Leading the way: 1 in 4 Manchester, NH, children living in poverty
Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 8:54AM Note: This is the first in a two-part series exploring the findings of "Demographic Trends in the Manchester-Nashua Metropolitan Area," a report presented Oct. 26 by the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire.
Throughout the municipal campaign season that comes to an end today, I've heard a lot of talk about making our city government more efficient, our streets safer and our students smarter. But I haven't heard a peep about the number of children in Manchester, NH, who live in poverty, much less an ideas to address this problem.
And it's not like it's a problem that affects only a handful of brown kids, either. A report released last week by the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire found that one quarter - 25.2 percent - of all children living in the Queen City in 2007 (the most recent year for which data are available) were living in poverty.
For the record, the poverty level in 2007 for a family of four was $20,650.
At the state level, New Hampshire has long been known for having low poverty levels. Indeed, the aforementioned report notes that Granite State has the lowest percentage of children living in poverty (10 percent) of any state in the nation. In Nashua, the state's second largest city, the report notes, "only 8 percent of children are in poverty, and in suburban areas it is even lower, at 5 percent:
So what accounts for this disparity? The report states that while explanations are "beyond the scope" of the report, it does note that differences in family structure are one factor.
Both in New Hampshire and across the country, the report notes, the lowest rates of child poverty occur in married-couple households. In suburban Hillsborough County, 81 percent of families with children are married couples. In Nashua, 73 percent are. But here in Manchester, NH, it turns out that only 58 percent of families with children are married couples.
"Thus, the higher child poverty rates in Manchester are, in large part, a result of the larger proportion of single-parent families in the city," the report concludes.
As to why Manchester is home to more single-parent familes, the report didn't speculate.
Reader Comments (2)
I have been enjoying your blog since I found it yesterday. Thank you.
As blog entries typically go back in date from most recent to oldest, I noticed a trend in your writing as I read older posts from your blog. Much of your recent "data" is derived from Carsey Institute tables. No problem there, as long as you see it for what it is. However, you then fall into a trap of making a conclusion in your blog post about "demographics" or "migration," or "White Flight," or something else- based upon an incomplete slice of the "people stew" that is Manchester. Based on these skewed, INCOMPLETE Carsey Institute tables.
I believe you are sincerely mistaken in your observance of these tables and the manner in which they were presented by the Carsey Institute. Perhaps their fine print about how they acquired their numbers was not published at the time you performed your research for your posts...
Carsey Institute does not use any statistical data that includes IMMIGRANTS / REFUGEES. This spike in poverty levels rises sharply when Lutheran Services' and other "charitable/ relocation organizations' " efforts to relocate refugees from Somalia, Nigeria, Bhutan, Nepal, etc... begin here in the Manchester area. Which absolutely will account for that "spike" in the number of children living in poverty, which begins in 1999/2000 and grows larger each year.
As someone who has performed "host family" services for some of these immigrants/refugees, and also received e-mails from higher-ups involved in NH Social Services, I can tell you that ALL of them fall under the POVERTY level upon landing in Manchester- even if the parents previously had medical or engineering degrees. They typically have two or three children. They share apartments in small sections of Manchester you probably didn't even know exist. :) Many of them (adults) speak at least a rudimentary English they learned while interred in a refugee camp- around a 3rd grade understanding of our English. A few are surprisingly adept, for their young age.
Their numbers have increased by the thousands each year since 2000, in Manchester alone, yet they are not included in any of these statistics you are using to make your claims. Why is that? I would urge you to research that. Perhaps they are not included for "Politically Correct" reasons? But, then how could an accurate statistical model be created? Please ask these questions of the Carsey tables, or simply use other, more reliable tables which are freely available, and which have the methodology available for review.
Please utilize more comprehensive statistics for these purposes, or if they are not currently tabulated (my guess- they aren't!) then tabulate them yourself and create a really fantastic blog free of any ideology or slant!
Thanks,
Al
Hi Al,
Thanks for reading the blog and for the detailed comments.
I can assure you that I did not intentionally leave out any information for political or other reasons. I was simply conveying the facts conveyed in the Carsey Institute report as I understood them. And as a point of fact, the report does include immigrant stats (see Box C), though you are correct that it does not explicitly state that any of the immigrant stats include or exclude refugees.
Thanks again for reading the blog!
Will