Introduction

Low-income children caught up in their parents’ economic struggles experience the impact through unmet needs, low-quality schools, and unstable circumstances. Children as a group are disproportionately poor: roughly one in five live in poverty compared with one in eight adults (US Census Bureau 2014).

What does the long-term picture look like for children? How does it look for ever-poor children— those who are poor for at least one year before their 18th birthday? Following children from birth through age 17 shows a much greater prevalence of poverty than the annual figures would suggest. Four of every 10 children (38.8 percent) are poor for at least one year before they reach their 18th birthday (figure 1). Black children fare much worse: fully three-quarters (75.4 percent) are poor during childhood. The number for white children is substantial, yet considerably lower (30.1 percent).

Persistent childhood poverty—living below the federal poverty level for at least half of one’s childhood—is also prevalent, particularly among black children.¹ Among all children, 1 in 10 (10.5 percent) is persistently poor. For black children this number is roughly 4 in 10 (38.5 percent), and for white children it’s fewer than 1 in 10 children (4.3 percent).² Many of these children struggle academically, do not complete high school, and have spotty employment as young adults (Ratcliffe and McKernan 2010, 2012). But not all poor children have poor young adult outcomes. Two important questions are why some children succeed and what factors seem to help them do so (or at least do not hold them back).

Figure 1

Source: Author’s tabulation of PSID data.

Notes: Tabulations are weighted and include children born between 1968 and 1989. Persistently poor children are poor at least half the years from birth through age 17. Ever-poor, nonpersistently children are poor at least one year, but less than half the years, from birth through age 17.

The analysis begins by looking at all children but then narrows to concentrate on ever-poor children. Regression models examine how childhood experiences and family and neighborhood characteristics relate to children’s adult success as measured by completing high school by age 20, enrolling in postsecondary education (college or certificate program) by age 25, completing a four-year college degree by age 25, and being consistently employed in young adulthood (ages 25 through 30). Potential impediments to educational achievement and employment, specifically teenage nonmarital childbearing and involvement in the criminal justice system (as measured by being arrested by age 20) are also examined. These analyses are based on over 40 years of data (1968–2009) from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). The findings suggest the following:

• The future achievement of ever-poor children is related to the length of time they live in poverty. Persistently poor children are 13 percent less likely to complete high school and 43 percent less likely to complete college than those who are poor but not persistently poor as children.

• Parental education is closely related to the academic achievement of ever-poor children. Compared with ever-poor children whose parents do not have a high school education, everpoor children whose parents have a high school education or more than a high school education are 11 and 30 percent, respectively, more likely to complete high school.

• Residential instability is related to lower academic achievement for ever-poor children. Everpoor children who move three or more times for negative reasons before they turn 18 are 15 percent less likely to complete high school, 36 percent less likely to enroll in college or another postsecondary education program by age 25, and 68 percent less likely to complete a four-year college degree by age 25 than ever-poor children who never move.

• Living in a multigenerational household does not improve outcomes for ever-poor children. However, persistently poor children in multigenerational households are more likely to complete high school, enroll in postsecondary education, and complete college.

What Matters for Children?

Adult achievement is related to childhood poverty and the length of time they live in poverty. Children who are poor are less likely to achieve important adult milestones, such as graduating from high school and enrolling in and completing college, than children who are never poor. For example, although more than 9 in 10 never-poor children (92.7 percent) complete high school, only 3 in 4 ever-poor children (77.9 percent) do so (table 1).

Table 1

Educational Achievement, Employment, Nonmarital Childbearing, and Criminal Justice Involvement by Childhood Poverty Status (percent)

Source: Author’s tabulation of PSID data.

Notes: Tabulations are weighted and include children born between 1968 and 1989. Statistical significance for the “never poor” and “ever poor” data columns is based on the difference between individuals who are never poor and those who are ever poor in childhood. Significance for the “not persistently poor” and “persistently poor” data columns is based on the difference between individuals who are ever poor but not persistently poor and those who are persistently poor in childhood. *p < 0.1 **p < 0.05 ***p < 0.01

When looking at the subset of children who experience poverty (i.e., ever-poor children), large differences emerge between children who are and are not persistently poor. Specifically, academic achievement, employment, and the likelihood of no teen childbearing are lower for persistently poor children than for nonpersistently poor children. Although 64 percent of persistently poor children complete high school, 83 percent of nonpersistently poor children do so—a difference of roughly 20 percentage points.

Time spent living in poverty matters even after controlling for a host of family- and neighborhood level (i.e., census tract) characteristics in regression models. These models also include race/ethnicity, gender, parental educational attainment at birth, whether and the number of times the family moves for a negative reason (e.g., housing unit coming down, being evicted, divorce, to pay lower rent),³ and mother’s age at birth, as well as the percentage of childhood spent living in a female-headed family, a multigenerational family, a disabled-headed family, a metropolitan area, and the South. A neighborhood disadvantage index, generated using neighborhood characteristics from US Census Bureau data (e.g., poverty rate, unemployment rate), is also included in the models (see data and methods box on pages 11–12). The findings discussed below, which are based on these regression models, examine ever-poor children and focus on identifying characteristics that are associated with better outcomes.⁴

Results from the regression models show that persistently poor children have less academic success than their counterparts who experience poverty but are not persistently poor. Specifically, persistently poor children are 13 percent less likely to complete high school by age 20, 29 percent less likely to enroll in postsecondary education by age 25, and 43 percent less likely to complete a four-year college degree by age 25 (table 2). These differences are large and show the substantial disadvantage for children from persistently poor families.

Persistently poor children are also less likely (by 37 percent) to be consistently employed as young adults than their ever-poor, nonpersistently poor counterparts. This finding is consistent with the lower educational achievement of the persistently poor and the fact that unemployment rates have historically been higher among lower-educated groups (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2014).

Two additional outcomes that can be a precursor to lower adult achievement are having a teen nonmarital birth (girls only) and involvement in the criminal justice system. Among ever-poor children, persistently poor children are not significantly more likely than nonpersistently poor children to have a teen nonmarital birth or be arrested by age 20. Looking at more specific breakdowns of childhood poverty duration, girls who are poor less than a quarter of their childhood are less likely to have a teen birth than girls who are poor more than a quarter of their childhood. This type of difference by poverty duration does not exist for arrest rates.

Overall, these statistics show that children who have a long and persistent exposure to poverty are disadvantaged in their educational achievement and employment.

Table 2

Relationship between Family Characteristics and Adult Achievement among Ever-Poor Children (percentage change)

Source: Author’s calculations from PSID, US Decennial Census, and American Community Survey data.

Notes: Results are based on probit models estimated on a sample of children born between 1968 and 1989. For indicator variables, the percentage change in the outcome variable is the difference in the predicted probability of the outcome with a particular characteristic (e.g., parents have high school education) versus the base category (e.g., parents have less than high school education) divided by the predicted probability of the outcome with the base category. The percentage change for the continuous variables is the difference between experiencing the characteristic for half versus none of childhood. The percentage change for the neighborhood disadvantage index is from the most advantaged neighborhood (index of -1.7) to the most disadvantaged neighborhood (index of 4.2). The model also includes controls for other non-Hispanic race, residential move for unknown reason, and birth cohort. ^aThe sample for the arrest model includes only whites and black non-Hispanics. It relates to the small subset of people asked about arrests (people born 1985 through 1989). The premarital birth model includes only females, so the female indicator does not apply. *p < 0.1 **p < 0.05 ***p < 0.01

Parental education at the child’s birth is importantly related to children’s academic achievement, with lower educational attainment among children with less educated parents. 5 This relationship persists even after controlling for family and neighborhood characteristics, including childhood poverty. Compared with ever-poor children whose parents did not complete high school, children whose parents have more than a high school education are 30 percent more likely to complete high school, more than twice as likely to enroll in postsecondary education by age 25, and nearly five times more likely to complete college by age 25 (table 2). These individuals are also more likely to enter their twenties without having a nonmarital birth.

The relationships differ somewhat for children whose parents have only a high school education. Ever-poor children whose parents have a high school education (versus not completing high school) are more likely to complete high school and enroll in college or another postsecondary program (by 11 and 60 percent, respectively), but they are not statistically significantly more likely to complete a four-year college degree.6 That is, they are more likely to get some post–high school education but not get through a four-year college program.

The analysis does not suggest that parents’ educational attainment is related to whether a child is arrested during adolescence or whether he or she is consistently employed as a young adult. There is more to the story, however. Although no direct relationship with employment is found, it is well established that lower educational achievement brings lower wages on average and dampened opportunities for upward mobility (Greenstone et al. 2013; US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015).

Residential instability is related to lower academic achievement for ever-poor children, in both high school and college completion. Ever-poor children who move for a negative reason are worse off educationally than ever-poor children who never move. A consistent negative relationship appears for children who move twice and three or more times. Focusing on multiple childhood moves, the results show lower academic achievement across the board. Children with two or more negative moves are 13 to 15 percent less likely to complete high school, 35 to 36 percent less likely to enroll in postsecondary education, and 60 to 68 percent less likely to complete college than children who never move. Children with multiple negative moves also have worse educational outcomes than children who move for positive or neutral reasons.

Moves that happen for a negative reason can exacerbate already tenuous circumstances for children, particularly if the moves do not coincide with changes in the school year or promotional moves (e.g., from elementary to middle school). These results are consistent with research that finds children with multiple school moves are less likely to complete high school (Hartmann and Leff 2002; Rumberger and Larson 1998) and enroll in postsecondary school (Sandefur, Meier, and Campbell 2006).⁷

The results do not suggest any statistically significant differences between children who move for positive or neutral reasons and children who never move.

Only one statistically significant relationship is found among the other three outcomes (teen birth, employment, and arrest). Girls who move three or more times for negative reasons during childhood are 15 percent less likely than girls who never move to be childless throughout their teens. The results suggest no relationship between residential moves and the likelihood of being consistently employed as a young adult or being arrested by age 20.

The family structure of ever-poor children is generally unrelated to their achievement once family and neighborhood characteristics are controlled for. Living in a female-headed household for more years as a child is not related to educational achievement, employment, or teen childbearing. It is, however, related to the likelihood of being arrested. For example, spending half versus none of one’s childhood in a female-headed household is associated with a 10 percent decrease in the likelihood of not being arrested by age 20. When it comes to living in a multigenerational household (e.g., child, parent or parents, and grandparent), the analysis provides no evidence that this family structure improves the outcomes of ever-poor children.

A different pattern emerges, however, among persistently poor children. The longer a persistently poor child lives in a female-headed household, the less likely he or she is to complete high school. Also, living in a multigenerational household is associated with better educational achievement, offsetting some negative elements for children living in a female-headed household.⁸ Specifically, persistently poor children who spend half their childhood living in a female-headed family are 12 percent less likely to complete high school than their persistently poor counterparts who never live in a female-headed family (not shown). But persistently poor children who spend half their childhood living in a multigenerational family are 22 percent more likely to complete high school than their persistently poor counterparts who never live in a multigenerational family.

Although the literature on the implications of living in a multigenerational household is mixed, this analysis is consistent with several studies that find better academic and behavioral outcomes among children in multigenerational households (DeLeire and Kalil 2002; Entwisle and Alexander 1996; Pittman 2007). Improvements could result from a more structured environment that provides additional supervision, guidance, and/or help with studies. Other research, however, finds either no relationship or a negative one between children’s outcomes and living in a multigenerational household (Chase-Lansdale, Brooks-Gunn, and Zamsky 1994; Foster and Kalil 2007). These results could stem from differences in parenting approaches and increased family conflict (Augustine and Raley 2012; Bentley et al. 1999; Brooks-Gunn and Chase-Lansdale 1991).

Living in a multigenerational household is also associated with an increased likelihood that persistently poor children enroll in and complete college. Persistently poor children who spend half their childhood living in a multigenerational family are nearly twice as likely to enroll in postsecondary education and more than three times as likely to complete a four-year college degree as their counterparts who never live in a multigenerational family.

So, although the results suggest a limited relationship between family structure as a child and educational achievement for ever-poor children, there is some evidence that family structure is related to education outcomes for persistently poor children.

Ever-poor children who live with a disabled household head have some worse outcomes. The longer an ever-poor child lives in a household headed by someone with a disability, the less likely he or she is to be consistently employed as an adult. Children who live with a disabled household head are also more likely to be arrested by age 20. Risky behaviors among teens could stem from less supervision for them. The analysis suggests no relationship between years spent with a disabled household head and educational achievement or teen nonmarital childbearing.

The race and ethnicity of ever-poor children are largely unrelated to adult achievement once family and neighborhood characteristics are controlled for. One exception is that ever-poor black girls are less likely to be childless during their teens than ever-poor white non-Hispanic girls. This finding is consistent with the fact that the teen nonmarital birth rate is substantially higher for black women than white or Hispanic women (Martin et al. 2015).9 However, there could be differences in the level of disadvantage by race (e.g., greater disadvantage among poor black children) that these models do not capture and that could help account for the racial differences. Interestingly, a separate analysis of never-poor children finds no statistically significant difference in teen nonmarital childbearing by race.

Ever-poor girls fare much better than ever-poor boys. Across the board, ever-poor women have better educational outcomes and are less likely to be involved in the criminal justice system. Women in their late twenties, however, have lower employment rates, which could result from childbearing decisions.

Place and neighborhood characteristics matter for ever-poor children, even in models that control for childhood poverty status and multiple family characteristics. Ever-poor children who spend half their childhood living in a metropolitan area are 5 percent less likely to complete high school than their counterparts who never live in a metropolitan area.

The analysis also includes a measure of neighborhood (census tract) health that combines six characteristics: unemployment rate, poverty rate, property vacancy rate, percentage living in public housing, percentage living in a single parent–headed household with children, and percentage of adult population with less than a high school education. This neighborhood health measure is generated using factor analysis and ranges from -1.7 to 4.2. Lower values indicate greater neighborhood health, and higher values indicate worse health. At the lower end of the scale, neighborhood poverty and unemployment rates are below 5 percent. At the high end of the scale, poverty rates top 50 percent and unemployment rates are upward of 25 percent.

Children who grow up in more disadvantaged neighborhoods fare much worse. Compared with children in the most advantaged neighborhoods, children in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods are 28 percent less likely to complete high school and a staggering 99 percent less likely to complete a four year college degree. This result is consistent with research that finds students from neighborhoods with lower incomes and educational attainment are less likely to earn bachelor’s degrees (Owens 2010), which could result from weaker college preparation and/or fewer resources to complete college. Research also suggests greater college enrollment is associated with high school characteristics that more likely exist in better neighborhoods, such as higher teacher expectations, social norms around attending college, and greater staff support for college enrollment (Roderick, Coca, and Nagaoka 2011). The results also suggest that girls in more disadvantaged neighborhoods are less likely to be childless throughout their teens.

Summary and Implications

One in every five children currently lives in poverty, but nearly twice as many experience poverty at some point during their childhood. These ever-poor children are less successful than their never-poor counterparts in their educational achievement and employment, and they are more likely to have a nonmarital teenage birth and some involvement with the criminal justice system. Children who spend half their childhood living in poverty fall even further behind. For example, although 93 percent of never-poor children complete high school, and 83 percent of ever-poor, nonpersistently poor children complete high school, only 64 percent of persistently poor children do so. A large deficit exists even after controlling for other family and neighborhood characteristics. This disadvantage can erode employment prospects and wages throughout a lifetime.

The educational achievement of one generation can also ripple through to the next. The results suggest parental education relates to children’s academic achievement, even after controlling for other family and neighborhood characteristics. For example, ever-poor children whose parents have more than a high school education are 30 percent more likely to complete high school and almost five times more likely to complete college than ever-poor children whose parents did not complete high school.

Beyond childhood poverty experience and parental education, residential stability or instability stands out as important to children’s future success. Household moves that happen for negative reasons are particularly associated with worse outcomes. Ever-poor children with three or more negative moves (versus no moves) during their childhood, for example, are 15 percent less likely to complete high school by age 20, 36 percent less likely to enroll in college or another postsecondary education program by age 25, and 68 percent less likely to complete a four-year college degree by age 25. These outcomes could result not only from instability and uncertainty of circumstances within the household but also from changing schools; children with frequent school changes have lower educational achievement (Hartmann and Leff 2002; Sandefur, Meier, and Campbell 2006).

This research set out to find characteristics of ever-poor children and their families that relate to successful adult outcomes in order to identify steps for improving children’s outcomes. It highlights the importance of parental education and childhood residential stability and the potential benefits for persistently poor children of living in a multigenerational household.

Education and training programs, bundled with work supports such as child care subsidies, could improve financial well-being and stability for parents with limited education. Higher educational achievement has been clearly linked with higher employment rates and earnings (Baum 2014; Card 2001; US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015), and receipt of child care assistance has been found to increase the economic well-being of low-wage unmarried mothers (Acs, Loprest, and Ratcliffe 2010). The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, signed into law in July 2014, is an important step; it encourages states to provide better work supports, such as child care, to people in education and training programs and specifies low-income single parents as a group with particular need (Spaulding 2015).

Flexible policies that allow children to stay in the same school when a move takes them across school boundary lines could help children and the communities they live in when they complete school and enter the workforce. Federal policy targets some vulnerable populations (such as homeless and foster care children), allowing them to remain in the same school, but most low-income children are left out. With a focus on restricted populations, school districts face challenges identifying eligible children and have adopted different strategies for identifying homeless children, including working with local social service providers and community organizations and developing interagency working groups (Comey, Litschwartz, and Pettit 2012). Taking steps to provide stability for parents and children today could improve the outcomes of the next generation.

Data and Methods

Data and Sample: This analysis uses data from the 1968 through 2009 waves of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), a longitudinal survey that interviewed respondents annually from 1968 through 1997 and biennially thereafter. This study focuses on people born between 1968 and 1989. Using data over 40 years allows individuals’ childhood experiences to be linked with their adult outcomes. White and black children are separately examined; there is not sufficient sample size to separately examine Hispanic children.^a

Six outcome measures that capture success in young adulthood are examined: complete high school by age 20, enroll in postsecondary education by age 25, complete a four-year college degree by age 25, be consistently employed in early adulthood (ages 25 through 30), have no teen nonmarital birth, and have no arrest by age 20.

Given the available data and the different ages for the outcomes, sample sizes vary by outcomes. High school completion and teenage childbearing are available for the full study sample (people born from 1967 through 1989), postsecondary enrollment and college completion by age 25 are available for people born from 1967 through 1984, and consistent employment between ages 25 and 30 is available for people born from 1967 through 1979.^b Information on arrests is available in the PSID Transition to Adulthood supplement, which is only available for people in our sample who were born from 1985 through 1989.^c

Using PSID restricted geo-coded data, the main PSID file is augmented with census tract–level information from the US Census Bureau. Census tract–level variables include the unemployment rate, poverty rate, property vacancy rate, percentage living in public housing, percentage living in a single parent–headed household with children, and percentage of adult population with less than a high school education. ^d

At each interview, family annual income, which is used to construct family poverty status, is collected for the prior calendar year.^e When the PSID shifted to biennial interviewing, it began collecting income data for each of the two prior years. However, a PSID technical paper cautions users about the quality of the income data from two years ago (Andreski, Stafford, and Yeung 2008), so these data are not incorporated into this analysis.

All the analyses presented here use the official definition of poverty. Under the official definition, a family is poor if its gross annual money income is below the federal poverty level. f In 2015, the federal poverty level for a family of three is $20,090. A strength of the official poverty measure is that it allows for straightforward comparisons over time. A child is persistently poor if he or she lives in a poor family for at least half his or her childhood (from birth through age 17).^g

Regression Models: The regression models focus on children who were ever poor, with some analyses estimated on the subset of persistently poor children. Separate regression equations (weighted) are estimated for each of the six outcomes. The models include an indicator of whether the person was persistently poor as a child; race and ethnicity, gender, and parental educational attainment at birth; indicators for the number of times the family moved for a negative reason;^h mother’s age at birth; percentage of years (from birth through age 17) spent living in a female-headed family, in a family with a disabled head, in a metropolitan area, or in the South; a factor designed to capture the relative health and strength of the neighborhood(s) (census tract) the child grew up in; and an indicator of birth cohort.

Factor analysis is used to create the neighborhood health measure. This measure is generated from the six neighborhood characteristics mentioned earlier (poverty rate, unemployment rate, property vacancy rate, percentage living in public housing, percentage living in a single parent–headed household with children, and percentage of adult population with less than a high school education).ⁱ Values range from -1.7 to 4.2, with lower values indicating greater health and higher values indicating worse health. At the lower end of the scale, for example, neighborhood poverty rates are less than 10 percent and unemployment rates are roughly 5 percent. At the higher end of the scale, poverty rates top 50 percent and unemployment rates are upward of 25 percent.

a. The original PSID sample includes relatively few Hispanic households. In the late 1990s, the Hispanic sample increased with the introduction of immigrant families into the PSID.

b. People born in 1984 are 25 years old in 2009, and people born in 1979 are 30 years old in 2009.

c. The Transition to Adulthood supplement was administered in 2005, 2007, and 2009 for children who were 12 or younger in 1997 and at least 18 at the time of interview.

d. Census tract is available in the restricted-use PSID starting in 1975. Each PSID year from 1975 forward is assigned a census data year: 1975–84 PSID to the 1980 Decennial Census, 1985–94 PSID to the 1990 Decennial Census, 1995–2004 PSID to the 2000 Decennial Census, and 2005–09 PSID to the 2005–09 American Community Survey (five-year averages). Because census tract is not available before 1975, neighborhood characteristics are not observed for the complete childhood of children born between 1968 and 1974. For children born in these earliest years, data are used in the years available.

e. One weakness of the PSID is that family income and family size, key components of poverty, are measured at different points in time. Family structure is measured at the time of the interview, but income is reported for the prior year. If individuals enter or leave a family from one year to the next, there is a mismatch between family income and the poverty threshold.

f. Our poverty measure uses the poverty thresholds described in Grieger, Danziger, and Schoeni (2008).

g. Because the PSID went to biennial interviewing in 1997, complete childhood poverty histories are not observed for children born in 1980 or later. In these cases, the percentage of years poor is calculated based on the number of years children are observed. Children born in 1980 and 1981 are observed for 17 years (versus 18 years), children born in 1982 and 1983 are observed for 16 years, children born in 1984 and 1985 are observed for 15 years, children born in 1986 and 1987 are observed for 14 years, and children born in 1988 and 1989 are observed for 13 years.

h. The PSID groups residential moves based on reason for move. Reasons that include contraction of housing (e.g., less rent), to save money, and to respond to outside events (e.g., eviction, divorce) are categorized as negative moves.

i. Each neighborhood characteristic is averaged from birth through age 17.

Link to Article

The Long Reach of Childhood Poverty: How Early Experiences Shape Later Life Outcomes

Introduction

Children residing in low-income households often encounter challenges stemming from their parents' economic circumstances, including unmet needs, inadequate schooling, and unstable living conditions. Childhood poverty is a significant societal issue, with children disproportionately represented among those living below the poverty line. In the United States, approximately one in five children experience poverty compared to one in eight adults (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014).

Analyzing longitudinal data that tracks children from birth to age 17 provides a more comprehensive understanding of poverty's prevalence than annual figures alone. This data reveals that four out of ten children (38.8%) experience poverty for at least one year before reaching adulthood (Figure 1). This disparity is particularly pronounced among Black children, with three-quarters (75.4%) experiencing poverty during childhood compared to 30.1% of white children.

Persistent childhood poverty, defined as living below the federal poverty level for a minimum of half of one's childhood, is also a significant concern, particularly among Black children. While 10.5% of all children experience persistent poverty, this figure rises to 38.5% for Black children and drops to 4.3% for white children. Children experiencing persistent poverty often face challenges such as academic difficulties, high school dropout rates, and inconsistent employment in early adulthood (Ratcliffe & McKernan, 2010, 2012). However, it's crucial to acknowledge that not all children who experience poverty exhibit negative outcomes in adulthood. Therefore, it is essential to investigate the factors that contribute to resilience and success among those who overcome early economic hardship.

Figure 1

(Insert Figure 1 Here)

Source: Author's tabulation of Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) data.

Notes: Tabulations are weighted and include children born between 1968 and 1989. "Persistently poor" children are defined as those living below the poverty level for at least half of the years between birth and age 17. "Ever-poor, nonpersistently poor" children are those who have experienced poverty for at least one year but less than half of the years between birth and age 17.

This study examines the long-term impact of childhood poverty on various adult outcomes. The analysis initially considers all children but later focuses on those who have experienced poverty at least once before turning 18. Regression models are employed to investigate the relationship between childhood experiences, family and neighborhood characteristics, and adult success indicators. These indicators include high school completion by age 20, postsecondary education enrollment (college or vocational program) by age 25, four-year college degree attainment by age 25, and consistent employment between ages 25 and 30. The study also examines factors that may hinder educational and employment outcomes, such as teenage nonmarital childbearing and involvement in the criminal justice system (measured as being arrested by age 20). Utilizing data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) spanning over 40 years (1968-2009), the study's findings suggest the following:

• A strong correlation exists between the duration of childhood poverty and future achievement. Children experiencing persistent poverty are 13% less likely to graduate high school and 43% less likely to obtain a college degree compared to those who experienced poverty for shorter periods.

• Parental education plays a significant role in the academic success of children who have experienced poverty. Children whose parents have a high school diploma or higher are 11% and 30% more likely to graduate high school, respectively, compared to those whose parents did not complete high school.

• Residential instability during childhood is linked to lower academic attainment. Children who experience three or more residential moves due to adverse circumstances (e.g., eviction, housing issues) before turning 18 are 15% less likely to complete high school, 36% less likely to enroll in postsecondary education by age 25, and 68% less likely to obtain a four-year college degree by age 25 compared to those who did not experience such moves.

• While residing in a multigenerational household does not appear to have a significant impact on the outcomes of ever-poor children, it is associated with a higher likelihood of high school completion, postsecondary enrollment, and college graduation among persistently poor children.

What Matters for Children?

Adult achievement is significantly influenced by childhood poverty and its duration. Children who experience poverty are less likely to achieve key milestones in adulthood, such as high school graduation, college enrollment, and college completion, compared to their more affluent counterparts. Table 1 illustrates this disparity: while over 90% of children who never experience poverty successfully graduate high school, only 77.9% of ever-poor children achieve this milestone.

Table 1

(Insert Table 1 Here)

Source: Author's tabulation of PSID data.

Notes: Tabulations are weighted and include children born between 1968 and 1989. Statistical significance for the "never poor" and "ever poor" data columns is determined by the difference between individuals who never experienced poverty and those who did during childhood. Significance for the "not persistently poor" and "persistently poor" data columns is based on the difference between individuals who experienced poverty but not persistently and those who did. *p < 0.1 **p < 0.05 ***p < 0.01

Analyzing the specific group of ever-poor children reveals significant differences in outcomes between those who experience persistent poverty and those who do not. Persistent poverty is associated with lower academic attainment, employment rates, and a higher likelihood of teenage childbearing. For instance, while 83% of nonpersistently poor children graduate high school, only 64% of persistently poor children achieve this, highlighting a substantial 20 percentage point difference.

The impact of poverty duration on adult outcomes persists even after controlling for various family and neighborhood characteristics in regression models. These characteristics include race/ethnicity, gender, parental education at birth, residential mobility due to negative reasons, mother's age at birth, and the proportion of childhood spent in specific family structures (female-headed, multigenerational, disabled-headed) or geographic locations (metropolitan area, South). Additionally, a neighborhood disadvantage index based on census data (e.g., poverty rate, unemployment rate) is incorporated into the models (see Data and Methods section). The findings discussed below are derived from these regression models and concentrate on ever-poor children, aiming to identify factors associated with positive outcomes.

Regression analysis confirms that persistent poverty negatively impacts academic success. Children experiencing persistent poverty are 13% less likely to graduate high school by age 20, 29% less likely to enroll in postsecondary education by age 25, and 43% less likely to obtain a four-year college degree by age 25 (Table 2). These substantial differences underscore the significant disadvantage faced by children experiencing persistent poverty.

Persistent poverty also diminishes the likelihood of consistent employment in early adulthood. Persistently poor children are 37% less likely to be consistently employed between ages 25 and 30 compared to their nonpersistently poor counterparts. This finding aligns with their lower educational attainment and the historically higher unemployment rates among less educated demographics (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2014).

Two additional outcomes often linked to lower adult achievement are teenage nonmarital childbearing (among girls) and involvement in the criminal justice system. Among ever-poor children, no significant difference exists in the likelihood of these outcomes between persistently and nonpersistently poor individuals. However, a closer examination of poverty duration reveals that girls experiencing poverty for less than a quarter of their childhood are less likely to have a teenage birth compared to those experiencing poverty for longer durations. This difference based on poverty duration is not observed for arrest rates.

These findings collectively demonstrate that prolonged and persistent exposure to poverty negatively impacts educational attainment and employment prospects.

Table 2

(Insert Table 2 Here)

Source: Author's calculations from PSID, U.S. Decennial Census, and American Community Survey data.

Notes: Results are based on probit models estimated on a sample of children born between 1968 and 1989. For indicator variables, the percentage change in the outcome variable is calculated as the difference in the predicted probability of the outcome with a particular characteristic (e.g., parents have a high school education) versus the base category (e.g., parents have less than a high school education) divided by the predicted probability of the outcome with the base category. For continuous variables, the percentage change represents the difference between experiencing the characteristic for half versus none of childhood. The percentage change for the neighborhood disadvantage index is from the most advantaged neighborhood (index of -1.7) to the most disadvantaged neighborhood (index of 4.2). The model also controls for other non-Hispanic race, residential move for an unknown reason, and birth cohort. aThe sample for the arrest model includes only whites and black non-Hispanics due to the small subset of individuals asked about arrests (those born between 1985 and 1989). bThe premarital birth model includes only females. *p < 0.1 **p < 0.05 ***p < 0.01

Parental education at the time of the child's birth significantly influences children's educational attainment. Children of less educated parents tend to have lower educational attainment. This correlation persists even after controlling for family and neighborhood characteristics, including childhood poverty. Compared to ever-poor children whose parents did not graduate high school, those whose parents have some postsecondary education are 30% more likely to complete high school, over twice as likely to enroll in postsecondary education by age 25, and nearly five times more likely to graduate college by age 25 (Table 2). These individuals are also less likely to experience a nonmarital birth before turning 20.

A slightly different pattern emerges when considering children whose parents have only a high school diploma. While these children are more likely to graduate high school and enroll in postsecondary education (by 11% and 60%, respectively) compared to those whose parents did not finish high school, they are not statistically more likely to obtain a four-year college degree. This suggests that parental high school education increases the likelihood of pursuing education beyond high school but may not be sufficient to ensure completion of a four-year program.

The analysis does not indicate a direct correlation between parental education and a child's likelihood of arrest during adolescence or consistent employment in young adulthood. However, it's crucial to acknowledge the well-established link between lower educational attainment and lower average wages and reduced upward mobility (Greenstone et al., 2013; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015).

Residential instability during childhood is associated with poorer academic outcomes for ever-poor children, specifically in high school and college completion. Ever-poor children who experience residential moves due to adverse reasons tend to have lower educational attainment than those who do not move. This negative correlation becomes more pronounced with multiple moves. Children experiencing two or more negative moves are 13% to 15% less likely to graduate high school, 35% to 36% less likely to enroll in postsecondary education, and 60% to 68% less likely to graduate college compared to those who do not move. Moreover, they exhibit poorer educational outcomes compared to children who move for positive or neutral reasons.

Negative residential moves can exacerbate the challenges faced by children already grappling with poverty, especially if the moves disrupt the school year or coincide with transitions between school levels (e.g., elementary to middle school). These findings align with existing research demonstrating that multiple school changes decrease the likelihood of high school completion (Hartmann & Leff, 2002; Rumberger & Larson, 1998) and postsecondary enrollment (Sandefur, Meier, & Campbell, 2006).

No statistically significant differences are observed between children who experience residential moves for positive or neutral reasons and those who do not move.

Among the other outcomes (teenage childbearing, employment, and arrest), only one statistically significant relationship is found in relation to residential mobility. Girls who experience three or more negative moves during childhood are 15% less likely to remain childless throughout their teenage years compared to those who do not move. However, the analysis does not suggest a correlation between residential moves and the likelihood of consistent employment in young adulthood or arrest by age 20.

Family structure generally appears unrelated to the adult achievement of ever-poor children after controlling for family and neighborhood characteristics. The number of years spent in a female-headed household during childhood does not exhibit a correlation with educational attainment, employment, or teenage childbearing. However, it is linked to the likelihood of arrest. Specifically, spending half of one's childhood in a female-headed household is associated with a 10% decrease in the probability of not being arrested by age 20. Similarly, residing in a multigenerational household (e.g., child, parent(s), and grandparent) does not show evidence of improving outcomes for ever-poor children.

However, a distinct pattern emerges when focusing on persistently poor children. The duration of residence in a female-headed household is negatively correlated with high school completion among this group. Conversely, residing in a multigenerational household appears to mitigate some negative factors associated with living in a female-headed household and is linked to better educational outcomes. For instance, persistently poor children who spend half their childhood in a female-headed family are 12% less likely to graduate high school than those who never experience this family structure. In contrast, those who spend half their childhood in a multigenerational family are 22% more likely to graduate high school.

While research on the implications of multigenerational households yields mixed results, this study aligns with findings suggesting positive academic and behavioral outcomes among children raised in such settings (DeLeire & Kalil, 2002; Entwisle & Alexander, 1996; Pittman, 2007). Potential benefits include a more structured environment that provides additional supervision, guidance, and academic support. However, other studies report either no relationship or a negative one between multigenerational living and children's outcomes (Chase-Lansdale, Brooks-Gunn, & Zamsky, 1994; Foster & Kalil, 2007). These conflicting findings could be attributed to variations in parenting styles and increased family conflict (Augustine & Raley, 2012; Bentley et al., 1999; Brooks-Gunn & Chase-Lansdale, 1991).

Residing in a multigenerational household is also associated with a higher likelihood of postsecondary enrollment and college graduation among persistently poor children. Those who spend half their childhood in such settings are nearly twice as likely to enroll in postsecondary education and over three times as likely to obtain a four-year college degree compared to their counterparts who never experience this family structure.

Therefore, while the findings suggest a limited overall relationship between family structure and educational attainment for ever-poor children, there is evidence to suggest that family structure may play a role in the educational outcomes of persistently poor children.

Ever-poor children residing with a disabled household head tend to experience some negative outcomes. The duration of residence with a disabled head of household is negatively correlated with consistent employment in adulthood. These children are also more likely to be arrested by age 20, potentially due to less supervision that could lead to risky behaviors during adolescence. However, the analysis does not indicate a relationship between living with a disabled household head and educational attainment or teenage nonmarital childbearing.

Race and ethnicity of ever-poor children do not appear to significantly influence adult achievement after controlling for family and neighborhood characteristics. One exception is the higher likelihood of ever-poor Black girls experiencing a teenage birth compared to their white, non-Hispanic counterparts. This finding aligns with the significantly higher teen birth rate among Black women compared to white or Hispanic women (Martin et al., 2015). However, it's important to acknowledge that unmeasured differences in disadvantage levels across racial groups (e.g., greater disadvantage among poor Black children) could contribute to these disparities. Interestingly, a separate analysis of never-poor children does not find a statistically significant difference in teen nonmarital childbearing rates across racial groups.

Across all outcomes, ever-poor girls tend to fare better than ever-poor boys, demonstrating better educational outcomes and a lower likelihood of involvement in the criminal justice system. However, women in their late twenties experience lower employment rates, which could be attributed to childbearing decisions.

Geographic location and neighborhood characteristics are significant factors influencing outcomes for ever-poor children, even after controlling for childhood poverty and various family characteristics. Ever-poor children who spend half their childhood in a metropolitan area are 5% less likely to graduate high school compared to those who never reside in such areas.

The analysis incorporates a measure of neighborhood health based on six census tract characteristics: unemployment rate, poverty rate, property vacancy rate, percentage of residents living in public housing, percentage residing in single-parent households with children, and percentage of adults without a high school diploma. This measure, generated using factor analysis, ranges from -1.7 to 4.2, with lower values indicating healthier neighborhoods and higher values indicating less healthy neighborhoods. For instance, healthier neighborhoods exhibit poverty and unemployment rates below 5%, while less healthy neighborhoods experience poverty rates exceeding 50% and unemployment rates above 25%.

Children raised in disadvantaged neighborhoods tend to experience significantly poorer outcomes. Compared to those raised in the most advantaged neighborhoods, children from the most disadvantaged neighborhoods are 28% less likely to graduate high school and 99% less likely to obtain a four-year college degree. These findings align with research highlighting the lower likelihood of earning bachelor's degrees among students from low-income neighborhoods with lower educational attainment levels (Owens, 2010). This disparity could stem from inadequate college preparation, limited resources to finance higher education, or both. Research also suggests that higher college enrollment rates are associated with high school characteristics more common in affluent neighborhoods, such as higher teacher expectations, social norms that value college attendance, and greater staff support for college enrollment (Roderick, Coca, & Nagaoka, 2011). Additionally, the findings indicate that girls residing in more disadvantaged neighborhoods are more likely to experience a teenage birth.

Summary and Implications

While one in five children currently live in poverty in the United States, nearly twice as many experience poverty at some point during their childhood. These "ever-poor" children experience lower levels of success compared to their "never-poor" counterparts across various domains, including educational attainment, employment, teenage nonmarital childbearing, and involvement in the criminal justice system. Children who spend half their childhood living in poverty face even greater challenges. For example, while 93% of never-poor children and 83% of ever-poor, nonpersistently poor children graduate high school, only 64% of persistently poor children achieve this milestone. This substantial gap persists even after controlling for other family and neighborhood characteristics, highlighting the lasting impact of persistent poverty on life outcomes. This disadvantage can have cascading effects, negatively impacting employment prospects and earnings throughout an individual's lifetime.

The educational attainment of one generation can significantly impact the next. The findings suggest that parental education plays a crucial role in shaping children's academic success, even after accounting for other family and neighborhood factors. Children whose parents have at least some college education are more likely to succeed academically compared to those whose parents did not complete high school.

Beyond childhood poverty and parental education, residential stability emerges as a critical factor influencing children's future success. Frequent residential moves, particularly those stemming from negative circumstances, are associated with poorer outcomes. Children who experience multiple moves due to adverse reasons during childhood exhibit lower high school completion rates, college enrollment rates, and college graduation rates. This could be attributed to the instability and uncertainty associated with such moves, as well as disruptions in schooling, as frequent school changes are linked to lower educational attainment.

This research aimed to identify characteristics of ever-poor children and their families that are associated with successful adult outcomes, with the goal of informing interventions to improve children's life trajectories. The findings highlight the importance of parental education, childhood residential stability, and the potential benefits of multigenerational households for persistently poor children.

Policy interventions should prioritize expanding access to education and training programs for parents with limited education, coupled with work supports such as subsidized childcare. Higher educational attainment is strongly correlated with increased employment rates and earnings, and access to childcare assistance has been shown to enhance the economic well-being of low-income, single mothers.

Flexible policies that allow children to remain in the same school even after moving across school district boundaries could benefit both children and their communities. While federal policy currently targets specific vulnerable populations (e.g., homeless and foster children) to ensure school stability, most low-income children are excluded from these protections. Expanding these policies to encompass a broader range of low-income families could contribute to greater educational success and a stronger workforce.

Addressing the challenges faced by ever-poor children requires a multi-faceted approach that considers the complex interplay of individual, family, and community-level factors. By investing in policies and programs that promote economic stability, educational opportunity, and residential security, we can create a more equitable society that empowers all children to reach their full potential.

Data and Methods

Data and Sample: This study utilizes data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), a longitudinal survey conducted annually from 1968 to 1997 and biennially thereafter. The analysis focuses on individuals born between 1968 and 1989, allowing for the examination of childhood experiences and their impact on adult outcomes. Due to sample size limitations, only white and Black children are examined separately; Hispanic children are not analyzed as a distinct group.

Six outcome measures are used to assess success in young adulthood: high school completion by age 20, postsecondary education enrollment by age 25, four-year college degree attainment by age 25, consistent employment between ages 25 and 30, absence of teenage nonmarital childbearing, and no arrests by age 20.

Sample sizes vary across outcomes due to data availability and the different ages at which outcomes are measured. High school completion and teenage childbearing data are available for the entire sample (individuals born between 1967 and 1989). Postsecondary enrollment and college completion data are available for those born between 1967 and 1984. Consistent employment data between ages 25 and 30 are available for those born between 1967 and 1979. Data on arrests are only available for individuals born between 1985 and 1989, who participated in the PSID Transition to Adulthood supplement.

Using restricted-use geocoded PSID data, the main dataset is augmented with census tract-level information from the U.S. Census Bureau, starting in 1975 when this data became available. Census tract variables include unemployment rate, poverty rate, property vacancy rate, percentage of residents living in public housing, percentage residing in single-parent households with children, and percentage of adults without a high school diploma. For children born before 1975, complete neighborhood characteristic data are not available, and analyses utilize data for the years available.

Family income data, used to determine family poverty status, are collected for the prior calendar year at each interview. While the PSID began collecting income data for the two prior years after transitioning to biennial interviews in 1997, this analysis only uses data from the most recent year due to concerns about the quality of data from two years prior (Andreski, Stafford, & Yeung, 2008).

The study employs the official U.S. poverty definition, classifying a family as poor if its annual gross income falls below the federal poverty level. A child is considered persistently poor if they live in poverty for at least half of their childhood (birth to age 17).

Regression Models: Regression models focus on ever-poor children, with some analyses limited to the subset of persistently poor children. Weighted regression equations are estimated separately for each of the six outcomes. The models control for various factors, including persistent poverty status, race/ethnicity, gender, parental education at birth, number of residential moves due to negative reasons, mother's age at birth, percentage of childhood spent in different family structures (female-headed, multigenerational, disabled-headed) or geographic locations (metropolitan area, South), a neighborhood health measure based on census data, and birth cohort.

The neighborhood health measure is generated using factor analysis on six neighborhood characteristics: poverty rate, unemployment rate, property vacancy rate, percentage of residents living in public housing, percentage residing in single-parent households with children, and percentage of adults without a high school diploma. This measure ranges from -1.7 to 4.2, with lower values indicating healthier neighborhoods and higher values indicating less healthy neighborhoods.

(Insert any necessary footnotes or endnotes here)

Link to Article

Childhood Poverty and Adult Success: The Role of Family, Neighborhood, and Poverty Duration

It is a sad truth that children are more likely to experience poverty than adults. In fact, statistics show that almost 20% of children in the US live below the poverty line, compared to just 12.5% of adults. But what effect does growing up poor have on a child's future prospects? And what about children who experience persistent poverty throughout their childhoods?

This article delves into these questions by examining data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), which has tracked thousands of families for over 40 years. By analyzing this data, we can begin to understand the long-term consequences of childhood poverty and identify factors that contribute to resilience and success.

A Lifetime Look at Poverty

A snapshot of poverty rates in a single year doesn't tell the whole story. When we follow children from birth to adulthood, the reality is much bleaker. A shocking 38.8% of American children experience poverty for at least one year before turning 18. This number jumps to a staggering 75.4% for Black children, highlighting the disproportionate impact of poverty on minority communities.

Among those who experience poverty, there's a significant difference in outcomes between those who experience poverty for a short period and those who live in persistent poverty (defined as living below the poverty line for at least half of their childhood). Alarmingly, 10.5% of all children endure persistent poverty, a figure that skyrockets to 38.5% for Black children. These children often face an uphill battle, with reduced chances of finishing high school, attending college, and securing stable jobs in early adulthood.

However, it's essential to remember that not every child who experiences poverty is destined for a difficult future. Understanding the factors that contribute to resilience and success in the face of adversity is crucial.

Factors That Matter: Beyond Income

While poverty undoubtedly poses significant challenges, several factors can either mitigate or exacerbate its effects on a child's life. This research identifies key influences on the success of children who have experienced poverty:

The Duration of Poverty Matters: Children who experience poverty for prolonged periods face greater disadvantages than those who experience it briefly. They are less likely to graduate high school, enroll in postsecondary education, find consistent employment as young adults, and are more likely to become teen parents. The longer a child lives in poverty, the harder it becomes to break free from its grip.

Parents' Education is Crucial: A parent's level of education is a powerful predictor of their children's educational attainment, even after accounting for poverty and other family characteristics. Children of parents with higher education levels are more likely to complete high school and college, highlighting the intergenerational impact of education.

Residential Instability Disrupts Lives: Frequent moves, particularly those driven by negative circumstances like eviction or divorce, can be incredibly detrimental to a child's well-being and academic progress. This instability can disrupt education, social networks, and access to resources, making it harder for children to thrive.

Family Structure Plays a Role: While the overall impact of family structure is complex, some patterns emerge. Children raised in multigenerational households, especially those experiencing persistent poverty, tend to have better educational outcomes. This suggests that the presence of extended family can provide crucial support and stability for children facing challenging circumstances.

Neighborhoods Shape Opportunities: Unsurprisingly, growing up in disadvantaged neighborhoods with high poverty and unemployment rates is linked to poorer outcomes. These neighborhoods often lack resources, quality schools, and positive role models, making it more challenging for children to succeed.

A Way Forward: Investing in Children and Families

This research underscores the urgent need to address the pervasive issue of childhood poverty in the US. Breaking the cycle of poverty requires a multi-pronged approach that tackles multiple aspects of a child's life:

• Empowering Parents: Investing in education and job training programs for parents, coupled with affordable childcare options, can improve family financial stability. When parents have the resources and support they need, they are better equipped to provide for their children's needs.

• Prioritizing Stable Housing: Policies that prevent evictions and provide affordable housing options can help families stay in their homes and communities, giving children the stability they need to thrive.

• Supporting School Transitions: Flexible school policies that allow children to remain in the same school after a move can prevent disruptions to their education and help them maintain important relationships.

• Strengthening Neighborhoods: Revitalizing disadvantaged neighborhoods by investing in schools, creating job opportunities, and providing access to essential resources can create environments where children can thrive.

By addressing the root causes of poverty and providing families with the tools they need to succeed, we can create a brighter future for all children, regardless of their circumstances. Every child deserves the opportunity to reach their full potential, and it is our collective responsibility to ensure that poverty does not stand in their way.

Link to Article

Growing Up Poor: How Childhood Poverty Shapes Adult Lives

It's a tough reality: kids living in poverty often face challenges like not having basic needs met, attending schools that lack resources, and living in unstable situations. Sadly, kids are more likely to be poor than adults – about one in five children compared to one in eight adults. But what happens as these children grow up? What about those stuck in poverty for years – those considered "ever-poor" because they experience poverty for at least a year before turning 18?

By looking at data from when people are born until they're 17, we get a clearer, and scarier, picture of childhood poverty. A shocking four out of ten kids (38.8 percent) experience poverty at least once before they become adults (see Figure 1). And the situation is even worse for Black children: a massive three-quarters (75.4 percent) face poverty during childhood. While the number for white children is lower (30.1 percent), it's still a significant problem.

Then there's "persistent childhood poverty" – living below the poverty line for at least half of your childhood. This affects one in ten kids (10.5 percent) overall. But again, the numbers are worse for Black children (38.5 percent) compared to white children (4.3 percent). Sadly, many of these children struggle in school, don't finish high school, and have trouble finding steady jobs as young adults.

Figure 1

(Imagine a bar graph here that shows the percentage of children in different racial groups who experience poverty at some point during their childhood. The graph shows that Black children are much more likely to experience poverty than white children.)

(Add a caption under the graph that says: "Source: Author's calculations based on data from a long-term study called the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID).")

(Below the caption, add a note that says: "Note: This graph shows the percentage of children born between 1968 and 1989 who experienced poverty at some point during their childhood. This means they lived in a family that earned less than the official poverty line set by the government.")

But wait, there's hope! Not all kids struggling with poverty end up struggling as adults. So, what makes the difference? What helps some kids beat the odds?

To figure this out, researchers studied a group of children over 40 years, focusing on those who were ever-poor. They looked at things like whether these kids graduated high school, went to college, had a steady job by their late 20s, or had a child before turning 20. They also looked at things that could hinder success, like getting in trouble with the law.

What did they find? Here's the thing:

• The longer a child lives in poverty, the harder it is to succeed. Kids stuck in poverty for a long time (persistently poor) are less likely to finish high school or college compared to kids who were poor for a shorter time.

• Parents' education matters. Kids whose parents finished high school or went to college are more likely to succeed. They're more likely to finish high school and go to college themselves.

• Moving around a lot hurts. Ever-poor children who moved homes multiple times because of tough situations (like eviction or divorce) have a tougher time finishing school.

• Living with grandparents doesn't always help (but it can). While living with grandparents doesn't magically fix things for all ever-poor kids, it seems to help kids stuck in poverty long-term. These kids are more likely to finish high school and college if they live with grandparents.

This research tells us that to help kids in poverty succeed, we need to support their parents and create stable home environments. We can do this by offering parents opportunities to further their education and by making sure kids aren't constantly switching schools. Ultimately, investing in children today means a brighter future for everyone.

(Note: The original article continues with more detailed findings and analysis, but for the sake of brevity and clarity for a 10th-grade audience, the remaining sections have been summarized above.)

Link to Article

What Happens to Kids Who Grow Up Poor?

Lots of kids have trouble because their families don't have enough money. These kids might not have all their needs met, go to good schools, or have a stable place to live. Sadly, kids are more likely to be poor than adults: about one in five kids live in poverty, while only one in eight adults do (that's from a 2014 study!).

What happens to these kids when they grow up? It turns out that lots of kids experience poverty at some point before they turn 18. Actually, four out of every ten kids are poor for at least one year before they grow up. And for Black children, the situation is even worse: three out of four experience poverty! While many kids do experience poverty, it's important to remember that it's not as common for white children (three out of ten). Some kids are poor for a really long time, which is called "persistent childhood poverty." This means they live below the poverty line (meaning their family doesn't make enough money) for at least half of their childhood. Sadly, this happens a lot, especially for Black children (almost four out of ten!). It's much less common for white children (fewer than one out of ten).

Many of these children who experience poverty have a hard time in school, don't finish high school, and have trouble keeping a job when they're older. But not all kids who are poor have bad outcomes. Let's look at why some kids succeed and what helps them do well!

This research looked at children over many years (from when they were born until they were adults) to see what helped them succeed. Here's what they learned:

• The longer kids are poor, the harder it is for them to succeed. Children who are poor for a long time don't do as well in school and don't get as many good jobs.

• Children whose parents went to college do better. Kids whose parents finished college are more likely to finish high school and college themselves.

• Moving around a lot hurts kids. Ever-poor children who move a lot (especially for bad reasons, like getting evicted) don't do as well in school. Moving can be really hard for kids because they have to make new friends and go to a new school.

• Living with grandparents doesn't always help, but it can help kids who are poor for a long time. It doesn't seem to matter if kids who were ever-poor live with their grandparents, but it seems to help kids who are poor for a really long time. These kids are more likely to finish high school and college if they live with extended family.

This research shows that parents going to college and kids not moving around too much can help children succeed. It's important to help families who are struggling so their children can have a better future!

Link to Article