Reducing child poverty not a short-term fix

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 17/02/2024 (579 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Considering the well-documented impact child poverty has on the physical and mental well-being of kids, it’s stunning governments don’t do more to reduce it.

Manitoba had virtually the highest rate of child poverty in Canada at 24 per cent in 2021 (essentially tied with Saskatchewan, whose rate was 24.2 per cent), according to figures released this week by the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg. That means about one in every four kids in Manitoba lives in a family that’s trying to get by on less than 50 per cent of the median income for its size.

Under those circumstances, meals are often skipped, new clothes are rare, housing is tenuous and the extra-curricular activities non-poverty kids take for granted (organized sports, music lessons, dance classes, etc.) are a pipe dream.

The long-term impact of that (and the many other realities of growing up in poverty) is far-reaching. According to a report released this week titled “Poverty Eradication: There Are Ways, So Where’s the Will?” children who grow up in poverty tend to have worse health outcomes, both physical and mental, compared with their higher-income peers.

They are more likely to have chronic illnesses, such as Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and autoimmune deficiency. Kids living in poverty are also more prone to developing mental-health conditions, including depression. The adversity and stress they face can have lifelong consequences.

“Prolonged levels of high stress can lead to traumatic stress, also known as toxic stress, which can negatively impact health,” the report says. “Children’s exposure to toxic stress can impact brain development and cognitive functioning.”

Knowing that, why don’t governments do more to alleviate child poverty? If not for compassionate and humanitarian reasons, for dollars and cents alone?

The cumulative impact of child poverty on government coffers is immense. Health care costs related to illnesses such as Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease are measured in the tens of millions of dollars a year in Manitoba. Add in the costs related to mental-health treatment and we’re talking about enormous pressure on the public treasury.

But that’s not all. Many of those conditions contribute to drug addiction and crime, which not only cost taxpayers a fortune in law enforcement, it also creates avoidable risks and dangers to society.

The subtitle of the report is, “There Are Ways, So Where’s the Will,” because there are well-documented and proven solutions to reducing child poverty. The problem is governments’ commitment to them is inconsistent and usually falls well short of what’s needed to put a significant dent in the problem.

There is no one solution. Meal plans in schools, affordable child care and public transit all improve conditions for low-income families and help them climb out of the poverty trap. But direct government transfers, including benefits such as rent assist, child tax benefits and GST rebates, have the greatest impact on easing the effects of poverty. Cash in the pocket to buy groceries and pay the rent has instant benefits. Government programs are great.

But as David Northcott, the former longtime head of Harvest Manitoba, used to say: “you can’t eat programs.”

Poverty levels plummeted during the COVID-19 pandemic in large part because of the widespread distribution of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit to individuals. Regardless of how those cheques were handed out (including whether everyone who got one was truly qualified), the impact it had on alleviating poverty was staggering. It reignited the debate around whether Canada should implement some type of universal basic income program.

Putting money directly into the pockets of low-income families lifts many of them out of poverty, or at least reduces the negative impacts of it. That costs taxpayers money up front. However, it saves money in the long run by reducing government expenditures in health care, mental health, addictions treatment, policing, courts and jails.

The problem is governments rarely, if ever, perform those types of cost-benefit analyses. They mostly consider up-front costs with little regard for the long-term benefits. Most politicians live in the now, and seldom look past one or two terms in office.

It’s precisely why Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew temporarily eliminated the 14-cent-per-litre fuel tax, a policy he has been sharply criticized for (including in this week’s child poverty report). Cutting the gas tax was an election campaign gimmick designed to win a few votes. It’s a terrible policy that benefits higher-income Manitobans the most. Had that money been used to alleviate child poverty (as this week’s report points out), the benefits would have been immense.

There are indeed solutions to reducing child poverty. Unfortunately, the political will isn’t there to tackle it in a meaningful way.

» Tom Brodbeck is a Winnipeg Free Press columnist. This column originally appeared in the Free Press.