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.

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.

The Ongoing Impacts of the Sequester on Communities

The government-wide spending cuts known as the sequester took effect on March 1, forcing $85 billion in federal budget reductions by the end of September. As we previously described, these cuts, which only affect discretionary programs (i.e. programs for which Congress must annually appropriate dollars) have reduced the budgets of the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Justice and Labor, among others. As the months have progressed we are increasingly seeing how these cuts at the federal level trickle down to impact states and communities, causing multitudes of reductions in services and programming.

A map from the Center for American Progress shows how the sequester is impacting states, including Head Start programs, public schools, housing assistance, tribal programs and programs for seniors. These stories from across the nation reveal just how much states and local governments depend on federal funds to maintain their levels of service. Head Start programs have been forced to develop longer waiting lists, cut children from the program, eliminate or reduce transportation for children to centers, and lay off staff. Some school districts have been forced to sell offices, reduce teacher personal days, lay off teachers and support staff, and eliminate arts, music and physical education programs. The consequence of these moves are larger classroom sizes and a lower quality of education. The sequester is also causing longer waiting lists for housing choice vouchers, and in some places leading to vouchers being taken back and current voucher holders being reverted to a waiting list if they have not yet secured a lease with a landlord.

Funds for tribal programs have also faced extreme cuts, including 21 percent cuts in tribal housing grants; a 23 percent cut to Native job training; and a 35 percent cut to Energy Assistance. The sequester is being felt much heavier in tribal lands because unlike states, tribes cannot levy property taxes on lands held in trust, or gain significant revenues from income taxes, given the chronically low incomes of most residents on Indian reservations. Although the federal government pays about 10 percent of the budget for a typical U.S. public school district; on federal lands, it contributes as much as 60 percent. This can translate to the reduction or elimination of education programs and services, including the elimination of summer school, vocational training for high school youth, and can lead to the inability to fill vacant teacher and support staff positions (such as school guidance counselors and mental health counselors). The effects of cuts for mental health programs in tribal schools can have devastating consequences for tribal communities because research shows that Native American children and youth have disproportionately high rates of depression, substance abuse and suicide.

The across-the-board cuts of the sequester are reducing services for people who immediately need them, but they also have long-term fiscal consequences.  For example, states have had to roll back on the Meals on Wheels program, reducing the number of visits seniors receive, and creating a waiting list for seniors in need of delivered meals.  This is a crucial service that enables seniors to remain in their homes. Not only does the delivery of meals provide nutrition assistance to seniors, but it serves as a check-up and social interaction for those who live by themselves and are sometimes otherwise socially isolated. Cutting these services actually costs taxpayers more money in the long term, because a tax dollar spent providing support services to someone at home can prevent having to spend many more tax dollars on providing full-time care to the same person in a nursing home or an assisted-living facility.

To deal with these, and likely future cuts to the federal budget, states will need to focus on policies that maximize their use of federal funds and intelligently and efficiently prioritize their own funds.  To make the best use of funds during tough fiscal times, it becomes increasingly important to budget using a results-based public policy framework. First, states should set priorities for budget decisions by engaging stakeholders and focusing on measurable results.

State and local policymakers are being forced to do more with less, and innovative strategies are needed to make this happen. Facing the current fiscal year of sequestration as well as other budget cuts, it will be ever more important for policymakers to support policies that maximize federal dollars, maximize return on investment and generate savings to invest in what works. This includes maximizing funds for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, utilizing the Food Stamp Employment and Training Program, taking advantage of the flexibility of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families funds to target priority areas, and ensure that families are aware of the benefits of filing for federal tax credits.    

For more results-based public policy, visit Policyforresults.org.

How Family Food Security Supports the Economy and Children's Health

By supporting children’s healthy development policymakers help to provide the foundation needed for children to grow into thriving adults.  A critical aspect of child health is food security.  Several federal and state programs are aimed at ensuring children and families have access to adequate nutrition.  These investments often also have benefits for the economy. Programs like WIC, Healthy Food Financing, School Nutrition Programs and SNAP are all aimed at ensuring food security for poor and low-income families.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a vital lifeline for families; about 75% of households receiving SNAP benefits include at least one child, senior or person with a disability. Over 25% of all US children received SNAP benefits in 2011 according to USDA data.

On November 1, 2013, every U.S. family receiving SNAP benefits will have those benefits cut, making it more difficult for over 47 million people to buy food. On that day the 2009 increase to SNAP that occurred through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) will expire, and additional cuts will likely be included in the new farm bill. On Tuesday the Senate Agriculture Committee passed a $4.1 billion cut to SNAP benefits over the next 10 years as part of its version of the bill, which would likely result in an average cut of $90 per month for nearly 500,000 households. The House Agriculture Committee passed its version of the farm bill on Wednesday, making even more drastic cuts totaling $20.5 billion over the next decade.

 Prior to the 2009 increase through ARRA, the level of SNAP benefits per family was so low that receipt of the benefits had ‘no detectable impact on child health’ according to a study by Children’s Health Watch. Following the increase, the study found that children in families receiving SNAP benefits were significantly more likely to be ‘well’ -- not overweight or underweight, in good health, developing normally for their age, and having never been hospitalized, compared to children whose families were eligible but did not receive the benefit. Another study by Children’s Health Watch found that when families’ SNAP benefits are reduced, young children are more likely to ‘be food insecure (a known child health risk), be in poor health and have developmental delays than young children in families whose benefits do not decrease’. The study also found that families whose SNAP benefits were reduced were more likely to forego needed health care due to inability to afford care, be food insecure and struggle to pay for heat and utilities than families whose benefits do not decrease.

In addition to the important impact SNAP benefits can have on child health, SNAP also has important economic stimulus effects. Research by the USDA indicates that every dollar of federally-funded SNAP benefits generates between $1.73 and $1.79 in economic activity in industries such as agriculture, retail, wholesale-transportation and food processing. SNAP benefits play an important role in sustaining demand for groceries and preventing job losses in these industries. A study by the Center for American Progress found that for every $1 billion cut from SNAP, 13,718 jobs would be lost. 

Another change in the House version of the farm bill is the elimination of 'broad-based categorical eligibility', which gives states the option of allowing recipients of certain other public benefits to qualify automatically for SNAP. Broad-based categorical eligibility prevents recipients who have already met financial eligibility requirements from needlessly going through the financial need determination process again. Since 2009, the USDA Food and Nutrition Service has strongly recommended that states adopt broad-based categorical eligibility to reduce state workloads, more efficiently helping families in need. Eliminating this option will increase barriers to receiving SNAP for eligible families, placing young children at greater risk for being significantly underweight for their age and living in households that are food and housing insecure. 

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) addresses this critical issue by providing additional support for nutrition and food security among women and young children; nearly 9 million women and children are served by this highly successful program. However, uncertainty about the future of WIC funding presents a challenge for states in ensuring that all eligible applicants are able to participate. Research conducted by the National WIC Association found that many state and local agencies have consolidated or closed clinics, laid-off staff or reduced their service hours in preparation for expected funding reductions due to sequestration. The research findings indicate that this ‘streamlining’ has negatively impacted service delivery resulting in eligible women and children being placed on waiting lists and ‘negatively affecting nutrition education and breastfeeding support’ for participants. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the President’s budget request of $7.142 billion for WIC would be sufficient to serve all eligible applicants, but that a lower level of funding might prevent eligible women and children from benefitting from the program.

School nutrition programs provide an additional boost to food security for children from low-income households. In 2011, the National School Lunch program provided low-cost or free lunches to over 31 million children and breakfast to over 12 million children every school day.   However, if broad-based categorical eligibility is eliminated, many children who currently received free school meals based on their family’s SNAP eligibility would be affected.  According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, an estimated 210,000 children would lose access to free school lunches and breakfasts if broad-based categorical eligibility were eliminated.

Even if families have the benefits they need to provide their children with good nutrition, many low-income families still live in ‘food deserts’ where access to grocery stores and farmers markets selling fresh, nutritious food is very difficult. The Healthy Food Financing Initiative promotes good nutrition and economic development in under-served communities based on a model pioneered by the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Initiative, a public-private partnership that opened or improved 88 grocery stores and increased access to healthy food for 400,000 residents in just five years. The initiative also helped to retain or create 5,000 jobs in such communities throughout the state. For a case study of the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Initiative please visit www.cssp.org. 

In light of these impending cuts, state policymakers may want to consider planning for how to provide SNAP recipients with information about the changes and how to manage an increase in client inquiries about the reduction in benefits. If the option of broad-based categorical eligibility is also eliminated, states may be faced with an increase in workloads involved in completing financial need determination separately for each program.

State policymakers may also want to explore expansion of state and local-level initiatives to promote childhood nutrition and health such as increased state funding for farmers’ markets, school nutrition education and Farm to School initiatives as well as fresh food initiatives inspired by the Pennsylvania model.

Access to healthy, affordable food is fundamental element to ensuring children are healthy and thrive.  For state-based policy strategies to ensure that children are healthy please visit PolicyforResults for strategies to improve access to affordable healthy food and to support healthy school initiatives.   For more on collaborating around results and results-based policy strategies, visit Policyforresults.org. 

The Sequester Goes Into Effect: Bad News for Low-Income Families

Recently Congress passed a continuing resolution to fund the government through the remainder of fiscal year 2013, but unfortunately the sequester was not eliminated. Because the sequester contained $1.7 trillion over 10 years in across-the-board cuts to non-defense discretionary programs, all areas impacting children and families will be affected: education, health care, juvenile justice, child welfare and social services just to name a few.

Federal agencies have already implemented the scheduled cuts. Head Start and child care programs have cut their 2013 budgets by about 5 percent by reducing the number of children served, cutting back schedules, and making many other difficult choices. Official reports about sequestration outline a $115 million cut to the Child Care and Development Block (CCDBG) which funds child care subsidies, along with a $400 million reduction for Head Start. Estimates show that this will translate into 30,000 fewer children being served by the child care subsidy program and 70,000 fewer children being served through Head Start.

$1.7 billion in cuts over one year to four programs serving children with disabilities and their families will result in: 1,163,607 children with special health care needs would not receive care; 63,000 adults and children with disabilities and elderly individuals would lose their housing vouchers; 7,400 special education teachers, aids, and other staff serving children with disabilities will be laid off; and 75,000 persons with disabilities would lose vocational rehabilitation services for employment.

In 2012, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) released an analysis that demonstrated the consequences of the sequester for children if the cuts had gone into effect on January 2, 2013 as originally intended. Although the cuts were implemented in March, the numbers of children adversely affected will not be much lower:

• $270,790,425 less funding available for heating and cooling assistance through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).  Nearly half of the families receiving LIHEAP assistance have at least one child.
• Title I grants (for low-performing schools) will serve 1.8 million fewer students.
• 26,949 fewer children will be served by early intervention special education grants.
• 1,133,981 fewer students will be served by grants for career and technical education.
• 51,577 fewer students will receive financial aid through the Federal Work Study program.
• 18,611 fewer youth will be served by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), which provides training services to underemployed adults, and youth who have dropped out of high school and want to go back to school or enter the labor market.
• 4,350 fewer youth will receive education and training from Job Corps, which targets economically at-risk youth.

In light of the federal government’s final FY2013 budget, states will have important decisions to make regarding their spending for programs and services. Cutting children from the budget now will cost us later. Eliminating early education investments now would increase a child’s chances of going to prison later by up to 39 percent. And paying for that prison will cost us nearly three times more a year than it would have cost to provide him with a quality early learning experience.  Making investments in children, their families and communities, is exactly that – an investment- and not making those investments now will be costly for all of us moving forward.

For policies aimed to balance state budgets while protecting public well-being, see the Policy for Results page on Strategies for Tough Fiscal Times.