Skip to main content

Blacks and the family cap: pregnancy, abortion, and spillovers

Abstract

While reducing out-of-wedlock childbearing is a central goal of welfare reform, most policymakers prefer achieving this objective via a reduction in nonmarital pregnancy rates rather than through an increase in the incidence of abortion. Using aggregate state-level data from 1984 to 1998, I estimate fixed effects models that allow for autocorrelated and heteroskedastic disturbances to examine the association between the family cap and nonmarital birth, pregnancy, and abortion rates. I find robust evidence that the family cap is associated with a reduction in nonmarital birth rates, particularly among black women. This reduction is driven by a reduction in nonmarital pregnancy rates rather than through an increase in abortion or marriage rates. These findings suggest that that the stigmatizing effect of the family cap may influence the nonmarital pregnancy decisions of black women.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. In 1999, Alabama, Washington, DC, Michigan, California, and Massachusetts were each awarded $20M under the “Bonus to Reward a Decrease in Illegitimacy.” In 2000, Alabama, Washington, DC, Michigan, Arizona, and Illinois won. In 2001, Alabama, Washington, DC, and Michigan were each awarded $25M.

  2. I also include a variable that captures whether border states have Medicaid funding restrictions for abortions. As in Blank et al. (1996), I use a weighted average of distances from the state’s capital to neighboring states’ capitals to capture effects of neighboring states’ policies on in-state pregnancy, birth, and abortion rates.

  3. I find no evidence that states’ adoption of a family cap or a parental involvement law impacts their decision to report abortions by age, marital status, or race.

  4. While the NCHS does not report data on abortions disaggregated by age and marital status, a few states do provide this information in the late 1990s. These data reflect that 97–99% of abortions to all teens are to unmarried teens. A similar problem exists when constructing the black nonmarital pregnancy rate. The NCHS does not provide abortion data by race and marital status. Hence, the measure of the number of pregnancies is upwardly biased to the extent that abortions to married women are included. However, a few states do provide data by race and marital status in the years 1997–1999. Ninety-one percent of blacks who obtained abortions in Pennsylvania during this period were unmarried. In Louisiana, that figure was 87%, and in Arkansas it was 90%.

  5. The denominator includes both married and unmarried women and is obtained from US Census estimates. The Current Population Survey provides some information on marital status, but these data are not representative by state; hence, they were not credible in constructing estimates of the state-specific nonmarital female population.

  6. Prior to 1997, 18 states adopted and enforced time limits on welfare receipt. Time limits became mandatory under PRWORA, with a maximum federal time limit of 5 years and a minimum time limit of 2 years. The minor teen parent living arrangement waiver was adopted by 14 states prior to 1996 and by almost all states following the passage of national welfare reform. This law prohibited an unmarried, minor custodial parent from receiving AFDC benefits unless she lived with a parent, legal guardian, or other adult relative. The school attendance and performance requirement—adopted by 24 states prior to 1996 and nearly all states (47) following PRWORA—required that children of welfare recipients attend school and perform well in order for the family to continue receiving AFDC benefits. This program is targeted at breaking the cycle of welfare dependence in families. Expansions in AFDC-UP were adopted by 27 states prior to 1997 and nearly all states by 1997. These expansions loosened welfare eligibility requirements, thereby allowing more married couples to qualify for benefits. Expansions in the wealth and income disregards were approved by 34 states prior to 1997 and were designed to reduce the disincentive to work by permitting welfare recipients to keep more of their earnings and wealth without having their welfare benefits reduced. Income disregard expansions became widespread following the passage of national welfare reform. During the 1990s, states began to more vigorously crack down on “deadbeat dads.” Prior to 1997, 12 states adopted policies that levied sanctions for noncompliance with child support establishment. Most of these sanctions reduced or cut off welfare benefits to unmarried women who refused to cooperate in the establishment of paternity. President Clinton championed this policy as a central feature of the 1996 welfare reform bill. Finally, over the 1984–1996 period, 37 states adopted stricter work requirements for welfare recipients. These requirements eliminated many of the previous exceptions to state work requirements. Strict work requirements were mandatory after the passage of PRWORA.

  7. Several states require a minor to obtain parental consent or parental notification before an abortion is performed. Parental consent laws require at least one parent to sign a legal waiver for her daughter to obtain an abortion. Parental notification laws require at least one parent to be informed that her daughter will be obtaining an abortion. A state has a binding parental involvement law if the state government enforces a consent or notification law, and the courts have not enjoined the law.

    Second, many states ban the use of Medicaid funding for abortions, though in some states, such laws have been overturned by court order. Following the passage of the Hyde Amendment in the mid-1970s, Medicaid funding restrictions have become quite common.

    Ten states require women to wait a specified length of time—usually 24 h and sometimes 48 h—before an abortion is performed. Often, these waiting periods are accompanied by state-directed counseling, which provides women with information on alternatives to abortion such as adoption.

  8. None of the other policy variables were significant.

  9. Analyses using HRP waiver definitions produce similar results as those presented in Tables 5 and 6. Moreover, analyses using the functional form chosen by HRP also produce similar results. Moreover, models that shorted the length of the panel from 1990 to 1998 also produced similar results.

  10. Note that the sum of the marginal effects of the family cap on birth rates and abortion rates does not equal the marginal effect of the policy on pregnancy rates. One explanation for the lack of “adding up” is random error. A second is that pregnancy data are measured with error. A third is that the birth, pregnancy, and abortion regressions are not all run on the same sample. Birth data by marital status (and race) is available from every state over the period 1984–1998. As noted in the data section, one limitation of abortion data by marital status (and race) is that the CDC began publishing these data in 1989 and not all states reported. Hence, the samples for the pregnancy and abortion equations are substantially smaller than for the birth equations, leading to estimates that may not “add up” across equations.

  11. The nonmarital postteen pregnancy rate cannot be credibly estimated, since abortions are not reported by age and marital status, and the proportion of abortions to married postteens is significantly larger than the proportion of abortions to married teens.

  12. The magnitude and significance of the coefficients on the family cap are robust to various specifications. For example, a model including a shortened panel (1990–1998) that allowed for fewer years prior to the first family cap being adopted (1992) produced similar results.

References

  • Abramovitz M (2001) A triple whammy for the poor: the combined impact of welfare reform, the recession, and the world trade center attack. National Association of Social Workers Website, NYC Chapter: http://www.naswnyc.org/w21.html. Hunter College School of Social Work, NY, NY

  • Acs G (1994) The impact of AFDC on young women’s childbearing decisions. Mimeograph. The Urban Institute, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs G (1996) The impact of welfare on young mothers’ subsequent childbearing decisions. J Hum Resour 31(4):898–915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • An C, Haveman, R, Wolfe B (1993) Teen out-of-wedlock births and welfare receipt: the role of childhood events and economic circumstances. Rev Econ Stat 75(2):195–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argys LM, Averett SL, Rees DI (2000) Welfare generosity, pregnancies, and abortions among unmarried AFDC recipients. J Popul Econ 13(4):569–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avery JM, Peffley M (2003) Race matters: the impact of news coverage of welfare reform on public opinion. In: Schram S, Soss J, Fording R (eds) Race and the politics of welfare reform. University of Michigan Press

  • Becker GS (1980) A treatise on the family. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Blank RM, George CC, London RA (1996) State abortion rates: the impact of policies, providers, demographics, and economic environment. J Health Econ 15(4):513–553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bobo LD, Kluegel JR (1993) Opposition to race targeting: self-interest, stratification ideology, or racial attitudes? Am Soc Rev 58:443–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camasso MJ, Jagannathan R, Killingsworth R (1998) New Jersey’s family development program, results on program impacts, experimental–control group analysis. Rutgers University, mimeo

  • Chamberlain G (1980) Analysis of covariance with qualitative data. Rev Econ Stud 47(1):225–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clawson RA, Trice R (2000) Poverty as we know it: media portrayals of the poor. Public Opin Q 64(1):53–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan G, Hoffman S (1990a) Welfare benefits, economic opportunities, and out-of-wedlock births among black teenage girls. Demography 27(4):519–535

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan G, Hoffman S (1990b) Welfare receipt and subsequent dependence among black adolescent mothers. Fam Plann Perspect 22(1):16–20

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer WT, Fairlie RW (2001) Do family caps reduce out-of-wedlock births? Evidence from Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, New Jersey, and Virginia. Manuscript, University of California at Santa Cruz, Department of Economics

  • Ellwood D, Bane M (1985) The impact of AFDC on family structure and living arrangements. In: Ehrenberg R (ed) Research in labor economics. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 137–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairlie RW, London RA (1997) The effect of incremental benefits levels on births to AFDC recipients. J Policy Anal Manage 16(4):575–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald JM, Ribar D (2001) The impact of welfare waivers on female headship decisions. JCPR working paper 247

  • Garfinkel I, Gaylin D, McLanahan S, Huang C (1999) Will child support enforcement reduce nonmarital childbearing? Unpublished paper

  • Gilens M (1999) Why Americans hate welfare: race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. University of Chicago, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Haveman R, Wolfe B, Wilson K (1997a) Intergenerational transmission of high school graduation and teen nonmarital births: reduced form and structural estimates. In: Duncan G, Brooks-Gunn J (eds) Consequences of growing up poor. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp 419–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Haveman RH, Wolfe B, Peterson E (1997b) Children of early childbearers as young adults. In: Maynard R (ed) Kids having kids: economic costs and social consequences of teen pregnancy. Urban Institute, Washington, DC, pp 257–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman S, Foster EM (1997a) Economic correlates of nonmarital childbearing among adult women. Fam Plann Perspect 29(3):137–140

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman S, Foster EM (1997b) Could it be true after all? AFDC benefits and non-marital births to young women. Unpublished manuscript

  • Horvath-Rose A, Peters HE (2001) Welfare waivers and non-marital childbearing. In: Duncan G, Chase-Lansdale PL (eds) For better or for worse: welfare reform and the well-being of children and families. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp 222–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvath-Rose A, Peters HE, Sabia JJ (2003) Capping kids: the family cap and nonmarital childbearing. Cornell University, unpublished paper

  • Hudson JL (2000) Welfare and subsequent childbearing: the potential impact of the family cap law. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Seattle, WA

  • Jagannathan R, Camasso MJ (2003) The racial and contextual conditioning of welfare reform on non-marital fertility: the impact of New Jersey’s family cap experiment. J Marriage Fam 65:52–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce T, Kaestner R, Korenman S (2004a) Welfare reform and non-marital fertility in the 1990s: evidence from birth records. Adv Econ Analysis Policy 3(1):1108

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce T, Kaestner R, Korenman S, Henshaw S (2004b) Family cap provisions and changes in births and abortions. Popul Res Policy Rev 23:475–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney MS (2004) Is there an effect of incremental welfare benefits on fertility behavior? A look at the family cap. J Hum Resour 39(2):295–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine P (2003) Parental involvement laws and fertility behavior. J Health Econ 22(5):861–878

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lichter D (1995) The retreat from marriage and the rise in nonmarital fertility. In: DHHS Public Health Service (ed) Report to congress on out of wedlock childbearing. DHHS Pub No. (PHS) 95-1257, pp 137–146

  • Lundberg S, Plotnick R (1990) Effects of state welfare, abortion and family planning policies on premarital childbearing among white adolescents. Fam Plann Perspect 22(6):246–251

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg S, Plotnick R (1995) Adolescent premarital childbearing: do economic incentives matter? J Labor Econ 13(2):177–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mach T (2001) Measuring the impact of family caps on childbearing decisions. Department of Economics, Discussion Paper #00-04, 2000. SUNY, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • Manlove J (1998) The influence of high school dropout and school disengagement on the risk of school-age pregnancy. J Res Adolesc 8(2):187–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moffitt RA (1998) Welfare, the family, and reproductive behavior: research perspectives. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore K, Caldwell S (1977) The effect of government policies on out-of-wedlock sex and pregnancy. Fam Plann Perspect 9:164–169

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore K, Morrison D, Glei D (1995) Welfare and adolescent sex: the effects of family history, benefit levels, and community context. J Fam Econ Issues 16(2/3):207–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray C (1993) Welfare and the family: the US experience. J Labor Econ 11(2):S224–S262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohannessian C, Crockett L (1993) A longitudinal investigation of the relationship between educational investment and adolescent sexual activity. J Adolesc Res 8(2):167–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peffley M, Hurwitz J, Sinderman P (1997) Racial stereotypes and white’s political views of blacks in the context of welfare and crime. Am J Pol Sci 41:30–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seccombe K, James D, Battle Walters K (1998) ‘They think you ain’t much of nothing’: the social construction of the welfare mother. J Marriage Fam 60:849–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • South SJ, Lloyd KM (1992) Marriage opportunities and family formation: further implications of imbalanced sex ratios. J Marriage Fam 54:440–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terkildsen N (1993) When white voters evaluate black candidates: the effects of candidate race and skin color. Manuscript, SUNY at Stony Brook

  • Turturro C, Benda B, Turney H (1997) Arkansas welfare waiver demonstration project: final report. University of Arkansas, Little Rock

    Google Scholar 

  • Ventura SJ (1995) Births to unmarried mothers: United States 1980–92. Vital Health Stat 21(53). National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, Maryland

  • Wallace G (2001) The effects of family caps on the subsequent fertility decisions of welfare mothers. Unpublished paper

  • Wilson WJ (1987) The truly disadvantaged: the inner city, the underclass, and public policy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Ann Horvath-Rose for her work in collecting much of the policy and socioeconomic data used in this paper, Liz Peters for her guidance, and Don Kenkel for his suggestions. Special thanks to J.S. Butler and Andrew Sfekas for their econometric advice. I would also like to thank two anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph J. Sabia.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Junsen Zhang

Appendix

Appendix

Table 7 Definitions of dependent variables
Table 8 Data sources

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sabia, J.J. Blacks and the family cap: pregnancy, abortion, and spillovers. J Popul Econ 21, 111–134 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-005-0049-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-005-0049-4

Keywords

  • Family cap
  • Abortion
  • Welfare reform

JEL Classification

  • J13
  • I38
  • J18