Category Archives: Poverty

EITC Continues to Reach Families in Poor Places

Source: Andrew Schaefer, Beth Mattingly, Kennedy Nickerson, Jessica Carson, Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire, Data Snapshot, October 9, 2018

From the summary:
Recent proposals in the House and Senate (for example, the Grow American Incomes Now Act) focus on amplifying the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)—a refundable tax credit for low-income workers—to compensate for growing wage inequity. We find that the share of EITC filers who are families with children is especially high in the poorest counties (those counties outlined in black on Map 1), including many places throughout the South.

Key Findings:
The Earned Income Tax Credit provides tax relief to working people with low to moderate income, with much larger credits for tax filers with children. The credit is refundable, meaning that the EITC reduces the amount of tax owed, and any amount above that may be issued as a refund.

Declines in Child Poverty Continue in 2017; Overall Rate Still Above Pre-Recession Level

Source: Jessica Carson, Andrew Schaefer, Beth Mattingly, Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire, Data Snapshot, September 13, 2018

From the summary:
The official poverty measure indicates that child poverty declined by 1.1 percentage points between 2016 and 2017, according to analyses of the latest American Community Survey data released today. By 2017, child poverty across the nation was still 0.4 percentage point higher than before the Great Recession. Child poverty remained higher in cities and rural places than in the suburbs. For the first time, rates in cities dipped below the pre-recession level, although poverty is still slightly higher in rural and suburban places than in 2007.

Key Findings:
For the first time, rates in cities dipped below the pre-recession level, although poverty is still slightly higher in rural and suburban places than in 2007.

Income data from the Census may not tell full story on middle-class trends

Source: Gary Burtless and Christopher Pulliam, Brookings Institution, Up Front, September 17, 2018

…. The resulting news stories deserve our attention, but it is important to keep a vital question in mind: Does the CPS give us an accurate picture of household incomes?

In many recent years, the answer has been “No.” Compared to the national income and product accounts (NIPA) produced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the CPS often gives us a strikingly different picture of the recent trend in household income. ….

Political Consequences of Survival Strategies among the Urban Poor

Source: Matthew Desmond, Adam Travis, American Sociological Review, Volume: 83 Number: 5, October 2018
(subscription required)

From the abstract:
Combining ethnographic and statistical methods, this study identifies interlocking mechanisms that help explain how disadvantaged neighborhoods influence their residents’ political capacity. Support systems that arise in low-income neighborhoods promote social interaction that helps people make ends meet, but these systems also expose residents to heavy doses of adversity, which dampens perceptions of collective political capacity. For the poorest residents of these neighborhoods in particular, the expected positive effect of informal social support is suppressed by the negative effect of perceived trauma. These findings present a micro-level account of poverty, social interaction, and political capacity, one that holds implications for scholarship and public policy on participatory inequality.

Poverty in America

Source: Thomas C. Frohlich, Michael B. Sauter and Alexander Kent, 24/7 Wall St., September 27, 2018

Poverty might mean different things in different parts of the world and to different people, but it is largely defined as being unable to afford a minimum standard of living. The United States has come a long way in addressing the problem, but progress seems to have slowed despite the recent years of economic recovery.

In many ways, the problem has even escalated. Though the economy has added millions of jobs since the recession ended, many of the jobs created are not the same as jobs that were lost. In many areas, the problem of poverty has worsened during the recovery.

Poverty is perhaps the most persistent of problems, with consequences that can span a lifetime, be transferred across generations, and loom in the minds of individuals and families living at the edge of poverty.

Click here to see how poverty is measured.
Click here to see alternative measures of poverty.
Click here to see root causes of poverty.
Click here to see who lives in poverty.
Click here to see what it means to live in poverty.
Click here to see solutions.

America’s Real Economy: It Isn’t Booming

Source: Peter Georgescu, Forbes, August 22, 2018

Ostensibly, for the past ten years, our economy has been recovering from the 2008 collapse. During the past few years, our comeback seems to have gained momentum. All the official indicators say we’re back in boom times, with a bull market, low unemployment and steady job growth. But there is an alternative set of data that depicts a different America, where the overlooked majority struggles from month to month.

The Nation recently published a stunning overview of the working poor and underpaid. One of the most powerful data points in the piece described how empty the decline in unemployment actually is: having a job doesn’t exempt anyone from poverty anymore. About 12% of Americans (43 million) are considered poor, and yet they are employed. They earn an individual income below $12,140 per year, and slightly more than that for a family of two. If you include housing and medical expenses in the calculation, it raises the percentage of Americans living in poverty to 14%. That’s 45 million people…..

Related:
The United States Has a National-Security Problem—and It’s Not What You Think
Source: Rajan Menon, The Nation, July 16, 2018

…..For millions of Americans, however, the greatest threat to their day-to-day security isn’t terrorism or North Korea, Iran, Russia, or China. It’s internal—and economic. That’s particularly true for the 12.7 percent of Americans (43.1 million of them) classified as poor by the government’s criteria: an income below $12,140 for a one-person household, $16,460 for a family of two, and so on… until you get to the princely sum of $42,380 for a family of eight. Savings aren’t much help either: A third of Americans have no savings at all and another third have less than $1,000 in the bank. Little wonder that families struggling to cover the cost of food alone increased from 11 percent (36 million) in 2007 to 14 percent (48 million) in 2014…..

…..As a result, though the United States has a per-capita income of $59,500 and is among the wealthiest countries in the world, 12.7 percent of Americans (that’s 43.1 million people), officially are impoverished. And that’s generally considered a significant undercount. The Census Bureau establishes the poverty rate by figuring out an annual no-frills family food budget, multiplying it by three, adjusting it for household size, and pegging it to the Consumer Price Index. That, many economists believe, is a woefully inadequate way of estimating poverty. Food prices haven’t risen dramatically over the past 20 years, but the cost of other necessities like medical care (especially if you lack insurance) and housing have: 10.5 percent and 11.8 percent respectively between 2013 and 2017 compared to an only 5.5 percent increase for food. Include housing and medical expenses in the equation and you get the Supplementary Poverty Measure (SPM), published by the Census Bureau since 2011. It reveals that a larger number of Americans are poor: 14 percent or 45 million in 2016…..

Does Socioeconomic Status Account for Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Childhood Cancer Survival?

Source: Rebecca D. Kehm, Logan G. Spector, Jenny N. Poynter, David M. Vock, Sean F. Altekruse, Theresa L. Osypuk, Cancer, Early View, First published: 20 August 2018

From the abstract:
Background:
For many childhood cancers, survival is lower among non‐Hispanic blacks and Hispanics in comparison with non‐Hispanic whites, and this may be attributed to underlying socioeconomic factors. However, prior childhood cancer survival studies have not formally tested for mediation by socioeconomic status (SES). This study applied mediation methods to quantify the role of SES in racial/ethnic differences in childhood cancer survival.

Methods:
This study used population‐based cancer survival data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 18 database for black, white, and Hispanic children who had been diagnosed at the ages of 0 to 19 years in 2000‐2011 (n = 31,866). Black‐white and Hispanic‐white mortality hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals, adjusted for age, sex, and stage at diagnosis, were estimated. The inverse odds weighting method was used to test for mediation by SES, which was measured with a validated census‐tract composite index.

Results:
Whites had a significant survival advantage over blacks and Hispanics for several childhood cancers. SES significantly mediated the race/ethnicity–survival association for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, neuroblastoma, and non‐Hodgkin lymphoma; SES reduced the original association between race/ethnicity and survival by 44%, 28%, 49%, and 34%, respectively, for blacks versus whites and by 31%, 73%, 48%, and 28%, respectively, for Hispanics versus whites ((log hazard ratio total effect – log hazard ratio direct effect)/log hazard ratio total effect).

Conclusions:
SES significantly mediates racial/ethnic childhood cancer survival disparities for several cancers. However, the proportion of the total race/ethnicity–survival association explained by SES varies between black‐white and Hispanic‐white comparisons for some cancers, and this suggests that mediation by other factors differs across groups.

Prosperity Now Scorecard

Source: Prosperity Now Scorecard, 2018

The Prosperity Now Scorecard is a comprehensive resource featuring data on family financial health and policy recommendations to help put all U.S. households on a path to prosperity. The Scorecard equips advocates, policymakers and practitioners with national, state, and local data to jump-start a conversation about solutions and policies that put households on stronger financial footing across five issue areas: Financial Assets & Income, Businesses & Jobs, Homeownership & Housing, Health Care and Education.

The Scorecard assesses all states on their relative ability to provide opportunities for residents to build and retain financial stability and wealth. The state outcome rankings are a measure of financial prosperity and how that prosperity is shared and safeguarded. The Scorecard ranks the 50 states and the District of Columbia on 62 outcome measures in the five Issue Areas. Data for an additional four measures are published, but states are not ranked on these measures due to insufficient data at the state level. The overall state outcome rank is determined by the rankings each state receives for outcome measures within each issue area. The issue area grades in the Scorecard are distributed on a curve, based on how each state fares compared with all other states.

The Scorecard also separately assesses states on the strength of 53 policies to expand economic opportunity. Taken together, these 53 policies provide a comprehensive view of what states can do to help residents build and protect wealth in the issue areas described above. Unlike the outcome measures, the strength of states’ policies are assessed based on fixed criteria arrived at through consultation with issue experts and Prosperity Now’s own knowledge of policies that are promising, proven or effective in helping families build and protect financial stability and wealth.

In addition to the outcome and policy measures used to assess states, the Scorecard provides additional data to understand financial stability and prosperity in states and communities. For 44 outcome measures, trend data are available for states to track progress over time. The Scorecard also allows you to drill down to the local level—city, county, Congressional district, tribal area and metro area—on up to 26 measures. Additionally, for 21 outcome measures at the state level and 11 at the local level, the Scorecard includes outcome measure estimates disaggregated by race and ethnicity. The Scorecard also disaggregates 14 outcome measures at the state level by disability status, providing for the first time in 2018 a glimpse into the financial challenges facing people with disabilities. While these additional data do not factor into a state’s overall performance in the Scorecard, we provide the data to allow for a more meaningful analysis of financial security and stability in the United States.

Related:
Main findings
Custom reports
Methodology

Stepping Up: New Policies and Strategies Supporting Parents in Low-Wage Jobs and Their Children – An Update to Set Up for Success

Source: National Women’s Law Center, August 2018

From the summary:
In recent years, the policy landscape at the federal level and in some states has in many ways become extraordinarily inhospitable to families—especially immigrant families—who are struggling to make ends meet and provide for their children. Far too many families find themselves set up to fail, with millions of parents across the country working in jobs in which low wages, unfair scheduling practices, and minimal benefits make it difficult to meet both work and caregiving responsibilities. And the parents most likely to work in low-wage jobs are women—disproportionately women of color and immigrant women—who are often raising very young children on their own.

Against this backdrop, however, it is all the more important to recognize that a substantial number of states, localities, and private actors—from working people to community-based organizations to large companies—have taken important steps in the past two years to improve the lives of low-wage working parents and their children.

Stepping Up: New Policies and Strategies Supporting Parents in Low-Wage Jobs and Their Children provides examples of the ways in which different stakeholders have implemented new policies, practices, and strategies to advance the key goals outlined in the National Women’s Law Center’s June 2016 report, Set Up for Success:
– Increase parents’ incomes.
– Ensure parents are treated fairly in the workplace and have stable, predictable work schedules.
– Expand children’s access to high-quality, affordable child care and early education.
– Increase parents’ access to paid sick days and paid family and medical leave.
– Improve parents’ opportunities to obtain education and training that can help them advance into better jobs.