Greg Kaufmann | The Nation

In my work covering poverty this past year, I’d be hard pressed to come up with anyone who is doing more to shatter the myths about single mothers in the United States than Tim Casey, senior staff attorney at Legal Momentum, the nation’s oldest organization advocating on behalf of the legal rights of women and girls.

Casey himself was raised by a single mother, and he is relentless in his pursuit of the facts about the real lives and living conditions of single-parent families in America—especially critical at a moment when women are demonized for being unmarried and blamed for their circumstances.

Yesterday, Casey and his colleague, Laurie Maldonado, research associate of the Luxembourg Income Study Center at the Graduate Center City University of New York, released an exhaustive new report, “Worst Off—Single-Parent Families in the United States, A Cross-National Comparison of Single Parenthood in the US and Sixteen Other High-Income Countries.”

Using data from government agencies, social scientists and researchers worldwide, the report shows that single mothers in the United States—most of whom are either separated or were previously married—are employed more hours and yet have much higher poverty rates than their peers in other high-income countries. Let me run that by you again—because it’s generally not what you’ve been reading of late in the news: the majority of single mothers in the United States are separated, divorced or widowed; and they work more hours and yet have higher poverty rates than single mothers in other high-income countries.

The employment rate for US single mothers during the mid- to late-2000s was 73 percent, compared to an average of 66 to 70 percent in peer countries.  In a 2000 comparative study of nine peer countries, 87 percent of employed US single parents were working thirty or more hours a week, compared to just an average of 64 percent of jobholding single parents in the other countries.

And yet employment isn’t keeping US single parents—more than 80 percent of whom are single mothers—out of poverty. Using 50 percent of median income as the standard for measuring poverty, US children in single mother families have a poverty rate of 63 percent when only parental earnings are considered, comparable to the 61 percent average for children in single mother families in other high-income countries. But when transfer payments are included—such as a government child allowance, unemployment insurance and other assistance programs—the US rate only declines to 51 percent, while the peer countries average poverty rate falls all the way down to 27 percent.

“The reason we have these high poverty rates for single mother families—despite their comparatively high employment rates and high share of full-time workers—is because our income support system is terribly inadequate and there’s a very high rate of low-wage work,” says Casey.

Indeed, the United States lags far behind other high-income countries in supporting the combination of “jobholding and caregiving.” In all of the comparison countries, new parents are entitled to paid leave; in the United States, just 11 percent of employees enjoyed it in 2011. The United States is the only one of the seventeen comparable countries without an entitlement to paid annual leave, which averages four weeks in peer countries. With the exception of the United States and Canada, all of the comparable nations also provide paid sick days, averaging over three days per year; and ten of the countries provide up to five days of paid leave annually to care for a sick child.

While a lack of paid leave makes it difficult for single parents to leave work in order to care for their children, a lack of affordable childcare and early childhood education options are a significant barrier to finding employment and keeping it.

In the thirteen comparison countries that are members of the European Union, pre-primary care for children ages 3 to 5 is close to universally available. In the United States, free education is generally available at least part-day for 5-year-olds, but much less so for 3 and 4 year olds—with only 20 percent and 44 percent, respectively, enrolled in a public nursery school program in 2010.

As for child care, the cost in the United States is often prohibitive. In 2011, the average annual cost of full-time care for an infant at a daycare center ranged from $4,591 in Mississippi to $20,178 in Washington, DC.  While the federal government provides some childcare subsidies for low-income parents, they reach only a fraction of those eligible and the co-pays can consume a significant chunk of a family’s income. (Georgetown University law professor Peter Edelman reported that federal assistance for childcare currently reaches about one in seven of those who are eligible.)

“We are just so far behind other countries in making early childhood education and childcare available,” says Casey.

If a single parent in the United States is able to work—which too often means placing a child in a precarious child care situation—there is a much greater likelihood that their work is in a low-wage job as compared to single parents in peer countries. In fact, in 2009, 25 percent of all US jobholders were employed in low-wage jobs, compared to an average of 14 percent in peer countries. And 40 percent of US single parents had low-wage employment—exceptionally high compared to other groups of workers in the nation.

With so many employed single mothers earning poverty wages, the lack of income support programs and health care in the US completes what is seemingly a perfect storm of financial insecurity.

All of the comparison countries provide universal health care coverage. In 2010, 11 percent of US children in single-mother families—and 26 percent of single mothers—lacked healthcare coverage.

There is also a basic “child allowance program”—ongoing cash payments to offset the costs of raising children—in every peer country except the United States. The programs either benefit every family without regard to income, or they are income-tested and benefits are reduced or eliminated, accordingly.

The United States does allow for single annual payments to many low-income families—through the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit—provided that they have earned income. In 2011, however, approximately one-third of single mothers had no earned income. And although the tax credits lifted over 8 million people over the poverty line, Republicans are now trying to limit the reach and effectiveness of these antipoverty measures during the current budget negotiations.

If a single mother in the United States loses her job, she will find an unemployment insurance (UI) system that is less generous and more difficult to qualify for than it is in peer countries. The median durational limit for such insurance in comparable nations is fifty-seven weeks, compared to just twenty-six weeks in most US states. (Except during a recession, when the limit is normally extended.)  However, because single mothers so often work in low-wage jobs—and the average benefit is around half of prior earnings—benefits are often meager. Further, single mothers in the United States are less likely to qualify for any benefits at all—their low-wage work often doesn’t meet minimum earnings requirements, and leaving a job for childcare reasons disqualifies a worker from receiving benefits in some states. In 2010, 44 percent of all unemployed persons in the United States received unemployment benefits, but only 24 percent of unemployed single mothers.

Finally, there are the “social assistance programs” that “provide benefits to those whose income from other sources falls below a standard of minimum adequacy.”  In the United States, this includes cash welfare—the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant—and food stamps (SNAP). Prior to welfare reform in 1996, for every 100 families with children living in poverty, sixty-eight received cash assistance; but by 2010 that ratio dropped to just twenty families. States have discretion to determine eligibility and time limits, so there are virtually fifty different systems. In a majority of states, the benefit levels have fallen below 30 percent of the official poverty line—so less than $6,000 for a family of three. In the comparison countries, the benefit is just below the poverty standard of 50 percent of median income.

SNAP has been much more effective in helping single mother families—about 90 percent of eligible children participate. But Republicans are pushing for a block grant instead of funding based on need—which would be as disastrous as the TANF block grant—and Democrats have joined them in proposals calling for billions of dollars in cuts to SNAP.

Finally, the report points out that over half of all children growing up in the US today will spend time in a single-parent family during their lifetime, so a substantial portion of the nation’s population is affected by the current lack of public policy support.

“Before I started working on this paper—I knew each individual aspect of disadvantage—but I hadn’t looked at them all together and seen the cumulative impact,” says Casey, who has worked on these issues for thirty-five years. “It’s the income supports, the healthcare insurance, the early education, lack of paid leave, the low-wage work. It’s the cumulative weight of all these factors that makes the title—“The Worst Off”—a fair title.”

Casey sees nothing being proposed in the current budget debate that would make life better for single mothers and their families, but says “there’s a lot going on that could make life a whole lot worse.”

“So I hope this report will help raise the profile of single-parent economic insecurity, and change the discourse,” he says. “We need to get beyond simplistic thinking and look at the range of policy options available—policies that would benefit both single parent and two-parent families—to ensure basic economic security to such a large segment of the population.”

Like this article? Support this journalism with a $5 donation now.

Get Involved

Join the Single Parent Policy Advocacy Network (SPPAN) to educate and advocate for public policies to improve the economic security of single parents and their children. Simply send an e-mail with “subscribe” in the subject line to tcasey@legalmomentum.org.

Don’t Push Jobless Americans Over the Cliff—Renew Unemployment Insurance for 2013.

Call Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office, (202) 225-4000, tell him to pass a Violence Against Women Act that includes strong provisions to protect Native and immigrant women and LGBT survivors.

“For Their Memory Shall Be a Blessing”—EndGunViolenceNow.org.

Playing Chicken with Workers’ Safety—Tell USDA to Withdraw Proposed Poultry Rule.

The Deficit Debate—Stand Up for Programs Meeting Human Needs

Special Thanks

Over the past few months, Nation intern Christie Thompson has made this blog better with her keen insights, writing and organizational ability. She moves on to ProPublica in the New Year and she will continue to write about inequality. You can follow her on Twitter.

Clips/Resources (compiled with Christie Thompson)

“Assemblymember Ammiano introduces Homeless Bill of Rights,” Carlos Alcalá

“What’s at Stake for Low-Income Individuals and Families in the Fiscal Cliff?” Elizabeth Lower-Basch

“Endangering the lives of children: the ceaseless train of tragedy in segregated neighborhoods,” Steve Bogira

“House Republican Tax Plan,” (Infographic) Melissa Boteach

“Do proposed laws need a ‘poverty impact statement’?” Cynthia Boyd

“The path to Michigan’s right-to-work law,” Krissy Clark

“Michigan residents seek new path to the middle class,” Krissy Clark

“The Great Walmart Walkout,” Josh Eidelson

“Chained CPI: Bad Deal for Kids and Low-Income Working-Age Adults,” Shawn Fremstad

“Supplemental Security—Build on This Vital Support for Disabled Kids,” Shawn Fremstad and Rebecca Vallas

“Drug tests for welfare recipients weighed,” Kate Giammarise

“Program Cuts Far Exceed Revenue Increases Under Latest Obama Offer,” James Horney

“Tax Credits Keep Millions of Working Families From Poverty,” Kathy Mulady

“Don’t Reduce the Deficit on the Backs of Seniors in Need,” National Council on Aging

“10 States to Increase Minimum Wage on New Year’s Day,” National Employment Law Project

“Cutting Programs for Low-Income People Especially Hurts Women and Their Families,” National Women’s Law Center

“How to Fight Homelessness,” New York Times

“Jailed without conviction: Behind bars for lack of money,” Katy Reckdahl

“Stop Humiliating the Poor: An Open Letter to Politicians and Welfare Bureaucrats,” (.pdf pages 3-4), Vicky Steinitz and Anne Wheelock

“Demonizing Welfare Recipients,” Washington Post

“New poultry rule could harm workers, advocates say,” Lindsay Wise

“Children of working poor caught in pinch of recession,” Megan Woolhouse

Reports (co-written with Christie Thompson)

“Fiscal Cliff Could Plunge Millions of Kids into Poverty,” Jared Solomon, First Focus. If tax breaks for the middle- and lowest-income bracket expire, who will pay the highest price? This study from finds that going off the “fiscal cliff” could mean even more American children fall into poverty. If the improvements to the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit aren’t extended, another 1 million American children may be impoverished.

Going over the cliff also means nearly 100,000 children would lose Head Start, nearly 500,000 would lose special education services, up to 734,000 pregnant women, new moms, and infants would lose nutrition assistance, and 180,000 families would lose affordable housing. Unemployment benefits—which lifted 1 million children above the poverty line in 2011—will expire for 2 million people by the end of this year as well.

“Mayors’ Annual Report on Hunger and Homelessness,” US Conference of Mayors. The Task Force on Hunger and Homelessness surveyed twenty-five cities across the country for a full picture of urban hunger and homelessness. What it found was a rising demand for emergency assistance from already strapped city budgets. Twenty-one cities said requests for emergency food assistance increased last year, and over half of those seeking help were families with children. Even though 57 percent of cities had increased their budget for nutrition assistance, almost every city still had to cut back on the amount given to individuals at pantries and emergency kitchens, and 90 percent of cities had to turn people away who were in need.  60 percent of cities also reported an increase in homelessness. Homeless families with children were turned away by emergency shelters in 64 percent of the survey cities because no beds were available.

“National Baby Facts,” ZERO TO THREE. Understanding the demographics, families, health, and early learning experiences of infants and toddlers is crucial to effectively providing supports to infants, toddlers and their families. This report draws a clear picture of the 75 percent of infants and toddlers with a single parent who are in low-income families, and 35 percent of infants and toddlers with married parents in low-income families. It offers the facts on the supports and services—whether healthcare, food, housing security, or positive early learning opportunities—that play a crucial role in nurturing a young child’s development and helping all children realize their potential.

Vital Statistics

US poverty (less than $17,916 for a family of three): 46.2 million people, 15.1 percent.

Poverty gender gap, 2011: Women 34 percent more likely to be poor than men.

Poverty gender gap, 2010: Women 29 percent more likely to be poor than men.

Poverty rate among families with children headed by single mothers: 40.9 percent.

Deep poverty (less than $11,510 for a family of four): 20.4 million people, 1 in 15 Americans, including more than 15 million women and children.

Families receiving cash assistance, 1996: 68 for every 100 families living in poverty.

Families receiving cash assistance, 2010: 27 for every 100 families living in poverty.

Food Stamps recipients with no cash income: 6.5 million people.

Jobs in the US paying less than $34,000 a year: 50 percent.

Jobs in the US paying below the poverty line for a family of four, less than $23,000 annually: 25 percent.

Poverty-level wages, 2011: 28 percent of workers.

Quotes of the Week

“As the Congress and White House continue to search for ways to cut federal spending, I hope that the millions of Americans who are simply trying to keep their homes livable and their lights on do not become causalities of this effort. Programs that help low-income households—households that daily struggle to meet the burden of their home energy cost—should not be sacrificed to reduce the federal deficit. Federal energy assistance, known as LIHEAP, currently assists only 20 percent of those eligible for the program. Any reduction in funding would be devastating leaving millions with the ‘heat or eat’ dilemma. Energy poverty is very real and programs designed to help this situation should not be targeted for reduction.”
      —George Coling, retiring Executive Director, National Fuel Funds Network

“We engaged judiciary committee staff from both chambers in discussions over the VAWA tribal provisions well over a year ago, passed a strong [bipartisan] bill through the Senate eight months ago, and saw a first draft from House Judiciary regarding the tribal jurisdictional provisions just this week.”
      —Jefferson Keel, President, National Congress of American Indians,
          letter to Majority Leader Eric Cantor (12/20/12)

Christie Thompson co-wrote the “Clips/Resources” and “Reports” sections of this blog.

This Week in Poverty posts here on Friday mornings, and again on Sundays at Moyers & Company. Today in Poverty posts earlier in the week. You can e-mail me at WeekInPoverty@me.com and follow me on Twitter.

In a somewhat bizarre op-ed last Sunday, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof acknowledged, “I’m no expert on domestic poverty,” and then seemingly set out to prove it.

He drew a dangerous and brazen, anecdotally based conclusion that the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which benefits one of the most vulnerable populations in the country—low-income children with disabilities and their parents—must be cut and those resources diverted to early education initiatives in order to help children escape poverty. The thrust of Kristof’s argument is based on a secondhand account of parents in Appalachian Kentucky who allegedly pulled their children out of a literacy program in order to continue receiving disability benefits.

Let me acknowledge that I, too, am no expert. I depend on experts and researchers, advocates and academics, and low-income people who know their experiences better than anyone, to write this column. As a result, I rarely comment on the writing of others.

But in this case, we are talking about a columnist who has a profound influence on the poverty debate. In fact, sources say that the op-ed is now being endorsed by a powerful children’s advocate with an impressive progressive pedigree who is distributing it to Congressional Democratic offices. Also, Kristof showed more than a little chutzpah when he took issue with those who were critical of his column in a Sunday night tweet: “My column today turns tables, irritating many liberals and RT’d by conservatives.… A bit sad. 实事求是!” In a second tweet he translated the Chinese phrase: “‘Seek truth from facts.’ Evidence, not ideology!”

To dismiss those who would question his conclusions as reacting out of ideology, rather than acting on their own expertise or experiences, calls for a clear and thorough response. Three letters in yesterday’s Times offer a glimpse of how Kristof’s column falls short.

Georgetown University Law Professor Peter Edelman—who has dedicated nearly fifty years to the fight against poverty, including a poverty tour in Appalachia with Senator Robert Kennedy—writes, “The process for getting SSI is onerous. Medical professionals must submit evidence of an impairment that results in ‘marked and severe functional limitations’…. Illiteracy on its own is not sufficient to qualify, and doing well in school doesn’t mean a child will lose benefits.… We need to end child poverty. Slashing a program that is making a difference for disabled children will only make matters worse.”

James Perrin, the president-elect of the American Academy of Pediatrics, also writes, “Poverty is the single greatest threat to children’s well-being.” He points out that as the number of children living in poverty has grown—now up to 16.1 million, or 22 percent of all children—the percentage receiving SSI “has remained constant, at about 7.5 percent.” He describes the $615 average monthly benefit as “a lifeline for low-income families caring for children with severe physical or mental disabilities.” Perrin argues that costs associated with care for these children can be “staggering” and force parents to choose between gainful employment and taking care of their children. Finally, he takes on what Kristof describes as “the fuzzier intellectual disabilities short of mental retardation” that qualify children to receive SSI. “These are in fact mental disorders like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or autism,” Perrin explains. “Their diagnosis is possible because of a markedly improved understanding of children’s mental health, not the exploitation of the program best suited to care for children with these and other conditions.”

Here are some facts on SSI for Mr. Kristof and those who might be influenced by his article:

• As of October 2012, more than 8 million people collected SSI benefits, including 1.3 million low-income children under 18.

• SSI benefit rolls have grown only slightly faster than the population—about 1.6 percent of all children in the US receive it. The modest growth is explained by the rising rate of child poverty and advances in early diagnosis of medical and psychiatric conditions.

• Fewer than one in four children with disabilities received SSI as of August 2012—due to SSI’s means-test and strict disability standard.

• A child’s impairments must match a list of disabling conditions compiled by the Social Security Administration (SSA). Qualified medical professionals must submit evidence; statements by parents and teachers aren’t enough.

• The SSA approves only about 40 percent of applications.

• The law directs SSA to review eligibility at least every three years (or sooner, in the case of low birth-weight babies) since children’s conditions may change. These reviews lead to benefit terminations for about 20 percent of cases overall and about half of low birth-weight babies.

• Even during the recession, nearly half of children on SSI had a working parent.

• Most families are below the poverty line without the SSI payment but above the line with the payment.

If the allegations that Kristof reports are indeed true, then these instances need to be addressed. (Although Rebecca Vallas—Community Legal Services attorney and co-chair of the national SSI Coalition for Children and Families—reports here on similar allegations that have been debunked by numerous studies, including a 2012 US Government Accountability Office report.)

“To the extent that there are flaws in the SSI program for children, it is, in large part, because reviews in the program are not adequately funded,” says Dr. LaDonna Pavetti, vice president of the family income support division at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). In fact, last year Congress wouldn’t appropriate $140 million in unused SSA administrative funding for these “program-integrity” reviews. President Obama has requested the full amount again for 2013.

Also, where Kristof concludes that the anecdotes he reports are about “parents who think it’s best if a child stays illiterate,” I think (if they are reliable accounts) they are about parents who are unimaginably desperate—in need, ironically, of home visits that are similar to the ones Kristof touts as boosting children’s success. Kristof suggests that these families are not lacking in material—that a majority “have air-conditioning…a washing machine and dryer…microwave ovens.… What they don’t have is hope.” (Given that the county he describes has unemployment and poverty rates that are more than twice the levels for the state—and that for every 100 families in poverty in Kentucky only 24 receive Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance—I’ll hazard a guess that they are also lacking adequate food, stable housing, preventative healthcare, decent schools, jobs with a living wage and other necessities besides hope.)

He describes a Save the Children home visit program that teaches parents “the skills they need in the world’s toughest job: parenting.” (A job that would be even tougher for a parent with a disabled child who couldn’t access SSI due to budget cuts.) The program encourages parents “to read to the children, tell stories, talk to them, hug them.” But Jessica Bartholow, legislative advocate at the Western Center on Law and Poverty—who has been using the latest research on home visits to try to improve work outcomes for low-income parents in California’s TANF program—says Kristof doesn’t quite grasp the essence of what a top-notch home visit program does either. It isn’t simply about parenting a child.

“Home visit programs are about wrapping families with the kind of support that they need to be successful—whether that is referrals to services, mental health interventions, pre-natal or post-natal parental education, or simply another adult to talk to about a challenging situation,” she says. “We cannot achieve successful child outcomes by failing to understand parents’ needs.”

She points to Kristof’s description of Anastasia McCormick—pregnant with twin boys and walking “two miles each way to her job at a pizza restaurant” due to a broken-down $500 car.

“I don’t want to write anybody off, but I admit that efforts to help Ms. McCormick may end with a mixed record,” Kristof writes, essentially writing her off. “But those twin boys she’s carrying? There’s time to transform their lives, and they—and millions like them—should be a national priority.” (In contrast to his take on Anastasia, Kristof “bets on” a young mother in the Save Our Children program.)

“A strong home visit program would actually recognize Anastasia’s resilience,” says Bartholow. “She’s pregnant and walking two miles to some low-wage job because that’s the very best she can do for her children right now. A strong program would build on that resilience and might help this young mother to identify new educational or training opportunities, for example.”

There is broad agreement with Kristof’s larger point—that there needs to be greater investment in early childhood initiatives such as home visiting, Early Head Start, universal pre-K and quality childcare. But it is reckless and irresponsible to suggest—based on anecdote—that these investments should be paid for by reducing funding for one of the most vital and successful programs that protects vulnerable families. Doing so would lead to worse outcomes for children.

“It is almost certain that even the best early childhood programs would be less effective—and possibly not effective at all—if families’ only source of income was taken away,” says Pavetti. “It is true that there is evidence that many early childhood programs are effective, but we also know that income in early childhood matters not only for school outcomes but also for employment outcomes later in life.” In fact, a $3000 annual boost in income for young children in low-income families is associated with increased educational achievement in the early grades, and a 17 percent increase in earnings when those children reach adulthood.

If Kristof is looking for resources to reinvest, he might instead turn his and his readers’ attention to the military budget, which—depending on whom you ask—is now greater than the next ten (President Obama), thirteen (Pete Peterson Foundation) or seventeen (George Will) countries’ military budgets combined.

I don’t relish critiquing Kristof’s work—he’s written too many pieces I’ve printed and saved, or referenced in my own blog. His work is an example of how writing can make a real difference in policy and in people’s lives. So I’ll end by simply saying this: “Twitta di meno, controlla di piu’ i fatti.” It’s Italian for “Tweet less, fact-check more.”

Get involved

Tell @WhiteHouse and Congress to Protect and Strengthen SNAP

Renew Unemployment Insurance

Reauthorize VAWA and Protect Native Women

Like this article? Support this journalism with a $5 donation now.

Events

“Conversation for Reconciliation: Apology to Native Peoples of the United States,” December 19, 11 am, in front of the US Capitol. The 2010 DOD Appropriation Act (HR 3326) contains a buried apology to Native peoples of the United States. The apology has never been clearly communicated to the nearly 5 million Native American citizens. A diverse group of citizens will host a public reading of this bill in an effort to spark a national conversation for reconciliation between the US and Native America.

23rd Annual National Homeless Persons Memorial Day, Friday, December 21. In 2011, 175 communities representing forty-four states and the District of Columbia participated and recognized the names of almost 2,000 individuals who died last year experiencing homelessness. The National Coalition for the Homeless, the National Health Care for the Homeless Council, and the National Consumer Advisory Board co-sponsor this event to bring attention to the tragedy of homelessness and our nation’s failure to end it. Find an event near you here.

Clips and other resources (compiled with Christie Thompson)

“Why Most Walmart and Fast Food Workers Didn’t Strike,” Nona Willis Arnowitz

“Fox Deceptively Links Growth Of Food Stamp Program To 2009 Stimulus Bill,” Emily Arrowood


“The Lottery Effect: Basing Policy on Outliers Is a Bad Idea,” Rachel Black and Aleta Sprague


“Across nation, unsettling acceptance when mentally ill in crisis are killed,” Kelley Bouchard

“The Veterans Homelessness Numbers Are Down: What’s Next?” Mary Cunningham

“On Cory Booker and Poverty’s Psychic Costs,” Gene “G.D.” Demby

“Don’t push women and families over the ‘fiscal cliff’,” Joan Entmacher

“Home Care Workers Urge Obama To Follow Through On Granting Minimum Wage Protections,” Dave Jamieson

“In Memphis and Elsewhere, Concentrated Poverty Harms Life Chances,” Amanda Mireles

“Housing Agency’s Flaws Revealed by Storm,” Eric Lipton and Michael Moss


“The Geography of Hunger in Chicago,” Whet Moser


“McDonald’s $8.25 Man and $8.75 Million CEO Shows Pay Gap,” Leslie Patton

“INFOGRAPHIC: We Could End Homelessness With The Money Americans Spend On Christmas Decorations,” Adam Peck


“As Washington Fiddles over the Fiscal Cliff, the Real Battle Over Inequality Is Happening in the Heartland,” Robert Reich

“To Help Families Locally, Changes Are Needed at the State Level,” Karon Rosa

“Could You Survive on $2 a Day?,” Gabriel Thompson

“For Lesser Crimes, Rethinking Life Behind Bars,” John Tierney


“Helping Depressed Low-Income Mothers Give Their Young Children a Good Start,” Urban Institute panel discussion

“Emerging Fiscal Cliff Deal Spares Corporations, but Not the Safety Net,” George Zornick

Reports (summaries written by Christie Thompson)

“Examining Growth in the Federal Prison Population, 1998 to 2010,” by Kamala Mallik-Kane, Barbara Parthasarathy and William Adams, The Urban Institute. In the last decade, the number of federal prisoners serving time has increased by 77 percent. Most of the increase in incarceration is due to longer sentences for nonviolent crimes. Over half of those in federal custody are drug offenders, and their lengthening sentences alone accounted for one-third of the increase in prisoners. The federal government also increasingly cracked down on undocumented immigrants, who now make up 12 percent of our prisons’ population. A recent study from the Urban Institute found the rising cost of keeping people behind bars is diverting funds from needed services. One-fourth of the Department of Justice’s budget is spent on the Bureau of Prisons. With the bureau requesting $6.9 billion for FY2013, the United States can no longer afford the high cost of criminalization.

“Medicaid/CHIP Participation Among Children and Parents,” by Genevieve M. Kenney, Victoria Lynch, Michael Huntress, Jennifer Haley, and Nathaniel Anderson, The Urban Institute. There is some good news to pull from recent poverty statistics: the number of poor children who were eligible for public benefits but still uninsured has declined. The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) now reaches 4.4 million low-income kids across the country. The improvement is due to expanded eligibility, and implementing state policies to improve enrollment and retention.

“Transit’s Most Reliable Customers: Why Considering the Needs of Low-Income Populations Improves Public Transit” by Tazra Mitchell, North Carolina Budget and Tax Center. In North Carolina, officials are rapidly expanding the state’s public transit options, from additional bus services to the development of a commuter rail. Beyond the environmental benefit, these investments increase low-income North Carolinians’ access to education and job opportunities. Whether the project is successful depends entirely on its ability to serve poor and working-class families. Employees earning less than $25,000 annually made up 67 percent of public transit riders in 2011. But improved bus service isn’t enough. Mitchell points out the importance of increasing and preserving affordable housing options in city centers, and matching transit to where low-income families currently reside. “The success of new and expanded transit in North Carolina will largely depend on how well [it] retains and reaches its most reliable customers: low-income North Carolinians. This requires developing transit plans with an eye to where low-income people live and where the opportunities for economic and social participation exist,” Mitchell writes.

“Women Suffer Two-Thirds of Losses if Congress Ends Improved Tax Credits for Working Families,” National Women’s Law Center. If Congress decides to end tax cuts for middle-class families this January, women and their families will be the hardest hit. Changing the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit will mean hundreds or thousands of dollars coming from the pockets of working-class women. After both credits were expanded in 2009, they lifted more than 9 million Americans out of poverty. Ending these 2009 improvements would take $12.6 billion in tax credits away from low- and moderate-income working families next year, and push working women and their families into poverty.

Vital Statistics

US poverty (less than $23,021 for a family of four): 46.2 million people, 15.1 percent.

Children in poverty: 16.1 million, 22 percent of all children, including more than one in three African-American and Latino children. Poorest age group in the country.

Deep poverty (less than $11,510 for a family of four): 20.4 million people, one in fifteen Americans, including more than 15 million women and children.

Jobs in the US paying less than $34,000 a year: 50 percent.

Jobs in the US paying below the poverty line for a family of four, less than $23,000 annually: 25 percent.

Employment rate for people with disabilities, 2010: 18.6 percent.

Employment rate for people with no disabilities, 2010: 63.5 percent.

Families receiving cash assistance, 1996: 68 for every 100 families living in poverty.

Families receiving cash assistance, 2010: 27 for every 100 families living in poverty.

Impact of public policy, 2010: without government assistance, poverty would have been twice as high—nearly 30 percent of population.

Quote of the Week

“Mr. Kristof seems to imagine that poor people have freely chosen this comfortable life living on disability and food stamps. He has no idea how difficult it is to get either form of assistance and how inadequate the benefits are. SSI payments are set at roughly 75 percent of the poverty level and food stamps are only intended to provide 75 percent of the food you need—hardly a comfortable life for someone who we have determined to be unable to work. Despite his quotes about the plush life of poor people with all their air conditioners and microwaves, what I see are families doubled and tripled up in trailers and small houses—where everyday is a struggle to pay for food, electricity, rent, transportation and other basic needs. People keep talking about providing “opportunities” for poor people. Where are they? Is there some vast pool of unfilled low skill labor jobs with living wages I don’t know about? And how would that matter to the millions of disabled folks? Do we have appropriate work opportunities for them as well? How can our safety net be so overly generous when 20 percent of food stamp households have no cash income at all? Where is the outrage about that?”
                             —Jack Frech, director,
                             Athens County Department of Job and Family Services (in Appalachian Ohio)

Christie Thompson co-wrote the “Clips and other resources” section of this blog, and wrote the “Reports” section.

This Week in Poverty posts here on Friday mornings, and again on Sundays at Moyers & Company. Today in Poverty posts earlier in the week. You can e-mail me at WeekInPoverty@me.com and follow me on Twitter.

In May 2012, Richard Crowe was laid off when the steel mill where he had worked for thirty-four years was shut down. He’d worked there since graduating from high school. New ownership filed for bankruptcy.

“The judge threw the workers’ contract out, the owners walked away with $20 million, and we got nothing,” says Crowe, who is 54, and lives in eastern Ohio.

Seven months later, Crowe is one of 5 million “long-term” unemployed workers in the United States who have been looking for work for more than six months. They are disproportionately older (over 50), women, and minorities, and according to today’s jobs report, their employment prospects haven’t much improved.

If Congress doesn’t extend the unemployment insurance program by the end of this year, 2 million of these workers will lose their benefits between Christmas and New Years Day, another 1 million by April 2013 and more than 5 million people will be without benefits by the end of 2013, according to the National Employment Law Project (NELP). This would occur at a moment when there are still 12 million people unemployed, and there are approximately 3.4 unemployed applicants for every available job opening.

“The jobs are still not there,” says Edith Harrison, 59, who lives in Colorado Springs and was laid off from her job at a senior assisted living facility in August. “How can you cut unemployment benefits off, and blame someone for not being able to get a job, when they didn’t create the situation?”

The anti-poverty effect of unemployment insurance is significant and undeniable. In 2010, the program lifted 3.2 million people above the poverty line (less than $18,000 for a family of three). In 2011, it lifted 2.3 million people above the line, including 620,000 children. (The program had less of a poverty reducing effect last year in part because a provision in the Recovery Act that paid an additional $25 per week in benefits was allowed to expire.) The average benefit is just $291 per week and it covers approximately 40 percent of a typical family’s food, housing and transportation costs.

What is most egregious to both Harrison and Crowe is the stereotype—voiced by people who want to cut the program or drug test benefit recipients—that unemployed people are lazy and would rather collect modest benefits than work.

“It’s funny, but it’s pathetic—a lot of people think you’re out here for a handout,” says Crowe. “I worked all my life. I paid into unemployment, I paid into Social Security, I paid into everything. I want off this unemployment, I want a job.”

In fact, Crowe has applied for 157 jobs. He and his wife are willing to relocate—they put their son through college and he is now living independently. Crowe has applied for jobs in Nevada and South Carolina—in the steel industry and in new lines of work.

“In the steel industry, companies are hiring 20-year-olds that have never even been in a mill before, and passing on people like me—an experienced operator and maintenance technician,” says Crowe. “Then you go look at other jobs and they say ‘you don’t have no experience.’ ”

He recalls applying for a job delivering packages for UPS. The interviewer looked over his resume and asked, “Pretty much you worked in the mill all your life?”

“Yeah,” Richard told her.

“Have you ever had any experience delivering packages?”

“I felt like telling her, ‘Yeah, once a year, I play Santa Claus,’ ” he tells me, laughing. “This is the stuff you go through.”

Harrison says she gets up early every morning—“ just like I’m going to work”—drinks her coffee, and gets on the computer to search for jobs.

“Retail, restaurants and customer service—most of the jobs out there—they say they want people who are ‘high energy’ for a ‘fast-paced environment’,” she says. “I’m not saying I can’t do it, but I’m 59, and if they have a choice they’re going to take the person who’s younger.”

Crowe also thinks his age is making it difficult for him to land a new opportunity. He has applied for many jobs knowing that he’s overqualified, including warehouse work. Often, he doesn’t even receive a reply, and sees the jobs still being posted months later.

“It’s my age holding me back. I can’t prove that, but I’m getting that feeling after going through all this,” he says. “If they see a 5 or 6 in front of your age—I’m just visualizing when people look at that they just laugh and throw your application off to the side.”

Unemployment benefits are a lifeline for Harrison and Crowe. In 2002, Harrison was laid off from her job as a secretary for the local school district. (She had also previously worked as a secretary in Detroit Public Schools for nineteen years, and as a case manager and skills development specialist for Goodwill Industries.) She ended up homeless, and sleeping on couches in the homes of families and friends. She fears it could happen again.

“I don’t want to go through that again,” she says. “How can you find a job if you don’t have anyplace to stay? When you’re out there, your life is just all up in the air. It takes a long time to come back from that.”

Harrison says her $227 per week benefit helps her “keep the lights on” and pay the rent.

Crowe receives $382 per week and says it covers his utilities and his car payment. He and his wife are also using their retirement savings “just to survive.”

“If they don’t renew these benefits, I won’t have any income,” says Crowe. “I’ll lose my house, I’ll lose everything.”

Judy Conti, federal advocacy coordinator for NELP, says she is “cautiously optimistic” that unemployment insurance will be reauthorized for 2013—either as part of any “grand bargain” or a more limited package of cuts and revenues prior to January 1. She notes that the $30 billion program was included in President Obama’s initial offer to Republicans to avert the fiscal cliff. She also says NELP has had lengthy and productive conversations with Democratic leadership, staff members for most of the Democratic Senate Caucus, and many House members as well.

“All of them really do understand how important and crucial this program is right now,” says Conti.

On the other hand, conservatives continue to demand that any reauthorization of unemployment insurance must be paid for, but Conti says that that shouldn’t be difficult to achieve through any bill that includes significant cuts and savings.

“We’re not really seeing the same kind of pushback we have seen in previous years,” says Conti, “where Representatives have wanted to change the nature of the program, or beat up on the unemployed as lazy.”

It also can’t hurt that Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s, estimates that every $1 in unemployment benefits generates $1.61 in economic activity—since those benefits are spent so quickly. Also, the Congressional Budget Office found that reauthorizing the program for 2013 would create 300,000 jobs.

While she waits to see how this plays out in Congress, Harrison is doing her best to keep her spirits up.

“I used to stay on that computer from the beginning of the day to nighttime looking for work,” she said. “I would have a headache, wouldn’t even eat—had to make myself eat. Now I try to keep balance—get up early in the morning, get on that computer—and after so long and so many résumés, I stop. You don’t want to make yourself sick. I just stay prayerful.”

As for Crowe, he says the ordeal has taken a toll on his family—especially his wife, who he says “worries every day” as they try to cobble together enough money through unemployment benefits, her low-wage work and their retirement savings.

“I’m doing everything in my power that I can, but I can’t make someone hire me,” he says.

Tell Congress to reauthorize Unemployment Insurance for 2013 at UnemployedWorkers.org.

Announcements

This Week in Poverty will continue to post every Friday. Beginning next week, TheNation.com will also post Today in Poverty once a week. There are so many people and groups doing great poverty-related work—studies, actions, writing, TV, radio—the single blog is way too long. Let us know what you think (after we try it).

Also, I’m looking forward to joining the excellent Melissa Harris-Perry on her show this Saturday at 10 am. Hope you can watch.

Get involved

Tell @WhiteHouse to Protect and Strengthen SNAP today!

Protect low-income Americans in budget decisions

Nuns on the Bus for Medicaid Expansion

Renew Unemployment Insurance for 2013

Studies and other resources (co-written with Christie Thompson)

“Youth and Work: Restoring Teen and Young Adult Connections to Opportunity,” Annie E. Casey Foundation. The unemployment crisis in the US is hitting young people of color the hardest. Today, nearly 6.5 million youth are “disconnected”—meaning they are neither employed nor enrolled in school. Employment among young people is now the lowest it’s been in fifty years, having dropped by half since 2000, and the racial disparity is stark: among 20–24-year-olds, 29 percent of black youth are out of work and school, compared with 20 percent of youth in that age group overall.

With high school and college graduates forced to take low-paying entry-level jobs, those without a GED are all but barred from most work places. The result is a vicious circle for low-income youth who can’t get a job without previous experience.

It is also estimated that out of school and out-of-work youth cost taxpayers $1.56 trillion in public assistance.

The solution, the Casey Foundation says, is to reinvest in disconnected youth. We must increase funding for job training and flexible educational opportunities—including community service, internships, summer and part-time work—while creating jobs that allow young people to support themselves and their children.

“The Recession’s Ongoing Impact on Children, 2012,” Julia Isaacs and Olivia Healy, the Urban Institute. This report looks at the impact of the recession on children by comparing three key indicators: the percentage living with an unemployed parent, receiving food stamps (or SNAP benefits), and living below the poverty line. The conclusion? American children are worse off today than they were five years ago.

Nearly one in ten children in the US have parents that are unemployed, compared to 5 percent of kids before the economic downturn. Even employed parents are struggling to put food on the table, as more than one in four American children receive SNAP benefits.

A companion paper recommends steps Congress and the President can take to strengthen protections for kids.

“A Poverty and Opportunity Agenda: What's in Store for the Next Four Years,” (VIDEO) Brookings Institution, Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity, and the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Representative from both sides of the aisle debated how the Obama administration can fight poverty and increase opportunity for all Americans. We heard that the keynote speech by Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council and assistant to President Obama for economic policy, was particularly good.

“Replacing the Thrifty Food Plan in Order to Provide Adequate Allotments for SNAP Beneficiaries,” Heather Hartline-Grafton and James Weill, Food Research and Action Council (FRAC). There’s a reason Newark Mayor Cory Booker calls living off SNAP benefits a food stamp “challenge.” For too long, low-income families have been forced to live off of the meager nutritional assistance allotted to them under the “Thrifty Food Plan.” This plan has its roots in the 1930s and was developed for short-term, emergency use. But today, it requires a family of four to live on $627 dollars a month, or $5.05 per person, per day. FRAC takes a closer look at the “Thrifty” plan to reveal just how impossible that budget really is.

“The research shows that SNAP benefit levels need to be improved, not cut as some in Congress are proposing,” said FRAC President Jim Weill. “SNAP is a great program but its gains are limited by the allotment shortfall. Cuts will cause more hunger, more poverty, and more ill health.”

“Employment-Based Retirement Plan Participation: Geographic Differences and Trends, 2011,” Craig Copeland, PhD, Employee Benefit Research Institute. In 2011, nearly 40 percent of American workers took part in a work-based financial plan to save for retirement. The percentage of employees remains mostly unchanged from 2010, halting the three-year decline that occurred during the recession. But low-wage, part-time, women and minority workers remain less likely to take part in such saving plans than their counterparts. Two-thirds of American women over age 65 live entirely on Social Security that on average provides $1,000 in monthly benefits for women—worth paying attention to during deficit debate.

Like this article? Support this journalism with a $5 donation now.

Clips (compiled with Christie Thompson)

“…Cuts to WIC Could Cripple….” Sheila Bapat

“OC Food Bank sees 50% drop in federal funding,” Ben Bergman

“A different kind of busing approach to desegregation,” Steve Bogira

“Proposal to drug test welfare recipients may gain steam in Kansas,” Brad Cooper

“Poor Women and Children Faced with Fiscal Threat,” Bryce Covert

“The Hollowing Out of America,” by Steve Fraser

“Santorum’s Three Things to Avoid Poverty: The Very Serious Person’s Version of Makers vs. Takers,” Shawn Fremstad

“Buildings Get High Marks—From Feds, Not Tenants,” Henry Gass

“…In Response to Republican Budget Offer,” Robert Greenstein

“Getting Away with Wage Theft,” Scott Lemieux

“Child Care Subsidies: Family Copayments Vary Widely Across States,” Sarah Minton and Christin Durham

“Organizing McDonalds and Walmart, and Why Austerity Economics Hurts Low-Wage Workers the Most,” Robert Reich

“Yolanda Andrews: The Home Defenders League Is Fighting Back,” (VIDEO) Francis Reynolds

“Lines Blur as Texas Gives Industries a Bonanza,” by Louise Story

“Keeping the Courthouse Doors Open for Low-Wage Women Workers,” Liz Watson

Vital Statistics

US poverty (less than $23,021 for a family of four): 46.2 million people, 15.1 percent.

Children in poverty: 16.1 million, 22 percent of all children, including more than one in three African American and Latino children. Poorest age group in the country.

Deep poverty (less than $11,510 for a family of four): 20.4 million people, 1 in 15 Americans, including more than 15 million women and children.

Increase in deep poverty since 1976: doubled—3.3 percent of population to 6.7 percent.

Below twice the poverty level (less than $46,042 for a family of four): 106 million people, more than 1 in 3 Americans.

Jobs in the US paying less than $34,000 a year: 50 percent.

Jobs in the US paying below the poverty line for a family of four, less than $23,000 annually: 25 percent.

Youth employment: lowest level in more than 60 years.

Families receiving cash assistance, 1996: 68 for every 100 families living in poverty.

Families receiving cash assistance, 2010: 27 for every 100 families living in poverty.

People age 50 and over at risk of hunger every day: 9 million.

Percentage of US population in poverty at some time before age 65: over 50 percent.

Impact of public policy, 2010: without government assistance, poverty would have been twice as high—nearly 30 percent of population.

Impact of public policy, 1964–1973: poverty rate fell by 43 percent.

Quotes of the Week

“They’re saying, ‘We need the tax cuts to create jobs.’ Excuse me? You’ve had these tax cuts for ten years, where the hell’s all the jobs? It’s becoming a joke, but it ain’t funny.”
      —Richard Crowe

“Somebody needs to stick up for unemployed. They’re talking about a lot of things up there in Congress, but what about the people who have nothing?”
      —Edith Harrison

Christie Thompson co-wrote the Studies and Clips sections of this blog.

This Week in Poverty posts here on Friday mornings, and again on Sundays at Moyers & Company. Look for Today in Poverty beginning next week. You can e-mail me at WeekInPoverty@me.com and follow me on Twitter.

The hardest thing about the poverty beat is this: getting to know men, women and children who are working to overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles, and knowing the consequences to their lives if those obstacles prove too great. I also meet people in low-income communities, NGOs, think tanks, universities, and government who are completely devoted to the eradication of poverty. They engender hope. I checked in with some of them this week and asked what they are thinking about this Thanksgiving. Here is what they had to say:

Sister Simone Campbell, executive director, NETWORK:

On Monday I was in Louisiana sharing stories from Nuns on the Bus with teachers and those who work in various support roles in schools. One woman told me that she has been doing the same support job for thirteen years in a school district, not had a raise for seven years and is currently making $17,000. She has had to take extra jobs to support her family and at times uses a food bank and other services to even get by. While she loves working with the children, it is a daily struggle for her and her family. She is in the bottom 20 percent of our nation for income, yet she is doing some of the most important work helping to form the new generation. This Thanksgiving, I am keenly aware of so many in our rich nation who are struggling to put food on their families’ tables. We are better than this. My prayer is that the 100 percent will come together, and exercise our responsibility for each other, being “We the People” forming a more perfect union.

Sheila Crowley, president & CEO, National Low Income Housing Coalition:

The night after President Obama’s re-election, I left my office near the White House and walked to the closest Metro station. There were fifteen people in the covered entranceway to the station, getting ready to bed down for the night, just like they do most every night. Although I may have felt that the outcome of the election boded well for progressive causes, it did not change the reality that too many people in our country have nowhere to live. I will know that change has come when people are not sleeping outside on concrete in November two blocks from the White House.

Sara Palmer, single mother, SNAP recipient, graduate student, research assistant and food service worker:

I’m thinking of the 10 million single mothers here in the United States who often do the work of two. We work hard, we struggle to provide for our children—what they deserve—and with luck and opportunity we are able. Please be thankful for your families, your networks of support, and the opportunities (and luck) that you have been given.… I know that I am.

Lisalyn Jacobs, vice president for government relations, Legal Momentum:

am thankful, as I read reports about the “freebies” allegedly received by women, minorities and youth, that we will remain on course for the next four years and hopefully come closer to ensuring that everyone—whether single moms, returning vets, unemployed workers, survivors of domestic or sexual violence, those recovering from the ravages of Hurricane Sandy, or those who are doing okay and thankful for that—feels like there is a real and enduring safety net to buoy them during the rough spots. I remain troubled, having checked in with many congressional offices over the last week, that too many of our elected leaders plan to default to gridlock and business as usual rather than turning their attention to removing obstacles, and seeking genuine bipartisan consensus and compromise.

Ralph da Costa Nunez, president & CEO, Institute for Children, Poverty & Homelessness:

Just this past week I visited four homeless family shelters in New York City. The shelters were full of young children who had a sparkle of hope and dreams in their eyes. They told me how they wanted to be a doctor, a nurse, truck driver, a policeman. After doing this work for thirty-six years, sometimes it feels like we’re moving in circles. But their faces remind me of the reason we have to keep working to reduce poverty and homelessness in America.

Jodie Levin-Epstein, deputy director, Center for Law and Social Policy:

It’s easy to get depressed by the implications of the deficit and the other profound challenges that we face today like creating millions of good jobs; but what’s exhilarating is the work each and every day of groups like the Retail Action Project, Restaurant Opportunities Center United, National Healthy Nail and Beauty Salon Alliance, Caring Across Generations, Warehouse Workers for Justice and Young Invincibles. I am thankful for the creativity, smarts and gumption of these and other groups; being impressed is a solid antidote to getting depressed.

Jessica Bartholow, legislative advocate, Western Center on Law and Poverty:

I traveled this weekend to see my only sister in northern Pennsylvania where she lives with her husband. This year, like millions of Americans, they had turned for the first time to food stamps because they couldn’t find work. I talked to my sister about this experience. She said it was hard: “We still went hungry, and it was never enough to buy healthy foods. It was embarrassing to shop with food stamps, even with the [EBT] card.” Things are better for them now. My brother-in-law has found work and they are able to pay down bills and buy what they need at the grocery store. As we ate breakfast in their small kitchen booth in the camper trailer that is their home, we exchanged stories and laughter with the kind of levity that comes with time and distance from hard times. This Thanksgiving, I’m thankful fewer Americans are hungry due to the food stamp program, but I’d rather that they didn’t need them at all.

Peter Edelman, professor of law, Georgetown University Law Center:

I went to the Children’s Defense Fund Beat the Odds benefit last week and participated in honoring five young women who have beaten the toughest odds and are now on their way to college with the scholarships awarded them by CDF. There wasn’t a dry eye in the house. We can’t ever forget the big difference that helping people one by one makes in reducing poverty. We are frustrated sometimes by not making bigger strides in changing the big picture—and we have to succeed there to make the numbers in poverty move down a lot—but we also have to keep on doing the small things that change lives one by one. They add up to a big number.

The United States should be doing more to help low-income American families put food on the table this Thanksgiving. Check out Greg Kaufmann on “The Choice to End Poverty.”