Poverty, TANF, and Parenting – Understanding the

Connection

Jill Duerr BerrickJill Duerr BerrickSchool of Social WelfareSchool of Social Welfare

University of California at BerkeleyUniversity of California at Berkeley

October, 2009

Presentation Overview

Poverty, child well-being, and parentingPoverty, child well-being, and parenting Poverty, welfare and maltreatmentPoverty, welfare and maltreatment Negative & positive impacts of Negative & positive impacts of

CalWORKs on caregivingCalWORKs on caregiving Traditional service responses to familiesTraditional service responses to families Opportunities for supporting child safety, Opportunities for supporting child safety,

permanency and well-being in the permanency and well-being in the context of family self-sufficiency. context of family self-sufficiency.

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

Low-Income Parents?

What do we know about people who are affected by poverty?

Poverty tends to co-occur with Poverty tends to co-occur with other risksother risks..

Teen parenthoodTeen parenthood Single parenthoodSingle parenthood Negative life eventsNegative life events Violence exposureViolence exposure Marital distressMarital distress Parent psychopathologyParent psychopathology

Other Factors Associated with Poverty

Poverty-related stressPoverty-related stress Daily hasslesDaily hassles Parental mental health/depressionParental mental health/depression Social SupportSocial Support Substance abuseSubstance abuse Subjective experience of povertySubjective experience of poverty Assaults to the caregiving systemAssaults to the caregiving system

Low-income parents are more likely Low-income parents are more likely to use “negative” parenting to use “negative” parenting strategies.strategies.

• Limited parental responsivenessLimited parental responsiveness• Harsh / coercive parentingHarsh / coercive parenting• Lax supervisionLax supervision• Less vocal with infantsLess vocal with infants

Poverty increases parents’ risk Poverty increases parents’ risk factorsfactors

Reduces parents’ protective Reduces parents’ protective factorsfactors

What do the Data Tell Us?

NIS-3NIS-3

• Income < $15,000 -- 22x more likely to Income < $15,000 -- 22x more likely to be maltreated compared to family be maltreated compared to family income >$30,000.income >$30,000.

• Poverty is the strongest predictor of Poverty is the strongest predictor of maltreatmentmaltreatment

• But correlation is NOT causationBut correlation is NOT causation

U.S. Child Poverty Population

72.0 million children in the U.S.72.0 million children in the U.S. 11.5 million children are poor 11.5 million children are poor

(about 16%)(about 16%)

Poor children

U.S. Child Welfare Population

Approx. 900,000 child victims of Approx. 900,000 child victims of maltreatmentmaltreatment

Approx 500,000 children in out-of-Approx 500,000 children in out-of-home carehome care

Child welfare population

Characteristics Associated withIncreased Odds of Child Welfare

Events

Young childrenYoung children Single parent familySingle parent family Larger familiesLarger families Born with low birth weightBorn with low birth weight Late or no prenatal careLate or no prenatal care Increased time on aidIncreased time on aid Breaks in aid receiptBreaks in aid receipt

Characteristics Associated withIncreased Odds of Child Welfare

Events(con’t)

More hardshipsMore hardships Deeper povertyDeeper poverty HomelessnessHomelessness Substance abuseSubstance abuse Parental stressParental stress Prior child welfare Prior child welfare

contactcontact

What’s the Relationship Between Welfare and Child Maltreatment?

Children in families receiving aid Children in families receiving aid have an increased risk of a have an increased risk of a substantiated maltreatment referral.substantiated maltreatment referral.

Children in families receiving aid are Children in families receiving aid are almost two times as likely to be almost two times as likely to be placed in care placed in care

More generous benefits may provide More generous benefits may provide protection for children protection for children

What’s the Relationship Between Employment and Child Well-Being?

Increases in employment Increases in employment withoutwithout income income gains:gains:• Little to no effect – positive or negativeLittle to no effect – positive or negative

Increases in employment Increases in employment withwith income gains: income gains:• Positive effects for childrenPositive effects for children

• School-achievement gainsSchool-achievement gains

• May improve children’s behavior and children’s healthMay improve children’s behavior and children’s health

Reductions in Reductions in incomeincome::• Negative effects for childrenNegative effects for children

What Explains The Relationship Between Employment, TANF/ CalWORKs, and Family Well-

Being?

Effects on Parenting:

Positive

Negative Complicated or

Unknown

Work

Welfare Income

Childcare

Surveillance

TANFService

s

Sanctions&

Penalties

Family Caps

Behavioral Requirements:*Teens live at home*No drug felonies*Paternity establishment*Immunizations

EmploymentIncome

Aspects of CalWORKs With the Potential for Negative

Impacts on Parenting Material hardshipMaterial hardship

• Family CapFamily Cap• Full family sanctionsFull family sanctions

Shorter time limitsShorter time limits

Undue emphasis on employmentUndue emphasis on employment

Aspects of Welfare Programs Likely to have More Positive

Child Welfare Effects

IncomeIncome

• Higher benefitsHigher benefits

• Uninterrupted TANF payments during Uninterrupted TANF payments during children’s stay in out-of-home carechildren’s stay in out-of-home care

• Income supplements for working parentsIncome supplements for working parents

• Concrete servicesConcrete services

Using TANF to Promote Positive Parenting

Federal block grants give states Federal block grants give states unprecedented opportunities to unprecedented opportunities to use TANF funds flexibly to use TANF funds flexibly to provide services to families provide services to families

Some Creative Uses of TANF Funds

Screening TANF clients for child Screening TANF clients for child welfare risk factorswelfare risk factors

Offering TANF clients support Offering TANF clients support services to promote positive services to promote positive parenting and reduce stress and parenting and reduce stress and hardshiphardship

Reducing the emphasis on work for Reducing the emphasis on work for families with children in out-of-home families with children in out-of-home care. care.

Where Does Linkages Come In?

Poverty / MaltreatmentTypical Service Responses

CalWORKsCalWORKs• Encourage Encourage

employmentemployment

• Assess barriers to Assess barriers to self-sufficiencyself-sufficiency

• Access servicesAccess services

Child WelfareChild Welfare• Assess child safetyAssess child safety

• Assess family Assess family problems and problems and needsneeds

• Access servicesAccess services

Fundamental Goal:Family Self-Sufficiency

Fundamental Goal:Safety, Permanency, and Child Well-being

What do These Two Programs Have in Common?

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.

Poverty’s Effects on Child Well-Being

Infant deathsInfant deaths

Low-birth weightLow-birth weight

Birth Birth complicationscomplications

Poor nutritionPoor nutrition

Chronic health Chronic health conditionsconditions

Stunted growthStunted growth

Environmental Environmental toxinstoxins

Poor quality Poor quality educationeducation

High drop-out ratesHigh drop-out rates Teen pregnancyTeen pregnancy Criminal activityCriminal activity Brain developmentBrain development

Poverty Across Childhood

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.

Linkages can:

Promote self-sufficiencyPromote self-sufficiency Provide improved servicesProvide improved services Reduce conflicting requirementsReduce conflicting requirements Create safety for childrenCreate safety for children Facilitate permanency for childrenFacilitate permanency for children Provide additional resources for Provide additional resources for

familiesfamilies

For more Information on Linkages in California see:

http://www.cfpic.org/

References

Courtney, M., Piliavin, I., Dworsky, A., & Zinn, A. (2001). Courtney, M., Piliavin, I., Dworsky, A., & Zinn, A. (2001). Involvement of TANF Involvement of TANF families with child welfare servicesfamilies with child welfare services. Paper presented at Association of Public . Paper presented at Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management Research Meeting. Washington, D.C., Policy Analysis and Management Research Meeting. Washington, D.C., November 2, 2001.November 2, 2001.

Ehrle, J., Scarcella, C.A., & Geen, R. (2004). Teaming up: Collaboration between Ehrle, J., Scarcella, C.A., & Geen, R. (2004). Teaming up: Collaboration between welfare and child welfare agencies since welfare reform. welfare and child welfare agencies since welfare reform. Children and Youth Children and Youth Services ReviewServices Review, , 2626, 265-285., 265-285.

Frame, L., & Berrick, J.D. (2003). The effects of welfare reform on families Frame, L., & Berrick, J.D. (2003). The effects of welfare reform on families involved with public child welfare services: Results from a qualitative study. involved with public child welfare services: Results from a qualitative study. Children and Youth Services ReviewChildren and Youth Services Review, , 2525(1-2), pp. 113-138.(1-2), pp. 113-138.

Geen, R., Fender, L., Leos-Urbel, J., & Markowitz, T. (February, 2001). Geen, R., Fender, L., Leos-Urbel, J., & Markowitz, T. (February, 2001). Welfare Welfare reform’s effect on child welfrae caseloadsreform’s effect on child welfrae caseloads. Washington, D.C.: The Urban . Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.Institute.

Goerge, R.M., & Lee, B. (2000). Goerge, R.M., & Lee, B. (2000). Changes in child social program participation in Changes in child social program participation in the 1990s: Initial findings from Ilinoisthe 1990s: Initial findings from Ilinois. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for . Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago.Children, University of Chicago.

Needell, B., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Brookhart, A., & Lee, S. (1999). Transitions from Needell, B., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Brookhart, A., & Lee, S. (1999). Transitions from AFDC to child welfare in California. AFDC to child welfare in California. Children and Youth Services ReviewChildren and Youth Services Review, , 2121(9-10), (9-10), 815-841.Nelson, K.E., Saunders, E.J., & Landsman, M.J. (1993). Chronic child 815-841.Nelson, K.E., Saunders, E.J., & Landsman, M.J. (1993). Chronic child neglect in perspective. neglect in perspective. Social WorkSocial Work, 38 (6), 661-671., 38 (6), 661-671.Morris, P.A., Scott, E.K., & London, A. (in press). Effects on children as parents 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 transition from welfare to employment. In J.D. Berrick & B. Fuller (Eds). Good parents or Good Workers? New York: Palgrave Macmillan.parents or Good Workers? New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Ovwigho, P., Leavitt, K., & Born, C. (2003). Risk factors for child abuse and Ovwigho, P., Leavitt, K., & Born, C. (2003). Risk factors for child abuse and neglect among former TANF families: Do later leavers experience greater risk? neglect among former TANF families: Do later leavers experience greater risk? Children and Youth Services Review, Children and Youth Services Review, 25 (9-10), 139-163.25 (9-10), 139-163.

References(con’t)

Paxton, C., & Waldfogel, J. (1999). Welfare reform, family resources, and Paxton, C., & Waldfogel, J. (1999). Welfare reform, family resources, and child maltreatment. In B. Meyer & G. Duncan (Eds.), child maltreatment. In B. Meyer & G. Duncan (Eds.), The incentives of The incentives of government programs and the wellbeing of families. government programs and the wellbeing of families. Chicago: Joint Center Chicago: Joint Center for Poverty Research.Ryan, J.P., & Schuerman, J.R. (2004). Matching family for Poverty Research.Ryan, J.P., & Schuerman, J.R. (2004). Matching family problems with specific family preservation services: A study of service problems with specific family preservation services: A study of service effectiveness. effectiveness. Children and Youth Services ReviewChildren and Youth Services Review, , 2626 (347-372). (347-372).

Shook, K. (1999). Does the loss of welfare income increase the risk of Shook, K. (1999). Does the loss of welfare income increase the risk of involvement with the child welfare service system? involvement with the child welfare service system? Children and Youth Children and Youth Services Review, Services Review, 2121 (9-10), 781-814. (9-10), 781-814.

Solomon and GeorgeSolomon and George U.S.D.H.H.S. (2002). U.S.D.H.H.S. (2002). Trends in the well-being of America’s children and Trends in the well-being of America’s children and

youthyouth. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and . Washington, D.C.: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.Evaluation.

U.S.D.H.H.S. (2002). U.S.D.H.H.S. (2002). Child maltreatment 2002Child maltreatment 2002. Washington, D.C.: Children’s . Washington, D.C.: Children’s BureauU.S.D.H.H.S. (1996) BureauU.S.D.H.H.S. (1996) Results of the third national incidence study on Results of the third national incidence study on child maltreatment in the U.S.child maltreatment in the U.S. Washington, D.C. National Center on Child Washington, D.C. National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.Abuse and Neglect.

Wells, K., & Guo, S. (2004). Reunification of foster children before and after Wells, K., & Guo, S. (2004). Reunification of foster children before and after welfare reform. welfare reform. Social Service ReviewSocial Service Review

Wells, K., & Guo, S. (2003). Mothers’ welfare and work income and Wells, K., & Guo, S. (2003). Mothers’ welfare and work income and reunification with children in foster care. reunification with children in foster care. Children and Youth Services Children and Youth Services ReviewReview, 25(3), 203-224., 25(3), 203-224.

Acknowledgements

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