POLICY STATEMENT

Organizational Principles to Guide and Define the Child Health
Care System and/or Improve the Health of all Children

Poverty and Child Health
in the United States
COUNCIL ON COMMUNITY PEDIATRICS

Almost half of young children in the United States live in poverty or near
poverty. The American Academy of Pediatrics is committed to reducing
and ultimately eliminating child poverty in the United States. Poverty and
related social determinants of health can lead to adverse health outcomes
in childhood and across the life course, negatively affecting physical health,
socioemotional development, and educational achievement. The American
Academy of Pediatrics advocates for programs and policies that have been
shown to improve the quality of life and health outcomes for children and
families living in poverty. With an awareness and understanding of the
effects of poverty on children, pediatricians and other pediatric health
practitioners in a family-centered medical home can assess the financial
stability of families, link families to resources, and coordinate care with
community partners. Further research, advocacy, and continuing education
will improve the ability of pediatricians to address the social determinants
of health when caring for children who live in poverty. Accompanying this
policy statement is a technical report that describes current knowledge on
child poverty and the mechanisms by which poverty influences the health
and well-being of children.

abstract

This document is copyrighted and is property of the American
Academy of Pediatrics and its Board of Directors. All authors have
filed conflict of interest statements with the American Academy
of Pediatrics. Any conflicts have been resolved through a process
approved by the Board of Directors. The American Academy of
Pediatrics has neither solicited nor accepted any commercial
involvement in the development of the content of this publication.
Policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics benefit
from expertise and resources of liaisons and internal (AAP) and
external reviewers. However, policy statements from the American
Academy of Pediatrics may not reflect the views of the liaisons or the
organizations or government agencies that they represent.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The guidance in this statement does not indicate an exclusive course
of treatment or serve as a standard of medical care. Variations, taking
into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate.

Poverty is an important social determinant of health and contributes to
child health disparities. Children who experience poverty, particularly
during early life or for an extended period, are at risk of a host of adverse
health and developmental outcomes through their life course.1 Poverty
has a profound effect on specific circumstances, such as birth weight,
infant mortality, language development, chronic illness, environmental
exposure, nutrition, and injury. Child poverty also influences genomic
function and brain development by exposure to toxic stress,2 a condition
characterized by “excessive or prolonged activation of the physiologic
stress response systems in the absence of the buffering protection
afforded by stable, responsive relationships.”3 Children living in poverty

All policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics
automatically expire 5 years after publication unless reaffirmed,
revised, or retired at or before that time.

DOI: 10.1542/peds.2016-0339
PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 0031-4005; Online, 1098-4275).
Copyright © 2016 by the American Academy of Pediatrics

To cite: AAP COUNCIL ON COMMUNITY PEDIATRICS. Poverty
and Child Health in the United States. Pediatrics. 2016;
137(4):e20160339

Downloaded from by guest on March 9, 2016

PEDIATRICS Volume 137, number 4, April 2016:e20160339

FROM THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

 are at increased risk of difficulties
with self-regulation and executive
function, such as inattention,
impulsivity, defiance, and poor peer
relationships.4 Poverty can make
parenting difficult, especially in the
context of concerns about inadequate
food, energy, transportation, and
housing.
Child poverty is associated
with lifelong hardship. Poor
developmental and psychosocial
outcomes are accompanied by a
significant financial burden, not just
for the children and families who
experience them but also for the
rest of society. Children who do not
complete high school, for example,
are more likely to become teenage
parents, to be unemployed, and to
be incarcerated, all of which exact
heavy social and economic costs.5
A growing body of research shows
that child poverty is associated with
neuroendocrine dysregulation that
may alter brain function and may
contribute to the development of
chronic cardiovascular, immune, and
psychiatric disorders.6 The economic
cost of child poverty to society can
be estimated by anticipating future
lost productivity and increased
social expenditure. A study compiled
before 2008 projected a total cost
of approximately $500 billion each
year through decreased productivity
and increased costs of crime and
health care,7 nearly 4% of the gross
domestic product. Other studies of
“opportunity youth,” young people
16 to 24 years of age who are neither
employed nor in school, derived
similar results, generating cohort
aggregate lifetime costs in the
trillions.8
Child poverty is greater in the United
States than in most countries with
comparable resources. In a 2012
report from the United Nations
Children’s Fund,9 the United States
ranked 34th of 35 member nations
of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development,
a reflection of the rate of child

2

poverty during and immediately
after the Great Recession of
2007–2009. A later 2014 report
from the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development10
ranked the United States 35th of 40
nations, only above Chile, Mexico,
Romania, Turkey, and Israel.
This policy statement specifically
addresses child poverty in the United
States but reflects the 2015 United
Nations’ Sustainability Goal to end
poverty in all its forms everywhere.11
According to 2014 Census data, an
estimated 21.1% of all US children
younger than 18 years (15.5 million)
lived in households designated as
“poor” (ie, in 2014, incomes below
100% of the federal poverty level
[FPL] of $24 230 for a family of
4*) and 42.9% (over 31.5 million)
lived in households designated as
“poor, near poor, or low income”
(ie, incomes up to 200% of the FPL).
Nearly 9.3% (6.8 million) lived in
households of deep poverty (ie,
incomes below 50% of the FPL).12
In 2014, an estimated 16 million
children lived in families who
received Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP)
benefits.13 Between 2007 and 2010,
foreclosures affected 5.3 million
children.14
Demographics have a profound
influence on the likelihood that a
family or community will experience
poverty or low income. For example,
African American, Hispanic, and
* The FPL is determined by comparing a
family’s pretax cash income to an income
poverty threshold that is 3 times the cost of
a minimum food diet. This measure does not
take into account government benefits (eg,
SNAP), income tax credits, or family expenses
(eg, child care, income taxes) and has not
fundamentally changed since 1969 except for
annual adjustments for food price inflation. In
2010, the SPM was instituted to provide a more
comprehensive measure of a family’s financial
circumstances. The SPM includes the value
of certain federal in-kind benefits, federal tax
benefits, and family expenses. For additional
details on these measures, see the accompanying
technical report, “Mediators and Adverse Effects
of Child Poverty in the United States.”

Downloaded from by guest on March 9, 2016

American Indian/Alaska Native
children are 3 times more likely to
live in poverty than are white and
Asian children.15 Infants and toddlers
more commonly live in poverty than
do older children.
Children may be born into poverty,
remain in a poor household
throughout childhood, or, most
commonly, rotate in and out of
poverty over time. Approximately
37% of all children live in poverty
for some period during their
childhood.16 Children who are born
into poverty and live persistently in
poor conditions are at greatest risk
of adverse outcomes. However, even
short-term spells of poverty can
expose children to hardships, such as
food insecurity, housing insecurity/
homelessness, loss of health care, and
school disruptions.
Equality of opportunity is central to
the American dream and is reflected
by social mobility or the potential
of intergenerational economic
betterment. However, social mobility
is difficult to measure, because the
usual method compares incomes
of 30-year-old persons against the
incomes of their parents. Despite the
difficulties, most researchers agree
that social mobility in the United
States has faltered as the wealth
and opportunity gaps between
rich and poor have widened in
the past decade. In comparison
with European and other wealthy
industrialized countries, social
mobility in the United States ranks
among the lowest.17 A 2015 Pew
Charitable Trusts report documented
that the effect of parental income
advantage is persistent over all
levels of parental income but is
especially strong for children born to
wealthy families. Persistent parental
economic advantage means that a
son’s income is strongly influenced
by his father’s, indicating low social
mobility. The result is a dramatic
decline of the possibility of economic
improvement for the poor.18 Poor
children tend to remain poor and live

FROM THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

 in neighborhoods of low opportunity.
Wealthy children continue to be
wealthy as adults and enjoy academic
and employment advantages.
The drag on social mobility resulting
from income and opportunity
inequality is even more striking for
people of color. During the recovery
of the Great Recession, income
inequality in the United States
accelerated, with 91% of the gains
going to the top 1% of families.19
Left out of the recovery were African
American families who, during the
downturn, lost an average of 35% of
their accumulated wealth.20 African
American unemployment increased,
home ownership decreased, and child
poverty deepened to approximately
46% of children younger than 6
years.21 Because social mobility
is lowest for people in the lowest
income quartile, half of African
American children who are poor as
young children will remain poor as
adults, approximately twice as many
as white adults similarly exposed to
poverty as children.22
Although legacy residential
segregation and environmental
racism persist as regions of deep
poverty in mostly urban areas,23
the epidemiology of poverty has
shifted over the past decade, in part
because of the housing crisis and
the Great Recession. Since 2008,
suburbs have experienced larger
and faster increases in poverty
than either urban or rural areas.24
This significant shift in the location
and demographics of children and
families dealing with financial stress
makes necessary a reevaluation of
the current engagement and service
delivery systems that may not meet
this emerging need.25
Because pediatricians work to
prevent childhood diseases during
health supervision visits and with
anticipatory guidance, the early
detection and management of
poverty-related disorders is an
important, emerging component
of pediatric scope of practice. With

PEDIATRICS Volume 137, number 4, April 2016

improved understanding of the root
causes and distal effects of poverty,
pediatricians can apply interventions
in practice to help address the toxic
effects of poverty on children and
families. They also can advocate for
programs and policies to ameliorate
early childhood adverse events
related to poverty. Pediatricians
have the opportunity to screen
for risk factors for adversity, to
identify family strengths that are
protective against toxic stress, and
to provide referrals to community
organizations that support and
assist families in economic stress.
This policy statement builds on
previous policies related to child
health equity,26 housing insecurity,
27 and early childhood adversity.3
The accompanying technical report
from the American Academy of
Pediatrics (AAP), “Mediators and
Adverse Effects of Child Poverty in
the United States,”28 supports this
statement by describing current
knowledge on childhood poverty and
the mechanisms by which poverty
influences the health and well-being
of children.

WHAT WORKS TO AMELIORATE THE
EFFECTS OF CHILD POVERTY
Programs that help poor families
and children take many forms and
often involve stakeholders from
multiple communities, including
governmental, private nonprofit,
faith-based, business, and other
philanthropic organizations. The
following paragraphs describe
several antipoverty and safety net
programs that are particularly
important for child health and
well-being. These programs help
families by increasing access to cash,
providing “near-cash” benefits, and
investing in child development.
Individual program outcomes,
including financial cost-benefit
estimates, are documented where
possible. However, the cumulative
Downloaded from by guest on March 9, 2016

effect of safety net programs
has been demonstrably positive.
Longitudinal studies from 1967 to
2012 that used the Supplemental
Poverty Measure (SPM) revealed that
government programs have had a
significant effect on family poverty.
Without these programs, the rate of
child poverty would have increased
to 31% in 2012, 13 percentage points
more than the actual SPM child
poverty rate of 18%. Therefore, the
income supports and direct benefits
provided by these government
programs have cut family poverty
almost in half, from an estimated
31% to approximately 16%.29

Tax Policies and Direct Financial Aid
The earned income tax credit (EITC)
is a refundable federal tax credit that
helps low-income families. The EITC
helps reduce poverty by incentivizing
employment and supplementing
income for low-wage workers. In
2012, 25 states had established
their own state-level credits to
supplement the federal credit.30
The Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities estimates that the federal
EITC lifted 3.1 million children out
of poverty in 2011.31 The EITC has
been shown to increase workforce
participation among single women
with children and help families pay
for basic essentials.32 Additional
research also has connected the EITC
to improvements in infant health.
An analysis of families who received
the largest EITC under the 1990s
expansions of the credit showed
lower rates of low birth weight
children, fewer preterm births, and
increased prenatal care among these
families.33
The child tax credit provides tax
refunds to low-income working
families who pay payroll taxes
but who might not owe federal
income tax. Although only partially
refundable, this direct cash benefit
in 2012 helped approximately 1.6
million children and their families
maintain an income above the FPL.34

3

 Taken together, the EITC and child
tax credit represent tax policies that
reduce childhood poverty and its
effects.
Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) is a block grant
program by which the federal
government provides money
for states to fund work and
family support programs with
specific goals and time limits. The
Personal Responsibility and Work
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (often
referred to as welfare reform)
created TANF to replace Aid to
Families with Dependent Children,
thereby creating block grants
for state administration, work
requirements for eligibility, and
lifetime limits on receipt of federal
support. Because of unchanging
federal funding levels and limits
of the amount of time individuals
can access benefits, the number
of families receiving TANF has
decreased, despite the increased
need since the Great Recession.
National TANF caseloads, especially
those receiving cash benefits, have
declined by 50% since 1996, with
state caseload reductions varying
from 25% to 80% despite the steadily
increasing numbers of families in
poverty and deep poverty.35 The
latitude that states have to designate
how the funds are used adds to the
limitation of TANF as a national
safety net program.
Income stagnation in recent decades
and the erosion of purchasing
power have contributed to the
financial instability of working poor
families.36 Raising the minimum
wage has been shown to help some
low-income families reach 200% of
the FPL and to be considered out of
poverty.37 The benefit to children of
improved family income stability is
both general and specific. Financial
stability means that basic needs,
such as housing and transportation,
are more dependable and family
stress may be reduced. School
readiness and academic performance

4

of children are sensitive to family
income. In a 1999 analysis by the
Brookings Institute, statistically
significant increases in math and
reading performance were associated
with only a $1000 increase in family
annual income.38 A retrospective
review of population data drawn
from the Panel Study of Economic
Dynamics and covering the years
1968 to 2005 correlated the date
of birth and family income during
early childhood with eventual
adult educational and economic
attainment. The results suggest
that an increase in annual family
income of only $3000 during early
childhood may result in significant
improvements on both SAT scores
and adult labor market success
measured by an earnings increase
of almost 20%. The association
is strongest at the low end of the
family income scale and becomes
statistically nonsignificant for
wealthy families.39
Work requirements for cash and
other benefits have been advanced,
especially since welfare reform in
the 1990s, as a way to promote selfsufficiency and reduce welfare rolls.
However, as a consequence of young
mothers being required to work,
infants may be placed in child care at
a very early age, and mothers often
require a patchwork of solutions,
some of which may be substandard.40
Quality child care and early childhood
education are extremely important
for the promotion of cognitive and
socioemotional development of
infants and toddlers.41 Yet, child
care may cost as much as housing
in most areas of the United States,
25% of the budget of a family with
2 children, and infant care can cost
as much as college.42 Many working
families benefit from the dependent
care tax credit for the cost of child
care, allowing those families to place
their children in a certified or higherquality environment.43 However,
working families who do not have
sufficient income to pay taxes are
Downloaded from by guest on March 9, 2016

not able to realize this support for
their children, because the credit is
not refundable or paid to families
before taxation.44 Therefore, some
of the most at-risk children who
might benefit from high-quality early
childhood education are not eligible
for financial support.

Access to Comprehensive Health
Care
Children in poverty who otherwise
would not have access to health care
have greatly benefited from Medicaid
and the Children’s Health Insurance
Program (CHIP) and many provisions
and protections of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act.
From 1984 through 2013, the rate of
uninsured poor children decreased
by 70%, from approximately 29%
to just over 8%. During the first 3
months of 2014, the uninsured rate
for poor children dropped further
to 6.6%.45 As a measure of benefit
from expanded coverage, children
enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP are
more likely to access preventive
care than are uninsured children.46,
47 In addition, CHIP has resulted in
a 9.8% increase in the coverage of
children with chronic illness and a
6.4% decrease in uninsured children
in the general population.48 In 2009,
CHIP programs expanded access
to comprehensive care by covering
dental, mental health, and substance
abuse services in addition to medical
and surgical care for all eligible nearpoor children.49

Early Childhood Education
Early Head Start and Head Start are
federally funded, community-based
programs for low-income families
with young children. Early Head
Start serves pregnant women and
families with infants and toddlers
up to 3 years of age; Head Start
serves families with preschoolaged children 3 to 5 years of age.
In fiscal year 2011, the programs
served more than 900 000 children
nationally, with a budget of $7

FROM THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

 billion. These programs provide
educational, nutritional, health, and
social services. In addition to child
care and preschool services, Early
Head Start and Head Start offer
prenatal education, job-training and
adult education, and assistance in
accessing housing and insurance.50
However, Early Head Start presently
serves only approximately 3% of
low-income families.51 The Child Care
Development Block Grants Act of
2014 and subsequent appropriations
also provide child care subsidies for
low-income working families and
funds to improve child care quality,
in addition to new and needed
protections to keep children safe and
healthy when they are being cared
for outside the home.52
Early childhood interventions
have been found to have a high
rate of return in both human and
financial terms. Early interventions
in high-risk situations have the
highest return, presumably through
mitigating the effects of toxic stress
by providing nurturance, stimulation,
and nutrition. Child benefits include
improved cognitive functioning,
improved self-regulation, and
advancement of development in all
domains. Research as early as 2005
by the Rand Corporation found a
range of return on investment from
$1.80 to $17 for each dollar spent on
early childhood interventions.53 More
recent studies of preschool (birth
to age 5 years) education estimate a
return on investment as high as 14%
per year on the basis of improved
academic and occupation outcomes,
in addition to lowered costs of
remedial education and juvenile
justice involvement.54

Nutrition Support
The Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC) is a federal assistance program
of the US Department of Agriculture
that was first established in 1974
with the aim of improving the health
of low-income women, infants, and

PEDIATRICS Volume 137, number 4, April 2016

children. WIC provides nutrition
education, growth monitoring, and
breastfeeding promotion and
support in addition to food for
pregnant and postpartum women,
infants, and children younger than
5 years with incomes less than 185%
of the FPL.55
WIC is associated with improved
outcomes in pregnancy and early
childhood development. A series
of reports from the US Department
of Agriculture has shown that WIC
participation for low-income women
decreased the rates of prematurity
and infant mortality and increased
involvement in prenatal care.56 The
promotion of breastfeeding has
resulted in significant improvements
in the rate and duration of
exclusive breastfeeding among
WIC participants.57 Studies of the
postinfancy period also have shown
that WIC increases the quality of
children’s diets, with increases in
micronutrient intake and resulting
decreases in iron-deficiency anemia.
Children participating in WIC have
scored higher on assessments of
mental development at 2 years of
age than similar children who were
not participating in the program. In
addition, children whose mothers
participated in WIC when they
were in utero have also been shown
to perform better on reading
assessments than similar children
of mothers who did not use the
program.58
SNAP, formerly referred to as
“food stamps,” uses an electronic
benefits card to provide nutrition
assistance to low-income individuals
and families. As with other federal
programs, eligibility depends
on income, age, family size, and
citizenship. More than 45 million
Americans currently receive SNAP
benefits each month, including
approximately 20 million children.59
Using the SPM, SNAP benefits reduce
both the rate (decrease of 4.4%
attributable to SNAP from 2000 to
2009) and, more importantly, the
Downloaded from by guest on March 9, 2016

depth of poverty for children in the
poorest of poor families.60
The National School Lunch Program
is a federally funded program
that provides low-cost and free
breakfasts, lunches, and, on a limited
basis, summer food to school-aged
children. The federal program
supplies both public and private
nonprofit schools with food and cash
incentives. The meals are produced
in accordance with the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans. In 2012,
31.6 million children each day were
served low-cost and free lunches at a
total cost of $11.6 billion.61 Students
from families with an income less
than 130% of the FPL are eligible
to receive free meals, and those
from families with an income less
than 185% of the FPL are eligible
for reduced-price meals. A recent
analysis estimated that, using these
guidelines, more than half of all US
public school students are eligible to
receive free or reduced-price meals.62
Nutrition support, such as WIC and
SNAP, address undernutrition, but
other forms of malnutrition, such
as obesity, also may be responsive
to supplemental programs. For
instance, a recent study in preschoolaged children found that those who
participated in Head Start had a
healthier BMI at school entry than
did children who did not have the
benefit of food provided by federal
subsidy.63

Home Visiting
The Maternal, Infant, and Early
Child Home Visiting (MIECHV)
Program was established as part
of the Affordable Care Act in 2010.
It provides support for federal,
state, and community governments
to implement established and
proven home visiting programs for
at-risk children. The stated goals of
MIECHV are to improve maternal
and newborn health; prevent
child injuries, abuse, neglect, or
maltreatment; reduce emergency
department visits; improve school

5

 readiness and achievement; reduce
crime or domestic violence; improve
family economic self-sufficiency; and
improve coordination and referrals
for other community resources and
supports.64
MIECHV has identified 19 evidencebased interventions that target
families with pregnant mothers and
children younger than 5 years.65,66
One example of an MIECHV program
with evidence of success is the
Nurse-Family Partnership. First-time,
low-income mothers are enrolled
during the prenatal period and
visited weekly by nurses trained in a
validated curriculum beginning in the
second trimester. The benefit-cost
ratio for high-risk mothers has been
calculated at 5.68 to 1.67

Family and Parenting Support in the
Medical Home
Programs designed for the pediatric
medical home provide opportunities
for low-cost, population-based
preventive intervention with lowincome families. An awareness
of the protective factors that are
present in children and families can
help pediatricians to build on their
strengths during health promotion
conversations. A commonly used
instrument to assess protective
factors in high-risk families is
available through the FRIENDS
National Resource Center.68 The
Protective Factor Survey is used
to assess current status as well as
change over time in family resiliency,
social connectedness, quality of
attachment, and knowledge of child
development.
In a medical home adapted to the
needs of families in poverty, parents
have the opportunities and resources
to promote resilience in their young
children, giving them the capacity
to adapt to adversity and buffering
the effects of stress. Healthy Steps
for Young Children, a manual-based
primary care strategy, and programs
such as Incredible Years and Triple
P, which integrate behavioral health

6

into primary care, have been shown
to promote responsive parenting
and address common behavioral and
developmental concerns.69–73 Early
literacy promotion in the medical
home with programs such as Reach
Out and Read advances reading
readiness by approximately 6 months
when compared with controls.74 In
addition, parents in Reach Out and
Read practices are 4 times as likely to
read to their children and more likely
to spend time with their children in
interactive play75 than are families
who are not in Reach Out and
Read. Another program, the Video
Interaction Project (VIP), combines
early literacy with guided parentchild interactions that support family
relationships and social development
of children.70
The AAP has promoted the
National Center for Medical-Legal
Partnerships model, which provides
legal aid collocated with health
services, especially to families in
poverty. A pilot study of medicallegal partnerships found that
addressing the social determinants
of health by providing legal
services and helping families
negotiate safety net organizations
improves child health outcomes,
reduces unnecessary urgent
visits, and raises overall child
well-being.76
Care coordination, a fundamental
service of the medical home model,
can link families with community
resources and support interagency
coordination to address basic
concerns such as food and energy
insecurity. An example of a robust
case management initiative is
Health Leads,77 an enhanced
primary care strategy that uses
college volunteers as advocates and
advanced resource management
techniques, which has improved
coordination of care and utilization
of collocated social services by lowincome families with the intent of
reducing the social barriers to good
health.
Downloaded from by guest on March 9, 2016

Early Identification of Families in
Need of Services
To link families to services as
early as possible, pediatricians
can use screening tools that have
high sensitivity and specificity.
The WE CARE survey78 is a brief
set of questions that alerts the
pediatrician to families experiencing
stress related to poverty. In the
policy statement “Promoting Food
Security for All Children,” the AAP
recommends the use of a 2-question
survey that has a high sensitivity to
detect food insecurity.79,80 A single
question, “Do you have difficulty
making ends meet at the end of
the month?” may be enough to
alert the pediatrician with 98%
sensitivity to a need for linking
families to community resources.81
Inquiring whether families have
moved frequently in the past year or
have lived with another family for
financial reasons will reveal housing
insecurity.82
Effective early identification of
families in need may facilitate
prevention services, including
nutritional supplements for
young children, preventive health
services, age-appropriate learning
opportunities, and socioemotional
support of parents. Program
evaluation has supported this
multifaceted approach in multiple
countries and settings.83 Analyses
by Nobel Prize–winning economist
James Heckman reveal that early
prevention activities targeted toward
disadvantaged children have high
rates of economic returns, much
higher than remediation efforts
later in childhood or adult life.84
For example, the Perry Preschool
Program showed an average
rate of return of $8.74 for every
dollar invested in early childhood
education.85 Targeted interventions
foster protective factors, including
responsive, nurturing, cognitively
stimulating, consistent, and stable
parenting by either birth parents
or other consistent adults. Early

FROM THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

 childhood experiences that promote
relational health lead to secure
attachment, effective self-regulation
and sleep, normal development of
the neuroendocrine system, healthy
stress-response systems, and positive
changes in the architecture of the
developing brain.86,87 Perhaps the
most important protective factors are
those that attenuate the toxic stress
effects of childhood poverty on early
brain and child development.3,5,88

Interventions for Adolescents and
Parents of Young Children
In recent years, there has been a
growing focus on “2-generation”
strategies to reduce poverty and
improve outcomes for low-income
families. Two-generation strategies
focus on helping low-income children
and their parents simultaneously
through high-quality interventions.89
For example, a 2-generation program
may enroll parents into job training
at the same time as children are
enrolled into quality child care. This
type of approach aims to improve a
family’s earning potential as well as
the child’s developmental outcomes.
Improved coordination of programs
and services for low-income families
is essential to a 2-generation
strategy.
Recent research suggests that
noncognitive skills, such as
perseverance, empathy, and selfefficacy, remain malleable during
adolescence90 and build on the
cognitive skills developed during
early childhood. Interventions
such as adolescent mentoring,
residential training (eg, Job Corps),
and workplace-based apprenticeship
programs can increase academic
achievement, employment
success, and other nonacademic
accomplishments over the life span.90

RECOMMENDATIONS
As the health care system
increasingly focuses on efforts to
improve quality and contain costs,

PEDIATRICS Volume 137, number 4, April 2016

there may be new opportunities to
restructure the health care delivery
system in ways that can improve care
for children in low-income families.
Policy decisions in other countries,
such as the United Kingdom,
91 also may inform these efforts.
Incentivizing care coordination and
team-based care may help more
children access quality health care
through patient- and family-centered
medical homes (FCMHs). Medical
homes also can help families address
unmet social and economic needs by
using partners, such as community
health workers, within the health
care team.92,93 As previously noted,
home visiting is supported through
the MIECHV.
State reforms and integrated
health delivery systems in some
regions are providing incentives
for population health approaches,
facilitating collaboration in
healthy neighborhood initiatives.94
Collaborators with health care
organizations may include education
systems, social services, faithbased groups, and community
development organizations. Although
all children may benefit from greater
collaboration between health care
organizations and community
resources, children and in poor and
low-income families may experience
even greater gains.

Opportunities for Public Policy
Advocacy
Public policy efforts are needed to
protect the health of children affected
by poverty and to help families
become economically secure. The
specific recommendations made in
this and the following section are
based on positive outcomes in peerreviewed literature or preliminary
studies that show sufficient promise
that rigorous long-term evaluations
are underway.

• Invest in young children. Funding
quality early childhood programs
can have a significant financial
return on investment, but more
Downloaded from by guest on March 9, 2016

importantly, making healthy
development of young children a
national priority while addressing
social determinants of health helps
families and communities build a
foundation for lifelong health.

• Protect and expand funding
for essential benefits programs
that assist low-income and poor
children. Invest in children’s health
and development by appropriately
funding evidence-based programs,
including Early Head Start and
Head Start, Medicaid, CHIP, WIC,
home visiting, SNAP, school meal
programs and other programs
that increase access to healthy
food, and Child Care Development
Block Grant–funded programs.
Streamline enrollment and renewal
processes for public benefit
programs.95

• Support 2-generation strategies
that focus on helping children and
parents simultaneously. Promote
the coordination and alignment of
adult- and child-focused programs,
policies, and systems.

• Support and expand strategies
that promote employment and
that increase parental income.
Programs that increase low-income
parents’ earnings have been
shown to improve child outcomes.
Support policies that help parents
increase family income, including
higher minimum wages, education
and job-training programs, and the
EITC, child tax credit, and child and
dependent care tax credit.

• Support policy measures that
improve community infrastructure,
including affordable housing and
public spaces. Ensure that all
children have safe outdoor play
areas as well as healthy, safe, and
affordable housing.

• Improve access to quality health
care and create incentives to
improve population health
with the goal of reducing health
disparities. Strategies to improve
quality and reduce costs should

7

 include care coordination and
team-based care that help families
address nonmedical health-related
concerns, such as food, housing,
and utilities. Pediatricians and
health care systems should be
encouraged to partner with
other stakeholders to advance
community-level strategies
that improve health and reduce
disparities among populations of
varying income levels.

• Enhance health care financing
to support comprehensive care
for at-risk families. All benefit
plans should include coverage for
enhanced services in the medical
home for families in poverty. Care
coordination, team-delivered care,
and coverage for mental health
services provided by pediatricians
are examples of these enhanced
services.

• Make a national commitment to
fully fund home visiting programs
for all children living in low-income
or poor households. The Bureau
of Maternal and Child Health has
identified 19 programs, including
but not limited to Nurse-Family
Partnership, Early Head Start,
Healthy Families America, and
Parents as Teachers, that target
families with pregnant women or
children younger than 5 years.

• Support integrated models of
care in the medical home that
promote effective parenting and
school readiness, such as Healthy
Steps, Reach Out and Read,
VIP, Incredible Years, Medical
Legal Partnerships, and Positive
Parenting Program. Both Medicaid
and education funding agencies
should provide support in the
medical home for parenting and
literacy promotion.

• Improve national poverty
definitions and measures. The
FPL underestimates the extent
and depth of poverty in the
United States. The SPM is an
improvement, but more research

8

is necessary to quantify the extent
of poverty in the United States and
its effects on children and families
so that effective responses can be
developed and promoted.

• Support a comprehensive
research agenda to improve the
understanding of the effects
of poverty on children and to
identify and refine interventions
that improve child health
outcomes. Research is needed to
identify better ways to measure
how poverty affects children,
what works to help families in
poverty, and how to translate
the information gained into real
solutions for the poor.

Opportunities for Community
Practice
The following recommendations
address how individual pediatricians
can support the health and wellbeing of children living in poverty.
Adaptations of the medical home to
acknowledge the complex challenges
that confront poor families require
surveillance on the part of the
practitioner of both risk and
protective factors that characterize
each family.

• Create a medical home that
acknowledges and is sensitive
to the needs of families living
in poverty. Although every
family wants to provide the
best resources and care to their
children, economic barriers can
stand in the way. All members of
the care team and practice should
become familiar with some of the
common challenges faced by poor
families. Recognizing problems
such as transportation barriers,
difficult work schedules, and
competing financial issues can help
practices effectively communicate
and partner with families. An
enhanced medical home providing
integrated care for families
in poverty is informed by the
understanding that emotional care
of the family, including recognizing
Downloaded from by guest on March 9, 2016

maternal depression, is within the
scope of practice for community
pediatricians and that the effects
of toxic stress on children can be
ameliorated by supportive, secure
relational health during early
childhood.

• Screen for risk factors within social
determinants of health during
patient encounters. Practices
can use a brief written screener
or verbally ask family members
questions about basic needs,
such as food, housing, and heat.
Screening for basic needs can help
uncover not only obvious but also
less apparent economic difficulties
experienced by families. As patientcentered medical homes continue
to develop, care coordinators will
fulfill the role of community liaison
for families in poverty, connecting
them with needed resources.

• Consider implementing integrated
medical home programs, such as
Healthy Steps, Reach Out and Read,
Health Leads, and VIP, in addition
to primary care integration with
mental health interventions
such as Incredible Years and
Triple P. These programs help
parents develop the capacity and
confidence to build resilience
in their children and improve
the ability of the family to cope
with adversity. Bright Futures
guidelines provide the most
comprehensive recommendations
for health supervision and are
enhanced by strategies to advance
behavioral health care into the
pediatric medical home and to
address the social determinants of
health.

• Identify and build on family
strengths and protective factors.
Although families in poverty face
many challenges, each family
has strengths, capabilities, and
protective factors. Pediatricians
can strive to identify and build on
protective factors within families,
such as cohesion, humor, support
networks, skills, and spiritual and

FROM THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

 cultural beliefs.96,97 By approaching
families from a strengths-based
perspective, pediatricians can help
build trust and identify the assets
on which a family can draw to
effectively address problems and
care for their children.

• Collaborate with community
organizations to help families
address unmet basic needs and
assist with family stressors. When
unmet basic needs and povertyassociated risks are identified,
pediatricians can refer families to
appropriate community services
and public programs. Key partners
may include local and state public
health departments, legal services,
social work organizations, food
pantries, faith-based organizations,
and community development
organizations. Some communities
also may have innovative financial
literacy programs that are
helpful.98 Practices may partner
with local home visiting programs,
community mental health services,
and parent support groups that can
help families address parenting
challenges and other stressors.

• Engage with early intervention
programs and schools to
promote learning and academic
achievement. Education
professionals are often very
involved in efforts to help children
from low-income backgrounds
with academic achievement and
also may participate in initiatives
focused on basic needs, such
as feeding programs, clothing
drives, and health screenings.
Pediatricians can actively
participate with these efforts
as well as early intervention
programs, after-school programs,
tutoring programs, and social
services provided through the
school district.

• Promote the MIECHV program.
Pediatricians should be familiar
with local MIECHV programs and
how to connect their patients with
home visiting programs on the

PEDIATRICS Volume 137, number 4, April 2016

state and local levels. Pediatricians
and the AAP should be aware
that the MIECHV continually
reviews home visiting programs
for inclusion in the MIECHV and
can submit programs for review
that they have found successful.
Opportunities for enhanced
communication between the
FCMH and home-visiting programs
may be explored, including the
possibility of collocation of visitors
in the FCMH as an integrated
service model.

• Support community programs that
enhance the involvement of fathers
in the lives of their children.
Pediatricians can be an important
support resource and advocate
for community-based fatherhood
initiatives. When possible,
nonresidential fathers should be
involved in all aspects of pediatric
care.

• Advance strategies to address
family and child mental health
and development. Pediatricians
are strongly encouraged to
include routine screening for
maternal depression at every
health supervision visit during the
first year of life and to be able to
provide an appropriate referral
for treatment when depression
is suspected. Pediatricians
can advocate for increased
resources to address mental
health and behavioral issues in
poor communities, including
separate payment for screening for
parental depression and for care
coordination activities.

• Advocate for public policies that
support all children and help
mitigate the effects of poverty
on child health. Pediatricians can
serve as important advocates for
policies that help children and
families in poverty. Pediatricians
can add a unique voice to povertyrelated advocacy by reframing
poverty as an evidence-based
health concern with lifelong health,
social, and economic consequences.
Downloaded from by guest on March 9, 2016

CONCLUSIONS
Poverty and other adverse social
determinants have a detrimental
effect on child health and are root
causes of child health inequity
in the United States. Knowledge
is expanding rapidly, especially
regarding the neurobiological effects
of poverty and related environmental
stressors on the developing human
brain as well as the life course of
chronic illness. Understanding
the causative relation between
early childhood poverty and adult
health status should inform and
influence the decisions of policy
makers, researchers, and community
pediatricians. The evidence strongly
suggests that the FCMH with its
enhanced capabilities is an essential
asset in efforts to ameliorate the
adverse effects of poverty on
children.
The AAP considers child poverty in
the United States unacceptable and
detrimental to the health and wellbeing of children and is committed
to its elimination. The AAP calls for
concerted action by its state
chapters as well as governmental,
private, nonprofit, faith-based,
philanthropic, and other advocacy
organizations to reduce child poverty
by supporting and expanding
existing programs that have
been shown to work and to make
efforts to develop, identify, and
promote other potentially effective
policies and programs. In 1935,
the US Congress passed the Social
Security Act and in 1965 enacted
Medicare. Together, these 2 pieces
of legislation have greatly reduced
and nearly eliminated poverty in the
elderly. It is time to enact similar
reforms to eliminate child poverty.
By embracing the policies and
enacting the recommendations in
this statement, the AAP joins with
governmental, philanthropic, private,
and other health care organizations
in a concerted and dedicated effort to
eliminate child poverty in the United
States.

9

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge the following
University of California–Los Angeles
pediatric and med-peds residents
for their research contributions to
this policy statement: Natalie Cerda,
MD, Jeremy Lehman Fox, MD, Neil A.
Gholkar, MD, Lydia Soo-Hyun Kim,
MD, MPH, Rachel J. Klein, MD, Ashley
E. Lewis Hunter, MD, Sarah J. Maufe,
MD, Colin L. Robinson, MD, MPH,
Joseph R. Rojas, MD, and Weiyi Tan,
MD, MPH.

CONSULTANT
Anne Brown Rodgers, Science Writer

STAFF
Camille Watson, MS

COMMITTEE ON PSYCHOSOCIAL ASPECTS
OF CHILD AND FAMILY HEALTH, 2015–2016
Michael Yogman, MD, FAAP, Chairperson
Nerissa Bauer, MD, MPH, FAAP
Thresia B. Gambon, MD, FAAP
Arthur Lavin, MD, FAAP
Keith M. Lemmon, MD, FAAP
Gerri Mattson, MD, FAAP
Jason Richard Rafferty, MD, MPH, EdM
Lawrence Sagin Wissow, MD, MPH, FAAP

LEAD AUTHORS

LIAISONS

James H. Duffee, MD, MPH, FAAP
Alice A. Kuo, MD, PhD, FAAP
Benjamin A. Gitterman, MD, FAAP

Sharon Berry, PhD, LP – Society of Pediatric
Psychology
Terry Carmichael, MSW – National Association of
Social Workers
Edward Christophersen, PhD, FAAP – Society of
Pediatric Psychology
Norah Johnson, PhD, RN, CPNP-BC – National
Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
Leonard Read Sulik, MD, FAAP – American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

COUNCIL ON COMMUNITY PEDIATRICS
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, 2015–2016
Benjamin A. Gitterman, MD, FAAP, Chairperson
Patricia J. Flanagan MD, FAAP, Vice-Chairperson
William H. Cotton, MD, FAAP
Kimberley J. Dilley, MD, MPH, FAAP
James H. Duffee, MD, MPH, FAAP
Andrea E. Green, MD, FAAP
Virginia A. Keane, MD, FAAP
Scott D. Krugman, MD, MS, FAAP
Julie M. Linton, MD, FAAP
Carla D. McKelvey, MD, MPH, FAAP
Jacqueline L. Nelson, MD, FAAP

LIAISONS
Jacqueline R. Dougé, MD, MPH, FAAP –
Chairperson, Public Health Special Interest Group
Janna Gewirtz O’Brien, MD – Section on Medical
Students, Residents, and Fellowship Trainees

FORMER EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Lance A. Chilton, MD, FAAP
Thresia B. Gambon, MD, FAAP
Alice A. Kuo, MD, PhD, FAAP
Gonzalo J. Paz-Soldan, MD, FAAP
Barbara Zind, MD, FAAP

FORMER LIAISONS
Toluwalase Ajayi, MD – Section on Medical
Students, Residents, and Fellowship Trainees
Ricky Y. Choi, MD, MPH, FAAP – Chairperson,
Immigrant Health Special Interest Group
Frances J. Dunston, MD, MPH, FAAP – Commission
to End Health Care Disparities
M. Edward Ivancic, MD, FAAP – Chairperson, Rural
Health Special Interest Group

CONTRIBUTORS
John M. Pascoe, MD, MPH, FAAP
David Wood, MD, MPH, FAAP

10

CONSULTANT
George J. Cohen, MD, FAAP

STAFF
Stephanie Domain, MS, CHES

ABBREVIATIONS
AAP: American Academy of
Pediatrics
CHIP: Children’s Health
Insurance Program
EITC: earned income tax credit
FCMH: family-centered medical
home
FPL: federal poverty level
MIECHV: Maternal, Infant, and
Early Child Home
Visiting
SNAP: Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program
SPM: Supplemental Poverty
Measure
TANF: Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families
VIP: Video Interaction Project
WIC: Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women,
Infants, and Children

Downloaded from by guest on March 9, 2016

REFERENCES
1. Brooks-Gunn J, Duncan GJ. The effects
of poverty on children. Future Child.
1997;7(2):55–71
2. Blair C, Granger DA, Willoughby M,
et al; FLP Investigators. Salivary
cortisol mediates effects of poverty
and parenting on executive functions
in early childhood. Child Dev.
2011;82(6):1970–1984
3. Garner AS, Shonkoff JP; Committee
on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and
Family Health; Committee on Early
Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent
Care; Section on Developmental and
Behavioral Pediatrics. Early childhood
adversity, toxic stress, and the role
of the pediatrician: translating
developmental science into lifelong
health. Pediatrics. 2012;129(1).
Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/
content/full/129/1/e224
4. Boyle CA, Boulet S, Schieve LA, et
al. Trends in the prevalence of
developmental disabilities in US
children, 1997-2008. Pediatrics.
2011;127(6):1034–1042
5. Belfield CR, Levin HM, eds. The
Price We Pay: Economic and Social
Consequences of Inadequate
Education. Washington, DC: Brookings
Press; 2007
6. Shonkoff JP, Garner AS; Committee
on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and
Family Health; Committee on Early
Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent
Care; Section on Developmental and
Behavioral Pediatrics. The lifelong
effects of early childhood adversity and
toxic stress. Pediatrics. 2012;129(1).
Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/
content/full/129/1/e232
7. Holzer H, Schanzenbach DW, Duncan
GJ, Ludwig J. The economic costs of
childhood poverty in the United States.
J Child Poverty. 2008;14(1):41–61
8. Belfield CR, Levin HM, Rosen R. The
economic value of opportunity youth.
Washington, DC: Corporation for
National and Community Service;
2012. Available at: www.serve.gov/
new-images/council/pdf/econ_value_
opportunity_youth.pdf. Accessed
January 11, 2016
9. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
Measuring child poverty: new league

FROM THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

 tables of child poverty in the world’s
rich countries. Florence, Italy: UNICEF
Innocenti Research Centre; 2012.
Innocenti Report Card 10. Available at:
www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/
rc10_eng.pdf. Accessed January 11,
2016
10. Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development. Child poverty.
Available at: www.oecd.org/els/soc/
CO2_2_ChildPoverty_Jan2014.pdf.
Accessed January 11, 2016
11. United Nations. Sustainable
Development Goals. Goal 1: end poverty
in all its forms everywhere. Available
at: www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
poverty/. Accessed January 11, 2016
12. DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor BD; US Census
Bureau. Current population reports,
P60-252, income and poverty in the
United States: 2014. Washington, DC:
US Government Printing Office; 2015
13. US Census Bureau. One in five children
receive food stamps, Census Bureau
reports. Available at: www.census.gov/
newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb1516.html. Accessed September 28, 2015
14. Kids Count Data Center. 2011 Kids
Count Data Book. Available at: http://
datacenter.kidscount.org. Accessed
July 31, 2015
15. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2013
Kids Count Data Book. Available
at: www.aecf.org/MajorInitiatives/
KIDSCOUNT.aspx?rules=2. Accessed
July 31, 2015
16. Ratcliffe C, McKernan SM. Childhood
poverty persistence: facts and
consequences. Urban Institute Brief.
June 2010. Available at: www.urban.
org/UploadedPDF/412126-child-povertypersistence.pdf. Accessed July 31, 2015
17. Isaacs JB. International comparisons
of economic mobility. In: Isaacs JB,
Sawhill IV, Haskins R, eds. Getting
ahead or losing ground: economic
mobility in America. Washington, DC:
The Brookings Institution; 2008:37–44.
Available at: www.brookings.edu/~/
media/Research/Files/Reports/2008/
2/economic%20mobility%20sawhill/
02_economic_mobility_sawhill.pdf.
Accessed January 11, 2016
18. Mitnik PA, Grusky DB. Economic
mobility in the United States. 2015.
Philadelphia, PA: Pew Charitable

PEDIATRICS Volume 137, number 4, April 2016

Trusts, Russell Sage Foundation; 2015.
Available at: www.pewtrusts.org/~/
media/assets/2015/07/fsm-irs-report_
artfinal.pdf. Accessed December 27,
2015
19. Saez E. Striking it richer: the evolution
of top incomes in the United States.
Berkeley, CA: University of California
Berkeley; 2015. Available at: http://
eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/saezUStopincomes-2013.pdf. Accessed
December 27, 2015
20. Stiglitz J. Inequality in America: a policy
agenda for a stronger future. Ann Am
Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2015;657(1):8–20
21. Economic Policy Institute. The state
of working America: key numbers.
African Americans. Available at: http://
stateofworkingamerica.org/files/book/
factsheets/african-americans.pdf.
Accessed December 27, 2015
22. Wagmiller RL, Adelman RM. Childhood
and intergenerational poverty. New
York, NY: National Center for Children
in Poverty; 2009. Available at: www.
nccp.org/publications/pub_909.html.
Accessed December 27, 2015
23. Bolin B, Grineski S, Collins T. The
geography of despair. Hum Ecol Rev.
2005;12(2):156–168
24. Kneebone B. Confronting Suburban
Poverty in America. Washington, DC:
Brookings Press; 2013
25. Joint Center’s Health Policy Institute.
Building stronger communities for
better health. 2004. Available at: www.
racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/
jointcenter3.pdf. Accessed December
28, 2015

29. Fox L, Garfinkel I, Kaushal N, Waldfogel
J, Wimer C. Waging War on Poverty:
Historical Trends in Poverty Using
the Supplemental Poverty Measure.
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Economic Research; 2014. Working
Paper 19789. Available at: www.nber.
org/papers/w19789. Accessed July 31,
2015
30. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Policy basics: the earned income tax
credit. January 2014. Available at:
www.cbpp.org/files/policybasics-eitc.
pdf. Accessed July 31, 2015
31. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Earned income tax credit promotes
work, encourages children’s success
at school, research finds. April 2013.
Available at: www.cbpp.org/files/6-2612tax.pdf\. Accessed July 31, 2015
32. Leibman J. The impact of the earned
income tax credit on incentives and
income distribution. In: Poterba
JM, ed. Tax Policy and the Economy.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1998:
83–120
33. Hoynes HW, Miller DL, Simon D. The
EITC: linking income to real health
outcomes [policy brief]. Davis, CA:
University of California Davis Center
for Poverty Research; 2013. Available
at: http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/
research-paper/policy-brief-linkingeitc-income-real-health-outcomes.
Accessed July 31, 2015
34. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Policy basics: the child tax credit.
January 2014. Available at: www.cbpp.
org/files/policybasics-ctc.pdf. Accessed
July 31, 2015

26. Council on Community Pediatrics and
Committee on Native American Child
Health. Policy statement—health
equity and children’s rights. Pediatrics.
2010;125(4):838–849

35. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
TANF weakening as a safety-net for
poor families. March 2012. Available
at: www.cbpp.org/files/3-13-12tanf.pdf.
Accessed July 31, 2015

27. Council on Community Pediatrics.
Providing care for children and
adolescents facing homelessness
and housing insecurity. Pediatrics.
2013;131(6):1206–1210

36. Hernandez DJ. Declining fortunes
of children in middle-class families:
economic inequality and child wellbeing in the 21st century. New York,
NY: Foundation for Child Development;
2011. Available at: http://fcd-us.
org/sites/default/files/2011%20
Declining%20Fortunes_0.pdf. Accessed
July 31, 2015

28. Pascoe JM, Wood DL, Kuo A, Duffee JH;
Committee on Psychosocial Aspects
of Child and Family Health; Council
on Community Pediatrics. Mediators
and adverse effects of child poverty
in the United States. Pediatrics.
2016;137(4):e20160340

Downloaded from by guest on March 9, 2016

37. Dube A. Minimum wages and the
distribution of family incomes.
UMass Amherst Working Paper.

11

 2013. Available at: https://dl.
dropboxusercontent.com/u/15038936/
Dube_MinimumWagesFamilyIncomes.
pdf. Accessed July 31, 2015
38. Issacs JB, Magnuson K. Income and
education as predictors of children’s
school readiness. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institute; 2011. Available at:
www.brookings.edu/research/reports/
2011/12/15-school-readiness-isaacs.
Accessed July 31, 2015
39. Duncan GJ, Ziol-Guest KM, Kalil A.
Early-childhood poverty and adult
attainment, behavior, and health. Child
Dev. 2010;81(1):306–325
40. Knox V, London A, Scoot E. Welfare
reform, work, and child care. MDRC
policy brief. 2003. Available at:
www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/
policybrief_40.pdf. Accessed July 31,
2015
41. Cohen J, Ewen D. Infants and toddlers
in child care [policy brief]. Washington,
DC: Zero to Three; 2008. Available
at: http://main.zerotothree.org/site/
DocServer/Infants_and_Toddlers_
in_Child_Care_Brief.pdf?docID=6561.
Accessed July 31, 2015
42. Allegretto S. Basic family budgets:
working families’ incomes often fail
to meet living expenses around the
U.S. Economic Policy Institute; 2005.
Available at: www.epi.org/publication/
bp165/. Accessed July 31, 2015
43. MacGillvary J, Lucia L. Economic
impacts of early care and education
in California. Berkley, CA: UC Berkley
Center for Labor Research and
Education; 2011. Available at: http://
laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2011/
child_care_report0811.pdf. Accessed
July 31, 2015
44. Tax Policy Center. Taxation and the
family. How does the tax system
subsidize child care expenses? 2015.
Available at: www.taxpolicycenter.org/
briefing-book/key-elements/family/
child-care-subsidies.cfm. Accessed
July 31, 2015
45. National Health Interview Survey Early
Release Program. Health insurance
coverage: early release of estimates
from the National Health Interview
Survey, January–March 2014.
Available at: www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/
nhis/earlyrelease/insur201409.pdf.
Accessed January 11, 2016

12

46. Abdus S, Selden TM. Adherence with
recommended well-child visits has
grown, but large gaps persist among
various socioeconomic groups. Health
Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(3):508–515
47. Perry CD, Kenney GM. Preventive care
for children in low-income families:
how well do Medicaid and state
children’s health insurance programs
do? Pediatrics. 2007;120(6). Available
at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/
full/120/6/e1393
48. Howell EM, Kenney GM. The impact
of the Medicaid/CHIP expansions on
children: a synthesis of the evidence.
Med Care Res Rev. 2012;69(4):372–396
49. Racine AD, Long TF, Helm ME, et al;
Committee on Child Health Financing.
Children’s Health Insurance Program
(CHIP): accomplishments, challenges,
and policy recommendations.
Pediatrics. 2014;133(3). Available at:
www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/
133/3/e784
50. Head Start Program. Head Start
Program facts fiscal year 2011.
Available at: http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.
gov/hslc/mr/factsheets/2011-hsprogram-factsheet.html. Accessed July
31, 2015
51. DiLaruro E. Learning, thriving and
ready to succeed. Zero to Three; 2009.
Available at: http://main.zerotothree.
org/site/DocServer/EHSsinglesMar5.
pdf?docID=7884. Accessed July 31, 2015
52. Administration for Children and
Families, Office of Child Care. OCC
fact sheet. Available at: www.acf.hhs.
gov/programs/occ/fact-sheet-occ.
Accessed January 19, 2016
53. Karoly LA, Kilburn MR, Cannon JS.
Proven benefits of early childhood
interventions [research brief]. Santa
Monica, CA: Rand Corporation; 2005.
Available at: www.rand.org/content/
dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/2005/
RAND_RB9145.pdf. Accessed July 31,
2015
54. Heckman JJ. The case for investing in
disadvantaged young children. In: Big
Ideas for Children: Investing in Our
Nation’s Future. Washington, DC: First
Focus; 2008:49–58
55. Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and
Children. WIC eligibility requirements.

Downloaded from by guest on March 9, 2016

Available at: www.fns.usda.gov/wic/
howtoapply/eligibilityrequirements.
htm. Accessed July 31, 2015
56. Colman S, Nichols-Barrer IP, Redline
JE, Devaney BL, Ansell SV, Joyce T.
Effects of the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children (WIC): a review of
recent research. Alexandria, VA: US
Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service; 2012. Report WIC12-WM. Available at: www.mathematicampr.com/~/media/publications/pdfs/
nutrition/wic_research_review.pdf.
Accessed January 11, 2016
57. Suchman A, Mendelson M, Patlan
KL, Freeman B, Gotlieb R, Connor
P. WIC Participant and Program
Characteristics 2012. Prepared by
Insight Policy Research under contract
no. AG-3198-C-11-0010. Alexandria,
VA: Food and Nutrition Service, US
Department of Agriculture; 2013
58. Jackson MI. Early childhood WIC
participation, cognitive development
and academic achievement. Soc Sci
Med. 2015;126:145–153
59. Executive Office of the President of the
United States. Long-term benefits of
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program. December 2015. Available
at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
whitehouse.gov/files/documents/
SNAP_report_final_nonembargo.pdf.
Accessed January 11, 2016
60. US Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service. SNAP
benefits alleviate the intensity and
incidence of poverty. Available at: www.
ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012-june/
snap-benefits.aspx#.VolJcBHVStV.
Accessed January 11, 2016
61. US Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service. National School
Lunch Program. Available at: www.
fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/
NSLPFactSheet.pdf. Accessed July 31,
2015
62. Southern Education Foundation. A
New Majority Research Bulletin: low
income students now a majority in the
nation’s public schools. Atlanta, GA:
Southern Education Foundation; 2015.
Available at: www.southerneducation
.org/Our-Strategies/Researchand-Publications/New-MajorityDiverse-Majority-Report-Series/

FROM THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

 A-New-Majority-2015-Update-LowIncome-Students-Now. Accessed July
31, 2015

Pediatrics. 2007;120(3). Available at:
www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/
120/3/e658

63. Lumeng JC, Kaciroti N, Sturza
J, et al. Changes in body mass
index associated with head start
participation. Pediatrics. 2015;135(2).
Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/
content/full/135/2/e449

72. Perrin EC, Sheldrick RC, McMenamy
JM, Henson BS, Carter AS. Improving
parenting skills for families of young
children in pediatric settings: a
randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr.
2014;168(1):16–24

64. US Department of Health and Human
Services. Maternal, Infant, and Early
Childhood Home Visiting Program.
Available at: http://mchb.hrsa.gov/
programs/homevisiting/index.html.
Accessed July 31, 2015

73. Bauer NS, Webster-Stratton C.
Prevention of behavioral disorders
in primary care. Curr Opin Pediatr.
2006;18(6):654–660

65. Health Resources and Services
Administration. Home visiting models.
Available at: http://mchb.hrsa.gov/
programs/homevisiting/models.html.
Accessed July 31, 2015
66. Avellar S, Paulsell D, Sama-Miller
E, Del Grosso P, Akers L, Kleinman
R. Home visiting evidence of
effectiveness review: executive
summary. Washington, DC: Office of
Planning, Research and Evaluation,
Administration for Children and
Families, US Department of Health and
Human Services; 2015. Available at:
http://homvee.acf.hhs.gov/HomVEE_
Executive_Summary_2015.pdf.
Accessed January 3, 2016
67. Olds D. The nurse–family partnership:
an evidence-based preventive
intervention. Infant Ment Health J.
2006;27(1):5–25
68. National Center for Community-Based
Child Abuse Prevention. Protective
Factors Survey. Available at: http://
friendsnrc.org/protective-factorssurvey. Accessed July 31, 2015
69. Zuckerman B. Promoting early literacy
in pediatric practice: twenty years
of reach out and read. Pediatrics.
2009;124(6):1660–1665
70. Mendelsohn AL, Dreyer BP, Brockmeyer
CA, Berkule-Silberman SB, Morrow
LM. Fostering early development and
school readiness in pediatric settings.
In: Dickinson D, Neuman SB, eds.
Handbook of Early Literacy Research.
Vol. 3. New York, NY: Guilford;
2011:279–294
71. Minkovitz CS, Strobino D, Mistry KB, et
al. Healthy Steps for Young Children:
sustained results at 5.5 years.

PEDIATRICS Volume 137, number 4, April 2016

74. Diener ML, Hobson Rohrer W, Byington
CL. Kindergarten readiness and
performance of Latino children
participating in Reach Out and Read.
J Community Med Health Educ.
2012;2:133
75. Mendelsohn AL, Mogilner LN,
Dreyer BP, et al. The impact of a
clinic-based literacy intervention
on language development in innercity preschool children. Pediatrics.
2001;107(1):130–134

81. Brcic V, Eberdt C, Kaczorowski J.
Development of a tool to identify
poverty in a family practice setting:
a pilot study. Int J Family Med.
2011;2011:812182
82. Cutts DB, Meyers AF, Black MM, et al.
US housing insecurity and the health
of very young children. Am J Public
Health. 2011;101(8):1508–1514
83. Shonkoff JP, Richter L, van der Gaag
J, Bhutta ZA. An integrated scientific
framework for child survival and early
childhood development. Pediatrics.
2012;129(2). Available at: www.
pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/129/2/
e460
84. Heckman JJ. Skill formation and
the economics of investing in
disadvantaged children. Science.
2006;312(5782):1900–1902
85. Barnett WS. Benefit-cost analysis of
preschool education. 2004. Available
at: http://nieer.org/resources/files/
BarnettBenefits.ppt. Accessed July 31,
2015

76. Weintraub D, Rodgers MA, Botcheva
L, et al. Pilot study of medical-legal
partnership to address social and
legal needs of patients. J Health
Care Poor Underserved. 2010;21(2
suppl):157–168

86. Yoshikawa H, Aber JL, Beardslee WR.
The effects of poverty on the mental,
emotional, and behavioral health
of children and youth: implications
for prevention. Am Psychol.
2012;67(4):272–284

77. Vasan A, Solomon BS. Use of colocated
multidisciplinary services to
address family psychosocial needs
at an urban pediatric primary
care clinic. Clin Pediatr (Phila).
2015;54(1):25–32

87. McEwen BS, Gianaros PJ. Central role
of the brain in stress and adaptation:
links to socioeconomic status, health,
and disease. Ann N Y Acad Sci.
2010;1186:190–222

78. Garg A, Butz AM, Dworkin PH, Lewis
RA, Thompson RE, Serwint JR.
Improving the management of family
psychosocial problems at low-income
children’s well-child care visits:
the WE CARE Project. Pediatrics.
2007;120(3):547–558

88. Johnson SB, Riley AW, Granger DA, Riis
J. The science of early life toxic stress
for pediatric practice and advocacy.
Pediatrics. 2013;131(2):319–327

79. Council on Community Pediatrics;
Committee on Nutrition. Promoting
food security for all children.
Pediatrics. 2015;136(5). Available at:
www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/
136/5/e1431

89. Woodrow Wilson School of Public
and International Affairs at Princeton
University; Brookings Institution.
Helping parents, helping children:
two-generation mechanisms. Future
Child. 2014;24(1):1–170. Available at:
www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/
publications/journals/journal_details/
index.xml?journalid=81. Accessed
January 11, 2016

80. Hager ER, Quigg AM, Black MM, et al.
Development and validity of a 2-item
screen to identify families at risk for
food insecurity. Pediatrics. 2010;126(1).
Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/
content/full/126/1/e26

90. Heckman JJ, Kautz T. Fostering and
measuring skills: interventions that
improve character and cognition. In:
Heckman JJ, Humphries JE, Kautz T,
eds. The Myth of Achievement Tests:
The GED and the Role of Character in

Downloaded from by guest on March 9, 2016

13

 American Life. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press; 2014:293–317
91. Waldfogel J. Tackling child poverty
and improving child well-being:
lessons from Britain. Report for
First Focus and Foundation for Child
Development. 2010. Available at: http://
fcd-us.org/resources/tackling-childpoverty-and-improving-child-wellbeing-lessons-britain. Accessed July
31, 2015
92. Antonelli RC, McAllister JW, Popp J.
Making care coordination a
critical component of the pediatric
health system: a multidisciplinary
framework. The Commonwealth
Fund; 2009. Available at: www.
commonwealthfund.org/publications/
fund-reports/2009/may/making-carecoordination-a-critical-component-ofthe-pediatric-health-system. Accessed
July 31, 2015

14

93. Rosenthal EL, Brownstein JN, Rush CH,
et al. Community health workers: part
of the solution. Health Aff (Millwood).
2010;29(7):1338–1342
94. Nationwide Children’s. Healthy
neighborhoods, healthy families.
Available at: www.nationwidechildre
ns.org/healthy-neighborhoods-healthyfamilies. Accessed July 31, 2015
95. The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Improving access to public benefits
helping eligible individuals and
families get the income supports
they need. April 2010. Available
at: www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/
Topics/Economic%20Security/
Family%20Economic%20Supports/
ImprovingAccesstoPublicBenefitsHel
pingEligibl/BenefitsAccess41410.pdf.
Accessed July 31, 2015
96. US Department of Health and Human
Services; Administration for Children

Downloaded from by guest on March 9, 2016

and Families; Office of Head Start;
USA.gov. Training guides for the Head
Start Learning Community: abstracts.
2000. Available at: http://eclkc.ohs.
acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/pd/pds/
Cultivating%20a%20Learning%20
Organization/TrainingGuidesf.htm.
Accessed July 31, 2015
97. Center for the Study of Social Policy;
American Academy of Pediatrics.
Primary health partners. Promoting
children’s health and resiliency: a
strengthening families approach.
Available at: www.cssp.org/reform/
strengthening-families/messagingat-the-intersection/Messaging-at-theIntersections_Primary-Health.pdf.
Accessed July 31, 2015
98. The Neighborhood Developers.
Available at: www.theneighborhoodde
velopers.org/money-wise/. Accessed July
31, 2015

FROM THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

 Poverty and Child Health in the United States
COUNCIL ON COMMUNITY PEDIATRICS
Pediatrics; originally published online March 9, 2016;
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2016-0339
Updated Information &
Services

including high resolution figures, can be found at:
/content/early/2016/03/07/peds.2016-0339.full.html

References

This article cites 38 articles, 20 of which can be accessed free
at:
/content/early/2016/03/07/peds.2016-0339.full.html#ref-list-1

Subspecialty Collections

This article, along with others on similar topics, appears in
the following collection(s):
Advocacy
/cgi/collection/advocacy_sub

Permissions & Licensing

Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures,
tables) or in its entirety can be found online at:
/site/misc/Permissions.xhtml

Reprints

Information about ordering reprints can be found online:
/site/misc/reprints.xhtml

PEDIATRICS is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly
publication, it has been published continuously since 1948. PEDIATRICS is owned, published,
and trademarked by the American Academy of Pediatrics, 141 Northwest Point Boulevard, Elk
Grove Village, Illinois, 60007. Copyright © 2016 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. All
rights reserved. Print ISSN: 0031-4005. Online ISSN: 1098-4275.

Downloaded from by guest on March 9, 2016

 Poverty and Child Health in the United States
COUNCIL ON COMMUNITY PEDIATRICS
Pediatrics; originally published online March 9, 2016;
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2016-0339

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is
located on the World Wide Web at:
/content/early/2016/03/07/peds.2016-0339.full.html

PEDIATRICS is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly
publication, it has been published continuously since 1948. PEDIATRICS is owned,
published, and trademarked by the American Academy of Pediatrics, 141 Northwest Point
Boulevard, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, 60007. Copyright © 2016 by the American Academy
of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 0031-4005. Online ISSN: 1098-4275.

Downloaded from by guest on March 9, 2016