The Remarkable Decline of Child Poverty in the United States

• In Event: Determinants and Consequences of Social Policies

Abstract

A recent study found that child poverty rates in the United States dropped significantly between 1993 and 2019, from one in four children to one in ten (https://www.childtrends.org/publications/lessons-from-a-historic-decline-in-child-poverty). That is a tremendous accomplishment. Researchers identified certain programs that have been instrumental in lifting millions of children out of poverty. Some observers were surprised; high rates of child poverty have long been viewed as a major failure of the American welfare state. Yet, for the most part, this study attracted little attention from the media or from candidates during the midterm election campaigns.

The decline in child poverty should not be ignored. In this paper, I will focus on the broader implications of this trend rather than the causes. In particular, I will connect the decline in child poverty to two debates—generational equity, and the viability of inclusive versus targeted social programs.

One standard observation about American politics is that the elderly fare much better than children. Social spending heavily favors the elderly, which helps explain why their poverty rates are so much lower. Some critics believe that “greedy geezers” have become a problem, and that the US government should scale back Social Security and Medicare. However, some of the differences between young and old may be misleading. The study cited above used the government’s Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which accounts for taxes and many government transfers, instead of the official poverty line. Most poverty experts agree that the SPM is a more accurate measure. Based on the SPM, poverty rates are now similar for children and the elderly. Perhaps we should take a closer look at claims about generational equity. Children might not be doing as badly as we thought, and the elderly could be struggling more than we’ve been told.

Academics and policy experts have long debated the merits of inclusive versus targeted social programs. The first set of programs are often seen as politically popular but expensive (e.g., Social Security), while the second are portrayed as affordable but politically vulnerable (e.g., TANF/cash welfare). It appears that both types of social programs contributed to the decline in child poverty, but that means-tested programs had a larger impact. Moreover, it appears that the decline was due to several different means-tested programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and SNAP/Food Stamps, whose eligibility was expanded or benefits were increased since the early 1990s. Those changes more than compensated for cuts to TANF/cash welfare. This paper will explore how some means-tested social programs managed to attract and keep political support. Programs for the poor may not always be poor programs.

Author

• Christopher Howard, College of William & Mary