Table of Contents
Part I: My Failure and the Flawed Lens
Introduction: The Day My Data Died
Early in my career as a data analyst, I stood before a city council committee, armed with charts and confidence.
My presentation was on local poverty trends, and the data, drawn directly from the U.S. Census Bureau’s official measure, told a story of modest progress.
According to my figures, the poverty rate in our community had fallen by 0.4 percentage points over the past year.1
I presented this as a small but significant victory, a sign that policies were, however slowly, moving in the right direction.
After the meeting, as I packed my laptop, a woman approached me.
She was older, with lines of exhaustion and determination etched around her eyes.
She introduced herself as the director of a local food bank, a place she had run for nearly two decades.
Then, she looked me in the eye and said something that shattered my professional certainty.
“Your numbers are a lie,” she said, her voice quiet but firm.
“I don’t know where you got them, but they aren’t real.
People are hurting more than last year.
Their rent is up, their medical bills are crushing them, and they’re working two jobs just to stand still.
Your ‘good news’ is an insult to what they’re going through every single day.”
Her words were a direct challenge to everything I thought I knew.
I was a data professional; my job was to present the objective facts.
Yet, here was someone from the front lines of the issue telling me my facts were fiction.
The experience was deeply unsettling.
It wasn’t just my report that had failed; it felt like the very tools I had been trained to trust had failed.
That confrontation sent me on a journey to understand the profound and dangerous gap between the poverty we measure and the poverty people actually live.
It forced me to ask a critical question: How can the official measurement of poverty in the United States be so disconnected from the reality people experience every day?.3
The Old Lens: A 1960s Snapshot in a 21st-Century World
The answer, I discovered, lies in the tool itself.
The way America officially measures poverty is akin to using an old, fixed-focus camera from the 1960s to take a picture of our complex, 21st-century world.
The image it produces is blurry, distorted, and fundamentally misleading.
This tool is the Official Poverty Measure, or OPM.
The OPM was developed in the mid-1960s, and its methodology has remained largely unchanged since.5
Its foundation is shockingly archaic: it is based on the cost of a “minimum food diet” in 1963, multiplied by three.5
This calculation was based on a 1955 survey finding that families spent about one-third of their income on food.7
Since then, the thresholds have only been updated for inflation.8
Today, however, food constitutes a much smaller portion of a typical family’s budget, while costs for housing, healthcare, childcare, and transportation have skyrocketed.7
Using a food-based metric from six decades ago to define hardship today is like trying to navigate a modern city with a map from 1963; the landmarks are gone, and the roads have all changed.
The flaws in this old lens are not just historical; they are structural.
The OPM is a pre-tax cash income measure, which means it creates massive blind spots in the picture it takes.
It completely ignores the poverty-alleviating effects of major government programs that provide non-cash benefits.
This includes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), housing subsidies, and school lunch programs.5
Critically, it also fails to account for refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC), which are some of the most powerful anti-poverty tools the government has.9
Simultaneously, the OPM fails to subtract the necessary expenses that families must pay just to survive and work in the modern economy.
It doesn’t account for payroll and income taxes, work-related costs like transportation and childcare, or, most significantly, medical out-of-pocket (MOOP) spending, which can be catastrophic for families.5
Furthermore, the OPM is geographically blind.
It uses a single set of poverty thresholds across the entire country, making no adjustment for the vast differences in the cost of living between, for example, rural Alabama and New York City.6
This illogical approach means that the official statistics drastically understate hardship in high-cost areas.
The consequences of using such a flawed instrument are severe.
The OPM doesn’t just produce a bad statistic; it creates a distorted political and social reality.
When our primary tool for public discourse on poverty fails to measure the impact of anti-poverty programs, it makes those programs appear ineffective, fueling arguments to cut them.
When it ignores the crushing burden of medical expenses, it renders the struggles of the elderly and the sick invisible.
When it fails to account for the cost of living, it masks the true depth of economic precarity in our most expensive cities and states.
The OPM is not merely an outdated measure; it is an active barrier to understanding and solving modern poverty.
The community advocate’s anger was justified.
She was living in the real, full-color world of 21st-century hardship, while my report was presenting a faded, black-and-white snapshot from a bygone era.
Part II: The Epiphany – A New Paradigm for Seeing Poverty
My search for a better way to understand poverty led me to the work of researchers within the U.S. Census Bureau and other institutions who had been grappling with the OPM’s inadequacies for decades.5
This is where I had my epiphany: the discovery of the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM).
First officially published in 2010, the SPM was designed to address the shortcomings of the OPM and provide a more accurate picture of economic well-being.10
The SPM isn’t just a different number; it represents a fundamentally different philosophy of measurement.
It was designed to be a dynamic tool that could be improved over time as new data and research become available.5
It seeks to answer a more practical and realistic question: “Does a family have enough resources to meet its basic needs in the modern world?”.8
To do this, it abandons the old, fixed-focus lens of the OPM and replaces it with a modern, high-definition, adjustable lens capable of capturing a much clearer and more truthful picture of American poverty.
This new lens is built on three core pillars that systematically correct the distortions of the old one.
Pillar 1: Adding to the Picture (What the OPM Misses)
The first function of this superior lens is its ability to see the resources that the OPM ignores.
The SPM starts with cash income but then adds the value of in-kind government benefits that families use to meet their basic needs.5
This includes crucial support like SNAP, subsidized school lunches, housing assistance, and home energy assistance.5
Most importantly, the SPM accounts for refundable tax credits, such as the EITC and the CTC.9
These programs function as direct income boosts for low- and middle-income families, yet they are completely invisible in the official poverty statistics.
By adding these resources to a family’s ledger, the SPM reveals a crucial truth: government programs are far more effective at reducing poverty than the OPM would ever lead us to believe.
This effect is particularly pronounced for children, as many of these benefits are specifically designed to support families.
As a result, the SPM consistently shows a much lower child poverty rate than the OPM.
For instance, in one analysis, the SPM child poverty rate was 18.2% compared to the OPM’s 22.3%, a difference of millions of children whose lives were improved by programs the official measure simply does not see.9
Pillar 2: Subtracting the Noise (The Real Costs the OPM Ignores)
The second pillar of the SPM framework is its ability to account for the non-discretionary expenses that reduce a family’s available resources.
While the OPM only looks at gross pre-tax income, the SPM subtracts necessary costs to arrive at a more realistic picture of a family’s disposable income.5
These subtractions include:
- Taxes: The SPM accounts for federal and state income taxes, as well as payroll taxes (FICA), which are mandatory deductions from most workers’ paychecks.5
- Work Expenses: It recognizes that it costs money to make money. The SPM subtracts expenses for commuting to work and, for working families, the cost of childcare.9
- Medical Out-of-Pocket (MOOP) Expenses: This is one of the most significant adjustments. The SPM subtracts what families spend on health insurance premiums, co-pays, and other healthcare costs not covered by insurance.7
The impact of subtracting these real-world costs is profound, and it dramatically reshapes the demographic portrait of poverty.
The group most affected is the elderly.
Because Americans aged 65 and older have the highest average MOOP expenses, the SPM reveals a much higher poverty rate for this group.
In one stark comparison, the poverty rate for seniors jumped from 8.7% under the OPM to a staggering 15.1% under the SPM, uncovering a hidden crisis of healthcare-induced poverty.9
Similarly, by accounting for work and childcare expenses, the SPM also shows a higher rate of poverty among working-age adults than the OPM does.9
Pillar 3: Adjusting for the Landscape (Why Place Matters)
The third and final pillar is the SPM’s ability to adjust its focus for the local landscape.
The OPM’s use of a single, nationwide poverty threshold is one of its most glaring flaws.
In contrast, the SPM’s thresholds are based on what families actually spend on a basket of basic necessities: food, clothing, shelter, and utilities (FCSU), plus a little more for other needs.6
Crucially, these thresholds are adjusted for geographic differences in housing costs, which vary enormously across the country.6
Instead of the OPM’s 48 rigid thresholds, the SPM uses thousands of different ones, reflecting the economic reality of different metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas.6
This adjustment reveals that poverty is far more severe in high-cost-of-living regions.
The SPM poverty rate is significantly higher than the official rate in the Northeast and the West, where housing costs are highest.8
This finally provides a statistical explanation for why a family in Los Angeles or Boston can have an income well above the “official” poverty line and still be unable to afford basic necessities.
By integrating these three pillars, the SPM provides a far more dynamic and accurate understanding of poverty.
The OPM treats poverty as a static label based on a simple income line.
The SPM, by creating a comprehensive balance sheet of resources coming in and necessary expenses going out, reveals poverty as a state of extreme economic precarity.
It shows how a family can be pushed into poverty by a single large medical bill or lifted out by a tax credit.
This reframes poverty from a personal failing of “not earning enough” to a systemic condition of vulnerability.
This dynamic view aligns perfectly with the lived experiences of stress, shame, and instability that define modern poverty, and it explains how someone can work full-time and still be poor—a reality the OPM simply cannot comprehend.3
Table 1: The Two Lenses Compared – OPM vs. SPM at a Glance
| Feature | Official Poverty Measure (OPM) | Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) |
| Unit Definition | Families or unrelated individuals related by birth, marriage, or adoption. | All related individuals at an address, plus cohabiters, foster children, and their relatives. |
| Resource Measure | Gross before-tax cash income. | Cash income, plus non-cash benefits (e.g., SNAP, housing subsidies), minus taxes, work expenses, and medical out-of-pocket expenses. |
| Needs Threshold | Based on three times the cost of a minimum food diet from 1963. | Based on recent expenditures on food, clothing, shelter, utilities, telephone, and internet. |
| Threshold Adjustments | Varies by family size, composition, and age of householder. | Varies by family size, composition, and housing status (owner vs. renter), with geographic adjustments for housing costs. |
| Updating Method | Adjusted annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). | Updated annually based on the most recent five-year average of consumer expenditure data. |
Source: 5
Part III: The New Portrait of American Poverty
Switching from the blurry OPM lens to the high-definition SPM lens does more than just change a number; it reveals an entirely new portrait of poverty in the United States.
It brings different faces into focus, highlights different struggles, and ultimately points to different, more systemic causes of hardship.
The Real Faces of Poverty: A Clearer Demographic Picture (2023 Data)
The most recent data from 2023 provides a stark illustration of this divergence.
According to the outdated OPM, the poverty rate fell to 11.1%, representing 36.8 million people.1
This was presented in some circles as positive economic news.
However, the more accurate SPM told the opposite story: its poverty rate
rose to 12.9%, representing 42.8 million people living in poverty.8
This difference of 6 million people is not a statistical anomaly; it is the result of the SPM capturing the real-world pressures of rising housing costs and the expiration of pandemic-era aid that the OPM ignores.2
The demographic details revealed by the SPM are even more illuminating:
- The Elderly: The most dramatic shift is seen among Americans aged 65 and older. While the OPM shows a relatively low poverty rate of 9.7% for this group, the SPM reveals a much higher rate of 14.2%.8 This difference is almost entirely driven by the SPM’s subtraction of medical out-of-pocket expenses, which are highest for seniors.8 The OPM’s picture suggests that programs like Social Security have largely solved elder poverty, but the SPM’s clearer image shows that the immense cost of healthcare in America is pushing millions of seniors back into hardship.
- Children: For children under 18, the story is reversed but equally instructive. The OPM reported a child poverty rate of 15.3% in 2023, while the SPM rate was lower at 13.7%.1 This is because the SPM accounts for the significant impact of government benefits like SNAP and tax credits that are targeted to families with children.14 While a 13.7% rate is still a national tragedy, the SPM correctly shows that these support programs are having a measurable, positive effect that the OPM completely misses.
- Working-Age Adults: For adults aged 18-64, the SPM rate of 12.2% is also higher than the OPM rate of 10.0%.8 This is because the SPM subtracts taxes and the necessary costs of working, such as transportation and childcare, providing a more accurate picture of the “working poor”—individuals and families who are employed but whose net income is insufficient to meet basic needs.9
- Race and Ethnicity: Poverty has never been experienced equally across racial and ethnic lines, a result of deep-seated systemic inequities. In 2022, the poverty rate for Native Americans was 22%, while for White Americans it was 8%.16 The OPM rate for Black households in 2023 was 17.9%.2 The SPM, by accounting for geographic cost differences and the varied impact of the safety net, provides a more precise tool for understanding how these disparities manifest. For example, because people of color are disproportionately likely to live in high-cost urban areas, the SPM’s geographic adjustment often reveals higher rates of poverty than the OPM for these groups in those locations.
Table 2: A Tale of Two Portraits – Poverty Rates by Key Demographics (2023)
| Demographic Group | Official Poverty Rate (OPM) | Supplemental Poverty Rate (SPM) |
| Total Population | 11.1% | 12.9% |
| Children (<18) | 15.3% | 13.7% |
| Working-Age Adults (18-64) | 10.0% | 12.2% |
| Elderly (65+) | 9.7% | 14.2% |
| Non-Hispanic White | 7.7% | 9.3% |
| Black | 17.9% | 18.6% |
| Asian | 9.9% | 13.1% |
| Hispanic | 16.1% | 20.9% |
Note: Data for race and Hispanic origin groups are based on the SPM’s consistent universe for comparison.
Source: 1
From a Blurry Number to a Clear System: Seeing the Deeper Causes
This clearer, more accurate portrait of poverty allows for a more effective diagnosis of its underlying causes.
The OPM, by being blind to policy, geography, and modern expenses, tends to frame poverty as a simple, individual problem of insufficient income.
The SPM, in contrast, reveals poverty as the outcome of interlocking systemic forces.
- Systemic Cause 1: The Legacy of Segregation and the Housing Crisis: The SPM’s geographic adjustment for housing costs is not just a technical correction; it is a direct link to the legacy of discriminatory housing policies like redlining. In the 20th century, the federal government systematically denied mortgages to minority communities, locking them out of the primary engine of American wealth-building: homeownership.17 This created concentrated areas of poverty and disinvestment that persist today. The SPM shows that poverty rates are highest in regions with high housing costs, which are often these same urban areas shaped by decades of segregation.8 The OPM’s national average completely obscures this powerful connection between place, race, and poverty.
- Systemic Cause 2: Stagnant Wages and the Precarious Labor Market: The SPM validates the lived reality of the “working poor” by showing higher poverty rates among working-age adults.8 It acknowledges that many full-time jobs do not pay a living wage, and the costs associated with working—transportation, childcare—can consume a significant portion of a low-wage worker’s income.15 The decline of unions, the erosion of the minimum wage’s value, and the growth of a “gig economy” without benefits have created a labor market where work is no longer a guaranteed path out of poverty.18
- Systemic Cause 3: The Fractured and Uneven Safety Net: The SPM’s ability to measure the impact of government benefits also reveals the profound inequality in America’s social safety net. Because many key programs are administered at the state level, a family’s economic security is often determined by their zip code. States in the South, which have larger populations of color, consistently have weaker safety nets. Compared to the Northeast, they are less likely to have a state-level EITC, have lower minimum wages, and offer far less generous benefits through Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).20 For example, the maximum TANF benefit for a family of three in the South is, on average, nearly $300 less per month than in the Northeast.20 This creates a geographic lottery of hardship, perpetuating regional and racial inequality.
By being sensitive to place, policy, and real-life costs, the SPM transforms the conversation.
It moves us away from asking “who is poor?” and toward the more critical question: “what systems and policies are creating and perpetuating poverty?” It provides a superior diagnostic tool not just for measuring a social problem, but for understanding systemic injustice.
Part IV: Developing a Better Future
A clearer diagnosis enables a more effective prescription.
By using the high-definition lens of the Supplemental Poverty Measure, we can not only see the true face of poverty but also evaluate with far greater precision which solutions work, which do not, and which innovative approaches hold the most promise for the future.
The Power of Policy, Seen Clearly
The SPM’s greatest strength is its ability to measure the direct, real-world impact of policy choices.
This was never more evident than during the COVID-19 pandemic, which provided a stunning natural experiment in poverty reduction.
In response to the crisis, Congress passed the American Rescue Plan Act, which included a historic, one-year expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC), making it fully available to the poorest families and increasing its value.11
The effect, as measured by the SPM, was immediate and profound.
In 2021, the SPM child poverty rate plummeted to a historic low of 5.2%.2
This was the lowest rate on record, and it demonstrated that a policy of direct financial support could cut child poverty nearly in half.
Then, in 2022, the expansion was allowed to expire.
The result was just as swift and devastating: the SPM child poverty rate more than doubled to 12.4%, throwing millions of children back into poverty.21
This clear cause-and-effect relationship—a policy is enacted, poverty plummets; the policy is removed, poverty soars—is a powerful testament to the impact of policy.
The OPM, which ignores tax credits, was completely blind to this entire event, showing only minor fluctuations.11
The SPM also allows us to quantify the ongoing importance of the entire social safety Net. The data clearly shows which programs are doing the heavy lifting to keep families and individuals afloat.
In 2023, Social Security remained the single largest anti-poverty program in the nation, moving a remarkable 27.6 million people out of SPM poverty.
Refundable tax credits, even in their non-expanded form, moved 6.4 million people, and SNAP benefits moved another 3.4 million above the poverty line.1
This kind of evidence is indispensable for making informed, data-driven decisions about which programs to protect and strengthen.
Table 3: The Power of the Safety Net – People Lifted from Poverty by Program (SPM, 2023)
| Program | Number of People Moved Above the SPM Poverty Line |
| Social Security | 27.6 million |
| Refundable Tax Credits (EITC/CTC) | 6.4 million |
| Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) | 3.4 million |
| Housing Subsidies | 2.2 million |
| Unemployment Insurance | 0.4 million |
Source: 1
Solutions in High Definition: From Housing First to Guaranteed Income
The clarity provided by the SPM aligns with the philosophy behind many of today’s most promising and innovative anti-poverty solutions.
These new approaches reject paternalistic, one-size-fits-all models and instead are built on the principles of stability, dignity, and individual agency—recognizing that these are prerequisites for progress, not rewards for it.
- Case Study 1: Housing First: This model is a direct challenge to older “treatment first” approaches to homelessness, which often required individuals to achieve sobriety or psychiatric stability before they could be deemed “housing ready.” The core principle of Housing First is the opposite: it recognizes that a human being cannot effectively begin to address complex issues like mental health, substance use, or unemployment while living with the constant trauma and chaos of homelessness.22 The solution is to provide immediate, unconditional, permanent housing first, and then offer voluntary wraparound supportive services.25
The evidence for this approach is overwhelming.
Rigorous studies have shown that Housing First models dramatically reduce homelessness—by as much as 88% compared to treatment-first programs—and result in much higher rates of long-term housing stability.26
Furthermore, it is highly cost-effective.
By providing stable housing, communities see a significant reduction in the use of expensive public services like emergency rooms, police interventions, and jail stays.26
Personal stories from programs like those in San Francisco are a powerful testament to its transformative impact.
Individuals who have been homeless for years, once housed, are finally able to focus on their health, reconnect with family, pursue employment, and regain a sense of purpose and dignity.29
- Case Study 2: Guaranteed Income / Universal Basic Income (UBI): Unconditional cash transfers operate on a simple, yet radical, premise: the most direct cause of poverty is a lack of money, and people experiencing poverty are the foremost experts on their own needs.30 Instead of providing in-kind services or benefits with complex rules, guaranteed income pilots provide direct, no-strings-attached cash payments to recipients. This approach is rooted in a philosophy of trust, autonomy, and efficiency, respecting the dignity of individuals to make their own decisions.30
Pilot programs across the country, from Compton, California, to St. Paul, Minnesota, are generating compelling evidence.
Contrary to common myths, recipients do not stop working or waste the money.
Personal stories from the Compton Pledge show individuals using the funds for essentials and investments: paying down predatory debt, buying a diagnostic tool to get more work as a mechanic, covering a medical bill, or purchasing a laptop to start a nonprofit.33
Data from multiple pilots shows that the vast majority of the money is spent on basic needs like food, housing, and utilities.34
These programs are also linked to significant improvements in recipients’ mental and physical health, reduced income volatility, and in some cases, even increased rates of full-time employment as the financial stability allows them to search for better jobs.35
Conclusion: A Call for an Honest Conversation
My journey began with a moment of professional failure, a confrontation that forced me to question the very data I was paid to analyze.
I now understand that the community advocate who told me my numbers were a lie was not rejecting facts; she was rejecting false facts.
She was rejecting a statistical picture of her community that was blurry, outdated, and blind to the realities she witnessed every day.
That journey led me from the flawed, 1960s lens of the Official Poverty Measure to the clarity and precision of the Supplemental Poverty Measure.
With this new lens, I can finally see the world as she sees it—a world defined not by a simple income line, but by a complex balance of soaring housing costs, crushing medical bills, the real price of childcare, and the vital support of a safety net that is both powerful and uneven.
I can see the systemic barriers that perpetuate poverty and the resilience of people navigating them.
If America is to have an honest conversation about poverty, it must begin with an honest metric.
We cannot solve a 21st-century problem using a tool from the 1960s.
The continued use of the Official Poverty Measure in headlines and policy debates is a disservice to the millions of Americans whose struggles it misrepresents and ignores.
The path forward is clear.
The federal government must formally adopt the Supplemental Poverty Measure as the nation’s primary index of economic hardship.
It is the only way to accurately track the state of our nation, to measure the true impact of our policies, and to see the problem of poverty with the clarity it demands.
Only when we are all looking through the same clear lens can we finally begin the real work of building a more equitable future.
Works cited
- Poverty in the United States: 2023 – U.S. Census Bureau, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2024/demo/p60-283.html
- Three Takeaways from New Census Data on US Poverty and Income | Oxfam, accessed August 14, 2025, https://politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org/new-census-data-on-poverty-and-income/
- Lessons from Growing up ‘Poor’ – Treehouse, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.treehouseforkids.org/lessons-from-growing-up-poor/
- My Poverty, My Trauma, accessed August 14, 2025, https://talkpoverty.org/2014/05/19/sherita/index.html
- Difference Between the Supplemental and Official Poverty Measures – U.S. Census Bureau, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2023/09/difference-supplemental-and-official-poverty-measures.html
- The Supplemental Poverty Measure: Its Core Concepts, Development, and Use, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45031
- The Supplemental Poverty Measure: A Better Measure for Poverty in America? – Center for Poverty and Inequality Research, accessed August 14, 2025, https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/policy-brief/supplemental-poverty-measure-better-measure-poverty-america
- Poverty in the United States in 2023 | Congress.gov | Library of …, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48279
- The Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) and Nonaged Adults: How and Why the SPM and Official Poverty Estimates Differ – SSA, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v75n2/v75n2p57.html
- How Poverty in the United States Is Measured and Why It Matters – PRB.org, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.prb.org/resources/how-poverty-in-the-united-states-is-measured-and-why-it-matters/
- Poverty Rose in 2022, But Policy Solutions Can Create a More Equitable Economy, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/poverty-rose-in-2022-but-policy-solutions-can-create-a-more-equitable-economy/
- Who Experiences Poverty?, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.irp.wisc.edu/resources/who-experiences-poverty/
- Historical Poverty Trends & Measurement, accessed August 14, 2025, https://povertycenter.columbia.edu/historical-poverty-trends-and-measurement
- The Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) and Children: How and Why the SPM and Official Poverty Estimates Differ – SSA, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v75n3/v75n3p55.html
- Poverty Journalism Archives, accessed August 14, 2025, https://coveringpoverty.uga.edu/tag/poverty-journalism/
- Poverty – National Equity Atlas, accessed August 14, 2025, https://nationalequityatlas.org/indicators/poverty
- Intergenerational Poverty in the United States – Ballard Brief, accessed August 14, 2025, https://ballardbrief.byu.edu/issue-briefs/intergenerational-poverty-in-the-us-83scy
- The Basic Facts About Children in Poverty – Center for American Progress, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/basic-facts-children-poverty/
- Understanding Poverty in America: Causes and Solutions – Feeding America, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/poverty
- How Weak Safety Net Policies Exacerbate Regional and Racial …, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/weak-safety-net-policies-exacerbate-regional-racial-inequality/
- America’s poverty rate soared last year. Children were among the worst hit. – CBS News, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poverty-rate-census-income/
- Housing First is a Matter of Health – National Alliance to End Homelessness, accessed August 14, 2025, https://endhomelessness.org/blog/housing-first-is-a-matter-of-health/
- Housing First – National Alliance to End Homelessness, accessed August 14, 2025, https://endhomelessness.org/resources/toolkits-and-training-materials/housing-first/
- Housing First Model: An Evidence Based Approach to Ending Homelessness, accessed August 14, 2025, https://headinghomeinc.org/housing-first-model/
- Housing First Works | HUDU SER, accessed August 14, 2025, https://archives.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/spring-summer-23/highlight1.html
- THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR: HOUSING FIRST WORKS, accessed August 14, 2025, https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Housing-First-Evidence.pdf
- Permanent Supportive Housing with Housing First to Reduce Homelessness and Promote Health among Homeless Populations with Disability: A Community Guide Systematic Review – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed August 14, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8513528/
- Housing First Is Still the Best Approach to Ending Homelessness, accessed August 14, 2025, https://housingmatters.urban.org/feature/housing-first-still-best-approach-ending-homelessness
- Success Stories – SF HSH, accessed August 14, 2025, https://hsh.archive.sf.gov/about/client-success-stories/
- Cash Transfers: A New Era for Poverty Reduction – Number Analytics, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/cash-transfers-new-era-poverty-reduction
- Unconditional cash transfers reduce homelessness – PNAS, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2222103120
- The Political Theory of Universal Basic Income | Annual Reviews, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-070954
- Inside Compton, California’s Universal Income Experiment | TIME, accessed August 14, 2025, https://time.com/6097523/compton-universal-basic-income/
- Map Shows 18 States Where Americans Have Received a Basic Income in 2025, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.newsweek.com/map-states-universal-basic-income-programs-2025-2103554
- Results of Saint Paul Guaranteed Income Pilot Show Increased Employment, Improved Outlook, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.stpaul.gov/news/results-saint-paul-guaranteed-income-pilot-show-increased-employment-improved-outlook
- Stories | Guaranteed Income Pilots Dashboard, accessed August 14, 2025, https://guaranteedincome.us/stories/
