[Pennsylvania] Face of poverty more likely to be young

From The Wilkes Barre Times-Leader

By MARK GUYDISH

Around here, you’re more likely to be poor when you’re young and can do little about it.

In Luzerne County, the 2000 census found that 11.5 percent of the total population lived in poverty. But when you look only at those under 18 years of age, the rate climbs to 14.5 percent. The poverty rates for Wyoming County are similar: 10.2 percent among all ages, 13.5 percent among those under 18.

The trend holds true in most rural municipalities. One example: In Fairmont Township, 10 percent of all people are in poverty, but 18 percent of the kids are.

And it’s been getting worse. The number of children living in poverty nationwide climbed by 800,000 in just one year, from 2002 to 2003. In Pennsylvania, the number increased by 115,000 in the three years from 2000 to 2003. The state figures are bleakest when you look at children ages 6 to 18, where the poverty rate soared by 53 percent.

The good news, if you can put a positive spin on such a negative trend, is that youngsters potentially get the most help most easily through one common denominator: school. Children from low-income families have long benefited from free or reduced lunches at school, with some districts offering breakfasts and even after-school meals.

Many schools have switched to a lunch card system used by all kids to pay for meals, which, local educators happily point out, prevents potential embarrassment to those receiving government assistance.

Another trend – staunchly supported by Gov. Ed Rendell – has increased emphasis on early-childhood programs, including a push for statewide full-time kindergarten and improvement in the quality of preschools.

All of which is a good thing, considering the evidence of how poverty in childhood causes a lifetime of struggle. Recently, the Economic Policy Institute did a study showing the link between childhood poverty and many costly social problems in adulthood. The solution, according to the institute, is to start helping when the kids are very young.

Impoverished children in high-quality early-development programs are less likely to fail grades, drop out of school, need extra help while in school, become teen parents, use drugs, end up on welfare or commit crimes. Of course, that also means they are more likely to do well in school, graduate, attend college, get jobs, earn higher pay, eat better and stay healthier.

Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children Vice President of Communications Diane McCormick, summed it up this way: “A child living in poverty is more likely to suffer in school, to have a harder time later in life, and a harder time educating their own children. So the cycle of poverty continues.”

Children in rural areas face additional challenges. They travel longer to school, and their schools are typically struggling with small tax bases that create tighter budgets than in urban areas.

“In terms of both money and resources available, the poorest districts are almost all rural districts,” said Rachel Tompkins, president of the Rural School and Community Trust.

There are, ironically, two trends designed to help disadvantaged kids that may actually hurt rural children. Tompkins’ organization has become sharply critical of school consolidations, arguing that struggling rural children get lost in the cracks of bigger schools.

And while the federal government has increased the money available to help low-income students, it has also shifted more of the resources to urban poverty. “There are 20 states with substantial rural populations that are going to lose federal dollars for the education of disadvantaged children,” Tompkins said.

“Rural kids just tend to get more of the short end of the stick.”