. Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Adrienne L. Fernandes Analyst in Social Policy Thomas Gabe Specialist in Social Policy April 16, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R40535 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress c11173008 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Summary Policymakers and youth advocates have begun to focus greater attention on young people who are not working or in school. Generally characterized as “disconnected,” these youth may also lack strong social networks that provide assistance in the form of employment connections and other supports such as housing and financial assistance. Without attachment to work or school, disconnected youth may be vulnerable to experiencing negative outcomes as they transition to adulthood. The purpose of the report is to provide context for Congress about the characteristics of disconnected youth, and the circumstances in which they live. These data may be useful as Congress considers policies to retain students in high school and to provide them with greater job training and employment opportunities. Since the late 1990s, social science research has introduced different definitions of the term “disconnected.” Across multiple studies of disconnected youth, the ages of the youth and the length of time they are out of school or work for purposes of being considered disconnected differ. In addition, a smaller number of studies has also incorporated incarcerated youth into estimates of the population. Due to these methodological differences, the number of youth who are considered disconnected varies. According to the research, the factors that are associated with disconnection are not entirely clear, though some studies have shown that parental education and receipt of public assistance are influential. This Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis expands the existing research on disconnected youth. The analysis uses Current Population Survey (CPS) data to construct a definition of “disconnected.” This definition includes noninstitutionalized youth ages 16 through 24 who did not work or attend school anytime during a previous year and are presently not working or in school (usually sometime in the first quarter of the current year). The definition is narrower than those used by other studies because it captures youth who are unemployed and not in school for a longer period of time. This is intended to exclude youth who may, in fact, be connected for part or most of a year. Youth who are both married to a connected spouse and are parenting are also excluded from the definition. For these reasons, the number and share of youth in the analysis who are considered disconnected are smaller than in some other studies. Still, 1.9 million youth ages 16 through 24—or 5.1% of this population—met the definition of disconnected in 2008, meaning that they were not in school or working for all of 2007 and at a point in the first quarter of 2008. Like the existing research, the CRS analysis finds that a greater share of female and minority youth are disconnected. However, the analysis evaluates some other characteristics that have not been widely studied in the existing research. For instance, compared to their peers in the general population, disconnected youth tend to have fewer years of education, and are more likely to live apart from their parents and to have children. Disconnected youth are also twice as likely to be poor than their connected peers. The analysis further finds that the parents of disconnected youth are more likely than their counterparts to be unemployed and to have lower educational attainment. Given the state of the current economy and its projected course over the next year or two, rates of disconnection may climb. Policymakers may consider interventions to reconnect youth to work and/or school. Interventions can target children and youth at a particular stage of their early lives. Interventions can also focus on particular institutions or systems, such as the family, community, and schools. This report will not be updated. Congressional Research Service . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................7 Background ................................................................................................................................8 Overview of Research on Disconnected Youth .......................................................................... 10 Methodology and Number of Disconnected Youth............................................................... 11 Other Characteristics........................................................................................................... 12 Reasons Associated with Disconnection .............................................................................. 12 CRS Analysis of Disconnected Youth ........................................................................................ 13 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 13 Limitations.................................................................................................................... 14 Findings.............................................................................................................................. 15 Reasons Reported For Youth Not Being in School or Working....................................... 15 Characteristics of Disconnected Youth........................................................................... 16 Characteristics of Parents Living with Disconnected Youth ........................................... 32 Trends Over Time ......................................................................................................... 35 Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 47 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 47 Poverty, Family Living Arrangements, and Parental Characteristics..................................... 48 Implications for Policy........................................................................................................ 50 Figures Figure 1. Disconnected Youth Ages 16-24, by Disability Status, Presence of Children, and Family Caretaking Responsibility, 2008 ................................................................................. 16 Figure 2. Disconnected Rates Among Youth Ages 16-24, by Age Group, Gender, and Parental Status, 2008.............................................................................................................. 20 Figure 3. Disconnected Rates Among Youth Ages 16-24, by Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Parental Status, 2008.............................................................................................................. 22 Figure 4. Educational Attainment of Connected and Disconnected Youth Ages 19-24, by Age Group, 2008.................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 5. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Age Group 2008............................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 6. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 19-24, by Level of Educational Attainment, 2008 ................................................................................................ 27 Figure 7. Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24 Without Health Insurance Coverage by Age Group, 2008 ............................................................................................... 29 Figure 8. Living Arrangements of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 2008.................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 9. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16 to 24, by Living Arrangement, 2008 ................................................................................................................ 32 Figure 10. Educational Attainment of Disconnected and Connected Youths’ Parents, for Youth Ages 16-24 Living with One or Both Parents, 2008 ...................................................... 33 Congressional Research Service . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 11. Employment Status of Disconnected and Connected Youths’ Parents, for Youth Ages 16-24 Living with One or Both Parents, 2008................................................................ 34 Figure 12. Rates of Disconnected Youth Ages16-24, by Gender, 19888-2008............................ 36 Figure 13. Rates of Disconnected Males Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 1998-2008 ....................... 37 Figure 14. Rates of Disconnected Females Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 2008............................. 38 Figure 15. Rates of Disconnected Males Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 1998-2008 ........... 39 Figure 16. Rates of Disconnected Females Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 19982008 ...................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 17. Rates of Disconnected White, non-Hispanic Females Ages 16-24, by Parental Status,1988-2008 ................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 18. Rates of Disconnected Black, non-Hispanic Females Ages 16-24, by Parental Status,1988-2008 ................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 19. Rates of Disconnected Hispanic Females Ages 16-24, by Parental Status,19882008 ...................................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 20. Single Mothers as a Percent of All Female Youth Ages 16-24 and Composition of Single Mothers by Connected and Disconnected Status, by Race and Ethnicity, 19882008 ...................................................................................................................................... 46 Tables Table 1. Summary Characteristics of Connected and Disconnected Youth Ages 16-24, 2008 ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Table A-1. Select Studies of Disconnected Youth....................................................................... 53 Table B-1. Rates of Disconnectedness Among Youth Ages 16-24, by Age Group, Gender, and Parental Status, 2008 ....................................................................................................... 58 Table B-2. Rates of Disconnectedness Among Youth Ages 16-24, by Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Parental Status, 2008 .......................................................................................... 59 Table B-3. Educational Attainment of Connected and Disconnected Youth Ages 19-24, by Age Group, 2008.................................................................................................................... 60 Table B-4. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 2008........................................................................................................................... 61 Table B-5. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 2008 ................................................................................................................ 62 Table B-6. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 19-24, by Level of Educational Attainment, 2008 ................................................................................................ 63 Table B-7. Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16 to 24 Without Health Insurance Coverage, by Age Group, 2008 .............................................................................................. 64 Table B-8. Living Arrangements of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 2008.................................................................................................................... 65 Table B-9. Living Arrangements of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 2008........................................................................................................ 67 Congressional Research Service . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Table B-10. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Living Arrangement, 2008 ................................................................................................................ 69 Table B-11. Educational Attainment of Disconnected and Connected Youths’ Parents for Youth Ages 16-24 Living with One or Both Parents, 2008 ...................................................... 70 Table B-12. Employment Status of Disconnected and Connected Youths’ Parents, for Youth Ages 16 to 24 Living with One or Both Parents, 2008 .................................................. 71 Table C-1. Total and Disconnected Youth Ages 16-24, by Gender, 1988-2008............................ 72 Table C-2. Disconnected Males Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 1988-2008..................................... 73 Table C-3. Disconnected Females Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 1988-2008 ................................. 74 Table C-4. Disconnected Males Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 1988-2008......................... 75 Table C-5. Disconnected Females Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 1988-2008 ..................... 76 Table C-6. Disconnected Female Youth Ages 16-24, by Parental Status, Race, and Ethnicity, 1988- 2008............................................................................................................. 77 Table C-7. Single Mothers Ages 16 to 24, by Connected and Disconnected Status, Race and Ethnicity, 1988-2008 ....................................................................................................... 80 Appendixes Appendix A. Summary of Major Studies on Disconnected Youth............................................... 53 Appendix B. Background Tables for Congressional Research Service Analysis of Disconnected Youth ............................................................................................................... 58 Appendix C. Background Tables for Congressional Research Service Analysis of Disconnected Youth, 1988-2008............................................................................................. 72 Contacts Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 83 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 83 Congressional Research Service . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Introduction A young person’s detachment from both the labor market and school is an indicator that he or she may not be adequately making the transition to adulthood. Referred to as “disconnected” in the social science literature, youth who are not working or in school may have difficulty gaining the skills and knowledge needed to attain self-sufficiency. Without adequate employment, these youth may also lack access to health insurance and disability benefits, and forego the opportunity to build a work history that will contribute to future higher wages and employability. Disconnected youth may also lack strong social networks that provide assistance in the form of employment connections and other supports such as housing and financial assistance. The purpose of the report is to provide context for Congress about the characteristics of youth who are not working or in school, and the circumstances in which they live. A demographic profile of disconnected youth may be useful for any discussions of efforts to improve the outcomes of at-risk high school students, such as through programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965.1 The topic of disconnected youth may also emerge if Congress explores policies to provide vulnerable youth with job training and employment opportunities, through new or existing programs, including those authorized by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998.2 Research since the late 1990s has sought to identify and characterize disconnected youth. Based on varying definitions of the term “disconnected” and the methodology used among multiple studies, estimates of the disconnected youth population range. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) conducted an analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS) to more fully understand the characteristics of disconnected youth, and to provide recent data on the population. Based on select questions in the CPS, the analysis constructs a definition of disconnection that includes noninstitutionalized youth ages 16 through 24 who did not work or attend school anytime during a previous year (e.g., 2007) and were not working nor in school at the time of the survey (e.g., March 2008).3 The CPS surveys individuals in households, and not those in institutional settings, such as college dorms, military quarters, and mental health institutions. (The number and share of disconnected individuals would likely increase significantly if the CRS analysis incorporated data from surveys of prisons and jails.4 On the other hand, these figures would likely be offset if youth in colleges and the military were counted.) 1 Authorization for most of these programs expired at the end of FY2008. For additional information about ESEA, see CRS Report RL33960, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act: A Primer, by Wayne C. Riddle and Rebecca R. Skinner. 2 Authorization of appropriations under WIA expired at the end of FY2003 but has been annually extended through appropriations acts. For additional information about WIA, see CRS Report RL33687, The Workforce Investment Act (WIA): Program-by-Program Overview and Funding of Title I Training Programs, by David H. Bradley. 3 The CPS/ASEC is administered in February through April, though the majority of respondents are surveyed in March. 4 In 2006, the most recent year for which data are available, 61,522 youth ages 16 and older were placed in residential juvenile justice facilities. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook. On one day in 2007, the most recent year for which data are available, 439,900 youth ages 18 through 24 were held in state or federal prisons or local jails. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison Inmates at Midyear 2007, Table 10. Congressional Research Service 7 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School The CRS definition is narrower than those used by other studies because it captures youth who are unemployed and not in school for a longer period of time. The definition is intended to exclude youth who may, in fact, be connected for part or most of a year, and may be between jobs or taking an extended break after school. Youth who are married to a connected spouse and are parenting are also excluded from the definition, because they are working in the home and can presumably rely on the income of their spouses. For these reasons, the number and share of youth in the analysis who are considered disconnected are smaller than in some other studies. Still, 1.9 million youth ages 16 through 24—or 5.1% of this population—met the definition of disconnected in 2008. Like many other studies, the CRS analysis finds that a greater share of female and minority youth tend to be disconnected. However, the analysis also evaluates other characteristics that have not been widely studied in the existing research. For instance, compared to their peers in the general population, disconnected youth tend to have fewer years of education, and are more likely to live apart from their parents, to have children, and be poor. Further, the CRS analysis expands upon the existing research by exploring the characteristics of the parents of disconnected and connected youth who reside with their parents. The analysis finds that the parents of disconnected youth are more likely than their counterparts to be unemployed and to have a lower level of educational attainment. Finally, the analysis also examines trends in disconnectedness over time, from 1988 through 2008. It shows that the rates of disconnection have remained relatively stable. Trends in disconnection rates for males and females for the most part run parallel to each other, with disconnection rates for females being consistently higher than those for males over the period, and with a more recent uptick among females. Disconnected rates were also highest over the period for black (non-Hispanic) males and the oldest youth, ages 22 through 24, in the study. The first section of this report discusses Congress’ growing interest in issues around youth who are not working or in school. The second section presents a brief overview of research on the population, including the number of disconnected youth, characteristics of the population, as well as the factors that have been associated with disconnection. The purpose of this section is to show the variation in the research on the population and to suggest that the definition of “disconnected” is fluid. (The report does not evaluate the methodology or validity of these studies, or discuss in great detail the federal programs or policies that may be available to assist disconnected youth.)5 The third section presents the CRS analysis of disconnected youth ages 16 through 24. The final section discusses implications for future research and federal policy. Appendix A provides a summary of the major studies on disconnected youth. Appendix B and Appendix C present the data tables that accompany this analysis. Background Congress has recently taken interest in, and enacted, policies that can assist youth who are not working or in school. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), the omnibus law that provides federal funding for programs to encourage economic recovery, 5 For information about existing federal policies and programs targeting vulnerable youth, see CRS Report RL33975, Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies, by Adrienne L. Fernandes. For background on youth unemployment and educational attainment, and factors contributing to youth joblessness, see CRS Report RL32871, Youth: From Classroom to Workplace?, by Linda Levine. For information about graduation rates and federal programs to target youth who have dropped out, see CRS Report RL33963, High School Graduation, Completion, and Dropouts: Federal Policy, Programs, and Issues, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi. Congressional Research Service 8 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School includes provisions that pertain to disconnected youth.6 Of the $1.2 billion appropriated for programs in the Workforce Investment Act, Congress extended the ending age of which youth are eligible for year-round activities (from age 21 to age 24) so that job training programs would be available for “young adults who have become disconnected from both education and the labor market.” In addition, the law makes businesses who employ youth defined as “disconnected” eligible for the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC). According to the law, a disconnected youth, for purposes of WOTC, is an individual certified as being age 16 to 25 on the hiring date; not regularly attending any secondary, technical, or post-secondary school during the six-month period preceding the hiring date; not regularly employed during the six-month period preceding the hiring date; and not readily employable by reason of lacking a sufficient number of skills. Youth with low levels of formal education “may satisfy the requirement that an individual is not readily employable by reason of lacking a sufficient number of skills.” The 110th Congress conducted a hearing on disconnected youth and considered legislation that was intended to assist this population. The hearing was conducted by the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support.7 The purpose of the hearing was to explore the pathways that lead young people to become detached from work, school, housing, and important social networks; and to learn about the existing and potential programs targeted to this population. Social science researchers and other witnesses asserted that youth are most vulnerable to becoming disconnected during downturns in the economy, and that educational attainment and skills can mitigate the challenges they might face in securing employment in an increasingly competitive global market.8 They further stated that the federal government has a vested interest in connecting youth to school and work because of the potential costs incurred in their adulthood in the form of higher transfer payments and social support expenses, as well as lost tax revenue. 9 Also in the 110th Congress, the House Education and Labor Committee examined how the federal government can help to re-engage disconnected youth. At the request of the committee, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report in February 2008 that reviewed the characteristics and elements that make local programs funded with federal dollars successful in re-engaging youth, as well as the challenges in operating such programs.10 The report defined disconnected youth as those youth ages 14 to 24 who are not working or in school, or who lack family or other support networks. 11 It found that programs were successful because of effective 6 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1 - The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 110th Cong., 1st sess., February 8, 2009, Joint Explanatory Statement Division A and Division B. 7 U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, “Hearing on Disconnected and Disadvantaged Youth,” June 19, 2007, available at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp? formmode=detail&hearing=569. 8 Ibid. See for example, the testimony of Ronald B. Mincy, Professor of Social Policy and Social Work Practice at Columbia University. 9 To date, there has not been an attempt to quantify the cost of disconnection, though at least two studies discuss the types of costs that might be incurred by unemployed youth and in the U.S. economy. See Andrew Sum et al., Still Young, Restless, and Jobless: The Growing Employment Malaise Among U.S. Teens and Young Adults, Northeastern University Center for Labor Market Studies, January 2004, pp. 19-21. See Brett V. Brown and Carol Emig, “Prevalence, Patterns, and Outcomes” in Douglas J. Besharov, America’s Disconnected Youth: Toward a Preventative Strategy (Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare League of America, 1999), pp. 101-102. 10 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Disconnected Youth: Federal Action Could Address Some of the Challenges Faced by Local Programs That Reconnect Youth Education and Employment, GAO-08-313, February 2008. 11 The GAO report did not independently evaluate the number of disconnected youth. According to this definition, foster youth emancipating from foster care with weak family support would be considered disconnected. Congressional Research Service 9 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School staff and leadership; a holistic approach to serving youth that addresses the youth’s multiple and individual needs; design of the programs, such as experiential learning opportunities and selfpaced curricula; and a focus on developing youth’s leadership skills. The report further found that local programs reported challenges such as the complex life circumstances of the youth, including learning disabilities, violence in their communities, and lack of adequate transportation; gaps in services, such as housing and mental health services; funding constraints; and managing federal grants with different reporting requirements. The 110th Congress also marked the first time that multiple bills were introduced to target youth identified as “disconnected.” The legislation generally referred to disconnected youth as individuals ages 16 to 26 (or ages in between) who were not in school nor working; and/or who were part of a population of vulnerable youth, such as youth in foster care, runaway and homeless youth, 12 incarcerated youth, and minority youth from poor communities. 13 The bills’ proposed interventions involved changes to existing workforce or educational programs, creation of new programs, or modifications in the tax code to encourage employers to hire youth who are not working or in school. One of the bills—the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2008 (H.R. 4137)—was signed into law (P.L. 110-315). P.L. 110-315 did not include a definition of disconnected youth, but identified “disconnected students” as those who are—limited English proficient, from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education, students with disabilities, students who are homeless children and youths, and students who are in or aging out of foster care. The law made these students and “other disconnected students” (not defined) eligible for programs authorized by the Higher Education Act, including the TRIO programs, which provide college preparation and other services for low-income high school students who are the first in their families to attend college. 14 The next section provides an overview of the existing research of disconnected youth, and is followed by the CRS analysis. Research on disconnected youth can provide context for Congress regarding the magnitude of the population and the challenges they face. Overview of Research on Disconnected Youth CRS reviewed nine studies on disconnected youth from 1999 through 2007. These studies were identified by searching social science periodicals, consulting the GAO team involved in the disconnected youth study, and reviewing works’ cited pages in a few of the studies. The nine studies were carried out by federal agencies or non-governmental organizations. Below is a brief overview of the studies’ methodologies, definitions of the population, as well as findings. Appendix A summarizes the studies. This review does not evaluate the methodology or validity of studies on disconnected youth. 12 The term “homeless” is based on how it is defined in Section 725 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a). 13 See College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2008 (H.R. 4137/P.L. 110-315); A Place to Call Home Act (H.R. 3409); Energy Conservation Corps Act of 2008 (H.R. 7040); Transportation Job Corps Act of 2008 (H.R. 7503); and a bill to expand the work opportunity tax credit to include “disconnected youth” (H.R. 7066). 14 For further information about the TRIO programs, see Trio and GEAR UP Programs: Status and Issues, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi. Congressional Research Service 10 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Methodology and Number of Disconnected Youth Across the nine studies, figures of disconnected youth vary because of their methodology, the age range of youth, and the period of time examined. 15 Most of the studies were cross-sectional, meaning that they considered youth to be disconnected at a particular point in time—usually on a given day survey data were collected—or over a period of time, such as anytime during a previous year or the entire previous year. Some, however, were longitudinal, and tracked a youth’s connection to work and school over multiple years. The studies also used varying data sets, including the Current Population Survey, Decennial Census, National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY, which includes a 1979 cohort and a 1997 cohort), and the American Community Survey (ACS). Most of the studies did not provide actual numbers of disconnected youth, and instead reported percentages. Percentages ranged from 7% to 20% of the youth population, depending on the ages of the youth and methodology. Among the few studies that provided estimates of the actual number, they found that about 1.4 million to five million youth were disconnected. One oft-cited study found that on average, 5.2 million youth ages 16 to 24, or 16.4% of that age group, were not working or in school at a given point in time.16 The studies counted youth as young as age 16 and as old as age 24, with ages in between (e.g., 16 to 19, 18 to 24).17 Youth were considered disconnected for most of the studies if they met the definition at a particular point in time, though for one study, youth were considered disconnected if they met the criteria in the first month they were surveyed and in at least eight of the eleven following months.18 Another used a definition of disconnected to include youth who were not working or in school for at least the previous year before the youth were surveyed, in 1999.19 Some of the studies’ definitions incorporated other characteristics, such as marital status and educational attainment. For example, an analysis of NLSY97 data used a definition of disconnected youth that counts only those youth who were not in school or working, and not married. 20 Two other studies used a definition for 18- to 24-year olds who were not enrolled in school, not working, and who had obtained, at most, a high school diploma. 21 Further, nearly all of the studies used definitions that included only non-institutionalized youth. This means that the studies did not count youth in prisons, juvenile justice facilities, mental health facilities, college dorms, military facilities, and other institutions. However, two studies incorporated incarcerated youth and/or youth in the armed forces.22 Inclusion of youth living in institutional settings could 15 Some of the studies do not provide detailed information about the methodology used. 16 Andrew Sum et al., Left Behind in the Labor Market: Labor Market Problems of the Nation’s Out-of-School, Young Adult Populations, Northeastern University, Center for Labor Market Studies, Boston, 2003. 17 A few studies, such as The Condition of Education (2007), by the Department of Education, and What is Happening to Youth Employment Rates? (2004), by the Congressional Budget Office, do not use the term “disconnected” but evaluate the number and characteristics of youth who are not working or in school. 18 Thomas MaCurdy, Bryan Keating, and Sriniketh Suryasesha, Profiling the Plight of Disconnected Youth in America, Stanford University, for the William and Hewlett Foundation, March 2006. 19 Peter Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2006). 20 Thomas MaCurdy, Bryan Keating, and Sriniketh Suryasesha, Profiling the Plight of Disconnected Youth in America, Stanford University, for the William and Hewlett Foundation, March 2006. 21 Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count, 2006; and Susan Jekielek and Brett Brown, The Transition to Adulthood: Characteristics of Young Adults Ages 18 to 24 in America, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Population Reference Bureau, and Child Trends, November 2005. 22 Peter Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2006); and Congressional Budget Office, What is Happening to Youth Employment Rates?, November 2004. Congressional Research Service 11 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School affect the number and share of youth considered as disconnected. Adding youth who are in prison or juvenile justice facilities would increase the number of disconnected youth, whereas adding youth who are living in school dorms or in the armed forces would increase the number of connected youth. As mentioned in the section above, the College Cost Reduction Act (P.L. 110-315) did not define “disconnected youth” but identified certain vulnerable youth—such as runaway and homeless youth and English language learners—as being “disconnected students,” and therefore eligible for certain educational support services. One of the studies classified disconnected youth in the same vein. The study defined groups of disadvantaged youth ages 14 to 17, including those involved with the juvenile justice system and youth in foster care, as vulnerable to becoming disconnected (or having long-term spells of unemployment) because of the negative outcomes these groups tend to face as a whole. 23 Other Characteristics In all studies that examined gender, an equal or greater share of females was disconnected. According to one analysis of CPS data, disconnected youth included individuals age 16 through 19, and not in school or working (at what appears to be a particular point in time). 24 The study found that during select years from 1986 through 2006, approximately 7% to 10% of youth met this definition annually. Females were slightly more likely to be disconnected than males in 2006—8.1% compared to 7.1%. Another analysis of CPS data calculated the number and share of disconnected youth based on data collected from monthly CPS surveys for 2001.25 The study found that 18% of females and 11% of males were disconnected. About 44% of youth defined as disconnected had dropped out of high school. Of the studies that examined race and ethnicity, white and Asian youth were less likely to be disconnected than their counterparts of other racial and ethnic groups. According to an analysis of 2007 ACS data, the rates of disconnection among youth ages 16 to 19 by racial category were as follows: 4% of non-Hispanic Asian and Pacific Islanders; 6% of non-Hispanic whites; 11% of Hispanics; and 12% of non-Hispanic blacks. 26 Reasons Associated with Disconnection The factors that contribute to disconnection are not entirely clear, though some research has shown that parental education and receipt of public assistance, as well as race and ethnicity, play a role. An analysis of NLSY97 data found that disconnection was associated with being black and parental receipt of government aid from the time the parent was 18 (or their first child was born). 27 A separate analysis of NLSY79 data found that long-term disconnected youth—who were not working or in school for at least 26 weeks in three or more years, and not married—tended to 23 Michael Wald and Tia Martinez, Connected by 25: Improving the Life Chances of the Country’s Most Vulnerable 14-24 Year Olds, Stanford University, for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, November 2003. 24 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education, 2008. 25 Andrew Sum et al., Left Behind in the Labor Market: Labor Market Problems of the Nation’s Out-of-School, Young Adult Populations, Northeastern University, Center for Labor Market Studies, Boston, 2003. 26 Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count, 2006. 27 Thomas MaCurdy, Bryan Keating, and Sriniketh Suryasesha, Profiling the Plight of Disconnected Youth in America. Congressional Research Service 12 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School have certain personal and family background factors, including family poverty, family welfare receipt, and low parent education. 28 For example, among young men who met the long-term definition of disconnected, 35% were from poor families, compared to 10% of connected men; 26% were from families receiving welfare (versus 6% of connected men); 28% were from singleparent families (versus 13%); and 45% had a parent who lacked a high school degree (versus 16%). (Corresponding data for females are not available.) The study also found that nearly 90% of those who were disconnected at age 20 to 23 were first disconnected as teenagers. Finally, another study found that teens from low-income families were more likely to be neither enrolled in school nor employed than those from higher-income families, and that teens whose parents did not finish high school were twice as likely to be disengaged than those whose parents have at least some education (actual figures were not provided).29 The next section discusses the CRS analysis of disconnected youth. CRS Analysis of Disconnected Youth Overview The CRS analysis expands upon the existing research of disconnected youth. As discussed further below, the CRS definition of disconnected youth is more narrow than most definitions employed by other studies because it captures those who are not working and not in school for a longer period of time (versus at a point in time, or for instance, over a six-month period). This definition is intended to exclude youth who may, in fact, be connected for part or most of a year, and may be between jobs or taking an extended break after school. Unlike all of the other studies, youth who are married to a connected spouse and are parenting are also excluded from the definition, based on the assumption that these young people work in the home by caring for their children and rely on financial and social support from their spouses.30 For these reasons, the number and share of youth in the analysis who are considered disconnected are smaller than in some other studies. Still, as discussed below, 1.9 million youth ages 16 through 24—or 5.1% of this population— meet the definition of disconnected. Further, in contrast to most other studies, the CRS analysis examines the characteristics of the parents of disconnected youth. The analysis finds that they are more likely than the parents of connected youth to be unemployed and have a lower level of educational attainment. The CRS analysis constructs a definition of disconnected youth based on questions asked in the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey about workforce participation, school attendance, and marital status. The definition includes young people ages 16 through 24 who did not work anytime during a previous year (e.g., 2007) due primarily to a reason other than school and who also were not working nor in school at the time of the survey (e.g., March 2008). (Reasons given as to why youth were not working could include that they were either out of the workforce because they were ill or disabled, taking care of home or family, could not find work, 28 Brett V. Brown and Carol Emig, “Prevalence, Patterns, and Outcomes,” in America’s Disconnected Youth: Toward a Preventative Strategy, ed. Douglas J. Besharov (Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, 1999). 29 Congressional Budget Office, What is Happening to Youth Employment Rates?, November 2004. 30 Reciprocally, youth who are not in school or working, married to a connected partner, and not a parent are considered disconnected. Congressional Research Service 13 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School or some other unspecified reason.) This means that youth would be disconnected for a minimum of 12 months (all of 2007), and some or all of a possible additional four months (January through April of 2008). The analysis includes youth as young as 16 because at this age they may begin working and starting to prepare for post-secondary education. The study also includes older youth, up to age 24, since they are in the process of transitioning to adulthood. Many young people in their mid20s attend school or begin to work, and some live with their parents or other relatives. According to social science research, multiple factors—including delayed age of first marriage, the high cost of living independently, and additional educational opportunities—have extended the period of transition from adolescence to adulthood. 31 Limitations One limitation of this analysis is that the CPS surveys individuals in households, and not those in institutional settings, such as prisons, jails, college dorms, military quarters, and mental health institutions. Based on incarceration data from other studies (see Appendix A), the number and share of disconnected individuals would likely increase significantly if the study incorporated data from surveys of prisons and jails. Further, the CPS does not count persons who are homeless. While the precise number of homeless youth ages 16 through 24 is unknown, a significant share of these youth may meet the definition of disconnected.32 On the other hand, the share of disconnected youth in the population might be offset by including members of the armed forces and college students in dorms who are ages 18 through 24, and are by definition, working or going to school. Another limitation of the analysis is that it does not account for the strong possibility that while some disconnected youth are not formally employed, they are likely finding ways to make ends meet through informal markets and social networks. These networks can provide cash assistance, temporary housing and employment, and child care, among other supports. Nonetheless, informal networks are likely unstable, and may not necessarily lead to longer-term employment or attachment to school. 33 As discussed in the section below, nearly half of all disconnected youth live in poverty, suggesting that informal networks may not actually improve the quality of life for disconnected youth. Finally, the CRS definition of disconnected youth does not identify those youth who are disconnected for periods that exceed 16 months. As one of the longitudinal studies in Appendix A shows, youth are disconnected for three years or more are more likely to face negative outcomes than their counterparts who are disconnected for part of one to two years.34 31 For additional information about the transition to adulthood, see CRS Report RL33975, Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies, by Adrienne L. Fernandes. 32 The limited research on runaway and homeless youth has found that these youth face challenges remaining in school and working. See Marjorie J. Robertson and Paul A. Toro, Homeless Youth: Research, Intervention, and Policy, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, The 1998 National Symposium on Homeless Research, 1998. 33 For a discussion of social networks in low-income communities, see Katherine S. Newman, No Shame In My Game: The Working Poor in the Inner City, (New York: Vintage Books and Russell Sage Foundation, 1999), pp. 72-84. 34 Brett V. Brown and Carol Emig, “Prevalence, Patterns, and Outcomes” in Douglass J. Besharov, ed. America’s Disconnected Youth: Toward a Preventative Strategy (Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare League of America, 1999). See also, Douglas J. Besharov and Karen N Gardiner, “Introduction” in Douglas J. Besharov, ed. America’s Disconnected Youth: Toward a Preventative Strategy. Congressional Research Service 14 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Findings This section begins with an overview of the reasons disconnected youth said they were not working or in school at any time in 2007. Following this discussion is an overview of the basic demographics of disconnected youth and their characteristics across several domains— educational attainment, living arrangements, parenting status, health insurance coverage, and poverty status. These data, drawn from the 2008 CPS, are compared to data for connected youth. The section ends with a presentation of trend data on disconnection from 1988 through 2008, with a focus on gender, age, and race and ethnicity. Appendix B presents detailed tables of the 2008 data alone and Appendix C provides detailed tables of the trend data. Reasons Reported For Youth Not Being in School or Working Figure 1 displays the reasons given for out-of-school youth not working in 2007. Major reasons include taking care of family or home, illness or disability, or that they could not find work. Just over one-third (37% or about 708,000) of disconnected youth were reported to be taking care of home or family and were not disabled. Of those, less than half (279,000) were reported as having a child. The CPS does not prompt respondents to elaborate on the type of care provided in the home or to family, and therefore, it is unclear the extent to which this care would interfere with their ability to work or attend school. Illness or disability was reported as the major reason why approximately one-third of disconnected youth (34% or about 625,000) did not work in 2007, with most designated as having a severe disability.35 One indication that a person is severely disabled is their receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Medicare.36 Nearly half of disconnected individuals with disabilities (322,000) received one of these two benefits, accounting for about one in six (16.8%) of all disconnected youth. Finally, approximately another one-third (29% or about 562,000) did not have a disability or responsibilities in the home; most of these individuals did not have a child (505,000). 35 The CPS asks several questions to determine whether individuals are considered to have a work disability. Persons are identified as having a work disability if they: (1) reported having a health problem or disability which prevents them from working or which limits the kind or amount of work they can do; or (2) ever retired or left a job for health reasons; or (3) did not work in the survey week because of long-term physical or mental illness or disability which prevents the performance of any kind of work; or (4) did not work at all in the previous year because they were ill or disabled; or (5)are under 65 years of age and covered by Medicare; or (6) are under age 65 years of age and a recipient of Supplemental Security Income (SSI); or (7) received veteran’s disability compensation. Persons are considered to have a severe work disability if they meet any of the criteria in 3 through 6, above. See http://www.census.gov/hhes/ www/disability/disabcps.html. 36 Individuals who receive Social Security disability are eligible to receive Medicare two years after entitlement to SSDI, and in some cases earlier. Disabled children may receive Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits indefinitely as long as the disability was incurred before reaching age 22. For information about SSDI, see CRS Report RL32279, Primer on Disability Benefits: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), by Scott Szymendera. Congressional Research Service 15 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 1. Disconnected Youth Ages 16-24, by Disability Status, Presence of Children, and Family Caretaking Responsibility, 2008 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Characteristics of Disconnected Youth Table 1 compares demographic characteristics of disconnected and connected peers ages 16 through 24 in 2008 (which meant that youth were disconnected in all of 2007 and at the time of the survey in the first quarter of 2008). The table shows that 1.9 million of these youth, or about 5% of the population, met the definition of disconnected. Further, females and minority youth were more likely than their counterparts to be disconnected. The rate of disconnection among black (non-Hispanic) and Hispanic women was especially high—11.2% and 9.4%, respectively, compared to 4.2% of white females. Among youth ages 16 through 18, 19 through 21, and 22 through 24, the oldest youth were more likely than their younger peers to experience disconnection. Finally, relative to connected youth, disconnected youth were more likely to have lower education attainment, to live apart from their parents, be poor, and lack health insurance. These findings are discussed in greater detail below. Congressional Research Service 16 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Table 1. Summary Characteristics of Connected and Disconnected Youth Ages 16-24, 2008 (Numbers in 1,000s) Disconnected Total number Number Connected Percent Share of total youth Number Percent Age and Gender Age Total 37,580 1,915 100.0% 5.1% 35,665 100.0% Age 16 - 18 13,431 352 18.4% 2.6% 13,079 36.7% Age 19 - 21 11,720 742 38.7% 6.3% 10,978 30.8% Age 22 - 24 12,429 822 42.9% 6.6% 11,608 32.5% 19,032 722 100.0% 3.8% 18,310 100.0% Age 16 - 18 6,816 142 19.7% 2.1% 6,673 36.4% Age 19 - 21 5,926 294 40.8% 5.0% 5,632 30.8% Age 22 - 24 6,290 286 39.5% 4.5% 6,005 32.8% 18,548 1,193 100.0% 6.4% 17,355 100.0% Age 16 - 18 6,615 209 17.5% 3.2% 6,406 36.9% Age 19 - 21 5,794 448 37.5% 7.7% 5,346 30.8% Age 22 - 24 6,139 536 44.9% 8.7% 5,603 32.3% Males Total Females Total Race and Ethnicity by Gender Males and Females Total 37,580 1,915 100.0% 5.1% 35,665 100.0% White non-Hispanic 23,077 839 43.8% 3.6% 22,238 62.4% Black non-Hispanic 5,339 483 25.2% 9.0% 4,856 13.6% Hispanic 6,623 437 22.8% 6.6% 6,186 17.3% Other, non-Hispanic 2,542 156 8.2% 6.1% 2,386 6.7% Total 19,032 722 100.0% 3.8% 18,310 100.0% White non-Hispanic 11,744 358 49.5% 3.0% 11,387 62.2% Black non-Hispanic 2,587 176 24.4% 6.8% 2,411 13.2% Hispanic 3,435 137 18.9% 4.0% 3,298 18.0% Other, non-Hispanic 1,266 52 7.2% 4.1% 1,214 6.6% Total 18,548 1,193 100.0% 6.4% 17,355 100.0% White non-Hispanic 11,332 481 40.3% 4.2% 10,851 62.5% Males Females Congressional Research Service 17 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Disconnected Connected Total number Number Percent Share of total youth Black non-Hispanic 2,752 307 25.7% 11.2% 2,445 14.1% Hispanic 3,188 301 25.2% 9.4% 2,887 16.6% Other, non-Hispanic 1,276 104 8.7% 8.2% 1,172 6.8% Total 24,149 1,564 100.0% 6.5% 22,586 100.0% Age 19 - 21 11,720 742 100.0% 6.3% 10,978 100.0% Age 22 - 24 12,429 822 100.0% 6.6% 11,608 100.0% Total 3,108 540 34.5% 17.4% 2,568 11.4% Age 19 - 21 1,739 292 39.4% 16.8% 1,447 13.2% Age 22 - 24 1,369 248 30.1% 18.1% 1,121 9.7% Total 7,405 759 48.6% 10.3% 6,645 29.4% Age 19 - 21 3,735 356 47.9% 9.5% 3,379 30.8% Age 22 - 24 3,670 404 49.1% 11.0% 3,266 28.1% 13,637 265 16.9% 1.9% 13,372 59.2% Age 19 - 21 6,246 94 12.7% 1.5% 6,152 56.0% Age 22 - 24 7,390 171 20.7% 2.3% 7,220 62.2% Total 37,580 1,918 100.0% 5.1% 35,662 100.0% 16 - 18 13,431 352 100.0% 2.6% 13,079 100.0% 19 - 21 11,720 742 100.0% 6.3% 10,978 100.0% 22 - 24 12,429 822 100.0% 6.6% 11,608 100.0% Total 24,848 1,086 56.6% 4.4% 23,761 66.6% 16 - 18 12,239 281 80.0% 2.3% 11,958 91.4% 19 - 21 7,793 416 56.1% 5.3% 7,376 67.2% 22 - 24 4,816 387 47.1% 8.0% 4,429 38.2% 12,732 832 43.4% 6.5% 11,900 33.4% 1,191 70 20.0% 5.9% 1,121 8.6% Number Percent Education Among Youth Over Age 18 All Levels of Education Lacks High School Diploma or GED High School Diploma or GED Only High School Diploma or GED and Additional Schooling Total Living Arrangements by Age All Arrangements Lives with one or both parents Lives apart from parents Total 16 - 18 Congressional Research Service 18 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Disconnected Total number Number Connected Percent Share of total youth Number Percent 19 - 21 3,927 326 43.9% 8.3% 3,602 32.8% 22 - 24 7,614 435 52.9% 5.7% 7,179 61.8% 37,580 1,915 100.0% 5.1% 35,665 100.0% 6,246 907 47.4% 14.5% 5,339 15.0% 31,334 1,008 52.6% 3.2% 30,326 85.0% 37,580 1,915 100.0% 5.1% 35,665 100.0% 9,192 701 36.6% 7.6% 8,491 23.8% 28,388 1,214 63.4% 4.3% 27,173 76.2% Poverty Status Total Poor Nonpoor Health Insurance Coverage Status Total Without health insurance coverage With health insurance coverage Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Gender and Age We might expect that a higher percentage of males than females are disconnected, given that a greater share of males ages 16 through 24 have dropped out of high school37 and that males appear to be more vulnerable to losing jobs.38 However, consistent with other studies of disconnected youth, the CRS analysis shows that females are more likely than males to be disconnected. Overall, 6.4% of females ages 16 through 24 were disconnected in 2008, compared to 3.8% of males the same age, as depicted in Figure 2. The higher rates for females appears to be explained by the fact they were more likely to be parenting. 39 Overall, 2.5% of females and 0.1% of males were parenting. It is possible that their parenting responsibilities kept them from working or attending school. (As shown in Figure 1, 37 This is based on the status dropout rate, or the dropout rate regardless of when an individual dropped out. Separately, the event dropout rate refers to the share of youth who dropped out within a given school year. The event dropout rate for males and females is similar. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 2006, September 2008, p. 7, available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/ 2008053.pdf. 38 The social science literature has discussed the challenges that males, particularly men of color in urban communities, face in staying connected to work. See for example, Peter Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 2006) and William Julius Wilson, When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor (New York: Vintage Books, 1996). 39 In this analysis, disconnected youth with children are unmarried or are married to a disconnected partner. Children include biological children, adoptive children, or step-children who live in the same home as the disconnected individual. Congressional Research Service 19 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School nearly 15% of youth reported they were not connected in 2008 because they were taking care of home or family, and had children.) If the share of females with children is removed from each of the age categories, females would almost be just as likely to be disconnected as their male counterparts without children (which is nearly all the males). Further, rates of disconnection increase with age for both females and males. Approximately 2% to 3% of males and females ages 16 through 18 were disconnected, presumably because younger youth are more likely to be attending high school. These rates were at least twice as high among older youth ages 19 through 21, and 22 through 24. About 5% of older males were disconnected, and about 8% to 9% of older females were disconnected. Figure 2. Disconnected Rates Among Youth Ages 16-24, by Age Group, Gender, and Parental Status, 2008 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See Table B-1 in Appendix B for greater detail. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Congressional Research Service 20 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Race and Ethnicity Minority youth are more likely than their white peers to not be working or in school.40 Figure 3 shows rates of disconnection by race and ethnicity, gender, and parental status for 2008. NonHispanic black females had the highest rates of disconnection (11.2%), compared to 9.5% of Hispanic females and 4.2% of white females. The same was true among males: 6.8% of blacks, 4.0% of Hispanics, and 3.0% of non-Hispanic whites were disconnected. Parenting status appears to account for the difference in disconnection between non-Hispanic white males and females and between non-Hispanic black males and females. If the share of white and black females with children is removed from the calculation, females would be somewhat less likely to be disconnected than their male counterparts without children (which is nearly all the males). However, Hispanic females were more to be disconnected than Hispanic males, even with accounting for parenting status. Nearly 6% of Hispanic females without children were disconnected, compared to less than 4% of their male counterparts. This suggests that a significant number of disconnected Hispanic females were not kept from school or work because of parenting responsibilities. As discussed further below, other factors were likely at play. These factors could include disability status, inability to find work, or the expectation in the family that they do not work or attend school, among other possibilities. 40 Asian or Pacific Islander and Native Americans and Alaskan Natives are excluded from this analysis; however, these groups are included in the “other” category of Table 1 and in select tables in Appendix B. Congressional Research Service 21 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 3. Disconnected Rates Among Youth Ages 16-24, by Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Parental Status, 2008 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See Table B-2 in Appendix B for greater detail. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Educational Attainment CRS evaluated the educational attainment of disconnected youth who were old enough to have completed high school relative to their connected peers, based on questions in the CPS about highest level of education completed. Youth ages 19 through 24 were grouped according to whether they (1) lacked a high school diploma or general education development (GED) certificate; (2) had a high school diploma or GED; or (3) graduated from high school and had additional schooling beyond high school. Higher educational attainment is associated with higher earnings, and earnings differences have grown over time among workers with different levels of educational attainment. 41 Adults ages 25 to 64 who worked at any time from 1997 through 1999 earned an average of $34,700 annually, and average earnings ranged from $18,900 for high 41 Jennifer Cheeseman Day and Eric C. Newburger, The Big Payoff: Educational Attainment and Synthetic Estimates of Work-Life Earnings, U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, July 2002, pp. 2-3, at http://www.census.gov/ prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf. Congressional Research Service 22 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School school dropouts to $25,900 for high school graduates and $45,400 for college graduates (all in 1999 dollars). In 2008, higher earnings and lower unemployment rates were associated with higher educational attainment among persons 25 and older.42 For example, the median weekly earnings for high school graduates was $591 and the unemployment rate among this group was 5.7%; among those with a bachelor’s degree, the corresponding figures were $978 and 2.8%, respectively; and among those with a master’s degree, the corresponding figures were $1,522 and 1.7%, respectively. 43 As a group, disconnected youth appear to be at a disadvantage in competing for jobs that pay higher wages because of their comparatively low levels of education. Figure 4 displays the share of disconnected and connected youth by age (19-24, 19-21, and 22-24) within the three categories of educational attainment. Disconnected youth tend to have fewer years of schooling than their connected counterparts. In 2008, among 19 through 21-year olds, about four of ten (39.4%) disconnected youth lacked a diploma or GED, compared to about one out of ten (13.2%) connected youth. Among older youth, this difference persisted, with 30.1% of disconnected youth and 9.7% of connected youth lacking a diploma or GED. While 62.2% of connected youth ages 22 through 24 had some schooling beyond high school, only 20.8% of their disconnected counterparts reported the same. 42 43 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Education Pays, March 9, 2009. Data are 2008 annual averages for persons age 25 and over. Earnings are for full-time wage and salary workers. Congressional Research Service 23 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 4. Educational Attainment of Connected and Disconnected Youth Ages 19-24, by Age Group, 2008 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See Table B-3 in Appendix B for greater detail. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Poverty Poverty may be both a cause and consequence of youth disconnectedness. Growing up poor may contribute to the likelihood that a child will be disconnected in making the transition from adolescence to adulthood. In turn, being disconnected may contribute to youth being poor, especially among youth who are no longer living at home with parents or other family members to contribute to their support. The analysis of poverty in this section is based on 2007 income of related family members in a household as reported as part of the CPS for 2008. Income includes pre-tax money income from all sources, including wages, salaries, and benefits, such as unemployment compensation and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Youth were considered poor if their annual family pre-tax money income in 2007 fell below Census Bureau poverty income thresholds. Poverty thresholds vary by family size and composition. In 2007, a youth living alone, with no other family members, would be considered poor if his/her pre-tax money income was under $10,787; for a youth under age 18 living with a single parent and no other related family members, the youth and his/her parent would be considered poor if their family income was below $14,291; and, for a youth over age 18 living with both parents and a younger sibling (under age 18), and no other Congressional Research Service 24 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School related family members, they would be considered poor if their family income was below $21,736.44 Figure 5 shows that in 2007, almost half (47.4%) of all disconnected youth were poor, compared to 15.0% of their connected peers. While rates of poverty for connected youth were stable across age groups, poverty increased with age for disconnected youth. Just over 50.0% of youth age 22 through 24 were poor, compared to 39.4% of youth ages 16 through 18 and 48% of youth ages 19 through 21. Poverty status appears to be strongly correlated with educational attainment. This is not surprising, given that higher rates of educational attainment are associated with greater job attachment and higher wages. Of course, by our definition of disconnected youth, none were working in 2007, so none had earnings. Connected youth were working or in school, and presumably drawing income from their jobs, or financial aid. Parental or other income may also contribute to their support, even when youth are no longer living at home. Figure 6 shows the percentage of poor disconnected and connected youth ages 19 through 24 by educational attainment. Disconnected youth in each grouping of educational attainment – lacks high school diploma, high school diploma or GED, or some schooling beyond high school – were two to three times more likely to be poor than connected youth. Still, higher educational attainment appears to have provided disconnected youth with more of a buffer from poverty. The rate of poverty was higher among disconnected youth without a high school diploma (59.1%) than among their disconnected counterparts with more education (40.2% to 45.2%). Yet even disconnected youth with some schooling beyond high school were more likely than connected youth lacking a high school diploma to be poor, 40.2% and 31.2% respectively. Poverty by family living arrangement is presented later in this report and implications of poverty and disconnected youth is discussed further in the conclusion. 44 For a table of Census Bureau poverty thresholds for 2007 by family size and number of related children, see http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html. Congressional Research Service 25 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 5. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Age Group 2008 (Poverty Status Based on Family Income in 2007) Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See Table B-4 and Table B-5 in Appendix B for greater detail. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 26 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 6. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 19-24, by Level of Educational Attainment, 2008 (Poverty Status Based on Family Income in 2007) Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See Table B-6 in Appendix B for greater detail. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Health Insurance Health insurance is considered important because of the well-documented, far-reaching consequences of being uninsured.45 For instance, uninsured persons are more likely to forgo needed health care than people with health coverage and are less likely to have a “usual source of care,” that is, a person or place identified as the source to which the patient usually goes for health services or medical advice (not including emergency rooms). Having a usual source is important because people who establish ongoing relationships with health care providers or facilities are more likely to access preventive health services and have regular visits with a physician, compared with individuals without a usual source. The CRS analysis examined the share of disconnected and connected youth without health insurance by age. In the CPS, respondents report whether they have private insurance (i.e., employer-sponsored, direct-purchase, or self employment-based plans) or public insurance (i.e. 45 For further discussion, CRS Report RL32237, Health Insurance: A Primer, by Bernadette Fernandez. Congressional Research Service 27 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Medicaid, Medicare, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and military health care, among other types of coverage). Figure 7 shows the share of disconnected and connected youth without health insurance, based on being without health insurance coverage for all of 2007. Overall, uninsured rates were relatively high for both disconnected youth (36.6%) and connected youth (23.8%). Yet disconnected youth were about one third more likely than connected youth to be uninsured. This is not surprising given that they are not eligible for employer-sponsored health insurance, and may not be eligible for coverage through their parents’ health plans if they are older and not enrolled in college. Most Americans obtain health coverage through the workplace. In 2007, approximately 177 million persons had employment-based health insurance, which accounts for nearly 60% of the total population. 46 We might expect an even greater share of disconnected youth to lack coverage; however, some youth are likely covered by their parents’ health insurance plans, or through CHIP or another government health insurance program for low-income individuals (we did not examine coverage type among youth). As shown in Figure 1, above, about 322,000 (17%) of disconnected youth receive SSI or Medicare because of a disability. A majority of states provide Medicaid coverage for those individuals eligible for SSI.47 Uninsured rates increase for both connected and disconnected youth as they age. About one quarter (24.3%) of disconnected youth ages 16 through 18 and approximately 41% (40.8%) of disconnected youth ages 22 through 24 were uninsured. This is compared to 14.1% and 31.6% of connected youth the same age, respectively. The youngest youth may have had lower uninsured rates because they were covered under their parents’ plan or qualify for CHIP or Medicaid. 46 Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance in the United States: 2007, Figure 7, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, August 2008, p. 21. 47 Social Security Administration, Medicaid Information, http://www.socialsecurity.gov/disabilityresearch/wi/ medicaid.htm. Congressional Research Service 28 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 7. Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24 Without Health Insurance Coverage by Age Group, 2008 (Health Insurance Status During All of 2007) Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See Table B-7 in Appendix B for greater detail. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Living Arrangements A growing body of social science research suggests that the transition to adulthood for young people today is becoming longer and more complex.48 During this period, youth rely heavily on their families for financial support, and many continue to live with their parents beyond the traditional age of high school. On average, parents give their children an estimated $38,000—or about $2,200 a year—between the ages of 18 and 34 to supplement wages, pay for college tuition, and help with housing costs, among other types of financial assistance.49 Disconnected youth, however, may be less likely than their peers to rely on supports from their parents. The 2008 study by the Government Accountability Office would suggest this. GAO included in its 48 On the Frontier of Adulthood: Theory, Research, and Public Policy, ed. Richard A. Settersten, Jr., Frank F. Furstenburg, Jr., and Rubén Rumbaut (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2005). 49 Bob Schoeni and Karen Ross, “Material Assistance Received from Families During the Transition to Adulthood,” in On the Frontier of Adulthood: Theory, Research, and Public Policy, ed. A. Settersten, Jr., Frank F. Furstenburg, Jr., and Rubén Rumbaut (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), pp. 404-405. Congressional Research Service 29 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School definition of the disconnected population those youth “who lack family or other social supports.”50 The CRS analysis evaluated whether disconnected youth were more or less likely to live with one or both parents. This analysis is based on responses to CPS questions about living alone or with parent(s), another family member, spouse, and/or non-relative. As shown in Figure 8, overall, about four out of ten disconnected youth and three out of ten connected youth did not live with one or both parents in 2008. (This translates to about 1.1 million disconnected youth and 24 million connected youth.) While disconnected youth as a whole were less likely to live with one or both parents, a larger share of the oldest disconnected youth—those ages 22 through 24—lived at home. Given that many disconnected youth are not earning income and may not have strong social networks, they may have no other choice but to live at home. Reciprocally, it appears that their connected older peers are “fledging,” and beginning to become financially independent from their families. The family structure of disconnected youth who live at home tends to differ from that of their peers. Connected youth who lived at home were twice as likely to live with both parents (46.5%) than disconnected youth (25.5%), suggesting that the families of disconnected youth may be less likely to provide adequate financial support.51 (As discussed below, the parents of disconnected youth were less likely than parents of connected youth to be employed or have additional schooling, which has likely contributed to lower or no earnings.) Reciprocally, a much smaller share of connected youth (20.1%) lived with only one parent compared to disconnected youth (31.4%). Figure 9 depicts youth poverty status by living arrangement. The figure shows that disconnected youth are more likely to be poor than are their connected counterparts, even when controlling for living arrangement. Among youth living with both parents, disconnected youth were three times more likely than connected youth to be poor (13.4% versus 4.4%, respectively). Poverty rates are higher for youth living in single-parent families than in dual-parent families, but the poverty rate of disconnected youth in single-parent families (40.7%) is twice that of connected youth living in such families (19.6%). Poverty rates are highest among youth living apart from their parents; among disconnected youth about seven in ten are poor (71.3%) compared to about one in four (26.5%) connected youth. 50 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Disconnected Youth: Federal Action Could Address Some of the Challenges Faced by Local Programs That Reconnect Youth Education and Employment, GAO-08-313, February 2008, p. 1. 51 For further discussion of the influence of family structure on socioeconomic outcomes and financial well-being in adulthood, see CRS Report RL34756, Nonmarital Childbearing: Trends, Reasons, and Public Policy Interventions, by Carmen Solomon-Fears. Congressional Research Service 30 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 8. Living Arrangements of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 2008 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See Table B-8 and Table B-9 in Appendix B for greater detail. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 31 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 9. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16 to 24, by Living Arrangement, 2008 (Poverty Status Based on Family Income in 2007) Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See Table B-10 in Appendix B for greater detail. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Characteristics of Parents Living with Disconnected Youth The CPS asks only about those individuals who reside in the same household. Therefore, the CRS analysis was able to evaluate only the characteristics of the parents of connected and disconnected youth if they resided together. Approximately 1.1 million disconnected youth, or 60% of the disconnected population, lived with their parents (compared to about 67% of connected youth). The CRS analysis evaluates the education and employment status of parents at a point in time in 2008. The analysis examines this status among parents of youth in single-parent and dual-parent households. Figure 10 presents information about the educational attainment of parents of disconnected and connected youth. Parents were categorized based on whether they (1) lacked a high school diploma or its equivalent; (2) had a high school diploma or its equivalent; or (3) graduated high school and had additional schooling. Among both youth living with one parent only and youth living with both parents, the parents of disconnected youth were about twice as likely as parents of connected youth to lack a high school diploma or its equivalent. Further, among single-parent households, about 36% of disconnected youth had parents who had some schooling beyond high school, compared to just over half of the parents of their connected Congressional Research Service 32 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School counterparts. Among dual-parent households, one quarter of disconnected youth had both parents with some education beyond high school, compared to about 47% of their connected counterparts. Figure 10. Educational Attainment of Disconnected and Connected Youths’ Parents, for Youth Ages 16-24 Living with One or Both Parents, 2008 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See Table B-11 in Appendix B for greater detail. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. The employment status of parents was also evaluated. Figure 11 shows employment status among parents of disconnected and connected youth by household type. Among youth living in single-parent households, disconnected youth were twice as likely to have parents who were not employed (41.5%) at the time of the survey than connected youth (22.4%). Among youth living in dual-parent households, the divide was even greater: for about 20.0% of disconnected youth, both parents were not employed at the time of the survey, compared to about 4.0% of connected youth. Congressional Research Service 33 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 11. Employment Status of Disconnected and Connected Youths’ Parents, for Youth Ages 16-24 Living with One or Both Parents, 2008 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See Table B-12 in Appendix B for greater detail. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Differences in parents’ characteristics may account in part for disconnected youths’ higher poverty rates when compared to their connected counterparts, as seen earlier in Figure 9. Disconnected youth are not only more likely than their connected peers to live in single-parent families, who tend to have higher poverty rates than dual-parent families, but in each family type their parents are less likely to have completed high school, or to have continued their education beyond high school, and their parents are less likely to be employed, as seen above in Figures 10 and 11. Youths’ family living arrangements, parental characteristics, and poverty status may all contribute to whether a youth becomes disconnected, or stays connected, in making the transition from adolescence to adulthood. These issues in the context of other research are discussed further in this report’s conclusion. Congressional Research Service 34 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Trends Over Time Turning now to trends over time, rates of disconnection among youth ages 16 through 24 for over the past 21 years (1988 through 2008) are presented in this section. The overall rate of disconnection, 5.1% in 2008, was not much different than that of the beginning of the period depicted, of 4.8% in 1988. (See Figure 12, below). However, in the intervening years there was considerable variation in the overall rate, ranging from a high of 6.6% in 1994 to a low of 3.9% in 1999. The data series shows distinctive inflection points, in which disconnection rates reach local peaks, or troughs. Over three periods, rates of disconnection have shown to have been falling (1988-1990, 1994-1999, and 2005-2007), and in three periods to have been rising (1990-1994, 1999-2005, and 2007-2008). The local minimums in 1990 (4.1%), 1999 (3.9%) and 2007 (4.9%) temporally occur just prior to or contemporaneous with the onset of periods of economic recession (July 1990 to March 1991, March 2001 to November 2001, and December 2007 to some time yet to be determined in the future). The local maximums in 1994 (6.6%), 2005 (5.2%) are not reached until several years past the end of economic recession. The trends show that disconnected rates follow economic cycles, which should be expected, as disconnection is tied, by definition, to not being employed. Unemployment tends to be a lagging economic indicator, usually peaking for the population as a whole well past the end of economic recessions. Gender Figure 12 shows that the trends in disconnection rates for males and females for the most part run parallel to each other, with disconnection rates for females being consistently higher than those for males over the period. The differences are larger in earlier years (as much as 3.3 percentage points in 1990) than in later years (as little as 0.9 percentage points in 2005). Disconnection rates for males and females both peaked in 1994, at 5.1% and 8.2%, respectively. As noted earlier, single parenthood is a contributing factor to higher rates of disconnection among females than males. The presence of a child could make connections to work or school for these women tenuous. Trends in the effects of parenthood on disconnectedness will be addressed in greater detail later in this report, where Figures 17 through 19 are discussed. One other note relating to Figure 12 is that where trends in disconnection rates among males and females generally have run parallel to each other over the period depicted, as of 2005 they have diverged from one another. From 2005 to 2008 disconnection rates among females rose by 0.8 percentage point, whereas among males they fell by 1.0 percentage point. We do not have an explanation for this divergence in rates by gender in the past three years, but we will highlight possible contributing factors as the presentation unfolds below. Congressional Research Service 35 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 12. Rates of Disconnected Youth Ages16-24, by Gender, 19888-2008 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through 20008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See Table C-1 in Appendix C for greater detail. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Age and Gender We examined disconnection over time by gender across age groups—16 through 18, 19 through 21, and 22 through 24. Figures 13 and 14 display these data for males and females, respectively. The figures show that disconnection rates are consistently lower for male and female youth ages 16 through 18 than among their older counterparts. For males (Figure 13) disconnection rates for 19-through 21-year olds have tended to be slightly above those of 22-through 24-year olds over the past decade, for females (Figure 14), however, there is no distinct difference between the two oldest age groups. Disconnection rates for both males and females in each age group depict some of the cyclical patterns that we associated in the earlier discussion with general economic conditions. The trend in the youngest age group shows less cyclical variation than the older groups, as school tends to harbor the youngest group even in hard economic times, whereas older youth are subject more to labor market conditions. Females in the oldest group, ages 22 through 24, have shown marked increases in their disconnection rates from 1999 to 2008, with disconnection rates nearly doubling over the period, from 4.6% to 8.7%, respectively (Figure 14). Females ages 19 through 21 have seen their disconnection rate increase two full percentages points from a historic low of 5.7% in 2004, to 7.7% in 2008 (Figure 14). Turning back again to males (Figure 13), disconnection rates in 2008 have fallen somewhat for all three age groups from their 2005 peak, moving in the opposite direction of females over the period. Congressional Research Service 36 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 13. Rates of Disconnected Males Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 1998-2008 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See Table C-2 in Appendix C for greater detail. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 37 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 14. Rates of Disconnected Females Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 2008 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See Table C-3 in Appendix C for greater detail. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Race, Ethnicity, and Gender As shown in Table 1, earlier, minorities are overrepresented among the disconnected youth population. Perhaps most striking is the percentage of black (non-Hispanic) males who are disconnected relative to their white and Hispanic counterparts (see Figure 15). Over the period depicted, the disconnected rate for black males averaged 6.7 percentage points above that of their white non-Hispanic counterparts, and 4.7 percentage points above that of Hispanic males. The gap was largest in 2003 when the disconnection rate of black males reached a historic high of 12.4%, which was 9.8 percentage points above their white non-Hispanic counterparts (2.6%), and 8.9 percentage points above that of male Hispanic youth (3.5%). In that year, black males were nearly five times more likely to be disconnected than white non-Hispanic youth, and three and one-half times more likely than Hispanic youth. Since that time, black male youth have experienced a large drop in their disconnection rate, with the rate being nearly cut in half, from 12.4% in 2003 to 6.8% in 2008. Over this period, the noted decrease corresponds to an increase in school enrollment among the black male youth population overall. From 2003 to 2008 the share of black male youth who did not work in the previous year due to being enrolled in school Congressional Research Service 38 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School increased by about 9.0 percentage points, from 33.6% in 2003 to 42.2% in 2008 (not shown in tables or figures). 52 Figure 15. Rates of Disconnected Males Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 1998-2008 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See Table C-4 in Appendix C for greater detail. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Turning to females, Figure 16 shows marked differences in the level and trend in disconnection rates among white (non-Hispanic), black (non-Hispanic), and Hispanic females over the 1988 through 2008 period. Disconnection rates for black (non-Hispanic) and Hispanic females have consistently been higher than those of their white (non-Hispanic) counterparts. Each group has experienced substantial reductions in their rates of disconnection from their peak rates, in 1993 for black, and in 1994 for non-Hispanic white and Hispanic females. The figure shows among black females, their disconnection rate fell from a high of 15.1% in 1993 to a low of 6.3% in 1999—a near 60% reduction; for Hispanic females, their rate fell from a high of 15.7% in 1994 to a low of 8.4% in 2004—a 47% reduction; and, for white non-Hispanic females, their disconnection rate fell from a high of 5.6% in 1994 to a low of 2.7% in 2000—a 52% reduction. Disconnection rates have increased for all three groups in recent years, with black females 52 CRS estimates from U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through 2008 Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic Supplement data. Congressional Research Service 39 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School experiencing the largest increase, seeing their disconnection rate rise from 6.3% in 1999 to 11.2% in 2008—a 78% increase over the period. Figures 17 through 19 provide a breakout for each of the three female groups respectively (white non-Hispanics, black non-Hispanics, and Hispanics) in greater detail, depicting the effects of having a child on disconnection rates. For purposes of historical comparison, the method of identifying youth who are parents over the 1988 through 2008 period differs from that used in the 2008 cross-sectional data presented earlier (Figures 1 through 3).53 For all three groups, having a child has lessened as a contributing factor to their being disconnected. The changes in childbearing on female youth disconnectedness is striking for all three groups. The discussion which follows will focus on black female youth, who experienced remarkable reductions in disconnection in large part due to reductions in childbearing. Figure 18 shows, for example, that in 1993, the peak year of black female disconnection, a total of 15.1% were disconnected, with having a child likely contributing to 11.3% of the population, and other factors contributing to the remaining 3.8%. By 1999, the year with the lowest proportion of disconnected black female youth, 6.3% were disconnected. Their base rate of disconnection among those not having a child was 3.4%, just slightly below the 1993 base rate, but the rate for those having a child was just 2.9%, or about one-quarter of what it was in 1993. By 2008, the base rate of disconnectedness among black females (6.4%) was about the same as the total rate of disconnectedness in 1999, but adding an additional 4.8% of youth who had a child and were disconnected raises the total rate of disconnected black female youth to 11.2% in 2008. 53 Prior to the 2007 CPS, it was possible only to directly link a child to one of his/her parents. In cases where the parents were married, the child could be linked through the one parent to that parent’s spouse. For the time-series data presented here, this method is applied in all years in the series (i.e., 1988 through 2008). Beginning in 2007, the Census Bureau refined its procedures for identifying and linking children with their parent(s). Under the new procedures one can identify both the mother and father directly, if residing in the household with the child, and can determine whether the parent is a biological parent, a step-parent, or an adoptive parent. It is this later definition that’s used in the crosssectional data for 2008, presented earlier. Using this procedure, a child’s parents are identifiable regardless of whether the parents are married. Congressional Research Service 40 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 16. Rates of Disconnected Females Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 1998-2008 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See Table C-5 in Appendix C for greater detail. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 41 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 17. Rates of Disconnected White, non-Hispanic Females Ages 16-24, by Parental Status,1988-2008 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See Table C-6 in Appendix C for greater detail. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 42 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 18. Rates of Disconnected Black, non-Hispanic Females Ages 16-24, by Parental Status,1988-2008 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See Table C-6 in Appendix C for greater detail. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 43 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 19. Rates of Disconnected Hispanic Females Ages 16-24, by Parental Status,1988-2008 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See Table C-6 in Appendix C for greater detail. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Figures 17 through 19, above, highlight that disconnection rates among females declined significantly over the mid to late 1990s for white and black non-Hispanic, as well as Hispanic, females. While favorable economic conditions over the period likely contributed to declines in their rates of disconnection, significant reductions in disconnection rates appear to have occurred as a result of declines in the share of females with children, most of whom were single parents, over the period. Figure 20 addresses the question of whether the decline in female disconnection relating to parenting was the result of a reduced tendency for females age 16 through 24 to be single parents, or whether, among single mothers, there was a greater tendency for them to be connected, rather than disconnected, in more recent years. Figure 20 presents data in two columns. The first column shows the percent of females age 16 through 24 who were single parents over the 1988 through 2008 period, by race and ethnicity, addressing the first question posed above. The second column shows the composition of single mothers, by whether they were connected or disconnected, addressing the second question posed above. As for the first question, the figure shows that the rates of single parenthood have remained stable or decreased among the three racial/ethnic groups over the 1988 through 2008 period, and that these rates have varied across groups (first column). The figure shows that black females age 16 Congressional Research Service 44 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School through 24 have shown a marked decline in single parenting over the period. In 1989, for example, 29.9% of black female youth were single parents; by 2008, the share that were single parents fell to 18.5%, nearly a 40% decline. In contrast, for white non-Hispanic and Hispanic female youth, the share who were single parents increased over the 1988 to 1997 period, reaching a peak for each group in 1997, and then fell for each group thereafter. Among white non-Hispanic female youth, the share who were single parents rose from 5.2% in 1988, to a high of 8.1% in 1997 (a 56% increase), and fell to 5.4% in 2008, a rate just about equal that of 20 years earlier. Among Hispanic female youth the share who were single parents rose from 10.4% in 1989 to a peak of 15.9% in 1997 (a 53% increase), and fell to a most recent low of 11.3% in 2007. Now, turning to the second question, the second column of Figure 20 shows single mothers by whether they were connected to work or school, or disconnected from both, over the 1988 through 2008 period. First, all three panels show that youth who are single mothers were more likely to be connected than they are to be disconnected. This holds true over the entire 21-year time frame, and for each of the three racial/ethnic groups presented, with the exception of Hispanic single mothers in 1989 and 1994, where they were about equally likely to be connected as to be disconnected. All three panels show a marked increase in the connection rate among single female parents from the 1993-1994 through 1999-2000 period. Among white non-Hispanic youth who were single mothers, the share that was connected to school or work increased over the 1994 to 2000 period, from 76% in 1993 to 90% in 2000. Among black non-Hispanic youth who were single mothers, the share that was connected to school or work increased over the 1993 to 2000 period, from about 62% in 1993 to 90% in 2000. It is worth pointing out that in 2000, black single mothers were as likely to be connected to work or school as their white non-Hispanic counterparts. From 1994 through 2000, the share of Hispanic single mothers who were connected to work or school increased from just under 50% to 79% in 1999. Single Hispanic mothers’ rates of connection to work or school consistently are below those of their white and black nonHispanic counterparts. Since reaching their peak in the 1999-2001 period, attachment to school or work of single mothers in all three racial/ethnic groups has declined, but the level of attachment is still well above what it was in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Still, no clear trend in Hispanic single mothers’ connection rates is discernable in the post-2000 period, as their connection rates vacillate over the period. Congressional Research Service 45 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 20. Single Mothers as a Percent of All Female Youth Ages 16-24 and Composition of Single Mothers by Connected and Disconnected Status, by Race and Ethnicity, 1988-2008 Source: Congressional Research Service Based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See Table C-7 in Appendix C for greater detail. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 46 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Discussion Overview The CRS analysis shows that disconnected youth are more likely to be female, black or Hispanic, and in their early- to mid-twenties. It also demonstrates that disconnected youth are a diverse group. Disability appears to be at least part of the reason some youth are not working or in school (Figure 1). One-third of all youth reported they were not working because they were disabled, of whom about half had a disability severe enough that they received SSI or Medicare. Another onethird reported having childrearing and homemaking responsibilities that kept them from work, while the remaining one-third did not have disabilities or child and home-related responsibilities. These home-related responsibilities could include caring for siblings or managing a household because their parents have a disability or some other reason. Among females, those who were parenting were well represented among the disconnected youth population, although rates of disconnection have decreased over time for single mothers (Figures 17 through 20). It is unclear to what extent having a disability, caring for a child, or having responsibilities in the home actually keeps youth from engaging in school or work. Some may respond to CPS questions in what they believe to be a socially appropriate manner, and they may recognize that being idle is not widely acceptable. Still, one third of youth (or their parents) reported that they (the youth) did not have any limitations that would keep them from work. These youth could be considered the “hard core” of the disconnected. Yet even they may have “legitimate” limitations that are keeping them idle, such as an undiagnosed disability. Future research is needed to better understand the reasons youth are disconnected, and whether these reasons are legitimately keeping youth from attending school or working. Disconnected youth will likely face numerous challenges as they transition to adulthood. In terms of education, these youth are foregoing an opportunity to attain a high school diploma or GED, or additional years of schooling that can assist them in securing employment and gaining experience that will contribute to future employability. More than one third of disconnected youth ages 19 through 24 lack a high school diploma or its equivalent (Figure 4). For these youth in particular, securing stable, well-paying employment may be unlikely. Being out of the labor force—especially for an extended period—can have lasting effects for disconnected youth. Without an adequate employment history, disconnected youth may lack access to health insurance. Nearly four out of ten disconnected youth are uninsured (Figure 7). Another consequence of being out of the workforce is foregone current wages and future higher wages that are commensurate with work experience. Nearly four out of ten disconnected youth are poor (Figure 5, and discussed in further detail below), and even having additional education beyond high school does not mitigate their relatively high levels of poverty when compared to their connected peers (Figure 6). Additional research is needed to better understand how poor disconnected youth are making ends meet. Surely some of them receive assistance through informal networks in the form of providing child care, work in the informal economy, and temporary housing. And many are likely eligible for federal cash and non-cash assistance programs, including public housing. Yet because the CPS is limited to surveying individuals in households, our analysis does not capture those who are homeless or are in jails, prisons, or residential treatment facilities. If these groups were surveyed, rates of disconnection would likely be higher. The CPS similarly does not include youth who Congressional Research Service 47 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School might offset rates of disconnection, such as those youth residing in college dorms and on military bases. At least a few studies have attempted to factor in imprisoned and active military populations, but additional work is needed to incorporate other groups of youth. The CRS analysis expands the current research by examining the characteristics of disconnected youths’ parents. Because the CPS is a cross-sectional data set, we could not evaluate antecedent conditions or events affecting youth or their parents that may contribute to later youth disconnection. However, our analysis hints that disconnection may be intergenerational, meaning that the parents of youth who are currently disconnected could have experienced periods in which they were not working or in school. In fact, a significant share of parents of disconnected youth were not working at the time of the 2008 survey (Figure 11). Among disconnected youth living in single-parent households, approximately 40% had parents who were not employed. Additionally, disconnected youths’ co-residing parents were twice as likely to lack a high school diploma or its equivalent compared to connected youths’ co-residing parents (Figure 10). The next section further examines the role of family characteristics and other related factors that likely influence disconnectedness. Poverty, Family Living Arrangements, and Parental Characteristics Given our findings and the discussion which follows, the connections between poverty, family background, living arrangements and youth disconnectedness are interrelated. In some cases, disconnectedness may be a cause for high poverty rates among such youth, especially among those who are living apart from family or other relatives. Among youth living apart from parents, the poverty rate of disconnected youth (71.3%) was over two and one half times that of connected youth (26.5%) (Figure 9). In other cases, poverty may contribute to youth becoming disconnected. Here the connection is more complex. We found that disconnected youth, even when living with both their parents, were three times more likely to be poor than connected youth, 13.4% compared to 4.4%, respectively, and when living with only one parent, twice as likely to be poor than their connected counterparts, 40.7% compared to 19.6%. When living with a parent, disconnected youth were more likely to live with only one parent (56%) than with both parents (44%), whereas connected youth were more likely to live with both parents (70%) than just one (30%) (Figure 8). When parents’ characteristics are examined, disconnected youth are about twice as likely to have parents who haven’t completed high school than are connected youth (Figure 10); for disconnected youth in single-parent families, 30% had a parent who had not completed high school, compared to 15% of connected youth; for youth living in families with both parents, 31% had either one or both parents not having attained a high school diploma or its equivalent, compared to 16% of connected youth. Furthermore, disconnected youth were more likely to have a parent who was not working at the time of the survey (Figure 11). Among disconnected youth living with only one parent, the share with a nonworking parent (42%) was nearly twice that of connected youth (22%); among disconnected youth living with both parents, the share of disconnected youth where both parents were not working (20%) was five times that of connected youth (4%). Research evidence indicates that living in poverty has negative effects on children’s life outcomes that may range well into adulthood. By almost any indicator, poor children fare worse than their non-poor counterparts. Poor children tend to score lower on standardized tests of IQ, verbal ability, and achievement, and are less likely to advance in grade and complete high school. Poor teen adolescent girls are more likely to become teenage mothers than their non-poor counterparts, Congressional Research Service 48 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School contributing to a cycle of poverty from one generation to the next. While income poverty is associated with poor child outcomes, lack of income in itself may account for only part of the reason why poor children face poor future prospects. Other factors, such as a safe and nurturing home environment, and parental characteristics associated with their income, are arguably as important, if not more so, than income, per se, in affecting children’s life chances.54 The research evidence indicates that poverty’s lasting effects are most dramatic for children who experience persistent and/or deep poverty when they are younger. Among adolescents, the evidence of poverty’s negative effects on outcomes is much less clear. For example, poverty among adolescents is negatively related to high school graduation, college attendance, and years of schooling. The U.S. Department of Education reports high school dropout rates for a cohort of 10th through 12th graders in the early 1990s were almost 3 times higher for students living in poor families (10.9%) than for children living in families with incomes above poverty (3.6%).55 Other researchers56 using NLSY79 data found that children who spent one to three years of their adolescence in poverty were 60% less likely to graduate from high school than those who were not poor, and those who spent four years of adolescence in poverty were 75% less likely. Respectively, children who spent part or all of their adolescence in poverty were 40% and 60% less likely to attend college than other children, and on average attained between 1.0 and 1.75 fewer years of education. While the evidence presented above suggests a strong relationship between adolescent poverty and educational attainment, the NLSY researchers most importantly found that the relationship withers when other control variables, such as parental education, family structure, and IQ are taken into account. The researchers found that “after the control variables were taken into account, the number of years spent below the poverty line during adolescence were not related to any of the educational outcomes considered” (emphasis added).57 Yet when viewed over a longer period of time than just adolescence, growing up in poverty does appear to have an effect on educational attainment, even after controlling for other background factors. Researchers using 21 years of Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) data found that all other things being equal, the number of years that children spend in poverty while growing up is an important factor in predicting whether they will graduate from high school. 58 These researchers found that growing up with a single parent further reduces the probability of high school completion. These researchers also examined the effects of poverty on teen non-marital births. They found that parental characteristics (such as mother’s education) and the number of years spent living with a single parent had a significant effect on the probability that as a teen a girl would have a 54 See, for example: Susan E. Mayer, What Money Can’t Buy: Family Income and Children’s Life Chances (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1997) and Greg J. Duncan and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn (eds.), Consequences of Growing Up Poor (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1997). 55 Phillip Kaufman et al., Dropout Rates in the United States: 1998, Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Statistical Analysis Report NCES 2000-022, November 2009, p. 55. 56 See, Jay D. Teachman et al., “Poverty During Adolescence and Subsequent Educational Attainment,” in Consequences of Growing Up Poor, ibid, pp. 382-418. 57 Ibid., p. 413. 58 Robert Haveman and Barbara Wolfe, “Schooling and Fertility Outcomes: Reduced-Form and Structural Estimates,” in Childhood Poverty and Adolescent Consequences of Growing Up Poor, op cit., p. 442. Congressional Research Service 49 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School non-marital birth, and that poverty, in itself, was not a significant factor.59 As shown earlier, in Figure 1, about one-in-six disconnected youth have a child, most of whom are unmarried women. The same factors affecting school achievement and teen non-marital births are likely to have a similar bearing on youth disconnectedness. Family background characteristics over the course of a child’s lifetime are likely to affect the chances that youth become disconnected in making the transition from adolescence into adulthood. Our analysis, however, only describes differences between disconnected and connected youth at a point in time rather than over their life-course. The cross-sectional snapshot presented in this report only hints at possible differences that disconnected and connected youth may have experienced over the course of their childhood. Implications for Policy The time trend data presented show little difference in the overall rate of disconnection among youth in 2008 than 21 years earlier, in 1988. However, over the period, there was considerable variation in the overall rate and in disconnection rates among and between racial and ethnic groups, by gender, although disconnection among all single parenting females has declined since the mid-1990s, particularly for young black women. The trend data show that youth disconnection follows economic cycles, as should be expected. During recessions, when jobs in the economy become scarce, rates of youth disconnection increase; during periods of economic expansion, rates of youth disconnection decrease. The data presented in this report end during the first part of 2008 (e.g., March), and the previous year, 2007, mostly preceding the onset of the current recession, which officially started in December 2007. In addition to overall economic conditions, a number of other factors may contribute to changes in the rates of disconnection. For example, the following factors may have lent to the decreasing rates of disconnection, particularly among black single mothers, since the mid-1990s: an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), phased in between 1994 and 1996; welfare reform in 1996, which introduced time limits and work requirements for families receiving benefits and services under the newly enacted Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant; and declining teen birth rates, beginning in approximately 1992. Clearly, given the state of the current economy and its projected course over the next year or two, we would expect youth disconnection rates to climb. For males, their disconnection rates in near future years may exceed anything seen over the 21 years of data presented in this report. For females, their overall disconnection rate will depend not only on the base rate, depicted as the rate of disconnection among females without children as a percent of all females, and the additional rate of disconnection tied to having a child and not being married to a connected husband. The rate of disconnection among females who are not parents has been on the rise in recent years. In that we saw large declines in the rate of disconnection among females since the early 1990s relating to childbearing, their overall rate of disconnection in near-future years may not reach the levels seen in the early 1990s and preceding years. Overall, young single mothers are more likely to be connected to school or work than to be disconnected from both. Moreover, from the early- to mid-1990s to around 2000, the likelihood of younger single mothers being connected to work or school increased, and their rate of disconnection decreased. Since then their 59 Ibid., p. 443. Congressional Research Service 50 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School rate of disconnection has increased, but not yet to the levels seen in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Being connected to work or school is important for both youth and greater society. As discussed above, the individual costs of disconnection are great. While out of school or work, youth forego gaining experience that can lead to better employment opportunities. They are also more likely to live in poverty and lack health insurance. Further, the young children of disconnected youth are at risk of growing up in poverty, which as discussed above, can have far reaching consequences in adulthood. The costs to society may also be great, though little research has been done in this area. Youth who are disconnected may pose a financial burden if they rely on cash and non-cash assistance programs, or if they become homeless. Perhaps more importantly, in an increasingly global economy and with retirement underway for Baby Boomers, society has a strong interest in ensuring that all young people today have the educational attainment and employment experience to become skilled workers, contributing taxpayers, and participants in civic life. Interventions to connect youth to school and work depend on a number of factors. The research literature has devoted attention to the timing of interventions. The timing can target early childhood, the elementary and middle school years, or the high school years and just beyond. During each of these phases, developmental outcomes are influenced by a myriad of environmental and social factors, including family structure, stability, and functioning; economic circumstances; education; health care; and schooling.60 They are also influenced by innate and inherited characteristics. These factors can influence how well youth ultimately make the transition to adulthood. The research literature has identified certain markers of risk and problem behaviors in the middle and older youth years that are associated with later negative outcomes, such as dropping out of school. 61 Markers of risk suggest that youth will likely experience poor outcomes in adolescence and beyond. These markers are tangible indicators that can be measured or documented, and include low school performance and involvement in the child welfare system. Problem behaviors are activities that have the potential to hurt youth, the community, or both. Behaviors include early sexual experimentation; truancy; use of tobacco, alcohol, or other drugs; running away from home or foster care; and association with delinquent peers. James Heckman and others posit that investments in early childhood can, in part, serve as a protective factor against poor outcomes, especially when coupled with investments during the elementary school years.62 Other research has focused on the benefits of intervening at an older age when young people are at risk of or are already experiencing negative outcomes. 63 And still other research has begun to examine the effects of a system of interventions that targets youth throughout their early life, from the infant years to young adulthood.64 Youth might benefit from interventions during all stages of their early life, particularly if they begin to exhibit markers of risk such as low school performance. 60 For further information about the role of these factors in childhood development, see CRS Report RL33975, Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies, by Adrienne L. Fernandes. 61 See, Martha Burt, Gary Resnick, and Nancy Matheson, Comprehensive Service Integration Programs for At-Risk Youth: Final Report, The Urban Institute, 1992. 62 James J. Heckman and Dimitriy V. Masterov, The Productivity of Investing in Young Children, 2007. 63 See, Rhonda Tsoi-A-Fatt, A Collective Responsibility, A Collective Work: Supporting the Path to Positive Life Outcomes for Youth in Economically Distressed Communities, Center for Law and Social Policy, May 2008. 64 The Harlem Children’s Zone in New York is one such model that provides wrap-around services for children of all ages. Services include parenting courses, community services, educational programs at HCZ charters schools, and foster care prevention services, among other services. Congressional Research Service 51 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Interventions can also focus on particular institutions or systems, such as the family, community, schools, and job training programs. These interventions may help to address some of the reasons why youth are not working or in school. First, interventions in the family at all stages could benefit disconnected youth.65 Many of the disconnected youth in the analysis are parenting. Adequate child care may be one way in which to assist these youth in becoming connected to school or work and remain connected. Further, given the possibility that disconnection is intergenerational, early parenting classes or home-based interventions could provide a buffer for the children of disconnected youth from experiencing negative outcomes later in their lives. In the community, interventions could focus on assisting youth with disabilities since they make up a large share of the disconnected youth population. Such supportive services might include mental health care. Young disconnected single mothers could benefit from the involvement of their children’s fathers. Responsible fatherhood programs seek to engage fathers in assisting with childrearing and child support, which may in turn enable mothers to secure child care and other assistance so they can work or attend school. Other community interventions could involve programs that encourage young women to delay childbearing, as parenting appears to be strongly associated with disconnection among females. Finally, school and job training programs that provide wraparound services—counseling, child care, transportation, assistance with attaining a high school diploma, and preparation for the workforce—may help to reengage youth. A number of interventions have been designed in recent years that seek to address multiple aspects of a youth’s circumstances.66 In addition, sexual education in schools may help to encourage sexual avoidance and teen pregnancy.67 However, as shown in this report, disconnected youth make up a diverse group and no one intervention is likely to be a panacea. 65 For an overview of federal programs and policies to assist vulnerable youth across several domains, including workforce development, education, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, public health, and national and community service, see CRS Report RL33975, Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies, by Adrienne L. Fernandes. 66 See for example, Nancy Martin and Samuel Halperin, “Whatever It Takes: How Twelve Communities Are Reconnecting Out-of-School Youth,” American Youth Policy Forum, 2006; National League of Cities, “Beyond City Limits: Cross-System Collaboration to Reengage Disconnected Youth,” 2007; and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Disconnected Youth: Federal Action Could Address Some of the Challenges Faced by Local Programs That Reconnect Youth Education and Employment, GAO-08-313, February 2008. 67 For further discussion, see CRS Report RL34756, Nonmarital Childbearing: Trends, Reasons, and Public Policy Interventions, by Carmen Solomon-Fears. Congressional Research Service 52 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Appendix A. Summary of Major Studies on Disconnected Youth Table A-1. Select Studies of Disconnected Youth Study and Data Set The Condition of Education (2007), U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Current Population Survey, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Definition(s) of Disconnected Youth Disconnected label not applied; however, the study evaluated the number and characteristics of non-institutionalized youth 16 through 19 who were out of school and not working. The study appears to be a pointin-time estimate. The study does not specify the length of time these youth are not working or in school. Number and/or Percentage of Disconnected Youth (by gender, race, and ethnicity, if applicable) In 2006, 7.6% of youth met the definition of youth who were not in school or working. From 1986 through 2006, the percentage of these youth ranged from a low of 7.2% in 2004 to a high of 10.0% in 1992. Other Information on Disconnected Youth In 2006, of U.S.-born youth, 7.2% were disconnected; of naturalized U.S. citizens, 8.3% were disconnected; and of youth who are non-citizens, 13.% were disconnected. Disconnected youth by gender in 2006: males - 7.1% females - 8.1% Disconnected youth by race and ethnicity in 2006: white - 5.9% black - 11.5% Hispanic - 10.6% Asian and Pacific Islander - 5.7% What is Happening to Youth Employment Rates? (2004), Congressional Budget Office. Current Population Survey, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Disconnected label not applied; however, the study evaluated the number and characteristics of non-institutionalized and institutionalized youth ages 16 through 24 who were out of school and not working. Youth ages 16 through 19 who met the definition of youth who were not working or in school, by gender in 2000 (and if institutionalized youth and members of the armed forces are counted): males – 8% (10%) females - 9% (9%) Youth ages 20 through 24 who met the definition of disconnected, by gender in 2000 (and if institutionalized youth and members of the armed forces are counted): males – 11% (13%) females - 18% (18%) During the months of the school year in 2000, an average of four million youth ages CRS-53 Teens from low-income families are more likely to be neither enrolled in school nor employed than those from higher-income families. Teens whose parents did not finish high school are twice as likely to be neither working nor in school as those whose parents have at least some education (actual statistics not provided). . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Study and Data Set Definition(s) of Disconnected Youth Number and/or Percentage of Disconnected Youth (by gender, race, and ethnicity, if applicable) Other Information on Disconnected Youth 16 through 24 were neither in school nor working, of whom 60% were female. Nearly 40% of those youth had not finished high school, and most were not looking for work. Kids Count (2006), Annie E. Casey Foundation. American Community Survey, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. The disconnected label applies to noninstitutionalized youth ages 16 to 19 who are not currently working or in school. The disconnected youth label also applies to non-institutionalized young adults 18 to 24 who are currently not working or in school, and have no degree beyond a high school diploma or GED. In 2006, 1.4 million (8.0%) youth ages 16 to 19 met the definition of disconnected. From 2002 through 2006, the percentage of disconnected youth ages 16 to 19 has ranged from 8.0% to 9.0%. Disconnected youth ages 16 to 19 by race and ethnicity in 2006: white non-Hispanic -6.0% black non-Hispanic - 12.0% American Indian and Alaska Native nonHispanic - 16.0% Hispanic - 11.0% Asian and Pacific Islander non-Hispanic - 4% In 2006, Louisiana, Mississippi, and New Mexico had the highest share of disconnected youth ages 16 through 19 (12%) and New Hampshire had the lowest (4%). In 2006, Mississippi had the highest share of disconnected youth ages 18 through 24 (15%) and North Dakota had the lowest (7%). In 2006, 4.3 million (15%) youth ages 18 to 24 met the definition of disconnected. In each year from 2002 through 2006, 15% of youth ages 18 to 24 met the definition of disconnected. Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men (2006), by Peter Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner. Disconnected youth label applies to both incarcerated and non-incarcerated youth ages 16 through 24 who are not working or in school for at least a year. Current Population Survey, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Supplemented with data on youth incarceration rates from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Both incarcerated and non-incarcerated youth ages 16 through 24 are considered “idle” if they not working or in school for less than one year. Percentages of disconnected youth in 1999 by race, gender and ethnicity (and if incarcerated youth are counted): Disconnected youth: white males – 3.2% (4.2%) black males – 10.5% (17.1%) Hispanic males – 9.3% (11.9%) white females – 7.1% (7.1%) black females – 9.0% (9.9%) Hispanic females – 10.4% (10.4%) Idle youth: white males – 8.7% (9.6%) CRS-54 White youth ages 16 to 24 are more likely than their black and Hispanic counterparts to be enrolled in secondary, post-secondary, or other school. Among youth who are working, but not in school, white youth are also more likely to be employed. . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Study and Data Set Definition(s) of Disconnected Youth Number and/or Percentage of Disconnected Youth (by gender, race, and ethnicity, if applicable) Other Information on Disconnected Youth black males – 22.8% (28.5%) Hispanic males – 12.8% (15.3%) white females – 13.3% (13.3%) black females – 21.6% (22.4%) Hispanic females – 28.8% (28.8%) Left Behind in the Labor Market: Labor Market Problems of the Nation’s Out-of-School, Young Adult Populations (2003), by Andrew Sum et al., Northeastern University. Disconnected label not applied; however, the study evaluated the number and characteristics of non-institutionalized youth ages 16 through 24 who were out of school and not working. The estimates are annual averages based on the monthly CPS survey. Current Population Survey, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Prevalence, Patterns, and Outcomes, by Brett V. Brown and Carol Emig, Child Trends, in America’s Disconnected Youth: Toward a Preventative Strategy, (1999), by Douglas J. Besharov, Editor. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth for 1979 (NLSY79). Youth were surveyed annually through 1994, and biennially after 1994. For purposes of the study, data were evaluated for youth who were ages 14 through 16 at the start of the survey. The most recent year for which data were evaluated was 1991, when the oldest youth in the cohort were 28. CRS-55 In 2001, 5.2 million youth ages 16 to 24 (14.8%) were not in school or working. About 44% dropped out of high school. About 40% of youth who were not working or in school in 2001 lived in the 50 most populous metropolitan areas. In 2001, approximately 2.2. million men (12.6% of the 16-through 24- year old male population) and 3.0 million women (17.0% of the 16- through 24-year old female population) were not working or in school. About 22% of youth who were not working or in school in 2001 were head of a non-family household, and 11% were head of a household that included non-relatives. In select years from 1989 through 2001, the percentage of disconnected youth who were not in school or working has ranged from a low of 14.2% in 2000 to a high of 18.5% in 1992. Disconnected label applies to youth in the survey who were not working (including in the armed forces) or in school, and were not married to a connected spouse for at least 26 weeks in a year over the period 1979 through 1991. Short-term disconnection is 26 weeks in each of one to two years. Long-term disconnection is 26 weeks in each of three years or more. Percentage of disconnected youth by gender, race, and ethnicity: Short-term disconnected youth: males – 24% white males – 23% black males – 28% Hispanic males – 30% females – 24% white females – 23% black females – 30% Hispanic females - 29% Long-term disconnected youth: males – 13% white males – 10% black males – 26% Hispanic males – 19% females – 14% About 15% of males and 22% of females who were disconnected for one to two years; and 44% of males and 56% of females who were disconnected for three or more years experienced poverty. This is compared to 3% of males and 4% of females who were not disconnected. Long-term disconnected youth were associated with certain personal and family background factors, including family poverty, family welfare receipt, low parent education, single/no parent family, bearing or fathering a child before age 18, dropping out of high school, and having multiple risk factors. The researchers state that these factors are interrelated and difficult to disentangle as the cause for . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Study and Data Set Profiling the Plight of Disconnected Youth in America (2006), by Thomas MaCurdy, Bryan Keating, and Sriniketh Suryasesha Nagavarapu, Stanford University, for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth for 1997 (NLSY97). Youth are surveyed annually. For purposes of the study, data were evaluated for youth who were ages 12 through 16 at the start of the survey. The most recent year for which data were evaluated was 2003, when the oldest youth in the cohort were 23. The Transition to Adulthood: Characteristics of Young Adults Ages 18 to 24 in America (2003), by Susan Jekielek and Brett Brown, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Population Reference Bureau, and CRS-56 Definition(s) of Disconnected Youth The disconnected label applies to youth in the survey who were not working or in school. A second definition applies to youth who are not in school or working, and not married. Youth are considered disconnected for a year if they were not working or in school in the month they were surveyed and in at least eight of the following eleven months over the period 1997 through 2003. Number and/or Percentage of Disconnected Youth (by gender, race, and ethnicity, if applicable) white females – 9% black females – 37% Hispanic females - 21% disconnection. Of youth who are not in school or working: A significant share of four groups of youth had experienced disconnection by age 20: By age 20, 14.6% of youth were disconnected for at least one year and 4.6% were disconnected for at least two years. By age 22, the corresponding figures were 24.0% and 11.0%, respectively. Of youth who are not in school or working, and not married: By age 20, 12.3% were disconnected for at least one year, and 3.3% were disconnected for at least two years. By age 22, 19.8% were disconnected for at least one year, and 8.7% were disconnected for at least two years. Percentage of unmarried youth, by gender, race, and ethnicity, who were disconnected by age 20 (and by age 22): The disconnected label applies to noninstitutionalized youth ages 18 to 24 who are not working (including in the armed forces), or in school, and have no more than a high school diploma or GED. The study appears to Other Information on Disconnected Youth 44.9% of female youth who were mothers by age 18; 31.4% of youth were convicted of, or pled guilty to, a crime committed before age 18; 50.7% of youth who dropped out of high school; and 23.8% of youth who were not living with their parents, including foster parents, before age 18. No further information about these groups was provided. white males - 12.8% (19.8%) white females - 12.8% (19.8%) black males - 11.9% (35.3%) black females - 21.9% (36.6%) Hispanic males - 14.8% (25.9%) Hispanic females - 16.4% (24.1%) The probability of experiencing a disconnected episode among youth not in school or working, and not married in the survey is associated with being black and parental receipt of government aid from the time the parent was 18 (or their first child was born) until 1997. This aid includes Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (replaced by Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), and food assistance. In 2000, the number of youth ages 18 to 24 who met the definition of disconnected was 3.8 million or 14.2% of the population. Disconnected youth ages 18 to 24 by nativity in 2000 (and share of disconnection among population): Disconnected youth ages 18 to 24 by race and ethnicity in 2000 (and share of Foreign born -752,918 (21.6%) Native born - 3,091,261 (13.1%) . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Study and Data Set Child Trends. Definition(s) of Disconnected Youth be a point-in-time estimate. 2000 U.S. Census, PUMS-5 File, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Connected by 25: Improving the Life Chances of the Country’s Most Vulnerable 14-24 Year Olds (2003), by Michael Wald and Tia Martinez, Stanford University, for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Cross-sectional analyses of data from Current Population Survey, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, and various national surveys of prison and jail populations. Number and/or Percentage of Disconnected Youth (by gender, race, and ethnicity, if applicable) disconnection among population): white non-Hispanic -1.6 million (9.5%) black non-Hispanic - 900,138 (24.5%) American Indian and Alaska Native nonHispanic - 62,952 (26.3%) Asian and Pacific Islander non-Hispanic 70,696 (6.3%) Hispanic - 1.1 million (24.3%) Other race, non-Hispanic - 6,976 (12.9%) Two or more races, non-Hispanic - 74,720 (13.0%) The term “disconnected” is not precisely defined for youth ages 14 to 17, but youth are at risk of becoming disconnected—or having long-term spells of unemployment (i.e., one year or more)—if they are: a high school dropout; and/or in the juvenile justice system; and/or unmarried mothers; and/or in foster care. The disconnected youth label applies to youth ages 18 to 24 who have a high school degree or less and are unemployed for a year or longer, or are incarcerated. Using data across multiple years, the number of youth ages 14 to 17 who are at risk of becoming disconnected is one million (though there may be overlap among the four categories of youth). Using data across multiple years, the number of youth ages 18 to 24 who meet the definition of disconnected is 1.8 million. Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. Notes: The Congressional Research Service did not evaluate the methodology or validity of the studies. CRS-57 Other Information on Disconnected Youth Disconnected youth by disability status (and share of disconnection among population): Disabled - 818,078 (19.6%) Not disabled - 2,729,553 (11.9%) . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Appendix B. Background Tables for Congressional Research Service Analysis of Disconnected Youth Table B-1. Rates of Disconnectedness Among Youth Ages 16-24, by Age Group, Gender, and Parental Status, 2008 (Numbers in 1,000s) Age Group Total 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 37,580 13,431 11,720 12,429 Number disconnected 1,915 352 742 822 No children 1,431 306 543 581 Has child(ren) 485 45 199 240 Disconnected rate 5.1% 2.6% 6.3% 6.6% No children 3.8% 2.3% 4.6% 4.7% Has child(ren) 1.3% 0.3% 1.7% 1.9% 19,032 6,816 5,926 6,290 Number disconnected 722 142 294 286 No children 697 142 282 272 Has child(ren) 26 0 12 14 Disconnected rate 3.8% 2.1% 5.0% 4.5% No children 3.7% 2.1% 4.8% 4.3% Has child(ren) 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 18,548 6,615 5,794 6,139 1,193 209 448 536 No children 734 164 261 310 Has child(ren) 459 45 187 227 Disconnected rate 6.4% 3.2% 7.7% 8.7% No children 4.0% 2.5% 4.5% 5.0% Has child(ren) 2.5% 0.7% 3.2% 3.7% All Youth Males All Male Youth Females All Female Youth Number disconnected Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See corresponding Figure 2 in the text. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 58 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Table B-2. Rates of Disconnectedness Among Youth Ages 16-24, by Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Parental Status, 2008 (Numbers in 1,000s) Race and Ethnicity Total White, nonHispanic Hispanic Other, nonHispanic 37,580 23,077 5,339 6,623 2,542 Number disconnected 1,915 839 483 437 156 No children 1,431 663 339 294 134 Has child(ren) 485 176 144 143 22 Disconnected rate 5.1% 3.6% 9.0% 6.6% 6.1% No children 3.8% 2.9% 6.4% 4.4% 5.3% Has child(ren) 1.3% 0.8% 2.7% 2.2% 0.9% 19,032 11,744 2,587 3,435 1,266 Number disconnected 722 358 176 137 52 No children 697 346 171 128 52 Has child(ren) 26 12 5 9 0 Disconnected rate 3.8% 3.0% 6.8% 4.0% 4.1% No children 3.7% 2.9% 6.6% 3.7% 4.1% Has child(ren) 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 18,548 11,332 2,752 3,188 1,276 1,193 481 307 301 104 No children 734 317 168 166 83 Has child(ren) 459 164 139 135 22 Disconnected rate 6.4% 4.2% 11.2% 9.4% 8.2% No children 4.0% 2.8% 6.1% 5.2% 6.5% Has child(ren) 2.5% 1.4% 5.0% 4.2% 1.7% All Youth Black, nonHispanic Males All Male Youth Females All Female Youth Number disconnected Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See corresponding Figure 3 in the text. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Beginning in 2003, respondents were able to report more than one race on the CPS, whereas before they could only report a single race. The data for 2008 and reflect the race of respondents who reported only one race. Congressional Research Service 59 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Table B-3. Educational Attainment of Connected and Disconnected Youth Ages 19-24, by Age Group, 2008 (Numbers in 1,000s) Age19 to 24 Age 19 - 21 Age 22 to 24 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 24,149 100.0% 11,720 100.0% 12,429 100.0% Lacks HS diploma 3,108 12.9% 1,739 14.8% 1,369 11.0% HS diploma or GED 7,405 30.7% 3,735 31.9% 3,670 29.5% 13,637 56.5% 6,246 53.3% 7,390 59.5% 1,564 100.0% 742 100.0% 822 100.0% Lacks HS diploma 540 34.5% 292 39.4% 248 30.1% HS diploma or GED 759 48.6% 356 47.9% 404 49.1% Some schooling beyond HS 265 16.9% 94 12.7% 171 20.7% 22,586 100.0% 10,978 100.0% 11,608 100.0% Lacks HS diploma 2,568 11.4% 1,447 13.2% 1,121 9.7% HS diploma or GED 6,645 29.4% 3,379 30.8% 3,266 28.1% 13,372 59.2% 6,152 56.0% 7,220 62.2% Total Youth Some schooling beyond HS Disconnected Youth Connected Youth Some schooling beyond HS Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See corresponding Figure 4 in the text. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 60 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Table B-4. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 2008 Poverty Status Based on Family Income in 2007 (Numbers in 1,000s) Total Number poor Poverty Rate (Percent Poor) Total 37,580 6,246 16.6% 16 - 18 13,431 2,035 15.2% 19 - 21 11,720 2,075 17.7% 22 - 24 12,429 2,135 17.2% 1,915 907 47.4% 16 - 18 352 138 39.4% 19 - 21 742 356 48.0% 22 - 24 822 413 50.3% Connected 35,665 5,339 15.0% 16 - 18 13,079 1,897 14.5% 19 - 21 10,978 1,720 15.7% 22 - 24 11,608 1,722 14.8% Disconnected Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See corresponding Figure 5 in the text. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 61 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Table B-5. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 2008 Poverty Status Based on Family Income in 2007 (Numbers in 1,000s) Total Total Number poor Poverty Rate (Percent Poor) 37,580 6,246 16.6% White, non-Hispanic 23,077 2,857 12.4% Black, non-Hispanic 5,339 1,454 27.2% Hispanic 6,623 1,509 22.8% Other, non-Hispanic 2,542 426 16.7% 1,915 907 47.4% White, non-Hispanic 839 353 42.1% Black, non-Hispanic 483 260 53.8% Hispanic 437 253 57.9% Other, non-Hispanic 156 41 26.4% 35,665 5,339 15.0% White, non-Hispanic 22,238 2,504 11.3% Black, non-Hispanic 4,856 1,194 24.6% Hispanic 6,186 1,256 20.3% Other, non-Hispanic 2,386 384 16.1% Disconnected Connected Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 62 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Table B-6. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 19-24, by Level of Educational Attainment, 2008 Poverty Status Based on Family Income in 2007 (Numbers in 1,000s) Total Total Number poor Poverty Rate (Percent Poor) 24,149 4,211 17.4% Lacks HS Diploma 3,108 1,121 36.1% HS diploma or GED 7,405 1,383 18.7% 13,637 1,707 12.5% 1,564 769 49.2% Lacks HS Diploma 540 319 59.1% HS diploma or GED 759 344 45.2% Some schooling beyond HS 265 106 40.2% 22,586 3,442 15.2% Lacks HS Diploma 2,568 802 31.2% HS diploma or GED 6,645 1,040 15.6% 13,372 1,600 12.0% Some schooling beyond HS Disconnected Connected Some schooling beyond HS Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See corresponding Figure 6 in the text. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 63 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Table B-7. Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16 to 24 Without Health Insurance Coverage, by Age Group, 2008 Uninsured were Without Health Insurance During All of 2007 (Numbers in 1,000s) Total Number without health insurance Percent uninsured Total 37,580 9,192 24.5% 16 - 18 13,431 1,924 14.3% 19 - 21 11,720 3,268 27.9% 22 - 24 12,429 4,001 32.2% 1,915 701 36.6% 16 - 18 352 86 24.3% 19 - 21 742 280 37.8% 22 - 24 822 335 40.8% Connected 35,665 8,491 23.8% 16 - 18 13,079 1,838 14.1% 19 - 21 10,978 2,988 27.2% 22 - 24 11,608 3,665 31.6% Disconnected Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See corresponding Figure 7 in the text. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 64 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Table B-8. Living Arrangements of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 2008 (Numbers in 1,000s) Age Group Total 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 All Youth 37,580 13,431 11,720 12,429 Lives with one or both parents 24,848 12,239 7,793 4,816 17,084 8,412 5,432 3,240 7,764 3,828 2,360 1,576 12,732 1,191 3,927 7,614 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 66.1% 91.1% 66.5% 38.7% Lives with both parents 45.5% 62.6% 46.4% 26.1% Lives with only one parent 20.7% 28.5% 20.1% 12.7% Lives apart from parents 33.9% 8.9% 33.5% 61.3% Disconnected Youth 1,915 352 742 822 Lives with one or both parents 1,085 281 416 387 Lives with both parents 483 128 175 180 Lives with only one parent 602 153 241 207 831 70 326 435 Lives with both parents Lives with only one parent Lives apart from parents Percent Total Lives with one or both parents Lives apart from parents Percent Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 56.6% 80.0% 56.1% 47.1% Lives with both parents 25.2% 36.4% 23.6% 21.9% Lives with only one parent 31.4% 43.6% 32.5% 25.2% 43.4% 20.0% 43.9% 52.9% Lives with one or both parents Lives apart from parents Connected Youth 35,665 13,079 10,978 11,608 Lives with one or both parents 23,763 11,958 7,376 4,429 16,601 8,284 5,258 3,060 7,162 3,674 2,119 1,369 11,901 1,121 3,602 7,179 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 66.6% 91.4% 67.2% 38.2% Lives with both parents Lives with only one parent Lives apart from parents Percent Total Lives with one or both parents Congressional Research Service 65 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Age Group Total 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 Lives with both parents 46.5% 63.3% 47.9% 26.4% Lives with only one parent 20.1% 28.1% 19.3% 11.8% 33.4% 8.6% 32.8% 61.8% Lives apart from parents Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See corresponding Figure 8 in the text. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 66 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Table B-9. Living Arrangements of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 2008 (Numbers in 1,000s) Race and Ethnicity Total White, nonHispanic Black, nonHispanic Hispanic Other, nonHispanic All Youth 37,580 23,077 5,339 6,623 2,542 Lives with one or both parents 24,848 15,410 3,561 4,116 1,760 17,084 11,669 1,443 2,694 1,278 7,764 3,741 2,118 1,422 483 12,732 7,666 1,778 2,507 781 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 66.1% 66.8% 66.7% 62.1% 69.3% Lives with both parents 45.5% 50.6% 27.0% 40.7% 50.3% Lives with only one parent 20.7% 16.2% 39.7% 21.5% 19.0% Lives apart from parents 33.9% 33.2% 33.3% 37.9% 30.7% Disconnected Youth 1,915 839 483 437 156 Lives with one or both parents 1,085 496 307 196 85 Lives with both parents 483 277 68 91 47 Lives with only one parent 602 220 239 105 38 831 343 176 241 71 Lives with both parents Lives with only one parent Lives apart from parents Percent Total Lives with one or both parents Lives apart from parents Percent Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 56.6% 59.2% 63.5% 44.9% 54.6% Lives with both parents 25.2% 33.0% 14.0% 20.9% 30.3% Lives with only one parent 31.4% 26.2% 49.5% 24.0% 24.3% 43.4% 40.8% 36.5% 55.1% 45.4% Lives with one or both parents Lives apart from parents Connected Youth 35,665 22,238 4,856 6,186 2,386 Lives with one or both parents 23,763 14,914 3,254 3,919 1,675 16,601 11,392 1,375 2,603 1,230 7,162 3,522 1,879 1,317 445 11,901 7,323 1,601 2,266 710 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 66.6% 67.1% 67.0% 63.4% 70.2% Lives with both parents Lives with only one parent Lives apart from parents Percent Total Lives with one or both parents Congressional Research Service 67 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Race and Ethnicity Total White, nonHispanic Black, nonHispanic Hispanic Other, nonHispanic Lives with both parents 46.5% 51.2% 28.3% 42.1% 51.6% Lives with only one parent 20.1% 15.8% 38.7% 21.3% 18.6% 33.4% 32.9% 33.0% 36.6% 29.8% Lives apart from parents Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 68 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Table B-10. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Living Arrangement, 2008 (Poverty Status Based on Family Income in 2007) Total Lives with both parents Lives with only one parent Lives apart from parents Total 37,580 16,810 8,028 12,742 Poor 6,246 785 1,708 3,752 Poverty rate 16.6% 4.7% 21.3% 29.4% Total 1,915 462 622 831 Poor 907 62 253 592 47.4% 13.4% 40.7% 71.3% Total 35,665 16,348 7,406 11,911 Poor 5,339 724 1,455 3,160 Poverty rate 15.0% 4.4% 19.6% 26.5% Disconnected Poverty rate Connected Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. 1988 through 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See corresponding Figure 9 in the text. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 69 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Table B-11. Educational Attainment of Disconnected and Connected Youths’ Parents for Youth Ages 16-24 Living with One or Both Parents, 2008 (Numbers in 1,000s) Total Disconnected Connected Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Youth living with one parent only 7,764 100.0% 602 100.0% 7,162 100.0% Parent lacks a HS education 1,276 16.4% 178 29.6% 1,097 15.3% Parent has HS diploma or GED 2,553 32.9% 206 34.2% 2,347 32.8% Parent has some schooling beyond HS 3,936 50.7% 218 36.2% 3,718 51.9% Youth living with both parents 17,084 100.0% 483 100.0% 16,601 100.0% One or both parents lack a HS education 2,806 16.4% 151 31.2% 2,656 16.0% One or both parents has, and neither is lacking, a HS diploma or GED 6,385 37.4% 210 43.6% 6,175 37.2% Both parents have some schooling beyond HS 7,892 46.2% 122 25.2% 7,770 46.8% Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See corresponding Figure 10 in the text. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 70 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Table B-12. Employment Status of Disconnected and Connected Youths’ Parents, for Youth Ages 16 to 24 Living with One or Both Parents, 2008 (Numbers in 1,000s) Total Disconnected Number Percent Youth living with one parent only 7,764 100.0% Parent employed 5,912 Parent not employed Percent Number Percent 602 100.0% 7,162 100.0% 76.1% 352 58.5% 5,561 77.6% 1,852 23.9% 250 41.5% 1,602 22.4% Youth living with both parents 17,084 100.0% 483 100.0% 16,601 100.0% One or both parents employed 16,300 95.4% 385 79.8% 15,914 95.9% Only father employed 3,730 21.8% 114 23.6% 3,616 21.8% Only mother employed 1,304 7.6% 59 12.2% 1,245 7.5% Both parents employed 11,266 65.9% 213 44.1% 11,053 66.6% 784 4.6% 97 20.2% 687 4.1% Neither parent employed Number Connected Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See corresponding Figure 11 in the text. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 71 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Appendix C. Background Tables for Congressional Research Service Analysis of Disconnected Youth, 1988-2008 Table C-1. Total and Disconnected Youth Ages 16-24, by Gender, 1988-2008 (Numbers in 1,000s) Males Disconnected Year Total 1988 33,460 1989 Number Females Disconnected Disconnected Rate Total Number Rate Total Number Rate 1,608 4.8% 16,614 605 3.6% 16,847 1,003 6.0% 32,646 1,508 4.6% 16,147 497 3.1% 16,499 1,011 6.1% 1990 31,942 1,316 4.1% 15,844 388 2.4% 16,098 928 5.8% 1991 31,522 1,453 4.6% 15,672 502 3.2% 15,850 951 6.0% 1992 31,037 1,480 4.8% 15,458 517 3.3% 15,578 963 6.2% 1993 30,967 1,575 5.1% 15,439 535 3.5% 15,527 1,041 6.7% 1994 32,654 2,169 6.6% 16,379 831 5.1% 16,276 1,338 8.2% 1995 32,515 1,675 5.2% 16,304 616 3.8% 16,211 1,059 6.5% 1996 32,399 1,662 5.1% 16,287 627 3.9% 16,112 1,034 6.4% 1997 32,800 1,476 4.5% 16,562 629 3.8% 16,238 847 5.2% 1998 33,137 1,413 4.3% 16,739 603 3.6% 16,397 810 4.9% 1999 34,023 1,321 3.9% 17,118 579 3.4% 16,905 742 4.4% 2000 34,614 1,350 3.9% 17,499 559 3.2% 17,116 791 4.6% 2001 34,758 1,448 4.2% 17,506 593 3.4% 17,252 856 5.0% 2002 35,434 1,646 4.6% 17,860 695 3.9% 17,574 951 5.4% 2003 35,958 1,669 4.6% 18,140 744 4.1% 17,818 925 5.2% 2004 36,545 1,721 4.7% 18,497 781 4.2% 18,048 940 5.2% 2005 36,749 1,914 5.2% 18,586 887 4.8% 18,163 1,027 5.7% 2006 36,978 1,842 5.0% 18,726 809 4.3% 18,251 1,032 5.7% 2007 37,482 1,829 4.9% 19,018 753 4.0% 18,465 1,075 5.8% 2008 37,580 1,915 5.1% 19,032 722 3.8% 18,548 1,193 6.4% Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See corresponding Figure 12 in the text. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 72 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Table C-2. Disconnected Males Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 1988-2008 (Numbers in 1,000s) Age 16 - 18 Age 19 - 21 Total Age 22 - 24 Disconnected Disconnected Year Total Number Rate Total Number Rate Total Number Rate 1988 5,630 77 1.4% 5,208 224 4.3% 5,775 305 5.3% 1989 5,411 103 1.9% 5,066 178 3.5% 5,669 216 3.8% 1990 5,183 86 1.7% 5,356 162 3.0% 5,305 140 2.6% 1991 5,075 111 2.2% 5,255 224 4.3% 5,341 166 3.1% 1992 4,985 111 2.2% 5,112 201 3.9% 5,361 205 3.8% 1993 5,064 102 2.0% 4,880 192 3.9% 5,496 240 4.4% 1994 5,388 219 4.1% 5,139 280 5.4% 5,851 332 5.7% 1995 5,493 153 2.8% 5,214 226 4.3% 5,598 237 4.2% 1996 5,719 165 2.9% 5,184 253 4.9% 5,384 209 3.9% 1997 5,883 168 2.9% 5,422 225 4.1% 5,256 236 4.5% 1998 6,031 172 2.9% 5,525 246 4.5% 5,183 184 3.6% 1999 6,232 174 2.8% 5,659 238 4.2% 5,227 167 3.2% 2000 6,209 107 1.7% 5,988 288 4.8% 5,302 164 3.1% 2001 6,207 114 1.8% 5,809 258 4.4% 5,491 220 4.0% 2002 6,147 163 2.7% 6,160 319 5.2% 5,553 214 3.8% 2003 6,337 188 3.0% 6,004 303 5.0% 5,799 253 4.4% 2004 6,441 140 2.2% 6,076 328 5.4% 5,979 313 5.2% 2005 6,492 208 3.2% 5,941 350 5.9% 6,153 329 5.3% 2006 6,617 163 2.5% 6,046 342 5.7% 6,063 304 5.0% 2007 6,742 147 2.2% 6,128 332 5.4% 6,147 274 4.5% 2008 6,816 142 2.1% 5,926 294 5.0% 6,290 286 4.5% Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See corresponding Figure 13 in the text. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 73 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Table C-3. Disconnected Females Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 1988-2008 (Numbers in 1,000s) Age 16 - 18 Age 19 - 21 Total Age 22 - 24 Disconnected Disconnected Year Total Number Rate Total Number Rate Total Number Rate 1988 5,426 119 2.2% 5,601 389 7.0% 5,820 495 8.5% 1989 5,319 163 3.1% 5,448 396 7.3% 5,733 453 7.9% 1990 5,005 142 2.8% 5,459 333 6.1% 5,634 454 8.1% 1991 4,874 142 2.9% 5,487 369 6.7% 5,489 440 8.0% 1992 4,810 171 3.5% 5,242 394 7.5% 5,527 399 7.2% 1993 4,864 156 3.2% 5,042 422 8.4% 5,621 462 8.2% 1994 5,207 257 4.9% 5,283 555 10.5% 5,786 525 9.1% 1995 5,328 200 3.7% 5,080 370 7.3% 5,802 490 8.4% 1996 5,455 201 3.7% 5,308 434 8.2% 5,349 400 7.5% 1997 5,604 169 3.0% 5,533 352 6.4% 5,100 326 6.4% 1998 5,715 138 2.4% 5,481 345 6.3% 5,201 328 6.3% 1999 5,806 141 2.4% 5,762 354 6.1% 5,337 247 4.6% 2000 5,890 162 2.8% 5,772 342 5.9% 5,454 287 5.3% 2001 5,821 176 3.0% 5,786 343 5.9% 5,645 336 6.0% 2002 5,907 159 2.7% 5,952 448 7.5% 5,716 344 6.0% 2003 6,147 145 2.4% 5,738 354 6.2% 5,933 426 7.2% 2004 6,307 164 2.6% 5,681 322 5.7% 6,061 454 7.5% 2005 6,224 157 2.5% 5,784 418 7.2% 6,155 452 7.3% 2006 6,320 155 2.5% 5,711 419 7.3% 6,220 458 7.4% 2007 6,440 163 2.5% 5,935 424 7.1% 6,090 488 8.0% 2008 6,615 209 3.2% 5,794 448 7.7% 6,139 536 8.7% Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See corresponding Figure 14 in the text. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Congressional Research Service 74 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Table C-4. Disconnected Males Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 1988-2008 (Numbers in 1,000s) White, Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic Disconnected Hispanic Disconnected Disconnected Year Total Number Rate Total Number Rate Total Number Rate 1988 12,097 319 2.6% 2,238 185 8.3% 1,690 89 5.3% 1989 11,679 266 2.3% 2,190 159 7.3% 1,695 57 3.4% 1990 11,344 192 1.7% 2,190 127 5.8% 1,752 56 3.2% 1991 11,085 204 1.8% 2,155 198 9.2% 1,801 85 4.7% 1992 10,860 224 2.1% 2,155 198 9.2% 1,810 76 4.2% 1993 10,883 232 2.1% 2,176 212 9.8% 1,781 72 4.0% 1994 11,243 446 4.0% 2,248 206 9.2% 2,228 156 7.0% 1995 11,158 243 2.2% 2,249 219 9.8% 2,297 137 5.9% 1996 10,889 254 2.3% 2,236 211 9.4% 2,339 135 5.8% 1997 10,948 243 2.2% 2,295 230 10.0% 2,568 124 4.8% 1998 11,063 269 2.4% 2,293 174 7.6% 2,617 136 5.2% 1999 11,286 270 2.4% 2,352 171 7.3% 2,609 118 4.5% 2000 11,409 208 1.8% 2,422 215 8.9% 2,659 112 4.2% 2001 11,017 214 1.9% 2,316 235 10.2% 3,162 116 3.7% 2002 11,217 318 2.8% 2,374 231 9.7% 3,202 110 3.4% 2003 11,346 296 2.6% 2,351 293 12.4% 3,253 114 3.5% 2004 11,542 343 3.0% 2,395 252 10.5% 3,338 153 4.6% 2005 11,569 376 3.2% 2,453 292 11.9% 3,346 176 5.3% 2006 11,608 352 3.0% 2,517 258 10.2% 3,350 153 4.6% 2007 11,685 356 3.0% 2,584 232 9.0% 3,449 112 3.2% 2008 11,744 358 3.0% 2,587 176 6.8% 3,435 137 4.0% Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See corresponding Figure 15 in the text. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Non-Hispanic youth of races other than white and black are not depicted due to small sample sizes. Racial categories for 2003 and after are not directly comparable to earlier years. Beginning in 2003, respondents were able to report more than one race on the CPS, whereas before they could only report a single race. The data for 2003 and after reflect the race of respondents who reported only one race. Congressional Research Service 75 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Table C-5. Disconnected Females Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 1988-2008 (Numbers in 1,000s) White, Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic Disconnected Hispanic Disconnected Year Total Number Rate Total 1988 12,241 407 3.3% 1989 11,916 444 1990 11,503 1991 Disconnected Number Rate Total Number Rate 2,449 367 15.0% 1,609 186 11.6% 3.7% 2,417 346 14.3% 1,586 190 12.0% 427 3.7% 2,402 297 12.4% 1,628 174 10.7% 11,211 416 3.7% 2,357 312 13.2% 1,679 189 11.3% 1992 10,951 409 3.7% 2,347 317 13.5% 1,729 198 11.5% 1993 10,833 393 3.6% 2,357 355 15.1% 1,748 253 14.5% 1994 11,057 614 5.6% 2,490 354 14.2% 2,068 326 15.7% 1995 11,045 419 3.8% 2,501 326 13.0% 2,046 272 13.3% 1996 10,609 454 4.3% 2,477 273 11.0% 2,201 272 12.3% 1997 10,781 356 3.3% 2,496 221 8.9% 2,139 229 10.7% 1998 10,834 348 3.2% 2,538 195 7.7% 2,240 224 10.0% 1999 10,979 320 2.9% 2,605 164 6.3% 2,421 223 9.2% 2000 11,149 297 2.7% 2,636 178 6.7% 2,431 251 10.3% 2001 10,863 349 3.2% 2,570 198 7.7% 2,796 247 8.9% 2002 11,048 347 3.1% 2,626 250 9.5% 2,858 297 10.4% 2003 11,165 388 3.5% 2,583 209 8.1% 2,853 261 9.1% 2004 11,250 396 3.5% 2,630 223 8.5% 2,951 246 8.4% 2005 11,312 460 4.1% 2,632 213 8.1% 2,990 274 9.2% 2006 11,314 440 3.9% 2,675 258 9.7% 3,034 260 8.6% 2007 11,317 479 4.2% 2,718 258 9.5% 3,136 271 8.6% 2008 11,332 481 4.2% 2,752 307 11.2% 3,188 301 9.4% Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See corresponding Figure 16 in the text. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Non-Hispanic youth of races other than white and black are not depicted due to small sample sizes. Racial categories for 2003 and after are not directly comparable to earlier years. Beginning in 2003, respondents were able to report more than one race on the CPS, whereas before they could only report a single race. The data for 2003 and after reflect the race of respondents who reported only one race. Congressional Research Service 76 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Table C-6. Disconnected Female Youth Ages 16-24, by Parental Status, Race, and Ethnicity, 1988- 2008 (Numbers in 1,000s) Disconnected Total Share of total who are disconnected Disconnected Disconnection rate No child(ren) Has child(ren) No child(ren) Has child(ren) Total 1988 16,847 1,003 6.0% 389 613 2.3% 3.6% 1989 16,499 1,011 6.1% 386 625 2.3% 3.8% 1990 16,098 928 5.8% 406 523 2.5% 3.2% 1991 15,850 951 6.0% 373 578 2.4% 3.6% 1992 15,578 963 6.2% 389 574 2.5% 3.7% 1993 15,527 1,041 6.7% 392 648 2.5% 4.2% 1994 16,276 1,338 8.2% 682 656 4.2% 4.0% 1995 16,211 1,059 6.5% 534 525 3.3% 3.2% 1996 16,112 1,034 6.4% 519 515 3.2% 3.2% 1997 16,238 847 5.2% 447 400 2.8% 2.5% 1998 16,397 810 4.9% 463 347 2.8% 2.1% 1999 16,905 742 4.4% 473 269 2.8% 1.6% 2000 17,116 791 4.6% 525 266 3.1% 1.6% 2001 17,252 856 5.0% 564 292 3.3% 1.7% 2002 17,574 951 5.4% 615 335 3.5% 1.9% 2003 17,818 925 5.2% 585 339 3.3% 1.9% 2004 18,048 940 5.2% 607 333 3.4% 1.8% 2005 18,163 1,027 5.7% 639 388 3.5% 2.1% 2006 18,251 1,032 5.7% 647 385 3.5% 2.1% 2007 18,465 1,075 5.8% 741 334 4.0% 1.8% 2008 18,548 1,194 6.4% 796 398 4.3% 2.1% White, Non-Hispanic 1988 12,241 407 3.3% 197 210 1.6% 1.7% 1989 11,916 444 3.7% 207 237 1.7% 2.0% 1990 11,503 427 3.7% 213 213 1.9% 1.9% 1991 11,211 416 3.7% 190 226 1.7% 2.0% 1992 10,951 409 3.7% 162 247 1.5% 2.3% 1993 10,833 393 3.6% 163 229 1.5% 2.1% 1994 11,057 614 5.6% 343 271 3.1% 2.5% 1995 11,045 419 3.8% 238 181 2.2% 1.6% Congressional Research Service 77 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Disconnected Total Share of total who are disconnected Disconnected Disconnection rate No child(ren) Has child(ren) No child(ren) Has child(ren) 1996 10,609 454 4.3% 266 188 2.5% 1.8% 1997 10,781 356 3.3% 229 127 2.1% 1.2% 1998 10,834 348 3.2% 212 136 2.0% 1.3% 1999 10,979 320 2.9% 213 106 1.9% 1.0% 2000 11,149 297 2.7% 205 93 1.8% 0.8% 2001 10,863 349 3.2% 255 94 2.3% 0.9% 2002 11,048 347 3.1% 249 98 2.3% 0.9% 2003 11,165 388 3.5% 261 128 2.3% 1.1% 2004 11,250 396 3.5% 287 109 2.5% 1.0% 2005 11,312 460 4.1% 300 159 2.7% 1.4% 2006 11,314 440 3.9% 270 170 2.4% 1.5% 2007 11,317 479 4.2% 344 135 3.0% 1.2% 2008 11,332 481 4.2% 352 129 3.1% 1.1% Black, Non-Hispanic 1988 2,449 367 15.0% 96 271 3.9% 11.0% 1989 2,417 346 14.3% 75 271 3.1% 11.2% 1990 2,402 297 12.4% 88 209 3.7% 8.7% 1991 2,357 312 13.2% 76 236 3.2% 10.0% 1992 2,347 317 13.5% 94 223 4.0% 9.5% 1993 2,357 355 15.1% 88 267 3.8% 11.3% 1994 2,490 354 14.2% 127 227 5.1% 9.1% 1995 2,501 326 13.0% 123 204 4.9% 8.1% 1996 2,477 273 11.0% 99 174 4.0% 7.0% 1997 2,496 221 8.9% 85 136 3.4% 5.4% 1998 2,538 195 7.7% 89 107 3.5% 4.2% 1999 2,605 164 6.3% 88 76 3.4% 2.9% 2000 2,636 178 6.7% 100 78 3.8% 3.0% 2001 2,570 198 7.7% 97 101 3.8% 3.9% 2002 2,626 250 9.5% 145 105 5.5% 4.0% 2003 2,583 209 8.1% 110 99 4.3% 3.8% 2004 2,630 223 8.5% 113 110 4.3% 4.2% 2005 2,632 213 8.1% 114 99 4.3% 3.7% 2006 2,675 258 9.7% 155 103 5.8% 3.9% 2007 2,718 258 9.5% 156 103 5.7% 3.8% Congressional Research Service 78 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Disconnected Share of total who are disconnected Disconnected Disconnection rate No child(ren) Has child(ren) No child(ren) Has child(ren) 2,752 307 11.2% 176 131 6.4% 4.8% 1988 1,609 186 11.6% 71 115 4.4% 7.1% 1989 1,586 190 12.0% 87 103 5.5% 6.5% 1990 1,628 174 10.7% 92 82 5.7% 5.0% 1991 1,679 189 11.3% 89 100 5.3% 6.0% 1992 1,729 198 11.5% 107 91 6.2% 5.2% 1993 1,748 253 14.5% 122 131 7.0% 7.5% 1994 2,068 326 15.7% 185 140 9.0% 6.8% 1995 2,046 272 13.3% 151 122 7.4% 6.0% 1996 2,201 272 12.3% 132 140 6.0% 6.4% 1997 2,139 229 10.7% 103 126 4.8% 5.9% 1998 2,240 224 10.0% 122 102 5.5% 4.6% 1999 2,421 223 9.2% 147 76 6.1% 3.1% 2000 2,431 251 10.3% 165 87 6.8% 3.6% 2001 2,796 247 8.9% 165 82 5.9% 2.9% 2002 2,858 297 10.4% 179 118 6.3% 4.1% 2003 2,853 261 9.1% 161 100 5.7% 3.5% 2004 2,951 246 8.4% 159 87 5.4% 3.0% 2005 2,990 274 9.2% 170 104 5.7% 3.5% 2006 3,034 260 8.6% 163 97 5.4% 3.2% 2007 3,136 271 8.6% 191 79 6.1% 2.5% 2008 3,188 302 9.5% 185 117 5.8% 3.7% Total 2008 Hispanic Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. 1988 through 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See corresponding Figure 17, Figure 18, and Figure 19 in the text. Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Non-Hispanic persons other than whites and blacks are included in the total but are not shown separately, due to small sample sizes. Congressional Research Service 79 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Table C-7. Single Mothers Ages 16 to 24, by Connected and Disconnected Status, Race and Ethnicity, 1988-2008 (Numbers in 1,000s) Single mothers as a percent of all female youth Single mothers Total female youth Total Connected 1988 16,847 1,565 1,050 514 1989 16,499 1,624 1,082 1990 16,098 1,533 1991 15,850 1992 Connected Disconnected Connected Disconnected 9.3% 6.2% 3.1% 67.1% 32.9% 542 9.8% 6.6% 3.3% 66.6% 33.4% 1,044 489 9.5% 6.5% 3.0% 68.1% 31.9% 1,601 1,073 529 10.1% 6.8% 3.3% 67.0% 33.0% 15,578 1,643 1,119 524 10.5% 7.2% 3.4% 68.1% 31.9% 1993 15,527 1,789 1,202 587 11.5% 7.7% 3.8% 67.2% 32.8% 1994 16,276 1,882 1,270 612 11.6% 7.8% 3.8% 67.5% 32.5% 1995 16,211 1,878 1,396 481 11.6% 8.6% 3.0% 74.4% 25.6% 1996 16,112 1,867 1,388 480 11.6% 8.6% 3.0% 74.3% 25.7% 1997 16,238 1,936 1,567 369 11.9% 9.6% 2.3% 80.9% 19.1% 1998 16,397 1,843 1,520 322 11.2% 9.3% 2.0% 82.5% 17.5% 1999 16,905 1,830 1,576 254 10.8% 9.3% 1.5% 86.1% 13.9% 2000 17,116 1,932 1,688 244 11.3% 9.9% 1.4% 87.4% 12.6% 2001 17,252 1,772 1,507 266 10.3% 8.7% 1.5% 85.0% 15.0% 2002 17,574 1,798 1,490 308 10.2% 8.5% 1.8% 82.9% 17.1% 2003 17,818 1,802 1,488 314 10.1% 8.3% 1.8% 82.6% 17.4% 2004 18,048 1,841 1,533 308 10.2% 8.5% 1.7% 83.3% 16.7% 2005 18,163 1,850 1,486 365 10.2% 8.2% 2.0% 80.3% 19.7% 2006 18,251 1,793 1,437 355 9.8% 7.9% 1.9% 80.2% 19.8% 2007 18,465 1,644 1,333 311 8.9% 7.2% 1.7% 81.1% 18.9% 2008 18,548 1,589 1,214 376 8.6% 6.5% 2.0% 76.4% 23.6% Year Disconnected Composition of single mothers Total Total White, Non-Hispanic 1988 12,241 640 488 153 5.2% 4.0% 1.2% 76.2% 23.8% 1989 11,916 694 511 184 5.8% 4.3% 1.5% 73.5% 26.5% 1990 11,503 680 495 185 5.9% 4.3% 1.6% 72.8% 27.2% 1991 11,211 736 530 206 6.6% 4.7% 1.8% 72.1% 27.9% 1992 10,951 770 555 215 7.0% 5.1% 2.0% 72.0% 28.0% 1993 10,833 818 615 203 7.5% 5.7% 1.9% 75.2% 24.8% 1994 11,057 900 649 251 8.1% 5.9% 2.3% 72.1% 27.9% 1995 11,045 880 722 158 8.0% 6.5% 1.4% 82.1% 17.9% Congressional Research Service 80 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Single mothers as a percent of all female youth Single mothers Year Total female youth Total 1996 10,609 822 643 179 1997 10,781 905 791 1998 10,834 850 1999 10,979 2000 Connected Disconnected Composition of single mothers Connected Disconnected Connected Disconnected 7.7% 6.1% 1.7% 78.2% 21.8% 113 8.4% 7.3% 1.1% 87.5% 12.5% 720 130 7.8% 6.6% 1.2% 84.7% 15.3% 839 736 103 7.6% 6.7% 0.9% 87.7% 12.3% 11,149 840 755 85 7.5% 6.8% 0.8% 89.9% 10.1% 2001 10,863 749 674 75 6.9% 6.2% 0.7% 90.0% 10.0% 2002 11,048 763 682 81 6.9% 6.2% 0.7% 89.4% 10.6% 2003 11,165 783 668 115 7.0% 6.0% 1.0% 85.4% 14.6% 2004 11,250 785 679 106 7.0% 6.0% 0.9% 86.5% 13.5% 2005 11,312 877 734 143 7.8% 6.5% 1.3% 83.7% 16.3% 2006 11,314 838 683 155 7.4% 6.0% 1.4% 81.5% 18.5% 2007 11,317 720 598 122 6.4% 5.3% 1.1% 83.1% 16.9% 2008 11,332 615 497 118 5.4% 4.4% 1.0% 80.9% 19.1% Total Black, Non-Hispanic 1988 2,449 680 420 260 27.8% 17.1% 10.6% 61.7% 38.3% 1989 2,417 723 463 261 29.9% 19.1% 10.8% 64.0% 36.0% 1990 2,402 627 421 206 26.1% 17.5% 8.6% 67.1% 32.9% 1991 2,357 649 423 226 27.5% 17.9% 9.6% 65.2% 34.8% 1992 2,347 647 431 216 27.6% 18.4% 9.2% 66.7% 33.3% 1993 2,357 663 412 251 28.1% 17.5% 10.7% 62.1% 37.9% 1994 2,490 689 467 222 27.7% 18.8% 8.9% 67.8% 32.2% 1995 2,501 682 480 202 27.3% 19.2% 8.1% 70.3% 29.7% 1996 2,477 641 469 171 25.9% 18.9% 6.9% 73.2% 26.8% 1997 2,496 644 511 133 25.8% 20.5% 5.3% 79.3% 20.7% 1998 2,538 625 534 91 24.6% 21.0% 3.6% 85.4% 14.6% 1999 2,605 608 535 73 23.4% 20.5% 2.8% 87.9% 12.1% 2000 2,636 698 628 69 26.5% 23.8% 2.6% 90.1% 9.9% 2001 2,570 584 483 101 22.7% 18.8% 3.9% 82.6% 17.4% 2002 2,626 594 491 103 22.6% 18.7% 3.9% 82.7% 17.3% 2003 2,583 556 457 98 21.5% 17.7% 3.8% 82.3% 17.7% 2004 2,630 603 499 104 22.9% 19.0% 3.9% 82.8% 17.2% 2005 2,632 522 425 97 19.8% 16.2% 3.7% 81.5% 18.5% 2006 2,675 504 405 99 18.8% 15.2% 3.7% 80.4% 19.6% 2007 2,718 513 410 103 18.9% 15.1% 3.8% 79.9% 20.1% Congressional Research Service 81 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Single mothers as a percent of all female youth Single mothers Year Total female youth Total 2008 2,752 510 379 1988 1,609 214 1989 1,586 1990 Connected Disconnected Composition of single mothers Total Connected Disconnected Connected Disconnected 131 18.5% 13.8% 4.8% 74.3% 25.7% 128 86 13.3% 7.9% 5.4% 59.7% 40.3% 166 80 85 10.4% 5.1% 5.4% 48.4% 51.6% 1,628 188 109 80 11.6% 6.7% 4.9% 57.7% 42.3% 1991 1,679 176 93 83 10.5% 5.5% 4.9% 52.9% 47.1% 1992 1,729 190 111 80 11.0% 6.4% 4.6% 58.3% 41.7% 1993 1,748 264 152 112 15.1% 8.7% 6.4% 57.4% 42.6% 1994 2,068 242 120 122 11.7% 5.8% 5.9% 49.7% 50.3% 1995 2,046 271 160 110 13.2% 7.8% 5.4% 59.2% 40.8% 1996 2,201 329 213 116 14.9% 9.7% 5.3% 64.7% 35.3% 1997 2,139 340 225 114 15.9% 10.5% 5.4% 66.3% 33.7% 1998 2,240 335 237 98 15.0% 10.6% 4.4% 70.6% 29.4% 1999 2,421 332 263 69 13.7% 10.9% 2.9% 79.2% 20.8% 2000 2,431 333 252 81 13.7% 10.3% 3.3% 75.6% 24.4% 2001 2,796 360 284 76 12.9% 10.2% 2.7% 78.9% 21.1% 2002 2,858 373 263 110 13.1% 9.2% 3.8% 70.6% 29.4% 2003 2,853 384 292 92 13.4% 10.2% 3.2% 76.0% 24.0% 2004 2,951 369 289 80 12.5% 9.8% 2.7% 78.3% 21.7% 2005 2,990 371 271 100 12.4% 9.1% 3.4% 72.9% 27.1% 2006 3,034 358 270 88 11.8% 8.9% 2.9% 75.3% 24.7% 2007 3,136 353 282 71 11.3% 9.0% 2.3% 79.8% 20.2% 2008 3,188 380 271 109 11.9% 8.5% 3.4% 71.4% 28.6% Hispanic Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. 1988 through 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). See corresponding Figure 20 in the text . Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Non-Hispanic persons other than whites and blacks are included in the total but are not shown separately, due to small sample sizes. Congressional Research Service 82 . Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Author Contact Information Adrienne L. Fernandes Analyst in Social Policy afernandes@crs.loc.gov, 7-9005 Thomas Gabe Specialist in Social Policy tgabe@crs.loc.gov, 7-7357 Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank their CRS colleagues, Gene Falk, Carmen Solomon-Fears, Melinda Gish, Karen Spar, Jeffrey J. Kuenzi, and Rebecca R. Skinner, for their helpful comments and insights. Congressional Research Service 83