Flat Broke with Children
Sharon Hays
Introduction
If we give money to the poor does that entitle us to set rules for their behavior that differ from the rules the rest of us must obey? Can society set policies to compell responsible parenting? To what extent should society attempt to reduce crime, including sexual violence against women and girls, by imposing special provisions for behavior in its welfare policies? Hays discusses these issues and societal policies aimed at protecting vulnerable citizens.
Key Points
- Hayes describes examples of policies enacted in the United States that have attempted to regulate individual and family behavior of welfare recipients. Some seem relatively unintrusive; others perhaps severe. All are strictly enforced with stiff penalties imposed for failure to comply.
- Children must be vaccinated.
- Mothers are held responsible for children's truancy.
- Teenage parents on welfare must attend school and live with a parent or other adult relative.
- Three federal regulations are specifically targeted to welfare recipients who bear children out of wedlock:
- The Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWORA) subsidizes state programs on abstinence education to teach "the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity." It is good for young persons to know the hazards of sexual activity. But federal funding is available only for programs that teach absinence as the solution.
- More effort is being expended to prosecute "predatory men" who commit statuatory rape against underage girls. If one pictures the sinister older man preying upon girls, then this program is much needed. If one pictures severe prosecution of the 18-year old boyfriend, then one risks creating criminals out of people who might have futures as good citizens.
- The federal government gives money to the five states that do the best job of decreasing the number of out-of-wedlock children without raising the abortion rate (called the "illegitimacy" or "antiabortion" bonus). But, no federal funding is available for birth control or family planning education.
- It costs less to provide poor mothers with childcare expenses than to subsidize childcare centers. The good news for taxpayers and the bad news for poor, single mothers is that most welfare clients never receive the childcare subsidies due them because they are not properly referred or must travel long distances to register and receive benefits. The bureaucratic hurdles are complex and time-consuming and require extensive record keeping by the parent. Poor, single mothers tend to drop out of this difficult system.
- Some welfare mothers avoid seeking court-ordered child support payments from deadbeat fathers because the process is long, complex, difficult, and yield little money from fathers who do not have much to give.
- Benefits to poor, single mothers often carry the "price tag" of:
- negotiating the obstacle course of government bureaucracy,
- spending a lot of time traveling to and from government offices,
- keeping detailed records of expenses,
- forced compliance with the moral prescriptions of a society that does not understand the reality of living in disadvantaged cultures.
- Most welfare caseworkers interviewed did not think that the PRWORA was effective in reducing out-of-wedlock child birth or promoting "family" values. Poor, single mothers often are the victims of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse or do not hold similar values about childbearing held by the larger society.
Discussion Questions
- Do you support policies aimed at reducing out-of-wedlock childbearing among the poor? Explain your answer.
Key Terms
Welfare Reform Act: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.
TANF: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (i.e., welfare payments).
WIC: Women with Infants and Children (i.e., welfare payments).
Capped Chidren: Children born to a family that already is receiving the "cap" or maximum amount of child care benefits allowed.
