logo
Published on Connect for Kids / Child Advocacy 360 / Youth Policy Action Center (http://www.connectforkids.org)

Ending Child Poverty: Not Rocket Science

Published: January 12, 2004

by: Jan Richter

January 12, 2004

Forty years ago, on January 8, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson used his first State of the Union address to console a grieving country and offer an uplifting vision. He declared an “unconditional war on poverty in America [1]” and pledged the commitment and resources of the federal government to the cause of lifting the burdens of poverty from the shoulders of our children.

And the child poverty rate did fall to an all-time low of below 15 percent in the late 1960’s. But the rate rose again in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s—to well over 20 percent. Since then, it has fallen, risen, fallen, and risen again, to land at 16.7 percent in 2002 [2].

In his January 20, 2004 State of the Union address, President Bush is expected to offer a new vision to unite and reassure an uncertain nation. There was speculation on the Washington grapevine that he might call for an end to childhood hungeror instead for a return to the moon. More recently, odds seem to favor the moon with an even bolder—long-term goal of manned flight to Mars.

But what about that other goal, of ending childhood hunger? Has it fallen off the radar screen so soon?

Where the Kids Are
In his 2001 inaugural President Bush said “
we know that deep, persistent poverty is unworthy of our nation's promise. And whatever our views of its cause, we can agree that children at risk are not at fault. [3]”

He has had little to say about child poverty since then. He is not alone.

Few politicians want to shine a light on the disgrace of a wealthy country that fails to act in the face of an economy that puts the American dream out of reach for millions of working parents and their children.

At a forum on working poor families held at the Urban Institute a couple of years ago, David Ellwood [4] made it clear how closely linked are the issues of poverty and child well-being. Explaining a chart on how the earned income tax credit benefits low-income families, he pointed to those making $35,000 or less and said—“these are the families we care about, because these are where most of the kids are! [5]”

Do Kids Cost Too Much?
More recently
Elizabeth Warren [6] in The Two-Income Trap [7] suggests a causal relation between children and family income—if you have kids, you’re probably poorer than your non-parenting peers, because the costs of raising children—housing, health care, child care and other family-intensive costs—have skyrocketed and wages, especially the minimum wage, have not kept pace with inflation.

It is becoming increasingly clear that in our economy, work is no longer working for many low and moderate-wage families. They work hard, they work long hours, but few have paid sick or vacation days to care for family emergencies. Few have health care benefits, retirement benefits or job security. Few have wages adequate to make ends meet, yet they are stigmatized for needing public assistance. Many rely on payday loans and other high-interest debt to make ends meet, digging a deeper financial hole with every medical emergency or car repair [8].

The financial future of moderate-income families is becoming more uncertain. Even middle-class families are relying on increased credit card debt or second mortgages to cover the ordinary expenses of raising children. [9]

Lack of Support
Let’s face it. America is not the most supportive place to raise children—we don’t have the publicly-funded child care, preschool, and health care systems that most European parents enjoy. We don’t have strong family-friendly workplace policies, like paid family leave or generous paid vacation days. We don’t have a well-financed, universal cash support system for families facing job loss or unemployment that many parents in other countries do. With an economy where those without a college education are often shut out of jobs that pay a living wage, financial aid to help families cover the rising costs of college is not keeping pace.

When you say a family is poor, many people are quick to blame the parents. The assumption is that poverty is endless, because parents don’t work hard enough. But the idea that all it takes is hard work—a job—is cruelly out of date and out of step with the new economy.

More than half of the impoverished children in this country—56 percent—live in a family where their parent works full-time, year-round [10]. If you think your family could make a go of it on the wages of a child care teacher, a nurse or a city bus driver, check your calculations with the Second Harvest calculator. [11]

Living in a family that has to count every penny (and every minute) is hard on kids.
Tough times force many families to make frequent child-wrenching moves in a never-ending search for affordable housing [12]. Tough times mean more families have to apply for food stamps [13].Tough times force parents to choose between going to work even when their child care arrangements fall apart or their child is home sick, or risk losing their job by staying home.

High Cost of Growing Up Poor
Eric Turkheimer, the behavioral geneticist [14], found that in impoverished families, environmental factors have a much greater impact on the variations in children’s IQ than genes. He says we don’t really know which environmental factors make a difference in IQ among impoverished children—but we do know one thing: changing poverty can change cognitive outcomes for kids.

I once met a pediatrician at a conference who said exactly the same thing. The head of an emergency room at a major Chicago hospital, he described families living in grinding poverty, unable to control much of their lives because they had inflexible jobs and little money to buy what they needed when they needed it—child care, health care, food, safe housing, transportation. I asked what he would do if he could wave a magic wand. His answer was short and sweet—end poverty.

It wasn’t a magic wand but a new casino that raised impoverished families’ incomes in an Oklahoma town, and demonstrated that reducing poverty can reduce children’s behavioral problems. Along with the sudden boost in family income that came with the casino bonus came reduced rates of clinically significant behavioral disorders among the community’s once-poor children – right down to the same rate seen among children who had never been poor. The rates among children who continued to be poor remained the same [15].

I don’t believe we need more magic wands or wishful thinking. They don’t make for good public policy.

What we do need are leaders willing to put their political lives on the line to fight for what minimum-wage families need—minimum-wage raises, refundable child tax credits, affordable housing, a dependable system of health care, schools in good repair with well-paid, well-trained teachers, public subsidies for quality child care and preschool programs. We need leaders that will fight for helping these families because that’s where the children are.

A call to end childhood hunger in the 2004 State of the Union would be a welcome step in the right direction on January 20. But it won’t happen if the President chooses Mars instead. And it will take more than a step or two to make sure that for every child in America, the American dream is within reach.

Talk Back

If you’ve got comments or questions about this story, we’d like to hear them. Send your response to Jan Richter(jan@connectforkids.org [16]).


Jan Richter is the advocacy director for Connect for Kids.




Source URL:
http://www.connectforkids.org/node/534