| 
Such proposals reflect the widespread assumption that failure to
marry, rather than unemployment, poor education, and lack of affordable
child care, is the primary cause of child poverty. Voices from both
sides of the political spectrum urge us to get more women to the altar.
Journalist Jonathan Rauch argues that "marriage is displacing both
income and race as the great class divide of the new century."3 Robert
Rector of the Heritage Foundation claims that "the sole reason that
welfare exists is the collapse of marriage."4 In this briefing paper, we
question both this explanation of poverty and the policy prescriptions
that derive from it.
Marriage offers important social and economic benefits. Children who
grow up with married parents generally enjoy a higher standard of living
than those living in single-parent households. Two parents are usually
better than one not only because they can bring home two paychecks, but
also because they can share responsibilities for child care. Marriage
often leads to higher levels of paternal involvement than divorce,
non-marriage, or cohabitation. Long-term commitments to provide love and
support to one another are beneficial for adults, as well as
children.
Public policies toward marriage could and should be improved.5 Taxes
or benefit reductions that impose a marriage penalty on low-income
couples are inappropriate and should be eliminated. Well designed public
policies could play a constructive role in helping couples develop the
skills they need to develop healthy and sustainable relationships with
each other and their children. It does not follow, however, that
marriage promotion should be a significant component of anti-poverty
policy, or that public policies should provide a "bonus" to couples who
marry.
The current pro-marriage agenda in anti-poverty policy is misguided
for at least four reasons:
- Non-marriage is often a result of poverty and economic insecurity
rather than the other way around.
- The quality and stability of marriages matters. Prodding couples
into matrimony without helping them solve problems that make
relationships precarious could leave them worse off.
- Two-parent families are not immune from the economic stresses that
put children at risk. More than one third of all impoverished young
children in the U.S. today live with two parents.
- Single parenthood does not inevitably lead to poverty. In countries
with a more adequate social safety net than the United States, single
parent families are much less likely to live in poverty. Even within the
United States, single mothers with high levels of education fare
relatively well.
In this briefing paper, we summarize recent empirical evidence
concerning the relationship between marriage and poverty, and develop
the four points above in more detail. We also emphasize the need to
develop a larger anti-poverty program that provides the jobs, education,
and child care that poor families need in order to move toward
self-sufficiency.
The Economic Context
Children living with married parents generally fare better than
others in terms of family income. In 2000, 6 percent of married couple
families with children lived in poverty, compared to 33 percent of
female householders with children.6 Mothers who never
marry are more vulnerable to poverty than virtually any other group,
including those who have been divorced.7
But the low income associated with single parenthood reflects many
interrelated factors. Income is distributed far more unequally in the
United States than in most other developed countries, making it
difficult for low-wage workers (male or female) to support a family
without a second income. Women who become single mothers are especially
likely to have inadequate wages, both because of pre-existing
disadvantages such as low educational attainment and work experience and
because the shortage of publicly subsidized child care makes it
difficult for them to work full time. In 2000, only 1.2
percent of children of single mothers with a college degree who worked
full-time year round lived in poverty.8 For single mothers with some
college working full-time, the poverty rate was less than 8 percent.9
Whether single or married, working parents face high child care costs
that are seldom factored into calculations of poverty and income.
Consider the situation of a single mother with two children working
full-time, full year round at the minimum wage of $5.15 an hour, for an income of $10,712. If she files for
and receives the maximum Earned Income Tax Credit, she can receive as
much as $3,816 in public assistance. But the EITC phases out quickly if
she earns much more than the minimum wage, and her child care costs are
very high. Unless she is lucky enough to have a family member who can
provide free child care, or to find a federally subsidized child care
slot, more than 20 per cent of her income will go to pay for child
care.10 Federally subsidized child care remains quite
limited. Most families who made a transition from welfare to employment
in the 1990s did not receive a subsidy.11
The high cost of child care helps explain why the economic position
of single parents has improved little in recent years despite
significant increases in their hours of market work.12
It may also explain why single parents are likely to live in households
with other adults who can share expenses with them. About 40 percent of
births to single mothers take place among cohabitors, and much of the
increase in nonmarital childbearing in recent years reflects this trend
rather than an increase in among women living without a partner.13 The economic stress associated with reductions in
welfare benefits over the past six years may have increased the pressure
on single mothers to cohabit, often with partners who are unwilling or
unlikely to marry.14
On both a symbolic and a practical level, marriage facilitates the
income pooling and task sharing that allows parents to accommodate
family needs.15 Not surprisingly, many low-income
families consider marriage the ideal arrangement for child rearing.16 The Fragile Families and Child Welfare project
currently underway in about twenty cities shows that about 50 per cent
of unmarried parents of newborns live together and hope to marry at some
point.17 Lower expectations among some couples were
associated not with disinterest in marriage but with reports of drug or
alcohol problems, physical violence, conflict and mistrust.18
The advantages of marriage, however, do not derive simply from having
two names on a marriage certificate, and they cannot be acquired merely
by going through a formality. Rather, they grow out of a long-term and
economically sustainable commitment that many people feel is beyond
their reach.
Causality Works Both Ways
Liking the abstract idea of marriage and being able to put together a stable marriage in real life are two very different things. Unemployment, low wages, and poverty discourage family formation and erode family stability, making it less likely that individuals will marry in the first place and more likely that their marriages will deteriorate. These economic factors have long-term as well as short-term effects, contributing to changes in social norms regarding marriage and family formation and exacerbating distrust between men and women. These long-term effects help explain why African-Americans marry at much lower rates than other groups within the U.S. population. Poverty is a cause as well as a consequence of non-marriage and of marital disruption.19
Dan Lichter of Ohio State University puts it this way: "Marriage can be a pathway from poverty, but only if women are 'marriageable,' stay married, and marry well."20 Precisely because marriage offers economic advantages, individuals tend to seek potential spouses who have good earnings potential and to avoid marriage when they do not feel they or their potential mates can comfortably support a family. Ethnographic research shows that low-income women see economic stability on the part of a prospective partner as a necessary precondition for marriage.21 Not surprisingly, men increasingly use the same calculus. Rather than looking for someone they can "rescue" from poverty, employed men are much more likely to marry women who themselves have good employment prospects.22
Poor mothers who lack a high school degree and any regular employment history are not likely to fare very well in the so-called "marriage market." Teenage girls who live in areas of high unemployment and inferior schools are five to seven times more likely to become unwed parents than more fortunately situated teens.23 A study of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth confirms that poor women, whatever their age, and regardless of whether or not they are or have ever been on welfare, are less likely to marry than women who are not poor. Among poor women, those who do not have jobs are less likely to marry than those who do.24
It is easy to spin a hypothetical scenario in which marrying off single mothers to an average male would raise family incomes and reduce poverty. But unmarried males, and especially unmarried males in impoverished neighborhoods, are not average. That is often the reason they are not married. Researchers from the Center for Research on Child Well-Being at Princeton University report results from the Fragile Families Survey showing that unmarried fathers were twice as likely as married ones to have a physical or psychological problem that interfered with their ability to find or keep a job, and several times more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol. More than 25 percent of unmarried fathers were not employed when their child was born, compared to fewer than 10 percent of married fathers.25
Poor mothers tend to live in neighborhoods in which their potential marriage partners are also likely to be poorly educated and irregularly employed. Low-earning men are less likely to get married and more likely to divorce than men with higher earnings.26 Over the past thirty years, labor market opportunities for men with low levels of education have declined substantially.27 Several studies suggest that the decrease in real wages for low-income men during the 1980s and early 1990s contributed significantly to lower marriage rates in those years.28
This trend has been exacerbated by the high incarceration rates for men convicted of non-violent crimes, such as drug use. While in jail, these men are not available for women to marry and their diminished job prospects after release permanently impair their marriageability. High rates of incarceration among black males, combined with high rates of mortality, have led to a decidedly tilted sex ratio within the African-American population, and a resulting scarcity of marriageable men.29 One study of the marriage market in the 1980s found that at age 25 there were three unmarried black women for every black man who had adequate earnings.30 As Ron Mincy of Columbia University emphasizes, simple pro-marriage policies are likely to offer less benefit to African-Americans families than policies encouraging responsible fatherhood and paternal engagement.31
In short, the notion that we could end child poverty by marrying off impoverished women does not take into account the realities of life among the population most likely to be poor. It is based on abstract scenarios that ignore the many ways in which poverty diminishes people's ability to build and sustain stable family relationships.
Quality Matters
Happy, healthy, stable marriages offer important benefits to adults and children. But not all marriages fit this description. Marital distress leads to harsh and inconsistent parenting, whether or not parents stay together. Studies show that a marriage marked by conflict, jealousy and anger is often worse for children's well-being than divorce or residence from birth in a stable single-parent family.32 For instance, research shows that while children born to teenagers who were already married do better than children born to never-married teens, children born to teen parents who married after the birth do worse on some measures, probably because of the high conflict that accompanies marriages entered into with ambivalence or under pressure. Some research suggests that, among low-income
African-American families, children from single-parent homes show higher educational achievement than their counterparts from two-parent homes.33
The idea that marriage can solve the problems of children in impoverished families ignores the complex realities of these families. The Fragile Families study shows that many low-income parents of new born children already have children from previous relationships. Thus, their marriages would not create idealized biological families, but rather blended families in which child support enforcement and negotiation among stepparents would complicate relationships.34 A recent study of families in poor neighborhoods in Boston, Chicago and San Antonio also reveals complex patterns of cohabitation and coparenting.35
Marriage to a stepfather may improve a mother's economic situation, but it does not necessarily improve outcomes for children and in some cases leads to more problems than continued residence in a stable single-parent family. Even if programs succeed in getting first-time parents married, there is no guarantee that the couples will stay married. Research shows that marriages contracted in the 1960s in order to "legitimate" a child were highly likely to end in divorce.36 Multiple transitions in and out of marriage are worse for children psychologically than residence in the same kind of family, whatever its form, over long periods of time.37
Women and children in economically precarious situations are particularly vulnerable to domestic violence.38 While it may be true that cohabiting couples are more prone to violence than married couples, this is probably because of what social scientists call a "selection effect": People in non-abusive relationships are more likely to get married. Encouraging women in an unstable cohabiting relationship to marry their partners would not necessarily protect them or their children. Indeed, the first serious violent episode in an unstable relationship sometimes occurs only after the couple has made a formal commitment.39
Even when it does not take a violent form, bad fathering can be worse than no fathering. For instance, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University found that while teens in two-parent families are, on average, much less likely to abuse drugs or alcohol than teens in one-parent ones, teens in two-parent families who have a poor to fair relationship with their father are more likely to do so than teens in the average one-parent family.40
Furthermore, even good marriages are vulnerable to dissolution. The current risks of a marriage ending in divorce are quite high, although they have come down from their peak in 1979-81. It is now estimated that approximately 40 percent of marriages will end in divorce, and the risk of divorce is elevated among people with low income and insecure jobs. Sociologist Scott South calculates that every time the unemployment rate rises by 1 percent, approximately 10,000 extra divorces occur.41 Comparing the income of single-parent families and married-couple families in any particular year leads to an overly optimistic assessment of the benefits of marriage, because it ignores the possibility of marital dissolution.
Marriage may provide a temporary improvement in a woman's economic prospects without conferring any secure, long-term protection for her children. Indeed, if marriage encourages mothers to withdraw time from paid employment, this can lower their future earnings and increase the wage penalty that they incur from motherhood itself.42
Two Parent Families Are Also Under Stress
Poverty among children is not confined to single-parent families. In 2000, about 38% of all poor young children lived in two-parent homes.43 These families have been largely overlooked in the debates over anti-poverty programs and marriage. Indeed, the campaign to increase marriage has overlooked one of the most important public policy issues facing the United States: the growing economic gap between parents, whether married or unmarried, and non-parents.
The costs of raising children have increased in recent years, partly because of the expansion of opportunities for women in the labor market and partly because of the longer time children spend in school. The lack of public support for parenting has also contributed to a worsening of the economic position of parents relative to non-parents.44 Unlike other advanced industrial countries, the United States fails to provide paid family leaves for parents, and levels of publicly subsidized support for child care remain comparatively low. Most employment practices penalize workers who take time away from paid responsibilities to provide family care.45 The high cost of parenting in this country helps explain many of the economic disadvantages that women face relative to men.46 It may also help explain why many men are reluctant to embrace paternal responsibilities.
The Need for a Better Social Safety Net
The association of single parenthood with poverty is not inevitable.
In Canada and France, single mothers -- and children in general -- are
far less likely to live in poverty. Sweden and Denmark, with higher
rates of out-of-wedlock births, have much lower rates of child poverty
and hunger than does the United States. The reason for the difference is
simple: These countries devote a greater percentage of their resources
to assisting families with children than we do.47 Similarly, dramatic
differences in child poverty rates within our country reflect
differences in tax, child care, and income assistance policies across
states.48
Fans of the 1996 welfare reform law point to a dramatic decline in
the welfare rolls since its enactment. Much of this decline is
attributable to the economic boom and resulting low unemployment rates
of the late 1990s. Despite promises that work requirements and time
limits would lead to a more generous package of assistance for those who
"followed the rules, " cash benefits have declined. Between 1994 and
1999, the real value of maximum benefits fell in most states, with an
overall decline in inflation-adjusted value of about 11 per cent.49
Average benefits declined even more, as recipients increased their
earnings. Indeed, the declining value of benefits is another reason why
caseloads have fallen.50
Punitive attitudes, as well as time limits, have discouraged many
eligible families from applying for assistance. The Census Bureau
estimates that less than 30 per cent of children in poverty resided in a
family that received cash public assistance in 1998.51 Take-up rates for
Food Stamps and Medicaid have declined in recent years.52 The
implementation of the new Children's Health Insurance program has been
quite uneven. As a result, states have saved money, but many children
have gone without the food or medical care they needed. Public support
for child care increased on both the federal and the state level. Still,
most families who made a transition from welfare to work in the late
1990s did not receive a subsidy.53
During the economic boom of the late 1990s, increases in earnings
among single parents helped make up for declining welfare benefits. As a
result, poverty rates among children declined from a high of about 21
per cent in 1996 to about 16 per cent in 2000.54 But these figures do
not take into account the costs of child care and other work-related
expenses, and they offer little hope for the future of children in
low-income families as unemployment rates once again begin to
climb.55
The most important federal policy promoting the welfare of low income
families is currently the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a fully
refundable tax credit aimed at low-income families with children.
Because benefits are closely tied to earnings, and phase out steeply
after family income reaches $12,460, the EITC imposes a significant
penalty on two-earner married couples, who are less likely to benefit
from it than either single parent families or married couples with a
spouse at home. This penalty is unfair and should be eliminated.
Other problems with the EITC, however, should be addressed at the
same time. Families with two children receive the maximum benefit, which
means that low-income families with three or more children do not
receive any additional assistance. More than a third of all children in
the country live in families with three or more children. Partly as a
result of limited EITC coverage, these families are prone to
significantly higher poverty rates. Furthermore, the EITC is phased out
in ways that penalize middle income families, who currently enjoy less
public support for child rearing than the affluent. An expanded unified
tax credit for families with children could address this problem.
Given the pressing need for improvements in basic social safety net
programs and the threat of rising unemployment, it is unconscionable to
reallocate already inadequate Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(TANF) funds to policies designed to promote marriage or provide a
"marriage bonus." There is little evidence that such policies would in
fact increase marriage rates or reduce poverty among children. Indeed,
the main effect of marriage bonuses would probably be to impose a
"non-marriage" penalty that would have a particularly negative impact on
African-American children, who are significantly less likely to live
with married parents than either whites or Hispanics. As Julianne
Malveaux points out in her discussion of the Bush proposal, "a mere $100
million can be considered chump change. But the chump who could have
been changed is the unemployed worker who misses out on job training
because some folks find those programs -- but not marriage- promotion
programs -- a waste."
Well-designed programs to help individuals develop and improve family
relationships may be a good idea. However, they should not be targeted
to the poor, but integrated into a larger provision of public health
services, or built into existing health insurance programs (mandating,
for instance, that both public and private health insurance cover family
counseling). Such programs also should not be limited to couples who are
married or planning to marry. Fathers and step-fathers who are not
living with their biological children also need guidance and
encouragement to develop healthy, nurturing relationships. Gay and
lesbian families -- who are currently legally prohibited from marriage
-- also merit assistance.
Public policies should not penalize marriage. Neither should they
provide an economic bonus or financial incentive to individuals to
marry, especially at the cost of lowering the resources available to
children living with single mothers. Such a diversion of resources from
public assistance programs penalizes the children of unmarried parents
without guaranteeing good outcomes for the children of people who are
married. A variety of public policies could help strengthen families and
reduce poverty among all children, including a broadening of the Earned
Income Tax Credit, expansion of publicly subsidized child care, efforts
to promote responsible fatherhood, improvements in public education and
job training, and efforts to reduce income inequality and pay
discrimination. Unlike some of the pro-marriage policies now under
consideration, these policies would benefit couples who wish to marry
but would not pressure women to enter or remain in intimate
relationships they would not otherwise choose.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Arloc Sherman, senior research associate at the Children's Defense Fund, with statistical references and calculations.
NOTES:
1. Alexandra Starr, "Shotgun Wedding by Uncle Sam?" Business Week,
June 4, 2001.
2. Cheryl Wetzstein, "States Want Pro-Family Funds," The Washington
Times, December 10, 2001; Robin Toner and Robert Pear, "Bush Urges Work
and Marriage Programs in Welfare Plan," New York Times, February 27,
2002.
3. Jonathan Rauch, "The Widening Marriage Gap: America's New Class
Divide," National Journal, Friday, May 18, 2001.
4. Cheryl Weitzstein, "Unwed Mothers Set a Record for Births," The
Washington Times, April 18, 2001.
5. See Jared Bernstein, Irv Garfinkel, and Sara McLanahan, A
Progressive Marriage Agenda, forthcoming from the Economic Policy
Institute.
6. U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Historical Poverty Statistics - Table
4. Poverty Status of Families, by Type of Family, Presence of Related
Children, Race, And Hispanic Origin: 1959-2000," Available at
http://www.census.gov. In 1999, 36 percent of single-mother households
lived in poverty. Poverty in the U.S. 1999. Current Population Reports,
P60-210 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2000).
7. Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Married Mothers Fare the Best
Economically, Even If they Were Unwed at the Time they Gave Birth,"
Family Planning Perspectives 31, no. 5: pp. 258-60, September, 1999;
Ariel Halpern, "Poverty Among Children Born Outside of Marriage:
Preliminary Findings from the National Survey of America's Families,"
(Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1999).
8. Calculations by Arloc Sherman, Children's Defense Fund, based on
the March 2001 Current Population Survey.
9. Ibid. See also Neil G. Bennett, Jiali Li, Younghwan Song, and
Keming Yang, "Young Children in Poverty: A Statistical Update," released
June 17, 1999. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty,
http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nccp/99uptext.html
10. Linda Giannarelli and James Barsimantov, Child Care Expenses of
America' s Families, Occasional Paper Number 40 (Washington, D.C.: Urban
Institute, 2000).
11. Rachel Schumacher and Mark Greenberg, Child Care After Leaving
Welfare: Early Evidence from State Studies (Washington, D.C.: Center for
Law and Social Policy, 1999).
12. Kathryn H. Porter and Allen Dupree, "Poverty Trends for Families
Headed by Working Single Mothers, 1993-1999," Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, August 16, 2001. For full article:
http://www.cbpp.org/8-16-01wel.pdf
13. Pamela Smock, "Cohabitation in the U.S.: An Appraisal of Research
Themes, Findings, and Implications," American Review of Sociology 26,
no.1 (2000): pp. 1-20.
14. Gregory Acs and Sandi Nelson, "'Honey, I'm Home.' Changes in
Living Arrangements in the Late 1990s," New Federalism: National Survey
of America' s Families (The Urban Institute), June 2001, pp. 1-7. A new
study by Johns Hopkins researchers, presented on February 20, 2002 at a
welfare forum in Washington D.C., however, shows that these partnerships
are unstable and may not be better for children than single-parent
households. See Robin Toner, "Two Parents not Always Best for Children,
Study Finds," New York Times, February 20, 2002.
15. Many dual-earner families with preschool age children include a
parent who works evenings and nights in order to provide care during the
day while their husband or wife is at work. See Harriet Presser,
"Employment Schedules Among Dual-Earner Spouses and the Division of
Household Labor by Gender," American Sociological Review 59, no. 3 (June
1994): pp. 348-364.
16. Kristen Harknett and Sara McLanahan, "Do Perceptions of Marriage
Explain Marital Behavior? How Unmarried Parents' Assessments of the
Benefits of Marriage Relate to their Subsequent Marital Decision;" and
Marcia Carlson, Sara McLanahan, and Paula England, "Union Formation and
Stability in Fragile Families," papers presented at the meetings of the
Population Association of America, Washington D.C., April 2001.
17. More details on the Fragile Families study are available at
http://crcw.princeton.edu/fragilefamilies/nationalreport.pdf
18. Maureen Waller, "High Hopes: Unwed Parents' Expectations About
Marriage," Children and Youth Services Review 23 (2001): pp. 457-84.
19. Sara McLanahan, "Parent Absence or Poverty: Which Matters More?"
pp. 35-48 in Greg Duncan and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, eds., Consequences of
Growing Up Poor (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1997). On the impact
of poverty in creating non-marriage and marital disruption, see Aimee
Dechter, "The Effect of Women's Economic Independence on Union
Dissolution," Working Paper Np. 92-98 (1992). Center for Demography and
Ecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; Mark Testa et al,
"Employment and Marriage among Inner-City Fathers," Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 501 (1989), pp. 79-91;
Karen Holden and Pamela Smock, "The Economic Costs of Marital
Dissolution: Why Do Women bear a Disproportionate Cost?" Annual Review
of Sociology 17 (1991), pp. 51-58.. On the association of low income
with domestic violence see Kristin Anderson, "Gender, Status, and
Domestic violence," Journal of Marriage and the Family 59 (1997), pp.
655-670; A. M. Moore, "Intimate Violence: Does Socioeconomic Status
Matter?" in A.P. Gardarelli, ed., Violence Between Intimate Partners
(Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997), pp. 90-100; A. J. Sedlack and D.D.
Broadhurst, D.D., Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and
Neglect: Final Report (Washington D.C.: Department of Health and Human
Services 1996).
20. Daniel T. Lichter, Marriage as Public Policy (Washington, D.C:
Progressive Policy Institute, September 2001).
21. Kathryn Edin, "A Few Good Men: Why Poor Mothers Don't Marry or
Remarry?" The American Prospect, January 3, 2000, p. 28; Kathryn Edin
and Laura Lein, Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Welfare and
Low-Wage Work (New York: Russell Sage, 1998).
22. Valerie Oppenheimer and Vivian Lew, "American Marriage Formation
in the 1980s," in Karen Mason and An-Magritt Jensen, eds, Gender and
Family Change in Industrialized Countries (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1994), pp. 105-38; Sharon Sassler and Robert Schoen, "The Effects
of Attitudes and Economic Activity on Marriage," Journal of Marriage and
the Family 61 (1999): pp. 148-49.
23. John Billy and David Moore, "A Multilevel Analysis of Marital and
Nonmarital Fertility in the U.S.," Social Forces 70 (1992), pp.
977-1011; Sara McLanahan and Irwin Garfinkel, "Welfare is No Incentive,"
The New York Times, July 29, 1994, p. A13; Elaine McCrate, "Expectations
of Adult Wages and Teenage Childbearing," International Review of
Applied Economics 6 (1992) pp. 309-328; Ellen Coughlin, "Policy
Researchers Shift the Terms of the Debate on Women's Issues," The
Chronicle of Higher Education, May 31, 1989; Marian Wright Edelman,
Families in Peril: An Agenda for Social Change (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1987), p. 55; Lawrence Lynn and Michael McGeary, eds,
Inner-City Poverty in the United States (Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press, 1990), pp. 163-67; Jonathan Crane, "The Epidemic Theory
of Ghetto and Neighborhood Effects on Dropping Out and Teenaged
Childbearing," American Journal of Sociology 96 (1991), pp. 1226-59;
Sara McLanahan and Lynne Casper, "Growing Diversity and Inequality in
the American Family," in Reynolds Farley, State of the Union, Vol. 2, pp
10-11; Mike Males, "Poverty, Rape, Adult/Teen Sex: Why 'Pregnancy
Prevention' Programs Don't Work," Phi Delta Kappan, January 1994, p.409;
Mike Males, "In Defense of Teenaged Mothers," The Progressive, August
1994, p. 23.
24. Dian McLaughlin and Daniel Lichter, Poverty and the Marital
Behavior of Young Women," Journal of Marriage and the Family 59, no.3
(1997): pp. 582-94.
25. Wendy Single-Rushton and Sara McLanahan, "For Richer or Poorer?"
manuscript, Center for Research on Child Well-Being, Princeton
University, July 2001, p. 4; Kathryn Edin, "What do Low-Income Single
Mothers Say About Marriage?" Social Problems 47 (2000), pp. 112-33.
26. Robert Nakosteen and Michael Zimmer, "Man, Money, and Marriage:
Are High Earners More Prone than Low Earners to Marry?" Social Science
Quarterly 78 (1997): pp. 66-82.
27. Francine D. Blau, Lawrence W. Kahn and Jane Waldfogel,
"Understanding Young Women's Marriage Decisions: The Role of Labor and
Marriage Market Conditions," Industrial and Labor Relations Review 53,
no. 4 (July 2000): pp. 624-48.
28.Robert Nakosteen and Michael Zimmer, "Men, Money, and Marriage"
Social Science Quarterly 78 (1997), pp. ; Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr. "The
Future of Marriage," American Demographics 18 (June 1996), pp. 39-40;
Francine Blau, Lawrence Kahn, and Jane Waldfogel, "Understanding Young
Women's Marriage Decisions," Industrial and Labor Relations Review 53
(2000): pp. 624-48.
29. William A. Darity, Jr. and Samuel L. Myers, Jr., "Family
Structure and the Marginalization of Black Men," Policy Implications" in
The Decline in Marriage Among African Americans: Causes, Consequences,
and Policy Implications, ed. M. Belinda Tucker and Claudia
Mitchell-Kernan. (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1995), pp. 263-308.
30. Daniel.T. Lichter, D. McLaughlin, F. LeClere, G. Kephart, and D.
Landry, "Race and the Retreat from Marriage: A Shortage of Marriageable
Men?" American Sociological Review 57 (December 1992): pp. 781-99.
31. Ron Mincy, Columbia University, personal communication, February
18, 2002.
32. Mavis Hetherington, For Better or for Worse: Divorce Reconsidered
(New York: W. W. Norton, 2001); Paul Amato and Alan Booth, "The Legacy
of Parents ' Marital Discord," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 81 (2001), pp. 627-638; Andrew Cherlin, "Going to Extremes:
Family Structure, Children' s Well-Being, and Social Science,"
Demography 36 (November 1999): pp. 421-28.
33. Elizabeth Cooksey, "Consequences of Young Mothers' Marital
Histories for Children's Cognitive Development," Journal of Marriage and
the Family 59 (May 1997), pp. 245-62; Juan Battle, "What Beats Having
Two Parents? Educational Outcomes for African American Students in
Single- Versus Dual-Parent Families," Journal of Black Studies 28
(1998), p. 783-802.
34. Ron Mincy and Chen-Chung Huang, "'Just Get Me to the Church...':
Assessing Policies to Promote Marriage among Fragile Families,"
manuscript prepared for the MacArthur Foundation Network on the Family
and the Economy Meeting, Evanston, Illinois, November 30, 2001. Contact
Ron Mincy, School of Social Work, Columbia University.
35. Research by Andrew Cherlin and Paula Fomby at Johns Hopkins
University, as reported in Robin Toner, "Two Parents Not Always Best for
Children," New York Times, February 21, 2002.
36. Frank Furstenberg, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and S. Philip Morgan,
Adolescent Mothers in Later Life (New York: Cambridge University Press,
1987).
37. Frank Furstenberg, "Is the Modern Family a Threat to Children's
Health?" Society 36 (1999): p. 35.
38. Richard Gelles, "Constraints Against Family Violence," American
Behavioral Scientist 36 (1993), pp. 575-86; A. J. Sedlack and D.D.
Broadhurst, Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect:
Final Report (Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services,
1996); Kristin Anderson, "Gender, Status and Domestic Violence," Journal
of Marriage and the Family 59 (1997), 655-670; Jacqueline Payne and
Martha Davis, "Testimony of NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund on
Child Support and Fatherhood Initiatives," submitted to the United
States House Human Resources Subcommittee of the Ways and Means
Committee, June 28, 2001.
39. Catherine Kenney and Sara McLanahan, "Are Cohabiting Relationship
More Violent Than Marriages?" manuscript, Princeton University; E.D.
Leonard, 1994, "Battered Women and Criminal Justice: A Review (doctoral
dissertation cited in Todd Migliaccio, "Abused Husbands: A Narrative
Analysis," Journal of Family Issues 23 (2002), 26-52; K.D. O'Leary et
al, "Prevalence and Stability of Physical Aggression Between Spouses: A
Longitudinal Analysis," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 57
(1989), pp. 263-68.
40. National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia
University, "Back to School 1999 - National Survey of American Attitudes
on Substance Abuse V: Teens and their Parents," August 1999. See also
Irvin Molotsky, "Study Links Teenage Substance Abuse and Paternal Ties,"
New York Times, Aug. 31, 1999.
41. "Census Bureau Reports Poor Two-Parent Families Are about Twice
as Likely to Break Up as Two-Parent Families not in Poverty," New York
Times, January 15, 1993, p. A6; Don Burroughs, "Love and Money," U.S.
News & World Report, October 19, 1992, p. 58; Scott South, Katherine
Trent, and Yang Shen, "Changing Partners: Toward a
Macrostructural-Opportunity Theory of Marital Dissolution," Journal of
Marriage and Family 63, no.3 (2001):743-754. Also see note 17.
42. Michelle Budig and Paula England, "The Wage Penalty for
Motherhood," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): pp. 204-225;
Heather Joshi, Pierella Paci, and Jane Waldfogel. 1999. "The Wages of
Motherhood: Better or Worse," Cambridge Journal of Economics 23, no.5
(1999): pp. 543-564. Jane Waldfogel, "The Effect of Children on Women's
Wages," American Sociological Review 62:2 (1997): pp. 209-217.
43. "Young Children in Poverty: A Statistical Update," June 1999
Edition. Released June 17, 1999, prepared by Neil G. Bennett, Jiali Li,
Younghwan Song, and Keming Yang. New York: National Center for Children
in Poverty, http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nccp/99uptext.html. Data
for 2000 from CPS,
http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032001/pov/new01_003.htm
44. Nancy Folbre, Who Pays for the Kids? Gender and the Structures of
Constraint (New York: Routledge, 1994); Ann Crittenden, The Price of
Motherhood (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2001); Sylvia Ann Hewlett and
Cornell West, The War Against Parents (New York: Houghton Mifflin,
1998).
45. Joan Williams, Unbending Gender. Why Family and Work Conflict and
What to Do About It. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).
46. Ann Crittenden, The Price of Motherhood. Why the Most Important
Job in the World is Still the Least Valued (New York: Henry Holt, 2001).
47. Timothy Smeeding, Barbara Boyle Torrey and Martin Rein, "Patterns
of Income and Poverty: The Economic Status of Children and the Elderly
in Eight Countries," in John L Palmer, Timothy Smeeding, and Barbara
Boyle Torrey, eds., The Vulnerable (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute
Press, 1988); Susan Houseknecht and Jaya Sastry, "Family 'Decline' and
Child Well-Being: A Comparative Assessment," Journal of Marriage and the
Family 58 (1996); Sara McLanahan and Irwin Garfinkel, "Single-Mother
Families and Social Policy: Lessons for the United States from Canada,
France, and Sweden," pp. 367-83 in K. McFate, R. Lawson, W. J. Wilson
eds., Poverty, Inequality, and the Future of Social Policy: Western
States in the New World Order (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1995).
Michael J. Graetz and Jerry L. Mashaw, True Security. Rethinking
American Social Insurance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999).
48. Marcia K. Meyers, Janet C. Gornick, and Laura R. Peck. 2001.
"Packaging Support for Low-Income Families: Policy Variation Across the
U.S. States," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20, no. 3: pp.
457-483.
49. Table 7-6, Green Book 2000. Committee on Ways and Means, U.S.
House of Representatives, 106th Congress. Available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/wm001.html.
50. President's Council of Economic Advisors, The Effects of Welfare
Policy and the Economic Expansion of Welfare Caseloads: An Update
(Washington, D.C.: Council of Economic Advisors, 1999).
51. 2000 Kids Count Data Online, http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/kc2000/sum_11.htm
52. Jennifer Steinhauer, "States Proved Unpredictable in Aiding
Uninsured Children," New York Times, September 28, 2000. See also
Leighton Ku and Brian Bruen, "The Continuing Decline in Medicaid
Coverage" Series A, No. A-37 (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 1999);
Sheila Zedlewski and Sarah Brauner, "Are the Steep Declines in Food
Stamp Participation Linked to Falling Welfare Caseloads?" Series B, No.
B-3 (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 1999).
53. Rachel Schumacher and Mark Greenberg, Child Care After Leaving
Welfare: Early Evidence from State Studies. Washington, D.C.: Center for
Law and Social Policy, 1999). On the added costs of child care and
care-giving activities for low-income families, see Jody Heymann, The
Widening Gap: Why America's Working Families Are in Jeopardy and What
Can Be Done about It (New York: Basic Books, 2000).
54. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Money Income
and Poverty in the U.S., 1999. Figures for 2000 from
http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032001/pov/new17_008.htm
55. Patricia Ruggles, Drawing the Line. Alternative Poverty Measures
and Their Implications for Public Policy ( Washington, D.C.: The Urban
Institute Press, 1990); Constance Citro and Robert Michael, eds.
Measuring Poverty: A New Approach (Washington, D.C.: National Academy )
| |
