Children and welfare reform: Analysis and recommendations

Future of Children

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 5-25

  Shields, Margie K ^a   Behrman, Richard E ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHILD; CHILD WELFARE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FAMILY; FATHER; GROUPS BY AGE; HEALTH CARE NEED; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; LOWEST INCOME GROUP; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW; SAFETY; SOCIAL SUPPORT; WELLBEING; ADOLESCENT; CHILD CARE; ECONOMICS; EMPLOYMENT; FAMILY SIZE; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; INFANT; LEGAL ASPECT; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; NEWBORN; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PRESCHOOL CHILD; SOCIAL CARE; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CHILD CARE; CHILD WELFARE; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; EMPLOYMENT; FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS; HEALTH PLANNING; HUMANS; INFANT; INFANT, NEWBORN; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; PUBLIC ASSISTANCE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0036886161     PISSN: 10548289     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (123)

1. See, for example, previous issues of The Future of Children on children and divorce (Spring 1994) 4(1);
2. The Future of Children; children and poverty (Summer/Fall 1997) 7(2);
3. The Future of Children; and domestic violence and children (Winter 1999) 9(3).
4. See also various articles describing the decade in review in Journal of Marriage and the Family (November 2000) 62(4).
5. Bumpass, L., and Raley, K. Redefining single-parent families: Cohabitation and changing family reality. Demography (1995) 32(1):97-109.
6. Duncan, G.J., and Rodgers, W.L. Longitudinal aspects of childhood poverty. Journal of Marriage and the Family (November 1988) 50:1007-21.
7. Under the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program, some families receiving welfare were required to participate in work activities, and those who participated were eligible for child care assistance. See the article by Fuller and colleagues in this journal issue.
8. U.S. General Accounting Office. Supplemental Security Income: Progress made in implementing welfare reform changes; more action needed. GAO-HEHS-99-103. Washington, DC: GAO, 1999.
9. U.S. Social Security Administration. 2001 annual report of the Supplemental Security Income program. Baltimore, MD: SSA, Office of the Chief Actuary, May 2001, table V.D3.
10. See the article by Greenberg and colleagues in this journal issue.
11. The expansion of government programs that provide health insurance coverage, such as the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), is important for low-income families, who often work in low-paying jobs with no employer-provided benefits, and who otherwise might stay on welfare to maintain their health coverage through Medicaid.
12. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ACF data and statistics: U.S. welfare caseloads information. Washington, DC: DHHS, August 2001. Available online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats.
13. Geen, R., Fender, L., Leos-Urbel, J., and Markowitz, T. Welfare reform's effect on child welfare caseloads. Assessing the New Federalism Discussion Paper No. 01-04. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, February 2001.
14. Dalaker, J. Poverty in the United States: 2000. Current population reports: Consumer income, P60-214. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, September 2001.
15. See also Morris, P., Huston, A., Duncan, G., et al. How welfare and work policies affect children: A synthesis of research. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corp., March 2001.
16. Gennetian, L.A., and Miller, C. Reforming welfare and work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program. Vol. 2, Effects on children. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corp., 2000.
17. The Teenage Parent Demonstration program in Chicago, the JOBS program in all sites studied, and the Minnesota Family Investment Program for recent applicants all resulted in greater employment for participant families, but not increased income. (See the Appendix following the article by Zaslow and colleagues in this journal issue.)
18. Primus, W., Rawlings, L., Larin, K., and Porter, K. The initial impacts of welfare reform on the incomes of single-mother families. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 1999, p. 16.
19. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The employment situation: November 2001. Press release. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, December 7, 2001; and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Statement of Lois Orr, Acting Commissioner, before the Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress. November 2, 2001.
20. Dupree, A., and Primus, W. Declining share of children lived with single mothers in the late 1990s. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, June 2001.
21. See Figure 3 in the article by McLanahan and Carlson in this journal issue.
22. McLanahan, S., and Sandefur, G. Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.
23. Bumpass, L., and Lu, H.-H. Trends in cohabitation and implications for children's family contexts. Population Studies (2000) 54:29-41.
24. Duncan, G.J., and Brooks-Gunn, J., eds. Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1997.
25. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means. 2000 green book: Background material and data on programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001, p. 1289, table H-6.
26. See, for example, Amato, P.R., and Rivera, F. Paternal involvement and children's behavior problems. Journal of Marriage and the Family (1999) 61:372-84;
27. and Harris, K.M., Furstenberg Jr., F.F., and Marmer, J.K. Paternal involvement with adolescents in intact families: The influence of fathers over the life course. Demography (1998) 35(2):201-16.
28. Amato, P.R., and Gilbreth, J.G. Nonresident fathers and children's well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family (1999) 61:557-73.
29. See the article by Huston in this journal issue.
30. Miller, C., Knox, V., Gennetian, L.A., et al. Reforming welfare and work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program. Vol. 1, Effects on adults. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corp., 2000.
31. For more details, see the article by McLanahan and Carlson in this journal issue.
32. See note 22, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, pp. 625-27; and data charts available on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Child Care Bureau Web site at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/ research.
33. See fact sheets available on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Head Start Bureau Web site at http:// www2.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/hsb/;
34. and on the U.S. Department of Education Web site at http://www.ed.gov/ 21stcclc.
35. Also see Cauthen, N.K, Knitzer, J., and Ripple, C.H. Map and track: State initiatives for young children and families, 2000 edition. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University, 2001, p. 5.
36. State Policy Documentation Project. Work requirements: Exemptions, as of October 1999. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy and Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, July 2000. Available online at http://www.spdp.org.
37. Ehrle, J., Adams, G., and Tout, K. Who's caring for our youngest children? Child care patterns of infants and toddlers. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, January 2001.
38. Duncan, G.J., and Brooks-Gunn, J. Income effects across the life span: Integration and interpretation. In Consequences of growing up poor. G.J. Duncan and J. Brooks-Gunn, eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1997, pp. 596-610.
39. Baydar, N., and Brooks-Gunn, J. Effects of maternal employment and child-care arrangements on preschoolers' cognitive and behavioral outcomes: Evidence from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Developmental Psychology (1991) 27:932-45.
40. See Bradley, R.H., Caldwell, B.M., and Rock, S.L. Home environment and school performance: A ten-year follow-up and examination of three models of environmental action. Child Development (1988) 59:852-67.
41. Phillips, D., and Adams, G. Child care and our youngest children. The Future of Children (Spring/Summer 2001) 11(1):35-51.
42. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Mother-child interaction and cognitive outcomes associated with early child care: Results of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Paper represented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development. Washington, DC. April 3-6, 1997.
43. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. The effects of infant child care on infant-mother attachment security: Results of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Child Development (1997) 68(5):860-79.
44. For more details, see the article by Fuller and colleagues in this journal issue.
45. Zaslow, M., McGroder, S., Moore, K., and LeMenestrel, S. Behavior problems and cognitive school readiness among children in families with a history of welfare receipt. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development. Albuquerque, NM. April 15-18, 1999.
46. See also Zaslow, M., Oldham, E., Moore, K., and Magenheim, E. Welfare families' use of early childhood care and education programs, and the implications for their children's development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly (1998) 13:535-63.
47. See Growing Up in Poverty Project. Remember the children: Mothers balance work and child care under welfare reform. Berkeley: University of California, Policy Analysis for California Education, 2000, technical supplement.
48. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Quality of child care and child outcomes. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development. Minneapolis, MN. April 19, 2001.
49. Shonkoff, J.P., and Phillips, D.A., eds. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.
50. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. The relation of child care to cognitive and language development. Child Development (2000) 71(4):960-80.
51. See the U.S. Department of Education Web site at http://www.ed.gov/ 21stcclc.
52. See Vandell, D.L., and Shumow, L. After-school child care programs. The Future of Children (Fall 1999) 9(2):64-80.
53. Vandell, D.L., and Posner, J. Conceptualization and measurement of children's after-school environments. In Assessment of the environment across the lifespan. S.L. Friedman and T.D. Wachs, eds. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press, 1999, pp. 167-97.
54. Pettit, B.S., Laird, R.D., Bates, J.E., and Dodge, K.A. Patterns of after-school care in middle childhood: Risk factors and developmental outcomes. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1997) 43:515-38.
55. Larner, M.B., Zippiroli, L., and Behrman, R.E. When school is out: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children (Fall 1999) 9(2):4-20.
56. Posner, J.K., and Vandell, D.L. Low-income children's afterschool care: Are there beneficial effects of after-school programs? Child Development (1994) 65:440-56.
57. Smith, K. Who's minding the kids? Child care arrangements. Household economic studies, no. P70-70. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, October 2000, table 11.
58. Brooks, J., Hair, E., and Zaslow, M. Welfare reform's impact on adolescents: Early warning signs. Research brief. Washington, DC: Child Trends, July 2001.
59. See note 22, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, p. 424. See also note 9, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
60. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Characteristics and financial circumstances of TANF recipients, fiscal year 1999. Washington, DC: DHHS, 2000, table 19.
61. Some states allow good cause exemptions for other reasons, such as not having transportation, living in a remote area, or caring for a child when not the parent. See note 30, State Policy Documentation Project.
62. States with limited or no exemptions generally allow a broader array of activities to qualify as meeting work requirements, such as attending parenting classes or participating in a substance abuse program, even though these activities are not defined as work activities in law and do not count toward a state's mandated participation rate. See the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Public Law 104-193, section 103, 110 Stat. 2133, August 22, 1996.
63. Pavetti, L., and Bloom, D. State sanctions and time limits. In The new world of welfare. R.M. Blank and R. Haskins, eds. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2001, pp. 245-64.
64. Knitzer, J. Promoting resilience: Helping young children and parents affected by substance abuse, domestic violence, and depression in the context of welfare reform. Children and welfare reform issue brief 8. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, 2000.
65. The 1996 welfare reform law included specific provisions with respect to families coping with domestic violence. The Family Violence Option, if adopted, allows states to identify and exempt domestic violence victims from program requirements. In turn, states are not penalized for failure to meet work or time limit requirements if due to domestic violence exemptions, but the exemptions must be temporary and services must be provided. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Work not welfare: Clinton administration issues new proposed welfare regulations. Press release. Washington, DC: DHHS, November 17, 1997.
66. However, it should be noted that most families receiving welfare are not involved with the child welfare system, and that a majority of children in the foster care system are there due to neglect, not abuse. See Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago. Dynamics of children's movement among the AFDC, Medicaid and foster care programs prior to welfare reform: 1995-1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, March 2000.
67. See also Sedlak, A.J., and Broadhurst, M.L.A. Executive summary of the third national incidence study of child abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, September 1996;
68. and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. Child maltreatment 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001.
69. U.S General Accounting Office. Welfare reform: Moving hard-toemploy recipients into the workforce. GAO-01-368. Washington, DC: GAO, March 2001.
70. See also Johnson, A., and Meckstroth, A. Ancillary services to support welfare to work: Domestic violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, June 1998.
71. As the number of families with exempt status grows, however, states may be at risk for failing to meet mandated work participation rates or for exceeding the 20% limit on caseloads that can be exempted from time limits based on hardship.
72. See note 53, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, August 27, 2000, update.
73. Even if eligible, caretaker relatives can opt to receive child-only benefits to avoid being subject to work and time limit requirements.
74. In addition, families that receive a partial sanction for failure to comply with a program requirement also may receive only the child's portion of benefits, but such cases can be designated child only (and thereby excluded from the calculation of a state's mandated participation rate) for no more than three months, according to federal rules. See the final regulations for TANF, Child-only cases. Federal Register (April 12, 1999) 64(69):17739.
75. Blum, B.B. Welfare research perspectives: Past, present, and future, 2001 edition. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, August 2001.
76. See note 15, Primus, et al.
77. Goldberg, H., and Schott, E. A compliance-oriented approach to sanctions in state and county TANF programs. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October 2000.
78. Loprest, P. How are families that left welfare doing? A comparison of early and recent welfare leavers. Assessing the New Federalism Policy Brief No. B-36. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2001.
79. Based on a nationwide telephone survey conducted as part of an ongoing project of National Public Radio, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. The survey was conducted in English and Spanish between January 4 and February 7, 2001, among a random representative sample of 1,952 adults (age 18 and older). Survey results are available online at http://www.npr.org/programs/ specials/poll/poverty/summary. html.
80. Mayer, S. Trends in the economic well-being and life chances of America's children. In Consequences of growing up poor. G. Duncan and J. Brooks-Gunn, eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1997, pp. 49-69.
81. See the article by Zedlewski in this journal issue.
82. Phillips, K. Who knows about the earned income tax credit? Policy brief no. B-27. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, January 2001.
83. Zedlewski, S. Former welfare families continue to leave the food stamp program. Assessing the New Federalism Discussion Paper No. 01-05. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2001.
84. Loprest, P. How are families who left welfare doing across time? A comparison of two cohorts of welfare leavers. In Economic policy review. New York: The New York Federal Reserve, 2001. pp. 9-19.
85. Loprest, P. Families who left welfare: Who are they and how are they doing? Assessing the New Federalism Discussion Paper No. 99-02. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 1999.
86. Strawn, J., Greenberg, M., and Savner, S. Improving employment outcomes under TANF. In The new world of welfare. R.M. Blank and R. Haskins, eds. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2001, pp. 223-44.
87. Rangaran, A., and Novak, T. The struggle to sustain employment: The effectiveness of the postemployment services demonstration. MPR reference 8194-620. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, 2000;
88. and Strawn, J., and Martinson, K. Steady work and better jobs: How to help low-income parents sustain employment and advance in the workforce. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corp., 2000.
89. Zedlewski, S., and Loprest, P. Will TANF work for the most disadvantaged families? In The new world of welfare. R.M. Blank and R. Haskins, eds. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2001. pp. 311-34.
90. See the Appendix (subgroup MFIP/LT/I) following the article by Zaslow and colleagues in this journal issue.
91. Kelley, M.L., Power, T.G., and Wimbush, D.D. Determinants of disciplinary practices in low-income black mothers. Child Development (1992) 63:573-82.
92. See also Collins, A., Layzer, J., Kreader, J., et al. National study of child care for low-income families: State and community substudy interim report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, November 2000.
93. For a summary of states' use of TANF funds for initiatives to improve parenting, see the Welfare Information Network Web site at http://www. welfareinfo.org/FamilySupportServices.htm.
94. Ricciuti, H.N. Single parenthood and school readiness in white, black, and Hispanic 6- and 7-year-olds. Journal of Family Psychology (1999) 13:450-65.
95. See also Vandell, D.L., and Ramanan, J. Effects of early and recent maternal employment on children from low-income families. Child Development (1992) 63:938-49.
96. Quint, J.C., Bos, J.M., and Polit, D.F. New Chance: Final report on a comprehensive program for young mothers in poverty and their children. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corp., 1997;
97. and Morris, P., and Michalopoulos, C. The Self-Sufficiency Project at 36 months: Effects on children of a program that increased parental employment and income. Ottawa, Ontario: Social Research and Demonstration Corp., 2000.
98. Another program found to have positive impacts on parenting was the New Hope program, perhaps due in part to the intensive case management provided. For further discussion of both the Minnesota Family Investment Program and the New Hope Project and their effects on parenting, see the article by Chase-Lansdale and Pittman in this journal issue.
99. Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse and American Public Human Services Association. Building bridges: States respond to substance abuse and welfare reform. New York: Columbia University, Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, 1999.
100. See Danziger, S., Corcoran, M., Danziger, S., et al. Barriers to the employment of welfare recipients. In Prosperity for all? The economic boom and African Americans. R. Cherry and W.M. Rodgers III, eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2000, pp. 245-78.
101. Boyer, D., and Fine, D. Sexual abuse as a factor in adolescent pregnancy and child maltreatment. Family Planning Perspectives (January/February 1992) 24(1):4-11, 19.
102. The capacity to screen families for barriers is needed not just to assess families after they have been unable to move quickly into employment, but as soon as families apply for assistance. In their synthesis of welfare-to-work evaluations, Zaslow and colleagues found-unexpectedly-that children in families that were new to welfare tended to experience more negative outcomes compared with children in families that had been receiving welfare for more than two years. They hypothesized that perhaps these negative outcomes occurred because recent applicant families are experiencing acute rather than chronic stress. For more details, see the article by Zaslow and colleagues in this journal issue.
103. See note 11, Dalaker, table A-3.
104. See, for example, Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. Nurturing fatherhood: Improving data and research on male fertility, family formation and fatherhood. Washington, DC: FIFCFS, 1998.
105. See the article by McLanahan and Carlson in this journal issue for further details of these findings from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study.
106. Offner, P. Reducing non-marital births. Welfare Reform & Beyond policy brief no. 5. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, August 2001.
107. See Horn, W.F., and Sawhill, I.V. Fathers, marriage, and welfare reform. In The new world of welfare. R.M. Blank and R. Haskins, eds. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2001, pp. 421-41.
108. Sorensen, E., and Zibman, C. Child support offers some protection against poverty. Assessing the New Federalism Policy Brief No. B-10. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2000.
109. McLanahan, S., Seltzer, J., Hanson, T., and Thomson, E. Child support enforcement and child well-being: Greater security or greater conflict? In Child support and child well-being. I. Garfinkel, S.S. McLanahan, and P.K. Robins, eds. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1994.
110. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement. Child support enforcement: FY 2000 preliminary data preview report. Washington, DC: DHHS, July 2001.
111. See note 96, DHHS, figure 3.4.
112. Sorensen, E. Noncustodial fathers: Can they afford to pay more child support? Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 1995.
113. Johnson, E., Levine, A., and Doolittle, F. Fathers' fair share: Helping poor men manage child support and fatherhood. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1999.
114. For more information about the Welfare-to-Work program, see the U.S. Department of Labor Web site at http://wtw.doleta.gov/resources/fact- noncustodial.asp.
115. See note 22, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, pp. 442-43.
116. Under AFDC, states were required to "pass through" the first $50 per month in child support to mothers. This requirement was eliminated with the 1996 welfare reform law, but nearly half the states have chosen to continue at least a modest pass-through with state monies. See Turetsky, V. Realistic child support policies for low income fathers. Kellogg Devolution Initiative Paper. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy, March 2000.
117. Meyer, D., and Cancian, M. W-2 child support demonstration evaluation, phase 1: Final report. Madison: University of Wisconsin -Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty, April 2001.
118. See note 80, Collins, et al., p. 36.
119. See Appendix 2 in the article by Fuller and colleagues in this journal issue for a state-by-state breakdown of percentages.
120. Quinn, J. Where need meets opportunity: Youth development programs for early teens. The Future of Children (Fall 1999) 9(2):96-116.
121. Association of Junior Leagues International. Teen Outreach Program: A three-year proposal for replication/institutionalization. New York: AJLI, 1991.
122. Hahn, A., Leavitt, T., and Aaron, P. Evaluation of the Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP): Did the program work? Waltham, MA: Center for Human Resources, Heller Graduate School, Brandeis University, 1994.
123. Philliber, S., Kaye, J., and Herrling, S. The national evaluation of the Children's Aid Society Carrera-Model Program to prevent teen pregnancy. Accord, NY: Philliber Research Associates, May 2001.