Why Are Poverty Rates for People With Disabilities So High?

October 30, 2014

My last post tried to answer a straightforward question: How many District of Columbia residents lived in poverty last year? The answer was about one in three, but rates were higher for children and working-age adults, especially the former.

Computing the rates is a whole lot easier than explaining why they’re so high. No source I’ve found comes close. Here’s what I’ve pieced together from federal data and other research for the nation as a whole.

Poverty As Both Cause and Effect for Children With Disabilities

The poverty rate for children with disabilities is high nationwide, though not as high as in the District, where it’s 45.5% of children old enough for the Census Bureau’s survey to have captured all the major types of disabilities they may have.

Such research as we have indicates that children are more likely to be disabled if they’re borne by poor mothers and into poor families. Inadequate nutrition, including actual hunger is a factor. Likewise inadequate health care and exposure to toxins in the environment, e.g., lead paint, pollutants in the air.

Stress itself has toxic effects on children’s physical and mental development. And living in poverty is stressful — not only because of the material hardships and instability children suffer, but because the stresses sometimes cause parents to neglect or even abuse their children — or one parent to abuse the other.

At the same time, childhood disability contributes to family poverty. Parents who would otherwise work can’t — or can’t work as much — because they need to care for their disabled child. Parents here generally means mothers, the research tells us.

Working-Age, But Not Many Working

The poverty rate for working-age adults with disabilities is somewhat easier to understand. They may be working-age, but relatively few of them are working — only 26.8% of those 16-64 last year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

About one in three were working part time — a higher percent than for their counterparts without a disability.

And both they and the full-timers may, in some cases, have gotten paid as little as a quarter an hour because some employers may legally set wages based on their own assessments of productivity.

An additional 14.7% of working-age adults with disabilities were jobless and actively looking for work — about the same percent as in 2012. The unemployment rate for their counterparts without a disability dropped to less than half this rate.

Rolling the working and looking-for-work figures together, we find that more than two-thirds of working-age adults with disabilities were not counted as part of the labor force.

How many could have worked, but became utterly discouraged by employers who wouldn’t even consider them — or who wouldn’t accommodate their disabilities, as the law requires — is an open question.

Some of the dropouts may have worked before they became disabled. If they’d worked long enough and earned enough, they might have qualified for SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance).

But disability alone wouldn’t suffice. The Social Security Administration would have had to decide that they couldn’t earn much, if anything from work because of their disability and wouldn’t be able to for at least a year.

The benefits might — or might not — lift them over the poverty threshold. Probably wouldn’t for those whose annual earnings averaged somewhere around what a full-time, minimum wage job pays.

Adults who can’t meet the SSDI standards may instead receive Supplemental Security Income benefits if their incomes are low enough, their cash and near-cash assets small and, again, if SSA decides they’re too severely disabled to “engage in substantial gainful activity.”*

SSI lifted about 3.9 million people out of poverty last year. But their incomes couldn’t have been far below the poverty threshold without it. The maximum annual benefit for an individual was about 73% of the threshold for a single person — less, of course, for a family of any size.

Late-Onset Disabilities for Some

Presumably the poverty rate for seniors with disabilities reflects in part the fact that some incurred their disabilities long before their “golden years” — born with them, in some cases, in others early enough so that their Social Security retirement benefits are very low.

But those retirement benefits, plus SSI or draw-downs from their own retirement accounts probably explain why their poverty rate is lowest among the age groups I’ve carved out. Doesn’t mean that all those who cleared the threshold are doing fine.

As I’ve said many times, the thresholds are very low. And when the Census Bureau takes account of basic living expenses, including medical out-of-pocket costs, the District’s senior poverty rate rises to 26% — higher than the rate for any state.

Would that we had SPM rates specifically for young, old and in-between people with disabilities.

* SSI benefits are also available to children with severe disabilities if their families meet somewhat similar income and asset tests and to low-income seniors, disabled or otherwise.

 

 

 


More Than One in Three DC Residents With Disabilities in Poverty

October 27, 2014

My post on the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure report prompted a fine question: What is the poverty rate for people with disabilities in the Washington, D.C. area?

I knew the SPM had no answer, but was pretty sure other Census reports would. And indeed, I found some very disturbing figures.

Not to keep you in suspense, the relevant poverty rate for the metropolitan statistical area that includes the District of Columbia was 15.9% last year. But it was more than double that for the District itself. Now the deets.

Overall Poverty Rates for People With Disabilities

The American Community Survey — our best source for community-level data — tells us that 33.9% of District residents with disabilities lived in poverty last year. This is 15% higher than the poverty rate for the D.C. population as a whole. And it’s 11.5% higher than the rate for people with disabilities nationwide.

A third of poor District residents with disabilities lived in deep poverty, i.e., at or below half the applicable poverty threshold. This rate is also higher than the national rate.

All these rates, however, provide only a partial picture because the ACS limits most of its questions about disabilities to people who are at least five years old and all of them to disabilities that cause a “serious difficulty.” Questions limited to the five and older group refer to daily life activities.

What this means, among other things, is that young children who can see and hear just fine, but have some other physical disability — or any emotional or intellectual disability — don’t get counted. Nor, of course, do older people who choose not to acknowledge serious difficulties in such activities as making decisions for themselves.

More Older People With Disabilities, But Fewer Poor

As we’d expect, the percent of District residents with disabilities increases with age. The disability rate for children between the ages of five and seventeen was somewhat over 7.4% last year. It was barely higher for working-age adults, i.e., those 18-64 years old. But about a third of residents 65 and older had at least one disabling condition.

The poverty rates for disabled people in these age groups are just the opposite. A mind-boggling 45.5% of disabled children in the over-five age group lived in families with incomes below the poverty threshold last year — less than $23,865 for a couple with two children.

The poverty rate for working-age adults with disabilities was 36.9% — nearly two and a half times the rate of those whom the ACS classified as without a disability. It’s also about 10% higher than for seniors with disabilities.

So there are the numbers. How can we explain them? That’s a more complicated question than the one that prompted this post. But I’ll take a stab at it in the next.

 


Congress Fiddles While Children’s Health at Risk

October 23, 2014

Nearly two million children may soon have no affordable health insurance — perhaps no health insurance at all. They’re at risk because federal funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program will expire next year, unless Congress extends it — or fixes the so-called family glitch in the Affordable Care Act.

The number rises to 2.7 million if one also counts children who are eligible for CHIP, but not enrolled and others in Medicaid because some states and the District of Columbia used CHIP funding to expand eligibility, rather than create an altogether separate program.

More than 400 organizations that advocate and provide services for children have urged Congress to keep CHIP fully funded until at least 2019 — even if, as seems unlikely, Republicans agree to fix the glitch.

But say they did. First Focus, which has been pushing hard for renewed CHIP funding, argues that the program would still be needed. First some background, then the reasons why and finally the reasons the issue is more urgent than it may seem.

What is CHIP?

Congress created CHIP in 1997 to close a gap not unlike the one that could soon open. While very poor children qualified for Medicaid, families with somewhat higher incomes couldn’t afford health insurance, especially because relatively few could get it through their employers.

At the time, 23% of children in families below twice the federal poverty line were uninsured. Last year, all but 7.3% of children had health insurance — well over half through CHIP or Medicaid, according to Families USA.

Insurance coverage is far from the whole story. CHIP is designed specifically for children’s healthcare needs. States that operate CHIP through their Medicaid plans must provide a prescribed battery of early and periodic screening, diagnostic and treatment services.

States that have standalone CHIP programs must also provide a wide range of preventive services, as well as outpatient treatment and in-hospital care.

How is CHIP funded?

CHIP is sort of like Medicaid in that the federal government pays a share of the costs states incur in providing health care for those enrolled in their programs. The so-called match varies according to a formula, just as it does with Medicaid. It’s generally higher — on average, 71%.

But unlike Medicaid, CHIP is a block grant. In other words, the federal government gives states just so much, rather than a percent of their annual costs.

If that’s not enough, states can put children on a waiting list. Or they can require families to share more of the costs, though the law puts strict limits on premiums, copays and the like — the strictest for the lowest-income families. Or they can cut reimbursement rates — a cost-saver that tends to limit access to care.

How did the ACA deal with CHIP?

The ACA requires states to shift children whose incomes are at or below 133% of the federal poverty line into Medicaid. For technical reasons, the threshold is effectively 138% of the FPL — currently $27,310 for a parent with two children. The Supreme Court’s ruling that states can’t be compelled to expand their Medicaid programs has no affect on this child coverage mandate.

At the same time, the ACA prohibited states from lowering their CHIP eligibility standards — or changing their applications procedures to reduce enrollment — until the end of Fiscal Year 2019.

It provided for a higher match, beginning in Fiscal Year 2015. But it authorized funding only till then. Seemingly another glitch resulting from the haste to get the ACA passed.

More than half the states and the District cover children in families with incomes at or above 250% of the FPL — and 19 states and the District, with incomes of at least 300% of the FPL.

So it might seem that most states and the District would have to pick up the full cost of health care for a great many children enrolled in their programs unless Congress renews CHIP funding. We thus see the Washington Post editorial board warning of a “potential unfunded mandate.”

Not so, the Vice President for Health Policy at First Focus advised me. States will have no obligation to maintain their CHIP enrollment standards and procedures if Congress doesn’t come through with federal funding.

Why do we still need CHIP?

As I’ve already noted, there’s the family glitch in the ACA. The term refers to an ambiguous provision that the Internal Revenue Service has decided bars families from getting subsidies for health insurance purchased on an exchange if a working member’s employer offers health insurance that’s affordable for him/her alone.

Family coverage, as I’m sure many of you know, is considerably more expensive than coverage for only a worker. So some children — other dependents too — will probably be priced out of the market.

It’s not just premiums we need to be concerned about. A healthcare consulting firm crunched the cost-sharing numbers in 35 states, i.e., the premiums, deductibles and copays, that families are responsible for.

The experts found that families at 160% of the FPL would face out-of-pocket costs averaging seven times what they currently pay if their children were insured through a health plan purchased on an exchange rather than CHIP.

Bigger shocks to the pocketbook for families whose children have special healthcare needs like asthma and diabetes — as much as $5,200 a year per child.

At the same time, the experts found that certain services most CHIP programs provide at no cost to the family would either not be covered at all or require cost-sharing. Only 37% of the health plans reviewed covered hearing exams, while all the CHIP plans did.

And in most cases, families would have to pay an additional premium, plus some further costs for their children’s dental care — a benefit required in CHIP.

What’s so urgent?

The federal fiscal year began only weeks ago. So it might seem that Congress has a lot of time before it has to come to grips with further funding for CHIP.

Most states, however, begin their fiscal years on July 1. Only two and the District begin theirs as late as the fed. So budget drafting is already underway. A big problem when there’s a big question mark about funding for CHIP.

Googling around, one finds many warnings of potential disruption. States unwilling, for obvious reasons, to renew their contracts with health plans. The plans, therefore, not renewing their contracts with pediatricians and other providers. Providers reluctant to accept CHIP-insured patients because they don’t know whether they’ll get paid.

And as Say Ahh! blogger Elisabeth Wright Burak adds, parents in acute anxiety because they don’t know whether their children will have affordable health insurance come fall.

Healthcare lobbyist Billy Wynne foresees troubles ahead in our fractitious Congress — worse as the months go by. We just might help create a proper sense of urgency if enough of us weigh in. A MoveOn.org petition makes this quick and easy to do.

UPDATE: Shortly after I published this, First Focus posted a new letter to Congressional leaders, signed by some 1,200 organizations. It urges them to include a four-year extension of CHIP funding in the next “legislative vehicle” that moves during the lame duck session that will begin soon after the November elections. It says that an estimate 10.2 million children could otherwise have” their health coverage disrupted.”


Major Anti-Poverty Measures at Risk and Could Be Better

October 20, 2014

Last week’s Supplemental Poverty Measure report confirmed at least one thing we already knew. The refundable tax credits lift more people out of poverty than any other major public benefit, except Social Security.

The more powerful of the tax credits — the Earned Income Tax Credit — boosted 6.2 million people, including 3.2 million children over the poverty threshold in 2013, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The Child Tax Credit did the same for 3.1 million people, including 1.7 million children, again per CBPP.

These tax credits have enjoyed broad bipartisan support, as well they might. The EITC in particular is said to serve as an incentive to work, for which there is some evidence. And who would  stand against help for working parents raising children?

We now have the germs of a bipartisan consensus on certain improvements to both. For example, both some leading Democrats and the Senate and Congressman Paul Ryan have proposed making more childless workers eligible for the EITC and increasing the credit for them.

Senators Marco Rubio and Mike Lee say they have a proposal that will, among other things, raise the Child Tax Credit, end the phase-out and make the credit refundable against payroll, as well as income tax liabilities. Fine print as yet to be seen.

And fine print could make a very big difference to low-income families — as well as some immigrant families, even if not low-income — as the now-passed House child tax reform bill shows.

Into the dialogue, if we can call it that, comes the Center for American Progress, with a set of recommendations — some already proposed by others, some new. Here’s a somewhat selective — and occasionally elaborated — summary.

Keep the Improvements We Have

First and foremost, CAP says, Congress should make the Recovery Act’s improvements in both the EITC and the CTC permanent law. Both are due to expire at the end of 2017. And thus far, Republicans in Congress have shown no inclination to extend them.

For the EITC, no extension would mean a reversion to a more severe “marriage penalty,” i.e., a lower credit (or no credit) for some workers who marry. It would also mean a stingier credit for families with three or more children.

For the CTC, no extension would mean no credit at all for very low-income working families. The current $3,000 threshold for claiming the credit would revert to what’s in the permanent law, with all the annual upward adjustments since 2001 — thus a threshold estimated at $14,700 for 2018.

And for those clearing the threshold, the refunds would shrink because they’re based on a percent of income over the threshold, up to $1,000 per child.

About 1.8 million people, including a million children would fall into poverty, CBPP warns. Far more would fall deeper into poverty — 14.6 million, including 6.7 million children.

Expand Eligibility for the EITC

CAP takes note of the disadvantages the EITC poses for childless workers — and for workers whose children haven’t lived with them for more than half the year. They’re actually at a double disadvantage, it says, because some research suggests that employers take account of the EITC in setting wage rates.

It endorses, in general terms, an expanded credit for them. Also a lower age for eligibility. But instead of the commonly-mentioned 21, it favors 18, provided that the workers’ parents don’t claim them as dependents.

Boost Child Tax Credit Refunds

CAP wants the CTC to become fully refundable, as the EITC already is. Families would then receive refunds for the total amount that the credit, plus whatever other credits and deductions they can claim reduce their tax liability to less than zero.

It also recommends indexing the credit to keep pace with inflation. This would achieve somewhat the same results as the already-indexed provisions of the EITC do.

But the CTC would still have the same $3,000 threshold, whereas workers can claim the EITC, no matter how little they earn. The Tax Policy Center has recommended eliminating the threshold, a reform also advocated by others.

Change Other Policies to Promote Financial Stability and Upward Mobility

CAP has several recommendations to make it easier — and more attractive — for workers to save at least part of their EITC refunds. Several others would make it easier — and less costly — for workers to improve their earning prospects by getting a college education or job training.

All but one of these reaches beyond the EITC itself. And none can be properly summarized in a paragraph or two. Those interested can find the asset-building recommendations here and the education recommendations here.

CAP does, however, have a financial stability proposal strictly for the EITC — a partial early refund. Workers could initially receive up to $500 of the refund they were already eligible for during the second half of the tax year — more in later years because the limit would rise with the inflation rate.

This, CAP says, would help them pay for unusual expenses, e.g., a car repair, moving costs, without resorting to payday loans or the newer, equally extortionate auto title loans.

An estimated 21% of eligible workers don’t claim the EITC. Various reasons for this, including the complexities of filing. Perhaps more would if the “rainy day fund” proposal, as Generation Progress calls it, were adopted.

But if Congress has to pick and choose, then I think it should give top priority to making the temporary improvements permanent — and to giving childless workers a fair shake.

 


Better Poverty Measure, Worse Poverty Rate, But Not for Everybody

October 16, 2014

As in the past, the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure yields a higher poverty rate than the official measure that was the basis for the reports the Bureau issued last month. According to the just-released SPM report, the rate last year was 15.5%, rather than 14.5%.*

This means that about 2.9 million more people — roughly 48.7 million in all — were living in poverty. At the same time, 1.3% fewer people lived in deep poverty, i.e., at or below 50% of the income threshold that determines who’s counted as poor.

These differences as well as the many others reflect the fact that the SPM is constructed differently from the official measure. There’s a brief explanation of how it’s built in the last section below.

Other Shifts in Poverty Rates

We see shifts up and down for state-level rates. For example, the rate for the District of Columbia rises from 19.9% to 22.4%. Rates fall in 26 states and rise in 13. (These reflect three-year averages to compensate for the relatively small sample sizes.)

As in the past, rates also shift for major race/ethnicity groups. Most of the shifts are relatively small. An exception here for Asians, whose poverty rate was 5.9% higher, and for blacks, whose deep poverty rate was 4.6% lower.

The most marked shifts are again for the young and the old.

  • The child poverty rate drops from 20.4% to 16.4%, reducing the number of poor children by about 2.9 million.
  • The deep poverty rate for children is less than half the official rate — 4.4%, as compared to 9.3%.
  • By contrast, the poverty rate for people 65 and older rises from 9.5% to 14.6%.
  • And the deep poverty rate for seniors ticks up from 2.7% to 4.8%.

Poverty Rates Without Key Federal Benefits

The changes for seniors largely reflect the fact that the SPM factors in medical out-of-pocket costs. But the SPM report also tells us that the senior poverty rate would have been 52.6% without Social Security payments. In other words, Social Security protected about 23.4 million seniors from poverty last year — more than three and a half times as many as were poor.

This is only one of the policy-relevant figures the SPM report provides in a section that shows how poverty rates would change if some particular benefit weren’t counted as income. Some examples Census has helpfully translated into raw numbers:

  • The refundable Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit lifted 8.8 million people out of poverty.
  • But for SNAP (food stamp) benefits, about 4.8 million more people would have fallen below the poverty threshold.
  • Unemployment insurance benefits lifted 2 million people over the threshold.

So we see that the much-maligned safety net programs work. But we also see that policy choices have impaired the impacts some of the biggies formerly had.

For example, SNAP benefits lifted about 5 million people out of poverty in 2012, before the across-the-board cuts became effective. We’ve yet to see the effects of the further, targeted whack at benefits that’s part of the new Farm Bill.

The anti-poverty impacts of UI benefits shrunk further — a trend dating back to 2010, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The number of people the benefits lifted out of poverty last year was nearly half a million fewer than in 2012.

And that was before Congress let the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program die at the end of last year. The new UI figure almost surely reflects reductions it made when it last renewed the program, however.

SPM 101

As I’ve explained before, the SPM is a more complex — and generally viewed as better — poverty measure than the one that’s used for official purposes, e.g., as the basis for the federal poverty guidelines that help determine eligibility for many safety net and other means-tested programs.

The Bureau begins by setting initial thresholds based on what the roughly 33rd percentile of households with two children spend on four basic needs — food, shelter, clothing and utilities.

It then bumps the amount up a bit to account for some other needs, e.g., household supplies, transportation that’s not work-related. It also makes some housing cost adjustments based on differences between major geographic areas and whether households rent or own — and in the latter case, with or without a mortgage.

Next, it deducts for certain other necessary expenses, e.g., work-related expenses, out-of-pocket costs for health care. And, as income, it adds the value of some non-cash benefits that households can use for the four basic needs. It also, for the same reason, folds in the refundable tax credits.

The report I link to at the beginning of this post provides a fuller — and considerably more wonkish — explanation.

* This is the same rate the Census Bureau reported last month. However, most of the official rates in the SPM report differ somewhat because the Bureau has included children under 15 who are unrelated to anyone they’re living with, e.g., foster children. The official measure doesn’t include them as part of a family unit.

I’m using the adjusted rates so we can have apples-to-apples comparisons. But the rates reported last month are those that should be used for other purposes.

UPDATE: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that the refundable tax credits lifted 9.4 million people out of poverty. This figure, it says, is based on its analysis of the SPM data. I don’t know why it’s higher than the Census Bureau figure I linked to.


What the Food Stamp Challenge May Do … and What It Can’t

October 13, 2014

D.C. Hunger Solutions invited me to take the Food Stamp Challenge last week. I’d be joining not only fellow District residents, but also Maryland and Virginia residents who’d been recruited by similar Food Research and Action Center initiatives there.

I took a pass. Truth to tell, I couldn’t see myself living on a $33 grocery budget for the week. For food maybe. But doing without the rich, dark coffee I drink from morn to eve? No way.

I told myself that taking the Food Stamp Challenge wouldn’t achieve anything anyway. It’s supposed to raise awareness of hunger — and more particularly, the woeful insufficiency of SNAP benefits.

Well, I already know that, as a long stream of posts indicates. And I felt that I’d bore friends and followers by blogging, tweeting, FaceBook posting, etc. about my daily trials. Do you really care that I scraped the bottom of the peanut butter jar for lunch or how I suffered from caffeine withdrawal syndrome?

Maybe if I extracted lessons, the way D.C. Hunger Solutions’ Executive Director Alex Ashbrook has. But that didn’t occur to me. I suspect I would have been too grumpy and jittery for contemplation anyway.

Rationalizing perhaps. But I still can’t get on board with the notion that the Food Stamp Challenge raises awareness of what it’s like to depend on SNAP benefits — an inherent flaw acknowledged by D.C. Hunger Solutions itself.

On the one hand, those who do depend on SNAP don’t buy food for only a week. They’ll have some oil on hand to fry up potatoes — perhaps some rice and beans in the cabinet because they stocked up during a sale.

Or in some cases they won’t because, unlike any Food Stamp Challenge participant, they don’t have transportation to get to a grocery story (and home with all the bags) — or because they don’t have a kitchen to cook in.

More importantly, their food stamp challenges go on and on. It’s one thing to dine on ramen noodles for a couple of nights. Quite another to know you’ll be serving ramen noodles to your kids for the indefinite future.

Blogger Professor Tracey captured this difference back in 2009, when she critiqued a month-long Food Stamp Challenge undertaken by a reporter.

“He always knew the experiment would end,” she wrote. “I would be willing to wager for the majority of people living on public assistance that for them one of the most disconcerting aspects is having no idea when they will be able to stop relying on public assistance, if ever.”

And, of course, SNAP recipients can’t quit or cheat, as we know some Food Stamp Challenge participants have — and can guess others did as well.

Finally, we need to recall that the amount participants are challenged to live on is a fourth of the average monthly SNAP benefit. That’s about $33 here in the District and nationwide — somewhat less in Maryland and Virginia.

But the average is considerable lower in some states — barely over $29 in three. And all the averages are just that. Lots of SNAP beneficiaries receive much less — as little as $16 a month in all but two states.

This, we’re told, is one reason that only a third of seniors who’d be eligible for SNAP benefits apply, even though many others can’t fend off hunger without groceries from a food pantry. Paltry SNAP benefits also help explain the reliance on nonprofit feeding programs, of course.

Here in the District, the DC Council has budgeted enough in local funds to raise the minimum SNAP benefit to $30 a month — thanks to a campaign spearheaded by D.C. Hunger Solutions.

It has also adopted the mayor’s proposal to raise the minimum LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program) benefit. This will preserve the somewhat higher SNAP benefits some residents have received because — again thanks to D.C. Hunger Solutions — it adopted the so-called “heat and eat” option in 2009.

Nine of the 15 states that had adopted “heat and eat” have done the same, putting House Republican leaders into an awful snit.

Did policymakers shore up SNAP benefits because they’d learned from the Food Stamp Challenge?  Hardly. But notwithstanding all that I’ve said, I suppose it’s possible that policymakers and others who can get their stories into major media may, if only briefly, call attention to the benefits problem.

And I suppose it’s also possible that living for a week on a food stamp budget may put fire into the briefly-unsatisfied bellies of some Challenge participants who’d been content to leave advocacy to others.

Yet a series of polls tell us that more voters than not already think the federal government should spend more to combat hunger. Did this matter to Congressional Republicans — House members, in particular — when they set out to slash SNAP spending for the next five years?

When I shared my reservations about the Food Stamp Challenge with an anti-hunger advocate, she said, in so many words, “The people who should take it won’t.” I think they won’t care about the experiences of those who do either.

They’re ideologically driven to cut safety-net spending and will rationalize that however they can. But there’s animus against poor people in some quarters too. They don’t want to work. They use their SNAP benefits for liquor, lap dances, etc. rather than to feed their children. They [you can fill in the rest].

Darned if I know what we can do to persuade these folks that no one wants to depend on public benefits — or that everyone should have enough to eat, every day of the month, fresh fruits and veggies included

Make the Food Stamp Challenge a qualification for public office?

 

 


We Don’t Know How Many DC Youth Are Homeless, But We Do Know Too Many

October 9, 2014

My last post focused on poverty among older teens and young adults, both in the District of Columbia and nationwide. Some, though far from all are homeless. Here’s what we know — and don’t — about the scope of the problem.

As you’ll see, we still don’t have a good fix on how many homeless young people are out in the world alone — those formally known as “unaccompanied.”

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development reports that, on a single night sometime during January 2013, there were 40,727 homeless, unaccompanied youth in the U.S. These are all 18-24 year olds. Teenagers on the cusp of adulthood are lumped together with younger children. Far fewer were unaccompanied, according to the counts HUD tabulated.

Nearly half (48%) of the unaccompanied youth counted were unsheltered, i.e., spending the night in a car, public transit station or, in HUD-speak, elsewhere “not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping place for human beings.”

The District reported only six homeless, unaccompanied minors and said that all were sheltered. As some of you may recall, I questioned this figure when the results of the Washington metro area counts were first reported.

To HUD itself, the District also reported 158 homeless 18-24 year olds “in households without children.” Eighteen, it said, were unsheltered.

An additional 446 in the same age bracket and counted were in households with at least one children — presumably, in most cases, their own. Somewhat over half were in an emergency shelter — and none unsheltered, the report says.

If accurate, this is probably because the count was made on a freezing-cold night, when the District is legally obliged to shelter anyone who would otherwise have no safe place to stay.

What we know for sure is that more parents at the now-notorious DC General shelter are still in their teens or not much older. Last winter, nearly half there were between 18 and 24, according to the coalition that developed the roadmap for a better homeless family system.

Yet we also know for sure that both the national and the District’s figures are undercounts. This is partly because homeless youth — the unaccompanied, at least — are singularly hard to count.

But even the best count wouldn’t give us an accurate read because the definition of “homeless” that HUD must use — and therefore, the definition its grantees must use for their counts — excludes many youth, as well as older people whom most of us, I think, would consider homeless.

HUD has only recently begun requiring breakouts for homeless youth. And the latest posted reports are more detailed than those for the previous year. So we can’t trace trends. But we do have some evidence that the number of homeless, unaccompanied children and youth is rising.

The Department of Education, whose definition of “homeless” is broader than HUD’s, reports that the public school systems to which it had awarded grants for support to homeless students had 62,890 who were enrolled during the 2012-13 school year and with no parent or guardian looking out for them. This represents a 14% increase over the 2010-11 school year.

We don’t get a breakout for the District, alas. But we do find total homeless student enrollment figures in prior Education Department reports.

So we learn that the D.C. public schools reported 2,499 homeless students during the 2009-10 school year and 2,947 during the 2011-12 school year. This represents an increase of nearly 18%.

Though the upward trends indicated are probably accurate, the hard numbers are again almost surely undercounts.

For one thing, the homeless, unaccompanied students are only those who received services from grant-funded staff or activities. For another, the totals, including the District’s, tell us only how many homeless students school authorities could identify.

Homeless students, we’re told, are often reluctant to seek aid and hard for school authorities to identify when they don’t. They’re fearful of peer reactions, being put into foster care, etc. We can assume this is especially the case for those who are on their own.

And, of course, the Education Department’s figures don’t include youth who’ve dropped out of school — or those who’ve graduated and been unable to find jobs that would give them the wherewithal for rent.

In sum we seem to have better data on homeless children and youth than we used to — the unaccompanied cohort in particular. But we know they’re imperfect.

Here in the District, we may have better numbers fairly soon. The budget for this fiscal year includes $1.3 million for the End Homeless Youth Act — an optimistically titled bill based on recommendations by another coalition.

The bill requires the Department of Human Services to conduct “an extended youth count,” which, I take it, means something considerably more comprehensive than the one-night counts that have yielded such dubious figures.

But the bill itself called for $10 million in annual funding, reflecting what the coalition estimated the first year of its plan would cost. A million was for evaluation, including, but not limited to the youth count.

So it’s not altogether clear what we’ll have and when. Meanwhile, however, even the figures we have are plenty good enough to tell us that we’ve got a larger, more complex problem than our public agencies and the nonprofits they help support have the resources or the inter-connections to cope with effectively — let alone solve.

The Winter Plan for the upcoming season identifies 117 shelter beds specifically for young adults and 10 beds (no, this is not a typo) for unaccompanied minors.

And, as I earlier wrote, there’s no genuine plan for homeless families — thus none for the large number headed by parents in their late teens and early twenties. Setting aside the urgent shelter capacity issue, solutions designed for older people, e.g., rapid re-housing, may not be suitable for them.

Many challenges for the new administration. One can only hope it will be more concerned with meeting the diverse needs of its homeless constituents — even if that means spending more, as it probably will.

 

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 176 other followers