Does the Family Cap Influence Birthrates? Two New Studies Say 'No'
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Issues & Implications Cash Increase No ‘Incentive’ The New Jersey and the Arkansas Does the Family Cap studies raise serious questions about the validity of family cap propo- Influence Birthrates? nents’ primary rationale for the policy—the notion that an increase Two New Studies Say ‘No’ in monthly benefits upon the birth of a new baby acts as an incentive By Patricia Donovan for welfare recipients to have more children. When the Arkansas Contrary to early claims that a cap on when the researchers controlled for researchers asked a subsample of benefits would reduce birthrates the age and race of the nearly 8,500 the women studied whether they among welfare recipients, recent stud- women studied. would have another child in order to ies in New Jersey and Arkansas con- receive higher benefits, fully 100% of clude that denying an increase in The researchers also examined state those subject to the cap and more cash assistance to women who have Medicaid data to assess whether the than 95% of those in the control another child while on welfare has family cap had any impact on abor- group said they would not. Many did had no effect on births in these states. tion rates among women on welfare. not know how much more money Some antiabortion advocates have they would receive if they had In response to the findings, New feared that a cap could result in more another child. Jersey officials now insist that the abortions among welfare recipients, family cap was never intended to but the analysis indicates otherwise. “It appears that women do not make reduce births, but simply to encour- Like birthrates, abortion rates in New decisions about the birth of their age welfare recipients to make Jersey declined both among women children based on the addition of responsible decisions about child- subject to the cap and among the $42 per month in…benefits,” the bearing. But, four years ago, when control group, dropping from 11% in researchers concluded. Indeed, one New Jersey became the first state to 1992–1993 to 9.5% in 1994–1995. of the evaluators, University of impose a family cap, officials offered Arkansas School of Social Work pro- a different rationale. Then-governor Researchers at the University of fessor Brent Benda, observed in a James Florio (D) declared the cap a Arkansas studying the impact of that subsequent paper that “it would be a success after only two months, for state’s family cap could not evaluate quantum leap in faith to believe that example, asserting that births among its effect on abortion rates, because $42 influences an act that is usually welfare recipients had declined 16%. Arkansas—like most states, but spontaneous and occurs nine unlike New Jersey—does not pay for months before birth.” The long-awaited analysis by abortions under Medicaid; the state, researchers at Rutgers University— Where Things Stand released only last September, more “It would be a quantum According to the National than a year after investigators made leap in faith to believe Conference of State Legislatures, 21 it available to state officials—contra- that $42 influences an states and the District of Columbia dicts such claims. While rates among currently have family cap policies welfare recipients did decline act that is usually spon- (see box), many adopted after the between August 1992 and July 1995, taneous and occurs nine early claims of “success” in New the researchers found that the rate months before birth.” Jersey. Like those in Arkansas and of decline was “virtually identical” New Jersey, most were implemented for women subject to the cap and for therefore, has no way of knowing under the old Aid to Families with a control group that continued to how many welfare recipients termi- Dependant Children (AFDC) pro- receive a benefit increase if they had nate their pregnancies. Like their gram, which required states to con- another child. Among both groups of colleagues in New Jersey, however, duct a rigorous evaluation of the women, birthrates fell from 11% in the investigators did determine that impact of changes in their welfare 1992–1993 to 6% in 1994–1995, a there was “no statistically significant programs. trend, the researchers noted, that difference…in the number of births” also was “consistent with birthrates between a control group and women When Congress enacted the welfare in the general population in New subject to the cap in the two-and-a- reform law in August 1996 and Jersey.” The results did not change half years after the cap went into replaced AFDC with a new program effect in July 1994. The Guttmacher Report 10 icymakers are slowly recognizing Constitution’s equal protection guar- TWENTY-ONE STATES AND that a family cap does not reduce antees because it creates two classes THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAVE FAMILY CAP POLICIES birthrates. of children who are treated differ- IN EFFECT ently—some receive welfare benefits and some do not—based solely on Legal and Legislative Challenges ARIZONA MASSACHUSETTS the timing of their birth. ARKANSAS MISSISSIPPI The New Jersey and Arkansas stud- CALIFORNIA NEBRASKA ies are likely to speed up that learn- “The court will have to balance the CONNECTIVUT NEW JERSEY ing process and may also make it rights at stake and the harm done [to DELAWARE NORTH DAKOTA easier to persuade state legislatures the children] against the interests of OKLAHOMA DISTRICT OF to adopt other means of reducing the state,” says NOW-LDEF attorney COLUMBIA SOUTH CAROLINA welfare rolls. Last year, for example, TENNESSEE Sherry Leiwant. The evaluation find- FLORIDA a campaign mounted by Family VIRGINIA ings are critical, she says, because GEORGIA Planning Advocates of New York ILLINOIS WISCONSIN they make it difficult for the state to State and Concerned Clergy for INDIANA WYOMING justify why it is enforcing a policy MARYLAND Choice convinced the legislature to that hurts children when that policy reject a family cap proposed by the has no effect on the birthrate. governor and, instead, to transfer $7 of block grants to the states, how- million of its federal welfare funds to ever, the evaluation requirement was Since New Jersey began enforcing the state health department for fam- eliminated. Thus, most states with the family cap in August 1993, ily planning programs. family caps are unlikely to conduct NOW-LDEF says, more than 20,000 the type of analysis done in New children born to welfare mothers Through intense lobbying and grass- Jersey and Arkansas. However, fed- have been denied cash benefits, at a roots organizing and a statewide eral officials report that three savings, according to some press media blitz, the campaign persuaded states—Arizona, Connecticut and reports, of more than $15 million. legislators that expanding access to Indiana—have received funding Despite the cost savings, the family planning services would do from the Department of Health and Rutgers’ study may give policymak- more to enhance the ability of poor Human Services to continue their ers pause. The denial of extra bene- women to avoid long-term depen- plans to evaluate the effects of their fits apparently has failed to achieve dency than denying indigent women family caps. its policy goal of lowering birthrates, a few extra dollars if they had but, in all likelihood, has caused sig- another baby. The new block grant program nificant hardship for the families (Temporary Assistance to Needy affected. Even without a family cap, States could also be influenced by the Families, or TANF) is silent on the New Jersey welfare families receive outcome of legal challenges to family issue of a family cap. After long and less than half of what the state itself caps in New Jersey and Indiana. heated debate, Congress decided not says they need to obtain basic Armed with the findings from the to require states to impose a cap, necessities, such as housing, cloth- Rutgers evaluation, the NOW Legal opting instead to let states decide for ing and food. Defense and Education Fund (NOW- themselves whether to do so. Last LDEF) has filed a class action lawsuit year, legislatures in four states— on behalf of welfare mothers in New Georgia, Mississippi, North Dakota Jersey and their infant children who and Oklahoma—voted to impose a are subject to the cap. The suit con- family cap. tends, among other things, that the cap violates the New Jersey But some experts believe the push for family caps is losing steam. “The momentum for a family cap is The New Jersey and down,” reports Jack Tweedie of the Arkansas studies may National Conference of State make it easier to per- Legislatures, “because most states that don’t have one have had an suade state legislatures opportunity to incorporate a cap [in to adopt other means of their welfare plans] and haven’t reducing welfare rolls. done so.” Furthermore, he says, pol- The Guttmacher Report 11.