On April 5th, I had the wonderful opportunity to participate in Tulsa Public Schools’ “Principal for a Day” at Rogers High School, under the leadership of Stacey Vernon. Stacey was awarded Principle of the Year so it was an honor to shadow her work.

Coming to Rogers was a bit surreal. My wife attended Rogers so walking the halls was very nostalgic.

My day started by working with the Assistant Principal Kendra Bremlett. We talked about her role as support for Stacey. We also spoke of the exciting things that will be happening this Fall with the implementation of College Summit; one of our department’s educational partners.

Later, Stacy took over and we met with April Dalto, a science teacher who had her class cook hotdogs with natural sunlight. The class was energetic, engaged and very creative.

Back in Stacy’s office, I was offered the opportunity to communicate through an Auto-dialer system called School Connects. I read a script out loud, on the phone, telling parents to show up at a bowling event. I had a blast sounding like a DJ for a radio station!

There was another memorable moment back at Stacey’s office. She has a pinball machine in the back office that she likes to use when she isn’t buried in instructional leadership duties. Needless to say, it isn’t used very often.

To that point, the most amazing thing that I observed with Stacey was her ability to know all of the students by name. If that wasn’t impressive enough, she’s also very in tune with each child’s educational status (at any time); something I found most astounding. Not just in this visit, but in the 9 months that I’ve met with Stacey walking the halls, she always seems to find time to connect with students and ask how their world is. It’s no wonder that she was awarded Principal of the Year.

My visit concluded at the Education Service Center where all of the principals, as well as those who shadowed them, met for an award ceremony.

Will Rogers College Junior High and High School

It was a time to share “a day in the life of a principal.” Dr. Ballard, superintendent of Tulsa Public Schools, MC’d the event and walked to various tables asking for comments. Overall, the remarks were mostly the same; that principals are working hard to lead teachers for a child’s success. Dr. Ballard came to me and I echoed the sentiments. I did add one thing. I directed Dr. B to my camera and showed him the picture of Stacey hard at work on…the pinball machine. It garnered some good laughs.”

I hope to be invited again next year.

Today’s blog post will concentrate on the payday lending portion of the report.  As the name suggests, payday loans are often due by the borrower’s next pay period.  These loans exploit a considerable number of low-income borrowers who lack the cash flow to quickly dig themselves out of short-term loan as the extra fees quickly accumulate.  The average annual income for a borrower was found to be $26,167, but a quarter of borrowers report an annual income of $14,172 or lower.  Three quarters of those borrowing money were employed full- or part-time, and the rest had fixed incomes due to retirement, disability or other assistance.

Borrowers are often repeat customers, as they take out new loans to cover old loans, or pay a fee to rollover loans when unable to repay on time.  When the study examined the frequency and total fees paid over time they found the average borrower had 10.7 payday loans transactions over the course of 12 months.  This resulted in an average of $574 in fees paid per borrower.

According to the CFPB, the length of time a borrower spends in debt depends on three factors: 1) the number of transactions conducted; 2) the number of days until each loan is due; and 3) whether consumers have delinquent debt outstanding beyond the contract’s end date.  The average borrower in this study was indebted roughly 54% of the year, or 196 days.  However, a quarter of borrowers found themselves indebted 302 days, or 83%,  of the year.

This situation has lasting negative impacts on family finances.  When low-income households get caught in a cycle of payday loan debt, they are losing more than the money they spend on fees and interest.  They are also losing the potential to build assets that can provide more money for long-term needs.  The average amount of fees paid per year, $574, could have been devoted to college savings, retirement or other investments.  Instead of paying for past emergencies, families could be saving for a better future if policymakers worked to protect consumers and connect more low-income families to mainstream financial services.

In order to prevent more individuals from falling into a cycle of debt, advocates are pushing to strengthen existing laws, or in many states enact new laws, regulating the practices of the payday loan industry.  Some may try to defend payday lending by minimizing the impact of fees or playing up the idea that this is a great service for people with emergencies.  However, policy experts have debunked many of those claims, most importantly with respect to Oklahoma where the problem is especially prevalent. (See OK Policy Blog’s 2012 post, Payday Loans: Myths and Realities.)

CAP wrote an Issue Brief on the subject in 2005, with recommendations on how Oklahoma could protect consumers by limiting the frequency and the amount of fees allowed under state law.  Positive payday loan reforms could have a considerable impact here in the Sooner state, as Oklahoma had the highest usage rate of payday loans in the country, as reported last year by the Pew Charitable Trusts. (For my previous post about that data click here)

• For more coverage on the new CFPB report, check out recent articles from the New York Times, the Washington Post and Consumer Affairs.

As the Demos report explains, federal law requires employers to have written permission before requesting an applicant’s credit report.  The catch is, employers can refuse to hire employees who refuse to give permission.  And although federal law also requires employers to disclose when credit information is the basis for denying someone a job, the denial of employment for this reason is legal in most cases.

During the Great Recession, many uninsured, unemployed Americans saw debt accumulate due to health issues or other emergencies beyond their control.  This record of unpaid debt now sits on their credit reports and is part of what potential employers may see as they make hiring decisions.  For some quick perspective on the number of people potentially impacted by this issue,  consider that:

• Around 8.7 million jobs were lost during the downturn, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
• An estimated 9 million people lost their health insurance due to job loss in 2008 and 2009 alone, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
  • Only 25% of these 9 million uninsured and unemployed workers were able to find another source of health insurance, and
  • Only 14% continued their coverage through COBRA, a program allowing qualified former employees to continue group health coverage for a limited time and typically at a higher rate than the individual paid while employed.

Out of the millions of people who suffered job loss and loss of insurance, how many will see their credit score cost them a new job?  The Demos report, Discredited: How Employment Credit Checks Keep Qualified Workers out of a Job, details findings from a 2012 survey of 997 low- to middle-income households.  First of all, they found that 1 in 4 unemployed respondents had been asked to release their credit report as part of the application process. They also found that 1 in 10 unemployed workers had been told they would not be hired based on information found on their credit report.  Furthermore, 1 in 7 respondents with poor credit reported they were denied a job due to information on their credit history.

Of course screening an applicant’s credit is reasonable with regards to sensitive positions relating to finance, personal records or even government security. Yet, Demos also found examples of employers using credit checks to screen potential delivery drivers, maintenance workers, and yogurt servers.  So while defenders may rightly point out that the requirement to provide a credit report is largely confined to upper level positions, the practice is expanding.  And when the practice spreads to the point where companies are pulling credit before hiring someone to dispense yogurt, perhaps it is time to reexamine how this can impact individual privacy.

• A credit report may contain information on a person’s medical debt, among other personal details.  Not only could this information unreasonably leave applicants at a disadvantage due to debt incurred from a past family health emergency, there is the potential for employers to make assumptions about an employee’s health and reliability.
• High levels of student loan debt, large amounts of credit card debt, a past bankruptcy and other indicators of a person’s financial situation are also laid out.  This can give rise to concerns of disparate, or unequal, impact as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has noted.
• Also highlighted in the report is the harm a mistake by a credit reporting agency can have on an individual who otherwise have a good credit history.  The ability to quickly fix errors on credit report, a report which was not originally created to determine eligibility for employment, is now more important than ever.

The risk of relegating hardworking Americans to low-wage jobs or periods of long unemployment based on past medical expenses, income disparities, and mistakes are some of the reasons why lawmakers are beginning to take an interest in the use of pre-employment credit checks.   So far, 9 states, along with a number of local governments, have enacted laws restricting the use of credit checks as a part of employee screening.  To date, Oklahoma is not one of them.

• Issues brought up in this report are discussed in a recent New York Times article.
• Forbes also had a recent article on the topic
• More information on what job applicants should know about pre-employment credit checks, and background checks in general,  is provided by the Federal Trade Commission.

Launched in 2011 by the City and County of San Francisco, K2C is the first publicly funded, universal children’s savings account program in the country.  Operated through the city’s Office of Financial Empowerment (OFE), the program ensures every kindergarten student in the San Francisco Unified School District is automatically enrolled in a College Savings Account.  Accounts are seeded with $50 provided by the city-county government, with students enrolled in the National School Lunch Program receiving an additional $50.

Accounts are designed to make contributing as easy as possible by allowing relatives and extended family to deposit money by mail, online, or in person.  There is no minimum deposit amount required, so families can give what they can afford, when they can afford it.  Partnerships with local foundations, organizations and businesses also provide matching funds for promotions that encourage families to save regularly and speed the growth of account balances.

The program is still relatively new but the results so far are encouraging.  As of 2012, over 8,000 accounts have been opened.  During a recent webinar it was announced the total value in all K2C accounts is approximately $745,000.  Families have deposited a combined total of over $230,000 of their own money.

Undoubtedly, the account balances will grow over time, but this is only part of the reward.  City leaders launched K2C, in part, because research shows that even a small college savings account has a positive impact on a child’s educational future. One study reported that students with savings accounts are seven times more likely to attend college than students without savings accounts, regardless of their parents income.  By investing in children’s education, the city is hoping to encourage college graduation rates while also reaping the benefits of a more educated workforce.

Of course, there are existing programs that promote college savings for children.  Qualified tuition plans, more commonly called 529 College Savings Plans, offer tax incentives for college savings.  However, during the previously mentioned webinar, Reid Cramer of the New American Foundation mentioned that most tax incentives associated with 529 plans benefit higher-income families while offering little or no tax relief for lower- or middle-class families. They also present barriers to families who may find enrollment and management of the 529 plans more complicated than the automatic and universal enrollment offered under the K2C model.

San Francisco’s leaders are also looking for other positive financial outcomes associated with college savings.  For many families, this may be their first experience with traditional banking institutions.  In 2011, the FDIC estimated 1 in 12 American households were unbanked or underbanked, meaning they lacked access to basic, safe and affordable banking relationships.  According to a New American Foundation report published in 2011, 11% of San Francisco families lack a savings account and more than 40% have subprime credit.

With these low-income and underbanked families in mind, the Office of Financial Empowerment designed Kindergarten to College to expand banking opportunities for families with a child in the program. Parents automatically become clients of the bank where the college savings account is held, in this case Citibank, and can open their own accounts as existing customers.  To further capitalize on this opportunity, schools are integrating financial education into the K-12 curriculum and using the children’s college savings accounts as a learning tool. The program plants the inspiration to save and invest during a child’s formative years so when students reach adulthood they have the information they need to make good financial decisions.

The ideas behind San Francisco’s program are so appealing, more state and local governments are starting to look into similar programs in order to support positive financial activities and build expectations for a child’s college education.  Other innovative ideas regarding children’s savings accounts include:

• Nevada recently announcing a similar savings plan for children in rural school districts.
• Proposals in the last Congress to pass the America Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement, and Education Act (ASPIRE), which would set up Lifetime Savings Account for every child in the U.S. (As of yet, the current Congress has not taken up the issue.)
• The U.S. Department of Education is also moving ahead with plans for a college savings account project.  Learn more by clicking here.
• Readers can also access the webinar mentioned in this post to find out more about San Francisco’s program and similar proposals by clicking the following link: Cradle to College: Exploring How Children’s Savings Accounts Pay Off. (Scroll down to link under heading “Past Webinars” to view recording.)

Now, a recently released paper, authored by Douglas Rice of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), lays out what sequestration cuts will mean for families who are either currently receiving housing assistance or on the waitlist.  The extremely short version is that state and federal agencies will probably have to cut assistance to about 140,000 families by early 2014 – and that just represents funding cuts for Housing Choice Vouchers, sometimes referred to as Section 8 Vouchers. The chart below gives a more detailed look at the cuts to vouchers, public housing, homeless assistance and other housing programs.

In Oklahoma, some of the pressure is already being felt by the agencies that receive and distribute federal housing assistance.  The Muskogee Phoenix reported in March that the Muskogee Housing Authority is expecting a $153,000 decrease in funds for Section 8 vouchers and an additional $167,000 decrease in funds for public housing programs.  While the housing authority has stopped issuing new vouchers to families on the waiting list and is trying to cut spending in other areas, they will be unable to maintain the current number of subsidies going forward. If the number of families receiving assistance fails to decline naturally, due to tenants moving or no longer requiring assistance, the authority will soon be forced to look at cutting subsidies to families currently in the program.  The cuts to Housing Choice Vouchers in Muskogee represents approximately 45 families out of the projected 1,174 Oklahoma families another recent CBPP report estimates will lose their vouchers due to the sequester.

According to the CBPP report, nationwide only 1 in 4 families eligible for housing assistance are currently receiving a voucher or some other form of relief.  The Muskogee Phoenix reports that 468 families are currently on the Muskogee Housing Authority’s waitlist for the Housing Choice Voucher program and 511 families are on the waitlist for public housing.  Those numbers are for Muskogee alone. So as housing authorities stop issuing new vouchers, it begs the question: Just how many Oklahomans are being left on the waiting list?

Clearly when it comes to housing assistance, the need is great, the funding limited and the future is uncertain at best. What is more troubling is that the cuts to housing programs represent just one consequence of sequestration. While some may try to paint sequestration as a minor cut to overall government spending, the reductions will, in truth, have major impacts on the lives of thousands of low-income Americans.

For more in-depth analysis of this CBPP paper, our readers can check out a recent post by Slate’s Matthew Yglesias  or read an excerpt from Greg Kaufman’s column in The Nation recently posted by Bill Moyer’s site, Moyers & Company.

CAP Tulsa recently published the second issue in our Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families series, covering Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). TANF is the only program that provides cash assistance to very low-income families with children. Too many Oklahoma children go without this essential support and are thus at risk for child maltreatment, poor health, and not succeeding in school.

Since federal welfare reform in 1996, Oklahoma has dramatically reduced its help to these most needy of families and children, even though there has been no drop in child poverty. As the chart below shows, Oklahoma only provides TANF cash assistance to 4,100 poor families, down from more than 30,000 in 1996. While TANF participation has fallen across the nation, Oklahoma’s drop has been much more severe.

While the welfare reforms were designed to move families from welfare to self-sufficiency, that’s simply not possible the way Oklahoma operates TANF. Several factors play a role.

• Income guidelines keep most families who need help from getting it.  The most a family of three can make and qualify for TANF in Oklahoma is $824 per month, only half the poverty level.
• TANF benefits are too low to do anything but fight off an emergency. The most a family of three can receive is $292 a month, well below the national average of $429. Many families don’t even qualify for this maximum benefit, which is only equivalent to 20 percent of the poverty level. Since Oklahoma has not raised benefits, the current payment to families is 32 percent less than in 1996, adjusting for inflation.
• Most families do not receive assistance long enough to support themselves. More than half of Oklahoma families get TANF help for less than a full year. One reason is Oklahoma’s strict sanctions policy that denies help to the whole family, even young children, for minor violations of program rules.

Oklahoma can continue its strict approach to TANF cash assistance, but it won’t protect children or support work and move families toward self-sufficiency. If it expects to achieve those important goals, the state should take these relatively simple and affordable steps:

1. Increase program benefits at least to where they were in 1996– that is, 30 percent of the poverty level.
2. Make sanctions less severe so adults can continue on the path to education and employment and children are not put at risk for hunger, homelessness, and poor health.
3. Support work by allowing TANF families to earn more and keep their assistance while getting on their feet.
4. Let families keep more child support without losing benefits. Parents are required to cooperate in collecting child support, but they get none of the payments the state collects.
5. Increase amounts paid to families in “child-only” cases, where a child lives with grandparents or other adults. This will encourage adults to support and protect the most vulnerable young children among us.

Oklahoma is justified in demanding better outcomes from those who participate in TANF, but it needs to create a TANF program that moves us toward those outcomes.

You can find our full report on TANF here and the full Better Benefits series here.

The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) recommends households spend no more than 30% of their income on housing. To calculate what is called the “housing wage” researchers take a person working full-time, and then calculate the hourly rate he or she would need in order to pay only 30% of their income towards rent.

The numbers have changed only slightly over the past two years.  In 2011, the NLIHC stated the annual income needed to afford a 2 bedroom unit at fair market rent in Tulsa was $28,440. For 2013, the NLIHC lists that figure at $28,840, an increase of $400 annually. (Click here for the Oklahoma Data .pdf) This means households in the Tulsa Metro Area require either a single renter earning at least $13.87 an hour to afford a two-bedroom apartment at FMR, or basically 2 adults working full-time at minimum wage.

After zooming in on Tulsa, it is interesting to step back to look at Oklahoma as a whole and compare it to other states. In Oklahoma, if only one person in a household works, he or she must earn $13.18 an hour to afford fair market rent on a two-bedroom apartment and stay within 30% of their budget.  To put it another way, a minimum wage earner in Oklahoma must work 73 hours to afford fair market rent.  However, in other states, rental housing is less affordable.  One of our higher rate neighbors, Colorado, has a housing wage of $17.26 an hour. In the two highest cost examples, California has a housing wage of $25.78 and the District of Columbia is at $27.15.

To focus on the impact this has on low-income families we turn to poverty measures. The federal poverty level for a family of four, according to 2013 Health and Human Services Guidelines, is $23,550 or less. So the income a family requires to afford a two bedroom apartment in Tulsa, according to NLIHC recommendations, is $4,890 more than the national poverty guidelines for a family of four. For a nationwide perspective, the NLIHC’s “Out of Reach” report tells us there is actually no state where rental housing is affordable for low-wage workers. Based on the 2013 data, the fact remains there is a real gap between low-income wages and affordable apartment rates across the entire country.

This data doesn’t automatically mean that low-income families are unable to rent an apartment. What it does mean is that many families are unable to budget the recommended amount of income to food, health, transportation and savings; that money is being moved to housing costs. Housing is a pressing need, but this necessary neglect of nutrition and asset building in order to secure an apartment, if it becomes a long-term issue, will have negative consequences on a family’s future financial stability.

To see a map displaying how rental housing prices impact minimum wage workers in any given state, click here.

To see a map detailing the Housing Wage across the country, click here.

A Place at the Table opened at the Circle Cinema on March 8^th, and was followed by a panel discussion featuring three local advocates.  These three local experts were:

• Eileen Bradshaw, Executive Director of the Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma.
• Jan Figart, Associate Director of the Community Service Council; and
• Rev. Ron Robinson, Director of A Third Place, a grassroots organization serving neighborhoods in North Tulsa and Turley;

For a little over an hour, an audience crowded the lobby of the theater as panelists talked about the local story. The conversation brought home the fact that hunger is a disturbingly local problem. Despite the continuing efforts of local organizations, the panelists were not there to report they were meeting all the needs of their clients – they were there to tell us the need is still greater than their resources.  Here are just a few of the important points the panelist covered:

• Oklahoma is Among the Leaders in U.S. Hunger: The panel began with facts about hunger in our city and our state, and if you visit the Community Food Bank’s “Hunger Fact” page it presents a similar foundation of relevent facts about food insecurity.  Here are two quick indicators that Oklahoma has a problem with hunger: 1) In 2011, the USDA ranked Oklahoma fourth in the nation in food insecurity; and 2) One in four Oklahomans, that’s 880,939 people, reported relying on SNAP benefits to supplement their grocery budget in 2011, according to a Tulsa World article.
• Food Deserts are a problem in Tulsa:  A food desert is a populated area, typically a low-income neighborhood, whose residents lack access to affordable, nutritious, fresh food.  Low-income families often face transportation barriers, which makes living in an area with no nearby grocery stores an obstacle to a healthy diet.  These areas exist here in Tulsa, as evidenced by the USDA’s Food Access Research Map.  (Just type 74130 or 74126 in the search field to locate and zoom in on the area served by A Third Place).  In a food desert, options for food are often limited to convenience stores, fast food and food pantries which do not offer an affordable, balanced diet.
• Meeting people where they are:  Effective programs bring food into communities for easy access. One way local volunteers bring food directly to people in need is by filling backpacks for kids to take home from school, using supplies donated by our local food bank.  The Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma also supplies 450 partners across 24 counties who distribute food in local communities.  A Third Place operates the Welcome Table Community Center; located in Turley, an unincorporated town five miles north of downtown Tulsa. Their services include a “Corner Store,” which provides an experience that resembles shopping at a local store as opposed to visiting a typical food pantry.  Of course, linking people to their closest resources is also essential.  So one of the many services provided by the Community Service Council is the 2-1-1 Helpline.  This helpline connects families in 37 Eastern Oklahoma counties with local resources that assist with food, clothing, housing, employment and other needs.  However, getting fresh food to hungry families continues to be a problem because organizations do not always have the delivery capacity for timely transport of perishable foods.
•  “Growing your own garden is like printing your own money”:  I have to credit Ron Robinson for driving this point home.  Gardening is one of the creative ways local groups are tackling the problem of low access to fruits and vegetables. The Community Food Bank has a garden and A Third Place has also planted a community garden, as well as an orchard.  As one of the panelist pointed out, SNAP benefits can be used to buy seeds. So organizations are teaching people to grow small gardens of their own to supplement their budget.  (Check out the USDA’s page on using SNAP to fund a garden)  Yet, like so many good ideas, gardening is only a partial solution.  Gardens are a seasonal resource whose size and scope can’t be expected to fill all the needs of hungry families year round.

As both the panel of speakers and the film point out, charitable food donations are an emergency measure, never designed to substitute for effective government policy.  While there are countless volunteers and a number of charitable organizations working on this problem, there is still a role for government to play, without which there can be no long-term success in the war against hunger.

It’s impossible to sum up every issue brought up by the film.  It is equally impossible to write a single post about the film and the discussion that followed; too many important topics to cover.  So this will be a two-part report highlighting some of the issues that I found particularly relevant.  For this first installment, I want to talk about the film itself, with the understanding this in no way represents the entire list of issues raised by the documentary.   

A Place at the Table draws its power from the personal stories of people struggling to afford healthy food.  Experts on nutrition and hunger push the message further by explaining the negative effects long-term food insecurity has on a person’s health, education and potential. After watching this documentary, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that this problem is bigger than any one charity can tackle; it is bigger than the current funding of our social safety net can address. These are just three of the reasons why:

• The rate and requirements of SNAP benefits are out of sync with the cost of living.  As the film tracks the story of Barbie, a single mother in Philadelphia, this fact becomes clear. Barbie loses her SNAP benefits entirely when she begins to earn more money, but despite a slightly higher paycheck her overall financial situation has not improved. Her children are still eating canned noodles instead of a balanced diet and their mental and physical development will be impacted as a consequence.
• The school lunch program, launched under the Truman administration, was a great idea but is currently underfunded.  The film points out that less than a dollar a day per child is actually spent on food for lunches, and then demonstrates how it is impossible to make a quality meal that meets dietary needs on that budget.
• The underlying problem here is poverty, not scarcity of food.  Poverty is the elephant in the room, and we can’t have a meaningful discussion about hunger without addressing stagnant wages and the distribution of wealth in this country. The film introduces us to a police officer, the only cop to survive layoffs in his small town. He hasn’t had a raise in years.  We watch as he walks into a food pantry, in uniform, to pick up donated groceries.  Then he discusses how having to reach out for help, because his wages can’t pay the bills, has impacted his life.

This film also deals with common misconceptions about hunger by explaining how empty calories can leave your body hungry and how the costs of hunger in America are visited even on those with sufficient food.

• You can be underfed and obese.  Mississippi has the highest rate of food insecurity in the country, as well as the largest rate of obesity.  The film shows Tremonica, a second grader in Mississippi, suffering with asthma.  She is also a prime candidate to develop diabetes because of her weight.  However, her working mother is unable to afford the regular diet of fruits and vegetables her daughter needs to stay healthy.  Processed food, filled with empty calories, is more affordable than apples and oranges.
• Ending hunger would cost less than dealing with the negative consequences it causes.  The U.S. spends approximately $167 billion dollars dealing with the costs associated with obesity and other health issues associated with malnutrition. The poor, who cannot afford food, are also unable to pay all these medical bills.  The cost of unpaid medical bills is passed on to the public, partly through the rising cost of health care. There is also a cost in lost potential, as preventable mental and physical problems associated with poor nutrition impact a child’s education and future health.

The film makes a compelling moral and economic argument for why Americans should find it unacceptable that one in four children are going hungry every day.  Overall, the message leaves us with an understanding that food insecurity leads to hunger, hunger leads to negative health and developmental outcomes, and the economic fallout is visited on both the malnourished and society at large.

Later this week I’ll follow up with a post concerning the important discussion that followed the film.  In the meantime, I encourage you to watch the film, which is showing in theaters and is available on iTunes.  Also, here are additional sources you can go to for information about food programs in the U.S.

• Check out the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities blog for more information on “What SNAP Means for Families and Communities” and to take “A Closer Look at Who Benefits from SNAP.”
• Visit the New America Foundation’s page to read more background and analysis of the Federal School Nutrition Program.

Starting an honest conversation is important, because there is an ongoing problem with misconceptions and misinformation when it comes to hunger in America.  Proponents of food programs are constantly trying to set the record straight. In February, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities discredited many of the details behind recent efforts to incorrectly portray safety net programs as wasteful spending.  OKPolicy Blog just discussed how an Oklahoma proposal to increase work requirements for SNAP recipients would penalize underemployed Oklahomans. (SNAP is the program formerly known as food stamps).  OKPolicy rightly pointed out that many part-time employees are unable to work full-time due to the cost of childcare, cutbacks by their employer and other legitimate reasons.  The government may cut back on access to SNAP, but the need for low-income Oklahomans to feed their families will undoubtedly remain.  So what happens then?  Hopefully this new documentary will help illustrate what happens at the intersection of policy and real life in a way that statistics alone are unable to do.

The screening of A Place at the Table will take place at the Circle Cinema on Friday, March 8, 2013. The event begins at 6:00 p.m. and is followed by a live panel discussion. The movie will also be showing at the Circle Cinema the following week, so be sure to check their site for times and ticket prices if you are interested. Be on the lookout next week for a follow-up post.  I hope to bring back some of the highlights from the event, especially the discussion following the film.

• For readers outside the Tulsa area, you can look for the film at your local theater or search for it on iTunes.
• Be sure to check out the official movie site which offers more information about the film, the issues it covers and links to other resources.
• NPR recently covered the release of A Place at the Table on their website.
• To track attempts to limit access to SNAP in Oklahoma, visit the Oklahoma Policy Institute’s page “Check the Safety Net: Bills affecting low-income Oklahomans.”

Last summer, a survey by Bankrate.com reported that 22% of Americans have insufficient savings and 24% have no savings at all.  The situation in Oklahoma, as discussed in a previous post, is not any better with nearly 44% of residents living without sufficient savings to cover a job loss or other crisis. However, storing up assets for a rainy day is only one reason to save.  Putting money aside for vacations, education, retirement and large purchases are also examples of wise financial planning.  By saving money for large purchases, families can avoid paying high finance rates.  Saving money to invest in education can lessen the burden of future student debt.  And saving for vacations and retirement will lead to a higher quality of life.

While the positive aspects of savings are easy to understand, as the statistics point out, a significant number of the Americans still fail to take steps to build savings into their budget.  Part of the goal of America Saves Week is to show that anyone can pay down their debt and build wealth by reducing their spending and saving the extra money, regardless of their income level.  Their website features Saver Stories focused on real people who have improved their financial situation through saving, some of whom started saving $10 a week out of their minimum wage earnings.  Here are some specific ways the America Saves Week campaign suggests people can learn more and get involved:

• Take the America Saves Pledge

Those with a savings plan are twice as likely to save for emergencies and retirement than those without a plan.

• Assess Your Savings

Find out if you are saving in all the right places by following the above link to a 12 step savings assessment.

• Test Your Savings Knowledge

Click the link above to take a savings quiz to reveal how much you understand about the realities of savings in America.

• Share Savings Goals, Tips and Advice with Family and Friends

People who share their savings goals are more successful savers.  Anyone on Twitter and Facebook can share their own goals or share savings tips through these social media posts to encourage friends and followers to save as well.

In addition to these ideas and resources, America Saves also has a blog you can follow, full of tips, encouragement and resources to encourage Americans to save all year round.  Also, videos from previous America Saves Weeks are available online, including a 2011 endorsement from then-Chairman of the FDIC, Shelia Bair.

To understand why these extensions are important we need to understand what makes them examples of good policy.  The EITC and the CTC are appealing to many policymakers because they encourage work and strengthen a family’s finances.  These credits encourage employment because individuals must report earned income to be eligible for the credits. They also give workers an incentive to achieve higher wages because the more an individual earns the larger their credit will be, until it begins to phase out at higher income levels.  Another key advantage to low-income families is that the tax credits are refundable, meaning that if the credit exceeds the amount of taxes owed by a low-wage worker, the IRS will still refund all or part of the balance.  Unfortunately, many Americans are unaware of the EITC.  Estimates show that one out of five eligible taxpayers failed to take advantage of it in 2011 alone.  It’s like hitting a home run, and failing to tag all the bases; many families earned the tax credit, but never took the necessary steps to receive the benefit.

Now we turn to the importance of these extensions in the lives of American families.  The EITC, which lifted an estimated 3 million children out of poverty in 2011, had two important elements added in the 2009 Recovery Act. The first was an additional credit up to $655 for families with three or more children.  The second was a measure reducing the financial penalty some married couples experience, meaning they can still receive larger benefits while earning moderately higher incomes.  These provisions were both extended until 2017, which is preferable to seeing them expire, but many advocates would like to see them made permanent.

The CTC also saw important provisions extended.  First off, the credit was raised from a maximum of $500 per child to $1,000 per child.  Other changes helped the credit reach more families, because couples with less than three children could start taking advantage of the refundable feature of the tax credit.  Both provisions were set to expire at the end of 2012 as well, and they too were saved in January when Congress passed the American Taxpayer Relief Act.

If the improvements to the EITC and CTC had expired at the end of 2012, the impact on working families would have been both negative and significant.  The CBPP estimated a single mother with two children earning minimum wage would see her credit decrease by over $1,500.  To put that in perspective, that is equivalent to the loss of a month’s wages, before taxes, for a minimum wage worker.  So if the credits had expired, many families would have lost a vital part of their rainy day resources, perhaps the money they were going to use to fix up the house or make a down payment on a new car.

To help visualize the positive impact the EITC has on American families, the Center for American Progress recently published an infographic detailing the number of children and families impacted by the tax credit.  Their accompanying article highlights the triple benefits of the credits, as it has been shown to positively impact a family’s income, health and student education.  Furthermore, in addition to the 3 million children lifted out of poverty by the EITC, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports the EITC and the CTC taken together lifted 4.9 million children out of poverty, showing the combined effect of both programs to have an even greater impact on working families.  So it was a victory for the working poor to see these key provisions extended, but the long-term prospects for low-income families would look more promising if they were given a permanent place in the tax code.

To find out more about the Earned Income Tax Credit from the IRS, click here.

To find out more about the Child Tax Credit from the IRS, click here.

The Assets and Opportunity Scorecard examines the financial security of Americans by assessing states based on 69 different outcome measures. The measures are grouped into five broader categories: 1) Financial Assets and Income, 2) Business and Jobs; 3) Housing and Homeownership; 4) Health Care; and 5) Education. Oklahoma’s general report card, shown below, reflects a mixture of good news and bad news:

• D – Financial Assets & Income
• B – Business & Jobs
• B – Housing & Homeownership
• D – Health Care
• C – Education

For more detail on all of Oklahoma’s results, you can click here. For now, to better understand what these grades mean, we will take a quick look at just two of Oklahoma’s problem areas: 1) Financial Assets and Income; and 2) Health Care.

When it comes to assets and income, many Oklahoma families were hit hard by the recession and left financially vulnerable. CFED reports that more than two in five Oklahomans are living on the edge of a financial disaster. This determination takes into account not only the 16.2% of Oklahoma residents living in poverty but also the 43.8% of Oklahoma households considered “liquid asset poor,” meaning they have less than three months of savings to deal with unexpected emergencies. This lack of sufficient income and assets puts many Oklahomans at a disadvantage as they try to build financial security.

Compounding these financial problems is the fact that 62.9% of Oklahoma residents have subprime credit, leading many asset poor Oklahoma families to pay a higher price for short-term credit in the form of payday loans. [Click here for previous post about Payday Loans in Oklahoma.] Moreover, a poor credit rating also impacts an individual’s career and housing prospects, as employers and rental properties often pull an applicant’s credit before making a decision.

The combination of a lack of rainy day funds and poor credit is troubling, particularly since the second problem area is the high rate of uninsured adults in Oklahoma, a situation that leaves many families vulnerable to high health care costs. For families on the financial edge, an unexpected healthcare crisis is potentially catastrophic on family finances. The overall uninsured rate in the Sooner State is 21.5%, but there is a coverage disparity between children and parents in low-income families. Low-income parents have an uninsured rate of 40.7%, higher than the national average of 34.5%, and partly attributed to the fact many employers in the state do not offer health insurance. Oklahoma’s low-income children fare better than their parents, with an uninsured rate of 13.2%. According to CFED, the difference between the parent and child insurance coverage rate can most likely be attributed to the success of safety net programs such as SoonerCare. However, Oklahoma’s rate of uninsured children is still greater than the national average of 10.7%.

The Assets and Opportunity Scorecard, thankfully, does give us more than a rundown of problems in Oklahoma and the nation. It also includes policy solutions that suggest how state governments can improve opportunity for their citizens. Their two suggestions specific to Oklahoma’s issue with Financial Assets and Income are to:

• Increase Incomes and Assets: To help low-income families, CFED suggests Oklahoma increase their Earned Income Tax Credit and fund a state Individual Development Account program to help citizens save.
• Ensure Access to Safe Financial Products: To protect citizens from predatory lending, Oklahoma should cap payday loans and short-term installment loans at 36% APR.

To read the main findings of the 2013 Scorecard, full data rankings and methodology, as well as to create a customized report for Oklahoma or other states, visit scorecard.cfed.org.

Free tax prep is available to families who make $50,000 or less.  The appointment line is now open, and making an appointment is strongly encouraged.  While walk-ins will be considered on a day-to-day basis at both sites, this can change at a moment’s notice due to capacity. The only way to guarantee you’ll be seen on a given day is to call 918-382-3333 to make an appointment.

For more information on locations, hours and what to bring, please click here.

In addition to the flu shot, health experts advocate other effective ways to avoid spreading the flu, including: frequently washing your hands; covering your mouth when you cough; and most importantly, staying home when you have the flu.  It is the last one that poses a significant problem for low income families.  According to a 2010 report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 33% of private sector workers within the lowest 25% of wage earners had the benefit of paid sick leave.  Compare this to 81% of private sector workers with access to paid sick leave among the highest 25% of wage earners, and the disparity is quite drastic.  The segment of the workforce who can least afford to miss a day’s wages is also the one least likely to have access to paid sick days.

Access to sick days is important to workers concerned about losing their job due to illness, but there are other concerns as well.  Missing three workdays, even at minimum wage, will cost an Oklahoman at least $174 before tax, or nearly 15% of a minimum wage employee’s monthly income.  For families already on a tight budget, it is not easy to find an area to make a cut that big.  So it is understandable that many employees feel they cannot afford to miss work.   However, showing up to work sick means exposing co-workers and customers to the flu.  This is especially relevant to employees in the service industry, which includes restaurant workers, where only 42% of workers in the private industry have paid sick leave.

The bad news is that these financial complications are as contagious as the flu itself, and the fact that an employee has no paid sick leave suddenly becomes a problem for people other than the sick worker.  The good news is that finding a place to get a flu vaccination is easier than ever, with signs at almost every corner drug store.  Additionally, through agencies like the Tulsa Health Department, low-income families could qualify for free flu shots at three different locations around the city.  Until there is better access to paid sick leave, the public’s best option is to take precautions against illnesses like the flu, and take advantage of free or reduced cost vaccines when available.

For more information on how to take action during flu season, visit FLU.gov.

To access the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s flu site, click here.

For more information about where to get the flu vaccine in the Tulsa area, visit the Tulsa Health Department’s website.

First some background. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is designed to do just what the name suggests: act as a supplement to other income. Recent numbers from the American Community Survey (ACS) show the program is largely living up to its name in Oklahoma, where an estimated 77% of participants are working families.

The supplemental income provided by SNAP in Oklahoma amounts to $1541.16 annually. The value is loaded onto a card, similar to a debit card, and funds can only be used on qualified food items; so no diapers, no alcohol, no dog food, and no vitamins. To qualify in Oklahoma monthly household income for a family of four must fall below $2,422, or $29,064 annually. Combining the average SNAP benefit with the maximum allowable income in this scenario puts total household income at $30,605.16. According to Federal Poverty Guidelines, this combined total puts a family of four at about 137% of the poverty level. This amount is still well within the guidelines of what the government considers “low-income” in the Tulsa metro area. Obviously, SNAP is not catapulting people into the lifestyle of the upper middle class. However, the money helps alleviate hunger, and since the problem of long-term unemployment continues to worry economists, SNAP may increasingly serve as an important lifeline after unemployment benefits run out.

According to the USDA, in 2011 Oklahoma’s average SNAP benefit per person was $128.43 a month. If we divide this by a 30 day month, families are looking at daily budget of about $4.28. Right away I see a problem with this budget compared my own eating habits. If I breakdown and buy a soda from the vending machine at work, I only have $3.03 left in my daily meal budget. My favorite protein shake, my go-to meal on a busy day, costs around $1.49 per bottle, even at the cheapest store. Clearly some changes need to be made. Scanning the aisles at the grocery store I begin to see chicken noodle soup, oatmeal and beans in my future. At this point, I haven’t even accepted the challenge, and I’m looking for a way to out. How can I maintain a balanced diet on that budget?  But remember, this benefit is supposed to be a supplement, so what about all that other family income?

Here’s the thing, as mentioned before, a family of four in Oklahoma can only bring in $29,064 a year to qualify for SNAP. If this family were living rent free, with no utility bills, no transportation costs and no extra money was spent on cleaning supplies, clothes, child care, medical bills, diapers or basic hygiene, their income would provide for $6.63 per person, per meal. Not too bad. However, if they needed to pay for any of the things I just excluded, the amount left over for the food budget would quickly shrink.

A recent study shows most households in the Tulsa area spend more than 45% of their income on of housing and transportation costs. Take 45% out of a SNAP family’s budget and a family of four is left with $15,985 or less a year to meet other needs. Suddenly they are down to about $3.65 a meal. And still, if the baby needs diapers, the kids need clothes, or anyone gets sick, the amount of money left over for food keeps shrinking. Also remember, the amounts discussed in this example are the maximum allowable, not the average income of SNAP recipients, so for many Oklahoma families the food budget is even more problematic.

It is easier on a person’s lifestyle to just run the numbers and come to the conclusion that SNAP meets an important need for low-income families. However, actually shopping for food on a restricted budget would provide a more lasting experience. Providing an experience that clears up misconceptions is the point of these SNAP Challenges. Walking a mile in your neighbor’s shoes like this may well leave people with an empty stomach, but perhaps it will also leave them with a larger heart for people in poverty.

For more information on SNAP/Food Stamp Challenges you can visit the Family Research and Action Center  website.

Then on the way to work yesterday, on the sleepy Monday morning following a four day weekend, I heard a story that renewed my interest in post-Thanksgiving traditions.  NPR was reporting on the first ever Giving Tuesday.  More than 1,400 groups are launching an event to kick-off the holiday giving season, and it starts today. While I am usually skeptical of “new” traditions, I hope this one catches on.  Corporate marketing has given us Black Friday, Small Business Saturday, and even Cyber Monday, each an attempt to boost participation and bring in revenue.  However, the shopping casts a shadow on other priorities, so reinventing how we promote and practice the holiday tradition of charity is probably long overdue.

Charitable donations might not draw the crowds that cheap TVs seem to conjure up.  The door to the food pantry and the Salvation Army will never require guards to keep throngs of eager donors at bay.  Yet, there is an opportunity to use modern marketing techniques to encourage a positive trend, something more fulfilling than consumerism. The 92nd Street Y, a New York nonprofit cultural and community center where the idea was born, has an anonymous donor matching contributions up to $50,000.  Retailers like J.C. Penny, are also joining in on the fundraising efforts.  The movement has its own webpage, and of course its own Twitter hashtag, #GivingTuesday.

So if you are looking for an alternative to the madness of the Season, you might consider changing things up this year.  Instead of buying knick-knacks for someone who is impossible to shop for, surprise them with a donation to their favorite charity.  Spend some time on a volunteer project as a family.  Maybe even check out Giving Tuesday’s webpage and find a different way to take part; one that is easier on the credit cards and more generous for the heart.

And let’s face it, if finding time for a sit down dinner was easy, it wouldn’t be such a rare event.  It comes down to time, a precious commodity in our busy world, and if we want to spend time wisely we need to budget it just like we do our money. Set the Table Tulsa has provided a space for participants to blog about their experiences as they change the way they view mealtime.  Vanesa Mares is one of the writers documenting how this experience is impacting her life.  She is already keeping up with a busy schedule, between caring for her children, one of whom is enrolled in CAP’s early childhood program, and developing her own skills through CAP’s CareerAdvance® program.  Yet she and her family are making the time to eat together.  In her posts she discusses her family’s process of setting a meal plan and trying to disconnect from the cell phone, which is something to which we can all relate.  Turning the phone to silent and setting it aside during dinner is one suggestion I am challenging myself to adopt after reading her posts, and I suspect I’ll be thankful for thirty minutes of peace and quiet.

The broader impacts that family meals have on children is something experts have been studying for some time.  I am reminded of an article I read years ago in TIME magazine, The Magic of the Family Meal.  It reported that kids who regularly eat dinner with their parents are less likely to smoke, do drugs, or develop depression.  They are also more likely to succeed in school and even eat their vegetables.  So it seems the upside of all this family bonding goes far beyond just finding out how everyone’s day went, although that is an important part of it.  As the author of the article alludes to, there is just something magical about setting around a table with the people you love. The benefits it can lead to down the road are just one more thing to be thankful for.

Global Gardens, and their partners, are presenting this challenge to Tulsans because of the positive impacts mealtimes can have on families. Too many times, breakfast, lunch and dinner are just pit stops in a race to the finish as we scramble to get everyone fed in between the work whistle, sports, errands, homework and bedtime.  However, they have the potential to be so much more.  Setting aside time at each family meal to celebrate achievements, applaud good works or spread good news, no matter the day or the month, takes the warm feelings we have around the holidays and stretches them out over an entire year.  When families come together like this, it becomes clear that Thanksgiving Dinners are not confined to the fourth Thursday in November.

Check out all of the posts on Set the Table Tulsa’s blog.

You can read more about this challenge at Tulsa Kids Magazine, one of the partners of Set the Table Tulsa.

In 2011, the number of uninsured children fell to around 5.5 million, down from nearly 6.4 million in 2009. Since there has been no significant decrease in the number of children living in poverty, the drop shows how changes in policy and programs are making a positive impact. This report gives us a starting point to begin comparing successful practices and determine what changes still need to be made across the country. But in essence, to tackle this problem states need to increase access to existing programs and take the opportunity to expand coverage using funds from the upcoming Medicaid expansion.

Seeing as Oklahoma’s percentage of uninsured children is 10.6%, which is higher than the national average of 7.5%, this is a serious problem that hits close to home for us.  To put it simply, the ACS estimates there are 99,384 Oklahoma children without coverage to help pay for immunizations, well child check-ups and the myriad of accidents and illnesses that predictably accompany childhood. Also consider that the impact of poor health has a ripple effect on other aspects of a child’s life, whether it is missed school days or delayed mental and emotional development.  So these are truly troubling numbers, not just in Oklahoma but nationwide.

What is more, policies are in place that should be covering a large number of these children.  Georgetown reports that two-thirds of uninsured children are eligible for, but not enrolled, in Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). So while children across all income levels gained coverage between 2009 and 2011, children in low-income families were two times more likely to lack health insurance. Given that more low-income children on average are covered by government programs rather than employer based insurance, promoting these options and helping families cut through the red tape to access programs funded through CHIP are strategies states should be embracing.

This report also highlights the fact that Hispanic children now account for 40% of this country’s uninsured children, although they make up only 24% of the child population.  To narrow down the issue, it is intriguing to look at what the Census Bureau and Georgetown’s findings tell us about three states: California, Texas and Florida:

• Over half of Hispanics in the United States reside in these three states.
• As previously mentioned, they have all increased the number of insured children since 2009.
• Yet, these same three states still lead the nation in the number of uninsured children.

So despite notable progress, these states continue to struggle.  This may be some indication that recent health reforms have left one significant demographic out of the equation, and to what extent, if any, this disparity improves after full implementation of the ACA will be worth analyzing.

For more information on the Georgetown study, check out their website by clicking here.

You can directly access the .pdf file of their report by clicking here.

Since 1975, breast cancer survival rates have been increasing, but there is a disparity of outcomes tied to demographics.  The American Cancer Society’s Breast Cancer Facts and Figures: 2011 – 2012, tells us that poverty and lack of health insurance are associated with higher mortality rates.  We know that early detection is vital to long-term survival, but lack of resources and insurance means many women go without recommended screenings. Another concern is the disparity in medical treatment after diagnosis for patients with lower-income, as well as the presence of additional health issues, which brings us again to the issue of insurance coverage.  These are crucial barriers to overcome, yet there is more to it than just income and insurance, as recent research is finding nutrition to be another important component.

In 2010, researchers at the University of Dundee, Scotland, found a link between poor diet and a gene mutation that makes it harder for a woman’s body to fight breast cancer.  Factors leading to the mutation of the gene in question include smoking, drinking and an unhealthy diet.  While smoking and drinking are choices well within an individual’s control, having the money to maintain a nutritious diet is a more problematic and ongoing struggle for low-income families.  And the consequences may have longer lasting ramifications than anyone previously suspected, as research at Georgetown University has raised the question of whether poor maternal diet may increase breast cancer risks for a woman’s children and grandchildren.  Hopefully, further research will result in more definitive answers, but for now the possibility reinforces the need for programs like SNAP and WIC so low-income families can better afford a healthy diet.

This research also brings up the importance of expanding and continuing health programs for low-income mothers and families.  Here in Tulsa, CAP is currently partnered with the OU College of Nursing, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma, the Tulsa Health Department,  the George Kaiser Family Foundation and many others to improve the healthcare of mothers whose children are enrolled at certain CAP early childhood sites.  The program, Healthy Women, Healthy Futures (HWHF), with its focus on nutrition, basic care and healthy lifestyles, is designed to combat premature births, low birth weight, and infant mortality by improving a woman’s health before she becomes pregnant.  In Washington D.C., another promising effort has begun as Georgetown’s Medical Center recently opened an office specifically to research and reduce cancer disparities in underserved communities. It will be interesting to see their results and what we can learn from them.