Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "122247239",
    "label": "Policy Reports 1 [2]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/122247239"
}

{
    "id": "122247239",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/122247239",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Policy Reports 1 [2]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/122247239",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
        "Lyn Hogan's Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/systematic/2010/2010-1083-S/42-t-7763332-20101083S-004-001-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/systematic/2010/2010-1083-S/42-t-7763332-20101083S-004-001-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/systematic/2010/2010-1083-S/42-t-7763332-20101083S-004-001-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/122247239",
    "naId": 122247239,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "otherTitles": [
        "42-t-7763332-20101083S-004-001-2017"
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/systematic/2010/2010-1083-S/42-t-7763332-20101083S-004-001-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "d0078ce02cc5c18a",
    "ocrText": "33\nWe Believe in Heroes\nof\nThe Robin Hood Foundation\nBOARD OF DIRECTORS\nIII Broadway, New York. New York 10006\nPAUL TUDOR JONES II, CHAIR\nPETER D. KIERNAN III. VICE CHAIR\n(212) 227-6601 Fax: (212) 227-6698\nPETER F. BORISH\nGEOFFREY CANADA\nMAURICE CHESSA\nSTANLEY DRUCKENMILLER\nGLENN R DUBIN\nMARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nContact: Julie Harkavy\nJOHN F KENNEDY JR.\nThursday, June 13, 1996\n202/739-0215\nMARY McCORMICK\nJANN WENNER\nStephanie Bartolomeo\n212/484-7236\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR\nDAVID SALTZMAN\nGROUNDBREAKING STUDY ON TEENAGE CHILDBEARING\nQUANTIFIES DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES TO PARENTS,\nCHILDREN AND SOCIETY\nDelaying Childbearing Until Age 20 or 21 Significantly Reduces Serious\nHealth Risks, Likelihood of Poverty for Parents and Children; Lessens\nFinancial Burden on Society\nWashington, DC -- Adolescent parenthood has devastating effects on families,\nincreasing poverty and significantly increasing the likelihood that the children of\nthese young parents will face a life of poor health, physical abuse, neglect,\nprison and early childbearing, according to a groundbreaking study released\ntoday by the Robin Hood Foundation.\n\"Kids Having Kids\" is the most comprehensive report done on the costs and\nconsequences of teenage childbearing to parents, children and society.\nAccording to the study, adolescent childbearing costs U.S. taxpayers $6.9\nbillion per year, and the cost to the nation in lost productivity rises to as much\nas $29 billion annually.\nWorking in teams on eight coordinated studies, a collection of some of the\nnation's leading scholars focused their research on the roughly 175,000\nAmerican girls who bear their first baby at the age of 17 or younger and\ncompared the associated economic and social costs to those mothers who delay\nchildbirth until the age of 20 or 21, which is still two to three years younger\nthan the national average.\n- more -\nKids Having Kids/page2\n\"Adolescent childbearing is not only a significant personal tragedy, it should be\nregarded as a national calamity in that it commits young parents to a life of hardship,\nincreases the likelihood that their children will suffer the same fate and has staggering\neconomic and social costs for our nation as a whole,\" said David Saltzman, executive\ndirector of Robin Hood Foundation, a philanthropic organization dedicated to fighting\npoverty in New York City and primary source of funding for the \"Kids Having Kids\"\nreport.\n\"Early parenting wreaks havoc socially -- from the completion of education of the mother\nand father to their higher poverty rates,\" said Rebecca Maynard, \"Kids Having Kids\" editor\nand professor of education and social policy, Graduate School of Education, University of\nPennsylvania. \"But the devastation to the lives of their children is prevalent and wide-\nranging.\"\nA few of the hundreds of findings about children born to teenage mothers:\n-\nReproducing the Cycle of Poverty -- The girls born to adolescent\nmoms are up to 83 percent more likely to become teenage moms\nthemselves, thus reproducing the cycle of poverty and disadvantage\nfor yet another generation.\n-\nTrouble in School -- They are 50 percent more likely to repeat a grade and\nperform significantly worse on cognitive development tests. They are also\nfar more likely to drop out of high school than are the children born to\nwomen from the same socio-economic background who wait until the age\nof 20 or 21 to have children.\nMore Childhood Health Problems -- They are more likely to be born\nprematurely and 50 percent more likely to be born low birthweight than if\ntheir mothers had waited four years to bear them.\n-\nIncreased Child Abuse and Neglect -- They are twice as likely to be\nabused or neglected.\n-\nBehind Bars -- The teen sons of adolescent mothers are up to 2.7 times\nmore likely to land in prison than their counterparts in the comparison\ngroup. By extension, adolescent childbearing in and of itself costs\ntaxpayers roughly $1 billion each year to build and maintain prisons for\nthe sons of young mothers.\n- more -\nKids Having Kids/page 3\n-\nFoster Children -- Of the estimated 472,000 foster children in the United\nStates, over 23,000 are the children of adolescent mothers, which in turn\nresults in a taxpayer burden of approximately $900 million.\nThe study also examines the consequences of early parenting on teen mothers and the\nfathers:\n-\n70 percent of the mothers drop out of school.\n-\nThey are twice as likely to be dependent on welfare.\nA unique component of the study is its examination of the costs and consequences of teen\npregnancy on society:\n-\nTeen childbearing costs U.S. taxpayers almost $7 billion every year.\n-\nThe cost to society in lost national productivity and avoidable\nexpenditure of social service resources is as much as $29 billion each\nyear.\n\"We hope the disturbing findings of this report will send a wake-up call to America\nabout the need to find workable solutions to the devastating issue of teenage\nparenthood,\" said Paul Tudor Jones II, founder and chairman of the Robin Hood\nFoundation. \"Without our help, the children of teenage mothers will themselves\nbecome teenage mothers, thus perpetuating the cycle of abuse, neglect, hardship and\npoverty.'\nThe Robin Hood Foundation was created as a public charity in 1988 to find, fund and\nprovide management help to the best and most innovative programs serving poor\npeople in New York City. Since then, the foundation has provided more than $35\nmillion in money, volunteer resources and materials goods to these programs.\n###\nThe New York Times\nNEW YORK, THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1991\nNowadays, Robin Hood Gets the Rich to Give to the Poor\nBy KATHLEEN TELTSCH\nlished foundations.\nWe chose the name because we are a lit-\nRobin Hood shows how to make these in-\nIn the financial world, big payoffs often\n\"Robin Hood is using a venture-capital\ntle off-beat,\" Mr. Borish said. \"I joined in\ntroductions, say its founders, who have\ncome to those who can spot the unknown,\napproach that is not only giving these com-\nbecause I love this city with a passion. I'm a\ntapped their friends and business associ-\nuntested investment opportunity - and are\nmunity groups money, but also needed vis-\nwalking poster for New York. I don't want\nates for money, advice and technical help\nwilling to take the risk.\nibility and recognition,\" said Hildy Sim-\nto see the city go under.\"\nfor the neighborhood organizations, which\nmons, a vice president of J.P. Morgan &\nMr. Dubin, who co-founded Dubin and\nNow three successful young Wall Street\nare often weak in managerial skills.\nCompany who is president of the New York\nSweica, investment managers, grew up in\ntraders are applying that principle to\n\"They were the first group to say 'This is\nRegional Association of Grant-Makers.\nWashington Heights and went to local pub-\ngoing to fly' when we asked for help to begin\nphilanthropy. Their four-year-old Robin\nPaul Tudor Jones 2d, a 36-year-old multi-\nlic schools. He maintains that the yuppie\na day center in Harlem for homeless people\nHood Foundation scours New York City\nmillionaire commodities trader, put up $3\nstereotype of selfish success is largely a\nwho are HIV-positive,\" said Larry Pagnoni,\nlooking for neighborhood organizations that\nmillion to begin Robin Hood in 1987. \"I\nmyth. \"It's true the 80's were a period of\nexecutive director of the Upper Room AIDS\nrescue the homeless, care for children with\ncouldn't sleep if I did not have a part in this\ngreat excesses, financially and otherwise,\"\nMinistry.\nAIDS, fight drug abuse or rebuild families.\nsort of thing,\" he said. He invited two close\nhe said. \"But there are lots of caring people\nAmong the other small organizations that\nIt gave $2 million last year to 50 local\nfriends, Peter F. Borish, 31, and Glenn R.\nwho would give their money and time to\nhave received money from Robin Hood are\ngroups, many too unconventional or un-\nDubin, 33, to join him. Each contributed \"in\nhelp others if only they were introduced to\ntested to attract money from older, estab-\nthe six-figure range.\"\nthe proper situation.\"\nContinued on Page B7\nNowadays, Robin Hood Can Get the Rich to Give to the Poor\nContinued From Page BI\nIng mandate from the foundation's\na church basement financed and run by\nand should succeed In philanthropy as\neight-member board to find local or-\nJoseph H. Holland, a former All Amer-\nwell.\" His firm looks after Robin\nthe Brooklyn Women's Anti-Rape Ex-\nganizations that can make an enduring\nica football player at Cornell, Harvard\nHood's financial Investments; It has an\nImpact in the fight against poverty In\nchange and Project Life, an anti-drug\nLaw School graduate, playwright and\nendowment of $11 million, providing a\nNew York.\nprogram for young people operated by\nan ordained minister, who was an un-\ncushion If contributions lag.\nMr. Jones, In turn, said the staff sup-\ntwo New York City police officers from\nsuccessful Republican candidate for\nDespite his record of support for so-\nthe back of a van.\nplles Robin Hood's \"creative edge.\"\nthe State Senate in 1985. With his help,\nclal causes, Mr. Jones was Involved in\n\"We had 385 financial contributors\n\"They don't know what they can't\nmany of the shelter's homeless men\na legal battle last year that caused con-\ndo,\" he sald.\nthis year; we'll have a thousand next\nhave pulled their lives together and\ncern among foundation staff members.\nRelations between board and staff\nyear and 3,000 the year after,\" Mr.\nsome now work in his many enter-\nFederal officials charged that he had\nmembers are informal. \"Our job Is\nJones predicted.\nprlses - he also runs a restaurant,\nIllegally filled In Government-pro-\nThe confidence Is understandable:\ncoming up with the money,\" Mr. Jones\ntravel agency and law office, which had\ntected wetlands on Maryland's East-\nsaid. \"Their job Is get out on the pave-\nHe came to New York from Memphls\nprovided meager funds for Hark-\nern Shore, where he has a 3,000-acre\nment and find heroes.\" The group's\nhomes.\nin 1978 with $1,700 In capital, Mr. Jones\nduck-hunting retreat. He blamed a con-\nslogan: \"We believe In heroes.\"\nsaid, began speculating in the cotton\n\"We also saw the possibilities of\ntractor for the Incident but paid a $2\nOne of Robin Hood's grants went to\nleveraging money/from other sources,\"\nmarket and other commodities futures,\nmillion fine and agreed to restore the\nHarlem's Ark of Freedom, known as\nand built his winnings Into the Tudor\nMr. Dubin. said, adding, \"This strat-\nmarshes.\nHarkhomes - a five year-old shelter in\nInvestment Corporation, which now\negy worked for us in the business world\nThe episode caused painful soul-\nhandles assets of $600 million. Mr. Bor-\nsearching among foundation workers\nIsh is his director of research and right-\ncommitted to environmental causes,\nhand man.\nbut they say it has been put behind\nThe corporation has offices In Lon-\nthem.\ndon and Tokyo and occuples sky-\n'Prince of Thleves'\nscraper quarters at One Liberty Plaza\nBesides the three original contribu-\nIn lower Manhattan. Still, Mr. Jones\ntors, the board of the Robin Hood Foun-\nhangs on to a cramped and dingy cubi-\ndation includes Mary McCormick,\ncle of an office across the street. He\npresident of the Fund for the City of\ndoesn't use it, but he's superstitious -\nNew York, and Marian Wright Edel-\nthis Is where he began operations and\nman, president of the Children's De-\nhe does not want to forget where he\nfense Fund. John F. Kennedy Jr. is the\ncame from.\nnewest board member.\nThe foundation occuples the adjacent\nJann Wenner, the publisher of Roll-\nmodest premises at 160 Broadway in a\ning Stone and a board member, has a\nbuilding sandwiched between McDon-\nwide network in the entertainment\nald's and Burger Heaven. Mr. Jones\nworld, and has given Robin Hood ac-\npays the $300,000-a-year budget for the\ncess to fund-raising prospects. Morgan\nphilanthropy's administration and the\nCreek Studios and Warner Brothers,\nsalaries of its six staff members, all In\nwhich, respectively, produced and dis-\ntheir 20's. Consequently, Robin Hood\ntributed the film \"Robin Hood: Prince\nassures donors that all contributions go\nof Thleves,\" starring Kevin Costner,\nto the poor.\nhave offered the foundation the pro-\nDavid Saltzman and Norman Atkins,\nceeds of a New York showing, which\nco-directors and both 29, have a sweep-\ncould amount to $500,000 to $750,000.\nAnother board member, Maurice\nChessa, who opened doors for Robin\nHood to meet fledgling neighborhood\ngroups, runs a technical school in the\nBedford-Stuyvesant section of Brook-\nlyn.\nMr. Jones met Mr. Chessa while\nvolunteering to teach a class of Brook-\nlyn sixth graders whom he has prom-\nised to send to college if they complete\nhigh school. He volunteered as a men-\ntor-sponsor after learning about the \"I\nHave a Dream\" program initiated by\nthe millionaire industrialist Eugene\nLang.\nMr. Lang said of Mr. Jones: \"He's\neverything he seems to be. I just wish\nhis tribe would increase'\nThe Robin Hood Foundation\nBOARD OF DIRECTORS\n111 Broadway. New York, New York 10006\nPAUL TUDOR JONES II, CHAIR\nPETER D. KIERNAN III, VICE CHAIR\n(212) 227-6601 Fax: (212) 227-6698\nPETER F BORISH\nGEOFFREY CANADA\nMAURICE CHESSA\nSTANLEY DRUCKENMILLER\nGLENN R DUBIN\nMARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN\nJOHN F KENNEDY. JR.\nROBIN HOOD FOUNDATION\nMARY McCORMICK\nJANN WENNER\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR\n\"Kids Having Kids\" Report\nDAVID SALTZMAN\nWhat is the Robin Hood Foundation?\nThe Robin Hood Foundation, created in 1988 by Paul Tudor Jones, is a\npublic charity dedicated to funding and providing management help to the\nbest and most innovative programs serving poor people in New York City.\nThe foundation has provided more than $35 million in money, volunteer\nservices and material goods to these programs.\nExamples of the types of poverty-fighting projects supported by Robin\nHood include extended day and extended year schools, which permit\nparents to work and provide children with three extra years of education\nby the time they graduate; comprehensive after school programs; housing\nand job training for the homeless; medical help for the sick; hospice care\nfor people with AIDS; and soup kitchens for the hungry.\nWhy did Robin Hood sponsor this study?\nThroughout its very direct, community-level work, Robin Hood has\nincreasingly explored the larger dimensions of adolescent childbearing in\nNew York City and the nation. Each year, nearly one million teenagers in\nthe United States become pregnant. More than 175,000 of these new\nmothers are 17 years old or younger. More than 80 percent of these young\nmothers end up in poverty and reliant on welfare.\nWhy is this study significant?\n\"Kids Having Kids\" is significant in that it provides the most\ncomprehensive look to date at the devastating costs and consequences of\nteen pregnancy to the offspring of teen moms -- the \"kids of kids\" -- as\nwell as to adolescent mothers age 17 and younger, to the fathers, and to\nsociety.\nHighlights of \"Kids Having Kids.\"\nEarly parenting wreaks havoc socially -- from the completion of education of the\nmother and father to their job prospects. But the devastation to the lives of their\nchildren is prevalent and wide-ranging. A few examples:\n-\nTrouble in School -- They are 50 percent more likely to repeat a grade and\nperform significantly worse on cognitive development tests. They are also\nfar more likely to drop out of high school than are the children born to\nwomen from the same socio-economic background who wait until the age\nof 20 or 21 to have children.\n-\nMore Likely to Run Away From Home -- They are two to three times more\nlikely to run away from home.\n-\nMore Childhood Health Problems -- They are more likely to be born\nprematurely and 50 percent more likely to be born low birthweight than if\ntheir mothers had waited four years to bear them. They suffer more serious\nhealth problems, but see the doctor half as often. The health services\ndimension of adolescent childbearing costs taxpayers about $1.5 billion\nmore each year than if girls age 17 and younger had delayed parenthood.\n-\nIncreased Child Abuse and Neglect -- They are twice as likely to be abused\nor neglected.\n-\nBehind Bars -- The teen sons of adolescent mothers are up to 2.7 times more\nlikely to land in prison than their counterparts in the comparison group. By\nextension, adolescent childbearing in and of itself costs taxpayers roughly\n$1 billion each year to build and maintain prisons for the sons of young\nmothers.\n-\nFoster Children -- Of the estimated 472,000 foster children in the United\nStates, over 23,000 are the children of adolescent mothers, which in turn\nresults in a taxpayer burden of approximately $900 million.\nThe study also examines the consequences of early parenting on teen mothers and\nthe fathers.\n-\n70 percent of the mothers drop out of school.\n-\nThey are twice as likely to be dependent on welfare.\n-\nAdolescent dads are unlikely to marry the mothers they impregnated and are\nunprepared to contribute financially to the well-being of their young\nfamilies.\nA unique component of the study is its examination of the costs and consequences\nof teen pregnancy on society.\n-\nTeenage girls are having babies at a 20 percent higher rate than just ten\nyears ago.\n-\nTeen pregnancy is uniquely American: No other industrialized nation knows\nof such a phenomenon.\n-\nTeen pregnancy and childbearing costs U.S. taxpayers almost $7 billion\nevery year.\n-\nThe cost to society in lost national productivity and avoidable\nexpenditure of social service resources is as much as $29 billion each year.\nWho conducted the study and how did they come to these conclusions?\n\"Kids Having Kids\" is the work of some of the nation's leading social scientists.\nRebecca Maynard, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, edited the study.\nOther scholars include:\n-\nMichael J. Brien, University of Virginia\n-\nRobert M. Goerge, University of Chicago\n-\nAngela Dungee Greene, Child Trends, Inc.\n-\nJeff Grogger, University of California, Santa Barbara\n-\nRobert Haveman, University of Wisconsin\n-\nV. Joseph Hotz, University of Chicago\n-\nBong Joo Lee, Boston University\n-\nSusan Williams McElroy, Carnegie Mellon University\n-\nKristin A. Moore, Child Trends, Inc.\n-\nDonna Ruane Morrison, Georgetown University\n-\nMaria Perozek, University of Wisconsin\n-\nElaine Peterson, University of Wisconsin\n-\nSeth G. Sanders, Carnegie Mellon University\n-\nRobert J. Willis, University of Michigan\n-\nBarbara Wolfe, University of Wisconsin\nWorking in teams on seven coordinated studies, scholars focused their research on\nthe roughly 175,000 American girls who bear their first baby at 17 or younger.\nScholars examined early parenting and its consequences on the lives of the mothers,\nfathers and their children.\n###\nThe Robin Hood Foundation\nBOARD OF DIRECTORS\n111 Broadway. New York, New York 10006\nPAUL TUDOR JONES II, CHAIR\nPETER D KIERNAN III. VICE CHAIR\n(212) 227-6601 Fax: (212) 227-6698\nPETER F. BORISH\nGEOFFREY CANADA\nMAURICE CHESSA\nSTANLEY DRUCKENMILLER\nGLENN R. DUBIN\nThe Robin Hood Foundation\nMARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN\nJOHN F. KENNEDY JR.\nMARY McCORMICK\nJANN WENNER\nFounded in 1988, the Robin Hood Foundation is a unique philanthropic\norganization dedicated to fighting poverty in New York City. Robin Hood's\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR\nprimary focus is to develop the best schools and after school programs for poor\nDAVID SALTZMAN\nchildren and teenagers -- the group hit hardest by the effects of poverty.\nIn addition, the foundation supports programs providing housing and job training\nfor the homeless, medical help for the sick, hospice care for people with AIDS,\ndrug treatment for the addicted, and soup kitchens for the hungry. By providing\nthe programs and resources necessary to escape poverty, Robin Hood is directly\ninvesting in the futures of tens of thousands of New Yorkers.\nHow Robin Hood Works\nRobin Hood functions like a socially-responsible venture capital fund. It studies\ncreative approaches to fighting poverty, takes calculated risks on promising\nprojects and steers resources towards programs that work. Robin Hood's staff\nworks to identify New York's most promising street-level organizations and the\npeople and programs that have the power to transform lives. After making a\nfinancial investment, the foundation sends out a team of experienced management\nconsultants, lawyers and accountants to help each program succeed and maximize\nresources.\nPrograms Supported By Robin Hood\nSeventy-five percent of Robin Hood's grant portfolio supports programs designed\nto help children escape the poverty they inherited and grow into healthy, educated\nand prosperous individuals. To achieve this goal, the foundation has focused on\nteen pregnancy prevention. The foundation also supports programs providing\nprenatal care and childbearing clinics, nurseries which care for orphans born with\nAIDS or an addiction to crack, family counseling projects, and year-round\nelementary schools enterprises vital for helping future generations beat the odds\nof poverty. As New York's largest private funder of Head Start, Robin Hood is\nworking to change the odds faced by our city's poorest children.\nThe remaining 25 percent of Robin Hood's grant portfolio is allocated to support\nprograms for adults, including programs that provide food, medicine, treatment,\ncounseling, homes, job training and assists providers of shelter and services to\npeople with AIDS.\nRobin Hood Foundation/page 2\nRobin Hood's Achievements To Date\nRobin Hood has distributed more than $35 million in money, goods and services from\nmore than two thousand individuals, businesses and organizations. Because the\nfoundation's board of directors underwrites all its administrative and fundraising costs,\nevery penny donated goes directly to fighting poverty. But Robin Hood is about more\nthan writing a check. It provides general advice and strategic planning, as well as\nexpertise in accounting, finance, computers and arranges for free legal counsel. Robin\nHood works with community leaders at the grassroots level of the struggle against\npoverty.\nCurrently, the foundation supports 85 of the most innovative poverty-fighting enterprises\nin New York, including the Rheedlen Centers for Children and Family, La Peninsula\nHead Start, the Clearpool School and the Bedford-Stuyvesant Volunteer Ambulance\nCorps.\n###\nPaul Tudor Jones II\nPaul Tudor Jones, II is Founder and Chairman of the Tudor Group of Companies, a money\nmanagement organization based in New York City. Mr. Jones is responsible for the\ninvestment of proprietary and customer funds in global financial markets, primarily debt,\nequity and currency markets. Mr. Jones' organization has trading offices in London,\nChicago and Boston and an economic research office in Washington, D.C.\nAfter graduating from the University of Virginia in 1976, Mr. Jones established a career as\na commodities broker in New York, concentrating on the cotton futures market. He\ndeveloped a significant customer base from 1976 to 1982 and also traded actively on his\nown account in various commodity futures markets.\nMr. Jones was instrumental in the creation of FINEX, the financial futures division of the\nNew York Cotton Exchange (NYCE), and in the development of the U.S. Dollar Index\nfutures contract which trades there. He served as Chairman of the NYCE from 1992 to\n1995 and presently serves on the Board of Directors. In 1989, Mr. Jones designed and\nimplemented the first ethics training course that set the standard for exchange membership\non all futures exchanges in the United States.\nMr. Jones regularly commits his personal time and energy to charitable, philanthropic, and\nnatural resources conservation efforts. He presently serves on the Board of Directors of\nthe National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.\nSince 1986, Mr. Jones has been a sponsor of an \"I have a Dream\" class of school children\nfrom the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York and has pledged to\nfurther their educations with financial and other support. A number of the members of the\nfirst class he sponsored in 1986 enrolled in colleges and universities in the fall of 1992.\nIn 1987, Mr. Jones established the Robin Hood Foundation, which he currently chairs, to\nprovide direct assistance to individuals living below the poverty line in New York City,\nand he is active in raising and contributing funds on an annual basis. Since its inception,\nthe Robin Hood Foundation has contributed almost $35 million toward the fight against\npoverty.\nSince 1990, Mr. Jones has worked actively with numerous environmental organizations to\nsave the Everglades and Florida Bay.\nMr. Jones and his wife Sonia currently reside in Connecticut with their three young\ndaughters.\nRebecca A. Maynard\nRebecca Maynard is Trustee Professor of Education, Social Policy and Communication at the\nUniversity of Pennsylvania and Senior Fellow at Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.\nPreviously, she served Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. as senior vice president and director of\nPrinceton research. She also has served as consultant to the General Accounting Office, the\nRockefeller Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.\nShe has served on numerous committees and advisory boards including the following: The\nNational Academy of Sciences Panel on Child Care Policy; the National Academy of Sciences\nPanel on Quality in Student Financial Aid; the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS)\nProgram Implementation Study, Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New\nYork; the National Household Education Survey, Adult Education Component; the Committee on\nEconomic Development Research Advisory Group; Business Tomorrow; the Intergenerational\nLiteracy Research Action Project Advisory Team; the National Job Corps Evaluation Advisory\nPanel; and the National Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program Research Advisory Panel.\nShe has published on a variety of topics and in a wide range of journals and books, including:\n\"The Causes and Consequences of Repeat Pregnancy Among Welfare Dependent Teenage\nParents,\" Family Planning Perspectives; \"Methods of Evaluating Employment and Training\nPrograms: Lessons from the U.S. Experience,\" presented at the International Conference on the\nEconomics of Training; \"How Precise are Evaluations of Employment and Training Programs:\nEvidence from a Field Experiment,\" Evaluation Review; \"The Economics of Transitional and\nSupported Employment,\" Disability and the Labor Market; \"Short-Term Indicators of\nEmployment Program Performance: Evidence from the Supported Work Demonstration,\" Journal\nof Human Resources; and The National Supported Work Demonstration, University of Wisconsin\nPress.\nDavid Saltzman\nDavid Saltzman has been the Executive Director of the Robin Hood Foundation since 1989. Prior\nto that, he served as one of the foundation's four founding board members.\nAfter graduating from Brown University in 1984, Mr. Saltzman earned a masters degree in public\npolicy and administration from Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs.\nWhile at Columbia, he worked in Chase Manhattan Bank's neighborhood grants program.\nUpon graduating from Columbia, Mr. Saltzman began working with homeless families, the hungry\nand people with AIDS for New York City's Human Resources Administration. From there, he\nwent to the New York City Department of Health where he directed AIDS education and\nprevention programs.\nPrior to joining the Robin Hood Foundation, Mr. Saltzman was the Special Assistant to the\nPresident of the Board of Education of the City of New York where he focused on policy,\npedagogical and budget matters.\nA lifelong New Yorker, Mr. Saltzman is married and has a son who turns one in August.\nABOUT THE AUTHORS\nCONSEQUENCES FOR CHILDREN OF ADOLESCENT MOTHERS\nSocial and Developmental Outcomes\nKristin Moore, Child Trends, Inc.\nKristin Moore is Executive Director and Director of Research of Child Trends. A social\npsychologist, Dr. Moore has been with Child Trends, Inc. since 1982, studying the determinants of early\nsexual activity and parenthood, the consequences of adolescent parenthood, trends in child and family\nwell-being, and the effects of family structure and social change on children. Dr. Moore is a member of\nthe Family and Child Well-Being Research Network established by the National Institute of Child Health\nand Human Development to examine over a five-year period the factors that enhance the development and\nwell-being of children. As a Network member, Dr. Moore is working on several projects to enhance child\nindicators data and to develop new analytic data resources to inform both scientific research and policy\nmaking. Dr. Moore was recently appointed by the President to a newly-established bipartisan Advisory\nBoard on Welfare Indicators. In 1991, she was given the Presidential Award from the National\nOrganization on Adolescent Pregnancy and Parenting. She is also a member of the Board of the National\nCampaign to Prevent Teenage Pregnancy, where she chairs the Task Force on Effective Programs and\nResearch.\nDonna Ruane Morrison, Graduate Program in Public Policy, Department of Demography,\nGeorgetown University\nDonna Ruane Morrison (Ph.D., Sociology, Johns Hopkins University) joined the faculty at\nGeorgetown University in Fall, 1995 with a joint appointment in the Graduate Program in Public Policy\nand the Department of Demography. Prior to Georgetown, University, she was a Senior Research\nAssociate at Child Trends, Inc. Morrison has published articles examining the short- and long-term effects\nof marital conflict and divorce on children. Her research has also focused on both the antecedents and\nconsequences of teen childbearing for young mothers, fathers, and children. She serves as the faculty\ncoordinator of the DC Family Policy Seminar, a collaborative project of the Georgetown University\nGraduate Policy Program and its affiliate, the National Center for Education in Maternal and Child Health.\nAngela Greene, Child Trends, Inc.\nAngela Dungee Greene, M.A. is a Senior Research Analyst at Child Trends, Inc. and a Ph.D.\ncandidate in Sociology at Howard University. She is currently involved in research on factors associated\nwith nonresident father involvement and father involvement as a predictor of child and adolescent\noutcomes; factors that promote positive outcomes among youth born to teen mothers; and\nsociodemographic predictors of low birth weight, infant mortality, and other adverse outcomes. She has\ncollaborated on several publications and professional presentations pertaining to various social, economic,\nand health-related issues for African American families.\nCHILD WELFARE\nRobert M. Goerge, Chapin Hall Center for Children, The University of Chicago\nRobert M. Goerge, Ph.D., is Associate Director and Research Fellow at the Chapin Hall\nCenter for Children at the University of Chicago and holds a Ph.D. in Social Policy from the\nUniversity of Chicago. He has led the construction and analysis of the Integrated Database on\nChildren's Services in Illinois, which is a longitudinal database on children's service receipt. He\nhas developed multi-variate models describing child service transitions in foster care, mental\nhealth, and special education. His recent work includes using event-history methods to analyze\nfoster care drift, and describing and explaining foster care caseload growth in Illinois, New York,\nand Michigan, California and Texas.\nDr. Goerge co-directs the National Foster Care Data Archive funded by HHS Children's\nBureau, and leads a project funded by NIMH on the disabilities of foster children. Dr. Goerge\ndirects the Administrative Data Institute of Chapin Hall's HHS Child Welfare Research Center,\nand recently coordinated an instructional workshop for a national group of child welfare agency\nresearchers and analysts on the use of administrative data for research and policy analysis. Goerge\nalso has served as a consultant to numerous states on the development of improved information\nsystems.\nBong Joo Lee, School of Social Work, Boston University\nBong Joo Lee, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Social Welfare Policy and Research at the\nBoston University School of Social Work. Since 1988, Dr. Lee has been actively involved in research that\napplies administrative data to the analysis of social problems and social policy. Before joining the faculty at\nthe Boston University, Dr. Lee was a Research Associate at the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the\nUniversity of Chicago. With Robert Goerge, he was a coauthor of several research reports that examined\nthe patterns of human service use of children and families in Illinois. Dr. Lee has particular interests in the\nexperiences of children and families in the social service system, demography of children and families,\nhuman service provision and poverty. Currently, Dr. Lee co-directs the Massachusetts Longitudinal\nDatabase for Research on Social Services project funded by Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning\nand Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Massachusetts Department of\nRevenue\nHEALTH STATUS AND HEALTH CARE\nBarbara Wolfe, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin\nBarbara Wolfe is Professor of Economics and Preventive Medicine and Director of the Institute for\nResearch on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is a graduate of Cornell University\n(B.A., Economics) and the University of Pennsylvania (Ph.D., Economics). Her research career has been\ndevoted to issues of poverty, health and disability, and the well-being of children; her teaching career has\nbeen devoted to health economics. She is the author, with Robert Haveman, of \"Succeeding Generations:\nOn the Effects of Investments in Children\" (Russell Sage Foundation, 1994), and has edited several\nvolumes on public finance. Other scholarly publications include articles in the American Economic\nReview, Review of Economics and Statistics, Research in Population Economics, Journal of the American\nStatistical Association, Economics of Education Review, Journal of Public Economics, and Journal of\nHuman Resources. A Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Professor Wolfe\nserved on the National Commission on Childhood Disability in 1995-96.\nMaria Perozek, University of Wisconsin\nMaria Perozek is currently a graduate student in Economics at the University of Wisconsin-\nMadison. Her research interests are in the economics of aging, with a particular focus on intergenerational\ntransfers of wealth. As a National Institute of Mental Health Trainee, her research focused on the health\neffects of teen childbearing and related health policy issues.\nEDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, EMPLOYMENT AND TEEN CHILDBEARING\nRobert H. Haveman, Department of Economics, Chair, LaFollette Institute of Public Affairs, Institute\nfor Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin\nRobert H. Haveman is John Bascom Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at the University\nof Wisconsin-Madison, where he also serves as Chair of the Department of Economics and faculty member\nin the LaFollette Institute of Public Affairs and the Institute for Research on Poverty. He serves as\nExecutive Vice President of the International Institute of Public Finance, and from 1988-1993 was Co-\neditor of the American Economic Review. His research focuses on the economics of social policy, as\nexemplified in his 1988 book, \"Starting Even: New Policy for the Nation's New Poverty\" (Simon and\nSchuster), and on the determinants of children's attainments, published jointly with Barbara Wolfe in\n\"Succeeding Generations: On the Effects of Investments in Children\" (Russell Sage Foundation, 1994).\nBarbara Wolfe, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin\nBarbara Wolfe is Professor of Economics and Preventive Medicine and Director of the Institute for\nResearch on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is a graduate of Cornell University\n(B.A., Economics) and the University of Pennsylvania (Ph.D., Economics). Her research career has been\ndevoted to issues of poverty, health and disability, and the well-being of children; her teaching career has\nbeen devoted to health economics. She is the author, with Robert Haveman, of \"Succeeding Generations:\nOn the Effects of Investments in Children\" (Russell Sage Foundation, 1994), and has edited several\nvolumes on public finance. Other scholarly publications include articles in the American Economic\nReview, Review of Economics and Statistics, Research in Population Economics, Journal of the American\nStatistical Association, Economics of Education Review, Journal of Public Economics, and Journal of\nHuman Resources. A Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Professor Wolfe\nserved on the National Commission on Childhood Disability in 1995-96.\nElaine Peterson, University of Wisconsin\nElaine Peterson is an assistant professor at California State University, Stanislaus. She is also a\nPh.D. candidate at the University of Wisconsin, Madison completing her Ph.D. dissertation entitled\n\"Neighborhood Quality and Children's Propensity to Succeed.\" She attended Colby College in Waterville,\nMaine, where she graduate Cum Laude in 1982, with distinction in Economics. She has been a research\nassistant in the Financial Structure Section of the Federal Reserve Board and the Institute for Research on\nPoverty. Her research includes work on neighborhood quality and children's success, and on policy-related\ndeterminants of teen nonmarital childbearing.\nCRIMINAL ACTIVITIES\nJeffery Grogger, University of California, Santa Barbara\nJeffery Grogger is Associate Professor of Economics at the University of California, Santa Barbara.\nPrior to joining the faculty at the University of California, he served as Senior Research Fellow in the\nOffice of the Attorney General in California. Dr. Grogger is a specialist in econometrics and applied\nmicroceconomics. He has conducted extensive research and published widely on a variety of social policy\nissues, including the deterrent effects of capital punishments; community policing and perceptions of\nneighborhood safety; the socioeconomic consequences of teenage childbearing; and the implications of\nschooling for employment options. He is co-editor of the Journal of Human Resources and Associate\neditor of the Journal of Population Economics.\nABOUT THE AUTHORS\nCONSEQUENCES FOR ADOLESCENT FATHERS AND FOR THE FATHERS OF\nADOLESCENT MOTHERS' CHILDREN\nMichael J. Brien, Department of Economics, University of Virginia\nMichael J. Brien is an Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Virginia. He received\na M.A. and Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago and a B.A. in Economics and Political\nScience from the University of Wisconsin. Prior to his appointment at Virginia, he was a National Institute\non Aging Post-Doctoral Fellow at RAND in Santa Monica, California, and served as an Economist at the\nU.S. Commission on Civil Rights. His research interests include the consequences of early family\nformation and the implications for child support, economic models of marriage and divorce, racial\ndifferences in marriage patterns, and the economics of aging.\nRobert J. Willis, University of Michigan\nRobert J. Willis is Professor of Economics at the University of Michigan where he also Research\nScientist at the Institute for Social Research and Research Associate of the Population Studies Center.\nBefore coming to Michigan in 1995, he had served on the faculties of the University of Chicago, SUNY at\nStony Brook and Stanford University. Willis is currently the Principal Investigator on two large\nlongitudinal surveys, the Heath and Retirement Survey and the Assets and Heath of the Oldest Old Survey,\nwhich are collecting data on Americans over age 50. He is an authority in the economics of the family,\nmarriage, and fertility, labor economics, human capital and population and economic development.\nRecently he has written papers on theories of divorce, child support and out-of-wedlock childbearing;\nintergenerational transfers and investment in children's education in developing countries and, with\ncollaborators, has surveyed research on the economics of fertility in developed countries.\nHe has been elected to the Board of Directors of the Population Association of America, has served\non advisory boards for a number of surveys including the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, the High\nSchool and Beyond Survey and the Health and Retiremnent Survey and was recently appointed as\nrepresentative to theCensus Advisory Board by the American Economic Association.\nABOUT THE AUTHORS\nCONSEQUENCES FOR ADOLESCENT MOTHERS\nV. Joseph Hotz, Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago\nV. Joseph Hotz is a professor in the Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies. He\ndirects the Population Research Center of the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), and is a\nresearch associate of the Economics Research Center of NORC and the Institute for Research on Poverty\nat the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Prior to the University of Chicago, Hotz taught at Carnegie\nMellon University.\nHotz researches economic demography and evaluates how various social programs affect the\nbehavior of the poor. His past research interests include an examination of the relationship between the\nlabor force participation and childbearing patterns of married women in the United States and Sweden.\nHotz currently is studying the effects of alternative state regulations on child care utilization, the labor force\nparticipation of low-income mothers, and indicators of children's cognitive and social development. He\nalso is investigating the factors that cause low-income women in the United States to depend on welfare.\nSusan Williams McElroy, H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon\nUniversity\nSusan Williams McElroy is Assistant Professor of Economics and Education Policy at the H. John\nHeinz III School of Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon University and holds the Dean's\nCareer Development Chair in Economics and Education. She received her Ph.D. in Economics of\nEducation from Stanford University. In addition to the consequences of early childbearing, her research\ninterests include the economic status of women and people of color in the United States and education\npolicy. Dr. McElroy has worked as a researcher at the RAND Corporation and the Center for Policy\nResearch in Education (CPRE) at Stanford University.\nSeth Gary Sanders, Carnegie Mellon University\nSeth Gary Sanders is Assistant Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the H. John Heinz III\nSchool of Public Policy and Management. He received his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of\nChicago. His research focuses on the analysis of labor markets particularly with respect to poverty issues.\nHe has done extensive research on the effects of teenage childbearing on adult maternal outcomes and on\nthe use and effects on human capital development of public and private poverty programs. In addition he\nhas conducted research on the effect of economic growth on poverty and underclass behavior and on the\nrelative success of immigrants in the U.S. economy. He is published widely in academic journals and\nresults from his work have been reported in Business Week and the Wall Street Journal.\nTHE NATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT\nTEEN PREGNANCY\n2100 M STREET. N.W., SUITE 500, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20037\nMessage from the Chairman\nOn behalf of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, I want to congratulate\nthe Robin Hood Foundation and all of the scholars who were involved in the study, Kids Having\nKids. It provides us with some of the most definitive evidence to date of the enormous costs\nassociated with teenage childbearing. We commend this study to the press and the public as one\nthat should be read and acted on.\nThe National Campaign will be working through its staff and newly formed task forces to\nprevent teen pregnancy by catalyzing action at the state and local level, engaging the media,\nfostering a more civilized debate on the issues, and learning more about effective programs. We\nhope that everyone will join with us in the effort to provide a better start in life for all of our\nchildren.\nTin Kean\nThomas H. Kean\nChairman\nThe National Campaign to PreventTeen Pregnancy\nThe Hon. Thomas H. Kean. Chair Isabel V. Sawhill. President Sarah S. Brown. Director\nNational Board\nCharlotte Beers William A. Galston Katharine Graham Whoopi Goldberg David A. Hamburg Irving B. Harris\nBarbara Huberman The Hon. Nancy Kassebaum The Hon. C. Everett Koop Judith McGrath Jody Greenstone Miller\nKristin A. Moore Hugh B. Price The Hon. Warren B. Rudman The Hon. Andrew J. Young\nTHE NATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT\nTEEN PREGNANCY\n2100 M STREET, N.W., SUITE 500, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037\nSUMMARY\nMission: To prevent teen pregnancy by supporting values and stimulating actions that are\nconsistent with a pregnancy-free adolescence.\nGoal: To reduce the teenage pregnancy rate by one-third by the year 2005.\nWhat the Campaign will do:\ntake a clear stand against teenage pregnancy and attract the interest of more national\nleaders and organizations in this issue:\nenlist the help of the media to reduce teen pregnancy;\nsupport and stimulate state and local action to reduce teen pregnancy;\nfoster a national discussion about how religion, culture, and public values influence both\nteen pregnancy and responses to it; and\nstrengthen the knowledge base for effective programming\nOrganization and leadership: This is a totally private (nongovernmental) and nonpartisan effort\nbeing led by a distinguished Board; work is conducted through four task forces and a small staff. A\nnew 501(c)(3) organization has been established and funding is being sought to accomplish its\nobjectives. The Board has elected The Hon. Thomas Kean, former governor of New Jersey, as its\nFounding Chairman. Dr. Isabel Sawhill serves as the Campaign's President and Sarah Brown as its\nDirector.\nOrigins and history: The initiative was stimulated by President Clinton's challenge issued in his\n1995 State of the Union address that \"parents and leaders all across the country join together in\na national campaign against teen pregnancy to make a difference.\" A follow-up meeting was held\nat the White House with a group of private citizens in October to discuss what might be done.\nFollowing that meeting, a serious private-sector planning effort was initiated around the ideas\ngenerated at the meeting. In his 1996 State of the Union address, the President once more talked\nabout the seriousness of the issue and mentioned the current private-sector initiative as one very\npositive response.\nCurrent status: A detailed prospectus for the overall Campaign was reviewed by the Board at its\nfirst meeting in February. The Campaign is now in the process of raising funds, hiring a staff, and\nworking with others to achieve its objectives.\nFor further information: To get on the mailing list of the new organization, or if you have other\nquestions, please write to Sarah Brown, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2100\nM Street, N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20037. FAX: 202-331-7735.\nNOAPPP\nNational Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Parenting and Prevention\n1319 F Street NW, Suite 401, Washington DC 20004\nTel 1-888-766-2777\nEMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 2:00pm Thursday, June 13, 1996\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL 1(888)766-2777\nNOAPPP SENDING\n10,000 COPIES\nOF ROBIN HOOD FOUNDATION'S\nKIDS HAVING KIDS\nTO TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION\nPRACTITIONERS ACROSS AMERICA\n\"Kids Having Kids is the most important study of teen pregnancy costs ever\ndone. It is an absolute milestone in our understanding of the devastating\nconsequences to the children of teen mothers, to the teen moms themselves,\nthe fathers, and our country,\" said Patricia Jo Angelini, NOAPPP's president\nand Community Relations Director of the Arizona Family Planning Council.\n\"Kids Having Kids documents a national problem. NOAPPP applauds the Robin\nHood Foundation and President Clinton's leadership in solving it. Everyone\nworking to prevent teen pregnancy needs to read this study\", urges Ms.\nAngelini.\nPractitioners can obtain copies of Kids Having Kids at no cost by simply\ncalling NOAPPP's 24-hour toll-free number, 1-888-766-2777, (1-888-7-NOAPP)\nand asking for a copy.\nEstablished in 1979, NOAPPP is a practitioner membership, 501(c)(3)\nnon-profit organization that provides leadership, education, training,\ninformation and advocacy resources and support to adolescent pregnancy,\nparenting and prevention practitioners. NOAPPP's membership consists of\nhealth care, education and social service professionals, volunteers, and\nother individuals at the local, state and national levels.\n*****\nTHE URBAN NSTITU E PRESS\nFull Book-Length Study\nto be Published in October\nKids Having Kids: Economic Costs and\nSocial Consequences of Teen Pregnancy,\nRebecca A Maynard, editor (Washington, D.C\nUrban Institute Press, 1996, distributed by the\nNational Book Network).\nADVANCE ORDER FORM\nPlease:complete and return to:\nURBAN INSTITUTE PRESS\nc/o NBN\n4720 Boston Way Lanham, MD 20706\nISBN\nTITLE\nPRICE\nQTY\nCOST\n0-87766-654-7\nKids Having Kids Economic Costs and Social\nConsequences of Teen Pregnancy\n$22.95\nSubtotal\nMaryland residents: please add 5% sales tax\nPostage and Handling: $3.00 for first book. 75c for each additional book\nTo Order\nMake Checks Payable to National Book Network (NBN) TOTAL\nby Phone, Call:\n1-800-462-6420\nAll Orders from Individuals Must Be Prepaid\nCheck enclosed\nName\nMaster\nVISA\nOrganization\nAccount #\nAddress\nExp Date\nSignature\nCity\nState\nZIP\nThe Need for Family Planning Services Among Welfare Recipients\nNicholas Zill\nWestat, Inc.\n1650 Research Blvd.\nRockville, MD 20850\nPresented at the seminar on\nFamily Planning Services for Special Populations:\nTeenagers, Welfare Recipients, Substance Abusers, and Others\nat Especially High Risk of Unintended Pregnancy\nApril 23, 1996\nWohlstetter Conference Center\nAmerican Enterprise Institute\nWashington, DC\nWomen in the U.S. are five times more likely to be welfare dependent if they had a\nfirst child outside marriage than if they had that child while married (U.S. Bureau of the\nCensus, 1989, 1995). Women are likely to stay on welfare for extended periods if they have\nadditional children while they are on welfare (Pavetti, 1995a & b). Thus, two of the goals\nof many welfare reform efforts at both state and federal levels are to reduce unmarried\nchildbearing among all women and repeat pregnancies among welfare recipients. A number\nof states have instituted \"family caps\" or other measures intended to discourage welfare\nrecipients from having additional children. There are, however, several obstacles to\nachieving these goals that have little to do with financial incentives or disincentives. Rather,\nthey have to do with prevention of unplanned pregnancies and attitudes about how many\nchildren it is desirable for a woman to have.\nThe purpose of this paper is to summarize data from several national surveys that\nprovide information on the reproductive behaviors and attitudes of welfare recipients and how\nthese compare with those of women who are not welfare dependent. I argue that these\nfindings indicate a need for family planning services among welfare recipients. Without such\nservices, welfare policies aimed at reducing repeat pregnancies among welfare recipients are\nnot likely to succeed.\nWelfare families are smaller than they used to be\nA little-appreciated development concerning welfare mothers is that they are having\nfewer children than their predecessors did. Administrative data collected by the U.S. Office\nof Family Assistance show that the proportion of welfare families with four or more children\ndeclined from 32 percent in 1969 to 14 percent in 1979, down to 10 percent in 1993.\n(Figure 1). Over the same time span, the proportion of welfare families with only one or\ntwo children increased, from 50 percent in 1969 to 74 percent in 1993. During this period,\nthe mean number of children per AFDC family dropped by a full child, from 2.9 to 1.9 per\nfamily (U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Children, 1989, pp. 266-267;\nCommittee on Ways and Means, 1994).\n1\nA less encouraging fact that may be gleaned from Figure 1 is that the number of\nchildren per AFDC family has been on a plateau for more than ten years, changing little\nsince the early 1980s. Indeed, there may be some upward pressure on welfare family sizes\nin the years to come, as Hispanic-Americans become a larger part of the U.S. population and\nthe welfare caseload. The average number of children born per woman is larger among\nHispanic welfare recipients than among non-Hispanic recipients (3.11 versus 2.45 children\nper women in 1993) (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1995). Nonetheless, the average welfare\nfamily is likely to remain relatively modest in size, smaller than it was a quarter-century ago,\nand certainly smaller than depicted in popular conceptions about such families.\nThe smaller size of today's welfare families should be beneficial for both the\nemployability of welfare mothers and the development of welfare children. Having fewer\nchildren means a shorter period during which the mother needs to make child care provisions\nfor children who are not yet in school in order for her to go to work. It also means that\neach child can get a larger share of family resources and more personal attention from the\nmother and other adult family members. Numerous studies have shown that, other things\nequal, academic achievement and other indicators of child development and well-being tend\nto be more positive when children grow up in smaller rather than larger families (Blake,\n1981; 1989).\nWelfare recipients have more children than nonrecipients\nAlthough the smaller average size of welfare families is good news, it is still the case\nthat welfare recipients have more children than nonwelfare mothers, as well as more\nunplanned and unwanted pregnancies. It is also the case that the minority of welfare\nrecipients who have larger families tend to have more than their share of physical and mental\nhealth problems. Let me first document the larger size of welfare families, and then present\nsurvey findings on the other two points.\n2\nAlthough the administrative data from the Office of Family Assistance just presented\nare useful in showing the change in family size over time, these data understate the total\nnumber of children born to welfare mothers. This is because they do not count children who\nhave aged into adults, those who live outside the mother's household, and those who live in\nthe household but are not covered by AFDC. In 1993, data from the Census Bureau's\nSurvey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) showed that the mean number of\nchildren ever born to women under 45 was 2.59 for women who were currently receiving\nwelfare versus 2.12 for those not receiving welfare. (Figure 2). Among older women,\naverage family size and the gap between welfare and nonwelfare families were both larger.\nAmong those aged 40-44, for example, welfare mothers had a mean of 3.41 children,\nwhereas nonwelfare mothers had 2.38 children, more than one child less per family.\nIt should also be noted that, because welfare mothers begin having children earlier,\ntheir intergenerational interval is shorter than that of middle-class women (of whatever racial,\nethnic, or religious group) who postpone the initiation of childbearing to their late twenties or\nthirties. A disadvantaged group with a relatively short intergenerational interval will tend to\ncontribute more to the child population than an advantaged group with a longer\nintergenerational interval, even if women in the two groups produce the same average\nnumber of children. In other words, it is not just how many children welfare mothers\nproduce that is of concern, it is also when they produce them.\nHow welfare mothers control their reproduction\nMost welfare mothers began having children as teenagers (55 percent of the welfare\nmothers in the 1993 SIPP reported that they had had their first child before age 20, and this\nprobably understates the true proportion). That welfare mothers should have more children\nthan their counterparts who began childbearing later is hardly astonishing. The question that\nis intriguing is, how do women on AFDC manage to stop having children? Do they discover\neffective contraception or abstinence after having several children? In a surprisingly high\nproportion of cases, the answer is, by having themselves voluntarily sterilized.\n3\nData on the reproductive status of welfare mothers were obtained in the 1988 National\nSurvey of Family Growth.¹ (Table 1.) They show that 64 percent of women receiving\nwelfare at the time of the survey were using some form of contraception, with voluntary\nsterilization (obtained by 33 percent of the welfare mothers) and the pill (used by 20 percent)\nbeing the leading methods used. Nearly 7 percent were abstinent: they were not using\ncontraception but, whether by choice or otherwise, they had not had sex in the last three\nmonths. Another 12 percent were not using contraception, but were infertile: 7 percent were\ncurrently pregnant, 2 percent were in the postpartum period after a recent delivery, and\nalmost 4 percent were non-voluntarily sterile. Nearly 17 percent of the welfare mothers\nwere at risk of pregnancy because they had had sex within the past three months and were\nnot using any contraception. Only 3 percent of the women said they wanted to get pregnant,\nhowever.\nCompared to mothers who were not receiving welfare and were not in poverty,\nwelfare mothers were less likely to be using some form of contraception (64 percent versus\n75 percent), and more than twice as likely to be clearly at risk of pregnancy (17 percent\nversus 7 percent). Nonpoor mothers were slightly less likely to have had themselves\nsterilized voluntarily (28 percent versus 33 percent), but were much more likely to have a\nmale partner who had had a vasectomy (13 percent versus 1 percent for partners of welfare\nmothers). Nonpoor mothers were also more than twice as likely to be sterile on a non-\nvoluntary basis (9 percent versus under 4 percent), mainly because they were older, on\naverage, than welfare mothers.\nWelfare mothers were more likely than nonpoor mothers to be using the pill (20\npercent versus 12 percent), but less likely to be using condoms (3 percent versus 10 percent)\nand other contraception methods, including diaphragms (5.5 percent versus 11 percent). The\nminority of women who had not had sex in the last three months was nearly twice as large\nI\nUnpublished tabulations from the 1988 NSFG were kindly provided by Jane Mauldon of the\nUniversity of California at Berkeley.\n4\namong welfare mothers as among nonpoor mothers (7 percent versus 4 percent), but so was\nthe proportion who were currently pregnant or postpartum (9 percent versus 5.5 percent).\nMothers who were below or near² the poverty line but who were not receiving\nwelfare were similar to welfare mothers in their reproductive profile. (Table 1.) Differences\nwere that nonwelfare poor mothers were slightly more likely to have a male partner who was\nvoluntarily sterile (3.5 percent versus 1 percent) and to use condoms (8 percent versus 3\npercent). Nonwelfare poor mothers were less likely to be currently pregnant or postpartum\n(5 percent versus 9 percent) and more likely to be nonvoluntarily sterile (6 percent versus\nunder 4 percent). Again, age variations were probably the main factor behind the latter\ndifference. The poor nonwelfare mothers were slightly less likely than welfare mothers to be\nsexually active with no contraception (13 percent versus 17 percent), but still twice as likely\nas nonpoor mothers to be at risk of pregnancy.\nVoluntary sterilization\nUsing data from the NSFG, Jane Mauldon and Susan Miller (1994) looked at AFDC\nmother with three children or more. They found that 52 percent of these women had had\ntubal ligations to prevent themselves from having more children. Another one percent had\npartners who had had vasectomies. By contrast, among nonpoor, nonwelfare mothers with\nthree children or more, 36 percent had had tubal ligations and 26 percent had vasectomized\npartners. In addition, more of the nonpoor women were infertile involuntarily -- 14 percent\nversus 4 percent.\nMauldon and Miller found that 67 percent of all welfare mothers said they wanted no\nmore children, and nearly half of those had had themselves sterilized. (Figure 3.) As noted\nabove, the overall prevalence of tubal ligation among welfare mothers was only slightly\nhigher than that among nonwelfare mothers -- 33 percent versus 28 percent. However,\n2 Family income below 133 percent of poverty level.\n5\nwelfare recipients tend to be younger and more often unmarried than non-AFDC mothers,\nand both of these factors generally work to lower the probability that a woman will have\nherself sterilized. Thus, Mauldon and Miller argue that, other things equal, the tendency to\nuse tubal ligation to prevent further childbearing is actually stronger among women on\nwelfare (and other poor women) than among nonpoor women.\nWhat is perhaps more striking, though, is how little the partners of welfare mothers\nshare the burden of preventing unplanned conceptions. Welfare couples are only one-third as\nlikely as nonpoor couples to use condoms, and the male partners of welfare mothers are\nmuch less likely than the partners of nonpoor women to have had vasectomies. Part of the\nexplanation for these differences may lie in the fact that, in most cases the male partner of a\nwelfare mother is not married to the woman. Also, he may not be the father of her children,\nalthough the survey data are lacking on this point.\nUnintended pregnancies\nWhy do so many welfare mothers turn to sterilization rather than reversible methods\nof contraception? The answer may lie partly in the lack of success they have had in using\nreversible methods. This lack of success may be seen in reports about mistimed and\nunwanted conceptions that were collected in the NSFG. (Table 2.) Two-thirds of welfare\nmothers reported that they had at least one live birth whose conception was mistimed, i.e.,\ncame earlier than the mother wanted. By comparison, 44 percent of nonpoor mothers had\nsuch a mistimed conception.\nTwenty-nine percent of welfare mothers had had at least one live birth that was\nunwanted at conception, i.e., the mother did not want to become pregnant again. Less than\nhalf as many nonpoor women 13 percent -- had such an unwanted conception that resulted\nin a live birth. When these two types of conceptions were combined, the result was that 79\npercent of welfare mothers had had at least one birth that was the result of a mistimed or\nunwanted conception, whereas the same was true of 51 percent of nonpoor mothers. Poor\n6\nmothers not on welfare fell in between the welfare and nonpoor mothers: 65 percent of them\nhad had a live birth that was the result of a mistimed or unwanted conception.\nWelfare mothers in the NSFG reported that about 20 percent of the children that they\nhad borne were unwanted at the time of conception. This works out to an average of 0.5\nchildren from unwanted conceptions per woman, more than twice as large as the average\nnumber of children from unwanted conceptions per woman (0.21) among non-AFDC\nmothers. Of course, because welfare mothers begin childbearing at earlier ages, they have a\nlonger period during which they are at risk of exceeding their desired number of children.\nIdeal and intended numbers of children\nThe higher fertility of welfare mothers is not simply the result of unwanted\npregnancy. Despite being mostly unmarried, welfare mothers in the NSFG reported that they\nwanted to have as many children as nonwelfare mothers. In fact, the ideal number of\nchildren was slightly higher among welfare mothers (3.0) than among nonwelfare mothers\n(2.7), especially those from the nonpoor group (2.5). (These averages are all higher than 2,\neven though two children is the modal ideal, because relatively few women (or men) desire\nto have no children or only one child).\nThe average number of children that women currently intended to have (including\nthose already born) was also higher among welfare mothers -- 2.9 versus 2.4. The ideal and\nintended numbers of children reported by poor mothers who were not receiving AFDC were\npractically identical to those of welfare mothers.\nWelfare mothers: image versus reality\nThe image of welfare mothers and their childbearing that one gets from the data\nsummarized above is very different from the stereotype of women irresponsibly producing\nchild after child in order to squeeze more money out of the welfare system (Placek and\n7\nHendershot, 1974). Instead, as with other contemporary women, the modal group of welfare\nmothers seems to subscribe to the two-child norm that is strong among U.S. families of\nvirtually all racial, ethnic, national, and religious backgrounds. Most of the rest believe that\na three-child family is ideal. When their own childbearing threatens to rise above this two-\nor three-child norm, many take strong, even irreversible steps, to prevent having further\nchildren.\nAt the same time, it is clear from the data presented above that many women on\nwelfare might benefit from a stronger impetus to regulate their reproduction more\nscrupulously, and thus lower the now substantial proportion of children born from\nconceptions that were mistimed or unwanted. This is even more true of the male partners of\nwelfare mothers, who seem to be exercising very little reproductive responsibility at present.\nOf course, incentives to encourage reproductive responsibility can be positive as well as\nnegative. More importantly, it is not only motivation that welfare recipients seem to need,\nbut instruction as to how they might regulate their fertility more effectively and why this is\ndesirable. Also, although welfare mothers may share the ideal of the two-child family with\nother Americans, in the case of the welfare mothers, that ideal has been \"decoupled\" from\nanother important ideal, namely, marriage.\nThe high-risk minority\nAlthough the description offered above applies to the majority of welfare recipients,\nthere is another segment of the welfare population that presents a different sort of picture.\nThis is the subgroup of recipients who have more severe problems, such as drug or alcohol\ninvolvement or chronic personality disorders. National survey data and local intervention\nstudies show that this subgroup is not composed primarily of teenagers but of unmarried\nolder women who are on what Besharov and Gardiner (1996) have called \"downward spirals\nof dysfunctional behavior.\" These recipients are over-represented among welfare mothers\nwith larger than average families because they tend to have repeated pregnancies and births\nthat are typically unplanned and often unwanted. These are also the women who are most\n8\nlikely to fail to get timely prenatal care, gain inadequate amounts of weight during their\npregnancies, and deliver low birth weight babies with elevated risks of dying in infancy\n(Goldstein, 1996). The children of these mothers who do survive are more likely than\nchildren from other welfare or nonwelfare families to exhibit neurological disorders and\nlearning disabilities, and be victims of unintentional injury and abuse or neglect.\nThe size of this high-risk segment of the welfare population is uncertain, although\ndata from a recent national survey of delivering women indicate that about one-quarter of\nwelfare mothers fail to gain adequate weight during their pregnancies, one in eight reports\nusing an illicit drug of some sort, and one in twenty reports using cocaine during the\npregnancy (Zill & Loomis, 1996). The progress that has been made in reducing the average\nsize of welfare families should not cause us to lose sight of the pressing need to prevent\nfurther unintended pregnancies and births in these high-risk welfare families.\nOne possible answer to the needs of this subgroup might be intensive interventions\nthat address their substance abuse and personality problems as well as their fertility-related\nbehavior. Unfortunately, the available evidence indicates that even such intensive\ninterventions are not likely to be effective in the majority of these high-risk cases. Another\npossible answer is to remove children already born from the care of these women and to\ninstitute direct physiological interventions to limit their further childbearing. Many would\nfind these stronger measures unacceptable, however.\nImplications for behavior-related rules in welfare reform\nFindings presented in this report on the childbearing patterns of AFDC mothers have\nimplications for efforts to reduce repeat pregnancies among welfare recipients. The data\nshow that many welfare mothers are already limiting their own fertility, often by having\nthemselves sterilized voluntarily, but only after they have had two or three children. What\nseems to be the case is that welfare mothers, like most other women in the U.S., have two\nchildren as a childbearing ideal. They do not see the lack of marriage as a condition that\n9\nshould bar them from having children. Once they have had two children, they are prepared\nto take steps to prevent further conception. Interventions at this point to assist them in\nregulating their fertility are likely to be successful with most recipients. But efforts to get\nwelfare mothers to stop at only one child seem less likely to succeed, unless they can change\nwomen's attitudes about the acceptability of a one-child family, or convince them that\nchildbearing outside of marriage is detrimental to children.\nThere are likely to be more serious problems with the minority of welfare mothers,\nmany of them involved with drugs or emotionally disturbed, who continue to have child after\nchild with little consideration of their ability to nurture or care for them. Far stronger\ndisincentives than limitations on additional welfare payment or even direct physiological\nintervention will be needed to limit the fertility of these women. Whether the American\npublic is prepared to see such stronger measures taken is doubtful.\n10\nReferences\nBesharov, D.J., & Gardiner, K.N. (1996). Paternalism and welfare reform. The Public\nInterest (Winter), 1-15.\nBlake, J. (1981). Family size and the quality of children. Demography, 18(4), 421-442.\nBlake, J. (1989). Family size and achievement. Berkeley: University of California Press.\nGoldstein, A. (1995, December 21). \"D.C. to bolster health effort as infant death rate rises.\"\nThe Washington Post, A1.\nPavetti, L. (1995a). Who is affected by time limits? Welfare Reform Brief No. 7.\nWashington, DC: Urban Institute.\nPlacek, P.F., & Hendershot, G.E. (1974). Public welfare and family planning: An empirical\nstudy of the 'brood sow' myth. Social Problems, 21.\nMauldon, J., & Miller, S. (1994). Child-bearing desires and sterilization among United\nStates women: Patterns by income and AFDC recipiency. Graduate School of Public\nPolicy, University of California, Berkeley.\nPavetti, L. (1995b). Questions & answers on welfare dynamics. Washington, DC: Urban\nInstitute.\nU.S. Bureau of the Census. (1989). Characteristics of persons receiving benefits from major\nassistance programs. Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 14. Washington,\nDC: U.S. Government Printing Office.\nU.S. Bureau of the Census. (1995). Mothers who receive AFDC payments: Fertility and\nsocioeconomic characteristics. Statistical Brief (SB/95-2).\nU.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families. (1989).\nU.S. children and their families: Current conditions and recent trends, 1989 (third\nedition). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.\nU.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways & Means. (1994). Overview of\nentitlement programs. 1994 Green Book. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing\nOffice.\nFigure 1. Number of child recipients in AFDC families, 1969-1993\n100%\nFour or more\n32%\n20%\n14%\n10%\n10%\n10%\nThree\n80%\n16%\n16%\n16%\nTwo\n16%\nOne\n16%\n60%\n18%\n30%\n31%\n30%\n28%\n26%\n2396\n40%\n42%\n44%\n43%\n44%\n38%\n20%\n27%\n0%\n1969\n1975\n1979\n1983\n1988\n1993\nFigure 2: Mean number of children ever born to U.S. women under 45 years of age,\nby welfare status and age group, 1993\nAll women aged 15-44\nwelfare\n2.59\nnon-welfare\n2.12\npoor, non-welfare\n2.49\nnon-poor, non-welfare\n2.07\nWelfare status\nWelfare\nNon-welfare\nAge group\n1.41\n15-19\n1.09\n1.96\n20-24\n1.48\n2.46\n25-29\n1.89\n2.84\n30-34\n2.15\n3.23\n35-39\n2.27\n3.41\n40-44\n2.38\nFigure 3. Use of Voluntary Sterilization to Control Unwanted Childbearing\nAmong Welfare and Non-welfare Mothers\n67%\n49%\nWelfare Mothers\nOf those who want no more\nPercent who want\nchildren, percent who have\nno more children\nhad tubal ligation\n39%\nNon-welfare Mothers\nTable 1. Contraceptive Status of Welfare Mothers, Nonwelfare Poor Mothers, and Nonpoor Mothers,\nUnited States, 1988\nMothers receiving\nNonwelfare poor\nwelfare\nmothers*\nNonpoor mothers\nUsing contraception, method\nVoluntarily sterile\n33.0%\n30.7%\n27.7%\nMale partner voluntarily sterile\n1.1%\n3.5%\n13.3%\nPill\n19.7%\n17.6%\n11.9%\nCondom\n3.1%\n8.4%\n9.5%\nIUD\n1.8%\n2.9%\n1.7%\nOther method\n5.5%\n4.5%\n11.2%\nTotal using contraception\n64.2%\n67.6%\n75.2%\nAbstinent\n(nonuse and no sex last 3 months)\n6.6%\n7.5%\n3.6%\nTotal contracepting and abstinent\n70.8%\n75.1%\n78.8%\nNot using contraception, infertile\nPregnant\n6.8%\n4.3%\n4.2%\nPostpartum\n1.9%\n1.0%\n1.3%\nNon-voluntarily sterile\n3.7%\n6.2%\n9.1%\nTotal infertile\n12.3%\n11.5%\n14.6%\nSexually active, no contraception\nWants to get pregnant\n2.7%\n2.8%\n2.9%\nHad has sex in last three months,\ndoes not want to get pregnant\n14.1%\n10.6%\n3.7%\nTotal at risk of pregnancy\n16.9%\n13.4%\n6.6%\nAll statuses\n100.0%\n100.0%\n100.0%\n*Below 133% of poverty level.\nSource: Author's retabulation of unpublished data from the 1988 National Survey of Family Growth.\nTabulations provided by Jane Mauldon, Graduate School of Public Policy, University of California at\nBerkeley, February 1996.\nTable 2. Prevalence of Mistimed and Unwanted Births Among Welfare Mothers, Nonwelfare Poor\nMothers, and Nonpoor Mothers, United States, 1988\nMothers\nreceiving\nNonwelfare\nNonpoor\nAll\nwelfare\npoor mothers*\nmothers\nmothers\nHas had at least one live birth that\nwas the result of a \"mistimed\"\nconception\n66.0%\n53.3%\n43.8%\n47.1%\nHas had at least one live birth that\nwas the result of an \"unwanted\"\nconception\n29.4%\n24.7%\n13.3%\n16.3%\nHas had a live birth that was the\nresult of either an \"unwanted\" or\n\"mistimed\" conception\n79.4%\n64.7%\n51.3%\n55.6%\n*Below 133% of poverty level.\nSource: Author's retabulation of unpublished data from the 1988 National Survey of Family Growth.\nTabulations provided by Jane Mauldon, Graduate School of Public Policy, University of California at\nBerkeley, February 1996.\n1\nN\nChildbearing\nCosts of Adolesce\nSpecia Report on n\nA Robin Hood Found\n760 STORE The\n/\n.\n-\nKIDS HAVING KIDS\nA Robin Hood Foundation Special Report on the\nCosts of Adolescent Childbearing\nRebecca A. Maynard, Editor\nKids Having Kids\nA Robin Hood Foundation Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing\nINTRODUCTION\nI\nCosts to U.S. Taxpayers\n18\nII\nSocial Costs\n19\nAcknowledgments\nUnmeasured Costs\n20\nScholars\nIV\nAdvisors\nV\nCONTEXT FOR THE STUDY\n23\nA SYNTHESIS OF PROJECT FINDINGS\n1\nTHE NEW FACE OF ADOLESCENT\nCHILDBEARING\n23\nHIGHLIGHTS OF THE\nSTUDY FINDINGS\n5\nCircumstances of\nTeenage Parenthood\n24\nMarital Versus Nonmarital Births\nCONSEQUENCES FOR THE CHILDREN\nAmong Teenagers\n24\nOF ADOLESCENT MOTHERS\n5\nLimited Roles of Absent Fathers\n27\nLow-Birthweight Babies\n5\nTrend Toward Two-Earner Families\n27\nChildhood Health Problems\n5\nEmployment Among Single Parents\n27\nThe Homes Where They Live\n7\nAdolescent Fatherhood\n28\nRunaway Children\n7\nChild Abuse and Neglect\n8\nPRIOR RESEARCH ON THE CAUSES\nFoster Children\n8\nAND CONSEQUENCES OF\nTrouble in School\n8\nADOLESCENT CHILDBEARING\n28\nHigh School Dropouts\n9\nFactors Related to the Trends in\nTeen Birthrates\n28\nAdolescent Mothers From One\nGeneration to the Next\n9\nConsequences of Adolescent\nChildbearing\n29\nUnproductive Lives\n10\nBehind Bars\n10\nSingle Parenthood\n29\nSchool Completion\n30\nCONSEQUENCES FOR THE\nSocial and Economic\nADOLESCENT MOTHERS\n11\nCircumstances\n30\nRoles of the Fathers\n31\nDropping Out of High School\n12\nSingle Parenthood\n13\nTHE STUDY DESIGN\n33\nEmployment and Earnings\n14\nTotal Income and Welfare\n15\nANALYTIC STRATEGY\n33\nCONSEQUENCES FOR THE FATHERS\n16\nAPPORTIONING DIFFERENCES IN\nOUTCOMES, BY SOURCE\n36\nAdolescent Dads\n17\nDads of Children Born to Adolescent Moms 17\nCONSEQUENCES FOR ADOLESCENT\nMOTHERS\n41\nCOSTS OF ADOLESCENT\nCHILDBEARING FOR THE NATION\n18\nEDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT\n41\nKids Having Kids\nA Robin Hood Foundation Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing\nLIVING ARRANGEMENTS\nRUNAWAY CHILDREN\n68\nAND FERTILITY\n45\nSingle-Parent Households\n45\nCHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT\n69\nPublic and Subsidized Housing\n45\nCOGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT\nFertility\n45\nAND EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS\n71\nEMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS\n46\nOUTCOMES FOR TEENS AND YOUNG\nEmployment\n46\nADULTS OF ADOLESCENT PARENTS\n73\nEarnings\n46\nHIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION\n73\nECONOMIC SUPPORT\n52\nTHE NEXT GENERATION OF\nThe First 12 Years of Parenthood\n52\nADOLESCENT MOTHERS\n75\nEconomic Support During Early\nAdulthood\n54\nECONOMIC INACTIVITY\n75\n55\nCRIMINAL ACTIVITY\n78\nCONSEQUENCES FOR THE FATHERS\nTHE ECONOMIC COSTS OF\nCONSEQUENCES FOR ADOLESCENT\nADOLESCENT CHILDBEARING\n81\nFATHERS\n55\nYears of Schooling\n55\nMEASURING THE COSTS OF\nADOLESCENT CHILDBEARING\n81\nEarnings and Potential to\nPay Child Support\n56\nMeasuring Costs to\nAdolescent Mothers\n82\nOUTCOMES FOR FATHERS OF\nCosts to Taxpayers\n82\nCHILDREN BORN TO ADOLESCENT\nCosts to Society\n84\nMOTHERS\n56\nSources of the Component Cost\nEstimates\n84\nCONSEQUENCES FOR CHILDREN OF\nADOLESCENT MOTHERS\n61\nCOSTS AND BENEFITS TO\nADOLESCENT MOTHERS\n86\nHEALTH STATUS AND\nMEDICAL CARE UTILIZATION\n61\nCOSTS TO TAXPAYERS\n88\nHealth Status\n61\nCOSTS TO SOCIETY\n88\nMedical Care Utilization\n64\nMedical Care Costs\n64\nREFERENCES\n92\nConsequences of Longer Delays in\nFOOTNOTES\n95\nChildbearing\n67\nAPPENDIX: SUPPLEMENTARY\nHOME ENVIRONMENTS\n68\nTABLES\n96\nKids Having Kids\nA Robin Hood Foundation Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing\nLIST OF TABLES\n1 Trends Related to Teenage Childbearing\n26\n2 Data Sources, by Study\n35\n3 Educational Attainment of Adolescent and Later Childbearers\n43\n4 Living Arrangements and Fertility of Adolescent\nand Later Childbearers\n47\n5 Employment, Earnings and Other Income of Adolescent and Later\nChildbearers\n48\n6 Sources of Economic Support for Adolescent and\nLater Childbearers\n49\n7 Health Status of and Healthcare Services to Children of Adolescent\nand Later Childbearers\n62\n8 Child Outcomes, by Mother's Age at Focal Child's Birth\n63\n9 Child Abuse and Foster Care Placement by Mothers' Age at First Birth\n70\n10 Framework for Assessing the Economic Consequences of Adolescent\nChildbearing\n83\n11 Estimated Benefits and Costs to Adolescent Childbearers of Not Delaying\nParenting Until Age 20 or 21\n87\n12 Annual Net Costs to Taxpayers of Adolescent Childbearing\n89\n13 Annual Costs to Society of Adolescent Childbearing\n90\nAPPENDIX: SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES\nA.1 Control Variables Used in the Analyses\n96\nA.2 Simulation Estimates of the Costs of Prior Teenage Childbearing\n(March 1996 Dollars)\n97\nA.3 Average Annual Discounted Differences in Outcomes Between\nAdolescent and Later Childbearers (First 13 Years of Parenthood)\n98\nKids Having Kids\nA Robin Hood Foundation Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing\nA.4 Average Annual Undiscounted Differences in Outcomes Between\nAdolescent and Later Childbearers (First 13 Years of Parenthood)\n99\nA.5 Sources of Economic Support for Adolescent and\nLater Childbearers, By Source\n100\nLIST OF FIGURES\n1 Pregnancy Rates Among 15- to 19-year-olds and Their Resolutions\n25\n2 Apportioning Differences in Outcomes, by Source\n38\n3 High School/GED Completion at Age 30\n44\n4 Average Annual Earnings During the First 13 Years of Parenthood\n50\n5 Allocation of Economic Support During the First 13 Years of Parenthood\n51\n6 Average Annual Welfare and Food Stamp Benefits\nDuring the First 13 Years of Parenthood\n53\n7 Fathers' Years of Schooling at Age 27, Adolescent and Older Fathers\n57\n8 Annual Earnings of Fathers at Age 27, Adolescent and Older Fathers\n58\n9 Average Annual Earnings of Fathers of Children Born to Adolescent\nand Later Childbearers (Child's Birth Through Age 19)\n59\n10 Medical Care Visits by Children of Adolescent and Later Childbearers\n65\n11 Annual Medical Care Costs\n66\n12 School Performance of Children Born to Adolescent and Later Childbearers\n72\n13 High School Completion of Children of Adolescent and Later Childbearers\n74\n14 Childbearing Before Age 18 by Female Children of\nAdolescent and Later Childbearers\n76\n15 Economic Activity/Inactivity by Children of Adolescent and Later Childbearers\n77\n16 Incarceration of Young Men Born to Adolescent and Later Childbearers\n79\nKids Having Kids\nA Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing\nhis report was prepared for the Robin Hood\nT\nFoundation under its grant to the Catalyst In-\nstitute to organize and oversee a unique re-\nsearch project to further our understanding of\nthe consequences of adolescent childbearing for\nadolescent mothers, for their children, for the\nfathers of their children, and for the nation. The Catalyst Institute com-\nmissioned outstanding scholars to undertake independent research\non various aspects of this issue. So, too, they commissioned me to pre-\npare this synthesis of the scholars' research. All of us working on this\nproject have been encouraged to express our own judgments freely,\nwhich we have done. Therefore, neither this report nor the supporting\nresearch by the project scholars necessarily represents the official opin-\nion or policy of the Robin Hood Foundation or of the Catalyst Institute.\nRebecca A. Maynard, Editor\nI\nKids Having Kids\nA Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing\nAcknowledgments\nThis report evolved from the vision of Paul Tudor Jones, chairman\nof the Robin Hood Foundation Board of Directors, and David Saltzman,\nexecutive director of the Robin Hood Foundation; the research of 15 of\nthe nation's leading scholars of economic and social welfare policy; and\nthe management talents of the Catalyst Institute. Paul Tudor Jones,\nDavid Saltzman, and the Robin Hood Foundation board conceived of\nand provided financial support for the project. Lisa Smith, the founda-\ntions deputy director, worked on various aspects of the study from start\nto finish. Charlotte Koelling and Suzanne Hammond of the Catalyst\nInstitute provided ongoing managerial and editorial support. Norman\nAtkins provided expert consultation on the report structure and dissem-\nination package, and Margot Frankel was responsible for the final report\ndesign. The substantive content of the report is largely the product of\nintellectually challenging and tedious work by the Kids Having Kids\nscholars: Michael Brien, Robert Goerge, Angela Greene, Jeff Grogger,\nRobert Haveman, V. Joseph Hotz, Bong Joo Lee, Susan McElroy, Kristin\nSanders, Robert Willis, and Barbara Wolfe. They conducted their excellent\nII\nKids Having Kids\nA Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing\nindependent research projects and also patiently worked with me to find\ncreative solutions to a number of analytic issues that were key to esti-\nmating the overall costs of adolescent childbearing. The entire Kids\nHaving Kids project benefited greatly from the input of an outstanding\nproject advisory group. The advisory group met with the scholars on\nseveral occasions to review the project plans and progress. They also\noffered their time generously to individual members of the project\nstaff as needed. Frank Furstenberg, Robert Moffitt, and David Myers\nprovided especially valuable guidance to the scholars and me through\ntheir thoughtful comments on drafts of each of the project reports\nand this synthesis report. Leslie Barber proofread the entire report. I\nalso must acknowledge the expert research assistance and produc-\ntion support provided by Louise Alexander, Meredith Kelsey, Dan\nMcGrath, and Steve Hocker of the University of Pennsylvania. They read\nand summarized the thousand-plus pages of text in the scholars'\nreports, worked diligently on the cost analysis, and produced the\nmany graphs and charts for the report.\nRebecca A. Maynard, University of Pennsylvania\nIII\nKids Having Kids\nA Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing\nScholars\nMichael J. Brien, University of Virginia\nRobert M. Goerge, University of Chicago\nAngela Dungee Greene, Child Trends, Inc.\nJeff Grogger, University of California, Santa Barbara\nRobert Haveman, University of Wisconsin\nV. Joseph Hotz, University of Chicago\nBong Joo Lee, Boston University\nSusan Williams McElroy, Carnegie Mellon University\nKristin A. Moore, Child Trends, Inc.\nDonna Ruane Morrison, Georgetown University\nMaria Perozek, University of Wisconsin\nElaine Peterson, University of Wisconsin\nSeth G. Sanders, Carnegie Mellon University\nRobert J. Willis, University of Michigan\nBarbara Wolfe, University of Wisconsin\nIV\nKids Having Kids\nA Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing\nAdvisory Group\nElijah Anderson, University of Pennsylvania\nWendy Baldwin, National Institutes of Health\nDouglas Besharov, American Enterprise Institute\nClaire Brindis, University of California, San Francisco\nSarah Brown, The Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences\nMichael A. Carrera, Children's Aid Society of New York\nMary Elizabeth Corcoran, University of Michigan\nSheldon H. Danziger, University of Michigan\nJoy Dryfoos, Consultant\nDavid Ellwood, Harvard University\nJacqueline D. Forrest, The Alan Guttmacher Institute\nFrank Furstenberg, University of Pennsylvania\nIrving B. Harris, The Harris Foundation\nKaren Hein, United States Senate\nEvelyn Kappeler, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services\nMarianna Kastrinakis, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services\nArleen Leibowitz, RAND Corporation\nSara S. McLanahan, Princeton University\nRobert A. Moffitt, Johns Hopkins University\nDavid Myers, Mathematica Policy Research\nSusan Newcomer, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development\nSusan O. Philliber, Philliber Research Associates\nCarol Roddy, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services\nRobert F. St. Peter, Mathematica Policy Research\nRobert Valdez, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services\nTerry Watkins, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services\nV\nKids\nHaving\nKids\nA Synthesis of Project Findings\nach year, nearly one million teenagers in\nthe United States-approximately 10 per-\nE\ncent of all 15- to 19-year-old females-\nbecome pregnant. About one third of these\nteens abort their pregnancies, 14 percent\nmiscarry, and 52 percent (or more than\nhalf a million teens) bear children, 72 per-\ncent of them out of wedlock. Of the half a\nmillion teens who give birth each year,\nroughly three-fourths are giving birth for the first time. Even\nmore striking, more than 175,000 of these new mothers are 17\nyears old or younger. These young mothers and their offspring\nare especially vulnerable to severe adverse social and economic\nconsequences. More than 80 percent of these young mothers\nend up in poverty and reliant on welfare, many for the majori-\nty of their children's critically important developmental years.\nDue to their weak educational and skill levels, low rates\nof marriage, and inadequate support from nonresident fathers\nof their children, young mothers face significant challenges\nin trying to provide for their children. Partly because of their\nyoung age, very few of these mothers complete high school\nbefore their first child is born. More than 80 percent of those\nwho are 17 or younger when they have their first child are\n1\nunmarried. Fewer than half of them will get married within\n10 years. Only a small minority of the unwed fathers of the\nchildren born to adolescent mothers provide any ongoing\neconomic support for their children.\nMuch of all this seems to be a uniquely American phenom-\nenon. The teen birthrate in the United States is the highest of\nany industrialized nation, nearly twice as great as the next high-\nest, the United Kingdom, and more than 15 times that of Japan.\nIn addition, in 1988, the last year for which comparative data are\navailable, a teenager in the United States was twice as likely\nto have an abortion as a teenager in the United Kingdom, the\nindustrialized country with the next highest abortion rate.\nAmerican teens were more than 13 times as likely to have an\nabortion as Japanese teens.\nThe public focus on adolescent childbearing as a major\nsocial issue has been fueled by three social forces. First, child\npoverty rates are high and rising. Second, the number of wel-\nfare recipients and the concomitant costs of public assistance\nhave risen dramatically. And third, among those on welfare we\nsee a much higher proportion of never-married women, young-\ner recipients, and recipients who have long average durations\nof dependency. Adolescent\nBIRTHRATE FOR 15- TO 19-YEAR-\nOLD FEMALES (PER 1000)\nchildbearing has both con-\n70\ntributed to and been affect-\n60\ned by these trends.\n60\nTo better understand\n50\nthe full costs and conse-\n40\nquences of adolescent child-\nbearing, the Robin Hood\n30\n32\nFoundation commissioned\n20\nsome of the nation's lead-\ning scholars to research the\n10\nissue. Working in teams\n4\n0\non seven coordinated stud-\nUnited\nUnited\nJapan\nStates\nKingdom\n2\nies, the scholars ex-\nABORTION RATE FOR 15- TO 19-YEAR\nOLD FEMALES (PER 1000)\nplored the costs and\nsocial consequences\n60\nof teen childbearing\n50\n53\nfor the young moth-\ners, their children, the\n40\nfathers of their chil-\ndren, and the entire\n30\nnation. An additional\n27\n20\nstudy of previously\nresearched childbear-\n10\ning trends informed\n4\n0\nand helped round\nUnited\nUnited\nJapan\nStates\nout this set of reports.\nKingdom\nThe scholars focused their research on the roughly 175,000\nadolescents a year who have their first baby at the age of 17\nor younger. Still school age, unlikely to be married, and even\nless likely to be prepared for parenthood, these young mothers\nhighlight the dimensions of the teen-pregnancy and -parent-\nhood problems in this country. The researchers compared these\nyoung mothers with women who delay their first births until\nthe age of 20 or 21, which is still two to three years younger\nthan the national average age of women having their first\nchild. The researchers chose this comparison group in the\nbelief that a delay in childbearing until the early twenties is\na long enough delay to make a meaningful difference in the\nlife options of the young mothers and their children, and is\npotentially attainable through aggressive teenage pregnancy-\nprevention options. The teenage mothers are referred to as\n\"adolescent mothers\" throughout this report, distinguishing\nthem from older teen mothers. Those who are 20 or 21 when\nthey have their first child are referred to as \"later childbearers.\"\nTo develop an understanding of adolescent childbearing\nitself, researchers attempted to untangle the pathway of early\n3\nparenting from an intricate web of social forces that influ-\nence the life course of the mothers, including the behaviors\nand choices leading to their adolescent parenting. The re-\nsearchers began by examining the gross differences in out-\ncomes between adolescent mothers and women who delay\nchildbearing until the age of 20 or 21. They then applied sta-\ntistical controls to apportion this overall difference into as\nmany as three categories. First, they looked for the portion\nof the difference attributable to background factors such as\nrace, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, and parents' education.\nSecond, they accounted for the portion of the difference due\nto factors closely linked to adolescent childbearing but often\ndifficult or impossible to measure directly-factors such as\nmotivation, self-esteem, peer-group influence, and the impact\nof community.\nAll of the studies were able to break out these two sets of\ncomponents. Two of the studies went further and isolated the\neffects of adolescent childbearing itself on outcomes. One\naccomplished this by using the randomness of miscarriages,\nwhich force a delay in the timing of the first birth. The other\nstudy utilized the fact that a woman who has more than one\nchild is necessarily older when she gives birth to her second\nchild. Scholars, therefore, were able to separate the effects of\nearly childbearing from the effects of other factors that are\ncorrelated with early childbearing.\nThe full study is to be published in October of this year\nby the Urban Institute Press under the title Kids Having Kids:\nEconomic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy.\nThe following summarizes the scholars' major findings.\n4\nHighlights of the\nStudy Findings\nCONSEQUENCES FOR THE CHILDREN OF\nADOLESCENT MOTHERS\nThe odds are stacked against the offspring of adolescent moth-\ners from the moment they enter the world. As they grow, they\nare more likely than children of later childbearers to have health\nand cognitive disadvantages and to be neglected or abused.\nThe daughters of adolescent mothers are more likely to become\nadolescent moms themselves, and the sons are more likely to\nwind up in prison.\nLow-Birthweight Babies When compared to children of\nmothers age 20 or 21 when they had their first child, the child-\nren of adolescents are more likely to be born prematurely and\n50 percent more likely to be low-birthweight babies-of\nless than five and a half pounds (Moore, Morrison, and Greene\nforthcoming). Low birthweight raises the probabilities of a\nvariety of adverse conditions such as infant death, blindness,\ndeafness, chronic respiratory problems, mental retardation,\nmental illness, and cerebral palsy. In addition, low birthweight\ndoubles the chance a child will later be diagnosed as having\ndyslexia, hyperactivity, or another disability. Even after factor-\ning out a variety of related background characteristics, the re-\nsearch indicates that adolescent childbearing and closely linked\nfactors heighten the risk of low birthweight and later problems\nthe children, their parents, and their schools must confront.\nChildhood Health Problems As they grow, the children\nof adolescent moms tend to suffer poorer health than do the\n5\nchildren of women who were age 20 or 21 when their first\nchild was born (Wolfe and Perozek forthcoming). Therefore,\none would also expect them to see the doctor more often\nthan do children of later childbearers. But, perversely, they\nreceive only half the level of medical care and treatment their\ncounterparts receive.\nBased on parents' reports of their children's health status,\nchildren of later childbearers are much more likely to be in\n\"excellent\" health than are the children of adolescent moms:\n60 percent of the children of the later childbearers are so rated,\nversus 38 percent of the children of adolescent mothers. Mean-\nwhile, in his or her first 14 years, the average child of an ado-\nlescent mom visits a physician and other medical providers an\naverage of 2.3 times per year, compared with 4.8 times for a\nchild of later childbearers. Early childbearing and closely linked\nfactors-such as motivation, peer group influence, and commu-\nnity context-account for about one third of this large difference.\nOn average, an adolescent mother consumes $3,700 per\nyear in healthcare for her children. Even though each of her\nchildren individually receives substantially less care than child-\nren of later childbearers, the typical adolescent mom annually\nconsumes nearly 20 percent\nRATES OF LOW BIRTHWEIGHT BABIES\nmore medical care for her\n9%\nchildren than she would if\nshe delayed childbearing\n7.8%\nIncrease\nAttributed to\nuntil age 20 or 21 for the\nAdolescent\nChildbearing and\nvery simple reason that she\n6%\nClosely Linked\nFactors\nhas, on average, more child-\nren than her older child-\n5.2%\nbearing counterparts do.\nAlmost half of her chil-\n3%\ndren's medical bills-$1,794\nis paid for by the taxpayers\nin the form of publicly sup-\n0%\nported health subsidies. After\nBabies Born to\nBabies Born to\nAdolescent\n20- to 21-year-old\nMothers\nMothers\n6\nother variables are controlled for, including the poorer health of\nchildren of adolescent mothers, the typical adolescent mother\nactually consumes an average of $562 more a year on healthcare\nfor her children than does her counterpart who delays childbear-\ning until age 20 or 21. At the same time, she spends $144 a year\nless out-of-pocket, while the public pays $776 more through\nMedicaid and other publicly funded health insurance for her\nchildren than they pay for children of otherwise similar child-\nbearers. Based on this estimate, the health-services dimension of\nadolescent childbearing costs taxpayers about $1.5 billion more\neach year than if girls age 17 and younger had delayed parenthood.\nThe Homes Where They Live Children of adolescent\nmoms are much less likely than their peers to grow up in homes\nwith fathers (Moore et al. forthcoming). In addition, the quality\nof the homes where they live is rated substantially lower than\nthose of the comparison group, even after controlling for various\nbackground factors. This conclusion is based upon results of the\nwidely accepted Home Observation for Measurement of the\nEnvironment (HOME) survey, which rates homes based on the\nemotional support and cognitive stimulation provided to child-\nren. For example, the sur-\nRATES AT WHICH KIDS SAY THEY RUN\nvey analyzes the amount\nAWAY BETWEEN THE AGES OF 12 AND 16\n6%\nand quality of attention\nchildren receive from their\n5.4%\nparents and the degree\nIncrease\nto which their residences\nAttributed to\n4%\nAdolescent\ncontain books, educa-\nChildbearing\nand Closely\ntional toys, and games.\nLinked Factors\nRunaway Children\n2%\nChildren of adolescent\nmoms are two to three\ntimes more likely than\nthe children of their\n0%\nChildren of\nChildren of\nAdolescent\n20- to 21-year-old\nMothers\nMothers\n7\nolder childbearing counterparts to report having run away\nfrom home during those years. Five percent of adolescent\nmothers' children are sufficiently miserable in their homes\nthat they report running away from it sometime between\nthe ages of 12 and 16, compared with only about 2 percent of\nchildren born to later childbearers (Moore et al. forthcoming).\nChild Abuse and Neglect Children of adolescent moms are\nalso far more likely to be physically abused, abandoned, or neglected\n(Goerge and Lee forthcoming). In a study of Illinois Child Protec-\ntive Service statistics, which are among the best and most comp-\nrehensive in the nation, the scholars found that children of ado-\nlescent mothers are more than twice as likely to be the victims of\nabuse and neglect than are the offspring of 20- to 21-year-old moms.\nIllinois logged 109 reports of child abuse per 1,000 children\nborn to adolescent moms and only 50 per 1,000 children in the\ncomparison group of children born to mothers who were 20 or 21.\nTo the extent that researchers were able to factor out the influence\nof background characteristics, their work shows that adolescent\nchildbearing is a major cause of this huge margin of difference in\nchild-abuse rates. In addition, one of every four times Illinois\nreceives a report that a child of an adolescent mother has been\nabused, it finds abuse so great it places the child in foster care.\nFoster Children An estimated 472,000 children are in fos-\nter care in the United States at any one time (Goerge and Lee\nforthcoming). Extrapolating from the Illinois study to the na-\ntion, early childbearing and closely linked factors lead to\n23,600 children-an estimated five percent of all those born\nto adolescent mothers each year-ending up in foster care.\nThe effect of adolescent childbearing on foster-care placement\nresults in a taxpayer burden as high as $900 million a year.\nTrouble in School In school, the children of adolescent\nmoms do much worse than those in the comparison group of later\n8\nchildbearers (Moore et al.\nHIGH SCHOOL DROP OUT RATES\nforthcoming). They are\ntwo to three times less\n25%\nlikely to be rated \"excel-\n23%\nlent\" by their teachers and\nIncrease\nAttributed to\n20%\n50 percent more likely to\nAdolescent\nChildbearing\nrepeat a grade. And they\n15%\nperform significantly worse\nIncrease Attributed\nTo Other Factors\non tests of their cognitive\n10%\ndevelopment, even after\n11%\ndifferences in measurable\n5%\nbackground factors have\nbeen screened out.\n0\nChildren of\nChildren of\nHigh School Drop-\nAdolescent\n20-to 21-year-old\nMothers\nMothers\nouts The research sug-\ngests that performance in school does not improve as children of\nadolescent mothers age. They are far more likely to drop out than\nare children born to later childbearers (Haveman, Wolfe, and Peter-\nson forthcoming). Only 77 percent of the children of adolescent\nmoms earn their high school diplomas by early adulthood, compared\nwith 89 percent of the comparison group. Although a part of this siz-\nable difference in high school graduation-rates can be explained\nby background differences, 57 percent of the graduation rate gap is\ndue to adolescent childbearing and closely linked factors.\nAdolescent Mothers From One Generation to the Next\nWhen compared with their counterparts born to older child-\nbearers, the daughters of adolescent moms are 83 percent more\nlikely themselves to become mothers before age 18 (Haveman\net al. forthcoming). After controlling for various background\nfactors, adolescent childbearing and closely linked factors\naccount for about 40 percent of this difference in adolescent\npregnancy rates. Teen mothers beget teen mothers at a far\ngreater rate than older mothers do, and they are far more likely\n9\nLIKELIHOOD OF BECOMING A MOTHER\nto pass on their poor life\nBEFORE AGE 18\nprospects as a birthright.\n20%\nFurthermore, the daughters\nof teen moms, whether or\nIncrease\nnot they become teen moms\n16.5%\nAttributed to\n15%\nAdolescent\nthemselves, are 50 percent\nChildbearing\nmore likely to bear children\nout of wedlock than the\n10%\nIncrease Attributed\nTo Other Factors\ncomparison group.\n9%\nUnproductive Lives A\n5%\nsnapshot of adolescent moth-\ners' children at the age of\n0\n24 reveals that roughly 30\nDaughters of\nDaughters of\npercent of them are neither\nAdolescent\n20-to 21-year-old\nMothers\nMothers\nin school nor working nor\nactively looking for a job (Haveman et al. forthcoming). At that\npoint in life, they are 71 percent more likely to be unengaged\nproductively than are peers whose mothers delayed childbear-\ning until their early twenties. Less than half of this \"economic\nactivity\" gap is attributable to observable background factors.\nMost of the difference is due to adolescent childbearing and\nclosely linked factors. The research suggests though it does not\nspell out directly that the children of adolescent moms are less\nlikely to attend college and more likely to work in low-skill jobs.\nFor these and other reasons, their long-term earnings potential\nappears to be significantly lower than that of the comparison\ngroup born to later childbearers.\nBehind Bars The teen sons of adolescent mothers are 2.7 times\nmore likely to land in prison than the sons of mothers who de-\nlayed childbearing until their early twenties (Grogger forthcom-\ning). Adolescent childbearing by itself accounts for 19 percent of\nthis difference. By extension, adolescent childbearing in and of\nitself costs U.S. taxpayers roughly $1 billion each year to build\n10\nand maintain prisons for\nINCARCERATION RATES OF SONS DURING\nTHEIR YOUNG ADULT YEARS\nthe sons of adolescent\nmothers. In addition to\n12%\nthe measurable criminal-\nIncrease\njustice costs, other, less tan-\n10.3%\nAttributed to\nAdolescent\ngible costs, such as dam-\nChildbearing\n8%\nage to people and property,\nare associated with crim-\nIncrease Attributed\ninal activity.\nTo Other Factors\n4%\nCONSEQUENCES\n3.8%\nFOR\nADOLESCENT\n0%\nMOTHERS\nSons of\nSons of\nAdolescent\n20-to 21-year-old\nIn absolute terms, adoles-\nMothers\nMothers\ncent mothers face poor life prospects. Seven of 10 will drop out of\nhigh school. During their first 13 years of parenthood, adolescent\nmoms earn an average of about $5,600 annually, less than half the\npoverty level. And adolescent mothers spend much of their young\nadult years (ages 19 to 30) as single parents. Surprisingly, after\naccounting for differences in background and closely linked fac-\ntors such as motivation, adolescent mothers earn only slightly less\nduring the first 12 years of parenthood than they would be\nexpected to earn if they delayed childbearing until age 20 or 21\n(Hotz, Sanders, and McElroy forthcoming). In contrast, over their\nyoung adult lives (ages 19 to 30), they work and earn somewhat\nmore than do their later childbearing counterparts.\nMoreover, although their sources of income differ, adolescent\nmothers have combined incomes from their own earnings, earn-\nings of spouses, child support, and public assistance comparable to\nthose of the older childbearers, after background and closely\nlinked factors are controlled for. During their first 13 years of par-\nenthood, they have income and medical-care assistance valued at\njust nearly $19,000 annually, compared with just over $20,000\n11\nannually for their later childbearing counterparts. After netting out\nthe effects of background and other factors closely linked to early\nchildbearing, adolescent childbearers fare slightly better than their\nlater childbearing counterparts in terms of their overall economic\nwelfare having total incomes of nearly $20,000 annually as com-\npared with just over $16,000 for the comparison group.\nAlthough total economic support is not greatly affected by\nadolescent childbearing itself, this relatively modest level of eco-\nnomic support must feed more mouths than does the income\nof their counterparts who delay childbearing until age 20 or 21,\nresulting in greater poverty. Larger family sizes, together with\nweakened chances of stable marriage, lead to about 50 percent\nhigher rates of welfare dependence among adolescent parents.\nThe really significant consequences of adolescent child-\nbearing for the mothers are lower levels of educational attain-\nment, higher rates of single parenthood, larger family sizes, and\ngreater reliance on public assistance. Even after parsing out the\neffects of background and closely linked factors that can explain\nsome of the observed differences in outcomes between adoles-\ncent mothers and their later childbearing counterparts, the\nresearch shows that adolescent childbearing itself accounts for a\nRATES AT WHICH MOTHERS EARN A\n50 percent lower likelihood\nHIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA\nof completing high school,\n80%\n24 percent more children,\n76%\nand 57 percent more time\nIncrease\nAttributed to\nas a single parent during the\nAdolescent\nChildbearing\nfirst 13 years of parenthood.\n60%\nDropping Out of High\nIncrease\nAttributed to\nSchool Pregnancy and\nBackground\n40%\nFactors\nparenting pose major chal-\nlenges to full-time school\n32%\nattendance. As a result,\nadolescent mothers drop\n20%\nout at a staggering rate, and\nAdolescent\n20- to 21-year-\nMothers\nold Mothers\n12\nthose who have already dropped out are less likely to return to\nschool (Hotz et al. forthcoming). Only about three of 10 ado-\nlescent mothers earn a high school diploma by age 30, com-\npared with nearly 76 percent in the comparison group of\nwomen who delay childbearing until age 20 or 21. Controlling\nfor a wide range of background variables, scholars found that\nadolescent childbearing alone accounts for more than 40 per-\ncent of this difference in graduation rates. Looked at another\nway, adolescent childbearing, at its current rate, is directly\nresponsible for over 30,000 adolescent girls in the U.S, annu-\nally not completing high school.\nAll of the school completion gap will be made up by ado-\nlescent mothers earning General Education Development (GED)\ncertificates at higher rates than do their older childbearing\ncounterparts. However, an emerging body of research suggests\nthat, although a GED may enhance the earnings potential of\nschool dropouts, it does not close the entire earnings gap.\nSingle Parenthood Adolescent moms spend nearly five\ntimes more of their young adult years as single parents than do\nwomen who have their\nfirst child at age 20 or 21-\nPERCENTAGE OF TIME THROUGH AGE 30\nSPENT AS SINGLE PARENT\nfour years versus ten\nmonths (Hotz et al. forth-\n40%\ncoming). The research\nindicates that adolescent\n32.1%\n30\nchildbearing itself is\nIncrease\nAttributed to\nAdolescent\nresponsible for half of this\nChildbearing\ndifference. These same\n20\nmothers would have spent\nIncrease Attributed\nan average of only 2.7 years\nTo Other Factors\nas single parents if they had\n10\ndelayed childbearing until\n8.6%\nage 20 or 21. Also, children\nwho grow up in the homes\n0\nAdolescent\n20- to 21-year-\nMothers\nold Mothers\n13\nof single moms are one and a half to two times more likely to\nbecome teen parents themselves than are children who live in\ntwo-parent families.\nEmployment and Earnings Although the employment lev-\nels and earnings of adolescent mothers are low, early childbear-\ning is not the cause (Hotz et al., forthcoming). The research\nshows that virtually all of the large observed differences in\nhours of employment and earnings between adolescent mo-\nthers and older childbearers result from factors other than their\ndecisions regarding when to begin their families. For example,\nduring young adulthood, adolescent mothers exert more work\neffort than do their peers, perhaps out of necessity. After back-\nground and other compounding factors are controlled for, ado-\nlescent mothers work an average of 831 hours per year during\ntheir early adulthood (ages 19 to 30), which is 34 percent more\nthan their later childbearing counterparts.\nSignificant numbers of adolescent mothers join the work\nforce as their children begin preschool and kindergarten, a time\nwhen many counterpart moms are beginning to spend time at\nhome with their babies. However, during the first 13 years of\nparenthood, adolescent mothers and their comparison group\nwork similar hours: 691 and 762 hours per year, respective-\nly-roughly 14 hours a week on average.\nMost striking is the finding that both groups of women\nhave desperately low earnings despite moderate levels of work\neffort. Controlling for background and closely linked factors,\nadolescent moms and their comparison group earn only about\n$5,700 and $6,200 annually, respectively, during their first 13 years\nof parenthood.\nThe average $6,323 annual earnings of the adolescent moth-\ners during young adulthood (ages 19 to 30), though extremely low,\nis more than 32 percent above the $4,801 average annual earnings\nof their later childbearing counterparts. This difference is due entire-\nly to their greater work effort during their mid- to late twenties.\n14\nTotal Income and Welfare Adolescent mothers have\nslightly lower total family income during their early years as\nparents than they would have had if they had delayed child-\nbearing until their early twenties (Hotz et al. forthcoming).\nHowever, the typical adolescent mother enters the work force\nand marries at a younger age than does her later childbearing\ncounterpart, resulting in 22 percent higher total income dur-\ning her young adult years (ages 19 to 30).\nFrom either time perspective-the early years of parent-\ning or young adulthood-adolescent parents have a different\nprofile of income sources than do the comparison mothers.\nBoth groups get roughly 30 percent of their total support from\ntheir own labor. However, adolescent mothers get a lower share\nof their total support from the fathers of their children and\ntheir spouses and higher shares from public assistance.\nDuring their first 13 years of parenthood, adolescent\nmothers get less income from their own earnings, substantially\nless from earnings of their spouses, and more from public\nassistance. During their young adult years, when most of the\nchildren of adolescent mothers are school age and while com-\nparison mothers have infants and toddlers, the adolescent\nmothers receive a slightly higher share of their income from\ntheir own labor and less from public assistance.\nThe adolescent mothers' earnings represent just under one\nthird of their average $17,216 annual income (including the\nvalue of food stamps) during the first 13 years of parenthood. In\naddition, they receive for their children publicly supported\nmedical care valued at roughly $1,517 annually. Despite high\nrates of single parenthood, adolescent mothers with a resident\nfather receive substantial help from their spouses. Adolescent\nmoms receive nearly half of their family's income-$9,000 to\n$10,000 per year-from resident fathers and spouses. Nonresi-\ndent fathers, on the other hand, contribute less than five percent\nof the total income; 11 percent comes from welfare and food\nstamps; and 8 percent is medical assistance for their children.\n15\nThese findings are consistent with previous research show-\ning that the majority of adolescent mothers live in poverty dur-\ning the years their children are growing up. More than 70 percent\nof them end up on welfare, and 40 percent will be on welfare for\nfive years or more during the decade after their first birth.\nAdolescent mothers receive 50 percent more welfare assis-\ntance than do the comparison group of women who have their\nfirst child at age 20 or 21, partly because women who are 20 or 21\nwhen they have their first child marry at higher rates and can count\non greater support from their spouses. Still, while their children are\nin the preteen years, adolescent mothers have to make do with\nonly 92 percent of the average level of income support of their\ncomparison group counterparts. Moreover, adolescent moms\nhave, on average, 2.6 rather than 2.0 child to raise. Therefore, when\nmeasured against the poverty index, which accounts for family\nsize, the typical adolescent mom and her children are significantly\npoorer than their counterparts, despite their slightly higher earn-\nings and the much higher public-assistance they receive.\nCONSEQUENCES FOR THE FATHERS\nBoys are one third as likely as girls to become adolescent par-\nents, according to recent studies of teen sexuality and child-\nbearing (Alan Guttmacher Institute 1994). Each year fewer than\n60,000 boys age 17 and younger father children for the first\ntime. The fathers of children born to adolescent mothers are,\non average, two and a half years older than the mom; in one\nfifth of the cases, they are at least six years older (Alan Guttmach-\ner Institute 1994). Recent research also suggests that the inci-\ndence of pregnancy among adolescent girls often is the result of\nsexually predatory behavior of older men. Although the Kids\nHaving Kids scholars found that the consequences\nof adolescent childbearing on both young and older fathers are\nnot as sharp as the effects on mothers and their children, they\ndid discover some impacts, especially on younger dads.\n16\nAdolescent Dads Ado-\nYEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED BY\nFATHERS THROUGH THE AGE OF 27\nlescent dads will finish an\naverage of only 11.3 years of\n13\nschool by the age of 27, com-\nIncrease\n12.7\npared with nearly 13 years by\nAttributed to\nAdolescent\ntheir counterparts who de-\nChildbearing\n12\nlay fathering until age 21\nIncrease Attributed\n(Brien and Willis forthcom-\nTo Other Factors\ning). After the effects of\n11.3\nvarious background variables\nII\nare screened out, adolescent\nchildbearing and closely\nlinked factors account for ado-\nlescent dads finishing one\n10\nsemester less school than the\nAdolescent\n20- to 21-vear-old\nFathers\nFathers\ncomparison group of older\nfathers. In many cases, the semester may be the pivotal one that\ndetermines whether a high school senior will graduate or drop out.\nBy age 27, adolescent fathers earn, on average, $4,732 less\nannually than the comparison group of men who delay father-\ning until age 20 or 21 (Brien and Willis forthcoming). Although\njust over half of this difference is explained by background\nfactors, the research suggests that an average of $2,181 in low-\ner earings per year is due to adolescent parenting and closely\nlinked factors. As a consequence, adolescent dads are not as\nprepared as their comparison-group counterparts to contribute\nfinancially to the well-being of their young families or-when\nthey do not live with the mothers-to pay child support.\nDads of Children Born to Adolescent Moms Over the\n18 years following the birth of their first children, the dads of\nchildren born to adolescent mothers earn, on average, $10,712\nper year (in 1996 dollars), compared with $13,796 for the male\npartners of delayed childbearers (Brien and Willis forthcoming).\nThis means they have about $3,000 less per year at their disposal\n-\n17\nto help support their children and families. Roughly half of these\nlower earnings are explained by various background factors.\nLittle of the increased earnings that would result from de-\nlayed childbearing is likely to benefit the adolescent mothers\nand their children. Benefit can be felt only when the parents\nlive together or the father pays child support, but currently only\n19 percent of adolescent mothers wed the fathers of their first\nchild before or shortly after the birth of the child. And earlier\nresearch demonstrates that a small fraction of nonresident\nfathers of children born to adolescent mothers pay child sup-\nport on any regular basis. Currently, only 15 percent of never-\nmarried teen moms are ever awarded child support, and those\nwith orders receive, on average, only one third of the amount\noriginally awarded (Congressional Budget Office 1990).\nMeanwhile, the Kids Having Kids researchers found that\nfathers who do not marry the adolescent mothers of their children\nhave incomes sufficient for society to expect them to contribute\nsupport at a level that would offset as much as 40 to 50 percent of\nthe welfare costs to the adolescent mothers and their families.\nMore rigorous paternity establishment and child-support en-\nforcement could provide gains for children and the rest of society.\nCOSTS OF ADOLESCENT CHILDBEARING\nFOR THE NATION\nHow much does adolescent childbearing cost the United States?\nEven the very best data, which were culled, arranged, and ana-\nlyzed for the purpose of this study, cannot possibly give a com-\nplete or precise figure. Still, this study gives the clearest estimates\nto date. It controls for background factors and, where possible,\nclosely linked factors to isolate the economic costs to the nation\nand to society caused by adolescent childbearing.\nCosts to the U.S. Taxpayers In looking at five impor-\ntant dimensions of the problem, researchers estimate that\n18\nadolescent childbearing itself\nCOST OF ADOLESCENT\nCHILDBEARING ITSELF TO TAXPAYERS\ncosts the taxpayers $6.9 bil-\n(IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)\nlion each year. The higher pub-\nIncreased\nlic-assistance benefits-wel-\nIncarceration\n$1.0\nExpenses\nfare and food stamps com-\nIncreased\n$2.2\nWelfare and\nbined-caused by adolescent\nFood Stamp\nBenefits\nchildbearing cost the taxpay-\n$1.5\nIncreased\nMedical Care\ners $2.2 billion. The increased\nExpenses\nmedical-care expenses cost\n$1.3\nLoss of Tax\nRevenue\n$1.5 billion. Constructing and\n$0.9\nIncreased\nmaintaining prisons to house\nFoster Care\nTOTAL: $6.9 Billion\nthe increased number of crim-\ninals caused by adolescent childbearing costs about $1 bil-\nlion each year, and the increased costs of foster care are only\nslightly less at $.9 billion. Due to the sizable effect of adolescent\nchildbearing on the work patterns of fathers, the United States\nincurs a nontrivial loss of tax revenue-$1.3 billion annually.\nThe cost to taxpayers of adolescent childbearing together\nwith the other disadvantages faced by adolescent mothers is\nbetween $13 billion and nearly $19 billion per year-this is\nthe amount the taxpayers would save if a policy successfully\ndelayed adolescent childbearing and successfully addressed\nthese other disadvantages.\nSocial Costs Beyond the taxpayer expenses described above,\nanother important consequence of adolescent childbearing is\na loss in national productivity. A society using its energy and\nresources to mitigate the problems caused by teen childbear-\ning is unable to expend those resources for more produc-\ntive purposes. Based largely on the diversion of its resources\ntoward the increased health care, foster care, and incarcera-\ntion rates apparently caused by adolescent childbearing, re-\nsearchers calculated a social cost to the nation of just under\n$9 billion per year. That figure utilizes the tightest controls for\nvarious background factors. When researchers control for a\n19\nCOST OF ADOLESCENT\nmoderate range of back-\nCHILDBEARING TO SOCIETY\n(IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)\nground factors, they calcu-\n$30\nlate the social cost of ado-\n$29\nlescent childbearing at $21\n25\nbillion per year.\nThe gross annual cost to\n20\nsociety of adolescent child-\nbearing and the entire web of\n15\nsocial problems that confront\nadolescent moms and ulti-\n10\nmately lead to the poorer and\nsometimes devastating out-\n5\n$6.9\ncomes for their kids is calcu-\nlated to be $29 billion.\n0\nCost of\nCost of Adolescent\nAdolescent\nChildbearing and\nUnmeasured Costs These\nChildbearing\nAll Related Factors\nare probably lower-bound\nestimates of the cost of adolescent childbearing. They do not take\ninto account-because the research data are unavailable-all\npotentially relevant costs to society in terms of lost productivity\nand wasted resources. For example, adolescent childbearing is\nassociated with higher levels of learning disabilities and social\nproblems among children, which impact the costs of education\nand social services and lead to lost productivity. More important,\nthis framework does not include the compounding intergenera-\ntional effects of adolescent childbearing that are strongly suggest-\ned by the research. Finally, the report examines only the costs of\nadolescent childbearing when the mother is 17 years of age or\nyounger, which represents only about 45 percent of first-time teen\nmothers. A similar pattern of adverse consequences, albeit more\nmodest, was observed for older teens.\n20\nContext for\nThe Study\nTHE NEW FACE OF ADOLESCENT\nCHILDBEARING\nIn 1993, 513,647 children were born to U.S. teens. This represents a rate of\n60 births for every 1,000 15- to 19-year-old females. In no other industrial-\nized nation in the world do teens bear children in such high numbers.\nGreat Britain has the next highest rate, with 33 births for every 1,000\nfemale teens. Only three other industrialized nations-Canada, Austria,\nand Australia-have birthrates as high as 20. And while the teen-childbear-\ning rate has recently declined in other industrialized nations, the U.S. rate\nhas risen 21 percent in the past decade.\nA high-and growing-portion of U.S. births to teen mothers (39\npercent) involve girls 17 years old or younger. Not surprisingly, the vast\nmajority of births to these young teens (86 percent, or 175,259) were first\nbirths. Mothers in this group-called adolescent mothers in this report, to\ndistinguish them from teen moms who have their first children at age 18 or\n19-present a special worry to policymakers in that they have low rates of\nschool completion, high rates of poverty, high rates of public assistance,\nand high rates of single parenthood.\nThe incidence of teenage childbearing has changed over the past 30\nyears, declining to an all-time low of 50.2 teenage births per 1,000 in 1986\nand thereafter rising an average of 3.5 percent per year (FIGURE 1). By 1991,\nthe teenage birthrate had risen 24 percent from its lowest, to 62.1 births per\n1,000 15-to 19-year-old females. Only in the next two years did the rate\nflatten and decline slightly to 60 births per 1,000 in 1993-the most recent\nyear for which data are available.\nEven more striking is the steady trend since 1950 away from marital\nto out-of-wedlock births. Currently, 72 percent of births to teens and 31\npercent of all births in the United States are out of wedlock.\nUnderscoring the changing attitudes and patterns of out-of-wedlock\nchildbearing and single-parent childrearing has been a precipitous decline\nin the proportion of out-of-wedlock babies given up for adoption. Where-\nas more than 15 percent of babies born out of wedlock in the late 1960s\nand early 1970s were placed for adoption, by the mid-80s that number\nwas down to less than 3 percent (Bachrach, Stolley, and London 1992).\n23\nAs the logical consequence of these trends, increasing numbers of\nteenage mothers are raising children in single-parent households, a phe-\nnomenon that parallels trends for the U.S. population as a whole.\nCircumstances of Teenage Parenthood Youth are sexually active\nat younger ages than they were three decades ago, and a growing portion\nof teens are having premarital intercourse (see TABLE 1). In 1960, for\nexample, just over 30 percent of adolescents (17 and under) engaged in\nsexual intercourse, compared to 56 percent in 1988. This has led to in-\ncreased teen-childbearing rates, even at a time when contraceptive meth-\nods have improved and become far more accessible.\nStill there is a great need to continue to improve contraceptive use\namong teens insofar as 71 percent of all teen births occurred among the\n29 percent of sexually active teens not using contraceptives. Poor, never-\nmarried women are twice as likely to experience contraceptive failure as\nnonpoor, never-married women, regardless of the chosen contraceptive\nmethod (Brown and Eisenberg 1995; McElroy and Moore forthcoming).\nNot only are teens from higher-income families less likely to get pregnant\nbut, if they do, they are 80 percent more likely than lower-income teens to\nhave an abortion. These trends explain, in part, why poor teens are bear-\ning children at a much higher rate than are their more affluent peers.\nBy the early 1990s, 14 percent of teenage pregnancies ended in mis-\ncarriage, one third ended in abortion, and just over half ended in a birth\n(FIGURE 1). Only 22 percent of all births to teens ages 15 to 17 and 32 per-\ncent of those to older teens are intended; indeed, 11 percent of the births\nto adolescent teens and six percent of those for older teens are unwanted\n(Kost and Forrest 1995).\nMarital Versus Nonmarital Births Among Teenagers One of\nthe most notable changes in the face of early childbearing over the past 40\nyears is the break of the link between early childbearing and marriage.\nToday, the connection is loose at best; only 15 percent of all pregnancies\nto teens end with an in-wedlock birth.\nFrom 1950 through the early 1970s, young people commonly mar-\nried and started families during their late teens, shortly after graduating\nfrom high school. The vast majority of these young families followed the\nthen-traditional family model; the young women raised their children full-\ntime, and young men worked to support their families.\nin the past two decades, this picture has changed dramatically.\nAlthough a substantially smaller proportion of teens bear children today\nthan they did four decades ago, what is most striking is that the great\nmajority of these teen childbearers today do not marry the fathers of their\n24\nSource: Adapted from McElroy and Moore (forthcoming)\nYEAR\n1993\n0661\n1985\n0861\n1975\n0261\n5961\n0961\n0\nand\n- M-41\n20\n01\nOut of Wedlock Births\n09\n08\nINCIDENTS PER 000\nAbortions\n001\nMiscarriages\n120\nIA\nPregnancy Rates Among 15- to 19-year-olds and Their Resolutions\nFigure 1\nTable 1\nTrends Related to Teenage Childbearing\nYEAR\nOUTCOME\n1960\n1970\n1980\n1990\n% CHANGE\nPremarital sex among 15 to year-old females\n29%\n42%\nb\n52%\n79:3%\nSex before age 18 among women\n31%\n35%\n51%\n56%\n80.6%ᶜ\nPregnancies per 1,000 to 19-year-olds\n-\n95\n111\n117\n23.2%\nb\nPregnancies per 1,000 sexually experienced women\n-\n254\n247\n207\n-18.5%ᵇ\nPercentage of pregnant teens giving birth\n72%\n55%\n60%\n-16.7%\nbi\nBirths per 1,000 15- to 19 year olds\n89\n68\n53\n60\n-32.8%\nWhites\n79\n57\n45\n51\n-35.4%\nNonwhites\n156\n141,\n98\n113\n-27.6%\nBirths per 1,000 sexually experienced 15- to 19-year-olds\n-\n165\n118\nb\n107\n-35.2%\nNonmarital/births per 1,000 sexually women\n15\n22\n28\n43\n177.8%\nc\nPercentage of teen births out of wedlock\n15%\n31%\n48%\n68%\n353.3%\nPercentage of children in single-parent families\n10%\n11%\n19%\n22%\n120.0%ᶜ\nPercentage of children involved in divorce annually\n0.7%\n1.2%\n1.8%\n1.6%\n128.6%\nFirst marriages per 1,000 never-married 18- and\n208\n151\n85\n56\n-73.1%\n19-year-olds\nSources: S. McElroy and K. Moore (forthcoming), \"Trends: National and international trends in early pregnancy and childbearing,\" in Kids\nHaving Kids: The Cost and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, R., Maynard, Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press); Alan Guttmacher\nInstitute (1994); Sex and America's Teenagers (New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute), 20, 44, and 51; U.S. Department of Education, Office of\nEducational Research and Improvement (1993), Youth Indicators 1993 (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics), conditions\n3,4, 7, and 11; K. Moore, N. Snyder, and D. Glei (1995), Facts at a Glance. (Washington, D.C.: Child Trends).\n-\n=\nNot available:\na\n1988 data,\nb\nPercentage of change from 1970 to 1990\nPercentage of change from 1960 to 1990.\nchildren either before or after the children are born. For example, in 1950,\nwhen the median age at first birth was 20, between eight and nine percent\nof teenage women gave birth each year, approximately 80 percent within\nmarriage. In contrast, by 1990, when the average age at first birth had\nincreased three years to 23, only 6 percent of teens gave birth, and just 32\npercent of these births occurred within marriage (TABLE 1). The remaining\n68 percent of teen mothers, who were more likely to be poor in the first\nplace, assumed full-time responsibility for the care of their offspring and pri-\nmary, if not exclusive, responsibility for their family's financial support.\nMothers have increasingly undertaken this responsibility them-\nselves, rather than give their babies up for adoption. In the late 1960s\nand early 1970s, babies born out of wedlock were five times more likely\nto be given up for adoption than in the mid-1980s. Fifteen percent of the\nmothers gave their babies up for adoption then, compared with less than\n3 percent today (Bachrach et al. 1992).\nLimited Roles of Absent Fathers Today, the noncustodial fathers of\nchildren born to teenage mothers contribute relatively little to the sup-\nport of their children. Only 15 to 20 percent of never-married teenage\nparents have child-support awards. Of those with awards, only about\nthree fourths receive any payments, and the payments they receive are\nonly about one third of the generally modest award amounts (Con-\ngressional Budget Office 1990).\nTrend Toward Two-Earner Families This transformation in U.S.\nculture has changed the profile of early childbearing dramatically for\nboth family members and society. Not only are adolescent mothers more\nlikely to rear their children in single-parent households, but they also are\nmuch more likely to raise them in poverty. This results in part from the\nlower earning power of women relative to men. But declining real earn-\nings in the low-wage market over this same period, particularly among\nnon-college-educated men, have also contributed.\nIn particular, declining earnings have fueled the rapid increase in\nlabor-force participation of women, including women in two-parent fami-\nlies. Whereas in 1950 only 20 percent of married women with children and\n12 percent of those with preschool-age children worked, by 1990 about two\nthirds of married women with children were employed (including over half\nof those with preschoolers). This phenomenon has prevented even sharper\nincreases in child poverty than otherwise would have occurred.\nEmployment Among Single Parents Although single mothers do\nnot have the option of a second breadwinner in the house, their labor-\n27\nforce participation is roughly the same as women in two-parent families.\nMoreover, the work patterns of this group have changed relatively little\nover the past 20 years, even though the nature of single parenthood has\nchanged to include substantially higher proportions of never-married\nparents. Welfare provides the economic buffer for many of the single par-\nents who do not join the labor market.\nAdolescent Fatherhood The incidence of adolescent fatherhood is less\nthan one third the rate of adolescent motherhood; fewer than 60,000 chil-\ndren are born each year to men under age 18. Indeed, two thirds of the\nfathers of babies born to teenagers are themselves 20 years old or older. The\nfathers of children born to mothers under age 18 are an average of about two\nand a half years older than the mothers. In nearly 20 percent of the cases,\nthe age gap is six or more years (Alan Guttmacher Institute 1994; Landry\nand Forrest 1995). As noted previously, only 30 percent of the men who\nfather children of adolescent mothers marry the mothers of their first child,\nand most of those who do not marry provide no substantial child support.\nPRIOR RESEARCH ON THE CAUSES AND\nCONSEQUENCES OF ADOLESCENT CHILDBEARING\nThe Kids Having Kids research was undertaken in the context of literature\ndescribing trends in adolescent childbearing and factors that lead to or\nexacerbate these trends and their consequences. Aspects of the literature\nhave helped shape this research. So, too, the results of the Kids Having\nKids research underscore the emerging consensus that the poor outcomes\nobserved for teenage parents and their children are the product of myri-\nad factors, among which early childbearing is only one.\nFactors Related to the Trends in Teen Birthrates The likeli-\nhood that teenagers engage in unprotected sex, become pregnant, and\ngive birth is highly correlated with multiple risk factors. These factors\ninclude growing up in a single-parent family, living in poverty and/or in\na high-poverty neighborhood, having low attachment to and perfor-\nmance in school, and having parents with low educational attainment\n(Moore, Miller et al. 1995). For example, teenagers living in single-parent\nhouseholds are one and a half to two times more likely to become\nteenage parents than those in two-parent families (Zill and Nord 1994).\nProbabilities increase for those with low aspirations and low aptitude test\nscores. More important, each of these factors increases not only the risk\nof teenage parenthood but also many other negative outcomes, such as\npoor school performance, weak social skills, and low earnings potential.\n28\nConsequences of Adolescent Childbearing Earlier studies have\nfound that adolescent mothers have high probabilities of raising their\nchildren in poverty and relying on welfare for support. More than 40 per-\ncent of teenage moms report living in poverty at age 27 (Moore et al.\n1993). The rates are especially high among black and Hispanic adolescent\nmothers, more than half of whom end up in poverty and two thirds of\nwhom find themselves on welfare. Indeed, 80 percent of adolescent\nmothers will receive welfare during the 10 years following the birth of\ntheir first child, 44 percent of them for more than 5 years (Jacobson and\nMaynard 1995).\nThis results from a combination of factors, including their greater-\nthan-average income needs to support themselves and their children,\nlower earning potentials, and more limited means of support from other\nsources, including male partners. Adolescent mothers have an average of\n.6 more children than older childbearers, and they have their children\nover a shorter timespan. This fertility pattern both increases their income\nneeds over the long haul and adversely affects the likelihood that they\nwill complete high school and have decent earnings prospects (Nord et\nal. 1992; Rangarajan, Kisker, and Maynard 1992; Grogger and Bronars\n1993; Geronimous and Korenman 1993; Hoffman, Foster, and Fursten-\nberg 1993; Ahn 1994).\nAlthough the literature is consistent in pointing out these poor\noutcomes for adolescent parents and their children, it is less clear as to\nhow much of the poor outcomes observed for adolescent parents and\ntheir children is directly attributable to early childbearing as opposed\nto other background and contextual factors common among young\nmothers. The accumulating evidence suggests that half or more of the\npoor outcomes likely can be attributed to factors other than early child-\nbearing-factors that in many cases may have contributed to the teen\nbecoming a parent (Wolpin and Rosenzweig 1992; Geronimus, Korenman,\nand Hillemeier 1994; Haveman and Wolfe 1994; Hoffman, Foster, and\nFurstenberg 1993).\nSingle Parenthood Over time, adolescent mothers have become in-\ncreasingly likely to be single parents and the sole providers for themselves\nand their children. Five years after giving birth, most teen (at childbirth)\nparents are unmarried. Moreover, fewer than half of the teens who give\nbirth out of wedlock marry within the next 10 years (Jacobson and\nMaynard 1995). Not surprisingly, therefore, marital status at the time of\nthe first birth is a powerful predictor of subsequent poverty status and\nwelfare dependence, regardless of the age of the woman when she has her\nfirst child. More than two thirds of all out-of-wedlock childbearers end up\n29\non welfare, as do 84 percent of adolescent mothers who are unmarried\nwhen their first child is born. Especially notable about the adolescent\nmothers is that so many of them give birth out of wedlock and that, when\nthey go on welfare, they tend to do so for long periods of time-more\nthan five of the 10 years following the birth of their first child.\nYoung mothers, in particular, have limited support either from the\nfathers of their children or from other adults. Among all unwed teenage\nparents, only about 30 percent of single teen parents live with adult rela-\ntives, and less than one third receive any financial support, including\ninformal support, from the nonresident fathers of their children (Con-\ngressional Budget Office 1990).\nSchool Completion Adolescent mothers have exceptionally low\nprobabilities of completing their schooling and thus show weak employ-\nment prospects. Just over half of teenage mothers complete high school\nduring adolescence and early adulthood; many who complete high\nschool do so with only an alternative credential-the General Educational\nDevelopment (GED) certificate, which has either limited or no payoff in\nthe labor market (Cameron and Heckman 1993; Murnane, Willett, and\nBoudett 1994; Cao, Stromsdorfer, and Weeks 1995). Moreover, many of\nthose who complete high school have very low basic skills (Strain and\nKisker 1989; Nord et al. 1992). The combination of low education cre-\ndentials, low basic skills, and parenting responsibilities means that\nteenage parents have limited employment opportunities, primarily\nrestricted to the low-wage market (Moore et al. 1993; Hoffman et al.\n1993; Rangarajan et al. 1992).\nSocial and Economic Circumstances The logical consequence of\nthese outcomes is high poverty rates, even for those who are employed.\nAmong adolescent mothers, more than 60 percent of blacks, half of\nHispanics, and just over one quarter of whites are still in poverty by the\ntime they reach their late 20s (Moore et al. 1993). The poverty rates for\nthe more than 60 percent of adolescent mothers who live on their own\nand for those who are not employed are particularly high. Poverty rates\nexceed the national average even among adolescent mothers who are\nemployed (24 percent) and those living with a spouse (28 percent) or rel-\native (34 percent) Congressional Budget Office 1990).\nThe high poverty rates are accompanied by numerous other life-\ncomplicating factors, some caused by poverty and some contributing to\nits perpetuation. Teenage parents are disproportionately concentrated in\npoor, often racially segregated communities characterized by inferior\nhousing, high crime, poor schools, and limited health services. Many of\n30\nthe teens have been victims of physical and/or sexual abuse. For example,\nrecent studies of Washington State welfare recipients estimate that half of\nthose women who give birth before age 18 have been sexually abused and\nanother 10 percent or more have been physically abused (Roper and\nWeeks 1993; Boyer and Fine 1992). Data from the National Survey of Child-\nren indicate that 20 percent of sexually active teenagers have had involun-\ntary sex and over half of those who are sexually active before age 15 have\nexperienced involuntary sex (Alan Guttmacher Institute 1994).\nThese statistics have been corroborated by recent experiences of para-\nprofessional home visitors working with a representative sample of teen-\nage-parent welfare recipients in three cities (Johnson, Kelsey, and Maynard,\nforthcoming). In one of these sites, home visitors reported that roughly two\nthirds of these teenagers are victims of physical and/or sexual abuse and as\nmany as 20 percent are currently abused or at risk of being abused.\nRoles of the Fathers As noted previously, the male partners of teenage\nmothers tend not to be teens themselves. Even so, they generally are not a\nconsistent source of support for the teenage mothers or their children.\nOnly 20 to 30 percent marry the mothers of their children, and only about\n20 percent of the nonresident fathers are ordered by the court to pay child\nsupport. Those with orders pay only a small fraction of the award amount.\nAs a result, Kids Having Kids scholars found that less than 5 percent of the\nincome of teen-parent families derives from the fathers.\nRecent research indicates that, among those fathers whose children\nend up on welfare, only about one third have regular contact with the\nmother by the time of the birth. Another third have intermittent contact,\nand the remaining fathers have no involvement whatsoever (Maynard,\nNicholson, and Rangarajan 1993). Moreover, the fathers' rate of contact\nand support declines substantially over time.\n31\nThe Study Design\nThe Kids Having Kids project is the most comprehensive effort in at\nleast a decade to address systematically the consequences and costs of\nadolescent childbearing. The project consists of a background study of\ntrends in teenage and adolescent childbearing (McElroy and Moore)\nand seven coordinated studies, each focusing on a particular dimension\nof adolescent childbearing:\n1. A study of the consequences of adolescent childbearing for the moth-\ners themselves (Hotz, McElroy, and Sanders).\n2. An examination of the consequences for men who father children as\nadolescents and those who father children born to adolescent mothers, as\nwell as indirectly for the mothers and their children through the child\nsupport potentially available from the fathers (Brien and Willis).\n3. A study of the health implications of adolescent childbearing for the\nchildren, as well as an examination of the medical-care costs associated\nwith adolescent childbearing (Wolfe and Perozek).\n4. A study of the effects of adolescent childbearing on the physical, social,\nand cognitive development of children (Moore, Morrison, and Greene).\n5. An estimation of the association between adolescent childbearing and\nthe incidence of child abuse and neglect, as well as the related costs of\nchild welfare and protective services (Goerge and Lee).\n6. A study of the intergenerational effects of adolescent childbearing in the\nform of higher engagement in crime by male children and the associated\ncriminal-justice costs of these increased levels of criminal activity (Grogger).\n7. An examination of the extent to which adolescent childbearing in-\ncreases the likelihood that the offspring will become adolescent parents,\nachieve limited success in school, and have poor economic outcomes as\nyoung adults (Haveman, Wolfe, and Peterson).\nANALYTIC STRATEGY\nEach study is based on what is currently judged to be the best available\ndata set to address the particular set of questions (TABLE 2). For the most\npart, the databases offer large samples and multiple years of information\nfor each sample member. To the extent practical, the scholars employed\ncommon strategies for their analyses. Generally, for example, they adopted\n33\na core set of control variables for the analysis (see APPENDIX TABLE A.1)\nand examined a common set of policy questions. They used state-of-the-\nart statistical techniques to generate the most reliable estimates possible.\nHowever, the scholars sometimes took different approaches to analyzing\ntheir data, since each set of questions and each sample posed a unique set\nof challenges and opportunities.\nUnlike most previous research, which focused on comparing teen-\nage (under age 20) mothers with those who delay childbearing until age\n20 or later, this study focuses quite specifically on mothers who give birth\nbefore age 18 (referred to as adolescent mothers) and examines the likely\nconsequences of delaying their childbearing for an average of about three\nyears, or until they reach age 20 or 21 (referred to as older childbearing\ncounterparts or later childbearers).\nThis particular focus reflects the strong public concern about the high\nrate of childbearing among young teens, the vast majority of whom are\ndealing with unplanned pregnancies. The life courses of these adolescent\nmothers are especially bleak. The scholars chose to orient their research\ntoward the question of the consequences of adolescent childbearing rela-\ntive to delaying childbearing until age 20 or 21, feeling that this compari-\nson had greater potential relevance than, for example, looking at the con-\nsequences relative to delaying childbearing to the national average age at\nfirst birth, which is 23.\nEach group of scholars also explored differences in the patterns of\noutcomes for older teenage mothers (18- and 19-year-olds) and other\ncomparison groups-for example, all who delay childbearing until after\nage 20 or those who delay childbearing until ages 22 to 24. Some scholars\nalso explored the differential patterns and impacts of adolescent child-\nbearing for youths from various race/ethnic groups and for those who\ngive birth within marriage versus out of wedlock. These results are not\ndiscussed in this report. Rather, interested readers should consult the orig-\ninal research reports.\nWhere feasible, the scholars have attached price tags to the conse-\nquences of adolescent childbearing. In the process, they have been atten-\ntive to the distinctions in terms of who carries the costs: the adolescent\nparents themselves, the fathers of children born to adolescent mothers,\nthe children of adolescent mothers, and/or the rest of society.\nAt the most basic level, the scholars measured the differences in out-\ncomes between adolescent mothers (defined as young women under age\n18) and those who delayed childbearing until early adulthood (age 20 or\n21), irrespective of the explanations for these relatively poor life prospects.\nThey then controlled statistically for a \"minimal\" set of background fac-\ntors-factors such as the mothers' race/ethnicity and the demographic char-\n34\nthrough 1988)\n6 years old in 1968 and surveyed each year\nPaneliStudy of Income Dynamics (persons Oto\n(males ages 27 through 34 in 1991)\nNational Longitudinal Survey of Youth\nFamily Services; Illinois birth certificate data\nIllinois Integrated Database on Children and\n(children ages 7 to 101)\nNational Survey of Children, 1981 and 1987\n1990 Child Supplement (children ages 4 to 14)\nNational Longitudinal Survey of Youth,\nP\nunder age 33)\nSurvey (children under age 14 with a mother\n1987 National Medical Care Expenditure\nSurvey (NMIHS); linked with Vital Statistics\n1988 National Maternal and Infant Health\nage 27 in one year of the follow-up survey)\nNational Longitudinal Survey of Youth males\n(females ages 18 to 21 in 1979)\nNational Longitudinal Survey of Youth\nanders\nvarious published reports!\nVital Statistics; U.S. Bureau of the Census;\nDATA SOURCE\nacteristics of their parents-not expected to be affected by policy actions that\nwould alter fertility timing. These comparisons provide estimates of the\nconsequences of adolescent childbearing, exclusive of that portion of the\ndifference resulting from the measured differences in the backgrounds of\nthe adolescent and comparison-group mothers. In some sense, this could\nbe viewed as the maximum difference in outcomes that potentially could\nbe affected by any type of policy intervention.\nFinally, the scholars estimated their best possible model to isolate the\nimpacts of adolescent childbearing itself from other factors that may\naccount for the observed adverse outcomes. Generally, this approach en-\ntailed controlling statistically for a wide range of background variables and\nother factors that might be expected to explain the particular outcome\nunder study but that would not themselves likely be affected by the timing\nof the birth. Such models leave open the possibility that some of the meas-\nured effect of adolescent childbearing might be due to unmeasured factors\nthat are linked both to early childbearing and to the outcome of interest.\nThe only sure way to isolate the independent effect of adolescent\nchildbearing on the outcomes of interest would be to run an experiment\nthat altered only the fertility outcomes of teenagers-that is to say, the\nexperiment would not change anything in the lives of the adolescents\nexcept when they would first become pregnant if they engaged in sexual\nintercourse before age 18. The experiment would not change whether they\nwould have sex or the resolution of a pregnancy if it occurred. The experi-\nment would simply randomly select would-be adolescent childbearers and\ndelay their first pregnancy until they reached age 20 or 21. Although such\nan experiment is not feasible, two of the Kids Having Kids studies employed\nanalytic models that approach this ideal measurement strategy.\nOne study (Hotz, McElroy, and Sanders) capitalized on a natural\nexperiment that resulted in some adolescents delaying childbearing as a\nresult of a miscarriage, which is a nearly random event. In the other case,\nthe researcher (Grogger) used the natural variation in the mother's age at\nthe births of her various children to estimate the effects of early fertility,\nwhile using age at the birth of her first child to control for unobservable\ndifferences between early and later childbearers.\nAPPORTIONING DIFFERENCES IN\nOUTCOMES, BY SOURCE\nThe subsequent sections look at the consequences of early childbearing\nfrom three perspectives. The first is the observed differences in outcomes\nbetween adolescent mothers and those who delay childbearing until their\nearly 20s, regardless of the cause of the differences. These differences are\n36\nreferred to as \"gross differences\" or \"differences with no (statistical) con-\ntrols.\" The second perspective is the estimated differences in outcomes\nbetween these two groups that result from a combination of early child-\nbearing and closely linked factors that possibly would change as a result\nof successful policies for delaying childbearing. Examples of factors that\nmight be closely linked to early childbearing include motivation, self-\nesteem, and contemporaneous family and community contexts. The\nresults of estimates that control for background factors are referred to as\n\"adjusted differences.\" The third perspective is one that controls for back-\nground factors and other factors that are closely linked to adolescent\nchildbearing but cannot be measured directly. These results are referred\nto as \"differences due to early childbearing itself.\" As noted above, only\ntwo of the studies were able to isolate the effects of all potentially con-\nfounding factors to produce an estimate of the difference in outcomes\nthat would be observed for would-be adolescent moms if they somehow\ndelayed their childbearing until they were age 20 or 21 with no other\nchanges in their backgrounds or current circumstances.\nThese different comparisons are illustrated in FIGURE 2. The observed\ndifference in the outcomes of interest (for example, school completion\nrates) between adolescent mothers and the comparison group of later\nchildbearers is denoted by the line AD. In this example (and for many of\nthe outcomes considered by the scholars), roughly one third of this\nobserved difference in the outcomes (denoted by the line CD) is attribut-\nable to background factors unlikely to be affected by teen pregnancy-pre-\nvention programs or policies-factors such as parents' education, family\nincome, race/ethnicity, and region of the country. This leaves a difference,\ndenoted by the line AC, that is the result of some combination of the early\nchildbearing itself and unobserved differences between the adolescent\nmothers and their older childbearing counterparts-factors such as moti-\nvation to delay childbearing, social skills, and available support to resist\npeer pressure for early sexual involvement or unprotected sex.\nIn this example, only about half of this remaining difference in out-\ncomes (depicted by the line AB) is due to the early timing of the first\nbirth itself. The other half, denoted by the line BC, is due to the unob-\nserved, closely linked correlates of adolescent childbearing. That is, only\nthe difference in outcomes reflected by the line AB would disappear if we\navoid the first birth by some means that changes nothing else in the\nyoung woman's life.\nPut another way, consider three different strategies for preventing\nadolescent births. Under the most radical of these strategies, imagine a\nworld in which we could make would-be adolescent moms both delay\ntheir first birth until their early 20s and be like their older childbearing\n37\nD\nObserved\nOutcome\nC\nEstimated\nOutcome\nB\nEstimated\nthe\nOutcome\nA\nObserved\nOutcome\nDOLESCENT\nLATER CHILDBEARING COMPARISON GROUP\nHILDBEARERS\n(FIRST BIRTH AGES 20-21)\ncounterparts in all other respects. For example, they would have parents\nwith similar levels of education; they would attend schools of similar\nquality; they would live in neighborhoods with similar economic oppor-\ntunities and crime rates; and they would have similar cultural back-\ngrounds. Under this scenario, the benefits of instituting the policy change\nare large, equal to the full difference in observed outcomes between early\nand later childbearers, reflected by the distance AD in FIGURE 2. In the\nensuing analysis, the implications of such a hypothetical policy are esti-\nmated by comparing outcomes for adolescent moms with those for 20-\nto 21-year-old mothers directly, using no statistical controls (bar D ver-\nsus bar A in FIGURE 2).\nNext, imagine a world in which we had a policy that would delay\nthe first birth until a woman's early 20s and at the same time compen-\nsate for or eliminate some, but not necessarily all, of the differences\nbetween adolescent mothers and later childbearers that impact on their\nlife prospects. For example, we might make the adolescent mothers the\nsame as the later childbearers in all respects except for those factors—\nsuch as race/ethnicity, parental education, family income, and innate\nability-that we do not expect to be able to change in the short run. An\nexample might be a successful pregnancy-prevention program that\naddressed the full spectrum of closely linked factors-such as motiva-\ntion, economic opportunities, and school quality issues-that contrib-\nute to the poor outcomes of early childbearers and that also may have\ncontributed to the early childbearing. In this scenario, the benefits of\nthe policy are indicated by the line AC in FIGURE 2. In their analyses,\nscholars have estimated the benefits of such a policy by comparing out-\ncomes for adolescent moms with those for later childbearers, control-\nling statistically for background factors judged to be not amenable to\npolicy influence, at least in the short run.\nFinally, consider a third hypothetical policy option in which we\ncould magically delay the first birth until age 20 or 21. For example,\nimagine that we had a highly effective, widely accepted, long-acting con-\ntraceptive that all sexually active teens used with no special coaching or\nsupport and no side effects. In this scenario, nothing else would change\nfor the teen or her children except those things caused directly by the\nearly childbearing. Put another way, this comparison measures the full\nconsequence (or cost) of adolescent childbearing itself. The benefits of\nsuch a policy are depicted in FIGURE 2 by the line AB. The other portions\nof the observed differences in outcomes between adolescent mothers and\nthose who delay childbearing until age 20 or 21 (line AD) are attributed\nto factors other than early parenting, factors that will not go away simply\nby delaying the childbearing.\n39\nConsequences\nFor Adolescent\nMothers\nAdolescent childbearing is associated with significant adverse outcomes\nfor young mothers, outcomes that spill over to their children and to soci-\nety at large. Some of these are caused by adolescent childbearing inde-\npendent of other life circumstances, and some are entangled in a web of\ndisadvantages faced by those prone to adolescent childbearing. Some of\nthe consequences are lasting, and some are time-sensitive.\nThe following discussion of the consequences of adolescent child-\nbearing in terms of maternal outcomes focuses on two conceptually dif-\nferent reference periods. One is relative to the time of the first birth, gen-\nerally the first 13 years of parenthood. This reference period is useful in\nthat it relates outcomes to their effects on the environment in which the\nmothers are raising their young children. The other reference period is the\n12 years following the mother's normal age of high school completion-\nwhen the mothers are ages 19 to 30. This reference period is more useful\nin describing the consequences of adolescent childbearing on the adult\noutcomes of women, particularly outcomes during the young adult years.\nBy all measures, adolescent mothers as a group have significantly\nlower levels of educational attainment, higher probabilities of raising\ntheir children out of wedlock, higher rates of dependence on public assis-\ntance, and higher expected fertility rates (TABLES 3 and 4 below). The\nimpacts of adolescent childbearing on young mothers' own earnings and\nthe earnings of their spouses, however, are equivocal. In the cases of the\nearnings of adolescent mothers and their spouses, the adverse conse-\nquences occur primarily during the first few years after the birth of the\nfirst child (TABLE 5 below). By the time the oldest children of adolescent\nmothers reaches school age, the average earnings of both the mothers\nthemselves and of their spouses surpass the levels we would predict them\nto be if they had delayed childbearing until age 20 or 21.\nEDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT\nAdolescent mothers are significantly less likely than the comparison\ngroup of later childbearers to complete high school. They also tend to\n41\nsubstitute the General Educational Development (GED) preparation pro-\ngrams for going back and completing high school-a decision that may\nnot serve them well in their future efforts in the labor market.\nWhereas roughly 32 percent of adolescent mothers complete high\nschool by the time they reach their late 20s, more than three-fourths of\ntheir older childbearing counterparts do so (lower panel of TABLE 3 and\nFIGURE 3). This difference is seen by comparing the first bar in FIGURE 3\n(outcomes for adolescent childbearers) with the fourth bar (outcomes for\nlater childbearers, with no statistical controls). Moreover, even with con-\ntrols for background and other factors closely linked to adolescent child-\nbearing and school completion, the research suggests that adolescent par-\nenting itself reduces the probability of completing high school by 36 per-\ncent-from 50 to 32 percent. This difference is seen by comparing the\nfirst bar in FIGURE 3 with the second bar (miscarriage).\nOnly a small portion (7 percent) of the observed gap in high school\ncompletion rates between the adolescent mothers and the comparison\ngroup is caused by factors not expected to change as a result of delaying\nchildbearing: education of the mother's parents, whether she grew up in\na one- or two-parent household, her family's income and welfare status,\nand her performance on the Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT). This\nis seen by comparing the first bar in FIGURE 3 with the third bar versus\nthe third and fourth bars. In fact, adolescent childbearing itself explains\nmore than 40 percent of the difference in school completion rates, a fact\nthat likely reflects the extreme challenges associated with parenting and\nattending a comprehensive high school full-time.\nMany adolescent mothers substitute the General Educational De-\nvelopment certificate for a high school diploma, leading to a much small-\ner (27 percentage-point) gap in the proportion of adolescent mothers\nversus later childbearers who have either a high school diploma or a GED\nby age 30 (TABLE 3). About 40 percent of all adolescent mothers who drop\nout of high school attain a GED certificate by age 30. In contrast, the re-\nsearch indicates that only 16 percent of the adolescent girls who would\nstill drop out of high school if they delayed childbearing a few years would\nattain a GED. The net result is that delaying childbearing by itself will not\nchange the probability that the would-be adolescent mother will either\ncomplete high school or attain their GED.\nStill, a large gap exists in the proportions receiving a high school\ndiploma or GED by age 30-only 59 percent of the adolescent mothers\nversus 86 percent of the later childbearers. Roughly half of this difference\nis due to adolescent childbearing itself, as evidenced by the comparison\nof completion rates for adolescent mothers and for those who have an\nearly pregnancy but miscarry.\n42\npendix Table A. I of this report\nand S. Sanders\n1.5%\n58.9%\n31.9%\n1.2%\n57.7%*\n30.5%\nHILDBEARERS\nADOLESCENT\ncial Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, ed R Maynard Washington D.C. Urbar\nElroy, (forthcoming) Mothers: Effects of early childbearing on tl\n0.0%\n57.6%\n49.8%\n0.0%,\n53.7%\n46.5%\na\na\nFACTORS\nCOMPOUNDING\n9.2%\n82.2%\n72.7%\n9.1%\n82.2%\n70.3%\nFACTORS\nBACKGROUND\n13.\n85.\n76.\n13.\n85.\n76.\nNO CON\n73%\nPERCENT COMPLETING HIGH SCHOOL/G\n60%\n59%\n57%\n50%\n40%\n32%\n20%\nControls for\nMiscarriage\nBackground\nNo.Controls\n0%\nADOLESCENT\nLATER CHILDBEARERS\nCHILDREADEDS\nFIRST RIDTH ACES 20 21\nThe implication of these findings is that simply averting adolescent\nchildbearing and changing nothing else in a young woman's life will have\na compound effect on educational attainment: (1) encouraging many more\nadolescents to complete regular high school rather than dropping out of\nschool altogether and (2) encouraging many others to switch from getting a\nGED to attaining a regular high school diploma. This latter result could be\nquite important in promoting increased earnings potential, because the\nGED has been found to have limited value in improving employment out-\ncomes (Murnane et al. 1994; Cameron and Heckman 1993; Cao et al. 1995;\nCohen et al. 1995; Maynard, Kelsey, and McGrath 1996). At best, the GED\nmight bring the employment potential of high school dropouts up to the\nlevel attained through completing high school. However, experimental\ninterventions promoting GED attainment by high school dropouts have\nconsistently shown no corresponding employment gains.\nLIVING ARRANGEMENTS AND FERTILITY\nSingle-Parent Households Research on marriage patterns among\nadolescent mothers and their older childbearing counterparts under-\nscores the role of early parenting in the growth of single-parent house-\nholds. Adolescent moms spend one third of their first 13 years of chil-\ndrearing as single mothers (TABLE 4). In contrast, the later childbearers\nspend only 7 percent of these years as single parents.\nAverting early childbearing alone is estimated to close about half of\nthe gap, reducing the time as a single parent from 33 to 21 percent. If soci-\nety could simultaneously delay the first birth until age 20 or 21 and address\nother unobserved factors closely related to adolescent childbearing, rates of\nsingle parenthood would be expected to approach the much lower rate for\nthose youth who, on their own, delay childbearing until their early 20s.\nPublic and Subsidized Housing Adolescent childbearing is associ-\nated with higher rates of residence in public housing (TABLE 4). However,\nnearly all of the 16 percentage-point gross difference in public-housing\nresidence is due to factors other than early childbearing itself. Con-\ntrolling for background and other unmeasured differences between ado-\nlescent mothers and their older childbearing counterparts, the researchers\ncompute only a 1 percentage-point difference in the likelihood of living\nin public housing over the first 13 years of parenthood and a 2.4 percent-\nage-point difference during young adulthood.\nFertility Adolescent mothers have an average of 2.6 children, and their\nolder childbearing counterparts have an average of 2 children by the time\n45\nthey are 30 years old (TABLE 4). Moreover, these differences in observed\nfertility rates between adolescent mothers and their later childbearing\ncounterparts seem entirely a result of the early childbearing rather than\nof confounding factors. As noted below, these larger family sizes have sig-\nnificant implications for the overall costs of adolescent childbearing in\nthat they increase by 30 percent the number of children exposed to the\nrisks associated with adolescent childbearing and thus needing additional\nsocial and economic support.\nEMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS\nEmployment Adolescent mothers spend significant amounts of their\nyoung adult lives in the labor force. During the first 13 years of parent-\nhood, adolescent mothers work and earn substantially less than do moth-\ners who have their first child at age 20 or 21 (TABLE 5). Moreover, they\nearn lower wages when they do work.\nAdolescent mothers work an average of 691 hours a year, or 13 hours\na week, during that period; their older childbearing counterparts work an\naverage of more than 1,000 hours a year, or 19 hours a week (TABLE 5).\nHowever, nearly 80 percent of this difference in work effort is attributable\nto differences in the backgrounds and other circumstances closely linked to\nearly childbearing. Delaying childbearing alone is estimated to increase\nwork effort over this period by only 9 percent, or 71 hours a year. Further-\nmore, virtually all of the differential in wage rates is due to factors other\nthan early childbearing.\nLooked at over the early adult years (ages 19 to 30), adolescent\nchildbearing alone is in fact estimated to increase work effort by about\none-third-from an average of 620 to 831 hours a year. This higher\nwork effort emerges at about age 23, when the adolescent mothers' chil-\ndren enter school and the later childbearers still have preschool-age chil-\ndren to care for.\nEarnings A similar pattern of results is observed for earnings. Average\nannual discounted earnings of adolescent mothers during their first 13\nyears of parenthood, are just over half as much as earnings of their older\nchildbearing counterparts-an average of $5,652 as compared with $10,384\nfor the older mothers (TABLE 5; FIGURE 4A). However, 90 percent of this\ndifference is due to factors other than early childbearing itself. Fully con-\ntrolling for background and other closely linked factors, the researchers\nestimated that delaying childbearing until age 20 or 21 would by itself\nresult in an average annual earnings gain of just over $500-increasing\naverage earnings from $5,652 to $6,166. This small difference reflects the\n46\nTable 4\nand Fertility of Adolescent and Later Childbearers\nLATER CHILDBEARERS (AGE 20 OR 21)\nWITH'STATISTICAL CONTROLS FOR:\nBACKGROUND AND\nADOLESCENT\nCOMPOUNDING\nBACKGROUND\nCHILDBEARERS\nFACTORS\nFACTORS\nNO.CONTROLS\nOutcomes Duringthel First 13 cars ofParenthood\n32.7%\n20.8%\n10.5%\n7.3%\n31.9%\n31.0%\n21.3%\n16.7%\n2.5\n2.1\n2.1\nOutcomes During Young Adult hood(Ages19 to to 30)\nYours\n32.1%\n20:0%\n12.1%\n8.6%\n32.4%\n30.0%\n21:2%\n+16.7%\n217\npain\n2.6\n2.0\n2.2\n2.1\nHotz S. McElroy, and Sanders (forthcoming); Mothers: Effects, of early, childbearing on the lives of\nThe:Costs and Social Consequences of Teen, Pregnancy, ed 'R' Maynard (Washington; D.C.: Urban Institute\narelisted in Appendix Table A. 1 of this report:\nTable 5\nEmployment, Earnings and Other Income for\nAdolescent and Later Childbearers\nLATER CHILDBEARERS (AGE 20 OR 21)\nWITH STATISTICAL CONTROLS FOR:\nBACKGROUND AND\nADOLESCENT\nCOMPOUNDING\nBACKGROUND\nOUTCOME MEASURE\nCHILDBEARERS\nFACTORS\nFACTORS\nNO CONTROLS\nAverage Annual Outcomes During theFirst 3 Years of Parenthood\nHours employed\n691\n762\n930\n1,005\nEarnings\n$5,652\n$6,166\n$9,159\n$10,384\nHourly wage rate\n$8.18\n$8.09\n$9.84\n$10.33\nEarnings of spouse (zero when\n$8,787\n$11,321\n$20,099\n$22,886\nnot living with mother)\nChild support payments\n$738\n$714\n$579\n$382\nChild support payments (recipients)\n$961\n$931\n$993\n$961\nAFDC benefits\n$1,295\n$746\n$602\n$500\nFood stamps\n$7.03\n$563\n$357\n$272\nAverage/Annual alues of Outcomes/During) oung Adulthood (Ages19to30).\nHours employed\n831\n620\n875\n952\nEarnings\n$6,323\n$4,801\n$6,066\n$7,138\nHourly wage rate\n$7.61\n$7.74\n$6.93\n$7.50\nEarnings of spouse (zero when\n$9,551\n$8,516\n$14,449\n$13,962\nnot living with mother)\nChild support payments\n$779\n$754\n$610\n$403\nChild support payments (recipients)\n$961\n$931\n$993\n$961\nAFDC benefits\n$889\n$645\n$465\n$395\nFood stamps\n$552\n$472\n$272\n$212\nSource: Except as noted, these data are adapted from J. Hotz, S. McElroy, and S. Sanders (forthcoming), \"Mothers.\" Effects of early childbearing\non the lives of the mothers,\" in Kids Having Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, ed. R. Maynard (Washington, D.C.: Urban\nInstitute Press) Control variables included in the models are listed in Appendix Table A.1 of this report. All' dollar figures are expressed in March\n1996 dollars and have been discounted at 5 percent annually form the start of the reference period.\na\nEstimates are derived from M. Brien and R. Willis (forthcoming), Fathers: Gosts and consequences of early childbearing for the fathers, the\nyoung mothers, and their children,\" in Kids Having Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, ed. R. Maynard (Washington,\nD.C.: Urban Institute Press). The estimates assume that support awards average 17 percent of the father's income for the first child, that total\nawards 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\n81 percent of, \"births to early childbearers and 42 percent of those to older childbearers are out of wedlock. The estimates in the column control-\nling only for background factors assume an of wedlock birthrate midway between these two rates (61.5 percent).\nIl differences between her and/her counterparts who delay childbearing until to their early 20s, including compensating for her family demographics\nlate for or otherwise equalize circumstances other than basic family circumstances; 2.1 children if she delays childbearing and we fully compensate for\nnothers 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\nhe estimates, which include only publicly supported medical assistance, assume that the average subsidies per child pertain to all children born to\nhildren, in Kids Having Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, ed. R Maynard (Washington, D.C. Urban Institute Press)\nEstimates are derived from B. Wolfeland M Perozek (forthcoming),, Health: Early childbearing' costs to society for health and medical care of the\nbearers\nand it would be midway between these two rates (61.5 percent) if we controlled for basic demogr aphic differences between early and later child\n1 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\nwards 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\nD.C.: Urban Institute Press). The / estimates assume that support awards average 17 percent of the father income for the first child, that total\nyoung mothers anditheir children, in Kids Having/Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of I een Pregnancy, ed R. Maynard (Washington,-\nEstimates are derived from M.Brien and Willis (forthcoming) Fathers: Costs and consequences of early childbearing for theifathers the\nJrban Institute Press) and reported in Table 3., Control variables included in the models are listed in Appendix Table A.\non the lives of the mothers, in Kids Having Kids The Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, edi R: Maynard (Washington, D.C\nSource: Except as noted these data are adapted from Hotz, S. McElroy, and Sanders (forthcoming), Mothers *Effects of early childbearing\n$23344\n$16,277\n286.68\nTOTAL (including medical)\n11224\n880'1$\n11.79\nMedical assistance\n$22,110\n681.589\n$18,093\nSubtotal\n$2122\n$472\n$552\nFood stamps\n$395\n5645\n688$\nAFDC\n$403\n$754\n$779\nChild support\n$13,962\n915.8$\n19551\nEarnings of spouse\n$7.13\n$4,801\n$6,323\nOwn-earnings\nAverage Annual outcomes Adulthood to30)\n$35225\n$20.322\n$18.73\nTOTAL (including medical)\n$825\nZISIS\nMedical assistance\nSEA425\n$19,551\n$17,216\nSubtotal\n$272\n$563\n$703\nFood stamps\n$500\n$746\n$1,295\nAFDC\n$382\nS754\n622$\nChild support\n$222886\n$11,321\n$8,787\nEarnings of spouse\n$10,384\n991'9$\n$5,652\nOwn earnings\nAverage/Annual Outcomes During the First 13 ears of Parenthood\nCONTROLS ON\nWITH CONTROLS\nADOLESCENT CHILDBEARERS\nSOURCE OF SUPPORT\nLATER CHILDBEARERS (AGE 20OR 21)\n(Discounted March 1996 Dollars)\nSources of Economic Support for Adolescent and Later Childbearers\n9 Tabel\nFigure 4\nAverage Annual Earnings During the First 13 Years of Parenthood\na: Over First 13 Years of Parenthood\n$12\n$10,384\n$10\n1996 1996 DOLLARS (000s Discounted)\n$9,159\n$8\n$6\n$6,166\n$5,652\n$4\n$2\nControls for\nMiscarriage\nBackground\nNo Controls\n$0\nADOLESCENT\nLATER CHILDBEARERS,\nCHILDBEARERS\nFIRST BIRTH AGES 20-21\nb: By Years Since Birth of First Child\n$20\nLater Childbearers,\nNo Controls\n$15\n1996 DOLLARS (000s, Discounted)\nAdolescent\nChildbearers\n$10\nLater Childbearers,\nFull Controls\n$5\nA\n$0\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\nYEARS SINCE BIRTH OF FIRST CHILD\nSource: Adapted from Hotz, McElroy, and Sanders (forthcoming)\n(4.2%) Child Support\nb: Later Childbearers (A\n(18.8%) Public Assistance\n(30.3%) Own Earnings\ncombined effect of lower earnings during the first seven years of parent-\nhood and higher earnings thereafter (FIGURE 4B).\nAs was the case with the employment results, looking at the conse-\nquences of adolescent childbearing on earnings of the mother during\nearly adulthood reveals that the adolescent mothers actually fare some-\nwhat better than would be expected if they delayed childbearing a few\nyears. After controlling for background and other factors, earnings of ado-\nlescent mothers between ages 19 and 30 average $6,323 annually, com-\npared with only $4,801 for their later childbearing counterparts (TABLE\n5). The principal explanation relates to the fact that the adolescent moth-\ners face a much steeper rise in their employment and earnings over their\nyoung adult years than would be the case if they delayed childbearing for\na few years-a result probably linked to their higher rate of single parent-\nhood and to their children being older.\nECONOMIC SUPPORT\nThe First 12 Years of Parenthood During her first 12 years of par-\nenthood, the average adolescent mother receives income and food stamps\nvalued at just over $17,000 annually, discounted to the birth of her first\nchild (TABLE 6). In addition, she receives an average of $1,517 annually in\npublicly supported medical-care services for her children, bringing her\naverage annual disposable income to $18,733.\nThirty percent of this income is from the mother's own earnings\n(see above and TABLE 6); 47 percent derives from earnings of a resident\nspouse; the remainder comes from child support (4 percent) and various\nforms of public assistance (19 percent)-7 percent from AFDC, 4 percent\nfrom food stamps, and 8 percent in medical care for the children (FIGURE 5).\nThe total economic support available to the later childbearers is\nnearly double that available to adolescent mothers-$35,271 annually\nversus the $18,733 available to adolescent mothers (TABLE 6) because of\nthe higher earnings of the later childbearers ($10,384 versus $5,652) and\nof their spouses ($22,886 versus $8,787). All other forms of support are\nroughly half to one third the levels received by adolescent mothers.\nHowever, more than 90 percent of the overall difference in economic\nresources available to adolescent mothers results from factors other than\nadolescent childbearing per se. With controls for background and other fac-\ntors closely linked to early childbearing, adolescent childbearers are estimat-\ned to suffer an economic loss averaging only about $1,589 a year during the\nfirst 13 years of parenthood. The modest size of this difference reflects the\nfact that public assistance (AFDC, food stamps, and medical assistance) off-\nsets roughly half the losses from lower earnings of the mothers and their\n52\n$738\n$272\n$465\nControls\nBack Backgrou retou\n$1,117\n$472\n$645\nMiscarriage\nlower income from spouses' earnings-a loss due partly to lower marriage\nrates among adolescent parents and partly to lower earnings of men who\nfather children by adolescent mothers (see further discussion below).\nDelaying childbearing from adolescence to age 20 or 21 alone would\nlead to average reductions in AFDC payments from $889 to $645 annually,\nand food-stamp benefits would fall from $552 to $472 annually (FIGURE\n6). In addition, medical assistance for children would fall from $1,794 to\n$1,088 (see below) as a result of the decrease both in the number of chil-\ndren and in improvements in the children's health problems associated\nwith being born to an older mother (Wolfe and Perozek forthcoming).\nEconomic Support During Early Adulthood The income levels and\nsources for adolescent mothers during their young adult years (ages 19 to\n30) parallel those during the 12 years after giving birth (TABLE 6). The\nlevels and sources of income are somewhat different, however, for their\nlater childbearing counterparts over this period. As a result, over the\nlonger haul adolescent mothers actually fare somewhat better economi-\ncally than they would if they delayed childbearing until their early 20s.\nThose who delay childbearing until their early 20s have incomes between\nages 19 and 30 that average 18 percent higher-$23,404 annually (TABLE 6).\nHowever, simply delaying childbearing and not addressing other\ndifferences between the adolescent and 20- to 21-year-old mothers would\nresult in earnings losses for the young mothers themselves (see middle\ncolumn of TABLE 6). They likely would be slightly worse off because of\ntheir own lower earnings ($4,801 versus $6,323 on average per year).\nMoreover, the lower earnings would be compounded by lower wel-\nfare benefits and medical assistance. In total, the combined economic\nresources would average $3,610 less annually during young adulthood as\na result of the decision to delay childbearing a few years.\n54\nConsequences\nFor the Fathers\nFathers of children born to adolescent mothers are sometimes young\nthemselves. Typically, however, they are several years older than the\nmothers of their children. The scholars examined both the implications\nof adolescent fatherhood (defined as fathering a child before age 18) and\nfathering a child born to an adolescent mother who is under age 18 when\nshe has her first child.\nCONSEQUENCES FOR ADOLESCENT FATHERS\nAdolescent males face significant adverse consequences of becoming\nfathers. After controls for basic demographic and background factors,\nhowever, those who father children at ages 20 or 21 have future outcomes\nthat are nearly identical to the outcomes for those fathering their first\nchildren at age 25. What does matter for the older fathers is whether the\nmothers of their children are adolescent mothers (a difference discussed\nlater in this section).\nYears of Schooling Adolescent fathers complete only 11.3 years of\nschool, on average, by the time they reach age 27 (FIGURE 7). In con-\ntrast, those who delay fatherhood until age 21 complete an average of\nnearly 13 years of education. Half of this difference in educational attain-\nment is directly due to background factors, including parents' educa-\ntion levels, family income, and a combination of innate ability and cog-\nnitive achievement as measured by the Armed Forces Qualifying Test.\nThus, on average, the educational deficit caused by adolescent father-\nhood or closely linked factors is only about seven tenths of a year.\nNonetheless, this is a critical difference in that it moves the average\nschool-completion level from under to over 12th grade-and high\nschool graduation.\nThe Kids Having Kids scholars studied the relationship between\neducational outcomes and the age of men when they first father children.\nTheir research indicates that, after background factors are controlled for,\nthere is no difference between the outcomes for men who first father\nchildren at age 21 (the average age of the male partners of adolescent\nmothers) and men who delay fatherhood for four years until age 25. Men\nfathering children for the first time at age 21 completed an average of\n55\n12.5 years of school, as contrasted with an average of 13.8 years for those\nwho delayed fatherhood until age 25. However, differences in family\nbackground and innate ability fully explain this average attainment gap\nfor those somewhat older fathers.\nEarnings and Potential to Pay Child Support Adolescent fathers\nearn an average of just under $5,000-or 18 percent-less per year\nthan those who delay fatherhood until age 21 (FIGURE 8). About half of\nthis difference is due to background factors. The remaining earnings\ndifference potentially represents, directly or indirectly, a lost opportu-\nnity to the adolescent parent. Complementary research indicates a very\nstrong relationship nationally between education and earnings, com-\nmonly characterized as the wage premium associated with high school\nand college completion (Maynard and McGrath 1995). Thus, one would\nexpect that a wage loss of this magnitude might accompany the de-\npressed educational outcomes that result from the adolescent parent-\ning decision.\nConsistent with the findings on educational consequences associ-\nated with delaying fatherhood beyond age 21, no future positive effects\non earnings potential were observed for longer delays. In large part,\nthe lack of stronger impacts probably results from the fact that, by age\n21, young men have made and executed major educational decisions.\nThe adverse economic consequences for adolescent fathers add to\nthe adverse economic consequences for adolescent childbearing moth-\ners and their children arising from their lower marriage rates (see above).\nSome consequences are real in the sense of lowering the earnings con-\ntributions by males in two-parent families or the actual child-support\npayments to the custodial mothers. Others reflect increases in the\npotential levels of support the fathers could provide, either through for-\nmal child support or otherwise. The potential level of support is partic-\nularly important in the current policy environment of widespread em-\nphasis on parental responsibility and time-limited welfare.\nOUTCOMES FOR FATHERS OF CHILDREN\nBORN TO ADOLESCENT MOTHERS\nOver the first 18 years after the birth of their first children, older fathers of\nchildren born to adolescent mothers earn an estimated $16,712 (discount-\ned and expressed in 1996 dollars), compared with an average of $13,796 for\nthose with similar education levels who delay fathering children until their\npartners are age 20 or 21. Thus, over the child's first 18 years, the fathers of\nchildren born to mothers who are 20 or 21 when they have their first child\n56\n12.0\n8\n9\n8\n$20,771\n0\n7\nChild Support\nFIRST BABY AT AGES 20-21\nUNDER AGE 18\nMOTHER OF CHILD WHO HAD\nMOTHER OF CHILD\nBackground\nControls for\nBackground\nControls for\n$18.11\n$8,037\n$738\n$2,219\n$10,712\n$714\n$12226\n$88572\n$382\n913376\n(Child S Birth Through Age 19)\nAdolescent and Later Childbearers\nAverage Annual Earnings of Fathers of Children Born to\nearn an average of $3,000 more per year (in real terms) that potentially\ncould be shared (FIGURE 9).\nHalf of this earnings difference results from background factors not\nlikely to be affected if the mother delayed childbearing. Moreover, the\nhigher earnings are a benefit to the children and their mothers only if the\nparents live together and/or the fathers pay child support. Indeed, only\n19 percent of the adolescent mothers marry the father of their children\nbefore or soon after the children's births. We know from other studies\nthat relatively few noncustodial fathers of children born to teenage par-\nents pay child support regularly (see, for example, Maynard et al. 1993).\nUnder a support-award formula similar to that currently in place in\nWisconsin, the higher earnings of noncustodial fathers, if they delayed\nfatherhood until the mothers of their children were older, would permit\nan increase of about $350 in annual child support payments. In reality,\nhowever, the delay in childbearing would also tend to increase the mar-\nriage rate, decreasing the need for child support and increasing the earn-\nings of spouses (see TABLE 3 above).\nThe relatively small net cost of adolescent motherhood to the fathers\nstems in large part from the fact that few fathers of children born to ado-\nlescent mothers actually disrupt their own lives to assume financial\nresponsibility for their children. Since only 19 percent of the births to\nyoung teen mothers are within marriage, finding these modest life course\nresults for the fathers of children born to adolescent mothers-after con-\ntrolling for differences in background factors-is not surprising. Even so,\nevidence exists of a modest marriage effect on earnings that accrues dis-\nproportionately to those who delay fatherhood until the time the moth-\ners of their children reach their early 20s. About 20 percent of the higher\nearnings associated with postponing fatherhood until the mother is 20 or\n21 years old is attributable to the higher marriage rate among later child-\nbearers and the fathers of their children (FIGURE 9).\n60\nConsequences\nFor Children\nOf Adolescent\nMothers\nChildren born to adolescent mothers or to mothers who were adoles-\ncents when they had their first children are at a substantial disadvantage\nrelative to their counterparts born to older women. Higher proportions\nof these children are born prematurely and they are more likely to be\nlow birthweight-a factor that predisposes them to adverse health con-\nditions and increased risk of mental retardation. These children contin-\nue to experience poorer health throughout their youth. However, they\nalso receive less medical care than do children born to later childbearers.\nThen, too, children of adolescent mothers experience worse outcomes in\na variety of other dimensions, such as mental health, teacher ratings of\nstudents, and school progress and performance.\nHEALTH STATUS AND\nMEDICAL CARE UTILIZATION\nThe majority of children in this country are rated by their mothers as\nbeing in excellent health. However, only 38 percent of the children born\nto adolescent mothers are so described, compared to 60 percent of those\nborn to mothers in the comparison group (TABLE 7). At the same time,\nthese children of adolescent mothers get only half the medical care\nreceived by children of 20- to 21-year-old mothers.\nHealth Status For some of the children born to adolescent moth-\ners, poorer health likely begins with their premature births and low\nbirthweight. Nearly 8 percent of children born to adolescent mothers\nare low birthweight (below 5.5 pounds), as compared with only 5.6\npercent of children born to older mothers (TABLE 8). A sizable differ-\nence in the proportion of low-birthweight babies persists even after\ndemographic differences between the adolescent and comparison-\ngroup mothers are factored out. However, no evidence exists that\nchildren born to adolescent mothers are significantly more likely to\n61\nTable 7\nHealth Status of and Healthcare Services to Children\nof Adolescent and Later Childbearers\nAGE OF MOTHER AT FIRST BIRTH\nOUTCOME MEASURE\nUNDER AGE 18\nAGE 20 OR OLDER\nDIFFERENCE\nHeath Status of Children (Percents)\nExcellent}health\n38%\n60%\n(22%)\nFair orpoor health\n9\n5\n4\nAcute condition\n52\n63\n(11)\nChronic condition at age 14\n5\n-11\n(6)\nAnnual MedicalProvider Visits, by Age of Child\nAge 0-1\n5.24\n8.06\n(2.82)\nAge.2-3\n3.64\n5.74\n(2.10)\nAge 4-5\n2.47\n3.93\n(1.46)\nAge 6-7\n1.63\n4.00\n(2.37)\nAge 8-10\n1.52\n2.51\n(0.99)\nAge P1-14\n1.68\n2:71\n(1.03)\nAnnualM edical Provider Visits, by Type of/Service\nMedical provider office\n1:84\n4.15\n(2.31)\nHospital outpatient\n0.18\n0:31\n(0.13)\nEmergency room\n-0.27\n0.31\n(0.04)\nHospital inpatient\n0.04\n0.05\n(0.01)\nTOTAL VISITS TO ABOVE TYPES\n2.33\n4.82\n(2.49)\nSampleSizes\nHealth Status (N = 2,173)\n577\n1,596\nMedical care use (N = 2,619)\n700\n1,919\nSources: Adapted from B. Wolfe and M. Perozek (forthcoming), \"Health: Early childbearing's costs to society, for health and medical care of the\nchildren, in Kids Having Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, ed. R. Maynard (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press).\nAll data'are weighted means.\nTable 8\nChild Outcomes, by Mother's Age at Focal Child's Birth\nLATER CHILDBEARERS (AGE 20OR 21)\nADOLESCENT\nOUTCOME MEASURE\n-\nCHILDBEARERS\nWITH CONTROLS\nNO CONTROLS\nChildHealth Indicators\nLow Birthweight (less than 5. 5.pounds):\n7.8%\n5:2%\n5.6%\nDepression score percentileiranking (ages 18-22)\n51.6%\n61.2%\n57.7%\nPer\nEver received psychological help ages 18-22)\n35.7%\n29.8%\n32.5%\nHome Environment\nb\nHOME score percentile ranking (ages 4-14)\n39.7%\n50.8%\n48.8%\nSchooll erformance) Indicators\nTeacher rates as'one of best students (ages 12-16)\n7:8%\n25.3%\n15.2%\nRepeated grade (ages 10-14)\n32.7%\n21.8%\n23.4%\nPIA mathematics percentile score (ages 4-14)\n39.4%\n48.8%\n48.6%\nPIA reading-recognition percentile score (ages\n47.6%\n60.6%\n58.3%\nPIAT reading comprehension percentile score (ages 4-14)\n40.2%\n48.4%\n55.9%\nSocial Adjustment\nBehavior problems index percentile ranking (ages 4-14)\n56.3%\n63.5%\n54.6%\nBehavior problems index percentile ranking (ages 12-16)\n62.2%\n54.1%\n54.8%\nEver ran away. from home. (ages 18-22)\n5:4%\n1.7%\n**2.3%\nSource: Adapted from K. Moore, D. Morrison, and A. Greene (forthcoming), Children: Effects of early childbearing on theilives of the chil-\ndren in Kids Having Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, ed: R. Maynard (Washington, D.C., Urban Institute Press)\nControl variables included in the models are listed in Appendix Table,A. 1 of this report. Measures of, depression, teacher rating; and runaway\noutcomes are based on analyses of the National Survey of Youth; other outcomes are based on analyses of the National Longitudinal Survey. of\nYouth-Child Supplement\nNote: Numbers in boldare significantly different from the corresponding figures for adolescent childbearers.\nCenter for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)\nHOME Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment, Short Form\nPIAT Peabody Individual Achievement Tests:\nhave specific physical limitations than are children born to 20- or 21-\nyear-old mothers. In fact, by age 14, children born to adolescent\nchildbearers report fewer chronic health conditions than do those\nborn to older mothers (TABLE 7).\nThere is modest evidence that, on average, children born to young\nparents suffer significantly more depressive symptoms (TABLE 8). Yet,\nwhile they score on average 10 percentage points lower on a standard\nassessment, only about 10 percent of all young adults, regardless of the\nage at which their mothers first gave birth, report symptoms of clinical\ndepression on standard social surveys (not shown).\nMedical Care Utilization In all types of healthcare, adolescent\nmothers' children (ages 0 to 14) receive substantially less medical care,\nlogging an average of only 3.8 visits a year compared with 5.2 visits a year\nfor their counterparts who were born to older mothers (FIGURE 10).\nOne half of the difference in healthcare utilization is caused by\nmeasured background factors that differ between children of adolescent\nmothers and children of later childbearers (FIGURE 10). The majority of\nthe difference in the number of visits is attributable to background fac-\ntors and the differences in health status of children born to adolescent\nmothers as compared with those born to later childbearers. Only about\none third of the total 1.4 difference in annual visits is attributable directly\nto early childbearing and closely linked factors not controlled for in the\nanalysis. (A similar pattern of results pertains both to children born to\nadolescent mothers and to children born to older mothers who previous-\nly gave birth as young teens.)\nMedical Care Costs Total medical-care expenditures for children of\nadolescent mothers are 22 percent lower than for children of later child-\nbearers (an annual average of $1,413 versus $1,803 per child) (FIGURE\n11A). Adjusting for the differential in health status between children\nborn to adolescent mothers and their later childbearing counterparts and\ndespite less frequent doctor visits, expenditures average only about 9\npercent less per year for children of young mothers than if the mothers\nhad delayed their childbearing ($1,413 versus $1,556).\nDifferences between adolescent and older mothers in expenditure\npatterns are larger when adjusted for the different numbers of children\nborn to adolescent mothers and later childbearers. Adolescent mothers\nincur total medical-care costs that average $3,674 per year for their\nchildren (an average of 2.6 children by the time the mother is 30 years\nold). Delaying childbearing until age 20 or 21 will decrease both health-\ncare needs and the number of children. These decreases, together with\n64\n6\n5.2\n5\n4.5\n43\n4\n3.8\n3\nControlifor\nBackground\nand Health\nControls for\nStatus\nBackground\nNo Controls\n2\nADOLESCENT\nLATER CHILDBEARERS\nCHILDBEARERS\nFIRST BIRTH AGES 20-21\nFIRST BIRTH AGES 20-21\nCHILDBEARERS\nLATER CHILDBEARERS,\nADOLESCENT\n0$\nNo Controls\nFactors\nStatus\nBackground\nand Health\nControls for\nBackground\n$500\nControls for\n$1,088\n$1,000\n$1,294\n$1,500\n$1.76\n$2,000\n1996 DOLLARS\n$25500\nTHIS\n$3,236\n000'00\n996'E$\n$3,674\n$3,500\n$4,000\nb: Per Family for Children Ages 0-15\nFIRST BIRTH AGES*20-21\nCHILDBEARERS\nLATER CHILDBEARERS\nADOLESCENT\n0$\nON\nFactors\nStatus\nBackground\nand Health\nControls for\nBackground\nControls for\n$500\n$544\n$588\n$587\n069$\n$1,000\n1996 DOLLARS\nEITS\n$1,556\n$1,500\n819'1$\n$1,803\n$2,000\na: Per Child Ages 0-15\nthe family income effects, will lower overall medical-care costs per\nfamily to $3,112 (FIGURE 11B).\nMore important from a policy perspective, the payer of the med-\nical-care services differs between adolescent and older childbearers (FIG-\nURE 11, A and B). An average of 49 percent ($690 per year per child) of the\nmedical-care services for children born to adolescent mothers is paid by\nthe public through Medicaid or CHAMPUS (the U.S. military's health\nprogram). By contrast, the public pays only 36 percent ($588 per year per\nchild) for those born to later childbearers. Thus, public expenditures on\nhealthcare average $102 more per year for each child born to adolescent\nmothers than would be expected if those mothers were to delay child-\nbearing until age 20 or 21 and society were to compensate for all other\ndifferences between them and the comparison group.\nA more realistic set of assumptions, however, is that delaying child-\nbearing will be accompanied by some improvement in health status and\na change in consumption patterns, albeit not a change that would equal-\nize either the expenditures or health status. When adjustments are made\nto control for differences in background factors between adolescent and\n20- to 21-year-old mothers or the health-status differences of their chil-\ndren, the potential annual public cost savings are estimated to be an aver-\nage of $146 per child ($690 minus $544).\nThe compound effect of these per-child expenditure patterns\nunder various age-at-childbearing scenarios and of the impact of\ndelaying childbearing on fertility rates leads to large differences both\nin total family healthcare expenditures on children and in the public\nsubsidies for that health care. On average, with controls for changes in\nboth health status and fertility, the adolescent mothers will consume\nan estimated $562 more per year in healthcare for their children than\nif they delayed childbearing until age 20 or 21. Moreover, virtually all\nof this difference in expenditures is paid for by the taxpayers in the\nform of subsidized healthcare (FIGURE 11B). Indeed, out-of-pocket\nhealthcare costs are lower for adolescent mothers than for their later\nchildbearing counterparts, despite their higher consumption levels.\nTheir out-of-pocket costs average $1,880 annually compared with\n$2,024 for the comparison group.\nConsequences of Longer Delays in Childbearing The conse-\nquences of delays in childbearing from, say, the late teens to ages 20 to\n21 are smaller than those for more extensive delays. That is, delaying\nchildbearing from under age 18 to over age 21 results in even larger dif-\nferences than those reflected here. For example, if the young-teen births\nwere delayed beyond age 21, estimated medical expenditures would\n67\ndecrease by an average of $215 per year per child rather than the $143\ndifference estimated for the shorter delay. The public medical-cost sav-\nings associated with the delay would be about $336 per child per year,\nas contrasted with the $146 estimated for the shorter delay (Wolfe and\nPerozek forthcoming).\nIn sum, adolescent mothers use less medical care for their children\ndespite the children's poorer average health status. However, a dispropor-\ntionate share of the cost of medical care that they receive is paid for by\nthe public sector rather than by private insurance or the recipient family.\nThe children also undoubtedly bear a portion of these costs in the form\nof untreated health conditions.\nHOME ENVIRONMENTS\nChildren born to adolescent mothers grow up in homes that are sub-\nstantially less supportive of their development in a number of respects\nthan are the homes of other children. The study found environments\nrated lower for factors such as the availability of educationally stimulat-\ning resources in the home, the type and level of parent-child interac-\ntion, and the physical condition of the residence.\nMeasured by the widely used Home Observation for Measurement\nof the Environment-Short Form (HOME-SF), homes in which the chil-\ndren of adolescent childbearers live scored significantly lower in overall\nquality than the homes of children born to women who were age 20 or\n21 when they became mothers (TABLE 8). Children born to mothers who\nhad their first child in their early 20s had homes that were about at the\nnational norm on the HOME quality scale; children born to adolescent\nmothers lived in homes that, on average, were in the bottom 40 percent\nof the quality distribution. Moreover, the research shows a strong rela-\ntionship between the age of the mother at the time of a child's birth and\nthe quality of the home environment in general. Thus, for example, de-\nlaying childbearing from under age 15 to ages 20 or 21 results in a more\nthan 10 percent increase in the home quality index.\nRUNAWAY CHILDREN\nAnother indicator of the lower quality of the home environments of chil-\ndren born to young mothers is their relatively high rates of running away\nfrom home. More than five percent of children ages 12 to 16 who were\nborn to women under age 18 reported that they run away from home\nduring their adolescence, a figure two to three times the rate among chil-\ndren born to later childbearers (TABLE 8). In neither the HOME scores nor\n68\nthe incidence of running away from home are the differences in out-\ncomes for children of the two groups of mothers explained by measur-\nable background characteristics of the family.\nCHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT\nThe Kids Having Kids researchers found a significant relationship\nbetween maternal age and the likelihood of child abuse and neglect.\nThis relationship is important because of both the poor outcomes\nfor abused and/or neglected children and the high social costs associ-\nated with foster-care placements, which nationally average about\n$21,000 per year per child in care. Abuse and neglect also carry with\nthem other costs associated with family preservation as well as mental-\nhealth costs.\nIn their study of child abuse and neglect among children in Illinois,\nGoerge and Lee (forthcoming) found that children born to adolescent\nmothers are two times more likely to be victims of abuse and neglect\nthan are children born to 20- or 21-year-old mothers. For example,\nIllinois had 109.6 reports of child abuse per 1,000 children born to\nwomen under the age of 18, compared with less than 50 reports per 1,000\nchildren born to mothers who delay childbearing until age 20 or 21\n(TABLE 9). Moreover, these differences are not narrowed by statistical\ncontrols for the background factors such as region of the state or birth\ncohort that could be controlled for in the analysis.\nThe ratio of foster-care placements to reported abuse and neglect\nis roughly one in four among children born to adolescent mothers and\none in five among children born to the later childbearers. This differ-\nence in the ratio of abuse and neglect rates to foster-care placement\nrates is fully explained by the control variables, resulting in a 16 per\n1,000 net difference in the foster-care placement rate between adoles-\ncent and later childbearers.\nThe reductions in abuse and neglect rates and in foster-care place-\nment rates continue to increase with longer delays until women give\nbirth. For example, delaying childbearing from under age 16 until age 20\nor later leads to a 30 to 40 percent greater impact on the incidence of\nreported abuse and neglect than does a delay from age 17 to age 20 or\nlater. The results of this study, if generalized to the nation (which cur-\nrently has approximately 472,000 children in foster care), would imply\nthat as many as five percent of foster-care placements could be averted if\nsociety could eliminate adolescent childbearing. This would not only\nbenefit the children no longer needing this care but also reap savings for\nstate and federal budgets.\n69\nTable 9\nChild Abuse and Foster Care Placement by Mothers' Age at First Birth\n(Reported Incidents per 1,000)\nLATER CHILDBEARERS (AGE 20 OR 21)\nADOLESCENT\nOUTCOME MEASURE\nCHILDBEARERS\nWITH CONTROLS\nNO CONTROLS\nReported child abuse\n109.6\n50.7\n46.2\nFoster care placements\n28.5\n12.1\n10.4\nSource: Adapted from R. Goerge and B. Lee (forthcoming), \"Abuse and neglect: Effects of early childbearing on abuse and neglect of the\nchildren,\" in Kids Having Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, ed. R. Maynard (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press).\nData are from the Illinois child welfare reporting system and Vital Statistics.\nCOGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT AND\nEDUCATIONAL PROGRESS\nAdolescent childbearing has significant adverse consequences for the\ncognitive development of children and for their educational progress.\nTeachers give children of later childbearers higher ratings as students\nthan they give children of teenage parents (FIGURE 12). For example,\nteachers are twice as likely to rate the children of later childbearers as\nexcellent students. Moreover, the difference in the ratings increases to\nmore than threefold when family background characteristics of the\ntwo groups of mothers are controlled for.\nThese higher teacher ratings are validated by the lower incidence\nof grade repetition and the higher measured cognitive development of\nthe children. The test scores of children born to later childbearers are .2\nto .4 standard deviations higher than among children born to adoles-\ncent mothers. These differences translate into movements of about 10\npoints in the percentile rankings of students, moving the average stu-\ndent from the 48th percentile in reading if he or she was born to an\nadolescent mother to the 61st percentile if born to a mother who began\nher family in her early 20s (FIGURE 12). A similar pattern of results is\nobserved for math skills (TABLE 8). Moreover, the rate of grade repeti-\ntion is nearly one third lower among children of later childbearers than\namong those born to adolescent mothers (FIGURE 12).\nThe adverse impacts of teenage childbearing on cognitive devel-\nopment and school performance are concentrated among children of\nadolescent mothers. Similar disadvantages do not appear when chil-\ndren born to older teens are contrasted with children born to women\nin their early 20s. However, evidence does exist of very strong benefits\nto delaying childbearing into the mid-20s or beyond-for this adoles-\ncent-childbearing population a seemingly unrealistic goal, but a posi-\ntive one nonetheless.\n71\nFigure 12\nSchool Performance of Children Born to\nAdolescent and Later Childbearers\n0%\n10%\n20%\n30%\n40%\n50%\n60%\n70%\nTeacher Ratings as \"One of Best\" Students\n7.8%\n25.3%\nPIAT Reading Comprehension Percentile Ranking\n47.6%\n60.6%\nGrade Repetition by Children Ages 10-14\n32.7%\n21.8%\nEarly Childbearers\nLater childbearers,\nControls for Background\nData C\nSource: Adapted from Moore, Morrison, and Greene (forthcoming).\nOutcomes for\nTeens and Young\nAdults of\nAdolescent\nParents\nThe adverse consequences of adolescent childbearing do not stop with\nthe young mothers and their young children. Rather, these consequences\ncontribute significantly to the perpetuation of poor life prospects for\nchildren whose mothers gave birth early: poor school outcomes, early\nand out-of-wedlock parenting, low attachment to the labor force, and\nhigh rates of criminal activity.\nHIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION\nThe children of adolescent parents are much less likely to complete high\nschool than are their peers. For example, approximately three fourths of\nthe children born to adolescent mothers complete high school by early\nadulthood, compared with 89 percent of children born to 20- to 21-year-\nold mothers (FIGURE 13). The comparable figures for those whose moth-\ners gave birth before age 16 show an even greater discrepancy (71 percent\nversus 89 percent, not shown).\nThis pattern of relatively poor school outcomes for children of ado-\nlescent mothers is consistent with the fact noted above: the children were\nreared in relatively poor home environments and had relatively poor\nschool performance during their younger years. Yet, only about 30 per-\ncent of this difference is explained by these background factors. The pat-\ntern also portends some of the other consequences of the disadvantaged\nupbringing faced by children born to young mothers.\nThe scholars have placed aggregate annual price tags for society\nin excess of $3 billion a year on just the educational shortfall and the\nincreased incarceration levels associated with being born to an adoles-\ncent parent. This figure would be even higher if it included other signifi-\ncant factors, such as the costs of the intergenerational transmission of\n73\nFigure 13\nHigh School Completion of Children of Adolescent and Later Childbearers\n90%\n88.5%\n83.4%\n80%\nPERCENT COMPLETING HIGH SCHOOL\n76.5%\n70%\nControls for\nBackground\nFactors\nNo Controls\n60%\nADOLESCENT\nLATER CHILDBEARERS,\nCHILDBEARERS\nFIRST BIRTH AGES 20-21\nhigh rates of adolescent childbearing on public assistance, special educa-\ntional needs of children, and publicly subsidized healthcare services.\nTHE NEXT GENERATION OF\nADOLESCENT MOTHERS\nThe children of adolescent mothers face significantly elevated probabili-\nties of having a child at a young age. Overall, daughters of adolescent\nmothers are themselves nearly twice as likely to give birth during adoles-\ncence as are their older childbearing counterparts (FIGURE 14). Of the\ndaughters born to adolescent mothers, 17 percent repeat the adolescent\nchildbearing patterns of their mothers, compared with only 9 percent of\ntheir peers whose mothers began childbearing after age 20. However, over\nhalf of this difference in fertility patterns is accounted for by factors other\nthan the adolescent childbearing of the mother-particularly the moth-\ner's education and other background factors.\nA high proportion of births to women whose mothers were adoles-\ncent childbearers are out of wedlock, regardless of the age at which they\nbegin having children. However, this rate is exacerbated if the mother\nwas a teenager when the daughter was born. Delaying childbearing of the\nmother beyond the 20- or 21-year age level used for the primary compar-\nison group has the largest benefits in terms of reductions in out-of-wed-\nlock childbearing. For example, second-generation adolescent parents are\nestimated to be 25 percent more likely to give birth out of wedlock than\nwould be the case if their mothers had delayed childbearing until their\nmid-20s or beyond.²\nECONOMIC INACTIVITY\nNearly 30 percent of children born to adolescent mothers are neither\nworking nor looking for work nor attending school by the time they are\n24 years old. This contrasts with only 17 percent of the children born to\n20- or 21-year-old mothers (FIGURE 15). Roughly half of the economic\ninactivity gap is explained by factors that can reasonably be considered\nexternal to adolescent childbearing. Nonetheless, a policy that succeeded\nin delaying those early (before age 18) births until the mothers reached\nage 20 or 21 would increase the economic activity rate of the children by\nan estimated 7 percentage points (from 71 to 78 percent).\nSimilar delays in childbearing for those giving birth before age\n16 would have an impact nearly double that size (from 63 percent\nactive to 78 percent active, not shown). Higher participation in the work\nforce, combined with the higher skills of the workers, translates into\n75\nO'C'OT\n15%\nPERCENT GIVING BIRTH BEFORE AGE 18\n13.5%\n10%\n9.0%\n5%\nControls for\nBackground Factors\nNo Controls\n0%\nADOLESCENT\nLATER CHILDBEARING,\nCHILDBEARERS\nFIRST BIRTH AGES 20-21\nLATER CHILDBEARERS,\nESCENT\nNo Controls\nBackground\nControls for\n%I'LI\n22.5%\n%4'02\n77.5%\nincreased national productivity, higher tax receipts, and more income\nto share with one's own family.\nCRIMINAL ACTIVITY\nYouths' self-reports of delinquency and illegal activities provide no evi-\ndence of higher levels of behavioral problems and delinquency associated\nwith having been the children of a young parents (Moore, Morrison, and\nGreene, forthcoming). Yet the sons of adolescent mothers are 2.7 times\nmore likely to end up behind bars than are the sons of older mothers\n(Grogger forthcoming; FIGURE 16).\nAt the annual interviews conducted by the NLS-Y, nationally about\nfive percent of all young men were found to be incarcerated over a 13-year\nperiod-a rate well below the 10.3 percent rate of observed incarceration\nfor young men born to adolescent mothers and slightly above the 3.8 per-\ncent observed incarceration rate over this same period for young men\nborn to mothers who began their families at age 20 or 21 (FIGURE 16).\nRoughly half of the observed difference in observed incarceration\nrates for the young men born to adolescent versus older childbearers is\naccounted for by observable differences in the demographic and back-\nground characteristics of offspring of both groups of mothers. Still, sim-\nply postponing adolescent childbearing just until ages 20 to 21 would, by\nitself, reduce the incarceration rate for the affected children by 13 percent\n(from 10.3 percent to 9.1 percent).\nEven the relatively small fraction of the higher incarceration rate\nthat is directly attributable to adolescent childbearing costs the govern-\nment and society dearly. If we simply could delay childbearing until would-\nbe adolescent childbearers reached age 20.5, the national average incar-\nceration rate would fall by 3.5 percent. In dollar terms, our correctional\ncosts would decline by $1 billion dollars a year. Of course, these savings\nwould not be realized overnight. Even if all adolescent mothers were to\ndelay their childbearing as of tomorrow, the incarceration rates would\nnot fall by this full sum for about 20 years-the earliest age at which\nyoung delinquents start going to jail in any substantial numbers.\nFor the full benefits of delayed fertility to show up in the form of\nreduced prison budgets, an entire generation of adolescent mothers\nwould have to forgo early childbearing. Once this generational change\nhad occurred, however, and the children had reached adulthood, the\ncost savings could be substantial. Because prison costs are only one\nthird of total expenditures for all levels of law enforcement (U.S.\nDepartment of Justice 1992), the total savings to the criminal justice\nsystem could reach nearly $3 billion.\n78\n10.3%\n9.1%\n8%\nINCARCERATED DURING YOUNG\n7.3%\n4%\n3.8%\nFull\nControls for\nControls\nBackground\nNo Controls\n0%\nADOLESCENT\nLATER CHILDBEARERS,\nCHILDBEARERS\nFIRST BIRTH AGES 20-21\nNotably, the research indicates that delays in childbearing beyond\nage 21 would lead to even larger reductions in the incarceration rates of\nyoung men born to would-be adolescent childbearers. It also is clear\nfrom this analysis, however, that much of the high incarceration rates and\nrelated prison costs associated with adolescent childbearing results from\nother factors that are strongly related to or that compound the effects of\nadolescent childbearing. Thus, policies that successfully address adoles-\ncent childbearing as well as these other factors could lead to additional\ncost savings for the nation. Furthermore, if these young men spent less\ntime in jail, they could contribute more to the support of their children.\n80\nThe Economic\nCosts of\nAdolescent\nChildbearing\nAdolescent childbearing has substantial impacts on the sources of financial\nresources available to a mother and her children but relatively modest\nimpacts on the average overall level of support during her first 12 years of\nparenthood. Depending on the assumptions one makes regarding the life\ncourses of would-be adolescent mothers, the study estimates that they\nwould experience incomes between $900 and $10,000 a year more if they\nwere to postpone their childbearing until age 20 or 21. In contrast, adoles-\ncent childbearing costs U.S. taxpayers between $6.9 billion and $18.6 bil-\nlion a year, mainly the result of higher public-assistance costs, lower tax\nrevenues, increased levels of child welfare, and higher criminal-justice costs.\nMoreover, adolescent childbearing lowers overall national productivity by\nbetween $8.9 billion and $28.8 billion a year, again depending on the\nassumed mechanisms used for achieving delay and on what related disad-\nvantages are addressed simultaneously with achieving the delay, including\ndisadvantages of the men who are fathering these children.\nMEASURING THE COSTS OF\nADOLESCENT CHILDBEARING\nThis study estimates the costs of adolescent childbearing from the per-\nspective of three different groups: (1) adolescent mothers, (2) taxpay-\ners, and (3) society as a whole. Each of the economic outcomes meas-\nured in the Kids Having Kids project was inventoried to establish the\nframework for assessing the economic consequences of adolescent child-\nbearing. This framework recognizes the consequences of each outcome\nfor each of the three groups (TABLE 10).³\nThe accounting framework was applied to a range of estimates that\nmake different assumptions about the outcomes for would-be adolescent\nmothers if they delayed childbearing until their early 20s. The assumptions\nare that (1) their outcomes would be the same as those of women who\n81\nhave their first child at age 20 or 21, regardless of the fact that the two\ngroups differ in many respects other than the timing of first births; (2) out-\ncomes would be similar to those of 20- or 21-year-old mothers, with con-\ntrols for observable differences between the two groups; and (3) outcomes\nwould resemble those of older mothers, with controls for observable and,\nto the extent possible, unobservable differences between the two groups.\nMeasuring Costs to Adolescent Mothers From the perspective\nof adolescent mothers, the consequences fall into four categories. The\nfirst is changes in income from the mother's own employment. This\nincludes changes in earnings and the partially offsetting changes in\nincome and consumption taxes. A second category pertains to income\nfrom husbands and the fathers of one's children. Adolescent childbear-\ning affects the amount of income a mother can expect to receive from a\nhusband-an outcome that depends both on the consequences of ado-\nlescent childbearing for the earnings of the husband and on the propor-\ntion of time the mother lives with the husband. Adolescent childbear-\ning also influences the level of child support, both by affecting the\nprobability of bearing a child out of wedlock and by altering some-\nwhat the earnings patterns of nonmarital fathers.\nThe third category of consequences of adolescent childbearing from\nthe perspective of the young mothers is public assistance. This includes\nchanges in access to and reliance on Aid to Families with Dependent\nChildren (AFDC), food stamps, public housing, and healthcare subsidies\nfor children.⁴ The final category of consequences pertains to the changes\nin direct out-of-pocket costs of healthcare for children that arise from dif-\nferences in the healthcare needs of children born to adolescent versus\nolder mothers and from different fertility rates.\nThis framework does not include direct estimates of the economic\nimplications of all the consequences of adolescent childbearing. For\nexample, it ignores possible differential access to a number of education-\nal and training resources, such as student financial aid and publicly fund-\ned job training. It ignores changes in access to subsidized healthcare for\nthe mother. Also, numerous adverse social consequences of adolescent\nchildbearing have been excluded from the framework, since attaching\ndollar values to them is difficult. These consequences include outcomes\nsuch as higher rates of single parenthood, lower levels of educational\nattainment, and lower qualities of home environments.\nCosts to Taxpayers The costs to taxpayers of adolescent childbearing\nfall into five categories. The first is tax revenues that reflect changes in\nproductivity of the mothers and the fathers of their children (whether\n82\nIMPACT OF POSITIVE VALUES OF THE MEASURED\nCONSEQUENCE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF\nADOLESCENT\nBENEFIT (COST) COMPONENT\nCHILDBEARERS\nTAXPAYERS\nSOCIETY\nMother's earnings\nGain\nGain\nMother's income and consumption taxes,\nLoss\nGain\nNeutral\nFather's earnings\n-\nGain\nFather's income and consumption taxes\nGain\nSpouse's earnings\nGain\n-\nGain\nSpouse S income and consumption taxes\nLoss\nGain\nNeutral\nChild support paid by nonresident father\nGain\nNeutral\nNeutral\nAFDC benefits\nGain\nLoss\nNeutral\nFood stamp benefits\nGain\nLoss\nNeutral\nAFDC administrative costs\nNeutral\nLoss\nLoss\nFood stamp administrative costs\nNeutral\nLoss\nLoss\nPublic housing\nGain\nLoss\nNeutral\nMedical care\nLoss\nPaid by society\nNeutral\nLoss\nPaid by parent\nLoss\nNeutral\nFoster care\nNeutral\nLoss\nLoss\nIncarceration of young men\nNeutral\nLoss\nLoss\nhusbands or not). The second is public assistance expenditures (AFDC,\nfood stamps, and public housing) and the costs of administering those\nprograms.5 The third through fifth categories of costs pertain to the\npublic costs of addressing the adverse consequences of adolescent child-\nbearing for children-healthcare subsidies, foster-care costs, and criminal-\njustice (prison) costs, respectively. In each of these cases, two sources of\nincreased costs are associated with adolescent childbearing: (1) the worse\nhealth and social outcomes for children born to very young mothers as\ncompared with children born to mothers in their early 20s and (2) the\nincreased fertility rates associated with adolescent childbearing, which\nraise the number of children who experience the relatively poor (and\ncostly) outcomes.\nThis framework does not include all potentially relevant costs to\ntaxpayers for adolescent childbearing. For example, changes in the de-\nmand for secondary education and publicly funded higher education are\nnot considered. So, too, adolescent childbearing is associated with higher\nlevels of learning disabilities and social problems among children, which\nhave implications for educational and social-service costs that are not\ncaptured in this framework.\nCosts to Society The estimated social costs of adolescent childbearing\npertain only to those measured consequences that reflect real changes in\nthe resources available for consumption by the population at large-\nchanges in the productivity of the mothers themselves, in the productivi-\nty of the fathers of their children, in the level of resources devoted to\nadministering public assistance (but not public-assistance payments\nthemselves), in the level of medical care provided to children, and in\nchild-welfare and criminal-justice costs associated with higher foster-care\nplacement and incarceration rates of children born to adolescent mothers.\nThe framework ignores a number of potentially important social\ncosts factors. For example, it does not include the costs of administering\nthe healthcare subsidies, the costs of child-welfare services other than\nfoster care, or the costs of property damage and personal injuries that\nlikely precipitate the higher incarceration rates among children of adoles-\ncent mothers. Finally, this framework ignores the intergenerational\neffects of adolescent childbearing on the productivity and social well-\nbeing of future generations.6\nSource of the Component Cost Estimates The estimated costs\nof adolescent childbearing from each of the three perspectives are sen-\nsitive to the source of the outcome estimates. We present one set of\nestimates-gross estimates-that reflect the costs incurred by or the\n84\nbenefits to adolescent mothers relative to later childbearers, not con-\ntrolling for the fact that these two groups differ in important ways\nother than the timing of their childbearing decisions (no controls). In\nessence, these are the differences we observe when we simply look at\nthe two groups of mothers and track their life courses. These estimates\nare derived in a manner conceptually similar to looking at the differ-\nences in outcomes represented in the first and last bars of the out-\ncomes charts in previous sections of this synthesis (the columns\nreflecting outcomes for adolescent mothers and those for their later\nchildbearing counterparts with no adjustments).\nA second set of estimates-Adjustment 1-corresponds to those\nwe would observe if we compared adolescent mothers with later child-\nbearers whose family backgrounds were similar to their own (control-\nling for observed differences). These estimates are derived in a manner\nconceptually similar to looking at the differences in outcomes repre-\nsented in the first and next-to-last bars in the outcomes charts in previ-\nous sections (outcomes for adolescent mothers versus those who are\nage 20 or 21 when they have their first child, assuming that the policies\nthat led to the delayed childbearing also would compensate for some\nbut not all differences between adolescent and later childbearers that\ncould lead to better or worse outcomes).\nThe third set of estimates-Adjustment 2-is similar to the sec-\nond except that, to the extent possible, the estimates also control for\nunobserved differences between adolescent and comparison mothers\nwho were age 20 or 21 when they had their first child (controlling for\nobserved and unobserved differences). These estimates are derived\nin a manner conceptually similar to looking at the differences in\noutcomes represented by the first and second bars in the outcomes\ncharts in previous sections (outcomes for adolescent mothers versus\nolder mothers, assuming that the delay in childbearing would not\nalso compensate for any of the other factors that contribute to their\npoor outcomes).\nThe estimates for the adolescent mothers reflect the cumulative\nnet costs or benefits associated with their adolescent childbearing dur-\ning their first 13 years of parenting. We have expressed this sum in\nMarch 1996 dollars, assuming that the adolescent mothers will discount\nfuture income at a rate of 5 percent per year. The estimates for the tax-\npayers and for society reflect the sum of costs in a single year for all\nadolescent mothers under age 29-an average of 13 cohorts of child-\nbearers ranging in age from 16 to 28, on average. In these calculations,\nwe have assumed that each cohort of adolescent childbearers is the\nsame size as that in 1993 (175,259 first births to women under age 18).8\n85\nCOSTS AND BENEFITS TO\nADOLESCENT MOTHERS\nAdolescent mothers do not suffer large economic losses as a result of\ntheir adolescent childbearing decisions. In fact, when scholars con-\ntrol for unobserved differences to the extent possible, they find that\nthese adolescent mothers are only slightly worse off financially than\nif they had delayed childbearing until their early 20s (TABLE 11). Their\nlife prospects are quite poor regardless of whether they delay child-\nbearing or not.\nAdolescent childbearers would have only slightly higher earnings\nduring their first 13 years of parenthood if they delayed childbearing.\nBut they would have substantially higher levels of support from the\nfathers of their children and from spouses. Thus, one of the most sig-\nnificant economic impacts is that the sources of their income will\nchange. On average, those who give birth as adolescents will contribute\nslightly less themselves to the support of their family during their early\nyears as parents while the fathers of their children and their spouses\ncontribute considerably less than they would if the young mothers\ndelayed their childbearing. Welfare largely compensates for the lower\nsupport from the parents, leaving the young mothers with only $919\nless annually as a result of their decisions to become teen moms.\nDuring their first 13 years of parenting, adolescent mothers\nreceive substantially higher public-assistance benefits than would be\nthe case if they delayed childbearing. They work only about 70 hours\na year less than their later childbearing counterparts keeping their\nearnings roughly comparable. Their lower marriage rates and levels of\nsupport from the fathers of their children mean that higher propor-\ntions of them are eligible for public assistance and they receive bene-\nfits for a longer time.\nOverall, with maximum controls for unobservable differences be-\ntween adolescent and older mothers, adolescent mothers receive an\naverage of $1,368 annually in public-assistance, even though their\naverage annual earnings are only $366 less than expected had they\ndelayed childbearing. In part, the higher public assistance costs can be\nattributed to adolescent childbearers' higher rates of single parenthood\nand relatively low rates of child support. They are also partly the\nresult of these mothers' higher average fertility levels relative to the\nlevels of slightly later childbearers.\nThe higher levels of public-assistance benefits to adolescent\nmothers are partially offset, however, by the $138 higher out-of-pocket\nand private-health-insurance costs for care of their children-largely a\nresult of the higher fertility rates among adolescent childbearers.\n86\nTable 11\nEstimated Benefits and Costs to\nAdolescent Childbearers of Not Delaying Parenting Until Age 20 or 21\n(Costs Denoted by Parentheses)\nAVERAGE ANNUAL BENEFIT (COST)\nb\nc\nBENEFIT OR COST COMPONENT\nGROSS\nADJUSTMENT\nADJUSTMENT 2\n(No controls)\n(Some controls)\n(Full controls)\nOwn income\n($3,363)\n($2,493)\n($366)\nIncome of spouse/father of child(ren)\n($9,694)\n($7,893)\n($1,780)\nPublic assistance\n$2,508\n$2,106\n$1,368\nOut-of-pocket healthcare for children\n$105\n($122)\n($138)\nTotal Annual Value\n($10,444)\n($8,402)\n($919)\nCumulative present value (13 years)\n($135,778)\n($109,217)\n($11,950)\nNote: These estimates are based on outcome and cost estimates reported in the various project studies. The estimates are based ona year time\nhorizon.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\nsents greater detail on the components of the various categories of costs or benefits.\na\nThese figures represent simple (unadjusted) differences in outcomes between those who have their first child before age 18 and those who have\ntheir first child between the:ages of 20 or 21.\nThese figures represent differences between observed outcomes for those who had their first child before age 18 and those who delayed child\nbearing until ages 20 or 21, controlling for observable background factors that are not expected to change as a result of adolescent childbearing.\nThese estimates correspond to estimates ot the costs or benefits associated with a policy.that would both lead to a delay in adolescent childbearing\nandicompensate for some but not all. other factors that also tend to promote poor outcomes for young women and their children.\nThese figures represent differences between observed outcomes for those who had their first child before age 18 and those who delayed child-\nbearing until ages 20 or 21, controlling for differences in background between the adolescent and later childbearers as well as differences in other\nfactors closely linked to adolescent childbearing. hese estimates correspond to estimates of the costs or benefits associated with a policy that\nwould result in a delay in childbearing but that would affect no other aspects of the young mothers lives:\nCOSTS TO TAXPAYERS\nBy any measure, taxpayers pay a high price for adolescent childbearing.\nFor example, based on the most highly controlled estimates of the conse-\nquences of adolescent childbearing, scholars estimate that each adolescent\nmother in this country costs U.S. taxpayers, over the 13 years following\nthe birth of her first child, an average of $3,042 a year that could be saved\nif her childbearing had been delayed until age 20 or 21 (TABLE 12). In the\naggregate over all adolescent childbearers, this totals $6.9 billion a year.\nOf this annual total, more than $2.2 billion ($970 per adolescent\nmother) is the result of higher public assistance (AFDC and food stamps\ncombined), and another $1.5 billion a year ($641 per adolescent moth-\ner) is spent on medical care for the children (TABLE 12). In addition, tax-\npayers spend an average of about $.9 billion a year ($404 per adolescent\nmother) on foster care and over $1 billion annually ($460 per adolescent\nmother) on prison costs that could be saved if adolescent childbearing\nwere eliminated, even if little else changed in the lives of these young\nmothers. The combined impacts of adolescent childbearing itself on the\nearnings of the mothers and fathers costs taxpayers an estimated $1.3\nbillion less per year in lost tax revenues (or $556 per adolescent mother).\nUsing intermediate levels of controls for differences in the back-\ngrounds of adolescent and 20- or 21-year-old mothers, the estimated\ncost to taxpayers of adolescent childbearing exceeds $13 billion a year.\nThat is, if we could not only delay adolescent childbearing but also\naddress some of the other measured social and environmental forces\nthat contribute to the poor outcomes of the adolescent mothers, the\nsteady-state payoff to the taxpayers could reach this higher level.\nThe unadjusted (gross) estimates of the costs to taxpayers provide\nthe upper limit of the potential gains of not only successfully combat-\ning adolescent childbearing but also eliminating or otherwise fully\ncompensating for other differences between adolescent and later child-\nbearers that contribute to the poor observed outcomes for the adoles-\ncent mothers. This figure totals an average of about $8,160 per year per\nadolescent mother or nearly $19 billion a year aggregated across all\nadolescent mothers who are in their first 13 years of parenthood.\nCOSTS TO SOCIETY\nThe cost of adolescent childbearing to society includes resources that are\ndiverted to mitigate problems associated with adolescent childbearing-\nin our estimates, the costs of administering welfare programs, providing\nfoster care, and building and maintaining prisons. Costs to society also\ninclude the parent's changes in productivity that are attributed to the\n88\n($Billions, March 1996-dollars)\nESTIMATED METHOD\nGROSS\nADJUSTMENT 1 b\nADJUSTMENT2\nCOST COMPONENT\n(No controls)\n(Some controls)\n(Full controls)\nAnnual Taxper\nTax revenues\n$5.1\n$3.8\n$1.3\nPublic assistance expenditures\n$5.6\n$4.5\n$2.2\nHealth care costs for children\n$1.1\n$1.3\n$1.5\nFoster care costs\n$1.2\n$1.1\n$0.9\nCriminal justice:costs\n$5.6\n$2.6\n$1.0\nTotal annual cost ($billions)\n$18.6\n$13.3\n$6.9\nAnnual cost per adolescent parent\n$8,160\n$5,825\n$3,042\nNote: These estimates are based on outcomes and costs reported in the various project studies. They have been constructed based on undiscounted\nvalues estimated for a 13 year time horizon for the early childbearers. The average annual undiscounted value per person has been used as the basis\nfor 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:\nWe 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\nchild in 1993. Appendix Table A.4 presents greater detail on the components of the various categories of costs or benefits.\na\nThese figures represent simple (unadjusted) differences in outcomes between those who have their first child before age 18 and those who have\ntheir firstichild between the ages of 20 or 21\nby\nThese figures represent differences between observed outcomes for those who had their first child before age 18 and those who delaved child-\nbearing until ages 20 or 21, controlling for observable background factors that are not expected to change as a result of early childbearing. These\nestimates correspond to estimates of the costs or benefits associated with a policy that would both lead to a delay in adolescent childbearing and\ncompensate for some, but-not all, other factors that also tend to promote poor outcomes for young mothers and their children.\nC\nThese figures represent differences between observed outcomes for those who had their first child before age 18 and those who delayed child\nbearing untillages 20 or 21, controlling for differences in background between the adolescent and later childbearers as well as differences in other\nfactors closely;linked to adolescent childbearing. These estimates correspondito estimates of the costs or benefits associated withia policy that\nwould result in a delay inchildbearing but that would affect no other aspects of the young mothers lives.\nCosts Denoted by Parentheses)\nESTIMATED METHOD\nb\nGROSS\nCOST COMPONENT\nADJUSTMENT\n1\nADJUSTMENT\n2\n(No controls)\n(Some controls)\n(Full controls)\nAnnual Social\nProductivity of mothers\n$13.6\n$9.9\n$1.3\nProductivity of fathers\n$8.6\n$6.5\n$4.3\nPublic assistance administration\n$0.2\n$0.2\n$0.1\nIncreased medical care-for children\n$0.4\n$1.0\n$1.3\nFoster/care costs\n$1.2\n$1.1\n$0.9\nCriminal justice costs\n$5.6\n$2.6\n$1.0\nTotal annual cost ($billions)\n$28.8\n$21.3\n$8.9\nAnnual cost per adolescent parent\n$12,645\n$9,349\n$3,918\nNote: Theselestimates are based on outcomes and costs reported in the various project studies. They have been constructed based on undis\ncounted values estimated for a 13-year time horizon for the early childbearers. The average annual undiscounted value per person has been used\nas the basis for calculating the average annual cost for mothers who began their families as young teenage mothers (under age 18) at some\npoint 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\nunder 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.\na\nThese figures represent simple (unadjusted) differences in outcomes between those who have their first child before age 18 and those who have\ntheir first child between the ages of 20 or 21.\nb\nThese figures represent differences between observed outcomes for those who had their first-child before age 18 and those who delayed child-\nbearing until ages 20 or 21, controlling for observable background factors that are not expected to change as a result of early childbearing. These\nestimates correspond to estimates of the costs or benefits associated with a policy that would both leaditoia delay in early childbearing and com-\npensate for some, but not all, other factors that also tend to promote poor outcomes for young mothers and their children.\nc\nThese figures represent differences between observed outcomes for those who had their first child before age 18 and those who delayed child-\nbearing until ages 20 or 21, controlling for differences in background between the adolescent and later childbearers. These estimates correspond\nto 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\nthe young mothers' lives.\nadolescent childbearing; these are generally estimated to be sizable neg-\native effects for the fathers (because of education and work effort\neffects) and slightly negative for the mothers. The latter result reflects\nthe fact that adolescent mothers work only slightly less than their later\nchildbearing counterparts once researchers control for background and\nother factors closely linked to early childbearing.\nUsing estimates that, to the extent possible, control for unobserved\ndifferences between adolescent and later childbearers, the study esti-\nmates that the social costs of adolescent childbearing total $8.9 billion\nin 1996 dollars (TABLE 13). This is the estimated amount by which the\nsocial welfare of the nation would increase if 13 years ago society had\nsuccessfully implemented a policy that delayed childbearing until ado-\nlescents reached the age of 20 or 21 but did not at the same time\naddress the myriad other factors that contribute to the poor outcomes.\nThe major contributors to the social costs of adolescent childbear-\ning are those associated with the productivity of the fathers and with the\ncare and discipline of the children of adolescent mothers, relative to the\nlevel of resources required had childbearing been delayed. On average,\nthe study estimates roughly $1.3 billion per year ($551 for each adoles-\ncent mother under the age of 29) is devoted to increased medical-care for\nthe children; $.9 billion ($404 per adolescent mother) to higher rates of\nfoster care placements; and $1 billion ($460 per adolescent mother) to\nhigher prison costs-all costs that would be avoided if childbearing were\ndelayed until age 20 or 21. The adolescent mothers appear not to suffer\nmajor adverse labor-market effects as a result of their early childbearing\n(only about $555 per year). In contrast, the fathers of their children earn\nabout $1,907 less per year than would be the case if the mothers delayed\nchildbearing until age 20 or 21. The net result is an estimated $5.6 billion\nannual less in worker productivity due to adolescent childbearing.\nA hypothetical policy that not only delayed childbearing but also\naddressed some of the related factors that contribute to poor outcomes\nfor adolescent mothers would save $21 billion a year in social costs\n(although such a policy would be costly to implement). Such a policy\nwould have a stronger effect on the earnings of the fathers of the chil-\ndren born to adolescent mothers than would a policy that simply\naddressed the adolescent childbearing but did not deal with these relat-\ned factors. In a perfect world in which we could fully compensate for\nor eliminate all differences between adolescent and later childbearers,\nthe net gain to society in higher productivity and lower public assis-\ntance and social service costs would approach $29 billion annually.\n91\nReferences\nAdvocates for Youth. 1994. Teenage pregnancy and too-early childbearing: Public costs,\npersonal consequences, 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: Advocates for Youth.\nAhn, G. 1994. \"Teenage childbearing and high school completion: Accounting for individual\nheterogeneity.\" Family Planning Perspectives 26, no. I (January-February): 17-21.\nAlan Guttmacher Institute. 1994. Sex and America's teenagers. New York: Alan\nGuttmacher Institute.\nBachrach, C.A., K.S. Stolley, and K.A. London. 1992. \"Relinquishment of premarital births:\nEvidence from national survey data.\" Family Planning Perspectives 24 (1): 27-32.\nBoyer, D., and D. Fine. 1992. \"Sexual abuse as a factor in early pregnancy and maltreatment.\"\nFamily Planning Perspectives 24 (1): 4-19.\nBrien, M.J., and R. Willis. Forthcoming. \"Fathers: Costs and consequences of early\nchildbearing for the fathers, the young mothers, and their children.\" In Kids Hav-\ning Kids: Economic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy (working title),\ned. R. Maynard. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.\nBrown, S., and L. Eisenberg. 1995. The best intentions: Unintended preg nancy and the\nwell-being of children. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Medicine.\nBurt, M. 1992. \"Estimates of public costs for teenage childbearing: A review of recent\nstudies and estimates of 1985 public costs.\" Washington, D.C.: Center for\nPopulation Options.\nBurt, M., and D. Haffner. 1986. \"Teenage childbearing: How much does it cost?\"\nWashington, D.C.: Center for Population Options.\nCameron, S.V., and J.J. Heckman. 1993. \"The nonequivalence of high school equivalents.\"\nJournal of Labor Economics 11(1): I-47.\nCao, J., E. Stromsdorfer, and Gregory Weeks. Forthcoming. \"The Huma Capital Effect\nof the GED on Low Income Women.\" Olympia: Washington State Institute for\nPublic Policy. Forthcoming in Journal of Human Resources.\nCohen, E.S. Golonka, R. Maynard, T. Ooms, and T. Owens. June 10, 1994. \"Welfare\nreform and literacy: Are we making the connection?\" Background briefing report for\nthe Forum on Literacy and Welfare, Washington DC: Family Impact Seminar and\nNational Center on Adult Literacy.\nCongressional Budget Office. 1990. Sources of support for teenage parents. Washington, D.C.:\nU.S. Government Printing Office.\nGeronimous, A., and S. Korenman. 1993. \"The socioeconomic consequences of teen\nchildbearing reconsidered.\" Quarterly Journal of Economics 107 (4): 1187-1214.\nGeronimous, A., S. Korenman, and S. Hillemeier. 1994. \"Does young maternal age\nadversely affect child development? Evidence from cousin comparisons in the\nUnited States.\" Development Review 20: 585-609.\nGoerge, R., and B.J. Lee. Forthcoming. \"Abuse and neglect: Effects of early childbearing\non abuse and neglect of the children.\" In Kids Havings Kids: Economic Costs and\nSocial Consequences of Teen Pregnancy (work ing title), ed. R. Maynard.\nWashington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.\n92\nGrogger, J. Forthcoming. \"Crime: The influence of early childbearing on the cost of\nincarceration.\" In Kids Havings Kids: Economic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen\nPregnancy (working title), ed. R. Maynard. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.\nGrogger, J., and S. Bronars. 1993. \"The socioeconomic consequences of teenage childbearing:\nFindings from a natural experiment.\" Family Planning Perspectives 25 (4): 156-61.\nHaveman, R., and B. Wolfe. 1994. Succeeding generations: On the Effects of Investments in\nChildren. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.\nHaveman, R., B. Wolfe, and E. Peterson. Forthcoming. \"Prospects: How do the children\nof early childbearers fare as young adults?\" In In Kids Havings Kids: Economic Costs\nand Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy (working title). ed. R. Maynard.\nWashington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.\nHoffman, S.E., M. Foster, and F. Furstenberg Jr. 1993. \"Reevaluating the costs of teenage\nchildbearing.\" Demography 30, no. I (February): 1-13.\nHotz, V.)., S.W. McElroy, and S. Sanders. Forthcoming. \"Mothers: Effects of early child\nbearing on the lives of the mothers.\" In Kids Havings Kids: Economic Costs and Social\nConsequences of Teen Pregnancy (working title), ed. R. Maynard. Washington, D.C.:\nUrban Institute Press.\nJacobson, J., and R. Maynard. Forthcoming. \"Unwed mothers and long-term welfare\ndependency,\" in Addressing Illegitimacy: Welfare Reform Options for Congress.\nWashington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, September 11.\nJohnson, A., M. Kelsey, and R. Maynard. Forthcoming. \"What are the real barriers to self-\nsufficiency for teenage parents?\" Paper prepared for the Henry J. Kaiser Family\nFoundation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.\nKlepinger, D., S. Lundberg, and R. D. Plotnick. 1995. \"Early fertility and the educational\nattainment of young women.\" Family Planning Perspectives 27, no. I\n(January-February): 23-27.\nKost, K., and J.D. Forrest. 1995. \"Intention status of U.S. births in 1988: Differences by\nmothers' socioeconomic and demographic characteristics.\" Family Planning Perspectives\n27, no. I (January - February): 11-17.\nLandry, D.J., and J.D. Forrest. 1995. \"How old are U.S. fathers?\" Family Planning\nPerspectives 27, no. 4 (July/August): 159-165.\nMaynard, R., and Meredith Kelsey, and D. McGrath. 1996. \"The new face of teenage child\nbearing: Implications for welfare policy.\" Philadelphia, PA. the University of\nPennsylvania. Paper prepared for the Henry ). Kaiser Family Foundation.\nMaynard, R., and D. McGrath. 1995. \"The social benefits of education: Family formation,\nparenting, and child welfare.\" Paper prepared for th U.S. Department of Education\nConference on the Social Benefits of Education, Washington, D.C., January 3-5.\nMaynard, R., W. Nicholson, and A. Rangarajan. 1993. Breaking the Cycle of Poverty: The\nEffectiveness of Mandatory Services for Welfare-Dependent Teenage Parents. Princeton,\nNJ: Mathematica Policy Research.\nMcElroy, S.W., and K. Moore. Forthcoming \"Trends: National and interna tional trends in\nearly pregnancy and childbearing.\" In Kids Having Kids: Economic Costs and Social\nConsequences of Teen Pregnancy (working title), ed. R. Maynard. Washington, D.C.:\nUrban Institute Press.\nMoore, K.A., B.C. Miller, D. Glei, and D.R. Morrison. 1995. Early Sex, Contraception,\nand Childbearing: A Review of Recent Research. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends.\n93\nMoore, K.A., D.R. Morrison, and A.D. Greene. Forthcoming. \"Children: Effects of\nearly childbearing on the lives of the children.\" In Kids Havings Kids: Economic\nCosts and Social Consequences of Teen regnancy (working title), ed. R. Maynard.\nWashington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.\nMoore, K.A., D. Myers, D.R. Morrison, C. Nord, B. Brown, and B. Edmonston. 1993.\n\"Age at first childbirth and later poverty.\" Journal of Research on Adolescence\n3 (4): 393-422.\nMoore, K.A., N. Snyder, and D. Glei. 1995. Facts at \" Glance. Annual news letter on teen\npregnancy. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends.\nMoore, K.A., B. Sugland, C. Blumenthal, D. Glei, and N. Snyder. 1995. Adolescent Pregnancy\nPrevention Programs: Interventions and Evaluations. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends.\nMoore, K.A., and R.F. Wertheimer. 1984. \"Teenage childbearing and welfare:\nPreventive and ameliorative strategies.\" Family Planning Perspectives 16\n(November-December): 285-289.\nMurnane, R., J.B. Willett, and K.P. Boudett. 1994. \"Do high school dropouts benefit from\nobtaining a GED?\" Working Paper. Harvard Labor Economics Seminar, August 11.\nNord, C., K. Moore, D. Morrison, B. Brown, and D. Myers. 1992. \"Consequences of\nteenage parenting.\" Journal of School Health 62, no. 7 (September): 310-318.\nPhilliber, S. 1994. Carrera/Dempsey Replication Programs: 1993-94 Summary of Client\nCharacteristics and Outcomes. Accord, NY: Philliber Research Associates.\nRangarajan, A., E.E. Kisker, and R. Maynard. 1992. Selecting Basic Skills Tests for Program\nand Evaluation Purposes. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.\nRoper, P., and G. Weeks. 1993. Child Abuse, Teenage Pregnancy, and Welfare Dependency:\nIs There a Link? Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Evergreen\nState College, October.\nStrain, M., and E.E. Kisker. 1989. Literacy and the Disadvantages: Analysis of Data\nFrom the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica\nPolicy Research.\nU.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. 1993.\nYouth Indicators 1993. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational\nStatistics, October.\nU.S. Department of Justice. 1992. Correctional Populations in the United States, 1990.\nWashington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.\nWolfe, B., and M. Perozek. Forthcoming. \"Health: Early childbearing's costs to society\nfor health and medical care of the children.\" In Kids Having Kids: Economic Costs\nand Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy (working title), ed. R. Maynard.\nWashington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.\nWolpin, K., and M. Rosenzweig. 1992. \"Sisters, siblings, and mothers: The effects of\nteenage childbearing on birth outcomes.\" Paper presented at the NICHD confer\nence, \"Outcomes of early childbearing: An appraisal of recent evidence,\" Bethesda,\nMD, May 18-19.\nZill, N., and C.W. Nord. 1994. Running in Place: How American Families Are Faring in a\nChanging Economy and an Individualistic Society. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends.\n94\nFootnotes\n¹As of 1993, only 28 percent of births to teenagers occurred within the marriage\n(Moore, Snyder, and Glei 1995).\n2 The estimate of out-of-wedlock childbearing for the study sample was 15 percent\nboth for adolescent childbearers and for later childbearers who were born to teenage\nmothers. In view of the rapid rise in the population of teen births that are out of wedlock,\nthe results of a more current sample than the one available for this study (a sample of\nteenagers in the late 1970s and early 1980s) would be quite different.\n3 The framework is not comprehensive in that we have omitted many possible costs (and\na few benefits for the adolescent childbearers) because they were not a focus of the project\nstudies. In most cases, the fact that certain costs were not estimated reflects the inadequa-\ncies of available data to address the outcomes.\n4 The project studies did not provide detailed estimates of the effects of adolescent child-\nbearing on costs and subsidies for healthcare provided to the mothers.\n5 This category does not include healthcare and administrative costs for the mother, since\nthe research did not address maternal health outcomes.\n6 Haveman et al. (forthcoming) provides clear evidence that adolescent childbearing\nimposes costs on those among the next generation of young adults who were\nborn to adolescent mothers. These costs are relatively straightforward to measure. It is\nmore challenging to extrapolate from the estimated outcomes for individuals to the\nsecond-generation costs for society, however. This is because adolescent childbearing\nincreases fertility and so expands the size of the next generation's workforce at the\nsame time it changes the skills composition. Untangling these components of social bene-\nfits and costs was beyond the scope of the Kids Having Kids project.\n7As noted above, only two of the project studies controlled for observed and unobserved\ndifferences between adolescent and later childbearers. In computing the cost estimates, we\nhave sometimes combined the estimates from studies that were and were not able to con-\ntrol for unobservables. For example, we combined estimates of outcomes for children\n(not controlling for unobservable differences between adolescent and later childbearers)\nwith estimates of the effects of adolescent childbearing on fertility patterns (controlling\nfor observable and unobservable differences) to obtain an estimate of the aggregate effects\nof the outcome per mother rather than per child.\n⁸This assumption about the cohort size likely will tend to overstate current costs,\ninsofar as this figure exceeds the average cohort size over the past 13 years. It understates\nfuture costs, insofar as the size of the teenage parent population has been increasing in\nrecent years. A more precise estimate would entail both making population projections\nand projecting future trends in the teenage birth rate.\n95\nAppendix: Supplementary Tables\nTable A.1\nControl Variables Used in the Analyses\nSTUDY\nHOTZ,\nMOORE,\nHAVEMAN,\nMcELROY &\nBRIEN&\nMORRISON &\nWOLFE &\nGOERGE &\nWOLFE &\nVARIABLE\nSANDERS\nWILLIS\nGREENE\nPEROZEK\nLEE\nGROGGER\nPETERSON\nDemographic Characteristics\nMarital Status\nRace/ethnicity\nAFQT\nChild's Age\nBirth Order\nMother srage at birth\nFamily Background\nLiving arrangement as teen\nMother's education\nFather's education\nMother' achievement test score\nFamily income\nYears lived in poverty\nMother on welfare/family in\npoverty\nReligion\nNumber of children\nHome resources\nOther\nRegion of residence\nChild's health\nBirth'year\nState per capita spending\non family planning\nNeighborhood unemployment rate\nState maximum welfare benefits\nNotes: indicates that the variable was used only in models that included correction for selection bias; indicates variable was used as a sub-\ngroup identifier.\n96\nTable A. 2\nSimulation Estimates of the Costs of Prior Teenage Childbearing\n(March 1996 Dollars)\nSINGLE-BIRTH COST\nANNUAL COHORT,\nSINGLE YEAR COST\n20 YEAR HORIZON\n20-YEAR HORIZON\n($BILLIONS)\n($1,000s)\n($BILLIONS)\nGross costs\n$29.9\n$21.6\n$8.6\nb\nNet costs\n$12.4\n$8.6\n$3.5\nSource: M: Burt (1992), Estimates of public costs for teenage childbearing: A review of recent studies and estimates of 1985 public costs\n(Washington, D.C.: Center for Population Options), Exhibits 2-4. The methodology used to generate these estimates is detailed in M. Burt and\nD Haffner (1986), Teenage childbearing: How much it/cost? (Washington, D.C. Center for Population Options). Numbers have been\nadjusted to March 1996 dollars, based on the Consumer Price Index-Urban.\na\nGross costs include AFDC payments, food stamps, Medicaid costs, and welfare administration costs: They do not include other costs, such as\nthose associated with public housing, special/education; child protective services, foster care, day care; or other social services.\nb\nNét costs assume that 60 percent of the outlays for AFDC, food stamps, and Medicaid to teenage parents would have been made to those\nwomen'even' if they had delayed childbearing until age 20. This assumption was derived from your the observation that average public assistance\ndependency 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.\nMoore and R.F. Wertheimer (1984), Teenage childbearing and welfare: Preventive and ameliorative strategies,' Family Planning Perspectives 16,\n(November-Decermber): 285-289.\nAverage Annual Discounted Differences in Outcomes Between\nAdolescent and Later Childbearers\n(First 13 Years of Parenthood)\nESTIMATION MODEL\nGROSS\nDIFFERENCES\nADJUSTMENT 1 b\nADJUSTMENT 2c\nBENEFIT OR COST COMPONENT\n(No controls)\n(Some controls)\n(Full controls)\nOwnIncome\nEarnings\n($4,368)\n($3,237)\n($474)\nIncome and consumption taxes\n$1,004\n$745\n$109\nIncomel From Spouses and Fathers of Children\nSpouse's earnings\n($13,015)\n($10,442)\n($2,339)\nSpouse's taxes\n$2,993\n$2,402\n$538\nChild support\n$328\n$146\n$21\nPublic/Assistance\nAFDC benefits\n$734\n$640\n$507\nFood stamp benefits\n$397\n$318\n$129\nPublic housing\n$738\n$514\n$44\nMedical care paid by society\n$639\n$635\n$688\nOut of Medical Care-for Children\nMedical care paid by respondent\n$105\n($122)\n($142)\nNote: Values are expressed in March 1996 dollars. All figures are discounted at 5 percent per year. Discounted values were used only in the cal-\nculation of benefits and costs from the perspective of the young mothers. Since the young mothers do not bear the financial costs of either foster\ncare or incarceration of their male children, we have not included these cost elements in the table of discounted figures.\na\nThese figures represent simple (unadjusted) differences in outcomes between those who had their first child before age 18 and those who had\ntheir first child at age 20 or 21.\nb.\nThese figures represent differences between observed outcomes for those who had their first child before age 18 and those who delayed child\nbearing until age 20 or 21, controlling for observable background factors that are not expected to change asia result of early childbearing. These\nestimates correspond to estimates of. the costs or benefits associated with a policy that would both lead to a delay in adolescent childbearing and\ncompensate for some but not all, other factors that also tend to promote poor outcomes for young women and their children.\nThese figures represent differences between observed outcomes for, those who had their first child before age, 18 and those who delayed child-\nbearing until age 20'or 21, controlling for differences in-backgrounds between the adolescent and older childbearers as well as differences in other\nfactors closely linked to adolescent childbearing. These estimates correspond to estimates of the costs or benefits associated with a policy that\nwould result in a delay in childbearing but that would affect no other aspects of the young mothers' lives.\nTable A.4\nAverage Annual Undiscounted Differences in Outcomes\nBetween Adolescent and Later Childbearers\n(First 13 Years of Parenthood)\nESTIMATION MODEL\nGROSS\nDIFFERENCESᵃ\nADJUSTMENT 1ᵇ 1 b\nADJUSTMENT 2\nBENEFIT OR COST COMPONENT\n(No controls)\n(Some controls)\n(Full controls)\nProductivity/andTaxRevenues\nEarnings\n($5,978)\n($4,367)\n($555)\nIncome-and consumption taxes\n($1,375)\n($1,004)\n($127)\nFather's earnings (married and nonmarried)\n($3,775)\n($2,841)\n($1,907)\nFather taxes (married and nonmarried)\n($868)\n($653)\n($438)\nPublic Assistance) Payments and Administration\nAFDC benefits\n$914\n$793\n$591\nFood stamp benefits\n$522\n$42\n$150\nAFDC administrative costs\n$46\n$40\n$29\nFood stamp administrative costs\n$26\n$21\n$7\nPublic housing\n$762\n$543\n$117\nMedical care paid by society\n$432\n$566\n$641\nOther\nMedical care paid by respondent\n($645)\n$715\n($90)\nFoster care\n$496\n$455\n$374\nIncarceration of young men\n$2,269\n$1,051\n$424\nNote: Values are expressed in March 1996 dollars. All figures are discounted at 5 percent per year Discounted values were used only in the cal;\nculation of benefits and costs from the perspective of the young mothers: Since the young mothers do notibear the financial costs of either foster\ncare or incarceration of their male children, we have not included these cost elements in the table of discounted figures.\nThese figures represent simple (unadjusted) differences in outcomes between those who had their first child before age 18 and those who had\ntheir first child at age; or 21\nb\nThese figures represent differences between observed outcomes for those who had their first child before age 18 and those who delayed:child\nbearing until age 20 or 21, controlling for vable background factors that are not expected to change as a result of early childbearing These\nestimates correspond to estimates of the costs or benefits associated with a policy, that would both lead to a delay in adolescent childbearing and\ncompensate for some, but not all, other factors that also tend to promote,poor outcomes for young mothers and their children.\nThese figures represent differences between observed outcomes for those who had their first/child beforelage 18 and those who delayedichild\nbearing until age 20 or 21, controlling for differences in backgrounds between the adolescent and older childbearers as well as differences in other\nfactors closely linked to adolescent childbearing. These estimates correspond to estimates of the costs or benefits associated with a policy that\nwould result in a delay in childbearing but that would affect no other aspects of the young mothers lives.\nLATER CHILDBEARERS (AGES 20 OR 21)\nADOLESCENT\nSOURCE OF SUPPORT\nCHILDBEARERS\nWITH CONTROLS\nNO CONTROLS\nOutcomes Duringthe) of Par enthood\nOwn Earnings\n30.2%\n30.3%\n29.4%\nEarnings of spouse\n46.9%\n55.7%\n64.9%\nChild support\n4.2%\n3.7%\n1.1%\nAFDC\n6:9%\n3:7%\n1.4%\nFood stamps\n3.8%\n2.8%\n0.8%\nMedical assistance\n8.1%\n3.8%\n2.3%\nTotal\n100.1%\n100.0%\n99.9%\nAverage Outcomes Young Adulthood\nOwn Earnings\n31.8%\n29.5%\n30.5%\nEarnings of spouse\n48.0%\n52:3%\n59.7%\nChild support\n3.9%\n4.6%\n1.7%\nAFDC\n4.5%\n4.0%\n1.7%\nFood stamps\n2.8%\n2.9%\n0.9%\nMedical assistance\n9.0%\n6.7%\n5.5%\nTotal\n100.0%\n100.0%\n100.0%\nSource: Except as noted, these data are adapted from J: Hotz, S: McElroy, and S. Sanders (forthcoming), 'Mothers: Effects of early childbearing\non the lives of the mothers, in Kids Having Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, ed. R. Maynard (Washington, D.C. Urban\nInstitute Press and reported in T ables and 6 above: Control variables included in the models are listed in Appendix able A. l.\na\nEstimates are derived from M. Brien and R. Willis (forthcoming), Fathers: Costs and consequences of early childbearing for the fathers, the\nyoung mothers, and their children, in Kids Having Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of een Pregnancy, ed. R. Maynard (Washington,\nD.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\nhalf 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\nbirths 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\nmidway between those two rates (61.5 percent) if we controlled for basic demographic differences between early and later childbearers.\nb.\nEstimates are derived from B. Wolfe and M. Perozek (forthcoming), Health: Early childbearing's costs to society for health and medical care of\nthe children,' in Kids Having Kids: The Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy, ed. R. Maynard (Washington, D.C. Urban Institute\nPress). The estimates; which include only publicly, supported medical assistance assume that the average subsidies per child pertain to all children\nborn 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\nwe compensate for or otherwise equalize circumstances other than basic family circumstances; 2.1 children if she delays childbearing and we fully\ncompensate for, all differences between her and her counterparts who delay childbearing until theirearly 20s, including compensating for her\nfamily demographics.\nABOUT THE ROBIN HOOD FOUNDATION\nThe Robin Hood Foundation was created as a public charity in 1988 to\nfind, fund and provide management help to the best and most innovative\nprograms serving poor people in New York City. Since then, the foundation\nhas provided more than $35 million in money, volunteer resources and\nmaterial goods to these programs. Robin Hood has supported a wide range\nof poverty-fighting projects, including housing for the homeless, medical\nhelp for the sick, job training for the jobless, hospice care for people with\nAIDS, drug treatment for the addicted, and soup kitchens for the hungry.\nBut, from the very beginning, Robin Hood's primary aim was-and\ncontinues to be-to develop the best programs and schools for young\nchildren and teenagers living in poverty. In the course of visiting and\nworking with hundreds of youth programs, Robin Hood has observed\nfirst hand the pervasive and damaging impact of adolescent childbearing\nin the city's very poorest communities. The foundation has also wit-\nnessed the profound impact of programs that help children delay parent-\nhood until they grow up, graduate from school, get married and become\nemotionally and financially ready to rear children of their own. Through\nits very direct community-level work, Robin Hood has increasingly\nexplored the larger dimensions of adolescent childbearing in New York\nCity and the nation. In this context, the foundation commissioned this\nreport on the costs and consequences of adolescent childbearing.\nThe Robin Hood Foundation Board of Directors\nPaul Tudor Jones II, Chairman\nPeter D. Kiernan III, Vice-Chairman\nPeter F. Borish\nGeoffrey Canada\nMaurice Chessa\nStanley Druckenmiller\nGlenn R. Dubin\nMarian Wright Edelman\nJohn F. Kennedy\nMary McCormick\nJann S. Wenner\nDavid Saltzman, Executive Director\nLisa Smith, Deputy Director\nThe Robin Hood Foundation\n111 Broadway, 19th Floor\nNew York, New York 10006\nTelephone: 212-227-6601\nFax: 212-227-6698\nLINNAM LODNER INDISAO\nClinton Presidential Records\nDigital Records Marker\nThis is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative\nmarker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.\nThis marker identifies the place of a publication.\nPublications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose\nof digitization. To see the full publication please search online or\nvisit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.\nUS\nPolicy male No Research Report\nWelfare Reform Issues Before Before the Natio Natio\nClinton Presidential Records\nDigital Records Marker\nThis is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative\nmarker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.\nThis marker identifies the place of a publication.\nPublications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose\nof digitization. To see the full publication please search online or\nvisit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.\nAmerican Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research\nOctober 1995\nA Debate on Affirmative Action Policies\nSo asserted Dinesh D'Souza,\nJohn M. Olin Research Fellow,\nat AEI's September 13, 1995,\nNewsletter\ndebate on affirmative action\npolicies. Mr. D'Souza, the au-\nthor of The End of Racism:\nPrinciples for a Multicultural\nSociety (Free Press, 1995), de-\nbated Christopher Edley, Jr.,\nprofessor of law, Harvard Univer-\nsity, and coauthor of President\nClinton's Affirmative Action\nReview (July 1995) as part of\nthe Institute's Amgen Forum, a\nseries of public policy debates,\nChristopher Edley. Jr., and Dinesh D'Souza\nlectures, and conferences spon-\n\"Ever since the 1960s there has\nwill lead to equality of results\nsored by Amgen, Inc.\nbeen an assumption in our pub-\nfor groups. A generation after\n\"The pernicious effects of\nlic discourse that racial groups\npassage of the Civil Rights Laws,\naffirmative action are threefold,\"\nare fundamentally the same in\nwe now have plenty of empirical\nMr. D'Souza continued. \"First,\ntheir endowments and capacities.\nevidence that this is not so. Yet\npolicies that were put into place\nThis has led us to expect that\nit remains the basis of much\nto fight discrimination now\nequality of rights for individuals\nAmerican social policy.\"\n(continued on the next page)\nCan Welfare Reform Reduce Illegitimacy?\n\"The ratio of illegitimate to\nSenator Moynihan warned that if\nlegitimate births in the United\nlegislative proposals to end the\nStates was about 4 percent in\nfederal commitment to poor fami-\n1940. It then began to rise in an\nlies become law, \"within ten years\nexponential curve that looks like\nyou are going to find children\na jet plane taking off. According\nsleeping on heating grates\" the\nto this curve, the rate will get to\nway the adult homeless now do.\n50 percent by the year 2004.\"\n\"Children born out-of-\nSo asserted Senator Daniel\nwedlock are more likely to drop\nPatrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) in\nout of school, to have lower test\nhis keynote address to AEI's\nscores and grades. to become\nSeptember 11 conference,\nteenage parents, and to have\n\"Addressing Illegitimacy: Wel-\ncriminal justice encounters,\" ac-\nfare Reform Options for Con-\ncording to Rebecca Maynard, se-\ngress,\" organized by Douglas J.\nnior vice-president, Mathematica\nSen. Daniel P. Moynihan\nBesharov, resident scholar.\nPolicy Research, Inc. \"But there\nbearing corresponds to generosity\nDescribing the rise of illegiti-\nis no evidence that welfare pro-\nof benefits,\" she added.\nmacy as \"an unprecedented\nmotes larger family sizes or that\nC. Rudolf Myers, director,\nchange in our social structure,\"\nthe rate of out-of-wedlock child-\n(continued on the next page)\n1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 202/862-5800\nClinton Presidential Records\nDigital Records Marker\nThis is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative\nmarker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.\nThis marker identifies the place of a publication.\nPublications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose\nof digitization. To see the full publication please search online or\nvisit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.\nDLC\nDemocratic Leadership Council\nBLUEPRINT\nFOR CHANGE\nReducing Teenage Pregnancy\nA Handbook for Action\nMarch 1996"
}