1 / 31

Poverty, TANF, and Parenting – Understanding the Connection

Poverty, TANF, and Parenting – Understanding the Connection. Jill Duerr Berrick School of Social Welfare University of California at Berkeley. October, 2009. Presentation Overview. Poverty, child well-being, and parenting Poverty, welfare and maltreatment

urbain
Download Presentation

Poverty, TANF, and Parenting – Understanding the Connection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Poverty, TANF, and Parenting – Understanding the Connection Jill Duerr BerrickSchool of Social Welfare University of California at Berkeley October, 2009

  2. Presentation Overview • Poverty, child well-being, and parenting • Poverty, welfare and maltreatment • Negative & positive impacts of CalWORKs on caregiving • Traditional service responses to families • Opportunities for supporting child safety, permanency and well-being in the context of family self-sufficiency.

  3. Are Low-Income Parents More Likely to Maltreat Their Children than Non- Low-Income Parents?

  4. What do we know about people who are affected by poverty? Poverty tends to co-occur with other risks. • Teen parenthood • Single parenthood • Negative life events • Violence exposure • Marital distress • Parent psychopathology

  5. Other Factors Associated with Poverty • Poverty-related stress • Daily hassles • Parental mental health/depression • Social Support • Substance abuse • Subjective experience of poverty • Assaults to the caregiving system

  6. Low-income parents are more likely to use “negative” parenting strategies. • Limited parental responsiveness • Harsh / coercive parenting • Lax supervision • Less vocal with infants

  7. Poverty increases parents’ risk factors • Reduces parents’ protective factors

  8. What do the Data Tell Us? • NIS-3 • Income < $15,000 -- 22x more likely to be maltreated compared to family income >$30,000. • Poverty is the strongest predictor of maltreatment • But correlation is NOT causation

  9. U.S. Child Poverty Population • 72.0 million children in the U.S. • 11.5 million children are poor (about 16%) Poor children

  10. U.S. Child Welfare Population • Approx. 900,000 child victims of maltreatment • Approx 500,000 children in out-of-home care Child welfare population

  11. Characteristics Associated withIncreased Odds of Child Welfare Events • Young children • Single parent family • Larger families • Born with low birth weight • Late or no prenatal care • Increased time on aid • Breaks in aid receipt

  12. Characteristics Associated withIncreased Odds of Child Welfare Events(con’t) • More hardships • Deeper poverty • Homelessness • Substance abuse • Parental stress • Prior child welfare contact

  13. What’s the Relationship Between Welfare and Child Maltreatment? • Children in families receiving aid have an increased risk of a substantiated maltreatment referral. • Children in families receiving aid are almost two times as likely to be placed in care • More generous benefits may provide protection for children

  14. What’s the Relationship Between Employment and Child Well-Being? • Increases in employment without income gains: • Little to no effect – positive or negative • Increases in employment with income gains: • Positive effects for children • School-achievement gains • May improve children’s behavior and children’s health • Reductions in income: • Negative effects for children

  15. What Explains The Relationship Between Employment, TANF/ CalWORKs, and Family Well-Being? Childcare Surveillance Work Sanctions& Penalties Welfare Income Family Caps Employment Income Behavioral Requirements:*Teens live at home*No drug felonies*Paternity establishment*Immunizations TANFServices Effects on Parenting: Positive Negative Complicated or Unknown

  16. Aspects of CalWORKs With the Potential for Negative Impacts on Parenting • Material hardship • Family Cap • Full family sanctions • Shorter time limits • Undue emphasis on employment

  17. Aspects of Welfare Programs Likely to have More Positive Child Welfare Effects • Income • Higher benefits • Uninterrupted TANF payments during children’s stay in out-of-home care • Income supplements for working parents • Concrete services

  18. Using TANF to Promote Positive Parenting • Federal block grants give states unprecedented opportunities to use TANF funds flexibly to provide services to families

  19. Some Creative Uses of TANF Funds • Screening TANF clients for child welfare risk factors • Offering TANF clients support services to promote positive parenting and reduce stress and hardship • Reducing the emphasis on work for families with children in out-of-home care.

  20. Where Does Linkages Come In?

  21. CalWORKs Encourage employment Assess barriers to self-sufficiency Access services Child Welfare Assess child safety Assess family problems and needs Access services Poverty / MaltreatmentTypical Service Responses Fundamental Goal: Safety, Permanency, and Child Well-being Fundamental Goal: Family Self-Sufficiency

  22. What do These Two Programs Have in Common? Parents Children

  23. Child welfare staff need to understand the effects of poverty on child well-being if they are to promote well-being as an outcome.CalWORKs staff need to understand the effects of poverty on child well-being if they are to effectively help parents gain employment that will raise family income.

  24. Infant deaths Low-birth weight Birth complications Poor nutrition Chronic health conditions Stunted growth Environmental toxins Poor quality education High drop-out rates Teen pregnancy Criminal activity Brain development Poverty’s Effects on Child Well-Being

  25. Poverty Across Childhood Age Duration Depth

  26. Linkages helps staff in CalWORKs and Child Welfare agencies work together to promote child safety and well-being in the context of family self-sufficiency.

  27. Linkages can: • Promote self-sufficiency • Provide improved services • Reduce conflicting requirements • Create safety for children • Facilitate permanency for children • Provide additional resources for families

  28. For more Information on Linkages in California see:http://www.cfpic.org/

  29. References Courtney, M., Piliavin, I., Dworsky, A., & Zinn, A. (2001). Involvement of TANF families with child welfare services. Paper presented at Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management Research Meeting. Washington, D.C., November 2, 2001. Ehrle, J., Scarcella, C.A., & Geen, R. (2004). Teaming up: Collaboration between welfare and child welfare agencies since welfare reform. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 265-285. Frame, L., & Berrick, J.D. (2003). The effects of welfare reform on families involved with public child welfare services: Results from a qualitative study. Children and Youth Services Review, 25(1-2), pp. 113-138. Geen, R., Fender, L., Leos-Urbel, J., & Markowitz, T. (February, 2001). Welfare reform’s effect on child welfrae caseloads. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Goerge, R.M., & Lee, B. (2000). Changes in child social program participation in the 1990s: Initial findings from Ilinois. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago. Needell, B., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Brookhart, A., & Lee, S. (1999). Transitions from AFDC to child welfare in California. Children and Youth Services Review, 21(9-10), 815-841.Nelson, K.E., Saunders, E.J., & Landsman, M.J. (1993). Chronic child neglect in perspective. Social Work, 38 (6), 661-671. Morris, P.A., Scott, E.K., & London, A. (in press). Effects on children as parents transition from welfare to employment. In J.D. Berrick & B. Fuller (Eds). Good parents or Good Workers? New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Ovwigho, P., Leavitt, K., & Born, C. (2003). Risk factors for child abuse and neglect among former TANF families: Do later leavers experience greater risk? Children and Youth Services Review, 25 (9-10), 139-163.

  30. References(con’t) • Paxton, C., & Waldfogel, J. (1999). Welfare reform, family resources, and child maltreatment. In B. Meyer & G. Duncan (Eds.), The incentives of government programs and the wellbeing of families. Chicago: Joint Center for Poverty Research.Ryan, J.P., & Schuerman, J.R. (2004). Matching family problems with specific family preservation services: A study of service effectiveness. Children and Youth Services Review, 26 (347-372). • Shook, K. (1999). Does the loss of welfare income increase the risk of involvement with the child welfare service system? Children and Youth Services Review, 21 (9-10), 781-814. • Solomon and George • U.S.D.H.H.S. (2002). Trends in the well-being of America’s children and youth. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. • U.S.D.H.H.S. (2002). Child maltreatment 2002. Washington, D.C.: Children’s BureauU.S.D.H.H.S. (1996) Results of the third national incidence study on child maltreatment in the U.S. Washington, D.C. National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. • Wells, K., & Guo, S. (2004). Reunification of foster children before and after welfare reform. Social Service Review • Wells, K., & Guo, S. (2003). Mothers’ welfare and work income and reunification with children in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 25(3), 203-224.

  31. Thanks to the following for their collaboration on welfare – child welfare projects in the CSSR: Laura Frame, Stephanie Cuccaro-Alamin, Barbara Needell, Jodie Langs, and Lisa Varchol. Acknowledgements

More Related