~ tl'i ~1 ~ I[~f ~.r

Urban Families and Urban Problems: Review af the Literature

Donna Ruane Morrison , Ph.D .Connie S . BlumenthalMaria Krysan, M .A.

Sarbar~ Sugland, Sc .D .Nichola s Zill, Ph .D .

CHILD TRENDS, INC .2100 M Street NW, Suite 61 U

Washington, DC 20Q3 7

December, 1942

Urban Families and Urban Problems : Review of the Literatur e

intrnduction

Many neighborhoods Y~n our natian 's urban areas are plagued by serious prob~ems :

high rates af violent crime , poverty, children raised in mother-only families,

unemploymeut, poor access to bealth care, homelessness, drug dependency, racial

tension , gang violence , drug dealing , and a sense of overall alienation . The riots in Los

A.ngeles earlier this year riveted the nation and hrought renewed attention to our centra l

cities and the fami~ies that make their homes there .

The problems fac ing inner city families are eomplex, and diverse explanations fo r

t.hem h ave been offered by scholars, po licy-makers, and the media . The purpose of #his

paper is to consider how policies designed to solve urban prob lems can {~enefit from

research conducted to examine elements fram three praminent arguments :

Family behavior contributes to urban problems. Proponents of this argument b~ameteenage childbearing , the decline in marriage and the rise in nonmaritalchildbearing and divarce far many of the ills of c~ntral cities . Fram thisperspective , the failure to form strvng families contri~utes to problems such asdrug dependency a .nd erime , and to declines in social organization andpraductivity in our cities.

Structural changes in the U.S. economy have altered the opportunity structure ofindividuals living in our cilies and consequently their family behavior. Decreases inthe availability of manufacturing jobs in central cities and the out-migration ofmiddla class blacks to the suburbs, have eluninated many opportunities thatforrnerly existed in urban areas. With inadequate job prospects, and the lack ofgoo~ role models, the standard nf living iu some central cities has dec~ineddramatically. These new realities have not only affected the standard of living ininner cities, but also the choices that people who live there make about marriageand childbearing .

Changes in values in the nation as a whole , such as increased cansumer~sm andindividualism, have contrihuted both to changes in family behaviar and to increases inundesirable social behavior. Proponents of this perspective ma intain that we ~ive inan increasing~y " individualistic " society . Increases in divorce , crime , idleness,homelessness , and chemical dependeney in the inner city are reflecteons o€ the -

2

greater importance being placed on the fulfillment o~ personal goals at theexpense of societal ones, just as white-collar crune, increased tolerance forextramarital affairs, etc. are reflections of this same culhiral shift in the largersocieiry .

In the remainder of the paper we present the three arguments mare fully an d

evaluate tb . eir merits using results from empirica~ studies . In the final section we

synthesize the evidence and discuss the directions that pnlicy must Eake if it is to b e

successful .

Family Behavior

Mother-headed families, the diminished invoIvement of fathers in fhe upbringing

and support of their children, and births outside of marriage and to teens are practicall y

the norm in some city neigbborhoods. These realities have prompted many to assum e

that the choices that inner city residents make related tfl marriage and ehildrearing ar e

to blame for the serious sacial problems that affect the quality of life throughout urba n

areas aad the nation. But, does family behavior explain the ills of inner cities? And ,

more importantly, wiIl changing family behavivr sotve the many problems associated wit h

inner city life ?

To answer these questions, one must begin with ths fact that family life in urban

America has changed dramatically in the last several decades . Marriage rates ha~e

plummeted, out-of-wedlock childbearing is common, and divorce rates are high . Family

patterns in tl~e center of the nation's largest cities differ dramatically from those in the

suburbs. As ~hown ia Figure 1 for metropolitan areas with one million vr mnre

3

residents, bl peresnt of children in the central city live with two parents as compared to

79 percent of those outside the center . T'~ese figures include children who live with a

birth parent and a step-parent and those living with two adaptive pareats . The

proportion living with never-married mathers is more than three times larger within the

central city {18 percent) versus the suburbs (5 percent) . Outside af inetropolitan areas

(not shown), 77 percent of children live in two-parent families, 14 percent live i n

separated or riivorced families, and 5 pereent Iive in never-married families .

When these same data are broken down by racial/ethnic graup, dramatic

differences in the propartion of children living in single-parent families are revealed

(Figures 2 through 4} . ~nly 32 percent of black children in the nation 's largest central

cities were living with two parents in 1991, compared to 64 percent of Hispanic, and S I

~ercent of white cfiildren . Greater proportions of minarity children in these inner c ities

live witkt never-married mothers as well -- 41 percent of blacks, 13 percent of Hispanics,

and 4 percent of whites . Differences iu the proportians Iiving with separated or divorce d

mothers are not as great across the racial/ethn~c groups . Roughly one-f~fth of minority

children and one-tenth of white children in centrai cities of one million ar mar e

residents live with mothers who are separatec~ or div~rced .

While the fact that fwo-parent families are less eommon is undeniable, is there a

link between family structure and the types of problems plaguing our inner cities? T o

answer this questian , in the next several pages the evidence ai~out the l ink between

fam i ly strncture an~ the we~l-being of children, adul~ .s, and society will be reviewed .

4

Family Structure and Children's Well-Being

The available evidence makes it clear that #here is a link between the family

situation in which children are raised and their well-being in chiIdhoad, as well as their

life chances as adults . Across multiple dimensions of well-being, including physical

health, cagnitive functioning, persanal adjustment and self-esteem, and antisocial

behavior and self-cantral, research findings svggest that children whose parents are

divorced ar uever-married are disproportionately at risk of physical, psychological, and

social difficulties .

One study by Zill and Schoenborn {1990), using a natio~tally representativ e

sample af more than 17,000 children nationwide, documented that children in disrupted

families had elevated levels of emotional and behavioral problems . Children who were

not living with both bivlogical parents were more than twice as likely as those in mother-

father farnilies to have had a deiay in growth or development, a learning disability, or an

emotianal problem that iasted tbree mnnths or more, or required psychalagica~ help .

Moreover, a greater percentage of childFen in sing~e- and step-parent families had

trauble ~n school More than half af the children aged 7 to 17 in mother-only families

were re~orted at the bottom half of their class compared to 38 percent of t~ose in

mather-father families, Children in disrupted families were aiso twice as likely as those

in mother-father families to be suspended or expelled .

Youth who have grvwn up in single-parent £amili~s are also less likely to graduate

from high school, more likely to form unstable marital unions themselves, and are more

like~y to be employed in low wage jobs than their counterparts who grow up with both

5

bialogical parents (e.g., Astone & McLanahan, 1991; Corcoran et al ., 19$7; Hill et al .

1987) . These sf~dies have shown that negative effects of being raised by a single parent

and experiencing a disruption during cbildhood persist even after controlling fox family

incvme and other socioecvnamic characteristics . However, at Ieast two other studies

have found that the effects of being raised in a single-parent family may be more severe

fot white than for minority ~hildren .

Using longitudinal data from a national survey of youth, Haurin (1992) analyzed

the types of parental living arrangements children experienced from birth to age 14 . She

found t.hat #or whites , the langer tune spent with two parents, the higher the probability

of cam~leting l~ igh school, the lawer the likelihood of marijuana use as a teenager , and

the lower the likelihood af becoming a teen parent, even aftet controlling for measures

of ~amily svcioeconomic status and matemal empl~y~ent . However, among black and

Hispanic youth there was r~o significant difference between two-parent and other family

situations on most of the same vutcomes , The one important exception was for black

youth who were found to be more likely to participate in serious i llegal act ivity if they

had resided in a single-parent home .

Myers and ~is colieagues (1987} also found that being in a mother-headed family

had a greater effect on the academic outcomes of whites . These researchers used data

from a nationa~ sample of high school sophomores in 1980 and examined the effects of

being in a single-parent family and of 1~aving an employed mothea r on high school

performance of white and black youth . Myers et al. found that white students frnm

single-parent families haci higher levels of misbehavior , lower achievement scares, and

6

lower grades than their counterparts from two-parent families . Hawever, among black

students there were very few significant effects of being from a single-parent family . An

im~or#ant variable, regardless flf race, was maternal employment . These researchers

found that students of emp~oyed mot ~hers had samewhat higher levels of misbehavior,

lower aehievernent scores and grades, and lower educational attainment expectation s

than thvse whose mothers did not work when they were in high sci~ool .

It is important to note that not every child who experiences marital disruption o r

is raised in a single-parent family is scarred for life , just as not every child in a two-

parent family becomes a praductive adult . Sometunes divorce brfngs au abusive or

highly conflictual relationship to an end, and some chiidren itnprove in tfie aftermath o f

disruption (e .g., Hetherington, 1989) . In addition, some researchers have noted that

ci~ildren in disrupted families oftea exhibit greater levels of maturity (Demo and Acock ,

1988) . Studies have aLso revealed that persistent high levels of conflict beh ~veen parents

in an intact family can damage children's emotional health and school progress (Peterson

and ZilI, 198G) . Moreo~er, using prospec~ive data, researchers have shown that some of

the apparent effect of divorce can be attributed to pr4biems that exis#ed in families eve n

before disruption occurred {Block et aL 1986 ; Cherlin et al., 1991 ) .

Further evidence tbat the presence of two parents is not a fool-proof formula £o r

success can be found in the case of remarriage after divorce . Whi1e remarriage generally

eases #he economic burden of divorce for custod ial mothers , the addition of a step-

parent has ambiguous unplications for her children . Using data from a nationaI survey

of youth , Zill and colleagues (~992) found that those whose mothers had remarr ied had

~poor re~ationships with #heir mathers . Similarly, a national survey of 1738 parents,

sponsored by the Nationa~ Commission an Children t1991), aIso revealec~ tljat even

parents in remarriages which they rat~d as "happy" (54 percent} wer~ ~ess lil~ely than

those in one-parent families (64 percent) to have "an exce~lent relativnship with their

chi~dren." The contrast is more dramatic when the remarriage ~s rated as "unhappy" ;

only 33 percent of such parents feel they have an excellent relationship with their

children.

In addition to the family circnmstances 2n wl~ich children are raised, the marita]

decisions that they make for themselves are also important . Many young peop3e wha

engage in rebellious or delinguen~t activities as adolescents or yaung adults grow out o f

these behavior patterns as they age (Robins, 1975 ; Cline, 1980; Gove, 1985) . Research

has shown that this "settling down" process is facilitated when youth become involved in

rewarding careers, stabje love relationships, or responsible parenthood (Sampson and

Laub, 1990) . The stabilizing iufluenee af family attachments is foregone, however, if the

yvung person does not get married, ar reducec~ if the marriage is an unhappy ar short~

lived one (Sampson and Lanb, 1992~ . We do not yet know w~et~er unmarried

cohabitation has beneficial effects on young adult behavior similar to those vf legal

marriage, but initial evidence suggests that in America these relationships are fragile and

distinct from legal marriage (Bumpass and Sweet, 1989) .

8

Family Structure and Adult Well -being

Family structure is aLso important for adults . Popenoe, a social historian ,

maintains that one of the principle functions of families in modern societies is to provid e

"psy+ci~ological anchorage " for adults (Popenoe , 1988) . He argues #hat " adults in modern

societies ~ook to the family to fuifill the need for stable and reliable emotiona l

relationsbips #hat affirrn their feelings of self-warth and pravide a sense of identity an d

belnnging" (Popenoe, 198$}. Whether due to the emvtianal support it pxovides for

adults, or other factars, the available evidence indicates that marriage enhances the well-

being of adults ~cross multipie dimensians .

In the psycho logica l and phys ical hea lth domains, married adu lts rate higher on

measures of life satisfaction thau their never-married and divorced counterparts . In

additian , National Health Interview 5urvey data , age-adjusted to contral for age

differences in marital status groups , show that married individuals are the least l ikely of

any marital status group to report being in fair or poor bea~th ( 11 % of inen and IZ %

of women) . Poor health was most prevaleat among widowed men ~18 percent} and

among separated ar divorced , and widowed women (18 % and 19%, respectively) .

There are a~so additional health benefits to being marxied in terms of acute

conciitions, injuries and accidents, restricted activity days, and health care utilization .

Married adults have more favorable outcomes an mast of these indicators . Other

studies have also provided evidence vf a"marriage benefit" with respect to the diagnosis ,

treatment , and survival of illness . Goodwin, et . aL ~1987) , who examined the effects of

marital status on stage , treatment, and survival of cancer patients , argued that the

9

positrve effects they see from marital status are due, at least in part, to the social

support pravided by a spouse, which they believe provides a buffer to stressful events

that might affect l~ealth . However, they did nQt examine marita! quality nor other types

of social snpport that are available to those who are single, which might e~iclt effects

similar to those of marriage.

Marriage is also associated with favorable labor rnarket outcomes for adul#s.

Economists have shown that married males have higher wages, productivity, and rates of

employment. The wage-rate advantage of marriage holds even when differences in

educational attainment, work experience, and race are coatrolled (Kenny, 1983; Kenny et

al., 1479; Olson, et al ., 1979) . At least one stuciy, based on a nationally represeatative

cohort of young men who were ages 22 to 29 in 1987, found that men who take on th e

respansibilities of #atherhood work mare hours and have higher wages than men who

have no children or who father children, but do not live with t~em (Lerman, 1990) . This

study also found that marriage was a stronger determinant of earnings and employment

than fatherhood: married fathers living with their children earned less than thei r

childless counterparts . The study eould nat distinguish which of several possible

e~cplanations accounted for the results , however. It may be that marrying and becoming

a father encourages men to become more mature and responsi~le . Alternatively, men

who ~a~e~ such positive t ~raits may be mare likely to marry and become fathers, or may

be mare attractive marriage partners . A third passibility is that elrternal ~actors, such as

job market opportunities, enab3e men with education and labar market sk iils to both

10

marry and to earn more, but prevent their less educated or poorly skilled counterparts

frvm daing the same .

Family Structure and Community Well-Bein g

Although less work has been done to examine the links between family s#ructure

anci the well-being of the larger society, studies have shown that there are cumulative

benefits tv the community when it is comprised of a large share of matrie~i-couple

#amilies. Fami~y dissolution has been linked with community violence, and marital

attacLment has been s~owu to reduce ad~lt crime . Using ~ata from the Britisl~ Crune

Survey, Sampson and Groves (19$9) found that community-level family structure affects

erime victimizatinn. Measured as the percent of divorced/separated adults and the

perceat of households with single parents with children, these researchers found tha t

community-level family structure has a significant effect on the presence of unsupervised

peer gronps, whicb in turn significant~y affects crune vi~t~mizat~an, incl~ading

mugging/street robbe~y, stranger violence, and the overall victimization rate . They also

found that the proportion of single-parent families had a direct effect, net nf the effect

af unsuper~ised peer groups, on stranger vivlence (e .g., assault, rape) and overall

victimization. Family structure was also found to have an effect on violent offending in

this study, but almost all of the effect (97°10) was due to the effects of unsupeivised peer

groups .

4thers have hypothesized that the presence of single-parent ~amilies affects the

level of comrnunity social control . Messner anc~ Sampson (1991) found that the percent

1 1

single-parent families (including never-married and those formed by marital dissolution )

in neighborhoods has a significant effect on crune victunizatiou (murder and robbery) ,

net of oth~r factors . They found the sex ratio ~number of males per 100 females) to be

the strongest predictor vf female-headed households , net of other demographi c

character~stics, and concluded that the sex ratio contributes to violent crime via its effec t

on family formation and disruption . That is , the fewer the males in a cornmunity, the

higher the rate of female-headed families , and thus , vialent crime .

Mechanisms for the Family Structure Eftect

In the foregoing discussion we have providec~ evidence that family structure

matters ta the we~l-being o~ children, adults, and society, however the reasons for its

effects are far less clear . Most social scientists agree that marital status alone is no t

what is impartant to the well-being of adults and children, bu# rather the comple~c set o f

characteristics, behaviars , and cireuarstances tbat usual~y accnmpany a person 's marital

status . It is these factors , or what researchers term the "mechanisms of the effect ", that

need to be well understood for public policy directed a# family behaviar to be effective .

Consider the following example . If being raised in a single-parent household increases

the likelihoad that a youth will drop out of high school, net of the influence of othe r

measurable factors suc}~ as low income , parental involvement and the like , one wauld

direct policy at encouraging marriage . However, if some other variable , such as the

school quality or the neighborhoods in which single-parents tend to reside w~re th~ tru e

cause of dropping out, then changing the mother's marital status would not make any

12

difference, unless it were accompanied by a move to a better neighborhood or better

schools .

Although available research is far more instructive about the vutcames associated

with fami~y patterns than abovt processes, a number of important mechanisms have been

identified .

Econ~mic anc~ social well-t~ein g

A key at#~' ib~ute of mather-headed #amil ies is pover#y . Single-parent families with

children are six times more 7ikeiy ta be paor than tkeir married-couple counterparts

(~ill , 1992) . There are several factors that contribute to the high incidence of poverty

among mother-headed families . First, the wages of the household i~ead typically

determine the family 's economic status and because women tend to earn lower wages

and to work fewer hou~s , female household l~eads tend to be at a disadvantage . Second ,

while child support is an important potentiai source of income for mother-headed

fam ilies, it is absent in the majority of cases . National level data provide striking

evidence , that a large praportion of non-residential fathers make no f inancial

contributions t,o their children's up-bringing (Peterson and Nord , 1990) .

Using data from the 5ur~ey af Incom~ e and Prvgram Participation , Bianchi an d

McArthur (1991) faund ~hat children whose fathers departed from the household

e~perienced a 23 percent drop in family income . While the de~lin~ was lower when they

took account of family size after the father's departure (8 percent), these red~ctions

were in contrast to real income improvements of abaut 8 percent for c6ildren living in

,~

~

13

stable, two-parent families. Bane (198b) used data from the Panel Study of Income

Dynamics, a longitudinat study of 5,000 households, however, and found that more than

60 percent of black wome~ who were paor after entering a female-headed family were

already poor. Regardless af whether the transition to a single-parent family causes

poverty, however, the evidence is clear that living in a female-headed family rnakes it

lnare difficult tv overcome poverty .

Becanse poverty, especially if it endures for a snbstantial portion af childhood ,

has significant implications for children's physical health, success in school, anc~ conduct

and behavior (McLoyd, 1991, ZilI et al ., 1991), this is an area where publie palicy should

place particular emphasis . Programs that facilitate the payment of child support, as well

as work training and education programs designed to imprave the labor force returns

and work attae~ment of single mothers, would attenuate the effect of single-parenthood

on child well-being througb #heir influence on reducing pover#y .

Supervision/Socialization Prvices s

Another explanation far the d ifficulties e~erienced by children raised in s ingle-

parent families is that there is nnly one parent in the househ~ld to supervise them .

Ev idence from a study of black teens in Chicago also suggests that parental supervision

is an unportant determ inant of sexual activity and pregnancy . ~ Hagan and Kitagawa

{1985) fnund that teens who did not date were less likely to be se.rually active and t~

become pregnant, compared to teens w~o dated . Hagan and K itagawa also sh~wed that

girls whose parents clvsely supervised their dating activities were ~alf as Iikely to become

14

pxegnant as teenagers, compared to those whose early dating behavior was not closely

supervised. 'These researchers believe t~at "parent~ ean decrease, but not eliminate the

c~ance that their daughter will become se~ally active and preg~aant by being strict about

the boys she dates, where she goes, and when she returns home . "

In addition, some have argued that the quality of parenting differs tn single-parent

families. The quality of parent-child interaction is criticai to a child's healthy

aevelopment . Factors such as the mother's level of education, and her eognitive

attainment have been iinked to different paren~ing styIes (Baumrind, 197Ij and some

researchers have shown that the nature and quality of the home environment that is

provic~ed to children is affected by environmental factars as well (Menaghan and Parcel,

1991; Desai et al ., 1991). Using the Home Observation for Measurement of the

Environment (HOME) scale developed by Bradley and Caldwell (1984), Zill et al . (1991)

report lower scvres for families falling below the poverty ~ine and who are welfar e

dependent . Furthermore, Menaghan and Parcel (1991) fflund that the nature of parents '

occupational experiences , and changing family circumstances such as those brought about

by maritai disruption , may reduce the amount of stimulativn and nurturance that parents

are able to prov ide . Research ta date has not revea .led consistent differences between

the parenting behavior of teen and older mothers net of socioeconomic status (Eister et

al ., 1983 ; Roosa and Vaughn , 1g84 ; Field et al., 1985) , however, the quality of the child 's

home environment has been linked ta many of the factors , such as low education , that

are associated witli teenage ch~ldbearing .

~

15

Given the unportanee o# an emotionally warm and cognitively stimulating hom e

environment as a potentiai mechanisms of #he effects of single- and early parenthaod ,

programmatic intervention along these lines are promising avenues for public palicy . At

Ieast one program, Prvject Redirect~on, has a~ready had success in this regard .

Project Redixection was directed toward teenagers who were 17 or younger ,

lacking a high schaol diplama ar equivalency degree , or who were eligible for ar were

recipients of AFDC . It was designed to offer a comprehensive package of service s

including educational , job-related, parenting, and life -management skill s, and to

encourage parents to delay further childbearittg . After five years, a follQw-up interview

was conductEd to assess the mother's parenting behavior and the deveiopment of ane of

her children, usually her first chi~d wha was #hen on average almost six years old. The

mothers' parenting skills were assessed using the HOME scale . Project Redirectipn

families scored higher than comparison families on the H~ME scale . Moreover, their

chilrlren obtained higher receptive vocabulary scores ~n average than t~e children in th e

comparison group (Polit et al., 1988 ) . These results suggest that mothers can be helpe d

#o provide more enriching environments to their young children .

Social Support

A.nother important asset linked to family structure is the social support from k in

networks and the commnnity. Some argue that a single mather has less access to social

suppflrt (due to th~ lack of a spouse), and is less likely to live in a community with

strong resources . However , studies that have examined differences in social support by

~

15

family structure have yielded mixed results. Some researchers find that single mothers

are not isolated at all from their friends or relatives (e .g., Alwin, Convers~, and Martin,

1985) . ~hese same researchers alsv find, however, that never-married mothers and

divorced ma~hers tend to have less contaet with their neighbors than married mothers .

This may be due to the increased residential rnobility of single-mothers rather than to

social support.

Other researchers argue that it is not the quantity, but ratlzer the q~ality, of social

contacts that is important. Wlaile kin networks may be strong in material support,

relatives often interfere in their attempts to affect the mothers ' parenting ; some studies

find fam ily members to be even more interfering for single mothers . Milardo (1987)

argues that although friendship networks provide mvre emotional support than kin

networks for single mathers , theu support tends #o be outwe ighed by the interferenee of

relatives. Qn the ather hand , Baldwin and Cain (1980) report better outcames for teen

mo#bers if an adult, such as the grandmother , provides her with help .

Another area where public policy can be effective , consequently, is through the

provision of material and nonmaterial support to mother-headed families . Such support

might be provided through cammunity programs such as baby-sitting cooperatives ar

through programs by which mothers can earn needed help with tasks for which they are

ill-equipped (such as yard work, househo~d repairs} in exehange for providing services to

others, such as shopping or other errands .

17

Selectivity

While many have documented the benefits of marriage ~o individuals and society,

it is important to be mindfal that most studies ta date ~because of limitations in data

and methods) have not adequately addressed the issue of selectivity into marriage or

parenthood. 'That is, because people choose their marital statns rather t~an get

randomly sQtted into marriage or singlehood, it is difficult to disentangle the effects of

having gersanal qualities that correlate with the propensity to marry from the effect o f

marriage per se . Most researchers agree that in addition to the measura~le ways in

which those whfl ehoose marriage differ from those who cohabit or remain single ~such

as level of educatian, maritai status of their own parents, and income), there are likely

many intangible factors that set these individuals apart as well . They may, for example,

~lace a different value on community norms which would alsa explain their greater

attachment to the workforce and lower rates of crune . The same is true for marita l

dissvlution. Couples who divorce are more likely to ~e less well educa#ect, to be yaunger

at the time of marriage, to have younger ages at first birth, and to have difficulties, such

as alcoholism and infidelity in comparison to thflse who remain in stable marriage s

(White, 1990} . 'Thus, part of ti~e e~lanation for the negative outcomes asaociated with

marital disruption for children may be due to characteristics of the child's parents even

hefore the disruption .

The important point is that ~arriage, ~r se• is not necessarily the issue, but

rather the positive attributes that married adults aften bring to parenthood and to their

communities . Moreover, attempts to iegislate pevple's private behavior aften have met

18

with failure . Public policies can play a role in promoting programs that strengthen

families , however. For example, parents need to be educated about the consequences

that the ir marital decisians have far their children , young people need to understand the

responsibilities of marriage and parenthood , and disadvantaged youth should be provided

with alternatives so that tltey da nat enter parenthood too soon .

Young people who da not succeed in school need options , such as apprenbceship

or job-training programs . Aad, modifications to social prdgrams must he scrutinized to

ensure that they do not inadvertently encourage irresponsible parenthood .

Structural Conditions

The preceding section provided evidence that linked family structure with well-

being at both the individual and community levels . However, because geople live their

lives within geographic, social, palitical, and economic conte~s, one caunot understand

family behavio~ within our natian's urban areas without considering the structural forces

that operate in central cities and the impact they bave on the quality of life for their

residents.

Hispanics provide a gvod e~mpie of how "playing by the rules" is no guarantee of

prosperity. Hispanics have followed tnore traditinnal patterns af marriage and child-

rearing -- they marry, they work in the conventional labor force, they jointly try to raise

children -- yet Hispanic parents face as bad or worse ecvnomic conditions as Afirican

American par~nts in t~e U.S. w~o have higher rates of birth outside of marriage, lower

rates of marriage, and higher rates of marital dissolution (Zill, 1992) . The paverty rate

19

for related Hispanic ~hildren under 18 has risen 28 percent in 1973 to 40 percent in 199 1

(see Zill, 1992) . Because Hispanics do not form single-parent families to the sam e

e~ent as other minority groups part of the eacplanation for the type of poverty we see

among central city residents, including Hispanics, must lie elsewhere .

The next section descri6es sorne of the structural forces that affect the nation's

large cities . Because the research literature about changes in our c ities is considerable,

the discussion that follows will be limited co studies that have directly examined ho w

structural factars have affeeted urban family ~ife .

Economic Restructuring

Many of the nation's largest cities have e~cperienced a shift from predominantl y

manufacturing to service-sector and informat ion-processing industries , which has brough t

dramatic changes in the skill requirements and wage rates of the jobs that are being

created relative ta those that are disappearing . Jobs in the manufacturing sector hav e

been among the highest paid for less-skilled hlue collar warkers (Holzer, 1989), and

because cities historically have served as the centers af production and distributiun o f

physical goods (McLanahan et al, 1988 :120-121j the loss of these jobs is felt most keenly

by central city residents . Since the late 1g40s, manufacturing jobs are bath declining ~n

number as well as moving away from the cities to the suburbs and non-metropolitan

areas {Kasarda, 1988 :16$}. The phenomenon is particuiarly apparent in the older,

industriai cities of the North . Between 1972 and 19$2 , Chicagn lost 47 percent of its

20

traditianal blue-collar jobs ; Detroit, 41 percent; Philadelphia , 38 percent; and New York

City, 30 percent (Kasarda, 1988 :181) .

Although same cities have been successful in attracting other industries to replac e

these departing manufacturing jobs, the job grvwth has been mostly among high-statu s

service jobs in such areas as finance, business, insurance, law, advertising, and accounting

(McGeary and Lynn, 1988 :7). The probiem for ci#ies is that the jobs provided by the

new growth industries require more and/or different skills, training, ar education tha n

the jobs whieh t1~ey replaced, and than the resident work force possesses (Kasarda, in

McLanahan et al, 1988:120-121) . This phenomenon, known as °spatial mismatch"

(Kasarda, 1988 :158), is made more severe in many Northern central cities because in

addition to the loss of manufacturing jobs, these cities have also experienced larg e

increases in their minority residents . The limited educatian of many of the new

residents preclndes their employment in new urban grvwth industries (Kasarda ,

1988 : 177) .

In a review of the empirical evidence for a spatial mismatch problem, Holzer {1989 )

concludes that spatial mismatch has had a s ignificant effect on black unemployment.

Specifically, he notes,

"the decentralization of population and employment in metropolitan areascontinues. Manufacturing employment , over 1/Z of which has already beensuburbanized , has been declining in a]] areas , bnt especially in central cities" andtbat "blacks in central cities have less access to employment than dn suburbanblacks and whites , where access is measured by ratio of jabs to people withinneighbarhoad , and by average travel time " (Holzer, 19$9 :22) .

A strong labor market can reduce, but does not completely eliminate employmen t

problems for minorities . For exam~le, Boston underwent an econamic transformation

z~

sunilar to that described abave, and its uxban econamy during the 1980s was

experiencing a 1oca1 labor market shortage . Nonetheless, Freeman {1991) faund that a

good labor market substantially impraved the positian of disadvantaged young men,

particularly less-educated black youths, "despite their social pathoingies and the ~ 98Qs

twist in fhe American labor market that worked against those with fewer skius."

Freeman argues that a good labor market is nQt a panacea far a71 the problems of the

disadvantaged, but it does improve their empEoyment and earnings" (Freeman, 1991 :119) .

In a study by Rosenbaum and Popkin (1991) female heads of households in the

Gautreaux Program in Chicago provided an opportunity ta examine whether moving

low-income blacks to middle class neighborhoods would affect their labor force

participation. Based essentially on randnm assignment, housing project residents were

provided assistance to either relocate to another city residence, or to the suburbs. Tl~e

study was designed t~ get test two competing hypotheses for tbe urban underclass . If the

growth of the urban nnderclass w~re attributable ta the out-migratYOn af jobs to the

s~burbs, then moving low incvme blacks to the suburbs should praduce emplo}~ment

gains. If, however, work disincentives in welfare programs and recipients' own lack of

motivativn were to blame for low labor force attachment, then subur~an moves would

have little effect on their employment. Rosenbaum and Popkin's results provide some

support for both expianations. On the one hand, tlzase women who moved ko the

suburbs had higher levels of labor mari~et participatian than those who remained in #he

city. However, the researchers alsa found that two non-structural variables ,- having a

[ow internal sense of control and being a iong-term AFDC recipient ~- reduced the

22

likelihooci of employment . Although, a related variable , second-generation AFDC

recipiency, had no effect .

Rosenbaum and Popkin (1991} also canducted in-depth interviews with a sampl e

of t~e particigants and found that the number af jo~s in tbe suburbs was a major facto r

in the women 's employment . Respandents also mentioned that other factors , such as

greater feelings of safety (both for the mothers and t~eir children) also affected thei r

labar force participation . Mothers were afraid to leave their cbildren alone in th e

housing projects for fear they would be hurt, or ge t invalved in gang activities.

Transportation, child care, lack of skills, and discrimination were also cited as ;important .

This ptovides evidence far the iynportance of role models and social norrns, and the lack

thereof, in inner cities . Respondents stated that they believed that the subur6s ,

" . .offered good role models and so~ial norms that encourage work -- both absent in thei r

city neighborhoods -- and they be~ieve these factors have encouraged them tv enter th e

labor force" (Rosenbaum and Popkin, 1991 :352) .

Concentration of Poverty

Researchers generally agree that there has been an increase in the concentratio n

of poverty i~ the United States , (e . g Sawhill, 1988 ; Massey, 1990} , but there is some

disagreement about its cause .

Out-migration of the black middle class . Wilson (1987} attributes the increase d

concentration of poverty in the nation 's largest cities to the out-migration of prosperous

black families to the suburbs . According to William Juiius Wilson ,

23

" . . .there are growing canc~ntrations af law-income minvrities in inner citieswithin which dysfunctional social behavior becomes contagious . Lackingmiddle-class aduit role models,locai places of employment, adeq~ate publicse~~vices or community institutions that support traditional values, these care areasbecome breeding grounds for social promiscui#y, crvne, violence, drug addictionand alcohol abuse" (Peterson, 1991 :16) .

The poorest poor of our ur6an centers , because of their social i solationa are bereft of th e

benefits of role models and institutional support found in more advantaged communities .

Residential segregat ion. Another factor argued to explain the increasing

concentration of poverty in our centrai cities is residential segregativn . Ma~y

researchers have identified the existence and persistence 4f racial residential segregatio n

in American society, par t icu larly within the v lder industrial cities in the Midwest and

Northeast (e .g. Farley, 1991 ; Massey et al ., 1990) , and argue that it is this, rather than

the flig~t of midd~e class blacks to the suburbs that accounts for the concentration o f

poverty in our inner cities. Farley (1991) concludes :

"At least in th~ major metropolises, there is no evidence of increasing geographicsegregation of economic groups. But it is reasanable to conclude that tbe averageproportion of the impoverished population in the census tract of a typical poarblack increased between 1970-1980 . This came about because of the inereases inthe overall proportion of impoverished Northeast and Midwest metropolisesrather than because of increases in residential segregation of poor blacks fromprosperaus b~acks" (1991:275) .

Racial discrimination. Massey (1990} argues that racial discrimination in th e

housing market, resulting in racial residential segregation, is a critical factor for

explaining the creatian of tlxe urban underclass . Accord~ng to Massey, the way that

segregation concentrates poverty and creates clisadvantaged minority neighborhoods

pr4vides a succinct explanation for why: 1) the urban underclass is so disproportionately

24

composed of African Amerieans and Puerta Ricans (African Americans and Puerto

Ricans are the only groups in the U .S. experiencing both high levels of racial segregation

and dramatic increases in poverty), and 2) why the urban underclass is canfined

prunarily to the Northeast and Midwest and to specific cities . Massey argues that racial

discrimination causes racial residential segregation :

" . . .this high level of black segregation cannot be expiained by black socioeconomicchazacteristics . . . it is linked empirically to the persistence of discrimination inhousing markets and to continuing anti-black prejndice "(Massey, 1990:354) .

The consequences of the concentration of poverty in urban areas are many.

Exposnre to the influence of peers engaged in gang-related and cri~r~inal activities, po~r

community infrastructure, crune, violence, and poor living conditions are magnified w~en

t}~e numbers of persons living below the poverty line are cancentrated .

R~cial Discrimination in Labor Marke t

Rac ial discrimination in the job market is another factor affecting the lives of

minorities . Kirschenman and Neckerman (1991) studied employers in Chicago and

found that both race and space play an impartant role for urban r~sident s seeking

employment . These researchers, found that employers had very negative impressions of

inner city workers, considering them to be lacking in in itiative, unskilled, and poorly

equipped for w~rk. Most employers had particularly negative perceptions of black men .

For many of the respondents "black" and " inner city" were interehangeable , and both

were considered undesirable employee traits . Their findings emphasize the importance

of racial stereotypes for shaping employment opportunities for blacks Iiving in the city.

25

The Link Between Structure and Family Behavior

What we established in the foregoing discussion is that cities have experienced

dramatic shifts in the tyges of jobs which are availa6le creating a"spatial mismatch" in

terms of the suitabi~ity of jobs for urban xesidents, and that minorities face additional

obstacles tn employment due to racial discrimination . A number of social scientists have

argued that t~ese structuraI circumstances affect the choices people make about

marriage and childbearing . William 7ulius Wilson is prominent among these scholars

and has argued that the poor economic prospects that black males face in the inner czty

have affected the propensity for African American couples to marry .

A number o€ researchers have tried to test this claim directly, and most hav e

found structural factors to be important for explaining private behavior . For example,

Lichter and his colleagues (1992) examined women's transitioa to first marriage by race .

Using a national~y-representa.tive data set, they tested whether women's financial

independence deterred marriage and whether the supply of econamically se~f-sufficient

men affected the Iikelihood of marrying for the first time among white and black women .

Lichter and his colleagues created three versions of a male "marriageable" pool

index: the paol of empioyed men, the poal of inen employed full-time, and the pool of

men with adequate earnings defined as men who earned more than the poverry

threshold for a family of four . Their models also included measures of family

background. Their analyses revealed that althoug~ there are large racial differences in

the availability af emplvyed eligible men, such differences do not entirely e~lain racial

differences in the #iming af firs# marriage . However, marriage market factors account

2b

for more of the racial differences than aay other factors tha# were included in their

models .

~ther studies bave also suggested that white there is a relationship between male

une~ployment rates and the prevalence of femaie-headed families, economic forces are

not the entire explanation. For example, wlule ~sterman (1991) found that Bostods

strong economy ~tad some impact on family formation during the 1980s -- whil e

nationally single-parent families increased for all subgroups, their numbers in Boston

declined for blacks and Hispanics -- the incidence of single-parent families during that

periad did not fall nearly as much as the unemployment rate or poverty rate . Ostermaa

reasons that the driving force behind trends in single-parenthood, therefore, is not #he

ecvnomy. Osterman contends that the economy has altered the consequences of being a

single parent .

Similarly, Mare and Winship (1991), studied the effects of labor market an d

education trends on marriage rates since 1940 and fau~td that changes in employment of

young black men e~lained about 20 percent of the decline in black marriage rates since

19fiQ. But since earnings also increasec~ substantially, which should have ~ncreased the

rates of marriage, they conclude that there m~st be mare to the expianation than

socioeconomic factors . They argue that "labor market conditions are catalysts for

changes in marriage and family formatiQn, but a fuller understanding af marriage trends

requires attention to the way family trends, ance set in motion, continue by their own

momentum" (Mare and Winship, 1991 :195) .

27

What is clear from these studies is that structural factors, such as employment

opportunity and the concentration of povery, shape the context in which urban residents

make choices related to marriage and childbearing . T'liese factors anIy provic~e part of

the explanation for the problems confronting our inner cities, however . In the next

section we discuss the role of values of the s~ciety at large in shaping #he family

behavior of individuals .

Cultural Shifts

Many would argue that the patterns of family life and social probiems that

characterize urban areas are simply the reflectian of social and cultural changes in

American society at large . Scholars who study the famiiy have argued that individualism

has replaced moral and religious observance as the guiding principle of public and

private behavior. Individual autonomy and personal freedom, according to t~ese

thinkers, have eroded the moderu family; "family aetors are essentially using individual ,

rather than grovp welfare as their basis for everyday action" {Schwartz, 19$7) . This

trend #oward individualism is assumed to be the basis of the high rates of divarce

witnessed in recent decades (Gill, 1992), as well as increased crime, substanc~ abuse, and

other social maladies .

Since these argumen#s are often made on the basis of personal observations and

often less than representative samples, social scientists have sought to document whether

and to what extent there is empirical eviae~ce to bolster the c1a2m that there is a

2sgrowing trend toward individualism in recent decades. Norval Glenn, a sociologist, has

amassed evidence from sample surveys to assess whether there has been a greater trend

toward individualism. He used three indicators of individualism: a weakening in the

allegiance Americans ha~e to 1) political parties, Z} religian, and 3) the family (Glenn,

1987) .

Using nationa~ survey data spanning 1952 to 1986, Glenn concludes that there has

been an unmistakable decline in suppart for tradi#ional political parties far more than 2d

years. He concludes that party identification, which has implicaEions for voter turn-out,

has declined. Also, while there is less consensus about how to read the evidence, but

Glenn believes that sample surveys on the religivus beliefs and practices of individual s

indicate a decline in trad itional Christianity and a distinct decline in the percentage of

adults wha regard religian as important in their lives . Popeaoe (1992} notes a decline in

confidence in organized religion , as we~l as other societal inst itutions that bring cnhesion

and civic values to a saciety .

Glenn notes that there is also s4me lack of agreement as #o whether there has

been a deciine in allegiance to the family . Sample surveys suggest an increase in

acceptance of nontraditional , nonfamily roles for women , a decline in the stated ideal

number of chiidren for a family to have, and an increase in approval for pfemarital

{Moore and Stief, 1991) and perhaps ex#ramarital se~€ual relatians {Glenn, 1987) .

Several researchers have found that substantial proportians of African American youtl~

have a preferred age for their first birth that is younger t~an their preferred age to

marry (Moore, Simms & Betsey, 1986) . However, commentators differ in the conclusion

29

they draw from this evidence . There appears to be less allegiance to traditional family

forms , yet the vast majority of youth prefer to marty and have chilciren and define it to

be very important. For example, data fram Monitoring the Future (1988} , a national

stady of 16,795 high school seniors in 1988 revealed :

• Seventy-eight percent of high school seniors consider themselves very likely toget married, 61 percent c~nsider it very likely that they will have children, and 58percent consider themselves very likely that they will stay married to the samepexson for 1~£e .

• Three fourths of survey participants rated having a good marriage and famalylife as "e~ttremely important," while anly 31 percent gave this same level ofendorsement to "having lots of money . "

• Being able to find steady wdrk was considered extremely important by 73percent of respond.ents .

• Being able to "gi~e my children better opportunities than I 've had " was giventhe strangest endorsement by 61 percent of respondents .

• While half of the respondents considered a man and women who live togetherwithout being married as "doi~g their awn thing and not affecting anyone else,"only 37 percent had this same feeling about a man and woman who decide toraise a child out of wedlock. Seventeen percent of the respondents consideredthis "living in a way that could be destructive to society . "

Data from a national survey of 1 , 100 youth between the ages of 18-22 in 1987 a~s o

provide evidence of the vaiue that young adults place on marriage {Moore and Stief ,

1991} .

• Three-fourths of black and nine-tenths of non-black youth feel a couple shouldnot marry unless they are "prepared to stay together for life ."

National surveys of adults reveal a sunilar endarsement for "family values . "

• A te~ephone interview of 12U0 adults in 1984 revealed that wh ile 70 percent ofrespondettts rated "respecting one's parents " as ctescribing "family values" very

34

well , only 54 percent rated "being married to the same person for life " the sameway .:

~ A Gallup poll telephone interview iu 1991 revealed that 93 percent afrespondents rated their family life as "very impnrtant ." Sixt}r percent of surveyparticipants in a Newsweek sponsored te~ephone interview in 1987, consider~dthis goal more unportant now than it was five years ago .

• A survey of 1Q00 adults sponsored by Parents Magazine in 1489 found that 78percent endorsed a"return to traditivnal values and old-fashioned morality . "

~ A Roper poll of 2002 ~ersons in 1985 revealed that 58 percent of #he adultsinterviewed felt that " a return to the strong family unit" would c~o the most t~make society better . An equal prapartion, 54 percent, chose "more and bettereducation" and "new developments in heaith and medical care . "

Sutvey data also reveal patadoxes , however . For example, xespondents respond

favorably regarding #heir own families but are pessimistic about the state of Atnerica n

families as a whole {National Commission on Children, i991) . Thus, policy-makers mus t

sort out whether the trend toward increasing " individualism " is a cause or merely a

consequence of the family changes of recent decades. This distincti~n is important for

policy because , to the extent that family change is adaptive and has occurred due t a

changed economie circumstances, economic policy may be effective in shaping family

goals. But to the e~ctent that values exert influence independently of economic forces, a

different pnlicy stance -- one aimed ar directly changing or strengthening values -- would

be appropriate ~Glenn, 1991} . Of course, even if attitudes change as a function of

economic farces, those new attitudes can then affect behavior and can thus also affee t

the socializatian of the next generation . Attihides change, as do values; but values

change more slowly t~an attitudes . Once attitudes and values change , they have a

momentum of the ir ~wn which must be acknowledged . Most likely, cultural shifts are

3 1

both cause and effect . 'They are caused by farces such as ecanomic and technological

change , but then in turn have an effe~t of their own .

Synthesis

The co-existence of stresses and problems in urban areas, partieularly in th e

central cities, has made the causes nf urban prablems difficu3t to identify and mac~ e

fiading solutioas to urban problems a tremendous challenge . Commentators have

of£ered a var~ety of perspectives, the most prvminent of which emphasize the roles o f

family behavior, structural forces, and cultural values . Because of the inter-

cvnnectedness of these factars, public policies designed t~ address urban problems nee d

to include elements of all three .

The underlying assumption of tl~e family behavior argument is that encauragin g

changes in family behavior (such as delaying childbearing and encouraging entry inta

marita~ ~uions} wil~ l~ave broad-reaching benefits at both the individual and societal

levels . Before acting on this assumption, however, it is important to understand why the

connection between family strucfiure and positive outcomes e~sts. Researchers have

grovided mounting evidence of some causal inf~uence through in~ome, stress, and

parental supervision . There is also reason to believe that family structure does not fully

explain positive outcomes . The selection of disadvantaged persons aud families int o

single parenthood helps to account for the poorer outcomes vf persons in single-paren t

families. In addition, factors such as iaadequate neigh~orhood safety and delinquent

32

peer groups provide challenges ~iisproportionately ta Iow-income, single-parent familie s

who live in central city communities . Sucl~ challenges would overwhe~n many successfu l

two-parent families if they were forced to raise children in such enviranments.

Thus, while certainly part of the explanation, family behavior does not by itself

explain the poverty and other difficulties facing urban families . The case of Hispanics,

whose poverty rates have increased despite their allegiance to #raditional family patterns ,

provides striking evidence that other forces are at work .

The structural change perspective emphasizes the ppint that the choices that

individuals make about marriage and childbearing do not occur in a vacuum, but are

shaped by the environments in which they live . The opportunity structure of urban

communities helps ta shape family behavior . Thus, one strategy for influencing family

patterns is to increase economic opportunities. However, it is too simplistic to treat

apparently dysfunctivnal behaviflr as simply the response to a lack of jobs, assuming at

wiIl change with improving job prospects . Causality cannot be assumed to be uni-

direetional such that most individuals will react automaticalIy to economic ci~ange .

Aga in , t~is perspective provides part of the e~cplanation, although not all , and part af the

solutian, but not all .

Finally, it is insufficient to merely focus on the values of inner-city residents .

Values related to marriage and family life have shifted nat ionwide . Increased

proportions of single-parent fa~nilies and non-tnarital births are found throughout th e

nation , but the propQrtions have become higher and the cvnsequ~nces more severe fo r

central cities of the nation. Because of this, it will be iueffective for the educated and

33

economically elite to lecture inner city residents about changing their behavior .

Mareover, producing cuiturai change that would reinstate values that have bee n

undermined or abandoned is extremely difficult, especially if values have change d

independently of economic forces . This is not meant to suggest that strengthening

fami lies is hopeless , however .

Leaders, espe~ially community leaders who have the trust of constituents ,

congregations, and citizens can affect attitudes and values . Also, social institutions, suc h

as schools, day care centers, and churches can be mechanisms for supporting the family .

For example; smaller schools and classroom sizes may provide the increased level of

attention and supervision that youngsters need in order to thrive . In addition, parents

can be educated about the consequences of their decis ions for their children and young

peaple need to understand the responsibi lities of parenthood . Disadvantaged youth

should be provided w ith alternatives so that they do not enter into parenthood too soon.

In addition, from evidence gresented in the foregoing section it is also clear tha t

adequate jobs, good schools, safety, anc~ community services are important to the quality

of life, and consequently, to the #amily behavior of central city residen#s .

34

ReCerenees

Alwin, D . F ., Converse , P .E ., & Martin , S . S . (1985} . Living arrangements andsocial integration . Jo~irnal of Marriage a~d the Fam i ~, 47 319-334

.Astvne, N . M ., & McLanahan , S . S . (1991) . Fami ly structure : Parental practices ,and high school competition . American Sociological Review . 56(3} , 309-320.

Bachman , J . G ., Johnston , L. D ., & O 'Malley, P . M . (1988) . Monitaring thefuture : Ouestionnaire responses from the nation's t~i~h ,schaol ,seniors . AnnArbor, MI : Institute far Sacial Research .

Baldwin, W. , & Cain, V . S. (1980) . The children of teenage parents , F_~P1a~anin~Perspectives, 12(1} , 34-43 .

Bane , M. J . (1986) . Household composition and poverty . In S . H . I3anziger andD . H . We inberg (Eds . ) . Fighting ~overty„ What wor~nd what doesn 't .Cambridge , MA: Harvard University Press .

Bane, M . J ., & Jargowsky, P . A. (198$) . The links between government policy andfamily structure : What matt~rs and what doesn ' t . In A . J . Cherlin , ~chan~ing American familv and ~ublic~alicv . Washington, DC : UrbanInstitute Press .

Baumrind , D . (i97i) . Harmaniou s parents and their pre-schaol children .Develo~menta! Psvcholagy. 4 99 - 102 .

B ishop, J . H . (1980) . Jobs, cash transfers a nd mari tal instability: A review andsynthesis of the ev idence . The Journal, of Huma~ Resources. ~5{3), 30 1 -33~ .

Block, J . H ., Bloek, J ., & Gjerde , P .F . {1986) . The ~ersonality of children prior tod ivorce: A pro spectiv~ s tudy. Child Devela~ment. 57 827-840 .

Bradtey , R . H ., & Caldwell , B . M . (i981) . The HOME inventory : A validat ion vfthe pre school scale for black children . Child Develo~ment 52 708-710 .

Bumpass , L . L ., Martin, T. C ., & Sweete , J . A. (1991) . The itngact of family6ackground and early marital factors on marital disruption . Journal vfFami~ I~sues, ~ ( 1), 22 -42 .

Bumpass, L . L . & Sweet, J . A. (19$9) . National estimates of cohabitation .De o h 26(4) , 615-625 .

35

Cherlitt , A . J . , Furstenberg, F. F ., Jr ., Chase-Lansdale , P .L ., Kiernan , K. E .,Ro~ins , P . K., Morrison , D . R . , & Teitier , J . ~ . (1991) . Longitudinalstudies of the effects of divorce on children in Great Britain and theUnited States . Science. 52(7) , 1386-1389 .

Cline , H . F. (1980) . Criminal behavior over the life span . In O . G . Brim & 7 .Kagan (Eds . ) , Constancy and change in human develo~ment (pp . 641-674) .Cam6ridge : Harvard Unrversity Press.

C4rcoran, M., Gordon, R . , Laren, D . , & Solon, G. (19$9}. Effects of family andcommun~itv backgrounc~on men's economic status . Ann ~4rbor, MI: TheUniversity vf Michigan.

Crane, J . (1991). The epidemic theory of g~ettos and neighborhood effects ondropping out and teenage childbearing . Americ~ Journal of Saciolo ~,y,9G(S), 1226-59 .

Demo , D . H., & Acock , A . C . (1988) . The impact of divorce on childreu . Journalof Marri~e and the FamilX. 50 619-648 .

Desai , S ., Michael, R . T., & Chase-Lansdale , P . L . {1991) . The homeenvironment : A mechanism through which maternal employment affectschild development . Under Review .

Duncan , G . J ., & Hoffman, S . D . (1991) . Teenage undercla ss behavior andsubsequent poverty : Have the rules changed? In C . Jencks & P . E .Peterson (Eds .), The Urban Underclass (pp . 155-174) . Washington, DC :The Brookings Institute.

Ellwood , D . T. (1988) . Paor Su~part. New York : Basic Boaks .

ELster , A. B ., McArney, E . R ., & Lamb , M . E . {1983} . Parental behavior ofadolescent mothers . Pediatrics. 71(4) , 494-503 .

Farley, R . (1991) . Resiciential segregation of social and economic groups amongBlacks , 1970-1980. In C . Jencl~s & P . E . Peterson (Eds.) , The UrbanUndexc~ss (pp . 274-29$) . ~Nashington , DC : The Brookings ~nstitute .

Field, T. , Widmayer , S ., Greenberg , R ., & Stoller , S . (1985) . Home- and center-based intervention for teenage mothers and their offspring . In Harel &Anastasiow (Eds.) . The At-Risk Infant : Psvch lSaciolMedical As~ects .Baltimore , MD : Brooke s.

3 6

Freeman, R. B . (1991) . Employment and earnings of disadvantaged young men ina labor shortage economy. In C. Jencks & P . E. Peterson (Eds .), TheUrban erclass (pp. 103-121) . Washington, DC : The Brookings Institute .

Gill, R. T. ~1992, Summer). For the sake of the children . The_P~biic nterest, SI-46 .

Glen ~n , N. D . (1987, Winter) . Social trends in the United States : Evidence from5a~nple surveys. ublic Opinion Ouarterlv. S~(4 , Part 2) 51~9-5126 .

Glenn , N. D . (199i) . The fami v values of Aamericans (Publication No . WP7) .Austin, TX : An Institute for American Values Working Paper for theCommission on Fami lies in America .

Goodwin, J . S., Hunt, W. C., Key, C. R., & 5amet, J . M. (1987) . The effect ofmarital status on stage, treahnent, and survival of canc~r patients . Journalof the Americ~ Medical Ass~i~, 58{21), 3125-30 .

Gove , W . R . (~985} . The effeets of agebiopsychosoc ial perspective . In Acourse (pp . 115-144) . New York:

and gender on deviant behavior : A. S . R+ossi (Ed .), Gende a d the ' eAldine,

Gove, W . R ., Style , C . B ., & Hughes , M . (199~) . The effect of marriage on thewell-being of adults : A theoretical analysis . Journal of Fami~y Issues .~(1} , 4-35 .

Haur in, R. J. (1992, April) . Patte~ns o~hil~h~od resid~~ce and the _r~lationsbi~to x„ou~g adult outcomes . Revised version of paper presented at theAnuual Meetings of t~e Populatian Association of Amer~ca, Denver, CO .

Hetherington, E. M. (1989} . Cop ing v►~ith fam ily transitians; Winners, losers, andsurvivors . Child _ Develo~ment, 50 1-14 .

Hill , M . A., & O 'Neill , J . (1992, March) . The transmission of co~nitiveacluevement across three g~nex~ons . Paper presented at the RANLlConference , Santa Monica , CA.

Hog a~n , D . P ., & E . M . Kitagawa (1985) . The impact of social status , familystructure , and neighborhoad on the fertility af black adolescents . er 'Journa~ of 5ocioloQV, ~0, 825-855.

Holzer, H. J. (1989, July) . The snatial mis~natch hv~othesis: What has theevidence sl~own? Prepared for the Conference on the Urban Underclass .Soeial Science Research Conncil .

37

Jargowsky, P . A., & Bane, M. J. (1991}. Ghetto poverty in the United States,197~-1980 . In C. Jencks & P . E. Peterson (Eds .), The urban underclass(pp. 235-273) . Washingtan, DC: The Brookings ~nstitute .

Kasarda, J . D . (198$) . 3obs , migration, anc~ emerging urban mismatches . InM .G. H . McGeary & L. E. Lynn, Jr., Urban change and novertX .Washington, DC : National Academy Press .

Kenny, L . W . (1983) . The accumuiatifln of huma ~n capital during marriage bymales . Economic InquirX, Z1 223-231 .

Kenny, L. W., Lee, Lung-Fei, Maddala, G. S., & Trost, R. P.(1979). Return tocollege educatian: An investigation of self-selection bias basec~ on theProject TALENT Data, International Ecannmic Review . 20 775-789 .

Kirschenman, J. & Neckerman , K. M. (1991) . We 'd love to hire them , but. . . ; Themeaning of race for employers . In C . Jencks & P . E . Petersan (Eds . ) , TheUrban Underclass (pp . Z03 -232) . Washington , DC : The Brookings Institute .

Korenman, S., & Neumark, D . (1990) . Does marriage really make men moreproductive? ~e Journal of Human Resources . ~(2), 282-307 .

Lerman , R . L(1990) . Fatherhoad, child sup~ort and earnings : A re~ort on thelinks between farrmily responsibilities and job market outcomes . TheAmerican University .

Lichter, D. T., McLaughlin, D. K., Kephart, G., 8& La.ndry, D. J. (1992, April 3D-May 2) . Race, local mate availability. and transitions to fir,st marria~eauu}on~ ,yaung women. Paper presented at the annual meeting of thePopulatian Association of America, Denver, CO.

Manski, C . F ., Sandefur, G. D ., McLanahan , S ., & Powers , D . (1991 ) . Aiternativeestimates of the effect of family structure during adolescence „ on highschool graduation . Austin , TX : University of Texas .

Mare , R . D ., & Winship , G(199I) . Socioeconomic change and the decline ofmarriage for Blacks and Whites . In C . Jencks & P , E . Peterson (Eds.) , Theurban underclass (pp . 175-20Z) . Washington , DC : The Brookings Institute .

Massey, D . S . (1990) . American Apartheid : Segregation and the making of theunderclass . American Journal of SocioloEy. 9G(2) , 329-357 .

Massey, D. S ., Condran, G. A ., & Denton , N . A. (1987} . The effect o# residentials~gregation on social and economic weIl-being . Social Forces . 66(1) , 29-56 .

38

Massey, D . S., Eggers, M. L., & Dentan, N . A. (199U, May) . Disenta.ngling thecauses c~f c9~rentrated po e .(OSC 9D-5 {PRC) . Paper commissianed forthe Conference on the Truly Disadvantaged. Populatian Reseatch Center,University of Chicago .

Mc~eary , M.G.H ., & Lynn, L. E. Jr. (198$ ). (eds .) Urban ehan~e and ~overt,~.(Comm ittee Report) . Was$ington, DC : Natianal Academy Press .

McLanahan, S ., & Booth, K., (1989} . Mother~only families : Problems, prospects,and politics. 7ournal. of Marriag and the Fam ilY: Si(3} , 557-580 .

McLanahan, S ., Garfinkei , I ., & Watson, D . {1988) . Family structure , poverty anc~the undercIass . In M. G H . McGeary, & L . E . Lynn , Jr . Urban change and

ove . Washington, DC : Natianal Academy Press .

McLeod , J . D ., & Kess ler, R . C . (1990) . Socioeconomic status differences inwlnerability to undesirable life events . Journal of Health and Social

ehavic~ 31(2), 162-172.

McLoyd , V. C ., & Wiison, L. (1991} . 'I'l~e strain of liv ing poor : Parenting , sacialsupport, and child mental health . In A . C . Huston {Eds . ) , Cluldren inpove , : Cl~ild develo~e~t an~~ublic~olicy {pp . 105-157) . New Yoxk:Cambridge University Press.

Menaghan , E. G., & Parcel, T . L. (1991 , May} . Determining children 's homeenvironment : The impact of maternal characteristics and currentoccnpational and #ami ly conditions . Journal _of Maxria~e~nd the Fami~~,~~,, 417-431 .

Messner , S . F ., & Sampson , R . J ., (1991) . The sex ratio , family disruption, andrates of violent crime : The paradox of demographic structure . SociaForces , 69(3) , 693-713 .

Milardo , R . M . (1987) . Changes in social networks of women and men foIlvwingdivorce : A review. ~ournal of Family Issues. $ 7$-96 .

Moore , K . A., Simms, M . C ., & Betsey , C . L. (1986) . Gl~,Q~ce an~ d ~ir~umstauce :r ca ial differen~ces in adolescent sexualitv and fertilit~. New Brunswick:Transactian Pubiishers .

Moore, K. A., & S#ief, T. (1991). Changes in marriage and fertility behavior :Behavior versus attitudes of young adults. ~outh and SocietX, 77{3), 3G2-386 .

39

Myers, D . E., Milne, A . M., Baker , K., & Ginsburg, A., ~1987) . S tudent disciplineand h igh schvol performance. Soc iolog,y of Education ,, 60(1 ), 18-33 .

Nakosteen, R. A. & Zimmer, M. A. (1986) . Marital status and eaxz~ings o~ youngmen. The Jaurnal of Hum~n Resources, ~(2), 248-268 .

National Commission on Children. (1991) . Sneaking of kids : A national survey ofchildren and a~ rents (Report o~ the National Opinio~ Research Project) .Washingtan, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Olsan, L., White, H., & Shefrin, H. M., Optional inveshnent in schaoling when~ncomes are risky, Joumal yf Political Economy, 87 522-539 .

Ostertnan, P . (1991) . Gains from growth? The itnpact o£ full employment onpoverty in Boston . In C. Jencks & P. E . Peterson (Eds.), urbanuncierclass {pp . 122-134) . Washington, DC : The Braokings Institute,

Peterson, P. E. (1991) . The urban underclass anci the poverty paradox . In C.Jencks & P . E. Peterson (Eds.), T~e urban underclass (pp . 3-27) .Washington, DC : The Brookings Institute.

Peterson, J. L., & Nord, C. W. (1994) . The regular receipt vf child suppart : Amulti-step process . Jaurna] of M~rriag~and the Famil~, 5,~;, 539-551 .

Peterson, J . L., & 2i1I, N. (1g86) . Marif ~al disruption, parent-chiid reIationships,and behavioral problems in children. JQUrnal of Marr iaQe and the Fami1X,~$, 295-3U7 .

Po~it, D ., Quint, 3 ., & Riccio , 3 . (i988) . e c alleng~ of se~rving teena~e mothers :Lessons fram vroj~ct redirectian . New Yark : MDRC .

Popenoe, D. (1992, December} . Cultural changes and the familX. Preliminaryunpublished draft af paper prepared for Urban Institute Roundtable,Washington, DC .

Popenoe, D . (1988) . Disturbi~g the nest • Family ~han~e aud decline in modernsoci 'es . New York : Ald ine I]e Gruy#er .

Robins, L. (1978). Sturdy ch~ldhood predictors of adult antisocial behavior,Psycholo~ical Medicine . 8 611-d2~..

Roosa, M. W. & Vaughn, L. (1984}. A comparison of teenage and older motherswith pre-school-aged children . Fami~,y Rela~ions . 33 259-265 .

~

40

Rosenbaum, J . E ., & Popkin, S . J . (1991) . Employment and earnings oflow-income blacks who move to middle-class suburbs . In C . Jenclcs & P . E.Peterson (Eds .) , The urban underclass (pp . 342-356) . Washington, DC : TheBrooking s Institute .

Sampson , R . J ., (198~) . Neighborhood fatnily structure and the risk of personalvictimization . In J . M. Byrne & R . J. Sampson (Eds .), The Social Ecologyof Crur~ (pp . 25-46) . New York: Spr inger-Verlag .

Sampson, R . J . , (1987) . Urban Black violence : The effect Qf male jvblessness andfamily disruption . America~Jnurnal af Socialo~y. 93{2) , 348-3$2 .

Sampson , R . J ., & Grvves, W . B ., (1989} . Community structure and crime :Testing social-disorganization theory. Ameriean Journ~l of Socialogy. 94(4) ,774-802.

Sampson, R . J ., & Laub , J . H ., (199U) . Cri.me and deviance over the life course :Tfie salience of adult social bonds . ~imerican Sociological Review . 55 609-627 .

Sandefur, G. D., McLanahan, S ., & Wo~ti~iewicz, R. A. (1989, March). ace~~nnuilv s~tu~e_ , _ ~ind high school ~radnation, Preliminary Draft. Paperpresented at the meeting of the Population Association of America,Baltimore, MD .

Sawhil~, L(1988) . Poverty in the U . S . ; Why is it so persistent? Jour al oEconomic Literature . ~ IQ73-1119

Schoenborn, C. A ., & Wilson , B . F . (1988 , November) . ~married~eaplehealthiear? Hea~th characteristics of married and unmarried iJ.S . men andwomen . Paper presented at the meeting of the American Public HealthA,~sociation , Boston , MA.

Schoeni, R . F . (1990) . The earnin~s effects of marital status : Results„ or ,elvecountries (Report No . 90-172} . Ann Arbor , MI : Populatian Studies Center .

U.S . Bureau of the Census, (19g2) . Pove rty in the Un ited States : 1 99~ ~5eries P -60 , No. 18 1 } . Washington , DG: US Government Printing O ffice .

Wilson, W . 7. (1987). The trulv disadvantaged : The inner cifit, the underclass. andnublic ~olicX. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

White , L. K . (1990) . Determinants of divorce : A review of research in theeighties . Journal of Marriage and the Famil~ ; ~ 904-912 .

41

2il1, N. (1992, September). One million mvre c~ildren in pnverty: What are thereasons? Testimony before the 5ubcommittee on Human Resources .Com~n~~tee on Ways and _eans. Washingtvn, DC : Child Trends.

Zill, N., Morrison, D . R., & Coiro, M. J. (Forthcoming} . I,ong-term effects ofparental divorce on parent-child relationships, adjustment, andachievement in young adulthood . Journal af Family Issues .

Zill, N ., Moore, I~. A ., Nord , C . W., & Stief, T . (1991) . The life circumstancesand develo~ment of children in welfare families : A profile based onnational survey data . Washi~agton , DC : Child Trends.

~ill, N. & Schoenborn, C . A. (Eds.) . (1990j . Developmental, learniang, andemo#ional problems: Healt~ of our nation's children, United States, 1988 .Advance Data Frvm Vital and Health Statistics (190) . Hyattsville, MD :National Center for Health Statistics .

~gure 1

Family Living Arrangements of Children Unde ~r 18 in LargeMetrapolitan Areas' by Residen~e in City or Subur b

City Children Living fn Each Arrcrngement:

Two parenis ~bl%

Never mQrried mather ~ $~o

S eparated/ Divorced mother16 ~

Wid owe d m o ther ~Z°~o

Father only ~ 3 o~a

S~rb rrrban Ch il dren Li ving fn Earch Arrcrng~n en t ;

Two parenis

Never married rnothe r

5eparaied/ Divorced mothe r

Widowed molhe r

Father onty

~ 5 ~a

~ lZ %

~ 1 °~o

~ 3 °/a

•Those with populations of one million or more .

79 ~0

Note: Percentages are based only o~ children living with at least one parent .Source: Tabulations by Ch~7d Trends, Inc ., from data ~om Arlene F. Saluter, Maritad Srutus and Living Alrangements: March 1991, Curt~nt

Popuiaiion Reports, Series P-2A, No. Afil, GPO, Washiagton, DC, 1992.

Figu~ ~

Proportion ot Child~en Under 18 in Large Metropolitcxn Areas"Lfving with Twa Parents, by Race/Hispanic Origi n

ctnd Residence in City or Subur b

Ci t y~h 11 dren L i vi n g wi th Two Pare n ts :

Whi1e , Non-Hispanic

~ ~Hispanic /

6 4 ~0

Black ~3290

SrrburbQn Children Living with ~ 'wa Paren#s :

White , N o n -Hisp rsni c

Hispani c

B~a~ g

'T~p5A with populations oi one mii~ion or more .

72~0

81 9'a

84 ~0

1Vote: Percentages are based otily on children living wifh at lea.st one patent.Source: Tabuiations by Child Trends, Inc., from data fr~ Arlene F. Sa[uter, Marital Status c~ru1 Living Arrangemenrs: March 1991, G~trrent

Population Reports, Series P-2Q, No . 461, GPO, Washington, DC, 19J2 .

~b ~o

F~gure 3

Proportian of Children Unc[er 18 in Large Metropolitan Areas"Living w~th a Never Nlarried Mother, by Race/HispQnic Urfgi n

and Residence ~n City or Subur b

Ci~y Chilcfren ~ , iuing wifh cr 11Tever 1Vlarriec~ Mother .~

White , Non - Hispanic4 °~0

H ispanic ~/ 1 3 96

Blac k

Sub~rrban Ch i~dre.n Li ving wi th ar Never Married Mother :

Whi1e , Non-Hispanic2 9~0

H isp an i c /7 °~a

Black~ 2 7%

~ 'Those with populailons oi one million or more .

41 °~

I~iote: Percentages are based only on chtldren living with at ieast one parent .Source: Tabulations by Qiild Trends, Inc., from data from Ar~ene R Saluter, Marital Status and Liuing ~4rrangements: March 1991, G~rrent

Population Repoxts, Series P-2i1, No . 461, GP~, Washington, DC, 1992.

Figure 4

Proportfan of Children Under 18 in Large Metropolftcrn Areas'Living with a Separated or Divorced Mother ,

by Race/Hispanfc Origin and Residence in City or Subur b

Ci ty Children Li ving w i th ar Separrafed or D ivorced Mother:

Whi1e , Non-Hlspanic~ / ll~O

Hispanic

B 1aC k

Srrbrrrban Children Living with a Separated or Divorced Mother ;

Whi1e , Non - Hispanicl~~o

H l sp anlc lb%

Blac k

'ThoSe with populatio ns oi one million or inore .

1 9%

21%

2 1~o

Note: Percentages are based oaly on chilc~ren living with at least one pazent .Source: Tabulations by C:~ild Trends, Inc., from data froa~ Arlcne F . Salutec, ~1+Iarital Stalus and Living firrangements.• Murch 1991, C~rreut

Populatioo R~orts, 5eries P-2(}, No . 461, GPO, Washington, DC, 1992.

Variation in Crirne Victimization by Marita! Status & Urban ResidenceRobbery Rates per 1,~00 Persons, 1987-8 9

MarriedRural

SuburGa n

Centra/ Cit y

Divo rced/ RuralSe parat ed

Suburban

Centra/ City

5

1 5

Never Married Rural

Suburba n

~ Cenfral Cify

16

Source: Nicholas Zill and Margaret Daly, Child Trends, Inc., based on data in Bureau of Justice Statistics report #NCT-135943, 1992 .

Variation in Crime Vicfimization by Marital Status & Urban Residence

Assault Rates pe~ 1,000 Persons, 1987-8 9

MarriedRura 1

Suburba n

Centra! City

Divorced/ RuralSeparated

Subur6a n

Centra/ City

~Jever Married Rural

Suburba n

Cenfra! City

~1

43

CJ O

1 5

Source: Nicholas Zill and Margaret Daly, Child Trends, Inc., basecf an data in Bureau of .Tustice Statistics report #NCJ-1~5943, 1492 .

Var i ation in Grime Victimiza#ion by Marital Status & Urban ResideneeBurglary Rates per 1 ,000 Households , 1987-8 9

R ura 1Married

Suburban

Ce n tra/ Ci ty

Di vorce d/ Rura~Separate d

Su6 urban

Cen fra l C ity

65

10 8

Ne~er Married Rural

Su6urba n

Central Cify

98

Source: Nicholas Zill and Margaret Daly, Child Trends, Inc ., based on data in Bureau of Justice Statistics report #NCJ-135943, 1992 .