AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS/MIKE WINTROATH
SHOULD TAXPAYERS SUBSIDIZE MARRIAGE for the low-income? It's a question that Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins University thinks about a lot these days. He's the coinvestigator for a multimillion-dollar study that attempts to define how physical and sexual abuse early in life affect the rate of marriage later in life. His study strives to shed light on various questions related to welfare reform.
AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS/MIKE WINTROATH |
| Mary Jones, left, of the Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence, rallies support for funding domestic violence shelters. Jones, whose daughter was killed in a domestic violence incident, gathered with supporters on March 13 on the steps of the state capitol in Little Rock. |
The 1996 welfare reform law, known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, "emphasizes marriage a lot," said Cherlin. "In fact, it states that marriage is a fundamental good, that nonmarital childbearing is a fundamental problem."
But Cherlin has raised doubts about the supposed connection between a long-term marriage and a "healthy" marriage. He recently spoke to RAND about some preliminary findings of a new study he is conducting with Linda Burton, Tera Hurt, and Diane Purvin.
Cherlin began his research by asking himself why there weren't more long-term unions among economically disadvantaged adults. Why do the low-income have such a low rate of marriage?
Liberals have blamed the problem on a lack of jobs or a lack of decent-paying jobs. Conservatives have placed the blame on a decline in morality or character.
To assess the validity of these arguments, Cherlin's study team knocked on 40,000 doors to find a representative mix of 2,000 families in the welfare-eligible population. The study focused on low-income neighborhoods in Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio. Most people in the survey were African Americans or Hispanics in their 20s or 30s. The predominant marital status was "not married" or "not cohabitating."
There may be some truth to both the liberal and conservative arguments, but neither of them can explain very much about the problem of nonmarital childbearing, said Cherlin. Instead, he suggested that there could be an additional and perhaps increasingly important factor in the lives of low-income women: the acute affect of the traumatic experiences that these women start to have during childhood and continue to have into adulthood.
Empirical evidence from the study suggests that domestic abuse may be no more or less widespread than in the past, but domestic abuse is more of a determining factor in marital breakups now than it was 20, 30, or 50 years ago.
He cited two kinds of traumatic experiences in particular: sexual abuse and physical abuse. The sexual abuse could start in childhood. The physical abuse could start either in childhood or in adulthood. These experiences are often overlooked as potentially important reasons for the decline in marriage. Sexual abuse and physical violence are not new, said Cherlin, but they are now occurring in a changing social context.
Compared with a few decades ago, there's greater acceptance of and feasibility in living outside of marriage today and having a child. There are also changing expectations for marriage, even among the poor, with different values about what a marriage should be.
The economic feasibility and the increased moral tolerance of living as a single adult with a child are giving women more discretion in choosing not to marry. Simultaneously, the women may be viewing relationships differently than they otherwise might have a few decades ago.
"What I'm not claiming is that there is more sexual abuse and physical violence than there was a few decades ago," Cherlin emphasized. "There's no evidence whatsoever that there is more than there was. I am claiming—in a speculative argument—that [the violence] is operating in a different climate where women can make different decisions and have more options than they used to."
According to Cherlin, a high level of sexual abuse and physical violence beginning in childhood could lead women to a wariness toward men and to a desire to maintain control over the relationships.
"Based on the literature, I would suggest that for women who have experienced childhood sexual abuse, the consequence is not necessarily less time spent in [domestic] union. Rather, it becomes more brief unions, short-term transient unions that are informal and nonmarital in character."
The literature on childhood sexual abuse "shows paradoxically that women who have been abused sexually as children, when they become adults, have more sexual partners rather than fewer sexual partners."
Research on HIV and risky sex also shows that women who have been abused in childhood engage in riskier sexual behavior compared with those who have not been abused. The research further shows that women who have been abused report that sex is less pleasurable and more anxiety producing.
There appears to be a dynamic set up by childhood sexual abuse. It can result in more sex but more anxiety about it. "That, too, results in an adult pattern of brief or informal unions," said Cherlin.
For people who are physically abused, especially among adults, there is some evidence of the pattern of transient or more numerous unions. But just as important is a general avoidance of men altogether.
Along with more economic freedom and moral tolerance for single mothers has come what Cherlin calls "the changing meaning of marriage." This factor contributes further to his speculative argument about why abuse plays out differently today than it did a generation ago.
"It's clear to the women in the study that it's necessary for a man to have a steady income in order to be an attractive marriage partner, but that's not all he has to do," said Cherlin.
"He has to be a good husband, and he has to be nonabusive. He has to be willing to spend time with his wife and kids, and he has to be sexually faithful. These women are pointing to companionship, mutuality, respect, and partnership just the way middle class women are doing. I would claim that poor women in the U.S. are increasingly viewing marriage in the same way that middle class women are viewing it."
Those changing views of marriage have resulted in a definition of marriage in which the partner needs to be more than a breadwinner. "One also needs to treat women fairly in order to be a good marriage partner."
Cherlin referred to a recent study of Mexican immigrant women from different generations. The first generation said that the most important thing to them in a relationship was respect. Even if a husband was unfaithful, that by itself was not grounds for divorce—as long as he treated his wife with respect.
The second and third generation spoke in different terms, alluding to something that they translated as "intimacy." In an intimate relationship, it wasn't enough for a man just to have respect for his wife. These women would view his infidelity as a very bad sign of something that could lead to the end of the relationship.
"In other words, the second and third generation were thinking of marriage in terms of companionship and intimacy and the kinds of things that the middle class takes for granted," said Cherlin. "This seems to be a shift in the views of Mexican immigrants, and my guess is that it's a shift for many other poor women in other groups as well.
"I think there is a very real shift from several decades ago in the U.S. and in much of the rest of the developed world in the way that people look at relationships. We have different standards now, and there are also different costs involved when those standards aren't met."
IT'S A NIGHTMARE SCENARIO: Reports begin to surface that a handful of city residents have taken ill with an undetermined disease. Within days, thousands more people grow sick. People begin to die, especially the elderly and those with weakened immune systems. Soon, the source of the pathogen is identified: the city's water source. Corrective measures are taken, and warning letters are sent to residents, but it's too late. More than 400,000 residents are infected, 4,000 are hospitalized, and 100 die.
 AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS/ELISE AMENDOLA |
| Store clerk Greg Dunlap reaches for an Israeli-made M-15 gas mask at The Barracks military supply store in downtown Boston on Feb. 14. Store clerks sold ten of the masks in the previous week since the raising of the nation's terror threat level from yellow to orange. |
This scenario is not from the pages of an emergency response plan. It's a true story, one that happened in Milwaukee only ten years ago. Such experiences are now being mined for lessons by policymakers, who, faced with growing fears of terrorism in the United States, are examining the role of existing early-warning systems to safeguard public health.
Some of the lessons now being learned are related to "risk communications." Baruch Fischhoff, an expert on risk communications at Carnegie Mellon University, spoke recently at RAND about the inadequacy of current warning systems. He argued that effective warning systems involve four components: a technical analysis of the potential risks of issuing warnings, an establishment of priorities, a clear understanding of public beliefs and values, and an evaluation of the outcomes of warnings that are issued.
He discussed a study for the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF). The AWWARF wanted to develop more-effective communications, informing people about the risks of contaminants in the water supply and the need to boil the water before drinking it.
One question posed by the project was whether improved boil-water notices could reduce mortality associated with ingestion of a tiny parasite called cryptosporidium—the same pathogen that caused the Milwaukee outbreak. Proper boiling of water kills the parasite, which is resistant to most chemical disinfectants. Cryptosporidium can infect the human intestines, leading to severe gastrointestinal problems, and can cause death among the elderly and immunocompromised populations.
Fischhoff's research team created a model to predict the effects of various boil-water notices in the event that the parasite found its way into a city water supply. The analysis considered what would happen with the "perfect" boil-water notice, which reached all consumers and led to effective responses, compared with what would happen with the conventional boilwater notices. The team built the model on assumptions gleaned from interviews and previous research. To their surprise, there was absolutely no change in mortality. "We ran the model, and our perfect notice had no impact whatsoever," said Fischhoff.
The research group eventually realized that notices were bound to be futile, because it takes up to a week to examine water cultures for cryptosporidium before any notices can be issued. "By the time you find the cryptosporidium in the water supply, the people who are vulnerable have already taken the hit," said Fischhoff.
"We had a system that was relying on notices that were pointless." Knowing this should cause us to "look for alternatives, such as investing in better cryptosporidium screening technology or making it feasible for susceptible populations to have continuous access to purified water."
The same model would show, however, that warning the public could be effective with contaminants like the bacterium E. coli, which can be cultured more quickly. "If you're worried about E. coli, it's possible to create an effective boil-water notice that could significantly affect risk, because the notice could be sent out in time to make a difference."
Shortly after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security raised the national terrorist attack threat level from yellow to orange on Feb. 7, a news report quoted a spokesperson from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The spokesperson suggested that Americans keep on hand a supply of plastic sheeting and duct tape to seal windows from biological or chemical agents.
While such advice might seem logical, in reality it may offer no benefit, according to Fischhoff. He cited the speculation of Israeli colleagues, who wondered whether their use of duct tape during the 1991 Persian Gulf War had been pointless. At the time, they thought that chemical-laden missiles would have had to hit extremely close to a home to disperse lethal concentrations of a chemical weapon. Yet at such a close range, the explosion from the missile could have dislodged the duct tape seal anyway.
The Israeli government generally has a good reputation for communicating the truth, however harsh it is, said Fischhoff. Nonetheless, credibility requires a perception of both competence and honesty. In the case of the duct tape, the government may have failed to conduct an appropriate technical analysis of the efficacy of the tape. As a result, the authorities weakened their credibility. "Once you lose it," he warned, "it's really hard to go back."
Americans, too, have a strong desire for "honest, accurate information—even if [it] worries people," said Fischhoff. He cited national surveys that he and his colleagues conducted in late 2001 and 2002.
Yet he fears that "here in the United States, we now have a risk communication system that lacks the commitment to creating and providing honest, accurate information in a comprehensive form. Without the technical analysis of risks and empirically evaluated communications, I think we are digging ourselves into a hole."
For example, the difference between "dirty bombs" and "nuclear bombs" is apparently not clear to the public, even though the difference is huge and potentially easy to explain. "Although there are physicists deeply concerned about public welfare, they cannot [aid the public] alone, without properly developed communication."
It takes a cooperative and collaborative relationship between the experts and the public to create a warning system that works, said Fischhoff. One common pitfall for experts is focusing on problems that may not be the ones really facing people.
He emphasized that experts should seek to understand what the audience already knows and then build on that base of knowledge. At the same time, he warned against underestimating the public. "Don't shortchange people's ability to run their own lives by giving them lousy information or irrelevant information. People will often do sensible things if they get relevant information in a credible, comprehensible form."
He sent a warning specifically to the audience convened at RAND. "As experts, we need to realize that we could be the enemy, that we might not be trusted. As a result, we bear a special responsibility to serve the public's needs, so as to warrant credibility."
He said there are several fields that have been wrestling with these issues for a long time. In both the environmental profession and the chemical industry, for example, a credible process of effective risk communication often takes place. But he said that the medical field lags behind, and homeland security is even further behind.
Periodic evaluations of warning systems are critical, he concluded. "If the system isn't working—like the boil-water notices—then come up with a different system. Don't just leave people with impossible problems and then hold them responsible for ineffective action."