US in comparative perspective

• Similar challenges, different responses.– Rise in births out of wedlock and lone parent

families.– Rise in women working and resulting work-family

conflicts.• European Welfare State vs. US Market

Solutions

Consequences of Women Working

• Who is minding the children?• Changing roles of men and women. Who is

doing the housework?• The time crunch.• The care crunch. Increased longevity of

grandparents, who cares for them?• Can women have careers (as opposed to jobs)

and families? Can women “have it all”?

Growth in Female Single Headed Households

• Out of wedlock births. (Single and co-habitating).

• Fatherless families. Fathers absent due to divorce, death, imprisonment.

Single Headed Households

• In 1960 5% of all births were to single moms. In 2008 it was 41%.

• The proportion of births to unwed mothers rose in all age groups.

Race and the Age structure

• Whites have more single headed households formed by divorce. Blacks by never married moms. Youngest kids are more likely to be in single headed households among blacks.

• Nationally 12% of preschoolers live in homes without fathers. Among blacks it is 52%.

Three reasons to care about single headed households

• Female single headed households are poorer than married households. More likely to be in poverty.

• Child development. Bad outcomes for children.

• Moral Problem. Are pre-marital sex and divorce wrong?

1-Are children who grow up with only one biological parent less successful in adulthood than those who grow

up with both parents?Answer is easy. On average. Yes. But

why?

2-Are children with an absent parent less successful than children from two parent families with similar known characteristics such as race, residence and education?

Answer: Yes, family structure still makes a difference even when you control for education and residence.? Problems result from loss of income, parental involvement and ties to the community.

Consequences for Children

Sara McLanahan, Gary Sandefur• Children who grow up with only one parent

are more likely than comparable children to – drop out of school– become teen age and single mothers– have trouble finding and keeping a steady job

• But there are three separate questions underlying these comparisons

3-Would children who grow up with only one parent have done better if their parents had stayed together?

This is the most difficult to answer. Some third variable might be causing both the parents to be apart and the children’s problems. Illness, unemployment, drug abuse.

What is the counterfactual?

• People who now have children out of wedlock do not get pregnant or have abortions.

• Couples would always get married and stay married (one third would be in “bad” marriages)

Poverty and Single Parents

• Single mother families are five times more likely to be poor than married couple families.

• POVERTY RATES:– Single individuals without children 15%– Married couples no children 2.5%– Married couples with children 6.5%– Single moms with children 39%

International ComparisonsPoverty Rate for Single-Mother families

• US 55%• Canada 52%• UK 46%• Netherlands 24%• Sweden 7%

– Poverty is defined as below 50% of median income.• Sara McLanahan “Life Without Father, Contexts. Vol 1 no. 1 Spring

2002

Why?

• Part of the difference is in who becomes a single mother. Single mothers in the US tend to be younger, less educated, less likely to live with a partner eventually and more likely to be non white.

• The major difference is government spending.• In the US government spending reduces

poverty by 15%, in Sweden it reduces poverty by 90%.

Poverty in Comparative Perspective

• Highest rates – UK, Australia, Canada, Ireland, UK

• US is closer to Mexico than to many other developed countries.

• For all people– US 17% Mexico 20.2%

• For Children– US 21.9% Mexico 24.8%

US vs. UK• 1990’s US and UK had very similar child poverty

rates. Starting in 2000 they began to diverge.• In 1999 Blair pledged an extra .9% of GDP for low

income families. • In the US .9% of GDP would be 120 billion.• That is more than we spend now on EITC, TANF, Child

care support and food stamps combined.• Right now we spend 25.4 billion on TANF• Of that 10 billion is cash, the rest is child care,

transportation and training.

Explaining Family Changes 1970-2000

• Public assistance for unmarried mothers became more readily available and somewhat more generous, at least between the early 1960’s and the mid 1970’s.– BUT: since 1979, the combined value of cash

benefits and food stamps has eroded steadily. Only Medicaid has risen.

Did welfare cause unwed pregnancies?

• From 1960 to 1975 the illegitimacy ratio went up largely because married fertility went down. Benefits were rising during this period.

• After 1975 the proportion of single women in the childbearing ages went up (women were less likely to marry). Their fertility went up. Welfare benefits were declining in real terms.

Explaining Family Changes 1970-2000

• Cultural change. Norms about premarital sex, cohabitation, out of wedlock childbearing and divorce have become more permissive.

• Research shows most change happened between the 1960s and 70s. Not much change has happened in attitudes since the late 1970s.

Cohabitation

• “Living together before marriage is a good idea”– High school seniors agreeing:

• 33% in mid 1970s• 51% in mid 1990s

– Source: Arland Thornton, “Changing Attitudes Toward Family Issues in the United States” Journal of Marriage and the Family 51(November) 873-93.

How do you deal with it?

• Change welfare laws• Inhibit pregnancies• Stop divorce• Change the culture• Support single working mothers• Encourage father’s involvement and financial

responsibility• Encourage marriage

Changing the Culture

• Wade Horn: Marriage Initiative is about changing the culture.

• James Q. Wilson: “I think the reason why marriage persists in some societies is that those societies are judgmental. Mothers tell their daughters and fathers tell their sons that they will go to hell if they don’t get married when they are going to have children. We don’t do this.

James Q. Wilson

• “I think we should use shame. I think we should use stigma as a way of controlling the behavior of people who think that having children is a matter of popularity or fun and games. It’s not a real commitment to the children’s future. Marriage is a fragile institution. Unless you enforce it by social mechanisms including shame for not being married, stigma for having a child out of wedlock, then we will see marriage continue to suffer” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/marriage/interviews/

Marriage Initiative

• Bush administration proposed $100 million annual fund to promote marriage among the poor.

• “to support activities that help couples who choose marriage for themselves develop the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage”.

• Oklahoma Pilot Program: relationship rallies, workshops on conflict resolution.

• Require States to Describe Efforts to Promote Marriage as Part of Their State Plan. States will be required to provide: (1) explicit descriptions of their family formation and healthy marriage efforts; (2) numerical performance goals; and (3) annual reporting of state achievement.– www.whitehouse.gov

Public Benefits in the US

• EITC• TANF Cash Benefits• SNAP Food Stamps • SSI Disability • Medicaid • UI Unemployment Insurance • Housing Vouchers or Public Housing

1996 Welfare Reform

• AFDC is abolished• TANF takes its place

Food Assistance “Stamps” SNAP

93 percent of SNAP benefits go to households below the poverty line; 55 percent go to households with incomes below half of the poverty line.

Growing Female Labor Force Participation

• In 1900 less than 20% of women age 25-44 were in the paid labor force. Only 5% of married women were.

• In 1999 75% of women were.• Among women in this age group with children

under age 18 71% were working full time.

Why do women work?

• Shift towards later marriage and higher education and fewer children. – Among women aged 35-44 with advanced degrees 32%

childless.

• Work has become normative. (Welfare reform). Work is also enjoyable (sometimes)

• Economic need. Men’s wages no longer support family.

Consequences of Women Working

• Who is minding the children?• Changing roles of men and women. Who is

doing the housework?• The time crunch.• The care crunch. Increased longevity of

grandparents, who cares for them?• Can women have careers (as opposed to jobs)

and families?

The Mommy Tax

• Young childless women earn 90% as much as men for the same hours worked.

• Mothers earn 70% as much as men for the same hours worked.

• Among families with children, fathers earn $3.00 for every $1.00 earned by mothers.

• 26% of American mothers work part time. Controlling for human capital these workers earn 21% less per hour than those who work full time.

Children under age 5

• In 1999, 66% of all children were in a child care arrangement.Among those not with parents:

43% of care is provided by relatives37% nonrelatives in market setting14% cared for by a mix of relatives and nonrelatives

Cost and Availability of Child Care

• Parents report that 5% of 6-12 year olds are in “self care”

• At age 10, 23% of children with employed mothers are in “self care” at some point in the week.

• At age 12, 50% are reported by their parents to be in “self care”

Cost and Availability of Care

• 2/3 of children with employed Moms are in nonparental care before their first birthday.

• In 2000 the average child care center worker earned between $13,125 and $18,988 (equal to the average parking lot attendant).

• Cost of full time infant day care in Harvard Child Care Center $2,625 per month; $31,500 per year.

What will your future be like?

• Educated women marry at high rates, have been having children later and at much lower rates than less educated women.

• Dual earner couples have long working hours.– Between 1970 and 1997 Dual earner parents saw their

combined hours increase 77 to 80 per week– Percentage of couples reporting greater than 100 hours

per week increased from 8 to 13%

Consequences for Politics and People

• Family in “crisis”. Divorce, children growing up without two parents, children growing up without parental time and supervision. People choosing not to be in families.

• Nostalgia for a past family type.

Gains and Costs

• Public debate rarely puts the gains and costs of these changes together.

• Conservatives extol traditional families, but do not discuss the implications for women’s gains. Cultural wars against working mothers are not popular.

• Liberals extol new rights of individuals without discussing the negative implications for families and for children.

Private Troubles, Public Issues

• Parents are finding private solutions to widely shared social issues.

• Gornick and Meyers show how European countries fashion government solutions.

• Government programs can make a difference for families.

• Other countries take for granted what we don’t even discuss or imagine.

Examples

• Paid family leave• Day care and school hours• Support for lone parent families• Limited working hours during the week• Mandated vacation time

Source: Janet Gornick and Marcia Meyers, Families That Work: Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment. NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004. P. 128.

• In 2006 the United States was 1 of only 4 nations, of a total of 173, that did not guarantee some measure of paid maternity leave.Even more significant, all other developed countries provide new parents rights to paid time off from work, and these entitlements often last well into early childhood

FMLA

• 12 weeks of job protected unpaid leave• Employers with under 50 employees are

exempt• Job reinstatement is not guaranteed for “key”

jobs.• Half of all workers are not covered by FMLA