United States*
(Last updated November 2007)
|
|
Introduction and OverviewThe United States has no explicit national, comprehensive family or child policy, nor has there been any such policy or cluster of policies in the past. Nonetheless, over the past century, even as European welfare states were being shaped, the US too developed many of the institutional supports and commitments to what in Europe would be called a welfare state. Among these, from time to time, were measures directed at children or families with children, which might be said to constitute implicit child and family policies. These enactments were in considerable part concentrated in several 'bursts' during periods of reform: the Progressive Era (approximately 1895-1920), the New Deal and its aftermaths (1932-54), the War on Poverty and the Great Society (1960-74). A hundred years after the Progressive Era, at the beginning of the Clinton Administration, there were new child and family initiatives, but by the middle of Clinton's term a wave of conservative reaction had begun to dismantle a sixty-year history of increasing social entitlements. Nonetheless, the picture was mixed in the final Clinton years and the early George W. Bush years because of a good economy, improved EITC (See below), child care expansion, and some state programs build on welfare reform. However, budgetary and social policy in the latter part of the first Bush term cut back on and constrained programs important to families and their children. To the extent that the US has implicit child/family policies, they can be identified and assessed only in the context of social policy more broadly defined; and they can be understood only with reference to a tradition that has included several major elements:
Historically, these themes have played out in various ways as economic, social, and political contexts changed with the settlement of the continent and the evolution of the economy through the industrial revolution to a post-industrial society, and as demographic and social change led to major shifts in the family. The point of departure was poor law following the British tradition and experience, tempered by a strong and important voluntary middle-class charitable movement that first emerged in the nineteenth century, compensating for the limitations of poor law and aiding those considered more 'helpable' and 'deserving'. Within this context, social policies affecting children and their families focused first on the unfortunate, the handicapped, and the most severely deprived; and second, on the poor. Except for free and compulsory public education, a development in which the US was among the leaders internationally, the US was late in its development of social policy for children generally. Overall, it has placed a heavy emphasis on services and other in-kind benefits for the vulnerable and poor. As for improving the economic situation of families with children, the policy has been largely one of ending almost all taxation of the poor except for social security payroll taxes, offering modest and inconsistent cash benefits to some low-income families and tax benefits to the middle and upper classes. Family benefits and services (TANF, EITC, federal child care subsidies) expended 0.7 percent of GDP in 2003.
|
|
HighlightsClick here to view or print country highlights in PDF format.
|
|
Government AgenciesThe US child and family-related policies are divided across federal, state, and local government lines and fragmented across functional policy domains. The major federal departments with responsibilities for the various component policies are: Department of Health and Human Services (for health, welfare, early childhood care services, child welfare services); Department of Education (for certain aspects of education); Department of Labor (for the Family and Medical Leave policy); the Department of Agriculture (for food stamps); the Department of Housing (for housing vouchers); the Department of Justice (for juvenile delinquency); the Department of the Treasury (for tax benefits); and the Social Security Administration (for survivor's benefits, benefits for disabled children, etc). The major state level agencies vary in name across state lines but include, for the most part: a department of welfare or social services (that includes welfare and personal social services), or employment and social services (including child care); a department of education; a department of health; a department of mental health; and, in some states, a department of child and family services.
|
|
Demographic Profile
According to government reports, the U.S. has a population of
about 301 million (2007 estimate)
making it the largest country in the OECD and equal to more than
three-quarters of the population of the entire pre-expansion
European Union (EU). In 2007, the U.S. had a larger population
than all countries except China and India. It is significantly
younger than the EU countries, with 12.4 percent of its
population made up in 2005 of persons 65 and older in contrast
to a 17.4 percent EU-15 average. Some 20.5 percent of the U.S.
population consisted in 2005 of children under 15, in contrast
to a 16.0 percent EU-15 average (OECD, 2007).
As is well known, the U.S. is a country that continues to admit a large number of immigrants each year, now mostly from Latin America and Asia. Legal immigration was just over one million per year for the years 2000 to 2006. In the year 2003, 11.7 percent of the U.S. population (33.5 million people) were foreign born, a little more than half (53.5 percent) from Latin America, 25.0 percent from Asia, and 11.6 percent from Europe. It is estimated that there were 11.6 million illegal immigrants in the country as of January 2006 , more than half from Mexico (Hoeffer, Rytina, and Campbell, 2007). Thus the U.S. is a quite heterogeneous country racially and ethnically, with a large portion of its population consisting in 2005 of Hispanics (14.0 percent), Blacks (12.8percent), and Asians (4.3 percent) (U.S. Census, 2005). According to the Census Bureau (March 18, 2004), the Hispanic and Asian-American populations will triple by 2050, reducing Whites to a bare majority of the population. Within the child population, 57.3 percent are White, 20.3 percent are Hispanic (of any race), 15 percent are Black, and 3.9 percent are Asian. The U.S. is religiously diverse as well. The U.S. has a higher marriage rate and a higher divorce rate than the EU countries. Its out-of-wedlock birth rate is high (almost 40 percent in 2006), but not as high as the Nordic countries, France, Ireland, and the U.K. However, it has a higher teen out-of-wedlock birth rate than EU or other OECD countries, even though rates have declined steadily in the 1990's, as have teen pregnancies. The U.S. cohabitation rate is not as high as rates in Northern Europe, but is increasing rapidly; in 2005, unmarried-partner households were 5 percent of all U.S. households. Of these, one third included children under fifteen. Some 31 percent of families with children are lone-parent families, higher than EU or other OECD countries, except for the U.K. Some 28 percent of children lived with one unmarried parent,] mostly the mother, in 2006 (but some of these may be in covert cohabitation). Of lone mothers, 47.8 percent are single, 13.3 percent separated, 34 percent divorced, and 4.8 percent widowed. Most children in 2006 (67 percent under 18) live with two married parents. Others are in "blended" households, with stepparents, in adoptive homes, and in extended households. In 2007 (estimate), the U.S. total fertility rate was slightly below the replacement level. It was at replacement (2.1) a few years earlier, very unusual in the industrial world (equal to Iceland), and exceeded in the OECD only by Mexico and Turkey. Female labor force participation was about 71 percent in 2005, above the EU and OECD averages. The rate is exceeded in the Nordic and several other countries. Over half of all families with children are two-parent, two-earner families. Almost three quarters of all married women with children are in the labor force, and three quarters of lone mothers. Almost 60 percent of married women with children under 6 are in the labor force. Some 56.1 percent of mothers were back at work in 2006 before their children were age one. Two-thirds of the working mothers of the under-6's worked full time in 2006 [U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007].
|
|
Social ProtectionThe US is, relatively, a high GDP, high per capita GDP, and low "total taxation" country compared to EU and OECD averages. The government expenditure proportion is also relatively lower. The US was a laggard in the development of national social policies, following the European countries in the development of federal social insurance schemes by about 30 - 50 years. The enactment of the Social Security Act in 1935 marked the beginning of a social role for the federal government. In many senses, US national social policy can be described and understood in the context of that legislation and its subsequent amendments. The law provides for all the basic social protection regimes except for family allowances and national health insurance. The elderly are well protected as are the disabled, while in contrast, children and families with children have no universal social insurance entitlement, no national minimum income, and no universal health care. Only a means-tested federal-state, cash-benefit program is available to some poor families with children and a means-tested voucher for purchasing food, and a national means-tested program for poor families with a disabled or handicapped child. With a GDP that is the highest in the OECD group ($12.3 trillion) and a per capita GDP that is third highest, after Luxembourg and Norway, the US investment in social protection is significantly lower than that of the EU countries (about 16 percent of GDP excluding education, as in the EU statistics). However, when private expenditures are added to public, the US total investment is more like that of the EU countries. It was significantly lower (27.3 percent of GDP in 2004) than Sweden (32.9percent); Denmark (30.7 percent); France (31.2 percent); Germany (29.5 percent); and Belgium (29.3 percent), but only a bit below other OECD leaders. Unemployment rates are significantly below the OECD average. Using the U.S. measure of absolute poverty, the child poverty rate in 2006 was 17 percent, significantly higher than throughout the 1970s. Using the standard relative poverty rate applied internationally (below 50 percent of median income), the rate was 22 percent in the late 1990s, at the bottom or next to the bottom of the rankings in other countries, just above Mexico in a group of 23 OECD countries (or at the bottom, if Mexico is excluded). The US ha[s]d the highest child poverty rate among lone-parent families among the same group of countries (UNICEF, 2006; UNICEF, 2007; Adema, 2001) By any measure, its child poverty rates are very high or highest in the industrial world (Rainwater and Smeeding, 2003).
|
|
Child, Youth and Family Policy RegimesMaternity, Paternity, Parental, and Family LeavesThe U.S. has no national maternity, paternity, or parental leave policy. It does have an unpaid family leave and five states (California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island) have a paid temporary or short term disability benefit that covers pregnancy and maternity as well. The duration is typically for about 10-12 weeks. Many employers offer maternity leaves under temporary disability plans through company policy or collective bargaining agreements. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was enacted in 1993 and requires that businesses with 50 or more employees provide 12 weeks a year of job-protected, but unpaid, leave to qualified employees (those who have worked at least 1250 hours in the prior year), for birth, adoption, foster care, or personal or family illness. Employers must also continue to provide health insurance (if provided before). In 2000, President Clinton recommended that states use unemployment insurance to provide a cash benefit that would partially replace wages forgone while on leave. The Department of Labor issued regulations permitting states to implement such a policy and California enacted legislation in 2002. President Bush rescinded the regulations in 2003; . President Clinton recommended expanding the FMLA to cover firms with 25 or more employees and to permit parents to take up to 24 hours of leave a year to visit a child's school or take a child to a doctor. As yet, despite initiatives in some states, the situation is essentially unchanged, and a 2007 Report by the Department of Labor on FMLA is feared by some as opening the door for statutory or regulatory changes that will narrow its coverage. California's groundbreaking paid family leave law went into full effect on July 1, 2004. Over 12 million California workers - nearly 10% of the US work force—can now receive income replacement for a maximum of 6 weeks (paid up to 55% of wages up to $882 a week for 2007) when they take leave to care for an ill family member or a new child. They simply apply to a state-administered, employee-funded insurance fund. The cost is minimal: A minimum wage earner pays an estimated $14.00 a year, while the estimated average cost is $27 per worker per year. The law was backed by a broad coalition of supporters, including representatives of labor, women, seniors, communities of color, children, parents, caregivers, the disabled, faith communities, employers, and many, many others. Washington adopted more modest legislation in 2007 which will afford parents of newborn and newly-adopted children a maximum of five weeks’ leave with a $250 weekly benefit, after a one-week waiting period. The benefits will be available beginning in October 2009; Funding has still to be determined. To find out more about the California and Washington laws, go to http://www.paidfamilyleave.org and http://www.eoionline.org, respectively. For information about other state policy initiatives around paid family and medical leave, see here.
|
|
Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC)The U.S. has no national system of ECEC nor does any state have a statewide coherent policy or program. Most children begin primary school at age 6 but compulsory school begins at various ages across the states from 5-8. Almost all children attend kindergarten at age 5, the year before they enter primary school, largely under public auspices. ECEC policy includes the whole range of government actions designed to influence the supply of and/or demand for ECEC and the quality of services provided. These government activities include direct delivery of ECEC services; direct and indirect financial subsidies to private providers, such as grants, contracts, and tax incentives; financial subsidies to parents both direct and indirect, such as cash benefits and vouchers to pay for the services, or tax benefits to offset the costs, and the establishment and enforcement of regulations. ECEC programs that serve children under age 5 may be classified in several different ways. They include a wide range of part-day and full-day programs under education and social welfare auspices, funded and delivered in a variety of ways in both the public and private (for-profit and non-profit sectors). They include pre- or pre-primary schools (pre-kindergartens, compensatory education programs, and nursery schools), childcare or day care centers, family-type day care homes (both regulated and unregulated), before- and after-school programs, and family support programs (child-centered, family-focused, neighborhood-based programs offering a cluster of services to families with very young children). Federal funding is largely targeted on low-income children and children with disabilities. The major sources of federal funds include funds to subsidize child care for families leaving welfare for work, compensatory education funds (Head Start and Early Head Start), a tax credit to offset some ECEC costs, and funds transferred from TANF (see below). Parent fees cover about 70 percent of costs. In 2005, 78 percent of children aged 3-5 were enrolled in some form of center-based or pre-primary school program and about 38.4 percent of the under 3s (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006). The United States was part of a 1968-2006 OECD review of ECEC in twenty countries. Consult the full American Country report on line or download at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/33/2535075.pdf and the full American Background report in Cryer and Clifford (2002). An overview of the current policy context may be found in Kamerman (2002). For the full OECD review, see OECD (2001) and OECD (2006). Family Allowances No child or family allowance is provided in the U.S. (cash benefits provided to families with children based on the presence and number of children, and usually regardless of income). There are, however, tax benefits contingent on the presence of a child (see below).
|
|
Child and Family Tax BenefitsThere is a personal exemption in the Federal income tax of $3,300 per dependent in 2006, a total decreased somewhat for those with high-income. The earned income tax credit (EITC) is a refundable tax credit for low earners and can provide as much as $2,747 per family with one child and $4,536 for families with two or more children. It phases out gradually for those with total earned incomes over $16,000. Some nineteen states supplement this encouragement to work with their own EITC's and New York City is unique in providing its own city version.. A variety of tax benefits and credits aid parents of students at all educational levels, particularly for college, and include: tax deductibility within limits of qualified educational loans; IRA savings for future educational expenses; college savings plans; other educational expenses in low-earner families, etc. During the Clinton years, the U.S. enacted its first "child allowance" alternative, a $400 per child tax credit for families with incomes above the tax threshold. (It was argued that those below the threshold had the refundable EITC). The credit was increased to $1,000 effective for 2003 and 2004. As of 2006, the credit is refundable to the extent of 15% of earned income in excess of $11,300, or the unused amount of the Child Tax Credit, whichever is lower (U.S. House of Representatives, 2004). Finally, there has been a dependent care tax credit, which applies to child care, refunding, as of 2006, 35 percent of the first $3000 spent on care for one child ($1050)and $6000 for two or more ($2,100). There are reductions as adjusted gross income rises. There is a one-time credit for adoption expenses, phased out for moderately high earners. |
|
Child SupportThe US child support policy is one of stressing the enforcement of the child support obligation of the non-custodial/non-resident parent. Court-ordered support awards may be carried out through automatic withholding of payment from the parent's wages and tax refunds. There is also a growing trend toward the use of a formula in setting child support awards, for example, 17 percent of income for one child, 25 percent for two, 29 percent for 3. Nonetheless, of custodial mothers in 2005, while 61.4 percent were awarded child support by the courts, only 47.3 percent of this group actually received full payments and 77.5 percent received some, diminished payment. Poverty rates were high for custodial mothers receiving no or only part of the payment due (Grall, 2007).
|
|
Other Child Conditioned Income TransfersThe most important income transfers for families with children are: the tax benefits described above; means-tested cash and in-kind benefits, and Survivor's benefits under social security. Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) is a means-tested cash benefit funded by the federal government with contributions by the states as well, through grants to the states permitting states great flexibility in providing cash assistance to poor families with children (or if the mother is pregnant). TANF has a 5-year lifetime limit on receipt, requires poor women with children aged 3 months and older to participate in work after a maximum of two years, stresses marriage and the reduction of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and childbearing, and has a series of other requirements some of which vary across the states. A second important income transfer program of importance to poor children is Food Stamps, the in-kind benefit (a voucher) designed to increase the food purchasing power of eligible low-income families. Families are eligible if at least one member is seeking work or employed, and have gross monthly income under 130 percent of the poverty threshold. A third important benefit is Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a means-tested cash benefit provided by the federal government to poor and disabled children as well as other poor, blind or disabled adults and aged. As in other countries, children in the US are also entitled to Survivor's benefits under social security.
|
|
Child and Adolescent HealthDespite the highest total health expenditures as a portion of GDP in the OECD, there is no national health insurance program in the U.S., nor a universal child health program. There is a federal/state health assistance program for low-income children and their families (Medicaid) and a federal/state special funding stream for health care for low-income children not otherwise covered by health insurance (SCHIP). All poor children under 19 are covered by Medicaid unless already covered under some other health insurance program. In 2007 there were extensive, but unsuccessful, efforts in the Congress to expand SCHIP to cover more children from modest income families. Infant mortality rates (6.4 per thousand, 2007 estimate) are comparatively high vis a vis EU countries (average 4.8). Immunization levels are among the OECD leaders.
|
|
YouthYouth unemployment rates for males and females under age 25 for 2006 were 9.7 percent for females and 11.2 percent for males. [BLS] There is particular concern regarding non-marital teen pregnancy and parenting and a major policy emphasis on encouraging sexual abstinence.
|
|
Reconciliation of Work and Family LifeReconciliation of work and family life is an important issue in public discussion but not in enacted public policy. The stress is on employer responsiveness to a changing workforce, and the provision of flexible benefits, flexible working hours, and childcare-related benefits and services, but none of this is a matter of statutory provision. Some employers have responsive policies and there are tax incentives for employer provided or funded child-care. The discussions concerning the FMLA and ECEC are often premised on the importance of the issue, but apparently the continued ambivalence regarding women's roles or the over-reliance on market forces contributes to the lack of policy attention directed to this issue.
|
|
HousingThe Federal government provides housing aid indirectly to lower income households in the form of housing block grants to state and local government that may use the funds for various housing assistance activities including rent subsidies. There is limited public housing and a number of other special programs ; however, coverage does not begin to include all those who are eligible. In addition, extensive tax benefits are available for house or apartment owners in the form of deductibility of mortgage interest and local property taxes- constituting the largest government subsidies to the housing system. Less than three percent of all housing is publicly subsidized.
|
|
Note* Research and Reported by Sheila B. Kamerman and Elizabeth J. Doverman
|
|
ReferencesAdema, W. (2001). Net social expenditures (2nd Ed). Paris: OECD. Cryer & R. Clifford (Eds.) (2002). Early childhood education and care in the USA. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Grall, T. (2005). Custodial mothers and fathers and their child support: 2005. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, pp. 1-11. Washington, D.C., 2005. Hoeffer, M., Rytina, N. & Campbell, C. (2007). Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2006. prepared for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Washington, D.C.. Kamerman, S.B. & Gatenio, S. (2002). Overview of the current policy context. In D. Cryer & R. Clifford (Eds.), Early childhood education and care in the USA. (pp. 1-29). Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Kamerman, S.B. & Kahn, A.J. (1997). Family change and family policies in the United States. In S. B. Kamerman & A.J. Kahn (Eds.), Family change and family policies in Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. National Center for Education Statistics (2006). Initial Results from the NHES Early Childhood Program Participation Survey of 2005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. OECD (2001). Starting Strong – Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: Author. OECD (2006). Starting Strong II –Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: Author. OECD (2007). OECD in Figures. Paris: Author. Rainwater, L. and Smeeding, T. M. (2003). Poor Kids in a Rich Country. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. UNICEF. (2006). Child poverty in rich nations. Florence: Innocenti Center. UNICEF. (2007). Child Poverty in rich nations. Florence: Innocenti Center. U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin. Internet release date: March 18, 2004. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2005). Race and Hispanic Origin in 2005. Washington, D.C. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Characteristics of Families Summary. Washington, D.C., 2007. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means. The Green Book. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
