DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 425 039 RC 021 738

AUTHOR Fitchen, Janet M. TITLE "The Single- " and Welfare Reform: Is the Solution? INSTITUTION Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. Community and Rural Development Inst. PUB DATE 1995-01-00 NOTE 6p. PUB TYPE Collected Works Serials (022) Reports Evaluative (142) JOURNAL CIT Community Development: Research Briefs & Case Studies; v3 n1 Jan 1995 EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Welfare; Economic Factors; Economically Disadvantaged; Eligibility; Family Structure; *Fatherless Family; Marriage; *Poverty; Public Policy; *Rural Family; *Rural Women; *Welfare Recipients; Welfare Services IDENTIFIERS *Single ; *Welfare Reform

ABSTRACT Many proposals for welfare reform center on the issue of marriage-based versus single-parent families and oversimplify the relationship between single- and poverty. Research done in upstate rural New York among low-income families showed that personal and economic characteristics of married and single were similar as to age range, average age at birth of first child, and number of children. Single-parent families fall into four groups, suggesting that different strategies would be needed to reduce their reliance on public assistance: young and never married, young and separated or divorced, older and never married, and older and separated or divorced. The study concludes that the "single-parent family" as a category of analysis has the following policy-relevant shortcomings: misleading contrast between with unmarried mothers and those with married mothers, implied uniformity of families within each category, and lack of temporal and qualitative dimensions. Policy recommendations include reducing birth rates among single women, evaluating employability of prospective , full and regular payment of , assessment of violent or abusive marital status, and evaluating use of extended families. Keeping rural single mothers and their children out of poverty requires strengthening the economy so that adequate jobs are available for women and for men, reducing the gender-based earnings gap, and providing more opportunities for advancement above starting wage levels. A pro-marriage policy is no substitute for an anti-poverty policy. (Author/SAS)

******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** 0, .in Community Development tr) Research Briefs & Case Studies CNI Cornell Community and Rural Development Institute

Vol. 3, No. 1, January 1995 "The Single-Parent Family" and WelfareReform: Is Marriage the Solution ? Janet M. Fitchen

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research andImprovement PERMISSION TO REPRODUCEAND EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIALHAS CENTER (ERIC) BEEN GRANTED BY gril-his document has been reproduced as received from the person ororganization originating it. _a_tra h O changes have beenmade to improve reproduction quality. Sacc.x) TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES in this Points of view or opinions stated INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) document do not necessarilyrepresent official OERI position or policy.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE Community Development Research Briefs & Case Studies Cornell Community and Rural Development Institute

Vol. 3, No. 1, January 1995 "The Single-Parent Family" and Welfare Reform: Is Marriage the Solution ? Janet M. Fitchen

Executive Summary considering the appropriateness of various welfare-reform strategies. Between 1990 One focus of many welfare reform proposals is "the single-parent and 1992, I conducted field research family." However, field research among rural poor families in upstate among low-income families in the same New York suggests that marriage-based welfare reform rests on upstate rural communities where I had several incorrect assumptions about families. In-depth previously explored poverty and other householdhistories revealed that single mothers living in poverty are rural issues. This extensive field research actually quite varied, but they can be grouped into four distinct sub- included an exploratory examination of categories based on age and marital history.For each group, "single-parent families." different strategies are needed to promote family self-sufficiency, but in no group would marriage be an appropriate solution for Methodology poverty. This research demonstrates the need to understand the I began by reviewing written records realities of poor families before redesigning welfare. of schools, welfare departments,

""::,1,4. 'T. community action agencies, and other public and private social agencies, then, followed with interviews and focus group Poverty andSingle-Parent to ask policy-relevant questions These concerning the core concept underlying sessions with their staffs. Families practitioners refe-red me to local low- marriage-based welfare reform: What is Over one-fi fth of the nation's children income families with whom I conducted are living in poverty, but recent public "the single parentfamily?" Would single- parent families no longer need publicfocus group sessions and 20 unstructured and political dialogue has focused less on in-depth interviews. the poverty than on the cost of providingassistance if their "female heads" were On the basis of this research, I welfare for those children. The Clintonto marry the of their children? designed a detailed questionnaire on administration vowed to "end welfare as residential and household history that was we know it," and the debate over how toResearch Among Rural Low utilized in interviews with 40 additional reform the welfare system has heated upIncome Families low-income mothers.Analysis of the since the 1994 elections. Many proposals Single parenthood isstillless common among the rural poor than the household histories, supported and center on the issue of single-parenthood. augmented by the other interviews and Marriage-based welfare reform is urban poor, but it has become increasingly common, characterizing 39 percent ofinstitutional data, raises some questions attractive because of its common sense about the common conceptualization of appeal: two earners are better than one;rural poor households with children in 1987. Poverty analysts have found thatsingle parenthood and the policy thrust of two parents are better than one. But it reducing welfare rolls through focusing rural single-parent families face a triple overlooks the complexities of structure on "the single-parent family." and family dynamics, and oversimplifiespoverty risk: they are more likely than the relationship between metropolitan singleSynopsis of Findings single-parenting and Marriage-based welfare parent families to be 'poverty. reform oversimplifies the poor, to be in deepNo Overall Aversion to Marriage This paper is not relationship between poverty, and to stay poor Out of the questionnaire sample, fully intended to downplay the single-parenting and for a longer time. one-fourth (ten women) were married risks for children growing poverty. and living with husbands at the time of up in low-income The Study Area interview. Of the 30 who weren't, 70 families with only one parent, nor the Upstate New York, though neitherpercent (21 women) had already been economic and social costs society bearsthe most isolated nor the poorest of rural married, but their particular for these children. Rather, my purpose is areas, provides a useful research site forhad not worked out. Thus, over three-

CaRDI provides research, education and policy analysis on critical community and rural development issues BEST COPY-AVAI'4BLE 3 fourths of the sample (31 of the 40) had between 17 and 23, and have not yetGroup III: Older and never married at least given marriage a try. married. Individual and group interviews(n = 4) revealed that a paramount interest in theirStrategies: Training for employment Similarities Between Single-Parent lives is their relationship with men; butwhich utilized nurturing tendencies. and Two-Parent Families accompanying life-history materials These women, ages 27 to 35, Personal and economic character- suggest that the relationships they. form representan interesting and quite distinct istics of married and single women in tend to be unsatisfactory, unstable, and situation. They have lived with a series of the sample are surprisingly similar. The short-lived. men, and have had sufficiently difficult women were similarly distributed across Policy initiatives to entice thesepartner experiences, or have observed the age range of 17 to 44; average age at women into marrying their currentsuch negative marriage experiences birth of the first child was as a among friends and relatives, that they 19; andtheyhad Most separated/divorced 774- requirement for vow never to get married. They may still approximately the same women viewed extrica- maintaining welfarebe attracted and attractive to men and number of children: 2.4 tion from a bad marriage, benefits or obtainingmay bear the children of a series of children per single as a very positive change benefits for their nextpartners. They tend to see their main role as compared to 2.2 per in their lives. child would be unwise.in life as mother; and they appear to be married mother. Rather than encourag- warm, competent mothers, extending this The ten women whowere married ing dependence on a man as a route off ofrole to the children of relatives or nonetheless reported household incomes welfare, an integrated case management neighbors, or to foster children. near or below the poverty line (a criterion approach is needed that will focus on For these women, training and for inclusion in the study). Significantly,building personal maturity, effective certification for employment that utilizes in each case the was the primary parenting, and workplace preparation totheir nurturing tendencies, such as home earner in her family since the husbandreduce the risk of long-term welfareday-care, para-professional classroom lacked stable or adequately paid dependency. assistant, or care of the sick or elderly, employment. At least two of the husbands would be more appropriate than marriage were not employed due to disabilities, aGroup II: Young and separated orincentives. few were in part-time or seasonal work,divorced (n =10) two were low-paid farm laborers, andStrategies: Personal and parentingGroup IV:Older and separated or two were self-employed in marginal ordevelopment, child support from fathers, divorced (n = I ) occasional work.In these cases, theeducation and employment training. Strategies: Assistance to minimize determining factor in family poverty was The women of this group marriedduration of poverty, such as New York's clearly not single parenting, but low andyoung, either before or soon after having Child Assistance Program. unsteady earning capacity of husbands. their first child, and are still in their early- The women in this group, like those and mid-20s (21 to 26).Several nowin Group II, had been married; but they Differences Among Single-Parent have, and others are seeking, a became single later in life and are currently Families replacementpartner, between 29 and 43. A A close look at the 30 cases in theihough not necessarily a Different strategiesare few had only become sample that would usually be classifiedhusband. Three of these needed to address variety poor after separation or as "single-parent families" reveals 10 women have children among single parent .Most view significant variation, primarily on theby other men than their families. their extrication from a basis of age and marital history. In age,formerhusbands,in bad marriage, usually the women ranged from 17 to 43, half ofaddition to one or more children from theafter several attempts, as a very positive them 26 and younger, half 27 and older. marriage. As one might expect, these change in their lives, stating emphatically In marital history, nine of the women hadwdhien voice skepticism about thethat leaving the marriage was the best never been married and 21 were separated benefits marriage would bring forthing that ever happened to them and or divorced.Cross-tabulating age andthemselves and their children.Severaltheir children, even if it threw them into marital variables sorts these householdsappear to lack self-esteem and a sense ofor deeper into poverty, because it freed into four distinct groups, and suggestsdirection, and may not yet be ready tothem from a who had been that a menu of different ameliorative sustain lasting relationships with partners. violent, alcoholic, or unable to keep a job. strategies would be needed to reduce their Appropriate intervention strategies Overhalfofthese women reliance on public assistance. for these women, as for those of Group I, subsequently went back to school, earned might include personal and parentinga GED or an associate degree from a Group I:Young and never marrieddevelopment combined with greater childcommunitycollege,ortook job (n = 5) support from the children' s (s).training to upgrade their employment Strategies: Integrated case managementEducation and employment training canoptions. Their long-term prospects, to build personal maturity, effectivebe quite effective for these women withor withouteventualmarriage, parenting and workplace preparation. although they will continue to need partialappear strong, and would be These women became motherswelfare assistance until they can obtainenhancedby timely and adequate between age 17 and 21, are currentlyan adequate income on their own. assistance to minimize the duration of their poverty and to cushion its effects on Conceptual Issues: their children. An innovative New York "alternative Critique of "The Single-Parent Family" to welfare" program being piloted in as a Category .of Analysis selected counties may be particularly On the basiS of these househpld histories and additional individual and group appropriate for this group of women. In interviews, I suggest that the widely accepted, paradigm of "the .singleTparent the Child Assistance Program, the mother family" and the classification of families as either Iwo-parent" or .single-parent" can retain a larger share of her paycheck has four policy-relevant shortcomings. . from employment while still receiving I. It sets up a misleading contrastbetween the twO opposed categories. This assistance: food stamp benefits are cashed exaggerates differences between poor households with unmarried mothers and out, paperwork and casework are those with married mothers. streamlined, and the client has greater Z It implies a uniformity among families within each category. This glosses opportunity to make her own decisions as over significant differences among "single-parent families" in ternis of family well as to take responsibility for their situation and household structure. consequences. 3. It lacks a temporal dimension. In so.doing, it fails to capture the dynamic nature of family composition and partnering relationships oVer time as households . From Flawed "Explanation" to slide back and forth between having a single parent, tWo resident parents; or one Illusory "Cure" parent and a non-marital partner. Misdiagnosedproblemsand 4. It lacks a qualitative dimension. As a result, both the weakness of many conceptual muddles may lead to two-parent homes and the stability and strength of some non-marital partner inappropriate or ineffective 'policy relationships are obscured, and the quality of relationships children have with a responses. Though the sample described mother's non-marital live-in partner is ignored. here is a small onc, the in-depth nature of These conceptual problems have real-life consequences. Program eligibility is field research -- combined with my often limited to single parents, but service workers may haVe diffictilty extensive study of rural families and the deciding if an applicant is "single," as, for example, in the common, bases of weight of other studiessuggests that we women on AFDC who are still legally married but no longer living .with their should question the wisdom of marriage- husbands, or women living with a long-term non-marital partner. based welfare reform. Many women themselves disagree with the way they are classified; stating that If single-parenthood is not a they are not technically "single because they are still legally married even though monolithic, undifferentiated pheno- not living with a husband; or conversely thathey are single only in,the technical menon, and single-parent families are sense that they lack a marriage licence to transform a long-term non-marital actually quite diverse, it is doubtful that partner into a husband. Many families do not fit the overly simplistic Classification marriage would be appropriate for all or system, and the categories fail to reflect real-life complexities. effective in moving all families off welfare. o know whether the men they mightChild Support Requires Jobs for marry would actually bring about anMen Policy Recommendations economically uplifting effect. As severalFull and regular payment of child support Reducing Birthrates Among Single poverty scholars have pointed out, thewould lift many children off of welfare Women critical questions are: Who and above the poverty As many analysts have suggested, are the men in the marriage Weak employment line even if not a welfare policy should focus less onpool, and what are their opportunities may single marriage took increasing the marriage rate of singleeconomic prospects?A contribute more than .place. However, mothers and more on reducing the birthlook at the 30 "single" "weak family values" to despite court orders rate among women who have notyet mothers in this sample rising welfare rolls. and national legisla- married,especiallyadolescents.indicates that marriage to tion, child support will However, popular proposals to denythe current men in their be forthcoming only if public assistance for children born to lives would not likely lead them offthe father has an adequate income; and so non-married mothers on welfare and towelfare or out of poverty. This doubt is again, it is essential to raise the ability of mothers under age 18 would be moreconfirmed by looking at the economic men to obtain and keep good jobs. punitive than preventive in their effect. situation of the 10 married women in the Reducing among unmarried sample, each of whom was serving as herMarriage Can Create Problems teens requires a long-range effort thatfamily's primary earner. For a woman Household income should not be the only would be comprehensive, intensive, andreceiving AFDC to marry an inadequate criterion for assessing children's well- being. Even in cases where marriage to expensive but in the long run far more earner may bring rather minimal the child's father would lift a woman off effective. economic improvement to the household. The policy implication of this is that lowwelfare, it would not improve the child's Marriage May Not End Poverty and unsteady earning capacity of menwell-being if the relationship includes Before enticing women on AFDC to marry must also be addressed before urgingabuse and violence. Reducing _welfare the fathers of their children, it is essential more marriages. rolls by urging women to marry absent

BEST COPY AYALA E 5 fathers of their children could beeven more likely to be poor thanReferences inappropriate or harmful. comparable urban (metropolitan)Fitchen, Janet M. 1991.Endangered families. The relevant question, then, is: Spaces, Enduring Places: Change, Extended Families Are An What can be done in rural economies to Overlooked Resource Identity, and Survival in RuralAmerica. level the playing field so that rural single Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Policy emphasis on the number ofresident mothers are no more jeopardized than parents derives from a Lichter, Daniel T. and David J. Eggebeen. model, their urban counterparts? To lift rural 1991. "Children Among the Rural Poor: andtotally womenandtheir overlooks the extended Keeping single mothers 1960-1990."Paper presented at the children from poverty, annual meetings of the Rural Socio- family from which many and their children out of a more promising single woman derive poverty requires strength- logical Society, Colmbus, OH, August strategy than marriage 1991. housing, financial and ening the economy so that incentivesalready social support, and child adequatejobsare exists in the many local Lichter, Daniel T., Felicia B. LeClere, care. It also denies ethnic available for women and comprehensive em- and Diane K. McLaughlin. 1991. "Lo- diversityinfamily for men, reducing the ployment cal Marriage Markets and the Marital patterns. training Rather than gender-based earnings programs and in new, Behavior of Black and White Women." ignoring the extended gap, and providing more broad-based educa- AmericanJournal ofSociology 96:843- family, welfare reform 867. opportunities for advance- tional opportunities for should encourage and ment above starting wage women on welfare. Ross, Peggy J. and Elizabeth S. Morrissey. strengthen the support levels. Ultimately, though, 1989. "Rural People in Poverty: Per- single mothers and their keping single mothers sistent Versus Temporary Poverty." In children may be able to and their children out of poverty requires Proceedings of National Rural Studies derive from networks. strengthening the economy so that Committee. pp. 59-73. Corvallis, OR: Looking Beyond Marriage adequate jobs are available for women Western Rural Development. Focusing on marriage as a way to reduceand for men, reducing the gender-basedAcknowledgements welfare rolls perpetuates a model ofearnings gap, and providing more The research reported here was supported individual or family deficit, and entirely opportunities for advancement above by the Ford Foundation through the Aspen misses systemic econo- starting wage levels. Most Institute's Rural Economic Policy mic, racial-ethnic, and A pro-marriage policy, is scholars, Program. locational factors that no substitutefor an anti- policy-makers,and practitioners agree thatAbout the Author contribute to the growing poverty policy. need for public assistance. some form of publicJanet M. Fitchen is Associate Professor 4.71 " Especially in rural areas, assistance will continueand Chair of the Department of Anthro- weak employment opportunities mayto be necessary, and that the presentpology at Ithaca College in Ithaca, NY. contribute more than "weak familysystem needs change; but beyond that, She is author of Endangered Spaces, En- values" to rising welfare rolls. there is little consensus. On all sides, during Places: Change, Identity, and Sur- however, it must be recognized that a vival in Rural America, 1991, and of Addressing Rural Needs pro-marriagepolicy, or anyotherPoverty in Rural America: A Case Study, Because of weak economies, single-welfare reform, is no substitute for anpart of the Westview special studies in parent families living in rural areas areanti-poverty policy. contemporary social issues, 1981.

I{ avelpamow.aVe coM4%, citIMWMILOW(I'`,;41Tang

Cornell University 48Warren Hall Ithaca, NY 14853-7801 (607) 255-9510

CaRDI is a University wide program of the NYS College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, NYS College of Human Ecology and Cornell Cooperative Extension printed on recycled paper CaPOI provides equal program andemploymentopportuntties U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) National Library of Education (NLE) Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) REPRODUCTION RELEASE (Specific Document) I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION: Title: SirtU.6reft+ Panii 19 " aid (.0ire, &formIs rr)Yr',e- 1zcolufibo ?

Author(s): 3 vf r c4c1,42v1 Corporate Source: Publication Date: Canel kin vers Jan ucmj

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy, and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottom of the page.

The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be affixed to all Level 1 documents affixed to all Level 2A documents affixed to all Level 28 documents PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN BEEN GRANTED BY FOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY, MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY \O

coe, TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 2A 2B Level Level 2A Level 2B

Check here for Level 1 release, permitting reproduction Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproduction Check here for Level 2B release, permitting and dissemination in microfiche or other ERIC archival and dissemination in microfiche and in electronic media reproduction and dissemination in microfiche only media (e.g., electronic) and paper copy. for ERIC archival collection subscribers only

Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits. If permission to reproduce is granted, but no box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this document as indicated above. Reproductio'n from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.

Sign Signature: Printed Name/Position/Title: &Ve/CO S.x_c 0, a-Ace Afc (s 44 4- Organization/Address: Telephone: please NI 48 ukAreet I mS s-r o FAX 607-ZA--qqaf E-Mail Address: Date: " Ccvve.tI411 kreri4y ansii'd Cornell- Wu_ (over) III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, please provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publicly available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly more stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

Publisher/Distributor:

Address:

Price:

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:

If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and address:

Name:

Address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse: ERIC/CRESS AT AEL 1031 QUARRIER STREET - 8TH FLOOR P 0 BOX 1348 CHARLESTON WV 25325

phone: 800/624-9120

However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document being contributed) to: ERIC Processing and Reference Facility 1100 West Street, 2nd Floor Laurel, Maryland 20707-3598

Telephone: 301-497-4080 Toll Free: 800-799-3742 FAX: 301-953-0263 e-mail: [email protected] WWW: http://ericfac.piccard.csc.com

EFF-088 (Rev. 9/97) PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THIS FORM ARE OBSOLETE.