A Look at the 2012 American Community Survey Data & Three Cities

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Community Population Survey, in 2012 46.5 million people lived in poverty – 16.1 million of them children. The report showed that Black and Hispanic families continue to have disproportionally higher poverty rates and lower incomes than White families.

While the national data provide a sense of the magnitude of poverty and disparities in the U.S., it is often difficult to imagine what that means for communities. However, the subsequent American Community Survey (ACS) data - which was released today - provides a more detailed look at demographic characteristics in cities and states. 

CSSP believes that place matters and strongly impacts the health, safety, educational and employment opportunities of children and families. We work in a number of communities that face significant challenges due to years of disinvestment, including unemployment, failing schools and housing instability. These communities are trying to take a more comprehensive approach to addressing these issues. The ACS data highlight some of the significant obstacles in place.

• California is one of only three states that has seen an increase in poverty since 2011. In 2012 Fresno, CA – a recipient of Promise Neighborhoods planning grant and a Building Neighborhood Capacity Program (BNCP) grant – faced a poverty rate of 31.5 percent, up from 28.8 percent in 2011. In Fresno, nearly half of all Black residents (47.1 percent), 30.1 percent of Asian residents and 38.1 percent of individuals identifying as Hispanic lived in poverty.
• Though median incomes in the state of Wisconsin remain unchanged in 2012, residents of Milwaukee, WI – a BNCP grant recipient –  continue to experience an unacceptable level of disparity. More than 42 percent of Milwaukee’s children lived in poverty, including 55.2 percent of Black children. An immense gap remained across income levels as the median household income for Black families was $24,994, compared to $45,268 for White families.
• Tennessee’s poverty level in 2012 was not statistically different from the 2011 rate. In Memphis, TN – also a BNCP grant recipient – 28.3 percent of residents lived in poverty including more than a third (33.6 percent) of Black residents and 14.7 percent of White residents. In Memphis 27.1 percent of households relied on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) benefits at some point in 2012. 

The data released today provide a snapshot across several indicators and capture information that can be used to make informed public policy and funding decisions – critically important in the midst of sequester cuts. State and local poverty rates can only be significantly and sustainably reduced if opportunity gaps are addressed. A growing number of communities are learning how to help policymakers better understand what is actually happening in their neighborhoods and the kinds of resources required to address local needs.

2012 Poverty Data: New Data from the U.S. Census on Poverty, Income, and Health Insurance.

Earlier today, the U.S. Census Bureau released the 2012 data on income, poverty, and health insurance coverage. For the second consecutive year, neither the official poverty rate nor the number of people in poverty at the national level were statistically different from the previous year’s estimates—the poverty rate remained at 15 percent – amounting to 46.5 million people living in poverty. While there was not an increase in the poverty rate, the 2012 data still indicated significant racial disparities in both poverty and income. The poverty rates among non-Hispanic Whites and Asians were 9.7 percent and 11.7 percent respectively, while the poverty rates for Blacks and Hispanics were 27.2 percent and 25.6 percent respectively.

Poverty and Income Data Highlights

• The percent of people in deep poverty, with incomes below 50% of the poverty threshold, remained at 6.6 percent from 2011, which is still a substantial increase from the 5.2 percent rate seen in 2006 and 2007 (prior to the recession) and even from the data collected in 1967 where deep poverty was at 4.4 percent.
• The poverty rates for children, those under the age of 18, was 21.8 percent, not statistically different from 2011.
• Median household income in 2012 was $51,017, not statistically different from the 2011 median income of $51,100.

Health Insurance Data Highlights

• The percentage of people without health insurance coverage decreased to 15.4 percent from 15.7 percent between 2011 and 2012, while the number of uninsured people in 2012 was not statistically different from 2011, at 48 million people.
• The percentage and number of people covered by government health insurance increased to 32.6 percent and 101.5 million people in 2012 up slightly from 32.2 percent and 99.5 million people in 2011.
• The percentage of Asians and Hispanics without health insurance decreased from 16.8 percent and 30.1 percent to 15.1 percent and 29.1 percent respectively.
• The percentage of uninsured children decreased from 9.4 percent to 8.9 percent in 2012.

Safety Net Programs

• Unemployment insurance was able to raise 1.7 million people out of poverty in 2012.
• Social Security income helped 15.3 million people aged 65 and older out of poverty in 2012 – if these payments were excluded - it would quadruple the number of elderly people living in poverty.
• The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), while not included in the poverty calculations used for the data today, if considered, would have reduced the number of people in poverty by 4 million people in 2012.
• The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) also reduced the number of children classified as living in poverty in 2012 by 2.9 million children.

The Important Role of Public Policy. Public policy helps create pipelines of educational opportunity and new jobs. It also creates the supports and services that help poor individuals and families while they work toward those opportunities. As evident in the data, the most noticeable statistic changes that occurred in 2012 were in health insurance coverage – with the number of uninsured children dropping from 9.4 percent to 8.9 percent in 2012.  This demonstrates the critical value of policies that make a public investment in children and families. Public investments have proven to have a real impact on reducing poverty – and subsequently improving the quality of life for millions of children and families. Unfortunately, the $85 billion in cuts to supports and services as a result of sequestration are likely to only exacerbate the conditions of poverty and increase the percentage of those living in unacceptable conditions – unable to meet their basic needs.

The Need for a Focus on Equity. The racial disparities in the poverty data indicate that Black and Hispanic families have continued to have disproportionately higher poverty rates and lower incomes compared to White families, which has been consistent for more than three decades. This inequity shows the need for innovative solutions and public investments aimed at supporting real change.  Policy strategies should take into account the existence of disparate opportunities and outcomes—attention to equity creates solutions that best meet the needs of the entire community.

To read CSSP's Statement on the New Poverty Data and Implications for Children and Families please click here.

For more strategies to Ensure Children Grow Up in Safe, Supportive and Economically Successful Families visit PolicyforResults.org.

More from our blog: a primer on poverty measurement and the Census instruments used.

Quality Legal Representation for Parents as a Change Agent in Child Welfare | Guest Blogger! Martha Raimon

Research in child welfare suggests that children do best in their own families and should remain home with their parents whenever possible.  When that is not possible, children should be returned to their families or moved to another permanent home as quickly as possible consistent with safety concerns. Experts understand that children experience trauma when they are removed from their families and separation from family should be a last resort after effective attempts at strengthening the family have not been successful. Too often, due to the structure of child welfare systems and processes, families are unnecessarily separated and for too long.  Adding to the human costs associated with long stays in foster care is the financial burden on states and localities of keeping children in placement. Whether in the context of litigation or on their own initiative, states have invested large sums in new strategies intended to re-tool child welfare agencies to achieve safety, permanency and well being for children, with varying results. 

Less attention has been paid to child welfare court interventions, the twin system to the public child welfare agency, even though all families with children in placement pass through family court. Legal practitioners representing parents have for decades experienced that effective representation plays a critical role in how families succeed in their journey through the child welfare system.  Quality legal representation helps families (1) access necessary services to avoid child placement, (2) advocate for appropriate services required to reunify such as domestic violence counseling and support and regular parent-child visits, and (3) have a voice in court and other important forums where decisions are being made about the future of their family structure. Unfortunately, legal representation for parents is underfunded and far too often fails to consistently provide parents with skilled counsel, resulting in the frequent erosion of family bonds and the unnecessary permanent termination of parental rights.

A few model programs have emerged in the past decade that provide quality legal representation to parents in or at risk of foster care placement.  These programs operate as multidisciplinary teams that include:

• An attorney who serves as legal counsel in court proceedings and strategizes with the parent about legal options; 
• A social worker who accesses services for the family and helps parents identify their strengths and needs; and  
• A parent advocate who typically has had personal experience with the foster care system, listens without judgment, and provides practical insight and guidance to the parent and assists in communication with family, social service providers, schools and other partners.

Some of these programs have preliminary data demonstrating improved outcomes for children and families and the potential for substantial savings of government funds. 

Two of the parent representation programs that have documented improved outcomes for families are independent nonprofits: New York’s Center for Family Representation (CFR) and the Detroit Center for Family Advocacy (CFA).  CFR represents 80 percent of the parents involved in child welfare proceedings in Manhattan, and approximately 50 percent of the parents in dependency cases in Queens. Data from 2007 shows that more than 50 percent of the children of CFR clients avoided foster care placement altogether. In addition, for those children who entered care, the average length of stay was 4.5 months compared to a statewide average of almost two and a half years. CFR’s re-entry rate (children who return to the foster care system) is approximately 1-3 percent, comparing favorably to New York State’s 15 percent rate of re-entry. Over a third of CFR’s cases were dismissed in 2007, three times as many cases as were dismissed in Manhattan prior to CFR’s grant to become the primary institutional provider for parents in Manhattan. The cost savings are exponential: for CFR to represent one family costs approximately $6,000, almost one fifth less than the $29,000 it costs for one child to live with a foster family  for one year. On the court side, there are far fewer continuances, and judges in Manhattan have said that because CFR attorneys are better prepared and can be relied upon to propose feasible solutions to the court, court orders are better tailored to meet the needs of families. 

The Detroit Center for Family Advocacy serves residents of the Osborn neighborhood in Detroit, Michigan, a neighborhood in which 84 percent of the population is African American and a quarter of the families live in poverty. With a team consisting of a lawyer, social worker and parent advocate, CFA advocates for families so that they can provide for their children without the need for foster care intervention. Since 2009, CFA served approximately 50 families who were being investigated for child abuse and neglect. All 50 cases (involving 112 children) were closed with children residing with a permanent family outside of the child welfare system. 

Washington’s Office of Public Defense (OPD) is a statewide system of parent representation which began as a pilot program in two counties and expanded to two-thirds of the state’s counties. A 2010 program case audit, one of several audits of OPD, found a 39 percent increase in the rate of reunification. The leader of that study, Mark Courtney, wrote “these findings are striking; precious few interventions have been shown to have any positive impact on the lives of children in foster care, let alone impacts of this magnitude.” A more recent evaluation examined the program’s permanency data for over 12,000 children in placement from 2004 to 2007. These data show an 11 percent increase in the rate of reunification, 104 percent increase in adoptions and an 83 percent increase in guardianships in counties with the OPD program as compared to counties without OPD. Most of the children (68%) in the evaluation who attained permanency reunified with their parents. When researchers converted these findings to timeframes they found that adoptions and guardianships in counties with OPD occurred a full year earlier than in counties without OPD. 

The programs described above offer preliminary evidence that providing parents with quality legal representation reduces entry into foster care, time spent in foster care, and leads to quicker permanency for children, whether through reunification or other permanency outcomes. Moreover, the potential for cost savings to states, counties and the federal government is significant. However, funding for these model programs is inconsistent and often unpredictable.  Building on bipartisan efforts to improve outcomes for vulnerable children and families, Representative Gwen Moore introduced the Enhancing the Quality of Parental Legal Representation Act (H.R. 1096) on March 12, 2013.  This Act would provide a modest new source of financial support for parents involved in child welfare proceedings, and increase the probability that plans and decisions about what is best for children will be made with the full participation of vulnerable families. 

For state policymakers – considering ways to support children and their families in contact with the child welfare system is an important way to ensure that families have what they need to provide safe, stable and supportive homes and that children have what they need to thrive.  For results-based policy strategies that support families visit policyforresults. 

SNAP

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP, is the federal anti-hunger program, which helps 45 million low-income Americans a year obtain an adequate diet. As an entitlement, SNAP is available to anyone who qualifies and is extremely important in assisting families during economic downturns. SNAP has experienced a large growth in caseloads since 2007, which demonstrates the need for this program in compensating during temporary periods of unemployment or other financially difficult times.

To be eligible for SNAP, families must meet three criteria:

1)      Monthly income generally must be at or below 130 percent of the poverty line for a three-person family.

2)      Monthly net income, or income after deductions are applied for items such as high housing costs and child care,  must be less than or equal to the poverty line.

3)      Assets must fall below certain limit depending on households with or without an elderly or disabled member.

SNAP assists more than 93 percent of households with incomes below the poverty line and helped to keep 4 million people out of poverty in 2010. However the average benefit amount an individual receives with SNAP is about $4.46 a day, which alone is not enough for maintaining a nutritious diet. For example, in Washington, D.C. the average cost of a meal is $3.41, so for three meals a day, an individual’s total food cost for the day would be $10.23; SNAP benefits would fall short by $5.77 a day. Other less-nutritious alternatives can be more affordable and accessible, which adversely compromises the health of poor and low-income families. The food insecurity rate in Washington, D.C. is 16.5% which translates to 99,490 people who lack access to enough food. These circumstances are not unique to Washington D.C., to learn about the cost of food and food insecurity in your state- check-out Feeding America’s virtual map. 

Children, the elderly, and the disabled make up 64 percent of total SNAP recipients, demonstrating the importance of the program in preserving the well-being of the most vulnerable. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the proposed $4.5 billion cut to SNAP will reduce a family’s monthly benefit by $90, dropping the average benefit to $2.06 a day. In Washington, D.C., an additional $58,396,850 would be needed to continue to provide support to food insecure people at the current level. CBO also states that an additional component of the proposed food bill would prevent 1.8 million people per year from receiving benefits by reducing categorical eligibility. For state policymakers – considering ways to meet the need of families who are food insecure is an important responsibility.  A strong safety net can prevent an increase in food insecurity and families from going hungry.

State policymakers should consider strategies to bolster the safety net in their states to support struggling families, promote adequate nutrition and prevent hunger.  To learn more about results-based public policies for improving access to affordable healthy foods visit Policy for Results. 

Healthcare Reform in the States

A study conducted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that the states with residents that have the most to gain from the Affordable Care Act – are also those who are the slowest to set up the insurance exchanges required under the health-care overhaul. The report, State Progress Toward Health Reform Implementation: Slower Moving States Have Much to Gain, outlines the projected impact for states as they implement the ACA. The report states that under the ACA, uninsurance rates will decrease in all 50 states and in Washington, D.C., contributing to a national decline of 24 million nonelderly uninsured individuals.

There are resources available that offer information on Affordable Care Act implementation providing both practical guidance as well as information about what is happening in states across the country. These resources are important tools because the successful implementation of the Affordable Care Act is instrumental in the policies effectiveness. One such resource, KidsWell is a state and national effort aimed at ensuring the successful implementation of health care reform on behalf of children. The goal of the KidsWell campaign is to sustain a multi-tiered, highly coordinated network of national, state and local partners working collectively to represent the perspectives of children. KidsWell has tools for successful state implementation of the ACA, state specific and national resources, state profiles, updates on what’s happening at the federal and state level and funding information.

The Impact of the Recession on Children

The Brookings Institution’s Julia Isaacs recently published a report on the impact of the recession on children, The Recession’s Ongoing Impact on America’s Children: Indicators of Children's Economic Well-Being Through 2011. The report asserts that the impact of the recession on children can be hard to see; in part because some economic statistics do not include children (such as the unemployment rate) while others come out after a long time delay (the poverty rate). In order to get a sense of the economic well-being of children during and following the recession, Isaacs’ report tracks three state-by-state indicators: children with an unemployed parent, individuals receiving nutrition assistance benefits, and child poverty.

Isaacs’ report found that “many families have at least one parent out of work, are turning to SNAP benefits to put food on the table, and/or have cash income less than the poverty threshold ($17,000 per year for a family of three). Two of these three indicators are worse in 2011 than in 2010, indicating a continued deterioration in children’s economic well-being.” However Isaacs’ found that “one positive trend is that the number of children with an unemployed parent in 2011 is lower than a year ago” but goes on to state that “SNAP caseloads continue to rise, and child poverty is also is rising.”

For policymakers this work provides great context for the ongoing debates over federal and state budgets. As state policymakers engage in these debates and address issues of government size and spending, and the appropriate balance of spending cuts and tax increases to address budget deficits, it is important to consider that many families with children have not yet recovered from the recession and are in greater need of government supports and services than they would be in normal economic times.

For results-based policy strategies for difficult economic times visit the Policymakers’ Corner on PolicyforResults.org.

Public Safety and Public Spending: Asking the Wrong Question?

A Brookings Institution issue brief, More Prisoner Versus More Crime is The Wrong Question, by Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig addresses whether or not the debate around criminal justice has been framed by a false choice. The brief states that framing the incarceration debate as a tradeoff between public safety and public finance is far too narrow – and that in fact the best evidence suggests the prison population would be substantially reduced with negligible effects on crime rates.

The brief states that the research community has made significant gains in identifying the causal effects of crime-related policies, and establishing proven alternatives to prison for controlling crime. The recommendations listed in the report include:

• The resources currently dedicated to supporting long prison sentences should be reallocated to produce swifter, surer, but more moderate punishment. This approach includes hiring more police officers -we know now that chiefs using modern management techniques can make effective use of them.
• Increased alcohol excise taxes reduce not only alcohol abuse but also the associated crime at very little cost to anyone except the heaviest drinkers. Federal and state levies should be raised.
• Crime patterns and crime control are as much the result of private actions as public. The productivity of private-security efforts and private cooperation with law enforcement should be encouraged through government regulation and other incentives.
• While convicts typically lack work experience and skills, it has proven very difficult to increase the quality and quantity of their licit employment through job creation and traditional training, either before or after they become involved with criminal activity. More effective rehabilitation (and prevention) programs seek to develop non-academic ("social-cognitive") skills like self-control, planning, and empathy.
• Adding an element of coercion to social policy can also help reduce crime, including threatening probationers with swift, certain and mild punishments for illegal drug use, and compulsory schooling laws that force people to stay in school longer.

In an economic climate that requires an increased focus on making both effective and cost efficient policy decisions – informing policy with research is an important tool. It is ever more important to ask the right questions – in order to ensure that public policy is leading to the desired outcomes for children, families and community. Public safety is an important part of ensuring communities are places where children and families can thrive – and the policy decisions that can achieve that aim are much broader than are often addressed. By reviewing the research and making decisions that are both effective and cost efficient policymakers can address problems in ways that might allow for investment in other needed areas.

For state policy guidance that is grounded in research and based on today’s economic realities visit the Policymakers’ Corner on PolicyforResults.org.