When measuring the shortcomings as well as the successes of welfare reform (“Welfare reform’s unstudied success,” Editorial, July 21), it’s important to consider what we know and what we don’t know.
We know that the push to move more single mothers into the work force will continue to increase the demand for quality child care, particularly for babies and very young children. We also know that the need for full-day and weekend care will only continue to rise.
But what we don’t really know is the effect that lowering the welfare caseload is having on families, particularly children. As more moms are returning to school or going to work, who’s caring for their babies and young children? Is that care more than just “custodial” care? Are the children being talked to, sung to, played with and held? Are their caregivers warm, sensitive and well-trained? Do they understand how a child’s early experiences can actually help the human brain to grow?
Poor children are especially vulnerable children. For them, in particular, the difference between mere custodial care and loving care, which recognizes that learning begins at birth, can mean the difference between doing well in school or dropping out, finding success in the work world or landing on the welfare rolls.
Any study of welfare reform and any changes in public policy must ask, “Is it good for the children?”
