10.1.1.193.6844

The Futureof Children

Children and Welfare ReformT

he Future of Children C

hildren and Welfare R

eformVolum

e 12 Num

ber 1 Winter/

Spring 2002

Volume 12 Number 1

Winter/Spring 2002

Editor-in-ChiefRichard E. Behrman, M.D.

Issue EditorMargie K. Shields, M.P.A.

Issue Editorial AdvisorKristin A. Moore, Ph.D.

Senior Staff EditorsCourtney Bennett, Ph.D.Kathleen Reich, M.P.P.

Production EditorsPatricia FewerRoselyn Lowe-Webb

Copy EditorLee Engfer

Web EditorForrest Bryant

Design and PublishingBarbieri & Green, Inc.

We also appreciate the contribu-tions to this journal issue by theFoundations research librarians.

Peter P. Budetti, M.D., J.D.Professor and Director, Institute for Health Services Research andPolicy StudiesNorthwestern University

Felton J. Earls, M.D.Professor of Child Psychiatry in theDepartment of PsychiatryConsolidated Psychiatry DepartmentHarvard University Medical School

Leon Eisenberg, M.D.Presley Professor of Social Medicinein the Department of Social MedicineHarvard University Medical School

Deanna S. Gomby, Ph.DSpecial Advisor, The David andLucile Packard Foundation

David E. Hayes-Bautista, Ph.D.Professor of Medicine and DirectorCenter for the Study of LatinoHealth and CultureUniversity of California, Los Angeles

Philip R. Lee, M.D.Professor (Emeritus) of SocialMedicine, School of MedicineSenior Scholar, Institute for HealthPolicy StudiesUniversity of California,San Francisco

Eleanor E. Maccoby, Ph.D.Professor (Emerita) ofDevelopmental PsychologyStanford University

Rebecca A. Maynard, Ph.D.University Trustee Professor ofEducation and Social Policy andEducationGraduate School of EducationUniversity of Pennsylvania

Kristin A. Moore, Ph.D.President and Senior ScholarChild Trends

Paul W. Newacheck, Dr.P.H.Professor of Health PolicyInstitute for Health Policy StudiesUniversity of California,San Francisco

Judith S. Palfrey, M.D.Chief, Division of General PediatricsThe Childrens HospitalHarvard University

Nigel S. Paneth, M.D., M.P.H.Chair, Department of EpidemiologyProfessor of Pediatrics and EpidemiologyCollege of Human MedicineMichigan State University

Lisa Simpson, M.B., M.P.H.Deputy DirectorAgency for Healthcare Researchand Quality

Barbara Starfield, M.D., M.P.H.University Distinguished ProfessorProfessor of Health Policy and PediatricsJohns Hopkins University

Heather B. Weiss, Ed.D.Director, Harvard FamilyResearch ProjectHarvard University

Daniel Wikler, Ph.D.Senior Staff EthicistWorld Health Organization

The Future of Children is published twice annually by TheDavid and Lucile Packard Foundation, 300 Second Street,Suite 200, Los Altos, California 94022. Fourth-classpostage paid at Los Altos, California, and at additionalmailing offices. The Future of Children is a controlled-cir-culation publication distributed free of charge. Opinionsexpressed in The Future of Children by the editors or thewriters are their own and are not to be considered those ofThe Packard Foundation. Authorization to photocopy arti-cles for personal use is granted by The Future of Children.Reprinting is encouraged, with the following attribution:

From The Future of Children, a publication of The Davidand Lucile Packard Foundation. Correspondence should beaddressed to Richard E. Behrman, M.D., Editor-in-Chief,The Future of Children, 300 Second Street, Suite 200, LosAltos, California 94022. To be added to the mailing list,write to the Circulation Department at the same address; orto sign up for our e-newsletter, go to our Web site athttp://www.futureofchildren.org. Photographs thatappear in The Future of Children were acquired independ-ently of articles and have no relationship to material dis-cussed therein.

The Future of Children

(ISSN 1054-8289) 2002

by The David and Lucile

Packard Foundation, all

rights reserved. Printed

in the United States of

America. Cover photo

Stone/Bruce Ayres

Printed on acid-free,

recycled paper with soy Ink.

(The electronic edition of this

issue can be found at

http://www.futureofchildren.org

on the World Wide Web.)

Board of TrusteesSusan Packard Orr,

Chairman

Nancy Burnett,

Vice Chairman

Jane Lubchenco

Dean O. Morton

Franklin M. Orr, Jr.

Julie Packard,

Vice Chairman

Lewis E. Platt

William K. Reilly

Allan Rosenfield

Richard T. Schlosberg, III,

President and CEO

Robert Stephens

Colburn S. Wilbur

Honorary EmeritiTrusteesRobin Chandler Duke

Robert J. Glaser, M.D.

Frank H. Roberts, Esq.

Edwin E. van Bronkhorst

The Futureof ChildrenVolume 12 Number 1Winter/Spring 2002

Published by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation

Editorial Advisory Board

www.futureofchildren.org

Children and Welfare Reform

Volume 12, Number 1The Future of Children

1. Blank, R.M., and Haskins, R., eds. The new world of welfare.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2001.

2. Center on Law and Social Policy and the Center on Budget andPolicy Priorities. The state policy documentation project.Washington, DC: CLASP and CBPP, June, 2000. Available onlineat http://www.spdp.org.

3. Collins, A., Layzer, J., Kreader, J., et al. National study of childcare for low-income families: State and community substudy interimreport. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, Administration for Children and Families, November2000.

4. Dalaker, J. Poverty in the United States: 2000. Current populationreports: Consumer income, P60-214. Washington, DC: U.S.Census Bureau, September 2001.

5. Danziger, S., Corcoran, M., Danziger, S., et al. Barriers to theemployment of welfare recipients. In Prosperity for all? The econom-ic boom and African Americans. R. Cherry and W.M. Rodgers III,eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2000.

6. Duncan, G.J., and Brooks-Gunn, J., eds. Consequences of growingup poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1997.

7. Duncan, G.J., and Chase-Lansdale, P.L., eds. For better and forworse: Welfare reform and the well-being of children and families.New York: Russell Sage Foundation, January 2002.

8. Edin, K., and Lein, L. Making ends meet: How single mothers sur-vive welfare and low-wage work. New York: Russell SageFoundation, 1997.

9. Fix, M., and Passel, J.S. Trends in noncitizens and citizens use ofpublic benefits following welfare reform: 199497. Washington, DC:Urban Institute, March 1999.

10. Garfinkel, I., McLanahan, S., Meyer, D., and Seltzer, J., eds.Fathers under fire: The revolution in child support enforcement. NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation, 1998.

11. Gennetian, L.A., and Miller, C. Reforming welfare and work: Finalreport on the Minnesota Family Investment Program. Vol. 2, Effectson children. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corp.,2000.

12. Greenberg, M., and Savner, S. The final TANF regulations: A pre-liminary analysis. Washington, DC: Center for Law and SocialPolicy, 1999.

13. Kirby, D. Emerging answers: New research findings on programsto reduce teen pregnancy. Washington, DC: National Campaign toPrevent Teen Pregnancy, May 2001.

14. Knitzer, J. Promoting resilience: Helping young children and parentsaffected by substance abuse, domestic violence, and depression in thecontext of welfare reform. Children and welfare reform issue brief 8.New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, 2000.

15. Loprest, P. How are families that left welfare doing? A comparisonof early and recent welfare leavers. Assessing the New FederalismPolicy Brief No. B-36. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2001.

16. McGroder, S.M., Zaslow, M.J., Moore, K.A., and Le Menestrel, S.National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies: Impacts onyoung children and their families two years after enrollment:Findings from the Child Outcomes Study. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Departmentof Education, 2000.

17. McLanahan, S., and Sandefur, G. Growing up with a single parent:What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1994.

18. McLoyd, V.C. Socioeconomic disadvantage and child develop-ment. American Psychologist (1998) 53:185204.

19. Morris, P., Huston, A., Duncan, G., et al. How welfare and workpolicies affect children: A synthesis of the research. New York:Manpower Demonstration Research Corp., March 2001.

20. Primus, W., Rawlings, L., Larin, K., and Porter, K. The initialimpacts of welfare reform on the incomes of single-mother families.Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August1999.

21. Shonkoff, J.P., and Phillips, D.A., eds. From neurons to neighbor-hoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 2000.

22. Smith, K. Whos minding the kids? Child care arrangements.Household economic studies, no. P70-70. Washington, DC: U.S.Census Bureau, October 2000.

23. Sorensen, E., and Zibman, C. Child support offers some protectionagainst poverty. Assessing the New Federalism Policy Brief No. B-10. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2000.

24. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. TemporaryAssistance for Needy Families (TANF) program: Third annualreport to Congress. Washington, DC: DHHS, August 2000.

25. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Trends in thewell-being of Americas children and youth: 2000. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000.

26. U.S. General Accounting Office. Education and care: Early child-hood programs and services for low-income families. HEHS-00-11.Washington, DC: GAO, 1999.

27. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means.2000 green book: Background material and data on programs with-in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001.

28. Zaslow, M.J., Brooks, J.L., Moore, K.A., et al. Experimental stud-ies of welfare reform and children. Washington, DC: Child Trends,2001. Available online at http://www.childtrends.org.

29. Zedlewski, S. Former welfare families continue to leave the foodstamp program. Assessing the New Federalism Discussion PaperNo. 01-05. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2001.

30. Zimmermann, W., and Tumlin, K.C. Patchwork policies: State assis-tance for immigrants under welfare reform. Washington, DC:Urban Institute, 1999.

Selected Bibliography

Statement of Purpose

he primary purpose of The Future of Childrenis to promote effective policies and programsfor children. The journal is intended to pro-vide policymakers, service providers, and the

media with timely, objective information based on thebest available research regarding major issues related tochild well-being. It is designed to complement, notduplicate, the kind of technical analyses found in aca-demic journals and the general coverage of childrensissues by the popular press and special interest groups.

The 1996 federal welfare reform law, the PersonalResponsibility and Work Opportunity Act, sought toreduce the number of children growing up in poor, sin-gle-parent families by requiring mothers to move fromwelfare to work and by promoting marriage. This jour-nal issue examines how well programs implementedunder the 1996 law are accomplishing these goals, andhow they are affecting childrens development and well-being. Whether or not the law is having positive effectson children is important not only for the childreninvolved, but for all of our citizens. Untoward effectson child development translate into educational failure,increased crime and violence, and reduced productivityamong adults, which are costs that impact all of society.

The articles presented here summarize the knowledgeand research about how low-income children havebeen faring since passage of the welfare reform law in1996. Overall, as of the fall of 2001, low-income chil-dren had been faring fairly well. Child poverty rateswere down, and fewer children were living in families

headed by single mothers. At the same time, manyfamilies who had left welfare were still struggling eco-nomically, and many remaining on the rolls faced seri-ous barriers to employment. Even among familiesmoving successfully from welfare to work, the effectson children were not always positive. As our nationenters a period of economic downturn, the future oflow-income children becomes even less certain. Reau-thorization of the federal welfare reform law in 2002offers a critical opportunity to reexamine the purposeand goals of the law, and ensure that programs arestructured to have positive effects on children.

We welcome your comments and suggestions regardingthis issue of The Future of Children. Our intention is toencourage informed debate about the well-being ofchildren under welfare reform. To this end, we invitecorrespondence to the Editor-in-Chief. We would alsoappreciate your comments about the approach we havetaken in presenting the focus topic and welcome yoursuggestions for future topics.

Richard E. Behrman, M.D.Editor-in-ChiefJournal/Publications Department300 Second Street, Suite 200Los Altos, CA 94022

T

Stone/Bruce Ayres

Winter/Spring 20022

Statement of Purpose

Richard E. Behrman, M.D.

Children and Welfare Reform: Analysis and Recommendations

Margie K. Shields, M.P.A., and Richard E. Behrman, M.D.

An analysis of how low-income children have been faring since federal welfare reform was enacted in 1996, and how welfare and other income support programs can be restructured to offer the greatest promise for improving childrens chances to succeed in life.

The 1996 Welfare Law: Key Elements and Reauthorization Issues Affecting Children

Mark H. Greenberg, J.D., Jodie Levin-Epstein, Rutledge Q. Hutson, J.D., M.P.H.,Theodora J. Ooms, M.S.W., Rachel Schumacher, M.P.P., Vicki Turetsky, J.D., and David M. Engstrom, M.Sc., M.A.

A description of how the 1996 law changed the social policy landscape across a broad array of programs and initiatives affecting children, and the issues likely to emerge before Congress in 2002 when reauthorization of the law is debated.

Reforms and Child Development

Aletha C. Huston, Ph.D.

A framework for understanding and assessing the impact of welfare and income support programs on childrens healthy development through the influences these programs have on childrens environments at home and in the community.

Experimental Studies of Welfare Reform and Children

Martha J. Zaslow, Ph.D., Kristin A. Moore, Ph.D., Jennifer L. Brooks, Ph.D., Pamela A. Morris, Ph.D., Kathryn Tout, Ph.D., Zakia A. Redd, M.P.P., and Carol A. Emig, M.P.P.

A synthesis of findings from the first seven experimental evaluations of welfare programs, distilling and presenting evidence concerning the impacts of various reform strategies on children of different ages.

Welfare Reform and Child Care Options for Low-Income Families

Bruce Fuller, Ph.D., Sharon L. Kagan, Ed.D., Gretchen L. Caspary, and Christiane A. Gauthier, M.S.Ed.

An assessment of the research concerning the role child care can play in promoting childrens development and life opportunities, and the efforts to extend access to high-quality child care options in low-income neighborhoods.

Page 1

Page 5

Page 27

Page 59

Page 79

Page 97


CONTENTS

3www.futureofchildren.org

Family Economic Resources in the Post-Reform Era

Sheila Rafferty Zedlewski, M.P.A.

A discussion of the relationship between economic resources and child well-being and howfamily economic resources have changed under welfare reform, including an overview ofstates innovative uses of welfare funds to expand supports for working poor families.

Welfare Reform, Fertility, and Father Involvement

Sara S. McLanahan, Ph.D., and Marcia J. Carlson, Ph.D.

An examination of the important role that fathers play in childrens lives, how public policies have affected childbearing and father involvement, and the need for better programsto increase fathers financial and emotional support of children in low-income families.

Welfare Reform and Parenting: Reasonable Expectations

P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, Ph.D., and Laura D. Pittman, Ph.D.

An assessment of the research concerning the impact of welfare reform on various dimen-sions of parenting, and the need for further research to understand how states welfarereform programs could more effectively support positive parenting practices.

Five Commentaries: Looking to the Future

A series of responses from experts representing various disciplines and backgrounds to thequestion: How can supports and services for low-income families be improved under welfare reform to help ensure positive outcomes for children?

Wendell E. Primus, Ph.D.

Ron Haskins, Ph.D.

Fernando A. Guerra, M.D., M.P.H.

Eloise Anderson

Barbara B. Blum

List of Acronyms

Selected Bibliography

Page 121

Page 147

Page 167

Page 187

Page 208

Inside back cover

Volume 12 Number 1 Stone/Bruce Ayres


5www.futureofchildren.org

Children and Welfare Reform:Analysis and Recommendations

Children do best when they grow up in low-conflict families, with parents who are mar-ried to each other and who earn enough tomeet their familys needs. The evidence onthis is strong and widely accepted.1 The challenge forour nations welfare system is to determine how best tohelp children in families that do not have the supportof both parents and that do not have enough income.About half the children born in the 1980s will spendsome time in a single-parent family before age 18.2

More than one-third will spend some of their child-hood living in poverty.3

The federal welfare reform law, the Personal Responsi-bility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of1996, sought to reduce the number of children grow-ing up in poor, single-parent families by promotingmarriage and requiring mothers to move from welfareto work. This journal issue examines not only whetherthe programs implemented since reform accomplishedthese goals, but also whether they benefited children.Such an examination is especially timely as Congressbegins to debate reauthorization of the federal welfarereform law (which expires in September 2002) and asan economic downturn changes the prospects for fam-ilies striving for greater self-sufficiency.

This article reviews the main themes of the journal issueby summarizing what the new social policy landscape

looks like for children, how low-income children arefaring in this new landscape, and how welfare programsand related support services might be restructured tobetter promote childrens well-being. The 1996 lawessentially transformed U.S. welfare programs intoemployment programs. Riding the wave of a strongeconomy, these new programs successfully moved manymothers from welfare to work, and improved manychildrens lives as a resultmany, but not all. Even invery prosperous times, some families were unable toovercome their barriers to employment, and many fam-ilies who found employment still needed additional sup-ports to help make ends meet. As the economyweakens, the need for supports is likely to grow.

Reauthorization of the federal welfare reform law offersa critical opportunity to reexamine the goals of reform.If the ultimate goal of promoting work and marriage isnot just to end families dependence on governmentbenefits, but also to improve disadvantaged childrenschances for success in life, then more attention must bepaid to structuring programs for low-income families inways that promote positive child development and well-being. This is important not only for the children them-selves, but for all of society, as we all pay the costs ofeducational failure, increased crime and violence, andreduced worker productivitycosts that inevitablyresult when children fail to get the nurturing and sup-ports they need to achieve their potential.

Volume 12, Number 1

The New Social Policy Landscape since ReformPassage of the federal welfare reform law in 1996brought many changes to the broad array of programsserving low-income children and their families, asdetailed in the article by Greenberg and colleagues inthis journal issue. Prior to reform, all children in poorfamilies that met state eligibility criteria were entitled toassistance under the Aid to Families with DependentChildren (AFDC) program, although many states setthe threshold so low that only the poorest familiesqualified. The federal government reimbursed statesfor at least half the cost of providing this assistance,with no cap on expenditures. AFDC receipt alsoassured ready access to other benefits, such as Medic-aid and food stamps. Families who participated inAFDC-related work programs were provided withchild care assistance,4 but these programs were oftenunderfunded and involved only a fraction of eligiblefamilies. Most mothers receiving AFDC paymentsstayed home and cared for their children themselves.

Program structures, priorities, and funding streams allchanged dramatically with passage of the 1996 law.The AFDC program was replaced with a block grantto the states called Temporary Assistance for NeedyFamilies (TANF). Funding levels for TANF werebased on states historical expenditures under AFDC.Families entitlement to assistance ended, and the linksbetween cash assistance and other benefits and servic-es were severed. Instead, the law gave states increasedflexibility to design their own welfare programs andsupport services for low-income families. At the sametime, the laws focus, as indicated by its title, was toincrease parental responsibility and work, and a majortheme was to move families off welfare and intoemployment. Thus, families receiving TANF cashassistance had to meet several important new rules,such as more stringent work requirements, sanctionsfor noncompliance, and time limits. The law alsoincreased funding for child care to facilitate mothersemployment, and strengthened the child supportenforcement program to help ensure that fatherswould contribute to the support of their children.

Two other key themes in the 1996 law were promot-ing marriage and reducing out-of-wedlock births.

Provisions of the law that addressed these goalsfocused primarily on allowing more liberal eligibilitycriteria for two-parent families and imposing morestringent requirements on unmarried minor teen par-ents. The law also called on the U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services to establish a strategy forpreventing out-of-wedlock teen pregnancies, and pro-vided new funding for abstinence education andbonuses for states with the highest reductions in out-of-wedlock births.

The law changed benefits and services for low-incomechildren in other ways as well. For example, it restruc-tured two significant funding streams for prevention ofchild maltreatment and services to reunify families splitapart by child abuse or neglect, potentially reducingthe total amount of funding for such programs. Thelaw also modified the definition of childhood disabili-ty, restricting childrens eligibility for assistance fromthe Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. Anestimated 100,000 children lost their eligibility underthe new definition in 1996,5 and another 70,000 ado-lescents lost benefits when eligibility redeterminationswere conducted between 1997 and 2000.6 Finally, thelaw restricted legal immigrants eligibility for manyservices and benefits, including cash assistance, foodstamps, and Medicaid. Some restrictions on legalimmigrants have since been lifted, but most remainineligible for food stamps, and those entering thecountry after passage of the law are ineligible for near-ly all federal benefits for five years.7

The changes that resulted from the 1996 law couldaffect poor children in many ways, both directly andindirectly. For the most part, however, the underlyingpremise of the law was that children would benefitfrom seeing their parents leave welfare and go towork. In fact, as noted in the article by Chase-Lans-dale and Pittman in this journal issue, many lawmak-ers expected the promotion of job preparation, work,and marriage to improve parenting practices and childwell-being, as well as reduce dependence on govern-ment benefits. It appears, however, that the linksbetween reform efforts, improved parenting, and pos-itive child outcomes are not as simple or straightfor-ward as envisioned.

6

Analysis and Recommendations


How Low-Income Children Are FaringOverall, low-income families have fared well sincereform, both economically and structurally. Povertyrates have declined, and fewer children are being raisedin single-mother households. The primary goal of the1996 law was to end families dependence on govern-ment benefits, and efforts to address this goal havebeen very successful. Bolstered by the strong economyof the 1990s and policies that help make work pay,such as the earned income tax credit (EITC) andexpanded health insurance programs for low-incomechildren,8 many families moved off welfare and intojobs. In August 1996, 4.4 million families were receiv-ing cash assistance. As of September 2000, the numberof families receiving cash assistance had declined byhalf, to just 2.2 million.9

The dire predictions made by some critics when thelaw was passedthat the number of homeless and des-titute families would skyrocket, and that there wouldbe a massive migration of children from welfare to fos-ter carehave not materialized.10 Yet even in a strongeconomy, many families who left welfare were strug-gling, and many remaining on the rolls faced seriousbarriers to employment. What can be gleaned from theresearch about how low-income children are faringsince welfare reform in terms of their economic well-being, family structure, and daily life experiences issummarized below.

Economic Well-Being and Its ImplicationsWelfare reform policies clearly have helped many poorfamilies take advantage of economic opportunities overthe past five years and move successfully from welfareto work. More than half the families no longer receiv-ing cash assistance are working, and the combinationof earnings and other work supports has boosted theincomes of most single-mother families. Poverty ratesdeclined from 14% in 1996 to 11% in 2000, and childpoverty rates also have fallen, from 21% to 16%.11

Recent findings from evaluations of welfare-to-workdemonstration programs point to the importance ofincreasing family economic resources to improve chil-drens outcomes. Although these demonstrations wereimplemented before reform, they included many fea-tures similar to those enacted in the 1996 law, such as

work requirements, time limits, and financial incentivesto work. Results show that, for the most part, familiesparticipation in these programs had no widespreadimpacts on children. When impacts were found, somewere positive and some were negative, but most wereweak. Even when programs resulted in more positiveimpacts, the children in these families still laggedbehind national norms for positive child development.Nevertheless, some patterns have emerged that rein-force the theory that increasing families employmentand income is good for children.

As discussed in the article by Zaslow and colleagues inthis journal issue, children in families participating inprograms that increased employment and incometended to do better in school and have fewer behav-ioral problems than children in families not participat-ing in the programs.12 Positive impacts were foundmost often among school-age children. Programs withthe most positive impacts on children were those thatincreased families employment and income throughearnings supplements without a mandatory workrequirement, such as in an early version of the Min-nesota Family Investment Program.13

In addition to having positive impacts on children, pro-grams that increased both employment and incomethrough incentives without a mandatory work require-ment also had small but significant impacts on the par-enting practices of mothers who participated. (See thearticle by Chase-Lansdale and Pittman.) Comparedwith nonparticipant mothers and those required towork 30 hours a week, long-term recipient mothersparticipating in these programs had lower levels ofdepression and harsh parenting. These mothers werealso more likely to marry if single, more likely to staymarried if married, and less likely to experience domes-tic violence. According to Chase-Lansdale andPittman, the critical factor leading to these positiveimpacts appears to be that the mothers could work lessthan full time and still benefit from income gains com-pared with mothers not participating.

When programs helped families gain jobs but did notincrease their income, the evaluations of the pre-reform welfare-to-work demonstrations found fewimpacts on children. The impacts that did occur weremixed. Children in participant families tended to score

7The Future of Children

Volume 12, Number 1

higher on assessments of their cognitive skills, but alsoto receive more reports of behavioral problems, com-pared with children in families not participating in theprograms.14 When programs resulted in families mak-ing no economic progress or experiencing a setback,the effects on children tended to be negative across alltypes of outcome measures.

Thus, when families move from welfare to work with-out an increase in income, the impacts on children areless likely to be positive. Unfortunately, this is likely tobe the case for many families leaving welfare sincereform. As described in the article by Zedlewski in thisjournal issue, many families leaving welfare for workenter low-paying jobs with no employer-provided ben-efits, and about 40% of families that have left welfareare not working. Economic resources have declinedamong many of the poorest families due to the loss ofbenefits such as welfare and food stamps. CensusBureau data show that between 1995 and 1997, totalannual resources for the poorest 10% of single-motherfamilies declined by $814, on average, from $5,687 to$4,873; among the next poorest 10%, resourcesdeclined by $319, from $11,584 to $11,265.15

The decline in economic resources among poor fami-lies is especially sobering because it occurred during aperiod of sustained economic growth. Following theattack on the World Trade Center on September 11,2001, jobs have been disappearing rapidly in manufac-turing, services, and transportationespecially low-wage jobs, the types of jobs that welfare recipientswould likely fill. During October and November 2001,more than one million jobs were lost, and according tothe U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the increase in thejobless rate has been particularly severe for blue-collarworkers.16 Thus, until the economy rebounds, manymore poor families are likely to experience declines intheir economic resources.

Family StructureFamily structures for low-income children appear tobe changing for the better, although any link to wel-fare reform policies is dubious, as noted in the com-mentary by Haskins in this journal issue. Between1995 and 2000, the percentage of children living withboth married parents continued to decline amongfamilies above 200% of poverty level, but the percent-

age remained unchanged, at about 50%, among chil-dren in families below 200% of poverty.17 In addition,the percentage of low-income children living with asingle mother declined slightly, from 34% to 33%,whereas the percentage living with a mother and acohabiting male increased from 5% to 6%. Also, teenbirths have continued to decline over the past decade.Between 1990 and 1997, the teen birth rate decreasedfrom 60 to 52 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 19.18

To the extent that fewer children are being raised byteen parents and single parents, child well-being islikely to have improved. As discussed in the article byHuston in this journal issue, both adolescent and sin-gle parenting are associated with lower educationaland occupational attainment by mothers and higherdevelopmental risks for children. Young and singlemothers are at high risk of poverty and generally pro-vide less stimulating and supportive home environ-ments than those provided by older and marriedmothers. Although experimental evaluations havefound few impacts on young childrens developmentlinked to single parenting, other studies of older chil-dren have found that adolescents with single mothersare at greater risk of dropping out of school than areadolescents living with both biological parents.19

However, the data suggest that many single mothers arenot rearing their children alone. As discussed in the arti-cle by McLanahan and Carlson in this journal issue,41% of all nonmarital births in the early 1990s occurredto cohabiting couples.20 In what McLanahan and Carl-son refer to as fragile families, many unmarried par-ents are working together to raise their children, eitherby sharing a household or maintaining frequent con-tact. Such father involvement is importantboth finan-cially and emotionallyto childrens development.

Single-parent families, especially those with no malepresent, are much more likely to be poor, and the chil-dren are more likely to suffer adverse effects on theirdevelopment and well-being.21 In 1998, for example,the poverty rate for female-headed families with chil-dren was 39%, compared with 8% for male-presentfamilies with children.22

In addition, positive father involvement, particularlyby fathers who live with their children, has been linked

8



to less frequent behavioral and emotional problemsamong children and adolescents, including delinquen-cy, substance use, anxiety, and depression.23 Moreover,a recent analysis of several studies found that increasedfather involvementsuch as fatherchild closenessand authoritative parentingwas associated with sig-nificant gains in childrens academic achievement andreductions in behavioral problems.24

Thus, evidence of increased involvement of males insingle-mother households might be a positive indica-tor for child well-beingwith three importantcaveats. First, it is the presence of fathers, not unre-lated males, that is linked to positive effects on chil-dren. For example, studies have found that childrensschool performance and behavior generally do notimprove if their mother marries someone other thanthe biological father, even though family income is,on average, substantially greater.25 Second, many low-income families are coping with conflict and domes-tic violence. In one large study of welfare recipients,for example, 28% reported having been abused by anintimate partner in the previous year.26 To have posi-tive impacts on children, increased male presencemust not bring increased family conflict or domesticviolence. Finally, cohabiting couples relationships aremore vulnerable than those of married couples, and ifthe relationship ends, fatherchild contact is morelikely to diminish.27

Childrens Daily LivesThe movement of mothers from welfare to work hasbrought significant changes to the daily lives of manychildren. As increasing numbers of low-income moth-ers move into jobs, young children are spending morehours in nonmaternal care, and older children are like-ly to be spending more time unsupervised. At thesame time, many low-income children live in familieswho are receiving welfare, yet are not participating ina welfare-to-work program. For some, the situation istemporary, but for others, the reasons for lack of par-ticipation are likely to persist for some time. In othercases, childrens families are not working, but they arenot receiving welfare or other benefits due to such rea-sons as loss of eligibility, sanctions, or time limits. Lit-tle information exists on how children in these familiesare faring.

Children in Families Moving from Welfare to WorkAs discussed in Hustons article, welfare policiesdesigned primarily to change the economic and per-sonal behavior of parents can impact the nature andquality of the environments where children spend theirtime, at home, at school, and in the community.Changes in childrens environments in turn can affecttheir development. Considerable evidence documentsthe links between each of these factors, but the con-nections are complex. Policies that require low-incomemothers to work could have a number of differentimpactseither positive or negativeon childrensenvironments and thus their development and well-being. Therefore, where and how low-income childrenspend their time while their mothers work warrantsgreater attention.

Low-income families access to subsidies is a key factorin their decisions about where their children spendtime during work hours. As a result of changes to childcare programs stemming from the 1996 welfare reformlaw, total federal and state funding for child care forwelfare and working poor families has increased dra-matically, from $2.8 billion in 1995 to $8.0 billion in2000.28 Federal and state spending on preschools andafter-school programs has also grown.29 The move-ment of mothers from welfare to work, together withthis increased funding for child care, has changed thedaily environments of many low-income children.

Infants and Toddlers Infants and toddlers need safe, high-quality child care ifthey are to benefit from their mothers moving from wel-fare to work. Under reform, states are encouraged torequire single parents on welfare to seek work when theyhave a child as young as one year old, and can requiresingle parents of even younger children to participate inwelfare-to-work programs. As a result, 16 states nowhave work requirements for single parents with childrenunder age one. In 11 states, parents with children asyoung as 12 weeks old are required to participate inwork activities.30 Survey data gathered in 1997 indicatethat among families with children under age three, low-income working mothers rely mostly on the other par-ent or a relative for care, whereas a greater percentage ofhigher-income families rely on formal center-based care,a family child care home, or a nanny.31


Volume 12, Number 1

The research literature is mixed about whether requir-ing mothers of young children to work has positive ornegative effects on the children. On the one hand,some evidence suggests that when a familys incomeincreases, young children benefit, especially young chil-dren living in families below poverty level.3234 More-over, some studies suggest that younger childrensenrollment in full-time, high-quality child care can bebeneficial, especially for children in low-income fami-lies.35,36 On the other hand, other studies indicate thatparentchild interaction may be harmed when infantsspend extended lengths of time in child care.37

What seems to emerge from these studies is that whileincreased income is likely to have positive impacts onyoung children, the effects of nonmaternal child carecan be either good or bad depending on the quality ofcare, the number of hours in care, and the quality ofmaternal care provided in the home as the alternative.Evaluations of prereform welfare demonstrationsfound few impacts on the youngest children studied,suggesting that infants and toddlers may not be affect-ed by their families participation in welfare-to-workprograms as much as expected. The data are limited,however. Further research concerning the impacts ofdifferent types of care on young children is needed.

Preschoolers Preschoolers, especially those from low-income fami-lies, appear to benefit from high-quality child care cen-tersthat is, child care characterized by caregivers whoare sensitive, responsive, and talk frequently with thechildren, and a setting that is well-stocked with abreadth of learning and play materials.38 Low-incomechildren ages three to five who were placed in high-quality centers did better on school readiness scoresthan children in home-based settings.39 It has beenestimated that at least one million preschool-age chil-dren moved into new child care settings between 1996and 1998 following changes under welfare reform.40

Studies indicate that the majority of welfare familiesrely on informal arrangements when they begin to par-ticipate in work activities, yet as discussed in the articleby Fuller and colleagues in this journal issue, familiesmoving off welfare and into more stable, full-timeemployment are more likely to choose centers and fam-ily child care homes over less formal care providers,such as relatives or neighbors.

Total hours of care, stability of care, and type of care allcan affect childrens development, but the quality ofcare appears to have by far the greatest influence.35 Forexample, some evidence indicates that preschool chil-dren spending long hours in care may be more aggres-sive, assertive, and defiant than children spending lesstime in care.41 Studies also show, however, that chil-dren who benefit from high-quality daily interactionsin their child care settings tend to display better cogni-tive and language development, school readiness, andearly school achievement, compared with children insettings with less engaged caregivers.42 Although theeffects of child care are modest overall compared to thestronger influence of the home environment,43 high-quality care has been found to be especially effective inimproving outcomes for children growing up in pover-ty or facing other family-based risks.39

School-Age Children More low-income school-age children could benefitfrom participation in structured after-school activities.Although the number of programs is increasing, manylow-income school-age children still are likely to be leftin self-care while their mothers work.

As a result of greater availability of child care subsidiestied to welfare reform, as well as other initiatives to cre-ate more and better after-school programs for youth,an increasing number of low-income school-age chil-dren are attending structured programs after schoolwhile their mothers work. For example, in 2001, near-ly $850 million in federal funding was provided for the21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative,a program designed to provide expanded learningopportunities for school-age children in a safe, drug-free, supervised environment.44 Tens of thousands ofother after-school programs are offered by schools,youth organizations, religious groups, and local gov-ernments throughout the country.45

Moreover, studies suggest that school-age children canbenefit from time spent in structured after-schoolactivities, as opposed to self-care.45,46 In one study, forexample, low-income first and third graders who spentmore time in self-care were less socially competent andreceived lower academic grades in sixth grade, com-pared with low-income children who spent less time ontheir own.47 After-school activities can provide children

10



with opportunities to explore new skill areas, discovertheir talents, and build self-esteem.48 After-school pro-grams also can serve as a safe haven in neighborhoodswhere crime rates are high and the time after schoolcan expose children to deviant peers, illegal activities,and violence.49

Although data are limited, there is some evidence thatin families with mothers moving from welfare to work,an increasing number of school-age children may beleft home alone. Prereform data indicate that workingpoor families were more than twice as likely to leavetheir school-age children in self-care than were non-working poor families (15% versus 8%).50

Adolescents Potential effects on adolescent children received virtual-ly no attention during the debates leading to welfarereform. The tacit assumption seemed to be that adoles-cents would be affected less than younger children bywhat their parents might be required to do. However,as summarized in the article by Zaslow and colleagues,evaluations of prereform welfare-to-work demonstra-tion programs generally found negative impacts for thisage group, even in programs that increased familiesemployment and income, and that had positive impactson younger children. (For an overview of each of theprograms evaluated, see Box 1 in the article by Zaslowand colleagues.). For example, in the Minnesota Fami-ly Investment Program, a higher percentage of mothersrated their adolescent childrens school performancebelow average compared with ratings of adolescent chil-dren by control group mothers. In Canadas Self-Suffi-ciency Project, mothers enrolled in the programreported that their children had more school behavioralproblems, and adolescents themselves reported moresmoking and drinking. And in the Florida Family Tran-sition Program, adolescent children in the programgroup were more likely than those in the control groupto have been suspended from school or to have beenrated lower on school achievement.

The reasons for these negative impacts are unclear.Possible explanations range from an erosion in parent-ing quality and monitoring to an increase in adolescentresponsibilities within the household.51 However, thesefindings reflect only three studies. Additional data forthis age group from other evaluations are due to be

released in early 2002, which may help to clarify howteens are being affected by reform.

Children in Families Not Moving from Welfare to WorkFamilies not participating in welfare-to-work activitiesaccount for over two-thirds of the welfare caseload, onaverage, nationwide.52 Some of these families are sub-ject to work requirements and are not participating.But more than half the caseload comprises two majorcategories of families not subject to work require-ments: families with adults who are exempt fromrequirements for good cause, and families with noadult recipients in the household, referred to as child-only cases. Because neither of these types of families isrequired to participate in welfare-to-work programs,they receive little attention from program administra-tors or researchers, and as a result, not much is knownabout how the children in these families are faring.

Good Cause Exemptions Among the two million adults on welfare nationwideduring fiscal year 1999 (on average, per month), 28%were not required to participate in either work or edu-cation activities.53 Most were exempt for good cause,such as having poor health or a disability, caring for ahousehold member with a disability, being advanced inage, being the victim of domestic violence, not beingable to find suitable child care, or caring for a youngchild.54 Use of exemptions varies widely amongstates.30,53 For example, Arizona and Vermont exempt-ed more than 75% of their adult recipients from workrequirements in 1999, whereas Nebraska and Oregonexempted fewer than 20%.55

Exemptions can protect vulnerable families from sanc-tions and time limits, but they also may remove anysense of urgency about providing families with the serv-ices they need to overcome their problems.56 When fam-ilies are struggling with barriers that affect familyfunctioning as well as employability, the risk to childrencan be great. In households coping with serious prob-lems such as substance abuse and maternal depression,some children are resilient and do fine, in general, how-ever, children in such households are at increased risk forharmful consequences.57 As discussed in the commen-tary by Guerra in this journal issue, without interven-tion, such families can sometimes spiral downward to


Volume 12, Number 1

domestic violence, child neglect or abuse, and removalof children from the home.58 The majority of children inthe foster care system are from families on welfare.59

Studies have found that the screening tools used bywelfare offices to identify serious family problems, andthe services provided to address these problems, areinadequate.60 Moreover, though many families areexempted only temporarily, others may remain soindefinitely, awaiting services that are in short supply.61

Aside from the fact that children in these families con-tinue to receive benefits, little is known about theirwell-being.

Child-Only Cases In 1999, about 770,000 families (29% of the total case-load) were child-only cases, down from a peak of978,000 cases in 1996.62 Because these families receivecash payments only for the child, not the adults in thehousehold, they are not subject to work requirements ortime limits. Child-only cases are created when adults areineligible to receive benefits, such as when children arenot living with their parents and the caretaker adults areineligible,63 when parents receive SSI benefits, or whencitizen children are living with noncitizen parents.64

Some researchers have suggested that child-only casesmay require intensive interventions to address familiesproblems, but these cases generally are not beingscreened to identify such needs.65 As with children infamilies with exemptions, little is known about the well-being of children in families receiving child-only benefits.

Children in Families Disconnected from BenefitsWelfare caseloads have declined rapidly. This would bea cause for celebration if all the families no longerreceiving welfare were doing well. However, studiesshow that poor households are not earning enough toexplain the steep drop in cash assistance and other sup-ports. Many children still live in poverty, but withoutwelfare and other benefits that they likely would havereceived prior to passage of the 1996 law.66 Althoughlittle is known about the well-being of children in thesepoor families, it is unlikely they are faring better as aresult of welfare reform.56

Reasons for families becoming disconnected from ben-efits vary, ranging from burdensome administrative pro-

cedures to loss of eligibility and the impact of sanctionsand time limits. For example, some families have beendiscouraged from seeking benefits, or they abandonedthe effort in the face of the complex administrative pro-cedures for enrolling and maintaining eligibility. In hiscommentary, Guerra describes the difficult circum-stances many poor families face, and the precariousnessof their daily lives. Time-consuming, bureaucratic pro-cedures to obtain benefits simply add to the demandson these families, causing many to be disconnectedfrom the services and supports they may be eligible toreceive and may need to cope with their problems.

Other families are disconnected from benefits becausechanges to the welfare reform law made them ineligi-ble. (See the article by Greenberg and colleagues.) Inparticular, certain groups of legal immigrants are nolonger deemed qualified to receive benefits. Somestates have established state-funded substitute pro-grams for immigrants, but these programs have notfilled the gap left from the loss of federal assistance, andparticipation rates remain low. Also, many U.S. citizenchildren of immigrant parents do not access benefitsthey are eligible to receive. As noted in the commen-tary by Primus in this journal issue, food stamp partic-ipation among such children fell by 74% between 1994and 1998, compared with a 24% decline among otherfamilies with children.

Still other families lost benefits because they exhaustedtheir time limits or failed to comply with programrequirements. Data from the U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services indicate that in 1999,about 156,000 families left welfare due to sanctions.62

Greenberg and colleagues note that families whosecases are closed due to sanctions are likely to have loweducation levels, little or no work history, and moreserious employment barriers.67

Little is known about the development and well-beingof children in poor families disconnected from benefits.But, as Primus notes in his commentary, many familieswho leave welfare without finding a job are flounder-ing. Indeed, evidence of hardship has been found insurveys of families who have left welfare. For example,two waves of families leaving welfare were interviewedin the National Survey of Americas Families, onegroup in 1997 and another in 1999. About half the

12



respondents in both groups said they have had to cutthe size of meals or skip them because they did nothave enough food in the past year. About 40% said theywere unable to pay the mortgage, rent, or utility billsat some point in the past year.68

In sum, fewer children are living in poverty; however,those children who are living in poverty are less likelyto be receiving the benefits they would have prior toreform. Many poor families are disconnected not justfrom welfare, but also from other supports they needto help make ends meet. At the same time, low-incomechildren are more likely now to be living in a homewith a male present. If that male is the father and notviolent, a child is likely to benefit, but more informa-tion is needed to understand who the cohabiting malesare and how they interact with these children. Finally,as more low-income mothers move into the workforce,their children are spending more time in nonmaternalor self-care. Time spent in structured programs can bepositive, but the quality of the program is key. Amongfamilies still receiving welfare, most are not involved inwork activities and little is known about how their chil-dren are faring.

Restructuring the Safety Net for Low-Income ChildrenWelfare programs and other supports focus primarilyon moving mothers from welfare to work. This may bea good first step, but it does not guarantee positiveoutcomes for children. Reauthorization of the federalwelfare reform law offers a critical opportunity to reex-amine the purpose and goals of the law in terms of pro-viding an effective safety net for low-income familiesand their children.

Before the economic downturn took hold in the fall of2001, a nationwide poll found that more than half ofthose surveyed viewed poverty as a big problem.69 Ofthose aware of the new welfare law, 61% thought it wasworking well, mostly because it requires people towork. At the same time, respondents voiced strongsupport for providing more assistance to help familiestrying to move off welfare into work. Large majoritiesof those surveyed said they supported expanding jobtraining programs (94%) and public employment(82%); improving public schools in low-income areas

(94%); increasing the minimum wage (85%) and taxcredits for low-income workers (80%); and expandingsubsidized day care (85%), medical care (83%), andhousing (75%). Especially now, as the economy slows,having strong supports in place for the families of low-wage workers and the unemployed is crucial.

What we have learned about how low-income childrenare faring in this new social policy landscape can pointto ways the safety net could be strengthened to offerthe greatest promise for improving childrens chancesto succeed in school and in life. Three key strategiesaddress what is most important for low-income chil-dren: helping families achieve an adequate standard ofliving, helping them provide stable and supportivehomes, and helping them access quality child care andafter-school programs and activities.

Adequate Family ResourcesA familys economic resources influence child well-being,because they are necessary to meet childrens basic needsfor food and shelter. In addition, a familys economicresources influence the quality of environments childrenexperience at home, in child care, at school, and in thecommunity. (See the articles by Huston and by Chase-Lansdale and Pittman.) Children in families with ade-quate resources tend to be healthier and to do better inschool; they are less likely to be involved in criminalbehavior and are more likely to graduate from highschool and to earn higher incomes as adults.70

Welfare-to-work programs that increase family incomeas well as employment have been shown to have thepotential to improve childrens academic progress and,to a lesser extent, their behavior. For example, subsidyprograms that increase economic resources in low-income working families by as little as $1,200 to$4,000 per year have been shown to have positiveimpacts on the development of preschool and elemen-tary-school-age children.71 Important steps needed tohelp low-income working families attain adequateresources include stronger efforts to connect them tosupport services and to help them find better jobs andmove up career ladders to higher wages.

Connecting Working Families to Support ServicesAs discussed in the article by Zedlewski, governmentsupports such as the EITC (which refunds a portion of


Volume 12, Number 1

earnings to low-income taxpayers), food stamps, healthinsurance, and subsidized health care and child care areessential to maintaining sufficient economic resourcesfor families earning low wages. Studies show that par-ticipation in the EITC is generally strong, with about85% of eligible families receiving the credit.72 But thesame is not true of other programs intended to helpmake work pay.

Many families who have left welfare are not usingother, nontax supports to augment their earnings. Forexample, one study found that 57% of families leavingwelfare were not receiving food stamps even thoughthey were eligible.73 Half the families with incomesbelow 50% of poverty were not receiving food stamps.Similar trends have been noted in Medicaid coverageand receipt of child care subsidies. In the Urban Insti-tute study of families leaving welfare between 1997and 1999, only 22% reported receiving governmenthelp in paying for child care after three months.74

As noted in Primuss commentary, when families arenot receiving welfare, they may be unaware of their eli-gibility for food stamps, Medicaid, child care assistance,and other supports. Blums commentary in this journalissue also notes that differences in income, assets, citi-zenship, and recertification standards create confusionand errors in determining the eligibility of families seek-ing benefits across various programs. In addition, serv-ices are often provided at times and in locations thatmake access difficult for low-income working families.Without extensive outreach and advocacy to addresssuch problems, available benefits may never reach manyeligible families. Programs adopted following the 1996law should be judged by their ability to restore andincrease participation among the working poor.

Recommendation

Welfare and other support programs should extend outreach effortsto ensure that low-income families who are no longer, or who neverhave been, on welfare receive the supports and services they needuntil they earn sufficient income to provide an adequate standard ofliving for their families.

Job Retention and AdvancementGetting a job and moving off welfare does not assurethat a family will have adequate economic resources.As discussed in the article by Zedlewski, even whenworking full time at a minimum wage job and receiv-ing all available supports, families do not have ade-quate resources. For example, the Urban Institutestudy of welfare leavers found that median monthlywages were $1,093 in 1999.68,75 According to studiesin eight states, the average monthly earnings of for-mer recipients during the first three months afterleaving welfare were even less, generally ranging fromabout $733 to $900.71

Some studies have found that at least half of familiesleaving welfare have fewer economic resources thanthey would have had if they had stayed on welfare.Many, in fact, end up returning to the rolls. In theUrban Institute study, for example, 29% of familiesleaving welfare between 1995 and 1997 returned towelfare, as did 22% of those leaving welfare between1997 and 1999.68

After mothers find work, they need supports to helpthem keep their jobs and increase their earnings. As ofOctober 1999, 34 states were providing case man-agement for at least some recipients who had foundjobs or who no longer received cash assistance.76 Gen-erally states provide postemployment support servic-es such as transportation aid, help in purchasing workclothes or tools, and payment of work-related fees. Itis unclear whether these efforts have actually helpedincrease steady work, however. Some evaluations havefound that they have no impact on how long familieskeep jobs or how much they earn.77

Sixteen states had policies to support employer-basededucation and training services to promote jobadvancement. But most of these efforts served only asmall number of families. Alternatively, some stateswere addressing the issue of job advancement byincreasing access to postsecondary education or train-ing that would enable unemployed parents to findbetter jobs.

The current welfare system rewards states for movingfamilies off the rolls, but not for ensuring that thosefamilies gain steady employment and earn an ade-

14



quate income. To encourage states to develop betterapproaches to helping families keep their jobs andincrease their earnings, an expansion of welfaresgoals is needed.

Recommendation

Welfare programs should expand their goals to include reducingpoverty and promoting family economic and child well-being. Jobretention and advancement services for low-income families shouldbe one of the strategies in support of this goal, and incentivesshould be provided to encourage development of more effectiveprograms.

In particular, a greater emphasis on education andtraining is warranted. Many families currently receiv-ing welfare could benefit from further education. In1999, more than 40% of adults on welfare had lessthan a high school education.78 As noted in the com-mentary by Haskins, many of the mothers now work-ing for around $7 per hour could earn more withadditional education and training.

Prior to reform, welfare programs had educationcomponents that focused on helping recipientsenhance their basic skills, but this approach demon-strated little success in moving families into higher-paying jobs.76 Largely as a result of these findings, the1996 law placed restrictions on education and train-ing as a work activity, and on the length of time fam-ilies could receive assistance. Under current rules, notmore than 30% of recipients being counted toward astates work participation rate can be participating ineducational activities for no more than 12 months,including teen parents still completing high school.Research suggests, however, that when combinedwith other activities such as job search or work itself,education can play an important role in helping fam-ilies find better jobs.76 Further, training for low-income parents who are between jobs is a wiseinvestment, especially during times of high unem-ployment.

In addition to improving a familys future earningpotential, maternal educational progress appears tobe linked to positive child outcomes.79 As noted inthe article by Chase-Lansdale and Pittman, parentswith higher education levels tend to display moreeffective parenting through a variety of behaviorswith positive implications for child outcomes.80 Pre-existing differences in mothers attributes, skills, andpersonalities likely influence both educational attain-ment and economic progress. Nevertheless, inZaslow and colleagues synthesis of findings fromevaluations of prereform welfare-to-work demonstra-tions, maternal educational progress tracked moreclosely with favorable child outcomes than did eco-nomic progressthat is, increased educational attain-ment more consistently resulted in positive childoutcomes than did increased family employment andincome. Perhaps seeing a parent go to school pro-vides an even better role model for children than see-ing a parent go to work. Taken together, thesefindings suggest that welfare programs could pro-mote more positive outcomes for children byenabling mothers to increase their education whilereceiving temporary cash assistance within establishedtime limits.

Recommendation

Restrictions that discourage welfare recipients from participating ineducation and training as their work activity should be liberalized.Welfare programs should enable mothers to continue with theirschooling past high school, and to enroll in other training and edu-cation programs to advance their careers.

Stable and Supportive HomesAlthough having adequate economic resources isimportant, a nurturing and secure home environ-ment, including the love and support of both biolog-ical parents, remains the most critical influence onyoung childrens adjustment and well-being, even forchildren who spend substantial time in child care.35

As described in the article by Huston, having the love


Volume 12, Number 1

and encouragement of adult family members andother adults who are mentally healthy, responsible,constant, and reliable is extremely important to chil-drens healthy development.

Lawmakers expected programs implemented underwelfare reform to have a positive influence on parent-ing and the home environment, primarily as a by-product of efforts to promote job preparation,employment, and marriage. In addition, many statesare using welfare funds to implement initiatives tar-geted directly at improving parenting, such as provid-ing home visits to new parents or requiring certainwelfare recipients to attend parenting classes.81

Although parenting behaviors are complex and diffi-cult to change, welfare programs can help strengthenfamily functioning and the home environment in var-ious ways depending on a familys circumstances. Dif-ferent approaches are required depending on whethera family is moving from welfare to work, or is strug-gling with barriers to employment. In many situations,greater involvement of fathers can be a key strategy forstrengthening families and promoting childrens well-being both financially and emotionally.

Flexible Work RequirementsIn families with a mother moving from welfare towork, parenting practices and the home environmentcould be affected by a change in family resources,family relationships, parents time at home, and par-ents personal sense of well-being. According toChase-Lansdale and Pittman, the limited available lit-erature on this topic indicates that, compared withunemployed single mothers, single mothers whochoose to work may provide a more cohesive, stimu-lating, and organized family environment, and maydo more to promote the value of education.82 Butother studies have found that mothers who wererequired to participate in welfare-to-work programsexperienced higher levels of depression and stressthan those who were not required to participate.83 Inevaluations of prereform welfare-to-work demonstra-tions, few impacts on parenting were identified. Oneprogram that did have positive impacts on parenting,however, was a version of the Minnesota FamilyInvestment Program that increased families employ-ment and income through earnings supplementswithout a mandatory work requirement.84 Mothers in

this program generally decided to work part time orreduce some work hours.

These findings, though limited, suggest that welfareprograms could strengthen families and promote pos-itive outcomes for children by allowing greater flexi-bility concerning part-time work for single mothers,and by stopping the time limit clock on welfare ben-efits while families are working at least part time, butnot earning enough to support themselves.

Recommendation

Welfare programs should provide sufficient supports to allow singlemothers greater flexibility concerning part-time work schedules,and should stop the clock on time-limited benefits while parents areworking either full or part time.

Addressing BarriersMany low-income families live on the edge, both eco-nomically and functionally. According to data fromthe National Survey of Americas Families in 1997and in 1999, about three-quarters of adults on wel-fare had at least one potential barrier to employment,including very poor mental or physical health, limitededucation, minimal work experience, or familyresponsibilities that limit their ability to work, such ascaring for an infant or a disabled child.78

When families are struggling with serious barrierssuch as substance abuse, maternal depression, anddomestic violencethe problems not only presentchallenges in getting and keeping jobs, they alsodetract from parents ability to provide stable andsupportive homes for their children. Estimates of thepercentage of welfare recipients with substance abuseproblems range from 16% to 37%.85 About 22% to28% are estimated to be suffering from very poormental health,78 and 10% to 31% to be coping withdomestic violence.86

Some of these families are exempt from work require-

16



ments, whereas others are not, since states policieson exemptions vary widely. But simply providing wel-fare and exempting families from work and time limitrequirements will not enable most families to over-come their problems, enter the workforce, and pro-vide stable and supportive homes for their children.The underlying conditions contributing to a familysprecarious situation must be addressed.

Often these underlying conditions are rooted in themothers own childhoods. Many low-income moth-ers have grown up in families that did not providegood models of positive family functioning. Theymay have experienced sexual and physical abuse.Among participants in a New Jersey welfare-to-workprogram, for example, 20% report having been sexu-ally molested as children.86 Other studies indicate thatthe proportion of teen mothers with histories of sex-ual and physical abuse may be as high as 68%.87 Thus,it should not be surprising that a large proportion ofmothers on welfare have scars from the past that con-tribute to their difficulties in coping with their com-plex lives, and may lead them to substance abuse orinvolvement in high-conflict relationships.

In 1997, Congress enacted the Welfare-to-Work pro-gram to support state and local efforts to help themost disadvantaged welfare recipients (as well as non-custodial parents) address specific problems affectingtheir employment prospects and move into the laborforce.78 Some states have begun implementing pro-grams to address families barriers to employment,but most serve only a small percentage of those need-ing help and little information is available on pro-gram outcomes and effectiveness. Most caseworkershave limited training or skills to identify families withbarriers.88

To deal more effectively with families struggling withserious difficulties, a restructuring of services may beneeded. As Anderson suggests in her commentary inthis journal issue, families coping with mental illnessor learning disabilities, for example, should be treat-ed and monitored by the mental health system or thedevelopmental disabilities system, not by welfare oremployment programs. This does not mean that suchfamilies should not be encouraged to move from wel-

fare to work, only that specialized systems are betterequipped to provide the supports that can enablethese families to find appropriate work situations.Such systems are also better able to help these fami-lies connect with long-term parenting supports thatmay continue to be needed even after their econom-ic situation improves.

Recommendation

Welfare programs should develop better strategies for identifyingand addressing the problems of families with serious barriers toemployment and healthy family functioning. Options that includeintegrating services with mental health systems and developmentaldisabilities systems should be explored.

Father InvolvementA large number of low-income children grow up inhomes with no father. In 2000, nearly half of all fami-lies living in poverty were headed by a female with nohusband present.89 Although many unmarried parentswork together to raise their children by cohabiting ormaintaining frequent contact, father involvement formost low-income families in this situation is not stableand tends to decline over time. Yet research in the lastdecade has pointed to the range of contributionsfathers can make in their childrens lives, both finan-cially and emotionally.90 Welfare programs and othersupport services could be restructured in various waysto promote greater inclusion and involvement of low-income fathers in their childrens lives.

For example, as discussed in the article by McLanahanand Carlson, most unmarried couples are closely con-nected to each other and invested in their new familywhen a baby is born. Thus, a window of opportunityexists around the time of birth to strengthen the con-nections between fathers and their children. In a studyof approximately 3,700 children born to unmarriedparents across the country in 2000, 99% of the newfathers who were interviewed expressed a desire to beinvolved in raising their children, and 93% of mothers


Volume 12, Number 1

said they wanted the father to be involved.91 Targetingfatherhood programs to unmarried fathers at the timeof a childs birth appears to offer the greatest promiseof successful involvement.

In addition, the chances for positive father involvementwould improve if a broader range of TANF services weretargeted to two-parent families and noncustodial par-ents, as noted in the commentary by Primus. For exam-ple, programs that provide employment opportunitiesfor fathers help increase their ability to pay child supportand also make them more appealing as marriage part-ners.92 More successful programs that teach men to begood fathers and reduce family violence are also needed.

Finally, reducing the marriage penalties in programsaimed at helping low-income familiesincluding wel-fare, food stamps, and Medicaid, as well as state andfederal EITCshas been noted as an important socie-tal signal and support for marriage. The way these pro-grams are currently structured, benefits generallydecrease as household income increases. Because mar-riage results in one combined household income, acouple could lose thousands of dollars a year in bene-fits compared with what they would be eligible toreceive if they each remained single.93

Recommendation

Programs serving low-income families should remove any marriagepenalties, and should provide services and benefits for fatherswithout reducing services and benefits for mothers.

Improving the child support system is also important,not only for increasing collections, but also for promot-ing more positive father involvement. Child support cansignificantly augment the wages of single-parent families.One study found that child support provided 14% of theincome for families with incomes below 150% of pover-ty who were not on welfare, and 35% of the incomeamong all families receiving some child support.94 Otherresearch found that $1,000 in child support was associ-

ated with higher grades and fewer school problemsamong children, and that child support income wasassociated with a larger gain in childrens well-being thanan identical amount of income from other sources.95

The positive effects of child support income are likelydue to the fact that fathers who pay child support alsotend to be more involved with their children.

Unfortunately, most poor children eligible for childsupport do not receive it. Child support is collected foronly 44% of families who have left welfare and 25% offamilies on welfare.96 In large part, low collection ratesare due to a lack of support orders. Unless an order isestablished, it cannot be enforced. Among familiesreceiving welfare in 2000, fewer than half had a sup-port order established.97 Increased efforts to establishsupport orders among low-income families is animportant first step to increasing collections.

Low collection rates also stem from the fact that manyfathers of poor children are themselves poor and havelimited ability to pay.98 Several demonstration projectswere undertaken in the 1980s and 1990s to improvefathers employment and earnings, but without muchsuccess, as discussed in the article by McLanahan andCarlson.99 More recently, nearly $2 billion in grantswere awarded in 1998 and 1999 through the Welfare-to-Work program to help move noncustodial parents(and other hard-to-serve populations) into unsubsi-dized jobs.100 As mentioned earlier, little information isavailable on the effectiveness of these programs, but anevaluation is under way.101

Beyond having few resources, fathers of children inwelfare families generally have little incentive to paychild support because, for the most part, it goes torepay welfare expenditures and not to increase familyincome. Only a small amount, if any, is passedthrough to the family.102 However, a demonstrationproject in Wisconsin allowed all support to be passedthrough to TANF families, and the project appears tohave had positive results. Noncustodial fathers partici-pating in the program were more likely to establishpaternity and pay support to their families, and familyconflict around child support was reduced.103

18



Recommendation

States should increase noncustodial parents ability to pay childsupport by replicating successful programs that help them, alongwith custodial parents, find employment and increase earnings.Also, to increase the incentives for paying child support, policiesshould be adopted to ensure that children benefit financially whenpayments are made, even if their families receive welfare.

High-Quality Child Care and After-School OptionsWelfare reform brought with it a clear mandate thatlow-income single mothers should work. An equallyclear mandate is needed that while their mothers are atwork, low-income children should have access to high-quality child care and after-school options in theirneighborhoods. Providing quality environments forchildren not only enables mothers to work, but it is alsoan opportunity to enhance childrens development andwell-being. As discussed earlier, studies show that poorchildren are especially likely to benefit from positiveexperiences in child care and after-school programs.

The increases in funding for child care since welfarereform have helped many low-income families affordhigher-quality options for their children. However, asdiscussed in the article by Fuller and colleagues, high-quality child care and after-school options for low-income families are often still constrained, both interms of cost and supply.

Despite funding increases, state studies show child caresubsidies are used by less than one-quarter of all eligiblefamilies.104 Data compiled by the U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services indicate that nationwide,of the 14.7 million children eligible to receive subsidiesin 1999, only 1.8, or 12%, received them.105 This per-centage does not include families participating in HeadStart or other state-funded preschool or child care pro-grams, but subsidy utilization rates, especially amongworking poor families, are still low. Although eligiblefor assistance, working poor families tend to have lessaccess to subsidies than families on or just leaving wel-fare, and the availability of high-quality programs inlow-income communities is uneven. Fuller and col-

leagues identify several barriers to use of subsidies andhigh-quality care, including state eligibility criteria,copayment policies, reimbursement rates, burdensomeadministrative processes, and lack of high-quality cen-ters in many low-income neighborhoods.

Though not eligible for child care subsidies, teens alsobenefit from participation in structured activities afterschool. Several studies have shown that participation intargeted prevention programs can reduce high-riskbehaviors among teenagers.106 For example, in four con-secutive annual evaluations, participants in the TeenOutreach Program, sponsored by the Association ofJunior Leagues International, were shown to be less like-ly than their nonparticipant peers to have experiencedeither pregnancy or school failure.107 An evaluation ofanother youth development program, the QuantumOpportunities Program, also found significant positiveeffects on economically disadvantaged high schoolyouths.108 A five-year study of this program at four sitesshowed that participants had better high school gradua-tion rates, higher enrollment in postsecondary educa-tion, lower teen pregnancy rates, and more communityinvolvement compared with those who did not partici-pate. A recent evaluation of the Childrens Aid Societymodel found similar results.109 In light of the initial neg-ative impacts found on teens whose mothers participatein welfare-to-work programs, additional investment inprograms for low-income youth may be warranted.

As low-income mothers move into the workforce andtheir children spend more time unsupervised or in childcare and after-school programs, those experiences havean increasingly important influence on childrens devel-opment and well-being. Low-income children of allages could benefit from increased access to high-quali-ty child care and after-school programs and activities.

Recommendation

Further efforts are needed at the federal, state, and local levels toexpand child care subsidy programs for working poor families, andto strengthen the supply of high-quality child care and after-schooloptions in low-income neighborhoods. Age-appropriate services areneeded for all age groups, from infants to teens.


Volume 12, Number 1

ConclusionWhat have we learned from welfare reform about howbest to help children in families that do not have thesupport of both parents and adequate income? The evi-dence is clear that moving mothers into jobs is a goodfirst step, but further efforts are needed to promotebetter outcomes for children.

First, working poor families need to stay connected tosupports, including job advancement and continuingeducation and training, to ensure that children haveadequate resources. An adequate income is importantto meeting childrens basic needs and enabling fami-lies to provide healthier learning environments forchildren both inside and outside the home. Welfareand other income support programs need to continueto provide services and supports to families after theyfind jobs to help them increase their earnings andescape poverty. Welfare programs should also allowsingle mothers to work more flexible, part-time hoursand pursue more education and training. Not onlywould this enhance a familys earning potential, butmaternal educational advancement also appears to fos-ter positive impacts on childrens school performanceand behavior. Such a strategy makes sense in the cur-rent economy, as finding and keeping low-wage jobsbecomes increasingly difficult.

Second, barriers to healthy family functioning andgreater father involvement need to be identified andaddressed to ensure that children have stable, support-ive homes. Many families are neither working nor par-ticipating in welfare-to-work programs for a variety ofreasons, and more families are likely to join their num-bers as the economy slows. Welfare programs need todevelop better strategies for identifying families withserious barriers to employment and healthy familyfunctioning, and to explore new ways of helping thesefamilies, such as by integrating services with mentalhealth and developmental disabilities systems. Welfareand other income support programs also need toencourage greater father involvement by engagingfathers soon after a childs birth, and by adopting moreeven-handed policies providing access to services andbenefits. Fathers, as well as mothers, need programs tohelp them find jobs and advance in their careers, and to

help them address their barriers to employment andpositive family functioning.

And third, children and teens need high-quality childcare and after-school activities in their neighborhoodsto ensure that the time they spend while their mothersare at work plays a positive role in their lives. For low-income children especially, such programs can providesafe havens and a range of opportunities to enhancetheir development. Welfare programs need to workwith child care agencies to expand access to child caresubsidies for working poor families, and to expand thesupply of high-quality options for children of all ages inlow-income communities.

For the nations welfare programs to improve the livesof low-income children, child well-being needs to be atop priority. This analysis has highlighted some of theways that current welfare programs could be restruc-tured to help promote healthier child developmentamong low-income families. As the economy weakensand more families are forced to go on welfare, morefunds will be needed for cash assistance and less will beavailable for some of the services described here as ben-eficial to children, such as programs to help familiesaddress barriers to positive family functioning as well asemployment; programs to promote father involve-ment; and programs to improve the quality of childcare, enrichment activities, and programs for teens.The present level of funding for welfare and other sup-port programs needs to be maintained, at a mini-mumand increased, if possibleto ensure that theprogress made since reform in restructuring programsto help families move from welfare to work is not lost,and that a strong safety net for poor families is in place.

The goal of welfare programs should be to reducepoverty among families with children. Ending depend-ence on benefits should be the result of achieving thisgoal, not be the goal itself. Otherwise, programs willsucceed only in moving families off the rolls, not inhelping them escape poverty or improve their chil-drensand societyschance for a brighter future.

Margie K. Shields, M.P.A.Richard E. Behrman, M.D.

20



Special thanks to Kristin Moore, Mark Greenberg,and Sheila Zedlewski for their insightful commentsand support throughout the development of thisanalysis.


1. See, for example, previous issues of The Future of Children onchildren and divorce (Spring 1994) 4(1); children and poverty(Summer/Fall 1997) 7(2); and domestic violence and children(Winter 1999) 9(3). See also various articles describing thedecade in review in Journal of Marriage and the Family (Novem-ber 2000) 62(4).

2. Bumpass, L., and Raley, K. Redefining single-parent families:Cohabitation and changing family reality. Demography (1995)32(1):97109.

3. Duncan, G.J., and Rodgers, W.L. Longitudinal aspects of child-hood poverty. Journal of Marriage and the Family (November1988) 50:100721.

4. Under the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS)program, some families receiving welfare were required to partici-pate in work activities, and those who participated were eligiblefor child care assistance. See the article by Fuller and colleagues inthis journal issue.

5. U.S. General Accounting Office. Supplemental Security Income:Progress made in implementing welfare reform changes; more actionneeded. GAO-HEHS-99-103. Washington, DC: GAO, 1999.

6. 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.

7. See the article by Greenberg and colleagues in this journal issue.

8. The expansion of government programs that provide health insur-ance coverage, such as the State Childrens Health Insurance Pro-gram (SCHIP), is important for low-income families, who oftenwork in low-paying jobs with no employer-provided benefits, andwho otherwise might stay on welfare to maintain their health cov-erage through Medicaid.

9. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ACF data andstatistics: U.S. welfare caseloads information. Washington, DC:DHHS, August 2001. Available online athttp://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats.

10. Geen, R., Fender, L., Leos-Urbel, J., and Markowitz, T. Welfarereforms effect on child welfare caseloads. Assessing the New Feder-alism Discussion Paper No. 01-04. Washington, DC: Urban Insti-tute, February 2001.

11. Dalaker, J. Poverty in the United States: 200

10.1.1.193.6844

Documents