Family cap: Difference between revisions
Removed vague, unsourced information |
Filling in 5 references using Reflinks |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==United States== |
==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.<ref>[www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol291/smith.pdf]</ref> |
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.<ref name="autogenerated1">[www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol291/smith.pdf]</ref> |
||
===Federal Government=== |
===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.<ref> |
Under the current 1996 federal welfare law block grant, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), states have discretion to implement a family cap policy.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/tanf/about.html |title=About TANF Program |publisher=Acf.hhs.gov |date= |accessdate=2011-03-19}}</ref> Prior to TANF, under the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) states had to obtain waivers before imposing family cap policies.<ref name="clasp1">http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/0166.pdf</ref> |
||
===State Information=== |
===State Information=== |
||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
== Criticisms of the Family Cap == |
== Criticisms of the Family Cap == |
||
{| |
{| style="float:right;" |
||
!colspan="4" |
! colspan="4" style="text-align:center; background:#fc6;"|Child poverty rates of different ethnic groups in the U.S. |
||
|- style="background |
|- style="background:#8db6cd;" |
||
! |
! style="width:50px; vertical-align:top;"|Year |
||
! |
! style="width:160px; vertical-align:top;"|Total |
||
! |
! style="width:160px; vertical-align:top;"|African-Americans |
||
! |
! style="width:160px; vertical-align:top;"|Hispanics |
||
|-style="background |
|- style="background:#b9d3ee; text-align:center;" |
||
|1996||20.5%||39.9%||40.3% |
|1996||20.5%||39.9%||40.3% |
||
|-style="background |
|- style="background:#cae1ff; text-align:center;" |
||
|2001||16.3%||30.2%||28.0% |
|2001||16.3%||30.2%||28.0% |
||
|- |
|- |
||
|colspan="4" |
| colspan="4" style="text-align:center; background:#8db6cd;"| <small>http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport5/chap09.htm</small> |
||
|} |
|} |
||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
===Abortion=== |
===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.<ref |
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.<ref name="autogenerated1"/> 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.<ref>[ htt.p://www.clasp.org/ publications/excluded_children.pdf.]</ref> 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.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_1998_Nov_20/ai_53356101 New Jersey "family cap" increases abortion rate]</ref> 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.<ref name="clasp1"/> |
||
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.<ref |
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.<ref name="autogenerated1"/> |
||
===Children Poverty and Health=== |
===Children Poverty and Health=== |
||
Critics argue that the child exclusion policy keeps children in poverty by denying them the critical supports they need at a young age to become self-sufficient in adulthood. A decrease in family wealth usually leads to negative effects on children.<ref>[http://www.childrensdefenseorg/ familyincome/childpoverty/basicfacts.aspx]</ref> Specifically, family caps were found to increase the poverty rate of children by 13.1%.<ref>[www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411334_welfare_policies.pdf.]</ref> Also, critics argue that the costs of child exclusion exceed the savings. Nationally, the costs associated with child poverty total about $500 billion a year, the equivalent of 4% of the GDP.<ref>[Testimony of Professor Harry Holzer, Associate Dean at Georgetown Public Policy Institute, in front of the House Ways and Means Committee, “The Costs of Childhood Poverty” (2007).]</ref> |
Critics argue that the child exclusion policy keeps children in poverty by denying them the critical supports they need at a young age to become self-sufficient in adulthood. A decrease in family wealth usually leads to negative effects on children.<ref>[http://www.childrensdefenseorg/ familyincome/childpoverty/basicfacts.aspx]</ref> Specifically, family caps were found to increase the poverty rate of children by 13.1%.<ref>[www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411334_welfare_policies.pdf.]</ref> Also, critics argue that the costs of child exclusion exceed the savings. Nationally, the costs associated with child poverty total about $500 billion a year, the equivalent of 4% of the GDP.<ref>[Testimony of Professor Harry Holzer, Associate Dean at Georgetown Public Policy Institute, in front of the House Ways and Means Committee, “The Costs of Childhood Poverty” (2007).]</ref> |
||
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.<ref> |
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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.freethechildren.com/getinvolved/geteducated/childpoverty.htm |title=Child Poverty |publisher=Free The Children |date= |accessdate=2011-03-19}}</ref> In the area of welfare sanctions, such as family caps, a termination or reduction in benefits translates into a a 50% higher risk of lacking nutritionally adequate food, 30% greater risk of hospitalizations for infants and toddlers than those whose assistance were not decreased, and 90% higher risk of being admitted to the hospital during an emergency room visit.<ref>http://www.childrenshealthwatch.org/upload/resource/welfare_7_02.pdf</ref> 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.<ref |
Currently there is an estimate of 108,000 families affected by the family cap in the United States.<ref name="clasp1"/> |
||
==Proponents== |
==Proponents== |
||
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
===Reduction in Birth Rates=== |
===Reduction in Birth Rates=== |
||
Proponents argue that the policy would help improve contraceptive practices or increase abstinence from intercourse.<ref |
Proponents argue that the policy would help improve contraceptive practices or increase abstinence from intercourse.<ref name="clasp1"/> 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=== |
===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.<ref |
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.<ref name="autogenerated1"/> |
||
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.<ref> |
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.<ref>http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/jcpr/workingpapers/wpfiles/Gais_WPedi1-31.pdf</ref> |
||
==References== |
==References== |
||
Revision as of 21:51, 19 March 2011
Family Cap is a practice to deny mothers and families who receive welfare assistance further financial assistance after the birth of another child.[1]
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.[2]
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.[3] Prior to TANF, under the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) states had to obtain waivers before imposing family cap policies.[4]
State Information
| Repealed Family Cap | Currently Adopt Family Cap |
|---|---|
| Illinois | Arizona |
| Maryland | Arkansas |
| Wyoming | California |
| Connecticut | |
| Florida | |
| Georgia | |
| Indiana | |
| Maryland | |
| Massachusetts | |
| Minnesota | |
| Mississippi | |
| New Jersey | |
| North Dakota | |
| Oklahoma | |
| North Carolina | |
| South Carolina | |
| Tennessee | |
| Virginia | |
| Wisconsin | |
| 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.[2] 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.[5] 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.[6] 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.[4]
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.[2]
Children Poverty and Health
Critics argue that the child exclusion policy keeps children in poverty by denying them the critical supports they need at a young age to become self-sufficient in adulthood. A decrease in family wealth usually leads to negative effects on children.[7] Specifically, family caps were found to increase the poverty rate of children by 13.1%.[8] Also, critics argue that the costs of child exclusion exceed the savings. Nationally, the costs associated with child poverty total about $500 billion a year, the equivalent of 4% of the GDP.[9]
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.[10] In the area of welfare sanctions, such as family caps, a termination or reduction in benefits translates into a a 50% higher risk of lacking nutritionally adequate food, 30% greater risk of hospitalizations for infants and toddlers than those whose assistance were not decreased, and 90% higher risk of being admitted to the hospital during an emergency room visit.[11] 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.[4]
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.[4] 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.[2]
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.[12]
References
- ^ Family Cap
- ^ a b c d [www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol291/smith.pdf]
- ^ "About TANF Program". Acf.hhs.gov. Retrieved 2011-03-19.
- ^ a b c d http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/0166.pdf
- ^ [ htt.p://www.clasp.org/ publications/excluded_children.pdf.]
- ^ New Jersey "family cap" increases abortion rate
- ^ familyincome/childpoverty/basicfacts.aspx
- ^ [www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411334_welfare_policies.pdf.]
- ^ [Testimony of Professor Harry Holzer, Associate Dean at Georgetown Public Policy Institute, in front of the House Ways and Means Committee, “The Costs of Childhood Poverty” (2007).]
- ^ "Child Poverty". Free The Children. Retrieved 2011-03-19.
- ^ http://www.childrenshealthwatch.org/upload/resource/welfare_7_02.pdf
- ^ http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/jcpr/workingpapers/wpfiles/Gais_WPedi1-31.pdf