child care - Digital Library Collections

More documents

Recommendations

Info

THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEARBOOK 1998 Box 1.1 W.lfare TI... LI..Its: State Ch.lces (continued) • 60 months: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, District ofColumbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming set unrestricted 60-month lifetime limits. California and Rhode Island reduce but do not terminate benefits after 60 months. New York's Safety Net program helps families who lose benefits after 60 months. Michigan and Vermont set no time limits but require work after a specified period. Every state plans to exempt some families (federal TANF dollars may be used to exempt up to 20 percent of the caseload from the 6Q-month time limit). Exemptions commonly cover families with an adult who has a disability, is over age 60, or is caring for a dependent with a disability; families experiencing domestic violence; and minor parents complying with school and living arrangement requirements. The Center for Law and Social Policy and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities provided help in assembling this list. has made the time limit far more harsh by keeping the clock ticking even when families begin to work. The months those families continue to receive Medicaid are counted toward their state's 24 month lifetime limit, even though they are not receiving any cash assistance. A family who finds low-paid work and needs Medicaid coverage for two years will find itself ineligible for further aid if the parent should become unemployed. Advocates in Indiana are fighting the state over this interpretation of the law. Work requirements. The 1996 federal welfare law requires that within 24 months of receiving TANF, parents or caregivers engage either in work (subsidized or unsubsidized) or in related activities such as job search, community service, on-the-job training, or a maximum 12 months of vocational training. Many forms of education or training do not count toward the law's fust 20 hours per week of required work, and amendments to the law passed in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act made the education provisions even more restrictive. Whereas the original law limited vocational training to 20 percent of the entire adult caseload, now only 30 percent of those participating in work activities are eligible for such training. For many welfare recipients who had hoped their education or training would lead to better careers and long-term self-sufficiency, the restrictions mean setting aside their studies to take low-paying jobs. The federal work participation requirement is 30 percent of all TANF single parents in Fiscal Year (FY) 1998, rising to 50 percent in FY 2002 and beyond. Seventy-five percent of two-parent families must have one parent engaged in work now, rising to 90 percent in FY 1999 and thereafter. It is expected that most states will meet the work participation rates for single-parent families, at least in the first year or two, but that states are likely to have trouble fulfilling the two-parent family requirements. States that fail to meet the participation rates will lose some of their fede~al TANF block grant dollars. The federal Fair Labor Standards Act and other worker protection laws require that parents working off their grants (but not those pursuing education or training) must be paid at the equiva- 10 CHI L D R EN'S DE FEN S E FUN D
FAMILY INCOME lent of the minimum wage and must be protected against unsafe or discrimina~ory practices. Congressional efforts to deny these protections to TANF workers were unsuccessful in 1997, although they may resurface in 1998. If single-parent families do not receive enough in TANF (plus food stamps, at state option) to equal 30 hours at the minimum wage, states must either pay them more or reduce the number of hours they are required to work. If states reduce the required hours, these families will not count toward the federal work participation rates. The Effects of Welfare Changes: Putting More Children at Risk How has life changed for the millions ofchildren affected by the 1996 welfare law? It is still too early to tell precisely, but the new rules for welfare recipients, immigrants, and children with disabilities put needy children in a more precarious position than ever. The plight of families pushed off welfare. Placing work requirements on families without offering them the services they need to comply will force them off the caseload, imposing far greater hardship on children and families. As the most employable parents fmd jobs, those remaining in TANF are even more likely to suffer from debilitating problems. Oregon, with a caseload drop of 54 percent between 1993 and 1997, now fmds that a majority of families remaining in its TANF program are seriously troubled. Oregon estimates that 75 percent of its parents on welfare have mental health problems, 50 percent have substance abuse problems, and 50 percent are subject to violence. The state has been willing to provide appropriate services, and it counts mental health counseling, for example, as an allowable activity on the path to job readiness. Utah has taken a similar approach, conducting individualized assessments and creating self-sufficiency plans with parents. These plans may include activities such as literacy training, substance abuse treatment, or getting a driver's license if they are seen as moving the individual toward successful job placement. Parents who do fmd jobs are in most cases unable to secure incomes above the poverty level. Of the fust 40 Virginia families hitting their twoyear time limit on the receipt ofcash assistance, 35 had jobs, but only eight were Living above the poverty level. Nationwide about half the parents on welfare lack high school diplomas, and their income potential is not good. Two-thirds (64 percent) of all single mothers who have not fmished high school live with their children below the poverty Line, according to the Census Bureau. The future holds little promise of rising wages for parents leaving welfare. Brookings Institution economist Gary Burtless reports that young women who began the 1980s on welfare and later worked received real pay raises averaging only 6 cents per hour per year by 1990. Comparing women of similar backgrounds over a lo-year period reveals some significant differences between those who receive welfare at some point and those who don't. In 1997 the Urban Institute analyzed data on women ages 18-27 from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and found that 45 percent of the welfare participants had not completed high school, compared with only 10 percent of women not on welfare. One-third of mothers who had received welfare had basic skills at the third-grade level; only 6 percent of nonrecipients had comparably low skills. Most significantly, only 24 percent of mothers who had received welfare at some point found jobs paying $8 an hour or more. Difficulty in securing well-paying work is not the only problem facing families leaving welfare. The GAO study mentioned earlier found that those who lost cash aid tended also to lose food stamps and Medicaid, even though the great majority of families remained eligible for this support. In Wisconsin 84 percent ofthe families had received food stamps before termination; afterward only 56 percent continued to do so. Similarly, 100 percent of these Wisconsin families had received Medicaid before losing their cash aid; afterward that number fell to 53 percent. CHILDREN'S DEFE SE FUND 11
Page 2 and 3: About CDF he Children's Defense Fun
Page 4 and 5: Copyright © 1998 by Children's Def
Page 6 and 7: Acknowledgments Susanne Martinez, d
Page 8 and 9: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
Page 20 and 21: _____T...:H_._E... S T ATE 0 F AM E
Page 22 and 23: .... T...-HE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHI
Page 36 and 37: ....._--"T..;H;;..;;;.E STATE OF AM
Page 46 and 47: ......._---'T;..;;.;;H....;;E STATE
Page 48 and 49: '--__...;T;...;;;H...;E;;....S T AT
Page 72 and 73: L-__T.HE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDRE
Page 77 and 78: CHAPTER CHILD NUTRITION any America
Page 79 and 80: CHILD NUTRITION gram requirements,
Page 81 and 82: .... ..,;C;;..;,;H..;I;.,.L;;;.,;;D
Page 83 and 84: CHILD NUTRITION ;;0".;'-'- .... pro
Page 85 and 86:
.... ....;;.c H I L D N U TR IT I O
Page 87 and 88:
CHAPTER CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN CR
Page 89 and 90:
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN CRISIS pas
Page 91 and 92:
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN CRISIS in
Page 93 and 94:
CHILDREN A D FAMILIES IN CRISIS kin
Page 95 and 96:
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN CRISIS Box
Page 97 and 98:
'-- C~H,;,.;I L D R E NAN D F A MIL
Page 99:
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN CRISI""S"-
Page 102 and 103:
THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 117 and 118:
CHAPTER ADOLESCENT PREGNANCY fter r
Page 119 and 120:
ADOLESCENT PREGNANCY 512,115 babies
Page 121 and 122:
ADOLESCENT PREGNANCY sexual activit
Page 123 and 124:
ADOLESCENT PREGNANCY ings. However,
Page 125:
ADO L ESC EN T PRE G NAN C Y .... h
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
106 CHI L D R EN' S D E FEN S E FUN
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDRE YEAR
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
THE STATE OF AMERICA'S HILDREN YEAR
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Selected Web Sites Listed below are
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
show all

child care - Digital Library Collections

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?