The Family Edge

C an institutions other than the family provide human, social, and financial capital and other important resources to those who need them? In this chapter, I will look specifically at how churches, schools, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and governments attempt to provide individuals and families with resources—particularly when they are disadvantaged. If institutions besides the family can provide all key resources, then family capital may be unnecessary or redundant.

To examine this issue we will first look at the functions that families have traditionally filled for their members and then explore how other organizations have increasingly attempted to perform many of those same functions, given that many families are in crisis and unable to meet even the basic needs of family members. I will also critique how well other institutions have performed and look at unintended consequences of aid from these institutions. However, I recognize that I’m only providing a general overview of each institution and its impact. Furthermore, I will focus primarily on what I see happening in the United States.

Changes in Family Functions over Time

Historically, the family has filled most of the functions needed for family members to survive and thrive and, indeed, most family members have expected their families to fulfill these functions.¹ Common functions ascribed to families include providing food, shelter, money, social and emotional support, help in acquiring a mate, education and socialization to cultural norms, and status in society. Before the latter part of the nineteenth and into the twentieth century, families were expected to fulfill most if not all of these functions. However, as families have become more fragile and fragmented, government and other institutions have started to assume some of the burden of these functions. Until the twentieth century, families were almost exclusively responsible for child-care, education, and the care of the elderly. However, by the end of the twentieth century governments and other institutions had largely taken on the particulars of these roles, causing individuals to become more dependent on their institutions rather than their family. In her book How The West Really Lost God, Mary Eberstadt observes the current state:

More people now expect their governments to perform tasks once assumed by sons, daughters, maiden aunts, and the like. As families have shrunk, disbanded, re-formed, and otherwise come to reflect the reality that what were once permanent ties are now increasingly optional and fungible, Western men and women have ratcheted up the pressure on the state to operate as a family substitute—in particular, as a father substitute. This point was demonstrated perfectly if once more unwittingly in the United States in 2012, when a video made by President Barack Obama’s reelection team chronicled a fictitious young woman named “Julia” benefiting from government assistance at each major stage of her life—every one of which forms of assistance, from day care to retirement, are government substitutes for what the extended family was once competent to do and often is no more.²

The Role of the Church in Supporting Families

Since the beginning of recorded history, religious movements and churches have helped support individuals and families. They have given people religious and at times secular educational experiences; have provided their members with social capital by facilitating relationships between parishioners; have consoled followers in times of worry and crisis; and have even provided food, shelter, and other necessities for their members. Some sects go so far as to become family-like and fulfill almost all their members’ needs. These types of religious groups are often seen by outsiders as “cults,” such as the polygamous communities in the American Southwest. Other religions, such as Buddhism, tend to focus more on religious philosophy and play less of an active role in the lives of their adherents.

The following, shared by a clergyman, compellingly shows how churches provide support for their members when family resources are not available:

I received a phone call from a member of my congregation who informed me that a single mother that he visited had a broken water heater; she had just recently moved from another state, had no one to help her fix the water heater, and had no money to pay a repairman. She was taking her three children to the local public swimming pool each morning where she and her children could have warm showers. I was shocked that a member of my congregation would be living in such circumstances so I called a plumber who was a church member and asked him if he would fix her water heater for just the cost of the parts. He agreed, and I decided that the church could pay for the parts. I called this woman and told her that I’d heard about her plight and had a solution—her water heater was quickly repaired.

This single mother had no family whom she could call upon for help, so the church stepped in to fill this need. The clergyman also noted that funds from his church are often used to assist with church members’ medical and dental expenses, housing costs, utility bills, and such. This support is generally temporary (for a few months at most), as the clergymen work with those receiving support to explore whether extended family can provide needed resources and to develop a plan to help the members become self-reliant.

Of course, churches don’t always have the resources needed to remedy a deficit in family capital, and sometimes churches have exploited, rather than supported, their members. But extensive research has shown the impact of religious devotion and church affiliation on individuals and families. In general, the findings suggest that religious observance—defined as regularly attending church, praying, and reading from the faith’s scriptures—has the following benefits, irrespective of one’s religious preference:³

» Higher levels of marital happiness and stability compared to those without religious ties.

» Lower levels of divorce: Religious couples are 2.4 times less likely to divorce than nonreligious couples.

» Stronger parent-child relationships: Religious parents tend to show more affection to children.

» Greater longevity and physical health: Religious persons, on average, live seven years longer than nonreligious persons.

Moreover, research has shown the following benefits for religious teenagers compared to nonreligious teenagers:

» They are happier and feel more loved compared to those teenagers who aren’t religious.

While religious observance doesn’t guarantee a better life, these findings do suggest that being connected to a religious community can provide human, social, and financial capital that greatly stabilizes and helps individuals cope with life’s challenges. Churches can also help individuals develop values that will help shape their character. In particular, the religious values that encourage people to delay instant gratification for long-term goals, discourage antisocial behaviors such as crime and drug abuse, and encourage service and helping others tend to lead people to have more productive—and happier—lives. Moreover, the social network gained from church affiliation and the emotional and, at times, financial support from one’s religious community are also reasons for the benefits just described.

For churches to provide their members with the advantages of human, social, and financial capital, they need to have people actively involved in the church and its faith community. However, religious affiliation has decreased significantly across the world over the past few decades, particularly in Europe.⁴ The Pew Research Center has documented the steady decline of religiosity in the United States. The findings of a survey released in 2015 noted that 67 percent of those individuals born between 1928 and 1945 said that “religion was important in their lives” while only 38 percent of “younger millennials” who were born between 1990 and 1996 reported the same.⁵ Therefore, church attendance is declining among most of the major religions in the world.

Several years ago a comprehensive study of America’s youth and their orientation toward religion was conducted by Christian Smith, a sociologist at Notre Dame University, with the findings published in his book Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers.⁶ According to Smith, about 84 percent of the youth thirteen to seventeen years old in the United States are nominally a member of a religion. However, after interviewing many teenagers, Smith concluded that most teenagers today don’t know or understand the basic tenets and values of their religion and don’t particularly care. Smith writes, “In many adolescents’ lives, religion occupies a quite weak and losing position,” but those teens who are religious “are doing significantly better in life on a variety of important outcomes than are less religiously active teens.”⁷ Smith blames teens’ parents for the lack of religious training in the home and for not providing good role models of religious devotion. Moreover, in homes disrupted by divorce, death, or an unrelated parent figure—trends we see in families in American today—teens are much less likely to express feelings of religious devotion and attend church. These data suggest that many will not easily avail themselves of church resources.

Can Schools Substitute for Family Capital?

As an educator myself, I admit that I have a bias toward formal education in the creation of human capital. Historically many young men learned their professional trade from their fathers or other family members, while young women learned how to manage a household at the feet of their mothers. As industrialization emerged in the nineteenth century and the nature of work began to change, jobs and careers began to be structured by businesses instead of families, and many of those new jobs required some type of specialized training. Although companies provided on-the-job training for most workers, the formal school system was relied upon to provide companies with literate (to a degree) employees who, in many cases, had some specialized training that would help them add value to their employers. In today’s world, few families have the ability to personally provide the training necessary to prepare family members to compete successfully in many occupations. Families in industries like farming, fishing, and mortuary science continue to train family members to work in the family business or in a traditional job with a history of family involvement. But today, much education is formal and obtained through schools operated by the government, churches, or private institutions.

Access to good schools with good teachers varies dramatically from country to country. Literacy is just one measure of school effectiveness. Across the world some countries report 100 percent literacy (e.g., Andorra, Finland, and North Korea). The United States population is 99 percent literate.⁸ Poorer countries such as those in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America have much lower literacy rates (in the 50 to 70 percent range) since their federal and local governments lack either the will or the resources to provide a good education for all their citizens. In countries wracked by war and instability such as Afghanistan, Niger, and South Sudan, the literacy rate hovers just under 30 percent.

In many countries, including the United States, there are disparities regarding opportunities to attend a quality school and receive a good education. High school graduation rates, typically used as an indicator of effective schooling in the United States, vary dramatically. For example, during the 2014–2015 school-year Iowa graduated 90.8 percent of its students and Texas 89 percent, but in Nevada the rate was only 71.3 percent, with the District of Columbia bringing up the rear at 68.5 percent.⁹

A family’s income plays a large role in the kind of education its children can receive. In the United States, for example, the overall high school graduation rate was 83.2 percent in 2015, but for lower income students the graduation rate was only 76.1 percent.¹⁰ This is a consistent pattern that we see across the world—the poor have less access to educational opportunities. Robert Putnam of Harvard University, in his book Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis, describes the differences in school systems experienced by several families in different regions of the United States.¹¹ For example, consider a high school in Santa Ana, California, where gangs, fights, and drugs are the order of the day; and where students, who typically receive little family support, spend most of their time after school trying to find enough food to eat and a safe place to stay rather than focusing on their homework. Conversely, in a high school located in an affluent neighborhood only a few miles away, the students are well cared for by their families, take advanced placement classes, and have high SAT scores; these students’ major concerns are who to invite to the prom and what college to attend. Much of the income inequality in the United States (and around the world) is due to the fact that some families—who already have an abundance of human, social, and financial capital at their disposal—have the means to live in desirable areas and can send their kids to the best schools. However, those children whose families lack family capital are oftentimes left to fend for themselves in substandard schools where few go on to college and many end up in lower paying, minimum wage jobs. Thus, according to Putnam, the current dynamics affecting families and the economy in the United States are propelling the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. This is true worldwide; in 2016, sixty-two people had as much wealth as one-half of the people on our planet (3.5 billion), a smaller pool than in 2010, when 388 people controlled half of the earth’s wealth.¹² Income inequality is clearly getting worse, not better, and access to quality education is one of the key factors affecting this trend.

Formal education, to the extent a person’s family supports education and has access to quality schools, can strengthen family capital significantly. It provides skills needed to find employment, helps to strengthen social capital through associations made at school, and— since education is highly correlated with income—fuels personal and family financial capital. Furthermore, many schools have programs to help students with behavioral problems and some even have support groups for students who experience anxiety and depression. One of my grandchildren has benefited greatly from public school programs that help in dealing with autism. Thus, in addition to helping students prepare for a career, schools can also provide support for children with emotional and behavioral problems.

The difference in median household income (a good measure of family financial capital) in the United States varies greatly depending on level of education. The average household income in the United States was $58,044 in 2015. Table 8.1 shows household income broken down by education level.¹³

Although several reasons likely explain this relative decline (one being the cost of higher education in the US), some studies point to the family as the primary culprit. A 2016 study by William Doherty and his colleagues showed that changes in family structure—particularly the increase in the past several decades of single parent households in the United States—have affected educational attainment among today’s youths.¹⁵ The authors of the study reported that increasing out of wedlock births and divorce rates have contributed to the following among children in these homes:

These findings hold even when controlling for the socioeconomic status of the families involved. Family structure seems to have an especially strong impact on young men. When the father is absent from the home, young men are much less likely than young women to attend college. The researchers write, “The college enrollment gender gap . . . began to emerge about eighteen years after the beginning of major shifts in family structure. . . . The higher the non-marital birth rate grew, the lower the ratio of males to females [enrolled in college].”¹⁶ When parents are not available to encourage education and academic achievement, children are less likely to see education as important in their own lives. And without a good education, young people in today’s world will find it more difficult to contribute to the family capital that their own families will need in the future. Unfortunately, current dynamics in American families point to less encouragement of educational achievement.

Can Schools Provide Students with Character and Values?

The histories of most colleges and universities in the United States point to a connection to a religious tradition in their founding.¹⁷ For example, the University of Chicago was initially funded by John D. Rockefeller as a Baptist school to encourage both secular learning and faith. The university saw itself as responsible to build character in its students and to provide them with the values and social tools necessary to lead a successful life. Over time, most religiously based schools, like the University of Chicago, have left their religious roots, and their curriculums and training have been driven by research and the scientific method. Secular knowledge, not character, is what counts. Although impressive advances in science have resulted, this trend appears to have left some college students bereft of values and beliefs that would serve them well. Because truth is currently a function of cultural relativism, few professors are willing to take a stand about what is right and wrong and what practices and values will lead to a better life. Thus, much to my chagrin as a college professor of over thirty years, I’ve seen a significant increase in binge drinking, sexual assaults, cheating, and plagiarism on American campuses. Most college students are left to figure out how to navigate life on their own or by getting advice from their friends, associates, and the media—and only at times from their parents, siblings, or other family members. When children grow up in unstable homes without instruction in important values and don’t receive parental support, schools are often not equipped to serve as substitute parents to help students develop into well-rounded, empathetic, confident, and competent individuals. In 2016 I read a letter by a high school teacher named Steven Wedel, who teaches English in the Oklahoma City School District. Wedel was concerned that the Oklahoma state legislature and local voters weren’t supporting schools like they should and that he needed both the support of the government and from his students’ parents. Here are some excerpts from his poignant letter:

I am a teacher. I teach English at the high school of an independent district within Oklahoma City. I love my job. I love your kids. I call them my kids. I keep blankets in my room for when they’re cold. I feed them peanut butter crackers, beef jerky, or Pop Tarts when . . . school breakfast or lunch isn’t enough to fill their bellies. I comfort them when they cry and I praise them when they do well and always I try to make them believe that they are somebody with unlimited potential no matter what they go home to when they leave me.

What do they go home to? Sometimes when they get sick at school they can’t go home because you and the person you’re currently shacking up with are too stoned to figure out it’s your phone ringing. Sometimes they go home to parents who don’t notice them, and those are often the lucky kids. Sometimes they go home to sleep on the neighbor’s back porch because your boyfriend kicked them out of the house and his dog is too mean to let them sleep on their own back porch. They go home to physical and verbal abuse. They go home looking for love and acceptance from the people who created them . . . and too often they don’t find it. . . .

Often, they stay at school with me for an hour and a half after the bell rings because they don’t want to go home to you. Reluctantly, they get on the two buses meant to take home students who stay for athletic practice, and they go away for a dark night in places I can’t imagine.

Over 90 percent of the kids in my high school are on the free or reduced lunch programs. They walk hand-in-hand with Poverty and its brother Violence. They find comfort in the arms of your lover, Addiction. They make babies before they are old enough to vote. Or drive. And they continue the cycle you put them in. Sometimes I get through to a student and convince her that education is the way out of this spiral of poverty and despair. Then you slap them down for wanting to be better than you.

. . . Parents, I beg you to love your children the way we love your children.¹⁸

When our teachers’ best efforts are undermined by what is happening in their students’ homes and teachers aren’t given sufficient resources, it’s difficult to see how our school systems can be effective surrogates for family capital. When family capital is abundant in families, fewer school resources are needed to control student behavior, provide meals, and provide other types of support for the children. However, when family capital is lacking, school systems are often overburdened as they attempt to take over the role as the provider. This can create a vicious cycle. Unfortunately, families lacking family capital often live in school districts with fewer resources to help families nurture their children.

Can Out of Wedlock Births Be Reduced?

Given the negative emotional, behavioral, educational, and financial outcomes associated with out of wedlock births discussed in chapter 2, governments and schools have put a lot of energy into trying to reduce the number of children born to single mothers, with modest success. However, in the United States, the percentage of teen births to unmarried mothers rose from 29 percent in 1970 to 89 percent in 2014, despite a decline in out of wedlock births to teens since 2007.¹⁹ This increase in births by unmarried teenagers has been fueled by the increased sexual activity of youth. One study reported the increase in sexual activity as teens get older: “30 percent of ninth graders reported having experienced sexual intercourse. The corresponding statistics for older teens were 41.4 percent for tenth graders, 54.1 percent for eleventh graders, and 64.1 percent for twelfth graders.”²⁰ Sexual activity among the youth, as well as adults, has led to a proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in the United States. In 2016 there were 20 million new cases of STDs—the highest number in history—and about one in three Americans, 110 million in all, have a sexually transmitted disease according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). This costs the US about $16 billion annually.²¹

Most of the programs to reduce out of wedlock pregnancies in the US have been targeted at teens, since they are the most likely to have children and not be married. Many of these young mothers drop out of school and have to rely on family or government assistance, as few receive child support from the child’s father. This leads to a cycle of poverty in such families, often continuing from one generation to the next.

The George W. Bush administration promoted “abstinence sex education” in schools, since refraining from sexual relations was the only sure way to avoid an out of wedlock birth or a sexually transmitted disease and such education was morally acceptable to most of Bush’s constituents. Moreover, research has shown that virgins who marry are more likely to have stable marriages than those who have multiple sexual partners before marriage.²² But these programs had little effect on sexual relations among teenagers since only 3 to 5 percent of men and women currently report being virgins when they marry— it was above 20 percent in the 1970s.²³

One recent study describes some of the characteristics of sex education programs that have been effective in reducing out of wedlock births:

Many analysts and researchers agree that effective teen pregnancy prevention programs (1) convince teens that not having sex or that using contraception consistently and carefully is the right thing to do; (2) last a sufficient length of time (i.e., more than a few weeks); (3) are operated by leaders who believe in their programs and who are adequately trained; (4) actively engage participants and personalize the program information; (5) address peer pressure issues; (6) teach communications skills; and (7) reflect the age, sexual experience, and culture of young persons in the program.²⁴

This study also notes that counseling and educational programs for women who have had one child out of wedlock have been fairly successful in preventing future unwanted pregnancies by these women.

One teacher, Luis Miguel Bermudez from Colombia (which has the highest out of wedlock birth rate in the world), uses many of the seven principles just outlined in his high school sex education class in Bogotá.²⁵ Bermudez gives a no-nonsense class where he engages the students openly about sex, its consequences (including sexually transmitted diseases), abstinence, contraception, and how to handle relationships. He describes his results:

It was common to see fourteen-year-old pregnant girls arriving to class and their education was practically over, and they were left with very few prospects. Some of the girls had two babies by sixteen, and I was worried about their futures. I said we should talk honestly and openly about sex. We needed a different approach. These kids aren’t ignorant; they know a lot more about sex than we give them credit for! In 2011 we had roughly seventy pregnancies a year, and this year we have zero. We no longer have any pregnant students—not even one.²⁶

Bermudez notes that he included boys in his pregnancy statistics to ensure accountability on the part of both the boys and girls. For his efforts, former Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos named Bermudez as the country’s best teacher and praised his efforts to reduce teenage pregnancies.

Bermudez’s example suggests that educational efforts can make a difference in out of wedlock birth rates, but such an approach requires considerable commitment on the part of teachers and schools. But more and more out of wedlock births are with older women not in school who probably won’t be reached by such programs. Access to accurate information about the consequences of sexual relations plus access to contraceptives for those who choose to be sexually active are key to reducing out of wedlock births.

Reducing out of wedlock births is possible—though clearly not easy—for governments or other institutions interested in solving this problem.

NGOs as a Substitute for Family Capital

One may consider nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as providing a substitute for family capital. The term was created by the United Nations Charter in 1945 through Article 71, which defines an NGO as independent from government and not-for-profit. In my role as academic director of the Ballard Center for Economic Self-Reliance located in the Marriott School of Business, I often interact with leaders of a variety of NGOs whose primary goal is to help lift people out of poverty. Roughly ten million NGOs exist throughout the world, according to an estimate.²⁷ They largely function through donations from private individuals or foundations and address a wide variety of issues—including health, education, violence, human trafficking, and financial security. I cannot cover all of the many aspects of NGOs here, but I will give a few examples of how they can provide human, social, and financial capital.

In terms of human capital, NGOs have been able to improve the health of their clients by eradicating diseases such as smallpox and polio through immunization programs. Programs to provide clean drinking water have had some success as have programs teaching basic hygiene and providing basic supplies to deal with first-aid or other minor medical problems. Other organizations (such as the Red Cross and Catholic Relief Services) provide aid during natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, or tsunamis or man-made disasters such as war—although such is not guaranteed.

NGOs also enhance human capital through education. NGOs often supplement formal education in countries where the government is unable to provide sufficient educational opportunities for their citizens. I often find myself working or researching with an NGO whose mission is to train the poor to start their own businesses, particularly in countries where jobs are difficult to come by.

An example of this type of NGO is the Academy for Creating Enterprise (ACE)—founded by Steve Gibson, a successful retired entrepreneur, and his wife Bette Gibson, an educator. (See chapter 4 for my earlier discussion about the group.) Initially started in the Philippines, the group expanded to other sites worldwide; from 2013 to 2015 I led a research team that looked at the impact of ACE training in Mexico City.²⁸ Besides basic entrepreneurial training, the NGO also provides continual mentoring through various follow-up seminars. Our study tracked ACE graduates from their three programs—residential training (eight weeks at the ACE academy), night classes, and classes taught in various regions of Mexico. We wanted to know if, after training, ACE graduates made more money and launched more successful businesses than a control group. The results were consistent with what we’ve seen in other studies on the impact of NGO education programs—there was some improvement in personal income and in business success (primarily measured by business growth), and a large percentage of ACE students were able to move out of poverty as a result of the ACE training.

Other NGOs try to help those in need by providing them with opportunities to develop social capital. The theory behind these types of NGO interventions is that most people in poverty lack mentoring and relationships that would help them succeed economically. While family connections are often the primary vehicle for garnering social capital, those without family support can turn to certain NGO programs as potential substitutes.

One United States NGO that purports to help individuals and families gain social capital is Circles.²⁹ Circles reaches out to those in poverty, and if an individual applies for the Circle program and is accepted, she becomes a Circle Leader. Circle Leaders meet twice a month with allies—one or more volunteers who provide the Circle Leader with access to social networks; emotional support; advice regarding complex issues; and help to set and achieve goals, though they do not provide any financial support. Circles also forms groups of community leaders who identify local barriers to moving out of poverty and create plans to help remove those barriers or help people overcome them. In their advertising literature, Circles quotes one Circle Leader named Trevor:

[My allies] were friends and confidants who accepted my frustration with my situation and felt it with me. They allowed me to vent; made me laugh; held me accountable in kind, understanding ways; helped me work on interview skills; and above all else were there when things got rough. I probably wouldn’t be where I am without them.³⁰

Unfortunately, like most NGOs, Circles only reports anecdotal evidence that their program is effective.

The Becoming a Man (BAM) program based in Chicago likewise focuses on education and social support.³¹ In 2016, 764 people were murdered in Chicago and over 3,000 were wounded in shootings, making the city one of the most dangerous places to live in the United States. The preponderance of perpetrators and victims of these shootings were young, African American males. The BAM program, started in 2001, enrolls students from grades seven to twelve in BAM training sessions in conjunction with their regular schooling. During the 2014–15 school year 2,185 students were served by 47 BAM counselors. In that year, BAM held 3,974 group sessions and 473 students received individual counseling.

The BAM program’s thirty weekly group sessions focus on impulse control, emotional self-regulation, recognition of social cues, developing a sense of personal responsibility, and integrity. Most of the young men in the BAM program lack parental guidance and support—thus the BAM program and the counselors serve as role models to help provide direction for these youths. The results for these young men while in the program have been impressive:

» High school drop-out rates have been reduced to just 5 percent of BAM members.

Whereas some of these impressive results might be due to self-selection (i.e., those youths most amenable to change sign up for the BAM program), the BAM program provides a reasonable model for how to deal with the challenging problem of community violence. What happens to these young men when they graduate from the BAM program? Some evidence suggests that without continual support, these young men will go back to their traditional patterns of behavior—gang affiliation and gang violence—and the BAM program will not have had a lasting impact. In contrast, family support is generally for a lifetime and hence has a long-lasting impact.

Microcredit NGOs have played a significant role for many poor people by providing them with financial capital. Although some banks also provide this service, NGOs have had a greater impact. The microcredit movement, founded by Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, has emerged as a major force in the world, serving millions of individuals—most of which would not have access to capital without microcredit. Professor Yunus saw that many of the poor in Bangladesh had good business ideas and were willing to work, but they had to either obtain money from loan sharks who charged exorbitant interest rates or go without. Thus, he started the Grameen Bank, which focused on giving small loans to poor people with entrepreneurial ambitions. Interest rates on microcredit loans are not cheap (most are over 30 percent annually) but they are clearly better than the alternatives.

Most of these loans are given to start a small business or finance an existing one. A recent survey of microcredit institutions revealed the following:³²

Some evidence suggests that microcredit has had a positive impact in the lives of many borrowers; however, uncertainty exists as to whether these NGOs are sustainable over the long-term without a significant infusion of donor funds. Some studies have indicated that when borrowers have clear objectives for the funds, two-thirds saw their situation improve or maintained, but much of the success of microcredit has to do with the initial situation of the borrower (current employment, income, education, and motivation).³³ Given that many individuals and foundations are willing to support microcredit NGOs and that banks are supporting many borrowers, it’s unlikely that the services provided by these institutions will disappear any time soon; however, they may not be as reliable as the family in providing financial support and resources when needed.

Can Government Take Over the Role of Family?

The roles governments play in the lives of their citizens are tremendously diverse. For example, Scandinavian countries tend to take a cradle-to-grave approach to providing support for their citizens, while the poorer countries in Africa and Latin American have fewer resources and civil infrastructure to support their citizens in times of need. One country, Switzerland, had a referendum recently (that was defeated) to provide all its citizens a guaranteed income. If such a government program were in place, family financial capital, while still important, might not be needed as often to support family members.

In countries across the world, numerous programs provide individuals and families with important resources (mostly financial). For example, in the United States 21.3 percent of the population (about 52 million people) participate in a government assistance program each month.³⁴ While the percentage relying on government support varies largely depending on how the economy performs, it has tended to increase over time with only 18.6 percent of the population requiring assistance in 2009 (as the great recession was starting).³⁵ The US government also provides medical services to those who qualify for Medicaid or Medicare, preschool resources through Head Start and other programs, and free school lunches for those who qualify, along with certain after-school programs. Government also plays the major role in funding for schools as well as job training.

One of the more important government agencies in the United States that provides support for starting and growing businesses is the Small Business Administration (SBA).

Many of my clients have used SBA loans to benefit their businesses; the SBA loan portfolio totaled $124,118,505 in 2016.³⁶ Moreover, I have seen budding entrepreneurs take advantage of the SBA’s training and mentoring programs that have improved their ability to succeed in business. And in some communities, small business incubators (largely funded by the government) provide small business owners with office space and other basic infrastructure to help them launch and grow their businesses. While the United States is one of the leading countries in the world providing these types of services to entrepreneurs, other countries recognize the importance of providing human, social, and financial capital to potential entrepreneurs and provide these resources to help them.

Governments can, and many do, provide resources to help develop a family’s human capital and potentially encourage the development of new enterprises by family members.

Government Encouragement of Marriage and Child-Bearing

In AD 9 the Romans introduced a law known as Lex Papia Poppaea that imposed financial penalties on those who were not married after a certain age. In general, that law achieved its goal. However today, various government actions to encourage marriage—particularly among the poor—have generally been ineffective. For example, in the United States the George W. Bush administration created the Building Strong Families and Supporting Healthy Marriage initiatives to encourage people to marry and stay married. In evaluating these efforts, Robert Putnam concludes, “Despite isolated hopeful signs, however, neither of these experiments offered much evidence that even well-designed, well-funded public programs can increase marriage rates or keep parents together. . . . I see no clear path to reviving marriage rates among poor Americans.”³⁷

While government, churches, and other institutions can encourage marriage and stable relationships, the current narrative about marriage dissuades today’s young people from marrying. Some lower-income, never-married adults cite “financial instability” as the major reason they are not married. However, my research on family capital indicates that marriage can help to solve that problem, as a married couple pools their resources. It’s an odd paradox that those who are poor are rejecting a path that could lead them out of poverty.

Even though overpopulation is an issue in much of the developing world, a declining population is a major concern for many industrialized nations. Nations with declining birth rates will eventually need more workers to grow their economies and to provide taxes to care for an aging population. But like those attempts to encourage marriage, government programs have been relatively unsuccessful in motiving citizens to have more children.³⁸

In Sweden, a country with great state-run day care and maternity leave, births are still well below replacement rate. In Russia, they have tried almost everything to increase their birth rates. September 12, 2007 was designated by the Russian government to be Family Contact Day when workers were given time off to procreate “for Russia.” Nine months later, those women who had babies on Russia Day won prizes ranging from televisions to an SUV; this was called the “Give Birth to a Patriot” incentive. Russia also instituted a program to pay women $10,000 for having a second child. The Singapore government pays mothers $9,000 for a second child and $18,000 for a third. The government also matches dollar-for-dollar savings accounts to pay for a child’s expenses and offers generous maternity leave. To combat its declining birth rate, Korea has instituted similar programs that have cost over $70 billion dollars over the past decade. But despite these programs, Russia is still below replacement rate, Singapore’s birth rate continues to be one of the lowest in the world (.79), and Korean birth rates are at historic lows. Results are similar in other developed countries. If current trends hold—and that’s difficult to predict—the world’s population will grow only because of high birth rates in Africa. Other continents will see declining or flat populations by the year 2100.³⁹

Efforts to Strengthen Marriage Relationships

Strengthening your marriage will also strengthen your capacity for family capital. Various programs, government and otherwise, to strengthen marriage and cohabiting relationships have been more successful than those designed to encourage people to get married and have children. Professor Alan Hawkins, an expert on marriage education, has researched extensively on marriage preparation education, relationship development education, education for parents of blended families, and programs to help couples become successful parents.⁴⁰ Hawkins points out that marriage preparation programs are often required by certain religions, such as Catholicism. Such training, usually in a group format, includes discussions about expectations in marriage, problem-solving skills, and finances. Participants receive feedback on relationship strengths and weaknesses by filling out various personality inventories. Nine states in the United States have passed legislation encouraging couples to attend such programs, and those who do get a modest reduction in the cost of their marriage license. Hawkins notes that only about 37 percent of couples who marry go through such training, but the results of this education are impressive. A meta-analysis of thirteen studies on marriage preparation education reported the following:

Of the thirteen most rigorous studies, twelve found that couples who participated in premarital education programs had significantly higher relationship skills and marital quality after the program compared to couples who did not participate. The researchers found that the average person who participated in the premarital prevention program was better off after the program than 79 percent of the control-group couples who did not receive premarital education.⁴¹

» It slows down the courting process and helps couples think more carefully about their decision to get married and the quality of their match—they get a more realistic preview of married life.

» It reinforces the idea that marriage is hard work and its success depends on skills, knowledge, and commitment.

» It alerts the couple to those resources available to help them in their marriage. Couples who have gone through premarital education are more likely to seek out counseling when they face difficulties in their marriage.

Another meta-analysis of fifty studies of such programs showed that premarital education programs improved the couples’ communications skills but not necessarily their level of marital satisfaction.⁴² Given the human, social, and financial costs associated with divorce and the break-up of families, Hawkins sees premarital education as a cost-effective way to strengthen families. Moreover, the results from several other studies point out that relationships and marital quality are enhanced when couples go through such training.⁴³

But what about education for those who cohabit? Hawkins notes that about two-thirds of eighteen-year-olds believe that living together is a good way to test whether a marriage will succeed (which is untrue, as discussed in chapter 2).⁴⁴ Since more than two-thirds of couples live together before getting married, they should also be a target audience for premarital education even if they decide not to marry. Hawkins concludes, “I think couples who are living together (the majority) as well as those who are not (the minority) can benefit from formal preparation for marriage.”⁴⁵

Relationship development programs, as distinct from marriage preparation programs, help individuals assess the quality of their relationships, make wise choices about the future, and learn skills for a successful relationship. Remarriage education programs assist couples who are remarrying and want to avoid another divorce and learn how to live in a blended family. Marriage maintenance education is considered a check-up for married couples. Participants assess how they are doing in marriage and family living. The programs focus on clarifying family expectations and helping couples work through problems. Overall, all these programs have positive, albeit modest, results. Some more targeted programs focus on the poor, certain racial and ethnic groups, and couples in distress. Similarly, these programs appear to strengthen marriages, but the results are not strong. One potential bias in such studies is that people who seek out these programs are more motivated to change and thus benefit from the program. Clearly more work needs to be done to see what types of programs for married couples are cost effective, but current programs provide hope for those who want to succeed in marriage or maintain a long-term relationship.

When one partner files for divorce, particularly when children are involved, many states require some type of co-parenting education and training to mitigate some problems associated with divorce and to ensure both parties understand divorce ramifications. Hawkins has estimated that the direct and indirect costs of a single divorce in the United States (e.g., the costs of drug abuse, incarceration, drop-out rates, etc. associated with divorce) are approximately $18,000; thus any effort to reduce divorce by government is likely to be cost effective.⁴⁶ A book by Hawkins and his colleagues called Should I Try to Work It Out? presents research findings and options for those contemplating divorce; it is used by certain states to help educate couples on the consequences of divorce.⁴⁷ On a personal note, several years ago in an ecclesiastical role I counseled many couples considering divorce. That type of counseling is difficult and emotionally draining, since the conflict between partners is real and painful and the stakes are high. I made Hawkins’s book required reading, and the couples generally found it to be very helpful—both the couples who stayed together and those who ultimately divorced.

Relying on Other Sources of Capital: The Problem of Unintended Consequences

In examining the role that churches, schools, NGOs, and government can play in providing support for families, you should be aware of the unintended consequences of using these nonfamily resources. Does assistance from nonfamily institutions enhance or undermine family capital, and if so, how? To explore this question I’ll use the example of growth in welfare services in the United States since 1964 and its impact on families. One argument often made is that the War on Poverty, initiated by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, actually created incentives for young, generally less educated women to have children out of wedlock in order to collect welfare benefits and remain dependent on the government—thus undermining family capital. Although I doubt someone would go through the pain, discomfort, and sleepless nights of pregnancy and childbirth just to get government assistance, it may be rational for a young woman to have a child if she has little hope in landing a good job and also wants someone (a baby) who loves her unconditionally. Moreover, the sexual revolution and general upheaval of the 1960s made having children out of wedlock less taboo and likely had an impact on the trajectory of out of wedlock births. In any event, the out of wedlock birth rate has grown from 7 percent in 1964 to over 40 percent by 2017, an increase of almost 600 percent.⁴⁸ One scholar on this topic described the situation this way:

The burgeoning welfare state has promoted single parenthood in two ways. First, means-tested welfare programs . . . financially enable single parenthood. It is difficult for single mothers with a high school degree or less to support children without the aid of another parent. Means-tested welfare programs substantially reduce this difficulty by providing extensive support to single parents. Welfare thereby reduces the financial need for marriage. Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, less-educated mothers have increasingly become married to the welfare state and to the US taxpayer rather than to the fathers of their children. As means-tested benefits expanded, welfare began to serve as a substitute for a husband in the home, and low-income marriage began to disappear. As husband left the home, the need for more welfare to support single mothers increased. The War on Poverty created a destructive feedback loop: Welfare promoted the decline of marriage which generated a need for more welfare. Second . . . the means-tested welfare system actively penalizes low-income parents who do marry. . . . If a low-income single mother marries an employed father, her welfare benefits will generally be substantially reduced. The mother can maximize welfare by remaining unmarried and keeping the father “off the books.”⁴⁹

The article’s author—Robert Rector, a senior research fellow— argues that the government should reduce marriage penalties and replace them with incentives for single mothers and their children’s fathers to marry. Government programs can certainly help families acquire capital to support the family, but they can also create unintended consequences that can undermine family capital.

Relying on resources and services outside the family can be risky since they can be eliminated when changes occur in the government or funding becomes unavailable. Family relations and support tend to be more enduring than those of these external entities; thus not developing or maintaining family capital or relying on external sources for support is probably unwise. Of course, when family support is unavailable the safety net provided by these institutions may be the only option.

Families must also be careful to not create unhealthy dependency with their support or enable family members engaging in destructive behaviors. The goal of the family should be to provide its members with family capital that allows them to be self-reliant and independent and eventually acquire resources that they can share.

Chapter Takeaways

» Churches, schools, NGOs, and governments can fill a need for those with limited family capital.

» However, such support is typically conditional and temporary and is subject to politics and policy.

» Such programs could create disincentives for marriage.

» Using the programs to supplement what the family can provide seems to pay the most dividends.

» Contingency plans should be made to avoid unhealthy dependency.

Notes

1. David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society (Simon and Schuster; Johnson, H. M., 1971).

Harry M. Johnson, “The Structural-Functional Theory of Family and Kinship,” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 2 no. 2 (1996): 133–44.

2. Mary Eberstadt, How the West Really Lost God (West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press, 2013), 16.

Patrick F. Fagan, “Why Religion Matters: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability,” Heritage Foundation no. 1064 (1996).

Mary Eberstadt, How the West Really Lost God (West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press, 2013).

11. Robert D. Putman, Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis (New York: Simon and Shuster, 2015).

15. William J. Doherty, Brian J. Willoughby, and Jason L. Wilde, “Is the Gender Gap in College Enrollment Influenced By Nonmarital Birth Rates and Father Absence?” Family Relations 65 no. 2 (2016): 263–74.

17. Alan L. Wilkins and David A. Whetten, “BYU and Religious Universities in a Secular Academic World,” BYUStudies Quarterly 51 no. 3 (2012).

19. “Births: Final Data for 2014,” National Vital Statistics Reports 64 no. 12 (2015).

20. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2013 prepared by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (June 13, 2014): 112.

Lawrence B. Finer, “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954–2003,” Public Health Report (2007).

24. Carmen Solomon-Fears, “Teenage Pregnancy Prevention: Statistics and Programs,” Congressional Research Service (2016): 19–20.

28. W. Gibb Dyer et al., “Can the Poor Be Trained to Be Entrepreneurs?: The Case of the Academy for Creating Enterprise in Mexico,” Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 21 no. 2 (2016): 1–22.

34. “21.3 Percent of U.S. Population Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month,” United States Census Bureau, May 28, 2015 (Release # CB15-97).

40. Alan J. Hawkins, “Does It Work? Effectiveness Research on Relationship and Marriage Education,” in Evidence-Based Approaches to Relationship and Marriage Education, ed. James Ponzetti (New York: Routledge, 2015), 60–73.

Alan J. Hawkins, “Will Legislation to Encourage Premarital Education Strengthen Marriage and Reduce Divorce?” Journal of Law & Family Studies 9 no.1 (2007): 79–99.

Alan J. Hawkins, The Forever Initiative: A Feasible Public Policy Agenda to Help Couples Form and Sustain Healthy Marriages and Relationships (North Charleston, South Carolina: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2013).

41. Hawkins, “Will Legislation to Encourage Premarital Education Strengthen Marriage and Reduce Divorce?,” 11.

42. Elizabeth Fawcett et al., “Do Premarital Education Programs Really Work? A Meta-Analytic Study,” Family Relations 59 no. 2 (2010): 232–39.

43. Hawkins, “Does It Work? Effectiveness Research on Relationship and Marriage Education.”

45. Hawkins, The Forever Initiative: A Feasible Public Policy Agenda to Help Couples Form and Sustain Healthy Marriages and Relationships, 150.

46. Hawkins, “Will Legislation to Encourage Premarital Education Strengthen Marriage and Reduce Divorce?”

47. Alan J. Hawkins, Tamara A. Fackrell, and Steven M. Harris, Should I Try to Work It Out?: A Guidebook for Individuals and Couples at the Crossroads of Divorce, (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2013).

48. Robert Rector, “How Welfare Undermines Marriage and What to Do About It,” The Heritage Foundation, November 17, 2014.

You go through life wondering what is it all about, but at the end of the day, it’s all about family.

Educational Level	Household Income
Less than 9th grade	$26,252
9th grade to 12th grade (no diploma)	$26,356
High School Graduate	$42,047
Some College (no degree)	$51,906
Associate’s Degree	$62,485
Bachelor’s Degree	$87,991
Master’s Degree	$101,323
Professional Degree	$136,640
Doctorate	$121,244