[Background Material and Data on Programs within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (Green Book)]
[Appendices]
[Appendix M. Data on Nonmarital Births to Adults and Teenagers and Federal Strategies to Reduce Nonmarital Pregnancies]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 
   APPENDIX M - DATA ON NONMARITAL BIRTHS TO ADULTS AND 
TEENAGERS AND FEDERAL STRATEGIES TO REDUCE 
NONMARITAL PREGNANCIES

CONTENTS

Introduction
Nonmarital Births in the United States
	Illegitimacy Ratio
	Birth Rate for Unmarried Women
	Interstate Variation
	Marriage and Birth Rate for Married Women
	Births to Teenagers
Federal Strategies to Reduce Nonmarital Pregnancies
	Overview
	Nonmarital Birth Provisions in the 1996 Welfare Reform Law
	Nonmarital Birth Provisions in the Child Support Enforcement 
		Program
References

INTRODUCTION



In 1965, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then an Assistant 
Secretary in the Department of Labor, published a government document
arguing that black Americans were being held back economically and
socially in large part because their family structure was deteriorating
(Moynihan, 1965). More specifically, by that time, one-quarter of black
children were born outside marriage. 
The results of these nonmarital births and fatherless childrearing were,
according to Moynihan, catastrophic. Although Moynihan's report caused
an outpouring of rebuttal and even invective (Rainwater and Yancey, 1967),
the decades since the report have revealed with great clarity the
perspicacity of Moynihan's vision. Today one-third of all American
children are born outside marriage, and the ratio for black 
children has reached the remarkable level of 69 percent. As the
illegitimacy ratio among white children climbed past the ratio that
characterized blacks when Moynihan wrote his original report, in 1993
Charles Murray wrote a similar report in the Wall Street Journal about
the crisis in nonmarital births among whites (Murray, 1993). Unlike the
1965 Moynihan report, the Murray report was greeted 
by widespread acceptance and increased concern that progress against
poverty and its accompanying misery could only be achieved if the tide
of nonmarital births was halted.
In this appendix, we review the trends in various measures of
nonmarital childbearing and discuss the numerous policies, especially
those contained in the 1996 welfare reform law (Public Law 104-193),
that the Congress has enacted to fight both the frequency of
illegitimacy and its effects.

NONMARITAL BIRTHS IN THE UNITED STATES

TABLE M-1--NUMBER, RATE, AND PERCENT OF BIRTHS TO 
UNMARRIED WOMEN AND BIRTH RATE FOR MARRIED WOMEN, 
SELECTED YEARS 1950-2002
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Source: National Vital Statistics Reports, v. 51, no. 2, December 18,
2002, p. 10; National Vital Statistics Reports, v. 51, no. 4, February
6, 2003, p. 14 (this report shows revised birth rate data for 2000 and
2001 based on populations consistent with the April 1, 2000 census);
and National Vital Statistics Reports, v. 51, no. 11, June 25, 2003,
p. 4.  
	Data on nonmarital births are usually expressed by three
	measures: the number of nonmarital births, the ratio of all
	births that are nonmarital to total births, and the rate of
	nonmarital births per 1,000 total births. Table M-1 shows all
	three measures, as well as the birth rate per 1,000 married
	women aged 15-44, for selected years from 1950 to 2002. These
	figures show that although the overall birth rate for married
	women has been declining in recent decades, there has been a
	very substantial increase in all three measures of illegitimacy.
ILLEGITIMACY RATIO

	The ratio of nonmarital births to all births increased almost
	every year from 1950 through 1994, but has more or less leveled
	off since then. In 1950, the percent of births to unmarried
	women was 3.9; by 1994 it had risen to 32.6. But the ratio	
changed only slightly in the next 4 years, dropping to 32.2 percent in
1995, rising to 32.4 percent in 1996, remaining at that level in 1997,
and increasing to 32.8 percent in 1998.  Between 1999 and 2002, the
ratio increased slightly from 33.0 in 1999 to 33.8 in 2002 (Table M-1).
During the period 1950-60, the ratio increased 36 percent; from 1960-70,
it increased 102 percent; from 1970-80, it increased 72 percent; from
1980-90, it increased 52 percent; and from 1990-2002, it increased 21
percent. Thus, the time of greatest increase in the illegitimacy ratio
was the period 1960-80; the rate of increase has been declining since
roughly 1980. Over the period 1970-2002, the illegitimacy ratio
increased by 216 percent. Adolescent pregnancy, declining marriage
rates, and more childbearing among unmarried women relative to married 
women have contributed to the relatively high proportion of children
being born to unwed mothers.
The illegitimacy ratio varies considerably by race and ethnicity. In
2002, the ratio was 33.8 percent for unmarried women of all races; 22.9
percent for non-Hispanic white women; 43.4 percent for Hispanic women;
and 68.0 percent for black women (National Center for Health
Statistics, 2003, p. 3).

BIRTH RATE FOR UNMARRIED WOMEN

The illegitimacy rate is the number of births to unmarried women in a
given year per 1,000 unmarried women ages 15-44. The illegitimacy rate
has increased substantially since 1970, although the rate has declined
slightly since 1994. 
Between 1970 and 1994, the rate increased from 26.4 to 46.9, then it
fell to 44.0 in 1997, increased slightly in 1998 and 1999, dropped back
to 44.0 in 2000, decreased slightly to 43.8 in 2001, and to 43.6 in
2002. Over the period 1970-2002, the birth rate for unmarried women
increased by 65 percent.


Birth rates for unmarried women also vary considerably by race and
ethnicity. 
In 2001, the rates were 43.8 for women of all races; 27.5 for
non-Hispanic white women; 68.2 for black women; and 87.8 for Hispanic
women. The birth rate for all unmarried women was the same in 2001 as
it was in 1990. However, during the period 1990-2001, the birth rate
for unmarried non-Hispanic white women increased nearly 13 percent
while the rate for unmarried black women dropped by almost 25 percent
(According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), 
the birth rates cannot be computed for non-Hispanic black women because
the necessary populations are not available). The rate for unmarried
Hispanic women decreased 2 percent (National Center for Health
Statistics, 2002, p. 48; National 
Center for Health Statistics, 2003, p. 14).

INTERSTATE VARIATION

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, births to
unmarried women increased from 2000 to 2001 in 32 States and the Virgin
Islands, and decreased in 18 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, Guam, and American Samoa. Similarly, the percent of births to
unmarried women increased in 40 States, 
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam; decreased in 6 States, the
District of Columbia, and American Samoa; and remained unchanged in 4
States (National Center for Health Statistics, 2002, p. 11 and 50).
Between 2001 and 2002, the percent of births to unmarried women
increased in 41 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; decreased
in 8 States, the District of Columbia, and Guam; and was unchanged
in 1 State (National Center for Health Statistics, 2003, p. 12).

MARRIAGE AND BIRTH RATE FOR MARRIED WOMEN

Both the marriage rate and the birth rate for married women generally
have been declining since 1970. During the period 1970-2001, the
marriage rate per 1,000 population dropped nearly 21 percent, from 10.6
to 8.4 (National Center for Health Statistics; 1995, 2002). Moreover,
the median age of women at first marriage has risen by about 21 percent
to 25.1 in 2001 from 20.8 in 1970. Concurrent with the decrease in
marriage and the increase in the birth rate for unmarried women over
the 1970-2001 period, the birth rate for married women has 
generally declined. In 1970, there were 121.1 births per 1,000 married
women aged 15-44. In 2001, the birth rate for married women was 88.7,
a reduction of nearly 27 percent (see table M-1).


Census Bureau data also show a decline in the propensity of women to
marry before the birth of a premaritally conceived child (Bachu, 1999).
Hence, in the early 1960s, 60 percent of pregnant women married before
the birth of their child, thereby avoiding an out-of-wedlock birth.
Since that time, the propensity to marry before the baby is born has
fallen consistently, reaching 49 percent in the early 1970s, 29 percent
in the early 1980s, and just 23 percent in the early 1990s.

BIRTHS TO TEENAGERS

Overview 
	In 1999, an estimated 856,400 teenagers (married and unmarried)
	became pregnant; approximately 121,900 had miscarriages,
	249,700 had legal abortions, and 484,800 gave birth (Alan
	Guttmacher Institute, 2003). About 431,988 of the 4,019,280
	(10.7 percent) U.S. births in 2002 were to teens. Although the
	number of teenagers who marry always has been low, the
	proportion dropped from 10 percent in 1970 to less than 5
	percent in 1997. Moreover, relatively fewer women in all age 
groups are married nowadays. Consequently, while most births to
teenagers are nonmarital (80 percent in 2002), teenagers do not account
for the majority of all births to unmarried women. In 2001, births to
teenagers comprised only 27 percent of the 1.3 million births to
unmarried females (the comparable figure for 2002 was 25 percent of the
1.4 million births to unmarried females). By contrast, in 1970 they 
comprised 50 percent of the 398,700 births to unmarried females
(table M-2). It is also noteworthy that the birth patterns of unmarried
women indicate that about half of them had their first child as a
teenager. Moreover, in 2001 21 percent of teenage births were second
or higher-order births (Moore, 2002); the comparable figure for 2002
also was 21 percent. These two facts have led some analysts to contend
that unless welfare reform or other efforts are successful in modifying
the behaviors that result in a relatively high proportion of births to
unwed teenagers, associated problems such as delinquency, school
failure, and reliance on welfare will persist.

National trends
	The number of births to teens declined by: almost 24 percent
	from 1960 to 2001; 31 percent from 1970 to 2001; 19 percent
	from 1980 to 2001; and 15 percent from 1990 to 2001. The number
	of births to teens was 593,746 in 1960, 656,460 in 1970,
	562,330 in 1980, 533,591 in 1990, 453,725 in 2001, and had
	dropped to 431,988 in 2002. In 1970, teens (15-19 years of age)
	gave birth at the rate of 68.3 per 1,000 teens, whereas in 2002
	teens gave birth at a rate of 42.9 per 1,000. After increasing 
sharply during the late 1980s, birth rates for teenagers declined every
year from 1991 to 2002. Although the teen pregnancy rate, birth rate,
and abortion rate have all declined since 1991, the U.S. teen birth
rate is still far above that of most industrialized countries (Alan
Guttmacher, 2000a, 2000b). During the period 1991-99, the pregnancy
rate for teenagers 15-19 dropped from a high of 115.3 per 1,000
teenagers to 85.6. Similarly, the birth rate dropped from 61.8 in 1991
to 48.7 in 1999 and to 42.9 in 2002. Moreover, the abortion rate 
for teenagers has fallen fairly steadily since the late 1980s. For
example, the abortion rate for 15- to 19-year-olds dropped from 37.4 in
1991 to 24.7 in 1999, a drop of 34 percent. Because the teen pregnancy
rate, birth rate, and abortion rate all have declined since 1991, the
total decline in the teen birth rate cannot be attributed solely to an
increase in abortions by teens. The teen pregnancy rate fell by 26
percent between 1991 and 1999 and the abortion rate by 34 percent (Alan
Guttmacher Institute, 2003). According to the National Center for
Health Statistics (1998), the declines in birth and pregnancy rates for
teenagers since 1991 reflect a stabilization and reduction in the
proportion of teenagers who have ever had sex, a fall in the proportion
of teenagers who are sexually active at a given time, and an increase
in the likelihood that teenagers use contraceptives (see also Child
Trends, 2000). Others attribute the declines in teen birth rates in
part to teens' adopting a more conservative attitude about engaging in
sexual activity before marriage and their fear of contracting AIDS or
other sexually transmitted diseases (National Governors', 2000; Alan
Guttmacher, 2000a; Child Trends, 2000).

TABLE M-2--BIRTHS TO UNMARRIED WOMEN BY AGE, 
1,349,249
100.0
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Note--Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics (1970); National Center
for Health Statistics (2002), p. 47.

Ethnic differences
Since 1991, birth rates have declined for white, black, American Indian, 
Asian or Pacific Islander, and Hispanic adolescents ages 15 through 19.
The greatest decline in teen birth rates occurred among non-Hispanic
black teens, for whom rates were down 38 percent over the period from
1991 to 2001. Specifically, birth rates for non-Hispanic black
teenagers declined from 118.9 per 1,000 in 1991 to 73.5 in 2001. For
Hispanic teenagers, birth rates declined by 19 percent between 
1991 and 2001, from 106.7 to 86.4. However, despite the general decline
in teenage birth rates for all races and persons of Hispanic origin, in
2001, birth rates for black and Hispanic teenagers continued to be
substantially higher than for other ethnic groups. As compared with the
black and Hispanic rates of 73.5 and 86.4 per 1,000 respectively,
non-Hispanic white teens gave birth at a rate of only 30.3 per 1,000 
and Asian or Pacific Islanders were lower still at 19.8 per 1,000. 
The birth rate for American Indian teens (15-19) was 56.3 in 2001
(National Center for Health Statistics, 2002, p. 6; and National
Center for Health Statistics, 2003, p. 9).



State trends
Birth rates for teens 15-19 vary considerably from State to State. In
2001, the lowest reported rate by a State was 21.0 per 1,000 in New
Hampshire; the highest was Mississippi at 66.7, although the District
of Columbia and the territories of Guam and Puerto Rico had rates of
74.9, 70.5 and 68.0 respectively. Despite this variability, between
1991 and 2001, a reduction in the rate of births among teens 
aged 15-19 was observed in all 50 States, the District of Columbia,
Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. In 24 States, the District
of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, the rate was down by more
than 25 percent. Overall, declines ranged from 13 percent in Texas to
42 percent in Alaska (National Center for Health
Statistics, 2002, p. 8-9).

Financial and social costs of teen births
	The Robin Hood Foundation (Maynard, 1996) estimated that
	adolescent childbearing costs the U.S. taxpayer about $6.9
	billion per year; more specifically, welfare and food stamp
	benefits, $2.2 billion; medical care expenses, $1.5 billion; 
spending on incarceration (for the teen sons of women who had them as 
adolescents), $1 billion; foster care placements, $0.9 billion; and
lost tax revenue because of work patterns of fathers, $1.3 billion.
Research also indicates that teens who give birth are less likely to
complete high school and go on to college, thereby reducing their
potential for economic self-sufficiency. For the children of teens, 
research indicates that they are more likely to experience problems
in school, are more likely to drop out of high school, and as adults
are more likely to repeat the cycle of teenage pregnancy, poverty, and
welfare use (U.S. Department, 1995; Maynard, 1996; National Governors'
2000).

FEDERAL STRATEGIES TO REDUCE NONMARITAL PREGNANCIES

OVERVIEW



In recognition of the negative, long-term consequences associated with 
nonmarital births and the long-term costs to society, the prevention of
childbearing outside marriage has been identified by Congress as a
major national goal. Although birth rates for teens have dropped in
recent years, they remain at a relatively high level. Similarly,
although the overall illegitimacy ratio has stabilized, it is still at
an extraordinarily high level, especially for minorities.
Moreover, U.S. teen birth rates are much higher than the rates of other 
industrialized nations; they are 2 and 13 times, respectively, those of
England and Japan. The diversity in teen birth rates across
industrialized countries in 1995 ranged from a low of 4 births per
1,000 teens aged 15-19 in Japan to 56 in Armenia, 
with the U.S. rate near the top at 54.4 (Alan Guttmacher, 2000a, 2000b).
In an attempt to ameliorate some of the social and financial costs of 
nonmarital births even before the 1996 welfare reform law, the Federal
Government funded a variety of teenage pregnancy prevention programs.
These include: family planning, created in 1970 as title X of the
Public Health Services Act; the Adolescent Family Life Program, created
in 1981 as title XX of the Public Health Services Act; the Maternal and
Child Health Services Block Grant, created in 1981 as title V of the
Social Security Act; the Medicaid Program, created in 1965 as title 
XIX of the Social Security Act, and which includes 90 percent Federal
matching funds for family planning services (e.g., patient counseling
and education concerning pregnancy prevention and reproductive health,
including birth control); and the Social Services Block Grant, created
in 1981 as title XX of the Social Security Act.

NONMARITAL BIRTH PROVISIONS IN THE 1996 WELFARE REFORM LAW

Despite these programs already in the law, the 1996 welfare reform law 
(Public Law 104-193), and especially the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) Block Grant in title I of the law, included many new
provisions designed to reduce nonmarital births. In fact, one of the
four goals of the law was the prevention and reduction of
out-of-wedlock pregnancies. In addition, the law contained many 
other provisions aimed at focusing the Nation's attention and State
and Federal policy on reducing nonmarital pregnancies.

Findings
The findings section of the 1996 law notes the increase in
out-of-wedlock pregnancies and births, asserts that an effective
strategy to combat teenage pregnancy must address the issue of male
responsibility, and lists some of the negative consequences of
out-of-wedlock births on the mother, child, family, and society. This
section of the law states that it is the Asense of the Congress@ that 
prevention of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and reduction in out-of-wedlock
births are very important government interests and that the policy
contained in the TANF Program and in other provisions of the 1996 law
are intended to initiate a national attack on nonmarital births.

Purpose
	The purpose statement of the 1996 legislation stipulates in
	part that States should design their TANF Program to prevent
	and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and that
	States must establish annual numerical goals for preventing and
	reducing the incidence of such pregnancies.

State plan
	The TANF State plan must include an outline of how the State
	intends to establish goals and take action to prevent and
	reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, with
	special emphasis on teen pregnancies. States must also
	establish numerical goals for reducing their illegitimacy
	ratio for calendar years 1996-2005. Finally, the State is
	required to outline how it intends to conduct a program that
	provides education and training on the problem of statutory
	rape so that teenage pregnancy prevention programs may be
	expanded to include men, especially older males who prey on
	young women.

Bonus for decline in out-of-wedlock births
	For fiscal years 1999-2002, the 1996 law provided that cash
	bonuses be awarded to five States that have lower
	out-of-wedlock birth ratios than in preceding years and lower
	abortion rates than in fiscal year 1995. Under the law, the
	five States with both the greatest decline in out-of-wedlock
	birth ratio and a reduced abortion rate are to receive a bonus
	of $20 million each. If fewer than five States qualify for the
	bonus, it is increased to $25 million. If Guam, the Virgin
	Islands, or American Samoa qualify for the bonus, they would
	be paid $1.172 million,$889,000, and $250,000, respectively.
	These payments would not affect the number of other
	jurisdictions that could receive the bonus, but the $20 million
	or $25 million paid to other qualifying States (including the
	District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) would be reduced pro
	rata. (See TANF section for information on State receipt of
	bonus payments.)


Bonus to reward high-performance States
	For each year of the 5 years from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal
	year 2003, the 1996 welfare reform law provided a bonus grant
	to States that were successful in meeting the goals of the TANF
	Program. A total of $1 billion is appropriated for these
	bonuses, which are to average $200 million annually. As
	mentioned earlier, one of the goals of the TANF Program is to
	prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
	However, the HHS announced that the performance award for
	fiscal years 1999 and 2000 would be based only on State
	rankings of job entry and Awork force success@ measures. Also
	in December 1999, HHS announced that beginning in 2002 part of
	the bonus would be awarded to States with the largest increase
	in the percentage of children living in two-parent families
	with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level. Although
	this measure does not provide a direct gauge of illegitimate
	births, it is at least an indirect indication of increases in
	marital births. (See TANF section for more information on the
	high performance bonus.)

Certain minor mothers ineligible for TANF assistance
	The 1996 law specifies that a State may not use any part of the
	Federal TANF grant to provide cash assistance to unwed mothers
	under age 18 without a high school diploma or its equivalent
	unless they attend school or other equivalent educational or
	training program once their youngest child is 12 weeks old. The
	law also specifies that a State may not use any part of the
	Federal TANF grant to provide cash assistance to unwed mothers
	under age 18 or their children unless they live in the home of
	an adult relative or in another adult-supervised arrangement.

Abstinence education
	One of the most important anti-illegitimacy policies adopted in
	the 1996 legislation was $250 million over 5 years in
	entitlement money for abstinence education ($50 million per
	year for each of the fiscal years, 1998-2002).  Funds must be
	requested by States when they solicit Title V Maternal and
	Child Health (MCH) block grant funds and must be used
	exclusively for teaching abstinence. To receive federal funds,
	a state must match every $4 in federal funds with $3 in state 
funds.  This means that funding for abstinence education must total at
least $87.5 million annually.  Sponsors of the provision wanted to be
certain that every project funded by the abstinence education program
was based on an unambiguous abstinence message. Programs could include
information on birth control, but could not advocate its use. Rather,
abstinence programs had to be based on several clear messages about
abstinence, including: Aabstinence from sexual activity outside
marriage [is] the expected standard for all school age children;@
Aabstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid
out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other
associated health problems;@ and Asexual activity outside the context
of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical 
effects.@
The abstinence education money was provided directly to the States.
States were then required to devise a procedure for distributing the
funds to qualifying projects. In fiscal year 2003, every State except
California was sponsoring one or more abstinence education projects,
many of which have received additional funding from the State or local
level.
In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33), Congress appropriated 
money for a scientific evaluation of the abstinence education projects.
In competitive bidding, the Mathematica research company of Princeton,
New Jersey won the contract to conduct the evaluation.  In April 2002,
Mathematica released an interim report that focused on the
implementation experiences of a selected group of the Title V
abstinence education programs.  Later reports are expected to present
estimates of short- and longer-term program impacts.  The final report
is due in 2005. It is expected that the results from the Mathematical
evaluation will provide reliable information on whether abstinence
programs have an impact on teens' attitudes toward sex, their sexual
behavior, or their nonmarital birth rates.

Other provisions to reduce nonmarital births
	Family planning.--States are prohibited from using any part of
	the Federal TANF grant to provide medical services or abortions,
	but prepregnancy family planning is allowed as a use of TANF
	funds. Family cap.--Although there is no explicit provision in
	the 1996 law, the block grant nature of the program allows
	States to deny additional TANF benefits for a new baby in a
	family already receiving TANF benefits. By 2002, 21 States 
(including Guam) had adopted some version of this policy, often called
the Afamily cap.@ Ranking and review of States regarding out-of-wedlock
births.--The Secretary of HHS is directed to rank States in order of
success in reducing the proportion of out-of-wedlock births and review
the programs of the five States most recently ranked highest and the
five States most recently ranked lowest.


Report on circumstances of certain individuals.--The Secretary must
report to four Committees of Congress annually, beginning on August
22, 1999, on specified matters about three groups: children whose
families lost TANF eligibility because of a time limit, children born
after enactment (i.e., August 22, 1996) to teen parents, and persons
who became teen parents after enactment. Among the specified matters 
is the rate at which the members of each group are born, or have
children, out-of-wedlock, and the percentage of teens that are married.
National goals to prevent teenage pregnancies.--The Secretary was
required to establish and implement, no later than January 1, 1997, a
strategy for preventing out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancies. In response
to this requirement, HHS announced a teen pregnancy prevention strategy
in January 1997 called the Anational strategy to prevent out-of-wedlock
teen pregnancies.@ The purpose of the national strategy is to ensure
that at least 25 percent of communities in the United States have
pregnancy prevention programs in place. HHS is required by the 1996 law
to report to the Congress by June 30 of each year on progress made in 
implementing the national strategy. Created as a complementary approach
to teen pregnancy prevention efforts mandated in the 1996 welfare
reform legislation, the national strategy works under two main
principles: to strengthen the national response to prevent
out-of-wedlock pregnancies by combining existing programs with emerging
ones, and to support and encourage abstinence among adolescents 
(U.S. Department, 1998, 1999, 2000).
Research on TANF Programs.--The Secretary also is required to conduct 
research on the benefits, effects, and costs of operating State TANF
Programs. The research is to include the effects and operation of
various programs on nonmarital births and teen pregnancy.
Census Bureau report.--The U.S. Census Bureau must expand the Survey
of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) to obtain data with which to
evaluate TANF's impact on a random sample of American families. One of
the areas the Census Bureau is directed to include in this study is
out-of-wedlock births. The law appropriated $10 million per year for
each of fiscal years 1996-2002 to pay for this major study.


NONMARITAL BIRTH PROVISIONS IN THE CHILD SUPPORT 
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM



The 1996 law also contained the most powerful and far-reaching reforms
of the Child Support Enforcement Program ever enacted (see Section 8).
Because strict child support enforcement has been shown to have a
deterrent effect on nonmarital childbearing (Garfinkel et al., 1999),
the child support provisions of the law were seen by Congress as
another method of attempting to reduce illegitimacy. 
Perhaps the most direct provisions of the 1996 law that were expected
to have an impact on nonmarital childbearing were the exceptionally
strong paternity establishment requirements. If the State child support
agency determines that a TANF recipient is not cooperating with
officials in establishing paternity or in establishing, modifying, or
enforcing a support order for her or his child, the State 

must reduce the family's TANF benefit by at least 25 percent and may
remove the family from the program entirely. Moreover, if a State does
not enforce penalties requested by the State child support agency
against TANF recipients who fail to cooperate, the HHS Secretary must
reduce the state's Federal TANF grant by up to 5 percent and the State
must replace these funds with its own money.
The 1996 law also required States to take several actions to promote
paternity establishment. These include creating a simple civil process
for voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, maintaining a hospital-based
paternity acknowledgment program as well as programs in other State
agencies (including the birth record agency), and issuing an affidavit
of voluntary paternity acknowledgment based on a form developed by the
Secretary. When a child's parents are not married, the father's name
must not appear on the birth certificate unless there is an
acknowledgment or adjudication of paternity. In addition, signed 
paternity acknowledgments must be considered a legal finding of
paternity unless rescinded within 60 days.
The child support reforms include many other provisions that are
expected to increase personal responsibility and promote deterrence.
Among these measures are: mandatory employer reporting of information..
.......................................................................
on new hires to promote rapid location of noncustodial parents; uniform
interstate child support laws; establishment of a computerized
Statewide collection and disbursement unit to expedite child support
payments to custodial parents; and stringent penalties, such as
revocation of drivers' license and other professional and recreational
(including sporting) licenses, of parents who owe past-due child
support.



REFERENCES

Alan Guttmacher Institute. (2000a, January/February). Adolescent
pregnancy and childbearing: Levels and trends in developed countries.
Family Planning Perspectives, 3(1), 14-23.


Alan Guttmacher Institute. (2000b, February 24). United States and the
Russian Federation lead the developed work in teenage pregnancy rates
(News Release). New York: Author.
Alan Guttmacher Institute. (2003, May). U.S. teenage pregnancy
statistics with comparative statistics for women aged 20-24. New York:
Author.
Bachu, A. (1999, October).  Trends in Premarital Childbearing: 1930 to
1994 (P23-7). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Child Trends. (2000).  Trends in sexual activity and contraceptive use
among teens (Research Brief). Washington, DC: Author.
Garfinkel, I., Gaylin, D.S., McLanahan, S.S., and Huang, C.C. (1999).
Will child support enforcement reduce nonmarital childbearing? Paper
presented at the Brookings Institution Roundtable on Children,
Washington, DC. Maynard, R.A. (Ed.). (1996).  Kids having kids: A Robin
Hood Foundation special report on the costs of adolescent childbearing.
New York: Robin Hood Foundation.
Moore, Kristin A. (2002, September).  Facts at a glance. Washington,
DC: Child Trends.
Moynihan, D.P. (1965).  The Negro family: The case for national action. 
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
Murray, C. (1993, October 29). The coming white underclass. Wall Street
Journal,p. A-14.
National Center for Health Statistics. (1970). Vital Statistics of the
U.S. (Vol. I:   
Natality). Hyattsville, MD: Author.
National Center for Health Statistics. (1995, July). Monthly vital
statistics reports, 
43 (12). p 16. Hyattsville, MD: Author.
National Center for Health Statistics. (1998, December). Declines in
teen birth rates, 1991-97: National and State patterns, 47(12).
Hyattsville, MD: Author.
National Center for Health Statistics. (2002, September). National
vital statistics 
reports, 50(14). Births, marriages, divorces, and deaths: provisional
data for 
2001. Hyattsville, MD: Author.
National Center for Health Statistics. (2002, December). National vital
statistics reports, 51(2). Births: final data for 2001. Hyattsville,
MD: Author.
National Center for Health Statistics. (2003, February). National vital
statistics reports, 51(4). Revised birth and fertility rates for the
United States, 2000 and 2001. Hyattsville, MD: Author.
National Center for Health Statistics. (2003, June). National vital
statistics reports,  
      51(11). Births: preliminary data for 2002. Hyattsville,
      MD: Author.


National Governors' Association Center for Best Practices.
(2000, January 14). 
State role in preventing teen pregnancy. Washington, DC: Author.
Rainwater, L., and Yancey, W.L. (1967).  The Moynihan report and the
politics of controversy. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1995).  A report to
Congress on out-of-wedlock childbearing (DHHS Pub. No. 95-1257-1).
Hyattsville, MD: 
National Center for Health Statistics.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1998, June). A national
strategy to prevent teen pregnancy  (Annual Report, 1997-98).
Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). A national
strategy to prevent teen pregnancy  (Annual Report, 1998-99).
Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). A national
strategy to prevent teen pregnancy  (Annual Report, 1999-2000).
Washington, DC: Author.

M-1



M-2








