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
Pr
epared 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, 1998-
2011 ............................................................................................................................................ 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,1988-
2011 ............................................................................................................................................ 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, 1988-
2011 ............................................................................................................................................ 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 self-
paced 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.
17 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).
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 single-
parent 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
28 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.
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 mid-
20s 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
Severe Disability, Does not
taking care of family)
Receive SSI or Medicare
(1.005 million, 38.0%)
(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
Has a child, not taking care of
child nor disabled)
family, not disabled
(361 thousand, 13.7%)
(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)
Disconnected
Connected
Share of
Total
total
number Number Percent youth
Number Percent
Age and Gender
Age
Total 38,374
2,641
100.0%
6.9%
35,733
100.0%
Age 16 - 18
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%
Males
Total
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%
Females
Total 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%
Race and Ethnicity by Gender
Males and Females
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%
Congressional Research Service
11
Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School
Disconnected
Connected
Share of
Total
total
number Number Percent youth
Number Percent
Other,
non-Hispanic
2,726
174 6.6%
6.4%
2,551 7.1%
Males
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%
Females
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%
Education Among Youth Over Age 18
All Levels of Education
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%
Lacks High School Diploma or
GED
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%
High School Diploma or GED
Only
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%
High School Diploma or GED and
Additional Schooling
Total 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%
Living Arrangements by Age
All Arrangements
Total 38,374
2,641
100.0%
6.9%
35,733
100.0%
Congressional Research Service
12
Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School
Disconnected
Connected
Share of
Total
total
number Number Percent 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%
Lives with one or both parents
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%
Lives apart from parents
Total 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%
Poverty Status
Total
38,374 2,641 100.0% 6.9%
35,733 100.0%
Poor 8,111
1,285
48.6%
15.8%
6,826
19.1%
Nonpoor 30,263
1,356
51.4%
4.5%
28,907
80.9%
Health Insurance Coverage Status
Total
38,374 2,641 100.0% 6.9%
35,733 100.0%
Without health insurance coverage
9,182
1,012
38.3%
11.0%
8,170
22.9%
With health insurance coverage
29,192
1,629
61.7%
5.6%
27,563
77.1%
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. Fernandes-
Alcantara.
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%
8.5%
8.2%
8.1%
8%
0.3%
7.4%
0.7%
5.1%
7%
2.9%
6.4%
0.3%
6%
2.8%
5%
4%
3.5%
7.9%
7.4%
3.1%
0.5%
3%
6.1%
5.6%
5.1%
4.6%
2%
3.1%
3.0%
1%
0%
Males
Females
Males
Females
Males
Females
Males
Females
All Youth Age 16 - 24
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-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. Non-
Hispanic 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
Without children
11%
10.3%
10.5%
10%
0.5%
9.6%
9%
4.0%
8%
7.4%
7.0%
4.9%
7%
6.4%
0.4%
0.3%
5.9%
6%
2.8%
5.4%
0.2%
5%
2.0%
9.8%
4%
6.5%
6.6%
3%
6.1%
5.2%
4.6%
4.7%
2%
4.0%
1%
0%
Males
Females
Males
Females
Males
Females
Males
Females
All Disconnected Youth
White, non-Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Age 16 - 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-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%
13.0%
90%
19.8%
25.9%
80%
57.3%
70%
61.7%
66.0%
60%
55.4%
49.9%
44.9%
50%
40%
30%
30.3%
28.2%
20%
26.1%
30.3%
31.6%
29.2%
10%
10.1%
12.3%
7.9%
0%
Disconnected
Connected
Disconnected
Connected
Disconnected
Connected
Age 19 - 24
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-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%
40%
33.8%
or
o
P 30%
rcent
e
P
20%
17.8%
18.5%
17.9%
17.0%
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
Connected
50.2%
49.5%
50%
r 40%
37.4%
o
36.3%
t Po
rcen
Pe 30%
19.7%
20.8%
20%
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%
38.3%
38.9%
35%
30.6%
30%
red
su
25.7%
in
n 25%
U
22.9%
ercent
18.9%
P 20%
15%
13.2%
10%
5%
0%
Disconnected Connected
Disconnected Connected
Disconnected Connected
Disconnected Connected
All Youth Age 16 - 24
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-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 Solomon-
Fears, 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%
90%
19.1%
31.0%
30.3%
80%
41.6%
40.5%
30.8%
51.0%
70%
57.7%
38.1%
60%
22.5%
22.3%
50%
29.1%
32.1%
40%
22.9%
13.4%
30%
61.9%
46.6%
47.3%
42.9%
20%
29.4%
27.4%
26.1%
28.9%
10%
0%
Disconnected
Connected
Disconnected
Connected
Disconnected
Connected
Disconnected
Connected
All Youth Age 16 - 24
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-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%
48.6%
50%
47.4%
r
o
t Po 40%
rcen
34.6%
Pe
30%
24.5%
19.1%
20%
17.4%
10%
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
Youth Living with Both Parents
Parent has some schooling beyond HS
Both parents have some schooling beyond HS
One or both parents has, and neither is
Parent has HS Diploma or GED
lacking, a HS Diploma or GED
Parent lacks a HS education
One or both parents lack a HS education
100%
90%
25.7%
35.6%
80%
45.5%
50.9%
70%
60%
42.7%
50%
38.8%
40%
38.0%
33.6%
30%
20%
31.7%
25.6%
10%
15.5%
16.5%
0%
Disconnected
Connected
Disconnected
Connected
Youth Living with One Parent Only
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
Youth Living with Both Parents
Parent not employed
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%
57.3%
28.6%
23.9%
20%
10%
14.9%
9.7%
0%
Disconnected
Connected
Disconnected
Connected
Youth Living with One Parent Only
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
7%
Females
Total
Males
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
9
90
91
2
3
94
6
97
98
0
01
02
4
05
06
7
8
09
1
1988
198
19
19
199
199
19
1995
199
19
19
1999
200
20
20
2003
200
20
20
200
200
20
2010
201
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%
0%
8
2
9
6
198
1989
1990
1991
199
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
199
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
200
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-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
10%
Females, 19-21
Females, 16-18
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
88
91
92
95
96
99
00
03
04
07
08
11
19
1989 1990
19
19
1993 1994
19
19
1997 1998
19
20
2001
2002 20
20
2005
2006 20
20
2009
2010 20
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
14%
Males, Hispanic
Males, White Non-Hispanic
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
88
91
92
95
96
99
02
03
06
07
10
11
19
1989 1990 19
19
1993 1994 19
19
1997 1998 19
2000 2001 20
20
2004
2005 20
20
2008 2009 20
20
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
14%
Females, Black Non-Hispanic
Females, Hispanic
Females, White Non-Hispanic
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
88
89
90
91
92
4
95
96
97
98
99
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
19
19
19
19
19
1993 199
19
19
19
19
19
2000 20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
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 cross-
sectional 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%
1.9%
4.3%
4.2% 4.2%
2.5%
4.1%
1.8%
3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7%
3.9%
4%
3.6%
3.8%
3.5% 3.5%
1.6%
3.3%
3.3% 3.2%
3.2%
1.2% 1.1%
1.8%
3.1%
2.9%
1.4%
1.6%
1.5%
2.7%
2.0% 1.9%
1.1% 1.0%
2.0%
1.2%
0.9% 0.9%
1.7%
2.3% 2.1%
1.3% 1.0% 0.8%
2%
3.7% 4.0%
3.1%
3.0% 3.1% 3.1%
2.2% 2.5% 2.1%
2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.5% 2.7% 2.4%
1.6% 1.7% 1.9% 1.7%
2.0% 1.9%
1.5% 1.5%
1.8%
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%
15.0%
15.1%
Total
14.3%
With children
14.2%
14%
Without children
13.5%
13.2%
13.0%
12.4%
12.2%
12%
11.0%
11.2%
10.5%
10%
9.5%
9.7% 9.5%
9.7% 4.6%
9.1%
11.0%
11.3%
8.9%
8.1%
11.2%
9.5%
8.5%
4.8%
8.1%
8.1%
4.0%
10.0%
8%
8.7%
7.7%
7.7%
3.9%
7.0%
4.0%
3.8%
4.3%
6.7%
6.3%
4.2%
5.4%
3.8%
3.7%
6%
4.2%
3.9%
3.0%
2.9%
4%
7.6%
6.4%
6.5%
5.5%
5.8% 5.7%
5.1%
5.4%
4.9%
2%
3.9%
4.3% 4.3% 4.3%
3.7%
4.0% 3.8%
4.0%
3.8% 3.8%
3.1%
3.2%
3.4% 3.5% 3.4%
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%
12.3%
12.0%
6.8%
12% 11.6%
11.5%
11.3%
10.7%
10.7%
10.6%
7.5%
10.3%
10.4%
6.0%
10.0%
10%
9.5%
9.6%
9.2%
9.4%
9.1%
9.2%
6.4%
8.9%
6.5%
5.2%
8.6% 8.6%
3.6%
8.4%
4.1%
8%
7.1%
5.0% 6.0%
4.9%
5.9% 4.6% 3.1%
3.7%
2.9%
3.5%
3.5%
2.5%
4.0%
4.9%
3.0%
3.2%
6%
9.0%
4%
7.0%
7.4%
6.8%
6.2%
6.0%
6.1%
5.9% 6.3%
6.1%
5.5% 5.7%
5.7%
5.8%
5.3%
5.5%
5.4% 5.7% 5.4%
5.3% 5.7%
4.8%
4.4%
4.7%
2%
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 non-
Hispanic female youth, the share who were single parents rose from 5.2% in 1988, to a high of
8.1% in 1997 (a 56% increase), and fell 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%
Disconnected
80%
70%
20%
60%
Connected
15%
White Non-Hispanic Single Mothers as a
50%
Percent of all White Non-Hispanic Female Youth
40%
10%
30%
Disconnected
20%
5%
Connected
10%
0%
0%
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Year
Year
Panel B-1: Black, Non-Hispanic
Panel B-2: Black, Non-Hispanic
30%
Black Non-Hispanic Single Mothers as a
100%
Percent of all Black Non-Hispanic Female Youth
90%
Disconnected
25%
80%
Disconnected
70%
20%
60%
Connected
50%
15%
Connected
40%
10%
30%
20%
5%
10%
0%
0%
88
3
6
98
9
01
3
04
6
08
9
19
1989 1990 1991 1992 199 1994 1995 199 1997 19
199 2000 20
2002 200 20
2005 200 2007 20
200 2010
88 89 90 91 92 93
94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05
06 07 08 09 10 11
19 19 19 19 19 19
19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20
20 20 20 20 20 20
Year
Year
Panel C-1: Hispanic
Panel C-2: Hispanic
30%
100%
90%
25%
Disconnected
80%
Hispanic Single Mothers as a
70%
20%
Percent of all Hispanic Female Youth
60%
Connected
15%
50%
Disconnected
40%
10%
30%
Connected
20%
5%
10%
0%
0%
88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96
97 98 99 00 01 02
03 04 05 06 07 08
09 10 11
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
19 19 19
19 19 19 19 19 19
19 19 19 20 20 20
20 20 20 20 20 20
20 20 20
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Year
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
Number and/or Percentage of
Disconnected Youth (by gender, race,
Other Information on
Study and Data Set
Definition(s) of Disconnected Youth
and ethnicity, if applicable)
Disconnected Youth
The Condition of Education
Disconnected label not applied; however, the
In 2006, 7.6% of youth met the definition of
In 2006, of U.S.-born youth, 7.2% were
(2007), U.S. Department of
study evaluated the number and
youth who were not in school or working.
disconnected; of naturalized U.S.
Education, National Center for
characteristics of non-institutionalized youth
citizens, 8.3% were disconnected; and of
Education Statistics.
16 through 19 who were out of school and
From 1986 through 2006, the percentage of
youth who are non-citizens, 13.5% were
not working. The study appears to be a point-
these youth ranged from a low of 7.2% in
disconnected.
Current Population Survey,
in-time estimate. The study does not specify
2004 to a high of 10.0% in 1992.
Census Bureau, U.S. Department
the length of time these youth are not
of Commerce.
Disconnected youth by gender in 2006:
working or in school.
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
Disconnected label not applied; however, the
Youth ages 16 through 19 who met the
Teens from low-income families are
Employment Rates? (2004),
study evaluated the number and
definition of youth who were not working or
more likely to be neither enrolled in
Congressional Budget Office.
characteristics of non-institutionalized and
in school, by gender in 2000 (and if
school nor employed than those from
institutionalized youth ages 16 through 24
institutionalized youth and members of the
higher-income families. Teens whose
Current Population Survey,
who were out of school and not working.
armed forces are counted):
parents did not finish high school are
Census Bureau, U.S. Department
twice as likely to be neither working nor
of Commerce.
males – 8% (10%)
in school as those whose parents have
females - 9% (9%)
at least some education (actual statistics
Youth ages 20 through 24 who met the
not provided).
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
Number and/or Percentage of
Disconnected Youth (by gender, race,
Other Information on
Study and Data Set
Definition(s) of Disconnected Youth
and ethnicity, if applicable)
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
The disconnected label applies to non-
In 2010, 1.6 million (8.0%) youth ages 16 to
In 2010, Nevada had the highest share
Foundation.
institutionalized youth ages 16 to 19 who are
19 met the definition of disconnected.
of disconnected youth ages 16 through
not currently working or in school.
19 (15%) and Connecticut had the
American Community Survey,
From 2002 through 2006, the percentage of
lowest (4%).
Census Bureau, U.S. Department
The disconnected youth label also applies to
disconnected youth ages 16 to 19 ranged
of Commerce.
non-institutionalized young adults 18 to 24
from 8.0% to 9.0%.
In 2009, Nevada had the highest share
who are currently not working or in school,
of disconnected youth ages 18 through
and have no degree beyond a high school
Disconnected youth ages 16 to 19 by race
24 (22%) and North Dakota had the
diploma or GED.
and ethnicity in 2009 (2010 not available):
lowest (8%).
white non-Hispanic -7.0%
black non-Hispanic - 13.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native non-
Hispanic - 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
Disconnected youth label applies to both
Percentages of disconnected youth in 1999
White youth ages 16 to 24 are more
Young Men (2006), by Peter
incarcerated and non-incarcerated youth ages
by race, gender and ethnicity (and if
likely than their black and Hispanic
Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul
16 through 24 who are not working or in
incarcerated youth are counted):
counterparts to be enrolled in
Offner.
school for at least a year.
secondary, post-secondary, or other
Disconnected youth:
school.
Current Population Survey,
Both incarcerated and non-incarcerated youth
Census Bureau, U.S. Department
ages 16 through 24 are considered “idle” if
white males – 3.2% (4.2%)
Among youth who are working, but not
of Commerce. Supplemented with
they not working or in school for less than
black males – 10.5% (17.1%)
in school, white youth are also more
data on youth incarceration rates
one year.
Hispanic males – 9.3% (11.9%)
likely to be employed.
from the Bureau of Justice
white females – 7.1% (7.1%) No difference
Statistics, U.S. Department of
black females – 9.0% (9.9%)
Justice.
Hispanic females – 10.4% (10.4%) No
difference
CRS-47
Number and/or Percentage of
Disconnected Youth (by gender, race,
Other Information on
Study and Data Set
Definition(s) of Disconnected Youth
and ethnicity, if applicable)
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
Disconnected label not applied; however, the
In 2001, 5.2 million youth ages 16 to 24
About 40% of youth who were not
Market: Labor Market Problems study evaluated the number and
(14.8%) were not in school or working.
working or in school in 2001 lived in the
of the Nation’s Out-of-School,
characteristics of non-institutionalized youth
About 44% dropped out of high school.
50 most populous metropolitan areas.
Young Adult Populations (2003),
ages 16 through 24 who were out of school
by Andrew Sum et al., Northeastern
and not working. The estimates are annual
In 2001, approximately 2.2. million men
About 22% of youth who were not
University.
averages based on the monthly CPS survey.
(12.6% of the 16-through 24- year old male
working or in school in 2001 were head
population) and 3.0 million women (17.0% of
of a non-family household, and 11%
Current Population Survey,
the 16- through 24-year old female
were head of a household that included
Census Bureau, U.S. Department
population) were not working or in school.
non-relatives.
of Commerce.
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.
Prevalence, Patterns, and
Disconnected label applies to youth in the
Percentage of disconnected youth by gender,
About 15% of males and 22% of females
Outcomes, by Brett V. Brown and
survey who were not working (including in
race, and ethnicity:
who were disconnected for one to two
Carol Emig, Child Trends, in
the armed forces) or in school, and were not
years; and 44% of males and 56% of
America’s Disconnected Youth:
married to a connected spouse for at least 26
Short-term disconnected youth:
females who were disconnected for
Toward a Preventative Strategy,
weeks in a year over the period 1979 through
males – 24%
three or more years experienced
(1999), by Douglas J. Besharov,
1991. Short-term disconnection is 26 weeks in white males – 23%
poverty. This is compared to 3% of
Editor.
each of one to two years. Long-term
black males – 28%
males and 4% of females who were not
disconnection is 26 weeks in each of three
disconnected.
National Longitudinal Survey of
Hispanic males – 30%
years or more.
Youth for 1979 (NLSY79). Youth
females – 24%
Long-term disconnected youth were
were surveyed annually through
white females – 23%
associated with certain personal and
1994, and biennially after 1994.
black females – 30%
family background factors, including
For purposes of the study, data
Hispanic females - 29%
family poverty, family welfare receipt,
were evaluated for youth who
low parent education, single/no parent
were ages 14 through 16 at the
Long-term disconnected youth:
family, bearing or fathering a child
start of the survey. The most
before age 18, dropping out of high
males – 13%
CRS-48
Number and/or Percentage of
Disconnected Youth (by gender, race,
Other Information on
Study and Data Set
Definition(s) of Disconnected Youth
and ethnicity, if applicable)
Disconnected Youth
recent year for which data were
white males – 10%
school, and having multiple risk factors.
evaluated was 1991, when the
black males – 26%
The researchers state that these factors
oldest youth in the cohort were
Hispanic males – 19%
are interrelated and difficult to
28.
females – 14%
disentangle as the cause for
white females – 9%
disconnection.
black females – 37%
Hispanic females - 21%
Profiling the Plight of
The disconnected label applies to youth in the
Of youth who are not in school or working:
A significant share of four groups of
Disconnected Youth in America
survey who were not working or in school. A
youth had experienced disconnection by
(2006), by Thomas MaCurdy, Bryan
second definition applies to youth who are
By age 20, 14.6% of youth were disconnected age 20:
Keating, and Sriniketh Suryasesha
not in school or working, and not married.
for at least one year and 4.6% were
Nagavarapu, Stanford University, for
Youth are considered disconnected for a year
disconnected for at least two years.
44.9% of female youth who were
the William and Flora Hewlett
if they were not working or in school in the
mothers by age 18;
By age 22, the corresponding figures were
Foundation.
month they were surveyed and in at least
24.0% and 11.0%, respectively.
31.4% of youth were convicted of, or
eight of the following eleven months over the
National Longitudinal Survey of
pled guilty to, a crime committed before
period 1997 through 2003.
Of youth who are not in school or working,
Youth for 1997 (NLSY97). Youth
age 18;
and not married:
are surveyed annually. For
50.7% of youth who dropped out of high
purposes of the study, data were
By age 20, 12.3% were disconnected for at
school; and
evaluated for youth who were
least one year, and 3.3% were disconnected
ages 12 through 16 at the start of
for at least two years.
23.8% of youth who were not living with
the survey. The most recent year
their parents, including foster parents,
By age 22, 19.8% were disconnected for at
for which data were evaluated was
before age 18.
least one year, and 8.7% were disconnected
2003, when the oldest youth in
for at least two years.
No further information about these
the cohort were 23.
groups was provided.
Percentage of unmarried youth, by gender,
race, and ethnicity, who were disconnected
The probability of experiencing a
by age 20 (and by age 22):
disconnected episode among youth not
in school or working, and not married in
white males - 12.8% (19.8%)
the survey is associated with being black
white females - 12.8% (19.8%)
and parental receipt of government aid
black males - 11.9% (35.3%)
from the time the parent was 18 (or
black females - 21.9% (36.6%)
their first child was born) until 1997.
Hispanic males - 14.8% (25.9%)
This aid includes Medicaid, Supplemental
Hispanic females - 16.4% (24.1%)
Security Income (SSI), Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (replaced by
Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families), and food assistance.
CRS-49
Number and/or Percentage of
Disconnected Youth (by gender, race,
Other Information on
Study and Data Set
Definition(s) of Disconnected Youth
and ethnicity, if applicable)
Disconnected Youth
The Transition to Adulthood:
The disconnected label applies to non-
In 2000, the number of youth ages 18 to 24
Disconnected youth ages 18 to 24 by
Characteristics of Young Adults
institutionalized youth ages 18 to 24 who are
who met the definition of disconnected was
nativity in 2000 (and share of
Ages 18 to 24 in America (2003),
not working (including in the armed forces),
3.8 million or 14.2% of the population.
disconnection among population):
by Susan Jekielek and Brett Brown,
or in school, and have no more than a high
Annie E. Casey Foundation,
school diploma or GED. The study appears to
Disconnected youth ages 18 to 24 by race
Foreign born -752,918 (21.6%)
Population Reference Bureau, and
be a point-in-time estimate.
and ethnicity in 2000 (and share of
Native born - 3,091,261 (13.1%)
Child Trends.
disconnection among population):
Disconnected youth by disability status
2000 U.S. Census, PUMS-5 File,
white non-Hispanic -1.6 million (9.5%)
(and share of disconnection among
Census Bureau, U.S. Department
black non-Hispanic - 900,138 (24.5%)
population):
of Commerce.
American Indian and Alaska Native non-
Hispanic - 62,952 (26.3%)
Disabled - 818,078 (19.6%)
Asian and Pacific Islander non-Hispanic -
Not disabled - 2,729,553 (11.9%)
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%)
Connected by 25: Improving the The term “disconnected” is not precisely
Using data across multiple years, the number
Life Chances of the Country’s
defined for youth ages 14 to 17, but youth are
of youth ages 14 to 17 who are at risk of
Most Vulnerable 14-24 Year
at risk of becoming disconnected—or having
becoming disconnected is one million
Olds (2003), by Michael Wald and
long-term spells of unemployment (i.e., one
(though there may be overlap among the
Tia Martinez, Stanford University, for
year or more)—if they are: a high school
four categories of youth).
the William and Flora Hewlett
dropout; and/or in the juvenile justice system;
Foundation.
and/or unmarried mothers; and/or in foster
Using data across multiple years, the number
care.
of youth ages 18 to 24 who meet the
Cross-sectional analyses of data
definition of disconnected is 1.8 million.
from Current Population Survey,
The disconnected youth label applies to youth
Census Bureau, U.S. Department
ages 18 to 24 who have a high school degree
of Commerce, and various
or less and are unemployed for a year or
national surveys of prison and jail
longer, or are incarcerated.
populations.
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
Notes: The Congressional Research Service did not evaluate the methodology or validity of the studies.
CRS-50
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
All Youth
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%
Males
All
Male
Youth
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%
Females
All
Female
Youth
18,790 6,371 6,219 6,200
Number
disconnected
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%
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
White,
Black,
Other,
non-
non-
non-
Total
Hispanic
Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic
All Youth
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
Has child(ren)
590
243
126
189
32
Disconnected rate
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%
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
Has child(ren)
64
25
13
18
8
Disconnected rate
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%
Females
All Female Youth
18,790
11,157
2,793
3,487
1,352
Number disconnected
1,387
662
294
335
96
No children
860
443
181
164
73
Has child(ren)
527
218
113
172
24
Disconnected rate
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%
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
Age 22 to 24
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Total Youth
25,279 100.0% 12,607 100.0% 12,671 100.0%
Lacks HS diploma
3,001
11.9%
1,758
13.9%
1,244
9.8%
HS diploma or GED
7,615
30.1%
4,089
32.4%
3,527
27.8%
Some schooling beyond HS
14,662
58.0%
6,761
53.6%
7,901
62.4%
Disconnected Youth
2,207 100.0% 1,053 100.0% 1,155 100.0%
Lacks HS diploma
669
30.3%
332
31.6%
337
29.2%
HS diploma or GED
1,102
49.9%
584
55.4%
519
44.9%
Some schooling beyond HS
436
19.8%
137
13.0%
299
25.9%
Connected Youth
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%
Some schooling beyond HS
14,226
61.7%
6,624
57.3%
7,601
66.0%
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 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)
Poverty Rate
Total
Number
poor
(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%
Disconnected
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%
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
Total
Number
poor
(Percent Poor)
Total
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%
Disconnected
2,641 1,285 48.6%
White, non-Hispanic
1,279
563
44.1%
Black, non-Hispanic
567
328
57.9%
Hispanic 621
327
52.6%
Other, non-Hispanic
174
66
38.1%
Connected
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%
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)
Poverty Rate
Total
Number
poor
(Percent Poor)
Total
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%
Some schooling beyond HS
14,662
2,479
16.9%
Disconnected
2,207 1,108 50.2%
Lacks HS Diploma
669
404
60.4%
HS diploma or GED
1,102
546
49.5%
Some schooling beyond HS
436
158
36.3%
Connected
23,071 4,552 19.7%
Lacks HS Diploma
2,332
873
37.4%
HS diploma or GED
6,513
1,358
20.8%
Some schooling beyond HS
14,226
2,321
16.3%
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)
Number without
Percent
Total
health insurance
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%
Disconnected
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%
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
Lives with only one parent
8,791
4,067
2,916
1,807
Lives
apart
from
parents
12,172 1,002 3,933 7,236
Percent
Total
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
Lives apart from parents
1,098
83
426
589
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
Lives with only one parent
8,024
3,902
2,579
1,543
Lives apart from parents
11,073
920
3,507
6,647
Percent
Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Lives with one or both parents
69.0%
92.7%
69.7%
42.3%
Congressional Research Service
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
White, non-
Black, non-
Other, non-
Total
Hispanic
Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic
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
Lives with both parents
17,412
11,431
1,324
3,291
1,365
Lives with only one parent
8,791
3,970
2,279
2,018
524
Lives apart from parents
12,172
7,236
1,834
2,264
837
Percent
Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Lives with one or both parents
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
Lives apart from parents
1,098
532
264
239
63
Percent
Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Lives with one or both parents
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%
Lives apart from parents
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
Lives with both parents
16,636
10,985
1,255
3,093
1,303
Lives with only one parent
8,024
3,670
2,045
1,834
475
Lives apart from parents
11,073
6,704
1,570
2,026
774
Percent
Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Lives with one or both parents
69.0%
68.6%
67.8%
70.9%
69.7%
Congressional Research Service
60
Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School
Race and Ethnicity
White, non-
Black, non-
Other, non-
Total
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
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%
Lives apart from parents
31.0%
31.4%
32.2%
29.1%
30.3%
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
Lives with
only one
Lives apart
Total
both parents
parent
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%
Disconnected
Total
2,641 776 768
1,098
Poor
1,285 135 364 786
Poverty
rate 48.6% 17.4% 47.4% 71.6%
Connected
Total
35,733 16,636 8,024 11,073
Poor
6,826 1,028 1,969 3,829
Poverty
rate 19.1% 6.2% 24.5% 34.6%
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)
Total
Disconnected
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)
Total
Disconnected
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%
Neither
parent
employed
1,121 6.3% 122 15.4% 999 5.9%
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)
Males
Females
Disconnected
Disconnected
Disconnected
Year Total Number Rate Total Number Rate Total Number Rate
1988 33,460 1,608
4.8% 16,614
605
3.6% 16,847
1,003
6.0%
1989 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 16 - 18
Age 19 - 21
Age 22 - 24
Total
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 16 - 18
Age 19 - 21
Age 22 - 24
Total
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
Hispanic
Disconnected
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
Hispanic
Disconnected
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)
Share of total who
Disconnected
are disconnected
Discon-
Discon-
nection
No
Has
No
Has
Total
nected
rate
child(ren) child(ren) child(ren) child(ren)
Total
1988 16,847
1,003
6.0%
389 613 2.3% 3.6%
1989 16,499
1,011
6.1%
386 625 2.3% 3.8%
1990 16,098 928
5.8%
406 523 2.5% 3.2%
1991 15,850 951
6.0%
373 578 2.4% 3.6%
1992 15,578 963
6.2%
389 574 2.5% 3.7%
1993 15,527
1,041
6.7%
392 648 2.5% 4.2%
1994 16,276
1,338
8.2%
682 656 4.2% 4.0%
1995 16,211
1,059
6.5%
534 525 3.3% 3.2%
1996 16,112
1,034
6.4%
519 515 3.2% 3.2%
1997 16,238 847
5.2%
447 400 2.8% 2.5%
1998 16,397 810
4.9%
463 347 2.8% 2.1%
1999 16,905 742
4.4%
473 269 2.8% 1.6%
2000 17,116 791
4.6%
525 266 3.1% 1.6%
2001 17,252 856
5.0%
564 292 3.3% 1.7%
2002 17,574 951
5.4%
615 335 3.5% 1.9%
2003 17,818 925
5.2%
585 339 3.3% 1.9%
2004 18,048 940
5.2%
607 333 3.4% 1.8%
2005 18,163
1,027
5.7%
639 388 3.5% 2.1%
2006 18,251
1,032
5.7%
647 385 3.5% 2.1%
2007 18,465
1,075
5.8%
741 334 4.0% 1.8%
2008 18,548
1,194
6.4%
796 398 4.3% 2.1%
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%
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
Share of total who
Disconnected
are disconnected
Discon-
Discon-
nection
No
Has
No
Has
Total
nected
rate
child(ren) child(ren) child(ren) 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
Share of total who
Disconnected
are disconnected
Discon-
Discon-
nection
No
Has
No
Has
Total
nected
rate
child(ren) child(ren) child(ren) 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%
Hispanic
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%
Congressional Research Service
73
Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School
Share of total who
Disconnected
are disconnected
Discon-
Discon-
nection
No
Has
No
Has
Total
nected
rate
child(ren) child(ren) child(ren) child(ren)
2011 3,487
335
9.6%
165 170 4.7% 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
Composition of
Single
mothers
all female youth
single mothers
Total
female
Connect-
Discon-
Connect-
Discon-
Connect-
Discon-
Year
youth
Total
ed
nected
Total
ed
nected
ed
nected
Total
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%
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
Composition of
Single
mothers
all female youth
single mothers
Total
female
Connect-
Discon-
Connect-
Discon-
Connect-
Discon-
Year
youth Total
ed
nected Total
ed
nected
ed
nected
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%
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
Composition of
Single
mothers
all female youth
single mothers
Total
female
Connect-
Discon-
Connect-
Discon-
Connect-
Discon-
Year
youth Total
ed
nected Total
ed
nected
ed
nected
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%
Hispanic
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%
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
Composition of
Single
mothers
all female youth
single mothers
Total
female
Connect-
Discon-
Connect-
Discon-
Connect-
Discon-
Year
youth Total
ed
nected Total
ed
nected
ed
nected
2011 3,487 509 351 158 14.6% 10.1% 4.5% 69.0% 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
Thomas Gabe
Specialist in Social Policy
Specialist in Social Policy
afernandes@crs.loc.gov, 7-9005
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