Alice Bettencourt
January 22,1999
INTS 4763
"Women and Children on Welfare: Fact Versus Stereotypical Perceptions."
The public's perceptions about women on welfare in the United States and how many children they have is a subject that I have debated about upon several occasions with different groups of people ranging from college students, young professionals and older, established working individuals. Based on my personal experiences in these conversations, the topic of women and welfare often ends up on the subject of how many children a woman on welfare should have and is often based on stereotypical perceptions of women on welfare. Time after time, the preconception that most women on welfare have several children and continue to have more children in order to receive a bigger welfare check every month was discussed. I too fell into believing this stereotypical perception about women on welfare. Where does the preconception that women on welfare have "a million kids" and continue to keep having them come from? Do we hear this from the media? Do we have overwhelming statistical figures continuously fed to us by the government? Or, in actuality, do we base these preconceptions on what our friend or neighbor down the road heard about "their cousin" or "someone they knew"? In my opinion most people base this stereotype on hearing once about an unordinary case of a woman who did abuse the welfare system and happened to have several children or continued to have many more children while on welfare. These stories tend to stick in the public's minds due to the fact that it disturbs our emotions and goes against the hard-work ethic that most Americans have. The fact that these stereotypes are myths is not often brought to the general public's attention. In discussions among the general public, few people would actually rebut this stereotype with actual facts and figures. The public's view is often clouded by personal feelings about the welfare system.
Jill Duerr Berrick and Anne Marie Cammisa address these myths in their books "Faces of Poverty: Portraits of Women on Welfare" and "From Rhetoric to Reform," respectively. Berrick specifically addresses the two myths that women on welfare have many children and that they continue to have children so they can get additional money every month (Pg. 15). Cammisa also addresses the same myth. Both authors rebut this myth with statistics saying that the average woman on welfare in fact only has two children. (Berrick, Pg. 15 & Cammisa, Pg. 16) In fact, Berrick notes that only one child is found in the families of forty-two percent of recipients. Thirty percent of AFDC recipients have two children; sixteen percent have three children while four or more children are found in the remaining ten percent (Berrick, Pg.15) The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census documents that in 1993 mothers who receive WIC had an average of 2.2 children ("Mothers Who Receive WIC Benefits- Fertility and Socioeconomic Characteristics", Pg. 3). (WIC is the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children which gives vouchers for specific foods to promote healthy lifestyles to low income mothers who are pregnant and/or have children under the age of five.) These statistics are consistent with Berrick and Cammisa's observations but the U.S. Department of Commerce also takes into account that the women used in this study vary in ages from fifteen to forty-four. The women in the older age group of thirty-five years old to forty-four years old actually had an average of 3.7 children each. As they got older in age, the average number of children they had rose. Even though the statistics in Berrick and Cammisa's books state that the average number of children in a welfare recipient's home is two, this may not be the actual or average amount of children that the recipients had throughout their duration on welfare. At age eighteen or twenty a woman on welfare may only have had one or two children due to the few amount of years she has been able to bear children. A woman who is in her thirties in fact may have had more children than the younger woman. Averaging these figures out at one point of the recipients' lives may result in the average number of children only being two but as the younger woman gets older her chances of having children later in life also increase. Additionally, 28.9 years old was the median age for female welfare recipients in 1991. (U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services, Washington D.C., 1991) In my opinion, if these statistics were studied over a period of one generation at different points of each of these women's lives the average number of children they have while on welfare may increase. Berrick however did note that based on a study by Mark Rank, for each additional year that a woman receives government assistance the "odds of conceiving a child decrease notably" (Berrick, Pg. 154).
The second issue regarding women on welfare who continue to have more children to increases their welfare check is also a misconception among the public. Both Berrick and Cammisa argue that a welfare recipient's check may increase due to having another child but only on average by approximately $70.00 per month (Berrick, Pg.15 & Cammisa, Pg.16). Seventy dollars per month is hardly enough money to support a child and supports the notion that in fact many women on welfare find it harder to raise their children and to escape poverty and the welfare system if they have additional children. Berrick states:
one study found that women on welfare were more conscientious about using contraceptives while on welfare, that they were less likely to want an additional pregnancy, and that they were less likely to become pregnant while on welfare. Other studies have found that women on welfare become less interested in having additional children when they realize how great the financial strain of child rearing is. In sum there is very little financial incentive to bear further children while on AFDC" (Pg. 15).
It seems that a single woman on welfare who has additional children will most likely increase her years on welfare due the financial strain of raising another child. Every additional child is a greater responsibility and creates a difficulty for the mother to pursue job training, an education or to work in general due to having to take care of her child, especially while the child is very young. A young child demands careful attention and adds a financial strain on mothers who are already struggling on the welfare system. One character in Berricks book, Cora, stated that it did not make sense that the government was trying to have her return to work while her children were so young. If she worked her children would have to attend daycare thus the government would be paying someone else to watch her children. She argued that it would be more reasonable to have the actual mother take care of her own children. Why not pay the mother to take care of her own children instead of a stranger (Berrick, Pg. 136)? Berrick calculates that the average American child costs more than $100,000 by the time they reach the age of eighteen (Berrick, Pg. 93). The costs of raising a child come from food, clothes and shelter as well as the cost of daycare, healthcare and entertainment. If a child remains on welfare for the duration of his/her childhood the net result would be the taxpayers paying the $100,000. In 1992, 9.2 million children under the age of eighteen were receiving AFDC, accounting for 67.7 percent of the AFDC population (Cammisa, Pg. 13). In 1993, approximately 9.6 million children were receiving AFDC (Cammisa, Pg. 14). That is an increase of 400,000 children receiving aid in over a period of just one year. The argument regarding the increase of children on welfare leads to the complicated issue regarding welfare and the use of birth control. With a large amount of children receiving AFDC and the trouble most women on welfare have with surviving on the system, many question the issue of whether or not these women should be required to use birth control while receiving assistance from the government. This issue has been debated upon in several states including Kansas and Wisconsin. In 1991, the Kansas legislature considered enacting a bill which gave a $500.00 bonus to every welfare recipient who agreed to have a Norplant implanted (Berrick, Pg. 15 and "Wisconsin Welfare Plan: To Reward the Married" NY Times, Feb 12, 1991 , Pg A16). There are several pros and cons to the requirement of birth control for women receiving government assistance.
The issue of women on welfare and required birth control is a subject that many, including myself, have had heated discussions about. Many argue that the issue comes down to the fine line of individual rights versus the rights of society in general. Those who argue for individual rights often state that the government cannot control one's body (along the same lines as pro-choice advocates in the argument about abortion). Women on welfare are not possesions of the U.S. or State Governments. They may be receiving benefits but this does not constitute a reduction in their individual rights. Those who argue for individual rights believe that any woman, no matter if she is on welfare or not, should be able to determine how many children she has. The Constitution gives each individual the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." This includes the right to bear children. On the other side of the line, there are those who argue that once a woman starts receiving help from the government they need to work hard no longer need assistance. As previously discussed, by having more children while on welfare it appears that they decrease their chance of getting off of welfare sooner than if they did not have additional children. In the long run, each additional child born on welfare increases the amount that taxpayers pay. Many taxpayers argue that their own individuals rights are being supressed because they are forced to support others who cannot support themselves. They often argue that a woman who cannot afford to have a child should not have any additional children until they can be self-supportive. If not ,the government will continue to spend money on growing welfare families.. Each additional child on welfare increases the amount of money that a mother does not have to get her existing family out of the system. The mother often has to stay home with her young child/children thus, does not have the same opprotunities to escape welfare. Some states like Maryland have even argued that additional aid to women who have additional children should be abolished (Berrick Pg. 153). In 1991, Wisconsin's governor attempted to put a cap on un-wed welfare mothers' incomes if they had additional children. If they were married however, they would be entitled to an additional $80 per month for each additional child (New York Times, Feb 12, 1991, Pg A16).
If women on welfare do in fact have an additional child or children then they will have a harder time getting off of welfare because they will not be able to independantly support their children. This in the long run may increase a woman's dependency on welfare. Berrick quotes David Ellwood stating that "an important minority, at least one quarter, will collect AFDC for ten or more years" (Berrick, Pg. 115). She continues to ask what "all of the fuss" is about if only 25% of welfare recipients remain on welfare for a substantial amount of time. It is the fact, about 65% of all welfare dollars are consumed by this small percentage of welfare recipients (Berrick Pg. 115). The arguments for and against welfare will continue as long as welfare exists and there are families in need of assistance. The United States' public has a right to criticize the welfare system but they need to criticize the system contructively. The public also needs to base their criticisms on facts and not stereotypes. Welfare in the United States needs reform before the women and children who depend on it to live will be able to escape the clutches of poverty. There are those receiving assistance who see welfare as a means to their entire way of life while others, also the majority, see it as a stepping stone to remove them from poverty and to achieve a better life. Education, child care and health care are important issues that need to be reformed. These women need a gradual transition into the real working world. Welfare needs to give women receiving assistance more options other than one, being completely dependent on the system or two, self-sufficient but still poor.
WORKS CITED
1. Cammisa, Anne Marie. From Rhetoric to Reform: Welfare
Policy inAmerican Politics. Boulder, Colorado, 1998.
2. Duerr Berrick, Jill. _Faces of Poverty: Portraits of Women and Children on Welfare._ Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
3. Wilkerson, Isabel. "Wisconsin Welfare Plan: To Reward the Married," _New York Times_, February 12, 1991 , Pg. A16.
4. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. "MothersWho Receive WIC Benefits- Fertility and Socioeconomic Characteristics," Washington D.C. 1995.