Chapter 4.2 · A generation back

Teen births

The Opportunity Atlas predicts a teen birth for 38.5% of women born in 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th income percentile and raised in tracts now in the most deprived tenth, against 12.9% in the least deprived.

Author: Vishal Singh
Affiliation: NYU Stern
Published: 9 October 2026

Picture two census tracts, one that ranks today among the least deprived tenth in the country and one that ranks among the most deprived. Consider women born in 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th percentile of the national income distribution. Among those who grew up in tracts like the first, the Opportunity Atlas predicts that 12.9% had a teen birth. Among women raised in tracts like the second it predicts 38.5%.[1] Their births fell in the 1990s and early 2000s, while the tracts are ranked by their conditions in 2019 to 2023, a generation later. Every share in this essay is the Atlas's model prediction for that cohort, now in middle age, and not a teen birth rate today. A teen birth here means that a woman claimed, as a dependent, a child born while she was a teenager.

Teen birth shares rise at every step of tract deprivation

Tracts are the small areas the census uses to describe neighborhoods. Deprivation is the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), a national rank of neighborhoods built from American Community Survey measures for 2019 to 2023.[2] The chapter splits tracts into tenths that hold near-equal numbers of tracts and averages the Atlas predictions within each tenth, weighting each tract by its 2010 census population. The mean rises at every step from the least deprived tenth to the most deprived, a rise of 25.6 (95% CI 24.3 to 26.9) points. Because the Atlas predicts for women whose parents were at the 25th percentile, the gradient describes women from low-income families and not every woman in a tract.

Figure 1

Predicted teen birth shares rise from 12.9% in the least deprived tenth of tracts to 38.5% in the most deprived

Predicted share of women with a teen birth (percent) against the Area Deprivation Index national rank, one dot per 2010 tract, women born 1978 to 1983 whose parents were at the 25th income percentile (teen births in the 1990s and early 2000s, not a current rate), races pooled

Loading data

The means for tenths of tracts rise at every step from left to right, though the dots within any tenth are spread widely. Each dot is one tract from a random sample, placed by its predicted share for women born in 1978 to 1983 and its deprivation rank in 2019 to 2023. The markers are population-weighted means for tenths with intervals from resampling whole counties. Values in Table 2.

Note: The dots are a random sample of 5,000 tracts inside the plotted range (seed 12345); every estimate uses all 71,303 tracts. The spread of the dots includes sampling noise and privacy noise in each tract estimate.Note: The Area Deprivation Index is built for census block groups from American Community Survey measures for 2019 to 2023, and a 2020 tract's value is the unweighted mean of its block groups' ranks. Each 2010 tract takes the land-area-weighted mean of the values of the 2020 tracts that overlap it, when those with a rank cover at least 50% of its land area. Tenths hold near-equal numbers of tracts, with tied ranks kept together.Note: Shares are the Atlas's predicted share of women with a teen birth, a child born when the mother was between the ages of 13 and 19 whom she claimed as a dependent, for women born in 1978 to 1983 whose parents were at the 25th income percentile. White, Black and Asian women are non-Hispanic and Hispanic women may be of any race. The Atlas adds noise to its estimates to protect privacy and the staged values are never clipped, so a few fall below 0 or above 100.Source: Opportunity Atlas tract outcomes, 2010 tracts, 1978-1983 birth cohorts, and Area Deprivation Index, 2023 release (ACS 2019-2023); population-weighted (2010 tract population), modeled estimates

How we know

The Opportunity Atlas links tax and census records to follow children born in 1978 to 1983 from the tract where they grew up into adulthood. A birth counts only when the mother claimed the child, so births to teenage mothers whose children someone else claimed are missed. The Atlas adds noise to each estimate to protect privacy, and a single tract is a modeled estimate with an unknown error. The gradient uses the 71,303 tracts that have an estimate for all women, a deprivation rank and a recorded 2010 population. The qualification that changes the meaning is the time gap. The ADI describes each tract decades after the women grew up there, so the gradient matches the childhood tract only to the extent that neighborhoods keep their standing. The Atlas's own tract records include the poverty rate from the 1990 census, when the women were in middle childhood. On the same tracts, tenths of that poverty rate give a rise of 24.1 (95% CI 22.7 to 25.5) points from the least to the most deprived tenth, and tenths of the ADI give 25.6 (95% CI 24.3 to 26.9). A measure taken in the childhood years gives a gradient of nearly the same size, a little smaller than the ADI's, so the gradient does not depend on the ADI being measured later. The staged file has no counts of women, so tracts are weighted by their total 2010 population, which may put the levels in each tenth too low. The report gives every estimate with its interval and sample size.

The pooled line mixes women of different groups. The Atlas also estimates non-Hispanic white, Black and Asian women and Hispanic women of any race, each in the tracts where it has enough women of that group. Every group's share is higher in the most deprived tenth of tracts than in the least deprived. Black women's line is above the others at every tenth, followed by Hispanic, white and Asian women's.

Figure 2

Every group's predicted teen birth share is higher in the most deprived tenth of tracts than in the least deprived

Predicted share of women with a teen birth (percent) by tenth of the Area Deprivation Index, tracts where each group is estimated, women born 1978 to 1983 whose parents were at the 25th income percentile (teen births in the 1990s and early 2000s, not a current rate)

Predicted share of women with a teen birth (percent)

Show data

Data for Every group's predicted teen birth share is higher in the most deprived tenth of tracts than in the least deprived
conf_high	conf_low	decile	estimate	n	series
14.01	11.85	1	12.95	7,103	All women
19.34	16.06	2	17.73	7,114	All women
21.14	18.97	3	20.03	7,106	All women
23.01	21.62	4	22.31	7,130	All women
25.17	23.94	5	24.55	7,123	All women
27.15	25.90	6	26.54	7,147	All women
29.25	28.03	7	28.65	7,144	All women
31.26	29.92	8	30.57	7,164	All women
33.37	32.12	9	32.75	7,046	All women
39.27	37.79	10	38.54	7,226	All women
9.55	7.69	1	8.58	6,277	White women
13.73	11.95	2	12.90	6,120	White women
16.07	14.69	3	15.37	6,456	White women
18.76	17.37	4	18.05	6,755	White women
20.77	19.49	5	20.11	6,806	White women
22.46	21.29	6	21.88	6,805	White women
24.40	23.41	7	23.89	6,756	White women
26.14	25.11	8	25.61	6,720	White women
27.76	26.86	9	27.31	6,554	White women
30.83	29.81	10	30.32	5,725	White women
32.41	29.79	1	31.41	1,110	Black women
35.83	30.70	2	33.39	1,951	Black women
36.72	33.53	3	35.19	2,076	Black women
38.43	36.06	4	37.23	2,214	Black women
40.76	38.98	5	39.86	2,533	Black women
42.40	40.31	6	41.35	2,630	Black women
44.29	42.37	7	43.32	2,736	Black women
45.57	44.07	8	44.82	2,747	Black women
47.29	46.16	9	46.72	2,927	Black women
50.14	48.95	10	49.53	4,292	Black women
24.36	20.80	1	22.41	3,548	Hispanic women
26.47	23.48	2	25.25	3,718	Hispanic women
29.43	26.60	3	28.10	3,338	Hispanic women
32.17	29.36	4	30.75	3,032	Hispanic women
33.90	31.20	5	32.51	2,710	Hispanic women
35.45	32.76	6	34.12	2,352	Hispanic women
37.19	34.82	7	35.96	2,089	Hispanic women
39.20	36.94	8	38.06	1,818	Hispanic women
40.45	38.59	9	39.50	1,553	Hispanic women
43.69	41.70	10	42.69	1,627	Hispanic women
5.28	3.65	1	4.43	2,509	Asian women
7.15	5.03	2	5.99	1,778	Asian women
8.06	5.73	3	6.90	1,087	Asian women
10.08	7.03	4	8.46	761	Asian women
14.26	8.81	5	11.40	533	Asian women
15.51	9.42	6	12.18	393	Asian women
17.45	10.13	7	12.99	273	Asian women
19.74	10.30	8	13.95	174	Asian women
25.62	16.66	9	20.67	122	Asian women
24.51	15.73	10	20.21	88	Asian women

Every line ends higher at the most deprived tenth than it starts at the least deprived, and Black women's line sits above Hispanic women's, white women's and Asian women's at every tenth. Each line is a population-weighted mean over the tracts where the Atlas estimates that group, so the lines differ in part because the places differ. Values in Table 3.

Note: Each group has its own set of tracts, the tracts where the Atlas has enough women of that group, so the lines differ in part because the places differ. Tenths are tenths of all tracts with an ADI rank, so a tenth means the same part of the deprivation scale for every group. Few tracts with an Asian estimate fall in the most deprived tenths, and their intervals are wide.Note: The Area Deprivation Index is built for census block groups from American Community Survey measures for 2019 to 2023, and a 2020 tract's value is the unweighted mean of its block groups' ranks. Each 2010 tract takes the land-area-weighted mean of the values of the 2020 tracts that overlap it, when those with a rank cover at least 50% of its land area. Tenths hold near-equal numbers of tracts, with tied ranks kept together.Note: Shares are the Atlas's predicted share of women with a teen birth, a child born when the mother was between the ages of 13 and 19 whom she claimed as a dependent, for women born in 1978 to 1983 whose parents were at the 25th income percentile. White, Black and Asian women are non-Hispanic and Hispanic women may be of any race. The Atlas adds noise to its estimates to protect privacy and the staged values are never clipped, so a few fall below 0 or above 100.Source: Opportunity Atlas tract outcomes, 2010 tracts, 1978-1983 birth cohorts, and Area Deprivation Index, 2023 release (ACS 2019-2023); population-weighted (2010 tract population), modeled estimates

The pooled gradient is steeper than each group's own. The rise for all women exceeds the rise for white women by 3.9 (95% CI 2.3 to 5.2) points, and it exceeds the rises for Black, Hispanic and Asian women as well. Tracts with a Black estimate are concentrated in the more deprived tenths, and a group mix that differs across the scale would change the slope of the pooled line. The data do not size how much of the pooled gradient comes from that mix.

The Black-white gap shows no detectable change with deprivation

A comparison inside one tract removes the differences between neighborhoods that a county average mixes in. Where the Atlas estimates both groups in a tract, Black women's predicted share exceeds white women's by 17.6 (95% CI 17.0 to 18.2) points. Those are the tracts with enough women of both groups, so they are not a sample of all tracts. Grouped by tenths of the ADI, which neither group's estimate contributes to, the gap in the most deprived tenth minus the gap in the least deprived is −0.7 (95% CI −2.4 to 1.2) points. The interval includes zero, so in these data the gradient by deprivation and the gap by race run in parallel.

Figure 3

The Black-white gap in predicted teen birth shares shows no detectable change from the least to the most deprived tenth of tracts, −0.7 points with an interval that includes zero

Predicted share of women with a teen birth (percent) for white and Black women raised in the same tracts, by tenth of the Area Deprivation Index, women born 1978 to 1983 whose parents were at the 25th income percentile (teen births in the 1990s and early 2000s, not a current rate)

Non-Hispanic white women
Non-Hispanic Black women

Show data

Data for The Black-white gap in predicted teen birth shares shows no detectable change from the least to the most deprived tenth of tracts, −0.7 points with an interval that includes zero
Tenth of tracts by ADI	White women (%)	Black women (%)	Gap (points)	Lower limit of the 95% interval for the gap	Upper limit of the 95% interval for the gap	Tracts
Tenth 1 (least deprived)	11.7	29.8	18.1	16.2	19.6	696
Tenth 2	14.9	32.6	17.7	16.1	19.2	1,372
Tenth 3	16.7	34.2	17.5	16.3	18.7	1,634
Tenth 4	19.4	36.9	17.5	16.3	18.6	1,953
Tenth 5	21.1	39.5	18.3	17.4	19.3	2,288
Tenth 6	23.0	41.0	18.0	16.9	19.3	2,366
Tenth 7	25.5	43.0	17.5	16.7	18.4	2,443
Tenth 8	27.2	44.4	17.2	16.5	17.9	2,410
Tenth 9	29.4	46.5	17.0	16.4	17.7	2,570
Tenth 10 (most deprived)	32.0	49.4	17.4	16.6	18.1	3,152

Every Black dot lies to the right of the white dot in its row, and the distance between them shows no detectable change from the least to the most deprived tenth. Each row is a tenth of tracts by deprivation in 2019 to 2023. Each dot is a population-weighted mean for women born in 1978 to 1983 over the tracts in that tenth where both groups are estimated. Values in Table 5.

Note: The tracts are those where the Atlas estimates both groups, and tenths are formed on the ADI, a measure that neither estimate contributes to, so the grouping does not sort on either noisy estimate. Few tracts in the least deprived tenths have a Black estimate. The Area Deprivation Index is built for census block groups from American Community Survey measures for 2019 to 2023, and a 2020 tract's value is the unweighted mean of its block groups' ranks. Each 2010 tract takes the land-area-weighted mean of the values of the 2020 tracts that overlap it, when those with a rank cover at least 50% of its land area. Tenths hold near-equal numbers of tracts, with tied ranks kept together.Note: Shares are the Atlas's predicted share of women with a teen birth, a child born when the mother was between the ages of 13 and 19 whom she claimed as a dependent, for women born in 1978 to 1983 whose parents were at the 25th income percentile. White, Black and Asian women are non-Hispanic and Hispanic women may be of any race. The Atlas adds noise to its estimates to protect privacy and the staged values are never clipped, so a few fall below 0 or above 100.Source: Opportunity Atlas tract outcomes, 2010 tracts, 1978-1983 birth cohorts, and Area Deprivation Index, 2023 release (ACS 2019-2023); population-weighted (2010 tract population), modeled estimates

As a ratio the gap does change. Since the gap in points shows no detectable change while both levels rise, Black women's share is 2.5 times white women's in the least deprived tenth and 1.5 times in the most deprived. Black women raised in the least deprived tenth of tracts have a predicted share of 29.8% (95% CI 28.0% to 31.1%), slightly below the 32.0% (95% CI 31.4% to 32.7%) of white women raised in the most deprived tenth, whose tracts are different ones.

Patterns across tracts, not a woman's chances

These are patterns across tracts, known as ecological patterns, and they do not say that living in a deprived tract raised any woman's chance of a teen birth. A same-tract comparison removes differences between neighborhoods but not all differences between the women in them. Women raised at one parental income percentile can still differ in family wealth, in schools, in the block they lived on and in how institutions treated them. The data describe the gap without explaining it. The same comparison for adult income is in Chapter 4.3, Race, income and mobility. One study bears on a policy question the tract patterns cannot answer. The Colorado Family Planning Initiative widened access to long-acting contraception through the state's Title X family-planning clinics from 2009. Lindo and Packham compared the change in teen birth rates in Colorado counties that had a Title X clinic with the change in counties that had one in other states.[3] They estimate that the program reduced the teen birth rate in counties with funded clinics. The design assumes that the proportional changes in the comparison counties show what would have happened in Colorado without the program. Their estimate is for teenagers in those counties in the years around 2009, and it does not describe the women in this chapter or test whether access to contraception accounts for any gap shown here.

What this cannot tell you

The shares describe teen births in the 1990s and early 2000s among women from low-income families, and they say nothing about women from richer families or about teenagers now. The chapter on recent births, Chapter 2.4, Where births are falling, counts births to mothers aged 15 to 19 by county for 2018 to 2024 and reports no rates, and the two measures should not be read as one series. The ADI describes the tracts decades after the births. Asian women's estimates are low and noisy.

Go deeper

The report: every estimate with its interval and sample size.
Tables: every figure of the report as a table.

Data sources

Opportunity AtlasPredicted share of women with a teen birth (parents at the 25th income percentile) by tract and race and by county, children born 1978 to 1983, native 2010 tracts; women's adult household income rank; 1990 tract poverty rate from the tract covariates fileYears: 1978-1983 birth cohorts (2018 release) · Weights: 2010 census tract population for tract comparisons; 2010 census county population for county summaries · License: Public use (Opportunity Insights and the U.S. Census Bureau)
Area Deprivation IndexNeighborhood Atlas Area Deprivation Index, 2023 release, national rank, 2020 tracts averaged onto 2010 tracts by land areaYears: 2023 release (version 4.0.1; built on ACS 2019-2023) · Weights: 2010 census tract population · License: Free for non-commercial use; cite the Neighborhood Atlas and Kind and Buckingham
USDA Food Access Research Atlas2010 census population of each 2010 tract, from the Food Access Research Atlas file; the food-access flags are not usedYears: 2019 release (population from the 2010 census) · Weights: none (census counts); used as the weight for tract and county comparisons · License: Public domain (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service)
CDC WONDER natalityNamed only, to say how this chapter's measure differs from CDC WONDER counts of births to teenage mothers in the chapter on recent birthsYears: 2018-2024 · Weights: none (not used in this chapter's estimates) · License: Public domain (NCHS, CDC); WONDER data-use restrictions apply
Published estimates from cited studiesThe estimate of the Colorado Family Planning Initiative reported by Lindo and Packham (2017)Years: as reported in each study · Weights: none (reported estimate) · License: Quoted from published research for commentary

All data sources

References

Chetty, Raj; Friedman, John N.; Hendren, Nathaniel; Jones, Maggie R.; Porter, Sonya R. (2018). The Opportunity Atlas: Mapping the Childhood Roots of Social Mobility. NBER Working Paper 25147. doi:10.3386/w25147
Kind, Amy J. H.; Buckingham, William R. (2018). Making Neighborhood-Disadvantage Metrics Accessible: The Neighborhood Atlas. New England Journal of Medicine 378(26): 2456-2458. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1802313
Lindo, Jason M.; Packham, Analisa (2017). How Much Can Expanding Access to Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives Reduce Teen Birth Rates?. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 9(3): 348-376. doi:10.1257/pol.20160039

How to cite

@misc{singh2026teenbirths,
  author = {Singh, Vishal},
  title = {Teen births},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/teen-births},
  note = {In ZIP Code Destiny. Published 9 October 2026.}
}