Running head: paper b formation of policy alternative

Formation of Policy Alternative Child Welfare

Emily R. Johnson
Wayne State University
December 1, 2015

paper b formation of policy alternative

Formation of Policy Alternative Child Welfare

A new report from UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) reveals, Nearly one third
of U.S. children live in households with an income below 60 percent of the national median
income in 2008 - about $31,000 annually (Ingraham, C., 2014). For the richest country in the
world to also have one of the world's highest childhood poverty rates, income inequality
becomes a pretty well painted picture. It also reflects the failure of U.S. policymakers to
seriously grapple with the challenges facing the most vulnerable members of our society.
Its a never ending malicious cycle - as parents are forced to work more to be able to
provide for their families, they become less able to care for and spend time with their children.
Concurrently, child abuse also increases during times of job scarcity, resulting in a high demand
for child welfare services (abuse and neglect prevention services, family preservation services,
child protective services, in-home services and out-of-home placements, and
adoption/guardianship services and supports). However, of course, the funding for such services
is on a steady decline. Between SFYs 2010 and 2012, federal spending declined by 10 percent,
and combined state and local spending declined by 6 percent (DeVooght, K., Fletcher M., &
Cooper, H., 2014).
The issue of child poverty in the United States is directly linked to the economic status of
their families. Over time, U.S. Congress has introduced several programs targeting families, such
as the child tax credit, the dependent care tax credit, the tax credit for college expenses, and
unpaid family leave. But, we have failed to establish a truly coherent family policy to address
the urgent issues of income inequality and child poverty, - and the necessary government funding
for the two. We are not spending nearly enough to improve the economic conditions of American
families.

paper b formation of policy alternative

The Swedish Model

The extent of my research has found that among international comparisons of child
welfare, the Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark. And Iceland) are often
described as child-centered welfare paradises for children (Forsberg, H., 2010). With 32.2
percent of children living below poverty line, the U.S. ranks 36th out of the 41 wealthy countries
included in the UNICEF report. In contrast, only 5.3 percent of Norwegian kids currently meet
this definition of poverty (Ingraham, C., 2014). With this being said, it seems important to
discuss the U.S. family policy (or the lack of one) in comparison to Sweden, the leader in the
development of the welfare state.
As Martha N. Ozawa states in a comparative study, United States social policy on
families gives no consideration to the imperfection of systems (e.g., the U.S. economic system)
that do not provide adequate wages and benefits to low-wage earners, and the terms of their
employment do not accommodate the conflict between worker and parent roles. In contrast,
Sweden has established an explicit family policy to address the pressure that an industrialized
society imposes on the parent/worker (N. Ozawa, M., 2004).
On the basis of Swedens family policy, they addressed two specific policy issues: 1)
how to keep women with children participating in the labor market (promoting their egalitarian
distribution of income/income equality), and 2) how can they provide a national minimum
income for all children, regardless of the background of their parents (child poverty). In brief,
Swedish family policy seeks to achieve horizontal equity (among genders and children), whereas
the U.S. family policy is more preoccupied with vertical equity.
Their gregarious spending on family benefits (around 3.1% of GDP, which represents one
of the highest shares in the EU) (Sweden: Successful Reconciliation, 2015). provides immense
special care for expectant parents, promoting the largest proportion of working mothers in the

paper b formation of policy alternative

European Union. In America, it is common to see mothers, especially new mothers, unable to
continue working because of inadequate support when it comes to affordable child care and/or
paid family leave. This has a stronger effect on our economy than we think. Whereas in other
developed countries, particularly those of Northern and Western Europe, working parents have it
much easier, thus the employment rate of mothers does not differ from the rate of mothers with
no children. The Swedes get up to 16 months of paid leave after the birth of a newborn, extra tax
credits to defray the cost of child-rearing, plus access to regulated, subsidized day care facilities
that stay open from 6:30 in the morning until 6:30 at night (Cohn, J., 2014).
. These programs are available to everybody, regardless of income, and the vast majority
of working parents take advantage of them. These various family benefits that Sweden has
developed allow mothers (and men) with children n to continue in the labor market, which is one
of the key factors known to prevent poverty (and that includes child poverty!).
Description of Policy Alternative
The expenditures for social welfare programs are national in scope; thus, they reflect
spending by all levels of government. For example, spending on AFDC, as well as TANF,
reflects spending by both the federal and state governments.
According to Ozawa (again), For a country to claim to have a comprehensive family
policy, certain types of programs must be instituted: maternity (or parenting) leave, childcare
leave, child allowances, child support (alimony) payments, free or highly subsidized preschool
education, health care, and 911 years of compulsory schooling for all childrenall of which
must use the universalistic approach (no income testing) to the provision of benefits (N. Ozawa,
M.,2004). The two most major of these that Sweden includes are: family allowances for children
and paid maternity and/or parental leave. Unfortunately for us, the United States spending is
currently filtered through state governments, which are authorized to decide how to use such

paper b formation of policy alternative

funds, generally involving income or earning testing. Because of these various income eligibility
requirements, the percentage of low-income children served differs by state. In most cases,
children in poor states are helped less financially, whereas those in well-off states are helped
more (N. Ozawa, M., 2004).
A comprehensive family policy could be built on what the United States already has,
says Ozawa. Medicaid, Food Stamps, TANF, the EITC, and child welfare. Building on these
programs, the United States could introduce a modest child allowance program, revamping the
current child tax credit (which does not help families with no earnings; expansion of the EITC to
provide higher EITC benefits for families with three or more children; universal access to health
care for children either under Medicaid or under some other arrangement; a refundable
dependent care tax credit (which is currently nonrefundable); paid family leave (currently
nonpaid); guaranteed childcare services for all children; improved child welfare services; highquality public education for all children (which is now being pursued); and universal access to a
college education as long as a child passes a merit-based examination (N. Ozawa, M., 2004).
In addition, there should be a reevaluation of the states authority in choosing the types of
social services programs that benefit children and the levels of spending for such programs.
Children should have access to child welfare services and other related social services regardless
of the states in which we live.
Economical Feasibility
So what would it cost to extend the generous Swedish bundle of family leaves and Early
Child Education and Care (ECEC) to families with young children in the US? According to
Gornick and Meyers, If the package of benefits cost the same amount in real per capita dollars
in the US, providing generous family leaves would require about 0.4 percent of GDP; extending
ECEC to the levels of provision in Sweden would translate into another approximately 1.0

paper b formation of policy alternative

percent of GDP (assuming the 0.2 percent already spent in the US). Together, these benefits
would require an investment that is equivalent to 1.7 percent of the US GDP; that is about onehalf of what is currently committed to public primary and secondary education as a share of
GDP (Gornick, J. C., & Meyers, M. K., 2004).
However, Swedish income taxes are also considerably high, but a large share of it goes
into providing this work-life balance within the society. Americans are generally reluctant to
increase their tax burden, but Swedish residents claim they wouldnt have it any other way We
would not want to live a country where taxes may be lower but the benefits are less and you dont
get to spend time with your children when they are young (Cohn, J., 2014). Would Americans be
willing to tax themselves to provide these specific public benefits?
Political Feasibility
Skeptics argue that Americans would not be willing to tax themselves at the necessary
levels to provide wide-ranging, universal social provisions. In the US, total tax receipts account
for 30 percent of GDP, compared to 54 percent in Sweden (Gornick, J. C., & Meyers, M. K.,
2004). Americans pay less in taxes than their counterparts in much of Europe. Furthermore,
following current political trend, we see that Americans have been more biased towards tax
deductions, whatever the fiscal consequences. Therefore, it may be a challenge to rally support
for new taxes to assist working families.
However, there is still considerable evidence that Americans desire for the government to
do more in the areas of family leave and ECEC (Early Child Education and Care). Americans
have already shown themselves willing to contribute to social insurance programs by paying
taxes for a similar form of support to children and families: public education. Although the US
is a laggard in many areas of social welfare spending, it was one of the early leaders in extending
public education to all children (Gornick, J. C., & Meyers, M. K., 2004).

paper b formation of policy alternative

With this being said, public financing for education provides encouragement and hope in
terms of both the magnitude of expenditures and the political feasibility of public financing.
Administrative Feasibility
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is a division of the Department of
Health & Human Services. HHS administers more than 100 programs across its operating
divisions. The programs that a new family policy would relate to are: Health insurance (including
the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP) and Social services (TANF, Head Start,
child care, and child support help). It would also relate to the Department of Labor regarding
leave benefits, work hours, and workers compensation.
Meeting Social Work Values/Goals
According to 6.01 of the NASW Code of Ethics, social workers ethical responsibility to
the broader society, Social Welfare Social workers should promote the general welfare of
society, from local to global levels, and the development of people, their communities, and their
environments. Social workers should advocate for living conditions conducive to the fulfillment
of basic human needs and should promote social, economic, political, and cultural values and
institutions that are compatible with the realization of social justice (National Association of
Social Workers, 1999).
Low-wage workers in the U.S. are often find trying to balance family and work especially
difficult, as they are more likely to work in jobs with few benefits and limited flexibility. When
tough compromises have to be made, consequences for childrens health and development
become a concern. Current public policies in the United States do not adequately support
workers striving to meet the obligations of work and family. The federal Family and Medical
Leave Act (FMLA) provides 12 weeks of unpaid leave from employment for major life events,
but coverage is far from universal, and many cannot afford to take time-off from work without

paper b formation of policy alternative

pay. Low-wage workers, in particular, would benefit from expanded paid leave policies, as they
are less likely to be covered by the federal policy and are in greater need of pay during time-off
from work for major life events.
Social equality and justice is established through Swedens family policy by supporting
the dual-earner family model and ensuring the same rights and obligations regarding balance of
family and work for both men and women.
Implementation Plan
Various public and private agencies/organizations that currently strive to advance policies
in order to achieve better outcomes for children, youth and families would make great allies.
Some may include: The Child Welfare League of America, the National Child Care Association,
National Association to Protect Children, National Childrens Alliance, Every Child Matters, and
the Alliance for Racial Equity in Child Welfare.
Opponents of the Nordic model criticize the high taxes, high degree of government
intervention and relatively low gross domestic product and productivity, with the notion that
these all limit economic growth (McWhinney, J.E., 2014). They point out that the Nordic
Model redistributes assets, limits the amount of money available for personal spending and
consumption and encourages reliance on government subsidized programs.
The Nordic Model has brought attention to itself for one reason: it works. It is true, the
model relies tremendously on pro-government attitudes from the people. According to the
Norwegian American Weekly, There is a strong investment in people, education, child care,
making it easier to work, and most importantly, gender equality (The Nordic Model, 2014). It
would be a challenge for the model to be implemented elsewhere without the context of honesty,
trust, integrity in government, and fairness throughout society. What works for 25,000,000
people may not work in the U.S., which has more than 300,000,000 people (The Nordic Model,

paper b formation of policy alternative

2014). The decision would rely solely on the heart of American citizens, if they would be willing
to trust the government more in order to gain substantial better benefits for all citizens.
Personal Feelings
The result of the Swedish model is a system that treats all citizens equally and
encourages workforce participation. Gender equality is the hallmark trait of the culture. Not
only does it result in a high degree of workplace participation by women, but also a high level of
parental engagement by men (McWhinney, J.E., 2014).
Based on my research over the past week, I have discovered that this is actually a semidiscussed alternative to the American welfare system. I am not an expert in government policy,
so Im sure I may have overlooked some key important factors to consider, however, the benefits
do sound luxurious, and it has made me consider Sweden as a possible extended travel
destination in the future. Do I think its absolutely feasible for the United States to adopt the
entire Sweden model? No. I do agree that American citizens do have a lot of distrust with our
government, and for many good reasons. It would take a LOT for the government to ever pull
something like this off. If, that is, our government even cares enough about its citizens to
consider such a change in the first place.
Because this paper was nearly impossible for me to put together, and Im still not 100%
sure of its validity, I would probably only participate in the change process minimally. I would
vote for the policy change and help raise public awareness via social media, but thats probably
about it.

paper b formation of policy alternative

10
References

Cohn, J. (2014, June 22). I'm Insanely Jealous of Sweden's Work-Family Policies. You Should
Be, Too. Retrieved December 5, 2015, from https://newrepublic.com/article/118294/us-shouldcopy-sweden-and-denmarks-work-family-policies

DeVooght, K., Fletcher M., & Cooper, H. (September 2014). Federal, State, and Local Spending
to Address Child Abuse and Neglect in SFY2012. Publication no. #2014-47. N.p.: Assessing New
Federalism Project, Retrieved December 3, 2015 from <http://www.childtrends.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/2014-47ChildWelfareSpending2012.pdf>.

Forsberg, H. (2010). Social work and child welfare politics: Through Nordic lenses. Bristol, UK:
Policy Press.

Gornick, J. C., & Meyers, M. K. (2004). More Alike than Different: Revisiting the Long-Term
Prospects for Developing European-Style Work/Family Policies in the United States. Journal
of Comparative Policy Analysis, 6(3), 251-273. doi:10.1080/1387698042000305202

Ingraham, C. (2014, October 29). Child poverty in the U.S. is among the worst in the developed
world. Retrieved December 5, 2015, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/29/child-poverty-in-the-u-s-is-amongthe-worst-in-the-developed-world/

paper b formation of policy alternative

11

McWhinney, J.E. (2014, October 7). The Nordic Model: Pros and Cons. Retrieved December 5,
2015, from http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/100714/nordic-model-pros-andcons.asp?layout=orig

N. Ozawa, M. (2004), Social Welfare Spending on Family Benefits in the United States and
Sweden: A Comparative Study. Family Relations, 53: 301309. doi: 10.1111/j.00222445.2003.006.x

Sweden: Successful reconciliation of work and family life. (2015, September 16). Retrieved
December 3, 2015, from http://europa.eu/epic/countries/sweden/index_en.htm

The Nordic model: Successes, challenges & the future. (2014, December 26). Retrieved
December 5, 2015, from http://www.na-weekly.com/featured/the-nordic-model-successeschallenges-the-future/