In 2002, the Gautreaux Two housing mobility program provided low‐income families living in Chicago public housing with the opportunity to move to more affluent, less racially isolated communities. This article presents findings on their complex search and moving process. Only about one‐third of enrolled families actually moved through the program ("leased‐up"). In‐depth interviews with a randomly chosen sample of 71 families and an additional 20 “likely mover” families showed that movers fell into four groups distinguished by personal characteristics that made it easier for them to move or by residence on Chicago's North Side.

Nonmovers faced a variety of obstacles, both external (a tight rental market, discrimination, and bureaucratic delays) and internal (limited experience and program comprehension, large household size, and health problems). Also, some nonmovers were too busy with work or school to engage in what proved to be an onerous process of identifying a suitable unit and moving.

Marriage is down, cohabitation is up, and the divorce rate remains high in the United States. Further, in 1950, only 1 in 20 births was to an unmarried woman, whereas today, more than a third of American children are born outside marriage. The number of gay and lesbian couples raising children together is also on the rise. These important demographic changes are evident in Canada, the United Kingdom, and in much of Western Europe as well. Each author in this print symposium documents the extent of these massive transformations in family life and speculates about what they mean for the future of marriage.

The virtues of the articles in this issue far outweigh their shortcomings. Each demonstrates a commanding knowledge of the data on the magnitude of family changes and how they are arrayed across societies—and, in some cases, for various subgroups within societies. We see three ways in which scholars could build on these articles to expand our scientific understanding of these important trends.

First, documenting changes in cohabitation and marriage for whole societies, though vital, often masks the substantial variations within societies by race/ethnicity and immigration status, social class, or other factors such as region or sexual orientation. Two articles in this volume focus on large and important variations in cohabitation and marriage by subgroups within the United States and Canada, and are a vivid testimony to the importance of studying subgroup differences. We advocate for more work in this vein, especially in the neglected area of social class. Differences by socioeconomic status in childbearing, cohabitation, and marriage behavior are often large, even controlling for characteristics such as race/ethnicity (Ellwood & Jencks, 2001). Second, researchers should pay more attention to parental status and how it affects attitudes and behaviors with regard to cohabitation and marriage. Third, following Max Weber (1949), we believe that human behavior cannot be fully understood unless social scientists understand the meanings that humans ascribe to their actions. Following Oropesa and Landale (2004), we advocate for qualitative research that allows us to “peek inside the ‘black box’” in order to “identify the content of culture” (p. 914).

The purpose of our article is fourfold. First, we want to explore the meanings of childbearing, cohabitation, and marriage for a specific subgroup in U.S. society—low‐income residents of large cities—and to speculate about the role that these meanings may play in influencing the behaviors we observe. Second, we focus on unmarried parents who share children, and we look at how parental status plays a unique role in shaping views and actions with regard to cohabitation and marriage. Third, we aim to show, by example, how vital it is to understand the meanings that these men and women ascribe to their actions. Finally, as do the other authors in this volume, we speculate about what our findings may mean for the future of marriage.

As welfare reform unfolds, nonprofit social service agencies will increasingly be called upon to help fill the gap between what unskilled and semiskilled mothers can earn in the low‐wage labor market and what they need to meet their monthly expenses. This article draws on in‐depth interviews with low‐income single mothers and multiyear observational studies of two nonprofit social service agencies.

Using these data, the authors show what kinds of resources these agencies provide low‐income single mothers, how mothers mobilize the resources available, to what degree agencies actually contribute to mothers’ cash and in‐kind resources, how agencies distribute their resources, and what effect agencies’ distribution practices have on these women. The analysis shows that although nonprofit social service agencies are a crucial part of many low‐income mothers’ economic survival strategies, they cannot come close to substituting for the eroding public safety net.

Welfare mothers are popularly viewed as passively dependent on their checks and averse to work. Reformers across the political spectrum advocate moving these women off the welfare rolls and into the labor force as the solution to their problems. Making Ends Meet offers dramatic evidence toward a different conclusion: In the present labor market, unskilled single mothers who hold jobs are frequently worse off than those on welfare, and neither welfare nor low-wage employment alone will support a family at subsistence levels.

Kathryn Edin and Laura Lein interviewed nearly four hundred welfare and low-income single mothers from cities in Massachusetts, Texas, Illinois, and South Carolina over a six year period. They learned the reality of these mothers' struggles to provide for their families: where their money comes from, what they spend it on, how they cope with their children's needs, and what hardships they suffer. Edin and Lein's careful budgetary analyses reveal that even a full range of welfare benefits—AFDC payments, food stamps, Medicaid, and housing subsidies—typically meet only three-fifths of a family's needs, and that funds for adequate food, clothing and other necessities are often lacking. Leaving welfare for work offers little hope for improvement, and in many cases threatens even greater hardship. Jobs for unskilled and semi-skilled women provide meager salaries, irregular or uncertain hours, frequent layoffs, and no promise of advancement. Mothers who work not only assume extra child care, medical, and transportation expenses but are also deprived of many of the housing and educational subsidies available to those on welfare. Regardless of whether they are on welfare or employed, virtually all these single mothers need to supplement their income with menial, off-the-books work and intermittent contributions from family, live-in boyfriends, their children's fathers, and local charities. In doing so, they pay a heavy price. Welfare mothers must work covertly to avoid losing benefits, while working mothers are forced to sacrifice even more time with their children.

Making Ends Meet demonstrates compellingly why the choice between welfare and work is more complex and risky than is commonly recognized by politicians, the media, or the public. Almost all the welfare-reliant women interviewed by Edin and Lein made repeated efforts to leave welfare for work, only to be forced to return when they lost their jobs, a child became ill, or they could not cover their bills with their wages. Mothers who managed more stable employment usually benefited from a variety of mitigating circumstances such as having a relative willing to watch their children for free, regular child support payments, or very low housing, medical, or commuting costs.

With first hand accounts and detailed financial data, Making Ends Meet tells the real story of the challenges, hardships, and survival strategies of America's poorest families. If this country's efforts to improve the self-sufficiency of female-headed families is to succeed, reformers will need to move beyond the myths of welfare dependency and deal with the hard realities of an unrewarding American labor market, the lack of affordable health insurance and child care for single mothers who work, and the true cost of subsistence living. Making Ends Meet is a realistic look at a world that so many would change and so few understand.

In recent years, policy-makers have argued that one method of reducing welfare dependency is to toughen up child support enforcement. Yet every government effort to do so has yielded meager results. Furthermore, experts predict that even when fully implemented, Congress's most recent effort to fix this system, the Family Support Act of 1988, will do little more to help most poor children to get child support from their fathers. These failures indicate that policy makers and social scientists must go much further in their efforts to understand how child support policy affects or fails to affect families.

Data drawn from 214 AFDC mothers in four cities show that although welfare mothers are mandated by law to pursue child support in cooperation with their local Child Support Enforcement office, many mothers who want to remain on the welfare rolls but do not want to reveal the father's identity engage in what I call covert non-compliance—they pretend to comply, but in fact hide crucial identifying information from the authorities. These data show that those who engage in covert non-compliance have good reason for doing so. In their negotiations with the welfare system, child support officials, and their absent partners, welfare-reliant mothers act strategically to maximize their family's potential economic and social gains.