Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools Brief Amici Curiae

    No. 86-7113

I n  t h e

Glourt of %  MnxUb BtnUs
October  T e r m , 1987

P aula  K adrmas and S arita K adrmas, 
a minor by her next friend, Paula Kadrm as,

vs.
Appellants,

D ic k in so n  P u b lic  S ch o o ls;  B oss J u l so n , in his capacity 
as Superintendent of the Dickinson Public Schools; 
Cla r e n c e  S t o r se th , N a ncy  J o h n so n , M erry  J o h n st o n , 
H arold K reig , H erb  H e r a u f , in their capacity as mem­
bers of the Dickinson School Board; R ichard  R t k o w sk y , 
in his capacity as Transportation Supervisor of the 
Dickinson Public Schools,

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA

BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE CHILDREN’S 
DEFENSE FUND, THE FARMERS LEGAL ACTION 
GROUP, AND PRAIRIEFIRE RURAL ACTION, INC.

J u l iu s  L .  C h a m b er s  
J o h n  C h a r le s  B oger*
J a m es  P .  S tey er  
NAACP L egal D e f e n s e  and 

E ducational F u n d , I n c .
99 Hudson Street
New York, New York 10013
(212) 219-1900

Attorneys for Amici Curiae
*Counsel of Record



1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.............. ii
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF

AMICI CURIAE ..................  2
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.................. 5
ARGUMENT ...........................  11

I. Impoverished Families 
Like the Kadrmases Are 
Forced To Make Impossible 
Choices Regarding The 
Needs if Their Children ... 11
A. An Explanation of How

Poverty Is Measured ... 13
B. The Rate of Poverty 

Has Increased Signi­
ficantly in the Past 
Decade, Particularly
Among Children .......  15

C. Increasingly, Rural 
Families Have Fallen
Into Poverty .........  19

D. Poverty Demands Extra­
ordinary Sacrifices 
From Families Like the 
Kadrmases ............. 23

E. Poor Families Like the
Kadrmases Lack Finan­
cial Flexibility .....  30



11
I

F. Conclusion ............ 32

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases: Page 1
Brown v. Board of Education,

347 U.S. 483 (1954) ............ 34 l
Coleman v. Lyng, 663 F.Supp. 1315 

(D.N.D. 1987) ........ ’........ 4 1

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202
(1982) ......................... 29 i

1
Other Authorities
D. Caplovitz, The Poor Pay More 

(1967) ......................... 30,31
*

Census and Designation of Poverty 
and Income: Joint Hearing Before

t
)

the Subcomm. on Census and Popu- i
lation of the Comm, on Post 
Office and Civil Service, and 
the Subcomm. on Oversight of the

*

♦
Comm, on Wavs and Means. House 
of Representatives, 98th Cong., 
2nd Sess. (1984) ............... 13 , 14

f

1
•

Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities, Gap Between Rich 
and Poor Widest Ever Recorded. 
(1987) ......................... 19

.

i
Center on Budget and Policy

Priorities, Smaller Slices of
*

1

ill

the Pie. (1985) ...............
Children's Defense Fund,
A Children's Defense Budget:
FY 1988 An Analysis of Our 
Nations Investment in Children 
(1987) ..........................

Physicians Task Force on Hunger, 
Physician Task Force on Hunger 
in America. 1985 ...............

R. Plotnick and F.S. Kidmore, 
Progress Against Poverty: A 
Review of the 1964-1974 Decade 
(1975) ..........................

U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, Money 
Income of Households. Families 
and Persons in the United States 
(Series P. 60) 1984, 1986,
1987 ...........................

16,18

26,28

25

14

passim



I

?

t

No.86-7113

IN THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 

October Term, 1987

PAULA KADRMAS and SARITA KADRMAS, 
a minor by her next friend, Paula 
Kadrmas,

Appellants, 
vs.

DICKINSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS; ROSS JULSON, 
in his capacity as Superintendent of the 
Dickinson Public Schools; CLARENCE 
STORSETH, NANCY JOHNSON, MERRY JOHNSTON, 
HAROLD KREIG, HERB HERAUF, in their 
capacity as members of the Dickinson 
School Board; RICHARD RYKOWSKY, in his 
capacity as Transportation Supervisor 
of the Dickinson Public Schools,

Appellees.

On Appeal From The Supreme 
Court of North Dakota

BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE 
The Children's Defense Fund, the 

Farmers Legal Action Group, and Prairie 
Fire Rural Action, Inc. respectfully 
submit this brief as amici curiae. upon



2
consent of the parties, pursuant to Rule 
36.2 of the Rules of the Court.

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE 
The Children's Defense Fund (CDF) is 

a national public charity that for nearly 
20 years has served as an advocate for 
America's children and their families, 
especially poor, minority and handicapped 
children. CDF's goal is to educate the 
nation about the needs of poor children 
and to encourage preventive investments 
which will promote their full and healthy 
development. CDF's work spans a broad 
range of public policy issues, including 
family income, education, health care, 
child care and other services essential 
to the well-being of the next generation 
and to the future of the nation. CDF 
works for policies which will ensure that 
children from low-income families develop 
sound academic skills through effective

3
preschool, elementary and secondary 
school programs.

Farmers' Legal Action Group (FLAG) 
is a nonprofit corporation organized to 
provide legal education, assistance and 
support to financially distressed family 
farmers and their attorneys. In the 
course of their work, FLAG staff 
attorneys , and legal assistants have 
p r o v i d e d  l e c t u r e s ,  w o r k s h o p  
p j _ , seminars and consultation 
on rural poverty issues in more than 30 
states. FLAG'S staff meets with and 
e x p l a i n s  l e g a l  r i g h t s  a n d  
responsibilities affecting farmers in 
financial distress. FLAG also publishes 
a monthly newsletter that is circulated 
nationally and has published numerous 
educational books and materials.

In addition, Farmers' Legal Action 
Group represents farmers in numerous



4
class action lawsuits which seek to 
enforce federal statutes and regulations. 
In one case, Coleman v. Lvna. 663 F. 
Supp. 1315 (D.N.D. 1987), FLAG attorneys 
represent all 250,000-plus borrowers from 
Farmers Home Administration throughout 
the country. FLAG seeks the permission 
of this Court to appear as amicus curiae 
on behalf of the farmers and ranchers it 
represents in the Coleman v. Lvna 
litigation.

Prairiefire Rural Action, Inc. is an 
independent, non-profit, education, 
r e s e a r c h  and c o m m u n i t y  action 
organization based in Des Moines, Iowa. 
Since 1982, it has been actively involved 
in developing a regional and national 
grassroots response to the economic and 
social crisis in American agriculture and 
rural life.

5
The organization's principal 

objectives include keeping small and 
medium-size family farms in operation and 
farm families on the land; revitalizing 
family farm agriculture in the U.S.; and 
building strong coalitions in support of 
family farm agriculture.

Prairiefire has worked directly with 
farm and rural families adversely 
affected by the current economic crisis 
and has engaged in public policy research 
and legal advocacy. Increasingly,
Prairiefire staff have been called upon 
to educate and train the leaders and 
staff of farm, rural and religious 
organizations responding to the crisis in 
their respective states and regions.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 
This is a case grounded in the 

realities of poverty and what it means to 
be poor in America today.



6
Beneath the arguments about the

proper scope of the equal protection
clause lies the dilemma of a poor,
working -class family forced to make
untenable choices concerning the health 
and well-being of their children. It is 
not just a case about mandatory school 
busing fees imposed upon a small 
percentage of North Dakota school 
children, who are penalized for living in 
non-reorganized school districts. It is 
also a case about blue collar families 
trapped in the grip of poverty, and a 
s t a t e  f i n a n c i n g  s c h e m e  w h i c h  
unconstitutionally fails to take account 
of their plight.

To assist the Court in evaluating 
this case, amici hope to place the matter 
in its proper context. This case is

7
played out at the "poverty line,"1 below 
which 32.4 million Americans currently 
manage to survive. For a family at 100 
percent of the poverty line - which 
permits approximately 85 cents a meal per 
household member - $97 in school bus fees 
can pose a major financial dilemma.

The case involves a working poor 
family, one of more than two millions in 
America like the Kadrmases with one or 
more members employed fulltime in the 
workforce who still live at or below the 
margins of poverty. Including

1 For a family of four, the 
official poverty threshold in 1986 was 
$11,203 a year. This standard is based 
on the United States Department of 
Agriculture's measure of the cost of a 
temporary, low-budget diet, which by 1986 
figures amount to approximately $2.55 per 
person per day in a family of four. This 
figure is then multiplied by a factor of 
three to reflect the assumption that food 
typically represents one-third of the 
total expenses of a low-income family, an 
assumption many feel is significantly 
outdated.



8
dependents, these families represent 6.4 
million people, or 19 percent of the 
poor.2 Working poor families have become 
commonplace in rural, farm-belt states 
such as North Dakota, where the energy 
and agricultural sectors have been 
buffeted by the economic downswings of 
the past decade. For many Midwestern 
families like the Kadrmases, poverty has 
become the dominant fact of life in the 
1980s.

Coping with poverty has forced 
parents like Paula Kadrmas to make trade­
offs in their children's lives that would 
be inconceivable to most Americans. 
There is simply not enough money for all 
the basic necessities of life, let alone 
any luxuries. Young children like Sarita

2 United States Department of 
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Money
^ lcotne------ Households. Families anH
Persons_in the United States 33 (1984
Apr. 1986) (Series P. 60 No. 151).

9

i

>

»

Kadrmas need adequate food and nutrition; 
they need clothes; they need decent 
shelter; they need adequate health care; 
and, of course, they need access to a 
decent education, which represents their 
best hope for lifting themselves out of 
poverty.

Yet each of these bare essentials 
exacts a monetary cost. When added 
together, the sum total of such 
necessities can overwhelm a family living 
at the margin of poverty (not to mention 
40 percent of indigent households with 
incomes which are less than half the 
official poverty standard).2 For such 
families, $97 a year for school bus fees 
represents food out of a child's mouth, 
clothing off her back, or heat turned 
down low in che bone-chilling winters of

3 United States Census Bureau, 1987 
poverty data.

I



10
North Dakota. North Dakota's mandatory 

fee, in short, can force poor 
families like the Kadrmases to make 
bitter choices between the State's 
educational demands and their child's 
need for food, health care, and adequate 
shelter.

The statutes under challenge in the 
case are arbitrary and irrational. They 
exact no bus fees at all from 85% of 
North Dakota's families —  whether rich
or poor who happen to live in
reorganized school districts. At the
same time, they allow mandatory bus fees
in districts that have not reorganized, 
without providing any waiver at all, even 
for the most desperately poor of 
families. These statutes thus cast the 
heaviest financial burden on an 
arbitrary minority of North Dakota 
families like the Kadrmases, who are poor

11
and whose voice cannot be heard in the 
politie^x prnrp’js. By so burdening the 
right of these indigent children to 
education, these statutes violate the 
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment.

ARGUMENT
IMPOVERISHED FAMILIES LIKE THE 
KADRMASES ARE FORCED TO MAKE 
IMPOSSIBLE CHOICES REGARDING THE 
NEEDS OF THEIR CHILDREN *
To those like the Kadrmases who are

poor, poverty is neither a statistical
nor a sociological matter. Their
condition demands a daily struggle for
survival. The deprivation they confront
is real, not a trick of rhetoric or
statistical analysis. Thus any
consideration of the constitutionality of
a $97 bus fee must begin by reflecting
both upon the definition of poverty and
upon what that definition means in human
terms.



12
The Kadrmas family consists of the 

appellants, Paula and Sarita, Paula's 
husband and two pre-school children. Mr. 
Kadrmas was intermittently employed as a 
motorman for an oil drilling company at 
the time of this action. The trial court 
found that the Kadrmas family had a gross 
(pre-tax) income at or near the federal 
poverty level for a family of five. The 
Kadrmases received no federal housing 
subsidies, no Medicaid, and no Food 
Stamps. Paula Kadrmas indicated that she 
and her husband offered shelter and food 
to several of her relatives for five 
months during the year of the trial, 
making a total of up to nine persons 
living off an income which barely met the 
federal poverty line for a family of 
five.4

4 Former co-plaintiff, Marcia
Hall (who is not an appellant in this
Court because she has moved out of North

13
A. An Explanation of How Poverty 

Is Measured
The poverty "line" was initially 

established by taking the cost of what 
the United States Department of 
Agriculture in 1959 called the "economy 
food plan" (itself a lower-cost diet than 
the Agriculture Department's definition 
of a "minimum standard diet") and 
multiplying it by three.5 * A few years

Dakota) had an income substantially below 
the federal poverty standard for a family 
of three. Ms. Hall held two jobs in an 
attempt to support her two young 
children; she received no government 
benefits other than some Food Stamps.

and
- censor jnd Designation of Poverty 
Income: Joint Hearing Before the

Subcomm. on Census and Population of the
Comm, on Post Office and Civil Service,
and the Subcomm. on Oversight, of the
Comm. on Wavs and Means. House of

Cong., 2nd Sess. 
[hereinafter Joint 
Income! (testimony 
The factor of 3

Representatives. 98th 
pp. 8, 11, 14 (1984)
Hearing on Poverty and 
of Mollie Orshansky). 
was based on surveys by the Bureau of 
Census done in 1955 which showed that the 
"economy food plan" would cost 
approximately one-third of the median 
household budget for a family of three.



14
later the number was indexed to annual 
changes in the rate of inflation instead 
of to annual recalculation of the cost of 
the economy food plan.6 The level of 
income necessary to escape poverty was 
thus deliberately understated at the

Ms. Orshansky testified that "in choosing 
the lowest food plan that the Agriculture
Department_had, . . . as in choosing the
so-called multiplier that I did and that 
X. got approved. I thought ... that it was
better to maybe understate the need."
X d ., at 11.(Emphasis added). see 
Plotnick & Skidmore, Progress Against 
Poverty. 32-33 (1975).

/Z  •Joint Hearing on Poverty and 
Income (testimony of Mollie Orshansky), 
supra, at 15. The indexing of the
poverty rate to the Consumer Price Index 
was a compromise made in 1969. At that 
time, Ms. Orshansky and the head of her 
g r o u p  in the S o c i a l  S e c u r i t y  
Administration, Mrs. Marion, decided that 
the poverty line should be raised to 
compensate for changes in food budget 
patterns reflected in a 1965 survey 
conducted by the Census Bureau. They 
first asked the permission of the Office 
of Management and Budget and the Council 
of Economic Advisers and were told, "You 
can't change it [the poverty line]; it is 
no longer yours." The indexing was a compromise.

15
start;7 thereafter that understatement 
was locked in by indexation.8 * *

W o r k i n g  families like the 
Kadrmases, who receive virtually no 
government benefits, thus bear the full 
brunt of poverty's impact.

B. The Rate of Poverty Has 
Increased Significantly in the 
Past Decade. Particularly Among 
Children

From 1959, when this nation began 
keeping poverty statistics, the 
percentage of Americans who were poor 
dropped rather steadily until 1973, from

' See note 4, supra.
8 Even if the original poverty line

in 1959 was realistic, its counterpart 
today is, if anything, too low, since
shelter, home heating and health care 
costs to the poor have increased at rates 
exceeding the rate of inflation. Center 
on Budget and Policy Priorities, Smaller 
Slice of The Pie. 16 (1985); Joint 
Hearing On Poverty and Income (testimony 
of Mollie Orshansky), at 14.



16
22.4 percent to 11.1 percent.9 Over the 
next five years, changes were mainly 
cyclical, reflecting the severe recession 
of 1974-75, but ending with a 1978 
poverty rate of 11.4 percent.-1-0 After 
1978, however, the rate of Americans 
living in poverty began a steady upward 
trend, peaking at 15.3 percent in 1983. 
While the national rate has declined 
slightly since 1984, poverty figures in 
the rural Midwest have remained high. 
Even the national total of 32.4 million 
impoverished citizens in 1986 represents 
nearly 8 million more poor Americans than

9 Bureau of the Census, United 
States Department of Commerce. Monev 
lncgme_and Poverty Status of Familjer ~ ^
Persons— in— the_United States; 1986 21
(Series P.-60, No. 178 July 1987) '

10 Id.

17
in 1978, and more than nine million more 
than in 1973 (a 40% increase).11

Equally significant, a major shift 
has occurred in the composition of the 
poor. With the indexing of Social 
Security and the enactment of the 
Supplemental Security Income program 
(SSI), poverty has decreased among the 
eiHpriv. At thp> same time, however, it 
has sharply increased for American 
children like Sarita Kadrmas. Among 
families with children, especially 
single-parent families like Marsha Hall 
and her two youngsters, poverty has 
soared to epidemic proportions in the 
1980s. More than one out of every five 
American children is now poor.12 *

11 Id.
12 Id. as revised by the Bureau of 

the Census in 1987. In North Dakota, the
latest figures reveal that nearly one out 
of five children (18.2%) live in poverty 
today.



18

Census figures reveal another 
disturbing trend about American poverty 
in the 1980s: the poor are becoming
poorer, not just more numerous.^
Over- all, the average poor family in 
1986 had an income $4,394 below the 
official federal poverty level —  the 
third worst of any year since 1963. The 
poor have grown poorer even though a 
record 41.5% of all poor people, like the 
Kadrmases and Marsha Hall, were working

13 Virtually two out of five poor 
Americans (40 percent) lived in families 
with income below half the poverty line 
in 1986, compared to one-third in 1980 
and less than 30 percent in 1975. That 
means that nearly 13 million Americans 
are now living with incomes below half 
the poverty line. For a family of four, 
existing with an income below half the 
poverty line meant living on less than 
$5600 for the entire year of 1986? for a 
family of three this meant existing on 
less than $4,550. Center on Budget and 
Policy Priorities, supra, at 14.

19
at least part-time in 1986, equal to the 
highest percentage since 1968.14

C. Increasingly, Rural Families 
Have Fallen Into Poverty

The sharp increase in American 
poverty has taken a heavy toll among 
farmers and energy workers in North 
Dakota and in rural America generally. 
Throughout rural areas of the country, 
increasing numbers of once-productive 
residents find themselves without work,15

14 Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities, Washington, Gap Between Rich 
and Poor Widest Ever Recorded , August 
17, 1987.

15 U n e m p l o y m e n t  has ri s e n  
dramatically in recent years in the non­
metropolitan counties of the United 
States. In 1979, among the 2,400 non­
metropolitan counties, only 300 had 
unemployment rates higher than 9%, By 
1985, that number had risen to 1,100, 
nearly half the total.



20
without food16 and often without their 
land.

The accelerated loss of farms in 
1986 is easily documented using 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) data. 
Over the course of 1985, some 43,000 
farms were lost, according to the 
National Agricultural Statistics Service 
count —  117 farms per day, or one every 
10 minutes. Between the end of 1985 and 
the end of 1986, an additional 60,000 
farms vanished from the count, increasing 
the average rate of loss to more than 165 
farms per day, or one farm every 7 
minutes —  a staggering 40% increase over 
the number of farms lost in 1985.

16 A 1986 study by Public Voice for 
Food and Health Policy confirmed that a 
growing number of rural Americans fail to 
receive food stamps even though they are 
eligible. From 1979 to 1983, the number 
of rural poor not receiving food stamp 
assistance increased by 32 percent, from 
5.67 to 7.51 million persons.

Like the Kadrmases, these rural 
families are most often hardworking, 
formerly middle-class Americans who have 
fallen into poverty as a result of 
broader eccnomir conditions beyond their 
individual control. These conditions are 
reflected by traditional indicators: 
declining net worth and land values, 
declining prices for farm products, 
increasing numbers of forced land 
transfers, and swollen debt loads. The 
impact has been felt across the board,—  

in rural banks, small town retail 
businesses and the agricultural implement 
manufacturing industry. With one of 
every five jobs in America related to 
food production and distribution, the old 
adage that economic downswings are both



22
farm-led and farm-fed has its roots in 
economic reality.17

The crisis has been particularly 
severe in the Middle West —  in states 
like the Dakotas, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas 
and Missouri —  where agricultural and 
energy workers have been hard hit. In 
North Dakota alone, an estimated 36,000 
children (or slightly less than one out 
of five) now live in families with 
incomes below the federal poverty 
standard.18 * This is true despite the 
fact that almost 60 percent of mothers 
with children ages six to seventeen

17 In 1983 the median family income 
for farm families was no more than three- 
fourths that of non-farm families. The 
farm resident poverty rate of 24 percent 
far exceeded the poverty rate of 15 
percent found for non-farm residents. 
United States Census Bureau, Money Income 
and Poverty Status of Families and 
Persons in the U.S. 1983 (issued 1984) 
(Series p. 60).

18 Children's Defense Fund, 1987
Data.

23
follow the pattern of Marsha Hall and 
work outside the home.1^

Despite their growing numbers, the 
rural poor have not become a potent 
political force. Families like the
Kadrmases are a minority within the 
Dickinson School District, unable through 
the political process to alter the bus 
fees which are an insignificant issue for 
many of their more prosperous neighbors.

D. Poverty Demands Sacrifices From 
Families like the Kadrmases

The foregoing poverty figures, while 
disturbing in absolute terms, cannot 
reveal the daily reality in which poor 
families like the Kadrmases must survive. 
A faiuxiy Iv^r.g at or below the poverty 
level must do without many things which 
families with an average income consider 
to be "necessities " —  a bed for each

19 Id.



24
family member, adequate clothing and 
shoes, school supplies, or an occasional 
movie. Technically, an income at the 
official federal poverty level should 
enable families to purchase the bare 
necessities of life, since that was the 
basis upon which the standard was 
originally conceived. Yet an itemized 
family budget drawn at that level falls 
far short of adequacy. Poverty forces 
families to make untenable choices among 
their children's basic needs —  for food, 
for shelter, for health care, for a 
minimally adequate education.

Food and nutrition is one area where 
poor families are hardest hit. Because 
the poverty level food budget for a 
family of four is pegged at about $2.55 
per person per day (85 cents per meal) , 
many poor people sometimes go hungry, or 
buy their groceries at markets where day-

old bread and damaged canned foods are 
sold at discounts. Yet no matter what 
cost-cutting measures are adopted, a 
poverty level budget can have serious 
nutritional consequences, particularly 
for poor children. The Physician Task 
Force on Hunger in America estimated in 
1985 that approximately 20 million poor 
Americans experience hunger at some point 
each month, and that malnutrition affects 
almost 500,000 American children.20

Health care, an issue closely 
related to adequate food and nutrition 
standards, is another area where poor 
families must make deep sacrifices.21

- 25 -

20 The Physicians Task Force on 
Hunger in America. 1985 Report.

21 The record at trial revealed that 
plaintiff Paula Kadrmas as well as former 
plaintiff Marshall Hall had significant 
debts for unpaid medical bills. 
(Transcript, at 43 and 86 respectively.)

|I



26
The reason for the inadequate health care 
which poor Americans so often receive is 
quite simple —  their lack of money. As 
the unpaid medical bills of the Kadrmas 
family reflect, most poor people simply 
cannot afford private medical care, and 
many are not covered by insurance.22

In general, then, poor families at 
best have restricted access to proper 
medical attention. The care they do 
receive is often too late and of low

22 Our nation's employer-sponsored 
health insurance system has never worked 
well for millions of low-income families 
or for irregularly employed workers like 
Mr. Kadrmas. Thirty percent of all 
employers who pay the minimum wage to 
more than half their work force offer no 
health insurance. Between 1979 and 1984, 
the number of completely uninsured 
Americans grew from 26.2 million to 35 
million —  a one-third increase in just 
five years. Of all age groups, children 
suffer most from weaknesses in the public 
and private insurance systems. In 1984, 
children made up one-third of America's 
35 million uninsured persons. Children's 
Defense Fund, A Children's Defense Budget 
FY 1988: An Analysis of Our Nation's 
Investment in Children (1987).

27
quality. Yet the relative need for 
health care is greatest among those 
groups —  children and young mothers—  
which form a disproportionate share of 
the population in poverty. Nutritional 
deficiencies in early childhood can 
retard brain growth and school 
performance. This early damage--
sometimes followed by frequent illness 
and further malnutrition, as well as 
crowded and unsanitary living conditions 
—  is exacerbated by a lack of regular 
medical attention which may affect an 
adult's ability to obtain adequate 
employment.

Housing and utility costs represent 
yet another complicating factor facing 
poor families. The number of low-income 
families paying more than one-half of 
their incomes for rent and utilities rose 
from 3.7 million to 6.3 million (or



nearly one-half of all low-income 
households) between 1975 and 1982.23 In 
the rural Midwest, where both housing and 
energy costs have been rising, families 
like the Kadrmases face a very difficult 
time just meeting their basic shelter 
needs. Plaintiff Kadrmas testified, for 
example, that she paid $95 per month for 
electricity and that propane fuel for

- 28 -

23 Federal poverty guidelines set 
30% of income as the amount a family 
should generally spend on rent or 
mortgage payments. According to 1987 
Census Bureau figures, however, of 
families earning less than $7,000 last 
year, 7 8% of them spent over this 
proportion of their meager incomes on 
housing. According to the same data, the 
average family earning between $7,000- 
10,000 a year spent 59% of its income on 
housing.

According to a study conducted by 
the Low Income Housing Information 
Service, more than 8 million low-income 
renters were in the market for the 4.2 
million units at affordable prices in 
1985. This gap —  4 million units —  is 
120 percent larger than it was in 1980. 
Children's Defense Fund, A Children's 
Defense Budget FY 1988 supra. 1987.

29
heat cost the family $277 every two 
months. (Transcript, at 42).

"Necessities" for poor families and 
their children do not end with food, 
health care and shelter, however. 
"Education," as this Court has noted, 
"provides the basic tools by which 
individuals might lead economically 
productive lives to the benefit of us 
aii>"24 yet to go to school costs money 
—  clothing, books, notebooks, pencils, 
gym shoes etc. Even to go to church 
costs money —  some Sunday clothes, 
carfare to get there, a little offering. 
To belong to the Boy Scouts or Girl 
Scouts costs money -- uniforms, 
occasional dues, shared costs of a 
picnic.

24 Plvler v. Doe. 457 U.S. 202, 221 
(1982).