HB 2968 (2015) Poverty Workgroup [4283]

HB 2968 (2015) Poverty Workgroup
FOUNDATIONAL INFORMATION AND OREGON CONTEXT
INTRODUCTION
 
House Bill 2968 (2015) directs the Oregon Chief Education Officer to convene a work group with the specific charge to prepare a report on how State School Fund expenditures relate to the educational achievements of students from families navigating poverty. The report is to be delivered to an interim Committee of the Legislature by November 15, 2015. The report may include recommendations for Legislation.
 
The Work Group was asked to examine a large amount of information, including Federal, State, and local funding in general and the poverty weight that is used for State School Fund (SSF) distributions in particular. The Oregon Department of Education, which administers Federal and State programs and distributes the SSF will present this information to the Work Group on October 1, 2015.
 
In advance of the October 1 meeting, this document is designed to give work group members a common understanding of the most current facts about poverty in Oregon, a survey and analysis of the barriers associated with increasing academic achievement for students navigating poverty, and an identification of services beyond education that already exist. This report has been extensively researched and those sources cited to allow readers to delve more deeply into any of the topics.
 
OREGON FACTS
In the State of Oregon there is a total population of 3,970,239 with about 1.2 million youth ages 0-24 (United States Census Bureau, 2012). There were 570,857 students enrolled in K-12 public schools in the 2014-15 school year. Within Oregon students of color represent 36% of the student population, with the fastest growing group of students of color being Hispanic/Latino students, who represent 22% of the overall student population (OEIB, 2015).
 
Oregon has an unemployment rate of 5.3%, a food insecurity rate of 15.8%, and despite the talents and promise students bring to schools every day, Oregon has an overall graduation rate of 71.98%, one of the lowest in the country. Moreover, a recent longitudinal study indicates that only 34% of students in poverty in Oregon; 11.5% of Hispanic/Latino students; 15.1% of African American students; and 13.7% of Native American students earn a post-secondary credential by the age of 25 (OregonLearns, n.d.).
 
Poverty Statistics in Oregon
Statistics/Sources

In 2014, 25% (1 in 4) children live in poverty, an increase of 30% since 2008
Children First for Oregon. 2014

Over half (53%) of children whose parents do not have a high school degree live in poor families • Over a quarter (27%) of children in poor families do not have an employed parent
Oregon data from National Center for Children in Poverty, 2013

18% families with children under the age of 18 currently live in poverty • For families navigating below the poverty level: – 29% of have a head of household with less than a high school education – 22% of families there is no wage earner
Oregon data from United States Census Bureau, 2012

Poverty rates in the rural regions are higher than urban areas • Residents in rural areas are associated with having less educational attainment, lower incomes, and higher unemployment rates
Oregon data from U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2013

For detailed information on statewide poverty rates by county broken down by racial/ethnic categories see Appendix A.
 
COMMON BARRIERS
 
Miller, Mastuera, Chao, and Sadowski (2004) identify six elements of self-sufficiency required to make, what is often characterized as “deep and wide,” steps out of poverty. We have organized the barriers with these element headings.
 
1.  Income and Economic Assets
Individuals with a high school diploma and no postsecondary degrees or certificates earn a median monthly salary of $2,636, which covers basic costs of raising children: transportation ($459), child care ($1,181), food ($546), and housing ($692); and excludes healthcare ($1,279) and taxes and other necessities ($732) (The Annie E. Casey Foundation [AECF], 2014).
 
In addition to difficulties meeting the basic costs of living, families face job-related barriers like inflexible schedules, low wages, and minimal or no benefits. The barriers associated with working these types of jobs often directly impact employment options. For example, lack of transportation or health benefits for children were found to be primary reasons for some mothers not completing welfare-to-work programs (Pierre, Layzer, & Barnes, 1995). Families navigating poverty may even have work multiple lowpaying jobs in order to meet all of their financial needs (Krahn, 1991).
 
Many families, particularly those with children age 5 or younger had to change, quit, or refuse a job offer due to child care problems (as cited in AECF, 2014). They also face other various child care related barriers:

  • Limited choices on high-quality, flexible and reliable child care, given their income-level and inflexible work schedules. Oregon was reported as one of the least affordable states for infant and four-year-old care in a child care center setting for a married couple in 2012 (as cited on Oregon Secretary of State [OSOS], 2014).
  • Family income is not keeping pace with child care costs, with the 2012 median income for a single mother household was ranked 37th (below $30,000 consistently) when compared to other states and the District of Columbia, and the median income for a married couple was ranked 36th in the country (Oregon Secretary of State [OSOS], 2014) Difficulties transitioning into the workforce or to increase their earning potential (OSOS, 2015) 

2. Education and Skills
      Barriers for Adults

  •  Individuals who attempt to increase their job marketability by pursuing higher education often face rising costs in tuition and inflexible work schedules that impede their ability to earn a certificate or degree (Gault, Reichlin, & Román, 2014). 
  • Individuals with only a high school diploma face steep competition in today’s job market because of a higher demand from employers for a workforce with some level of higher education (Carnevale, Smith, & Strohl, 2010).
  • Lack of affordable child care is a significant barrier to adults seeking to complete their GED and to obtain a community college degree or certificate (OSOS, 2015).

      
    Barriers for Children

  • Common methods of assessing academic and social/emotional readiness tend to classify more students navigating poverty as not ready for kindergarten

 
ASSET BASED PERSPECTIVE
The Chief Education Office has adopted an asset-based perspective to thinking, writing, and talking about all students, families, and communities across the educational continuum. This is in contrast to a more typical deficit-based perspective often used with good intention to group students for the purposes of reporting, requesting resources or conducting analysis. Deficit thinking is the practice of having lower expectations for certain groups of people based on demographics or characteristics that they share. In doing so, an “at-risk” narrative is formed, in which students navigating poverty, students of color, and/or historically underserved groups and their families are pathologized and marginalized. An asset-based paradigm means recognizing and amplifying the strengths each person brings to the community and not associating systemic barriers with the students and families. In researching and then communicating in this document the topic of poverty, we have encountered a range of terminology that fall on the spectrum of more asset or deficit based thinking. For example, the term “poor students” fits within our definition of a deficit-based construct. Our preferred term is “students navigating poverty” and our perspective on this is that all students are rich with assets and potential, regardless of their current economic circumstances. Where appropriate, we have footnoted particularly illustrative examples of language used in research that is more deficit based and our suggestions about alternative ways of looking at and communicating about the subject.
 
(ACEF, 2013; Reardon, 2011). This gap continues in the later years, where students navigating poverty continue to lag behind their peers academically and developmentally (AECF, 2013).

  • Chang and Romero (2008) found that children navigating poverty are more likely to be chronically absent in kindergarten, first and fifth grades. Attendance matters in educational context because students with chronic non-attendance during kindergarten had the lowest performance in reading and math in fifth grade (Chang & Romero, 2008).

 
3. Housing and Surroundings

  • In 2013, 39% of children were reported to be living in households with a high housing cost burden (AECF, 2015).
  • Families and children navigating poverty are more likely to live in “underprivileged ”[1] neighborhoods (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, & Aber, 2000) with high crime rates, poor-quality housing, and a shortage of access to child care or enriching after-school activities for children (Duncan, Magnuson, & Votruba-Drzal, 2014).
  • Schools in “underprivileged”[2] neighborhoods could include schools with insufficient funding (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, & Aber, 2000) and that are categorized as “low-performing” (Duncan, Magnuson, & Votruba-Drzal, 2014).

 
4. Access to Health Care and Other Needed Social Services
     Health and Mental Care

  • Pregnant women with inadequate nutrition and chronic health conditions associated with poverty, such as obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes, are at risk of delivering babies with low birth weight (AECF, 2009). Low birth weight can lead to health and developmental problems and is a leading cause of infant mortality (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). 
  • Families navigating poverty face constant economic insecurity, which has been associated with more daily stress and a higher likelihood of experiencing depression, anxiety, substance abuse or domestic violence compared to higher-income families. These stresses have an impact on children due to the compromised parenting skills of individuals experiencing such barriers (AECF, 2014).
  • Parents navigating poverty with young children are nearly three times more likely to report having poor or fair mental health than parents with higher income levels (as cited in AECF, 2014).
  • Some researchers who are beginning to explore the effects of poverty on brain functioning have found potential negative impact on health, mental health and cognitive functioning (Mani, Mullainathan, Shafir, & Zhao 2013;  Shah, Mullainathan & Shafir, 2012).  For children, such impacts are especially concerning in their early years, when the brain development is most rapid (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child [NSCDC], 2005/2014).
  • Others have found that excessively stressful conditions early in childhood (i.e. adverse childhood experiences due to abuse, neglect, and family dysfunction) have been linked to a number of changes in the brain that compromise healthy development (NSCDC, 2005/2014).  Stress can be categorized into three types:

Type of Stress/Characteristics
Positive/Short-lived – Example: Stress experienced on the first day of school Helps a child develop coping skills and a healthy stress response system.

Tolerable/More serious – Example: When a loved one dies Not damaging if a child has the buffering support of protective, adult relationships.

Toxic – Lasts longer Occurs in the absence of consistent supportive relationships Potentially lead to long-term problems in learning, behavior, and both physical and mental health

Compared to children from families with higher income, children from families navigating poverty are more likely to experience toxic stress (Duncan & Magnuson, 2011) and experience developmental delays (as cited in Shonkoff, 2013).
 
Other Social Services – Child development
Families navigating poverty may have restricted resources to supplement their children’s schooling with educational materials (e.g. books, toys, and computers), services (e.g. tutor, therapists), and enrichment-type educational experience (e.g. museums, theaters, sports, summer camp)(Haveman & Wolfe, 1994). Such experiences are expensive, costing about $10,000 per child per year, on average, for families with incomes above $135,000 (Duncan & Munane, 2011).
 
There is a lasting effect of poverty: children raised in families navigating poverty are more likely to continue to navigate poverty when they become adults (Corcoran, 1995), and this likelihood increases as the duration of poverty lengthens (Wagmiller & Adelman, 2009). This group of children was also more likely to experience multiple family transitions, move regularly, and change schools more frequently (Teachman, 2008). These create barriers like academic regression and discontinuity in curriculum and loss of social networks.
 
5. Close Personal Ties, as well as Networks to Others
The stress related to facing constant economic insecurity for families navigating poverty could be alleviated when parents have strong support networks of family or friends to help (AECF, 2014). Individuals who are socially isolated are more likely to be navigating poverty than individuals with larger circles of friends (Finney, Kapadia & Peters, 2015).
 
Mothers with low levels of emotional (e.g., access to family/friends to talk to during troubling times) and instrumental (e.g., access to family/friends for rides to the doctor) support
   a) Had lower levels of literacy and had a lower rate of high school completion;
   b) Demonstrated significantly less warmth and provided less stimulating learning environments than mothers with higher levels of support; and
   c) Received welfare services long-term (Fram, 2003).
 
6. Personal Resourcefulness and Leadership Abilities
A major barrier is the limitation in the focus of federal programs. There are many federal programs designed to assist families navigating poverty, including those that provide assistance by subsidizing basics such as food, health care, housing and child care, and those that provide added income, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to compensate for low wages and irregular employment (Boots, 2010). Although such programs help to some degree, they are limited in their effectiveness because these programs often only focused on either children or parents, and not both (Ascend, 2014). This creates a particular barrier for parents who wish to advance in their work place because they do not have the flexibility in their schedules.
 
Further, families often lack information of the full range of programs that could benefit them and their children (Boots, 2010). They need access to the supports that would help them advocate for their family. They experience difficulties navigating the complexities varying agency authorities, eligibility criteria, and program requirements at the federal, state or local level (Boots, 2010). Strict eligibility criteria for some of the programs put families at risk for losing the services or benefits they most need while working towards financial stability (de Cuba, Harker, Weiss, Scully, Chilton, & Coleman, 2013).
 
CURRENT PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
The common barriers faced by families navigating poverty described above touch many aspects of families’ lives, and are often addressed by state, federal and local programs outside of the education system. Thus, the complexity of the issues families in poverty face provided the impetus for gathering information regarding what current programs and services exist outside of the education system to provide these supports. We conducted our own searches, and worked with other state-level agency representatives (Department of Human Services, Oregon Health Authority, etc.) and local regional groups in order to identify some of the major programs and services. These inquiries led to the identification of over 100 types of programs and services fulfilling different family needs.  Table 1 below provides a summary list of some of the major state and federal programs serving families navigating poverty.
 
Table 1. Major State/Federal Poverty Programs and Services
Programs/Level/Population Served/Svc Provided/Description of Organization/Hyperlink to Site

DHS (Oregon Department of Human Services/State/Family Unit/Many
DHS provides direct services to more than 1 million Oregonians each year. These services provide a key safety net for those in our society who are most vulnerable or who are at a difficult place in their life
http://www.oregon.gov/

211Info/State/Family Unit/Information on Services
Accessible by phone and email only, 211info directs people to services in OR that assist families navigating poverty. Major themes of these services include assistance with family, food, emergency, energy, and housing.
http://211info.org/

Community Developmental Disabilities Program (CDDP)/
State/Disabled Children and Families/Housing and Support
Services through CDDP are offered to children and families and range from in home family support, intensive in-home supports and 24- hour services in foster care or residential placement.
http://www.oregon.gov/

OED (Oregon Employment Department)/State/Parents/Employment
OED acts as a support for economic stability for Oregonians and communities during times of unemployment through the payment of unemployment benefits. They serve businesses by recruiting and referring the best qualified applicants to jobs, and provide resources to diverse job seekers in support of their employment needs. Develop and distribute quality workforce and economic information to promote informed decision making.
http://www.oregon.gov/ EMPLOY/Agency/Pages/ Mission.aspx

SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program)/State/Family Unit/Food and Nutrition
The Food and Nutrition Service works with State agencies, nutrition educators, and neighborhood and faith-based organizations to ensure that those eligible for nutrition assistance can make informed decisions about applying for the program and can access benefits. FNS also works with State partners and the retail community to improve program administration and ensure program integrity.
http://www.fns.usda.gov /snap/supplementalnutrition-assistanceprogram-snap
 
OHA (Oregon Health Authority/State/Family Unit/Health Care
The Oregon Health Authority is at the forefront of lowering and containing costs, improving quality and increasing access to health care in order to improve the lifelong health of Oregonians.
http://www.oregon.gov/ oha/Pages/about_us.aspx

Oregon State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)/State/Children/Health Care
SCHIP allows Oregon to offer health insurance for eligible children, up to age 19 who are not already insured.
http://www.benefits.gov /benefits/benefitdetails/1611

Addictions and Mental Health Services – OHA/State/Children/Family Unit/Mental Health
This program through OHA is working to improve mental health services to children in Oregon by: Involving parents and youth in healthcare decisions, delivering mental health services in the community, and improving inter-agency coordination.
http://www.oregon.gov/ oha/amh/Pages/children -mental-health.aspx
 
ERDC (Employment Related Day Care)/State/Parents/Childcare
The Employment-Related Day Care program (ERDC) helps eligible low-income families pay for child care while they are working. ERDC is a subsidy program, meaning eligible families still pay part of the child care cost.
http://www.oregon.gov/ dhs/assistance/CHILDCARE/Pages/index.aspx

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)/State/Parents/Financial Assistance
The Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC or EIC, is a benefit for working people with low to moderate income. To qualify, you must meet certain requirements and file a tax return, even if you do not owe any tax or are not required to file. EITC reduces the amount of tax you owe and may give you a refund.
http://www.irs.gov/Cred its-&- Deductions/Individuals/Earned-Income-Tax-Credit
 
Child Tax Credit (CTC)/State/Parents/Financial Assistance
This credit is for people who have a qualifying child. It can be claimed in addition to the Credit for Child and Dependent Care expenses
http://www.irs.gov/uac/ Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Credit
 
TRIO Programs/Federal/Students/Many
The Federal TRIO Programs (TRIO) are Federal outreach and student services programs designed to identify and provide services for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. TRIO includes eight programs targeted to serve and assist low-income individuals, first generation college students, and individuals with disabilities to progress through the academic pipeline from middle school to post baccalaureate programs.
http://www2.ed.gov/ab out/offices/list/ope/trio/ index.html

WIC (Women, Infant, and Children)/Federal/Mothers and Children/Food
WIC is the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children. This public health program is designed to improve health outcomes and influence lifetime nutrition and health behaviors in targeted, at-risk populations. Nutrition education is the cornerstone of the WIC Program.
 https://public.health.ore gon.gov/HealthyPeopleFamilies/wic/Pages/index. aspx

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)/Federal/Family Unit/Cash Assistance
The TANF program provides cash assistance to low-income families with children while they strive to become self-sufficient. Cash assistance is intended to meet a family’s basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter and utilities. Most cash benefits in Oregon are issued via an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card. This is also known as an Oregon Trail Card.
http://www.oregon.gov/ dhs/assistance/CASH/Pages/Index.aspx

Medicaid/Federal/State/Family Unit/Medical Assistance
Medicaid provides health coverage to millions of Americans, including eligible low-income adults, children, pregnant women, elderly adults and people with disabilities. Medicaid is administered by states, according to federal requirements. The program is funded jointly by states and the federal government.
http://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chipprograminformation/medicaidand-chip-programinformation.html
 
Oregon Head Start Association (OHSA)/Federal/Pre-K/Education
The Oregon Head Start Association (OHSA) is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit association which provides leadership, advocacy, and training for Oregon Head Start Pre-Kindergarten (OPK), Head Start (HS), and Early Head Start (EHS) programs.
http://www.ohsa.net/in dex.php/ohsa

LIEAP (Oregon Low Income Energy Assistance Program)/Federal/Family Unit/Energy Assistance
Federally funded program through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. LIEAP is an assistance program designed to help low income households with home heating costs.
http://www.benefits.gov /benefits/benefitdetails/1571
                                                  
 As we collected information from various agency and local leaders, we discovered that most groups at the state and local level use the services provided by 211info (for more details, go to http://211info.org/) to identify services for families. 211info provides a guide to health and social services for families in Oregon and Southwest Washington. They use their database of service providers to direct customers to supports when they call in or search their website for resources (see Appendix B for more info on this resource). 211info, with funding from the State of Oregon, has created a sizeable database of many of the services and programs that support families navigating poverty at the local, state and federal levels. Their database codes service providers by the type of need they fulfill and then further identifies the type of service or program. In order to provide this workgroup an extensive overview of the types of poverty services and programs at the local, state, and federal level, we requested reports from 211info that identify the number and type of services providers for each Oregon county and for the State of Oregon as a whole. These reports are included as a resource in Appendix C of the report.
—————————————————————————————————
 REFERENCES
 Ascend at the Aspen Institute. (2014). Reimagining 2Gen Pathways: Bold Ideas for 2015,
            Retrieved from
             http://ascend.aspeninstitute.org/pages/reimagining-2gen-pathways

Boots, S. W. (2010, April). Improving access to public benefits: Helping eligible individuals and
          families get the income supports they need. The Ford Foundation, Open Society Institute, and
          the Annie E. Casey Foundation.  Retrieved from www.aecf.org/resources/ improving-access-to-
          public-benefits/

Bradshaw, T. K. (2007). Theories of poverty and anti-poverty programs in
            development. Community Development, 38(1), 7-25.
 
Brooks-Gunn, J, Duncan, G. J., & Aber, J. L. (2000). Neighborhood Poverty: Policy
           Implications in Studying Neighborhoods. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
 
Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2010, June). Help wanted: Projections of jobs and education
          requirements through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Georgetown Public Policy
          Institute, Center on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved September 2014, from
          cew. georgetown.edu/jobs2018/
 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Infant mortality. Atlanta, GA: Author.
         Retrieved September 8, 2015, from
         www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/infantmortality.htm
                                                                                                               
Chang, Hedy, H., & Romero, M. (2008, September). Present, Engaged, and Accounted For:
         The Critical Importance of Addressing Chronic Absence in the Early Grades.
        Retrieved from http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_837.pdf
 
Children First for Oregon (2014). 2014 Progress Report: The Status of Children in
       Oregon. Retrieved from http://www.cffo.org/?pub=2014-progress-report
 
Corcoran, M. (1995). Rags to Rags: Poverty and Mobility in the United States. Annual Review
       of Sociology 21, 237-267.

de Cuba, S. E., Harker, L., Weiss, I., Scully, K., Chilton, M., & Coleman, S. (2013, December).
      Punishing hard work: The unintended consequences of cutting SNAP benefits. Boston,
      MA: Children’s Health- Watch. Retrieved August 2014, from www.childrenshealthwatch.org/
      wp-content/uploads/cliffeffect_ report_dec2013.pdf
 
Duncan, G., Magnuson, K., (2011). The Long Reach of Early Childhood Poverty (Winter2011).
      Retrieved from 
      https://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/pdf/pathways/winter_2011/PathwaysWi nter11_
 
Duncan.pdf Duncan, G., & Magnuson, K., Votruba-Drzal, E. (2014). Boosting Family Income to Promote
      Child Development. The Future of Children, 24(1), 99-120.  OI: 10.1353/foc.2014.0008
 
Forrest, T., Wallace-Pascoe, D., & Goldstein, H. (2015). Developing a Principle-Based Framework for
      Evaluating Comprehensive Poverty Solutions Across Contexts. Journal of Poverty, 19(3), 330-355.
 
Fram, M. S. (2003, May). Managing to parent: Social support, social capital, and parenting practices
​     among welfare-participating mothers with young children (IRP Discussion Paper No. 1263–03).
     Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty.
     Retrieved September 2015, from http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp126303.pdf
 
Gault, B., Reichlin, L., & Román, S. (2014, February). College affordability for low-income adults:
     Improving returns on investment for families and society. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s
     Policy Research. Retrieved August 2014, from www.luminafoundation.org/
     publications/ideas_summit/College_Affordability_for_Low- Income_Adults.pdf
 
Haveman, R. & Wolfe, B. (1994). Succeeding Generations: On the Effects of Investments in Children.
     New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
 
Krahn, H. (1991). Non-standard work arrangements. Perspectives on Labour and Income. Retrieved
     from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/studies-etudes/75-001/archive/e-pdf/97- eng.pdf
 
Laderchi, C. R., Saith, R., & Stewart, F. (2003). Does it Matter that we do not Agree on  the Definition
    of Poverty? A Comparison of Four Approaches. Oxford Development Studies, 31(3), 243.
 
Mani, A. Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E. & Zhao, J. (2013). Poverty Impedes Cognitive
    Function, Science,341(6149), 976-980.
 
Miller, M. L., Mastuera, M., Chao, M., & Sadowski, K. (2004). Pathways out of poverty:  Early lessons
    of the family independence initiative. Oakland: Family Independence Initiative.
 
National Center for Children in Poverty. (2013). Demographics of Poor Children.
    Retrieved from http://www.nccp.org/profiles/OR_profile_7.html
 
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2005/2014). Excessive Stress Disrupts
   the Architecture of the Developing Brain: Working Paper 3. Updated Edition.
   Retrieved September 8, 2015 from
www.http://developingchild.harvard.edu/index.php/resources/reports_and_working_papers/ working_papers/wp3/
 
OregonLearns (n.d.). The Education Pathway. Retrieved from
    http://oregonlearns.org/learnmore/redesign-issues/
 
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2015). Oregon Educator Equity Report. Salem, OR.
 
Oregon Educator Equity Report. Salem, OR. Oregon Secretary of State. (2014). Child Care in Oregon:
   Difficult to Afford; New Regulations May Improve Safety but Further Raise Costs. Retrieved
   from
September 8, 2015 from http://sos.oregon.gov/audits/Documents/2014-25.pdf
 
Oregon Secretary of State. (2014). Education Audits Capstone Report: Achieving Oregon’s Education
   Goals for All Students. Retrieved from September 8, 2015 from
   http://sos.oregon.gov/audits/documents/2015-08.pdf
 
Pierre, R. G. S., Layzer, J. I., Barnes, H. V. (1995). Two-Generation Programs: Design, 
    Cost, and Short-Term Effectiveness. The Future of Children Long-term Outcomes of
    Early Childhood Program, 5(3), 76:93.
 
Reardon, S. (2011). The widening academic achieveme nt gap between the rich and the poor:
    New evidence and possible explanations. In G. Duncan & R. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity?
    Rising inequality, schools and children’s life chances (pp. 91-116). New York: Russell Sage.
 
Shah, A. K, Mullainathan, S. & Shafir, E. (2012). Some consequences of having too little,
     Science, 2, 682-685.
 
Shonkoff, J. P. (2013). Driving science-based innovation to strengthen the foundations of lifelong
    learning, behavior, and health. Presentation presented at the National Conference of
    State Legislatures (NCSL) 2013 Legislative Summit, Atlanta, GA.
 
Teachman, Jay D. 2008. The Living Arrangements of Children and Their Educational
    Wellbeing. Journal of Family Issues 29(6): 734-761.
 
The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2015). 2015 KIDS COUNT Data Book: State Trends in  
    Child Well-being. Baltimore, MD: Author.
 
The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2014). KIDS COUNT Policy Report: Creating Opportunity for Families
    – A two-generation Approach. Baltimore, MD: Author.
 
The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2013). Early warning confirmed: A research update
    on thirdgrade reading. Baltimore, MD: Author.
 
The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2013). The first eight years: Giving kids a foundation for lifetime
    success (KIDS COUNT Policy Report). Baltimore, MD: Author.
 
The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2009). Preventing low birthweight (KIDS COUNT
    Indicator Brief). Baltimore, MD: Author. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED507776.pdf
 
United States Census Bureau (2012). 2009-13 American Community 2009-13 (2012).  
    Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/about.html
 
United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2013). Retrieved from
    http://www.ers.usda.govIdata-products/state-fact-sheets/statedata.aspx?
    StateFIPS=41&StateName=Oregon:11=.VPXlW nF9yw
 
Wagmiller, R. L. & Adelman, R. M. (2009). Childhood and Intergenerational Poverty:
     The Long-term Consequences of Growing Up Poor.
 
Appendix A. State and County-wide Poverty Rates by Racial/Ethnic Categories

Appendix B. Info211 Infographic
Appendix C. Info211 Services by County and by State

[1] We have used the term “underprivileged” because it comes directly from publication text, though through our commitment to use Asset Based language, we recommend using a phrase like “historically underserved” in this context. Doing so, pivots away from blaming the family and instead acknowledges our collective set of systems ineffectiveness at providing the services/supports the referenced families need to thrive.
 
[2] Same note as reference #1 above.