Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • >> Hello everybody.

  • Good afternoon.

  • And welcome.

  • I'm Susan Collins, the Joan and Sanford Weill Dean here

  • at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy.

  • And I couldn't be more delighted to see all of you here

  • with us this afternoon.

  • Today's event would not have been possible

  • without generous support from the National Poverty Center

  • and its interim chair, Sandy Danziger.

  • I also want to thank the School Social Work

  • for cosponsoring today's event.

  • I know that many students from social work are here

  • with us, very welcome.

  • We're delighted that you're here with us, too.

  • We're pleased to be joined by some senior members

  • of the university administration, Tim Lynch,

  • who is the university's general counsel.

  • And Lisa Rudgers who's Vice President

  • for Global Communications.

  • We're delighted that both of you are here with us as well.

  • Well, thank you for coming here to join us,

  • to learn from the School of Social Work

  • and the Ford School's own Professor Luke Shaefer

  • and coauthor Kathy Edin.

  • They presented their work which you were about to hear

  • about in Washington DC,

  • to multiple audiences of policymakers.

  • And I know that they are going to explore some

  • of the really important policy issues and implications

  • of the research that they have been doing with us here today.

  • Luke and Kathy's book, "$2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing"

  • in America, has been featured in the Atlantic,

  • the New York Times, Huffington Post, Chicago Tribune,

  • and I could go and on.

  • It has received considerable very well deserved attention.

  • [ Applause ]

  • So all of the press

  • and policymaker attention is really noteworthy

  • but most importantly it really amplifies a crucial finding

  • in Luke and Kathy's book.

  • And that is that there are 1.5 million American households

  • living in poverty and extreme poverty,

  • and that that number is increasing.

  • That's really a striking number and something

  • that should really garner a lot of our attention.

  • During years of on-the-ground research throughout the country,

  • Luke and Kathy have documented families who are struggling

  • under these extreme conditions, connecting a very real face

  • to that shocking data.

  • Luke and Kathy will delve further

  • into the research methods and findings during their talk.

  • But first, I wanted to tell you a little bit more about them.

  • Luke's research focuses on the effectiveness

  • of the US social safety net in serving low-wage workers

  • and economically disadvantaged families.

  • Luke has pursued policy advocacy at both the state

  • and the national levels.

  • And prior to coming to Ann Arbor, he participated

  • in Chicago's anti-poverty policy initiative successfully helping

  • to raise the Illinois minimum wage and expand access

  • to health care, access to health care to low income families.

  • With Kathy, he recently presented their poverty research

  • to the President's Council of Economic Advisers.

  • He is an associate professor at the School of Social Work

  • and he very recently joined the Ford School faculty this year,

  • we're delighted to have him on board.

  • Kathy Edin is Bloomberg Distinguished Professor

  • at Johns Hopkins University, where she specializes in study

  • of people living on welfare.

  • Over the years, Kathy's books have tackled very tough

  • and important social challenges, including making ends meet,

  • how single mothers survived on welfare, and low-wage work

  • with current dean of the School of Social Work, Laura Lein.

  • And doing the best I can fathering

  • in the intercity with Timothy Nelson.

  • The Department of Housing and Urban Development,

  • the National Institutes of Health,

  • and the National Science Foundation,

  • among others have founded-- have funded her poverty research.

  • She's a trusty of the Russell Sage Foundation, and she serves

  • on the Department of Health

  • and Human Services advisory committee for poverty to search,

  • for poverty research centers at several universities,

  • including here at Michigan.

  • Last year when she became a member of the National Academy

  • of Sciences and the American Academy of Political

  • and Social Sciences as well.

  • So Kathy, thank you much for traveling

  • and joining us here today to share your work

  • with Luke with our community.

  • Just a quick note about today's format,

  • Luke and Kathy will make their presentation

  • and then welcome questions from the audience.

  • Beginning at about 4:40 p.m.,

  • members of the Ford School staff will walk up and down the aisles

  • to collect your questions.

  • You should have received a card when you came in.

  • Please white your questions on that card.

  • If you are watching us online, please twit your questions

  • into us using #policythoughts.

  • So, after the program, "$2.00 A Day", will be available

  • for purchase and signing in the Great Hall.

  • And I hope you will stay with us to continue the conversation

  • and also to have your books signed by Luke and Kathy.

  • And so, with no further ado, I'm delighted to welcome Luke

  • and Kathy to the floor.

  • [ Applause ]

  • >> Thanks Dean Collins for such a warm

  • and personal introduction.

  • I'm going to start with a story

  • because a story is how we got here.

  • Sometimes graduate students want to know how you come

  • up with ideas for research.

  • My failproof recipe is to spend a lot of time with folks

  • out in the field and this was very much a story

  • of how just immersing yourselves in your daily life with lots

  • of poor people, allows you to see something new.

  • So, as Dean Collins mentioned, at the beginning of my career,

  • I spent six years running

  • around the country interviewing low-income single mothers

  • about their budgets with the dean in School

  • of Social Work, Laura Lein.

  • And because of that experience,

  • I kind of have a mental calculator in my head.

  • If we go at a dinner tonight, I might look at you

  • and suddenly say, "So how do you make ends meet?"

  • That kind of became a habit over those early years.

  • I had gone on after welfare reform

  • that was published in 1997.

  • I just studied the family and study the working poor.

  • But in 2010, I came to Baltimore to study the lives of a group

  • of people, my colleagues

  • and I had been following since the mid-1990s.

  • These were young people who had been zero to seven

  • in the mid-'90s all born in public housing

  • and we've been following their lives over the years

  • to see how they would turn out.

  • And so, in 2010, as they were reaching adulthood,

  • I came to Baltimore.

  • And I-- you know, I started hanging out in the neighborhood

  • and of course several and many of these young people were

  • in fairly disadvantaged circumstances.

  • But one day I went and visited the home of Ashley.

  • Ashley lived in the Latrobe Homes with her mother,

  • her brother, elderly uncle and sometimes a cousin.

  • And she had just a baby.

  • The baby was two weeks old.

  • When we arrived at the house, Ashley was visibly [inaudible].

  • She looked depressed.

  • She was, you know, holding her baby over her shoulder

  • but she was having a hard time adequately supporting her

  • baby's head.

  • Of course, there's only-- there's hardly any furniture

  • in the house and so Ashley sat out on the only chair

  • in the kitchen and I sat on the floor

  • and she just gave me the perfect purview into the kitchen.

  • This is an old trick I learned from Dean Lein, you know,

  • she was always looking in the kitchen cabinets

  • to see what was in there.

  • And I quickly notice there was no food in the house,

  • nor was there any baby formula.

  • When I began asking Ashley, of course, how she made ends meet,

  • what I quickly learned is

  • that there was not cash coming to the household.

  • Nobody had a job.

  • Nobody was getting anything from [inaudible].

  • In fact, nobody in the family was even getting food stamps.

  • What they did have was housing subsidy.

  • So I started wondering, you know, is this is thing?

  • Are there a group of people who might claim something from the

  • in kind safety net but have no cash?

  • So I kind of tucked that thought in the back-- in my back pocket.

  • And in the next day, we kind of invented a [inaudible]

  • to revisit Ashley because we were concerned

  • about her and the child.

  • We said, you know, Ashley,

  • we need to ask you few more questions.

  • Can we come back tomorrow?

  • And she said yes.

  • So, we gave her the $50 upon leaving, that we gave respond

  • at the end of an interview.

  • And the next day when we returned,

  • we met her at the door.

  • She was on her way out.

  • She's forgotten we were coming.

  • She had gotten home perm.

  • She looked terrific.

  • She no longer looked depressed.

  • She had kind of spring in her step.

  • She had gone down to the local Goodwell, which is just

  • down Broadway Avenue from the Latrobe Homes

  • and bought a new pantsuit.

  • And in fact, she was on her way to search for work.

  • It was her-- her confidence had been restored, you know, $50,

  • isn't that much money.

  • But for Ashley, it seems to be the difference

  • between really being despondent and sort of unable to function

  • and to get that kind of confidence encouraged

  • about and search for work.

  • So, this prompted a second thought which--

  • and this by the way, ended up being the arc of the book.

  • What was it about cash that was so special?

  • She had a house in subsidy.

  • But something about cash, just a little bit

  • of cash seems to be transformative.

  • And if it was true, there were a whole group of people living

  • with virtually no cash in America, you know,

  • since the advent of welfare reform.

  • And we did-- you know, we did learn that this story was linked

  • to welfare reform that we're living on virtually cash

  • in America's most advanced industrial country

  • or in the world's most advanced industrial country.

  • What does that look like?

  • And what were the implications for the well-being

  • of families and children?

  • So, it just so happen-- and this was pure serendipity

  • that I visited the School of Social Work

  • and given a talk a year before.

  • And Luke and I had cooked up a plan for him to come to Harvard

  • as a visiting professor.

  • So that fall-- I think it was an 8 o'clock,

  • one morning in Cambridge, I was teaching at Harvard at the time.

  • Luke came to my office.

  • I told him the story of Ashley.

  • I said I want to know if this is thing.

  • I knew enough about Luke to know that he was one

  • of the nation's experts

  • on [inaudible] data set called the Survey of Income

  • and Program Participation, which was in fact the best data set

  • to really answer the question of whether, there been a rise

  • in a form of destitution in America that was so deep,

  • we didn't even think it existed

  • and had actually never even looked to see if it was there.

  • And Luke can take the story from here.

  • >> Well, I think of that first date, an 8 a.m. meeting,

  • it's unclear if Kathy actually remembered I was coming.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • But we had a terrific time.

  • And she said, gee, I just wish, you know, I was visiting all

  • of these homes and I wish there were some data set

  • where we could see, was there some sort of trend

  • over the past 15 or 20 years of more families surviving

  • on virtually no cash income.

  • Now, the SIPP is a large scale nationally representative data

  • set conducted by the US [inaudible].

  • They go out and they interviewed tens of thousands of households

  • and they asked lots of very specific questions

  • about different income sources.

  • So it does the best of any source that we have

  • at capturing the income of the poor.

  • And all of these surveys have the challenge of sort

  • of missing some income, underreporting of income,

  • people might not want to tell you about sources.

  • But we know that to SIPP is the absolute best choice,

  • and so we thought it was the right place to start.

  • And so Kathy likes to say that within a day, I was back,

  • I think it was about a week, where--

  • and we started to sort of search around for some benchmark

  • of virtually no cash income, how do we operationalize that.

  • And as all my students know as I would say,

  • if you have to find an arbitrary line, use somebody else's.

  • So, we use the world bank's metric of $2 per person per day

  • and we wanted to see, could you see a trend among household

  • with children and we're going to include all the cash coming

  • in through odd jobs, though work,

  • we're going to include gifts from families and friends,

  • all that that's reported.

  • And we're going to see if there's a trend

  • over the last 15 years or so and more families experiencing this.

  • And then we're going to include SNAP.

  • Food stamps now called the SNAP.

  • And we're going to say, what if you treated food stamps

  • as a dollar-- SNAP as a dollar of cash.

  • And we're going to tell you why we actually think you can't do

  • that for this specific population as we go on but we'd

  • at least get a sense for what kind of impact of the safety net

  • if we have it today, was happening.

  • So in about a week, we had this trend line to deal with,

  • and I think it was maybe a little more dramatic.

  • Then we are initially expecting.

  • So, there's branch in line is households with children

  • who are reporting cash incomes of no more

  • than $2 per person per day in any given month.

  • And you can see it goes from about 636,000 as of mid

  • through 1996, that's just before the1996 welfare reform was

  • implemented, to about 1.5 million households

  • with three million children as of 2011.

  • So that's more than a doubling.

  • Perhaps, even a larger increase

  • than we were necessarily expecting.

  • If you add in food stamps and you count a dollar food stamps

  • as a dollar of cash, that's the blue line.

  • And you can see right there the incredible impact

  • that this program is having

  • at a very the bottom, at the very bottom.

  • It's virtually the only safety net that we have left and--

  • but even so, you can see-- even if you count food stamps,

  • that blue line only looks good relative to the top line.

  • We're still talking about an 80% increase even

  • when you count SNAP as cash over this period of time.

  • So, we actually release the Sheldon Danziger here

  • at the Ford School.

  • Told us to go ahead and release something,

  • so it was a five-page policy,

  • probably the shortest thing you ever written.

  • And it ended up getting some attention

  • but it really raises a lot of more questions

  • and we had answers, right?

  • What does it look like to live on $2 per person per day?

  • Is this really just maybe noise in the data, you know?

  • Our people-- is it just underreporting of income

  • or something screwy going on with [inaudible].

  • So, we started to do two things.

  • The first was we wanted to look for other sources,

  • large scale data that might say, you know, is this a trend

  • that we can see in the population as a whole?

  • Can we externally validate what we see in the set

  • with these other sources of data?

  • And the second thing was to start to try find families,

  • thinking that the proof is really you know, right there.

  • Could we find families that look like that?

  • And if we could, what do their lives look like?

  • You know, how did they get into these circumstances,

  • and what did they do to survive?

  • So, starting just with the large scale data, one thing is

  • that the SIPP is a longitudinal survey so we could look overtime

  • and we wanted to know where these spells families living

  • on $2 per person per day.

  • Were they short spells of family,

  • sort of experiencing a month or two months at a time,

  • or was it really a story about longer spells?

  • And what we could see when we look longitudinally is actually

  • the biggest increase was among these longer spells

  • that we call chronic spells, families who are living

  • for at least 7 in as much as 12 months under this low threshold

  • over the course of the year.

  • And it's more than a tripling, right?

  • So, it outpaces the growth in the monthly estimate.

  • We knew SNAP was a big part of the picture, right?

  • It's this buffer that we have.

  • And we looked in the SNAP administrative records.

  • So if you to go down to the technical appendix

  • of the annual reports that they release,

  • you can actually tally the number of households

  • with children who are reporting

  • that they have no other cash income except SNAP, right?

  • So no actual cash coming into the house.

  • So we plotted that.

  • That's the dash line against the boxes

  • from our most recent estimates and you can see we lined

  • up really well in 1996 and 2005 and across this whole spectrum.

  • And actually, when I saw these first two lines,

  • I took the rest of the day off.

  • Because you virtually never see two sources of, you know,

  • entirely different data line up that closely.

  • And then the SNAP, they'd actually starts to outpace us,

  • so you see that it's going up to an even a greater extent

  • than our comparable $2 a day estimate.

  • As we started to get into the qualitative work,

  • we saw that housing instability with a major piece of this.

  • And so, we knew that the nation's public schools

  • in about the mid-2000s, started recording of the number

  • of homeless children, these are children

  • without a permanent place to live.

  • Across the schools, we would assume

  • that this is an undercount.

  • So, here I sort of plotted the same-- this trend line for you

  • and some of you can probably figure out in 2005,

  • 2006 what accounts for that spike, it's a Hurricane Katrina,

  • and everything that went on there.

  • But you can see a very similar sort of trajectory, right,

  • of increasing numbers of the children at sort

  • of a similar pace and extreme poverty, I'm sorry,

  • without permanent place to live.

  • And then, if you go to Feeding America, they have reports

  • that they list every few years that captures a number

  • of unduplicated Americans who have benefited

  • from private emergency food programs.

  • Now, again, this is not a directly comparable number

  • but we thought if what we are seeing

  • in extreme $2 a day poverty was actually something

  • that was happening on the ground,

  • we would probably see an increase here too in a number

  • of families seeking emergency food assistance.

  • And you can see at 2009, it goes up dramatically, right?

  • And that's the effect of the great recession.

  • But again, that sort of dwarfs actually a fairly sizable

  • increase as of 2005.

  • Between 1997 and 2005, this goes up by

  • about four million American,

  • more Americans seeking emergency food assistance.

  • So, across a series of indicators, right,

  • using both nationally representative survey data

  • and the administrative records and reports

  • from our charitable organizations,

  • we can see a consistent story

  • of deteriorating circumstances among poorest

  • of the poor families in the United States.

  • >> So what do this mean?

  • We decided, in order to continue our collaboration,

  • we needed to actually go back to households like Ashley's.

  • And in order to understand four pivotal questions,

  • who falls into extreme poverty, what's it like, you know,

  • what's the texture of daily life like, how do you survive,

  • and what are really the implications for families

  • and children of a level of poverty this deep?

  • So, we were inspired I think both as young people by the work

  • of Michael Harrington.

  • And as you know, he kind of went on the road and exposed poverty

  • in various places across the United States.

  • Our site selection was actually driven by the SIPP.

  • So, we show-- we chose sort of what we feel

  • as the quintessential American Central city.

  • I apologize to Detroit and Ann Arbor,

  • but we felt that was Chicago.

  • And so we began our exploration there,

  • kind of a typical American city if there is such a thing

  • as a typical American city.

  • We also wanted to find a town

  • that had been really a boom town in Harrington's time.

  • But he had since hit the skids and we landed in Cleveland,

  • Ohio where I lived for three summers and kind of fell

  • in love with the city.

  • I actually have a T-shirt that says, "Cleveland is my Paris"

  • that I wear proudly, and bumper sticker.

  • But we also saw in the SIPP that there was this clustering,

  • the slight clustering of the $2 a day poor

  • in the region [inaudible] called the south east.

  • This is of course Appalachia and the Deep South.

  • So, we choose a site in Appalachia, the Johnson City,

  • Tennessee area of Eastern Tennessee.

  • What was interesting about this site is it even deeply poor

  • in Harrington's time.

  • But had since seen a bit of a rebound

  • but still had deep pockets of poverty.

  • And finally, we went to what one rider has called the poorest

  • place on earth, the Mississippi Delta.

  • Is Bethany Patton here?

  • Can you stand up?

  • Bethany Patton brought us the Mississippi Delta,

  • so thank you Bethany.

  • [ Applause ]

  • Through her experience as a TFA, she was able

  • to make amazing connections for us

  • so that we can do in-depth work in the poorest place on earth.

  • As you can imagine, this was quite an adventure.

  • But, I want to take a step back for a second and talk

  • about the fact that we make the claim, that what we see

  • in the growth of $2 a day poverty,

  • is intimately connected to welfare reform.

  • Now, at its peak in 1994, AFDC, the Aid to Families

  • with Dependent Children program, the precursor of TANF, right,

  • served about 14 million people about 10 million adults,

  • 5 million children, OK?

  • But currently, that number is dramatically lower.

  • So today we only have about four million people on the rules,

  • under three million children,

  • just about one million adults by latest count, OK?

  • So, the Center for Budget

  • and Policy Priorities constructs a measure of the TANF

  • to poverty ratio to give a sense

  • of how many eligibles are actually able to access TANF.

  • And of course TANF is the Temporary Assistance

  • for Needy Families Program.

  • It's the program that replaced welfare

  • when welfare is reformed.

  • So that number was at about 68% percent in 1996.

  • And I just heard an update from Donna Pavetti [assumed spelling]

  • that the current number is 23% percent today, OK?

  • Now, when I say there are million adults left

  • on the rules, what's really crucial to understand over

  • and above that is that half

  • of those are adults are in only two states.

  • These are the states with the most vibrant welfare systems,

  • although those systems have also atrophied dramatically.

  • And these are the states of New York and California.

  • So once we take out those adults,

  • we only have a half million adults on the welfare rules

  • across the rest of the country.

  • So, if you didn't need that as evidence,

  • that TANF is essentially in receivership

  • in the United States or to use the title of our chapter,

  • "Welfare is dead", you need to come with us to Chicago

  • where we met Madonna Harris.

  • And Madonna was living with her daughter Brianna, kind of moving

  • across a group of homeless shelters

  • and truly desperate straights.

  • One weekend, while I was hanging out with Madonna and Brianna,

  • there's absolutely no food in the house.

  • The shelter wasn't just serving any kind of meals.

  • All they had was a half a gallon of spoiled milk

  • in the refrigerator, the inspiration

  • for the cover of the book.

  • And I said to Madonna, "Why don't you just go to TANF?"

  • She said, "Oh, haven't you heard?

  • They aren't giving that out anymore."

  • And we heard this again and again and again.

  • The notion, that welfare was dead, OK?

  • So, we then went to Johnson City,

  • Tennessee where we met a young couple,

  • Jessica and Travis Compton.

  • And if you read the [inaudible] in the Atlantic,

  • Jessica is the plasma donator of that we feature.

  • And this young couple was truly desperate.

  • They had gone months without work.

  • In fact, as we talk, each time we visited, Travis was sitting

  • at the window looking for the sheriff to come

  • and evict the family from the home because they were

  • so far behind on the ramp.

  • When I said-- maybe I think, Luke, it was you who said.

  • I said, "Travis, what about welfare?

  • What about TANF?"

  • And Travis looks stunned and said, "What's that?"

  • Now, some of our respondents had heard of TANF or welfare.

  • One such person was Ray McCormick [assumed spelling],

  • who steadfastly had resisted going to the welfare office

  • because she felt that she was a worker and she didn't think

  • that this was something workers did unless they were

  • truly desperate.

  • But that point came.

  • And Ray did finally go down to the TANF office.

  • And when she came back, her report is

  • that she had been rejected and told, honey,

  • there are so many poor people, we just don't have enough

  • to go around, you need to come back next year.

  • And there are more and more examples of states and locales,

  • even local welfare offices that are engaged

  • in these so-called soft diversions,

  • to keep people from the world.

  • And in Q and A, we can talk

  • about why TANF offices might be motivated to do that.

  • Wow. Luke will fix it.

  • But if you want even more evidence

  • that welfare is truly dead in the minds of the $2 a day poor,

  • all you have to do is go back to the SIPP.

  • So we followed children over the course of the year,

  • and we looked at whether those children had any adult

  • who was claiming even a penny from TANF or any adult

  • who is engaged in the formal labor market.

  • And what we saw here was truly stunning.

  • Like only 1 in 10 of these households was claiming even a

  • penny from TANF over the course

  • of a calendar year while 70% had an adult in the labor market.

  • OK. So, this is really important.

  • This told us something.

  • This told us this was not a story of a group of people

  • who were sort of fundamentally separated, you know,

  • from the mainstream who were, you know, sort of set apart.

  • But these were families for the most part who are really trying

  • to hang on to the ragged end of a low-wage labor market

  • that had become badly degraded.

  • And as we begin of course delving into the evidence

  • on this, we learn that the bad jobs of yesterday,

  • even the bad jobs in the days of welfare reform were far better

  • than the truly bad jobs of today.

  • >> So these-- the families who we talked

  • to really envision themselves as workers

  • as Kathy says and want to work.

  • It's a core, you know, with many like Ray McCormick.

  • He was a very serious sort of opposition to applying for TANF.

  • But it was really a combination of the unstable jobs

  • that were there available to them.

  • We saw many examples of unsafe work conditions,

  • not getting enough hours as a core dilemma

  • of the $2 a day poor as well as we work fluctuations,

  • the number of hours going from say, 10 in 1 week to 20

  • in another week or 30 down to 20.

  • And lots of examples of clear labor law violation sometimes

  • called wage set in the case

  • where somebody might have actually got an overtime,

  • not being paid for overtime, or people being asked

  • to clean a hotel room as a hotel maid before they clock in

  • or clean up the store after they have clocked out.

  • So you have a lot of instability in the jobs

  • and you can think of, you know,

  • most of our folks says it's those

  • at the very bottom only having access to the jobs

  • that maybe nobody else wanted.

  • But they might be able to survive

  • that if they had a stable personal life that can sort

  • of make up for some of us.

  • But in the case of our families, we would often see sort

  • of the interaction of unstable work opportunity combined

  • with unstable family life.

  • So you'd see volatile living arrangements, right?

  • A large degree of overlap with the number of children

  • who our doubled up, not having a permanent place,

  • not knowing are they' going to be able to stay,

  • and often actually subject to a fair amount of risks

  • in these circumstances.

  • And in the case of these families--

  • and I want to be clear, we don't think this is a story

  • about the poor in general, but among those at the very bottom,

  • they're often sort of seemed to be situated in a social network

  • of family and friends that are at best unsupported

  • and at worst downright harmful.

  • So, to give you two examples, Jennifer Hernandez,

  • when we met Jennifer, she was a living--

  • had been living for 10 months in a succession

  • of homeless shelters in Chicago with her kiddos, Caitlin

  • and Cole, nine and seven years old.

  • And she was actually just about to be asked

  • to leave the homeless shelter that she was in because most

  • of these places, if you don't find a job,

  • you are actually asked to move on.

  • And Jennifer was incredibly good at finding the resources

  • that are relatively affluent, city like Chicago has

  • to offer struggling families, but she had no idea

  • where the next place they're going to stay was.

  • And she couldn't stay with family for some

  • of these reasons I just mentioned,

  • they've been an extremely abusive situation

  • in the recent pass, but she was able to find a job

  • at Chicago City Custodial Services,

  • a small family cleaning company on the South Side.

  • And when she started the job, she really liked it.

  • She loves the actually the ability to go in

  • and clean a room and had made a visible differences in that day.

  • I think a lot of-- many of us like about our jobs.

  • And it was going well and she appreciated the structures.

  • She would say, "My mental health challenges were [inaudible]

  • when I'm working and I have the structure."

  • But when she started the work, it was really a lot

  • of corporate apartments, right between leases,

  • maybe consultants coming in and out or office bases in the loop,

  • but as the Chicago winter set in, she found herself going more

  • and more to foreclose homes on the South Side of the city

  • and the West Side of the city especially.

  • And there's a large industry around getting all

  • of these foreclose abandon homes back and ready for resale.

  • And she was at the very bottom, I think, of this industry.

  • So you can imagine going into these homes.

  • There's been no lights, there's no heat

  • and particularly, there's no water.

  • So they would come in and they never know what to expect

  • as she said, "You know, sometimes, we wonder,

  • is there going to be a drug den when we get inside,

  • is there going to be family that's squatting there.

  • Is everything going to be-- have been ripped out of the,

  • you know, anything of value have been ripped out of the unit

  • by scrappers have come in.

  • And, you know, even ripped open the walls and take some

  • of the piping, the toilets, the tile off the walls."

  • And then she would find

  • that they were cleaning in coats obviously.

  • She'd go down to the Salvation Army and sort

  • of grab another coat to wear.

  • But maybe, the thing that did it for her was the water.

  • So, everyone knows water is an important piece of the puzzle.

  • And so, there's no water at these places.

  • They've had to bring their own buckets in

  • and so they would come in,

  • but you might imagine these places she says

  • where really dirty, a lot of cleaning had to be done.

  • So after a half of an hour or 45 minutes,

  • maybe the water we get is black, of no use at all and they'd have

  • to dump out the water and go to the nearest neighbor

  • who might have an faucet or go to the nearest gas station

  • and go, you know, [inaudible] contact and go into the bathroom

  • to refill the heavy jugs and then carry them back

  • to the cleaning inside and maybe repeat these a couple times.

  • So, Jennifer was an asthmatic and she has little kids

  • and so she started to get sick, she had a few asthma attacks

  • but she find she was susceptible to viruses,

  • you know, cleaning in the cold.

  • And everyone, I have small kids, 6 and 2.

  • Everyone knows when you get sick, your children get sick

  • so she starts to call in more and more and her boss starts

  • to see her as not a reliable employee

  • so then her hours start to tick downward.

  • And she makes this decision where she says, "You know what,

  • I'm barely getting 10 or 15 hours a week now and I have

  • to call off some of those sometimes.

  • I need to quit this job,"

  • because she got housing subsidy that cut them stable.

  • She's going to have that for a couple more months

  • through the family homeless shelter.

  • "I need to quit this job and get healthy and start looking

  • for the next one because how long it's going take me

  • to find a next job."

  • So, despite conditions like that though, there remain the sort

  • of real attachment to work and the desire to work so think

  • of Ray McCormick in Cleveland

  • who I think Kathy maybe mentioned.

  • Ray was about 23, 24 when we met her, she'd been abandoned when--

  • by her mother when her father died at 11.

  • And one thing that you would probably not notice

  • about Ray right away is that she actually has lost all

  • of her teeth because she have some sort of dental disease

  • and had never gotten dental care and so,

  • all of her teeth were gone, but she was incredibly skilled

  • at sort of covering that up.

  • So whenever she laughs, the hand went right over the mouth.

  • She worked to Walmart.

  • Her last employment was at Walmart as a cashier.

  • And she wanted to be the fastest cashier in the store

  • so she have this technique where she would actually--

  • she knew to be the fastest cashier, you had to be able

  • to key in the produced items really fast.

  • So, she would take the most popular produced items

  • and she would read the barcode

  • in her recording device on her phone.

  • And then, she would actually set that recording of herself

  • to play over night and she'd say in the morning,

  • my subconscious had done the work.

  • And she was named "Cashier of the Month" two times

  • in the six months that she worked there.

  • But that in that six month, she had been living with an aunt

  • and uncle who are not related and she actually got

  • in to the truck that they shared

  • and she had given $50 in to get gas.

  • And she gets in the truck to go to Walmart

  • and the gas light is on, there's no gas, the car won't start up.

  • She goes in and says what's the deal, you know, this is supposed

  • to be for me to be able to get to work and they say, "Well,

  • you know, we're running errands and we use the gas, sorry".

  • Ray has no way to get to work and she calls her manager.

  • She works in the suburbs partially

  • because she likes the ability to go the suburbs

  • and I think can get away from the city.

  • She work in the suburbs, there was no way to get there

  • by public transportation.

  • And she called her manager and said, "I can't get to work,

  • you know, can you float me a loan.

  • I don't have anymore money until the next paycheck,"

  • and her manager said, "If you can't get in,

  • don't bother coming in again."

  • So, we see the interaction of both volatile work conditions

  • with a non-supportive family.

  • >> So if you think about our argument,

  • there's a three legged stool.

  • The first piece is really the welfare is dead claim.

  • The second piece really is that work has become--

  • welfare is dead but work has become degraded to the degree

  • that is incredibly hard to raise the family.

  • And in fact, it is the degradation of those jobs

  • and job loss which usually predates entering

  • into $2 dollar a day poverty.

  • But the third leg of this tool is housing instability.

  • A housing instability was ubiquitous among the poor.

  • Housing has-- rental housing has increased in cost by about 6%

  • since 2000, but renter's incomes have declined by 13%

  • so we see this increasing disconnection

  • between rent and wages.

  • Of course, these folks have incomes so unstable

  • that they're often unable to stay in a place of their own

  • and end up in a series

  • of parallel stable ups or homeless shelters.

  • And this is often when we see kids exposed

  • to the greatest risk.

  • But housing instability also interferes with work and often,

  • both deepens and elongates a spell of extreme poverty

  • as to the family relationships of many of our folks.

  • And in these parallel stable ups we often see the true harm,

  • the trauma especially the children experience while their

  • parents are living in less than $2 a day in poverty.

  • Jennifer Hernadez had 1 point, flees to an uncle's house

  • to escape, about of $2 a day poverty.

  • He's a respectable ground's keeper at a country club.

  • She comes home one day, of course,

  • and finds him molesting her daughter Caitlyn.

  • The family flees to a good will who generously clears on office

  • for the family to live in for a while

  • since there are no family beds in the shelter.

  • And when recounting the story, she said,

  • "I never expected that".

  • Ray McCormick similarly has lived among the $2 dollar a day

  • poor on and off since she was 12 and asked

  • about the trauma she experienced as a child.

  • She says matter of factly to us,

  • "I've been beat, I've been raped."

  • And her daughter at aged 6 has also been molested.

  • >> So, when we start to look at the question that Kathy post

  • at the beginning of, is cash important?

  • So, we have some resources of non-cash, SNAP.

  • Some of these charitable organizations play a vital,

  • vital role but does cash matter?

  • Really, I think the most compelling evidence

  • of that is the work, the extent

  • to which people spend their time trying

  • to generate just enough cash to go on to the next day.

  • So, Travis and Jessica content, when Travis's work hours got cut

  • down after the holiday surge at a fast food restaurant.

  • The only cash coming in to the household was

  • Jessica's donation.

  • I've been told to call that the selling of her blood plasma.

  • So, every-- two times a week and in fact we're the only country

  • that allows plasma donation more than once a week.

  • But two times a week is much [inaudible] allow the whole

  • family Travis and Jessica and Rachel

  • and Blight [assumed spelling], their two little girls,

  • four and two, I think, would actually walk

  • down to the plasma clinic.

  • And Jessica is only about five foot two,

  • and in fact she would always have this panic as they're going

  • to the center that she's not going

  • to meet the health requirements for the day.

  • Her iron count is not going to be high enough and--

  • or her blood pressure is not going to be sort

  • of in the range it has to be, and she's not going

  • to be allowed to sell her plasma because of the $30

  • that that provides actually is perhaps the sort

  • of the best hourly rates that they could get for anything.

  • So she has all of these very sort of, sort of planned

  • out techniques that she always eats an iron-rich supplement bar

  • right as she's going in the door so that that's going

  • to boost her iron count.

  • And she does these breathing exercises as she's waiting

  • to get her blood pressure taken,

  • so she can make sure she's the a range to brings

  • in Nicholas Parks' novel that she checks

  • out from the library to try to calm her.

  • And across the range of folks,

  • you see all of the sort very serious strategies,

  • and I think almost an American spirit in a way, right?

  • We originally titled this chapter,

  • "The Entrepreneurial Spirit", because it was all about sort

  • of figuring out what resources you have,

  • whether it's your blood, whether it's your body,

  • to sort of make-- get that little bit

  • of cash that'll keep you going to the very next day.

  • >> So you have to go back to the last slide real quickly.

  • So plasma cells were so obliquitous, right,

  • that many people had little [inaudible]

  • in their arms from selling plasma.

  • It was almost like a marker of $2 a day poverty,

  • but a very debilitating thing if you do it very often

  • and many people actually weren't healthy enough or strong enough

  • to be able to give plasma that often.

  • Trading SNAP is probably not common among they just

  • plain poor.

  • We have a lot of evidence.

  • The evidence is actually quite rare.

  • But among the $2 a day poor, it is actually obliquitous.

  • And the generally, for your trade, you get 60

  • or even 50 cents on a dollar.

  • So it-- since food stamps actually don't generally cover,

  • we know this from surveys, our family's food needs

  • for an entire month is guaranteed that you

  • and your children won't go hungry.

  • But when it comes to buying socks and [inaudible]

  • for school, paying for the utilities or, you know,

  • staying-- keeping the rent going for just one more month,

  • our families do make that tradeoff.

  • Finally we see a just a lot of creativity.

  • We occasionally see selling sex.

  • We do see scrapping.

  • But all of these are very, very low level survival strategies

  • that generate only a few dollars of cash typically

  • and really leave families both consumed with the work

  • of survival but of also very badly off.

  • Of course, the ultimate expression of this was

  • in the Mississippi Delta.

  • The two towns that we were in Percy

  • and Jefferson we [inaudible] the skies by the way

  • to protect the identity of our respondents, are in some sense,

  • in exception because they are so poor, you know,

  • the poorest places on Earth.

  • But if you look at the Census Bureau's data,

  • you can see that there are little hidden rural places

  • like this all across the country that share many

  • of the characteristics of these towns.

  • And it is here in the Delta they really saw the intensification,

  • a system of mutual exploitation that kind of sprung

  • up because there were so much poverty.

  • You can almost throw a stone in any given direction

  • and you would be likely to hit a household of a family

  • who was $2 a day poor.

  • TANF face so little in Mississippi that you actually

  • in most cases will qualify as $2 a day poor,

  • even if you happen to get it.

  • So here, what we saw is that they're not quite poor,

  • who didn't really have enough cash to survive.

  • This is specially disabled people,

  • would often be the purchasers of the food stamps

  • of the extremely poor, right,

  • often transporting the extremely poor to the grocery store

  • and then of course basically at taking their price by loading

  • up at that the extreme poor family's car

  • with their own groceries.

  • We also what passed for the middle class in these towns.

  • Sometimes exploiting the poor

  • because of their desperate circumstances, Tabitha Hicks

  • in the little town of Percy was inboxed by teacher

  • when she's 15 years old.

  • Her mother, Olva [assumed spelling] had roughly a

  • dozen children.

  • This was probably the poorest family that we encountered.

  • They typically sold their food stamps when they came

  • in because they need to pay the utilities

  • and the temperature just in the last six months had ranged

  • from 9 degrees to 109 degrees.

  • So the family was always hungry as a result.

  • And in fact, even when we met her, Tabitha was almost

  • at unbelievably thin after those years of hunger.

  • So a teacher who did Facebooked her when she was 15 years old

  • and wrote to her as follows.

  • "I've been watching you waiting for you mature."

  • Then he suggested she come over to his house

  • after school and promised food.

  • And this led to, of course, a four-month liaison

  • between the teacher and Tabitha were she exchanged sex

  • in return for food.

  • Now, as we were talking with Tabitha about the story,

  • I asked her, you know, what did it feel like to be that hungry?

  • And she answered as follows.

  • "Well, actually it fells like you want to be dead

  • because it's peaceful being dead."

  • >> So what do you do with that, you know, as we sort set

  • out to write the last chapter trying

  • to think what are the policy implications as folks situated

  • in schools of public and social work.

  • And I don't think we have--

  • clearly don't have all the answers that we think

  • that we need to do something.

  • But I think there's a couple of hopeful notes here.

  • We have heard-- we do understand

  • that our book is depressing, so sorry about that.

  • But really, the folks who-- you know Jennifer and even Tabitha,

  • they haven't given up and they saw a hope and I think--

  • so I think we can't either, necessarily.

  • So we don't provide all the answers or moving forward

  • and sort of trying to tackle the type of extreme poverty.

  • But we did sort of, I think, get a couple of insights

  • that at least wasn't on my radar when we went in.

  • The first was the importance of dignity and the extent

  • to which families would actually trade in hunger in a sense.

  • Trade in some resources like SNAP for the chance to--

  • especially with their children sort of get them some clothes

  • at the Thrift store that would give them a little bit

  • of dignity when they go to school,

  • or get them, get them underwear.

  • And I think there's very strong connection to work,

  • really has a lot to do with a desire to be a part

  • of a community, right?

  • Be a part of America.

  • So, we have this premise, and maybe it's a simple premise

  • that whatever we do, whatever policy sort

  • of solutions we might try, maybe there's a litmus test

  • and maybe it's simple but maybe it's something more than that,

  • that whatever we do either through government policy

  • or as universities or as nonprofit, we should see

  • of these, these intervention or these programs work

  • to incorporate poor family and especially those

  • at the very bottom into society rather

  • than isolating them from it.

  • And the history of welfare in this country is one

  • of isolating families.

  • So we talked about how what we see is partially significantly I

  • would say, related to the welfare reform of 1996.

  • But in no way that Kathy and I want to go back

  • to the system we have before,

  • which absolutely failed this test of a litmus test

  • of incorporating the poor.

  • >> So, we endorsed three principles.

  • And I think we do have a little--

  • we have quite a lot of detail

  • about how we think we might move forward in the book.

  • But the first principle is really about work,

  • because work equals citizenship in the society.

  • The poor know it and they want it.

  • There is no doubt that we have too few jobs to go

  • around especially too few good jobs

  • at the bottom of the labor market.

  • It's a serious problem.

  • And if we're going to have a work-based safety net

  • and that's essentially what happen in 1996,

  • we moved toward a work-based safety net,

  • then we must insure the opportunity.

  • Second, parents should be able to raise children in a house

  • of their own, this follows from the trauma that we often see--

  • saw children exposed to.

  • But third, we do have to have a safety net that catches people

  • when they fall because sometimes work won't work.

  • I'll end there and turn it over to Professor Danziger, et.al.

  • [ Laughter ]

  • [ Applause ]

  • >> OK. So, ton of questions have come in, a ton,

  • we really appreciate it.

  • And Rashid [assumed spelling]

  • and Melanie [assumed spelling] are going

  • to give you questions back and forth.

  • They're sort of split between a little--

  • other ideas about causes and further explanations and ideas

  • about policy, questions about policies.

  • So, well maybe go kind of back and forth.

  • >> First off, thank you so much for the wonderful presentation.

  • My name is Melanie, I'm a first year Master student

  • at the Public Policy School here.

  • Our first question, how might extreme poverty be growing

  • because of mass incarceration, especially the removal

  • of many men from their communities?

  • >> Anyone?

  • >> Do you have ideas?

  • >> Well, you know, it's interesting,

  • we were really looking at households with children

  • and certainly households are made more vulnerable

  • when the father is taken out of the household

  • and separated from his children.

  • We saw that in, I believe, at Jennifer Hernandez's childrens--

  • one of her children's father was incarcerated.

  • At this no doubt plays a role and I've written

  • about it extensively in my other book,

  • especially the relationship between male incarceration

  • and family instability.

  • So, it is important, it's not something that we focus on here

  • because these families are often--

  • what's interesting about $2 poverty is that sort

  • of that equal opportunity condition.

  • Right. We see white families as well as black

  • and Latino families and they're also in fact I think half

  • of the families in the--

  • >> In the household.

  • >> -- the households are white.

  • We see married and unmarried households,

  • we see households across the country.

  • So, maybe this is a special kind

  • of poverty certainly incarceration interacts with it

  • but there are a number of groups are represented in this category

  • that you don't sort of think about when you think

  • about a poverty this deep.

  • And those are not necessarily the group most attracted

  • by mass incarceration.

  • >> Hello and I am Rashid Malik [assumed spelling],

  • I'm a second year Masters of Public Policy student here

  • at Fort School, interested in social welfare policy

  • and a student of Luke Shaefer's.

  • I, well, have a two parts question.

  • What administrative burdens are imposed on those living on less

  • than $2 a day when they seek government assistance?

  • And how can we-- and as policy makers design programs

  • that alleviate that burden and improve access

  • and use of these programs.

  • >> So, this is a-- this gets us into the question

  • of why TANF is sort of failing.

  • Even I think in its stated mission,

  • temporary assistance for needy families.

  • And I at least thought when we started this investigation

  • and it was really about work requirements which were part

  • of the-- sort of the welfare reform and there was

  • about time limit, lifetime limits

  • that would make a lot of sense.

  • And those play roles but are really I think the bigger factor

  • is the structure-- the very structure

  • of the black grant itself.

  • So the way that TANF is set up, is to say, states here is--

  • here is a fixed pot of money, right, that we're going

  • to distribute across the States, and by the way we're not going

  • to sort of in, you know, adjust it for inflation at all.

  • So it's declining in real value every year since 1996.

  • Here's a fixed pot of money, and you can use it

  • for cash assistance, right?

  • You can use it for the Stigmatized Program

  • that not many people like and if you do that,

  • we're going to impose a lot of, sort of restrictions on you.

  • That you have to have a certain fraction

  • of the case load working and you have

  • to take care of this and that.

  • Or, if you don't give it out, through cash assistance,

  • which you don't have to do, you can pretty much use it

  • for any other related thing.

  • Right. So, you see a very, very clear incentive,

  • and here at the Fort School,

  • we now how important incentives are.

  • For States to keep their cash assistance case loads

  • artificially low.

  • And we saw that and clear

  • as force I think during the great recession

  • where the case loads very much didn't sort of in any ways sort

  • of leap up like some of these other, like snap, for example.

  • And a case of a lot of States they've actually kept their case

  • loads incredibly low so might just have 23

  • out of every 100 poor families on the program.

  • But I think we have some States that are bound to eight

  • or nine poor families out of every 100 on the program.

  • And in those cases, a lot of those States are actually,

  • redistributing that money to other things

  • that they would've spent on any ways.

  • So there's actually not net positive benefit

  • of the money going into TANF rather

  • than to provide a little bit of caution for states.

  • So I guess, to answer the question I would say,

  • building effective policy.

  • This is a great case example of what not to do, right.

  • And paying attention to the incentives that are sort

  • of coming from the way that the program is designed,

  • I think we have a lot of nice examples like,

  • snap which is going to electronic EBT card.

  • And we'll, you know, TANF istoo.

  • But that actually reduces especially when we have rates

  • of residential instability reduces people loosing

  • their benefits.

  • And you have a lot of States that are doing the online

  • and sort of longer re-certification periods.

  • And those will all make a difference.

  • >> So to add to that, the qualitative story here really is

  • that our welfare has disappeared from the imaginations

  • of the poor it has become so rare.

  • Out of the social networks which might have spread the word,

  • have really atrophied.

  • But I do want to emphasize this point about pride almost

  • to a person, actually to a person

  • of the people on our study.

  • We followed 18 of these families very in depth

  • over several years really saw themselves as workers.

  • And perhaps that's partly a credit to welfare reform,

  • you know, back when Laura and I we're studying, Dean Lein

  • and I was studying Welfare Acceptance in the early 1990s,

  • mother's would say, "I don't know

  • if I can be a good mother and a worker."

  • Now, they say, "I don't know how I can be a good mother

  • if I'm not a worker because I have to model the value

  • of education to my children."

  • So for better or for worst,

  • a strong working identity motivates a lot of job seeking

  • and that's what you see over and over again in this book,

  • these heartbreaking endless--

  • seemingly endless searches for work.

  • But it doesn't make people very eager to come to TANF store

  • because that is really the antithesis

  • of what workers do to survive.

  • >> Can you expand a bit on the role

  • of mental health and extreme poor?

  • >> So we saw a significant agree.

  • I think of mental health challenges

  • and we can trace a lot of those in the stories

  • of the families to-- let's call them a literature,

  • adverse childhood experiences, right?

  • So this is the sort of experience of physical,

  • sexual abuse, emotional neglect and we know very clearly

  • that these sort of experiences

  • and especially accumulatively experiencing many

  • of them follows a person through their lifetime.

  • And we can see very clear associations

  • with physical health that and mental health.

  • And so that was very clear.

  • And when you look at the ACE Literature,

  • it's actually quite astounding the significant degree

  • of just all Americans

  • who experience this-- experience ACEs.

  • But we think it's very much concentrated among this group

  • at the bottom.

  • So, you can sort of see a clear link there.

  • Now, for us, we are actually very interested in the effect

  • of work as mental health intervention.

  • And the idea that Jennifer Hernandez really

  • like the stability of work, the structure of work, I think a lot

  • of us in this room can probably relate to that, right, of,

  • you know, if you lost your job, what would you do

  • and how would you feel?

  • And so we're very taken with the possible healing effects

  • of work structured well, right, decent work with dignity.

  • And the last thing I'll say on this is that we did have,

  • you know, there's pretty good coverage especially for kids

  • of medical insurance through our public health

  • insurance programs.

  • One of the good things we did during the 1990s was expand

  • access to public health insurance for kids

  • and you can see a dramatic decline

  • on the number of uninsured kids.

  • And the earned income tax [inaudible]

  • which provided a wage subsidy in this,

  • the story in Kathy's other-- one of her other recent books.

  • It's a little intimidating to write a book

  • with somebody who's an-- writes one before and after yours,

  • but that's for me to deal with.

  • And so, it's not like I'm [inaudible] about the ITC.

  • It's also actually like the happy story in the 1990s, right,

  • of providing, you know, a significant wage subsidy

  • for folks who go to work.

  • So, expanded health insurance was a part of this

  • and we can see mental health treatment.

  • Now, we didn't write about this in the book

  • but I will say we very much question the quality

  • of the both physical and mental health treatment that many

  • of our respondents got and wondered, are they actually--

  • you know, this is an expensive program.

  • We spend a lot on health insurance for the poor

  • and there's a-- and it's still a question--

  • open question on my mind.

  • Sort of what, especially for this group at the bottom,

  • is the net benefit that they receive

  • out of the treatment they get.

  • >> And on to the next question from the policy pile.

  • How might the policy idea

  • of a universal child allowance help alleviate extreme poverty?

  • >> So people have, you know, learned summers

  • and others have sort of noted that we may be running

  • out of work that automation might be affecting many jobs

  • in the US.

  • I know people have varied opinions on this.

  • I think in one PC suggest that we need some sort

  • of guaranteed minimum income to get us

  • out of this mess of too little work.

  • To us, a guaranteed child allowance is a little different

  • than a guaranteed minimum income because parents feel worthy

  • because they're claiming them in behalf of their children.

  • And in fact, in the EIC book, people often coded it

  • as the kid's money because they knew they were getting it

  • in part because they had children.

  • So what I'm about to say probably applies more

  • to this notion that we will suggest, you know,

  • basically subsidize a large group

  • of Americans who aren't working.

  • Again, work equals citizenship in the United States.

  • If you've seen the "Joe, run" ad

  • that was running last night during the presidential debates,

  • where he speaks very eloquently about the dignity of work

  • and work is-- you know, a good job is the ability to say

  • to your child with confidence, it's going to be, OK, honey.

  • You know, kind of-- thinking about the story

  • of his own father who had to leave town to find a job

  • and then bring the family along later.

  • But in any case, we think in America

  • that it's really important to find a solution for work.

  • Because we're not just interested

  • in the financial wellbeing of the $2 a day poor,

  • we're interested in America where everybody gets

  • to take part, where everybody is sort of a part

  • of the same community.

  • What AFDC did was to divide the poor.

  • It was almost as if you had to trade your citizenship card

  • in to cross the road

  • that separates the worthy from the destitute.

  • That's a rough rephrase of TH Marshall's world

  • in order to get that help.

  • And we think that this is the 21st century

  • and we should have a 21st century approach to caring

  • for the poor that allows them to claim dignity

  • and be part of society.

  • And the work have several political scientists

  • to at least suggest that there might be spillover benefits

  • beyond financial wellbeing that extend

  • to citizenship participation.

  • Maybe we'll no longer be so prone to bowl alone

  • and maybe even voting, and other activities

  • that benefit our democracy.

  • >> You described how family

  • and friends could often have detrimental impact

  • on these families from abuse to maltreatment to theft?

  • Did you find any trends that challenge this

  • such as family networks and smaller towns in the south

  • or communities with more active churches and social clubs?

  • >> So, I think we had examples where family was a support.

  • So that's what you're asking.

  • And we take Susan Brown that we write

  • about in the first chapter is living with her husband Devin

  • and their daughter Lauren, baby daughter Lauren, with a number

  • of other family members who are both sort

  • of among the $2 a day poor, but they're able to live

  • in a house that's sort of owned by the family.

  • And it's clear actually you can see Susan as we've followed

  • up with her sort of after the book, she is doing the best,

  • I think, of virtually all of our respondents, right?

  • And so, that family buffer is an important one.

  • So I think what we were trying to note in the book was that,

  • you know, family is not always positive.

  • In fact, it can be a serious detriment.

  • And again, we're not trying to say this is a story

  • about the poor or, you know, in general,

  • but I think among this specific group, there's almost

  • like a selection effect of, you know,

  • if you're in these circumstances, you're--

  • but you have family that can support you, you either get

  • out very quickly or you don't-- never sort of fall into our--

  • the sample we selected.

  • >> Next question.

  • How optimistic are you for a genuine policy response

  • to the new data you've discussed?

  • >> Well, I think we're both pretty optimistic people.

  • So maybe that's what I'm going to reflect here.

  • But, you know, I do think that we are

  • in a moment during the reception of this book, both at the state

  • and federal level has been absolutely astonishing.

  • Our people seem very hungry for the information they see moved.

  • But this is one voice among many sort of pointing

  • out the degradation of work and the deepening need of families,

  • not just at the very bottom of the labor market,

  • but maybe even, well, at the bottom 40%

  • of the labor market that's experiencing many of the things

  • that are [inaudible] they are--

  • poor experiencing but to a less severe degree.

  • If you watched the debate last night,

  • you might have seen the anti-Walmart ad,

  • another total heartbreaker.

  • It's as if-- it was as if those families could be our families.

  • So, people are catching on.

  • There are, you know, there's pressure

  • for increasing the minimum wage.

  • Some folks are even thinking

  • about expanding the reach of the EITC.

  • So, if not now, when?

  • >> Actually I applied for a job at Walmart as part

  • of the [inaudible] and Kathy was my reference

  • and I didn't get a call.

  • But yeah, I think you know, I'm sort of--

  • we're both sort of pessimists again,

  • incredibly optimistic at the same time.

  • And I'm thinking in Washington, it's very hard

  • to sort of do anything.

  • Maybe we'll see sort of more stuff at the state level.

  • And I do think you can expect sort of any one book to sort

  • of really move the dial.

  • It has to come with the other things

  • but maybe we'll be a part of it.

  • You also just never know, I'm sorry,

  • when the policy windows are going to open up.

  • So what doesn't seem possible, you know,

  • for David Ellwood writing "Poor Support"

  • in the late 1980s becomes very possible,

  • like in the first month that he goes

  • into the [inaudible] administration

  • where they expended their income tax credit which is

  • by the way billions and billions more than we ever spend on AFDC.

  • It's just only you can only get it if you work.

  • So, it's not really a safety net.

  • Right. So, so maybe it will happen--

  • something good will happen this year

  • or maybe it will happen five years from now.

  • I will say that as we've been in Washington, I think,

  • the notion of doing something to create more jobs

  • and government intervention, whether it's

  • for the private ship-- public/private partnership,

  • is more on the table than it was, I think, five years ago.

  • >> Thank you.

  • Next question.

  • Reading your book, I was surprised that more

  • of the extreme part didn't turn

  • to drug trade though you mentioned other felonies.

  • Do you think this is about character and their commitment

  • to parenthood or is there an economic calculation behind this

  • as well?

  • Not available or worth it?

  • >> OK. Great question.

  • So, you know, one of the things

  • that gives me great comfort is I've been

  • in this business a long time.

  • I've talked to thousands of poor families across 11, as well--

  • let me see now, roughly, you know, 15 different locales

  • across the United States.

  • So, we restricted our sample to parents with custodial children.

  • Right? Parents with a custodial children very rarely sell drugs.

  • And why, it's because they're almost certain to lose custody

  • of their kids to the state

  • and their kids are their most precious asset,

  • so they don't wan to do that.

  • Now, are there drugs in the Mississippi Delta,

  • are there drugs in Chicago, Cleveland, and Johnson City?

  • Absolutely.

  • But it's generally not parents who are engaging

  • in those kinds of behavior.

  • So, it is interesting how, you know, we can--

  • We tend to think of drug dealing as sort

  • of this ubiquitous activity.

  • And you do hear a lot about this in all locales

  • that we talked to, but these are parents desperately trying

  • to keep their families together.

  • You know, if they weren't tough, they are--

  • we would have already lost their children's child protection.

  • They're very-- living circumstances often put them

  • at risk of CPS involvement.

  • Paul Hackwilder [assumed spelling] had the 22 people

  • in his house.

  • He was very nervous to engage with social services

  • because of course that would have violated the rules many

  • times over of how many children could be in the same room

  • and what their ages and genders could be.

  • So, I'll end there but it's a question that comes

  • up every time and it's actually quite interesting

  • to see how little we see of this, especially since all

  • of our families except one actually did have to commit

  • at least one felony in order to survive during the period

  • that we observed them.

  • >> Our next audience question asks,

  • "Besides the welfare reform, have you seen major changes

  • on the low wage-- in the low wage labor market side

  • that leads to more instability?

  • >> We think that there is a fairly significant change

  • or start of a trend in the low wage labor market starting

  • in the early 2000s.

  • And we've actually-- I think a lot

  • of us has thought it was there and we're starting

  • to get more data that I think confirms that.

  • And a lot of that has to do with the prevalence of these sort

  • of unstable sort of work conditions outside of wages.

  • So, low wages is a part of this story, right?

  • But these, you know, keeping large part time workforces,

  • keeping the, you know, this sort

  • of very closely linking consumer demand to the number

  • of people you have in the store, right,

  • unlike an hour to hour basis.

  • Some of these things employers just couldn't do,

  • you know, 20 years ago.

  • So we think all of these things are clear.

  • The-- actually we see a lot of examples of on call work also

  • where somebody doesn't get paid but is actually required

  • for a sort of a set of hours to be

  • by their phone and able to come in.

  • Or in some cases, they actually have to call in every couple

  • of hours just to see if they're one

  • and they don't get paid for that.

  • And so I think there's a lot of talk about, you know,

  • what kind of policy reforms do you undertake to sort

  • of fix those kind of problems.

  • And I tend to think often

  • that employers are smarter than policymakers.

  • So if you did something to say, well,

  • you can't keep people on call.

  • Employers might figure out a way to get around that

  • or they might come up with something else

  • that tries to help them.

  • So that's why we have such a focus, I think.

  • I think we absolutely need to look at policies that can kind

  • of curb some of these.

  • One thing we can do is try to curb the extent

  • of labor law violations that exists, right?

  • So, as it is right now, it's better for an employer to sort

  • of not pay over time, if people actually get over time

  • or to sort of engage in some of these practices

  • and risk being caught.

  • Because chances are they won't be caught.

  • And if they get caught, the penalty isn't that bad, right?

  • So, actually benefiting from those is better,

  • so maybe we just start

  • by enforcing what we have on the books.

  • But in addition, I think,

  • this notion of creating more jobs, right.

  • And these public/private partnerships

  • that potentially subsidize jobs or jobs coming

  • to the nonprofit sector will put pressure on the labor market

  • and should positively impact some of these practices.

  • >> Having said that, the problem is really big and I think many

  • of the programs we can point to right now are pretty small.

  • So we also say in the book that we might actually have

  • to reconceptualize how we think of work and how we think

  • of the government as an employer.

  • Maybe this is too big of a thought for a policy school,

  • I hope not, but there are still much work

  • to be done in our community.

  • So, there are parks that aren't clean, they are not open

  • because we can't afford the personnel to keep them open.

  • We have recreation centers that have limited hours,

  • public libraries that are barely open.

  • On the little town of Percy, there is a public library

  • that has virtually no books, and it is only open limited hours

  • because they can't afford a librarian.

  • Our cities are filthy.

  • Our preschools are too few.

  • Our classrooms are too large.

  • There's so much work to be done in our society.

  • And if you say to me, well, the government is never proved

  • to be a very good employer, I would just like to point

  • at our teachers and our firefighters

  • and many fine public service--

  • servants who our employees of the government

  • and whose work is a vital value to our daily lives.

  • >> And this will be the last question we have time for today.

  • We spoke a bit about potential policy responses,

  • but what do you hope will come

  • from the public reading your book?

  • >> Well, so when Kathy and I started to write this book,

  • we knew we wanted to try to do a popular press book, right,

  • and try to actually connect with the-- a broader audience.

  • And we were happy to get a contract with Houghton Mifflin

  • that has brought us such literary icons

  • as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Curious George.

  • But, you know, I think that we have sort

  • of a targeting policymaker strategy

  • and also being a discussion point, right?

  • And I hope maybe the book goes a little bit on these lines

  • of social incorporation that it allows.

  • We tried to tell people stories.

  • My mother is a professional storyteller.

  • So, I sort of known the importance of stories

  • for a long time, tried to tell the stories in a respectful

  • but honest way, right, and try to sort of bring people

  • to meet peoples that they wouldn't have ever met

  • in their life because, you know, we're so stratified in society.

  • So, I think we would be really happy if people picked

  • up this book who didn't necessarily agree

  • or had thought a lot about poverty in the United States

  • and used it as a sort of a resource to hone what they,

  • you know, sharpen their ideas about what poverty is like

  • and what we should do about it.

  • >> Well, thanks again.

  • [ Applause ]

  • >> Thank you, thank you very much.

  • I'd also like to thank Sandy, Rashid and Melanie

  • for facilitating the questions and all of you

  • for a fabulous group of questions.

  • I know we didn't get to all of them, I hope you'll stay

  • so that we can continue the conversation in the great hall

  • and you all can get your book signed.

  • Please join me in a final round of thanks

  • to Kathy Edin and Luke Shaefer.

  • [ Applause ]

>> Hello everybody.

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it