Lawrence M.

Berger University of Wisconsin—Madison

Marcia J. Carlson University of Wisconsin—Madison∗

Family Policy and Complex Contemporary

Families: A Decade in Review and Implications
for the Next Decade of Research and Policy Practice

Prior Journal of Marriage and Family a discussion about future research and policy
decade-in-review articles have grappled with development in the context of contemporary
the definition and role of family policy for family complexity.
research and policy practice while emphasizing
its value to both. In this article, we begin with
a broad conceptualization of family policy Families play a crucial role in sustaining human
that encompasses actions intended to achieve populations: Parents are charged with nurturing,
explicitly stated goals for families (explicit socializing, and supporting dependent children
policies) and those that affect families without until they can (hopefully) become independent
an explicitly stated goal for doing so (implicit
and responsible citizens, workers, and commu-
policies), which we believe provides a solid
nity members—potentially going on to have
framework for guiding and understanding both
their own children, and the intergenerational
research and practice in the field. Second, we
cycle continues. Yet, not every family provides
review major U.S. policy initiatives in the past
the same resources and opportunities, and the
decade and their documented and potential
past decade has pointed to growing diversity
effects on families. Third, we describe several
and inequality in family experiences that are
key aspects by which contemporary families
linked with inequality in a host of outcomes
have become more diverse and complex. Fourth,
(Duncan & Murnane, 2016; Lundberg, Pollak,
we discuss the implications of ongoing family
& Stearns, 2016). Public policies can affect the
complexity for public policies. We conclude with
formation of families in the first place and the
circumstances and conditions under which fam-
ilies exist, including (sometimes) providing or
School of Social Work and Institute for Research on subsidizing alternative care when parents are not
Poverty, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 3420 Sewell able to care for their children.
Social Sciences, 1180 Observatory Dr., Madison, WI 53706
([email protected]). Since 1990, “family policy” has been among
∗ Department
the topics addressed in the Journal of Marriage
of Sociology and Center for Demography and
Ecology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 4452 Sewell
and Family decade-in-review issue, suggest-
Social Sciences, 1180 Observatory Dr., Madison, WI ing the importance within family research of
53706. understanding how the public sphere interacts
Key Words: children, family complexity, family policy, par- with, supports, and potentially undermines
ents. families as social institutions. The earlier
478 Journal of Marriage and Family 82 (February 2020): 478–507
DOI:10.1111/jomf.12650
Family Policy and Complex Contemporary Families 479

reviews introduced the concept of family pol- and primary function of government, or less
icy and highlighted important policy changes generous with a residual model, in which gov-
in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. We extend ernment’s role is limited to intervening only
this prior work by providing a broader view when traditional institutions such as the labor
of what we argue should be considered as market, family, and community are unable to
“family policy,” and we summarize key pol- provide a minimum standard of living or quality
icy changes—and changes in family patterns of life. Regardless of the particular definition,
with policy implications—during the past social policy intrinsically implies value judg-
decade, including policy changes and research ments about the opportunities to which every
publications from 2010 through 2019. member of society should have access and the
We begin by outlining a conceptualization of potential redistribution of resources that might
family policy that we believe provides a useful be required (Titmuss, 1974).
framework for guiding and understanding both As noted in three prior Journal of Marriage
research and policy practice in the field. Second, and Family decade-in-review articles (Aldous &
we review major U.S. policy initiatives in the Dumon, 1990; Bogenschneider, 2000; Bogen-
past decade and their documented and potential schneider & Corbett, 2010), family policy
effects on families. Third, we describe several represents a subfield or subdomain of social
aspects by which contemporary family forms policy. In its broadest sense, family policy can
are increasingly complex. Fourth, we discuss the be defined as
implications of ongoing family complexity for
public policies that were largely crafted in an “what government does to and for children and
era when families were much less diverse and their families, in particular those public policies
complex. We conclude with recommendations (laws, regulations) that are designed to affect the
situation of families with children—or individu-
for future research and policy development in
als in their family roles—and those that have clear
the context of contemporary family complexity. consequences for such families even though the
Throughout, we primarily focus on the United impacts may not have been intended.” (Kamer-
States. However, we document similarities and man, 1996, p. 31)
differences in both family and policy trends
in the United States relative to other advanced Notably, this definition—similar to most def-
industrialized nations. initions of family policy—is focused on families
with children. This reflects that family policy is
Family Policy: A Conceptual Framework grounded in the principle that the family is the
primary institution for childrearing and social-
Social policy is broadly equated with the func- ization and that societal investments in families
tions of the welfare state, or governmental are primarily to support the healthy development
actions, including direct intervention as well of the next generation of workers and citizens; it
as laws and regulations (for which effects may also implies that family policy includes all fam-
vary as a function of implementation), intended ilies with children rather than some subset (e.g.,
to influence the well-being of members of low-income families) thereof, and that invest-
a society, often outside of what the market ments in the family unit (including parents) are
alone provides. Its key domains include income necessary to support children’s development into
support, education, health care, employment, productive citizens (Kamerman, 1996).
housing, and social services. Policy levers in Although we recognize that families come in
these areas may include direct or indirect (e.g., a variety of forms that may or may not involve
tax) transfers in the form of cash or in-kind legal, biological, or intergenerational ties (e.g.,
assistance as well as direct service provision. unmarried couples without children), here we
These interventions may be publicly or pri- retain the focus on families with children. To
vately administered or provided but typically provide some sense of scope, we note that, based
include some form of government intervention on the 2018 Current Population Survey, there
in the form of mandates, regulations, funding were 127.6 million households in the United
mechanisms, or incentives. Systems can be States in 2018, of which 83.1 million were clas-
more generous with a social insurance model sified as family households (members related
in which preventing, confronting, and address- by birth, marriage, or adoption). Of these,
ing social problems is adopted as an integral 34.5 million (or 41%) included their “own”
480 Journal of Marriage and Family

children younger than age 18, and these family include tax and transfer programs that are con-
households included 68.0 million children (or ditioned on having or caring for children as well
about 2.0 children per family; U.S. Census as family planning, family leave, family law,
Bureau, 2018). These represent point-in-time child welfare (child abuse and neglect), child
estimates, and the numbers and characteristics care, maternal and child health interventions,
of families certainly change over time. and the like. Implicit policies may not be directly
While retaining the focus on families with targeted at families or depend on having a child,
children, we argue that the scope of family but may affect families nonetheless; elements of
policy should be broadened across two key income tax policy, housing policies, and health
domains. First, policies under consideration care policies, for example, may not be directed
should not be limited to those explicitly tar- at families, but may differentially affect single
geted toward families with children, but should individuals, or partnered individuals who do
also include those without a family focus that not have dependent children, versus those in
implicitly influence families. Second, policies two-generation family units.
should be assessed in recognition of grow- We note that this is a somewhat broader per-
ing family complexity and diversity, where the spective than that articulated by Bogenschnei-
implications—especially with respect to broader der (2000, p. 1137) and Bogenschneider and
patterns of inequality—may be quite different Corbett (2010) in the last two Journal of Mar-
than during earlier times which were charac- riage and Family decade-in-review articles on
terized by (somewhat) greater stability and this topic; they advocated more narrowly defin-
homogeneity in family forms. Indeed, Seltzer ing family policy to include only explicit poli-
(2019) argues that growing family complexity cies targeted at families and reserving a separate
and diversity has increased uncertainty about framing, the “family perspective on policy mak-
family stability and relationships and thereby ing,” for policies with implicit consequences for
weakened the private safety net provided by families. We prefer the more inclusive approach
families for their members. Moreover, family for two primary reasons. First, we find the family
complexity and related uncertainty are particu- policy versus family perspective on policy mak-
larly salient among socially and economically ing distinction to be somewhat blurred. Take, for
disadvantaged populations and are also linked example, housing assistance policy: In general,
to ongoing, including intergenerational, trans- rental housing subsidies (unit- and tenant-based
mission of social and economic disadvantage assistance in the United States, such as pub-
and inequality. As such, we argue that reforming lic housing and Section 8 vouchers) would be
family policies to better serve the needs of excluded from family policy but included in
diverse and complex contemporary families is the family perspective on policy making. How-
crucial for promoting the current and future ever, such policies give preference to families
well-being of the U.S. population. with children and consider the number (and
gender) of children in making benefit deter-
minations (e.g., determining size of unit and
Explicit and Implicit Policies number of bedrooms). As such, we argue that
Drawing on the work of Kamerman and Kahn this is de facto family policy and believe it is
(1976, 1978, 1989, 2001), we advocate a broad both unnecessary and overly complicating to
conceptualization of family policy that encom- categorize it otherwise. Second, we argue that
passes actions intended to achieve explicitly a more inclusive approach is particularly use-
stated goals for families (explicit policies) as ful for making cross-national comparisons in a
well as those that affect families without an context in which most other advanced indus-
explicitly stated goal for doing so (implicit trialized countries have adopted a more con-
polices); the latter includes potential conse- sistent and holistic approach to family policy
quences that may be intended or unintended (and social policy, more generally) relative to the
(Kamerman & Kahn, 1976). Family policies fragmented and categorical approach adopted
may have goals or consequences in areas such as by the United States. Indeed, Kamerman and
fertility, cohabitation, marriage, divorce, gender Kahn (2001) noted that the United States lacks
equity, labor market participation, work–life a coherent family policy, that most policies that
balance, economic resources, and the cost of have implications for families and children are
childrearing. Explicit policies, for example, more implicit than explicit, and that U.S. policies
Family Policy and Complex Contemporary Families 481

“tend to be limited in scale, coverage, and gen- most Western countries), including a delay and
erosity and are usually categorical and narrowly decline in marriage, an increase in cohabitation,
focused” (pp. 69–70). a notable rise in divorce rates (followed by a
Because U.S. policy toward children and decline in some nations), a high prevalence of
families is to a large extent implicit in nature, repartnering (and associated multipartnered fer-
we believe it is particularly important to define tility), and a large increase in the share of births
such policy initiatives as family policy. More- that occur outside of marriage (Furstenberg,
over, we contend that most social policy is, 2014). Shared physical custody arrangements
in essence, explicitly or implicitly family following parental union dissolution have also
policy. For example, immigration policy and increased substantially in recent decades (and
enforcement has clear implications for chil- shared legal custody has been the norm for sev-
dren’s living arrangements and associated eral decades; Cancian, Meyer, Brown, & Cook,
household resources (Amuedo-Dorantes & 2014; D. R. Meyer, Cancian, & Cook, 2017).
Arenas-Arroyo, 2019)—with the recent child Union instability in the context of childbearing
separation policy under the Trump admin- implies that individuals will experience multiple
istration on the U.S. southern border as the family forms with various dimensions of com-
most extreme example. Criminal justice policy, plexity; adults are likely to spend time living
including prisoner-reentry policy, also has a with more than one partner, and children may
range of consequences for both parents and experience changes in the adults with whom
children, including setting the duration of time they coreside or who serve as parental figures
and geographic distance over which children in their lives. This means that families often
are separated from incarcerated parents and the span different households, that family members
supports available to currently and formerly within households may not all share the same
incarcerated individuals and their families biological or relational ties, and that the involved
(Turney, 2017; Western & Smith, 2018). Yet, individuals may have different definitions of
neither of these is typically considered family who is “in” their family. Moreover, these factors
policy. Defining policies in these and similar are likely to differ over time. In addition, recent
domains as implicit family policy recognizes decades have seen large numbers and increased
that individuals are intrinsically linked through- recognition of children living with their single
out their life course—both within and across or repartnered father without their biological
generations—by family relationships (Elder, mother present in the household (Grall, 2013;
1994). This may be particularly important to Livingston, 2013), children living in households
take into account in an era of increasing family that include one or more grandparents (and
complexity, including multigenerational house- may or may not include a biological parent,
holds and ongoing intra- and interhousehold Dunifon, Ziol-Guest, & Kopko, 2014), children
transfers of resources across the life course in “mixed” immigration-status families (Capps,
(Wiemers, Seltzer, Schoeni, Hotz, & Bianchi, Fix, & Zong, 2016; National Academies of
2016). Finally, we contend that it is critical to Science, Engineering and Medicine, 2019),
label policies that have intended or unintended and children being raised by same-sex couples
consequences for families or individuals in (Miller & Price, 2014). Together, these trends
their family roles as “family policy” to bring have resulted in growing uncertainty about
families—and such consequences—to the fore- family forms, relationships, and stability therein
front in research, policymaking, and policy (Seltzer, 2019). They have also raised questions
practice. about “what types of families the government
should support” (Cherlin, 2019, p. 48).
Amidst this complexity, existing research
Growing Family Complexity and policy definitions of families may be inad-
In addition to considering what to include equate. Most surveys that describe families
under the umbrella of “family policy,” it is also use household-based measures that may under-
important to consider how we are defining and estimate or mischaracterize the full array of
measuring families, especially as families have family ties and obligations, particularly among
continued to evolve. Since the middle of the disadvantaged families. For example, the def-
20th century, a series of major family changes inition of family still used by the U.S. Census
have occurred in the United States (and across Bureau is: “a group of two people or more (one
482 Journal of Marriage and Family

of whom is the householder) related by birth, families may not receive the level of emotional
marriage, or adoption and residing together” support that they need from either their non-
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). This definition residential biological father or their stepfather
does not accurately characterize many families (Cherlin, 1992; Stewart, 2006); at the same time,
today for at least two reasons. First, it ignores some research suggests that at least at one point
cohabitation despite the fact that many indi- in time, married stepfathers can be as involved
viduals today are likely to cohabit and that a with children as biological fathers, although
growing fraction of births occur to cohabiting these families’ economic resources are, on
couples; during the 2010 to 2014 period, fully average, far lower (Carlson & Berger, 2013).
26% of births were to women in cohabiting Finally, complexity may mean greater fluidity
relationships compared with 15% to single in living arrangements, as romantic partners of
(unpartnered) women (Wu, 2014). Second, it one parent move in and out of children’s lives.
ignores any family ties that span households, Because family complexity is most concentrated
which are increasingly common because of both among disadvantaged populations—in concert
family dissolution and multipartnered fertility. with evidence that complex family arrangements
For example, when their parents split up, chil- may further diminish families’ abilities to sup-
dren are likely to live away from their biological port their children—growing family complexity
father and from any half- (or step-) siblings that may contribute to broader societal inequality
may result from his repartnering. At the same both within and across generations (Seltzer,
time, however, given rising rates of parental 2019). As such, family complexity represents an
shared custody, they are also increasingly likely important aspect of the “diverging destinies” for
to spend time in—and to be considered a mem- children across different socioeconomic groups
ber of—multiple households. Furthermore, (McLanahan, 2004; McLanahan & Jacobsen,
cross-sectional classifications of families, in 2014).
general, will not capture the dynamic and fluid
Family complexity is of particular concern
nature of families, especially with respect to
with respect to public policy for at least two
living arrangements and resource-sharing.
reasons. First, program eligibility and benefit
Family complexity has key implications for
determination depend on accurately assessing
understanding the character and composition
the composition, size, living arrangements, and
of, as well as resource-sharing within, families.
This is especially salient in the United States, resources of individuals and families, whereas
where a largely residual welfare state expects growing complexity (and uncertainty) implies
families to take primary and ongoing responsi- that categories may not be as discrete or as
bility for the care and socialization of children. stable as assumed, even during the very short
Amidst complex families, resources that would term. For example, the Earned Income Tax
have historically been concentrated within a Credit (EITC) is paid to parents with low earn-
single nuclear household are now diffused ings who have custody of children (more than
across households. For example, men who have 6 months of the year), yet many parents today
fathered children with more than one woman are equally or near-equally sharing custody of
and do not live with some or all of their children children after separation; the EITC benefit can-
often do not have the economic resources to pro- not be apportioned across two tax filers. Second,
vide significant levels of support to all of these complexity creates challenges and dilemmas of
families (Cancian & Meyer, 2011; Sinkewicz & fairly adjudicating across individuals who share
Garfinkel, 2009). Moreover, many individuals family ties but whose interests and incentives
are likely to simultaneously occupy multiple may diverge. For example, in the context of
partner and parent roles, and family complex- multiple-partner fertility, assessment of child
ity portends greater ambiguity and identity support orders becomes much more complicated
conflicts with respect to family roles and than in the context of single-partner fertility;
responsibilities (Berger & Bzostek, 2014). For indeed, prioritizing the needs of mothers, fathers
example, scholars have described the role of or children may yield quite different approaches
stepparent with respect to parenting responsi- (Cancian & Meyer, 2011), and balancing
bilities as being rife with ambiguity for both equity, adequacy, and affordability concerns for
parents and children (Cherlin & Furstenberg, each of these actors has become increasingly
1994) and documents that children in stepfather difficult.
Family Policy and Complex Contemporary Families 483

Family Policy in the United States: generous welfare policies that provide higher
Trends, Developments, and Research levels of support and allow parents to better
Findings balance work and family obligations compared
A complete review of the detailed family policy to the Anglo/English-speaking countries (espe-
developments in the past decade and research cially the United States), which offer minimal
thereon is beyond the scope of a single article. supports; central and southern European coun-
As such, we begin with a review of the most tries fall somewhere in between (Gornick,
salient ongoing policy trends and research of the Meyers, & Ross, 1997). Indeed, a recent study
past decade. We note that this period included of 24 Organisation for Economic Cooperation
the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty and and Development (OECD) countries found
the 20th anniversary of the Personal Respon- that, although market-income poverty rates for
sibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation single-parent families in the United States are on
Act of 1996 (PRWORA); thus, we include par with those of other countries, U.S. policies
recent research relating to these policies. We do far less to reduce market-income poverty,
then highlight a subset of key recent policy leaving the United States with the highest dis-
developments that are likely to have substantial posable (posttax and transfer) income poverty
explicit or implicit impacts on children and fam- rate (Maldonado & Nieuwenhuis, 2015).
ilies. The explicit policies include family leave, As noted previously, the past decade marked
marriage equality, home visiting, contraceptive both the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty,
access, marriage promotion and relationship which was first introduced in Lyndon Johnson’s
building, child welfare, child support enforce- 1964 State of the Union Address, and the 20th
ment, and early childhood education and care. anniversary of PRWORA. These anniversaries
The implicit policies include tax and health sparked additional research and reviews focus-
care policy. Where possible, we review research ing on trends in poverty in the aftermath of each.
pertaining to each. Table 1 provides a summary The dramatic expansion in social and family
of the major policy developments in the past policy targeted at low-income populations that
decade that have particularly salient implica- occurred in the 1960s was largely followed by
tions for families. We acknowledge that there incremental policy changes (with the notable
have been a range of other policy developments exception of the establishment of the EITC and
with implications for families, most notably in the child support enforcement system) until
areas such as minimum wage policy, criminal PRWORA’s passage in 1996 (Berger, Cancian,
justice reform, immigration, and education, & Maguson, 2018). Throughout that period,
which are beyond the scope of this review. however, government spending and program
participation (caseloads) consistently increased
(Moffitt, 2015).
Ongoing Policy Trends and Research Have social policies reduced poverty in the
Findings 5 decades since the beginning of the War on
In contrast to that in most other developed coun- Poverty? A growing body of evidence suggests
tries, explicit family policy in the United States that, when in-kind benefits, such as the Supple-
is primarily targeted toward low-income fami- mental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),
lies and determined by means-testing. Moreover, and tax transfers, such as the EITC (which now
the share of federal expenditures (including tax comprise the core of the U.S. safety net), are
expenditures) on children that is means tested taken into account, poverty has been reduced
has grown considerably over time from 15% in substantially—to the tune of 40%—during the
1960, to 34% in 1970, and to fully 61% in 2017 past 50 years (Fox, Wimer, Garfinkel, Kaushal,
(Isaacs et al., 2018). This stands in stark contrast & Waldfogel, 2015; Haveman, Blank, Moffitt,
to many other industrialized countries, which Smeeding, & Wallace, 2015; Wimer, Fox,
pursue a more universalistic approach to family Garfinkel, Kaushal, & Waldfogel, 2016). More-
policymaking, as well as to evidence suggesting over, poverty among young children (ages 0–5)
that means-tested and targeted benefits are less has decreased by almost a third, as a direct result
effective for reducing poverty and inequality of antipoverty programs, which play a particu-
than universal social insurance benefits (Korpi larly large role in lifting Black, non-Hispanic
& Palme, 1998). Cross-nationally, the Scandina- children out of poverty (Pac, Nam, Waldfogel,
vian countries typically offer more universal and & Wimer, 2017). In short, at least with respect
 Table 1. Selected Federal and State Family Policies Initiatives 2009 to 2019
484
Domain Policy Key family-relevant provisions

Economic stimulus American Recovery and Reinvestment Expanded eligibility and benefit generosity for the EITC, SNAP, and UI; made temporary changes to the CTC, income and
Act (ARRA) of 2009 payroll taxes, and SSI; allocated additional TANF funds; increased funding for Head Start Childcare services, TANF, and
WIC; created the partially refundable American Opportunity Tax credit (AOTC) for postsecondary education expenses;
EITC, CTC, and AOTC provisions were made permanent in 2015
Paid family and medical leave State paid leave policies DC, NY, and RI enacted paid family leave policies between 2009 and 2017 (CA and NJ enacted policies in 2002 and 2008,
respectively); CA, CT, MA, OR, and VT enacted paid sick leave policies between 2011 and 2016
Marriage equality Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, making same-sex marriage legal in all
50 states
Family planning Federal and state expansions in access Mandated LARC coverage under the ACA; DC, DE, NM, TN, UT, VA, VT, and WV have enacted policies requiring
to long-acting reversible insurers and health care providers to expand information about and access to LARCs
contraceptives (LARCs)
Child welfare Family First Prevention and Services Enables states to use federal Title IV-E child welfare funding for trauma-informed, evidence-based child maltreatment
Act (FFPSA), included in the prevention efforts in addition to foster care services; removes time limits for family reunification services funded by the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 Promoting Safe and Stable Families program; limits placements in congregate care (group homes) except in the most
necessary circumstances
Child support Flexibility, Efficiency, and Final Rule issued by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services focusing on increasing state and employer flexibility to
Modernization in Child Support better serve families; improving program effectiveness, efficiency, and innovation; improving customer service; removing
Enforcement Programs, AT-16-06 barriers that impede efficient and timely child support payments; setting child support obligations based on noncustodial
parents’ ability to pay; disallowing states to consider incarceration “voluntary unemployment”; reducing the accumulation
of unpaid and uncollectible arrears; incorporating technological advances into child support enforcement
Early childhood education and care Child Care and Development Block Strengthens health and safety requirements for providers; increases parental choice in child-care arrangements; increases
Grant Act of 2014 subsidy stability and continuity of care; enhances quality of child care and early childhood workforce by gradually
increasing the proportion of funds states must commit to high quality providers
Tax policy Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 Reduces the marginal tax rate for all but the lowest income filers; nearly doubles the standard deduction, but repeals the
individual deduction; increases the CTC and its refundable portion and phases it out at a higher income level; reduces the
maximum cap on the mortgage interest deduction; caps the state tax deduction at $10,000; reduces the ACA mandated tax
penalty for not having health insurance to $0
State EITCs Between 2009 and 2015, CA (2015) enacted a refundable EITC, becoming the 26th state to do so; 13 states (CO, CT, IL, IN,
IA, KS, MD, MA, MN, NJ, OH, OR, RI) expanded their EITC; four states (CT, MI, NC, WI) contracted their EITC
Health care Patient Protection and Affordable Created insurance marketplaces for individuals and families to purchase health insurance; provides premium subsidies for
Care Act of 2010 those with incomes between 100% and 400% of poverty; expands eligibility for Medicaid up to 138% of poverty; requires
parents’ policies to allow coverage of children through age 26; requires private plans to provide contraception benefits;
creates the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program
Note. AOTC = American Opportunity Tax Credit; CTC = Child Tax Credit; EITC = Earned Income Tax Credit; LARCs = Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program; TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; UI = Unemployment Insurance; WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
Journal of Marriage and Family
Family Policy and Complex Contemporary Families 485

to reducing income poverty, research in the past cash benefits has declined substantially (Burn-
decade makes a compelling case that social side & Floyd, 2019). Furthermore, whereas cash
policy has been quite effective; for comprehen- transfers accounted for the vast majority of
sive reviews of the effects of social policy in the social welfare support to families with young
decades since the War on Poverty, see Bailey and children in the late 1960s, today’s benefit pack-
Danziger (2013), Bitler and Karoly (2015), and age to such families consists of equal parts
National Academies of Science, Engineering cash, in-kind, and tax (credit) benefits (Pac et al.,
and Medicine (2019). (Notably, this literature 2017). Specifically, in-kind assistance through
does not specifically focus on War on Poverty SNAP and refundable tax credits (EITC and the
programs per se but, rather, on the full array refundable portion of the child tax credit [CTC])
of policies and programs in effect, including now constitute the largest and most important
those existing prior to the War on Poverty, some income support programs for low-income chil-
of which were expanded during or subsequent dren and families in the United States (Hardy,
to the War on Poverty, as well policies and Smeeding, & Ziliak, 2018). Indeed, Isaacs et al.
programs enacted in more recent decades.) (2018) report that the majority of federal spend-
Beyond reducing poverty, Ooms (2019), in a ing on children is currently through the EITC
recent review of family policy during the past ($60 billion), the CTC ($49 billion), and the
50 years, concludes that family policy has made Dependent Exemption ($38 billion), with the
“substantial progress” in “improving children’s children’s share of SNAP and TANF funding
and families’ lives” (although she further notes totaling $31 billion and $13 billion, respectively.
that these gains have “largely been unrecog- The federal government also spends consid-
nized and are greatly undervalued by academic erably on children’s health, most prominently
disciplines, policymakers, the media, and the through Medicaid ($90 billion) and the Chil-
general public,” p. 19). dren’s Health Insurance Program ($15 billion).
Of additional note, during the past decade, the
These policy changes have resulted in
U.S. Census Bureau began (in 2011) annually
relatively less assistance being targeted to
releasing supplemental poverty measure (SPM)
nonelderly nondisabled families, single-parent
estimates in addition to official poverty measure
families, nonworking families, and the poor-
(OPM) estimates. Among other things, the SPM
est families, and relatively more assistance
accounts for near cash in-kind benefits and tax
transfers that are not accounted for by the OPM. targeted to the elderly and disabled, married
Although the SPM is better suited for measuring families, working families, and less-poor (but
the economic effects of social welfare policies, still low-income) families (Haveman et al.,
it is not currently used for program eligibility 2015; Moffitt, 2015), trends that continued
determination. A detailed discussion of poverty through the past decade. Current proposals and
measurement, including differences between the state waiver applications to expand the work
OPM and SPM is available in the recent report requirements in SNAP and to introduce them in
from the National Academies of Science, Engi- Medicaid indicate that these trends are ongoing.
neering and Medicine focused on reducing child Yet, despite large declines in TANF caseloads in
poverty (National Academies of Science, Engi- the wake of welfare reform—and the common
neering and Medicine, 2019). perception that the U.S. social welfare system
PRWORA signaled a significant shift in pol- has been contracting—overall social welfare
icy toward low-income families by ending the and family policy spending has, for the most
entitlement to unconditional means-tested cash part, continued to steadily grow during the
assistance in favor of time-limited benefits con- past half century (Moffitt, 2015). Indeed, direct
ditioned with work requirements, as well as by spending on children grew from 3.2% of the
decoupling food stamps and Medicaid from cash federal budget in 1960 to peak at 10.6% in
welfare. In concert with considerable expansions 2010 before declining to 9.4% or $325 billion
in child-care subsidies and the EITC, it also in 2017, and an additional $106 billion in fed-
signaled a shift away from direct cash assis- eral tax expenditures is targeted to families
tance in favor of in-kind assistance and indi- with children (Isaacs et al., 2018). State and
rect cash assistance through the tax system. local governments spend considerably more,
Since its 1996 passage, the real value of Tem- accounting for roughly two-thirds of all public
porary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) expenditures on children.
486 Journal of Marriage and Family

Still, the changes spurred by PRWORA and other in-kind benefits as income equivalents sub-
subsequent policies have had substantial impli- stantially reduces the estimates of the depth and
cations for low-income families. For example, severity of poverty (Meyer & Wu, 2018; Shae-
while unemployment rose sharply during the fer & Edin, 2013; Tiehen, Jolliffe, & Smeeding,
economic downturn of the Great Recession, 2016).
leading to a considerable increase in the SNAP Finally, although states have always had
caseload, TANF participation did not grow considerable flexibility in policy design and
accordingly. As such, poverty trends appear to administration, especially with respect to
be more closely tied to market cycles than in cash welfare, the 1996 reforms facilitated a
the past (Bitler & Hoynes, 2016). Consistent substantial increase in state policy variation,
with this finding, in their review of the evi- particularly for programs affected by PRWORA
dence on welfare reform, Danziger, Danziger, (Bruch, Meyers, & Gornick, 2018). This trend
Seefeldt, and Shaefer (2016) conclude that has also continued throughout the decade in a
TANF more successfully assisted low-income wide range of explicit and implicit family policy
families during the economic boom of the 1990s domains, including state Medicaid (Buettgens,
than during the high unemployment period Holahan, & Recht, 2015; Courtemanche, Mar-
of the Great Recession. Moreover, they high- ton, Ukert, Yelowtiz, & Zapata, 2016; Rose,
light considerable heterogeneity in families’ 2015) and EITC expansions (Cooper, Lutz, &
economic situations under “the new safety Palumbo, 2015; Williams, 2015), cash benefits
net” (p. 4), such that families that are able to (Schott, Pavetti, & Floyd, 2015; Stanley &
maintain employment are financially better Floyd, 2016), prekindergarten programs (Bartik
off, on average, whereas those with barriers to & Hershbein, 2018; Friedman-Krauss, Barnett,
stable employment—health and mental health & Nores, 2016), and paid family leave (Isaacs,
problems and limited labor market skills and Healy, & Peters, 2017).
experience—are worse off. In contrast to many of these ongoing trends,
Declines in cash assistance to low-income however, the American Reinvestment and
nonworking families sparked an interest in deep Recovery Act of 2009, which was enacted in
or extreme poverty in the United States in the response to the Great Recession, temporarily
decades following welfare reform. Edin and (but substantially) expanded eligibility and ben-
Shaefer (2015) and Shaefer, Edin, and Talbert efit generosity, particularly for the EITC, SNAP,
(2015) focused their work on those subsisting and unemployment insurance programs. It also
on $2 a day per person in cash income within included temporary changes in the CTC, income
the United States, finding extreme disadvan- and payroll taxes, and the Supplemental Secu-
tage among a subset of the U.S. population. rity Income program as well as additional TANF
The extremes of U.S. poverty were also high- funds (Moffitt, 2015). (Notably, the temporary
lighted in a recent report of the U.N. Human EITC and CTC expansions under the American
Rights Council Special Rapporteur on extreme Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 were
poverty and human rights (Human Rights Coun- made permanent in 2015.) As such, Bitler,
cil, 2018); the report highlighted the “stark con- Hoynes, and Kuka (2017) document that, after
trasts” in the United States, with both immense accounting for taxes and in-kind benefits, the
wealth and millions living in “Third World con- safety net substantially reduced private-income
ditions of absolute poverty” (p. 3). Although poverty during the Great Recession (although
there is considerable debate about the size and noting that TANF was less responsive to the
scope of the deep poor population and trends in recession than the EITC, SNAP, and unemploy-
deep poverty over time, with estimates varying ment insurance). However, they also document
widely (Edin & Shaefer, 2015; Fox et al., 2015; considerable variation by demographic groups
Meyer, Mooers, & Wu, 2018; Shaefer et al., such that immigrant families and the most dis-
2015; Shaefer & Edin, 2013; Winship, 2016), advantaged families were less well supported
given the shift away from cash support in the than their U.S.-born and more-advantaged
United States during the past 2 or more decades, counterparts. Next, we review what we view
it is reasonable to conclude that a nonnegligi- as the most salient explicit and implicit
ble number of Americans live on very little cash developments in family policy of the past
income. It is also clear that counting SNAP and decade.
Family Policy and Complex Contemporary Families 487

Recent Explicit Family Policy Ruhm, Stearns, & Waldfogel, 2018). Effects on
Developments children have also been quite positive, with anal-
Major explicit family policy developments yses revealing declines in infant hospitalizations
during the past decade have occurred in a range for reasons potentially associated with the care-
of areas, most notably family leave, marriage giving environment (Pihl & Basso, 2019) and
equality, home visiting, contraceptive choice improved elementary school health, particularly
and availability, marriage promotion and rela- for less-advantaged children (Lichtman-Sadot &
tionship building, child welfare, child support Bell, 2017). In addition, the policy significantly
enforcement, and early childhood education reduced the proportion of the elderly that used
and care. We briefly review these develop- nursing homes, as employees can take time off to
ments and, where relevant, the research to date provide informal care for elders (Arora & Wolf,
thereon. 2018).

State Family Leave Policies

Unlike its peer nations, the United States Marriage Equality (Same-Sex Marriage)
has no national paid family leave program. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell
During the past decade, however, there has v. Hodges (2015) that same-sex couples have
been considerable policy development at the a constitutional right to marry. As such, all
state level to enact paid family leave, and a states are now required to offer same-sex cou-
recent American Enterprise Institute–Brookings ples legal marriages with the same parameters
working group has called for a national paid as those offered to opposite-sex couples. The
family and medical leave policy (American research literature on the effects of same-sex
Enterprise Institute–Brookings, 2017). In 2002, marriage on adults and children is still in its early
California became the first state to adopt a stages, and challenges exist in terms of sam-
statewide paid family leave policy, which went ple sizes, identification of individuals in same
into effect in 2004. It was followed by New sex-couples, study recruitment, heterogeneity by
Jersey (enacted 2008, effective 2009), Rhode gender and sexual identity, and identification of
Island (2013, 2014), New York (2016, 2018), appropriate comparison groups and counterfac-
and Washington, D.C. (2017, 2020). Paid leave tuals (Umberson, Thomeer, Kroeger, Lodge, &
periods range from 4 to 8 weeks and from 50%
Xu, 2015). However, the research to date indi-
to 90% wage replacement up to a maximum
cates that access to legal same-sex marriage has
weekly benefit ranging from less than $200
led to increases in marriage among both men and
to more than $1,000 per week. All of these
policies are less generous than those of other women in same-sex relationships (Carpenter,
OECD countries, which offer new mothers an Eppink, Gonzales, & McKay, 2018). It has also
average of 54 weeks of leave and new fathers resulted in higher levels of self-assessed health
an average of 8 weeks of leave with wage (Kail, Acosta, & Wright, 2015), decreased psy-
replacement rates varying from 20% to100% chological stress, and increased life satisfaction
(American Enterprise Institute–Brookings, among members of same-sex couples (Ogolsky,
2017); yet they represent significant policy Monk, Rice, & Oswald, 2019), as well as greater
expansions. access to health insurance and health care and
Given that these policies have been enacted greater health care utilization, particularly for
so recently, research to date has examined only gay men (Carpenter et al., 2018). Furthermore,
the effects of the California policy. Results from although not explicitly focusing on same-sex
California indicate that the policy served to marriage, recent reviews of the research on the
increase the use and average length of mater- development and well-being of children raised
nity leave, particularly for less-advantaged fam- by same-sex parents indicates that, all else equal,
ilies, as well as to increase work hours and these children fare similarly to those raised by
wages for working mothers of young children different-sex parents across a wide range of
(Rossin-Slater, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2013). It developmental domains, and that any observed
also increased leave-taking among fathers in differences reflect differences in family stability
dual-earner households, particularly in associ- and socioeconomic status (Manning, Fettro, &
ation with first births (Bartel, Rossin-Slater, Lamidi, 2014).
488 Journal of Marriage and Family

Home Visiting and Maternal and Child Health environment and less psychological aggres-
Services sion toward the child, fewer emergency room
In light of a growing body of research visits, and fewer child behavioral problems. A
pointing to the effectiveness of high-quality companion study to MIHOPE, MIHOPE-Strong
evidence-based home visiting programs (see Start, is evaluating two of the interventions for
Michalopoulos, Faucetta, Warren, & Mitchell, their influence on prenatal, maternal and infant
2017; Sama-Miller et al., 2018) on a range health in 17 states and 66 local programs with a
of outcomes throughout the life course, the sample of nearly 3,000 women recruited during
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of the first 32 weeks of pregnancy. Interim results,
2010 (ACA) authorized the Maternal, Infant, when sample children were approximately
and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program. 15 months of age, indicate little influence of
Specifically, the Act provided $1.5 billion MIHOPE-Strong Start on prenatal behaviors
in federal funding over 5 years for state and or pregnancy outcomes (Michalopoulos et al.,
local implementation to expand access to 2019).
evidence-based home visiting for disadvantaged
children. The legislation also requires ongoing Contraceptive Choice and Availability
research and evaluation, including funding a
Home Visiting Research Network. The Mater- As detailed by Sawhill (2014), evidence sug-
nal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting gests that widespread and easily available
Program grants represent a large-scale federal access to long-acting reversible contraceptives
investment in the health, development, and (LARCs) has considerable potential to sub-
well-being of disadvantaged young children. stantially reduce unplanned pregnancy and
The initiative requires grantees to implement one associated family complexity. LARCs have
or more of the 20 home visiting models (as of lower rates of failure and noncompliant use
August 2019) that have demonstrated evidence than other forms of reversible contraception,
of effectiveness (U.S. Department of Health and and they are more effective at preventing
Human Services, 2019). Grantees must evaluate pregnancy. Yet, LARC usage rates have been
program outcomes in areas such as maternal relatively low in the United States, particularly
and child health, child maltreatment and injury, for disadvantaged women, given limited infor-
school readiness and achievement, crime and mation among both providers and potential
domestic violence, economic self-sufficiency, users, a traditionally multiappointment pro-
and coordination and referrals for community cess for insertion, and high up-front (although
resources and supports. Of particular note, the not necessarily long-term) costs. However, a
initiative targets at-risk communities rather than growing body of evidence suggests that pro-
means-testing individuals. Recipient states are viding counseling at family planning clinics to
required to continue to fund existing home vis- explain how LARCs work and making them
iting programs at their current spending levels available for free could result in substantial
(Adirim & Supplee, 2013). The program was increases in their use and a resulting decrease
most recently reauthorized under the Biparti- in unplanned births (McNicholas, Madden,
san Budget Act of 2018, which appropriated Secura, & Peipert, 2014; Ricketts, Klingler, &
$400 million per year through fiscal year 2022 Schwalberg, 2014). This evidence has driven
to the program. considerable policy development at the fed-
The Mother and Infant Home Visiting Pro- eral and state level. At the federal level, the
gram Evaluation (MIHOPE), launched by ACA mandates that health insurance cover all
the Department of Health and Human Ser- U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved
vices in 2011, focuses on the impacts of four contraceptive methods, including LARCs, at
evidence-based home visiting models being no cost to patients. At the state level, seven
implemented in 12 states and 88 local programs states (Delaware, New Mexico, Tennessee,
with a sample of more than 4,000 pregnant Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia) and
women or families with children younger than Washington, D.C. now have LARC-related
6 months of age. Interim results, when sample policies such as requiring insurance companies
children were approximately 15 months of age, or Medicaid to provide access to postpartum
suggest significant positive results on four of 12 LARC insertion or health care providers to
outcomes assessed—better quality of the home provide information about LARCs or otherwise
Family Policy and Complex Contemporary Families 489

improve access (National Conference of State Another intervention, the Supporting Healthy
Legislators, 2018). Marriage program, which focused on enhancing
Delaware was the first state to engage in a relationship quality and increasing marital sta-
statewide initiative to provide easy access to bility among low-income married couples with
contraceptive methods of choice to all women children, was launched in 2003, and the final
in the state. To date, evidence suggests a more evaluation was released in 2014. The yearlong
than doubling of LARC usage; simulations marriage education program was delivered at
suggest that these changes could result in a eight sites. It included group workshops using
15% decline in unintended pregnancies (Welti structured relationship skills curricula along
& Manlove, 2018). Similar initiatives have with additional activities and family support
recently been launched in Massachusetts, North services to reinforce key themes and connect
Carolina, and Washington. It is important to families with other services. The 30-month
recognize, however, that there is also some evi- evaluation (Lundquist et al., 2014) showed that
dence that clinicians may encourage women of Supporting Healthy Marriage did not increase
color, more so than White women, to engage in marital stability and did not influence measures
LARC usage, raising important concerns about of coparenting, parenting, or child well-being;
reproductive social justice (Dehlendorf et al., however, the program did produce sustained
2010; Higgins, Kramer, & Ryder, 2016) and positive effects on aspects of couple relationship
highlighting the need for patient-centered care quality, including higher marital happiness,
in contraceptive counseling to ensure women’s warmth, and effective communication along
autonomy in reproductive health decisions with lower levels of marital distress, infidelity,
(Higgins, 2014). and hostile behaviors.
Most recently, the Parents and Children
Together evaluation assessed the impact of
Marriage Promotion and Relationship Building four responsible fatherhood and two healthy
PRWORA’s explicit goal of promoting marriage marriage programs. The results are somewhat
and increasing the number of children raised in more promising than those from earlier evalua-
two-parent families, coupled with subsequent tions. For example, the responsible fatherhood
legislation in 2005 and 2010, provided funding programs improved fathers’ (self-reported)
for the implementation and evaluation of pro- parenting behaviors and increased the aver-
grams intended to promote healthy marriage age length of time fathers were continuously
and responsible fatherhood. The large-scale employed. At the same time, they had no impacts
Building Strong Families healthy marriage on parents’ coparenting quality, fathers’ earn-
and relationship education program targeting ings, or fathers’ social–emotional well-being
unmarried expecting or recent parents is perhaps (Avellar, Covington, Moore, Patnaik, & Wu,
the largest and most well-known project. On 2018). The healthy marriage programs improved
the whole, findings have not been promising. couples’ sense of commitment toward their rela-
Multisite Building Strong Families random- tionship, sense of support and affection toward
ized controlled trial (RCT) results indicate no each other, and coparenting quality; they also
overall program effects on relationship quality, slightly increased the likelihood that cou-
relationship stability, or marriage (though there ples remained married after 1 year, but did
was some heterogeneity in results by program not increase marriage among initially unmar-
site) (Wood, McConnell, Moore, Clarkwest, ried couples or consistently improve economic
& Hsueh, 2012). Specifically, at the 3-year well-being (Moore, Avellar, Patnaik, Covington,
follow-up, there was no evidence of improved & Wu, 2018).
couple relationships, coparenting quality, or A recent meta-analysis of existing responsi-
father involvement as well as no effect on family ble fatherhood program evaluations (Holmes,
stability or economic resources for children. Hawkins, Egginton, Robbins, & Shafer, 2018)
There were, however, some modest positive concluded that, on average, such programs
effects on child socioemotional development were associated with small but statistically
(Wood, Moore, Clarkwest, & Killewald, 2014). significant increases in father involvement
Additional projects focused on unmarried par- (father–child contact), parenting skills, and
ents were launched in 2015, and evaluations are coparenting. No significant effects were found
ongoing. on father employment, economic well-being,
490 Journal of Marriage and Family

or child support payment. Looking toward Child Support Enforcement

the future, the ongoing Building Bridges and Although no major child support legislation was
Bonds evaluation (Office of Planning, Research passed in the past decade, an executive order
and Evaluation/U.S. Department of Health was implemented to enhance “flexibility, effi-
and Human Services, 2019), spanning the ciency and modernization” in child support pro-
years 2014 to 2021, will provide evidence on grams (Office of Child Support Enforcement
the impact of six fatherhood programs using [OSCE], 2016). New rules under this order are
cognitive-behavioral, play-based, and smart focused on allowing more flexible determina-
phone (app)-based approaches. Key outcomes tion of child support obligations based on non-
include father–child contact, father–child rela- custodial parents’ abilities to pay, incorporating
tionship quality, and fathers’ employment, technological advances, and reducing the accu-
earnings, and child support payment. mulation of unpaid and uncollectible arrears. In
addition, states can no longer consider incar-
ceration to be “voluntary unemployment” for
Child Welfare the purposes of assessing child support obli-
Federal child welfare funding has long been gations. These changes were motivated by a
primarily devoted to children in out-of-home growing body of research indicating that child
care (OHC) rather than the prevention of child support orders tend to be relatively unrespon-
maltreatment and associated out-of-home place- sive to changes in noncustodial parents’ incomes
ment. Given growing evidence that high-quality (Ha, Cancian, & Meyer, 2010) and that reduc-
prevention programs can reduce child abuse ing child support debt can lead to increased non-
and neglect and thereby OHC, scholars and custodial parent employment and child support
payment (Cancian, Heinrich, & Chung, 2013;
policymakers have increasingly called for child
Heinrich, Burkhardt, & Shager, 2011).
welfare financing reforms to expandstate and
There has also been growing interest during
local flexibility to provide prevention services;
the past decade in reforming the child support
for a review of these issues, see Haskins, Currie,
enforcement system to better assist noncustodial
and Berger (2015). The Family First Prevention parents in finding and keeping employment
and Services Act (FFPSA), included in the and increasing earnings to better facilitate child
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, has the potential support transfers to children (Couch, 2010;
to radically change the child welfare services Mead, 2010a, 2010b; Sorensen, 2010a, 2010b).
landscape. Under the Act, for the first time, states As such, the federal government launched, in
are able to use federal Title IV-E child welfare 2012, the National Child Support Noncustodial
funding for trauma-informed evidence-based Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED),
child maltreatment prevention efforts in addition an eight-state pilot program that aimed to test
to foster care services. Services can be provided the efficacy of providing noncustodial parents
to children and families at risk of OHC for up to with integrated case management, enhanced
12 months and include mental health, substance child support services including review and
abuse, and parenting interventions. The Act also adjustment of orders, employment services, and
removes time limits for family reunification ser- fatherhood and parenting services to increase
vices funded by the Promoting Safe and Stable the reliable payment of child support. Maria
Families program, which will allow families a Cancian and Daniel Meyer led a randomized
longer time period to work toward family reuni- evaluation of the CSPED initiative using a sam-
fication following OHC placement; this may be ple of more than 10,000 noncustodial parents.
especially important for those struggling with On the whole, the intervention led to modest
opioid and other substance addiction. In addi- decreases in child support order amounts, which
tion, the FFPSA limits placements in congregate were better aligned with noncustodial parents’
care (group homes) except in the most necessary earnings, and smaller reductions in child sup-
situations, supporting the longstanding policy port payments, but no changes in child support
preference that children be raised in the most compliance. Moreover, although CSPED did not
family-like environments possible (Institute for increase employment, it resulted in some (small)
Research on Poverty, 2018). States are currently increases in noncustodial parents’ earnings.
in the process of developing implementation In addition, noncustodial parents in the treat-
plans. ment group reported much improved attitudes
Family Policy and Complex Contemporary Families 491

toward the child support program, greater sense filers (those with a 10% rate); (b) nearly dou-
of responsibility toward their children, and bling the standard deduction from $13,000
increased contact with nonresident children to $24,000 for married families filing jointly,
(Cancian, Meyer, & Wood, 2019). $6,500 to $12,000 for single filers, and $9,500
to $18,000 for heads of households, but repeal-
ing the individual deduction (formerly $4,050;
Early Childhood Education and Care notably, the value of the standard deduction
A large body of research has established that increases with a filer’s marginal tax rate such
early childhood is a crucial developmental that it is worth more to higher income filers;
stage and that high-quality early education and also, because it is nonrefundable, it is of no
care programs have the potential to improve value to those who do not owe taxes); (c)
child development and well-being, particularly increasing the CTC to $2,000 per child and its
for disadvantaged children; such efforts could refundable portion to $1,400 (the refundable
thereby reduce socioeconomic disparities in portion is calculated at 15% of wages above
school readiness, with implications for inter- $2,500), as well as phasing the credit out at a
generational transmission of inequality and higher income level (these provisions serve to
social mobility; for an extensive review, see increase both the value of the credit and the
Elango, Garcia, Heckman, and Holman (2016). number of families who can claim it; however,
As noted previously, PRWORA and subsequent the credit is not indexed for inflation and will
policies resulted in a significant increase in thus decline in real value over time); (d) reduc-
public investment in child care. The Child Care ing the cap on the mortgage interest deduction
and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 to interest debt paid on a maximum of $750,000
focused on increasing access to and improving (from $1 million) in acquisition debt for a first
the quality of child care targeted to low-income or second home purchase and eliminating the
families. Specifically, the Act increased parental deduction for home equity debt; (e) capping the
choice in child-care arrangements while seeking state tax deduction at $10,000; and (f) reducing
to improve subsidy stability and continuity of the ACA-mandated tax penalty for not having
care through more family-friendly eligibility health insurance to $0. However, with the excep-
and redetermination procedures and transparent tion of the elimination of the ACA penalty, these
consumer (and provider) education materials. It provisions are set to expire after 2025; see Gale,
also strengthened health and safety requirements Gelfond, Krupkin, Mazur, and Toder (2018) for
for providers and further sought to improve the a complete summary of the TCJA.
quality of child-care and early childhood ser- Analyses of the potential effects of the TCJA
vices, as well as the workforce delivering those suggest that, on the whole, all income groups and
services, by increasing the proportion of funds family types were expected to experience tax
states must commit to high-quality providers reductions in 2018, with an average increase of
and requiring ongoing professional development 1.6% in after-tax income. However, the largest
and training activities. reductions were targeted to higher income
groups. Considering all TCJA provisions, on
average, in 2018, filers in the bottom quintile
Recent Implicit Family Policy
were expected to experience a $60 reduction
Developments
in federal taxes, those in the middle quintile a
Additional recent developments in tax and health $930 reduction, and those in the top quintile
care policy, both of which we view as implicit a $7,640 reduction, representing tax decreases
family policy, may have important implications of 0.4%, 1.4%, and 2.2%, respectively. More-
for families. We review these next. over, although nearly 65% of taxpayers were
expected to receive a tax cut, this was true for
only 27% of filers in the lowest income quintile
Tax Policy compared with 82% of middle-income quintile
The major U.S. tax policy overhaul under the Tax filers and 90% of top-income quintile filers
Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) has a wide (Sammartino, Stallworth, & Weiner, 2018).
range of implications for families. Key family Furthermore, those in the lowest income quin-
relevant provisions include: (a) reducing the tile were expected to realize a roughly 0.4%
marginal tax rate for all but the lowest income increase in total after-tax income, those in the
492 Journal of Marriage and Family

middle quintile a 1.5% increase, and those in the disadvantaged populations (Courtemanche,
top 1% a 2.5% increase—and these disparities Marton, Ukert, Yelowitz, & Zapata, 2017), as
are expected to widen over time (Tax Policy well as with increased use of preventive care and
Center, 2017a). improvements in self-assessed health (Simon,
There is also considerable heterogeneity in Soni, & Cawley, 2017). Research also indicates
effects by marital status and family size, as well that the contraception coverage mandate served
as across states (Sammartino et al., 2018). Most to increase contraception use and decrease
notably, tax reductions are expected to be gener- abortion (Mulligan, 2015). In addition, the pro-
ally larger for lower earning families with fewer visions allowing young adults to remain on their
children and for higher earning families with parents’ health policies until age 26, coupled
more children (Tax Policy Center, 2017b). On with the contraception coverage requirement,
the whole, the Joint Committee on Taxation and are associated with a modest decrease in fertility
the Congressional Budget Office estimate that among young adults (Heim, Lurie, & Simon,
the TCJA will result in decreased federal rev- 2018) however, there appears to be no asso-
enue of $1.5 trillion by 2027. If accurate, a loss ciation of Medicaid expansions with fertility
of federal revenue of this magnitude could have (DeLeire, Lopoo, & Simon, 2011).
implications for family policy expenditures in
the future. Family Complexity and Family Policy
Beyond the TCJA, the past decade saw a
range of policy developments with respect to We next consider recent changes in families and
state EITCs. To date, 26 states offer a state their implications for policy. First, we briefly
EITC, which is usually calculated as a per- summarize six key family patterns about which
centage of the federal EITC. Since 2009, one new research has emerged in the past decade,
state (California) enacted an EITC, 13 states and which have important implications for
expanded their EITC, and four states contracted ongoing public policy challenges in meeting the
their EITC (Connecticut passed legislation both needs of children and parents living in varied
expanding and contracting its EITC during the and dynamic circumstances. Key patterns, here,
course of the decade). As noted previously, there include multipartnered fertility; shared cus-
is clear evidence that EITCs promote work and tody; grandparent-headed and multigenerational
decrease poverty and economic hardship. There households; single-father families; same-sex
is also a growing body of research indicating that parent families; and immigrant, mixed-status,
they are associated with improved health and and undocumented families. We also highlight
well-being in a wide range of domains for both increasing inequality between families as a key
children and adults (Nichols & Rothstein, 2016). overarching pattern. Subsequently, we consider
how well current family policies and programs
serve complex contemporary families.
Health Care
The ACA has several provisions that are partic- Recent Family Patterns
ularly relevant for families. In addition to the
home visiting provisions discussed previously, Multipartnered Fertility (MPF)
these include providing premium subsidies for The past decade witnessed a burgeoning of
those with incomes between 100% and 400% research on multipartnered fertility, as new ana-
of poverty, expanding eligibility for Medicaid lytic approaches and data sources brought addi-
to 138% of poverty (as of August 2019, 36 tional evidence about the nature and implications
states and Washington, DC, have expanded of the phenomenon of parents having children
their Medicaid programs [Henry J. Kaiser by multiple partners. A special issue focused on
Family Foundation, 2019]), requiring private family complexity, poverty, and public policy
plans to provide contraception benefits, and (Carlson & Meyer, 2014) included articles that
requiring parents’ policies to allow coverage developed new estimates of family complexity
of their children through age 26. Research from the perspective of children (Manning,
to date on the ACA indicates that state Medi- Brown, & Stykes, 2014), young adults (Berger
caid expansions are associated with considerable & Bzostek, 2014), and men and women (Guzzo,
increases in health care coverage, particularly for 2014) and also highlighted some of the chal-
(childless) young adults and socioeconomically lenges for mothers (Burton, 2014) and fathers
Family Policy and Complex Contemporary Families 493

(Tach, Edin, Harvey, & Bryan, 2014). Several single-parent families continue to be headed
recent articles have highlighted key issues by single mothers (Grall, 2013). At the same
regarding measuring MPF, especially differ- time, there has been a striking increase in shared
ences across data sources and whether estimates custody (particularly after divorce) in the past
are focused on mothers, fathers, or children 2 decades. Cancian et al. (2014) showed that
(Guzzo & Dorius, 2016; Stykes & Guzzo, 2019). between 1988 and 2008, the share of mothers
In addition, the 2014 Survey of Income and Pro- granted sole custody in divorce cases in Wis-
gram Participation was the first national U.S. consin fell dramatically, whereas the share of
survey to directly ask and measure whether indi- parents sharing custody increased (and the share
viduals have had children by more than one part- of fathers granted sole custody remained stable);
ner. Overall, 10.1% of those aged 15 and older Meyer et al. (2017) found that, by 2010, fully
have children by more than one partner, and this half of custody arrangements following divorce
is true of 15.7% of parents (Monte, 2017); MPF in Wisconsin were shared (where children spend
is more common among racial/ethnic minorities, at least 25% of time with each parent). Shared
those with low education, and those who are custody has especially important implications
unmarried (Monte, 2019). for tax and transfer programs that depend on
MPF is salient to family policy because, identifying who lives in a household (or which
by definition, it creates family complexity and of the parents has custody) to determine benefit
typically results in family members spanning eligibility and amounts. In particular, many
multiple households, which makes benefit eli- policies and programs require that a child be
gibility and resource allocation difficult. As claimed by only one parent and do not apply
discussed later in this article, most existing prorated eligibility or benefit determinations
policies were designed under the assumption based on custodial time-sharing. That is, many
of single-partner fertility such that family units benefits and tax credits cannot be shared across
consist only of adults and their joint children households when parents have joint custody.
and, hence, benefit from economies of scale with Thus, parents are forced to list only one custo-
respect to the cost of raising children. Yet, in the dial parent. As in the case of MPF, this raises
context of MPF, such that parents have children affordability, adequacy, and equity concerns
with multiple partners and these children live for balancing supports and obligations across
in multiple households, economies of scale parents and children with respect to both public
are less applicable than in the single-partner and private transfers.
fertility context. This raises technical and ide-
ological issues for policy and program design
regarding equity and adequacy across various Grandparent-Headed and Multigenerational
family forms, which span areas such as income Households
support, child support, tax policy, health care The past decade saw growing awareness that
provision, and any other policies that require many children live in households that include
that individuals (particularly children) be iden- relatives beyond their nuclear families (parents
tified as belonging to only a single family or and siblings), and may or may not include one or
household unit. Moreover, MPF is particularly both parents. Although there is more work to be
salient with respect to child-conditioned trans- done to illuminate the nature and implications of
fers between parental households (child support these patterns, recent research shows that about
policies), as it has widespread implications for one-fifth of children live in shared households
the amounts of such and the extent to which they with extended family members or nonrelatives.
are affordable to noncustodial parents, adequate Grandparents are especially important in this
for children (and their custodial parents), and regard: A nontrivial number of children are
equitable to children of varying birth order or being raised by grandparents (Dunifon, 2018),
from varying relationships. and nearly 30% of U.S. children will live with
their grandparent(s) at some point during child-
hood (Amorim, Dunifon, & Pilkauskas, 2017).
Shared Custody Indeed, the proportion of children living in
Historically children have typically lived multigenerational households has increased
with their mothers (rather than fathers) fol- dramatically during the past 2 decades, to 9.8%
lowing parental union dissolution, and most in 2016, compared to 5.7% in 1996 (Pilkauskas
494 Journal of Marriage and Family

& Cross, 2018). By comparison, approximately mothers, because single-father families have,
2.0% of children in 1996% and 2.2% of children on average, greater market-based economic
in 2014 lived with their grandparent(s) without resources, they are less likely to be eligible
a parent present (U.S. Census, 2018). Moreover, for means-tested benefits; also, many public
such households are especially common among services (e.g., home visiting programs) are
racial/ethnic minorities, unmarried and younger primarily oriented around mothers and children
mothers, and families that are more econom- and may be less “male friendly.”
ically disadvantaged (Pilkauskas, 2014), and
these living arrangements are often short term
with frequent transitions (Pilkauskas, 2012). Same-Sex Parent Families
They are also diverse in why they come about Although children in same-sex parent families
and how they influence members (Dunifon et al., represent a small minority of children (Gates,
2014). Such family arrangements are important 2012; Miller & Price, 2014), they have grown
for public policy because kin (and especially in numbers and in visibility. The best estimate
coresidential kin) may be a source of support to date indicates that roughly 240,000 children
or need, affecting the household’s available are being raised by a gay or lesbian parent
resources through provision or consumption and that roughly 70% of these are being raised
thereof. Yet, many programs and policies do by a same-sex couple (Miller & Price, 2014).
not take into account that other relatives in a As noted above, the Supreme Court legalized
household may provide or command resources. same-sex marriage. Moreover, attitudes toward
Also, nonparental caregivers who have custo- same-sex couples and families have changed
dial responsibilities for children often lack the dramatically. However, other policy changes
legal authority to obtain benefits that would have been slower to evolve. For example,
otherwise be available to biological parents, same-sex parents are sometimes prevented from
or may have difficulty being recognized as adopting children, and policies have been partic-
decision-makers in other organizations such as ularly slow to respond to same-sex couple union
schools or health care facilities. These issues dissolutions involving children. In particular, in
are particularly salient for the large number of cases in which married or cohabiting same-sex
grandparents who have substantial or primary couples break up, but only one parent is the
responsibility for rearing their grandchildren, biological or adoptive parent of the child(ren),
either temporarily or permanently. child support and visitation orders have been
uneven, sometimes leading to protracted legal
cases.
Single-Father Families
Although single-father families are considerably
less common than single-mother families, the Immigrant, Mixed-Status, and Undocumented
share of children living with their father, but not Families
their mother, has increased in recent decades Immigrant, undocumented, and mixed-status
(Grall, 2013; Livingston, 2013). Only 1% of families are inherently complex vis-à-vis their
children in a single-father family in 1960, while interactions with public policies and programs,
this was true of 4% of all children in 2018—a regardless of whether they are demographically
rapid rate of increase but from a low base level; complex, as defined by family composition
by comparison, 22% of children were living (coresidential, biological, and marital ties).
with a single mother in 2018 (U.S. Census, Approximately one quarter of U.S. children
2018). Single-father families typically have live in an “immigrant” family, in which one
greater economic resources than single-mother or both parents or some or all of the children
families—but fewer economic resources than were not born in the United States. The vast
two-parent families. Single fathers are often majority (nearly 91%) of these children are U.S.
reticent to apply for cash welfare assistance citizens, but 40% live with noncitizen parents
because of the stigma surrounding such and the (National Academies of Science, Engineering
belief that they should be able to provide for and Medicine, 2019). Moreover, about 7% of
their children (Hahn, 2016). Moreover, although all U.S. children and 30% of children living
there are no explicit policy differences for chil- in immigrant families live with at least one
dren being raised by single fathers and single undocumented parent; 79% of these children are
Family Policy and Complex Contemporary Families 495

U.S. citizens, 2% have legal status, and 19% are family formation had persisted, with important
undocumented themselves (Capps et al., 2016). consequences for children’s well-being. Indeed,
Immigrant families, including those with cohabitation, marriage, and childbearing behav-
undocumented members, are more socioe- iors are shown to differ by education, with the
conomically disadvantaged and have higher biggest difference observed between those with
poverty rates than nonimmigrant families, college degrees versus those with less education
but are considerably less likely to be served (Lundberg et al., 2016). Similarly, parenting
by social welfare policies and programs behaviors also diverge between advantaged
(National Academies of Science, Engineering and disadvantaged parents, contributing to
and Medicine, 2019). This reflects ineligibility achievement gaps among children (Kalil, 2015).
due to undocumented or other immigration These patterns are important for policy because
status (including, in many programs, ineligibil- they highlight the scope of needs among dis-
ity of otherwise income-eligible documented advantaged families—those with the fewest
noncitizen immigrants, particularly more recent economic resources are also those with the least
arrivals), insufficient tenure as a documented stable (and most uncertain) family situations,
immigrant in the United States, and insufficient further diluting the resources that exist (Seltzer,
U.S. work history or military service. It also 2019). From an intergenerational perspective,
reflects low rates of program application among policies may need to do even more to provide
eligible immigrant families due to factors such a foundation by which lower socioeconomic
as limited awareness of eligibility, complex eli- status individuals can attain economic mobility.
gibility requirements (and considerable variation Such interventions may include those directly
therein across states) and administrative burden targeted to children (e.g., early education and
(Vargas & Pirog, 2016), and fear of deportation care provision) and those indirectly targeted
(Capps, Fix, Ost, Reardon-Anderson, & Passel, to children through their parents (e.g., home
2005) or adverse effects on future permanent visiting initiatives, income supports).
residence or citizenship applications (Batalova,
Fix, & Greenberg, 2018). Beyond eligibility and
take-up, all else equal, mixed-status families How Well Do Current Policies Serve
participating in social welfare programs receive Contemporary Families?
lesser benefit amounts because their undoc- Changing demographic patterns that have
umented or, for many programs, noncitizen brought growing diversity and complexity
members are ineligible and thus excluded from in U.S. family life have also resulted in key
the benefit calculation (National Academies challenges to public policy with respect to
of Science, Engineering and Medicine, 2019). parameters for eligibility and benefit determina-
For all of these reasons, immigrant, undocu- tion, responsiveness to family fluidity (changes
mented, and mixed-status families represent key in the family unit over time), and prioritiza-
subgroups of the population that are not well tion of various family ties (biological, marital,
served in the current policy and programmatic coresident). We describe these challenges and
landscape. present implications for specific programs and
policies below.
Increasing Inequality Between Families
Parameters for Eligibility and Benefit
Finally, we turn to a cross-cutting issue that
Determination
is salient for a range of families and is linked
with the availability of public policy supports. Determining who is eligible for benefits or
Amidst rising economic inequality in the United services and how much in benefits they should
States, there has been ongoing recognition receive is challenging in light of contemporary
that many of the family patterns observed in family complexity including consideration of
recent decades are also highly stratified by mixed immigration status, grandparents raising
socioeconomic status. Extending McLana- grandchildren and, in some cases (e.g., vis-a-vis
han’s (2004) analyses of “diverging destinies” child support and visitation), same-sex couple
in children’s family experiences by maternal families. Indeed, given that most current poli-
education, McLanahan and Jacobsen (2014) cies and programs were not designed to account
found, 10 years later, that divergent patterns in for family complexity, in concert with the
496 Journal of Marriage and Family

incremental process by which policies and Beyond variation in federal rules, programs
programs have been modified over time and the administered at the state and local levels may
fact that many programs are state-administered, have very different eligibility and benefit crite-
there is no single set of criteria for assessing eli- ria. For example, within the TANF program, the
gibility and benefits—in other words, defining extent to which benefit amounts increase by fam-
the family “focal unit.” This is of increas- ily size varies considerably across states, with
ing concern throughout the range of explicit some states (e.g., Idaho) having a fixed pay-
and implicit policies and programs affecting ment amount (so-called “family cap”) and other
families. states (e.g., California) substantially increasing
SNAP, for example, uses the most inclusive the benefit amount for each additional child
approach, considering all household members (Falk, 2014). Also, although most states treat
that prepare and eat food together (at least half of cohabiting and married couples similarly if the
the time) as part of the same unit. This definition resident father is the biological father of the
allows for the inclusion in eligibility and bene- child(ren), if a cohabiting father is not biolog-
fit calculation of a wide range of family mem- ically related to a child, the mother and child
bers such as cohabiters, step and half-siblings, are treated as a single-parent family (we use
and grandparents, as well as unrelated persons. gendered language here for ease of explication;
Nonetheless, many children and adults today Moffitt, Phelan, & Winkler, 2017). Such crite-
spend time living (and eating) in more than one ria become particularly complicated, if not prob-
household (e.g., children with a shared custody lematic, in cases in which a coresident parent is
arrangement or adults who cohabit some of the the biological (or married stepparent) of some
time) and hence may not have full or contin- but not all of the children in a household.
uous SNAP eligibility. (It is important to note Another key example includes the child
that, despite SNAP’s inclusive approach to defin- support enforcement program, under which it is
ing the case unit, there is widespread variation difficult to determine appropriate child support
in SNAP take-up rates across states and demo- orders in the context of MPF. The order setting
graphic groups, including mixed-status families, process has historically assumed that noncusto-
which is due at least in part to variation in both dial parents (generally fathers) had all of their
eligibility and administrative burden required of children with the same custodial parent (gener-
applicants and recipients; see Herd & Moynihan, ally mother) and hence assigned a diminishing
2018). share of the noncustodial parent’s income to
In contrast, programs administered through each additional child; yet, in the context of MPF,
the tax system (EITC, CTC) use the filing sta- it is difficult to determine orders that are simulta-
tus for federal income taxes as the starting point neously “fair” from the perspective of custodial
for eligibility; these are based on marital sta- parents, noncustodial parents, and children in
tus and family situations including, in some different households (Cancian & Meyer, 2011;
instances, biological relationships regardless of Meyer, Skinner, & Davidson, 2011). All else
marital or coresident status, but contingent on equal (incomes, custody arrangements, number
being at least one parent’s “dependent.” Chil- of children), children from subsequent relation-
dren can only be claimed as dependents if they ships are typically afforded less child support
live more than half the year in a household, than those from prior relationships, custodial
and cohabiters must file separately. The CTC parents are typically afforded more child support
excludes the child residency criterion for non- for the same number of children if those chil-
custodial parents, although only one parent can dren are born to multiple noncustodial parents
claim the child in a given year; see Maag, Peters, rather than to the same noncustodial parent, and
and Edelstein (2016) for a review and analysis of noncustodial parents are typically ordered to
tax policies with respect to complex families and pay more child support for the same number of
instability in family arrangements over time. The children if those children are born to multiple
Medicaid program takes yet another approach: partners rather than to one partner. This raises
all children who are tax dependents (regardless important equity, adequacy, and affordability
of age) are included, as are any children younger concerns based on birth order and parentage.
than age 21 who are living in the household and In addition, the child support system does not
are cared for by the householder, even if not a tax typically systematically assist noncustodial
dependent. parents in achieving or increasing employment
Family Policy and Complex Contemporary Families 497

and earnings (and thus their ability to afford levels of family complexity also bring substan-
child support payments). Moreover, although tive or ethical dilemmas about which roles,
the federal Access and Visitation Mandatory relationships, or actors to privilege. Whereas
Grant Program provides funding to each of in traditional nuclear families, marriage,
the states and territories to provide services, coresidence, and biological ties are typically
including the establishment of parenting time co-occurring, in a context of greater family
arrangements for families in the child support complexity, many families span households,
system, intended to increase the time children include members with differing biological ties
spend with their noncustodial parents, the child (step parents and half-siblings), and may not
support system has no mechanism for enforcing be legally married. Moreover, grandparents or
visitation (Administration for Children and other relatives may play parental roles when
Families [ACF]/U.S. Department of Health and parents cannot care for their children—either
Human Services, 2019). on a temporary or long-term basis—creating
Additional examples abound. Ambiguities additional complexity and diversity in who may
regarding family membership, for instance, have responsibility for childrearing. As such,
exist in health care coverage, home visiting, program rules must become more explicit about
and family leave policies and programs. With which aspect of family life will be emphasized;
respect to health care, even in the context of the however, there is currently widespread incon-
individual mandate under the ACA, ambiguities sistency in such. Relatedly, family complexity
remain as to which parent is responsible for implies that individuals within the same family
providing coverage to children and in what or household may differ in their conceptual-
circumstances. Often, such decisions are made izations of who is “in” their family, and the
on a case-by-case basis through custody and interests and incentives of individuals within
court proceedings and, for the most part, health a family or household may not be identical;
coverage responsibilities are based on biolog- policies must then choose who to prioritize.
ical, rather than coresidential relationships; Generally speaking, current public policy
among biological parents, they may also depend privileges biological coresident parents and
on which parent’s tax filing unit includes the provides far less support to nonresident or
child(ren). Home visiting programs typically nonbiological parents (step and social parents)
focus on the (biological) mother–child dyad and as well as other caregivers (e.g., grandparents).
to a lesser extent (and only rarely) on coresident For example, as described by Berger (2017,
biological fathers. Other household and family p. 23), U.S. social policy “treats noncusto-
members, including stepfathers and mothers’ dial parents more like non-parents than like
cohabiting partners and nonresident biological parents,” noting that noncustodial parents’ (pre-
fathers, are infrequently a primary target of dominantly fathers’) primary interactions with
these interventions and services despite the fact government occur within the criminal justice
that these individuals may exert considerable system, family and criminal courts, child support
influence on children’s caregiving environ- enforcement system, and the Internal Revenue
ments. Family leave policies must grapple with Service. Few government benefits, services,
the types of children (biological, step, resident, and supports are offered to such parents who
nonresident) for which an individual is entitled “primarily experience government as saddling
to take leave. As such, contemporary family them with mandates and penalties,” despite
complexity entails considerable confusion and that they may provide—and are accountable
inefficiency both for (potential) recipients and to provide—considerable time and financial
for the bureaucracies trying to serve them, support to children. In contrast, (low-income)
and thereby contributes to the “administrative custodial parents (predominantly mothers) are
burdens” that diminish the effectiveness of gov- typically eligible for multiple supports and ser-
ernment programs (Herd & Moynihan, 2018). vices, including the EITC, the Child Tax Credit
TANF, Child Support Enforcement, SNAP,
Medicaid, and (sometimes) housing assistance.
Prioritization of Various Family Ties To the extent that there is growing diversity
Beyond the structural difficulty of supporting in parental roles, especially for fathers, amidst
families in a variety of different—and often high levels of family instability and complexity
changing (see later)—circumstances, high among low-income families (Tach et al., 2014),
498 Journal of Marriage and Family

current policies are largely inconsistent with the composition and living arrangements between
realities of complex contemporary American recertification periods despite existing technol-
families. Similarly, in circumstances when ogy that could make such changes relatively
grandparents must become custodial parents of easy to accomplish through remote electronic
their grandchildren, they face a safety net that mechanisms (e.g., cell phone apps).
offers minimal economic security due to both In short, the current social welfare pol-
eligibility rules and program implementation icy landscape is neither nimble nor efficient
(Pittman, 2014, 2015). in addressing the changing needs and circum-
stances of recipients. At the same time, however,
designing appropriate reforms is complex and
Responsiveness to Family Fluidity variation across programs may be necessary.
In addition to overall inconsistencies in the For example, frequent redeterminations for cash
ways various family forms—and individuals (including child support) or near-cash transfers
therein—are treated for purposes of eligibility may increase economic volatility if families
and benefit determination across programs, lose resources as a result of small fluctuations
public policies are also ill equipped to provide in income or temporary changes in income or
responsive services to dynamic changes in fam- family composition at the same time that they
ily situations. It is well known that low-income might decrease economic volatility when they
families regularly experience considerable compensate for such changes in the short term
instability and uncertainty in employment and or respond more quickly to longer term changes.
income (Morduch & Siwicki, 2017), as well In addition, longer periods of redetermination
as living arrangements and family relation- may be preferable in areas such as child-care
ships (Kalil & Ryan, 2010), within relatively subsidies if, for instance, enabling parents to
short time periods. Yet, applying for benefits retain child care during periods of unemploy-
or changing one’s information is often a cum- ment encourages family and income stability
bersome process that may involve appearing and allows parents opportunities to pursue new
in-person and filling out paper forms—and, in jobs. Chapter 8 of the National Academies
the case of noncustodial parents with a child of Science, Engineering and Medicine (2019)
support order, sometimes reappearing in court report on reducing child poverty provides a
(there is considerable variation across states in broader discussion of these issues.
the extent to which child support modifications
can be made via administrative versus court
Looking Ahead: Future Directions
processes).
for Family Policy Research and Policy
These processes are out of sync with the
Innovation
dynamic nature of contemporary families.
Rather, policies and programs typically assume As we look toward the future, there are both
relative consistency in income and family com- reasons for optimism and persistent challenges
position between benefit recertification periods to address in order for family policy to better
(most commonly at 6-month to 1-year intervals, serve the needs of contemporary American fam-
although there is variation by program and ilies. During the past decade, we have learned
state). Typically, benefits are not immediately or much more about the variation within and across
automatically adjusted in response to changes families and the dynamic processes by which
in employment or earnings—although techno- families change, providing a more complete por-
logical developments increasingly make such trait of the complexity of contemporary families.
automation possible. For example, although it is We have also learned considerably more about
now technologically possible to link and elec- how individuals and their families interact with
tronically monitor earnings and benefits across and are served by public policies and programs.
administrative data systems, which would allow This has moved the field beyond a primary
for timely and automatic benefit redetermina- focus on biological parents and full siblings to
tions as incomes change, such systems have consider parents having children by more than
yet to be operationalized. Similarly, families one partner (multipartnered fertility), adults and
often face a time-consuming and cumbersome children spending time in multiple households,
process of changing their benefit information the presence of extended family members (espe-
in response to short-term changes in family cially grandparents), same-sex parents, family
Family Policy and Complex Contemporary Families 499

members with mixed immigration status, and Policymaking, 2017), and provided the basis for
the role of unrelated adults (especially step or the subsequent Foundations for Evidence-Based
social parents) in the lives of children; also, Policymaking Act of 2018. Within the nonprofit
we have seen growing awareness of the gap sector, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the John D.
in family patterns and family processes by and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation jointly
socioeconomic status, as well as of the dynamic developed and released in 2014 a guide for
nature of family resources and composition over how evidence-based policy can promote more
time. Some of this information has come via effective government (Pew-MacArthur, 2014);
scholars combining information from existing this report also incorporated insights from a
data sets in new ways (e.g., linking survey data number of policy scholars from both academic
with administrative data), and other information institutions and national think tanks. A recent
has come from new questions added to existing ANNALS volume, edited by Haskins (2018) and
surveys to document increasingly complicated titled “Evidence-Based Policy: The Movement,
family arrangements, or from new studies being the Goals, the Issues, the Promise,” provides
launched to directly explore previously unknown an important summary of recent developments,
aspects of family life. To capture the range of challenges, and opportunities for using evidence
family relationships, it is important for surveys in policymaking. New evidence about families
to explicitly ask questions of respondents about combined with a growing emphasis on the use of
family roles and relationships that may span evidence promises to enhance family policy. In
households (such as asking parents about chil- addition, some programs are increasingly recog-
dren they may have had with other partners nizing the importance of taking a “family-level”
[who live elsewhere full- or part-time], and approach to interventions, and such programs,
asking children about their sibling composition, which jointly consider the needs of parents and
particularly half-siblings who may live in other children, have shown promise (Chase-Lansdale
households), as well as about full- and part-time & Brooks-Gunn, 2014), as have strategies that
household members, other than parents, that emphasize coordinated services across pro-
may play family roles (such as grandparents grams to meet the multiple needs of low-income
or romantic partners of parents; Cavanagh & families (Sama-Miller et al., 2017).
Fomby, 2019). Going forward, it will also be In short, the past decade in family policy
crucial to gain a better understanding of intra- and research thereon has been marked both by
and interhousehold resource sharing among the considerable progress and by ongoing struggle.
individuals in complex contemporary families. As highlighted throughout this review, family
On the public policy side, we have also policy continues to struggle with how best to
seen growing attention paid to “evidence-based serve increasingly complex contemporary fam-
policymaking” within the policy community, ilies. Indeed, we view family complexity and
including government entities themselves as the dynamic and changing composition of fami-
well as think tanks and philanthropic foun- lies as perhaps the most crucial issue to be con-
dations. The Obama administration placed sidered across domains of family policy in the
new emphasis on the importance of rigor and coming years. On the whole, however, we are
evidence for generating better results within optimistic that the decade to come will bring
government initiatives (Haskins & Margo- additional evidence to bear on how family pol-
lis, 2015). In 2016, then House Speaker Paul icy can better address the needs of contemporary
Ryan (Republican, Wisconsin) and Sena- families.
tor Patty Murray (Democrat, Washington)
sponsored the bipartisan Evidence-Based Pol-
icymaking Commission Act of 2016, which Note
led to the appointment of the Commission
We are grateful to Marissa Abbott, Patrick Landers, Eleanor
on Evidence-Based Policymaking; this group Pratt, and Sakara Wages for excellent research assistance.
of experts reviewed practices across multiple Berger’s work on this article was supported by resources at
government agencies and released a major the Institute for Research on Poverty, funded by the Office
report in September 2017 that offered a host of of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Carlson’s work
detailed findings and recommendations about on this article was supported by resources at the Center
how to better emphasize privacy, rigor and for Demography and Ecology, funded by a center grant
transparency (Commission on Evidence-Based from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for
500 Journal of Marriage and Family

Child Health and Human Development (P2C HD047873). Batalova, J., Fix, M., & Greenberg, M. (2018). Chill-
All views expressed are our own. ing effects: The expected public charge rule and its
impact on legal immigrant families’ public benefits
use. Washington, D.C.: Migration Policy Institute.
References Berger, L. M. (2017). A new safety net for 21st century
families. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center on Poverty
Administration for Children and Families/U.S. and Inequality.
Department of Health and Human Services. Berger, L. M., & Bzostek, S. H. (2014). Young
(2019). Access and visitation program update FY adults’ roles as partners and parents in the con-
2017. Washington, D.C.: Office of Child Support text of family complexity. The Annals of the
Enforcement, Administration for Children and American Academy of Political and Social Sci-
Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human ence, 654(1), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Services. 0002716214527729
Adirim, T., & Supplee, L. (2013). Overview of Berger, L. M., Cancian, M., & Maguson, K. (2018).
the federal home visiting program. Pediatrics, Anti-poverty policy innovations: New proposals
132(Suppl 2), S59–S64. https://doi.org/10.1542/ for addressing poverty in the United States. RSF:
peds.2013-1021C The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social
American Enterprise Institute–Brookings. (2017). Sciences, 4(3), 1–19.
Paid family and medical leave: An issue whose Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115–123
time has come. Washington, D.C.: Brookings (2018).
Institution. Bitler, M., & Hoynes, H. (2016). The more things
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, change, the more they stay the same? The safety
Pub. L. No. 111-5 (2009). net and poverty in the great recession. Journal of
Aldous, J., & Dumon, W. (1990). Family policy in Labor Economics, 34(S1), S403–S444. https://doi
the 1980s: Controversy and consensus. Journal of .org/10.1086/683096
Marriage and the Family, 52, 1136–1151. Bitler, M., Hoynes, H., & Kuka, E. (2017). Child
Amorim, M., Dunifon, R., & Pilkauskas, N. (2017). poverty, the great recession, and the social safety
The magnitude and timing of grandparental cores- net in the United States. Journal of Policy Analysis
idence during childhood in the United States. and Management, 36(2), 358–389. https://doi.org/
Demographic Research, 37, 1695–1706. 10.1002/pam.21963
Amuedo-Dorantes, C., & Arenas-Arroyo, E. (2019). Bitler, M. P., & Karoly, L. A. (2015). Intended and
Immigration enforcement and Children’s living unintended effects of the war on poverty: what
arrangements. Journal of Policy Analysis and research tells us and implications for policy. Jour-
Management, 38(1), 11–40. https://doi.org/10 nal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(3),
.1002/pam.22106 639–696. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21842
Arora, K., & Wolf, D. A. (2018). Does paid family Bogenschneider, K. (2000). Has family policy come
leave reduce nursing home use? The California of age? A decade review of the state of U.S.
experience. Journal of Policy Analysis and Man- family policy in the 1990s. Journal of Marriage
agement, 37(1), 38–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/ and Family, 62(4), 1136–1159. https://doi.org/10
pam.22038 .1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01136.x
Avellar, S., Covington, R., Moore, Q., Patnaik, A., Bogenschneider, K., & Corbett, T. J. (2010). Fam-
& Wu, A. (2018). Parents and children together: ily policy: Becoming a field of inquiry and sub-
Effects of four responsible fatherhood programs field of social policy. Journal of Marriage and
for low-income fathers Office of Planning, Family, 72(3), 783–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
Research, and Evaluation, Administration for .1741-3737.2010.00730.x
Children and Families. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bruch, S. K., Meyers, M. K., & Gornick, J. C. (2018).
Department of Health and Human Services. The consequences of decentralization: Inequality
Bailey, M. J., & Danziger, S. (2013). Legacies of the in safety net provision in the post–welfare reform
war on poverty. New York: Russell Sage. era. Social Service Review, 92(1), 3–35. https://doi
Bartel, A. P., Rossin-Slater, M., Ruhm, C. J., .org/10.1086/696132
Stearns, J., & Waldfogel, J. (2018). Paid family Buettgens, M., Holahan, J., & Recht, H. (2015). Medi-
leave, fathers’ leave-taking, and leave-sharing in caid expansion, health coverage, and spending: An
dual-earner households. Journal of Policy Analysis update for the 21 States that have not expanded eli-
and Management, 37(1), 10–37. https://doi.org/10 gibility. Washington, D.C.: Henry J. Kaiser Family
.1002/pam.22030 Foundation.
Bartik, T. J., & Hershbein, B. J. (2018). Pre-K in Burnside, A., & Floyd, I. (2019). TANF benefits
the public schools: Evidence from within all remain low despite recent increases in some states.
states. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy
Employment Research. Priorities.
Family Policy and Complex Contemporary Families 501

Burton, L. M. (2014). Seeking romance in the Cherlin, A. J. (2019). Family policy today. Journal of
crosshairs of multiple-partner fertility: Ethno- Family Theory & Review, 11(1), 47–51. https://doi
graphic insights on low-income urban and rural .org/10.1111/jftr.12315
mothers. The Annals of the American Academy Cherlin, A. J., & Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (1994). Step-
of Political and Social Science, 654(1), 185–212. families in the United States: A reconsideration.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214530831 Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 359–381.
Cancian, M., Heinrich, C. J., & Chung, Y. (2013). Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of
Discouraging disadvantaged fathers’ employment: 2014, Pub. L. No. 113–186 (2014).
An unintended consequence of policies designed Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking.
to support families. Journal of Policy Analysis and (2017). The promise of evidence-based policymak-
Management, 32(4), 758–784. https://doi.org/10 ing: Report of the commission on evidence-based
.1002/pam.21707 policymaking. Washington, DC: Commission on
Cancian, M., & Meyer, D. R. (2011). Who owes Evidence-Based Policymaking.
what to whom? child support policy given Cooper, D. H., Lutz, B. F., & Palumbo, M. G. (2015).
multiple-partner fertility. Social Service Review, The role of taxes in mitigating income inequality
85(4), 587–617. across the US states. National Tax Journal, 68(4),
Cancian, M., Meyer, D. R., Brown, P. R., & Cook, 943–974.
S. T. (2014). Who gets custody now? dramatic Couch, K. A. (2010). Expanding work programs in
changes in children’s living arrangements after child support: Whether and how. Journal of Pol-
divorce. Demography, 51, 1–16. https://doi.org/10 icy Analysis and Management, 29(3), 603–604.
.1007/s13524-014-0307-8 https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20511
Cancian, M., Meyer, D. R., & Wood, R. G. (2019). Courtemanche, C., Marton, J., Ukert, B., Yelowitz, A.,
Final impact findings from the child support & Zapata, D. (2017). Early impacts of the afford-
noncustodial parent employment demonstration able care act on health insurance coverage in Med-
(CSPED). Madison, WI: Institute for Research icaid expansion and non-expansion states. Jour-
on Poverty and Mathematica Policy. Research, nal of Policy Analysis and Management, 36(1),
178–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21961
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Courtemanche, C., Marton, J., Ukert, B., Yelowtiz,
Capps, R., Fix, M., & Zong, J. (2016). A profile of
A., & Zapata, D. (2016). Impacts of the afford-
U.S. children with unauthorized immigrant par-
able care act on health insurance coverage in
ents. Washington, D.C.: Migration Policy Institute.
Medicaid expansion and non-expansion states
Capps, R., Fix, M. E., Ost, J., Reardon-Anderson, J.,
(NBER working paper No. 22182). Cambridge,
& Passel, J. S. (2005). The health and well-being of
MA: NBER.
young children of immigrants. Washington, D.C.: Danziger, S. K., Danziger, S., Seefeldt, K. S., & Shae-
Urban Institute. fer, H. L. (2016). From welfare to a work-based
Carlson, M. J., & Berger, L. M. (2013). What kids safety net: An incomplete transition. Journal of
get from parents: Packages of parental involve- Policy Analysis and Management, 35(1), 231–238.
ment across complex family forms. Social Service https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21880
Review, 87(2), 213–249. Dehlendorf, C., Ruskin, R., Grumbach, K., Vit-
Carlson, M. J., & Meyer, D. R. (2014). Family com- tinghoff, E., Bibbins-Domingo, K., Schillinger,
plexity, poverty, and public policy. The Annals of D., & Steinauer, J. (2010). Recommendations for
the American Academy of Political and Social Sci- intrauterine contraception: A randomized trial of
ence, 654(1). the effects of patients’ race/ethnicity and socioe-
Carpenter, C., Eppink, S. T., Gonzales, G. J., & conomic status. American Journal of Obstetrics
McKay, T. (2018). Effects of access to legal and Gynecology, 203(4), 319. https://doi.org/10
same-sex marriage on marriage and health: Evi- .1016/j.ajog.2010.05.009
dence from BRFSS (National Bureau of Economic DeLeire, T., Lopoo, L. M., & Simon, K. I. (2011).
Research Working Paper No. 24651). Cambridge, Medicaid expansions and fertility in the United
MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. States. Demography, 48(2), 725–747. https://doi
Cavanagh, S. E., & Fomby, P. (2019). Family insta- .org/10.1007/s13524-011-0031-6
bility in the lives of American children. Annual Duncan, G. J., & Murnane, R. J. (2016). Rising
Review of Sociology, 45(1), 493–513. https://doi inequality in family incomes and children’s educa-
.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073018-022633 tional outcomes. RSF: The Russell Sage Founda-
Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2014). tion Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(2), 142–158.
Two-generation programs in the twenty-first cen- https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2016.2.2.06
tury. Future of Children, 24(1), 13–39. Dunifon, R. E. (2018). You’ve always been there
Cherlin, A. J. (1992). Marriage, divorce, and remar- for me: Understanding the lives of grandchildren
riage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University raised by grandparents. New Brunswick, NJ: Rut-
Press. gers University Press.
502 Journal of Marriage and Family

Dunifon, R. E., Ziol-Guest, K. M., & Kopko, K. variation across fourteen welfare states. Journal
(2014). Grandparent Coresidence and family of European Social Policy, 7(1), 45–70. https://doi
well-being: Implications for research and policy. .org/10.1177/095892879700700103
The Annals of the American Academy of Political Grall, T. S. (2013). Custodial mothers and fathers
and Social Science, 654(1), 110–126. https://doi and their child support: 2011 (Current Population
.org/10.1177/0002716214526530 Reports P60-246). Washington, DC: U.S. Census
Edin, K. J., & Shaefer, H. L. (2015). $2.00 a Day: Bureau.
Living on almost nothing in America. New York: Guzzo, K. B. (2014). New partners, more kids:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Multiple-partner fertility in the United States. The
Elango, S., Garcia, J. L., Heckman, J., & Holman, A. Annals of the American Academy of Political and
(2016). Early childhood education. In R. A. Mof- Social Science, 654(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10
fitt (Ed.), Economics of means-tested transfer pro- .1177/0002716214525571
grams in the United States (Vol. 2, pp. 235–297). Guzzo, K. B., & Dorius, C. (2016). Challenges in
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. measuring and studying multipartnered fertility in
Elder, G. H., Jr. (1994). Time, human agency, and American survey data. Population Research and
social change: Perspectives on the life course. Policy Review, 35(4), 553–579. https://doi.org/10
Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 4–15. .1007/s11113-016-9398-9
Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission Act of Ha, Y., Cancian, M., & Meyer, D. R. (2010).
2016, Pub. L. No. 114–140 (2016). Unchanging child support orders in the face of
Falk, G. (2014). Temporary assistance for needy unstable earnings. Journal of Policy Analysis and
families (TANF): Eligibility and benefit amounts Management, 29(4), 799–820. https://doi.org/10
in state TANF cash assistance programs (Con- .1002/pam.20534
gressional Research Service Report No. R43634). Hahn, H. (2016). Why fathers often don’t apply for
Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Ser- cash assistance. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
vice. Hardy, B., Smeeding, T., & Ziliak, J. P. (2018).
Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of The changing safety net for low-income parents
2018, Pub. L. No. 115–435 (2018). and their children: Structural or cyclical changes
Fox, L., Wimer, C., Garfinkel, I., Kaushal, N., Nam, in income support policy? Demography, 55(1),
J., & Waldfogel, J. (2015). Trends in deep poverty 189–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-017-
from 1968 to 2011: The influence of family struc- 0642-7
ture, employment patterns, and the safety net. RSF: Haskins, R. (Ed.). (2018). Evidence-based policy:
The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social The movement, the goals, the issues, the promise.
Sciences, 1(1), 14–34. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf Philadelphia, PA: American Academy of Political
.2015.1.1.02 and Social Science.
Fox, L., Wimer, C., Garfinkel, I., Kaushal, N., & Haskins, R., Currie, J., & Berger, L. M. (2015).
Waldfogel, J. (2015). Waging war on poverty: Can states improve children’s health by prevent-
Poverty trends using a historical supplemental ing abuse and neglect? policy brief . Princeton, NJ:
poverty measure. Journal of Policy Analysis and Princeton University.
Management, 34(3), 567–592. https://doi.org/10 Haskins, R., & Margolis, G. (2015). Show me the
.1002/pam.21833 evidence: Obama’s fight for Rigor and results in
Friedman-Krauss, A., Barnett, W. S., & Nores, M. social policy. Brookings Institution Press.
(2016). How much can high-quality universal Haveman, R., Blank, R., Moffitt, R., Smeeding, T., &
pre-K reduce achievement gaps? Washington, Wallace, G. (2015). The war on poverty: Measure-
D.C.: Center for American Progress and National ment, trends, and policy. Journal of Policy Analysis
Institute for Early Education Research. and Management, 34(3), 593–638. https://doi.org/
Furstenberg, F. F. (2014). Fifty years of family 10.1002/pam.21846
change: From consensus to complexity. The Heim, B., Lurie, I., & Simon, K. (2018). The impact
Annals of the American Academy of Political and of the affordable care act young adult provision
Social Science, 654(1), 12–30. https://doi.org/10 on childbearing: Evidence from tax data. Demog-
.1177/0002716214524521 raphy, 55(4), 1233–1243. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Gale, W. G., Gelfond, H., Krupkin, A., Mazur, M., & s13524-018-0692-5
Toder, E. (2018). Effects of the tax cuts and jobs Heinrich, C. J., Burkhardt, B. C., & Shager, H. M.
act: A preliminary analysis. Washington, D.C.: (2011). Reducing child support debt and its con-
Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. sequences: Can forgiveness benefit all? Journal of
Gates, G. J. (2012). Family formation and raising Policy Analysis and Management, 30(4), 755–774.
children among same-sex couples. Minneapolis, https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20599
MN: National Council on Family Relations. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2019). Status
Gornick, J. C., Meyers, M. K., & Ross, K. E. (1997). of state medicaid expansion decisions: Inter-
Supporting the employment of mothers: Policy active map. San Francisco, CA: Kaiser Family
Family Policy and Complex Contemporary Families 503

Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.kff.org/ and government: Preparing for the twenty-first
medicaid/issue-brief/status-of-state-medicaid- century (2nd ed., pp. 31–48). Cambridge: Cam-
expansion-decisions-interactive-map/ bridge University Press.
Herd, P., & Moynihand, D. P. (2018). Administrative Kamerman, S. B., & Kahn, A. J. (1976). Explorations
burden: Policymaking by other means. New York, in family policy. Social Work, 21(3), 181–186.
NY: Russell Sage. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/21.3.181
Higgins, J. A. (2014). Celebration meets caution: Kamerman, S. B., & Kahn, A. J. (1978). Families
LARC’s boons, potential busts, and the bene- and the idea of family policy. In S. B. Kamerman
fits of a reproductive justice approach. Contra- & A. J. Kahn (Eds.), Family policy: Government
ception, 89(4), 237–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j and families in fourteen countries (pp. 1–16). New
.contraception.2014.01.027 York: Columbia University Press.
Higgins, J. A., Kramer, R. D., & Ryder, K. M. (2016). Kamerman, S. B., & Kahn, A. J. (1989). The norma-
Provider bias in long-acting reversible contracep- tive/ideological context of policy formation family
tion (LARC) promotion and removal: Perceptions policy: has the united states learned from europe?
of young adult women. American Journal of Pub- Review of Policy Research, 8(3), 581–598. https://
lic Health, 106(11), 1932–1937. https://doi.org/10 doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1989.tb00981.x
.2105/ajph.2016.303393 Kamerman, S. B., & Kahn, A. J. (2001). Child and
Holmes, E. K., Hawkins, A. J., Egginton, B. M., Rob- family policies in the United States at the open-
bins, N., & Shafer, K. (2018). Summary report: ing of the twenty-first century. Social Policy &
Do responsible fatherhood programs work? In Administration, 35(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10
Philadelphia, PA: Fatherhood Research & Practice .1111/1467-9515.00220
Network. Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redis-
Human Rights Council. (2018). Report of the special tribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state
rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights institutions, inequality, and poverty in the Western
on his mission to The United States of America. countries. American Sociological Review, 63(5),
New York: United Nations. 661–687. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657333
Institute for Research on Poverty. (2018). A new fed-
Lichtman-Sadot, S., & Bell, N. P. (2017). Child health
eral law changes child welfare system financing
in elementary school following California’s paid
as we know it (Institute for Research on Poverty
family leave program. Journal of Policy Analysis
Fast Focus Research/Policy Brief No. 35-2018).
and Management, 36(4), 790–827. https://doi.org/
Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty,
10.1002/pam.22012
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved
Livingston, G. (2013). The rise of single fathers.
from https://www.irp.wisc.edu/wp/wp-content/
uploads/2018/10/FF35-2018.pdf. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Isaacs, J. B., Healy, O., & Peters, H. E. (2017). Paid Lundberg, S., Pollak, R. A., & Stearns, J. (2016).
family leave in the United States. Washington, Family inequality: Diverging patterns in marriage,
D.C.: Urban Institute. cohabitation, and childbearing. Journal of Eco-
Isaacs, J. B., Lou, C., Hahn, H., Hong, A., Quaken- nomic Perspectives, 30(2), 79–102. https://doi.org/
bush, C., & Steuerle, C. E. (2018). Kids’ share 10.1257/jep.30.2.79
2018: Report on federal expenditures on children Lundquist, E., Hsueh, J., Lowenstein, A. E., Faucetta,
through 2017 and future projections. Washington, K., Gubits, D., Michalopoulos, C., & Knox,
D.C.: Urban Institute. V. (2014). A family-strengthening program for
Kail, B. L., Acosta, K. L., & Wright, E. R. (2015). low-income families: Final impacts from the sup-
State-level marriage equality and the health of porting healthy marriage evaluation. New York,
same-sex couples. American Journal of Public NY: MDRC.
Health, 105(6), 1101–1105. https://doi.org/10 Maag, E., Peters, H. E., & Edelstein, S. (2016).
.2105/ajph.2015.302589 Increasing family complexity and volatility: The
Kalil, A. (2015). Inequality begins at home: The role difficulty in determining child tax benefits. Wash-
of parenting in the diverging destinies of rich and ington, D.C.: Tax Policy Center.
poor children. In P. R. Amato, A. Booth, S. M. Maldonado, L. C., & Nieuwenhuis, R. (2015).
McHale, & J. van Hook (Eds.), Families in an era Single-parent family poverty in 24 OECD coun-
of increasing inequality: Diverging destinies (pp. tries: A focus on market and redistribution
63–82). Cham: Springer International. strategies. City University of New York: New
Kalil, A., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Mothers’ economic York: Luxembourg Income Study Center.
conditions and sources of support in fragile fami- Manning, W. D., Brown, S. L., & Stykes, J. B. (2014).
lies. The Future of Children, 20(2), 39–61. Family complexity among children in the United
Kamerman, S. B. (1996). Child and family policies: States. The Annals of the American Academy
An international overview. In E. F. Zigler, S. L. of Political and Social Science, 654(1), 48–65.
Kagan, & N. W. Hall (Eds.), Children, families, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214524515
504 Journal of Marriage and Family

Manning, W. D., Fettro, M. N., & Lamidi, E. (2014). Evaluation (MIHOPE) (OPRE Report No.
Child well-being in same-sex parent families: 2017–73). Washingtong, DC: US Department
Review of research prepared for American Soci- of Health and Human Services.
ological Association amicus brief. Population Miller, C., & Price, J. (2014). The number of chil-
Research and Policy Review, 33(4), 485–502. dren being raised by gay or lesbian parents
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-014-9329-6 (Sept 16, 2014). Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/
McLanahan, S. (2004). Diverging destinies: How chil- abstract=2497095.
dren are faring under the second demographic Moffitt, R. (2015). The U.S. safety net and work
Transition. Demography, 41(4), 607–627. incentives: The great recession and beyond. Jour-
McLanahan, S., & Jacobsen, W. (2014). Diverging nal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(2),
destinies revisited. In P. R. Amato, A. Booth, S. M. 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21819
McHale, & J. van Hook (Eds.), Families in an era Moffitt, R. A. (2015). The deserving poor, the fam-
of increasing inequality: Diverging destinies (pp. ily, and the U.S. welfare system. Demography,
3–23). New York, NY: Springer. 52(3), 729–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-
McNicholas, C., Madden, T., Secura, G., & Peipert, 015-0395-0
J. F. (2014). The contraceptive CHOICE project Moffitt, R. A., Phelan, B. J., & Winkler, A. E. (2017).
round up: What we did and what we learned. Clin- Welfare rules, incentives, and family structure.
ical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 57(4), 635–643. Retrieved from https://csde.washington.edu/wp-
Mead, L. M. (2010a). The need for institutions. Jour- content/uploads/2017/05/moffitt-csde-5-12-2017.
nal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(3), pdf.
619–620. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20515 Monte, L. M. (2017). Multiple partner fertility
Mead, L. M. (2010b). Why we need work programs research brief (Current Population Reports
for fathers. Journal of Policy Analysis and Man- P70BR-146). U.S. Washington, D.C.: Census
agement, 29(3), 610–616. https://doi.org/10.1002/ Bureau.
pam.20513 Monte, L. M. (2019). Multiple-partner fertility in the
Meyer, B. D., Mooers, V., & Wu, D. (2018). The United States: A demographic portrait. Demog-
use and misuse of income data and the rarity of
raphy, 56(1), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/
extreme poverty in the United States. Paper pre-
s13524-018-0743-y
sented at the Institute for Research on Poverty
Moore, Q., Avellar, S., Patnaik, A., Covington, R.,
Summer Research Workshop.
& Wu, A. (2018). Parents and children together:
Meyer, B. D., & Wu, D. (2018). The poverty reduc-
Effects of two healthy marriage programs for
tion of social security and means-tested transfers
low-income couples Office of Planning, Research,
(National Bureau of Economic Research Working
Paper No. 24567). Cambridge, MA: NBER. and Evaluation, Administration for Children and
Meyer, D. R., Cancian, M., & Cook, S. T. (2017). Families (). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
The growth in shared custody in the United States: Health and Human Services.
Patterns and implications. Family Court Review, Morduch, J., & Siwicki, J. (2017). In and out of
55(4), 500–512. poverty: Episodic poverty and income volatility in
Meyer, D. R., Skinner, C., & Davidson, J. (2011). the US financial diaries. Social Service Review,
Complex families and equality in child sup- 91(3), 390–421. https://doi.org/10.1086/694180
port obligations: A comparative policy analysis. Mulligan, K. (2015). Contraception use, abortions,
Children and Youth Services Review, 33(10), and births: The effect of insurance mandates.
1804–1812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth Demography, 52(4), 1195–1217. https://doi.org/
.2011.05.011 10.1007/s13524-015-0412-3
Michalopoulos, C., Crowne, S. S., Portilla, X. A., National Academies of Science, Engineering and
Lee, H., Filene, J. H., Duggan, A., … & Knox, V. Medicine. (2019). A roadmap to reducing
(2019). A summary of results from the MIHOPE child poverty. Washington, D.C.: The National
and MIHOPE-strong start studies of evidence- Academies Press.
based home visiting (Report No. 231717870 National Conference of State Legislators. (2018).
25b46589a5e545fb45db441). Washington, DC: Maternal and Child Health Database. Washing-
Mathematica Policy Research. Retrieved from ton, DC: NCSL. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl
https://www.mdrc.org/publication/summary- .org/research/health/maternal-and-child-health-
results-mihope-and-mihope-strong-start-studies- database.aspx.
evidence-based-home-visiting. Nichols, A., & Rothstein, J. (2016). The earned
Michalopoulos, C., Faucetta, K., Warren, A., & income tax credit (EITC). In R. A. Moffitt (Ed.),
Mitchell, R. (2017). Evidence on the Long-Term Economics of means-tested transfer programs in
Effects of Home Visiting Programs: Laying the the United States (Vol. 1). Chicago, IL: University
Groundwork for Long-Term Follow-Up in the of Chicago Press.
Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015).
Family Policy and Complex Contemporary Families 505

Ogolsky, B. G., Monk, J. K., Rice, T. M., & Oswald, households. Demography, 55(6), 2283–2297.
R. F. (2019). As the states turned: Implications https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0719-y
of the changing legal context of same-sex mar- Pittman, L. (2014). Doing What’s right for the baby:
riage on well-being. Journal of Social and Per- Parental responses and custodial grandmothers’
sonal Relationships, 36(10), 3219–3238. https:// institutional decision making. Women, Gender, and
doi.org/10.1177/0265407518816883 Families of Color, 2(1), 32–56. https://doi.org/10
Ooms, T. (2019). The evolution of family policy: .5406/womgenfamcol.2.1.0032
Lessons learned, challenges, and hopes for the Pittman, L. (2015). How well does the “safety net”
future. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(1), work for family safety nets? Economic survival
18–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12316 strategies among grandmother caregivers in severe
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation/U.S. deprivation. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation
Department of Health and Human Services. Journal of the Social Sciences, 1(1), 78–97. https://
(2019). Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2015.1.1.05
.gov/opre/research/project/building-bridges-and- Ricketts, S., Klingler, G., & Schwalberg, R. (2014).
bonds. Game change in Colorado: Widespread use of
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), long-acting reversible contraceptives and rapid
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) decline in births among young, low-income
and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services women. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive
(CMS), Department of Health and Human Services Health, 46(3), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1363/
(HHS). (2016). Flexibility, efficiency, and mod- 46e1714
ernization in child support enforcement programs. Rose, S. (2015). Opting in, opting out: The politics
Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/ of state Medicaid expansion. The Forum, 13(1),
documents/2016/12/20/2016-29598/flexibility- 63–82.
efficiency-and-modernization-in-child-support- Rossin-Slater, M., Ruhm, C. J., & Waldfogel, J.
enforcement-programs. (2013). The effects of California’s paid family
Pac, J., Nam, J., Waldfogel, J., & Wimer, C. (2017). leave program on mothers’ leave-taking and sub-
Young child poverty in the United States: Analyz-
sequent labor market outcomes. Journal of Pol-
ing trends in poverty and the role of anti-poverty
icy Analysis and Management, 32(2), 224–245.
programs using the supplemental poverty measure.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21676
Children and Youth Services Review, 74, 35–49.
Sama-Miller, E., Akers, L., Mraz-Esposito, A.,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.01.022
Zukiewicz, M., Avellar, S., Paulsell, D., & Del
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010,
Grosso, P. (2018). Home visiting evidence of effec-
Pub. L. No. 111–148 (2010).
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Rec- tiveness review: Executive summary. Princeton,
onciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–193, 110 NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
Stat. 2105 (1996). Sama-Miller, E., Ross, C., Sommer, T. E., Baum-
Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative. (2014). gartner, S., Roberts, L., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L.
Evidence-based policymaking: A guide for effec- (2017). Exploration of integrated approaches to
tive government. Philadelphia, PA: The Pew Chari- supporting child development and improving fam-
table Trusts. Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts. ily economic security Office of Planning, Research
org/˜/media/assets/2014/11/evidencebasedpolicym and Evaluation Report No. 2017–84. Washington,
akingaguideforeffectivegovernment.pdf. DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-
Pihl, A. M., & Basso, G. (2019). Did California paid vices.
family leave impact infant health? Journal of Pol- Sammartino, F., Stallworth, P., & Weiner, D. (2018).
icy Analysis and Management, 38(1), 155–180. The effect of the TCJA individual income tax provi-
https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22101 sions across income groups and across the states.
Pilkauskas, N. V. (2012). Three-generation family Washington, DC: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy
households: Differences by family structure at Center, Urban Institute and Brookings Institu-
birth. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(5), tion.Retrieved from https://www.taxpolicycenter
931–943. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737 .org/sites/default/files/publication/154006/the_
.2012.01008.x effect_of_the_tcja_individual_income_tax_
Pilkauskas, N. V. (2014). Living with a grandparent provisions_across_income_groups_and_across_
and parent in early childhood: Associations with the_states.pdf.
school readiness and differences by demographic Sawhill, I. (2014). Generation unbound. Washington,
characteristics. Developmental Psychology, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
50(12), 2587–2599. https://doi.org/10.1037/ Schott, L., Pavetti, L., & Floyd, I. (2015). How states
a0038179 use federal and state funds under the TANF block
Pilkauskas, N. V., & Cross, C. (2018). Beyond the Grant. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and
nuclear family: Trends in children living in shared Policy Priorities.
506 Journal of Marriage and Family

Seltzer, J. A. (2019). Family change and chang- Tax Policy Center. (2017b). Updated effects of
ing family demography. Demography, 56(2), the tax cuts and jobs act on representative
405–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-019- families. Washington, DC: Urban Institute and
00766-6 Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://
Shaefer, H. L., & Edin, K. (2013). Rising extreme www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/
poverty in the United States and the response of publication/151341/updated_effects_of_tcja_act_
Federal Means-Tested Transfer Programs. Social on_representative_families_final.pdf.
Service Review, 87(2), 250–268. https://doi.org/10 Tiehen, L., Jolliffe, D., & Smeeding, T. M. (2016).
.1086/671012 The effect of SNAP on poverty. In J. Bartfeld,
Shaefer, H. L., Edin, K., & Talbert, E. (2015). Under- C. Gundersen, T. M. Smeeding, & J. P. Zil-
standing the dynamics of $2-a-day poverty in the iak (Eds.), How food stamps affect health and
United States. RSF: The Russell Sage Founda- well-being (pp. 49–73). Redwood City, CA:
tion Journal of the Social Sciences, 1(1), 120–138. Stanford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2015.1.1.07 Titmuss, R. M. (1974). Social policy: An introduction.
Simon, K., Soni, A., & Cawley, J. (2017). The impact New York: Allen & Unwin.
of health insurance on preventive care and health Turney, K. (2017). The unequal consequences of mass
Behaviors: Evidence from the first two years of incarceration for children. Demography, 54(1),
the ACA Medicaid expansions. Journal of Pol- 361–389.
icy Analysis and Management, 36(2), 390–417. U.S. Census. (2018). Historical living arrangements
https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21972 of children. Retrieved from https://www2.census
Sinkewicz, M., & Garfinkel, I. (2009). Unwed .gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/families/
fathers’ ability to pay child support: New esti- time-series/children/ch1.xls.
mates accounting for multiple-partner fertility. U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). Current Population
Demography, 46(2), 247–263. https://doi.org/10 Survey, 2018 annual social and economic sup-
.1353/dem.0.0051 plement. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/
Sorensen, E. (2010a). Policy options for low-income data/tables/2018/demo/families/cps-2018.html
fathers cost relatively little. Journal of Policy Anal-
U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). Current Population
ysis and Management, 29(3), 616–618. https://doi
Survey (CPS) subject definitions. Retrieved
.org/10.1002/pam.20514
from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/
Sorensen, E. (2010b). Rethinking public policy
cps/technical-documentation/subject-definitions
toward low-income fathers in the child support
.html#family.
program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Man-
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
agement, 29(3), 604–610. https://doi.org/10.1002/
pam.20512 (2019). Effectiveness research—models that reach
Stanley, M., & Floyd, I. (2016). TANF cash benefits hhs criteria for evidence-based approaches.
have fallen by more than 20 Percent in Most states Retrieved from https://homvee.acf.hhs.gov/
and continue to Erode. Washington, D.C.: Center HRSA-Models-Eligible-MIECHV-Grantees
on Budget and Policy Priorities. Umberson, D., Thomeer, M. B., Kroeger, R. A.,
Stewart, S. D. (2006). Brave new stepfamilies. Thou- Lodge, A. C., & Xu, M. (2015). Challenges and
sand Oaks, CA: Sage. opportunities for research on same-sex relation-
Stykes, J. B., & Guzzo, K. B. (2019). Multiple-partner ships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(1),
fertility: Variation across measurement 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12155
approaches. In R. Schoen (Ed.), Analytical family Vargas, E. D., & Pirog, M. A. (2016). Mixed-status
demography (pp. 215–239). Cham: Springer families and WIC uptake: The effects of risk
International. of deportation on program use. Social Science
Tach, L., Edin, K., Harvey, H., & Bryan, B. (2014). Quarterly, 97(3), 555–572. https://doi.org/10
The family-go-round:Family complexity and .1111/ssqu.12286
father involvement from a Father’s perspective. Welti, K., & Manlove, J. (2018). Unintended
The Annals of the American Academy of Political pregnancy in Delaware: Estimating change
and Social Science, 654(1), 169–184. https://doi after the first two years of an intervention to
.org/10.1177/0002716214528655 increase contraceptive access. Bethesda, MD:
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Pub. L. No. 115–197 Child Trends.
(2017). Western, B., & Smith, N. (2018). Formerly incar-
Tax Policy Center. (2017a). Preliminary distri- cerated parents and their children. Demography,
butional analysis of the tax cuts and jobs act. 55(3), 823–847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-
Washington, DC: Urban Institute and Brook- 018-0677-4
ings Institution.Retrieved from https://www Wiemers, E. E., Seltzer, J. A., Schoeni, R. F.,
.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/preliminary- Hotz, V. J., & Bianchi, S. M. (2016). The gen-
distributional-analysis-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/full. erational structure of U.S. families and their
Family Policy and Complex Contemporary Families 507

intergenerational transfers (University of Califor- Wood, R. G., McConnell, S., Moore, Q., Clarkwest,
nia Los Angeles California Center for Population A., & Hsueh, J. (2012). The effects of build-
Research [CCPR] Population Working Paper). ing strong families: A healthy marriage and rela-
Williams, E. (2015). States can adopt or expand tionship skills education program for unmarried
earned income tax credits to build a stronger future parents. Journal of Policy Analysis and Manage-
economy. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and ment, 31(2), 228–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam
Policy Priorities. .21608
Wimer, C., Fox, L., Garfinkel, I., Kaushal, N., Wood, R. G., Moore, Q., Clarkwest, A., & Kille-
& Waldfogel, J. (2016). Progress on poverty? wald, A. (2014). The long-term effects of building
New estimates of historical trends using an strong families: A program for unmarried parents.
anchored supplemental poverty measure. Demog- Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(2), 446–463.
raphy, 53(4), 1207–1218. https://doi.org/10.1007/ https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12094
s13524-016-0485-7 Wu, H. (2014). Trends in births to single and cohabit-
Winship, S. (2016). Poverty after welfare reform. ing mothers, 1980–2014. National Center for Fam-
New York, NY: Manhattan Institute for Policy ily & Marriage Research: Bowling Green State
Research. University.