Do Single Parent Households Cause or Coincide with Poverty?

More children than ever before are living in single parent households. This also means that fewer children live with both a father and mother than ever before in history. this is due to many factors, among them are divorce, births outside a marriage, and changes in marriage and cohabitation. Many studies have been done on the effects of single parent households on children within those households, and while the data is there, the data is also very difficult to disaggregate. So many factors lead to other factors. Contrary to what many people would like to believe, single-parent families, on the whole, have a host of problems brought on by many forces; one of those forces is living in single-parent households.

There is absolutely no dispute that single-parent households are on the rise. Studies tells us that "single-parent families spread during the past four decades, the proportion of children in such families rose from 10 percent in 1965 to 27 percent in 2001" (Ellwood and Jencks 2002). Studies also tell us that single-parent families are much more likely than other families to have low incomes, especially single-parent families headed by women. To take this even further, Proctor and Dalaker (2002) say: "In fact, the growth in single-parent families was a major reason fro the increase in the proportion of children living in poverty, from about 15 percent in 1970 to 23 percent in 1993" (Proctor and Dalaker 2002). This is named by sociologists the feminization of poverty and is a growing problem in our country. Reams of paper could be and are produced on just this problem alone, including causation and fixes. However we don't know how these factors have played off each other or which factor led to what. We do know that almost one-quarter of the children in recent birth groups will spend time in a single-parent household because of divorce. Another quarter will live with a single mother due to childbearing outside of the institution of marriage. Among those born outside of marriage, one in four children actually start with both biological parents (Bumpass & Raley 1993). With all of these statistics, it makes sense that our society as a whole is impacted by this growing phenomena.

Single parent households tend to be lower income. Economic stress hampers the emotional well-being of parents, making them less able to parent. One can certainly see the effect on children. "Adolescents who grow up in families under economic stress or with a single parent may be poorly supervised and often gain autonomy too early (Dornbusch 1985). These unsupervised adolescents according to Richardson (1993) tend to be more likely to engage in risky behavior such as drinking, smoking, using drugs, delinquency, or engaging in sexual activities. The question is whether these are effects solely of single-parent households or solely of economic levels or a subtle mixture of the two forces. Studies have been done many times with many different variables, but the complexity of all these characteristics and the way they are interwoven together, makes it almost impossible to analyze. In some ways, this whole topic is the proverbial argument called, "What came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Adding further to the ambiguity of the issue is the idea that the quality of the neighborhoods that people live in is also affected by income. High-poverty neighborhoods have lower availability to parks, child care centers, community centers and health care providers. These neighborhoods are also more likely to be drearier and have higher crime, availability of drugs, and negative influences. All of these things obviously have a large effect on children, but again, how do we separate the part of them which are effects of poverty versus the part of single-parenting?

Because students live in certain neighborhoods, they attend certain schools. Schools in high-poverty neighborhoods are less likely to have textbooks and other learning materials readily available, solid curricula, or even qualified teachers). The studies are so well documented by authors like Jonathan Kozol in his recent book The Shame of a Nation: These factors lead to reduced motivation as well as a higher dropout rate, which means these students are less likely to go to college. Again, are these caused by the poverty? Is the poverty caused by being a single-parent? How many of these factors would still play a part in a two-parent household? Unfortunately, the answers are not clear, and probably won't become clear any time soon. The issue has too many variables to adequately sort them all out and makes sense of them.

As an explanation of all of that, there is disagreement in the field of sociology as to whether the causes of these things are the divorce itself or the movement to a single-parent households and the associated loss of income. There are even gaps in the studies themselves. Studies done do not distinguish between single-parent households formed by divorce or those formed by widowhood or other factorss. Studies aren't clear as to whether methods only measure kids involved in recent divorces or whether they include children in both divorced and remarried families. Studies also ignore how long the family problems had been going on and what caused the divorce, if indeed, it was a divorce. Because marriage also has many other benefits, single-parent households must work even that much harder. The economics of the two-parent household are typically much different from that of the single-parent household. One theorist who has much to say about this is Weiss (1997) highlights the fact that marriage provides benefits like overcoming credit difficulties. Here he cites the idea that one partner can invest in the other's schooling, thereby increasing income potential for the family. He says that marriage is also an advantage for the collective sharing of goods, like houses or cars. Marriage partners also share risk. this means that if one parent loses a job, the other can help offset that wage loss.

What the research basically tells us is that it is very difficult to disentangle the many forces at play. Some of the effects of single-parenthood happen indirectly as a kind of "chain reaction" causing poverty. This, in turn, causes other issues. These factors are called indirect effects. Many of the factors that coincide with living in a single-parent household, such as poverty, may have existed before the break up of the parents' marriage of cohabitation. In the case of unmarried mothers, the conditions may have existed before the birth of the child. That means that some of the negative outcomes of these children may have occurred even if the parents had kept their family intact. Conversely, many of the advantages of a stable family unit, like economic security and a good education are more likely to create kids who maintain secure marriages. This information would lead some people to ask whether the positive outcomes are a result of some people being "selected" into stable families or a result of the benefits of the marriage itself. These would be called selection effects. (O'Neill 2002).

What are the reasons for the rise in the divorce rate? There are also many studies about this. many would say the entire nature of marriage has hanged due to many societal factors. Women have jobs and work outside the home. This not only disrupts traditional family life, but women earn money so that they can be self-sufficient. The stigma of divorce is no longer around. With half of all marriages ending in divorce, there can be little stigma attached to it. The idea of staying together for the children's sake was no longer valid according to society at large. The ultimate goal was self-fulfillment and happiness. Gottmann offers research about the divorce rate concluding the high conflict and loss of intimacy are the two main reasons why people get divorced. (Gottman)Wallersteinsays thatdivorce is passed downfrom divorcing parents to their children. This means that children learn divorce from their parents. Among adult children of divorced parents, only 60% marry, with 50% marrying before age 25 and most marrying people they had known only a short-time. 40% of them eventually divorce (in other words, only 36% of children of divorce are happily married). Among adult children from intact families, 80% marry, and 9% of them divorce (in other words, 73% of children of intact families are happily married) (Wallerstein). Among the adult children of divorced parents that never marry, half are women. Among the adult children from intact families that never marry, one-third are women These statistics do not bode well for single-parent families.

There are other reasons for the rise as well. One idea is behind the rising number of single-parent households is that children were resilient and would not be adversely affected by their parents divorce. Another idea was that children would not be adversely affected by their parents never marrying in the first place. Having children out of wedlock was no longer taboo; in fact, many celebrities embraced this as the only way to go. these are all results of societal changes, such as the influence of media on our culture, the influence of the "children of the 1960's becoming parents, and the general laxness with which we have come to regard many things.

The sociological effects of the single-parent household reach far and wide. In a data collection done by McLanahan and Sandefur (1994), data was basically collated from many American surveys. The collection and analyzing of this data revealed that children who grew up with both of their biological parents performed better on standardized testing, were less likely to be teenage parents themselves, graduated from high school in higher frequencies, attended college more often, and earned more money in their early adulthoods. the studies showed that only half of these effects were due to income. One of the most important findings was that children who were raised by both of their biological (or adoptive parents if the child was adopted at a young age) parents did better across the board then those who were raised in any other kind of arrangement. The type of arrangement did not matter all that much. The bottom line is that students from single-parent families do no perform as well at school. This is troubling given the even more pressing need to have an education in this country. Statistics like this should be of great concern for schools, since this is yet another sociological factor that schools must overcome even though they did nothing to contribute to it.

The results of living in a single-parent family are numerous for children. Children living without father are more likely to live in poverty. Even if the single-parent families are not poor, their income decreases significantly after divorce; some studies claim as much as thirty-seven percent. Not only does income decrease but wealth and assets do as well. The lack of child support payments is another problem many families face. These children are more likely to have mental problems. "A major longitudinal study of 1,400 American families found that 20-25% of children of divorce showed lasting signs of depression, impulsivity (risk-taking), irresponsibility, or antisocial behavior compared with 10% of children in intact two-parent families.(Hetherington). This is a significant gap in an area that is much needed to function in society. Other studies show more effects. children in single-parent households have more trouble in school. They typically score below others in reading and math. They have more problems getting along with others. "Boys from lone-parent households are more likely to show hostility to adults and other children, and be destructive of belongings" (Whitehead). Again, this hostile relationship shows up in many other places, like the world of education (primary, secondary, and postsecondary), the world of work, and the world of relationships. Children of single-parent households are at a higher risk for developing further health problems. and are more likely to run away from home. Not to mention that divorce destroys a child's sense of emotional security. The child faces a sense of loss and anxiety about his/her future. The disruption and change in that child's entire lifestyle is huge by itself.

Even further effects are provided for teenagers living without their fathers. They are more likely to be negated in early sexual behavior and more likely to become teenage parents. They are more likely to break the law, more likely to smoke, more likely to drink alcohol. use drugs, be truant, be expelled, and have a host of other adjustment problems. All of these are well documented in research studies.

The effects of growing up in single-parent households tend so snowball and so, to add to this, young adults who have grown up without fathers are more likely to be unemployed, have low incomes. be on public support or welfare, experience homelessness, spend time in jail, and develop health problems, to become divorced or to have children out of wedlock. In other words, they are less likely to function productively in society, and they are more likely to create children who will live in the same circumstances the parents themselves come from or worse. Hence, the cycle of single-parenting continues.

Children from single-parent households or those with a stepparent are substantially more likely than children from intact familiesto smoke cigarettes, use drugs and have sexual intercourse. An analysis of data from a survey of more than 2,000 young people from the southeastern United States revealed that children from single-parent familieswere at least one and one-half times as likely as those living with both parents to have tried cigarettes or alcohol and were more than twice as likely as young people from two-parent familiesto have used marijuana or to have had sexual intercourse. This effect was not diminished when parental smoking or the teenagers' religiosity were controlled for. The investigators conclude that their results "serve to reinforce the importance of the familyenvironment for influencing the initiation of potentially detrimental behavioral patterns in children." (Risky Behavior). All of these statistics and realizations are quite disturbing in the realm of family life.

So the effects are tiered really. Overall, there are higher instances of almost everything negative in children who come from single-parent households Other effects of single-parent households are increased crime and violence, a growing "culture of divorce," decreased community ties, cycles of fathererlessness, and dependence on state welfare. For example, "American studies American studies have indicated that married couples who adopt favorable attitudes toward divorce end up experiencing reductions in the quality of their marriage (which can then lead to divorce). This means that, more often, the acceptance of divorce as an option precedes erosion of marital quality, rather than following it as a response." It also makes sense that children of single parents would have less supervision than those who grew up with two parents and this alone could lead to more trouble. Parents may also become more inattentive to kids and more focused on their own needs. Therefore, children tend to bear some of the responsibility for their parents (Wallerstein). This means that parents need to make divorce as amicable as they possibly can for their children. Sociological family programs could be set up to help families make this transition. Divorce is a social phenomenon that is not going to disappear. That means that our society must find ways to minimize the destructive influences on kids living in single parent households for any reason at all. Giving parents the tools to work together in childrearing, whether they are married, divorced or never married is important. Our society needs the skills and programs to combat the negative effects of single-parenting.

One aspect that has not been talked about is the cultural side of single-parenting. While the Asian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans tend to remain intact, the African-Americans have had a particularly hard time with the nuclear family structure. Some would say as a result of slavery, African-American families were torn apart and fatherless. Whatever the cause, many black women raise children alone. Interculturally, this needs to be addressed when one can see all the negative effects on children.

The bottom line for society is that fathers obviously contribute greatly to the family unit. "Social psychologists have found that fathers influence their children's short and long-term development through several routes: financial capital (using income to provide food, clothing, and shelter as well as resources that contribute to learning), human capital (sharing the benefits of and providing a model of their education, skills, and work ethic), and social capital (sharing the benefits of relationships) (Amato ) Sociologically speaking, our society can work much harder to keep fathers in the picture. How this is to be done is unclear. What is clear is that fathers need to remain a constant in the lives of their children. One can see the devastating effects in all aspects of life when fathers don't remain.Works Cited

Amato, P. and Rogers, S. (1999), 'Do attitudes toward divorce affect marital quality?',

Journal of Family Issues 20 (1), pp. 69-86.

Bumpass, LL, Raley RK (1993). Trends in the duration of single parent families.

National Survey of Families and Households Work Pap. No. 58. Cent. Demography Ecol. Unive of Wisc-Madison.

Ellwood, David and Christopher Jencks. (2002). "The Spread of Single-Parent Families

in the United States since 1960. Harvard University Press. Retrieved April 30,

2007, at

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:DBrxMO9bKKYJ:www.ksg.harvard.edu/inequality/Seminar/Papers/ElwdJnck.pdf+%22the+spread+of+single+parent+families%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Escarce, Joseph. (2003). Socioecomic Status and the Fates of Adolescents. Retrieved

April 30, 2007 at

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360943

Hetherington, M. (2002). For Better or Worse: Divorce Reconsidered, New York:

W.W. Norton.

McLanahan, Sara, and Gary Sandefur. (1994). Growing Up with a Single Parent: What

Hurts, What Helps. 50-51, 59-97.

O'Neill, Rebecca. (2002). Experiments in Living: the Fatherless Family. Retrieved

April 30, 2007, at http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php

Proctor, BD.; Dalaker, J. Poverty in the United States: 2001. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office; 2002. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-219.

Ricardson JL, Radziszewska B, Dent CW, Flay BR. "Relationship between After-school

Care of Adolescents and Substance Use, Risk Taking, Depressed Mood, and

Academic Achievement." Pediatrics. 1993;92(1):32-38.

Risky Behavior and Family Structure., Family Planning Perspectives, 00147354, May/Jun90, Vol. 22, Issue 3. Retrieved April 30, 2007 at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=12&sid=396b4b99-807e-49bb-a6d8-65668f7b6b02%40sessionmgr108

Schwarz, Joel. (2000). "Marital Researchers can now predict not only which couples will

divorce but when they will split. Retrieved on April 30, 2007, at http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2000archive/09-00archive/k091100a.html

Weiss, Yoram (1997). The Formation and Dissolution of Families: Why Marry? Who

Marries Whom? and What Happens Upon Divorce? Handbook of Populatino and

Family Economics. edited by mark R. Rosenzweig and Oded Stark. 81-123.

Whitehead, L.(1979), 'Sex differences in children's responses to family stress: A re-

evaluation' Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 20, pp. 247-254.

Wallerstein, Judith. Retrieved April 30, 2007 at

http://www.divorceinfo.com/judithwallerstein.htm