Author Archives: Garrett Pace

Does Marriage Matter for Kids?

Posted on by

In our 2005 issue on marriage and child wellbeing, Paul R. Amato described the cognitive, social, and emotional benefits for children growing up with continuously married parents. In contrast, he described how children raised by unmarried parents tend to experience less father involvement and higher rates of poverty and relationship instability. Given these general differences, it might be tempting to conclude that if parents simply marry, then many of the challenges children might face while being raised by unmarried parents will be eliminated.

However, it’s not that simple. Amato cautioned that “increasing the share of children who grow up with continuously married parents would improve the overall well-being of U.S. children only modestly” since family structure is only one causal factor, among many, in children’s lives. Nevertheless, he argued that marriage does matter for children, and even small increases in the share of children growing up with married parents can make meaningful improvements in society.

What about today? Does marriage still matter?

In our 2015 issue revisiting the topic of marriage and child wellbeing, David C. Ribar writes that “the advantages of marriage for children appear to be the sum of many, many parts,” which include mechanisms such as income, wealth, health insurance, social networks, parental stress, and family stability. These tend to be more favorable in the context of marriage and are associated with children’s short-term and long-term wellbeing. While policies and interventions might strengthen unmarried families in these ways, Ribar asserts these and other parts, as a whole, are difficult to replicate for unmarried families, and would only act as partial substitutes for marriage.

In many ways, marriage does seem to matter.

This isn’t to suggest that marriage is perfect and always more ideal than nonmarital relationships. Ribar cautions us that the “benefits of marriage occur mainly in families with low levels of conflict.” Clearly, the quality of relationships should be taken into account when thinking about how parental relationships affect children.  Indeed, in this same issue, Wendy D. Manning explains that stable cohabiting families with two biological parents are able to provide many of the same benefits to their children as their married counterparts.

For learn more, see the latest Future of Children issue, “Marriage and Child Wellbeing Revisited.”

Incorporating Family Law into the Study of Nonmarital Families

Posted on by

A guest post by Clare Huntington.

Thanks to the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study as well as other research, we are developing a rich body of knowledge about child outcomes in nonmarital families. What is missing from this growing body of research, however, is a discussion of the role of law in influencing these outcomes.

As I have elaborated elsewhere, family law is designed for married families. The family law system is far from perfect, but the legal rules, institutions, and norms generally help divorcing families restructure their lives in a way that encourages co-parenting and recognizes the potential contributions of both parents, financially and socially, to the rearranged family.

It is a very different story for nonmarital families. Family law’s rules, institutions, and norms do not map well onto family life that is not defined by marriage and have the potential to undermine relationships in these fragile families.

Beginning with legal rules, states give considerable power to unmarried mothers (power that, for married mothers, is shared with a spouse). When a child is born to unmarried parents, for example, the mother automatically gains sole custody of the child under many state laws. Without rights to custody, fathers see their children only if they are able to stay on good terms with the mothers of their children. This legal structure can exacerbate the phenomenon of maternal gatekeeping, which is well documented.

Family law also exacerbates acrimony between unmarried parents. Child support laws, which are relatively effective for divorcing families, impose unrealistic obligations on unmarried fathers, many of whom have dismal economic prospects. The failure to satisfy child support requirements fuels animosity between unmarried parents, many of whom are already experiencing difficulty co-parenting.

The basic institutions of family law are designed for marital families and simply do not work for nonmarital families. A married couple needs to go to court to end their relationship. When there, the court will ensure there is a clear custody or visitation order, specifying when each parent will see the child. The family will also have access to the court-based resources that help divorcing couples adjust to post-divorce life, such as the development of a detailed parenting plan, access to co-parenting classes, and so on.

By contrast, unmarried parents do not need the state to dissolve their relationship, so there is no reason to go to court, and most do not. This means that unmarried parents ending a relationship are left without an institutional structure to help them adjust to post-separation life. They do not have the benefit of a custody or visitation agreement, which can guard against maternal gatekeeping and which sends the message that both parents can and should be involved in the child’s life. They do not have the benefit of a detailed parenting plan, which can forestall conflict and set out clear expectations. And they do not have the benefit of court-based co-parenting classes, which can teach parents how to work together. Of course there are many ways in which nonmarital families differ from marital families, and I do not mean to suggest that unmarried fathers are likely to take on the joint custody role that many divorced fathers do. But the lack of an institution to help nonmarital families transition into a co-parenting relationships is a serious problem.

Finally, family law’s norms still reinforce traditional gender norms, with fathers as breadwinners and mothers as caregivers. Anachronistic for many married couples, these norms are starkly at odds with the reality of nonmarital family life. Marital norms thus deem unmarried fathers failures because they are not providing for their children economically. This undermines the place of fathers in the family by telling mothers and children that fathers are not acting as they should, and it undermines the social contributions that fathers can make.

In all these ways, family law weakens the already tenuous bonds that tie nonmarital families together.

It is essential to develop a more inclusive family law, better suited to the needs of both marital and nonmarital families. I outline such an approach in my recent article, Postmarital Family Law: A Legal Structure for Nonmarital Families, but let me give one example here. To address the problem that nonmarital families do not have an effective institution to help forestall conflict and transition into co-parenting, the United States should learn from Australia’s creation of Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) in 2006. FRCs offer free, readily accessible mediation services in the community, not the courts, to help unmarried parents move into co-parenting relationships. Built in centrally located areas such as shopping malls, they help separating couples develop a short-term plan for the child. The plans are not legally binding, but the idea is that by forging an agreement for the first year or two after the romantic relationship ends, a couple will get in the habit of working together. Then, as their lives inevitably change, they will be better positioned to adapt and continue their co-parenting. It is too soon to evaluate the long-term impact of the FRCs, but an initial assessment found that the FRCs have reached families that would not otherwise have gone to court and that most clients are satisfied with the services they received.

It is hard to establish definitively as a causal matter that the mismatch between family law and nonmarital family life contributes to worse outcomes for nonmarital children, but there is reason to believe that family law’s failures exacerbate the rocky transitions that contribute to poor child outcomes. At a minimum, as we deepen our empirical understanding of nonmarital families, the role of the law should be in the conversation.

Children’s Neighborhoods, Homes, and Health

Posted on by

One of my favorite things to do is explore cities on foot. Of course, I like some cities more than others—New York City being among my favorites. Until recently, I hadn’t quite articulated what makes a city attractive and appealing to me. Then I came across a video by the School of Life, an organization based out of London. According to the video, some of the things people tend to enjoy about cities include order and variety in physical structures, visible life such as street-level businesses with large windows, and a sense of mystery about places to discover.

These are things that adults might think about when exploring or moving to a new neighborhood, but what about children? What do they need and how does their housing and neighborhood affect their health and wellbeing? In the Future of Children, Ingrid Gould Ellen and Sherry Glied summarize what we know from research. One thing is clear—poor children tend to live in more disadvantaged environments.

For instance, poor children are more likely to live in inadequate housing. The U.S. Census Bureau considers a unit inadequate for reasons such as not having hot and cold running water, no bathtub or shower, no flushing toilet, and having exposed wiring. Recent estimates indicate that 11% of poor households with children and 5.9% of all households with children were physically inadequate, respectively. Thankfully, these figures have been cut in half since the 1970s. Nevertheless, children living in these circumstances probably experience greater emotional and behavioral problems and may perform worse in school.

The physical condition of children’s neighborhoods and what happens in them is also important. For example, when violent crime occurs close to where a child lives, that child is likely to perform poorer on cognitive tests within the next week. Car pollution is associated with asthma and even premature birth. As for the physical condition of things, poorly maintained playgrounds, crumbling sidewalks, and littered glass may result in physical injury or less outdoor activity. We should keep in mind that injuries and homicide are among the leading causes of death among children.

What can we do to make children’s homes and neighborhoods healthier and safer?

Speed bumps and safe walking/biking paths can reduce rates of child pedestrian injuries.

Installing window bars on apartment buildings can reduce fall-related deaths among children.

Introducing the E-ZPass at toll booths can reduce pollution in nearby residential areas. This strategy has been shown to reduce the incidence of preterm births in these neighborhoods.

There are many things we can do to make the homes and neighborhoods of children safe and healthy. However, Ellen and Glied caution that improvements to housing and neighborhoods can increase costs, thereby driving out low-income families. While subsidies can offset these costs for some families, the authors suggest that policymakers experiment with offering subsides to more families while reducing the size of the subsidy available per family. To learn more, see the Future of Children issue, “Policies to Promote Child Health.”

Defragmenting Child Mental Health

Posted on by

If you’re ready for a crash course in mental health, read Alison Cuellar’s article in the new volume of Future of Children “Policies to Promote Child Health.” She introduces us to internalizing and externalizing conditions that children experience, as well as the trajectories and outcomes that can accompany them. She also describes prevention programs, and interventions from academic, juvenile justice, and medical and social service angles.

Unfortunately, well intended programs and interventions often come with an unintended consequence. Cuellar argues that due, in part, to differing funding structures of schools, health care providers, and juvenile justice programs, there is an inherent lack of integration among treatment providers; thus, children sometimes fall through the cracks. For example, health insurance might not pay for anything beyond direct professional services provided to a child; whereas parent education or family treatment might be necessary but not be covered. Another example would be programs funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration—while there might be more flexible funding available for intervention and prevention initiatives through this funder than health insurance, funding is limited to particular communities and settings; thus excluding children not found in these areas.

I’ll be frank in saying that there isn’t an easy method to defragment a complicated system of service delivery. Cuellar concludes that we need to identify ways to overcome fragmentation between services. Volume editors Currie and Reichman call on governments to follow the lead of businesses and make use of the vast amount of data available to them to “create an integrated portrait of child health or to target policies to those who have the most to gain from them.”

In a blog post last year, I wrote about how the Affordable Care Act was a step in the right direction to allow for a more integrated health care system and that there were existing initiatives, such as the patient-centered medical home model, that encourage coordination among providers. Perhaps future policies and practices will encourage coordination among mental health services, thereby improving child mental health.

The Evidence-Based Movement

Posted on by

“Despite decades of efforts and trillions of dollars in spending, rigorous evaluations typically find that around 75 percent of programs or practices that are intended to help people do better at school or at work have little or no effect,” says Future of Children senior editor Ron Haskins in a recent New York Times op-ed related to his new book.

Haskins isn’t arguing for massive budget cuts for federally funded social programs—instead, he’s hoping the new Congress won’t cut funding for evaluation research, which is a relatively new federal initiative. Evaluation research helps us know which programs work and don’t work; then we can expand what works and modify or eliminate what doesn’t work. Haskins concludes his op-ed by affirming that “social policy is too important to be left to guesswork.”

Research is one of the best tools to inform policy decisions because it’s more objective than political ideology. A lot is at stake when deciding which programs will be used to tackle social problems. This is especially true when considering child-related issues because what happens to people as children is likely to have lifelong effects. Regardless of what Congress decides to do, the Future of Children can be used as a nonpartisan resource to promote effective policies and programs for children and families based on the best available research.

For instance, when addressing childhood disability, begin with our volume “Children with Disabilities.” You’ll learn about the importance of policy measures that increase coordination between different types of services. Additionally, you’ll see how technology can improve outcomes but can also expand disparities unless access is provided equitably.

If you’re interested a multigenerational approach, read our volume “Helping Parents, Helping Children: Two Generation Mechanisms.” You’ll learn about what the most promising programs are doing for families. For example, you can read about how preschool and home-visiting programs can alleviate children’s stress, how increasing parent’s education levels can strengthen children’s healthy development, how improving parent’s health can improve children’s health, how carefully timed income support can promote children’s healthy development, and how helping poor families build assets can help children succeed.

For those interested in improving the literacy of young Americans, see “Literacy Challenges for the Twenty-First Century.” You’ll read of the breadth and complexity of literacy challenges, but also find policy implications such as the need to focus more attention on informational text and analytical writing in K-12 education, as well as arguments to increase access to strong preschool programs for children from low-income and non-English-speaking families.

Whatever your political persuasion, the best research can bring people together to solve social problems. Whenever possible, let’s leave guesswork behind and follow the evidence. To read our research publications, visit futureofchildren.org.

Food Insecurity and Marital Status

Posted on by

So far, in our blog series on the Gunderson and Ziliak Future of Children research report, we’ve outlined how 1 in 5 children in America are food insecure and how there are more reasons for this besides low household income. For example, caregivers’ mental and physical health, as well as child care arrangements, are contributing factors. Another piece of the puzzle is family structure.

I’ll start with some basic statistics. This table from childstats.gov shows the differences in the percentage of food-insecure households with children by family structure in 2011. Without taking any other contributing factors into account, female-headed households with no spouse present are more than twice as likely to be food-insecure than households headed by married couples (40 vs. 15 percent). Households headed by a father with no spouse present have a 28% prevalence of food insecurity, in between married couples and single mothers.

These differences aren’t surprising. But there’s more to the story.

Gunderson and Ziliak summarize several studies that give us clues about how marital status is related to food insecurity. For example, Balistreri found that children living with a single parent or with an unmarried parent in a more complex family (such as when the mother is cohabiting with a partner and there’s also a grandparent in the household) are at greater risk of food insecurity than children living with two biological parents or in a stepfamily. Also, Neeraj Kaushal and colleagues found that children living with their biological parents, whether married or cohabiting, have a lower risk of food insecurity. In contrast, Miller and colleagues found no substantive differences across family types after controlling for socioeconomic status and demographic characteristics. Regarding unmarried families, Nepomnyaschy and colleagues have shown that nonresident fathers’ consistent support, whether in cash or in kind, is associated with lower food insecurity; interestingly, inconsistent support was worse than no support at all.

Based on these findings, it’s important not to jump to conclusions about marital status and food insecurity. While married-couple households seem to be at least risk, this doesn’t mean a marriage certificate solves food insecurity, and that we should rush people into marriage. Family complexity, socioeconomic status, and nonresident fathers’ support also play a contributing role.

The Fragile Families Study and the work of Sara McLanahan, editor-in-chief of the Future of Children offer potential policy implications. In a recent article about unmarried parents, McLanahan and Jencks concluded that to prevent the negative outcomes associated with having children outside of marriage, women with lower socioeconomic status can be encouraged to postpone having children, giving them time to mature and increase their education and earnings. By extension, since women aren’t likely to marry men with poor earning capacity, men need to increase their capacity to provide for a family. Initiatives such as the promotion of effective birth control and education access seem promising. For currently unmarried families, Nepomnyaschy’s article underscores the importance of consistent child support in reducing the risk of childhood food insecurity.

Rising from a Culture of Violence to a Culture of Health

Posted on by

Sara McLanahan, Editor-in-Chief of Future of Children, along with several colleagues, recently prepared a policy report published by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) that describes children’s exposure to violence in the Fragile Families Study (see the Future of Children Fall 2010 volume to learn more about Fragile Families). The report examines neighborhood violence, intimate partner violence, and harsh parenting, and finds that these types of violence are endemic and interrelated. An implication of these findings is that we need to tackle all these kinds of violence simultaneously, rather than in isolation. The authors point out, for instance, that reducing harsh parenting practices of mothers who experience domestic violence and are worried about their child’s safety won’t be as effective as reducing harsh parenting while also taking on the other problems.

What’s preventing us from achieving this vision?

Part of the problem, as the policy report points out, is that our efforts to combat violence could be more holistic. In other words, there might be a number of specialized programs working on different types of violence within the same community, and yet there can be a disconnect in communication and coordination between these well-meaning efforts. This disconnect warrants consideration.

To gather ideas from stakeholders on how to “break down the silos” between specialized efforts, RWJF has provided a discussion forum led by Senior Program Officer Martha Davis, along with a dialogue on RWJF’s LinkedIn Leadership Network. In the discussion threads, a common theme I noticed from several community leaders was that we should use common needs as a way to build relationships that cross program boundaries. The proposition that all stakeholders–such as prevention, intervention, community services and government–should come together, trust one another, share information and resources, and work together on objectives seems promising.

As a social worker, I often wonder how ideas and research can make a meaningful difference in people’s lives. With this in mind, I recently connected with Martha and discussed the bigger picture. What I learned from our conversation was that we can all catch RWJF’s vision of a culture of health in our communities–part of which is that all children will be able to grow up in safe and nurturing environments at home, in the neighborhood, and at school. And that all children will have a real chance from the very beginning to develop to their full potential as individuals. Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, the President of RWJF, describes this vision in her 2014 President’s Message. I’m excited by the challenge to promote a culture of health.

I would like to invite you to join the conversation. Read the policy report and comment below to share your ideas. Tell us about any programs or policies you believe are making a difference that we can learn from, how you think we can move from a culture of violence to a culture of health, or anything else you think can be part of the solution for improving environments for children and their families.

Childhood Food Insecurity in America

Posted on by

This past year, lighthearted quizzes have been popular to share and discuss on social media. They’ve allowed to me to find out everything from what U.S. state I actually belong in to which Disney princess I would be if I existed in the cartoon realm, simply by answering odd and seemingly unrelated questions about my personality and preferences. The researcher in me feels a little annoyed at how unscientific these assessments are, but at the same time they are sometimes too fun to pass up–and somehow the results can feel so valid. I’m definitely not opposed to the idea of living in New York as Mulan.

As fun as it can be to spend free time taking and sharing these quizzes, one quiz that ought to go viral is the Hunger Quiz from the Feeding America charity. While it won’t tell you which vegetable you are, it will inform you of some of the surprising facts about hunger in America, and possibly some of your misconceptions about food insecurity. A take-home message is that hunger is a significant problem in America that can alleviated. But what can we do about it?

In a new Future of Children research report, professors Craig Gunderson of the University of Illinois and James Ziliak of the University of Kentucky use the latest research to describe childhood food insecurity in the U.S. They write that the government defines food insecurity as “a household-level economic and social condition of limited access to food” and surprisingly, in 2012, over 1 in 5 children met this criterion. This is disheartening, especially since the government spent over $100 billion in fiscal year 2012 on federal food-assistance programs.

The authors argue that one reason food insecurity rates remain stubbornly high is that we don’t fully understand what causes food insecurity or how programs help alleviate it. The research in the report helps fill this gap and can contribute to policy initiatives that could result in powerful improvements in the health and wellbeing of children.

In upcoming blog posts, we’ll be exploring factors that contribute to food insecurity and what policies are worth consideration in light of these factors. To learn more about food insecurity in America, see the Fall 2014 research report in the Future of Children.

A Two-Generation Solution to Education Disparity

Posted on by

Education tends to pay off. Higher educational attainment is associated with higher earnings, lower unemployment and better health. In the Future of Children, Neeraj Kaushal explains that education also influences important lifestyle decisions such as marriage, sex, childbearing, and substance use.

Importantly, parents’ education not only affects themselves, but also affects the wellbeing of their children. Better-educated parents often pass down the tradition of education to their children along with its benefits. The intergenerational payoffs of education are persistent and perhaps even underestimated.

While some families benefit immensely from education, other families face structural obstacles to advancing their socioeconomic status via further educational attainment. Racial and ethnic disparities are apparent by education, and children with less-educated parents are less likely to succeed in school. Furthermore, Kaushal points out, the U.S. education system reinforces socioeconomic inequality across generations by spending more money on educating richer children than poorer children.

These challenges lend support to the idea of targeting education-related interventions toward less-educated parents and their children. This might be done via a two-generation approach in which parents and children are served simultaneously. While the theoretical basis for these programs is strong, the empirical evidence is only emerging. What we do know is that investing in parents is likely to have a lasting effect on children’s health and development, which in turn increases their wellbeing as adults. There is also evidence that adult offspring’s educational attainment influences the health and life expectancy of the parents, even after accounting for parents’ socioeconomic resources. This may be due to children’s knowledge of health and technology they share with their parents and having more financial means to support them. It’s arguable that investing in programs that aim to increase parents’ education and skills at the same time as they invest in children’s development could go a long way to reduce intergenerational inequality.

For more information about two-generation programs, see the Future of Children volume Helping Parents, Helping Children: Two-Generation Mechanisms.

Policy Prescriptions to Prevent Teen Pregnancy

Posted on by

Most teens would probably say they don’t want to become pregnant–in fact 87% of teen pregnancies in 2001 were reportedly unintended (see Figure 1). Even though there have been tens of thousands of teen pregnancies in recent years, teen births in the US have actually declined over the last 20 years, from 61.8 live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19 years in 1991 to 29.4 in 2012. This trend, which is due to factors that include teens making more informed decisions regarding their sexual health, is encouraging and suggests we can continue to make progress in preventing teen pregnancies.

First, we need to understand what makes teens more likely to get pregnant. Isabel Sawhill, Adam Thomas, and Emily Monea, in the Future of Children, outline several plausible explanations including cultural norms of increased acceptance of premarital sex and having children outside of marriage, a lack of positive alternatives to single motherhood, an attitude of fatalism, the high cost and limited availability of contraception, lack of knowledge about contraception and reproductive health, and inconsistent or incorrect use of contraception. The authors point out that these explanations generally fall into the categories of motivation, knowledge, and access.

Next, we can examine possible solutions. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released a Vital Signs brief outlining what the federal government, health care professionals, parents/caregivers, and teens can do to prevent teen pregnancy. What I like about the CDC’s suggestions is that they start where the teen is and show how adults can support teens’ healthy development. For example, professionals can encourage teens to delay sexual activity but should also encourage sexually active teens to consider the most effective methods of birth control. Parents can know where their teens are and what they are doing (isn’t there an app for that?), especially after school, and talk with their teens about sex.

Finally, are programs that promote these types of solutions worth the cost? Sawhill and colleagues, in their Future of Children article, conducted simulations of the costs and effects of policy initiatives that encouraged men to use condoms (motivation), discouraged teen sexual activity and educated participants about proper contraceptive use (knowledge), and expanding access to Medicaid-subsidized contraception (access). All three had good benefit-cost ratios, suggesting they are excellent social investments that can actually save taxpayer dollars. For more information on how to prevent teen pregnancy and unintended pregnancies in general, see the Fragile Families volume of Future of Children.