The big myth about why Black kids can’t get ahead
Free speech needs fearless journalism
Free speech is endangered; unbiased and trustworthy news is elusive. In a time of noise, confusion, and spin, we’re committed to clarity, truth, and depth — even when it’s hard.
We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism.
Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?
The big myth about why Black kids can’t get ahead
How ignoring two-parent families has warped the narrative.
by
Rachel Cohen Booth
Sep 22, 2025, 7:30 AM EDT
President George W. Bush, next to first lady Laura Bush, talks with second-graders during a classroom visit at General Philip Kearny School in Philadelphia on January 8, 2009. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
Rachel Cohen Booth is a senior policy correspondent for Vox covering social policy. She focuses on housing, schools, homelessness, child care, and abortion rights, and has been reporting on these issues for more than a decade.
Our society has actively promoted two-parent families for decades, but today we’re in a particularly intense moment. We have books getting published like
Get Married:
Why Americans Must Defy the Elites, Forge Strong Families, and Save Civilization and
The Two-Parent Privilege: How Americans Stopped Getting Married and Started Falling Behind. Social conservatives are talking about establishing a
“Manhattan Project” for boosting birth rates and nuclear families, and some on the right are even musing about
ending no-fault divorce.
Sociologist Christina Cross’s new book,
Inherited Inequality:
Why Opportunity Gaps Persist Between Black and White Youth Raised in Two-Parent Families, seeks to challenge these stories and solutions. Cross studies the outcomes of kids who grow up in two-parent Black families — a group of people she argues tends to “escape our collective imagination” — despite all the intense focus on single-parent households.
Cross’s work bucks an idea that has fundamentally shaped government policy since the Moynihan Report in 1965 through welfare reform and contemporary marriage promotion initiatives: that if Black families just got married and stayed together, racial inequality would largely disappear. Her research reveals that Black kids raised by two parents still struggle far more than white kids from two-parent families, and do only about as well as white kids who only had one parent at home.
The numbers are stark. Black children in two-parent homes were two to four times more likely to get suspended or kicked out of school than white children with both parents. When it came time for college, there was a 25-point gap between how many Black versus white kids from two-parent families actually enrolled. By their mid-20s, Black young adults from these families were three times more likely to be unemployed than their white counterparts.
Despite representing half of all Black children in America, these two-parent Black families have been virtually ignored by researchers — just two out of 163 family structure studies published in leading journals between 2012 and 2022 examined their outcomes. Cross and senior correspondent Rachel Cohen Booth discussed the hidden costs of America’s marriage promotion spending, the research gaps that have allowed myths about Black families to persist, and why even two-parent Black households can’t escape structural racism. This conversation has been lightly edited and condensed.
Your research strongly suggests that promoting these traditional two-parent families is not going to reduce racial inequality, but you do find some advantages for Black children raised in these kinds of households. Given that, do you think encouraging marriage is still a worthy policy goal or cultural aim, even if it doesn’t solve all the problems marriage advocates claim it could?
One of the things I focus on in my book is that there’s been such a singular emphasis on promoting marriage and the two-parent family for addressing racial inequality, and that this laser focus on this one intervention really limits our ability to close gaps between groups.
My research shows that even amongst Black and white children in two-parent families, inequality is very high. So the question we need to be asking ourselves is: Is this the best use of our time, attention, and resources? And are there other strategies and interventions that we could be focusing on that might be more effective? And my research suggests that yes, that is the case.
A lot of people probably will wonder why we should object to something that yes, isn’t a silver bullet, but still seems to offer some help and protection. But I think you do find costs and consequences to this approach. Could you just walk me through the costs you see of prioritizing a focus on two-parent families?
So one cost, as I was mentioning, is that when we focus simply on promoting two-parent families, it limits our ability to explore other strategies that could be more effective. There are also real economic costs as well. Many people are surprised to find that currently our federal government spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year promoting marriage and the two-parent families.
TANF, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, is our largest cash assistance program in the US, and this program has outlined four goals, three of which focus on promoting marriage and the two-parent family. The government spends between $250 and $400 million each year on these efforts.
We’re in a moment where federal funding for key safety net programs is being cut drastically. With the limited resources that are available, might we be more effective at improving children’s outcomes and reducing gaps between groups by offering direct cash assistance or assistance for child care subsidies or for education or so many other really important things that families need?
Related
In your book you identified a theory called the Family Resource Perspective as the principal framework used by social scientists and family demographers to explain how family structure influences well-being, which seems to basically boil down to more parents raising a kid means more money and more hands on deck. That sounds intuitive, certainly, but can you talk a little bit about how your research complicates that framework?
The Family Resource Perspective really emphasizes how having two parents in the home leads to more resources, more income, more wealth, more time to spend with children. But one of the things that often gets overlooked and that I highlight in my research is that these key resources are not evenly distributed, not everyone in two parent families has access to them. And unfortunately, that is especially the case when we look at Black two-parent families.
So I found that when it comes to income, Black two-parent families had about 60 percent of the income of white two-parent families and only 25 percent of the wealth. And so when we’re thinking about how important these resources are for improving child outcomes, we need to remember that if we don’t have equal inputs, we cannot expect equal outcomes,
I know this wasn’t directly in your book, but I was curious. What do we know about kids who grow up in more affluent, divorced families?