child care - Digital Library Collections
child care - Digital Library Collections child care - Digital Library Collections
THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEARBOOK ]998 Table 1.1 Children In Poverty, 1996 Number Characteristic (thousands) Percent Total 14,463 20.5% Race or ethnicity Hispanic a 4,237 40.3 Black 4,519 39.9 Asian or Pacific Islander 571 19.5 White 9,044 16.3 Place of residence CentraI city 6,509 30.8 Rural (nonmetropolitan) 3,167 22.4 area Suburb 4,787 13.5 Region South 5,543 22.9 West 3,842 22.9 Northeast 2,489 19.2 Midwest 2,590 15.5 Family type b Female-headed 7,990 49.3 Male-headed 779 22.8 Married couple 5,035 10.1 Family employment status Family member works 9,471 14.7 Part-time and/or part-year 5,793 51.9 Full-time and year-round 3,678 6.9 a. Persons of Hispanic arigin may be of any race. b. Data are for children related ta the head af hausehold by birth, marriage, or adoption. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Calculations by Children's Defense Fund. Child Poverty: Pervasive and Persistent T:e overall numbers of children living in poverty are deplorable. Even more disturbing, the proportion of children in extreme poverty (that is, in households with an income less than half the federal poverty level, or less than about $6,250 for a family ofthree) actually grew from 8.5 percent in 1995 to 9.0 percent in 1996, according to Census Bureau data. No racial group is immune: 40.3 percent of Hispanic children, 39.9 percent of Black children, and 16.3 percent of White children were poor in 1996 (the first year that child poverty among Hispanics outpaced that among Blacks). And poverty afflicts children in every region of the country, in suburbs and rural areas as well as in the cities, and in households headed by couples and by single parents alike (see table 1.1). The workings of the economy alone will not eradicate child poverty. Although the nation was in its ftfth year of economic recovery in 1996, child poverty crept down only to 20.5 percent, from 20.8 percent in 1995. The proportion of poor children living in families where an adult worked at least some of the time soared to 69 percent in 1996, up from 61 percent just three years earlier. The average poor family with children in 1996 got more than twice as much income from work as from welfare (see figure 1.3). Why Poverty Matters ~ ew CDF report, Poverty Matters, compiles findings from recent research confmning that hild poverty is associated with a host of ills. Notably, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Greg Duncan, who reviewed several new child poverty studies in their recent volume, Consequences of Growing Up Poor, concluded that children living in extreme or prolonged poverty tend to suffer disproportionately from conditions such as stunted growth and lower test scores, and that poverty among preschool children is likely to have damaging effects on school completion many years later. Brooks Gunn, Duncan, and others report that poor children's worse odds in these areas appear to be linked to poverty itself and not merely to other family characteristics such as parental age, IQ, or marital status. As U.S. social welfare policy moves toward a work-based system, it is striking that a very strong economy has failed to prevent either an increasing proportion ofextremely poor children or more poverty among children younger than 6. Replacing welfare with below-poverty wages will not lessen a poor child's likelihood of suffering from a serious disability, iron deficiency, or falling behind in 4 CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND
FAMILY INCOME school. Yet these ills are preventable. To the extent that family income can be increased, outcomes for children improve. When families were provided with a guaranteed minimum income for at least 18 months in federally funded experiments in the 1970s and early 1980s (the Seattle and Denver Income Maintenance Experiments, or SIME/DIME), school enrollment among the 2,000 16- to 21-yearolds studied increased from 42 percent to 51 percent. More recently, Duncan and others found that a $10,000 annual increase in family income during the first five years of life was linked to nearly a full year's increase in completed schooling. When poor children drop out of school (and they are twice as likely to do so as middle-income youths), their future earnings are limited. For example, Census Bureau data show that in 1996, 40 percent of families with children headed by a high school dropout were poor, compared with 3 percent of families headed by a college graduate. CDF estimates that for every year that 14.5 million children remain poor, the diminished productivity that results will cost a total of $130 billion in lost future economic output. Wall Street economist John Mueller, a selfdescribed "conservative Reagan Republican," notes that human capital investments, including such investments in children as school funding and family expenditures on children's development, bring a real rate of return of 12.5 percent in the business economy. This compares favorably to other capital investments such as business equipment, which have a 10.4 percent rate of return, Mueller observes. Investing in children pays off. Legislative Progress in 1997 Several notable developments last year will help children. The minimum wage increased, changes in the tax laws included a credit for children in low- and moderate-income families, and a new welfare-to-work grant program was funded to help families moving into the work force. Minimum wage bike. The second installment of the minimum wage increase enacted in 1996 took effect in September 1997, raising the minimum wage to $5.15 per hour. The increase stili leaves full-time, year-round minimum wage employment at only 82 percent of the 1998 poverty level Figure 1.3 Income Sources for Poor Families Earnings provide Where the average poor family with children got its income, 1996 poor families with mare than twice as much income as welfare does. Work 59.4% Means-tested cash benefits 24.2% Source: U.S. Deportment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Calculations by Children's Defense Fund. CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND 5
- Page 2 and 3: About CDF he Children's Defense Fun
- Page 4 and 5: Copyright © 1998 by Children's Def
- Page 6 and 7: Acknowledgments Susanne Martinez, d
- Page 8 and 9: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 10 and 11: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 12 and 13: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 14 and 15: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 16 and 17: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 18 and 19: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 20 and 21: _____T...:H_._E... S T ATE 0 F AM E
- Page 22 and 23: .... T...-HE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHI
- Page 24 and 25: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 26 and 27: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 30 and 31: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 32 and 33: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 34 and 35: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 36 and 37: ....._--"T..;H;;..;;;.E STATE OF AM
- Page 38 and 39: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 40 and 41: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 42 and 43: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 44 and 45: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 46 and 47: ......._---'T;..;;.;;H....;;E STATE
- Page 48 and 49: '--__...;T;...;;;H...;E;;....S T AT
- Page 50 and 51: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 52 and 53: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 54 and 55: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 56 and 57: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 58 and 59: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 60 and 61: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 62 and 63: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 64 and 65: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 66 and 67: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 68 and 69: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 70 and 71: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 72 and 73: L-__T.HE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDRE
- Page 74 and 75: THE STATE OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN YEA
- Page 77 and 78: CHAPTER CHILD NUTRITION any America
FAMILY<br />
INCOME<br />
school. Yet these ills are preventable. To the extent<br />
that family income can be increased, outcomes for<br />
<strong>child</strong>ren improve.<br />
When families were provided with a guaranteed<br />
minimum income for at least 18 months in<br />
federally funded experiments in the 1970s and<br />
early 1980s (the Seattle and Denver Income<br />
Maintenance Experiments, or SIME/DIME),<br />
school enrollment among the 2,000 16- to 21-yearolds<br />
studied increased from 42 percent to 51 percent.<br />
More recently, Duncan and others found<br />
that a $10,000 annual increase in family income<br />
during the first five years of life was linked to<br />
nearly a full year's increase in completed<br />
schooling.<br />
When poor <strong>child</strong>ren drop out of school (and<br />
they are twice as likely to do so as middle-income<br />
youths), their future earnings are limited. For<br />
example, Census Bureau data show that in 1996,<br />
40 percent of families with <strong>child</strong>ren headed by a<br />
high school dropout were poor, compared with 3<br />
percent of families headed by a college graduate.<br />
CDF estimates that for every year that 14.5 million<br />
<strong>child</strong>ren remain poor, the diminished productivity<br />
that results will cost a total of $130 billion in lost<br />
future economic output.<br />
Wall Street economist John Mueller, a selfdescribed<br />
"conservative Reagan Republican,"<br />
notes that human capital investments, including<br />
such investments in <strong>child</strong>ren as school funding and<br />
family expenditures on <strong>child</strong>ren's development,<br />
bring a real rate of return of 12.5 percent in the<br />
business economy. This compares favorably to<br />
other capital investments such as business equipment,<br />
which have a 10.4 percent rate of return,<br />
Mueller observes. Investing in <strong>child</strong>ren pays off.<br />
Legislative Progress in 1997<br />
Several notable developments last year will help<br />
<strong>child</strong>ren. The minimum wage increased,<br />
changes in the tax laws included a credit for<br />
<strong>child</strong>ren in low- and moderate-income families, and<br />
a new welfare-to-work grant program was funded to<br />
help families moving into the work force.<br />
Minimum wage bike. The second installment<br />
of the minimum wage increase enacted in 1996<br />
took effect in September 1997, raising the minimum<br />
wage to $5.15 per hour. The increase stili<br />
leaves full-time, year-round minimum wage employment<br />
at only 82 percent of the 1998 poverty level<br />
Figure 1.3<br />
Income Sources for Poor Families<br />
Earnings provide Where the average poor family with <strong>child</strong>ren got its income, 1996<br />
poor families with<br />
mare than twice as<br />
much income as<br />
welfare does.<br />
Work<br />
59.4%<br />
Means-tested<br />
cash benefits<br />
24.2%<br />
Source: U.S. Deportment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Calculations by Children's<br />
Defense Fund.<br />
CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND 5