The American Paradox: Deconstructing Poverty and Forging a Path to Shared Prosperity

Introduction: The Two Americas and the Two Measures

The United States stands as a global beacon of immense wealth and economic power, yet this prosperity coexists with a stark and persistent reality: millions of its citizens live in poverty. This American paradox, the chasm between national affluence and widespread individual hardship, is not merely a moral dilemma but a complex policy challenge that demands rigorous analysis. The very act of defining and measuring this challenge shapes our understanding of its scale, its causes, and its potential solutions. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2023 data, 36.8 million people, or 11.1% of the population, lived in poverty as defined by the Official Poverty Measure (OPM).¹ However, a more comprehensive and modern metric, the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), reveals a grimmer picture, placing 42.8 million people, or 12.9%, in poverty.¹ This discrepancy is not a statistical footnote; it is the entry point into a deeper understanding of poverty in America. The difference between these two numbers encapsulates a decades-long debate about the effectiveness of the social safety net and the true nature of economic deprivation.

This report will argue that American poverty is a solvable, policy-driven problem rooted in structural failures, not individual failings. The key to understanding and combating it lies in moving beyond the outdated Official Poverty Measure to embrace the more revealing Supplemental Poverty Measure. By deconstructing the systemic causes of poverty, critically evaluating the limitations of our current safety net, and exploring evidence-based, holistic solutions like two-generation programs and a public health framework, we can shift the national paradigm from mere poverty management to the active creation of widespread, intergenerational prosperity. This requires a clear-eyed examination of the data, a willingness to confront historical injustices, and a commitment to policies that empower families and build a more equitable economy for all.

To achieve this, the report is structured in four parts. Part I, “The Anatomy of Poverty in Modern America,” will establish the factual and statistical foundation, dissecting how poverty is measured and who it affects. Part II, “The Roots of Disadvantage,” will move from the “what” to the “why,” deconstructing the complex web of individual, economic, and structural factors that cause and perpetuate poverty. Part III, “The Policy Paradox,” will critically evaluate 50 years of American anti-poverty efforts, resolving the contentious debate over their efficacy and exposing the limitations of the modern safety net. Finally, Part IV, “Forging a New Path,” will pivot from critique to construction, outlining a blueprint of evidence-based strategies designed to dismantle barriers and build a future of shared prosperity.

Part I: The Anatomy of Poverty in Modern America

To comprehend the challenge of poverty in the United States, one must first understand how it is defined and quantified. The metrics used are not neutral instruments; they are powerful tools that shape public perception, political discourse, and policy priorities. The ongoing use of two distinct federal measures—the Official Poverty Measure (OPM) and the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM)—creates two different narratives about the state of economic well-being in the nation. This section will dissect these two metrics, explain what each reveals about the landscape of American poverty, and present a detailed statistical portrait of who experiences hardship in modern America.

Section 1.1: A Tale of Two Metrics: What OPM and SPM Reveal

The debate over how to measure poverty is, at its core, a debate over how to define need and what resources count toward meeting that need. The divergence between the OPM and SPM reflects a fundamental shift in this understanding, moving from a simplistic, mid-20th-century model to a more nuanced, 21st-century framework that accounts for the complexities of both modern family budgets and the social safety net.

The Official Poverty Measure (OPM): A Relic of the 1960s

The Official Poverty Measure, first published in the mid-1960s, remains the most widely cited poverty statistic.³ Its methodology is a direct artifact of its time. It was developed by Mollie Orshansky, an economist at the Social Security Administration, who based the poverty thresholds on the cost of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s “economy food plan,” designed for temporary or emergency use. Based on a 1955 survey showing that families of three or more spent about one-third of their after-tax income on food, she multiplied the cost of the food plan by three to arrive at a poverty threshold.² Since then, these thresholds have been updated annually only for inflation, using the Consumer Price Index.⁵ The OPM compares a family’s pretax cash income to these thresholds to determine their poverty status.²

While historically significant, the OPM’s methodology is now widely considered obsolete and suffers from critical limitations that render it a poor gauge of contemporary economic hardship. Its most significant flaw is its narrow definition of resources. By focusing solely on pretax cash income, the OPM completely ignores the impact of major non-cash government benefits and tax policies that form the bedrock of the modern anti-poverty system.³ It does not count the value of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), housing subsidies, or refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC).⁷ Simultaneously, it fails to subtract necessary expenses that reduce a family’s disposable income, such as income and payroll taxes, work-related expenses like transportation and childcare, and, most critically, medical out-of-pocket (MOOP) spending.³ Furthermore, the OPM uses a single set of national thresholds (varying only by family size and composition), completely ignoring the vast geographic differences in the cost of living across the country.⁷ A family facing high housing costs in a major city is judged by the same yardstick as a family in a low-cost rural area, a practice that distorts the reality of financial struggle.⁶

The Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM): A More Complete Picture

In response to the OPM’s shortcomings, an interagency technical working group commissioned the development of the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which the Census Bureau began publishing in 2011.³ The SPM was explicitly designed to provide a more accurate picture of economic well-being and, crucially, to measure the effect of government policies on poverty.² It achieves this through a more comprehensive methodology for both resources and needs.

The SPM resource definition begins with cash income, like the OPM, but then makes several critical adjustments. It adds the value of in-kind government benefits that help families meet basic needs, such as SNAP, housing subsidies, and school lunch programs.¹⁰ It also includes refundable tax credits. From this expanded resource pool, it subtracts a range of non-discretionary expenses: federal and state income taxes, Social Security payroll taxes, childcare and other work expenses, child support payments, and medical out-of-pocket spending.³

The SPM thresholds are also more sophisticated. Instead of being anchored to a 1960s food budget, they are based on contemporary Consumer Expenditure Survey data for a basket of basic necessities: food, clothing, shelter, and utilities (FCSU), plus a small additional amount for other needs.⁸ Critically, these thresholds are adjusted for geographic differences in housing costs, with thousands of distinct thresholds calculated based on metropolitan area, state, and housing tenure (whether a family rents, owns a home with a mortgage, or owns one without a mortgage).²

Feature	Official Poverty Measure (OPM)	Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM)
Resource Unit	Individuals related by birth, marriage, or adoption (families) or unrelated individuals.	Official family definition plus any co-resident unrelated children, foster children, and unmarried partners and their relatives.
Resource Definition	Pretax cash income.	Cash income PLUS in-kind government benefits (e.g., SNAP, housing subsidies) and tax credits (e.g., EITC, CTC).
Expense Subtractions	None.	MINUS taxes, work expenses, childcare costs, child support paid, and medical out-of-pocket (MOOP) expenses.
Threshold Basis	Three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963.	Based on recent expenditures on food, clothing, shelter, utilities, telephone, and internet (FCSUti).
Threshold Adjustments	Vary by family size, composition, and age of householder.	Vary by family size, composition, and housing tenure (owner with mortgage, owner without, renter), with geographic adjustments for housing costs.
Updating Method	Adjusted annually for inflation.	Based on a 5-year moving average of expenditure data.

Table 1: OPM vs. SPM at a Glance. This table synthesizes the key methodological differences between the two poverty measures, highlighting the SPM’s more comprehensive approach to defining resources, expenses, and needs in the modern economy. Data synthesized from.³

The choice between these two measures is far more than a technical one; it is a choice that fundamentally shapes the policy debate. Because the OPM excludes the value of most major anti-poverty programs, it creates the statistical illusion that decades of government spending have had little effect. Critics of the social safety net often point to the OPM’s relative stagnation since the late 1960s as evidence that these programs are a failure.⁵ This narrative suggests that poverty is an intractable problem driven by individual behavior rather than economic conditions, thereby justifying calls for reduced spending. The SPM, in stark contrast, was designed to directly measure the impact of these programs. By including benefits and tax credits in its resource calculation, it demonstrates their powerful anti-poverty effects. The sharp 0.5 percentage point increase in the SPM rate in 2023, following the expiration of pandemic-era relief like the expanded Child Tax Credit, serves as a clear, real-world experiment proving the direct link between government support and poverty reduction.² Thus, using the SPM provides the evidentiary basis for strengthening the safety net, while clinging to the OPM fuels a narrative that undermines it.

Furthermore, the gap between the OPM and SPM for different demographic groups acts as a powerful diagnostic tool, revealing where policy is succeeding and where it is failing. For children, the SPM poverty rate is often lower than the OPM rate, especially when programs like the enhanced Child Tax Credit are in full effect.⁸ This is because children live in families that are major beneficiaries of the very programs the SPM counts but the OPM ignores (SNAP, EITC, CTC). The negative gap (where SPM is lower than OPM) for children is a direct measure of the success of these programs in targeting and alleviating child poverty.¹⁰ Conversely, for Americans aged 65 and older, the SPM poverty rate is consistently higher than the OPM rate.⁸ While Social Security is a powerful anti-poverty force captured by both measures, the SPM also subtracts medical out-of-pocket expenses—a significant and growing burden for seniors. This positive gap reveals a major economic vulnerability that the OPM completely obscures, showing that high healthcare costs are effectively pushing many older adults back into poverty even after accounting for their pensions. By analyzing the difference between the two rates, policymakers can gain a more nuanced understanding of the unique economic pressures facing different populations and design more targeted and effective interventions.

Section 1.2: The Faces of Poverty: A Statistical Portrait (2023 Data)

Using the more accurate and comprehensive Supplemental Poverty Measure as our guide, a detailed portrait of poverty in the United States emerges. The data reveal not only the overall scale of hardship but also the profound disparities that define the experience of poverty, which falls most heavily on specific demographic groups and is deeply intertwined with factors like race, age, family structure, and disability.

In 2023, the SPM poverty rate was 12.9%, meaning 42.8 million Americans lived with resources insufficient to meet their basic needs.¹ This figure represented a notable increase from the historic lows achieved during the COVID-19 pandemic, a change directly attributable to the expiration of enhanced safety net provisions, particularly the expanded Child Tax Credit.² The landscape of economic hardship, however, extends far beyond this single number. A significant portion of the population lives in a state of deep poverty, with resources below 50% of the poverty threshold; in 2023, this applied to 4.4% of the population under the SPM.¹ An even larger group lives in a state of constant economic precarity, with resources below 200% of the poverty threshold. In 2023, a staggering 41.3% of the population, or more than two in five Americans, fell into this “near poverty” category, indicating a widespread lack of economic security.¹

The burden of poverty is not distributed equally across the population. Stark and persistent disparities exist along racial and ethnic lines, a direct reflection of the structural barriers and historical injustices that will be explored in Part II. According to 2023 SPM data, the poverty rate for non-Hispanic White individuals was 8.8%.¹ In stark contrast, the rates for minority groups were dramatically higher: 18.5% for African Americans, 20.9% for Hispanic Americans, and 19.0% for Native Americans.¹ In absolute numbers, this means that while 17 million non-Hispanic White people were in poverty, they were joined by 8.3 million African Americans and 13.7 million Hispanic Americans, groups with much smaller total populations.¹ These figures demonstrate that people of color are disproportionately more likely to experience poverty, a reality rooted in systemic inequality rather than individual attributes.¹⁵

Poverty also varies significantly by age and family composition. In 2023, the SPM child poverty rate was 13.7%, affecting 10 million children under the age of 18.¹ The economic vulnerability of children is profoundly linked to family structure. Families headed by a single mother face a poverty rate of 21.8% (OPM), nearly five times higher than the 4.6% rate for married-couple families.⁵ These single-mother families account for a disproportionate 47% of all families in poverty, underscoring the economic challenges faced by women and children in these households.⁵ For working-age adults (ages 18-64), the SPM poverty rate was 12.9%.¹ It is a common misconception that poverty is primarily a result of unwillingness to work. In fact, most adults living in poverty are employed.¹⁷ While the poverty rate for adults working full-time year-round is a low 1.8%, the reality is different for millions of others. Among the 43.6 million working-age adults who were not working in 2023—due to factors like disability, caregiving responsibilities, illness, or the inability to find a job—the poverty rate was an alarming 29.7%.⁵ For seniors aged 65 and older, poverty is shaped by the dual forces of Social Security and healthcare costs. Social Security stands as the nation’s most effective anti-poverty program, single-handedly lifting 27.6 million people out of SPM poverty in 2023.² Yet, as noted earlier, the high out-of-pocket medical expenses faced by this population push many back into poverty, a reality captured by the SPM but not the OPM.⁸

Demographic Group	Official Poverty Measure (OPM) Rate	Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) Rate
Overall Population	11.1%	12.9%
Race/Ethnicity
White (non-Hispanic)	7.7%	8.8%
Black	17.9%	18.5%
Hispanic	16.6%	20.9%
Asian	9.1%	13.6%
Native American	21.2%	19.0%
Age
Under 18	15.3%	13.7%
18-64	10.8% (average)	12.9% (average)
65 and over	10.0% (approx.)	12.5% (approx.)
Family Type
Married-Couple Families	4.6%	N/A
Single-Mother Families	21.8%	N/A

Table 2: Poverty Rates by Demographic Group (OPM vs. SPM, 2023). This table illustrates the different poverty landscapes revealed by the two measures. The SPM shows higher poverty for most groups, especially Hispanic and Asian Americans, due to its accounting for expenses and geographic costs. Conversely, it shows lower poverty for children and Native Americans, reflecting the impact of government benefits. Data compiled from.¹

Beyond these core demographics, other factors are strongly correlated with poverty. Individuals with disabilities face an exceptionally high SPM poverty rate of 22.8%.¹ Education remains one of the strongest predictors of economic status; the OPM poverty rate for adults without a high school diploma is 25%, while for those with a college degree, it is only 4%.⁵ Nativity also plays a role, with foreign-born non-citizens experiencing a poverty rate (18.8%) nearly double that of naturalized citizens (9.4%).⁵

Finally, poverty is not just an income figure; it manifests as a cascade of material hardships that affect daily life and long-term well-being. In 2023, 13.5% of American households experienced food insecurity, meaning their access to adequate food was limited or uncertain.¹ Housing instability is rampant, with only 34 affordable and available rental units for every 100 extremely low-income households.¹ This lack of affordable housing forces families into precarious living situations and consumes an unsustainable portion of their budgets. Perhaps most critically, many families in poverty lack a financial cushion to weather any unexpected shock. In 2022, 11.1% of all households had zero or negative net worth, meaning their debts equaled or exceeded their assets.¹ This absence of savings or assets leaves them profoundly vulnerable to a job loss, medical emergency, or car repair that can trigger a spiral into deeper crisis.

Part II: The Roots of Disadvantage: Deconstructing the Causes of Poverty

Understanding the statistical portrait of poverty is only the first step. To forge effective solutions, it is essential to move beyond the “what” and “who” to uncover the “why.” The causes of poverty are complex and fiercely debated, often polarized between two competing narratives: one that emphasizes individual choices and behaviors, and another that points to systemic and structural forces. This section will deconstruct these narratives, arguing that while individual agency is a factor, it operates within a much larger architecture of inequality. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that poverty in America is not primarily a problem of personal character, but a predictable outcome of historical injustices and contemporary economic and institutional failures.

Section 2.1: The Enduring Narrative of Individual Choice

A persistent and influential narrative in American public discourse attributes poverty to the choices and behaviors of individuals. This perspective often suggests that people are poor because of a lack of effort, poor decision-making, moral failings, or the development of a “dependency culture” fostered by government assistance.¹⁹ Proponents of this view frequently point to strong correlations between poverty and certain individual-level characteristics. For instance, data consistently show that poverty rates are highest among those who have not completed high school, with a 25% poverty rate for adults without a diploma compared to just 4% for college graduates.⁵ Family structure is another key focal point, with the poverty rate for children in single-mother households being over four times higher than for children in married-couple families.⁵ Similarly, unemployment is a powerful predictor; the poverty rate for unemployed individuals is 21.5%, versus only 1.8% for those employed full-time.⁵ Other factors, such as substance abuse, are also cited as individual behaviors that can lead to financial ruin.²²

This narrative, which often conflates poverty with welfare receipt or joblessness, implies that the solution lies in changing individual behavior—encouraging work, marriage, and personal responsibility.²⁰ However, this perspective is incomplete and often misleading. While individual choices and circumstances certainly play a role in any person’s life trajectory, framing them as the primary

cause of widespread poverty ignores the context in which those choices are made. A 2018 survey by the Urban Institute found that a majority of Americans (nearly 60%) believe that poverty is the result of an unequal society, not a lack of individual effort.¹⁹ The data support this public intuition. The trope of the “lazy” poor is contradicted by the fact that the majority of adults living in poverty are employed, often in low-wage jobs that fail to provide a path to economic security.¹⁵ These proximate causes—lower educational attainment, family instability, periods of unemployment—are more accurately understood not as independent moral failings, but as outcomes that are themselves heavily shaped by a deeper set of structural conditions. They are often the symptoms of poverty, not its ultimate cause.

Section 2.2: The Architecture of Inequality: Systemic and Structural Drivers

Poverty does not arise in a vacuum. It is constructed and sustained by a powerful architecture of historical policies, economic structures, and institutional practices that systematically limit opportunities for some while privileging others. To understand poverty in America is to understand this architecture.

The Foundational Role of Structural Racism and History

The disproportionate rates of poverty among people of color are no accident; they are the direct legacy of discriminatory government policies. The most consequential of these was redlining, a state-sanctioned system of housing segregation practiced from the 1930s through the late 1970s.¹⁶ Federal agencies like the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) created maps of metropolitan areas that color-coded neighborhoods by perceived lending risk. Predominantly Black and other minority neighborhoods were outlined in red, deeming them “hazardous” and effectively cutting them off from mortgage lending and investment.¹⁶ This policy, coupled with racially restrictive covenants and violence, locked Black families out of the burgeoning suburbs and concentrated them in divested urban centers.¹⁶

The impact of this history is profound and reverberates today through the intergenerational wealth gap. In the United States, homeownership is the single most important vehicle for building and transferring wealth across generations.¹⁶ By systematically denying Black Americans access to this primary engine of wealth creation, redlining and associated policies engineered a massive and persistent racial wealth gap. As of 2016, the median wealth for a white household was approximately $171,000, about ten times the median wealth of a Black household.²⁶ This is not a gap in income, but in accumulated assets. The consequences are devastating. This lack of generational wealth means fewer resources to fund higher education, start a business, weather a medical emergency, or provide a down payment for the next generation’s home.¹⁶ It is a primary driver of intergenerational poverty, trapping families in a cycle of disadvantage. The effects are so powerful that a Black household with a college degree still possesses less median wealth than a white household

without a college degree, a stark illustration that individual achievement alone cannot overcome the immense headwind of systemic exclusion.²⁶

Modern Economic Structures

The historical legacy of exclusion is compounded by the dynamics of the modern economy. Since the 1970s, economic growth has become increasingly unequal.²⁷ While productivity has risen, wage growth for low- and middle-income workers has stagnated, with the gains flowing disproportionately to the top.⁹ Today, the top 20% of households command 17 times more income than the bottom 20%.¹ This has led to a situation where many people work full-time, often in essential roles, yet their wages are insufficient to lift their families out of poverty.¹⁵ Furthermore, the nature of work itself has become more precarious. The rise of the “gig economy,” unpredictable scheduling, and jobs with few benefits makes it exceedingly difficult for families to manage a budget, secure reliable and affordable childcare, or maintain stable housing. This instability creates a constant state of crisis, where one small setback can lead to a cascade of negative consequences.²⁹

Institutional Failures

Key American institutions, from schools to the justice system, often reflect and reinforce these economic and racial inequities.

• Education System: Because school funding in the U.S. is heavily reliant on local property taxes, neighborhoods segregated by race and income—a direct legacy of redlining—have chronically under-resourced schools. Children in these schools start at a disadvantage, with a readiness gap apparent even before kindergarten, and this achievement gap tends to widen over time.²⁴ A child who is not proficient in reading by the third grade is four times more likely to drop out of high school, dramatically limiting their future economic prospects.²⁴
• Justice System: The criminal justice system has a profoundly unequal impact on low-income communities of color. Aggressive policing, disparate sentencing, and mass incarceration disrupt families by removing parents and breadwinners, creating immense emotional and financial strain.²³ A criminal record creates a lifelong barrier to stable employment, housing, and educational opportunities, effectively locking individuals and their families into a cycle of poverty.²⁹

The Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) Framework

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provide a powerful conceptual framework for understanding these interconnected drivers: the Social Determinants of Health (SDOH).³⁰ SDOH are defined as the conditions in the environments where people are born, grow, live, work, and age.³² These non-medical factors are grouped into five key domains: 1) Economic Stability, 2) Education Access and Quality, 3) Health Care Access and Quality, 4) Neighborhood and Built Environment, and 5) Social and Community Context.³¹ Research shows that these determinants can have a greater influence on a person’s health, well-being, and life opportunities than genetics or even access to healthcare services.³⁰

Poverty is both a key driver and a consequence of adverse outcomes across these domains. For example, living in a high-poverty neighborhood (Neighborhood and Built Environment) often means living in areas with substandard housing, higher levels of pollution, a lack of safe parks or recreational spaces, and limited access to grocery stores with healthy food (so-called “food deserts”).³⁴ These conditions directly contribute to poor health outcomes. At the same time, they limit access to good schools and job opportunities, which undermines Economic Stability and perpetuates poverty across generations.³⁴ The SDOH framework makes it clear that poverty is not a standalone issue but is deeply embedded in the fabric of our communities and social systems.

The overwhelming evidence from this structural analysis leads to a crucial conclusion: poverty is not a consequence of flawed character, but rather a consequence of a lack of cash and capital, a deficit driven by systemic exclusion. The narrative of individual choice falters when confronted with the reality that historical policies like redlining and ongoing economic structures like the racial wealth gap systematically prevent entire groups from accumulating the financial capital (wealth) and social capital (networks and connections) necessary for upward mobility.¹⁶ The problem is not a deficit of will, but a deficit of resources, engineered by a system that has historically and presently excluded many from the opportunity to build wealth and well-being.

This understanding points toward a different kind of solution. If poverty is a systemic problem, it requires systemic answers. The Social Determinants of Health framework provides a roadmap for such an approach. Traditional anti-poverty programs like food assistance are “downstream” interventions; they treat the symptoms of poverty, such as hunger or lack of income. A public health approach, guided by the SDOH framework, focuses on moving “upstream” to address the “causes of the causes”.³⁷ This means tackling the fundamental policies and systems that create the conditions for poverty in the first place—things like housing policy, educational funding, transportation infrastructure, and criminal justice reform.³⁰ This reframes poverty from a narrow social welfare issue into a broad public health and economic development challenge, demanding a coordinated, whole-of-government strategy that aims not just to manage poverty, but to eradicate the conditions that allow it to flourish.

Part III: The Policy Paradox: 50 Years of Anti-Poverty Efforts and Their Limits

Since President Lyndon B. Johnson declared an “unconditional war on poverty” in 1964, the United States has developed a vast and complex social safety net. The legacy of this effort is one of the most contentious topics in American politics, marked by a deep paradox. On one hand, critics declare the war a failure, pointing to persistently high official poverty rates. On the other, defenders argue it has been a resounding, if incomplete, success, preventing millions from falling into hardship. This section will resolve this paradox by using the proper metrics to evaluate the safety net’s impact. It will then offer a nuanced critique of the modern system, revealing how its fragmented design, conflicting goals, and embedded biases limit its effectiveness and often trap the very people it is meant to help.

Section 3.1: The War on Poverty: A Contested Legacy

The debate over the success of America’s anti-poverty efforts often hinges on which statistics one chooses to believe. The conservative critique, frequently articulated by organizations like the Heritage Foundation, argues that the War on Poverty has been a colossal failure.¹² The central piece of evidence for this claim is the Official Poverty Measure (OPM). As Chart 1 in their analysis shows, the OPM rate fell dramatically before the War on Poverty began but has remained relatively flat, fluctuating with the business cycle, since the late 1960s.¹² During this same period, federal spending on means-tested welfare programs has exploded, increasing sixteen-fold after adjusting for inflation.¹² From this perspective, the combination of massive spending and a stagnant poverty rate leads to the conclusion that government programs have not reduced poverty but have instead fostered dependency and undermined self-sufficiency.¹²

The progressive rebuttal, championed by think tanks like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), counters that this entire line of reasoning is built on a fundamentally flawed premise: the use of the OPM.⁹ As detailed in Part I, the OPM is an outdated metric that, by design, does not count the value of the most important modern anti-poverty tools, including SNAP and tax-based benefits like the EITC and CTC.⁹ To measure the effectiveness of the safety net while ignoring its largest components is, as this argument goes, illogical. It creates a false impression that poverty is intractable and that government action is futile.³⁹

The Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) resolves this paradox. By providing a more comprehensive accounting of both government benefits and necessary expenses, the SPM offers a far more accurate assessment of the safety net’s impact. When poverty is measured using an SPM-style methodology that accounts for inflation, the data tell a completely different story. The poverty rate has not stagnated; it has fallen dramatically, from 26% in 1967 to a pre-pandemic low of 12.8% in 2018.⁹

Crucially, this long-term decline is almost entirely attributable to the strengthening of the government safety net. Without these programs, the poverty rate would be nearly double what it is today.³⁹ In 1967, before the full expansion of these programs, the safety net lifted just 4% of the otherwise-poor population above the poverty line. By 2017, that figure had soared to 43%.⁹ The same is true for child poverty. Before accounting for government benefits, the child poverty rate has barely budged in five decades. But once the safety net is factored in, a large and sustained decline becomes evident.⁹ The conclusion is clear: the War on Poverty was not a failure. It built a safety net that, while imperfect, has been remarkably successful at alleviating hardship and counteracting the forces of rising economic inequality.⁹

Program	Number of Individuals Lifted Out of SPM Poverty (2023)
Social Security	27.6 million
Refundable Tax Credits (EITC/CTC)	7.9 million (2022 data)
SNAP (Food Stamps)	3.0 million (2022 data)

Table 3: The Impact of the Social Safety Net. This table quantifies the powerful anti-poverty effect of key government programs, demonstrating their critical role in reducing hardship. The data show that Social Security is by far the largest anti-poverty program, primarily benefiting seniors, while tax credits and nutrition assistance are vital for working-age families and children. Data synthesized from.²

Section 3.2: A Critique of the Modern Safety Net

While the social safety net has successfully reduced poverty overall, its modern design is a patchwork of programs with conflicting goals, punitive rules, and significant gaps. This structure not only limits its effectiveness but can also create perverse incentives that make it harder for families to achieve economic independence.

The “Poverty Trap”: High Marginal Effective Tax Rates

One of the most significant flaws in the current system is the uncoordinated way in which benefits are withdrawn as a family’s earnings increase. A low-wage worker who gets a raise may simultaneously see their SNAP benefits reduced, their housing subsidy decrease, and their EITC begin to phase out. The cumulative loss of these benefits acts as a hidden tax on their new earnings. This “marginal effective tax rate” can be extraordinarily high, in some cases approaching or even exceeding 100%.³⁸ This means that for every extra dollar earned, a family could lose a dollar or more in benefits, leaving them no better off, or even worse off, financially. This phenomenon is often called the “poverty trap” or “benefits cliff,” and it creates a powerful disincentive for workers to accept promotions, increase their hours, or seek higher-paying jobs, effectively putting a low ceiling on their economic mobility.⁴⁰

Fragmented, Paternalistic, and Inadequate by Design

Beyond the poverty trap, individual programs are fraught with limitations that undermine their potential.

• TANF’s Limited Reach: The 1996 welfare reform replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. This shift dramatically weakened the cash assistance safety net. TANF now reaches a far smaller share of poor families; in 2022-23, for every 100 families in poverty, only 20 received TANF cash assistance.²⁷ Benefit levels are set by states and are often woefully inadequate to meet basic needs—as low as $170 per month for a family of three in Mississippi.²³ Furthermore, the program is defined by strict work requirements, sanctions, and lifetime time limits that can push the most vulnerable families, who face the highest barriers to employment, out of the program entirely, leaving them with no cash income.²³
• The Stigma of In-Kind Benefits: While programs providing in-kind benefits like SNAP and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) are effective at reducing food insecurity, they are often designed in a paternalistic way that restricts recipient choice.⁴⁰ WIC, for example, has a tightly controlled list of approved foods, and SNAP benefits cannot be used for hot meals or non-food necessities like soap or diapers.⁴⁰ This approach is often justified by stereotypes about the poor being untrustworthy with money, but such claims are not supported by evidence.⁴⁰ These restrictions can stigmatize recipients and undermine their dignity and sense of responsibility.⁴⁰
• Exclusionary Tax Credits: The Child Tax Credit (CTC) is a powerful anti-poverty tool, but its traditional design is “upside down”.⁴³ Because the credit phases in with earnings and is only partially refundable, it provides the least help to the families with the lowest incomes who need it most. Prior to the temporary expansion during the pandemic, an estimated 27 million children—including half of all Black and Latino children—received only a partial credit or no credit at all because their families’ earnings were too low.⁴³
• A Weakened Unemployment System: The Unemployment Insurance (UI) system, established in the 1930s, has failed to adapt to the modern workforce. Its rules often exclude part-time workers, gig workers, and those who leave jobs for compelling family or health reasons.⁴³ As a result, even before the pandemic, the system reached fewer than 30% of all unemployed workers. Moreover, benefit levels and the duration of eligibility vary dramatically from state to state, creating a geographic lottery for workers who lose their jobs.⁴³

Failure to Address Root Causes

Ultimately, the American safety net is designed primarily to provide temporary relief from the symptoms of poverty, not to address its root causes. It offers a meal, but not a path to a career. A job training program for a parent is unlikely to succeed if they lack access to affordable childcare, reliable transportation, or stable housing.²⁹ The current system is not built to dismantle the deep-seated structural barriers discussed in Part II, such as housing segregation, educational inequity, or the racial wealth gap.²³

A deeper analysis reveals that the architecture of the safety net reflects a profound ideological conflict between two competing goals: poverty alleviation and behavior modification. On one hand, programs like Social Security are designed primarily to alleviate poverty by providing resources, and they are broadly successful.² On the other hand, programs like TANF have a dual purpose: to provide aid

and to enforce specific behaviors, namely work.⁴¹ This creates a fundamental tension. The very features designed to modify behavior—strict work requirements, sanctions for non-compliance, and time limits—are often the same features that make the program less effective at alleviating poverty, as they create insurmountable barriers and push the most vulnerable people out of the system.²³ This conflict shows that the safety net is not a coherent system but a patchwork of competing philosophies. One sees poverty as a lack of resources to be remedied; the other sees it as a behavioral problem to be corrected.

This leads to an even more unsettling conclusion: many of the program “flaws” are not bugs, but features. They are the tangible policy expression of a long-standing American narrative about the “deserving” versus the “undeserving” poor.²⁰ The cumbersome application processes, the drug tests, the work requirements—these are not primarily about fiscal prudence or program efficiency. They function as tests of moral and social “deservingness,” designed to filter out those deemed unworthy of public support.²³ This narrative of deservingness is inextricably linked with race. Research demonstrates that Black Americans are disproportionately concentrated in states with the most punitive and restrictive TANF rules and face greater scrutiny and higher sanction rates within the system.²³ Therefore, the gaps, cliffs, and inadequacies of the safety net are not accidental. They are the logical outcome of a system built on a foundation of social control and biased ideas about who is worthy of help, a system that ultimately perpetuates the very inequities it purports to address.

Part IV: Forging a New Path: Evidence-Based Strategies for Shared Prosperity

A clear-eyed critique of the American safety net is not an argument for its dismantlement, but a call for its transformation. The evidence shows that government programs can and do dramatically reduce poverty. The challenge is to move beyond a fragmented, often punitive system of poverty management toward a cohesive, evidence-based strategy for prosperity creation. This requires a paradigm shift: from single-focus interventions to holistic, two-generation approaches; from treating symptoms to addressing root causes through a public health lens; and from a patchwork of programs to a deliberate blueprint for policy reform.

Section 4.1: Beyond Silos: The Promise of Holistic, Two-Generation Approaches

A core reason for the limited success of many traditional anti-poverty programs is their siloed nature. They tend to focus on a single problem in isolation, but poverty is a multidimensional, systems problem.⁴⁴ A job training program for a parent may be ineffective if they cannot find or afford stable childcare. An early childhood education program for a child will have its impact blunted if the family is simultaneously facing food insecurity or a housing crisis.²⁹ As one analysis notes, of 60,000 people across 15 countries who escaped poverty, fewer than 1% credited a traditional anti-poverty program.⁴⁴ The vast majority—71%—attributed their progress to economic transformation through jobs and new businesses, highlighting the need for solutions that address the whole picture.⁴⁴

In response to these limitations, practitioners and researchers are increasingly turning to two-generation (2Gen) approaches. A 2Gen model is not simply about offering services to parents and children in the same location; it is about explicitly and intentionally integrating services for both generations within the same household to create a synergistic effect that interrupts the cycle of poverty.⁴⁵ The goal is to build the human capital of parents and children simultaneously, creating a legacy of economic security and well-being that passes from one generation to the next.⁴⁶

The evidence supporting 2Gen strategies is growing and compelling. The concept itself has roots in the Head Start program, which since its inception in 1965 has aimed to support the whole family, not just the child.⁴⁷ Long-term research is now bearing this out, demonstrating profound intergenerational effects. A landmark study leveraging the national rollout of Head Start found that mothers who had attended the program as children subsequently had children of their own who achieved higher educational attainment, had lower rates of teen pregnancy, and were less likely to be involved in the criminal justice system.⁴⁹ This provides powerful evidence that high-quality investments in one generation can break the cycle of poverty and yield significant positive returns for the next.

More recent “2Gen 2.0” models are building on this foundation with even more intentional design.⁴⁷ A leading example is the CareerAdvance program in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a collaboration between the George Kaiser Family Foundation and the Community Action Project of Tulsa.⁴⁷ This program strategically links high-quality Head Start and Early Head Start services for children with career pathway training for their parents, often in the healthcare sector, through local community colleges.⁴⁷ Evaluations of such sector-based career pathway programs show positive impacts on parents’ educational persistence, degree certification, and potential earnings, especially when combined with wraparound supports.⁵⁰

The success of these models stems from several key factors. First, they build strong, intentional connections between the adult and child components, aligning curricula and reinforcing learning across generations.⁴⁷ Second, seeing their children succeed in a high-quality educational setting can be a powerful motivator for parents to persist in their own demanding educational and career goals.⁵⁰ Third, by co-locating services or creating cohorts of families, these programs build social capital, creating supportive networks among parents who share the dual roles of student and caregiver.⁵⁰ By addressing the needs of the family unit holistically, 2Gen approaches move beyond managing the symptoms of poverty to actively building the capabilities and capital needed to escape it.

Section 4.2: A Public Health Approach to Poverty Eradication

Another powerful framework for reimagining anti-poverty strategy is to treat poverty as a public health crisis. The link between poverty and poor health is inextricable and well-documented. Poverty is one of the most pervasive risk factors underlying a host of adverse health outcomes, including chronic diseases, higher infant mortality, and shorter life expectancy.³⁰ The daily conditions of living in poverty—inadequate and unsafe housing, poor nutrition, lack of access to safe places for physical activity, and the chronic stress of financial instability—are precisely the Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) that drive health inequities.³⁰ From this perspective, poverty is not just a socioeconomic condition; it is a pathogen that harms individuals and communities.

Adopting a public health approach means fundamentally shifting the focus of intervention. Instead of only treating the “downstream” symptoms of poverty (e.g., providing food aid to the hungry or medical care to the sick), a public health strategy moves “upstream” to address the root causes—the SDOH—that create poor health and poverty in the first place.³¹ It asks not just “How do we help this family afford rent this month?” but “How do we ensure there is an adequate supply of safe, affordable housing in this community?”

This approach is guided by several core principles:

• Universalism Proportional to Need: A public health approach advocates for policies and environmental changes that benefit everyone (universalism), but with an intensity and focus that is proportional to the level of disadvantage.³⁰ For example, improving park safety benefits an entire community, but the effort should be greatest in neighborhoods with the highest rates of violence and least access to green space.
• Cross-Sector Collaboration: Because the determinants of health and poverty lie far outside the healthcare system, solutions require breaking down government silos. A public health approach necessitates coordinated action among departments of health, housing, education, transportation, labor, and economic development to create environments that promote well-being.³⁰
• Data-Driven Targeting: This strategy relies on robust data to identify geographic “hot spots” of concentrated poverty and poor health outcomes.³⁴ By mapping data on factors like housing cost burden, unemployment, and food access, agencies can better understand the specific structural barriers present in a given community and tailor interventions accordingly.³²

Framing poverty as a public health issue elevates it from a niche concern of social service agencies to a central priority for the entire society. It makes clear that creating healthier, more equitable communities is not only a moral imperative but also a smart investment that yields returns in the form of reduced healthcare costs, increased productivity, and enhanced collective well-being.⁵⁴

Section 4.3: A Blueprint for Policy Reform: Actionable Recommendations

Synthesizing the lessons from the data, the critiques of the current system, and the promise of holistic frameworks, a clear blueprint for comprehensive policy reform emerges. This agenda is designed to attack poverty on multiple fronts: providing immediate relief from hardship, making work a reliable path to security, dismantling the structural barriers that perpetuate inequality, and investing in the human capital of families for long-term prosperity.

Strengthen Foundational Support (Reduce Hardship Now)

The first priority must be to ensure that no family in the wealthiest nation on earth lives in destitution. This requires strengthening the foundational pillars of the safety net to provide a stable floor of economic security.

• Implement a Universal Child Allowance: The most powerful, evidence-based step to slash child poverty is to replace the current flawed and exclusionary Child Tax Credit with a universal, monthly child allowance.⁵⁶ As proposed by a consensus of poverty scholars, a benefit of around $250 per child per month, paid automatically to all families regardless of income or work status, would provide a stable, predictable income floor. This single policy would dramatically reduce child poverty, eliminate the deepest forms of poverty, and provide families with the consistent resources needed to meet their children’s basic needs.⁵⁶
• Modernize SNAP and UI: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a critical buffer against hunger, but its benefit levels are often inadequate. Reforms should ensure benefits are sufficient to afford a healthy diet throughout the entire month, which may involve distributing them more frequently than once a month to help families smooth consumption and avoid end-of-month hardship.²⁹ The Unemployment Insurance (UI) system must be modernized to reflect the 21st-century workforce, expanding eligibility to include part-time and gig workers and establishing federal standards for benefit adequacy and duration. The system should also incorporate automatic stabilizers that expand benefits during economic downturns, ensuring a timely and robust response to recessions.⁴³

Make Work Pay (Promote Economic Mobility)

For the millions of Americans in low-wage jobs, work is not a guaranteed path out of poverty. Policies must ensure that a job provides family-sustaining income and stability.

• Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): The EITC is a proven success at supplementing the earnings of low-income families with children. However, it provides very little support to workers without dependent children, who are often pushed into poverty by low wages.⁴⁰ A significant expansion of the EITC for childless workers would correct this imbalance and boost the incomes of millions of low-wage individuals.⁴⁰
• Raise the Minimum Wage and Ensure Job Quality: The federal minimum wage has been eroded by inflation to the point where it is not a living wage in any part of the country. Raising the federal minimum wage and indexing it to inflation is a critical step.⁵⁷ This must be paired with policies that promote job quality, including guaranteed access to paid family and medical leave and paid sick days, which provide workers with the stability needed to maintain employment through illness or family caregiving needs.⁴⁸

Dismantle Structural Barriers (Attack Root Causes)

A robust safety net and pro-work policies are necessary but not sufficient. Long-term progress requires a direct assault on the structural barriers that create and concentrate poverty, particularly for communities of color.

• Invest in Fair and Affordable Housing: The legacy of segregation and the current crisis of housing affordability must be addressed head-on. This requires vigorous enforcement of fair housing laws to combat discrimination, a major expansion of housing voucher programs to allow families to move to areas of opportunity, and significant public and private investment to close the nationwide shortage of affordable housing units.²⁶ These policies are essential to deconcentrating poverty and breaking the link between zip code and destiny.
• Address Systemic Racism: An anti-poverty agenda must be an explicitly anti-racist agenda. This involves prioritizing structural reforms across all domains—including education, the criminal justice system, and financial services—that are specifically designed to close the persistent racial gaps in wealth, health, and opportunity.²³

Invest in 2Gen Infrastructure

Finally, to break the cycle of intergenerational poverty, we must invest in building the human capital of parents and children together.

• Scale Proven 2Gen Models: The federal government should establish competitive grant programs to test, evaluate, and scale successful two-generation models across the country.⁵⁰ Particular focus should be given to programs that link high-quality early education platforms like Head Start with community college career pathway programs for parents, a model with strong evidence of success.⁵⁰ This represents a long-term investment in families that moves beyond temporary assistance to build the skills and capabilities necessary for lasting economic independence.

Conclusion: From Poverty Management to Prosperity Creation

The American paradox of wealth and want is not an immutable feature of our society. It is the cumulative result of historical injustices, economic transformations, and, most importantly, deliberate policy choices. This report has demonstrated that how we measure poverty shapes our understanding of it, that its roots are more structural than individual, and that our policy responses have been a mixture of resounding success and frustrating inadequacy. The Supplemental Poverty Measure reveals the true scale of hardship while simultaneously proving the immense power of the social safety net to alleviate it. An analysis of poverty’s causes points decisively away from narratives of individual blame and toward the formidable barriers of systemic racism, economic inequality, and institutional failure.

For too long, the American policy framework has been trapped in a paradigm of poverty management. This approach, born from a conflicted ideology of compassion and control, provides just enough assistance to prevent utter destitution for some, but not enough to foster genuine economic mobility for most. It is a system characterized by gaps, cliffs, and stigmas, designed as much to enforce behavioral norms and adjudicate “deservingness” as to provide support. This paradigm has managed poverty’s symptoms but has failed to cure the underlying disease.

The path forward requires a fundamental paradigm shift—from poverty management to prosperity creation. This is not a semantic game; it is a reorientation of our goals and strategies. It involves a two-pronged approach grounded in the evidence presented throughout this analysis. The first prong is the construction of a modernized, robust, and dignified safety net that provides a stable foundation for all. Policies like a universal child allowance, an expanded EITC, and an adaptive UI system are not just about alleviating hardship; they are investments in human potential, providing the stability families need to work, learn, and thrive. The second prong consists of proactive, “upstream” investments in people and places that dismantle the architecture of disadvantage. This means scaling proven two-generation programs that build the human capital of parents and children together, aggressively tackling the housing crisis to deconcentrate poverty, and committing to structural reforms that root out systemic racism in all its forms.

Ending poverty in the United States is not a matter of discovering a secret solution or of finding new resources in an era of scarcity. It is a matter of political will and moral clarity. It requires the will to discard outdated narratives and embrace the evidence of what works. It demands the clarity to see poverty not as a failing of individuals, but as a failure of the systems we have built. By embracing an evidence-based, systemic, and holistic approach, the United States can finally resolve its central paradox and build a nation where prosperity is not just a national aggregate, but a lived reality shared by all.

Works cited

1. Data on Poverty in the United States – Center for American Progress, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/data-view/poverty-data/
2. Poverty in the United States: 2023 – U.S. Census Bureau, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2024/demo/p60-283.html
3. Difference Between the Supplemental and Official Poverty Measures – U.S. Census Bureau, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2024/09/difference-supplemental-and-official-poverty-measures.html
4. The Failures of American Poverty Measures – ScholarWorks at WMU, accessed August 10, 2025, https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3408&context=jssw
5. Poverty Statistics | Poverty Estimates- Federal Safety Net, accessed August 10, 2025, https://federalsafetynet.com/poverty-statistics/
6. Who Experiences Poverty?, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.irp.wisc.edu/resources/who-experiences-poverty/
7. www.census.gov, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2024/09/difference-supplemental-and-official-poverty-measures.html#:~:text=The%20first%2C%20called%20the%20official,as%20taxes%20and%20medical%20expenses).
8. The Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) and Children: How and Why the SPM and Official Poverty Estimates Differ – SSA, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v75n3/v75n3p55.html
9. Economic Security Programs Cut Poverty Nearly in Half Over Last 50 Years, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/economic-security-programs-cut-poverty-nearly-in-half-over-last-50
10. The Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) and Nonaged Adults …, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v75n2/v75n2p57.html
11. The Supplemental Poverty Measure: Its Core Concepts, Development, and Use, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45031
12. The War on Poverty After 50 Years | The Heritage Foundation, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years
13. National Poverty in America Awareness Month: January 2025 – U.S. Census Bureau, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/poverty-awareness-month.html
14. Economic Security Programs Help Low-Income Children Succeed Over Long Term, Many Studies Find, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/economic-security-programs-help-low-income-children-succeed-over
15. Understanding Poverty in America: Causes and Solutions – Feeding America, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/poverty
16. How Racism Shapes Child Poverty, Child, and Adolescent Health – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed August 10, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8574214/
17. Poverty in the United States – Wikipedia, accessed August 10, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
18. U.S. Poverty Statistics and Facts (Updated for 2025) – Debt.org, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/poverty-united-states/
19. Society or the Individual: Root Causes of Poverty in America, accessed August 10, 2025, https://mountsaintvincent.edu/society-or-the-individual-root-causes-of-poverty-in-america/
20. Sociological perspectives on poverty | Joseph Rowntree Foundation, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.jrf.org.uk/sociological-perspectives-on-poverty
21. ‘From Entitlement to Empowerment’: How Narratives of Poverty Legitimated Policy Outcomes in the Era of American Welfare Reform – University of Warwick, accessed August 10, 2025, https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/research/reinvention/archive/volume7issue2/zuhone/
22. Causes of Poverty in America – pursueGOD.org, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.pursuegod.org/causes-of-poverty-in-america/
23. Poverty Results from Structural Barriers, Not Personal Choices …, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/poverty-results-structural-barriers-not-personal-choices-safety-net-programs-should-reflect-fact
24. Intergenerational Poverty in the United States – Ballard Brief, accessed August 10, 2025, https://ballardbrief.byu.edu/issue-briefs/intergenerational-poverty-in-the-us-83scy
25. Systemic Inequality: Displacement, Exclusion, and Segregation – Center for American Progress, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/
26. Systematic Inequality – Center for American Progress, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systematic-inequality/
27. Poverty and Inequality | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/research/topics/poverty-and-inequality
28. 12 Common Root Causes of Poverty – Human Rights Careers, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/root-causes-of-poverty/
29. Contextual Factors That Influence the Effects of Anti-Poverty Policies and Programs – NCBI, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547368/
30. Social determinants of health – World Health Organization (WHO), accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.who.int/health-topics/social-determinants-of-health
31. Social Determinants of Health – Healthy People 2030 | odphp.health.gov, accessed August 10, 2025, https://odphp.health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health
32. Social Determinants of Health | Public Health Gateway – CDC, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.cdc.gov/public-health-gateway/php/about/social-determinants-of-health.html
33. Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) | About CDC, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.cdc.gov/about/priorities/why-is-addressing-sdoh-important.html
34. The Concentration of Poverty Is a Growing Rural Problem – Economic Research Service, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012/december/concentration-of-poverty
35. Addressing Social Determinants of Health and Chronic Diseases – CDC, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.cdc.gov/health-equity-chronic-disease/social-determinants-of-health-and-chronic-disease/index.html
36. Social Determinants of Health | PLACES – CDC, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.cdc.gov/places/measure-definitions/social-determinants-of-health.html
37. The role of health promotion in poverty reduction – Sign in, accessed August 10, 2025, https://applications.emro.who.int/emhj/1306/13_6_2007_1249_1255.pdf
38. Still Failing to Learn the Lessons of Antipoverty Programs | The Daily Economy, accessed August 10, 2025, https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/still-failing-to-learn-the-lessons-of-antipoverty-programs/
39. The War on Poverty: Then and Now – Center for American Progress, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-war-on-poverty-then-and-now/
40. Poverty and Welfare | Cato Institute, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policymakers-9th-edition-2022/poverty-welfare
41. NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ANTI-POVERTY PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES Yonatan Ben-Shalom Ro, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w17042/w17042.pdf
42. Failed “Welfare” Programs and the Web of Poverty – Truthout, accessed August 10, 2025, https://truthout.org/articles/failed-welfare-programs-and-the-web-of-poverty/
43. The Nation Has Made Progress Against Poverty But Policy Advances Are Needed to Reduce Still-High Hardship, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/the-nation-has-made-progress-against-poverty-but-policy-advances
44. Three reasons anti-poverty programs don’t work, and how there’s a better way, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/three-reasons-anti-poverty-programs-dont-work-and-how-theres-a-better-way/
45. A Theoretical Framework for Two- Generation Models | Urban Institute, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/76846/2000578-A-Theoretical-Framework-for-Two-Generation-Models.pdf
46. Two-Generation Approaches | Child Welfare Information Gateway, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/prevention/two-generation-approaches/
47. Two-‐Generation Programs in the Twenty-‐ First Century – Foundation For Child Development, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.fcd-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/24_01_01.pdf
48. Using Holistic, Multigenerational Strategies To Alleviate Poverty, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/using-holistic-multigenerational-strategies-alleviate-poverty/
49. Breaking the Cycle? Intergenerational Effects of an Antipoverty Program in Early Childhood, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/720764
50. A Two-Generation Human Capital Approach to Anti-poverty Policy – Project MUSE, accessed August 10, 2025, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/687587/pdf
51. Breaking the Cycle of Poverty in Young Families – Ascend at the Aspen Institute, accessed August 10, 2025, https://ascend.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/NHSA20Report20-20Breaking20the20Cycle20of20Poverty20in20Young20Families.pdf
52. A potential role of anti-poverty programs in health promotion – PMC, accessed August 10, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5085845/
53. Social determinants | Health Poverty Action, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.healthpovertyaction.org/how-poverty-is-created/power-and-politics/social-and-political-determinats/
54. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, accessed August 10, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9518469/#:~:text=In%20addition%2C%20public%20health%20services,the%20problem%20of%20relative%20poverty.
55. Public Health Services, Health Human Capital, and Relative Poverty of Rural Families, accessed August 10, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9518469/
56. Anti-poverty Policy Innovations for the United States, accessed August 10, 2025, https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc333c.pdf
57. An Examination of Poverty: Dimensions, Causes, and Solutions – eGrove, accessed August 10, 2025, https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1517&context=jrss
58. De-concentrating Poverty: De-constructing a Theory and the Failure of Hope – Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW, accessed August 10, 2025, https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2120&context=facpub