 |
| Photograph by Getty Images |
The differential treatment of a person or a group due to their gender is known as gender discrimination. Discrimination based on gender has been rooted in US history until the present time. Whether it is the social movements on making sure LGBTQ+ members enjoy the same rights and privileges as someone who does not identify as such to the never-ending fights for women’s rights, gender discrimination has been addressed across the nation and beyond. Women, in particular, have been facing gender discrimination even at the hiring process. According to Pathways’ State of the Union 2018 Report, women face a penalty when they have children, with callback rates declining from 6.6 percent for women who are not parents to 3.1 percent for women who are, because “mothers are perceived as being less committed and less competent” (Pathways Magazine, 2018: 35). Furthermore, mothers face challenges in a more difficult level than men who are parenting children by themselves, especially when it comes to women of color.
During our Social Policies and Inequality class, we learned how policies can promote equality among groups and individuals, but how they can also disproportionally affect individuals based on their genders and sexualities. In her book, Under the Bus, Caroline Fredrickson (2015) argues how some policies have failed to help many low income/women of color/immigrant/working women, especially women who need child care in order to work and become more self-efficient and/or independent. Although we recognize that the child care system in the US is a challenge for all parents, these challenges are noticeably high for women of color as well as for working women. In this paper, we will discuss how child care policies have contributed to gender discrimination since this type of aid originally provided support to a group over other. Finally, we then will talk about what changes have been implemented to make sure our government provides equal treatment and opportunities for all, regardless of one’s gender.
CHILD CARE AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM
In the United States, 42 percent of families with children have women as the household’s primary breadwinner; many of them cannot afford to pay for childcare, which leads to challenges affecting working-class women, Black, and Latinas, especially (Vogtman, 2017). The author of Under the Bus, Caroline Fredrickson (2015) claims that one of the easiest ways to fall from poverty into destitution is to have children and that one of the biggest challenges for families in the US is taking care of their children while working towards a better future for their families. Fredrickson also discusses how many women, who don’t have access to childcare or who don’t count on someone who they can leave their children with, have (1) dropped out from college due to the cost of day care being more than their tuition and fees, (2) missing work (2015:173) or been fired, and (3) forced to leave their children unattended.
The Nation shared the story of Tasheva, an 11-year-old girl who was left alone with her four younger siblings in her family’s New York City apartment. After throwing water balloons out of her window onto their neighbor’s terrace, the police were called. When the police came to the apartment and found Tasheva and her siblings were home alone taken to the police station and then put into foster care. Three years later, Tasheva was raped by her foster-care brother for a period of two years. Although Tasheva’s story primarily focuses on how the child-welfare system is like the criminal-justice system, by devastatingly pulling in poor people whom the majority are people of color, the story can also be interpreted from the stance of not having child care options.
So, what’s the issue?
The child care system is a challenge for all parents regardless; however, the risks are worryingly high for working-class women as well as for 70.7 percent of Black women who are their household’s main source of income. The average weekly cost of full-time (40 hours per week) daycare is approximately $196 per child (about $10,000 per year). Anne Branigin states, “America’s current child care system does more to exacerbate inequality than it does to alleviate the struggles of the working class or offer assistance and nurturing to the children who need it the most,” especially when “affordable care means that low-income families increasingly rely on relatives or unlicensed caregivers” (2018).
The first federal program Child and Dependent Care Credit was created into law by President Gerald Ford, in 1976. Four years later and under the Reagan administration, the federal child care funding shifted, causing the growth of for-profit child care often unaffordable by low-income families who ended up receiving some aid from the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), passed in 1990. Despite this safety net been designed to allow or, like Fredrickson said, “to force mothers to work” (2015:171), there is no guarantee that eligible children will be supported and, if they would be taking care of, poor families would have to spend 30 percent of their income to pay for child care (177).
POLICY OBJECTIVES
The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), then known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, came after the Congress “acknowledging the need for expanded child care to support a welfare-to-work plan…combined along with several smaller programs, into a single block grant” (Michel, 2011). In November 2014, the reauthorized CCDBG offered a framework for states to better allowing parents to go to work or school, encouraging children’s healthy growth, and improving child care assistance programs in order to help families access safe, reliable, affordable child care, for the first time since 1996 (Matthews, 2017). To be eligible for child care assistance, families must have income below 85 percent of the state median, working or engaged in an educational activity, and have a child under 13 (or under 19 if the children have special needs).
This policy is considered as the primary federal grant program that funds child care quality initiatives through vouchers or certificates that can be used by parents for the provider or program of their choice and that provides child care assistance for low-income, working families, especially single mothers (Child Care Aware of America). The CCDBG Act of 2014, under the Obama Administration, included four primary goals:
- Enhance the quality of child care and the early childhood workforce (including required training and professional development for caregivers, teachers, and directors working in child care)
- Help parents make informed consumer choices and access information to support child development (including the posting of monitoring reports, an easily accessible website, and best practices in child development)
- Protect the health and safety of children in child care (including comprehensive background checks, health and safety training, and monitoring of child care providers)
- Provide equal access to stable, high-quality child care for low-income children (including strengthening payment rates and practices to promote access to care and minimum time periods of child care assistance to families)
POLICY EFFECTS
As a larger scope of this policy effects, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014, the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), part of the CCDBG, provided child care assistance to 1.4 million children (nearly 64 percent of infants and toddlers) from nearly 1 million low-income working families in an average month: 40 percent of whom are Black children and 32 percent Latinx (Administration for Children and Families; Child-Care Aware of America). Another long-term effect is that low-income parents receiving government aid will be receiving more stable assistance as they work toward economic independence. Furthermore, parents can receive up to 12 months of assistance before re-applying for childcare while keeping their child care aid as long as they are searching for a job. On the same not, a positive short-term effect is that background checks will be implemented to child care providers, which could bring a piece of mind to parents whose children benefit from child care and it will ensure them that their children are taking cared in a safe environment.
Matthews (2017) states that when Congress reauthorized CCDBG, they did not provide enough funding to support states, forcing them to use funds from other federal safety-net such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), not only to meet the new requirements on spending, consumer education, and comprehensive criminal background checks, but to ensure children and families don’t lose access to child care. Fredrickson (2015) uses the example of a single mother whose daughter was benefiting from child care, and when her job gave her a raise of fewer than 50 cents per hour, she found out that she was no longer eligible because her income was now “too high to qualify” (173). Moreover, in numerous cases, parents who have access to childcare vouchers must cover a portion of the costs, which can lead to economic struggles for many low-income families.
Not surprisingly, throughout American history, Fredrickson (2015) mentions how people tend to have a sentimental view of white mothers who stay at home but a judgmental view of Black mothers who do so. She states that this was also the case during Nixon administration when “hypocritically and cynically” demanded that poor women, pronominally women of color, “keep working while they have young children or lose important financial support for their families” (Fredrickson, 2015:178). So, choosing to stay at home to take care of your children was never a ‘good option’ -for Black mothers. Therefore, the lack of funding is the primary obstacle for states being fully acquiescent with the policy and disproportionately harmed marginalized genders, such as low-income, Black and Latina women.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Many studies have shown that children, especially children from low-income families, who participate in high-quality early care and education programs are “more likely to perform well in school, complete their education, be in good health, and achieve financial security than their peers who did not participate in such programs” (Vogtman, 2017:16). Childcare not only benefits children and parents but the economy at large by providing nearly 30,000 jobs and generating $1.5 billion in gross receipts.
Although having access to childcare is considered “one of the most effective policy instruments to facilitate low-income individuals’ transition from welfare to work” (Herbst 2011: 901), as Fredrickson (2015) claims, “the lack of good childcare has long-term implications, and the children of teen-mothers, parents without a high school diploma, and those who do not speak English suffer the worst consequences” (177). Hence, this policy interacts with the forces affecting the social evolution of human being, especially with low-income families.
Our hopes are to have more comprehensive policies when it comes to the requirements for accessing child care because, when parents have peace of mind that their children are in a nurturing child care, with a safe environment (in combination with benefits such as maternity leave and paid sick time), they are more likely to be productive at work, and possibly advance to a position with higher pay.
ALTERNATIVE POLICIES
Last year, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA) introduced the Child Care for Working Families Act (CCWF). The new legislation attempts to set down a strong marker for what is truly needed to make improvements to the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) across the nation. Some of the CCWF provisions include:
- Increase mandatory federal funding to ensure that no family under 150% of state median income pays more than seven percent of their income on childcare and establishing a sliding fee scale for families from 75 percent of SMI to 150 percent of SMI to assure that no family pays more than 7 percent of their income for care.
- No co-payment for families earning no more than 75 percent of SMI or families eligible for Head Start.
- Help all Head Start programs meet the new expanded duration requirements and provide full-day, full-year programming.
- More than doubles the number of children eligible for child care assistance and ensures all those who are eligible have the ability to enroll their child in a quality program.
- Build more inclusive, high-quality child care providers for children with disabilities, and infants and toddlers with disabilities, including by increasing funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Although this Act has only been referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, on March 23, Congress passed the FY 2018 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, which included a $2.4 billion increase for the CCDBG. We have still a long road to walk; yet, as Oprah states, “The key to realizing a dream is to focus not on success but significance, and then even the small steps and little victories along your path will take on greater meaning.” We will continue fighting for our children, especially for those within low-income families.
Works Cited
Branigin, Anne. 2018. “The Future of Child Care: How to Create a Fairer, More Equitable
System for Working Women and Women of Color.” The Root. Retrieved November 12, 2018 (https://www.theroot.com/the-future-of-child-care-how-to-create-a-fairer-more-1824129090).
Fredrickson, Caroline. 2015. Under the Bus. New York, NY: The New Press.
Herbst, Chris M. and Tekin, Erdal, 2011. “Do Child Care Subsidies Influence Single Mothers’
Decision to Invest in Human Capital?” Economics of Education Review. Ed. 30. Pp. 901–912. Elsevier. Retrieved November 9, 2018. Doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.03.006
Matthews, Hanna, et al. 2017. “Implementing the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Reauthorization: A Guide for States.” The Center for Law and Social Policy (Clasp). The National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). Retrieved November 10, 2018 (https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/final_nwlc_CCDBGUpdate2017.pdf).
Michel, Sonya. 2011. “The history of child care in the U.S.” Social Welfare History
Project. Retrieved November 9, 2018 (http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/child-care-the-american-history)
Pathways Magazine. 2018. “State of the Union: The Poverty and Inequality Report”. Stanford
Center on Poverty and Inequality. Retrieved November 9, 2018 (https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Pathways_SOTU_2018.pdf).
Vogtman, Julie. 2017. “Undervalued: A Brief History of Women’s Care Work and Child Care
Policy in the United States.” National Women’s Law Center. Washington. Retrieved November 9, 2018 (https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/final_nwlc_Undervalued2017.pdf).
No comments:
Post a Comment