Children of Incarcerated Parents
Children of Incarcerated Parents
Children of Incarcerated Parents
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Interestingly, the United States is one <strong>of</strong> the only nations that uses an absolute measure<br />
to determine poverty rates. In Europe and elsewhere best practices indicate that a<br />
relative measure <strong>of</strong> poverty is the best indicator <strong>of</strong> both proportional deprivation and<br />
comparable quality <strong>of</strong> life. Using a relative measure <strong>of</strong> poverty is considered a more<br />
accurate way <strong>of</strong> determining the economic stability <strong>of</strong> a group relative to both the<br />
general population and other comparable subpopulations. Using a relative measure to<br />
determine juvenile poverty rates requires setting a cut<strong>of</strong>f point – 60%, 50%, or 40% are<br />
standard measures – <strong>of</strong> average income, at which point a child or family is classified as<br />
poor. Relative measures <strong>of</strong> child poverty show that an even higher percentage <strong>of</strong><br />
children in the US are impoverished, deepening the juvenilization <strong>of</strong> poverty.<br />
The NCCP also writes that "Research shows, on average, families need an income <strong>of</strong><br />
about twice that level to cover basic expenses. Using this standard, 42% <strong>of</strong> children live<br />
in low-income families".<br />
According to the most recent statistics from the National Center for <strong>Children</strong> in Poverty<br />
(NCCP) at Columbia University, about 51 million children, or 21% <strong>of</strong> the juvenile<br />
population <strong>of</strong> the United States, live "in families with incomes below the federal poverty<br />
level – $22,050 a year for a family <strong>of</strong> four".<br />
Using these calculations, the number <strong>of</strong> children currently living in poverty in the United<br />
States is between 1:5 and 2:5 children. A recent analysis <strong>of</strong> the 2010 US Census found<br />
that the number <strong>of</strong> poor children rose by 1 million in 2010, with nearly 1:5 American<br />
children now living in poverty. Either statistic, say advocates <strong>of</strong> child welfare, is far too<br />
high. They point to histories <strong>of</strong> the past 50 years and especially the past 20 years and<br />
make the claim that even in good economic eras and especially in bad ones, the effects<br />
<strong>of</strong> poverty have been disproportionally transferred to children.<br />
Controversies<br />
However, there is also a body <strong>of</strong> scholarship in response that questions the validity <strong>of</strong><br />
these terms, finding that there has been neither an increase in women/child poverty nor<br />
a systematic project to transfer poverty to these populations. In particular, conservative<br />
researchers have argued that mismeasurement, inaccurate calculations, and inherent<br />
flaws in poverty data collection have overstated both child poverty rates and the<br />
juvenilization <strong>of</strong> poverty. Susan Mayer and Christopher Jencks write:<br />
After a century <strong>of</strong> fairly steady decline, the <strong>of</strong>ficial poverty rate among American children<br />
increased from 14.0 percent in 1969 to 19.6 percent in 1989, suggesting that the United<br />
States was losing its war on poverty. But once we correct various defects in the <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
poverty measure, our best estimate is that the proportion <strong>of</strong> children in households with<br />
incomes below the poverty line probably fell between 1969 and 1989 or between 1967<br />
and 1991.<br />
Page 50 <strong>of</strong> 109