DC TANF Families Far Below Poverty Line, Even With Uncut Benefits

November 20, 2014

Shortly before the election, Washington Post reporter Rachel Weiner observed that none of the mayoral candidates had even mentioned “a dramatic change in the city’s welfare program that could drag many poor families into further distress.”

She was referring to the District’s decision to phase out Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits to families who’ve received them for a lifetime total of five years. The DC Council suspended the phase-out after the first cut — and for good reasons, as Weiner indicates.

But the cuts have gone forward again. They’re likely to leave more than 6,000 families with no cash assistance whatever come next September — unless the Council and soon-to-be Mayor Bowser agree to change the law.

But what about families whose benefits haven’t been cut? Not much of a safety net for them, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ recent state-by-state update on the benefits shows.

CBPP looks at the maximum cash benefit a single parent with two children can receive. That was $428 in the District when the Center did its analysis.

A provision in the latest Budget Control Act, i.e., the package of legislation that’s paired with the budget proper, provides for a cost-of-living adjustment this fiscal year, based on the Consumer Price Index.

That, I’m told, will boost benefits by 1.5% — just making up for what our three-person family’s benefit lost in value due to inflation during the July 2013-14 period.

The family will still have an income at about 26% of the federal poverty line. And it will be considerably worse off than three-person families were when TANF began.

Adjusting for inflation, the maximum benefit for our D.C. family has lost about a third of its real-dollar value. Losses were smaller in more than half the states.

And, as we all know, the cost of living here is higher than in most places. CBPP provides just one measure — the gap between the maximum TANF benefit for three-person families and the fair market rents the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development set for a modest two-bedroom apartment.

The pre-COLA maximum benefit for our D.C. family is 29.1% of the FMR for the apartment. In other words, the family couldn’t come anywhere near to paying for it, even if it spent its entire benefit on rent.

This is true for families in every state, but the rent shortfall is greater than the District’s in only two — Mississippi and Tennessee. Not, I suppose, states the District would choose as benchmarks.

Rankings of this sort aren’t nearly as relevant as the measures of how woefully inadequate TANF benefits are — and how more woefully in adequate they’ve become over time.

So far as housing is concerned, the maximum for our D.C. family would have covered nearly 44% of the FMR in 2000 — still a very large shortfall, but smaller because the benefit was worth more and rents in our area hadn’t skyrocketed.

Now, it’s true that some TANF families in the District have more cash income than the maximum benefit indicates because our local program exempts a fair amount of earned income when setting benefit levels.

Also true, however, as indicated above, that many families are receiving far less than the maximum. The phase-out alone has left some three-person families with as little as $152 a month.

Most, if not all of the families, however, receive a separate cash-equivalent benefit from SNAP (the food stamp program). Yet the cash value of SNAP benefits still leaves TANF families far below the poverty line.

CBPP shows this by combining the average monthly SNAP benefit for TANF families with the maximum the three-person family can get from TANF. With the two benefits, so defined, our D.C. TANF family was at 54.4% of the FPL in July.

But, says CBPP, this is probably an overstatement for many families because the average SNAP benefit it calculated assumes housing, plus utility costs high enough to qualify families for the maximum.

No such costs for the families in the DC General shelter, most of whom depend on TANF benefits. And lower costs, if any that families can claim if they’re doubled-up with accommodating friends or relatives.

There could be fewer homeless families if the District substantially increased TANF benefits now, as originally proposed, and modified the phase-out to preserve benefits for families who’d otherwise become destitute, even though the parents had done everything they were told to.

These could include families with a parent who’s working, but not able to earn enough to support herself and her kids and those with a parent who isn’t working because jobs she could qualify for are just too scarce.

And then perhaps there are parents who didn’t do everything they were told to because they couldn’t, e.g., those with certain intellectual disabilities or PTSD that caseworkers had failed to identify.

But such exemptions would still leave some families subject to phased-out benefits that would sink them even deeper in poverty than they already are — and less likely to achieve the self-sufficiency that TANF is supposed to promote.

How can you focus on preparing for — or seeking — work when you’re trying to figure out where you and your kids will spend the night or how you’ll feed them now that you’ve run through your monthly SNAP benefit?

Problems even for parents who are still within the rigid time limit now.

 


How Should We Make Sure That Homeless People Don’t Go Hungry?

November 17, 2014

This is National Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week, an annual event scheduled to take advantage of the fact that we’re thinking about what we’re thankful for — and about food.

I’m going to take advantage of it here by pondering an issue that the National Coalition for the Homeless, which cosponsors the week, raises in its latest report on the “criminalization of food sharing.”

“Food sharing” refers to distributing food to homeless people, usually outdoors. A growing number of local laws “criminalize” it, NCH says, by imposing restrictions of several major sorts. They’re based on “unjust stereotypes and biases that victimize people experiencing homelessness,” it contends.

Perhaps or perhaps not, as I’ll attempt to show further on. But first a look at the number and types of restrictions NCH finds so objectionable.

Cities That Restrict Food Sharing

NCH doesn’t actually tell us how many cities restrict food sharing. It instead identifies 17 that adopted such restrictions in the last year and a half and lists 12 more that it found too late to fold into the report. Fort Lauderdale recently joined them — and promptly became notorious for acting against the 90-year-old head of a street ministry.

Community pressures “have pushed food-sharing out of populated areas,” e.g., public spaces, in at least four other cities, NCH says. So that makes a minimum of 34 cities that, in its view, have recently engaged in new hostile acts against food sharing.

Types of Food-Sharing Restrictions

NCH identifies two major types of food-sharing restrictions, not counting community pressures that programs have felt constrained to respond to.

The first type limits uses of public property, mostly by requiring permits. Some of them are dauntingly costly for individuals and groups who want to share food on a regular basis. Lots of red tape too.

The second type requires food sharers to comply with food safety regulations, e.g., to get a food handler’s certification or to prepare hot meals only in approved locations (presumably those that have passed some sort of inspection).

Arguments Against Food-Sharing Restrictions

NCH and the volunteers it quotes clearly believe that anyone should be able to feed homeless people pretty much wherever and whenever they choose. After all, homeless people need to eat. And a free meal served where they tend to congregate is a whole lot safer and healthier than dumpster diving.

Some faith-based organizations view food-sharing restrictions as a violation of their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religious duty to feed the hungry. Two courts have agreed.

Professor Baylen Linnekin, who’s also executive director of the libertarian Keep Food Legal Foundation, argues that food-sharing restrictions are discriminatory, as well as unconstitutional on other grounds because they apply only to sharing food with people who don’t sleep with a roof over their heads.

Arguments for (Some) Food-Sharing Restrictions

Cities regulate uses of public spaces for all sorts of reasons — safety, equal access, sanitation, etc. It’s not clear why food-sharing programs should get a free pass when the result can be blocked sidewalks or a park that’s littered with garbage, which serves as a feeding program of sorts for rats.

Property use rules can, of course, be targeted specifically to deter food sharing. The new Fort Lauderdale ordinance, for example, requires outdoor feeding programs to provide portable toilets and hand-washing stations. But it seems a stretch to label every new rule that affects a food-sharing program as an effort to criminalize its activities.

Ditto for requiring programs that feed homeless people to observe basic food safety precautions. Mark Horvath, the genius behind Invisible People and a formerly homeless person, argues that homeless people should have the same assurance of food that’s “healthy and inspected” as the rest of us do.

Beyond this, Horvath believes that feeding homeless people on the streets or in a park can discourage them from going to a nonprofit that will not only feed them, but provide or connect them to other services — and thus end their homelessness. He’s not the only one.

NCH calls the notion that food sharing enables homeless people to remain homeless a myth. They’re homeless, it says, for reasons that have nothing to do with choice, e.g., mental health problems, physical disabilities, lack of affordable housing and/or job opportunities.

But they’re not going to get help with any of these from an outdoor food-sharing program that’s not coordinated with anything else.

Beyond Food Sharing

Horvath suggests that those of us who want homeless people to have enough to eat should donate our time and/or money to a local service provider, though he’s willing to allow that we can feed people in a park so long as we’re also doing something to get them out of it — not, of course, by advocating for local laws that “criminalize” their being there.

NCH itself recognizes that the sort of food-sharing programs it believes local authorities are unjustly targeting don’t solve the problems of hunger and homelessness — or even hunger among homeless people.

It recommends outreach and caseworker support to help homeless people enroll in federal nutrition programs like SNAP (the food stamp program). It recommends more federal funding for them, as well as for food sharing and for organizations that provide food for homeless people in other ways (lots of luck!).

It also recommends changes in federal law to eliminate barriers to SNAP participation, i.e., work requirements, the lifetime bans some states still impose on people who’ve been convicted of drug-related felonies (lots of luck, again).

Setting aside the high improbability of friendlier federal nutrition policies, an approach that coordinates feeding with other forms of help does seem preferable to free-standing, outdoor food-sharing programs.

Yet not all homeless people want to go someplace where they can eat indoors, as NCH Director of Community Organizing Michael Stoops says. Nor apparently do they all respond to caseworkers who go to where they are.

DC Central Kitchen, whose mobile breakfast program NCH approvingly cited in its previous food-sharing report, says it’s piloting something different because “the vast majority of our clients were content to receive a free daily meal without engaging in any meaningful way with our outreach workers.”

But it hopes some other nonprofit will fill the gap. Better fed than dead of malnutrition, one might say — or than driven to desperate acts.

Hard, I think, to decide where we who worry about both hunger and homelessness should net out.

UPDATE: Shortly after I posted this, I discovered another significant voice in the food-sharing debate. It’s a fierce response by the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless to an NPR interview with a prominent consultant who opposes outdoor feeding programs. The coalition focuses specifically on church groups, but most of the issues it raises are more generally applicable.

 

 


DC General Closing Plan Won’t Shelter All Homeless Families at Risk of Harm

November 13, 2014

I’ve been feeling I should say something about the Gray administration’s plan for closing the DC family shelter ever since it saw the light of day a couple of weeks ago. I haven’t because I’ve had trouble getting my mind around it.

Not altogether my fault. The plan, you see, isn’t really a plan. It’s more like a working paper — or a statement of preferences perhaps. These are certainly clear enough. But whether the next administration can translate them into a reality is at the very least questionable.

And in a couple of respects, I hope it doesn’t. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Here are the major issues, as I see them.

Should DC General Be Closed?

A rhetorical question. No one, I venture to say, thinks that DC General is an okay place for children and their parents to live, even temporarily. It’s too big — a “small city” Councilmember Graham called it.

It was never fully converted from the hospital it used to be — apparently because no one wanted to acknowledge that it was the replacement for the then-notorious shelter the former mayor felt pressed to close in 2007.

Its basic systems are seemingly beyond redemption — frequent heat and air conditioning outages, no hot water for long periods of time, elevators that break down — or in one recent case, get flooded. And the place is persistently infested by mice, roaches, bed bugs and the like. Moldy too.

In short, it’s shameful that a child would have to go missing to get District officials serious about closing DC General.

Where Would the District Shelter Homeless Families?

The Gray administration envisions smaller shelters scattered across the city. They would have to include play spaces for children and be near to public transportation and “community amenities [undefined].”

The administration would prefer buildings leased from private landlords because, it says, this option would be quicker and cheaper than renovating publicly-owned buildings or constructing shelters on publicly-owned land.

The latter would also require the District to pay for ongoing operating costs, e.g., utilities, maintenance. The preferred option would make private landlords responsible for these, as well as security systems, furniture and whatever renovations their buildings require.

Ideally, each building would have 40-50 units, though the plan allows as how some larger shelters might be okay. For the smaller shelters, it projects a $2,000 per month cost.

Now, why would an owner of a potentially suitable building in any of our high-rent, high-demand neighborhoods agree to lease it for a minimum of 10 years at a rate this low — or anything close?

And if one did, wouldn’t the NIMBY (not in my backyard) forces “come out of the woodwork,” as the Director of the General Services Department has predicted? One recalls what happened when the District considered putting a smaller shelter in soon-to-be Mayor Bowser’s ward.

So, says Aaron Wiener at Washington City Paper, the “available candidates” will instead probably be “boarded-up properties” in low-income neighborhoods on “the city’s margins” — far less convenient to public transportation and “amenities” than DC General.

What Would a Unit Be?

Well, I’ll tell you what it wouldn’t necessarily be — an “apartment-style” unit, which the District’s homeless services law requires for families, except when no such unit is available.

The Gray administration interprets this limited exemption to mean that shelter units the District has yet to lease or build don’t have to include a bathroom for each family or any place to prepare a meal. They apparently may be just a single room, where parents and children must sleep together — just as they must at DC General.

How Many Homeless Families Would Have Shelter?

The Gray administration wants the replacement shelters to have, in total, the number of units currently provided at DC General — and to close the shelter in one fell swoop “so as to avoid an unplanned shelter expansion.”

It’s not altogether clear how many replacement units there’d be, since the Department of Human Services has concluded that 40 or so units at DC General don’t meet the (minimal) criteria the court established when it ordered the agency to stop “sheltering” families in recreation centers.

What is clear is that there won’t be nearly enough replacement units unless the number of families needing shelter miraculously plummets — or the homeless prevention and rapid exit strategies the Winter Plan promises miraculously work much better than they’ve done to date.

The plan isn’t short on units because providing enough to meet the need would cost more than the District could afford. It’s “a clear philosophical stance,” says the Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services.

And it’s based on a truly appalling ignorance — or worse — of what happens to homeless families when the District won’t provide them a safe place to stay. Senior policy advisor Sakina Thompson, who wanted even fewer units, says, “During the summertime, when shelter is not available, families find other means.”

Indeed, they do. They walk the streets looking for someone to take them in for awhile. They sleep in cars, if they have them, or at bus stops or on a church floor. They take refuge in a laundromat. Some presumably return to the abusers they’ve fled.

Whatever “other means” they find, they’re likely to have more and/or worse problems when the District must finally shelter them than they had when they become homeless.

Not so long ago, the District provided shelter year round to families who’d otherwise have no safe place to stay.

Mayor Bowser and the DC Council will have to decide whether to move forward with a plan that would intentionally replicate the crises that Gray and his people have used to justify barring the shelter doors, except when it’s freezing outside.

I’m hoping for a more compassionate — and policy-smart — philosophical stance.

 


Nearly a Third Fewer Veterans Homeless: Smart Spending Works

November 10, 2014

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development recently reported a slight decline in the number of homeless people nationwide — 2.3% fewer than in 2013.

One can quarrel with the figure. And four major advocacy organizations have, arguing, among other things, that the definition of “homeless” that communities must use for their counts excludes a very large number of people, including youth and families with children.

More reliable, I think, are figures showing a marked drop in the number of homeless veterans — 10.5% fewer than in 2013 and 32.6% than in 2009. No other group the one-night counts break out experienced anything close.

Even in the District of Columbia, where the total number of homeless people increased by nearly 13% — and the number of homeless families by more than 25% — the number of homeless veterans ticked down. And it had plummeted by 42% since 2009.

Two cities claim they’ve ended chronic homelessness for veterans. And recent figures reportedly indicate that the District is about a third of the way toward ending it for all veterans by the end of 2015 — the goal Mayor Gray and at least 224 of his counterparts adopted from the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness.

USICH made ending veteran homelessness a first order of business for the federal agencies it includes — and by extension, state and local governments, nonprofits and others in the private sector.

And what the results tell us, I think, is that sometimes throwing money at a problem goes a long way toward solving it.

HUD has used dedicated funding to provide about 68,000* housing vouchers to local public housing agencies since 2008. Congress has appropriated $75 million for these vouchers every year, but one since Fiscal Year 2009 — and apparently is set to do so again.

The PHAs must have a local healthcare center nearby to provide case management and other services. These are funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

No separate line item in the budget for these, but the account VA draws on is said to be “generally robustly funded.” And indeed, the Secretary recently invited nonprofits to apply for a total of $93 million in grants.

So the jointly-funded program represents a quite large federal investment in permanent housing, with supportive services for homeless veterans — mostly those qualifying as chronically homeless.

HUD attributes the marked decline in veteran homelessness mainly to this program. And it seems reasonable to believe that the long-term decline in chronic homelessness is related — 30% fewer individuals since 2007.

Yet USICH had to push back its goal for ending chronic homelessness because, says its executive director, “[W]e haven’t been willing to invest $300 million to create the affordable housing that’s needed.” She’s apparently referring to Congress — certainly not to USICH.

She’s hopeful that progress on veteran homelessness will show that “when we put appropriations behind … [the right solution] we can drive change.”

“We do think we can get to the point of saying there are no more homeless veterans in the country,” she tells a real estate news reporter. And that will show we can achieve the same for other populations as well, “if we set our mind to it.”

Kurt Runge, Director of Advocacy at Miriam’s Kitchen, says something similar about the campaign to move veterans in the District off the streets and into permanent supportive housing. “Not only can we end chronic veteran homelessness, but we can end all homelessness.”

That doesn’t mean we will, however — or even seriously try to. Veterans have a privileged place in our policymaking and budget choices.

So, as Bryce Covert at Think Progress, astutely says, “[T]he danger is that while some groups have bipartisan support and will meet their goals, progress will end there.” The head of the National Coalition for the Homeless, whom she quotes, thinks “some folks” will consider the job done when the veterans goal is met.

All of which makes the cheering figures on homeless veterans — and the well-financed, energetic support for housing the rest — somewhat bittersweet news.

* This is the figure on the HUD-VASH page of HUD’s website. The agency’s press release for its homelessness report says “more than 59,000.”

 

 

 


Why I’m Not Writing About the Elections

November 5, 2014

I tired of the topic many weeks ago. I bet many of you did too. And we’ll be even more tired before Monday morning quarterbacking is over. If only the Democrats had done this or that. There’s nothing they could have done that would have changed the outcomes. It’s all Obama’s fault. No, it isn’t. Etc.

I’m in a state of acute denial. I tell myself it won’t be all that bad. Not altogether believing myself. After all, my brother Tom and his family will be represented in the Senate by someone who touted her experience as a pig castrator.

But then another two years of the status quo would hardly have been anything to look forward to. Republicans would still have controlled the agenda in the House. They’d still have had enough votes in the Senate to block most anything they objected to — or thought would serve their political ends in 2016.

I see no point in adding to the plethora of prognostications — some more dire than others. And they’re old hat by now anyway. Columnists, bloggers and organizations of a progressive persuasion have been forecasting dreadful things in order to scare us to the polls — well, not us who live in the District of Columbia, but everyone else to the left of the right.

And the truth of the matter is we simply don’t know what Republicans will do — even assuming, as we shouldn’t, that the leaders can control their most radical Tea Party types. We don’t know what Obama will do either.

I can’t wrap up the state and local elections in a blog post. They’re extremely important, but the results are all over the map — figuratively, as well as literally.

So far as the District’s elections are concerned, we can be pretty sure we won’t see any dramatic changes. Beyond that, we truly don’t know. Mayor-elect Bowser kept her plans as vague as possible, which was, for the most part, very vague indeed.

I felt I had to say something about the elections, however, because I’d otherwise seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room. (Sorry ’bout that.) So I’ve acknowledged them without really saying anything.

And those of you who’ve had your fill of the elections can take comfort in knowing I don’t intend to say anything more, though I suppose they’ll worm their way into posts sooner or later.

That said, I’d welcome comments from any of you who’d like to opine or just plain vent about what happened yesterday.

 


How Low-Income Americans Live (and Whether They Live) Depends on Where They Live

November 3, 2014

TalkPoverty.org recently hosted an online panel discussion on policy solutions to the economic insecurity — and downright poverty — that the latest Census figures confirm.

Toward the end of the discussion, the moderator asked panelists for their views on the “political environment” for their solutions. None saw more than the remotest chance of positive action by Congress. All noted good things happening at state and local levels — and expressed hopes for more.

There’s a flip side to these good things. They aren’t happening everywhere. And they almost surely won’t. We have a sort of inequality that’s not much talked about — the markedly unequal opportunities and safety-net supports for low-income people, depending on where they live.

Nothing new about this, of course. I’m moved to remark on it by an analysis the Urban Institute published the same day as the panel discussion.

The Institute looks at what will happen to poor and near-poor uninsured adults in the 23 states that haven’t expanded their Medicaid programs, as the Affordable Care Act required, until the Supreme Court said it couldn’t.

As you may recall, the ACA had required states to provide Medicaid coverage to non-elderly adults with incomes no greater than 133% of the federal poverty line — effectively 138% because of the way income is calculated.

The law also allows anyone in the same age bracket to purchase health insurance on an exchange if they can’t get affordable health insurance through their employer, but only if their income was at least 100% of the FPL.

What this means is that an estimated 6.3 million people have fallen into a coverage gap, being ineligible for both unexpanded Medicaid and for affordable health insurance offered on an exchange.

Needless to say (I hope) very few adults so poor can get health insurance sponsored by their employers. And there’s no way they can afford to buy it at market rates.

Their median annual income is just $9,500 — 65% of the FPL, the Institute reports. But it’s considerably lower in a number of states — 61% of the FPL in three (all Southern) and 49% in Alaska, where the median annual income for left-out residents is $7,422.

And, of course, half of the adults in the coverage gap have incomes lower, which means trying to get by on no more than $800 a month in most of the non-expansion states.

Some of these states have also done their best to limit purchases on the exchange that the federal government set up because they wouldn’t create their own.

As I’m sure you’re well aware, the exchange website isn’t altogether user-friendly. Even if it were, assessing the different plans offered and deciding which to choose wouldn’t be easy, especially if you’ve never had health insurance before.

The ACA, however, provided funds for “navigators” to inform consumers and help them through the enrollment process. And the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services established requirements to make sure they could do the job, e.g., training on a range of topics, a certification exam.

At least 13 states piled additional requirements on, according to a Health Care America Now review. Texas, for example, doubled the training hour requirements and added background checks. Can’t have ex-felons advising people on health insurance, you know.

It also requires community groups to secure liability protection, e.g., an insurance policy, for the navigators they retain and to comply with a bunch of additional rules. More costs clearly intended to hamstring the groups’ activities.

Indiana and several other states did something similar through licensing requirements that reportedly cost as much as $175 per navigator. Florida barred navigators from its public health offices.

We can see the results in the latest American Community Survey figures. In Texas 22.1% of the population had no health insurance last year. In the District of Columbia and Hawaii, just 6.7% of residents didn’t. Only Massachusetts, whose own healthcare reform gave it a jumpstart, had a lower rate.

We see similar divides in other state-level policies that affect the lives of low-income people, e.g., minimum wage rates, welfare benefits. I single the ACA pushback out because it’s so egregiously political, perverse and consequential.

Political because the state governors and/or legislative majorities want the ACA to fail — and more importantly, to ensure they don’t get beaten in the next primaries by candidates even further to the right.

Perverse in part because expanding Medicaid wouldn’t cost the states one thin dime until 2016 and only 10% of the costs of health care for the newly-eligible from 2020 forward.

Some of these costs would be offset by savings on care for people without insurance, however. So the extra states would have to spend would be a miniscule percent of what they have to spend anyway — 0.3%, on average, another Urban Institute analysis found.

And some states, the Institute concluded, would probably come out ahead. Another of its studies estimated states’ total savings at $12 billion to $19 billion a year, beginning in 2020.

We don’t need number-crunching to know that states gain nothing by deterring their residents from purchasing health insurance on an exchange. If anything, they’re stiffing their hospitals, virtually all of which must provide emergency care, whether patients can pay for it or not.

But people without health insurance generally don’t get much else by way of medical care. No routine checkups to detect so-called silent health problems like diabetes and hypertension. No screenings that can detect certain types of cancers.

Nor do people without health insurance generally have the wherewithal to follow recommendations they may get, e.g., to take prescribed medications at prescribed intervals, to get followup tests.

There’s been a lot of back-and-forth among experts over how many people will die because their states haven’t expanded Medicaid. The truth is we don’t know (yet).

But it seems as clear as day that low-income people — and some not-so-low — can look forward to longer, healthier lives in some states and will die unnecessarily in others. And if that’s not inequality, then I don’t know what is.

 


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.

 

 

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 184 other followers