The United States and Single Parent Families - Essay Example

The United s and Single Parent Families Introduction The United s, like the rest of the world, would ideally like to have a country full of married people with children. Unfortunately, that is not the case with over 50% of marriages in the US ending in divorce.1 Children often suffer greatly from the impact of their parent's divorce. It takes away their security and makes them reevaluate their lives: Compared to children from intact homes, children of divorce are far more likely to struggle academically, engage in drug and alcohol use and other high-risk behaviors, commit suicide, experience psychiatric problems, live in poverty, and have a greater likelihood to divorce themselves. Thirty years of research conclusively shows its harm to children in virtually every measure. Studies support marital longevity as a vital component of good health for children and adults alike.2 The policies in the United States are similar to Canadian policies because they offer incentives and social welfare programs to poor divorced parents to enable them to be involved in the lives of their children. The United States recent policy has been to give bonuses to married people especially if they are poor. Under the administration of George Bush, the policies in the United States favor marriage and often blame divorce for poverty itself. The US has provided bonuses to welfare recipients who marry through cash incentives and tax breaks and many states earmark thousands of dollars for marriage education, "On February 26, 2002, President Bush called for spending up to $300 million a year to promote marriage among poor people."3 The question is whether or not throwing money at the poor will ensure marriage, and also whether those marriages will be better for the children than the parents being apart. These policies are along the same lines as the policies in Canada, but do they work Does throwing money at the situation help, or is it wasted on uneducated people who will just remain in poverty and bring up children who will also be poor Method By researching both the Canadian4 and American5 policies it is determined that they are very similar. Both focus on social welfare programs which give aid to poor people. Both offer education programs for the poor, and both policies encourage involvement by all of the parents whether or not they are married. It is also evident that these programs do not work because both countries still face the battle of child poverty. History of Policy Campaign 2000 in Canada proposed ending child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. They proposed multiple solutions to the problem of poverty such as providing good jobs, increasing the child income benefit, ensuring early learning and child care are offered, and that affordable housing is available to those who need it.6 Their website lists the goals of the program as: 1. We must raise and protect the basic living standards of families in all regions of the country so that no child in Canada must ever live in poverty*. 2. We must improve the life chances of all children in Canada to fulfill their potential and nurture their talent, and to become responsible and contributing members of Canadian society. 3. We must ensure the availability of secure, affordable, and suitable housing as an inherent right of all children in Canada. 4. We must create, build and strengthen family support, child care and community-based resources to empower families to provide the best possible care for their children.7 During the 1960's the United States declared it would attempt to rid the entire country of poverty and create a "great society": The Johnson Administration's anti-poverty policies were designed to create a "great society" by eradicating poverty. In addition to expanding social security, and a number of programs were created, including the Head Start program to give disadvantaged children extra help before they entered school; the Job Corps program to train high school dropouts; the Teachers Corps program; the Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) program; an adult education program; Medicare and Medicaid. In addition, the federal government sponsored loans to low-income farmers and businessmen, approved $1.6 billion in aid to the Appalachia region, and helped support the improvement inner-city ghettos. Between 1965 and 1970, nearly $10 billion was committed to the Great Society programs.8 . This sounds very similar to campaign 2000 which proposes an end to child poverty in Canada. As the world saw after Hurricane Katrina, that goal has not been met in the United States. According to statistics, it hasn't been met in Canada either: Child poverty is a special concern for governments and communities. No one can ignore the evidence from the multitude of studies that have documented the dreadful effects of poverty on children... Canada's high rate of child poverty is shocking for a country ranked among the wealthiest in the world. Canada ranks bronze on childhood poverty, with a rate almost six times that of Denmark!" -The Conference Board of Canada. 2005 This evidence shows that although the US and Canada have installed many social reform policies and projects, they have not accomplished the goal of ending child poverty. Issues Addressed by the Policy While it is true that many issues contribute to poverty, one of the most prevelant today in both Canada and the United States is single mother households. In writing about single parent families and poverty in the US, Robert Rector writes: The lack of progress in reducing child poverty since 1965 can be explained in part by the erosion of marriage and the growth of poverty-prone single-parent families. Two sets of facts make this point clear: The poverty rate for all children in married-couple families is 8.2 percent. By contrast, the poverty rate for all children in single-parent families is four times higher at 35.2 percent. The number of single-parent families has grown considerably since the onset of the War on Poverty. In 1960, less than 12 percent of children lived in single-parent families. By 2000, that figure had more than doubled, rising to 27.6 percent.9 Canada's situation is very similar: Single-parenthood is a growing phenomenon in Canada. The number of single-parent families has almost tripled between 1971 and 2001, going from 476,300 to 1,332,300. Between 1971 and 1991, the proportion of single-parent families went up from 9.4 percent to 13 percent of all families; this proportion reached 15.7 percent in 2001. Among families with children, the proportion of single-parent families went up from 11.4 percent to 20.0 percent between 1961 and 1991 to reach 22 percent in 1996. Single-parenthood is mostly a female experience: in 2001, 81 percent of single-parent families were mother-headed households.10 So all the United State would have to do is go back to 1960 to reduce the poverty rate by increasing the marriage rate. Unfortunately that is not an option. History shows that throwing money at the problem does not create a solution. The solution lies in the culture of the people. During the 1960's the United State was more religious, people typically held one chosen profession for the duration of their lives, and people stayed married even if they weren't happy. Today, people see divorce as a choice just as they see marriage. Sometimes when people get married they say things like, "If it doesn't work out we can just get divorced. This is what has changed and what needs to change back to reduce the poverty rate. The poverty rate is higher among single parent families because there is a higher expense and a lower income. In Canada, "In 2003, the average market income of two-parent families with children stood at $80,400 whereas it was of $28,400 for single-parent families. Two-parent families with children had an average income after tax of $69,400 in 2003 compared to $32,700 for single-parent families."11 There is also more stress and anxiety because the one parent must do the job of two parents.12 While I agree that it is good to offer financial assistance to the poor, and also good to fund education programs about poverty, I don't know how much of a difference it will make. If a child grows up in a poor, single parent home, that child doesn't know any better. That child thinks all families are that way and the child will try to model his or her life as an adult after the example of the parent. This creates a downward spiral. How do you change the perception of a child who is living in a poor house with limited influences Policy Goals The goals the United States' policy proposes are similar to the ones in the provinces in they both believe it is important for the mother and the father to be involved in the raising of children. Like Canada, the United States offers social programs to help children of the poor. The United States has federal and state funded programs such as Medicaid which provides free medical care to the poor, WIC which provides free vaccines, and food coupons to women and children who are poor and have health risks, Head Start which provides free child care to poor parents, and general welfare which provides living stipends and food stamps to those people who are living in poverty.13 There is also encouragement for fathers to be involved in their children's lives. Those who do stay involved usually provide much of the financial support for the children as well as much emotional support as well. The Census Bureau gave this information in its' 2004 Father's Day report: 2.3 million Number of single fathers, up from 393,000 in 1970. Currently, among single parents living with their children, 18 percent are men. Among these fathers - 10 percent are raising three or more of their own children under 18 years old. 42 percent are divorced; 38 percent have never married; 15 percent are separated; and 5 percent are widowed. (The percentages of those divorced and never married are not significantly different from one another.) 15 percent live in the home of a relative or a non-relative. 21 percent have an annual family income of $50,000 or more. Child-Support 4.6 million Number of fathers who provided child support. All in all, 84 percent of child-support providers are men, who provide median payments of $3,600 annually.14 Policy Value While policy is good and all it really doesn't seem to have an effect on people. People will take the money and the free programs, but the divorce rate continues to rise and children who live in single parent homes are still poor. Conclusion Children do better when there are two parents. They are healthier, they have less psychological and social problems, and they have more money. In both Canada and the United States, it seems there are a lot of programs and policies for parents and children after divorce. I think this is too late. The attitude and change must be made before marriage and before having children. Before getting married, the people involved should look at the situation as until death do you part and think of it as a partnership. If they always think this way they will act in ways to better their relationship. Also, people should not have sex until they are married. Besides the effect it will have on their own life and the life of their child there are other consequences such as AIDS and other STD's. The attitude towards the privacy and sacredness of a person's body has changed so much that some young people today don't really see it as a big deal to sleep with ten different people or more before marriage. From the evidence presented, it is obvious that families who have two parents are better off. They are less likely to be poor and more likely to be healthy. In order to increase the number of these "traditional" families it will take a world-wide culture change. People need to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. They need to respect their own bodies and think about the consequences of sex and what life will be like for a child if it is brought into the world. Parents need to put children first again and family first again. It is noble that governments want to fund programs to help stop poverty and help split families stay involved with one another. Those programs should continue, but history shows they are not solutions to the problem. Education towards cultural change would be a better solution. Teach people how to value themselves and their bodies so there will be less people in need of the social programs and classes currently offered by the governments. The problem of child poverty and single parent families is not limited to one country or even one hemisphere. It crosses cultures and nations. Governments try fruitlessly to bandage the wounds it leaves. It is time to do more and for the world to make a paradigm shift to the old ways of thinking-two parents raising children. It is clearly what is best for everyone. Bibliography Campaign 2000. "Goals of the Program" http://www.campaign2000.ca/about/ Canadian House of Commons (1989) Center for Disease Control. (2003) "Divorce Statistics" Citizen Link. "Focus on Social Issues" April 2004 < http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/divorce/> Coontz, Stephanie and Nancy Folbre, "Marriage, Poverty, and Public Policy" April 2002. http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2002/03/coontz-s-03-19.html Erani, Amy and Marc Shulman. MultiEducator software. (2001) "American History" Frost, Joel. (June 2003) "Bridging the Gaps: Children in a Changing Society" Kerr, D and Belanger, A (2001) "Family Change and the Economic Well-Being of Pre-school Age Children" Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada 2000: Current Demographic Analysis Statistics Canada. Catalogue no. 91-209-XPE Le Blog DePolyScopique. "Single-Parenthood in Canada" June 11, 2005. Nichols-Casebolt, PhD. and Judy Krysik, PhD. (2004) "The Economic Well-being of Never- and Ever-Married Single Mother Families: A Cross National Comparison" North Carolina Department of Social Services. (2004) "State Child Health and Welfare Programs" Rector, Robert, Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., and Patrick F. Fagan. "The Effect Of Marriage on Child Poverty" Center for Data Analysis Report #02-04. U.S. Census Bureau. (2004) "Facts for Features" < http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/004711.html> Read More