economic paper 2
flyingpig
coursematerial5.pdf
2 Anti-Poverty Policies
and Programs for Children and Families
Trina R. Williams Shanks
Sandra K. Danziger
Poverty is acknowledged as a risk factor for many problems experi-enced by children and youth. Evidence from various disciplines indi- cates that children growing up in low-income households experience social and health conditions that place them at risk for later academic, employment, and behavioral problems (Conley, 1999; Davis-Kean, 2005; Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Guo & Harris, 2000; McLoyd, 1998; Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley, 2002; Williams Shanks, Kim, Loke, & Destin, 2010). Indeed, the detrimental influence of poverty is apparent in all of the substantive policy areas discussed in this book.
25
AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors would like to thank Megan Gilster for her diligent research assistance in preparing this chapter.
Children are poor because they reside in households and/or communi- ties that are poor. Thus, a principal goal of anti-poverty policies is to break the link between poor resources of parents or caregivers and adverse child outcomes. To achieve this goal, some anti-poverty policies and programs provide material support to parents. Other anti-poverty initia- tives offer resources and opportunities directly to children. Evidence sug- gests that the specific targets of social policy should not be an “either-or” proposition or strategy. That is, studies show that it is important to both support low-income parents and promote child well-being (Waldfogel, 2006; Waters Boots, Macomber, & Danziger, 2008). In this chapter, we examine risk and protective factors associated with
childhood and adolescent poverty. Major income assistance and income maintenance policies for children and families are reviewed. Trends in anti-poverty policy are noted; particular emphasis is paid to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. We con- clude with a brief discussion of how American social policies aimed at ameliorating childhood poverty compare to approaches in other industri- alized countries. Finally, policy and program directives that may help improve the integration of services and promote positive outcomes for children and families are identified.
Prevalence and Trends in Poverty
The debate about the best way to measure poverty is long and ongoing (Blank, 2008; Couch & Pirog, 2010). To bring some unity to the study of poverty, the U.S. Census Bureau in the 1960s established income thresh- olds to determine whether a household is officially poor. These thresh- olds are updated annually. As shown in Figure 2.1, child poverty rates reached a low during the 1960s. Since the 1970s, child poverty rates have fluctuated with periodic increases and decreases in the last three decades. Nearly 23% of all children under the age of 18 lived in poverty in 1993. Poverty rates declined between 1993 and 2002 but have increased slightly in the past several years. About 19% of children lived in poverty in 2008. However, the average poverty rate hides considerable variation by race
and ethnicity. Black and Hispanic children are twice as likely to be poor compared with Asian and White children. As shown in Figure 2.2, children residing in female-headed households experience poverty at four times the rate of all other households.
26 SOCIALPOLICY FOR CHILDRENAND FAMILIES
Chapter 2 Anti-Poverty Policies and Programs for Children and Families 27
2010 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
P e rc
e n
t in
p o
v e rt
y
Total Hispanic Asian White Black
Figure 2.1 Child Poverty Rates in the United States by Race and Ethnicity, 1960–2009
20101965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Female headed households All other housholds
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Figure 2.2 Child Poverty Rates by Household Type, 1960–2009
In spite of the widespread use of the Census Bureau definition, the measurement of poverty continues to be debated. Critics charge that the majority of surveys that measure income flows into a household miss an important aspect of a household’s financial situation because they fail to consider family assets. For example, a family with housing equity, savings, and investments is in a better situation and has more favorable long-term prospects than a family of equal income but no assets. Although there is no official means to assess assets, researchers have developed ways to cal- culate it by using household net worth (Brandolini, Magri, & Smeeding, 2010; Haveman & Wolff, 2004; Shapiro, Oliver, & Meschede, 2009) Data reflecting household net worth reveal that racial and ethnic dis-
parities in assets are even greater than disparities in income (Lui, Robles, Leondar-Wright, Brewer, & Adamson, 2006; Oliver & Shapiro, 1995; Shapiro, 2004). As shown in Figure 2.3, Black and Hispanic house- holds own between an eighth and a tenth, respectively, of the median net worth of White households. Furthermore, as depicted in Figure 2.4, households with children are most likely to be asset poor. In fact, female-headed households with children had asset poverty rates as high as 70% in 2001.
28 SOCIALPOLICY FOR CHILDRENAND FAMILIES
1983 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007
Total Population Whites
Blacks Hispanics
Figure 2.3 Median Household Net Worth by Race and Ethnicity, 1983–2007
Poverty is also viewed commonly at the neighborhood or community level. Neighborhood poverty refers to the spatial concentration of poor households in neighborhoods, which are measured by census tracts. Generally, a poor neighborhood is one in which 20% to 40% of residents live below the poverty line. The concentration of the poor in metropolitan areas of the United States increased dramatically between 1970 and 1990. As shown in Figure 2.5, the number of people living in poor neighbor- hoods and the number of poor neighborhoods nearly doubled during this time (Jargowsky, 1997). It appears that two main macroeconomic changes contributed to the
shifting spatial distribution of poor families. First, a decline in manufactur- ing markets negatively impacted inner cities and resulted in an increase in urban poverty rates. Second, factors such as discrimination in the housing and lending markets and rapid suburban development increased racial and socioeconomic segregation such that inner-city neighborhoods
Chapter 2 Anti-Poverty Policies and Programs for Children and Families 29
0
20
10
30
50
70
40
60
80
A s s e t
P o
v e rt
y R
a te
1983 1992 2001
Married with children Married, no children
Female head with children
Figure 2.4 Liquid Asset Poverty Rate by Household Type (for household heads under age 65)
became predominantly Black and poor (Jargowsky, 1997; Massey & Denton, 1993). The 1990s were also characterized by an increase in the sub- urbanization of neighborhood poverty. That is, although poverty declined in all other areas, rates of suburban poverty experienced almost no change (Jargowsky, 2003; Kingsley & Pettit, 2007). The decline in neighborhood poverty between 1990 and 2000 may be
explained by neighborhood fluctuations in moderate, high, and extreme poverty rates (Kingsley & Pettit, 2007) and by decreases in overall poverty caused by the improving economy of the late 1990s (Jargowsky, 2003). Figure 2.5 also shows that the percentage of the population in high- poverty neighborhoods has declined in the past decade. However, the number of poor census tracts in 2000 still exceeds the number in 1980. Recent evidence suggests that the economic decline since 2000 has led to a new increase in poverty—both nationally and in isolated neighborhood settings. Suburban poverty has continued to grow, especially in western
30 SOCIALPOLICY FOR CHILDRENAND FAMILIES
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1980 1990 2000
Number of tractsPercent of total population
Percent of poor population
Figure 2.5 Number of Poor Census Tracts and Percent of Population Living in Poor Tracts
and Sun Belt states (Kneebone, 2009), and neighborhood poverty has also increased in midwestern cities and suburbs in recent years (Kneebone & Garr, 2010). Neighborhood poverty is experienced at much higher rates among
people of color; this disparity is most evident among children (Jargowsky, 2003; Sharkey, 2009). Only 1% of White children born between 1955 and 1970 lived in poor neighborhoods whereas 29% of Black children born during this time lived in poor neighborhoods at some point in their child- hood. About 31% of Black children born between 1985 and 2000 experi- enced neighborhood poverty (Sharkey). Inequality and poverty in neighborhood contexts for children expose them to serious risks that often compromise normal and healthy development.
Poverty, Risk, and Protection
Poverty stems from interpersonal, social, and environmental factors that occur at all levels of a child’s life (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In Figure 2.6, we depict the increasingly wide spheres of influence related to the onset, per- sistence, and consequences of poverty. Clearly, efforts to prevent or reduce poverty should include state and federal policies and programs that target each of these levels. We discuss interpersonal, social, and envi- ronmental risk and protective factors associated with poverty in the fol- lowing section.
Interpersonal and Social Risk Factors
Material hardships such as food insufficiency, unstable housing, and lack of basic health care are consistently associated with poverty. Material hard- ship is particularly important because it adversely affects many aspects of child development. In 1999, findings from a national sample of children revealed that 23% of families below the federal poverty level had experi- enced food insecurity (they were unable to afford balanced meals, cut the size of meals, or had too little money for food) in the past year (Gershoff, 2003). A 2006 survey revealed that 25% of children in families with income below the poverty level had experienced food insecurity in the past year (Nord, 2009). Qualitative researchers have detailed the many stressors and nega- tive outcomes experienced by children residing in low-income families that are trying to meet basic needs (Edin & Lein, 1998; Newman, 1999). Parenting practices and behaviors created as a result of economic strain and
Chapter 2 Anti-Poverty Policies and Programs for Children and Families 31
material hardship also indirectly affect children. Conger and colleagues (1991) have proposed a family process model that considers the influence of a family’s economic problems and parental depression on child and youth development. In this model, a mother’s and father’s depression is hypothe- sized to increase marriage hostility and decrease nurturing and involved parenting (Conger et al., 1991; Conger et al., 2002). Studies have also found that material hardship and financial stress are related to low self-esteem, less sense of control over one’s life, and feelings of helplessness among parents, which in turn adversely affects their ability to use effective parent- ing skills (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Conger & Donnellan, 2007; Gershoff, Aber, Raver, & Lennon, 2007; McLoyd, 1990, 1998). Parent and family investment in children’s education and development—
including educational materials in the home, engagement with school, and
32 SOCIALPOLICY FOR CHILDRENAND FAMILIES
Policies
Institutions
Locality
Community
Home
Family
Child
Figure 2.6 Circles of Influence on Childhood Family Poverty
NOTE.Adapted from Bronfenbrenner (1979).
facilitation of extracurricular activities—is another way in which poverty influences child development. Mayer (1997) found that parental education, attitudes, and behaviors were more important in explaining child out- comes than income, once basic material needs are met (Mayer, 1997). Cognitive stimulation in the home both in terms of the availability of learn- ing materials and parental teaching and conversations is correlated with household income and is predictive of positive educational outcomes and fewer behavior problems (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002, 2003; Guo & Harris, 2000; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). A positive home environment is espe- cially important for children’s academic growth during the summer, when school resources are not available (Downey, von Hippel, & Broh, 2004; Entwisle &Alexander, 1992). Clearly, poor parents often lack the resources, skills, and opportunities to help their children succeed in school. Recent findings from investigators interested in promoting asset-based
policies suggest that a family’s assets offer protection for children, partic- ularly those residing in low-income households (Williams Shanks et al., 2010). Assets appear to operate as an important protective factor in rela- tion to standardized test scores, school performance, and certain types of antisocial conduct and behavior problems (Conley, 1999; Orr, 2003; Williams Shanks, 2007). Equally important, studies have found positive relationships between household assets and children’s academic out- comes across racial groups (Williams Shanks & Destin, 2009) and among female-headed households (Zhan, 2006; Zhan & Sherraden, 2003).
Environmental Risks
Wilson (1987, 2009) has suggested that concentrated neighborhood poverty isolates poor residents and limits their exposure to positive role models, employment networks, and community resources. A large body of research has examined the direct and indirect effects of neigh- borhood poverty on various child and adolescent outcomes (Harding, 2003; Hart, Atkins, & Matsuba, 2008; Kling, Ludwig, & Katz, 2005; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Pachter, Auinger, Palmer, & Weitzman, 2006). Many investigators have emphasized the significant and adverse effect of limited local resources and opportunities on children’s devel- opment. Poor neighborhoods tend to lack quality institutions and social services (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Sampson et al., 2002). Children growing up in poor neighborhoods witness frequent acts of violence and experience considerable chaos, disorder, and isolation.
Chapter 2 Anti-Poverty Policies and Programs for Children and Families 33
In such communities, parents’ stress levels as they struggle to cope with limited resources may negatively affect developmental outcomes (Klebenov, Brooks-Gunn, & Duncan, 1994; Kohen, Leventhal, Dahinten, & McIntosh, 2008; McLoyd, 1998). In sum, children and families living in poor neighborhoods are doubly
disadvantaged by frequent exposure to numerous interpersonal, social, and environmental risk factors. These factors interact in complex ways and lead to a number of adverse outcomes for children. Youth exposed to neighborhood and household poverty encounter negative influences and antisocial environments that place them at risk for a number of adverse individual and social outcomes. These risks are particularly influential during early childhood (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Policies and programs such as asset building and income support, which target the upstream economic strain of poverty, along with initiatives to enhance parenting skills and home environments, which intervene in the down- stream processes of social disadvantage, are necessary to set a course for children to escape poverty. While it is important that interventions take place during early childhood, it is also crucial to develop and sustain policies and programs aimed at reducing risk and fostering resilience across the life course.
Anti-Poverty Policies and Programs
The United States has never instituted a comprehensive federal response to child poverty. In fact, no federal role in cash aid to poor children and families existed prior to 1935; only assistance from state, local, and private charities was available. Even today, with an array of federal anti-poverty programs, no policy or program reaches everyone who is eligible. The first federal welfare program, Aid to Dependent Children, was
part of the 1935 Social Security Act. The name of the program changed at mid-century to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). The text box in this chapter summarizes changes in this program over time (Danziger, 2010). Table 2.1 provides an overview of some of the other major federal programs that offer support for basic needs of low-income children; funding levels for major anti-poverty programs between 1960 and 2009 are shown in Figure 2.7. Although critically important to child well-being, we exclude health insurance, medical care, and educational programs because these topics are covered in other chapters.
34 SOCIALPOLICY FOR CHILDRENAND FAMILIES
35
P ro g ra m
W h en
B eg an
P ar ti ci p at io n
(F Y 20 09 )
P er ce n ta g e
o f E li g ib le
S er v ed
a E li g ib il it y
P u rp o se
(a n d si te fo r fu rt h er
in fo rm
at io n )
D is cr et io n ar y /
E n ti tl em
en t
Su b si d iz ed
H o u si n g
19 37
2. 34 m il li o n
fa m il ie s
9% b
V er y lo w in co m e
fa m il ie s. In co m e
li m it s v ar y fr o m
H o u si n g
A u th o ri ty A re a.
Su b si d iz ed
h o u si n g u n it s
lo ca te d in b u il d in g s th at ar e
p u b li cl y m an ag ed
(i .e ., p u b li c
h o u si n g ) o r p ri v at el y o w n ed
an d m an ag ed
u n d er
g o v er n m en tc o n tr ac ts .
h tt p :/ / p or ta l.h u d .g ov / p or ta l/
p ag e/ p o rt al / H U D / to p ic s/
re n ta l_ as si st an ce / p h p ro g
D is cr et io n ar y
Su p p le m en ta l
N u tr it io n
A ss is ta n ce P ro g ra m
(S N A P )
19 64
33 .7 0 m il li o n
p eo p le
66 %
G ro ss m o n th ly
in co m e < 13 0%
F ed er al P o v er ty
le v el (F P L ). N et
m o n th ly in co m e
< 10 0%
F P L .
P ro v id es p o o r fa m il ie s w it h
as si st an ce p u rc h as in g fo o d
th ey
n ee d .h tt p :/ / w w w .f n s
.u sd a. g o v / sn ap
E n ti tl em
en t
W o m en ,I n fa n ts ,
an d C h il d re n (W
IC )
19 72
9. 10 m il li o n
w o m en
an d
ch il d re n
59 %
St at es se ti n co m e
el ig ib il it y
(b et w ee n 18 5%
an d 10 0%
F P L )
an d n u tr it io n ri sk
el ig ib il it y.
P ro v id es fo o d ,h ea lt h ca re
re fe rr al s, an d n u tr it io n
ed u ca ti o n fo r lo w -i n co m e
p re g n an ta n d p o st p ar tu m
w o m en
an d to in fa n ts an d
ch il d re n u p to ag e fi v e.
h tt p :/ / w w w .f n s. u sd a
.g o v / w ic
D is cr et io n ar y
T ab le 2. 1
C h ar ac te ri st ic s o f C u rr en tF ed er al A n ti -P o v er ty P ro g ra m s
(C on ti n u ed )
36
P ro g ra m
W h en
B eg an
P ar ti ci p at io n
(F Y 20 09 )
P er ce n ta g e
o f E li g ib le
S er v ed
a E li g ib il it y
P u rp o se
(a n d si te fo r fu rt h er
in fo rm
at io n )
D is cr et io n ar y /
E n ti tl em
en t
Su p p le m en ta l
Se cu ri ty In co m e
(S SI )
19 74
7. 52 m il li o n
p eo p le (i n
20 08 )
68 %
A g e 65 o r o ld er ,
o r b li n d , o r
d is ab le d an d
li m it ed
in co m e
an d re so u rc es
(e .g ., m o n th ly
in co m e < $6 74
an d re so u rc es
< $2 ,0 00 fo r a
si n g le p er so n ).
In co m e as si st an ce fo r ag ed ,
b li n d ,a n d d is ab le d p eo p le ,
w h o h av e li tt le o r n o in co m e.
h tt p :/ / w w w .s o ci al se cu ri ty
.g o v / ss i
E n ti tl em
en t
Se ct io n 8
19 74
1. 97 m il li o n
fa m il ie s
15 %
b H o u se h o ld
in co m e u p to
80 % o f th e ar ea
m ed ia n .
A h o u si n g v o u ch er s p ro g ra m
th at al lo w s p ar ti ci p an ts to re n t
p ri v at el y o w n ed
re si d en ce s
fr o m p ar ti ci p at in g o w n er s.
R en te rs p ay
30 % o f fa m il y
in co m e to w ar d h o u si n g co st s.
h tt p :/ / p or ta l.h u d .g ov / p or ta l/
p ag e/ p o rt al / H U D / to p ic s/
re n ta l_ as si st an ce
h tt p :/ / p or ta l.h u d .g ov / p or ta l/
p ag e/ p o rt al / H U D / to p ic s/
h o u si n g _c h o ic e_ v o u ch er _
p ro g ra m _s ec ti o n _8
D is cr et io n ar y
T ab le 2. 1 (C o n ti n u ed )
37
P ro g ra m
W h en
B eg an
P ar ti ci p at io n
(F Y 20 09 )
P er ce n ta g e
o f E li g ib le
S er v ed
a E li g ib il it y
P u rp o se
(a n d si te fo r fu rt h er
in fo rm
at io n )
D is cr et io n ar y /
E n ti tl em
en t
E ar n ed
In co m e Ta x
C re d it (E IT C )
19 75
24 .5 8 m il li o n
h o u se h o ld s
(i n 20 07 )
86 %
In co m e li m it s
b as ed
o n fa m il y
si ze (e .g .,
< $4 8, 27 9 fo r
m ar ri ed
fi li n g
jo in tl y w it h 3+
ch il d re n ).
A re fu n d ab le ta x cr ed it to
lo w -i n co m e w o rk er s
(e sp ec ia ll y ta rg et ed
at th o se
w it h q u al if y in g ,d ep en d en t
ch il d re n ). h tt p :/ / w w w .e it c
.i rs .g o v
E n ti tl em
en t
H o p e V I
19 93
Se e
su b si d iz ed
h o u si n g .
Se e
su b si d iz ed
h o u si n g .
C u rr en tr es id en ts
o f p u b li c h o u si n g
ar e af fe ct ed / n ew
h o u si n g is o p en
to th o se
re si d en ts ,o th er
lo w in co m e, an d
m o d er at e in co m e
fa m il ie s.
R ed ev el o p m en t o f la rg e- sc al e
p u b li c h o u si n g si te s to cr ea te
m ix ed
in co m e h o u si n g in
o rd er to d e- co n ce n tr at e
p o v er ty . h tt p :/ / w w w .h u d
.g o v / h o p ev i
D is cr et io n ar y
C h il d C ar e an d
D ev el o p m en tB lo ck
G ra n t( C C D B G )
19 96
1. 71 m il li o n
ch il d re n in
.9 9 m il li o n
fa m il ie s (i n
20 07 )c
20 %
d St at es d et er m in e
in co m e an d w o rk
st at u s el ig ib il it y.
C h il d ca re v o u ch er s p ro v id ed
to fa m il ie s w h o ch o o se th e
ty p e o f ca re (i n cl u d in g fo rm
al ce n te rs ,f am
il y ca re h o m es ,
re la ti v e ca re ,a n d ca re b y
n o n re la ti v es ).
D is cr et io n ar y
(C on ti n u ed )
38
a. So u rc e fo r p ar ti ci p at io n ra te s if n o to th er w is e n o te d :W
at er s B o o ts (2 01 0) .
b .U
.S .H
o u se o f R ep re se n ta ti v es (2 00 8) .
c. N at io n al A ss o ci at io n o f C h il d C ar e R es o u rc e an d R ef er ra lA
g en ci es (2 01 0) .
d .S o ci al P o li cy R es ea rc h A ss o ci at es (2 01 0) .
e. Tu rn er an d K in g sl ey
(2 00 8) .
P ro g ra m
W h en
B eg an
P ar ti ci p at io n
(F Y 20 09 )
P er ce n ta g e
o f E li g ib le
S er v ed
a E li g ib il it y
P u rp o se
(a n d si te fo r fu rt h er
in fo rm
at io n )
D is cr et io n ar y /
E n ti tl em
en t
Te m p o ra ry
A ss is ta n ce to
N ee d y F am
il ie s
(T A N F )
19 96
4. 03 m il li o n
p eo p le
40 %
St at es d et er m in e
el ig ib il it y o f
fa m il ie s w it h
ch il d re n .
C as h as si st an ce w it h a w o rk
re q u ir em
en t. F iv e- y ea r
li m it ed
te rm
o f li fe ti m e
fe d er al as si st an ce .
D is cr et io n ar y
W o rk fo rc e
In v es tm en t( W IA )
19 98
1. 23 m il li o n
ex it er s (i n
20 08 )e
N o t
A v ai la b le
A d u lt s,
d is lo ca te d
w o rk er s, an d
y o u th ag ed
14 to 21
w h o fa ce
em p lo y m en t
ch al le n g es an d
ar e p ri m ar il y
lo w in co m e.
Jo b se ar ch
an d p la ce m en t
as si st an ce an d la b o r m ar k et
in fo rm
at io n (“ co re ” se rv ic es )
th en
ca re er co u n se li n g an d
as se ss m en t( “i n te n si v e”
se rv ic es ) b ef o re jo b tr ai n in g o r
ed u ca ti o n .h tt p :/ / w w w
.d o le ta .g o v / p ro g ra m s/
D is cr et io n ar y
T ab le 2. 1 (C o n ti n u ed )
The food stamp program became the Supplemental NutritionAssistance Program (SNAP) program in 2008 (H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008). SNAP provides food assistance in the form of elec- tronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards, which function like debit cards at retail grocery stores. SNAP program participation increased to an estimated 11% of U.S. households in 2009 (U.S. Department ofAgriculture, 2010a). The rise in program participation is associated with the deep recession and rise in unemployment and poverty. A federal entitlement program, SNAP is open to anyone who is income eligible and helps ease the family budget by cov- ering food costs. The average household benefit in 2008 was $222 (Food and Nutrition Service, 2009). The maximum benefit for a family of four in 2010 is $668. As shown in Figure 2.7, participation rates for SNAP are quite high. However, only 37.9% of low-income (< 185% poverty level) children experi- encing food insecurity receive SNAP. Similarly, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is a federal food support program for low-income pregnant and postpartum women and their young children (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010b). However, states administer WIC and set the eligibility requirements, and its funding is through the mechanism of a limited block grant to states rather than an open-ended entitlement. An increasingly important addition to anti-poverty efforts is the
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a refundable tax credit to low-income workers and their families. In 2008, more than 24 million families received income support through the federal EITC for a total of $50 billion in aid. It is estimated that the program lifts 2.5 million children with working parents out of poverty each year (U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2010). For most individuals filing without children, the maximum benefit in 2009 is $457, but for a single person with two dependent children, the maximum benefit is $5,028. The maximum allowable income to receive any benefit is just above $48,000 (married filing jointly with three or more children), which is more than 200% of the federal poverty line. Some states and localities also have tax credits for working low-income families that supplement this program (Purmort, 2010). As Figure 2.7 shows, the number of households that receive the EITC began to exceed Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) participation in the early 1990s when EITC federal policy expanded. EITC has now outstripped TANF as a source of income support. The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act (PRWORA) expanded and consolidated federal funding for child care
Chapter 2 Anti-Poverty Policies and Programs for Children and Families 39
for employed parents into the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). Under this act, states are provided flexibility in determining income and work eligibility, structuring the voucher program, and deter- mining which types and standards of care will be reimbursed at what rates. There is consistent evidence that subsidies facilitate employment of low-income and welfare recipient families (Blau & Tekin, 2007; Danziger, Ananat, & Browning, 2004; Bainbridge, Meyers, & Waldfogel, 2003; Meyers, Heintze, & Wolf, 2002; Press, Fagan, & Laughlin, 2006). Between 1997 and 2006, public funding more than doubled from $3.7 billion to $9 billion (U.S. House of Representatives, 2008). The American Recovery and
40 SOCIALPOLICY FOR CHILDRENAND FAMILIES
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
T h
o u
s a n
d s
o f
p a
rt ic
ip a n
ts
WICSNAP EITC (households) SSI
TANF/AFDC
Figure 2.7 FederalAnti-Poverty Program Participation, 1960 to 2009
ReinvestmentAct of 2009 also expanded funds for child care subsidies and for quality improvements in child care services. Although the majority of low-income families rely on child care that is developmentally inadequate or minimally adequate (Levine Coley, Li-Grining, & Chase-Lansdale, 2006), it is unclear whether subsidy receipt leads to higher quality care (Antle et al., 2008). Subsidies could be structured to promote use of higher quality of care, but a high priority issue is access—only 20% of those eligible receive assistance with child care.
Chapter 2 Anti-Poverty Policies and Programs for Children and Families 41
The 1996 Welfare Reform: AFDC Becomes TANF
Several welfare policy changes in the 1980s paved the way for welfare reform in 1996 (Danziger & Danziger, 2009). The 1981 Omnibus Reconciliation Act signed into law by President Ronald Reagan represented the first reduction in cash welfare in decades. The welfare rolls fell by about 14%, and work incen- tive provisions were eliminated. The Family Support Act of 1988 increased work requirements for welfare recipients but also initiated transitional assistance for child care and Medicaid for families leaving welfare for work. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, the federal government granted many waivers, which allowed the states to experiment with welfare-to-work programs. This led to increased state control over program administration (Heclo, 2001).
The PRWORA (Public Law No. 104–93) signed by President Bill Clinton in August 1996 ended AFDC’s 60-year history and resulted in major changes in the structure of the program and its diminished role as a resource for the poor. Compared to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) plays a smaller role as a resource for families.
Several rules reduced participation in TANF. A federal lifetime time limit for benefit receipt was imposed. States were required to institute mandatory work rules and to achieve specified rates of participation in work requirements. States were also required to impose sanctions in the form of benefit reduction or case closure to families that did not comply with the new requirements. States could implement diversion programs to deter or deflect applicants from entering the program (e.g., providing a one-time lump sum payment to families who agreed not to seek cash benefits for a set period of time). Furthermore, the federal legislation made eligibility for benefits contingent on a number of con- ditions and allowed states to add further contingencies. TANF disallowed
(Continued)
42 SOCIALPOLICY FOR CHILDRENAND FAMILIES
(Continued)
parents who had a drug felony conviction. Teen parents under the age of 18 were required to live with an adult and attend school as a condition of receiving benefits. New legal immigrants were not allowed to receive means-tested public benefits, including TANF, for the first 5 years after entry (Fix, 2006).
The wide discretion allowed in the federal legislation has led some ana- lysts to suggest that welfare is now more of a state than a federal policy and that there are now 50 different welfare programs. Rowe and Giannarelli (2006) have observed that “virtually any statement about welfare is no longer universally true across the country” (p. 1). For example, as of 2003, southern states paid a maximum benefit of less than $300 per month to a family of three whereas six states paid more than $600 to such families with no other income. Many states had no diversion policies but 19 states permit- ted a diversion payment of more than $1,000 to a family of three. While 35 states imposed the federal time limit of 60 months, 8 states had shorter time limits, from 21 to 48 months, and 6 states had set no time limits to cash wel- fare (these states use state funds to pay benefits after 60 months; Rowe & Giannarelli, 2006).
The clearest result of welfare reform is the dramatic nationwide decline in reliance on cash assistance, while participation in other anti-poverty programs has grown, shown in Figure 2.7 (Danziger, 2010). Welfare caseloads have fallen precipitously since the mid-1990s and did not increase during the “great reces- sion” that began in December 2007. The failure of the welfare system to respond to increased poverty during the recession raises concern for how single mothers and their children will fare in the coming years.
The Effects of the 1996 Welfare Reform on Child Outcomes
Neither the critics’ dire predictions of increased child poverty, nor the propo- nents’ rosy forecasts that children would directly benefit from seeing their mothers take jobs, came true. Millions of destitute children were not put out on the streets in the first decade following welfare reform. On the other hand, child and family troubles did not melt away when mothers entered the workforce. Studies are not finding that welfare leavers’ stress levels and mental health sta- tus have improved as they exit the rolls, which suggests that children’s lives are also not improving as a result of welfare reform.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a program of the Social Security Administration. Unlike retirement income from social security, which is funded by social security taxes, SSI is funded by general federal tax rev- enues. Families with children who have a disability are eligible to receive SSI support; 15.7% of recipients were under 18 in 2010 (Social Security Administration, 2010). Eligibility requirements were made more stringent
The Three-City Study (Chase-Lansdale et al., 2003) analyzed early child and young adolescent cognitive, psychological, and behavioral outcomes and the effects of mothers’ transitions in and out of work and welfare. Neither gains nor losses in employment nor exits nor returns to welfare (compared with no changes in mother’s work/welfare status) affected five measures of preschool- ers’ well-being. Results for the 10- to 14-year-olds were mixed. For example, mental health improved among adolescents whose mothers had gains in employment. Entry into employment resulted in income gains in every model; it reduced time spent with young children, but not with older children.
Many studies suggest that the transition from welfare to work itself may not directly affect child behavioral outcomes but may operate through mediators such as parental stress and the family’s experiences of economic hardship (Slack, Magnuson, & Berger, 2007). In several studies, mother’s stress and hardship remained high regardless of employment and welfare status, indicating that increased employment may improve income but not other dimensions of well-being. Because mother’s well- being is directly predictive of child behavior problems, these indicators improve or decline together (e.g., Kalil & Dunifon, 2007). A study of Michigan families found that mothers whose jobs were unstable, who worked full time with low pay, or who were in jobs with irregular, fluctuating schedules had young children whose behavior and academic achievement were adversely affected (Johnson, Kalil, & Dunifon, 2010). A study of mothers in six cities found that mothers whose cash benefits were terminated or reduced compared with those with no change in benefits had greater odds of child hospitalization, of being food insecure, and of having children admitted to the hospital after being seen in emergency care (Cook et al., 2002).
High levels of family economic distress and vulnerability compromise child well-being. Welfare agencies that restrict entry, push welfare exits, and offer only a work-first message exacerbate rather than help the situation of many poor families. The recent recession could bring harsher indictments of the effects of welfare reform as the number of vulnerable families with access to neither work nor cash assistance grew as employment and earnings fell.
Chapter 2 Anti-Poverty Policies and Programs for Children and Families 43
with the passing of PRWORA in 1996. The average monthly benefit for a child (recipient under age 18) is $597 in 2010 (Social Security Adminis- tration). Although a relatively high rate of those who qualify are served, many people who are unemployed for long periods due to illness or dis- ability experience long delays in the application and review process (U.S. GeneralAccounting Office, 2009). The federal government also supports the employment of youth and
adults through training and education programs designed to ensure that participants are job-ready. Although job-training programs were originally designed to assist dislocated workers, they became a part of federal anti-poverty strategies by the 1960s (LaLonde, 1995). Just as PRWORA shifted the focus of welfare toward “work first,” the approach of job-training programs has also shifted toward employ- ment. The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) was enacted to replace the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), with an emphasis on job placement before training or education (Holzer, 2008). With the changes from JTPA to WIA, substantially fewer low-income youth and adults received training. About 95% of program leavers reported receiving training in JTPA, compared with 68.4% of exiters from WIA in 2003 (Frank & Minoff, 2005). Federal housing assistance is funded through the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and administered by local housing authorities. It takes two main forms: Section 8 housing vouchers for private units and subsidized public housing units. Both programs serve a small fraction of low-income renters and have long waiting lists of families that apply for assistance. Only half of those served, 2.6 million, are families with children. Moreover, 5.6 million eligible households with children experience serious housing needs (Turner & Kingsley, 2008). The character of public housing in the United States has been changing in the last 20 years due to efforts like Moving to Opportunity (MTO) and Hope VI. These initiatives attempt to disperse concentrated neighborhood poverty. Although the goal of the program was to improve outcomes for individuals, the development of new mixed income housing units decreased the amount of housing generally available to poor residents (Sharkey, 2009). Once again, access has been a key concern, with few eligi- ble households receiving needed assistance. Another way to think about the degree to which social policy assists
children and families is to compare child poverty in the United States to other industrialized countries. The U.S. child poverty rate is more than
44 SOCIALPOLICY FOR CHILDRENAND FAMILIES
4 times higher than rates in such European countries as Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark (Lindsey, 2004; Rainwater & Smeeding, 2003a, 2003b). The low child poverty rates in these nations are realized not because earnings are higher but because a large proportion of children are being lifted from poverty through government intervention (Rainwater & Smeeding, 2003a). The child poverty reduction from governmental programsandincometransfers intheUnitedStates is lessthan25%compared with more than 75% in Sweden and Norway (Lindsey, 2004; Rainwater & Smeeding,2003a, 2003b). In sum, a variety of anti-poverty programs provide assistance through
cash, food support, tax credits, child care, workforce development, and housing. Yet, with all these programs, few focus on low-income house- holds with children. In some cases, mothers with work requirements may be able to increase earnings through employment but subsequently risk losing eligibility for other forms of assistance, and this may provide little aggregate benefit in terms of poverty status (Currie, 2006). And, when parents are required to work outside the home, parental psychosocial well-being may not improve, and children may actually receive less atten- tion. Indeed, there could be an increase in the number of unsupervised, latchkey children and little reduction in family poverty. There are many gaps in the existing safety net, particularly when viewed from the broader goal of improving outcomes for children and youth.
Using Knowledge of Risk, Protection, and Resilience to Achieve Service Integration
In recent years, investigators and policy officials have begun to promote positive social development as a means to ameliorate childhood poverty. Such a focus represents an alternative to emphasizing the relationship between poverty and adverse child outcomes in policies and programs. Sen (1993, 1999) suggests that a person’s functional capabilities and the freedom to attain what is valued for one’s own welfare should form the basis of anti-poverty policies and programs. In a similar vein, Sherraden (1991) argues that income support policies provide an important safety net but are insufficient for long-term growth and development. He sug- gests that helping low-income households build tangible financial assets can lead to positive changes in self-efficacy and civic participation and to improvements in child well-being (Sherraden, 2005). Sherraden’s work
Chapter 2 Anti-Poverty Policies and Programs for Children and Families 45
indicates that accumulated resources in the form of saving accounts pro- mote investment for long-term security either by increasing human capi- tal or by anticipating future circumstances (e.g., expanding a business or planning for retirement). Integrated and systems-level approaches represent another important
approach to preventing and ameliorating childhood poverty. Systems- level approaches focus on better coordination across service sectors. Thus, rather than creating public policies composed of separate streams of money to address particular needs or problems, a systems approach argues for a comprehensive community change strategy that addresses the full array of problems facing families. One cross-system policy and program example that has received considerable attention recently is the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ) in New York City (Tough, 2008). In the HCZ, Geoffrey Canada and colleagues have developed an array of com- munity programs and educational innovations (including two charter schools) in a 97-block area of Harlem. Services are designed to support children and families in a metaphorical “conveyor belt” from birth to col- lege (Tough). Specific interventions include parenting classes in Baby College, pre-kindergarten instruction in Harlem Gems, and an array of afterschool, health, college preparatory, employment training, and sub- stance abuse programs and services. Initial evidence shows that children in the HCZ schools have better attendance, more time in classroom instruction, and better achievement scores in math and English than those who are not enrolled (Dobbie & Fryer, 2009; Tough). Although it is hard to disentangle school and community effects, HCZ intentionally bundled a high-quality school experience with complementary wrap-around ser- vices to improve achievement and reduce gaps that have traditionally existed between low-income minority children and their better-off peers (Dobbie & Fryer). Others have created and supported similar comprehensive community-
building strategies. For example, the Annie E. Casey Foundation has funded a series of neighborhood change initiatives aimed at childhood poverty, including the Rebuilding Communities and Making Connections programs (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2010). The Skillman Foundation has launched comprehensive community-building initiatives in six local neighborhoods in Detroit through its Good Neighborhoods initiative (Skillman Foundation, 2010). Efforts to assess and evaluate these long- term comprehensive change projects face major research challenges (Kubisch et al., 2002; Stone, 1996). Although much has been learned, no
46 SOCIALPOLICY FOR CHILDRENAND FAMILIES
clear blueprint for how to successfully make low-income communities safe and healthy places for children has emerged. Another promising approach to promoting positive development
among low-income youth uses an asset-building strategy to establish a child development account (CDA) system (Goldberg, 2005; Williams Shanks et al., 2010). The vision is that every child from birth gets a subsi- dized account in her or his own name with an initial deposit that also matches additional savings. The deposit is intended to provide a foun- dation for family financial literacy and tangible resources that can be invested in a child’s future. A primary use of the account is to save for college or postsecondary education. However, money can also be used for other purposes in early adulthood. The purpose of this strategy is provide young people with resources to support whatever choices they think will help them build personal capabilities and get started in life, regardless of their parents’ financial situation. An example of this approach, the Saving for Education, Entrepreneurship, and Downpayment (SEED) initiative, is currently being tested in the United States (Center for Social Development, 2010). The concept of children’s development accounts has already been
established as policy internationally. In the United Kingdom, the Child Trust Fund (CTF) provides a certificate for at least £250 to the parents of every baby born in the country, with additional funds offered to the parents of low-income children (Child Trust Fund, 2010). Parents use these certificates to open an account on their child’s behalf, which can grow tax-exempt until the child reaches age 18. The UK government imposes no restrictions on use once a child reaches 18 but plans to offer financial information and counseling within schools as part of its national education curriculum. When the program launched in 2005, it opened 3 million CTFs. In 2007, about one quarter of these accounts received additional contributions beyond the initial government deposit (Bennett, Chávez Quezada, Lawton, & Perun, 2008). Singapore has introduced child development accounts that can be used
for preschool and other education- or health-related expenses from birth to age 6 (Loke & Sherraden, 2007). The government has also created the Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) to cover approved education- related expenses between the ages of 7 and 20. Unused balances from the child accounts can roll over to a child’s PSEA, and unused balances from PSEAs can be rolled over to the adult child’s Central Provident Fund. Thus, Singapore essentially has a lifelong system of accounts to help its
Chapter 2 Anti-Poverty Policies and Programs for Children and Families 47
citizens build assets and meet personal and financial goals (Loke & Cramer, 2009). These examples may provide important lessons to policy- makers in the United States.
Summary
This chapter has provided evidence that income poverty, asset poverty, and neighborhood poverty, alone and in combination, are associated with pro- found disadvantages for children and families. From our review, it is also apparent that existing anti-poverty policies and programs in the United States, although providing crucial supports to many, are not sufficient to lift large numbers of children out of poverty or greatly shift developmental outcomes for poor children. However, if the will and resources to make sys- temic change could be found, a variety of programs, including comprehen- sive community change strategies and asset building, are showing promise. To realize long-term success in breaking the link between household
poverty and child well-being, a few observations can be made. A “family security approach”—like that called for by Waters Boots, Macomber, and Danziger (2008)—is crucial, in that multiple generations and multiple levels of influence must be targeted concomitantly. No single program is likely to be enough. And although the most concrete issue for a family may be insufficient income, “fixing” income support policies alone might not take us far enough along in a risk and protection framework. Families with children, especially those headed by young single women, could undoubtedly use better-designed cash and financial help with housing, child care, food, and job training to make ends meet. However, to prevent alifetimeofpovertyanddead-endjobs,ahostofotherresources—education, parenting support, services to provide their children a nurturing home environment, and high-quality early child care—are needed. Given that families often experience spells in and out of poverty throughout the life course, it would be strategic to assist parents of young children to increase their educational attainment and plan a better life for themselves and for their children. Work-related participation requirements might be part of a broader goal to improve long-term outcomes for entire families. Finally, American anti-poverty policies and programs have failed to
reduce racial and ethnic inequities in income, wealth, and neighborhood poverty. Income and, indeed, health disparities by race and ethnicity have not narrowed over time (see Chapter 6). This warrants targeted supports and interventions for diverse communities at highest risk, particularly
48 SOCIALPOLICY FOR CHILDRENAND FAMILIES
Chapter 2 Anti-Poverty Policies and Programs for Children and Families 49
Hispanic-origin and Black families. Benchmarks for a successful policy approach would be both improved outcomes for poor children and decline in racial or ethnic disparities.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
1. What risk and protective factors are associated with poverty?
2. Some experts point to income inequality itself as a cause of poor child developmental out- comes. What are the relative advantages and potential disadvantages of focusing policy atten- tion on reducing poverty (i.e., income inequality) versus assisting children and families in need?
3. How do current public assistance programs target supports for low-income families with children? What are their limitations from a risk and resilience framework?
4. What new system-level approaches have been developed to prevent or reduce poverty? How do these approaches aim to break the link between poverty and child well-being?
5. How much can government and community-based partners do for families in need? What is the role of personal, parental, and community responsibility in anti-poverty policies and programs?
References
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2010). Helping vulnerable kids and families succeed. Retrieved from http://www.aecf.org
Antle, B., Frey, A., Barbee, A., Frey, S., Grisham-Brown, J., & Cox, M. (2008). Child care subsidy and program quality revisited. Early Education and Development, 19, 560–573.
Bainbridge, J., Meyers, M. K., & Waldfogel, J. (2003). Child care policy reform and the employment of single mothers. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 771–791. doi:10.1046/j.0038–4941.2003.08404002.x
Bennett, J., Chávez Quezada, E., Lawton, K., & Perun, P. (2008). The U.K. Child Trust Fund: A successful launch. London: Institute for Public Policy Research andAspen Institute.
Blank, R. M. (2008). Presidential address: How to improve poverty measurement in the United States. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27, 233–254. doi:10.1002/pam.20323
Blau, D., & Tekin, E. (2007). The determinants and consequences of child care sub- sidies for single mothers in the USA. Journal of Population Economics, 20, 719–741. doi:10.1007/s00148–005–0022–2
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371–399. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901 .135233
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2003). Age and ethnic variations in family process mediators of SES. In M. H. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp.161–188).NewYork:LawrenceErlbaum.
Brandolini, A., Magri, S., & Smeeding, T. M. (2010). Asset-based measurement of poverty. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(2), 267–284. doi:10.1002/ pam.20491
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Center for Social Development, Washington University in St. Louis. (2010). Saving for Education, Entrepreneurship, and Downpayment national initiative. Retrieved from http://csd.wustl.edu/AssetBuilding/SEED
Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Moffitt, R., Lohman, B., Cherlin, A., Coley, R. et al. (2003). Mothers’ transitions from welfare to work and the well-being of preschoolers and adolescents. Science, 299, 1548.
Child Trust Fund. (2010). About the Child Trust Fund. Retrieved from http://www .childtrustfund.gov.uk
Conger, R. D., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 175–199. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085551
Conger, R. D., Lorenz, F. O., Elder, G. H., Jr., Melby, J. N., Simons, R. L., & Conger, K. J. (1991). A process model of family economic pressure and early adolescent alcohol use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(4), 430–449. doi:10.1177/ 0272431691114003
Conger, R. D., Wallace, L. E., Sun, Y., Simons, R. L., McLoyd, V. C., & Brody, G. H. (2002). Economic pressure in African American families: A replication and extension of the family stress model. Developmental Psychology, 38(2), 179–193. doi:10.1037/0012–1649.38.2.179
Conley, D. (1999). Being Black, living in the red: Race, wealth, and social policy in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cook, J. T., Frank, D. A., Berkowitz, C., Black, M. M., Casey, P. H., Cutts, D. B., Meyers, A. F., Zaldivar, N., Skalicky, A., Levenson, S., & Heeren, T. (2002). Welfare reform and the health of young children: A sentinel survey in 6 U.S. cities. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 156, 678–684.
Couch, K. A., & Pirog, M. A. (2010). Poverty measurement in the U.S., Europe, and developing countries. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(2), 217–226. doi:10.1002/pam.20488
Currie, J. M. (2006). The invisible safety net: Protecting the nation’s poor children and families. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
Danziger, S., & Danziger, S. K. (2009). The U.S. social safety net and poverty: Lessons learned and promising approaches. In M. J. Bane & R. Zenteno (Eds.), Poverty and poverty alleviation strategies in North America (pp. 233–241). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50 SOCIALPOLICY FOR CHILDRENAND FAMILIES
Danziger, S. K. (2010). The decline of cash welfare and implications for social policy and poverty. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 523–545. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc .012809.102644
Danziger, S. K., Ananat, E., & Browning, K. (2004). Child care subsidies and the transition from welfare to work. Family Relation, 53, 219–228.
Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement: The indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 294–304. doi:10.1037/ 0893–3200.19.2.294
Dobbie, W., & Fryer, R. G. (2009). Are high quality schools enough to close the achieve- ment gap? Evidence from a social experiment in Harlem (NBER Working Paper 15473). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Downey, D. B., von Hippel, P. T., & Broh, B. A. (2004). Are schools the great equal- izer? Cognitive inequality during the summer months and the school year. American Sociological Review, 69(5), 613–635. doi:10.1177/000312240406900501
Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (Eds.). (1997). Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Edin, K., & Lein, L. (1998). The private safety net: The role of charitable organiza- tions in the lives of the poor. Housing Policy Debate, 9(3), 541–573.
Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1992). Summer setback: Race, poverty, school composition, and mathematics achievement in the first two years of school. American Sociological Review, 57(1), 72–84. doi:10.2307/2096145
Fix, M. (2006). Immigrants’ costs and contributions: The effects of reform. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
Food and Nutrition Service. (2009). Characteristics of supplementary assistance program households: Fiscal year 2008 (No. SNAP-09-CHAR). Washington, DC: United States Department ofAgriculture.
Frank, A., & Minoff, E. (2005, December 14). Declining share of adults receiving train- ing under WIA are low-income or disadvantaged. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.
Gershoff,E.T. (2003). Low income and hardship among America’s kindergarteners in living at theedge(ResearchBriefNo.3).NewYork:NationalCenterforChildreninPoverty.
Gershoff, E. T., Aber, J. L., Raver, C. C., & Lennon, M. C. (2007). Income is not enough: Incorporating material hardship into models of income associations with parenting and child development. Child Development, 78, 70–95. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8624.2007.00986.x
Goldberg, F. (2005). The universal piggy bank: Designing and implementing a sys- tem of savings accounts for children. In M. Sherraden (Ed.), Inclusion in the American dream (pp. 303–322). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Guo, G., & Harris, K. M. (2000). The mechanisms mediating the effects of poverty on children’s intellectual development. Demography, 37(4), 431–447. doi:10.1353/ dem.2000.0005
Chapter 2 Anti-Poverty Policies and Programs for Children and Families 51
Harding, D. J. (2003). Counterfactual models of neighborhood effects: The effect of neighborhood poverty on dropping out and teenage pregnancy. American Journal of Sociology, 109(3), 676–719. doi:10.1086/379217
Hart, D., Atkins, R., & Matsuba, M. K. (2008). The association of neighborhood poverty with personality change in childhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1048–1061.
Haveman, R. H., & Wolff, E. N. (2004). The concept and measurement of asset poverty: Levels, trends and composition for the U.S., 1983–2001. Journal of Economic Inequality, 2, 145–169. doi:10.1007/s10888–005–4387-y
Heclo, H. (2001). The politics of welfare reform. In R. Blank & R. Haskins (Eds.), The new world of welfare (pp. 169–200). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Holzer, H. J. (2008). Workforce development and the disadvantaged: New directions for 2009 and beyond (Brief No. 7). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Jargowsky, P. A. (1997). Poverty and place: Ghettos, barrios, and the American city. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Jargowsky, P. A. (2003). Stunning progress, hidden problems: The dramatic decline in concentrated poverty in the 1990s. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Johnson, R. C., Kalil, A., & Dunifon, R. (2010). Leaving welfare for work: How welfare reform has affected the well-being of children. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Kalil, A., & Dunifon, R. (2007). Maternal work and welfare use and child well- being: Evidence from 6 years of data from the women’s employment study. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 742–761.
Kingsley, G. T., & Pettit, K. L. S. (2007). Concentrated poverty: Dynamics of change (Neighborhood Change in Urban America No. 5). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Klebanov, P. K., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1994). Does neighborhood and family poverty affect mothers’ parenting, mental health, and social support? Journal of Marriage and Family, 56(2), 441–455. doi:10.2307/353111
Kling, J. R., Ludwig, J., & Katz, L. F. (2005). Neighborhood effects on crime for female and male youth: Evidence from a randomized housing voucher exper- iment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120, 87–130.
Kneebone, E. (2009). The suburbanization of American poverty (Metropolitan Opportunity Series No. 2). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Kneebone, E., & Garr, E. (2010). The suburbanization of poverty: Trends in metropolitan America, 2000 to 2008 (Metropolitan Opportunity Series No. 3). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Kohen, D. E., Leventhal, T., Dahinten, V. S., & McIntosh, C. N. (2008). Neighborhood disadvantage: Pathways of effects for young children. Child Development, 79(1), 156–169. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8624.2007.01117.x
Kubisch, A. C., Auspos, P., Brown, P., Chaskin, R., Fulbright-Anderson, K., & Hamilton, R. (2002). Voices from the field II: Reflections on comprehensive commu- nity change. Washington, DC:Aspen Institute.
52 SOCIALPOLICY FOR CHILDRENAND FAMILIES
LaLonde, R. J. (1995). The promise of public sector–sponsored training programs. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 149–168.
Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 309–337. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.126.2.309
Levine Coley, R., Li-Grining, C. P., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (2006). Low-income families’ child care experiences: Meeting the needs of children and families. In N. J. Cabrera, R. Hutchens, & H. E. Peters (Eds.), From welfare to child care (pp. 149–170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lindsey, D. (2004). The welfare of children. New York: Oxford University Press. Loke, V., & Cramer, R. (2009). Singapore’s Central Provident Fund: A national policy of
life-long asset accounts. Washington, DC: NewAmerica Foundation. Loke, V., & Sherraden, M. (2007). Building children’s assets in Singapore: The Post-
Secondary Education Account policy (CSD Policy Brief 07–36). St. Louis, MO: Center for Social Development.
Lui, M., Robles, B., Leondar-Wright, B., Brewer, R., & Adamson, R. (2006). The color of wealth: The story behind the U.S. racial wealth divide. New York: New Press.
Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the mak- ing of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mayer, S. E. (1997). What money can’t buy: Family income and children’s life chances. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child Development, 61, 311–346. doi:10.2307/1131096
McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53, 185–204. doi:10.1037/0003–066X.53.2.185
Meyers, M. K., Heintze, T., & Wolf, D. A. (2002). Child care subsidies and the employment of welfare recipients. Demography, 39, 165–179. doi:10.1353/dem.2002 .0008
National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies. (2010). Average monthly number of children served. Retrieved from http://www.naccrra .org/randd/ccdbg-tanf/avg-monthly-number-of-children-served
Newman, K. S. (1999). No shame in my game: The working poor in the inner city. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Nord, M. (2009). Food insecurity in households with children: Prevalence, severity, and household characteristics (Economic Information Bulletin No. 56). Washington, DC: United States Department ofAgriculture Economic Research Service.
Oliver, M. L., & Shapiro, T. M. (1995). Black wealth/White wealth: A new perspective on racial inequality. New York: Routledge.
Orr, A. (2003). Black–White differences in achievement: The importance of wealth. Sociology of Education, 76(4), 281–304.
Pachter, L. M., Auinger, P., Palmer, R., & Weitzman, M. (2006). Do parenting and the home environment, maternal depression, neighborhood, and chronic
Chapter 2 Anti-Poverty Policies and Programs for Children and Families 53
poverty affect child behavioral problems differently in different racial-ethnic groups? Pediatrics, 117, 1329–1338.
Press, J., Fagan, J., & Laughlin, L. (2006). Taking pressure off families: Child-care subsidies lessen mothers’ work-hour problems. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 155–171. doi:10.1111/j.1741–3737.2006.00240.x
Purmort, J. (2010). Making work supports work: A picture of low wage workers in America. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty.
Rainwater, L., & Smeeding, T. M. (2003a). Doing poorly: U.S. child poverty in cross-national context. Children, Youth and Environments, 13. Retrieved from http://colorado.edu/journals/cye
Rainwater, L., & Smeeding, T. M. (2003b). Poor kids in a rich country: America’s children in comparative perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Rowe, G., & Giannarelli, L. (2006). Getting on, staying on, and getting off welfare: The complexity of state- by-state policy choices. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing “neighbor- hood effects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 443–478. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141114
Sen,A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum &A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp.30–53).Oxford,UK:ClarendonPress.doi:10.1093/0198287976.003.0003
Sen,A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Knopf. Shapiro, T. M. (2004). The hidden cost of being African American: How wealth perpetuates
inequality. NewYork: Oxford University Press. Shapiro, T. M., Oliver, M. L., & Meschede, T. (2009). The Asset Security and
Opportunity Index. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University. Sharkey, P. (2009). Neighborhoods and the Black–White mobility gap. Washington, DC:
Pew Charitable Trusts. Sherraden, M. (2005). Assets and public policy. In M. Sherraden (Ed.), Inclusion in
the American dream: Assets, poverty, and public policy (pp. 3–19). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sherraden, M. W. (1991). Assets and the poor: A new American welfare policy. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: NationalAcademies Press.
Skillman Foundation (2010). About the Skillman Foundation. Retrieved from www.skillman.org
Slack, K. S., Magnuson, K. A., & Berger, L. A. (2007). Editorial: How are children and families faring a decade after welfare reform? Evidence from five non-experimental panel studies. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 693–697.
Social Policy Research Associates. (2010). PY 2008 WIASRD data book (Project No. 1382). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Performance Technology, Employment and TrainingAdministration.
54 SOCIALPOLICY FOR CHILDRENAND FAMILIES
Social Security Administration. (2010). Monthly statistical snapshot, May 2010. Retrieved from http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_ snapshot/#table3
Stone, R. (1996). Core issues in comprehensive community-building initiatives. Chicago: Chapin Hall.
Tough, P. (2008). Whatever it takes: Geoffrey Canada’s quest to change Harlem and America. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Turner, M. A., & Kingsley, G. T. (2008). Federal programs for addressing low-income housing needs: A policy primer. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2009). Social Security Administration: Further actions needed to address disability claims and service delivery challenges (GAO 09–511T). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2010a). Supplemental nutrition assistance program. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2010b). Women, infants and children program. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/
U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2010). The earned income tax credit. Retrieved from http://www.eitc.irs.gov
U.S. House of Representatives. (2008). Background material and data on the programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. 2008 Green Book. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://waysandmeans.house.gov/singlepages.aspx?NewsID=10490
Waldfogel, J. (2006). What children need. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Waters Boots, S. (2010). Improving access to public benefits: Helping eligible individuals
and families get the income supports they need. Baltimore: The Ford Foundation, Open Society Institute, andAnnie E. Casey Foundation.
Waters Boots, S., Macomber, J., & Danziger, A. (2008). Family security: Supporting parents’ employment and children’s development (New Safety Net Paper No. 3). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Williams Shanks, T. R. (2007). The impact of household wealth on child develop- ment. Journal of Poverty, 11(2), 93–116. doi:10.1300/J134v11n02_05
Williams Shanks, T. R., & Destin, M. (2009). Parental expectations and educa- tional outcomes for young African American adults: Do household assets matter? Journal of Race and Social Problems, 1(1), 27–35. doi:10.1007/s12552– 009–9001–7
Williams Shanks, T. R., Kim, Y., Loke, V., & Destin, M. (2010). Assets and child well-being in developed countries. Children and Youth Services Review. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.03.011
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, W. J. (2009). More than just race: Being Black and poor in the inner city. New York: W. W. Norton.
Chapter 2 Anti-Poverty Policies and Programs for Children and Families 55
Zhan, M. (2006). Assets, parental expectations and involvement, and children’s educational performance. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(8), 961–975. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2005.10.008
Zhan, M., & Sherraden, M. (2003). Assets, expectations, and children’s educational achievement in female-headed households. Social Service Review, 77(2), 191–211. doi:10.1086/373905
Additional Reading
Bane, M. J., & & Zenteno, R. (Eds.). (2009). Poverty and poverty alleviation strategies in North America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cancian, M., & Danziger, S. (Eds.). (2009). Changing poverty. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Currie, J. M. (2006). The invisible safety net: Protecting the nation’s poor children and families. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lindsey, D. (2004). The welfare of children. New York: Oxford University Press. Sherraden, M. (Ed.). (2005). Inclusion in the American dream: Assets, poverty, and
public policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Tough, P. (2008). Whatever it takes: Geoffrey Canada’s quest to change Harlem and
America. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Waldfogel, J. (2006). What children need. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Web-Based Resources
Center for Social Development, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, http://csd.wustl.edu
Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin–Madison, http://www .irp.wisc.edu/
National Center for Children in Poverty, http://www.nccp.org/ National Poverty Center, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of
Michigan, http://www.npc.umich.edu/
56 SOCIALPOLICY FOR CHILDRENAND FAMILIES
