The "Mommy Wars," as they’re known, are heating up again, but there are key players missing from the field, it would seem. 

According to a recent article in the San Fancisco Chronicle by Maya Rupert, "The working wounded: Most women don’t have a choice to stay home with kids," it’s time to reframe the way we talk about women, work, motherhood and what the "choice" between family and work really means–and to rethink who is part of this discussion. 

Of note, Rupert writes, "For low-income mothers, summer brings a different set of challenges: finding a new means of child care now that the days aren’t filled with classroom instruction. There often is no money for vacations, and certainly not for the sizable registration fees required at the various day camps. But these concerns aren’t part of the parenting debates — and of the Mommy Wars in particular…The result is an explicit and inexplicable rejection of the view that class should matter in discussing the expectation of mothers to stay home. In essence, it’s an onslaught of negative third-wave feminism, which assumes everyone has the financial security to make a choice and tells low-income and poor mothers that this doesn’t concern them."

And, Rupert reminds us, by including these voices–since really, when it comes to child care, health insurance and the other issues that stand out as challenges for working parents–male and female–we’re likely to be forced to think of ways that are really better for all women, men and children, across income brackets.

She writes, "The Mommy Wars can be won when we redefine victory…This will require us to rethink what it means to be a good mother. The concession that good motherhood requires an abundance of time to spend at home with children overemphasizes quantity over quality and presents an incredibly simplistic view of motherhood, one that stacks the deck against lower-income moms.  Additionally, it will require us to abandon the very premise of the discussion, which is that child rearing is naturally the domain of women. We need to rethink fatherhood and seriously question why we still expect mothers to take responsibility for the bulk of child care."

As discussed last week, women are being forced to make impossible choices, ones that serve no one–not them, not their children, not their families, not our communities. 

This piece, and the concepts within, are a great reminder of the importance of looking at issues that impact women and our communities through the voices and perspectives of all involved and affected, and of including the voices of those who may be the least likely to be heard by doing the hard work of seeking them out and raising them up. 

A new national poll has found that women are delaying having children because of the high cost of child care and preschool–which can run about $10,000 annually (more than my college tuition not that long ago).

For middle income women ($35-50K), the poll found that one in three said that the cost of child care or preschool made them decide against having a baby or delay having one. Those polled often had to give up buying appliances or other household needs because of the high cost of child care.

Some of the women polled are married and part of dual income households. I can’t help but think then of the burden of child care costs on the women served by The Women’s Foundation, who are primarily single mothers earning less than $35K a year in an economy with a very high cost of living.

i wonder what choices and decisions then face a woman with less earning power, less help and a greater financial burden to assume alone.

Here in Washington, D.C., according to our Portrait Project, 2002 market rates for childcare for a family with an infant and a preschooler was around $22,900 per year–or one third of the salary of a couple earning $77,000.

Now, imagine paying my college tuition four times over each year as a single woman earning less than $35,000 per year–which is what a lot of women in our region are trying to do (as I recall, doing it once over for my single mom wasn’t exactly a cake walk). For a single woman in our region earning $26K per year (not atypical), childcare would consume 70 percent of her earnings.

Forget not buying an allowance at that point. What about food, and clothing?

And it’s not just D.C. Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties have the highest estimated childcare costs of all counties in Maryland, at $15,329 and $11,495 respectively for families with an infant and preschooler.

If you’re earning less than $35K, or even less than $50 or $75, and raising kids, that doesn’t leave a lot of budgetary wiggle room.

As Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham said regarding the poll, “The high cost of child care and preschool are causing women to make agonizing decisions. We need to invest more to ensure access to quality child care and preschool for all American families and cut crime in the process.”

Cutting crime isn’t the only thing that would be reduced were child care to be made more affordable and available in our area–and the nation. Without childcare, people–and particularly single mothers–can’t hold down their jobs.

Our Portrait Project found that there is an estimated 62 percent shortfall in the supply of regulated childcare to meet the potential demand in Washington, D.C.

Affordable child care is such a win-win on so many fronts. It may seem like a women’s issue, but really, it’s everyone’s issue, because it touches every facet of our lives, at pretty much every level of the economic spectrum.

This is why it’s one of the four focal points of Stepping Stones. Because women’s economic security, and the strength of our community, depends on access to such key basic services and needs.

As part of our ongoing commitment–in partnership with The Urban Institute–to providing information and resources related to the goals of Stepping Stones, please find below summary of recent research on issues of economic security and financial independence for women and their families.

This research is summarized and compiled for The Women’s Foundation by Kerstin Gentsch of The Urban Institute, NeighborhoodInfo DC.

Financial Education and Wealth Creation News

District of Columbia Housing Monitor: Spring 2007
By Peter A. Tatian
Urban Institute
June 28, 2007

Looks at the Washington, D.C., housing market, tracking home prices, real estate listings, new construction, and affordable housing; examines mortgage lending trends through 2005; and highlights the declining share of low income home buyers in neighborhoods throughout the city.

Key findings:

• Housing demand continues to slow; median third quarter sales prices for single-family homes and condominiums are down from one year earlier.
• Real estate listings of single-family homes and condominiums decreased between the third and fourth quarters of 2006, but the time houses spend on the market continued to increase.
• Prices show definite signs of declining or flattening in all wards except Wards 7 and 8.
• Home building slowed in the fourth quarter of 2006, and housing permits for the entire year were down for the first time since 2003.
• Denial rates for home purchase loan applications rose again in 2005; almost one quarter of all loan applications in Wards 7 and 8 were denied.
• Home buyers in Wards 5, 7, and 8 were more than 12 times more likely to take out a high interest rate loan than were buyers in Ward 3.
• The share of home purchase loans for second home and investment properties continues to increase.
• As housing prices have increased, the share of home purchasers who are very low income has dropped dramatically.

Abstract, introduction and key findings. 
Full issue.
 
How Have Asset Policies for Cash Welfare and Food Stamps Changed since the 1990s?
By Signe-Mary McKernan and William Margrabe
Urban Institute
July 2007

Examines allowance changes for restricted and unrestricted accounts at the federal and state level and tracks the different allowances for IDAs, food stamps, and welfare programs from 1992 to 2003.

Cash welfare and food stamps are means tested: assets and income must fall below set limits for families to qualify. While this ensures that benefits go to the neediest families, asset limits may also discourage asset building. States can exempt all assets (unrestricted assets), or they can exempt assets held for a specific purpose, such as education, a home, or a business (restricted assets); a car; or an individual development account (IDA).

Since 1992, states have increasingly supported IDAs and have allowed specific classes of assets. States allowing IDAs went from none in 1992 to 26 in 2003. Similarly, states exempting restricted assets in their welfare programs went from none in 1992 to 30 in 2003.

Prior to 2002, the Food Stamp Program provided no exemptions for restricted accounts. But the 2002 Farm Bill provides states the option of exempting restricted assets, if doing so aligns their food stamp policy with their welfare or Medicaid policies.

In 1992, federal policy for cash welfare allowed families to exempt $1,500 in vehicle value from the asset limit. By 2003, 29 states allowed exemption for at least one vehicle. Only 3 states exempted the entire value of a vehicle from Food Stamp eligibility during the late 1990s, but by 2003, 34 did.

The growth in allowances for restricted assets contrasts with the erosion in limits on assets not set aside for a particular purpose. Average TANF unrestricted asset limits rose in real terms from $1,138 in 1993 to $2,779 in 1998 but have since been eroded by inflation, falling to $2,592 in 2003. The Food Stamp asset limit has eroded in real terms from $2,398 in 1991 to $1,895 in 2003.

It remains unclear how much disregarding certain assets from eligibility determinations will affect decisions to save.

Text-only version.
Full paper.

Jobs and Business Ownership News

Economic Mobility: Is the American Dream Alive and Well?
By John Morton and Isabel Sawhill
The Brookings Institution
May 2007

Intends to provoke rigorous discussion about the role and strength of economic mobility in American society.

For more than two centuries, economic opportunity and the prospect of upward mobility have formed the bedrock upon which the American story has been anchored — inspiring people in distant lands to seek our shores and sustaining the unwavering optimism of Americans at home. From the hopes of the earliest settlers to the aspirations of today’s diverse population, the American Dream unites us in a common quest for individual and national success. But new data suggest that this once solid ground may well be shifting. This raises provocative questions about the continuing ability of all Americans to move up the economic ladder and calls into question whether the American economic meritocracy is still alive and well.

Summary.
Full report. 

Child Care and Early Education News

Early Care and Education for Children in Low-Income Families: Patterns of Use, Quality, and Potential Policy Implications
By Gina Adams, Kathryn Tout, and Martha Zaslow
Urban Institute
May 2007

Assesses the patterns of early care and education (ECE) utilization by low-income families, the implications for children’s development of the extent and quality of ECE participation, the evidence on the quality of ECE that low-income children receive, and the policy context that shapes ECE.

Key findings include:

• Patterns of early care and education differ for families with higher and lower incomes. Participation in early care and education settings is common for children from low income families.
• The use of particular early care and education arrangements reflects access to different arrangements as well as family preferences and constraints. 
• There is consistent evidence of a link between the quality of early care and education and children’s development. Recent studies find that the type of care and extent of care also are important for children’s development even after controlling for quality. 
• While we lack nationally representative data on child care quality, large-scale studies in differing geographical regions suggest that overall (setting aside the issue of family income), much of the care in the United States falls below a rating of “good” on widely used observational measures.
• We also lack a national picture of the quality of the market-based child care that children from low-income families receive.
• Studies indicate that the quality of program-based early care and education settings such as Head Start and state pre kindergarten differs by program type.
• Children from low-income families may be more likely to experience changes in early care and education arrangements.
• Public policies that affect the quality of early care and education tend to focus primarily on one of three goals—supporting parental work, supporting children’s development through access to early care and education programs with specific quality standards, or supporting the quality or supply of market-based settings.

Abstract, summary, and key findings.
For full report. 

Health and Safety News

Food Insecurity and Overweight among Infants and Toddlers: New Insights into a Troubling Linkage
By Jacinta Bronte-Tinkew, Martha Zaslow, Randolph Capps, and Allison Horowitz
Child Trends
July 2007

Examines data on food insecurity, defined as limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, and links food insecurity with maternal depression, poor parenting, and—paradoxically—overweight toddlers.

• One in eight U.S. households with infants (12.5 percent) reports being “food insecure”.
• Among households with low-birthweight infants—infants born weighing less than 5.5 pounds—about one in seven (14.4 percent) is food insecure.
• Among poor households with infants, nearly three in 10 (28.9 percent) report food insecurity.
• Young children living in households with very low food security are 61 percent more likely to be overweight than are young children living in food-secure households.
• Mothers living in food-insecure households are significantly more likely to report symptoms of depression than are mothers living in food-secure households.
• Parents in food-insecure households have less positive interactions with their infant children, such as less responsiveness to infant distress and less behavior directed at fostering their babies’ social and emotional growth.

Press release.
Full brief. 

Survey Spotlight on Uninsured Parents: How a Lack of Coverage Affects Parents and Their Families
By Karyn Schwartz
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
June 2007

Spotlights how being uninsured affects not just a parent’s health, but also the well-being of the entire family.

Health insurance for low-income parents influences both their own health and access to care, as well as the well-being of their families. Without health insurance for parents, families are more likely to incur debt and cut back on other basic needs to pay for care. Uninsured parents face real health consequences when they delay care, and the entire family is affected when those delays cause a parent to remain ill or be unable to participate in daily activities.

Medicaid coverage for parents is limited, and many low-income parents are not eligible. Uninsured low-income parents who are working have very limited access to employer coverage, with about half working for firms with less than 25 employees and over 40% working in industries with the lowest rates of employer coverage. About 60% of uninsured low-income parents say that they are very concerned that they do not have enough savings to cover financial obligations. Without savings, they are unlikely to be able to pay for medical treatments out-of-pocket.

As documented earlier, when parents have insurance, children are more likely to be covered and have access to health care. Some states have taken steps to improve access to public coverage for parents recognizing the importance of making coverage available for the whole family.11 Children in homes where everyone has coverage also gain financial stability and other positive benefits when their parents are able to access care. As policy makers look to decrease the number of uninsured children, children’s health coverage may be more broadly and effectively addressed if their parents’ access to coverage and care is also improved.

Full brief.  

Other News and Research

Nonprofit Governance in the United States: Findings on Performance and Accountability from the First National Representative Study
By Francie Ostrower
June 25, 2007
Urban Institute

Presents survey findings from the first ever national representative survey of nonprofit governance.

• Discusses relationships between public policy and governance, factors that promote or impede boards’ performance of basic stewardship responsibilities, board composition and factors associated with board diversity, and recruitment processes, including the difficulty experienced by many nonprofits in finding members.
• Includes some data on the representation of women on nonprofit boards.
• Our representative sample of organizations results in a radically different picture of representation by women.
• Almost all nonprofit boards include women (94 percent) and as a whole they are almost equally balanced with respect to gender. On average, boards are composed of 46 percent women (the median is a close 44 percent).
• The percentage of women on boards, however, is inversely related to organizational size. The average percentage of women is 50 percent among nonprofits with expenses under $100,000, but drops to a low of 29 percent among the largest nonprofits (over $40 million in expenses).
• Conclusions about gender composition based on larger nonprofits will be quite different than those that include smaller ones. These findings are consistent with the contention that women are less likely to serve on boards of large and prestigious nonprofits.

Abstract and introduction. 
Full paper.