The New Politics of Child and Family Policies

Although the details are not yet known, three monumental legislative changes of the 104th Congress will have major implications for social policies and programs affecting children and their families, especially those with very low or modest incomes. Regardless of whether these changes constitute a historic watershed or represent short-term developments that will be reversed or significantly modified within a few years, they constitute a dramatic shift in the premises underlying public child and family policies and the terms of public debate. The first of these changes is the likely enactment of the most significant cuts in federal spending for low-income children and families that the country has ever experienced. The goal of eliminating the federal budget deficit over the next seven years has taken precedence over almost all social protection goals. Whether the cuts occur as reductions in projected growth or decreases in direct funding, they probably will be tied to the proposed elimination of the entitlement status of several programs: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Medicaid, and possibly the Food Stamp program. These caps, which would not take account of inflation or demographic changes (or would do so only in part), will in effect reduce actual dollars available. Depending on what figures are used, funding for the major social programs benefiting low-income children and their families is expected to be 25 percent to 30 percent less in 2002 than it would have been if existing programs were left unchanged (Ellwood & Gold, 1995). Because the cuts are "backloaded" (that is, they increase over time), the effects will be especially severe in the first years of the next century. The second major change is what has been termed "the devolution revolution" (Nathan, 1995), whereby primary responsibility for social protection of low-income children and their families is transferred from the federal government to state and local governments. Through the device of block grants, federal social programs would be turned into funding streams for the states to use largely as they see fit within general program categories (financial assistance and health care) and with only limited constraints. In turn, the states get an opportunity to be creative and innovative in their use of these funds and in the programming options open to them. The third change is a significant philosophical shift in some quarters in the premises underlying social protection policies. In a process that has been under way for several decades, the problem of poverty has been largely redefined by some groups in Congress and elsewhere in society from an unfortunate condition resulting from external social and economic factors to a problem that results mostly from the immoral and irresponsible behavior of individuals. And the solution has been transformed, for those who hold such views, from a search for effective social policies to an emphasis on individual change. Indeed, to some extent, the current concern with illegitimacy can be explained as a concern about women having children whom they cannot support financially. The elimination of the entitlement status of the major social benefits and the return to a pre-New Deal discretionary status may be interpreted as almost a full return to late-19th-century social welfare policies. The emphasis on work reminds some observers of the moral "work tests" (tests to see if someone really wanted to work) of the 19th century but is a sensible response to social change for others (deSchweinitz, 1943). The nature of particular work programs reflects these differences. Legislators with a "remoralization" agenda would, for example, combine behavioral rules such as a family size cap with work rules. Even if the expected social policy changes are not as draconian as expected, it is probable that people who use social benefits and services will have fewer guarantees than they have had for more than 30 years, that states will have far more discretion and flexibility in setting child and family policies than has been the case, that there will be few requirements for accountability to the federal government, and that states will have fewer resources than they have had for the past 20 years. …