The United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty among rich, developed nations. Since the mid-1980s, one in five children have lived in poverty. As of 2009, following the Great Recession, the U.S. had the largest number of people in poverty on record. Despite being the richest and most powerful country in the world, American children suffer while the rich get richer. This absurdly high rate of poverty has racial implications, affecting children of color at disproportionate levels. Poverty has adverse physical, cognitive, social, and emotional effects on children and their development. Even with programs such as child related tax benefits, TANF, food stamps, and school lunch assistance, children still feel the effects of poverty. I will analyze these programs, exposing their successes and failures in combating childhood poverty. There is a two-tier solution to child poverty: one tier at the macro level to address poverty on a broad scale and the other tier addresses specifically child poverty. By equalizing educational opportunity, creating child cash allowances, increasing government revenues, and improving current anti-poverty policies, the United States could effectively fight the current level of child poverty. For our nation to have a stable future, we must invest in it. Every child has the right to live a life free of poverty and it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that American children are provided for and have the opportunity to live fruitful lives. By combating childhood poverty, the United States can create a more just and opportune future for its youngest citizens.
Effects of Poverty on Children
Children born into poor families have adverse adolescent and adult outcomes than other children who are not born into poverty. Jim Dwyer states, “For some children, living in poverty is like playing football without a helmet; everyday life causes social concussions.” Poverty early in life has been linked lower IQ scores and behavioral problems. In comparison to children who experience poverty later in childhood, those born into poor families are linked with lower academic achievement. Poverty sets up a system where the youngest are also the most affected. Therefore, those born into poverty have much higher risks of detrimental adolescent and adult outcomes than those who experience poverty later in their childhood.
The reason for lower academic achievement in children living in poverty is the chronic stress they experience in their living environments growing up. Chronic stress comes in the form of neglect, abuse, maternal depression, parental discord, crime and other domestic dysfunctions. Chronic stress during his or her first years of life has been linked to lower levels of working memory. This chronic stress is toxic, negatively altering the child’s early brain development. Stress releases the hormone cortisol and when too much cortisol is released, two parts of the brain are changed. One part that is affected is the prefrontal lobe where you develop executive functions like telling the difference between good and bad. The other part of the brain is the hippocampus which is central to creating memories of fact. Chronic stress can harm early brain development, creating a poor foundation for later learning, health outcomes, and behavioral issues. If policies can be developed to alleviate children of this stress then we can increase their chances of escaping the harmful effects of poverty.
When one is poor early in life, their academic prospects dwindle, ultimately affecting their future employment opportunities. Children who are poor early in life are 30 percent less likely to complete high school. Those who are poor for half their childhood are nearly 90 percent more likely to enter their 20s without completing high school. Among those poor during their childhood, those who are poor early in life are 30 percent less likely to complete high school than children who are poor later in life. Those without high school diplomas by age 20 are 50 percent more likely to have inconsistent employment between ages 25 and 30 and seven times more likely to be persistently poor between 25 and 30 than those who did complete high school. These facts display how an early life in poverty can have enormous repercussions. Therefore, we must combat child poverty early in the child’s life to effectively prevent low educational achievement and ultimately persistent poverty.
When a child grows up poor, a premarital birth is much more likely. Children who are poor for half of their childhoods are four times more likely to have a child when they are a teenager. Among poor newborns born between 1982-1989, nearly one in four don’t complete high school and one in five females had a teen pregnancy. Among this cohort of female children, 22 percent of persistently poor girls had a premarital childbirth while only 2 percent of never-poor girls had a teenage pregnancy. The birth of a child is one of the leading triggers of poverty spells in the United States. Girls who had a teen pregnancy were 50 percent more likely than girls who did not have a teen premarital birth to have inconsistent employment and were 6 times more likely to be persistently poor between ages 25 and 30. Maternal depression is a cause of deep poverty and can adversely affect children. Nearly 50 percent of mothers in deep poverty suffer from maternal depression. When one grows up poor, premarital birth is much more likely, often sending these young women into deeper poverty with little prospects of mobility.
Racial Inequality
Poverty has profound racial implications and effects. While white children comprise the largest share of all low-income children, Hispanics, American Indians, and African Americans are disproportionately low income and poor. African American, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native Children are three times more likely to live in poverty than white and Asian children. Among black children, 65 percent live in low income families and 38 percent live in poor families. Among American Indian children, 62 percent live in low-income families and 35 percent live in poverty. Among Hispanic children, 62 percent live in low-income families and 32 percent live in poverty. Minorities are much more likely than their poor white counterparts to endure persistent poverty. As child poverty rises, we risk exacerbating racial inequality.
Among minority children, black children are worse off than any other racial group and the magnitude of their disadvantage has persisted over time. For example, while 40 percent of black newborns are poor, only 10 percent of white newborns are born into poverty. Black children are also much more likely to be persistently poor. Among poor black newborns, 46 percent are in deep poverty while 30 percent of poor white newborns are in deep poverty. While only one in every three poor white newborns are persistently poor, two in every three poor black newborns endure persistent poverty. Poor black newborns are also more likely than poor white newborns to live in female-headed households, have parents without high school diplomas, and have parents whom are unemployed. Any of these elements lower a child’s chances of economic prosperity especially when black families have been proven to have less economic mobility than white families. These statistics show that we need to create effective policies to combat child poverty but specifically poverty within the black community. We need to equalize opportunity among all racial groups in order to protect those most vulnerable to the effects of poverty.
Parents
Parental education and employment play large roles in whether or not a child grows up in poverty. Among family factors related to childhood poverty, parents’ educational attainment when the child is born is the most important one related to childhood poverty persistence. 85 percent of children who have parents with less than a high school degree live in low-income families. 67% of children with parents who have a high school degree but no higher education live in low-income families. 30% of children with at least one parent who has some college or higher education live in low-income families. Children often follow in their parents’ footsteps with educational attainment. Therefore, it is crucial that we expand educational opportunity for children so they can climb out of poverty and ultimately increase the chances of one day their children avoiding poverty.
A parent’s employment status has enormous impact on whether their child is living poverty. Children with a parent who is employed full-time are less likely to live in a low-income family compared to those who have parents who work part-time, part-year, or are unemployed. Quality of employment for a parent has enormous effects on whether or not their child will endure poverty. Among children without a parent who works full time, but at least one parent who works part time or part year, 48 percent live in poor families. Among children with at least one parent who works full time, year round, only 9 percent live in poor families. Parental employment and child poverty are directly linked. For example, when increases in employment and wages for single mothers and lower unemployment rates for black males in the mid- to late 1990s, child poverty rates lowered. Then when the unemployment rate of black men hit a high in 2010, black child poverty neared an astounding 40 percent in 2010 and 2011. Although many low-income and poor children have parents who work, whether that be full or part time, their employment status does have direct effects on child poverty.
The Politics of Poverty Policy
No smart politician would ever go on record for being against alleviating child poverty. However, the debate always waters down to a conversation about big versus small government. Congressional Republicans have been consistent opposition to anti-poverty policies as they try to lower the deficit. House Republicans have actually passed budgets that would cut back many crucial antipoverty programs. In 2011, the budget got two-thirds of its savings from cutting programs that directly support low-income Americans. The 2011 budget passed by House Republicans converted programs like SNAP and Medicaid into block grants, preventing them from automatically expanding in times of economic crisis, failing to accommodate the increased needs of low-income Americans. The budget by House Republicans is a prime example of the right’s dedication, or lack there of to reducing poverty for American families and their children.
Leading conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation are less concerned about poverty. In their research, they focus on the living conditions of children in poverty. The Foundation states, “the word “poverty” suggests near destitution: an inability to provide nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter for one’s family. However only a small number of the 46 million persons classified as “ poor” by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity.” In the Heritage Foundation’s “Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America’s Poor,” they claim that the quality of living conditions for the poor are not a concern, citing that poor households have amenities like air conditioning, a microwave, a car, a dvd player, video game consoles, etc. Their central claim in the piece is that the living conditions of the poor have steadily improved over the decades. The Foundation refutes the liberal idea that poor families suffer from deprivation of basic needs, such as food and housing. The think tank claims, “among families with children, the collapse of marriage and erosion of the work ethic are the principal long-term causes of poverty.” According to the Heritage Foundation, poverty is a problem but an exaggerated problem that is mainly the side effect of erosion of family values and the fault of the individual. What this means is that conservatives believe government should not have an obligation to assist those in need because poverty is self inflicted due to one’s own behavior, values, and inadequacies.
The analysis by the Heritage Foundation is problematic for a number of reasons. Nowhere in their analysis does the Heritage Foundation address the effects poverty has on life prospects and the direct effect poverty has on a child’s development. Nor does the Foundation address the racial disparities of poverty. The idea that poverty is the fault of the individual or that liberals are being “dramatic” about their analysis is wrong. This problem transcends a right versus left discourse and whatever the causes of poverty or the quality of living conditions, children need to be a priority. No child can control whether or not their family is in poverty. It does not matter whether or not their housing has air conditioning or their family has cable. What matters is that fact that children are being deprived of their opportunity for a better life. We can not exclude poor children from the American Dream.
Economic Costs and the Great Recession
Poverty, with all its direct negative social effects also has harmful costs for the American economy. According to the Urban Institute, the estimated economic cost of child poverty is more than $500 billion a year. A failure to invest in the people of the future is costly. There is a 4 percent estimated loss of U.S. gross domestic product due to child poverty. Despite this, the United States spends only 1.2 percent of GDP on family benefits, less than half of the OECD average of 2.6 percent. Not only are children affected by poverty but our economy is adversely affected as well. These numbers are troubling because if economic inequality persists and child poverty continues to grow, there will continue to be adverse economic side effects.
The Great Recession has had en enormous impact on children. In 2008, 1.4 million children fell into poverty. Child poverty rates were at a nearly 20-year high in 2010 and 2011. The Recession has created long-term scarring for children and it is crucial that we make sensible investments in children and youth now to help reduce the Recession’s ongoing economic and fiscal repercussions. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed on February 17, 2009 by President Obama did have effective provisions that helped the plight of working families and children. After the Great Recession, the Recovery Act lifted 2.4 million children out of poverty. The Act gave a helping hand to those hit hardest by the recession which included tax cuts for working families, assistance for food costs and school lunches, and housing assistance. The measure lifted 6 million Americans out of poverty through the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), housing assistance, the national school lunch program, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). The expansion of these programs on an emergency basis effectively reduced poverty and financial distress for millions but these programs should be enriched further.
Policies Combating Child Poverty and Their Effectiveness
TANF replaced welfare in the late 1990s, tying need-based aid to work. TANF is a block grant program in which the federal government allocates money to the states to fund work and family support programs. In 1996, the Republicans managed to push for welfare reform, consequently ending the AFDC and replacing it with TANF. TANF was granted to only parents who could get a job and the reform put a five-year limit on assistance. The block grants allowed states to put lifetime limits on receipt of federal support. However, when there is a recession, work-based aid creates issues. For example, when one loses their job, EITC assistance disappears. So when work disappears, aid disappears in the time when individuals need help most. This tying of public assistance to the labor market in attempt to integrate the disenfranchised into the economy backfires because the labor market is an ever-changing part of the economy. When our economy is in a recession, aid is restricted and has increasing demand. Due to the unchanging federal funding levels and limits of the amount of time individuals can receive benefits, the number of families receiving TANF has decreased in a time of increased need. This attack on the welfare state was intended to solve social issues such as ‘welfare mothers’ and out of wedlock births but has failed to keep these people and their children out of poverty. The shift in government assistance being tied to employment fails to take into account the ebb and flow of the economy, increasing the issue of poverty public assistance seeks to fix.
The Earned Income Tax Credit, also known as the EITC is a refundable federal tax credit intended to help working low-income families. However, a problem with the EITC is that is is also tied to employment. The credit is meant to incentivize employment and has shown to increase workforce participation among single women with children. This is positive but what is concerning is that these low-income employment opportunities do not pay living wages, making it difficult for parents to support themselves and their children. It is a good thing to incentivize employment but workers should not have their benefits taken away due to an unstable low-wage job market. Despite its tie to employment, the EITC is an extremely effective supplemental income to low income workers and their children. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the federal EITC lifted 3.1 million children out of poverty in 2011. The credit has also been linked to lower rates of low birth weight children, fewer preterm births, and increased prenatal care among families receiving the credit. Therefore, the EITC has issues but is an extremely effective policy tool to help support low-income families.
The Child Tax Credit, also known as the CTC is a policy tool that can help families meet the costs of raising a child. The direct cash benefit of the Child Tax Credit helped approximately 1.6 million children and their families stay above the federal poverty line in 2012. However, the CTC is not being used as effectively as it could be. Currently, the Child Tax Credit has multiple limitations. The credit is not fully refundable. Therefore, it does not reach the poorest children and its minimum earnings requirement excludes families who experience unemployment and job loss. Another issue with the current CTC is that it is not adjusted to inflation. Without being adjusted by Congress, the Child Tax Credit erodes each year. Additionally, the Credit does not increase when children are young and earnings are low when the family’s needs are usually greatest. This extremely helpful credit must be improved to reach more children in times of increased need.
Another policy used to target low-income children is Early Head Start and Head Start. These programs are federally funded and community-based for low-income families with young children. Early Head Start supports families with infants and toddlers under the age of three while Head Start supports pre-school aged children between the ages of three and five. These programs are extremely instrumental, providing educational, nutritional, health, and social services. The programs also offer prenatal education, job-training, housing assistance, insurance, and adult education. These programs served more than 900,000 children in the fiscal year 2011. It is clear that these programs are a huge source of support for low-income families but unfortunately Early Head Start only serves approximately 3% of low-income families currently. Although these programs are immensely effective, Early Head Start does not reach enough infants and toddlers who are at the most risk.
The Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, also known as WIC, was first established in 1974 with the intention of improving the health of low-income women, infants, and children. The federal assistance program is administered through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and provides nutrition education, breastfeeding promotion and support, and food for pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children who are younger than 5 years old. The income of these families must fall below 185% of the federal poverty poverty line to be eligible. WIC has been linked to improved pregnancy and early childhood development outcomes within low income children and their mothers. Children supported by WIC score higher on assessments of mental development at 2 years of age than other low income children who do not participate in the program. Therefore, WIC is an immensely useful policy tool to help mothers and target children at a young age.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known also as SNAP and formerly as food stamps provides nutritional assistance to low-income individuals and families. The federal program uses an electronic benefits card from which families can access the supplemental income exclusively for food expenses. Each month, approximately 20 million children and 45 million Americans receive SNAP benefits. In 2014, more than one in five children lived in food-insecure households. SNAP has been found to reduce the depth of poverty for children in the poorest households and has been linked to more economic stability in families with children. SNAP participation has been linked to reducing the likelihood of a household experiencing falling behind on housing expenses, utilities, forgoing a necessary medical care visit. Additionally, access to food SNAP benefits have improved educational outcomes among children and have increased high school graduation rates by more than 18 percentage points. SNAP is currently reaching millions of Americans and must be protected to ensure these benefits continue.
The National School Lunch Program is a federally funded program that provides free and affordable meals to low income children while in school. The program applies to both public and private nonprofit schools through food and cash incentives by the federal government. To be eligible for free meals, students’ families incomes must be less than 130% of the federal poverty line and to be eligible for reduced-priced meals, incomes must be less than 130% of the federal poverty line. This program serves a shockingly large amount of low-income children. A recent analysis claims that according to these eligibility requirements, more than half of all public school students in the Unites States are eligible for free or reduced-price meals. In 2012, 31.6 million children were served low-cost and free lunches each day at school. These lunches amounted to a total cost of $11.6 billion. Therefore, the school lunch program is effectively supporting a large amount of low-income students but the amount of students eligible should show that these students need support beyond nutritional assistance.
A new program established as part of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, known as the Maternal, Infant, and Early Child Home Visiting Program, provides support for federal, state, and community governments to implement home visiting programs for at-risk children. MIECHV is intended to improve maternal and newborn health as well as improve household relationships and function. The program intends to make sure children are not suffering from neglect or abuse as well as improve family access to community resources and supports. The program specifically targets pregnant mothers and children who are younger than 5 years of age. There has been evidence of success with MIECHV programs. One of the programs known as the Nurse-Family Partnership enrolls low-income mothers during prenatal period and allows them access to nurses who provide weekly visits. The benefit-cost ratio is 5.68 to 1 for high-risk mothers. This is an example of a program that provides support for children and their mothers as they deal with new motherhood and poverty, providing an array of support at the earliest stage possible.
Policy Recommendations
There are many policies and programs that could effectively fight child poverty. Poverty policy is a diverse and complex issue area with many layers. Child poverty should be seen as a function of economic inequality, warranting the creation of a two-tiered solution. There needs to be increased resources at the macro level of poverty policy to combat economic inequality but also a fine-tuned policy approach to deal exclusively with child poverty. In my recommendations, I present this two-tiered solution that would not only decrease poverty for children but also address the economic plight of their parents living in poverty.
To effectively combat poverty, it will take costly solutions but we can afford them through redistributive policies. According to the Center for American Progress, the annual cost of policy solutions to reduce child poverty by 41 percent over the next 10 years would amount to $90 billion. In order to pay for this we must end the Bush tax cuts that were put in place during George W. Bush’s administration. The annual cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans over the next 10 years is $830 billion. By increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans through reinstating the estate tax for example, we can afford to combat child poverty. If we do not find a solution, child poverty will amount to lower productivity, less tax revenues, and larger health care and criminal justice costs. The long-term investment to combat child poverty is worth the expense.
One of the first necessary steps to combating poverty is to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. A parent cannot support themselves or their children on a wage that isn’t adjusted for the rising cost of living. There is no state where a low-income worker can afford to rent a modest one or two bedroom apartment. The median housing wage to afford a standard two-bedroom house is $15.21 per hour yet the national median hourly wage is around $12 per hour. Despite the large growth of our economy, many have not seen their wages rise. This is attributed to the stagflation of the minimum wage. When adjusted for inflation, the real value of the minimum wage has actually declined by 45 percent from its peak in 1968. The reason why minimum wage has remained stagnant is because many claim that it can have an adverse effect on employment and business profits. Despite arguments that raising the minimum wage would result in job loss, research shows that if there are reasonable raises over time then there will be modest or no effects on job loss. Politicians, especially those of the Republican Party have favored the interests of big business and have failed to work in favor of those in the low-wage labor market. Therefore, we must raise the minimum wage to help low-wage families earn living wages that keep them and their children out of poverty.
The poverty threshold should be raised to meet the rising costs of living. The poverty threshold put in place is a false measure of poverty. Even when families climb out of the poverty threshold, they are still poor. In 2014, the poverty threshold for a family of four with two children was $24,008. According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, the poverty-level income is not nearly enough to support a family. Research from the Center indicates that, on average, families need an income equal to about two times the federal poverty threshold just to meet basic needs. This would mean that the poverty threshold for a family of four with two children should be $48,016. However, the income to meet basic needs varies by city and region. For example, in 2014 the cost of meeting basic needs for a family of four required about $85,800 per year in Boston, Massachusetts. These numbers show that there are more people struggling than just those who pass the poverty threshold and these families are coping with the rising costs of living while also receiving inadequate support from the government. The poverty threshold should be adjusted to account for the people who are poor but not seen as poor enough for assistance. By readjusting the threshold to a reasonable level, the U.S. can help more families meet basic needs.
Education in low-income districts must be enriched and better funded. Education is the main channel of mobility in America but upward mobility has become increasingly difficult. Wealthier children have more access to top-tier schools and universities than kids at the bottom, even when “controlling innate skills.” So despite ones skills and capabilities, the wealthy still have the upper hand in a system that is not supposed to favor any one group. As Mischel, Bernstein, and Shierolz state, “If an economy favors those who are not necessarily more meritorious but are instead born wealthier, more connected, more powerful, whiter, male, etc., then this seems like a violation of the basic American value of equal opportunity.” Since the chances of one getting out of poverty are quickly diminishing, people are not being given the chance to reach their full potential. By fostering education at a young age, these students can grow their capabilities and capital, creating a confidence and set of skills that will allow them to succeed in higher education. We need to continue and protect the programs such as Head Start and Early Head Start but also expand them. If the government invests in the education of young children, they will enter the workforce as a skilled worker and therefore have higher earnings and rates of employment. By fostering a partnership between progressive education and poverty policy, the United States could guarantee children the opportunity to develop their inherent capabilities and build a better future.
Policy must support families as they cope with the effects of poverty. Home visiting, parenting, and relationship counseling programs could help improve family functioning and the home environment. Providing institutional support for new mothers dealing with depression and lack of health insurance could assist them in their physical and emotional needs. Early childhood interventions have been found to have very high return rates in human and financial terms. By protecting and further funding of programs like the Maternal, Infant, and Early Child Home Visiting Program, at-risk children and their families can be further supported by nurses and trained professionals. Providing these individuals with information about accessing resources can allow them to connect with different forms of support that they would not seek out otherwise. If family stress filters down to children, it will make children increasingly more vulnerable to the effects of poverty.
Access to quality and affordable child care starting at a young age could help combat the negative side effects of poverty on early childhood development. Child care can cost as much as housing in most areas of the United States. Child care is estimated to be as much as 25% of the family budget with two children. In addition, infant care can cost as much as college. Working families benefit from the Child Tax Credit to help them afford child care. However, working families who do not always have sufficient income to pay taxes are not able to get this support because the Credit is not refundable or paid to families before taxation. Also, the families who are without work are not able to access this support. Therefore, whether working or unemployed, families should have their incomes further bolstered through the Child Tax Credit to help them afford quality child care as well as other costs associated with raising children.
The Child Tax Credit must be enhanced to help low income families address the many challenges they face. I propose to make the credit fully refundable and eliminate its minimum earnings requirement. Additionally, the CTC’s value must be linked to inflation so it does not lose value over time when costs are rising. I also propose to introduce a supplemental monthly Young Child Tax Credit for children younger than the age of 3 to help younger children who are increasingly susceptible to the effects of poverty. The Young Child Tax Credit of $125 per month for these children would be made available through direct deposit or the Direct Express card so child-related costs do not wait until taxes. These enhancements to the current credit would help parents deal with the rising costs of economic security as well as the unique costs that come with raising young children.
In 2017, key provisions of the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit will expire. If lawmakers fail to extend these two key provisions, many Americans would lose some or all of these crucial tax credits. Among these 50 million Americans who would lose their credits, more than 16 million people in working families would be pushed into poverty or pushed deeper into poverty. Among these families, 8 million children would be adversely affected. If these credits are restored and made permanent, the CTC would reduce overall child poverty by 13.2 percent and lift 18.1 percent of poor children under the age of 3 out of poverty. This would clearly increase the anti-poverty power of the Child Tax Credit. These proposed improvements to the tax credit would cost $29.2 billion in 2015 but it is worth the investment. Policymakers must make permanent key provisions of the CTC and EITC to effectively combat poverty and its effects on children. With the election coming up, we need a President and a Congress who are willing to make these tax packages and poverty programs a top priority to help secure families economic wellbeing and assist them in upward mobility.
Conclusion
Therefore, it is clear that solving child poverty is not a quick fix with only a few solutions. Understanding the relationship between early child poverty and adult outcomes should inform and influence the decisions of policy makers and researchers. Combating child poverty means addressing all poverty. When there are rising inequalities within our society and institutions, it is more important than ever that we support those most vulnerable to these inequities. We must tackle poverty’s root causes as we continue to rebuild our economy, creating more living wage employment opportunities and support for parents while investing in children at the earliest age possible. A two-tiered policy approach to poverty aims to improve a family’s earning potential through direct and structural supports while also improving child developmental outcomes. A coordination of new and improved programs for low-income and impoverished families is essential to effectively combat poverty. No parent can fight poverty alone. If unaddressed, poverty will become a cycle, fostering a lack of capital from generation to generation and diminishing the future of the American Dream. The numbers show that we literally cannot afford inaction.