The Disparate Effects of Family Structure
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
How Cultural Factors Shape Economic Outcomes VOLUME 30 NUMBER 1 SPRING 2020 3 How Cultural Factors Shape Economic Outcomes: Introducing the Issue 9 Religious Institutions and Economic Wellbeing 29 Parenting Practices and Socioeconomic Gaps in Childhood Outcomes 55 The Disparate Effects of Family Structure 83 Role Models, Mentors, and Media Influences 107 Peer and Family Effects in Work and Program Participation 127 Social Capital, Networks, and Economic Wellbeing 153 The Double-Edged Consequences of Beliefs about Opportunity and Economic Mobility 165 How Discrimination and Bias Shape Outcomes A COLLABORATION OF THE WOODROW WILSON SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY AND THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION The Disparate Effects of Family Structure The Disparate Effects of Family Structure Melanie Wasserman Summary In this article, Melanie Wasserman reviews the latest evidence about the causal link between family structure and children’s economic and social outcomes. Going beyond the question of whether family structure affects child outcomes—a topic that’s already been covered at length, including in previous Future of Children volumes—she examines how family structure differentially affects children. One important finding from recent studies is that growing up outside a family with two biological, married parents yields especially negative consequences for boys as compared to girls, including poorer educational outcomes and higher rates of criminal involvement. Wasserman describes mechanisms that may link family structure to children’s outcomes, in terms of both the main effect and the differences between effects on boys and on girls. These include same-gender role models in the household and in the neighborhood, parental resources (including money, time, and more), parenting quantity and quality (with attention to how parents allocate their time to children of different genders), and the differences in how boys and girls respond to parental inputs, among other hypotheses. What can be done to ameliorate the effects of family structure on children’s outcomes? Wasserman encourages policy makers to supplement the educational, parental, and emotional resources available to those children who are most at risk of experiencing the negative effects of nontraditional family structures. www.futureofchildren.org Melanie Wasserman is an assistant professor of economics in the Anderson School of Management at the University of California, Los Angeles. The author thanks David Autor, Ron Haskins, Melissa Kearney, and the participants in the Future of Children conference “How Cultural Factors Shape Economic Outcomes” for their helpful comments. Christine Percheski of Northwestern University reviewed and critiqued a draft of this article. VOL. 30 / NO. 1 / SPRING 2020 55 Melanie Wasserman ess than half the children that experience frequent transitions and in the United States today instability. As figure 1 shows, this vast will grow up in a household transformation has led to a steep increase with continuously married in the fraction of children who are raised parents. This fact reflects the in a household with only one parent, and a Lconsiderable changes the American family commensurate decrease in the fraction who has undergone over the last several decades. live with two parents (whether biological, Divorce, nonmarital childbearing, and step-, or adoptive parents). The declining nonmarital cohabitation have all been on share of children raised in continuously the rise. In 2017, for example, 40 percent married two-parent families has attracted of births were to unmarried mothers, more a great deal of attention in academic and than double the percentage in 1980.1 New public policy circles, and in the popular family structures have emerged, including media. This interest is substantiated by unmarried cohabiting parents; blended evidence that children who grow up in families that may encompass step-parents, households without two biological married step-siblings, and half-siblings; and families parents experience more behavioral issues, Figure 1. Living Arrangements of Children, 1960–2018 Figure 1. Living Arrangements of Children, 1960-2018 100%100% 90%90% 80%80% 70%70% 60%60% 50%50% 40%40% 30%30% 20%20% 10%10% 0%0% 19601960 19721972 19771977 19821982 19871987 19921992 19971997 20022002 20072007 20122012 20172017 TwoTwo Parents Parents Mother Mother Only only FatherFather Only Only No No ParentsParents Sources: US Census Bureau, Decennial Census, 1960; and Current Population Survey, Annual Social and EconomicSources: Supplements,US Census Bureau,1968-2018. Decennial Census, 1960; and Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, 1968–2018. 56 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN The Disparate Effects of Family Structure attain less education, and have lower incomes characteristics, such as gender, and on in adulthood.2 parents’ characteristics, such as education level or race/ethnicity. To understand the Yet the changes in family circumstances diverse effects of family structure on boys haven’t been uniform across demographic and girls, we’ll peer into the family’s inner groups. The composition of minority and workings—how parents allocate financial, white children’s families show profound time, and emotional resources among their differences. As figure 2 illustrates, white children—and examine the implications for children are almost twice as likely as black child development, educational attainment, children to grow up in a two-parent family. engagement in risky behaviors, and In 2017, almost 60 percent of black children transitions to the labor market. We’ll also were living in a household without two step outside the family to study how family parents, and an even higher fraction lived structure determines where children live without two biological parents. In contrast, and go to school, and the consequences for only 25 percent of white children and 33 children’s outcomes. percent of Hispanic children were living in households without two parents. Family A detailed look at three recent studies patterns also differ substantially based on contextualized by broader evidence reveals parents’ educational attainment. Among the emerging consensus that the absence children of highly educated mothers, the of a biological father in the home yields married, two-biological-parent household especially negative consequences for boys. remains the most common family structure These consequences are seen in disruptive and indeed comprises the vast majority of and delinquent behavior, and they persist such households. In contrast, in 2014, almost into adult educational attainment and half the children of mothers with less than employment. In contrast, the evidence is a high school degree were being raised in less conclusive when it comes to how the a single-parent household.3 This deficit effects of family structure vary with other of parental resources represents another attributes. For example, white and minority dimension of inequality for minority children youth respond similarly to growing up in and children of less-educated parents. two-parent versus single-parent families, with some exceptions pertaining to the criminal Alongside the different patterns of family behavior of African American boys. structure across race and educational categories, recent research shows that certain Researchers have only recently begun to groups of children experience particularly study the mechanisms that lie behind boys’ adverse outcomes in response to growing up and girls’ differential responses to family outside a stable, two-parent married family. structure. The evidence so far indicates Why might the effects of family structure that gender gaps in resources within the differ systematically across children? This family—such as parents’ time—don’t vary article provides an overview of the theory meaningfully across family structures. And and evidence of how family structure to the extent that boys and girls are allocated shapes children’s outcomes, focusing on different resources in the family, these the disparate effects—how the effects of differences don’t appear to account for boys’ family structure may depend on children’s particularly negative response to growing VOL. 30 / NO. 1 / SPRING 2020 57 Melanie Wasserman Figure 2. Living Arrangements of Children, 1960–2018, by Race of Child Figure 2. Living Arrangements of Children, 1960-2018, by Race of Child A. White Children A. White Children 100%100% 90%90% 80%80% 70%70% 60%60% 50%50% 40%40% 30%30% 20%20% 10%10% 0%0% 19601960 1972 1977 1982 1987 19921992 1997 2002 2007 20122012 2017 TwoTwo Parents Parents Mother Only only Father Only Only No Parents Parents Sources: US Census Bureau, Decennial Census, 1960; and Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, 1968-2018. up outside a two-parent home. Recent behavioral, and labor market outcomes scholarship has also examined the diverse for male and female children growing up experiences of boys and girls who grow in seemingly similar family environments. up in the same neighborhoods and attend The answers can help guide the way policy the same schools. The evidence shows that makers spend their efforts and resources. I these factors external to the family exert conclude the article with examples of policies their own effects on boys and girls, and also that have been effective in addressing the mediate the gender difference in the effects resource gap that differentially disadvantages of family structure on children’s