AFSCME Information Highway

Source: Center for American Progress, July 30, 2008

Aging Americans, like other age groups, are feeling the effects of the declining real estate and stock markets, as well as soaring fuel and food prices. Seniors' economic security will only increase in importance as the U.S. population ages. The nation's health and social services resources will face unprecedented demand as 75 million people in the baby boomer generation reach retirement age--some with eroded savings and retirement accounts

Posted by Info Center at 2:21 PM in Older People | Poverty | Retirement | Permalink

Source: Eric Alterman and George Zornick, Center for American Progress, August 7, 2008

Earlier this week, "CBS Evening News" anchor Katie Couric told viewers that the state of California was planning to cut the jobs and wages of state workers. Of the more than 200,000 workers who were to be fired or see their wages reduced, a grand total of zero appeared or were quoted on Couric's program. No discussion with those workers who are soon to be fired about their probable descent into poverty. No chat with those facing lower wages about what it will be like to struggle among the working poor. Nada.
CBS's decision was of a piece with most media reporting of issues that affect poor people--to the degree that such issues are reported at all. The most recent estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau show that one in eight Americans live below the poverty line. A study by the University at Michigan's National Poverty Center reveals that one in three Americans will experience government-defined poverty within a 13-year period. And yet the only people less visible in our media today than the poor at home are our soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by Info Center at 1:22 PM in Poverty | Permalink

Source: Cynthia Miller, Aletha C. Huston, Greg J. Duncan, Vonnie C. McLoyd, and Thomas S. Weisner, MRDC [Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation], July 2008

From the overview:
Conceived of in the late 1980s and implemented in 1994 in two inner-city areas in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, New Hope was an innovative program designed to address problems in the low-wage labor market. Based on the simple premise that people who work full time should not be poor, New Hope provided full-time workers with several benefits: an earnings supplement to raise their income above poverty, low-cost health insurance, and subsidized child care. For those unable to find full-time work, the program offered help in finding a job and referral to a wage-paying community service job when necessary. During the demonstration project, each of these benefits was available for up to three years.

New Hope's designers expected that its combination of benefits and services would have the direct effects of increasing parents' employment and income and their use of health insurance and licensed child care. These effects, in turn, might influence the well-being of these adults and their families. MDRC, along with researchers from the University of Texas at Austin, UCLA, Northwestern University, and the University of North Carolina, examined New Hope's effects in a large-scale random assignment study. This report, the final one in a series, summarizes the program's implementation and effects over eight years -- the first three years while the program operated and five years after it had ended. The findings show that work supports can have a range of positive effects on low-income families and their children. Although the economic effects on employment and income lasted for most families only during the three years in which New Hope operated, some effects on children lasted into the longer term...

Posted by Info Center at 1:12 PM in Family & Work | Poverty | Permalink

Source: Cynthia Perry, Linda J. Blumberg, Urban Institute, July 16, 2008

From the abstract:
Only 37 percent of adults in low-income working families had employer-sponsored health insurance and 42 percent had no coverage. Health care costs are also rapidly rising out of reach for even middle-income Americans. In this essay, Perry and Blumberg propose comprehensive reform that ensures coverage for everyone at every income level, while still encouraging work. Their proposals include state purchasing pools, individual mandates, and strategies for reducing health care costs.
See also:
• A New Safety Net for Low-Income Families
• Enabling Families to Weather Emergencies and Develop
• Supporting Work for Low-Income People with Significant Challenges
• A Decent Standard of Living for Working Families

Posted by Info Center at 5:55 PM in Health Care | Middle Class | Poverty | Permalink

Source: Rebecca M. Blank, Brookings Institution, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support of the House Committee on Ways and Means, July 17, 2008

From the summary:
An economic measure of poverty requires two definitions. First, one needs to define a poverty line or poverty threshold, the level of income or other resources below which a particular type of family is considered poor. Second, one needs to define a resource measure, which delineates the ways an individual family's economic resources will be counted. The poverty count is the number of people who live in families with resources below the poverty threshold.

I emphasize these definitional items because it is important to think about poverty lines and resource definitions together. A statistically credible measure of poverty should have a poverty threshold that is consistent with its resource measure, so that the two can be used together. Unlike Representative McDermott's proposed legislation, many proposed changes in poverty measurement in the past have emphasized changing the way in which family resources are counted, without proposing to change the poverty threshold in a consistent way.

There are serious problems in the current poverty measure with both the threshold definition and the resource definition. No simple, minor change will make this historical poverty measure accurate; a major redefinition is required.

Posted by Info Center at 1:39 PM in Poverty | Permalink

Source: National Governors Association, Issue Brief, June 2008

From the press release:
As families across the nation face financial hardships and economic insecurity, states continue to lead the way in developing solutions to help families ensure their economic well-being. These efforts are highlighted in a new Issue Brief from the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) titled State Strategies to Reduce Child and Family Poverty.

The brief examines the long-term social and economic costs of poverty for children and families, communities and states. In addition, State Strategies to Reduce Child and Family Poverty explores several policy and program options helping to reduce the negative consequences of poverty for children and increase opportunities for families to achieve economic success.

Posted by Info Center at 1:37 PM in Poverty | Permalink

Source: National Center for Children in Poverty, 2008

The Family Resource Simulator illustrates the impact of "work supports"--such as earned income tax credits and child care assistance--on the budget of a hypothetical family. Based on the answers provided on steps 1 through 7, the Simulator generates graphs that show how family resources and expenses change as earnings increase.

Posted by Info Center at 5:44 PM in Children | Family & Work | Poverty | Permalink

Source: Stacy Dean, Colleen Pawling, Dorothy Rosenbaum, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, July 1, 2008

From the summary:
The 2008 Farm Bill makes numerous improvements to the Food Stamp Program that will help low-income Americans put food on the table in the face of rising food and fuel prices. Over the 2009-2017 period, the Farm Bill will add $7.8 billion in new resources for the program, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The major food stamp provisions will:

• End years of erosion in the purchasing power of food stamps
• Support working-poor families.
• Promote saving
• Simplify food stamp administration
• Rename and update the program
• Strengthen program operations, integrity, and oversight and modernize benefit delivery

Posted by Info Center at 6:46 PM in Human Services | Poverty | Permalink

Source: Margot Saunders, National Consumer Law Center, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Social Security Committee on Ways and Means U.S. House of Representatives, June 24, 2008

...We estimate that on a monthly basis tens of thousands of low income recipients of Social Security,SSI and other federal payments whose benefits are entirely exempt from claims of judgment creditors are left temporarily destitute when banks allow attachments and garnishments to freeze their only assets. We believe our estimate of over 1 million recipients of Social Security and other exempt federal benefits a year who have their funds illegally frozen by banks is very conservative, and that the real number is likely much higher. As was illustrated in a recent Wall Street Journal article ("The Debt Collector vs. The Widow - Viola Sue Kell thought her Social Security benefits were safe in the bank. She was wrong."),when a bank applies an attachment or garnishment order to the exempt funds in a low income recipient's bank account, the consequences are generally devastating. There is no money for food or medicine. Checks written for rent or the mortgage are bounced. People go hungry. They get sick or sicker. They suffer anxiety. They are forced to pay steep bank fees and fees to merchants because the checks they wrote when they had money in the bank now bounce....

...Despite the explicitness of the federal law and the purpose of these benefits, banks (after receiving garnishment or attachment orders) routinely freeze accounts holding these benefits. When the account is frozen, no money is available to cover any expenses for food, rent, or medical care. Checks and debits previously drawn on the account (before the recipient learned that the account was frozen) are returned unpaid. Subsequent monthly deposits into the account will also be subject to the freeze and inaccessible to the recipient....

Posted by Info Center at 5:41 PM in Poverty | Social Security | Permalink

Source: Heather Boushey and Shawn Fremstad, New Labor Forum, Vol. 17, Issue 2, Summer 2008

In the United States, low-wage work is commonly defined by referencing the federal poverty line. According to this definition, a low-wage job is one that paid less than $9.83 an hour in 2006. Yet, there is near-unanimous consensus among researchers and policy advocates that the poverty line is a deply flawed measure. Reflecting this consensus, economist Rebecca Blank recently wrote: "It is not too strong a statement to say that, forty-three years after they were developed, the poverty thresholds are nonsensical numbers." ... In this article, we look to establish firmer foundations than the poverty line to define low-wage work.

Posted by Info Center at 5:51 PM in Compensation | Income Inequality/Gap | Poverty | Permalink

Source: Population Reference Bureau

From the article:
Research has shown that growing up in poverty leads to negative health, social, and economic consequences for children that often continue in adulthood. Compared with other children, children living below the poverty line are less healthy, have lower educational achievement, and are more likely to become involved with the criminal justice system. As adults, they are less likely to attend college or hold a steady job.

In 2006, an estimated 13.3 million U.S. children were living in poverty, and at risk for such lifelong problems. But the individual hardships brought by poverty also exact a staggering financial toll on broader society. One recent estimate has suggested that growing up in poverty costs the United States $500 billion annually in lost potential earnings, involvement with the criminal justice system, and the costs associated with poor health outcomes.

Taking its cue from that cost estimate, as well as campaigns in some states designed to reduce poverty, the KIDS COUNT project in Washington state (affiliated with the University of Washington's Human Services Poverty Center) has produced state-level estimates of the costs of child poverty. By taking the national estimate of child poverty costs and applying it to the estimated the number of poor children in each state in the 2006 American Community Survey, the study estimates the amount that each state would save annually if child poverty were eliminated.

In 14 states, child poverty yielded an annual cost of more than $10 billion, according to the fact sheet issued by Washington KIDS COUNT. Not surprisingly, the most populous states tended to have the highest annual costs (see map)--mainly because they tend to have the largest numbers of children in poverty. California, with an estimated 1.7 million poor children in 2006, had the highest cost of $63.9 billion, followed by Texas at $57.5 billion and New York at $33.4 billion. Even in the smallest state, Wyoming, growing up poor yields an annual cost of about $500 million.

Posted by William at 12:05 PM in Children | Poverty | Permalink

Source: Shawn Fremstad, Rebecca Ray and Hye Jin Rho, Center for Economic and Policy Research, May 2008

From the press release:
The federal poverty line does a poor job of measuring economic insecurity in the United States according to a new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). In the typical state, 22 percent of people in working families suffer from economic hardship because their earnings and income from other sources, including public work supports and other public benefits, fall below the basic needs budget standard for where they live. By comparison, only 12.6 percent of Americans live below the federal poverty line.

Posted by Info Center at 1:54 PM in Human Services | Income Inequality/Gap | Middle Class | Poverty | Permalink

Source: Christian Aid Report, May 2008

From the summary:
Christian Aid's new report seeks to expose the scandal of a global tax system that allows the world's richest to duck their responsibilities while condemning the poorest to stunted development, even premature death.

The situation is stark and urgent. Our report predicts that illegal, trade-related tax evasion alone will be responsible for some 5.6 million deaths of young children in the developing world between 2000 and 2015.

Posted by Info Center at 1:21 PM in Poverty | Taxation | Permalink

Source: Sheila R. Zedlewski, Barbara Butrica, Urban Institute, May 15, 2008

From the abstract:
The number of poor adults age 65 and older has declined dramatically since the official poverty rate was designed back in the 1960s. Today the federal government considers fewer than 1 in 10 older adults to be poor, compared with about 1 in 3 in the 1960s. These estimates show the share of people with insufficient income to meet basic living expenses, such as food and housing. However, substantial research shows that the official poverty measure no longer reflects the true resources or needs of older adults.

The lack of an accurate poverty measure for older adults hampers efforts to reform Medicare and Social Security, which face significant revenue shortfalls. Reform proposals often aim to reduce costs by combining benefit cuts with increased cost sharing for older adults. To target any cuts or increased costs to older adults with the greatest ability to pay, an accurate measure of economic well-being is critical.
See also:
Improving The Medicare Savings Programs Would Help Low-Income Seniors Cope With Higher Medical Expenses
Source: Edwin Park and Danilo Trisi, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 20, 2008

Posted by Info Center at 5:54 PM in Older People | Poverty | Permalink

Source: David Baer, AARP Public Policy Institute, Research Report, Pub ID: D19014, April 2008

From the summary:
As state and local economic conditions and demographic patterns change, policymakers may consider adjusting their policies on taxes and spending programs. These adjustments become more difficult when economic and demographic changes depart from historical trends.

Policymakers, public officials, policy analysts and others concerned about such issues will find useful state-level data on population, poverty rates, per capita state personal income, state and local revenues, expenditures, tax rates, and property tax relief programs in this seventh edition of the AARP Public Policy Institute's biennial databook by David Baer. Since 1993, the reference book has been contributing to more informed public policy decisions by providing economic, demographic, and fiscal information.

The handbook facilitates state-by-state and state-national comparisons, featuring economic, demographic, and fiscal summaries of the entire United States, each state, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Gender and age comparisons are provided for some of the data. Tables and maps of selected data are included.

Posted by Info Center at 2:18 PM in Economy | Poverty | Statistics | Taxation | Permalink

Source: Laura Wheaton, Jamyang Tashi, Urban Institute, April 24, 2008

From the abstract:
In 2004, 36.6 million people--or 12.6 percent of the U.S. population--were poor. The "poverty gap"--the amount of additional income required to remove all Americans from poverty--was $105.6 billion. Poverty rates were highest for African Americans, Hispanics, women, and persons under 25. Without government benefits, 61 million people would be poor. Social Security and other social insurance programs remove 21 million people from poverty. Means tested programs remove 3 million people from poverty. If food and housing assistance were counted as income for poverty purposes, an additional 7.6 million people would be counted as not poor.

Posted by Info Center at 3:47 PM in Poverty | Statistics | Permalink

Source: PBS NOW, April 11, 2008

This month, millions of Americans are filing their taxes and hoping for the best, but are rich people actually paying a smaller percentage of taxes than the poor? NOW looks at plans in many states to raise sales taxes and lower property taxes in an effort to generate revenue. But those changes may come at an even bigger price. Anti-poverty advocates say this shift would place the heaviest tax burden on the poorest households--and benefit higher-income Americans. Despite the charge, it's a model many states have long embraced. NOW travels to one of these states, Alabama, to document the personal impact of regressive tax policies on three very different families. They include a working Mom who shows us how a ten percent sales tax on groceries makes a significant difference in what her family eats; a couple living in a ramshackle house in the backwoods who've always held jobs but still face hunger; and a well-to-do suburban couple who benefit from huge tax breaks.

Posted by Info Center at 3:07 PM in Poverty | Taxation | Permalink

Source: Brookings Institution

Public policies rarely account for regional differences in living costs across the country. Applying cost-of-living adjustments to measurements of economic wellbeing and eligibility standards for social programs in 98 central cities reveals that:
• Federal poverty guidelines, often used to determine eligibility for social programs, change significantly when indexed for cost of living (COL) differences. Out of 38 large cities in higher-cost areas in the Northeast and West, 36 experience increases in the federal poverty guidelines. Conversely, more than half of the large cities located in lower-cost areas in the South and Midwest (38 of 60) see shifts in the opposite direction.
• The percentage, number, and distribution of families that are considered poor under federal poverty guidelines would change dramatically in many central cities if regional differences in the cost of living were recognized. In high-cost areas on the East and West coasts, the poor population would increase substantially both in real and proportional terms. Cities like New York, NY and Los Angeles, CA rank among those with the greatest increases in both the number and proportion of poor families under COL-adjusted standards. However, cities in lower-cost areas of the South and West, such as El Paso, TX and Shreveport, LA, have among the largest declines in the number and share of poor families once living costs are taken into account.
• Adjusting federal poverty guidelines for regional differences in the cost of living has a considerable impact on the number of families eligible for public programs. Overall, the share of families eligible for Early Head Start and Head Start as well as the National School Lunch Program would increase 29 percent in large cities across the country. San Francisco, CA, San Jose, CA, and Bridgeport, CT experience the largest increases in eligibility for these programs, while San Antonio, TX, Corpus Christi, TX, and El Paso, TX see the largest declines in the eligible population under COL-adjusted guidelines.

Full Report (PDF; 1.2 MB)

Posted by William at 11:05 AM in Poverty | Permalink

Source: National Governors Association

This document provides a list of organizations, individuals and reports that states can use as resources when developing policies to reduce poverty and promote family economic opportunity. Information in the guide includes a list of free technical assistance providers that states can access; descriptions of poverty research centers and institutes; issue specific resources and organizations; and information on national anti-poverty reports, task forces, and projects.

Full Document (PDF; 198 KB)

Posted by Info Center at 9:00 AM in Poverty | Permalink

Source: Sunhwa Lee, Lois Shaw, AARP Policy & Research, Pub ID: 2008-03, February 2008

From press release:
Women are nearly twice as likely to be poor as men as they reach pre-retirement and retirement ages, according to a new report by AARP's Public Policy Institute (PPI). The study, titled "From Work To Retirement: Tracking Changes in Women's Poverty Status," found that variables such as marital status, labor force participation, and health status affect the risk of poverty for women as they age.

Women's longer life expectancies play a large role in determining their lifetime financial security. They are more likely to lose a spouse - nearly 40 percent of women 65 and older were unmarried and living alone compared to only 16 percent of men - and they are also more likely to encounter health related problems.
▪ In Brief
▪ Summary

Posted by Info Center at 1:54 PM in Income Inequality/Gap | Poverty | Retirement | Working Women | Permalink

Source: Dan Murphy, Sheila R. Zedlewski, Barbara Butrica, Urban Institute, March 7, 2008

From the abstract:
This paper uses data from the 2004 Health and Retirement Study to demonstrate how the poverty rate of adults 65 and older changes using alternative resource and threshold measures. Results show that alternative poverty measures that account for health spending produce higher poverty rates than the official measure, even those that include the value of housing and financial assets. Poverty remains concentrated among singles (disproportionately women), blacks and Hispanics, and adults 85 and older regardless of how it is measured because these populations have relatively little housing equity or financial assets.

Posted by Info Center at 3:36 PM in Poverty | Retirement | Permalink

Source: Department of Health and Human Services, January 23, 2008

There are two slightly different versions of the federal poverty measure:
• The poverty thresholds, and
• The poverty guidelines.
The poverty thresholds are the original version of the federal poverty measure. They are updated each year by the Census Bureau (although they were originally developed by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration). The thresholds are used mainly for statistical purposes -- for instance, preparing estimates of the number of Americans in poverty each year. (In other words, all official poverty population figures are calculated using the poverty thresholds, not the guidelines.) Poverty thresholds since 1980 and weighted average poverty thresholds since 1959 are available on the Census Bureau's Web site. For an example of how the Census Bureau applies the thresholds to a family's income to determine its poverty status, see "How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty" on the Census Bureau's web site.
• Federal Register Notice with 2008 Guidelines - Full Text
• Prior Poverty Guidelines and Federal Register References Since 1982
• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
• Further Resources on Poverty Measurement, Poverty Lines, and Their History
• Computations for the 2008 Poverty Guidelines

Posted by Info Center at 2:04 PM in Poverty | Statistics | Permalink

Source: Ann McLarty Jackson, Christopher Baker, AARP Policy & Research, January 2008

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is a federal block grant that provides funding to the 50 states and other jurisdictions to operate home energy assistance programs for low-income households. LIHEAP serves as a social safety net protecting at-risk households spending a high proportion of their income on home energy from the dangers of inadequate heating and cooling.
● Fact Sheet

Posted by Info Center at 5:28 PM in Poverty | Permalink

Source: USDA Economic Research Service

The effectiveness of the Food Stamp Program (FSP) depends on the extent to which it reaches those who are entitled to benefits. In the mid- to late 1990s, participation fell sharply. In recent years, it rebounded somewhat, reaching 65.1 percent in 2005. Changes in participation patterns can be attributed partly to economic fluctuations, but they were also shaped by the rapidly changing State policy environment. This study combines data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1996-2003, with data on State-level food stamp, welfare, minimum wage, and Earned Income Tax Credit policy to investigate the effects of policy on food stamp participation. The findings show strong evidence that some FSP policy reforms made after 1999 (such as more lenient vehicle-exemption policies, longer recertification periods, and expanded categorical eligibility) increased food stamp participation. The use of biometric technology, such as fingerprinting, however, lowered participation. The study shows less consistent evidence that more lenient immigrant eligibility rules, simplified reporting, Electronic Benefit Transfers, or outreach spending raised food stamp participation.

Disclaimer: This study was conducted by The Urban Institute under research agreement number 43-3AEM-3-80085 with the Economic Research Service. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of ERS or USDA.

Full Report (PDF; 387 KB)

Posted by Info Center at 9:38 AM in Poverty | Permalink

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

The U.S. Census Bureau today released 2005 poverty estimates for each of the nation's almost 14,000 Title I-eligible school districts. The estimates are produced in order for the Department of Education to implement provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

The school district data, part of the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, are contained in data tables showing the number of poor children ages 5 to 17 in families.

The tables also contain 2005 state- and county-level estimates of median household income and the total number of poor children younger than 18, related children between 5 and 17 in families; and for states, through age 4. Included as well are estimates of the total number of people of all ages in poverty in states and counties. These estimates are the only source of income and poverty data for counties and poverty statistics for school districts with populations of less than 65,000.

The estimate tabulations, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, are one of the criteria used to allocate federal funds to local jurisdictions. The Census Bureau has, for the first time, produced the estimates by using results from its American Community Survey (ACS). ACS data were combined with aggregate data from federal tax information, administrative records on food stamp program participation, Census 2000 statistics and annual population estimates.

Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE)

Posted by Info Center at 9:16 AM in Poverty | Permalink

Source: Brookings Institution, The Hamilton Project

Abstract
This paper proposes a new federal funding stream to identify, expand, and replicate the most successful state and local initiatives designed to spur the advancement of low-wage workers in the United States. In the Worker Advancement Grants for Employment in States (WAGES) program, the federal government would offer up to $5 billion annually in matching funds for increases in state, local, and private expenditures on worker advancement initiatives. To gain funding, states would have to develop local advancement "systems," which would provide career-oriented education and training to youth, working poor adults and "hard-to-employ" workers. Partnerships would be developed between local training providers (like community colleges), employer associations, and intermediaries. Additional financial supports for the working poor—including child care, transportation, and stipends for working students—would have to be funded as well. Initially, the WAGES program would require states to compete for federal grants, which would ultimately be renewable. The program would generate a "learning system" in which states would have an incentive to innovate and use information from other initiatives. The federal government would provide substantial technical assistance and oversight. Performance measurement and rigorous evaluation would be required for program renewal; states achieving substantial worker advancement would be awarded major bonuses and more rapid renewal of funding.

Full-text (40 pages)

Posted by Info Center at 12:16 PM in Poverty | Permalink

Source: Brookings Institution, The Hamilton Project

Abstract
Families in low-income communities face three interrelated problems: unemployment rates are high, incarceration rates of low-skilled men are high, and a large fraction of children in low-income communities are being raised in single-parent households. To address these interrelated problems, I propose a two-part policy designed to increase the return to work. The first part of my proposal is an expanded earned income tax credit that would apply to low-income, childless taxpayers. The second part of my proposal is a targeted wage subsidy for low-wage workers who live in certain economically depressed areas, whereby the federal government would pay subsidies of 50 percent of the difference between the worker's market wage and a target wage of $11.30 per hour. The premise for adopting these policies is straightforward: increasing the return to work for childless low-skilled workers will lower unemployment rates and achieve the dual social benefits of reducing incarceration rates and increasing marriage rates, thus reducing the number of children being raised in single-parent households. The proposal would redistribute $10.4 billion to poor, working individuals. Based on empirical estimates from the literature, I expect employment to increase by 850,000 jobs and crime to fall by over one million incidents. Conservative estimates of the social cost of crime indicate that the social benefit from reduced crime could cover 8 percent or more of the cost of the proposal. Many estimates of the cost of crime would claim much larger cost saving. The proposal would also increase marriage and improve the environments in which poor children are raised.

Full-text (36 pages)

Posted by Info Center at 12:11 PM in Poverty | Permalink

Source: Brookings Institution, The Hamilton Project

Abstract
Poverty remains a pressing problem in the United States. Many of the 36 million Americans in poverty are working, but full-time work at the minimum wage does not provide enough income to escape poverty. This paper offers a three-part strategy to reduce poverty and strengthen growth across the income spectrum. First, the most effective antipoverty policy is to help people find a job that pays enough to support a family. This paper's principal focus is on programs to reward and facilitate work. Second, a broader set of policies is necessary to prepare people to succeed, by investing in human capital and other critical needs. Finally, public policies should provide a more robust safety net and a set of social insurance policies to help people rebound if they do experience economic hardship, and reduce the likelihood of their falling below a certain economic level at any point. Together, these policies can raise the living standards of struggling families and allow everyone to share in our nation's prosperity.

Full-text (36 pages)

Posted by Info Center at 12:06 PM in Poverty | Permalink

Source: Brookings Institution, The Hamilton Project

Abstract
Despite the political rhetoric of "making work pay," in 2005 some 3.7 million households included a full-time worker and yet lived in poverty. Our paper makes the case for a national program offering the kind of work supports that were part of the New Hope program, a policy experiment that operated for three years in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in the mid- to late-1990s. New Hope was created by a coalition of community activists and business leaders. It provided a set of work supports for full-time workers—parents and nonparents, men and women—that would lift them out of poverty, ensure that they had access to quality child care and health insurance and, if needed, provide a temporary community service job to help get them on their feet.

A random-assignment evaluation of New Hope showed that the program reduced poverty, increased employment and, perhaps most importantly, boosted the achievement and positive behavior of children. We estimate that a scaled-up New Hope program would cost roughly $3,300 per participant per year and that, with reasonable assumptions regarding the valuation of child impacts, would yield benefits well in excess of costs.

Evidence from other states and two Canadian provinces suggest that New Hope could be implemented by states. Given the different ways in which states would likely implement the New Hope model to fit their unique needs and delivery systems, we propose a five-year demonstration and evaluation in five states.

Full-text (36 pages)

Posted by Info Center at 11:58 AM in Poverty | Permalink

Source: The Future of Children (via MRDC)

Between the end of World War II and 1973, the share of Americans living in poverty fell by half. But since 1973 the overall poverty rate has remained largely unchanged. Why didn't poverty continue to decline? Falling wages and increasing rates of lone parenting are the two principal explanations. Economic changes led to stagnant and declining wages at the bottom of the wage distribution, especially among men with a high school diploma or less, and demographic changes saw a near doubling of the fraction of all families with children that were headed by a single parent.

The problems of falling wages and single parenthood are intertwined. As the wages of men with a high school education or less began to tumble, the employment rates of these men also fell, and, in turn, the share who could support a family above the poverty line began to decline -- and with it the professed willingness of low-income mothers and fathers to marry. Because the U.S. social welfare system is built around the needs of poor families with children -- and largely excludes single adults who are poor (and disproportionately male) -- it creates disincentives to work and marry for some, aggravating these larger trends. Although recent changes have reduced marriage penalties in the tax and transfer system, some do remain, particularly when both spouses in a married-couple family have similar earnings.

A strategy that used the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to supplement the earnings of all low-wage workers aged 21 to 54 who work full time -- whether they have children or not and whether they marry or not -- would counter three decades of wage stagnation and persistent poverty, with significant positive corollary effects on employment and parental child support. By conditioning the benefit on full-time work, by targeting individuals regardless of their family status, by keeping the existing EITC for families with children in place, and by calculating EITC eligibility on the basis of individual income (as Canadians and Europeans do) rather than joint income for tax filing purposes, this earnings-based supplement would restore equity to the American social compact while minimizing the distortion of incentives to work, marry, and bear children.

Overview
Full Report (PDF; 156 KB)

Posted by Info Center at 9:36 AM in Children | Poverty | Permalink

Source: Steve Rendall and Neil deMause, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, September 7, 2007

According to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data, 37 million Americans--one in eight--lived below the federal poverty line in 2005, defined as an annual income of $19,971 for a family of four. Yet poverty touches a far greater share of the population over the course of their lives: A 1997 study by University of Michigan economist Rebecca Blank found that one-third of all U.S. residents will experience government-defined poverty within a 13-year period. The poorest age group is children, with more than one in six living in official poverty at any given time.

Posted by Info Center at 12:17 PM in Poverty | Permalink

Source: Brookings Institution, Vol. 7 no. 2, Fall 2007

The Brookings Institution and Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School have released the latest Future of Children volume "The Next Generation of Antipoverty Policies." The articles in this volume focus on several specific policies, covering a spectrum of short- and long-term strategies, that have the best chance of reducing poverty in a cost-effective way.

Posted by Info Center at 4:27 PM in Poverty | Permalink

Source: Gregory Acs and Austin Nichols, Urban Institute, September 11, 2007

From the abstract:
This paper finds that about one in four workers, ages 18 to 61, earned less than $7.73 an hour in 2003. Low-wage workers who reside in low-income families with children are substantially less educated than the average worker, are concentrated in industries with low wages, and have limited prospects for wage growth. Many policies aimed at low-wage workers are not well-targeted at workers in low-income families with children, in part because only one in four low-wage workers reside in such families. Nevertheless, policies targeted at low-wage workers may have broad benefits, including improving the lot of low-income families with children.

Posted by Info Center at 5:55 PM in Poverty | Permalink

Source: Ron Haskins, Princeton-Brookings, Future of Children Policy Brief, Fall 2007

This brief examines two sets of public policies - wage subsidies and work requirements- that hold promise for helping young men increase their employment and earnings and which could alleviate many social problems, including crime, unemployment, nonmartial births, and poverty.

Posted by Info Center at 11:52 AM in Poverty | Permalink

Source: Joint Economic Committee, press release, August 28, 2007

Follow up to August 28, 2007 posting Census Bureau Reports Household Income Rises, Poverty Rate Declines, see today's press release: "Senator Charles E. Schumer, Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) and Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, Vice Chair of the JEC, today reacted to the U.S. Census Bureau's release of its 2006 report on income, poverty and health insurance coverage in the United States. Although median household income rose slightly in 2006, after adjusting for inflation, the report showed that all but the richest of American households have seen their incomes decline since 2000. The Census Bureau also revealed that while the national poverty rate declined by 0.3% in 2006, the number of people in poverty living in poverty has risen by 4.9 million since 2000, an increase in the poverty rate of one percentage point. Additionally, the number of children under 18 in poverty has skyrocketed under the Bush Administration, rising 10.7 percent in the last 6 years."

The JEC also released three fact sheets taking an in depth look at the findings in the Census Report:
• The Number of Americans without Health Insurance Rose Again in 2006
• Household Income Up Slightly in 2006, but Down Since 2000
• Nearly One in Eight Americans Living in Poverty

Posted by Info Center at 4:38 PM in Income Inequality/Gap | Poverty | Permalink

Source: Edgar O. Olsen, The Urban Institute, Opportunity and Ownership Project Report No. 2, August 20, 2007

The United States' current system of low-income housing assistance is biased against homeownership. This paper documents the bias and suggests reforms to eliminate it. The new policies would allow more low-income families to become homeowners by providing similar subsidies for renters and owners under the two largest programs for low-income housing, Section 8 and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. The reforms would not require additional spending, would improve the cost-effectiveness of the system of low-income housing assistance, and would avoid the two biggest mistakes in past attempts to subsidize homeownership: subsidizing the construction of new units and requiring intended beneficiaries to buy from selected sellers.

Posted by Info Center at 3:34 PM in Housing | Human Services | Poverty | Permalink

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, CB07-120, August 28, 2007

From the news release:
Real median household income in the United States climbed between 2005 and 2006, reaching $48,200, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is the second consecutive year that income has risen. Meanwhile, the nation's official poverty rate declined for the first time this decade, from 12.6 percent in 2005 to 12.3 percent in 2006. There were 36.5 million people in poverty in 2006, not statistically different from 2005. The number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 44.8 million (15.3 percent) in 2005 to 47 million (15.8 percent) in 2006. These findings are contained in the Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006 report. The data were compiled from information collected in the 2007 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). Much more summary material in this news release.

Related from the Census Bureau:
• Numerous Documents and Tables Can Be Accessed Here
• Income, Earnings and Poverty in the United States: 2006

Other related items:
• Number And Percentage Of Americans Who Are Uninsured Climbs Again: Poverty Edges Down But Remains Higher, And Median Income For Working-Age Households Remains Lower, Than When Recession Hit Bottom In 2001
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 28, 2007
• More Americans, Including More Children, Now Lack Health Insurance
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 28, 2007
• U.S. Uninsured Rate Climbs Again
Source: Daniel C. Vock, Stateline.org, August 29, 2007
• Number of Uninsured U.S. Residents Increases by 2.2M to 47M in 2006
Source: Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, August 29, 2007

Posted by Info Center at 2:07 PM in Compensation | Health Care | Income Inequality/Gap | Poverty | Permalink

Source: Mark Greenberg, Indivar Dutta-Gupta, Elisa Minoff, Report and Recommendations of the Center for American Progress Task Force on Poverty, April 2007

Thirty-seven million Americans live below the official poverty line. Millions more struggle each month to pay for basic necessities, or run out of savings when they lose their jobs or face health emergencies. Poverty imposes enormous costs on society. The lost potential of children raised in poor households, the lower productivity and earnings of poor adults, the poor health, increased crime, and broken neighborhoods all hurt our nation. Persistent childhood poverty is estimated to cost our nation $500 billion each year, or about four percent of the