The economic difficulties of women raising children alone have not altered in almost 20 years: They are still almost as likely to live in poverty as not.
Three out of every 10 U.S. families are headed by a single parent, and 86 percent of these single parents are women.Nearly 46 percent of all female-headed families with children under 18 are poor, while only 18 percent of all families with children are poor. Of all poor families with children, 60 percent are female-headed households.
No matter how you examine the statistics, they say the same thing: To think single mother is to think poverty.
The current welfare reform debate suggests that changing the welfare system and decreasing the welfare rolls will somehow address the problem of poverty among single mothers.
The welfare system, however, is not the problem. Tinkering with the welfare system and applying the reforms currently being debated - some geared to getting women off welfare and into jobs, often through punitive reforms - won't solve the problem of women in poverty.
And the rising number of single mothers who are living at or below the poverty level strongly suggests the same.
Attempts to reduce welfare costs have prompted a trend toward punishing welfare recipients.
In New Jersey, for example, welfare mothers who bear additional children are denied benefits for those children. And House Republicans have proposed a national welfare reform plan that would cut off federal payments to unmarried mothers under 18.
Punitive measures play into the myths, such as having babies for the money, about women on welfare. The myths justify the measures and the measures reinforce the myths.
In New Jersey, before the restricted benefits law was enacted, a woman on welfare who had another child received an additional $64 a month for that child. Given this increment, compared to the costs, time and effort of raising a child, no one conducting cost-benefit analysis would ever conclude that having a baby was a way to make money.
Even substantial labor force participation would not necessarily bring single mothers out of poverty, primarily because of the low wages they earn.
Those low-paying jobs, particularly in the service sector, make public assistance a necessary additional support. It might even be argued that current welfare expenditures actually subsidize these industries.
A 1991 U.S. General Accounting Office report also found that single mothers are vulnerable to layoffs, lack important fringe benefits such as paid sick leave, and have high expenses for child care.
They conclude that single mothers will remain near or below the poverty line even if they have full-time jobs.
Women raising children alone often are in poverty because of the ABCs of poverty. `A' is the absence of the education and training necessary to qualify for a good-paying job; `B' is the betrayal by the mate, the father of the children; and `C' is negative childhood experiences and non-supportive family influences.
The combination of the first two precipitate a woman's decline into poverty. The third factor, when present, contributes to the decline and undermines efforts to climb out of poverty.
Policymakers must be willing to help single mothers to raise their children well and to obtain an income sufficient to live a decent life.
A greater national commitment is necessary to encourage educational systems, businesses and industries, housing and community institutions to be "single-mother friendly."
There is also a need to strengthen national efforts to eliminate barriers to educational and employment opportunities, and to start national policies providing access to affordable health care and affordable, high-quality child care.
For poor, single mothers, these become part of a solid foundation upon which to place the stepping stool out of poverty. If national leaders continue to ignore the problem, then poor, single mothers probably will stay stuck in the revolving door of moving on and off public assistance. If even that door closes, the outcome for them is bleak.