By MARK NEWMAN Courier staff writer
February 15, 2008 01:08 pm
—
OTTUMWA — Numbers rarely tell the whole story. But when it comes to the well-being of children, decision makers need something to go on.
The Child and Family Policy Center, a not-for-profit agency based in Des Moines, recently issued its “Iowa Kids Count” report — information collected from every county in Iowa to show the trends affecting children, from infant deaths to high school graduation rates .
“Currently, one in seven children in Iowa lives in poverty and one in three is eligible for free or reduced-price lunches,” said Mike Crawford, the report’s author. “The economic conditions for many families have stagnated or worsened over the past six years.”
The study compares statistics from 2000 to 2006. Some things have improved for kids, he said, like the death rate among children ages 1-14 and the number of youngsters being immunized.
What hasn’t improved is the financial situation for families around the state.
While the report shows 19 indicators of child well-being figures, one of the biggest statistical changes in Wapello County is for food assistance or food stamps.
In 2000, there were 3,139 Wapello County residents receiving assistance. For 2006, that number swelled to 5,122. Then, as now, there were about 36,000 people living in the county, meaning 14 percent of residents are now on food assistance, the highest rate in Iowa.
“That doesn’t surprise me,” said Wapello County Supervisor Steve Siegel. “It’s certainly a problem that we want to alleviate in any way we can.”
He said since he has resided in Wapello County, the high level of poverty in the county has been an issue. And though there has been an increase of 63 percent receiving money for food, he asked what the increase for the state has been in the same period. According to the report, that figure is actually 81 percent.
“I think we’ve worked hard .... to help alleviate some of the poverty in Wapello County, but there’s certainly a long way to go,” Siegel said. “We have our senior commodity food program to help 250 low-income seniors. I just did my deliveries today. We donate to the Southern Iowa Food Bank. And we have our general assistance program.”
He believes some of the problems in Wapello County mirror the problems he believes plague the country.
“There’s a growing inequality between rich and poor. Tax breaks aimed at the rich; increases in energy costs; I also believe food costs have gone up above the rate of inflation,” said Siegel. “So when people are financially marginal to begin with, these costs they can’t avoid can mean they don’t have money for food.”
And sometimes, food stamps aren’t enough to prevent that. Low-income or otherwise strapped residents may end up at social service agencies like the Ottumwa Community Outreach Mission — which serves lunch and dinner for a freewill donation — and the Southeast Iowa Economic Development Agency.
In her job as community action programs specialist at SIEDA, Ramona Vaux sees a lot of hungry people.
“It’s heartbreaking,” she said. “A lot of them might have food stamps, but they might run out.”
Besides, Vaux said, someone with no income still can’t get certain necessities.
“They have no way to get shampoo and laundry soap and toilet paper and soap. But you can get pop and candy? The state would be better off redoing it,” she suggested.
Like many social service agencies, SIEDA does not keep food on hand. But they work directly with groups like the Lord’s Cupboard — a ministerial food pantry — to help fill the gaps for those who qualify. But she tells her clients she can only refer them there in a way that gives them four visits in 12 months — those are the rules.
“They’re not mean; they just have to rely on donations. I know here lately I’ve had a lot of people call and say, ‘Does it look like I’m eligible to go?’ and I have to tell them they are not.”
Whatever the case, said Siegel, “No one in this country or this county should have to go hungry.”
In Davis County, fewer people are going without.
Davis County showed a similar increase to the one in Wapello County but with a difference — while food assistance there is 61 percent higher now than in 2000, the county maintains one of the lowest levels of people asking for help in southeast Iowa. Only 3.5 percent of Davis County residents were getting food assistance in 2000. In 2006, the number is still at a regional low of 5.7 percent.
“I don’t have a real good answer [as to why]. We just take a little bit of pride in being self sufficient,” said Davis County Supervisor Max Proctor.
With 8,600 residents, Davis County has some of the same organizations as its larger neighbor.
“We have a real active Lord’s Cupboard and that takes some of the heat off [the Assistance Programs]. And our churches are pretty good, too,” Proctor said.
Like other counties, Davis County has a fund for general assistance, which they use for one-time help for someone who is “down on their luck” and needs a utility bill paid, or some help paying rent. In some cases, Proctor said, that’s enough to allow them to get the groceries they need, and get back on their feet.
But the biggest reason for the disparity between Davis County and other southeast Iowa communities may be that there are so few strangers in Davis County: Perhaps people are closer than in a larger, city-type area, Proctor speculated.
Generally, everyone knows everyone else, he said, and many residents have lived in Davis County for generations. So while there are organizations to help a stranger in need, people are also quick to help the neighbors they grew up with their entire lives.
“Families try to help families — people know each other here,” Proctor said. “We just take care of our own.”
Mark Newman can be reached at 683-5358 or by e-mail at mgnewman@mchsi.com.
BREAKOUT BOX
Residents receiving food assistance
2000 2006
Appanoose 9.5 percent 13.8 percent
Davis 3.5 percent 5.7 percent
Jefferson 5.3 percent 10.1 percent
Keokuk 6.3 percent 8.4 percent
Mahaska 5.3 percent 9.9 percent
Monroe 6.5 percent 9.6 percent
Van Buren 4.8 percent 6.9 percent
Wapello 8.7 percent 14.2 percent
Statewide 4.3 percent 7.7 percent
U.S. 6.1 percent 8.9 percent
— Source: Child and Family Policy Center
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.