Report: Child poverty has nearly tripled since 2021 – Vermont Business Magazine

Report on Rising Child Poverty in the United States and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A 2025 report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, titled “Measuring Access to Opportunity in the United States: A 10-Year Update,” reveals a significant setback in the effort to combat child poverty, directly impacting the United States’ progress toward several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The supplemental child poverty rate surged from a historic low of 5% in 2021 to 13% in 2024, following the expiration of pandemic-era economic support policies. This report analyzes these findings through the lens of the SDGs, highlighting the critical role of public policy in achieving targets related to poverty, inequality, and economic well-being.

Key Findings on Child Poverty Rates

• Dramatic Increase: The supplemental child poverty rate nearly tripled between 2021 and 2024, rising from 5% to 13%.
• Policy Impact: The data demonstrates the profound effect of government interventions. Without social support programs, the 2024 child poverty rate would be approximately 25%, nearly double the current figure.
• Working Families Affected: In 2024, 61% of children living in poverty (5.9 million) had at least one employed parent, indicating that employment alone is insufficient to prevent poverty and underscoring challenges related to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).
• National and State Disparities: The national average supplemental child poverty rate stands at 13%. State-level rates vary significantly, from 5% in Maine to 19% in Louisiana and Washington, D.C.

Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The report’s findings present a direct challenge to the achievement of multiple SDGs:

1. SDG 1: No Poverty: The sharp increase in child poverty represents a significant regression from the primary goal of eradicating poverty in all its forms. The success of 2021 policies, which lifted 15 million children from poverty, proves that targeted interventions are effective tools for achieving SDG 1.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The poverty increase disproportionately affected children of color, exacerbating existing inequalities.
   • Poverty among Black children rose from 8% to 23%.
   • Poverty among Latino children rose from 8% to 21%.
   • Geographical disparities widened, with the South experiencing the highest rates and the greatest increase.
3. SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) & SDG 4 (Quality Education): Poverty poses a severe threat to children’s long-term development, health, and educational outcomes. High-poverty communities often face under-resourced schools and increased public health burdens, hindering progress on these interconnected goals.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The report underscores the necessity of effective public institutions and data-driven policymaking. The call to maintain high-quality, accessible government data from the U.S. Census Bureau is crucial for accurately measuring policy effectiveness and ensuring institutional accountability in addressing poverty.

Economic and Social Implications

The economic cost of child poverty is estimated at up to $1 trillion annually for the United States. This cost is incurred through lost productivity, lower lifetime earnings, and increased expenditure on healthcare and crime prevention. This economic drain impedes national progress towards SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

Policy Recommendations for SDG Advancement

Based on the report’s data, the following policy actions are recommended to realign with SDG targets:

1. Strengthen Public Policy: Policymakers must prioritize and invest in supportive public policies, such as tax credits and assistance programs, which have a proven capacity to reduce child poverty by half and directly contribute to SDG 1.
2. Promote Family-Sustaining Wages: Address the issue of in-work poverty by promoting employment practices and policies that ensure family-sustaining wages, in line with the principles of SDG 8.
3. Ensure Data Integrity: Maintain the availability of high-quality public data to accurately measure the impact of policies on poverty and inequality, a key component for the effective governance outlined in SDG 16.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article primarily addresses two Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) based on its focus on child poverty, economic disparities, and the role of public policy.

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  This is the most central SDG to the article. The entire text revolves around the issue of child poverty in the United States, its dramatic increase from 5% in 2021 to 13% in 2024, and the effectiveness of government policies in alleviating it. The article’s core message, as stated by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, is that “public programs directly help our nation’s children” and that without these interventions, the child poverty rate would nearly double to 25%.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article explicitly highlights significant inequalities in how poverty affects different demographic and geographic groups. It states, “poverty rose among all children from 2021 to 2024, children of color had steeper rises than others.” It provides specific data showing poverty among Black children rose from 8% to 23% and among Latino children from 8% to 21%. Furthermore, it points out geographical disparities, noting that “the South has the highest child poverty rates and saw the greatest increase.” This directly connects to the goal of reducing inequalities within and among countries.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.

   The article is entirely focused on measuring and understanding child poverty according to a national definition, the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). It discusses the fluctuation of the child poverty rate (from a low of 5% to 13%) and demonstrates how policy interventions, such as the expanded child tax credit, can significantly reduce this proportion, aligning directly with the objective of this target.

2. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.

   The article’s data on the disproportionate increase in poverty for Black and Latino children directly relates to this target. By highlighting that these groups experienced “steeper rises” in poverty, the article underscores a failure of economic inclusion for children based on their race and ethnicity. The analysis of varying poverty rates by region (e.g., the South having the highest rates) also points to unequal economic outcomes that this target aims to address.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions and implies several specific indicators that are used to measure progress toward the identified targets.

• Indicator for Target 1.2: Proportion of the population living below the national poverty line, by age.

  The article provides precise data points for this indicator. It uses the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) as the national poverty line and reports the “child poverty rate” as a key metric. Specific values mentioned include:

  • 5% of children in the U.S. lived in poverty in 2021.
  • 13% of children in the U.S. lived in poverty in 2024.
  • A hypothetical rate of 25% without government interventions.
• Indicator for Target 10.2: Proportion of the population living below the national poverty line, disaggregated by race and geographic location.

  The article provides disaggregated data that serves as a direct indicator of inequality. This allows for measuring progress (or lack thereof) for specific groups, which is essential for Target 10.2. The specific indicators mentioned are:

  • By Race: The poverty rate among Black children rose from 8% to 23%, and among Latino children from 8% to 21% between 2021 and 2024.
  • By Geography: The article notes that “the South has the highest child poverty rates” and provides state-level data, such as Vermont (9%), Maine (5%), and Louisiana (19%).
• Measurement Methodology: The Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM).

  The article explicitly names the SPM as a “more accurate gauge” for measuring poverty. It describes the SPM as an indicator that “accounts for essential expenses such as housing, medical and child care; adjusts for rising costs and geographic differences… and measures the effectiveness of vital resources like tax credits.” This detailed methodology itself can be considered an implied indicator of a country’s capacity to accurately measure poverty in all its dimensions, as called for in Target 1.2.

4. Summary of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: vermontbiz.com