Childcare and welfare (IN)justice

Feminist Studies

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 44-54

  Michel, Sonya ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032018847     PISSN: 00463663     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3178617     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. See Wahneema Lubiano, "Black Ladies, Welfare Queens, and State Minstrels: Ideological War by Narrative Means," in Race-ing Justice, En-gendering Power: Essays on Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas, and the Construction of Social Reality, ed. Toni Morrison (New York: Pantheon, 1993), 323-63.
2. Sonya Michel, Children's Interests / Mothers' Rights: The Shaping of America's Child Care Policy (Yale University Press, forthcoming).
3. See Nancy E. Rose, Workfare or Fair Work: Women, Welfare, and Government Work Programs (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1995), esp. chap. 4; and Sharon L. Harlan and Ronnie J. Steinberg, eds. Job Training for Women: The Promise and Limits of Public Policies (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989), pt. 4.
4. See Nancy E. Rose, Workfare or Fair Work: Women, Welfare, and Government Work Programs (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1995), esp. chap. 4; and Sharon L. Harlan and Ronnie J. Steinberg, eds. Job Training for Women: The Promise and Limits of Public Policies (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989), pt. 4.
5. Mothers' and widows' pension legislation passed during the Progressive Era embodied this principle. It had become somewhat diluted in the 1930s when the Social Security Act incorporated mothers' and widows' pensions and divided the pool of mothers into an elite group that was eligible for non-means-tested survivors' benefits (a group that comprised mainly white women who had been married to wage earners in protected occupations) and a nonelite group that had to apply for Aid to Dependent Children, which required means testing and investigation and often rejected applicants on arbitrary and discriminatory grounds. See Winifred Bell, Aid to Dependent Children (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965).
6. The bill called for $5 million for childcare for the first year of implementation, $10 million for each year thereafter, but only $800,000 was appropriated for 1962 due to technicalities; in subsequent years, Congress proved reluctant to appropriate the full authorized amount, allocating only $3 million in 1963 and $2 million in 1964 (see the Congressional Quarterly Almanac for those years). The low appropriations undermined the bill's childcare provision which was, at least theoretically, one of its more positive aspects.
7. New Jersey, for example, set up separate standards for childcare for WIN children; see Monica Herk, "Helping the Hand That Rocks the Cradle: The Politics of Child Care Policy at the State Level" (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1993), 300.
8. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, Social Security Amendments of 1967 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1967).
9. On the shortcomings of these programs with regard to women, see U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Child Care and Equal Opportunity for Women, Clearinghouse Publication No. 67 (June 1981), chap. 4; Mildred Rein, Dilemmas of Welfare Policy: Why Work Strategies Haven't Worked (New York: Praeger, 1982), chaps. 4 and 7; and Sharon Harlan, "Women and Federal Job Training Policy," 55-90; and Judith Gueron, "Work Programs for Welfare Recipients," 365-88; both in Job Training for Women.
10. On the shortcomings of these programs with regard to women, see U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Child Care and Equal Opportunity for Women, Clearinghouse Publication No. 67 (June 1981), chap. 4; Mildred Rein, Dilemmas of Welfare Policy: Why Work Strategies Haven't Worked (New York: Praeger, 1982), chaps. 4 and 7; and Sharon Harlan, "Women and Federal Job Training Policy," 55-90; and Judith Gueron, "Work Programs for Welfare Recipients," 365-88; both in Job Training for Women.
11. On the shortcomings of these programs with regard to women, see U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Child Care and Equal Opportunity for Women, Clearinghouse Publication No. 67 (June 1981), chap. 4; Mildred Rein, Dilemmas of Welfare Policy: Why Work Strategies Haven't Worked (New York: Praeger, 1982), chaps. 4 and 7; and Sharon Harlan, "Women and Federal Job Training Policy," 55-90; and Judith Gueron, "Work Programs for Welfare Recipients," 365-88; both in Job Training for Women.
12. On the shortcomings of these programs with regard to women, see U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Child Care and Equal Opportunity for Women, Clearinghouse Publication No. 67 (June 1981), chap. 4; Mildred Rein, Dilemmas of Welfare Policy: Why Work Strategies Haven't Worked (New York: Praeger, 1982), chaps. 4 and 7; and Sharon Harlan, "Women and Federal Job Training Policy," 55-90; and Judith Gueron, "Work Programs for Welfare Recipients," 365-88; both in Job Training for Women.
13. California, for example, with a long history of state-sponsored childcare, was primed to make good use of federal funds, although local childcare centers resisted at first, "fearing that federal money would change their character by restructuring publicly subsidized child care to the poor, strengthening the welfare-oriented goals, and further downgrading the public's image of child care. But fiscal pressure was too great." See W. Norton Grubb and Marvin Lazerson, "Child Care, Government Financing, and the Public Schools: Lessons from the California Children's Centers," School Review 86 (November 1977): 16. See also G. Brook DeVine, "Report on the California Children's Center Program: Its Needs, Resources, and Relation to Other Programs," prepared for the Department of Finance, State of California, August 1970; "Children's Center Program Review: Interagency Contract between Department of Social Welfare and Department of Education," Program Assessment Branch, Department of Social Welfare, State of California, 31 May 1972; and Herk, chap. 7.
14. California, for example, with a long history of state-sponsored childcare, was primed to make good use of federal funds, although local childcare centers resisted at first, "fearing that federal money would change their character by restructuring publicly subsidized child care to the poor, strengthening the welfare-oriented goals, and further downgrading the public's image of child care. But fiscal pressure was too great." See W. Norton Grubb and Marvin Lazerson, "Child Care, Government Financing, and the Public Schools: Lessons from the California Children's Centers," School Review 86 (November 1977): 16. See also G. Brook DeVine, "Report on the California Children's Center Program: Its Needs, Resources, and Relation to Other Programs," prepared for the Department of Finance, State of California, August 1970; "Children's Center Program Review: Interagency Contract between Department of Social Welfare and Department of Education," Program Assessment Branch, Department of Social Welfare, State of California, 31 May 1972; and Herk, chap. 7.
15. California, for example, with a long history of state-sponsored childcare, was primed to make good use of federal funds, although local childcare centers resisted at first, "fearing that federal money would change their character by restructuring publicly subsidized child care to the poor, strengthening the welfare-oriented goals, and further downgrading the public's image of child care. But fiscal pressure was too great." See W. Norton Grubb and Marvin Lazerson, "Child Care, Government Financing, and the Public Schools: Lessons from the California Children's Centers," School Review 86 (November 1977): 16. See also G. Brook DeVine, "Report on the California Children's Center Program: Its Needs, Resources, and Relation to Other Programs," prepared for the Department of Finance, State of California, August 1970; "Children's Center Program Review: Interagency Contract between Department of Social Welfare and Department of Education," Program Assessment Branch, Department of Social Welfare, State of California, 31 May 1972; and Herk, chap. 7.
16. See Joel F. Handler and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth, "Work, Welfare, and the Nixon Reform Proposals," Stanford Law Review 22 (1970): 907-42.
17. In such cases, moving into a higher-paying job would result in either no gain or a loss, depending on how great the pay increase was in relation to childcare costs. See Child Care and Equal Opportunity for Women, 19-20.
18. Ibid., 31.
19. Alfred J. Kahn and Sheila B. Kamerman, Child Care: Facing the Hard Choices (Dover, Mass.: Auburn House, 1987), 19-22.
20. The Job Training Partnership Act was also less favorable to women than CETA in terms of its effectiveness in training them for good (that is, well-paying) jobs; see Harlan, 73-82.
21. Exceptions were Head Start spending, which increased by about 50 percent, and the childcare food program, which nearly doubled. Neither of these, however, affected the supply of affordable childcare.
22. Kahn and Kamerman, 106.
23. Helen Blank, Child Care and Federal Child Care Cuts (Washington, D.C.: Children's Defense Fund, 1983), 5-7; summarized in Kahn and Kamerman, 22.
24. See Kahn and Kamerman, chap. 8, 19-21; 195-96. Although low- and moderate-income families benefited disproportionately from the tax credit, quality childcare was still beyond the reach of many.
25. Barbara Bergmann, The Economic Emergence of Women (New York: Basic Books, 1986), chaps. 1 and 2.
26. Kahn and Kamerman, chap. 4. See also Sharon L. Kagan and Theresa Glennon, "Considering Proprietary Child Care," in Day Care: Scientific and Social Policy Issues, ed. Edward F. Zigler and Edmund F. Gordon (Boston: Auburn House, 1982); and Cheryl D. Hayes, John L. Palmer, and Martha J. Zaslow, eds., Who Cares for America's Children? Child Care Policy for the 1990s (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990), 159-62. For the most recent statistics, see Peter Passell, "Day Care: Quality vs. Equality," New York Times, 25 Dec. 1996, C1-2.
27. Kahn and Kamerman, chap. 4. See also Sharon L. Kagan and Theresa Glennon, "Considering Proprietary Child Care," in Day Care: Scientific and Social Policy Issues, ed. Edward F. Zigler and Edmund F. Gordon (Boston: Auburn House, 1982); and Cheryl D. Hayes, John L. Palmer, and Martha J. Zaslow, eds., Who Cares for America's Children? Child Care Policy for the 1990s (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990), 159-62. For the most recent statistics, see Peter Passell, "Day Care: Quality vs. Equality," New York Times, 25 Dec. 1996, C1-2.
28. Kahn and Kamerman, chap. 4. See also Sharon L. Kagan and Theresa Glennon, "Considering Proprietary Child Care," in Day Care: Scientific and Social Policy Issues, ed. Edward F. Zigler and Edmund F. Gordon (Boston: Auburn House, 1982); and Cheryl D. Hayes, John L. Palmer, and Martha J. Zaslow, eds., Who Cares for America's Children? Child Care Policy for the 1990s (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990), 159-62. For the most recent statistics, see Peter Passell, "Day Care: Quality vs. Equality," New York Times, 25 Dec. 1996, C1-2.
29. Arguing that every citizen, female or male, should have the right to form an autonomous household, Ann Orloff uses it as one of her criteria for assessing the "woman-friendliness" of welfare states; see her "Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: The Comparative Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States," American Sociological Review 58 (June 1993): 303-28.
30. "Conference Report on H.R. 3734, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996," Congressional Record-House 142, no. 114 (Tuesday, 30 July 1996), H8831.
31. Demie Kurz, "Women, Welfare, and Domestic Violence," paper presented to the meeting of the Research Network on Gender, State, and Society, Social Science History Association, New Orleans, October 1996.