Children's Living Arrangements in Four Latin-American Countries: Implications for Poverty and Family Benefits

Background: Children’s living arrangements in Latin America and the Caribbean have become increasingly diverse, exposing them to different family structures beyond the traditional nuclear family. In most countries in the region, the number of female-headed households, usually led by a single mother, has increased (Cerrutti & Binstock, 2009). Co-residence with other relatives is also common, especially among single mothers (Esteve, García-Román & Lesthaeghe, 2012). Despite these changes in the region, little is known about how different family structures interact with family policy benefits and their effectiveness in alleviating poverty across different family structures. Understanding how family policies work for diverse family forms is crucial to improve their effectiveness.

Data/Methods: To address this research gap, we use data from the Luxembourg Income Study for the years 2016-2020 (waves X-XI) to analyze poverty rates, family policy receipt, and effectiveness of family policies in reducing poverty for different family structures in Brazil, Chile, Peru, and Uruguay. We use descriptive statistics and multivariate models to examine: 1) poverty rates and disposable income by family type, 2) family benefit receipt by family type, 3) changes in poverty rates pre- and post-benefit receipt, and 4) determinants of family benefit receipt (regression analysis). Our analysis focuses on four family types, all of which include families with children: two-parent families residing with and without relatives and single-parent families residing with and without relatives. We consider a range of government benefits, both conditional and unconditional, intended to help alleviate poverty among the most disadvantaged. Our measure of poverty is the standard used in comparative research: half of median income.

Results: Descriptive findings show that single-parent families have the highest poverty rates across all countries (42% in Brazil, 37% in Chile, 33% in Peru and 30% in Uruguay), while two-parent families consistently have the lowest poverty rates (with or without relatives, depending on the country). The proportion of families with children receiving family benefits varies across countries ranging from 16% in Brazil to 54% in Chile. Although poverty rates are higher among single-parent families, family benefit receipt is higher among two-parent families in all four countries; only in Chile and Uruguay the proportion of single-parent and two-parent families receiving benefits is similar. Upon examining benefit receipt, we find that the highest absolute change in poverty rates, measured in percentage points, is for single-parent families in Uruguay (9 pp), Brazil (5 pp), and Chile (5 pp for two-parent families as well), while in Peru it is for two-parent families with or without relatives (4 pp). We further investigate these findings to understand the determinants of family policy receipt by country.

Conclusions/Implications: Our study’s results suggest that family policies may still be rooted in outdated family models that do not reflect the reality of diverse children’s living arrangements. Despite being the poorest and needing family benefits the most, single-parent families are the least likely to receive them. We discuss the implications of our findings for family policies, child well-being, and for understanding the diversity of children’s living arrangements.