Upload
edith-fitzgerald
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Event Sponsored by the New America Foundation
WORKING FAMILIES AND GROWING WORKING FAMILIES AND GROWING KIDSKIDS::
BEYOND RHETORIC – BEYOND RHETORIC – POLICY SOLUTIONS THAT SUPPORT POLICY SOLUTIONS THAT SUPPORT WORKING FAMILIES AND CHILDRENWORKING FAMILIES AND CHILDREN
A Discussion with A Discussion with Researchers from the Researchers from the National Research National Research Council's new publication:Council's new publication:
Working Families and Working Families and Growing Kids-Caring for Growing Kids-Caring for Children and AdolescentsChildren and Adolescents
Report Overview
Jennifer GootmanNational Academy of Sciences
Presented at the Congressional briefing on Work and Family Policies and Child
Development
Dirksen Senate Building, Room 562
May 14, 2004
Committee on Family and Committee on Family and Work PoliciesWork Policies
Eugene Smolensky (Chair), University of California, Berkeley
Suzanne Bianchi, University of Maryland, College Park
David Blau, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Francine Jacobs, Tufts University
Robin Jarrett, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Donna Klein, Marriott International
Sanders Korenman, Baruch College
Joan Lombardi, The Children’s Project
Joseph Mahoney, Yale University
Harriett Presser, University of Maryland, College Park
Gary Sandefur, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Deborah Vandell, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Jane Waldfogel, Columbia University
Hirokazu Yoshikawa, New York University
Martha Zaslow, Child Trends
BackgroundBackground
• From Neurons to Neighborhoods (2000)
• Community Programs to Promote Youth Development (2001)
Pivotal Federal Pivotal Federal LegislationLegislation
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)• 1993• Established rights of certain workers to job-
protected leave
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)
• 1996• TANF provisions made cash assistance for
poor families contingent on employment or participation in activities to prepare for work
Work Patterns and Effects of Maternal
EmploymentDr. Martha Zaslow
Child [email protected]
Presented at the Congressional briefing on Work and Family Policies and Child
Development
Dirksen Senate Building, Room 562
May 14, 2004
Committee FocusCommittee Focus
• Low-income families
• Working mothers
FindingFinding
• More Children Have Employed Parents
Maternal Workforce Maternal Workforce ParticipationParticipation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Perc
ent
Em
plo
yed
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
FindingsFindings
• Access to Paid Parental Leave Is Limited
• Children and Adolescents Spend Significant Time in Nonparental Care
FindingsFindings
• Opportunities for Care for Adolescents Are Limited
• Quality of Care Matters
• Much Child Care Is Not of High Quality or Developmentally Beneficial
Implications of Work and Implications of Work and Care TrendsCare Trends
• Employment can be neutral or beneficial
• Employment can be negative under certain circumstances
Federal Work and Family Policies and the
Development of Children
Dr. Hirokazu YoshikawaNew York University
Presented at the Congressional briefing on Work and Family Policies and Child Development
Dirksen Senate Building, Room 562May 14, 2004
Policies Covered
I. Policies that require work (TANF)II. Tax policies that require work as
a condition of receiving benefits (EITC, other tax credits)
III. Policies that provide job-protected family leave to employees (FMLA)
IV. Child care policies
I. Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families(TANF)
TANF: Description• 1996: Replaced welfare entitlement (AFDC)
with block grants to states; significant state control.
• Required states to ensure that recipients engage in work and work-related activities.
• Cumulative 60-month limit on federal assistance, with some exemptions permitted to states.
• Made legal immigrants ineligible for TANF during their first 5 years in the U.S.
TANF: Effects on Parents
• Best evidence: increased rates of employment among recipients.
• Little evidence on effects on income, though existing studies suggest small increases.
• A majority of former recipients are working (average 2/3 across studies).
• Most earn between $6.50 and $8.50 an hour (13K – 17K / year).
TANF: Effects on Children and Adolescents
• No direct evidence. But data from 16 experiments testing state welfare programs just prior to 1996.
• Programs of three types:– Those that simply mandate employment. – Those that provide additional income when parents
increase their work effort (earnings supplement programs).
– Those that imposed time limits on welfare receipt. • Of these program types, only earnings supplement
programs improve children’s school performance and reduce their acting-out behaviors. No effects for other types.
• Earnings supplement programs increase income to a greater degree than most current state TANF programs.
How Earnings Supplement Programs Help Families Become Self-Sufficient
• Marissa is an unmarried mother of two in her early twenties. At the time that she signed up for the New Hope program, she was working part-time in a pharmacy. “When I started making more money, it [the earnings supplement] started coming down. OK, you know, I’m getting up there on my own.” The earnings supplement was key to her ability to reach self-sufficiency. Marissa says bluntly of the program, “I could not be where I am without New Hope.” (Gibson & Weisner, 2002)
II. Tax Policies Requiring Work as a Condition of
Benefit Receipt
Tax Policies Requiring Work as a Condition of
Receipt• Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit ($2.8 billion
in 2000). • Dependent Care Assistance Program ($2.7 billion
in 1999). • Both provide funds for working families to meet
child care expenses. – CDCTC – provides up to $3,000 of child care
expenses for 1 child, $6,000 for 2 children. – DCAP – makes portion of earned income tax
exempt• Neither program is refundable. No benefits to
families with incomes too low to pay taxes (e.g., below $15,000 a year for single mother with 2 children).
Tax Policies Requiring Work as a Condition of
Receipt• Earned Income Tax Credit ($32 billion in 2001;
86% of eligible tax filers covered). • Refundable tax credit providing up to $4,140 (for
family with 2 or more children); nearly all receive as lump sum instead of monthly.
• Single-parent families with incomes between $10,350 and $13,550 eligible for maximum (gradual phase-in below, and phase-out above to $33,178). Slightly higher phase-out for 2-parent families.
• 15 states + DC give additional state tax credits.
Tax Policies: EITC and Effects on Parents and
Children
• EITC results in increases in single mothers’ employment rates.
• Expansion of the EITC was responsible for more than half of drop in child poverty between 1993 and 1997.
• Majority of EITC recipients appear to prioritize spending the “tax check” on children (Romich & Weisner, 2002):
“When my taxes come…then I’ll take the kids shopping because my kids really need to go shopping,especially [my older son]. He has no clothes. He needsclothes…I can’t send my son to school like this. I need to goshopping for him really bad.”
III. Family Leave Policies
Family Leave Policies
• The 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)• 12 weeks of unpaid leave, for workers who
have worked 1,250 hours or more in past year, but only in firms with 50 or more employees.
• Only 60% of private sector employees eligible, only 45% actually receive it.
• Young, less educated, and lower-income employees least likely to be covered by FMLA.
• Less than 5% of employees in the U.S. have access to paid leave.
FMLA: Effects on Parents
and Children• Mothers in America return to work much more
quickly after birth than those in other comparable countries.
• Among 11 comparable countries, US leave policy is the shortest in duration, and only one that is unpaid.
• Of concern: Newborns whose mothers return to work full-time within 12 weeks later show lower levels of cognitive development (Waldfogel, Han, & Brooks-Gunn, 2002).
IV. Child Care Policies: (Head Start,
Child Care Development Fund,TANF-provided child care,
Out-of-School Care)
Head Start / Early Head Start
• Still in most places a part-day program.
• Much more for 4-year-olds than 0 to 3. • Higher classroom quality, smaller classes
than non-Head Start preschools in U.S.
• But reaches only about 50 percent of those eligible.
Child Care Development Fund
(CCDF)• $7.9 billion in 2001• Children under 13 of working parents.• Lower-income (max 85% of state median)• Certificates (vouchers) and contracts with
providers.• Any legal child care provider (licensed or
unlicensed).• Health and safety requirements.• 4% set-aside for quality improvement.• Reimbursement rates flexible but supposed to be
>=75th percentile of market rates. But most states set this lower – resulting in lower quality.
TANF-funded Child Care
• Total $3.7 billion, 2001 • Some of these funds ($2.0 billion in 2001)
transferred to CCDF (Schumacher & Rakpraja, CLASP)
• But if not, CCDF rules for quality, health, and safety do not apply
• Uncertainty about future of TANF, and priorities for spending within TANF, render long-term child care planning with these dollars difficult.
State Child Care Regulations• Child care regulations monitor health and
safety, not full spectrum of what child care researchers call quality.
• Regulations vary; settings they apply to vary; monitoring varies.
Out-of-School Care• 21st-Century Community Learning Centers
($1 billion in 2002): only 6 to 14 year olds.• Federal and state funding for out-of-school
care piecemeal (National Research Council, 2002).
Effects of Child Care Policies on Families and
Children• Head Start shows positive effects on immunization
rates, health care, child cognitive school readiness. • Child care subsidies – predict higher employment and
school enrollment.• Stricter state child care regulations associated with
higher child care quality, and better child development. • Proven, successful efforts to improve child care quality
(staff training, pay, monitoring and rating systems), but in only few states.
• After-school programs with adequate adult supervision, structured activities show positive effects on adolescent school performance.
Future Directions and Policy Options
Dr. Joan LombardiThe Children’s Project
Presented at the Congressional briefing on Work and Family Policies and Child Development
Dirksen Senate Building, Room 562May 14, 2004
Primary GoalPrimary Goal
• Improve the Quality of Care for Children and Adolescents in Working Families
Policy OptionsPolicy Options• Expand and Increase Access to Head Start and Early Head
Start• Expand Prekindergarten and Other Early Education Programs
Delivered in Community-Based Child Care Programs.• Expand Child Care Subsidies Through Quality-Related
Vouchers• Increase the Availability, Hours, and Quality of After-School
Programs
Policy OptionsPolicy Options• Improve Parents’ Ability to Take Leave After the Birth of a
Child, Especially Among Low-Income Parents
• Discourage the Practice of Requiring Mothers on Welfare to Return to Work Early or Full Time
• Expand Coverage of the Family and Medical Leave Act
Research NeedsResearch Needs
• Collect National Data on Process Quality
SummarySummary• More mothers are working. • Children and adolescents are spending
significant time in nonparental care. • Quality of care matters—it can either
promote or deter healthy development.• Care is not always high quality. • Parents need supports for taking time to care
for children, especially in the first year of life.
Primary Goal: Improve the quality of care for children and adolescents in working families.
For more information and copies of the report visit
www.nap.edu