More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Jodie Levin-Epstein

GET UPDATES FROM Jodie Levin-Epstein
 

New Record Poverty? Make Kids' Brains "Too Big to Fail"

Posted: 09/16/10 12:04 PM ET

In 2009, the number of those officially poor is the highest ever recorded -- a total of 43.6 million according to the Census Bureau data released September 16th. That includes 3.7 million of us who became poor just in 2009, reflecting a 1.1 percent jump from 2008. These numbers may get a yawn from some analysts since the metrics are readily explicable: The Great Recession built up poverty and as it ebbs, so too, will the rate.

Any comfort is likely taken without knowledge of two important discoveries about poverty. First, even short-term poverty driven by recession can scar families and hurt the future employment prospects and health outcomes of children. Second, when poverty is experienced throughout childhood it causes brain circuitry problems, making ordinary tasks hard to get done.

For a family of four, the poverty line equals an annual income of $22,050. Official poverty, however, does not include the millions more who live on the edge. These families also often daily deal with the repercussions of financial stress.

The Great Recession is expected to generate a stubbornly high unemployment rate lasting at least three more years. Currently, about half of those unemployed are out of work for more than six months -- a record number. A recession can harm the present and future of poor children in several ways: children who experience poverty or parental job loss often have more difficulty succeeding in school and earn less as adults; for youth, unemployment during a recession can permanently impair future employment and earnings growth; and children who fall into poverty are more likely to have poor health as adults than their counterparts.

New neurocognitive and biological research also shows that the longer a child lives in poverty the more harm is done to a brain function called "working memory." That means it gets harder to retain vocabulary or remember how two numbers add up. It's the chronic stress of living in poverty that's the culprit. This is no ordinary stress but the kind that comes from persistent environmental demands that impose biological wear and tear. The result is young adults with working memory deficits. Researchers believe this partially explains why the income-achievement gap is so tenacious.

Further, brain imagery research has examined "executive function," the ability to plan and focus. Children were instructed to ignore some sounds and focus on others. In contrast to higher income children, the brains of the poor children were more active and seemed to pay attention equally to all sound tones, even those they were instructed to ignore. This may be due to children adapting to chaotic environments in which every sound could signal trouble. With a diminished executive function, it's hard not just to manage Pre-K but also to succeed at job training.

These research discoveries should give policy-makers a new lens on the ramifications of poverty whether it is caused by a recession or is chronic. There are strategies for addressing each. Most urgently, Congress and states can tackle recession-driven poverty by creating jobs. States have used the TANF Emergency Fund to create more than 240,000 jobs, but this program will end on September 30th unless Congress acts. The pending Keep Americans Working Act would foster work-sharing, a program where employers, instead of imposing lay-offs, allow employees to tap unemployment insurance while working fewer hours.
More states need to replicate innovations that improve "shock-absorber" programs, which protect families against the recession's economic potholes. Automatic cross-enrollment in programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, and school lunch is key. These programs, along with TANF cash assistance, mitigate immediate hardship, and can help families and vulnerable children avoid the deep shocks of poverty.

Our government came to the rescue when "too big to fail" financial institutions were on the brink and we worried about economic collapse. Our children fuel the future economic engine. We now know too many will grow up with brains that misfire. Yet, we expect each of them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become productive citizens. For all our children to meet that responsibility we should view our kids' brains as "too big to fail," and invest accordingly both immediately and for the long-term.

 
In 2009, the number of those officially poor is the highest ever recorded -- a total of 43.6 million according to the Census Bureau data released September 16th. That includes 3.7 million of us who be...
In 2009, the number of those officially poor is the highest ever recorded -- a total of 43.6 million according to the Census Bureau data released September 16th. That includes 3.7 million of us who be...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 17
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
02:09 AM on 09/17/2010
is this written for top 1%, or 0.1% to feel bad and show sympathy? in your dreams; they want more
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Titanshanks
Back for more
09:10 PM on 09/16/2010
Planning 20 years ahead? That's like, 15 years from now.
06:10 PM on 09/16/2010
To say that people are scarred by poverty is simply not true. Struggle and overcoming adversity is a tried and test route to success.
photo
guveqzero
Inventor and Innovator
03:50 PM on 09/16/2010
How many Phds are working at Home Depot or Walmart? It's not dreams we need, it's support of the US as a viable society. And, research, design and manufacturing are key to any modern society. We can't all become farmers, medical workers or lawyers. Policy makers still don't understand the problem after 2 years, do you think they will in another 2 years or even 10 years?
03:22 PM on 09/16/2010
I think it is very interesting that people are finding that the longer a child lives in poverty the more harm is done to a brain function. I spent most of my life in a four person income household that was below poverty level, and you cannot make such a blanket statement when it comes to an issue that can be so diverse in every circumstance. Many factors can go into how a child responds to the physical and mental stress that is associated with financial issues. To say that these children have a harder time succeeding in school and that their brains misfire is very offensive. I excelled in school, and I personally feel as though I did so in response to my difficult childhood. I did "pull myself up by my boostraps."
photo
laaambchop
Cheerfulness is a sign of wisdom
09:02 AM on 09/17/2010
Yes, it is very offensive.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Broderick Crawford
02:14 PM on 09/16/2010
The national debt on Jan 19, 2001, the day BEFORE Bush began his first term:
$5,727,776,738,304.64

The national debt on Jan 2007, BEFORE Pelosi and Reid picked up the nation's checkbook:
$8,675,085,083,537.48

a growth of $2,947,308,345,233.84 OR
$491,218,057,538.80 per year for Bush's first 6 years with a Republican controlled congress.

From the day DEMOCRATS took over congress Jan 2007 with the debt at:
$8,675,085,083,537.48

the debt grew to

$10,628,881,485,510.23 on the day Bush left office Jan 20 2009

a growth of $1,953,796,401,972.75

or $976,898,200,986.38 for each of the two years Bush had a DEMOCRAT controlled congress.

$976,898,200,986.38 per year with a DEMOCRAT congress vs $491,218,057,538.80 per year with a Republican congress the war on terror.

Now compare that with $10,626,877,048,913.08 on Jan 20, 2009 the day Obama took office to $13,056,957,049,453.42 June 6, 2010.

That is $2,430,080,000,540.34 in one year and just under 6 months OR
$1,700,503,755,783.74 for his FIRST YEAR. (that's TRILLION)

ONLY CONGRESS can appropriate and approve federal spending. ONLY CONGRESS!

Or to put it so even a "progressive" can understand it, from Jan 20, 2007, the day DEMOCRATS took over Congress, the ONLY branch of the federal government who can approve and appropriate federal spending, till June 6, 2010, the national debt has GROWN:

$4,381,871,965,915.94 (That's TRILLION with a T)

in 3 1/2 years eclipsing ANY spending ANY congress has EVER done in our history.



www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
photo
guveqzero
Inventor and Innovator
03:58 PM on 09/16/2010
Your debt numbers have no real meaning to the average person. In fact, it means our currency will depreciate faster making US products more competitive in the world. This will drive the US to create jobs. The only people concerned with this debt should be the wealthy that own bonds; they have the most to lose. Do you actually think the US would ever repay the debt at today's value? As long as the US Treasury stays away from selling TIPs, US debt is a non-issue.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Broderick Crawford
07:38 PM on 09/16/2010
Since you say debt is a non-issue why not have this government give every American $5 million dollars. That would only cost roughly $1.53503275e+18. Wouldn't that fast track making US products more competitive in the world and drive the US to create jobs? Couldn't we just write off the debt?

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&met=population&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+usa
06:13 PM on 09/16/2010
And how much of that is attributable to the worst recession since the great depression?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Broderick Crawford
07:19 PM on 09/16/2010
What recession? The administration keeps saying that there is growth, although anemic at about 1.4%, it doesn't fit the description of a recession. Since we are no longer in a recession shouldn't the unemployment subside. Whether we are in a "V" recovery or an "L" recovery only time will tell. Maybe it will be a "W" recovery when it is graphed out. When you compare a slight downturn in the economy to the 1930's depression it just doesn't make any sense. I didn't see Americans walking around with nothing but the clothes they had on and standing in lines for the soup kitchen. Maybe it was different where you live.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MikeDu
Both salubrious and lugubrious concurrently.
01:21 PM on 09/16/2010
I'm reminded of those grown-up 'depression era babies', many of who ultimately succeeded in the world far better than we 'children of prosperity' are doing currently. I wonder about the difference in psychology, is there a difference between 'situational poverty' (dad lost his job) and 'institutional poverty' ( born at the bottom). For situational poverty the economic hit is "what's happening to us" while institutional poverty defines "what we are". That might be a *good thing* in current circumstances, Those in the "what's happening to us" column could expect fewer long-term psychological scars. Its when a person become defined by their despair that the damage comes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hieagle
02:53 PM on 09/16/2010
Why don't YOU try it out, Sigmund...?!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MikeDu
Both salubrious and lugubrious concurrently.
04:14 PM on 09/16/2010
'Sigmund' lost his job the end of 2008 after working without a break for 27 years. What else would you like 'Sigmund 'to try? Want 'Sigmund' to try despair? I'll get back to you on that.
03:51 PM on 09/16/2010
I think by all accounts, the polarity between the haves and have-nots is increasing. Hence, we have more and more entrenched institutional poverty. Depressing....
12:39 PM on 09/16/2010
I would say with a good deal of certainty that it isn't poverty itself that causes such things, but the conditions that are primarily associated with poverty. Having one parent or adult that lives in the home being a primary factor there.