Marriage and Motherhood in Low Income Communities
Kathryn J. Edin University of Pennsylvania
The Spread of Single Parenthood
– Male Earnings – Female Earnings – Public Assistance
“Indeed, it is only a slight exaggeration to say that quantitative social scientists’ main contribution to our understanding of single parent families has been to show that nothing caused them to become more common. Nevertheless, they did.” (Ellwood and Jencks, 2002:2)
The Policy Context
• Unfulfilled mandate of welfare reform • Research and demonstration projects for unmarried low income new parents in 7 states (Building Strong Families)
– GA, IN, FL, LA, MA, OK, TX
• Research and demonstration projects for married low income couples (Strengthening Healthy Marriage) • State Efforts • TANF Reauthorization releases $100 per year for 5 years to marriage education, $50 per year for 5 years for fatherhood programs.
Promises I Can Keep EDIN/KEFALAS
• Ethnographic observations in 8 poor neighborhoods over 5 years • Repeated, in-depth interviews with 162 single mothers (white, African American, Puerto Rican, half younger, half older) • >$16,000
**Funded by W.T. Grant Scholars Award, additional funding from W.T. Grant Foundation.
Supplementary Data
• Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Survey (20 LARGE CITIES) • Qualitative Addition to Fragile Families
(NYC, CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE)
• What About Fathers (PHILADELPHIA, AUSTIN,
CHARLESTON, SAN ANTONIO)
• Qualitative interviews in 7 cities with ~900 poor parents
Figure 2 - White Non-Hispanic female-headed household poverty rate by census tract, Philadelphia, 2000
Kensington Pennsport
% below poverty 0 - 10 11 - 21 21 - 30 31 - 40 40 - 100 No Data
N W S E
Figure 1 - Hispanic female-headed household poverty rate by census tract, Philadelphia, 2000
West Kensington East Camden North Camden South Camden
% below poverty 0 - 10 11 - 21 21 - 30 31 - 40 40 - 100 No Data
N W S E
Figure 1 - Black female-headed household poverty rate by census tract, Philadelphia, 2000
Strawberry Mansion North Central
East Camden North Camden South Camden
% below poverty 0 - 10 11 - 21 21 - 30 31 - 40 40 - 100 No Data
N W S E
Courtship
• conception < 1 year • MPF, her kids play a role in courtship process. • Dreams of shared children. “I want to have a baby by you” a high form of social praise. • Contraception initially, then stop when the relationship reaches “another level.” • Confidence from raising siblings and cousins.
The Pregnancy
• 2/3 neither planned nor avoided • Mom‟s response: deal with it • Dad‟s response: 55% steady, 45% ambivalent
– Just as pressure goes up, rewards go down. – In cases of MPF, the perceived value of his support may plummet.
The Magic Moment
• Survey
– 80% survive or reunite at birth, 50% cohabiting.
• Either cohabit or break up.
– 75% of all moms and dads* rate chances of marriage at 50/50 or better.
• (~60% say good or almost certain).
• Edin/Kefalas
– See marriage as 4, 5 or more years off.
• (Gibson-Davis, Edin, McLanahan 2005)
• Shotgun marriage wrong, but a shared child a powerful reason to stay together.
After the Baby
(Fragile Families baseline results for romantically involved couples)
• • • • •
Dad ever incarcerated Dad earned < $10,000 last year Dad isn’t employed now Mom (Dad) a high school dropout Either has child with previous partner
39% 33% 24% 40% 61%
• BY YEAR 3, ~15% had married, ~50% had broken up, 40% still together, most holding firm to marriage goal*
Why So Few Marriages?
• Childbearing and marriage are not decisions that “go together.” (Different from collegeeducated sample in NYC. Sassler and Cunningham, 2005.) • This doesn‟t indicate a disinterest in marriage, but the high symbolic value. • Relatively high economic AND relational bar for marriage.
Economic Bar
• Marriage ought to be reserved for those who have “made it” economically and can demonstrate their social worth with the symbols of modest success. • The “white picket fence” dream. • Economic ability to set up household together is NOT enough (most already cohabiting). • Not respectable to marry without meeting bar. (Can‟t trade love or help around the house for money.)
From Gibson-Davis, Edin, McLanahan 2005; Edin and Kefalas, 2005, and Edin, Kefalas, and Reed 2004.
New Twist on the Economic Bar
• Can‟t achieve this dream while relying on a man. Women feel it is vitally important that both they and their partners are economically “set” prior to marriage. There is a STRONG aversion to economic dependence on a man.
– Need to make a credible threat to leave
• Patriarchal sex role expectations. • Bad behaviors. • Insurance against breakup.
Relationship Bar
• Even if white picket dream is achieved, couple must have also proved they‟ve attained relational maturity by withstanding hard times and the test of time. This takes YEARS to attain.
– Normative demands of marriage are higher. – Divorce is a “sacrilege.” – Want partnership of equals/best friend.
From Gibson, Edin, McLanahan 2003, Edin and Kefalas 2005
FFCWB SURVEY: Factors Encouraging Marriage by 1 Year After Birth
(Carlson, McLanahan, England 2003, FF analysis)
• Her education and wage rate • Dad’s employment and annual earnings • • • • Quality of couple relationship (his or her report) Pro-marriage attitudes Mom’s general distrust of men hurts His kids by another mother hurt
• All of above are net of relationship status at birth (broken up, visiting, cohabiting)
What Accounts for Break Up?
• Financial instability/irresponsibility (25 %) *** • Criminal involvement (30 %) • Incarceration (20 %) • Substance abuse (35 %) • Infidelity (40 %)** • Domestic abuse (45 %) TOO HIGH A BAR FOR MARRIAGE?
What about the Kids?
• Women hold much higher standards for the men they are willing to marry than for the men they are willing to have children with. Though they hope their baby‟s fathers will rise to the occasion and perhaps become the loving life partner they desire, they‟re not counting on it.
• “What would your life be like without your children?” Children provide them with…
– – – – Order Validation Purpose Companionship (relational poverty)
The Spread of Single Parenthood Revisited
A Redefinition of Marriage
• Many of the men poor women would have been willing to marry in the 1950s and 1960s would not meet the standards they hold for marriage now, even if unskilled men‟s employment hadn‟t declined at all.
Large Changes in Family Values
• Opposition to premarital sex fell from two-thirds to one third. • Opposition to cohabitation fell from two thirds to about 40 percent. • Opposition to nonmarital childbearing fell dramatically as well. • Opposition to divorce among couples with children who just can‟t get along fell from half to one in five.
– Sayer, Wright and Edin, 2005.
Marriage No Longer a Cultural Imperative
• As marriage lost much of its practical significance, the culture could afford to make marriage more special, more rarified, and more significant in its meaning.
How the Rich and Poor have Adapted to the New Marriage Norms
• Though the poor and the middle class have a similar standard for marriage, the poor are far less likely to meet it.
The Outcome for the Poor: A Rise in Nonmarital Childbearing
• Though marriage standards are widely shared, there are large and important differences between the social classes, and the rise in nonmarital childbearing can only be understood by looking at both.
The Most Important Difference: The Social Value of Children
• The poor ascribe an extraordinarily high social value to children.
– They are more likely to think that motherhood is one of life‟s most fulfilling roles – They are five times as likely to say they think childless people lead empty lives, net other differences such as race, age, parental, and marital status.
– From Sayer, Wright and Edin, 2005
– For most women living in poor inner-city neighborhoods, childlessness is simply inconceivable.
– Miss Maria‟s “miracle”
Opportunity Costs or Absolute Preferences?
• Fewer forgone opportunities
– opportunity costs nil – out-of-pocket costs don‟t vary by age.
• Stronger absolute preferences (a greater “taste”)
– Children at the center of meaning making activity. – Children can rise to the top of the list of potential meaning making activities from mere lack of competition.
Divergent Moral Hierarchies
• For the poor, it is better to have children outside of marriage than to marry foolishly and risk divorce.
– “I‟d rather say, Yes, I had my kids out of wedlock than say I married this idiot. It‟s like a pride thing.” – “I‟m not going to make any promises I can‟t keep.” – “I don‟t believe in divorce. That‟s why none of the women in my family are married.”
• For the middle class marriage still ought to come first (Sassler and Cunningham 2004). • Middle-class women who face steep opportunity costs decide that having a child while unmarried is simply too potentially costly.
Do the Poor have Deviant Values?
• The poor view the middle class, who privilege career above children, as selfish.
--Angela‟s new “plan.”
• Few believe having a child outside of marriage is the right way to go about things. • Given their constraints, they take a “wait and see” approach.
Children Mean Everything
– “[My son] is my heart. [When I have hard times] I always tell myself I wanted him. Even if I get that rock on my finger, that white picket fence, and that deed that says the house is mine, [I‟ll still have my son] just in case anything goes sour. I‟ll say to my husband, „You leave! This boy is MINE.‟”
Policy Message
Pregnancy
not about contraception nothing left to lose quest for meaning 1% for kids
Marriage
* Not a values problem * High standards reflect reverence for marriage and an aversion to divorce * Standards reinforced by community * Couples do generally act on their plans and marry if they meet modest financial goals and relationships are of suitable quality. BSF does not address economic bar for marriage -New Hope * Couples more likely to stay married if there economic stability improves. SHM does not address economic issues either. -MFIP * Those that don‟t often have relationships that are of dangerously low quality, not good for kids * Cohabitation usually the only route to marriage
LIBERALS relationship skills needed, can benefit a wide variety of relationships
CONSERVATIVES unlikely to move marriage rates much via relationship skills alone. Economic piece essential
ALL must intervene earlier