Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
122247239
label
Policy Reports 1 [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
122247239
contentType
document
title
Policy Reports 1 [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Lyn Hogan's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
122247239
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7763332-20101083S-004-001-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d0078ce02cc5c18a
ocrText
33
We Believe in Heroes
of
The Robin Hood Foundation
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
III Broadway, New York. New York 10006
PAUL TUDOR JONES II, CHAIR
PETER D. KIERNAN III. VICE CHAIR
(212) 227-6601 Fax: (212) 227-6698
PETER F. BORISH
GEOFFREY CANADA
MAURICE CHESSA
STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER
GLENN R DUBIN
MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Julie Harkavy
JOHN F KENNEDY JR.
Thursday, June 13, 1996
202/739-0215
MARY McCORMICK
JANN WENNER
Stephanie Bartolomeo
212/484-7236
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
DAVID SALTZMAN
GROUNDBREAKING STUDY ON TEENAGE CHILDBEARING
QUANTIFIES DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES TO PARENTS,
CHILDREN AND SOCIETY
Delaying Childbearing Until Age 20 or 21 Significantly Reduces Serious
Health Risks, Likelihood of Poverty for Parents and Children; Lessens
Financial Burden on Society
Washington, DC -- Adolescent parenthood has devastating effects on families,
increasing poverty and significantly increasing the likelihood that the children of
these young parents will face a life of poor health, physical abuse, neglect,
prison and early childbearing, according to a groundbreaking study released
today by the Robin Hood Foundation.
"Kids Having Kids" is the most comprehensive report done on the costs and
consequences of teenage childbearing to parents, children and society.
According to the study, adolescent childbearing costs U.S. taxpayers $6.9
billion per year, and the cost to the nation in lost productivity rises to as much
as $29 billion annually.
Working in teams on eight coordinated studies, a collection of some of the
nation's leading scholars focused their research on the roughly 175,000
American girls who bear their first baby at the age of 17 or younger and
compared the associated economic and social costs to those mothers who delay
childbirth until the age of 20 or 21, which is still two to three years younger
than the national average.
- more -
Kids Having Kids/page2
"Adolescent childbearing is not only a significant personal tragedy, it should be
regarded as a national calamity in that it commits young parents to a life of hardship,
increases the likelihood that their children will suffer the same fate and has staggering
economic and social costs for our nation as a whole," said David Saltzman, executive
director of Robin Hood Foundation, a philanthropic organization dedicated to fighting
poverty in New York City and primary source of funding for the "Kids Having Kids"
report.
"Early parenting wreaks havoc socially -- from the completion of education of the mother
and father to their higher poverty rates," said Rebecca Maynard, "Kids Having Kids" editor
and professor of education and social policy, Graduate School of Education, University of
Pennsylvania. "But the devastation to the lives of their children is prevalent and wide-
ranging."
A few of the hundreds of findings about children born to teenage mothers:
-
Reproducing the Cycle of Poverty -- The girls born to adolescent
moms are up to 83 percent more likely to become teenage moms
themselves, thus reproducing the cycle of poverty and disadvantage
for yet another generation.
-
Trouble in School -- They are 50 percent more likely to repeat a grade and
perform significantly worse on cognitive development tests. They are also
far more likely to drop out of high school than are the children born to
women from the same socio-economic background who wait until the age
of 20 or 21 to have children.
More Childhood Health Problems -- They are more likely to be born
prematurely and 50 percent more likely to be born low birthweight than if
their mothers had waited four years to bear them.
-
Increased Child Abuse and Neglect -- They are twice as likely to be
abused or neglected.
-
Behind Bars -- The teen sons of adolescent mothers are up to 2.7 times
more likely to land in prison than their counterparts in the comparison
group. By extension, adolescent childbearing in and of itself costs
taxpayers roughly $1 billion each year to build and maintain prisons for
the sons of young mothers.
- more -
Kids Having Kids/page 3
-
Foster Children -- Of the estimated 472,000 foster children in the United
States, over 23,000 are the children of adolescent mothers, which in turn
results in a taxpayer burden of approximately $900 million.
The study also examines the consequences of early parenting on teen mothers and the
fathers:
-
70 percent of the mothers drop out of school.
-
They are twice as likely to be dependent on welfare.
A unique component of the study is its examination of the costs and consequences of teen
pregnancy on society:
-
Teen childbearing costs U.S. taxpayers almost $7 billion every year.
-
The cost to society in lost national productivity and avoidable
expenditure of social service resources is as much as $29 billion each
year.
"We hope the disturbing findings of this report will send a wake-up call to America
about the need to find workable solutions to the devastating issue of teenage
parenthood," said Paul Tudor Jones II, founder and chairman of the Robin Hood
Foundation. "Without our help, the children of teenage mothers will themselves
become teenage mothers, thus perpetuating the cycle of abuse, neglect, hardship and
poverty.'
The Robin Hood Foundation was created as a public charity in 1988 to find, fund and
provide management help to the best and most innovative programs serving poor
people in New York City. Since then, the foundation has provided more than $35
million in money, volunteer resources and materials goods to these programs.
###
The New York Times
NEW YORK, THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1991
Nowadays, Robin Hood Gets the Rich to Give to the Poor
By KATHLEEN TELTSCH
lished foundations.
We chose the name because we are a lit-
Robin Hood shows how to make these in-
In the financial world, big payoffs often
"Robin Hood is using a venture-capital
tle off-beat," Mr. Borish said. "I joined in
troductions, say its founders, who have
come to those who can spot the unknown,
approach that is not only giving these com-
because I love this city with a passion. I'm a
tapped their friends and business associ-
untested investment opportunity - and are
munity groups money, but also needed vis-
walking poster for New York. I don't want
ates for money, advice and technical help
willing to take the risk.
ibility and recognition," said Hildy Sim-
to see the city go under."
for the neighborhood organizations, which
mons, a vice president of J.P. Morgan &
Mr. Dubin, who co-founded Dubin and
Now three successful young Wall Street
are often weak in managerial skills.
Company who is president of the New York
Sweica, investment managers, grew up in
traders are applying that principle to
"They were the first group to say 'This is
Regional Association of Grant-Makers.
Washington Heights and went to local pub-
going to fly' when we asked for help to begin
philanthropy. Their four-year-old Robin
Paul Tudor Jones 2d, a 36-year-old multi-
lic schools. He maintains that the yuppie
a day center in Harlem for homeless people
Hood Foundation scours New York City
millionaire commodities trader, put up $3
stereotype of selfish success is largely a
who are HIV-positive," said Larry Pagnoni,
looking for neighborhood organizations that
million to begin Robin Hood in 1987. "I
myth. "It's true the 80's were a period of
executive director of the Upper Room AIDS
rescue the homeless, care for children with
couldn't sleep if I did not have a part in this
great excesses, financially and otherwise,"
Ministry.
AIDS, fight drug abuse or rebuild families.
sort of thing," he said. He invited two close
he said. "But there are lots of caring people
Among the other small organizations that
It gave $2 million last year to 50 local
friends, Peter F. Borish, 31, and Glenn R.
who would give their money and time to
have received money from Robin Hood are
groups, many too unconventional or un-
Dubin, 33, to join him. Each contributed "in
help others if only they were introduced to
tested to attract money from older, estab-
the six-figure range."
the proper situation."
Continued on Page B7
Nowadays, Robin Hood Can Get the Rich to Give to the Poor
Continued From Page BI
Ing mandate from the foundation's
a church basement financed and run by
and should succeed In philanthropy as
eight-member board to find local or-
Joseph H. Holland, a former All Amer-
well." His firm looks after Robin
the Brooklyn Women's Anti-Rape Ex-
ganizations that can make an enduring
ica football player at Cornell, Harvard
Hood's financial Investments; It has an
Impact in the fight against poverty In
change and Project Life, an anti-drug
Law School graduate, playwright and
endowment of $11 million, providing a
New York.
program for young people operated by
an ordained minister, who was an un-
cushion If contributions lag.
Mr. Jones, In turn, said the staff sup-
two New York City police officers from
successful Republican candidate for
Despite his record of support for so-
the back of a van.
plles Robin Hood's "creative edge."
the State Senate in 1985. With his help,
clal causes, Mr. Jones was Involved in
"We had 385 financial contributors
"They don't know what they can't
many of the shelter's homeless men
a legal battle last year that caused con-
do," he sald.
this year; we'll have a thousand next
have pulled their lives together and
cern among foundation staff members.
Relations between board and staff
year and 3,000 the year after," Mr.
some now work in his many enter-
Federal officials charged that he had
members are informal. "Our job Is
Jones predicted.
prlses - he also runs a restaurant,
Illegally filled In Government-pro-
The confidence Is understandable:
coming up with the money," Mr. Jones
travel agency and law office, which had
tected wetlands on Maryland's East-
said. "Their job Is get out on the pave-
He came to New York from Memphls
provided meager funds for Hark-
ern Shore, where he has a 3,000-acre
ment and find heroes." The group's
homes.
in 1978 with $1,700 In capital, Mr. Jones
duck-hunting retreat. He blamed a con-
slogan: "We believe In heroes."
said, began speculating in the cotton
"We also saw the possibilities of
tractor for the Incident but paid a $2
One of Robin Hood's grants went to
leveraging money/from other sources,"
market and other commodities futures,
million fine and agreed to restore the
Harlem's Ark of Freedom, known as
and built his winnings Into the Tudor
Mr. Dubin. said, adding, "This strat-
marshes.
Harkhomes - a five year-old shelter in
Investment Corporation, which now
egy worked for us in the business world
The episode caused painful soul-
handles assets of $600 million. Mr. Bor-
searching among foundation workers
Ish is his director of research and right-
committed to environmental causes,
hand man.
but they say it has been put behind
The corporation has offices In Lon-
them.
don and Tokyo and occuples sky-
'Prince of Thleves'
scraper quarters at One Liberty Plaza
Besides the three original contribu-
In lower Manhattan. Still, Mr. Jones
tors, the board of the Robin Hood Foun-
hangs on to a cramped and dingy cubi-
dation includes Mary McCormick,
cle of an office across the street. He
president of the Fund for the City of
doesn't use it, but he's superstitious -
New York, and Marian Wright Edel-
this Is where he began operations and
man, president of the Children's De-
he does not want to forget where he
fense Fund. John F. Kennedy Jr. is the
came from.
newest board member.
The foundation occuples the adjacent
Jann Wenner, the publisher of Roll-
modest premises at 160 Broadway in a
ing Stone and a board member, has a
building sandwiched between McDon-
wide network in the entertainment
ald's and Burger Heaven. Mr. Jones
world, and has given Robin Hood ac-
pays the $300,000-a-year budget for the
cess to fund-raising prospects. Morgan
philanthropy's administration and the
Creek Studios and Warner Brothers,
salaries of its six staff members, all In
which, respectively, produced and dis-
their 20's. Consequently, Robin Hood
tributed the film "Robin Hood: Prince
assures donors that all contributions go
of Thleves," starring Kevin Costner,
to the poor.
have offered the foundation the pro-
David Saltzman and Norman Atkins,
ceeds of a New York showing, which
co-directors and both 29, have a sweep-
could amount to $500,000 to $750,000.
Another board member, Maurice
Chessa, who opened doors for Robin
Hood to meet fledgling neighborhood
groups, runs a technical school in the
Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brook-
lyn.
Mr. Jones met Mr. Chessa while
volunteering to teach a class of Brook-
lyn sixth graders whom he has prom-
ised to send to college if they complete
high school. He volunteered as a men-
tor-sponsor after learning about the "I
Have a Dream" program initiated by
the millionaire industrialist Eugene
Lang.
Mr. Lang said of Mr. Jones: "He's
everything he seems to be. I just wish
his tribe would increase'
The Robin Hood Foundation
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
111 Broadway. New York, New York 10006
PAUL TUDOR JONES II, CHAIR
PETER D. KIERNAN III, VICE CHAIR
(212) 227-6601 Fax: (212) 227-6698
PETER F BORISH
GEOFFREY CANADA
MAURICE CHESSA
STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER
GLENN R DUBIN
MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN
JOHN F KENNEDY. JR.
ROBIN HOOD FOUNDATION
MARY McCORMICK
JANN WENNER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
"Kids Having Kids" Report
DAVID SALTZMAN
What is the Robin Hood Foundation?
The Robin Hood Foundation, created in 1988 by Paul Tudor Jones, is a
public charity dedicated to funding and providing management help to the
best and most innovative programs serving poor people in New York City.
The foundation has provided more than $35 million in money, volunteer
services and material goods to these programs.
Examples of the types of poverty-fighting projects supported by Robin
Hood include extended day and extended year schools, which permit
parents to work and provide children with three extra years of education
by the time they graduate; comprehensive after school programs; housing
and job training for the homeless; medical help for the sick; hospice care
for people with AIDS; and soup kitchens for the hungry.
Why did Robin Hood sponsor this study?
Throughout its very direct, community-level work, Robin Hood has
increasingly explored the larger dimensions of adolescent childbearing in
New York City and the nation. Each year, nearly one million teenagers in
the United States become pregnant. More than 175,000 of these new
mothers are 17 years old or younger. More than 80 percent of these young
mothers end up in poverty and reliant on welfare.
Why is this study significant?
"Kids Having Kids" is significant in that it provides the most
comprehensive look to date at the devastating costs and consequences of
teen pregnancy to the offspring of teen moms -- the "kids of kids" -- as
well as to adolescent mothers age 17 and younger, to the fathers, and to
society.
Highlights of "Kids Having Kids."
Early parenting wreaks havoc socially -- from the completion of education of the
mother and father to their job prospects. But the devastation to the lives of their
children is prevalent and wide-ranging. A few examples:
-
Trouble in School -- They are 50 percent more likely to repeat a grade and
perform significantly worse on cognitive development tests. They are also
far more likely to drop out of high school than are the children born to
women from the same socio-economic background who wait until the age
of 20 or 21 to have children.
-
More Likely to Run Away From Home -- They are two to three times more
likely to run away from home.
-
More Childhood Health Problems -- They are more likely to be born
prematurely and 50 percent more likely to be born low birthweight than if
their mothers had waited four years to bear them. They suffer more serious
health problems, but see the doctor half as often. The health services
dimension of adolescent childbearing costs taxpayers about $1.5 billion
more each year than if girls age 17 and younger had delayed parenthood.
-
Increased Child Abuse and Neglect -- They are twice as likely to be abused
or neglected.
-
Behind Bars -- The teen sons of adolescent mothers are up to 2.7 times more
likely to land in prison than their counterparts in the comparison group. By
extension, adolescent childbearing in and of itself costs taxpayers roughly
$1 billion each year to build and maintain prisons for the sons of young
mothers.
-
Foster Children -- Of the estimated 472,000 foster children in the United
States, over 23,000 are the children of adolescent mothers, which in turn
results in a taxpayer burden of approximately $900 million.
The study also examines the consequences of early parenting on teen mothers and
the fathers.
-
70 percent of the mothers drop out of school.
-
They are twice as likely to be dependent on welfare.
-
Adolescent dads are unlikely to marry the mothers they impregnated and are
unprepared to contribute financially to the well-being of their young
families.
A unique component of the study is its examination of the costs and consequences
of teen pregnancy on society.
-
Teenage girls are having babies at a 20 percent higher rate than just ten
years ago.
-
Teen pregnancy is uniquely American: No other industrialized nation knows
of such a phenomenon.
-
Teen pregnancy and childbearing costs U.S. taxpayers almost $7 billion
every year.
-
The cost to society in lost national productivity and avoidable
expenditure of social service resources is as much as $29 billion each year.
Who conducted the study and how did they come to these conclusions?
"Kids Having Kids" is the work of some of the nation's leading social scientists.
Rebecca Maynard, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, edited the study.
Other scholars include:
-
Michael J. Brien, University of Virginia
-
Robert M. Goerge, University of Chicago
-
Angela Dungee Greene, Child Trends, Inc.
-
Jeff Grogger, University of California, Santa Barbara
-
Robert Haveman, University of Wisconsin
-
V. Joseph Hotz, University of Chicago
-
Bong Joo Lee, Boston University
-
Susan Williams McElroy, Carnegie Mellon University
-
Kristin A. Moore, Child Trends, Inc.
-
Donna Ruane Morrison, Georgetown University
-
Maria Perozek, University of Wisconsin
-
Elaine Peterson, University of Wisconsin
-
Seth G. Sanders, Carnegie Mellon University
-
Robert J. Willis, University of Michigan
-
Barbara Wolfe, University of Wisconsin
Working in teams on seven coordinated studies, scholars focused their research on
the roughly 175,000 American girls who bear their first baby at 17 or younger.
Scholars examined early parenting and its consequences on the lives of the mothers,
fathers and their children.
###
The Robin Hood Foundation
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
111 Broadway. New York, New York 10006
PAUL TUDOR JONES II, CHAIR
PETER D KIERNAN III. VICE CHAIR
(212) 227-6601 Fax: (212) 227-6698
PETER F. BORISH
GEOFFREY CANADA
MAURICE CHESSA
STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER
GLENN R. DUBIN
The Robin Hood Foundation
MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN
JOHN F. KENNEDY JR.
MARY McCORMICK
JANN WENNER
Founded in 1988, the Robin Hood Foundation is a unique philanthropic
organization dedicated to fighting poverty in New York City. Robin Hood's
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
primary focus is to develop the best schools and after school programs for poor
DAVID SALTZMAN
children and teenagers -- the group hit hardest by the effects of poverty.
In addition, the foundation supports programs providing housing and job training
for the homeless, medical help for the sick, hospice care for people with AIDS,
drug treatment for the addicted, and soup kitchens for the hungry. By providing
the programs and resources necessary to escape poverty, Robin Hood is directly
investing in the futures of tens of thousands of New Yorkers.
How Robin Hood Works
Robin Hood functions like a socially-responsible venture capital fund. It studies
creative approaches to fighting poverty, takes calculated risks on promising
projects and steers resources towards programs that work. Robin Hood's staff
works to identify New York's most promising street-level organizations and the
people and programs that have the power to transform lives. After making a
financial investment, the foundation sends out a team of experienced management
consultants, lawyers and accountants to help each program succeed and maximize
resources.
Programs Supported By Robin Hood
Seventy-five percent of Robin Hood's grant portfolio supports programs designed
to help children escape the poverty they inherited and grow into healthy, educated
and prosperous individuals. To achieve this goal, the foundation has focused on
teen pregnancy prevention. The foundation also supports programs providing
prenatal care and childbearing clinics, nurseries which care for orphans born with
AIDS or an addiction to crack, family counseling projects, and year-round
elementary schools enterprises vital for helping future generations beat the odds
of poverty. As New York's largest private funder of Head Start, Robin Hood is
working to change the odds faced by our city's poorest children.
The remaining 25 percent of Robin Hood's grant portfolio is allocated to support
programs for adults, including programs that provide food, medicine, treatment,
counseling, homes, job training and assists providers of shelter and services to
people with AIDS.
Robin Hood Foundation/page 2
Robin Hood's Achievements To Date
Robin Hood has distributed more than $35 million in money, goods and services from
more than two thousand individuals, businesses and organizations. Because the
foundation's board of directors underwrites all its administrative and fundraising costs,
every penny donated goes directly to fighting poverty. But Robin Hood is about more
than writing a check. It provides general advice and strategic planning, as well as
expertise in accounting, finance, computers and arranges for free legal counsel. Robin
Hood works with community leaders at the grassroots level of the struggle against
poverty.
Currently, the foundation supports 85 of the most innovative poverty-fighting enterprises
in New York, including the Rheedlen Centers for Children and Family, La Peninsula
Head Start, the Clearpool School and the Bedford-Stuyvesant Volunteer Ambulance
Corps.
###
Paul Tudor Jones II
Paul Tudor Jones, II is Founder and Chairman of the Tudor Group of Companies, a money
management organization based in New York City. Mr. Jones is responsible for the
investment of proprietary and customer funds in global financial markets, primarily debt,
equity and currency markets. Mr. Jones' organization has trading offices in London,
Chicago and Boston and an economic research office in Washington, D.C.
After graduating from the University of Virginia in 1976, Mr. Jones established a career as
a commodities broker in New York, concentrating on the cotton futures market. He
developed a significant customer base from 1976 to 1982 and also traded actively on his
own account in various commodity futures markets.
Mr. Jones was instrumental in the creation of FINEX, the financial futures division of the
New York Cotton Exchange (NYCE), and in the development of the U.S. Dollar Index
futures contract which trades there. He served as Chairman of the NYCE from 1992 to
1995 and presently serves on the Board of Directors. In 1989, Mr. Jones designed and
implemented the first ethics training course that set the standard for exchange membership
on all futures exchanges in the United States.
Mr. Jones regularly commits his personal time and energy to charitable, philanthropic, and
natural resources conservation efforts. He presently serves on the Board of Directors of
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
Since 1986, Mr. Jones has been a sponsor of an "I have a Dream" class of school children
from the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York and has pledged to
further their educations with financial and other support. A number of the members of the
first class he sponsored in 1986 enrolled in colleges and universities in the fall of 1992.
In 1987, Mr. Jones established the Robin Hood Foundation, which he currently chairs, to
provide direct assistance to individuals living below the poverty line in New York City,
and he is active in raising and contributing funds on an annual basis. Since its inception,
the Robin Hood Foundation has contributed almost $35 million toward the fight against
poverty.
Since 1990, Mr. Jones has worked actively with numerous environmental organizations to
save the Everglades and Florida Bay.
Mr. Jones and his wife Sonia currently reside in Connecticut with their three young
daughters.
Rebecca A. Maynard
Rebecca Maynard is Trustee Professor of Education, Social Policy and Communication at the
University of Pennsylvania and Senior Fellow at Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Previously, she served Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. as senior vice president and director of
Princeton research. She also has served as consultant to the General Accounting Office, the
Rockefeller Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
She has served on numerous committees and advisory boards including the following: The
National Academy of Sciences Panel on Child Care Policy; the National Academy of Sciences
Panel on Quality in Student Financial Aid; the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS)
Program Implementation Study, Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New
York; the National Household Education Survey, Adult Education Component; the Committee on
Economic Development Research Advisory Group; Business Tomorrow; the Intergenerational
Literacy Research Action Project Advisory Team; the National Job Corps Evaluation Advisory
Panel; and the National Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program Research Advisory Panel.
She has published on a variety of topics and in a wide range of journals and books, including:
"The Causes and Consequences of Repeat Pregnancy Among Welfare Dependent Teenage
Parents," Family Planning Perspectives; "Methods of Evaluating Employment and Training
Programs: Lessons from the U.S. Experience," presented at the International Conference on the
Economics of Training; "How Precise are Evaluations of Employment and Training Programs:
Evidence from a Field Experiment," Evaluation Review; "The Economics of Transitional and
Supported Employment," Disability and the Labor Market; "Short-Term Indicators of
Employment Program Performance: Evidence from the Supported Work Demonstration," Journal
of Human Resources; and The National Supported Work Demonstration, University of Wisconsin
Press.
David Saltzman
David Saltzman has been the Executive Director of the Robin Hood Foundation since 1989. Prior
to that, he served as one of the foundation's four founding board members.
After graduating from Brown University in 1984, Mr. Saltzman earned a masters degree in public
policy and administration from Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs.
While at Columbia, he worked in Chase Manhattan Bank's neighborhood grants program.
Upon graduating from Columbia, Mr. Saltzman began working with homeless families, the hungry
and people with AIDS for New York City's Human Resources Administration. From there, he
went to the New York City Department of Health where he directed AIDS education and
prevention programs.
Prior to joining the Robin Hood Foundation, Mr. Saltzman was the Special Assistant to the
President of the Board of Education of the City of New York where he focused on policy,
pedagogical and budget matters.
A lifelong New Yorker, Mr. Saltzman is married and has a son who turns one in August.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
CONSEQUENCES FOR CHILDREN OF ADOLESCENT MOTHERS
Social and Developmental Outcomes
Kristin Moore, Child Trends, Inc.
Kristin Moore is Executive Director and Director of Research of Child Trends. A social
psychologist, Dr. Moore has been with Child Trends, Inc. since 1982, studying the determinants of early
sexual activity and parenthood, the consequences of adolescent parenthood, trends in child and family
well-being, and the effects of family structure and social change on children. Dr. Moore is a member of
the Family and Child Well-Being Research Network established by the National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development to examine over a five-year period the factors that enhance the development and
well-being of children. As a Network member, Dr. Moore is working on several projects to enhance child
indicators data and to develop new analytic data resources to inform both scientific research and policy
making. Dr. Moore was recently appointed by the President to a newly-established bipartisan Advisory
Board on Welfare Indicators. In 1991, she was given the Presidential Award from the National
Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy and Parenting. She is also a member of the Board of the National
Campaign to Prevent Teenage Pregnancy, where she chairs the Task Force on Effective Programs and
Research.
Donna Ruane Morrison, Graduate Program in Public Policy, Department of Demography,
Georgetown University
Donna Ruane Morrison (Ph.D., Sociology, Johns Hopkins University) joined the faculty at
Georgetown University in Fall, 1995 with a joint appointment in the Graduate Program in Public Policy
and the Department of Demography. Prior to Georgetown, University, she was a Senior Research
Associate at Child Trends, Inc. Morrison has published articles examining the short- and long-term effects
of marital conflict and divorce on children. Her research has also focused on both the antecedents and
consequences of teen childbearing for young mothers, fathers, and children. She serves as the faculty
coordinator of the DC Family Policy Seminar, a collaborative project of the Georgetown University
Graduate Policy Program and its affiliate, the National Center for Education in Maternal and Child Health.
Angela Greene, Child Trends, Inc.
Angela Dungee Greene, M.A. is a Senior Research Analyst at Child Trends, Inc. and a Ph.D.
candidate in Sociology at Howard University. She is currently involved in research on factors associated
with nonresident father involvement and father involvement as a predictor of child and adolescent
outcomes; factors that promote positive outcomes among youth born to teen mothers; and
sociodemographic predictors of low birth weight, infant mortality, and other adverse outcomes. She has
collaborated on several publications and professional presentations pertaining to various social, economic,
and health-related issues for African American families.
CHILD WELFARE
Robert M. Goerge, Chapin Hall Center for Children, The University of Chicago
Robert M. Goerge, Ph.D., is Associate Director and Research Fellow at the Chapin Hall
Center for Children at the University of Chicago and holds a Ph.D. in Social Policy from the
University of Chicago. He has led the construction and analysis of the Integrated Database on
Children's Services in Illinois, which is a longitudinal database on children's service receipt. He
has developed multi-variate models describing child service transitions in foster care, mental
health, and special education. His recent work includes using event-history methods to analyze
foster care drift, and describing and explaining foster care caseload growth in Illinois, New York,
and Michigan, California and Texas.
Dr. Goerge co-directs the National Foster Care Data Archive funded by HHS Children's
Bureau, and leads a project funded by NIMH on the disabilities of foster children. Dr. Goerge
directs the Administrative Data Institute of Chapin Hall's HHS Child Welfare Research Center,
and recently coordinated an instructional workshop for a national group of child welfare agency
researchers and analysts on the use of administrative data for research and policy analysis. Goerge
also has served as a consultant to numerous states on the development of improved information
systems.
Bong Joo Lee, School of Social Work, Boston University
Bong Joo Lee, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Social Welfare Policy and Research at the
Boston University School of Social Work. Since 1988, Dr. Lee has been actively involved in research that
applies administrative data to the analysis of social problems and social policy. Before joining the faculty at
the Boston University, Dr. Lee was a Research Associate at the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the
University of Chicago. With Robert Goerge, he was a coauthor of several research reports that examined
the patterns of human service use of children and families in Illinois. Dr. Lee has particular interests in the
experiences of children and families in the social service system, demography of children and families,
human service provision and poverty. Currently, Dr. Lee co-directs the Massachusetts Longitudinal
Database for Research on Social Services project funded by Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Massachusetts Department of
Revenue
HEALTH STATUS AND HEALTH CARE
Barbara Wolfe, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin
Barbara Wolfe is Professor of Economics and Preventive Medicine and Director of the Institute for
Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is a graduate of Cornell University
(B.A., Economics) and the University of Pennsylvania (Ph.D., Economics). Her research career has been
devoted to issues of poverty, health and disability, and the well-being of children; her teaching career has
been devoted to health economics. She is the author, with Robert Haveman, of "Succeeding Generations:
On the Effects of Investments in Children" (Russell Sage Foundation, 1994), and has edited several
volumes on public finance. Other scholarly publications include articles in the American Economic
Review, Review of Economics and Statistics, Research in Population Economics, Journal of the American
Statistical Association, Economics of Education Review, Journal of Public Economics, and Journal of
Human Resources. A Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Professor Wolfe
served on the National Commission on Childhood Disability in 1995-96.
Maria Perozek, University of Wisconsin
Maria Perozek is currently a graduate student in Economics at the University of Wisconsin-
Madison. Her research interests are in the economics of aging, with a particular focus on intergenerational
transfers of wealth. As a National Institute of Mental Health Trainee, her research focused on the health
effects of teen childbearing and related health policy issues.
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, EMPLOYMENT AND TEEN CHILDBEARING
Robert H. Haveman, Department of Economics, Chair, LaFollette Institute of Public Affairs, Institute
for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin
Robert H. Haveman is John Bascom Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison, where he also serves as Chair of the Department of Economics and faculty member
in the LaFollette Institute of Public Affairs and the Institute for Research on Poverty. He serves as
Executive Vice President of the International Institute of Public Finance, and from 1988-1993 was Co-
editor of the American Economic Review. His research focuses on the economics of social policy, as
exemplified in his 1988 book, "Starting Even: New Policy for the Nation's New Poverty" (Simon and
Schuster), and on the determinants of children's attainments, published jointly with Barbara Wolfe in
"Succeeding Generations: On the Effects of Investments in Children" (Russell Sage Foundation, 1994).
Barbara Wolfe, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin
Barbara Wolfe is Professor of Economics and Preventive Medicine and Director of the Institute for
Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is a graduate of Cornell University
(B.A., Economics) and the University of Pennsylvania (Ph.D., Economics). Her research career has been
devoted to issues of poverty, health and disability, and the well-being of children; her teaching career has
been devoted to health economics. She is the author, with Robert Haveman, of "Succeeding Generations:
On the Effects of Investments in Children" (Russell Sage Foundation, 1994), and has edited several
volumes on public finance. Other scholarly publications include articles in the American Economic
Review, Review of Economics and Statistics, Research in Population Economics, Journal of the American
Statistical Association, Economics of Education Review, Journal of Public Economics, and Journal of
Human Resources. A Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Professor Wolfe
served on the National Commission on Childhood Disability in 1995-96.
Elaine Peterson, University of Wisconsin
Elaine Peterson is an assistant professor at California State University, Stanislaus. She is also a
Ph.D. candidate at the University of Wisconsin, Madison completing her Ph.D. dissertation entitled
"Neighborhood Quality and Children's Propensity to Succeed." She attended Colby College in Waterville,
Maine, where she graduate Cum Laude in 1982, with distinction in Economics. She has been a research
assistant in the Financial Structure Section of the Federal Reserve Board and the Institute for Research on
Poverty. Her research includes work on neighborhood quality and children's success, and on policy-related
determinants of teen nonmarital childbearing.
CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES
Jeffery Grogger, University of California, Santa Barbara
Jeffery Grogger is Associate Professor of Economics at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Prior to joining the faculty at the University of California, he served as Senior Research Fellow in the
Office of the Attorney General in California. Dr. Grogger is a specialist in econometrics and applied
microceconomics. He has conducted extensive research and published widely on a variety of social policy
issues, including the deterrent effects of capital punishments; community policing and perceptions of
neighborhood safety; the socioeconomic consequences of teenage childbearing; and the implications of
schooling for employment options. He is co-editor of the Journal of Human Resources and Associate
editor of the Journal of Population Economics.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
CONSEQUENCES FOR ADOLESCENT FATHERS AND FOR THE FATHERS OF
ADOLESCENT MOTHERS' CHILDREN
Michael J. Brien, Department of Economics, University of Virginia
Michael J. Brien is an Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Virginia. He received
a M.A. and Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago and a B.A. in Economics and Political
Science from the University of Wisconsin. Prior to his appointment at Virginia, he was a National Institute
on Aging Post-Doctoral Fellow at RAND in Santa Monica, California, and served as an Economist at the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. His research interests include the consequences of early family
formation and the implications for child support, economic models of marriage and divorce, racial
differences in marriage patterns, and the economics of aging.
Robert J. Willis, University of Michigan
Robert J. Willis is Professor of Economics at the University of Michigan where he also Research
Scientist at the Institute for Social Research and Research Associate of the Population Studies Center.
Before coming to Michigan in 1995, he had served on the faculties of the University of Chicago, SUNY at
Stony Brook and Stanford University. Willis is currently the Principal Investigator on two large
longitudinal surveys, the Heath and Retirement Survey and the Assets and Heath of the Oldest Old Survey,
which are collecting data on Americans over age 50. He is an authority in the economics of the family,
marriage, and fertility, labor economics, human capital and population and economic development.
Recently he has written papers on theories of divorce, child support and out-of-wedlock childbearing;
intergenerational transfers and investment in children's education in developing countries and, with
collaborators, has surveyed research on the economics of fertility in developed countries.
He has been elected to the Board of Directors of the Population Association of America, has served
on advisory boards for a number of surveys including the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, the High
School and Beyond Survey and the Health and Retiremnent Survey and was recently appointed as
representative to theCensus Advisory Board by the American Economic Association.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
CONSEQUENCES FOR ADOLESCENT MOTHERS
V. Joseph Hotz, Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago
V. Joseph Hotz is a professor in the Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies. He
directs the Population Research Center of the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), and is a
research associate of the Economics Research Center of NORC and the Institute for Research on Poverty
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Prior to the University of Chicago, Hotz taught at Carnegie
Mellon University.
Hotz researches economic demography and evaluates how various social programs affect the
behavior of the poor. His past research interests include an examination of the relationship between the
labor force participation and childbearing patterns of married women in the United States and Sweden.
Hotz currently is studying the effects of alternative state regulations on child care utilization, the labor force
participation of low-income mothers, and indicators of children's cognitive and social development. He
also is investigating the factors that cause low-income women in the United States to depend on welfare.
Susan Williams McElroy, H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon
University
Susan Williams McElroy is Assistant Professor of Economics and Education Policy at the H. John
Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon University and holds the Dean's
Career Development Chair in Economics and Education. She received her Ph.D. in Economics of
Education from Stanford University. In addition to the consequences of early childbearing, her research
interests include the economic status of women and people of color in the United States and education
policy. Dr. McElroy has worked as a researcher at the RAND Corporation and the Center for Policy
Research in Education (CPRE) at Stanford University.
Seth Gary Sanders, Carnegie Mellon University
Seth Gary Sanders is Assistant Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the H. John Heinz III
School of Public Policy and Management. He received his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of
Chicago. His research focuses on the analysis of labor markets particularly with respect to poverty issues.
He has done extensive research on the effects of teenage childbearing on adult maternal outcomes and on
the use and effects on human capital development of public and private poverty programs. In addition he
has conducted research on the effect of economic growth on poverty and underclass behavior and on the
relative success of immigrants in the U.S. economy. He is published widely in academic journals and
results from his work have been reported in Business Week and the Wall Street Journal.
THE NATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT
TEEN PREGNANCY
2100 M STREET. N.W., SUITE 500, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20037
Message from the Chairman
On behalf of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, I want to congratulate
the Robin Hood Foundation and all of the scholars who were involved in the study, Kids Having
Kids. It provides us with some of the most definitive evidence to date of the enormous costs
associated with teenage childbearing. We commend this study to the press and the public as one
that should be read and acted on.
The National Campaign will be working through its staff and newly formed task forces to
prevent teen pregnancy by catalyzing action at the state and local level, engaging the media,
fostering a more civilized debate on the issues, and learning more about effective programs. We
hope that everyone will join with us in the effort to provide a better start in life for all of our
children.
Tin Kean
Thomas H. Kean
Chairman
The National Campaign to PreventTeen Pregnancy
The Hon. Thomas H. Kean. Chair Isabel V. Sawhill. President Sarah S. Brown. Director
National Board
Charlotte Beers William A. Galston Katharine Graham Whoopi Goldberg David A. Hamburg Irving B. Harris
Barbara Huberman The Hon. Nancy Kassebaum The Hon. C. Everett Koop Judith McGrath Jody Greenstone Miller
Kristin A. Moore Hugh B. Price The Hon. Warren B. Rudman The Hon. Andrew J. Young
THE NATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT
TEEN PREGNANCY
2100 M STREET, N.W., SUITE 500, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037
SUMMARY
Mission: To prevent teen pregnancy by supporting values and stimulating actions that are
consistent with a pregnancy-free adolescence.
Goal: To reduce the teenage pregnancy rate by one-third by the year 2005.
What the Campaign will do:
take a clear stand against teenage pregnancy and attract the interest of more national
leaders and organizations in this issue:
enlist the help of the media to reduce teen pregnancy;
support and stimulate state and local action to reduce teen pregnancy;
foster a national discussion about how religion, culture, and public values influence both
teen pregnancy and responses to it; and
strengthen the knowledge base for effective programming
Organization and leadership: This is a totally private (nongovernmental) and nonpartisan effort
being led by a distinguished Board; work is conducted through four task forces and a small staff. A
new 501(c)(3) organization has been established and funding is being sought to accomplish its
objectives. The Board has elected The Hon. Thomas Kean, former governor of New Jersey, as its
Founding Chairman. Dr. Isabel Sawhill serves as the Campaign's President and Sarah Brown as its
Director.
Origins and history: The initiative was stimulated by President Clinton's challenge issued in his
1995 State of the Union address that "parents and leaders all across the country join together in
a national campaign against teen pregnancy to make a difference." A follow-up meeting was held
at the White House with a group of private citizens in October to discuss what might be done.
Following that meeting, a serious private-sector planning effort was initiated around the ideas
generated at the meeting. In his 1996 State of the Union address, the President once more talked
about the seriousness of the issue and mentioned the current private-sector initiative as one very
positive response.
Current status: A detailed prospectus for the overall Campaign was reviewed by the Board at its
first meeting in February. The Campaign is now in the process of raising funds, hiring a staff, and
working with others to achieve its objectives.
For further information: To get on the mailing list of the new organization, or if you have other
questions, please write to Sarah Brown, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2100
M Street, N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20037. FAX: 202-331-7735.
NOAPPP
National Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Parenting and Prevention
1319 F Street NW, Suite 401, Washington DC 20004
Tel 1-888-766-2777
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 2:00pm Thursday, June 13, 1996
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL 1(888)766-2777
NOAPPP SENDING
10,000 COPIES
OF ROBIN HOOD FOUNDATION'S
KIDS HAVING KIDS
TO TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION
PRACTITIONERS ACROSS AMERICA
"Kids Having Kids is the most important study of teen pregnancy costs ever
done. It is an absolute milestone in our understanding of the devastating
consequences to the children of teen mothers, to the teen moms themselves,
the fathers, and our country," said Patricia Jo Angelini, NOAPPP's president
and Community Relations Director of the Arizona Family Planning Council.
"Kids Having Kids documents a national problem. NOAPPP applauds the Robin
Hood Foundation and President Clinton's leadership in solving it. Everyone
working to prevent teen pregnancy needs to read this study", urges Ms.
Angelini.
Practitioners can obtain copies of Kids Having Kids at no cost by simply
calling NOAPPP's 24-hour toll-free number, 1-888-766-2777, (1-888-7-NOAPP)
and asking for a copy.
Established in 1979, NOAPPP is a practitioner membership, 501(c)(3)
non-profit organization that provides leadership, education, training,
information and advocacy resources and support to adolescent pregnancy,
parenting and prevention practitioners. NOAPPP's membership consists of
health care, education and social service professionals, volunteers, and
other individuals at the local, state and national levels.
*****
THE URBAN NSTITU E PRESS
Full Book-Length Study
to be Published in October
Kids Having Kids: Economic Costs and
Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy,
Rebecca A Maynard, editor (Washington, D.C
Urban Institute Press, 1996, distributed by the
National Book Network).
ADVANCE ORDER FORM
Please:complete and return to:
URBAN INSTITUTE PRESS
c/o NBN
4720 Boston Way Lanham, MD 20706
ISBN
TITLE
PRICE
QTY
COST
0-87766-654-7
Kids Having Kids Economic Costs and Social
Consequences of Teen Pregnancy
$22.95
Subtotal
Maryland residents: please add 5% sales tax
Postage and Handling: $3.00 for first book. 75c for each additional book
To Order
Make Checks Payable to National Book Network (NBN) TOTAL
by Phone, Call:
1-800-462-6420
All Orders from Individuals Must Be Prepaid
Check enclosed
Name
Master
VISA
Organization
Account #
Address
Exp Date
Signature
City
State
ZIP
The Need for Family Planning Services Among Welfare Recipients
Nicholas Zill
Westat, Inc.
1650 Research Blvd.
Rockville, MD 20850
Presented at the seminar on
Family Planning Services for Special Populations:
Teenagers, Welfare Recipients, Substance Abusers, and Others
at Especially High Risk of Unintended Pregnancy
April 23, 1996
Wohlstetter Conference Center
American Enterprise Institute
Washington, DC
Women in the U.S. are five times more likely to be welfare dependent if they had a
first child outside marriage than if they had that child while married (U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1989, 1995). Women are likely to stay on welfare for extended periods if they have
additional children while they are on welfare (Pavetti, 1995a & b). Thus, two of the goals
of many welfare reform efforts at both state and federal levels are to reduce unmarried
childbearing among all women and repeat pregnancies among welfare recipients. A number
of states have instituted "family caps" or other measures intended to discourage welfare
recipients from having additional children. There are, however, several obstacles to
achieving these goals that have little to do with financial incentives or disincentives. Rather,
they have to do with prevention of unplanned pregnancies and attitudes about how many
children it is desirable for a woman to have.
The purpose of this paper is to summarize data from several national surveys that
provide information on the reproductive behaviors and attitudes of welfare recipients and how
these compare with those of women who are not welfare dependent. I argue that these
findings indicate a need for family planning services among welfare recipients. Without such
services, welfare policies aimed at reducing repeat pregnancies among welfare recipients are
not likely to succeed.
Welfare families are smaller than they used to be
A little-appreciated development concerning welfare mothers is that they are having
fewer children than their predecessors did. Administrative data collected by the U.S. Office
of Family Assistance show that the proportion of welfare families with four or more children
declined from 32 percent in 1969 to 14 percent in 1979, down to 10 percent in 1993.
(Figure 1). Over the same time span, the proportion of welfare families with only one or
two children increased, from 50 percent in 1969 to 74 percent in 1993. During this period,
the mean number of children per AFDC family dropped by a full child, from 2.9 to 1.9 per
family (U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Children, 1989, pp. 266-267;
Committee on Ways and Means, 1994).
1
A less encouraging fact that may be gleaned from Figure 1 is that the number of
children per AFDC family has been on a plateau for more than ten years, changing little
since the early 1980s. Indeed, there may be some upward pressure on welfare family sizes
in the years to come, as Hispanic-Americans become a larger part of the U.S. population and
the welfare caseload. The average number of children born per woman is larger among
Hispanic welfare recipients than among non-Hispanic recipients (3.11 versus 2.45 children
per women in 1993) (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1995). Nonetheless, the average welfare
family is likely to remain relatively modest in size, smaller than it was a quarter-century ago,
and certainly smaller than depicted in popular conceptions about such families.
The smaller size of today's welfare families should be beneficial for both the
employability of welfare mothers and the development of welfare children. Having fewer
children means a shorter period during which the mother needs to make child care provisions
for children who are not yet in school in order for her to go to work. It also means that
each child can get a larger share of family resources and more personal attention from the
mother and other adult family members. Numerous studies have shown that, other things
equal, academic achievement and other indicators of child development and well-being tend
to be more positive when children grow up in smaller rather than larger families (Blake,
1981; 1989).
Welfare recipients have more children than nonrecipients
Although the smaller average size of welfare families is good news, it is still the case
that welfare recipients have more children than nonwelfare mothers, as well as more
unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. It is also the case that the minority of welfare
recipients who have larger families tend to have more than their share of physical and mental
health problems. Let me first document the larger size of welfare families, and then present
survey findings on the other two points.
2
Although the administrative data from the Office of Family Assistance just presented
are useful in showing the change in family size over time, these data understate the total
number of children born to welfare mothers. This is because they do not count children who
have aged into adults, those who live outside the mother's household, and those who live in
the household but are not covered by AFDC. In 1993, data from the Census Bureau's
Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) showed that the mean number of
children ever born to women under 45 was 2.59 for women who were currently receiving
welfare versus 2.12 for those not receiving welfare. (Figure 2). Among older women,
average family size and the gap between welfare and nonwelfare families were both larger.
Among those aged 40-44, for example, welfare mothers had a mean of 3.41 children,
whereas nonwelfare mothers had 2.38 children, more than one child less per family.
It should also be noted that, because welfare mothers begin having children earlier,
their intergenerational interval is shorter than that of middle-class women (of whatever racial,
ethnic, or religious group) who postpone the initiation of childbearing to their late twenties or
thirties. A disadvantaged group with a relatively short intergenerational interval will tend to
contribute more to the child population than an advantaged group with a longer
intergenerational interval, even if women in the two groups produce the same average
number of children. In other words, it is not just how many children welfare mothers
produce that is of concern, it is also when they produce them.
How welfare mothers control their reproduction
Most welfare mothers began having children as teenagers (55 percent of the welfare
mothers in the 1993 SIPP reported that they had had their first child before age 20, and this
probably understates the true proportion). That welfare mothers should have more children
than their counterparts who began childbearing later is hardly astonishing. The question that
is intriguing is, how do women on AFDC manage to stop having children? Do they discover
effective contraception or abstinence after having several children? In a surprisingly high
proportion of cases, the answer is, by having themselves voluntarily sterilized.
3
Data on the reproductive status of welfare mothers were obtained in the 1988 National
Survey of Family Growth.¹ (Table 1.) They show that 64 percent of women receiving
welfare at the time of the survey were using some form of contraception, with voluntary
sterilization (obtained by 33 percent of the welfare mothers) and the pill (used by 20 percent)
being the leading methods used. Nearly 7 percent were abstinent: they were not using
contraception but, whether by choice or otherwise, they had not had sex in the last three
months. Another 12 percent were not using contraception, but were infertile: 7 percent were
currently pregnant, 2 percent were in the postpartum period after a recent delivery, and
almost 4 percent were non-voluntarily sterile. Nearly 17 percent of the welfare mothers
were at risk of pregnancy because they had had sex within the past three months and were
not using any contraception. Only 3 percent of the women said they wanted to get pregnant,
however.
Compared to mothers who were not receiving welfare and were not in poverty,
welfare mothers were less likely to be using some form of contraception (64 percent versus
75 percent), and more than twice as likely to be clearly at risk of pregnancy (17 percent
versus 7 percent). Nonpoor mothers were slightly less likely to have had themselves
sterilized voluntarily (28 percent versus 33 percent), but were much more likely to have a
male partner who had had a vasectomy (13 percent versus 1 percent for partners of welfare
mothers). Nonpoor mothers were also more than twice as likely to be sterile on a non-
voluntary basis (9 percent versus under 4 percent), mainly because they were older, on
average, than welfare mothers.
Welfare mothers were more likely than nonpoor mothers to be using the pill (20
percent versus 12 percent), but less likely to be using condoms (3 percent versus 10 percent)
and other contraception methods, including diaphragms (5.5 percent versus 11 percent). The
minority of women who had not had sex in the last three months was nearly twice as large
I
Unpublished tabulations from the 1988 NSFG were kindly provided by Jane Mauldon of the
University of California at Berkeley.
4
among welfare mothers as among nonpoor mothers (7 percent versus 4 percent), but so was
the proportion who were currently pregnant or postpartum (9 percent versus 5.5 percent).
Mothers who were below or near² the poverty line but who were not receiving
welfare were similar to welfare mothers in their reproductive profile. (Table 1.) Differences
were that nonwelfare poor mothers were slightly more likely to have a male partner who was
voluntarily sterile (3.5 percent versus 1 percent) and to use condoms (8 percent versus 3
percent). Nonwelfare poor mothers were less likely to be currently pregnant or postpartum
(5 percent versus 9 percent) and more likely to be nonvoluntarily sterile (6 percent versus
under 4 percent). Again, age variations were probably the main factor behind the latter
difference. The poor nonwelfare mothers were slightly less likely than welfare mothers to be
sexually active with no contraception (13 percent versus 17 percent), but still twice as likely
as nonpoor mothers to be at risk of pregnancy.
Voluntary sterilization
Using data from the NSFG, Jane Mauldon and Susan Miller (1994) looked at AFDC
mother with three children or more. They found that 52 percent of these women had had
tubal ligations to prevent themselves from having more children. Another one percent had
partners who had had vasectomies. By contrast, among nonpoor, nonwelfare mothers with
three children or more, 36 percent had had tubal ligations and 26 percent had vasectomized
partners. In addition, more of the nonpoor women were infertile involuntarily -- 14 percent
versus 4 percent.
Mauldon and Miller found that 67 percent of all welfare mothers said they wanted no
more children, and nearly half of those had had themselves sterilized. (Figure 3.) As noted
above, the overall prevalence of tubal ligation among welfare mothers was only slightly
higher than that among nonwelfare mothers -- 33 percent versus 28 percent. However,
2 Family income below 133 percent of poverty level.
5
welfare recipients tend to be younger and more often unmarried than non-AFDC mothers,
and both of these factors generally work to lower the probability that a woman will have
herself sterilized. Thus, Mauldon and Miller argue that, other things equal, the tendency to
use tubal ligation to prevent further childbearing is actually stronger among women on
welfare (and other poor women) than among nonpoor women.
What is perhaps more striking, though, is how little the partners of welfare mothers
share the burden of preventing unplanned conceptions. Welfare couples are only one-third as
likely as nonpoor couples to use condoms, and the male partners of welfare mothers are
much less likely than the partners of nonpoor women to have had vasectomies. Part of the
explanation for these differences may lie in the fact that, in most cases the male partner of a
welfare mother is not married to the woman. Also, he may not be the father of her children,
although the survey data are lacking on this point.
Unintended pregnancies
Why do so many welfare mothers turn to sterilization rather than reversible methods
of contraception? The answer may lie partly in the lack of success they have had in using
reversible methods. This lack of success may be seen in reports about mistimed and
unwanted conceptions that were collected in the NSFG. (Table 2.) Two-thirds of welfare
mothers reported that they had at least one live birth whose conception was mistimed, i.e.,
came earlier than the mother wanted. By comparison, 44 percent of nonpoor mothers had
such a mistimed conception.
Twenty-nine percent of welfare mothers had had at least one live birth that was
unwanted at conception, i.e., the mother did not want to become pregnant again. Less than
half as many nonpoor women 13 percent -- had such an unwanted conception that resulted
in a live birth. When these two types of conceptions were combined, the result was that 79
percent of welfare mothers had had at least one birth that was the result of a mistimed or
unwanted conception, whereas the same was true of 51 percent of nonpoor mothers. Poor
6
mothers not on welfare fell in between the welfare and nonpoor mothers: 65 percent of them
had had a live birth that was the result of a mistimed or unwanted conception.
Welfare mothers in the NSFG reported that about 20 percent of the children that they
had borne were unwanted at the time of conception. This works out to an average of 0.5
children from unwanted conceptions per woman, more than twice as large as the average
number of children from unwanted conceptions per woman (0.21) among non-AFDC
mothers. Of course, because welfare mothers begin childbearing at earlier ages, they have a
longer period during which they are at risk of exceeding their desired number of children.
Ideal and intended numbers of children
The higher fertility of welfare mothers is not simply the result of unwanted
pregnancy. Despite being mostly unmarried, welfare mothers in the NSFG reported that they
wanted to have as many children as nonwelfare mothers. In fact, the ideal number of
children was slightly higher among welfare mothers (3.0) than among nonwelfare mothers
(2.7), especially those from the nonpoor group (2.5). (These averages are all higher than 2,
even though two children is the modal ideal, because relatively few women (or men) desire
to have no children or only one child).
The average number of children that women currently intended to have (including
those already born) was also higher among welfare mothers -- 2.9 versus 2.4. The ideal and
intended numbers of children reported by poor mothers who were not receiving AFDC were
practically identical to those of welfare mothers.
Welfare mothers: image versus reality
The image of welfare mothers and their childbearing that one gets from the data
summarized above is very different from the stereotype of women irresponsibly producing
child after child in order to squeeze more money out of the welfare system (Placek and
7
Hendershot, 1974). Instead, as with other contemporary women, the modal group of welfare
mothers seems to subscribe to the two-child norm that is strong among U.S. families of
virtually all racial, ethnic, national, and religious backgrounds. Most of the rest believe that
a three-child family is ideal. When their own childbearing threatens to rise above this two-
or three-child norm, many take strong, even irreversible steps, to prevent having further
children.
At the same time, it is clear from the data presented above that many women on
welfare might benefit from a stronger impetus to regulate their reproduction more
scrupulously, and thus lower the now substantial proportion of children born from
conceptions that were mistimed or unwanted. This is even more true of the male partners of
welfare mothers, who seem to be exercising very little reproductive responsibility at present.
Of course, incentives to encourage reproductive responsibility can be positive as well as
negative. More importantly, it is not only motivation that welfare recipients seem to need,
but instruction as to how they might regulate their fertility more effectively and why this is
desirable. Also, although welfare mothers may share the ideal of the two-child family with
other Americans, in the case of the welfare mothers, that ideal has been "decoupled" from
another important ideal, namely, marriage.
The high-risk minority
Although the description offered above applies to the majority of welfare recipients,
there is another segment of the welfare population that presents a different sort of picture.
This is the subgroup of recipients who have more severe problems, such as drug or alcohol
involvement or chronic personality disorders. National survey data and local intervention
studies show that this subgroup is not composed primarily of teenagers but of unmarried
older women who are on what Besharov and Gardiner (1996) have called "downward spirals
of dysfunctional behavior." These recipients are over-represented among welfare mothers
with larger than average families because they tend to have repeated pregnancies and births
that are typically unplanned and often unwanted. These are also the women who are most
8
likely to fail to get timely prenatal care, gain inadequate amounts of weight during their
pregnancies, and deliver low birth weight babies with elevated risks of dying in infancy
(Goldstein, 1996). The children of these mothers who do survive are more likely than
children from other welfare or nonwelfare families to exhibit neurological disorders and
learning disabilities, and be victims of unintentional injury and abuse or neglect.
The size of this high-risk segment of the welfare population is uncertain, although
data from a recent national survey of delivering women indicate that about one-quarter of
welfare mothers fail to gain adequate weight during their pregnancies, one in eight reports
using an illicit drug of some sort, and one in twenty reports using cocaine during the
pregnancy (Zill & Loomis, 1996). The progress that has been made in reducing the average
size of welfare families should not cause us to lose sight of the pressing need to prevent
further unintended pregnancies and births in these high-risk welfare families.
One possible answer to the needs of this subgroup might be intensive interventions
that address their substance abuse and personality problems as well as their fertility-related
behavior. Unfortunately, the available evidence indicates that even such intensive
interventions are not likely to be effective in the majority of these high-risk cases. Another
possible answer is to remove children already born from the care of these women and to
institute direct physiological interventions to limit their further childbearing. Many would
find these stronger measures unacceptable, however.
Implications for behavior-related rules in welfare reform
Findings presented in this report on the childbearing patterns of AFDC mothers have
implications for efforts to reduce repeat pregnancies among welfare recipients. The data
show that many welfare mothers are already limiting their own fertility, often by having
themselves sterilized voluntarily, but only after they have had two or three children. What
seems to be the case is that welfare mothers, like most other women in the U.S., have two
children as a childbearing ideal. They do not see the lack of marriage as a condition that
9
should bar them from having children. Once they have had two children, they are prepared
to take steps to prevent further conception. Interventions at this point to assist them in
regulating their fertility are likely to be successful with most recipients. But efforts to get
welfare mothers to stop at only one child seem less likely to succeed, unless they can change
women's attitudes about the acceptability of a one-child family, or convince them that
childbearing outside of marriage is detrimental to children.
There are likely to be more serious problems with the minority of welfare mothers,
many of them involved with drugs or emotionally disturbed, who continue to have child after
child with little consideration of their ability to nurture or care for them. Far stronger
disincentives than limitations on additional welfare payment or even direct physiological
intervention will be needed to limit the fertility of these women. Whether the American
public is prepared to see such stronger measures taken is doubtful.
10
References
Besharov, D.J., & Gardiner, K.N. (1996). Paternalism and welfare reform. The Public
Interest (Winter), 1-15.
Blake, J. (1981). Family size and the quality of children. Demography, 18(4), 421-442.
Blake, J. (1989). Family size and achievement. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goldstein, A. (1995, December 21). "D.C. to bolster health effort as infant death rate rises."
The Washington Post, A1.
Pavetti, L. (1995a). Who is affected by time limits? Welfare Reform Brief No. 7.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Placek, P.F., & Hendershot, G.E. (1974). Public welfare and family planning: An empirical
study of the 'brood sow' myth. Social Problems, 21.
Mauldon, J., & Miller, S. (1994). Child-bearing desires and sterilization among United
States women: Patterns by income and AFDC recipiency. Graduate School of Public
Policy, University of California, Berkeley.
Pavetti, L. (1995b). Questions & answers on welfare dynamics. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1989). Characteristics of persons receiving benefits from major
assistance programs. Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 14. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1995). Mothers who receive AFDC payments: Fertility and
socioeconomic characteristics. Statistical Brief (SB/95-2).
U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families. (1989).
U.S. children and their families: Current conditions and recent trends, 1989 (third
edition). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways & Means. (1994). Overview of
entitlement programs. 1994 Green Book. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Figure 1. Number of child recipients in AFDC families, 1969-1993
100%
Four or more
32%
20%
14%
10%
10%
10%
Three
80%
16%
16%
16%
Two
16%
One
16%
60%
18%
30%
31%
30%
28%
26%
2396
40%
42%
44%
43%
44%
38%
20%
27%
0%
1969
1975
1979
1983
1988
1993
Figure 2: Mean number of children ever born to U.S. women under 45 years of age,
by welfare status and age group, 1993
All women aged 15-44
welfare
2.59
non-welfare
2.12
poor, non-welfare
2.49
non-poor, non-welfare
2.07
Welfare status
Welfare
Non-welfare
Age group
1.41
15-19
1.09
1.96
20-24
1.48
2.46
25-29
1.89
2.84
30-34
2.15
3.23
35-39
2.27
3.41
40-44
2.38
Figure 3. Use of Voluntary Sterilization to Control Unwanted Childbearing
Among Welfare and Non-welfare Mothers
67%
49%
Welfare Mothers
Of those who want no more
Percent who want
children, percent who have
no more children
had tubal ligation
39%
Non-welfare Mothers
Table 1. Contraceptive Status of Welfare Mothers, Nonwelfare Poor Mothers, and Nonpoor Mothers,
United States, 1988
Mothers receiving
Nonwelfare poor
welfare
mothers*
Nonpoor mothers
Using contraception, method
Voluntarily sterile
33.0%
30.7%
27.7%
Male partner voluntarily sterile
1.1%
3.5%
13.3%
Pill
19.7%
17.6%
11.9%
Condom
3.1%
8.4%
9.5%
IUD
1.8%
2.9%
1.7%
Other method
5.5%
4.5%
11.2%
Total using contraception
64.2%
67.6%
75.2%
Abstinent
(nonuse and no sex last 3 months)
6.6%
7.5%
3.6%
Total contracepting and abstinent
70.8%
75.1%
78.8%
Not using contraception, infertile
Pregnant
6.8%
4.3%
4.2%
Postpartum
1.9%
1.0%
1.3%
Non-voluntarily sterile
3.7%
6.2%
9.1%
Total infertile
12.3%
11.5%
14.6%
Sexually active, no contraception
Wants to get pregnant
2.7%
2.8%
2.9%
Had has sex in last three months,
does not want to get pregnant
14.1%
10.6%
3.7%
Total at risk of pregnancy
16.9%
13.4%
6.6%
All statuses
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
*Below 133% of poverty level.
Source: Author's retabulation of unpublished data from the 1988 National Survey of Family Growth.
Tabulations provided by Jane Mauldon, Graduate School of Public Policy, University of California at
Berkeley, February 1996.
Table 2. Prevalence of Mistimed and Unwanted Births Among Welfare Mothers, Nonwelfare Poor
Mothers, and Nonpoor Mothers, United States, 1988
Mothers
receiving
Nonwelfare
Nonpoor
All
welfare
poor mothers*
mothers
mothers
Has had at least one live birth that
was the result of a "mistimed"
conception
66.0%
53.3%
43.8%
47.1%
Has had at least one live birth that
was the result of an "unwanted"
conception
29.4%
24.7%
13.3%
16.3%
Has had a live birth that was the
result of either an "unwanted" or
"mistimed" conception
79.4%
64.7%
51.3%
55.6%
*Below 133% of poverty level.
Source: Author's retabulation of unpublished data from the 1988 National Survey of Family Growth.
Tabulations provided by Jane Mauldon, Graduate School of Public Policy, University of California at
Berkeley, February 1996.
1
N
Childbearing
Costs of Adolesce
Specia Report on n
A Robin Hood Found
760 STORE The
/
.
-
KIDS HAVING KIDS
A Robin Hood Foundation Special Report on the
Costs of Adolescent Childbearing
Rebecca A. Maynard, Editor
Kids Having Kids
A Robin Hood Foundation Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing
INTRODUCTION
I
Costs to U.S. Taxpayers
18
II
Social Costs
19
Acknowledgments
Unmeasured Costs
20
Scholars
IV
Advisors
V
CONTEXT FOR THE STUDY
23
A SYNTHESIS OF PROJECT FINDINGS
1
THE NEW FACE OF ADOLESCENT
CHILDBEARING
23
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE
STUDY FINDINGS
5
Circumstances of
Teenage Parenthood
24
Marital Versus Nonmarital Births
CONSEQUENCES FOR THE CHILDREN
Among Teenagers
24
OF ADOLESCENT MOTHERS
5
Limited Roles of Absent Fathers
27
Low-Birthweight Babies
5
Trend Toward Two-Earner Families
27
Childhood Health Problems
5
Employment Among Single Parents
27
The Homes Where They Live
7
Adolescent Fatherhood
28
Runaway Children
7
Child Abuse and Neglect
8
PRIOR RESEARCH ON THE CAUSES
Foster Children
8
AND CONSEQUENCES OF
Trouble in School
8
ADOLESCENT CHILDBEARING
28
High School Dropouts
9
Factors Related to the Trends in
Teen Birthrates
28
Adolescent Mothers From One
Generation to the Next
9
Consequences of Adolescent
Childbearing
29
Unproductive Lives
10
Behind Bars
10
Single Parenthood
29
School Completion
30
CONSEQUENCES FOR THE
Social and Economic
ADOLESCENT MOTHERS
11
Circumstances
30
Roles of the Fathers
31
Dropping Out of High School
12
Single Parenthood
13
THE STUDY DESIGN
33
Employment and Earnings
14
Total Income and Welfare
15
ANALYTIC STRATEGY
33
CONSEQUENCES FOR THE FATHERS
16
APPORTIONING DIFFERENCES IN
OUTCOMES, BY SOURCE
36
Adolescent Dads
17
Dads of Children Born to Adolescent Moms 17
CONSEQUENCES FOR ADOLESCENT
MOTHERS
41
COSTS OF ADOLESCENT
CHILDBEARING FOR THE NATION
18
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
41
Kids Having Kids
A Robin Hood Foundation Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing
LIVING ARRANGEMENTS
RUNAWAY CHILDREN
68
AND FERTILITY
45
Single-Parent Households
45
CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT
69
Public and Subsidized Housing
45
COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Fertility
45
AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS
71
EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS
46
OUTCOMES FOR TEENS AND YOUNG
Employment
46
ADULTS OF ADOLESCENT PARENTS
73
Earnings
46
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION
73
ECONOMIC SUPPORT
52
THE NEXT GENERATION OF
The First 12 Years of Parenthood
52
ADOLESCENT MOTHERS
75
Economic Support During Early
Adulthood
54
ECONOMIC INACTIVITY
75
55
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
78
CONSEQUENCES FOR THE FATHERS
THE ECONOMIC COSTS OF
CONSEQUENCES FOR ADOLESCENT
ADOLESCENT CHILDBEARING
81
FATHERS
55
Years of Schooling
55
MEASURING THE COSTS OF
ADOLESCENT CHILDBEARING
81
Earnings and Potential to
Pay Child Support
56
Measuring Costs to
Adolescent Mothers
82
OUTCOMES FOR FATHERS OF
Costs to Taxpayers
82
CHILDREN BORN TO ADOLESCENT
Costs to Society
84
MOTHERS
56
Sources of the Component Cost
Estimates
84
CONSEQUENCES FOR CHILDREN OF
ADOLESCENT MOTHERS
61
COSTS AND BENEFITS TO
ADOLESCENT MOTHERS
86
HEALTH STATUS AND
MEDICAL CARE UTILIZATION
61
COSTS TO TAXPAYERS
88
Health Status
61
COSTS TO SOCIETY
88
Medical Care Utilization
64
Medical Care Costs
64
REFERENCES
92
Consequences of Longer Delays in
FOOTNOTES
95
Childbearing
67
APPENDIX: SUPPLEMENTARY
HOME ENVIRONMENTS
68
TABLES
96
Kids Having Kids
A Robin Hood Foundation Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing
LIST OF TABLES
1 Trends Related to Teenage Childbearing
26
2 Data Sources, by Study
35
3 Educational Attainment of Adolescent and Later Childbearers
43
4 Living Arrangements and Fertility of Adolescent
and Later Childbearers
47
5 Employment, Earnings and Other Income of Adolescent and Later
Childbearers
48
6 Sources of Economic Support for Adolescent and
Later Childbearers
49
7 Health Status of and Healthcare Services to Children of Adolescent
and Later Childbearers
62
8 Child Outcomes, by Mother's Age at Focal Child's Birth
63
9 Child Abuse and Foster Care Placement by Mothers' Age at First Birth
70
10 Framework for Assessing the Economic Consequences of Adolescent
Childbearing
83
11 Estimated Benefits and Costs to Adolescent Childbearers of Not Delaying
Parenting Until Age 20 or 21
87
12 Annual Net Costs to Taxpayers of Adolescent Childbearing
89
13 Annual Costs to Society of Adolescent Childbearing
90
APPENDIX: SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
A.1 Control Variables Used in the Analyses
96
A.2 Simulation Estimates of the Costs of Prior Teenage Childbearing
(March 1996 Dollars)
97
A.3 Average Annual Discounted Differences in Outcomes Between
Adolescent and Later Childbearers (First 13 Years of Parenthood)
98
Kids Having Kids
A Robin Hood Foundation Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing
A.4 Average Annual Undiscounted Differences in Outcomes Between
Adolescent and Later Childbearers (First 13 Years of Parenthood)
99
A.5 Sources of Economic Support for Adolescent and
Later Childbearers, By Source
100
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Pregnancy Rates Among 15- to 19-year-olds and Their Resolutions
25
2 Apportioning Differences in Outcomes, by Source
38
3 High School/GED Completion at Age 30
44
4 Average Annual Earnings During the First 13 Years of Parenthood
50
5 Allocation of Economic Support During the First 13 Years of Parenthood
51
6 Average Annual Welfare and Food Stamp Benefits
During the First 13 Years of Parenthood
53
7 Fathers' Years of Schooling at Age 27, Adolescent and Older Fathers
57
8 Annual Earnings of Fathers at Age 27, Adolescent and Older Fathers
58
9 Average Annual Earnings of Fathers of Children Born to Adolescent
and Later Childbearers (Child's Birth Through Age 19)
59
10 Medical Care Visits by Children of Adolescent and Later Childbearers
65
11 Annual Medical Care Costs
66
12 School Performance of Children Born to Adolescent and Later Childbearers
72
13 High School Completion of Children of Adolescent and Later Childbearers
74
14 Childbearing Before Age 18 by Female Children of
Adolescent and Later Childbearers
76
15 Economic Activity/Inactivity by Children of Adolescent and Later Childbearers
77
16 Incarceration of Young Men Born to Adolescent and Later Childbearers
79
Kids Having Kids
A Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing
his report was prepared for the Robin Hood
T
Foundation under its grant to the Catalyst In-
stitute to organize and oversee a unique re-
search project to further our understanding of
the consequences of adolescent childbearing for
adolescent mothers, for their children, for the
fathers of their children, and for the nation. The Catalyst Institute com-
missioned outstanding scholars to undertake independent research
on various aspects of this issue. So, too, they commissioned me to pre-
pare this synthesis of the scholars' research. All of us working on this
project have been encouraged to express our own judgments freely,
which we have done. Therefore, neither this report nor the supporting
research by the project scholars necessarily represents the official opin-
ion or policy of the Robin Hood Foundation or of the Catalyst Institute.
Rebecca A. Maynard, Editor
I
Kids Having Kids
A Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing
Acknowledgments
This report evolved from the vision of Paul Tudor Jones, chairman
of the Robin Hood Foundation Board of Directors, and David Saltzman,
executive director of the Robin Hood Foundation; the research of 15 of
the nation's leading scholars of economic and social welfare policy; and
the management talents of the Catalyst Institute. Paul Tudor Jones,
David Saltzman, and the Robin Hood Foundation board conceived of
and provided financial support for the project. Lisa Smith, the founda-
tions deputy director, worked on various aspects of the study from start
to finish. Charlotte Koelling and Suzanne Hammond of the Catalyst
Institute provided ongoing managerial and editorial support. Norman
Atkins provided expert consultation on the report structure and dissem-
ination package, and Margot Frankel was responsible for the final report
design. The substantive content of the report is largely the product of
intellectually challenging and tedious work by the Kids Having Kids
scholars: Michael Brien, Robert Goerge, Angela Greene, Jeff Grogger,
Robert Haveman, V. Joseph Hotz, Bong Joo Lee, Susan McElroy, Kristin
Sanders, Robert Willis, and Barbara Wolfe. They conducted their excellent
II
Kids Having Kids
A Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing
independent research projects and also patiently worked with me to find
creative solutions to a number of analytic issues that were key to esti-
mating the overall costs of adolescent childbearing. The entire Kids
Having Kids project benefited greatly from the input of an outstanding
project advisory group. The advisory group met with the scholars on
several occasions to review the project plans and progress. They also
offered their time generously to individual members of the project
staff as needed. Frank Furstenberg, Robert Moffitt, and David Myers
provided especially valuable guidance to the scholars and me through
their thoughtful comments on drafts of each of the project reports
and this synthesis report. Leslie Barber proofread the entire report. I
also must acknowledge the expert research assistance and produc-
tion support provided by Louise Alexander, Meredith Kelsey, Dan
McGrath, and Steve Hocker of the University of Pennsylvania. They read
and summarized the thousand-plus pages of text in the scholars'
reports, worked diligently on the cost analysis, and produced the
many graphs and charts for the report.
Rebecca A. Maynard, University of Pennsylvania
III
Kids Having Kids
A Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing
Scholars
Michael J. Brien, University of Virginia
Robert M. Goerge, University of Chicago
Angela Dungee Greene, Child Trends, Inc.
Jeff Grogger, University of California, Santa Barbara
Robert Haveman, University of Wisconsin
V. Joseph Hotz, University of Chicago
Bong Joo Lee, Boston University
Susan Williams McElroy, Carnegie Mellon University
Kristin A. Moore, Child Trends, Inc.
Donna Ruane Morrison, Georgetown University
Maria Perozek, University of Wisconsin
Elaine Peterson, University of Wisconsin
Seth G. Sanders, Carnegie Mellon University
Robert J. Willis, University of Michigan
Barbara Wolfe, University of Wisconsin
IV
Kids Having Kids
A Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing
Advisory Group
Elijah Anderson, University of Pennsylvania
Wendy Baldwin, National Institutes of Health
Douglas Besharov, American Enterprise Institute
Claire Brindis, University of California, San Francisco
Sarah Brown, The Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences
Michael A. Carrera, Children's Aid Society of New York
Mary Elizabeth Corcoran, University of Michigan
Sheldon H. Danziger, University of Michigan
Joy Dryfoos, Consultant
David Ellwood, Harvard University
Jacqueline D. Forrest, The Alan Guttmacher Institute
Frank Furstenberg, University of Pennsylvania
Irving B. Harris, The Harris Foundation
Karen Hein, United States Senate
Evelyn Kappeler, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Marianna Kastrinakis, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Arleen Leibowitz, RAND Corporation
Sara S. McLanahan, Princeton University
Robert A. Moffitt, Johns Hopkins University
David Myers, Mathematica Policy Research
Susan Newcomer, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Susan O. Philliber, Philliber Research Associates
Carol Roddy, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Robert F. St. Peter, Mathematica Policy Research
Robert Valdez, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Terry Watkins, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
V
Kids
Having
Kids
A Synthesis of Project Findings
ach year, nearly one million teenagers in
the United States-approximately 10 per-
E
cent of all 15- to 19-year-old females-
become pregnant. About one third of these
teens abort their pregnancies, 14 percent
miscarry, and 52 percent (or more than
half a million teens) bear children, 72 per-
cent of them out of wedlock. Of the half a
million teens who give birth each year,
roughly three-fourths are giving birth for the first time. Even
more striking, more than 175,000 of these new mothers are 17
years old or younger. These young mothers and their offspring
are especially vulnerable to severe adverse social and economic
consequences. More than 80 percent of these young mothers
end up in poverty and reliant on welfare, many for the majori-
ty of their children's critically important developmental years.
Due to their weak educational and skill levels, low rates
of marriage, and inadequate support from nonresident fathers
of their children, young mothers face significant challenges
in trying to provide for their children. Partly because of their
young age, very few of these mothers complete high school
before their first child is born. More than 80 percent of those
who are 17 or younger when they have their first child are
1
unmarried. Fewer than half of them will get married within
10 years. Only a small minority of the unwed fathers of the
children born to adolescent mothers provide any ongoing
economic support for their children.
Much of all this seems to be a uniquely American phenom-
enon. The teen birthrate in the United States is the highest of
any industrialized nation, nearly twice as great as the next high-
est, the United Kingdom, and more than 15 times that of Japan.
In addition, in 1988, the last year for which comparative data are
available, a teenager in the United States was twice as likely
to have an abortion as a teenager in the United Kingdom, the
industrialized country with the next highest abortion rate.
American teens were more than 13 times as likely to have an
abortion as Japanese teens.
The public focus on adolescent childbearing as a major
social issue has been fueled by three social forces. First, child
poverty rates are high and rising. Second, the number of wel-
fare recipients and the concomitant costs of public assistance
have risen dramatically. And third, among those on welfare we
see a much higher proportion of never-married women, young-
er recipients, and recipients who have long average durations
of dependency. Adolescent
BIRTHRATE FOR 15- TO 19-YEAR-
OLD FEMALES (PER 1000)
childbearing has both con-
70
tributed to and been affect-
60
ed by these trends.
60
To better understand
50
the full costs and conse-
40
quences of adolescent child-
bearing, the Robin Hood
30
32
Foundation commissioned
20
some of the nation's lead-
ing scholars to research the
10
issue. Working in teams
4
0
on seven coordinated stud-
United
United
Japan
States
Kingdom
2
ies, the scholars ex-
ABORTION RATE FOR 15- TO 19-YEAR
OLD FEMALES (PER 1000)
plored the costs and
social consequences
60
of teen childbearing
50
53
for the young moth-
ers, their children, the
40
fathers of their chil-
dren, and the entire
30
nation. An additional
27
20
study of previously
researched childbear-
10
ing trends informed
4
0
and helped round
United
United
Japan
States
out this set of reports.
Kingdom
The scholars focused their research on the roughly 175,000
adolescents a year who have their first baby at the age of 17
or younger. Still school age, unlikely to be married, and even
less likely to be prepared for parenthood, these young mothers
highlight the dimensions of the teen-pregnancy and -parent-
hood problems in this country. The researchers compared these
young mothers with women who delay their first births until
the age of 20 or 21, which is still two to three years younger
than the national average age of women having their first
child. The researchers chose this comparison group in the
belief that a delay in childbearing until the early twenties is
a long enough delay to make a meaningful difference in the
life options of the young mothers and their children, and is
potentially attainable through aggressive teenage pregnancy-
prevention options. The teenage mothers are referred to as
"adolescent mothers" throughout this report, distinguishing
them from older teen mothers. Those who are 20 or 21 when
they have their first child are referred to as "later childbearers."
To develop an understanding of adolescent childbearing
itself, researchers attempted to untangle the pathway of early
3
parenting from an intricate web of social forces that influ-
ence the life course of the mothers, including the behaviors
and choices leading to their adolescent parenting. The re-
searchers began by examining the gross differences in out-
comes between adolescent mothers and women who delay
childbearing until the age of 20 or 21. They then applied sta-
tistical controls to apportion this overall difference into as
many as three categories. First, they looked for the portion
of the difference attributable to background factors such as
race, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, and parents' education.
Second, they accounted for the portion of the difference due
to factors closely linked to adolescent childbearing but often
difficult or impossible to measure directly-factors such as
motivation, self-esteem, peer-group influence, and the impact
of community.
All of the studies were able to break out these two sets of
components. Two of the studies went further and isolated the
effects of adolescent childbearing itself on outcomes. One
accomplished this by using the randomness of miscarriages,
which force a delay in the timing of the first birth. The other
study utilized the fact that a woman who has more than one
child is necessarily older when she gives birth to her second
child. Scholars, therefore, were able to separate the effects of
early childbearing from the effects of other factors that are
correlated with early childbearing.
The full study is to be published in October of this year
by the Urban Institute Press under the title Kids Having Kids:
Economic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy.
The following summarizes the scholars' major findings.
4
Highlights of the
Study Findings
CONSEQUENCES FOR THE CHILDREN OF
ADOLESCENT MOTHERS
The odds are stacked against the offspring of adolescent moth-
ers from the moment they enter the world. As they grow, they
are more likely than children of later childbearers to have health
and cognitive disadvantages and to be neglected or abused.
The daughters of adolescent mothers are more likely to become
adolescent moms themselves, and the sons are more likely to
wind up in prison.
Low-Birthweight Babies When compared to children of
mothers age 20 or 21 when they had their first child, the child-
ren of adolescents are more likely to be born prematurely and
50 percent more likely to be low-birthweight babies-of
less than five and a half pounds (Moore, Morrison, and Greene
forthcoming). Low birthweight raises the probabilities of a
variety of adverse conditions such as infant death, blindness,
deafness, chronic respiratory problems, mental retardation,
mental illness, and cerebral palsy. In addition, low birthweight
doubles the chance a child will later be diagnosed as having
dyslexia, hyperactivity, or another disability. Even after factor-
ing out a variety of related background characteristics, the re-
search indicates that adolescent childbearing and closely linked
factors heighten the risk of low birthweight and later problems
the children, their parents, and their schools must confront.
Childhood Health Problems As they grow, the children
of adolescent moms tend to suffer poorer health than do the
5
children of women who were age 20 or 21 when their first
child was born (Wolfe and Perozek forthcoming). Therefore,
one would also expect them to see the doctor more often
than do children of later childbearers. But, perversely, they
receive only half the level of medical care and treatment their
counterparts receive.
Based on parents' reports of their children's health status,
children of later childbearers are much more likely to be in
"excellent" health than are the children of adolescent moms:
60 percent of the children of the later childbearers are so rated,
versus 38 percent of the children of adolescent mothers. Mean-
while, in his or her first 14 years, the average child of an ado-
lescent mom visits a physician and other medical providers an
average of 2.3 times per year, compared with 4.8 times for a
child of later childbearers. Early childbearing and closely linked
factors-such as motivation, peer group influence, and commu-
nity context-account for about one third of this large difference.
On average, an adolescent mother consumes $3,700 per
year in healthcare for her children. Even though each of her
children individually receives substantially less care than child-
ren of later childbearers, the typical adolescent mom annually
consumes nearly 20 percent
RATES OF LOW BIRTHWEIGHT BABIES
more medical care for her
9%
children than she would if
she delayed childbearing
7.8%
Increase
Attributed to
until age 20 or 21 for the
Adolescent
Childbearing and
very simple reason that she
6%
Closely Linked
Factors
has, on average, more child-
ren than her older child-
5.2%
bearing counterparts do.
Almost half of her chil-
3%
dren's medical bills-$1,794
is paid for by the taxpayers
in the form of publicly sup-
0%
ported health subsidies. After
Babies Born to
Babies Born to
Adolescent
20- to 21-year-old
Mothers
Mothers
6
other variables are controlled for, including the poorer health of
children of adolescent mothers, the typical adolescent mother
actually consumes an average of $562 more a year on healthcare
for her children than does her counterpart who delays childbear-
ing until age 20 or 21. At the same time, she spends $144 a year
less out-of-pocket, while the public pays $776 more through
Medicaid and other publicly funded health insurance for her
children than they pay for children of otherwise similar child-
bearers. Based on this estimate, the health-services dimension of
adolescent childbearing costs taxpayers about $1.5 billion more
each year than if girls age 17 and younger had delayed parenthood.
The Homes Where They Live Children of adolescent
moms are much less likely than their peers to grow up in homes
with fathers (Moore et al. forthcoming). In addition, the quality
of the homes where they live is rated substantially lower than
those of the comparison group, even after controlling for various
background factors. This conclusion is based upon results of the
widely accepted Home Observation for Measurement of the
Environment (HOME) survey, which rates homes based on the
emotional support and cognitive stimulation provided to child-
ren. For example, the sur-
RATES AT WHICH KIDS SAY THEY RUN
vey analyzes the amount
AWAY BETWEEN THE AGES OF 12 AND 16
6%
and quality of attention
children receive from their
5.4%
parents and the degree
Increase
to which their residences
Attributed to
4%
Adolescent
contain books, educa-
Childbearing
and Closely
tional toys, and games.
Linked Factors
Runaway Children
2%
Children of adolescent
moms are two to three
times more likely than
the children of their
0%
Children of
Children of
Adolescent
20- to 21-year-old
Mothers
Mothers
7
older childbearing counterparts to report having run away
from home during those years. Five percent of adolescent
mothers' children are sufficiently miserable in their homes
that they report running away from it sometime between
the ages of 12 and 16, compared with only about 2 percent of
children born to later childbearers (Moore et al. forthcoming).
Child Abuse and Neglect Children of adolescent moms are
also far more likely to be physically abused, abandoned, or neglected
(Goerge and Lee forthcoming). In a study of Illinois Child Protec-
tive Service statistics, which are among the best and most comp-
rehensive in the nation, the scholars found that children of ado-
lescent mothers are more than twice as likely to be the victims of
abuse and neglect than are the offspring of 20- to 21-year-old moms.
Illinois logged 109 reports of child abuse per 1,000 children
born to adolescent moms and only 50 per 1,000 children in the
comparison group of children born to mothers who were 20 or 21.
To the extent that researchers were able to factor out the influence
of background characteristics, their work shows that adolescent
childbearing is a major cause of this huge margin of difference in
child-abuse rates. In addition, one of every four times Illinois
receives a report that a child of an adolescent mother has been
abused, it finds abuse so great it places the child in foster care.
Foster Children An estimated 472,000 children are in fos-
ter care in the United States at any one time (Goerge and Lee
forthcoming). Extrapolating from the Illinois study to the na-
tion, early childbearing and closely linked factors lead to
23,600 children-an estimated five percent of all those born
to adolescent mothers each year-ending up in foster care.
The effect of adolescent childbearing on foster-care placement
results in a taxpayer burden as high as $900 million a year.
Trouble in School In school, the children of adolescent
moms do much worse than those in the comparison group of later
8
childbearers (Moore et al.
HIGH SCHOOL DROP OUT RATES
forthcoming). They are
two to three times less
25%
likely to be rated "excel-
23%
lent" by their teachers and
Increase
Attributed to
20%
50 percent more likely to
Adolescent
Childbearing
repeat a grade. And they
15%
perform significantly worse
Increase Attributed
To Other Factors
on tests of their cognitive
10%
development, even after
11%
differences in measurable
5%
background factors have
been screened out.
0
Children of
Children of
High School Drop-
Adolescent
20-to 21-year-old
Mothers
Mothers
outs The research sug-
gests that performance in school does not improve as children of
adolescent mothers age. They are far more likely to drop out than
are children born to later childbearers (Haveman, Wolfe, and Peter-
son forthcoming). Only 77 percent of the children of adolescent
moms earn their high school diplomas by early adulthood, compared
with 89 percent of the comparison group. Although a part of this siz-
able difference in high school graduation-rates can be explained
by background differences, 57 percent of the graduation rate gap is
due to adolescent childbearing and closely linked factors.
Adolescent Mothers From One Generation to the Next
When compared with their counterparts born to older child-
bearers, the daughters of adolescent moms are 83 percent more
likely themselves to become mothers before age 18 (Haveman
et al. forthcoming). After controlling for various background
factors, adolescent childbearing and closely linked factors
account for about 40 percent of this difference in adolescent
pregnancy rates. Teen mothers beget teen mothers at a far
greater rate than older mothers do, and they are far more likely
9
LIKELIHOOD OF BECOMING A MOTHER
to pass on their poor life
BEFORE AGE 18
prospects as a birthright.
20%
Furthermore, the daughters
of teen moms, whether or
Increase
not they become teen moms
16.5%
Attributed to
15%
Adolescent
themselves, are 50 percent
Childbearing
more likely to bear children
out of wedlock than the
10%
Increase Attributed
To Other Factors
comparison group.
9%
Unproductive Lives A
5%
snapshot of adolescent moth-
ers' children at the age of
0
24 reveals that roughly 30
Daughters of
Daughters of
percent of them are neither
Adolescent
20-to 21-year-old
Mothers
Mothers
in school nor working nor
actively looking for a job (Haveman et al. forthcoming). At that
point in life, they are 71 percent more likely to be unengaged
productively than are peers whose mothers delayed childbear-
ing until their early twenties. Less than half of this "economic
activity" gap is attributable to observable background factors.
Most of the difference is due to adolescent childbearing and
closely linked factors. The research suggests though it does not
spell out directly that the children of adolescent moms are less
likely to attend college and more likely to work in low-skill jobs.
For these and other reasons, their long-term earnings potential
appears to be significantly lower than that of the comparison
group born to later childbearers.
Behind Bars The teen sons of adolescent mothers are 2.7 times
more likely to land in prison than the sons of mothers who de-
layed childbearing until their early twenties (Grogger forthcom-
ing). Adolescent childbearing by itself accounts for 19 percent of
this difference. By extension, adolescent childbearing in and of
itself costs U.S. taxpayers roughly $1 billion each year to build
10
and maintain prisons for
INCARCERATION RATES OF SONS DURING
THEIR YOUNG ADULT YEARS
the sons of adolescent
mothers. In addition to
12%
the measurable criminal-
Increase
justice costs, other, less tan-
10.3%
Attributed to
Adolescent
gible costs, such as dam-
Childbearing
8%
age to people and property,
are associated with crim-
Increase Attributed
inal activity.
To Other Factors
4%
CONSEQUENCES
3.8%
FOR
ADOLESCENT
0%
MOTHERS
Sons of
Sons of
Adolescent
20-to 21-year-old
In absolute terms, adoles-
Mothers
Mothers
cent mothers face poor life prospects. Seven of 10 will drop out of
high school. During their first 13 years of parenthood, adolescent
moms earn an average of about $5,600 annually, less than half the
poverty level. And adolescent mothers spend much of their young
adult years (ages 19 to 30) as single parents. Surprisingly, after
accounting for differences in background and closely linked fac-
tors such as motivation, adolescent mothers earn only slightly less
during the first 12 years of parenthood than they would be
expected to earn if they delayed childbearing until age 20 or 21
(Hotz, Sanders, and McElroy forthcoming). In contrast, over their
young adult lives (ages 19 to 30), they work and earn somewhat
more than do their later childbearing counterparts.
Moreover, although their sources of income differ, adolescent
mothers have combined incomes from their own earnings, earn-
ings of spouses, child support, and public assistance comparable to
those of the older childbearers, after background and closely
linked factors are controlled for. During their first 13 years of par-
enthood, they have income and medical-care assistance valued at
just nearly $19,000 annually, compared with just over $20,000
11
annually for their later childbearing counterparts. After netting out
the effects of background and other factors closely linked to early
childbearing, adolescent childbearers fare slightly better than their
later childbearing counterparts in terms of their overall economic
welfare having total incomes of nearly $20,000 annually as com-
pared with just over $16,000 for the comparison group.
Although total economic support is not greatly affected by
adolescent childbearing itself, this relatively modest level of eco-
nomic support must feed more mouths than does the income
of their counterparts who delay childbearing until age 20 or 21,
resulting in greater poverty. Larger family sizes, together with
weakened chances of stable marriage, lead to about 50 percent
higher rates of welfare dependence among adolescent parents.
The really significant consequences of adolescent child-
bearing for the mothers are lower levels of educational attain-
ment, higher rates of single parenthood, larger family sizes, and
greater reliance on public assistance. Even after parsing out the
effects of background and closely linked factors that can explain
some of the observed differences in outcomes between adoles-
cent mothers and their later childbearing counterparts, the
research shows that adolescent childbearing itself accounts for a
RATES AT WHICH MOTHERS EARN A
50 percent lower likelihood
HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA
of completing high school,
80%
24 percent more children,
76%
and 57 percent more time
Increase
Attributed to
as a single parent during the
Adolescent
Childbearing
first 13 years of parenthood.
60%
Dropping Out of High
Increase
Attributed to
School Pregnancy and
Background
40%
Factors
parenting pose major chal-
lenges to full-time school
32%
attendance. As a result,
adolescent mothers drop
20%
out at a staggering rate, and
Adolescent
20- to 21-year-
Mothers
old Mothers
12
those who have already dropped out are less likely to return to
school (Hotz et al. forthcoming). Only about three of 10 ado-
lescent mothers earn a high school diploma by age 30, com-
pared with nearly 76 percent in the comparison group of
women who delay childbearing until age 20 or 21. Controlling
for a wide range of background variables, scholars found that
adolescent childbearing alone accounts for more than 40 per-
cent of this difference in graduation rates. Looked at another
way, adolescent childbearing, at its current rate, is directly
responsible for over 30,000 adolescent girls in the U.S, annu-
ally not completing high school.
All of the school completion gap will be made up by ado-
lescent mothers earning General Education Development (GED)
certificates at higher rates than do their older childbearing
counterparts. However, an emerging body of research suggests
that, although a GED may enhance the earnings potential of
school dropouts, it does not close the entire earnings gap.
Single Parenthood Adolescent moms spend nearly five
times more of their young adult years as single parents than do
women who have their
first child at age 20 or 21-
PERCENTAGE OF TIME THROUGH AGE 30
SPENT AS SINGLE PARENT
four years versus ten
months (Hotz et al. forth-
40%
coming). The research
indicates that adolescent
32.1%
30
childbearing itself is
Increase
Attributed to
Adolescent
responsible for half of this
Childbearing
difference. These same
20
mothers would have spent
Increase Attributed
an average of only 2.7 years
To Other Factors
as single parents if they had
10
delayed childbearing until
8.6%
age 20 or 21. Also, children
who grow up in the homes
0
Adolescent
20- to 21-year-
Mothers
old Mothers
13
of single moms are one and a half to two times more likely to
become teen parents themselves than are children who live in
two-parent families.
Employment and Earnings Although the employment lev-
els and earnings of adolescent mothers are low, early childbear-
ing is not the cause (Hotz et al., forthcoming). The research
shows that virtually all of the large observed differences in
hours of employment and earnings between adolescent mo-
thers and older childbearers result from factors other than their
decisions regarding when to begin their families. For example,
during young adulthood, adolescent mothers exert more work
effort than do their peers, perhaps out of necessity. After back-
ground and other compounding factors are controlled for, ado-
lescent mothers work an average of 831 hours per year during
their early adulthood (ages 19 to 30), which is 34 percent more
than their later childbearing counterparts.
Significant numbers of adolescent mothers join the work
force as their children begin preschool and kindergarten, a time
when many counterpart moms are beginning to spend time at
home with their babies. However, during the first 13 years of
parenthood, adolescent mothers and their comparison group
work similar hours: 691 and 762 hours per year, respective-
ly-roughly 14 hours a week on average.
Most striking is the finding that both groups of women
have desperately low earnings despite moderate levels of work
effort. Controlling for background and closely linked factors,
adolescent moms and their comparison group earn only about
$5,700 and $6,200 annually, respectively, during their first 13 years
of parenthood.
The average $6,323 annual earnings of the adolescent moth-
ers during young adulthood (ages 19 to 30), though extremely low,
is more than 32 percent above the $4,801 average annual earnings
of their later childbearing counterparts. This difference is due entire-
ly to their greater work effort during their mid- to late twenties.
14
Total Income and Welfare Adolescent mothers have
slightly lower total family income during their early years as
parents than they would have had if they had delayed child-
bearing until their early twenties (Hotz et al. forthcoming).
However, the typical adolescent mother enters the work force
and marries at a younger age than does her later childbearing
counterpart, resulting in 22 percent higher total income dur-
ing her young adult years (ages 19 to 30).
From either time perspective-the early years of parent-
ing or young adulthood-adolescent parents have a different
profile of income sources than do the comparison mothers.
Both groups get roughly 30 percent of their total support from
their own labor. However, adolescent mothers get a lower share
of their total support from the fathers of their children and
their spouses and higher shares from public assistance.
During their first 13 years of parenthood, adolescent
mothers get less income from their own earnings, substantially
less from earnings of their spouses, and more from public
assistance. During their young adult years, when most of the
children of adolescent mothers are school age and while com-
parison mothers have infants and toddlers, the adolescent
mothers receive a slightly higher share of their income from
their own labor and less from public assistance.
The adolescent mothers' earnings represent just under one
third of their average $17,216 annual income (including the
value of food stamps) during the first 13 years of parenthood. In
addition, they receive for their children publicly supported
medical care valued at roughly $1,517 annually. Despite high
rates of single parenthood, adolescent mothers with a resident
father receive substantial help from their spouses. Adolescent
moms receive nearly half of their family's income-$9,000 to
$10,000 per year-from resident fathers and spouses. Nonresi-
dent fathers, on the other hand, contribute less than five percent
of the total income; 11 percent comes from welfare and food
stamps; and 8 percent is medical assistance for their children.
15
These findings are consistent with previous research show-
ing that the majority of adolescent mothers live in poverty dur-
ing the years their children are growing up. More than 70 percent
of them end up on welfare, and 40 percent will be on welfare for
five years or more during the decade after their first birth.
Adolescent mothers receive 50 percent more welfare assis-
tance than do the comparison group of women who have their
first child at age 20 or 21, partly because women who are 20 or 21
when they have their first child marry at higher rates and can count
on greater support from their spouses. Still, while their children are
in the preteen years, adolescent mothers have to make do with
only 92 percent of the average level of income support of their
comparison group counterparts. Moreover, adolescent moms
have, on average, 2.6 rather than 2.0 child to raise. Therefore, when
measured against the poverty index, which accounts for family
size, the typical adolescent mom and her children are significantly
poorer than their counterparts, despite their slightly higher earn-
ings and the much higher public-assistance they receive.
CONSEQUENCES FOR THE FATHERS
Boys are one third as likely as girls to become adolescent par-
ents, according to recent studies of teen sexuality and child-
bearing (Alan Guttmacher Institute 1994). Each year fewer than
60,000 boys age 17 and younger father children for the first
time. The fathers of children born to adolescent mothers are,
on average, two and a half years older than the mom; in one
fifth of the cases, they are at least six years older (Alan Guttmach-
er Institute 1994). Recent research also suggests that the inci-
dence of pregnancy among adolescent girls often is the result of
sexually predatory behavior of older men. Although the Kids
Having Kids scholars found that the consequences
of adolescent childbearing on both young and older fathers are
not as sharp as the effects on mothers and their children, they
did discover some impacts, especially on younger dads.
16
Adolescent Dads Ado-
YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED BY
FATHERS THROUGH THE AGE OF 27
lescent dads will finish an
average of only 11.3 years of
13
school by the age of 27, com-
Increase
12.7
pared with nearly 13 years by
Attributed to
Adolescent
their counterparts who de-
Childbearing
12
lay fathering until age 21
Increase Attributed
(Brien and Willis forthcom-
To Other Factors
ing). After the effects of
11.3
various background variables
II
are screened out, adolescent
childbearing and closely
linked factors account for ado-
lescent dads finishing one
10
semester less school than the
Adolescent
20- to 21-vear-old
Fathers
Fathers
comparison group of older
fathers. In many cases, the semester may be the pivotal one that
determines whether a high school senior will graduate or drop out.
By age 27, adolescent fathers earn, on average, $4,732 less
annually than the comparison group of men who delay father-
ing until age 20 or 21 (Brien and Willis forthcoming). Although
just over half of this difference is explained by background
factors, the research suggests that an average of $2,181 in low-
er earings per year is due to adolescent parenting and closely
linked factors. As a consequence, adolescent dads are not as
prepared as their comparison-group counterparts to contribute
financially to the well-being of their young families or-when
they do not live with the mothers-to pay child support.
Dads of Children Born to Adolescent Moms Over the
18 years following the birth of their first children, the dads of
children born to adolescent mothers earn, on average, $10,712
per year (in 1996 dollars), compared with $13,796 for the male
partners of delayed childbearers (Brien and Willis forthcoming).
This means they have about $3,000 less per year at their disposal
-
17
to help support their children and families. Roughly half of these
lower earnings are explained by various background factors.
Little of the increased earnings that would result from de-
layed childbearing is likely to benefit the adolescent mothers
and their children. Benefit can be felt only when the parents
live together or the father pays child support, but currently only
19 percent of adolescent mothers wed the fathers of their first
child before or shortly after the birth of the child. And earlier
research demonstrates that a small fraction of nonresident
fathers of children born to adolescent mothers pay child sup-
port on any regular basis. Currently, only 15 percent of never-
married teen moms are ever awarded child support, and those
with orders receive, on average, only one third of the amount
originally awarded (Congressional Budget Office 1990).
Meanwhile, the Kids Having Kids researchers found that
fathers who do not marry the adolescent mothers of their children
have incomes sufficient for society to expect them to contribute
support at a level that would offset as much as 40 to 50 percent of
the welfare costs to the adolescent mothers and their families.
More rigorous paternity establishment and child-support en-
forcement could provide gains for children and the rest of society.
COSTS OF ADOLESCENT CHILDBEARING
FOR THE NATION
How much does adolescent childbearing cost the United States?
Even the very best data, which were culled, arranged, and ana-
lyzed for the purpose of this study, cannot possibly give a com-
plete or precise figure. Still, this study gives the clearest estimates
to date. It controls for background factors and, where possible,
closely linked factors to isolate the economic costs to the nation
and to society caused by adolescent childbearing.
Costs to the U.S. Taxpayers In looking at five impor-
tant dimensions of the problem, researchers estimate that
18
adolescent childbearing itself
COST OF ADOLESCENT
CHILDBEARING ITSELF TO TAXPAYERS
costs the taxpayers $6.9 bil-
(IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
lion each year. The higher pub-
Increased
lic-assistance benefits-wel-
Incarceration
$1.0
Expenses
fare and food stamps com-
Increased
$2.2
Welfare and
bined-caused by adolescent
Food Stamp
Benefits
childbearing cost the taxpay-
$1.5
Increased
Medical Care
ers $2.2 billion. The increased
Expenses
medical-care expenses cost
$1.3
Loss of Tax
Revenue
$1.5 billion. Constructing and
$0.9
Increased
maintaining prisons to house
Foster Care
TOTAL: $6.9 Billion
the increased number of crim-
inals caused by adolescent childbearing costs about $1 bil-
lion each year, and the increased costs of foster care are only
slightly less at $.9 billion. Due to the sizable effect of adolescent
childbearing on the work patterns of fathers, the United States
incurs a nontrivial loss of tax revenue-$1.3 billion annually.
The cost to taxpayers of adolescent childbearing together
with the other disadvantages faced by adolescent mothers is
between $13 billion and nearly $19 billion per year-this is
the amount the taxpayers would save if a policy successfully
delayed adolescent childbearing and successfully addressed
these other disadvantages.
Social Costs Beyond the taxpayer expenses described above,
another important consequence of adolescent childbearing is
a loss in national productivity. A society using its energy and
resources to mitigate the problems caused by teen childbear-
ing is unable to expend those resources for more produc-
tive purposes. Based largely on the diversion of its resources
toward the increased health care, foster care, and incarcera-
tion rates apparently caused by adolescent childbearing, re-
searchers calculated a social cost to the nation of just under
$9 billion per year. That figure utilizes the tightest controls for
various background factors. When researchers control for a
19
COST OF ADOLESCENT
moderate range of back-
CHILDBEARING TO SOCIETY
(IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
ground factors, they calcu-
$30
late the social cost of ado-
$29
lescent childbearing at $21
25
billion per year.
The gross annual cost to
20
society of adolescent child-
bearing and the entire web of
15
social problems that confront
adolescent moms and ulti-
10
mately lead to the poorer and
sometimes devastating out-
5
$6.9
comes for their kids is calcu-
lated to be $29 billion.
0
Cost of
Cost of Adolescent
Adolescent
Childbearing and
Unmeasured Costs These
Childbearing
All Related Factors
are probably lower-bound
estimates of the cost of adolescent childbearing. They do not take
into account-because the research data are unavailable-all
potentially relevant costs to society in terms of lost productivity
and wasted resources. For example, adolescent childbearing is
associated with higher levels of learning disabilities and social
problems among children, which impact the costs of education
and social services and lead to lost productivity. More important,
this framework does not include the compounding intergenera-
tional effects of adolescent childbearing that are strongly suggest-
ed by the research. Finally, the report examines only the costs of
adolescent childbearing when the mother is 17 years of age or
younger, which represents only about 45 percent of first-time teen
mothers. A similar pattern of adverse consequences, albeit more
modest, was observed for older teens.
20
Context for
The Study
THE NEW FACE OF ADOLESCENT
CHILDBEARING
In 1993, 513,647 children were born to U.S. teens. This represents a rate of
60 births for every 1,000 15- to 19-year-old females. In no other industrial-
ized nation in the world do teens bear children in such high numbers.
Great Britain has the next highest rate, with 33 births for every 1,000
female teens. Only three other industrialized nations-Canada, Austria,
and Australia-have birthrates as high as 20. And while the teen-childbear-
ing rate has recently declined in other industrialized nations, the U.S. rate
has risen 21 percent in the past decade.
A high-and growing-portion of U.S. births to teen mothers (39
percent) involve girls 17 years old or younger. Not surprisingly, the vast
majority of births to these young teens (86 percent, or 175,259) were first
births. Mothers in this group-called adolescent mothers in this report, to
distinguish them from teen moms who have their first children at age 18 or
19-present a special worry to policymakers in that they have low rates of
school completion, high rates of poverty, high rates of public assistance,
and high rates of single parenthood.
The incidence of teenage childbearing has changed over the past 30
years, declining to an all-time low of 50.2 teenage births per 1,000 in 1986
and thereafter rising an average of 3.5 percent per year (FIGURE 1). By 1991,
the teenage birthrate had risen 24 percent from its lowest, to 62.1 births per
1,000 15-to 19-year-old females. Only in the next two years did the rate
flatten and decline slightly to 60 births per 1,000 in 1993-the most recent
year for which data are available.
Even more striking is the steady trend since 1950 away from marital
to out-of-wedlock births. Currently, 72 percent of births to teens and 31
percent of all births in the United States are out of wedlock.
Underscoring the changing attitudes and patterns of out-of-wedlock
childbearing and single-parent childrearing has been a precipitous decline
in the proportion of out-of-wedlock babies given up for adoption. Where-
as more than 15 percent of babies born out of wedlock in the late 1960s
and early 1970s were placed for adoption, by the mid-80s that number
was down to less than 3 percent (Bachrach, Stolley, and London 1992).
23
As the logical consequence of these trends, increasing numbers of
teenage mothers are raising children in single-parent households, a phe-
nomenon that parallels trends for the U.S. population as a whole.
Circumstances of Teenage Parenthood Youth are sexually active
at younger ages than they were three decades ago, and a growing portion
of teens are having premarital intercourse (see TABLE 1). In 1960, for
example, just over 30 percent of adolescents (17 and under) engaged in
sexual intercourse, compared to 56 percent in 1988. This has led to in-
creased teen-childbearing rates, even at a time when contraceptive meth-
ods have improved and become far more accessible.
Still there is a great need to continue to improve contraceptive use
among teens insofar as 71 percent of all teen births occurred among the
29 percent of sexually active teens not using contraceptives. Poor, never-
married women are twice as likely to experience contraceptive failure as
nonpoor, never-married women, regardless of the chosen contraceptive
method (Brown and Eisenberg 1995; McElroy and Moore forthcoming).
Not only are teens from higher-income families less likely to get pregnant
but, if they do, they are 80 percent more likely than lower-income teens to
have an abortion. These trends explain, in part, why poor teens are bear-
ing children at a much higher rate than are their more affluent peers.
By the early 1990s, 14 percent of teenage pregnancies ended in mis-
carriage, one third ended in abortion, and just over half ended in a birth
(FIGURE 1). Only 22 percent of all births to teens ages 15 to 17 and 32 per-
cent of those to older teens are intended; indeed, 11 percent of the births
to adolescent teens and six percent of those for older teens are unwanted
(Kost and Forrest 1995).
Marital Versus Nonmarital Births Among Teenagers One of
the most notable changes in the face of early childbearing over the past 40
years is the break of the link between early childbearing and marriage.
Today, the connection is loose at best; only 15 percent of all pregnancies
to teens end with an in-wedlock birth.
From 1950 through the early 1970s, young people commonly mar-
ried and started families during their late teens, shortly after graduating
from high school. The vast majority of these young families followed the
then-traditional family model; the young women raised their children full-
time, and young men worked to support their families.
in the past two decades, this picture has changed dramatically.
Although a substantially smaller proportion of teens bear children today
than they did four decades ago, what is most striking is that the great
majority of these teen childbearers today do not marry the fathers of their
24
Source: Adapted from McElroy and Moore (forthcoming)
YEAR
1993
0661
1985
0861
1975
0261
5961
0961
0
and
- M-41
20
01
Out of Wedlock Births
09
08
INCIDENTS PER 000
Abortions
001
Miscarriages
120
IA
Pregnancy Rates Among 15- to 19-year-olds and Their Resolutions
Figure 1
Table 1
Trends Related to Teenage Childbearing
YEAR
OUTCOME
1960
1970
1980
1990
% CHANGE
Premarital sex among 15 to year-old females
29%
42%
b
52%
79:3%
Sex before age 18 among women
31%
35%
51%
56%
80.6%ᶜ
Pregnancies per 1,000 to 19-year-olds
-
95
111
117
23.2%
b
Pregnancies per 1,000 sexually experienced women
-
254
247
207
-18.5%ᵇ
Percentage of pregnant teens giving birth
72%
55%
60%
-16.7%
bi
Births per 1,000 15- to 19 year olds
89
68
53
60
-32.8%
Whites
79
57
45
51
-35.4%
Nonwhites
156
141,
98
113
-27.6%
Births per 1,000 sexually experienced 15- to 19-year-olds
-
165
118
b
107
-35.2%
Nonmarital/births per 1,000 sexually women
15
22
28
43
177.8%
c
Percentage of teen births out of wedlock
15%
31%
48%
68%
353.3%
Percentage of children in single-parent families
10%
11%
19%
22%
120.0%ᶜ
Percentage of children involved in divorce annually
0.7%
1.2%
1.8%
1.6%
128.6%
First marriages per 1,000 never-married 18- and
208
151
85
56
-73.1%
19-year-olds
Sources: S. McElroy and K. Moore (forthcoming), "Trends: National and international trends in early pregnancy and childbearing," in Kids
Having Kids: The Cost and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, R., Maynard, Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press); Alan Guttmacher
Institute (1994); Sex and America's Teenagers (New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute), 20, 44, and 51; U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement (1993), Youth Indicators 1993 (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics), conditions
3,4, 7, and 11; K. Moore, N. Snyder, and D. Glei (1995), Facts at a Glance. (Washington, D.C.: Child Trends).
-
=
Not available:
a
1988 data,
b
Percentage of change from 1970 to 1990
Percentage of change from 1960 to 1990.
children either before or after the children are born. For example, in 1950,
when the median age at first birth was 20, between eight and nine percent
of teenage women gave birth each year, approximately 80 percent within
marriage. In contrast, by 1990, when the average age at first birth had
increased three years to 23, only 6 percent of teens gave birth, and just 32
percent of these births occurred within marriage (TABLE 1). The remaining
68 percent of teen mothers, who were more likely to be poor in the first
place, assumed full-time responsibility for the care of their offspring and pri-
mary, if not exclusive, responsibility for their family's financial support.
Mothers have increasingly undertaken this responsibility them-
selves, rather than give their babies up for adoption. In the late 1960s
and early 1970s, babies born out of wedlock were five times more likely
to be given up for adoption than in the mid-1980s. Fifteen percent of the
mothers gave their babies up for adoption then, compared with less than
3 percent today (Bachrach et al. 1992).
Limited Roles of Absent Fathers Today, the noncustodial fathers of
children born to teenage mothers contribute relatively little to the sup-
port of their children. Only 15 to 20 percent of never-married teenage
parents have child-support awards. Of those with awards, only about
three fourths receive any payments, and the payments they receive are
only about one third of the generally modest award amounts (Con-
gressional Budget Office 1990).
Trend Toward Two-Earner Families This transformation in U.S.
culture has changed the profile of early childbearing dramatically for
both family members and society. Not only are adolescent mothers more
likely to rear their children in single-parent households, but they also are
much more likely to raise them in poverty. This results in part from the
lower earning power of women relative to men. But declining real earn-
ings in the low-wage market over this same period, particularly among
non-college-educated men, have also contributed.
In particular, declining earnings have fueled the rapid increase in
labor-force participation of women, including women in two-parent fami-
lies. Whereas in 1950 only 20 percent of married women with children and
12 percent of those with preschool-age children worked, by 1990 about two
thirds of married women with children were employed (including over half
of those with preschoolers). This phenomenon has prevented even sharper
increases in child poverty than otherwise would have occurred.
Employment Among Single Parents Although single mothers do
not have the option of a second breadwinner in the house, their labor-
27
force participation is roughly the same as women in two-parent families.
Moreover, the work patterns of this group have changed relatively little
over the past 20 years, even though the nature of single parenthood has
changed to include substantially higher proportions of never-married
parents. Welfare provides the economic buffer for many of the single par-
ents who do not join the labor market.
Adolescent Fatherhood The incidence of adolescent fatherhood is less
than one third the rate of adolescent motherhood; fewer than 60,000 chil-
dren are born each year to men under age 18. Indeed, two thirds of the
fathers of babies born to teenagers are themselves 20 years old or older. The
fathers of children born to mothers under age 18 are an average of about two
and a half years older than the mothers. In nearly 20 percent of the cases,
the age gap is six or more years (Alan Guttmacher Institute 1994; Landry
and Forrest 1995). As noted previously, only 30 percent of the men who
father children of adolescent mothers marry the mothers of their first child,
and most of those who do not marry provide no substantial child support.
PRIOR RESEARCH ON THE CAUSES AND
CONSEQUENCES OF ADOLESCENT CHILDBEARING
The Kids Having Kids research was undertaken in the context of literature
describing trends in adolescent childbearing and factors that lead to or
exacerbate these trends and their consequences. Aspects of the literature
have helped shape this research. So, too, the results of the Kids Having
Kids research underscore the emerging consensus that the poor outcomes
observed for teenage parents and their children are the product of myri-
ad factors, among which early childbearing is only one.
Factors Related to the Trends in Teen Birthrates The likeli-
hood that teenagers engage in unprotected sex, become pregnant, and
give birth is highly correlated with multiple risk factors. These factors
include growing up in a single-parent family, living in poverty and/or in
a high-poverty neighborhood, having low attachment to and perfor-
mance in school, and having parents with low educational attainment
(Moore, Miller et al. 1995). For example, teenagers living in single-parent
households are one and a half to two times more likely to become
teenage parents than those in two-parent families (Zill and Nord 1994).
Probabilities increase for those with low aspirations and low aptitude test
scores. More important, each of these factors increases not only the risk
of teenage parenthood but also many other negative outcomes, such as
poor school performance, weak social skills, and low earnings potential.
28
Consequences of Adolescent Childbearing Earlier studies have
found that adolescent mothers have high probabilities of raising their
children in poverty and relying on welfare for support. More than 40 per-
cent of teenage moms report living in poverty at age 27 (Moore et al.
1993). The rates are especially high among black and Hispanic adolescent
mothers, more than half of whom end up in poverty and two thirds of
whom find themselves on welfare. Indeed, 80 percent of adolescent
mothers will receive welfare during the 10 years following the birth of
their first child, 44 percent of them for more than 5 years (Jacobson and
Maynard 1995).
This results from a combination of factors, including their greater-
than-average income needs to support themselves and their children,
lower earning potentials, and more limited means of support from other
sources, including male partners. Adolescent mothers have an average of
.6 more children than older childbearers, and they have their children
over a shorter timespan. This fertility pattern both increases their income
needs over the long haul and adversely affects the likelihood that they
will complete high school and have decent earnings prospects (Nord et
al. 1992; Rangarajan, Kisker, and Maynard 1992; Grogger and Bronars
1993; Geronimous and Korenman 1993; Hoffman, Foster, and Fursten-
berg 1993; Ahn 1994).
Although the literature is consistent in pointing out these poor
outcomes for adolescent parents and their children, it is less clear as to
how much of the poor outcomes observed for adolescent parents and
their children is directly attributable to early childbearing as opposed
to other background and contextual factors common among young
mothers. The accumulating evidence suggests that half or more of the
poor outcomes likely can be attributed to factors other than early child-
bearing-factors that in many cases may have contributed to the teen
becoming a parent (Wolpin and Rosenzweig 1992; Geronimus, Korenman,
and Hillemeier 1994; Haveman and Wolfe 1994; Hoffman, Foster, and
Furstenberg 1993).
Single Parenthood Over time, adolescent mothers have become in-
creasingly likely to be single parents and the sole providers for themselves
and their children. Five years after giving birth, most teen (at childbirth)
parents are unmarried. Moreover, fewer than half of the teens who give
birth out of wedlock marry within the next 10 years (Jacobson and
Maynard 1995). Not surprisingly, therefore, marital status at the time of
the first birth is a powerful predictor of subsequent poverty status and
welfare dependence, regardless of the age of the woman when she has her
first child. More than two thirds of all out-of-wedlock childbearers end up
29
on welfare, as do 84 percent of adolescent mothers who are unmarried
when their first child is born. Especially notable about the adolescent
mothers is that so many of them give birth out of wedlock and that, when
they go on welfare, they tend to do so for long periods of time-more
than five of the 10 years following the birth of their first child.
Young mothers, in particular, have limited support either from the
fathers of their children or from other adults. Among all unwed teenage
parents, only about 30 percent of single teen parents live with adult rela-
tives, and less than one third receive any financial support, including
informal support, from the nonresident fathers of their children (Con-
gressional Budget Office 1990).
School Completion Adolescent mothers have exceptionally low
probabilities of completing their schooling and thus show weak employ-
ment prospects. Just over half of teenage mothers complete high school
during adolescence and early adulthood; many who complete high
school do so with only an alternative credential-the General Educational
Development (GED) certificate, which has either limited or no payoff in
the labor market (Cameron and Heckman 1993; Murnane, Willett, and
Boudett 1994; Cao, Stromsdorfer, and Weeks 1995). Moreover, many of
those who complete high school have very low basic skills (Strain and
Kisker 1989; Nord et al. 1992). The combination of low education cre-
dentials, low basic skills, and parenting responsibilities means that
teenage parents have limited employment opportunities, primarily
restricted to the low-wage market (Moore et al. 1993; Hoffman et al.
1993; Rangarajan et al. 1992).
Social and Economic Circumstances The logical consequence of
these outcomes is high poverty rates, even for those who are employed.
Among adolescent mothers, more than 60 percent of blacks, half of
Hispanics, and just over one quarter of whites are still in poverty by the
time they reach their late 20s (Moore et al. 1993). The poverty rates for
the more than 60 percent of adolescent mothers who live on their own
and for those who are not employed are particularly high. Poverty rates
exceed the national average even among adolescent mothers who are
employed (24 percent) and those living with a spouse (28 percent) or rel-
ative (34 percent) Congressional Budget Office 1990).
The high poverty rates are accompanied by numerous other life-
complicating factors, some caused by poverty and some contributing to
its perpetuation. Teenage parents are disproportionately concentrated in
poor, often racially segregated communities characterized by inferior
housing, high crime, poor schools, and limited health services. Many of
30
the teens have been victims of physical and/or sexual abuse. For example,
recent studies of Washington State welfare recipients estimate that half of
those women who give birth before age 18 have been sexually abused and
another 10 percent or more have been physically abused (Roper and
Weeks 1993; Boyer and Fine 1992). Data from the National Survey of Child-
ren indicate that 20 percent of sexually active teenagers have had involun-
tary sex and over half of those who are sexually active before age 15 have
experienced involuntary sex (Alan Guttmacher Institute 1994).
These statistics have been corroborated by recent experiences of para-
professional home visitors working with a representative sample of teen-
age-parent welfare recipients in three cities (Johnson, Kelsey, and Maynard,
forthcoming). In one of these sites, home visitors reported that roughly two
thirds of these teenagers are victims of physical and/or sexual abuse and as
many as 20 percent are currently abused or at risk of being abused.
Roles of the Fathers As noted previously, the male partners of teenage
mothers tend not to be teens themselves. Even so, they generally are not a
consistent source of support for the teenage mothers or their children.
Only 20 to 30 percent marry the mothers of their children, and only about
20 percent of the nonresident fathers are ordered by the court to pay child
support. Those with orders pay only a small fraction of the award amount.
As a result, Kids Having Kids scholars found that less than 5 percent of the
income of teen-parent families derives from the fathers.
Recent research indicates that, among those fathers whose children
end up on welfare, only about one third have regular contact with the
mother by the time of the birth. Another third have intermittent contact,
and the remaining fathers have no involvement whatsoever (Maynard,
Nicholson, and Rangarajan 1993). Moreover, the fathers' rate of contact
and support declines substantially over time.
31
The Study Design
The Kids Having Kids project is the most comprehensive effort in at
least a decade to address systematically the consequences and costs of
adolescent childbearing. The project consists of a background study of
trends in teenage and adolescent childbearing (McElroy and Moore)
and seven coordinated studies, each focusing on a particular dimension
of adolescent childbearing:
1. A study of the consequences of adolescent childbearing for the moth-
ers themselves (Hotz, McElroy, and Sanders).
2. An examination of the consequences for men who father children as
adolescents and those who father children born to adolescent mothers, as
well as indirectly for the mothers and their children through the child
support potentially available from the fathers (Brien and Willis).
3. A study of the health implications of adolescent childbearing for the
children, as well as an examination of the medical-care costs associated
with adolescent childbearing (Wolfe and Perozek).
4. A study of the effects of adolescent childbearing on the physical, social,
and cognitive development of children (Moore, Morrison, and Greene).
5. An estimation of the association between adolescent childbearing and
the incidence of child abuse and neglect, as well as the related costs of
child welfare and protective services (Goerge and Lee).
6. A study of the intergenerational effects of adolescent childbearing in the
form of higher engagement in crime by male children and the associated
criminal-justice costs of these increased levels of criminal activity (Grogger).
7. An examination of the extent to which adolescent childbearing in-
creases the likelihood that the offspring will become adolescent parents,
achieve limited success in school, and have poor economic outcomes as
young adults (Haveman, Wolfe, and Peterson).
ANALYTIC STRATEGY
Each study is based on what is currently judged to be the best available
data set to address the particular set of questions (TABLE 2). For the most
part, the databases offer large samples and multiple years of information
for each sample member. To the extent practical, the scholars employed
common strategies for their analyses. Generally, for example, they adopted
33
a core set of control variables for the analysis (see APPENDIX TABLE A.1)
and examined a common set of policy questions. They used state-of-the-
art statistical techniques to generate the most reliable estimates possible.
However, the scholars sometimes took different approaches to analyzing
their data, since each set of questions and each sample posed a unique set
of challenges and opportunities.
Unlike most previous research, which focused on comparing teen-
age (under age 20) mothers with those who delay childbearing until age
20 or later, this study focuses quite specifically on mothers who give birth
before age 18 (referred to as adolescent mothers) and examines the likely
consequences of delaying their childbearing for an average of about three
years, or until they reach age 20 or 21 (referred to as older childbearing
counterparts or later childbearers).
This particular focus reflects the strong public concern about the high
rate of childbearing among young teens, the vast majority of whom are
dealing with unplanned pregnancies. The life courses of these adolescent
mothers are especially bleak. The scholars chose to orient their research
toward the question of the consequences of adolescent childbearing rela-
tive to delaying childbearing until age 20 or 21, feeling that this compari-
son had greater potential relevance than, for example, looking at the con-
sequences relative to delaying childbearing to the national average age at
first birth, which is 23.
Each group of scholars also explored differences in the patterns of
outcomes for older teenage mothers (18- and 19-year-olds) and other
comparison groups-for example, all who delay childbearing until after
age 20 or those who delay childbearing until ages 22 to 24. Some scholars
also explored the differential patterns and impacts of adolescent child-
bearing for youths from various race/ethnic groups and for those who
give birth within marriage versus out of wedlock. These results are not
discussed in this report. Rather, interested readers should consult the orig-
inal research reports.
Where feasible, the scholars have attached price tags to the conse-
quences of adolescent childbearing. In the process, they have been atten-
tive to the distinctions in terms of who carries the costs: the adolescent
parents themselves, the fathers of children born to adolescent mothers,
the children of adolescent mothers, and/or the rest of society.
At the most basic level, the scholars measured the differences in out-
comes between adolescent mothers (defined as young women under age
18) and those who delayed childbearing until early adulthood (age 20 or
21), irrespective of the explanations for these relatively poor life prospects.
They then controlled statistically for a "minimal" set of background fac-
tors-factors such as the mothers' race/ethnicity and the demographic char-
34
through 1988)
6 years old in 1968 and surveyed each year
PaneliStudy of Income Dynamics (persons Oto
(males ages 27 through 34 in 1991)
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
Family Services; Illinois birth certificate data
Illinois Integrated Database on Children and
(children ages 7 to 101)
National Survey of Children, 1981 and 1987
1990 Child Supplement (children ages 4 to 14)
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
P
under age 33)
Survey (children under age 14 with a mother
1987 National Medical Care Expenditure
Survey (NMIHS); linked with Vital Statistics
1988 National Maternal and Infant Health
age 27 in one year of the follow-up survey)
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth males
(females ages 18 to 21 in 1979)
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
anders
various published reports!
Vital Statistics; U.S. Bureau of the Census;
DATA SOURCE
acteristics of their parents-not expected to be affected by policy actions that
would alter fertility timing. These comparisons provide estimates of the
consequences of adolescent childbearing, exclusive of that portion of the
difference resulting from the measured differences in the backgrounds of
the adolescent and comparison-group mothers. In some sense, this could
be viewed as the maximum difference in outcomes that potentially could
be affected by any type of policy intervention.
Finally, the scholars estimated their best possible model to isolate the
impacts of adolescent childbearing itself from other factors that may
account for the observed adverse outcomes. Generally, this approach en-
tailed controlling statistically for a wide range of background variables and
other factors that might be expected to explain the particular outcome
under study but that would not themselves likely be affected by the timing
of the birth. Such models leave open the possibility that some of the meas-
ured effect of adolescent childbearing might be due to unmeasured factors
that are linked both to early childbearing and to the outcome of interest.
The only sure way to isolate the independent effect of adolescent
childbearing on the outcomes of interest would be to run an experiment
that altered only the fertility outcomes of teenagers-that is to say, the
experiment would not change anything in the lives of the adolescents
except when they would first become pregnant if they engaged in sexual
intercourse before age 18. The experiment would not change whether they
would have sex or the resolution of a pregnancy if it occurred. The experi-
ment would simply randomly select would-be adolescent childbearers and
delay their first pregnancy until they reached age 20 or 21. Although such
an experiment is not feasible, two of the Kids Having Kids studies employed
analytic models that approach this ideal measurement strategy.
One study (Hotz, McElroy, and Sanders) capitalized on a natural
experiment that resulted in some adolescents delaying childbearing as a
result of a miscarriage, which is a nearly random event. In the other case,
the researcher (Grogger) used the natural variation in the mother's age at
the births of her various children to estimate the effects of early fertility,
while using age at the birth of her first child to control for unobservable
differences between early and later childbearers.
APPORTIONING DIFFERENCES IN
OUTCOMES, BY SOURCE
The subsequent sections look at the consequences of early childbearing
from three perspectives. The first is the observed differences in outcomes
between adolescent mothers and those who delay childbearing until their
early 20s, regardless of the cause of the differences. These differences are
36
referred to as "gross differences" or "differences with no (statistical) con-
trols." The second perspective is the estimated differences in outcomes
between these two groups that result from a combination of early child-
bearing and closely linked factors that possibly would change as a result
of successful policies for delaying childbearing. Examples of factors that
might be closely linked to early childbearing include motivation, self-
esteem, and contemporaneous family and community contexts. The
results of estimates that control for background factors are referred to as
"adjusted differences." The third perspective is one that controls for back-
ground factors and other factors that are closely linked to adolescent
childbearing but cannot be measured directly. These results are referred
to as "differences due to early childbearing itself." As noted above, only
two of the studies were able to isolate the effects of all potentially con-
founding factors to produce an estimate of the difference in outcomes
that would be observed for would-be adolescent moms if they somehow
delayed their childbearing until they were age 20 or 21 with no other
changes in their backgrounds or current circumstances.
These different comparisons are illustrated in FIGURE 2. The observed
difference in the outcomes of interest (for example, school completion
rates) between adolescent mothers and the comparison group of later
childbearers is denoted by the line AD. In this example (and for many of
the outcomes considered by the scholars), roughly one third of this
observed difference in the outcomes (denoted by the line CD) is attribut-
able to background factors unlikely to be affected by teen pregnancy-pre-
vention programs or policies-factors such as parents' education, family
income, race/ethnicity, and region of the country. This leaves a difference,
denoted by the line AC, that is the result of some combination of the early
childbearing itself and unobserved differences between the adolescent
mothers and their older childbearing counterparts-factors such as moti-
vation to delay childbearing, social skills, and available support to resist
peer pressure for early sexual involvement or unprotected sex.
In this example, only about half of this remaining difference in out-
comes (depicted by the line AB) is due to the early timing of the first
birth itself. The other half, denoted by the line BC, is due to the unob-
served, closely linked correlates of adolescent childbearing. That is, only
the difference in outcomes reflected by the line AB would disappear if we
avoid the first birth by some means that changes nothing else in the
young woman's life.
Put another way, consider three different strategies for preventing
adolescent births. Under the most radical of these strategies, imagine a
world in which we could make would-be adolescent moms both delay
their first birth until their early 20s and be like their older childbearing
37
D
Observed
Outcome
C
Estimated
Outcome
B
Estimated
the
Outcome
A
Observed
Outcome
DOLESCENT
LATER CHILDBEARING COMPARISON GROUP
HILDBEARERS
(FIRST BIRTH AGES 20-21)
counterparts in all other respects. For example, they would have parents
with similar levels of education; they would attend schools of similar
quality; they would live in neighborhoods with similar economic oppor-
tunities and crime rates; and they would have similar cultural back-
grounds. Under this scenario, the benefits of instituting the policy change
are large, equal to the full difference in observed outcomes between early
and later childbearers, reflected by the distance AD in FIGURE 2. In the
ensuing analysis, the implications of such a hypothetical policy are esti-
mated by comparing outcomes for adolescent moms with those for 20-
to 21-year-old mothers directly, using no statistical controls (bar D ver-
sus bar A in FIGURE 2).
Next, imagine a world in which we had a policy that would delay
the first birth until a woman's early 20s and at the same time compen-
sate for or eliminate some, but not necessarily all, of the differences
between adolescent mothers and later childbearers that impact on their
life prospects. For example, we might make the adolescent mothers the
same as the later childbearers in all respects except for those factors—
such as race/ethnicity, parental education, family income, and innate
ability-that we do not expect to be able to change in the short run. An
example might be a successful pregnancy-prevention program that
addressed the full spectrum of closely linked factors-such as motiva-
tion, economic opportunities, and school quality issues-that contrib-
ute to the poor outcomes of early childbearers and that also may have
contributed to the early childbearing. In this scenario, the benefits of
the policy are indicated by the line AC in FIGURE 2. In their analyses,
scholars have estimated the benefits of such a policy by comparing out-
comes for adolescent moms with those for later childbearers, control-
ling statistically for background factors judged to be not amenable to
policy influence, at least in the short run.
Finally, consider a third hypothetical policy option in which we
could magically delay the first birth until age 20 or 21. For example,
imagine that we had a highly effective, widely accepted, long-acting con-
traceptive that all sexually active teens used with no special coaching or
support and no side effects. In this scenario, nothing else would change
for the teen or her children except those things caused directly by the
early childbearing. Put another way, this comparison measures the full
consequence (or cost) of adolescent childbearing itself. The benefits of
such a policy are depicted in FIGURE 2 by the line AB. The other portions
of the observed differences in outcomes between adolescent mothers and
those who delay childbearing until age 20 or 21 (line AD) are attributed
to factors other than early parenting, factors that will not go away simply
by delaying the childbearing.
39
Consequences
For Adolescent
Mothers
Adolescent childbearing is associated with significant adverse outcomes
for young mothers, outcomes that spill over to their children and to soci-
ety at large. Some of these are caused by adolescent childbearing inde-
pendent of other life circumstances, and some are entangled in a web of
disadvantages faced by those prone to adolescent childbearing. Some of
the consequences are lasting, and some are time-sensitive.
The following discussion of the consequences of adolescent child-
bearing in terms of maternal outcomes focuses on two conceptually dif-
ferent reference periods. One is relative to the time of the first birth, gen-
erally the first 13 years of parenthood. This reference period is useful in
that it relates outcomes to their effects on the environment in which the
mothers are raising their young children. The other reference period is the
12 years following the mother's normal age of high school completion-
when the mothers are ages 19 to 30. This reference period is more useful
in describing the consequences of adolescent childbearing on the adult
outcomes of women, particularly outcomes during the young adult years.
By all measures, adolescent mothers as a group have significantly
lower levels of educational attainment, higher probabilities of raising
their children out of wedlock, higher rates of dependence on public assis-
tance, and higher expected fertility rates (TABLES 3 and 4 below). The
impacts of adolescent childbearing on young mothers' own earnings and
the earnings of their spouses, however, are equivocal. In the cases of the
earnings of adolescent mothers and their spouses, the adverse conse-
quences occur primarily during the first few years after the birth of the
first child (TABLE 5 below). By the time the oldest children of adolescent
mothers reaches school age, the average earnings of both the mothers
themselves and of their spouses surpass the levels we would predict them
to be if they had delayed childbearing until age 20 or 21.
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Adolescent mothers are significantly less likely than the comparison
group of later childbearers to complete high school. They also tend to
41
substitute the General Educational Development (GED) preparation pro-
grams for going back and completing high school-a decision that may
not serve them well in their future efforts in the labor market.
Whereas roughly 32 percent of adolescent mothers complete high
school by the time they reach their late 20s, more than three-fourths of
their older childbearing counterparts do so (lower panel of TABLE 3 and
FIGURE 3). This difference is seen by comparing the first bar in FIGURE 3
(outcomes for adolescent childbearers) with the fourth bar (outcomes for
later childbearers, with no statistical controls). Moreover, even with con-
trols for background and other factors closely linked to adolescent child-
bearing and school completion, the research suggests that adolescent par-
enting itself reduces the probability of completing high school by 36 per-
cent-from 50 to 32 percent. This difference is seen by comparing the
first bar in FIGURE 3 with the second bar (miscarriage).
Only a small portion (7 percent) of the observed gap in high school
completion rates between the adolescent mothers and the comparison
group is caused by factors not expected to change as a result of delaying
childbearing: education of the mother's parents, whether she grew up in
a one- or two-parent household, her family's income and welfare status,
and her performance on the Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT). This
is seen by comparing the first bar in FIGURE 3 with the third bar versus
the third and fourth bars. In fact, adolescent childbearing itself explains
more than 40 percent of the difference in school completion rates, a fact
that likely reflects the extreme challenges associated with parenting and
attending a comprehensive high school full-time.
Many adolescent mothers substitute the General Educational De-
velopment certificate for a high school diploma, leading to a much small-
er (27 percentage-point) gap in the proportion of adolescent mothers
versus later childbearers who have either a high school diploma or a GED
by age 30 (TABLE 3). About 40 percent of all adolescent mothers who drop
out of high school attain a GED certificate by age 30. In contrast, the re-
search indicates that only 16 percent of the adolescent girls who would
still drop out of high school if they delayed childbearing a few years would
attain a GED. The net result is that delaying childbearing by itself will not
change the probability that the would-be adolescent mother will either
complete high school or attain their GED.
Still, a large gap exists in the proportions receiving a high school
diploma or GED by age 30-only 59 percent of the adolescent mothers
versus 86 percent of the later childbearers. Roughly half of this difference
is due to adolescent childbearing itself, as evidenced by the comparison
of completion rates for adolescent mothers and for those who have an
early pregnancy but miscarry.
42
pendix Table A. I of this report
and S. Sanders
1.5%
58.9%
31.9%
1.2%
57.7%*
30.5%
HILDBEARERS
ADOLESCENT
cial Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, ed R Maynard Washington D.C. Urbar
Elroy, (forthcoming) Mothers: Effects of early childbearing on tl
0.0%
57.6%
49.8%
0.0%,
53.7%
46.5%
a
a
FACTORS
COMPOUNDING
9.2%
82.2%
72.7%
9.1%
82.2%
70.3%
FACTORS
BACKGROUND
13.
85.
76.
13.
85.
76.
NO CON
73%
PERCENT COMPLETING HIGH SCHOOL/G
60%
59%
57%
50%
40%
32%
20%
Controls for
Miscarriage
Background
No.Controls
0%
ADOLESCENT
LATER CHILDBEARERS
CHILDREADEDS
FIRST RIDTH ACES 20 21
The implication of these findings is that simply averting adolescent
childbearing and changing nothing else in a young woman's life will have
a compound effect on educational attainment: (1) encouraging many more
adolescents to complete regular high school rather than dropping out of
school altogether and (2) encouraging many others to switch from getting a
GED to attaining a regular high school diploma. This latter result could be
quite important in promoting increased earnings potential, because the
GED has been found to have limited value in improving employment out-
comes (Murnane et al. 1994; Cameron and Heckman 1993; Cao et al. 1995;
Cohen et al. 1995; Maynard, Kelsey, and McGrath 1996). At best, the GED
might bring the employment potential of high school dropouts up to the
level attained through completing high school. However, experimental
interventions promoting GED attainment by high school dropouts have
consistently shown no corresponding employment gains.
LIVING ARRANGEMENTS AND FERTILITY
Single-Parent Households Research on marriage patterns among
adolescent mothers and their older childbearing counterparts under-
scores the role of early parenting in the growth of single-parent house-
holds. Adolescent moms spend one third of their first 13 years of chil-
drearing as single mothers (TABLE 4). In contrast, the later childbearers
spend only 7 percent of these years as single parents.
Averting early childbearing alone is estimated to close about half of
the gap, reducing the time as a single parent from 33 to 21 percent. If soci-
ety could simultaneously delay the first birth until age 20 or 21 and address
other unobserved factors closely related to adolescent childbearing, rates of
single parenthood would be expected to approach the much lower rate for
those youth who, on their own, delay childbearing until their early 20s.
Public and Subsidized Housing Adolescent childbearing is associ-
ated with higher rates of residence in public housing (TABLE 4). However,
nearly all of the 16 percentage-point gross difference in public-housing
residence is due to factors other than early childbearing itself. Con-
trolling for background and other unmeasured differences between ado-
lescent mothers and their older childbearing counterparts, the researchers
compute only a 1 percentage-point difference in the likelihood of living
in public housing over the first 13 years of parenthood and a 2.4 percent-
age-point difference during young adulthood.
Fertility Adolescent mothers have an average of 2.6 children, and their
older childbearing counterparts have an average of 2 children by the time
45
they are 30 years old (TABLE 4). Moreover, these differences in observed
fertility rates between adolescent mothers and their later childbearing
counterparts seem entirely a result of the early childbearing rather than
of confounding factors. As noted below, these larger family sizes have sig-
nificant implications for the overall costs of adolescent childbearing in
that they increase by 30 percent the number of children exposed to the
risks associated with adolescent childbearing and thus needing additional
social and economic support.
EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS
Employment Adolescent mothers spend significant amounts of their
young adult lives in the labor force. During the first 13 years of parent-
hood, adolescent mothers work and earn substantially less than do moth-
ers who have their first child at age 20 or 21 (TABLE 5). Moreover, they
earn lower wages when they do work.
Adolescent mothers work an average of 691 hours a year, or 13 hours
a week, during that period; their older childbearing counterparts work an
average of more than 1,000 hours a year, or 19 hours a week (TABLE 5).
However, nearly 80 percent of this difference in work effort is attributable
to differences in the backgrounds and other circumstances closely linked to
early childbearing. Delaying childbearing alone is estimated to increase
work effort over this period by only 9 percent, or 71 hours a year. Further-
more, virtually all of the differential in wage rates is due to factors other
than early childbearing.
Looked at over the early adult years (ages 19 to 30), adolescent
childbearing alone is in fact estimated to increase work effort by about
one-third-from an average of 620 to 831 hours a year. This higher
work effort emerges at about age 23, when the adolescent mothers' chil-
dren enter school and the later childbearers still have preschool-age chil-
dren to care for.
Earnings A similar pattern of results is observed for earnings. Average
annual discounted earnings of adolescent mothers during their first 13
years of parenthood, are just over half as much as earnings of their older
childbearing counterparts-an average of $5,652 as compared with $10,384
for the older mothers (TABLE 5; FIGURE 4A). However, 90 percent of this
difference is due to factors other than early childbearing itself. Fully con-
trolling for background and other closely linked factors, the researchers
estimated that delaying childbearing until age 20 or 21 would by itself
result in an average annual earnings gain of just over $500-increasing
average earnings from $5,652 to $6,166. This small difference reflects the
46
Table 4
and Fertility of Adolescent and Later Childbearers
LATER CHILDBEARERS (AGE 20 OR 21)
WITH'STATISTICAL CONTROLS FOR:
BACKGROUND AND
ADOLESCENT
COMPOUNDING
BACKGROUND
CHILDBEARERS
FACTORS
FACTORS
NO.CONTROLS
Outcomes Duringthel First 13 cars ofParenthood
32.7%
20.8%
10.5%
7.3%
31.9%
31.0%
21.3%
16.7%
2.5
2.1
2.1
Outcomes During Young Adult hood(Ages19 to to 30)
Yours
32.1%
20:0%
12.1%
8.6%
32.4%
30.0%
21:2%
+16.7%
217
pain
2.6
2.0
2.2
2.1
Hotz S. McElroy, and Sanders (forthcoming); Mothers: Effects, of early, childbearing on the lives of
The:Costs and Social Consequences of Teen, Pregnancy, ed 'R' Maynard (Washington; D.C.: Urban Institute
arelisted in Appendix Table A. 1 of this report:
Table 5
Employment, Earnings and Other Income for
Adolescent and Later Childbearers
LATER CHILDBEARERS (AGE 20 OR 21)
WITH STATISTICAL CONTROLS FOR:
BACKGROUND AND
ADOLESCENT
COMPOUNDING
BACKGROUND
OUTCOME MEASURE
CHILDBEARERS
FACTORS
FACTORS
NO CONTROLS
Average Annual Outcomes During theFirst 3 Years of Parenthood
Hours employed
691
762
930
1,005
Earnings
$5,652
$6,166
$9,159
$10,384
Hourly wage rate
$8.18
$8.09
$9.84
$10.33
Earnings of spouse (zero when
$8,787
$11,321
$20,099
$22,886
not living with mother)
Child support payments
$738
$714
$579
$382
Child support payments (recipients)
$961
$931
$993
$961
AFDC benefits
$1,295
$746
$602
$500
Food stamps
$7.03
$563
$357
$272
Average/Annual alues of Outcomes/During) oung Adulthood (Ages19to30).
Hours employed
831
620
875
952
Earnings
$6,323
$4,801
$6,066
$7,138
Hourly wage rate
$7.61
$7.74
$6.93
$7.50
Earnings of spouse (zero when
$9,551
$8,516
$14,449
$13,962
not living with mother)
Child support payments
$779
$754
$610
$403
Child support payments (recipients)
$961
$931
$993
$961
AFDC benefits
$889
$645
$465
$395
Food stamps
$552
$472
$272
$212
Source: Except as noted, these data are adapted from J. Hotz, S. McElroy, and S. Sanders (forthcoming), "Mothers." Effects of early childbearing
on the lives of the mothers," in Kids Having Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, ed. R. Maynard (Washington, D.C.: Urban
Institute Press) Control variables included in the models are listed in Appendix Table A.1 of this report. All' dollar figures are expressed in March
1996 dollars and have been discounted at 5 percent annually form the start of the reference period.
a
Estimates are derived from M. Brien and R. Willis (forthcoming), Fathers: Gosts and consequences of early childbearing for the fathers, the
young mothers, and their children," in Kids Having Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, ed. R. Maynard (Washington,
D.C.: Urban Institute Press). The estimates assume that support awards average 17 percent of the father's income for the first child, that total
awards are half that amount for subsequent children, and that awards are issued and paid in-only 30 percent of the cases. They also assume that
81 percent of, "births to early childbearers and 42 percent of those to older childbearers are out of wedlock. The estimates in the column control-
ling only for background factors assume an of wedlock birthrate midway between these two rates (61.5 percent).
Il differences between her and/her counterparts who delay childbearing until to their early 20s, including compensating for her family demographics
late for or otherwise equalize circumstances other than basic family circumstances; 2.1 children if she delays childbearing and we fully compensate for
nothers under the various scenarios (2 6 children if she hasher first child while under age 18; 2.0 children if she delays childbearing and we compen
he estimates, which include only publicly supported medical assistance, assume that the average subsidies per child pertain to all children born to
hildren, in Kids Having Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, ed. R Maynard (Washington, D.C. Urban Institute Press)
Estimates are derived from B. Wolfeland M Perozek (forthcoming),, Health: Early childbearing' costs to society for health and medical care of the
bearers
and it would be midway between these two rates (61.5 percent) if we controlled for basic demogr aphic differences between early and later child
1 percent of births to early childbearers are out of wedlock The ratelis 42 percent for those observed to delay childbearing until ages 20 or 21
wards are half that amount for *** subsequent children, and that awards are issued and paid in only 30 percent of the cases: They also assume that
D.C.: Urban Institute Press). The / estimates assume that support awards average 17 percent of the father income for the first child, that total
young mothers anditheir children, in Kids Having/Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of I een Pregnancy, ed R. Maynard (Washington,-
Estimates are derived from M.Brien and Willis (forthcoming) Fathers: Costs and consequences of early childbearing for theifathers the
Jrban Institute Press) and reported in Table 3., Control variables included in the models are listed in Appendix Table A.
on the lives of the mothers, in Kids Having Kids The Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, edi R: Maynard (Washington, D.C
Source: Except as noted these data are adapted from Hotz, S. McElroy, and Sanders (forthcoming), Mothers *Effects of early childbearing
$23344
$16,277
286.68
TOTAL (including medical)
11224
880'1$
11.79
Medical assistance
$22,110
681.589
$18,093
Subtotal
$2122
$472
$552
Food stamps
$395
5645
688$
AFDC
$403
$754
$779
Child support
$13,962
915.8$
19551
Earnings of spouse
$7.13
$4,801
$6,323
Own-earnings
Average Annual outcomes Adulthood to30)
$35225
$20.322
$18.73
TOTAL (including medical)
$825
ZISIS
Medical assistance
SEA425
$19,551
$17,216
Subtotal
$272
$563
$703
Food stamps
$500
$746
$1,295
AFDC
$382
S754
622$
Child support
$222886
$11,321
$8,787
Earnings of spouse
$10,384
991'9$
$5,652
Own earnings
Average/Annual Outcomes During the First 13 ears of Parenthood
CONTROLS ON
WITH CONTROLS
ADOLESCENT CHILDBEARERS
SOURCE OF SUPPORT
LATER CHILDBEARERS (AGE 20OR 21)
(Discounted March 1996 Dollars)
Sources of Economic Support for Adolescent and Later Childbearers
9 Tabel
Figure 4
Average Annual Earnings During the First 13 Years of Parenthood
a: Over First 13 Years of Parenthood
$12
$10,384
$10
1996 1996 DOLLARS (000s Discounted)
$9,159
$8
$6
$6,166
$5,652
$4
$2
Controls for
Miscarriage
Background
No Controls
$0
ADOLESCENT
LATER CHILDBEARERS,
CHILDBEARERS
FIRST BIRTH AGES 20-21
b: By Years Since Birth of First Child
$20
Later Childbearers,
No Controls
$15
1996 DOLLARS (000s, Discounted)
Adolescent
Childbearers
$10
Later Childbearers,
Full Controls
$5
A
$0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
YEARS SINCE BIRTH OF FIRST CHILD
Source: Adapted from Hotz, McElroy, and Sanders (forthcoming)
(4.2%) Child Support
b: Later Childbearers (A
(18.8%) Public Assistance
(30.3%) Own Earnings
combined effect of lower earnings during the first seven years of parent-
hood and higher earnings thereafter (FIGURE 4B).
As was the case with the employment results, looking at the conse-
quences of adolescent childbearing on earnings of the mother during
early adulthood reveals that the adolescent mothers actually fare some-
what better than would be expected if they delayed childbearing a few
years. After controlling for background and other factors, earnings of ado-
lescent mothers between ages 19 and 30 average $6,323 annually, com-
pared with only $4,801 for their later childbearing counterparts (TABLE
5). The principal explanation relates to the fact that the adolescent moth-
ers face a much steeper rise in their employment and earnings over their
young adult years than would be the case if they delayed childbearing for
a few years-a result probably linked to their higher rate of single parent-
hood and to their children being older.
ECONOMIC SUPPORT
The First 12 Years of Parenthood During her first 12 years of par-
enthood, the average adolescent mother receives income and food stamps
valued at just over $17,000 annually, discounted to the birth of her first
child (TABLE 6). In addition, she receives an average of $1,517 annually in
publicly supported medical-care services for her children, bringing her
average annual disposable income to $18,733.
Thirty percent of this income is from the mother's own earnings
(see above and TABLE 6); 47 percent derives from earnings of a resident
spouse; the remainder comes from child support (4 percent) and various
forms of public assistance (19 percent)-7 percent from AFDC, 4 percent
from food stamps, and 8 percent in medical care for the children (FIGURE 5).
The total economic support available to the later childbearers is
nearly double that available to adolescent mothers-$35,271 annually
versus the $18,733 available to adolescent mothers (TABLE 6) because of
the higher earnings of the later childbearers ($10,384 versus $5,652) and
of their spouses ($22,886 versus $8,787). All other forms of support are
roughly half to one third the levels received by adolescent mothers.
However, more than 90 percent of the overall difference in economic
resources available to adolescent mothers results from factors other than
adolescent childbearing per se. With controls for background and other fac-
tors closely linked to early childbearing, adolescent childbearers are estimat-
ed to suffer an economic loss averaging only about $1,589 a year during the
first 13 years of parenthood. The modest size of this difference reflects the
fact that public assistance (AFDC, food stamps, and medical assistance) off-
sets roughly half the losses from lower earnings of the mothers and their
52
$738
$272
$465
Controls
Back Backgrou retou
$1,117
$472
$645
Miscarriage
lower income from spouses' earnings-a loss due partly to lower marriage
rates among adolescent parents and partly to lower earnings of men who
father children by adolescent mothers (see further discussion below).
Delaying childbearing from adolescence to age 20 or 21 alone would
lead to average reductions in AFDC payments from $889 to $645 annually,
and food-stamp benefits would fall from $552 to $472 annually (FIGURE
6). In addition, medical assistance for children would fall from $1,794 to
$1,088 (see below) as a result of the decrease both in the number of chil-
dren and in improvements in the children's health problems associated
with being born to an older mother (Wolfe and Perozek forthcoming).
Economic Support During Early Adulthood The income levels and
sources for adolescent mothers during their young adult years (ages 19 to
30) parallel those during the 12 years after giving birth (TABLE 6). The
levels and sources of income are somewhat different, however, for their
later childbearing counterparts over this period. As a result, over the
longer haul adolescent mothers actually fare somewhat better economi-
cally than they would if they delayed childbearing until their early 20s.
Those who delay childbearing until their early 20s have incomes between
ages 19 and 30 that average 18 percent higher-$23,404 annually (TABLE 6).
However, simply delaying childbearing and not addressing other
differences between the adolescent and 20- to 21-year-old mothers would
result in earnings losses for the young mothers themselves (see middle
column of TABLE 6). They likely would be slightly worse off because of
their own lower earnings ($4,801 versus $6,323 on average per year).
Moreover, the lower earnings would be compounded by lower wel-
fare benefits and medical assistance. In total, the combined economic
resources would average $3,610 less annually during young adulthood as
a result of the decision to delay childbearing a few years.
54
Consequences
For the Fathers
Fathers of children born to adolescent mothers are sometimes young
themselves. Typically, however, they are several years older than the
mothers of their children. The scholars examined both the implications
of adolescent fatherhood (defined as fathering a child before age 18) and
fathering a child born to an adolescent mother who is under age 18 when
she has her first child.
CONSEQUENCES FOR ADOLESCENT FATHERS
Adolescent males face significant adverse consequences of becoming
fathers. After controls for basic demographic and background factors,
however, those who father children at ages 20 or 21 have future outcomes
that are nearly identical to the outcomes for those fathering their first
children at age 25. What does matter for the older fathers is whether the
mothers of their children are adolescent mothers (a difference discussed
later in this section).
Years of Schooling Adolescent fathers complete only 11.3 years of
school, on average, by the time they reach age 27 (FIGURE 7). In con-
trast, those who delay fatherhood until age 21 complete an average of
nearly 13 years of education. Half of this difference in educational attain-
ment is directly due to background factors, including parents' educa-
tion levels, family income, and a combination of innate ability and cog-
nitive achievement as measured by the Armed Forces Qualifying Test.
Thus, on average, the educational deficit caused by adolescent father-
hood or closely linked factors is only about seven tenths of a year.
Nonetheless, this is a critical difference in that it moves the average
school-completion level from under to over 12th grade-and high
school graduation.
The Kids Having Kids scholars studied the relationship between
educational outcomes and the age of men when they first father children.
Their research indicates that, after background factors are controlled for,
there is no difference between the outcomes for men who first father
children at age 21 (the average age of the male partners of adolescent
mothers) and men who delay fatherhood for four years until age 25. Men
fathering children for the first time at age 21 completed an average of
55
12.5 years of school, as contrasted with an average of 13.8 years for those
who delayed fatherhood until age 25. However, differences in family
background and innate ability fully explain this average attainment gap
for those somewhat older fathers.
Earnings and Potential to Pay Child Support Adolescent fathers
earn an average of just under $5,000-or 18 percent-less per year
than those who delay fatherhood until age 21 (FIGURE 8). About half of
this difference is due to background factors. The remaining earnings
difference potentially represents, directly or indirectly, a lost opportu-
nity to the adolescent parent. Complementary research indicates a very
strong relationship nationally between education and earnings, com-
monly characterized as the wage premium associated with high school
and college completion (Maynard and McGrath 1995). Thus, one would
expect that a wage loss of this magnitude might accompany the de-
pressed educational outcomes that result from the adolescent parent-
ing decision.
Consistent with the findings on educational consequences associ-
ated with delaying fatherhood beyond age 21, no future positive effects
on earnings potential were observed for longer delays. In large part,
the lack of stronger impacts probably results from the fact that, by age
21, young men have made and executed major educational decisions.
The adverse economic consequences for adolescent fathers add to
the adverse economic consequences for adolescent childbearing moth-
ers and their children arising from their lower marriage rates (see above).
Some consequences are real in the sense of lowering the earnings con-
tributions by males in two-parent families or the actual child-support
payments to the custodial mothers. Others reflect increases in the
potential levels of support the fathers could provide, either through for-
mal child support or otherwise. The potential level of support is partic-
ularly important in the current policy environment of widespread em-
phasis on parental responsibility and time-limited welfare.
OUTCOMES FOR FATHERS OF CHILDREN
BORN TO ADOLESCENT MOTHERS
Over the first 18 years after the birth of their first children, older fathers of
children born to adolescent mothers earn an estimated $16,712 (discount-
ed and expressed in 1996 dollars), compared with an average of $13,796 for
those with similar education levels who delay fathering children until their
partners are age 20 or 21. Thus, over the child's first 18 years, the fathers of
children born to mothers who are 20 or 21 when they have their first child
56
12.0
8
9
8
$20,771
0
7
Child Support
FIRST BABY AT AGES 20-21
UNDER AGE 18
MOTHER OF CHILD WHO HAD
MOTHER OF CHILD
Background
Controls for
Background
Controls for
$18.11
$8,037
$738
$2,219
$10,712
$714
$12226
$88572
$382
913376
(Child S Birth Through Age 19)
Adolescent and Later Childbearers
Average Annual Earnings of Fathers of Children Born to
earn an average of $3,000 more per year (in real terms) that potentially
could be shared (FIGURE 9).
Half of this earnings difference results from background factors not
likely to be affected if the mother delayed childbearing. Moreover, the
higher earnings are a benefit to the children and their mothers only if the
parents live together and/or the fathers pay child support. Indeed, only
19 percent of the adolescent mothers marry the father of their children
before or soon after the children's births. We know from other studies
that relatively few noncustodial fathers of children born to teenage par-
ents pay child support regularly (see, for example, Maynard et al. 1993).
Under a support-award formula similar to that currently in place in
Wisconsin, the higher earnings of noncustodial fathers, if they delayed
fatherhood until the mothers of their children were older, would permit
an increase of about $350 in annual child support payments. In reality,
however, the delay in childbearing would also tend to increase the mar-
riage rate, decreasing the need for child support and increasing the earn-
ings of spouses (see TABLE 3 above).
The relatively small net cost of adolescent motherhood to the fathers
stems in large part from the fact that few fathers of children born to ado-
lescent mothers actually disrupt their own lives to assume financial
responsibility for their children. Since only 19 percent of the births to
young teen mothers are within marriage, finding these modest life course
results for the fathers of children born to adolescent mothers-after con-
trolling for differences in background factors-is not surprising. Even so,
evidence exists of a modest marriage effect on earnings that accrues dis-
proportionately to those who delay fatherhood until the time the moth-
ers of their children reach their early 20s. About 20 percent of the higher
earnings associated with postponing fatherhood until the mother is 20 or
21 years old is attributable to the higher marriage rate among later child-
bearers and the fathers of their children (FIGURE 9).
60
Consequences
For Children
Of Adolescent
Mothers
Children born to adolescent mothers or to mothers who were adoles-
cents when they had their first children are at a substantial disadvantage
relative to their counterparts born to older women. Higher proportions
of these children are born prematurely and they are more likely to be
low birthweight-a factor that predisposes them to adverse health con-
ditions and increased risk of mental retardation. These children contin-
ue to experience poorer health throughout their youth. However, they
also receive less medical care than do children born to later childbearers.
Then, too, children of adolescent mothers experience worse outcomes in
a variety of other dimensions, such as mental health, teacher ratings of
students, and school progress and performance.
HEALTH STATUS AND
MEDICAL CARE UTILIZATION
The majority of children in this country are rated by their mothers as
being in excellent health. However, only 38 percent of the children born
to adolescent mothers are so described, compared to 60 percent of those
born to mothers in the comparison group (TABLE 7). At the same time,
these children of adolescent mothers get only half the medical care
received by children of 20- to 21-year-old mothers.
Health Status For some of the children born to adolescent moth-
ers, poorer health likely begins with their premature births and low
birthweight. Nearly 8 percent of children born to adolescent mothers
are low birthweight (below 5.5 pounds), as compared with only 5.6
percent of children born to older mothers (TABLE 8). A sizable differ-
ence in the proportion of low-birthweight babies persists even after
demographic differences between the adolescent and comparison-
group mothers are factored out. However, no evidence exists that
children born to adolescent mothers are significantly more likely to
61
Table 7
Health Status of and Healthcare Services to Children
of Adolescent and Later Childbearers
AGE OF MOTHER AT FIRST BIRTH
OUTCOME MEASURE
UNDER AGE 18
AGE 20 OR OLDER
DIFFERENCE
Heath Status of Children (Percents)
Excellent}health
38%
60%
(22%)
Fair orpoor health
9
5
4
Acute condition
52
63
(11)
Chronic condition at age 14
5
-11
(6)
Annual MedicalProvider Visits, by Age of Child
Age 0-1
5.24
8.06
(2.82)
Age.2-3
3.64
5.74
(2.10)
Age 4-5
2.47
3.93
(1.46)
Age 6-7
1.63
4.00
(2.37)
Age 8-10
1.52
2.51
(0.99)
Age P1-14
1.68
2:71
(1.03)
AnnualM edical Provider Visits, by Type of/Service
Medical provider office
1:84
4.15
(2.31)
Hospital outpatient
0.18
0:31
(0.13)
Emergency room
-0.27
0.31
(0.04)
Hospital inpatient
0.04
0.05
(0.01)
TOTAL VISITS TO ABOVE TYPES
2.33
4.82
(2.49)
SampleSizes
Health Status (N = 2,173)
577
1,596
Medical care use (N = 2,619)
700
1,919
Sources: Adapted from B. Wolfe and M. Perozek (forthcoming), "Health: Early childbearing's costs to society, for health and medical care of the
children, in Kids Having Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, ed. R. Maynard (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press).
All data'are weighted means.
Table 8
Child Outcomes, by Mother's Age at Focal Child's Birth
LATER CHILDBEARERS (AGE 20OR 21)
ADOLESCENT
OUTCOME MEASURE
-
CHILDBEARERS
WITH CONTROLS
NO CONTROLS
ChildHealth Indicators
Low Birthweight (less than 5. 5.pounds):
7.8%
5:2%
5.6%
Depression score percentileiranking (ages 18-22)
51.6%
61.2%
57.7%
Per
Ever received psychological help ages 18-22)
35.7%
29.8%
32.5%
Home Environment
b
HOME score percentile ranking (ages 4-14)
39.7%
50.8%
48.8%
Schooll erformance) Indicators
Teacher rates as'one of best students (ages 12-16)
7:8%
25.3%
15.2%
Repeated grade (ages 10-14)
32.7%
21.8%
23.4%
PIA mathematics percentile score (ages 4-14)
39.4%
48.8%
48.6%
PIA reading-recognition percentile score (ages
47.6%
60.6%
58.3%
PIAT reading comprehension percentile score (ages 4-14)
40.2%
48.4%
55.9%
Social Adjustment
Behavior problems index percentile ranking (ages 4-14)
56.3%
63.5%
54.6%
Behavior problems index percentile ranking (ages 12-16)
62.2%
54.1%
54.8%
Ever ran away. from home. (ages 18-22)
5:4%
1.7%
**2.3%
Source: Adapted from K. Moore, D. Morrison, and A. Greene (forthcoming), Children: Effects of early childbearing on theilives of the chil-
dren in Kids Having Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, ed: R. Maynard (Washington, D.C., Urban Institute Press)
Control variables included in the models are listed in Appendix Table,A. 1 of this report. Measures of, depression, teacher rating; and runaway
outcomes are based on analyses of the National Survey of Youth; other outcomes are based on analyses of the National Longitudinal Survey. of
Youth-Child Supplement
Note: Numbers in boldare significantly different from the corresponding figures for adolescent childbearers.
Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)
HOME Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment, Short Form
PIAT Peabody Individual Achievement Tests:
have specific physical limitations than are children born to 20- or 21-
year-old mothers. In fact, by age 14, children born to adolescent
childbearers report fewer chronic health conditions than do those
born to older mothers (TABLE 7).
There is modest evidence that, on average, children born to young
parents suffer significantly more depressive symptoms (TABLE 8). Yet,
while they score on average 10 percentage points lower on a standard
assessment, only about 10 percent of all young adults, regardless of the
age at which their mothers first gave birth, report symptoms of clinical
depression on standard social surveys (not shown).
Medical Care Utilization In all types of healthcare, adolescent
mothers' children (ages 0 to 14) receive substantially less medical care,
logging an average of only 3.8 visits a year compared with 5.2 visits a year
for their counterparts who were born to older mothers (FIGURE 10).
One half of the difference in healthcare utilization is caused by
measured background factors that differ between children of adolescent
mothers and children of later childbearers (FIGURE 10). The majority of
the difference in the number of visits is attributable to background fac-
tors and the differences in health status of children born to adolescent
mothers as compared with those born to later childbearers. Only about
one third of the total 1.4 difference in annual visits is attributable directly
to early childbearing and closely linked factors not controlled for in the
analysis. (A similar pattern of results pertains both to children born to
adolescent mothers and to children born to older mothers who previous-
ly gave birth as young teens.)
Medical Care Costs Total medical-care expenditures for children of
adolescent mothers are 22 percent lower than for children of later child-
bearers (an annual average of $1,413 versus $1,803 per child) (FIGURE
11A). Adjusting for the differential in health status between children
born to adolescent mothers and their later childbearing counterparts and
despite less frequent doctor visits, expenditures average only about 9
percent less per year for children of young mothers than if the mothers
had delayed their childbearing ($1,413 versus $1,556).
Differences between adolescent and older mothers in expenditure
patterns are larger when adjusted for the different numbers of children
born to adolescent mothers and later childbearers. Adolescent mothers
incur total medical-care costs that average $3,674 per year for their
children (an average of 2.6 children by the time the mother is 30 years
old). Delaying childbearing until age 20 or 21 will decrease both health-
care needs and the number of children. These decreases, together with
64
6
5.2
5
4.5
43
4
3.8
3
Controlifor
Background
and Health
Controls for
Status
Background
No Controls
2
ADOLESCENT
LATER CHILDBEARERS
CHILDBEARERS
FIRST BIRTH AGES 20-21
FIRST BIRTH AGES 20-21
CHILDBEARERS
LATER CHILDBEARERS,
ADOLESCENT
0$
No Controls
Factors
Status
Background
and Health
Controls for
Background
$500
Controls for
$1,088
$1,000
$1,294
$1,500
$1.76
$2,000
1996 DOLLARS
$25500
THIS
$3,236
000'00
996'E$
$3,674
$3,500
$4,000
b: Per Family for Children Ages 0-15
FIRST BIRTH AGES*20-21
CHILDBEARERS
LATER CHILDBEARERS
ADOLESCENT
0$
ON
Factors
Status
Background
and Health
Controls for
Background
Controls for
$500
$544
$588
$587
069$
$1,000
1996 DOLLARS
EITS
$1,556
$1,500
819'1$
$1,803
$2,000
a: Per Child Ages 0-15
the family income effects, will lower overall medical-care costs per
family to $3,112 (FIGURE 11B).
More important from a policy perspective, the payer of the med-
ical-care services differs between adolescent and older childbearers (FIG-
URE 11, A and B). An average of 49 percent ($690 per year per child) of the
medical-care services for children born to adolescent mothers is paid by
the public through Medicaid or CHAMPUS (the U.S. military's health
program). By contrast, the public pays only 36 percent ($588 per year per
child) for those born to later childbearers. Thus, public expenditures on
healthcare average $102 more per year for each child born to adolescent
mothers than would be expected if those mothers were to delay child-
bearing until age 20 or 21 and society were to compensate for all other
differences between them and the comparison group.
A more realistic set of assumptions, however, is that delaying child-
bearing will be accompanied by some improvement in health status and
a change in consumption patterns, albeit not a change that would equal-
ize either the expenditures or health status. When adjustments are made
to control for differences in background factors between adolescent and
20- to 21-year-old mothers or the health-status differences of their chil-
dren, the potential annual public cost savings are estimated to be an aver-
age of $146 per child ($690 minus $544).
The compound effect of these per-child expenditure patterns
under various age-at-childbearing scenarios and of the impact of
delaying childbearing on fertility rates leads to large differences both
in total family healthcare expenditures on children and in the public
subsidies for that health care. On average, with controls for changes in
both health status and fertility, the adolescent mothers will consume
an estimated $562 more per year in healthcare for their children than
if they delayed childbearing until age 20 or 21. Moreover, virtually all
of this difference in expenditures is paid for by the taxpayers in the
form of subsidized healthcare (FIGURE 11B). Indeed, out-of-pocket
healthcare costs are lower for adolescent mothers than for their later
childbearing counterparts, despite their higher consumption levels.
Their out-of-pocket costs average $1,880 annually compared with
$2,024 for the comparison group.
Consequences of Longer Delays in Childbearing The conse-
quences of delays in childbearing from, say, the late teens to ages 20 to
21 are smaller than those for more extensive delays. That is, delaying
childbearing from under age 18 to over age 21 results in even larger dif-
ferences than those reflected here. For example, if the young-teen births
were delayed beyond age 21, estimated medical expenditures would
67
decrease by an average of $215 per year per child rather than the $143
difference estimated for the shorter delay. The public medical-cost sav-
ings associated with the delay would be about $336 per child per year,
as contrasted with the $146 estimated for the shorter delay (Wolfe and
Perozek forthcoming).
In sum, adolescent mothers use less medical care for their children
despite the children's poorer average health status. However, a dispropor-
tionate share of the cost of medical care that they receive is paid for by
the public sector rather than by private insurance or the recipient family.
The children also undoubtedly bear a portion of these costs in the form
of untreated health conditions.
HOME ENVIRONMENTS
Children born to adolescent mothers grow up in homes that are sub-
stantially less supportive of their development in a number of respects
than are the homes of other children. The study found environments
rated lower for factors such as the availability of educationally stimulat-
ing resources in the home, the type and level of parent-child interac-
tion, and the physical condition of the residence.
Measured by the widely used Home Observation for Measurement
of the Environment-Short Form (HOME-SF), homes in which the chil-
dren of adolescent childbearers live scored significantly lower in overall
quality than the homes of children born to women who were age 20 or
21 when they became mothers (TABLE 8). Children born to mothers who
had their first child in their early 20s had homes that were about at the
national norm on the HOME quality scale; children born to adolescent
mothers lived in homes that, on average, were in the bottom 40 percent
of the quality distribution. Moreover, the research shows a strong rela-
tionship between the age of the mother at the time of a child's birth and
the quality of the home environment in general. Thus, for example, de-
laying childbearing from under age 15 to ages 20 or 21 results in a more
than 10 percent increase in the home quality index.
RUNAWAY CHILDREN
Another indicator of the lower quality of the home environments of chil-
dren born to young mothers is their relatively high rates of running away
from home. More than five percent of children ages 12 to 16 who were
born to women under age 18 reported that they run away from home
during their adolescence, a figure two to three times the rate among chil-
dren born to later childbearers (TABLE 8). In neither the HOME scores nor
68
the incidence of running away from home are the differences in out-
comes for children of the two groups of mothers explained by measur-
able background characteristics of the family.
CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT
The Kids Having Kids researchers found a significant relationship
between maternal age and the likelihood of child abuse and neglect.
This relationship is important because of both the poor outcomes
for abused and/or neglected children and the high social costs associ-
ated with foster-care placements, which nationally average about
$21,000 per year per child in care. Abuse and neglect also carry with
them other costs associated with family preservation as well as mental-
health costs.
In their study of child abuse and neglect among children in Illinois,
Goerge and Lee (forthcoming) found that children born to adolescent
mothers are two times more likely to be victims of abuse and neglect
than are children born to 20- or 21-year-old mothers. For example,
Illinois had 109.6 reports of child abuse per 1,000 children born to
women under the age of 18, compared with less than 50 reports per 1,000
children born to mothers who delay childbearing until age 20 or 21
(TABLE 9). Moreover, these differences are not narrowed by statistical
controls for the background factors such as region of the state or birth
cohort that could be controlled for in the analysis.
The ratio of foster-care placements to reported abuse and neglect
is roughly one in four among children born to adolescent mothers and
one in five among children born to the later childbearers. This differ-
ence in the ratio of abuse and neglect rates to foster-care placement
rates is fully explained by the control variables, resulting in a 16 per
1,000 net difference in the foster-care placement rate between adoles-
cent and later childbearers.
The reductions in abuse and neglect rates and in foster-care place-
ment rates continue to increase with longer delays until women give
birth. For example, delaying childbearing from under age 16 until age 20
or later leads to a 30 to 40 percent greater impact on the incidence of
reported abuse and neglect than does a delay from age 17 to age 20 or
later. The results of this study, if generalized to the nation (which cur-
rently has approximately 472,000 children in foster care), would imply
that as many as five percent of foster-care placements could be averted if
society could eliminate adolescent childbearing. This would not only
benefit the children no longer needing this care but also reap savings for
state and federal budgets.
69
Table 9
Child Abuse and Foster Care Placement by Mothers' Age at First Birth
(Reported Incidents per 1,000)
LATER CHILDBEARERS (AGE 20 OR 21)
ADOLESCENT
OUTCOME MEASURE
CHILDBEARERS
WITH CONTROLS
NO CONTROLS
Reported child abuse
109.6
50.7
46.2
Foster care placements
28.5
12.1
10.4
Source: Adapted from R. Goerge and B. Lee (forthcoming), "Abuse and neglect: Effects of early childbearing on abuse and neglect of the
children," in Kids Having Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, ed. R. Maynard (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press).
Data are from the Illinois child welfare reporting system and Vital Statistics.
COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT AND
EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS
Adolescent childbearing has significant adverse consequences for the
cognitive development of children and for their educational progress.
Teachers give children of later childbearers higher ratings as students
than they give children of teenage parents (FIGURE 12). For example,
teachers are twice as likely to rate the children of later childbearers as
excellent students. Moreover, the difference in the ratings increases to
more than threefold when family background characteristics of the
two groups of mothers are controlled for.
These higher teacher ratings are validated by the lower incidence
of grade repetition and the higher measured cognitive development of
the children. The test scores of children born to later childbearers are .2
to .4 standard deviations higher than among children born to adoles-
cent mothers. These differences translate into movements of about 10
points in the percentile rankings of students, moving the average stu-
dent from the 48th percentile in reading if he or she was born to an
adolescent mother to the 61st percentile if born to a mother who began
her family in her early 20s (FIGURE 12). A similar pattern of results is
observed for math skills (TABLE 8). Moreover, the rate of grade repeti-
tion is nearly one third lower among children of later childbearers than
among those born to adolescent mothers (FIGURE 12).
The adverse impacts of teenage childbearing on cognitive devel-
opment and school performance are concentrated among children of
adolescent mothers. Similar disadvantages do not appear when chil-
dren born to older teens are contrasted with children born to women
in their early 20s. However, evidence does exist of very strong benefits
to delaying childbearing into the mid-20s or beyond-for this adoles-
cent-childbearing population a seemingly unrealistic goal, but a posi-
tive one nonetheless.
71
Figure 12
School Performance of Children Born to
Adolescent and Later Childbearers
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Teacher Ratings as "One of Best" Students
7.8%
25.3%
PIAT Reading Comprehension Percentile Ranking
47.6%
60.6%
Grade Repetition by Children Ages 10-14
32.7%
21.8%
Early Childbearers
Later childbearers,
Controls for Background
Data C
Source: Adapted from Moore, Morrison, and Greene (forthcoming).
Outcomes for
Teens and Young
Adults of
Adolescent
Parents
The adverse consequences of adolescent childbearing do not stop with
the young mothers and their young children. Rather, these consequences
contribute significantly to the perpetuation of poor life prospects for
children whose mothers gave birth early: poor school outcomes, early
and out-of-wedlock parenting, low attachment to the labor force, and
high rates of criminal activity.
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION
The children of adolescent parents are much less likely to complete high
school than are their peers. For example, approximately three fourths of
the children born to adolescent mothers complete high school by early
adulthood, compared with 89 percent of children born to 20- to 21-year-
old mothers (FIGURE 13). The comparable figures for those whose moth-
ers gave birth before age 16 show an even greater discrepancy (71 percent
versus 89 percent, not shown).
This pattern of relatively poor school outcomes for children of ado-
lescent mothers is consistent with the fact noted above: the children were
reared in relatively poor home environments and had relatively poor
school performance during their younger years. Yet, only about 30 per-
cent of this difference is explained by these background factors. The pat-
tern also portends some of the other consequences of the disadvantaged
upbringing faced by children born to young mothers.
The scholars have placed aggregate annual price tags for society
in excess of $3 billion a year on just the educational shortfall and the
increased incarceration levels associated with being born to an adoles-
cent parent. This figure would be even higher if it included other signifi-
cant factors, such as the costs of the intergenerational transmission of
73
Figure 13
High School Completion of Children of Adolescent and Later Childbearers
90%
88.5%
83.4%
80%
PERCENT COMPLETING HIGH SCHOOL
76.5%
70%
Controls for
Background
Factors
No Controls
60%
ADOLESCENT
LATER CHILDBEARERS,
CHILDBEARERS
FIRST BIRTH AGES 20-21
high rates of adolescent childbearing on public assistance, special educa-
tional needs of children, and publicly subsidized healthcare services.
THE NEXT GENERATION OF
ADOLESCENT MOTHERS
The children of adolescent mothers face significantly elevated probabili-
ties of having a child at a young age. Overall, daughters of adolescent
mothers are themselves nearly twice as likely to give birth during adoles-
cence as are their older childbearing counterparts (FIGURE 14). Of the
daughters born to adolescent mothers, 17 percent repeat the adolescent
childbearing patterns of their mothers, compared with only 9 percent of
their peers whose mothers began childbearing after age 20. However, over
half of this difference in fertility patterns is accounted for by factors other
than the adolescent childbearing of the mother-particularly the moth-
er's education and other background factors.
A high proportion of births to women whose mothers were adoles-
cent childbearers are out of wedlock, regardless of the age at which they
begin having children. However, this rate is exacerbated if the mother
was a teenager when the daughter was born. Delaying childbearing of the
mother beyond the 20- or 21-year age level used for the primary compar-
ison group has the largest benefits in terms of reductions in out-of-wed-
lock childbearing. For example, second-generation adolescent parents are
estimated to be 25 percent more likely to give birth out of wedlock than
would be the case if their mothers had delayed childbearing until their
mid-20s or beyond.²
ECONOMIC INACTIVITY
Nearly 30 percent of children born to adolescent mothers are neither
working nor looking for work nor attending school by the time they are
24 years old. This contrasts with only 17 percent of the children born to
20- or 21-year-old mothers (FIGURE 15). Roughly half of the economic
inactivity gap is explained by factors that can reasonably be considered
external to adolescent childbearing. Nonetheless, a policy that succeeded
in delaying those early (before age 18) births until the mothers reached
age 20 or 21 would increase the economic activity rate of the children by
an estimated 7 percentage points (from 71 to 78 percent).
Similar delays in childbearing for those giving birth before age
16 would have an impact nearly double that size (from 63 percent
active to 78 percent active, not shown). Higher participation in the work
force, combined with the higher skills of the workers, translates into
75
O'C'OT
15%
PERCENT GIVING BIRTH BEFORE AGE 18
13.5%
10%
9.0%
5%
Controls for
Background Factors
No Controls
0%
ADOLESCENT
LATER CHILDBEARING,
CHILDBEARERS
FIRST BIRTH AGES 20-21
LATER CHILDBEARERS,
ESCENT
No Controls
Background
Controls for
%I'LI
22.5%
%4'02
77.5%
increased national productivity, higher tax receipts, and more income
to share with one's own family.
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
Youths' self-reports of delinquency and illegal activities provide no evi-
dence of higher levels of behavioral problems and delinquency associated
with having been the children of a young parents (Moore, Morrison, and
Greene, forthcoming). Yet the sons of adolescent mothers are 2.7 times
more likely to end up behind bars than are the sons of older mothers
(Grogger forthcoming; FIGURE 16).
At the annual interviews conducted by the NLS-Y, nationally about
five percent of all young men were found to be incarcerated over a 13-year
period-a rate well below the 10.3 percent rate of observed incarceration
for young men born to adolescent mothers and slightly above the 3.8 per-
cent observed incarceration rate over this same period for young men
born to mothers who began their families at age 20 or 21 (FIGURE 16).
Roughly half of the observed difference in observed incarceration
rates for the young men born to adolescent versus older childbearers is
accounted for by observable differences in the demographic and back-
ground characteristics of offspring of both groups of mothers. Still, sim-
ply postponing adolescent childbearing just until ages 20 to 21 would, by
itself, reduce the incarceration rate for the affected children by 13 percent
(from 10.3 percent to 9.1 percent).
Even the relatively small fraction of the higher incarceration rate
that is directly attributable to adolescent childbearing costs the govern-
ment and society dearly. If we simply could delay childbearing until would-
be adolescent childbearers reached age 20.5, the national average incar-
ceration rate would fall by 3.5 percent. In dollar terms, our correctional
costs would decline by $1 billion dollars a year. Of course, these savings
would not be realized overnight. Even if all adolescent mothers were to
delay their childbearing as of tomorrow, the incarceration rates would
not fall by this full sum for about 20 years-the earliest age at which
young delinquents start going to jail in any substantial numbers.
For the full benefits of delayed fertility to show up in the form of
reduced prison budgets, an entire generation of adolescent mothers
would have to forgo early childbearing. Once this generational change
had occurred, however, and the children had reached adulthood, the
cost savings could be substantial. Because prison costs are only one
third of total expenditures for all levels of law enforcement (U.S.
Department of Justice 1992), the total savings to the criminal justice
system could reach nearly $3 billion.
78
10.3%
9.1%
8%
INCARCERATED DURING YOUNG
7.3%
4%
3.8%
Full
Controls for
Controls
Background
No Controls
0%
ADOLESCENT
LATER CHILDBEARERS,
CHILDBEARERS
FIRST BIRTH AGES 20-21
Notably, the research indicates that delays in childbearing beyond
age 21 would lead to even larger reductions in the incarceration rates of
young men born to would-be adolescent childbearers. It also is clear
from this analysis, however, that much of the high incarceration rates and
related prison costs associated with adolescent childbearing results from
other factors that are strongly related to or that compound the effects of
adolescent childbearing. Thus, policies that successfully address adoles-
cent childbearing as well as these other factors could lead to additional
cost savings for the nation. Furthermore, if these young men spent less
time in jail, they could contribute more to the support of their children.
80
The Economic
Costs of
Adolescent
Childbearing
Adolescent childbearing has substantial impacts on the sources of financial
resources available to a mother and her children but relatively modest
impacts on the average overall level of support during her first 12 years of
parenthood. Depending on the assumptions one makes regarding the life
courses of would-be adolescent mothers, the study estimates that they
would experience incomes between $900 and $10,000 a year more if they
were to postpone their childbearing until age 20 or 21. In contrast, adoles-
cent childbearing costs U.S. taxpayers between $6.9 billion and $18.6 bil-
lion a year, mainly the result of higher public-assistance costs, lower tax
revenues, increased levels of child welfare, and higher criminal-justice costs.
Moreover, adolescent childbearing lowers overall national productivity by
between $8.9 billion and $28.8 billion a year, again depending on the
assumed mechanisms used for achieving delay and on what related disad-
vantages are addressed simultaneously with achieving the delay, including
disadvantages of the men who are fathering these children.
MEASURING THE COSTS OF
ADOLESCENT CHILDBEARING
This study estimates the costs of adolescent childbearing from the per-
spective of three different groups: (1) adolescent mothers, (2) taxpay-
ers, and (3) society as a whole. Each of the economic outcomes meas-
ured in the Kids Having Kids project was inventoried to establish the
framework for assessing the economic consequences of adolescent child-
bearing. This framework recognizes the consequences of each outcome
for each of the three groups (TABLE 10).³
The accounting framework was applied to a range of estimates that
make different assumptions about the outcomes for would-be adolescent
mothers if they delayed childbearing until their early 20s. The assumptions
are that (1) their outcomes would be the same as those of women who
81
have their first child at age 20 or 21, regardless of the fact that the two
groups differ in many respects other than the timing of first births; (2) out-
comes would be similar to those of 20- or 21-year-old mothers, with con-
trols for observable differences between the two groups; and (3) outcomes
would resemble those of older mothers, with controls for observable and,
to the extent possible, unobservable differences between the two groups.
Measuring Costs to Adolescent Mothers From the perspective
of adolescent mothers, the consequences fall into four categories. The
first is changes in income from the mother's own employment. This
includes changes in earnings and the partially offsetting changes in
income and consumption taxes. A second category pertains to income
from husbands and the fathers of one's children. Adolescent childbear-
ing affects the amount of income a mother can expect to receive from a
husband-an outcome that depends both on the consequences of ado-
lescent childbearing for the earnings of the husband and on the propor-
tion of time the mother lives with the husband. Adolescent childbear-
ing also influences the level of child support, both by affecting the
probability of bearing a child out of wedlock and by altering some-
what the earnings patterns of nonmarital fathers.
The third category of consequences of adolescent childbearing from
the perspective of the young mothers is public assistance. This includes
changes in access to and reliance on Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC), food stamps, public housing, and healthcare subsidies
for children.⁴ The final category of consequences pertains to the changes
in direct out-of-pocket costs of healthcare for children that arise from dif-
ferences in the healthcare needs of children born to adolescent versus
older mothers and from different fertility rates.
This framework does not include direct estimates of the economic
implications of all the consequences of adolescent childbearing. For
example, it ignores possible differential access to a number of education-
al and training resources, such as student financial aid and publicly fund-
ed job training. It ignores changes in access to subsidized healthcare for
the mother. Also, numerous adverse social consequences of adolescent
childbearing have been excluded from the framework, since attaching
dollar values to them is difficult. These consequences include outcomes
such as higher rates of single parenthood, lower levels of educational
attainment, and lower qualities of home environments.
Costs to Taxpayers The costs to taxpayers of adolescent childbearing
fall into five categories. The first is tax revenues that reflect changes in
productivity of the mothers and the fathers of their children (whether
82
IMPACT OF POSITIVE VALUES OF THE MEASURED
CONSEQUENCE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF
ADOLESCENT
BENEFIT (COST) COMPONENT
CHILDBEARERS
TAXPAYERS
SOCIETY
Mother's earnings
Gain
Gain
Mother's income and consumption taxes,
Loss
Gain
Neutral
Father's earnings
-
Gain
Father's income and consumption taxes
Gain
Spouse's earnings
Gain
-
Gain
Spouse S income and consumption taxes
Loss
Gain
Neutral
Child support paid by nonresident father
Gain
Neutral
Neutral
AFDC benefits
Gain
Loss
Neutral
Food stamp benefits
Gain
Loss
Neutral
AFDC administrative costs
Neutral
Loss
Loss
Food stamp administrative costs
Neutral
Loss
Loss
Public housing
Gain
Loss
Neutral
Medical care
Loss
Paid by society
Neutral
Loss
Paid by parent
Loss
Neutral
Foster care
Neutral
Loss
Loss
Incarceration of young men
Neutral
Loss
Loss
husbands or not). The second is public assistance expenditures (AFDC,
food stamps, and public housing) and the costs of administering those
programs.5 The third through fifth categories of costs pertain to the
public costs of addressing the adverse consequences of adolescent child-
bearing for children-healthcare subsidies, foster-care costs, and criminal-
justice (prison) costs, respectively. In each of these cases, two sources of
increased costs are associated with adolescent childbearing: (1) the worse
health and social outcomes for children born to very young mothers as
compared with children born to mothers in their early 20s and (2) the
increased fertility rates associated with adolescent childbearing, which
raise the number of children who experience the relatively poor (and
costly) outcomes.
This framework does not include all potentially relevant costs to
taxpayers for adolescent childbearing. For example, changes in the de-
mand for secondary education and publicly funded higher education are
not considered. So, too, adolescent childbearing is associated with higher
levels of learning disabilities and social problems among children, which
have implications for educational and social-service costs that are not
captured in this framework.
Costs to Society The estimated social costs of adolescent childbearing
pertain only to those measured consequences that reflect real changes in
the resources available for consumption by the population at large-
changes in the productivity of the mothers themselves, in the productivi-
ty of the fathers of their children, in the level of resources devoted to
administering public assistance (but not public-assistance payments
themselves), in the level of medical care provided to children, and in
child-welfare and criminal-justice costs associated with higher foster-care
placement and incarceration rates of children born to adolescent mothers.
The framework ignores a number of potentially important social
costs factors. For example, it does not include the costs of administering
the healthcare subsidies, the costs of child-welfare services other than
foster care, or the costs of property damage and personal injuries that
likely precipitate the higher incarceration rates among children of adoles-
cent mothers. Finally, this framework ignores the intergenerational
effects of adolescent childbearing on the productivity and social well-
being of future generations.6
Source of the Component Cost Estimates The estimated costs
of adolescent childbearing from each of the three perspectives are sen-
sitive to the source of the outcome estimates. We present one set of
estimates-gross estimates-that reflect the costs incurred by or the
84
benefits to adolescent mothers relative to later childbearers, not con-
trolling for the fact that these two groups differ in important ways
other than the timing of their childbearing decisions (no controls). In
essence, these are the differences we observe when we simply look at
the two groups of mothers and track their life courses. These estimates
are derived in a manner conceptually similar to looking at the differ-
ences in outcomes represented in the first and last bars of the out-
comes charts in previous sections of this synthesis (the columns
reflecting outcomes for adolescent mothers and those for their later
childbearing counterparts with no adjustments).
A second set of estimates-Adjustment 1-corresponds to those
we would observe if we compared adolescent mothers with later child-
bearers whose family backgrounds were similar to their own (control-
ling for observed differences). These estimates are derived in a manner
conceptually similar to looking at the differences in outcomes repre-
sented in the first and next-to-last bars in the outcomes charts in previ-
ous sections (outcomes for adolescent mothers versus those who are
age 20 or 21 when they have their first child, assuming that the policies
that led to the delayed childbearing also would compensate for some
but not all differences between adolescent and later childbearers that
could lead to better or worse outcomes).
The third set of estimates-Adjustment 2-is similar to the sec-
ond except that, to the extent possible, the estimates also control for
unobserved differences between adolescent and comparison mothers
who were age 20 or 21 when they had their first child (controlling for
observed and unobserved differences). These estimates are derived
in a manner conceptually similar to looking at the differences in
outcomes represented by the first and second bars in the outcomes
charts in previous sections (outcomes for adolescent mothers versus
older mothers, assuming that the delay in childbearing would not
also compensate for any of the other factors that contribute to their
poor outcomes).
The estimates for the adolescent mothers reflect the cumulative
net costs or benefits associated with their adolescent childbearing dur-
ing their first 13 years of parenting. We have expressed this sum in
March 1996 dollars, assuming that the adolescent mothers will discount
future income at a rate of 5 percent per year. The estimates for the tax-
payers and for society reflect the sum of costs in a single year for all
adolescent mothers under age 29-an average of 13 cohorts of child-
bearers ranging in age from 16 to 28, on average. In these calculations,
we have assumed that each cohort of adolescent childbearers is the
same size as that in 1993 (175,259 first births to women under age 18).8
85
COSTS AND BENEFITS TO
ADOLESCENT MOTHERS
Adolescent mothers do not suffer large economic losses as a result of
their adolescent childbearing decisions. In fact, when scholars con-
trol for unobserved differences to the extent possible, they find that
these adolescent mothers are only slightly worse off financially than
if they had delayed childbearing until their early 20s (TABLE 11). Their
life prospects are quite poor regardless of whether they delay child-
bearing or not.
Adolescent childbearers would have only slightly higher earnings
during their first 13 years of parenthood if they delayed childbearing.
But they would have substantially higher levels of support from the
fathers of their children and from spouses. Thus, one of the most sig-
nificant economic impacts is that the sources of their income will
change. On average, those who give birth as adolescents will contribute
slightly less themselves to the support of their family during their early
years as parents while the fathers of their children and their spouses
contribute considerably less than they would if the young mothers
delayed their childbearing. Welfare largely compensates for the lower
support from the parents, leaving the young mothers with only $919
less annually as a result of their decisions to become teen moms.
During their first 13 years of parenting, adolescent mothers
receive substantially higher public-assistance benefits than would be
the case if they delayed childbearing. They work only about 70 hours
a year less than their later childbearing counterparts keeping their
earnings roughly comparable. Their lower marriage rates and levels of
support from the fathers of their children mean that higher propor-
tions of them are eligible for public assistance and they receive bene-
fits for a longer time.
Overall, with maximum controls for unobservable differences be-
tween adolescent and older mothers, adolescent mothers receive an
average of $1,368 annually in public-assistance, even though their
average annual earnings are only $366 less than expected had they
delayed childbearing. In part, the higher public assistance costs can be
attributed to adolescent childbearers' higher rates of single parenthood
and relatively low rates of child support. They are also partly the
result of these mothers' higher average fertility levels relative to the
levels of slightly later childbearers.
The higher levels of public-assistance benefits to adolescent
mothers are partially offset, however, by the $138 higher out-of-pocket
and private-health-insurance costs for care of their children-largely a
result of the higher fertility rates among adolescent childbearers.
86
Table 11
Estimated Benefits and Costs to
Adolescent Childbearers of Not Delaying Parenting Until Age 20 or 21
(Costs Denoted by Parentheses)
AVERAGE ANNUAL BENEFIT (COST)
b
c
BENEFIT OR COST COMPONENT
GROSS
ADJUSTMENT
ADJUSTMENT 2
(No controls)
(Some controls)
(Full controls)
Own income
($3,363)
($2,493)
($366)
Income of spouse/father of child(ren)
($9,694)
($7,893)
($1,780)
Public assistance
$2,508
$2,106
$1,368
Out-of-pocket healthcare for children
$105
($122)
($138)
Total Annual Value
($10,444)
($8,402)
($919)
Cumulative present value (13 years)
($135,778)
($109,217)
($11,950)
Note: These estimates are based on outcome and cost estimates reported in the various project studies. The estimates are based ona year time
horizon.following the birth of the first child and reflect a15 percent discount rate. All figures are in 1996 March dollars. Appendix Table A.3 pre
sents greater detail on the components of the various categories of costs or benefits.
a
These figures represent simple (unadjusted) differences in outcomes between those who have their first child before age 18 and those who have
their first child between the:ages of 20 or 21.
These figures represent differences between observed outcomes for those who had their first child before age 18 and those who delayed child
bearing until ages 20 or 21, controlling for observable background factors that are not expected to change as a result of adolescent childbearing.
These estimates correspond to estimates ot the costs or benefits associated with a policy.that would both lead to a delay in adolescent childbearing
andicompensate for some but not all. other factors that also tend to promote poor outcomes for young women and their children.
These figures represent differences between observed outcomes for those who had their first child before age 18 and those who delayed child-
bearing until ages 20 or 21, controlling for differences in background between the adolescent and later childbearers as well as differences in other
factors closely linked to adolescent childbearing. hese estimates correspond to estimates of the costs or benefits associated with a policy that
would result in a delay in childbearing but that would affect no other aspects of the young mothers lives:
COSTS TO TAXPAYERS
By any measure, taxpayers pay a high price for adolescent childbearing.
For example, based on the most highly controlled estimates of the conse-
quences of adolescent childbearing, scholars estimate that each adolescent
mother in this country costs U.S. taxpayers, over the 13 years following
the birth of her first child, an average of $3,042 a year that could be saved
if her childbearing had been delayed until age 20 or 21 (TABLE 12). In the
aggregate over all adolescent childbearers, this totals $6.9 billion a year.
Of this annual total, more than $2.2 billion ($970 per adolescent
mother) is the result of higher public assistance (AFDC and food stamps
combined), and another $1.5 billion a year ($641 per adolescent moth-
er) is spent on medical care for the children (TABLE 12). In addition, tax-
payers spend an average of about $.9 billion a year ($404 per adolescent
mother) on foster care and over $1 billion annually ($460 per adolescent
mother) on prison costs that could be saved if adolescent childbearing
were eliminated, even if little else changed in the lives of these young
mothers. The combined impacts of adolescent childbearing itself on the
earnings of the mothers and fathers costs taxpayers an estimated $1.3
billion less per year in lost tax revenues (or $556 per adolescent mother).
Using intermediate levels of controls for differences in the back-
grounds of adolescent and 20- or 21-year-old mothers, the estimated
cost to taxpayers of adolescent childbearing exceeds $13 billion a year.
That is, if we could not only delay adolescent childbearing but also
address some of the other measured social and environmental forces
that contribute to the poor outcomes of the adolescent mothers, the
steady-state payoff to the taxpayers could reach this higher level.
The unadjusted (gross) estimates of the costs to taxpayers provide
the upper limit of the potential gains of not only successfully combat-
ing adolescent childbearing but also eliminating or otherwise fully
compensating for other differences between adolescent and later child-
bearers that contribute to the poor observed outcomes for the adoles-
cent mothers. This figure totals an average of about $8,160 per year per
adolescent mother or nearly $19 billion a year aggregated across all
adolescent mothers who are in their first 13 years of parenthood.
COSTS TO SOCIETY
The cost of adolescent childbearing to society includes resources that are
diverted to mitigate problems associated with adolescent childbearing-
in our estimates, the costs of administering welfare programs, providing
foster care, and building and maintaining prisons. Costs to society also
include the parent's changes in productivity that are attributed to the
88
($Billions, March 1996-dollars)
ESTIMATED METHOD
GROSS
ADJUSTMENT 1 b
ADJUSTMENT2
COST COMPONENT
(No controls)
(Some controls)
(Full controls)
Annual Taxper
Tax revenues
$5.1
$3.8
$1.3
Public assistance expenditures
$5.6
$4.5
$2.2
Health care costs for children
$1.1
$1.3
$1.5
Foster care costs
$1.2
$1.1
$0.9
Criminal justice:costs
$5.6
$2.6
$1.0
Total annual cost ($billions)
$18.6
$13.3
$6.9
Annual cost per adolescent parent
$8,160
$5,825
$3,042
Note: These estimates are based on outcomes and costs reported in the various project studies. They have been constructed based on undiscounted
values estimated for a 13 year time horizon for the early childbearers. The average annual undiscounted value per person has been used as the basis
for calculating the average annual cost for mothers who began their families as young teen (under age 18) at some-point during the last 13 years:
We have assumed that/each of the 13 cohorts contains 175,259 mothers, a number equal to the number of women under age 18 who had their first
child in 1993. Appendix Table A.4 presents greater detail on the components of the various categories of costs or benefits.
a
These figures represent simple (unadjusted) differences in outcomes between those who have their first child before age 18 and those who have
their firstichild between the ages of 20 or 21
by
These figures represent differences between observed outcomes for those who had their first child before age 18 and those who delaved child-
bearing until ages 20 or 21, controlling for observable background factors that are not expected to change as a result of early childbearing. These
estimates correspond to estimates of the costs or benefits associated with a policy that would both lead to a delay in adolescent childbearing and
compensate for some, but-not all, other factors that also tend to promote poor outcomes for young mothers and their children.
C
These figures represent differences between observed outcomes for those who had their first child before age 18 and those who delayed child
bearing untillages 20 or 21, controlling for differences in background between the adolescent and later childbearers as well as differences in other
factors closely;linked to adolescent childbearing. These estimates correspondito estimates of the costs or benefits associated withia policy that
would result in a delay inchildbearing but that would affect no other aspects of the young mothers lives.
Costs Denoted by Parentheses)
ESTIMATED METHOD
b
GROSS
COST COMPONENT
ADJUSTMENT
1
ADJUSTMENT
2
(No controls)
(Some controls)
(Full controls)
Annual Social
Productivity of mothers
$13.6
$9.9
$1.3
Productivity of fathers
$8.6
$6.5
$4.3
Public assistance administration
$0.2
$0.2
$0.1
Increased medical care-for children
$0.4
$1.0
$1.3
Foster/care costs
$1.2
$1.1
$0.9
Criminal justice costs
$5.6
$2.6
$1.0
Total annual cost ($billions)
$28.8
$21.3
$8.9
Annual cost per adolescent parent
$12,645
$9,349
$3,918
Note: Theselestimates are based on outcomes and costs reported in the various project studies. They have been constructed based on undis
counted values estimated for a 13-year time horizon for the early childbearers. The average annual undiscounted value per person has been used
as the basis for calculating the average annual cost for mothers who began their families as young teenage mothers (under age 18) at some
point during the last 13 years. We have assumed that each of the 13 cohorts contains 175,259 mothers, a number equal to the number of women
under age 18 who had their first child in 1993., Table A:4 presents greater detail on the components of the various categories of costs or benefits.
a
These figures represent simple (unadjusted) differences in outcomes between those who have their first child before age 18 and those who have
their first child between the ages of 20 or 21.
b
These figures represent differences between observed outcomes for those who had their first-child before age 18 and those who delayed child-
bearing until ages 20 or 21, controlling for observable background factors that are not expected to change as a result of early childbearing. These
estimates correspond to estimates of the costs or benefits associated with a policy that would both leaditoia delay in early childbearing and com-
pensate for some, but not all, other factors that also tend to promote poor outcomes for young mothers and their children.
c
These figures represent differences between observed outcomes for those who had their first child before age 18 and those who delayed child-
bearing until ages 20 or 21, controlling for differences in background between the adolescent and later childbearers. These estimates correspond
to estimates of the costs or benefits associated with a policy that would result in a delay in childbearing but that would affect no other aspects of
the young mothers' lives.
adolescent childbearing; these are generally estimated to be sizable neg-
ative effects for the fathers (because of education and work effort
effects) and slightly negative for the mothers. The latter result reflects
the fact that adolescent mothers work only slightly less than their later
childbearing counterparts once researchers control for background and
other factors closely linked to early childbearing.
Using estimates that, to the extent possible, control for unobserved
differences between adolescent and later childbearers, the study esti-
mates that the social costs of adolescent childbearing total $8.9 billion
in 1996 dollars (TABLE 13). This is the estimated amount by which the
social welfare of the nation would increase if 13 years ago society had
successfully implemented a policy that delayed childbearing until ado-
lescents reached the age of 20 or 21 but did not at the same time
address the myriad other factors that contribute to the poor outcomes.
The major contributors to the social costs of adolescent childbear-
ing are those associated with the productivity of the fathers and with the
care and discipline of the children of adolescent mothers, relative to the
level of resources required had childbearing been delayed. On average,
the study estimates roughly $1.3 billion per year ($551 for each adoles-
cent mother under the age of 29) is devoted to increased medical-care for
the children; $.9 billion ($404 per adolescent mother) to higher rates of
foster care placements; and $1 billion ($460 per adolescent mother) to
higher prison costs-all costs that would be avoided if childbearing were
delayed until age 20 or 21. The adolescent mothers appear not to suffer
major adverse labor-market effects as a result of their early childbearing
(only about $555 per year). In contrast, the fathers of their children earn
about $1,907 less per year than would be the case if the mothers delayed
childbearing until age 20 or 21. The net result is an estimated $5.6 billion
annual less in worker productivity due to adolescent childbearing.
A hypothetical policy that not only delayed childbearing but also
addressed some of the related factors that contribute to poor outcomes
for adolescent mothers would save $21 billion a year in social costs
(although such a policy would be costly to implement). Such a policy
would have a stronger effect on the earnings of the fathers of the chil-
dren born to adolescent mothers than would a policy that simply
addressed the adolescent childbearing but did not deal with these relat-
ed factors. In a perfect world in which we could fully compensate for
or eliminate all differences between adolescent and later childbearers,
the net gain to society in higher productivity and lower public assis-
tance and social service costs would approach $29 billion annually.
91
References
Advocates for Youth. 1994. Teenage pregnancy and too-early childbearing: Public costs,
personal consequences, 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: Advocates for Youth.
Ahn, G. 1994. "Teenage childbearing and high school completion: Accounting for individual
heterogeneity." Family Planning Perspectives 26, no. I (January-February): 17-21.
Alan Guttmacher Institute. 1994. Sex and America's teenagers. New York: Alan
Guttmacher Institute.
Bachrach, C.A., K.S. Stolley, and K.A. London. 1992. "Relinquishment of premarital births:
Evidence from national survey data." Family Planning Perspectives 24 (1): 27-32.
Boyer, D., and D. Fine. 1992. "Sexual abuse as a factor in early pregnancy and maltreatment."
Family Planning Perspectives 24 (1): 4-19.
Brien, M.J., and R. Willis. Forthcoming. "Fathers: Costs and consequences of early
childbearing for the fathers, the young mothers, and their children." In Kids Hav-
ing Kids: Economic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy (working title),
ed. R. Maynard. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
Brown, S., and L. Eisenberg. 1995. The best intentions: Unintended preg nancy and the
well-being of children. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Medicine.
Burt, M. 1992. "Estimates of public costs for teenage childbearing: A review of recent
studies and estimates of 1985 public costs." Washington, D.C.: Center for
Population Options.
Burt, M., and D. Haffner. 1986. "Teenage childbearing: How much does it cost?"
Washington, D.C.: Center for Population Options.
Cameron, S.V., and J.J. Heckman. 1993. "The nonequivalence of high school equivalents."
Journal of Labor Economics 11(1): I-47.
Cao, J., E. Stromsdorfer, and Gregory Weeks. Forthcoming. "The Huma Capital Effect
of the GED on Low Income Women." Olympia: Washington State Institute for
Public Policy. Forthcoming in Journal of Human Resources.
Cohen, E.S. Golonka, R. Maynard, T. Ooms, and T. Owens. June 10, 1994. "Welfare
reform and literacy: Are we making the connection?" Background briefing report for
the Forum on Literacy and Welfare, Washington DC: Family Impact Seminar and
National Center on Adult Literacy.
Congressional Budget Office. 1990. Sources of support for teenage parents. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Geronimous, A., and S. Korenman. 1993. "The socioeconomic consequences of teen
childbearing reconsidered." Quarterly Journal of Economics 107 (4): 1187-1214.
Geronimous, A., S. Korenman, and S. Hillemeier. 1994. "Does young maternal age
adversely affect child development? Evidence from cousin comparisons in the
United States." Development Review 20: 585-609.
Goerge, R., and B.J. Lee. Forthcoming. "Abuse and neglect: Effects of early childbearing
on abuse and neglect of the children." In Kids Havings Kids: Economic Costs and
Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy (work ing title), ed. R. Maynard.
Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
92
Grogger, J. Forthcoming. "Crime: The influence of early childbearing on the cost of
incarceration." In Kids Havings Kids: Economic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen
Pregnancy (working title), ed. R. Maynard. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
Grogger, J., and S. Bronars. 1993. "The socioeconomic consequences of teenage childbearing:
Findings from a natural experiment." Family Planning Perspectives 25 (4): 156-61.
Haveman, R., and B. Wolfe. 1994. Succeeding generations: On the Effects of Investments in
Children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Haveman, R., B. Wolfe, and E. Peterson. Forthcoming. "Prospects: How do the children
of early childbearers fare as young adults?" In In Kids Havings Kids: Economic Costs
and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy (working title). ed. R. Maynard.
Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
Hoffman, S.E., M. Foster, and F. Furstenberg Jr. 1993. "Reevaluating the costs of teenage
childbearing." Demography 30, no. I (February): 1-13.
Hotz, V.)., S.W. McElroy, and S. Sanders. Forthcoming. "Mothers: Effects of early child
bearing on the lives of the mothers." In Kids Havings Kids: Economic Costs and Social
Consequences of Teen Pregnancy (working title), ed. R. Maynard. Washington, D.C.:
Urban Institute Press.
Jacobson, J., and R. Maynard. Forthcoming. "Unwed mothers and long-term welfare
dependency," in Addressing Illegitimacy: Welfare Reform Options for Congress.
Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, September 11.
Johnson, A., M. Kelsey, and R. Maynard. Forthcoming. "What are the real barriers to self-
sufficiency for teenage parents?" Paper prepared for the Henry J. Kaiser Family
Foundation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Klepinger, D., S. Lundberg, and R. D. Plotnick. 1995. "Early fertility and the educational
attainment of young women." Family Planning Perspectives 27, no. I
(January-February): 23-27.
Kost, K., and J.D. Forrest. 1995. "Intention status of U.S. births in 1988: Differences by
mothers' socioeconomic and demographic characteristics." Family Planning Perspectives
27, no. I (January - February): 11-17.
Landry, D.J., and J.D. Forrest. 1995. "How old are U.S. fathers?" Family Planning
Perspectives 27, no. 4 (July/August): 159-165.
Maynard, R., and Meredith Kelsey, and D. McGrath. 1996. "The new face of teenage child
bearing: Implications for welfare policy." Philadelphia, PA. the University of
Pennsylvania. Paper prepared for the Henry ). Kaiser Family Foundation.
Maynard, R., and D. McGrath. 1995. "The social benefits of education: Family formation,
parenting, and child welfare." Paper prepared for th U.S. Department of Education
Conference on the Social Benefits of Education, Washington, D.C., January 3-5.
Maynard, R., W. Nicholson, and A. Rangarajan. 1993. Breaking the Cycle of Poverty: The
Effectiveness of Mandatory Services for Welfare-Dependent Teenage Parents. Princeton,
NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
McElroy, S.W., and K. Moore. Forthcoming "Trends: National and interna tional trends in
early pregnancy and childbearing." In Kids Having Kids: Economic Costs and Social
Consequences of Teen Pregnancy (working title), ed. R. Maynard. Washington, D.C.:
Urban Institute Press.
Moore, K.A., B.C. Miller, D. Glei, and D.R. Morrison. 1995. Early Sex, Contraception,
and Childbearing: A Review of Recent Research. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends.
93
Moore, K.A., D.R. Morrison, and A.D. Greene. Forthcoming. "Children: Effects of
early childbearing on the lives of the children." In Kids Havings Kids: Economic
Costs and Social Consequences of Teen regnancy (working title), ed. R. Maynard.
Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
Moore, K.A., D. Myers, D.R. Morrison, C. Nord, B. Brown, and B. Edmonston. 1993.
"Age at first childbirth and later poverty." Journal of Research on Adolescence
3 (4): 393-422.
Moore, K.A., N. Snyder, and D. Glei. 1995. Facts at " Glance. Annual news letter on teen
pregnancy. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends.
Moore, K.A., B. Sugland, C. Blumenthal, D. Glei, and N. Snyder. 1995. Adolescent Pregnancy
Prevention Programs: Interventions and Evaluations. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends.
Moore, K.A., and R.F. Wertheimer. 1984. "Teenage childbearing and welfare:
Preventive and ameliorative strategies." Family Planning Perspectives 16
(November-December): 285-289.
Murnane, R., J.B. Willett, and K.P. Boudett. 1994. "Do high school dropouts benefit from
obtaining a GED?" Working Paper. Harvard Labor Economics Seminar, August 11.
Nord, C., K. Moore, D. Morrison, B. Brown, and D. Myers. 1992. "Consequences of
teenage parenting." Journal of School Health 62, no. 7 (September): 310-318.
Philliber, S. 1994. Carrera/Dempsey Replication Programs: 1993-94 Summary of Client
Characteristics and Outcomes. Accord, NY: Philliber Research Associates.
Rangarajan, A., E.E. Kisker, and R. Maynard. 1992. Selecting Basic Skills Tests for Program
and Evaluation Purposes. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
Roper, P., and G. Weeks. 1993. Child Abuse, Teenage Pregnancy, and Welfare Dependency:
Is There a Link? Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Evergreen
State College, October.
Strain, M., and E.E. Kisker. 1989. Literacy and the Disadvantages: Analysis of Data
From the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica
Policy Research.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. 1993.
Youth Indicators 1993. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational
Statistics, October.
U.S. Department of Justice. 1992. Correctional Populations in the United States, 1990.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wolfe, B., and M. Perozek. Forthcoming. "Health: Early childbearing's costs to society
for health and medical care of the children." In Kids Having Kids: Economic Costs
and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy (working title), ed. R. Maynard.
Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
Wolpin, K., and M. Rosenzweig. 1992. "Sisters, siblings, and mothers: The effects of
teenage childbearing on birth outcomes." Paper presented at the NICHD confer
ence, "Outcomes of early childbearing: An appraisal of recent evidence," Bethesda,
MD, May 18-19.
Zill, N., and C.W. Nord. 1994. Running in Place: How American Families Are Faring in a
Changing Economy and an Individualistic Society. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends.
94
Footnotes
¹As of 1993, only 28 percent of births to teenagers occurred within the marriage
(Moore, Snyder, and Glei 1995).
2 The estimate of out-of-wedlock childbearing for the study sample was 15 percent
both for adolescent childbearers and for later childbearers who were born to teenage
mothers. In view of the rapid rise in the population of teen births that are out of wedlock,
the results of a more current sample than the one available for this study (a sample of
teenagers in the late 1970s and early 1980s) would be quite different.
3 The framework is not comprehensive in that we have omitted many possible costs (and
a few benefits for the adolescent childbearers) because they were not a focus of the project
studies. In most cases, the fact that certain costs were not estimated reflects the inadequa-
cies of available data to address the outcomes.
4 The project studies did not provide detailed estimates of the effects of adolescent child-
bearing on costs and subsidies for healthcare provided to the mothers.
5 This category does not include healthcare and administrative costs for the mother, since
the research did not address maternal health outcomes.
6 Haveman et al. (forthcoming) provides clear evidence that adolescent childbearing
imposes costs on those among the next generation of young adults who were
born to adolescent mothers. These costs are relatively straightforward to measure. It is
more challenging to extrapolate from the estimated outcomes for individuals to the
second-generation costs for society, however. This is because adolescent childbearing
increases fertility and so expands the size of the next generation's workforce at the
same time it changes the skills composition. Untangling these components of social bene-
fits and costs was beyond the scope of the Kids Having Kids project.
7As noted above, only two of the project studies controlled for observed and unobserved
differences between adolescent and later childbearers. In computing the cost estimates, we
have sometimes combined the estimates from studies that were and were not able to con-
trol for unobservables. For example, we combined estimates of outcomes for children
(not controlling for unobservable differences between adolescent and later childbearers)
with estimates of the effects of adolescent childbearing on fertility patterns (controlling
for observable and unobservable differences) to obtain an estimate of the aggregate effects
of the outcome per mother rather than per child.
⁸This assumption about the cohort size likely will tend to overstate current costs,
insofar as this figure exceeds the average cohort size over the past 13 years. It understates
future costs, insofar as the size of the teenage parent population has been increasing in
recent years. A more precise estimate would entail both making population projections
and projecting future trends in the teenage birth rate.
95
Appendix: Supplementary Tables
Table A.1
Control Variables Used in the Analyses
STUDY
HOTZ,
MOORE,
HAVEMAN,
McELROY &
BRIEN&
MORRISON &
WOLFE &
GOERGE &
WOLFE &
VARIABLE
SANDERS
WILLIS
GREENE
PEROZEK
LEE
GROGGER
PETERSON
Demographic Characteristics
Marital Status
Race/ethnicity
AFQT
Child's Age
Birth Order
Mother srage at birth
Family Background
Living arrangement as teen
Mother's education
Father's education
Mother' achievement test score
Family income
Years lived in poverty
Mother on welfare/family in
poverty
Religion
Number of children
Home resources
Other
Region of residence
Child's health
Birth'year
State per capita spending
on family planning
Neighborhood unemployment rate
State maximum welfare benefits
Notes: indicates that the variable was used only in models that included correction for selection bias; indicates variable was used as a sub-
group identifier.
96
Table A. 2
Simulation Estimates of the Costs of Prior Teenage Childbearing
(March 1996 Dollars)
SINGLE-BIRTH COST
ANNUAL COHORT,
SINGLE YEAR COST
20 YEAR HORIZON
20-YEAR HORIZON
($BILLIONS)
($1,000s)
($BILLIONS)
Gross costs
$29.9
$21.6
$8.6
b
Net costs
$12.4
$8.6
$3.5
Source: M: Burt (1992), Estimates of public costs for teenage childbearing: A review of recent studies and estimates of 1985 public costs
(Washington, D.C.: Center for Population Options), Exhibits 2-4. The methodology used to generate these estimates is detailed in M. Burt and
D Haffner (1986), Teenage childbearing: How much it/cost? (Washington, D.C. Center for Population Options). Numbers have been
adjusted to March 1996 dollars, based on the Consumer Price Index-Urban.
a
Gross costs include AFDC payments, food stamps, Medicaid costs, and welfare administration costs: They do not include other costs, such as
those associated with public housing, special/education; child protective services, foster care, day care; or other social services.
b
Nét costs assume that 60 percent of the outlays for AFDC, food stamps, and Medicaid to teenage parents would have been made to those
women'even' if they had delayed childbearing until age 20. This assumption was derived from your the observation that average public assistance
dependency rates were 60 percent as high for those having their first child after age 19 as for those having their first child as a teenager (see K.A.
Moore and R.F. Wertheimer (1984), Teenage childbearing and welfare: Preventive and ameliorative strategies,' Family Planning Perspectives 16,
(November-Decermber): 285-289.
Average Annual Discounted Differences in Outcomes Between
Adolescent and Later Childbearers
(First 13 Years of Parenthood)
ESTIMATION MODEL
GROSS
DIFFERENCES
ADJUSTMENT 1 b
ADJUSTMENT 2c
BENEFIT OR COST COMPONENT
(No controls)
(Some controls)
(Full controls)
OwnIncome
Earnings
($4,368)
($3,237)
($474)
Income and consumption taxes
$1,004
$745
$109
Incomel From Spouses and Fathers of Children
Spouse's earnings
($13,015)
($10,442)
($2,339)
Spouse's taxes
$2,993
$2,402
$538
Child support
$328
$146
$21
Public/Assistance
AFDC benefits
$734
$640
$507
Food stamp benefits
$397
$318
$129
Public housing
$738
$514
$44
Medical care paid by society
$639
$635
$688
Out of Medical Care-for Children
Medical care paid by respondent
$105
($122)
($142)
Note: Values are expressed in March 1996 dollars. All figures are discounted at 5 percent per year. Discounted values were used only in the cal-
culation of benefits and costs from the perspective of the young mothers. Since the young mothers do not bear the financial costs of either foster
care or incarceration of their male children, we have not included these cost elements in the table of discounted figures.
a
These figures represent simple (unadjusted) differences in outcomes between those who had their first child before age 18 and those who had
their first child at age 20 or 21.
b.
These figures represent differences between observed outcomes for those who had their first child before age 18 and those who delayed child
bearing until age 20 or 21, controlling for observable background factors that are not expected to change asia result of early childbearing. These
estimates correspond to estimates of. the costs or benefits associated with a policy that would both lead to a delay in adolescent childbearing and
compensate for some but not all, other factors that also tend to promote poor outcomes for young women and their children.
These figures represent differences between observed outcomes for, those who had their first child before age, 18 and those who delayed child-
bearing until age 20'or 21, controlling for differences in-backgrounds between the adolescent and older childbearers as well as differences in other
factors closely linked to adolescent childbearing. These estimates correspond to estimates of the costs or benefits associated with a policy that
would result in a delay in childbearing but that would affect no other aspects of the young mothers' lives.
Table A.4
Average Annual Undiscounted Differences in Outcomes
Between Adolescent and Later Childbearers
(First 13 Years of Parenthood)
ESTIMATION MODEL
GROSS
DIFFERENCESᵃ
ADJUSTMENT 1ᵇ 1 b
ADJUSTMENT 2
BENEFIT OR COST COMPONENT
(No controls)
(Some controls)
(Full controls)
Productivity/andTaxRevenues
Earnings
($5,978)
($4,367)
($555)
Income-and consumption taxes
($1,375)
($1,004)
($127)
Father's earnings (married and nonmarried)
($3,775)
($2,841)
($1,907)
Father taxes (married and nonmarried)
($868)
($653)
($438)
Public Assistance) Payments and Administration
AFDC benefits
$914
$793
$591
Food stamp benefits
$522
$42
$150
AFDC administrative costs
$46
$40
$29
Food stamp administrative costs
$26
$21
$7
Public housing
$762
$543
$117
Medical care paid by society
$432
$566
$641
Other
Medical care paid by respondent
($645)
$715
($90)
Foster care
$496
$455
$374
Incarceration of young men
$2,269
$1,051
$424
Note: Values are expressed in March 1996 dollars. All figures are discounted at 5 percent per year Discounted values were used only in the cal;
culation of benefits and costs from the perspective of the young mothers: Since the young mothers do notibear the financial costs of either foster
care or incarceration of their male children, we have not included these cost elements in the table of discounted figures.
These figures represent simple (unadjusted) differences in outcomes between those who had their first child before age 18 and those who had
their first child at age; or 21
b
These figures represent differences between observed outcomes for those who had their first child before age 18 and those who delayed:child
bearing until age 20 or 21, controlling for vable background factors that are not expected to change as a result of early childbearing These
estimates correspond to estimates of the costs or benefits associated with a policy, that would both lead to a delay in adolescent childbearing and
compensate for some, but not all, other factors that also tend to promote,poor outcomes for young mothers and their children.
These figures represent differences between observed outcomes for those who had their first/child beforelage 18 and those who delayedichild
bearing until age 20 or 21, controlling for differences in backgrounds between the adolescent and older childbearers as well as differences in other
factors closely linked to adolescent childbearing. These estimates correspond to estimates of the costs or benefits associated with a policy that
would result in a delay in childbearing but that would affect no other aspects of the young mothers lives.
LATER CHILDBEARERS (AGES 20 OR 21)
ADOLESCENT
SOURCE OF SUPPORT
CHILDBEARERS
WITH CONTROLS
NO CONTROLS
Outcomes Duringthe) of Par enthood
Own Earnings
30.2%
30.3%
29.4%
Earnings of spouse
46.9%
55.7%
64.9%
Child support
4.2%
3.7%
1.1%
AFDC
6:9%
3:7%
1.4%
Food stamps
3.8%
2.8%
0.8%
Medical assistance
8.1%
3.8%
2.3%
Total
100.1%
100.0%
99.9%
Average Outcomes Young Adulthood
Own Earnings
31.8%
29.5%
30.5%
Earnings of spouse
48.0%
52:3%
59.7%
Child support
3.9%
4.6%
1.7%
AFDC
4.5%
4.0%
1.7%
Food stamps
2.8%
2.9%
0.9%
Medical assistance
9.0%
6.7%
5.5%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Source: Except as noted, these data are adapted from J: Hotz, S: McElroy, and S. Sanders (forthcoming), 'Mothers: Effects of early childbearing
on the lives of the mothers, in Kids Having Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, ed. R. Maynard (Washington, D.C. Urban
Institute Press and reported in T ables and 6 above: Control variables included in the models are listed in Appendix able A. l.
a
Estimates are derived from M. Brien and R. Willis (forthcoming), Fathers: Costs and consequences of early childbearing for the fathers, the
young mothers, and their children, in Kids Having Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of een Pregnancy, ed. R. Maynard (Washington,
D.C. Urban Institute Press). They assume that support awards average 17 percent of the father's income for the first child, that total awards are
half that amount for subsequent children, and that awards are issued and paid in only 30 percent of the cases. They also assume that 81 percent of
births to early childbearers are out of wedlock. Therate is 42 percent for those observed to delay childbearing until ages, 20 or 21; and it would be
midway between those two rates (61.5 percent) if we controlled for basic demographic differences between early and later childbearers.
b.
Estimates are derived from B. Wolfe and M. Perozek (forthcoming), Health: Early childbearing's costs to society for health and medical care of
the children,' in Kids Having Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, ed. R. Maynard (Washington, D.C. Urban Institute
Press). The estimates; which include only publicly, supported medical assistance assume that the average subsidies per child pertain to all children
born to mothers under the various scenarios (2.6 children if she has her first child while under age 18; 2.0 children if she delays childbearing and
we compensate for or otherwise equalize circumstances other than basic family circumstances; 2.1 children if she delays childbearing and we fully
compensate for, all differences between her and her counterparts who delay childbearing until theirearly 20s, including compensating for her
family demographics.
ABOUT THE ROBIN HOOD FOUNDATION
The Robin Hood Foundation was created as a public charity in 1988 to
find, fund and provide management help to the best and most innovative
programs serving poor people in New York City. Since then, the foundation
has provided more than $35 million in money, volunteer resources and
material goods to these programs. Robin Hood has supported a wide range
of poverty-fighting projects, including housing for the homeless, medical
help for the sick, job training for the jobless, hospice care for people with
AIDS, drug treatment for the addicted, and soup kitchens for the hungry.
But, from the very beginning, Robin Hood's primary aim was-and
continues to be-to develop the best programs and schools for young
children and teenagers living in poverty. In the course of visiting and
working with hundreds of youth programs, Robin Hood has observed
first hand the pervasive and damaging impact of adolescent childbearing
in the city's very poorest communities. The foundation has also wit-
nessed the profound impact of programs that help children delay parent-
hood until they grow up, graduate from school, get married and become
emotionally and financially ready to rear children of their own. Through
its very direct community-level work, Robin Hood has increasingly
explored the larger dimensions of adolescent childbearing in New York
City and the nation. In this context, the foundation commissioned this
report on the costs and consequences of adolescent childbearing.
The Robin Hood Foundation Board of Directors
Paul Tudor Jones II, Chairman
Peter D. Kiernan III, Vice-Chairman
Peter F. Borish
Geoffrey Canada
Maurice Chessa
Stanley Druckenmiller
Glenn R. Dubin
Marian Wright Edelman
John F. Kennedy
Mary McCormick
Jann S. Wenner
David Saltzman, Executive Director
Lisa Smith, Deputy Director
The Robin Hood Foundation
111 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, New York 10006
Telephone: 212-227-6601
Fax: 212-227-6698
LINNAM LODNER INDISAO
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
US
Policy male No Research Report
Welfare Reform Issues Before Before the Natio Natio
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
October 1995
A Debate on Affirmative Action Policies
So asserted Dinesh D'Souza,
John M. Olin Research Fellow,
at AEI's September 13, 1995,
Newsletter
debate on affirmative action
policies. Mr. D'Souza, the au-
thor of The End of Racism:
Principles for a Multicultural
Society (Free Press, 1995), de-
bated Christopher Edley, Jr.,
professor of law, Harvard Univer-
sity, and coauthor of President
Clinton's Affirmative Action
Review (July 1995) as part of
the Institute's Amgen Forum, a
series of public policy debates,
Christopher Edley. Jr., and Dinesh D'Souza
lectures, and conferences spon-
"Ever since the 1960s there has
will lead to equality of results
sored by Amgen, Inc.
been an assumption in our pub-
for groups. A generation after
"The pernicious effects of
lic discourse that racial groups
passage of the Civil Rights Laws,
affirmative action are threefold,"
are fundamentally the same in
we now have plenty of empirical
Mr. D'Souza continued. "First,
their endowments and capacities.
evidence that this is not so. Yet
policies that were put into place
This has led us to expect that
it remains the basis of much
to fight discrimination now
equality of rights for individuals
American social policy."
(continued on the next page)
Can Welfare Reform Reduce Illegitimacy?
"The ratio of illegitimate to
Senator Moynihan warned that if
legitimate births in the United
legislative proposals to end the
States was about 4 percent in
federal commitment to poor fami-
1940. It then began to rise in an
lies become law, "within ten years
exponential curve that looks like
you are going to find children
a jet plane taking off. According
sleeping on heating grates" the
to this curve, the rate will get to
way the adult homeless now do.
50 percent by the year 2004."
"Children born out-of-
So asserted Senator Daniel
wedlock are more likely to drop
Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) in
out of school, to have lower test
his keynote address to AEI's
scores and grades. to become
September 11 conference,
teenage parents, and to have
"Addressing Illegitimacy: Wel-
criminal justice encounters," ac-
fare Reform Options for Con-
cording to Rebecca Maynard, se-
gress," organized by Douglas J.
nior vice-president, Mathematica
Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan
Besharov, resident scholar.
Policy Research, Inc. "But there
bearing corresponds to generosity
Describing the rise of illegiti-
is no evidence that welfare pro-
of benefits," she added.
macy as "an unprecedented
motes larger family sizes or that
C. Rudolf Myers, director,
change in our social structure,"
the rate of out-of-wedlock child-
(continued on the next page)
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 202/862-5800
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
DLC
Democratic Leadership Council
BLUEPRINT
FOR CHANGE
Reducing Teenage Pregnancy
A Handbook for Action
March 1996