Poverty in the United States: A Review of Relevant Programs

Abstract

Poverty is a major social problem in the United States: in 2014, the U.S. Census Bureau reported 46.7 million people living in poverty and an estimated 14.8 percent poverty rate. The poverty rate has been steadily increasing in the United States, with a 2 percent increase in 2012 over 2007. Federal and state governments have initiated many anti‐poverty programs, starting with the New Deal Program in the 1930s. With the advent of a new governance approach in the 1990s, many hierarchical bureaucratic government agencies were replaced with public, private, network, and collaborative approaches to solve this complex national problem. Tax expenditures, vouchers, and grants are the three major governance tools used by the U.S. federal and state governments to fight poverty. This article addresses three important programs—the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)—used in fighting poverty in the United States and discusses the problem of poverty, the effectiveness of these governance tools, suggestions for future research, and policy implications

The value of data matching for public poverty initiatives: a local voucher program example

“…"These include policies aimed at boosting the demand for workers, and particularly the demand for people with low levels of education or weak work experience…policy can stimulate (e.g., through fiscal reform) or support (e.g., through child care) people to take-up work or to increase working hours" (Marx et al, 2014(Marx et al, , 2098. Matching the policy instrument mix to the underlying causes of poverty requires "tool knowledge," "design knowledge," and "operating knowledge" (Salamon, 2002;Varghese, 2016). Many countries also rely on direct as well as indirect measures that play out at national and local levels.…”

“…Voucher programs are specific types of policy instruments that are "a means of paying for goods or services that is issued by the public authorities to individual 'consumers' who are authorized to use it in any approved institution for the specific purpose for which it was issued" (Colin, 2005, 21). Thus, the voucher system is a form of redistribution where the provider is reimbursed by the government if the voucher is presented for services or goods (Varghese, 2016). The voucher can thereby be explicit or implicit-it can take shape in form of food stamps (explicit) or in form of services such as housing or school enrolment (implicit).…”

“…Most of the research on vouchers focuses on housing and education as well as their market effect. For example, the idea that parents are allowed to enrol their children in a school of their choosing with the goal of improving graduation rates among minors in disadvantaged neighborhoods (Levine and Levine, 2013;Varghese, 2016). The literature shows that voucher systems reduce red tape, because they are a direct instrument reaching citizens and, in many cases, do not even require an application on the side of the recipients.…”

“…In this context, we add to the discussion by focusing on the challenges and opportunities of linking data in order to gain insights into the uptake of a specific policy initiative: a Dutch local voucher program. There is extensive research on the use of vouchers in the (North American) housing market and for offering access to different education facilities without spatial restrictions (Steuerle, 2000;Colin, 2005;Levine and Levine, 2013;Wolf et al, 2013;Varghese, 2016), but limited insights into other types of nonmonetary poverty initiatives outside the United States. For this research, we look at use of vouchers for recreational activities with the goal of participation for disadvantaged groups in one Dutch municipality.…”

Private Investment and Public Redevelopment: The Case of New Markets Tax Credits

“…These changes included the transfer of higher authority and responsibility to state and local governments in addressing social problems (Conlan, ; Craw, ; Doamekpor & Beckett, ), and an increasing reliance on the private sector to design and execute publicly funded solutions (Hula, ; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development‐Office of Policy Development and Research, ). These transformations ushered in the use of new governance tools, such as public–private partnerships, to promote economic revitalization (Donahue & Zeckhauser, ; Hodge, Greve, & Boardman., ; Levitt & Kirlin, ; Varghese, ).…”