FRAGILE FAMILIES AND WELFARE REFORM脆弱的家庭和社會(huì)福利改革

1、.Fragile Families and Welfare Reform301Fragile Families and Welfare ReformIrwin GarfinkelColumbia UniversitySara McLanahanMarta TiendaPrinceton UniversityJeanne Brooks-GunnColumbia UniversityThe Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is designed to shift mor

2、e of the responsibility for poor children from government to parents. To accomplish this goal, the new law requires welfare clients to work and limits the total number of years they can receive public assistance. In addition, the legislation strengthens child support enforcement and, because many ch

3、ildren on welfare were born to unmarried parents, requires states to strengthen paternity establishment. Taken together, these new laws promote marriage and family formation by making it nearly impossible for single mothers to rely on welfare for long periods of time and by making it increasingly di

4、fficult for non-resident fathers to avoid supporting their children. Many people believe that the children of poor single mothers would be better off if their mothers worked and their fathers were more involved in their lives. According to this view, working improves a mothers economic independence,

5、 mental health, and self-esteem, which increase parenting skills. Similarly, paying child support is expected to strengthen the bond between fathers and children and encourage fathers to become more involved with their children. Greater father involvement is expected to increase economic security an

6、d make mothers and children better off. Others are much less sanguine about the new legislation. They argue that forcing poor mothers to work at minimum wage jobs will reduce the amount of time they have to spend with their children without improving the economic status of their families. Thus both

7、the quantity and quality of mothering are likely to decline. They also worry that forcing poor fathers to pay child support may lead to conflict between the parents and, in some cases, domestic violence. If conflict is high and if fathers are violent, greater father involvement might reduce rather t

8、han increase child well-being. A third possibility is that the effects of TANF will depend upon other environmental factors such as the strength of the labor market and availability of other, more universal public supports for families with children. For example, publicly provided child care on a no

9、n-categorical basis not subject to excessive means testing would likely mitigate the ill effects and magnify the good effects of TANF. Universal health care coverage would have similar effects. Conversely, a weak labor market is likely to magnify the ill effects and mitigate the good effects of TANF

10、.In order to determine which of these scenarios is correct, we must know the answer to the following questions: · What are the resources and capabilities of parents likely to be affected by TANF? Are they capable of supporting themselves and their children? Are they likely to be good parents?&#

11、183; What is the nature of parents relationships? Will they be able to cooperate in raising their child?· Is greater father involvement good for mothers and children?· What is the nature of the local policy and labor market environments? How is PRWORA being implemented? What supports are a

12、vailable to families outside welfare? If parents individual resources are adequate and if their relationship is cooperative, greater father involvement is likely to benefit children. Moreover, if the local policy environment is family friendly and if the labor market is good, we would expect to find

13、 more marriage and better child outcomes. Conversely, if parents lack the ability to support even themselves, if their relationships are hostile, and if local policies and labor market conditions are harsh, the new welfare legislation may turn out to be a disaster for parents and children. The paper

14、s in this special issue are designed to provide preliminary answers to the set of questions outlined above. The analyses are based on data from a new study of Fragile Families and Child Well-being.Sara McLanahan (Princeton University) and Irwin Garfinkel (Columbia University) are principal Investiga

15、tors. Jeanne Brooks-Gunn (Columbia) and Marta Tienda (Princeton) are co-investigators, and Angus Deaton and Burton Singer are statistical consultants. Nancy Reichman is the Project Director and Julien Teitler is the Survey Director). Other co-investigators include a network of (primarily) minority s

16、cholars at six different universities and research institutes: Waldo Johnson at the University of Chicago, Yolanda Padilla at the University of Texas, Lauren Rich at the University of Pennsylvania, Mark Turner at Johns Hopkins University, Melvin Wilson at the University of Virginia, and Maureen Wall

17、er at the Public Policy Institute of California. These data are uniquely suited to answer the questions. The study follows a new birth cohort of approximately 4700 children, including 3600 children born to unmarried parents and 1100 children born to married parents, in 20 cities throughout the Unite

18、d States. When complete, the data will be representative of all non-marital births and “nearly representative” of marital births in U.S. cities with populations of 200,000 or more. In addition, in 8 cities with extreme environments in terms of welfare, child support and labor markets and in 4 cities

19、 with extremely high poverty rates, sample sizes will be large enough to permit cross-city comparisons. Mothers are interviewed in the hospital soon after birth. Most fathers are also interviewed in the hospital. Follow-up interviews are planned for when the child is 12, 30, and 48 months old. The p

20、apers in this special issue are based on data collected from 2325 mothers and 1759 fathers at birth in seven cities: Austin, Texas; Baltimore, Maryland; Detroit, Michigan; Newark, New Jersey; Oakland, California; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Richmond, Virginia. Nancy Reichman, Julien Teitler, Irw

21、in Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan describe more detailed information on the design and implementation of the survey and the demographic characteristics of the sample in the first 7 cities in the next paper.We use the term fragile families to underscore the fact that most unwed parents and their childr

22、en are families and most are vulnerable, not just because of their marital status, but also because of their economic status. The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data are well suited for studying the effects of welfare reform on parents and children for several reasons. First, unwed mothers hav

23、e the highest rates of welfare use of all mothers, and therefore they are disproportionately affected by welfare reform (Bane & Ellwood, 1994). Second, unwed fathers are less likely to live with their children than other fathers, and thus they are disproportionately affected by paternity and chi

24、ld support legislation. Third, the new survey interviews both fathers and mothers, which allows researchers to examine parents capabilities and relationships from two perspectives. And finally, because data are collected in cities with very different welfare and child support policies and very diffe

25、rent labor market conditions, researchers can compare the effects of social welfare policy regimes on parents capabilities and relationships and, ultimately, on childrens well-being. The special issue consists of two parts published in separate volumes as special issues of Children and Youth Service

26、s Review. The thirteen papers in the two volumes are divided into five sections. The first section contains this introduction and overview chapter as well as a paper describing the Fragile Families Study in more detail. The next four sections correspond to the four question sets described above. Sec

27、tion two contains three papers that examine the capabilities and circumstances of unwed parents. The first paper looks at mothers resources with a special focus on earnings capacity, and the second and third papers look at fathers earnings and health. The three papers in the third section examine th

28、e parents relationship. The first paper looks at what parents say about their chances of marriage, the second paper examines what parents say about the rights and obligations of unwed fathers, and the third paper describe fathers contributions to children before and right after birth. Section four c

29、ontains two papers: one that looks at the effects of father involvement on mothers health behavior during pregnancy, and another that looks at the effects of father involvement on birth outcomes. The fifth and final section contains three papers, including a paper that describes the local policy env

30、ironment in each of the seven cities, a paper that examines paternity establishment at the state and local levels, and a paper that looks at the effects of policies on family formation. Summaries of PapersThe Capabilities of Unmarried ParentsThe papers in this section examine parents physical and me

31、ntal resources as a first step in assessing the potential impact of welfare reform on these families. In the first paper, Capabilities and Employability of Unwed Mothers, Aurora Jackson, Marta Tienda and Chien Huang (2001) examine the role of welfare in the lives of unwed mothers and ask whether the

32、se mothers would be capable of supporting their families in the absence of welfare. The paper, like others in this volume, distinguishes amongst sub-groups of unwed mothersthose who co-habit, those do not co-habit but are still romantically involved with their childs father, and those who are no lon

33、ger romantically involved with the fathers and compare these mothers to married mothers. They find that single mothers support their families by combining instrumental and financial support from family, friends and the babys father. The household income of the average unwed mother is ($22,426), much

34、 lower than the income of the average married mother ($51,993). The most important source of income for unwed mothers is their own earnings. Sixty percent of these women had earnings in the previous year; nearly half received welfare. By comparison, only 13% of married mothers received welfare in th

35、e past year. Surprisingly, welfare receipt is nearly as common among cohabiting unwed mothers as it is among non-cohabiting mothers. Yet welfare accounts for only 3% of cohabiting mothers household incomes as compared to 5% of non-cohabiting mothers income. About 30% of unwed mothers received financ

36、ial help from family and friends during the past year. Finally over 80% of mothers who are still romantically involved received financial support from the fathers as compared to 38% of mothers who are not romantically involved. The ability of unwed mothers to support themselves independent of welfar

37、e is ambiguous. On the one hand, these mothers are poorly educated. Forty percent do not even have a high school education. Another 36% have only a high school degree, and just 3% have graduated from college. On the other hand, most mothers are in good or excellent health, 89% have some work experie

38、nce, 96% report no problem with drugs or alcohol, and 95% report no domestic abuse. If we look at whether a mother has at least one barrier to employment, the picture is either a bit less or a lot less optimistic-depending upon how broadly barriers to employment are defined. If we define barriers to

39、 employment as poor health, substance abuse, and domestic violence, we find that less than 15% of the unwed mothers who received welfare last year have one or more barriers. If we use a broader definition, including being under age 20, having no high-school degree, no work experience, and 3 or more

40、children, nearly two-thirds of the mothers have at least one barrier. Married mothers are about half as likely as unmarried mothers to have a barrier to employment. Surprisingly, unwed mothers who do not receive welfare have about as many barriers as mothers who do receive welfare. Finally, the auth

41、ors find that if unwed mothers on welfare were to work full time full year, more than half would earn less than $13,564. Mothers without a cohabiting partner are the most vulnerable economically: they are the least employable and they are the most likely to experience multiple barriers to market ent

42、ry. To escape poverty and attain a decent standard of living, unwed mothers will need more support from family, friends, the babys father, and the government. In Regular and Irregular Earnings of Unwed Fathers, Lauren Rich (2001) addresses a fundamental question raised by welfare reformcan nonreside

43、nt fathers afford to pay child support? Answering this question has proven difficult in the past because most nationally representative data sets seriously under-count nonresident fathers, particularly unwed fathers. Existing data also lack information on irregular employment, which may be an import

44、ant source of income for some nonresident fathers. Rich transcends these difficulties by utilizing data from the Fragile Families Study. She finds that, on average, unwed fathers earn about $17,000 a year, about half of what married fathers earn. Based on the information from mothers about fathers w

45、ho were and were not interviewed, she finds that the difference in earnings between these two groups of men is small. Similarly, the difference in earnings between cohabiting and non-cohabiting fathers is small. Nearly 30% of unwed fathers earn some income from underground sources, which increases t

46、he estimated earnings of these men by 20 percent. Even so, underground earnings account for only a small proportionabout 5 percentof unwed fathers total earnings. Total earnings of fathers with irregular sector employment are equal to regular sector earnings of fathers with no irregular employment,

47、leading Rich to hypothesize that underground earnings make up for difficulties in finding or holding jobs in the regular sector. According to the Wisconsin child support guidelines, a nonresident father with one child should pay 17% of his income in child support. Based on this standard, the average

48、 nonresident father in the Fragile Families sample would be expected to contribute nearly $3000 per year for one child. This would constitute a non-trivial addition to the incomes of the single mothers described by Jackson, Tienda and Huang (2001). However, Rich warns that too stringent enforcement

49、might drive poor fathers deeper into the underground economy. In Health Status and Behaviors of Unwed Fathers, Melvin Wilson and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn (2001) examine fathers physical health, emotional distress, and substance use. Their premise is that such capabilities are fundamental to fathers' a

50、bility to hold a steady job, to their continuing involvement with the mother and child, and to the likelihood of family conflict and domestic violence. If the health status and health behavior of unmarried fathers is good, welfare reform and child support enforcement should increase fathers involvem

51、ent and make mothers and children better off. Conversely, if a large proportion of unmarried fathers are in poor mental health or have problems with drugs or alcohol, such policies may increase conflict and domestic violence, leaving mothers and children worse off. To assess the health status of unm

52、arried fathers, these authors use married fathers as a baseline. They find that the health status of both groups of men is good. Only 8% of married and unmarried fathers describe their health as “poor or fair.” Reported alcohol and illicit drug use is also low, although higher for unmarried fathers

53、than for married fathers (17%, 12% and 12%, 3% respectively). Mental health status is also better for married men than for unmarried men. Among married fathers, only 3% of married fathers report a high number of depressive symptoms and only 19% report a moderate number of symptoms. Among unmarried f

54、athers, the numbers are XX and XX. While most unwed fathers appear to be in relatively good health, certain subgroups of fathers are in much worse shape. Men who are no longer romantically involved with the mothers of their child, for example, are much more likely to abuse substances and to report h

55、igh depressive symptoms than men who are cohabiting with the mother. CHECK Indeed nearly half of the small group of fathers who are no longer even friends with the mother report two or more risky health behaviors. Furthermore, although the overall numbers reported by Wilson and Brooks-Gunn are reass

56、uring, these estimates are likely to understate the prevalence of health problems. Fathers who refused to participate in the study or who could not be located (25% of all unmarried fathers) are likely to have more health and mental health problems than the fathers who were interviewed. *CHECK THIS.

57、NOT ACCORDING TO MOTHERS REPORTSWilson and Brooks-Gun note that differences among subgroups of fathers probably predate the decisions to marry, cohabit, or end their relationship with the mother. Indeed, men who use drugs and are in poor health are not seen as good prospects for marriage because of

58、their lower earnings capacity, relational conflict and, possibly, propensity for violence. The authors also point out that the relatively good health of cohabiting fathers is likely to lead to more paternal involvement and more stable relationships as well as to higher earnings throughout the child&

59、#39;s early years.The results of this study lend some credence to the perspective taken by Edin (1997), who has argued that mothers (and prospective mothers) are unlikely to marry or live with fathers who have mental health problems (including substance abuse, conduct disorders, and depression). They also serve as a warning to policy makers that some non-resident fathers are not in a position to assume greater responsibility for their child and that forcing them to do so ma