|
(last
updated October 2001)
|
Introduction and Overview(1)
The 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 his term a wave of conservative reaction had begun to
dismantle a sixty-year history of increasing social entitlements.
However, successes of new initiatives, combined with concerns and new
child-care funding to create a mixed picture in the first George W. Bush
year.
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:
- A strong value
placed on individualism.
- The separation of
Church and State in order to be receptive to diverse religions and
ensure their freedom;
- Protection of the
family as a private unit and a stress on avoiding government
interference with family matters;
- Puritanism and
related Protestant religious streams that stressed that one could
legislate to prevent evil but that 'goodness' had to be voluntary.
As a result, voluntarism as opposed to statutory enactment was
favored for social welfare.
- Social Darwinism,
a mid-nineteenth-century "scientific" belief that
emphasized that survival of the fittest was the 'natural' order and
that societal intervention into the process was counter-productive.
- A history of
slavery followed by 'emancipation' after the Civil War (1865)
followed a century later by landmark legislation during the civil
rights movement of the 1960s; but strong strains of racism remain.
- A strict work
ethic as central to the value system ;
- A relatively open
immigration policy which created population growth while reducing,
perhaps eliminating, any case for pro-natalist policies.
- A limited role for
the federal government, until late in the nineteenth century.
Washington was not believed to have responsibilities in the social
sector, which was considered to be the province of the states.
- Laissez-faire
economic and social policy ('liberalism' in the European sense) and
an emphasis on the market as the dominant ideology that would bring a
society growth and prosperity.
- The late
development of a civil service and government bureaucracy, which
limited the national government's capacity for social policy and
raised doubts about the quality of states' efforts.
- An ambivalence
after World War II regarding women's roles, in particular whether
public policy should take a position of encouraging women with young
children to remain at home, providing care for their children, or to
enter the work-force, helping to sustain family income.
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.64 % of GDP in 1995.
Return to Top
|
Highlights
Click here to view or print country
highlights in pdf format.
Return to Top
|
Government Agencies
The 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 Medial 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; and in some states, a department of
child and family services.
Return to Top
|
Demographic and Other Social Trends
According to the 2000 census, the U.S. has a population of 281.4
million making it the largest country in the OECD and equal to more than
three-quarters of the population of the entire European Union (EU). It is
significantly younger than the EU countries, with 12+ percent of its
population made up of the elderly in contrast to a 16 percent EU average.
Some 22 percent of the U.S. population consists of children under 15, in
contrast to a 17 percent EU average.
As is well known, the U.S. is a country that continues to admit a
large number of immigrants each year, about 800,000 legally, annually
over the past two decades, mostly from Latin America and Asia. In the
year 2000, 11 percent of the U.S. population (30.5 million people) were
foreign born, half from Latin America, 27.1 percent from Asia, and 16.1
percent from Europe. It is estimated that there were 8-9 million illegal
immigrants in the country, more than half from Mexico. Thus the U.S. is a
quite heterogeneous country racially and ethnically, with a large portion
of its population consisting of Blacks (12+ percent), Hispanics (12.5
percent), and Asians (3.7 percent). It is religiously diverse as well.
Within the child population, 65 percent are White, 15 percent are Black,
15 percent Hispanic (of any races), and 5 percent Asian.
The U.S. has a higher marriage rate and a much higher divorce rate
than the EU countries. Its out-of-wedlock birth rate is high (31
percent), but not as high as the Nordic countries, France and U.K.
However, it has a higher teen out-of-wedlock brith 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 North Europe, but is increasing rapidly. Consistent with this,
27 percent of families are lone-parent families, higher than EU or other
OECD families. Some 25 percent of children lived with one unmarried
parent, mostly the mother, in 1996 (but some of these may be in covert
cohabitation). Most children (71 percent under 18) live with both
parents. Others are in "blended" households, with step-parents,
in adoptive homes, and in extended households.
At. 2.0, the U.S. total fertility rate is almost at the replacement
level, very unusual in the industrial world (equal to Iceland), and
exceeded in the OECD only by Mexico and Turkey.
Female labor force participation is about 71 percent, well above the
EU and OECD averages, a rate equaled only in Finland and exceeded by
Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Over half of all families with children are
two-parent, two-earner families. More than two-thirds of all married
women with children are in the labor force, and 71 percent of lone
mothers, some 61 percent of wives with children under 6 or under 3 are in
the labor force. Some 59 percent of mothers are back at work before their
children are one. Two-thirds of the working mothers of the under-6's work
full time.
Return to Top
|
Social Protection
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 ($8.2 trillion) and a per capita GDP that is second
highest, after Luxembourg, the US investment in social protection is
significantly lower than that of the other 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. Unemployment rates are significantly below
the OECD average and less that half that of the EU average. Using the
U.S. measure of absolute poverty, the child poverty rate in 1998 was 19
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 mid-1990s, at the bottom
or next to the bottom of the rankings in other countries, just above
Mexico in a group of 23 countries.(2)
Return to Top
|
Child, Youth and Family Policies
Maternity, Paternity, Parental, and Family Leaves
The 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, typically for about 10 -12 weeks. 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, the President recommended that states use
unemployment insurance to provide a cash benefit that would partially
replace wages forgone while on leave. The Department of Labor has issued
regulations permitting the states to implement such a policy. 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.
Return to Top
|
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), child care 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 75 percent of
costs. In 1996, 61 percent of children aged 3-5 were enrolled in some
form of center-based or pre-primary school program and about 31 percent
of the under 3s. A later report specified that 61 percent of the under 4s
were in regularly scheduled care: 44% under 1; 53% age 1; 57% age 2.(3)
The U.S. was part of a 2000 OECD review of ECEC in twelve
countries. Consult the full American report on line or download in at: http://www1.oecd.org/els/pdfs/EDSECECDOCA012.pdf
Return to Top
|
Family Allowances
No child or family allowance is provided in the U.S. There are,
however, tax benefits contingent on the presence of child (see below).
|
Child and Family Tax Benefits
There is a personal exemption in the Federal income tax of $2,900 per
dependent for 2001, a total decreased somewhat for high-income. The
earned income tax credit (EITC) is a refundable tax credit for low
earners and can refund as much as $2,353 per family with one child and
$3,888 for families with two or more children. It phases out gradually
for those who earn over $30,000. Some eleven states supplement this
encouragement to work with their own EITC's.
A variety of tax benefits and credits aid parents of students at all
educational levels, particularly for college, and include: tax
deducatability 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 (later $500) 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 will be $600 per
child for 2001-2004, gradually rising to $1,000 in 2010. (But as of 2001,
the credit is refundable to the extent of 10% of earner income in excess
of $10,000, indexed for inflation.
Finally, there is a dependent care tax credit, which applies to child
care, refunding 30 percent of up to $2,400 of expenditures for one child
and 30 percent of up to $4,800 for two or more. After 2002 the 30 percent
will rise to 35, but there are cut-backs as adjusted gross incomes rise.
There is a one-time credit for adoption expenses, phased out for
moderately high earners.
|
Child Support
The US 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. 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.
|
Other Child Conditioned Income Transfers
The 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.
Return to Top
|
Child and Adolescent Health
Despite 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 recently established federal/state special funding stream for
health care for low-income children not otherwise covered by health
insurance. All poor children under 19 are to be covered by Medicaid by
the year 2003, unless already covered under some other health insurance
program.
Infant mortality rates (6.8 in 2000) are comparatively high vis a vis
EU countries (average 4.9).
|
Youth
Youth unemployment rates for males and females under age 25 are similar,
slightly under 11 percent for females and slightly over
for males. There is particular concern regarding non-marital
teen pregnancy and parenting and a major policy emphasis
on encouraging sexual abstinence.
The United States was one of the fourteen countries participating
in the OECD thematic review, From Initial
Education to Working Life - Making Transitions Work
. For more detail on the transition to working life in the
U.S., see OECD's background
report on the United States.
Return to Top
|
Reconciliation of Work and Family Life
Reconciliation of work and family life is an important issue in public
discussion but not in public policy. The stress is on employer
responsiveness to a changing workforce, and the provision of flexible
benefits, and child care -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 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 contributes to the lack of policy attention
directed to this issue.
Return to Top
|
|
Housing
The Federal government provides housing aid indirectly to lower income
households in the form of housing block grants to state and local
government which may use the funds for various housing assistance
activities including rent subsidies. There is limited public housing (1.2
million units) and a number of other special programs (1.4 million
vouchers and project-based subsidies), 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
pecent of all housing is publicly subsidized according to Peter Marcuse,
a Columbia University expert.
|
References
Sheila B. Kamerman and Alfred J. Kahn,.
"Family Change and Family Policies in the United States," in
Sheila B. Kamerman and Alfred J. Kahn,. Family Change and Family Policies
in Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, Oxford,
Eng.: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Sheila B. Kamerman and Alfred J. Kahn, Starting
Right, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
National Research Council, Getting to Positive Outcomes for
Children in Child Care (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press,
2001).
OECD, Thematic Review on Early Childhood Education
and Care. Background Paper on United States. Forthcoming
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways
and Means, The Green Book. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 2000.
|
Notes
1.This profile is drawn largely from Sheila B. Kamerman and Alfred J.
Kahn,. "Family Change and Family Policies in the United
States", in Sheila B. Kamerman and Alfred J. Kahn,. Family Change
and Family Policies in Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and the United
States, Oxford, Eng.: Oxford University Press, 1997. And, to a lesser
extent, OECD, Thematic Review on Early Childhood Education and Care.
Background Paper on United States. 2001.
2. Unicef, Innocenti Center, Child Poverty in Rich Nations.
Florence Italy, 2000.
3. National Research Council, 2001.
Return to Top
|
|
Introduction and Overview
Highlights
Government Agencies
Demographic and Other
Social Trends
Social Protection
Maternity,
Paternity,Parental, and Family Leaves
Early Childhood Education and
Care (ECEC)
Family Allowances
Child and Family Tax
Benefits
Child Support
Other Child
Conditioned Income Transfers
Child and Adolescent
Health
Housing
Youth
Reconciliation of
Work and Family Life
|
|
|
|
|
