Nonmarital Childbearing: Trends, Reasons, and Public Policy Interventions

Nonmarital Childbearing: Trends, Reasons,
and Public Policy Interventions
November 20, 2008
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Specialist in Social Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division

Nonmarital Childbearing: Trends, Reasons,
and Public Policy Interventions
Summary
In 2006, a record 38.5% of all United States births were nonmarital births.
Many of these children grow up in mother-only families. Although most children
who grow up in mother-only families or step-parent families become well-adjusted,
productive adults, the bulk of empirical research indicates that children who grow up
with only one biological parent in the home are more likely to be financially worse
off and have worse socioeconomic outcomes (even after income differences are taken
into account) compared to children who grow up with both biological parents in the
home.
In recognition of the potential long-term economic and social consequences
associated with nonmarital births, the federal government’s strategy with regard to
nonmarital childbearing has been varied. The federal government recognizes that an
effective approach for teenagers may be inappropriate for older women. Federal
policy toward teens has primarily focused on pregnancy prevention programs,
whereas federal policy toward older women has focused on healthy marriage
programs. Federal income support programs are available to mothers of all age
groups.
In the U.S., nonmarital births are widespread, touching families of varying
income class, race, ethnicity, and geographic area. Many analysts attribute this to
changed attitudes about fertility and marriage. They find that many adult women and
teenage girls no longer feel obliged to marry before, or as a consequence of, having
children. With respect to men, it appears that one result of the so-called sexual
revolution is that many men now believe that women can and should control their
fertility via contraception or abortion and have become less willing to marry the
women they impregnate.
Factors that are associated with the unprecedented level of nonmarital
childbearing include an increase in the median age of first marriage (i.e., marriage
postponement), decreased childbearing of married couples, increased marital
dissolution, an increase in the number of cohabiting couples, increased sexual activity
outside of marriage, participation in risky behaviors that often lead to sex, improper
use of contraceptive methods, and lack of marriageable partners.
This report analyzes the trends in nonmarital childbearing, discusses some of the
characteristics of unwed mothers, addresses some issues involving the fathers of
children born outside of marriage, covers many of the reasons for nonmarital
childbearing, examines the impact of nonmarital births on families and on the nation,
and presents the public policy interventions that have been used to prevent
nonmarital births or ameliorate some of the negative financial consequences that are
sometimes associated with nonmarital childbearing. This report will not be updated.

Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Key Findings.....................................................3
Trends in Nonmarital Births: 1940-2006................................6
Numbers, Percentages, and Rates.................................6
Characteristics of Unwed Mothers.....................................9
Race and Ethnicity.............................................9
Age ........................................................11
Educational Attainment........................................15
Income Status................................................15
Additional Children...........................................16
Cohabitation .................................................16
Subsequent Marriage of Mothers.................................18
Fathers of Children Born Outside of Marriage..........................19
Race and Ethnicity............................................20
Age ........................................................20
Paternity Establishment........................................21
Reasons for the Increase in Nonmarital Childbearing.....................23
Demographic Factors Contributing to the Increase in the Number and
Percent of Nonmarital Births................................24
Postponement of Marriage..................................24
Attitude Toward Marriage......................................26
Lack of Marriageable Partners...................................27
Biological Clock Issues........................................27
Cohabiting Relationships.......................................28
Divorce .....................................................28
Sexual Activity Outside of Marriage..............................29
Declining Abortion Rates......................................30
Impact of Nonmarital Births on Families..............................31
Impact of Nonmarital Births on the Nation.............................33
Potential Financial Costs.......................................33
Demographic Impacts.........................................34
Public Policy Interventions.........................................36
Abstinence Promotion.........................................37
Evaluation of Abstinence Education Programs..................38
Comprehensive Sex Education..................................39
Evaluation of Comprehensive Sex Education Programs...........40
Youth Programs..............................................41
Healthy Marriage Programs.....................................43
Evaluation of Healthy Marriage Programs.....................44
Responsible Fatherhood Programs................................45

Family Planning Services.......................................48
Adoption ...................................................49
Child Support Obligation as a Deterrent...........................49
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Title IV-A of the
Social Security Act .......................................50
Future Prospects..................................................51
Appendix A. Data Table...........................................56
List of Figures
Figure 1. Number of Births to Unmarried Women, 1940-2006..............7
Figure 2. Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women, 1940-2006............8
Figure 3. Rate of Births to Unmarried Women, 1940-2006.................8
Figure 4. Percentage Distribution of Nonmarital Births, by Age of Mother,
1990 .......................................................13
Figure 5. Percentage Distribution of Nonmarital Births, by Age of Mother,
2005 .......................................................13
Figure 6. Percentage of Births That Are Nonmarital Births, by Age Group,
1990 and 2005...............................................14
List of Tables
Table 1. Percentage of All Births That Were to Unmarried Women, by
Race, Ethnicity, and Age, Selected Years 1960-2006.................10
Table 2. Median Age at First Marriage, 1950-2006......................25
Table 3. Percentage Distribution of Never Married Women, by Age, Selected
Years 1960-2006.............................................25
Table A-1. Number, Percent, and Rate of Births to Unmarried Women and
Birth Rate for Married Women, 1940-2006.........................56

Nonmarital Childbearing: Trends, Reasons,
and Public Policy Interventions
Introduction
In the United States, being born to an unmarried mother is more likely to lead
to less favorable outcomes than is being born to a married mother. In the U.S., births
to unmarried women (i.e., nonmarital births) are widespread, touching families of
varying income class, race, ethnicity, and geographic area. Many analysts attribute
this to changed attitudes about fertility and marriage. They find that many adult
women and teenage girls no longer feel obliged to marry before, or as a consequence
of, having children. During the 66-year period from 1940 to 2006, the percentage of
births to unmarried women increased by a multiple of nine, from 3.8% in 1940 to

38.5% in 2006. This represented about 1.6 million children in 2006.

“Nonmarital births” can be first births, second births, or higher-order births; they
can precede a marriage or occur to a woman who has never married. “Nonmarital
births” can occur to divorced or widowed women. Moreover, a woman with several
children may have had one or more births within marriage and one or more births¹
outside of marriage. Many of the children born outside of marriage are raised by a
single parent (who may or may not have a “significant other”).²
Parents and family life are the foundation that influences a child’s well-being
throughout the child’s development and into adulthood. The family also is the
economic unit that obtains and manages the resources that meet a child’s basic needs
while also playing an instrumental role in stimulating the child’s cognitive, social,
and emotional development. Children born outside of marriage often are raised
solely by their mothers, but sometimes live in other types of family situations. Some
are raised solely by their fathers, some are raised by both biological parents who are
not married to each other (i.e., cohabiting). Others may be raised by a mother who
is living with a male partner. Still others may be living with a mother who is

¹ Kristin A. Moore, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States,” Child Trends, Inc. in
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics,
“Report to Congress on Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing,” Executive Summary, September

1995 [DHHS pub. no. (PHS) 95-1257-1], p. 6.

² The Census Bureau data do not indicate the number of newborns by the marital status of
their parents, but data are available for children under age one by parents’ marital status.
In 2007, 59.4% of the 1.038 million children under age one were living with their biological
mothers who had never married, 3.4% were living with their biological fathers who had
never married, and 37.2% were living with both biological parents who were not married
to each other. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, America’s Families and Living Arrangements:

2007, Table C3.

divorced from someone other than their father. Additionally, some may be living
with a mother whose husband died (i.e., the mother is a widow but the child was not
fathered by the deceased husband).
Although most children who grow up in mother-only families, father-only
families, step-parent families, or families in which the mother is cohabiting with a
male partner become well-adjusted, productive adults, a large body of research
indicates that children who grow up with only one biological parent in the home are
more likely to be financially worse off and have worse socioeconomic outcomes
(even after income differences are taken into account) compared to children who
grow up with both biological parents in the home.³ To emphasize, this research
indicates that all family situations in which both biological parents are not living
together (regardless of whether the mother is divorced, separated, widowed, or was
never married) are more likely to result in less favorable outcomes for children than
a family situation in which the child is living in a household with both biological
parents. It is also noteworthy that some researchers conclude that even among
children living with both biological parents, living with married parents generally
results in better outcomes for children than living with cohabiting parents mainly
because marriage is a more stable and longer lasting situation than cohabitation.⁴
The federal concern about nonmarital childbearing centers on its costs via
claims on public assistance. These federal costs primarily reflect the fact that many
of these “nonmarital children” are raised in single-parent families that are financially
disadvantaged. Federal concern also arises because of the aforementioned research
indicating that children living in single-parent families are more likely to face
negative outcomes (financially, socially, and emotionally) than children who grow
up with both of their biological parents in the home. As mentioned earlier, many
children born outside of marriage are raised in single-parent families.⁵
This report analyzes the trends in nonmarital childbearing in the U.S., discusses
some of the characteristics of unwed mothers, addresses some issues involving the
fathers of children born outside of marriage, covers many of the reasons for
nonmarital childbearing, examines the impact of nonmarital births on families and
on the nation, and presents the public policy interventions that have been used to
prevent nonmarital births or alleviate some of the problems that are associated with
nonmarital childbearing. This report concludes with commentary on public policy
interventions — healthy marriage programs, responsible fatherhood programs, and
teen pregnancy prevention strategies — that may receive renewed attention and
debate in the 111^th Congress.

³ Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, “Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts,
What Helps” (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994); see also L. Bumpass,
“Children and Marital Disruption: A Replication and Update,” Demography, vol. 21(1984),
pp. 71-82.
⁴ Marcia Carlson, Sara McLanahan, and Paula England, “Union Formation and Dissolution
in Fragile Families,” Fragile Families Research, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing,
Princeton University, August 2002.
⁵ Steven L. Nock, “Marriage as a Public Issue,” The Future of Children, vol. 15, no. 2 (Fall

2005), p. 26.

Key Findings
Nonmarital childbearing sometimes results in negative outcomes for children
mainly because children born outside of marriage are generally not raised by both of
their biological parents but rather by single mothers. (Children living in a household
maintained by a never-married mother are among the poorest population groups in
the U.S.) Even in cases in which cohabiting parents start off raising their children
together, it is often of short duration. This section presents some of the major
findings of the report.
^!After stabilizing in the 1990s, nonmarital births are again increasing.
In 2006, 38.5% of all births were nonmarital births. This surpasses
the percentage in 1960 that prompted some policymakers to claim
that the black family was disintegrating because a large share of
nonmarital births were to black women. In 2006, 70.7% of African
American births were nonmarital births compared with 64.6% of
American Indian births, 49.9% of Hispanic births, 26.6% of white⁶
births, and 16.3% of Asian births.
^!Nonmarital births can be first births, second births, or higher-order
births; they can precede a marriage or occur to a woman who has
never married. Nonmarital births can occur to divorced or widowed
women. Moreover, a woman with several children may have had
one or more births within marriage and one or more births outside
of marriage.⁷
^!After declining for 14 straight years, all teen births increased in

2006. Contrary to public perception, women in their early twenties,

not teens, have the highest percentage of births outside of marriage.
In 2005, women ages 20 through 24 accounted for 38% of the 1.5
million nonmarital births. The comparable statistic for females⁸
under age 20 was 23%. However, many women who have
nonmarital births in their twenties were also teen moms.⁹

⁶ The sources of data for this report are varied. They primarily consist of (1) birth data from
the National Center for Health Statistics at the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), (2) income and poverty data from the Census Bureau, and (3) data on economic and
demographic factors from the Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study and the 2002
panel of the National Survey of Family Growth.
⁷ Kristin A. Moore, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States,” Child Trends, Inc. in
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics,
“Report to Congress on Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing,” Executive Summary, September

1995 [DHHS pub. no. (PHS) 95-1257-1], p. 6.

⁸ This report often uses the term women in describing data that include females who are
under age 18.
⁹ Elizabeth Terry-Humen, Jennifer Manlove, and Kristen A. Moore, “Births Outside of
Marriage: Perception vs. Reality,” Research Brief, Child Trends, April 2001.

^!Births to teenagers are an important component of nonmarital births
because more than 80% of births to teenagers are nonmarital births.
^!Although women have been postponing marriage, women of all ages
do not view marriage as a requirement for sexual activity.¹⁰ With the
longer time span between the onset of sexual activity and marriage,
the trend of high numbers of nonmarital births may/could continue.
^!Although nonmarital births are increasing, many more children than
in previous decades live with both biological parents in cohabiting
situations for some period of time.
^!According to analysts, marriage is considered a better option for
children than cohabitation because marriage is more stable (i.e., lasts
longer) than cohabiting situations.
^!Growing up in a single-parent family is one of many factors that put
children at risk of less favorable outcomes. The economic, social,
psychological, and emotional costs associated with children with
absent noncustodial parents are significant. Nevertheless, most
children who grow up in single-parent families become productive
adults. Children living in a single-parent home are more likely to do
poorly in school, have emotional and behavioral problems, become
teenage parents, and have poverty-level income (as children and
adults) compared to children living with married biological
parents.¹¹ In 2007, 67.8% of the 73.7 million U.S. children (under
age 18) lived with both of their married parents, 2.9% lived with
both parents who were not married, 17.9% lived with their mother,
and 2.6% lived with their father.
^!The advent of multiple relationships that produce children adds
complexity to the problem. These relationships, often referred to as
multiple partner fertility (i.e., when mothers and fathers have had
children with more than one partner), generally complicate the
family situation of children.

¹⁰ Sexual Behavior of Single Adult American Women, by Laura Duberstein Lindberg and
Susheela Singh. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, vol. 40., no. 1. March

2008.

¹¹ Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, “Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts,
What Helps” (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994); see also L. Bumpass,
“Children and Marital Disruption: A Replication and Update,” Demography, vol. 21(1984),
pp. 71-82; see also Rebecca A. Maynard, ed., “Kids Having Kids: A Robin Hood
Foundation Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing” (New York, 1996); see
also Mary Parke, “Are Married Parents Really Better for Children? What Research Says
About the Effects of Family Structure on Child Well-Being,” Center for Law and Social
Policy (May 2003).

^!Compared to women without nonmarital children, women with
children who were born outside of marriage are less like to marry;¹²
if they do marry, their spouses are more likely to be economically
disadvantaged.¹³
^!Demographically, without nonmarital births, the U.S. would be far
below population replacement levels. Having the birth rate reach the
replacement rate is generally considered desirable by demographers
and sociologists because it means a country is producing enough
young people to replace and support aging workers without
population growth being so high that it taxes national resources.
^!Nonmarital births are expected to increase over time because of a
projected population shift toward more minorities. The Census
Bureau projects that by 2050, 54% of the U.S. population will
consist of minority groups (i.e., Hispanics, blacks, Indians, and
Asians). Minorities, now roughly one-third of the U.S. population,
are expected to become the majority in 2042, with the nation
projected to be 54% minority in 2050. By 2023, minorities will
represent more than half of all children. The Hispanic population is
projected to nearly triple, and its share of the nation’s total
population is projected to double, from 15% to 30%. Thus, nearly
one in three U.S. residents will be Hispanic.¹⁴ In 2005, 48% of
Hispanic births were nonmarital births.

¹² Andrea Kane and Daniel T. Lichter, “Reducing Unwed Childbearing: The Missing Link
in Efforts to Promote Marriage,” Center on Children and Families, Brief no. 37 (April

2006).

¹³ Daniel T. Lichter and Deborah Roempke Graefe, “Men and Marriage Promotion: Who
Marries Unwed Mothers?,” Social Science Review (September 2007).
¹⁴ U.S. Census Bureau News. CB08-123. An Older and More Diverse Nation by
Midcentury. August 14, 2008. Note: Non-Hispanic whites are projected to represent 46%
of the total population in 2050, down from 66% in 2008. The black population is projected
to increase from 14% of the population in 2008 to 15% in 2050. The Asian population is
expected to rise from 5.1% to 9.2%. Among the remaining race groups, American Indians
and Alaska Natives are projected to rise from 1.6% to 2% of the total population. The
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population is expected to more than double,
from 1.1 million to 2.6 million, comprising about 0.6% in 2050. The number of people who
identify themselves as being of two or more races is projected to more than triple, from 5.2
million to 16.2 million, representing almost 4% of the population in 2050.

Trends in Nonmarital Births: 1940-2006
In this report, births to unmarried women are termed nonmarital births. Data on¹⁵
nonmarital births are usually expressed by three measures: the number of
nonmarital births, the percent of births that are nonmarital, and the rate of nonmarital
births per 1,000 unmarried women.
The number of nonmarital births provides the absolute count of babies who are
born to women (including adolescents), who are not married. The percent of all¹⁶
births that are nonmarital is the number of all nonmarital births divided by all births
(both nonmarital births and marital births). The nonmarital birth rate is defined as
the number of nonmarital births per 1,000 unmarried women.
During the 66-year period from 1940 through 2006, there was a 17-fold increase
in the number of babies born to unmarried women living in the United States. The
number of babies born to unmarried women increased from 89,500 in 1940 to
1,641,700 in 2006. In 2006, 38.5% of all U.S. births were to unmarried women, up
from 3.8% in 1940 — a nine-fold increase.
Numbers, Percentages, and Rates
The number of nonmarital births reached a record high in 2006 with 1,641,700
births to unmarried women. As mentioned above, the number of births to unmarried
women has generally increased over the years, with some downward fluctuations.
As shown in Figure 1, nonmarital births rose 17-fold from 1940-2006. (Also see the
data table in Appendix A.) The average annual increase in nonmarital births has
slowed substantially from earlier decades. The average annual increase in nonmarital
births was 4.9% from 1940-1949; 5.6% from 1950-1959; 6.1% from 1960-1969;
5.0% from 1970-1979; 6.4% from 1980-1989; 1.2% from 1990-1999 (and 3.6% for
the seven years from 2000-2006). The 1990s showed a marked slowing of
nonmarital births, dropping from an average increase of 6.4% a year in the 1980s to
an average of 1.2% a year in the 1990s. During the first six years of the 2000 to 2010
period, the average annual increase in nonmarital births increased to 3.6%.
The percent of births to unmarried women increased substantially during the
period from 1940-2006 (see Figure 2 and the Appendix table). (However, from

1994-2000, there was almost no change in this measure.) In 1940, 3.8% of all U.S.

births were to unmarried women. By 2006, a record 38.5% of all U.S. births were
to unmarried women.

¹⁵ Even though one of the underlying purposes of this report is to discern why women get
pregnant outside of marriage, this report solely uses birth data rather than pregnancy data.
The reason for this is that birth data are more current and reliable than pregnancy data.
Because of the difficulty in gathering the abortion and miscarriage data needed to calculate
pregnancy data, pregnancy data lag about two to three years behind birth data reports.
¹⁶ The proportion (i.e., percent) of births that occur to unmarried women is sometimes
referred in the literature as the nonmarital birth ratio.

The nonmarital birth rate provides a measure of the likelihood that an unmarried
woman will give birth in a given year. The birth rate for unmarried women increased
dramatically during the 1940-2006 period, with many upward and downward
fluctuations. (However, during the years 1995-2002, the nonmarital birth rate
remained virtually unchanged.¹⁷) The nonmarital birth rate increased from 7.1 births
per 1,000 unmarried women ages 15 through 44 in 1940 to a record high of 50.6
births per 1,000 women ages 15 through 44 in 2006 (a six-fold increase). (See
Figure 3 and the Appendix, Table A-1.)
Figure 1. Number of Births to Unmarried Women, 1940-2006

^1,^800,⁰⁰⁰
^1,^600,⁰⁰⁰
^1,^400,⁰⁰⁰
^1,^200,⁰⁰⁰^Bⁱ^r^t^hs
^l
^1,^000,⁰⁰⁰ⁿ^m^a^rⁱ^t^a
^o
^800,⁰⁰⁰^be^r^of^N
^600,⁰⁰⁰^N^u^m
^400,⁰⁰⁰
^200,⁰⁰⁰
^-
¹⁹⁴⁰¹⁹⁴²¹⁹⁴⁴¹⁹⁴⁶¹⁹⁴⁸¹⁹⁵⁰¹⁹⁵²¹⁹⁵⁴¹⁹⁵⁶¹⁹⁵⁸¹⁹⁶⁰¹⁹⁶²¹⁹⁶⁴¹⁹⁶⁶¹⁹⁶⁸¹⁹⁷⁰¹⁹⁷²¹⁹⁷⁴¹⁹⁷⁶¹⁹⁷⁸¹⁹⁸⁰¹⁹⁸²¹⁹⁸⁴¹⁹⁸⁶¹⁹⁸⁸¹⁹⁹⁰¹⁹⁹²¹⁹⁹⁴¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁸²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁶
^Source:^{U.S. Dep}^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^Health^an^d^Hu^m^aⁿ^Ser^v^{ices, Natio}ⁿ^a^{l Cen}^t^er^f^o^r^Health^Statistics,
^“^N^on^m^a^ri^t^a^l^C^hⁱ^l^dbeariⁿ^gⁱⁿ^t^h^{e U}ⁿⁱ^t^e^{d S}^t^at^es^{, 1940-}^99,”^N^a^tⁱ^onal^Vi^t^a^l^St^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^c^s^Repor^t^s^{, v}^o^l^.^48,
ⁿ^o^{. 16 (O}^ct^{ober 18, 2000). S}^{ee al}^s^o^N^a^tⁱ^onal^Vi^t^a^l^St^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^c^s^Re^p^o^r^t^s^{, v}^o^{l. 56, n}^o^{. 6 (Decem}^{ber 5,}
^2007).
¹⁷ The nonmarital birth rate during this period ranged from 42.9 to 44.3 births per 1,000
unmarried women ages 15-44.

Figure 2. Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women, 1940-2006
⁴⁵
⁴⁰
³⁵
³⁰
²⁵^eⁿ^t
^r^c
²⁰^Pe
¹⁵
¹⁰
⁵
⁰⁰²⁴⁶⁸⁰²⁴⁶⁸⁰²⁴⁶⁸⁰²⁴⁶⁸⁰²⁴⁶⁸⁰²⁴⁶⁸⁰²⁴⁶
¹⁹⁴¹⁹⁴¹⁹⁴¹⁹⁴¹⁹⁴¹⁹⁵¹⁹⁵¹⁹⁵¹⁹⁵¹⁹⁵¹⁹⁶¹⁹⁶¹⁹⁶¹⁹⁶¹⁹⁶¹⁹⁷¹⁹⁷¹⁹⁷¹⁹⁷¹⁹⁷¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹²⁰⁰²⁰⁰²⁰⁰²⁰⁰
^So^urce^:^U^.^{S. Dep}^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^Health^an^d^Hu^m^aⁿ^Ser^v^{ices, Natio}ⁿ^a^{l Cen}^t^er^f^o^r^Health^Statistics,
^“^N^on^m^a^ri^t^a^l^C^hⁱ^l^dbeariⁿ^gⁱⁿ^t^h^{e U}ⁿⁱ^t^e^{d S}^t^at^es^{, 1940-}^99,”^N^a^tⁱ^onal^Vi^t^a^l^St^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^c^s^Repor^t^s^{, v}^o^l^.^48,
ⁿ^o^{. 16 (O}^ct^{ober 18, 2000). S}^e^e^a^l^s^o^N^a^tⁱ^onal^Vi^t^a^l^St^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^c^s^Repor^t^s^{, v}^o^{l. 56, n}^o^{. 6 (Decem}^{ber 5,}
^2007).
Figure 3. Rate of Births to Unmarried Women, 1940-2006

⁶⁰
⁵⁰
⁴⁰^15-⁴⁴
^e^s
^{n A}^g
³⁰^o^m^e
^{000 W}
^e^{r 1,}
²⁰^R^a^t^e^P
¹⁰
⁰⁰⁴⁰⁴⁰⁴⁸
¹⁹⁴¹⁹⁴²¹⁹⁴⁴¹⁹⁴⁶¹⁹⁴⁸¹⁹⁵⁰¹⁹⁵²¹⁹⁵¹⁹⁵⁶¹⁹⁵⁸¹⁹⁶¹⁹⁶²¹⁹⁶⁴¹⁹⁶⁶¹⁹⁶⁸¹⁹⁷⁰¹⁹⁷²¹⁹⁷¹⁹⁷⁶¹⁹⁷⁸¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁸²¹⁹⁸⁴¹⁹⁸⁶¹⁹⁸⁸¹⁹⁹⁰¹⁹⁹²¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁶
^Source:^{U.S. Dep}^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^Heal^t^h^aⁿ^d^Hu^m^aⁿ^Ser^v^{ices, Natio}ⁿ^a^{l Cen}^t^er^f^o^r^Health^Statistics,
^“^N^on^m^a^ri^t^a^l^C^hⁱ^l^dbeariⁿ^gⁱⁿ^t^h^{e U}ⁿⁱ^t^e^{d S}^t^at^es^{, 1940-}^99,”^N^a^tⁱ^onal^Vi^t^a^l^St^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^c^s^Repor^t^s^{, v}^o^l^.^48,
ⁿ^o^{. 16 (O}^ct^{ober 18, 2000). S}^{ee al}^s^o^N^a^tⁱ^onal^Vi^t^a^l^St^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^c^s^Re^p^o^r^t^s^{, v}^o^{l. 56, n}^o^{. 6 (Decem}^{ber 5,}
^2007).

Characteristics of Unwed Mothers
This section discusses some of the characteristics of unmarried mothers. It
includes some of the demographic characteristics like race, ethnicity, and age as well
as other features like whether the unwed mother has additional children, her income
status, whether or not she marries, and whether or not she is in a cohabiting
relationship. Some of the highlights include the following:
^!black women are more likely to have children outside of marriage
than other racial or ethnic groups;
^! it is not teenagers but rather women in their early twenties who have
the highest percentage of births outside of marriage;
^!single motherhood is more common among women with less
education than among well-educated women;
^!a substantial share of nonmarital births (44%) were to women who
had already given birth to one or more children;
^!a significant number of unwed mothers are in cohabiting
relationships; and
^!women who have a nonmarital birth are less likely than other women
to eventually marry.
Race and Ethnicity
The rate at which unmarried women have children varies dramatically by race
and ethnicity. As mentioned earlier, in 2005, the nonmarital birth rate for all U.S.
women was 47.5 births per 1,000 unmarried women.¹⁸ In 2005, Hispanic women had
the highest nonmarital birth rate at 100.3 births per 1,000 unmarried women. The
nonmarital birth rate in 2005 was 67.8 for black women, 30.1 for non-Hispanic white
women, and 24.9 for Asian or Pacific Islander women. Although Hispanic women
had the highest nonmarital birth rate, a greater share (percentage) of black women
had nonmarital births.
In 2005, 36.9% of all U.S. births were to unmarried women.¹⁹ In 2005, 69.9%
of births to black women were nonmarital births. The percentage of nonmarital
births for American Indians or Alaska Natives was 63.5%. The nonmarital birth
percentage was 48.0% for Hispanic women, 25.3% for non-Hispanic white women,
and 16.2% for Asian or Pacific Islander women.²⁰ (See Table 1.)

¹⁸ The nonmarital birth rate for all women in 2006 was 50.6 births per 1,000 unmarried
women. The segmentation of the nonmarital birth rate by race and Hispanic origin for 2006
has not yet been published.
¹⁹ The percentage of all U.S. births that were to unmarried women was 38.5% in 2006. The
segmentation of the percentage of nonmarital births by race and Hispanic origin for 2006
is shown in Table 1.
²⁰ The text in this section discusses 2005 data because comparable 2006 nonmarital birth
data on rates and numbers by race and ethnicity have not yet been published.

CRS-10
Table 1. Percentage of All Births That Were to Unmarried Women,
by Race, Ethnicity, and Age, Selected Years 1960-2006
1960 1970 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2003 2004 2005 2006
Total Births5.310.718.422.028.032.233.234.635.836.938.5
Race/Ethnicity
White (non-Hispanic)NANA9.612.416.921.222.123.624.525.326.6
Black (non-Hispanic)NANA57.362.166.770.068.768.569.369.970.7
Hispanic NA NA 23.6 29.5 36.7 40.8 42.7 45.0 46.4 48.0 49.9
Asian or Pacific IslanderNANA7.39.513.316.314.815.015.516.216.3
American Indian or NANA39.246.853.657.258.461.362.363.564.6
Alaskan Native
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34756}Age
^g/wUnder 15 years67.980.888.791.891.693.596.597.197.498.098.3
^s^.or15-19 14.8 29.5 47.6 58.0 67.1 75.2 78.8 81.3 82.4 83.3 84.2
^le^ak20-24 4.8 8.9 19.4 26.3 36.9 44.7 49.5 53.2 54.8 56.2 57.9
^://wiki25-29 2.9 4.1 9.0 12.7 18.0 21.5 23.5 26.4 27.8 29.3 31.0
^h^ttp30-34 2.8 4.5 7.5 9.7 13.3 14.7 14.0 15.1 16.1 17.0 18.3
35-39 3.0 5.2 9.4 11.2 13.9 15.7 14.3 14.8 15.2 15.7 16.4
40 years and over3.15.712.114.017.018.116.817.918.218.819.4
^Source:^Ch^ild^T^r^en^d^s^{, Data B}^aⁿ^k^,^P^e^r^cen^tag^e^o^f^Bⁱ^r^t^h^s^to^Un^m^a^r^rⁱ^ed^W^o^m^eⁿ^.^Natioⁿ^a^{l Cen}^t^er^f^o^r^Health^{Statistics, Natio}ⁿ^a^l^Vital^Stati^stics
^R^e^port^s^{, vo}^l^.⁴⁸^,ⁿ^o^{. 16 (O}^ct^{ober 18, 2000). N}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^C^eⁿ^t^{er f}^o^{r H}^eal^t^h^S^t^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^c^s^,^Bi^rt^h^s^:^Fⁱⁿ^a^l^D^a^t^a^f^o^{r 2005, v}^o^l^.^{56, n}^o^.^{6 (an}^d^ot^h^e^r
^s^e^{lected y}^ears⁾^{. Nation}^a^{l Vital S}^t^atis^tics^R^e^ports^{, v}^o^{l. 56, n}^o^{. 7 (Decem}^{ber 5, 2007).}
^NA^{= No}^{t av}^ailab^l^e.

The greatest share of children born to unmarried women are white; however,
minority children, particularly black children and Hispanic children, are
overrepresented. Of the 1.5 million children who were born outside of marriage in
2005, 38% were white (whites constituted 80% of the U.S. population), 27% were
black (blacks constituted 13% of the population), 2% were American Indian/Alaskan
Native (American Indians or Alaskan Natives constituted 1% of the population), 2%
were Asian or Pacific Islander (Asians or Pacific Islanders constituted 4% of the
population), and 32% were Hispanic (Hispanics constituted 14% of the population).
In 2005, the percentage of nonmarital births to black women (nearly 70%) was
more than three times the 22% level of the early 1960s that so alarmed Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, then President Johnson’s Assistant Secretary of Labor. Moynihan
addressed the issue in a report called “The Negro Family: The Case for National
Action.”²¹ One theory that attempts to explain the disproportionate share of
nonmarital births to black women hypothesizes that the universe of males (ages 15
and above) who are unmarried is disproportionately lower for blacks. For example,
in 2005, there were 74 black unmarried males for every 100 unmarried black females;
87 white non-Hispanic unmarried males for every 100 unmarried white non-Hispanic
females; 98 Asian unmarried males for every 100 Asian unmarried females; and 113
Hispanic unmarried males for every 100 Hispanic unmarried females.²² Supporters
of this theory argue that if the universe of possible marriage partners is reduced to
desirable marriage partners (e.g., heterosexual men, men with steady jobs, men
without a criminal record, and men with a similar educational background), the black
“male shortage” is drastically increased.²³
Age
Teen marriage and birth patterns have shifted from a general trend of marrying
before pregnancy, to marrying as a result of pregnancy, to becoming pregnant and not
marrying.²⁴ Early nonmarital childbearing remains an important issue, especially in
the U.S., because young first-time mothers are more likely to have their births outside
of marriage than within marriage, and because women who have a nonmarital first

²¹ Moynihan’s 1965 report argued that black Americans were being held back economically
and socially primarily because their family structure was deteriorating. The report was very
controversial and sparked decades of debate. It was not until the 1990s that there was
widespread agreement that Moynihan’s prognostications were generally true.
²² With respect to these statistics, “unmarried” is defined as being divorced, widowed, or
never-married. The figures were calculated on the basis of data from the Census Bureau —
America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2005 (males ages 15 and above and females
ages 15 and above, by race and ethnicity), Table A1.
²³ Some commentators contend that in order for black women to find desirable marriage
partners they may have to consider men of other races or cultures (e.g., African, Carribean).
²⁴ “Teenage Motherhood and Marriage,” Child Trends and the National Campaign to
Prevent Teen Pregnancy.

birth are increasingly likely to have all subsequent births outside of marriage,
although often in cohabiting unions.²⁵
The proportion of births to unmarried women (i.e., nonmarital births) who are
teenagers also has decreased over the last half-century. In 1950, 42% of the 141,600
nonmarital births were to females under age twenty. In 1970, 50% of the 398,700
nonmarital births were to females under age twenty. In 1990, 31% of the nearly 1.2
million (1,165,384) nonmarital births were to females under age twenty. In 2005,

23% of the 1.5 million (1,527,034) nonmarital births in the U.S. were to teenagers.

In contrast, the percentage of all teen births that are nonmarital has increased
dramatically. In other words, in recent years, most teenagers who give birth are not
married. For example, only 13% of the 419,535 babies born to teens (ages 15 to 19)
in 1950 were born to females who were not married. Whereas, in 2005, 83% of the
414,593 babies born to teens (ages 15 to 19) were born to unwed teens. There are
two reasons for this phenomenon. The first is that marriage in the teen years, which
was not uncommon in the 1950s, has become quite rare. (As mentioned earlier, the
typical age of first marriage in the U.S. has risen to 25.5 for women and 27.5 for
men.) The second is that this general trend of marriage postponement has extended
to pregnant teens as well: In contrast to the days of the “shotgun marriage,” very few
teens who become pregnant nowadays marry before their baby is born.²⁶
Contrary to public perception, it is not teenagers but rather women in their early
twenties who have the highest percentage of births outside of marriage. In 1990,

31% of the 1,165,384 nonmarital births in the U.S. were to teenagers (under age 20),

35% were to women ages 20 through 24, 20% were to women ages 25 through 29,

10% were to women ages 30 through 34, 4% were to women ages 35 through 39, and
less than 1% were to women ages 40 and above (see Figure 4). In 2005, 23% of the²⁷
1,527,034 nonmarital births in the U.S. were to teenagers (under age 20), 38% were
to women ages 20 through 24, 22% were to women ages 25 through 29, 11% were
to women ages 30 through 34, 5% were to women ages 35 through 39, and 1% were
to women ages 40 and above.²⁸ (See Figure 5.)

²⁵ Karen Benjamin Guzzo, “Multipartnered Fertility Among Young Women With a
Nonmarital First Birth: Prevalence and Risk Factors,” Perspectives on Sexual and
Reproductive Health, March 2007.
²⁶ The Guttmacher Institute, “Teen Pregnancy: Trends and Lessons Learned,” The
Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, vol. 5, no. 1 (February 2002).
²⁷ In 2005, 23% of nonmarital white (non-Hispanic), black, and Hispanic births were to
teenagers (under age 20); 25% of nonmarital American Indian/Alaskan Native and 16% of
nonmarital Asian/Pacific Islander births were to teens (under age 20).
²⁸ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics,
“Births: Final Data for 2005,” National Vital Statistics Reports, vol. 56, no. 6 (December

5, 2007).

Figure 4. Percentage Distribution of Nonmarital Births,
by Age of Mother, 1990
^{40 a}^nd^ov^e^r^,^1%
^35-^39,^4%
^30-^34,^10%
^unde^r^a^g^e²⁰^,^31%
^25-^29,^20%
^20-^24,^35%
^Source:^{U.S. Dep}^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^Health^an^d^Hu^m^aⁿ^Ser^v^{ices, Natio}ⁿ^a^{l Cen}^t^er^f^o^r^Heal^t^h^S^t^atistics,
^“^N^on^m^a^ri^t^a^l^C^hⁱ^l^dbeariⁿ^gⁱⁿ^t^h^{e U}ⁿⁱ^t^e^d^S^t^at^es^{, 1940-}^99,”^N^a^tⁱ^onal^Vi^t^a^l^St^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^c^s^Repor^t^s^{, v}^o^l^.^48,
ⁿ^o^{. 16 (O}^ct^{ober 18, 2000).}
Figure 5. Percentage Distribution of Nonmarital Births,
by Age of Mother, 2005

⁴⁰^a^nd^ov^e^r^,¹^%
³⁵^-³⁹^,^5%
^uⁿ^d^er^ag^e²⁰^,²³^%³⁰^-³⁴^,¹¹^%
²⁵^-²⁹^,²²^%
^20-^24,³⁸^%
^Source:^{U.S. Dep}^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^Health^an^d^Hu^m^aⁿ^Ser^v^{ices, Natio}ⁿ^a^{l Cen}^t^er^f^o^r^Health^S^t^a^t^istics,
^“^Bⁱ^r^t^h^s^:^Fⁱⁿ^a^l^D^a^t^a^f^o^{r 2005,”}^N^a^tⁱ^onal^Vi^t^a^l^St^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^c^s^Repor^t^s^{, v}^o^{l. 56, n}^o^{. 6 (Decem}^{ber 5, 2007).}

Nonetheless, even though the percentage of all nonmarital births to teens has
declined, teen mothers are likely to have subsequent births outside of marriage.²⁹ In
2006, 19% of all teen births were second or higher-order births. According to some
research, 20%-37% of adolescent mothers give birth a second time within 24
months.³⁰ Thus, some of the women who have a nonmarital birth in their early
twenties were teenage mothers as well.
An alternate analysis of the age and nonmarital birth data shows that across all
age groups a growing share of women are having nonmarital births. In 1990, 67.1%
of births to females under age 20 were nonmarital, as were 36.9% of births to women
ages 20 through 24, 18.0% of births to women ages 25 through 29, 13.3% of births
to women ages 30 through 34, 13.9% of births to women ages 35 through 39, and
17.0% of births to women ages 40 and over. Whereas in 2005, 83.5% of births to
females under age 20 were nonmarital, as were 56.2% of births to women ages 20 to

24, 29.3% of births to women ages 25 to 29, 17.0% of births to women ages 30 to 34,

15.7% of births to women ages 35 to 39, and 18.8% of births to women ages 40 and
over. (See Figure 6.)
Figure 6. Percentage of Births That Are Nonmarital
Births, by Age Group, 1990 and 2005

⁸³^.⁵^%^U^nde^r^a^g^e²⁰
^67.^1%
^56.^2%^20-²⁴
^36.^9%
^29.^3%^25-²⁹
^18.⁰^%²⁰⁰⁵
¹⁹⁹⁰
^17.^0%^30-³⁴
^13.^3%
^15.^7%^35-³⁹
^13.^9%
^18.^8%⁴⁰⁺
^17.^0%
⁰^%^10%^20%^30%^40%⁵⁰^%⁶⁰^%^70%^80%^90%
^Source:^{U.S. Dep}^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^Health^an^d^Hu^m^aⁿ^Ser^v^{ices, Natio}ⁿ^a^{l Cen}^t^er^f^o^r^Health^Statistics,
^“^Bⁱ^r^t^h^s^:^Fⁱⁿ^a^l^D^a^t^a^f^o^{r 2005,”}^N^a^tⁱ^onal^Vi^t^a^l^St^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^c^s^Repor^t^s^,^v^o^l.^56,ⁿ^o^{. 6 (Decem}^{ber 5, 2007).}
²⁹ Elizabeth Terry-Humen, Jennifer Manlove, and Kristen A. Moore, “Births Outside of
Marriage: Perception vs. Reality, Research Brief,” Child Trends, April 2001.
³⁰ “Social Ecological Predictors of Repeat Adolescent Pregnancy,”Perspectives on Sexual
and Reproductive Health (March 1, 2007).

Until recently, a commonly held view was that if childbearing was deferred until
a woman reaches her early or late twenties, she would most likely be married. Given
that nonmarital birth rates and percentages are at their highest recorded levels and
that the number of babies born to teenagers has dramatically decreased in fourteen
of the last fifteen years, policymakers are faced with a new paradigm of whether to
address births outside of marriage for older women. In these times of scarce
resources, it is debatable whether a consensus can be garnered for using public funds
to educate women in their mid-twenties and thirties about the negative consequences
associated with nonmarital births.³¹ Many observers hold the view that older women
who have children outside of marriage should have known better, or believe that
these women have children for selfish reasons and should live with the consequences,
without government assistance or interference.³² Others argue that the motto “in the
best interest of the child” should prevail³³ and that if government aid is necessary and
appropriate it should be given.
Educational Attainment
Single motherhood has always been more common among women with less
education than among well-educated women. But the gap has grown over time. In
1960, 14% of mothers in the bottom quarter of the education distribution were
unmarried, as compared to 4.5% of mothers in the top quarter — a difference of 9.5
percentage points. By 2000, the corresponding figures were 43% for the less
educated mothers and 7% for the more educated mothers — a gap of 36 percentage
points.³⁴
Income Status
An examination of never-married mothers shows that in 2007, 41.1% of never-
married mother families (with children under age 18) had income below the poverty
level. With respect to the various income categories, 23.0% of never-married mother

³¹ As mentioned earlier in the report, many women who have nonmarital births in their
twenties first became mothers in their teen years. Thus, some observers contend that if teen
pregnancy prevention programs were more effective, there would be fewer nonmarital
births.
³² Michael E. Foster and Saul D. Hoffman, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the 1980s:
Assessing the Importance of Women 25 and Older,” Family Planning Perspectives,
(May/June 1996). See also Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, “Dan Quayle Was Right,” The
Atlantic (April 1993).
³³ Andrea Kane and Daniel T. Lichter, “Reducing Unwed Childbearing: The Missing Link
in Efforts to Promote Marriage,” Center on Children and Families, Brief no. 37 (April
2006). See also Paul R. Amato and Rebecca A. Maynard, “Decreasing Nonmarital Births
and Strengthening Marriage to Reduce Poverty,” The Future of Children, vol. 17, no. 2 (Fall

2007).

³⁴ Andrew J. Cherlin, “American Marriage in the Early Twenty-First Century,” The Future
of Children, vol. 15, no. 2 (Fall 2005), p. 38.

families had income below $10,000, 45.9% had income below $20,000, and 55.1%
had income below $25,000; 19.2% had income above $50,000.³⁵
Additional Children
Some studies have found that a woman is most likely to have a second birth
while in the same type of situation (single, cohabiting, or married) as she was in for
the first birth.³⁶
The public perception is that nonmarital births are first births. The reality is that
in 2005, 44% of the 1.5 million nonmarital births occurred to women who had
already given birth to one or more children.³⁷ In 2007, 46% of mother-only families
had more than one child.³⁸
Cohabitation
In 2007, 6.4 million family households in the U.S. were classified as unmarried-³⁹
partner, or cohabiting, households. This represented 8.2% of the 78.4 million U.S.
family households.⁴⁰ Thirty years earlier, in 1977, only 1.1 million family households
consisted of cohabiting couples — this represented 2% of the 56.5 million family
households in 1977.⁴¹ A report on trends in cohabitation indicated that cohabitation
is now the norm with approximately 54% of all first marriages beginning with a
cohabiting relationship. The report estimated that a majority of young men and
women of marriageable age today will spend some time in a cohabiting
relationship.⁴² Cohabiting relationships are generally considered less stable than
marriages. According to several sources, cohabiting relationships are fragile and

³⁵ Ibid., Table FG6.
³⁶ Lawrence L. Wu, Larry L. Bumpass, and Kelly Musick, “Historical and Life Course
Trajectories of Nonmarital Childbearing,” University of Wisconsin-Madison. Center for
Demography and Ecology, Working Paper no. 99-23 (revised July 2000), p. 28.
³⁷ Elizabeth Terry-Humen, Jennifer Manlove, and Kristin A. Moore, “Births Outside of
Marriage: Perceptions vs. Reality,” Research Brief, Child Trends, April 2001.
³⁸ In 2007, 54% of mother-only families had one child, 31% had two children, 11% had three
children, and 4% had four or more children. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “America’s
Families and Living Arrangements: 2007,” Table FG6.
³⁹ This means that the householder was living with someone of the opposite sex who was
identified as his or her unmarried partner.
⁴⁰ This percentage is generally considered a low estimate because only householders and
their partners (not all unmarried couples present in a household) are counted. In addition,
some respondents may not want to admit that they are cohabiting and may instead described
themselves as roommates, housemates, or friends.
⁴¹ U.S. Census Bureau. Current Population Survey and Annual Social and Economic
Supplements. July 2008.
⁴² Larry Bumpass and Hsien-Hen Lu, “Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for
Children’s Family Contexts in the United States,” Population Studies, vol. 54, no. 1 (March

2000), p. 29-41.

relatively short in duration, with fewer than half lasting five years or more.⁴³ A 2004
study found that, a year after the birth, 15% of cohabiting couples had married.⁴⁴
The notion that unmarried births equals mother-only families is no longer
correct. The decline in the percentage of births to married women has in large
measure been in tandem with the increase in births to parents who are living together
but who are not married (in cohabiting relationships). According to one study, the
proportion of babies of unmarried women born into cohabiting families increased
from 29% to 41% from 1980-1984 to 1990-1994, accounting for almost all of the
increase in unmarried childbearing over that period.⁴⁵ According to Census data, in
2006, approximately 160,000 never-married women (4%) who gave birth within the
last 12 months were in a cohabiting relationship.⁴⁶
Some children live with cohabiting couples who are either their own unmarried
parents or a biological parent and a live-in partner. Approximately 39% of the 6.4
million unmarried-partner (cohabiting) families in 2007 included biological children
(of either the mother or father or both) under the age of 18 (i.e., this amounted to 2.5
million families).⁴⁷ This is compared to the 44% of the 58.9 million married-couple
families with biological children under age 18 (this amounted to 26.2 million
families); and the 60% of the 14.4 million mother-only families with biological
children under age 18 (this amounted to 8.6 million families); and the 40% of the 5.1
million father-only families with biological children under age 18 (this amounted to

2.0 million families).⁴⁸

Some analysts contend that the increase in nonmarital childbearing could be
seen as less of an issue if viewed through a framework that portrays out-of-wedlock
births as babies born to cohabiting couples rather than “single” women. Consistent
with the data mentioned earlier, several reports and studies indicate that about 40%
of unmarried mothers are cohabiting with the father of their baby, at least at the time
of the baby’s birth.⁴⁹ According to the National Survey of Family Growth, about 9%
of annual births to white women were to cohabiting women; among black women,

⁴³ Elizabeth Terry-Humen, Jennifer Manlove, and Kristin A. Moore, “Births Outside of
Marriage: Perceptions vs. Reality,” Research Brief, Child Trends, April 2001.
⁴⁴ Marcia Carlson, Sara McLanahan, and Paula England, “Union Formation in Fragile
Families,” Demography vol. 41 (2004), p. 237-61.
⁴⁵ Bumpass, Larry and Lu, Hsien-Hen(2000). “Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for
Children’s Family Contexts in the United States.” Population Studies, 54: 29-41.
⁴⁶ U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2006, August 2008, Table 8.
⁴⁷ U.S. Census Bureau, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2007, Tables F1 and
UC3.
⁴⁸ U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey and Annual Social and Economic
Supplements, July 2008, Table F1.
⁴⁹ Elizabeth Terry-Humen, Jennifer Manlove, and Kristin A. Moore, “Births Outside of
Marriage: Perceptions vs. Reality,” Research Brief, Child Trends, April 2001. Also see U.S.
Census Bureau, “America’s Families and Living Arrangements 2000,” P20-537 (June 2001),
p. 13.

15% were to cohabiting women; and among Hispanic women, 22% of births occurred
to women who were cohabiting.⁵⁰
Others point out that cohabitation is a complex phenomenon that has an array
of meanings. Some view it as a precursor to marriage while others view it as an
alternative to marriage.⁵¹ According to one study:
“cohabitation is a continuous rather than a dichotomous variable. At both ends
of the continuum, there is substantial agreement across measures about who is
(not) cohabiting. In the middle of the continuum, however, there is considerable
ambiguity, with as much as 15% of couples reporting part-time cohabitation.
How we classify this group will affect estimates of the prevalence of
cohabitation, especially among African Americans, and may impact the⁵²
characteristics and outcomes of cohabitors.”
Subsequent Marriage of Mothers
Many women marry after having a child. According to the research, about 40%
of unwed mothers marry within five years after giving birth (it is not known whether
they marry the father of their child).⁵³ Yet, women who have a nonmarital birth are
less likely than other women ever to marry. A study based on retrospective life
histories found that at age 17, girls who had a nonmarital birth were 69% more likely
to be never married at age 35 than 17-year old girls who did not have a nonmarital
birth (i.e., 24% vs. 14.0%). Women ages 20 to 24 who had a nonmarital birth were
more than twice as likely (102%) to not be married at age 35 than women ages 20 to
24 who did not have a nonmarital birth (i.e., 38% vs. 19.0%). The reported
implications of these findings is that there probably is a causal relationship between
nonmarital childbearing and subsequent marriage.⁵⁴

⁵⁰ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. National Survey of Family Growth. Fact Sheet. The percentages mentioned
in the text are based on 2002 data and were limited to the first births of the mother. April

2008.

⁵¹ Musick, Kelly, “Cohabitation, Nonmarital Childbearing, and the Marriage Process,”
Demographic Research [Germany], vol. 16, article 9 (April 20, 2007), p. 251.
⁵² Jean Tansey Knab, “Cohabitation: Sharpening a Fuzzy Concept,”Center for Research on
Child Wellbeing, Working Paper # 04-05-FF, May 2005, p. 2.
⁵³ Dore Hollander, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States: A Government Report,”
Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 28, no. 1 (January-February 1996), p. 32.
⁵⁴ Daniel T. Lichter and Deborah Roempke Graefe, “Finding a Mate? The Marital and
Cohabitation Histories of Unwed Mothers,” (November 1999), p. 9. Note: Some analysts
contend that nonmarital fertility may be a behavioral manifestation of difficulties in finding
a suitable marriage partner. The authors, based on their research, contend that nonmarital
fertility has been a cause of the retreat from marriage. (Ibid, p. 4).

Another study⁵⁵ points out the racial differences associated with the eventual
marriage of many women who had a nonmarital birth. The study found that white
women were more likely to be married than their minority counterparts. Some 82%
of white women, 62% of Hispanics and 59% of blacks who had a nonmarital first
birth had married by age 40; the corresponding proportions among those who avoided
nonmarital childbearing were 89%, 93% and 76%, respectively.
By some estimates, having a child outside of marriage decreases a woman’s
chances of marrying by 30% in any given year. Even when they do marry, women
who have had a nonmarital birth generally are less likely to stay married. Analysis
of data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth indicates that women ages
25 to 44 who had their first child before marriage and later got married are half as
likely to stay married as women who did not have a nonmarital birth (42% compared
to 82%).”⁵⁶
The following section highlights a couple of demographic factors associated
with the fathers of children born outside of marriage. It also discusses the importance
of establishing paternity for children born outside of marriage.
Fathers of Children Born Outside of Marriage
It has been pointed out that fathers are far too often left out of discussions about
nonmarital childbearing. It goes without saying that fathers are an integral factor in
nonmarital childbearing. It appears that one result of the so-called sexual revolution
was that many men increasingly believed that women could and should control their
fertility via contraception and abortion. As a result, many men have become less⁵⁷
willing to marry the women they impregnate.
There are myriad reasons why so many children live in homes without their
fathers. Some reasons are related to choices people make about fertility, marriage,
and cohabitation. But others are the result of unexpected events, such as illness, or
incarceration. Some noncustodial fathers are active in the lives of their children,
whereas others are either unable or unwilling to be involved in their children’s lives.
Whatever the reason, a father’s absence from the home results in social,
psychological, emotional, and financial costs to children and economic costs to the
nation. A 2008 report maintains that the federal government spends about $99.8

⁵⁵ Deborah Roempke Graefe and Daniel T. Lichter, “Marriage Among Unwed Mothers:
Whites, Blacks and Hispanics Compared,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health,
vol. 34, no. 6 (November/December 2002), p. 289.
⁵⁶ Andrea Kane and Daniel T. Lichter, “Reducing Unwed Childbearing: The Missing Link
in Efforts to Promote Marriage,” Center on Children and Families, Brief no. 37 (April

2006).

⁵⁷ George A. Akerlof, Janet L. Yellen and Michael L. Katz, “An Analysis of Out-of-
Wedlock Childbearing in the United States,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 111,
no. 2 (May 1996).

billion per year in providing financial and other support (via fourteen federal social
welfare programs) to father-absent families.⁵⁸
This section of the report discusses the race and ethnicity of fathers to children
born outside of marriage, age of fathers, and the importance of establishing paternity
for children born outside of marriage. One of the prominent, but perhaps not
unexpected, findings related to fathers and nonmarital births is that when older men
have sexual relationships with young women it often results in nonmarital births.
Race and Ethnicity
According to the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, 33% of unmarried
Hispanic men and 33% of unmarried non-Hispanic black men have had a biological
child, compared with 19% of unmarried non-Hispanic white men. Non-Hispanic
black fathers were less likely to be married at the time their first child was born
(37%) compared with non-Hispanic white fathers (77%) and Hispanic fathers (52%).
A nonmarital first birth was more prevalent among younger fathers, black and
Hispanic fathers, and fathers with lower levels of income, and men whose mothers
had lower levels of education.⁵⁹
Age
In the United States, it is not unusual for a man to be several years older than his
female partner. Some data indicate that the man is three or more years older than the
woman in almost four in 10 relationships today. Therefore, it is not unexpected that
a similar pattern exists for sexually active teenagers. However, such age differences
often have adverse consequences for young women.⁶⁰ Several studies have found
that the unequal power dynamic that is often present in relationships between teenage
girls and older men is more likely to lead to sexual contact not wanted by the female,
less frequent use of contraceptives, and a greater incidence of sexually-transmitted
diseases (STDs) among the adolescent females.⁶¹

⁵⁸ Steven L. Nock and Christopher J. Einolf, “The One Hundred Billion Dollar Man: The
Annual Public Costs of Father Absence,” The National Fatherhood Initiative (June 2008)
The federal programs include the Earned Income Tax Credit, TANF, CSE, Supplemental
Security Income, Food Stamps, Special Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC),
School Lunch, Medicaid, State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Head Start,
Child Care, Energy Assistance, Public Housing, and Section 8 Housing.
⁵⁹ Gladys M. Martinez, Anjani Chandra, Joyce C. Abma, Jo Jones, and William D. Mosher,
“Fertility, Contraception, and Fatherhood: Data on Men and Women from Cycle 6 (2002)
of the National Survey of Family Growth,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Center for Health Statistics, series 23, no. 26 (May 2006).
⁶⁰ Jacqueline E. Darroch, David J. Landry, and Selene Oslak, “Age Differences Between
Sexual Partners In the United States,” Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 31, no. 4
(July/August 1999), Guttmacher Institute.
⁶¹ Suzanne Ryan, Kerry Franzetta, Jennifer S. Manlove, and Erin Schelar, “Older Sexual
Partners During Adolescence: Links to Reproductive Health Outcomes in Young
Adulthood,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, vol. 40, no. 1 (March 2008),
(continued...)

Further, a significant share of teenagers in relationships with older men have
children outside of marriage. According to one study, about 20% of births to
unmarried, teenage girls are attributed to men at least five years older than the
mother.⁶² According to another report, unmarried teenagers younger than 18 were
especially likely to become pregnant when involved with an older partner: 69% of
those whose partner was six or more years older became pregnant, compared with
23% of those whose partner was three to five years older and 17% of those whose
partner was no more than two years older.⁶³
Paternity Establishment
Paternity is presumed if a child is conceived within marriage. In other words,
the husband is presumed to be the father of a child born to his wife. In cases in
which the child is born outside of marriage, paternity can be voluntarily
acknowledged or it can be contested. It would be contested in cases in which (1) the
mother does not want to establish paternity, thereby forcing the father to take his case
to court to assert his rights, (2) the biological father does not want to pay child
support and denies paternity to delay establishment of a child support order, or (3)
the alleged father has genuine doubt about his paternity. If paternity is contested it
is generally resolved through either an administrative process or a judicial
proceeding.
A child born outside of marriage has a biological father but not necessarily a
legal father. Paternity establishment refers to the legal determination of fatherhood
for a child. In 2006, 38.5% of children born in the United States were born to
unmarried women, adding approximately 1.6 million new children to the list of
children without a legally identified father. Data from the federal Office of Child
Support Enforcement (OCSE) indicate that in 2006 the total number of children in
the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) caseload⁶⁴ who were born outside of marriage
amounted to about 10.4 million.⁶⁵ Paternity has been established or acknowledged for

⁶¹ (...continued)
Guttmacher Institute.
⁶² David J. Landry and Jacqueline D. Forrest, “How Old Are U.S. Fathers?” Family
Planning Perspectives, vol. 27, no. 4 (1995).
⁶³ Jacqueline E. Darroch, David J. Landry, and Selene Oslak, “Age Differences Between
Sexual Partners In the United States,” Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 31, no. 4
(July/August 1999), Guttmacher Institute.
⁶⁴ The following families automatically qualify for CSE services (free of charge): families
receiving (or who formerly received) Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
benefits (Title IV-A of the Social Security Act), foster care payments, or Medicaid coverage.
Other families must apply for CSE services, and states must charge an application fee that
cannot exceed $25. In FY2006, the CSE caseload consisted of 15.8 million cases, of which
2.3 million were TANF cases; 7.3 million were former-TANF cases, and 6.2 million had
never been on TANF.
⁶⁵ These 10.4 million children who were born outside of marriage represented about 60%
of the children in the CSE caseload in 2006.

about 8.9 million (86%) of these children (1.7 million during FY2006), leaving
nearly 1.5 million children in the CSE caseload without a legally identified father.⁶⁶
Paternity establishment is not an end in itself, but rather a prerequisite to
obtaining ongoing economic support (i.e., child support) from the other
(noncustodial) parent.⁶⁷ Once paternity is established legally (through a legal
proceeding, an administrative process, or voluntary acknowledgment), a child gains
legal rights and privileges. Among these may be rights to inheritance, rights to the
father’s medical and life insurance benefits, and to social security and possibly
veterans’ benefits. It also may be important for the health of the child for doctors to
have knowledge of the father’s medical history. The child also may have a chance
to develop a relationship with the father and to develop a sense of identity and
connection to the “other half” of his or her family.
The public policy interest in paternity establishment is based in part on the
dramatic increase in nonmarital births over the last several decades and the economic
status of single mothers and their children. The poorest demographic group in the
U.S. consists of children in single-parent families. Paternity establishment generally
is seen as a means to promote the social goals of (1) providing for the basic financial
support of all minor children regardless of the marital status of their parents, (2)
ensuring equity in assessing parental liability for the financial support of their
children, and (3) promoting responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions.⁶⁸
Many observers maintain that the social, psychological, emotional, and financial
benefits of having one’s father legally identified are irrefutable. They suggest that
paternity should be established, regardless of the ability of the father to pay child
support. They argue that the role of both parents is critical in building the self-
esteem of their children and helping the children become self-sufficient members of
the community.
Current literature and studies suggest that in most cases visitation with the
noncustodial parent is important to the healthy emotional development of children.
Children with regular contact with their noncustodial parent often adjust better than
those denied such contact. Moreover, generally it is in the best interest of the child
to receive social, psychological, and financial benefits of a relationship with both

⁶⁶ Office of Child Support Enforcement (HHS), “Child Support Enforcement, FY 2006
(preliminary report),” March 2007.
⁶⁷ Among custodial parents (living with children under age 21) who actually received child
support payments in 2005 (latest available data), 41% were divorced, 25% were married,
24% were never married, 9% were separated, and 1% were widowed. Source: U.S. Census
Bureau, “Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Children: 2005,” Current Population
Reports, P60-234 (August 2007), Table 4.
⁶⁸ Laurene T. McKillop with preface by Judith Cassetty, “Benefits of Establishing
Paternity,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support
Enforcement, (June 1981, reprinted September 1985), p. ix-xii.

parents. Visitation (i.e., contact with one’s children) is the primary means by which
noncustodial parents carry out their parenting duty.⁶⁹
The following section discusses some of demographic factors that have
contributed to the increase in nonmarital births as well as some of the reasons, cited
by women, for nonmarital childbearing.
Reasons for the Increase
in Nonmarital Childbearing
Declining marriage rates, increased childbearing among unmarried women,
increased number of unmarried women in the childbearing ages (i.e., 15-44), and
decreased childbearing among married women have contributed to the rising share
of children being born to unwed women.
Many social science analysts attribute the increase in nonmarital births to the
decades-long decline of “shotgun marriages,” rather than to an increased incidence
of nonmarital conceptions. They contend that when the social pressure to get married
once pregnancy became obvious ended, the likelihood that women would marry
between conception and birth decreased substantially.⁷⁰ The entry of more and more
women into the paid labor force also made childbearing outside of marriage more
economically feasible.
Through the 1960s, most Americans believed that parents should stay in an
unhappy marriage for the sake of the children. By the 1970s, this view was not as
prominent. Divorce and not getting married to the father of a child — which were
generally considered to not be in the best interest of the child — were acceptable if
it resulted in the happiness of the adult. Thus, many observers and analysts agree that
marriage is now more likely to be viewed through a framework of adult fulfillment
rather than through a framework of childbearing and childrearing.⁷¹
Factors that have contributed to an unprecedented level of nonmarital
childbearing include an increase in the median age of first marriage (i.e., marriage
postponement), delays in childbearing of married couples, increased marital
dissolution, an increase in the number of cohabiting couples, increased sexual activity
outside of marriage, participation in risky behaviors that often lead to sex, improper

⁶⁹ For an array of information on the impact of father involvement in their children’s lives,
see the following website: National Child Care Information and Technical Assistance Center
(HHS), “Father Involvement in Children’s Development,” [http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/
poptopics/fatherinvolvement.html ].
⁷⁰ Dore Hollander, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States: A Government Report,”
Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 28, no. 1 (January-February 1996), p. 31.
⁷¹ Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas, “Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put
Motherhood Before Marriage,” University of California Press, 2005, p. 136.

use of contraceptive methods,⁷² and lack of marriageable partners. This section of
the report does not try to verify, refute, or support any of the reasons commonly cited
for nonmarital births. Instead, its purpose is to give the reader a better understanding
of the nonmarital birth phenomenon by synthesizing and simplifying the large body
of research on the subject and presenting the views of analysts and other observers
in a way that helps to clarify the complexity of the topic.
Demographic Factors Contributing to the Increase
in the Number and Percent of Nonmarital Births
The combined factors of more unmarried women of
childbearing age in the population and the increased birth^{Percent of Fem}^a^le
rates of unmarried women resulted in dramatic increases in^P^o^pula^t^ioⁿ
the number of nonmarital births over the last several^A^g^es^15-44
decades. The text box shows that the percentage of women¹⁹⁶⁰^39.7%
of childbearing age increased about 16% during the period¹⁹⁷⁰^40.7%
from 1960 to 1990, from 39.7% to 46.0%. Table 3 shows
that the percent of women who never married increased¹⁹⁸⁰^45.4%
from 11.9% in 1960 to 22.0% in 2006 (an 85% increase).¹⁹⁹⁰^46.0%
In addition, the percent of all births to unmarried²⁰⁰⁰^42.9%
women rose substantially over the last several decades as
well. The reason for the increase was primarily due to three²⁰⁰⁶^41.0%

concurrent demographic factors. First, the number and
proportion of unmarried women increased as more and
more women from the baby boom generation postponed
marriage.
Postponement of Marriage. Since the 1960s, couples have postponed
marriage. Table 2 shows that in 1950 and 1960 the median age at first marriage was
22.8 years for men and 20.3 years for women. In 2006, for both men and women the
median age at first marriage had increased by more than four years. An increasing
share of men and women also have never been married. Table 3 shows that in 1960,
11.9% of females age 15 and older (and 17.3% of males of the same age) had not yet
married, compared to 22.0% of females (and 28.6% of males) in 2006.
⁷² In general, the use of contraceptives has increased substantially over the last twenty years
and women have become more proficient in properly using contraceptives. Thus,
contraceptive misuse or non-use is not discussed in this report as a reason for increased
nonmarital childbearing. Nonetheless, it is important to note that shifts in the types of
contraceptives used has had offsetting influences on the risk of unintended pregnancy. The
chances of contraceptive failure (including method failure and incorrect or inconsistent use)
in the first 12 months of use are higher for the condom (14%) than for oral contraceptives
(8%), and lowest for injectables (3%), implants (2%), and sterilization. Thus, the mix of
methods used by women included greater proportions of both more effective and less
effective methods. Source: Stephanie J. Ventura and Christine A. Bachrach, “National
Vital Statistics Reports,” vol. 48, no. 16, October 18, 2000, p. 9.

Table 2. Median Age at First Marriage, 1950-2006
^Y^e^ar^M^eⁿ^W^om^en
¹⁹⁵⁰^22.8^20.3
¹⁹⁶⁰^22.8^20.3
¹⁹⁷⁰^23.2^20.8
¹⁹⁸⁰^24.7^22.0
¹⁹⁹⁰^26.1^23.9
¹⁹⁹⁵^26.9^24.5
¹⁹⁹⁶^27.1^24.8
¹⁹⁹⁷^26.8^25.0
¹⁹⁹⁸^26.7^25.0
¹⁹⁹⁹^26.9^25.1
²⁰⁰⁰^26.8^25.1
²⁰⁰¹^26.9^25.1
²⁰⁰²^26.9^25.3
²⁰⁰³^27.1^25.3
²⁰⁰⁴^27.4^25.3
²⁰⁰⁵^27.1^25.3
²⁰⁰⁶^27.5^25.5
^Source:^{U.S. C}^eⁿ^s^u^s^B^u^reau^{. His}^t^{orical T}ⁱ^m^e^Series^{, Marital}
^S^t^at^u^s^(MS^-^{2), F}^a^mⁱ^l^y^an^{d L}ⁱ^vⁱⁿ^g^A^r^ran^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^s^,^2008.
Table 3. Percentage Distribution of Never Married Women,
by Age, Selected Years 1960-2006
^A^g^{e an}^d^S^e^x¹⁹⁶⁰¹⁹⁷⁰¹⁹⁸⁰¹⁹⁹⁰¹⁹⁹⁵²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶
^Wom^eⁿ^(al^l⁾^11.9^13.7^17.1^18.9^19.4^21.1^21.6^22.0
¹⁵^-¹⁹^NA^NA^NA^NA^NA^NA^NA^NA
^20-²⁴^28.4^35.8^50.2^62.8^66.8^72.8^74.6^75.3
^25-²⁹^10.5^10.5^20.9^31.1^35.3^38.9^41.3^43.1
^30-³⁴^6.9⁶^.2^9.5^16.4^19.0^21.9^23.6^24.0
^35-³⁹^6.1⁵^.4^6.2^10.4^12.6^14.3^15.6^16.7
^40-⁴⁴^6.1⁴^.9^4.8⁸^.0^8.7^11.8^12.1^13.1
^45-⁵⁴^7.0⁴^.9^4.7⁵^.0^6.1⁸^.6^9.7^10.3
^55-⁶⁴^8.0⁶^.8^4.5³^.9^4.3⁴^.9^6.1⁶^.5
^65-⁷⁴^8.5⁷^.8^5.6⁴^.6^4.0³^.7^4.1³^.9
^{75 an}^{d ol}^der^—^7.5⁶^.3^5.4⁴^.4^3.5³^.8^3.2
^Source:^U^.^S^.^C^eⁿ^s^u^s^Bu^reau^{, S}^t^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^cal^A^b^s^t^ract^of^t^h^{e U}ⁿⁱ^t^e^{d S}^t^at^es^{, 2007 an}^{d s}^e^l^ect^{ed y}^ears^.
^No^te:^Al^t^h^o^u^g^h^th^{e (all) categ}^ory^repres^en^ts^th^{e percen}^tag^e^of^pers^on^s^ag^{e 15 y}^ears^an^{d older w}^h^o
^w^e^{re n}^e^v^e^{r m}^a^{rried, data f}^o^{r pers}^on^s^uⁿ^d^{er ag}^{e 20 are n}^o^t^av^ailable^con^s^is^ten^tly^f^o^r^th^{e s}^e^{lected y}^ears^.
^A^l^s^o^{, dat}^a^f^o^{r 1960 repres}^en^t^pers^on^s^{65 y}^ears^an^{d ol}^der.
^NA^{= No}^{t av}^ailab^l^e.

The second demographic factor is that the birth rates for unmarried women of
all ages continued to increase. Third, the birth rates for married women decreased.
Thus, the percent of all births that were to unmarried women rose because births to
unmarried women increased while births to married women decreased.⁷³
Attitude Toward Marriage
During the last half-century, the median age at first marriage has increased for
both men and women by more than four years. As seen in Table 2, in 2006, the
median age at first marriage was 27.5 years for men and 25.5 years for women.
Marriage postponement has increased the number of unmarried women in the
population. In 2006, 22.0% of all females (ages 15 and older) had not yet married,
the comparable figure in 1960 was 11.9% (see Table 3).⁷⁴
Attitudes towards marriage are varied and complex. Fifty years ago, marriage
was the central and defining feature of adult identity. It was intertwined with moral
rightness. Although some viewed marriage as a form of social obligation and a
restriction on personal freedom, it was considered the proper progression by most
Americans.⁷⁵ Today, most Americans continue to view marriage as a natural stage
in life. They also generally perceive marriage as a way toward personal growth and
deeper intimacy. Some view it as a way to share one’s life with someone in a⁷⁶
committed loving relationship. Others view it as a safe haven that imbues sexual
faithfulness, emotional support, mutual trust, and lasting commitment.⁷⁷ Others are
more cynical and view it as a relationship mainly designed for the sexual and
emotional gratification of each adult.⁷⁸
Although attitudes towards marriage have changed, most people eventually
marry and the desire to marry is widespread. Generally, teens think that having a
good marriage is important, and most say that it is likely they will get married. But
they are less than certain that their future marriages will last a lifetime. In addition,
marriage is facing stiff competition from cohabitation. Living together before getting

⁷³ Stephanie J. Ventura and Christine A. Bachrach, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United
States, 1940-99,” Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Reports, vol.

48, no. 16 (October 18, 2000), p. 3.

⁷⁴ Some analysts note that the economic returns associated with a college education are also
a factor in marriage postponement. They contend that for many youth, college delays
“adulthood” well into a person’s twenties.
⁷⁵ Andrew J. Cherlin, “American Marriage in the Early Twenty-First Century,” The Future
of Children, vol. 15, no. 2 (Fall 2005).
⁷⁶ Ibid.
⁷⁷ Steven L. Nock, “Marriage as a Public Issue,” The Future of Children, vol. 15, no. 2 (Fall

2005).

⁷⁸ Andrew J. Cherlin, “American Marriage in the Early Twenty-First Century,” The Future
of Children, vol. 15, no. 2 (Fall 2005). Also see Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, “Dan Quayle
Was Right,” The Atlantic (April 1993).

married is considered acceptable by most young people.⁷⁹ Moreover, sex outside of
marriage (especially for adults) is almost considered the norm and has virtually no
stigma attached to it.
There is much agreement that the link between marriage and parenthood has
weakened considerably. Many policymakers contend that the link must be firmly
reestablished for the well-being of children and the good of the nation.⁸⁰
Lack of Marriageable Partners
The so-called shortage of “marriageable” men (both the number of unmarried
men and the “quality” of unmarried men, as viewed in terms of their ability to
support a family) has been cited as one explanation for declining marriage rates, and
to a lesser extent for why nonmarital childbearing has increased.⁸¹ In effect, although
some women may have sexual relations with certain men, it does not mean that they
consider those men to be viable marriage partners. A national survey of unmarried
adults under age 35 found that more than two-thirds of the women surveyed and one-
third of the men said that they would be “not at all willing to marry someone who
was not likely to hold a steady job.” This sentiment was shared across racial and
ethnic groups.⁸² Nonetheless, the “shortage of marriageable” men argument is
primarily associated with black men and women. In The Truly Disadvantaged,
William Julius Wilson argued that as rates of employment and rates of labor force
participation dropped for young black men, the number of desirable marriage
partners for black women also decreased.⁸³ In other words, many black women (and
women generally) limit their marriage universe to men with steady jobs (and other
desirable attributes).
Biological Clock Issues
Women may choose to have children outside of marriage because of concerns
that they are older, unmarrried, and may no longer have the opportunity to have
children. This is especially true among professional women who have pursued post-
secondary education and have been entrenched in time-consuming careers. In
addition, some women are not willing to sacrifice their independence or their desire

⁷⁹ Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe, “Changes in Teen Attitudes Toward
Marriage, Cohabitation and Children: 1975-1995,” 1999.
⁸⁰ Steven L. Nock, “Marriage as a Public Issue,” The Future of Children, vol. 15, no. 2 (Fall

2005).

⁸¹ Daniel T. Lichter, George Kephart, Diane K. McLaughin, and David J. Landry, “Race
and the Retreat from Marriage: A Shortage of Marriageable Men?,” American Sociological
Review, vol. 57 (December 1992), p. 781-799.
⁸² Dennis A. Ahlburg and Carol J. DeVita, “New Realities of the American Family,”
Population Bulletin, vol. 47, no. 2 (August 1992), p. 14. See also Scott J. South,
“Sociodemographic Differentials in Mate Selection Preferences,” Journal of Marriage and
the Family, vol. 53, no. 4 (November 1991). p. 928-940.
⁸³ William Julius Wilson, “The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and
Public Policy,” The University of Chicago Press, 1987.

to have children, simply for sake of marriage.⁸⁴ Since the 1990s, some women have
used new technology such as in-vitro fertilization and sperm donation procedures to
have a child without a spouse.
Cohabiting Relationships
In contrast to years past, today many children born outside of marriage are born
to cohabiting parents rather than to biological parents who live in separate
households. Nonetheless, it is generally agreed that cohabiting relationships are less
stable than marriage. In 1977, there were 1.1 million family households (with
children under age 18) that consisted of cohabiting couples. In 2007, 6.4 million
family households (with children under age 18) consisted of cohabiting couples.
Thus in that 30-year period, cohabiting couples as a share of all family households
increased from 2% to 8.2%. According to one report: “Just as it has become more
common for couples to have intercourse and to live together without marrying, it has
become more likely that couples who conceive outside marriage will remain
unmarried.”⁸⁵
Growing up with two continuously cohabiting biological parents is rare. The
Fragile Families Study indicates that about one-fourth of cohabiting biological
parents are no longer living together one year after the child’s birth.⁸⁶ Another study
of first births found that 31% of cohabiting couples had broken up after five years,
as compared to 16% of married couples. A study using the 1999 National Survey of
American Families found that only 1.5% of all children lived with two cohabiting
parents at the time of the survey. Similarly, an analysis of the 1995 Adolescent
Health Study revealed that less than one-half of 1% of adolescents ages 16 to 18 had
spent their entire childhoods living with two continuously cohabiting biological
parents.⁸⁷
Divorce
If a woman is divorced and engages in sexual relations she may become
pregnant and thereby may have a child outside of marriage. A recent study using
cohort analysis found that 14.4% of nonmarital births were to women who had

⁸⁴ Andrea Kane and Daniel T. Lichter, “Reducing Unwed Childbearing: The Missing Link
in Efforts to Promote Marriage,” Center on Children and Families, Brief no. 37 (April

2006).

⁸⁵ Dore Hollander, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States: A Government Report,”
Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 28, no. 1 (January-February 1996), p. 31.
⁸⁶ Marcia Carlson, Sara McLanahan, and Paula England, “Union Formation and Dissolution
in Fragile Families,” Fragile Families Research, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing,
Princeton University, August 2002, p. 21.
⁸⁷ Paul R. Amato, “The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Well-Being of the Next
Generation,” The Future of Children, vol. 15, no. 2 (Fall 2005), p. 79.

divorced but not yet remarried.⁸⁸ The discussion below briefly highlights trends in
divorce, median duration of divorce, and proportions of women who remarry.
In 1950, the marriage rate was more than four times the divorce rate (11.1 per
1,000 population versus 2.6 per 1,000 population); by 2006, it was only twice the
divorce rate (7.3 per 1,000 population versus 3.6 per 1,000 population). Although
marriage and divorce data are usually displayed as rates, researchers generally agree
that a comparison of marriage and divorce rates is misleading because the persons
who are divorcing in any given year are typically not the same as those who are
marrying.
In 2004, 23% of U.S. women who were once married had been divorced. The
median duration of marriages before divorce was about 8 years. The median time
between divorce and a second marriage was about three and a half years. In 2004,
12% of men and 13% of women had married twice, and 3% of both men and women
had married three or more times. Among adults 25 and older who had ever divorced,

52% of men and 44% of women were currently married.⁸⁹

Sexual Activity Outside of Marriage
Sexual activity outside of marriage is associated with nonmarital births. A study
that was based on data from several panels of the National Survey of Family Growth
found that, by age 44, 95% of those surveyed had engaged in sexual activity
(intercourse) before marriage.⁹⁰ According to the survey, 69% of women ages 15
through 44 who had never been married and who were not cohabiting had engaged
in sexual intercourse.⁹¹ If in fact such a large percentage of unmarried men and
women are engaging in sex they are at risk of becoming parents (unless their choice
of contraception is effective).⁹²
Risk factors and behaviors may contribute to the increase in sex outside of
marriage among teenagers. A report on research findings on programs that attempt

⁸⁸ Lawrence L. Wu, “Cohort Estimates of Nonmarital Fertility for U.S. Women,” February

2008.

⁸⁹ U.S. Census Bureau. Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel.

2007; [http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/marr-div.html].

⁹⁰ Contrary to the public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in
the past, the study found that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly 90%
had sex before marriage. Source: Guttmacher Institute, “Premarital Sex is Nearly Universal
Among Americans, and Has Been for Decades,” News Release (December 19, 2006).
⁹¹ William D. Mosher, Anjani Chandra, and Jo Jones, “Sexual Behavior and Selected Health
Measures: Men and Women 15-44 Years of Age, United States, 2002,” National Center for
Health Statistics, Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, no. 362 (September 15,

2005).

⁹² Lawrence B. Finer, “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954-2003,”
Guttmacher Institute, Public Health Reports, January-February 2007, vol. 122. See also
Guttmacher Institute News Release, “Premarital Sex Is Nearly Universal Among Americans,
and Has Been For Decades,” (December 19, 2006).

to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs contends that hundreds of factors affect teen
sexual behavior. Among them are (1) community disorganization (violence and
substance abuse are prevalent); (2) family disruption, including substance abuse by
family members and physical abuse and general maltreatment; (3) the mother had a
child at a young age; (4) an older sibling engaged in sex; (5) close friends are older;
(6) friends drink alcohol and use drugs; (7) friends have permissive views regarding
sex; (8) friends are sexually active; (9) the youth is romantically involved with
someone older; (10) the youth has problems with understanding and completing
schoolwork; (11) the youth uses alcohol and other drugs; (12) the youth is part of a
gang; (13) the youth is frequently involved in fighting and has carried a weapon; (14)
the youth works more than 20 hours per week; (15) the youth has permissive attitudes
toward premarital sex; (16) the youth dates frequently or is going steady; and (17) the
girl has several boyfriends.⁹³ The author maintains that many of the risk factors and
behaviors can be changed with effective youth development programs.⁹⁴
Declining Abortion Rates
The decrease in the rate of abortions may contribute to the increasing share of
unmarried women who have children. According to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly
half of all pregnancies to American women are unintended. Moreover, about 20%
of all pregnancies end with an abortion. The annual number of legal abortions in the
United States increased through the 1970s, leveled off in the 1980s, dropped in the
1990s, and has continued to drop from 2000 through 2005. The number of abortions
was 1.554 million in 1980, 1.609 million in 1990 (a record high), 1.313 million in

2000, 1.287 million in 2003, and 1.206 million in 2005.⁹⁵

Women who have abortions tend to be unmarried and white, and a
disproportionate share are in their twenties. In 2003 (latest available comprehensive
data), about eight of ten females who had abortions were unmarried. White females
(who represented about 80% of the U.S. female population in 2003) constituted 56%
of the females who had abortions in 2003, followed by black and other women who
had 44% of the abortions in 2003. Also in 2003, of those females who had abortions,
the largest percentage was among women ages 20 through 24 (33%). The remaining
shares were 1% for girls under age 15; 17% for women ages 15 through 19; 23% for
women ages 25 through 29; 15% for women ages 30 through 34; 8% for women ages

⁹³ Douglas Kirby, “Emerging Answers: 2007 — Research Findings on Programs to Reduce
Teen Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases,” The National Campaign to Prevent
Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, November 2007, p. 53-71. Note: Although there is a
widely held perception that low self-esteem is a risk factor for teenage pregnancy, the
empirical research does not reach such an unequivocal conclusion.
⁹⁴ Ibid., p. 69.
⁹⁵ Alan Guttmacher Institute, “Abortion in the United States: Incidence and Access to
Services, 2005,” Perspectives of Sexual and Reproductive Health, vol. 40, no. 1 (March

2008). See also Stephanie J. Ventura, Joyce C. Abma, William D. Mosher, and Stanley K.

Henshaw, “Estimated Pregnancy Rates by Outcome for the United States, 1990-2004,”
National Vital Statistics Reports, vol. 56, no. 15 (April 14, 2008).

35 through 39; and 3% for women age 40 or over. For nearly half (46%) of the
women who had an abortion in 2003 it was not their first abortion.⁹⁶
Impact of Nonmarital Births on Families
Although 38.5% of all U.S. births in 2006 were to women who were not
married, 23.3% of the 73.7 million U.S. children under age 18 lived in mother-only
families in 2006.⁹⁷ The difference occurs because the proportion of births to
unmarried women has increased over the past several decades and because some of
these women married and some were in cohabiting relationships.⁹⁸
A wide body of research indicates that children who grow up with only one
biological parent in the home are more likely to be financially worse off and have
worse socioeconomic outcomes (even after income differences are taken into
account) compared to children who grow up with both biological parents in the
home.⁹⁹ Specifically, children living in a single-parent home are more likely to do
poorly in school, have emotional and behavioral problems, become teenage parents,
and have poverty-level incomes (as children and adults) than children living with¹⁰⁰
married biological parents. Further, children in single-parent families are six times

⁹⁶ U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2008, Table 97.
⁹⁷ Note: The data in the text above is highlighting 2006 data related to living arrangements
of children because the 2007 birth data is not yet available. The 2007 data related to living
arrangements of children specifically includes a category titled “ children living with both
parents not married to each other” (i.e., cohabiting parents). In 2007, 67.8% of the 73.7
million U.S. children (under age 18) lived with both of their married parents, 2.9% lived
with both parents who were not married, 17.9% lived with their mother, and 2.6% lived
with their father. The other 8.8% of children lived with neither parent (3.5%) or lived with
their mother (4.7%) or father (0.6%) who was separated (by absence or a “formal”
separation agreement) from the other parent. In general, if a woman has a child while she
is formally married, the child’s father is considered to be the woman’s husband (regardless
of whether or not he is “absent”). Note: In 2007, about 13% of the children living with
their unmarried mothers (“mother-only families”) were in a household that included non-
relatives. A non-relative could be a stepfather, adoptive father, or the mother’s significant
other or it could be someone not romantically involved with the mother (e.g., a friend, male
or female). U.S. Census Bureau, “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2007,”
Table C3.
⁹⁸ Ariel Halpern and Elaine Sorensen, “Children’s Environment and Behavior — Children
Born Outside of Marriage,” Snapshots of America’s Families, Urban Institute, January 1,

1999.

⁹⁹ Although the early research did not distinguish between married and cohabiting parents,
later research has found that cohabiting relationships are less stable than marriages and
thereby from the standpoint of the child less desirable than marriages.
¹⁰⁰ Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts,
What Helps (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994); see also L. Bumpass,
“Children and Marital Disruption: A Replication and Update,” Demography, vol. 21(1984),
pp. 71-82; see also Rebecca A. Maynard, ed., “Kids Having Kids: A Robin Hood
(continued...)

more likely to be poor than children in two-parent families. It has been reported that
22% of children in one-parent families will experience poverty during childhood for
seven years or more, as compared to only 2% of children in two-parent families.¹⁰¹
In 2007, 7.5% of children under age 18 living in married-couple families were living
below the poverty level compared to 38.3% of children living with mother-only
families.¹⁰²
One analyst makes the following assertion regarding two-parent families:
Social science research is almost never conclusive. There are always
methodological difficulties and stones left unturned. Yet in three decades of
work as a social scientist, I know of few other bodies of data in which the weight
of evidence is so decisively on one side of the issue: on the whole, for children,¹⁰³
two-parent families are preferable to single-parent and stepfamilies.
Others assert that although marriage of biological parents is associated with
greater child well-being, little is known about why or how much of the relationship
is caused by marriage and how much by other factors. In other words, it could be that
the effect of marriage on child well-being is derived not from marriage itself, but
rather from the distinctive characteristics of the individuals who marry and stay
married (sometimes referred to as the “selection effect”).¹⁰⁴ It is sometimes argued
that some of the problems associated with non-intact families may be the effect of
poverty rather than the father’s absence. Further, most children who grow up in
mother-only families or step-parent families become well-adjusted, productive adults.
For some children, the absence of the father may result in freedom from an abusive
or otherwise difficult situation and may result in a more supportive loving mother-
child relationship.

¹⁰⁰ (...continued)
Foundation Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing” (New York, 1996); see
also Mary Parke, “Are Married Parents Really Better for Children? What Research Says
About the Effects of Family Structure on Child Well-Being,” Center on Law and Social
Policy, May 2003; see also Glenn Stanton, “Why Marriage Matters for Children,” Focus on
the Family, 1997.
¹⁰¹ Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, “Dan Quayle Was Right,” The Atlantic (April 1993).
¹⁰² Current Population Survey, A joint effort between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the
Census Bureau. Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplement. Table POVO5.
¹⁰³ David Popenoe, “The Controversial Truth: Two Parent Families Are Better,” New York
Times (December 26, 1992), p. A21.
¹⁰⁴ Mary Parke, Are Married Parents Really Better for Children? What Research Says About
the Effects of Family Structure on Child Well-Being, Center on Law and Social Policy, May

2003.

Impact of Nonmarital Births on the Nation
This section reviews assertions that it is not just the family that is negatively
affected by nonmarital childbearing, but the taxpayer as well. It discusses some of
the impacts of financial and demographic factors associated with nonmarital births
on the population as a whole.
Potential Financial Costs
Although the three reports mentioned below do not categorically say that
nonmarital births cost the federal government a specific dollar amount, they do
provide a context in which to consider the financial costs associated with nonmarital
childbearing. The first report examines nonmarital childbearing and divorce together
to measure taxpayer costs of what the author calls family fragmentation, but it does
not separately attribute costs to nonmarital childbearing. The second study examines
how poverty in the U.S. would be affected if more children were living in two-parent
families. The third report attributes a specific dollar amount to the consequences of
teens having children.
A 2008 report¹⁰⁵ examines the economic costs associated with the decline in
marriage (which the authors contend increases the number of children and adults
eligible for and in need of government services). The authors of the report maintain
that the decline in marriage is a product of both divorce and unmarried childbearing.
The report estimates that combined, the high rates of divorce and nonmarital
childbearing costs U.S. taxpayers at least $112 billion per year in federal, state, and
local costs — $70.1 billion of which is federal costs.¹⁰⁶ The report states that “These
costs arise from increased taxpayer expenditures for antipoverty, criminal justice, and
education programs, and through lower levels of taxes paid by individuals who, as
adults, earn less because of reduced opportunities as a result of having been more
likely to grow up in poverty.”¹⁰⁷
Another study examined the impact of nonmarital childbearing on poverty by
using a regression approach that was based on hypothetically matching single women
and men in the population on the basis of factors such as age, education, and race.
It found that if the share of children living with two parents in 2000 was increased
to what it had been in 1970, the child poverty rate in 2000 would have declined by

¹⁰⁵ Benjamin Scafidi, “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever
Estimates for the Nation and for All Fifty States,” Institute for American Values, Georgia
Family Council, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and Families Northwest, April

2008.

¹⁰⁶ The report does not separately estimate the economic costs associated with nonmarital
childbearing.
¹⁰⁷ Benjamin Scafidi, “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever
Estimates for the Nation and for All Fifty States,” Institute for American Values, Georgia
Family Council, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and Families Northwest, April

2008.

about 29% compared to the actual decline of 4.5%.¹⁰⁸ If that analysis is applied to

2007 data, 3.7 million fewer children would be in poverty.¹⁰⁹

In addition, a 2006 report quantified the costs of adolescent childbearing.¹¹⁰ As
noted earlier, births to teens represented 10% of all births and 23% of nonmarital
births (2005 data). The report estimated that, in 2004, adolescent childbearing cost
U.S. taxpayers about $9 billion per year.¹¹¹ Specific estimates cited were $2.3 billion
in child welfare benefits; $1.9 billion in health care expenses; $2.1 billion in
spending on incarceration (for the sons of women who had children as adolescents);
and $6.3 billion in lost tax revenue because of lower earnings of the mothers, fathers,
and children (when they were adults). Added to these cost figures are $3.6 billion in
savings that result from the declines in births to teens.¹¹² Research indicates that
teens who give birth are less likely to complete high school and go on to college,
thereby reducing their potential for economic self-sufficiency. The research also
indicates that the children of teens are more likely than children of older parents to
experience problems in school and drop out of high school and, as adults, are more
likely to repeat the cycle of teenage pregnancy and poverty. The 2006 report
contends that if the teen birth rate had not declined between 1991 and 2004, the
annual costs associated with teen childbearing would have been almost $16 billion
(instead of $9 billion).¹¹³ Although these data are interesting, it is important to
remember that although 83% of births to teens are nonmarital births, adolescent
childbearing is only a subset of nonmarital childbearing.
Demographic Impacts
Having the birth rate reach the replacement rate is generally considered desirable
by demographers and sociologists because it means a country is producing enough

¹⁰⁸ Paul R. Amato and Rebecca A. Maynard, “Decreasing Nonmarital Births and
Strengthening Marriage to Reduce Poverty,” The Future of Children, vol. 17, no. 2 (Fall

2007), p. 130.

¹⁰⁹ The 3.6 million figure was derived by applying the 29% reduction rate to the 12.8 million
children who were in families with below poverty-level income in 2007. Note: According
to the Census Bureau, in 2007, 12.8 million of the nearly 73 million related children (under
age 18) living in families were in families with poverty-level income. Also, in 1970, 85.2%
of children lived with both parents; in 1980, 76.7%; in 1990, 72.5%; in 2000, 69.1%; and
in 2007, 67.8%.
¹¹⁰ Saul D. Hoffman, “By the Numbers: The Public Cost of Teen Childbearing,” The
National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, October 2006.
¹¹¹ The report differentiates teens ages 17 and younger who give birth and those who are
ages 18 through 19 who give birth and finds that $8.6 billion of the costs are associated with
the younger teens and only $0.4 billion with the older teens.
¹¹² According to the report, the steady decline in the teen birth rate between 1991 and 2004
yielding costs savings of $3.6 billion ($2.0 billion from the TANF program, $1.4 billion
from the Food Stamps program, and $0.2 billion from the housing programs).
¹¹³ Saul D. Hoffman, “By the Numbers: The Public Cost of Teen Childbearing,” The
National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, October 2006.

young people to replace and support aging workers without population growth being
so high that it taxes national resources.¹¹⁴
An examination of nonmarital births from a demographic perspective is perhaps
the only analysis that does not view nonmarital births as a negative phenomenon.
The nation’s total fertility rate — the number of children the average woman would
be expected to bear in her lifetime — has been below the replacement level since
1972.¹¹⁵ The replacement rate is the rate at which a given generation can exactly
replace itself. The fertility level required for natural replacement of the U.S.
population is about 2.1 births per woman (i.e., 2,100 births per 1,000 women). The
replacement rate was reached in 2006 for the first time in many years.¹¹⁶
Given that the marital birth rate has been decreasing over time, if the birth rate
of unmarried women had begun to reverse itself, the U.S. population would cease
growing (if the immigration factor is excluded).¹¹⁷ From a geopolitical perspective,
this means that those who support policies to lower nonmarital fertility do so at the
risk of lowering overall U.S. fertility that has been hovering near replacement
levels.¹¹⁸ In the United States, non-Hispanic white women and Asian women 40 to
44 years old had fertility levels below the replacement level (1.8 and 1.7 births per
woman, respectively). The fertility level of black women ages 40 to 44 (2.0 births
per woman) did not differ statistically from the natural replacement level.¹¹⁹ Hispanic
women ages 40 to 44 had an average of 2.3 births and were the only group that
exceeded the fertility level required for natural replacement of the U.S. population.¹²⁰
Nonmarital births are also influencing other demographic shifts. On the basis
of the fertility rate of women by racial and ethnic groups, by 2050, 54% of the U.S.
population will consist of minority groups (i.e., Hispanics, blacks, American Indians,
and Asians). Minorities, now roughly one-third of the U.S. population, are expected
to become the majority in 2042, with the nation projected to be 54% minority in

¹¹⁴ Rob Stein, “U.S. Fertility Rate Hits 35-Year High, Stabilizing Population,” The
Washington Post (December 21, 2007), p. A11.
¹¹⁵ James R. Wetzel, “American Families: 75 Years of Change,” Monthly Labor Review
(March 1990).
¹¹⁶ Jane Lawler Dye, “Fertility of American Women: 2006,” U.S. Census Bureau, Current
Population Reports, P20-558 (August 2008).
¹¹⁷ Because the number of persons immigrating to the U.S. continues to increase, the U.S.
population would have continued to grow even though the U.S. was below the demographic
replacement level of 2.1 births per woman.
¹¹⁸ Lawrence L. Wu, “Cohort Estimates of Nonmarital Fertility for U.S. Women,” February

2008.

¹¹⁹ With respect to black women, this means that if unmarried women had not been having
babies, the growth of the black population would have severely shrunk.
¹²⁰ Lawrence L. Wu, “Cohort Estimates of Nonmarital Fertility for U.S. Women,” February

2008.

2050. By 2023, minorities will represent more than half of all children.¹²¹ By 2050,

the Hispanic population is projected to nearly triple, and its share of the nation’s total
population is projected to double, from 15% to 30%. Thus, nearly one in three U.S.
residents will be Hispanic.¹²² (As mentioned earlier, in 2005, 48% of Hispanic births
were nonmarital births.) The black population is projected to increase from 14% of
the population in 2008 to 15% in 2050. The Asian population’s share of the nation’s
population is expected to rise from 5.1% to 9.2%. Among the remaining race groups,
American Indians and Alaska Natives are projected to rise from 1.6% to 2% of the
total population. The Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population is
expected to more than double, from 1.1 million to 2.6 million, representing about
0.6% in 2050. The number of people who identify themselves as being of two or
more races is projected to more than triple, from 5.2 million to 16.2 million,
representing almost 4% of the population in 2050. Non-Hispanic whites are
projected to represent 46% of the total population, down from 66% in 2008.¹²³
Public Policy Interventions
In recognition of the potential long-term consequences of nonmarital births, the
federal government’s strategy to nonmarital childbearing has been varied. The
federal government acknowledges that an effective approach for teenagers may be
inappropriate for older women. Some observers criticize women much farther along
the age spectrum who have nonmarital births as being selfish and not looking long-
range to what would be in the best interest of their offspring. Other observers
counter, pointing out that it is not the unmarried, college-educated, thirty-something-
year-olds with well-paying jobs who are worried that their time for having a child is
running out that should be a concern. Rather it is the millions of women for whom
single motherhood is the norm, who entrench themselves and their children in a less
favorable economic lifestyle by having a child outside of a healthy marriage. Many
of these women become mothers in their teenage years.
In order to address these two distinct groups of females, federal policy toward
teens has primarily focused on pregnancy prevention programs, whereas federal
policy toward older women has focused on healthy marriage programs. Income
support programs, such as the Child Support Enforcement program and the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant program, that attempt
to reduce or ameliorate negative financial consequences that are sometimes
associated with nonmarital childbearing are available to mothers of all age groups.
This section discusses the public policy interventions (1) directed at teens, such
as abstinence education programs, comprehensive sex education programs, and youth
programs; (2) focused on adults, namely the healthy marriage programs and the
responsible fatherhood programs (that usually include several components dealing

¹²¹ U.S. Census Bureau News, CB08-123, “An Older and More Diverse Nation by
Midcentury,” August 14, 2008.
¹²² Ibid.
¹²³ Ibid.

with improving communication skills with respect to the other parent); and (3)
provided to all persons regardless of age such as family planning programs, adoption
services, and federal income support programs — the Child Support Enforcement
and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs.
Abstinence Promotion
Many argue that sexual activity in and of itself is wrong if the individuals are
not married. Advocates of the abstinence education approach argue that teenagers
need to hear a single, unambiguous message that sex outside of marriage is wrong
and harmful to their physical and emotional health. These advocates contend that
youth can and should be empowered to say no to sex. They argue that supporting
both abstinence and birth control is hypocritical and undermines the strength of an
abstinence-only message. They also cite research that indicates that teens who take
virginity pledges to refrain from sex until marriage appear to delay having sex longer
than those teens who do not make such a commitment. (One study found that teens
who publicly promise to postpone sex until marriage refrain from intercourse for
about a year and a half longer than teens who did not make such a pledge.)¹²⁴ They
further argue that abstinence is the most effective (100%) means of preventing
unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV/AIDS).¹²⁵
Three federal programs include funding that is exclusively for abstinence
education: Adolescent Family Life (AFL) program, the Title V Abstinence
Education Block Grant to States, and the Community-Based Abstinence Education
(CBAE) program.¹²⁶ All of these programs are carried out by the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS). For FY2008, federal abstinence education
funding totaled $177 million: $13 million for AFL abstinence education projects;
$50 million for the Title V Abstinence Education Block Grant to states; and $109
million for the CBAE program (up to $10 million of which may be used for a
national abstinence education campaign); and $4.5 million for an evaluation of the
CBAE program.¹²⁷

¹²⁴ Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Bruckner, “Promising the Future: Virginity Pledges as
They Affect the Transition to First Intercourse,” American Journal of Sociology, January

2001.

¹²⁵ Those opposed to the abstinence-only education approach generally favor a
comprehensive sex education approach (discussed later), but also claim that abstinence-only
programs often use medically inaccurate information regarding STDs, condoms, and other
contraceptive devices. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) now requires
grantees of abstinence education programs to sign written assurances in grant applications
that the material and data they use are medically accurate.
¹²⁶ For more information on these abstinence education programs, see CRS Report RS20873,
Reducing Teen Pregnancy: Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Programs,
by Carmen Solomon-Fears.
¹²⁷ Abstinence education funding totaled $79 million in FY2001, $100 million in FY2002,
$115 million in FY2003, $135 million in FY2004, $168 million in FY2005, and $177
million in FY2006 and FY2007.

The AFL demonstration program was enacted in 1981 as Title XX of the Public
Health Service Act (P.L. 97-35). It is administered by the Office of Adolescent
Pregnancy Programs at HHS. From 1981 until 1996, the AFL program was the only
federal program that focused directly on the issues of adolescent sexuality,
pregnancy, and parenting.¹²⁸ The AFL program was designed to promote family
involvement in the delivery of services, adolescent premarital sexual abstinence,
adoption as an alternative to early parenting, parenting and child development
education, and comprehensive health, education, and social services geared to help
the mother have a healthy baby and improve subsequent life prospects for both
mother and child. The AFL program authorizes grants for three types of
demonstrations: (1) projects that provide “care” services only (i.e., health, education,
and social services to pregnant adolescents, adolescent parents, their infant, families,
and male partners); (2) projects that provide “prevention” services only (i.e., services
to promote abstinence from premarital sexual relations for pre-teens, teens, and their
families); and (3) projects that provide a combination of care and prevention services.
Any public or private nonprofit organization or agency is eligible to apply for a
demonstration grant. AFL projects can be funded for up to five years.
The Title V Abstinence Education Block Grant to States was authorized under
P.L. 104-193 (the 1996 welfare reform law). The law provided $50 million per year
for five years (FY1998-FY2002) in federal funds specifically for the abstinence
education program. Although the program has not yet been reauthorized, the latest
extension, contained in P.L. 110-275, continues funding for the abstinence-only
block grant through June 30, 2009. Funds must be requested by states when they
solicit Title V Maternal and Child Health (MCH) block grant funds and must be used
exclusively for teaching abstinence. To receive federal funds, a state must match
every $4 in federal funds with $3 in state funds.¹²⁹ This means that full funding
(from states and the federal government) for abstinence education must total at least
$87.5 million annually.
Additional abstinence-only education funding, for the CBAE program,¹³⁰ has
been included in appropriations measures. The program provides abstinence-only
education for adolescents aged 12 through 18. Funding for the program increased
incrementally, from $30 million in FY2002 to $109 million in FY2008.
Evaluation of Abstinence Education Programs. Mathematica’s April
2007 report presents the final results from a multi-year, experimentally based impact
study on several abstinence-only block grant programs. The report focuses on four

¹²⁸ The predecessor of the AFL program was the Adolescent Pregnancy program, which was
enacted in 1978 (P.L. 95-626). The Adolescent Pregnancy program was designed to
alleviate the negative consequences of pregnancy for the adolescent parent and her child.
The Adolescent Pregnancy program was consolidated into the Maternal and Child Health
Block Grant when the AFL program was enacted.
¹²⁹ States use a variety of methods to meet the federal matching requirement, such as state
funds, private or foundation funds, matching funds from community-based grantees, and in-
kind services (e.g., volunteer staffing and public service announcements).
¹³⁰ The CBAE program was known as the Special Projects for Regional and National
Significance (SPRANS) until FY2005.

selected Title V abstinence education programs for elementary and middle school
students. On the basis of follow-up data collected from youth (aged 10 to 14) four
to six years after study enrollment, the report, among other things, presents the
estimated program impacts on sexual abstinence and risks of pregnancy and STDs.
According to the report,
Findings indicate that youth in the program group were no more likely than
control group youth to have abstained from sex and, among those who reported
having had sex, they had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex
at the same mean age.... Program and control group youth did not differ in their
rates of unprotected sex, either at first intercourse or over the last 12 months....
Overall, the programs improved identification of STDs but had no overall impact
on knowledge of unprotected sex risks and the consequences of STDs. Both
program and control group youth had a good understanding of the risks of
pregnancy but a less clear understanding of STDs and their health¹³¹
consequences.
In response to the report, HHS has stated that the Mathematica study showcased
programs that were among the first funded by the 1996 welfare reform law. It stated
that its recent directives to states have encouraged states to focus abstinence-only
education programs on youth most likely to bear children outside of marriage, that
is, high school students, rather than elementary or middle-school students. It also
mentioned that programs need to extend the peer support for abstinence from the pre-
teen years through the high school years.¹³²
Comprehensive Sex Education
Advocates of a comprehensive approach to sex education argue that today’s
youth need information and decision-making skills to make realistic, practical
decisions about whether to engage in sexual activities. They contend that such an
approach allows young people to make informed decisions regarding abstinence,
gives them the information they need to set relationship limits and to resist peer
pressure, and also provides them with information on the use of contraceptives and
the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.¹³³ They argue that about 50% of high
school students have experienced sexual intercourse.¹³⁴ They maintain that

¹³¹ Christopher Trenholm, Barbara Devaney, Ken Fortson, Lisa Quay, Justin Wheeler, and
Melissa Clark, “Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs (final
report),” Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., April 2007; [http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/
abstinence07/].
¹³² U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), “Report Released on Four Title
V Abstinence Education Programs,” HHS Press Office, April 13, 2007, [http://aspe.hhs.gov/
hsp/abstinence07/factsheet.shtml ].
¹³³ Some contend that the abstinence-only approach leads to a substitution of other risky
behaviors such as oral sex. They cite recent data that indicates that about 25% of virgin
teens (15-19) have engaged in oral sex. Source: Child Trends Data Bank. New Indicator
on Oral Sex, September 15, 2005, at [http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/whatsNew.cfm].
¹³⁴ For more information on sexual activity of high school students, see CRS Report
(continued...)

abstinence-only messages provide no protection against the risks of pregnancy and
disease for those who are sexually active. They point out that, according to one study,
teens who break their virginity pledges were less likely to use contraception the first
time than teens who had never made such a promise.¹³⁵
In addition, the alarming number of females under age 25 with sexually
transmitted diseases (STDs)¹³⁶ has re-energized efforts to persuade girls and young
women to abstain from sexual activity or to use condoms (along with other forms of
contraceptives) to prevent or reduce pregnancy as well as reduce their risk of getting
STDs.¹³⁷
No earmarked federal funding currently exists for comprehensive sex education
in schools. In other words, there is no federal appropriation specifically for
comprehensive sex education. Although there is not a federal comprehensive sex
education program per se, many federal programs provide information about
contraceptives, provide contraceptive services to teens, and provide referral and
counseling services related to reproductive health. These programs include Medicaid
Family Planning, Title X Family Planning, and Adolescent Family Life care services.
Also, funds from the Maternal and Child Health block grant, the Title XX Social
Services block grant, and the TANF block grant can be used to provide contraceptive
services to teens.¹³⁸
Evaluation of Comprehensive Sex Education Programs. There have
been numerous evaluations of teen pregnancy prevention programs, but most of them
did not use a scientific approach with experimental and control groups — an
approach that most analysts agree provides more reliable, valid, and objective
information than other types of evaluations. A recent report by the National
Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,¹³⁹ however, highlighted five teen pregnancy
prevention programs that were subjected to a random assignment, experimentally

¹³⁴ (...continued)
RS20873, Reducing Teen Pregnancy: Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education
Programs, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.
¹³⁵ Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Bruckner, “Promising the Future: Virginity Pledges as
They Affect the Transition to First Intercourse,” American Journal of Sociology, January

2001.

¹³⁶ This report uses the term sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) rather than sexually
transmitted infections (STIs). In the literature the terms are often used interchangeably.
¹³⁷ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that approximately 19
million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15
to 24. Source: “Trends in Reportable Sexually Transmitted Disease in the United States,

2006,” November 13, 2007.

¹³⁸ U.S. General Accounting Office, “Teen Pregnancy: State and Federal Efforts to
Implement Prevention Programs and Measure Their Effectiveness, GAO/HEHS-99-4,
November 1998.
¹³⁹ The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, “Putting What Works To Work:
Curriculum-Based Programs That Prevent Teen Pregnancy,” 2007.

designed study.¹⁴⁰ These five comprehensive sex education programs were found to
be effective in delaying sexual activity, improving contraceptive use among sexually
active teenagers, or preventing teen pregnancy.
Many analysts and researchers agree that effective pregnancy prevention
programs: (1) convince teens that not having sex or that using contraception
consistently and carefully is the right thing to do; (2) last a sufficient length of time;
(3) are operated by leaders who believe in their programs and who are adequately
trained; (4) actively engage participants and personalize the program information; (5)
address peer pressure; (6) teach communication skills; and (7) reflect the age, sexual
experience, and culture of young persons in the programs.¹⁴¹
Youth Programs
Youth programs generally include one or more of the following components to
address teen sexual activity: sex education, mentoring and counseling, health care,
academic support, career counseling, crisis intervention, sports and arts activities, and
community volunteer experiences. Youth programs receive funding from a wide
array of sources, including the federal government, state and local governments,
community organizations, private agencies, nonprofit organizations, and faith-based
organizations.
The sex education component of many youth programs usually includes an
abstinence message (which enables teens to avoid pregnancy) along with discussions
about the correct and consistent use of contraception (which reduces the risk of
pregnancy for sexually active teens). There is a significant difference between
abstinence as a message and abstinence-only interventions. Although the Bush
Administration continues to support an abstinence-only program intervention (with
some modifications), others argue that an abstinence message integrated into a
comprehensive sex education program that includes information on the use of
contraceptives and that enhances decision-making skills is a more effective method
to prevent teen pregnancy. A recent nationally representative survey found that 90%
of adults and teens agree that young people should get a strong message that they
should not have sex until they are at least out of high school and that a majority of
adults (73%) and teens (56%) want teens to get more information about both
abstinence and contraception.¹⁴² The American public — both adults and teens —

¹⁴⁰ The report only examined studies that had been published in 2000 or later.
¹⁴¹ The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, “Putting What Works To Work:
Curriculum-Based Programs That Prevent Teen Pregnancy,” 2007. Note: There also are
many reasons why programs are not considered successful. For example, in some cases the
evaluation studies are limited by methodological problems or constraints because the
approach taken is so multilayered that researchers have had difficulty disentangling the
effects of multiple components of a program. In other cases, the approach may have worked
for boys but not for girls, or vice versa. In some cases, the programs are very small, and
thereby it is harder to obtain significant results. In other cases, different personnel may
affect the outcomes of similar programs.
¹⁴² Bill Albert, “With One Voice 2007 — America’s Adults and Teens Sound Off About
(continued...)

support encouraging teens to delay sexual activity and providing young people with
information about contraception.¹⁴³
A study that evaluated youth programs that sought to delay the first time teens
have sex partly summarized the research by highlighting some characteristics or
activities associated with teenagers who delayed sexual activity. The study reported
that (1) teens who do well in school and attend religious services are more likely to
delay sexual initiation; (2) girls who participate in sports also delay sex longer than
those who do not; and (3) teens whose friends have high educational aspirations, who
avoid such risky behavior as drinking or using drugs, and who perform well in school
are less likely to have sex at an early age than teens whose friends do not.¹⁴⁴
Some youth programs have an underlying goal of trying to decipher the root
reasons behind teen pregnancy and childbearing. Is it loneliness or trying to find love
or a sense of family? Is it carelessness — not bothering with birth control or using
it improperly — or shame — not wanting to go to the doctor to ask about birth
control or not wanting to be seen in a pharmacy purchasing birth control? Is it a need
to meet the sexual expectations of a partner? Is it trying to find individual
independence or is it defiance (a mentality of you can’t boss me or control me, “I’m
grown”)? Is it trying to validate or provide purpose to one’s life? Is it realistically
facing the probability that the entry-level job she can get at the age of 18 is the same
or similar to the one she will likely have when she is 30, thus why should she wait
to have a child?
In addition, many youth programs also want to prevent second or additional
births to teens, and they realize that a different approach may be needed to prevent
secondary births as compared to first births. Research has indicated that youth
programs that include mentoring components, enhanced case management, home
visits by trained nurses or program personnel, and parenting classes have been
effective in reducing subsequent childbearing by teens.¹⁴⁵

¹⁴² (...continued)
Teen Pregnancy,”February 2007, p. 2; [http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/pdf/
WOV2007_fulltext.pdf]
¹⁴³ There appears to be significant public support for the involvement of religious groups in
preventing teen pregnancy. When asked what organizations could do the best job of
providing teen pregnancy prevention services, 39% said religious groups, 42% said non-
religious community groups, and 12% said government. (Source: The National Campaign
to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Keeping the Faith: The Role of Religion and Faith Communities
in Preventing Teen Pregnancy, by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Brian L. Wilcox, and Sharon
Scales Rostosky. September 2001.)
¹⁴⁴ Jennifer Manlove, Angela Romano Papillio, and Erum Ikramullah, “Not Yet: Program
To Delay First Sex Among Teens,” The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy and
Child Trends, September 2004, p. 4.
¹⁴⁵ Erin Schelar, Kerry Franzetta, and Jennifer Manlove, “Repeat Teen Childbearing:
Differnces Across States and by Race and Ethnicity,” Child Trends, Research Brief no.

2007-23, October 2007.

Healthy Marriage Programs
Much of the increase in nonmarital childbearing results from changes in marital
behavior rather than changes in fertility behavior. In other words, Americans are not
having more babies, they are having fewer marriages.¹⁴⁶ The first finding of P.L.
104-193 (the 1996 welfare reform law) is that marriage is the foundation of a
successful society. The second finding is that marriage is an essential institution of
a successful society that promotes the interests of children. The law sought to
promote marriage through the new TANF program. As authorized by P.L. 104-193,
the TANF program established as statutory goals to promote the formation and
maintenance of two-parent families and to reduce welfare dependence via job
preparation, work, and marriage. Pursuant to the law, states may spend TANF funds
on a wide range of activities (services) for cash welfare recipients and other families
toward the achievement of these goals.
P.L. 109-171 (the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005) established new categorical
grants within TANF for healthy marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood
initiatives.¹⁴⁷ The healthy marriage promotion initiative is funded at approximately
$100 million per year (FY2006-FY2010), to be spent through grants awarded by
HHS to support research and demonstration projects by public or private entities; and
technical assistance provided to states, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and
other entities. The activities supported by the healthy marriage promotion initiatives
are programs to promote marriage to the general population, such as public
advertising campaigns on the value of marriage and education in high schools on the
value of marriage; education on “social skills” (e.g., marriage education, marriage
skills, conflict resolution, and relationship skills) for engaged couples, those
interested in marriage, or married couples; and programs that reduce the financial
disincentive to marry,¹⁴⁸ if combined with educational or other marriage promotion
activities. Entities that apply for marriage promotion grants must ensure that
participation in such activities is voluntary and that domestic violence concerns are
addressed (e.g., through consultations with experts on domestic violence).¹⁴⁹

¹⁴⁶ Kristin A. Moore, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States,” Child Trends, Inc. in
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics,
“Report to Congress on Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing,” Executive Summary, September

1995 [DHHS pub. no. (PHS) 95-1257-1], p. 27.

¹⁴⁷ As originally enacted and continuing under the Deficit Reduction Act, TANF law allows
states to use block grant and Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funds for activities to further any
TANF purpose, including promotion of the formation and maintenance of two-parent
families. However, state expenditures in this category have generally been small.
¹⁴⁸ Public policy frequently financially punishes married couples. The U.S. tax code, for
example, contains a marriage penalty for high-earner, two-income couples. The earned
income tax credit penalizes lower-wage married couples. Moreover, welfare rules have
frequently made it harder for married households than for single-parent households to get
benefits. Source: Wade F. Horn, “Wedding Bell Blues: Marriage and Welfare Reform,” The
Brookings Institute, Summer 2001.
¹⁴⁹ CRS Report RS22369, TANF, Child Care, Marriage Promotion, and Responsible
Fatherhood Provisions in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), by Gene Falk.
(continued...)

Critics of healthy marriage programs caution that government must be careful
about supporting programs that provide cash incentives to induce people to marry or
that coerce or cajole individuals into marrying. They note the problems associated
with child-bride marriages and the short-term and often unhappy nature of the so-
called “shot-gun” marriage. Supporters of healthy marriage programs remark that
many long-lasting marriages were based on financial alliances (e.g., to increase
economic status, family wealth, status in the community, etc.). They assert that
policies or programs designed to promote healthy marriages are not intended to force
anyone into unwanted, unhealthy relationships, trap women in abusive relationships,
or withdraw support from single mothers. Supporters maintain that a relationship is
not healthy if it is not safe.
Nonetheless, many observers are concerned about the impact of healthy
marriage promotion programs on survivors of domestic violence or those still in
abusive relationships. They assert that all marriage promotion programs must
identify and respond to domestic violence issues in a manner that is effective for the
individual program in question.¹⁵⁰ Some observers contend that policymakers should
focus healthy marriage programs on couples who want to get married, couples who
are free from substance abuse problems and/or violent tendencies, and couples who
do not have any children by other partners.¹⁵¹
Evaluation of Healthy Marriage Programs. HHS is sponsoring three
multi-year impact evaluations of the Healthy Marriage program. Two of the three
studies use a random assignment approach in which couples are assigned to either an
experimental group (group that receives the program services) or a control group
(group that does not receive program services). One study, called Building Strong
Families, focuses on low-income unmarried parents. This study began in 2002 and
is expected to continue through 2011; it is using an experimental design. A second
study, called Supporting Healthy Marriages, focuses on low-income married parents,
began in 2003 and is expected to continue through 2012; it is using an experimental
design. A third study, called Community Healthy Marriage Initiative, focuses on
families in three geographic communities (i.e., Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Dallas,
Texas; and St. Louis, Missouri — with comparison communities (Cleveland, Ohio;
Ft. Worth, Texas, and Kansas City, Missouri) where there are no federally funded
healthy marriage programs. This third study began in 2003 and is expected to
continue through 2011. A final report on the impact of each of the three programs¹⁵²

is expected between 2011 and 2013.
¹⁴⁹ (...continued)
March 1, 2007. Also see Healthy Marriage Initiative Home Page, [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
healthymarriage/index.html ]
¹⁵⁰ Anne Menard and Oliver Williams, It’s Not Healthy If It’s Not Safe: Responding to
Domestic Violence Issues Within Healthy Marriage Programs, November 2005 (updated
May 2006), p. 2.
¹⁵¹ Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas, “Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put
Motherhood Before Marriage,” University of California Press, 2005.
¹⁵² U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood
(continued...)

Responsible Fatherhood Programs
Connecting or reconnecting children to their noncustodial parents has become
a goal of federal social policy. During the 106th Congress, then-Representative
Nancy Johnson, chair of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources,
stated, “to take the next step in welfare reform we must find a way to help children
by providing them with more than a working mother and sporadic child support.”
She noted that many low-income fathers have problems similar to those of mothers
on welfare — namely, they are likely to have dropped out of high school, to have
little work experience, and to have significant barriers that lessen their ability to find
or keep a job. She also asserted that in many cases these men are “dead broke” rather
than “dead beats” and that the federal government should help these noncustodial
fathers meet both their financial and emotional obligations to their children.¹⁵³
In hopes of improving the long-term outlook for children in single-parent
families, federal, state, and local governments, along with public and private
organizations, are supporting programs and activities that promote the financial and
personal responsibility of noncustodial fathers to their children and increase the
participation of fathers in the lives of their children. These programs have come to
be known as “responsible fatherhood” programs. To help fathers and mothers meet
their parental responsibilities, many policy analysts and observers support broad-
based collaborative strategies that go beyond welfare and child support agencies and
include schools, work programs, prison systems, churches, community organizations,
and the health care system.
Most responsible fatherhood programs include media campaigns that emphasize
the importance of emotional, physical, psychological, and financial connections of
fathers to their children. Most fatherhood programs include parenting education;
responsible decision-making; mediation services for both parents; providing an
understanding of the CSE program; conflict resolution, coping with stress, and
problem-solving skills; peer support; and job-training opportunities.
Although responsible fatherhood programs have been debated in Congress since
the 106^th Congress (1999) and supported from the start by the Bush Administration
(2001), it was not until the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171, enacted
February 8, 2006) was passed and enacted that specific funding was provided for
responsible fatherhood programs.
P.L. 109-171 included a provision that provides up to $50 million per year (for
each of the five fiscal years 2006-2010) in competitive grants through TANF to
states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit
community organizations (including religious organizations) for responsible

¹⁵² (...continued)
Initiative — Further Progress Is Needed in Developing a Risk-Based Monitoring Approach
to Help HHS Improve Program Oversight,” GAO-08-1002, September 2008.
¹⁵³ U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, “Hearing
On Fatherhood Legislation,” Statement of Chairman Nancy Johnson. 106^th Congress, 1^st
Session (October 5, 1999), p. 4.

fatherhood initiatives. Under P.L. 109-171, responsible fatherhood funds can be
spent on activities to promote responsible fatherhood through (1) marriage promotion
(through counseling, mentoring, disseminating information about the advantages of
marriage and two-parent involvement for children, etc.), (2) parenting activities
(through counseling, mentoring, mediation, disseminating information about good
parenting practices, etc.), (3) fostering economic stability of fathers (through work
first services, job search, job training, subsidized employment, education, etc.), or (4)
contracting with a nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization
to develop, promote, or distribute a media campaign to encourage the appropriate
involvement of parents in the lives of their children, particularly focusing on
responsible fatherhood; and to develop a national clearinghouse to help states and
communities in their efforts to promote and support marriage and responsible
fatherhood.¹⁵⁴ According to data from the Administration for Children and Families
(ACF) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 99 grantees
were awarded five-year contracts to implement responsible fatherhood programs.
The contracts (in aggregate) amounted to $41 million per year.¹⁵⁵
Evaluation of Responsible Fatherhood Programs. Although Congress
only recently authorized federal funding specifically earmarked for responsible
fatherhood programs (via P.L. 109-171), many states and localities, private
organizations, and nonprofit agencies have been operating responsible fatherhood
programs for several years. Some researchers have noted that although there is a
growing body of research on the impact of father absence in the lives of their
children, there is not enough research on the benefits of father presence in the lives
of their children. Several rather large demonstration projects have focused on
noncustodial fathers, and this report highlights two of them.¹⁵⁶
The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) Demonstration (designed and evaluated by
MDRC) was a national demonstration project (that operated between 1994 and 1996)
that combined job training and placement, peer support groups, and other services
with the goal of increasing the earnings and child support payments of unemployed
noncustodial parents (generally fathers) of children on welfare, improving their
parenting and communication skills, and providing an opportunity for them to
participate more fully and effectively in the lives of their children. The final report
on the PFS demonstration concluded that the program did not significantly increase
employment or earnings among the full sample of PFS participants during the two
years after they entered the program. However, the program reportedly increased
earnings among a subgroup of men who were characterized as “less employable”

¹⁵⁴ CRS Report RL31025, Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children,
by Carmen Solomon-Fears. Also see Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Home Page,
[http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/index.shtml ].
¹⁵⁵ Information on the responsible fatherhood grants in each of the 10 HHS regions is
available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/hmabstracts/index.htm].
¹⁵⁶ See Karin Martinson and Demetra Nightingale, “Ten Key Findings from Responsible
Fatherhood Initiatives,” The Urban Institute, February 2008.

(i.e., those without a high school diploma and with little recent work experience).¹⁵⁷
Some analysts maintain that most of the fathers who participated in the PFS
demonstration were estranged from their children when they entered the program and
that some of them participated in lieu of serving time in jail. They assert that new
unwed fathers are generally very attached to their children around the time of the
child’s birth and probably are more motivated than fathers of older children to take
advantage of the opportunities or services offered by responsible fatherhood
programs.¹⁵⁸
The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) provided $2.0 million
to fund Responsible Fatherhood demonstrations under Section 1115 of the Social
Security Act. The programs operated in eight states between September 1997 and
December 2002. The following eight states received Section 1115 grants or waivers
from OCSE/Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to implement and test
responsible fatherhood programs: California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington, and Wisconsin. These projects attempted
to improve the employment and earnings of under- and unemployed noncustodial
parents, and to motivate them to become more financially and emotionally involved
in the lives of their children. Although the projects shared common goals, they varied
with respect to service components and service delivery. The outcome report found
that employment rates and earnings increased significantly especially for
noncustodial parents who were previously unemployed. In addition, child support
compliance rates increased significantly especially for those who had not been paying
previously. The report found that 27% of the fathers reported seeing their children
more often after completion of the program.¹⁵⁹
The outcome report on the OCSE Responsible Fatherhood programs also found
that (1) low-income noncustodial fathers are a difficult population to recruit and
serve; (2) many of the participants found jobs with the programs’ help, but they were
low-paying jobs, and relatively few of the participants were able to increase earnings
enough to meet their financial needs and those of their children; (3) child access
problems were hard to define and resolve, and mediation should be used more
extensively; (4) child support guidelines result in orders for low-income noncustodial
parents that are unrealistically high; (5) CSE agencies should collaborate with
fatherhood programs and pursue routine enforcement activities, as well as adopt
policies and incentives that are responsive to low-income fathers; and (6) criminal

¹⁵⁷ John M. Martinez and Cynthia Miller, “Working and Earning: The Impact of Parents’
Fair Share on Low-Income Fathers’ Employment” (New York: MDRC, October 2000).
Also see Cynthia Miller and Virginia Knox, “The Challenge of Helping Low-Income
Fathers Support Their Children: Final Lessons from Parents’ Fair Share” (New York:
MDRC, November 2001), pp. v-vi.
¹⁵⁸ Sara McLanahan, “Testimony before the Mayor’s Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion,
National Fatherhood Summit,” Washington, D.C., June 14, 1999.
¹⁵⁹ Jessica Pearson, Nancy Thoennes, and Lanae Davis, with Jane Venohr, David Price, and
Tracy Griffith, “OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Client Characteristics and
Program Outcomes” (Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies,
September 2003).

history was the norm rather than the exception among the program participants, many
participants faced ongoing alcohol and substance abuse problems, many did not have
reliable transportation, and many lacked a court-ordered visitation arrangement.¹⁶⁰
Although several new evaluations are underway to scientifically determine
whether responsible fatherhood programs work, they are many years from impact
findings. Most are still at the initial stage of providing information on the
implementation of the responsible fatherhood programs. An HHS-sponsored
evaluation of responsible fatherhood programs, called the National Evaluation of the
Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage and Family Strengthening Grants for Incarcerated
and Re-entering Fathers and Their partners (MFS-IP), began in 2006 and is still
enrolling participants. The evaluation is a multi-year (quasi-experimental) study that
is expected to run from 2006 through 2013. A final report on the impact of the
program is expected between 2011 and 2013.¹⁶¹
Family Planning Services
One of the purposes of family planning services is to prevent unwanted
pregnancies that may lead to nonmarital births. The National Family Planning
Program, created in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act, is administered
through the Office of Population Affairs/Office of Public Health and Science at HHS.
It provides grants to public and private non-profit agencies to provide voluntary
family planning services for individuals who are otherwise ineligible for medical
services. Family planning programs provide basic reproductive health services:
contraceptive services and supplies; infertility services; natural family planning
methods education; special services to adolescents; adolescent abstinence counseling;
gynecological care; screening for breast and cervical cancers; STD and HIV
prevention education, counseling, and referrals; and reproductive health counseling,
education, and referrals.
Priority for the provision of these services is to be given to lower-income
families; grantees may use a sliding fee schedule for determining client contributions
for care, but grantees may not charge low-income persons for care. The services must
be provided “without coercion and with respect for the privacy, dignity, social, and
religious beliefs of the individuals being served.”¹⁶²

¹⁶⁰ Ibid.
¹⁶¹ U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood
Initiative — Further Progress Is Needed in Developing a Risk-Based Monitoring Approach
to Help HHS Improve Program Oversight,” GAO-08-1002, September 2008.
¹⁶² In 2006, 25% of Title X clients were ages 19 or younger. CRS Report RL33644, Title
X (Public Health Service Act) Family Planning Program, by Angela Napili.

Adoption
Some have said that adoption makes nonmarital childbearing “less visible” and
perhaps to some more acceptable.¹⁶³ Mothers who place their infant for adoption are
more likely to finish school and less likely to live in poverty. Further, mothers who
choose to give up their infants for adoption are more likely to marry than those who
parent their baby.¹⁶⁴
Although adoption is not an intervention to negate nonmarital childbearing, it
does present an alternative living arrangement for children born to unmarried parents.
Adoption is the legal process of adding a person to an existing family. Adoption,
unlike foster care, is meant to be permanent. The goal of adoption is to provide
lifelong security to the child. According to some studies, children placed in adoptive
homes have better scores in school and engage in less delinquent behavior than
children raised by a single parent.¹⁶⁵
“Shotgun” marriages and adoption were once viewed as the common remedies
for a nonmarital birth. Even so, historically, adoption has played a very limited role
as an alternative to mother-only families. Adoption has been and remains rare.
There were approximately 130,000 adoptions in the U.S. in 2002.¹⁶⁶ Of these

130,000, the number that are children born to unmarried women is not known.¹⁶⁷

Some observers contend that adoption might be viewed as a more viable option
for an unwanted pregnancy if school systems included a meaningful discussion of
adoption in their sex education classes.¹⁶⁸
Child Support Obligation as a Deterrent
The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was enacted in 1975 as a
federal-state program (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act) to help strengthen
families by securing financial support for children from their noncustodial parent on
a consistent and continuing basis and by helping some families to remain
self-sufficient and off public assistance by providing the requisite CSE services.
Over the years, CSE has evolved into a multifaceted program. Although
cost-recovery still remains an important function of the program, its other aspects
include service delivery and promotion of self-sufficiency and parental responsibility.

¹⁶³ Dore Hollander, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States: A Government Report,”
Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 28, No. 1 (January-February 1996), p. 31.
¹⁶⁴ Patrick F. Fagan, “Promoting Adoption Reform: Congress Can Give Children Another
Chance,” The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder #1080, May 6, 1996.
¹⁶⁵ Ibid.
¹⁶⁶ National Council For Adoption, “Adoption Factbook IV,” 2007, p. 5.
¹⁶⁷ Child Welfare Information Gateway, “How Many Children Were Adopted in 2000 and

2001?”(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau), August 2004,

pp. 15-17.
¹⁶⁸ Ibid., p. 263.

The CSE program contains numerous measures to establish and enforce child
support obligations.¹⁶⁹ Because strict child support enforcement is thought to deter
nonmarital childbearing, the child support provisions are seen by some in Congress
as another method of attempting to reduce nonmarital pregnancies. Child support
enforcement measures include streamlined efforts to name the father in every case,
employer reporting of new hires (to locate noncustodial parents quicker), uniform
interstate child support laws, computerized statewide collections to expedite
payment, and stringent penalties, such as the revocation of a drivers’ license and the
seizure of bank accounts, in cases in which noncustodial parents owe past-due child
support.
According to social science research, stronger child support enforcement may
increase the cost of children for men and should make men more reluctant to have
children outside of marriage. In other words, by raising the cost of fatherhood to
unmarried men, effective paternity establishment and child support enforcement deter
nonmarital births.¹⁷⁰ In contrast, stronger child support enforcement may reduce the
cost of children for women (making them more willing to have children outside of
marriage).¹⁷¹ However, according to recent evidence, once a single woman becomes
a mother, her chances of marrying anyone other than the father of her child are
greatly reduced.¹⁷²
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF):
Title IV-A of the Social Security Act
The TANF block grant (Title IV-A of the Social Security Act) funds a wide
range of benefits and services for low-income families with children. TANF was
created by P.L. 104-193 (the 1996 welfare reform law). Its funding was extended
through FY2010 by P.L. 109-171 (the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, enacted
February 8, 2006). One of the four goals of the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-¹⁷³
193) is to prevent and reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies. To this end, unmarried
minor parents may only receive TANF assistance if they live at home or in an adult-
supervised setting and attend school if they lack a high school diploma.

¹⁶⁹ Child support is paid until the child is age 18 (the age limit is higher is some states).
Past-due child support (i.e., child support arrearages) are still owed even though the child
has reached age 18 — in some states for an additional five to seven years, in some states to
age 30.
¹⁷⁰ Paula Roberts, “The Importance of Child Support Enforcement: What Recent Social
Science Research Tell Us,” Center for Law and Social Policy, Spring 2002, p. 5.
¹⁷¹ Chien-Chung Huang, “The Impact of Child Support Enforcement on Nonmarital and
Marital Births: Does It Differ by Racial and Age Groups?,” Joint Center for Policy
Research, November 20, 2001, pp. 5-6.
¹⁷² Daniel T. Lichter, “Marriage as Public Policy,” Progressive Policy Institute, Policy
Report, September 2001.
¹⁷³ Although P.L. 104-193 seeks to reduce pregnancies, birth data, and not pregnancy data,
have become the indicator because birth data are more current and reliable.

States are using TANF funds to support activities that may prevent nonmarital
pregnancies. Generally these activities focus on preventing teen pregnancy. These
activities are often classified as “youth services” (includes after-school programs for
teens and sub-grants to community organizations such as Boys and Girls Clubs).
Several states have reported that they conduct home visits to new parents, in an effort
to reduce subsequent pregnancies. Many states reported operating abstinence
education programs (which may be funded in whole or in part through TANF or other
federal abstinence education programs). In addition, family planning services can be
funded in part from TANF or other federal grant programs.¹⁷⁴
Another one of the four TANF goals is to promote the formation and
maintenance of two-parent families. States have separate funding via their TANF
programs to operate responsible fatherhood programs and marriage promotion
initiatives (discussed below).
Future Prospects
The language regarding births to unmarried women has changed in significant
ways. What once were referred to as “bastard” or “illegitimate” children are now
termed “out-of-wedlock,” “outside of marriage,” or “nonmarital” births. The stigma
and shame that had once been attached to these children is no longer recognized by
the public.¹⁷⁵ Further, some commentators argue that the facts have been twisted in
such a way that mothers are justified in having a nonmarital birth and that having a
baby without a husband represents a higher level of maternal devotion and sacrifice¹⁷⁶
than having a baby with a husband. They assert that it is often the case that adults
pursue individual happiness in their private relationships, which is in direct conflict
with the needs of children for stability, security, and permanence in their family
lives.¹⁷⁷
Some observers contend that the problem is not the weakening of marriage
(about 75% of all women ages 15 and older eventually marry), but rather the de-
linking of marriage and having children and the abdication of the traditional view of¹⁷⁸
marriage as a life-long commitment. Some researchers and policymakers argue
that although couple relationships are a private matter, an overwhelming body of

¹⁷⁴ U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Ways and Means. Green Book: 2008, Section 7.

2008. pp. 7-92; [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Documents.asp?section=2168].

¹⁷⁵ Paula Roberts, “Out of Order? Factors Influencing the Sequence of marriage and
Childbirth Among Disadvantaged Americans, Center for Law and Social Policy, Couples
and Marriage Series, Brief no. 9 (January 2007).
¹⁷⁶ Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, “Dan Quayle Was Right,” The Atlantic (April 1993).
¹⁷⁷ Andrew J. Cherlin, “American Marriage in the Early Twenty-First Century,” The Future
of Children, vol. 15, no. 2 (Fall 2005). Also see Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, “Dan Quayle
Was Right,” The Atlantic (April 1993).
¹⁷⁸ Paula Roberts, “Out of Order? Factors Influencing the Sequence of marriage and
Childbirth Among Disadvantaged Americans, Center for Law and Social Policy, Couples
and Marriage Series, Brief no. 9 (January 2007).

evidence suggests that not all family structures produce equal outcomes for children.
They maintain that there is widespread agreement that a healthy, stable (i.e., low-
conflict) family with two biological parents is the best environment for children.¹⁷⁹
Finally, some observers assert that we as a society have not strayed too far, and that
it is not too late to return to the somewhat old-fashioned, but not simplistic, precept
of falling in love, getting married, and having a baby, in that order.¹⁸⁰
Although marriage and family life are generally considered private issues, they
have become part of the public arena primarily because of public policies that help
families affected by negative outcomes associated with nonmarital births to maintain
a minimum level of economic sufficiency.¹⁸¹ The abundance of research on the
subject of the impact on children of various living environments also raises the stakes
— in that it is now almost unanimously agreed that children living with both
biological parents fare better on a host of measures — economic, social,
psychological, and emotional — than children living with a single parent or in a step-
parent or cohabiting situation.¹⁸²
One of the things that this report highlights is that although there has been a rise
in nonmarital births, it does not mean that there has been a subsequent rise in mother-
only families. Instead, it reflects the rise in the number of couples who are in
cohabiting relationships. Because the number of women living in a cohabiting
situation has increased substantially over the last several decades, many children start
off in households in which both of their biological parents reside. Nonetheless,
cohabiting family situations are disrupted or dissolved much more frequently than
married-couple families.
As discussed in an earlier section, the federal government funds a number of
programs that seek to (1) reduce or eliminate nonmarital childbearing or (2)
ameliorate some of the negative outcomes often associated with children of
unmarried parents. The rest of this section highlights several interventions that may
receive further attention and more debate in Congress. Although this report does not
base the analysis of increased nonmarital childbearing by segmenting teen births from
other births, it is important to note that more than half of first nonmarital births are
to teens. This means that policies that are successful in reducing births to teenagers
would significantly lessen the problem of nonmarital childbearing.

¹⁷⁹ Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, “Dan Quayle Was Right,” The Atlantic (April 1993).
¹⁸⁰ Linda C. McClain, “Love, Marriage, and the Baby Carriage: Revisiting the Channelling
Function of Family Law,” Hofstra Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper no. 07-14, April

2007.

¹⁸¹ Theodora Ooms, “The Role of Government in Strengthening Marriage,” Center for Law
and Social Policy, Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, vol. 9:1 (2001).
¹⁸² This report does not discuss childbearing (biological child of one member of the couple,
adoption or through new reproductive technologies, such as sperm donation, egg donation,
or surrogate birth mothers) or childrearing with respect to gay couples. For a discussion of
the subject, see William Meezan and Jonathan Rauch, “Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting,
and America’s Children,” The Future of Children, vol. 15, no. 2 (Fall 2005), p. 97-115.

The difference between the average age of first intercourse (seventeen) and the
age at first marriage (twenty-five) for women is eight years. For the majority of adult
women, living without a married spouse does not mean living without sex,¹⁸³nor in
many cases does it mean living without having children. In 2005, almost 20% of the
women ages 40 and older who gave birth had a child born outside of marriage. For
women ages 20 through 24, the percentage was almost 60%. These figures reflect
the new paradigm of women in all age groups, not just teenagers, having children
outside of marriage. Some observers and analysts assert that new strategies that
account for this new paradigm must be developed to significantly reduce nonmarital
births. Others argue that the nation must decide whether to try to change the fertility
behavior of women in their thirties and forties. They contend that given the new
economic framework and the scarcity of resources in most areas of public finance,
it may be wiser to pursue a strategy that focuses primarily on adolescents and women
in their early twenties.
Given the patterns of swift transitions into and out of marriage and the high rate
of single parenthood, a family policy that relies too heavily on marriage will not help
the many children who will live in single-parent and cohabiting families — many of
them poor — during most of their formative years.¹⁸⁴ Moreover, national data from
the 2002 panel of the National Survey of Family Growth indicate that 14% of white
men, 32% of black men, and 15% of Hispanic men had children with more than one
woman.¹⁸⁵ Thus, children in the same family may potentially face different
outcomes. For example, children with the same mother and different fathers may
potentially face less desirable outcomes if their mother marries the biological father
of their half-brothers or half-sisters.¹⁸⁶
The advantages married couples and their children have over those in other
living arrangements led the Bush Administration and Congress to propose marriage
promotion initiatives. The knowledge that American society has changed in ways
that will no longer permit all children to live with their biological parents led the
Bush Administration and Congress to support responsible fatherhood programs.
Both the healthy marriage programs and the responsible fatherhood programs were
funded by the same legislation (i.e., P.L. 109-171 under the auspices of the TANF

¹⁸³ Laura Duberstein Lindberg and Susheela Singh, “Sexual Behavior of Single Adult
American Women,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, vol. 40, no. 1 (March

2008).

¹⁸⁴ Andrew J. Cherlin, “American Marriage in the Early Twenty-First Century,” The Future
of Children, vol. 15, no. 2 (Fall 2005) p. 33.
¹⁸⁵ Cassandra Logan, Jennifer Manlove, Erum Ikramullah, and Sarah Cottingham, “Men
Who Father Children with More Than One Woman: A Contemporary Portrait of Multiple-
Partner Fertility,” Child Trends, Research Brief no. 2006-10 (November 2006).
¹⁸⁶ Christina M. Gibson-Davis and Katherine A. Magnuson, “Explaining the Patterns of
Child Support Among Low-Income Non-Custodial Fathers,” December 2005. Also see
Ronald B. Mincy, “Who Should Marry Whom?: Multiple Partner Fertility Among New
Parents,” Columbia University, February 2002. See also Paula Roberts, “The Implications
of Multiple Partner Fertility for Efforts to Promote Marriage in Programs Serving Low-
Income Mothers and Fathers,” Center for Law and Social Policy, Policy Brief no. 11 (March

2008).

block grant program).¹⁸⁷ The rationale for implementing these two approaches in a
complementary manner was to promote the best interest of children.¹⁸⁸
Although there was some animosity between proponents of healthy marriage
programs and proponents of responsible fatherhood programs¹⁸⁹ when they were
debated during the period from 2001 through 2005, there is a growing consensus that
the two programs can be implemented in a complementary manner to promote the
best interest of children.¹⁹⁰ Some of the impact analysis on the two programs, based
on scientifically designed evaluations with experimental and control groups, is to be
completed during the next Congress. This may help the 111^th Congress and the new
Administration to determine whether or not they need to shift priorities between the
programs, redistribute funding, or make other changes that will improve the
effectiveness of both programs.
Similarly, there is now some discussion about a middle ground between
abstinence education and comprehensive sex education.¹⁹¹ Some call this approach
abstinence-plus. Under the abstinence-plus education approach, participants are
given a hierarchy of safe-sex strategies. At the top of the hierarchy is the promotion
of sexual abstinence as the safest route to pregnancy prevention and HIV and STD
prevention. Recognizing that some participants will not be abstinent, the abstinence-
plus approach encourages individuals to use condoms and to adopt other safer-sex
strategies.¹⁹² Proponents of the abstinence-plus approach contend that it does not
encourage teens or young adults to have more sex, it just encourages them to do so
safely if they do have sex. Some policymakers maintain that this middle ground
approach accepts the reality that sexual activity among older teens and young adults
is an entrenched by-product of today’s society. They argue that it is not bad policy

¹⁸⁷ The healthy marriage program and the responsible fatherhood program are designed to
accommodate individuals of all ages, although individual programs may cater to persons in
specific age groups. Administrators of the programs point out that the message of the
programs are applicable to persons of all ages, from teens to middle-aged couples.
¹⁸⁸ Although several evaluations are underway to scientifically determine whether healthy
marriage programs and responsible fatherhood programs work, they are many years from
impact findings. Most are still at the initial stage of providing information on the
implementation of the programs.
¹⁸⁹ The animosity mainly centered around funding concerns — in some of the early
proposals marriage promotion initiatives were earmarked up to five times as much money
as fatherhood initiatives. Supporters of responsible fatherhood programs argued that the
promotion of marriage debate was overshadowing the precept that fathers should participate
in the lives of their children regardless of the marital status of the parents.
¹⁹⁰ Also, it is interesting to note that many analysts contend that the many of the “soft skills”
individuals learn in healthy marriage or responsible fatherhood programs are transferrable
to the workplace. They assert that skills such as being able to communicate effectively with
others, being consistent, and being on-time are abilities that may help individuals gain entry
into the workforce as well as help them advance in their jobs.
¹⁹¹ Both abstinence-only education programs and comprehensive sex education programs are
currently focused on middle-school and high-school aged children.
¹⁹² Shari L. Dworkin and John Santelli, “Do Abstinence-Plus Interventions Reduce Sexual
Risk Behavior among Youth?,” Public Library of Science Medicine, September 18, 2007.

but rather good planning to educate persons who thought they would remain
abstinent until marriage, but do not, with the appropriate information regarding
contraceptive methods. They contend that an abstinence-plus education approach is
in the best interest of young people and in the best interest of the nation.
As mentioned earlier, no federal funding is specifically earmarked for
comprehensive sex education. Some observers contend that the debate over
abstinence-only education versus comprehensive sex education will likely continue
for several more years. They surmise that the issue of which approach is more
appropriate and more effective for adolescents and older teens may receive renewed
attention by the 111^th Congress and the new Administration. They also note that the
abstinence-plus approach may be further scrutinized within the context of the debate
on abstinence-only versus comprehensive sex education.

Appendix A. Data Table
Table A-1. Number, Percent, and Rate of Births to Unmarried
Women and Birth Rate for Married Women, 1940-2006
^Num^b^{er of B}ⁱ^rths^{Percent of B}ⁱ^rths^Bⁱ^{rth Rate per 1,000}^Bⁱ^rt^{h Ra}^t^e^per
^T^o^Unm^a^rried^T^o^Unm^a^rried^Unm^a^{rried Wom}^eⁿ^{1,000 M}^a^rri^ed
^Wo^m^eⁿ^Wo^m^eⁿ^A^g^es^15-44^W^o^m^eⁿ^A^g^es^15-44
¹⁹⁴⁰^89,500^3.8⁷^.1^N^A
¹⁹⁴¹^95,700^3.8⁷^.8^N^A
¹⁹⁴²^95,500^3.4⁸^.0^N^A
¹⁹⁴³^98,100^3.3⁸^.3^N^A
¹⁹⁴⁴^105,200^3.8⁹^.0^N^A
¹⁹⁴⁵^117,400^4.3^10.1^N^A
¹⁹⁴⁶^125,200^3.8^10.9^N^A
¹⁹⁴⁷^131,900^3.6^12.1^N^A
¹⁹⁴⁸^129,700^3.7^12.5^N^A
¹⁹⁴⁹^133,200^3.7^13.3^N^A
¹⁹⁵⁰^141,600^4.0^14.1^141.0
¹⁹⁵¹^146,500^3.9^15.1^N^A
¹⁹⁵²^150,300^3.9^15.8^N^A
¹⁹⁵³^160,800^4.1^16.9^N^A
¹⁹⁵⁴^176,600^4.4^18.7^N^A
¹⁹⁵⁵^183,300^4.5^19.3^153.7
¹⁹⁵⁶^193,500^4.7^20.4^N^A
¹⁹⁵⁷^201,700^4.7^21.0^N^A
¹⁹⁵⁸^208,700^5.0^21.2^N^A
¹⁹⁵⁹^220,600^5.2^21.9^N^A
¹⁹⁶⁰^224,300^5.3^21.6^156.6
¹⁹⁶¹^240,200^5.6^22.7^155.8
¹⁹⁶²^245,100^5.9^21.9^150.8
¹⁹⁶³^259,400^6.3^22.5^145.9
¹⁹⁶⁴^275,700^6.9^23.0^141.8
¹⁹⁶⁵^291,200^7.7^23.4^130.2
¹⁹⁶⁶^302,400^8.4^23.3^123.6
¹⁹⁶⁷^318,100^9.0^23.7^118.7
¹⁹⁶⁸^339,200^9.7^24.3^116.6
¹⁹⁶⁹^360,800^10.0^24.8^118.8
¹⁹⁷⁰^398,700^10.7^26.4^121.1
¹⁹⁷¹^401,400^11.3^25.5^113.2
¹⁹⁷²^403,200^12.4^24.8^100.8
¹⁹⁷³^407,300^13.0^24.3^94.7
¹⁹⁷⁴^418,100^13.2^23.9^94.2
¹⁹⁷⁵^447,900^14.3^24.5^92.1
¹⁹⁷⁶^468,100^14.8^24.3^91.6
¹⁹⁷⁷^515,700^15.5^25.6^94.9
¹⁹⁷⁸^543,900^16.3^25.7^93.6
¹⁹⁷⁹^597,800^17.1^27.2^96.4
¹⁹⁸⁰^665,747^18.4^29.4^97.0
¹⁹⁸¹^686,605^18.9^29.5^96.0
¹⁹⁸²^715,227^19.4^30.0^96.2
¹⁹⁸³^737,893^20.3^30.3^93.6
¹⁹⁸⁴^770,355^21.0^31.0^93.1
¹⁹⁸⁵^828,174^22.0^32.8^93.3

^Num^b^{er of B}ⁱ^rths^{Percent of B}ⁱ^rths^Bⁱ^{rth Rate per 1,000}^Bⁱ^rt^{h Ra}^t^e^per
^T^o^Unm^a^rried^T^o^Unm^a^rried^Unm^a^{rried Wom}^eⁿ^{1,000 M}^a^rri^ed
^Wo^m^eⁿ^Wo^m^eⁿ^A^g^es^15-44^W^o^m^eⁿ^A^g^es^15-44
¹⁹⁸⁶^878,477^23.4^34.2^90.7
¹⁹⁸⁷^933,013^24.5^36.0^90.0
¹⁹⁸⁸^1,005,299^25.7^38.5^90.8
¹⁹⁸⁹^1,094,169^27.1^41.6^91.9
¹⁹⁹⁰^1,165,384^28.0^43.8^93.2
¹⁹⁹¹^1,213,769^29.5^45.0^89.6
¹⁹⁹²^1,224,876^30.1^44.9^88.5
¹⁹⁹³^1,240,172^31.0^44.8^86.1
¹⁹⁹⁴^1,289,592^32.6^46.2^82.9
¹⁹⁹⁵^1,253,976^32.2^44.3^82.6
¹⁹⁹⁶^1,260,306^32.4^43.8^82.3
¹⁹⁹⁷^1,257,444^32.4^42.9^82.7
¹⁹⁹⁸^1,293,567^32.8^43.3^84.2
¹⁹⁹⁹^1,308,560^33.0^43.3^84.8
²⁰⁰⁰^1,347,043^33.2^44.1^87.4
²⁰⁰¹^1,349,249^33.5^43.8^86.7
²⁰⁰²^1,365,966^34.0^43.7^86.3
²⁰⁰³^1,415,995^34.6^44.9^88.1
²⁰⁰⁴^1,470,189^35.8^46.1^87.6
²⁰⁰⁵^1,527,034^36.9^47.5^87.3
²⁰⁰⁶^1,641,700^38.5 50.6 NA
^Source:^{U.S. Dep}^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^Health^an^d^Hu^m^aⁿ^Ser^v^{ices, Natio}ⁿ^a^{l Cen}^t^er^f^o^r^Health^Statⁱ^s^tⁱ^c^s,
^“^N^on^m^a^ri^t^a^l^C^hⁱ^l^dbeariⁿ^gⁱⁿ^t^h^{e U}ⁿⁱ^t^e^d^S^t^at^es^{, 1940-}^99,”^N^a^tⁱ^onal^Vi^t^a^l^St^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^c^s^Repor^t^s^{, v}^o^l^.^48,
ⁿ^o^{. 16 (O}^ct^{ober 18, 2000). S}^{ee al}^s^o^N^a^tⁱ^onal^Vi^t^a^l^St^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^c^s^Report^s^,^v^o^{l. 56, n}^o^{. 6 (Decem}^{ber 5,}
^2007).^Bi^rt^h^rat^e^s^f^o^{r m}^a^rri^{ed m}^o^t^h^ers^dat^a^{are f}^r^om^—^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^C^eⁿ^t^{er f}^o^{r H}^eal^t^h^S^t^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^c^s^,^Vⁱ^t^a^l
^Statis^tics^of^th^{e Un}^{ited States}^{, 1994, v}^o^{l. I, Natality}^{, T}^a^{ble 1-}^19.
^NA^{= No}^{t av}^ailab^l^e.