Children should not be the breadwinners

Government

Children should not be the breadwinners

May 20, 2009 2:10 pm

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.

Photo by henri ismail.

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.

18 comments

Tags: Adrian Fenty, DC, jobs, youth

DC youth employment programs should focus on quality, not quantity (Apr 28, 2009)
Defeat poverty by investing early in our children (Aug 25, 2010)
Social supports, not time limits, will reduce poverty (Nov 18, 2010)
Mayor Fenty's proposed cuts fall too heavily on the poor (Jul 27, 2009)
Have faith in our ideas and vote Gray (Sep 13, 2010)

Comments
Add a comment »

What does this have to do with urban planning? Has GGW all of a sudden become a regional daily kos or something?

by MPC on May 20, 2009 2:47 pm • link • report

MPC how do you define urban planning? If you limit it to transportation than what's the point? To build and sustain healthy urban communities issues such as the ones that Susie address are vital. If we don't address issues of poverty, education, and affordable housing then the Washington area will never be as great as it should and can be.

by Lynda on May 20, 2009 3:29 pm • link • report

"Low income tax dedcutions"? deductions on what? The bottom 40% of Americans don't pay taxes. A fair share of those even receive checks directly from the government. What exactly are we deducting from?

by Anonymous on May 20, 2009 3:48 pm • link • report

Since when do liberals oppose giving kids (ie NOT kids but teenagers) real life work experience in exchange for a fair wage? This post is bad because you're implicitly comparing a summer work program to child labor. I think a lot of teenagers and families benefit from this program. In an economy like this, the kids wouldn't be able to scare up an honest living otherwise.

by SG on May 20, 2009 3:48 pm • link • report

When I worked at a non-profit, we signed up to host a kid. We went through 4 kids (no shows, never shows, my ankle hurts, and one who's mother called on his cell phone constantly to countermand our instructions) before we finally got a kid who stuck. He was great, but half the summer was over by the time we found him. The experience taught me the program is glorified baby-sitting with a crushing amount of red tape.

by crin on May 20, 2009 3:53 pm • link • report

anon--I don't disagree, but the payroll/FICA tax hits everyone starting from dollar one (and, yes, people get that back in benefits 40 years later). Maybe that's the idea, though.

by ah on May 20, 2009 4:19 pm • link • report

@ Susie: If the families of those kids depend on their salary, it is child labor. That's the whole point. There is nothing against giving kids an opportunity to learn about work ethic and an opportunity to get some extra cash. There is a problem when that money is used for rent and food on the table. However, that wrong can not be righted by killing the program.

by Jasper on May 20, 2009 4:27 pm • link • report

If the families of those kids depend on their salary, it is child labor. That's the whole point.

It's either "child labor" or it isn't. If you have two 15 year old working the same hours for the same pay, you can't say one of them is engaged in an unacceptable practice ("child labor") and one isn't, based on the income of their other family members.

I think there's an argument to be made that providing teenagers with job experience and good work ethics while they are still young is more effective than trying to provide the same to unemployable adults. (I don't think the program as run is very effective, but that's a separate question.)

by Erica on May 20, 2009 5:48 pm • link • report

It's either "child labor" or it isn't.

Correct.

If you have two 15 year old working the same hours for the same pay, you can't say one of them is engaged in an unacceptable practice ("child labor") and one isn't, based on the income of their other family members.

Nup. It's child labor when the kid working to maintain his family. It's not child labor when the kid's working for a new ipod or personal savings.

Article 32 of the UNICEF Convention of the Rights of the Child: "1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation ..."

How is it not economic exploitation of the parents when they make the kid work for their benefit? The parent's are responsible for the well-being of the child, not the other way around.

by Jasper on May 20, 2009 8:44 pm • link • report

I guess according to the author, it's better for families to starve rather than enjoy the fruits of the labor by members of their families.

Hey, at least then you won't have child labor.

by MPC on May 20, 2009 8:51 pm • link • report

Jeez. This is a perfect example of some people giving liberals a bad name. The UNICEF Convention of the Rights of the Child? Really?

There are child labor laws. I don't think anyone has alleged that this program violates any of them.

You only want kids to work when it's to get an iPod? But if it's to help put food on the table, you think the family should just go ahead and starve? Wow. I'm guessing, Jasper, you're in the very tiny minority on this one.

by Josh on May 21, 2009 9:26 am • link • report

No, it is an indictment of society if we have kids funding basic necessities through a summer jobs program. A kid should be allowed to be a kid. That is the point of the Rights of a Child.

by NikolasM on May 21, 2009 12:38 pm • link • report

@ Josh: No, the family should not starve. This is the United States of America. This is the richest country in the world. And yet in the Nations Capital, the political capital of the world, there are children who are apparently responsible for getting food on the table. That is an embarrassment. A major embarrassment. That is what I am trying to point out.

Furthermore, I do not understand how the Right's of the Child would be embarrassing to anyone. They're quite basic.

by Jasper on May 21, 2009 12:43 pm • link • report

Jasper

Give it a rest. Show me a society which doesn't have poverty.

You also conveniently overlook that fact that someone who is impoverished in America is still far far wealthier than the average world citizen.

Again, is this turning into the DC chapter of Daily Kos?

by MPC on May 21, 2009 1:20 pm • link • report

@ MPC: Show me another Capital in the western world where children need to work for their parents. I don't think you can find one. Yes, the average poor American is better of that the average poor world citizen. But do you really wanna compare yourself to Bangladesh and Thingiestan? Shouldn't you at least compare yourself to the rest of the Western world? Isn't the US supposed to be the top of the bill? And while you are looking, also please show me another Western country where one in seven people does not have health care coverage.

PS: I don't think I belong in the Daily Kos crowd. Been there, checked out the site. Didn't like it. About as silly as Drudge dude.

by Jasper on May 21, 2009 3:47 pm • link • report

@Jasper: Like most liberals, you're obsessed with normative views of the world; saying how things should be. Things are what they are: there are high levels of poverty in the district and obviously these summer jobs help families tackle poverty.

I don't understand your request you posed in the first sentence. Obviously large cities such as London and Paris have issues with poverty, but I suppose they're more enlightened because they don't let children work?

Children shouldn't have to support families, but evidently in DC they do. It'd be nice if we could snap our fingers and make poverty go away.

What is your suggestion then to help the sting of poverty for these families this summer?

by MPC on May 21, 2009 4:40 pm • link • report

Perhaps the greatest of all the New Deal programs was the CCC, the Civilian Conservation Corps, which took teens off the streets of cities and towns and put them to work at a dollar a day. They built stuff like Timberline Lodge, the hiking trails in the Grand Canyon, and the Blue Ridge Parkway.

The kids got three hots and a cot, and $25 a month of their salary was sent home to help feed, shelter, and clothe their families.

Government figures showed the average CCC kid gained 15% in body weight in his first 60 days. Most had been undernourished. And more than half the junior officer corps in WWII - including three of the five men who raised the flag over Iwo Jima - were CCC alumni.

There are huge problems in administering the DC Summer Jobs program. It is pathetic, as are some of the administrators and participants. But the tradition of summer jobs for kids, and sending some of that money back to the family, goes back a long way. There is pride and no shame in that tradition.

by Mike Silverstein on May 22, 2009 2:49 pm • link • report

Child labor and exploitation involves profit by using low wage children to earn higher profit. This is a govt jobs program that is voluntary and involves working about 6 hours a day at min wage to give work experience in a town whose primary employers are governments. The kids wont find summer jobs at private employers because there arent many to start with. If kids did find a summer job in DC with a private employer, there is a higher likelihood they would be exploited for profit, or work a dangerous gig, or work too many hours. The agency running summer jobs is also enforcing child labor law, and if you think the summer jobs program is poorly managed, have you ever seen an enforcement action of any dc labor laws? didnt think so.

by miguel on Jun 1, 2009 7:02 am • link • report