, Web release, Vol. 58,
No. 16, National Center for Health Statistics,
Hyattsville, MD, released March 18, 2009.
13
Mathews, T.J. and B.E. Hamilton,
“Delayed Childbearing: More Women Are
­Having Their First Child Later in Life,” NCHS
Data Brief, No. 21, National Center for Health
Statistics, Hyattsville, MD, August 2009.

cases, women delay childbearing
because they want to finish their
education or develop their career.14
For this measure, the CPS data
for 2008 can be used to measure
differences in first birth rates (the
ACS does not collect information
on birth order). In June 2008, the
highest levels of first birth rates
(shown in Table 1) were for women
in the 20 to 24 year age group (47
first births per 1,000 women), followed closely by the 25 to 29 year
age group (43 first births per 1,000
women). Neither the 20- to 24-yearolds nor the 25- to 29-year-olds
recorded levels of fertility different
from those in 2000. First births
among 30 to 34 and 35 to 39 year
old women in 2008 were also not
different from their 2000 levels of
28 births per 1,000 and 10 births
per 1,000, respectively. Only for
teenagers did the first birth rate
decline from 39 births per 1,000
women in 2000 to 23 births per
1,000 women in June 2008.15
Marital Status and
Cohabitation
The birth rate for unmarried
women continued to climb through
the last decade.16 One contributing factor is that many people are
choosing to live together either
as a trial marriage or as a precursor for marriage—even after the
birth of a child—and postpone
marriage until they are more

14
Mathews, T.J. and B.E. Hamilton, “Mean
Age of Mother, 1970–2000,” National Vital
Statistics Reports, Vol. 51, No. 1, National
Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD,
2002.
15
Bachu, A. and M. O’Connell, “Fertility
of American Women: June 2000,” Current
Population Reports, P20-543RV, U.S. Census
Bureau, Washington, DC, 2001.
16
Ventura, S.J., “Changing Patterns of
Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States,”
NCHS Data Brief, No. 18, National Center for
Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD, May 2009.

5

Table 3.

Women Who Had a Birth in the Last 12 Months Per 1,000 Women 15 to 50 Years Old by
Selected Characteristics: 2008
(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data
_documentation/Accuracy/accuracy2008.pdf)
Women who had a birth in the last 12 months
Number of women
Characteristic

Total

Births per 1,000
women

Percent distribution

Estimate

Margin of
error1

Estimate

Margin of
error1

Estimate

Margin of
error1

Estimate

Margin of
error1

     Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

75,960,920

33,035

4,436,577

37,287

100.0

–

58.4

0.5

AGE
15 to 19 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20 to 24 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25 to 29 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30 to 34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35 to 39 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40 to 44 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45 to 50 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10,671,352
10,199,416
10,213,106
9,574,861
10,452,497
10,865,786
13,983,902

32,331
27,600
17,973
15,734
40,243
41,209
25,715

304,265
972,851
1,243,596
1,028,208
602,342
194,107
91,208

9,439
17,302
18,936
16,657
12,221
7,092
4,193

6.9
21.9
28.0
23.2
13.6
4.4
2.1

0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1

28.5
95.4
121.8
107.4
57.6
17.9
6.5

0.9
1.7
1.9
1.7
1.1
0.7
0.3

MARITAL STATUS
Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widowed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Divorced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Separated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Never married. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34,260,808
674,977
7,187,460
2,164,981
31,672,694

102,123
14,629
47,950
31,299
80,013

2,812,377
14,615
187,968
103,106
1,318,511

28,727
1,986
8,519
5,363
22,474

63.4
0.3
4.2
2.3
29.7

0.4
–
0.2
0.1
0.4

82.1
21.7
26.2
47.6
41.6

0.8
2.9
1.2
2.5
0.7

NATIVITY AND CITIZENSHIP
Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Foreign born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  Naturalized citizen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  Not a citizen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64,247,198
11,713,722
4,392,936
7,320,786

52,990
48,519
35,371
43,387

3,541,265
895,312
240,921
654,391

32,647
16,165
9,036
14,325

79.8
20.2
5.4
14.7

0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3

55.1
76.4
54.8
89.4

0.5
1.4
2.0
1.9

41,378
25,754
25,223

3,068,096
2,484,227
645,389

32,622
28,788
13,428

69.2
56.0
14.5

0.4
0.4
0.3

55.7
52.1
61.4

0.6
0.6
1.3

11,536
13,199

48,330
242,703

3,326
8,029

1.1
5.5

0.1
0.2

72.9
62.6

5.0
2.1

4,417
33,112
24,224

8,303
326,593
97,163

1,512
9,901
4,983

0.2
7.4
2.2

–
0.2
0.1

65.6
80.1
61.8

11.9
2.3
3.0

RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN
White alone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55,129,675
  White alone, non-Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . 47,641,962
Black alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,515,312
American Indian or Alaska Native
  alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
662,866
Asian alone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3,875,103
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
  alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
126,619
Some other race alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4,078,509
Two or more races. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1,572,836
Hispanic (any race). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12,172,896

13,563

953,713

15,725

21.5

0.3

78.3

1.3

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Not a high school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . .
High school, 4 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Some college or associate’s degree . . . . . .
Bachelor’s degree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Graduate or professional degree. . . . . . . . .

14,207,085
17,621,227
25,101,898
13,262,168
5,768,542

61,452
77,897
74,602
58,271
39,034

789,023
1,065,040
1,372,449
803,443
406,622

16,414
18,602
19,962
16,820
9,307

17.8
24.0
30.9
18.1
9.2

0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2

55.5
60.4
54.7
60.6
70.5

1.1
1.1
0.8
1.2
1.5

54,041,337
50,254,468
3,786,869
19,875,290

64,973
68,312
31,622
63,170

2,723,547
2,447,573
275,974
1,701,261

29,278
27,340
9,928
21,999

61.6
55.3
6.2
38.4

0.4
0.4
0.2
0.4

50.4
48.7
72.9
85.6

0.5
0.5
2.6
1.1

LABOR FORCE2
In labor force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  Employed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  Unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Not in labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  See footnotes at end of table.

6

U.S. Census Bureau

Table 3.

Women Who Had a Birth in the Last 12 Months Per 1,000 Women 15 to 50 Years Old by
Selected Characteristics: 2008—Con.
(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data
_documentation/Accuracy/accuracy2008.pdf)
Women who had a birth in the last 12 months
Number of women
Characteristic

ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME
Less than $10,000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$10,000 to $14,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$15,000 to $24,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$25,000 to $34,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$35,000 to $49,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$50,000 to $74,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$75,000 to $99,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$100,000 to $149,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$150,000 to $199,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$200,000 and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
POVERTY STATUS3
Below 100 percent of poverty in the past
  12 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
100 percent to 199 percent of poverty in
  the past 12 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
200 percent or more above poverty in the
  past 12 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
Receiving public assistance . . . . . . . . . . . .
Not receiving public assistance. . . . . . . . . .

Total

Percent distribution

Births per 1,000
women

Estimate

Margin of
error1

Estimate

Margin of
error1

Estimate

Margin of
error1

Estimate

Margin of
error1

15,778,007
2,048,325
4,954,654
5,337,782
8,010,161
12,500,603
9,661,210
10,435,342
3,783,696
3,451,140

76,399
27,077
52,183
52,752
54,696
65,578
62,645
62,196
38,695
36,305

531,142
212,572
425,949
428,369
579,511
805,523
554,113
541,047
186,434
171,917

13,290
8,195
11,110
11,989
14,047
16,358
13,150
11,671
7,417
6,684

12.0
4.8
9.6
9.7
13.1
18.2
12.5
12.2
4.2
3.9

0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1

33.7
103.8
86.0
80.3
72.3
64.4
57.4
51.8
49.3
49.8

0.8
4.0
2.2
2.3
1.7
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.8
1.9

11,402,493

82,679

1,097,557

18,554

24.8

0.4

96.3

1.6

12,967,273

76,189

943,576

18,267

21.4

0.3

72.2

1.4

49,999,638

108,004

2,377,579

23,928

53.8

0.4

47.7

0.5

1,675,556
74,285,364

23,611
40,395

268,770
4,167,807

7,615
36,285

6.1
93.9

0.2
0.2

160.4
56.1

4.3
0.5

– Represents or rounds to zero.
1

This number, when added to or subtracted from the estimate, represents the 90 percent confidence interval around the estimate.

Labor force data is only shown for the population 16 years old and over for which labor force status is determined. Excluded are the 11,769 women 15 years
of age.
2

3

Data is only shown for women for whom poverty status is determined.

Note: Births per 1,000 shows the likelihood that a given group of women will have a birth.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008 (Table S1301 and special tabulations).

finanially secure.17 To estimate this
population, the June 2008 CPS has
available a direct question about
cohabitation that was first added to
the CPS in January 2007.18 Of the 4
million women 15 to 44 years old
who had a birth in the last year,
1.5 million (38 percent) were to
17
Cherlin, A., “The Deinstitutionalization
of American Marriage,” Journal of Marriage
and the Family, Vol. 66 (Nov. 2004), pp.
848–861. Edin, K., M.J. Kefala, and J.M. Reed,
“A Peek Inside the Black Box: What Marriage
Means for Poor Unmarried Parents,” Journal of
Marriage and the Family, Vol. 66 (Nov. 2004),
pp. 1007–1014.
18
See “NOTE: Improvements to data collection about families in CPS 2007”;
.

U.S. Census Bureau

women who were not married, who
were separated, or married but
with an absent spouse. Of those
1.5 million mothers, 425,000 (28
percent) were living with a cohabiting ­partner.19
Research has found a relationship
between educational attainment
and the likelihood of marriage,
which can influence the living
arrangements of mothers at the
19
These estimates are based on the
author’s tabulations and will not be found in
the tables provided. Of the 425,000 women
living with an unmarried partner, 78,000 were
included because of the additional question
in the survey.

time of their child’s birth.20 Figure
1 uses CPS data and shows the
living arrangements of women
with a birth in the last year by their
age and educational attainment.
For the age group under 30 years
old, the proportion of mothers
who are married, spouse present,
increases with increasing educational attainment. For example, the
proportion of mothers under age
30 who are married is 30 percent
for women with less than a high
20
Joshi, P., J.M. Quane, and A.J. Cherlin,
“Contemporary Work and Family Issues
­Affecting Marriage and Cohabitation Among
Low-Income Single Mothers,” Family
Relations, Vol. 58 (Dec. 2009), pp. 647–661.

7

school ­education compared with 82
percent for women with at least a
bachelor’s degree.
The data also indicate that for high
school graduates and those with
some college, cohabiting with an
unmarried partner is more likely
to occur among younger mothers.
These data present a static portrait
of mothers with newborns, and as
such, one may expect future transitions to different living arrangements as these women age and
potentially further their education
and get married.

Figure 1.

Proportion of Mothers 15 to 44 Years Old With a Birth
in the Last Year in Different Living Arrangements
by Educational Attainment and Age: June 2008
Married
spouse present

Based on ACS data in 2008, among
all women 15 to 50 years old
living in the United States with
a birth in the last year, approximately 895,000 (20 percent) were
born in another country (Table 3).
­Three-fourths of foreign-born mothers were not citizens of the United
States (15 percent of all women
with a birth in the last 12 months).
21
U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 National
­ opulation Projections, Washington DC,
P
Internet release August 14, 2008, see
.
22
Francisco, V., “Mothers without Citizenship: Asian Immigrant Families and the
Consequences of Welfare Reform,” ­Critical
­Sociology (Sage Publications, Ltd.), 35(6),
(2009), 899–902. Retrieved from Academic
Search Complete database.

8

Not living with a
spouse or partner

12.1
39.9

33.2

27.0

20.3

6.1

4.9

13.8

2.2

7.0
5.7

56.9
6.9

92.9

14.4

Nativity, Citizenship Status,
Race and Hispanic Origin
Population growth in the United
States is accomplished through
immigration and fertility. The
Hispanic population continues to
be the fastest-growing population
in the United States, through immigration and fertility.21 Furthermore,
citizenship status is an important
characteristic to incorporate in any
analysis of foreign-born mothers
as it may act as a hindrance to
receiving public assistance.22 In
this section, fertility indicators are
presented in terms of nativity, citizenship status, race, and Hispanic
origin.

Cohabiting

21.0

81.8

74.0

79.1

66.1

13.1

52.4
39.0

30.0

Less
than
high
school

High
Some Bachelor's
school college degree
graduate
or more

15 to 29 Years Old

Less
than
high
school

High
Some Bachelor's
school college degree
graduate
or more

30 to 44 Years Old

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, June 2008. See detailed Table 8
at .

Overall, foreign-born women had
birth rates of 76 births per 1,000
women, 21 births per 1,000 higher
than that of native women (55
births per 1,000 women).23
Fertility levels of women also differ
by racial and ethnic backgrounds
23
More than 20 years ago in the June
1986 Current Population Survey (CPS), fertility
information was collected for women 18 to
44 years old by nativity status. Birth rates
were also higher for foreign-born women
in 1986 (99 births per 1,000) than native
women (68 per 1,000) while the number
of births in 1986 to foreign-born women
comprised 12 percent of all births. Bachu, A.,
Fertility of American Women: June 1986,
Current Population Reports, P20-421,
U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC, 1987,
Table H.

(Table 3). The lowest fertility rate
was for non-Hispanic White women
in 2008 (52 births per 1,000
women aged 15 to 50). The rate for
American Indian and Alaska Native
women was among the highest
(73 births per 1,000 women),
followed by Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islanders (66 births
per 1,000 women), Black women
(61 births per 1,000 women), and
Asian women (63 births per 1,000
women).24

24
Fertility rates for Black, Asian, and
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders
are not significantly different.

U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 2.

Births in the Last 12 Months Per 1,000 Hispanic
Women by Age and Citizenship Status: 2008
Birth rate
200
180
160
140

Not a citizen

120
100
Foreign
born—naturalized

80
60
40

Native born

20
0

15–19

20–24

25–29

30–34
Years

35–39

40–44

45–50

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008. See detailed Table 9 at
.

Figure 2 shows more age-specific
detail for Hispanic women by their
nativity status. Hispanic women
who were foreign born and were
not citizens had higher fertility
rates than their native or naturalized counterparts at every age
except 45 to 50 years. Hispanic
women who became naturalized
citizens may have postponed their
childbearing until they were 30 to
34 years old, accounting for their
relatively low levels of fertility at
ages 20 to 24 and ages 25 to 29,
compared with Hispanics who were
not citizens. When shown by age

U.S. Census Bureau

groups, Hispanic women who were
native to the United States had
fertility levels that were not statistically different from that of naturalized Hispanic women, except for
the 25 to 29 year age group.25
Educational Attainment
As economic opportunity cost
models suggest, women’s fertility
decisions and educational attainment are interrelated. Furthermore, educational attainment is a
Detailed Table 9, see . Click on Detailed Tables.
25

good indicator of future economic
success.26 Based on the ACS, 18
percent of women with a birth in
the last year had not completed
their high school education (Table
3). Twenty-four percent had a high
school diploma, and 58 percent
had one or more years of college.
In a previous section, we showed
that the average number of children ever born by women aged 40
to 44 was higher for women with a
high school education than women
with at least a bachelor’s degree
(Table 2). However, annual fertility
rates often are affected by temporal
delays in childbearing at younger
ages and are higher at older ages,
especially if the delays are due to
postponement in childbearing due
to enrollment in college. Figure 3
shows that among the youngest
group of women 15 to 24 years
old, birth rates are about 4 times
greater for high school graduates
(102 per 1,000 women) compared
with those who have continued
their schooling beyond high school
and have at least a bachelor’s
degree (27 per 1,000 women).
For the next oldest age group,
25 to 34 years old, birth rates for
high school graduates were lower
than the birth rates for those with
a bachelor’s degree (109 births
per 1,000 women and 117 births
per 1,000 women, respectively).
However, for the oldest age group,
35 to 50 years old, women who
had at least a bachelor’s degree
had fertility rates twice as high (37
births per 1,000 women) as those
with a high school education (17
per 1,000 women). This suggests
that lower fertility at younger ages
for women who have continued
their education into their twenties
may be reflected in higher rates at
26
Crissey, S., Educational Attainment in
the United States: 2007, Current ­Population
Reports, P20-560, U.S. Census Bureau,
­Washington DC, 2009.

9

Figure 3.

Births in the Last Year Per 1,000 Women 15 to 50
Years Old by Educational Attainment and Age: 2008

Less than
high school
High school
graduate

15–24 years old

Some college or
associate’s degree
Bachelor’s degree
or more
25–34 years old

35–50 years old

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140

Births per 1,000 women
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008. See detailed Table 10 at
.

with a family income of $10,000 to
$14,999 in the past year had a fertility rate of 104 births per 1,000,
twice as high as women with family
incomes of $100,000 or more who
had a fertility rate of around 50
births per 1,000.30
Twenty-five percent of women with
a birth in the last year were living
in poverty. The fertility rate for
women with a family income at or
below poverty level was 96 births
per 1,000—higher than the fertility rate of those with incomes at
100 to 199 percent above poverty
(72 births per 1,000) and twice as
high as those with incomes at 200
percent above poverty (48 births
per 1,000). About 6 percent of
women with a birth in the last year
were receiving public assistance.
Women receiving assistance were
also more likely to have had a birth
(160 births per 1,000) compared
with women not receiving public
assistance (56 births per 1,000).

STATE LEVEL ESTIMATES
Geographic Comparisons

older ages once their educational
curriculum has been completed.
Economic Profile of Recent
Mothers
The current recession started
in December 2007 according to
the National Bureau of Economic
Research.27 In 2008, more than half
(61 percent) of women with a birth
in the past year were in the labor
force (Table 3), up from 57 percent
in 2006.28 Fertility rates for women
See .
Dye, J.L., Fertility of American Women:
2006, Current Population Reports, P20-558,
U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC, 2008.
27
28

10

not in the labor force (86 births
per 1,000 women) were considerably higher than those of employed
women (49 births per 1,000), which
is to be expected as the majority of
women were still out of the labor
force by the third month after the
birth of their child.29 Aside from
women with family incomes of
less than $10,000 in the past year,
lower fertility rates were generally
found among women with higher
levels of family income. Women
29
Johnson, T., Maternity Leave and
Employment Patterns of First-Time ­Mothers:
1961–2003, Current Population Reports,
­P70-113, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC,
2008, Table 8.

Because of its large sample size,
the American Community Survey
(ACS) offers the opportunity to
examine how diverse fertility patterns are at the state level. This
provides an important profile of
mothers who had a child in the last
year, which can assist state agencies in providing maternal care services to mother and child.31
30
Women with low incomes may include
women who are in college or are very young
who would generally have lower fertility.
31
Detailed Tables 11 and 12 accompanying this report on the Internet present all of
the state level fertility measures cited in this
section and in the maps, see .

U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 4.

Percentage of Women Who Had a Birth in the Last 12 Months
Who Were Not U.S. Citizens: 2008

AK

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error,
nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov)
Statistically lower than the U.S.: 1.0–11.2 percent
Not statistically different from the U.S. average
Statistically higher than the U.S.: 16.8–29.1 percent
U.S. average: 14.8 percent

WA
MT
OR

VT

ND

NH

ME

MN

ID

MA
SD

WI

NY

MI

WY

CT
NE

NV

PA

IA
OH

UT

IL

CA

KS

WV

AZ

NM

VA

MO

OK

KY
NC

TN
AR

SC
MS

TX

DE
MD

IN

CO

RI

NJ

AL

GA

LA
FL

HI

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008.

Citizenship
Federal law restricts access to
some public benefits for noncitizens.32 Overall, 20 percent of all
births to mothers in 2008 were
to foreign-born women.33 Fifteen
percent (654,000 births) were to
women who were not citizens,
and 5 percent were to naturalized
32
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
Sponsored Noncitizens and Public Benefits,
GAO-09-375, Washington DC, Government
Printing Office, May 2009, see .
33
U.S. Census Bureau, American
­Community Survey, American FactFinder
2008 Fertility Subject Table (Table S1301).

U.S. Census Bureau

citizens.34 Figure 4 shows a map
of the United States, highlighting
states where women with a birth in
the last year were not U.S. citizens.
The states where more than 1-in-5
mothers with a recent birth were
noncitizens were California (29 percent), Nevada (26 percent), Arizona
(23 percent), and New Jersey and
Texas (21 percent). One quarter
of all births to noncitizens were
to women who lived in California
(164,000). In 13 states, less than
34

Calculations based on Table 3.

5 percent of mothers with a recent
birth were not citizens.
Poverty and Unemployment
It is well established that family poverty is associated with
myriad problems for children’s
­development and well-being.35
The likelihood of being in poverty
35
Duncan, G.J., W.J. Yeung, J. BrooksGunn, J.R. Smith, “How Much Does Childhood
Poverty Affect the Life Chances of Children?”
American Sociological Review, Vol. 63, No. 3
(June 1998), pp. 406–423. R.L. Wagmiller, Jr.,
M.C. Lennon, L. Kuang, P.M. Alberti, J.L. Aber,
“The Dynamics of Economic Disadvantage
and Children’s Life Chances,” American
Sociological Review, Vol. 71, No. 5
(Oct. 2006), pp. 847–866.

11

Figure 5.

Percentage of Women Who Had a Birth in the Last 12 Months
Who Were In Poverty: 2008

AK

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error,
nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov)
Statistically lower than the U.S.: 11.6–22.9
Not statistically different from the U.S. average
Statistically higher than the U.S.: 28.3–35.4
U.S. average: 24.8 percent

WA
MT
OR

VT

ND

ME

NH

MN

ID

MA
SD

WI

NY

MI

WY

CT
NE

NV

PA

IA
OH

UT
CA

WV

CO
KS

AZ

NM

VA

MO

OK

KY
NC

TN
AR

SC
MS

TX

DE
MD

IN

IL

RI

NJ

AL

GA

LA
FL

HI

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008.

is higher for families with young
children,36 putting these children
at risk of adverse effects. Figure
5 maps the percentage of women
with a birth in the last year who
had a family income below the
poverty threshold. Montana, West
Virginia, and the southern tier of
the states from Arizona to South
Carolina all had higher than average percentages of women with
a birth in the last year living in
poverty compared with the national
DeNavas-Walt, C., B.D. Proctor, J.C.
Smith, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance
Coverage in the United States: 2008, Current
Population Reports, P60-236(RV), U.S. Census
Bureau, Washington DC, 2009. Detailed table
POV02, see .
36

12

level of 25 percent. In contrast,
in New Hampshire, 12 percent of
women with a birth in the last year
were in poverty. In Maryland and
Utah, about 15 percent of women
with a recent birth were in poverty.
Another measure of family economic stress is the level of unemployment for those mothers with
newborns. In 2008, 6 percent of
mothers with a recent birth were
looking for a job. Figure 6 shows
that among states with above
average levels of new mothers
who were unemployed, the
highest proportions were found
in Alabama (10 percent) and Michigan (9 percent), along with several

states in the southeast United
States. Places with levels lower
than the U.S. average included
Hawaii (1 percent), Vermont, Utah,
and Idaho (3 ­percent).
Educational Attainment
Research suggests that a mother’s
educational attainment has a powerful effect on the life outcomes of
her children.37 On average, 27 percent of mothers with a recent birth
37
Teachman, J.D., “Family Background,
Educational Resources, and Educational
Attainment,” American Sociological Review,
Vol. 52, No. 4 (Aug. 1987), pp. 548–557.
­Murnane, R.J., R.A. Maynard, J.C. Ohls, “Home
Resources and Children’s Achievement,” The
Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 63,
No. 3 (Aug. 1981), pp. 369–377.

U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 6.

Percentage of Women Who Had a Birth in the Last 12 Months
Who Were Unemployed: 2008

AK

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error,
nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov)
Statistically lower than the U.S.: 1.0–4.9
Not statistically different from the U.S. average
Statistically higher than the U.S.: 7.7–9.7
U.S. average: 6.2 percent

WA
MT
OR

VT

ND

NH

ME

MN

ID

MA
SD

WI

NY

MI

WY

CT
NE

NV

PA

IA
OH

UT

IL

CA

KS

WV

AZ

NM

VA

MO

OK

KY
NC

TN
AR

SC
MS

TX

DE
MD

IN

CO

RI

NJ

AL

GA

LA
FL

HI

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008.

had completed a bachelor’s degree
or more education. New Hampshire
(48 percent), Massachusetts and
Connecticut (42 percent), and New
Jersey and Maryland (39 percent)
had high proportions of mothers
with a birth in the last year who
had a bachelor’s degree. As shown
in Figure 7, western and southern
states had below average proportions with a bachelor’s degree.
Arkansas (16 percent) and Alaska
and New Mexico (17 percent) were
among the states with the lowest
proportion of mothers with this
level of educational attainment.

Birth Rates and Public
Assistance
The 1996 Personal ­Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) has made it
increasingly important to examine
the participation of mothers in public assistance programs at the state
level. The PRWORA gave states
greater flexibility to formulate and
implement initiatives to reduce
welfare dependency and encourage employment for members of
low-income families with children.38
For the nation, the birth rate for
U.S. Congress, Public Law 104-193.
H.R. 3734, 1996.
38

U.S. Census Bureau

women receiving public assistance was 160 births per 1,000
women, almost three times the rate
for women not receiving public
assistance (56 births per 1,000
women).39 However, no geographical patterns are noted because only
two states recorded birth rates for
women on public assistance that
were statistically different from the
national average: the birth rates for
women receiving public assistance
in Alaska and New Hampshire were
lower than the national average for
women receiving public assistance.
39
Detailed Table 12, see .

13

Figure 7.

Percentage of Women Who Had a Birth in the Last 12 Months
Who Had a Bachelor's Degree or More Education: 2008

AK

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error,
nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov)
Statistically lower than the U.S.: 16.3–25.5
Not statistically different from the U.S. average
Statistically higher than the U.S.: 31.1–47.9
U.S. average: 27.3 percent

WA
MT
OR

VT

ND

ME

NH

MN

ID

MA
SD

WI

NY

MI

WY

CT
NE

NV

PA

IA
OH

UT

IL

CA

KS

WV

AZ

NM

VA

MO

OK

KY
NC

TN
AR

SC
MS

TX

DE
MD

IN

CO

RI

NJ

AL

GA

LA
FL

HI

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008.

Summary
Hispanic women 40 to 44 years
old in 2008 were completing
their childbearing years with 2.2
children each, compared with the
national average of 1.9 births. For
all women, levels of childlessness
were at 18 percent in 2008, down
from 20 percent in 2006, but still
higher than the level in 1976 (10
percent). Overall, Hispanic women
also had higher current fertility
levels than White non-Hispanic
women. Among all Hispanic
women, those who were foreignborn and who were not citizens

14

had the highest levels of current
fertility.
Women who continued their education into their twenties experienced
lower current fertility levels at
younger ages but higher fertility at
older ages once they have completed their education. The majority
of women with a recent birth were
in the labor force, but about 1-in-4
mothers with a birth last year
were in families with incomes at or
below the poverty line. However,
only 6 percent of women with a
birth in the last 12 months received
cash public assistance.

There was significant variation in
the socioeconomic characteristics of recent mothers among the
states. Most notably, the southern
tier of states had above average proportions of mothers with
newborns who were in poverty
and below average proportions
of mothers who had a bachelor’s
degree or more education.

SOURCE OF THE DATA
Some estimates in this report come
from data obtained in the June
2008 Current Population Survey
(CPS) and from the CPS in earlier

U.S. Census Bureau

years. The U.S. Census Bureau
conducts this survey every month,
although this report uses only
data from the June surveys for its
estimates. Comparative estimates
on annual births are made with
data collected in the Vital Statistics
Registration system and published
by the National Center for Health
Statistics.
The population represented (the
population universe) in the Fertility
Supplement to the June 2008 CPS is
the female, civilian, noninstitutionalized population, 15 to 44 years
old, living in the United States. The
institutionalized population, which
is excluded from the population
universe, is composed primarily
of the population in correctional
institutions and nursing homes (91
percent of the 4.1 million institutionalized population in Census
2000).
This report also presents data
from the 2008 American Community Survey (ACS). The population represented (the population
universe) in the ACS is limited to
the population living in households
and the population living in institutions, college dormitories, and
other group quarters. According to
Census 2000, 7.8 million people, or
2.8 percent of the total population,
lived in group quarters. Of this
number, 4.1 million were institutionalized—primarily in correctional
institutions and nursing homes, 2.1
million were in college dormitories,
and 1.7 million were in all other
types of group quarters.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER
DATA SOURCES
The American Community Survey
(ACS) birth rate is slightly different than the National Center for
Health Statistics (NCHS) birth rate
for a calendar year because the ACS

U.S. Census Bureau

asks whether or not a woman had
a birth in the past 12 months. In
addition, birth rates by age will be
slightly different from age-specific
birth rates published by NCHS since
the ACS tabulated the women’s age
at the time of the survey interview
date while NCHS tabulates data at
the time of the birth. See
Tallese Johnson and Jane Lawler
Dye, “Indicators of Marriage and
Fertility in the United States From
the American Community Survey:
2000 to 2003,” .
Due to these differences in data
collection, the ACS tends to underestimate the number of women 15
to 19 years old with a birth in the
last year because about half of the
19-year-olds will be 20 years old by
the time of the survey (Appendix
Table A). Similarly, the ACS tends
to gain births from women 39
years old who turn 40 before the
survey date. This produces more
births to women 40 to 44 years old
in the ACS than reported by vital
statistics. For this reason, and the
fact that women are having births
at older ages, the ACS includes
women aged 45 to 50 in the survey
questionnaire.

ACCURACY OF THE
ESTIMATES
Statistics from surveys are subject to sampling and nonsampling
error. All comparisons presented
in this report have taken sampling
error into account and are significant at the 90 percent confidence
level. This means the 90 percent
confidence interval for the difference between the estimates being
compared does not include zero.
Nonsampling errors in surveys
may be attributed to a variety of
sources, such as how the survey
was designed, how respondents

interpret questions, how able and
willing respondents are to provide correct answers, and how
accurately the answers are coded
and classified. The Census Bureau
employs quality control procedures
throughout the production process,
including the overall design of
surveys, the wording of questions,
review of the work of interviewers
and coders, and statistical review
of reports to minimize these errors.
The Current Population Survey
(CPS) weighting procedure uses
ratio estimation whereby sample
estimates are adjusted to independent estimates of the national
population by age, race, sex, and
Hispanic origin. This weighting
partially corrects for bias due to
undercoverage, but biases may still
be present when people who are
missed by the survey differ from
those interviewed in ways other
than age, race, sex, and Hispanic
origin. How this weighting procedure affects other variables in the
survey is not precisely known. All
of these considerations affect comparisons across different surveys or
data sources.
For further information on statistical standards and the computation
and use of standard errors for the
CPS, go to or
contact the Census Bureau’s
Demographic Statistical Methods
Division on the Internet at .
The final ACS population estimates
are adjusted in the weighting procedure for coverage error by controlling specific survey estimates to
independent population controls by
sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin.
The final ACS estimates of housing
units are controlled to independent
estimates of total housing. This
weighting partially corrects for

15

bias due to over or undercoverage,
but biases may still be present,
for example, when people missed
differ from those interviewed in
ways other than sex, age, race, and
Hispanic origin. How this weighting
procedure affects other variables in
the survey is not precisely known.
All of these considerations affect
comparisons across different surveys or data sources.

MORE INFORMATION

USER COMMENTS

Detailed tables with characteristics
of women in the childbearing ages
by fertility indicators are available
on the Internet at ; search by clicking on “F” for
“Fertility of American Women Data”
under the “Subjects A to Z” heading
on the Census Bureau home page.

The Census Bureau welcomes the
comments and advice of users of
its data and reports. If you have
any suggestions or comments,
please write to:

CONTACTS

For further information on the ACS
sample, weighting procedures,
sampling error, nonsampling error,
and quality measures from the ACS,
see .

For additional information on these
topics, contact the author of this
report:

Or send an e-mail inquiry to:
[email protected]

16

Jane Lawler Dye
[email protected]
301-763-2416

Chief, HHES Division
U.S. Census Bureau
Washington, DC 20233-8800

SUGGESTED CITATION
Dye, Jane Lawler, Fertility of
­American Women: June 2008,
­Current Population Reports,
­P20-563, U.S. Census Bureau,
­Washington, DC.

U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix Table A.

Comparison of Fertility Indicators for Women Aged 15 to 44 Years From Provisional 2008
Vital Statistics; the Current Population Survey, June 2008; and the American Community
Survey, 2008
(Numbers in thousands)
2008 Vital
Statistics
preliminary

June 2008
CPS

Margin
of error1

2008
ACS

Margin
of error1

     Total women aged 15 to 44. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
     Births last year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(NA)
4,238

61,692
3,960

33
142

61,977
4,345

*27
*37

AGE
15 to 19 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20 to 24 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25 to 29 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30 to 34 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35 to 39 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40 to 44 years2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

435
1,053
1,197
958
489
106

371
864
1,138
874
550
163

45
68
78
69
55
30

304
973
1,244
1,028
602
194

*9
*17
*19
*17
12
7

RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN3
White alone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  White alone, non-Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
American Indian or Alaska Native alone . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Asian alone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone. . . . . .
Some other race alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Two or more races. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hispanic (any race)4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(NA)
2,267
624
49
253
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
1,035

3,034
2,276
613
(NA)
188
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
819

125
109
58
(NA)
32
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
66

3,007
2,433
631
48
234
8
322
96
938

32
*29
13
3
*8
2
10
5
*15

MARITAL STATUS5
Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  Separated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unmarried. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2,892
(NA)
1,345
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)

2,633
103
1,326
19
128
1,179

117
24
84
10
26
79

2,847
100
1,498
12
175
1,311

29
5
25
2
*9
*23

Characteristic

* Statistically different at the 90 percent confidence level from the CPS estimate.
(NA) Not available.
1

When the margin of error is added to or subtracted from the point estimate, it produces a 90 percent confidence interval.

2

Vital Statistics data refer to women 15–54 years old.

3
Race of mother. Vital Statistics data refer to non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Asian or Pacific Islander. CPS
data refer to White only; White only, not Hispanic; Black only; and Asian only (these differ and are not necessarily comparable to the ACS race categories of White
alone; White alone, not Hispanic; Black alone; Asian alone, American Indian or Alaska Native alone, Some other race alone, and Two or more races).
4

Origin of mother.

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) reported 40.6 percent of births to women of all ages were nonmarital. Number based on prorated percent of all
nonmarital births to women aged 15 to 44.
5

Note: The universe for vital statistics is the number of births to women aged 15 to 44 reported to the National Center for Health Statistics via birth certificates.
The universe for the CPS is women 15 to 44 years old at the time of interview in June 2008. The number of women who had a birth between July 2007 and June
2008 represents the estimate of births in the last year. The universe for ACS is women 15 to 44 years old when the survey was taken in each month in the calendar
year 2008. The number of women who reported having had a birth in the 12 months prior (to each interview) represents the estimates of births to those women
over the course of the interview year.
Sources: Hamilton, B.E., J.A. Martin, and S.J. Ventura, Births: Preliminary data for 2008. National Vital Statistics Reports; Vol. 58, No. 16, Hyattsville, MD,
National Center for Health Statistics, 2010. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, June 2008. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling
error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see . U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008
(special tabulations). For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see .

U.S. Census Bureau

17