Photo by psd on flickrTry and wrap your brain around these two stats:
1) 20.6 percent of Chicagoans live below the poverty level. That's one-fifth of the population!
2) 30 percent of Chicago's kids live in poverty. Nearly one in three children are living in families that can barely provide for their basic needs.
Rising poverty in Illinois: Is one solution to fix the state budget?
Share
New
poverty stats came out today from the Heartland Alliance. Overall, the
Illinois poverty rate has gone up, reaching 12.2 percent, up from 11.2
in 2007. Data from the Heartland alliance Data from Heartland Alliance
And because our poverty measure is about 50 years old and woefully inaccurate, we can bet the actual number is much higher.
Chicago's poverty rate hasn't risen dramatically over the last year, but it was already high. A
lot of those families are living in extreme poverty, which means that
they live at half the poverty rate. That's $10,600 for the family of
four. Yeah, a family of four living on 10,600 a year. Crazy right?
Well, 9.3 percent of Chicagoans are making it on that. Or not making
it, as it would seem.
These
numbers caught my eye, because a lot of public housing residents live
at these kinds of income levels. In 2008, the average public housing
income was $12,600.
Heartland's Poverty to Opportunity campaign has a great blog post on the rising poverty rates.
Reading their post, I was intrigued by one of their strategies for fixing poverty: fixing the state budget.
Almost
every year, we have the same protests, the same struggles, the same
news articles: budget cuts mean services for the poor are slashed.
Providers complain, and politicians throw up their hands: how are we
supposed to balance the budget? We gotta cut services. I
called up Doug Schenkelberg from Heartland to ask about this. When we
talk about ending poverty, we usually hear the same solutions - new
services, more money. But fixing the budget problems was something I
hadn't thought of.
The problem, Doug says, is that we have
declining revenue streams. And we have certain regular expenditures,
like state debt and pension costs, that always on the rise. We leave
the rest of the stuff, like health care, human services and education
to discretionary funds, so it's at our discretion to cut them when we
don't budget enough for the rest of it.
But here's the thing -
those funds aren't discretionary. Somewhere along the way, we decided
poverty was bad for all of society. That having pockets of people
barely making it leads to crime, blight and general despair. So if
we're committed to that idea, let's plan for it.
"At the end of the day, if we're really going to be serious about
addressing poverty," says Doug. "We have to trace it back to this fundamental issue."
It's hard for programs and social services to work if they're constantly cutting back and not reliable.
It's
funny when you bring in numbers. You get this idea that the numbers
have the power. They're just black and white. The numbers have to add
up, and if they don't, we change the numbers. We serve the numbers
instead of remembering that those numbers are our tax dollars, and they
should serve us.
"The budget is a moral document," Doug says. "We can't say that we care about ending
poverty if we don't look at this core thing that ties into all the
programs."
So
today, Schekelberg and others gathered for the kickoff of the
Responsible Budget Coalition. He said it was standing room only in the
auditorium, filled with over 500 advocates and service providers from
all over. They were all there to rally around the cause of fiscal
responsibility for poverty services.
They're working on the
nuts and bolts of what a revenue reform bill might look like and
gathering data from around the state, showing how the cuts impact
poverty rates.
One thing Doug was sure on is that protecting
the poor is essential to our mission as a state. The preamble to our
state constitution makes it one of our top priorities:
We, the People of the State of Illinois - grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing upon our endeavors - in order to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the people; maintain a representative and orderly government; eliminate poverty and inequality; assure legal, social and economic justice; provide opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; insure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense;and secure the blessings of freedom and liberty to ourselves and our posterity - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the State of Illinois.
So when our leaders pass off human services as something they spare change for, they're violating the essential mission we've set out for ourselves.
One-fifth of Chicago is desperately poor. If we don't do something to help them, we can expect this unnerving and angry violence to continue. If we ignore our communities and shrug off our commitment to eliminating poverty and inequality, we shouldn't be surprised when violence, anger and crime run rampant.
11 Comments
joey said:
This was an interesting read.
The fundamental issue is that four out of five people are not impoverished. What is 80% of the population doing to 'make it' that the other 20% simply chooses not to do? Yes, the state has a responsibility to all of its citizens, but like you mentioned, these numbers are black and white: roughly four out of five people in this state live above the poverty line. The tools are already in place for people to have more money if they simply choose to go out and get it.
Jimmy Greenfield said:
Chooses not to do? Right, because getting out of poverty is as simple as getting out of bed and heading to the non-poverty store.
Megan Cottrell said:
Hi Joey - thanks for reading and for your thoughtful comments.
In reply, first we have to realized that 20% is an undercount. We could be talking 30% here if we measured poverty right. Like I said,the old measure is super out-of-date.
There are a lot of different beliefs and ideas about poverty. A lot of people in America think poverty is caused by laziness or by a moral failing. I don't think so. I think poverty is more complex that just a segment of the population making bad choices. If we believed that then there should be a segment of every race, family socioeconomic status and education level that ends up poor, because I think we'd all agree that laziness and moral failing does not distinguish by race, socioeconomic status and education level. I knew some college profs that were incredibly lazy. But poverty isn't like that - it hits certain races and education levels harder - suggesting that there are larger forces at work.
Another thing I didn't mention is that the study shows that 42 percent of Chicago families are "asset poor," meaning they wouldn't be able to make it if something bad happened, like a health crisis, a job loss or the car breaking down. So there are a lot more families that are scraping by right now, but if something happened, they'd be poor. If nearly half the population is that way, it would make sense that a lot of those people who are already poor are like them - working people who were hit by a crisis they couldn't handle.
Anyway, sorry to be so wordy. Thanks for the comments. Tell me what you think.
joey said:
I don't even have a car. I guess I'm the one here who is really impoverished. :(
Jim Watkins said:
Hey Joey, though I am a person that lives in the poverty rate, I guess Im lucky, you dont have a car, and I wheels, my wheelchair.
mark_in_chicago said:
hi megan,
nice article on poverty in the city, with lots of good background and data. i very much appreciate your desire to help the less fortunate among us. i share that concern, but have become much more practical, if a bit cynical, after living in a number of impoverished (varying degrees) neighborhoods in chicago (humboldt park, garfield park, little village/north lawndale, and now logan square, not very impoverished where i live).
One of the most important ways to address poverty and crime? For communities and individuals to address the issue of people having kids before they are ready, before they have gotten an education or job. If a person is not able to take care of himself/herself, there is little chance that they will have the means, stability, or maturity to provide a child with a reasonable chance of escaping poverty. When it's the norm in some communities for young people to have kids before they're even able to take care of themselves, there's little chance that kids will have a stable, supportive environment and get the basic preparation and support for succeeding in school. Unless this changes, there's little chance that both the schools and communities will ever improve.
Yes, school reform is needed to address the sometimes appallingly poor levels of school achievement. But the blame needs to extend past the schools to the effect of community and parents. Good teachers are critical, but I think that the community and parents play an equal if not larger role. Unless the core issues of poverty, crime, and community and family stability are addressed, no amount of money spent or committed teachers will solve the problem of poor quality education.
Megan Cottrell said:
Hi Mark - great comments. Thanks for reading.
Maybe I wasn't entirely clear. I wasn't saying we should spend more money. I think that poverty is very complex, just as you noted. There are a lot of great programs that help families escape the cycle of poverty - for instance, parenting classes for those who become parents young, or job training programs so parents can provide better for their kids. Or alcohol treatment. Or homelessness prevention. Or birth control or sex education.
These things are hard to fix, but we have a lot of great social workers who are dedicated to helping. But if a problem is as big as complex as you and I think it is, we can't pretend that these services are "discretionary." I'm not suggesting we throw more money at the problem - I'm suggesting we stop cutting money from the people and programs that are trying to help.
Some of the issues of poverty are individual. People have kids too early. People get addicted to drugs or alcohol. People don't pursue the education they need to succeed.
But some of the issues are structural. Take, for example, the mental health care system. There used to be about 25 public mental health clinics over the city, doing great work. Now, there's about four, and even those are being cut. Now the parents that had kids too young and need help not turning to abuse or alcohol to cope with their choices don't have it. And it's because we are waiting until the last minute and pretending mental health care is optional. If we want to eliminate poverty, it's not.
Anyway, thanks again for your comments. I really appreciate readers like you who read, think and express their thoughts!
mark_in_chicago said:
Hi Megan,
Wow, thanks for a great, comprehensive, nuanced response. When much of the "debate" is sound-bite, tweet, or uninformed, emotional, vitriolic rant, an informed, respectful response is very refreshing.
yes, there are many factors that lead to poverty, and there are no "magic bullet" (no pun intended with the violence tied to poverty) solutions. there must be a comprehensive look at everything that leads to poverty and how to solve it. a holistic approach is vital.
we need to take a look at all efforts being made and ensure the maximum return on investment (both monetary and human) so the time and money spent do the maximum good, and address not just the symptoms (which will thus continue) but get to the root causes, and result in real improvement through prevention. should more, the same, or less money be spent on programs? my first thought is like yours: don't increase spending, but certainly don't cut it either. but let's look at the whole system and decide what's appropriate, what really works, and how to really solve some of the problems so poverty and the social services systems are not perpetual realities.
again, i think the by far the most important step that can be taken to reduce poverty and violence, and dependence on government and social services, is for unready mothers to stop having children. how can that best be addressed? i'm not sure. but for all the wonderful people who are working to reduce poverty, it must be one of the highest priorities rather than an afterthought. otherwise, i don't believe there will ever be real improvement.
you're right too that there needs to be structural change as well. a prime example is the criminal justice system that criminalizes drug sales and decimates communities where sales are concentrated. some will say that nobody forces people to sell drugs and that putting dealers in jail gets them off the street, which is good, and just.
i disagree. if there's a demand for drugs, there will always be a supply. for those who want tough drug laws, penalties should be every bit as harsh for those who buy and consume drugs as for those who sell them. that would be just. and might also reduce the demand, and thus reduce the dealing.
however, it seems that it would be much more productive to treat drugs as a health/mental health issue, and possibly legalize sales. this would largely decriminalize sales and hopefully greatly reduce demand, by addressing the users. and bring in income for drug-use prevention and rehabilitation, pregnancy prevention/family planning, and other programs that are really needed.
if i had been born in garfield park, to an unready mother, in a terrible community, with little to no education (due to the parents and community as much as the schools), i almost certainly would have been on the street selling drugs. there are few other options. for those who say kids in the ghetto need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, i say it's completely unrealistic.
but putting sellers in jail means a further fracturing of the almost non-existent family structure, turning a person with at least some potential into a lifelong criminal (almost no rehabilitation goes on in prisons any more; for profit prisons have a vested interest in recidivism, not rehabilitation), and spending $30-$50,000 a year on incarceration.
and, as you note, improving the mental health care system is another large, structural challenge.
i must reiterate, unready mothers not having kids until they're ready can address most of these issues by preventing children from becoming products of welfare, prisons, or mental health facilities. there are many roots to poverty, but i think this is the most important, and the most important means to any real solution.
Waffle 2.0 said:
i tried to leave a comment and just erased all 4 paragraphs out of sheer emotional exhaustion just thinking about how quickly we are heading to hell in a handbasket. Fixing the budget???? Fixing the budget???? There are kids walking the streets right now, a mile away from my house that will f*cking kill you for being white, rape you for being a woman, stomp on your head for looking at them too long, etc and won't think twice about spending 15 years in prison after they do it in broad daylight. There is no support system at home because their male members are either in the gangs or in prison. The parent is usually a woman by herself yet had access to free condoms. Schooling is free for them but their culture looks down on achievement so school becomes a joke. Your college prof's were lazy? That is a cop out. Indifference and laziness are not the traits that get any person to the top of their profession. Megan, don't be naive. Poverty is a cycle but the cycle has nothing to do with budgets and programs and excuses. Poverty, violence, despair and the like are all products of the slow decay of how most people used to live their lives in this country. Family structures existed, morals were passed down, accountability was present. There has always been a poor working class in this country with the operative word being "working". There were no excuses in the past. We have started making excuses for deplorable behavior and we are now at a point where there is no fixing the problem. The problem becomes the norm. Sorry to burst your bubble.
rwoodley said:
I don't trust numbers from advocacy groups like Heartland. Its advocacy, not research. They have an agenda and they select 'facts' that support their agenda. (I don't know why people give money to advocacy groups. Its like paying someone to tax you.)
The IL budget is indeed a mess and to some extent social services get squeezed because the so much of the budget is tied up in entitlements that are hard to cut. And we're just creating more and more entitlements. Especially at the federal level. Its making all of us poorer. It is hard for me to visualize a happy ending. Government is not the solution, it is the problem.
Otherwise I agree with the other commenters who say people need to take responsibility for their lives. Having government 'fix' things creates a culture of dependency and victimization.
mark_in_chicago said:
johnny-harsh, but a lot of truth in what you say. (and that *sucks!* to lose 4 paragraphs. argh. i feel you. i always copy as i go and paste into a word or text document for that reason. and also b/c i'm so wordy. i've lost a "short" post that turned into a mini-book) before...
rwoodley-largely good points also.
i forgot to mention: when it comes to giving money to non-profits or other groups (environmental, political, etc.), be aware all groups are *not* created equal.
i've read that there are over 100 social services agencies serving the humboldt park area alone. 100?! some are very effective in what they do, other spend a large part of their income on administration with little left to do good.
i highly recommend supporting organizations that do good. but choose wisely! and choose those that attack the root causes, not just the symptoms.
Leave a Comment?
What your comment will look like:
said: