A Portrait of Hunger, the Social Safety Net, and the Working Poor

A Portrait of Hunger, the Social Safety Net, and the Working Poor

Policy Brief Series
Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity
School of Law
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
September 1, 2006

Maureen Berner, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Government and Public Administration
School of Government
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Trina Ozer, MPA Candidate
School of Government
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Sharon Paynter, MPA
School of Government
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Ph.D. Candidate
Political Science Department
North Carolina State University

Introduction and Summary of Results

Millions of Americans turn to soup kitchens and other non-profit hunger relief services to
feed themselves and their families. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 2004
more than 38 million Americans lived in food insecure households where there was not enough
food for everyone living in the home (Nord, Andrews & Carlson, 2004). Contrary to common
perception, many of these families are working and yet their incomes are still insufficient to meet
their basic needs. We highlight two examples to illustrate this point. In Iowa, 25 percent of
clients surveyed were employed. At the Food Bank of Central and Eastern North Carolina, an
even higher number of clients work. More than 37 percent of all clients at this agency are
employed (FBCENC, 2005).

Increasingly, non-profit organizations are asked to fill gaps that government is unable or
unwilling to close. Nonprofits often operate as a low-cost alternative to big government social
service programming (Alexander, 1999). Given our federally supported social safety net, why is
there such a great need for non-profits to step in and feed the hungry, especially if many of those
people are working? To answer this question, this paper presents the results of a detailed twoyear
(2004-2006) survey of all the clients at the largest food pantry in Northeast Iowa, the Cedar
Valley Food Pantry (CVFP), and places them in a national context. Furthermore, the data used
for this paper are rich. Gathering valid and reliable data on this population is extremely difficult.

This study gives academics, practitioners, and others an opportunity to better understand the
interaction of food assistance programs with other programs through survey data gathered from a
full population.

In particular, we describe the working population who rely on Iowa’s CVFP for food
assistance. Those who work must meet certain criteria to be classified as poor, and different
organizations may use different criteria. To be eligible for food assistance at CVFP, a family’s
income must be at or below 185 percent of the US Department of Health and Human Services’
poverty guidelines. Over the two-year span of this study, 185 percent of the average guideline
meant an income of $35,890 a year for a family of four (US Department of Health and Human
Services).

A sizable portion of clients at the pantry already work (25 percent) or are on government
support (49 percent), including Social Security. Surprisingly, working does not appear to
alleviate the need for regular food assistance. Job related demands, such as transportation, child
care, and uncovered health care costs force choices between food and other necessities more
often for working people than for the unemployed. Working individuals are just as likely to need
supplemental food assistance on a regular basis as the unemployed.

In addition, this paper suggests government support programs such as Social Security and
Food Stamps are an insufficient guard against hunger, and thousands of Americans turn to nonprofits
to fill the gap. The policy ramifications of these findings are clear. First, while this study
can not be broadly generalized beyond this population, the findings suggest that policies
encouraging work among the poor should recognize the standard of living for these individuals
may become less stable, rather than more so, as a result of gaining employment. To more fully
understand this relationship, a longitudinal analysis of employment and food assistance data
should be undertaken. Second, our national social support structure is inadequate. If we wish to
maintain the government responsibility to alleviate hunger in our country, benefits for eligible
citizens must be increased or food assistance non-profits need greater government support.

Otherwise we should face the fact that as an undeclared public policy, our society tolerates
hunger.


Continued @ http://www.law.unc.edu/pdfs/poverty/BernerPolicyBrief.pdf

When it comes to poverty in America, almost every analyst agrees that the official measure is terribly out-of-date and no longer provides a valid indication of economic deprivation. Thankfully, the Census Bureau has implemented the recommendations of a mid-1990s panel of social scientists devoted to correcting the shortcomings of the official measure.

The most accurate of these recommended new measures1 makes several improvements: it accounts for the costs and benefits of taxes and near-cash transfers, like food stamps; it reduces the income of working families for costs associated with work; it makes adjustments for price differences throughout the country; and, it allows the poverty thresholds to reflect changes in consumption by the non-poor.

Given the above improvements, the alternative threshold for a family with two parents and two children was $3,000 higher than the official threshold: $22,841 vs. $19,806.

Compared to the official measure, the more-accurate measure reflects a substantially higher rate of poverty in America. In 2005, 14.1% of Americans—41.3 million—were poor according to the alternative, compared to 12.6%—or 36.9 million—under the official measure (see Figure). In other words, the United States has over 4 million more people living in poverty than typically reflected in the traditional poverty rate statistics. link to report