The `Family Cap': A Popular but Unproven Method of Welfare Reform

Abstract

Family Planning Perspectives standing federal requirement that states provide family planning services to AFDC recipients. Such services are estimated to prevent nearly 300,000 pregnancies annually to women on welfare.* In addition, opponents assert, the incremental increases that accompany the birth of additional children—$24–147, depending on the state and the birth order4— are too small to cover the cost of caring for a new baby and therefore are not an incentive to have another birth. But, they add, the loss of those extra payments is almost certain to result in greater hardship for poor families already striving to obtain such basic necessities as shelter and food. Moreover, many prochoice activists and antiabortion advocates share a concern that the family cap will lead to more abortions among welfare recipients faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Right-to-life groups oppose the cap because they find abortion abhorrent, while prochoice groups believe the cap violates the reproductive rights of women on welfare. This special report details the status of family caps in Congress and the states as of July 1, 1995, and examines plans for and potential barriers to evaluating their impact. It relies on state documents requesting the federal government’s permission to impose a family cap and federal documents stipulating the terms and conditions under which a cap may be implemented,5 as well as on personal interviews with individuals familiar with the implementation or evaluation of the family cap in various states.