Reducing Intergenerational Poverty (2024) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 32-48
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 32... ...
In other words, exposure to the policy during childhood would reduce the likelihood that a child would be poor as an adult, independent of any direct effect of an ongoing policy after the child reaches adulthood. For example, an income transfer policy would be judged to reduce intergenerational poverty only if it would result in a lower level of poverty among adults who were exposed to the policy during childhood even if that policy were no longer in place when those individuals were adults.
|
From page 33... ...
For example, suppose that a health insurance reform is shown to be highly effective at reducing the number of low-birthweight births. Since other studies have shown that, on average, low birthweight is associated with worse adult labor market and health outcomes, one might conclude that the health insurance policy will indirectly reduce intergenerational poverty.
|
From page 34... ...
The recent evidence increased the committee's confidence that additional steps to improve environmental quality would also improve child health and reduce intergenerational poverty. We also considered evidence to be direct if strong post-1990 evidence of impacts on pre-adult mediators was coupled with strong pre-1990 evidence on long-run adult impacts in the same domain.
|
From page 35... ...
Strength of the Research Evidence: A Summary The committee built into its classification of policies and programs considerations of historical timing, distinctions between direct and indirect evidence, and the categorization of direct evidence as "strong" or merely BOX 1-3 Standards of Evidence Used in Identifying Program and Policy Ideas: Strong Direct Evidence, Promising Direct Evidence, Indirect Evidence, and Other Evidence Direct evidence – evaluation studies based on random-assignment or compel ling quasi-experimental methods linking recent (post-1990) implementations of a childhood or adolescent program or policy to improvements in adult correlates of poverty status (such as completed schooling or earnings)
|
From page 36... ...
In some cases, as with parental employment, these behavioral responses, and their consequences for children's development, are important channels by which the policy in question might affect intergenerational poverty. Unfortunately, so few evaluations provided estimates of possible behavioral responses that we were unable to incorporate these considerations into our selection of "best bet" policy and program ideas.
|
From page 37... ...
However, both in listening sessions with low-income families and in reviewing the research, the committee found clear evidence of the multifaceted nature of poverty. Families struggling financially are often the same families that have limited access to highquality health care, education, and neighborhoods, and that have increased negative interactions with the criminal justice and child welfare systems.
|
From page 38... ...
To support the evaluation and implementation of combined programs called for in the statement of task, and more fundamentally to increase take-up of these programs to maximize their povertyalleviating benefits, efforts are needed to streamline program applications with the end user in mind. Given the limited nature of evidence on the impact such interventions have on intergenerational poverty, evaluations of any such efforts are needed.
|
From page 39... ...
And because the data cover the entire population, they can describe the intergenerational fortunes of different racial and ethnic groups as well as the trajectories of children of immigrants from all parts of the globe. The chapter then turns to geographic differences in mobility out of a low-income childhood across the United States -- shedding light on the geographic correlates of intergenerational poverty -- and examines how the structure of intergenerational mobility has changed over time.
|
From page 40... ...
. Most of our data on intergenerational poverty and mobility come from a much larger study that provides a wealth of population-wide information about intergenerational mobility out of low-income status defined by income reported on Internal Revenue Service tax (IRS)
|
From page 41... ...
THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF INTERGENERATIONAL POVERTY Focusing on U.S. children born around 1980 who grew up in lowincome families, the committee found that, depending on the measure, between 29% and 34% of them were living in low-income families when they were adults (Figure 2-1)
|
From page 42... ...
Relative poverty data come from IRS tax records; relative poverty is measured by whether average AGI between 1994 and 2000 is in the bottom 20% of the AGI distribution between ages 0 and 18 (childhood) or by whether AGI between 2015 and 2016 is in the bottom 20% of the AGI distribution between ages 31 and 39 (adulthood)
|
From page 43... ...
of Native American children and 37% of Black children who grow up in low-income households remain poor in adulthood.4 All 34% White 29% Asian 17% Latino 25% Black 37% Native 46% American 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% % staying low-income FIGURE 2-2 Intergenerational low-income persistence, by racial and ethnic group. NOTES: This figure shows the percentage of children with parents in the bottom income quintile who remained in the bottom income quintile in adulthood, by racial/ ethnic group.
|
From page 44... ...
In contrast to the focus on low-income persistence in prior figures, Figure 2-4 shows rates of upward mobility for male children using both adult earnings and household income, defined as earnings or household income in the top 60% of their respective distributions. As before, all the data presented in this figure are for children born between 1978 and 1983 and with parental family incomes below the 20th percentile while they were growing up.
|
From page 45... ...
rates 53% White 46% 64% Asian 61% 56% Latino 46% 37% Black 24% Native 36% American 26% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Individual earnings Household income FIGURE 2-4 Intergenerational earnings and household income mobility for sons. NOTES: The figure shows the fraction of male children growing up in households with AGI in the bottom 20% of the AGI distribution whose individual earnings and household incomes in adulthood (ages 31–37)
|
From page 46... ...
Black women 39% White 47% 62% Asian 69% 45% Latino 45% 39% Black 26% Native 30% American 28% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Individual earnings Household income FIGURE 2-5 Intergenerational earnings and household income mobility for daughters. NOTES: The figure shows the fraction of female children growing up in households with AGI in the bottom 20% of the AGI distribution whose individual earnings and household incomes in adulthood (ages 31–37)
|
From page 47... ...
A BROADER LOOK AT INTERGENERATIONAL INCOME MOBILITY ACROSS GROUPS For a more comprehensive look at intergenerational mobility across groups, it is useful to think of economic status as rungs on a 100-step ladder, with the lowest rungs corresponding to the lowest incomes and the highest rungs representing the highest incomes. Each rung corresponds to a percentile in the income distribution.
|
From page 48... ...
As a result, Chapter 3 examines the histories, practices, and contexts that limit the intergenerational mobility of both Black and Native American children. Conclusion 2-2: Racial/ethnic disparities are an enduring feature of the intergenerational trajectories of children, with Black and Native American children experiencing much less upward mobility than White children growing up in the same economic circumstances.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.