Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
effects_of_out-of-wedlock_births_on_society [2015/11/13 08:41]
marri2
effects_of_out-of-wedlock_births_on_society [2016/06/28 09:00] (current)
marri [3.Welfare]
Line 3: Line 3:
 =====1. Intergenerational Effect===== =====1. Intergenerational Effect=====
  
-The absence of married parents can lead to intergenerational ​illegitimacy. Even as the child enters adolescence and the influence of peers and community increases, the consequences of being born outside marriage continue to affect the [[effects_of_out-of-wedlock_births_on_children|development of many young people]] and compound the risks confronting them. +The absence of married parents can lead to intergenerational ​out-of-wedlock births. Even as the child enters adolescence and the influence of peers and community increases, the consequences of being born outside marriage continue to affect the [[effects_of_out-of-wedlock_births_on_children|development of many young people]] and compound the risks confronting them. 
  
 Nonmarital births are becoming the accepted way of life, particularly in inner-city poor communities. In 2013, nonmarital births accounted for 41 percent of all U.S. births. Roughly 29 percent of these births were to White women, 53 percent to Hispanic women, and 71 percent to Black women.((Carmen Solomon-Fears,​ “Nonmarital Births: An Overview,​” //​Congressional Research Services Report// (2014). Available at [[http://​fas.org/​sgp/​crs/​misc/​R43667.pdf]] Accessed September 4, 2015. \\  U.S. Bureau of the Census, “CDC: Fewer Children Born Out of Wedlock”, //Current Population Reports// P-60, (August 2014) 1994.)) A University of Wisconsin study shows that inner-city young women feel less pressure to marry and have family intentions very different from their middle-class counterparts—black or white. They do not expect to have their own children within marriage, and frequently they deliberately chose single-parent family life for lack of suitable husbands.((Ione Y. Deollos, “Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage,​” //Journal of Marriage and Family// 68, no. 4 (2006): 1112-1113. \\ Naomi Farber, “The Significance of Race and Class in Marital Decisions among Unmarried Adolescent Mothers,” //Social Problems// 37 (1990): 51-63.)) ​   ​ Nonmarital births are becoming the accepted way of life, particularly in inner-city poor communities. In 2013, nonmarital births accounted for 41 percent of all U.S. births. Roughly 29 percent of these births were to White women, 53 percent to Hispanic women, and 71 percent to Black women.((Carmen Solomon-Fears,​ “Nonmarital Births: An Overview,​” //​Congressional Research Services Report// (2014). Available at [[http://​fas.org/​sgp/​crs/​misc/​R43667.pdf]] Accessed September 4, 2015. \\  U.S. Bureau of the Census, “CDC: Fewer Children Born Out of Wedlock”, //Current Population Reports// P-60, (August 2014) 1994.)) A University of Wisconsin study shows that inner-city young women feel less pressure to marry and have family intentions very different from their middle-class counterparts—black or white. They do not expect to have their own children within marriage, and frequently they deliberately chose single-parent family life for lack of suitable husbands.((Ione Y. Deollos, “Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage,​” //Journal of Marriage and Family// 68, no. 4 (2006): 1112-1113. \\ Naomi Farber, “The Significance of Race and Class in Marital Decisions among Unmarried Adolescent Mothers,” //Social Problems// 37 (1990): 51-63.)) ​   ​
Line 26: Line 26:
 =====3. Welfare===== ​ =====3. Welfare===== ​
  
-The absence of married parents reinforces the cycle of welfare. The cumulative earlier effects carry over into young adult life. Welfare contributes to the sorry picture. From the professional literature, for instance, it becomes clear that receiving public aid increases the percentage of pregnant teenagers choosing unmarried motherhood.((Arleen Liebowitz, Marvin Eisen, and Winston K. Chow, “An Economic Model of Teenage Pregnancy Decision-Making,​” //​Demography//​ 23, no. 1 (1986): 67-77.)) Data on the American welfare system, moreover, show a positive relationship between [[effects_of_welfare_on_families|illegitimacy ​and long-term welfare dependency]]. Women who give birth outside of marriage are more likely to go on AFDC and spend more years on welfare once enrolled (72 percent of single mothers 17 years of age or younger receive AFDCA). These combined effects of “younger and longer” increase total AFDCA costs per household by 25 percent to 30 percent for 17-year-olds.((June O’Neill, "​Communication on Analysis of National Longitudinal Study of Youth" to Robert Rector, (April 1994). )) +The absence of married parents reinforces the cycle of welfare. The cumulative earlier effects carry over into young adult life. Welfare contributes to the sorry picture. From the professional literature, for instance, it becomes clear that receiving public aid increases the percentage of pregnant teenagers choosing unmarried motherhood.((Arleen Liebowitz, Marvin Eisen, and Winston K. Chow, “An Economic Model of Teenage Pregnancy Decision-Making,​” //​Demography//​ 23, no. 1 (1986): 67-77.)) Data on the American welfare system, moreover, show a positive relationship between [[effects_of_welfare_on_families|out-of-wedlock births ​and long-term welfare dependency]]. Women who give birth outside of marriage are more likely to go on AFDC and spend more years on welfare once enrolled (72 percent of single mothers 17 years of age or younger receive AFDCA). These combined effects of “younger and longer” increase total AFDCA costs per household by 25 percent to 30 percent for 17-year-olds.((June O’Neill, "​Communication on Analysis of National Longitudinal Study of Youth" to Robert Rector, (April 1994). )) 
  
 According to eminent poverty researcher Sara McLanahan, then at the University of Wisconsin and now at Princeton University, family structure is powerful in explaining much of these effects. Though the numbers show that single parenthood in adolescence is associated with daughters’ future dependence, they also show that single parenthood in adolescence is associated with daughters’ future likelihood of being on welfare, even after controlling for family income and size.((Sara S. McLanahan, “Family Structure and Dependency: Early Transitions to Female Household Headship,​” //​Demography//​ 5, no. 1 (1988): 1-16)) ​ According to eminent poverty researcher Sara McLanahan, then at the University of Wisconsin and now at Princeton University, family structure is powerful in explaining much of these effects. Though the numbers show that single parenthood in adolescence is associated with daughters’ future dependence, they also show that single parenthood in adolescence is associated with daughters’ future likelihood of being on welfare, even after controlling for family income and size.((Sara S. McLanahan, “Family Structure and Dependency: Early Transitions to Female Household Headship,​” //​Demography//​ 5, no. 1 (1988): 1-16)) ​
  
-Not only is illegitimacy ​linked to future welfare dependency, but welfare dependency is linked to illegitimacy. For instance research by Dr. C.R. Winegarden of the University of Toledo found that half of the increase in black illegitimacy ​in recent decades could be attributed to the effects of welfare. Research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert D. Plotnick of the University of Washington shows that an increase of roughly $200 per a month in welfare benefits per family causes the teenage ​illegitimate ​birth rate in a state to increase by 150 percent. Dr. June O’Neill’s research has found that, holding constant a wide range of other variables such as income, parental education and urban and neighborhood setting, a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of AFDC and Food Stamp benefits led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.((Robert Rector, "​Combating Family Disintegration,​ Crime, and Dependence: Welfare Reform and Beyond,"​ //Heritage Foundation Backgrounder//​ No. 983, (March 17, 1995); quoting: C.R. Winegarden, “AFDC and Illegitimacy Ratios: A Vector Autoregressive Model,” //Applied Economics// (March 1988): 1589-1601; Shelley Lundberg and Robert D. Plotnick, “Adolescent Premarital Childbearing:​ Do Opportunity Costs Matter?” (June 1990), a revised version of a paper presented at the May 1990 Population Association of American Conference in Toronto, Canada; and M. Anne Hill and June O’Neill, //​Underclass Behaviors in the United States: Measurement and Analysis of Determinants//​ (New York City: City University of New York, Baruch College, August 1993), research funded by 88ASPE201A, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.)) ​+Not only are out-of-wedlock births ​linked to future welfare dependency, but welfare dependency is linked to out-of-wedlock births. For instance research by Dr. C.R. Winegarden of the University of Toledo found that half of the increase in black out-of-wedlock births ​in recent decades could be attributed to the effects of welfare. Research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert D. Plotnick of the University of Washington shows that an increase of roughly $200 per a month in welfare benefits per family causes the teenage ​out-of-wedlock ​birth rate in a state to increase by 150 percent. Dr. June O’Neill’s research has found that, holding constant a wide range of other variables such as income, parental education and urban and neighborhood setting, a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of AFDC and Food Stamp benefits led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.((Robert Rector, "​Combating Family Disintegration,​ Crime, and Dependence: Welfare Reform and Beyond,"​ //Heritage Foundation Backgrounder//​ No. 983, (March 17, 1995); quoting: C.R. Winegarden, “AFDC and Illegitimacy Ratios: A Vector Autoregressive Model,” //Applied Economics// (March 1988): 1589-1601; Shelley Lundberg and Robert D. Plotnick, “Adolescent Premarital Childbearing:​ Do Opportunity Costs Matter?” (June 1990), a revised version of a paper presented at the May 1990 Population Association of American Conference in Toronto, Canada; and M. Anne Hill and June O’Neill, //​Underclass Behaviors in the United States: Measurement and Analysis of Determinants//​ (New York City: City University of New York, Baruch College, August 1993), research funded by 88ASPE201A, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.)) ​
  
 This pattern also holds in Canada, where welfare disbursements are more generous. A recent study of the Canadian welfare system, for instance, found that increases in welfare led to an increase in the number of births outside of marriage. An addition of $100-$200 in yearly welfare support was found to lead to a 5 percent increase in the probability of being a single parent, a 2 percent increase in the probability of a child being born out of wedlock and a 1 percent increase in divorce.((Douglas W. Allen, “Welfare and the Family: The Canadian Experience,​” //Journal of Labor Economics// 11, (1993): S201-S223. ​ This pattern also holds in Canada, where welfare disbursements are more generous. A recent study of the Canadian welfare system, for instance, found that increases in welfare led to an increase in the number of births outside of marriage. An addition of $100-$200 in yearly welfare support was found to lead to a 5 percent increase in the probability of being a single parent, a 2 percent increase in the probability of a child being born out of wedlock and a 1 percent increase in divorce.((Douglas W. Allen, “Welfare and the Family: The Canadian Experience,​” //Journal of Labor Economics// 11, (1993): S201-S223. ​