policy for single-parent families Reforming Policy for Single- Parent Families to Reduce Child Poverty maria cancian and d aniel r. meyer We argue that child support, the central program specifically targeting single-parent families, should increase financial resources for children living with a single parent, with a secondary goal of holding parents respon- sible for supporting their children. Current child support policy is substantially successful for divorcing families in which the noncustodial parent has at least moderate formal earnings. However, the system does not work well for lower- income families, especially unmarried couples: far too few children regularly receive substantial support and the system is sometimes counterproductive to encouraging parental responsibility. We propose: a public guarantee of a minimum amount of support per child, assurances that no noncustodial parent will be charged beyond their current means, and a broadening of child support services. Keywords: child support, divorce, guaranteed income, nonmarital births, single-parent families Recognition is widespread that single- parent parent. Efforts to hold noncustodial parents families with children are economically vulner- responsible for their children encounter issues able but less so on the policies and programs related to the relative importance of encourag- to address these vulnerabilities (see, for exam- ing financial support and encouraging noncus- ple, Maldonado and Nieuwenhuis 2015). Poli- todial parents’ active engagement in their chil- cies addressing custodial parent families (those dren’s lives. The response to these challenges who have children who are living with only one has varied over time, and in some cases, for of their parents) confront the fundamental divorced and never- married families, and for challenge of balancing the role of public ben- families who do or do not receive means-tested efits and private support from the noncustodial public benefits. Maria Cancian is professor of public affairs and social work and affiliate of the Institute for Research on Pov- erty at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Daniel R. Meyer is professor of social work and affiliate of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. © 2018 Russell Sage Foundation. Cancian, Maria, and Daniel R. Meyer. 2018. “Reforming Policy for Single-Parent Families to Reduce Child Poverty.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 4(2): 91–112. DOI: 10.7758/RSF.2018.4.2.05. Paper presented at the Russell Sage Foundation Conference “Anti- poverty Pol- icy Initiatives for the United States” and at the related session at the 2016 Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Research Conference. We thank Chris Wimer and Sophie Collyer for the cost and poverty estimates, Maria Serakos and Veronique Yeo for research assistance, and the reviewers, the editors, and confer- ence participants, especially Lawrence Berger, Robert Doar, Irwin Garfinkel, and Elaine Sorensen, for their help- ful comments. Any opinions expressed here are our own. Direct correspondence to: Maria Cancian at maria [email protected], 3436 Social Sciences Building, 1180 Observatory Dr., Madison, WI 53706. Open Access Policy: RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences is an open access journal. This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial- NoDerivs 3.0 Unported Li- cense. 92 anti-poverty policy initiatives for the united states Current policy includes general programs fails these families because it does not address for low- income families and specific ones for the risk children face when their noncustodial custodial parent families. It prioritizes private parents do not pay support, despite nonpay- support over public, economic support over ment, partial payment, and irregular payment other engagement, and generally makes no dis- being common. By enforcing financial support tinction in the financial responsibilities of non- while ignoring never-married noncustodial par- custodial parents who have had different types ents’ access to their children, the current sys- of relationships with the other parent. Policy tem is particularly flawed and unsustainable goals for custodial parent families include en- for the growing number of children of lower- couraging private support from both low- income never- married parents. income and other noncustodial parents by try- The traditional child support enforcement ing to set an appropriate amount of economic strategy is premised on an often inaccurate support to be transferred, monitoring whether view of noncustodial fathers’ economic re- it is transferred, and then enforcing the trans- sources and employment stability and of par- fer through a variety of threats and penalties. ents’ relationships. We highlight the costs of Public and private support schemes function ignoring the disjuncture between ideals and as substitutes, rather than complements, so current reality, and some of the key challenges that when private support is paid on behalf of that must be confronted in developing an ap- a single- parent family receiving public support, propriate policy response. In the next sections, all or a part of those resources are typically re- we describe and then evaluate the current sys- tained by the government or public support is tem. We then recommend a set of changes to reduced, making custodial parent families no private and public child supports that aim to better off if private support is or is not paid address the identified challenges. (Cancian, Meyer, and Caspar 2008; Skinner et al. 2017). the logic and functioning of the In this article we highlight central policy current system challenges in meeting the needs of children in A number of programs and policies, many cov- single- parent families and consider the role of ered in other papers in this volume, address the current U.S. child support system in re- the resources available to poor individuals, and sponding to those challenges. We argue that especially families with children. Custodial par- the traditional approach to child support, ent families are disproportionately poor and though functional for many middle- income therefore disproportionately affected by these families facing divorce, fails to address key general poverty policies. However, our focus challenges for lower- income families facing di- here is on policies designed to address the chal- vorce and for individuals who, regardless of in- lenges of families with children in which par- come, did not have a stable romantic relation- ents live apart. Although many policies are ship. Unrealistic child support expectations can means-tested and account for the resources harm noncustodial parents, create additional provided and required by members of these barriers for noncustodial parents to be involved separated-parent households, policy governing with their children, and may even yield less child custody and child support are the pri- support to vulnerable families than an alterna- mary policies specifically addressing the addi- tive scheme (for example, Waller and Plotnick tional challenges arising when parents live 2001). The traditional child support system also apart.1 In particular, we argue that a child sup- 1. Although social policy discussions often presume that single parents are entitled to programs that they would not receive if they were to marry, we find little evidence of programs that are available only to (or provide extra benefits to) those who are single parents, per se, outside of the child support system. Single parents are entitled to (or eligible for) some programs because they are parents who have low incomes, but in most cases are not differentially eligible based on single-parenthood in and of itself. In fact, single parents who marry someone without income would be eligible for more of some benefits because their family size is larger. The federal income tax system does have a special filing status for those who are head of household (that is, single parents). How- rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences policy for single-parent families 93 port guarantee is needed, even given a general is employed, policy requires that the employer children’s allowance, as proposed elsewhere in automatically withhold the amount of support this volume, which reduce the poverty rate for due and transfer it to a central processing those in married- couple families more signifi- agency that then records the amount paid and cantly than for those in single- parent families distributes it (Pirog and Ziol- Guest 2006). In (Wimer, Collyer, and Kimberlin 2018). Children addition to these services, which should be who live apart from a parent are at substantially available to all parents, custodial parents can greater risk given economic and other vulner- request the services of the child support agency abilities that emerge when parents live apart. in their state. This agency can help parents lo- In addition, custodial parents, who typically cate the other parent, establish an order for must serve as both breadwinners and caretak- child support, actively monitor whether the or- ers, face economic and other challenges be- der is being paid, and take enforcement actions yond those faced by “intact” (two- parent) fam- if it is not, through such steps as taking away ilies. a driver’s license, intercepting a tax return, or Child support policy comes into play when even bringing civil or criminal