M-1 

 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 
M-2 

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

 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. 

TABLE M-1--NUMBER, RATE, AND PERCENT OF BIRTHS TO 

UNMARRIED WOMEN AND BIRTH RATE FOR MARRIED WOMEN, 

SELECTED YEARS 1950-2002 

Births to Unmarried Women 

Year 

Number 

Birth Rate 

 (Per 1,000 Unwed 

Women Aged 15-44)

Percent 

(Of All Births)

Birth Rate for 

Married Women 

(Aged 15-44) 

2002 1,358,768 43.6 33.8 NA 

2001 1,349,249 43.8 33.5 88.7 

2000 1,347,043 44.0 33.2 89.3 

1999 1,308,560 44.4 33.0 86.5 

1998 1,293,567 44.3 32.8 85.7 

1997 1,257,444 44.0 32.4 84.3 

1996 1,260,306 44.8 32.4 83.7 

1995 1,253,976 45.1 32.2 83.7 

1994 1,289,592 46.9 32.6 83.8 

1993 1,240,172 45.3 31.0 86.8 

1992 1,224,876 45.2 30.1 89.0 

1991 1,213,769 45.2 29.5 89.9 

1990 1,165,384 43.8 28.0 93.2 

1985 828,174 32.8 22.0 93.3 

1980 665,747 29.4 18.4 97.0 

1970 398,700 26.4 10.7 121.1 

1960 224,300 21.6 5.3 156.6 

1950 141,600 14.1 3.9 141.0 

NA— Not available. 

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. 
M-3 

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 
M-4 

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, 
M-5 

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 
M-6 

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). 

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 

TABLE M-2--BIRTHS TO UNMARRIED WOMEN BY AGE, 

1970 AND 2001 

1970 2001 

Age Nonmarital Births Percent of 

Nonmarital Births Nonmarital Births Percent of 

Nonmarital Births 

Under age 15 9,500 2.4 7,494 0.6 

Ages 15-19 190,400 47.8 352,026 26.1 

Ages 20-24 126,700 31.8 514,959 38.2 

Ages 25-29 40,600 10.2 257,702 19.1 

Ages 30-34 19,100 4.8 135,040 10.0 

Ages 35-39 9,400 2.4 65,257 4.8 

Ages 40 and older 3,000 0.8 16,771 1.2 

Total, all ages 398,700 100.0 1,349,249 100.0 

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. 
M-7 

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 
M-8 

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 
M-9 

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 
M-10 

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 Mathematica 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. 
M-11 

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. 
M-12 

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. 
M-13 

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.