America Has More Children Living in Poverty Than Any Other Rich Nation. Can Guaranteed Income Help?

Source: 2017 UNICEF, “Building the Future: Children and the Sustainable Development Goals in Rich Countries,” Innocenti Report Card no. 14.

Source: 2017 UNICEF, “Building the Future: Children and the Sustainable Development Goals in Rich Countries,” Innocenti Report Card no. 14.

Breaking the Cycle

The American support system—the social safety net— that we’d hope would resolve these issues is incredibly complex, often reflecting structural racism. Most social safety net programs offer specific resources to providers, such as health insurance, nutritional supports, or housing—rather than cash families can spend as they need. This prescriptive approach does not guarantee funds are directly providing the support families and children need.

There is strong evidence from other countries, rich and poor, that investing directly in parents and caregivers works. Recent UN reports show how cash payments, basic income programs, and in-kind provision of basic services or goods are particularly effective tools against child poverty. Where most successful, these have reduced child poverty by two-thirds to one-half since 2015.

Evidence Shows GI Improves Children’s Lives

Through America’s experiment with monthly child tax credit payments during COVID, we learned that consistent payments have a positive impact on families and child poverty. Evidence indicates that increased cash also improves children’s educational, physical health, and mental health outcomes, including:

• Improved educational outcomes and educational attainment,
• Increased enrollment in school,
• Decreased obesity,
• Improved health outcomes for pre-primary and school-aged children, and
• Healthier babies (as determined by higher brain activity, birth weight, and gestation period length).

Evidence also suggests that benefits to children dissipate when money stops coming in.

Recognizing both these results and results in other countries, mayors and advocates have grown increasingly interested in expanding direct cash support through guaranteed income (GI) programs. GI has shown promise and is being tested as a tool to address persistent racial wealth gaps that keep families from meeting basic needs. The first-year results from Stockton’s Economic Empowerment Development (SEED) GI pilot have shown the program gave families enough resources to prepare for the future, rather than scramble in the present.

Next Steps: Centering Children

To better understand how these approaches might support children in the U.S., we should build on the evidence from the SEED project and other GI pilots, such as Mayors for Guaranteed Income, the Magnolia Mother’s Trust in Jackson, Miss. (which specifically supports low-income African American families), and the first GI pilot in Santa Clara, Calif. (which supports youth who are aging out of foster care). At Abt, we’re evaluating GI pilots in Birmingham and Baltimore, with more evaluations planned in other cities.

As the costs of raising children increase with record inflation, low-income families are most affected by the unavailability of cash supports, high-quality affordable childcare, and affordable housing for families. Policymakers, researchers, and advocates interested in addressing these concerns should keep an eye on the growing body of evidence generated by GI programs, with a focus on the impacts on child wellbeing. Ensuring that we have ongoing, evidence-based research—strategic information to inform timely actions that help children and families when and how they need it most—will enable us to better support the children we’ve been failing for far too long.

This blog was co-authored by Charlotte Perez, a former Abt Associate Analyst.