Year in Review: A look back at how opportunity expanded in 2023

by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Dec 21, 2023

new years resolution, 2024, year in review

Year in Review: A look back at how opportunity expanded in 2023

Key Points

Research has shown that safe communities, stable relationships, and meaningful education and work are essential to making poverty escapable.
In 2023, we focused on helping communities develop solutions and tools to improve public safety, jobs, education and student achievement, and family formation.
Through these accomplishments in 2023, more communities are being empowered to help people imagine and pursue better futures for themselves.

It seems like everywhere you go these days, people are struggling. You can see it on street corners, in grocery stores, in news headlines, and—most heartbreaking of all—in the eyes of the people who have lost hope.

What they need is opportunity. And that’s exactly what the mission of the Georgia Center for Opportunity (GCO) is built to deliver. As the year draws to a close, let’s take a moment to celebrate the good that has been done to alleviate poverty by removing barriers to opportunity and creating conditions that empower people to flourish and achieve their full potential.

The good news is that research consistently shows that people who experience personal safety, get a good education, find meaningful work, and have healthy, committed relationships only have a 2% chance of falling into poverty. And for those currently living in poverty, these opportunities are the way out to experience freedom and flourishing.

In 2023, GCO celebrated big wins in several key areas that foster community transformation: public safety, jobs, education, and family formation. Here are a few examples of how we’ve helped our neighbors live better and build thriving communities.

Public safety

Thanks to our public safety research, we convened state policymakers and city leaders in Atlanta and Columbus to look at the causes of increasing violence, and provided a proven set of practical solutions for reducing crime—especially in low-income communities. At the national level, our public safety recommendations were well received in Dallas and Louisville, and an opinion piece we co-authored reached 28.7 million people through Newsweek. Soon thereafter, MSN and other media outlets amplified its reach to another 167.1 million Americans.

And given how important it is for people to live in safe communities where they feel comfortable walking around and living their lives, we also created a resource page on our website so that elected officials, law enforcement, and community leaders can easily find the best practices for addressing crime.

Workforce

On the jobs front, our BETTER WORK program continues to help communities build local employment support systems that bring employers, nonprofits, and community partners together to help more Georgians find local jobs. We’ve also joined forces with Lyft to help people get to work and focused on solutions to the benefits cliff challenges that keep many mired in government dependency.

Safety-net reform

This year, GCO remained on the vanguard of educating lawmakers and the public about the need for reforming the safety net. Broadly, we worked to reveal the challenges posed by benefits cliffs, which discourage people from looking for meaningful work and gaining independence. Specifically, we expanded our impact to Utah, Arkansas, and Missouri, in addition to launching a redesigned benefits cliffs website and calculator that adds Utah and West Virginia to the models.

As we educate states and businesses about the benefits cliff problem within the welfare system, we are also developing solutions that equip them to do something about it. This year, we released our first report focused on benefits cliffs solutions, which focused on fixes for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Education

Our efforts to expand educational opportunity have given nearly 84,000 Georgia kids access to the schooling option that best fits their needs. And we led efforts to advance a groundbreaking school choice bill through the state senate. This means there’s strong momentum going into 2024 to expand education options for 500,000 more students stuck in Georgia’s failing schools. We also updated our Education Guide for parents and received the Lilburn Middle School Business Partner Recognition Award for partnering to deliver free relationship education classes for parents and students.

See How The Georgia Center For Opportunity Is Expanding Hope In 2024!

Family

For families, parents continued to graduate from our Strengthening Families Program. And GCO kicked off our Raising Highly Capable Kids (RHCK) program with a vision-casting meeting attended by more than 20 community organizations. By reaching into homes, schools, and faith-based groups, RHCK teaches parents how to raise responsible, caring kids—and turns local communities into nurturing places where healthy families help people escape poverty. An example of how RHCK brings key stakeholders together to foster thriving families is the Lilly Endowment grant that introduced the Parents First Initiative to Lawrenceville.

National and state impact

Finally, GCO had a number of important wins with far-reaching, favorable media coverage on topics we care deeply about. This means that our voice was out there advancing importance conversations about human flourishing. For example, The Wall Street Journal ran our opinion piece calling out pre- and post-COVID crime comparisons for what they really are—an excuse not to blame bad public safety policies. And RealClearPolicy ran an article on our ideas to make safety nets more successful at turning welfare into work support.

Beyond these, GCO’s views were featured in important conversations about Georgia’s position among the leading states for economic freedom and why people remain trapped in poverty when there are so many public assistance programs. And for those concerned about rising crime across the nation, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution carried our must-read piece on public safety.

Wrapping up

Of course, these are just a handful of GCO’s successes in 2023. Yet each win adds to the legacy we are building to help our neighbors enjoy meaningful and productive lives in safe, vibrant communities that value work, education, and family. We’re proud of our successes this year, and we look forward to continuing to advance common-sense policy solutions in 2024 that bring greater peace, dignity, and freedom to individuals and families across Georgia and beyond.

The cost of Christmas is up, especially for the poor

by David Bass | Dec 18, 2023

The cost of gifts, meals, and trips to see family and friends have gone up, inflation, debt, low-income

The cost of Christmas is up, especially for the poor

Key Points

The blog underscores the significant impact of inflation on Christmas expenses, encompassing gifts, meals, and travel, affecting Americans, particularly those from lower economic classes, hindering their enjoyment of the holiday’s relational aspects.
Emphasizing a recent inflation surge due to pandemic-related factors, the post characterizes it as an “inflation tax” disproportionately affecting the poorest Americans, creating challenges in accessing opportunities crucial for a meaningful life.
Supported by statistical evidence, the blog reveals the financial hardships caused by inflation, with the average American household spending $11,434 more annually since January 2021, particularly impacting the poor who face significant debt obstacles.

This year, inflation is threatening to put a dent in Christmas festivities. The cost of gifts, meals, and trips to see family and friends have gone up, to name a few common items. And Americans are noticing.

The pinch is particularly painful for those from the lower classes. Putting aside the greater cost of material items, a more expensive holiday means that those who are struggling will have a more challenging time enjoying the relational aspects of the holiday, including being with family while celebrating treasured traditions and connecting around meals.

What’s clear from these data points is that America’s recent burst of high inflation—which soared to a 40-year high in the aftermath of pandemic-related shutdowns, supply chain disruptions, and government stimulus overspending—has driven up the cost of goods and services and inflicted an “inflation tax” that disproportionately hits the poorest Americans the hardest.

At the Georgia Center for Opportunity, our mission is built around promoting human flourishing—especially for those on the margins. The high cost of Christmas this year matters because it reflects the reality that high inflation reduces people’s ability to access the opportunities that shape a meaningful life.

By the numbers: Inflation’s effect on household budgets

Just how bad is it this year? Nationally, a recent report found that the average American household now spends $11,434 more annually to maintain the same standard of living they enjoyed in January 2021. Worse, they’re using credit cards to finance everyday purchases—running up debt and leaving very little extra for the holidays.

For the poor, debt can become an insurmountable obstacle to moving up the economic ladder. Low-income households spend around 26% of their income each month on debt, compared to around 4% for wealthy households (even though wealthy households carry far more debt on average).

On a personal level, this decreased purchasing power means that more families teetering on the economic edge are struggling to put food on the table during the normal year—let alone for special meals around the holidays. A recent survey found that 50% of Americans say Santa will be less generous this Christmas due to inflation—and that one in three won’t be getting presents this year.

Even for those who plan to spend money this holiday season, 28% say it will be less than last year. And nearly 20% will apply for new credit cards to finance their purchases—despite the fact that nearly 25% still carry holiday debt from last year.

So how expensive are traditional items that Americans associate with the holidays in 2023? PNC Bank’s Christmas Price Index (CPI) shows the overall cost for Christmas festivities has gone up nearly 20% since 2021. For example, Christmas breakfast classics like bacon and eggs are up 24% and 41%, respectively, since 2021, while Christmas dinner pork chops are up 20%.

Gas prices are up 55% over the same time period, making transportation to and from work even more difficult for the poor. Meanwhile, the price to buy a used car has jumped by 22%.

Even home energy costs have risen so much that some families must decide between heating their homes and buying presents. Since September 2021, the cost to heat homes and keep lights on has risen 20% for electricity and 18% for gas.

It is a complex problem caused by a myriad of systems and choices but the implications are substantial. Inflation is having a catastrophic impact on those living in poverty. We discuss what is causing it and what we must do to address it.

Finding joy in the season

A recent Financial Times–Michigan Ross poll found that 82% of Americans say that price increases are their biggest source of financial stress. So even as the jobless rate improves and inflation cools, many consumers simply aren’t feeling it. And this translates into pessimism about the economy as we move into the 2023 holiday shopping season.

It doesn’t have to be that way. During the holiday season, the GCO message of giving hope and opportunity to those who most need it couldn’t be more needed. It’s painful to realize how much many of our neighbors are struggling with the high cost of inflation. But it’s a great invitation for communities to come together and offer support in ways the government can’t.

We can make the biggest difference by starting small and close to home.

Are Food Stamp Benefits Too Little?

by Erik Randolph | Dec 8, 2023

Are Food Stamp Benefits Too Little?

Key Points

Research Indicating SNAP Benefits Are Too Low: Urban Institute tool suggests that the average cost of a meal exceeds the maximum SNAP benefit, emphasizing the potential inadequacy of the program.
Concerns About Research Methodology: Emphasizes that SNAP is meant to supplement, not replace, food purchases, and spending habits should be expected to exceed the lowest-cost food budget when households have income.
Drawbacks of Raising SNAP Maximum Benefits: Highlights the fiscal irresponsibility of increasing SNAP benefits amidst a large federal deficit and national debt, which could contribute to inflation and rising price levels.

Recent studies are raising concerns about whether the help provided by the Food Stamp program, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), is sufficient. This program, which served 41.2 million people in the Fiscal Year 2022, is the biggest food assistance initiative in the United States.

But before you call your congressperson, let’s take a closer look at the research that suggests SNAP benefits might be too low.

The Research Findings

The Urban Institute has developed a tool indicating the average cost of a “modestly-priced” meal often exceeds the maximum SNAP benefit allotted for a meal. For instance, in the last quarter of 2022, the average “modestly-priced” meal cost was $3.14, surpassing the calculated maximum SNAP benefit of $2.74 for a meal in the 48 contiguous states.

To make matters more complicated, food prices vary across the country. The tool allows users to see how the maximum food benefit falls short in different counties. According to the Urban Institute, the maximum SNAP benefit covered the cost of a modestly- priced meal in only 27 out of 3,143 counties, or just 1 percent of the total.

Other organizations, such as the Brookings Institute, share similar concerns about the adequacy of SNAP benefits, putting pressure on Congress to consider increasing the program’s maximum benefit.

Are We Comparing Apples and Oranges?

It’s essential to be cautious, though, as the research might be comparing different things. The maximum SNAP benefit is based on the Thrifty Food Plan, intended to be the lowest-cost food budget while still providing necessary nutrition for a family. In fact, it is the lowest cost budget produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which begs the question of how the Urban Institute is defining a modestly priced meal.

The Urban Institute’s calculation of a “modestly priced meal” is based on the spending habits of households at or below 130 percent of the official poverty level, but who were also considered to be “food secure.”

It should be expected The Thrifty Food Plan is lower than the actual expenditures of this demographic group because, as the name suggests (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), SNAP is meant to supplement, not replace, food purchases. As households earn income, it’s expected they will spend more on food than what the minimum budget allows.

Why Is There Still Food Insecurity?

Food insecurity is determined by using answers to the Current Population Survey, but the determination doesn’t specifically address the adequacy of the SNAP maximum benefit. Other factors, like spending habits, diets, and dealing with the stress of poverty, also play a role. It’s important to note that the U.S. faces an obesity problem, even among SNAP participants, suggesting that the issue may not be too few calories but rather poor eating habits.

However, the obesity problem probably has more to do with more nutrition education, better eating habits, and improved financial literacy for participants rather than the program itself.

The Solution: Congress should reform the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) so that more households can easily overcome benefits cliffs through steady work and typical pay raises and achieve self-sufficiency faster.

Learn More

SNAP, TANF, welfare, benefits, benefits cliffs

The Solution: Congress should reform the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) so that more households can easily overcome benefits cliffs through steady work and typical pay raises and achieve self-sufficiency faster.

Learn More

Negatives of Increasing Benefits

While some might think increasing SNAP benefits is harmless, there are negative consequences to consider. It can affect upward economic mobility for participants ready to leave the program, making it more costly with unwanted economic side effects.

A recent study highlighted a benefit cliff problem in SNAP, where households lose more total income than gained from increased earnings. The study identifies the importance of controlling the maximum benefit to solve benefit cliffs and marriage penalties.

Benefit cliffs are a big problem for households trying to stop relying on safety-net assistance programs. They face an unfair choice between being worse off financially and giving up their long-term goals of moving up economically through steady work. After vulnerable people get help from the safety net, government assistance should help them move forward, not hold them back.

Considering the cost of the program is also important. In the fiscal year 2022, the federal government spent $120 billion on the Food Stamp program. However, the government had a $1.4 trillion deficit, increasing the national debt to over $32 trillion. This financial irresponsibility is a major reason for inflation and higher prices, which impact those on safety-net programs the most.

The Best Strategy Forward

Increasing the maximum SNAP benefit should be approached cautiously to balance adequate nutrition for families while controlling program costs. The Urban Institute’s definition of a reasonably priced meal falls short because they are measuring the wrong aspects when compared to the criteria set for the maximum allotment. There seems to be a methodology problem in their approach. It’s extremely important to get the number right to ensure adequate nutrition for families but in a way that is thrifty to keep program costs under control and to make it easier to fix benefit cliffs and mitigate marriage penalties.

Those concerned about low SNAP benefits should also consider that other assistance programs help participants, such as free school meals and food banks operated by non-profit organizations. Plus, state agencies that administer SNAP all have nutrition education programs to help participants know how to budget for nutritious food. The federal government also assists states in those efforts by providing tools, curricula, and a website. Ultimately, determining the adequacy of Food Stamp benefits should rely on nutrition science, consumer science, financial education, and thriftiness.

*Erik Randolph is the Director of Research for the Georgia Center for Opportunity.

*Monthly average for the fiscal year per program data tables of the Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Missouri is first state to pass law addressing benefits cliffs

by David Bass | Nov 15, 2023

Missouri lawmakers<br />
Senate Bill 82<br />
public assistance provisions<br />
benefits cliffs<br />
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)<br />
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)<br />
child care subsidy programs<br />
transitional benefits program<br />
poverty level<br />
state median family income<br />
welfare programs<br />
fiscal note<br />
Medicaid<br />
self-sufficiency<br />
workforce solutions<br />
government assistance<br />
economic opportunity<br />
dependence on the government<br />
benefits cliff phenomenon<br />
social and economic opportunity

Missouri is first state to pass law addressing benefits cliffs

Key Points

Missouri Leads the Way: The enactment of Senate Bill 82 establishes Missouri as the first state in the nation to address public assistance provisions, breaking ground in reforming safety-net benefits and combating the cycle of dependence on government support.
Benefits Cliff Challenge: The legislation acknowledges the pervasive issue of benefits cliffs, where individuals and families face a sudden loss of government assistance as their income increases. The law aims to mitigate this challenge by introducing transitional benefits programs in TANF, SNAP, and childcare subsidy programs.
Incomplete Solution: While the Missouri law is a commendable first step, there are concerns about its comprehensive effectiveness. The legislation, utilizing new funds, creates a supplemental program to ease the loss of benefits but doesn’t address underlying program variables contributing to benefits cliffs. Additionally, potential underfunding and the absence of Medicaid in the scope raise questions about the long-term sustainability and impact of the solution.

Missouri lawmakers recently took an important step toward helping poor and working-class residents escape safety-net benefits cliffs and experience the dignity and opportunity of work. By enacting Senate Bill 82, the Show Me State is now the first in the nation to address public assistance provisions that often entrap program participants by punishing work and perpetuating dependence on the government.

It’s no secret that many Americans rely on government assistance programs to make ends meet. But they often get caught in a Catch-22 situation—a benefits cliff—which disincentivizes them from looking for more meaningful work and gaining independence.

These benefits cliffs occur when an individual, family, or household experiences a sudden, steep loss of government assistance as income increases. Perversely, this net loss undermines the natural desire to earn more income because it takes a huge pay bump to overcome the cliff. The unintended consequences of a benefits cliff can be devastating—trapping individuals and families in a cycle of poverty.

How the new law works

This new Missouri law modifies benefits cliffs to enable residents to more easily earn additional income and experience the fulfillment and belonging that comes with social and economic opportunity. It does so by easing the loss of benefits in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and child care subsidy programs for families that lose income eligibility for these programs.

Specifically, this law establishes a transitional benefits program for TANF and SNAP—subject to funding from the state legislature—to help the transition off of benefits and reduce the impact of the program cliffs. The benefit is stepped down on a one-to-one basis as income increases.

It also helps to alleviate the loss of benefits from the child care subsidy program by creating a transitional benefits program using a sliding scale that steps down transitional benefits until the household reaches 300 percent of the poverty level or 85 percent of the state median family income.

When funded and implemented, this law will positively impact all individuals and families on the SNAP and childcare subsidy programs whose income exceeds program limits—but remain under income limits for the transitional benefits. It would not, however, impact TANF recipients because the program’s cash assistance tampers to zero, which means there would be no transitional benefits.

And building upon the foundation laid in Missouri, other states should similarly experiment with creative solutions to the cliffs problem.

The next step

While the new Missouri law is a commendable first step by a state to correct design flaws in benefit cliffs, there is still more work to do. For example, this legislation fails to address the variables in each program that drive the benefits cliff phenomenon in the first place. Instead, it uses new money to create a bridge that eases the loss of benefits when coming off designated programs.

Precisely because it uses new money, this solution represents a potentially huge and expensive expansion of welfare programs in Missouri. Indeed, the fiscal note accompanying the legislation estimates a cost of around $200 million per year in state revenue.

So rather than a comprehensive and holistic resolution to the benefits cliff problem, this new law essentially creates a supplemental program at risk of being underfunded in years when the legislature fails to fully fund at levels to meet demand—creating challenges for state agencies charged with program implementation. Moreover, the law doesn’t address Medicaid at all—the biggest driver of benefit cliffs in terms of dollar impact to families.

Despite these limitations, this new law recognizes that benefits cliffs are a real problem in need of a solution. And it attempts to address design flaws in two of the biggest-offending programs—SNAP and childcare. Finally, it recognizes the need to step down benefits in ways that eliminate cliffs as people earn additional income and learn to stand on their own with increasingly less dependence on the government.

In tackling the challenge of benefits cliffs, Missouri lawmakers have set the bar for other states to consider solutions to welfare systems that prevent people from becoming self-sufficient by holding them back from working as much as they could or should.

And building upon the foundation laid in Missouri, other states should similarly experiment with creative solutions to the cliffs problem. This includes waivers and other steps to address systemic program flaws. It also includes pilot projects to demonstrate how to eliminate cliffs with a net positive impact on those who work more, earn additional income and become self-sufficient faster than would otherwise be possible.

The Georgia Promise Scholarship (SB 233): What Private Schools Need to Know

by Rebecca Primis | Oct 30, 2023

The Georgia Promise Scholarship (SB 233): What Private Schools Need to Know

Key Points

The Georgia Promise Scholarship is a state-supported form of financial aid for students who need an alternative to traditional public school education.
The Tax Credit Scholarship Program could continue to serve students who are not eligible for a Promise Scholarship. Students would not be able to receive both scholarships.
Promise Scholarships and Tax Credit Scholarships are complementary programs. Together, they diversify the sources and types of aid available to families and can broaden the potential applicant pool for private schools without creating additional fundraising burdens.

The Georgia Promise Scholarship is a state-supported form of financial aid for students leaving public school in search of a better educational setting. Under the proposed legislation, Senate Bill 233, eligible students would have $6,500—funds that the state would have spent on their public school education—set aside in an account. Parents then could direct that money to pay for educational expenses, including private school tuition, books, uniforms, and even transportation.

Georgia already has two scholarship-based programs:

The Special Needs Scholarship Program, which allows students with special education needs to choose the public or private school best suited for their situation. In the event that families choose a private school, the state provides a scholarship equal to the amount the student would have received for state-based education services.
The Tax Credit Scholarship Program, which expands access to private schools for families who otherwise could not afford that option.

Adding another scholarship program to Georgia’s menu of education options naturally raises questions about what Promise Scholarships would do and who would be affected. For Georgia’s private schools, these questions are top-of-mind as they seek to understand how Promise Scholarships would impact the Tax Credit Scholarship Program and potentially put other requirements on private schools.

Join the movement to give every child in Georgia the education they deserve! Visit Everykid.info to learn how you can make a difference and learn valuable information for parents on how you can help provide quality education for all Georgia kids. Don’t wait – visit Everykid.info now!

Promise Scholarship (SB 233) FAQs for Georgia’s Private Schools

Which students would be eligible for a Promise Scholarship?

Students currently attending public schools that are ranked in the bottom 25% of all public schools in academic performance. In 2024, the House of Representatives introduced changes to SB 233 that further narrow eligibility:

The bill now gives first priority to students from families below 400% of the federal poverty level—around $120,000 a year for a family of four. Students above that threshold will be allowed to participate if funds are left over after the lower-income students are served.

A funding cap was also put on the program. Funding for Promise Scholarships cannot exceed 1% of public school funding. Even if parent demand maxes out the program, this amount would only cover an estimated 22,000 kids.

Are Promise Scholarship dollars limited solely to tuition and expenses related to private school education?

No. Unlike existing school choice programs in the state such as the Georgia Special Needs Scholarship and the Tuition Tax Credit Scholarship Program, the resources students receive from the Promise Scholarship are more flexible. In addition to private school tuition, allowable expenses could include tutoring and therapies—even offered outside of the private school setting—as well as curriculum and materials for homeschooling.

What is required by the state of Georgia for a private school to accept students using Promise Scholarship dollars?

The requirements for private schools under the Promise Scholarship program substantially mirror the requirements for private schools already participating in either the Georgia Special Needs Scholarship Program or the Tuition Tax Credit Scholarship Program. If you already participate in either or both programs, there will be very few (if any) new requirements.

In order to serve students with a Promise Scholarship, private schools must:

Have been in operation for one school year.
Submit aggregate data of Promise Scholarship Students’ attendance rates and course completion rates.*
Report on-time graduation rates of Promise Scholarship Students.*
Comply with the anti-discrimination provisions of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000d.
Comply with state laws applicable to private schools.
Be physically located in Georgia.
Administer to Promise Scholarship Students at least one norm-referenced test that measures academic progress in math and language arts per year.*

*Requirement is unique to the Promise Scholarship program and not currently required by the Tax Credit Scholarship Program.

Would the creation of the Promise Scholarship program negatively impact existing school choice programs, such as the Tax Credit Scholarship Program?

No. The programs should be viewed as complementary to one another, allowing for a greater pool of financial aid for prospective private school families.

Students would be prohibited from receiving both a Promise Scholarship and a scholarship from an SSO under the Tuition Tax Credit Scholarship Program. However, the Promise Scholarship program gives each participating student $6,500 directly from the state—a higher value than the average scholarships awarded by SSOs under the tax credit program.

The Tax Credit Scholarship Program could continue to serve students who are not eligible for a Promise Scholarship.

Are there any protections for private schools, particularly faith-based schools, against state regulation as a result of accepting Promise Scholarship students and dollars?

Yes. Modeled after similar provisions in other states, there is explicit language in the bill prohibiting the state from requiring a private school or other participating provider to alter the creed, practices, admissions and employment policies, or curricula.

What’s the key takeaway for Georgia’s private schools?

The Promise Scholarship Program and the Tax Credit Scholarship Program would be complementary to one another. Together, these two programs diversify the sources and types of aid available to families and can broaden the potential applicant pool for private schools without creating additional fundraising burdens.

Additional Resources

The Georgia Promise Scholarship Act (SB 233): Questions and Answers

5 Reasons Why It’s a Good Idea to Expand Georgia’s Tax Credit Scholarship

Parent Guide to Education Options in Georgia

Georgia Needs to Widen Schooling Choices in 2024

The two-parent privilege and how it helps families escape poverty

by David Bass | Oct 28, 2023

Two-parent households<br />
Income inequality<br />
Social mobility<br />
Poverty reduction<br />
Marriage<br />
Economic well-being<br />
Single mothers<br />
Single fathers<br />
Education outcomes<br />
Behavioral tendencies<br />
American Dream<br />
Economic security<br />
Social challenges<br />
Family structure<br />
Economic performance<br />
Government intervention<br />
Grassroots change<br />
Cultural change<br />
Fathers' role<br />
Labor force participation<br />
Marriage penalties<br />
School choice<br />
Social agnosticism

The two-parent privilege and how it helps families escape poverty

Key Points

The decline in two-parent households is a major driver of income inequality and decreased social mobility in the United States.
Two-parent households provide a significant “privilege” for children, leading to better educational and economic outcomes, lower rates of incarceration, and improved chances of achieving the American Dream.
To alleviate poverty and strengthen two-parent households, policy proposals and grassroots cultural changes are needed, along with addressing the importance of fathers in society and promoting stable marriages and families without stigmatizing single parents.

Addressing Income Inequality

Income inequality is on the rise. Social mobility is on the decline. Politicians focus a lot of firepower on these two realities, but they too often ignore a major driver of these trends—one that might surprise you. That’s the drop in the percentage of stable, two-parent households.

At the Georgia Center for Opportunity, our goal is to reduce poverty and encourage human flourishing. Healthy families are a key part of that. What often gets shunted to the side in this discussion, however, is how much family composition matters.

Family Matters

Bravely entering into this political fray is Brookings Institution economist Melissa Kearney with her new book, The Two-Parent Privilege: How Americans Stopped Getting Married and Started Falling Behind. Coming from a centrist (if not center-left) worldview, Kearney provides a refreshing and clear-eyed assessment of the powerful role that marriage plays in reducing poverty and bolstering economic well-being for children, adults and the nation as a whole.

Kearney even frames her book title in terms progressives better understand by using the term “privilege”—precisely what two-parent households afford children across a spectrum of metrics ranging from educational outcomes to behavioral tendencies, rates of incarceration and the likelihood of achieving the American Dream.

Here, Kearney asserts, “The decline in the share of US children living in a two-parent family over the past 40 years has not been good—for children, for families, or for the United States.”

Going further, she says, “Based on the overwhelming evidence at hand, I can say with the utmost confidence that the decline in marriage and the corresponding rise in the share of children being raised in one-parent homes has contributed to the economic insecurity of American families, has widened the gap in opportunities and outcomes for children from different backgrounds, and today poses economic and social challenges that we cannot afford to ignore—but may not be able to reverse.”

Of course, nobody seeks to stigmatize or deny the heroic efforts that loving and dedicated single parents sacrificially pour out to raise their children in difficult circumstances. Indeed, Kearney argues for strengthening the safety net for all families—regardless of structure.

But as she shows, the data can’t be so easily dismissed by those who resist policy discussions involving family formation distinctions.

The data backs it all up

Consider: 2019 US Census statistics reveal that families headed by a single mother were five times more likely to live in poverty than families headed by a married couple, while families headed by a single father were nearly twice as likely to live in poverty.

Further, research shows that 40% of Millennials who grew up in two-parent homes graduated from college by their mid-20s, compared to 17% for Millennials from non-intact homes. Moreover, 77% of Millennials who grew up with the two-parent privilege attained a middle-class or higher lifestyle by their mid-30s, compared to 57% from non-intact families.

And then there are many studies from Utah, where—more than any other state—marriage and two-parent households are encouraged. Indeed, Utah ranks at the top of economic performance—including GDP growth, favorable business climate, work environment and high rates of economic mobility. And Utahns experience lower child poverty and criminality rates, while enjoying enviable levels of emotional and physical wellbeing, healthy behaviors, life evaluation, student educational performance, and median family income.

Taken together, these data suggest that stable, intact, two-parent marriages lay the foundation for strong families, which in turn create thriving communities of men, women and children.

To alleviate poverty by strengthening two-parent households, Kearney suggests several policy proposals:

Work to restore and foster a norm of two-parent homes for children
Work to improve the economic position of men without a college level of education so they are more reliable marriage partners and fathers
Scale up government and community programs that show promise in strengthening families and improving outcomes for parents and children from disadvantaged backgrounds
Have a stronger safety net for families, regardless of family structure

Stronger Families Create Thriving Communities

Our vision is one where everyone has the support that comes from healthy thriving relationships and family.

Stronger Families Create Thriving Communities

Our vision is one where everyone has the support that comes from healthy thriving relationships and family.

The Policy Prescription

In offering these policy prescriptions, however, she adds that economics and government intervention can only do so much. There must also be grassroots, cultural change at the neighborhood and community levels. That’s why marriage enrichment and parenting classes like Raising Highly Capable Kids are crucial to reducing poverty.

Commendably, Kearney addresses a related—and also politically sensitive—topic: The important role that fathers play in society. She writes, “The absence of a father from a child’s home appears to have direct effects on children’s outcomes—and not only because of the loss of parental income. Nonfinancial engagement by a father has been found to have beneficial effects on children’s outcomes.”

Indeed, a father’s presence in the home is particularly important for boys. As Kearney notes, “Boys and young men are faring worse than girls and young women on a host of behavioral, educational, and economic dimensions. This gender gap in outcomes has been linked to the heightened disadvantage boys face when growing up without a father figure in their home.”

Of course, this creates a vicious cycle: Boys growing up without their fathers have a higher likelihood of themselves falling into traps of poverty: “The more boys struggle and fall behind, the less prepared they will be as adults to be reliable economic providers as husbands and dads,” Kearney writes.

Here, she points to our country’s crisis of masculinity and how declining labor force participation rates by prime-age men contribute to the marriage problem. Recent cultural shifts have “stripped many men of their traditional role as breadwinner for the family and, in simple terms, made them less desirable marriage partners,” she writes.

Clearly, the challenge is how to promote stable marriages and families when males increasingly remain in perpetual adolescence and fail to assume adult responsibilities that lead to success in work, marriage, and family.

Where do we go from here?

So how can we build more two-parent homes? Certainly investing more in vocational education and apprenticeships for men will help—as will implementing criminal justice reform and addressing the pandemic of untreated mental illness and opioid addiction among men.

Beyond these, we should expand school choice so that impoverished children stuck in failing public school districts have an opportunity to achieve a good education. And we need to eliminate marriage penalties in programs like Medicaid and public housing that punish marriage and encourage single-parenthood.

But perhaps most of all we need to have a frank national discussion about the importance of two-parent families “without coming across as shaming or blaming single mothers,” as Kearney writes. “By being honest about the benefits that a two-parent family home confers to children, we can break the pattern in which social agnosticism treats all households as the same in terms of the benefits they deliver children.”