The Limits of Marriage as a Path Out of Poverty Every time I see an article advocating marriage as a solution to poverty, I have a decidedly mixed reaction. There are compelling aspects to the argument. Obviously, two earners will prevent poverty-level incomes more readily than one; poverty rates for married families with kids are far below those of single-parent families. And there's considerable research showing that much else being equal, child outcomes are better when kids grow up with two parents rather than one. Of course, "much else" is often not equal, and children are often better off outside of dysfunctional or abusive marriages. But I don't know how my wife and I would do what we do for our children absent the other partner. In fact, both research and common sense shows we wouldn't. (Though, truth be told, unlike the way Kathleen Parker puts it in her recent commentary in The Washington Post on marriage as a route out of poverty, I can't say our marriage "creates a tiny economy fueled by a magical concoction of love, selflessness and permanent commitment that holds spirits aloft during tough times." With a teen and a tween, I'd say it creates a car service for nonpaying customers.) So why does one's knee jerk against these arguments? First, because changing the decades-long downward trend in marriage rates is not very realistic, and swims hard against a tide that exists for some good reasons. Second, because policy interventions to encourage marriage have been shown to be quite ineffective against that tide. Third, though this is not the intention of many marriage advocates, marriage advocacy can make it harder to deepen policies to support single parents. And fourth, because it fails to recognize some of the important gains made by single mothers that push against poverty. The trend toward unmarried parenthood has persisted for decades, across income classes and countries. Statistically, it is the predictable outcome of declining marriage rates coupled with the fact that human procreation largely continues apace. As the marriage and poverty expert Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution points out in a coming book, "Nonmarital birth rates are likely to rise if for no other reason than both males and females are spending more years outside of marriage, during which time we know they do not stop having sex." Yes, women are having babies later in life, but a smaller share are marrying - again, across all income classes - and those who are marrying are doing so even later than they're having babies. In fact, as far back as two decades ago, the median age at which women marry surpassed the median age at which they give birth (dynamics that are examined in an important analysis, cleverly titled "Knot Yet") and that gap hasn't closed at all since. These trends are also driven by deeply embedded factors, including evolving cultural norms that create more options for mothers (single parenthood, cohabitation, greater control of reproduction), economic trends that have been far harsher to men than women, particularly non-college-educated and minority men, and high male incarceration rates. Policy makers have long tried various marriage initiatives to buck these trends, but they've had little success. As Mr. Haskins, a self-described "marriage hawk," summarizes, "Interventions to reduce the growth of female-headed families are mostly ineffective." They're also not cheap. Two pilot programs introduced in the George W. Bush years cost $10,000 per couple. On the other hand, one thing we do know is that mother-only families are more likely to be poor and that increased income, nutrition and quality learning have lasting, positive impacts on their children, especially when they're very young. Investing in poor children, regardless of the marital status of their parents, is thus a more promising investment, both for their own families and for the broader society (and I'm talking about costs vs. benefits here) than in marriage-incentive programs. I'm sure some will respond that it's not an either/or choice and that we should do both. True, to an extent, and we should continue to learn how to help families, especially economically fragile ones, make the best choices for themselves and their children. But given budget constraints in tandem with the results of careful, random-design evaluations of the marriage programs, bang-for-buck analysis points toward investment in poor families with young children. I should note: programs to reduce teenage pregnancies, on the other hand, have been considerably more successful, and that stands as an important policy achievement. In this regard, making work pay is one key intervention point. Much poverty policy is today predicated on work as a pathway out of poverty, but for single parents, that necessitates both ample employment opportunities at living wages and work supports, most notably child care. In fact, policy has stepped up in economically meaningful ways, increasing refundable tax credits, for example, like the earned-income and child tax credits. In the early 1990s, such measures added about $500 to the income of low-income, mother-only families. Now they add more than $1,700 (in 2012 dollars). Moreover, single mothers have significantly increased both their labor supply and their education, which, of course, push against poverty. The chart below shows the sharp increase in the employment rates (the share of the group working in the paid labor market) of non-college-educated "never-married mothers" that occurred in the 1990s, as the job market was heading toward full employment (that was the "pull" while mid-1990s welfare reform was the "push," though the latter has been found to be a lesser factor - note that the upward employment trend begins before reform took place). As the chart shows, for more than a decade they've been more likely to work than similarly educated married mothers. Single mothers have also educationally upgraded over the years. Since the 1960s, the share who were high-school dropouts fell from 52 percent to 15 percent; still too high, but a strong trend in the right direction. The share with at least some college increased over those years to 57 percent, from 13 percent. But note the decline in employment rates in the figure above since the 2000s peak, a trend that affected single women along with married and unmarried mothers. Similar trends, though even more steeply negative, occurred for non-college-educated men. Yes, that implies higher educational attainment as an important part of the solution, but we simply cannot disinvest in the children of single mothers because their parents aren't college graduates. If work is to be a pathway out of poverty for single-parent families, then policy makers must ensure robust employment opportunities for them. Conservatives may want to pretend those opportunities are there for the taking, but as someone who has studied the low-wage labor market for decades, I assure you, that period in the latter 1990s was the exception, not the rule. I grew up with a single mother, and I'm sure that influences my views, but I see the data I've presented as showing a lot of parents trying to do what any good parent from any family structure or income or education background wants to do: provide a better life for their children. To suggest that marriage would help them has some backup in both logic and research, but it is increasingly at odds with a number of long-term, real-life trends. Policy makers must accept that reality and focus on helping families with children, whether they've one parent or two.