Poverty in the United States

File:Percent below poverty line.png

Percent below each country's official poverty line, according to the CIA factbook.

Poverty in the United States refers to people whose annual family income is less than a "poverty line" set by the U.S. government. Poverty is a condition in which a person or community is deprived of, or lacks the essentials for, a minimum standard of well being and life. An absolute poverty measure was developed in the mid 1960s as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's War on poverty. Based on this measure, the poverty line is set at approximately three times the annual cost of a nutritionally adequate diet. It varies by family size and is updated yearly to reflect changes in the consumer price index.

Currently roughly 12% of the US population fall below the federal poverty threshold. There is however some controversy regarding the federal poverty line, arguing that it either understates or overstates the problem of poverty. According to the United Nations, which defines poverty among high-income OECD countries as those earning less than 50% of the median, 17% of Americans lived in poverty between 1999 and 2002.Poverty in the U.S. is cyclical in nature, with individuals rising above and falling below the poverty threshold from time to time; as a result, far more than 12% of the population fall below the poverty line at some point over a given period of years:

"While in any given year 12 to 15 percent of the population is poor, over a ten-year period 40 percent experience poverty in at least one year because most poor people cycle in and out of poverty; they don't stay poor for long periods. Poverty is something that happens to the working class, not some marginal 'other' on the fringes of society."

Those under the age of 18 were the most likely to be impoverished. In 2001 the poverty rate for minors in the United States was the highest in the industrialized world, with 14.8% of all minors and 30% of African American minors living below the poverty threshold. Additionally, the standard of living for those in the bottom 10% was lower in the U.S. than in any other developed nation except the United Kingdom, which had the lowest standard of living for impoverished children. In 2006, poverty rate for minors in the United States was 21.9% - highest child poverty rate in the developed world.

Measures of poverty

Measures of poverty can be either absolute or relative.

The official measure of poverty

Percent and number below the poverty threshold.

People who experience homelessness make poverty more visible in the United States.

There are three versions of the federal poverty measure: the poverty thresholds (which are the primary version) and the poverty guidelines. The Census Bureau issues the poverty thresholds, which are generally used for statistical purposes—for example, to estimate the number of people in poverty nationwide each year and classify them by type of residence, race, and other social, economic, and demographic characteristics. The Department of Health and Human Services issues the poverty guidelines for administrative purposes—for instance, to determine whether a person or family is eligible for assistance through various federal programs.

Since the 1960s, the United States Government has defined poverty in absolute terms. When the Johnson administration declared "war on poverty" in 1964, it chose an absolute measure. The "absolute poverty line" is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health.

The "Orshansky Poverty Thresholds" form the basis for the current measure of poverty in the U.S. Mollie Orshansky was an economist working for the Social Security Administration (SSA). Her work appeared at an opportune moment. Orshansky's article was published later in the same year that Johnson declared war on poverty. Since her measure was absolute (i.e., did not depend on other events), it made it possible to objectively answer whether the U.S. government was "winning" this war. The newly formed United States Office of Economic Opportunity adopted the lower of the Orshansky poverty thresholds for statistical, planning, and budgetary purposes in May 1965.

The Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget) adopted Orshansky's definition for statistical use in all Executive departments in 1965. The measure gave a range of income cutoffs, or thresholds, adjusted for factors such as family size, sex of the family head, number of children under 18 years old, and farm or non-farm residence. The economy food plan (the least costly of four nutritionally adequate food plans designed by the Department of Agriculture) was at the core of this definition of poverty.

The Department of Agriculture found that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax income on food. For these families, poverty thresholds were set at three times the cost of the economy food plan. Different procedures were used for calculating poverty thresholds for two-person households and persons living alone. Annual updates of the SSA poverty thresholds were based on price changes in the economy food plan.

Two changes were made to the poverty definition in 1969. Thresholds for non-farm families were tied to annual changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rather than changes in the cost of the economy food plan. Farm thresholds were raised from 70 to 85% of the non-farm levels.

In 1981, further changes were made to the poverty definition. Separate thresholds for "farm" and "female-householder" families were eliminated. The largest family size category became "nine persons or more."

Apart from these changes, the U.S. government's approach to measuring poverty has remained static for the past forty years.

Recent poverty rate and guidelines

The official poverty rate in the U.S. increased for four consecutive years, from a 26-year low of 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in [[2004, then declined somewhat to 12.3% in 2006. This means that 36.5 million people were below the official poverty thresholds in 2006, compared to 31.1 million in 2000, and that there was an increase of 5.4 million poor from 2000 to 2006 while the total population grew by 17.5 million. The poverty rate for children under 18 years old increased from 16.2% to 17.8% from 2000 to 2004 and had dropped to 17.4% in 2005 and 2006. The 2006 poverty threshold was measured according to the HHS Poverty Guidelines which are illustrated in the table below.

Persons in Family Unit	48 Contiguous States and D.C.	Alaska	Hawaii
1	$10,210	$12,770	$11,750
2	$13,690	$17,120	$15,750
3	$17,170	$21,470	$19,750
4	$20,650	$25,820	$23,750
5	$24,130	$30,170	$27,750
6	$27,610	$34,520	$31,750
7	$31,090	$38,870	$35,750
8	$34,570	$43,220	$39,750
For each additional person, add	$3,480	$4,350	$4,000

SOURCE:  Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 15, January 24, 2007, pp. 3147–3148.

Relative measures of poverty

File:Poverty by Age.png

The poverty rate for selected age groups. Those under the age of 18 are most likely to fall below the poverty threshold.

Another way of looking at poverty is in relative terms. "Relative poverty" can be defined as having significantly less access to income and wealth than other members of society. Therefore, the relative poverty rate can directly be linked to income inequality. When the standard of living among those in more financially advantageous positions rises while that of those considered poor stagnates, the relative poverty rate will reflect such growing income inequality and increase. Conversely, the poverty rate can decrease, with low income people coming to have less wealth and income if wealthier people's wealth is reduced by a larger percentage than theirs. In 1959, a family at the poverty line had an income that was 42.64% of the median income. Thus, a poor family in 1999 had relatively less income and therefore relatively less purchasing power than wealthier members of society in 1959, and, therefore, "poverty" had increased. But, because this is a relative measure, this is not saying that a family in 1999 with the same amount of wealth and income as a family from 1959 had less purchasing power than the 1959 family.

In the EU, "relative poverty" is defined as an income below 60% of the national median equalized disposable income after social transfers for a comparable household. In Germany, for example, the official relative poverty line for a single adult person in 2003 was 938 euros per month (11,256 euros/year, $12,382 PPP. West Germany 974 euros/month, 11,688 euros/year, $12,857 PPP). For a family of four with two children below 14 years the poverty line was 1969.8 euros per month ($2,167 PPP) or 23,640 euros ($26,004 PPP) per year. According to Eurostat the percentage of people in Germany living at risk of poverty (relative poverty) in 2004 was 16% (official national rate 13.5% in 2003). Additional definitions for poverty in Germany are "poverty" (50% median) and "strict poverty" (40% median, national rate 1.9% in 2003). Generally the percentage for "relative poverty" is much higher than the quota for "strict poverty". The U.S concept is best comparable to "strict poverty". By European standards the official (relative) poverty rate in the United States would be significantly higher than it is by the U.S. measure. A research paper from the OECD calculates the relative poverty rate for the United States at 16% for 50% median of disposable income and nearly 24% for 60% of median disposable income (OECD average: 11% for 50% median, 16% for 60% median).

The income distribution and relative poverty

Although the relative approach theoretically differs largely from the Orshansky definition, crucial variables of both poverty definitions are more similar than often thought. First, the so-called standardization of income in both approaches is very similar. To make incomes comparable among households of different sizes, equivalence scales are used to standardise household income to the level of a single person household. In Europe, the modified OECD equivalence scale is used, which takes the combined value of 1 for the head of household, 0.5 for each additional household member older than 14 years and 0.3 for children. When compared to the US Census poverty lines, which is based on a defined basket of goods, for the most prevalent household types both standardization methods show to be very similar.

Secondly, if the height of the poverty threshold in Western-European countries is not always higher than the Orshansky threshold for a single person family. The actual Orchinsky poverty line for single person households in the US ($9645 in 2004) is very comparable to the relative poverty line in many Western-European countries (Belgium 2004: €9315), while price levels are also similar. The reason why relative poverty measurement causes high poverty levels in the US, as demonstrated by Förster, is caused by distributional effects rather than real differences in wellbeing among EU-countries and the USA. The median household income is much higher in the US than in Europe due to the wealth of the middle classes in the US, from which the poverty line is derived. Although the paradigm of relative poverty is most valuable, this comparison of poverty lines show that the higher prevalence of relative poverty levels in the US are not an indicator of a more severe poverty problem but an indicator of larger inequalities between rich middle classes and the low-income households. It is therefor not correct to state that the US income distribution is characterised by a large proportion of households in poverty; it is characterized by relatively large income inequality but also high levels of prosperity of the middle classes.The 2007 poverty threshold for a three member family is 17,070

Food security

Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year 2002, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity rose from 10.7% in 2001 to 11.1% in 2002, and the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger rose from 3.3% to 3.5%.

Causes of poverty

People experiencing homelessness living in cardboard boxes in Los Angeles, California where the median home price was estimated to be $564,430 in May 2006.

There are numerous perceived direct and indirect causes of poverty in the United States. They include:

• The Conservative Heritage Foundation speculates wrongly that illegal immigration increases job competition among low wage earners, both native and foreign born. Additionally many first generation immigrants, namely those without a high school diploma, are also living in poverty themselves.
• Unfavorable economic conditions
• Mental illness and disability
• Lack of educational attainment and skill
• Substance abuse
• Birth of a child
• Domestic abuse
• Natural or other disasters
• Crime
• A survey done by Michigan State University found that a slight majority of American households with annual incomes of $70,000 or more believed that the two principal problems of poverty are lack of work ethic and a minimum wage that is too low.
• Institutional racism: The gross disparities among impoverished people in the United States along racial lines have led many to speculate beneath historic and/or ongoing institutional racism is responsible for much of the poverty in the United States today.
• Limited job opportunities appear to exist for significant subgroups of some races and ethnic groups. This is reflected by the low-income nature of large sections of the economy, as divided along racial/ethnic lines: 17% of all children in the United States live in poverty, but 33% of African American children and 29% of Latino children live in poverty.
• Region. Many rural areas, especially in the South and Appalachia have a high poverty rate due to limited job opportunities, historical issues, and sometimes resistance to change, among other things.

Sociological Explanations of Poverty

Explaining why the poor are poor can also be viewed through a sociological lens.

• Individualistic Explanations of Poverty- the poor themselves are the cause of their poverty.
  • Biological Explanations
    • Social Darwinism- the poor are poor because they are less fit to survive in society.
      • Social scientist Herbert Spencer advocated this viewpoint.
      • Psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein and sociologist Charles Murray authored "The Bell Curve" in 1994 that suggested a correlation between IQ and poverty.
      • Problems with biological explanations include the exclusion of environmental ("nurture") factors.
  • The "Culture of Poverty"
    • "Poverty is the result of a set of norms and values-- a culture-- that is characteristic of the poor." Marger, Martin N. (2008). Social Inequality: Patterns and Processes, 4th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill. p. 159. ISBN 978-0-07-352815-1..
    • Anthropologist Oscar Lewis developed this concept.
    • Political scientist Edward Banfield (1968, 1974) developed a similar theory- that the poor failed to succeed because they failed to adopt the values and norms of mainstream society.
    • Problems with the "culture of poverty" include that this theory blames the poor for their own condition.

• Structural Explanations of Poverty-Factors beyond an individual's control are the cause of poverty.
  • Cycle of Poverty
    • Social institutions contribute to and sustain poverty. Marger, Martin N. (2008). Social Inequality: Patterns and Processes, 4th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill. p. 160. ISBN 978-0-07-352815-1..
      • Low quality education results in few marketable skills which leads to low-wage jobs which leads to less ability to pay for housing, food, clothing, medical care which leads to bad neighborhoods, underfunded schools, less exposure to positive role models, and increased risk of serious illness.
      • Racial and ethnic discrimination feed into these barriers.
  • The Changing Structure of the American Economy
    • Deindustrialization: As the U.S. shifts from a manufacturing, industrial society to a service-oriented, high-tech society, many of the blue-collar jobs that required little education but paid well are disappearing or being outsourced. Marger, Martin N. (2008). Social Inequality: Patterns and Processes, 4th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-07-352815-1..
      • As jobs leave the cities, people unable to follow the jobs or commute to work are left in neighborhoods without employment or tax-basis to support needed social functions, such as schools, public transportation, police departments, etc.
    • In economic terms, these people are structurally unemployed due to the changing skills needed in the emerging economy.
  • Poverty Serves a Function for Society
    • In sociology, this perspective is termed "functionalist," because it interprets poverty as serving some beneficial function to society.
    • Sociologist Herbert Gans used the functionalist perspective to demonstrate how the "undeserving poor" serve the role of social scapegoats and help reinforce the dominant culture and ideology. Marger, Martin N. (2008). Social Inequality: Patterns and Processes, 4th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill. p. 163. ISBN 978-0-07-352815-1..
      • The "undeserving poor" are those that are physically able to work but do not and are receiving some sort of social welfare benefits.

Controversy

There has been significant disagreement about poverty in the United States; particularly over how poverty ought to be defined. Using radically different definitions, two major groups of advocates dispute whether or not more resources are needed to help lessen poverty. Liberals consistently claim that more resources are needed to alleviate poverty. Conservatives often argue that the condition of the poor does not presently require more resources but rather an allocation that encourages a temporary dependence upon the American social safety net.

Much of the debate about poverty focuses on statistical measures of poverty and the clash between advocates and opponents of welfare programs and government regulation of the free market. Since measures can be either absolute or relative, it is possible that advocates for the different sides of this debate are basing their arguments on different ways of measuring poverty. It is often claimed that poverty is understated, yet there are some who also believe it is overstated; thus the accuracy of the current poverty threshold guidelines is subject to debate and considerable concern.

A recent study published in the Washington Times showed how many of the appliances modern middle class and working class households take for granted are lacking in poverty stricken households. Among the households constituting the bottom ten percent, 36% were lacking microwave ovens, 53% were lacking clothes dryers and 79% were lacking a computer. Furthermore only 19% were in possession of a garbage disposal and only 23% owned a dishwasher. Color televisions, VCRs, and stereos were among the more commonly found mundane appliances with 91% of households in the bottom ten percent owning a color television, 55% owning a VCR, and 42% owning a stereo.

However, as noted in "EU versus USA", only 11% of those in the general UK population own a dishwasher, and the penetration rate of microwave ovens in the EU is generally well under 30% . The report goes on to note that 46% of poor households in the US own their own home, and 30% have two or more cars, and 63% have cable or satellite TV.

Concerns regarding accuracy

In recent years, there have been a number of concerns raised about the official U.S. poverty measure. In 1995, the National Research Council's Committee on National Statistics convened a panel on measuring poverty. The findings of the panel were that "the official poverty measure in the United States is flawed and does not adequately inform policy-makers or the public about who is poor and who is not poor."

The panel was chaired by Robert Michael, former Dean of the Harris School of the University of Chicago. According to Michael, the official U.S. poverty measure "has not kept pace with far-reaching changes in society and the economy." The panel proposed a model based on disposable income:

According to the panel's recommended measure, income would include, in addition to money received, the value of non-cash benefits such as food stamps, school lunches and public housing that can be used to satisfy basic needs. The new measure also would subtract from gross income certain expenses that cannot be used for these basic needs, such as income taxes, child-support payments, medical costs, health-insurance premiums and work-related expenses, including child care.

Understating poverty

Many sociologists and government officials have argued that poverty in the United States is understated, meaning that there are more households living in actual poverty than there are households below the poverty threshold. A recent NPR report states that as much as 30% of Americans have trouble making ends meet and other advocates have made supporting claims that the rate of actual poverty in the US is far higher than that calculated by using the poverty threshold. The issue of understating poverty is especially pressing in states with both a high cost of living and a high poverty rate such as California where the median home price in May 2006 was determined to be $564,430. With half of all homes being priced above the half million dollar mark and prices in urban areas such as San Francisco, San Jose or Los Angeles being higher than the state average, it is almost impossible for not just the poor but also lower middle class worker to afford decent housing , and no possibility of home ownership. In the Monterey area, where the low-pay industry of agriculture is the largest sector in the economy and the majority of the population lacks a college education the median home price was determined to be $723,790, requiring an upper middle class income which only roughly 20% of all households in the county boast. Such fluctuations in local markets are however not considered in the Federal poverty threshold and thus leave many who live in poverty-like conditions out of the total number of households classified as poor.

Overstating poverty

The federal poverty line also excludes income other than cash income, especially welfare benefits. Thus, if food stamps and public housing were successfully raising the standard of living for poverty stricken individuals, then the poverty line figures would not shift since they do not consider the income equivalents of such entitlements.

A 1993 study of low income single mothers titled Making Ends Meet, by Kathryn Edin, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, showed that the mothers spent more than their reported incomes because they could not "make ends meet" without such expenditures. According to Edin, they made up the difference through contributions from family members, absent boyfriends, off-the-book jobs, and church charity.

According to Edin: "No one avoided the unnecessary expenditures, such as the occasional trip to the Dairy Queen, or a pair of stylish new sneakers for the son who might otherwise sell drugs to get them, or the Cable TV subscription for the kids home alone and you are afraid they will be out on the street if they are not watching TV."

Moreover, Swedish free market think tank Timbro point out that lower-income households in the U.S. tend to own more appliances and larger houses than many middle-income Western Europeans.

Fighting poverty

There have been many governmental and nongovernmental efforts to make an impact on poverty and its effects. These range in scope from neighborhood efforts to campaigns with a national focus. They target specific groups affected by poverty such as children, autistics, immigrants, or the homeless. Efforts to alleviate poverty use a disparate set of methods, such as advocacy, education, social work, legislation, direct service or charity, and community organizing.

Recent debates have centered on the need for policies that focus on both "income poverty" and "asset poverty." Advocates for the approach argue that traditional governmental poverty policies focus solely on supplementing the income of the poor, through programs such as AFCD and Food Stamps. These programs do little, if anything, to help the poor build assets and begin to lift themselves out of poverty. Some have proposed creating a government matched savings plan (similar to the private 401K) system to provide an savings incentive to poor and lower-income individuals and families.

- From 1968 to 1979 a massive social experiment was undertaken in the U.S. : The Negative Income Tax Experiments of the 1970s in the USA The four experiments were in:

1 Urban areas in New Jersey and Pennsylvania from 1968-1972 (1300 families).

2 Rural areas in Iowa and North Carolina from 1969-1973 (800 families).

3 Gary, Indiana from 1971-1974 (1800 families).

4 Seattle and Denver, from 1970-1978 (4800 families).

In April 2007 The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, released a report : "From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half". It recommends 12 steps to cut poverty in half by 2017.

1. Raise and index the minimum wage to half the average hourly wage. At $5.15, the federal minimum wage is at its lowest level in real terms since 1956. The federal minimum wage was once 50 percent of the average wage but is now 30 percent of that wage. Congress should restore the minimum wage to 50 percent of the average wage, about $8.40 an hour in 2006. Doing so would help nearly 5 million poor workers and nearly 10 million other low-income workers.

2. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit. As an earnings supplement for low-income working families, the EITC raises incomes and helps families build assets. The Child Tax Credit provides a tax credit of up to $1,000 per child, but provides no help to the poorest families. We recommend tripling the EITC for childless workers and expanding help to larger working families. We recommend making the Child Tax Credit available to all low- and moderate-income families. Doing so would move as many as 5 million people out of poverty.

3. Promote unionization by enacting the Employee Free Choice Act. The Employee Free Choice Act would require employers to recognize a union after a majority of workers signs cards authorizing union representation and establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights. The increased union representation made possible by the Act would lead to better jobs and less poverty for American workers.

4. Guarantee child care assistance to low-income families and promote early education for all. We propose that the federal and state governments guarantee child care help to families with incomes below about $40,000 a year, with expanded tax help to higher-earning families. At the same time, states should be encouraged to improve the quality of early education and broaden access for all children. Our child care expansion would raise employment among low-income parents and help nearly 3 million parents and children escape poverty.

5. Create 2 million new “opportunity” housing vouchers, and promote equitable development in and around central cities. Nearly 8 million Americans live in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty where at least 40 percent of residents are poor. Our nation should seek to end concentrated poverty and economic segregation, and promote regional equity and inner-city revitalization. We propose that over the next 10 years the federal government fund 2 million new “opportunity vouchers” designed to help people live in opportunity-rich areas. Any new affordable housing should be in communities with employment opportunities and high-quality public services, or in gentrifying communities. These housing policies should be part of a broader effort to pursue equitable development strategies in regional and local planning efforts, including efforts to improve schools, create affordable housing, assure physical security, and enhance neighborhood amenities.

6. Connect disadvantaged and disconnected youth with school and work. About 1.7 million poor youth ages 16 to 24 were out of school and out of work in 2005. We recommend that the federal government restore Youth Opportunity Grants to help the most disadvantaged communities and expand funding for effective and promising youth programs—with the goal of reaching 600,000 poor disadvantaged youth through these efforts. We propose a new Upward Pathway program to offer low-income youth opportunities to participate in service and training in fields that are in high-demand and provide needed public services.

7. Simplify and expand Pell Grants and make higher education accessible to residents of each state. Low-income youth are much less likely to attend college than their higher income peers, even among those of comparable abilities. Pell Grants play a crucial role for lower-income students. We propose to simplify the Pell grant application process, gradually raise Pell Grants to reach 70 percent of the average costs of attending a four-year public institution, and encourage institutions to do more to raise student completion rates. As the federal government does its part, states should develop strategies to make postsecondary education affordable for all residents, following promising models already underway in a number of states.

8. Help former prisoners find stable employment and reintegrate into their communities. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. We urge all states to develop comprehensive reentry services aimed at reintegrating former prisoners into their communities with full-time, consistent employment.

9. Ensure equity for low-wage workers in the Unemployment Insurance system. Only about 35 percent of the unemployed, and a smaller share of unemployed low-wage workers, receive unemployment insurance benefits. We recommend that states (with federal help) reform “monetary eligibility” rules that screen out low-wage workers, broaden eligibility for part-time workers and workers who have lost employment as a result of compelling family circumstances, and allow unemployed workers to use periods of unemployment as a time to upgrade their skills and qualifications.

10. Modernize means-tested benefits programs to develop a coordinated system that helps workers and families. A well-functioning safety net should help people get into or return to work and ensure a decent level of living for those who cannot work or are temporarily between jobs. Our current system fails to do so. We recommend that governments at all levels simplify and improve benefits access for working families and improve services to individuals with disabilities. The Food Stamp Program should be strengthened to improve benefits, eligibility, and access. And the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program should be reformed to shift its focus from cutting caseloads to helping needy families find sustainable employment.

11. Reduce the high costs of being poor and increase access to financial services. Despite having less income, lower-income families often pay more than middle and high-income families for the same consumer products. We recommend that the federal and state governments should address the foreclosure crisis through expanded mortgage assistance programs and by new federal legislation to curb unscrupulous practices. And we propose that the federal government establish a $50 million Financial Fairness Innovation Fund to support state efforts to broaden access to mainstream goods and financial services in predominantly low-income communities.

12. Expand and simplify the Saver’s Credit to encourage saving for education, homeownership, and retirement. For many families, saving for purposes such as education, a home, or a small business is key to making economic progress. We propose that the federal “Saver’s Credit” be reformed to make it fully refundable. This Credit should also be broadened to apply to other appropriate savings vehicles intended to foster asset accumulation, with consideration given to including individual development accounts, children’s saving accounts, and college savings plans.

See also

• Income in the United States
• Income inequality in the United States
• The Other America by Michael Harrington (ISBN 0-684-82678-X)
• Two Americas
• Lowest-income counties in the United States
• Human Poverty Index
• Mississippi Teacher Corps
• Federal assistance in the United States
• Basic Income
• Negative Income Tax

Further reading

• Caudill, Harry (1962). Night Comes to the Cumberlands. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 0-316-13212-8.
• Harrington, Michael (1962). The Other America. Macmillan. ISBN 0-684-82678-X.
• Sarnoff, Susan (2003). "Central Appalachia – Still the Other America". Journal of Poverty. Volume 7 (1 & 2). The Haworth Press: 123–139. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

External links

• U.S. Census Bureau Poverty Definition
• U.S. Census Bureau Poverty in the United States
• Harms, W. (1995) Poverty definition flawed, more accurate measure needed The University of Chicago Chronicle, 14:17.
• Why Poverty Doesn't Rate, American Enterprise Institute
• Social Solutions to Poverty: America's Struggle to Build a Just Society. Scott Myers-Lipton, (2006).
• F.H.C. Ministries Charity is not Reform!
• From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half, The Center for American Progress, April 2007.
• Explanation of poverty definition by economist Ellen Frank in Dollars & Sense magazine, accessed May 30, 2007
• 37 million poor hidden in the land of plenty
• Models of Poverty and Planned Change
• U.S. Government Does Relatively Little to Lessen Child Poverty Rates
• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Poverty Guidelines, Research, and Measurement