America’s national debt is estimated at over fourteen trillion dollars (TreasuryDirect.com). The problem with the country’s deficit is not news unheard of. Overcoming the problem has shown its difficulties. Not much seems to alleviate the problem. “As of this year the House of Representatives proposed an estimated thirty two billion dollars in cuts to programs for children” (Sanderson). Although the country is severely in debt and cuts definitely need to be made, it is not right that the children of America have to pay for the consequences. Why make children pay for something they did not contribute to? The government needs to continue supporting and funding programs that help children, such as A Keiki’s Dream, because these programs provides opportunities for them they may not receive any other way, these programs boosts children’s self-esteem, and provides a safe environment.
Programs and charities that help children provide opportunities they never would have had any other way. First, for example, A Keiki’s Dream, is a program that arranges services for needy children in the Maui County, and inspires hope to those children (MauiNews.com) A Keiki’s Dream grants a self-directed dream for each child in the program (AKeikisDream.org). Without this program, the children of Maui County would not have the opportunity to have a dream come true. Also, in kind programs, programs that provide services rather than money, are deeply beneficial. They are providing needs for families, supporting them, and essentially providing an “invisible safety net” says Janet Currie, a professor of economics at Columbia University. Without in kind programs needs for families would not be met. Second, without funding from the government, numerous progra...
... middle of paper ...
...28 Aug. 2011.
Currie, Janet. “The Invisible Safety Net: Protecting Poor Children and Families in the US.” Web
Blog Post. VOX. 4 Jan. 2009. Web. 6 Sept.2011
“Debt to the Penny.” Treasury Direct. Web. 10 Sept. 2011.
“Every Child Is Special.” A Keiki's Dream. Web. 7 Sept. 2011.
Iyer, Aparna. “Erikson's Psychosocial Theory of Development.” Buzzle. Web. 1 Sept. 2011.
Jeremy. "Creating An Emotionally Safe Environment For Our Children." Stay At Home Papa. 30
Nov. 2010. Web Blog Post. 5 Sept. 2011.
Harder, Arlene. “Erik Erikson Stages of Development.” Learning Place Online. Web. 10 Sept.
2011.
Navarro, Emily. “Government Funding for Charities: When It Declines the Charities Lose
Twice.” Charity Navigator. 1 May 2005. Web. 5 Sept. 2011.
Sanderson, Jamie. “House Proposes More Cuts in Children’s Programs.” PoliticusUSA. 17 Feb.
2011. Web. 4 Sept. 2011.
Hays, Sharon. (2003). Flat Broke With Children: Women in the Age of Welfare Reform. New
Downs, S., Moore, E., McFadden, E., & Costin, L. (2004). Child welfare and family services: Policies and practice. (7th. Ed., pp. 319-363) Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
The current system has not been good for children. In 1965 there were 3.3 million children on AFDC; by 1992, that had risen to over 9 million children despite the fact that the total number of children in this country has declined. Last year, the Department of Health and Human Services estimated if we do nothing, 12 million will be on AFDC in 10 years. Instead of working up, we find more and more children being trapped in a system and into dependency on welfare. 90 percent of the children on AFDC live without one of their parents. Only a fraction of welfare families are engaged in work. There are always the sad accounts of how, again and again, women would get off of welfare, they would be doing well on their own, but their child-care would fall apart just as they were getting back on their feet. The new bill provides $3.5 billion more than current for that needed child care.
Wight, V. R., Chau, M., & Aratani, Y. (2010, Jan). National Center for Children in Poverty. Retrieved from Who are America’s Poor Children?: http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_912.html
It is not difficult to document that poor children suffer a disproportionate share of deprivation, hardship, and bad outcomes. More than 16 million children in the United States – 22% of all children – live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level – $23,550 a year for a family of four. (Truman, 2005) Living in poverty rewires children 's brains and reports show that it produces prolonged effects. Also, growing up in a community with dangerous streets, gangs, confused social expectations, discouraging role models, and few connections to outsiders commanding resources becomes a burden for any child. The concern about the number of children living in poverty arises from our knowledge of the problems children face because of poverty.
Harris, Kathleen. “Work and Welfare Among Single Mothers in Poverty.” The American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 99 Sept. 1993. 317-52.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2014 African Americans held the highest poverty rate of 26%, with Hispanics holding the second highest rate at 24% (DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2015). When comparing this to the poverty rates of Whites at 10% and Asians at 12% in 2014, we see that in America, racial and ethnic minorities are more vulnerable to experiencing poverty (DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2015). In addition, discrimination is seen between genders among those living in poverty. Family households of a single adult are more likely to be headed by women and are also at a greater risk for poverty (DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2015). In 2014, 30.6% of households headed by a single woman were living below the poverty line compared to 15.7% for households headed by a single male (DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2015). Many factors such as poor wages for women, pregnancy associations, and the increase of single-woman parented families have impacted the increase of women in poverty. Children are most harshly affected by poverty because for them the risks are compounded, as they lack the defenses and supports needed to combat the toxicity surrounding them. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 21% of all U.S. children (73.6 million children) under 18 years old lived in poverty in 2014 (DeNavas-Walt & Proctor,
To date in HN370: Child Welfare and Family, we have discussed family dynamics and culture. We have dug deeper into the social problem of poverty by defining it and discussing characteristics of poor children, why children live in poverty, the consequences of growing up in poverty and the correlation between homelessness and being poor. We have delved into substance abuse, paying special attention to both addicted parents and children. We have examined the affects of violence in the home, by peers and in schools, as well as the epidemic of bullying.
Ehrenreich, Barbara and Frances Fox Piven. ?Without a Safety Net.? Mother Jones. 27.3 (May-June2002):1?4. Online. Information Access Expanded Academic ASAP. Article A86047838.
Downs-Whitelaw, S., Moore, E., &McFadden, E. J. (2009). Child welfare and family services: Policies and practice, USA: Parson Education Inc.
Smith, Kristin and Adams, Nicholas, "Child care subsidies critical for low-income families amid rising child care expenses" (2013). The Carsey Institute at the Scholars' Repository. 5 May 2013. Paper. 19 Nov. 2013.
Child welfare system was originated with the goals that social workers would try and alleviate poverty and its impact; however as the years have passed, the child welfare system turned into a child protection system directed toward investigating abuse and neglect, and removing children from families and placing them in foster care, and is no longer prepared to assist in resolving the problems of child poverty (Lindsey, 2004). Child welfare system has been developed around the residual approach which demands that aid should be given only after the family is in crisis or other support groups have failed to meet a child’s minimal needs. However, over the years, there have been different focuses for the child welfare system, whether it involved
Wolfe, Barbara , and Scott Scrivner. "Providing Universal Preschool for Four-Year-Olds." One Percent for the Kids. Washington: 113-135. The Brooking Institution, 2003. Print.
Research prior to SEF’s 2013 findings, such as Brook-Dunn’s 1997 work, found that one in five American children were either currently living in families, or had lived in families in which cash income failed to exceed official poverty thresholds. For a small minority of children, 4....
Laden, Greg. "Children from Low-income Families at Educational Disadvantage." Science Blog. N.p., 26 Dec. 2008. Web. 8 Jan. 2014.