child care - Digital Library Collections

THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEARBOOK 1998
women are denied WIC benefits, their newborns
are more likely to be of low birthweight. These
infants will be American citizens because they are
born on U.S. soil, and they will consequently be
entitled to Medicaid coverage if they are poor or
near-poor. Medicaid coverage for low-birthweight
infants is costly, and states bear a sizable share of
Medicaid costs. Thus a state decision to exclude
undocumented immigrants from WIC, which is
fully funded by the federal government, would
probably mean higher Medicaid expenses for the
state, along with increases in low-birthweight
births, childhood anemia, and even infant
mortality.
State Procedures: An Obstacle
to Food Stamp Assistance?
As noted earlier, the number of food stamp participants
plummeted by 3.9 million in the past
year, an unprecedented decline. Improvement
in the economy accounts for some ofthis drop, and
some is attributable to the welfare law, which
makes legal immigrants and certain other individuals
and households ineligible for food stamps. The
data strongly suggest an additional contributing
factor: a decline in the proportion ofchildren eligible
for food stamps whose parents actually apply
for and receive them.
It is not clear why the food stamp participation
rate is falling among eligible children. The droJXlff
is probably due in part to families being inappropriately
removed from the food stamp program
when they lose cash assistance. Under the Food
Stamp Act, families who leave the welfare rolls
because they have exceeded the state's welfare income
limit or because they have hit a time limit on
cash assistance may not simply be terminated from
food stamps. In such cases, the families are supposed
to continue receiving food stamps unless the
state agency fmds them ineligible for food stamps
as well. However, it appears that in some areas,
these families may be losing food stamp assistance
when they leave the welfare rolls.
In addition, some states are diverting large
numbers of families from their welfare programs
by various means. For example, some states require
a month or more of job search before the
families can apply for cash assistance. Others give
families a one-time payment, such as a lump sum
to fix an old car so a parent can fmd or keep a job,
in lieu of monthly public assistance payments.
These procedures seem to be discouraging some
low-income families from applying not only for
cash assistance but also for food stamps. Some
who are still eligible for, and in need of, food
stamps may mistakenly believe they will be turned
away.
Reductions in the Family Child Care
Component of CACFP
Federally funded school breakfasts and lunches,
WIC, the summer food program, and CACFP
have been a bulwark against child hunger and
malnutrition for school-age children, infants, and
preschoolers. However, the welfare law reduces
these child nutrition programs by $2.9 billion between
1997 and 2002.
More than 85 percent of these reductions
come in CACFP, which primarily helps pay for
meals provided to children in child care centers
and family child care homes. Most of the CACFP
cuts result from reduced federal support for meals
served in family child care homes that are not
located in low-income areas or operated by lowincome
providers.
Before the welfare law was enacted, the family
child care component of CACFP did not make
income a consideration in its benefit structure. It
offered the same meal reimbursement rates for all
children, regardless of family income (although
those rates were somewhat lower than what
CACFP paid child care centers for meals for lowincome
children). Approximately one-third of
CACFP spending for family child care went toward
meals for low-income children (those whose family
earnings fell below 185 percent ofthe poverty line).
Two-thirds supported meals served to children
from households at higher income levels, but
providers had to meet state licensing requirements.
This encouraged many small family child care
58 CHI L D R E 'S D E FEN S E FUN D