This Week in Poverty: US Single Mothersâ€”'The Worst Off'
In my work covering poverty this past year, Iâ€™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 nationâ€™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 Americaâ€”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, â€śWorst Offâ€”Single-Parent Families in the United States, A Cross-National Comparison of Single Parenthood in the US and Sixteen Other High-Income Countries.â€ť
Using data from government agencies, social scientists and researchers worldwide, the report shows that single mothers in the United Statesâ€”most of whom are either separated or were previously marriedâ€”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 againâ€”because itâ€™s generally not what youâ€™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 isnâ€™t keeping US single parentsâ€”more than 80 percent of whom are single mothersâ€”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 includedâ€”such as a government child allowance, unemployment insurance and other assistance programsâ€”the US rate only declines to 51 percent, while the peer countries average poverty rate falls all the way down to 27 percent.
â€śThe reason we have these high poverty rates for single mother familiesâ€”despite their comparatively high employment rates and high share of full-time workersâ€”is because our income support system is terribly inadequate and thereâ€™s a very high rate of low-wage work,â€ť says Casey.
Indeed, the United States lags far behind other high-income countries in supporting the combination of â€śjobholding and caregiving.â€ť 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 oldsâ€”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 familyâ€™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.)
â€śWe are just so far behind other countries in making early childhood education and childcare available,â€ť says Casey.
If a single parent in the United States is able to workâ€”which too often means placing a child in a precarious child care situationâ€”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 employmentâ€”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 familiesâ€”and 26 percent of single mothersâ€”lacked healthcare coverage.
There is also a basic â€śchild allowance programâ€ťâ€”ongoing cash payments to offset the costs of raising childrenâ€”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 familiesâ€”through the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Creditâ€”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 jobsâ€”and the average benefit is around half of prior earningsâ€”benefits are often meager. Further, single mothers in the United States are less likely to qualify for any benefits at allâ€”their low-wage work often doesnâ€™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 â€śsocial assistance programsâ€ť that â€śprovide benefits to those whose income from other sources falls below a standard of minimum adequacy.â€ť In the United States, this includes cash welfareâ€”the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grantâ€”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 lineâ€”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 familiesâ€”about 90 percent of eligible children participate. But Republicans are pushing for a block grant instead of funding based on needâ€”which would be as disastrous as the TANF block grantâ€”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 nationâ€™s population is affected by the current lack of public policy support.
â€śBefore I started working on this paperâ€”I knew each individual aspect of disadvantageâ€”but I hadnâ€™t looked at them all together and seen the cumulative impact,â€ť says Casey, who has worked on these issues for thirty-five years. â€śItâ€™s the income supports, the healthcare insurance, the early education, lack of paid leave, the low-wage work. Itâ€™s the cumulative weight of all these factors that makes the titleâ€”â€śThe Worst Offâ€ťâ€”a fair title.â€ť
Casey sees nothing being proposed in the current budget debate that would make life better for single mothers and their families, but says â€śthereâ€™s a lot going on that could make life a whole lot worse.â€ť
â€śSo I hope this report will help raise the profile of single-parent economic insecurity, and change the discourse,â€ť he says. â€śWe need to get beyond simplistic thinking and look at the range of policy options availableâ€”policies that would benefit both single parent and two-parent familiesâ€”to ensure basic economic security to such a large segment of the population.â€ť