Marriage Policy and its Suprising Support from the Left

I take responsibility for what I have written below:

“Is marriage a public good that government can simply choose to ignore, or is it something that is a public good that we should cease to be neutral on and try to, in fact, encourage support and enhance as something that is beneficial to children?”
-Senator R. Santorum
I. Overview:
The development of public policy is in many instances, the initial source of governmental impacts on our lives. Governmental policy decisions change the course of action for society as an aggregate of individual choices in response to a given policy. Yet, policy is never created in a vacuum; it is profoundly influenced by changing societal norms and environmental effects. Consequently, the formation of public policy is a dynamic process because people whose perceptions change over time shape it. (Marshall and Sawhill, 2004 p.109) This phenomenon is especially obvious when looking at changes in American society over the later part of the last century. The feminist and civil rights movements affected the nature of individual identity within the home, and the way society began to reshape its definition of personal relationships. Family, which acts as the primary domain of socialization, was redefined as women rejoined the workforce and the use of contraceptives became more widespread. Women began getting married and having children later in life, and more women were having children outside the framework of marriage. (Casper and Bianchi, 2002 pp. 4-6)
Today, single motherhood is widely accepted; its prevalence in communities and the media have reduced its social stigma. Yet, it is widely recognized that children born into two-parent homes are better off than are their counterparts in single-parent households. (Fein, et al, 2003 see intro; Moynahan, et all 2004 p.12) Recently, the federal government has sought to aid children and strengthen families by focusing on improving relationships amongst disadvantaged parents. Support for programs to help disadvantaged individuals through relationship building and marriage promotion initiatives has come surprisingly from both politically conservative and liberal groups who have taken note of the benefits associated with being married.

Benefits of Marriage:
Children—Between the years 1960 and 1998, the number of children residing with married parents declined from 91 to 73 percent. (Casper and Bianchi, 2002 p.11) Studies show that children and adolescents who grow up in single female-headed households are at an increased risk of developing at a slower rate both socially and emotionally. They are more likely to drop out of school, have limited career opportunities, and be unmarried parents themselves. (Amato, 2001, McLanahan 1994, 1997 see in Fein et al, 2002 intro) These findings do not show that children who grow up in single parent households will necessarily be worst off, only that a majority of children who experience the above problems come from single parent families. For example, children who live in single female headed households ‘score lower on measures of academic achievement than their peers in two-parent families,’ and ‘one-third of a standard deviation lower than their counterparts in two-parent families on mathematics and science tests.’ Children under the age of 15 from single-parent households are 70 percent more likely to have a conviction and 28 percent more likely to have smoked marijuana than children from two-parent households. (Sigle-Rushton and McLanahan, 2004 pp. 120-121, 123) Statistics like these, signal to policy makers that the public sphere to which government has huge influence is profoundly affected by the private sphere, and that benefits seen within the family unit affect society as a whole.
Why are children reared in two-parent homes better off? The reasons are complex but often attributed to involvement of the father. The impact fathers have on their children is more than just the input of another adult. Since the 1960s, married fathers have spent increasingly longer time interacting with their children. As women rejoined the workforce, married fathers increased time with children. In 1960, they spent 2.8 hours per day with their children. By 1998, the number of hours increased to 3.8 hours a day. While working mothers spend less than half of the time with their children as they did previously, overall quality time has remained stable. Another study conducted by Sandberg and Hoffert show that between 1981-1997, time spent with one parent remained relatively stable but with two parent families, the time children spent with either parent increased, even with mothers’ increased opportunities for employment (Casper and Bianchi, 2002 p.141-143)
Children living with one parent often have fewer resources devoted to them. This affects children with divorced parents, but more so with children born to unmarried mothers where a father’s social and economic commitment to the family is reduced. Furthermore, the mother often has to spend more time in the workforce, reducing the experience of positive interaction with her child(ren). (Jacobsen, 2002 pp.170-171) In 1964, 30 percent of children living in poverty were born to unwed mothers. Since the 1970s, the number has remained relatively stable at 60 percent. Public assistance for unwed mothers in the United States has remained below levels in other countries because the public believe that increased support will act as an incentive for more women to have their children out of wedlock. Because of this, more children are raised in poverty, further reducing their chances of escaping poverty as adu(Elwood and Jenks, 2004 pp.26-27)
Adults—Lower rates of marriage have been occurring since the 1960s as cohabitation, divorce and other non-traditional households have become more widespread. (Casper and Bianchi, 2002, pp.2-13) These trends are often viewed in terms of economic theory. Prior to this time, marriage was viewed as a necessary and unavoidable part of life; it provided the only economically viable context for most people. (Jacobsen 1998 p.67) As women returned to work and social movements changed widely held beliefs regarding gender roles, short-term economic costs and benefits have increasingly been the focus of individuals considering marriage. (Becker, 1991 p.26)
Yet, census data indicates that the economic benefits of marriage are today just as great, giving further emphasis to the argument for marriage. The income bracket of individuals making between $40,000 and $50,000 a year includes the highest number of husbands. The bracket between $30,000 and $40,000 includes the highest numbers of unmarried partners. Couples who are married comprise the majority of those who earn >$75,000. For “other family groups” the income bracket with the highest number of people is $10,000. (Salt Lake Tribune, Ed)
Startlingly, married fathers are better off than are their counterparts. Never married single fathers are more likely than married, divorced or separated fathers to have dropped out of high school. Census data show that the economic situation of unwed fathers parallels that of unwed mothers: Less than 60 percent of unwed fathers work full time and fewer than one in ten works in a professional or managerial occupation. Men who have been married are better educated, have higher median incomes, and are more likely to be employed full time. The gap between household income between married and unmarried fathers is increasing as wives are gradually earning better and more comparable wages. Additionally, single fathers contribute eighty-four percent of family income, while married fathers contribute sixty-six percent. (Casper and Bianchi, 2002 pp.133-137) Policy makers and social scientists have understood that life in our society is more manageable when responsibilities are shared between two adults. Individuals who are married are more likely to have longer lives, better health, less violence, less alcohol abuse and less poverty. (Salt Lake Tribune, Ed.)

II. General Trends
There is strong evidence that people within the United States want, and support marriage. eighty-five percent marry at least once, and 75 percent marry again within four years of divorce. (Elwood and Jencks, 2001) 53 percent of all households within the United States consist of a married couple.[1] Over the last decade, traditional family rates—those containing a married couple and their children—have remained stable at approximately 25 percent of all households. (Salt Lake Tribune, Ed) What has changed most dramatically since the 1950s, is who gets married and when.
Elwood and Jencks evaluate socio-economic status of women in terms of education: While marriage rates have decreased for the nation as a whole, the disparity between women in the highest and lowest thirds of educational attainment show that out-of-marriage birth is a phenomenon drastically skewed to the lowest third. These rates can be viewed in the context of when women marry. In the 1940s for women in the highest third of educational levels, 79 percent were married by the age of 25, but only 54 percent of women born between 1960-64. For women in the lowest third of educational attainment, 88 percent of the 1940-44 cohort were married by the age of 25, while 69 percent of the 1960-64 cohort were married. By the age of 35, marriage rates for both cohorts converge for both lower and higher educational levels. (2001, chapter 1)
In terms of childbirth for the lowest third of educational attainment, one in three women has had a pre-marital birth compared with one in ten for women at the highest third of educational attainment. This combination of statistics indicate that women of low and high educational attainment are equally likely to be married by the age of 35, but women with lower levels of education are more likely to have children before they marry. (Ibid; Fein, et all 2003, intro; Moynahan, et al, 2004 pp.38-40) The ramifications of these trends are great. Those who are the most unequipped financially and socially to have children are doing so earlier. It seems that young urban women, often lacking adequate education, skills and stability are further perpetuating these trends by having children in unstable circumstances. Amongst black women, unmarried births are higher than whites with the same levels of education. (Moynahan, et al, 2004 p.41)
The demographics show that out of wedlock teen birth has declined 26 percent since 1991. This has been attributed to a number of factors, including but not limited to: higher use of and better contraceptives, increased knowledge about sexually transmitted diseases, welfare reforms affecting child benefits and work requirements, abstinence, and a better economy. (Marshall and Sawhill, 2004 pp. 206-207) Still there are more unwed teen mothers in the United States than in any other country. (Sigle-Rushton and McLanahan, 2004 p.116)
More typical within the United States; however, are out of wedlock children being born to women in their mid-twenties. Most of these women do not reside with their child(ren)’s father but are cohabiting with another man. Most are poor and are receiving welfare support. Additionally, Edin and Kefalas note that lifetime fertility rates for women with less than a high school diploma and those with a college degree is similar, averaging close to two children. (2005, p. 206) The preconceived notion that the typical welfare mom has five or six children by multiple men is false. The similarities for numbers of children born across levels of educational attainment by the mother, show that poor women do not have farfetched desires with regards to motherhood. Yet the context of their childbearing is perceived as irrational, considering their poor economic context. Why are significant numbers of disadvantaged women having children in such circumstances?

What Marriage Means
Perceptions of marriage have changed for many Americans, not only the disadvantaged.
Economics and Gender states various reasons for low marriage rates: women now have higher productivity in the market than ever before, with lower relative income for men. In the past, specialization of both parties allowed for maximum efficiency through allocation of households responsibilities to tradition roles. Current trends in marriage reflect that men, women or both, find marriage a less efficient model than remaining single. Women’s economic independence theory suggests that women can afford to be single, where they might have been previously required to remain in terrible marriages. (Jacobsen, 1998 pp.154-173) No fault divorce has made the process more accessible. (Casper and Bianchi, 2002 p. 24-25) Additionally, while marriage has always been viewed by economists as a choice individuals make based on costs and benefits, current trends show that people are marrying for reasons of benefits and costs in terms of the short term. (Becker, 1991, Fein, et al 2003)
The above explanations are only part of the reason for low marriage trends amongst the disadvantaged. The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing survey indicates that most unmarried parents actually have marriage plans, even if never attained. Contrary to common perceptions of the poor, the study indicates that eighty-three percent of unwed mothers are living with, or are romantically involved with, the baby’s father. Seventy-three percent of unwed mothers believe that they have a 50 percent chance of marrying their baby’s father. Eighty-eight percent of unwed fathers believe likewise. Low income unwedded mothers and fathers believe that marriage is the best context for raising children: 64 percent of mothers and 73 percent of fathers feel this way. (McLanahan, Mathmatica.com) These numbers not only indicate that marriage is valued by the disadvantaged, but that there may be a need for government to focus its efforts on strengthening relationships in low income areas where there are little resources for couples wishing to attain marriage. With marriage so highly valued by the poor, it is necessary to focus on why the disadvantaged are not getting married.

Reasons for Low Marriage Rates amongst the Disadvantaged
Since the late 1980s, social scientists began looking at the effects of cohabitation on marriage. While much is still unknown, emerging trends show that cohabitation has different meanings for high and low economic groups. In higher socio-economic circles cohabitation is often only a phase before marriage. Additionally, childbearing is delayed until marriage takes place, and statistically within the United States, married parents still most often rear children. However, cohabitation amongst the disadvantaged or in minority groups is viewed as a substitute for marriage, when marriage seems impossible. This trend has been most troubling because cohabitation amongst the disadvantaged is a weaker form of commitment than marriage. Among other factors, it weakens the links children have with their fathers. (Casper and Bianchi, 2002 p. 60)
Ethnographic studies show that disadvantaged individuals have unrealistic expectations of marriage, and therefore delay marriage until they have attained what they believe are the appropriate criteria. Often, marriage is seen as completely unattainable. Indeed, Edin and Kefalas note that in low-income neighborhoods, it is widely perceived that one gets married after attaining some level of financial stability. These beliefs stem from perceptions of what the “American Dream” is comprised of, as well as their own observations of what is needed in a stable relationship. Low-income individuals look toward white, middle class relationships as the ideal and delay marriage until they have achieved what they believe are prerequisites for marriage. (2002 pp.202-203) In this regard, both the disadvantaged and middle class associate financial stability with marriage.
Conversely, attitudes towards childbearing amongst the disadvantaged and middle class are noticeably different. Poor women place higher value on having children than those in the middle class. According to one study, 57 percent of high school dropouts, compared 30 percent of college graduates, believe it is better to have a child than go through life childless. Female high school dropouts are more than five times more likely than college graduates to say that people who are childless lead empty lives, while male high school dropouts were four times as likely to agree with that statement. (Edin and Kefalas, 2002, p.202-204)
In disadvantaged areas, the mother oftentimes views her unplanned pregnancy as a positive occurrence. Many unwed mothers, including teenage mothers, see having a child as a stabilizing force in their otherwise turbulent lives, and the baby as a source of unconditional love. (Ibid. p.174) Social scientists have pointed out that everyone tries to lead a meaningful life, and in disadvantaged areas, the goal of having and raising a child is viewed as a reachable goal. It has been noted that relationships develop much more rapidly in low-income areas, and while mothers often feel they had a baby before they were ready to do so, there is little or no use of contraceptives to prevent a pregnancy.
The opportunity costs of having children for middle class women is great. Economically speaking, some argue that the opportunity costs of disadvantaged women having children early, is nonexistent compared to their middle class counterparts. Quantifiable data disturbingly show that in many instances, an unwed mother who has dropped out of high school has the same long-term earning trajectories as similarly disadvantaged girls who delay having children until their mid-twenties. Opportunities for gaining work skills, going to college, or achieving financial success are so dismal that having a child barely diminishes a young woman’s chances of improving her life. (Edin and Kefalas, 2002 p. 204-205)
Many young people raised in inner cities lack sufficient role models of healthy, stable relationships. Violence - domestic and otherwise, crime and imprisonment, drug and alcohol addiction, and other factors pervade their relationships. Low-income women put off marriage because they see it as further entrapment into a negative situation. (Ibid, see also Jones, 2006) Lacking the financial incentives middle class women are offered for delaying marriage, low-income woman see no reason to delay having children, even if they believe it is not the ideal circumstance to do so.
The Factor of Race:
Marriage rates among African Americans are lower than any other racial group within the United States. According to the US Census, in 2001, 27.4 percent of white men and 20.7 percent of white women were never married. For blacks, the numbers were significantly higher: 43.3 percent of the men and 41.9 percent of women had never been married. Marriage rates within the United States declined by 17 percent from 1970 to 2001. Amongst African Americans, the number declined 34 percent, the highest in the country. Sociologists have disturbingly discovered that a black child born into slavery was more likely to grow up with both parents than a black child who is born today. (Jones, 2006 washingtonpost.com) Blacks are also more likely to get divorced than whites or Hispanics. (Edin and Kefalas, 2002 p.211) A partial explanation for this is the pool of available black men. A skewed sex ratio exists amongst African Americans, with a surplus of women to men compared with other racial groups. Scholars attribute this to drug policy in the 1980s, increased homicides in urban neighborhoods, increased levels of black men in jails, and difficulties black men experience in the workforce. (Casper and Bianchi, 2002, p.60-62)
Social scientists have noted that ethnic groups view marriage differently, and that beliefs and attitudes affect whether one will marry, and when. Studies show that more than other groups, African Americans tend to place more emphasis on attaining a level of financial success before marriage take place. (Fein, et, al 2003 see intro) Alternatively, those with more egalitarian views toward gender roles, tend to support cohabitation, while those with views that are more traditional tend to believe marriage is the correct context for a relationship. Blacks and Latinos tend to have a more traditional outlook on gender roles than whites do. (Fein, et all, 2003, see Paternostro, 1998 for Latino trends) Blacks are also more willing than whites to express that cohabiting is morally objectionable. (Casper and Bianchi, 2002 p.61) Low-income women take marriage vows very seriously and the stigma from a failed marriage or divorce is a great deal higher than having a child out of wedlock. (Jones, 2006, washingtonpost.com, also, Edin and Kefalas, 2002 p.207) The above sentiments of the disadvantaged conflict with mainstream perceptions of low-income single parents.


Policy Implications
The public costs of family fragmentation provide sufficient justification for government involvement. Higher rates of violence, poverty, drug abuse, education failure, chronic illness, child abuse, domestic violence, and poverty associated with children and adults from fragmented families puts increased pressure on social programs. (see Senate Hearing, also Sigle-Rushton and McLanahan pp.120-126) However, direct costs passed to American taxpayers provide only the simplest reasons for addressing policy problems. Ultimately, promoting marriage through government programs should remedy societal ills and create the best possible environment for children.
Some scholars note that the high expectations the disadvantaged have toward marriage are not unrealistic rather, they consist of the necessary factors needed to maintain a healthy and stable marriage. Poor people have the same expectations of financial stability (such as the necessity of two incomes) as do their white middle class counterparts. (Edin and Kefalas, 2002, pp.211-212) Poor couples’ relationships undergo numerous challenges, and the combination of difficult problems and less resources to combat these problems lead to dissolution of their relationships. Recent policy aimed at improving relationships amongst the poor seeks to provide additional resources that middle class couples often utilize to maintain their relationships, such as marriage and couple counseling. The findings in the Fragile Families Survey, showing that poor couples often experience an improvement in their relationships following the birth of a baby, and that most disadvantaged individuals express the desire to marry, have prompted government to design policy to give couples skills to lengthen this period of positivity following a birth and handle conflict.
A primary focus of social policy has been to curtail poverty within the United States. The welfare reform bill of 1996 sought ways for single mothers to decrease their dependence on governmental handouts by linking benefits to work. Work is considered to be the primary variable that decreases poverty, however the needs of children prevent women from being fully invested in the workforce. Therefore, marriage according to many as been considered the second most important factor, and the factor that was missing from previous welfare reforms to decrease poverty.
To supplement traditional welfare handouts, the federal government for the first time is experimenting with marriage initiatives as preventative measures to poverty. In the welfare reauthorization bill passed this year in Congress, an earmark of $750 million over the next five years has been allocated for programs aimed at creating “healthy marriages,” and “responsible fatherhood.” By September of this year, 150 million dollars in grants will be awarded to community groups, churches and localities across the United States to teach low-income couples skills for improving their relationships, and marriage promotion. This is the first time the federal government has funded such programs, and three studies have been designed to monitor results. (Eckholm, 2006) Pilot studies in Oklahoma and elsewhere have shown that such programs are beneficial to young couples in providing means for sustaining healthy relationships. (see Senate hearing) Often, meeting facilitators of these programs is the first opportunity low-income couples have in interacting with a stable married couple. Additionally, many couples in the programs have never forged friendships with other young couples who would normally provide a support network. The programs provide opportunities for individuals to express concerns to their partners in a constructive way, and provide support after a child enters a relationship, one of the most difficult times a young couple faces. (Eckholm, 2006)
Some critics are concerned that money to fund these programs is being detracted from other programs such as back to work; education, training and substance abuse treatment, which many believe address the root causes of instability. (see Ooms testimony, Senate Hearing) Others are concerned that non-traditional two-parent homes, such as those provided by gay and lesbian couples are no less beneficial to children. (McClain, 2006 p.130) Yet, many low-income couples express the desire to be married and have benefited from programs that teach couples how to have better, more healthy relationships and marriage. (see Senate Hearing) The current programs are offered to couples who voluntarily commit to attend; they are not mandatory or tied to welfare aid. (Eckholm, 2006)
McClain precautions advocates of marriage promotion programs to take note of perceptions of gender roles in disadvantaged relationships. As noted above, the disadvantaged have more traditional views towards the roles males and females play within a relationship. She cautions that the federal government cannot promote an institution that does not promote sexual equality. (2006, 130-138) Indeed, this is why many women, most notably African American women are less inclined to marry, as they and their partners perceive that that the husband will assume the role of ‘head of the family’ and ‘main provider.’ (Jones, 2006 washingtonpost.com)
While the benefits of marriage are clear, I believe there may be causality problems for policy makers who believe supporting marriage initiatives in low-income neighborhoods will bring about a reduction in poverty and remedy other social ills. Elwood and Jencks, and Ooms note that low-income households tend to have higher levels of stress. (2001; see Fein, et al) Additionally, concerns of domestic violence are reason enough why women should not get married (see Senate Hearings, 2004) Policy designed to ‘get people married’ will not necessarily improve the incomes of those involved unless the factors that cause marriages to dissolve are also addressed. (McLanahan in Eckholm, 2006) For example, a woman who marries a chronically unemployed man or one with a substance abuse problem will not reduce her chances of escaping poverty.
As in many instances in the social sciences, causal relationships between variables are often difficult to identify. We do not know for certain what the preexisting factors that lead to better and healthier marriages are, and if they are factors to which government can positively contribute. While those who are married are financially better off, it is possible that preexisting financial status has lead to marriage. Social, economic, emotional, interpersonal, racial and societal factors all contribute to how individuals act in relationships. McLanahan and others have reiterated to Congress that marriage promotion must be accompanied with other programs designed to reduce poverty such as daycare, education and job training. (Eckholm, 2006)
To conclude, public policy has unquestionable consequences in the private sphere. Welfare and social aid programs affect family formation as do wide-sweeping economic and cultural changes. Government has the responsibility to provide public goods and we have seen from many of the above studies that marriage provides numerous benefits to individuals and society at large. The question that remains is whether government should invest in programs that would essentially provide marriage as a public good to the disadvantaged.













References:
Becker, G., (1991) A Treatise on the Family, University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL

Benefits of a Healthy Marriage: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy of the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, 108th Congress, Second Session, May 5, 2004, US GPO: Washington DC

Casper, L. M., Bianchi, S. M., (2002) Continuity and Change in the American Family, Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks

Dickerson, B. J. (1995) African American Single Mothers: Understanding Their Lives and Families, Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks

Eckholm, E., Program seeks to fight poverty by building family ties, The New York Times, see The National Report, p.A13, Thursday, July 20, 2006

Elwood and Jencks (2004) ‘The spread of single parent families in the United States since the 1960s,’ The Future of the Family, Editors: Moynahan, Smeeding, et al, Russel Sage Foundation: NY

Edin, K., Kefalas, M. (2005) Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage. University of California Press: Berkeley, CA

Fein, D., et al (2003) ‘The Determinants of Marriage and Cohabitation among Disadvantaged Americans: Research Findings and Needs,’ Final Report, Prepared for the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation Abt. Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA

Jacobsen, J. P., (1998) ‘The household as economic unit,’ ‘Labor force participation: Consequences for family structure,’ and ‘Race, ethnicity, and class considerations in interpreting gender differences’ The Economics of Gender, Blackwell Publishers Inc.: Malden, MA,

Jones, J., (2006) ‘Marriage is for White People,’ Washington Post, http://washington post.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/26

Lindgren, J. R., Et al, (2005) The Law of Sex Discrimination, Third Ed, Thompson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA

Marshall, W., and Sawhill, I. V. (2004) ‘Progressive family policy in the twenty-first century,’ The Future of the Family, Editors: Moynahan, Smeeding, et al, Russsel Sage Publications: NY

McClain, L.C., (2006) The Place of Families: Fostering Capacity, Equality, and Responsibility, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA

McLanahan, S. et al (2006) Building Strong Families: In Brief http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/bsfisbr3.pdf Mathmatica Research, July 23, 2006


Moller-Okin, S., (1989) ‘Vulnerability by Marriage,’ Justice, Gender and the Family, Basic publishers: NY

Moynahan, D. P. et al (2004) ‘The challenge of family system changes for research and policy,’ The Future of the Family, Russel Sage Foundation: NY

Patersonostro, S., (1998) In the Land of God and Men: A Latin Woman’s Journey, Penguin Books, Ltd.

Sigle-Rushton and McLanahan, S., (2004) Father Absence and Child Wellbeing: A critical review, The Future of the Family, Editors: Moynahan, Smeeding, et al, Russel Sage Foundation: NY

‘Statistical Census Findings: Traditional Married Couples are Better Off By Any Available Standards,’ Salt Lake Tribune, http//www.adherents.com/misc/marriage.html, 6/6/2006

[1] Consider that if all people in the United States married and had children, the rate of 100 percent would not be reached. Fifty-three percent represents a snapshot of those currently married, although over the course of a person’s life, they may be too young to married, widowed, etc.