CHANGES IN FAMILY STRUCTURE AND WELFARE PARTICIPATION SINCE THE 1960S: THE ROLE OF LEGAL SERVICES*

American families changed suddenly and dramatically in the 1960s. Marriage rates fell while divorces and nonmarital births increased (Lundberg and Pollak 2007). The share of mothers who were not married quadrupled between 1960 and 2010 (Figure 1). At the same time, married women’s employment and unmarried women’s welfare participation skyrocketed (Moffitt 1987, Goldin 2006). By 1980, mothers brought in one-third of family income, double their share in 1960. In 1991, Gary Becker reflected that “the family in the Western world has been radically altered— some claim almost destroyed—by the events of the last three decades” (Becker 1991, p. 1)

Understanding what caused these changes, however, has proven difficult.1 The range of explanations include a lack of marriageable men (Wilson 1987), intergenerational effects of a “matriarchal” family structure (Moynihan 1965), contraceptive technology (Akerlof, Yellen, and Katz 1996), second-wave feminism (Chafetz 1995), and the growth of welfare programs (Murray 1984)...

This paper quantifies the role of an overlooked catalyst of shifts in family structure: an expansion in poor communities’ access to the legal system brought about by the Neighborhood Legal Services Program (LSP). This understudied piece of the War on Poverty began in 1965 and tripled the availability of free civil legal consultation in poor areas (Brownell 1971, Subcommittee on Employment Manpower and Poverty 1970).

. LSPs handled individual disputes on issues like divorce, housing, debt collection, welfare, and employment; engaged in community outreach on policing issues and economic empowerment; and sued local bureaucracies perceived as treating the poor unfairly (Johnson 1977). Its originators believed that by translating poor people’s demands into effective legal action, the LSP “would possibly be the single most important thing…in the poverty program” (OEO Assistant General Counsel Stephen Pollak quoting Sargent Shriver in Gillette 1996)...

LSPs directly served thousands of families in divorce cases,..They also indirectly expanded welfare access by working with welfare advocacy groups, writing plain language “welfare manuals” urging poor families to apply for benefits (Davis 1993), and suing local welfare departments over eligibility restrictions.

LSP advocacy and litigation created a plausibly permanent shift in expected public benefits even for those not directly served by LSPs, changing the financial incentive to form singleparent families...Our estimates suggest that the LSP had large effects on local-level family structure and welfare participation...LSP establishment...is associated with short-run increases in divorce rates, and persistent increases in participation in the receipt of welfare payments for single parents (Aid to Families with Dependent Children; AFDC) and nonmarital births. Nonmarital births rise because women forego marriages, not because they have more children, and we view increased access to welfare programs that target single parents as the most likely mechanism.3...

We find that LSP’s local effects account for 17 percent of the nationwide growth in AFDC participation from 1964 to 1979 and 21 to 33 percent of the growth in nonmarital births...

Our results show that policy mattered in the 1960s: the War on Poverty contributed to increases in welfare use and nonmarital births...and bargaining models show how men can use the availability of welfare as a pretext for desertion (Willis 1999, Lundberg and Pollak 1996)...

…women come to realize that welfare benefits and ties within kin networks provide greater security for them and their children.”

the share of mothers who did not live with the father of their children more than doubled between 1960 and 1980 for white women (7.5 to 16.5 percent) and increased by about 64 percent for nonwhite women (27.6 percent to 45.3 percent).

Excerpt of excerpt: less than 600 words out of a 18,222 Word well-researched article.

Which further testifies to the historical reality that insofar as souls are seduced by the liberal victim entitlement mentality, and by liberal morality and forsake spiritual and family values, of God, marriage and family, then they gravitate toward welfare.

Which is how the Left obtains power, akin to Communism, meaning that like as the devil did with Eve, by convincing souls that they are victims of injustice, or magnifying such into a constant psychological condition, then it enables the seducers to present themselves as advocates for them, promising them justice once they are heeded and thus empowered.

Yet which is not true deliverance, but a trap into a deleterious social and spiritual condition which impugns character, and in which race matters more than merit, while the elite selfish Left is always seen as their advocate, though being selfish, self-serving saviors.

See The Big Picture: who is really running the show in the culture war, and its nature and trajectory

Which worked with the black American culture:

In 2012 The U.S Census Bureau released a report that studied the history of marriage in the United States. They discovered some startling statistics when calculating marriage by race. They found that African Americans age 35 and older were more likely to be married than White Americans from 1890 until sometime around the 1960s. Not only did they swap places during the 60s but in 1980 the number of NEVER married African Americans began a staggering climb from about 10% to more than 25% by 2010 while the percentage for White women remained under 10% and just over 10% for White men. The first two charts below are charts included in the report only the headings have been altered by BlackDemographics.com to outline these findings.

- https://blackdemographics.com/households/marriage-in-black-america/ Which is a result of culture, not color. . Which a non-PC Berkeley study published in 2007 of the attitude and treatment of recent African immigrants by American blacks serves to illustrate this (FR thread). Excerpt:

"Growing up in Africa . . ., the culture of White racism and prejudice was not part of the African upbringing . . . . [w]e were aware of the history of slavery but, in all cases, we were wil ling to forget and forgive. It never occurred to us that we would be the targets of hate simply because of the color of our skin. Interestingly, ou r Black and brown skins did not open the doors wide for us in the African American community either. We were, and remain to many African Americans, outsiders or beneficiaries of their struggle against a racist society. If we are too successful and live in a nice White neighborhood, then we are accused of betraying our race, being "Black Bourgeois" and wanting to be White. To White neighbors, we are safe because we are Blacks from Africa . . ., not from the South or Brooklyn and, to their stereotypical way of thinking, we do not do drugs or alcohol or have big late night parties."

Just as alcohol abuse can be expected among certain cultures (in this case being much higher among non-black,non-Hispanics) then so behavioral issues can be, and which not must be unreasonably discounted in order to blame disciplinary actions all on racism. Rather, the higher rates of violence in American black culture is related to the decline of the traditional black family which liberal policies fostered.

[1] Data from U.S. Census reports reveal that between 1880-1960, married households consisting of two-parent homes were the most widespread form of African-American family structures. Although the most popular, married households decreased over this time period. Single-parent homes, on the other hand, remained relatively stable until 1960; when they rose dramatically. A study of 1880 family structures in Philadelphia, showed that three-quarters of Black families were nuclear families, composed of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85% of kin-related Black households had two parents. In 1991, 68% of Black children were born outside of marriage. In 2011, 72% of Black babies were born to unmarried mothers. In 2015, 77% of Black babies were born to unmarried mothers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_family_structure

[2] From 1980 thru 2008 93% of black victims were killed by blacks. (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf)

[3] By almost every measure African Americans socioeconomic conditions were better in 1970 than in 1940....Despite these economic and social advances black crime began to escalate markedly in the late 1960s and continued to play a major role in the multi-decade crime boom that followed. (https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2018-African-American-Crime-Rates.pdf)

[4] homicide-victimization rates for black men were 3.9 times the national average and that 52 percent of all known homicide victims were black (2017 data)In 2018, where the homicide victim was black, the suspected killer also was 88 percent of the time. From 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by other African Americans...From 2000 to 2015, the mean African-American homicide-victimization rate, adjusted for age, was 20.1 per 100,000. That’s more than three times the Hispanic rate of 6.4 (despite disadvantages comparable to those of blacks) and over seven times the average white rate, 2.7. Moreover, as already noted, from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of the killers of black murder victims were other African Americans. (https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/12/22/the-need-to-discuss-black-on-black-crime/)

You think that “faith” revival can fix this. I think that economic incentives/punishment (carrots/sticks) can fix this. I admit I am a hopeless cynic—life has shown me that if you reward people for something they start believing it is good and right. If you tax them for it they start believing it is bad and wrong. This is because of the way the human mind works. We act. Then we come up with a million words to justify why we acted. The words are usually inaccurate at best and lies at worst.

Actually, everything that we choose to do is a result, an effect, of what we truly believe, at least at the moment. And overall one's life will be a result of whatever is their ultimate source of security, and object of allegiance, and of spiritual affection (their god). If it is the God of the Bible, then if acting according to it and in response to effectual faith in the risen Lord Jesus and the salvation thru His sinless shed blood, among other things, one will try to avoid being a burden to others [1], but instead be an instrument for good, to make positive changes for time and for eternity in the lives of others. [2]

Which - with dependence upon God as workers with Him [3] - includes showing mercy and compassion [4] relative to supply [4.5] and without burdening others who do not want to help, [5] but working to bring the needy to be productive, [6] and thus provide for his own as able, and penalizing those who refuse to, [7] [8] as well as those who do not reward those who are industrious, [9] and that only by striving lawfully, in accordance of true and Biblical principals, should one be rewarded [10] and find advancement, [11] though ultimately all good is owed to God. [12]

Leftist elites believe that they should not have to answer to anyone, and in lust for power seduce people with the constantly fostered victim entitlement mentality, with its perennial quest for justice for imagined or magnified injustices, by which leftist elites obtain power as pretentious savors, yet overall inculcating dependence upon themselves via the decline of character and the family unit.

While the secular mind can see the Biblical model is logical as beneficial for self and society in the long term, yet lacking any sure supreme moral standard the secular mind can be seduced into supposing that the propaganda of the Left is correct, as multitudes of well-meaning liberals do. Yet we see in the Bible that the devil is the originator of the "Occupy Movement" and its "Share the wealth" premise, of presuming position and or benefits without merit, nor as acts of mercy and grace, but as a matter of justice based upon a false pretext as being victims by not having what they presume they are entitled to, nor, nor worked for. [13] [14]

Whose end shall be just the opposite of those who effectually received mercy and grace in faith of the Lord who provided it, [15 ] by thereby seeking to be ministers of mercy and grace - and judgment - toward others. To the glory of God.

[1] But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden. (Galatians 6:4-5)
[2] Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. (Romans 6:13)
[3] We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. (2 Corinthians 6:1) [4] And of some have compassion, making a difference: (Jude 22)
[4.5] Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; (1 Timothy 6:17-18)
[5] Which have borne witness of thy charity before the church: whom if thou bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, thou shalt do well: Because that for his name’s sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles. (3 John 6-7)
[6] Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. (Ephesians 4:28)
[7] But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)
[8] For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. (2 Thessalonians 3:10)
[9] For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. (1 Timothy 5:18)
[10] And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully. (2 Timothy 2:5)
[11] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. (John 10:1)
[12] But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee. (1 Chronicles 29:14)
[13] How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. (Isaiah 14:12-15)
[14] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:3-5)
[15 ] And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. (Luke 18:13-14)
[16 ] We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake. And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost: So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia. For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing. (1 Thessalonians 1:2-8)

“Actually, everything that we choose to do is a result, an effect, of what we truly believe, at least at the moment.”

That is not how the human mind works—you need a crash course in neuroscience. That is not how the human mind works—you need a crash course in neuroscience.

Rather, a course in conscience is what is needed, as what that neuroscience describes is not contrary to what I said, which specified "what we truly believe, at least at the moment."

“Cognitive dissonance is basically this phenomenon whereby we have a natural drive for consistency, in that our belief system must be consistent with itself and it must be consistent with our actions,” says Matt Johnson, PhD...
Consider an example Johnson often uses in class: Let’s say you’re a vegetarian. You believe that it’s wrong to eat meat, and you also believe you do not eat meat. But one night you go out for drinks and end up having a few too many rounds. Your guard is down. You’re not thinking clearly. At the end of the night, you eat a couple of steak tacos, which of course are not vegetarian. The next day, you probably feel guilty and embarrassed. You may also feel angry with yourself or like a failure for caving on your intention to live a meat-free life.

However, while the person acted contrary to what she normal would, consistent with her chosen beliefs, yet at the moment the only way she could act contrary is if she was not consciously choosing under the influence of alcohol, as if autonomous, or most likely (even due to the same influence) she believed that it would be OK to cheat, to imbibe under the circumstances. We can - and I have - do that without alcohol, yet at the moment I am acting under a belief that justifies it.

Even if there is a gun to my head, threatening to kill me unless I do something contrary to what I believe, then if I do it then I am acting under the belief that considering the circumstances then yielding is the right choices. Which is based upon a belief that actions must have justifiable warrant, even if later our conscience argues otherwise. If I refuse to yield to the pressure, then I am believing that this choice is worth the consequences.

Now to go further as regards accountability, as to actual guilt in the actions of the hypothetical women, if eating meat was wrong, the vegan here was not as accountable for her actions as she would have been if just sitting at home with alternative choices to steak tacos, but in the case at hand she was accountable for bringing on a condition of impaired judgement due to a alcohol.

And she was under the influence due to her belief that this was permissible, and justified under the belief that she could handle it, and or she deserved it, or whatever belief enabled her to rationalize it was justifiable. At least at the moment.

Of course, belief=choices is non restricted to moral actions.

It remains that every choice we make - if it is one we can make - manifests what we truly believe - at least at the moment. Otherwise we would not be making choices, behind which is a belief. And contrary to atheists, faith is not belief in the absence of evidence, but confidence based upon a degree of evidential warrant. Which is how advertising works.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.