 Transcript of live chat (1/18/2006) Host:Cecilia Garcia, |
Special Guests: Thom Shellabarger and Kathy Curran work with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, assisting the U.S. bishops in formulating policy on social issues including poverty, health and welfare, consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. They advocate on these issues with Congress and the Administration. Nancy Cauthen is deputy director of the National Center for Children in Poverty. Her research looks at how state and federal policies affect the ability of low-income families to become economically secure. Candy Hill is Senior Vice President for Social Policy at Catholic Charities USA. |
Cecilia: Part of the anguished discussion now taking place in New Orleans is the recognition that even before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, deep and widespread poverty had already undermined the strength of one of our great cities. The storms did produce a brief moment in the national conversation when it appeared as if poverty in America would once again become the subject of rigorous public debate. Post-Katrina public opinion polls showed that Americans believed poverty is a problem that we can solve.
Now, four months later, has that moment passed? Or can we find the political will, and the way, to really do something about poverty in this nation that has been blessed with so much?
Today's TalkTime Live! will attempt to address this.
Nancy Johnson, Minneapolis: Why does the U.S. have a higher rate of children in poverty than most of the other industrialized countries?
Thom: Many Western European countries have extensive income support systems including "children allowances" in their social safety net. While we in the US have modest children supports written into our tax code they often exclude the poor, for example the $1000 child tax credit is not available to any family supported only by a minimum wage job.
Nancy: Nancy, this is a great question, and it has been debated for a long time. The most frequently cited reason for the difference in child poverty rates between the U.S. and other advanced, industrialized countries is a difference in policy. In the U.S., we have chosen to help children and families once they are in deep trouble; we invest precious few resources to prevent children from falling into poverty. Other countries subsidize the cost of raising children through "child allowances" and generous maternity/paternity leave policies. In most European countries, children are viewed as a societal resource and their needs as a social responsibility, whereas in the U.S., the view is that children are a private responsibility. And racial and ethnic diversity, and conflict, in the U.S. have exacerbated the political challenges associated with addressing poverty.
B.D. Mitchell, Hamburg, New York: If the War on Terror is as successful as the War on Poverty, then we shall all be dreading the next 40 years! In his book, "Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding", the late Senator Patrick Moynihan discussed the failures that beset the war on poverty at the outset. 40 years on, we have greater poverty in America. Is this due to a failure of imagination, will or leadership?
Thom: This question illustrates the difficulty in measuring poverty and what the numbers mean. We should start by looking at what has happened over time to the poverty figures: the US census bureau finds 12.7% of the U.S. population in poverty in 2004 (the latest year available) in 1964 that rate was 19.0%. So poverty is actually lower now than 40 years ago. However over that time the poverty rate has fluctuated decreasing through much of the '60s and '70s, increasing through much of the '80s and early '90s, then decreasing again in the early 2000s, but moving slightly up in recent years. This just goes to show us that a whole lot of things, public policy, economic changes, war, etc. have an impact on the poverty rate in the U.S.
There is also debate about how we measure poverty and what the rate tells us. For example, child poverty was 20.8% in 1995 and had fallen to 17.6% in 2003. But "deep poverty" among children had worsened. In 1995, one in four poor children was actually below 50% of poverty; but in 2003, one in three children were. So while the rate of poverty fell among children those in poverty were much worse off.
The questioner is right we need greater imagination, stronger will and more leadership if we are going to solve this problem.
Nancy: There are many perspectives on both the successes and failures of the "War on Poverty," but the continued high rates of child poverty in the U.S. can largely be attributed to the lack of political commitment to helping families with the cost of raising children. Poverty rates among the elderly have been dramatically reduced through Social Security and Medicare, but we have no comparable "social insurance" supports for children, which is the mechanism many other countries use to prevent and reduce child poverty. Most of our public programs for the poor provide "band-aids" – they don't address the root causes of poverty and aren't sufficient to help families get ahead. I should add that most low-income parents work-in fact, 50% of children in low-income families have a parent who works full-time. But stagnating wages, including the decline in the value of the minimum wage over time, plus the high cost of housing and health care, have made it virtually impossible for those without a college degree to find jobs that pay enough to adequately support a family.
Ally, Michigan: Have you found that the response to children in poverty differs between tribal and non-tribal communities? Examples please.
Candy: The plight of individuals living in tribal communities where is concentratd poverty are less likely to come to light than non tribal communities because of the structure of the tribal community in attempting to meet the needs of the children within the community. It does not mean that there is less poverty in these communities but because of the dynamics present it is harder to identify and address the needs in the community. Only when this situation receives media attention or political attention does the plight of children living in these communities come to light.
Alissa Redditt Guzman Greeley, CO: How do you think, we as a nation, should make changes with welfare and the way parents are covered for health insurance? It seems to me that if the parents can not take care of their health needs, how are they going to take care of their children emotionally, etc?
Thom: Health care is a huge problem; we pay more and get less than just about anyone. While we made good progress covering children over the years—they can get coverage through S-CHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) and Medicaid—there are still some 46 million people uninsured in the U.S. We must find a way to make sure that everyone in this country has access to necessary medical care. Like the answer above, it's going to take "greater imagination, stronger will and more leadership if we are going to solve this problem."
Nancy: We clearly have a health insurance crisis—45 million Americans lack insurance, many others are under-insured, and the numbers keep growing. More and more employers are cutting back on health benefits and/or shifting so much of the cost to employees that it is unaffordable. There are some legitimate reasons for this—the unchecked growth in health care costs means that providing insurance is becoming a larger share of employers' labor expenses. And many small businesses do not have profit margins large enough to absorb the cost of health insurance. Employers can't solve the problem of escalating health care costs, and so far, our political leaders have been unwilling to tackle the problem. Fortunately, we have public programs—Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program—which have made great strides in insuring children. But they cover very few working adults. To solve these problems, we need to first reign in health care costs. Then we need to find ways to make insurance more affordable, and there are many ways to do this—having a single-payer system, subsidizing employers' provision of health benefits, providing health insurance pools that people can buy into, etc. But solving the problems definitely requires a political solution.
Washington, DC: Ten years ago the common image of a person on welfare was an African-American woman with a lot of children and no job. This stereotype wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now, but how has the face of poverty changed over the last 10 years or so?
Jesse Jackson once said that our country lost the war on poverty when politicians "put a black face" on poverty. Is poverty really about race?
Nancy: Although it is certainly true that African Americans and Latinos are disproportionately poor, in terms of numbers, there are more poor white children than poor African American or poor Latino children. So poverty is certainly not only about race. One way in which the face of poverty has changed over the past decade is that poor children are more likely to have working parents—and it's not just because of welfare reform. More people are working for poverty-level wages because those are the jobs available.
Jan: Some say that the Earned Income Tax Credit has been the single most important public policy to alleviate poverty among working poor families. Is there another major step we could take that would help make families more financially secure? Raising the minimum wage? Addressing the need for affordable housing? Universal health care?
Thomas: The Earned Income Tax Credit is a major way to increase the income of low-income families. Raising the minimum wage and indexing it to the average US wage (which would take out of the political football game) would greatly help both raise incomes and make the EITC more effective. Also changing the formula of the child tax credit to make it available to every full time working family would really help.
Kelly, Marshalltown, Iowa: Where do we start from in eradicating poverty in a capitalistic society? Is there something innate within capitalism that perpetuates and creates the need for impoverished communities/individuals?
Thom: Our "mixed" economy tries to mediate the vagaries of the market. Cycles in the economy, like cycles in the weather, need to be recognized, considered and planned for to make sure that the economy provides for us not us for the economy.
In our mixed economy and pluralistic society, everyone needs to be involved in addressing the problem of poverty. The Catholic bishops use the image of a table as a way to understand the problem and solution to poverty. The First leg of the table is family and individuals who must work to ensure human rights for each other. The second leg is churches and community groups who can help families make good choices, overcome discrimination, confront structures of injustice and build community. The third leg is business and labor that must ensure decent work and wages. And finally, the fourth leg is the essential role of government to act when the problem exceed individuals and communities. Too often the debate over poverty focuses on one or two of the 'legs' to the exclusion of the others; but a real solution to the problem of poverty requires a concerted effort on all our parts.
Janice Marr, Tulsa, OK: What federal programs, or lack of, have had a direct effect on the increasing number of U.S. children in poverty
Nancy: Child poverty has increased by 12% since 2000, and the reason is largely the downturn(s) in the economy. One of the most effective anti-poverty strategies has been the federal Earned Income Tax Credit. Social Security actually keeps 1 million children out of poverty each year (children receive benefits when a parent dies or is disabled). Other programs that have helped include child care, public health insurance, and food stamps. But we need to do more to support low-wage workers and their families. Working full-time does not guarantee that a family won't be poor.
Sherry Orbach, Cambridge, MA: How is welfare reform affecting the children of families on welfare?
Candy and Kathy: There are a lot of ways welfare reform policies have affected children of familes on welfare. While work is an important value, as low-income parents go into the workforce, access to affordable child care, at the times it is need (ie, late shifts) is a big issue. Are kids getting good child care—or any child care? Are they being left at home? Among families that are working, their income may not have gone up, so the families ability to access food, etc. hasn't necessarily increased. Indeed, our agences are seeing an increase—about an 11% increase—in the demand for emergecy services.
Alison Coleman, Albany NY: Millions of U.S. children have a parent or both parents in prison. Parental incarceration has a huge impact on the health and well being of a child. What are your recommendations for professionals who work with children of prisoners and may need to know more about prison, the effects of prison on children and how to encourage their success?
Thom: Maintaining or rebuilding family ties should be an integral part of our efforts in order to give those who have been incarcerated the best possible chance at reintegrating back into society successfully and to give the children of those incarcerated the best possible chance at having a loving and stable environment in which to grow up.
There are some wonderful examples of organizations and individuals that are doing great work helping to keep families together during the incarceration of one or both parents. However, they are too few and far between across the United States. The sad truth is that there are too many jurisdictions where there is virtually no way for children to keep in touch with a parent because the prison is located hours away or even states away from home and where there are no programs or groups to help keep in touch. In some jurisdictions there is nothing at all to help the family of the incarcerated. The simple and hard truth is that we need to raise this issue on our society's priority list, both at the federal level and at many state levels.
Many of the groups doing work in this area are faith-based or affiliated with churches —the Catholic Church has a very active prison ministry. You could contact your local Catholic diocese to see if there is an outreach program to families of those incarcerated. Good luck.
Tracy, Seattle: After the hurricanes, it seemed a spotlight shone on poverty. Has there been in major change in attitude or activity as a result?
Candy: While media attention certainly put a spotlight on poverty along the gulf coast--it has been short lived. As the media has highlighted in the last few days, those who were living on the margins feel left out of the reconstruction dialogue and certainly are reacting. We have an opportunity to engage the entire spectrum of the residents along the Gulf Coast in reconstruction--we need to advocate for all affected people to be involved in decision making and rebuilding their communities. Unfortunately, too soon the issue of poverty in this country has faded from the media and from the minds of decision makers.
Oklahoma: Given the new investments in young children that states have made over the last few years and that these investments won't "pay off" in economic terms for families for many years, how do we continue to advocate that investments in young children is one solution to the poverty issue?
Nancy: You raise an extremely important question. We have plenty of research that shows that investing in young children makes a difference, but as we've seen, these investments are easily threatened when economic times get tough. I would argue that two things are needed to implement and sustain any effective antipoverty strategy over time—whether investments in young children, efforts to may work pay, etc. The first is a change in public consciousness and the second is leadership. Bold initiatives that have ultimately been successful, such as Social Security and Medicare, were controversial when they were enacted. Social Security paid no benefits until many years after the progam was enacted, even though taxes were being collected, and it was 20 years before the program gained bipartisan support. In other words, President Roosevelt took a big risk by pushing so hard for the program. But public support, which was weak at first, has clearly been integral to the program's long-term success. Unfortunately, since children can't vote, they can't command the kind of political clout that the elderly can. So we have to find ways to convince the public that investing in children is crucial not only for their later success in life but also for the success of the nation as a whole. Our children are, after all, our future workers and leaders.
Thom: Persistence pays off! Congress, State and local governments need to be reminded of what's been done, what studies show, what experience demonstrates-that our investment is paying off. We need to make our case over and over.
Tracy, Seattle: Is there one agency in charge of statistics about poverty? Where does one go for solid numbers? Does the problem start with how the problem is described and measured?
Nancy: The US Census Bureau is responsible for tracking poverty rates, which are updated annually. Other organizations such as my own, the National Center for Children in Poverty (nccp.org [1]), routinely publish poverty statistics and analyses, but we're all analyzing data from the Census. Unfortunately, our current poverty measure is outdated. It was devised in the 1960s when the costs of housing and health care were lower. It doesn't take into account public benefits which increase a family's resources nor work-related expenses such as child care. Finally, we use a national standard despite varying costs of living across the country. Research shows that it takes an income of anywhere between 150-300% of the poverty line to meet basic family needs, depending on local living costs.
Jenell Scherbel, Austin, Texas Others will probably frame this same inquiry, but could you please discuss, broadly, the good and bad outcomes of welfare reform on child poverty, and also speak to the current defunding and underfunding of programs by Congress and projected effects of a waning commitment of the nation to child welfare?
Nancy: Welfare reform did little to reduce child poverty. Families have to be *very* poor to qualify, and in most states, benefits are quite low. The emphasis on work has had mixed results—in most cases, families who combine work and welfare typically aren't much better off financially because wages are offset by a decrease in benefits. (There are some notable exceptions, e.g., Illinois allows families to retain a larger share of their welfare benefits while they are working.)
Studies of experimental welfare programs that *increase family income* through employment and welfare benefits have shown positive effects on young children. The most consistent finding is improvement in achievement among children in elementary school. In contrast, experimental programs that *increase employment but not income* have shown few consistent effects on children. Adolescents seem to be harmed by their mothers working more, regardless of whether the family's income changes. Researchers have speculated that their school achievement is negatively affected because they are taking on increased responsibilities at home (e.g., caring for younger siblings).
Thom: Assessing the impact of welfare reform is a complex task. In the years immediately after welfare reform - basically the second half of the 1990s and the beginning of 2000 - many of the commonly used indicators suggested some positive results: child poverty rates fell, employment among single moms increased significantly, welfare caseloads dropped, and data indicated that over half of families leaving welfare went into jobs. During those years, other factors likely to encourage employment were present also - the economy was doing well, and the Earned Income Tax Credit had been increased. It's hard to separate out the impact of those three factors - TANF, EITC and the economy - but all played a role. Of course, it's also the case that many of the jobs welfare-leavers found were low-income and without benefits, and the fate of those who didn't find jobs is of concern.
On the other hand, in the past couple of years, we've seen some deterioration in the factors I've cited: child poverty has ticked up, and employment among single moms has fallen somewhat. Welfare caseloads don't seem to have had a corresponding increase, so we have to worry about what's happened to those families.
Among the good outcomes of welfare I would include refocusing on the principles of helping families find work so they can become self-sufficient, and of the important role of family formation in well-being.
I think what we can say is, we still have our work cut out for us in moving to the goal of making sure those who can work, find work at wages that can support their families, while also making sure there's help for those who either can't work or need assistance - training, child care, etc. - to make it in the world of work. Congress is poised to reauthorize welfare reform as part of the budget reconciliation bill, and it's troubling that there isn't enough funding for child care to meet the need that will be created by the new work rules.
Dee Wilson, Seattle Wa.: From the standpoint of effects on child development and child well being, does it makes more sense to target severe, long term and/ or concentrated poverty than poverty in general?
Nancy: In terms of the numbers of children affected by poverty, the percent living in long-term, concentrated poverty is small, so we would argue that from a child development perspective, the nation cannot afford to ignore less severe poverty. Certainly the effects of poverty on children are worse for those living in deep, persistent poverty, and therefore, those children need more intensive, targeted services.
G. Burton, Louisa, Kentucky: I work in a semi-professional capacity and my husband is disabled and draws Social Security Disability. We have one child and STILL we are on the edge of poverty! I have no insurance coverage at all and my son must rely on a state medical card. Why is such still happening in Eastern Kentucky in the 21st Century? Where is the economic investment needed to bring this region anywhere near the rest of the country? Why have we been forgotten here in Appalachia? Evidently the war on poverty is over and we lost! Thank you.
Nancy: Unfortunately, your situation is all too common—and not just in Eastern Kentucky. Too many of our nation's families are being left behind. The question of uneven economic investment is a complicated one, but I can say that more and more of the new jobs being created across the country pay low wages. We have 30 million American workers earning poverty-level wages in jobs that offer few benefits, e.g., health insurance, paid sick and vacation time, retirement benefits. As the quality of jobs decline for so many workers, we need to invest more in supports to families if we want children to thrive and succeed. We started to do that in the 1990s by putting more money into public health insurance, the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), child care, and early childhood programs. But those gains are being eroded at both the state and federal levels.
Thom: There are far too many families like yours struggling to make it. Your post reminds us of the work we still have to do to improve our society so that families can meet their needs. This is a task we have to tackle on many levels: As you point out, we need economic development at many levels that will generate jobs at decent wages. We need to strengthen and support programs like Social security for those with disabilities that prevent them from working. And we need to reform the health care
system so everyone has access to the health care they need.
Barry, Virginia: Poverty among immigrant families seems to be worse, but we often think it is temporary until their children enter the mainstream. Is poverty worse for immigrant families? Are there public policies that are making it easier or harder for these kids to become part of the "American dream?"
Kathy: Children in immigrant families definitely face obstacles that other children don't. They and their families are treated differnetly under public benefits programs, for example. Immigrant children and their families cannot receive federal welfare or Medicaid benefits, unless they have lived here for five years (and are here legally). Children in undocumented immigrant families are particularly vulnerable. They are less likely to get ANY services (even those that don't require citizenship or legal status -- ie, emergency serives and other help from charities) because their families are afraid to ask for help.
Nancy: More than 26 percent of all low-income children in the United States live in immigrant families. Virtually all children of immigrants have a parent who works—72 percent have a parent who works full-time, year-round—but their parents are more likely than native-born workers to receive low wages and less likely to receive employer-provided benefits. Despite their parents’ high employment rates, children in low-income immigrant families face higher rates of food insecurity and other hardships than children with native-born parents. Whether these families remain poor over time is a function of how they do in terms of education and the labor market.
Michele Lopez: It doesn't just take a disaster to help families living in poverty, we do it everyday in the Head Start program! Comment?
Candy: The Head Start Program is the best kept secret in terms of services that have been provided to children and their families. Way before the data was available on the importance of early childhood experiences and development programs--Head Start was providing those services. Family advocates in Head Start programs all across the country deal with the consequences of the implementation of welfare reform and have information that could and should be added to the public policy development associated with children living in poverty in this country.
Tammy/Warren, MI: In Michigan the push is to Work First. (Program to help adults find and maintain work) Wonderful in theory, but It does not seem like a lot of the clients barriers (transportation/childcare/etc.) are being removed or even addressed before being sent by Department Of Human Services & expected to comply with the requirements of Work First. And a lot of the clients don't find "decent jobs" that they can honestly bring themselves out of poverty. I know that there are people that abuse the system but there are also many who want to work towards a better life for their families and we are not meeting their needs. It would be wonderful to have some of our policy makers go through a poverty simulation or experience poverty for even 1 week and perhaps, they would have a better understanding. Put them in a situation like the following and see how they handle the paperwork and requirements:
Example:
Your spouse left you with $10 and no vehicle.
Various situations could be applied to the simulation but they would still have to do all requirements from DHS and Mi Works. I wonder how they would fair?
Nancy: There actually have been simulations of various sorts for policymakers to help them better understand the challenges faced by struggling families. The issue you're raising is an important one—many of our policies for low-income families are based on unfounded assumptions, e.g., that low-income people don't want to work and will abuse the system if they can. Unfortunately, efforts to identify those few who abuse programs often unfairly penalize the majority who don't. A recent example—an internal investigation found that the IRS has been freezing tax refunds claimed by poor families because of suspected fraud; many of these returns involved the federal Earned Income Tax Credit. An audit of suspected returns found that most refund claims were legitimate or that mistakes were minor (in some cases, filers claimed less than they were owed!).
Thom: Welfare is being implemented in different ways around the country, more successfully in some places than others. You have identified some of the common problems: access to child care and transportation for those who find work, and the difficultly in finding work (at a decent wage) in the first place for many people. And you are absolutely right that too many public officials don't have a clue of what other peoples' lives are like. A few years back, Representative Tony Hall from Ohio used to "live" on food stamps trying to get an idea of what his policy wrought for other people. More should try it!
Maria, New York, NY: I believe that efforts that help poor working families increase income must be partnered with asset building policies that can provide financial stability for the long term. There are a number of studies that support this statement. As we approach the next phase of welfare reform, it is critical that asset building programs become central to the conversation to ensure families can become financially independent. What asset building programs show the most promise for these families? It is high time we consider some new innovations in this area.
Thom: The solutions to poverty are as complex as the human experience. You are right to conclude that increasing family income alone will not break the cycle of poverty and building assets is probably another part of the answer. But "assets" aren't just financial instruments. The need for pension accounts, education accounts, medical accounts, homeownership accounts are becoming more and more important as corporations change the social contract of the workplace. What was once thought to be part of the benefits of work are becoming increasingly a family responsibility. Americans need to learn to save. How we structure these programs so that low-income people can participate (tax credits, matching funds, loan/grants) will determine whether poor people will fall deeper in poverty.
However, breaking the cycle of poverty also means developing other non-monetary assets like education and delayed gratification. The best assets a family can develop are their children: teach them to love education, reading, problem-solving, and the discipline of staying on task.
Julie Cunha, Langley-Washington: What is currently being done to improve child poverty? Please cite some examples. For example: Congress? local and state legislature levels?
Nancy: There are anti-poverty efforts at all levels of government. The main federal programs are the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid/SCHIP, food stamps, Section 8 housing vouchers, and child care subsidies. ("Welfare," or cash assistance, does little to move families out of poverty, as the benefits are so low.) The minimum wage also affects poverty. Many states have enacted their own earned income credits and minimum wage standards, and they also pay part of the cost of other programs. Child development programs, such as Head Start and Early Head Start, have both federal and local components. All of these efforts help, but none of them reach all the children in need. Most are aimed at helping children once they are poor rather than preventing poverty.
Jenell Scherbel, Austin, Texas: To me, the conduct of war and the welfare of children are connected in invisible ways to most people, ways in which the government should be more responsible to children for example, through parental post traumatic stress which then can affect some children when parents come home. Is it ethical or justified to pit funding the Iraq war against child welfare and against tax breaks for the better off when these may be more connected than people realize?
Thom: The debate over how we came to war in Iraq will continue for a long time. (To see what the US Bishops have said on Iraq, go to usccb.org/sdwp/international/iraqstatement [2]).
As a rich and great nation, we have very great responsibilities both to our own people and to people in other countries. Among the first functions of government is to raise sufficient resources so that it can promote the common good, so that everyone can meet basic human needs.
We face an aging population, infrastructure needs (roads, bridges, highways, airports) and educational facilities that will require us to do many things at the same time. These 'priorities' will take a lot of energy and money. We also have huge international obligations (the war being only one of them) that require investments in promoting peace and development. We need a genuine bipartisan commitment to ensure that there are adequate resources to meet these needs as well as to protect the poor and vulnerable both here at home and around the world. We are a very rich nation, we can do it-if we have the political will and leadership.
Linda G. Richard: I'm raising my grandkids and live in an area with no jobs, and no child care.
I am living on welfare. When my youngest (1) is old enough to go to school (Head Start) I will be able to go back to work. Until then, they are cutting me off of welfare because they say I have to participate in the "jobs" program (workfare). I have no car, and again, no child care.
How am I going to make it? If I weren't living with my folks, we'd be on the street.
My worker said that if people wind up on the street etc., child services takes the kids.
Foster care costs more than helping me raise my own grandchildren.
How can I change the law?
Candy: While initial strides were made under welfare reform and reform of child welfare policies to recognize the importance of what is known as kinship care--relatives caring for children in need of protection--the policies that need to be in place to make the changes to the system which would allow for families caring for children who are their relatives to receive the same financial support as a non-relative foster parent have not occurred. The only way in which that can currently occur is if the relative caring for the children becomes a licensed foster parent.
Kathy: An earlier poster made a comment about how to get policy makers and politicians to know what it's really like to be in need and depending on public programs. We really need people who have lived this experience, like Ms. Richard, to get involved and make their voices heard and their experiences known. Policies affecting weflare assistance and child welfare are made at the local, state and national levels. I'd suggest Ms. Richard look for a group in her community or state that is working to change these policies. She could serach on line for such groups, or could call a local Catholic Charities agency or diocesan social action office for informaton on who is working on these issues.
Lucy Lahr, Eugene OR: Welfare reform is not working. Congress will be reauthorizing TANF programs soon. Is there any national networking among poverty advocates to develop model legislation that would actually help, instead of penalize, poor people? Are there members of Congress who would sponsor and promote this type of model?
Thom: Poverty advocates and others concerned about welfare have been working over the past several years to inform and shape the policy debate on TANF reauthorization. There have been several pieces of legislation proposed in both the House and Senate, which have taken different approaches to welfare reform. Right now, Congress is poised to vote on TANF reauthorization as part of the budget reconciliation bill. Many groups have concerns about the proposal; you can learn more from websites such as Coalition on Human Needs, chn.org [3].
Thom: Welfare is being implemented in different ways around the country, more successfully in some places than others. You have identified some of the common problems: access to child care and transportation for those who find work, and the difficultly in finding work (at a decent wage) in the first place for many people. And you are absolutely right that too many public officials don't have a clue of what other peoples' lives are like. A few years back, Representative Tony Hall from Ohio used to "live" on food stamps trying to get an idea of what his policy wrought for other people. More should try it!
Jan, Connect for Kids: Clarification, please! Are more families in poverty because they are new to the workforce and can't get good-paying jobs with benefits or are more middle-class families losing pay and benefits and falling into poverty?
Nancy: Interesting question. Some families are persistently poor, and this generally has to do with low levels of education and lack of job skills. But more and more poor families are likely to be headed by a college grad who simply can't command decent wages. And it's certainly true that middle-class families are becoming increasingly vulnerable.
Dee Wilson, Seattle: Should we measure poverty by the extent of inequity among family incomes rather than by an arbitrary income standard.
Thomas: Many people are unsatisfied with the way we currently measure poverty. The tools underestimates some things, overestimates other thing and don't necessarily give us an absolutely true picture of poverty. But I'm not sure we can ever come up with a fool-proof way to measure poverty. We do need some basis for comparison on the big-pucture; and for individual families and communities, it's inumbent on each of us to know what is happening in our community, where the needs are, and to work on how to best meet those needs.
That’s all the time we have. Thanks for chatting!