Photo by henri ismail.

Mayor Fenty has redoubled his commitment to the Summer Youth Employment Program by calling on the city to double the financial investment in order to serve all the teens who have registered for the program for the summer of 2009.

The summer jobs program has a long history here in DC. To many, it’s a favored program—and indeed, considered a rite of passage for teens.

But as Martha Ross recently wrote, the quality of the summer jobs program “can charitably be called ‘uneven.’” The problems with the program actually extend far before last year’s $30 million overrun. Tension between quantity and quality has been an issue from back in the era of Marion Barry. Ross concludes that doubling the budget for the summer employment program in this fiscal environment is irresponsible, especially when “only $9 million is allocated towards year-round youth employment programs,” and, as Kathryn Baer notes in a comment on Ross’s post, many other critical safety net programs like TANF, child care, and affordable housing are in jeopardy.

But there is another issue that has long lurked below the surface of the youth employment discussions in the District: the linking of youth employment to family economic well being. This is far more troubling than the two other critical issues Ross raised. Why? Because summer youth employment as family support is just wrong and it is terrible public policy.

In the Washington Post story about the summer jobs news conference, Nikita Stewart reported that Mayor Fenty and city officials proudly trumpeted the notion that young people “will be breadwinners”:

“They’re really providing income for their whole family because of the economic condition right now,” Joseph P. Walsh Jr., acting director of the Department of Employment Services, said in an interview.

Yet according to Julio Perez, 25, “I’m too old [for the program]… [Fenty] told me about an apprenticeship program. … I don’t want a job. I need to have a skill. I have too many mouths to feed.”

Though I completely agree with Martha Ross that “city is to be applauded” for showing support for youth development, the District really needs a meaningful approach to wealth generation for lower-income residents. Summer jobs for kids shouldn’t pass for that, when there are such clear needs for things like low income tax deductions, adult literacy, health care, and good old education.

During the first iteration of welfare reform, when the District received a large amount of money in TANF bonuses, funds were directed to family support activities and out-of-school time activities for young people. And the District should encourage the engagement of youth. But when it comes to the fundamental question—How could $20 million be spent to help adults care for their children—making children responsible for putting food on the table is not the answer.