Dr. Kiana Battle
Evaluating Social Policies
A social issue that impacts a great deal of our society is that of diaper need. Diaper need occurs when low-income families cannot afford to buy diapers for their infant children. While diapers may seem to be a small item that are relatively accessible, this is not the case for all members of the U.S. 1 in 3 families nation-wide suffer from the social issue of diaper need (NDBN, 2021). The vulnerable target population that suffers the most are low-income families. Diaper need impacts this vulnerable population more so than others due to the limited income they have available to be allocated for the various needs of a family. A family of three people, for instance, making only $20, 578 annually, would be categorized as a family of poverty according to the U.S. Census Bureau (Creamer, Kollar, Semega, and Shrider, 2020). This family would quickly deplete their funds for the necessary resources they may need, especially if they have to pay approximately $80 each month for diapers. Low-income families are further disadvantaged when considering that most daycare centers will not accept children who cannot provide their own diapers on a daily basis (NDBN, 2021). As a result, parents who may desire to work full-time to better their financial predicament are now hindered by the little access they have for their child to be taken care of during the workday.
Not only is this a financial burden to low-income families, but diaper need also exposes children living in poverty to medical conditions at shocking rates. With diaper-related medical issues accounting for the almost one million pediatric visits per year, the 5.7 million children living in poverty under three-years-old are affected (Porter and Steefel, 2015). Because children in poverty may not have the basic necessity of a diaper, they experience medical issues more so than their peers of higher socioeconomic status, making their need for this essential item more severe. Due to the millions of families who are impacted by diaper need, this paper serves to analyze and evaluate current programs under federal policies that have the potential to address this social problem for the vulnerable population of low-income families. The federal programs relevant to this issue are Temporary Assistance of Needy Families (TANF) established through the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), as well as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which was established through the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 (About WIC, 2013).
Policy Overview
In order to address the social issue of diaper need, the federal policies that have the most potential in addressing the social issue should be understood. The first relevant program is TANF, which was created through PRWORA in 1996. TANF first came into existence from another program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which provided cash allotments to families in poverty (Policy Basics: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 2020). TANF now operates as a federal grant provided to states from the federal government that requires each state to help families in poverty through programs and cash assistance (Policy Basics: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 2020). The purpose of PRWORA of 1996 was to “(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out of wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families” (Policy Basics: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 2020). The overall take-away of TANF is that it allows states to use funds as they see fit in helping the low-income constituents of the state to alleviate the financial burden they experience. With the approximately $16.5 billion that are given to states, most of the funding is allocated to the categories of general assistance and child care for families in need (Policy Basics: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 2020). With approximately 1.6 million cases of TANF recipients nationally, this program is relevant and applicable to many who are disadvantaged by poverty (Berry and Kim, 2019).
Some of the stakeholders of TANF would be legislators in Congress who have the ability to change how the funds are spent and the requirements of who receives benefits (Policy Basics: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 2020). Other stakeholders would be the Office of Family Assistance (OFA) who administers the TANF (About TANF, 2019). Other stakeholders would be families in poverty who are the vulnerable population and would benefit the most from TANF.
Another federal policy that addresses the needs of low-income families is that of WIC. The purpose of WIC is to help children in poverty to have improved nutrition, health, and health care (Carlson and Neuberger, 2021). The U.S. Department of Agriculture, through the Food and Nutrition Service, administer WIC federally (About WIC, 2013). Initially established as a program, WIC became finalized and permanent through the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 (About WIC, 2013). Like TANF, WIC allows for states to receive federal grants to provide for low-income women and their children to receive food, health care services, and education about nutrition (About WIC, 2013). The stakeholders for this policy are members of Congress, women and children who are beneficiaries of WIC, and members of the health care system.
Policy Analysis
When comparing, contrasting, and grasping the overall impact of WIC and TANF, there are many areas in which their overall policies overlap and differ. Both come with their benefits and limitations in their endeavor to serve the vulnerable population of families in poverty. The benefits of TANF include the consistency of monthly cash payments to impoverished families allowing each family to do what is necessary for their family and their personal budgeting purposes. One limitation of TANF includes the time limit that restricts recipients of TANF to reap the benefits for only 60 months (only leaving some instances open for exception) (Policy Basics: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 2020). Another limitation of TANF is its exclusion of immigrants. States are barred from using TANF-allocated money and services for immigrants until they have spent a minimum of five years in the country (Policy Basics: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 2020). Furthermore, the benefits of TANF are limited by the hindered access to programs and the disadvantages that are a result of racial discrimination. Statistics that illustrate these barriers include the fact that 68 out of 100 families who experienced poverty in 1968 were TANF recipients, compared to the 22 of 100 families in 2018 (Policy Basics: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 2020). This divide between eligibility of resources and receiving benefits is increased when taking into consideration that Black children have less of a chance to benefit from TANF than white children as “41% of Black children live in states with a TPR [TANF-to-poverty ratio] of 10 or less, compared to 30 percent of white children” (Policy Basics: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 2020). These facts clearly indicate that the limitations of TANF make it more difficult to become eligible and access the resources that are needed by low-income families. With barriers like these in place, the gaps and deficiencies of this program are highlighted. Where TANF falls short is making its benefits widely accessible to citizens in need, regardless of where they are located. The program’s potential is also stifled when considering all of the ways in which money can be put to use in areas that would benefit more people in need, but are hindered by the fact that not as many people are reaping the benefits of the policy currently. In 1995, when the program AFDC preceded TANF, 3 million children were able to escape deep poverty with the program’s assistance, opposed to the 287, 000 children who escaped deep poverty through TANF in 2016 (Policy Basics: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 2020). The deficiency lies between the lack in effectiveness in this program from 1995 to the present.
WIC, on the other hand, comes with its benefits and limitations as well. The benefits reflect that women who are enrolled through this program give birth to children who are in a healthier condition and the families are typically more nutritious overall (Carlsen and Neuberger, 2021). Furthermore, the low-income children who benefit from WIC become recipients of immunizations they would not typically have access to and have proven better mental health development scores by the age of 2 years than children whose mothers do not access WIC (Carlsen and Neuberger, 2021). Another benefit of WIC is its contribution to increased access to fruits and vegetables in low-income neighborhoods or poverty areas (Carlsen and Neuberger, 2021). Overall, these benefits reflect the program’s focus on nutritious food for low-income families and through balanced meals and access to health care, preventative medical treatment. From a critical standpoint, lawmakers understood that this policy would create a situation in which the assistance provided to low-income families through WIC would prevent more costly expenses and strains on the healthcare system in the future.
While WIC positively influences people living in poverty in multiple ways, there are still limitations to it. One of the most glaring limitations is the way in which lawmakers who define the benefits and constraints of WIC impose their beliefs on the recipients. Take breastfeeding, for instance. In order to encourage mothers who are enrolled in WIC to breastfeed, formula is no longer provided during the first month of the child’s birth (Carlsen and Neuberger, 2021). Furthermore, if a mother prefers using formula over breastfeeding, the child’s mother’s benefits will no longer be supplied when the child reaches 6 months of age, compared to the maternal benefits that are extended to mothers who breastfeed some of the time or fully for one year after the child’s birth (Carlsen and Neuberger, 2021). One deciding to breastfeed or not is a personal conviction. Policies and programs that dictate and overstep the boundaries of one’s personal preferences simply because of their lower socioeconomic status are derogatory in nature and should be amended to not impose punitive consequences for making a decision based on a personal conviction. Another limitation to WIC is its tunnel-vision focus on nutrition and health care referral, specifically. While the benefits of these focuses have already been stated, lawmakers’ obliviousness to other issues that affect women and children’s health is apparent in the lack of funding that is diverted for other critical causes. Lawmakers should pay attention not only to the nutrition of a child, but the situations that most often lead children to need medical attention or pose the greatest threat to their health. For instance, as the fact was previously mentioned that one million children a year visit a pediatrician for a diaper-related health problem, lawmakers should heed these statistics and allocate funds that address these relevant problems that still inherently concern a child’s heath, like WIC is intended to do.
Policy Evaluation
Both TANF, through PRWORA, and WIC, through the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994, contribute positively to the overall health, economic and social impact of low-income families. However, when it comes to the social issue of diaper need in America, both policies fall short in addressing the issue. In order to determine each policy’s capacity to improve the negative effects of diaper need, the CDC’s evaluation framework can be utilized to conclude which policy would be ideal in finding and implementing a solution to diaper need for families experiencing poverty in America.
When applying the CDC evaluation framework to TANF, the ultimate goal is to determine whether the policies mentioned are accomplishing their intended purpose for the target population. TANF covers multiple categories spanning from child welfare, day care, and Pre-K to work activities; however, it does not cover the costs of diapers for families experiencing poverty (Policy Basics: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 2020). For a policy that has the intention of helping families to care for their children in their own homes, promote participation in the workforce, and keeping both parents actively engaged in the home, not addressing diaper need through TANF provides a barrier in achieving these goals.
In applying the CDC evaluation framework to WIC, like TANF, there are gaps in which the intentions of the program are not reflected by how it is carried out. While access to resources such as nutritious food, health care, and education on nutrition are provided by WIC, the program unfortunately fails to cover the issue of diaper need. With a program that aims to improve the health of children in poverty, it makes logical sense to also include access to the resource that a great deal of low-income families with infants do not have and that without, can place them in medical facilities: diapers. With approximately 6 million people using the services of WIC, this program proves to be relevant and applicable to many women, infants, and children (Carlson and Neuberger, 2021).
Below is a visual depiction of TANF and WIC and how they would compare and contrast if the social issue of diaper need were incorporated by either policy.
![]()
This table highlights how the two programs of TANF and WIC would differ in addressing diaper need for low-income families. Predominantly, that difference lies in the feasibility of incorporating an amendment to the programs to solve diaper need. TANF would have a higher feasibility of addressing diaper need because cash allowances can be increased for families with small children that would cover the expense of diapers on a monthly basis. This would be the best legislative decision for low-income families. Allowing each family to buy the exact size of diaper their child needs, as well as help to eliminate the stress that comes with not being able to provide for a child. Furthermore, if state legislators better allocate funds to allow for all low-income families to access cash allowances that will cover the cost of diapers, the Office of Family Assistance (OFA) should be tasked to make sure no families are barred from accessing this benefit, especially as it pertains to racial discrimination that has been a problem with TANF in the past.
What makes TANF more feasible than WIC to implement a solution towards diaper need is the $16.5 billion that is federally allocated for TANF, as well as its monthly cash allowances to families. Altogether, with this infrastructure already in place, it is easier to disperse the money for diapers to families in need and allow them the ability to get the exact size and kind of diapers that are beneficial for their child. Some of the limitations that would occur if WIC were the program used to solve diaper need include the fact that single fathers may have a more difficult time accessing this benefit as it is traditionally a program for women and their children. Another deficiency would potentially include some low-income families who reside in severe poverty areas not being able to access stores where WIC vouchers are accepted. This is already a pre-existing issue for families of poverty who are not located near large, mainstream grocery stores and are forced to buy diapers at exponentially higher prices at markets closer to them because they are accessible (NDBN, 2021).
Social Media
A contributing factor as to why existing social policies do not adequately cover the social issue of diaper need may be a reflection of how diaper need is not a very well-known dilemma. Although it affects a great deal of the American population, for a family to openly express that they cannot afford diapers for their children is not a reality. This is a problem that is happening silently. Some parents may experience shame and guilt for not being able to provide this small, but essential item for their child. As a result, because those who are suffering in silence are not expressing their needs, they also are not aware of how to receive help. Social media can be a huge help in rectifying this lack of awareness. One of the largest social media and nation-wide campaigns highlights the problem of diaper need by creating the “#NationalDiaperAwarenessWeek” campaign at the end of September each year and is sponsored by the National Diaper Bank Network (NBDN, 2021). Through this campaign, diaper banks around the country collaborate to spread statistics about those who suffer from diaper need, the cost of diapers and how it can overwhelm a family’s expenses, and the negative medical impact a child can suffer from not having clean diapers. The campaign also provides the opportunity for members of the community to host diaper drives and donate diapers to local diaper banks. Unfortunately, where the diaper need campaigns fall short is discussing the lack of social policies enacted to address this problem.
In order to leverage social media to improve these campaigns, a recommendation that would be ideal is for the National Diaper Bank Network to partner with social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Tik Tok, and Instagram to spread factual information about diaper need, where diaper banks can be found, as well as how people can help this cause. Simply notifying the public about the problem will better allow people to become a part of the solution. Social media can also be helpful in encouraging the public to write their legislators about diaper need and the urgency of implementing a policy that solves it. Using social media will also be tantamount in informing those who are suffering from diaper need of their resources and where they can go to access diapers at no cost to them if a diaper bank is in close proximity.
Conclusion
The social issue of diaper need, while it is a large-scale problem, is not impossible to rectify. Diaper need is a problem that has persisted for years for low-income families who cannot afford diapers for their small children. While social programs like TANF and WIC, established through the policies PRWORA and Healthy Meals for Healthy Families Act of 1994, respectively, are intended to ease the economic, social, and medical care burden for low-income families, in their current condition, they are not completely meeting this intention. However, TANF has the ability to change this if legislators move to simply increase the cash allowances for families with children who need diapers. As a result, families will be able to afford diapers which will allow more parents to utilize daycare when they attend work, decrease the stress parents experience from not being able to provide diapers, and decrease the number of times a child visits a medical facility as a result of a diaper issue. With the help of social media campaigns spreading the facts about diaper need and increasing awareness, the potential for the social issue of diaper need to be eradicated from our nation for low-income families could become a reality.
References
About TANF. (2019, July 19). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved January 17, 2021 from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/programs/tanf/about
About WIC. (2013, October 10). U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved February 6, 2021 from https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/about-wic-wics-mission
Berry, F. & Kim, N. (2019). Do state-customized TANF work policies actually reduce unemployment? Social Science Quarterly, 100(3), p. 911-922. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12566
Carlson, S. & Neuberger, Z. (2021, January 27). WIC Works: Addressing the Nutrition and Health Needs of Low-Income Families for More Than Four Decades. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/wic-works-addressing-the-nutrition-and-health-needs-of-low-income-families
Creamer, J. Kollar, M., Semega, J., & Shrider, E. (2020, September 15). Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-270.html
National Diaper Bank Network (NDBN). (2021). What is Diaper Need? https://nationaldiaperbanknetwork.org/diaper-need/
Policy Basics: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. (2020, February 6). Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved February 6, 2021 from https://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/temporary-assistance-for-needy-families
Porter, S. & Steefel, L. (2015). Diaper need: A change for better health. Pediatric Nursing, 41(3), p. 141-144.
phaynes
SampleModule5paperMSW513EvaluatingSocialPolicies.docx
0
