iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

1 In 5 U.S. Children Live In Poverty, National Child Welfare Survey Shows

By CRISTINA SILVA   08/17/11 08:43 AM ET EDT  AP

Karla Washington is photographed at her office on the University of Nevada, Las Vegas campus Tuesday, Aug. 16, 2011, in Las Vegas. Washington, an undergraduate student, earns less than $11,000 a year from her job which must cover food, rent, health and child care. (AP Photo/Isaac Brekken)

LAS VEGAS -- Karla Washington worries how she will afford new school uniforms for her five-year-old daughter.

Washington, an undergraduate student, earns less than $11,000 a year from a part-time university job. The salary must cover food, rent, health care, child care and the occasional splurge on a Blue's Clues item for her only child.

"My biggest fear is not providing my daughter with everything that she needs to be a balanced child, to be independent, to be safe, to feel like she is of value," said Washington, 41.

Washington's economic woes are seen throughout Nevada, where the nation's highest unemployment and foreclosure rates have combined to devastate families and empty neighborhoods and construction yards.

A national study on child well-being to be published Wednesday found that child poverty increased in 38 states from 2000 to 2009. As a result, 14.7 million children, 20 percent, were poor in 2009. That represents a 2.5 million increase from 2000, when 17 percent of the nation's youth lived in low-income homes.

In the foundation's first examination of the impact of the recession on the nation's children, the researchers concluded that low-income children will likely suffer academically, economically and socially long after their parents have recovered.

The research by the Annie E. Casey Foundation found that Nevada had the highest rate of children whose parents are unemployed and underemployed. The state is also home to the most children affected by foreclosures – 13 percent of all Silver State babies, toddlers and teenagers have been kicked out of their homes because of an unpaid mortgage, the study found.

"People who grew up in a financially secure situation find it easier to succeed in life, they are more likely to graduate from high school, more likely to graduate from college and these are things that will lead to greater success in life," said Stephen Brown, director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. "What we are looking at is a cohort of kids who as they become adults may be less able to contribute to the growth of the economy. It could go on for multiple generations."

The annual survey monitored by policy makers across the nation concludes that children from low-income families are more likely to be raised in unstable environments and change schools than their wealthier peers. As a result, they are less likely to be gainfully employed as adults.

There are other social costs. Economically disadvantaged children can result in reduced economic output, higher health expenditures and increased criminal justice costs for society, the survey concludes. The research is based on data from many sources, including the Mortgage Bankers Association, National Delinquency Survey and U.S. Census Bureau.

"Even if you don't care about kids and all you care about is your own well-being, then you ought to be concerned," said Patrick McCarthy, president of the Baltimore, Md.-based charity. "... We've got to think about what kind of state, what kind of country we can expect to have if we are not investing in the success of our children."

The report found some bright spots.

In the two decades since researchers began compiling the annual report, infant mortalities, child and teen deaths and high school dropout rates have declined. But the number of unhealthy babies have increased, and there were far more children living in low-income families.

Programs such as food stamps, unemployment insurance and foreclosure meditation have acted like a dam against the flood of poverty, McCarthy said, but that assistance has been threatened by federal and state government budget cuts.

Mississippi kept its overall last place ranking in child welfare for the 10th consecutive year, according to the survey. It was closely trailed by neighboring Louisiana and Alabama, a nod to the poverty that plagues southern states. Nevada ranked 40th overall, its worst ranking in 10 years, largely because of its economic decline.

The rankings are determined by a state's achievement in 10 indicators that reflect child poverty, such as undernourished infants, infant mortalities, teen births and children in single-parent families. The top state for children was New Hampshire, ahead of Minnesota, Massachusetts and Vermont.

Mississippi had the most children living in poverty, with 31 percent of its youth getting by on meager family budgets. New Hampshire had the smallest population of low-income children at 11 percent. The federal poverty level this year is $22,350 a year for a family of four, but child advocates claim that figure should be higher.

Nevada, Florida, Arizona and California and other states grappling with high foreclosures rates also were home to the largest populations of children affected by the mortgage crisis. North Dakota had the fewest, followed by South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming and Alaska. In all, more than 5.3 million children have been affected by foreclosure, the study found.

Mississippi's rankings were least affected by the recession, only because it long ago secured its worst-case standing. Overall, Mississippi ranked last in seven of the survey's child well-being indicators.

"We are really tired of being in 50th place," said Linda Southward, a social science research professor at Mississippi State University. She said state policy makers have closely followed the rankings and have strived to promote early education as part of its strategy to reduce overall poverty.

"We are just extremely challenged given the economic hardships that we have," she said.

Nevada, meanwhile, has long had a challenging record on child issues because of its historically low-performing schools. The Kids Count survey found 11 percent of Nevada teens were not in school and had not graduated from high school in 2009, the worst rate in the nation. New Hampshire was best at 3 percent.

At least 34 percent of Nevada's children were living in families with both parents not working full-time in 2009, the largest increase in the nation, according to the survey. Nevada also saw the largest rates of children living with at least one unemployed parent, followed by Rhode Island, Oregon and Kentucky. North Dakota, Nebraska and South Dakota had the best rates.

Overall, the percent of children living in families in which no parent had full-time employment increased from 27 percent in 2008 to 31 percent in 2009. Black children were nearly twice as likely as white children to have an unemployed parent.

Washington, the Las Vegas mother, is poised to graduate from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas next year and hopes to pursue a career in human resources. She tries not to fret over the challenges of securing full-time employment in this job market.

She dreams of stashing away a small savings nest for her daughter, in case of an emergency.

"I want to be able to say that she is OK, because right now I can't say that," Washington said.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST EDUCATION

Filed by Emmeline Zhao  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 358
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
12:14 PM on 08/18/2011
For more insight into all this, The Price of Motherhood by Anne Crittenden is excellent. A must read for all parents and those who hope to become parents.
photo
moby49
I will act as if what I do makes a difference.
12:48 PM on 08/18/2011
You are assuming that they were educated in our public schools well enough so they can read. Big assumption for the poor.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:35 PM on 08/19/2011
You are assuming that low-income individuals who go to public schools don't learn how to read. That's a gross oversimplification and unfortunately, a degrading swipe at those who live and go to school in low-income communities. As a former urban high school teacher I can attest to the dedication, hard work and integrity of thousands of children and youth in high-needs public schools.
11:44 AM on 08/20/2011
I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply suggesting a very good book that offers insight into this subject.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
sabelmouse
i love to tumble , ask me why .
10:38 AM on 08/19/2011
thanks
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sail Away
11:55 AM on 08/18/2011
Ms. Silva, FYI this is America. We do not cultivate human capital here. We vest in plutocracy, elitism, military might and corporate welfare. If you are new to this country to can gain greater insight by following the political system.
09:55 AM on 08/18/2011
Perhaps women should consider deferring the bearing of children until they are married and financially secure. In the distant past this view was the common one.
photo
moby49
I will act as if what I do makes a difference.
12:41 PM on 08/18/2011
Near term past you mean, when women could choose. In the distant past, there was no marriage, just survival.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SayBlade
This micro bio intentionally left blank.
05:34 PM on 08/18/2011
Or, perhaps childbearing should be limited by law to anyone whose annual income is below say $50K. Anyone who violates that law could be sent off to some sort of, um, ... camp?

(Tongue firmly in cheek)
09:03 AM on 08/18/2011
Maybe Karla Washington should ask her daughter's baby-daddy to pay for her daughter's school uniforms.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:00 PM on 08/18/2011
Spoken like a true So Calif Teacher! We all don't have baby daddies you know? Don't believe everything you see on television.
07:34 AM on 08/18/2011
So what.....we send money to support education in Egypt and Israel.The American dream.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:04 AM on 08/18/2011
Let's be honest here, if only for understanding and maybe
fixing this problem.

This is mostly about black inner city kids, who my own
went to school with in Cincinnati. So over year's I saw
kids start off as 2-3 years behind, and become more
like 4-6 years behind by the time they reach high school,
with many exceptions of course.

These are "our" kids, the US needs to INVEST more in them
asap. Even if you think they all grow up to vote Democratic
or other GOP bull it is in Your Interest to help them. Do we
want productive taxpayer's, or more kids in trouble, because
that cost's a ton of money, like $ 25-50k a year in prison.

And ironically the conservatives who rant about responsibility
always want to blame the teachers, very few who are bad,
some burned out by how tough the inner city can be,
other's very dedicated and deserving our support.
The real blame should be on the parent[s].

A poor kid can do well if made to do homework,
get's their sleep, and taught respect. So in that
regard I agree with Bill Cosby, etc., who point
out disgusting rap "music", etc., hard drugs [perhaps
encouraged by a right wing plot] are far more
destructive than anything else. So this
is where black America has to stand up
and fight this cultural attack, because
they will not [generally] listen to us.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:21 PM on 08/18/2011
This is no longer JUST about black inner city kids. I live in an upper middle class largely white suburb and the poverty level in my community has increased significantly during the last three years. This recession has been life changing for most Americans.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:39 PM on 08/19/2011
absolutely !....but it's been far worse for the inner city and will be if we don't throw money at it like we do for wasteful war's.....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:41 PM on 08/19/2011
Wow, labeling this problem as being about Black inner city kids ignores so many people - people living in poverty of all skin colors - and in suburban and rural communities. The one causal relationship in education research studies that bears out over and over again is the link between low achievement in school and poverty. If we're going to simplify it, this problem is primarily about income not skin color. See http://www.boldapproach.org/index.php?id=01 for some info that's pretty straight forward and readable.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:38 PM on 08/19/2011
sure, but the inner city is an incredible problem, and some of the kids literally don't know anyone successful, etc.....while in the burb's they at least have more diversity
and a bit broader view.....what about rap that generally discourages education or respect, especially for women.....compare generally beautiful black music in the 60's, like Motown, to what kids listen to today, it's Sick....this is partly a racial problem, as Bill Cosby, etc. would agree....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:33 PM on 08/20/2011
I did look at the link and with more time will study it....thanks.....with an open mind about it all, from students to teachers and funding, I want to find answers for all of OUR kids !
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pst2868
Karma is sweet
12:24 AM on 08/18/2011
If you look around, poor people usually have more children per family than middle class or rich people. It costs a lot of money to raise children. That alone would make anyone poorer.
Advice to anyone just gotten married, if you do want children, make it a child. You will be much better off financially.
05:05 AM on 08/18/2011
And why is this? One only needs to look at the Democratic "Great Society" caper. It paid more money to have more kids. It paid more money for the dad to run away. It paid for ALL the wrong reasons.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gmikejake
resist evil
06:08 PM on 08/18/2011
Never enough money to cover the actual costs of raising a child. And you assume some sort of market rationality in this process. How much market rationality do middle-income parents really practice with regard to family planning? And you assume, it seems, some sort of adult reasoning. Many of the children you seem to be referring to were born to very, very young mothers. Many, if not most, with minimal benefit of any realistic sex education or the services of Planned Parenthood. And, finally, our "Great Society" programs, primarily, prior to Roe v. Wade. Simplistic problem statements rarely provide effective solutions to complex problems.
08:51 AM on 08/21/2011
That is an absolute crock.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SayBlade
This micro bio intentionally left blank.
05:35 PM on 08/18/2011
You pretend they do not already know this.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pst2868
Karma is sweet
08:51 AM on 08/19/2011
Unfortunately most of the under-educated don't.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Mikeeee
Private corps can't do it better!!!
11:43 PM on 08/17/2011
Makes ya proud, don't it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
GlennWatson
Two million fans
10:23 PM on 08/17/2011
Was that a picture of a real homeless boy or was that a model?
09:26 PM on 08/17/2011
It's hard to focus on learning when you're hungry.
07:48 PM on 08/17/2011
and women living in poverty have the highest birth rates. it's the gift that keeps on giving!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gail Cerridwen
03:43 AM on 08/18/2011
I wonder if possibly no access to family care planning and birth control could be a factor for the poor??? We should do a study on that!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SayBlade
This micro bio intentionally left blank.
05:36 PM on 08/18/2011
It has been studied to death. No more studying. Get some action going!
07:40 PM on 08/17/2011
If giving people money (or other resources) would end poverty, then welfare would have been successful generations ago and would not have become a generational situation. We have tried giving people cash (welfare); food stamps; housing (section 8); and free medical care (medicaid). Unfortunately, no matter what we give, it's never enough nor will it be. The bar for what's needed is continually raised as people continue to make bad choices regarding lifestyles: single parenthood; failure to use birth control; failing to get even a free high school education or learn a marketable skill. No amount of "giving" will remedy this situation. We must find a way to get people to make responsible choices so that they can become self-supporting. Instead of requiring them to work for their benefits, we enable them to continue the choices that got them into their current situation.

Although I am lower middle class, I don't envy people who have a lot of money. If they worked to earn it, got lucky in a business or a job, or started a company, then I say "good for them". That is what America is about. We all have opportunities. Life is not fair and never will be. But it's a waste of time to cry over it when you can use that time and energy to accomplish something. Everyone has the same 24 hours in a day. It's how we choose to spend those 24 hours that determine how we live our lives.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Mikeeee
Private corps can't do it better!!!
11:46 PM on 08/17/2011
It's that very self absorbed christian attitude that the founders were against. You might want to read a couple of their documents or maybe you think they're tin hatters.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:11 PM on 08/18/2011
Why do you assume that "giving" is responsible for this crisis? Did you not read the text that mentioned the recession has impacted these numbers? This is the first study that reflects the aftermath of the recession. The recession has impacted EVERYONE but historically, the poor are disproportionately affected by recessions. We are living in times where some of our wealthiest citizens have lost everything. Middle class Americans are unemployed and or underemployed at alarming rates; this group includes educated folk that have made good CHOICES in their lives and the first thing you do is blame the most vulnerable. We ALL do not have the same opportunities.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SayBlade
This micro bio intentionally left blank.
05:38 PM on 08/18/2011
F&F.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:22 PM on 08/17/2011
Bill Gates doesn't think this is a problem at all because schools can overcome all issues caused by poverty. He said all we have to do is cram a lot of students in one room with an "excellent" teacher and all will be well. See how simple it is?
photo
TexasTreader
Fluffy, the yard dog
05:16 PM on 08/17/2011
Can anyone think of any OTHER Democrat efforts that have been as effective as their drive to put people on welfare?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gmikejake
resist evil
06:43 PM on 08/17/2011
What foolishness! What Democratic drive to put people on welfare? Evidence for your assertion please. Real empirical evidence, not Fox news or your latest tea party gathering. I taught social welfare policy for decades, now retired, any purposive, politically driven, movement to put people on welfare ended decades ago.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
whoknew---
10:10 PM on 08/17/2011
f&f---

;^)
10:02 AM on 08/18/2011
Are you old enough to remember the days of Mayor Wagner in New York City?
The mayor and his advisors found with alarm that it often took new arrivals to the city weeks to get on the welfare rolls. They made changes so that it would be possible to arrive in the city and get on welfare the following day. This marvelous policy continued until the evil Republican Mayor Giuliani turned the welfare centers into job centers and cut 800,000 from the welfare rolls.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:08 AM on 08/18/2011
as a former conservative I used to think that way.....and it's generally unfair, as the right usually is.......Clinton reformed welfare and it could probably use some more, but what's really hurting the US is Corporate Welfare.....

Not for small business, that's a joke....it's all about making
the SUPER RICH richer.....as if that makes any sense....
as Warren Buffett has said, his class is winning the so-called
class warfare conflict......and for America to be stronger,
it should believe more in Shared Sacrifice !
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gmikejake
resist evil
05:31 AM on 08/18/2011
Clinton did assist with welfare reform, that created TANF, with strong support of conservatives. His participation in that "reform" is one of the reasons why many of us consider him to be another moderate Republican, not actually a classic Democrat. And TANF was clearly not any sort of drive to get people on welfare. Actually, quite the opposite both in intention and consequence. One of the major goals of TANF then, and now, is to get people off welfare. Actually cut them off, after 5 years, of TANF, forever, unless they can obtain a waiver.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:15 PM on 08/18/2011
Thanks you Cincinnati!! Corporate welfare is rarely discussed on these forums. The poor and underprivileged are constantly blamed for their circumstances.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:38 PM on 08/17/2011
If this is statistic is even close to the truth, it is a disgrace, especially with tens of thousands of millionaires evading taxes since 2001 by means of foreign bank accounts.

I say this because some people I know, working people, some with two or three jobs, have been driven close to bankruptcy due largely to horrendous, still-rising local, state and federal taxes. Among other despicable tricks, local governments peg property taxes to four-year-old prices that may be twice the real property value, and routinely deny appeals for proper valuations.
You can't take it to court because the judges are all local -- so you'll be heard by the tax assessor's brother, unless you have $500,000 for an attorney; most people driven to appeal inflated valuations don't have $500 to spare.
The super-rich don't pay a fair share of taxes because the government -- Congress, the IRS and the DOJ -- grants them super-low tax rates, myriad tax loopholes available only to those with high incomes, and a free pass on outright tax evasion, even when they confess to years of deliberate, thoroughly calculated, attorney-assisted tax crimes.

I don't understand how Teabaggers can back all those GOP loons who keep screaming for even lower taxes and even more loopholes for the richest 1% of our society. Do Teabaggers really believe working people should pay the lion's share of taxes? Really?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pst2868
Karma is sweet
12:32 AM on 08/18/2011
Taxes don't cause bankruptcy. It has to do with people living beyond their means like buying a house they can't afford, buying a Lexus when a Toyota is just as good. Lack of a safety net like money in the bank for a rainy day. For those people who have a good paying job, don't count on having that job forever. Plan on not having that job at any moment.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:43 AM on 08/18/2011
I'm sure your scenario happens all the time. People spend more than they should. Advertising works.

As for savings, well, that often depends on how your pension or IRA is invested. Even if you/re conservatively invested, you can lose half your retirement money overnight to some banker's billion-dollar roll on Singapore debt contracts.

Now that financial regulation is, like 1929, a thing of the past, the newly down-sized are caught flat-footed.

They didn't deregulate and manipulate the markets, they didn't sluice their company's profits into a Swiss bank, and they didn't build ten million 'spec' houses to create the real estate glut. They got jobs, paid down their mortgages and put their kids through school. Maybe they did buy an Acura instead of Civic.

But as middle-class wealth vanishes, taxes remain pegged to a fanciful economic past, officials and corporate big dogs refuse to reduce their own compensation in the face of declining revenue, and the mega-rich get de facto exemption from income taxes.

And no one even mentions the catastrophic economic effects of waging two trillion-dollar wars for more than a decade, much less the morality of invading nations that never did Americans any harm -- ever.

To my way of thinking, supporting those wars and the tax-exempt status of the ultra-wealthy is sheer lunacy -- if you don't own a big slice of the defense industry through the Carlisle Group or Halliburton. I hear most Americans don't.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:55 PM on 08/18/2011
Is that what has happened to millions of Americans? All they needed to do was live within their means. What would you suggest when those means are gone? When people lose their salaries and exhaust their savings and the most experienced, educated can't secure employment because corporate America would prefer to hire less experienced thus cheaper workers? How much disposable income must one have to be able to live as if they could lose their job at any moment? I am referring to income after housing cost, auto/home/health/life insurance, groceries, gas, utilities and basic human needs. I am not including entertainment and clothing, outside of basic clothing. Do tell....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:10 AM on 08/18/2011
And now the dems want 1% of all bank transactions. 1% when you deposit your paycheck, 1% when you pay a bill with a check, 1% when you use an ATM, 1% when you get some cash, and I am pretty sure the banks are not going to absorb that out of good will. Get ready folks here comes another new Democratic tax and it will effect the middle class who BHO said he would never raise taxes on.