The federal government has supports in place intended to assist low income families to obtain the necessary child care, so the parent or parents may join or remain in the workforce. This support comes in the form of child care subsidies or vouchers, and the programs are implemented in varying ways in each state. In many families with children, the household budget sheet requires both parents to work in order to sustain the family. The expenditure for childcare as a percentage of household income can exceed the cost of housing for median income families. In low income households, this creates and untenable situation where salaries from work do not cover monthly obligations.
The federal government has been assisting needy families with child care expenses since the nineteen thirties during the Great Depression. During this era, a need was recognized for there to be a safe place for poverty-stricken children to go during the day. A place to serve as a relief to their own situation that would provide food, structure, and instruction; that would also serve to benefit the parents by allowing them time to work, search for work, or learn skills that might improve their lot in life. These nursery school programs were developed by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) and provided services to participants in home relief, the predecessor to Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Once the acute need of the Great Depression dissipated, so did the interest in funding for the program. The FERA was created in 1932 and was replaced in 1935 by the Works Progress Administration (WPA).
World War II brought a renewed interest in providing out of home care to children. This time as a means to allow women to join the workforce to provide much needed labor in war related industry. This was funded in two ways. First by the Lanham Act, which was directed mostly to areas of California where there was a high density of war related industry. The remainder of the Works Progress Administration still in place from the Depression, was again set in motion to provide care centers for use by any working mother, not just those of low economic means as in previous use. Once again, once the overwhelming cause of the need declined with the end of the war, funding to these programs ended. In later decades, studies of what is most beneficial to children, simple care and supervision or actual structured lessons were conducted. They discovered that preschool-aged children benefit from structured lessons with educational goals. As a part of President Johnson’s Great Society legislation, a new program was initiated that would merge the qualities of childcare with education. The program was called Head Start. Other funding for childcare was provided for families participating in AFDC.
The Federal government has provided funding for child care subsidies since the time of Johnson, but popularity of these programs has often been a source of conflict among legislators due to its expense. In 1971, President Nixon vetoed the Comprehensive Child Development Act. This Act would have provided federal funding to make available child care to all children, regardless of income, as an intrinsic right. Though Nixon backed the idea of child care supports from the Federal government, he decided that it was not the time for the government to make such a sizeable commitment. 1974’s Title XX provided funding for a number of programs, including child care subsidy. These funds were to be used at the discretion of the state and by the early 80’s most funds were being directed to more urgent needs. During the seventies and eighties, there was a cultural shift. Where once it was expected that one parent stay home to provide family care, now it was becoming the expectation that both parents work to financially support the family. This shift in ideology prompted a shift in federal child care policy, which will be discussed in the next installment.
For further reading:
What if Donald Trump Had Empathy?
Donald Trump has proven over and over that he is incapable of empathy. Being called upon to relate to the pain of another person is like asking a toddler to drive a space shuttle. He CANNOT do it. For him, every experience is a mirror— he is always, always assessing himself to bolster a very brittle ego. This explains his obsession with the number of people at his inauguration, the popular vote count, etc.
His response to Hurricane Maria made this empathy deficit abundantly clear, and it has done great damage. Below are some actual quotes from Trump, followed by what might have been said by someone capable of empathy:
Trump: “You’ve thrown our budget a little out of whack”
If Trump had empathy: Whatever it takes, Puerto Rico, we are there for you. We will get you the aid you need. We will help you rebuild. Your problems are our problems—you are not alone.
Trump: “I know you appreciate our support because our country has really gone all out to help”
If Trump had empathy: I know you are frustrated. I know you are scared and feel abandoned. But the US looks out for its citizens. My promise to you: we will not let you down. We will get you the food, water, medicines, and other supplies, and we will find a way to reach those who are isolated. We are Americans. We do not abandon our own.
Trump: “Such poor leadership ability by the Mayor of San Juan, and others in Puerto Rico, who are not able to get their workers to help”
If Trump had empathy: Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz has been fighting for you. She has let me know what you need and I am grateful for that. She will not let you be forgotten. And I promise you this: neither will I.
Trump: “We’ve only heard ‘thank yous’ from the people of Puerto Rico,” he said. “It is something I enjoyed very much today.”
If Trump had empathy: When I look into your eyes, I see strength. I see resilience. This is what will get you through the next difficult months. I cannot take away your pain, but we promise we will help you rebuild. Puerto Rico will emerge stronger than ever.
Trump: “What’s happened in terms of recovery, in terms of saving lives – 16 lives that’s a lot – but if you compare that to the thousands of people who died in other hurricanes that frankly were not nearly as severe”
If Trump had empathy: I mourn with you. I feel your sorrow at the loss of your loved ones. Every life is precious, and this disaster touched each of you in a devastating way. You will recover, but it will be a hard, trying journey, perhaps made easier because you KNOW are not alone. We are with you, Puerto Rico. We are with you.
As we hear of the continued anguish in Puerto Rico, we must demand that other leaders in Washington step up. We cannot leave them without food, water, and the tools needed to rebuild. We must NOT let the suicide rate on this island continue to rise.
We must give them hope. They are a resilient people, but even the strongest among us needs help at times. If our president cannot send this message then we must:
We are with you, Puerto Rico. We are with you.
CHIP Demise Devastating to Millions of American Children
Congress allowed the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to expire Oct. 1, leading to the demise of one of the most successful government programs ever implemented, said an expert on health economics at Washington University in St. Louis.
“CHIP has led to a substantial reduction in the uninsured rate for children, to the point where children now have only a 5 percent uninsured rate — the lowest ever,” said Tim McBride, professor at the Brown School and director of the Center for Health Economics and Policy. He also serves as chair of the oversight committee for Missouri’s Medicaid program called MOHealthNET.
An estimated 9 million children are now covered by the CHIP program across the U.S. In Missouri, more 624,000 children are covered by a combination of CHIP and Medicaid, though most children are covered by Medicaid.
What if funding is not restored?
A move to rescue the program hit a snag in the U.S. House of Representatives this week, lowering hopes that it might be restored quickly.
“In the short run, most states can continue to pay for the program for at least a few weeks if not months, using funds carried forward from previous years,” McBride said. “But at some point, those funds will dry up and states will face cutting the program, which will mean children will lose their health insurance.
“States likely do not have the funds to make up for the loss of federal dollars. The impact of this would be devastating, to say the least, on these children and their families. But it would create a huge financial problem for the health care system — physicians, providers and those who care for them.
“It should be obvious that this is a great investment in our future because if medical problems can be avoided when children are young, they are much more likely to do better in school, be more productive members of society,” McBride said. “Also, it would be penny-wise, pound-foolish to not deal with this problem now, since covering children is a lot cheaper than covering anyone else, and it costs more if medical care is delayed.”
The state of Missouri reportedly would not run out of funding to finance the CHIP program until the first quarter of 2018, if not a little later, he said. But, in other states, the end of federal funds for CHIP will come considerably sooner, maybe within weeks.
Will Congress eventually come around?
“I would bet that Congress eventually will do something to reauthorize the program, based on previous experience, and I know they are working on legislation right now,” McBride said. “They have had to reauthorize this program many times before, and it has garnered bipartisan support.
“However, these days there is so much partisanship, and Washington is much less functional, so I am afraid to make any definitive predictions now.”
Why Mass Shootings Prompt Little Change in Public Opinion About Gun Control
Americans were shocked by the December 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut that claimed the lives of twenty children aged seven or younger. In response, President Obama argued that the slaughter of children called for the nation to break the longstanding partisan gridlock over gun control. But Congress refused to heed his call.
Although Democrats convened a gun violence task force and introduced several different pieces of legislation designed to strengthen the nation’s gun control policies, including its weak background check system, Republicans condemned these bills as attacks upon Americans’ Second Amendment rights and flatly refused to bring them to a vote. Politicians in both parties cited snippets of opinion polls to argue that “the American people” were on their side.
Did the Sandy Hook tragedy “shift the needle” in mass public opinions about guns and gun control? To find out, I analyzed a nationally-representative survey conducted four months after the shooting at the height of the ensuing media coverage and political debates. Taking into account political and demographic characteristics that make people more or less inclined to favor gun control, I compared these 2013 data to results of previous polls to assess whether the shooting altered public opinion.
Attitudes about Gun Control Are Consistently Divided
Gallup poll data indicate that the percentage of Americans who agreed that “laws covering the sale of firearms” should be “more strict” declined from 78% in 1990 to 47% in 2014. Agreement that firearm sale laws should be made more strict briefly spiked in December 2012 after the Sandy Hook shooting; but by the end of 2013, views reverted where they had previously been during the 2000s, roughly evenly split between support and opposition to tightening the laws.
According to the April 2013 poll data I analyzed, about 56% of Americans believed that gun control laws should be made “more strict” – in line, quite likely, with the temporary post-Sandy Hook increase in support of gun control observed by Gallup. Similarly, Gallup estimated in December 2012 that 44% of Americans supported “a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess semiautomatic guns known as assault rifles,” while the April 2013 poll found that about 55% of Americans favored a nationwide ban on semiautomatic weapons.
Overall, polls show that, since the mid-1990s, Americans have been nearly split down the middle when it comes to support or opposition for general gun control measures or an assault weapon ban, and the Sandy Hook mass shooting sparked only a temporary increase in public support for gun control.
Nevertheless, the April 2013 poll found much greater consensus in regard to instituting background checks for gun purchases. Nearly 89% of respondents stated that they favored “a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers.” Thus, even though Americans remain very divided on the question of gun bans, they widely agree on the need for policies to ensure responsible gun ownership.
Opinions about Gun Control are Rooted in Broader Political and Social Beliefs
In order to better understand why Americans are divided about gun control, I analyzed the relationship between people’s views on this issue and their beliefs about politics and society. A few consistent themes emerged. First, people who said they were concerned about declining morals in society or believed that the country is on the wrong track were more likely to say that gun control should be “less strict.” They were also more likely to oppose a semiautomatic weapon ban. As a number of scholars have argued, gun ownership holds a symbolic value for many Americans, who equate gun ownership with liberty and self-determination. From such a perspective, gun control impinges upon fundamental American values.
In my study, self-identified political conservatives, Republicans, and Independents were all more likely to say that gun control laws should be “kept as they are” rather than be made “more strict.” Conservatives were also more likely to oppose a semiautomatic weapon ban and efforts to strengthen background checks.
Ultimately, however, the single factor that I found was most strongly and consistently linked to opposition to gun control of any sort was a person’s feelings toward the National Rifle Association. Respondents who said that they held a favorable opinion of this group were much more likely to oppose new gun controls, semiautomatic weapon bans, and efforts to strengthen background checks. This is a new finding that has not been established in previous studies.
Are Efforts to Pass New Gun Controls Doomed?
Poll data do not bode well for the politics of gun control. The American public is deeply divided about the need to limit gun ownership. Yet a large majority of Americans still expressed support for efforts to strengthen the background check system, which was a centerpiece of efforts by Democrats to pass new legislation following the Sandy Hook massacre. With such wide public support, why did no bill pass? My study reaffirms the great power of the National Rifle Association to block any new measures. The Association’s influence in Congress is well known, but my poll data also reveal that it also strongly influences the gun policy opinions of average citizens.
If there is a path forward for the proponents of gun control, it might be in finding a way to ease National Rifle Association opposition to specific policies like background checks that enjoy wide public support. Also of interest is the fact that 45% of respondents in the April 2013 poll replied that they would consider voting for a candidate “who does not share your views on gun policy.”
Despite some possible openings for publicly supported changes in gun rules, we should not expect to see wide or sudden shifts in American public opinion about gun control. Differences of opinion on this issue have persisted for decades, despite mass shootings. At most, the data indicate that Americans might be open to accepting and letting their representatives compromise on some specific gun safety measures like improved background checks.
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Why We Are Just Learning About Harvey Weinstein?
Why has it taken almost three decades for Harvey Weinstein’s absurdities and gross sexual misconduct to come to light? He...
Head Start May Protect Against Foster Care Placement
Participating in Head Start may help prevent young children from being placed in foster care, finds a national study led...
Rescuing Sex Trafficking Victims
Forty years ago, it wasn’t unusual to find Lois Lee, Ph.D., J.D. wandering the streets and alleys of Los Angeles at 3...
It’s National Coming Out Day
Today is National Coming Out Day which is a day of raising awareness and destigmatization for the LGBTQ community. It's...
Actor Terry Crews Comes Forward About Being Sexually Assaulted by Hollywood Exec
Actor Terry Crews takes to Twitter to discuss being sexually assaulted by a Hollywood Executive in the wake of the...
Elder Care2 months ago
Stressed Out Caregivers Are Using ER Visits for Respite, Study Finds
News2 months ago
5 Ways White Social Workers Can Respond to the Charlottesville Aftermath
LGBTQ2 months ago
Military Service Boosts Resilience, Well-Being Among Transgender Veterans
Culture2 months ago
The Rise of Hookup Sexual Culture on American College Campus
Global2 months ago
Britain: We Need to Talk About the Benefits System
Justice2 months ago
Exploring the Traumatic Impact of Criminalizing Policies on Black Women and Girls
Emergency Management1 month ago
How to Volunteer for Hurricane Irma Disaster Relief
Entertainment2 months ago
What “Bachelor in Paradise” Can Teach Us About Working With Young Black Men