The Impact of the Government Shutdown on Children and Families

While the government shutdown is well into its second week, it is important to keep in mind the devastating consequences that are continuing to impact the most vulnerable children and families. Though programs that directly ensure public health and safety have avoided the spending freeze, including Medicaid and Social Security, most of the programs that are affected are still vital supports and services that help sustain young women and children, low-income families, and the elderly.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which provides temporary financial assistance to help pregnant women and families pay for food, shelter, utilities, and expenses other than medical costs, has stopped awarding new funds, however states have the option to continue providing benefits with state dollars. Since TANF provides significant services in addition to cash assistance, such as GED preparation, vocational training, postsecondary education, vocational rehabilitation, help with child care, work stipends, job retention services and more, discontinuing the program during the shut-down – particularly if it continues for much longer - would be a devastating for families in need.

Head Start programs will also be affected by the shutdown—a total of 23 programs serving 19,000 children will be affected as their grants begin to expire. Those cuts are in addition to the 57,000 children pushed of Head Start as a result of the sequester, on top of a $400 million mandatory cut to the program nationwide. The longer the shutdown continues, the more Head Start programs and young children will be adversely impacted.

Implications of the government shutdown to nutrition programs are equally alarming. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps over 47 million low-income Americans, will continue providing benefits, but only until the end of October. States have the option of continuing the SNAP program through 2014, but the $2 billion available for contingency funds that would be used to compensate the loss of funding would not be enough to support the program in the long-term, since SNAP provides about $6 billion in support to families per month.

The Special, Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which assists over 9 million at-risk mothers, infants, and young children in accessing healthy food, nutrition information, and health referrals, will also continue until the end of October. Like SNAP, most states have funds to continue WIC for a week or so, but the program won’t be able to continue for very long, with emergency funds running out by the end of the month.

The impact on supplemental nutrition programs is also impacting the elderly. Senior Nutrition Programs have stopped as a result of the shutdown. The Department of Health and Human Services can no longer fund Meals on Wheels, which provides more than one million home-delivered meals to seniors who need them each day. This crucial service has also been impacted by the sequester, which is discussed in this previous post.

The government shutdown is risking the basic supports and services low-income families need to survive. Although there are emergency funds to continue certain programs in the meantime, the long-term consequences will be harmful and widespread. State policymakers should use their discretion to continue the programs that can provide supports and services to vulnerable families; however, the only sustainable solution is for the government to go back to work in serving children and their families as soon as possible to minimize the impact.

Poverty and the Brain

Recent findings show that living in poverty, and the mental strains associated, can impede proper brain functioning. A series of experiments run by researchers at Princeton, Harvard, and the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom concluded that living in poverty can tax the cognitive abilities of anyone experiencing it and that those cognitive abilities return when the burden of poverty disappears. In essence, the research found that poverty imposes such a substantial burden that people living under those circumstances have difficulty making important decisions.

Previously released studies showed a correlation between poverty and “counterproductive behavior.” For example, these studies found that the poor are less likely to have preventative health care, fail to adhere to drug regimens, are tardier, and less likely to keep appointments. These behaviors can deepen poverty; however, previous explanations have only focused on the impact of environmental conditions as an explanation—predatory lenders in poor communities may create high interest rate borrowing, and unreliable transportation can cause tardiness and absenteeism. Other studies have focused on what they deemed the “characteristics of the poor,” for example lower levels of formal education that can create misunderstandings about contract terms, and less parental attention that may influence the parenting style of the next generation.

The research recently conducted at Princeton, Harvard, and Warwick is dedicated to a different explanation of poverty, one which focuses on the mental processes required for living in impoverished conditions. Their findings suggest a strong relationship between poverty and mental functioning. The poor must deal with having an inconsistent stream of income, juggle expenses, and are often forced to make difficult compromises, and these everyday occurrences can be distracting. Constant worries about budgetary concerns diminish the cognitive resources available to make thoughtful choices and actions-restricting the ability of people living in poverty to provide full consideration to problems that arise. The findings show that the mental burden of poverty is equivalent to losing 13 IQ points, which is the same as losing an entire night of sleep and is comparable to the cognitive difference observed between chronic alcoholics and “normal” adults.

As the report states, “Being poor means coping with not just a shortfall of money, but also with a concurrent shortfall of cognitive resources.” The importance of this research indicates that the problems associated with the poor are not actually within poor people themselves, but with anyone who finds themselves living in poverty. These findings have important policy implications—policymakers should create strategies and solutions that reduce and avoid cognitive taxes on the poor. Policies focused on alleviating poverty through raising the minimum wage as California recently did, help to address some of the institutional factors impacting poor families across the country. Other policies, which mitigate the effects of poverty, such as food assistance and health care are also ways to assist families trying to make ends meet.

In response to the recently released poverty data, it is important to keep in mind how many people are living within these conditions. Federal budget issues such as the maintained sequester cuts, totaled at a reduction of $986.3 billion in overall discretionary funding, are detrimental to the families that depend on these supports and services to survive.  This not only impacts parents and their children financially – but also cognitively.

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.

Where we are now 50 years later--The March on Washington

The 50^th Anniversary of the March on Washington that took place last Wednesday highlighted significant areas of progress, while also drawing attention to the advancements that still need to be made. Although there are many reasons to celebrate, including equal access to public accommodations, laws against racial discrimination and employment and African American voting rights as a result of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the hard economic goals of the march that were critical to transforming the life opportunities of African Americans have not entirely been achieved.

In fact, there are growing economic divides, and despite the important protections established through the law, discrimination has taken new forms. Fifty years after the march, and 45 years after the passage of the Fair Housing Act, major banks still discriminate on the basis of race through predatory practices and lending activities. For example, an investigation into the nation’s largest home mortgage lender, found that the bank charged higher fees and rates to more than 30,000 minority borrowers across the country than they had to white borrowers who posed the same credit risk. Another concern related to housing can be seen when you look at the population in homeless shelters. African Americans make up 40 percent of the population living in homeless shelters, while comprising of only 13 percent of the U.S. population.

The inequality extends to other areas of financial security – including other types of assets and income. In the last 30 years, there has been no significant progress in closing the gap between the income of African Americans or Hispanics and white Americans. In 2011, the median income for African American families was $40,495, just 58 percent of the median income of white families. By 2009, the median wealth of white families was 20 times that of African American families. The Great Recession also had a disproportionate impact on African Americans—the median wealth among African American households dropped by 53 percent between 2005 and 2009, and the poverty rate increased to 27.6 percent by 2011, 3 times the poverty rate for white households that year at 9.8 percent. About 65 percent of African-American children live in low-income families—45 percent of which live in communities with concentrated poverty, as opposed to 12 percent for white children. Living in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty can significantly impact the lives of children and their families.  Concentrated poverty is closely linked with many social and economic challenges, including behavioral problems in young children, higher crime rates, and environmental hazards that impact health.

Discrimination is also still prevalent in the job market. Research shows that applicants with “African American sounding” names get 50 percent fewer calls for interviews, and are twice as likely to be unemployed. In 2012, the African American unemployment rate was 14.0 percent, 2.1 times the white unemployment rate at 6.6 percent, and even higher than the national unemployment rate during the Great Depression from 1929 to 1939 (13.1 percent). 

Despite being the land of opportunity, many young children growing up in America are dependent on their parents’ income and education to determine the probability of their success into adulthood. Unfortunately, discrimination and lack of education and job opportunity is often persistent from one generation to the next, which limits the opportunities for improving future outcomes. The good news is – there are ways for public policy to begin to address the inequities that still exist. In keeping with the progress that has already been made, improving equitable access to decent housing, maintaining high-quality, integrated education, creating opportunities for equitable early childhood initiatives and creating a federal jobs program for full employment are all policy options aimed at advancing equity. To read the report on The Unfinished March by the Economic Policy Institute, click here. 

The Impact of the Sequester on Head Start

The on-going effects of the federal sequester are continuing to hit low-income children and families the hardest. As a result of the mandatory $400 million cut, Head Start programs this school year will eliminate services for 57,000 children, 1.3 million days from Head Start Center calendars will be cut, and 18,000 employees will have to undergo layoffs and reduced pays. These changes will affect tens of thousands of poor families across the country who rely on Head Start for early learning programs, day care, and a network of social services and medical care.

Some Head Start centers are trying to minimize the impact as much as possible by cutting administrative costs and support services, but the effects are still unfavorable. For example, Head Start in Arlington County, Virginia is reducing their bus services this year, which means that many children will no longer have a reliable form of transportation to make it to class. Other Head Start programs are shortening their school year or the school day. The latest figures show that 18,000 program hours will be cut next year by centers that will start later in the day or end earlier. The cuts also force Head Start programs to lay off staff, reduce hours, and reduce benefits.

While some places are reducing services and staff, most programs have had to completely cut their services to children. In California and Texas, services were cut to 10,000 children combined. Virginia has trimmed nearly 1,200 spots, Maryland cut 460, and D.C. is reducing participants by 100. Nationwide, these cuts compromise 6,000 children in Early Head Start, which is designated for infants and toddlers up to age 3, and another 51,000 in Head Start programs. 

Some locations have been able to use local funds to compensate the drop in federal funding to maintain the level of service, and more affluent communities or outside organizations were able to fill-in for the loss, which is the primary reason why the budget cuts were not as dramatic as the initial projections; however, these solutions are not sustainable.

In addition to the important educational benefits for children in Head Start, the program also allows low-income families a form of quality daycare that they otherwise would not be able to access or afford. The exorbitant costs of daycare force many parents, and mothers in particular, to decide whether or not working is even affordable. Many women cannot be assured of both working and making a decent income after taxes and child care costs. For instance, daycare can cost up to 30% of one income in a two-salary couple and is the greatest expense for low-income households surpassing both food and housing. In New York, costs of daycare can average $25,000-$30,000 per child—higher than the cost of a year of public college.

The effects of sequestration on Head Start programs are devastating for low-income children and families nationwide.  It is essential to keep in mind that public investments in the health, welfare, and education of young children and their families have significant positive returns on investment, but the sequester is clearly eliminating lifelines.

Pathways to Opportunities for Ex-Offenders

When formerly incarcerated individuals reintegrate into the community, they face a number of barriers to employment, education, and access to services. If current trends continue, over half of released inmates are bound to return to prison within three years. To combat this issue, it is essential to reduce and avoid the possibility of recidivism.  One important way to do that is through workforce development and education programs for inmates while in prison.

Research has shown that higher education is directly linked to reducing recidivism rates; however, inmates have extremely limited access to programs that provide education and training. Education increases human capital and improves general cognitive functioning while providing specific skills, and for inmates, it can help to obtain and maintain employment while also deterring criminal activity. Education and training provides ex-offenders with marketable skills essential for employment and dramatically improves their outcomes, so making quality education programs accessible to inmates can minimize the obstacles for ex-offenders during their reintegration – which ultimately leads to safer communities for all of us.

This commentary from Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity highlights the drastic limitations of incarcerated students, especially after their Pell Grant eligibility was removed in 1994—since then, higher education programs dropped from 350 to 8 for inmates nationwide. Up to that point, Pell Grants had been the primary source of funding for higher education programs in correctional facilities. Though some states have been able to provide funding streams to fill the gap, many of the effects are still present and impacting thousands of people who will return to the community.

The removal of Pell Grant eligibility and the deep cuts in education programs increased the already disparate outcome of educational attainment among the incarcerated population. The number of incarcerated individuals receiving postsecondary education in prison dropped by 44%. Only 17% of state and federal prisoners had some level of postsecondary education compared to 51% of the population outside of prison, and only 65% of state and federal prisoners had diplomas or GEDs, compared to 82% of the population. Additionally, 7 out of 10 prisoners who had a GED reported obtaining it while in prison, which demonstrates just how important these programs can be in helping inmates obtain their education.

Another important consideration is that inmates are not the only ones that are affected—the multiple barriers ex-offenders face affect their innocent children and entire families. An important statistic to keep in mind is that 1 in every 28 children in the United States has a parent behind bars, and failed reintegration harm both ex-offenders and their children. Policies to support employment for reintegrating ex-offenders support the well-being and economic success of both generations, as well as do much more to ensure community-wide safety and economic growth.

To read the commentary on Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity, click here.

For more information on Promoting Workforce Strategies for Reintegrating Ex-Offenders – including providing the needed supports and services that help their families thrive - click here and here.

SNAP and the Minimum Wage

Last week the House Budget Committee held a hearing marking the War on Poverty’s 50th anniversary. The testimony provided, and the following discussions, included a wide variety of opinions regarding the effectiveness of safety net programs. Of the heavily debated, SNAP drew a significant amount of attention. Policy for Results has previously posted on the significance of SNAP, but in light of the hearing, here are a few important facts to keep in mind:

• Snap is targeted at the most vulnerable families
• 76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person
• The majority of households have income well below the maximum allowed for eligibility
• SNAP benefits do not last most participants the whole month
• 90% of SNAP benefits are redeemed by the third week of the month
• 58% of recipients currently receiving SNAP benefits turn to food banks for assistance at least 6 months of the year 

Despite the support that SNAP provides to working families, in November, SNAP benefits will be cut for all participants. For families of three, the cut will be $25 to $30 a month—a total of $300 to $360 a year. Nationally, the total cut is estimated to be $5 billion in fiscal year 2014.

The SNAP program is intended to provide supplemental support to families and research shows that it does. However, the statistics also highlight another important factor addressed at last week’s hearing. A majority, 60%, of households receiving SNAP have someone who is employed, and 90% of households receiving SNAP have a family member who finds work within a year. While this demonstrates the importance of what a crucial support the program provides to working families, this also shows the inefficiency of the current minimum wage to provide families with the opportunity to meet their basic needs.

In the past, the federal minimum wage would increase slightly with inflation, helping to keep millions of Americans out of poverty—minimum wage workers who worked full-time and year round earned nearly enough to keep a family of three above the official poverty level. However, since the early 1970s, the minimum wage has fallen significantly – by over 25%. The current minimum wage is $7.25, but the minimum wage in 1968 would have been equivalent to $10 an hour. Even after the 2007-2009 federal increases, the minimum wage remains far too low to sustain working families.

If the minimum wage were to increase to $10.10, a worker currently making $15,000 would earn $20,000 a year—a significant difference for families living in poverty.

Increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 by July 1, 2015, would raise wages for about 30 million workers, who would receive over $51 billion in additional wages over the phase-in period. Women would be disproportionately affected, comprising 56% of those who would benefit from the increase. Around 55% of affected workers currently work full time, more than a quarter are parents, and over a third are married. This would not only dramatically impact these families but would also positively impact the economy - GDP would increase by roughly $32.6 billion, resulting in the creation of approximately 140,000 net new jobs over the phase-in period.

Looking for meaningful solutions for the future, it is essential to maintain safety net programs that can assist the most vulnerable. However, long term solutions have to address the minimum wage. Families working full time should be able to provide their families with their basic needs – and right now they can’t. The research shows that many of the beneficiaries of SNAP are working and are still unable to afford food. To seriously address poverty requires ensuring working families are adequately paid and that when needed, there is a safety net in place to ensure that children and their families can continue to meet their needs.

Extending Medicaid to 26 – A New Policy Brief!

The Center for the Study of Social Policy has released a new policy brief, The Affordable Care Act and Implications for Former Foster Youth, addressing the Medicaid regulations extending coverage until youth turn 26.

As highlighted in the brief, 41% of foster youth between the ages of 18-26 do not have health insurance, while these foster youth are almost more than twice as likely to struggle with mental health problems and have significantly higher rates of health needs in general. Despite the understandable need for easier access to healthcare, foster youth have fewer options in comparison to their peers. Medicaid is essential in providing the necessary care and insurance to foster youth as they transition into adulthood.

To better address the needs of children in foster care, provisions in the Affordable Care Act, and the corresponding regulations, extend Medicaid to former foster youth until age 26. To qualify for the extension of Medicaid, the youth must have been in foster care at the time of their 18^th birthday, or have aged out of foster care based on their states’ age limits, and have been enrolled in Medicaid. These current Medicaid regulations require foster youth living within the state to receive eligibility for extended coverage.  However, coverage is important no matter where a young person grows up – so while it is only an option to provide coverage to youth who move from another state – it serves as an important support to these youth. 

The brief provides recommendations to states to maximize the health of children formerly in their care, including:

1. Elect the option to provide Medicaid coverage to former foster youth in different states.
2. Create an automatic enrollment process for youth prior to aging out of care.
3.  Implement a one-time Medicaid eligibility determination until the age of 26.
4.  Engage former foster youth and child welfare workers in designing an outreach campaign to identify successful outreach strategies in hopes of increasing the number of youth who enroll under this provision.
5. Select the most appropriate managed care program, instead of automatic enrollment for state-selected plans, for foster youth when possible.
6. Educate all child welfare agency representatives about the process of enrollment and to implement integrated care models, such as Health Homes.
7. Work with Medicaid agencies to coordinate enrollment eligibility of former foster youth even after the age of 26.

Medicaid provides a concrete support for young people transitioning into adulthood. To learn more about concrete supports that help youth to thrive, please read CSSP’s brief on Concrete Supports in Times of Need. For more results-focused policy strategies for children, youth and their families visit PolicyforResults.

The Importance of Medicaid

Medicaid is crucial in supporting low-income households in obtaining healthcare coverage and provides health insurance to nearly 60 million children and families. Since Medicaid has strict rules for eligibility, the expansion of Medicaid benefits those who had not been previously eligible for any type of affordable health coverage. Under the current eligibility requirements, state Medicaid programs must cover children under the age of 6 living in families with incomes below 133% of the federal poverty level and children ages 6-18 with family incomes below 100% of the FPL. However, states can decide whether or not to extend eligibility further. For example, states must cover children up to 18 years of age, but have the option to cover 19 and 20 year olds. In addition, states must provide coverage to pregnant women with family incomes below 133% of the FPL and parents with incomes below 50% of the FPL, but have the option to provide coverage to these groups above the minimums.

Adults who are not disabled, pregnant, or elderly, and have no minor children generally have been excluded from Medicaid.  In the past, to extend Medicaid to these adults, states had to receive a waiver and could not receive additional federal Medicaid funds for this coverage; instead, states needed to redirect existing federal Medicaid funds or create program savings to offset the cost of the coverage.  As a result, the expansion of Medicaid will cover an additional 22.3 million uninsured individuals with incomes below 138% of the FPL.

Medicaid is jointly funded by the federal government and states. To finance the expansion, the federal government will cover 100% of the states’ cost in covering newly eligible Medicaid recipients, then phase down its federal contribution to 95% between  2014 and 2019, then again to 90% in 2020. Since April 2010, California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, Washington, and the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid to low-income adults and have been able to cover an additional 600,000 people.  These states were able to preserve, expand, and strengthen coverage for their low-income residents.

 According to The Urban Institute, if a state does not implement the expansion, some individuals would receive federal tax credits and other subsidies instead of Medicaid; however, cost-sharing requirements would be higher. Federal tax credits and subsidies would not be available for most people with incomes below the federal poverty line, which means uninsured individuals living above poverty can receive help, but those living below poverty would not. Rejecting federal funds and refraining from the expansion could have adverse impacts on more than 27 million uninsured Americans with incomes below 138 percent of the poverty level.

For state policymakers, it is important to consider the economic and societal benefits of providing healthcare to those who currently lack access to affordable coverage and to reduce coverage disparities.  

For state policy strategies to ensure that children are healthy, visit PolicyforResults.org. 

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. 

Supporting Children through the Child Tax Credit

A recent report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that the child tax refund, which provides up to $1,000 per child to low-income and middle-class families, currently prevents more than 2.6 million people from falling into poverty, including 1.4 million children. Tax credit eligibility is attached to the child and therefore, families who are not eligible for other safety net programs are able to benefit from the child tax credit, for instance American children with undocumented parents. 

Without a Social Security number, undocumented workers are able to work to file and pay federal taxes through an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), which currently allows immigrant parents to obtain the refund on behalf of their children. A report by the Treasury Department’s inspector general reveals that 2 million taxpayers claimed a refund using an ITIN, and the average household income for these families was about $21,240, which is less than half of the median household income in the United States. In 2010, $4.2 billion in refundable credits were issued to the ITIN filers; however, those same filers contributed more than $7 billion in federal taxes toward Medicare and Social Security programs from which they will never receive benefits. While provisions that support mixed documentation families may be politically controversial, the U.S. Treasury and American taxpayers benefit from permitting undocumented tax filers even when tax credits, like the child tax credit, are taken into account.

State policymakers should ensure that families have the supports and services they need to thrive, and there are potential opportunities in policies that enact or expand state child tax credits. The child tax credit was designed to lift U.S. citizen children out of poverty, and the extra financial assistance goes towards books, daycare, food, and other essential costs for children – helping to decrease disadvantage.

To learn more about the results-based, state policy strategies that can provide needed supports to children and families - visit Policy for Results.

 

What Strategies Work for the Hard-to-Employ?

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE) recently released a report on strategies that work for the hard-to-employ.

The report includes findings from a 10-year study evaluating groups of people that face barriers to employment. The groups include; long-term welfare recipients, people with disabilities, those with mental or physical health problems, and former prisoners. Three of the eight models considered in this report and conducted by the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO), Transitional Work Corporation (TWC), and Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment Evaluation (PRIDE) have proven to increase employment gains. A control group was used in each model to compare the success of the different programs.

The Center for Employment Opportunities observed former prisoners located in New York City in support services, job placement assistance, and transitional jobs.  The main goals of the evaluation were to improve long-term employment outcomes and reduce recidivism rates. After the completion of this three-year experiment, findings show CEO was able to increase employment early in the follow-up period when the participants were working in CEO transitional jobs; however, employment gains lessened as participants left those jobs. Although long-term employment was not attained, CEO’s transitional job programs were able to impact recidivism rates. Over the three-year period, only 67 percent of CEO participants experienced some type of recidivism compared to 71 percent of the control group.

The next model, based in Philadelphia by the TWC, provided temporary jobs for the hard-to-employ while providing assistance with job searching, job readiness instruction, and preparation for the General Educational Development Exam and other similar classes. The program required participants to attend a mandatory two-week orientation before being placed in a transitional job, usually within the government or a nonprofit agency at minimum wage. These individuals were required to work 25 hours a week while participating in 10 hours of professional development activities. After participants were able to secure a permanent job, TWC provided bonus payments for up to nine months.  Sixty-two percent of those randomly placed in the program enrolled and completed the two-week orientation, but only half actually worked in TWC transitional jobs. The participants that entered into a transitional job only worked for about 30 days over roughly eight weeks on average. While this model did not achieve long-term employment, TWC model was able to provide temporary relief through income and short-term employment to the disadvantaged.

The last evaluation conducted through Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment Evaluation (PRIDE) in New York City proved to be the most successful in increasing employment. The model tested the effects of an employment strategy aimed at public assistance recipients with medical or mental health conditions that prevented them from participating in regular welfare-to-work activities and who are also ineligible for federal disability benefits. Initially, more than 2,600 single parents were assigned to participate in either the PRIDE group or the control group. PRIDE was able to increase employment throughout the four-year follow-up period by 5 percent in comparison to the control group. The data also suggests the PRIDE group was able to increase earnings for the participants involved by 22 percent in comparison to the control group. The major accomplishments of PRIDE was that it served more than 30,000 people, increased participation in both work experience and job search activities, and increased employment.

For state policymakers, the findings of this report suggest that programs aimed at improving the model of transitional jobs and other subsidized employment initiatives could serve not only to increase the success of programs aimed at increasing long-term employment but could also provide other needed assistance to the often hard to employ. Policymakers can help ensure more long-term employment by combining work-focused strategies with treatment or services since evidence supports these benefits more than using either strategy alone and can increase the opportunities for hard-to-employ individuals, especially those with disabilities and other medical conditions.

For results-based public policy strategies for reintegrating ex-offenders into the workforce visit PolicyforResults and read our report, Workforce Strategies for Reintegrating Ex Offenders. 

Child Nutrition All-Year Round

Springtime means that many schools across the country will soon break for the summer. When school lets out, millions of low-income children lose access to the school breakfasts, lunches and afterschool snacks they receive during the regular school year. Summer Nutrition Programs are designed to address this problem by providing those needed meals - often times along with educational and recreational activities. The Food Resource Action Center (FRAC) provides a number of useful resources about Summer Nutrition Programs, including highlights of model summer meal programs, a summer food site locator, and a summer nutrition tool kit.

The federal government provides two sources of support for summer meals including – the Summer Food Service Program and the National School Lunch Program. For state policymakers – considering policy options to support children during their out of school time and to ensure that children do not go hungry is an important responsibility. State policymakers can help ensure that an increased number of children are served by the Summer Nutrition Programs by growing the programs through site recruitment and family outreach and passing mandates requiring that some schools operate the Summer Nutrition Programs. According to FRAC, Florida and Ohio recently passed such mandates.

For results-based policy strategies to ensure that children are healthy visit PolicyforResults.org.

SNAP: Supporting Families and the Economy

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program served approximately 45 million Americans in fiscal year 2011 and in doing so is credited with preventing a dramatic increase in hunger and food insecurity in spite of the historically high levels of unemployment and underemployment throughout the recession and its slow recovery. A new report from the Center for American Progress highlights the importance of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in not only lifting 3.9 million families out of poverty (in 2010) – but also its strong impact on the U.S. economy. According to the report, the program plays an important role in sustaining demand for groceries provided by businesses across the country. The paper states that each $1 billion spent by recipients enables nearly 14,000 Americans to find or keep their jobs. That means approximately 1 million workers were employed last year because of this program.

The report, The Economic Consequences of Cutting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, highlights both the economic benefits of SNAP and the potential consequences for the economy if the SNAP program is reduced, including:

• Each $1 billion reduction in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program eliminates 13,718 jobs.
• A 10 percent reduction in the size of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would cause more than 96,000 job losses.
• These losses would be particularly strong in food-related industries, which would lose as many as 11,000 jobs under a 10 percent cut to the program.
• Job losses will likely have the greatest impact on younger workers, since they account for a disproportionate share of workers in food-related industries— nearly one-third of grocery employees are under 25, compared to just 14 percent of workers in all industries.

For state policymakers, creating a policy agenda aimed at rebuilding their state’s economic health demands investing in working parents and their children. As states work to serve families in need, considering the budget decisions at the federal level for programs like SNAP is important. To learn more about the SNAP program click here. For fact sheets on creating jobs, economic growth and an educated workforce for the future visit PolicyforResults.org.