[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Thomas

These are vastly different times compared to the 30's. There's a lot less personal responsibility these days.

You have any statistics to support your claim on the single mother household position? If you don't, that's cool. That just makes it your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it.

First off HE MADE THE statement that if we end social programs crime would go up. He needs to prove HIS statement.

I have posted this dozens of time. He refuse to read it or acknowledge what the NAACP and HHS found.
Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime - June 7, 1995

Testimony

of

Michael Tanner
Director of Health and Welfare Studies
Cato Institute

before the

Subcommittee on Youth Violence
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime

June 7, 1995


Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Members of the Committee:

My name is Michael Tanner and I am the director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee on an issue of extreme importance to the American people. There is no doubt that juvenile crime is a serious and continuing problem in this country. There are many factors contributing to the rise in juvenile violence and crime, from the glorification of violence in the media to the failure of the "war on drugs." But, today, I would like to focus on a factor that has received far less attention -- the relationship between the welfare state and crime.

Last year, the Maryland NAACP released a report concluding that "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today."(1) Their conclusion appears to be confirmed by academic research. For example, research by Dr. June O'Neill's and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.(2)

Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O'Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)

As Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted in her seminal article for The Atlantic Monthly:


The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime.(6)

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O'Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

The same results can be seen from welfare systems in other countries. For example, a recent study of the impact of Canada's social-welfare system on family structure concluded that "providing additional benefits to single parents encourages births of children to unwed women."(9)

Of course women do not get pregnant just to get welfare benefits. It is also true that a wide array of other social factors has contributed to the growth in out-of-wedlock births. But, by removing the economic consequences of a out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out of wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible immediate consequences (the very real consequences of such behavior are often not immediately apparent), she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.

Proof of this can be found in a study by Professor Ellen Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania, who surveyed black, never-pregnant females age 17 or younger. Only 40% of those surveyed said that they thought becoming pregnant in the next year "would make their situation worse."(10) Likewise, a study by Professor Laurie Schwab Zabin for the Journal of Research on Adolescence found that: "in a sample of inner-city black teens presenting for pregnancy tests, we reported that more than 31 percent of those who elected to carry their pregnancy to term told us, before their pregnancy was diagnosed, that they believed a baby would present a problem..."(11) In other words, 69 percent either did not believe having a baby out-of-wedlock would present a problem or were unsure.

Until teenage girls, particularly those living in relative poverty, can be made to see real consequences from pregnancy, it will be impossible to gain control over the problem of out-of- wedlock births. By disguising those consequences, welfare makes it easier for these girls to make the decisions that will lead to unwed motherhood.

Current welfare policies seem to be designed with an appallingly lack of concern for their impact on out-of-wedlock births. Indeed, Medicaid programs in 11 states actually provide infertility treatments to single women on welfare.(12)

I should also point out that, once the child is born, welfare also appears to discourage the mother from marrying in the future. Research by Robert Hutchins of Cornell University shows that a 10 percent increase in AFDC benefits leads to an eight percent decrease in the marriage rate of single mothers.(13)

As welfare contributes to the rise in out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families, it concomitantly contributes to the associated increase in criminal activity.

Secondly, welfare leads to increased crime by contributing to the marginalization of young black men in society. There are certainly many factors contributing to the increasing alienation and marginalization of young black men, including racism, poverty, and the failure of our educational system. However, welfare contributes as well. The welfare culture tells the man he is not a necessary part of the family. They are in effect cuckolded by the state. Their role of father and breadwinner is supplanted by the welfare check.

The role of marriage and family as a civilizing influence on young men has long been discussed. Whether or not strict causation can be proven, it is certainly true that unwed fathers are more likely to use drugs and become involved in criminal behavior.(14) Indeed, single men are five times more likely to commit violent crimes than married men.(15)

Finally, in areas where there is a high concentration of welfare, there may be an almost total lack of male role models. This can lead to crime in two ways. First, as the Maryland NAACP puts it, "A child whose parents draw a welfare check without going to work does not understand that in this society at least one parent is expected to rise five days of each week to go to some type of job."(16)

Second, boys growing up in mother only families naturally seek male influences. Unfortunately, in many inner city neighborhoods, those male role models may not exist. As George Gilder, author of Wealth and Poverty, has noted, the typical inner-city today is "almost a matriarchy. The women receive all the income, dominate the social-worker classes, and most of the schools." Thus, the boy in search of male guidance and companionship may end up in the company of gangs or other undesirable influences.(17)

Given all of the above, I believe it is clear that our current social welfare system is a significant cause of juvenile crime and violence in America today. Exactly how welfare should be reformed is undoubtedly beyond the scope of this hearing. The Cato Institute's position, however, is well known. Our research indicates that the current federal welfare system cannot be reformed. Accordingly, we have suggested that federal funding of welfare should be ended and responsibility for charity should be shifted first to the states and eventually to the private sector.(18)

In conclusion, let me simple say that, whatever Congress eventually decides to do in the way of welfare reform, I hope that you will recognize the disastrous consequences of our current welfare system. The status quo is plainly and simply unacceptable. The relationship between our failed social welfare system and juvenile violence and crime is one more urgent reason for reform.

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions.

Homicide Rates 1900-1990
And another of murder rate over time

A: Massive urbanization. America changes from mainly farmers to mainly city dwellers. Massive immigration of European groups that had been suppressed for generations by landlords, the government and the church. A small percentage of some immigration groups react to their newfound "liberation" by becoming criminals. The dislocations of WWII were follwed by the easy money of bootlegging.

B: The murder rate from 1870 to 1905 was slightly under or slightly over 1 per 100,000. During this time anyone, balck, white, immigrant, a 14 year old, etc. could buy a firearm anywhere and anytime. If "guns cause murder" as the anti-freedom groups say, why was the murder rate so low when anyone and everyone could buy firearms? It is self-evident that whatever factors increase the murder rate, the open and free sale of firearms is NOT one of them.

C: If "poverty causes crime" as the left-wing anti-guns groups say, why was there a 45% DECREASE in murders during some of the worst years of the great depression?

D: Prohibition repealed. The murder rate DECREASES by 50% between 1933 & 1958. During this time, any adult could buy any kind of firearm, even mail-order purchase of firearms.

E: The landmark 1968 Gun Control Bill is passed. Congress promises the American people this bill will end gun violence in America.

F: The "drug culture" takes hold and the "drug wars" start.

G: Ten million soldiers return to America and leave the armes services after WWII. Many also return after the Korean War. Many undreds of thousands bring back "souvenirs" of every kind, including fully automatic machine guns. Millions of military surplus firearms come into America, literally by the shipload and are sold on the open market. If "guns cause crime" as the gun control groups contend, there should have been and explosion of murder during this time.

H: The 1960 to 1980 period is a mirror image of 1905 to 1933. This time it was the massive urbanization of the Black population, plus renewed massive immigration. As in the 1905-1933 period, a small percentage of the newly "liberated" groups turned to professional crime. The crime family bootleg wars were duplicated by the drug wars. The black drug war criminal gangs of today, like the Sicilian, Italian and Irish gangs of the 1920's will eventually settle down, a process that appears to have already started in the 1980's. The decriminalization of "diet pills" would probably lower the murder rate. Not to the same degree as the repeal of prohibition, but it would help