child care - Digital Library Collections

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
CHILD NUTRITION ;;0".;'-'- .... providers to become licensed, thus helping to expand the supply and quality of child care. Under the welfare law the rules and meal reimbursement rates in effect before July I, 1997 apply only to family child care homes located in lowincome areas or operated by low-income providers. For other homes, the law reduced aggregate meal reimbursements by about one-half, on the presumption that these homes serve children whose families are not low-income and have less need. The providers in these homes can arrange for a means test for the children in their care; only then can they receive substantially higher reimbursement rates for meals fed to children who have family incomes below 185 percent of the poverty line. Key questions remain as to whether large numbers offamily child care homes outside low-income areas or not operated by low-income providers will drop out of the program (or, in the case of new homes, not seek to enter it), and to what extent low-income children and families will be affected. The meal reimbursement rates for these homes have been reduced substantially. Many child advocates fear that the changes to CACFP will drive a substantial number of homes out of the program. Data are not yet available to determine to what extent this may be occurring. If many homes do withdraw and new ones do not join, the impact on children could be substantial. In addition to serving as an incentive for providers to become licensed, CACFP is one of the major sources of training and support for family child care providers. How states implement the changes may affect the extent to which homes drop out of the program. Family child care homes outside low-income areas are supposed to be allowed to use simple methods to show that some of their children are below 185 percent ofthe poverty line, without having to collect income forms from parents. States need to explain these rules clearly to family child care providers and sponsors. Subsidized Meal Programs Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) show that while 6.2 million recipients lost food stamps between 1994 and 1997 (a 23 percent drop), participation in other major child nutrition programs increased (see figure 4.3). The school breakfast program showed the Figure 4.3 Participation In Food Programs While the food stamp program has shrunk drastically, subsidized meal programs are serving more children than ever before. 25 20 15 10 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 Percentage change in number of participants, FY 1994 - FY 1997 Food stomp program 5dlOoilunch program 5
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 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
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 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
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: .... ..,;C;;..;,;H..;I;.,.L;;;.,;;D
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 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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?