poverty in america research questions

Affiliate Login

• Policy Briefs
• Executive Committee
• Emeriti Faculty
• UC Network on Child Health, Poverty, and Public Policy
• Visting Graduate Scholars
• Media Mentions
• Center Updates
• Contact the Center
• for Research Affiliates
• for Graduate Students
• Visiting Faculty Scholars
• External Opportunities
• The Non-traditional Safety Net: Health & Education
• Labor Markets & Poverty
• Children & Intergenerational Transmission of Poverty
• Immigration & Poverty
• Other Activities
• Past Events
• Policy Briefs Short summaries of our research
• Poverty Facts
• Employment, Earnings and Inequality
• Increasing College Access and Success for Low Income Students
• American Poverty Research
• Profiles in Poverty Research
• Government Agencies
• Other Poverty Centers

Frequently Asked Questions

Faqs on poverty.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Well-Being and Stability among Low-income Families: A 10-Year Review of Research

Yoshie sano.

1 Department of Human Development, Washington State University Vancouver, 14204 NE Salmon Creek Avenue, Vancouver, WA 98686 USA

Sheila Mammen

2 Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 309 Stockbridge Hall, Amherst, MA 01003 USA

Myah Houghten

3 Child and Family Research Unit, Washington State University Extension, 412 E. Spokane Falls Blvd, Spokane, WA 99202 USA

Scholarship on families in poverty, in the last decade, documented various struggles and challenges faced by low-income families and expanded our understanding of their complicated life circumstances embedded within the contexts of community, culture, and policies. The research articles published in the Journal of Family and Economic Issues during this time, that highlighted poverty, focused primarily on three topic areas: economic security, family life issues, and food security. Overall, findings conclude that family well-being and stability cannot be promoted without the consideration of environmental factors. They depend on the interaction among individual (e.g., increased human capital), family (e.g., positive co-parental relationship), community (e.g., affordable childcare), and policy changes (e.g., realistic welfare-to-work programs). Collectively, the articles have provided a road map for future research directions.

Introduction

Family well-being, essential to the smooth functioning of communities and societies, is hindered when there is high incidence of poverty. Poverty rate in the US hovered around 14% prior to the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PROWRA) of 1996 (U.S. Census 2019a ). Following welfare reform, the poverty rate started to decline (to a low of 11.3% in 2000) (U.S. Census 2019a ), although scholars have questioned if PROWRA is the cause of this decline. Uncertainties in the economy, including the 2008 Great Recession, caused the poverty rate to climb again and remain at around 15% until 2014. With the fading effects of the recession, the US poverty rate was at 11.8% in early 2020, right before the current Coronavirus pandemic. One group that is most vulnerable to poverty, however, are female-headed households, who consistently comprise 50% of all households living in poverty. Other vulnerable groups include non-Whites [poverty rate in 2018, Blacks: 22%; Hispanics: 19%; Native Americans: 24%] (Kaiser Family Foundation 2020 ); rural communities [poverty rate in 2018, non-metro: 16%; metro: 13%] (Economic Research Service 2020 ); and children [poverty rate in 2018, 16%; i.e. 1 in every 6 children] (US Census 2019b ).

Family well-being is a multidimensional concept that refers to a family’s subjective sense of overall welfare, taking into account the physical and emotional health of family members as well as their interconnectedness, which in turn results in family stability (a sense of consistency, predictability, and continuity). There are many components that contribute to the well-being of families such as income sufficiency, food security, stable family environment, mental and physical health security, safe housing and communities, employment opportunities, and adequate transportation. These components, taken as a whole, provide the necessary foundation for the well-being of families. For low-income families, in particular, the lack of some or all of these dimensions can be severely detrimental to their well-being since this could lead to poverty. Such a direct link between lack of well-being and poverty can ultimately lead to family instability.

In this paper, we will review select research findings of the past decade published in the Journal of Family and Economic Issues from 2010 to 2019 that have increased our understanding of low-income families living in poverty. Each study employed a unique approach to its particular topic. Some studies utilized large secondary datasets including both metropolitan and non-metropolitan residents while others collected their own data from a smaller sample generated by non-probability sampling. However, all studies focused on low-income families in the United States with the exception of one study that examined poverty-related social policy in Columbia. The 29 papers, 1 while highly diverse, all illustrated the strengths and challenges faced by individuals and families living with limited resources.

Our review was carried out in multiple stages. First, each author independently reviewed the 29 articles, and then the authors qualitatively compared and contrasted the main themes that emerged from these articles. In the last step, the authors identified three specific dimensions of well-being 2 : economic security, family life, and food security. Our objective was not to provide a comprehensive summary of all poverty-related issues addressed in these articles but, rather, to synthesize the research findings along these three dimensions to see how they have contributed to the current knowledge base regarding low-income families and to provide a path for future research in order to improve family well-being and stability.

Families in Poverty: Decade in Review

Economic security among low-income families.

In the last decade, research on the economic security of low-income families has centered around poverty dynamics, the effectiveness of welfare-to-work programs, employment issues, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and banking behavior.

Poverty Dynamics

Mammen et al. ( 2015 ) developed the Economic Well-Being Continuum (EWC) as a comprehensive measure to describe the circumstances of low-income families in eight specific dimensions (child care, employability, food security, health care security, housing security, transportation, reliance of assistance programs, and capabilities) and establish their level of economic functioning (persistently poor, struggling, and getting by). When certain life circumstances and trigger events experienced by low-income mothers, which contributed to their entry into and exit from poverty, were examined with the EWC, the authors found that family health issues and changes in mothers’ intimate relationships acted as significant trigger events that established or altered the economic functioning of the families. We believe that what mitigated families’ hardships was their support networks. Prawitz et al. ( 2013 ) reported on the centrality of locus of control among low-income individuals who expressed less financial distress and more hopefulness when locus of control was more internal to them. When low-income individuals were able to make financial adjustments, however, they had more financial distress, accompanied with more hopefulness, possibly implying that while the current situation may be bleak, their adaptive responses may have fostered hopefulness that things would improve.

Effectiveness of Welfare-to-Work Programs Among Low-Income Families

One of the goals of PRWORA was to enable recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to exit the program and enter the job market. The transition from welfare to work, however, was not as effective when low-income individuals were trained only through labor force attachment (LFA) programs. Kim ( 2010 , 2012 ) found that former TANF recipients were more likely to obtain employment when LFA programs were combined with human capital development (HCD) programs as participation in HCD programs were related to longer employment durations and lower probability of TANF re-entry.

Participants in Welfare-to-Work programs, who succeeded leaving assistance and obtaining employment, disclosed low wages; informal labor market activity; notable levels of unmet needs; and continued government, community, and social support use (Livermore et al. 2011 ). Those with higher earnings and regular nonmonetary help from family and friends were likely to have more needs met; those who had fewer needs met reported lower wages, had more young children, used government support programs (including childcare subsidies), and engaged in informal labor market activity (Davis et al. 2018 ; Grobe et al. 2017 ; Livermore et al. 2011 ).

Employment Issues

An important way to exit poverty and attain economic security is through employment. Unfortunately, many low-income mothers, especially rural low-income mothers, face daunting challenges to remain employed. Son and Bauer ( 2010 ) reported that mothers who were able to remain in the same job did so because they utilized their limited resources and developed strategies to combine work and family life. These strategies included utilizing social support network for childcare and other household activities as well as relying, where possible, on flexibility at work such as non-standard work hours and supportive supervisors.

One way that low-income mothers were more likely to be employed, and especially employed full-time, was if they were provided state childcare subsidy (Davis et al. 2018 ) and the receipt of childcare subsidy was tied to their employment (Grobe et al. 2017 ). High level of job instability (job loss, major reduction in work hours), however, created a greater likelihood of losing the childcare subsidy. While job changes per se was not related to loss of childcare subsidy, parents required the subsidy to remain employed.

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)

The EITC program, initiated in 1975, is the largest federal assistance program targeted towards working poor families in order to supplement their household wages and to offset their Social Security taxes (Mammen et al. 2011 ). Despite the many benefits of the EITC, a substantial portion of working families, especially in rural communities, do not participate in the program. Mammen et al. ( 2011 ) found that, among rural low-income women, the EITC non-participants were more likely to be Hispanic, be less educated, have larger families, perceive their income as being inadequate, live in more rural counties, and possess little understanding of the EITC. Participating rural working mothers, on the other hand, were more likely to be single, food secure, and satisfied with life.

One important element of the EITC program is the frequency with which the tax credit payments are received by the working families: lumpsum, periodic, or monthly. Kramer et al. ( 2019 ) reported that periodic EITC payment recipients experienced significantly lower levels of perceived financial stress. This relationship was partly mediated by less need to borrow money, lower levels of food insecurity, and fewer unpaid bills. Therefore, periodic EITC payments may enhance the positive association between the EITC and financial well-being of families.

Banking Behavior of Low-Income Families

Having a bank account is more likely to enable low-income families to build assets and to offset unexpected financial expenditures. According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission (FDIC), among households with incomes less than $30,000, 38% of them were unbanked in 2017 (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 2018 ). Grinstein-Weiss et al. ( 2010 ) found that low-income households who did not have a bank account (unbanked) were more likely to be younger, Black, unpartnered, have more children, and have less income. They were also less likely to have attended college and less likely to be employed full-time. Banked participants, however, were more likely to have better saving performance in Individual Development Accounts (IDA) 3 programs and lower risks of dropping out the IDA programs. According to Rao and Malapit ( 2015 ), for female-headed households, having an additional child increased their likelihood to be underbanked or unbanked. Such financial behavior is more prevalent among female-headed households compared to couples or male-headed households, likely due to the opportunity cost of time for women and the intimidation they feel, perhaps, based on their lack of banking sophistication.

Family Life Issues

Family is where individuals seek rest and support, take nutrition, promote good health and, perhaps, most importantly, raise the next generation. In this section we will discuss findings from the last decade on work-family balance, parenting dynamics, and child well-being and poverty.

Work and Family Life

Many rural low-income families face daunting challenges to balance work and family life. Katras et al. ( 2015 ) found low-income families were able to juggle the demands of work and family life if they had access to resources such as informal social support, could manage both work and family time, and were in jobs that supported work and family life. Difficulties regarding availability of resources or inflexibility in employment created problems in work and family life balance (Katras et al. 2015 ). As mentioned previously, low-income mothers relied on informal support for childcare and household tasks. They also depended on sympathetic supervisors who provided flexible work hours (Son and Bauer 2010 ).

Work-family life balance that working mothers try to achieve can be easily sabotaged by housing instability. Kull et al. ( 2016 ) reported that higher residential mobility was associated with changes in employment status and relationships, experiences of intimate partner violence, as well as private-market rentals, substandard housing, and bad neighborhoods.

Parenting Dynamics

In their study of unmarried couples who coparented children, Jamison et al. ( 2017 ) documented that the difficulties of living in poverty, combined with the demands of parenting young children, can create stress and chaos. Parents who were successful in coparenting were those who were able to manage their limited resources well. Jamison et al. concluded that the best way of assisting low-income couples manage day-to-day stress is by providing them with adequate resources as well as information on how to use these resources effectively.

Traditionally, poverty research has focused on low-income mothers. Myers ( 2013 ), however, studied how low-income fathers defined responsible fatherhood. Previous findings on middle-class fathers have emphasized the importance of breadwinning and childcare rearing roles (Schoppe-Sullivan and Fagon 2020 ). Low-income fathers, who did not provide finances or primary care, on the other hand, did not consider responsible fatherhood to include provision for either of these two functions. Instead they defined responsible fatherhood as spending time in non-caregiving activities, voluntarily distancing themselves from a child when it is in the child’s interest to do so, acknowledging paternity in non-legal settings, spending money on presents, engaging in fun activities, attending to special needs, keeping abreast of what is going on in the child’s home, and ensuring that they are not absent from the child’s life (Myers 2013 ).

Child Well-Being and Poverty

The association between poverty and negative child outcomes has been well-established. Children growing up in poverty are more likely to experience negative health outcomes, poor academic performance, higher dropout rates, and behavioral issues compared to children in middle- and upper-income households (Brooks-Gunn and Duncan 1997 ). Focusing on three economic indicators (income, material hardship, and non-liquid assets), Kainz et al. ( 2012 ) found an association among them and variations in 36-month old children’s social and cognitive development. Poverty status, measured by income-to-needs ratio, was related to lower cognitive skills while the presence of non-liquid assets was associated with higher cognitive skills. Greater material hardship was correlated with more social problems for these children.

Investing in children’s education produces positive child outcomes (Chaudry and Wimer 2016 ). Child subsidy programs expand childcare options for low-income parents. De Marco and Vernon-Feagans ( 2015 ) found that parents who received child subsidies tended to choose center-based care. They concluded that childcare, regardless of type, was of higher quality when these families received child subsidies. Okech ( 2011 ), whose focus was on parents’ decision to enroll in preschool children’s college education accounts, found that decisions were influenced by parental education level as well as parents’ participation in information sessions about the account.

Another indicator of child well-being is good health. According to Valluri et al. ( 2015 ), low-income mothers chose healthcare visits for themselves and their child simultaneously. Pediatric visits increased with new medical conditions and greater number of chronic conditions among children, and maternal healthcare use increased with higher maternal depression scores, chronic conditions, new medical conditions, more children, more pediatric visits, prenatal/post-partum needs, and having health insurance coverage. Maternal health visits, on the other hand, decreased with maternal depression, pregnancy, being Latina or Black, having more children, and if mothers were covered through private health insurance.

Food Insecurity

Consumption of nutritious food is necessary for a healthy, productive life for both adults and children. Having enough food at home contributes to an enhanced sense of family well-being. In this section, we will discuss findings related to the measurement of food insecurity, factors influencing food insecurity, and food-related assistance programs.

Measurement of Food Insecurity

Balistreri ( 2016 ) argued that the commonly used measure of food security (18-item U.S. Household Food Security Survey) only captures the prevalence of food insecurity, not its depth or severity. He has, instead, proposed the Food Insecurity Index (FII) to assess the degree of food insecurity. Using the FII, Balistreri found that low-income households without children experienced the most rapid increases in the depth and severity of food insecurity since the 2008 Great Recession until 2018. Although White non-Hispanic households, with or without children, had lower food insecurity prevalence rates, they experienced steeper increases in both depth and severity throughout the last decade. Finally, Black non-Hispanic households, with and without children, were most likely to suffer food insecurity.

Factors Leading to Food Insecurity

Guo ( 2011 ) documented that, regardless of socio-economic status, family food security is related to household assets. This is because the interaction between household assets and income loss buffered changes in food consumption patterns. Further, regardless of household income level, the risk of food insecurity increased, when faced with liquidity constraint and asset inadequacy (Chang et al. 2014 ). This relationship was strongest among low-income families. Financial constraint was found to be an exogenous factor in the determination of food insecurity. Food insecurity also resulted partly from the interaction between unstable income and nonstandard work schedules (multiple jobs, part-time, varied hours). While this association differed across household types, it was most pronounced in male- and female-headed households, and weakest among married couples (Coleman-Jensen 2011 ). The above findings, taken together, implies that food insecurity should be considered in the broader context of asset building and work environment.

The food security of Latino immigrant families in rural communities was influenced by multiple ecological layers. This included family characteristics (higher literacy and life skills), community conditions (state of the local economy, embrace of diversity, affordable housing, and access to health care), cultural values (familism), as well as federal immigration policy (Sano et al. 2011 ). The rapidly expanding growth among Latino families in rural areas of the US requires that attention be paid to the food security needs of this mostly vulnerable population (Hanson 2016 ). In rural Colombia, conditional cash transfers (CCT) increased the perception of food insecurity and subjective poverty among marginalized families (Morales-Martínez and Gori-Maia 2018 ). The conditionalities (families’ commitment to education, good health, and proper nutrition) imposed on the beneficiary families reduced their dissatisfaction with health and education.

Food-Related Assistance Programs

In 2005 and 2010, metro and non-metro households had relatively similar levels of food insecurity. Yet, Nielsen et al. ( 2018 ) reported that a higher proportion of non-metro households received government food assistance (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP], Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children [WIC], free and/or reduced school meals, and related local and/or federal programs) compared to metro households. After the Great Recession, when government resources were expanded, this assistance gap widened even further. Nonetheless, according to Chang et al. ( 2015 ), participation in SNAP and WIC programs increased fruit and vegetable consumption significantly among disadvantaged families. Other factors such as exercise habits, family support, and willingness to adopt a healthy lifestyle played a bigger role in increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables. For some families, however, nutrition knowledge seemed to decrease actual intake of the same.

In a study that identified nonfood needs of low-income households who patronized food pantries, Fiese et al. ( 2014 ) classified product needs into three categories: products for survival (water, food, medicine), products to keep the household together (soap, toilet paper, hygiene products), and products to “make do” (paper plates, dish soap, household cleaning supplies). When households went without these products, it resulted in stress, personal degradation, and in illegal activities.

Overall Summary of Findings

The research findings from JFEI articles presented above have identified multiple challenges and have suggested future research directions to improve the well-being and stability of vulnerable families. Taken together, the findings imply that family economic functioning depends on the interaction among individual, family, and contextual factors (e.g., social network, culture, policies). Additionally, emphasizing employment alone, without consideration of factors such as childcare (availability, accessibility, affordability) or jobs (availability, flexibility), is not adequate to successfully enable welfare recipients to exit the program. Governmental and institutional support also play an important role in the economic security of low-income families, such as participation in the EITC, for those who are eligible, and in the banking sector.

In order to balance work and family life, which would contribute to family well-being, working poor mothers require informal social support, especially for childcare and household tasks. In addition to effective resource management skills, it is important for low-income mothers to have a reliable co-parent who is more likely to decrease day-to-day stress and chaos in the household. Even those low-income fathers, unable to provide finances and primary care, may provide support in non-traditional ways, thereby, contributing to family stability. Utilizing available resources such as childcare subsidies, college savings programs, or local financial institutions enhance child well-being.

Food security is another important aspect of family well-being. New measures combined with traditional approaches should be used to capture the true extent of the depth and severity of food insecurity. Multidimensional in nature, food insecurity is impacted, not only by income, but also by household assets, food management knowledge and skills, cultural values, community resources, as well as federal policies. This is particularly true for racial/ethnic minorities and rural immigrant families.

Future Research Directions

The 29 articles from the Journal of Family and Economic Issues, that are reviewed here, suggest strategies for improved family well-being and increased stability. These strategies incorporate the true needs of low-income families with a variety of support systems at the individual (e.g., increase human capital), family (e.g., positive co-parental relationship), community (e.g., affordable childcare), and policy (e.g., realistic welfare-to-work programs) levels. The findings of these studies have provided a road map for future research directions. In this section, we will present a general direction for future research; detailed research recommendations, tied to specific findings, can be found in Table ​ Table1 1 (Economic Security), Table  2 (Family Life Issues), and Table  3 (Food Security).

Summary of findings and suggested areas of future research on economic security among low-income families

Summary of findings and suggested areas of future research questions on family life issues among low-income families

Summary of findings and suggested areas of future research questions on food insecurity among low-income families

Future research should examine life circumstances and trigger events that may affect changes in families’ economic functioning including the size and duration of its impact. Recent examples of trigger events that could cause a cascading effect on low-income families include natural disasters, the opioid crisis, technological displacement of jobs, and the novel Coronavirus pandemic. Research should also look at how such events may be mitigated in vulnerable families by individuals’ agencies such as internal locus of control, hopefulness, and financial literacy. The evaluation of current welfare programs and policies strongly suggest that future research must explore the impact of variations of state welfare policies including work requirements, strategies to incentivize employers to provide flexible work policies, and community-based support systems for parents of young children. Scholars should also explore low-income families’ attitudes, knowledge, and decision-making processes in the area of finances including their reluctance to participate in the banking sector and, for those who qualify, in the EITC program. At the same time, scholars should also not neglect to identify disincentives created by financial institutions that stand in the way of families participating in the banking system.

Previous research has established that work-family balance is vital for low-income mothers to obtain and maintain their employment in order to promote family well-being. Future research should focus on strategies to incentivize employers to provide flexible work policies and to establish community-based support systems. This current pandemic has created a loss of employment opportunities and loss of income especially for low-income working families; future research should, therefore, evaluate the meaning of work flexibility to include off-site work and job sharing.

Positive child development is embedded in family and social contexts. To prevent generational poverty, future lines of inquiry should go beyond mothers’ perspectives alone to include multiple voices of other family members such as co-parents (especially fathers), older and step-children, and grandparents. Additionally, research should focus on the impact of parental decisions regarding childcare enrollment and healthcare visits on the long-term outcome of children. Finally, the association between receipt of governmental assistance and the stigma experienced by low-income families, particularly among rural families, would be another important area of study.

Future research must investigate the role of economic volatility, market conditions, and policy changes in understanding the relationship between family finances and employment of low-income families and food insecurity. For poor immigrant families, the effect of documentation status and immigration policy changes on food insecurity cannot be understated and, to capture the nuances of their food needs, qualitative and mixed-methods studies would be preferred. Future studies should also incorporate geographical information to identify reasons why urban–rural disparity occurs among food insecure families when attempting to access food and possible strategies that would enable food-insecure metro families to access food. It is equally important to assess family income and food budgeting on families’ dietary habits as well as parental modeling and family food environment on healthy food behavior.

Biographies

is an Associate Professor in the Department of Human Development at Washington State University Vancouver. She received her Ph.D. in Human Development and Family Sciences from Oregon State University. Her research focuses on well-being of rural, low-income families including family relations, health issues, and food insecurity. Her current research projects include a multi-state longitudinal research projects, Rural Families Speak about Heath (RFSH) and Rural Families Speak about Resilience (RFSR) which examine interactions of individual, family, community, and policy contexts on the family outcomes among diverse rural, low-income families.

is Professor Emerita in the Department of Resource Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She received her Ph.D. in Family Economics from the University of Missouri Columbia. The major thrust of her research has been on the economic well-being of families. For the last two decades, she has focused on rural low-income families with special emphasis on issues of income sufficiency, employment, and health security.

is a Project Associate with the Washington State University Extension, Child and Family Research Unit. Myah holds graduate degrees in Landscape Architecture and Public Administration, and she is currently a Ph.D. Candidate within the WSU Prevention Science program. Her work and research seek to better understand school and community conditions that help buffer against ACEs and trauma and that best contribute to increased academic achievement. Current research includes program development, evaluation, and technical assistance in support of trauma-informed professional development within diverse schools and learning communities.

1 The 29 articles reviewed in this paper were assigned by the special editor of this issue of the Journal of Family and Economic Issues. More information is in the introduction to the special issue.

2 Other dimensions of family well-being are being reviewed by other authors in this special issue. A topic of “health” was covered by Chaudhuri and “health and family” issues were covered by Tamborini.

3 An individual development account (IDA) is an asset building program designed to enable low-income families to connect to the financial mainstream by saving towards a targeted amount usually used for building assets.

This is one of several papers published together in Journal of Family and Economic Issues on the “Special Issue on Virtual Decade in Review”.

The original online version of this article was revised due to a retrospective Open Access cancellation.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Change history

A Correction to this paper has been published: 10.1007/s10834-020-09746-0

Contributor Information

Yoshie Sano, Email: ude.usw@onas_eihsoy .

Sheila Mammen, Email: ude.ssamu.noceser@nemmams .

Myah Houghten, Email: ude.usw@nethguoh .

• Balistreri KS. A decade of change: Measuring the extent, depth and severity of food insecurity. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2016; 37 (3):373–382. doi: 10.1007/s10834-016-9500-9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brooks-Gunn J, Duncan GJ. The effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children. 1997; 7 (2):55–71. doi: 10.2307/1602387. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang Y, Chatterjee S, Kim J. Household finance and food insecurity. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2014; 35 (4):499–515. doi: 10.1007/s10834-013-9382-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang KL, Zastrow M, Zdorovtsov C, Quast R, Skjonsberg L, Stluka S. Do SNAP and WIC programs encourage more fruit and vegetable intake? A household survey in the northern Great Plains. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2015; 36 (4):477–490. doi: 10.1007/s10834-014-9412-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaudry A, Wimer C. Poverty is not just an indicator: the relationship between income, poverty, and child well-being. Academic Pediatrics. 2016; 16 (3):523–529. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2015.12.010. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coleman-Jensen AJ. Working for peanuts: nonstandard work and food insecurity across household structure. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2011; 32 (1):84–97. doi: 10.1007/s10834-010-9190-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis EE, Carlin C, Krafft C, Forry ND. Do child care subsidies increase employment among low-income parents? Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2018; 39 (4):662–682. doi: 10.1007/s10834-018-9582-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Marco A, Vernon-Feagans L. Child care subsidy use and child care quality in low-wealth, rural communities. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2015; 36 (3):383–395. doi: 10.1007/s10834-014-9401-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Economic Research Service. (2020). Rural poverty & Well-being. United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-poverty-well-being/
• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. (2018). National survey of unbanked and underbanked households: 2017. https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2017/2017report.pdf
• Fiese BH, Koester BD, Waxman E. Balancing household needs: the non-food needs of food pantry clients and their implications for program planning. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2014; 35 (3):423–431. doi: 10.1007/s10834-013-9381-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grinstein-Weiss M, Yeo YH, Despard MR, Casalotti AM, Zhan M. Banked and unbanked in individual development accounts. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2010; 31 (2):212–227. doi: 10.1007/s10834-010-9184-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grobe D, Davis EE, Scott EK, Weber RB. Using policy-relevant administrative data in mixed methods: a study of employment instability and parents’ use of child care subsidies. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2017; 38 (1):146–162. doi: 10.1007/s10834-016-9501-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo B. Household assets and food security: evidence from the survey of program dynamics. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2011; 32 (1):98–110. doi: 10.1007/s10834-010-9194-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanson, B. (2016). Immigrants and Latinos bring population growth to rural communities. Center for Rural Affairs. https://www.cfra.org/news/160622/part-1-immigrants-and-latinos-bring-population-growth-rural-communities
• Jamison TB, Ganong L, Proulx CM. Unmarried coparenting in the context of poverty: understanding the relationship between stress, family resource management, and resilience. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2017; 38 (3):439–452. doi: 10.1007/s10834-016-9518-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kainz K, Willoughby MT, Vernon-Feagans L, Burchinal MR. Modeling family economic conditions and young children’s development in rural United States: implications for poverty research. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2012; 33 (4):410–420. doi: 10.1007/s10834-012-9287-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaiser Family Foundation. (2020). Poverty rate by race/ethnicity. https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
• Katras MJ, Sharp EH, Dolan EM, Baron LA. Non-standard work and rural low-income mothers: making it work. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2015; 36 (1):84–96. doi: 10.1007/s10834-014-9410-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim JJ. Welfare-to-work programs and the dynamics of TANF use. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2010; 31 (2):198–211. doi: 10.1007/s10834-010-9180-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim JJ. The effects of welfare-to-work programs on welfare recipients’ employment outcomes. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2012; 33 (1):130–142. doi: 10.1007/s10834-011-9272-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kramer KZ, Andrade FCD, Greenlee AJ, Mendenhall R, Bellisle D, Blanks RL. Periodic earned income tax credit (EITC) payment, financial stress and well-being: a longitudinal study. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2019; 40 (3):511–523. doi: 10.1007/s10834-019-09618-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kull MA, Coley RL, Lynch AD. The roles of instability and housing in low-income families’ residential mobility. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2016; 37 (3):422–434. doi: 10.1007/s10834-015-9465-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Livermore M, Powers RS, Davis BC, Lim Y. Failing to make ends meet: Dubious financial success among employed former welfare to work program participants. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2011; 32 (1):73–83. doi: 10.1007/s10834-010-9192-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mammen S, Dolan E, Seiling SB. Explaining the poverty dynamics of rural families using an economic well-being continuum. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2015; 36 (3):434–450. doi: 10.1007/s10834-014-9405-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mammen S, Lawrence FC, Marie PS, Berry AA, Knight SE. The earned income tax credit and rural families: differences between non-participants and participants. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2011; 32 (3):461–472. doi: 10.1007/s10834-010-9238-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morales-Martínez D, Gori-Maia A. the impacts of cash transfers on subjective well-being and poverty: the case of Colombia. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2018; 39 (4):616–633. doi: 10.1007/s10834-018-9585-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Myers MJU. A big brother: new findings on how low-income fathers define responsible fatherhood. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2013; 34 (3):253–264. doi: 10.1007/s10834-012-9327-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nielsen RB, Seay MC, Wilmarth MJ. The receipt of government food assistance: differences between metro and non-metro households. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2018; 39 (1):117–131. doi: 10.1007/s10834-017-9528-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Okech D. Enrollment decisions in a child development accounts program for low-income families. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2011; 32 (3):400–410. doi: 10.1007/s10834-010-9234-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prawitz AD, Kalkowski JC, Cohart J. Responses to economic pressure by low-income families: financial distress and hopefulness. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2013; 34 (1):29–40. doi: 10.1007/s10834-012-9288-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rao S, Malapit HJL. Gender, household structure and financial participation in the United States. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2015; 36 (4):606–620. doi: 10.1007/s10834-014-9426-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sano Y, Garasky S, Greder KA, Cook CC, Browder DE. understanding food insecurity among Latino immigrant families in rural America. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2011; 32 (1):111–123. doi: 10.1007/s10834-010-9219-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schoppe-Sullivan SJ, Fagon J. The evolution of fathering research in the 21st Century: persistent challenges, new directions. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2020; 82 (1):175–197. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12645. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Son S, Bauer JW. Employed rural, low-income, single mothers’ family and work over time. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2010; 31 (1):107–120. doi: 10.1007/s10834-009-9173-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• US Census. (2019a). Historical poverty tables: People and families—1959 to 2018. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-people.html
• US Census. (2019b). Poverty: 2017 and 2018. American Community Survey Briefs. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2019/acs/acsbr18-02.pdf
• Valluri S, Mammen S, Lass D. Health care use among rural, low-income women and children: results from a 2-stage negative binomial model. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2015; 36 (1):154–164. doi: 10.1007/s10834-014-9424-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Ten Important Questions About Child Poverty and Family Economic Hardship

• Publication Type   Report  
• Post date December, 2009

Download PDF

What is the Nature of Poverty and Economic Hardship in the United States?

• What does it mean to experience poverty?
• How is poverty measured in the United States?
• Are Americans who experience poverty now better off than a generation ago?
• How accurate are commonly held stereotypes about poverty and economic hardship?

How Serious is the Problem of Economic Hardship for American Families?

• How many children in the U.S. live in families with low incomes?
• Are some children and families at greater risk for economic hardship than others?
• What are the effects of economic hardship on children?

Is it Possible to Reduce Economic Hardship among American Families?

• Why is there so much economic hardship in a country as wealthy as the U.S.?
• Why should Americans care about family economic hardship?
• What can be done to increase economic security for America’s children and families?

1.  What does it mean to experience poverty?

Families and their children experience poverty when they are unable to achieve a minimum, decent standard of living that allows them to participate fully in mainstream society. One component of poverty is material hardship. Although we are all taught that the essentials are food, clothing, and shelter, the reality is that the definition of basic material necessities varies by time and place. In the United States, we all agree that having access to running water, electricity, indoor plumbing, and telephone service are essential to 21st century living even though that would not have been true 50 or 100 years ago.

To achieve a minimum but decent standard of living, families need more than material resources; they also need “human and social capital.” Human and social capital include education, basic life skills, and employment experience, as well as less tangible resources such as social networks and access to civic institutions. These non-material resources provide families with the means to get by, and ultimately, to get ahead. Human and social capital help families improve their earnings potential and accumulate assets, gain access to safe neighborhoods and high-quality services (such as medical care, schooling), and expand their networks and social connections.

The experiences of children and families who face economic hardship are far from uniform. Some families experience hard times for brief spells while a small minority experience chronic poverty. For some, the greatest challenge is inadequate financial resources, whether insufficient income to meet daily expenses or the necessary assets (savings, a home) to get ahead. For others, economic hardship is compounded by social isolation. These differences in the severity and depth of poverty matter, especially when it comes to the effects on children.

2. How is poverty measured in the United States?

The U.S. government measures poverty by a narrow income standard — this measure does not include material hardship (such as living in substandard housing) or debt, nor does it consider financial assets (such as savings or property). Developed more than 40 years ago, the official poverty measure is a specific dollar amount that varies by family size but is the same across the continental U.S..

According to the federal poverty guidelines, the poverty level is $22,050 for a family of four and $18,310 for a family of three (see table). (The poverty guidelines are used to determine eligibility for public programs. A similar but more complicated measure is used for calculating poverty rates.)

The current poverty measure was established in the 1960s and is now widely acknowledged to be outdated. It was based on research indicating that families spent about one-third of their incomes on food — the official poverty level was set by multiplying food costs by three. Since then, the same figures have been updated annually for inflation but have otherwise remained unchanged.

Yet food now comprises only one-seventh of an average family’s expenses, while the costs of housing, child care, health care, and transportation have grown disproportionately. Most analysts agree that today’s poverty thresholds are too low. And although there is no consensus about what constitutes a minimum but decent standard of living in the U.S., research consistently shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice the federal poverty level to meet their most basic needs.

Failure to update the federal poverty level for changes in the cost of living means that people who are considered poor today by the official standard are worse off relative to everyone else than people considered poor when the poverty measure was established. The current federal poverty measure equals about 31 percent of median household income, whereas in the 1960s, the poverty level was nearly 50 percent of the median.

The European Union and most advanced industrialized countries measure poverty quite differently from the U.S. Rather than setting minimum income thresholds below which individuals and families are considered to be poor, other countries measure economic disadvantage relative to the citizenry as a whole, for example, having income below 50 percent of median.

3. Are Americans who experience poverty now better off than a generation ago?

Material deprivation is not as widespread in the United States as it was 30 or 40 years ago. For example, few Americans experience severe or chronic hunger, due in large part to public food and nutrition programs, such as food stamps, school breakfast and lunch programs, and WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children). Over time, Social Security greatly reduced poverty and economic insecurity among the elderly. Increased wealth and technological advances have made it possible for ordinary families to have larger houses, computers, televisions, multiple cars, stereo equipment, air conditioning, and cell phones.

Some people question whether a family that has air conditioning or a DVD player should be considered poor. But in a wealthy nation such as the US, cars, computers, TVs, and other technologies are considered by most to be a normal part of mainstream American life rather than luxuries. Most workers need a car to get to work. TVs and other forms of entertainment link people to mainstream culture. And having a computer with access to the internet is crucial for children to keep up with their peers in school. Even air conditioning does more than provide comfort — in hot weather, it increases children’s concentration in school and improves the health of children, the elderly, and the chronically ill.

Consider as well the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina. Prior to the hurricane, New Orleans had one of the highest child poverty rates in the country — 38 percent (and this figure would be much higher if it included families with incomes up to twice the official poverty level). One in five households in New Orleans lacked a car, and eight percent had no phone service. The pervasive social and economic isolation increased the loss of life from the hurricane and exacerbated the devastating effects on displaced families and children.

Focusing solely on the material possessions a family has ignores the other types of resources they need to provide a decent life for their children — a home in a safe neighborhood; access to good schools, good jobs and basic services; and less tangible resources such as basic life skills and support networks.

4. How accurate are commonly held stereotypes about poverty?

The most commonly held stereotypes about poverty are false. Family poverty in the U.S. is typically depicted as a static, entrenched condition, characterized by large numbers of children, chronic unemployment, drugs, violence, and family turmoil. But the realities of poverty and economic hardship are very different.

Americans often talk about “poor people” as if they are a distinct group with uniform characteristics and somehow unlike the rest of “us.” In fact, there is great diversity among children and families who experience economic hardship. Research shows that many stereotypes just aren’t accurate: a study of children born between 1970 and 1990 showed that 35 percent experienced poverty at some point during their childhood; only a small minority experienced persistent and chronic poverty. And more than 90 percent of low-income single mothers have only one, two, or three children.

Although most portrayals of poverty in the media and elsewhere reflect the experience of only a few, a significant portion of families in America have experienced economic hardship, even if it is not life-long. Americans need new ways of thinking about poverty that allow us to understand the full range of economic hardship and insecurity in our country. In addition to the millions of families who struggle to make ends meet, millions of others are merely one crisis — a job loss, health emergency, or divorce — away from financial devastation, particularly in this fragile economy. A recent study showed that the majority of American families with children have very little savings to rely on during times of crisis. Recently, more and more families have become vulnerable to economic hardship.

5. How many children in the US live in families with low incomes?

Given that official poverty statistics are deeply flawed, the National Center for Children in Poverty uses “low income” as one measure of economic hardship. Low income is defined as having income below twice the federal poverty level — the amount of income that research suggests is needed on average for families to meet their basic needs. About 41 percent of the nation’s children — nearly 30 million in 2008 — live in families with low incomes, that is, incomes below twice the official poverty level (for 2009, about $44,000 for a family of four).

Although families with incomes between 100 and 200 percent of the poverty level are not officially classified as poor, many face material hardships and financial pressures similar to families with incomes below the poverty level. Missed rent payments, utility shut offs, inadequate access to health care, unstable child care arrangements, and running out of food are not uncommon for such families.

Low-income rates for young children are higher than those for older children — 44 percent of children under age six live in low-income families, compared to 39 percent of children over age six. Parents of younger children tend to be younger and to have less education and work experience than parents of older children, so their earnings are typically lower.

6. Are some children and families at greater risk for economic hardship than others?

Low levels of parental education are a primary risk factor for being low income. Eighty-three percent of children whose parents have less than a high school diploma live in low-income families, and over half of children whose parents have only a high school degree are low income as well. Workers with only a high school degree have seen their wages stagnate or decline in recent decades while the income gap between those who have a college degree and those who do not has doubled. Yet only 27 percent of workers in the U.S. have a college degree.

Single-parent families are at greater risk of economic hardship than two-parent families, largely because the latter have twice the earnings potential. But research indicates that marriage does not guarantee protection from economic insecurity. More than one in four children with married parents lives in a low-income family. In rural and suburban areas, the majority of low-income children have married parents. And among Latinos, more than half of children with married parents are low income. Moreover, most individuals who experience poverty as adults grew up in married-parent households.

Although low-income rates for minority children are considerably higher than those for white children, this is due largely to a higher prevalence of other risk factors, for example, higher rates of single parenthood and lower levels of parental education and earnings. About 61 percent of black, 62 percent of Latino children and 57 percent of American Indian children live in low-income families, compared to about 27 percent of white children and 31 percent of Asian children. At the same time, however, whites comprise the largest group of low-income children: 11 million white children live in families with incomes below twice the federal poverty line.

Having immigrant parents also increases a child’s chances of living in a low-income family. More than 20 percent of this country’s children — about 16 million — have at least one foreign-born parent. Sixty percent of children whose parents are immigrants are low-income, compared to 37 percent of children whose parents were born in the U.S.

7. What are the effects of economic hardship on children?

Economic hardship and other types of deprivation can have profound effects on children’s development and their prospects for the future — and therefore on the nation as a whole. Low family income can impede children’s cognitive development and their ability to learn. It can contribute to behavioral, social, and emotional problems. And it can cause and exacerbate poor child health as well. The children at greatest risk are those who experience economic hardship when they are young and children who experience severe and chronic hardship.

It is not simply the amount of income that matters for children. The instability and unpredictability of low-wage work can lead to fluctuating family incomes. Children whose families are in volatile or deteriorating financial circumstances are more likely to experience negative effects than children whose families are in stable economic situations.

The negative effects on young children living in low income families are troubling in their own right. These effects are also cause for concern because they are associated with difficulties later in life — dropping out of school, poor adolescent and adult health, poor employment outcomes and experiencing poverty as adults. Stable, nurturing, and enriching environments in the early years help create a sturdy foundation for later school achievement, economic productivity, and responsible citizenship.

Parents need financial resources as well as human and social capital (basic life skills, education, social networks) to provide the experiences, resources, and services that are essential for children to thrive and to grow into healthy, productive adults — high-quality health care, adequate housing, stimulating early learning programs, good schools, money for books, and other enriching activities. Parents who face chronic economic hardship are much more likely than their more affluent peers to experience severe stress and depression — both of which are linked to poor social and emotional outcomes for children.

Is it Possible to Reduce Economic Hardship for American Families?

8. why is there so much economic hardship in a country as wealthy as the u.s..

Given its wealth, the U.S. had unusually high rates of child poverty and income inequality, even prior to the current economic downturn. These conditions are not inevitable — they are a function both of the economy and government policy. In the late 1990s, for example, there was a dramatic decline in low-income rates, especially among the least well off families. The economy was strong and federal policy supports for low-wage workers with children — the Earned Income Tax Credit, public health insurance for children, and child care subsidies — were greatly expanded. In the current economic downturn, it is expected that the number of poor children will increase by millions.

Other industrialized nations have lower poverty rates because they seek to prevent  hardship by providing assistance to all families. These supports include “child allowances” (typically cash supplements), child care assistance, health coverage, paid family leave, and other supports that help offset the cost of raising children.

But the U.S. takes a different policy approach. Our nation does little to assist low-income working families unless they hit rock bottom. And then, such families are eligible only for means-tested benefits that tend to be highly stigmatized; most families who need help receive little or none. (One notable exception is the federal Earned Income Tax Credit.)

At the same time, middle- and especially upper-income families receive numerous government benefits that help them maintain and improve their standard of living — benefits that are largely unavailable to lower-income families. These include tax-subsidized benefits provided by employers (such as health insurance and retirement accounts), tax breaks for home owners (such as deductions for mortgage interest and tax exclusions for profits from home sales), and other tax preferences that privilege assets over income. Although most people don’t think of these tax breaks as government “benefits,” they cost the federal treasury nearly three times as much as benefits that go to low- to moderate-income families. In addition, middle- and upper-income families reap the majority of benefits from the child tax credit and the child care and dependent tax credit because neither is fully refundable.

In short, high rates of child poverty and income inequality in the U.S. can be reduced, but effective, widespread, and long-lasting change will require shifts in both national policy and the economy.

9. Why should Americans care about family economic hardship?

In addition to the harmful consequences for children, high rates of economic hardship exact a serious toll on the U.S. economy. Economists estimate that child poverty costs the U.S. $500 billion a year in lost productivity in the labor force and spending on health care and the criminal justice system. Each year, child poverty reduces productivity and economic output by about 1.3 percent of GDP.

The experience of severe or chronic economic hardship limits children’s potential and hinders our nation’s ability to compete in the global economy. American students, on average, rank behind students in other industrialized nations, particularly in their understanding of math and science. Analysts warn that America’s ability to compete globally will be severely hindered if many of our children are not as academically prepared as their peers in other nations.

Long-term economic trends are also troubling as they reflect the gradual but steady growth of economic insecurity among middle-income and working families over the last 30 years. Incomes have increased very modestly for all but the highest earners. Stagnant incomes combined with the high cost of basic necessities have made it difficult for families to save, and many middle- and low-income families alike have taken on crippling amounts of debt just to get by.

Research also indicates that economic inequality in America has been on the rise since the 1970s. Income inequality has reached historic levels — the income share of the top one percent of earners is at its highest level since 1929. Between 1979 and 2006, real after-tax incomes rose by 256 percent for the top one percent of households, compared to 21 percent and 11 percent for households in the middle and bottom fifth (respectively).

Economic mobility—the likelihood of moving from one income group to another—is on the decline in the U.S. Although Americans like to believe that opportunity is equally available to all, some groups find it harder to get ahead than others. Striving African American families have found upward mobility especially difficult to achieve and are far more vulnerable than whites to downward mobility. The wealth gap between blacks and whites — black families have been found to have one-tenth the net worth of white families — is largely responsible.

What all of these trends reveal is that the American Dream is increasingly out of reach for many families. The promise that hard work and determination will be rewarded has become an increasingly empty promise in 21st century America. It is in the best interest of our nation to see that the American Dream, an ideal so fundamental to our collective identity, be restored.

10. What can be done to increase economic security for America’s children and families?

A considerable amount of research has been devoted to this question. We know what families need to succeed economically, what parents need to care for and nurture their children, and what children need to develop into healthy, productive adults. The challenge is to translate this research knowledge into workable policy solutions that are appropriate for the US.

For families to succeed economically, we need an economy that works for all — one that provides workers with sufficient earnings to provide for a family. Specific policy strategies include strengthening the bargaining power of workers, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and increasing the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation. We also need to help workers get the training and education they need to succeed in a changing workforce. Dealing with low wages is necessary but not sufficient. Low- and middle-income families alike need relief from the high costs of health insurance and housing. Further programs that promote asset building among low-income families with children are also important.

As a nation, we also need to make it possible for adults to be both good workers and good parents, which requires greater workplace flexibility and paid time off. Workers need paid sick time, and parents need time off to tend to a sick child or talk to a child’s teacher. Currently, three in four low-wage workers have no paid sick days.

Despite the fact that a child’s earliest years have a profound effect on his or her life trajectory and ultimate ability to succeed, the U.S. remains one of the only industrialized countries that does not provide paid family leave for parents with a new baby. Likewise, child care is largely private in the U.S. — individual parents are left to find individual solutions to a problem faced by all working parents. Low- and middle-income families need more help paying for child care and more assistance in identifying reliable, nurturing care for their children, especially infants and toddlers.

These are only some of the policies needed to reduce economic hardship, strengthen families, and provide a brighter future for today’s — and tomorrow’s — children. With the right leadership, a strong national commitment, and good policy, it’s all possible.

Why Poverty Persists in America

A Pulitzer Prize-winning sociologist offers a new explanation for an intractable problem.

A mother and son living in a Walmart parking lot in North Dakota in 2012. Credit... Eugene Richards

Supported by

• Share full article

By Matthew Desmond

• Published March 9, 2023 Updated April 3, 2023

In the past 50 years, scientists have mapped the entire human genome and eradicated smallpox. Here in the United States, infant-mortality rates and deaths from heart disease have fallen by roughly 70 percent, and the average American has gained almost a decade of life. Climate change was recognized as an existential threat. The internet was invented.

On the problem of poverty, though, there has been no real improvement — just a long stasis. As estimated by the federal government’s poverty line, 12.6 percent of the U.S. population was poor in 1970; two decades later, it was 13.5 percent; in 2010, it was 15.1 percent; and in 2019, it was 10.5 percent. To graph the share of Americans living in poverty over the past half-century amounts to drawing a line that resembles gently rolling hills. The line curves slightly up, then slightly down, then back up again over the years, staying steady through Democratic and Republican administrations, rising in recessions and falling in boom years.

What accounts for this lack of progress? It cannot be chalked up to how the poor are counted: Different measures spit out the same embarrassing result. When the government began reporting the Supplemental Poverty Measure in 2011, designed to overcome many of the flaws of the Official Poverty Measure, including not accounting for regional differences in costs of living and government benefits, the United States officially gained three million more poor people. Possible reductions in poverty from counting aid like food stamps and tax benefits were more than offset by recognizing how low-income people were burdened by rising housing and health care costs.

The American poor have access to cheap, mass-produced goods, as every American does. But that doesn’t mean they can access what matters most.

Any fair assessment of poverty must confront the breathtaking march of material progress. But the fact that standards of living have risen across the board doesn’t mean that poverty itself has fallen. Forty years ago, only the rich could afford cellphones. But cellphones have become more affordable over the past few decades, and now most Americans have one, including many poor people. This has led observers like Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill, senior fellows at the Brookings Institution, to assert that “access to certain consumer goods,” like TVs, microwave ovens and cellphones, shows that “the poor are not quite so poor after all.”

No, it doesn’t. You can’t eat a cellphone. A cellphone doesn’t grant you stable housing, affordable medical and dental care or adequate child care. In fact, as things like cellphones have become cheaper, the cost of the most necessary of life’s necessities, like health care and rent, has increased. From 2000 to 2022 in the average American city, the cost of fuel and utilities increased by 115 percent. The American poor, living as they do in the center of global capitalism, have access to cheap, mass-produced goods, as every American does. But that doesn’t mean they can access what matters most. As Michael Harrington put it 60 years ago: “It is much easier in the United States to be decently dressed than it is to be decently housed, fed or doctored.”

Why, then, when it comes to poverty reduction, have we had 50 years of nothing? When I first started looking into this depressing state of affairs, I assumed America’s efforts to reduce poverty had stalled because we stopped trying to solve the problem. I bought into the idea, popular among progressives, that the election of President Ronald Reagan (as well as that of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom) marked the ascendancy of market fundamentalism, or “neoliberalism,” a time when governments cut aid to the poor, lowered taxes and slashed regulations. If American poverty persisted, I thought, it was because we had reduced our spending on the poor. But I was wrong.

Reagan expanded corporate power, deeply cut taxes on the rich and rolled back spending on some antipoverty initiatives, especially in housing. But he was unable to make large-scale, long-term cuts to many of the programs that make up the American welfare state. Throughout Reagan’s eight years as president, antipoverty spending grew, and it continued to grow after he left office. Spending on the nation’s 13 largest means-tested programs — aid reserved for Americans who fall below a certain income level — went from $1,015 a person the year Reagan was elected president to $3,419 a person one year into Donald Trump’s administration, a 237 percent increase.

Most of this increase was due to health care spending, and Medicaid in particular. But even if we exclude Medicaid from the calculation, we find that federal investments in means-tested programs increased by 130 percent from 1980 to 2018, from $630 to $1,448 per person.

“Neoliberalism” is now part of the left’s lexicon, but I looked in vain to find it in the plain print of federal budgets, at least as far as aid to the poor was concerned. There is no evidence that the United States has become stingier over time. The opposite is true.

This makes the country’s stalled progress on poverty even more baffling. Decade after decade, the poverty rate has remained flat even as federal relief has surged.

If we have more than doubled government spending on poverty and achieved so little, one reason is that the American welfare state is a leaky bucket. Take welfare, for example: When it was administered through the Aid to Families With Dependent Children program, almost all of its funds were used to provide single-parent families with cash assistance. But when President Bill Clinton reformed welfare in 1996, replacing the old model with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), he transformed the program into a block grant that gives states considerable leeway in deciding how to distribute the money. As a result, states have come up with rather creative ways to spend TANF dollars. Arizona has used welfare money to pay for abstinence-only sex education. Pennsylvania diverted TANF funds to anti-abortion crisis-pregnancy centers. Maine used the money to support a Christian summer camp. Nationwide, for every dollar budgeted for TANF in 2020, poor families directly received just 22 cents.

We’ve approached the poverty question by pointing to poor people themselves, when we should have been focusing on exploitation.

A fair amount of government aid earmarked for the poor never reaches them. But this does not fully solve the puzzle of why poverty has been so stubbornly persistent, because many of the country’s largest social-welfare programs distribute funds directly to people. Roughly 85 percent of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program budget is dedicated to funding food stamps themselves, and almost 93 percent of Medicaid dollars flow directly to beneficiaries.

There are, it would seem, deeper structural forces at play, ones that have to do with the way the American poor are routinely taken advantage of. The primary reason for our stalled progress on poverty reduction has to do with the fact that we have not confronted the unrelenting exploitation of the poor in the labor, housing and financial markets.

As a theory of poverty, “exploitation” elicits a muddled response, causing us to think of course and but, no in the same instant. The word carries a moral charge, but social scientists have a fairly coolheaded way to measure exploitation: When we are underpaid relative to the value of what we produce, we experience labor exploitation; when we are overcharged relative to the value of something we purchase, we experience consumer exploitation. For example, if a family paid $1,000 a month to rent an apartment with a market value of $20,000, that family would experience a higher level of renter exploitation than a family who paid the same amount for an apartment with a market valuation of $100,000. When we don’t own property or can’t access credit, we become dependent on people who do and can, which in turn invites exploitation, because a bad deal for you is a good deal for me.

Our vulnerability to exploitation grows as our liberty shrinks. Because labor laws often fail to protect undocumented workers in practice, more than a third are paid below minimum wage, and nearly 85 percent are not paid overtime. Many of us who are U.S. citizens, or who crossed borders through official checkpoints, would not work for these wages. We don’t have to. If they migrate here as adults, those undocumented workers choose the terms of their arrangement. But just because desperate people accept and even seek out exploitative conditions doesn’t make those conditions any less exploitative. Sometimes exploitation is simply the best bad option.

Consider how many employers now get one over on American workers. The United States offers some of the lowest wages in the industrialized world. A larger share of workers in the United States make “low pay” — earning less than two-thirds of median wages — than in any other country belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. According to the group, nearly 23 percent of American workers labor in low-paying jobs, compared with roughly 17 percent in Britain, 11 percent in Japan and 5 percent in Italy. Poverty wages have swollen the ranks of the American working poor, most of whom are 35 or older.

One popular theory for the loss of good jobs is deindustrialization, which caused the shuttering of factories and the hollowing out of communities that had sprung up around them. Such a passive word, “deindustrialization” — leaving the impression that it just happened somehow, as if the country got deindustrialization the way a forest gets infested by bark beetles. But economic forces framed as inexorable, like deindustrialization and the acceleration of global trade, are often helped along by policy decisions like the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, which made it easier for companies to move their factories to Mexico and contributed to the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs. The world has changed, but it has changed for other economies as well. Yet Belgium and Canada and many other countries haven’t experienced the kind of wage stagnation and surge in income inequality that the United States has.

Those countries managed to keep their unions. We didn’t. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, nearly a third of all U.S. workers carried union cards. These were the days of the United Automobile Workers, led by Walter Reuther, once savagely beaten by Ford’s brass-knuckle boys, and of the mighty American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations that together represented around 15 million workers, more than the population of California at the time.

In their heyday, unions put up a fight. In 1970 alone, 2.4 million union members participated in work stoppages, wildcat strikes and tense standoffs with company heads. The labor movement fought for better pay and safer working conditions and supported antipoverty policies. Their efforts paid off for both unionized and nonunionized workers, as companies like Eastman Kodak were compelled to provide generous compensation and benefits to their workers to prevent them from organizing. By one estimate, the wages of nonunionized men without a college degree would be 8 percent higher today if union strength remained what it was in the late 1970s, a time when worker pay climbed, chief-executive compensation was reined in and the country experienced the most economically equitable period in modern history.

It is important to note that Old Labor was often a white man’s refuge. In the 1930s, many unions outwardly discriminated against Black workers or segregated them into Jim Crow local chapters. In the 1960s, unions like the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America enforced segregation within their ranks. Unions harmed themselves through their self-defeating racism and were further weakened by a changing economy. But organized labor was also attacked by political adversaries. As unions flagged, business interests sensed an opportunity. Corporate lobbyists made deep inroads in both political parties, beginning a public-relations campaign that pressured policymakers to roll back worker protections.

A national litmus test arrived in 1981, when 13,000 unionized air traffic controllers left their posts after contract negotiations with the Federal Aviation Administration broke down. When the workers refused to return, Reagan fired all of them. The public’s response was muted, and corporate America learned that it could crush unions with minimal blowback. And so it went, in one industry after another.

Today almost all private-sector employees (94 percent) are without a union, though roughly half of nonunion workers say they would organize if given the chance. They rarely are. Employers have at their disposal an arsenal of tactics designed to prevent collective bargaining, from hiring union-busting firms to telling employees that they could lose their jobs if they vote yes. Those strategies are legal, but companies also make illegal moves to block unions, like disciplining workers for trying to organize or threatening to close facilities. In 2016 and 2017, the National Labor Relations Board charged 42 percent of employers with violating federal law during union campaigns. In nearly a third of cases, this involved illegally firing workers for organizing.

Corporate lobbyists told us that organized labor was a drag on the economy — that once the companies had cleared out all these fusty, lumbering unions, the economy would rev up, raising everyone’s fortunes. But that didn’t come to pass. The negative effects of unions have been wildly overstated, and there is now evidence that unions play a role in increasing company productivity, for example by reducing turnover. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics measures productivity as how efficiently companies turn inputs (like materials and labor) into outputs (like goods and services). Historically, productivity, wages and profits rise and fall in lock step. But the American economy is less productive today than it was in the post-World War II period, when unions were at peak strength. The economies of other rich countries have slowed as well, including those with more highly unionized work forces, but it is clear that diluting labor power in America did not unleash economic growth or deliver prosperity to more people. “We were promised economic dynamism in exchange for inequality,” Eric Posner and Glen Weyl write in their book “Radical Markets.” “We got the inequality, but dynamism is actually declining.”

As workers lost power, their jobs got worse. For several decades after World War II, ordinary workers’ inflation-adjusted wages (known as “real wages”) increased by 2 percent each year. But since 1979, real wages have grown by only 0.3 percent a year. Astonishingly, workers with a high school diploma made 2.7 percent less in 2017 than they would have in 1979, adjusting for inflation. Workers without a diploma made nearly 10 percent less.

Lousy, underpaid work is not an indispensable, if regrettable, byproduct of capitalism, as some business defenders claim today. (This notion would have scandalized capitalism’s earliest defenders. John Stuart Mill, arch advocate of free people and free markets, once said that if widespread scarcity was a hallmark of capitalism, he would become a communist.) But capitalism is inherently about owners trying to give as little, and workers trying to get as much, as possible. With unions largely out of the picture, corporations have chipped away at the conventional midcentury work arrangement, which involved steady employment, opportunities for advancement and raises and decent pay with some benefits.

As the sociologist Gerald Davis has put it: Our grandparents had careers. Our parents had jobs. We complete tasks. Or at least that has been the story of the American working class and working poor.

Poor Americans aren’t just exploited in the labor market. They face consumer exploitation in the housing and financial markets as well.

There is a long history of slum exploitation in America. Money made slums because slums made money. Rent has more than doubled over the past two decades, rising much faster than renters’ incomes. Median rent rose from $483 in 2000 to $1,216 in 2021. Why have rents shot up so fast? Experts tend to offer the same rote answers to this question. There’s not enough housing supply, they say, and too much demand. Landlords must charge more just to earn a decent rate of return. Must they? How do we know?

We need more housing; no one can deny that. But rents have jumped even in cities with plenty of apartments to go around. At the end of 2021, almost 19 percent of rental units in Birmingham, Ala., sat vacant, as did 12 percent of those in Syracuse, N.Y. Yet rent in those areas increased by roughly 14 percent and 8 percent, respectively, over the previous two years. National data also show that rental revenues have far outpaced property owners’ expenses in recent years, especially for multifamily properties in poor neighborhoods. Rising rents are not simply a reflection of rising operating costs. There’s another dynamic at work, one that has to do with the fact that poor people — and particularly poor Black families — don’t have much choice when it comes to where they can live. Because of that, landlords can overcharge them, and they do.

A study I published with Nathan Wilmers found that after accounting for all costs, landlords operating in poor neighborhoods typically take in profits that are double those of landlords operating in affluent communities. If down-market landlords make more, it’s because their regular expenses (especially their mortgages and property-tax bills) are considerably lower than those in upscale neighborhoods. But in many cities with average or below-average housing costs — think Buffalo, not Boston — rents in the poorest neighborhoods are not drastically lower than rents in the middle-class sections of town. From 2015 to 2019, median monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment in the Indianapolis metropolitan area was $991; it was $816 in neighborhoods with poverty rates above 40 percent, just around 17 percent less. Rents are lower in extremely poor neighborhoods, but not by as much as you would think.

Yet where else can poor families live? They are shut out of homeownership because banks are disinclined to issue small-dollar mortgages, and they are also shut out of public housing, which now has waiting lists that stretch on for years and even decades. Struggling families looking for a safe, affordable place to live in America usually have but one choice: to rent from private landlords and fork over at least half their income to rent and utilities. If millions of poor renters accept this state of affairs, it’s not because they can’t afford better alternatives; it’s because they often aren’t offered any.

You can read injunctions against usury in the Vedic texts of ancient India, in the sutras of Buddhism and in the Torah. Aristotle and Aquinas both rebuked it. Dante sent moneylenders to the seventh circle of hell. None of these efforts did much to stem the practice, but they do reveal that the unprincipled act of trapping the poor in a cycle of debt has existed at least as long as the written word. It might be the oldest form of exploitation after slavery. Many writers have depicted America’s poor as unseen, shadowed and forgotten people: as “other” or “invisible.” But markets have never failed to notice the poor, and this has been particularly true of the market for money itself.

The deregulation of the banking system in the 1980s heightened competition among banks. Many responded by raising fees and requiring customers to carry minimum balances. In 1977, over a third of banks offered accounts with no service charge. By the early 1990s, only 5 percent did. Big banks grew bigger as community banks shuttered, and in 2021, the largest banks in America charged customers almost $11 billion in overdraft fees. Previous research showed that just 9 percent of account holders paid 84 percent of these fees. Who were the unlucky 9 percent? Customers who carried an average balance of less than $350. The poor were made to pay for their poverty.

In 2021, the average fee for overdrawing your account was $33.58. Because banks often issue multiple charges a day, it’s not uncommon to overdraw your account by $20 and end up paying $200 for it. Banks could (and do) deny accounts to people who have a history of overextending their money, but those customers also provide a steady revenue stream for some of the most powerful financial institutions in the world.

Every year: almost $11 billion in overdraft fees, $1.6 billion in check-cashing fees and up to $8.2 billion in payday-loan fees.

According to the F.D.I.C., one in 19 U.S. households had no bank account in 2019, amounting to more than seven million families. Compared with white families, Black and Hispanic families were nearly five times as likely to lack a bank account. Where there is exclusion, there is exploitation. Unbanked Americans have created a market, and thousands of check-cashing outlets now serve that market. Check-cashing stores generally charge from 1 to 10 percent of the total, depending on the type of check. That means that a worker who is paid $10 an hour and takes a $1,000 check to a check-cashing outlet will pay $10 to $100 just to receive the money he has earned, effectively losing one to 10 hours of work. (For many, this is preferable to the less-predictable exploitation by traditional banks, with their automatic overdraft fees. It’s the devil you know.) In 2020, Americans spent $1.6 billion just to cash checks. If the poor had a costless way to access their own money, over a billion dollars would have remained in their pockets during the pandemic-induced recession.

Poverty can mean missed payments, which can ruin your credit. But just as troublesome as bad credit is having no credit score at all, which is the case for 26 million adults in the United States. Another 19 million possess a credit history too thin or outdated to be scored. Having no credit (or bad credit) can prevent you from securing an apartment, buying insurance and even landing a job, as employers are increasingly relying on credit checks during the hiring process. And when the inevitable happens — when you lose hours at work or when the car refuses to start — the payday-loan industry steps in.

For most of American history, regulators prohibited lending institutions from charging exorbitant interest on loans. Because of these limits, banks kept interest rates between 6 and 12 percent and didn’t do much business with the poor, who in a pinch took their valuables to the pawnbroker or the loan shark. But the deregulation of the banking sector in the 1980s ushered the money changers back into the temple by removing strict usury limits. Interest rates soon reached 300 percent, then 500 percent, then 700 percent. Suddenly, some people were very interested in starting businesses that lent to the poor. In recent years, 17 states have brought back strong usury limits, capping interest rates and effectively prohibiting payday lending. But the trade thrives in most places. The annual percentage rate for a two-week $300 loan can reach 460 percent in California, 516 percent in Wisconsin and 664 percent in Texas.

Roughly a third of all payday loans are now issued online, and almost half of borrowers who have taken out online loans have had lenders overdraw their bank accounts. The average borrower stays indebted for five months, paying $520 in fees to borrow $375. Keeping people indebted is, of course, the ideal outcome for the payday lender. It’s how they turn a $15 profit into a $150 one. Payday lenders do not charge high fees because lending to the poor is risky — even after multiple extensions, most borrowers pay up. Lenders extort because they can.

Every year: almost $11 billion in overdraft fees, $1.6 billion in check-cashing fees and up to $8.2 billion in payday-loan fees. That’s more than $55 million in fees collected predominantly from low-income Americans each day — not even counting the annual revenue collected by pawnshops and title loan services and rent-to-own schemes. When James Baldwin remarked in 1961 how “extremely expensive it is to be poor,” he couldn’t have imagined these receipts.

“Predatory inclusion” is what the historian Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor calls it in her book “Race for Profit,” describing the longstanding American tradition of incorporating marginalized people into housing and financial schemes through bad deals when they are denied good ones. The exclusion of poor people from traditional banking and credit systems has forced them to find alternative ways to cash checks and secure loans, which has led to a normalization of their exploitation. This is all perfectly legal, after all, and subsidized by the nation’s richest commercial banks. The fringe banking sector would not exist without lines of credit extended by the conventional one. Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase bankroll payday lenders like Advance America and Cash America. Everybody gets a cut.

Poverty isn’t simply the condition of not having enough money. It’s the condition of not having enough choice and being taken advantage of because of that. When we ignore the role that exploitation plays in trapping people in poverty, we end up designing policy that is weak at best and ineffective at worst. For example, when legislation lifts incomes at the bottom without addressing the housing crisis, those gains are often realized instead by landlords, not wholly by the families the legislation was intended to help. A 2019 study conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found that when states raised minimum wages, families initially found it easier to pay rent. But landlords quickly responded to the wage bumps by increasing rents, which diluted the effect of the policy. This happened after the pandemic rescue packages, too: When wages began to rise in 2021 after worker shortages, rents rose as well, and soon people found themselves back where they started or worse.

Antipoverty programs work. Each year, millions of families are spared the indignities and hardships of severe deprivation because of these government investments. But our current antipoverty programs cannot abolish poverty by themselves. The Johnson administration started the War on Poverty and the Great Society in 1964. These initiatives constituted a bundle of domestic programs that included the Food Stamp Act, which made food aid permanent; the Economic Opportunity Act, which created Job Corps and Head Start; and the Social Security Amendments of 1965, which founded Medicare and Medicaid and expanded Social Security benefits. Nearly 200 pieces of legislation were signed into law in President Lyndon B. Johnson’s first five years in office, a breathtaking level of activity. And the result? Ten years after the first of these programs were rolled out in 1964, the share of Americans living in poverty was half what it was in 1960.

But the War on Poverty and the Great Society were started during a time when organized labor was strong, incomes were climbing, rents were modest and the fringe banking industry as we know it today didn’t exist. Today multiple forms of exploitation have turned antipoverty programs into something like dialysis, a treatment designed to make poverty less lethal, not to make it disappear.

This means we don’t just need deeper antipoverty investments. We need different ones, policies that refuse to partner with poverty, policies that threaten its very survival. We need to ensure that aid directed at poor people stays in their pockets, instead of being captured by companies whose low wages are subsidized by government benefits, or by landlords who raise the rents as their tenants’ wages rise, or by banks and payday-loan outlets who issue exorbitant fines and fees. Unless we confront the many forms of exploitation that poor families face, we risk increasing government spending only to experience another 50 years of sclerosis in the fight against poverty.

The best way to address labor exploitation is to empower workers. A renewed contract with American workers should make organizing easy. As things currently stand, unionizing a workplace is incredibly difficult. Under current labor law, workers who want to organize must do so one Amazon warehouse or one Starbucks location at a time. We have little chance of empowering the nation’s warehouse workers and baristas this way. This is why many new labor movements are trying to organize entire sectors. The Fight for $15 campaign, led by the Service Employees International Union, doesn’t focus on a single franchise (a specific McDonald’s store) or even a single company (McDonald’s) but brings together workers from several fast-food chains. It’s a new kind of labor power, and one that could be expanded: If enough workers in a specific economic sector — retail, hotel services, nursing — voted for the measure, the secretary of labor could establish a bargaining panel made up of representatives elected by the workers. The panel could negotiate with companies to secure the best terms for workers across the industry. This is a way to organize all Amazon warehouses and all Starbucks locations in a single go.

Sectoral bargaining, as it’s called, would affect tens of millions of Americans who have never benefited from a union of their own, just as it has improved the lives of workers in Europe and Latin America. The idea has been criticized by members of the business community, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has raised concerns about the inflexibility and even the constitutionality of sectoral bargaining, as well as by labor advocates, who fear that industrywide policies could nullify gains that existing unions have made or could be achieved only if workers make other sacrifices. Proponents of the idea counter that sectoral bargaining could even the playing field, not only between workers and bosses, but also between companies in the same sector that would no longer be locked into a race to the bottom, with an incentive to shortchange their work force to gain a competitive edge. Instead, the companies would be forced to compete over the quality of the goods and services they offer. Maybe we would finally reap the benefits of all that economic productivity we were promised.

We must also expand the housing options for low-income families. There isn’t a single right way to do this, but there is clearly a wrong way: the way we’re doing it now. One straightforward approach is to strengthen our commitment to the housing programs we already have. Public housing provides affordable homes to millions of Americans, but it’s drastically underfunded relative to the need. When the wealthy township of Cherry Hill, N.J., opened applications for 29 affordable apartments in 2021, 9,309 people applied. The sky-high demand should tell us something, though: that affordable housing is a life changer, and families are desperate for it.

We could also pave the way for more Americans to become homeowners, an initiative that could benefit poor, working-class and middle-class families alike — as well as scores of young people. Banks generally avoid issuing small-dollar mortgages, not because they’re riskier — these mortgages have the same delinquency rates as larger mortgages — but because they’re less profitable. Over the life of a mortgage, interest on $1 million brings in a lot more money than interest on $75,000. This is where the federal government could step in, providing extra financing to build on-ramps to first-time homeownership. In fact, it already does so in rural America through the 502 Direct Loan Program, which has moved more than two million families into their own homes. These loans, fully guaranteed and serviced by the Department of Agriculture, come with low interest rates and, for very poor families, cover the entire cost of the mortgage, nullifying the need for a down payment. Last year, the average 502 Direct Loan was for $222,300 but cost the government only $10,370 per loan, chump change for such a durable intervention. Expanding a program like this into urban communities would provide even more low- and moderate-income families with homes of their own.

We should also ensure fair access to capital. Banks should stop robbing the poor and near-poor of billions of dollars each year, immediately ending exorbitant overdraft fees. As the legal scholar Mehrsa Baradaran has pointed out, when someone overdraws an account, banks could simply freeze the transaction or could clear a check with insufficient funds, providing customers a kind of short-term loan with a low interest rate of, say, 1 percent a day.

States should rein in payday-lending institutions and insist that lenders make it clear to potential borrowers what a loan is ultimately likely to cost them. Just as fast-food restaurants must now publish calorie counts next to their burgers and shakes, payday-loan stores should publish the average overall cost of different loans. When Texas adopted disclosure rules, residents took out considerably fewer bad loans. If Texas can do this, why not California or Wisconsin? Yet to stop financial exploitation, we need to expand, not limit, low-income Americans’ access to credit. Some have suggested that the government get involved by having the U.S. Postal Service or the Federal Reserve issue small-dollar loans. Others have argued that we should revise government regulations to entice commercial banks to pitch in. Whatever our approach, solutions should offer low-income Americans more choice, a way to end their reliance on predatory lending institutions that can get away with robbery because they are the only option available.

In Tommy Orange’s novel, “There There,” a man trying to describe the problem of suicides on Native American reservations says: “Kids are jumping out the windows of burning buildings, falling to their deaths. And we think the problem is that they’re jumping.” The poverty debate has suffered from a similar kind of myopia. For the past half-century, we’ve approached the poverty question by pointing to poor people themselves — posing questions about their work ethic, say, or their welfare benefits — when we should have been focusing on the fire. The question that should serve as a looping incantation, the one we should ask every time we drive past a tent encampment, those tarped American slums smelling of asphalt and bodies, or every time we see someone asleep on the bus, slumped over in work clothes, is simply: Who benefits? Not: Why don’t you find a better job? Or: Why don’t you move? Or: Why don’t you stop taking out payday loans? But: Who is feeding off this?

Those who have amassed the most power and capital bear the most responsibility for America’s vast poverty: political elites who have utterly failed low-income Americans over the past half-century; corporate bosses who have spent and schemed to prioritize profits over families; lobbyists blocking the will of the American people with their self-serving interests; property owners who have exiled the poor from entire cities and fueled the affordable-housing crisis. Acknowledging this is both crucial and deliciously absolving; it directs our attention upward and distracts us from all the ways (many unintentional) that we — we the secure, the insured, the housed, the college-educated, the protected, the lucky — also contribute to the problem.

Corporations benefit from worker exploitation, sure, but so do consumers, who buy the cheap goods and services the working poor produce, and so do those of us directly or indirectly invested in the stock market. Landlords are not the only ones who benefit from housing exploitation; many homeowners do, too, their property values propped up by the collective effort to make housing scarce and expensive. The banking and payday-lending industries profit from the financial exploitation of the poor, but so do those of us with free checking accounts, as those accounts are subsidized by billions of dollars in overdraft fees.

Living our daily lives in ways that express solidarity with the poor could mean we pay more; anti-exploitative investing could dampen our stock portfolios. By acknowledging those costs, we acknowledge our complicity. Unwinding ourselves from our neighbors’ deprivation and refusing to live as enemies of the poor will require us to pay a price. It’s the price of our restored humanity and renewed country.

Matthew Desmond is a professor of sociology at Princeton University and a contributing writer for the magazine. His latest book, “Poverty, by America,” from which this article is adapted, is being published on March 21 by Crown.

An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the legal protections for undocumented workers. They are afforded rights under U.S. labor laws, though in practice those laws often fail to protect them.

An earlier version of this article implied an incorrect date for a statistic about overdraft fees. The research was conducted between 2005 and 2012, not in 2021.

How we handle corrections

Advertisement

• Help & FAQ

Poverty in America: New directions and debates

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Reviewing recent research on poverty in the United States, we derive a conceptual framework with three main characteristics. First, poverty is multidimensional, compounding material hardship with human frailty, generational trauma, family and neighborhood violence, and broken institutions. Second, poverty is relational, produced through connections between the truly advantaged and the truly disadvantaged. Third, a component of this conceptual framework is transparently normative, applying empirical research to analyze poverty as a matter of justice, not just economics. Throughout, we discuss conceptual, methodological, and policy-relevant implications of this perspective on the study of extreme disadvantage in America.

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

• Sociology and Political Science
• correlated adversity
• exploitation
• lived experience
• public policy
• social suffering

Access to Document

• 10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053411

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus
• Link to the citations in Scopus

Fingerprint

• poverty Social Sciences 100%
• Family Violence Social Sciences 41%
• trauma Social Sciences 31%
• empirical research Social Sciences 29%
• justice Social Sciences 25%
• violence Social Sciences 22%
• economics Social Sciences 15%

T1 - Poverty in America

T2 - New directions and debates

AU - Desmond, Matthew

AU - Western, Bruce

N1 - Publisher Copyright: Copyright © 2018 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved.

PY - 2018/7/30

Y1 - 2018/7/30

N2 - Reviewing recent research on poverty in the United States, we derive a conceptual framework with three main characteristics. First, poverty is multidimensional, compounding material hardship with human frailty, generational trauma, family and neighborhood violence, and broken institutions. Second, poverty is relational, produced through connections between the truly advantaged and the truly disadvantaged. Third, a component of this conceptual framework is transparently normative, applying empirical research to analyze poverty as a matter of justice, not just economics. Throughout, we discuss conceptual, methodological, and policy-relevant implications of this perspective on the study of extreme disadvantage in America.

AB - Reviewing recent research on poverty in the United States, we derive a conceptual framework with three main characteristics. First, poverty is multidimensional, compounding material hardship with human frailty, generational trauma, family and neighborhood violence, and broken institutions. Second, poverty is relational, produced through connections between the truly advantaged and the truly disadvantaged. Third, a component of this conceptual framework is transparently normative, applying empirical research to analyze poverty as a matter of justice, not just economics. Throughout, we discuss conceptual, methodological, and policy-relevant implications of this perspective on the study of extreme disadvantage in America.

KW - correlated adversity

KW - exploitation

KW - health

KW - history

KW - lived experience

KW - poverty

KW - public policy

KW - social suffering

KW - violence

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050884333&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85050884333&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053411

DO - 10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053411

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85050884333

SN - 0360-0572

JO - Annual Review of Sociology

JF - Annual Review of Sociology

202 Poverty Essay Topics & Examples

Poverty is one of the most pressing global issues affecting millions of individuals. We want to share some intriguing poverty essay topics and research questions for you to choose the titles of your paper correctly. With the help of this collection, you can explore the intricate dimensions of poverty, its causes, consequences, and potential solutions. Have a look at our poverty topics to get a deeper understanding of poverty and its implications.

💸 TOP 10 Poverty Essay Topics

🏆 best poverty essay examples, 👍 catchy poverty research topics, 🧐 thought-provoking poverty topics, 🎓 interesting poverty essay topics, ❓ research questions about poverty.

• Poverty: Causes and Solutions to Problem
• Poverty as a Social Problem
• Homelessness and Poverty in Developed and Developing Countries
• The Eliminating Poverty Strategies
• Poverty Effects on an Individual
• Correlation Between Poverty and Juvenile Delinquency
• Poverty and Theories of Its Causes
• Degrading Consequences of Poverty in “The Pearl” by John Steinbeck Poverty is identity in John Steinbeck’s The Pearl, and the main character Kino, a poor fisherman, manifests a transformation in his identity,
• Relationship Between Poverty and Crime The paper makes the case and discusses inequality rather than poverty being the prime reason for people committing crimes.
• Poverty Effects on Mental Health This paper examines the link between poverty and mental health, the literature findings on the topic, and proposes a potential solution.
• Urbanization and Poverty in “Slumdog Millionaire” Film Boyle’s movie, “Slumdog Millionaire,” is one of many successful attempts to depict the conditions in which people who are below the poverty level live.
• Effects of Poverty on Education in the USA Colleges It is clear that poverty affects not only the living standards and lifestyle of people but also the college education in the United States of America.
• Global Poverty and Nursing Intervention It is evident that poor health and poverty are closely linked. Community nurses who are conversant with the dynamics of the health of the poor can run successful health promotion initiatives.
• Poverty from Functionalist and Rational Choice Perspectives Poverty is a persistent social phenomenon, which can be examined from both the functionalist and rational choice perspectives.
• The Poverty as an Ethical Issue Looking at poverty as an ethical issue, we have to consider the fact that there are people who control resource distribution, which then leads to wealth or poverty in a community.
• The Orthodox and Alternative Poverty Explanations Comparison Poverty has over the years become a worldwide subject of concern for economies. This essay will explore two theories- the orthodox and the alternative theories to poverty.
• Poverty from Christian Perspective Christians perceive poverty differently than people without faith, noting the necessity for integrated support to help those in need.
• Poverty in “Serving in Florida” and “Dumpster Diving” “Serving in Florida” by Barbara Ehrenreich describes the harsh reality of living in poverty while concentrating on the pragmatic dimension of the issue
• How Does Poverty Affect Crime Rates? On the basis of this research question, the study could be organized and conducted to prove the following hypothesis – when poverty increases, crime rates increase as well.
• The Analysis of Henry George’s “Crime of Poverty” Reviewing Henry George’s Crime of Poverty, which was written in 1885, in its historical context can shed light on socio-political developments within the country.
• Poverty and Homelessness in Jackson, Mississippi This paper will review the statistics and information about poverty and homelessness in Jackson, MS. The community of Black Americans is suffering from poverty and homelessness.
• Poverty in “On Dumpster Diving” by Lars Eighner Essay “On Dumpster Diving” by Lars Eighner evokes compassion and prompts individuals to think about social problems existing nowadays.
• Effects of Divorce and Poverty in Families In the event of a divorce children are tremendously affected and in most cases attention is not given to them the way it should.
• Vicious Circle of Poverty In this essay, the author describes the problem of poverty, its causes and ways of optimizing the economy and increasing production efficiency.
• Diana George’s Changing the Face of Poverty Book Diana George’s book, Changing the Face of Poverty, begins with a summary of several Thanksgiving commercials and catalogs.
• Poverty in Young and Middle Adulthood According to functionalism, poverty is a dysfunctional aspect of interrelated components, which is the result of improper structuring.
• Bullying in Poverty and Child Development Context The aim of the present paper is to investigate how Bullying, as a factor associated with poverty, affects child development.
• Empowerment and Poverty Reduction The objective of this essay will be to highlight the health issues caused by poverty and the strategies needed to change the situation of poor people through empowerment.
• The Problem of Poverty in Art of Different Periods Artists have always been at the forefront of addressing social issues, by depicting them in their works and attempting to draw the attention of the public to sensitive topics.
• “What Is Poverty” by Dalrymple The purpose of this paper is to present Dalrymple point of view and analyze it by applying philosophical concepts.
• How Poverty Impacts on Life Chances, Experiences and Opportunities for Young People The paper specifically dwells on the social exclusion, class, and labeling theories to place youth poverty in its social context.
• Poverty: Behavioral, Structural, Political Factors The research paper will primarily argue that poverty is a problem caused by a combination of behavioral, structural, and political systems.
• Love and Poverty in My Papa’s Waltz by Theodore Roethke The present paper includes a brief analysis of the poem ‘My Papa’s Waltz’ with a focus on imagery and figurative language.
• The Concept of Poverty This work is aimed at identifying the key aspects associated with poverty and its impact on the lives of people in different contexts.
• Global Poverty and Human Development Poverty rates across the globe continue to be a major issue that could impair the progress of humanity as a whole.
• Poverty and Homelessness in Canada Poverty and homelessness figure prominently in government policies and the aims of many social service organizations even in a country like Canada.
• Immigrant Children and Poverty Immigrant child poverty poses considerable social predicaments, because it is related to several long lasting school and development linked difficulties.
• Poverty and Its Negative Impact on Society Poverty affects many people globally, experiencing poor living conditions, limited access to education, unemployment, poor infrastructure, malnutrition, and child labor.
• Rutger Bregman’s Statement of Poverty The paper states that Bregman’s approach to poverty and the proposal of guaranteed regular income is more suitable for developing countries.
• Poverty in Ghana: Reasons and Solution Strategy The analysis provided in the paper revealed some internal and external factors that deter better economic and human development in Ghana.
• How Access to Clean Water Influences the Problem of Poverty Since people in some developing countries have insufficient water supply even now, they suffer from starvation, lack of hygiene, and water-associated diseases.
• Poverty Relation With Immigrants Poverty-related immigration is usually caused by population pressures; as the natural land becomes less productive due to the increased technology and industrial production.
• How Poverty Affects Early Education? A number of people live in poor conditions. According to the researchers of the Department of Education in the United States, poverty influences academic performance in an adverse way.
• Poverty: Causes and Reduction Measures Poverty is a global disaster and that a large percentage of the population has insufficient income or material possessions to satisfy their basic needs.
• Global Poverty, Inequality, and Mass Migration Such global issues as poverty and inequality and mass migration are significant today since many people are involved in them.
• Child’s Development and Education: Negative Effects of Poverty Some adverse effects of poverty on a child’s development and education are poor performance academically, stagnant physical development, and behavioral issues.
• The City of Atlanta, Georgia: Poverty and Homelessness This project goal is to address several issues in the community of the City of Atlanta. Georgia. The primary concern is the high rate of poverty and homelessness in the city.
• The Ideal Society: Social Stratification and Poverty The paper argues social classes exist because of the variations in socioeconomic capacities in the world; however, an ideal society can eliminate them.
• The Impact of Poverty on Children and Minority Groups The problem of poverty, not only among children but also among adults, has plagued this planet for a long time.
• Habitat for the Homeless: Poverty The paper states that Habitat for the Homeless comes to fulfill American values by ensuring that Americans can afford houses at a low price.
• Global Issues of World Poverty: Reasons and Solutions The term ‘world poverty’ refers to poverty around the world and is not only limited to developing and under-developed nations.
• Poverty: “$2.00 a Day” Book by Edin and Schaefer In their book “$2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America,” Edin and Schaefer investigate problems that people who live in poverty face every day.
• Utilitarianism: Poverty Reduction Through Charity This paper shows that poverty levels can be reduced if wealthy individuals donate a part of their earnings, using the main principles of the utilitarian theory.
• Poverty in the “LaLee’s Kin” Documentary In this paper, the author will analyse poverty as a social problem in the Mississippi Delta. The issue will be analysed from the perspective of the documentary “LaLee’s Kin”.
• School System: Poverty and Education This short assessment presents at least three examples of differences between the schools that lead to disadvantages in the education system and finally provides a suggestion to help bridge the gap.
• Human Trafficking and Poverty Discussion This paper synthesize information on human trafficking and poverty by providing an annotated bibliography of relevant sources.
• Evaluating the “Expertness” of the Southern Law Poverty Center The Southern Law Poverty Center has garnered controversy for its list of so-called “hate groups” and how it spends its half-billion-dollar budget.
• Chronic Poverty and Disability in the UK The country exhibits absolute poverty and many other social issues associated with under-developed states. The issue is resolvable through policy changes.
• Racial Discrimination and Poverty Racial discrimination and poverty have resulted in health disparities and low living standards among African Americans in the United States.
• Should People Be Ashamed of Poverty? People on welfare should not feel ashamed because the definition of poverty does not necessarily place them in the category of the poor.
• Poverty and Inequality: Income and Wealth Inequality The Stanford Center of Poverty and Inequality does an in-depth job of finding causes and capturing statistics on poverty and inequality.
• Lessons Learned From the Poverty Simulation The main lesson learned from the poverty simulation is that poverty is far more serious than depicted in the media, which carelessly documents the numbers of poor people.
• Wealth and Poverty Sources in America This paper explains the causes and consequences of poverty in the United States, programs and systems to combat it, and government benefits to support families in distress.
• Global Poverty and Education Economic theories like liberalization, deregulation, and privatization were developed to address global poverty.
• Poverty, Faith, and Justice: ”Liberating God of Life” by Elizabeth Johnson “Liberating God of Life Context: Wretched Poverty” by Johnson constructs that the main goal of human beings is to combat structural violence toward the poor.
• The Issue of Poverty in Savannah, Georgia The paper addresses a serious issue that still affects Savannah, Georgia, and it is poverty. This problem influences both individuals and society.
• Poverty, Politics, and Profit as US Policy Issue Poverty remains one of the most intractable problems to deal with, both in the international community and in the United States.
• Christ’s Relationships with Wealth and Poverty This paper attempts to examine Christ’s relationships with wealth, money and poverty and provide an analysis of these relationships.
• Poverty and Social Causation Hypothesis There are two identified approaches to poverty on cultural and individual levels as formulated by Turner and Lehning
• Poverty and Poor Health: Access to Healthcare Services Health disparities affecting ethnical and racial groups, as well as people with low income, operate through the social environments, access to healthcare services.
• Wealth, Poverty, and Systems of Economic Class By examining wealth, poverty, and economic classes from the perspective of social justice, the socioeconomic inequalities persistent in society will become clear.
• Poverty and Mental Health Correlation The analysis of the articles provides a comprehensive understanding of the poverty and mental health correlation scale and its current state.
• Carl Hart’s Talk on Racism, Poverty, and Drugs In his TED Talk, Carl Hart, a professor of neuroscience at Columbia University who studies drug addiction, exposes a relationship between racism, poverty, and drugs.
• Attitudes to Poverty: Singer’s Arguments Singer argues against the observation by the rich than helping one poor person can repeat over and over again until the rich eventually becomes poor.
• The U.S. Education: Effect of Poverty Poverty effects on education would stretch to other aspects of life and this justifies that, poverty in United States not only affects social lifestyles but also college education.
• Poverty in New York City and Media Representation This paper will analyze recent news publications regarding the urban issue of poverty in NYC and determine how the city is represented in the media.
• World Poverty as a Global Social Problem Poverty and the key methods helping to reduce it attract the attention of numerous researchers in different areas of expertise.
• Poverty: The Negative Effects on Children Poor children often do not have access to quality healthcare, so they are sicker and more likely to miss school. Poor children are less likely to have weather-appropriate clothes.
• The Issue of the Poverty in the USA The most sustainable technique for poverty elimination in the United States is ensuring equitable resource distribution, education, and healthcare access.
• Poverty and How This Problem Can Be Solved Poverty is one of the global social problems of our time, existing even in the countries of the first world despite the generally high standard of living of people.
• Poverty: An Interplay of Social and Economic Psychology The paper demonstrates an interplay of social and economic psychology to scrutinize the poverty that has given rise to a paycheck-to-paycheck nation.
• Refugees: Poverty, Hunger, Climate Change, and Violence Individuals struggling with poverty, hunger, climate change, and gender-based violence and persecution may consider fleeing to the United States.
• The Extent of Poverty in the United States The paper states that the issue of poverty in the USA is induced by a butterfly effect, starting with widespread discrimination and lack of support.
• Poverty in Puerto Rico and Eradication Measures Studying Puerto Rican poverty as a social problem is essential because it helps identify the causes, effects, and eradication measures in Puerto Rico and other nations.
• Human Trafficking and Poverty Issues in Modern Society The problem of human trafficking affects people all over the world, which defines the need for a comprehensive approach to this issue from the criminology perspective.
• Poverty and Homelessness Among African Americans Even though the U.S. is wealthy and prosperous by global measures, poverty has persisted in the area, with Blacks accounting for a larger share.
• Poverty: Resilience and Intersectionality Theories This paper assesses the impact of poverty on adult life, looking at risk and protective factors and the impact of power and oppression on the experience of poverty.
• Economic Inequality and Its Relationship to Poverty This research paper will discuss the problem of economic inequality and show how this concept relates to poverty.
• Discussion of Poverty and Social Trends The advances and consequent demands on society grounded on social class and trends profoundly influence poverty levels.
• Life of Humanity: Inequality, Poverty, and Tolerance The paper concerns the times in which humanity, and especially the American people, live, not forgetting about inequality, poverty, and tolerance.
• Poverty, Its Social Context, and Solutions Understanding past and present poverty statistics is essential for developing effective policies to reduce the rate of poverty at the national level.
• Poverty in the US: “Down and Out in Paris and London” by Orwell The essay compares the era of George Orwell to the United States today based on the book “Down and Out in Paris and London” in terms of poverty.
• Is It Possible to Reduce Poverty in the United States? Reducing poverty in the United States is possible if such areas as education, employment, and health care are properly examined and improved for the public’s good.
• Poverty Among Seniors Age 65 and Above The social problem is the high poverty rate among older people aged 65 and above. Currently, there are millions of elderly who are living below the poverty line.
• Poverty in 1930s Europe and in the 21st Century US The true face of poverty may be found in rural portions of the United States’ South and Southwest regions, where living standards have plummeted, and industries have yet to begin.
• Social Issue of Poverty in America The paper states that poverty is not an individual’s fault but rather a direct result of social, economic, and political circumstances.
• Poverty, Housing, and Community Benefits The community will benefit from affordable housing and business places, creating job opportunities for the residents and mentoring and apprenticeship.
• The Uniqueness of the Extent of the Poverty Rate in America The United States ranked near the top regarding poverty and inequality, and compared to other developed countries, income and wealth disparity in the United States is high.
• Globalization and Poverty: Trade Openness and Poverty Reduction in Nigeria Globalization can be defined as the process of interdependence on the global culture, economy, and population. It is brought about by cross-border trade.
• Inequality and Poverty in the United States One of the most common myths is that the United States (US) is a meritocracy, where anyone can succeed if they maintain industriousness.
• Christian Perspective on Poverty Several Christian interpretations have different ideas about poverty and wealth. This paper aims to discuss the Christian perspective on poverty.
• Poverty and Problematic Housing in California The question is what are the most vulnerable aspects of the administrative system that lead to an aggravation of the situation of homelessness.
• Race, Poverty, and Incarceration in the United States The American justice system, in its current form, promotes disproportionally high incarceration rates among blacks and, to a lesser degree, Latinos from poor urban neighborhoods.
• Global Poverty and Factors of Influence This paper introduces a complex perspective on the issue of global poverty, namely, incorporating economic, social, cultural, and environmental factors into the analysis.
• Poverty Causes and Solutions in Latin America This paper aims to understand the importance of the interference of Europe in Latin American affairs and its referring to the general principles of poverty.
• Gary Haugen’s Speech on Violence and Poverty In his speech, Gary Haugen discusses the causes of poverty and concludes that violence is a hidden problem that should be addressed and eliminated.
• The Child Poverty Problem in Alabama
• Poverty Among Blacks in America
• Hard Questions About Living in Poverty or Slavery
• Relationship Between Poverty and Health People in 2020
• Solving the Problem of Poverty in Mendocino County
• “Promises and Poverty”: Starbucks Conceals Poverty and Deterioration of the Environment
• Global Poverty and Economic Globalization Relations
• Poverty Prevalence and Causes in the United States
• Policy Development to Overcome Child Poverty in the U.S.
• Global Poverty: Tendencies, Causes and Impacts
• The Problem of Poverty Among Children
• African American Families in Poverty
• Effects of Poverty on Health Care in the US and Afghanistan
• Poverty Among Children from Immigrant Workers
• “8 Million Have Slipped Into Poverty Since May as Federal Aid Has Dried Up” by Jason DeParle
• Teenage Pregnancy After Exposure to Poverty: Causation and Communication
• Poverty and Covid-19 in Developing Countries
• Poverty in America: Socio-Economic Inequality
• Poverty and Its Effects Upon Special Populations
• Global Poverty and Education Correlation
• American Dream and Poverty in the United States
• Changing the Face of Poverty
• The Link Between Poverty and Criminal Behavior
• The Cost of Saving: The Problem of Poverty
• Sociological Issues About Social Class and Poverty, Race and Ethnicity, Gender
• Speech on Mother Teresa: Poverty and Interiority in Mother Teresa
• Federal Poverty, Welfare, and Unemployment Policies
• Aid Agency Discussing Different Solutions to Poverty in Urban Areas
• Poverty Elimination in Perspective
• Marriage and Divorce: Poverty Among Divorced Women
• Is Debt Cancellation the Answer to World Poverty?
• Reduction of Poverty in the Rural Areas Through ICT
• Trade Effect on Environmentalism and Poverty

🌶️ Hot Poverty Ideas to Write about

• Gay and Poverty Marriage
• “Combating Poverty in Latin America” by Robyn Eversole
• Are MNCs Responsible for Poverty and Violence in Developing Nations?
• “Globalization, Poverty and Inequality” by Kaplinsky
• Poverty in America: Issue Analysis
• Economic Development in LDCs and Eradication Absolute Poverty
• Economic Development in LDCs and Sufficient Conditions to Eradicate Absolute Poverty
• Social Policy and Welfare – Poverty and Deprivation
• India’s Policies to Tackle Poverty and Inequality
• Poverty and Inequality Reducing Policies in China
• Donald Trump’s Policies of Poverty and Human Rights
• Poverty and Homelessness: Dimensions and Constructions
• Henry George’s “Progress and Poverty” Book
• Poverty from a Sociological Standpoint
• Poverty Among the USA Citizens and Reduction Efforts
• Standards of the Ethical Code: Children and Poverty
• Household Energy Use and Poverty
• Can Marriage End Poverty?
• Grameen Banking System Alleviating Poverty
• Brazil’ Poverty and Inequality
• Child Poverty Assessment in Canada
• National Conversation about Poverty
• Poverty and Welfare Policies in the United States
• Poverty in “The Bottom Billion” by Paul Collier
• Modern Slavery, Human Trafficking and Poverty
• Poverty and Violence During the Mexican Revolution
• Affordable Housing Programs in “Poverty in America”
• The Government of Bangladesh: Corruption and Poverty
• Poverty in “I Beat the Odds” by Oher and Yaegar
• Inequality in Australia: Poverty Rates and Globalism
• The Issue of World Poverty and Ways to Alleviate the Poverty in the World
• Problem of World Poverty
• Drug’s, Poverty’s and Beauty’s Effects on Health
• Can Authorization Reduce Poverty Among Undocumented Immigrants?
• Can Higher Employment Levels Bring Lower Poverty in the EU?
• Are Private Transfers Poverty and Inequality Reducing?
• Can Group-Based Credit Uphold Smallholder Farmers Productivity and Reduce Poverty in Africa?
• Can Anti-Poverty Programs Improve Family Functioning and Enhance Children’s Well-Being?
• Can Laziness Explain Poverty in America?
• Are Social Exclusion and Poverty Measures Interrelated?
• Can Increasing Smallholder Farm Size Broadly Reduce Rural Poverty in Zambia?
• Can Crop Purchase Programs Reduce Poverty and Improve Welfare in Rural Communities?
• Does Aid Availability Affect Effectiveness in Reducing Poverty?
• Can Employer Credit Checks Create Poverty Traps?
• Are the Poverty Effects of Trade Policies Invisible?
• Can Foreign Aid Reduce Poverty?
• Are Education Systems Modern as Well as Practical Enough to Eliminate Unemployment, and Thus Poverty?
• Can High-Inequality Developing Countries Escape Absolute Poverty?
• Are Inequality and Trade Liberalization Influences on Growth and Poverty?
• Can Globalisation Realistically Solve World Poverty?
• Are Urban Poverty and Undernutrition Growing?
• Can Big Push Interventions Take Small-Scale Farmers Out of Poverty?
• Can Civilian Disability Pensions Overcome the Poverty Issue?
• Are Poverty Rates Underestimated in China?
• Does Agriculture Help Poverty and Inequality Reduction?
• Can Agricultural Households Farm Their Way Out of Poverty?
• Are Income Poverty and Perceptions of Financial Difficulties Dynamically Interrelated?
• Are Bangladesh’s Recent Gains in Poverty Reduction Different From the Past?
• Can Cash Transfers Help Households Escape an Intergenerational Poverty Trap?
• Are Remittances Helping Lower Poverty and Inequality Levels in Latin America?
• Can Foreign Aid Reduce Income Inequality and Poverty?
• Can Child-Care Subsidies Reduce Poverty?
• Can Income Inequality Reduction Be Used as an Instrument for Poverty Reduction?

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, September 9). 202 Poverty Essay Topics & Examples. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/poverty-essay-topics/

"202 Poverty Essay Topics & Examples." StudyCorgi , 9 Sept. 2021, studycorgi.com/ideas/poverty-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) '202 Poverty Essay Topics & Examples'. 9 September.

1. StudyCorgi . "202 Poverty Essay Topics & Examples." September 9, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/poverty-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "202 Poverty Essay Topics & Examples." September 9, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/poverty-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "202 Poverty Essay Topics & Examples." September 9, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/poverty-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Poverty were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on January 8, 2024 .

ENGL B1A: Poverty in America: Final Research Paper

• UBI Synthesis Essay
• Tips on Synthesizing
• Final Research Paper
• Exploring Delano Library
• Citing Sources
• Background Info

Picking a Topic

You have been provided with a list of topics related to poverty/income equality (which can be found below). It is not an exhaustive list and you can choose a different topic but you must check in with your professor first. 

Remember that this assignment requires you to research a topic related to income inequality that you don't know about and then take a position by writing an argumentative essay related to that topic. It is recommended that you start by finding and reading general information stories/articles about the topic you think you might be interested in to see if it piques your curiosity. 

To learn about your topics in enough depth and detail, you will need to read- a lot. You need to understand what your topic is, whether you can find enough information to write your essay and find a variety of sources to use when you start to write the paper.

Once you have learned enough about the topic to understand it and have a general opinion about what your think and to create your research question, start the writing process.

Ok, so your class is focusing on Poverty in America and you have the list of some more specific topics in front of you that are "under the umbrella" of your main topic, poverty. You can just pick one and write, right? Ehhhh, I mean you can buuuuut you'll find things to be much easier if you do a bit of pre-search first, not to mention you'll have much more fun!

Your professor has covered the broad topic (the "umbrella topic") of poverty in America throughout your course. This topic is too broad to use for your research paper but it is your guide to narrow down to a smaller topic. Umbrella topics have many different aspects to them, whereas a good topic for a shorter research paper should only have 1 or 2 aspects for you to cover.

Narrowing your topic down to something more specific can be the most difficult part of the process, but your professor has made it much easier on you!  Your professor has provided an amazing list of narrowed down topics and even provided articles for you to conduct your pre-search with (this list and the accompanying articles an be found below).

Read a couple of the articles and find out what you want to learn more about. Maybe you've never heard of the terms "food desert" or "period poverty" and would like to know what's going on with the concept. This is your time to explore that and choose. If you find a topic doesn't interest you, that's okay, move on to try another. Don't forget, you can always get creative with your topic too! If you think of something that resonates with you regarding poverty in America, talk to your professor and find our his thoughts. He'd love to hear from you! 

Possible Topics

• hunger malnutrition, education/learning, lack of medical care, psychological harm, self-esteem, etc.
• Why Rich Kids Are So Good at the Marshmallow Test
• college, K-12, effects, resources, under-education, rich vs. poor in educational opportunities, etc.
• Educational Outcomes (K-12) of poor students vs. wealthy/rich students
• College acceptance and /or opportunities of poor vs. rich
• Lack of job training/vocational options?
• Who has to take out loans for education?
• Who has to pay them back?
• I've Spent more than $60,000 to Pay Back Student Loans and Owe More than When I Began

Justice System and Income Inequality

• Law enforcement treatment of poor vs. rich
• Legal representation of poor vs. rich
• Is poverty the reason for crime? 
• Are those raised in poverty more likely to commit crimes?
• Do lower socio-economic areas experience more crime than other neighborhoods?
• License suspension for unpaid debt
• Wealthy sentenced less harshly because of wealth or better legal representation?
• How are corporate of white-collar criminals treated and/or sentenced vs. others?
• Sobbing Lindsay Lohan Sentenced to 90 Days in Jail

Corporate Issues

• The Truth About Amazon, Food Stamps, and Tax Breaks
• Walmart and McDonald's are among top employers of Medicaid and food stamp beneficiaries, report says
• Sports fans- see NFL/MLB for how citizens are on the hook for the costs of new stadiums
• Bernie Sanders Slams Mitch McConell on $2000 Stimulus Checks
• This Billionaire Governor's Coal Companies Owe Millions More in Environmental Fines
• Amazon offers rare apology, says it will look for solutions to drivers peeing in bottles
• "They Don't Care": US supermarket chain shutters stores after hazard pay rules
• CEO vs. Employee Salaries at America's Top Companies
• Automation and its effects on job market/wages/poverty

Housing Issues in Different Socio-Economic Groups

• Like Basic Income But for Transportation 

Childcare Issues for Working Parents in America

• How is this issue addressed in other countries?
• Government responses/policies related to poverty 
• NAFTA/CAFTA/TPP/etc.
• Georgia Minimum Wage for 2021, 2022
• Guantanamo Whistleblower Alleges "Gross" Wages
• ​​​​​​​Going into debt to receive healthcare
• Effects of no healthcare due to poverty
• Exorbitant cost of medication (i.e. insulin)
• Treatments/Healthcare for rich vs. poor
• ​​​​​​​i.e. COVID, AIDS, Macular Degeneration, etc.

Gender Issues

• ​​​​​​​Women earning less than men for doing the same job
• ​​​​​​​Paid? Unpaid?
• Social issues related to parents unable to bond with newborns

Food Issues

• Access to healthy food in poor communities
• Food Insecurity for Children
• Food Insecurity for College Students

Funeral Costs

• ​​​​​​​Listen to the show for significant details about the cost and issues related to death in low-income households

Period Poverty

• The State of Period Poverty in the US
• Changing the Cycle: Period Poverty as a Public Health Crisis
• New Laws Aim to Prevent "Period Poverty"
• << Previous: Tips on Synthesizing
• Next: Exploring Delano Library >>
• Last Updated: Mar 2, 2023 9:28 AM
• URL: https://bakersfieldcollege.libguides.com/PovertyInAmerica

Poverty and Child Neglect: How Did We Get It Wrong?

Poverty and child neglect are highly correlated and often impact families simultaneously; but poverty does not cause neglect.

Prevention is a hot topic in child welfare policy conversations, and for good reason. Preventing child maltreatment helps families thrive and reduces the frequency of tragic outcomes. The Family First Prevention Services Act of 2018 propelled prevention efforts forward and launched a national conversation about keeping children out of foster care except when absolutely necessary.

The State of Child Welfare

Child maltreatment rates have declined dramatically over the past 30 years. Between 1992 and 2019 , physical abuse declined by 56% and sexual abuse declined by 62%. Public policy, awareness programs and decreased stigma associated with seeking help contributed to these changes.

By contrast, rates of child neglect remain high. Neglect is the most common type of child maltreatment in the U.S. Until recently, federal child welfare policies primarily responded to maltreatment without much attention to addressing risk factors. The outcome was to inadvertently punish struggling families more than help them.

More than 480,000 children were impacted by neglect in 2020 , and it was a primary or contributing factor for 64% of children entering foster care the same year. By comparison, 13% of children entering foster care in 2020 were victims of physical abuse and 4% were victims of sexual abuse.

What Is Neglect?

Most experts agree child neglect occurs when the needs of a child are unmet by their primary caregivers. Inadequate clothing, food, shelter, medical and emotional care, along with unsafe environments, exposure to substance abuse and lack of supervision, are often included in definitions of neglect. Even with these definitions, pinpointing cases of neglect can be challenging. Policymakers and researchers are rethinking historical definitions, which often are intertwined with poverty . States have authority to define exactly what neglect means through legislation, and there is considerable variation .

Research shows the presence of one or more child maltreatment risk factors , such as poverty, can make a child more vulnerable to experiencing neglect. While risk factors do not cause maltreatment, buffering or reducing them is a promising prevention pathway .

Poverty Is a Risk Factor for Neglect

Poverty, much like neglect, is a complex problem. Census data show that rates of child poverty vary widely among the states, ranging from 8% to nearly 28% in 2021 . Childhood poverty is associated with a range of negative outcomes across the lifespan, such as poor health, lower educational attainment and more risk-taking behaviors.

Poverty and child neglect are highly correlated and often impact families simultaneously; but poverty does not cause neglect. Experts say it’s more complicated than that. Poverty produces material hardships for families. Such hardships often result in families experiencing toxic stress , which can impede children’s cognitive development and parents’ capacity to meet the needs of their children. Incapacity to provide is not the same as an unwillingness to provide. This distinction is at the crux of the challenge policymakers face to disentangle poverty from neglect.

Want to Go Deeper? The report Policy Levers for Preventing Child Maltreatment outlines strategies to reduce child abuse and neglect. NCSL offers a child welfare fellows program focused on preventing child maltreatment and reforming child welfare systems.

Poverty is experienced at higher rates by people of color and people living in rural areas , which can contribute to racial disparities within the child welfare system. Policies like redlining and the discriminatory use of home lending provisions in the GI Bill, for example, have had lasting generational effects, shaping the landscape of poverty across the country. While all children encounter  teachers, doctors and others required to report maltreatment, higher rates of poverty in a community are often associated with more reports of abuse . This doesn’t necessarily lead to more confirmed cases of child maltreatment, raising questions about whether over-surveillance of poor families contributes to disproportionate child welfare system involvement.

Some states have reworked their definition of neglect to recognize parents’ capacity or clarify that conditions of poverty alone do not constitute neglect. Iowa ( H 2507; 2022 ) defined neglect as “the failure on the part of a person responsible for the care of a child to provide for adequate food, shelter, clothing, medical or mental health treatment, supervision, or other care necessary for the child’s health and welfare when financially able to do so or when offered financial or other reasonable means to do so.”

Updating mandatory reporting and training policies to better respond to complex situations and relationships, such as those involving poverty and neglect, is another option. Colorado (H 1240; 2022 ) attempted to make mandatory reporting systems fairer, given evidence of disproportionate impacts of reporting systems on under-resourced communities. At least eight states enacted legislation in 2022 addressing mandatory reporting.

Evidence-Based Policy Options

Some policies appear to be particularly effective at reducing risk factors associated with neglect; examples include child care subsidies , affordable housing , home visiting and enhanced primary care . Preventing child maltreatment almost certainly requires diverse and integrated strategies. Nebraska ( L 1173; 2022 ) established a work group and called for an integrated, evidence-informed approach to transform its child welfare system to “support the well-being, permanency, and safety of children and families in Nebraska’s communities.”

Former Colorado Rep. Tonya Van Beber (R) and Rep. Jason Hughes (D) of Louisiana toured the Warren Village program in Denver as part of NCSL fellows programs last year. Warren Village provides resources, tools and a supportive environment for single parents with children to build skills and create the lives they want for their families. “When we see a public-private partnership of this quality that has actual outcomes and evidence-based processes that literally show us this does work, it was a wonderful thing to see,” Van Beber said at an NCSL Town Hall after the tour.

Hughes said the Warren Village tour reminded him that “poverty has to be addressed in a holistic way.” As states incorporate more comprehensive strategies to prevent child maltreatment, addressing neglect is especially pertinent.

Jill Yordy is a senior policy specialist in NCSL’s Children and Families Program.

This publication was made possible in collaboration with Casey Family Programs, whose mission is to provide, improve and ultimately prevent the need for foster care. The findings and conclusions presented in this report are those of the author alone, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Casey Family Programs.

Contact NCSL

For more information on this topic, use this form to reach NCSL staff.

• What is your role? Legislator Legislative Staff Other
• Admin Email

March 2024 global poverty update from the World Bank: first estimates of global poverty until 2022 from survey data

R. andres castaneda aguilar, carolina diaz-bonilla, christoph lakner, minh cong nguyen, martha viveros, samuel kofi tetteh baah.

Global poverty estimates were updated today on the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP).   As explained in more detail in the What’s New document, more than 100 new surveys were added to the PIP database, bringing the total number of surveys to more than 2,300. With more recent survey data, this March 2024 PIP update is the first to report a global poverty number for 2020-2022, the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. We estimate that COVID-19 increased extreme poverty in the world, as measured by the international poverty line of $2.15, from 8.9 percent in 2019 to 9.7 percent in 2020 (see Figure 1). This is the first increase in global poverty in decades. It is in line with earlier estimates of the COVID-19 impact which used limited survey data and GDP growth projections.  The global increase in extreme poverty in 2020 is driven by South Asia, where extreme poverty increased by 2.4 percentage points to 13 percent between 2019 and 2020. In Latin America and the Caribbean, however, extreme poverty continued to decline in 2020, which is driven by Brazil. This can be explained by the role of fiscal policy in mitigating the economic impacts of the COVID-19 shock . At a higher poverty line of $3.65 ( the poverty line more relevant for assessing poverty in lower-middle-income countries ), poverty also fell in Latin America and the Caribbean and in East Asia and the Pacific even in 2020. At $6.85 ( the poverty line more relevant for assessing poverty in upper-middle-income countries ), poverty also declined in 2020 in Europe and Central Asia and in advanced countries (“Other High Income”). Unfortunately, survey coverage during the post-2019 period is still limited in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East and North Africa, so we cannot report poverty estimates beyond 2019 for these regions. 

Figure 1: Global and regional poverty estimates, 1990 - 2022

Following the widespread recession in 2020, economies around the world started to recover in 2021 and extreme poverty levels were lower than pre-pandemic levels in the more prosperous regions of the world by 2022 (East Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, advanced countries, Europe and Central Asia, and South Asia). For the world, however, global poverty was still marginally above pre-pandemic levels by 2022, though on a declining trend.  The new estimates of extreme poverty in the world in the period 2020-2022 are quite similar to earlier projections.   An estimated 23 million more people were living in extreme poverty in 2022, compared to 2019. That extreme poverty levels were lower in 2022 relative to 2019 for more prosperous regions, but not for the world, suggests that the economic recovery from the pandemic was uneven and slower for Sub-Saharan Africa where more than half of the extreme poor live. The year 2022 also came with another global shock – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which contributed to rising inflation in low-, middle- and high-income countries. At the $3.65 and $6.85 poverty lines, the global poverty rate in 2022 are lower the levels recorded in 2019. This result is consistent with the recovery being faster in more prosperous regions, considering that Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for a smaller share of the global poor at these higher lines compared to the extreme poverty line. This March 2024 global poverty update from the World Bank incorporates updated CPI, national accounts and population data, and revises previously published global and regional estimates from 1981 to 2022. The methodology used for lining up regional and global poverty has also been revised, which leads to small changes. For more details, see the What’s New document. Figure 1 shows global and regional poverty trends at all three global absolute poverty lines of the World Bank (see the poverty series using 2011 PPPs here ). Table 1 summarizes the revisions to the regional and global poverty estimates between the September 2023 data vintage and the March 2024 data vintage for the 2019 reference year at all three poverty lines.

Table 1: Poverty estimates for reference year 2019, changes between the September 2023 and March 2024 PIP vintages

Given all the new data points and revisions to PIP data and methodology in this update, global extreme poverty in 2019 has been revised down marginally by 0.1 percentage points to 8.9 percent, resulting in a downward revision in the number of poor people from 701 to 689 million. The global reduction in the millions of extreme poor occurs despite an upward revision in Sub-Saharan Africa (14 million). The reduction is driven by Europe and Central Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, where new survey data have recently become available to replace extrapolations of very old surveys (the regional estimate for Middle East and North Africa cannot be shown since it does not meet the 50% population cut-off.) For example, new survey data for 2022 have been added for Syria and Uzbekistan, for which the latest surveys were 2003 in the previous vintage of the data. At $3.65 and $6.85, poverty rates have been revised down by 0.7 and 0.6 percentage points, representing a reduction in global poverty counts by 52 and 44 million, respectively. These downward revisions in global poverty estimates at these higher poverty thresholds are driven by Europe and Central Asia and South Asia. For more details on the March 2024 PIP update from the World Bank, see the What’s New document.

Would you like to be updated with the latest news on PIP? Register to our newsletter  here .

The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the UK Government through the Data and Evidence for Tackling Extreme Poverty (DEEP) Research Program.

• Development Economics

Economist, Development Data Group, World Bank

Senior Economist, Poverty and Equity Global Practice, World Bank

Data Scientist

Program Manager, Development Data Group, World Bank

Senior Data Scientist, Poverty and Equity Global Practice, World Bank

Consultant, Development Data Group, World Bank

Economist, Global Poverty and Inequality Data (GPID), Development Data Group, World Bank

Join the Conversation

• Share on mail
• comments added

Protected: A Discrimination Report Card

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

More on this topic

Competitive Job Seekers: When Sharing Less Leaves Firms at a Loss

Lives vs. Livelihoods: The Impact of the Great Recession on Mortality and Welfare

The Economics of Reproductive Choice

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Yes, we’re divided. But new AP-NORC poll shows Americans still agree on most core American values

Most U.S. adults share many core values on what it means to be an American despite the country’s deep political polarization according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

FILE - The Capitol is seen as water sprinklers soak the National Mall on a hot summer morning in Washington, July 15, 2022. A new poll finds that most Americans share many core values on what it means to be an American despite the country’s deep political polarization. The poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 9 in 10 U.S. adults say the right to vote, the right to equal protection under the law and the right to privacy are important or very important to the U.S.’s identity as a nation.(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — Despite the country’s deep political polarization, most Americans share many core beliefs about what it means to be an American, according to a new poll.

The poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 9 in 10 U.S. adults say the right to vote, the right to equal protection under the law and the right to privacy are extremely important or very important to the United States’ identity as a nation. The survey also found that 84% feel the same way about the freedom of religion.

The results, which included perspectives on a number of different freedoms and rights, have only small variances between Republicans and Democrats except on the right to bear arms, which Republicans are more likely to see as core to the nation’s identity. The overall findings are striking because they come at a time of extreme partisanship when political agreements seem rare and concerns are heightened over the potential for violence during a volatile presidential election year.

“If you get a bunch of normal people at random and put them in a room together and chat about issues, there’s a lot more convergence than you might imagine,” said Michael Albertus, a political science professor at the University of Chicago.

A more pessimistic assessment of the country was reflected in another finding — that only about 3 in 10 Americans believe the nation’s democracy is functioning well. About half say the U.S. is a poorly functioning democracy, while 14% say the U.S. is not a democracy.

The tension between the broad consensus on the country’s fundamental values and discontent with how well its form of government is working is not a surprise, experts say.

“Part of it is really our leaders are not reflecting the electorate, and they behave in a way that’s much more polarized than what the electorate is,” said Lilliana Mason, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University.

Most Americans, she said, “are pretty moderate, but they’ve been riled up to hate people of the other party for being different from them culturally, racially and religiously.”

The AP-NORC poll also found broad agreement on the importance of some key values for the U.S.’s identity as a country. About three-quarters of U.S. adults agree that a democratically elected government is extremely or very important, and about 8 in 10 think the same about the ability of people living in the U.S. to get good jobs and achieve the American dream.

But what achieving that dream means — and which values are most fundamental to American culture — isn’t something all Americans agree on.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans — 71% to 38% — to believe that the ability to come to the U.S. from elsewhere in the world to escape violence or find economic opportunities is core to the country’s identity. A majority of Republicans, 58%, think a culture grounded in Christian values and beliefs is an essential characteristic, compared to only 18% of Democrats.

Juan Sierra, 51, a naturalized citizen whose family immigrated from the Dominican Republic after a hurricane destroyed his father’s cement business, said it is very important to him that the U.S. be seen as a place of opportunity.

The Capitol is seen as water sprinklers soak the National Mall on a hot summer morning in Washington, July 15, 2022. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

The industrial technician in Port St. Lucie, Florida, said he believes democracy is working and will continue to do so “as long as there are good people in government.”

Sierra also said it was extremely important that people have freedom of religion, although he had concerns over the nation’s identity being tied to Christianity.

“We’re seeing what happens right now when laws are passed and decisions are made based on someone’s religion,” he said, citing the Alabama Supreme Court ruling in February that frozen embryos can be considered children and be afforded legal protections, a decision that temporarily halted IVF procedures in the state.

Susan Johnson, a 76-year-old Republican living in the Dallas suburbs, said the nation’s standing as a beacon to others who need refuge is very important, but said that could not override concerns about border security.

“We need people working,” she said. “We just need them to come the right way.”

Johnson also said she believes it’s extremely important that the nation’s identity be grounded in spirituality.

“Whether or not you’re Mormon or a Muslim or a Christian, they just have to have some higher power to reach up to,” she said. “The country is going to fall apart if we don’t believe in God.”

The poll found few divisions on democracy as a system in theory, but it identified one notable gap: younger Americans between the ages of 18 to 29 were less likely than those 60 and older to say the U.S. is a well-functioning democracy. They’re also less likely than older Americans to believe that some characteristics are essential to the U.S.’s character as a nation, including having a democratically elected government. About 6 in 10 younger adults see this as important, compared to about 9 in 10 older adults.

Palakjot Singh, a 21-year-old college student in Fresno, California, identified himself as a Republican and said he had a better quality of life when Donald Trump was president. He said the U.S. is not a well-functioning democracy in part because people are not open to debating different points of view compared to previous generations.

“There is not good communication,” he said. “Nobody is sitting together trying to get to one point.”

Howard Lavine, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota, said the generational split is understandable. Many younger people don’t remember a time when those with opposing views and from different political backgrounds could get together and “come over to your house.” Their frame of reference is the hyper partisanship of the Trump years, he said.

Joe Lagle, 55, a retired Air Force veteran in Colorado Springs who said he has not voted for either President Joe Biden or Trump, said the nation’s various rights are “all important” but believes they are being eroded by intolerance and well-meaning but shortsighted people.

Mike Maloy, 41, an engineer in Greensboro, North Carolina, said having those rights and freedoms “doesn’t necessarily mean the U.S. is a functioning democracy.”

“Everything is run by a handful of people and their corporations,” he said. “That’s not a democracy.”

A Democrat, Maloy cited as an example this year’s presidential primary in North Carolina, when Biden was the lone candidate on the ballot. He called that “frustrating” and said the result was that voters “had no choice.”

The poll of 1,282 adults was conducted March 21-25, 2024, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

Associated Press polling writer Linley Sanders contributed to this report.

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here . The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Key facts about asian americans living in poverty.

Asian Americans are often portrayed as educationally and financially successful when compared with other racial or ethnic groups. However, Asian origin groups in the United States vary widely in their economic status and education level . Indeed, more than 2.3 million Asian Americans – about one-in-ten – lived in poverty in 2022, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

Learn more about Asian Americans’ experiences with economic hardship in  our data essay  and  short film .

Here are nine facts about Asian Americans living in poverty.

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to better understand the characteristics, experiences and views of Asian Americans living in poverty today. It is part of a three-part study that includes an analysis of 18 focus groups conducted with 144 Asians living with economic hardship completed in February 2023 and a short film about Asian families who have experienced economic hardship .

This analysis is based on two main data sources. The first data source is the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) provided through Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) from the University of Minnesota. In this analysis, poverty status is determined using the 2022 federal poverty line for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia, Alaska, or Hawaii, depending on respondents’ state of residence, published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. For example, a family of four living in 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia were categorized as living “in poverty” if they make a yearly income of $27,750 or less.

The second data source is Pew Research Center’s 2022-23 survey of Asian American adults, conducted from July 2022 to January 2023 in six languages among 7,006 respondents. The survey analysis included 561 Asian adults whose approximate family income is at or below the 2022 federal poverty line for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia, regardless of their state of residence. For more details, refer to the survey methodology . For questions used in this analysis, refer to the topline questionnaire .

Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. The Center’s Asian American portfolio was funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, with generous support from The Asian American Foundation; Chan Zuckerberg Initiative DAF, an advised fund of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; the Henry Luce Foundation; the Doris Duke Foundation; The Wallace H. Coulter Foundation; The Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation; The Long Family Foundation; Lu-Hebert Fund; Gee Family Foundation; Joseph Cotchett; the Julian Abdey and Sabrina Moyle Charitable Fund; and Nanci Nishimura.

We would also like to thank the Leaders Forum for its thoughtful leadership and valuable assistance in helping make this survey possible.

The strategic communications campaign used to promote the research was made possible with generous support from the Doris Duke Foundation.

The terms Asians and Asian Americans  are used interchangeably throughout this post to refer to individuals who self-identify as Asian, either alone or in combination with other races or Hispanic identity.

The terms living in poverty and living near or below the federal poverty line are used interchangeably throughout this post to refer to those whose family income is close to or below the 2022 federal poverty line.

• For results on Asian adults from the survey , this refers to adults whose approximate family income falls at or below 100% of the federal poverty line.
• For data on the total U.S. Asian population from the U.S. Census Bureau , this refers to all Asian Americans whose family income is at or below 100% of the federal poverty line.

The term U.S. born refers to people who are U.S. citizens at birth, including people born in the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, or other U.S. territories, as well as those born elsewhere to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen.

The term immigrants , when referring to Census Bureau data, includes those who were not U.S. citizens at birth – in other words, those born outside the 50 U.S. states or the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, or other U.S. territories to parents who were not U.S. citizens. When referring to survey respondents, this group only includes those born outside the 50 U.S. States or the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories.

About 10% of Asian Americans overall live in poverty, but poverty rates vary widely across origin groups. Burmese (19%) and Hmong Americans (17%) were among the Asian origin groups with the highest poverty rates in 2022. Meanwhile, Filipino (7%) and Indian Americans (6%) were among the groups with the lowest poverty rates.

A third of Asian Americans ages 25 and older who live in poverty have a bachelor’s degree. By comparison, among non-Asians 25 and older who live in poverty, only 14% have a bachelor’s degree.

Asian Americans 25 and older with at least a bachelor’s degree are still less likely to live in poverty (5%) than those with less formal education (13%).

Nearly six-in-ten Asian Americans who live in poverty are immigrants. And relatively few of these immigrants speak English proficiently.

Among Asian immigrants ages 5 and older living below the poverty line, 44% are proficient in English (meaning they either speak only English or speak the language very well). By comparison, 61% of those immigrants above the poverty line speak English proficiently.

About 1 million Asians who are below the poverty line live in 10 U.S. metropolitan areas. In fact, more than 500,000 live in just three metropolitan areas: New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco. These metro areas each have about 100,000 or more Asians living in poverty, and together they hold 26% of all Asian Americans living in poverty.

Fresno, California (19%), Buffalo, New York (18%) and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (15%) are among the metro areas with the highest poverty rates among Asian Americans. Still, Asian Americans who live in poverty largely reside in places with larger Asian populations than these metro areas.

Refer to a downloadable spreadsheet for detailed data on the number and share of Asians living in poverty by metro area.

Around eight-in-ten Asian adults who live in poverty (79%) have experienced financial challenges in some way in the past 12 months, according to a Pew Research Center survey of Asian adults conducted in 2022 and 2023. By contrast, 48% of Asian adults living above the poverty line say they have experienced the same. Among the specific financial challenges they faced:

• 57% of Asian adults living in poverty were unable to save for emergencies, compared with 40% of Asian adults living above the poverty line.
• 42% had trouble paying their bills, more than twice the share of Asian adults living above the poverty line who said the same (17%).
• 38% have gotten food from a food bank or charitable organization, about six times the share among Asians living above the poverty line (6%).

Financial difficulties tend to come in bundles: Among those living in poverty who say they experienced at least one of the financial challenges asked about, 65% experienced two or more.

A majority of Asian adults who live in poverty (61%) have turned to family or friends for help with bills, housing, food or employment.

A large share (49%) also say they have sought help from local, state or federal governments. Smaller shares have sought help from religious institutions such as churches or temples (21%) or Asian community groups (13%).

However, 19% of Asian adults living in poverty say they have not sought help from any of the sources asked about in the survey.

Why Asian immigrants came to the U.S. is linked to whether they have received help from the government. For example, a third of all Asian immigrants, regardless of poverty status, who came to the U.S. due to conflict or persecution in their home country have received help with bills, housing, food or employment from governments (33%). By comparison, smaller shares of Asian immigrants who came for educational opportunities (14%) or economic opportunities (16%) or who migrated to be with family (25%) say the same.

Roughly half of Asian Americans who live in poverty (47%) say the American dream is out of reach, but others say they have achieved it (15%) or are on their way to achieving it (36%). By comparison, Asians living above the poverty line are more optimistic about their chances of achieving the American dream: 26% say it is out of reach for them, while 27% say they have achieved it and 46% say they are on their way to achieving it.

Asian adults who live below the poverty line and those who live above it have similar views on what’s important to achieving the American dream. For Asians living in poverty, the vast majority say having freedom of choice in how to live one’s life (91%), a good family life (91%), children having the best opportunities (91%) and retiring comfortably (90%) are important to their view of the American dream. Among Asian adults living above the poverty line, similar shares say these elements are important.

Homeownership is also seen as key: 81% of Asian adults living in poverty and 87% of those living above the poverty line say owning a home is important to their view of the American dream. However, Asian adults in poverty are much less likely than those above the poverty line to be homeowners (40% vs. 71%), according to Census Bureau data.

Note: For more details, refer to the survey methodology . For questions used in this analysis, refer to the topline questionnaire .

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

Bangladeshis in the U.S. Fact Sheet

Key facts about asian americans, a diverse and growing population, key facts about asian origin groups in the u.s., asian americans are the fastest-growing racial or ethnic group in the u.s., demographic and economic data on the thai immigrant and u.s.-born populations in the united states., most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Harnessing Nature and Building Resilience: Bhutan's Path to Sustainable Development

The World Bank's Country Environmental Analysis highlights that Bhutan's natural capital, when sustainably harnessed, can support economic diversification and resilience.

While environmental policies and accomplishments have helped to build the country’s uniquely “green” image, in the long run, despite the government’s commitment to sustainable resource use and conservation, Bhutan is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and is facing other emerging environmental challenges resulting from urbanization, pollution, and waste management.

Some of the most challenging climate risks which Bhutan faces are hydrological, making its most important economic sectors (hydropower and agriculture) highly vulnerable to climate impacts. While hydropower has kept Bhutan’s emissions and sustainability agenda on track, high dependence on this sector leaves Bhutan’s economy highly vulnerable. Overall, Bhutan has a lower resilience to climate change impacts when compared with other Lower middle-income (LMI) countries.

The Country Environmental Analysis (CEA) takes a new look at Bhutan's development path by incorporating its remarkable conservation and nature protection achievements into a broader conversation about emerging growth opportunities. The CEA delves into Bhutan's sustainability profile and explores socioeconomic indicators beyond GDP and growth rates. It uses several analytical tools to identify key development challenges, knowledge gaps, and opportunities for sustainable growth.

The Green, Resilient, and Inclusive Development (GRID) benchmarking highlights significantly elevated threats from natural disasters that threaten lives and livelihoods. Low access to social protection programs could further increase the country’s vulnerability to natural disasters, including earthquakes, floods, and landslides causing a significant amount of damage each year. Assets equivalent to approximately 2.3 percent of GDP are damaged each year due to natural disasters, which is more than twice the average for LMI countries.