Joelle Spotswood Dr. Kim Sociology 5 November 2018 Ellwood, D.T., - - PDF document

Joelle Spotswood

• Dr. Kim

Sociology 5 November 2018 Ellwood, D.T., & Jencks, C. (2004). The uneven spread of single-parent families: What do we know? Where do we look for answers? In K. M. Neckerman (ed), Social inequality (3-77). New York: Russel Sage Foundation. Family structures have changed significantly over the last 40 years, especially when considering parental education levels and race. Parenthood is increasingly becoming divorced from marriage, and since people across all groups are waiting longer to get married, the number

• f single-parent households is increasing. In addition to just married couples, the authors also

discuss how cohabitating couples contribute to the speared of single parent families. This article is as much of a review of literature as empirical research. Increased single-parent households, often, though not always, relate to low educational attainment and have lasting economic and child wellbeing effects. The increase of single motherhood has contributed to the “persistence of poverty” (9). From 1964 to the late 1970s, the percent of families in poverty headed by a single mom doubled to about 60% (9). Unlike their more educated peers, “mothers in the bottom two-thirds of the education distribution” continued to be more likely to experience single motherhood during the 1980s, when divorce rates for more educated women tapered. Various research shows that kids who grow up with both biological parents in the house (who presumably get along), do better academically, including graduating high school and attending and graduating college, are less likely to experience teen birth, and are more likely to be gainfully employed and relatively independent as young adults. Non-marital births have increased dramatically since the 1980s, and the authors explain this is, in part, due to an increase in cohabitation. The authors cite a few studies demonstrating that the number of cohabitating couples with children increased by approximately 31% from the late 1980s to 2000, topping out at almost half (17). For couples in the US, unlike their European counterparts, cohabitation is often unstable and couples are unlikely to remain together, thus making cohabitation an unstable family status prone to disruptions leading to increased instances

• f single-parent households. Linked, of course, to cohabitation and birth out-of-wedlock is

premarital sex (which would have made more sense to discuss before cohabitation), and though a separate section, the analysis blurs with cohabitation and the propensity for American couples to separate if cohabitating (again, more than Europeans) (21). Economics explains some of the changes in family situation, and the authors possible explanations provided by the traditional economic model (TEM) (i.e., male specializing in paid labor outside the home, women specializing in nonpaid labor in the home). However, the returns

• n marriage are shifting for some groups. Wages for low-skilled workers have declined, thus

making men, and marriage to them, less desirable and having less economic sense for some

• women. It makes more sense for some women to be single moms rather than married or

cohabitating with a partner who is burdensome rather than contributory. Parallel to this is the increase in wages and employment opportunities (and increase in education) for women. Women are less likely to be dependent on men for financial security, and some single moms are able to deploy some of the risk by living with other adults.

The authors report changes in marriage and childbearing by race and level of education. Single motherhood did not increase for highly educated white women between 1964 and 2000, nor for highly educated black women between 1980 and 2000. Women with less education are waiting to get married but not waiting to have kids. Women with more education are waiting on both (28). The authors also examine employment opportunities/wages (by race), the sex ratio, and welfare benefits as possible components to “explain the educational variation in the spread

• f single-parent families” (34). None, singularly, are wholly explanatory, though together the

authors suggest they may contribute to the variance. Research on marriage, divorce, and separation shows that in general “models find positive effects on marriage for job opportunities of men, negative effects for job opportunism for women, and positive of the sex ratio,” as expected as well as incorrect results for studies on welfare effects (39). What this means, as the authors suggest earlier, is that marriage is not always the best choice for women, though they do note that flawed study design may contribute to the results. For example, there are design differences in studies and many lack the ability to take into account women who marry later (many studies the author examined looked at women ages up to about 34) versus those who will not marry at all. In discussing divorce trends, the authors essentially report different studies report very different results, though most report fairly consistently that stronger male earnings seem to lead to reduced divorced rates (46). Consistent with other literature reports, results from studies regarding households with single moms heading the household are varied and mixed. No finite conclusions are drawn regarding the role of welfare benefits, the marriage market, labor force participation nor any combination of them. A few notable studies, like Murray (1993) explain that welfare is not a cause of single motherhood (as some political pundits claim); rather, it is a way for families “to get by as single parents” (48-49). The authors notably end this section by noting they “cannot be sure of a great deal” (51). Next, the authors examine various non-economic determinants of family structure like gender roles, efficacy and control, attitudes (toward sex, cohabitation, children out of wedlock, and divorce), birth control (contraception and abortion) and no-fault divorce as explanatory variables for the increase in single-parent households. They find that while over time, cohorts have more egalitarian response to women working vs women in the home (especially for responses amongst the educated), less educated women were and still are more likely to believe that a woman’s place is in the home, thus leading the authors to say that more research in this area is needed. The authors also report findings on expectancy models and cultural models for efficacy and control. The first model relates to the “confidence and expectations” and the second “look[s] to larger social norms” (53). Expectancy model results often reflect those of economic models and are used to study young women and economically depressed women. However, these models do not explain adequately the shifting familial patterns (54). Similarly, cultural models, while useful in understanding other shifts, like in attitudes towards premarital sex, do not explain the change in recent patterns. Also, changes in birth control methods and availability and the introduction of no-fault divorce do not explain the spread of single-parent families (60). While the authors find a great deal of contributing factors, like declining male wages, increased education and employment opportunities for women, availability of birth control and changing social norms regarding sex, cohabitation and divorce, no one single consistent pattern emerges explanatorily for the proliferation of single-parent families.

Haveman, R., Sandefur, G., Wolfe, B., & Voyer, A. (2004) Trends in children’s attainments and their determinants as family income inequality has increased. In K. M. Neckerman (ed), Social inequality (149-188). New York: Russel Sage Foundation. Despite increases in real income, the growth of income is slower for those below the median while the growth in real income is much faster for those at the top, thus increasing the income gap. Specifically, children at the bottom may experience increased familial tension and decreased academic attainment as opposed to their more affluent peers (149) as a result of this income gap. Conversely, more finically stable parents may by increasing their resources (time and money, for example) on promoting their children, thus further extenuating the effects of the income gap (150). The authors use the term inputs for what parents can and do provide in terms of various forms of capital: financial, social, and cultural. The various consensus among researchers is that the more positive inputs a child has, the more she will attain in terms of academics and lifelong

• income. This positive association may contribute to the reproduction of various types of

inequality between families over time (152). However the real mechanisms through which parental investments of time relate to child attainment are still unclear (153). It can be hard to measure input and attainment inequality, so the authors use some characteristics to determine if a positive or negative marker is present (159). There are a number

• f factors that relate to children’s outcomes, including parental income, parental education,

family structure, and family size. Between 1980 and 2000, substantial positive gains were made in parental education and family size, namely parents were more educated, but the martial status

• declined. 4% fewer African American kids were living in a two-parent (married) household, and

10% fewer Hispanic children were. Data were only available for white kids from 1985-2000, but even in those 15 years, 4% fewer white children were living in a married two-parent household. Also, households now tend to be smaller, concentrating the available resources over a fewer number of children. Multiple studies have shown the positive relationship between parental education attainment and childhood outcomes. The human capital educated adults contribute to children’s attainment manifest in a number of ways, including real and potential economic resources, different parenting styles, especially relating to “ability to nurture children,” and through role modeling (178). The authors notes that during the time covered in the study, all parents, both college educated and non-college educated increased the amount of time they spent with their children and no noticeable gap increased, implying the increase distribution was nearly equal (164). The authors do also find that availability to high-quality preschool has improved, and the racial gap of availability narrowed, even as income inequality increased (165). Children’s attainment and outcomes Teen pregnancy has decreased since 1990, but the positioning has changed. Hispanics now have the highest rate of teen birth, a position African Americans held. However, the racial dimension to teen birth is significant and substantially different: in 2000 whites had 32.5/1000 births for 15-19 year olds, while blacks had 79.4/1000 and hsp had 94.4/1000. In terms of high school graduation, whites, African Americans, and Hispanics all made gains between 1980-2000, with African Americans having the greatest increase of 9%. Hispanic completion rose by 7% and white attainment by 4%. Race still matters, though; in 2000, 92% of whites between 18-24 graduated, while only 84% and 64% of African Americans and Hispanics,

respectively, did. More modest and similarly unequal gains were made in college attainment. Between 1980-2000, 7% more whites held bachelor’s degrees, while African American and Hispanic degree completion increased only by 5% each. Again, the overall disparity remained: 35% of all whites held a Bachelor’s degree, while only 20% of African Americans did, and only 18% of Hispanic did. The authors use earnings capacity (EC) to estimate potential lifetime earnings to eliminate variability of labor supply and uses other measures to determine what a person might make if she worked full-time all year long (season employment is, therefore, excluded). As we have seen in other literature, the EC for high school dropouts decreased the most for any examined group, between 1975-2000; however, all groups lost ground, which makes sense in terms of stagnate wages and the increased premium on education (the three education groups were less than high school diploma, high school diploma, and more than a high school diploma). Capacity utilization rates (CUR) increased for all women, thus helping reduce inequality a bit (176), The authors end by summarizing a vast amount of “[r]esearch on the relationship of family and community investments in children and children’s attainment as young adults” (179). They discuss explicitly the role of parental education, family income during childhood, family asses, family status, household size, immigration status, neighborhood and school quality during childhood (separately), child care quality, moving, and changes in marital status. Table 4.10 shows the number of studies which examine each of these variables, the number of positive and negative outcomes associated with each as well as the statistical significance of the findings. The authors conclude that “the level of family resources…and the level of attainments of young people have improved” (182, emphasis in the original). However, some importance variables regarding attainment have become more unequal, though other important measures, like class size, expenditures per student and an improvement in neighborhood poverty may offset these

• factors. Increased family assets leads to increased positive child outcomes. However, income

between families and wage inequality has increased over the last 20 years (183). They stress, however, one of the most significant areas of gain is in parental education, namely because this variable is so closely associated with so many positive childhood outcomes. They stop short of claiming a causal connection but stress, as so many other researchers have, of the power of having a parent with a college degree. Despite gains in a number of areas, like a reduced teen birth rate and increased changes of graduating high school and college, the authors predict increased inequality in the next cohort because they will have experienced more inequality as kids than previous cohorts and this will be exacerbated by the increasing speed by which the upper decile is pulling away from the working classes. Western, B., Percheski, C., & Bloome, D. (2008). Inequality among American families with children, 1975 to 2005. American Sociological Review, 73(6), 903-920. This study examines the variance in incomes in families with children, especially between the early 1970s and 2000. Western, Percheski, and Bloome combine demographics and labor market analyses to create a way to study inequality among children. They study educational distributions, controlling for age and race, and how pooled resources (number of people participating in the workforce in each household) affect inequality. The authors employ decomposition techniques to examine within group and between group inequalities. Consistent with other studies, the authors find that between 1975 and 2005, income inequality in families

who have kids increased by 2/3. Also consistent with other research and other articles we have read this semester, the authors find that the rapid growth in the top economic percentiles increased inequality. What makes this study unique is the intersectional approach the authors take with labor markets and families being “two intersecting domains that shape the overall distribution of economic resources across families with children” (906). The authors also report the increase of the college premium and short supply of college educated workers (standard economist theory) in the late 1970s as well as some skill-biased technology hypothesis in explaining educational inequalities in earnings. Further, the authors explain that being in a single-parent household “increases income inequality by adding to the number of low-income families” (906). In the early 2000s, African American moms were 3 times more likely to be single parents than their white counterparts. In terms of age and race, two-parent, dual income families tend to be white, educated and older (907). However, the effects of women’s employment on inequality are mixed because of assortative mating as well as increased employment for single moms. The authors use the March Current Population Survey (CPS) for their analysis, and they “standardize family income by dividing the square root of a family size measure that includes cohabitators” because many studies do not include cohabitation in their data reporting. Western, Percheski, and Bloome find a clear indication for “increasing inequality by education,” even after controlling for a number of measures (911). Wage gaps increased between high school graduates and dropouts and there was about a 20% increase in the gap between households whose heads are college graduates and those who are not (911). Over the period studied, more single moms graduated high school (~10% increase) and the number of single moms who graduated college increased by about 1/3 (911). However, during this time, the number of single- parent families increased. Western, Percheski, and Bloome conclude that most of the growth in income inequality between 1975 & 2005 came from economic changes rather than “compositional changes” (912). They find that the “changes in the mean and spread of group incomes” propelled the income inequality most (912). However, they note two important limitations to their study: they were unable to “isolate the effects of women’s incomes on inequality, and family incomes for college- educated men…because these men are increasingly marrying well-paid, college-educated women” (912). Despite this, the authors still found that in two-parent families, “neither educational inequities in women’s incomes nor assortative mating contributed significantly to the rise in family income inequality” yet the growth of single parent families explains about ¼ of the income inequality (913). Inequalities in education, family structure, and female employment alone do not explain the rising inequality of income. In brief, the authors find that education and family structures contribute to income inequality, finding families headed by college graduates fare much better than their counterparts. The increase in high school and college graduates offsets some of the potential inequality, as has increased participation by women in the labor force even though single parent households have increased (917). Finally, Western, Percheski, and Bloome find that within-group income variance contributes significantly to income inequality. Within group variance was lowest in two-parent, two-wage earner households, though variance increased significantly across all family types. Income was least secure for single-parent families without a working mom, and the growth in the “within-group variance accounts for over 60% of the rise in inequality from 1975- 2005” (915).

Composite review All three articles were closely related because they focused on income inequality with families with children and looked at marital and labor patterns for parents, especially in light of

• education. The Ellwood & Jencks article was much more expansive and in some ways much less

precise than the others because it reviewed so much conflicting literature that few conclusions could really be drawn, but it did, however, report many of the same results as the Haveman and Western articles. For example, all three articles reported single parent families increased since the early to mid 1970s, but reported increased educational attainment (both high school and college graduation) for women. All three also reported that more women entered the labor force during this time, thus perhaps balancing, if not exactly offsetting the increase income inequality in families with children. In terms of future outlook, both Haveman and Western articles predict because of the current and preceding states of inequality, the next cohort will also experience inequality. Each article also discusses how hat the pulling away at the top economic groups and the much slower increase of income at the bottom economic groups contribute to the growing income gap. Families at the top of the income distribution are making more money faster than the families in the lower distribution. There is also discussion in Haveman and Western about how parental time expenditures (outputs) contribute to the reproduction of inequality (thus the poor outlook regarding reducing income inequality within the next cohort). As in various research we’ve read throughout the semester, Western, Percheski, and Bloome report “that the declining value of the minimum wage increases within-group inequality at the bottom of the wage distribution” (907). The other two articles also discuss the role of minimum wage and change in low-skill labor demand in increasing income inequality. Western, Percheski, and Bloome report what we’ve read elsewhere regarding deunionization, declining minimum wage value and changes in long-term employment in relationship to income inequality. They all also discuss, especially in relation to income, the increase in college premium. They also report increased education for women but declining rates of marriage. For all, race matters. African American women are more likely to be single moms than their white peers, though their singleness is more often explained by evener having been married while for their white peers the singality is due to separation or divorce. Western, Percheski, and Bloome note in the early 2000s, African American moms were 3 times more likely to be single parents than their white counterparts, and this relates to both trends in marriage patterns noted in both the Haveman and Western articles as well as education levels noted by those authors as

• well. Single parent families often are low-income families