partnered but poor

8/19/2019 Partnered But Poor

1/18

1 Center for American Progress | Partnered But Poor

Partnered But Poor

By Shawn Fremstad March 11, 2016

People living in single-paren amilies are much more likely o have low incomes and

experience economic hardships han hose living in boh married and unmarried

parnered amilies wih children. A he same ime, however, he vas majoriy o people

in low-income amilies wih children are in amilies headed by married or unmarried

parners, as are mos people in amilies wih children ha receive means-esed benefis.

Tis ac flies in he ace o claims ha marriage is a panacea or povery.1

Tis issue brie provides basic acs abou differences in low-income raes or hree amily

ypesmarried-couple, cohabiing-couple, and single-paren amilies wih children

and looks a, by amily ype, he share o low-income people in amilies wih children and

he share o people in amilies wih children ha receive major means-esed benefis. Te

hope is ha acs such as hese will generae a more balanced debae, one ha acknowl-

edges and addresses differences in economic hardship by amily srucure wihou mini-

mizing he exen o married and parnered povery in he Unied Saes.

Te key acs deailed in his brie include he ollowing:

• Slighly more han one in our people in married-couple households wih children26

percenare low income, having incomes under 150 percen o he Supplemenal

Povery Measure, or SPM, compared wih abou hal46 perceno people in

cohabiing-couple households and 60 percen o hose in single-paren households.

• Jus more han hal o one-paren, unmarried amily groupsabou 53 percen in

2015are mainained by a paren who is divorced or is currenly separaed rom his

or her spouse.2

• Some 33.1 million Americanswo ou o every hree people in low-income amilies

wih childrenare in low-income amilies headed by parnered couples, which breaks

down o roughly 27.75 million people in married-couple households and anoher

5.35 million people in domesic-parner households. Abou 17.3 million people in

low-income amilies wih children are in amilies headed by single parensmosly


2/18


mohers. Among people in higher-income amilies, 77.5 million are in married-couple

amilies81 percen; 6.3 million are in cohabiing-couple amilies7 percen; and

11.4 million are in single-paren amilies12 percen.

• 69 percen o people in low-income amilies wih children who receive means-

esed benefis ha supplemen low incomes are in married-couple or domesic-

parner amilies.

• Some 11.3 million people in amilies wih children, who are able o avoid povery

because o means-esed benefis ha supplemen low incomes, are in married or

coupled amilies.

• Among nonelderly people in amilies who receive Medicaid, he majoriy live in

married-couple amilies.

• 19 saes have ye o expand Medicaid o eligible low-income adulshose wih

incomes under 138 percen o he ederal povery leveldespie he availabiliy oederal unds ha would cover nearly all o he cos. Te pracical effec is ha sub-

sanial numbers o low-income married aduls, as well as single aduls and aduls

in unmarried couples, are denied Medicaid based solely on heir sae o residence.

Low-income married aduls in Caliornia, or example, are much more likely o

have healh insurance han low-income married aduls in exas, wih he difference

largely due o Medicaid availabiliy.

• Among low-income parens who are eligible or means-esed child care assisance bu

do no receive i because o inadequae ederal and sae unding, he majoriy are in

married or cohabiing-paren amilies.

Mos o he acs deailed in his brie come rom a repor on ederal low-income pro-

grams published in 2015 by he U.S. Governmen Accounabiliy Office, or GAO. Te

repor was writen in response o a reques made by Sen. Jefferson Sessions (R-AL) and

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) or inormaion on ederal programs argeed o low-income

individuals, as well as on heir household characerisics.3 As explained in he Appendix,

his brie defines “ low income” as 150 percen o he SPMabou $38,000 per year or

a married couple wih wo childrenaking ino accoun a more comprehensive se o

amily expenses and income han he official povery measure, or OPM.

Te economic and emoional sresses ha millions o parnered bu sruggling Americans

ace can have corrosive effecs on heir relaionships. Tese srains increase he likeli-

hood o separaion among economically sruggling couples compared wih prosperous

ones.4 Economic and emoional sresses also may reduce he likelihood ha unmarried

coupleswho are more likely o separae han married onesevenually marry. o

reduce povery across amily ypes and increase he sabiliy o low-income married and


3/18


parnered couples, America needs o ensure ha working-class people ge a beter deal:

higher wages; more o he work-amily benefis ha high-income couples already receive;

affordable healh insurance regardless o where hey live; and greaer access o assisance,

including unemploymen insurance, emporary Assisance or Needy Families, and he

Child ax Credi, which all help amilies make i hrough rough paches.

In he words o Pope Francis, i is worh asking: “How many problems would be solvedi our socieies proeced amilies and provided households, especially hose o recenly

married couples, wih he possibiliy o dignified work, housing and healhcare services

o accompany hem hroughou lie.”5 A he same ime, effors o bolser he economic

securiy o sruggling married and parnered amilies should no come a he expense

o single-paren amilies, who generally ace greaer ime and resource consrains han

married parens.6 Pu simply, he bes amily policies are he ones ha value all amilies.7

Acknowledging the rise of cohabiting-couple families in

public policy debates

When he official povery measure was developed in he 1960s, here were relaively

ew unmarried domesic parners. Bu cohabiaion has become increasingly norma-

ive since hen. In ac, mos young couples oday will cohabi beore hey marry. Te

increasing imporance o cohabiaion is paricularly sriking among young people. In

2014, abou one ou o every six aduls16.8 percenbeween ages 25 and 29 were in

cohabiing-couple relaionships, compared wih abou wo ou o every six aduls in he

same age range who were married.8

Over he pas several decades, he share o birhs o single mohers has remained sable, bu he share o birhs o cohabiing mohers has increased ourold, rom 6 percen in he

early 1980s o abou 25 percen oday. Te larges increase o birhs o cohabiing moh-

ers is among whie and Hispanic mohers, respecively, and among hose wih a high

school diploma or some college shor o a bachelor’s degree.9 Among new parens who

are cohabiing a heir firs child’s birh, abou hal go on o marry wihin five years. 10

Among people living in amilies wih minor children oday, roughly 12 million people

live in amilies headed by cohabiing couples, or abou 8 percen o all people in amilies

wih minor children.11 Because cohabiaion is ypically a ransiional sage ha happens

boh beore marriage and afer divorce, subsanially more han 8 percen o all children

will spend some ime in a cohabiing-couple amily. Demographers Sheela Kennedy and

Larry Bumpass have esimaed ha abou hal o children oday will live in a cohabiing-

couple amily a some poin during heir childhood, a subsanial increase compared

wih previous generaions.12 Tis increase is due boh o an increase in he share o

children born o cohabiing couples and o more children having parens who live in

cohabiing-couple amilies afer heir biological parens divorce or separae.


4/18


Hisorian Elizabeh Pleck has writen ha “he hisory o cohabiaion in recen decades

is in a sense abou he widespread denial o he realiy ha Americans will spend a grow-

ing proporion o heir lives ouside o legal marriage and ha cohabiaion has or many

become a orm o amily.”13 In many ways, analysis o public policy relaed o amily and

economic securiy coninues o deny he realiy o unmarried domesic parnerships.

O paricular relevance or he purposes o his brie is he way ha he OPM disorspublic undersanding o povery among amilies wih children. Te OPM reas unmar-

ried parners as sharing income and expenses only i hey have a child in common and

does no allow or easy idenificaion o unmarried-parner amilies, even i hey have a

child in common. In he official povery saisics published annually by he Bureau o

he Census, or example, here are only hree ypes o amilies: married couples; emale

householder wih no husband presen; and male householder wih no wie presen.

Unmarried-parner amilies are all pu in one o he later wo caegoriesemale

householder or male householdereven i composed o a biological moher and bio-

logical aher o a child in he household.

For purposes o analyzing differences in povery by household ype, he newer

Supplemenal Povery Measure ha he Census Bureau developed is more useul han

he OPM because i reas unmarried parners living ogeher as sharing income and

expenses and allows or easy idenificaion o unmarried-couple amilies. According o

an analysis by he Census Bureau’s Ashley Provencher, when he SPM’s uni o analysis

is used in place o he OPM’s, here were abou 7.3 million previously unrecognized

cohabiing-couple householder amilies, and 3.8 million ewer single-emale and single-

male householder amilies.14 Moreover, preliminary research by Liana Fox and her

colleagues a Columbia Universiy using he SPM suggess ha here has been a much

larger increase in povery among cohabiing couples wih children over he pas 15 yearshan among eiher married or one-adul amilies wih children, a rend ha is invis-

ible in Census saisics using he OPM.15 Tus, he SPM is used in his brie because i

provides a uller picure han he OPM o rends in povery and near-povery by amily

srucure. For urher discussion o his, see he Appendix.

Acknowledging he rise o cohabiaion also requires acknowledging he real differences

beween i and marriage. Cohabiing relaionships, including ones beween parens, are

less sable han marriages, on average. As sociologiss Laura ach and Kahryn Edin

have noed, “here is considerable debae over he sources o his insabiliy.”16 In heir

research, ach and Edin find ha “demographic, economic, and relaionship differences

explain more han wo-hirds o he increased risk o dissoluion or unmarried parens

relaive o married parens.” Tey also find, somewha surprisingly, ha “he sabiliy o

marial unions is more sensiive o relaionship and economic condiions afer a child’s

birh han he sabiliy o nonmarial unions.”


5/18


A relaed issue is wheher cohabiaion among amilies wih children will become more

sable over ime as i becomes more normaive, or, alernaively, less sable over ime

as i becomes more a marker o class divergence. In recenly published work, research-

ers Kelly Musick and Kaherine Michelmore ound ha among couples cohabiing a

he birh o heir firs child, abou hal go on o marry wihin five years, and ha afer

conrolling or he responden paren’s educaion and oher background characerisics,

hese couples ace no greaer risk o separaion han hose who are married a birh.17 However, hey also ound ha cohabiing couples who do no marry wihin five years

afer he birh o heir firs child ace much higher risks o separaion. Unlike ach and

Edin, Musick and Michelmore used a daa se ha did no include relaionship qualiy

or parners’ economic saus, acors which may explain much o he difference in sabil-

iy or couples who did no go on o marry.

Most people in low-income families with children live in married-

couple families

More han hal55 perceno people in low-income amilies wih childrennearly

28 million Americanslive in married-couple amilies wih children. In addiion, slighly

more han 1 in 10 people in low-income amilies wih children live in domesic-parner

amilies. In sum, wo-hirds o all people living in low-income amilies wih chil-

dren33.1 million peoplelive in married or domesic-parner amilies. By compari-

son, among people in higher-income amilies, 77.5 million are in married-couple amilies,

or 81 percen; 6.3 million are in cohabiing-couple amilies, or 7 percen; and 11.4

million are in single-paren amilies, or 12 percen. able 1 shows he number o people in

amilies wih children by parnership saus, boh overall and by low-income saus.


6/18


TABLE 1

Among low-income people in families with children, most are in married

or cohabiting couple families

Number and rate of people in families with children, overall and by partnership

and low-income status

People in families with childrenPeople in low-income families

with children

Number in

millions

As percentage of

total number of

people in families

with children

Number in

millions

As percentage of

total number of

people in low-

income familes

with children

Married couple with

children105.3 72% 27.8 55%

Cohabitating couple

with children11.7 8% 5.4 11%

Single parent with

children28.7 20% 17.3 34%

Total 145.6 100% 50.4 100%

Note: These figures do not include people in households with children that are headed by an elderly person or a nonelderly person with a disability.According to the GAO, about 7 percent of children live i n these two household types. For more details on the GAO’s classification, see the Appendix.

Source: Government Accountability Office, “Federal Low-Income Program: Multiple Programs Target Diverse Populations and Needs,” GAO 15-516,

Report to Congressional Requesters, July 2015, Figure 7, available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-516.

FIGURE 1

People in single-parent families are more likely to have low incomes than

those in partnered families with children

Percentage of people in families with children below 100 percent and 150 percent of the

Supplemental Poverty Measure, by family type, 2013

Source: Government Accountability Office, "Federal Low-Income Program: Multiple Programs Target Diverse Populations and Needs," GAO 15-516,

Report to Congressional Requesters, July 2015, Figure 7, available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-516.

Below 100% of the SPM Below 150% of the SPM

Single parent with children

Cohabitating couple with children

Married couple with children10%

26%

20%

46%

30%

60%


7/18


Figure 1 shows he low-income rae by amily ypeha is, he percenage o people in

each amily ype who have amily incomes below 150 percen o he SPM. Slighly more

han one in our o people in married-couple households wih children26 percen

are low income, compared wih abou hal46 perceno hose in cohabiing-couple

households and 60 percen o hose in single-paren households.

Te reason why people in single-paren amilies are more likely han people in marriedand coupled amilies o have low incomes is sraighorward. For sarers, amilies wih

more han one adul have more poenial adul workers who are able o pool earnings

and share housing and oher coss and benefi rom economies o scale in household

consumpion. Moreover, he heads o single-paren amilies are more likely o belong

o economically disadvanaged groups han parens in married-couple amilies. For

example, mohers head he vas majoriy o amilies ha include only one adul, and

mohers as a group ace discriminaion in he workorce boh because hey are women

and especially because hey are mohers.18 I women were paid he same as comparable

men, he povery rae or working single mohers would be cu nearly in hal, according

o an esimae rom he Insiue or Women’s Policy Research.19

A he same ime, he high rae o economic insecuriy or cohabiing couples is srik-

ing. Te difference in low-income raes beween people in cohabiing-couple and

single-paren amilies is much smaller14 percenage poins, or 32 percenhan he

difference in low-income raes beween married and cohabiing couples20 percen-

age poins, or 74 percen.

Te daa beg he quesion: Why are people in cohabiing couples so much more likely o

have low incomes han people in married couples, even hough boh amily ypes ypi-

cally have he same number o poenial adul workers? Te difference is largely due oeconomics and demographics. Compared wih aduls in married-couple amilies, aduls

in cohabiing-couple amilies are more likely o work in poorly compensaed jobs; are

younger, on average; are more likely o be Arican American or Laino; and are less likely

o have a bachelor’s degree or higher.20

Moreover, wih wo poenial adul workers, why is he percenage o people in cohabiing-

couple amilies wih low incomes so much closer o he percenage o people in single-

paren amilies wih low incomes han he percenage or married-couple amilies? As

noed above, single-paren amilies are 32 percen more likely o have low incomes han

cohabiing-couple amilies, while cohabiing-couple amilies are 74 percen more likely o

have low incomes han married-couple amilies. Again, economic and demographic acors

explain much o he difference. Many single parens have been married: Tose individuals

end o be older and have oher demographic advanages compared wih parens in cohab-

iing couples. Also, single-paren amilies are much more likely o include grandparens or

oher adul relaives: 29 percen o children in single-paren amilies reside wih grandpar-

ens or oher adul relaivesno including siblingscompared wih only 9 percen o

children wih married parens and 13 percen o children wih cohabiing parens.21


8/18


People in partnered families are the largest share of recipients in

means-tested programs for low-income families

More han hal o he people57 percenwho receive benefis rom he eigh major

ederal means-esed benefis programshe Addiional Child ax Credi, or ACC;

he Earned Income ax Credi, or EIC; housing assisance; he Low Income Home

Energy Assisance Program; he Supplemenal Nuriion Assisance Program, or SNAP,ormerly known as ood samps; income assisance hrough he emporary Assisance

or Needy Families, or ANF, program; Supplemenal Securiy Income, or SSI; and he

Special Supplemenal Nuriion Program or Women, Inans, and Children, or WIC

live in married amilies, as shown in able 2. Anoher 12 percen live in cohabiing

couple amilies wih children. Nearly one-hird o people in low-income amilies wih

children receiving means-esed benefis live in single-paren amilies. In shor, among

people in amilies who receive means-esed benefis rom major ederal programs, mar-

riage or a domesic parnership is he norm, no he excepion.

Te Governmen Accounabiliy Office, in is repor “Federal Low-Income Programs:

Muliple Programs arge Diverse Populaions and Needs,” esimaed ha abou 19.2

million people in amilies wih children would have been poorwih income below 100

percen o he SPMi hey had no received benefis rom one o he eigh ederal pro-

grams lised above. As Figure 2 shows, abou 9.2 million people in married couples wih

children were able o avoid povery hanks o means-esed benefis, as were anoher 2.1

million people in cohabiing-couple amilies wih children in 2012. Tus, mos people

in amilies wih children who are able o avoid povery wih he help o means-esed

benefis are people in married- or cohabiing couple amilies.

TABLE 2

Among people in famlies with children receiving means-tested benefits,

most are in married-couple or cohabiting-couple families

People in families with children receiving means-tested benefits in 8 major federal programs,

by partnership status

Number of people in

families with children receiving

benefits (in millions)

Percentage of people in

families with children

receiving benefits

Married couple with children 38.5 56.5%

Cohabitating couple with children 7.9 11.6%

Single parent with children 21.7 31.9%

Total 68.1 100%

Notes: Means-tested benefits in this table are as follows: the ACTC; the EITC; housing assistance; the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program;

SNAP; TANF (only monthly income assistance); SSI; and WIC. These figures do not include people in households with children that are headed by an

elderly person or a nonelderly person with a disability. According to the GAO, about 7 percent of children live in these two household types. For more

details on the GAO’s classification, see the Appendix.

Source: Government Accountability Office, “Federal Low-Income Program: Multiple Programs Target Diverse Populations and Needs,” GAO 15-516,

Report to Congressional Requesters, July 2015, Table 6, available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-516.


9/18


The means-tested programs that help married and unmarried couples most

Te share o people in married- and domesic-parner couple amilies who receive

benefis is larger han he share o people in single-paren amilies or all o he ederalmeans-esed benefi programs, excep or ANF and housing assisance. Figure 3 shows

he disribuion o people who receive means-esed benefis in eigh major ederal

programs by household ype.

I is noable ha he programs in his figure, which are he mos likely o help low-income

couplesparicularly SNAP, he ACC, WIC, and he EICshare some common

characerisics. Unlike ANF, hey are no block gran programs, which give saes nearly

unlimied discreion o se benefi levels and income eligibiliy sandards; hey also do

no include explici language in heir auhorizing legislaion o “encourage he orma-

ion and mainenance o wo-paren amilies.”22 wo o he programshe EIC and

he ACCcondiion benefis on someone in he ax uni having earnings, and SNAP

includes employmen- and raining-relaed requiremens. Bu none o he programs

have he kind o rigid rule ound in ANF ha requires 90 percen o wo-paren ami-

lies receiving assisance o be engaged in 35 hours o 55 hours o work aciviies each

week.23 In congressional esimony las year, Eloise Anderson, secreary o he Wisconsin

Deparmen o Children and Families serving under Republican Gov. Scot Walker,

argued ha his ANF rule creaed a “disincenive o marry or be in a sable amily.”24

FIGURE 2

Largest number of people who avoided poverty due to means-tested

benefits from 8 major federal programs live in married-couple families

with children

Number of people in millions who avoided poverty due to benefits from 8 major

federal programs by household type, 2012

Note: Means-tested benefits in this table are as follows: the ACTC; the EITC; housing assistance; the Low I ncome Home Energy Assistance Program;

SNAP; TANF (only monthly income assistance); SSI; and WIC.


Report to Congressional Requesters, July 2015, Figure 11, available a t http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-516.

Other households with no children

Headed by elderly person

Headed by nonelderly person

with disability

Single parent with children

Co-habiting couple with children

Married with children

Partnered with children

Other

9.2

2.1

7.9

3

2.3

1.9


10/18


Conservaives have pushed ANF as a model or even larger block gran schemes ha

encompass SNAP and oher programs. Ye SNAP is clearly a program ha now works

or people in sruggling married and coupled amilies wih children, while ANF is

clearly ailing hese amilies despie having an explici goal o “encourage he ormaionand mainenance o wo-paren amilies.” Insead o rying o urn SNAP ino ANF

or repealing SNAP reorms, such as broad-based caegorical eligibiliy, ha have eased

access o he program or sruggling married amiliesi is ime o consider reorming

ANF along he lines o SNAP.

A look at other means-tested programs: Medicaid, the premium tax credit,

and child care assistance

Te GAO’s repor does no include daa on benefi receip by amily ype or hree oher

major means-esed programs: Medicaid, he premium ax credi, and child care assis-

ance. As summarized below, oher available research suggess ha marriage and domes-

ic parnerships are common among amilies receiving benefis rom hese programs.

FIGURE 3

SNAP, WIC, and refundable tax credits are most likely to help married

and cohabiting couples with children

Percentage of recipients of 8 selected federal low-income programs by household

type, 2012

Notes: Means-tested benefits in this table are as follows: the ACTC; the EITC; housing assistance; the Low Income Home Energy Assistance

Program; SNAP; TANF (only monthly income assistance); SSI; and WIC. Values may not total 100 percent due to rounding.


Report to Congressional Requesters, July 2015, Figure 11, available a t http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-516.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SSIHousing

assistance

TANFLIHEAPSNAPEITCWICACTC

Married couple

with children

Cohabiting couple

with children

Single parent

with children

Without children

Headed by nonelderly

person with a disability

Headed by an

elderly person

60%

8%

8%

3%

25%

50%

14%

5%

2%

29%

43%

9%

7%

13%

4%

25%

28%

9%

13%

15%

9%

26%

26%

5%

13%

18%

18%

21%

15%

5%

18%

13%

14%

36%

10%

3%

27%

22%

26%

12%22%

10%

11%

6%

52%


11/18


Medicaid

In erms o boh dollars and he number o people helped, Medicaid is he single larges

means-esed program in he Unied Saes. According o daa rom he Bureau o he

Census, among people in amilies who receive healh insurance rom Medicaid, mos are

in married-couple amilies. In 2014, abou 28.1 million nonelderly people in married-

couple amilies received Medicaid.25 By comparison, abou 23.8 million nonelderly

people in oher amily ypes, including cohabiing couples, received Medicaid.26 Unlikehe GAO daa, boh o hese figures include amilies wihou children, as well as hose

headed by people who have a disabiliy.

Ta being said, here are sill some significan policy barriers o Medicaid access or

sruggling aduls, including barriers ha may disproporionaely affec low-income mar-

ried parens. Mos noably, 19 saes have ye o expand Medicaid o eligible low-income

adulshose wih incomes under 138 percen o he ederal povery leveldespie

he availabiliy o ederal unds ha would cover nearly all o he cos.27 Te pracical

effec is ha subsanial numbers o sruggling married aduls are denied Medicaid based

solely on heir sae o residence. For example, 80 percen o married nonelderly aduls inlow-income amilies in Caliornia have healh insurance coverage.28 By conras, only 52

percen o such married aduls in exas have healh insurance coverage.29 Te difference

is mainly due o access o Medicaid. Caliornia has expanded Medicaid, while exas has

no. In Caliornia, nearly hal o married nonelderly aduls in low-income amilies receive

coverage hrough Medicaid; in exas, only 16 percen have Medicaid coverage.30

Saes such as exas ha ail o expand Medicaid likely exacerbae marriage penalies in

Medicaid because parens in hese saes mus have exremely low incomes o qualiy

or Medicaid. According o he Kaiser Family Foundaion, he median income eligi-

biliy limi or Medicaid or parens in nonexpansion saes is only 44 percen o heederal povery level.31

Premium tax credit for health insurance

Te premium ax credi is a reundable ax credi ha subsidizes par o he cos o

purchasing healh insurance hrough healh benefi exchanges or people wih incomes

beween 100 percen and 400 percen o he ederal povery level.32 Te premium ax

credi has only been in place since 2014.33 While here appears o be no research ye on

he receip o he ax credi by amily srucure, married and coupled amilies will likely

benefi disproporionaely rom he credi given is income rangeamong people in

amilies beween 100 percen and 400 percen o he ederal povery level, considerably

more are married or coupled han singleand he ac ha i is available o all people

who mee he eligibiliy sandards.


12/18


Child care assistance

GAO’s repor also does no include daa on he Child Care and Developmen Block

Gran, or CCDBG, which provides ederal unds o saes or means-esed child care

assisance. In fiscal year 2014, abou 853,000 amilies, on average, received child care

assisance each monh hrough he CCDBG.34 Because unding or he CCDBG is

capped a an inadequae level and has declined in real erms over he pas 15 years,

only abou one in six children whose amilies mee CCDBG eligibiliy requiremensacually receive assisance.35

Research conduced by Chris Herbs a Arizona Sae Universiy ound ha abou

one-hird o households ha received child care assisance in 2002 were headed by wo

parens.36 Tus, mos households ha received child care assisance were headed by a

single paren, bu among all parens who benefied rom he CCDBG, abou as many

were cohabiing or married as were single.

Herbs also ound ha among low-income households ha were eligible or bu did no

receive child care assisance, he majoriy, roughly 60 percen, were headed by wo par-ens.37 Herbs’s research is somewha daed, so he demographics o amilies receiving

he CCDBGas well as hose eligible or bu no receiving imay have changed since

hen. For example, he increase in low-income cohabiing-couple amilies may mean

ha a greaer share o children eligible or he CCDBG are in cohabiing-couple amilies.

Moreover, because inflaion-adjused ederal unding or he CCDBG is more han $1

billion lower oday han in 2002, he program may have become more resricive in ways

ha disproporionaely affec sruggling parens who are married or cohabiing.38

I is worh conrasing he CCDBG wih he Child and Dependen Care ax Credi,

or CDCC. In dollar erms, he CDCC is nearly as large as he CCDBG: Te JoinCommitee on axaion esimaes ha he CDCC will cos abou $4.7 billion in 2015,

compared wih $5.38 billion allocaed o he CCDBG.39 Bu he vas majoriy o CDCC

unds go o upper-middle and high-income amilies.40 As a pracical mater, upper-middle

and high-income married parens who pay or child care are guaraneed a subsidy or

he purchase o child care assisance, while mos working-class married parens who are

financially eligible or child care help hrough he CCDBG do no receive any help a all.


13/18


Conclusion

Marriage and domesic parnerships are common occurrences raher han excepions

among Americans living in low-income amilies wih children. Te wrongheaded idea

ha marriage is a panacea or povery disors realiy and renders invisible he economic

sruggles o millions o married and parnered Americans.

Te economic and emoional sresses ha millions o parnered bu impoverished

Americans ace ofen have corrosive effecs on relaionships. Tis increases he likeli-

hood o separaion among sruggling couples compared wih prosperous ones.41 For

hose who believe ha governmen and civil sociey should play a proacive role in

bolsering marriage and amily sabiliy, he ailure o acknowledge he exen o married

and coupled povery is counerproducive. As researchers Amber Lapp and David Lapp,

wriing rom a pro-marriage conservaive perspecive, have noed, “Te prevalence o

low-wage work raises challenges or married couples, bu he very people who mos care

abou srenghening marriage are ypically he ones absen rom he conversaion abou

a living wage, or a leas on he deensive.”42


14/18


Appendix

Background on the data used in this brief

Mos o he daa ha he auhors highligh in his brie comes rom a 2015 Governmen

Accounabiliy Office repor“Federal Low-Income Programs: Muliple Programs argeDiverse Populaions and Needs”ha was published in response o a reques made

by Sen. Jefferson Sessions and Rep. Gary Palmer.43 Te GAO repor idenified ederal

programs argeed o low-income individuals and provided daa on he number and selec

household characerisics o low-income people using he Census Bureau’s Supplemenal

Povery Measure, as well as he number, incomesas a percenage o he SPMand

household characerisics o people receiving benefis rom low-income programs.

How GAO classified households

For is daa analysis, GAO divided he U.S. populaion ino six muually exclusive

household ypes:

1. Married couple with children: Te household head is no disabled or elderly.

2. Unmarried couple with children: Te household head is no disabled or elderly.

3. Single parent with children: Te household head is no disabled or elderly; single par-

ens include parens who are married bu say hey are “separaed” rom heir spouse.

4. Person with a disability who is under age 65: Te household head is eiher wih or

wihou children and may have any marial saus.

5. Elderly person: Te household head is eiher wih or wihou children and may have

any parnership saus.

6. Person under age 65 without a disability: Te household head does no have chil-

dren and may have any parnership saus.

Tis brie uses he erm “people in amilies wih children” o reer o people in he firs

hree household ypes in he GAO classificaion. In 2013, according o GAO, abou 93

percen o all children in he Unied Saes lived in he firs hree household ypes, so he

numbers highlighed in his brie modesly undercoun he number o people living in

amilies wih childrenand in all hree o he household ypes highlighedwho have

low incomes or receive means-esed benefis.


15/18


How this brief defines low-income families with children

GAO calculaed he number o people in 2013 in each o he six household ypes using

differen percenages o he Census Bureau’s SPM, including 50 percen, 100 percen,

150 percen, and 200 percen.

Tis brie uses 150 percen o he SPM as a conservaive measure o low-income saus.

Beore adjusing or geographic differences in housing coss, 150 percen o he SPMhreshold was equal o $38,190 or a wo-adul, wo-child amily ha rens heir hous-

ing. Te hreshold or he same amily was slighly higher$38,766i hey were pay-

ing a morgage and significanly lower$32,070i hey owned a home ourigh and

paid no morgage. Te SPM hreshold used by GAO urher adjuss, boh upward and

downward, or geographic differences in housing coss. So, or example, 150 percen o

he SPM in nonmeropolian Alabama or a amily o our wih a morgage was $30,800,

compared wih $40,747 or a amily o our wih a morgage in Chicago.44

Tese hresholds are conservaive measures o low-income saus ha all subsanially

below he amoun o income ha mos Americans say a wo-adul, wo-child amilyneeds o ge by in heir communiy. In a November 2013 survey, Americans were asked,

“How much annual income do you hink a amily o our would need o earn o be saely

ou o povery and in he middle class?” Te mean response was $54,619.45 Similarly, in

2007, Gallup asked Americans wha hey hough was “he smalles amoun o yearly

income a amily o our would need o ge along in your local communiy.”46 Te average

o responses was $52,087 per year, and he median response was $45,000. Adjused or

inflaion, hese amouns would be $59,748 and $51,618, respecively, in 2015.

Moreover, he low-income hreshold used in his brie alls even urher behind ypical

disposable household incomes or our-person households in he Unied Saes: Mediandisposable household income or our-person households was $64,630 in 2014, and

average disposable household income was $82,912.47

Adv ant age s of using the SPM for ana lyses of low -inco me famil ies by fam ily type

For purposes o analyzing differences in povery by household ype, he SPM is more

useul han he official povery measure because i reas unmarried parners who are

living ogeher as sharing income and expenses and allows or easy idenificaion o

unmarried-couple amilies. Te OPM, by conras, reas unmarried parners as sharing

income and expenses only i hey have a child in common and does no allow or easy

idenificaion o unmarried-parner amilies, even i hey have a child in common.

For example, in he official povery saisics published annually by he Census Bureau,

here are only hree ypes o amilies designaed: married couples; emale householder

wih no husband presen; and male householder wih no wie presen.48 Unmarried-

parner amilies are all pu in one o he later wo caegoriesemale householder

or male householdereven i composed o a biological moher and biological aher


16/18


o a child in he household. According o an analysis by Ashley Provencher, when he

SPM’s uni o analysis was used in place o he OPM’s, here were abou 7.3 million

previously unacknowledged cohabiing-couple amilies and 3.8 million ewer single-

emale and single-male amilies.49

Anoher advanage o he SPM or he purpose o undersanding low-income and

means-esed benefi receip by household ype is ha i uses a more comprehensivemeasure o income han he OPMin paricular, i couns several imporan benefis,

including he Earned Income ax Credi and in-kind ood and housing assisance, ha

he OPM does no coun.

Shawn Fremstad is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.


17/18


Endnotes

1 For example, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) called marriage “thegreatest tool to lift people, to lift children and families,from poverty,” and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY ) claims “marriedwith kids versus unmarried with ki ds is the differencebetween living in poverty and not.” See Laura Matthews,“Among Rubio’s Solutions to War on Poverty: Get Married,”International Business Times, January 9, 2014, availableat http://www.ibtimes.com/among-rubios-solutions-war-

poverty-get-married-1533214; Sam Youngman, “Rand PaulDiscusses Cutting Government Help for Unwed MothersWho Continue Having Kids,” Lexington Herald Leader , Janu-ary 24, 2014, available at http://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article44468157.html.

2 Author’s calculations from Bureau of the Census, America’sFamilies and Living Arrangements: 2015: Family groups (U.S.Department of Commerce, 2015), Table FG6.

3 Government Accountability Office, “Federal Low-IncomePrograms: Multiple Programs Target Diverse Popula-tions and Needs,” GAO-15-516, Report to CongressionalRequesters, July 2015, available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/671779.pdf.

4 In Alone Together: How Marriage in America is Changing,Paul Amato and his colleagues note that “a number ofstudies have shown that financial distress increases therisk of marital discord and divorce” and conclude based

on their research that “economic well-being is linked withmultiple dimensions of marital quality,” and “perceptions ofeconomic hardship became a strong predictor of maritalquality between 1980 and 2000.” See Paul Amato andothers, Alone Together: How Marriage in America is Chang-ing (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), pp.255–256. See also Shawn Fremstad and Melissa Boteach,“Valuing All Our Families: Progressive Policies that Strength-en Family Commitments and Reduce Family Disparities”(Washington: Center for American Progress, 2015), availableat https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/report/2015/01/12/104149/valuing-all-our-families/; Laura Tach and Kathryn Edin, “The Compositional and InstitutionalSources of Union Dissolution for Married and UnmarriedParents in the United States,” Demography 50 (5) (2013):1789–1818.

5 Pope Francis, “Prayer Vigil for the Festival of Families: Ad-dress of the Ho ly Father,” September 26, 2015, available athttp://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/

september/documents/papa-francesco_20150926_usa-festa-famiglie.html.

6 For an in-depth discussion of economic insecurity amongsingle-parent families, see Timothy Casey and Laurie Mal-donado, “Worst Off—Single-Parent Families in the UnitedStates: A Cross-National Comparison of Single Parenthoodin the U.S. and Sixteen Other High-Income Countries” (NewYork: Legal Momentum, 2012), available at http://www.legalmomentum.org/sites/default/files/reports/worst-off-single-parent.pdf .

7 Poverty rates for both one-adult and two-adult families withchildren are higher in the United States than in most otherwealthy nations. See ibid.

8 Author’s analysis of the 2015 Current Population Survey An-nual Social and Economic Supplement using the IntegratedPublic Use Microdata Series, or I PUMS, Online Data AnalysisSystem. See IPUMS-CPS, “Home,” available at www.ipums.org (last accessed December 2015).

9 Wendy D. Manning, Susan L. Brown, and Bart Sykes, “Trendsin Births to Single and Cohabiting Mothers: 1980-2013”(Bowling Green, OH: National Center for Family and Mar-riage Research, 2015), available at http://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-15-03-birth-trends-single-cohabiting-moms.pdf .

10 Kelly Musick and Katherine Michelmore, “Change in the Sta-bility of Marital and Cohabiting Unions Following the Birthof a Child,” Demography 52 (5) (2015): 1463–1485, availableat http://edpolicy.umich.edu/files/musick-michelmore-demography.pdf .

11 Government Accountability Office, “Federal Low-IncomePrograms: Multiple Programs Target Diverse Populationsand Needs.”

12 Sheela Kennedy and Larry Bumpass, “Cohabitation andChildren’s Living Arrangements: New Estimates fromthe United States,” Demographic Research 19 (47) (2008):1663–1692, available at http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol19/47/19-47.pdf .

13 Elizabeth H. Pleck, Not Just Roommates: Cohabitation afterthe Sexual Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,2012).

14 Ashley Provencher, “Unit of Analysis for Poverty Measure-ment: A Comparison of the Supplemental Poverty Measureand the Official Poverty Measure” (Washington: Bureau ofthe Census Housing and Household Economic StatisticsDivision, 2011), available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/SPM_Uni-tofAnalysis_Provencher.pdf .

15 Liana Fox and others, “The Changing Face of Poverty in theUS: The Influence of Family Structure, Employment Patterns,and the Safety Net from 1967-2012,” Presentation at the2015 Annual Meeting of the Population Association ofAmerica, May 1, 2015, available at http://paa2015.princeton.edu/uploads/151618.

16 Tach and Edin, “The Compositional and Institutional Sourcesof Union Dissolution for Married and Unmarried Parents inthe United States.”

17 Musick and Michelmore, “Change in the Stability of Maritaland Cohabiting Unions Following the Birth of a Child.”

18 See Fremstad and Boteach, “Valuing All Our Families.”

19 Heidi Hartmann, Jeffrey Hayes, and Jennifer Clark, “HowEqual Pay for Working Women would Reduce Poverty andGrow the American Economy” (Washington: Institute forWomen’s Policy Research, 2014), availab le at http://www.

iwpr.org/publications/pubs/how-equal-pay-for-working-women-would-reduce-poverty-and-grow-the-american-economy.

20 See Tach and Edin, “The Compositional and InstitutionalSources of Union Dissolution for Married and UnmarriedParents in the United States.”

21 Sheela Kennedy and Catherine A. Fitch, “Measuring Cohabi-tation and Family Structure in the United States: Assessingthe Impact of New Data from the Current PopulationSurvey,” Demography 49 (4) (2012): 1479–1498.

22 Office of Family Assistance, “About TANF,” available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf/about (lastaccessed January 2016).

23 Under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Familiesregulations, in a family with two parents that does notreceive child care assistance, the parents must participatein specified work activities for a combined average of at

least 35 hours per week in o rder to count toward the workparticipation rate that each state must meet to avoid penal-ties. If the family receives child care assistance, they mustparticipate in work activities for a combined average of atleast 55 hours per week to c ount toward the work rate. See45 C.F.R. §261.32.

http://www.ibtimes.com/among-rubios-solutions-war-poverty-get-married-1533214http://www.ibtimes.com/among-rubios-solutions-war-poverty-get-married-1533214http://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article44468157.htmlhttp://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article44468157.htmlhttp://www.gao.gov/assets/680/671779.pdfhttp://www.gao.gov/assets/680/671779.pdfhttps://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/report/2015/01/12/104149/valuing-all-our-families/https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/report/2015/01/12/104149/valuing-all-our-families/http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/september/documents/papa-francesco_20150926_usa-festa-famiglie.htmlhttp://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/september/documents/papa-francesco_20150926_usa-festa-famiglie.htmlhttp://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/september/documents/papa-francesco_20150926_usa-festa-famiglie.htmlhttp://www.legalmomentum.org/sites/default/files/reports/worst-off-single-parent.pdfhttp://www.legalmomentum.org/sites/default/files/reports/worst-off-single-parent.pdfhttp://www.legalmomentum.org/sites/default/files/reports/worst-off-single-parent.pdfhttp://www.ipums.org/http://www.ipums.org/http://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-15-03-birth-trends-single-cohabiting-moms.pdfhttp://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-15-03-birth-trends-single-cohabiting-moms.pdfhttp://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-15-03-birth-trends-single-cohabiting-moms.pdfhttp://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-15-03-birth-trends-single-cohabiting-moms.pdfhttp://edpolicy.umich.edu/files/musick-michelmore-demography.pdfhttp://edpolicy.umich.edu/files/musick-michelmore-demography.pdfhttp://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol19/47/19-47.pdfhttp://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol19/47/19-47.pdfhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/SPM_UnitofAnalysis_Provencher.pdfhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/SPM_UnitofAnalysis_Provencher.pdfhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/SPM_UnitofAnalysis_Provencher.pdfhttp://paa2015.princeton.edu/uploads/151618http://paa2015.princeton.edu/uploads/151618http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/how-equal-pay-for-working-women-would-reduce-poverty-and-grow-the-american-economyhttp://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/how-equal-pay-for-working-women-would-reduce-poverty-and-grow-the-american-economyhttp://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/how-equal-pay-for-working-women-would-reduce-poverty-and-grow-the-american-economyhttp://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/how-equal-pay-for-working-women-would-reduce-poverty-and-grow-the-american-economyhttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf/abouthttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf/abouthttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf/abouthttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf/abouthttp://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/how-equal-pay-for-working-women-would-reduce-poverty-and-grow-the-american-economyhttp://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/how-equal-pay-for-working-women-would-reduce-poverty-and-grow-the-american-economyhttp://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/how-equal-pay-for-working-women-would-reduce-poverty-and-grow-the-american-economyhttp://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/how-equal-pay-for-working-women-would-reduce-poverty-and-grow-the-american-economyhttp://paa2015.princeton.edu/uploads/151618http://paa2015.princeton.edu/uploads/151618http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/SPM_UnitofAnalysis_Provencher.pdfhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/SPM_UnitofAnalysis_Provencher.pdfhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/SPM_UnitofAnalysis_Provencher.pdfhttp://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol19/47/19-47.pdfhttp://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol19/47/19-47.pdfhttp://edpolicy.umich.edu/files/musick-michelmore-demography.pdfhttp://edpolicy.umich.edu/files/musick-michelmore-demography.pdfhttp://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-15-03-birth-trends-single-cohabiting-moms.pdfhttp://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-15-03-birth-trends-single-cohabiting-moms.pdfhttp://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-15-03-birth-trends-single-cohabiting-moms.pdfhttp://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-15-03-birth-trends-single-cohabiting-moms.pdfhttp://www.ipums.org/http://www.ipums.org/http://www.legalmomentum.org/sites/default/files/reports/worst-off-single-parent.pdfhttp://www.legalmomentum.org/sites/default/files/reports/worst-off-single-parent.pdfhttp://www.legalmomentum.org/sites/default/files/reports/worst-off-single-parent.pdfhttp://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/september/documents/papa-francesco_20150926_usa-festa-famiglie.htmlhttp://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/september/documents/papa-francesco_20150926_usa-festa-famiglie.htmlhttp://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/september/documents/papa-francesco_20150926_usa-festa-famiglie.htmlhttps://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/report/2015/01/12/104149/valuing-all-our-families/https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/report/2015/01/12/104149/valuing-all-our-families/http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/671779.pdfhttp://www.gao.gov/assets/680/671779.pdfhttp://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article44468157.htmlhttp://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article44468157.htmlhttp://www.ibtimes.com/among-rubios-solutions-war-poverty-get-married-1533214http://www.ibtimes.com/among-rubios-solutions-war-poverty-get-married-1533214


18/18

24 Eloise Anderson, Testimony before the House Committee onWays and Means, Subcommittee on Human Resources, April30, 2015, available at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Eloise_Anderson_Testimony_043015_HR3.pdf. In a recent Washington Post story, reporter Chico Harlandocumented how unemployed parents seeking help fromGeorgia’s TANF program were told during an orientation bythe TANF agency that it was only available “in specific c ases”and if they were “in a two -parent home” they “needed toleave.” See Chico Harlan, “When the poor are forced to thesuburbs, getting to work becomes a huge challenge,” TheWashington Post , December 28, 2015, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/2015/12/28/954

5f3ac-9e95-11e5-a3c5-c77f2cc5a43c_story.html. For ad-ditional discussion o f TANF’s ineffectiveness when it comesto helping struggling married parents, see Shawn Fremstad,“Temporary Assistance Doesn’t Help Impoverished MarriedParents,” TalkPoverty.org, May 1, 2015, available at http://talkpoverty.org/2015/05/01/temporary-assistance/; ShawnFremstad and Melissa Boteach, “How Progressive PoliciesCan Strengthen Marriage and Family Life,” Family Studies,February 10, 2015, available at http://family-studies.org/how-progressive-policies-can-strengthen-marriage-and-family-life/.

25 Author’s calculation from Bureau of the Census, HealthInsurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by SelectedCharacteristics: 2014 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2015), Table HI01, available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032015/health/toc.htm.

26 Ibid.

27 Kaiser Family Foundation, “Status of State Action on theMedicaid Expansion Decisio n,” available at http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-affordable-care-act/ (lastaccessed January 2016).

28 Author’s analysis of the 2015 Current Population Survey An-nual Social and Economic Supplement using the Census Bu-reau’s Current Population Survey table creator. See Bureauof the Census, “CPS Table Creator,” available at http://www.census.gov/cps/data/cpstablecreator.html (last accessedDecember 2015). For these figures, “low income” is definedas 150 percent of the official pover ty level.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 Kaiser Family Foundation, “Where Are States Today?Medicaid and CHIP Eligibility Levels for Adults, Children, andPregnant Women” (2015), available at http://kff.org/medic-

aid/fact-sheet/where-are-states-today-medicaid-and-chip/.

32 Internal Revenue Service, “Questions and Answers on thePremium Tax Credit,” available at https://www.irs.gov/Affordable-Care-Act/Individuals-and-Families/Questions-and-Answers-on-the-Premium-Tax-Credit (last accessedJanuary 2016).

33 Ibid.

34 Office of Child Care, FY 2014 Preliminary Data Table 1 - Average Monthly Adjusted Number of Families and ChildrenServed (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,2015), available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/fy-2014-preliminary-data-table-1.

35 Katie Hamm and Carmel Martin, “A New Vision for ChildCare in the United States” (Washington: Center for AmericanProgress, 2015), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/report/2015/09/02/119944/a-

new-vision-for-child-care-in-the-united-states-3/.

36 Chris M. Herbst, “Who are the eligible non-recipients of childcare subsidies?”, Children and Youth Services Review 30 (9)(2008): 1037–1054.

37 Ibid.

38 In 2015, total mandatory and discretionary funding for theChild Care and Development Fund was $5.379 billion. I n2002, total funding was $4.817 billion, which if adjusted forinflation, would have been equal to $6.35 billion in 2015.

39 Office of Child Care, FY 2015 CCDF Allocations (IncludingReallocated Funds) (U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, 2015), available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/fy-2015-ccdf-allocations-including-realloted-funds; Joint Committee on Taxation, Estimatesof Federal Tax Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2015-2019 (2015), available at https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4857.

40 Tax Policy Center, “Taxation and the Family: How doesthe tax system subsidize child care expenses?”, availableat http://www.taxpolic ycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/family/child-care-subsidies.cfm (last accessedJanuary 2016).

41 Amato and others, Alone Together ; Fremstad and Boteach,“Valuing All Ou r Families”; Tach and Edin, “The Composition-al and Institutional Sources of Union Dissolution for Marriedand Unmarried Parents in the United States.”

42 Amber Lapp and David Lapp, “The Conservative Case for aJust Wage,” Family Studies, June 24, 2014, available at http://

family-studies.org/the-conservative-case-for-a-just-wage/.

43 Government Accountability Office, “Federal Low-IncomePrograms: Multiple Programs Target Diverse Populationsand Needs.”

44 Kathleen Short, “Supplemental Poverty Measure Thresholds:2014” (Suitland, MD: Bureau of the Census, 2015), availableat http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/data/supplemen-tal/files/PovertyThresholdLookUp2014values.xlsx.

45 Karl Agne and John Halpin, “50 Years After LBJ’s War onPoverty: A Study of American Attitudes about Work,Economic Opportunity, and the Social Safety Net” (Wash-ington: Center for American Progress, 2014), availableat https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/report/2014/01/07/81702/50-years-after-lbjs-war-on-pover-ty/.

46 Jeffrey M. Jones, “Public: Family of Four Needs to Earn Aver-age of $52,000 to Get By,” Gallup, February 9, 2007, available

at http://www.gallup.com/poll/26467/Public-Family-Four-Needs-Earn-Average-52000-Get.aspx.

47 Author’s analysis of the 2015 Current Population SurveyAnnual Social and Economic Supplement using the CensusBureau’s Current Population Survey table creator. SeeBureau of the Census, “CPS Table Creator.”

48 See, for example, Carmen DeNavas-Walt and BernadetteD. Proctor, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2014”(Suitland, MD: Bureau of the Census, 2015), Table 4, availableat http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf .

49 Provencher, “Unit of Analysis for Poverty Measurement.”
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Eloise_Anderson_Testimony_043015_HR3.pdfhttp://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Eloise_Anderson_Testimony_043015_HR3.pdfhttp://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Eloise_Anderson_Testimony_043015_HR3.pdfhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/2015/12/28/9545f3ac-9e95-11e5-a3c5-c77f2cc5a43c_story.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/2015/12/28/9545f3ac-9e95-11e5-a3c5-c77f2cc5a43c_story.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/2015/12/28/9545f3ac-9e95-11e5-a3c5-c77f2cc5a43c_story.htmlhttp://talkpoverty.org/2015/05/01/temporary-assistance/http://talkpoverty.org/2015/05/01/temporary-assistance/http://family-studies.org/how-progressive-policies-can-strengthen-marriage-and-family-life/http://family-studies.org/how-progressive-policies-can-strengthen-marriage-and-family-life/http://family-studies.org/how-progressive-policies-can-strengthen-marriage-and-family-life/http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032015/health/toc.htmhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032015/health/toc.htmhttp://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-affordable-care-act/http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-affordable-care-act/http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-affordable-care-act/http://www.census.gov/cps/data/cpstablecreator.htmlhttp://www.census.gov/cps/data/cpstablecreator.htmlhttp://kff.org/medicaid/fact-sheet/where-are-states-today-medicaid-and-chip/http://kff.org/medicaid/fact-sheet/where-are-states-today-medicaid-and-chip/https://www.irs.gov/Affordable-Care-Act/Individuals-and-Families/Questions-and-Answers-on-the-Premium-Tax-Credithttps://www.irs.gov/Affordable-Care-Act/Individuals-and-Families/Questions-and-Answers-on-the-Premium-Tax-Credithttps://www.irs.gov/Affordable-Care-Act/Individuals-and-Families/Questions-and-Answers-on-the-Premium-Tax-Credithttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/fy-2014-preliminary-data-table-1http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/fy-2014-preliminary-data-table-1https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/report/2015/09/02/119944/a-new-vision-for-child-care-in-the-united-states-3/https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/report/2015/09/02/119944/a-new-vision-for-child-care-in-the-united-states-3/https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/report/2015/09/02/119944/a-new-vision-for-child-care-in-the-united-states-3/http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/fy-2015-ccdf-allocations-including-realloted-fundshttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/fy-2015-ccdf-allocations-including-realloted-fundshttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/fy-2015-ccdf-allocations-including-realloted-fundshttps://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4857https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4857http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/family/child-care-subsidies.cfmhttp://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/family/child-care-subsidies.cfmhttp://family-studies.org/the-conservative-case-for-a-just-wage/http://family-studies.org/the-conservative-case-for-a-just-wage/http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/data/supplemental/files/PovertyThresholdLookUp2014values.xlsxhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/data/supplemental/files/PovertyThresholdLookUp2014values.xlsxhttps://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/report/2014/01/07/81702/50-years-after-lbjs-war-on-poverty/https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/report/2014/01/07/81702/50-years-after-lbjs-war-on-poverty/https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/report/2014/01/07/81702/50-years-after-lbjs-war-on-poverty/http://www.gallup.com/poll/26467/Public-Family-Four-Needs-Earn-Average-52000-Get.aspxhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/26467/Public-Family-Four-Needs-Earn-Average-52000-Get.aspxhttp://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdfhttp://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdfhttp://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdfhttp://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdfhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/26467/Public-Family-Four-Needs-Earn-Average-52000-Get.aspxhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/26467/Public-Family-Four-Needs-Earn-Average-52000-Get.aspxhttps://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/report/2014/01/07/81702/50-years-after-lbjs-war-on-poverty/https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/report/2014/01/07/81702/50-years-after-lbjs-war-on-poverty/https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/report/2014/01/07/81702/50-years-after-lbjs-war-on-poverty/http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/data/supplemental/files/PovertyThresholdLookUp2014values.xlsxhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/data/supplemental/files/PovertyThresholdLookUp2014values.xlsxhttp://family-studies.org/the-conservative-case-for-a-just-wage/http://family-studies.org/the-conservative-case-for-a-just-wage/http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/family/child-care-subsidies.cfmhttp://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/family/child-care-subsidies.cfmhttps://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4857https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4857http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/fy-2015-ccdf-allocations-including-realloted-fundshttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/fy-2015-ccdf-allocations-including-realloted-fundshttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/fy-2015-ccdf-allocations-including-realloted-fundshttps://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/report/2015/09/02/119944/a-new-vision-for-child-care-in-the-united-states-3/https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/report/2015/09/02/119944/a-new-vision-for-child-care-in-the-united-states-3/https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/report/2015/09/02/119944/a-new-vision-for-child-care-in-the-united-states-3/http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/fy-2014-preliminary-data-table-1http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/fy-2014-preliminary-data-table-1https://www.irs.gov/Affordable-Care-Act/Individuals-and-Families/Questions-and-Answers-on-the-Premium-Tax-Credithttps://www.irs.gov/Affordable-Care-Act/Individuals-and-Families/Questions-and-Answers-on-the-Premium-Tax-Credithttps://www.irs.gov/Affordable-Care-Act/Individuals-and-Families/Questions-and-Answers-on-the-Premium-Tax-Credithttp://kff.org/medicaid/fact-sheet/where-are-states-today-medicaid-and-chip/http://kff.org/medicaid/fact-sheet/where-are-states-today-medicaid-and-chip/http://www.census.gov/cps/data/cpstablecreator.htmlhttp://www.census.gov/cps/data/cpstablecreator.htmlhttp://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-affordable-care-act/http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-affordable-care-act/http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-affordable-care-act/http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032015/health/toc.htmhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032015/health/toc.htmhttp://family-studies.org/how-progressive-policies-can-strengthen-marriage-and-family-life/http://family-studies.org/how-progressive-policies-can-strengthen-marriage-and-family-life/http://family-studies.org/how-progressive-policies-can-strengthen-marriage-and-family-life/http://talkpoverty.org/2015/05/01/temporary-assistance/http://talkpoverty.org/2015/05/01/temporary-assistance/https://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/2015/12/28/9545f3ac-9e95-11e5-a3c5-c77f2cc5a43c_story.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/2015/12/28/9545f3ac-9e95-11e5-a3c5-c77f2cc5a43c_story.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/2015/12/28/9545f3ac-9e95-11e5-a3c5-c77f2cc5a43c_story.htmlhttp://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Eloise_Anderson_Testimony_043015_HR3.pdfhttp://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Eloise_Anderson_Testimony_043015_HR3.pdfhttp://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Eloise_Anderson_Testimony_043015_HR3.pdf

partnered but poor

Documents