tv Discussion on Working- Class Families CSPAN February 12, 2016 10:02pm-11:30pm EST
till have the cruel negligence we saw in flint. of ould still have the kind anti-muslim demagoguery that we have seen in this campaign and which must end. we would still have so many forms in we would still have powerful climate change, opposing every single common reform.un safety still have republic republic idealogues ripping the heart out of work ears the right to organize, to and the up, to be part of a union for better wages and working conditions. [ applause ] my friends, i am not a single-issue candidate and this single-issue country.
we need a president who can do parts of the job on behalf of all americans who believes in the basic proposition about our country. then when each and every live up has a chance to to their own god-given only then then and could america live up to its potential. can build elp, we that future together. please, join me on march 1. thank you all for everything you to make sure we vote with confidence and optimism and future that we shape. thank you all very much.
>> the candidate speaking in st. paul, missouri to the fundraiser. if you missed any of the comments from secretary clinton spoke tor sanders who earlier, you can find them on-line, c-span.org. democratic candidate, artin o'malley the suspended his run this month but the former maryland governor is the interest on the campaign trail he sang and be ed his guitar and will performing in baltimore next month with his band o'malley's a pub band. they performed in january shortly before the iowa caucuses. the presidential field continues to get smaller on the republican side. announced he was suspending his bid saying in a statement the debate structure the national media candidates made
it impossible for him to continue his campaign for the presidency. the former governor announced in july he was running but failed delegates in the early primary contest. is departure leaves six republicans seeking the nomination. they'll be on stage tomorrow in ahead of lina a week the south carolina primary and we'll be showing the debate in its entirety on sunday at 4:00 eastern time courtesy of cbs news. me, c-span is a home for political junkies and a way to track the government. it's great way to stay informed. >> a lot of c-span fans on the hill. colleagues will say i saw you on c-span. c-span doesore that to make sure that people outside of the beltway know what's going on inside of it. >> next, a look at the state of working class families. include public policy
professors from princeton, hopkins and johns "washington post." they discuss the family the economic and social impact that children face when born out of wedlock. american academy of political and social science co-hosted this form with the casey foundation. it's an hour and 20 minutes. >> apologize for the late start. academy irector of the science from philadelphia. our organization is for the reduction and dissemination of rate social science that's influential in a public sphere. must say having a full room on a friday morning beginning of the congressional recess is gratifying. it's a testament to the quality
of the remarkable panel that we been sort of blessed to assemble with us this morning. second, it's gratifying because many of you here on the hill and the hill's surrounds are come out to hear about what scholarship has to of us about the dynamics change in american family, change in america's socioeconomic class structure. all has to do with child well being, and whether or not policy can leverage change to our good. would like to thank the annie foundation, mike lair by, for making f reform this happen. robert casey of pennsylvania and tim scott of south carolina for their interest on these issues and being gracious sponsor us here today. as you probably discerned by now, we were in the middle of a of an audio/visual challenge.
so i had to show you a very taped greeting from senator tim scott. from my lap top with the volume turned all the it up facing you but i think would be foolish at this point so inwon't. ask jared from senator casey's office to come up to say a word or two? >> i know i'm a sorry substitute for senator casey. father of four, i don't hink the issue of child well being could be important and paramount of the senator's mindset. i handle education policy for senate. thank you for copping and being here. thank you all for making the trip down to washington and it will be worth your while. thank you. [ applause ] thanks, jared. the way this should have been
to see a for you quite compelling and beautiful projected behind me. that apparently is not going to happen. that's pretty. speakers are going to work from that from this podium. if you want a copy of this slide deck, e-mail me or my colleague, jessica. got lots of business cards and we have contact information out there. so if you want to -- if you want anymore information about what's morning, here this reach out. i apologize for that. now, i won't talk anymore, on to our moderator, michael gerson a little ly needs introduction to all of you because you know his work so already. he's a syndicated columnist whose insights on politics, society appear regularly in "the washington post." he's also a former advisor and writer to george w. bush and has for years now a very compelling and
helping us make sense of ourselves through decisive, earnest, and deeply informed writing. michael gerson, thank you for being here and agreeing to talk to this panel. >> thank you, sir. good morning, thank you all for being here. fitting, even necessary to start a discussion on family children with a reference to senator daniel patrick moynihan. 1965 in the moynihan report, he warned that a rising fraction of african-american children were growing up in house holds mothers and arried he worried this form of would compromise african-americans to take advantage of rights and opportunities and he was with considerable controversy. from that time to this, from the s to today, we have seen a vast change in social norms and
practice in families not limited to any race. marriage rates have declined. nonmarital births have increased. cohabitation has increased. children see a greater variety f less stable family arrangements and we'll hear about all of that. changes in numbers are a change in the way people define their love, deepest commitments, and care for their young. hese are the most important things about our own lives. so it is not surprising that of the most t some important issues in sociology and public policy. design a e hard to better panel to raise and discuss these issues. literally written the ook on family analysis and policy, authored the studies, submitted the papers, that define this academic field. if anything were to happen to being nel without observed and categorized by this roup, i'm not sure that people
would even procreate and form families anymore. an exaggeration. but not much. but we've given them a disadvantage because all of them had a power point today. you know the idea that powerpoint orrupts, corrupts absolutely. so we will do without that. of short ke a couple unnecessary introductions. turland, the benjamin h. psychologyofessor of and sociology at johns hopkins. divorced married, child well being and the effects of welfare reform. a legends in n, this field, the william s. todd and ssor of sociology public affairs at princeton, principal investigator on the and child well being and studied and the chief of the
journal and future of children. bob putnam is the peter and mall con professor of public policy at heartland, the awards and untless honors and the crusader of malcontent on our kids for the american dream in crisis. center for of children and families. and the expert influential white house and congressional advisor. we'll hear their presentations in that order. then i will have a few questions discussion. then hopefully we'll have some questions given time from all of you. thinking in those terms and thank you for getting us started. >> thank you for giving me the of speaking to you this morning. i want to talk to you about the american working class and change. and i'm going to define the working class as people with a
but not a degree degree.ar college i do it that way because those are the ones that have been most impacted by the changes in our economy over the last few decades. it's a very large group. a large group that's worthy of more attention than we have given it. if i gave this lecture 75 years degree. talked about i do it that way because those are the ones that have been most impacted by the changes in our economy over the last few decades. marriage, i would say everybody is married. poor people mar rid, working class, middle class people are married. that is true in the mid 20th century. but today there's a huge gap in marriage according to ones ducation or social class position. if you look for example at the percentage of americans in their who are and early 50s currently married, you find currently ny are married among college grads as among people without a high education. people in the middle, the high school grads are much less likely to be married than they the past. marriage is much less dominant,
especially among people without degree.e and so let me talk with you a bit about what's happened as play a has come to smaller role in the lives of working class. the children that we're concerned about. you probably know that a large proportion of all births are to unmarried mothers. around 40% of all births are unmarried mothers. word, unmarried, turns out it has a kind of special people don't recognize unless they're government statisticians. unmarried, to the census bureau for the national center of be two tatistics can things, even if you are singled, living by yourself or but not with the partner of cohabitating with the father. single is how we thought about to unmarried s parents. we have an image of a young
woman living on her own or with mom, a teenager, perhaps. stereotypical image of an unmarried mother. there's another image. that woman in her 20s with a living with egree but not married to the guy that's the father of her children at the time of the birth. almost all of the increase in to unmarried mothers over the last few decades has come births to co-habiting mothers. there's little change in the to e of all births unpartnered single mothers. very little change. there's huge change in the births to the co-habiting them.rs as i will call that's what's been driving the increase since about 1980. followrprising to us who this at first when we saw this rise. you is irst point to that yes, there's been a sharp rise in unmarried mothers. about it, we ink should think about the large
group of people in their 20s a moderate amount of education living together who seem to be driving these changes. so, where has all of this births, ng mother co-habiting partner births come from? the biggest that increase in births do habiting i'd say, have come among the moderately educated call this the working class. that is people with a high school degree. maybe some college. maybe have an a.a. degree, but not a four-year degree. you look at the stats for the births they have, in 1980, it as very unusual for any of those people to have a birth while co-habiting but not married. didn't happen very much. today it's 25% to 30% of all moderate people with a amount of education. or to people who are co-habiting. it's the case that
of all american births now are to co-habiting couples. no one tends to pay much attention to that. but it's an important fact. we want a ests if typical picture in our head, the typical picture now is somebody teenager, but a 20-something and who's not but living with a -- together at the time of birth. so that's what i want to tell you. a bit more o talk about the college-educated people. the people with the four-year college degree. there's been very little change them. people with the college degree who i'll call today the college-educated middle class, postpone their marriage a lot but they're and ed in large numbers crucially they don't have kids until after they marry. children to college grads occur within marriage and
their marriages are more stable used to be. the divorce rate has actually been going down for college-educated couples. down but not much for everybody else. social class a divide in this country. if there is a boundary aligned between the classes, with families, that line is between people with a and year college degree everyone else. certainly in terms of family lives, there's a striking distance in the kinds of neotraditional families that college grads are living with now that are still marriage-based and people with less education than that. even people of a couple of years a degree. but not so a huge difference now between hat's happening to the college educated middle class, and what's happening to the people calling the o i'm working class. so why has this occurred? hy have we had an increase in births to co-habiting mothers that's been concentrated among
the high school grads or the little bit of college? from my point, a very that's tive development happened politically over the last couple of years is that conservatives and liberals or many people from both political persuasions, will they're both at cultural and economic routes to these changes. cultural change, the cultural change to me, that's the most greater -- that's the acceptance now of having a child outside of marriage. it just wasn't done 50 years poor.xcept among the very now it's relatively common and accepted. there's a very large economic component to this also. been studying a survey of about 9,000 young adults nationally for over a decade. i've been watching them as they've gone through their 20s. and with the data on them having passed through most of their s, i've looked at the labor markets that they're in and then
publish later this year, i looked at their labor markets to see how many of a large markets have number of jobs that are accessible to somebody with a pay school degree and that above poverty wages. let's call them "good jobs" just argument, okay? now what i find is if you live in an area with more good jobs have a high school degree or less, you're more likely to marry before you have first kid. than people who live in areas with less good jobs? why is that? we still it's because have a strong norm that men must have good steady earnings in marriage e good prospects. it's good if the woman does too, but men must. and when they don't have -- when hey don't have job prospects, ifaterial's the case that -- they don't have good job prospects, they're not seen as ood marriage material even to themselves. instead they start co-habiting
you'll hear which with the kids in these a great hips causing deal of churning. what is this doing to the psyche working class person? i'm sure you've seen the news couple of the last months of rising death rates among middle aged whites due to alcohol or drug abuse. here's what i think is maybe going on there. we both think about how well they're doing, they think about how well they're doing relative well their parents did. when the white working class generation, they find they're earning less than their parents and they have less job opportunities and less than did backlly, then. over the 2000ths, the percentage respondents told the survey that they're doing better than their parents. it's going down and down. here's the percentage of
african-americans and hispanics that say they're doing better than their parents are staying worsened because look back at a time when things weren't so great. we see an economic transformation due to the movement of jobs overseas and with people zation with family lives, in the working class, and moved down and tore apart a term, lesst's shorter perm negligent, creating issues that i turn to sara mcclanahan to talk about now. [ applause ] >> good morning. nice to be here. i had some beautiful slides for you. going to get to where at least i can see them. okay. so the title of my talk is what do -- what does family change mean for children?
and i'm the director of the fragile led family study, which has been following a cohort children born between 1998 and 2000. and we've been -- we started at hospitals. we -- when the mother had the baby, we sampled rooms and we the room and said will you be in our survey. the mother said yes, the father said yes. mothers and ed the fathers and their children and e're actually just finishing collecting data right now. the children have turned age 15. we started a study, we did it because we have a lot of this large out increase and child bearing and we wanted to know what's going on? what kind of relationships do these parents have? are they casual? are they commit? what does it mean? do the fathers stay around? do they end up getting married? so the real purpose of the fragile family study was to answer some of the questions we are dealing with today. so i'm going to make the
argument and then i'm going to give you some data to sort of back up this argument. so, the first is that the hildren born to unmarried parents -- and i should mention that when we did the study, we births to pled for unmarried parents so we'd have a those rge sample of births. so, compared to children born to married parents, children born unmarried parents experience much higher rates of union dissolution, a higher prevalence of new partners coming into and out of the home. higher prevalence of the family's complexity which means the house hold that have different partners. and i'm going to argue that experiences in themselves lead to more maternal stress. run one of these house holds. if you're trying to collect one man and from arrange visitation with one man,
that's not easy. with three different fathers. and try scheduling visitation with three different fathers. a full imagine, it's time job. this leads to a lot more maternal stress, this kind of family life.ble it leads to less commitment from he biological fathers because when they move out, they're less likely to contribute to the child. they're not quite sure how the to spend the g money that they send. man is in the if there's and houser man's child in the hold, that biological father is even more concerned about how his money is going to be spent so he contributes less. there's also less commitment to the children from these new partners because they're not the biological child of that man. n fact, that man may have a biological child in another house hold with a woman that he visit and he's
support to child that child. so he doesn't feel the same about the biological child that was born to the mother in our study. and this lack of commitment and this instability, i argue, leads quality t and to lower parenting and lower quality parental investment. and that's something that bob is to show and talk about a little bit. and ultimately it leads to lower child health and well being. out, and as ointed bob will say too, it 's the poor people who are getting into this situation, clearly. this is a big part of the problem. but this situation is making things worse for them. i would argue. birth, when art at we looked at these children in the -- these were births in found, like , we very similar to what andy is talking about, these are the nmarried births, half of these parents were co-habiting at the time of the birth. these weren't casual
one night ps or stands. the fathers were around living with the mother. another 32% of the unmarried in a dating relationship. some had plans to marry. to thought they were going marry. a large portion said they wanted to marry. friends, and only 9% had little or no contact with each other. o there's a lot of high hopes at the beginning of this situation and when the baby is born. five years after the birth, it's a very different story. had data on first birth, i mean first birthday, third just ay, fifth, but i'll talk about the fifth birthday. by the time the child is 5 years married kids born to parents only 18% of those parents had broken up. that's a lot. 18%.t's still only co-habiting parents, it's 50%. and for the single mothers in the dating relationships, it's 76%.
-- these co-habiting relationships are more stable relationships but they're not nearly as stable as marital relationships. so then what happens? the mother is young. for a new partner. so she goes out and has -- searches for a new partner. find is that 70% of up have hers who break at least one new relationship. more them have two or relationships. by the time the child is age 5. these relationships often result at a child with the new partner. in the good old days, when you it was generally you've been married for seven years, you might have had two that man.ith you would repartner, many people did repartner. child t did not have a with the new partner because they finished the fertility with partner. but that doesn't happen anymore
have the en you partnerships ending so fast, the mother's only had one child. so now the next partner she might go on to have another. so 60% of children born to unmarried parents are living half sibling. of those children had three or more half siblings with a different father. so this leads to a great deal of instability in the house hold and complexity. at the five-year survey, we that 40% of the children had a new half sibling with both a mother and a father. all of this mean for the children? o based on the data that we've looked at, it seems to be associated with lower scores and more cognitive tests, mental health problems for the and more physical
health problems such as asthma and obesity. almost any outcome that we look at, the children are doing worse married dren born to parents. now, a big part of that is the children born to married parents are born to high educated parents who have a good good job. and then there's a lot of economic stability in those parents. to all ou take account children d we compare from similar backgrounds, you do find negative consequences. 've written a big review article that looks at all of the studies that we've amassed in the last 10 to 20 years that try to look at the causal a effects of this father absence on children. and, again, there's the democrats and the republicans or the liberals and the sort of disagree about whether this is all about income or whether it's also the familyhing about structure. so trying to just look at studies that try to deal with issue of is there causality here. bottom 's some of the line of that study. in terms of cognitive ability,
absence, ts, a father are pretty small. and they're not consistent across studies. on noncognitive skills, the social and emotional large.pment, they're family here these instability hits the kids. the results are consistent and the effects are especially large for boys. we're worried about boy, low income. so this is part of the picture. in mental health outcomes adulthood are also large and consistent. physical health effects are small. the effects on education, finishing high school, going to college, turn out to be large. of a puzzle rt because you might think the cognitive effects weren't so large. so what's the problem with graduating from high school. it looks k closer, like these are not problems with the cognitive ability. it's these kids are more likely school. they're more likely -- less likely to persist in school. emotionale social and effects that are also affecting
their educational attainment. market effects in adulthood are small and they're mixed results and a large effect on the nonmarital child bearing in the future generation the effect on girls as most pronounced. so, that's it. i'll let bob talk now. [ applause ] >> hi. thanks very much for coming. i want to express my pleasure and humility, actually, this panel. because although i've written about this issue of kids and families, the other people on giants l are really the in this field. the structure of what we've been of g here is a series concentric circles looking first of all at the families and then looking at the effect of that on and i'm not going to try to
tep back yet further level and say, so what else is happening to these families besides the issue of their family structure that might have an effect on the kids? there eve been three big changes the last n life over 30 or 40 years that are relevant kids.ese the first is the one we've been talking about so far. that's the collapse of the family across all racial lines. of discussion t with that. it's really important. he second big change, we all know about because now the debate going on on income inequality in america in the presidential election. the second big change is there's been a big increasing divide and poor ch folks folks. this is -- that's going to be the rich end of the room just remarks.ake of the and people over there have done really well economically over 40 years.0 or but the people from the middle own to the lower end of the income distribution as we know
haven't had a raise in the last 30 or 40 years. effect apart from the family structure effect placed through on the kids as i will moment. macrotrend is well well known. not that just that america is more polarized economically, segregated sociologically along class lines. folks live , rich with only other rich folks and live increasingly with poor enclaves and poor folks. ncreasingly rich kids, using rich in a loose sense here. andy's split between people with a college degree and people with a high school degree. raise your hands if you have a igh school -- have a college degree? so every time i say rich, i mean you. so the rich folks, the affluent of america increasing only
themselves. that's true at the bottom. ich kids are going to schools only with other rich kids and going to good schools and poor are going to poor schools with other poor kids. there is significant racial america.on in but what i'm talking about is not just about race, it's about social class. growing rammedly even in terms of who we married. ncreasingly, rich folks are marrying other rich folks and poor marrying poor if they get all.ed at the sociological segregation means we're living in separate worlds. effects on kids. now i want to step back a little and in a short -- i'm going going to make -- this is to be my power point. can you see my fingers? we call this is a scissors graph. lots andit reflects is lots of data showing over the last 30 or 40 years what's coming from kids affluent homes and what's
coming from kids improv riched homes. college educateled homes and high school educated homes. you 's a graph of how much have with your parents in your life. rich kids are likely as they more -- maybe ve more likely than they were in the '70s and '80s to have two in their lives. poor folks for the reasons we talked about are quite unlikely. objectively, unlikely. calling 2/3 of what i'm parentss don't have two in their lives. there are lots of other measures. going to go through quickly, short. but i want to give you a kind of inastiche of all of the ways which lives of rich and poor diverged in america over my adult lifetime. start when trends
inpersonally started to vote. explanation usible that i somehow caused this problem by moving to adulthood. for 's a graph like that test scores. increasingly rich kids are coring higher on various tests and poor kids are not. so it got like that. there's a gap like that for what call a good night moon time. that is the amount of time that parents spend interacting with their kids. graph looks like this. it's gone up for poor kids or little more time with mom. it's mostly mom. eading to them and so on, reading to the child. but it's gone up so much more apidly among college-educated americans that my grandchildren, who are all living in what i'm homes, that is their parents have a college degree, getting -- verage using them as an example, 45 momtes a day more time with and dad, interacting with them. we now know in the last 10 years e've learned how important, that's really crucial for brain
development at an early time. in some sense the good night moon gap is really consequential. part of the reason for that gap is there are two parents reading to the rich families and only one parent reading to the poor families. another gap that looks like that is the amount of money that parents spend on what's called developmental activities. think of it as the amount of money spent on summer camp and lessons moon gap is really consequential. part of the reason for that gap is there are two parents reading to the rich families and only one parent and hockey shoes and the trips to france and so on. among parents -- among kids coming from affluent omes gone to up about 7,000 -- nearly $7,000 a year on piano and so and summer camp on. increase at all in the higher hierarchy. camp?ares about summer who cares about going to paris or whatever? the fact is the people with the
affluence knows what matter and investigating in their kids when the poor parents can't. to useike that -- trying a lot of examples. a gap like that for family sitting down and -- it's style.little out of i'm not sure you know what i mean. i'm not talking about thanksgiving. you know what i mean by family dinner? mom, dad, the kids are sitting down. we know from quite careful analysis that sitting down and dinner with your kids and finding out how did you day go is important. lifetime lated with income if you have more time, how's your day. it's not that the poor moms don't want to do that. but one of the more actually features in the book just "our kids" we published for a single black stephanie, she's working so hard. really -- really deeply -- she's working so hard on her own
to earn enough money to move her a slightly less dangerous neighborhood and we tarted talking about family dinners. she said honey we ain't got time for all of that how's your day stuff. she's right. she's making the right decision to protect her children but actually all of that hows your stuff, the absence of that day stuff is going to be a permanent handicap for her kids as they grew up. a gap like that for extracurricular activities, on., chorus and so my colleagues tease me that i talk that high school football is a solution to all of america's problems. but the fact of the matter is that we know from hard work, taking earch, i mean, part in extracurricular ctivities actually does increase your soft skills. your ability to do team work, determination.r my mom used to call stick-to-itiveness. and you learn that whether blocking the blocking
dummies on the football field. high ed football in school, i was lousy at it. i learned you have to every day go out there on the practice and hit the blocking dummy. lineman's job is to throw your body in front of a big giant coming at you. lousy. the giant went right by me. occasionally, i was successfully lock the giants and the cornerback would get all of the glory. and that was a valuable lesson. i mean it was -- not joy here. it was a really valuable lesson for me to learn that you have to and so often other people or other people on the would get the benefit. there's a gap like that. used to be working dlasz kids extracurricular activities. athletics, chorus, band, all that stuff. why?now, because we've started charging kids. this is obscene. we started charging kids to play high school football. roughly $1800 a year. high school.in
if your annual income is $200,000, $1800 to play sports. annual income is $18,000, who in their right mind of their o spend 10% family income on high school football? the answer is fewer and fewer people. not the most important example. we did that. that's not something that was happening. decided to charge people after having most of the 20th you were a kid, you got to do those things now you can only do it if your up the money.te it's a lot of other gaps like that. like that in church attendance. nvolving in community organizations that is middle class kids, upper class kids, college educated kids are deeply involved in all of the social networks. poor kids increasingly, the i want to emphasize. poor kids in america are now alone.ingly
they can't trust anybody. they can't trust their parents of the fragile families. they can't trust their neighbors ecause they're concentrated in poor neighborhoods. they can't trust schools because they're in poor schools. their church.st they know it. there's a gap in terms of trust workingr people because class kids it's not that they're paranoid. in fact in their lives, other people are not trustworthy. this is the way to think about it. dumb kids, rich kids, black kids, brown kids, poor kids, my kids, do dumb things. dumb fluent kid does things, they get in a problem drugs and alcohol or whatever, air bags inflate to it to that kid to allow be a learning experience. if one of my grandchildren got involved with drugs, the first is find the do best lawyer in town and the bestd thing is to find the rehab facility in town.
air bags. a poor kid does the exact same bags. no air examples of r big this. i want to end by saying why did this happen? there are a lot of specific happened.y it but from my point of view, the most important thing is captured by the fact that when my parents in the 1950s and a small town alked about doing things for our kids, we have to have a swimming pool for our kids. swimming ot need a pool in our back yard for my sister and me. they meant let's pay -- town pay a little bit higher taxes so we can have a high school -- a swimming pool at the high school. over the past 30 or 40 years, the meaning of our kids shrivelled, has narrowed. so now, including in my hometown, if you talk to in my opinion hometown now. if you talk to people about -- ou hear the people talk about our kids. biological eir own
kids. the poor kids where once upon a time, you talked to one of the kids about one of the poor kids, they're not my kids, they're someone else's kids, let them worry about them. that is a fundamental cultural change that has left our -- some our kids, poor kids, living nd headed toward a different universe that's unfair. this economically and costly. we have to do something about it. [ applause ] >> one of my problems would create another. explains solved, i will i turned out this way i never had an air bag. let ther's philosophy is the little crud swing. so i now understand that. do better from now on. michael, you have caused me a problem. this panelds that if that i think the
word you used is procreation fall.would if my wife hears that, i'm going be in big trouble. call from my wife, i trust you'll explain you were joking. talk to you to about policy. reinstate what we learned this morning. i lived long enough to know this was not always accepted. so the first thing it is we had marriage.lining i have wonderful charts to show you. age, by imagine them by scs, however, marriage rates of college d decline women and their in marriage stopped in '80s. they get married later. discovery. great minds like the ones on this panel to understand that if rates decline, sex does
not. rates declines and sex keeps up in cohabitating cup we're going to nonmarital births. 70% of black kids born outside of marriage, 45% of hispanic kids and overall rate is over 30%. born into are disadvantage. there are three conclusions we can draw from this. thing is, i never thumbed through a power point before. but here we are. first of all, these trends lead higher poverty rates. the probability of being a overty if you live in a female head of family is five times great great greater than it is in a coupled families. kids out taking the of the married couple families. that's the democratic talking about re here.
higher poverty rates. exacerbates inequality. not at the top. but creates more people at the bottom. more difficult to deal with income inequality. most and probably important, nicely and the journal should revert to several can show this e especially a guy named david that i'll talk about in the end is diminishled child development. much more child development 1,000 articles read through the various types of kids.t on so this is a national crisis. a national crisis. it's affecting our gnp. it's affecting behavior in the schools. affecting all aspects of american life shown so well. we ought to have some policies address it. we do. we have i think five policies that we have tried that is just to talk about these
and see how well we've done. the tax code a lot of people think the tax code is disincentives of marriage. fewer nonmarital births we would on poverty.ct impact on marriage and so forth. bush ing we tried in the administration, spent over $1 billion on, marriage education. it enhanced marriage education, counseling, all kinds of things for young couples that have had a baby together. could you help them understand each other better and get along and get married? and then we have the same thing with the community-wide nitiative, working with churches, lots of publicity about how important marriage is to kids and so forth. finally helping young men. several panels pointed out how important young men are. it's possible to explain the tax code. the taxs little part of
code. but i know i can't -- i can't do it without a power point. so i'm going to tell you the point here which is i don't think the tax codes are used properly. vastly overrated how important the tax codes are. example.ve you an sitting here, the great wisdom years ago to pay for a national tudy, national survey of american families and a very smart guy and a lady at the you analyzed the tute data for the couples that were co-habiting and living under of poverty. couples co-habiting, 200% of poverty. speak, low income or poor. the question is, what would happen if they got married. what would happen when they got married. showed reful analysis that most of them do not get public benefits or do not get temporary system for needy family. some that do would lose money. but they would more than make it up with the earned income tax tax credit.he child
so the tax benefits are so great for hem and the reason is those of you who know the way it $15,000 if o about you -- earnings up to $15,000, you get more and more money. money here. up to way over $4,000 out of the earned income tax credit, $1,000 tax credit. other tax-related benefits. then a flat area and it phases out. if you get married and you're in phaseout, it hurts you, you lose eitc. but so many of the couples have low income that they're mostly the rate is re increasing. so when you combine your income, you get more money. no not saying there's penalty in the eitc. but for those of you in the finance committee and the ways i wouldn't mmittee, spend too much time troubling yourself with trying to find penalties in the tax code.
it would be a good thing to do. i'm all for it. but i don't think it will make a big difference. besides that, the research on hether the penalties have an impact on marriage rates is not encouraging. suggest they have a big impact. that's the first thing. marriage penalties, i don't a big re going to make difference. reducing is nonmarital births. we're on to something. it's a big difference. reduce poverty rates, lower rates, lower abortion rates. studies that are good. better spacing the babies. care, less enatal postpartum depression, reduced separation rates, more education for mothers and serious cost savings for the government. studies showenefit very substantial savings. we have something now. we've always been able to do this. we've done it for teenagers. amazing. since 1991, teen birthrates have declined every year except two.
i wish it was worth studying on. more time.d i would love to go into with you. but it can be done. control a huge difference. birth control definitely played role in the reduction of teen pregnancy. rom the big studies that i'm referring to about using moon larks.ogy called acting reversible -- they the pillay better than or any other method of birth control. of low income mothers when given a choice prefer larcs. could control fertility and the couples who decide to control it, they have foolproof method. take it once, it lasts for years. to take a pill before action -- can't get in that.e for on a college campus, i bet you could.
a large study when it works. telling you, a big part of the solution. we could have better means to control to people who want it and do it in a professional way that includes counseling. someone is trying not to force them to have babies. to talk for one second about the bush initiatives. i'm involved in them. highly biassed. they didn't work. it was greatly disappointing to billion, you had these beautiful studies, a lot of credit from the scholarly world hich is unheard of in the republican administration. we did the large scale random assignment, all kinds of wonderful stuff. casey contributed some money to these. at the end, one site out of eight sites, 5,000 people in this, a big deal. and one site had some impacts pretty impressive. it was oklahoma city. my theory has always been they
anything else to do in oklahoma city so they went to the why we should be married to get and learned along with each other and fight in a friendly manner. impacts and e some even those faded except for one exception which gives me encouragement which means they are more likely to be together still after 36 months. that only happened in that one of eight sites. and it will be interesting to go back now and see. say don't think we can that if we had good marriage education with counseling that could really boost the birthrate among the people and co-habit most of them have a baby together. that, to me is a group that we would like to influence and we how to do i want. so finally, i wanted to say a few words about young men. several of the speakers have young men.t have sons and i was a young man too. hard to tell right now. but young men are proud. they have a lot of bad behaviors, rich ones too. a lot.ink
they're reckless. are what, women discerning. they know that. they want a man who has a good trustworthy and will be a good father and so forth and a lot of guys are not like that. that at all.like subversively related to their income. so low income guys are even guys or n middle class at least they don't recover by 22, 24.e they're but we have a lot of probes. we know a lot about education and training. we can help the young men. called career academies done in eight sites. filed for eight years. the guys in career academies actual experience in the workforce and entering in
high school, they make more money, almost $10,000 a year and confirming the theory, they were and likely to be married more likely to live with their parents and several ways to influence income on males. an area that t's we should make further investments, we should do more research. possible to be somewhat optimistic that if we did a better job trying to help and go along.n more as we think that's an area where we really should exploit. so two things. first one is my wonderful research on d done the importance of marriage rates and the changes for marriage rates for poverty. we had the same marriage rate today that we had in 1970, spending any additional money, assuming other things are economists always do, our poverty rate would be 25% lower. run to stay into
place in the poverty rates ecause the demographics changes. 25% -- there's no problem except 25% less marriage. i mentioned david has this the future ticle in of children. let me read his conclusion to you. for id the advantages marriage in the children's well being are hard to replicate hrough policy interventions other than those that bolster marriage rates. we're moving in the wrong direction and we're having a hard time getting out of it. [ applause ] >> thank you all. the best possible seminar on the role of family policy. role of a graduate student to get it started. here.e ask
there seems to be a remarkable unanimity on things that i thought were very controversial. all of you agree that unstable the holds are bad for children. the atomization of community and hanges in family structure and social norms. i -- does everyone agree on this? the debate taking place on academia on this. knowledge status of here in washington for policies on that issue. can anyone chime in there? press the button? yeah. okay. is electives re among progressives to first of all acknowledge the importance and two parents for kids. it started on campuses.
it was many years before -- and i think there's been a evolution among scholars who are progressives that they will explicitly as sarah said and said elegantly in 1994 in the book that i think really started among scholars. and -- and everyone else on the said the same thing. there's a movement among scholars. i think less so among politicians. it seems to me that especially democrats are really unwilling o say how crucial marriage is, that it's a mistake to have babies outside marriage, and married need to get before you have children. if we could send that message by ministers, you know, people in the communities, but above all, politicians, it difference. big i could be wrong about that. i'm sure there are people who at the -- in fact, beginning about the up politician that i would like to o through the speeches and see how many times he said that, i think that's part of the problem. >> bob?
as far as the movement of views in the academy, we all gree there's been a growing consensus that's both/and, it's that ther/or, it's true some people that is both/and -- be clear -- there's a broad that marriage is good for kids. everybody agrees that marriage as declined in -- that's no debate about the decline in the marriage in the working class. some disagreement about in much of that is economic the origin and how much is normative in this origin. i think almost everybody everybody here would agree it's both/and, it's not either/or. less agreement about is it mostly conomics or normative change? but that's not crucial here. as i -- as i talked to people in
on both sides of the aisle, i think that consensus is not yet reached political elites. think it's much more either this or that among politicians. and i agree with ron that there's still a lot of politicians who you blaming skeptical about normative change for this -- for the collapse of the family. but there's another aspect of just what can we do about it? there are large numbers of scholars who think the normative deal.e is a big i think it's a big deal. but actually i don't know of any proven or unproven policy suggestions that would change the norms. it -- it does seem -- we're all in this bipartisan good feeling here on the table. i think we have to admit that there are a lot of people
your side, on the republican side of the aisle, who made the changing norm. and then act as if we knew what to do about that. but we don't actually know what to do about that. >> please. >> you've seen a change over the years, you see them on all of these issues. think the rub comes between the changing norm. and then -- i think we all agree about these points. between can ub is you just get people married? is that going to be enough? and i like to say if we have the policies that i recommend, we get the women to delay pregnancy and delay -- wait longer. man f they don't have a who's there who can bring home bacon, it's not going to them.or you can't ask them not to have children forever. we take them all down and get
license.arriage they won't stay married if they don't have any resources. about men rm too needing to be a good provider. change that to norm. if we did, maybe there would be ore marriages and all of this instability. so that wouldn't gain us anything. so i think there's a lot of the culture that we do need to say don't have these children. wedlock.e them out of find the partner. then there has to be a partner point.for them at some i really like ron's idea about the career academies because i know, the ar as program that has shown benefits on earnings and marriage. the example of ong-acting reversal of contraceptives that are unmentioned. they can be very effective in reducing fertility. have to give a lower or oderate income woman a reason
to postpone the children to get her to the clinic. you can't just hang up a shingle locks available here. and getting her in, getting her a reason is hard to do as we all say. >> can i make a quick point about this? >> very quick. that.don't agree with i think it's -- it's true in part, but not completely true. why? because these large experiments show that a lot of poor women are willing to -- who say they are going to have sex within the year maybe they have a normal partner, but they're willing to take things because they would like to delay birth and they want to do it because hey're finishing education or they're working into a up in job and so forth and we have placed uge responsibility in our policy terms to too here in washington on single parents. that's part of the strategy. we better damn well do it fix se we're not going to the marriage rate any time soon. >> a brief response? response.f the studies i'm citing are high quality studies.
they're volunteers, came to the voluntarily. it doesn't prove that the general public is going to be doing this. of the larks. it. >>s part of the story. the story.h of it's harder to implement and we'll have more political resistance than we think. i raise two more points that didn't really come up that a lot of people here might be interested in. and particularly in the policy realm. how does all of this affect early childhood education. between interaction parents and the children and the long-term effects on that. it's frightening to me because seems like it creates a durable disadvantage. it's hard to make up for later. how the similar way, toxic stress that you're talking about affects parenting styles also seem to be communicated across generations sort of that's complicates this work.
>> well those sort of things -- he point i was trying to make when i talked about the instability and complexity, it stress.s the all of the numbers have talked about is before it's 5 years old. all going down, all going down in early childhood when the children need the most ttention, they need the mother and the father to be the most stable and secure. this churning,of there's a lot of research that chaos that's bad for kids. the parenting, irregular chedules, disrupting routines, this is what happens when mother finds up -- she breaks up with one partner. that creates a loss. that's sad. then she finds a new partner. falls in love. that's a good feeling. but it doesn't -- it's not a good feeling with the child. then maybe that man is jealous of the time that the mother spends with that child because attention.r it's not his child. so all of these competing, think
activities ompeting that when you kind of combine the search for a partner with the early parenting. it's just not a good thing to try to put together. have you seen p, programmatic interventions when it comes to that. other things that make a difference? >> go ahead. good hink there's pretty evidence that if you provide oaching for parents, it's mostly coaching of moms, the principle, could be of dads too. moms, you coaching of could move the needle. both at providing childhood l early education, not glorified day care. early ionally provided childhood education early, not
4,t pre-k, but birth to 3 or combined with coaching of the parents, of the moms, that that oes move the needle and it certainly has a very high roi -- investment. it's not cheap. but the payoffs are sufficiently sense to do. makes i kind of hope that it may be next frontier that people will begin to agree. in an earlier day, neighbors and xtended family would have provided that kind of support to a troubled mom. and now i disappeared think we can begin to think about ways to provide that in a programmatic way. partnership,family actually. >> brookings just formed a group of 16 scholars, eight on the left, eight on the right. we published the report. disagree with what bob just said. but that child that goes to a a h quality preschool or mother that gets coached, as bob
a s it, they still live in very difficult house hold. they live in a very difficult neighborhood. more than likely, the kids go to a lousy school. our recommendation is we need to eal on all three fronts at one time. we need to talk about families, improve education, including education. we need to do something about work, especially with regard to young men. one more comment and that is i think i know a amount about preschool literature. i find it a little discouraging, that we're able to long-term impacts on anything like a broad scale is quite weak. the boston preschool program for example but we don't know nything about the long term there. head start has shown that it probably does not produce effects or some exception. we'll have an argument about it.
e're not putting kids -- our kids are in average or worse settings generally for preschool now. an immense task to improve the quality of those firms so we're not going to get anything like the effects that bob is talking about. any thoughts? any further thoughts? go to questions very shortly. i'm going to make one -- i'm going to do one more here. ust sitting in for some conservatives in the audience, in all of this. place and role of moral judgment? even when social and economic direction. in one even when people do the right thing. sacrifices. they stay even in difficult circumstances. how do you count that role of and ethics nviction in this. and more broadly, the role of
religion in family structure. relevant, irrelevant, what do you put it? >> if you mean does the level does becoming more religious make you more likely to have a permanent relationship and to raise your and so on? i read -- there's actually mixed evidence on that. read the evidence myself as , really modest effect of what you might describe. ut most of these poor single moms or the fragile families we're talking about, most of hem are in areas that are high churched, not low churched. they're in communities that are high churched, not low churched. the african-american community is the most religious community in america. lots of the problems are there.rated
i do not mean this is a racial problem. that.'t think i do think they illustrate that a cure-all.not hostile to being the role of religion on the country. i think the way religious could play a really powerful role is not merely in services to individual poor people, which they do, now. religious people are nice and are generous. to foster this, i hope it's the recipient national consensus. to do something about the poor kids, not just in our private lives but in our public life too. i have said repeatedly, ublicly, the engagement of america's major communities, evangelical, catholic, jewish, others, they're involvement in this issue is almost a necessary and almost a
sufficient condition for forming the national political will to make the investments that we need to do. >> i want to mention something that hasn't come up. government has been doing something that's much worse, the policies.tion i've been doing studies now, the kids in third grade that are expelled ended and from schools and i'm sure the kids have social and emotional problems. they're acting out and causing trouble. when you take them out of school, they don't learn that day. it goes on and on what's been happening to the teenagers and the young men. there's a great consensus now, that's my sense, that we're going to stop that, that.e're going to change but i do think that the disproportionate effect of those policies since 1980 on young men are part of this story anyway.
let's go to some questions, please. say who you are and a short question. just speak loudly. [ inaudible question ] the question is, are you seeing that level of college-educated -- marrying the same as white women. that's the main question i have. and then for dr. hoskins, it's nteresting that of your five policy goals you don't mention making college free or ffordable for young people if the research is so strong that correlation y
between marriage. first me repeat the question in case people didn't hear it which is there's been ncreasing rates of college education among black and hispanic women. are we seeing them marrying? yes, marriage rates are higher for well educated minorities as well as nonhispanic whites that the problem is finding well educated men. many are quote/unquote marrying down. that is marrying someone with education that they have. it's so hard to find the college partner. >> i think college is part of the solution. it's for sure. we have billions of dollars that we basically give way for college. we have big federal programs. the problem is that a lot of to college ids go fail or leave for some reason. and then they're doubly affected because they don't only get the degree, but they have a big bill to pay but they can't get the
it. of job to pay so we have to do something about that. every ld try to identify single low income kid or minority kid who could go to college, or an average college, and help them do it. and not accumulate debt. we should do that. the second thing is a much low income kids could profit from community colleges participation in programs that teach them to be welders and electricians and so forth. they could make $50,000, $60,000 would be a huge improvement and would greatly increase the chances they would fix this whole problem. college is the key. community college is more important than four-year colleges. please, please. poshimportant.eally data shows that based on
test scores and family income, dumb rich kids are more likely to graduate college than smart poor kids. that's wrong. but the data also suggests to me that most of the handicap, poor kids from getting to college, the talented poor kids from getting to well before ns anybody is even thinking about college. this goes deep in to the life things. these and college tuition is actually, i think, not a big part of the problem. 'm not saying it's not a problem at all. but nothing like as big as all of the earlier stuff we've been about.g and secondly, precollege ducation that's making college education free to everybody would disproportionately benefit rich folks because they could afford to pay for their kids to to college and that would be a huge -- i'm not trying to make a statement about their -- the campaign, but in a way, i am. i think it's enormously wasteful all taxpayers ve pay for bill gates' kids to get a college degree. >> next? lindsay from
congressman john larson's office. i have two quick questions. hat about families that have suffered a loss? ike they were married but then one of the parents died early on. effect t show the same in children as parents who don't get married at all? what about different kinds of marriages between like maybe a nd a woman or cohabitation situation -- sorry, a woman and a woman or a ohabitation situation that is more of a union than just living together. >> sara, in her wisdom, has a paper, i think the best paper available, on marriage between gay couples. males in 's primarily studies. reviewed in future children, it's nicely arranged on-line. generally the conclusion is, correct me if i'm wrong,
sara, that if there are effects, they're modest. that we do not have evidence would be a bad idea to have -- to allow gay couples to kids. i say that because i've been instituting my career in child neglect and i think there the evidence is that if of foster kids out care, and out of bad homes and families, ver stable even if both parents are women and men, the kids are way better off. i don't think there's any evidence to contradict that and a lot of evidence to support it. the issue of parental loss, if a parent dies. we found that kids whose parents die are doing better than kids divorce.rents why is that? maybe we know how to hand m parental death. for been doing it centuries. we rally around the family. they have insurance. aree's support systems that not there due to a divorce. it may be that death is more random.
traffic accidents -- traffic accidents are fairly divorce is concentrated in particular kinds of people. but the -- what we know about suggests toa parent us that it's not just the parent being in and out of the home but we deal with the situation that seems to matter. is. there?he back >> well, thanks for this. i just want to comment on sara's point. i used to work for someone named rostinkowski. when he served time in jail, he letting young black men rot in jail. we need to make more investments n young men, their behaviors, etc., etc., and once a union happen s happens and a child is produced, regardless of whether it's a or co-habiting, we have the expectation that the male is
give support and also ontinue to be involve in the lives of the children. i noe there's an issue of domestic violence. i'm a conservative in a sense that i think churches, to gogues, mosques, need talk about respect between the sexes and what marriage is all about. if we make men have a job and and get rid of their bad behaviors, the marriage issue will go away. do you agree or disagree? >> i agree. i would nts say so publicly if i didn't. we've been friends for many years. i don't want to dispute you. but in this case, i don't. the problem is, that's the main point i made, you don't take notes when i talk. this in the past. the problem is we don't know how to do those things. we're just unsuccessful at it. if we could do it, that's what's at stake here.
this why we're having meeting that we have to figure this out. the area that i'm the most ptimistic about, though, wendell, is doing something for young men. we do have good programs at work. we're willing to make more investments and focus on young en, it will cause a lot of problem with the women's movement, but if we do that and like t men in programs career academies and many other programs, i think we could have an impact. >> on the incarceration, i can't resist on the incarceration omment and others, out in california is the biggest criminal justice experiment ongoing in the nation right now the court-mandated lessening of the state prisons by some 33,000. results of the effect now.at are coming in notably in the journal that i edit. and i will give -- i will saying later t by this month we're going release a couple of studies that show
release crime with the of the low-level offenders, violent crime, there's no uptick all. even with recidivism, we're seeing mixed results by county. rates are better depending on how the counties have handled it. >> last question, i think. >> so, i just had one question from this -- ing from the -- from the state of highly mething that's valued there is the institution of marriage and it's even almost and preached to young -- young men and young women that you should almost it more than education or job training programs. and i guess after hearing, you about the success of young people who go through this a traditional would want to change? or discontinue? the ss what i'm saying is preaching of the institution of marriage is a high value over
things like education. my students in the introduction last week and divorce rates and states around country and out west. the high divorce is everywhere. one place called utah. the only religious group in the substantially lowered divorce rates than others is the latter days and saints. social cohesion, the teachings there, really do seem o create a different sense of family than elsewhere. i admire it greatly. >> please? did, in the family study i these women -- and men, they want to get married. it's not a matter that they marriage is better for kids. they hope it will happen to them. then they don't and they get pregnant and they -- changing.just i don't think it's just preaching. the importance of marriage. a bigger has to be
a way that em in you're describing in in utah is what bob is saying about our kids, you know? it's a larger group, we've felt community, which you certainly do in utah. you feel that the -- those are church.the and, in fact, i have friends, if hey think about getting divorce, the community comes in, bigtime. and, you know, counsels them and and helpwork with them them. so it's not just the attitude, it's all of that other stuff. >> since we've -- we're starting a little late. can i do one more question up in the front row if you want to -- yeah? >> thanks. one other consensus point that's in d.c. that i'd love for you to weigh in on especially around the irk shoe expandingen, which is so eitc, which has been successful for women and children to those without kids on their tax
records and figuring out what kind of effect we think that have on some of the things hat you bring up about marriageability and economic stability and if you can weigh in on that, i'd love to hear your thoughts. it's a good ink idea. because it would get more money in to their hands and it would attractive.re but you know, i think they -- it would also -- the returns to work. i think they need to be working. they don't just need money. they need a job. do you have a -- for sure. with that part of the theory like your income tax credit that it will labor force.o the and right now we're paying $500 if they get a job. that's not enough. the thinking in new york is 2000. it's a good way to do policy.
the big studies. we should be able to pass that. we should do it. it's not that much money, we and do it. it but i'm worried that we haven't done enough tof suck the young men in to the labor force. but let's find out. afraid our time is up. 90e never seen a topic which minutes is more of an injustice. it deserves more than that. seen a better panel on this topic. me in thanking all of our panelists. >> on the next washington climate policy reporter amanda wiley talks about the