The Save the Children Action Network is asking Iowans to support candidates in the upcoming election who invest time and political muscle in solving children's issues.

Paige Chickering, Iowa state manager for the Save the Children Action Network, is reminding voters about the importance of early education, high-quality affordable child care and school meals for kids. She noted a growing percentage of them are hungry and their families rely on some form of government help.

"In Iowa specifically, USDA data show that about 40% of SNAP beneficiaries -- and that's the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program -- are children," Chickering explained. "About one in six children, 15.4%, face hunger in Iowa, according to a Feeding America study."

Chickering pointed out the Save the Children Action Network has endorsed a slate of bipartisan candidates in statewide races who have adopted strong positions on children's issues, including taking on hunger in Iowa.

Chickering highlighted a Ready Nation study shows the critical shortage of child care options in Iowa is costing the state at least $1.2 billion in parents' lost wages and productivity every year. She added helping kids should not be up for debate.

"The issue of prioritizing children in Iowa is a really, truly bipartisan issue," Chickering asserted. "It's been really clear from all the people that we've worked with, our volunteers, everyone we've spoken with, that this is something that everyone is prioritizing."

The action network is also calling on Iowa politicians to approve the summer "Sun Bucks" program in 2025, which would make food available to lower-income families when kids are out of school for the summer. Iowa opted out of the program this year.

Advocates in the antipoverty community said lawmakers are not doing enough to help people escape poverty.

They said the inaction is increasing the number of ALICE families in Arkansas and nationwide. ALICE families are Asset Limited, Income Constrained and Employed, which means they are working but do not earn enough money to cover their expenses.

Wade Rathke, founder and chief organizer of the nonprofit ACORN International, said lawmakers need to adjust the federal poverty line to assist more people.

"If the poverty line doesn't reflect reality, then people suffer," Rathke stressed. "Some members of Congress have advanced a bill to more realistically set the poverty level but given the dysfunction and general election year inertia, there hasn't even been a vote."

He added many states, especially in the South, are setting benefits as low as possible.

The current federal poverty line is $31,200 a year for a family of four. According to the United Way, in 2021 about 36 million households met the criteria to be labeled ALICE. The organization has seen a significant increase in calls to its 211 call centers from people seeking help with housing, child care and utilities.

Rathke pointed out more families are suffering as pandemic subsidies are gone.

"Even working families with income over $100,000 are calling because they can't make groceries given all of household costs," Rathke reported. "Two-worker parented families have no savings or ability to handle emergencies."

Advocates said part of the problem is the cost of groceries is used to determine the poverty line but families are spending more on housing, rent and utilities.

This story is based on original reporting by Wade Rathke for The Chief Organizer Blog.


get more stories like this via email

By Daniel Breen and Josie Lenora for Little Rock Public Radio.
Broadcast version by Freda Ross for Arkansas News Service reporting for the Little Rock Public Radio-Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation-Public News Service Collaboration.

Nearly half of Arkansas' 1.2 million households can be considered ALICE-asset-limited, income-constrained and employed. That's according to new figures from the ALICE in Arkansas initiative, a partnership between nonprofits and various companies in the state.

In a news conference in Sherwood Tuesday, Rebecca Pittillo, executive director of the Blue & You Foundation for a Healthier Arkansas, said the state's ALICE population has now risen to 47%, with 16% below the federal poverty level.

"70% of Arkansas' 20 most common occupations pay less than $20 per hour, and many of these workers, our childcare providers, our cashiers, our health aides, are part of the ALICE population; employed, but unable to cover basic living expenses," she said.

Pittillo says a loss of pandemic-era safety net programs, like stimulus payments and the Child Tax Credit, have made the issue worse. She says Arkansas also ranks last in the nation for savings.

"Even though wages have increased by the fastest pace in decades, the cost of living for a family of four rose from $54,948 in 2021 to $71,052 in 2022, outpacing those wage gains," she said.

The initiative is also launching a new program called ALICE@Work, where business leaders meet to strategize how to better support ALICE employees. Molly Palmer with Heart of Arkansas United Way says three Arkansas-based financial institutions, Encore Bank, Southern Bancorp and Diamond Lakes Federal Credit Union, have joined the program's first cohort.

"ALICE@Work exemplifies how employers across Arkansas can invest in ALICE workers and create meaningful partnerships in their communities. The program offers a variety of tools including individualized data reports, comprehensive course curriculum and self-directed action planning to help businesses better understand the challenges their employees face."

More information is available online at aliceinar.org.


Daniel Breen and Josie Lenora wrote this article for Little Rock Public Radio.


get more stories like this via email

By Marianne Dhenin for Yes! Media.
Broadcast version by Mark Richardson for Mississippi News Connection reporting for the Yes! Media-Public News Service Collaboration

As kids head back to school and the general election nears, there's a question on the minds of many families: How will the election outcome affect kids and their education?

Polling from the National Parents Union (NPU) has found that heading into the election, economic issues are top of mind for many parents of school-aged children. "Times are tough, and parents are walking an economic tightrope every single day," wrote Keri Rodrigues, co-founder and president of the NPU, about the poll results.

While the U.S. boasts one of the largest economies in the world, it leads high-income countries in the proportion of kids living in poverty at over 16%.

The good news is that these issues can be addressed through government policies. Past policies and policies pursued in different countries offer an evidence-based blueprint for doing so.

A recent example of an intervention that lifted kids out of poverty in the U.S. is the 2021 American Rescue Plan's Child Tax Credit, which provided monthly checks to families earning less than $150,000 per year with young children. The program delivered dramatic results, cutting child poverty almost in half and narrowing the racial child-poverty gap. However, Congress allowed the program to lapse after just one year, and child poverty predictably shot up again.

Canada also saw striking results when it implemented the Canada Child Benefit in 2016, providing monthly, nontaxable payments to low- and middle-income families with kids between the ages of 6 and 17. That program cut child poverty, supported families' food security, and boosted the economy. Similarly, some European countries have reduced the proportion of children at risk of poverty by as much as 16% through universal programs supporting families with children with cash assistance.

Similar programs exist in the U.S., but they are patchwork, and many are still in the testing phases. At the state and local levels, more than 150 guaranteed-income initiatives have been launched nationwide since 2017, showing positive effects on kids and families. In Jackson, Mississippi, participants in the fourth cohort of the Magnolia Mother's Trust Program, which gives $1,000 per month for 12 months to Black mothers, reported that the funds helped them purchase needed shoes and clothes for their children, allowed their kids to participate in more field trips and cultural activities than before, and improved their relationships with their children.

Beyond direct cash support, universal preschool and childcare programs in some European countries have been shown to support childhood development, especially among kids from marginalized communities. Currently, childcare is one of the biggest expenses for families of young children in the U.S., often rivaling rent. Government spending on early childcare programs can help address poverty, reduce gender disparities in the workforce, and support women who pursue careers alongside parenting.

"The research is pretty clear and universal," explains Michelle Bezark, a senior researcher at the Center for Early Learning Funding Equity at Northern Illinois University. "Early childhood programs that are well funded have immense long-term benefits for children, families, and society at large."

The bad news is that if Donald Trump is re-elected, he is not expected to pursue the interventions needed to address the dire issues facing the nation's children, such as poverty. Rather, he's likely to do the opposite, judging by the presidential playbook drawn up by the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025. At least 140 of his former staffers are involved in the project, whose mandate lists protecting children as one of its main goals. Yet Project 2025 promises to reorganize or even eliminate lifelines for families, including subsidized housing, cash assistance, school meals, and Head Start programs.

"It would be a disaster," says Timothy Smeeding, the Lee Rainwater Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Public Affairs and Economics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and former director of the university's Institute for Research on Poverty. "Some of these programs are really important, and they would be cut by Project 2025."

If Trump were elected and Project 2025's proposals pursued, experts anticipate that children and families could face worsening impoverishment, hunger, and homelessness. Households with marginalized members, including immigrants, disabled people, and people of color, are the most at-risk under the proposals for families and kids.

Child poverty often manifests as homelessness. More than a million school-age children face homelessness each year nationwide, and tens of millions of kids live in households that teeter on the brink of eviction. Despite the urgent need to address homelessness among children, the proportion of families benefiting from Housing and Urban Development subsidized housing programs has declined in recent years as the number of families in need rises, the number of affordable housing units falls, and federal housing assistance remains underfunded.

Rather than bolstering subsidized housing programs to keep kids housed, Project 2025 proposes new restrictions on access to these programs. Proposals in Project 2025 would also bar mixed-status households from accessing federal housing subsidies, making families whose members include people with different citizenship or immigration statuses ineligible to receive support. Trump floated the idea of implementing restrictions on mixed-status households during his first term in 2019, and analysts estimated that children would make up more than half of the population to lose housing under such a rule.

Food insecurity and hunger are also manifestations of childhood poverty. Today, more than 17% of households with children are food insecure. The authors of Project 2025 propose gutting programs that help keep kids fed, including the Community Eligibility Program (CEP), Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT), and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). CEP and Summer EBT, also called Sun Bucks, support school-age kids. The former allows low-income schools and school districts to provide free meals to all students. When the school year ends and children no longer receive free or reduced-price school meals, Sun Bucks helps fill the gap.

Meanwhile, SNAP provides EBT to low-income individuals. While the proposals in Project 2025 would not eliminate SNAP, they would implement stricter work requirements and provide fewer exceptions, threatening access for many families.

Both SNAP and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, another program on Project 2025's chopping block, have existing work requirements for recipients. These requirements were already broadened last year in response to a demand by House Republicans as a condition of raising the debt ceiling. Work requirements are rooted in racist and sexist tropes, such as the so-called "welfare queen" and "con artist" that Ronald Reagan popularized in the 1980s as a way to target government assistance.

Research has shown that work requirements do not improve employment outcomes, and for parents, the requirements can mean having less time to spend with their kids.

The proposals in Project 2025 go beyond threatening the housing, financial, and food security of families and kids, and take aim at the government's Head Start programs, which offer early childhood education, health, and social services to children from birth to age 5 and their families. Bezark says this would have ripple effects across every area of childhood development.

"It would mean a lot of kids would not get the developmental support they need," says Bezark. "That means early intervention services and screening for developmental delays would not happen; kids would not get needed pediatric checkups and immunizations and dental checks, and all of the other wraparound services that Head Start provides."

Eliminating Head Start programs would hit rural areas, disabled kids, and communities of color the hardest. Latine families are more likely to live in childcare deserts and need the services of Head Start. Head Start programs include Migrant and Seasonal Head Start and American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start, which serve agricultural and tribal communities, respectively. Children in foster care and those experiencing homelessness are automatically eligible for Head Start, while disabled kids must fill at least 10% of enrollment slots. Currently, over 787,000 children nationwide participate in Head Start programs.

Rather than gut Head Start programs, the Democratic Party platform promises to expand them. In fact, since entering the presidential race, Democratic nominee Kamala Harris has made childcare a tenet of her campaign. She has also promised to increase the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC), which Smeeding argues should be a central part of a new tax plan to support the nation's kids and families. The CDCTC would help working families with children offset the cost of childcare. Alongside it, Smeeding suggests increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit and reinstating a Child Tax Credit to ensure "no one falls through the cracks."

Supporting kids and families with solutions like these is popular with voters, too-Democrats and Republicans alike. When polled by the NPU, more than 80% of parents with school-age children supported reinstating the Child Tax Credit, including 84% of registered Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 75% of Republicans. Another poll from the First Five Years Fund found that 86% of voters believe improving the quality of childcare and early learning programs, and making them more affordable for families is a good investment of taxpayer money.

Bezark agrees: "Laying that foundation is crucial to long-term child outcomes and societal outcomes."


Marianne Dhenin wrote this article for Yes! Media.


get more stories like this via email