Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara Specialist in Social Policy Thomas Gabe Specialist in Social Policy December 16, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R40535 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress 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 opportunities for youth to obtain job training and employment. 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 have 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 were not working or in school at the time of the survey (February through April) and did not work or attend school any time during the previous 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, 2.6 million youth ages 16 through 24—or 6.9% of this population—met the definition of disconnected in 2010, meaning that they were not in school or working for all of 2010 and at some point between February and April of 2011. As expected, rates of disconnection have varied over time depending on economic cycles. Like the existing research, the CRS analysis finds that a greater share of female and minority youth are disconnected, and that their rates of disconnection have been higher over time. 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, rates of disconnection may remain stable or 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. Congressional Research Service Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1 Background...................................................................................................................................... 3 Overview of Research on Disconnected Youth................................................................................ 5 Methodology and Number of Disconnected Youth ................................................................... 5 Other Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 6 Reasons Associated with Disconnection ................................................................................... 7 CRS Analysis of Disconnected Youth.............................................................................................. 7 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 7 Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 8 Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Reasons Reported For Youth Not Being in School or Working .......................................... 9 Characteristics of Disconnected Youth.............................................................................. 11 Characteristics of Parents Living with Disconnected Youth ............................................. 25 Trends Over Time.............................................................................................................. 28 Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 40 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 40 Poverty, Family Living Arrangements, and Parental Characteristics ...................................... 41 Implications for Policy ............................................................................................................ 43 Figures Figure 1. Disconnected Youth Ages 16-24, by Disability Status, Presence of Children, and Family Caretaking Responsibility, 2011..................................................................................... 10 Figure 2. Disconnected Rates Among Youth Ages 16-24, by Age Group, Gender, and Parental Status, 2011................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 3. Disconnected Rates Among Youth Ages 16-24, by Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Parental Status, 2011................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 4. Educational Attainment of Connected and Disconnected Youth Ages 19-24, by Age Group, 2011 ........................................................................................................................ 17 Figure 5. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Age Group 2011 ................................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 6. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 19-24, by Level of Educational Attainment, 2011..................................................................................................... 20 Figure 7. Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24 Without Health Insurance Coverage by Age Group, 2011 ................................................................................................... 22 Figure 8. Living Arrangements of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 2011 ........................................................................................................................ 24 Figure 9. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16 to 24, by Living Arrangement, 2011 ..................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 10. Educational Attainment of Disconnected and Connected Youths’ Parents, for Youth Ages 16-24 Living with One or Both Parents, 2011 ........................................................ 26 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, 2011................................................................... 27 Figure 12. Rates of Disconnected Youth Ages16-24, by Gender, 1988-2011............................... 29 Figure 13. Rates of Disconnected Males Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 1988-2011 ........................ 30 Figure 14. Rates of Disconnected Females Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 2011 .............................. 31 Figure 15. Rates of Disconnected Males Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 1998-2011............ 32 Figure 16. Rates of Disconnected Females Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 19982011 ............................................................................................................................................ 33 Figure 17. Rates of Disconnected White, non-Hispanic Females Ages 16-24, by Parental Status,1988-2011 ........................................................................................................................ 35 Figure 18. Rates of Disconnected Black, non-Hispanic Females Ages 16-24, by Parental Status,1988-2011 ........................................................................................................................ 36 Figure 19. Rates of Disconnected Hispanic Females Ages 16-24, by Parental Status,19882011 ............................................................................................................................................ 37 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, 19882011 ............................................................................................................................................ 39 Tables Table 1. Summary Characteristics of Connected and Disconnected Youth Ages 16-24, 2011 ............................................................................................................................................ 11 Table A-1. Select Studies of Disconnected Youth.......................................................................... 46 Table B-1. Rates of Disconnectedness Among Youth Ages 16-24, by Age Group, Gender, and Parental Status, 2011............................................................................................................ 51 Table B-2. Rates of Disconnectedness Among Youth Ages 16-24, by Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Parental Status, 2011 .............................................................................................. 52 Table B-3. Educational Attainment of Connected and Disconnected Youth Ages 19-24, by Age Group, 2011 ........................................................................................................................ 53 Table B-4. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 2011 ................................................................................................................................ 54 Table B-5. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 2011 ..................................................................................................................... 55 Table B-6. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 19-24, by Level of Educational Attainment, 2011..................................................................................................... 56 Table B-7. Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16 to 24 Without Health Insurance Coverage, by Age Group, 2011 .................................................................................................. 57 Table B-8. Living Arrangements of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 2011 ........................................................................................................................ 58 Table B-9. Living Arrangements of Disconnected and Connected Youth Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 2011 ............................................................................................................ 60 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, 2011 ..................................................................................................................... 62 Table B-11. Educational Attainment of Disconnected and Connected Youths’ Parents for Youth Ages 16-24 Living with One or Both Parents, 2011 ........................................................ 63 Table B-12. Employment Status of Disconnected and Connected Youths’ Parents, for Youth Ages 16 to 24 Living with One or Both Parents, 2011..................................................... 64 Table C-1. Total and Disconnected Youth Ages 16-24, by Gender, 1988-2011............................. 65 Table C-2. Disconnected Males Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 1988-2011 ...................................... 67 Table C-3. Disconnected Females Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 1988-2011................................... 68 Table C-4. Disconnected Males Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 1988-2011.......................... 69 Table C-5. Disconnected Females Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 1988-2011 ...................... 70 Table C-6. Disconnected Female Youth Ages 16-24, by Parental Status, Race, and Ethnicity, 1988- 2008.................................................................................................................. 71 Table C-7. Single Mothers Ages 16 to 24, by Connected and Disconnected Status, Race and Ethnicity, 1988-2011............................................................................................................ 75 Appendixes Appendix A. Summary of Major Studies on Disconnected Youth................................................. 46 Appendix B. Background Tables for Congressional Research Service Analysis of Disconnected Youth .................................................................................................................... 51 Appendix C. Background Tables for Congressional Research Service Analysis of Disconnected Youth, 1988-2011................................................................................................. 65 Contacts Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 78 Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 78 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 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 as 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. This definition includes noninstitutionalized youth ages 16 through 24 who were not working or in school at the time of the survey (February through April 2011) and did not work or attend school any time during the previous year (2010).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 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 youth programs, see CRS Report R40929, Vulnerable Youth: Employment and Job Training Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara. 3 The CPS/ASEC is administered in February through April, though the majority of respondents are surveyed in March. 4 In 2009, the most recent year for which data are available, 86,927 youth (including those over age 18) 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. On one day in 2007, the most recent year for which data are available, 747,800 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 2009, Table 17. Congressional Research Service 1 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, 2.6 million youth ages 16 through 24—or 6.9% of this population—met the definition of disconnected in 2011 (disconnected for all of 2010 and between February and April of 2011). Like many other studies, the CRS analysis finds that a greater share of female and minority youth tend to be disconnected, although in some recent years rates of disconnection among females and males have been similar or converged. The CRS 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 less likely to have health insurance. They are more likely to live apart from their parents (except for youth ages 22-24) 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 2011. It shows that the rates of disconnection have ranged from about 3.9% (in 1999 and 2000) to just over 7.4% (in 2010). 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 except that in 2010, when these rates converged (in the second through fourth months of 2011, women had slightly higher rates). Disconnected rates were also highest over the period for black (non-Hispanic) males in the study. In most years, rates of disconnection were highest among 19-to-21 year olds or 22-to-24 year olds. 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. 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-Alcantara. 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 2 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Background Congress has taken interest in, and enacted, policies that can assist youth who are not working or in school. 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.6 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.7 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.8 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.9 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.10 It found that programs were successful because of effective 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 6 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. 7 Ibid. See for example, the testimony of Ronald B. Mincy, Professor of Social Policy and Social Work Practice at Columbia University. 8 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. 9 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. 10 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 3 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School were part of a population of vulnerable youth, such as youth in foster care, runaway and homeless youth,11 incarcerated youth, and minority youth from poor communities.12 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.13 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), the omnibus law that provided federal funding for programs to encourage economic recovery, included provisions that pertain to disconnected youth.14 Of the $1.2 billion appropriated for programs in the Workforce Investment Act, Congress extended the age through 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 made 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 between the ages 16 and 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.” Given the slow job growth following the 2007-2009 recession, Congress may continue to pursue job creation and retention strategies, including for youth who face dim prospects in securing employment.15 The next section provides an overview of the existing research of disconnected youth, and it 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. 11 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). 12 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. 7053); and a bill to expand the work opportunity tax credit to include “disconnected youth” (H.R. 7066). 13 For further information about the TRIO programs, see Trio and GEAR UP Programs: Status and Issues, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi. 14 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. 15 The 111th and 112th Congress have introduced bills that would address disconnected youth, including some bills that provide a definition of “disconnected.” Congressional Research Service 4 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School 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. 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.16 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.17 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).18 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.19 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 1999.20 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 16 Some of the studies do not provide detailed information about the methodology used. 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. 18 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. 19 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. 20 Peter Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2006). 17 Congressional Research Service 5 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School married.21 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.22 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.23 Inclusion of youth living in institutional settings could 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.24 Other Characteristics In all studies that examined gender, an equal or greater share of females were 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).25 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 2001.26 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 2009 ACS data, the rates of disconnection among youth ages 16 to 19 by racial category were as 21 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. 22 Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count, 2011; 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. 23 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. 24 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. 25 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education, 2007. 26 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. Congressional Research Service 6 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School follows: 5% of non-Hispanic Asian and Pacific Islanders; 7% of non-Hispanic whites; 12% of Hispanics; and 13% of non-Hispanic blacks.27 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).28 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 have certain personal and family background factors, including family poverty, family welfare receipt, and low parent education.29 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).30 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.31 For these reasons, the number and share of 27 Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count Data Book, 2011 Thomas MaCurdy, Bryan Keating, and Sriniketh Suryasesha, Profiling the Plight of Disconnected Youth in America. 29 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). 30 Congressional Budget Office, What is Happening to Youth Employment Rates?, November 2004. 31 Reciprocally, youth who are not in school or working, married to a connected partner, and not a parent are considered disconnected. 28 Congressional Research Service 7 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School youth in the analysis who are considered disconnected are smaller than in some other studies. Still, as discussed below, 2.6 million youth ages 16 through 24—or 6.9% 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, marital, and parental status. The definition includes young people ages 16 through 24 who did not work anytime during a previous year (2010) due primarily to a reason other than school and who also were not working nor in school at the time of the survey (February through April of 2011). (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, or some other unspecified reason.) This means that youth would be disconnected for a minimum of 12 months (all of 2010), and some or all of a possible additional three months (February through April of 2011). 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.32 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.33 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, 32 For additional information about the transition to adulthood, see CRS Report RL33975, Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara. 33 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. Congressional Research Service 8 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School 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.34 As discussed in the section below, nearly half of all disconnected youth live in poverty. 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.35 Findings This section begins with an overview of the reasons disconnected youth said they were not working or in school at any time in 2010. 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 2010 CPS, are compared to data for connected youth. The section ends with a presentation of trend data on disconnection from 1988 through 2010, with a focus on gender, age, and race and ethnicity. Appendix B presents detailed tables of the 2011 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 the first quarter of 2011. Major reasons include taking care of family or home, illness or disability, or that they could not find work. Just under 30% (about 733,000) of disconnected youth were reported to be taking care of home or family and were not disabled. Of those, over half (372,000) 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 about 30% (about 799,000) of disconnected youth did not work in 2011, with most designated as having a severe disability.36 One indication that a person is severely disabled is their receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Medicare.37 Over two-fifths of disconnected 34 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. 35 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. 36 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. 37 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 (continued...) Congressional Research Service 9 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School individuals with disabilities (345,00) received one of these two benefits, accounting for about one in seven (14.5%) of all disconnected youth. Finally, 42% (1.1 million) could not find work and they did not have a disability or responsibilities in the home; most of these individuals did not have a child (1.0 million). Figure 1. Disconnected Youth Ages 16-24, by Disability Status, Presence of Children, and Family Caretaking Responsibility, 2011 Severe Disability, Receives SSI or Medicare (345 thousand, 13.1%) Could not find work (not disabled, not with child nor taking care of family) (1.005 million, 38.0%) Severe Disability, Does not Receive SSI or Medicare (382 thousand, 14.5%) Non-severe disability (72 thousand, 2.7%) Has a child, taking care of family, not disabled (372 thousand, 14.1%) Taking care of family (not with child nor disabled) (361 thousand, 13.7%) Has a child, not taking care of family, not disabled (105 thousand, 4.0%) Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2011 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. (...continued) Income (SSI), by Umar Moulta-Ali. Congressional Research Service 10 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Characteristics of Disconnected Youth Table 1 compares demographic characteristics of disconnected and connected peers ages 16 through 24 in 2011 (which meant that youth were disconnected in all of 2010 and at the time of the survey in 2011). The table shows that 2.6 million of these youth, or 6.9% 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) youth was highest—at 10.4%. Among youth ages 16 through 18, 19 through 21, and 22 through 24, the younger youth were more likely than their older peers to be connected. 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. Table 1. Summary Characteristics of Connected and Disconnected Youth Ages 16-24, 2011 (Numbers in 1,000s) Connected Disconnected Percent Share of total youth 2,641 100.0% 6.9% 35,733 100.0% 13,096 434 16.4% 3.3% 12,662 35.4% Age 19 - 21 12,607 1,053 39.9% 8.3% 11,555 32.3% Age 22 - 24 12,671 1,155 43.7% 9.1% 11,517 32.2% 19,585 1,254 100.0% 6.4% 18,330 100.0% Age 16 - 18 6,725 209 16.6% 3.1% 6,516 35.5% Age 19 - 21 6,389 523 41.7% 8.2% 5,866 32.0% Age 22 - 24 6,471 523 41.7% 8.1% 5,949 32.5% 18,790 1,387 100.0% 7.4% 17,402 100.0% Age 16 - 18 6,371 226 16.3% 3.5% 6,146 35.3% Age 19 - 21 6,219 530 38.2% 8.5% 5,689 32.7% Age 22 - 24 6,200 632 45.6% 10.2% 5,568 32.0% Total 38,374 2,641 100.0% 6.9% 35,733 100.0% White non-Hispanic 22,638 1,279 48.4% 5.6% 21,359 59.8% Black non-Hispanic 5,438 567 21.5% 10.4% 4,870 13.6% Hispanic 7,573 621 23.5% 8.2% 6,953 19.5% Total number Number Total 38,374 Age 16 - 18 Number Percent Age and Gender Age Males Total Females Total Race and Ethnicity by Gender Males and Females Congressional Research Service 11 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Connected Disconnected Total number Other, non-Hispanic Number Percent Share of total youth Number Percent 2,726 174 6.6% 6.4% 2,551 7.1% Total 19,585 1,254 100.0% 6.4% 18,330 100.0% White non-Hispanic 11,480 617 49.2% 5.4% 10,863 59.3% Black non-Hispanic 2,645 274 21.8% 10.3% 2,371 12.9% Hispanic 4,086 286 22.8% 7.0% 3,801 20.7% Other, non-Hispanic 1,374 78 6.2% 5.7% 1,296 7.1% Total 18,790 1,387 100.0% 7.4% 17,402 100.0% White non-Hispanic 11,157 662 47.7% 5.9% 10,496 60.3% Black non-Hispanic 2,793 294 21.2% 10.5% 2,499 14.4% Hispanic 3,487 335 24.2% 9.6% 3,152 18.1% Other, non-Hispanic 1,352 96 7.0% 7.1% 1,255 7.2% Total 25,279 2,207 100.0% 8.7% 23,071 100.0% Age 19 - 21 12,607 1,053 100.0% 8.3% 11,555 100.0% Age 22 - 24 12,671 1,155 100.0% 9.1% 11,517 100.0% Total 3,001 669 30.3% 22.3% 2,332 10.1% Age 19 - 21 1,758 332 31.6% 18.9% 1,425 12.3% Age 22 - 24 1,244 337 29.2% 27.1% 907 7.9% Total 7,615 1,102 49.9% 14.5% 6,513 28.2% Age 19 - 21 4,089 584 55.4% 14.3% 3,505 30.3% Age 22 - 24 3,527 519 44.9% 14.7% 3,008 26.1% 14,662 436 19.8% 3.0% 14,226 61.7% Age 19 - 21 6,761 137 13.0% 2.0% 6,624 57.3% Age 22 - 24 7,901 299 25.9% 3.8% 7,601 66.0% 38,374 2,641 100.0% 6.9% 35,733 100.0% Males Females 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 Total Congressional Research Service 12 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Connected Disconnected Total number Number Percent Share of total youth Number Percent 16 - 18 13,096 434 100.0% 3.3% 12,662 100.0% 19 - 21 12,607 1,053 100.0% 8.3% 11,555 100.0% 22 - 24 12,671 1,155 100.0% 9.1% 11,517 100.0% Total 26,203 1,543 58.4% 5.9% 24,659 69.0% 16 - 18 12,093 351 80.9% 2.9% 11,742 92.7% 19 - 21 8,674 626 59.5% 7.2% 8,048 69.7% 22 - 24 5,435 565 49.0% 10.4% 4,870 42.3% 12,172 1,098 41.6% 9.0% 11,073 31.0% 16 - 18 1,002 83 19.1% 8.3% 920 7.3% 19 - 21 3,933 426 40.5% 10.8% 3,507 30.3% 22 - 24 7,236 589 51.0% 8.1% 6,647 57.7% 38,374 2,641 100.0% 6.9% 35,733 100.0% 8,111 1,285 48.6% 15.8% 6,826 19.1% 30,263 1,356 51.4% 4.5% 28,907 80.9% 38,374 2,641 100.0% 6.9% 35,733 100.0% 9,182 1,012 38.3% 11.0% 8,170 22.9% 29,192 1,629 61.7% 5.6% 27,563 77.1% Lives with one or both parents Lives apart from parents Total 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 2011 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 It might be expected 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 school38 and that males 38 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, “Percentage of high school dropouts among persons 16 through 24 years old (status dropout rate), by sex and race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1960 through 2009,” August 2010, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_115.asp. Congressional Research Service 13 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School appear to be more vulnerable to losing jobs.39 However, consistent with other studies of disconnected youth, the CRS analysis shows that females are more likely than males to be disconnected. Still, the difference in the rates between males and females ages 16 through 24 is relatively small—7.4% of females and 6.4% of males, as depicted in Figure 2. The higher rates for females appears to be explained by the fact they were more likely to be parenting.40 Overall, 2.8% of females and 0.3% of males were parenting. It is possible that their parenting responsibilities kept them from working or attending school. (As shown in Figure 1, about 14% of youth reported they were not connected in 2011 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 ages 16 through 18 are just as likely as those ages 19 through 21 to be disconnected, and females ages 22 through 24 are less 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 3% to 4% 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 more than twice as high among older youth ages 19 through 21, and 22 through 24. 39 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). See also, CRS Report R41431, Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers, by Carmen Solomon-Fears, Gene Falk, and Adrienne L. FernandesAlcantara. 40 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 14 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 2. Disconnected Rates Among Youth Ages 16-24, by Age Group, Gender, and Parental Status, 2011 11% 10.2% 10% With children Without children 9% 8% 7% 6% 8.2% 0.3% 7.4% 8.1% 0.7% 5.1% 2.9% 6.4% 0.3% 8.5% 2.8% 5% 4% 3.5% 3.1% 3% 6.1% 7.9% 7.4% 0.5% 5.6% 5.1% 4.6% 2% 3.1% 3.0% Males Females 1% 0% Males Females All Youth Age 16 - 24 Age 16 - 18 Males Females Age 19 - 21 Males Females Age 22 - 24 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2011 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. Race and Ethnicity Minority youth are more likely than their white peers to not be working or in school.41 Figure 3 shows rates of disconnection by race and ethnicity, gender, and parental status for 2011. NonHispanic black females had the highest rates of disconnection (10.5%), compared to 9.6% of Hispanic females and 5.9% of white females. The same was true among males: 10.3% of blacks, 7.0% of Hispanics, and 5.4% 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 less likely to be disconnected than their male counterparts without children (which is nearly all the males). 41 Asian or Pacific Islander and Native Americans and Alaskan Natives are not included in this analysis; however, these groups are included in the “other” category of Table 1 and in select tables in Appendix B. Congressional Research Service 15 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, 2011 12% With children 11% 10.3% 10.5% Without children 0.5% 10% 9.6% 9% 4.0% 8% 7% 6% 7.4% 7.0% 0.4% 6.4% 0.3% 2.8% 5.9% 5.4% 0.2% 5% 4.9% 2.0% 9.8% 4% 3% 6.5% 6.1% 4.6% 2% 6.6% 5.2% 4.7% 4.0% 1% 0% Males Females All Disconnected Youth Age 16 - 24 Males Females White, non-Hispanic Males Females Black, non-Hispanic Males Females Hispanic Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2011 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. In 2010, 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 those with less than a high school diploma was $444 and their unemployment rate was 14.9%. The corresponding figures for high school graduates was $626 and 10.3%, 42 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Education Pays, May 4, 2011. Congressional Research Service 16 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School respectively. Among those with a bachelor’s degree, the corresponding figures were $1,038 and 5.4%, 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 2011, among 19 through 21-year olds, nearly one-third (31.6%) disconnected youth lacked a diploma or GED, compared to about one out of ten (12.3%) connected youth. Among older youth, this difference persisted, with 29.2% of disconnected youth and 7.9% of connected youth lacking a diploma or GED. Figure 4. Educational Attainment of Connected and Disconnected Youth Ages 19-24, by Age Group, 2011 Some schooling beyond H.S. H.S. Diploma or GED Lacks H.S. Diplolma 100% 90% 13.0% 19.8% 25.9% 80% 70% 57.3% 61.7% 60% 66.0% 55.4% 49.9% 44.9% 50% 40% 30% 30.3% 28.2% 26.1% 20% 31.6% 30.3% 29.2% 10% 12.3% 10.1% 7.9% 0% Disconnected Connected Age 19 - 24 Disconnected Connected Age 19 - 21 Disconnected Connected Age 22 - 24 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2011 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. 43 Data are 2008 annual averages for persons age 25 and over. Earnings are for full-time wage and salary workers. Congressional Research Service 17 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In 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 2010 income of related family members in a household as reported as part of the CPS for 2011. 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 2010 fell below Census Bureau poverty income thresholds. Poverty thresholds vary by family size and composition. A youth living alone, with no other family members, would be considered poor in the previous year if his/her pre-tax money income was under $11,344; 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 $15,030; and, for a youth over age 18 living with both parents and a younger sibling (under age 18), and no other related family members, they would be considered poor if their family income was below $22,113.44 Figure 5 shows that in 2010, 45.7% of all disconnected youth were poor, compared to 17.8% 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 half of youth age 22 through 24 were poor, compared to 33.8% of youth ages 16 through 18 and 44.5% of youth ages 19 through 21. The rates of poverty among connected youth were stable at 17.0% to 18.5% across the three age groups. 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 the definition of disconnected youth used in this analysis, none were working in 2010, 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 (60.4%) than among their disconnected counterparts with more education (36.3% to 49.5%). Yet even disconnected youth with some schooling beyond high school were more likely than connected youth lacking a high school diploma to be poor, 49.5% and 37.4% respectively. Poverty by family living arrangement is presented later in this report and implications of poverty and disconnected youth are discussed further in the conclusion. 44 Census Bureau, “Poverty Thresholds,” http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/. Congressional Research Service 18 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 2011 (Poverty Status Based on Family Income in 2010) 60% Disconnected Connected 52.0% 50% 45.7% 44.5% Percent Poor 40% 33.8% 30% 20% 17.8% 17.0% 18.5% 17.9% 10% 0% Total Age 16 - 18 Age 19 - 21 Age 22 - 24 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2011 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 19 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, 2011 (Poverty Status Based on Family Income in 2010) 70% 60.4% 60% Disconnected 50.2% 49.5% 50% Percent Poor Connected 40% 37.4% 36.3% 30% 20% 20.8% 19.7% 16.3% 10% 0% Total Lacks HS diploma HS diploma or GED Some schooling beyond HS Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2011 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 20 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 2010. Overall, rates of uninsurance were relatively high for both disconnected youth (38.3%) and connected youth (22.9%). 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. Most Americans obtain health coverage through the workplace. In 2010, approximately 195.9 million persons had employment-based health insurance, which accounts for 55.3% of the total population.46 It might be expected that an even greater share of disconnected youth would 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 (CRS did not examine coverage type among youth). As shown in Figure 1, above, about 345,000 (13.1%) 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. Nearly 20% (18.9%) of disconnected youth ages 16 through 18, 38.9% of disconnected youth ages 19 through 21, and 45.0% of disconnected youth ages 22 through 24 were uninsured. This is compared to 13.2%, 25.7%, and 30.6% 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. However, as health plans implement the requirement to cover children up to age 26—even those children who are married—the difference in coverage rates may narrow between these age groups. 48 46 Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance in the United States: 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, September 2011, p. 24. 47 Social Security Administration, Medicaid Information, http://www.socialsecurity.gov/disabilityresearch/wi/ medicaid.htm. 48 Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148), health plans that provide dependent coverage must extend that existing coverage to children under the age of 26. However, certain health plans are exempt from this requirement if the adult child has an offer of coverage from his/her own employer. For further information, see CRS Report R41220, Preexisting Exclusion Provisions for Children and Dependent Coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), by Hinda Chaikind and Bernadette Fernandez. Congressional Research Service 21 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, 2011 (Health Insurance Status During All of 2010) 50% Disconnected Connected 45.0% 45% 40% 38.9% 38.3% 35% Percent Uninsured 30.6% 30% 25.7% 25% 22.9% 18.9% 20% 15% 13.2% 10% 5% 0% Disconnected Connected All Youth Age 16 - 24 Disconnected Connected Age 16 - 18 Disconnected Connected Age 19 - 21 Disconnected Connected Age 22 - 24 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2011 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.49 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. Disconnected youth, however, may be less likely than their peers to rely on supports from their parents. A 2008 study by the Government Accountability Office would suggest this. GAO included in its definition of the disconnected population those youth “who lack family or other social supports.”50 49 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). 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. Congressional Research Service 22 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School 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 2011. (This translates to about 1.1 million disconnected youth and 11.1 million connected youth.) While disconnected youth as a whole were less likely to live with one or both parents (58.5%, compared to 69.1% of connected youth), 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 more likely to live with both parents (46.6%) than disconnected youth (29.4%).51 The social science research indicates that children who grow up in mother-only families (or with their mother and step-father) are more likely than children raised with both biological parents to have certain negative outcomes, including poverty-level incomes.52 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 almost three times more likely than connected youth to be poor (17.4% versus 6.2%, respectively). Poverty rates were higher for youth living in single-parent families than in dual-parent families, but the poverty rate of disconnected youth in single-parent families (47.4%) was almost twice that of connected youth living in such families (24.5%). Poverty rates were highest among youth living apart from their parents; among disconnected youth about seven in ten were poor (71.6%), a rate, again, about twice as high as connected youth (34.6%). 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. 52 For further information, see CRS Report R41431, Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers, by Carmen SolomonFears, Gene Falk, and Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara. Congressional Research Service 23 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, 2011 Lives apart from parents Lives with one parent Lives with both parents 100% 7.3% 19.1% 90% 30.3% 31.0% 80% 41.6% 30.8% 40.5% 51.0% 70% 38.1% 60% 57.7% 22.3% 22.5% 50% 29.1% 32.1% 40% 22.9% 13.4% 61.9% 30% 46.6% 20% 47.3% 42.9% 29.4% 27.4% 26.1% 10% 28.9% 0% Disconnected Connected All Youth Age 16 - 24 Disconnected Connected Age 16 - 18 Disconnected Connected Age 19 - 21 Disconnected Connected Age 22 - 24 Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2011 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 24 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, 2011 (Poverty Status Based on Family Income in 2010) 80% Disconnected Connected 71.6% 70% 60% Percent Poor 50% 48.6% 47.4% 40% 34.6% 30% 24.5% 19.1% 20% 10% 17.4% 6.2% 0% Total Lives with both parents Lives with only one parent Lives apart from parents Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2011 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 1.5 million disconnected youth, or 58.4% of the disconnected population, lived with their parents (compared to 69.0% of connected youth). The CRS analysis evaluated the education and employment status of parents at a point in time in 2011. The analysis examined 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 much more likely than parents of connected youth to lack a high school diploma or its equivalent. Congressional Research Service 25 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Further, among single-parent households, 35.6% of disconnected youth had parents who had some schooling beyond high school, compared to half (50.9%) of the parents of their connected counterparts. Among dual-parent households, slightly more than one quarter of disconnected youth had both parents with some education beyond high school, compared to about 46% 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, 2011 Youth Living with One Parent Only Parent has some schooling beyond HS Parent has HS Diploma or GED Youth Living with Both Parents Both parents have some schooling beyond HS One or both parents has, and neither is lacking, a HS Diploma or GED One or both parents lack a HS education Parent lacks a HS education 100% 90% 80% 25.7% 35.6% 45.5% 50.9% 70% 60% 42.7% 50% 38.8% 40% 38.0% 33.6% 30% 20% 10% 31.7% 25.6% 16.5% 15.5% 0% Disconnected Connected Youth Living with One Parent Only Disconnected Connected Youth Living with Both Parents Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2011 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 more likely to have parents who were not employed (42.7%) at the time of the survey than connected youth (28.4%). Among youth living in dual-parent households, the divide was even greater: for 15.4% of disconnected youth, both parents were not employed at the time of the survey, compared to 5.9% of connected youth. Congressional Research Service 26 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, 2011 Youth Living with One Parent Only Parent not employed Youth Living with Both Parents Neither parent employed Parent employed Both parents employed Only father employed Only mother employed 100% 5.9% 15.4% 90% 28.4% 80% 42.7% 70% 41.2% 60.5% 60% 50% 40% 71.6% 30% 28.6% 57.3% 23.9% 20% 10% 14.9% 9.7% 0% Disconnected Connected Youth Living with One Parent Only Disconnected Connected Youth Living with Both Parents Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2011 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 Figure 10 and Figure 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 27 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 24 years (1988 through 2011) are presented in this section. The overall rate of disconnection, 6.9% in 2011, was higher than the 4.8% rate of 1988, the first year depicted in Figure 12, below. In the intervening years there was considerable variation in the overall rate, ranging from a high of 7.4% in 2010 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 four periods, rates of disconnection have shown to have been falling (1988-1990, 1994-1999, 2005-2008, 2010-2011), and in three periods to have been rising (1990-1994, 1999-2005, and 2007-2010). Although the rates of disconnection were lower in 2011 than in 2010, it is not yet clear whether a downward trend will emerge. 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 March 2009). The local maximums in 1994 (6.6%), 2005 (5.2%), and 2010 (7.4%) 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 ran parallel to each other, with disconnection rates for females 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 0.1 percentage points in 2010). Disconnection rates for females peaked in 1994, at 8.2%, and for males, at 7.4% in 2010. 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 ran parallel to each other over the period depicted, from 2005 to 2008 they diverged from one another. From 2005 to 2008 disconnection rates among females rose by 0.7 percentage point, whereas among males they fell by 1.0 percentage point. Rates of disconnection increased for both males and females to 7.4% and 7.5%, respectively, in 2010; however, rates of disconnection diverged again in 2011, with males at 6.4% and females at 7.4%. CRS does not have an explanation for this divergence in rates by gender in the past three years, but possible contributing factors will be highlighted as the presentation unfolds below. Congressional Research Service 28 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, 1988-2011 9% 8% Recessionary Period Females 7% Total Males 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 20 11 20 10 20 09 20 08 20 07 20 06 20 05 20 04 20 03 20 02 20 01 20 00 19 99 19 98 19 97 19 96 19 95 19 94 19 93 19 92 19 91 19 90 19 89 19 88 0% Year Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through 2011 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 CRS examined disconnection over time by gender across age groups—16 through 18, 19 through 21, and 22 through 24. Figure 13 and Figure 14 display these data for males and females, respectively. The figures show that disconnection rates were 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 tended to be slightly above those of 22-through 24-year olds over the past decade. For females (Figure 14), there was no distinct difference between the two oldest age groups from 1998 through 2002; however, beginning with 2003, rates of disconnection trended somewhat above their slightly younger counterparts. Disconnection rates for both males and females in each age group depict some of the cyclical patterns that were 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, showed marked increases in their disconnection rates from 1999 to 2011, with disconnection rates more than doubling over the period, from 4.6% to 10.2%, respectively (Figure 14). Females ages 19 through 21 saw their Congressional Research Service 29 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School disconnection rate increase by almost four full percentages points from a historic low of 5.7% in 2004, to 9.6% in 2010 (Figure 14). Figure 13. Rates of Disconnected Males Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 1988-2011 12% 10% Recessionary Period Males, 22-24 Males, 19-21 Males, 16-18 8% 6% 4% 2% 20 11 20 10 20 09 20 08 20 07 20 06 20 05 20 04 20 03 20 02 20 01 20 00 19 99 19 98 19 97 19 96 19 95 19 94 19 93 19 92 19 91 19 90 19 89 19 88 0% Year Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through 2011 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 30 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, 2011 12% Recessionary Period Females, 22-24 Females, 19-21 10% Females, 16-18 8% 6% 4% 2% 20 10 20 11 20 08 20 09 20 06 20 07 20 04 20 05 20 02 20 03 19 99 20 00 20 01 19 97 19 98 19 95 19 96 19 93 19 94 19 91 19 92 19 89 19 90 19 88 0% Year Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through 2011 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 (non-Hispanic) and Hispanic counterparts (see Figure 15). Over the period depicted, the disconnected rate for black males averaged 6.6 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 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 males, and three and one-half times more likely than Hispanic males. Black male youth experienced a drop in their disconnection rate, with the rate being nearly cut in half, from 12.4% in 2003 to 6.8% in 200. The rate of disconnection increased again in 2009 and 2010—and then decreased slightly in 2011. Congressional Research Service 31 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Figure 15. Rates of Disconnected Males Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 1998-2011 16% Recessionary Period Males, Black Non-Hispanic Males, Hispanic 14% Males, White Non-Hispanic 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 0% Year Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through 2011 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 2011 period. Disconnection rates for black (non-Hispanic) and Hispanic females were consistently higher than those of their white (non-Hispanic) counterparts. However, while black and Hispanic females experienced substantial reductions in their rates of disconnection from their peak rates, the rate of disconnection among white females steadily increased since 2000. Figure 16 shows that 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. The white females’ disconnection rate fell from a high of 5.6% in 1994 to a low of 2.7% in 2000, but increased in each succeeding year. In 2011, the rate of disconnection among white females was at its highest point—5.9%. Still, disconnection rates increased for black and Hispanic females in recent years, with black females experiencing the largest increase, seeing their disconnection rate rise from 6.3% in 1999 to 10.5% in 2011. Congressional Research Service 32 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, 1998-2011 16% Recessionary Period Females, Black Non-Hispanic 14% Females, Hispanic Females, White Non-Hispanic 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 0% Year Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through 2011 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. Figure 17, Figure 18, and Figure 19 provide breakouts 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 2011 period differs from that used in the 2011 cross-sectional data presented earlier (Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3).53 The changes in childbearing on female youth disconnectedness is striking for all three groups. Figure 17, Figure 18, and Figure 19 highlight that disconnection rates among 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 2011). 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 determine whether the parent is a biological parent, a step-parent, or an adoptive parent. It is this later definition that is 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 33 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School 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. Black female youth in particular experienced remarkable reductions in disconnection, due in large part 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; having a child likely contributed to attaining that status for 11.3% of the population, and other factors contributed for 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 2011, the base rate of disconnectedness among black females (6.5%) was about the same as the total rate of disconnectedness in 1999, but adding an additional 4.0% of youth who had a child and were disconnected raises the total rate of disconnected black female youth to 10.5% in 2011. Although the share of females with children has declined since the mid-1990s, Figure 17 shows that rates of parenting among disconnected white females began to increase in 2001, and they nearly equaled earlier peak levels by 2011. In 2001, the base rate of disconnectedness among white females was 1.8% and the rate for those having a child was 0.9%. These figures doubled to 4.0% and 1.9%, respectively, by 2011, when white females experienced their highest rate of disconnection at 5.9%. Congressional Research Service 34 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,1988-2011 16% 14% 12% Total With children Without children 10% 8% 5.9% 6% 5.6% 5.4% 4.7% 4% 3.3% 1.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6% 2.5% 3.8% 4.3% 1.8% 1.6% 2.0% 1.9% 2.0% 2.3% 2.1% 1.6% 1.7% 1.9% 1.7% 1.5% 1.5% 2.2% 3.3% 3.2% 2.9% 1.2% 1.3% 1.0% 2% 3.1% 4.1% 2.5% 3.2% 3.1% 2.7% 3.5% 3.5% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 1.1% 1.4% 3.9% 4.2% 4.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.9% 1.8% 1.6% 1.5% 0.8% 2.1% 2.0% 1.9% 1.8% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.5% 2.7% 2.4% 3.0% 3.1% 3.1% 3.7% 4.0% 0% 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through 2011 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 35 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,1988-2011 16% Total 15.1% 15.0% 14.3% With children 14.2% 14% 13.2% Without children 13.5% 13.0% 12.4% 12.2% 12% 11.2% 11.0% 10.5% 10% 11.0% 11.3% 9.5% 11.2% 8% 8.7% 8.9% 8.1% 8.5% 8.1% 10.0% 7.7% 3.9% 3.8% 4.0% 4.0% 4.3% 6.7% 6.3% 3.8% 5.4% 6% 4.6% 4.8% 8.1% 7.7% 7.0% 9.7% 9.7% 9.5% 9.5% 9.1% 4.2% 3.7% 3.9% 4.2% 3.0% 2.9% 4% 7.6% 5.5% 5.1% 4.9% 2% 3.9% 3.1% 3.7% 3.2% 4.0% 3.8% 5.8% 5.7% 4.0% 3.8% 3.8% 3.4% 3.5% 3.4% 6.5% 6.4% 5.4% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 0% 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through 2011 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 36 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,1988-2011 15.7% 16% Total With children 14.5% Without children 14% 13.3% 12% 11.6% 12.0% 11.3% 11.5% 10.7% 10.7% 7.5% 9.2% 7.1% 9.1% 8.9% 6.4% 5.2% 6.5% 5.9% 4.6% 3.1% 8.6% 8.6% 4.1% 2.9% 9.6% 9.5% 9.4% 9.2% 8.4% 3.6% 5.0% 6.0% 10.6% 10.4% 10.3% 10.0% 6.0% 10% 8% 12.3% 6.8% 4.9% 3.5% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 3.2% 3.7% 4.0% 4.9% 6% 9.0% 4% 7.0% 5.5% 5.7% 5.3% 2% 6.2% 4.4% 7.4% 6.0% 4.8% 5.5% 6.1% 6.8% 6.1% 5.8% 5.9% 6.3% 5.7% 5.7% 5.4% 5.7% 5.4% 5.3% 4.7% 0% 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through 2011 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. 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 2011 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 remained stable or decreased among the three racial/ethnic groups over the 1988 through 2011 period, and that these rates have varied across groups (first column). The figure shows that black females age 16 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 2011, the share that were single parents fell to 17.4%, nearly a 42% decline. In contrast, for white non-Hispanic and Hispanic Congressional Research Service 37 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School female youth, the share who were single parents increased over the 1988 to 1997 period, reaching a peak for each group in 1997, and decreased slightly in most years thereafter. Among white nonHispanic 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 slightly to 7.9% in the first quarter of 2011. 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). In 2011, the rate was 14.6%. 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 2011 period. First, all three panels show that youth who are single mothers were more likely to be connected than they were to be disconnected. This holds true over the entire 24-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 1999-2001 period. Among white non-Hispanic youth who were single mothers, the share that was connected to school or work increased over the 1994 to 2001 period, from 75% in 1993 to 90% in 2001. 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 1999, the share of Hispanic single mothers who were connected to work or school increased from just under 50% to 79%. Single Hispanic mothers’ rates of connection to work or school consistently are below those of their white and black non-Hispanic counterparts. From 2000 through 2011, attachment to school or work of single mothers in all three racial/ethnic groups declined, but the level of attachment was still well above what it was in the late 1980s and early 1990s. No clear trend in Hispanic single mothers’ connection rates is discernable in the post-2000 period, as their connection rates vacillated; however, in 2010 and 2011, their rates of connectedness were at their lowest points over the period. Congressional Research Service 38 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, 1988-2011 Panel I: Percent Disconnected and Connected Panel 2: Composition Panel A-1: White, Non-Hispanic Panel A-2: White, Non-Hispanic 30% 100% 90% 25% 80% Disconnected 70% 20% 60% 15% White Non-Hispanic Single Mothers as a Percent of all White Non-Hispanic Female Youth Connected 50% 40% 10% 30% Disconnected 5% 20% Connected 10% 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 0% 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 0% Year Year Panel B-1: Black, Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Single Mothers as a Percent of all Black Non-Hispanic Female Youth 30% Panel B-2: Black, Non-Hispanic 100% 90% 25% 80% Disconnected Disconnected 70% 20% 60% Connected 50% 15% Connected 40% 30% 10% 20% 5% 10% 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 0% 0% Year Year Panel C-1: Hispanic Panel C-2: Hispanic 100% 30% 90% 25% Disconnected 80% Hispanic Single Mothers as a Percent of all Hispanic Female Youth 20% 15% 70% 60% 50% Disconnected 10% Connected 40% 30% Connected 5% 20% 10% 0% Year 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 0% Year Source: Congressional Research Service Based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through 2011 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 39 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). Nearly 30% of all youth reported they were not working because they were disabled, of whom just over 40% had a disability severe enough that they received SSI or Medicare. About another 30% reported having childrearing and homemaking responsibilities that kept them from work, while the remaining youth 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. About three out of ten 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, particularly in the current economic climate. 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. Somewhat less than half of all 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, the analysis in this report does not capture those who are homeless or are in jails, prisons, or residential treatment facilities. If these groups were Congressional Research Service 40 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School surveyed, rates of disconnection would likely be higher. The CPS similarly does not include youth who 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, CRS could not evaluate antecedent conditions or events affecting youth or their parents that may contribute to later youth disconnection. However, the analysis in this report 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 2011 survey (Figure 11). Among disconnected youth living in single-parent households, over 40% had parents who were not employed. Additionally, disconnected youths’ co-residing parents were more 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 CRS’ 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 (71.6%) was twice that of connected youth (34.6%) (Figure 9). In other cases, poverty may contribute to youth becoming disconnected. Here the connection is more complex. CRS found that disconnected youth, even when living with both their parents, were almost three times more likely to be poor than connected youth, 17.4% compared to 6.2%, respectively, and when living with only one parent, twice as likely to be poor than their connected counterparts, 47.4% compared to 24.5%. When living with a parent, disconnected youth were about as likely to live with only one parent (29.4%) than with both parents (29.1%), whereas connected youth were more likely to live with both parents (46.6%) than just one (22.5%) (Figure 8). When parents’ characteristics are examined, disconnected youth were about twice as likely to have parents who had not completed high school than were connected youth (Figure 10); for disconnected youth in single-parent families, 25.6% had a parent who had not completed high school, compared to 15.5% of connected youth; for youth living in families with both parents, 31.7% had either one or both parents not having attained a high school diploma or its equivalent, compared to 16.5% 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 (42.7%) was greater than that of connected youth (28.4%); among disconnected youth living with both parents, the share of disconnected youth where both parents were not working (15.4%) was almost three times that of connected youth (5.9%). 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 Congressional Research Service 41 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School teen adolescent girls are more likely to become teenage mothers than their non-poor counterparts, 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 researchers 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. 56 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 1999, 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 42 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. The analysis for this report, 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 2011 compared to 23 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 2010 and the first part of 2011 (i.e., February through April), two years after the end of the most recent recession. 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, youth disconnection rates would be expected to stabilize. 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. Given the 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 rate of disconnection has increased, but not yet to the levels seen in the late 1980s and early 1990s. 59 Ibid., p. 443. Congressional Research Service 43 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School 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.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 assert 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. 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 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-Alcantara. 61 Healther Koball et al., Syntehsis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., ACF Youth Demonstration Development Project, June 21, 2011.. 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 44 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School 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-Alcantara. 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 45 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, 13.5% 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-46 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). 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 (2011), 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 2010, 1.6 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 ranged from 8.0% to 9.0%. Disconnected youth ages 16 to 19 by race and ethnicity in 2009 (2010 not available): In 2010, Nevada had the highest share of disconnected youth ages 16 through 19 (15%) and Connecticut had the lowest (4%). In 2009, Nevada had the highest share of disconnected youth ages 18 through 24 (22%) and North Dakota had the lowest (8%). white non-Hispanic -7.0% black non-Hispanic - 13.0% American Indian and Alaska Native nonHispanic - 17.0% Hispanic - 12.0% Asian and Pacific Islander non-Hispanic – 5.0% In 2009, 4.3 million (16.0%) youth ages 18 to 24 met the definition of disconnected. In each year from 2002 through 2009, 15% to 16% 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. CRS-47 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%) No difference black females – 9.0% (9.9%) Hispanic females – 10.4% (10.4%) No difference 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. 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 Idle youth: white males – 8.7% (9.6%) black males – 22.8% (28.5%) Hispanic males – 12.8% (15.3%) white females – 13.3% (13.3%) No difference black females – 21.6% (22.4%) Hispanic females – 28.8% (28.8%) No difference 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 CRS-48 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% 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 Study and Data Set Definition(s) of Disconnected Youth recent year for which data were evaluated was 1991, when the oldest youth in the cohort were 28. 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 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 males – 10% black males – 26% Hispanic males – 19% females – 14% white females – 9% black females – 37% Hispanic females - 21% school, and having multiple risk factors. The researchers state that these factors are interrelated and difficult to disentangle as the cause for 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): 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%) CRS-49 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. 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. Study and Data Set Definition(s) of Disconnected Youth 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 Child Trends. 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 be a point-in-time estimate. 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. 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. 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 disconnection among population): Foreign born -752,918 (21.6%) Native born - 3,091,261 (13.1%) 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. 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. Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. Notes: The Congressional Research Service did not evaluate the methodology or validity of the studies. CRS-50 Other Information on Disconnected Youth 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. 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%) 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. Number and/or Percentage of Disconnected Youth (by gender, race, and ethnicity, if applicable) 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, 2011 (Numbers in 1,000s) Age Group Total 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 38,374 13,096 12,607 12,671 Number disconnected 2,641 434 1,053 1,155 No children 2,051 396 855 799 Has child(ren) 590 38 197 355 Disconnected rate 6.9% 3.3% 8.3% 9.1% No children 5.3% 3.0% 6.8% 6.3% Has child(ren) 1.5% 0.3% 1.6% 2.8% 19,585 6,725 6,389 6,471 Number disconnected 1,254 209 523 523 No children 1,190 205 505 480 Has child(ren) 64 3 18 42 Disconnected rate 6.4% 3.1% 8.2% 8.1% No children 6.1% 3.1% 7.9% 7.4% Has child(ren) 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.7% 18,790 6,371 6,219 6,200 1,387 226 530 632 No children 860 191 351 319 Has child(ren) 527 35 179 313 Disconnected rate 7.4% 3.5% 8.5% 10.2% No children 4.6% 3.0% 5.6% 5.1% Has child(ren) 2.8% 0.5% 2.9% 5.1% 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 51 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, 2011 (Numbers in 1,000s) Race and Ethnicity Total White, nonHispanic Hispanic Other, nonHispanic 38,374 22,638 5,438 7,573 2,726 Number disconnected 2,641 1,279 567 621 174 No children 2,051 1,035 441 431 143 590 243 126 189 32 6.9% 5.6% 10.4% 8.2% 6.4% No children 5.3% 4.6% 8.1% 5.7% 5.2% Has child(ren) 1.5% 1.1% 2.3% 2.5% 1.2% All Youth Has child(ren) Disconnected rate Black, nonHispanic Males All Male Youth 19,585 11,480 2,645 4,086 1,374 Number disconnected 1,254 617 274 286 78 No children 1,190 592 260 268 70 64 25 13 18 8 6.4% 5.4% 10.3% 7.0% 5.7% No children 6.1% 5.2% 9.8% 6.6% 5.1% Has child(ren) 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% Has child(ren) Disconnected rate Females All Female Youth 18,790 11,157 2,793 3,487 1,352 1,387 662 294 335 96 No children 860 443 181 164 73 Has child(ren) 527 218 113 172 24 7.4% 5.9% 10.5% 9.6% 7.1% No children 4.6% 4.0% 6.5% 4.7% 5.4% Has child(ren) 2.8% 2.0% 4.0% 4.9% 1.8% Number disconnected Disconnected rate 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 2011 reflect the race of respondents who reported only one race. Congressional Research Service 52 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, 2011 (Numbers in 1,000s) Age19 to 24 Age 19 - 21 Number Percent Number 25,279 100.0% 12,607 Lacks HS diploma 3,001 11.9% HS diploma or GED 7,615 Age 22 to 24 Number Percent 100.0% 12,671 100.0% 1,758 13.9% 1,244 9.8% 30.1% 4,089 32.4% 3,527 27.8% 14,662 58.0% 6,761 53.6% 7,901 62.4% 2,207 100.0% 1,053 100.0% 1,155 100.0% 669 30.3% 332 31.6% 337 29.2% 1,102 49.9% 584 55.4% 519 44.9% 436 19.8% 137 13.0% 299 25.9% 23,071 100.0% 11,555 100.0% 11,517 100.0% Lacks HS diploma 2,332 10.1% 1,425 12.3% 907 7.9% HS diploma or GED 6,513 28.2% 3,505 30.3% 3,008 26.1% 14,226 61.7% 6,624 57.3% 7,601 66.0% Total Youth Some schooling beyond HS Disconnected Youth Lacks HS diploma HS diploma or GED Some schooling beyond HS Connected Youth Some schooling beyond HS Percent 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 53 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, 2011 Poverty Status Based on Family Income in 2010 (Numbers in 1,000s) Total Number poor Poverty Rate (Percent Poor) Total 38,374 8,111 21.1% 16 - 18 13,096 2,452 18.7% 19 - 21 12,607 2,916 23.1% 22 - 24 12,671 2,743 21.6% 2,641 1,285 48.6% 16 - 18 434 177 40.7% 19 - 21 1,053 501 47.6% 22 - 24 1,155 607 52.5% Connected 35,733 6,826 19.1% 16 - 18 12,662 2,275 18.0% 19 - 21 11,555 2,415 20.9% 22 - 24 11,517 2,137 18.6% 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 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 54 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, 2011 Poverty Status Based on Family Income in 2010 (Numbers in 1,000s) Poverty Rate (Percent Poor) Total Number poor 38,374 8,111 21.1% White, non-Hispanic 22,638 3,670 16.2% Black, non-Hispanic 5,438 1,758 32.3% Hispanic 7,573 2,092 27.6% Other, non-Hispanic 2,726 592 21.7% 2,641 1,285 48.6% 1,279 563 44.1% Black, non-Hispanic 567 328 57.9% Hispanic 621 327 52.6% Other, non-Hispanic 174 66 38.1% 35,733 6,826 19.1% White, non-Hispanic 21,359 3,106 14.5% Black, non-Hispanic 4,870 1,429 29.3% Hispanic 6,953 1,765 25.4% Other, non-Hispanic 2,551 526 20.6% Total Disconnected White, non-Hispanic 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 55 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, 2011 Poverty Status Based on Family Income in 2010 (Numbers in 1,000s) Total Total Number poor Poverty Rate (Percent Poor) 25,279 5,660 22.4% Lacks HS Diploma 3,001 1,277 42.5% HS diploma or GED 7,615 1,903 25.0% 14,662 2,479 16.9% 2,207 1,108 50.2% 669 404 60.4% 1,102 546 49.5% 436 158 36.3% 23,071 4,552 19.7% Lacks HS Diploma 2,332 873 37.4% HS diploma or GED 6,513 1,358 20.8% 14,226 2,321 16.3% Some schooling beyond HS Disconnected Lacks HS Diploma HS diploma or GED Some schooling beyond HS 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 56 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, 2011 Uninsured were Without Health Insurance During All of 2011 (Numbers in 1,000s) Total Number without health insurance Percent uninsured Total 38,374 9,182 23.9% 16 - 18 13,096 1,749 13.4% 19 - 21 12,607 3,385 26.9% 22 - 24 12,671 4,048 31.9% 2,641 1,012 38.3% 16 - 18 434 82 18.9% 19 - 21 1,053 410 38.9% 22 - 24 1,155 519 45.0% Connected 35,733 8,170 22.9% 16 - 18 12,662 1,666 13.2% 19 - 21 11,555 2,975 25.7% 22 - 24 11,517 3,529 30.6% 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 57 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, 2011 (Numbers in 1,000s) Age Group Total 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24 All Youth 38,374 13,096 12,607 12,671 Lives with one or both parents 26,203 12,093 8,674 5,435 Lives with both parents 17,412 8,026 5,758 3,628 8,791 4,067 2,916 1,807 12,172 1,002 3,933 7,236 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Lives with one or both parents 68.3% 92.3% 68.8% 42.9% Lives with both parents 45.4% 61.3% 45.7% 28.6% Lives with only one parent 22.9% 31.1% 23.1% 14.3% Lives apart from parents 31.7% 7.7% 31.2% 57.1% Disconnected Youth 2,641 434 1,053 1,155 Lives with one or both parents 1,543 351 626 565 Lives with both parents 776 186 288 301 Lives with only one parent 768 165 338 264 1,098 83 426 589 Lives with only one parent Lives apart from parents Percent Total Lives apart from parents Percent Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Lives with one or both parents 58.4% 80.9% 59.5% 49.0% Lives with both parents 29.4% 42.9% 27.4% 26.1% Lives with only one parent 29.1% 38.1% 32.1% 22.9% Lives apart from parents 41.6% 19.1% 40.5% 51.0% Connected Youth 35,733 12,662 11,555 11,517 Lives with one or both parents 24,659 11,742 8,048 4,870 Lives with both parents 16,636 7,840 5,469 3,327 8,024 3,902 2,579 1,543 11,073 920 3,507 6,647 Lives with only one parent Lives apart from parents Percent Total Lives with one or both parents Congressional Research Service 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 69.0% 92.7% 69.7% 42.3% 58 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 46.6% 61.9% 47.3% 28.9% Lives with only one parent 22.5% 30.8% 22.3% 13.4% Lives apart from parents 31.0% 7.3% 30.3% 57.7% 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 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 59 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, 2011 (Numbers in 1,000s) Race and Ethnicity Total White, nonHispanic Black, nonHispanic Hispanic Other, nonHispanic All Youth 38,374 22,638 5,438 7,573 2,726 Lives with one or both parents 26,203 15,402 3,604 5,309 1,889 17,412 11,431 1,324 3,291 1,365 8,791 3,970 2,279 2,018 524 12,172 7,236 1,834 2,264 837 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 68.3% 68.0% 66.3% 70.1% 69.3% Lives with both parents 45.4% 50.5% 24.4% 43.5% 50.1% Lives with only one parent 22.9% 17.5% 41.9% 26.6% 19.2% Lives apart from parents 31.7% 32.0% 33.7% 29.9% 30.7% Disconnected Youth 2,641 1,279 567 621 174 Lives with one or both parents 1,543 746 303 382 111 Lives with both parents 776 446 69 198 62 Lives with only one parent 768 300 234 184 49 1,098 532 264 239 63 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 58.4% 58.4% 53.5% 61.6% 63.9% Lives with both parents 29.4% 34.9% 12.2% 31.9% 35.7% Lives with only one parent 29.1% 23.5% 41.3% 29.6% 28.2% 41.6% 41.6% 46.5% 38.4% 36.1% Connected Youth 35,733 21,359 4,870 6,953 2,551 Lives with one or both parents 24,659 14,655 3,300 4,927 1,777 16,636 10,985 1,255 3,093 1,303 8,024 3,670 2,045 1,834 475 11,073 6,704 1,570 2,026 774 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 69.0% 68.6% 67.8% 70.9% 69.7% 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 Lives with one or both parents Lives apart from parents Lives with both parents Lives with only one parent Lives apart from parents Percent Total Lives with one or both parents Congressional Research Service 60 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 46.6% 51.4% 25.8% 44.5% 51.1% Lives with only one parent 22.5% 17.2% 42.0% 26.4% 18.6% 31.0% 31.4% 32.2% 29.1% 30.3% 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 61 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, 2011 (Poverty Status Based on Family Income in 2010) Lives with only one parent Total Lives with both parents Lives apart from parents Total 38,374 17,412 8,791 12,172 Poor 8,111 1,163 2,334 4,615 Poverty rate 21.1% 6.7% 26.5% 37.9% Total 2,641 776 768 1,098 Poor 1,285 135 364 786 Poverty rate 48.6% 17.4% 47.4% 71.6% Disconnected Connected Total 35,733 16,636 8,024 11,073 Poor 6,826 1,028 1,969 3,829 Poverty rate 19.1% 24.5% 34.6% 6.2% Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. 1988 through 2011 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 62 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, 2011 (Numbers in 1,000s) Disconnected Total Connected Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Youth living with one parent only 8,462 100.0% 748 100.0% 7,714 100.0% Parent lacks a HS education 1,388 16.4% 192 25.6% 1,197 15.5% Parent has HS diploma or GED 2,885 34.1% 291 38.8% 2,595 33.6% Parent has some schooling beyond HS 4,189 49.5% 266 35.6% 3,923 50.9% Youth living with both parents 17,740 100.0% 795 100.0% 16,945 100.0% One or both parents lack a HS education 3,046 17.2% 252 31.7% 2,795 16.5% One or both parents has, and neither is lacking, a HS diploma or GED 6,774 38.2% 339 42.7% 6,435 38.0% Both parents have some schooling beyond HS 7,920 44.6% 204 25.7% 7,716 45.5% 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 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 63 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, 2011 (Numbers in 1,000s) Disconnected Total Connected Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Youth living with one parent only 8,344 100.0% 630 100.0% 7,714 100.0% Parent employed 5,888 70.6% 361 57.3% 5,527 71.6% Parent not employed 2,456 29.4% 269 42.7% 2,187 28.4% Youth living with both parents 17,740 100.0% 795 100.0% 16,945 100.0% One or both parents employed 16,619 93.7% 673 84.6% 15,946 94.1% Only father employed 4,276 24.1% 227 28.6% 4,049 23.9% Only mother employed 1,760 9.9% 118 14.9% 1,642 9.7% Both parents employed 10,584 59.7% 328 41.2% 10,256 60.5% 1,121 6.3% 122 15.4% 999 5.9% Neither parent employed 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 64 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, 1988-2011 Table C-1.Total and Disconnected Youth Ages 16-24, by Gender, 1988-2011 (Numbers in 1,000s) Females Males Disconnected Year Total 1988 33,460 1989 Number 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% 2009 37,740 2,207 5.8% 19,103 1,025 5.4% 18,636 1,183 6.3% 2010 36,168 2,837 7.4% 19,328 1,430 7.4% 18,389 1,407 7.5% 2011 38,374 2,641 6.9% 19,585 1,254 6.4% 18,790 1,387 7.4% 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. Congressional Research Service 65 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School 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 C-2. Disconnected Males Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 1988-2011 (Numbers in 1,000s) Age 19 - 21 Age 16 - 18 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% 2009 6,744 208 3.1% 6,135 423 6.9% 6,224 394 6.3% 2010 6,690 267 4.0% 6,399 649 10.1% 6,239 514 8.2% 2011 6,725 209 3.1% 6,389 523 8.2% 6,471 523 8.1% 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 67 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, 1988-2011 (Numbers in 1,000s) Age 19 - 21 Age 16 - 18 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% 2009 6,480 185 2.9% 5,846 463 7.9% 6,310 535 8.5% 2010 6,442 208 3.2% 6,123 589 9.6% 6,274 610 9.7% 2011 6,371 226 3.5% 6,219 530 8.5% 6,200 632 10.2% 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 68 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, 1988-2011 (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% 2009 11,725 509 4.3% 2,623 280 10.7% 3,467 175 5.0% 2010 11,643 678 5.8% 2,662 366 13.7% 3,692 292 7.9% 2011 11,480 617 5.4% 2,645 274 10.3% 4,086 286 7.0% 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 69 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, 1988-2011 (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 12,241 407 3.3% 2,449 367 15.0% 1,609 186 11.6% 1989 11,916 444 3.7% 2,417 346 14.3% 1,586 190 12.0% 1990 11,503 427 3.7% 2,402 297 12.4% 1,628 174 10.7% 1991 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% 2009 11,332 533 4.7% 2,794 271 9.7% 3,253 304 9.4% 2010 11,299 611 5.4% 2,806 343 12.2% 3,418 361 10.6% 2011 11,157 662 5.9% 2,793 294 10.5% 3,487 335 9.6% 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 70 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 Disconnected 1988 16,847 1,003 1989 16,499 1990 Disconnection rate Share of total who are disconnected No child(ren) Has child(ren) No child(ren) Has child(ren) 6.0% 389 613 2.3% 3.6% 1,011 6.1% 386 625 2.3% 3.8% 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% 2009 18,636 1,183 6.3% 731 451 3.9% 2.4% 2010 18,839 1,407 7.5% 895 512 4.8% 2.7% 2011 18,790 1,387 7.4% 864 523 4.6% 2.8% Total 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% Congressional Research Service 71 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Disconnected Total Disconnected Disconnection rate No child(ren) Has child(ren) Share of total who are disconnected No child(ren) Has child(ren) 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% 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% 2009 11,322 533 4.7% 350 184 3.1% 1.6% 2010 11,299 611 5.4% 413 198 3.7% 1.8% 2011 11,157 662 5.9% 446 216 4.0% 1.9% 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% Congressional Research Service 72 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Disconnected Total Disconnected Disconnection rate No child(ren) Has child(ren) Share of total who are disconnected No child(ren) Has child(ren) 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% 2008 2,752 307 11.2% 176 131 6.4% 4.8% 2009 2,794 271 9.7% 152 119 5.4% 4.3% 2010 2,806 343 12.2% 213 130 7.6% 4.6% 2011 2,793 294 10.5% 181 113 6.5% 4.0% 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% 2009 3,253 304 9.4% 173 131 5.3% 4.0% 2010 3,418 361 10.6% 194 167 5.7% 4.9% Hispanic Congressional Research Service 73 Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School Disconnected Total 2011 Disconnected 3,487 335 Disconnection rate 9.6% No child(ren) Has child(ren) 165 170 Share of total who are disconnected No child(ren) 4.7% Has child(ren) 4.9% Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. 1988 through 2011 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 74 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, 1988-2011 (Numbers in 1,000s) Single mothers as a percent of all female youth Single mothers Composition of single mothers Total female youth Total Connected 1988 16,847 1,565 1,050 514 9.3% 6.2% 3.1% 67.1% 32.9% 1989 16,499 1,624 1,082 542 9.8% 6.6% 3.3% 66.6% 33.4% 1990 16,098 1,533 1,044 489 9.5% 6.5% 3.0% 68.1% 31.9% 1991 15,850 1,601 1,073 529 10.1% 6.8% 3.3% 67.0% 33.0% 1992 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% 2009 18,636 1,894 1,476 418 10.2% 7.9% 2.2% 77.9% 22.1% 2010 18,839 1,945 1,473 473 10.3% 7.8% 2.5% 75.7% 24.3% 2011 18,790 1,963 1,488 476 10.4% 7.9% 2.5% 75.8% 24.2% Year Disconnected Total Connected Disconnected Connected Disconnected 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% Congressional Research Service 75 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 Composition of single mothers Year Total female youth Total 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% 1996 10,609 822 643 179 7.7% 6.1% 1.7% 78.2% 21.8% 1997 10,781 905 791 113 8.4% 7.3% 1.1% 87.5% 12.5% 1998 10,834 850 720 130 7.8% 6.6% 1.2% 84.7% 15.3% 1999 10,979 839 736 103 7.6% 6.7% 0.9% 87.7% 12.3% 2000 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% 2009 11,322 826 667 159 7.3% 5.9% 1.4% 80.7% 19.3% 2010 11,299 821 640 181 7.3% 5.7% 1.6% 78.0% 22.0% 2011 11,157 886 693 192 7.9% 6.2% 1.7% 78.3% 21.7% Connected Disconnected Total Connected Disconnected Connected Disconnected 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% Congressional Research Service 76 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 Composition of single mothers Year Total female youth Total 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% 2008 2,752 510 379 131 18.5% 13.8% 4.8% 74.3% 25.7% 2009 2,794 512 400 112 18.3% 14.3% 4.0% 78.1% 21.9% 2010 2,806 544 418 126 19.4% 14.9% 4.5% 76.9% 23.1% 2011 2,793 485 378 106 17.4% 13.6% 3.8% 78.1% 21.9% 1988 1,609 214 128 86 13.3% 7.9% 5.4% 59.7% 40.3% 1989 1,586 166 80 85 10.4% 5.1% 5.4% 48.4% 51.6% 1990 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% 2009 3,253 465 334 130 14.3% 10.3% 4.0% 72.0% 28.0% 2010 3,418 510 356 154 14.9% 10.4% 4.5% 69.8% 30.2% Connected Disconnected Total Connected Disconnected Connected Disconnected Hispanic Congressional Research Service 77 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 2011 3,487 509 Connected 351 Disconnected 158 Total 14.6% Connected 10.1% Disconnected 4.5% Composition of single mothers Connected 69.0% Disconnected 31.0% Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. 1988 through 2011 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. Author Contact Information Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara Specialist 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 78