AMERICAN POVERTY 1

American Poverty

Marie Caira E. Ruiz

Howard High School

AMERICAN POVERTY 2

American Poverty

Rarely do we, as American people, pause to question the reality of inequality that has

been laid out before us. Similarly, it is common for everyday discussion and political interaction

concerning poverty to be perpetuated with misinformation and personal bias. Thus, the urgent

matter of American poverty remains unresolved, despite fervent anti-poverty efforts and debate.

A new perspective on poverty is crucial to the full realization of social welfare within the U.S.

Given potential resources, the punitive, classist approach of the administration and design of

contemporary U.S social welfare programs inadequately relieve the effective state of poverty,

especially when juxtaposed with comparably productive, nonpunitive systems of social welfare.

Poverty is a multi-dimensional affective state, where scarcity severely limits individual's

physiological and psychological capabilities, unaccounted for by the majority of welfare

programs. Firstly, there are socio-psychological dimensions of poverty that derive from cultural

adversities. Scarcity of resources (such as love, food, or money) deprives the psyche along with

an individual's physical or economic state; a concept called mental bandwidth explains this

phenomena, as individuals have limited mental resources, or bandwidth, to delegate to various

tasks (Durvasula et. al, 6). As the challenges of poverty continuously strain an individual's

limited bandwidth (aka attention and self-control) without rejuvenation (due to scarcity of

resources), cognitive capacity, such as IQ, begins to shift, thereby continuing a process of

destructive decision-making that hinders poverty alleviation (Gennetian et. al, 11). Another

factor that worsens generational poverty is childhood exposure to scarcity: Children living in

poverty are at greater risk of behavioral and emotional problems[including] impulsiveness,

difficulty getting along with peers, aggression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

AMERICAN POVERTY 3

and conduct disorder...anxiety, depression and low self-esteem... These are all linked to poor

social and emotional outcomes for children. Unsafe neighborhoods may expose low-income

children to violence which can cause a number of psychosocial difficulties. Violence exposure

can also predict future violent behavior in youth which places them at greater risk of injury and

mortality and entry into the juvenile justice system. (Effects of Poverty, hunger, and

homelessness, 1). Disenfranchisement begins at an early age; cyclical disparity is solidified

through the early deprivation of mental resources due to situational circumstance, which is

further worsened through institutional cultural barriers-a major example of such stigma

pervading the institutional treatment of poverty includes the public education system. This is

evident by the achievement gap that exists between the well-off and poor, which is twice as large

as that of black and white students (Coley and Baker, 3). While this pattern remains largely

unquestioned by mainstream society, disenfranchised individuals continue to receive

unnecessarily, inaccurate, harsh, punitive treatment, at the hands of so-called aid institutions.

This narrative of systematic abuse is a common one that explains the trend of generational,

cyclical poverty, as ethnic minorities receive discriminatory treatment in foster care, health care,

and education, and are criminalized/ marginalized when processed according to stereotypes of

social deviance (Henderson et. al, 20). Another example of this economic marginalization is the

private schooling system: by disinvesting a large portion of the influential, wealthy populace

from the public school system, disparities remain within public schooling (Coley and Baker, 29).

This leads to differential academic, social outcomes for children of lower economic status,

limiting their future capabilities of lifting themselves out of poverty (Effects of poverty, hunger,

and homelessness, 1). Indeed, there are physiological dimensions of poverty that limit physical
AMERICAN POVERTY 4

capability including Low birth weight, Poor nutrition which is manifested in the following

ways: Inadequate food which can lead to food insecurity/hunger, Lack of access to healthy foods

and areas for play or sports which can lead to childhood overweight or obesity, Chronic

conditions such as asthma, anemia and pneumonia, Risky behaviors such as smoking or

engaging in early sexual activity, Exposure to environmental contaminants, e.g., lead paint and

toxic waste dumps, Exposure to violence in their communities which can lead to trauma, injury,

disability and mortality (Effects of poverty, hunger, and homelessness, 1). The lack of

medical and nutritional resources pose a large limitation for impoverished families, and have far

reaching consequences: without access to quality medical care, poor mothers, children, and

families are more at risk for serious illness and disease that further cripple their ability to work

and escape poverty (Henderson et. al, 21). These dimensions all account for capability poverty,

a dimension of poverty that hinders improvement ability, and is left largely unaccounted for by

the majority of welfare programs. As all the disadvantages accumulate, a domino-effect of

incapability occurs: mental and physical problems cause educational and juvenile issues, which

then heightens the likelihood of disenfranchisement from political and professional systems in

adulthood (Chambers, 3).

Thus, since contemporary U.S social welfare reform, TANF (the Temporary Assistance

for Needy Families program), fails to account for the multi-dimensional nature of poverty, it

perpetuates the cycle of inequality when combined with the effects of misinformed mainstream

culture. Within mass media and popular culture, poverty is narrowly defined as economic

poverty bereft of apparent classism. Stereotypes like the welfare queen and the ghetto gang

banger who manipulate aid systems and abuse the law are well established narratives within
AMERICAN POVERTY 5

American media (Larsen, 14). In fact, 62%-65% of poverty and welfare stories that appear in

large media outlets such as TIME, Newsweek, U.S News, and World Report feature

African-Americans in an unsympathetic, underclass light (Gilliam, 2-3). The media

pigeonholes the poor into racialized, classist stereotypes that then translate into popular culture

as apparent facts; thus, the societal understanding of social welfare and poverty is riddled with

misconceptions. False myths include: inability or refusal to work (over 2/3 of assistance

recipients caring for children have been employed), the lack of hard work ethic (most families

need aid despite working full-time), abuse of welfare (there is little evidence of individuals

moving to receive welfare, and only a small percentage are overpaid; the majority of recipients

are single mothers with one child), and minorities receiving the majority of benefits (Most

families on welfare are White rather than African-American or Hispanic) (Welfare myths, 14).

These falsities heavily skew the publics understanding of poverty, and translates into the

inception of classist public policy that degrades the treatment of the poor. Under TANF,

procedural safeguards protecting clientele have been repealed in favor of get tough, work first

policies that allow states to emphasize time limits and work sanctions while reducing benefits

and family program enrollment for the sake of eliminating welfare dependency (Schram, 253).

These harmfully punitive characteristics of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Act place the most needy, high risk families at risk of being denied quality care as

clientele who are unable to meet punitive state restrictions (Marx, 1). The disparate outcomes of

different socioeconomic groups also exemplify the incorporation of bias within faulty legislation.

The so-called equal treatment of individuals under welfare reform leaves racial minorities

more likely to cycle back into the penal, welfare system when compared to white clientele, thus
AMERICAN POVERTY 6

leaving them systematically disadvantaged (Schram, 256-263). Differential treatment also

applies to various levels of poverty, as the highest increases in income have occurred in the

highest income groups since the onset of TANF (families whose pre-transfer income lied

between 50%-150% of the poverty line) (Yonatan et. al, 20). Therefore, the poor program quality

and administrative features of TANF impedes aid for those most in need: the deeply

impoverished, as the poorer and increasingly disenfranchised individuals are, the less likely they

will receive help.

Juxtaposed with comparably more effective programs, TANF is an inefficient means of

social welfare design, structure, and administration in terms of outcomes- low quality welfare

service means TANF is a weak safety net that is not effective in relieving poverty and welfare

dependency in the long term. The declining TANF caseload, combined with an increasing

poverty rate, demonstrates the inefficacy of U.S welfare reform. Pre-TANF, the

welfare-to-poverty ratio was 68:100 (meaning out of every 100 families in poverty, 68 received

cash assistance)- by 2010, this ratio has fallen to 27:100; meanwhile, the number of

impoverished families with children increased by 17% within this period (Trisi and Pavetti, 1).

The inefficacy of the safety net combined with abundant resources makes the U.S an

international outlier among similarly developed first world countries in terms of poverty rate and

income inequality. In a special edition of Pathways, a Stanford periodical covering trends in

poverty, inequality, and social policy, economists pointed out that the U.S rankings in safety net,

income inequality, and wealth inequality are distinctly dismal, even when compared to similar

countries (ranking last out of 10 first world countries, 18th out of 21 less well-of countries, and

last out of other liberal welfare regimes notorious for creating poverty and inequality), whereas
AMERICAN POVERTY 7

ironically higher regulated economies with stronger welfare programs possessed higher job

provision and more equal opportunity than the U.S system (Grusky et. al, 5-6). However, it is

important to emphasize the U.Ss immense capacity for change: its strong political and

economic base means that much-needed, large-scale social reform can be achieved through small

improvements to the social insurance system, derived from the utilization of available research

and legislative capabilities (Grusky, 7).

Overall, the punitive, classist design and administration of social welfare programs is

ineffective. In order to create a viable safety net for needy families, a new perspective on poverty

needs to be integrated into policy administration and culture. Regardless of differing beliefs and

political stances, the persistence of poverty remains an indelible issue that degrades the entirety

of the U.S population, economy, and culture. We, as citizens, individuals, and community

members, must unite to solve the problem.

AMERICAN POVERTY 8

Works Cited

Chambers, R. (2006). What is poverty? who asks? who answers? Poverty in Focus , 3-4.

Retrieved from http://www.ipc-undp.org/pub/IPCPovertyInFocus9.pdf

Coley, R. J., Baker, B. (2013). Poverty and education: finding the way forward, 25-30. Retrieved

from https://www.ets.org/s/research/pdf/poverty_and_education_report.pdf

Currier, E., Sattlemeyer, S., Durvasula, R., Roseanne, F., Gennetian, L. A., Greene, E., Jones, D.,

Henderson D. X., Melvin, S. A. (2014). Poverty and Inequality: Special Blog Series: The

War on Poverty, 50 Years Later. Retrieved from

https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/poverty-and-inequality.pdf

Effects of poverty, hunger and homelessness on children and youth (2016). Retrieved from

American Psychological Association Online http://www.apa.org/pi/families/poverty.aspx

Gilliam, F. D. (1999). The welfare queen experiment: how viewers react to images of

african-american mothers on welfare. Retrieved from UCLA Center for Communications

and Community Online http://escholarship.org/uc/item/17m7r1rq#page-6

Grusky, D. B., Mattingley, M. J., Varner, C. E. (2016). Executive summary. Pathways, 3-9.

Retrieved from

http://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Pathways-SOTU-2016.pdf

Larsen, C. A. (n.d). The poor of the mass media. Poverty, 148, 14-17. Retrieved from

http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/CPAG-the-poor-of-the-mass-media-Jul14.pdf

Trisi, D., Pavetti, L. (2012). Tanf weakening as a safety net for poor families. Retrieved from

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities online

http://www.cbpp.org/research/tanf-weakening-as-a-safety-net-for-poor-families
AMERICAN POVERTY 9

Marx, J. (2010). Current issues and programs on social welfare. Retrieved from Virginia

Commonwealth University Library online

http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/recollections/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-w

elfare/

Schram, S. M. (2005). Contextualizing racial disparities in american welfare reform: toward a

new poverty research. Perspectives on Politics, 3.2, 253-268. Retrieved from

https://resources.oncourse.iu.edu/access/content/group/SP10-BL-POLS-Y490-26253/schr

am-contextualizing%20welfare%20policy.pdf

Welfare myths: fact or fiction? exploring the truth about welfare. (1996). Retrieved from

http://www.benchmarkinstitute.org/t_by_t/pb/welfare_myths.pdf

Yonatan, B. S., Moffitt, R., Scholz, J. K. (2011). An assessment of the effectiveness of

anti-poverty programs in the united states, 14-21. Retrieved from

http://www.econ2.jhu.edu/People/Moffitt/bms%20pov-handbook%205-4-2011.pdf