|
|
Table of Contents Unmet Needs of the Poor
INTRODUCTION In February 1981, The Realities of Welfare was published by PAT. This was followed by the November, 1982 edition of The Realities of Welfare, the 1984 Update, The Realities of Welfare in Delaware: The Poor Are Getting Poorer, and the 1986 Update, The Realities of Welfare in Delaware: The Poor Are Getting Poorer. In Spring 1988, PAT published The Medically Needy in Delaware: Diagnosis and Treatment, A Study of Health Care Coverage. Preceding the current study were The Realities of Poverty in Delaware, 1989 Update, 1991 Update, 1993 Update, and 1995 Update. Thanks to Olga Ramirez for her assistance in obtaining pertinent data and to Ken Smith for writing about the lack of affordable housing. Special thanks go to Karen Curtis for her painstaking proofreading and overall guidance. We are most grateful to the Delaware Housing Coalition for typing, reproducing, and distributing this document through this special edition of The Housing Journal. Alice Brandreth, Editor
ESCALATING INCOME DISPARITY "Working Hard, Earning Less," a recent study of jobs and income in Delaware by the National Priorities Project and Jobs With Justice (available online at www.natprior.org or www.jwj.org ) illustrates the growing problem for working families. CEO Salaries Skyrocket
Structural changes in the economy related to globalization, the arrival of new technologies and the retreat of government both in the regulatory control of business and the provision of a social security net have created increasing economic insecurity amongst U.S. families. While a few have experienced great opportunities to accumulate wealth, families with children have experienced not only unprecedented job upheavals but also a decline in personal income. Since the late 1970s, income inequality has increased in Delaware. 3 The long-term economic growth of the past two decades was not shared evenly among the poor, the rich, and the middle class in the state. Instead, the top fifth of Delaware families with children fared substantially better than other incomes groups. The gap between the top fifth of families and the bottom fifth of families grew by 39 percent since the 1970s. Between the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s the gap between the rich and middle class increased faster than in all but four states. Between the late 1970s and the mid-1990s in the First State:
Traditionally better paying jobs with good benefits which gave workers without a high school diploma a chance at a middle class life style were lost with the shift from manufacturing jobs to service sector employment. Since 1950, manufacturing jobs in Delaware have declined from 43 percent of the job market to 15 percent today.4 This shift to service sector jobs has resulted in decreasing wages and benefits and increasing part time employment.
Failure to recognize the impact of the changing economy on the poor who bear the economic brunt of rapid changes in the economy has resulted in the poor being held personally responsible for their economic insecurity. Welfare reform at both the federal and state levels has accelerated the growth of poverty as economic realities are ignored and the notion of "personal responsibility" for economic insecurity is embraced by those eager to reduce government benefits for the poor. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1 The State of America’s Children Yearbook, 1998 . Children’s Defense Fund, 25 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20120, 1998, pp. xi & xii. 2 National Priorities Project. "Working Hard, Earning Less," Grassroots Factbook, Volume 1, Series 2, December 1998. 3 "Pulling Apart: A State-by-State Analysis of Income Trends, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 820 First Street, NE, Suite 510, Washington, DC 20002. 4 Milford, Maureen. "Flexing financial muscle," Sunday News Journal, Wilmington, Delaware; March 7, 1999, Section BZ, p.2.
PROFILE OF THE POOR As predicted in the 1997 Update of The Realities of Poverty in Delaware, with the advent of welfare reform, Delaware’s trend to decreased poverty has reversed, and more children have joined the ranks of the poor. In 1993, with a child poverty rate of 13.3 percent, Delaware shared first place rank among all states in having the lowest percentage of children living in poverty. By 1997, the child poverty rate had risen to 14.5 percent, and Delaware was ranked 16th among all states.1 The following policy statements by the Governor’s Family Services Cabinet Council demonstrate the conflicting agendas which feed into the increase of child poverty in Delaware. On the one hand, the Governor’s Family Services Cabinet Council states, "Delaware provides a safety net for the poor and is constantly striving to lift families out of poverty,"2 while on the other the Council states that "Mothers under 18 who give birth after January 1, 1999 will receive no cash benefits for the baby but instead will receive other forms of short-term assistance." 3 In 1996, 69 percent of poor children lived in families where someone worked – up from 61 percent just three years earlier. Among young families headed by a parent under 30, median income plunged 33 percent between 1973 and 1994. Even after the 1997 increase in the minimum wage, earnings from a full-time, year-round minimum wage job do not come close to lifting a three-person family out of poverty. Between 1975 and 1994, married mothers ages 25 to 29 years increased their average annual work time by more than 60 percent. 4 Even so, young married couples with children typically had income 12 percent lower in 1994 than in 1973, because the mother’s additional work could not offset the 30 percent decline in the father’s real earnings in the same period. Between 1970 and 1996, welfare benefits lost half their value in contrast to Social Security for senior citizens, which has maintained its value through automatic cost-of-living adjustments that keep pace with inflation. In Delaware, welfare benefits have not been increased since 1990. For a family of three, the federal poverty level is $1138 monthly and the ABC ("A Better Chance") payment is $338. 1 The State of America’s Children, Yearbook 1998, p. 107.2 Family Services Cabinet Council. Families Count in Delaware, 1998. University of Delaware, 298 Graham Hall, Newark, Delaware, 1998, p. F-32. 3 Family Services Cabinet Council. Families Count in Delaware, 1998. University of Delaware, 298 Graham Hall, Newark, Delaware, 1998, p. F-34. 4 The State of America’s Children, Yearbook 1998, p. 2.
Since the 1996 federal welfare reform law was enacted, welfare caseloads have dropped 31 percent across the nation. Not only have the number of families receiving welfare decreased, but the number of recipients finding employment has increased. Delaware caseloads have dropped abut 35 percent. AFDC/TANF Caseloads under Delaware’s "A Better Chance"
Only a small fraction of welfare recipients’ new jobs pay above-poverty wages. Most of the new jobs pay far below the poverty line. In Delaware the average wage for a client who leaves welfare for the workforce is $6.17 an hour. Many families who leave welfare are losing income or not finding steady jobs [with benefits] and are suffering even more hardships than before. Because states often penalize families without assessing their ability to complete required activities, many families are denied cash assistance through little or no fault of their own. Sanction of families in Delaware for failing to complete required activities in their contract of mutual responsibility has been particularly high with at least half of all recipients being sanctioned at least once, thereby incurring a cut in benefits. A study 1 commissioned by Delaware’s Division of Social Services analyzed the impact of sanctions on the compliance of recipients with welfare reform requirements. Analysis showed that Delaware has vigorously enforced sanctions, generating some of the highest sanction rates reported across the country. After receiving sanctions, many more clients left welfare than cured their sanctions. By June 1998, 43% of all 16,602 families enrolling in the ABC program had received at least one sanction. A larger group (45%) remained non-compliant until sanctions progressed to case closure, and 23% left the rolls before their sanctions progressed to case closure. The existence of severe financial penalties is not sufficient to induce compliance with welfare reform requirements, concluded this report. The clients’ circumstances and inability to understand the rules, and the varying effectiveness of workers in communicating program requirements and helping clients meet these requirements were listed as the primary reasons for the limited deterrence effect of sanctions. Since lower earning clients received more sanctions than higher earning clients, the conjecture that clients may not be responsive to sanctions because they have ready access to other income was disproved.The following recommendations were made. First, the number of sanctionable offenses should be reduced. Second, full-time family sanctions should be eliminated as they do not appear to be more effective than moderate penalties in use elsewhere. Finally, for clients whose difficulties result from inability to manage their affairs rather than unwillingness to cooperate, intensive outreach and services could generate better results than sanctions. To learn more about the impact of the ABC program in her district, a Wilmington state senator initiated a study of welfare recipients’ views of the ABC program and their suggestions for improving the program.3 Many recipients expressed frustration and difficulty complying with requirements. Attending mandatory classes, seeking employment, keeping a job or providing documentation in a timely manner are just a few of the requirements recipients must comply with in order to receive benefits. Many of the recipients interviewed reported having received one or more sanctions for noncompliance. This study concluded that although the majority of the respondents consider the ABC program a step in the right direction, the reality for many seeking gainful employment is that it will not pay enough to move them out of poverty. The analysis following indicates how working improves family income but is insufficient to eliminate poverty. While the full-time work scenarios bring the family of three above the poverty line, they still do not allow the family "to make ends meet," as the "Household Deficit" for each scenario demonstrates. It was part of the "Does Work Pay?" presentation at the Citizens’ Inquiry on Welfare Reform, coordinated by the Center for Community Development and Family Policy of the University of Delaware and by the Delaware Housing Coalition.
In a recent study, the Children’s Defense Fund reported that extreme poverty for children is increasing and is most severe in female-headed households in which mothers are moving from welfare to work.5 These mothers with some work experience are employed either part-time or employed at a job paying below half of the poverty level. From 1995 to 1997, the total number of American children in extreme poverty rose from 6.0 million to 6.4 million. The rise in child poverty is directly linked to the falling welfare rolls as census data show that fewer children are having their family incomes boosted above one-half of poverty line by either public assistance or SSI. While the federal law emphasizes a "work first" philosophy, parents are unlikely to raise their children out of poverty if they cannot improve their skills and upgrade their educational credentials. Census data bears this out: in 1996 women with an associate degree earned $12.46 an hour, almost double the $6.69 earned by women who had not completed high school, and $3.34 more than women with a high school diploma.6 While some states have chosen to allow some skills training and education to improve the chances of getting a good job, Delaware’s ABC program denies recipients the opportunity for skills training and college education. A recent study of welfare reform policy among the states ranked Delaware 20th in comparison with other states and concluded that Delaware has not adopted overall policies that are likely to improve the economic conditions of recipients in comparison with its previous policies.7 In February 1999, as part of a nationwide effort to survey the effects of welfare reform, 8 273 persons whose incomes were at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level and who asked for assistance at one of 33 participating agency locations, were interviewed in Delaware. Nearly two-thirds of the households responding reported at least one member of their household as working while a quarter reported two or more workers. The average number of hours worked reported was 32.7 per week, and the average wage reported was $7.42 per hour. More than one-third of those recently leaving the ABC rolls also reported losing a job in the last six months. Monitoring of Welfare Reform in Delaware ("ABC") As Part of the NWMAP Survey
While the use of Medicaid and Food Stamps was relatively high, survey respondents reported a surprisingly low level of child care assistance, particularly for those who had lost a job in the previous six months. More than 44% of those who had lost ABC benefits in the past six months were turned down for transitional support services. Minimal support for education or job training was reported.
1 Children’s Defense Fund & National Coalition for the Homeless. Welfare to What: Early Findings on Family Hardship and Well-Being. Washington, DC, November 1998, p. 7. 2 Ibid., p. 5. 3 Fein, David J. and Lee, Wang S. The ABC Evaluation -- Carrying and Using the Stick: Financial Sanctions in Delaware’s A Better Chance Program. Abt Associates, Inc. Cambridge, MA, April 1999. (Prepared for the Delaware Health and Social Services, Division of Social Services.) 4 Maddox, Robin M. The Impact of Welfare Reform’s "A Better Chance Program" on Participants in the 2nd Senatorial District. University of Delaware, Institute for Public Administration and Delaware State Senate, Delaware 1999. (This study was initiated at the request of Senator Margaret Rose Henry.) 5 Ibid., p. 11. 6 Ibid., p. 32. 7 Center on Hunger, Poverty and Nutrition Policy, Tufts University. Are States Improving the Lives of Poor Families? A Scale Measure of State Welfare Policies. February 1998. 8 Center for Community Development and Family Policy. Welfare Reform in the First State. Snapshots of Low Income Families. University of Delaware. April 28, 1999. (In collaboration with the Citizens’ Inquiry on Welfare Reform and NWMAP.) UNMET NEEDS OF THE POOR Affordable Housing While the issue of housing affordability has much room for definition, it is generally accepted that a household should not be paying more than 30% of its income for housing costs. This figure has been revised upward from the 25% rule-of-thumb which once prevailed. And there are housing experts, such as Michael Stone, who argue that the affordability line changes, depending upon income and family size. Traveling southward through the three counties, median household incomes decrease and poverty rates increase. At Risk Households are defined in the Statewide Housing Needs Assessment as "households either: 1) living in overcrowded conditions, i.e., more than one occupant per dwelling room, or 2) having very low income (less than 50 percent of area median) and paying more than 50 percent of their income for housing expenses." There are 14,486 households in this category, according to the study. Equally or more revealing, there are 20,463 tenant households –and almost 10,000 owner-households-- "at risk" by another measure: they were paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing and had incomes below 50 percent of area median income.
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997 Population Estimates; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development website (www.hud.gov); Statewide Housing Needs Assessment: Executive Summary, Delaware State Housing Authority , 8/14/96, Legg Mason Realty Group. Poverty Line, Poverty Wage, and Poverty Rent
Source: Federal Register: March 18, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 52); Notices: pages 13428 -13430. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines. Poverty level was divided by 52 weeks and then by 40 hours to reach the poverty wage. Fair Market Rent
Source: U.S. Department of HUD website (www.hud.gov) and U.S. Bureau of the Census (www.census.gov), 1996 Update. Of the 247,497 occupied units in Delaware, 73,623 (29.7%) are tenant-occupied at an average contract rent of $495. In general, tenant households have lower incomes than homeowners; and the 1995 American Housing Survey (AHS) indicates that nationally, 24% of tenants had extremely low incomes (below 30% of area median). Approximately 16,000 to 17,000 rental units in Delaware are subsidized through one of a number of different means. Public and Assisted Housing: Budget Balancing and "Personal
Responsibility" The Hope VI Initiative in Northeast Wilmington The Wilmington Housing Authority has successfully applied to make portions of the Eastlake development in Northeast Wilmington a Hope VI project. Of the 267 units in the project, some of which were built in 1942, 196 will be demolished and another 70 "partially demolished." On the new site will be 150 new townhouses and 45 renovated units, for a net loss of 72 units. Very low-income tenants will only make up a portion of the lower-density community there. 199 families will be relocated, some of whom may receive three-year Section 8 vouchers. Among the "self-sufficiency programs" referred to in the summary of the proposal is the state’s ABC program. The ultimate effect on the displaced families and its impact on worst-case housing needs in Delaware is unclear at best. The Hope VI project in Delaware follows the national pattern, where 104 grantees have so far been awarded $3 billion. Its net effect will be a loss of 7600 units. 55, 986 units will be demolished, 33,009 constructed, 8,614 rehabilitated, an additional 15,404 constructed as market-rate housing or housing financed with the Low Income Housing Tax Credit.
As with other demonstration programs, HOPE VI mandates significant resident participation, and, in the case of the Wilmington HOPE VI, the development of a resident management corporation is part of the overall plan. But the track record of past HOPE VI projects nationally has been one of perfunctory resident influence in the process. Sheila Crowley, President of the National Low-Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) sums up the concerns surrounding HOPE VI, "The fundamental issue is, do you create communities by eliminating the weakest members, or by lifting everybody up?" (Ibid., p. 21) HOPE VI in Delaware bears watching by tenants and advocates.
Moving to Work: Marrying Public Housing to Repeal of Welfare According to HUD, " The statutory purposes of MTW are to give HAs the flexibility to design and test various approaches for providing and administering housing assistance that reduce cost and achieve greater cost effectiveness; provide work incentives to promote resident self-sufficiency; and increase housing choices for low-income families." (Federal Register, March 3, 1997) In its overview of the application which it sent to HUD, DSHA estimates that 950 families living in Public and Section 8 housing in Kent and Sussex Counties will be affected by MTW, approximately 475 of whom are already participating in "A Better Chance." DSHA says that, "Of the remaining 475 clients, approximately 350 are employed." The overview goes on to state that: ...The ABC participants are required to sign a Contract of Mutual Responsibility and must work with DHSS employees to become assistance-free. The ultimate goals of MTW and ABC are identical, and DSHA plans to cooperate with DHSS in working with our [sic] mutual clients.Of the remaining 475 families, 125 will be served through DSHA’s Family Self-Sufficiency Program (FSS). Because FSS can serve only a limited number of clients, acceptance into the program will be reserved for those most in need of intensive case management. A non-ABC tenant family will become part of MTW by signing a Client Obligation Plan (COP) which includes provision for them continuing to receive housing assistance from DSHA for only three additional years, after which they will have to have moved from the public housing or Section 8-assisted unit or else be faced with paying market rent for that unit (see FMRs for Kent and Sussex, above). MTW will increase rents to 35% of income, up to a maximum rent of $120, with any further increases going monthly into a savings account deposit. Tenants participating in ABC will receive a companion DSHA "strike" for each ABC sanction received. Upon "strike three," those tenants will lose both their remaining ABC benefits and housing assistance through DSHA. Tenants not enrolled in ABC are under a similar Three Strikes policy. The DSHA overview summarizes the administrative benefits of MTW as follows: "By establishing a three year time limit, DSHA will reduce its per client costs by almost $3,000 for Public Housing clients, and over $10,000 for Section 8 clients. After year three of the Demonstration, DSHA will be able to serve over 100 additional clients per year."(p. 5) DSHA expects to save $350,000 from the benefit of increasing tenant rents to 35% of income. It expects to realize an additional $540,000 by virtue of "time-limiting" housing assistance. By comparison with the MTW plans of some of the other housing authorities across the country, the DSHA application lacks a systemic approach to the problem of poverty, relies solely upon the ABC program for case management for half of its tenant families, and makes no special provisions for those tenants who will be most difficult to "graduate" to market rate housing. (See, "The Moving-To-Work Demonstration: What Housing Programs Can Do to Help Welfare Recipients Make the Transition to Work," by David B. Bryson, The Housing Law Journal, April 1998.) The Statewide Association of Tenants is organizing in Kent and Sussex Counties to reshape the MTW to assure tenant participation in the program and to put in place more effective mechanisms for transition to work and market-rate housing opportunities. Mark to Market (MTM): Imperiled Section 8 Housing Twenty-five years ago, the Federal Government created what would become the largest rental housing subsidy in the Nation's history: Section 8. The Section 8 program now helps 3 million families around the country afford decent housing, more than double the number of families assisted by the next largest housing program, public housing. Section 8 includes two forms of subsidy: tenant-based and project-based, each assisting roughly one-half the total Section 8 units. The tenant-based program provides vouchers that give residents the freedom to use their subsidies in a wide range of private market housing, while the project-based program provides subsidies tied to specific properties so that the properties themselves remain subsidized. Between the two types of subsidy, Section 8 provides assistance to thousands of families in each and every State around the country-in urban centers and rural farmland, in high rise apartments and single family homes. Celebrating its twenty-fifth anniversary, the Section 8 program stands at a crossroad, facing a challenge that threatens its viability for the next 25 years and beyond. ....Starting in 1975, HUD signed 20-year contracts with private owners to provide project-based Section 8 subsidy to their properties. These long-term contracts are now expiring, creating widespread fear and uncertainty about whether the properties will continue as affordable housing. According to the HUD report, "Based on the latest data, about half of all project-based Section 8 properties have rents above market. Estimates of the rate HUD pays above market run as high as $1 billion per year." In 1997, HUD has set up the Mark-to-Market (MTM) program to renew these above-market-rent properties "while reducing their subsidies to market." For those projects whose rents are above 120% of area FMR, will be reduced through restructuring to 120% or, where such a reduction cannot be sustained, enrolled in the MTM demonstration program. The ultimate goal of this program is to restructure Section 8 projects with the least disruption to tenants and owners. The lone Mark-to-Market designated property in the state to date is Carvel Gardens in Laurel, Delaware. HUD has established a new Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring (OMHAR) to help assure a process whereby FHA-insured debt is restructured, affordable housing is preserved, and long-term agreements are made to keep these units in the Section 8 program. The Statewide Association of Tenants, through its affiliation with the National Alliance of HUD Tenants, is working to increase tenant awareness and participation and prevent tenant displacement in expiring Section 8 developments in all three counties.
Rural Housing Issues Some of the worst housing conditions in the State of Delaware are found in rural areas. Quite often these housing conditions are scattered throughout rural Delaware and are located "off the beaten trail." Since they tend to be out of sight, the housing needs of this segment of the population tend to be forgotten. In addition to the geographic dispersion of Delaware’s lower income population there are declining federal housing funds for rural housing and a limited number of employment opportunities in Kent and Sussex Counties. This makes the lower income rural households the hardest segment of the population to house. Among the findings of "Ten Ways" are:
Recommendations 1 and 2 of "Ten Ways" are that the state "establish a specific action plan to assist lower income households in finding decent, safe and affordable rental housing," and that a new housing finance tool be created: "the Rural Rental Housing Annuity," which would invest money into an annuity style fund that would generate interest income to help reduce rents in rural areas. Latino Housing in Rural Delaware These same factors make Latinos in Sussex County prey to unconscionable landlord practices, charging individuals and families as much as $100 a week for a single room in a dwelling that was once a single family house. Groups such as Organización Guatemalteca de Apoyo Mutuo (OGAM), the Guatemalan Organization for Mutual Aid, have recently begun organizing around rental housing complaints. Homelessness in the First State Homelessness in Delaware Revisited by Steven Peuquet and Abigael Miller-Sowers was released in 1996. It was a follow-up study to the earlier work, Homelessness in Delaware. It finds that:
A significant condition giving rise to homelessness in Delaware, according to the study, is the combination of overall growth of one-person and single-parent households, combined with a lack of real growth in earnings for a number of years. Data provided by the State of Delaware on emergency and transitional services provided cover only the agencies with whom the state contracts for such services. The decline in persons served over the period from 1990 to 1998 illustrates, in all probability, the increased length of stay required by families and individuals in these shelters before attempting to return to some form of permanent housing, rather than any decline in demand of the services of those providers.
The 1968 edition of The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences observed that, while single, homeless men are not an oddity, "homeless women and children are relatively rare. Their appearance denotes widespread disorder and instability such as follows famines and civil wars." It is notable that we now accept as mundane a kind of poverty that once was considered catastrophic and that only a few years ago would have been unthinkable outside of a Third World context. Increasing numbers of people are homeless or at risk of homelessness; shelters, transitional residences, soup kitchens, and casework programs mushroom but cannot keep pace with the rate of impoverishment, and there are fewer places than ever before where rich and poor can meet as fellow human beings. Unmet Needs of the Poor: Health
Care Coverage The 1997 study prepared for the Delaware Health Care Commission which provided the above information also provided the fact that the majority of Delaware’s uninsured have remained uninsured for more than a year. The percentage of adults without health care coverage in New Castle County continued to be 2 percent lower than the rate in Kent County and 5 percent lower than the uninsured rate in Sussex County, with this variation related to the differences in the economic base between the counties. Delawareans lacking health care insurance are a diverse group, as indicated in the chart below.
Infant mortality rates in Delaware, as in the nation, continue to decline although the U.S. ranks 21st among industrialized nations in infant mortality rates. 4 In January 1999 the Delaware Healthy Children Program was initiated to provide children under age 19 with family incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level with health insurance. The purpose of the program is to provide insurance coverage for children of the working poor who do not have insurance through their parent’s employer, and whose families earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to purchase insurance on their own. Implementation of this program will result in insurance coverage for more than 95 percent of Delaware’s children. 6 A study7 conducted to investigate consumer assessment of Health Plans in Delaware which was reported to the Delaware Health Care Commission in January 1999 indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in satisfaction between managed care and fee-for-service enrollees with regard to overall quality of health care. However, younger patients and the primary consumers of health care services,, the chronically ill, and those over age 70, have lower satisfaction levels with their health care. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1 Ratledge, Edward C. and Bedford, Rebecca C. "Delawareans without Health Insurance: A Demographic Overview (1997 version), Center for Applied Demography and Survey Research. University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware. November 1997. (Prepared for the Delaware Health Commission), p. 45. 2 Ibid, p. 44. 3 Ibid, p. 77 4 Kids Count in Delaware. Kids Count in Delaware: Fact Book 1998. University of Delaware, 298 K Graham Hall, Newark, DE 1998. p. K-22. 5 Ibid, p. K-22. 6 Delaware Health Care Commission. Annual Report and Strategic Plan. State of Delaware, 150 William Penn Street, Dover, DE; January 7, 1999, p. 10. 7 Jacobson, Eric D., Johnson, Mari R, and Ratledge, Edward C. "Consumer Assessment of Health Plans in Delaware," Institute for Public Administration and the Center for Applied Demography and Survey Research, College of Human Resources, Education, and Public Policy, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, June 1998. (Prepared for the Delaware Health Care Commission), p. 29. Unmet Needs of the Poor: Child Care
1 Delaware ranked in the bottom third of all states as far as making low-income families eligible for child care assistance. In January 1998, the state only allowed low-income working families earning less than $20,644 (for a family of three) to be eligible for any child care help although federal law allows the state to serve families with incomes up to $38,927. Delaware’s cut-off is lower than hat in a number of nearby states, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Virginia. In addition, Delaware requires one of the highest copayment levels in the country. As of January 1998, a family of three earning only $19,995 a year receiving child care help could be required to pay as much as 15 percent of their income in family copayment. This fee is 50 percent higher than the amount experts recommend and is significantly more than families at the same level would have to pay in most states, including neighboring states such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The competition for the limited number of child care spaces available to children receiving subsidized care will grow stiffer as more families move from welfare to work. The state estimates that an additional 1,300 children will enter state-subsidized care annually through the end of the decade. While state officials believe sufficient slots are available for the total of 8,375 children who needed assistance last year, it is not clear that their families can find the kind of care they want for their children. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1 Adams, Gina and Schulman, Karen. Delaware: Child Care Challenges. The Family and Workplace Connection. May 1998, pp. 1-3.
Several states, including New York, Arizona, and Wisconsin have documented a steady increase in the doling out of food by charities and a shift in clientele to those who have moved from public assistance to low-paying jobs. A 1997 study 3 confirms that these trends are occurring in Delaware also, as the number of persons receiving food stamps in Delaware dropped. Food stamps participation has not eliminated the need for emergency food assistance, as 40 percent of the households ran our of food stamps before the end of the month. Children age 17 or younger comprised 37 percent of those receiving emergency food. In houseolds with children, 7 percent of the children had missed meals in the last month because they did not have enough food or money to buy food.
At the Emmanuel Dining Halls in Wilmington, which feed employed and unemployed adults and an increasing number of children, the total number of meals served peaked during the 1991-92 recession and the began rising again in 1995. The numbers served by the Food Bank of Delaware food closets/pantries also peaked in the 1991-92 recession and began rising again in 1996, declined in 1997 and rose slightly in 1998. However, the Food Bank expanded its provision of food to the poor by developing additional programs for food distribution. In October 1998, in addition to providing food to the food closets, the Food Bank of Delaware began a new program. Fresh produce is now being delivered to 18 or more on-site feeding programs at senior centers, day care centers, residential treatment homes and emergency shelters. From the inception of this program until the end of February 1999, more than 3.1 million pounds of food had been distributed. Also, low-income families who participate in brown bag clubs, the S.H.A.R.E. Cooperative Food buying Program, and the Life Skills Initiative, are receiving food at reduced costs. In Delaware it is estimated that $15 million in food stamps will be cut between 1997 and 20002, the equivalent of three meals per day for one year for 33,970 people.4 The Food Bank of Delaware will be unable to make up this difference. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1 Revkin, Andrew C. "Welfare Policies Alter the Face of Food Lines," The New York Times, New York, February 26, 1999, pp. A1 and B2. 2 Revkin, Andrew C. "As Need for Food Grows, Donations Steadily Drop," The New York Times, February 27, 1999, p. A1. 3 Van Amburg Group, Inc., Second Harvest 1997: Local Report Prepared for Food Bank of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, 1997. 4 Center on Hunger, Poverty, and Nutrition Policy, Tufts University, 1997.
In 1981, the federal government established LIHEAP (Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Program) to distribute funds to states for the purpose of assisting low-income households with their energy costs. Funding for LIHEAP has been reduced since 1987-88. Funding cuts passed by Congress in 1995 are reflected in the reduction both in the number of households receiving benefits and the average benefits received.
Unmet Needs of the Poor:
Transportation 1 Knapp, Sue P. and Hambry, Beth. Study to Perform a survey of the Transportation Need of the Elderly, Disabled, and Economically Disadvantaged in Northern New Castle County. Delaware Department of Transportation, Wilmington, Delaware, pp. 7 and 8.
CONCLUSION Conclusions first stated in The Realities of Poverty in Delaware: 1993 Update continue to be pertinent as poverty continues and income disparity escalates in Delaware and throughout the nation. Lack of awareness of the realities of poverty by the average American contribute to a political environment in which the needs of the poor can be readily ignored. In 1995-96 politicians stampeded to continue the erosion of economic supports for the poor through the implementation of "Welfare Reform,’ which has succeeded in reducing welfare rolls but failed in reducing poverty. "Focusing on the welfare dependence of single parents as the centerpiece of welfare reform perpetuates a model of individual and family deficit and entirely misses major economic, sociocultural and locational factors that contribute to poverty and the need for public assistance... Using the language of social problems in defining dependency portrays its subjects as deficient and troublesome and channels policy remedies in a particular direction: temporary help or control. If we use the language of rights with reference to poverty and welfare reform, mobilization of poor people as a social group could bring about a change in the status of the social problem of dependency as well as public perceptions of appropriate responses." 1 Social service and casework treatments of the problems of the poor can neither keep pace with the rate of impoverishment nor address the root cause. To the extent that such approaches buffer some of us from reality and act as our proxy to address that reality, they risk disempowering us by relieving us of the task of recreating community together. They settle for "addressing the problem" from the model of individual pathology --the pathology of the dysfunctional poor, needless to say-- when "the problem" has its source in each and everyone of us as persons and in our common life. The escalation of redistribution of income from the poor to the wealthy and the increasing disparity of economic opportunity in the United States raises questions about the values of Americans. Is equality of opportunity no longer a core value? Does the will exist to implement political change which would increase economic opportunity for all and not just the privileged Americans who have reaped the benefits of the booming economy of the 1990s? Innovative ideas are emerging. Just published, The Stakeholder Society 2 advocates making good on the promise of equal opportunity by granting every qualifying young adult a citizen’s stake of eighty thousand dollars to be financed by an annual tax of 2 percent on the property owned by the richest 40 percent of Americans. By summoning the political will to initiate stakeholding, a society that is more democratic, productive, and free could emerge. _ _ _ _ _ _ _1 Curtis, Karen A. "Welfare Reform in Delaware: ’A Better Chance’ for Whom?" Publius: The Journal of Federalism 28:3 (Summer 1998), p. 122. 2 Ackerman, Bruce and Alstott, Anne. The Stakeholder Society. (Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1999).
® The Realities of Poverty in Delaware 1999 Update A Report of the Co-Chairs: Alice Brandreth
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||