poverty in america research paper

Poverty in America: Is Welfare the Answer or the Problem?

This paper reviews the current policies for fighting poverty and explores the impact they have had. We begin by reviewing trends in poverty, poverty spending and economic performance. It is immediately apparent that economic performance is the dominant determinant of the measured poverty rate over the past two decades. Government assistance programs expanded greatly over this period, but the growth in cash assistance was too modest to have major effects, and the large growth in in-kind benefits could not reduce measured poverty since such benefits are not counted as income. Next we focus on three groups: the disabled, female family heads, and unemployed black youth. We find little evidence that government deserves the blame for the problems of each group, and suggest that the broad outlines of current policies are defensible on economic grounds.

• Acknowledgements and Disclosures

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

Published Versions

Ellwood, David T. and Lawrence H. Summers. "Poverty in America: Is Welfare the Answer or the Problem?" in Fighting Poverty: What Works and What Doesn't, eds. S.Bazinger and D. Wienberg, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986, pp. 78-105

More from NBER

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

Center for Poverty and Inequality Research

• 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

Poverty in America: Trends and Explanations Hilary Hoynes, Marianne Page, and Ann Huff Stevens (Affiliates in Economics)

Over the past 45 years, the United States has experienced a rising standard of living, with real GDP per capita more than doubling between 1959 and 2004. In contrast, living standards among some groups seem to have stagnated. Although a number of studies have documented a correlation between macroeconomic conditions and poverty, the relationship is not as simple, or as strong, as one might think. What additional factors can explain the starkly different trends in economic well-being that are measured by overall GDP growth and the poverty rate?

Other factors may better explain why the poverty rate has failed to fall. Rising numbers of female headed families may offset income gains from women’s increasing labor force participation. Increasing income inequality—in particular stemming from declines in wages for less-skilled workers—may have limited the poverty fighting effects of economic growth. Finally, the level of and changes in government benefits directed toward the nonelderly may explain why the nonelderly poverty rate has not moved in the same direction as elderly poverty.

• Download the paper
• Print-friendly

Share this page

Marianne Page Professor of Economics and Co-Director, Center for Poverty & Inequality

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

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications

• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Key facts about Asian Americans living in poverty

Burmese (19%) and Hmong Americans (17%) were among the Asian origin groups with the highest poverty rates in 2022.

1 in 10: Redefining the Asian American Dream (Short Film)

Of the 24 million Asians living in the United States, about 2.3 million live in poverty. This short film explores their diverse stories and experiences.

The Hardships and Dreams of Asian Americans Living in Poverty

About one-in-ten Asian Americans live in poverty. Pew Research Center conducted 18 focus groups in 12 languages to explore their stories and experiences.

Wealth Surged in the Pandemic, but Debt Endures for Poorer Black and Hispanic Families

About one-in-four Black households and one-in-seven Hispanic households had no wealth or were in debt in 2021, compared with about one-in-ten U.S. households overall.

What the data says about food stamps in the U.S.

The food stamp program is one of the larger federal social welfare initiatives, and in its current form has been around for nearly six decades.

Financial Issues Top the List of Reasons U.S. Adults Live in Multigenerational Homes

Nearly four-in-ten men ages 25 to 29 now live with older relatives.

Most Black Americans say they can meet basic needs financially, but many still experience economic insecurity

Fewer than half of Black adults say they have a three-month emergency fund, and some have taken multiple jobs to make ends meet.

One-in-Ten Black People Living in the U.S. Are Immigrants

Immigrants – particularly those from African nations – are a growing share of the U.S. Black population.

Most Americans support a $15 federal minimum wage

About six-in-ten Americans (62%) say they favor raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, including 40% who strongly back the idea.

In the pandemic, India’s middle class shrinks and poverty spreads while China sees smaller changes

The course of the pandemic in India and China will have a substantial effect on changes in the distribution of income at the global level.

REFINE YOUR SELECTION

Research teams.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

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 .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

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: Apr 17, 2024 2:07 PM
• URL: https://bakersfieldcollege.libguides.com/PovertyInAmerica

Find anything you save across the site in your account

How the U.S. Lifted Children Out of Poverty and Then Threw Them Back Into It

By Isaac Chotiner

Last year, according to a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau, child poverty in America more than doubled. This steep increase, which was accompanied by a general rise in poverty among all age groups, was preceded by two years of declining poverty rates, which were largely attributed to support offered by the federal government during the pandemic. In the case of child poverty, the most important driver of the 2022 jump was the expiration of the expanded child tax credit, which the Biden Administration and congressional Democrats were unable to renew last year, thanks to the opposition of Senate Republicans and Joe Manchin.

To talk about the report, I recently spoke by phone with Christopher Wimer, the director of the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at the Columbia University School of Social Work. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed why the child tax credit has been so successful at reducing poverty, whether states can fill the gap left by the federal government, and what lessons should be drawn from pandemic-era expansions of the social safety net.

What did this report tell us, and how did it reach its conclusions about the child poverty rate in the past year?

It showed what a lot of people were expecting—namely, that using the supplemental poverty measure, which is a more robust measure of income poverty than the United States’ official measure, and counts a lot of the income that the official measure ignores, such as tax credits and in-kind benefits, showed a major rise in poverty from 2021 to 2022. As I said, that was widely expected given that we knew a lot of the pandemic-era policy support to people’s incomes had expired by 2022. For children, the major thing that expired was the 2021 expansion to the child tax credit.That wasn’t the only thing driving the increase in child poverty, and poverty over all from 2021 to 2022, but for children it was a major part of the story.

Do we have some sense of how much a part of the story it was?

Yeah, the child poverty rate was 5.2 per cent in 2021, and that increased to 12.4 per cent in 2022, so it more than doubled. We put out a piece last week where we showed that if an expanded child tax credit had still been in place in 2022, the child poverty rate would have been about 8.1 per cent, so much less than the 12.4 per cent that the census saw. Poverty still would have gone up for children. But there were other parts to the story. In 2021, we had the third round of stimulus payments, or “economic impact payments,” as they’re called. There was also the continuation of some other expansions to the safety net such as emergency allotments in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ( SNAP ).

So, from what we can tell, slightly more than half the increase in child poverty was due to the expiration of the credit.

Your center wrote a report in the beginning of 2022, looking at just the jump from December, 2021, to January, 2022, after the expiration of the expanded credit, and you found an even bigger increase in child poverty than the recent census report showed. Could this have been even worse?

I think it’s important to understand that the numbers we released in 2022 came from our estimation of monthly poverty rates. So it’s a method that we developed to try to understand the poverty rates in the population in advance of the annual statistics that come out each year from the Census Bureau. One important and key difference between the two measures is that our monthly series is really trying to capture the inflow of income in a given month compared with the poverty rate in a given month, whereas an annual poverty measure is aggregating income across the calendar year.

Our monthly series would ask how much the monthly payment in July, for example, reduced the child poverty rate in July, whereas the census numbers that came out last week are asking how all the income pooled across the calendar compared with an annual poverty measure. But, despite the differences, both show that the expiration of the expanded child tax credit threw a lot more children into poverty after keeping a lot of children out of poverty while those payments were in place.

Can you talk a little bit about how the child tax credit works and why you think it has been so successful?

The child tax credit has been around for about twenty-six years and historically has operated as part of people’s tax filing and tax refunds. It’s been what the I.R.S. calls partially refundable so that, for upper-income families, the credit can reduce the amount of taxes that people owe at tax time. And then, for lower- and more moderate-income families, they can get a partial credit as a refund at tax time. Before the 2021 expansion, the maximum credit that one could be eligible for was two thousand dollars per child. And not everyone got that. The maximum that people could get as a refund, for example, was only fourteen hundred dollars per child.

There’s an earnings floor, essentially, before you get anything. And then the credit would phase in as earnings increase. Our research at the center has shown that in the pre-expansion form of the credit, a lot of children were left out or left behind by that credit structure, particularly the children in the lowest-income families. A lot of people got only a partial credit, and some families with children got no credit at all. You needed substantial levels of earnings to get the full credit that was available to middle- and upper-middle-class families.

In 2021, the American Rescue Plan expanded the credit for that year and basically made three big changes. One change was that it increased the maximum size of the benefit levels, from two thousand to three thousand dollars per child for older children, six and above, and thirty-six hundred dollars per child for younger children, ages zero to five. The second major change is that it made the credit fully refundable and available to all families with children at the lower end of the income distribution and no longer tied to the earnings levels of their parents. The third major change was that the credit was delivered monthly in the last six months of 2021. So half of the credit was delivered to most families in July through December, in the middle of the month, and then the second half of the credit was delivered when families filed their taxes in early 2022. Those are the three major changes. They were in existence only for that year. And, as of 2022, the law reverted to its pre-pandemic form.

This year, after we found out that the federal expansion was not going to be permanent, a number of states have stepped in and tried to increase their own child tax credits. What do we know about those efforts, and is it too early to see what effect they might be having? How much hope do you have that, if the federal government doesn’t step in, some of the uptick in poverty rates that we’ve seen can be mitigated?

It’s been exciting to see the momentum on this issue at the state level. The federal earned-income tax credit has been around since 1975, but in recent decades a lot of states have adopted a state-level earned-income tax credit. Usually those are pegged as a certain percentage of the federal one, but there really weren’t that many state-level child tax credits before the federal expansion. So, like you said, a number of states have pursued or created or expanded state-level child tax credits in the past year or two, and it is a little too soon to look at all their impacts because they’re going into effect at different times, and not all of them were fully in effect in 2022, which is the most recent data we have from the Census Bureau.

The other thing I would note about them is that they tend to be much smaller than the 2021 expanded federal credit. They vary a lot in terms of size, and the degree to which they’re fully refundable, like the federal expanded credit was. In some states, they’re more like rebates. They also vary in terms of whether they’re permanent or temporary. But it’s exciting to see, and we’ll learn a lot more as more states put them into practice. And, of course, states have to balance their budgets every year as opposed to the federal government. So often they have less money to create and institute such a credit.

Has it been mostly blue states that have tried to put in some sort of expansion recently, or has it been bipartisan? In part because this was a tax credit and not a government program, there was hope that the credit would be a bipartisan thing going forward. Have you seen that on the state level?

They have tended to be blue states. New York had one before the pandemic and expanded it after the pandemic. The state had a credit that was only for children age five and above, and they extended the eligibility to younger children. California had one and has one still. A lot of the states that have been creating new ones tended to be the bluer states, like Maryland and Minnesota.

The report says that the biggest increase in child poverty was in the South. Do we know much about regional distinctions? It seems that state-level efforts to fill in for the federal government are less likely to happen there, which would mean less help for the places with the worst child poverty.

We showed in a report last year that the impacts of the credit on the reduction in poverty in 2021 were largest in the states that had a lower cost of living. The supplemental measure will have a higher poverty line in more expensive places, such as California and Washington, D.C. Sometimes there’s a lower poverty line in places in the South where housing costs are much lower. So the credit, which doesn’t vary regionally, is the same amount in Mississippi as it is in California, but essentially can do more anti-poverty impact when the poverty line is lower to begin with. Part of what might be going on is that the Southern states might be losing more in relative terms because of the size of the benefit relative to their poverty line.

There’s been some talk about further federal expansions, and what we hear from politicians who seem more skeptical than most Democrats is that it would have to be bundled with work requirements. What exactly would a work requirement be, and how would that function in practice?

So the way the child tax credit works, or worked before the pandemic, and how it works again now is it does have essentially what you would call a work requirement. You receive any amount of dollars from the credit only if you meet this earnings threshold, which is a few thousand dollars. In a sense, you have to work to get anything from it. And, to qualify for the full credit, you have to have pretty substantial earnings. As your earnings rise, you would get a larger credit, and then that plateaus for a while. And then, as your earnings get really quite substantial, the credit would again begin to phase out and become smaller. There are some people whose families have too much earnings to get anything from the credit, but that’s a small fraction of families. That’s usually what people are talking about when they’re talking about instituting a work requirement: preserving that earnings floor and that phase-in with earnings as earnings increase.

But I think it’s really important that all children are able to benefit from this program, and that it not be just a middle-class subsidy. We’ve shown the importance that investments in children’s family incomes can have for their long-term well-being and development. Kids who are not in poverty go on to earn more in the labor market, be healthier, all sorts of things that we want as a society. The other point that I often make to people is that incomes aren’t a fixed characteristic. So, when you actually take a longer view, a lot more American families with children will experience a period of hard times and a period of low income. Having a robust child tax credit provides a bit of insurance against the risk of hard times.

And it could even affect non-parental caregivers, such as grandparents, correct?

Yeah, absolutely. The expanded credit was for all children, except, of course, some of the highest-earning families’ children. Whoever was claiming the child on their taxes would be the person receiving that money.

I don’t want to slight the scale of what happened, but when you look at a chart of child poverty in the United States, which obviously is embarrassing, child poverty is still significantly below what it was a decade ago or even a couple decades ago. Why is that? And, even if what we saw in 2022 was horrific, what lessons can we learn from the longer-term trend of declining child poverty?

At Columbia, we actually created a version of the supplemental poverty measure that I described earlier, going all the way back to 1967. It tries to capture in a consistent way the definition of income that includes not just cash income but these in-kind benefits and tax credits and the like. When we look at that over the long term, we do see that poverty has come down pretty dramatically over the past five-plus decades. A lot of that progress has come from policy alone. So that’s a success story, but it’s also a story that the labor market and all the economic progress and gains that we’ve had in the past five decades haven’t necessarily translated into reductions in poverty unless you count the resources from government policies and programs.

One lesson that we take from the recent expansion is that policy matters a lot, and policy can reduce child poverty and reduce need in this country as long as we have sustained effort behind it. But unfortunately it was just one year where we conducted this experiment in social policy. The second lesson is that unfortunately we still need policy to be doing this work as opposed to our normal labor market and other institutions.

When you say that this episode shows that policies work, what specifically with regard to children are we talking about in addition to the child tax credit?

Policies tend to work together, but it’s not just the child tax credit by any means. So you have the earned-income tax credit, which was expanded periodically since it was created, in 1975. It was originally a pretty small program. Especially in the nineties, it was expanded pretty dramatically under the Clinton Administration. That’s become increasingly important. The SNAP program as well has become increasingly important in recent years, especially after cash welfare was largely dismantled in the mid-nineties. There are smaller programs, such as the National School Lunch Program, which provide important support. Social Security and its expansion in the seventies were a huge driver of reduction in elderly poverty. So it depends which subpopulation you’re talking about, but it’s not just the child tax credit that matters by any means. ♦

New Yorker Favorites

They thought that they’d found the perfect apartment. They weren’t alone .

After high-school football stars were accused of rape, online vigilantes demanded that justice be served .

The world’s oldest temple and the dawn of civilization .

What happened to the whale from “Free Willy.”

It was one of the oldest buildings left downtown. Why not try to save it ?

The religious right’s leading ghostwriter .

A comic strip by Alison Bechdel: the seven-minute semi-sadistic workout .

Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker .

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Susan B. Glasser

By Jonathan Blitzer

By Charles Bethea

• Topics ›
• Poverty and income in the United States ›

1 in 7 Children Live in Poverty in the U.S.

Child poverty.

More than 11 million children were estimated to be living in poverty in 2021, according to U.S. Census Bureau data published by the Children’s Defense Fund. That equates to around one in seven children in the U.S., or 15.3 percent. It’s a high toll, and one even higher than the adult population, which was 10.5 percent for 19-64 year olds that year and 10.3 percent for adults aged 65+. According to an analysis by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, this difference is due to factors such as the “cost of caregiving and its responsibilities, transitions to a single parenthood household, unemployment of parents, and disabilities of family members.”

As this chart shows, poverty levels are disproportionately higher among non-White populations. American Indian/Alaska Native children were particularly overrepresented, with 29.1 percent of this group living in poverty in 2021, followed closely behind by Black children at 27.1 percent, versus a comparatively low 8.8 percent of white children. In terms of absolute numbers, Hispanic children were the biggest group, with 4,168,000 registered as poor in 2021, according to the source, or 37.4 percent of all children who were in poverty.

Other patterns in the data highlighted by the Childrens’ Defense Foundation include the regional divide, with the South showing a child poverty prevalence of nearly 20 percent, or one in five children. This drops to below 15 percent in the Northeast, Midwest and West (closer to one in seven). Perhaps the starkest figure though, is for children living in a single female-headed household, where nearly four in ten (37.1 percent) were living in poverty in 2021.

Description

This chart shows the share of children who are categorized as poor in the United States in 2021, by census group.

Can I integrate infographics into my blog or website?

Yes, Statista allows the easy integration of many infographics on other websites. Simply copy the HTML code that is shown for the relevant statistic in order to integrate it. Our standard is 660 pixels, but you can customize how the statistic is displayed to suit your site by setting the width and the display size. Please note that the code must be integrated into the HTML code (not only the text) for WordPress pages and other CMS sites.

Infographic Newsletter

Statista offers daily infographics about trending topics, covering: Economy & Finance , Politics & Society , Tech & Media , Health & Environment , Consumer , Sports and many more.

Related Infographics

Land inequality, the global land squeeze, hate crimes, how common are hate crimes against queer people, agriculture is the biggest employer in india, who owns electric cars, africa wealth report 2024, where wealth is concentrated in africa, robotics and automation, asia races ahead in industrial robot installations, skin cancer awareness month, chances of getting melanoma of the skin, skin cancer awareness month, melanoma death rate falls in u.s. despite rising cases, china trade, china's most important export partners, movie industry, what are the best-known movie franchises in the u.s., shein in rank 3 of biggest u.s. online fashion retailers, interest rates, latest economic data throws cold water on rate cut hopes.

• Who may use the "Chart of the Day"? The Statista "Chart of the Day", made available under the Creative Commons License CC BY-ND 3.0, may be used and displayed without charge by all commercial and non-commercial websites. Use is, however, only permitted with proper attribution to Statista. When publishing one of these graphics, please include a backlink to the respective infographic URL. More Information
• Which topics are covered by the "Chart of the Day"? The Statista "Chart of the Day" currently focuses on two sectors: "Media and Technology", updated daily and featuring the latest statistics from the media, internet, telecommunications and consumer electronics industries; and "Economy and Society", which current data from the United States and around the world relating to economic and political issues as well as sports and entertainment.
• Does Statista also create infographics in a customized design? For individual content and infographics in your Corporate Design, please visit our agency website www.statista.design

Any more questions?

Get in touch with us quickly and easily. we are happy to help.

Feel free to contact us anytime using our contact form or visit our FAQ page .

Statista Content & Design

Need infographics, animated videos, presentations, data research or social media charts?

More Information

The Statista Infographic Newsletter

Receive a new up-to-date issue every day for free.

• Our infographics team prepares current information in a clear and understandable format
• Relevant facts covering media, economy, e-commerce, and FMCG topics
• Use our newsletter overview to manage the topics that you have subscribed to

NEWS & RESEARCH REPORTS

Federal poverty income guidelines for 2024 released.

America: a Third World Country in Disguise?

This essay about the paradoxical notion of America as a third world country challenges conventional perspectives. It examines key indicators such as income inequality, healthcare access, educational disparities, and political dysfunction to argue that America shares similarities with developing nations. Despite its wealth, America struggles with widening income gaps, inadequate healthcare coverage, underfunded schools, and political polarization. By confronting these challenges, America can aspire to fulfill its ideals and overcome the label of a third world country in disguise.

How it works

Is America truly a third world country? This provocative question challenges conventional notions about the economic and social status of the United States. While traditionally associated with developing nations struggling with poverty, underdevelopment, and political instability, the term “third world” takes on a new dimension when applied to America. By examining key indicators such as income inequality, access to healthcare, and educational disparities, a compelling argument emerges that America shares more in common with third world countries than many might realize.

Income inequality lies at the heart of America’s third world status. Despite being one of the wealthiest nations globally, the gap between the rich and poor continues to widen. A small percentage of the population controls a disproportionate amount of wealth, while a significant portion struggles to make ends meet. This stark divide undermines the very foundation of equality and opportunity that America purports to champion. The plight of the working class, with stagnant wages and diminishing job security, mirrors the economic struggles of third world citizens.

Access to healthcare further underscores America’s third world status. While the country boasts advanced medical technology and cutting-edge research, millions of Americans lack basic healthcare coverage. The exorbitant cost of medical treatment, coupled with systemic barriers to access, leaves many vulnerable populations without essential care. This reality stands in stark contrast to the universal healthcare systems found in many developed nations, highlighting America’s failure to prioritize the health and well-being of its citizens.

Educational disparities serve as another compelling argument for America’s third world classification. While the country prides itself on its institutions of higher learning and academic excellence, the reality for many Americans is far from ideal. Public schools in low-income neighborhoods often lack adequate funding and resources, perpetuating a cycle of inequality. Limited access to quality education hinders social mobility and perpetuates entrenched systems of privilege and disadvantage. This educational divide mirrors the challenges faced by third world countries striving to provide equitable opportunities for their citizens.

Moreover, America’s political landscape further complicates its classification as a third world country. The erosion of democratic norms, the influence of corporate interests, and the polarization of society raise questions about the nation’s commitment to governance for the people, by the people. The growing disillusionment with the political establishment and the rise of populist movements signal a crisis of legitimacy that mirrors the instability seen in many third world nations.

In conclusion, while America may not fit the traditional definition of a third world country, a closer examination reveals troubling parallels that cannot be ignored. Income inequality, limited access to healthcare, educational disparities, and political dysfunction all contribute to a narrative of a nation in decline. By confronting these challenges head-on and prioritizing the well-being of all its citizens, America can strive to live up to its ideals and shed the label of a third world country in disguise.

Cite this page

America: A Third World Country in Disguise?. (2024, May 28). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/america-a-third-world-country-in-disguise/

"America: A Third World Country in Disguise?." PapersOwl.com , 28 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/america-a-third-world-country-in-disguise/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). America: A Third World Country in Disguise? . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/america-a-third-world-country-in-disguise/ [Accessed: 29 May. 2024]

"America: A Third World Country in Disguise?." PapersOwl.com, May 28, 2024. Accessed May 29, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/america-a-third-world-country-in-disguise/

"America: A Third World Country in Disguise?," PapersOwl.com , 28-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/america-a-third-world-country-in-disguise/. [Accessed: 29-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). America: A Third World Country in Disguise? . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/america-a-third-world-country-in-disguise/ [Accessed: 29-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Bahasa Indonesia

Water security is critical for poverty reduction, but billions will remain without water access unless urgent action is taken

WASHINGTON, May 20, 2024 — Access to safe drinking water and sanitation, reliable water-supply for agriculture and industry, and protection against droughts and floods are essential for human and economic development, a World Bank report released on Monday states.

Over the past 20 years, the number of people lacking safe drinking water and basic sanitation has increased by 197 million and 211 million, respectively. Today, over two billion people still lack access to safe drinking water, and 3.5 billion are deprived of safely managed sanitation facilities. Resulting infectious diseases contribute to at least 1.4 million annual deaths and 50% of global malnutrition.

Lack of access to safe water and sanitation is particularly harmful in childhood, Water for Shared Prosperity , a report released at the 10 th World Water Forum in Bali, Indonesia by the World Bank Group and the Government of Indonesia, says. Inadequate and unsafe water affects early childhood development, and time spent fetching water, inadequate sanitation and hygiene and droughts or floods disrupt learning and lead to school dropouts.

Climate change is amplifying water-related risks. Driven by global emissions, developing countries are most affected by climate shocks. Between 2000 and 2021, developing countries experienced more severe droughts and longer lasting floods than advanced economies, with long-term effects on nutrition, school attendance and economic welfare. Developing countries disproportionately rely on water-dependent sectors, particularly agriculture, for employment. Globally, over 800 million people are at high-risk of droughts and twice as many live in flood-risk hotspots.

“To improve livelihoods, significant reforms and investments are needed to provide efficiently managed water and sanitation services to those without access, and to strengthen resilience against hydro-climatic risks,” said World Bank Vice President for East Asia and the Pacific Manuela V. Ferro , who is leading the World Bank team at the World Water Forum.

Water for Shared Prosperity offers specific recommendations on how to improve water security in developing countries: Protecting depleting aquifers and unevenly distributed freshwater resources will require more international cooperation, implementing proven nature-based solutions such as reforestation and investing in water storage infrastructure to prevent run-off and make water available in dry periods.

Policies to upgrade housing, and land use regulations to prevent construction in flood-prone areas can reduce exposure. Early warning systems and insurance can help households and farmers cope with extreme hydro-climatic shocks.

Reforming water tariffs and poorly-targeted subsidies, while ensuring affordability for low-income households, can help maintain and expand services and allocate scarce water resources fairly. Service providers will also need to enhance their operations, reducing water losses and lowering operating costs. Supported by policies that ensure transparency and accountability, the private sector can offer valuable expertise to enhance efficiency and manage complex infrastructure.

A spotlight section of the report examines how Indonesia, the host of this year's triennial World Water Forum, is addressing water security challenges. Indonesia has made significant investments to enhance resilience to climate-related risks, including investments in 61 dams to store water and increase irrigated areas.  A Community-Based Water Supply Program has provided more than 24 million people with improved water facilities. The government has prioritized reducing pollution and environmental degradation in the Citarum River Basin in West Java, and is pioneering treatment of peat water to making it suitable for drinking through the National Urban Water Supply project.

This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. If you continue to navigate this website beyond this page, cookies will be placed on your browser. To learn more about cookies, click here .

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
• BJPsych Bull
• v.44(5); 2020 Oct

Poverty and mental health: policy, practice and research implications

Lee knifton.

1 Centre for Health Policy, University of Strathclyde, Scotland, and Mental Health Foundation, Scotland and Northern Ireland

Greig Inglis

2 University of West of Scotland, Paisley

Associated Data

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit https://doi.org/10.1192/bjb.2020.78.

This article examines the relationship between poverty and mental health problems. We draw on the experience of Glasgow, our home city, which contains some of Western Europe's areas of greatest concentrated poverty and poorest health outcomes. We highlight how mental health problems are related directly to poverty, which in turn underlies wider health inequalities. We then outline implications for psychiatry.

Doctors have often played leading roles in social movements to improve the public's health. These range from the early days of John Snow isolating the role of contaminated water supplies in spreading cholera, through to advocating harm reduction, challenging HIV stigma and, more recently, highlighting the public health catastrophe of mass incarceration in the USA. 1 Almost all examples are rooted in poverty. There is now increasing recognition that mental health problems form the greatest public health challenge of our time, and that the poor bear the greatest burden of mental illness. 2

Our article draws on data from Scotland, and especially Glasgow, which contains some of the areas of greatest need and widest health inequalities in Western Europe. However, the relationship between poverty, social stress and mental health problems is not a new phenomenon and was reported by social psychiatrists half a century ago in Langner & Michael's 1963 New York study 3 and consistently since then. Poverty is both a cause of mental health problems and a consequence. Poverty in childhood and among adults can cause poor mental health through social stresses, stigma and trauma. Equally, mental health problems can lead to impoverishment through loss of employment or underemployment, or fragmentation of social relationships. This vicious cycle is in reality even more complex, as many people with mental health problems move in and out of poverty, living precarious lives.

Poverty and mental health

The mental health of individuals is shaped by the social, environmental and economic conditions in which they are born, grow, work and age. 4 – 7 Poverty and deprivation are key determinants of children's social and behavioural development 8 , 9 and adult mental health. 10 In Scotland, individuals living in the most deprived areas report higher levels of mental ill health and lower levels of well-being than those living in the most affluent areas. In 2018 for example, 23% of men and 26% of women living in the most deprived areas of Scotland reported levels of mental distress indicative of a possible psychiatric disorder, compared with 12 and 16% of men and women living in the least deprived areas. 11 There is also a clear relationship between area deprivation and suicide in Scotland, with suicides three times more likely in the least than in the most deprived areas. 12

Inequalities in mental health emerge early in life and become more pronounced throughout childhood. In one cohort study, 7.3% of 4-year-olds in the most deprived areas of Glasgow were rated by their teacher as displaying ‘abnormal’ social, behavioural and emotional difficulties, compared with only 4.1% in the least deprived areas. By age 7, the gap between these groups had widened substantially: 14.7% of children in the most deprived areas were rated as having ‘abnormal’ difficulties, compared with 3.6% of children in the least deprived. 13 National data from parental ratings of children's behaviour show a similar pattern: at around 4 years of age, 20% of children living in the most deprived areas of Scotland are rated as having ‘borderline’ or ‘abnormal’ levels of difficulties, compared with only 7% living in the least deprived areas. 14

These findings reflect a broader pattern of socioeconomic inequalities in health that is observed internationally. 15 The primary causes of these inequalities are structural differences in socioeconomic groups’ access to economic, social and political resources, which in turn affect health through a range of more immediate environmental, psychological and behavioural processes. 16 , 17 A wide range of risk factors are more prevalent among low income groups for example, including low levels of perceived control 18 and unhealthy behaviours such as smoking and low levels of physical activity, 11 although these are best understood as mechanisms that link the structural causes of inequality to health outcomes. 17

Excess mortality and mental health in Glasgow

Glasgow has some of the highest Scottish rates of income deprivation, working-age adults claiming out of work benefits, and children living in low-income families. 19 Moreover, the city also reports poor mental health, relative to the Scottish average, on a host of indicators, including lower mental well-being and life satisfaction, and higher rates of common mental health problems, prescriptions for anxiety, depression or psychosis, and greater numbers of patients with hospital admissions for psychiatric conditions. 19

These statistics are consistent with Glasgow's overall health profile and high rates of mortality. Life expectancy in Glasgow is the lowest in Scotland. For example, men and women born in Glasgow in 2016–2018 can expect to live 3.6 and 2.7 fewer years respectively than the Scottish average. 20 Within Glasgow, men and women living in the most deprived areas of the city can expect to live 13.5 and 10.7 fewer years respectively than those living in the least deprived areas. 21

The high level of mortality in Glasgow can largely be attributed to the effects of deprivation and poverty in the city, although high levels of excess mortality have also been recorded in Glasgow, meaning a significant level of mortality in excess of that which can be explained by deprivation. For example, premature mortality (deaths under 65 years of age) is 30% higher in Glasgow compared with Liverpool and Manchester, despite the similar levels of deprivation between these cities. 22 Crucially, this excess premature mortality is in large part driven by higher rates of ‘deaths of despair’ 23 in Glasgow, namely deaths from suicide and alcohol- and drug-related causes. 22

It has been proposed that excess mortality in Glasgow can be explained by a number of historical processes that have rendered the city especially vulnerable to the hazardous effects of deprivation and poverty. These include the lagged effects of historically high levels of deprivation and overcrowding; regional policies that saw industry and sections of the population moved out of Glasgow; the nature of urban change in Glasgow during the post-war period and its effects on living conditions and social connections; and local government responses to UK policies during the 1980s. 24 On the last point, Walsh and colleagues 24 describe how the UK government introduced a host of neoliberal policies during this period – including rapid deindustrialisation – that had particularly adverse effects in cities such as Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool. While Manchester and Liverpool were able to mitigate the negative effects of these national policies to some extent by pursuing urban regeneration and mobilising the political participation of citizens, there were fewer such efforts made in Glasgow, which contributed to the diverging health profiles of the cities.

These researchers have also suggested that this excess mortality may partly reflect an inadequate measurement of deprivation. 24 However, that does not capture the reality of living in poverty. One aspect of this lived experience that may be important is the experience of poverty-based stigma and discrimination. 25 Stigma is a fundamental cause of health inequalities, 26 and international evidence has demonstrated that poverty stigma is associated with poor mental health among low-income groups. 27 Individuals living in socioeconomically deprived areas may also experience ‘spatial’ stigma, which similarly has a range of adverse health effects for residents 28 and, crucially, may be unintentionally exacerbated by media and public health professionals’ reports of regional health inequalities. 29 Given the continued focus on Glasgow's relatively poor health it is possible that the city is more vulnerable to such stigmatising processes. However, we stress that additional research will be required to test whether stigma is an important aspect of the lived reality of poverty, particularly as several psychosocial explanations have already been offered for the excess mortality, with varying levels of supporting evidence. 24 The notion of intersectional stigma is also gaining traction and requires further research.

Understanding the life-course impact of poverty on mental health is also important. Childhood adversity is one mechanism through which poverty and deprivation have an impact on mental health. Adverse childhood experiences, such as exposure to abuse or household dysfunction, are relatively common in the population. Marryat & Frank examined the prevalence of seven adverse childhood experiences among children born in 2004–2005 in Scotland, and found that approximately two-thirds had experienced at least one adverse experience by age 8. 30 Moreover, the prevalence was greatest in low-income households: only 1% of children in the highest-income households had four or more adverse childhood experiences, compared with 10.8% in the lowest-income households. Adverse childhood experiences are also strong predictors of mental health in adulthood: individuals who have experienced at least four are at a considerably greater risk of mental ill health, problematic alcohol use and drug misuse. 31 It has also been suggested that experiences of childhood adversity and complex trauma may contribute to Glasgow's – and Scotland's – excess mortality, particularly that which is attributable to violence, suicide and alcohol and drug-related deaths. 32 The implications are significant for psychiatry. Not only does it offer a broader explanation of causation; it also highlights the importance of supporting early interventions for young people's mental health and supporting the families – including children – of those experiencing mental health problems.

Implications

When faced with the scale of the challenge the response can be daunting. This is especially so at a time when we see increasing poverty and socioeconomic inequalities within our society and challenging political conditions. The complexity and enduring nature of the problems necessitate a multilevel response from psychiatry across practice, policy, advocacy and research, which we explore in this section. We argue that this response should address three broad areas.

Reinvigorate social psychiatry and influence public policy

The demise of social psychiatry in the UK and USA in recent decades has deflected focus away from the social causes and consequences of mental health problems at the very time that social inequalities have been increasing. Now is the time to renew social psychiatry at professional and academic levels. There is considerable scope to form alliances with other areas – especially public mental health agencies and charities. Psychiatry as a profession should support those advocating for progressive public policies to reduce poverty and its impact. If we do not, then, as Phelan and colleagues outline, we will focus only on the intermediate causes of health inequalities, rather than the fundamental causes, and this will ensure that these inequalities persist and are reproduced over time. 33 Activism with those who have consistently highlighted the links between poverty and mental health problems, such as The Equality Trust, may effect change among policy makers.

Tackle intersectional stigma and disadvantage

We must understand, research and tackle stigma in a much more sophisticated way by recognising that mental health stigma does not sit in isolation. We need to understand and address what Turan and colleagues define as intersectional stigma. 34 Intersectional stigma explains the convergence of multiple stigmatised identities that can include ethnicity, gender, sexuality, poverty and health status. This can then magnify the impact on the person's life. In this context, the reality is that you have a much greater chance of getting a mental health problem if you experience poverty. And if you do, then you will likely experience more stigma and discrimination. Its impact on your life will be greater, for example on precarious employment, housing, education and finances. It is harder to recover and the impact on family members may be magnified. Intersectional stigma remains poorly researched and understood, 35 although the health impact of poverty stigma is now emerging as an important issue in studies in Glasgow and elsewhere. 25

Embed poverty-aware practice and commissioning

We conclude with our third idea, to ensure that poverty-aware practice is embedded in services through commissioning, training and teaching. This means that recognising and responding to poverty is part of assessments and care. Income maximisation schemes should be available as an important dimension of healthcare: how to access benefits, manage debt, access local childcare and access support for employment at the earliest stages. This needs to be matched by a major investment in mental health services focused on low-income areas, to address the inverse care law. 36 These principles are already being put into action. For example across Scotland, including Glasgow, several general practices working in the most deprived areas (referred to as Deep End practices) have recently trialled the integration of money advice workers within primary care, which has generated considerable financial gains for patients. 37

About the authors

Lee Knifton is Reader and Co-Director of the Centre for Health Policy at the University of Strathclyde, Scotland, and Director of the Mental Health Foundation, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Greig Inglis is a lecturer in psychology at the University of West of Scotland, Paisley, Scotland.

Author contributions

Both authors were fully and equally involved in the design of the article, drafting the article and making revisions to the final version and are accountable for the integrity of the work.

Declaration of interest

Supplementary material.

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

Red Nose Day 2024 fights child poverty with the ‘whimsy’ of a candy castle, monster truck and Legos

This undated combination of images provided by Comic Relief’s Red Nose Day shows social media users taking selfies with the campaign’s filters. (Comic Relief’s Red Nose Day via AP)

• Copy Link copied

NEW YORK (AP) — An edible, life-sized cookie of the contest winner and a car-crushing monster truck ride are two of the new prizes up for grabs in the Red Nose Day 2024 campaign, which ramps up Thursday.

As Comic Relief US’s fundraising initiative for underserved American children enters its 10th year, the charity is hoping to draw donations by encouraging the childlike wonder that millions of poverty-stricken kids might miss. First disseminated through clown-like schnozzes at Walgreens locations, the message is spreading this year through Instagram sing-alongs, a sweepstakes and new partners such as Lego.

It’s all an effort to “evoke the childhood dream of whimsy,” Comic Relief US CEO Alison Moore told The Associated Press.

In 2022, child poverty doubled in the United States , as pandemic-era benefits expired, adding relevance to the mission. Since 2015, Red Nose Day has raised $370 million to stock community food centers and fund local health workers, among other anti-poverty measures worldwide.

Through June 3, contributions on Red Nose Day’s website will unlock an entry into a “Childhood Dreamstakes” for one of six experiences that hope to stir the fanciful wishes of youth. In addition to the cookie and the truck, donors could win an edible cotton candy castle, a personalized hot air balloon ride, a giant model volcano eruption or “a trip to befriend a penguin.”

Planned with help from creative agency Gus, the campaign expects that the “fun-filled moments” will highlight the importance of a “healthy, fruitful childhood” and “creating space to let kids be kids.”

“To us, it’s a reminder of the carefree happiness every child deserves, and the childhood sense of fun and wonder that’s inside us all,” Gus co-founder Spencer LaVallee said in a statement.

Comic Relief US is once more relying on entertainers to generate awareness. Halftime skills challenges during the Harlem Globetrotters’ domestic tour featured a custom Red Nose Day basketball. Longtime partner NBC plans to celebrate the decadelong drive with a one-hour special Thursday including “The Voice” coaches John Legend, Chance the Rapper, Reba McEntire and Dan + Shay.

As in recent years, Comic Relief US is foregoing the physical red nose once available to Walgreens customers. What’s new are interactive filters that place digital ones on users’ faces across Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and Snapchat. Pets should even be able to don a virtual red nose on the latter two platforms.

While the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is again backing the campaign, the push is also aided by first-time corporate collaborations with some kid-friendly brands. Aimed toward field trips, Lego’s “The Biggest Build” challenge will invite students to design their dream communities at 14 museums around the country. Chuck E. Cheese locations are soliciting round-up contributions at checkout this month and donating 20% of participating sales on Thursday.

Others in the philanthropic sector credited Comic Relief US for staying authentic to Red Nose Day over the past 10 years. The tactics won’t work for every fundraiser, said Elevate Prize Foundation CEO Carolina Garcia Jayaram, who founded the nonprofit supporting social entrepreneurs.

But Jayaram said fundraising is about meeting people where they are — and comedy and popular culture have proven to be successful avenues for drawing attention toward childhood poverty.

“There’s not nearly enough money being pumped into these solutions,” Jayaram told the AP at the nonprofit’s annual Make Good Famous Summit on Wednesday. “I wish we didn’t all have to get out there and do a big song and dance for all that money. But if it works, it works.”

Associated Press writer Glenn Gamboa in Miami Beach, Florida, contributed to this report.

Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP’s philanthropy coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/philanthropy .