Tuesday, June 17, 2003
( 9:53 AM )
The High Cost of Being a Poor Kid
Kids Count, a project of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, has released their 2003 Data Book. It's called "The High Cost of Being Poor: Another Perspective on Helping Low Income Families Get By and Get Ahead."
When you go to the website, you can create reports and charts from the report having to do with your own community. For instance, I found that in Oregon, while our infant mortality rates and even teen pregnancies have declined, the percentage of teen dropouts has risen from 8% to 12% in 10 years (which is above the national percentage), and the amount of teens not attending high school has also risen.
The percentage of children in Oregon who live with parents who do not have full time or year-round jobs is above the national percentage, with Oregon at 29% and the country at large at 24%. We rank 42 out of all the states in this category. This is a harrowing number... when you come right down to it, that means that 30 children out of 100 in this state (and 25 out of 100 in the country) do not have guaranteed room and board. Added to that, Oregon just about matches the national percentage for children living at or under the poverty rate (a rate which is a sham anyway): 16%
According to the DHHS, the "poverty threshold" is updated by the Census Bureau. This figure is used with statistical data, for instance, showing how many people are living in poverty. But the "poverty guidelines" are calculated by the DHHS and are used for determining who qualifies for what assistance.
According to the 2002 (latest available) "threshold" a four-member family with two children is at poverty when the annual income is $18,859. Taking into account that affordable housing costs 1/3 of your income (and most people cannot find affordable housing), that means that after paying the rent, the family has to live on $523.85 a month - not counting taxes though they still have to pay every tax except federal income tax. A family of four. And yet, a family of four that makes $30,000 still only must live on (after paying affordable rent and before taxes) $833.00 a month. But a family at this rate does get taxed on income, so that lowers the take home pay to an average of (generously calculated) $25,000.
This means that so many more children are living in poverty situations than are accounted for according to the government's "threshold." This includes, but is not limited to, conditions such as no permanent home, hunger, poor to no schooling opportunity, poor to no child protection or after school care, poor to no health care, etc.
Now, the federal government does not use the "threshold" to determine who gets help. This is where the "guidelines" come in. As opposed to the Census Bureau's determination of a family of four being poor when they make $19,000/year (in 2002), the federal goverment says that the level qualified for aid is about $500 less than that (for 2003). This means that a family which, say, makes $30,000 a year before taxes, does not qualify to receive aid for their children in the form of Head Start, the Food Stamp Program, the National School Lunch Program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Children's Health Insurance Program -- despite the fact that they only have $800/month to live on for the entire family. There is no way you could afford day care or preschool, health insurance and three square meals a day on that for two children and two adults. Even if the adults went hungry, it wouldn't work.
There is absolutely NO reason why this country should have people unable to afford basic life needs for themselves and their children. I was very generous in my calculations by using the assumption that these families are able to attain affordable housing and costs. Most families are unable to do this. Thus, the cost of living is a much higher percentage of the lower income family's pay than it is for the higher income family. As the Kids Count report concludes:
... paying more simply because your income is low
is a practice that is out of sync with our country's
core values...
If we are truly to deliver on the fundamental promise
that hard work, self-sacrifice, and prudent investment
are the building blocks of economic security, then we
must promote approaches that demonstrate a new
national seriousness about leveling the cost of living
for low-income families.
These aren't the people that fatten the coffers of presidents and presidential candidates. These are the people that make it possible for presidents and presidential candidates, and the rest of us, to go about our daily lives with the goods and services we have come to expect, require and demand. There is no more significant population of workers and citizens than these people. If the leaders of our government would recognize this and do something about it, the living costs and conditions for the entire country would be better.