Greg Kaufmann | The Nation

Tavis Smiley (left) and Cornel West (center) visit the DC Central Kitchen on August 10, 2011. (Flickr/DC Central Kitchen)

Next Thursday, at George Washington University in the nation’s capital—just four days before President Obama’s inauguration—broadcaster Tavis Smiley will bring together a bipartisan panel and an array of poverty experts in a nationally televised event, “Vision for A New America: A Future Without Poverty.”

Expect a heated debate, as a panel that includes Newt Gingrich, Cornel West, and Michael Moore discusses Smiley’s call for a national plan to cut poverty in half in ten years and to eradicate it in twenty-five.

It’s part of Smiley’s latest effort to bring attention to the more than 46 million Americans living below living the poverty line, on less than $18,000 annually for a family of three. Smiley is also calling on the President to deliver a major public policy address on poverty—which includes telling the American people what they can do to help—and to convene a White House Conference on the Eradication of Poverty.

“This is all about raising the profile of poverty in America,” Smiley told me. “It’s about gaining traction.”

While the aforementioned headliners will help fill the auditorium next week—along with Jeffrey Sachs, Jonathan Kozol, Congressional Black Caucus Chair Marcia Fudge, and National Nurses United executive director Rose Ann DeMoro—there are a couple of less widely-known panelists that I am definitely looking forward to hearing from as well.

If you read this blog, you know Dr. Mariana Chilton, director for the Center for Hunger-Free Communities, founder of Witnesses to Hunger, and associate professor of Drexel University School of Public Health.

Chilton is one of the brightest, most creative people I’ve come across in an antipoverty field that is full of great thinkers and activists. Also, more than anyone I know, she touts the fact that the “real experts” on poverty are the people who are actually living in poverty—and Witnesses to Hunger is a testament to that belief. You can bet if Gingrich starts pushing stereotypes about poverty and hunger, Chilton will counter with facts, science, and the collaborative work she does with low-income citizens every day.

John Graham, dean of the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs, will be there too. He’s the co-author of America’s Poor and the Great Recession, which will be released later this month. Graham served in the Office of Management and Budget under the Bush administration, and Smiley said his new book—for which Smiley wrote the foreword—“lays out specific policy proposals [to fight poverty] that Graham believes both the left and right can agree on.”

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

Perhaps the key moment in the symposium for me, however, will be when Smiley speaks directly with low-income people in the audience.

Smiley will ask them to talk about “what they’ve gone through in this country and this economy”; a program that they are involved with and why it works; and what the country can learn from their experiences. As I’ve said before—and I know Smiley agrees—the people who know poverty firsthand are the ones we need to listen to if we want to know what they are experiencing, shatter the myths and stereotypes, and learn more about the most effective pathways out of poverty.

Smiley hopes viewers and audience members will be motivated to sign his petition calling for the White House conference, and that the panel is a preview of “what that conference might look like—when you get folks in the room who don’t agree.”

While he’s under no illusion that a presidential address and a conference will suddenly translate into a national commitment to the eradication of poverty, he does believe that it would spark further conversation, debate, and movement on the issue, and I think he’s right about that. An example of how this kind of approach can lead to sustained action: in his 1995 State of the Union address, President Clinton called for a National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Clinton’s staff then convened a non-partisan meeting to mobilize a wide range of sectors and set a bold goal to reduce the US teen pregnancy rate by one-third in ten years. Sixteen years later, through diverse efforts, the nation has exceeded that goal and teen pregnancy is at an all-time low.

Smiley has an ambitious timeline for the conference and policy speech he envisions—he wants it to happen prior to the debt ceiling debate.

“This is a way to make sure we don’t have another debate that’s exclusive for Washington insiders like we did with the cliff debate in January,” said Smiley. “It’s a way to expand the conversation, to bring in our fellow citizens.”

I will definitely be in the audience next Thursday night and I hope you will be there, too. If you can’t attend in person, you can watch live on C-SPAN or online here.

Kudos to Mr. Smiley for his continued focus—through books, TV, radio, and tours—on people who are usually demonized or completely ignored in our politics and media.

Get Involved

Stop the Violence

Stand up for programs meeting human needs

Clips and Other Resources

“A greener Chicago would be a safer Chicago,” Steve Bogira

“Prosperity Threatened: Perspectives on Childhood Poverty in California,” Center for the Next Generation

“The Global Domestic Workforce Is Enormous—and Very Vulnerable,” Bryce Covert

“…Michigan’s Dual Agenda Slams Low-Income Women,” Bryce Covert

“Fiscal Cliff Deal was a Raw Deal for Low-Income, Working-Class People,” Shawn Fremstad

“Next Round on the Deficit: Big Dangers Ahead for the Economy, the Budget and Low-Income People,” Bob Greenstein

“The Politics of Poverty Research and Pro-Poor Policy Making,” Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies

“Urban-Rural Trends in SNAP Participation: What's Going On?” Gregory Mills

“What a Real 'War on Poverty' Looks Like,” (VIDEO) Melissa Harris-Perry

“The Hoax of Entitlement Reform,” Robert Reich

“Unmasking the Meritocracy Myth,” Paul Thomas

“…Conditional Sigh of Relief After Governor Brown Announces Medi-Cal Expansion Options, No More Cuts to Safety Net,” Western Center on Law & Poverty

Reports

“100 Days for America’s Workers,” National Employment Law Project. The report offers a short list of policies achievable in the first 100 days of President Obama’s second term—including calling for specific investments in good jobs—that will help get the economy back on track and give it a sustained boost.

“How Much Protection Does a College Degree Afford?” Pew Economic Mobility Project. This report demonstrates that a four-year college degree helped shield recent graduates from a range of poor outcomes during the Great Recession, including unemployment, low-skill jobs, and lesser wages.

Vital Statistics

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

People who would have been in poverty if not for Social Security, 2011: 67.6 million (program kept 21.4 million people out of poverty).

People in the US experiencing poverty by age 65: Roughly half.

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.

Twice the poverty level (less than $46,042 for a family of four): 106 million people, approximately 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.

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

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 stamp recipients with no other cash income: 6.5 million people.

People experiencing homelessness on any given night, US: 643,067.

People in families experiencing homelessness on any given night, US: 238,110.

Percentage of homeless population who are veterans: 12 percent, or 67,000 people.

Annual cost of child poverty nationwide: $550 billion.

This Week in Poverty posts here on Fridays, 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.

My post today lacks any of my own writing because my kids—little walking Petri dishes that they are—passed along their latest bug as a New Year’s gift.

Fortunately, I received many great, informed responses to my post on Wednesday regarding the “cliff” deal. They run the gamut—from strong agreement to politely telling me that I have no idea in hell what I’m talking about. This is exactly the kind of conversation that I hoped would occur when we launched This Week in Poverty almost one year ago to the day.

The people below have kindly agreed to let me post their comments. They were given the option to expand on the ideas they originally e-mailed to me—some did, some didn’t. The opinions expressed are their own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of their respective organizations—titles and affiliations are for identification purposes only.

‘There is no way I would have agreed to this’

Greg, we can’t afford any of the Bush tax cuts. It makes sense to keep those for the non-super-rich until the economy fully recovers, but if we want to help the poor, they all have to be phased out.

The Washington Post states: “…the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows how the Bush tax cuts are likely to continue be a major driver of federal budget deficits 20 years after they were first passed. With Congress raising taxes on the wealthy on Tuesday, the effect on deficits will be somewhat less—about $600 billion less than shown in this chart. Still, they will remain the largest component of deficits for the foreseeable future.” In six years, when Republicans are again howling about deficits, will they be pushing for cutting programs for the poor or for raising taxes?

There is no way I would have agreed to this. I could have accepted a five-year limit on extending the new version of the Bush tax cuts, but making them permanent is a colossal mistake.

So, yes we have five years of some good low-income tax credits, but we are stuck with a permanent budget-buster that is 98 percent of the Bush tax cuts. And on top of those tax cuts there is whipped cream and a cherry for the rich (and in most places, $250,000+ is undeniably rich): “Dividend tax rates were permanently extended at the Bush-era levels; The estate tax was permanently set at levels far more generous to inherited wealth than before the Bush era tax cuts.”

Again, who is going to pay for these permanent tax cuts? The poor will pay. If not now, in six years.

ALGERNON AUSTIN
Director of the race, ethnicity and the economy program
Economic Policy Institute

‘Let’s figure out how best to fight’

My take is similar to yours. There are some real wins in the bill that avoided the “cliff.” Yes, we’ve got a big fight ahead in the next few months, with serious threats to programs that are critical to low-income people. But let’s figure out how best to fight for them, rather than wringing our hands about how we’re doomed.

As I wrote in my post for CLASP, “While we can breathe a sigh of relief over avoiding a drop off the cliff, there is no time to rest. We must let policymakers and opinion leaders know that it is unacceptable to reduce the deficit by targeting the most vulnerable and that it is outrageous to hold the entire economy hostage. In this season of resolutions, we must resolve to stand up for those whose voices are rarely heard.”

ELIZABETH LOWER-BASCH
Policy coordinator and senior policy analyst
Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)

‘Obama settled for too little’

Good point, to give credit where credit is due—to notice that the cliff deal will help the poor and near-poor get by. I wonder, though, when we’ll ever get around to helping low-income people do more than stumble onward. Critics on the left feel that Obama settled for too little given the strength of his hand—that he missed an opportunity to do something special. That’s how I feel, although I know it may be wishful thinking.

STEVE BOGIRA
Senior writer
Chicago Reader

‘A good step forward for working poor families’

I totally agree. This year-end deal is a good step forward for working poor families. Now that there has begun to be a little balance of raising revenue to offset the tremendous cuts in domestic spending already made in earlier deals, the next deal should be based on $1 of additional revenue for every $1 of cuts. Additionally, the Pentagon is the best place to start looking for savings and not safety net programs that have already paid their fair share. A faithful budget has reasonable revenue for responsible programs.

SISTER SIMONE CAMPBELL
Executive director
NETWORK

‘All low-income workers will see their incomes go down’

You are right to note that the fiscal “cliff” deal extends some important tax benefits for poorly compensated workers. But it’s also worth noting the limited nature of these provisions, especially in light of previous commitments made by President Obama and what the deal concedes to the 1 percent.

In 2008, Barack Obama pledged to provide a refundable $500 tax credit to all low- and middle-income workers. A version of this Making Work Pay tax credit was included in the Recovery Act, but only for 2009 and 2010. According to the Tax Policy Institute, roughly 70 percent of tax filers with incomes below $40,000 received the credit.

By contrast, when viewed from a low-income, working-class perspective, the tax provisions you highlight—the ones that were truly at risk of being left out of a deal—are extremely modest.

There were only two EITC extensions in this deal that were truly at risk of being left out: (1) an increase in the EITC benefit for married couples (different-sex ones only) with incomes in the upper range of EITC eligibility (over roughly $17,000); and (2) an EITC increase for families with three or more children. According to the Tax Policy Center, only 2.6 percent of tax filers with incomes below $20,000 and about 9 percent of tax filers with incomes between $20,000–$40,000 will receive any benefits from these two ETIC extensions.

The only element of the Child Tax Credit truly at risk was a provision that allowed workers with earnings between $3,000 and around $13,000 to benefit from the credit. (Parents with earnings of less than $3,000 remain ineligible for the credit.) If this provision had not been extended, about 16 percent of tax filers with incomes below $20,000 would have lost an average tax benefit of $863 as a result.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad these modest provisions were included. But we should be clear that they (1) reach narrow segments of workers, (2) except for the Child Tax Credit extension, provide very limited benefits to the most poorly compensated workers and (3), as you noted, are limited to only five years, unlike the permanent and much larger extension of tax benefits for the wealthy.

Finally, we need to remember this: all low-income working people will see their incomes go down in 2013 compared to 2012 because of the expiration of the payroll tax cut. Typical workers in poorly compensated jobs (like home health aides and cashiers) will bring home about $300–500 less this year as a result. An amount, by the way, equivalent to the Making Work Pay tax credit promised by Barack Obama in 2008.

SHAWN FREMSTAD
Senior research associate
Center for Economic and Policy Research

‘Hard to balance long- and short-term goals on poverty alleviation’

I really appreciate this piece. It is very hard to balance the issue of long- and short-term goals on poverty alleviation. This is a less than perfect outcome, but it is important to recognize the critically important aspects of the safety net that were retained. Thanks for this.

MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY
Host of MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry

‘A blow to low-income families’

Greg, the two most important pieces of the 2001-2011 tax cuts for low-income families were the reduced refundability threshold of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the 2 percentage point cut in payroll taxes.

Extending the changes to the CTC were never a given, but it’s a blow to low-income families to have all but the most important CTC provision extended permanently. In 2012, the reduced refundability thresholds for the CTC provided an average tax refund of almost $900 for families with children in the lowest 20 percent of the income distribution, and over $1,100 for families in the next 20 percent of the income distribution. By not extending this portion of the CTC changes permanently, this deal leaves this relatively large benefit vulnerable to future cuts.

The 2 percent reduction in payroll taxes was, no doubt, expensive and poorly targeted and raised concerns because it required financing a portion of Social Security from general revenues. However, the payroll tax holiday was rooted in a much more targeted tax credit, the Making Work Pay tax credit (MWP). A Tax Policy Center analysis showed that in 2011, MWP provided an average tax cut of almost $400 for people in the lowest income quintile (roughly double what the expiring payroll tax cut provided) and an almost identical benefit of $467 for people in the second income quintile—at roughly half the total bill of the payroll tax holiday.

Given the fragile economy low-income families continue to face, I had hopes something akin to MWP would be revived. Doing so would have kept taxes from rising on this still vulnerable population.

ELAINE MAAG
Senior research associate
The Tax Policy Center/The Urban Institute

‘There is reason to be fearful over the next set of deals’

I think your column and some others are right to note that lower-income Americans didn’t lose a whole lot in this deal. No entitlements were cut, and the drastic domestic discretionary spending cuts of sequestration were delayed for two months. So really, the major immediate loss for low-income people was the payroll tax relief not being made permanent. That’s significant, but it could have been much worse.

However, if you look at the broader situation, there is reason to be very fearful over the next set of deals—debt ceiling and sequestration.

The president’s primary leverage on these issues was the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Now that those have expired but largely been restored, generating less new revenue than progressives might have hoped for, the president may face Republicans determined to maintain the side of sequestration [cuts] that covers non-defense spending. Whether or not this occurs will likely depend on the outcome of a game of chicken. As we reach the debt limit, which side will blink? Will Republicans accept meaningful additional revenues or will Democrats, concerned over damage to the economy, cave to drastic spending cuts? And even under a deal that balances revenues and spending cuts, where will the spending cuts come from?

It seems likely that defense cuts will be spared—completely or at least largely, given the bipartisan  congressional opposition to them that seems to have developed. This leaves non-defense domestic discretionary spending—a term that sounds technical but really is synonymous with “programs that help low income and middle class people” at real risk. Of course, entitlement cuts could be on the table instead, but those cuts are hardly better for low-income Americans.

JEREMY ROSEN
Policy director
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty

‘Fiscal cliff debate has once again [ignored] the poor’

Paul Krugman recently explained about the political and public understanding of the fiscal cliff: “It speaks to the state of confusion that all the deficit fearmongering has created. And if headline writers at a major newspaper can’t get it straight, how can you expect ordinary voters to get it?”

Little has been said, however, about how the fiscal cliff debate has maintained the public gaze in the US on the middle class and the wealthy, once again ignoring the poor, the working poor and the working class. Your focus, then, is a valuable contribution now that a deal has been struck: “But I’m troubled by the lack of attention being paid to how this deal benefits the more than one in three Americans living below twice the poverty line.”

Political and popular discourse in the US tends either to ignore the poor, the working poor and the working class or to characterize those at the bottom of the economic ladder as lazy or simply feeding off the wealthy—as perpetuated by Romney’s “47 percent” comment.

Claiming equity of opportunity, the great American meritocracy, exists—which it doesn’t—is quite different than seeking that meritocracy. Public policy and the discourse around that policy need to keep a central focus on the marginalized poor, at least along with concern about the middle class and affluent, as a harbinger for achieving the equity and opportunity Americans claim to honor.

PAUL THOMAS, EdD
Associate professor of education,
Furman University

‘Chow some superfood and boneless wings and start the fight afresh’

Greg, you score some points with this one. But YOLO* (You Only Live Once), so here’s an attempt to explain why the last-minute (actually, past the last minute) deal to avoid the so-called Fiscal Cliff* is nevertheless aggravating.

(*Spoiler alert: If we have to talk about this, it’s satisfying to see how many of these annoying and recently banned words can be used to make the point that this bill isn’t exactly terrific.)

It’s unlikely anyone could be more passionate* about this topic than our guru*, Senator Tom Harkin, who explained why he voted NO on NPR.

It was rewarding to hear him express frustration about the bill’s failure to address a key priority, job creation*; or as he more accurately puts it: “creating good jobs.”

He also pointed out that while the income tax breaks for the wealthy are permanent, “The tax benefits…to help modest-income people, those are made temporary. To me, that just stands logic on its head.”

Plus, the Senator noted, he didn’t buy the trending* hype about a catastrophe. The markets and economy would have survived another couple weeks and we could have postponed spending cuts without giving away tax breaks. It’s pure perception politics that the deal had to happen now.

Finally, Harkin warned that since Congress “kicked the can down the road”* on spending cuts and the debt ceiling, there’s nothing left for the president to use as leverage in the next negotiation.

That means when the deadline comes again in a couple months, it’s highly likely that we’ll face cuts in important federal programs designed to strengthen our economy. And that the charitable deduction so important to communities will be at risk of harmful changes to raise revenue.

So what should we do now? Build broad public support for the policies that ensure jobs pay enough to meet the basics. Do better at sharing information to generate support for policies that create prosperity and a strong economy for us all.

Whatevs. I can concede the deal’s not all bad. (UI especially!) Chow some superfood* and boneless wings* for energy and we’ll start the fight afresh.

MARGY WALLER
Senior fellow
Topos Partnership

‘A positive step that avoided the worst of the austerity proposals’

As an attorney representing low-income people with disabilities, I agree with the premise of your column that this was a good deal for low-income Americans.

The latest budget deal did manage to avoid cuts that would be most harmful to the poor, unemployed, homeless and disabled. Although ending the payroll tax cut will reduce the net income of working people, the cut was unsustainable in that it did negatively impact the long-term solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. While Social Security is solvent for years to come, and has contributed nothing toward the deficit or debt, it’s important that any reforms to Social Security do not reduce benefits or endanger the long-term solvency of the program.

It was also a major victory that the budget deal did not include a switch to the chained CPI, which would have effectively been a benefit cut to the retired and disabled.

Although there is some concern that this deal might make the next deal worse, I believe there are viable alternatives to resolve the next budget impasse without significant cuts to entitlement programs, including: raising the cap on income subject to FICA, closing corporate tax loopholes, imposing a modest cap on various deductions (such as the mortgage interest deduction), imposing a small tax on speculative financial transactions, and making reasonable cuts to non-entitlement spending, including defense.

It’s also important to consider that the economy is improving, the Affordable Care Act may start to realize savings through healthcare efficiency and cuts to lower-income taxpayers should be expected to further stimulate the economy.

All told, this was a positive step to more balanced budgeting which avoided the worst of the austerity proposals.

STEVEN WEISS, attorney
Regional SSI advocacy coordinator
Bay Area Legal Aid

Joel Berg on Sandy Relief Bill

Conservative Republican Representative Peter King, who represents a Sandy-battered area, was rightfully apoplectic when the GOP House leadership originally killed the Sandy-relief bill. He said: “When your people are literally freezing in the winter—and they’re without food, they’re without shelter, and they’re without clothing—and my own party refuses to help them, then why should I help the Republican Party?… Turning your back on people who are starving and freezing is not a Republican value.”

Yet Representative King repeatedly voted for GOP proposals to slash funding for hunger and homelessness-prevention programs nationwide. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has also expressed support for such cuts. Given that they proclaim that none of their own constituents should become hungry or homeless due to a natural disaster, I would hope that, in the future, they would also work to ensure sufficient food and shelter for all Americans who are victims of human-made disasters such as economic downturns.

JOEL BERG
Executive director
New York City Coalition Against Hunger

Take Action

Restore VAWA

Stand up for programs meeting human needs

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

Clips (compiled with Christie Thompson)

“Living on the Edge of a Permanent Fiscal Cliff: Minimum Wage Workers See Few Gains,” Sheila Bapat

“The Education Reform Dichotomy: Big Choices Ahead,” Anthony Cody

“Robbed,” Brock Cohen via Valerie Strauss

“The Poor Still Can’t Breathe Easy Post-Fiscal Cliff,” Bryce Covert

“Needing $110 million, Congress ignored bipartisan farm program reforms and cut nutrition education instead,” Stacy Dean

“Georgia’s Hunger Games,” Neil DeMause

“Blocking VAWA, The GOP Keeps Up the War on Women,” Erika Eichelberger

“‘Fiscal cliff’ bill filled with ‘pork’,” Joe Garofoli and David R. Baker

“The Big Lie Loses,” William Greider

“Amidst Polarizing Debates, Agreement That Early Child Care and Education Pays Off,” Andrea Greenstein

“The Walmart Revolt,” David Moberg

“Meet the new boss,” Rob Schofield

“The Good and Bad of the Fiscal Cliff Deal,” George Zornick

Vital Statistics

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

People who would have been in poverty if not for Social Security, 2011: 67.6 million (program kept 21.4 million people out of poverty).

People in the US experiencing poverty by age 65: Roughly half.

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.

Twice the poverty level (less than $46,042 for a family of four): 106 million people, approximately 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.

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

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 stamp recipients with no other cash income: 6.5 million people.

People experiencing homelessness on any given night, US: 643,067.

People in families experiencing homelessness on any given night, US: 238,110.

Percentage of homeless population who are veterans: 12 percent, or 67,000 people.

Annual cost of child poverty nationwide: $550 billion.

Quote of the Week

“The median income of the typical Social Security beneficiary is $23,000. So let’s be aware of who we’re talking about here.”
      —Jared Bernstein, on potential Social Security cuts, The Diane Rehm Show

Christie Thompson co-wrote the “Clips” section 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 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.