In my work covering poverty this past year, I’d be hard pressed to come up with anyone who is doing more to shatter the myths about single mothers in the United States than Tim Casey, senior staff attorney at Legal Momentum, the nation’s oldest organization advocating on behalf of the legal rights of women and girls.
Casey himself was raised by a single mother, and he is relentless in his pursuit of the facts about the real lives and living conditions of single-parent families in America—especially critical at a moment when women are demonized for being unmarried and blamed for their circumstances.
Yesterday, Casey and his colleague, Laurie Maldonado, research associate of the Luxembourg Income Study Center at the Graduate Center City University of New York, released an exhaustive new report, “Worst Off—Single-Parent Families in the United States, A Cross-National Comparison of Single Parenthood in the US and Sixteen Other High-Income Countries.”
Using data from government agencies, social scientists and researchers worldwide, the report shows that single mothers in the United States—most of whom are either separated or were previously married—are employed more hours and yet have much higher poverty rates than their peers in other high-income countries. Let me run that by you again—because it’s generally not what you’ve been reading of late in the news: the majority of single mothers in the United States are separated, divorced or widowed; and they work more hours and yet have higher poverty rates than single mothers in other high-income countries.
The employment rate for US single mothers during the mid- to late-2000s was 73 percent, compared to an average of 66 to 70 percent in peer countries. In a 2000 comparative study of nine peer countries, 87 percent of employed US single parents were working thirty or more hours a week, compared to just an average of 64 percent of jobholding single parents in the other countries.
And yet employment isn’t keeping US single parents—more than 80 percent of whom are single mothers—out of poverty. Using 50 percent of median income as the standard for measuring poverty, US children in single mother families have a poverty rate of 63 percent when only parental earnings are considered, comparable to the 61 percent average for children in single mother families in other high-income countries. But when transfer payments are included—such as a government child allowance, unemployment insurance and other assistance programs—the US rate only declines to 51 percent, while the peer countries average poverty rate falls all the way down to 27 percent.
“The reason we have these high poverty rates for single mother families—despite their comparatively high employment rates and high share of full-time workers—is because our income support system is terribly inadequate and there’s a very high rate of low-wage work,” says Casey.
Indeed, the United States lags far behind other high-income countries in supporting the combination of “jobholding and caregiving.” In all of the comparison countries, new parents are entitled to paid leave; in the United States, just 11 percent of employees enjoyed it in 2011. The United States is the only one of the seventeen comparable countries without an entitlement to paid annual leave, which averages four weeks in peer countries. With the exception of the United States and Canada, all of the comparable nations also provide paid sick days, averaging over three days per year; and ten of the countries provide up to five days of paid leave annually to care for a sick child.
While a lack of paid leave makes it difficult for single parents to leave work in order to care for their children, a lack of affordable childcare and early childhood education options are a significant barrier to finding employment and keeping it.
In the thirteen comparison countries that are members of the European Union, pre-primary care for children ages 3 to 5 is close to universally available. In the United States, free education is generally available at least part-day for 5-year-olds, but much less so for 3 and 4 year olds—with only 20 percent and 44 percent, respectively, enrolled in a public nursery school program in 2010.
As for child care, the cost in the United States is often prohibitive. In 2011, the average annual cost of full-time care for an infant at a daycare center ranged from $4,591 in Mississippi to $20,178 in Washington, DC. While the federal government provides some childcare subsidies for low-income parents, they reach only a fraction of those eligible and the co-pays can consume a significant chunk of a family’s income. (Georgetown University law professor Peter Edelman reported that federal assistance for childcare currently reaches about one in seven of those who are eligible.)
“We are just so far behind other countries in making early childhood education and childcare available,” says Casey.
If a single parent in the United States is able to work—which too often means placing a child in a precarious child care situation—there is a much greater likelihood that their work is in a low-wage job as compared to single parents in peer countries. In fact, in 2009, 25 percent of all US jobholders were employed in low-wage jobs, compared to an average of 14 percent in peer countries. And 40 percent of US single parents had low-wage employment—exceptionally high compared to other groups of workers in the nation.
With so many employed single mothers earning poverty wages, the lack of income support programs and health care in the US completes what is seemingly a perfect storm of financial insecurity.
All of the comparison countries provide universal health care coverage. In 2010, 11 percent of US children in single-mother families—and 26 percent of single mothers—lacked healthcare coverage.
There is also a basic “child allowance program”—ongoing cash payments to offset the costs of raising children—in every peer country except the United States. The programs either benefit every family without regard to income, or they are income-tested and benefits are reduced or eliminated, accordingly.
The United States does allow for single annual payments to many low-income families—through the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit—provided that they have earned income. In 2011, however, approximately one-third of single mothers had no earned income. And although the tax credits lifted over 8 million people over the poverty line, Republicans are now trying to limit the reach and effectiveness of these antipoverty measures during the current budget negotiations.
If a single mother in the United States loses her job, she will find an unemployment insurance (UI) system that is less generous and more difficult to qualify for than it is in peer countries. The median durational limit for such insurance in comparable nations is fifty-seven weeks, compared to just twenty-six weeks in most US states. (Except during a recession, when the limit is normally extended.) However, because single mothers so often work in low-wage jobs—and the average benefit is around half of prior earnings—benefits are often meager. Further, single mothers in the United States are less likely to qualify for any benefits at all—their low-wage work often doesn’t meet minimum earnings requirements, and leaving a job for childcare reasons disqualifies a worker from receiving benefits in some states. In 2010, 44 percent of all unemployed persons in the United States received unemployment benefits, but only 24 percent of unemployed single mothers.
Finally, there are the “social assistance programs” that “provide benefits to those whose income from other sources falls below a standard of minimum adequacy.” In the United States, this includes cash welfare—the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant—and food stamps (SNAP). Prior to welfare reform in 1996, for every 100 families with children living in poverty, sixty-eight received cash assistance; but by 2010 that ratio dropped to just twenty families. States have discretion to determine eligibility and time limits, so there are virtually fifty different systems. In a majority of states, the benefit levels have fallen below 30 percent of the official poverty line—so less than $6,000 for a family of three. In the comparison countries, the benefit is just below the poverty standard of 50 percent of median income.
SNAP has been much more effective in helping single mother families—about 90 percent of eligible children participate. But Republicans are pushing for a block grant instead of funding based on need—which would be as disastrous as the TANF block grant—and Democrats have joined them in proposals calling for billions of dollars in cuts to SNAP.
Finally, the report points out that over half of all children growing up in the US today will spend time in a single-parent family during their lifetime, so a substantial portion of the nation’s population is affected by the current lack of public policy support.
“Before I started working on this paper—I knew each individual aspect of disadvantage—but I hadn’t looked at them all together and seen the cumulative impact,” says Casey, who has worked on these issues for thirty-five years. “It’s the income supports, the healthcare insurance, the early education, lack of paid leave, the low-wage work. It’s the cumulative weight of all these factors that makes the title—“The Worst Off”—a fair title.”
Casey sees nothing being proposed in the current budget debate that would make life better for single mothers and their families, but says “there’s a lot going on that could make life a whole lot worse.”
“So I hope this report will help raise the profile of single-parent economic insecurity, and change the discourse,” he says. “We need to get beyond simplistic thinking and look at the range of policy options available—policies that would benefit both single parent and two-parent families—to ensure basic economic security to such a large segment of the population.”
Join the Single Parent Policy Advocacy Network (SPPAN) to educate and advocate for public policies to improve the economic security of single parents and their children. Simply send an e-mail with “subscribe” in the subject line to email@example.com.
Don’t Push Jobless Americans Over the Cliff—Renew Unemployment Insurance for 2013.
Call Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office, (202) 225-4000, tell him to pass a Violence Against Women Act that includes strong provisions to protect Native and immigrant women and LGBT survivors.
“For Their Memory Shall Be a Blessing”—EndGunViolenceNow.org.
Playing Chicken with Workers’ Safety—Tell USDA to Withdraw Proposed Poultry Rule.
The Deficit Debate—Stand Up for Programs Meeting Human Needs
Over the past few months, Nation intern Christie Thompson has made this blog better with her keen insights, writing and organizational ability. She moves on to ProPublica in the New Year and she will continue to write about inequality. You can follow her on Twitter.
Clips/Resources (compiled with Christie Thompson)
“Assemblymember Ammiano introduces Homeless Bill of Rights,” Carlos Alcalá
“What’s at Stake for Low-Income Individuals and Families in the Fiscal Cliff?” Elizabeth Lower-Basch
“House Republican Tax Plan,” (Infographic) Melissa Boteach
“Do proposed laws need a ‘poverty impact statement’?” Cynthia Boyd
“The path to Michigan’s right-to-work law,” Krissy Clark
“Michigan residents seek new path to the middle class,” Krissy Clark
“The Great Walmart Walkout,” Josh Eidelson
“Chained CPI: Bad Deal for Kids and Low-Income Working-Age Adults,” Shawn Fremstad
“Supplemental Security—Build on This Vital Support for Disabled Kids,” Shawn Fremstad and Rebecca Vallas
“Drug tests for welfare recipients weighed,” Kate Giammarise
“Tax Credits Keep Millions of Working Families From Poverty,” Kathy Mulady
“Don’t Reduce the Deficit on the Backs of Seniors in Need,” National Council on Aging
“10 States to Increase Minimum Wage on New Year’s Day,” National Employment Law Project
“Cutting Programs for Low-Income People Especially Hurts Women and Their Families,” National Women’s Law Center
“How to Fight Homelessness,” New York Times
“Jailed without conviction: Behind bars for lack of money,” Katy Reckdahl
“Stop Humiliating the Poor: An Open Letter to Politicians and Welfare Bureaucrats,” (.pdf pages 3-4), Vicky Steinitz and Anne Wheelock
“Demonizing Welfare Recipients,” Washington Post
“New poultry rule could harm workers, advocates say,” Lindsay Wise
“Children of working poor caught in pinch of recession,” Megan Woolhouse
Reports (co-written with Christie Thompson)
“Fiscal Cliff Could Plunge Millions of Kids into Poverty,” Jared Solomon, First Focus. If tax breaks for the middle- and lowest-income bracket expire, who will pay the highest price? This study from finds that going off the “fiscal cliff” could mean even more American children fall into poverty. If the improvements to the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit aren’t extended, another 1 million American children may be impoverished.
Going over the cliff also means nearly 100,000 children would lose Head Start, nearly 500,000 would lose special education services, up to 734,000 pregnant women, new moms, and infants would lose nutrition assistance, and 180,000 families would lose affordable housing. Unemployment benefits—which lifted 1 million children above the poverty line in 2011—will expire for 2 million people by the end of this year as well.
“Mayors’ Annual Report on Hunger and Homelessness,” US Conference of Mayors. The Task Force on Hunger and Homelessness surveyed twenty-five cities across the country for a full picture of urban hunger and homelessness. What it found was a rising demand for emergency assistance from already strapped city budgets. Twenty-one cities said requests for emergency food assistance increased last year, and over half of those seeking help were families with children. Even though 57 percent of cities had increased their budget for nutrition assistance, almost every city still had to cut back on the amount given to individuals at pantries and emergency kitchens, and 90 percent of cities had to turn people away who were in need. 60 percent of cities also reported an increase in homelessness. Homeless families with children were turned away by emergency shelters in 64 percent of the survey cities because no beds were available.
“National Baby Facts,” ZERO TO THREE. Understanding the demographics, families, health, and early learning experiences of infants and toddlers is crucial to effectively providing supports to infants, toddlers and their families. This report draws a clear picture of the 75 percent of infants and toddlers with a single parent who are in low-income families, and 35 percent of infants and toddlers with married parents in low-income families. It offers the facts on the supports and services—whether healthcare, food, housing security, or positive early learning opportunities—that play a crucial role in nurturing a young child’s development and helping all children realize their potential.
US poverty (less than $17,916 for a family of three): 46.2 million people, 15.1 percent.
Poverty gender gap, 2011: Women 34 percent more likely to be poor than men.
Poverty gender gap, 2010: Women 29 percent more likely to be poor than men.
Poverty rate among families with children headed by single mothers: 40.9 percent.
Deep poverty (less than $11,510 for a family of four): 20.4 million people, 1 in 15 Americans, including more than 15 million women and children.
Families receiving cash assistance, 1996: 68 for every 100 families living in poverty.
Families receiving cash assistance, 2010: 27 for every 100 families living in poverty.
Food Stamps recipients with no cash income: 6.5 million people.
Jobs in the US paying less than $34,000 a year: 50 percent.
Jobs in the US paying below the poverty line for a family of four, less than $23,000 annually: 25 percent.
Poverty-level wages, 2011: 28 percent of workers.
Quotes of the Week
“As the Congress and White House continue to search for ways to cut federal spending, I hope that the millions of Americans who are simply trying to keep their homes livable and their lights on do not become causalities of this effort. Programs that help low-income households—households that daily struggle to meet the burden of their home energy cost—should not be sacrificed to reduce the federal deficit. Federal energy assistance, known as LIHEAP, currently assists only 20 percent of those eligible for the program. Any reduction in funding would be devastating leaving millions with the ‘heat or eat’ dilemma. Energy poverty is very real and programs designed to help this situation should not be targeted for reduction.”
—George Coling, retiring Executive Director, National Fuel Funds Network
“We engaged judiciary committee staff from both chambers in discussions over the VAWA tribal provisions well over a year ago, passed a strong [bipartisan] bill through the Senate eight months ago, and saw a first draft from House Judiciary regarding the tribal jurisdictional provisions just this week.”
—Jefferson Keel, President, National Congress of American Indians,
letter to Majority Leader Eric Cantor (12/20/12)
Christie Thompson co-wrote the “Clips/Resources” and “Reports” sections of this blog.
This Week in Poverty posts here on Friday mornings, and again on Sundays at Moyers & Company. Today in Poverty posts earlier in the week. You can e-mail me at WeekInPoverty@me.com and follow me on Twitter.