"Americans want to help poor children without subsidizing their parents, and that's tough." A children's advocate.
Editor's Note
In the ideological wars now raging over the impact of welfare reform on poor children, it is easy to forget that risks to young people in our society know no class or economic boundaries. Violence, drugs, teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are problems that haunt the dreams of middle-class and poor parents alike. So, too, are mundane, but no less troubling, issues of access for their offspring to health care, good schools and high-quality day care.
No matter how parties to the debate see the problems--as systemic or essentially confined to the poor--there is no doubt that a large segment of America's children are in trouble. Consider these statistics: 21 percent of U.S. children currently live in poverty. That's a 46 percent increase since 1975, and higher overall than any comparable rate in another Western country or in Japan. Our children have neither the financially stable families of Japan, where only 1 percent of births occur out of wedlock, nor the abundant state support that is provided in Europe. Many children are simply falling through holes in the safety net. Reported and confirmed cases of child abuse and neglect are increasing rapidly--from 700,000 substantiated cases in 1990 to 850,000 just two years later--and though some of the rise is due to more stringent reporting requirements, it is still an alarming statistic. For children between 5 and 15, homicide rates have tripled and suicide rates have quadrupled since 1950.
Such trends have disturbing implications for the nation's future health and prosperity, and they raise an inescapable question: What investments must we make in these children as they grow to adulthood to prepare them to be parents, to work productively, and to share in mainstream aspirations?
Social policy research has a vital role to play in guiding the vast changes that are now under way as Congress and the Clinton administration seek to cut welfare spending by $54 billion over seven years. But assessing the patchwork quilt of state and national programs directed at children presents an immense challenge for researchers, even without the sweeping changes welfare reform will introduce. Since so many policies are changing at once--all with potential effects on employment, childbearing and family incomes--figuring out which questions to ask may be as difficult as finding the answers. And the swirling political currents over race, economics and values--for example, cutting property taxes versus investing in schools--make determinations of "success" or "failure" highly subjective.
"We are in desperate need to learn about what works," said Douglas Nelson, executive director of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, a Baltimore-based philanthropy known for its generous support of research on children's issues.
In such a climate, RAND can make a uniquely valuable contribution because of its long tradition of empirical, bipartisan research on domestic social issues--or, put less formally, a reputation for sticking to the facts and staying clear of politics. Examining what RAND researchers have already learned--in relatively calm waters--about the effects on children of current programs and policies will help to establish a baseline from which to gauge the impact of the reforms. It will also take us a considerable distance toward answering questions about what works and what doesn't. In this issue of the RAND Research Review, we survey the results of some of those studies.