Blame Joblessness, More Than Family, for Black Poverty

Twenty years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s report, “The Negro Family,” identified black family structure as the root cause of black poverty. That report by the assistant secretary of labor (now senator from New York) was greeted with such an outcry that policies directed at black family structure were barely mentioned in the decade that followed. Today, black poverty is once again being blamed primarily, if not exclusively, on the structure and culture of black families. But evidence from an ongoing long-term study of American families shows that even when black children live in two-parent families, they are likely to spend four times as much of their childhood in poverty as the average white child will spend. The solution to black poverty lies less in the family than in the labor market.

The all-too-familiar image of black poverty portrays inner-city black children growing up in fatherless families, dependent on welfare and destined to become the next generation of welfare recipients. Are these vivid impressions of an urban underclass representative of the larger group of poor blacks? And can they be used to justify Draconian cuts in programs inspired by President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society”? The survey evidence reveals that most black poverty does not fit the underclass stereotype, and that the welfare system rarely produces long-term dependency either in its present recipients or in their children’s generation. This recent and surprising evidence on the weak links between family structure, poverty and welfare comes from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, conducted at the University of Michigan. For 18 years the study has followed the economic fortunes of a large and representative sample of more than 5,000 American families--white and black, advantaged and disadvantaged, urban and rural. Since this study has tracked the same families year after year, the data provide a unique source of information about the economic fortunes of American families over the long term.

Data from annual government surveys paint a bleak picture of the economic plight of black children, but the results from the Panel Study are even bleaker. Among black children, fewer than one in seven lives above the poverty line during every year of childhood. In contrast, a clear majority of white children enjoy economic security throughout their entire childhood. Despite the safety net of cash welfare programs instituted in the last 20 years, the average black child can expect to spend more than five of his or her first 15 years in poverty. For white children the total time spent in poverty averages nine months.

Differences in family structure account for some, but by no means all or even most, of the differences in childhood poverty between blacks and whites. A black child living with only one parent throughout childhood is likely to spend half of his or her first 15 years in poverty, compared with three years out of 15 for black children in intact families. But the most striking implication of these numbers is that, even given the cash welfare system of the 1970s, the average black child living with both parents throughout his or her first 15 years still could be expected to experience three of those years--about one-fifth of childhood--in poverty. This is the same that could be expected for a white child living with only one parent.

There also are surprising findings on the location and persistence of black poverty. The problems of black children concentrated in inner-city enclaves are both severe and highly visible, but the data suggest that more pervasive and persistent poverty lies outside large urban areas. If we want to develop policies that will be effective in solving problems of childhood poverty nationwide, we must include a much larger and different population than is represented in the stereotype of an urban underclass.

The Panel Study’s broader scope also shows that, despite the pervasiveness of poverty among black children, less than half of all those experiencing poverty at least once during childhood will be poor for most of their childhood years. For black and white children, escaping from poverty is more closely tied to the employment of parents and older children than to any other event, including marriage.

Frequent movements into and out of poverty produce a great deal of turnover among welfare recipients. Overall, less than one-third of all recipients experience welfare “careers” lasting eight or more years. And while nearly three out of four black children grow up in families where welfare is received at least once, fewer than one in six live in families that count heavily on welfare for more than half of the time.

Among the study’s important revelations are its findings of very weak links between welfare dependency of parent and child. Fewer than one in four black women growing up in heavily welfare-dependent homes were found to depend heavily on welfare when they were observed in their own homes 10 to 15 years later.

Taken together, the evidence indicates we must look beyond the black family and the “underclass” to find solutions to black poverty and render judgment about welfare programs. Jobs can and do lift many blacks out of poverty, but we have much to learn about how labor market benefits can be extended to include not only the small group of blacks in the professional elite but also the much larger group of black workers in lower-wage labor markets or outside the job market altogether.

Meanwhile, the plight of black children growing up in impoverished households commands our immediate attention while we continue searching for solutions to the root causes of these problems. Until they are found, we must ensure that the safety net provides a greater measure of opportunity for our nation’s children.