Background
Before the War on poverty began in the
mid-1960s, traditional husband-wife families comprised the vast
majority of families with children. Indeed, over 88 percent of all
children resided in a married-couple family, according to data from
the 1960 decennial Census of Population and Housing.[4] By 2000,
this demographic statistic had changed significantly: Around 72
percent of all children lived in married-couple families. In four
decades, American family structure changed, and more than a tenth
of all children shifted from two-parent to single-parent
families.
Research shows that children born or raised in
single-parent families[5] are more at risk for a wide
range of social maladies, including poverty, welfare dependency,
academic failure (or sub-par academic achievement), and crime.[6] marriage
might be seen as a kind of social inoculant that helps protect
children from these social ills, although it does not absolutely
guarantee protection.
The
most publicized of these social maladies is poverty. Moving from a
single-parent to a married family is a straightforward way to rise
above the poverty threshold. Only one additional family member is
added, but the total family income might double or more, depending
on the level of work participation exhibited by the husband and
wife. This is the premise on which this research is based.
Specifically, if single parents with children were "married" to
similar single persons of the opposite gender, what would happen to
the poverty rate of children nationwide?
methodology
The
database used for this analysis is the Census Bureau's Current
Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey representative of all
households nationwide. Well over 60,000 households are surveyed
each year for the CPS. The March 2001 supplement, also known as the
annual demographic file, includes extensive questions on family
demographic characteristics and previous year income that make it
useful for social analyses, such as this one.[7]
To determine the economic effects on poverty levels
if marriage were restored to 1960 levels, we paired 7.6 million
single parents with similar non-married persons within the CPS to
form 7.6 million new simulated "marriages." In creating these
simulated marriages, we attempted to mimic socially realistic
marriage patterns. Single mothers were paired with non-married men
who were identical in race, age, and level of education.[8] Similarly,
single fathers were paired with non-married women who were
identical in race, age, and level of education. This way, the
single parent would be "married" to someone within his or her own
social demographics. For example, a young single mother with a low
level of education was matched to a similar young male who also had
low educational attainment. (For additional detail on the
matching/marrying procedure, see the Technical Appendix.)
When
a simulated married family is created, a new total family income
variable is also created by combining the original incomes of the
two "partners." Any cash welfare assistance is subtracted from the
total money income of the newly created family, since most
individuals lose their cash welfare/Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (TANF) assistance benefits when they marry.
The analysis next takes into account the very large
differences in earnings between married and non-married men.
Analysis of the CPS data reveals that married men, on average, earn
40 percent more than non-married men who are similar in race, age,
and education. The higher earnings of married men are attributable
to two factors: a selection effect and earnings inducement.[9] Selection
effect refers to the fact that women tend to marry men who are
similar in race, age, and education; but within these boundaries,
there is a greater tendency for women to marry men with higher
earnings potential. Earnings inducement refers to the obvious fact
that married men who have families to support tend to have greater
commitment to the labor force and careers than do similar
non-married men; consequently, the earnings of married men are
generally higher.
To
compensate for both the selection effect and the earnings
inducement, we have modestly increased the wages of husbands in the
simulated married households. To make this adjustment, we first
calculated the difference in earnings in the CPS between married
and non-married men, holding constant race, age, and education. We
then raised the earnings of husbands in the simulated married
families by half of this difference in married and non-married
wages. As a result of the adjustment, the average increase in
earnings of men in simulated marriages was 20 percent. It is
important to note that even after this adjustment, the earnings of
husbands in simulated marriages remained below those of actual
married men who are identical in race, age, and education. Our
methods of adjusting male wages due to marriage closely follow
those of Dr. Robert Lerman of the Urban Institute in his
influential article on marriage and poverty.[10] However, our wage
adjustment is more modest than the one used by Dr. Lerman.
Measuring
Poverty.
After simulating a higher level of marriage in society, we
calculated the effect of increased marriage on child poverty. The
Census Bureau measures poverty by comparing a family's income to
specific poverty income thresholds. If a family's total income is
less than the official poverty threshold for a family of that size,
the family is considered poor. In 2000, the poverty income
threshold for a family of four was $17,463.[11]
The
apparent poverty rate varies greatly depending on which resources
are counted as part of a family's income. The most common census
poverty figures are based on a family's "money income." Money
income includes income from wages and salaries, interest,
dividends, unemployment and workers compensation, Social Security,
cash welfare, such as TANF benefits and Supplemental Security
Income (SSI), veterans' and survivors' benefits, disability
payments, pensions, rents/royalties, educational assistance,
alimony, and child support. Critically, money income excludes many
forms of welfare, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), food
stamps, public housing, and Medicaid benefits.
Our analysis first determined the impact of
altering marriage levels on child poverty using the money income
measure of income. We then redid the analysis using a broader
definition of income that includes the EITC and the value of food
stamps.
Effects of Restoring marriage to 1960
Levels (by Cash Money Income Measure)
As
Chart 1 shows, the proportion of children in single-parent families
rose substantially from 1960 to 2000. In 1960, only 11.7 percent of
children were in single-parent or other "broken" home settings, a
percentage that ballooned to 27.6 percent by the year 2000.
As
Table 1 and Table 2 show, if marriage were restored to 1960 levels,
the percentage of children residing in married-couple families
would rise from 72.4 percent to 88.3 percent. A total of 11.49
million children would reside in married-couple families rather
than single-parent homes. (See Table 3 and Table 4.) Among black
children, the share residing in married homes would rise from 51
percent to 71 percent; nearly 3 million additional black children
would reside in married-couple homes.[12]
Table 5 shows that restoring marriage to
1960 levels would have a considerable impact on child poverty.
Using the money income definition of income, the child poverty rate
is now at 15.7 percent. However, if marriage were restored to 1960
levels, the total child poverty rate would be cut by nearly a third
to 11.2 percent. Restoration of marriage to 1960 levels among
blacks would have a similar effect; their child poverty rate would
fall by nearly a third from the current level of 27.5 percent to
20.5 percent.
Effects on Children Moved into
marriage
As
noted, restoration of marriage to 1960 levels would move 11.49
million children from single-parent homes into married-couple
homes. The reduction of poverty within this group of children is
striking. As residents in single-parent homes, the current poverty
rate of these children is 34.2 percent. Our analysis matched single
parents with demographically similar spouses to create simulated
married-couple homes. Table 6 shows that, when the 11.49 million
children are placed in these simulated married-couple homes, their
poverty rate falls to 6.7 percent. Thus, marriage cuts poverty
among the affected children by a full 80 percent (from 34.2 percent
to 6.7 percent).
Among the 11.49 million children moved
into married families, about 3 million are black children. The
poverty rate among these children is 45.4 percent before marriage
and 9.0 percent after marriage; thus, marriage reduces poverty
among the affected black children by 80 percent.
Effects of marriage on poverty Using an
Expanded Definition of Income
As
the final step in our analysis, we calculated the effects of
marriage on poverty using an expanded definition of income. The
Earned Income Tax Credit and food stamps were counted as part of a
family's financial resources when determining whether the family
was poor.[13] Naturally, poverty rates
both before and after the marriage simulation were lower according
to this method of measurement.
Using the expanded definition of income,
the current child poverty rate is 12.9 percent. If marriage were
restored to 1960 levels, the rate falls to 9.1 percent. A total of
2.7 million children would be removed from poverty. Among black
children, the poverty rate falls from 22.6 percent to 16.3 percent,
a drop of 28 percent. (See Table 7 and Table 8.)
Prior Research
These results are consistent with other
microsimulation models of marriage and poverty. In an influential
1995 article entitled "The Impact of the Changing U.S. family
Structure on Child poverty and Income Inequality," Dr. Robert
Lerman of the Urban Institute estimated that restoring marriage to
1971 levels would have reduced child poverty in 1989 by
approximately 23 percent.[14] Our analysis for this
Report differs from that done by Dr. Lerman in two respects. First,
due to the difference in years of comparison (2000 to 1960 rather
than 1989 to 1971), our analysis moved more children from
single-parent to simulated married homes. Second, Dr. Lerman's
analysis employed a larger adjustment in male wages due to marriage
than we did.
More
recently, Adam Thomas and Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings
Institution simulated marriage rates similarly by restoring
marriage to 1970 levels.[15] Using money income to gauge
poverty, the Thomas and Sawhill simulation would drop the child
poverty rate from 18.3 percent to 14.8 percent, a 19.1 percent
change. As noted above, the Heritage analysis drops the child
poverty rate from 15.7 percent to 11.2 percent, or nearly a 30
percent change. The difference with our analysis can be explained
in part by the fact the Brookings analysis raised marriage to 1970
levels, whereas this Heritage analysis raises marriage to the
higher 1960 levels; thus, we moved more children from single-parent
to married families. In addition, the Brookings analysis made no
adjustment at all for the effects of marriage on male wages,
through either a selection effect or earnings inducement. As a
consequence, Thomas and Sawhill underestimate the impact of
marriage on poverty.
Conclusions
While statistics on child poverty tend to
garner the most press coverage, this social indicator does not
change in a vacuum. The decline in the marriage rate since the
inception of War on poverty in the 1960s has contributed
significantly to the high levels of child poverty over the past few
decades. By the estimates in this Report, when poor single mothers
are married to single men of similar age, race, and education,
their marriage lifts the family out of poverty in about 80 percent
of cases. Overall, child poverty would be nearly a third lower
today if the traditional two-parent family had not deteriorated
between 1960 and 2000.
Robert Rector is
Senior Research Fellow, Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., is
a Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis, and Patrick F. Fagan is
William H. G. Fitzgerald Research Fellow in family and Cultural
Issues, at The Heritage Foundation.
Technical Appendix
Child poverty is calculated for all
children living with relatives. Children living in foster care
situations, in group homes, in other institutional-like settings,
and without relatives are excluded from this analysis.[1]
As
noted in the methodology section, the authors "married" single
parents to similar single individuals in the March 2001 Current
Population Survey (CPS) file. The matching/marrying simulation was
accomplished in three stages.
First, any single individual who indicated
that he or she was an opposite sex "unmarried partner" of the head
of a given CPS household was coded as a cohabitor and "married" to
the head of the household.
Second, we stratified the remaining single
parents and single men/women without children in the home according
to the following criteria:
- Sex (two categories: male/female);
- Age range (eight categories ranging from
18-24 to 55-59);
- Race (three categories: white, black, and
other); and
- Educational attainment (three categories:
high school dropout, high school graduate, and at least some
college).
Using all the possible combinations of
these four criteria, we created 144 social/demographic partitions
for single parents with children and a matching set of 144
partitions for individuals without children.
Third, we randomly selected a number of
remaining single parents to be married or matched. Since our
analysis sought to restore marriage to 1960 levels, only about 60
percent of single parents were selected for simulated marriage. The
selected single parents were matched against single persons of the
opposite gender in a corresponding age, race, and education
partition. For example, single black female parents between the
ages of 25 and 29 were matched with single black males in that age
cohort and without children. When there were multiple eligible
single persons within a partition, the individuals to be married
were also selected at random. Since there typically were far more
single individuals without children than there were single parents,
many single individuals were not matched and married to anyone.[2]
Marital Effects
on Earnings.
After individuals were placed in simulated marriages, male wages
were adjusted. The procedures used closely followed those employed
by Urban Institute economist Robert Lerman in previous research on
this topic. Lerman applied human capital modeling techniques to the
issue of marriage and child poverty. He notes that married men,
especially those with the responsibility of supporting children at
home, earn more than single men, even after controlling for race,
education, and work experience.[3] In his simulations of child
poverty and inequality, he adjusts the earnings of single men who
are hypothetically "married" to take into consideration the effect
of marriage in increasing earnings.[4]
In
order to simulate the effect of marriage on earnings, Lerman uses a
Tobit censored regression model, named for Nobel laureate James
Tobin, who first considered the approach.[5] A Tobit regression censors
any observations below some prescribed threshold. Since this
analysis is interested in positive earnings only, the Tobit model
censors earnings less than zero by coding them at zero.[6]
Following Lerman, a set of six models was
constructed for the purpose of simulating the earnings behavior of
married husbands compared with single men. These six models
estimated the following:
- Single white male earnings;
- Single black male earnings;
- Single other race male earnings;
- Married white male earnings;
- Married black male earnings; and
- Married other race male earnings.
The
independent variables used in each of the Tobit models included
years of education, number of children at home, work experience,[7] and work
experience squared.[8] The gap between the expected
married male wage and the expected single male wage was then
calculated. In order to produce a conservative estimate of the
effect of marriage on male wage, we then cut the calculated wage
gap factors in half. (Lerman did not make this reduction.) Next,
the earnings of the newly married husbands in the simulation were
increased by this reduced amount, yielding an average earnings
increase of 20 percent.
Finally, the incomes of both partners in
the simulated marriage were then combined into a single family
income, and the new family income was compared to the official
poverty income thresholds for a family of that size.