For Sasha

Running head: CHILDHOOD POVERTY 1

CHILDHOOD POVERTY 9

Childhood Poverty

Name

Course

Instructor

Date due

Childhood Poverty

Of all the social problems affecting the children, poverty is the most treacherous and pervasive social problem. Child poverty is prevalent worldwide even in several industrialized nations. Among the developed nations, the United States has a high rate of childhood poverty of 20 percent. The policies in the United States towards addressing child poverty include financial incentive based on employment and work support for the low-income parents and interventions towards enhancing child health and development. Research has supported these policies but the high rate of child poverty in the U.S as compared to other developed countries shows the insufficiency of these policies. Child poverty is an urgent matter given its adverse consequences on children as they progress towards adulthood and thus necessitating urgent actions including reforming the interventions.

Factors festering child poverty

The National Center for Children in Poverty notes that child poverty entails children from households with incomes below the federal poverty threshold which is 24, 339 dollars for a household of four with two children (Koball & Jiang, 2018). As compared to 2010, 2 million fewer children in 2016 were poor. In 2016, the number of children living in poverty decreased to 72.4 million from 74.1 million in 2010. Despite the decrease, the number is still alarming. The prevalence of child poverty is more among the youngest children, below the age of 3 years, with 21 percent living in poor households.

The factors festering childhood poverty in the United States include race, divorce rate, nonmarital births, failure of the fathers to take responsibility for these births, and low education and employment. When compared with the broader population, childhood poverty is more prevalent among children of color. As compared to the white children, the likelihood of children of color to live in poverty is approximately three times more. According to Koball and Jiang (2018), as compared to one in ten white children, one in three Native-American, black, and Hispanic children live in poverty. Also, the rise in divorce cases festers childhood poverty since divorce among low-income families diminished the financial capabilities of a household.

As well, nonmarital births worsen childhood poverty further aggravated by the failure of the fathers to take responsibility for these births. According to Corsaro (2017), teenage childbearing aggravates the problem of poverty in society. Teens from low- income families are more prone to teenage childbearing than children in averages and high-income households. According to Corsaro (2017), the fathers to this teenage nonmarital births add to the child poverty problem by failing to take responsibility. Failure of the fathers to offer these children support to their needs increase childhood poverty. The failure of states to enforce tough laws to ensure that the fathers to nonmarital births to take responsibility encourages these fathers to evade their responsibilities and hence worsening the issue of childhood poverty.

According to Koball and Jiang (2018), low education and employment worsen the issue of childhood poverty. However, children in households with parents with high education or employment in full-time bases is not a financial security guarantee since 32 percent of the children living in poverty live within household with at least one parent full employed. Among children with one parent having a college education, 11 percent are poor. Thus, it is important to have policies that shape the resources available to all families to increase their success chances to curb the problem of childhood poverty.

Existing interventions to childhood poverty

Some of the existing interventions towards reducing childhood poverty include Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Head Start, Earned Income Tax Credit, Job Corps, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act which instituted Temporal Assistance for Needy Families, and childcare aids through the Child Care and Development Block Grant (Berger et al., 2018). The employment-based policies in the United States address the structural and individual barriers to income generation and the policies geared towards child health and development are insufficient to address the changes in the economic outlook (Berger et al., 2018). The employment-based policies tend to push the single mothers in the labor market depending on welfare. However, the increasing volatility and limitation of the low labor market wages elevates the concern of the effectiveness of these policies in bolstering all workers’ economic well-being for both families with and without support. As well, poverty results from multiple factors which these programs fail to address fully.

According to Huston (2011), the effectiveness of the policies would be achieved through basing these policies on the interactionists assumptions regarding the causality including the interaction of individual attributes with the social and economic context they confront. Work inducements and employment training programs may be effective if harmonized with employment creation. As well, redefining poverty to include the various and many experience facets would result in a more comprehensible and less fragmentary poverty reduction policies. Additionally, the early childhood interventions including policies for prenatal as well as postnatal health and early childhood education are disconnected and hence a suggestion of a system of care encompassing all these elements (Huston, 2011).

Current expenditure on childhood poverty eradication programs

The federal expenditure on programs towards alleviating child poverty in 2016 and 2017 was 732 billion dollars and 729 billion dollars respectively (Federal Safety Net, 2018). Expenditure on Medicaid was highest, 368 billion dollars and 375 billion dollars in 2016 and 2017 respectively. The Earned Income Tax Credit program received the second highest expenditure, 81 billion dollars and 79 billion dollars in 2016 and 2017 respectively. Federal expenditure in these programs was the third highest in the Supplemental and Nutritional Assistance Program, 73 billion dollars in 2016 and 70 billion dollars in 2017. HUD housing supporting the poor amounted to 49 billion dollars in 2016 and 50 billion dollars in 2017. Spending on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families was 16 billion dollars in both 2016 and 2017. Child Nutrition program received 22 billion dollars in both 2016 and 2017. Expenditure on Head Start program was 10 billion dollars in both 2016 and 2017. Job Training programs received 6 billion dollars in both 2016 and 2017 (Federal Safety Net, 2018). The source of funds for these programs is congressional funding. From the trend, expenditure on these programs declined between 2016 and 2017. Given the high number of poor children, the finding on these programs is insufficient and thus the need to increase funding on these programs

Adverse consequences of childhood poverty

The consequences of child poverty are far-reaching. Poverty is the risk factor for teen pregnancy and nonmarital births. In the United States, teen pregnancy and births out-of-wedlock have been on the rise. As of 2014, the number of births among teens was 22 percent per 1, 000 teens (Corsaro, 2017). Poverty diminished the knowledge and awareness among teems regarding reproductive processes, contraception, and limits their access to contraception and abortion services and thus leading to teen pregnancy and nonmarital births. The United States according to Smeeding and Thévenot (2016) lag behind in extensive sex education programs in schools which should start in early grades and availing contraceptive services extensively. Children born out-of-wedlock are predisposed to poverty in adulthood and the cycle continues and hence worsening the issue of childhood poverty (Corsaro, 2017).

As well, poor children are more vulnerable to peer abuse as compared with children from well-off families (Corsaro, 2017). Children from poor backgrounds face a rougher world than children from well-off families and this predisposes them to drugs and gangs and more criminal activities. The economically disadvantages children in most cases live in dangerous neighborhoods and this increases their susceptibility to both intimate victimization and street crime (Corsaro, 2017). This contributes to society rot and thus there is a need to address poverty to enhance the wellbeing of not only the children but the society as a whole.

Early childhood according to Smeeding and Thévenot (2016) is critical to future cognitive, emotional, and behavioral development as well as early health outcomes. Poverty steals childhoods and thus resulting in adverse consequences on cognitive, emotional, and behavioral development which progresses in adulthood. Poverty impedes the ability of the child to acquire quality basic education, contributes to poor health due to inability to afford nutritional diets, and is a risk factor to mental health (Smeeding & Thévenot, 2016). Smeeding and Thévenot (2016) further adds that stress, depression, and anxiety are psychological problems more prevalent among children from poor backgrounds. Childhood poverty is not addressed would translate to generations of poor children together with the adverse consequences. Thus, there is a need to address this issue.

Conclusion and recommendations

Given the adverse consequences resulting from childhood poverty, there is a need to address this issue. The current interventions fail to address the poverty root causes fully and thus need more innovative comprehensive policies that address poverty extensively. One of the recommendations according to Kearney and Harris (2014) is strengthening the Safety-Net to enhance the support for families and their children as well as offering supportive work to enhance low-income household success. Safety-Net is critical for poor households. The food and nutrition supplements, tax incentives, and housing vouchers offer families with supports but only in difficult times. Thus, policies supporting households not only during the difficult times but also offering families with access to opportunities would increase positive outcomes for families and the children (Kearney & Harris, 2014). As well, individualized supportive work policies would ensure the economic security of families living in poverty by supporting individualized growth towards independence. Financial stability of the households supports a positive impact of the future of the children.

Another recommendation according to Berger et al. (2018) would be supportive policies for households with multiple barriers. The well-being of the children depends on the well-being of the parents and this is tied to the capacity, concrete supports and social connections of the parents. Households with multiple barriers including, low level of education, substance abuse, mental health issues, domestic violence, and divorce are susceptible to financial insecurity (Berger et al., 2018). Therefore, to ensure the children are not predisposed to these difficulties, it is important for policy to support the parents experiencing overlapping barriers. One of the ways Berger et al. (2018) propose to do this is offering personalized supports and services and strengthening the policies which enhance assess to comprehensive support services.

Also, investing in children is a comprehensive approach to alleviating childhood poverty (Kearney & Harris, 2014). Children living in poverty fall behind in educational settings. It is important to invest in early education because the gaps start to grow beginning infancy and continue to progress into adulthood if unaddressed and the cycle continues. Increasing investments that support children and the parents alleviate childhood poverty twofold. Quality child care, subsidized child care opportunities, and early learning programs would minimize the achievement gaps resulting from poverty and thus reducing childhood poverty (Kearney & Harris, 2014). 

References

Berger, L. M., Cancian, M., & Magnuson, K. (2018). Anti-poverty Policy Innovations: New Proposals for Addressing Poverty in the United States. Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 4(2). 1-19

Corsaro, W. A. (2017). The sociology of childhood. Sage Publications (5th ed.). pp. 305-356 https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/82164_Chapter_11.pdf

Federal Safety Net. (2018). Safety Net Programs. Retrieved from http://federalsafetynet.com/safety-net-programs.html

Huston, A. C. (2011). Children in poverty: Can public policy alleviate the consequences?. Family matters (Melbourne, Vic.), (87), 13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3287293/

Kearney, M., & Harris, B. (Eds.). (2014). Policies to address poverty in America. Brookings Institution Press.

Koball, H., & Jiang, Y. (2018). Basic Facts about Low-Income Children: Children under 18 Years, 2016. The National Center for Children in Poverty. http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_1194.html

Smeeding, T., & Thévenot, C. (2016). Addressing child poverty: How does the United States compare with other nations?. Academic pediatrics, 16(3), S67-S75. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6087662/