Social Work and Poverty

Introduction

 

Public’s Perception of Poverty

While I was researching the topic of poverty and all that it entails, I realized that there are so many different definitions of poverty.  The first set of definitions refers to “material need”: (1) poverty as a specific need; (2) poverty as a pattern of deprivation; and (3) poverty as a low standard of living.  There are a lot of families that cannot afford essential needs that promote personal development, personal health, personal safety, etc.  There are different types of poverty, which really boils down to the amount of time an individual or family has been living in poverty.  Some fall into poverty for a little while, some live in poverty for a period of time, and some live in poverty for a majority of their lives. 

 

The second set of definitions refers to “economic circumstances”: (1) poverty as a lack of circumstances; (2) poverty as economic distance; and (3) poverty as economic class.  People are perceived as poor if they do not have the resources (money) to obtain the resources they need.  In the economy that we live in today, there is a huge competition for things such as affordable and safe housing and adequate and livable wages. 

 

The third and final set of definitions refers to “social relationships”: (1) social class; (2) dependency; (3) social exclusion; and (4) lack of entitlement.  Due to the public’s perceptions of poverty, “the poor” are often classified as a class of individuals who live on welfare benefits.  Sadly, some argue that “the poor are uneducated individuals dependent on welfare mugging and drug dealing.”   The first assumption surrounding the link between poverty and dependency relies on the popular beliefs about how benefits work, who receives them, and what happens when “poor people” get them.  Benefits are believed to support poor people but we know, as social workers, that that is not just the case.  Yes, benefits support poor people but not JUST poor people.  This is a huge misconception. There are different programs that provide assistance and support to individuals for different reasons.  They can benefit the young, the middle-aged, the elderly, the physically handicapped, etc.  The second assumption is that poor people are dependent on the money.  Some Americans strongly believe that individuals should take responsibility for themselves.  The idea that poor people are trapped in dependency has three main components: (1) they are dependent, (2) they are trapped in their dependency, and (3) they have learned dependent behavior as a result.

 

 

 Responses to Poverty

 

“Never, never, be afraid to do what’s right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake.  Society’s punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way.”

-Martin Luther King, Jr.


 

There have been many responses about how to end poverty, especially among the helping professions.  The first response is based on the idea of “poor relief.”  The idea of poor relief surrounds the notion that if individuals or families are in need, they can be given basic necessities like clothing, food, or shelter.  It also surrounds the notion that if they lack financial resources, then they can be given money and other resources that will help them in their low economic position.  The second response is based on the idea of social protection.  Social protection can be offered through general provisions of social services.  This type of response is thought to provide safety nets for individuals who are aging, sick, handicapped, or unemployed.  Despite these circumstances being at times predictable, some individuals who fall into such categories run the risk of living in poverty if services are not in place to assist them.  The third response is strategic intervention.  This common form of intervention is the selection of a specific approach or measurement, intended to respond to certain significant characteristics of poverty.  The fourth response is prevention.  The response focuses on stopping “poor people” from becoming “poor” in the first place.  This is a difficult task because there are numerous reasons why individuals and families find themselves in poverty at one point or another in their lives.  Social workers and individuals in the working professions can assist in the fight to end poverty… Whether it be advocating for the voiceless, pushing legislature and policy changes, or creating programs that focus on the different aspects of poverty. 

 

 

 

Minimum Wage

MINIMUM WAGE

 
Brief Overview of the Nature and Causes of the Problem with the Minimum Wage

The Fair Minimum Wage Act (H.R. 1010) is a critically important issue that has been debated on both the national and state-level.  The price of food, housing, transportation, clothes, and other basic needs have risen but yet the minimum wage has not, which has resulted in an increase in the gap between the poor and middle class.  The stagnation of the minimum wage has also increased the dependence on government services such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP) and Medicaid.  Millions of families are trapped in a cycle of poverty.   Several states have raised their minimum wage above the federal minimum wage.

 

 

 

Brief History of the Problem with the Minimum Wage

The minimum wage was established by Congress in the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was passed in1938.  At this time, the minimum wage was $0.25 per hour.  When the minimum wage was established, policymakers did not expect the minimum wage to be the only source of household income or wage support for adequate living for an entire family.  The intended purpose of the minimum wage was to provide a wage for inexperienced workers who could not access higher pay in the labor market, more specifically young people.  Since its introduction, Congress has increased the value of minimum wage and coverage of minimum wage several times since. 

 

 

 

 Policy Responses to the Problem with the Minimum Wage

President Barack Obama
 
“Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better.  But average wages have barely budged.  Inequality has deepened.  Upward mobility has stalled.  The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by – let alone get ahead.  And too many still aren’t working at all…. Opportunity is who we are.  And the defining project of our generation is to restore that promise.”

 

 

In President Obama’s State of the Union Address in 2014, he discussed the fact that a parent who makes minimum-wage, works full time and year round, still does not earn enough to be over the federal poverty line.  President Barack Obama suggested that Congress raise the federal minimum wage for working Americans in stages to $9 by the end of 2015 and index it to inflation in the years that follow.  The implementation of President Obama’s suggested minimum wage increase could:

1.        Reward work and ensure a decent living for working families

2.        Help create a stronger middle class

3.        Help parents raise their families and provide basic needs for their families

 

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.)

They offered a policy response for increasing the minimum wage.  The proposed the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 (FMWA).  This proposal would raise minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 in 3 annual increments and then index to inflation.  In 2014, the minimum wage would increase to $8.20.  In 2015, the minimum wage would increase to $9.15 and in 2016 the minimum wage would increase to $10.10.  For the years after 2016, the FMWA would index the minimum wage to inflation to maintain purchasing power.  The FMWA proposal would also raise subminimum wage paid for workers who receive tips.  These workers are for example, waitresses or airport workers who assists travelers with bags. 

 

Effects and Implications of Policy Responses to Minimum Wages

Intended Consequences: Economic Policy Institute (EPI)

One study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) concluded four main areas that would be impacted by and benefit from an increase in the minimum wage.  Many of these areas relate to the intended consequences of the policy changes:

1.         Workers who are viewed as both the intended and intended targets of the policy changes would be affected

2.        Raising the minimum wage is an effective tool for economic growth

 

Intended Consequences: National Employment Law Project (NELP)

A second study conducted by the NELP conclude that an increase in the minimum wage will have a positive impact on working families, local businesses, and state economies. First, they argued that impact on working families would be significant because working families today are relying more on low-wage jobs to make ends meet.  Second, the NELP concluded that an increase in minimum wage will help restore the consumer spending that strengthens our economy and businesses.  They believe that increasing the minimum wage may play a crucial role in stabilizing our economy and allowing local businesses to expand and create jobs

 

Unintended Consequences: Areas of Possible Employer Adjustments

1.        Reduction of workers hours

2.        Reductions in non-wage benefits

3.        Changes in employment composition

4.        Creation of efforts to improve efficiency

5.        Wage compression

6.        Increase in demand

7.        Reduction in turnover rate

 

Taking into consideration both sides of the subject, a strong wage policy could result in less income inequality, a stronger middle class, a prosperous economy, increase self-sufficiency and personal autonomy.

                 

 

Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

Top Children's Health Coverage Myths:

1. Working families can afford coverage.
a. 2001: employed-sponsored health insurance premiums for families have increased by 80%.


2. Uninsured children would have coverage if their parents worked.
a. Almost 90 percent of uninsured children live in families where at least one parent works.


3. It’s expensive to provide health coverage to children.
a. Children are far less expensive to cover that adults and the most cost-efficient investment we can make in healthcare.

 

4. Children don’t need health coverage because they are healthy.
a. They need regular preventive care to ensure healthy growth and development.
b. Unmet health and mental health needs can result in children failing behind developmentally and having trouble catching up, physically, emotionally, socially, and academically.


5. The United States health system may have problems but it’s not broken.
a. Although the United States spends the highest amount of money per person on health care, our children’s health fares poorly compared to other wealthy countries
b. Among industrialized nations, we rank first in health expenditures, but 22nd in low birth weight rates, 23rd in life expectancy and 27th in infant mortality rates.
c. About two-thirds of the more than 8 million uninsured children are currently eligible for either Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) or Medicaid but are not enrolled largely due to state bureaucratic barriers.


6. Parents can easily get health care for their children.
a. State barriers make it very difficult for parents to secure needed health coverage for their eligible children.
b. That’s why about 6 million children who qualify for government health coverage through Medicaid or CHIP do not get it.


7. All pregnant women have health coverage.
a. There are about 800,000 uninsured pregnant women in America. They receive less prenatal care and face greater risks for expensive and tragic outcomes including maternal complications, low birth weight babies, and even infant.


8. All children can get government health coverage it their families don’t have private insurance.
a. The recent expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) will leave approximately 5-6 million children uninsured and millions more underinsured.


9. Uninsured children can access the healthcare they need at the emergency room.
a. Relying on emergency rooms for health care can result in worse health outcomes for children and higher costs to the community.


10. Children can get coverage through their parents’ employer.
a. Health coverage under employer-sponsored insurance has declined. Some businesses have dropped coverage for workers and their families while others only cover the workers, but not their children.
b. Enrolling uninsured children in programs requires extensive costly outreach.





Brief Overview: Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP - Youtube: CHIP)

Millions of children in lower income families remain uninsured due in large part to the high cost of health coverage. Therefore, in 1997, Congress created the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to sit on the shoulders of Medicaid for children in families with slightly higher income levels. As with Medicaid, each state was given the flexibility to design its CHIP program within broad federal parameters on income eligibility, benefits, and enrollment procedures.



In 2009, Congress reauthorized CHIP and expanded the program to cover more uninsured children. This renewal also included some important improvements for children, including eliminating the 5 year waiting period for legal immigrant children eligible for the program and grants for outreach and enrollment activities to help enroll eligible but uninsured children. Subsequently, Congress passed the landmark health reform legislation in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Affordable Care Act), which will maintain CHIP through 2019, with fully funding the program through 2015 – doubling the number of eligible children who can be served from 7 to 14 million.




CHIP benefits for children differ by state, but in general, enrolled children are eligible for a fairly comprehensive set of services, including routine doctor visits, immunizations, dental and vision care, hospitalizations, and laboratory and x-ray services, but not the full set of medically necessary services that children in Medicaid and Medicaid-expansion CHIP programs are entitled to.

 

The “Culture of Poverty”: Different Definitions and Perceptions

Introduction:

This blog is inspired by Paul Ryan's view on poverty and culture.  I was interested in exploring other definitions and perceptions about the "culture of poverty."  This are a few alternative views that I have pulled from numerous books on poverty. 



Paul Ryan on Poverty and Culture:

“We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.”

Poverty: American Style by Herman Miller (1966)

Miller viewed the “culture of poverty” as a vicious cycle.  He states that “Poverty breeds poverty.  A poor individual or family has a high probability of staying poor.  Low incomes carry with them high risks of illness; limitations of mobility; limited access to education, information, and training.  Poor parents cannot give their children opportunities for better health and education needed to improve their lot.  Lack of motivation, hope, and incentive is a more subtle but no less powerful barrier than lack of financial means.”

 

Poverty: People Are Poor Through Their Own Behavior and Bad Choices by Blake Bailey (2003); Pg. 116

Bailey’s viewpoint on the “culture of poverty” is focusing the idea that people are poor because of their behaviors and bad life choices.  She sates “Among those who finish high school, get married, have children only within a marriage and go to work, the odds of long-term poverty are virtually nil.”

 

Poverty by Ruth Lister (2004); Pg. 106

In talking about interventions of social workers and other professionals to support and control “problem families,” she quotes American anthropologist Oscar Lewis’ definition of “culture of poverty (1967):”  He defined “culture of poverty” as a subculture with its own structure and rationale, as a way of life which is passed down from generation to generation along family lines.  He also says that this subculture was driven by a set of values, attitudes and beliefs different from those held by the majority.  Lewis emphasized that the culture’s “considerable pathology should not obscure its function as “an adaption and a reaction to the poor to their marginal position” in unequal capitalist societies.  He wrote of poor families’ “fortitude, vitality, resilience, and ability to cope with problems which would paralyze many middle-class individuals.”

 

American Experience: Poverty in American by Catherine Reef (2007); Pg. 195

In her chapter titled, The War on Poverty and Its Aftermath 1962-1980, she writes about the “culture of poverty.”  She writes “The culture of poverty seemed to flourish wherever conditions were right for it, in regions separated geographically from mainstream society, in urban slums and rural pockets, and among different nationalities.  The conditions for a “culture of poverty” included an economy in which people worked for wages and goods were produced for profit; chronically high unemployment or underemployment among unskilled laborers; low wages; a lack of social, political, and economic organization in the low-income population; and a prevailing belief that poverty result from personal shortcomings… Members of this subculture were likely to have low levels of literacy and education and to live in substandard housing, in crowded conditions, and in communities that lacked organization.”

 

The Colors of Poverty: Why Racial and Ethnic Disparities Persist edited by Ann Lin and David Harris (2008); Pgs. 79-90

Lin and Harris In their subsection titled, Culture and Poverty Today, discuss 6 ways that culture has been conceived/examined:

1.        Culture as Frames:

a.        Sociologists traditionally assume that no one simply see things as they are.  Instead, every individuals’ perception of the social world - of social relations, the class system, the neighborhood, organizations - is filtered through cultural frames that highlight certain aspects and hide or block others. 

2.        Culture as Repertoires:

a.        Scholars conceived culture as a repertoire of practices, beliefs, and attitudes that individuals call fourth at the time of action.  “Culture influences action not by providing the ultimate values toward which action is oriented but by shaping a repertoire or ‘tool kit’ lf habits, skills, and styles from which people construct ‘strategies of action.’”

3.        Culture as Narratives:

a.        Narrative in this instance refers to people’s development of understanding of themselves, their environment, and others that shape their actions.  This approach speculates that when faced with two courses of action concerning, for instance, their project of social mobility, individuals are more likely to pursue one more consistent with their personal narrative, rather than one that might seem rational to an outsider.

4.        Culture as Symbolic Boundaries:

a.        Symbolic boundaries are conceptual boundaries between objects, people, and practices that operate as a system of rules that guide interacting affecting who comes together to engage in what social act.  Boundaries distinguish between who are worthy and those who are less so forth.  These boundaries are believed to reveal how individuals implicitly and explicitly characterize members of various classes, and particularly what they view as the characteristics and flaws of groups, including the poor.   

5.        Culture as Cultural Capital:

a.        Cultural capital refers to the “institutionalized, widely shared, high status cultural signals” used to exclude others in various contexts.  This concept has become widely used as an analytical device to understand how differences in lifestyles and taste contribute to the reproduction of inequality.  It illuminates how middle and upper-middle class adults pass on advantages to their children, mostly familiarizing them with cultural habits and orientations valued by the educational systems.  One question raised is whether or not various types of capital operate in different environments, and whether women, ethnic groups, the poor, or the working class have autonomous understandings of what counts are cultural capital.   

6.        Culture as Institution:

a.        Institutions can be loosely defined as formal or informal rules, procedures, routines, and norms, as socially constructed shared cognitive and interpretive schemas, or more narrowly yet, as formal organizations.  In all of the definitions, they enable or constrain shared definitions and experiences of race, class, gender, which in turn affect poverty. 

 

 

Where Do I Begin?...

Introduction

Not really knowing where to start, I logged onto the internet and began my research on poverty. My purpose for writing my first blog for my social welfare class was initially to explore poverty as a whole, find statistics, common arguments, myths, and stereotypes, and delve into the unknown. Little did I know that I would find a little girl’s powerful and heart wrenching story (written by Andrea Elliot) that would shift my entire blog post to exploring children living in poverty?  The purpose of this blog is to examine Dasani's story, children and poverty as a whole, the affects of poverty on children, and why it is important to address.  

Who is the Girl in the Shadows?

"She wakes to the sound of breathing.  The smaller children lie tangled beside her, their chests rising and falling under winter coats and wool blankets.  A few feet away, their mother and father sleep near the mop bucket they use as a toilet.  Two other children share a mattress by the rotting wall where the mice live, opposite the baby, whose crib is warmed by a hair dryer perched on a milk crate."

Dasani is an 11-year old girl, who lives in New York with her family of nine. They are homeless and stay at the Auburn Family Residence, which is city-run shelter for the homeless. Dasani is among 280 children at the shelter. Her mother and father are unemployed, have a history of arrests, and are battling drug addiction. She attends dance classes a few times a week. She attends school but often loses focuses due to the emptiness of her stomach.  Despite her hunger, family life, and uncertainty of her future, she is still able to keep up with her school work without even trying. She believes that the sky is the limit and she has endless possibilities. She is also adamant about not living the life of drugs and poverty that her parents have lived and are living now.

What About Children and Poverty?

Sadly, Dasani’s story is not unique. Some 46 million Americans live in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). It is 3rd highest poverty rate among developed nations, ahead of Turkey and Mexico.   More than 16 million children live in the United States.  22% of those children live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level.  That's roughly one in five American children that are now living in poverty, giving the United States the highest child poverty rate of any developed nation except for Romania.  According to the National Center For Children in Poverty, on average families need an income of about twice the level to cover basic expenses.  Using this standard, 45% of children live in low-income families.

How Does Poverty Affect Children?

Many families that are living in poverty cannot afford a lot of healthy foods.  Poor diets results in vitamin deficiencies, which can cause long-lasting neurological deficits when untreated.  Many families living in poverty may also stay or live in a place that had lead-based paint.  Lead poisoning, also common in children living in poverty, can adversely impact brain function. Asthma, also much more prevalent in the low-income population, can also interfere with learning. Many poor children must also cope with environmental stresses that impact their schooling. Homeless students face the greatest challenges for they lack the basic securities that allow for them to concentrate on their studies during and after the school day. Homeless children are more likely than other children to be held back a grade.

Why is it important?

Individuals, especially children, need to know that they are more than their poverty.  Young children are unable to provide for themselves so they must depend on their families to do so. The rise in child poverty, therefore, reflects the rise in the inequality of their parents’ earnings.  I think one way to combat child poverty is to start with policy.


Another great video on children and poverty: 

Poor Kids of America

The Face of Poverty

Poverty in the United States has many faces today…“For a homeless man on the Streets of Los Angeles, it means not knowing where he will spend the night or where his next meal will come from.  For a young child in rural Alabama, it means going without breakfast and wearing hand-me-down clothes that are little more than rags.  For a New York businesswoman laid off by her company, being poor means having no income and feeling a rising sense of panic over finding a job.  For a teen in the suburbs of Cleveland, it means giving up the dream of college to search for work and help support a struggling family.”

Introduction:
What if I told you that in 2012, the official poverty rate was 15.0%?   That’s about 46.5 million people living in poverty.  This rate is 2.5% points higher than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession.  What is I told you that research indicates that 40% of Americans between the ages of 25 and 60 will experience at least one year below the official poverty line?  Today, poverty has become an event that a majority of Americans will experience.  For some, it is only a matter of time before they experience poverty for some period of time.  For many, a loss of a job, hours being cut back, families splitting up or parents getting divorced, and developing an illness could be the only thing that a family needs to be thrown into poverty.  The purpose of this blog is to examine a topic that is surrounded by many debates, misconceptions, and stereotypes: poverty.  I have divided this blog into three categories: the old face of poverty, the new face of poverty, and the changing face of poverty.

The Old Face of Poverty

They are many myths and stereotypes surrounding the topic of poverty.  The old face of poverty was disproportionately young children, minorities, elderly individuals, disabled individuals, mentally ill individuals, criminals, and females.   Most groups and subgroups of people in living poverty did not show a statistically significant change.  Poverty among children has risen, fallen, and risen again. Today, of the 100 million Americans living at or near the poverty line, 70% are women (42 million) and children.  Poverty among African Americans is still twice the rate for whites, but it’s dropped from 41% after President Johnson’s “War on Poverty” to 27% in 2012.  Poverty among Hispanics has risen.  More than half of the 22 million person increase in official poverty between 1972 and 2012 was among Hispanics.  Poverty among the elderly has fallen.  They are far fewer elderly (over the age of 65) individuals who are poor today. In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor but in 2012, only 9.1% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor. 

The New Face of Poverty

Today, the face of poverty has shifted.  Some of the most prevalent and damaging stereotypes still exist today. These include but are not limited to individuals who live in poverty are “lazy, unskilled, stupid, prefer poverty, and uneducated.”   However, among those living in poverty today are college educated, former middle-class worker, suburbanite and the homeowner.  Today, being poor doesn’t mean being unemployed.  Many individuals are finding themselves working lower skilled and waged jobs. More than 5% of the workforce works 2 jobs to make ends meet but they still live in poverty.  More than half (57%) of the nation’s poor are in their prime working years.  Many individuals suggests that the “new poor” of the 20^th century are entirely different from the poor in the 19^th century because few opportunities for advancement exists. 

Also, family structures are very different than they were many years ago.  More and more families are finding themselves living at or below the poverty line, today.  Some families are living paycheck to paycheck, just to make ends meet.  11.2% of households, more than 1 in 10, say they struggle to feed themselves.  The US Census Bureau reported that 88% of low income, working families include a parent 25-54 years old.  In 1973, more than half (51.4%) of poor families were female-headed, while 38.9% were headed by married couples.  In 2012, the family poverty rate and number of families in poverty were 11.8 % (9.5 million).  In 2012: 6.3% of married couples, 30.9 % of families with female householder, and 16.4% of families with a male householder lived in poverty.  As evident from the statistics, having a two-parent household with both parents working full-time does not guarantee absolute stability.  Suburban poverty is currently higher than urban poverty.  In 2008, researchers argued the opposite.

 The Changing Face of Poverty
Researchers argue the face of poverty is the result of policy choices or the absence of policy.  The fact that the face of poverty is changing is very significant. It is evident that there has been a lot of work done (example: Social Security, Food Stamps, Earned-Income Tax) that has helped individuals and families stay out of poverty.  But I believe that more needs to be done.  For starters, I think the way in which we measure poverty needs to be reexamined.  There are a lot of things that it does not take into consideration.  This changes could make a huge difference in the composition of poverty.  Changing the way we look and measure poverty could potentially change the face of poverty even more.