The recent political jostling over stay-at-home and working mothers renewed the debate over the success of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, the U.S.’s main cash aid program, and the Child Care and Development Fund, which provides child care assistance to low-income families.
Shortly after these programs were enacted, in 1996, policymakers and pundits marveled at the historic decline in welfare caseloads. Apparently, the cure for dependence had been discovered.
Fast-forward to the contemporary debate, however, and you will notice the same obsession over whether cash aid recipients are working hard enough.
All of this ignores a deeper question: Does America’s welfare system help or hinder poor mothers’ ability to balance responsibilities inside and outside the home? In other words, are mothers happier and healthier, and do their children have the skills and temperament to succeed in school?
My research on low-income families suggests there is good news and bad news.
First, the good news. Using detailed surveys that track Americans’ happiness, I have found that single mothers are not an especially jovial group. And while this may not seem particularly surprising, something remarkable occurred over the last few decades: they became happier both absolutely and relative to other women. In fact, single mothers are one of the few demographic groups to experience a rise in happiness since the mid-1980s. What’s more, single mothers today report fewer regrets about the past, more optimism about the future, and greater financial satisfaction.
Together, welfare reform, investments in child care subsidies and expansions to the Earned Income Tax Credit played a large role in closing the “happiness gap” between single mothers and other women. The happiness gap between single mothers and comparable childless women declined 60 percent over time, while that between single and married mothers declined 20 percent.
Now for the bad news. My colleague, Erdal Tekin, a Professor of economics at Georgia State University, and I have studied the implications of the child care subsidy system for children’s well-being. This is a complex issue because subsidized care could enhance or harm child development. Since subsidies are typically used to purchase center-based care — known to promote child development — it is conceivable that subsidies positively influence children. However, eligibility for subsidized care is tied to a work requirement. If maternal employment disrupts the home environment, then subsidized care could inadvertently harm child well-being.
Unfortunately, we find that subsidies have negative effects on children. Subsidized children score lower on standardized tests of reading and math ability, reveal more behavior problems, and are more likely to be obese. Even more troubling is that mothers reveal more psychological and physical aggression toward their children.
Herein lies the paradox of the current social safety net: policies to promote work appear to be beneficial for low-skilled mothers, but they may be harmful to their children. Such concerns were voiced over a decade ago by opponents of welfare reform.
What steps should be taken to align the twin goals of enhanced maternal and child well-being?
First, the child care subsidy system should be overhauled by decoupling it from the cash assistance system and eliminating the work requirement. Subsidy policy should encourage children’s social and intellectual development, rather than being used as an instrument to increase maternal employment. In addition, child care benefits should be made more generous so that families can afford high-quality care. We have tried to do subsidy policy on-the-cheap, and the results are not positive. Finally, we need an expanded parental leave system and more leniency from the welfare work requirements for mothers with young children.
Policymakers would do well to abide by the commonsense principle that social policy should make it easier for mothers to work simultaneously inside and outside the home. For while their work outside the home helps today’s economy, their work inside the home helps tomorrow’s economy.
Chris M. Herbst is an assistant professor in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. He can be reached at chris.herbst@asu.edu.
chatmandu002 posted at 12:27 pm on Fri, May 25, 2012.
Sorry Chris, All your research is tainted through a welfare prism. Work is always the best option for parents and children. Ownership and personal responsibility is better than any public assistance.
VofReason posted at 1:16 pm on Fri, May 25, 2012.
Yes Chat- absolutely. Here is something, why do people that can barely take care of themselves have children. Have we just acquiesced that people are completely irresponsible and so we just have to figure out how to keep them from hurting themselves or others and also how to pay for their lives? Once someone proves they are irresponsible and have brought a child they cannot care for into the world, why do we give them the opportunity to make yet another bad choice?
samkat posted at 5:20 pm on Fri, May 25, 2012.
VOR: You make a good point but unfortunately the flat earth religious zealots who want to do away with birth control methods are the same ones that harp about welfare.
Cerulean posted at 6:23 pm on Fri, May 25, 2012.
WHY, why do some preach, “The wealthy are the job creators.”
I ask, “Where are the jobs?” Slave laborers are what the wealthy are creating.
Bad republican's!
Leon Ceniceros posted at 1:34 pm on Sat, May 26, 2012.
YES, PROFESSOR HERBST, LET'S GO BACK TO THE 1970'S AND THE ERA OF THE ............."WELFARE QUEENS".
The good Professor may not be old enough to remember seeing TV shows on "60 Minutes" and "Frontline" showing ..........GENERATIONS.....yes, generations of New York and New Jersey............'WELFARE QUEEN DYNASTIES".
The mother would have a kid every 4 years one after another...after another...so that there was always a small child that ..."NEEDED" (your argument)....a mother's "loving care".
Then those daughters would start having a child every 4 years from the age of 16yo so that she would never have to work a "DAY IN HER LIFE"....just live off.......WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS, HUD, SECTION-8....and every other...."PUBLIC AID CHECK".....she could finagle.
One family in New York who's..."MATRIARCH"....had 12 children and her daughters had 10-12 children and on and on....was costing New York......."$1 MILLION DOLLARS A MONTH"...after 5 Generations.
IT TOOK...............DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON TO PUT AN END TO THE .........."WELFARE QUEENS" ...AND THE ..........."WELFARE MAMA'S"......OF AMERICA.
Engaged Voter posted at 2:07 pm on Mon, Jun 11, 2012.
While I do not agree with Professor Herbst's assessments, at least his article was well written and grammatically correct.
Poor, poor Leon, on the other hand...
Here Leon, LEARN something : http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaEllipses.htm
wangly posted at 6:59 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.
armor when he was screened in Korea, law enforcement officials officials replica louis vuitton handbags officials told ABC News. He was allowed to board his
to LAX after he and his carry-on luggage were thoroughly thoroughly cheap designer handbags thoroughly searched and nothing prohibited or dangerous was found.Following that
it appeared that Harris continued wearing his vest all the the louis vuitton monogram the way to the United States, where he was stopped
detained upon entry.Harris told U.S. investigators that he was puzzled puzzled cheap replica designer handbags puzzled that they would hassle him over his wearing of
vest and asked them why they were doing so after after louis vuitton monogram after he had been stopped in Korea and in Japan
allowed to proceed.The bulletproof-style vest, in fact, "would not have have louis vuitton alma have stopped a bullet," according to U.S. authorities. It was
Chinese-made knockoff of a vest and not, in fact, an an replica louis vuitton handbags an actual ballistic vest, investigators said."There is no reason
believe he did not have it on when he began began cheap replica designer handbags began the trip in China," one senior investigator said. "We
he boarded with it. The question is how did it it cheap louis vuitton handbags it happen."Harris was pulled aside in customs Friday at the
Angeles airport for a secondary baggage inspection, when an officer officer louis vuitton monogram officer noticed Harris was wearing the vest.The officer asked Harris
he had anything he would like to declare in his his cheap designer handbags his checked luggage. Harris told the officer he had a
wangly posted at 9:01 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.
our ability to identify identify louis vuitton alma identify or apprehend the suspect."Authorities announced last week that they
turning their attention to two earlier attempted abductions at Ketner Ketner fake designer handbags Ketner Lake.Investigators said that they were looking into a possible
between the cases "due to the time frame and geographic geographic moncler down jackets geographic proximity of Jessica's disappearance and the attempted abduction."Police said
were concerned that a jogger was chased by a man man cheap replica louis vuitton handbags man in the same area in July 2010. The suspect
in 2010 was similar to the case from this year, year, replica designer handbags year, but authorities are not saying that the 2010 case
related to Ridgeway."We're still concerned about the 2010 case, but but louis vuitton factory outlet but at this time, we're not able to make a
connection one way or another," Materasso said today. "We don't don't replica louis vuitton handbags don't make a connection lightly."He said police are also looking