Diana
Zuckerman
|
There have never before
been 4 new women senators -- never in our country's history. Of
course, not so long ago there had never been 4 women senators at
all. And many of us remember when there wasn't even one woman in
the U.S. Senate.
This progress is great
-- great that women are now in the halls of power, but also great
because when women come to Congress, they bring different perspectives
and almost always bring a particularly strong interest in issues
that are most important to women and families.
The National Center for
Policy Research for Women and Families has an acronym - CPR. CPR connotes
health and well-being. It also represents the idea of "bringing back
to life" - revitalizing. We are bringing back to life the issues that
we care the most about.
And since we're a think
tank, when we feel revitalized, we like to think -- To bring attention
to some issues that aren't getting enough attention -- and to hear
from these four very impressive new senators.
And, we will do so
with the help of Judy Woodruff, who is herself a wonderful example
to women everywhere. She is an award-winning journalist, well-respected
by everyone in this room and around the world. She has juggled work
and family issues in an extraordinary way that is inspirational.
And she has given back to the community in many, many ways, working
on behalf of spina bifida, on behalf of women in journalism, and
on behalf of many other causes and organizations -- not the least
of which is our center, where she serves on our National Advisory
Board.
So I thank all of
the senators for being here, and wanted to say a special thanks
to Judy Woodruff -- who will start this policy forum.
|
|
Testimony
of Diane DePanfilis, Ph.D.
Associate
Professor and Co-Director,
Center for Families
University
of Maryland, Baltimore
|
My name is Dr. Diane DePanfilis.
I am an Associate Professor at the University of Maryland School of
Social Work, where I teach child welfare practice and research courses
in our graduate programs. I also Co-Direct the university’s Center
for Families, an Interdisciplinary Center that promotes the safety,
health, and well being of children, families, and communities through
education, research, child and family services, and advocacy.
I have been involved
in the field of child maltreatment since I began as a caseworker
in the early 1970s, before enactment of the Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act (CAPTA) in 1974. In those days, we didn’t know
very much about how to respond to child maltreatment. In fact, my
first case of child sexual abuse was assigned to me, not because
I was trained and had a particular expertise, but because I was
a woman. The U.S. Postal Inspector reported this particularly gruesome
case of child sexual abuse after pornographic pictures with a child
were sent by mail for photographic processing. The state police
and postal inspector came to my agency because it was believed a
woman would more sensitively handle the interview of this four-year-old
child. Most professionals in the field had no special training or
expertise to respond to situations when child maltreatment was suspected
and there was very little research to guide our intervention response.
Since that time, we
have come a long way in our understanding of the problem of child
maltreatment. First and foremost is the understanding that child
maltreatment is not a simple phenomenon, but the result of a complex
set of risk factors related to individuals, families, communities,
and society. Issues related to poverty, mental illness, alcohol
or drug addiction, and many other factors all increase the likelihood
that a child may be abused or neglected. As a result, we should
not expect that any one approach to prevent or intervene would be
effective in all cases. What we have learned however, in
other studies and in my own research following maltreating families
over time, is that families can be helped to prevent maltreatment
or the recurrence of maltreatment. The first time someone recognizes
a problem, the risk of maltreatment decreases substantially. However,
if we do not reach families early, then we are more likely to see
a pattern of maltreatment that occurs over and over, and of course
the consequences for children multiply as well.
How big of a problem
is child maltreatment and how many families are served by public-child
protective services (CPS) agencies? In 1998, of the estimated 2,806,000
referrals made to public agencies, approximately one-third (34.0
%) were screened out, and two-thirds (66.0%) were screened in as
warranting investigation or assessment. Slightly less than one-third
(29%) of investigations resulted in a disposition of either "substantiated"
or "indicated" child maltreatment. More than half of investigations
(57%) resulted in a finding that child maltreatment was not substantiated.
The remaining reports (14%) received some other disposition.
Of those with a substantiated
finding, only about 50% received any kind of intervention. That
means that of the almost 3 million children identified as potentially
maltreated, only 409,000 child victims and their families received
services after the investigation. Think of this as an iceberg. So
far, we have a picture of 2.8 million children reported with suspected
child maltreatment and slightly more than 400,000 receiving some
services as a result. In addition to the 2.8 million children reported
for child maltreatment, the last Congressionally-mandated National
Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect estimated that for every
report made to Child Protective Services agencies, there were at
least two more identified by community professionals as maltreated
but not reported.
It should now be apparent
that our communities respond to only a small percentage of the children
in this country who are maltreated or at risk of maltreatment (the
tip of the iceberg). As a result, those families that are served
by the public agency have often gone years without intervention
– they may have as many as 25 reports of child maltreatment within
a five-year period.
So yes, we have learned
a lot in my almost 30 years in the field about how to prevent and
protect children. However, we have not come close to implementing
what we know could increase the safety and well being of children
at risk for maltreatment.
Federal policies can
help prevent child maltreatment and can protect children who were
once maltreated from being maltreated again. But, unfortunately,
the federal government has not responded generously or compassionately
so far. We continue to spend billions on foster care – almost $5
billion last year, and we spend plenty on incarceration, and little
is spent where it would do the most good. It would be cost-effective
to provide the funds needed to improve CPS and to support community-based
family support programs, home visitors, parenting classes, and other
family strengthening efforts, because it would save money that is
now spent on foster care, medical care, and jails. For example,
CAPTA offers an average of $400,000 per state for improving their
CPS system -- that doesn't go very far.
The Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act (CAPTA) is up for reauthorization, and it is my
hope that this bill receives more attention in Congress this year
than it has been given in the past. If funds were added to support
systems reforms for child protective services, we as a nation could
do more to protect children. Of course, it would be necessary to
appropriate all the funds that were authorized -- which Congress
has neglected to do in the past.
I know that all of you
would want to prevent child abuse and neglect in our country, and
it can be done. My hope is that together you will provide leadership
to increase federal support for community-based prevention programs
and child protective services – for the sake of so many children across
the country.
|
|
Statement
of Marisa Reddy
on Violence in Schools
Policy
Forum
on Women and Families
U.S.
Senate
March
15, 2001
|
Good morning ladies and
gentlemen. My name is Marisa Reddy and I am a psychologist with the
United States Secret Service, in their National Threat Assessment
Center. I am also one of the Co-Directors of the Secret Service Safe
School Initiative. On behalf of the Secret Service I am honored to
be here this morning with these new Senators, to talk to you about
school violence.
By way of background,
the Secret Service established the National Threat Assessment Center
to provide research, training, and consultation to those responsible
for protection and public safety. We focus our activities on the
prevention of targeted violence, which includes assassination, stalking,
and certain types of school violence, workplace violence, and domestic
violence.
On April 20, 1999,
our nation watched as two students attacked their high school in
Colorado, killing twelve students and one teacher before killing
themselves. After the attack at Columbine High School, and several
discussions with the U.S. Department of Education, the Secret Service
started the Safe School Initiative, a study of these school-based
attacks. We gathered information on these attacks by reviewing records
available on each case and interviewing some of the shooters. The
interim report from this study is available here today, as well
as on our web site.
Over the past 18 months,
we have worked closely with the Department of Education and their
Safe and Drug Free Schools Program to examine 37 school-based attacks.
The Department of Education’s collaboration and assistance have
been essential to the success of this project. We at the Secret
Service fully recognize that schools are not our domain of expertise.
The Department of Education has been invaluable in helping us to
provide schools and communities with accurate – and we hope useful
– information about school-based attacks.
I would like to emphasize
first that schools are one of the safest places for our nation’s
children. National statistics continue to show that children face
greater safety risks outside of school than they do in school. However,
in the wake of attacks such as the one at Columbine, fear
over school shootings and violence in schools has increased dramatically.
Our goal in conducting the Safe School Initiative was to provide
information about school based attacks that schools can use as they
see fit -- to develop ways to try to reduce the risk of such attacks,
and to manage fear over violence in their schools.
In examining these
school-based attacks, we came up with several noteworthy findings:
- First, this is not
a new phenomenon. The first school-based attack we found occurred
in 1974, in upstate New York. Between 1974 and the end of the
school year last year, we found 37 attacks, involving 41 attackers.
- School-based attacks
have also occurred in many states. Since the attack in 1974, there
have been attacks in 27 states, including more than one attack
each in Arkansas, California, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, and
Tennessee.
- The main question
we asked in conducting this study was whether these attacks were
impulsive acts. Certainly we have heard some of these attacks
described as "impulsive" and "random," and
that the attacker "just snapped." We found, however,
that these attacks are not impulsive acts. They involve
the development of ideas and planning – often over weeks, months,
or even years. We see them as the result of an understandable
and discernible process of thinking and behavior.
- Moreover, these
attacks were not kept secret. Prior to three quarters of them,
the attacker told someone else what he was thinking about and
planning to do. In almost all of these cases, the person the attacker
told was another peer – a friend, classmate, or sibling.
- We also found that
there is no accurate or useful profile of the "school shooter."
With the exception that they were all boys, we found that the
attackers ranged along a variety of dimensions. Some were doing
very well in school; others poorly. Some had few friends; others
were very popular. Some came from troubled families; others from
intact families that were pillars of their communities. The oldest
was 21; the youngest, 11.
- In two thirds of
the attacks, the attacker got the gun or guns used in the attack
from his own home of the home of a relative. Over half of the
attackers had previously used guns.
- And finally, in
a number of attacks, the experience of having been bullied appeared
to play a major role in the attack. Bullying was not a factor
in every case, and clearly not every child who is bullied poses
a risk of targeted violence in school. But some attackers described
experiences of being bullied in terms that approached torment.
They told of behaviors that, if they occurred in the workplace,
would meet the legal definitions of harassment.
Over the past year
we have traveled around the country to share what we have learned
with school administrators, educators, law enforcement professionals,
and mental health professionals. We are in the process of drafting
our final report on the Initiative and hope to have that available
in the coming months. Finally, we have other publications currently
available on how to identify, assess, and manage risk of targeted
violence.
On behalf of the Secret
Service, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.
If there are any questions I would be happy to try to answer them.
|
|
FEDERAL
INCOME TAX CUTS
AND LOW-INCOME
FAMILIES
Presented
at the Policy Forum
on Women and Families
U.S.
Senate
March 15, 2001
|
Recent large federal budget
surpluses have spurred debate on how best to use the money. Some see
surpluses as an opportunity to pay down the federal debt, to expand
programs to meet such social needs as health care and education, or
to secure the future of Social Security. Others propose returning
some of the money to taxpayers by cutting federal income taxes, an
option championed by President Bush that has widespread support in
Congress.
Proponents of tax cuts
emphasize that this option would help all families. Many popular
options for cutting federal income taxes, however, would provide
little benefit to low-income families. This is not surprising, given
that these families pay little or no income tax and thus receive
little benefit from proposals that only reduce positive income tax
liabilities. Although most low-income families do not pay federal
income taxes, they do work and pay federal payroll and excise
taxes as well as state and local taxes. To benefit these families,
income tax cuts must be refundable, that is, available in excess
of the families’ current income tax liability.
Study Focus and
Purpose
To better understand
the impact of various tax reduction proposals on low-income families,
we identify the overall tax burdens that low-income families currently
face and explain how those tax burdens would change if certain types
of federal income tax cuts were enacted. Using detailed household-level
data on incomes and taxes, we show how federal income and payroll
taxes differ for low-income families and how these families benefit
from certain features of the income tax, such as the Earned Income
Tax Credit (EITC)—a tax credit applied to the wages of low-income
families.
We examine five tax
cut options that are representative of recent proposals and compare
the benefits to low-income families with those for higher-income
taxpayers. Each option is designed to reduce income taxes by approximately
the same amount—$34 billion in 1998 (the most recent statistics
available at the time of the study). Because the analysis is concerned
with the effects of income tax cuts on the well-being of different
types of families (particularly lower-income families), the analysis
focuses on the effect of such cuts on average tax rates rather than
marginal tax rates.
We examine the following
generic proposals:
- an across-the-board
reduction in marginal tax rates,
- an increase in standard
deductions and in the income range for the lowest tax bracket,
- an increase in the
child tax credit,
- an expansion of
the earned income tax credit, and
- a new refundable
payroll tax credit.
Main Findings
For low-income families,
the most important element of any tax reduction proposal is whether
the tax relief is refundable—that is, paid to families as refunds
if the tax relief exceeds their current income tax liability. For
that reason, the options to increase the EITC or create a new refundable
payroll tax credit are most beneficial to low-income working families.
Across-the-board cuts in federal income tax rates or increases in
the standard deduction and the width of the lowest tax bracket provide
very little benefit to low-income families. Increasing the child
credit as currently structured also would offer little relief.
Rate Cuts and
Other Across-the-Board Tax Cuts: Higher-income families
would receive a large share of the benefits from across the board
cuts, such as cutting the tax rates, increasing standard deductions,
and expanding the income range for the lowest tax bracket. Almost
40 percent of the tax cuts from the latter option would go to the
15 percent of people in families with incomes over $100,000, while
over 50 percent of the benefits from an across-the-board cut in
tax rates would go to those families. While higher-income families
would derive a large share of benefits from an across-the-board
rate cut, their share would be less than the 60 percent share of
income taxes that they pay, and only slightly more than their share
of combined income and payroll taxes.
Because higher-income
families pay a larger share of their income in taxes, an across-the-board
cut in income taxes benefits higher-income families more than lower-income
families if those benefits are measured in absolute dollars per
family or as a share of income. If the benefits are measured as
a percentage change in income tax liability, then lower-income families
appear to do better. Measuring the changes in tax burdens as the
percentage decrease in tax liability can be misleading, however,
because it suggests that low-income families would benefit the most
from small tax cuts simply because they pay so little tax in the
first place. A simple example makes the point. Suppose a tax cut
reduces the liability of a family with income of $20,000 from $200
to zero and the liability of a family with income of $200,000 from
$40,000 to $32,000. The low-income family has had a tax cut of 100
percent, the high-income family one of 20 percent, yet the lower-income
family’s after-tax income has increased by 1 percent, and the higher-income
family’s by 5 percent. Most people would not think the low-income
family in this example had in fact benefited more than its high-income
counterpart.
Increasing the
EITC and a Payroll Tax Credit: The options to increase the
EITC or to create a new refundable payroll tax credit would have
the biggest impact on low-income families by boosting the amount
of their refunds. For the proposals simulated here, 18 percent of
the benefits from increasing the EITC would go to families with
incomes of $20,000 or less in 1998, while these families would receive
20 percent of the benefits from the option to create a new refundable
payroll tax credit. Over 75 percent of the benefits from the EITC
option would go to families with incomes of $40,000 or less; these
families would receive about 60 percent of the benefits from the
payroll tax credit option. About one-fifth of the population had
family income of $20,000 or less in 1998, and about 45 percent of
the population had income of $40,000 or less. The concentration
of families at lower-income levels was even greater among single-parent
families. About half of single-parent families with children under
age 18 had incomes of less than $20,000, while 80 percent had incomes
less than $40,000. Over four-fifths of single parents with chidlren
under age 18 were women.
Increasing the
Child Tax Credit: We considered two options to increase
the child tax credit—one would increase the credit to $1,300 per
child, the other would increase it to $1,200 per child and make
it refundable for all families. Both would provide the largest share
of benefits to middle- and upper-middle-income families. About 65
percent of the benefits from these options would go to families
with incomes between $40,000 and $100,000.
Impacts on
Different Family Types: Not all types of families would
benefit from the proposals simulated here. In particular, couples
and singles without eligible children under age 17 would see no
change in their taxes from either proposal to increase the child
tax credit. Single adults would benefit the most from more broadly
based options, including the rate cuts, the increase in standard
deductions and the income range for the 15 percent tax bracket,
and most of all from the payroll tax credit. Single parents with
children would benefit the most from the option to increase the
EITC and the least from the option for a proportional cut in income
tax rates.
Other Policy Considerations
Whether or not a tax
reduction disproportionately benefits low-income or high-income
families is only one criterion by which to judge its merits. The
standard principles of good tax policy still apply. Other goals,
such as economic efficiency, tax simplicity, and reduction of compliance
burdens on taxpayers, are important as well. Proposals aimed at
helping low-income families do not necessarily advance these other
goals and may detract from them. When benefits are targeted to particular
taxpayers, there must be rules determining who is eligible, which
in turn increase the complexity of taxes and create opportunities
for errors and abuse.
Clearly, fairness does
not dictate that all tax relief should be directed to low-income
families. However, these families should not be left out of the
equation. Congress must first compare tax relief with other options
for using the budget surplus, such as paying down the federal debt
or addressing the future insolvency of Social Security and Medicare.
If a tax cut is the best option, lawmakers must consider the merits
of targeting relatively more tax relief to higher-income families
who have enjoyed extraordinary prosperity over the past decade when
there are so many other families who work and pay taxes, but do
not enjoy the same economic security.
For copies of the complete
report, please contact the Office of Public Affairs, phone: 202/261-5709;
e-mail paffairs@ui.urban.org.
For more publications and general information about the Urban Institute,
visit www.urban.org.
Dr.
Diane DePanfilis, Associate
Professor at the University of Maryland and co-author of The
Handbook for Child Protection Practice. A co-Director
of the Center for Families and a Past President of the Board of
the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, Dr.
DePanfilis’ work focuses on the prevention of child abuse and
neglect.
Dr.
Marisa Reddy, Co-Director, US
Secret Service Safe School Initiative and Research Psychologist
at the US Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center. Dr.
Reddy conducts research and training on targeted violence, and
she will discuss a recently completed study of school shootings
from 1974-2000.
Frank
Sammartino, Principal Research Associate, the Urban Institute,
and former Deputy Assistant Director for Tax Analysis at the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Mr. Sammartino
will discuss his analysis of how various types of tax cuts would
affect families in different income groups, and the implications
for women and women-headed families.
National
Research Center for Women & Families
1701 K St. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20006. (202) 223-4000
©
NRC & MoonLight Enterprises. All rights reserved.
Contents are copyrighted by their respective owners.
|
