Georgians look past government to solve child poverty
America’s five-decade war on poverty has made quite clear which social ill is most closely tied to child poverty. Yet, we haven’t taken the first shot at it. Fortunately, some Georgians are finally ready to take the fight where it needs to go.
I’m talking about the breakdown of the two-parent family and births out of wedlock. No other social factor comes closer to explaining why some people are poor and others aren’t.
Not education: In Georgia, the child of two married high school dropouts is less likely to be poor than the child of a single mother who has taken some college classes. More striking, a single mother with a college degree is more likely to live in poverty than are two married high school grads with a child.
Education matters. It’s just not the most important factor when it comes to child poverty.
Nor is race or ethnicity: Poverty rates are higher in Georgia for blacks and Hispanics than for whites. However, a white single parent is almost four times more likely to be poor than are married black parents, and slightly more likely than are married Hispanic parents. Births to unwed women are rising across racial groups.
Perhaps no statistic gets at it more quickly than these two: Three-quarters of poor families with children in Georgia are unmarried. And marriage drops the probability of child poverty in Georgia by 82 percent.
“The collapse of marriage … is the primary reason that you have child poverty,” the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector said Wednesday in Atlanta.
Rector was in town at the behest of the Georgia Family Council, which just launched a multiyear initiative called Breakthrough Georgia to address the real roots of poverty.
While GFC will seek some new legislation to help the cause, it’s not going to wait around for government solutions. The idea is to find private experts and community groups close to the problems, and raise private funds to pay for the programs they develop.
“Government can only do so much,” said GFC President Randy Hicks, especially when it’s already “stretched thin” financially. And existing welfare programs often exacerbate the problem by giving more money to mothers who aren’t married.
The first task is to identify why so many Georgia women are having children before marriage — already 45 percent of all births in the state and, without action, likely a majority within five years, Rector predicted.
It’s not just teens. There are twice as many unwed births to mothers over 30 than to mothers under 18. Sixty percent are to women in their 20s.
Nor is it a matter of disdain for marriage, Rector said: “These mothers … esteem the institution of marriage.”
“[But] their understanding of it tends to be idealized,” he said, “like you only marry when you’re in the middle class.”
For a starting place, Rector said, Breakthrough Georgia simply needs to tell women unmarried births are a problem.
“If you want to reduce a behavior in society, you have to tell people,” he said, making an analogy to smoking. “You have never told a single one of these young women … that having a child without being married is the royal root to persistent child poverty.”
The compounding effect of generation after generation of unwed mothers means we are “effectively dividing into two social castes,” Rector said. One with the social knowledge to save child-rearing for marriage, and one without it.
Much of the inequality in society flows from that gap. That’s the gap to bridge.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
223 comments Add your comment
crying lil' fishjoke
October 22nd, 2011
10:13 am
Yes defeated by your ignorance – you win!
————————
You supplied the ignorance, I supplied the win.
GT
October 22nd, 2011
10:15 am
Bill Campbell at what point do you say the opposite. The poor is getting bigger and bigger, either you will be one of them or they will be at your door. Not unlike what happen with Gaddafi who call em rats. Everybody has a point of view and then their is reality.
Sailfish
October 22nd, 2011
10:18 am
poly razz matazz
midtownguy
October 22nd, 2011
10:23 am
Why do some folks use birth control and some don’t. Why do some have abortions when they become pregnant and some don’t? The answer is almost always economic. If you see a strong economic future for yourself you don’t want an out-of-wedlock child so you keep that from happening either before or after the conception. Also, the abortion rate for married couples has skyrocketed the last four years because unemployed couples can’t afford another child.
And for those of you who think “church” is the answer, here is a little tidbit for you. Studies show that young people who classify themselves as “born again christians” are no more likely to marry as virgins than the general public. The only religious group that shows a slightly higher than average virgin marriage rate is Catholics.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
10:26 am
SeeB:
Also, at some point in the 8 years Bush was in office, I believe the Republicans had complete control of both houses. If the Republican party was so concerned about the issue of tax payers paying for out of wedlock/poor children, they could have dealt with it by passing some type of legislation. Did they do that? No they did not.
Like it or not, Bush AND Ted Kennedy implemented NCLB in an attempt to break the cycle of poverty. Poverty stems from a lack of education. For decades the federal government has been throwing money at our failing schools with nothing to show from it. The bulk of the money feeds the bureaucratic beast, not the minds of children.
If parents remain uneducated, so too will their children. It’s a cyclical problem. What I find most interesting is how left-wingers focus most of their attention on SEX EDUCATION, as if…there’s more to life than sex.
Bill and Melinda Gates have funded a program out in Portland…”Gateway to College”. It’s specifically geared towards impoverished youth. Tuition is free. By all accounts, it’s a wonderful opportunity. Problem is…there’s still a 40% drop-out rate in their program. Who rejects a second opportunity like the one they’re offering? Kids who hate school? Most people hate their jobs too, but they don’t drop out. They suck it up and show up. It’s what helps them achieve their goals.
Anyhoo, here’s the numbers
By the Numbers:
- 75 percent of state prison inmates and 59 percent of federal inmates are high-school dropouts.
- High-school dropouts are 3.5 times more likely than graduates to be incarcerated.
- Dropouts contribute disproportionately to the unemployment rate. In 2001, 55 percent of young adult dropouts were employed, compared to 74 percent of high-school graduates and 87 percent of college graduates.
- Dropouts contribute to state and federal tax coffers at about one-half the rate of high-school graduates. Over a working lifetime, a dropout will contribute about $60,000 less.
- The 23 million high-school dropouts aged 18-67 will contribute roughly $50 billion less annually in state and federal taxes.
- Studies suggest the United States would save $41.8 billion in health care costs if the 600,000 young people who dropped out in 2004 were to complete one additional year of education.
- If 33 percent of dropouts graduated from high school, the federal government would save $10.8 billion each year in food stamps, housing assistance, and temporary assistance for needy families.
- Testifying before Congress, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings said dropouts cost the United States “more than $260 billion… in lost wages, lost taxes and lost productivity over their lifetimes.”
People who choose to throw away opportunities are a drain on our society.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
10:31 am
The poor is getting bigger and bigger, either you will be one of them or they will be at your door.
———————–
Why does the left encourage and approve of criminal behavior?
GT
October 22nd, 2011
10:33 am
midtownguy is right and I consider myself religious. I have always been amazed at conservatives being that hell bent on abortions. When it was a new topic back in the 70s, the ones they wanted to rid the world of ,the minority, were the market of abortions. Now it is a mixed bag of poor and middle class trying to stay middle class. I imagine the mothers that had to work to keep the family in the middle have been a helpful contributor to this problem. Also add the divorce rate, that is now encouraged by our new leaders especially in the Republican party who campaign with the new wife right on their arm. You notice O is happily married. Not a bad place to start when looking for leadership.
GT
October 22nd, 2011
10:55 am
I am not sure the left encourages it as much as recognizes it and know it won’t go away by itself. Where in you mind do you think this corrects itself. I will grant you this, if we had not bailed out the banks and corporation and some of our brighter minds had to dip themselves in this sewer the rest of us live in they might be more proactive about putting this country back on track. Even pay a little tax to the lost cause might inspire them to get off the porch. If that happens then we can take the government out of the equation. Right now the 1% just is not involved with the rest of the country who itself is not involved because they are just trying to stay alive. Where in this unnatural world of bail out do we see this correcting itself?
brad
October 22nd, 2011
10:59 am
And of course the solution proposed by the sexually repressed conservatives is to put women back under their thumb, and shove their religion down everyone’s throats.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
11:15 am
Yeah, the 99% are “just trying to stay alive”, and yet there are still jobs Americans won’t do.
Quitcher cryin’ and get a job, 99-percenters.
midtownguy
October 22nd, 2011
11:42 am
I’m not a 99%er but when I look at who the Obama administration considers “rich” and therefore not paying enough taxes I am one of them. Somewhere along they way single people with a six figure income became “rich.” I have a good job and I am grateful for it, but I am by no means rich.
I am conflicted on this. Bush I once said “If you are wealthy because you worked hard you should not apologize to anyone for your wealth.” I agree. Bill Clinton said “If you and your wife both get up and go to work every day, you should make enough money to support your family.” I also agree.
Who the Food Stamp, WIC, housing and medicaid for children programs really support is minimum wage employers. It allows them to pay minimum wage. Wal Mart is the most infamous. They tell their new hires in Georgia to go down and apply for Peachcare for their children because they know they pay them so little that they qualify.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
11:50 am
Nonsense. Minimum wage workers are minimum wage workers because that’s all their meager skills allow them to demand from a free market. If they were worth more, they could get it.
Old Timer
October 22nd, 2011
12:08 pm
You’ll find it hard to put the genie back in the bottle now. At one time, social mores mostly took care of the problem of having children born out of wedlock. I remember as a junior in high school that a very pretty classmate became pregnant and never returned to school. It just wasn’t done or accepted.
Now, in many sectors, having a child out of wedlock is a girl’s rite of passage. And there’s that sexual element we don’t like to talk about. Why were unwed fathers chased from the home as a condition of federal and state support for impoverished children? Why, because “I don’t want my tax money goin’ to some bum that’s layin’ back and having a great time with some girl.” And so we created the situation in which unwed mothers could get more government aid by having more children and staying unwed. The minute she gets married, it’s bye-bye, support.
Acceptance of what was once called social illegitimacy is now the norm—and not only among some ethnical segments. We no longer raise an eyebrow when we learn that Mr. X and Ms. Y are living together without benefit of matrimony. It’s now the norm to include “significant others” in invitation lists. Don’t pretend that the problem we’re discussing now doesn’t have some co-conspirators, including you.
Let’s stop the pious pretense that the problem is confined to one race. We helped create it through our acceptance of illegimate births and unwed sex..
midtownguy
October 22nd, 2011
12:10 pm
I didn’t say anything about the workers, I was addressing the employers using government services in lieu of providing benefits out of their profits.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
12:56 pm
They aren’t.
catlady
October 22nd, 2011
1:00 pm
What might help? You might require women to marry and at least finish high school before having “permission” to have a baby. If they don’t do so, they would be sterilized at the birth of their child. If they don’t name the father, they would have to pay for the sterilization. If they do name the father, he would be sterilized, too.
Unfortunately I don’t think we are ready for that yet. It used to be that if you had one illegitimate baby, you made sure you didn’t have another. Now, it’s just the opening of the gate. Women who continue to have babies they cannot care for should be sterilized, and their male partners, too. We simply cannot afford to continue to use them as (generally substandard) breeding stock.
As a teacher, I can observe that we have NO BUSINESS paying folks to have a handicapped child. Perhaps we should pay them for having a bright, well-behaved, achieving child. There is no reason for SS payments for children due to their handicap. How many non-handicapped kids “bring in” $700 per month?
td
October 22nd, 2011
1:11 pm
Old Timer
October 22nd, 2011
12:08 pm
I agree with everything you said including that this is not a race issue. I would add that no-fault divorces has highy contributed to the greater number of poor children. A married couple making $50,000 per year can make it in society but when they divorce (because they fall out of love) then supporting two households will equal $25,000 per household and they are now considered poor. There is a billion dollar divorce industry established so it is going to be hard to solve the problem with that strong interest.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
1:13 pm
And of course the solution proposed by the sexually repressed conservatives is to put women back under their thumb
Thbppbbbt! Conservative women tolerate nothing of the sort. Remember, it wasn’t us, who needed NOW to show us the way. We had a pretty clear grasp of the realities.
By the same “token”, NOW made it easier to put women underneath men. Heck! That’s where men have always wanted women. Nothing’s changed…NOW just made it easier for men.
td
October 22nd, 2011
1:13 pm
catlady
October 22nd, 2011
1:00 pm
You may need to sit down before you read the rest of this post.
I agree with you 100%.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
1:19 pm
Why were unwed fathers chased from the home as a condition of federal and state support for impoverished children?
Same reason unwed fathers have no say when it comes to aborting his child.
td
October 22nd, 2011
1:20 pm
catlady
October 22nd, 2011
1:00 pm
Forgot to add. When I first started my career I worked for DFCS in downtown Atl. Most of the staff at my office (99% African American) said we should help a person with benefits if they make a mistake and have a benefit but in return for they help the person would have to volunteer for either sterilization or BC will receiving benefits. If the person got pregnant while receiving benefits then the person would be cut off forever and would have to pay back all the benefits they received.
Sounds like a reasonable plan I could support today.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 22nd, 2011
1:28 pm
Meanwhile, the food stamp president works to expand poverty.
And your doing a heckuva job, obozie!
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 22nd, 2011
1:29 pm
Mission accomplished!
allah akbar!
@@
October 22nd, 2011
1:35 pm
Whooaaaa!
we should help a person with benefits if they make a mistake and have a benefit but in return for they help the person would have to volunteer for either sterilization or BC will receiving benefits. If the person got pregnant while receiving benefits then the person would be cut off forever and would have to pay back all the benefits they received.
Sounds like a permanent solution to what COULD BE a temporary problem.
We simply cannot afford to continue to use them as (generally substandard) breeding stock.
In the words of eugenicist, Margaret Sanger
larry.333
October 22nd, 2011
1:38 pm
PASS EVERIFY !!!
THAT WILL FREE UP MANY JOBS HELD BY ILLEGAL ALIENS, IN THIS COUNTRY !!
THE LARGEST SHARE OF JOBS GOING TO ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE IN MANUFACTURING, CONSTRUCTION, RETAIL/WHOLESALE, AND OTHER SURPRISING POSITIONS, TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM AMERICAN CITIZENS AND KIDS !!
td
October 22nd, 2011
1:51 pm
@@
October 22nd, 2011
1:35 pm
“Sounds like a permanent solution to what COULD BE a temporary problem”
Under the plan, the client would have a choice. It could be temporary or permanent it would be their choice.
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
1:53 pm
cons are not used to winning wars so they are lashing out.
Of course they will continue to reward the gop failures with their votes and that will not change.
Our President earned four more years with his victories and accomplishments.
The gop obstructed everything but socialism for the banks and have accomplished nothing on jobs.
No jobs no cuts.
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
2:06 pm
“Much of the inequality in society flows from that gap. That’s the gap to bridge.”
Total bs.
If you want the truth on inequality today, look in the mirror.
You voted for a party that is a puppet for the 1 %.
There is a movement around our country to end the gop 1 % government.
Join them if you are sick of it.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
2:15 pm
td:
It’s a slippery slope. Besides, I seriously doubt the ACLU would support such a thing.
Legalized bribery??? There’s too much of it going on now (see Washington). Would make it harder to criticize/indict them if the citizenry is out there promoting it.
‘Ya think this woman might be over analyzing just a bit?
The questions aren’t that complicated.
td
October 22nd, 2011
2:20 pm
@@
October 22nd, 2011
2:15 pm
You are probably correct about the ACLU, although Florida is drug testing for benefits and we will be after the next legislative session, so it may not be that far of a stretch.
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
2:32 pm
td,
Do they make pols pee in a cup too?
You call that freedom?
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
2:35 pm
Are you going to check their poop and blood next and call that freedom?
Get a grip cons.
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
2:46 pm
@@,
“Legalized bribery??? There’s too much of it going on now (see Washington).”
You are the 99 %.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
2:48 pm
td:
I’m O.K. with the drug testing. Don’t forget, Roe v Wade is law. It’s centered around the right to privacy. If a woman has privacy rights to her own body, then it stands to reason no government entity can invade that.
I suppose it could be argued that, if the public is asked to assist in supporting mother and child, it’s no longer a private issue.
Gets complicated, but still…it’s that slippery slope thingy.
The only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights. It’s with the destruction of individual rights that the destruction of freedom begins.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
2:53 pm
Getalife:
You are the 99 %.
Don’t try to put me in a box. I don’t fit well within a confined space.
My wrists are crossed in front of my @@s
(ISH)
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
2:54 pm
Giving government a bodily fluid is a major invasion of privacy and freedom.
You cons are out of your freaking minds.
You don’t even ask the pols to do it too.
And you wonder why our country is going downhill.
Look in the mirror.
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
2:57 pm
@@,
You can bet they are against peeing in a cup.
They are real Americans.
You cons say you are against “legalized bribery” but do nothing but vote gop to make it worse.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
3:01 pm
Getalife:
If an employer, facing liability issues, asks an employee to pee in a cup, are he/she justified?
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
3:05 pm
@@,
I will never agree peeing in a cup is freedom .
At least employers have everybody in their company do it to be fair.
Are the florida pols doing it too?
That guv is probably high.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
3:17 pm
Occupy Atlanta fights white image
Ronaldo Sobral came to Woodruff Park not to be heard but to listen, to watch and to judge the appeal of Occupy Atlanta. One thing he noticed, moving through the crowd, listening at the edge of conversations, was that white faces far outnumbered dark ones such as his.
That is a reality, both in Atlanta and nationally: From the beginning, most movement participants have been white.
——————————-
You should be ashamed of supporting a racist movement.
You libs hypocritically t accuse others of racism.
Look in the mirror.
It’s called “projection”.
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
3:21 pm
Funny thing about the protesters.
There are so many problems they want to address, they can’t agree on a message.
A simple “cut spending ” message was easy but failed.
They are still spending higher than last year.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
3:23 pm
The protesters have a problem.
It should be their number one priority.
Their own racism.
Clean up your own house before complaining about the productive class.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
3:25 pm
Getalife:
And here I thought we had some sort of obligation to government if we avail ourselves of their services. I’d rather pee in a cup than let ‘em raise my taxes.
I can, however, understand why YOU would rather not.
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
3:26 pm
lil bar,
The gop always use projection.
Like the ones that speak out about the gays, get busted at gay bars.
I think that guv in Florida is on drugs for another example.
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
3:28 pm
@@,
I am against raising taxes until they quit wasting our money on corporate welfare.
I am against peeing in a cup because it is not freedom.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
3:28 pm
Getalife:
The difference I see between the Tea Party and OWS protesters is this:
The Tea Party opposed the bailouts because they knew it would be they, who had to pay for it. The OWS crowd was opposed to the bailout because THEY wanted the money (our money).
@@
October 22nd, 2011
3:34 pm
Getalife:
I’m for closing those loopholes that don’t support a thriving economy. At times I think closing ALL loopholes would be beneficial. No way to buy votes OR politicians.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
3:36 pm
Oh, and Getalife:
If you were to pee in a cup, the bottom would disintegrate, leaving no evidence to be tested.
schnirt
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
3:36 pm
Wrong @@,
They are against the 1 % controlling government with “legalized bribes” to get socialism to bail them out. Our government worked fast for that. It took a couple of days for them to get their socialism checks.
td
October 22nd, 2011
3:38 pm
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
2:54 pm
Giving government a bodily fluid is a major invasion of privacy and freedom
It is not an invasion of privacy if it is voluntary. The courts have already ruled that corporations can make you take a drug test as a term of employment. If you do not want take the test then do not apply for the job. This is the same principle with drug testing for welfare. One can take that a step farther and say it is the same with having children while on welfare. Stop receiving and you can have all the children you want to have.