child care - Digital Library Collections
child care - Digital Library Collections child care - Digital Library Collections
THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEARBOOK 1998 affected most severely; for most of them, food stamps have been terminated altogether. In addition, children who are citizens but whose parents are legal immigrants have seen their families' food supplies sharply reduced because only these children, and not the whole family, can now receive food stamp benefits. The welfare law also altered several other child nutrition programs. Of greatest significance, it substantially restructured and reduced federal resources for the family child care component of the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). Although these changes have only recently taken effect and data on their impact are not yet available, a sizable number of family child care providers may drop out ofthe program. In addition, the 1996 welfare law ended federal outreach grants to states to promote expansion ofthe school breakfast program and the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP). Congress has also ended a two-decade period of increases for WIC, one of the most effective of all federal programs. The General Accounting Office estimates that each $1 spent on WIC food and nutrition counseling for pregnant women averts $3.50 in medical costs, income support, and special education expenditures for low-birthweight infants. Fund- ing for Fiscal Years (FYs) 1997 and 1998 maintains WIC participation at its current level of 7.4 million women, infants, and children, but no further growth can be accommodated. Congress rejected Administration requests for both years to continue expanding the program to reach more ofthose eligible for it. This marks the first time since WIe's inception that Congress has halted its growth. A welcome development. Despite the generally grim outlook for nutrition programs that benefit children, there was positive action on one front in 1997. In June Congress passed legislation giving states the option of retaining food stamps-at state cost-for some or all legal immigrant households who became ineligible for federally funded food stamps under the welfare law. As of late 1997, 11 states had acted to continue benefits for at least some ofthese families. Food Stamp Reductions Only about 2 percent of the spending reductions in the food stamp program come from provisions to reduce fraud and abuse, impose tougher penalties on recipients who violate pro- Figure 4.1 Food Assl.'ance Cui. The 1996 welfare law, as modified by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, cuts well over $20 billion from the food stamp program over six years. Another $2.9 billion is -1 o ~-2 J! "0 .., 0-3 '"c: o ~-4 Federal spending reductions resulting from the 1996 welfare law FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY2oo2 being cut from other nutritional assistance for -5 • food stamps (for chilclren and adults) Other child nutrition pragraml ~.7 5-5." children. Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. 54 CHI L D R EN'S D E FEN S E FUN D
CHILD NUTRITION gram requirements, and reduce administrative costs. The vast majority of savings arise instead from across-the-board benefit cuts for all recipients-including families with children, the working poor, the elderly, and people with disabilities-and from a series of benefit cuts that target particular groups of low-income households. Between September 1996 and September 1997, the number of individuals receiving food stamp assistance plummeted by an astounding 3.9 million (see figure 4.2). This is far more than can be explained by improvement in the economy and the expected effects of the 1996 welfare law. In addition, a survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors fmds that requests for emergency food assistance have risen sharply. Despite the economy's growth and the low unemployment rate, requests for aid were up by an average of 16 percent in 1997 in the 29 cities surveyed, with the majority ofthese requests coming from families with children. This increase appears directly related to the sharp shrinkage in food stamp assistance. More troubling, most of the data in the mayors' study are for the period be/ore most of those legal immigrants who were terminated from food stamps in large numbers lost their benefits. The study also found that 19 percent of the requests for food are estimated to have gone unmet, with 71 percent ofthe cities reporting that some of those in need may have to be turned away because of a lack of resources. Effects on children. Two-thirds ofthe spending cuts for food stamps affect families with children, including poor working families as well as those receiving welfare benefits. In FY 1998, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, more than 5 million families with children will lose an average of $36 a month in food stamp benefits. Because such families averaged only $600 a month in gross income in 1995-just 54 percent of the poverty line-this represents a substantial loss. Moreover, benefit reductions will deepen over time, giving families slightly less food purchasing power with each passing year. The costs to children go beyond economic ones. Myriad studies have shown that children who are afflicted with even mild forms of undernutrition-a type ofmalnutrition caused by lintited food supply-suffer adverse health and learning effects. These include iron deficiency anemia (which is associated with impaired cognitive development), Figure 4.2 Fewer Fooel Stamp Recipients The number of food stomp recipients (the Number of children and adults receiving food stamps 28 ..--------------------------, 27.1 million majority of whom are children) plunged sharply after passage of the 1996 welfare low. September 1994 Sepfember 1995 September 1996 September 1997 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service. CHI L D R EN'S D E FEN S E FUN D 55
- Page 28 and 29: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 30 and 31: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 32 and 33: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 34 and 35: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 36 and 37: ....._--"T..;H;;..;;;.E STATE OF AM
- Page 38 and 39: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 40 and 41: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 42 and 43: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 44 and 45: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 46 and 47: ......._---'T;..;;.;;H....;;E STATE
- Page 48 and 49: '--__...;T;...;;;H...;E;;....S T AT
- Page 50 and 51: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 52 and 53: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 54 and 55: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 56 and 57: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 58 and 59: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 60 and 61: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 62 and 63: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 64 and 65: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 66 and 67: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 68 and 69: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 70 and 71: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 72 and 73: L-__T.HE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDRE
- Page 74 and 75: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 77: CHAPTER CHILD NUTRITION any America
- 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: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 106 and 107: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 108 and 109: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 110 and 111: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 112 and 113: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 114 and 115: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- 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
CHILD<br />
NUTRITION<br />
gram requirements, and reduce administrative<br />
costs. The vast majority of savings arise instead<br />
from across-the-board benefit cuts for all recipients-including<br />
families with <strong>child</strong>ren, the working<br />
poor, the elderly, and people with disabilities-and<br />
from a series of benefit cuts that target particular<br />
groups of low-income households.<br />
Between September 1996 and September<br />
1997, the number of individuals receiving food<br />
stamp assistance plummeted by an astounding 3.9<br />
million (see figure 4.2). This is far more than can<br />
be explained by improvement in the economy and<br />
the expected effects of the 1996 welfare law. In<br />
addition, a survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors<br />
fmds that requests for emergency food assistance<br />
have risen sharply. Despite the economy's<br />
growth and the low unemployment rate, requests<br />
for aid were up by an average of 16 percent in 1997<br />
in the 29 cities surveyed, with the majority ofthese<br />
requests coming from families with <strong>child</strong>ren. This<br />
increase appears directly related to the sharp<br />
shrinkage in food stamp assistance. More troubling,<br />
most of the data in the mayors' study are for<br />
the period be/ore most of those legal immigrants<br />
who were terminated from food stamps in large<br />
numbers lost their benefits. The study also found<br />
that 19 percent of the requests for food are estimated<br />
to have gone unmet, with 71 percent ofthe<br />
cities reporting that some of those in need may<br />
have to be turned away because of a lack of resources.<br />
Effects on <strong>child</strong>ren. Two-thirds ofthe spending<br />
cuts for food stamps affect families with <strong>child</strong>ren,<br />
including poor working families as well as those<br />
receiving welfare benefits. In FY 1998, according<br />
to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, more<br />
than 5 million families with <strong>child</strong>ren will lose an<br />
average of $36 a month in food stamp benefits.<br />
Because such families averaged only $600 a month<br />
in gross income in 1995-just 54 percent of the<br />
poverty line-this represents a substantial loss.<br />
Moreover, benefit reductions will deepen over<br />
time, giving families slightly less food purchasing<br />
power with each passing year.<br />
The costs to <strong>child</strong>ren go beyond economic<br />
ones. Myriad studies have shown that <strong>child</strong>ren who<br />
are afflicted with even mild forms of undernutrition-a<br />
type ofmalnutrition caused by lintited food<br />
supply-suffer adverse health and learning effects.<br />
These include iron deficiency anemia (which is<br />
associated with impaired cognitive development),<br />
Figure 4.2<br />
Fewer Fooel Stamp Recipients<br />
The number of food<br />
stomp recipients (the<br />
Number of <strong>child</strong>ren and adults receiving food stamps<br />
28 ..--------------------------,<br />
27.1 million<br />
majority of whom are<br />
<strong>child</strong>ren) plunged<br />
sharply after passage<br />
of the 1996 welfare<br />
low.<br />
September 1994 Sepfember 1995 September 1996 September 1997<br />
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service.<br />
CHI L D R EN'S D E FEN S E FUN D 55