Discussion 5
Poverty
a. Defining Poverty and Economic Need
There are a number of ways to define poverty. Agreement is lacking on what
exactly makes a person poor, although most agree that certain extremes are covered.
For example, most people agree that not having a place to live or not having plumbing
is an aspect of poverty. But most cannot agree on how much living space is enough or
what constitutes adequate plumbing.
There are two measures of poverty: absolute and relative. An absolute measure
of poverty uses a fixed, predetermined amount below which people are defined as
poor. A relative measure of poverty uses societal standards to assess the minimum
needed for a reasonable living situation, and anything less than that standard is
considered poor. In the United States, an absolute measure of poverty is used. The
absolute measure of poverty used today was developed in the 1960s. As poverty
emerged as an important social issue, government agencies grappled with ways to
define, assess, and respond to it. In 1963, the Social Security Administration (SSA)
attempted to define what the necessary minimum income was for a family.
At that time, the SSA was responsible for programs designed to address
poverty. Two pieces of data were used to determine the official poverty threshold, or
the dollar amount set for the federal poverty measure. Informally, it is often referred
to as the poverty line. The first piece of data used to develop the poverty threshold
was the amount of money it took to feed a family. The second statistic was the
proportion of family income that went toward food. In the words of the creator of the
poverty threshold, Mollie Orshansky, then director of the SSA, “The standard itself is
admittedly arbitrary, but not unreasonable. It is based essentially on the amount of
income remaining after allowance for an adequate diet at minimum cost”
Food costs were based on the Department of Agriculture’s “economy” food
plan. This diet itemized the cost for food in temporary or emergency situations. This
calculation was developed during the 1950s in response to concerns for disaster
planning, particularly in the event of nuclear war. The diet was not meant as a long-
term food plan, but rather as the minimum needed to get through an emergency. The
other statistic available at the time was the Department of Agriculture’s assessment
that the average family spent one-third of their income for food. Therefore, the line
was developed using the estimate for the economy food plan and multiplying that by
three.
However, absolute and relative costs have changed over the years. Because of
growth in other family expenses such as housing and health care, 35 years after the
creation of the poverty threshold, food required less than one-fifth of a typical
necessity budget, not one-third (Bernstein, Brocht, & Spade-Aguilar, 2000). In recent
years, following the recession, in the average living wage budget (which covers food,
housing, medical care, transportation, child care, and other basic needs) food requires
an even smaller proportion of today’s budgets. Calculations of the cost of living show
that in urban areas such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City, housing and
other costs require greater proportions of people’s incomes, leaving spending on food
to reflect 12–16 percent of people’s living wage budget.
If the 1960s relationship of one-third is used, then the entire family monthly
budget would be calculated to equal $1,800 ($600 is one-third of $1,800). But if the
more current proportion of 17 percent is used, then the entire family budget would
equal $3,529 ($600 is 17 percent of $3,529). This reflects a major difference in what a
family needed for basics in the 1960s and what they need now. The SSA budget did
not address other needs that are more costly today, such as health care, child care, and
transportation. Technology has boomed since the 1960s, incurring costs today such as
computer access that did not exist then. In the administrative view of what the typical
family of the 1950s and 1960s looked like, there were two parents and the mother
stayed at home; therefore, there was no child care cost in dollar terms. Furthermore,
most people lived in cities where factories and businesses were clustered, so they had
access to employment and public transportation.
Now, many workers live far from viable jobs and need a car to get to work. In
addition, health care costs have risen dramatically over the past 20 years and people
today pay more out-of-pocket costs than previous generations. Not having a computer
in the home or readily accessible leaves families behind technologically. Although the
cost of food has gone up, other expenses have as well, and the proportions for family
budgets have changed. For example, the cost of raising children increased by 24
percent between 1960 and 2013 primarily due to rises in health care costs, child care,
and education expenses. For the average middle-income two-parent family, it is
estimated to cost $245, 340 to raise a child today compared to the equivalent of $198,
560 in 1960 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2014).
The change in living costs in the 50 years since the creation of the poverty
threshold means that the absolute line below which people are officially recognized as
poor is proportionately much lower than when it was developed. If a new line were to
be constructed based on the typical cost of food in relation to the other costs of living,
and took into account the dramatic increases in child care and health care, many
millions more people would be officially counted as poor in this country. Another way
to examine the validity of the poverty threshold is in comparison to the income of a
typical household.
The poverty line in the 1960s for a family of four was almost half of the
median family income. Today it is less than that, meaning that over the years the
typical poor family has moved farther away from the midpoint of earners. Changing
the poverty line to reflect changes in economics would have an immediate impact on
how many people are categorized as poor. For example, if the poverty line were 25
percent higher, 15 million more people would be counted as officially poor, raising
the rate 5 percentage points. Such an immediate increase is a strong disincentive for
policy makers to change the measure.
Why is an absolute measure used instead of a relative measure? Although
many assumptions and values go into both determinations, in the end the absolute
measure is fixed and less debatable. Viewing poverty from a relative perspective
involves a host of variables. For example, is a telephone a luxury or a necessity? If
you have small children or are looking for a job, a phone will most likely feel very
much like a necessity. For many parents, a portable cellular phone is a necessity. The
knowledge that they can be reached at any time if an emergency should arise feels
indispensable. If a cellular phone is a relative necessity, many people would define
poverty as the lack of resources to acquire such a phone.
The poverty threshold has been used since the 1960s to measure the extent of
poverty in the United States. The threshold has been changed only to reflect inflation
and is adjusted for family size. However, it is not the standard used to determine
eligibility for social welfare programs. Instead, the Department of Health and Human
Services uses poverty guidelines. The poverty guidelines are issued each year and “are
a simplified version of the poverty thresholds that the Census Bureau uses to prepare
its estimates of the number of individuals and families in poverty. Although the
numbers are not identical, the poverty guidelines closely follow the threshold.
According to the official definition of poverty, in 2013, over 45 million people
were below the poverty threshold. This was 14.5 percent of the population, or one in
seven people in the United States (DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2014). The largest single
group within the larger group of poor people was children. One-third of those who
were poor were under the age of 18 years. More than 9 percent were over 65 years of
age. Therefore, almost half the people who are poor in this country are in the
vulnerable age categories of youth or the aged. Poverty during the early 1960s, before
the major federal social welfare response of the War on Poverty, affected over 20
percent of the population. However, government intervention in the form of cash
assistance, in-kind benefits, and prevention efforts seems to have made a difference.
The late 1990s into the early 2000s saw an improvement over the previous 15 years,
likely as a result of the unprecedented economic growth of that decade. However,
likely due in part to the recession, the poverty rate rose, and the 2005–2010 years saw
a return to earlier poverty rates. Recent statistics show a small decline from the years
of 2010–2012, suggesting the economy may be recovering from the recession.
Typically, the groups most severely hit by economic downturns take the longest to
experience improvement. The impact of the recession will be likely to linger for years
to come.
Using the words “the poor” makes it sound as if there is one distinct group that
shares a commonality, poverty. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
Although the poverty threshold identifies who is officially counted as poor according
to income, the people who constitute that group vary widely.
One might assume that poverty is a result of lack of work. In fact, there is a
strong national belief that hard work is rewarded with economic gain. Furthermore,
the harder one works, the more one can achieve. Although this is true for some, it is
not true for all. Consider the experience of Barbara Ehrenreich (2001), a successful
author, well-renowned scholar, and holder of a PhD. Ehrenreich joined the ranks of
service workers and documented her attempts at working fulltime and earning enough
to support herself. She visited three different cities and held various entry-level
service jobs. “You might think that unskilled jobs would be a snap for someone who
holds a Ph.D. … not so. The first thing I discovered is that no job, no matter how
lowly, is truly ‘unskilled.’ Every one of the six jobs I entered into in the course of this
project required concentration, and most demanded that I master new terms, new
tools, and new skills” (p. 193). Ehrenreich found that only if she worked two jobs,
seven days a week, could she afford the most basic of necessities, and she was
supporting only herself. Ehrenreich had joined the ranks of the working poor, those
who live in poverty despite employment. “The term by which they are usually
described, ‘working poor,’ should be an oxymoron. Nobody who works hard should
be poor in America” (Shipler, 2004, p. ix). In spite of that observation, the fact
remains that there are millions of working poor in America.
During the late 1990s, 5.2 million families with children had incomes that
placed them below the federal poverty line, yet 76 percent had one or more working
parent and 31 percent had a worker employed year-round, full-time (Tenny &
Zahradnik, 2001). These statistics were recorded during a period of strong economic
growth. Since then, the economy has experienced a recession, bounced back for a few
years, fallen into deeper recession, and is coming out of economic downturn again.
Unemployment has climbed, and those hardest hit have been low-income workers and
families. For people already on the margin economically, recession and
unemployment portend worse economic conditions. One of the trends that has
contributed to the depth of poverty even for those who are working is the income
disparity in this country. Economic growth over the past 25 years has not benefited all
workers. Between 1980 and 2010, the top 20 percent of households in this country
realized an increase of more than 50 percent (over inflation), or $52,594 in their
annual household incomes, while the bottom 20 percent of households realized an
increase of only 2 percent, or $176 in income. By 2013, the top 20 percent of
household’s mean income was 16 times greater than the lowest 20 percent: $185,206
compared to $11,651.
With all the economic growth of the past 40 years, those at the top have
benefited more than those at the bottom. One theory is that this inequity may be
because the “growing power of technology and the increasingly competitive economic
climate seem to be pushing toward declining rewards for less-skilled workers and
greater pay for more-skilled workers” (Ellwood, 2000, p. 31). Other reasons may
include business and economic growth and tax breaks that favored high earners over
low earners. The economic climate includes the closing of factories and
manufacturing plants in this country, plants that typically offered better-paying jobs.
These jobs have been replaced by growth in the service sector, which offers lower-
paying jobs. The result of this shift is greater economic imbalance between those at
the top and those at the bottom, and more people falling into the category of working
poor. Most striking was that after the recession years of 2007–2009 and the resulting
loss of significant wealth across households, the impact was uneven. The share of
wealth among the highest fifth of households actually increased so that following the
recession they held over 87 percent of all household wealth in the country (up from 85
percent before the recession), compared to a drop for the other four-fifths of all
households, who were left with 13 percent of all household wealth, a drop from before
the recession.
Gender is a critical component of poverty. Women are more likely than men to
be among those who are poor. This phenomenon was identified as the feminization of
poverty (Pearce, 1978). On average, women earn 78 cents for each dollar men earn
(DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2014). Although this ratio is an improvement over the ratio
of female to male earnings during the 1970s and 1980s, it has been stagnant since
1996. By the year 2013, the median income for women working full-time, year-round
in the United States was $39,157, compared with $50,033 for men (DeNavas-Walt &
Proctor, 2014). Although larger numbers of women have entered the ranks of higher-
wage jobs, the disparity between women’s and men’s wages continues.
This trend grew during the 1980s, and was identified as the juvenilization of
poverty (Segal, 1991; Wilson, 1985). For 40 years, children have been the group most
likely to be poor in this country. After significant progress in lowering the rate during
the 1960s and 1970s, the portion of children living in poverty reached a high of 23
percent in 1993, touching as low as 16.2 percent in 1999, only to rise to almost 22
percent in 2013 (Child Trends, 2014). Children are poorer in greater proportions than
any other age group. In fact, if we look at low-income families, those who live below
200 percent or twice the poverty rate (about $45,000 for a family of four, or $37,000
for a family with a parent and two children) the rate is 44 percent—almost one out of
every two children grows up in a low-income or poor family (Child Trends, 2014).
The social implications for millions of children raised in poverty are significant.
Childhood poverty is linked to poor health, lower educational attainment, dangerous
living situations, and a greater likelihood of experiencing disadvantaged life
outcomes.
In addition to a moral imperative to provide a safe and healthy upbringing for
children, there is a strong economic rationale. Research documents the relationship
between childhood poverty and lower lifetime earnings, poor health, and a propensity
to commit crime. The costs to the U.S. economy are significant. Focusing on lost
productivity, each year childhood poverty reduces the gross domestic product (GDP)
by almost 1.3 percent, raises the cost of crime by 1.3 percent of GDP, and raises
health expenditures 1.2 percent of GDP (Holzer, Schanzenbach, Duncan, & Ludwig,
2007). Together the costs related to childhood poverty have been estimated to be more
than $500 billion a year. Therefore, for moral and economic reasons we should
concentrate on reducing the level of poverty among children.
In 2013, the median income for white households was $58,270, compared with
the median income of $34,598 for black households and $40,963 for Hispanic
households (DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2014). Almost 39 percent of whites earned
$75,000 or more, compared to 20 percent of blacks and 24 percent of Hispanics. The
significantly higher earnings of white families can be traced back in part to historical
racism and discrimination. African Americans, who have long been excluded from
earning opportunities—first by hundreds of years of slavery and then by deliberate
policies of exclusion—have experienced a legacy of income disparity. Many Hispanic
people, who have come to the United States as undocumented persons unable to speak
English, have been placed in a secondary class of employment, low-paying jobs that
do not require English or legal documentation.
Possibly the most impoverished people in the United States are Native
Americans. The indigenous people have been systematically moved or destroyed
since the time of the colonization of America by white Europeans. Today most Native
Americans live on reservations, which are some of the most concentrated areas of
poverty in the United States. Almost 47 percent of Native American families in South
Dakota and 33 percent in Arizona live in poverty, with an overall rate of 23 percent of
all American Indian and Alaska natives (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2014).
American Indian communities are hit hard by unemployment. The average is 18
percent available but lacking work, with a high of 32 percent unemployed on the
Navajo Nation. These rates are significantly higher than the national averages.
Asian immigrants to the United States have done better economically than
others. However, their experiences have also been hampered by racism and
discrimination. Poverty rates for Asian Americans, though better than for other
groups, are still higher than those of white Americans. Poverty among Asian groups
varies greatly by nation of origin, with very high rates among some Asian groups,
particularly those who came as refugees (Segal, Kilty, & Kim, 2002). Because of such
diversity among the Asian population, aggregate measures can be misleading.
Possibly the most severe form of poverty is to be homeless, living without a
permanent residence. Estimates of the number of people who are homeless vary
widely. Because the nature of homelessness is transiency and impermanent housing,
finding and counting people who are homeless becomes difficult. Many estimates are
based on the numbers of people who use shelters and other services designed for
people who are homeless. Although this may document the provision of services, it
does not account for people who do not use services or are temporarily living with
friends or family members but lack a permanent place of their own. One of the biggest
contributors to homelessness in this country is the lack of affordable housing. Many
poor individuals and some families relied on rental of single rooms, often in former
hotels that lacked kitchen facilities.
These rooms, commonly referred to as single room occupancies (SROs),
offered affordable housing, albeit not ideal. However, due to urban development and
efforts to “clean up” urban centers, one million SROs disappeared between 1960 and
the mid-1980s (General Accounting Office, 1992). During the 1990s, the number of
affordable apartments decreased by almost 25 percent. In 1991, there were 47
affordable rental units for every 100 low-income families, but by 1997 there were
only 36 (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2000). The decline in
affordable housing greatly affected low-income workers and has contributed to the
increase in the numbers of homeless people. Although difficult to assess, studies
suggest that approximately 1 percent of the U.S. population experiences homelessness
each year (Homelessness Research Institute, 2011).
The one-night measure conducted by the federal government each year
provides a snapshot of homelessness in the United States, offering valuable insights
into the scale and scope of this complex social issue. The data from January 2013,
which counted over 600,000 individuals as homeless, reflects the harsh reality facing
some of the most vulnerable members of our society, many of whom are living in
shelters or on the streets without stable housing or adequate support systems.
While the overall number of individuals experiencing homelessness in 2013
showed a decline compared to previous years, it is important to recognize that
homelessness remains a persistent and multifaceted problem with far-reaching
implications for individuals, families, and communities. The individuals counted in
the one-night measure represent a diverse range of backgrounds, circumstances, and
challenges, including veterans, families with children, youth, individuals with
disabilities, and those facing economic hardship or housing instability.
The experience of homelessness is often characterized by a combination of
factors, including poverty, unemployment, lack of affordable housing, mental illness,
substance abuse, trauma, and systemic inequalities. Many individuals and families
enter into homelessness as a result of economic downturns, housing market
fluctuations, eviction, domestic violence, or other life crises, while others face chronic
homelessness due to persistent barriers to housing and supportive services.
Addressing homelessness requires a comprehensive and coordinated response
that addresses both the immediate needs of individuals experiencing homelessness
and the underlying root causes of housing instability and poverty. This includes
strategies such as increasing access to affordable housing, expanding supportive
services and case management, preventing homelessness through eviction prevention
and rental assistance programs, addressing the health and mental health needs of
individuals experiencing homelessness, and promoting economic opportunities and
pathways to self-sufficiency.
Moreover, addressing homelessness requires collaboration and partnership
among government agencies, nonprofit organizations, philanthropic groups,
businesses, faith-based communities, and individuals across sectors. By working
together to leverage resources, share expertise, and implement evidence-based
practices, stakeholders can maximize impact and effectiveness in addressing
homelessness and promoting housing stability for all.
In addition to immediate interventions, efforts to address homelessness must
also be grounded in a broader commitment to social and economic justice, equity, and
human rights. This includes addressing systemic inequalities and structural barriers
that contribute to homelessness, such as racial discrimination, income inequality, lack
of access to affordable healthcare and education, and gaps in social safety nets.
As the United States continues to grapple with the challenge of homelessness,
it is essential to approach this issue with compassion, empathy, and a commitment to
dignity and respect for all individuals. By working together to implement holistic,
person-centered solutions, we can create a society where everyone has access to safe,
stable, and affordable housing, and no one is left behind.
Each year the U.S. Conference of Mayors (2013) surveys major cities to assess
the extent of homelessness in America. Increases in homelessness were reported in
2008, 2009, and again in 2010. From 2012 to 2013, 52 percent of the cities reported
an increase in homelessness. Not surprisingly, economic conditions were cited as the
reason for homelessness. For families with children, unemployment was the most
common reason, followed by lack of affordable housing, while for individuals the
lack of affordable housing was the primary reason for their homelessness. Housing
foreclosures were cited as a significant problem that contributed to homelessness. In
addition, the number of veterans among the homeless, after peaking in 2010, has been
declining, although accounting for 12 percent of all homeless adults (U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, 2013).
Almost all the cities reported increases in requests for emergency food
assistance, and shelter space has been inadequate to cover the numbers of people who
have been homeless. The economic crisis and the increase in job losses contributed to
the growing number of people who find themselves homeless, with significant
numbers of children among them. In the 2010–2011 school year, school districts
reported over 1 million students who were homeless, which was an increase of 35
percent from three years earlier (Child Trends, 2013b). Although the overall numbers
of homeless people have been slowly coming down from the recession years, the issue
of homelessness is still a key policy concern.
The cause of poverty has probably been the subject of debate for as long as
there have been people who are poor. If we could easily determine the cause of
poverty, we could effectively respond to it. However, values and beliefs play a role in
how we view poverty and, consequently, what we view as the underlying reasons for
poverty in our society. These two perspectives take a personal or individual view of
the cause of poverty. A structural perspective views poverty as a consequence of our
economic, social, and political systems. And within these two categories are numerous
theories to explain the cause of poverty.
The difficulty in determining the cause of poverty is that for every individual
or family, there could be one or several of the listed reasons for economic distress.
Some of the reasons are individual and some are social, and usually there is a
combination of forces. The difficulty in creating social policies that respond to
poverty is in part the complexity of factors that contribute to it but also the values and
beliefs that surround our views of people who are poor. These conflicting beliefs
about poverty and the cause of it have led to a patchwork of social welfare policies
and program.
b. Antipoverty Policies and Programs
Aiding those in need is not new. The major social services for people who are
poor are cash assistance and in-kind benefits. Cash assistance has been most
controversial because of a reluctance to give people money without controlling how it
is spent. In-kind programs such as medical care and food coupons have received more
public support.
Variations of local public assistance based on the Elizabethan Poor Laws
dominated the public response to poverty among women and children until the 1900s.
The first federal effort came in 1920, with passage of the Mother’s Aid law. This
program was narrow in scope. Prompted by the economic devastation of the Great
Depression, Mother’s Aid was expanded to become the Aid to Dependent Children
program (ADC), passed as Title IV of the Social Security Act in 1935. ADC was
viewed as a temporary program to support poor widows and their children. The
original plan was that after social insurance became established, women and children
who lost working husbands and fathers would be covered by the worker’s social
insurance as dependents of the deceased worker. They would not need ADC.
Additionally, ADC was supported because single mothers and their children were
considered a deserving group, and “by devoting themselves to mothering, the female
recipients were performing what God, nature, and society intended women to do and
doing so, moreover, under difficult circumstances”
However, rather than serve as a temporary program, the demand for ADC
expanded and took on the status of a permanent program. In 1962 it was transformed
into Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to include the single parent,
and several years after that it was expanded to include two-parent families if the main
earner became unemployed. As the program became further entrenched in the social
welfare system, additional efforts to change the program were launched.
Major revisions were enacted into law in 1988 under the Family Support Act,
and then in 1996 the program was restructured under the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunities Act (PRWORA). The impetus behind PRWORA stemmed from
changing demographics and perceptions of AFDC. The composition of families had
shifted since the inception of the program. Women receiving AFDC were no longer
predominantly widows but rather were mostly single women, either divorced or never
married. At the same time, more women were entering the labor market, and the
public perception grew that poor women were allowed to stay at home and receive a
government check while other women were forced for economic reasons to work
rather than stay at home with their children. Statistics demonstrate that in some ways
this perception was true, and in other ways it was not. Indeed, more women had
entered the labor market and were working outside the home. From 1970 to 2006, the
percentage of women in the labor force grew from 43.3 percent to 59.4 percent (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2007). Thus, more women were in fact working outside the home.
Some of those working women were also recipients of AFDC, or relied on AFDC
because they were between jobs or had experienced a major life change, such as
divorce. During the 1990s, 72 percent of families that received cash assistance had a
parent who worked at least part of the year.
Although the public perception was that women on public assistance “had it
made” because they were receiving a check from the government for doing nothing
but staying at home, the reality was differen. Most AFDC recipients were in and out
of the labor force. Almost all female recipients were single mothers with young
children, facing barriers to working full-time and raising small children. Prior to
passage of PRWORA, the average AFDC family consisted of one adult and two
children under the age of seven years who were receiving about $380 a month for
three years or less (Administration for Children and Families, 1995). This amounted
to about $2.20 an hour if considered from a full-time working perspective. Although
the amount of AFDC was critical to families, it was not a large sum of money, and it
went to the most vulnerable families, those with a single parent and young children
with no savings or steady employment. By 1999, although the total numbers of
recipients had declined, their characteristics had remained similar. The average TANF
family consisted of one adult and two children whose average age was 7.8 years, who
were receiving about $360 a month (Administration for Children and Families, 2000).
By 2006, the profile of TANF families had still not changed significantly, with the
average family having one adult and two children whose average age was still 7.8
years, receiving an average of $372 per month (Department of Health and Human
Services, 2007). In recent years, the profile of TANF families continued to average
one adult with two children, with three-fourths of the children under the age of 12,
receiving an average of $408 per month (Administration for Children and Families,
2013). Thus, while the types of families in need have not changed over the decades,
the way public policies and programs respond to them has changed.
For 61 years, since its inception, AFDC had been an entitlement program. Any
family that was eligible received benefits for as long as their eligibility was
maintained. Furthermore, the federal government provided states with a portion of the
funding for AFDC. With increased participation, federal spending grew. PRWORA
changed the program in major ways. AFDC was replaced with Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF), which was not an entitlement program but rather a time-
limited, no-guarantee program. The federal funding changed to an annual block grant
to each state. Public assistance for poor families was no longer a given but rather a
conditional, time-limited support.
TANF provides temporary cash assistance and work opportunities for
participants. Nearly all recipients must work within two years of first receipt. The
provisions of the law required each state to have 40 percent of the families either
working or off the program by 2000, and 50 percent by 2002. The work requirements
include 30 hours a week for single parents. The work can be unsubsidized or
subsidized, on-the-job training, community service, up to 12 months of vocational
training, or child care for other parents participating in community service. What was
no longer possible was staying at home with one’s own child, unless that child was
under 1 year of age (Administration for Children and Families, 2004). If states could
demonstrate cuts in their caseloads, they were exempt from the work participation
rules and quotas. The result was that after 10 years, only about onethird of TANF
recipients worked at least 30 hours a week (Benson, 2007).
In 2005, TANF was reauthorized under the Deficit Reduction Act. This
legislation tightened the work requirements by further limiting what activities and
which recipients states could count toward work participation. For example, the law
changed to require states to count as eligible to work people who were waiting to
qualify for disability and denied work credit for students studying at four-year
colleges. If states did not meet these new, stricter rules, they would lose federal
funding through penalties (Parrott & Sherman, 2006). The rules of TANF require that
families cannot spend more than a lifetime total of five years on the program. States
can make that time limit even shorter or can exempt up to 20 percent of the caseload
from the five-year time limit. After the five years, states may continue assistance but
will not receive federal support to do so. As part of TANF, families can receive child
care services and health care coverage through Medicaid. Child support enforcement
is also a key provision of TANF.
Since its inception, TANF has reached its goal of decreasing the numbers of
families receiving assistance. In 1996, 4.4 million families with 12.3 million
participants received cash assistance under AFDC; by 2005, those numbers had
dropped to 2.1 million families with 5.1 million recipients receiving assistance under
TANF. Even following the recession, the TANF numbers remained down, with 1.9
million families including 4.4 million recipients in 2011 (Administration for Children
and Families, 2004, 2011, 2013; Department of Health and Human Services, 2007).
Following the inception of TANF, research on mothers of young children who were
eligible for the program found that many were disconnected from the welfare system.
Almost 45 percent were not receiving TANF, and 16 percent had left voluntarily or
because their time limits had run out or they had received sanctions. Both those
receiving TANF benefits and those not receiving benefits were not doing well. They
were experiencing high levels of economic hardship, eviction, hunger, and poor health
(Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, 2003). That raised the question of what was
the impact of the declining number of TANF recipients following passage of
PRWORA.
The drop in TANF participation seems to be related to regulation changes and
time limits, not eligibility or number of people in need. In the 1990s, 80 percent of
families who were eligible received AFDC, compared to 48 percent of eligible
families under TANF (Parrott & Sherman, 2006). Much of the caseload decline in the
first 10 years of TANF was because of administration of the program, not a reduction
in poverty or economic need. The data raise this question: Are people better off with
TANF, or is it only the government that benefits because caseloads are reduced and
less has to be spent on public assistance? Research findings on those who left TANF
are mixed. Although more women left and found work after the creation of TANF,
they did not seem to be better off. The majority of women who leave TANF have full-
time jobs that pay around minimum wage (Acs & Loprest, 2004; Bazelon, 2002;
Parrott & Sherman, 2006). In 2011, almost one out of four adult recipients of TANF
worked, but even with earned income, these families were still eligible to receive
TANF, reflecting very low earnings (Administration for Children and Families, 2013).
Thus, even when TANF adults work, their incomes still leave them below the poverty
line.
Most telling in regard to the impact of TANF and welfare reform is the
coverage of poor children. From 1988 until 1996, 58–62 percent of children living in
poverty received AFDC. After the 1996 legislation, that portion dropped. By 2003,
only 31 percent of poor children received TANF (Parrott & Sherman, 2006) and
calculations for 2011 reveal that portion dropped further, to less than 21 percent
(author calculations based on Administration for Children and Families, 2013 data).
The “success” of TANF caseload reductions appears to rest on tighter eligibility and
administrative restrictions, so that fewer of the poor receive any assistance while the
population of people who are poor has remained rather constant.
One telling statistic is the number of “child-only” families—TANF families
where only the child received support—among the TANF caseloads. That number has
been steadily rising. Prior to the 1996 changes, one out of five TANF cases was child-
only. With PRWORA and tighter eligibility requirements, the numbers of adults as
part of the TANF caseload dropped. By 2000, the proportion of child-only cases grew
to 35 percent. By 2011, there were no adults in 46 percent of TANF families (author
calculations based on Administration for Children and Families, 2013 data). This shift
suggests that sanctions and eligibility criteria have made more and more adults
disqualified to receive any TANF benefits, even though their children may still be
eligible. In these cases, the end result is that the family is poor enough to qualify, as
evidenced by the child’s receipt, but there is less financial support going to the family
because the adult does not qualify. The unanswered question is, what have poor
people who previously would have received cash assistance been doing to survive
now that eligibility has been severely reduced? Research is needed to answer this
question and explain how poor families have been managing with less since welfare
reform. The growing numbers of homeless families and the increase in families
doubling up are likely some of the ways that poor families are coping with a poor
economy and less eligibility for programs like TANF.
The status today of TANF as a program designed to address poverty is
questionable. While in 1975, AFDC covered more than 70 percent of children in
poverty, the implementation of TANF steadily decreased that coverage, reaching only
20.3 percent of children in poverty by 2011(Child Trends, 2013a). What was
originally designed as a program to help support poor families has become a last
resort for the poorest of the poor, with limited coverage for limited periods of time.
The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides cash assistance to
any person who is age 65 years or older, is blind, or has a disability and whose income
falls below the poverty line. Poor children with disabilities are also covered under
SSI. This federal program is an important support for low-income families,
particularly those affected by disabilities. This may be either a disabled adult who
cannot work or a disabled child who requires extra care. SSI is federally administered
under the Social Security Administration, as opposed to TANF, which is state run as a
partnership with the federal government. In 2012, 8.3 million people received SSI
benefits, with an average monthly amount of $519 (Social Security Administration,
2014). For children under 18 years, the average monthly benefit was higher, at $621.
About 16 percent of SSI recipients are children and 25 percent are 65 years of age or
older. SSI is a significant antipoverty program for both children and the elderly. The
support from SSI for poor families with a child who has a disability has been
extremely vital to creating a financial safety net for these families.
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a federal program designed to lift
families with full-time, year-round workers above poverty levels. The program was
created in 1975 for families with dependent children in which one or more family
members work. Only wage earners qualify for this program. At certain income levels,
the family qualifies to receive an income tax credit. This program is handled directly
through the tax process, using income tax returns as the forms for calculating the
credit. This program bypasses eligibility workers and welfare bureaucracies because it
ties into the already existing income tax system. The program calculates a credit based
on income and family size, and if it exceeds the total tax owed, the difference is paid
to the family as a refund. In the 2011 tax year, 28 million taxpayers received the
EITC, with an average of $2,905 for families with children. The impact of the EITC
as a poverty reduction program was significant, lifting 6.5 million people out of
poverty in 2012, more than half of whom were children (Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, 2014).
The most productive way that wages can be increased is through raising the
minimum wage. The minimum wage is the federally mandated lowest hourly wage
that employers may legally pay their workers. The minimum wage is not typically
thought of as a poverty program but rather as an employment policy. As such, it is
discussed in more detail in the next chapter. Its place in our economic and labor
systems is also discussed. However, wages are crucial to low-income workers, so it is
important to consider the impact of a minimum wage for low-income earners. In
2006, the minimum wage stood at $5.15 per hour. After years of legislative attempts,
the Fair Labor Standards Act, which regulates the minimum wage, was amended. The
minimum wage was slated to gradually rise from $5.15 to $5.85 in 2007, $6.55 in
2008, and $7.25 in 2009 where it remains today.
Under the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, at 40 hours a week, for 52 weeks
a year, after payroll taxes, a worker earns $13,926. The inadequacy of the minimum
wage has been debated in Congress and recognized on the state level. Although
political differences have stalled changing the minimum wage nationally, as of 2015,
29 states and the District of Columbia had higher minimum wage levels than the
federal level (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2015). A family of four
would need an $11.50 per hour wage to match the poverty threshold for 2014. It is a
policy discrepancy that the minimum wage—the hourly wage that is thought to be the
lowest level—is not even enough to keep people out of the official level of poverty.
And as previously discussed, that poverty threshold is already unrealistically low.
In spite of those limitations, the EITC and the minimum wage have combined
to improve economic conditions for the working poor. In the absence of federal
government action on the minimum wage, states are raising rates, helping workers to
earn more each year. As mentioned above, 6.5 million people were lifted out of
poverty as a result of their participation in the federal EITC. Although working
families are still in poverty or very near poverty, without these economic policy
interventions, their situations would be far worse. The minimum wage and the EITC
are discussed in more detail in the next chapter.
Other cash assistance programs, falling primarily under social insurance or
federal tax exemptions, help keep some people from falling into poverty. This has
been especially true for the elderly over the past 35 years. Social insurance,
unemployment insurance, workers compensation, and survivors and disability
insurance are examples of other cash assistance programs. However, unlike those
discussed here, they do not require poverty as a prerequisite for eligibility. Therefore,
these programs are discussed in greater detail in other chapters. It is important to
remember that although they are not regarded as antipoverty programs, they play an
important part in keeping people out of poverty.
Social welfare policies for food distribution, developed as part of the New
Deal, were originally designed to deal with a surplus of agricultural commodities.
Support for government involvement in the purchase of food came from agricultural
groups as a way to guarantee price support. With government subsidies through food
distribution programs, people were able to purchase needed foods at prevailing prices
even with overproduction and during economic depression. The agricultural support
of surplus food distribution programs resulted in their administration by the
Department of Agriculture. Legislative changes to government food distribution
programs in later years shifted the emphasis to an antipoverty program (Finegold,
1988).
In response to the War on Poverty and the push for antipoverty programs, the
Food Stamp Program was enacted in 1964 as a way to assist poor individuals and
families in purchasing food. The program was designed as a support, not to supply a
family with all the food it needs. To reflect this, in 2008 the name was officially
changed from the Food Stamp Program to the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance
Program (SNAP). The benefits are based on a low-cost food plan known as the
Thrifty Food Plan, which originally was designed to plan for sufficient provisions in
emergency situations. Today the program distributes coupons or credit cards with
benefits allocated monthly to those who fall below a federally determined level of
need. This system allows recipients the discretion to choose what food items they
want to buy. Benefits may not be used for alcoholic beverages, tobacco, paper
products, diapers, personal care products, or ready-to-eat foods. The program is
administered through the Department of Agriculture, with local public aid offices
responsible for determining eligibility and allotment of benefits. The Supplemental
Nutrition and Assistance Program is funded from federal general revenues for the full
value of the recipient’s benefits, with administrative costs shared by the states and
federal government. It is the largest food assistance program in the country, reaching
more people over the course of a year than does any other public assistance program.
In 2013, more than 47 million recipients received SNAP benefits, for an average
monthly amount of $133.07 (Food and Nutrition Service, 2014). The antipoverty
impact of the program is significant. Research on a decade of SNAP benefits revealed
that receipt of SNAP resulted in a decline in both the depth and severity of poverty.
Perhaps most telling about the impact of the program and the link to poverty is
the growth in participation over the last few years. Unlike the time limits and
restrictions on TANF, SNAP grows with the need and has not been capped by the
federal government. The numbers of participants grew 10 percent from 2004 to 2007,
and then jumped dramatically following the recession. From 2007 to 2010, the
numbers grew by 53 percent, and from 2010 to 2013, the numbers grew by an
additional 18 percent. Looking at the new millennium, the rise in recipients was even
more dramatic, with an increase of 177 percent between 2000 and 2013 (based on
author calculations from Food and Nutrition Service, 2014 data). This increase
reflects the profound impact that a national economic downturn had on the ability of
people to meet their basic needs and consequently the importance of SNAP benefits in
supporting low-income households.
The Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is a
federal program designed to provide nutrition and health assistance to pregnant and
postpartum women, infants, and children up to the age of 5 years. To be eligible,
women and their children must be at nutritional risk and have an income below the
standards consistent with measuring need in the state. Administered by the
Department of Agriculture and distributed through local clinics, the program provides
participants with vouchers that can be redeemed for nutritional foods such as milk and
eggs. Participants also qualify to receive nutrition education and health services aimed
at improving the health of newborn babies and young children.
A number of public housing programs are administered by federal, state, and
local governments. Almost all are funded with federal money through the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Low-rent public housing projects,
originally developed under 1937 legislation, are federally funded programs managed
and administered by local public housing authorities. Families, elderly persons, and
people with disabilities usually qualify if their income is below a certain point,
typically less than 50 percent of the median income for the area. Rental charges, set
by the federal government, are about 30 percent of the recipient’s monthly after-tax
income. The Department of Housing and Urban Development also provides rental
assistance to poor families. Commonly referred to as the Section 8 housing program,
the federal government provides rental certificates and vouchers that can be used to
subsidize the lease of a privately owned rental unit. Participants pay 30 percent of
their income toward rent, and a government voucher pays the rest. For a unit to
qualify, its monthly rent cannot exceed a specific amount set by the government.
c. Conflicting Values and Belief
A majority of people believe in government responsibility for the poor: About
59 percent feel that “the government should take care of people who can’t care for
themselves,” and 59 percent also feel that “the government should guarantee every
citizen enough to eat and a place to sleep” (Pew Research Center, 2012b). Yet people
also feel that “poor people have become too dependent on government assistance,”
with 71 percent agreeing. Although this was a drop from 1994 when 85 percent felt
poor people were too dependent, it still reflects a widespread belief in a lack of
individual effort and responsibility.
Thus, in principle, Americans believe that government should play a role in
helping people and addressing poverty. Where their support declines is in the belief
that those who actually receive assistance are not deserving of that support. “In large
measure, Americans hate welfare because they view it as a program that rewards the
undeserving poor” (Gilens, 1999, p. 3). Why? Examination of poverty in American
society suggests that it is not a case of disagreement between people with a value of
caring for the poor and people who lack that value. Nor is it as simple as recognition
that there are people in need as opposed to lack of recognition. What really
distinguishes how a person feels about poverty in America has to do with a person’s
beliefs. The conflict in dealing with poverty therefore rests in the conflict between
competing beliefs.
Most Americans support the idea of helping people in need, as long as the
recipients are worthy of that help. They must be seen as trying hard, willing to work if
given the chance, and grateful for any and all opportunities. The values of deserving
and undeserving, dating back to the colonial period (1700s), are significant today in
discussions of poverty. The early colonial laws considered widows, orphans, elderly
people, and people with a physical disability as worthy of assistance. The
characteristic they shared was that they were in need through circumstances beyond
their control. That view persists today. In political speeches given in the House of
Representatives hours before the approval of the welfare reform legislation in 1996,
the overriding concern of lawmakers was self-sufficiency and serving the truly needy
(Segal & Kilty, 2003). If a person is perceived as able to work but still poor, then the
assumption is that the person is not worthy of assistance.
The concept of distinguishing between the "deserving" and "undeserving"
poor has long been a contentious issue in the discourse on social welfare and public
assistance. This value judgment, which may initially seem clear and logical, is often
used as a framework for determining who should receive welfare benefits and who
should not. It rests on the assumption that some individuals are inherently more
worthy of aid due to factors such as their work ethic, moral character, or perceived
efforts to improve their circumstances. However, this seemingly straightforward
criterion is complicated by a myriad of conflicting beliefs, societal values, and ethical
considerations that influence our perceptions of deservedness.
One of the primary factors complicating the notion of deservedness is the
inherent subjectivity involved in assessing individuals' circumstances and efforts.
People's lives are shaped by a complex interplay of personal choices and external
factors beyond their control, such as economic conditions, access to education,
healthcare, social support systems, and discrimination. For instance, an individual
who becomes unemployed due to an economic recession or technological
advancements may be unfairly labeled as undeserving, despite having worked
diligently throughout their life. Similarly, systemic issues like racial and gender
discrimination can limit opportunities for certain groups, making it unjust to judge
their deservingness based solely on their current socioeconomic status.
Additionally, cultural and ideological differences play a significant role in
shaping beliefs about who deserves assistance. In some cultures, there is a strong
emphasis on collective responsibility and social solidarity, where the well-being of
each member is seen as a shared concern. This perspective often leads to more
inclusive and universal welfare policies. Conversely, in cultures that prioritize
individualism and self-reliance, there may be a greater tendency to scrutinize and
restrict welfare benefits to those deemed "deserving." These cultural attitudes can
influence public opinion and policy decisions, leading to varied approaches to social
welfare across different societies.
Ethical considerations also challenge the distinction between deserving and
undeserving. Philosophical debates about justice, fairness, and human rights question
the morality of denying assistance to those in need based on subjective judgments of
their worthiness. From a human rights perspective, access to basic necessities such as
food, shelter, healthcare, and education is considered a fundamental right that should
not be contingent on one's perceived deservingness. This view argues that society has
a moral obligation to support all individuals in achieving a minimum standard of
living, regardless of their circumstances or past actions.
Moreover, the implementation of welfare policies that distinguish between
deserving and undeserving can lead to stigmatization and social exclusion of those
deemed unworthy of assistance. This stigmatization can have detrimental effects on
individuals' mental health, self-esteem, and social integration, perpetuating cycles of
poverty and marginalization. Policies that create barriers to accessing aid based on
stringent criteria of deservingness may also result in vulnerable individuals falling
through the cracks, unable to receive the support they need to improve their lives.
In practice, welfare systems that aim to distinguish between deserving and
undeserving often rely on bureaucratic processes and assessments that can be
inefficient, invasive, and prone to errors. These systems may place an undue burden
on applicants to prove their worthiness, leading to delays in receiving assistance and
discouraging those in need from seeking help. Additionally, the administrative costs
associated with evaluating and enforcing these criteria can divert resources away from
direct support to those in need.
Ultimately, the value of distinguishing between deserving and undeserving
recipients of welfare is fraught with complexities and ethical dilemmas. It raises
important questions about how we define and measure worthiness, the impact of
cultural and ideological biases, and the moral responsibilities of society. As we
continue to grapple with these issues, it is essential to consider more inclusive and
equitable approaches to social welfare that recognize the inherent dignity and worth of
all individuals, and strive to support everyone in achieving a better quality of life. By
fostering a more compassionate and just society, we can move towards policies that
address the root causes of poverty and inequality, rather than merely judging and
categorizing those in need.
At first, when we meet a person who looks healthy and is receiving
government assistance, we question why the person is not working. It is difficult not
to immediately compare our own efforts at holding a job and earning enough to
support ourselves and our families with the fact that this person is getting assistance
without working. Feelings of unfairness come to us, and we consider the person to be
undeserving. However, oftentimes, what is lacking in understanding poverty in
America is the impact of our economic, social, and political systems on access and
opportunity. Racism limits people’s opportunities. Women are treated differently than
men. Companies find it cheaper to close plants and move, leaving hundreds of
workers without jobs, and many do not have skills to quickly change to another job.
Education is not equally available at high levels, so some people at a young age do
not learn the skills that would help them get jobs.
The question of responsibility for people's well-being is a complex and
multifaceted issue that touches upon fundamental principles of ethics, social justice,
and governance. It prompts us to examine the interplay between individual agency
and societal structures, as well as the role of various stakeholders, including
individuals, communities, governments, and institutions, in promoting the welfare and
flourishing of all members of society.
At its core, the debate over responsibility for well-being revolves around two
broad perspectives: individualism and collectivism. Proponents of individualism
emphasize personal autonomy, self-reliance, and accountability, arguing that
individuals bear primary responsibility for their own well-being through their choices,
actions, and behaviors. According to this perspective, individuals have the freedom to
make decisions about their lives, pursue their goals, and take responsibility for the
consequences of their actions.
On the other hand, advocates of collectivism emphasize the role of society,
institutions, and systemic factors in shaping individuals' opportunities, outcomes, and
well-being. They argue that social structures, economic policies, cultural norms, and
institutional practices can either facilitate or hinder individuals' ability to thrive and
fulfill their potential. From this perspective, addressing issues such as poverty,
inequality, discrimination, and lack of access to essential resources and opportunities
requires collective action and systemic change.
The question of responsibility for well-being also raises broader philosophical
and moral considerations about the nature of justice, fairness, and the social contract.
It challenges us to reflect on the obligations and duties that individuals and societies
owe to one another, as well as the principles of distributive justice and equitable
resource allocation.
From a practical standpoint, addressing complex social issues such as
homelessness, poverty, unemployment, and educational disparities requires a
comprehensive and multifaceted approach that combines individual empowerment
with systemic reforms. This may involve interventions such as providing access to
affordable housing, healthcare, education, and employment opportunities; investing in
social safety nets and support services for vulnerable populations; promoting inclusive
economic policies and social programs; and addressing systemic inequalities and
barriers to social mobility.
Moreover, fostering a culture of empathy, compassion, and solidarity is
essential for building a more compassionate and caring society where individuals feel
valued, supported, and connected to one another. This involves promoting a sense of
shared responsibility for the well-being of all members of society and cultivating a
sense of belonging and mutual aid within communities.
Ultimately, the question of responsibility for people's well-being cannot be
reduced to a simple dichotomy between individual and societal responsibility. Rather,
it requires a nuanced and inclusive approach that acknowledges the complex interplay
of individual agency and social structures in shaping human flourishing. By fostering
dialogue, collaboration, and collective action, we can work towards a society where
everyone has the opportunity to lead healthy, fulfilling, and dignified lives, and where
the well-being of each individual is recognized as essential to the well-being of all.
How much responsibility for having enough to eat, a safe place to live, and an
education should be placed on the individual, and how much on society? If we view
poverty as the result of a person’s unwillingness to work hard enough or mistakes the
person has made in his or her life, then we are most likely going to focus on
individual responsibility. If we view poverty as a consequence of social conditions,
then we are most likely going to call for public policies and programs that address
poverty through government and societal efforts. For some of us, the value of social
responsibility is so strong that it may not matter who is at “fault” for poverty, the
individual or society. Rather, our responsibility to others supersedes all, and therefore
we must take care of all people, regardless of the cause of their need.
One characteristic that seems to pervade American society is the tendency to
be more comfortable and more inclined to help people we know, or feel we know,
rather than help strangers. With the class differences in American society, people with
wealth, or even comfortable means, rarely, if ever, have contact with people who are
poor. What little contact they have is typically not on a personal level, but rather
through the media or hierarchical relationships where a person of a lower class serves
or works for a person of a higher class. Those with means are served in restaurants or
have their lawns and homes cared for by those who are barely making ends meet.
Poverty evokes a lot of emotions, including feelings of sadness and pity. These
feelings tend to fall under sympathy. We feel how unfortunate poor people are and
how difficult their lives might be. But we do not relate to them as if they are the same
kind of people that we are but without financial means. Being empathic would mean
that we realize that poverty could happen to any one of us, and therefore, it is not the
individual’s fault alone. Outside circumstances contribute to poverty, and if we do not
address those outside circumstances, we too could someday face being poor.
However, this view is rarely held by those who make the decisions regarding
poverty-related policies. These statistics reflect the composition of Congress when the
vote to create TANF was taken in 1996. Viewing poverty from a sympathetic
perspective typically means addressing it as an individual problem. When looking at it
from an empathic viewpoint, the desire is to change the external factors that
contribute to impoverishment.
