Child poverty in the United States

Children dancing

Child Poverty in the United States is a prevalent problem experienced by kids in the country who do not have enough resources or opportunities to have necessities and are in families below the poverty threshold. Children are now the largest age group living below the poverty line, and around 1 in 5 children are affected by this issue. Child poverty is measured using absolute and relative methods. It is caused by many factors, including race, education, and family structure, but ultimately race encompasses these and other factors. There are multiple effects of child poverty; effects on health and development cause lifelong problems and lower educational outcomes, and food insecurity is also caused by child poverty. In order to counteract child poverty, the United States government has put in place programs to reduce child poverty using tax credits and transfers. There are also community programs that have impacted specific communities that have high child poverty rates. For future policies, greater investment directed to children and families in poverty and connections between healthcare providers and financial services can lower the child poverty rate.

Measurement

In the United States, there are two main measures of poverty supported by the federal government: absolute and relative. The absolute method of measuring poverty is by the definition set by the government in the 1960s for its War on Poverty measures. It measures poverty based on all monetary income before taxes are subtracted, and it compares total income to a threshold three times the cost associated with a nutritious diet that is the minimum acceptable for a certain family size. This measure is widely used, but it has weaknesses. Critics say that these thresholds, though adjusted for inflation, age of householder, and composition of family, do not accurately display current patterns of poverty. In the 1960s, one-third of a family's consumption was used for food. However, that is no longer reflected today due to the rising costs of living with housing being the largest expenditure and food only making up one-sixth of the consumption. The initial agreement to base the threshold on the relationship of income to food is based on a survey taken in the 1950s, and many argue that it should not be the main factor anymore. This measure also does not adjust for the geographical location of a family in the United States. Because of this, certain populations may not be accurately reflected by this measurement due to the differences in the cost of living around the country. Other people say that adjusting for inflation overestimates the cost of living which causes higher rates of poverty due to the high threshold.The measure does not take into account benefits and tax-credits that are designed to target poverty, and it does not include expenses like childcare, work expenses, or out-of-pocket payments.

Due to the many criticisms of the official measure of poverty, the government now reports a relative measure of poverty, the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). SPM gives a bigger and more accurate picture of poverty. It accounts for more sources of income and takes out taxes and non-discretionary expenses. The additional income that is accounted for in this measure includes government benefits like SNAP, WIC, welfare, tax credits, and subsidies. SPM is also adjusted for current standards of living and housing costs depending on geographical location. SPM is based on a core basket of goods that encompass basic necessities plus a little more to account for other necessities. The poverty threshold is also updated regularly rather than having a set poverty line. For most populations, SPM provides higher rates than the official measure, but for child poverty, the rates are actually lower because it reflects the anti-poverty policies of the government that target child poverty.

Causes

Education

The education levels of the parents are shown to have an effect on the likelihood of child poverty. Parents who have an education only up to a high school diploma or less are much more likely to be poor due to the lack of high-paying jobs for low-skilled workers. This population may have a lower quality education as well if they grew up in a poor community, and this also causes them to be less skilled and desirable to employers. Due to their lower level of education, these people are likely to have lower incomes which translates into a lack of material needs like food and electricity. This population may also have more health problems. This can be due to genetics or malnutrition, and they are likely to work more physical jobs that may cause health problems in the future.

Family Structure

The structure of a household affects the likelihood of child poverty. Since the 1960s, the structure of a family has changed, and there are many more single-parent households, especially households headed by a mother. More specifically, there was an increase in black households with single parents, and about 30% of the gap between black and white households in poverty is because of the likelihood of black families headed by single mothers. Studies show that single-parent households are likely to be in poverty, and this is especially true for households headed by single mothers. In single-mother households, 30.6% are poor compared to only 6.2% for married families. Unlike most of the world, in the United States, all single-parent households have a higher risk for poverty.

The amount of earners present in a household also contributes to child poverty. Families with 2 or more earners will have more income and are less likely to have child poverty, and this is a trend seen globally. Single-parent households, therefore, are at a disadvantage because the revenue of only one person is present which is a reason for the greater amounts of child poverty, and households with no earners face the most risk of poverty.

Race

Child poverty and race have a distinct correlation with each other. There is a history of racism in the United States with the institution of the slave trade, Jim Crow Laws, and the War on Crime that incarcerated black men disproportionately. The effects of racism continue to be prevalent in the disparities found in the country and affect minority communities in many different institutions. In fact, poverty in minority communities was not addressed until the 1960s, and until then, the image of poverty was only represented by poor whites. Because racism affects so many aspects of life, the aforementioned effects are also in part caused by it. Black and white children have a huge gap in poverty rates due to the greater risk of poverty in black communities. As of 2014, around 38% of African-American children were in poverty, compared to only 13% of white children, and minority communities like American Indian and Hispanic/Latino follow closely behind with rates of 36% and 32%, respectively. Compared to white children, African-American children are more likely to be in persistent poverty due to multiple generations of discrimination. When accounting for differences in family structure and income levels, black children still persist in higher poverty rates which is evidence that child poverty is driven by racism.

Example of redlining map in Milwaukee

House ownership is a very important factor in child poverty. It provides stability and a path to wealth accumulation.However, for minority communities, especially black families, house ownership is not a realistic possibility due to the high rates and historic discrimination. From the 1930s to the 1970s, the practice of redlining was common. This was used to designate certain neighborhoods as desirable or risky for mortgage lenders. White neighborhoods were almost always rated highly, while non-white communities like immigrants, Jewish people, Latinx, and blacks were labeled as risky and had a yellow or red label. African-American communities were especially discriminated against because the red label was often only for black neighborhoods. This caused many black communities to have fewer opportunities to move to better housing because the prices would be hiked up to discourage them and lenders would not give money at reasonable rates. In fact, while white Americans have house ownership rates of 73%, minority communities have much less around 50-60%, and only 42.1% of black Americans have houses. Because white Americans have had longer and more available house ownership, they accrued wealth over time which is part of the reason for the wealth gap that is present today. This residential divide that has continued throughout history also affects the quality of education available. The public school plan in the United States involves having the community a school serves to provide resources for the school. However, when a community has lower property values and lower income, like many of the previously redlined areas are, their schools are underresourced to provide quality education. As mentioned in the previous section, this causes a cycle of poverty to occur.

The "War on Crime" in the 1960s and the subsequent "War on Drugs" in the 1980s caused greater incarceration of black Americans at disproportional rates. Racial profiling played a role in excessive arrests and incarcerations due to drug offenses that majorly impacted black and Latinx communities. This caused many children to grow up in single-parent households, and they were more likely to experience the juvenile and carceral system. This also continues the cycle of poverty by restricting opportunities in the future.

Effects

Health

Shows locations of gray matter

Due to poverty, many children suffer from health problems. The infant mortality rate is higher, and children have lower birth weights. This is usually a signal of the in utero environment and the nutrition the fetus gets, and it also may predict future health. The United States is one of the only developed countries that has a high mortality rate. This mortality rate is caused, though, by poor minority births because white, college-educated, and married mothers do have rates that are comparable to Europe's. Many children have developmental problems, and gray matter is a crucial part of processing information and regulating behavior. A study done by neuroscientists shows that children with high socioeconomic status have more gray matter than children in low socioeconomic circumstances. Interestingly enough, this difference was only seen after nine months which indicates that it was not affected in utero but, rather, by circumstances after birth.This may also affect learning and processing in school which would then affect their future to get a job. Poor children are more likely to have severe chronic diseases like asthma, diabetes, and hearing/vision problems. They may also have food insecurity and a lack of access to nutritional and fresh foods. This may cause malnutrition which contributes to a weaker immune system and less growth. A weaker immune system is also caused by the delayed and lower immunization rates found in children in poverty. Obesity is also a common effect of children in poverty, most probably due to less access to nutritional foods, and this can have complications in the future. Childhood poverty also affects susceptibility to diseases, like cardiovascular disease and cancer, as an adult. These effects of child poverty ultimately contribute to keeping those in poverty where it is difficult for them to break out of the cycle due to the burden of health problems.

Physical health problems are not the only problems children in poverty experience. Often, children in poverty have trauma, and it can cause greater mental health problems like ADHD and mood and anxiety disorders. Mental health disorders in patients in child poverty are actually more prevalent and can affect their life on an everyday spectrum because it may restrict how they interact with others and their opportunities to learn.

Other effects

There are many effects of child poverty that may or may not coincide with health effects. Food insecurity is an effect that affects many children in poverty. As mentioned before, children may not have access to nutritional food causing malnutrition. They also are shown to have lower educational outcomes, and children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds do worse overall at school. A study shows that children below the poverty line do two years less of an education which causes a ripple effect of fewer opportunities and less income. Education is a direct correlation to future socioeconomic status, and without breaking the cycle of devaluing education, there will continue to be intergenerational poverty. Lower education levels also cause an increase in social effects. Children in poverty often have interactions with criminal activity as an adolescent that continues as an adult, and boys in poverty grow up to be twice as likely to be arrested as adults. Teenage pregnancy is also common for girls who grew up in poverty and are six times as likely to have a child without marriage.

Efforts against Child Poverty

Government Intervention

SNAP logo

For most of the history of the United States, aid for the poor was mostly through private charities until the Great Depression hit and poverty increased exponentially. At that time, welfare policies began to take place and the role of the federal government in poverty reduction increased. In the 1960s, the Economic Opportunity Act, also known as the War on Poverty, was passed and since then many programs have targeted poverty, especially child poverty. To cover basic needs, the government has provided assistance programs and tax credits that lower the burden on families. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) gives aid in the form of cash. Later replaced by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the program is based on income levels and assets. The Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), once known as food stamps, is a program that provides vouchers for families to spend on food at grocery stores. This decreases food insecurity and is one of the best examples of anti-poverty programs. SNAP is means-tested which means it is based on lower income levels. It is a nearly universal program that benefits everyone meeting income thresholds, including those who do not work. Similar to SNAP benefits, tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) come as in-kind benefits as well. EITC is for low-income households that do have income coming in. If a family's combined income is too low to take taxes out of, they receive refunds from the Internal Revenue Service. The CTC is similar to the EITC, but it does not target low-income families as much. Up to $1000 per child is available as a nonrefundable credit, and single-parent, two-kid households with incomes up to $115,000 and two-parent, two-kid households with incomes up to $150,000 are eligible for this credit.Both SNAP and tax credits have helped reduce child poverty, have better educational outcomes, and have better employment levels. Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) have provided greater access to healthcare for low-income children, and these programs are a joint effort of the federal and state government. Public health insurance is shown to have lasting effects through adulthood. Along with SNAP, the free or reduced school breakfast and lunch programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)give more access to healthy, nutritional foods for at-risk populations and during development. In terms of educational policies, Head Start is a federal program that targets early childhood learning and development and stronger parent-child relationships. These government programs and more have been shown to lower child poverty.

Community Intervention

Community intervention is an effective tool to combat child poverty. Community programs often target families and children to lower child poverty. They strive to impact different factors that play into a child's life by addressing the family component. Families that build strong social connections with those around them and similar to them have more resources to utilize. For example, they can use connections to their advantage by having conversations, receiving advice, providing transportation, and getting information about government programs. One example of this is Families and Schools Together (FAST). The program connects families in a school, and it is proven to increase skills in social, academic, and emotional behavior. Making Connections (MC) and Children's Services Council (CSC) are also a program that targets families to decrease child poverty. MC strives to increase a family's income, networks, access to child health, etc., and the CSC aims to facilitate better development of kids through reducing child neglect and abuse, more opportunities for education, and increasing healthy births. A focus on greater educational opportunities combined with family services is also seen in community groups. Harlem Children's Zone addresses child poverty in Harlem by providing educational services like afterschool programs and early childhood education for children and parenting classes and support for families. In healthcare, pediatricians partner with the community to provide services and reach children in Missouri, Colorado, and New York, and there is training for pediatric residents to build community partnerships.From a religious standpoint, organizations affiliated with a religion can also provide services to children and families in poverty. Often, values from a religion support this work by promoting taking care of the poor and providing shelter.

Future Steps

Proper and proportional investment in poor children is important in reducing child poverty. The United States continues to be distinct from similar countries when it comes to child poverty. It consistently spends less on programs targeted at helping children and families. Policies that increase the opportunity to work and generate income are present in countries with similar economic status, but public child care, an example of this, was 0.3% of GDP in the United States compared to the 0.5% average in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The progress that had been made during the Great Recession for educational investment and income support has been cut back due to fiscal restraint. By increasing support for these investment programs, child poverty could be significantly impacted.Cash transfers/monthly allowances could also cut child poverty in half quickly by providing $300-400 monthly transfers for each child. Critics oppose this due to the idea that transfers disincentivize working, but examples of similar programs in Britain and Canada have shown to be successful. Along with cash transfers, other aims should include childcare support, vocational education, the creation of jobs, increased housing subsidies, etc. Restructuring the current system in the United States may also be a worthwhile effort, and this can be accomplished by keeping the major elements but changing specifics like target population, quantity of assistance, and delivery process. Some suggest the federal government provide an income floor for families with children which could happen with the federalization of Medicaid and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Others, however, favor less government intervention by shifting responsibilities like education completely to the state. Reforming the current tax system could also help poor families, and it has been debated in the Senate. Medical-financial partnerships (MFP) have recently gained traction and have the potential to impact the health of poor children. Financial stress affects a large portion of the population with over half of families being income or asset poor. MFPs connect healthcare to broad financial services like financial coaching and tax preparation. Other services can also be considered if it provides information for financial stability. An example of this is food pantries that provide information about financial stability. Because healthcare providers reach 90% of the families of preschool -age children, compared to only 12% in daycare, MFPs can decrease child poverty in a larger audience by increasing financial stability which will increase positive health outcomes.