Family cap

Family Cap is a practice to deny mothers and families who receive welfare assistance further financial assistance after the birth of another child .

This is practiced in some states of the USA and in some Asian countries such as South Korea and Singapore.

United States

Traditionally, each family member is entitled to an allotment of welfare benefits. Therefore, if a family had a child while receiving welfare assistance the grant amount would increase moderately. However, this changed in 1992 with New Jersey being the first state to implement a “family cap” policy. Currently, about 23 states have implemented some type of a “family cap” or “child exclusion” policy.

Federal Government

Under the current 1996 federal welfare law block grant, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), states have discretion to implement a family cap policy. Prior to TANF, under the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) states had to obtain waivers before imposing family cap policies.

State Information

Repealed Family Cap	Currently Adopt Family Cap
Illinois	Arizona
Maryland	Arkansas
Wyoming	California
Example	Connecticut
Example	Florida
Example	Georgia
Example	Indiana
Example	Maryland
Example	Massachusetts
Example	Minnesota
Example	Mississippi
Example	New Jersey
Example	North Dakota
Example	Oklahoma
Example	North Carolina
Example	South Carolina
Example	Tennessee
Example	Virginia
Example	Wisconsin
Example	Delaware

Criticisms of the Family Cap

Child poverty rates of different ethnic groups in the U.S.
Year	Total	African-Americans	Hispanics
1996	20.5%	39.9%	40.3%
2001	16.3%	30.2%	28.0%
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport5/chap09.htm

Family Caps are highly controversial. Critics argue that the policy negatively affects children’s poverty levels and health and also increases abortion rates.

Abortion

There are conflicting studies on the abortion issue. A 1998 study conducted in New Jersey found that for new welfare recipients there was an increase of 14% in the abortion rate, but for ongoing cases of recipients there was no significant difference in abortion rates cause by the family cap policy. Between October 1992 and December 1996, the New Jersey family cap averted 14,000 births and caused 1,400 abortions that otherwise would not have occurred. For this reason, family caps are criticised by the New Jersey Catholic Conference, Pro-life organizations, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Organization for Women. However, in 2001 another study found that family cap policies are inconclusive regarding reductions of out-of -wedlock births, abortions, or the size of welfare caseloads.

In contrast, a study in Arkansas and Arizona found that there was no significant difference in birth rates. If in fact these policies correlate with a reduction in birth rates, the question remains whether they are caused by abortions or increased use of contraceptives.

Children Poverty and Health

Critics argue that the possible monetary savings derived from the policy do not outweigh the negative effects on children born to families receiving welfare assistance. A decrease in family wealth usually leads to negative effects on children. Specifically, family caps were found to increase the poverty rate of children by 13.1%.

The effect child poverty on health also raises concerns. Children living in poverty are 3.6 times more likely to have poor health and 5 times more likely to die from an infectious disease than children that are not poor. In the area of welfare sanctions, such as family caps, a termination or reduction in benefits translates into a 30% greater risk of hospitalizations for infants and toddlers than those whose assistance were not decreased. Also, the increased need for medical treatment is not only felt by the children but also by society’s health expenditures.

Currently there is an estimate of 108,000 families affected by the family cap in the United States.

Critics

Representative Pete Stark

Representative Chris Smith

Proponents

Proponents of family caps argue that the policy serves as an economic incentive to reduce birth rates and encourage personal responsibility.

Reduction in Birth Rates

Proponents argue that the policy would help improve contraceptive practices or increase abstinence from intercourse. However, as mentioned above, the effects on childbirth have been inconclusive. A New Jersey study found that there was an estimated reduction of 14,000 births. However, a 2001 study found that the effects of the family cap policies were inconclusive, without any finding of a reduction on out-of-wedlock birth, welfare caseload, or abortions.

Personal Responsibility

States support the policy because family caps could limit the number of out-of-wedlock births and strengthen families by limiting the births of additional children.

Other benefits of the policy, as mentioned by the Governor of Mississippi, include a reduction of crime levels caused by lower births among teenage mothers.