On Friday, I posted on child poverty in our area. The Great Recession took a toll on many cities, but undeniably so in ours: from 2007 to 2011, the number of children aged 5 to 17 in families in poverty rose from 9.89 to 17.9%.
The number nearly doubled. Beyond that group, state measures classify an astounding 44% of all school-age children in our area (the city and other towns in our school district) as economically disadvantaged.
A few remarks on the data.
1. These numbers involve only school-age children; they do not include non-working college students.
2. Of nearby communities, the Whitewater area has the second-highest level of child poverty, and the second-highest rate of increase, from 2007-2011 (81%). She’s also the only community whose poverty rate does not abate as the Great Recession ends. Instead, it rises year over year.
3. I’ve picked 2007-2011 for a reason – all communities during this time felt the impact of recession, but in these years Whitewater was also a place of grandiose claims of innovation, development, the exceptional, the unrivaled, etc.
And yet, and yet, for all these many headlines and pronouncements about progress, groundbreaking accomplishments, and world-class achievements, the actual material condition of children in the city grew worse, year over year.
4. Not a single project during these years, not a single government-funded ‘partnership’ with the university or major corporations stopped the rise in our area’s child poverty – the rate rose anyway.
5. ‘Poverty alleviated or prevented.’ As with much spending, one is sure to hear that the situation would have been worse had we not spent on buildings for white-collar projects, or extended tax-breaks and public money to thriving corporations.
There’s neither evidence nor even any compelling analysis for such claims – it’s just airy speculation. The only concrete result of which one can be confident is that Whitewater spent public money for big development projects but the material condition of many residents grew worse.
6. Optimism, in spite of these last several years. For it all, I’m convinced that Whitewater can and will do far better, and that greater prosperity for greater numbers lies ahead. It’s going to take a rejection of ‘if-you-build-it-they-will-come’ thinking and a refocus on projects that make small gains, including for small businesses over corporate and white-collar welfare projects that haven’t produced results for those most in need.
7. Solutions. I’ll write at length In November about solutions that have worked elsewhere, to turn other towns around. (There’s still more to consider before then about Whitewater’s long-term fiscal account, and about particular budget items for the coming fiscal year.)
It won’t be easy, but I believe we’ll make the transition away from big-but-empty in the coming decade. In part, we’ll do so because we’ll embrace new ideas, and in part because we’ll have reached the end of the pretend, with tired, flamboyant claims no longer able to convince anyone.
For tomorrow, though, a story about how desperation (something we certainly needn’t feel about our own situation) clouds judgment.
Tomorrow: What a Film About Janesville Really Says.
Is it possible that the increase in the poverty rate is related to low-income families moving to Whitewater due to the opportunities they see here?
I would expect large changes in the poverty rate over such short periods of time to have little to do with changes in income of longer term residents. Particularly when there is little evidence of large numbers of layoffs in town, etc.
Thanks very much for your comments. In our situation, I’d be curious which opportunities might be drawing impoverished newcomers to Whitewater.