Poverty in America: Economic Research Shows Adverse Impacts on Health Status and Other Social Conditions as well as the Economic Growth Rate
Released: 2007-01-24T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Economic growth is one of the indicators by which the well-being of the nation is typically measured, although recent discussions have focused on a broader set of indicators, such as poverty. Poverty in the United States is officially measured by the Census Bureau, which calculates the number of persons or households living below an established level of income deemed minimally adequate to support them. The federal government has a long- standing history of assisting individuals and families living in poverty by providing services and income transfers through numerous and various types of programs.

Measuring the Nation’s Well-Being: Economic Growth and Other Indicators

Economic growth is typically defined as the increase in the value of goods and services produced by an economy; traditionally this growth has been measured by the percentage rate of increase in a country’s gross domestic product, or GDP. The growth in GDP is a key measure by which policy- makers estimate how well the economy is doing. However, it provides little information about how well individuals and households are faring.

Recently there has been a substantial amount of activity in the United States and elsewhere to develop a comprehensive set of key indicators for communities, states, and the nation that go beyond traditional economic measures. Many believe that such a system would better inform individuals, groups, and institutions on the nation as a whole. Poverty is one of these key indicators. Poverty, both narrowly and more broadly defined, is a characteristic of society that is frequently monitored and defined and measured in a number of ways.

How Is Poverty Defined in the United States.?

The Census Bureau is responsible for establishing a poverty threshold amount each year; persons or families having income below this amount are, for statistical purposes, considered to be living in poverty. The threshold reflects estimates of the amount of money individuals and families of various sizes need to purchase goods and services deemed minimally adequate based on 1960s living standards, and is adjusted each year using the consumer price index. The poverty rate is the percentage of individuals in total or as part of various subgroups in the United States who are living on income below the threshold amounts.

Over the years, experts have debated whether or not the way in which the poverty threshold is calculated should be changed. Currently the calculation only accounts for pretax income and does not include noncash benefits and tax transfers, which, especially in recent years, have comprised larger portions of the assistance package to those who are low- income. For example, food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit could provide a combined amount of assistance worth an estimated $5,000 for working adults with children who earn approximately $12,000 a year.If noncash benefits were included in a calculation of the poverty threshold, the number and percentage of individuals at or below the poverty line could change. In 1995, a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel recommended that changes be made to the threshold to count noncash benefits, tax credits, and taxes; deduct certain expenses from income such as child care and transportation; and adjust income levels according to an area’s cost of living. In response, the Census Bureau published an experimental poverty measure in 1999 using the NAS recommendations in addition to its traditional measure but, to date, Census has not changed the official measure.

U.S. Poverty Rates

In 2005, close to 13 percent of the total U.S. population—about 37 million people—were counted as living below the poverty line, a number that essentially remained unchanged from 2004. Poverty rates differ, however, by age, gender, race, and ethnicity and other factors. For example,

Children: In 2005, 12.3 million children, or 17.1 percent of children under the age of 18, were counted as living in poverty. Children of color were at least three times more likely to be in poverty than those who were white: 3.7 million, or 34.2 percent of, children who were African- American and 4 million, or 27.7 percent of, children who were Hispanic lived below the poverty line compared to 4 million, or 9.5 percent of, children who were white.

Racial and ethnic minorities: African-Americans and Hispanics have significantly higher rates of poverty than whites. In 2005, 24.9 percent of African-Americans (9.2 million) and 22 percent of Hispanics (9.4 million) lived in poverty, compared to 8.3 percent for whites (16.2 million).

Elderly: The elderly have lower rates of poverty than other groups. For example, 10.1 percent of adults (3.6 million) aged 65 or older lived in poverty.

Poverty rates also differ depending on geographical location and for urban and nonurban areas. Poverty rates for urban areas were double those in suburbs, 17 percent compared to 9.3 percent. Poverty rates in the South were the highest at 14 percent; the West had a rate of 12.6 percent, followed by the Midwest with 11.4 percent and the Northeast at 11.3 percent.

The Role of the Federal Government

The U.S. government has a long history of efforts to improve the conditions of those living with severely limited resources and income. Presidents, Congress, and other policymakers have actively sought to help citizens who were poor, beginning as early as the 1850s through the more recent efforts established through welfare reform initiatives enacted in 1996.

Over the years, the policy approaches used to help low-income individuals and families have varied. For example, in the1960s federal programs focused on increasing the education and training of those living in poverty. In the 1970s, policy reflected a more income-oriented approach with the introduction of several comprehensive federal assistance plans. More recently, welfare reform efforts have emphasized the role of individual responsibility and behaviors in areas such as family formation and work to assist people in becoming self-sufficient. Although alleviating poverty and the conditions associated with it has long been a federal priority, approaches to developing effective interventions have sometimes been controversial, as evidenced by the diversity of federal programs in existence and the ways in which they have evolved over time.

Currently, the federal government, often in partnership with the states, has created an array of programs to assist low-income individuals and families. According to a recent study by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the federal government spent over $400 billion on 84 programs in 2004 that provided cash and noncash benefits to individuals and families with limited income. These programs cover a broad array of services: Examples include income supports or transfers such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and TANF; work supports such as subsidized child care and job training; health supports and insurance through programs like the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Medicaid; and other social services such as food, housing, and utility assistance. Table 1 provides a list of examples of selected programs.

Economic Research Links Poverty with Adverse Outcomes for Individuals Such as Poor Health and Crime

Economic research suggests that individuals living in poverty face an increased risk for adverse outcomes, such as poor health, criminal activity, and low participation in the workforce. The adverse outcomes that are associated with poverty tend to limit the development of skills and abilities individuals need to contribute productively to the economy through work, and this in turn, results in low incomes. The relationship between poverty and outcomes for individuals is complex, in part because most variables, like health status, can be both a cause and a result of poverty. The direction of the causality can have important policy implications. To the extent that poor health causes poverty, and not the other way around, then alleviating poverty may not improve health.

Individuals Living in Poverty Experience Higher Rates of Adverse Health Outcomes, in Part because of Limited Access to Health Care, Environmental Hazards, and Risky Behaviors

Health outcomes are worse for individuals with low incomes than for their more affluent counterparts. Lower-income individuals experience higher rates of chronic illness, disease, and disabilities, and also die younger than those who have higher incomes. As reported by the National Center on Health Statistics, individuals living in poverty are more likely than their affluent counterparts to experience fair or poor health, or suffer from conditions that limit their everyday activities (fig.1). They also report higher rates of chronic conditions such as hypertension, high blood pressure, and elevated serum cholesterol, which can be predictors of more acute conditions in the future. Life expectancies for individuals in poor families as compared to nonpoor families also differ significantly. One study showed that individuals with low incomes had life expectancies 25 percent lower than those with higher incomes. Other research suggests that an individual’s household wealth predicts the amount of functionality of that individual in retirement.

Research suggests that part of the reason that those in poverty have poor health outcomes is that they have less access to health insurance and thus less access to health care, particularly preventive care, than others who are nonpoor. Very low-income individuals were three times as likely not to have health insurance than those with higher incomes, which may lead to reduced access to and utilization of health care (fig. 2).

Data show that those who are poor with no health insurance access the health system less often than those who are either insured or wealthier when measured by one indicator of health care access: visits to the doctor. For example, data from the National Center on Health Statistics show that children in families with income below the poverty line who were continuously without health insurance were three to four times more likely to have not visited a doctor in the last 12 months than children in similar economic circumstances who were insured (fig. 3). Research also suggests that a link between income and health exists independent of health insurance coverage. Figure 3 also shows that while children who are uninsured but in wealthier families visit the doctor fewer times than those who are insured, they still go more often than children who are uninsured but living in poverty.

Some research examining government health insurance suggests that increased health insurance availability improves health outcomes. Economists have studied the expansion of Medicaid, which provides health insurance to those with low income. They found that Medicaid’s expansion of coverage, which occurred between 1979 and 1992, increased the availability of insurance and improved children’s health outcomes. For example, one study found that a 30 percentage point increase in eligibility for mothers aged 15-44 translated into a decrease in infant mortality of 8.5 percent. Another study looked at the impact of health insurance coverage through Medicare and its effects on the health of the elderly and also found a statistically significant though modest impact. There is some evidence that variations in health insurance coverage do not explain all the differences in health outcomes. A study done in Canada found improvements in children’s health with increases in income, even though Canada offers universal health insurance coverage for hospital services, indicating that health insurance is only part of the story.

Although there is a connection among poverty, having health insurance, and health outcomes, having health insurance is often associated with other attributes of an individual, thus making it difficult to isolate the direct effect of health insurance alone. Most individuals in the United States are either self-insured or insured through their employer. If those who are uninsured have lower levels of education, as do individuals with low income, differences in health between the insured and uninsured might be due to level or quality of education, and not necessarily insurance.

Another reason that individuals living in poverty may have more negative health outcomes is because they live and work in areas that expose them to environmental hazards such as pollution or substandard housing. Some researchers have found that because poorer neighborhoods may be located closer to industrial areas or highways than more affluent neighborhoods, there tend to be higher levels of pollution in lower-income neighborhoods. The Institute of Medicine concluded that minority and low-income communities had disproportionately higher exposure to environmental hazards than the general population, and because of their impoverished conditions were less able to effectively change these conditions.

The link between poverty and health outcomes may also be explained by lifestyle issues associated with poverty. Sedentary life-style: the use of alcohol and drugs; as well as lower consumption of fiber, fresh fruits, and vegetables are some of the behaviors that have been associated with lower socioeconomic status. Cigarette smoking is also more common among adults who live below the poverty line than among those above it, about 30 percent compared to 21 percent. Similarly, problems with being overweight and obese are common among those with low family incomes, although most prevalent in women: Women with incomes below 130 percent of the poverty line were 50 percent more likely to be obese than those with incomes above this amount. Figure 4 shows that people living in poverty are less likely to engage in regular, leisure-time physical activity than others and are somewhat more likely to be obese, and children in poverty are somewhat more likely to be overweight than children living above the poverty line. In addition, there is also evidence to suggest a link among poverty, stress, and adverse health outcomes, such as compromised immune systems.

While evidence shows how poverty could result in poor health, the opposite could also be true. For example, a health condition could result, over time, in restricting an individual’s employment, resulting in lower income. Additionally, the relationship between poverty and health outcomes could also vary by demographic group. Failing health, for example, can be more directly associated with household income for middle-aged and older individuals than with children, since adults are typically the ones who work.

Economic Research Shows an Association Between Poverty and Crime

Just as research has established a link between poverty and adverse health outcomes, evidence suggests a link between poverty and crime. Economic theory predicts that low wages or unemployment makes crime more attractive, even with the risks of arrest and incarceration, because of lower returns to an individual through legal activities. While more mixed, empirical research provides support for this. For example, one study shows that higher levels of unemployment are associated with higher levels of property crime, but is less conclusive in predicting violent crime.Another study has shown that both wages and unemployment affect crime, but that wages play a larger role.

Research has found that peer influence and neighborhood effects may also lead to increased criminal behavior by residents. Having many peers that engage in negative behavior may reduce social stigma surrounding that behavior. In addition, increased crime in an area may decrease the chances that any particular criminal activity will result in an arrest. Other research suggests that the neighborhood itself, independent of the characteristics of the individuals who live in it, affects criminal behavior.One study found that arrest rates were lower among young people from low-income families who were given a voucher to live in a low-poverty neighborhood, as opposed to their peers who stayed in high-poverty neighborhoods. The most notable decrease was in arrests for violent crimes; the results for property crimes, however, were mixed, with arrest rates increasing for males and decreasing for females.

Adverse Outcomes, Such as Poor Health and Low Educational Attainment, Lead to Reduced Participation in the Labor Market

Regardless of whether poverty is a cause or an effect, the conditions associated with poverty limit the ability of low-income individuals to develop the skills, abilities, knowledge, and habits necessary to fully participate in the labor force, in turn, leads to lower incomes. According to 2000 Census data, people aged 20-64 with income above the poverty line in 1999 were almost twice as likely to be employed as compared to those with incomes below it. Some of the reasons for these outcomes include educational attainment and health status.

Poverty is associated with lower educational quality and attainment, both of which can affect labor market outcomes. Research has consistently demonstrated that the quality and level of education attained by lower- income children is substantially below those for children from middle- or upper-income families. Moreover, high school dropout rates in 2004 were four times higher for students from low-income families than those in high-income families. Those with less than a high school degree have unemployment rates almost three times greater than those with a college degree, 7.6 percent compared to 2.6 percent in 2005. And the percentage of low-income students who attend college immediately after high school is significantly lower than for their wealthier counterparts: 49 percent compared to 78 percent.

A significant body of economic research directly links adverse health outcomes, which are also associated with low incomes, with the quality and quantity of labor that the individual is able to offer to the workforce. Many studies that have examined the relationship among individual adult health and wages, labor force participation, and job choice have documented positive empirical relationships among health and wages, earnings, and hours of work. Although there is no consensus about the exact magnitude of the effects, the empirical literature suggests that poor health reduces the capacity to work and has substantive effects on wages, labor force participation, and job choice, meaning that poor health is associated with low income.

Research also demonstrates that poor childhood health has substantial effects on children’s future outcomes as adults. Some research, for example, shows that low birth weight is correlated with a low health status later in life. Research also suggests that poor childhood health is associated with reduced educational attainment and reduced cognitive development. Reduced educational attainment may in turn have a causal effect not only on future wages as discussed above but also on adult health if the more educated are better able to process health information or make more informed choices about their health care or if education makes people more “future oriented” by helping them think about the consequences of their choices. In addition, some research shows that poor childhood health is predictive of poor adult health and poor adult economic status in middle age, even after controlling for educational attainment.

Economic Research Suggests a Negative Association between Poverty and Economic Growth

The economic literature suggests that poverty not only affects individuals but can also create larger challenges for economic growth. Traditionally, research has focused on the importance of economic growth for generating rising living standards and alleviating poverty, but more recently it has examined the reverse, the impact of poverty on economic growth. In the United States, poverty can impact economic growth by affecting the accumulation of human capital and rates of crime and social unrest. While the empirical research is limited, it points to the negative association between poverty and economic growth consistent with the theoretical literature’s conclusion that higher rates of poverty can result in lower rates of growth.

Research has shown that accumulation of human capital is one of the fundamental drivers of economic growth. Human capital consists of the skills, abilities, talents, and knowledge of individuals as used in employment. The accumulation of human capital is generally held to be a function of the education level, work experience, training, and healthiness of the workforce. Therefore, schooling at the secondary and higher levels is a key component for building an educated labor force that is better at learning, creating, and implementing new technologies. Health is also an important component of human capital, as it can enhance workers’ productivity by increasing their physical capacities, such as strength and endurance, as well as mental capacities, such as cognitive functioning and reasoning ability. Improved health increases workforce productivity by reducing incapacity, disability, and the number of days lost to sick leave, and increasing the opportunities to accumulate work experience. Further, good health helps improve education by increasing levels of schooling and scholastic performance.

The accumulation of human capital can be diminished when significant portions of the population have experienced long periods of poverty, or were living in poverty at a critical developmental juncture. For example, recent research has found that the distinct slowdown in some measures of human capital development is most heavily concentrated among youth from impoverished backgrounds. When individuals who have experienced poverty enter the workforce, their contributions may be restricted or minimal, while others may not enter the workforce in a significant way. Not only is the productive capability of some citizens lost, but their purchasing power and savings, which could be channeled into productive investments, is forgone as well.

In addition to the effects of poverty on human capital, some economic literature suggests that poverty can affect economic growth to the extent that it is associated with crime, violence, and social unrest. According to some theories, when citizens engage in unproductive criminal activities they deter others from making productive investments or their actions force others to divert resources toward defensive activities and expenditures. The increased risk due to insecurity can unfavorably affect investment decisions—and hence economic growth—in areas afflicted by concentrated poverty. Although such theories link poverty to human capital deficiencies and criminal activity, the magnitude of their impact on economic growth for an economy such as the United States is unclear at this time. In addition, people living in impoverished conditions generate budgetary costs for the federal government, which spends billions of dollars on programs to assist low-income individuals and families. Alleviating these conditions would allow the federal government to redirect these resources toward other purposes.

While economic theory provides a guide to understanding how poverty might compromise economic growth, empirical researchers have not as extensively studied poverty as a determinant of growth in the United States. Empirical evidence on the United States and other rich nations is quite limited, but some recent studies support a negative association between poverty and economic growth. For example, some research finds that economic growth is slower in U.S. metropolitan areas characterized by higher rates of poverty than those with lower rates of poverty. Another study, using data from 21 wealthy countries, has found a similar negative relationship between poverty and economic growth.

Concluding Observations

Maintaining and enhancing economic growth is a national priority that touches on all aspects of federal decision making. As the nation moves forward in thinking about how to address the major challenges it will face in the twenty-first century, the impact of specific policies on economic growth will factor into decisions on topics as far ranging as taxes, support for scientific and technical innovation, retirement and disability, health care, education and employment. To the extent that empirical research can shed light on the factors that affect economic growth, this information can guide policymakers in allocating resources, setting priorities, and planning strategically for our nation’s future.

Economists have long recognized the strong association between poverty and a range of adverse outcomes for individuals, and empirical research, while limited, has also begun to help us better understand the impact of poverty on a nation’s economic growth. The interrelationships between poverty and various adverse social outcomes are complex, and our understanding of these relationships can lead to vastly different conclusions regarding appropriate interventions to address each specific outcome. Furthermore, any such interventions could take years, or even a generation, to yield significant and lasting results, as the greatest impacts are likely to be seen among children. Nevertheless, whatever the underlying causes of poverty may be, economic research suggests that improvements in the health, neighborhoods, education, and skills of those living in poverty could have impacts far beyond individuals and families, potentially improving the economic well-being of the nation as a whole.

Reviewer Comments

We provided the draft report to four outside reviewers with expertise in the areas of poverty and economic growth. The reviewers generally acknowledged that our report covers a substantial body of recent economic research on the topic and did not dispute the validity of the specific studies included in our review. However, they expressed some disagreement over our presentation of this research.

Some reviewers felt that the evidence directly linking poverty to adverse outcomes is more robust than implied by our summary and directed us to additional research that bolsters the link between poverty and poor health and crime. We did not incorporate this additional research into our findings, but we reviewed it and found it consistent with the evidence already incorporated in our summary. Other reviewers felt that our report implied a stronger relationship between poverty and adverse outcomes than is supported by the research. They felt that the report did not provide adequate information on the causes of poverty and external factors that could be responsible for both poverty and adverse outcomes. In response to these comments, we made several revisions to the text to ensure that the information we presented was balanced. The reviewers also provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate.

Copies of this report are being sent to the Departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Labor; appropriate congressional committees; and other interested parties. Copies will be made available to others upon request. The report is also available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about matters discussed in this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or at nilsens@gao.gov. Other contact and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Bibliography

Adler, Nancy E., and Katherine Newman. “Socioeconomic Disparities in Health: Pathways and Policies.” Health Affairs, Vol. 21 No. 2, 2002.

Aghion, Phillipe, et al. “Inequality and Economic Growth: The Perspective of the New Growth Theories.” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXVII: 1999.

Barro, Robert. “Inequality and growth in a panel of countries.” Journal of Economic Growth, 5 (1): 2000.

Barsky, Robert B., et al. “Preference Parameters and Behavioral Heterogenity: An Experimental Approach in the Health and Retirement Study.” Review of Economic Statistics, 1997.

Burtless, G., and C. Jenks. “American Inequality and Its Consequences.” In (eds), H. Aaron et al, Agenda for the Nation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2003.

Card, David, and Carlos Dobkin, Nicole Maestas. “The Impact of Nearly Universal Insurance Coverage on Health Care Utilization and Health: Evidence from Medicare.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 10365. Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research: 2004.

Case, Anne C., and Angus Deaton. “Broken Down by Work and Sex: How our Health Declines.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 9821. Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research: 2003.

Case, Anne, Angela Fertig, and Christina Paxson. “The Lasting Impact Of Childhood Health And Circumstance.” Journal of Health Economics, 24 (2): 2005.

Case, Anne, Darren Lubotsky, and Christina Paxson. “Economic Status and Health in Childhood: The Origins of the Gradient.” American Economic Review, Vol. 92, No. 5., Dec. 2002.

Chay, Kenneth, and Michael Greenstone. “Air Quality, Infant Mortality, and the Clean Air Act of 1970.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 10053. Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research: 2003.

Chui, W. Henry. “Income Inequality, Human Capital Accumulation and Economic Performance.” Economic Journal, 108. 1998.

Currie, Janet, and Jonathan Gruber. “Saving Babies: The Efficiency and Cost of Recent Changes in the Medicaid Eligibility of Pregnant Women.” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 104, No. 6, 1996.

Currie, Janet, and Rosemary Hyson. “Is the Impact of Health Shocks Cushioned by Socioecoomic Status? The Case of Low Birthweight” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings of the One Hundred Eleventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, 89 (2): 1999.

Currie, Janet, and Brigitte Madrian. “Health, Health Insurance and the Labor Market.” In (eds), O. Ashenfelter and D. Card, Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 3. Elsevier Science. 1999.

Currie, Janet and Mark Stabile. “Socioeconomic Status and Child Health: Why is the Relationship Stronger for Older Children?” American Economic Review, Vol. 93, No 5., Dec. 2003.

Currie, Janet, and Matthew Neidell. “Air Pollution and Infant Health: What Can We Learn From California’s Recent Experience?” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120 (3), 2005.

Cutler, David, Angus Deaton, and Adriana Lleras-Muney. “The Determinants of Mortality.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20, No. 3, 2006.

DeCicca, Phillip, Donald Kenkel, Alan Mathios. “Racial Difference in the Determinants of Smoking Onset.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 2000. Vol. 21, Iss. 2/3; p311. ———. “Putting Out The Fires: Will Higher Taxes Reduce the Onset of Youth Smoking?” Journal of Political Economy. 2002.Vol.110, Iss.1; p. 144.

Deaton, Angus. “Policy Implications of the Gradient of Health and Wealth.” Health Affairs, Vol. 21, No.2, 2002.

Delong, J. et al. “Sustaining U.S. Economic Growth.” In H. Aaron et al. (eds.), Agenda for the Nation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2003.

Dev Bhatta, Saurav. “Are Inequality and Poverty Harmful for Economic Growth: Evidence from the Metropolitan Areas of the United States.” Journal of Urban Affairs, 23 (3&4): 2001.

Fallah, B., and M. Partridge. “The Elusive Inequality-Economic Growth Relationship: Are There Differences between Cities and the Countryside?” University of Saskatchewan Working Paper, February 2006.

Federal Reserve Bank of New York, “Unequal Incomes, Unequal Outcomes? Economic Inequality and Measures of Well-Being: Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,” Economic Policy Review, Vol. 5 (3), September 1999. http://www.ny.frb.org/research/epr/1999n3.html.

Forbes, K. “A Reassessment of the Relationship between Inequality and Growth.” The American Economic Review, 90 (4): 2000.

Freeman, Richard B. “Why Do So Many Young American Men Commit Crimes and What Might We Do About It?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1996.

Gould, Eric D., Bruce A. Weinberg, and David B. Mustard. “Crime Rates and Local Labor Market Opportunities in the United States: 1979-1997.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84 (1): 2002.

Grogger, Jeff. “Market Wages and Youth Crime.” Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 16, No. 4. Chicago: 1998.

Heckman, J., and A. Krueger. Inequality in America: What Role for Human Capital Policies. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2003.

Ho, P. “Income Inequality and Economic Growth.” Kylos, 53 (3): 2003.

Holzer, Harry, et al. “The Economic Costs of Poverty in the United States.” Unpublished working paper, 2006.

Hsing, Yu. “Economic Growth And Income Inequality: The Case Of The US.” International Journal of Social Economics, 32 (7): 2005.

Katz, Lawrence F., Jeffrey R. Kling, and Jeffrey B. Liebman. “Moving to Opportunity in Boston: Early Results of a Randomized Mobility Experiment.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2001.

Kling, Jeffrey R., Jens Ludwig, and Lawrence F. Katz. “Neighborhood Effects on Crime for Female and Male Youth: Evidence from a Randomized Housing Voucher Experiment.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Feb. 2005.

Lochner, Lance, and Enrico Moretti. “The Effect of Education on Crime: Evidence from Prison Inmates, Arrests and Self-Reports.” American Economic Review, 2004.

Ludwig, Jens, and Greg J. Duncan, Paul Hirschfield. “Urban Poverty and Juvenile Crime: Evidence from a Randomized Housing-Mobility Experiment.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2001.

McGarry, Kathleen. “Health and Retirement: Do Changes in Health Affect Retirement Expectations?” Journal of Human Resources, Vol. XXXIX, 2004.

Mo, P. “Income Inequality and Economic Growth.” Kyklos, 53 (3): 2000.

Newberger, R., and T. Riggs, “The Impact of Poverty on Location of Financial Establishments: Evidence from Across-Country Data.” Profitwise News and Views, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, April 2006.

Panizza, Ugo. “Income Inequality and Economic Growth: Evidence from American Data.” Journal of Economic Growth, 7 (1): 2002.

Partridge, Mark. “Is Inequality Harmful for Growth? Comment.” The American Economic Review, 87 (5): 1997.

Persson, T., and G. Tabellini. “Is Inequality Harmful for Growth?” The American Economic Review, 84 (3): 1994.

Rank, Mark. One Nation Underprivileged: Why American Poverty Affects Us All. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Raphael, Steven, and Rudolf Winter-Ebner. “Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime.” Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. XLIV. 2001.

Sallis, J.F., et al. “The Association of School Environments with Youth Physical Activity.” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 91, No. 4, 2001.

Sandy, Carola. “Essays on the Macroeconomic Impact of Poverty.” Columbia University Libraries, http://digitalcommons.libraries.columbia.edu/dissertations/AAI9970273, 2000.

Sherman, Arloc. Wasting America’s Future: The Children’s Defense Fund Report On The Costs Of Child Poverty. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press Books, 1994.

Siegel, Michele J. “Measuring the Effect of Husband’s Health on Wife’s Labor Supply.” Health Economics, 15 (6): 2006.

Smith, James P. “Healthy Bodies and Thick Wallets: The Dual Relation between Health and Economic Status.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1999. ———. “The Impact of SES on Health over the Life-Course.” Rand Working Paper Series. Rand Labor and Population: 2005.

Smith, James, and Raynard Kington. “Demographic and Economic Correlates of Health in Old Age.” Demography, Vol. 34, No. 1, 1997.

Teles, Vladimir. “The Role of Human Capital in Economic Growth.” Applied Economic Letters, 12: 2005.

U.S. Census Bureau. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005. Washington, D.C.: 2006 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health, United States, 2006. Washington, D.C.: 2006. ———. Health, United States, 1998. Washington, D.C.: 1998.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Moving to Opportunity Demonstration Data. Washington, D.C.: May, 2004. ———. Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing. Washington, D.C.: Dec. 2000. http://www.hud.gov/progdesc/mto.cfm.

Voitchovsky, S. “Does the Profile of Income Inequality Matter for Economic Growth? Distinguishing Between the Effects of Inequality in Different Parts of the Income Distribution.” Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 10 (3): 2005.

Appendix II: Contacts and Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Acknowledgments

Kathy Larin, Assistant Director, and Janet Mascia, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment. Lawrance Evans, Ben Bolitzer , Ken Bombara, Amanda Seese, and Rhiannon Patterson made significant contributions throughout the assignment. Charles Willson, Susannah Compton, and Patrick DiBattista helped develop the report’s message.

In addition, Doug Besharov, Dr. Maria Cancian, Dr. Sheldon Danziger, and Dr. Lawrence Mead reviewed and provided comments on the report.