Philip N. Cohen, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, recounts the fundamental flaws in American anti-poverty policy.
He writes:
The stated goal of the 1996 welfare reform law, for instance, was not to alleviate poverty but to encourage marriage and reduce single parenthood. The problem was seen as poor character rather than poor income, and the solution was imagined as a matter of replacing the dependency of so-called “deadbeat” parents on the state with dependency on a spouse. Those who insisted on remaining unmarried were singled out for special censure: In the words of one architect of the reform effort, Ron Haskins, “mothers on welfare, even those with young children, should be encouraged, cajoled, and, when necessary, forced to work.” Today, many policymakers still want to impose conditions on families receiving food stamps and housing support, and as of 2015, marriage-promotion programs aimed at reducing poverty through matrimony had cost the federal government nearly a billion dollars.
One wonders if the money could have been better spent. There are about 6 million poor families with children in the United States — which means nearly 1 in 5 families with children in the wealthiest nation on the planet are living in poverty. My analysis of the latest federal data shows that, on average, these families’ income — including tax credits and all sources of welfare — is about $9,000 below the poverty line. That means ensuring no children grow up in poor households would cost $57 billion a year. (To put that in perspective, that’s how much money we’d get if Apple brought back the $200 billion it has stashed overseas, and paid just 29 percent tax on it – it’s a big problem, but it’s small compared to the wealth of our society.)
We know growing up poor is bad for kids. But instead of focusing on the money, U.S. anti-poverty policy often focuses on the perceived moral shortcomings of the poor themselves. We don’t try to address poverty directly, or alleviate it; we simply try to change the way poor people behave, especially poor parents. Specifically, we offer two choices to poor parents if they want to escape poverty: get a job, or get married. Not only does this approach not work, but it’s also a cruel punishment for children who cannot be held responsible for their parents’ decisions.
Cohen argues that pro-marriage social policies are popular but have failed; he recommends a universal child payment, which would reach the poorest families and dramatically reduce child poverty.

The solutions to assisting those on poverty are complex, but top down management styles are doomed to fail. The white suits can’t just sit in their offices and decide what is best for these one parent families, mainly women and children, without ever having interacted with any of them.
Since we are talking about women, how about equal pay for equal work?
And who can afford to go to work with the high cost of childcare. Perhaps some monies can be spent developing appropriate facilities at reasonable prices depending upon family size and income (or free). These centers could also include an educational component such as Head Start with services for those behind in speech or in need of OT and/or PT. A nurse to provide testing for vision and hearing and an association with a clinic/doctor to provide immunizations, checkups, and medications for common ailments would be a good addition. Guidance counsellors, social workers, and psychologists should also be a part of the plan to identify and treat issues as they arise. Hot, nutritious meals for these growing children would also be a necessity. There should also be an after school program with homework help and enrichment for school aged kids. This way the parent(s) can focus on their jobs instead of worrying about their children.
Of course, such a program sounds good for everyone’s children, and those with the funds already have their kids participating in just such centers.
Add in a fair, liveable wage for working parent(s) and you might actually get some results.
A helping hand towards college expenses and student loan debt would also assist the upcoming generation, and that would also be of assistance to everyone. Not free, but affordable (I’m not sure students would take higher education seriously if they don’t have some “skin in the game” especially if they consider it as a continuation of high school (which should not be treated as part of college – but that’s another topic)).
That would be a start.
LikeLike
Deficit models usually fail to address the major issues. They are about as effective as “abstinence” for birth control. We should encourage people to be proud of who they are; they should embrace their families and culture. Marginalized people in any culture always have social problems. We need to support more, and judge less. If we want to address poverty in our country, we must recognize that not all poverty is the same. Many of working poor have few mental or substance problems, and most of all they need opportunity to go to school to train for a meaningful employment. This means they need good jobs ready to accept them. For those with deeper problems we need to strengthen the social safety nets, provide counseling and rehab. We need to decriminalize drug problems, and treat addiction as a health issue. Addicts and the mentally ill do not belong in the criminal justice system. Once again we assume addiction is a “character flaw” that should be punished. Our jails are full, and we are not addressing the problems.
LikeLike
retired teacher: you said so much in so few words.
And to properly thank you, who better than an old dead Roman guy that (according to some) had a way with words—
“Brevity is a great charm of eloquence.” [Marcus Tullius Cicero]
😎
LikeLike
Not just the poor but the working class and middle class need this. In other words, we need to move towards becoming a more socialist society.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“ensuring no children grow up in poor households would cost $57 billion a year. (To put that in perspective, that’s how much money we’d get if Apple brought back the $200 billion it has stashed overseas, and paid just 29 percent tax on it – it’s a big problem, but it’s small compared to the wealth of our society.)”
It’s a relatively easy problem to fix but not profitable (especially not to companies like Apple whose entire business model is based on exploiting poor people in China, including child labor), which means it won’t happen.
LikeLike
Bringing back Apple profits and financing the poor to bring them up to poverty level looks good. But after the first year what can we do? What should one do for the long term?
LikeLike
The main point is not that Apple’s owed taxes could finance it ad infinitum. Even a data monkey could see that they can’t.
The main point is that $57 billion is peanuts as a fraction of the total federal budget.
Funny you didn’t mention that in this case, since that is your focus in so many other cases.
LikeLike
Let’s see, we could eliminate child poverty for $57 billion a year. That’s a lot of money. But how did we find the trillion dollars that was spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or was it two trillion?
LikeLike
For an idea of the amount of that couple of Trillion wasted in the death and destruction that we foisted (and continue to) upon Iraq and Afghanistan go to:
https://econ4u.com/one_trillion_dollars/
LikeLike
The author states, “Specifically, we offer two choices to poor parents if they want to escape poverty: get a job, or get married. Not only does this approach not work, but it’s also a cruel punishment for children who cannot be held responsible for their parents’ decisions…”
I would add that low paying jobs with inadequate or no benefits or marriage to a partner who has a low paying job with little or no benefits does nothing to improve the lives of impoverished nor does it enable them to “escape poverty”. And as for parent’s “decisions”… these parents are not in any decision-making capacity even if those in power would like to argue that they are – they get one bad “choice” or “another” and both keep them trapped in dire circumstances.
LikeLike
“. . . they get one bad “choice” or “another”. . . ”
Hey, why not? Why expect any different? That’s what we get from our plutocratic oligarchy as it is in our political elections.
Think those two things aren’t related??
LikeLike
“U.S. anti-poverty policy often focuses on the perceived moral shortcomings of the poor themselves. We don’t try to address poverty directly, or alleviate it; we simply try to change the way poor people behave, especially poor parents (and children)”
In the case of schools, this “change the behavior of poor people,” ethic is the basis of non-nonsense-charter schools and the new wave of tests and surveys (survelliance) for improvements in so-called social-emotional learning and measures of school climate.
The fix for poverty is to insist on standardized academic tests and also to measure the degree of compliance with specific non-academic rules, norms, and values implicated in “going to school” and attaining the current missions of schools–preparing students for “success” narrowly defined as readiness for college, career, and civic life.
If you want to see the specific values that USDE is promoting by new measures of school climate and social emotional learning, go to https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/sites/default/files/EDSCLS%20Questionnaires.pdf
For a discussion of the intended uses of those dubious “perception” surveys go to: https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/edscls
Notice the USDE intent to set national norms for school climate and social-emotional behavior by 2017, based on surveys from students, instructional staff, non-instructional staff, and parents/caregivers. It is probable that some of these surveys will pass muster as “alternative assessments” under ESSA.
The testing industry is thriving on these new measures of “proper” character traits, not just the grit thing, or having the proper mindset for “success,” but also by embedding a lot of the no-nonsense ethic in survey questions. See for example, the survey questions at Panorama Education, likely to be used in California CORE Districts serving 1 million students. All of these “perception” surveys are intended to isolate specific partterns of behavior and “problems” that schools SHOULD address. They do not address poverty.
LikeLike
“The fix for poverty is to insist on standardized academic tests and also to measure the degree of compliance with specific non-academic rules, norms, and values implicated in “going to school” and attaining the current missions of schools–preparing students for “success” narrowly defined as readiness for college, career, and civic life.”
You outdo yourself each time, Laura!
How ludicrous and risible is the thought that standardized tests and false “measures” of compliance of behavior as proposed by the edudeformers and privateers would be able to “fix poverty”? Hell, I wonder if it can also fix my leaky front porch roof!
LikeLike
Shouldn’t America take steps to ameliorate child poverty and at the same time acknowledge that education is the best long-term solution to the problem?
It also needs to be said, and Cohen doesn’t say it, that there are enormous differences in child poverty rates by race, and that people of color haven’t ended up in areas of concentrated hypersegregation by accident.
So in addition to education and financial support, the US needs to strictly enforce laws devised to combat housing and banking discrimination; laws which mostly have been blatantly flouted for decades. It needs to examine a repeal of the mortgage interest tax deduction, which has incentivized and enabled residential segregation. It needs to give communities much less power when it comes to zoning–affordable densely-sited housing is not just a civil rights issue, it is an environmental one. It needs to broadly consolidate school districts and generally break the link between residence and school assignment.
Without a multipronged approach, you can expect sharply diminishing returns from any cash-based poverty assistance program, especially when it comes to socioeconomic mobility. An extra $9000 per child will do wonders for putting food on a child’s table and clothes on her back, but it won’t buy her family’s way into a safer neighborhood with better schools.
LikeLike
I would also mention the need to pay a living wage and that has to be determined by where they live. $15.00 an hour may be a living wage in parts of the U S, but in California, especially in the Bay Area, it certainly won’t pay the rent.
If CEO’s are making 300 times what the employees are making, a living wage seems doable.
LikeLike
As encapsulated in the title of Cloward and Pivens’ classic book, public welfare/relief payments have little or nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with Regulating the Poor in shifting political and economic climates.
In times of social unrest, like the 1930’s and 1960’s, relief payments expand as a concession to the poor and lower reaches of the working class. When that discontent subsides, relief payments contract, and their terms become far more intrusive and punitive.
It’s fundamentally about disciplining and regulating the working class, the potential “mob” that authors of the Constitution and today’s Chamber of Commerce so desperately fear, keeping it either minimally placated in times of social/political stress, or with Capital’s boot securely on it’s neck when things are quieter.
So-called welfare reform is also a prime example of the state providing a tremendous advantage to employers/capital, via the removal of an income floor that no one can fall below, which is what AFDC was. It’s not a random coincidence that income inequality has shot up since the passage of so-called welfare reform, because now there is no safety net to stop your fall into complete destitution, and working people (aka, almost all of us) must take whatever crumbs they can get.
So-called welfare reform was intended to intimidate and weaken labor, to keep poor people so distracted by need and vindictive/arbitrary administrative demands that they have no hope of organizing. In that, it has succeeded. Have no doubt that so-called education reform intends the same, and worse…
LikeLike
I highly recommend the recently published book, $2.00 A Day, which describes welfare reform and the problems faced by families and individuals who may receive limited benefits, but are truly cash poor.
LikeLike
Redistribution of wealth does not solve the problem, it exasperates the issue by creating more ways that poor families will have to depend on government. The unintended consequences that jumps off the page is families having more babies to get more money. This is already happening across the nation. The answer is an educational system that provides poor students with a real and relevant education. One that taps into the human desire to learn. One that does more than have students sit and compliantly regurgitate what has been established as important to learn.
LikeLike