The Minnesota Community Action Partnership (MinnCAP), in partnership with the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, released a report on poverty in Minnesota. This report sheds light on Minnesota’s poverty disparities. For many Minnesotans, particularly African-American and Native American families, federal benefits programs and income are not enough to cover the costs of their basic needs.
The key findings of the report are that 8.6% of Minnesotans were in poverty in 2019, according to the supplemental poverty measure, but the state rate masks a lot of variation across the state. More than 20% of African-Americans and nearly 30% of Native Americans in Minnesota were in poverty. Six of the 23 regions examined had poverty rates higher than 10% and over 10% of Minnesotans age 65-plus were in poverty. The supplemental poverty measure is considered a superior method of estimating economic deprivation compared to the official poverty measure produced by the Census Bureau because it accounts for more public assistance benefits (like SNAP and the earned income tax credit) and adjusts for geographic differences in housing costs.
Our Community Action Agencies offer a variety of services to help move people out of poverty. These services and programs are localized specifically to meet the needs of communities and to meet people where they are along the continuum – from crisis nutrition needs, helping with rent, childcare, building credit toward their first home purchase, older adult services and more. While we know federal benefits programs can help low income families cover some of their basic needs and mitigate the effects of poverty, for many Minnesotans, federal programs like SNAP and tax credits are not enough. This new report makes clear that Minnesota cannot eradicate poverty with only the current policies and programs.
MinnCAP advocates at the state and federal level for policies that help build community resilience, address the causes of poverty, and enhance financial stability. We are advocating for flexible grant funds that allow local agencies to meet the varied needs of their communities. To mitigate this and ensure that more people are able to escape poverty, MinnCAP is proposing three statewide policy initiatives driven by the results of this Poverty Report to be implemented immediately.
The report calls on lawmakers and policy makers to:
- Increase the eligibility threshold for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level to assure that more food-insecure families are served.
- Invest immediately to address the affordable housing crisis throughout Minnesota by taking advantage of the historic budget surplus.
- Create a new Poverty Commission, through Gov. Tim Walz’ executive authority, to end poverty in Minnesota by the end of this decade, with a focus on the racial and ethnic poverty disparities highlighted in this report.
[image_caption]Bill Grant[/image_caption]
[image_caption]Dr. Angie Fertig[/image_caption]
We implore Minnesota lawmakers and policymakers to take action now to invest in our citizens struggling every day to live in dignity and respect.
More information and the full report is available at http://www.minncap.org/Minnesota-Poverty-Report.
Bill Grant, is the executive director of Minnesota Community Action Partnership. Dr. Angie Fertig is with the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota.
There is one way out of poverty, a good job. Giving folks more food, housing or money has not worked, it just promotes more dependency. Since 1965 Government has spent 23 TRILLION on the war on poverty, hasn’t worked yet, but of course that won’t stop Government from continuing it.
Getting a good job requires a basic education, something lacking in Minnesota public schools. Unfortunately it is way easier to give out tax dollars than fix a broken public school monopoly in education.
If that were the case poverty wouldn’t have existed prior to said expenditure Jo. Sadly, the economic system you herald as the pinnacle of human achievement has as one of its fundamental requirements a need for cheap labor, automatically creating, by design, an underclass to keep feeding into the furnace of profit generation. You are correct only in that poverty will be a constant, so long as we as a society continue to be invested in the idea of capitalism as holy writ, unimproveable and unassailable with criticism of any kind. So long as 99.9% of the population are deemed worthy only as a servant class or exploitable fodder for the other .1%, so long as the “wealthy” like you are convinced that death should be preferable to being poor, this crisis will remain. And as such, those of us not inclined to treat physical and psychological torture of the poor as sport will be forced to use the government to mitigate as least some of the multitude of societal detriments that grinding poverty creates.
Matt, you forgot to mention the 23 TRILLION we have thrown at the issue. If giving money away worked to end poverty don’t you think 23 TRILLION would take a bite out poverty….
Your first sentence is non sense.
How so? Are you attempting to claim the the Great Society policy ideas, and the New Deal ones before them were not conceived in response to long term concerns about poverty? That in the free-wheeling lassiez faire utopia that folks like you and Jo desire poverty would cease to exist? If not, why? Why do you feel the need to consign a certain percentage of society to a permanent underclass?
You’re right @JoeSmith – giving folks more food, housing or money has not worked – especially for those of color. Because that does not remove the barriers to taking care of oneself and one’s family that are in so many “systems” in our society. Meaning, if a person has a non-European sounding name, their resume doesn’t get selected for an interview – so it’s difficult to get a job. And there is a bias in business loans that does not give them same grace in cases of higher risk factors than is given White people. And people of color (and any who are low income) often have a bias against them when applying for housing. So if you continually live in that world generation after generation, it very much colors what your hopes, dreams and aspirations can be – and what actions you may take to get through that day and take care of yourself and your loved ones. It is very hard to get out of an impoverished life, especially as a person of color. The food security that these authors suggest is merely the minimum – and a good start. How can people function well and learn and grow when their bodies are depleted and they worry about where their next meal will come from?
Ms Retkwa is omitting the fact that education level or technical education plays a much, much bigger role. If persons are graduating without Math and Reading skills then you can claim discrimination all you want, but the bigger problem is the one you omit; i.e lack of basic qualifications.
Sadly, most public benefit recipients have jobs. A full time job is not a ticket out of poverty as long as wages are low and health benefits are non-existent. I HATE when people say “federal poverty level” because the federal standards are far below the actual poverty level. Even the feds recognize that and call it FPG now, federal poverty guidelines. A truer poverty line are the living wage standards. Minnesota DEED does a great job showing the true poverty line. Visit https://mn.gov/deed/data/data-tools/col/ to see what it takes for your family to meet basic needs. No snacks, no trips, no movies, no cable, no alcohol, no books, no savings, no eating out – just bare food and shelter. A couple with two children needs to earn more than $110,000 to meet minimum needs in Ramsey County. A single person needs to earn at least $17.56 to meet basic needs.
“A couple with two children needs to earn more than $110,000 to meet minimum needs in Ramsey County.”
Total nonsense. The average household income in St. Paul is $52,841 a year.
Another key issue to end poverty, is for people to quit having kids until they are married and they have a decent job so they can support their families.
I take it then that you would be in favor of making reliable and effective birth control at low cost available to folks who are struggling with poverty? Yes?
A study done in 2014 (AEI) says that you need to only do three things to avoid living in poverty. Graduate from high school, marry before having a child, and have that child after age 20. I would also add two more that the study didn’t include, but are based on my observations … never alienate members of your immediate family (who may be in the position to help you through tough times) and avoid becoming addicted to drugs or alcohol.
Some statistics:
– Only 8% of the people who do those first three things (Graduate from high school, marry before having a child, and have that child after age 20) fall into poverty.
– 79% of people who fail to do those three things, land in poverty. Those are statistics, not moral judgements. Pretty simple basic life choices.
– Family income is 73% higher for married women than it is for women who are not married and living with someone. It could simply mean because there are two legally-joined incomes supporting that household.
– Only 4% of homes with a married mother and father are on food stamps at any given time.
– 28% of single mothers and 21% of co-habitating but unmarried mothers are on food stamps.
– Only 41% of co-habitating adults and 44% of singles own their own home.
– 78% of married people own their own home. i.e., you’re twice as likely to be a homeowner if you’re married.
These are socio-economic decisions that you control and they should be taught in a mandatory high school class. The government and their programs have nothing to do with your decisions. There are simple solutions to avoiding poverty that everyone seems to ignore because people have been conditioned to look to government to solve all our problems when government hasn’t solved any of it.
You know DT, not going to dispute your numbers, nor the results, one point only; “because people have been conditioned to look to government to solve all our problems when government hasn’t solved any of it” we have created a country, that includes the richest of the rich, corporations etc. etc. etc., your final statement is not/should not be just apropos to folks on the poor end of the scale, would you agree that is a fair assessment? (I understand the topic is however poverty).
My only point was that LBJ’s “war on poverty,” launched in the 60s, never succeeded. In fact, after trillions of taxpayer dollars were spent, poverty still exists to a greater degree. And it’s because the government is overlooking the easy solutions as outlined in the AEI study. We could make that topic a high school course and teach kids to avoid poverty with the cold hard facts. But we won’t. Because that would be “moralizing.”
Let’s not forget that children do not hold jobs, yet suffer in poverty.
Older people too can out-live their savings and fall into poverty in their sunset days.
And of course, in America, you’re never completely free of the threat of the wolf at your door. 5 other things can change your situation instantly, and frequently do.
1) Medical Expenses.
2) Job Loss.
3) Poor or Excess Use of Credit.
4) Divorce or Separation.
5) Unexpected Expenses.
It makes me wonder whether we really value other people we may not know at all. If we turn a blind eye to those who are in need do we really care about others? Are we not our brother’s keeper? All for one and one for all?
NO.
That’s why we join in governance, worship, cooperative ventures and charities– that’s why we enter the social contract by paying taxes and voting for representatives who will do what we cannot do as individuals.
We do this civilized behavior because people can be completely deaf and blind to the needs of others.
Richard, we hear you, aren’t many folks that I know saying to not help those that can’t help themselves, but suspect many of us have that nagging voice in our head about folks gaming the system, generation after generation after generation. Just like folks gamed the American Rescue Plan. Call it the ugly truths. Right-wrong or otherwise, and the, system, sure appears to be less than transparent on how they spend the taxpayers $.
Living wages, national health care, and affordable housing. Whenever we discuss “subsidies” we need to discuss the trillions we give employers by subsidizing housing and wages with food and housing, and health care assistance. Our food and housing subsidies are actually subsidies for billion dollar corporations by essentially subsidizing the difference between their low wages and the actual cost of living for their employees. Target for instance not only got millions of dollar of free site preparation for it’s downtown headquarters but also was exempted from the cities living wage requirement. People like Joe should be screaming about the waste of taxpayer dollars we throw at private employers and the socialism of doing so, but alas they lack the insight. We don’t subsidize the poor, we subsidize the employers who profit from their poverty.