Mother’s Day is over
Mother’s Day is the one day mothers get an acknowledgement of the care and sacrifice most make to children and family life. Just two weeks after this year’s celebration, however, the Michigan Legislature passed a budget that severely restricts state assistance to some of the state’s most desperately poor mothers with dependent children—those families with incomes of less than $814 a month for a family of three and cash assets less than $3,000—including any retirement accounts.
Very poor Michigan families, mostly headed by mothers, may receive up to $492 a month (for a family of three) to meet basic living expenses. This grant amount has not significantly changed in almost two decades while the cost of living has escalated by roughly 28 percent. The grant no longer covers most shelter options; rental costs for a two-bedroom unit in southeast Michigan averaged almost $800 in 2010.
State department spokespeople now refer to the cash assistance program as “transitional” in a state that had the highest or near highest unemployment rate in the country since 2006. Nonetheless, these mothers were supposed to be able to get and keep jobs in an economy where companies were shedding workers at unprecedented rates. Furthermore, the bedrock industry of the state’s economy virtually collapsed with devastating ripple effects on retail, restaurants, and child care —all sectors with disproportionate levels of female employment.
Now the limit for the “transition” for individual families is 48 months whether they have been meeting all the requirements or not, whether they have extenuating circumstances or not, and whether their grant amount is as little as $10 a month due to their earnings. The sad fact is that many of these mothers were/are employed but in the “expendable” labor force where hours are cut, schedules changed, and layoffs occur. When the economy flourished in Michigan, the bulk of the caseload left the program within two years, but job opportunities, particularly for single mothers with children, have changed.
Nobody seems to be talking much about the fact that two of three people on the cash assistance caseload are children. In fact, the program originated in the desire to provide Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) after the Great Depression and was created in the national Social Security Act of 1935. Almost 30 years later the aid was extended to include unemployed parents, thus Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
In the welfare “reform” of 1996 the discussion centered completely on parental (maternal) employment, nothing about child well-being. States were rewarded for reducing caseloads so states sought ways to deny rather than provide assistance. In the midst of the most dramatic economic downturn since the Great Depression the number of Michigan residents qualifying for the Food Assistance Program, formerly known as “food stamps” soared while the number receiving cash assistance through the state’s Family Independence Program stagnated—not what one would expect from a program designed to mitigate economic distress among families with children.
As of 1996 states received a block grant or a set amount of funding for assisting families with dependent children. Reductions in the caseload also freed the dollars to fill budget holes created by tax reductions from tax policy decisions compounded by the economic downturn.
The current budget makers continue to make the conversation about parental employment. No one is talking about the 157,000 children who depend upon the program. When the state law is implemented, roughly 25,000 children will be living in families no longer eligible for the assistance but without resources to meet basic needs. Will these children be referred to Child Protective Services to be absorbed into the foster care program? It would almost triple the caseload overnight. The state is already struggling with issues related to the size of the foster care caseload. The Department of Human Services just hired 300 workers to meet the requirements in a settlement of a lawsuit about its negligence in keeping foster children safe in the system. Neglect is the most common type of child maltreatment, and these children are at the highest risk of being removed from their parent. Is this the best solution for these children and their mothers?
– Jane Zehnder-Merrell
