Posted on 08/10/2007 7:29:53 AM PDT by Clemenza
The horrific, execution-style killing of three teens in Newark last weekend has sparked widespread outrage and promises of reform from politicians, religious leaders, and community activists, who are pledging a renewed campaign against the violence that plagues New Jersey’s largest city. But much of the reaction, though well-intentioned, misses the point. Behind Newark’s persistent violence and deep social dysfunction is a profound cultural shift that has left many of the city’s children growing up outside the two-parent family—and in particular, growing up without fathers. Decades of research tell us that such children are far likelier to fail in school and work and to fall into violence than those raised in two-parent families. In Newark, we are seeing what happens to a community when the traditional family comes close to disappearing.
According to 2005 figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, only 32 percent of Newark children are being raised by their parents in a two-adult household. The rest are distributed among families led by grandparents, foster parents, and single parents—mostly mothers. An astonishing 60 percent of the city’s kids are growing up without fathers. It isn’t that traditional families are breaking up; they aren’t even getting started. The city has one of the highest out-of-wedlock birthrates in the country, with about 65 percent of its children born to unmarried women. And 70 percent of those births are to women who are already poor, meaning that their kids are born directly into poverty.
The economic consequences of these numbers are unsettling, since single parenthood is a road to lasting poverty in America today. In Newark, single parents head 83 percent of all families living below the poverty line. If you are a child born into a single-parent family in Newark, your chances of winding up in poverty are better than one in five, but if you are born into a two-parent family, those chances drop to just one in twelve.
And the social consequences are even more disturbing. Research conducted in the 1990s found that a child born out of wedlock was three times more likely to drop out of school than the average child, and far more likely to wind up on welfare as an adult. Studies have also found that about 70 percent of the long-term prisoners in our jails, those who have committed the most violent crimes, grew up without fathers.
The starkness of these statistics makes it astonishing that our politicians and policy makers ignore the subject of single parenthood, as if it were outside the realm of civic discourse. And our religious leaders, who once preached against such behavior, now also largely avoid the issue, even as they call for prayer vigils and organize stop-the-violence campaigns in Newark. Often, in this void, the only information that our teens and young adults get on the subject of marriage, children, and family life comes through media reports about the lifestyles of our celebrity entertainers and athletes, who have increasingly shunned matrimony and traditional families. Once, such news might have been considered scandalous; today, it is reported matter-of-factly, as if these pop icons’ lives were the norm.
Faced with such a profound shift in attitudes, even well-designed, well-intentioned government programs that have worked elsewhere may have only limited success in a community like Newark. The city’s dynamic new mayor, Cory Booker, has moved quickly to import successful ideas and programs, including rigorous quality-of-life policing from New York City. Booker is advocating sensible changes to fix the city’s troubled school system, which graduates a shockingly low number of students, and he’s looking at job training programs to get fathers involved, at least economically, in their children’s lives.
But Booker has also shown frustration at the slow pace of change in Newark, and earlier this week he observed that the city’s problems didn’t start yesterday and won’t be solved tomorrow. Given that some 3,750 kids are born every year into fatherless Newark families, Booker’s prediction may be depressingly correct.
Re: Crimmigration
That needs to be part of a bumber sticker.
Stop the press!!!
Hillary’s got the answer.
It takes a village.
Well, as a “libertarian-type conservative”, I stick to my views. Government is a failure in virtually every area it gets involved in. Why should we think it would be different for “marriage and family structure”?
I agree that absent fathers are at the heart of this problem, and many (cultural) liberals may true to ignore that fact. But it’s not something that can be changed through government.
It's probably not something that can be *improved* by government, but what do you say about the effect of government-sanctioned same-sex "marriages"? I say that it makes traditional marriage meaningless and serves to erode the institution.
How say the libertarians upon this issue?
Even though, as we all know, it was created as a result of government policies and programs.
I got to say this, if you are a young man in Newark (any race, creed or religion) who does take on the responsibility of being the active father of your kids and spouse to your children’s mother, your first thought is to get your kids and spouse the hell out of Newark ASAP.
So there numbers are a bit skewed do to “nuclear family flight” out to wherever, anywhere but Camden is better than Newark.
I think marriage is a religious institution and government should have nothing to do with it. I think marriage should be up to the churches, and civil unions (for heterosexual and homosexual couples) should be the jurisdiction of the government.
Let me clarify - it cannot be IMPROVED through government. Almost anything can be made WORSE by government.
Why just couples?
I suppose it wouldn’t necessary have to be just couples, but I think a primary partnership would have to be defined for certain things, such as medical decisions. Spousal privilege is another good reason for limiting the number to one - otherwise we could have cover-ups by civil union. Also, I think it’s reasonable for companies to limit marriage/domestic partner benefits to only one other person. But, as far as inheritance, distrubtion of assets, etc., people can involve as many others as they want.
I'm also unable to locate the words 'civil union' in there as well.
Maybe they've emanated from a penumbra I've missed...
L
This is the fruits of Feminism and Liberalism. Enjoy, America.
That’s correct. I was referring to states having civil unions, if that’s what they decided they wanted.
L
Which interestingly happens to be right about when the last Republicans were elected there. Coincidence ? Naaaaah.
According to 2005 figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, only 32 percent of Newark children are being raised by their parents in a two-adult household.I call BS.
Surely the percentages can't be that high.
OK, everybody, let’s blame it on the mothers again. Crime is not the fault of criminals. I am so tired of hearing this from the Manhattan Institute—I think they must sing it in round from at lunch.
The end of WWII was when all the defense work dried up, and there was much of it in Newark.
from = form
The author says... “single parenthood is a road to lasting poverty in America today.”
Not only today and not only in America - it is a BAD idea anywhere and anytime it has been tried. Why do you think ‘middle-class values’ came into such wide acceptance? As the wisdom of marrying BEFORE having kids spread through society, the prosperity of society increased - that’s why America grew such a big middle class. Stability and prosperity rest on middle-class morality. Government cannot mandate it, but can support and encourage it - and I think they should. Society can also do its part by reintroducing social pressure - if we can get past the fear of being considered prudish and judgemental.
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.