Instruction attached. 

Whether an individual fully assimilates into American society may depend on whether or not the individual voluntarily immigrates to the U.S., or whether the individual is a  member of a group who were brought  involuntarily to the United States (Gollnick & Chinn, 2013).
Notice that the citation is placed BEFORE the endmark (period) of the sentence.

The following are examples of  APA Style references:

for a book:
Gollnick, D. & Chinn, P. (2017).  Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NU: Pearson Education.
for a journal article:
Welner, K.G. (2002).  Ability tracking:  What role for the courts?  Educational Law Reporter, 163 (2), 565-571.
for a website:
Wright, V.R., Chau, M., & Aratami, Y. (2011).  Who are America’s poor children?  Retrieved on June 4, 2018, from http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_1001 .

You are to write a four paragraph essay.  Paragraph #1 is to include your response to Question #1 (listed below).  Paragraph #2 is to include your response to Question #2.  Paragraph #3 is to include your response to Question #3.  Paragraph #4 is to include your response to Question #4.   Each paragraph is to have no fewer than 7 full sentences, and some of your paragraphs might be considerably longer.  Include in each of  paragraphs #2, #3, and #4 at least one citation for your textbook, i.e. (Gollnick & Chinn, 2017), since you will be including information that you learned from Chapter 1 of your textbook in each of these three paragraphs of your essay.  You are ALWAYS encouraged to use additional outside sources, in addition to your textbook, and when you do so, you will need to provide APA Style citations and references for those sources as well.   

Question #1: (no citation is required in responding to Question #1)  In either a face-to-face classroom, or a web-based learning environment, what are the characteristics of that learning environment that help YOU to feel most safe and secure in terms of participating and sharing ideas with your classmates?  In THIS web-based class, what types of things would help you most in terms of feeling safe about sharing your ideas and thoughts, even when the issues being discussed are potentially controversial?  

Question #2: (include 
at least
 one APA in-text citation in this paragraph)  Select one of the characteristics of culture (pages 4 & 5) and then discuss that characteristic by providing an example and analyzing it in the context of the cultural characteristic.  Do not use an example that is already provided in your textbook; instead, create your own example based on your experiences and observations.

Question #3: (include 
at least
 one APA in-text citation in this paragraph)   Contrast and compare the concepts of ethnocentrism and cultural relativism.  How are they related?  

Question #4: (include 
at least
 one APA in-text citation in this paragraph)   What practices in schools or other environments could support and promote multiculturalism?  Be specific here, providing some actual ideas for promoting multiculturalism, cultural awareness, and respect of diversity.

In addition to the in-text citations that you will include in paragraphs 2,3, and 4, BE SURE to include a Reference Section at the end of your Assignment Post in which you list the reference listings, in alphabetical order, for each of the citations that you have used.  Refer to the Purdue OWL website to learn how to format your Reference Section.  

B R I E F

Who Are America’s
Poor Children?
The Official Story

Vanessa R. Wight
Michelle Chau
Yumiko Aratani March 2011

2 Who Are America’s Poor Children? The Official Story

The National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) is the nation’s leading public

policy center dedicated to promoting the economic security, health, and well-being

of America’s low-income families and children. Using research to inform policy and

practice, NCCP seeks to advance family-oriented solutions and the strategic use of

public resources at the state and national levels to ensure positive outcomes for the next

generation. Founded in 1989 as a division of the Mailman School of Public Health at

Columbia University, NCCP is a nonpartisan, public interest research organization.

WHo Are AMeriCA’S Poor CHildreN?
The official Story
Vanessa R. Wight, Michelle Chau, and Yumiko Aratani

Copyright © 2011 by the National Center for Children in Poverty

AuthoRS

Vanessa R. Wight, PhD, is senior research associate at
the National Center for Children in Poverty. her research
focuses on the contribution of early childhood experiences
and involved parenting to children’s well-being.

Michelle Chau is a research analyst on the Family Economic
Security team at the National Center for Children in Poverty.

Yumiko Aratani, PhD, is senior research associate and
acting director of Family Economic Security at the National
Center for Children in Poverty. her research has focused on
the role of housing in stratification processes, parental assets
and children’s well-being.

ACkNoWlEDgMENtS

this research was supported by funding from Annie E.
Casey Foundation. Special thanks to Morris Ardoin,
lee kreader, Amy Palmisano, Curtis Skinner, and telly
Valdellon.

National Center for Children in Poverty

3

Over 15 million American children live in families
with incomes below the federal poverty level, which
is $22,050 a year for a family of four.1 The number
of children living in poverty increased by 33 percent
between 2000 and 2009. There are 3.8 million more
children living in poverty today than in 2000.

Not only are these numbers troubling, the official
poverty measure tells only part of the story. Research
consistently shows that, on average, families need
an income of about twice the federal poverty level

to make ends meet.2 Children living in families with
incomes below this level – for 2010, $44,100 for a
family of four – are referred to as low income. Forty-
two percent of the nation’s children – more than 31
million in 2009 – live in low-income families.3
Nonetheless, eligibility for many public benefits is
based on the official poverty measure. This fact sheet
describes some of the characteristics of American
children who are considered poor by the official
standard.4

The percentage of children living in poverty and
extreme poverty (less than 50 percent of the federal
poverty level) has increased since 2000.

◆ Twenty-one percent of children live in families
that are considered officially poor (15.3 million
children).

◆ Nine percent of children live in extreme poor
families (6.8 million).

Who Are America’s Poor Children?
The Official Story

Vanessa R. Wight | Michelle Chau | Yumiko Aratani March 2011

How many children in America are officially poor?

0

5

10

15

20

25

’09’08’07’06’05’04’03’02’01’00

Percent (%)

Children living in poor and extreme poor families, 2000–2009

9%
7%

21%

16% Poor

Extreme poor

4 Who Are America’s Poor Children? The Official Story

Rates of official child poverty vary
tremendously across the states.
◆ Across the states, child poverty

rates range from 10 percent in
New Hampshire to 30 percent
in Mississippi.

What are some of the characteristics of children who are officially poor in America?

Black, American Indian, and Hispanic children
are disproportionately poor.
◆ Twelve percent of white children live in poor

families. Across the 10 most populated states,5
rates of child poverty among white children do
not vary dramatically; the range is nine percent in
California and Texas to 16 percent in Ohio.

◆ Thirty-six percent of black children live in poor
families. In the 10 most populated states, rates of
child poverty among black children range from 30
percent in California and New York to 46 percent
in Ohio and Michigan.

◆ Fifteen percent of Asian children, 34 percent of
American Indian children, and 24 percent of
children of some other race live in poor families
(comparable state comparisons are not possible
due to small sample sizes).6

◆ Thirty-three percent of Hispanic children live in
poor families. In the 10 most populated states,
rates of child poverty among Hispanic children
range from 25 percent in Florida and Illinois to
41 percent in North Carolina and Georgia.

Child poverty rates across the states, 2009

25% or more (5 states): AR, DC, KY, MS, NM

20%–24% (19 states): AL, AZ, CA, FL, GA, IN, LA, MI, MO, MT, NC, NY, OH, OK, OR, SC, TN, TX, WV

15%–

19%

(14 states): CO, DE, ID, IA, IL, KS, ME, NE, NV, PA, RI, SD, WA, WI

Under 15% (13 states): AK, CT, HI, MA, MD, MN, ND, NH, NJ, UT, VA, VT, WY

DC

0
5
10
15
20
25

30

35

HispanicOtherAmerican
Indian

AsianBlackWhite

Child poverty rates by race/ethnicity, 2009

Poverty rate (%)

33%

24%

34%

15%

36%

12%

National Center for Children in Poverty

5

Having immigrant parents can increase a
child’s chances of being poor.
◆ Twenty-seven percent of children in immigrant

families are poor; 19 percent of children with
native-born parents are poor.

◆ In the six states with the largest populations of
immigrants – California, Florida, Illinois, New
Jersey, New York, and Texas – the poverty rate
among children in immigrant families ranges from
16 percent to 34 percent.

Official poverty rates are highest for young
children.
◆ Twenty-four percent of children younger than age

6 live in poor families; 19 percent of children age 6
or older live in poor families.

◆ In about two-thirds of the states (35 states), 20
percent or more of children younger than age 6 are
poor, whereas only about a half (24 states) have a
poverty rate for all children (younger than age 18)
that is as high.

What are some of the hardships faced by children in America?

Food insecurity, lack of affordable housing, and
other hardships affect millions of American
children, not just those who are officially poor.
◆ Twenty-one percent of households with

children experience food insecurity. The share
of households with children experiencing food
insecurity was split with about half (10 percent)
reporting food insecurity among adults, only, and
the other half (about 11 percent) reporting low
and very low food security among children.7

◆ Nearly 50 percent of tenants living in renter-
occupied units spend more than 30 percent of
their income on rent.8

◆ Although crowded housing is relatively
uncommon, five percent of poor households
and nearly two percent of all households are
moderately crowded with 1.01–1.50 persons per

room. Severe crowding with 1.51 or more persons
per room characterizes about 1.1 percent of poor
households and 0.3 percent of all households.9

◆ Compared to white families with children, black
and Latino families with children are more than
twice as likely to experience economic hardships,
such as food insecurity.10

Many poor children lack health insurance.
◆ Sixteen percent of poor children lack health

insurance, whereas 11 percent of all children (poor
and non-poor) lack health insurance.11

◆ In the 10 most populated states, the percentage of
poor children who lack health insurance ranges
from 12 percent in New York to 38 percent in
Texas.12

Poor children by parents’ nativity, 2009

Percentage (%)

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35

Children of native-born
parents (only)

Children with at least one
immigrant parent

TexasNew YorkNew JerseyIllinoisFloridaCaliforniaTotal
population

24%
15%

22%
21% 20%

18%
16%

13%

22%

19%

34%
19%

27%

19%

6 Who Are America’s Poor Children? The Official Story

The official U.S. poverty rate is used as one of the nation’s
primary indicators of economic well-being. The measure of
poverty, which was developed in the 1960s, is calculated by
comparing a family’s or person’s resources to a set of thresh-
olds that vary by family size and composition and are deter-
mined to represent the minimum amount of income it takes to
support a family at a basic level.14 Families or people with
resources that fall below the threshold are considered poor.

The current poverty measure is widely acknowledged to be in-
adequate.15 The method of calculating the poverty thresholds
is outdated. Originally based on data from the 1950s, the
poverty threshold was set at three times the cost of food and
adjusted for family size. Since then, the measure has been
updated only for inflation. Yet food now comprises only about
one-seventh of an average family’s expenses, while the costs
of housing, child care, health care, and transportation have
grown disproportionately. The result? Current poverty thresh-
olds are too low, arguably arbitrary, and they do not adjust
for differences in the cost of living within and across states.

Further, the definition of resources under the current poverty
measure is based solely on cash income. So while the mea-
sure takes into account a variety of income sources, including
earnings, interest, dividends, and benefits, such as Social
Security and cash assistance, it does not include the value of
the major benefit programs that assist low-income families,
such as the federal Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps,
Medicaid, and housing and child care assistance. Therefore,
the way we measure poverty does not tell us whether many
of the programs designed to reduce economic hardship are
effective because the value of these benefits is ignored.

Considerable research has been done on alternative methods
for measuring income poverty.16 In 2010, the Office of
Management and Budget formed the Interagency Techni-
cal Working Group (ITWG) on Developing a Supplemental
Poverty Measure to create a set of starting points that would
allow the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to

produce a supplemental poverty measure for estimating pov-
erty at the national level. The group targeted two main issues:
1) establishing a threshold and 2) estimating family resourc-
es.17 First, the ITWG suggested that the poverty threshold rep-
resent a dollar amount that families need to purchase a basic
bundle of commodities that include food, shelter, clothing
and utilities (FSCU), along with a small amount for additional
expenses. The threshold should be based on the expenditure
data of families with two children and then adjusted to reflect
different family types and geographic differences in housing.
Finally, the threshold should be set to the 33rd percentile of
the spending distribution for the basic bundle. Second, the
ITWG suggested that family resources represent the sum of
cash income from all sources along with near-cash benefits
that families can use to purchase the basic FSCU bundle.
In addition, expenses not included in the threshold, such as
taxes, work and child care expenses, and medical out of
pocket expenses should be subtracted from the sum of cash
income and near-cash benefits.

Recently, the Census Bureau released estimates of poverty
based on the research SPM, a preliminary measure of pov-
erty incorporating the ITWG recommendations.18 In general,
the findings in this report indicate that poverty is higher with
the new measure when compared with the official measure.
Approximately 14.5 percent19 of the population is poor using
the official measure compared with 15.7 percent using the re-
search SPM (see figure below). Children have lower poverty
rates while adults, particularly the elderly, have higher rates
using the new measure. Differences by race/ethnicity suggest
higher poverty among most groups using the research SPM.

These differences are partly a function of the new measure’s
higher thresholds that consequently capture more people.
However, some of the differences are explained by the new
definition of resources, which subtracts medical out-of-pocket
expenses from income – a large expenditure among the
elderly population – as well as other work-related and child
care expenditures.

Measuring Poverty: Needs and Resources13

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35

OfficialResearch SPM

Hispanic
20

OtherBlackWhiteElderly
adults

Nonelderly
adults

ChildrenAll people

Percent of people in poverty by different poverty measures, 2009

Poverty rate (%)

Source: Short, K. S. 2010. “Who is Poor? A New Look with the Supplemental Poverty Measure.” Paper presented at the
2011 Allied Social Science Associations, Society of Government Economists. Denver, CO.

15.7%
14.5%

18.0%

21.2%

14.8%
13.0%

16.1%

9.9% 10.7% 9.5%

24.0%
25.7%

19.1%
16.5%

28.7%

25.4%

National Center for Children in Poverty

7

What should be done about child poverty?

Research suggests that being poor during childhood
is associated with being poor as an adult.21 Yet, child
poverty is not intractable. Policies and practices that
increase family income and help families maintain
their financial footing during hard economic times
not only result in short-term economic security, but
also have lasting effects by reducing the long-term
consequences of poverty on children’s lives. NCCP
recommends a number of major policy strategies to
improve the well-being of children and families living
in poverty:

Make work pay
Since research is clear that poverty is the greatest
threat to children’s well being, strategies that help
parents succeed in the labor force help children.22
Increasing the minimum wage is important for
working families with children because it helps
them cover the high cost of basic necessities, such as
child care and housing.23 Further, policies aimed at
expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit and other
tax credits such as the Additional Child Tax Credit
and the Making Work Pay Tax Credit are particular-
ly instrumental in putting well-needed dollars back
into the hands of low-earning workers. Finally, many
low-wage workers need better access to benefits such
as health insurance and paid sick days. Reducing the
costs of basic needs for low-income families Medic-
aid/SCHIP not only increase access to health care,
but also helps families defray often crippling health
care costs by providing free or low-cost health insur-
ance. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act signed into law by President Obama promises
to provide more affordable coverage and to prevent
families from bankruptcy or debt because of health
care costs. Further, housing is known to be a ma-
jor expense for families. However, current housing
subsidy programs are available for a small percent-
age of eligible families due to inadequate funding.24
Housing subsidies have been shown to be positively
related to children’s educational outcomes.25 Thus, it
is important to increase funding for housing subsi-
dies for families with children.

Support parents and their young children in
early care and learning
To thrive, children need nurturing families and high
quality early care and learning experiences. Secur-
ing child care is particularly important for working
parents with young children. Research has found that
child care subsidies are positively associated with the
long-term employment and financial well-being of
parents.26 Along with providing child care subsidies,
policies and practices that ensure high-quality child
care are also important. For example, programs that
target families with infants and toddlers, such as Ear-
ly Head Start, have been shown to improve children’s
social and cognitive development, as well as improve
parenting skills.27 Investments in preschool for 3- and
4-year-olds are just as critical. In short, high-quality
early childhood experiences can go a long way
toward closing the achievement gap between poor
children and their more well-off peers.28

Support asset accumulation among low-income
families
Many American families with children are asset
poor, which means they lack sufficient savings to live
above the poverty line for three months or more in
the event of parental unemployment or illness when
no earnings are available.29 This type of economic
vulnerability is typically masked by conventional
poverty measures based on income. Unlike wages,
income generated from assets provides a cushion
for families. Further, parental saving promotes both
positive cognitive development and subsequent
college attendance among children.30 There are two
ways to support asset accumulation among low-
income families. First, eliminating asset tests from
major means-tested programs reduces the risk of
running up large amounts of debt and increases the
amount of financial resources parents have to invest
in children. Second, there are programs that actively
promote and encourage the development of saving
habits among asset-poor families through matching
funds incentives, such as the Individual Develop-
ment Accounts (IDA) program and the Saving for
Education, Entrepreneurship, and Down-payment
(SEED) National Initiative programs.

1. Unless otherwise noted, national data were calculated from the U.S.
Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement,
March 2010, which represents information from calendar year
2009. State data were calculated by NCCP analysts from the 2009
American Community Survey, which represents information from
2009. Estimates include children living in households with at least one
parent and most children living apart from both parents (for example,
children being raised by grandparents). Children living independently,
living with a spouse, or in group quarters are excluded from these data.
Children ages 14 and under living with only unrelated adults were not
included because data on their income status were not available. Among
children who do not live with at least one parent, parental character-
istics are those of the householder and/or the householder’s spouse.
In the most recent CPS and ACS, parents could report children’s race
as one or more of the following: “white,” “black,” “American Indian
or Alaskan Native,” or “Asian and/or Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.” In a
separate question, parents could report whether their children were of
Hispanic origin. For the data reported, children whose parent reported
their race as white, black, American Indian or Alaskan Native, or Asian
and/or Hawaiian/Pacific Islander and their ethnicity as non-Hispanic
are assigned their respective race. Children who were reported to be
of more than one race were assigned as Other. Children whose parent
identified them as Hispanic were categorized as Hispanic, regardless of
their reported race.
2. Lin, J.; Bernstein, J. 2008. What We Need to Get By: A Basic Standard
of Living Costs $48,779, and Nearly a Third of Families Fall Short.
Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Pearce, D.; Brooks, J. 1999. The Self-Sufficiency Standard for the
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area. Washington, DC: Wider
Opportunities for Women.
3. For more information about children living in low-income families
(defined as families with incomes below 200 percent of the official
poverty level), see: Chau, M.; Thampi, K.; Wight, V.R. 2010. Basic Facts
About Low-income Children, Children Under Age 18, 2009. New York,
NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University,
Mailman School of Public Health.
4. To learn more about child poverty and family economic hardship, see
Cauthen, Nancy K.; Fass, Sarah. 2008. Ten Important Questions About
Child Poverty and Family Economic Hardship. New York, NY: National
Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University, Mailman School
of Public Health.
5. The 10 most populated states in 2009 were California, Texas, New
York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and
North Carolina.
6. Data for Asian, American Indian, and children of some other race are
unavailable due to small sample sizes.
7. Wight, V. R.; Thampi, K.; Briggs, J. 2010. Who Are America’s Poor
Children?: Examining Food Insecurity Among Children in the United
States. National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University
Mailman School of Public Health.
8. American Community Survey. 2009. Table B25070: Gross Rent as
a Percentage of Household Income in the Past 12 Months. American
FactFinder. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. American
Community Survey.
9. U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. American Housing Survey for the United
States in 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
10. Wight, V.R.; Thampi, K. 2010. Basic Facts About Food Insecurity
Among Children in the United States, 2008. National Center for Children
in Poverty, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.
11. Chau, M.; Thampi, K.; Wight, V.R. 2010. Basic Facts About Low-
income Children, Children Under Age 18, 2009. New York, NY: National
Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University, Mailman School
of Public Health.
12. Authors’ calculations from the 2009 American Community Survey.
13. For more information about the official poverty measure, see:
Fass, Sarah. 2009. Measuring Income and Poverty in the United States.
New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia
University, Mailman School of Public Health; Cauthen, Nancy K.

2007. Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Income Security
and Family Support, Committee on Ways and Means. August 1,
2007; NYC Center for Economic Opportunity. 2008. The CEO
Poverty Measure: A Working Paper by the New York City Center for
Economic Opportunity. New York: New York City Center for Economic
Opportunity.
14. Iceland, John. 2005. Measuring Poverty: Theoretical and Empirical
Considerations. Measurement 3: 199-235.
15. See Iceland, John. 2003. Poverty in America. Berkeley: University
of California Press.; Citro, Constance F., and Robert T. Michael (eds.),
Measuring Poverty: A New Approach, Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 1995.; Ruggles, P. 1990. Drawing the Line: Alternative
Poverty Measures and their Implications for Public Policy. Washington,
DC: Urban Institute.
16. Citro, Constance F., and Robert T. Michael (eds.), Measuring Pov-
erty: A New Approach. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995.
17. ITWG. 2010. “Observations from the Interagency Technical
Working Group on Developing a Supplemental Poverty Measure”
available at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/SPM_
TWGObservations .
18.Short, K. S. 2010. “Who is Poor? A New Look with the Supplemental
Poverty Measure.” Paper presented at the 2011 Allied Social Science
Associations, Society of Government Economists. Denver, CO.
19. This estimate is slightly higher than the published poverty rate
that appears in the Census publication, Income, Poverty, and Health
Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009 (P60-238) because it
includes unrelated individuals under age 15 in the poverty universe.
20. People of Hispanic origin may be of any race. In this figure, persons
of Hispanic origin, whatever their race, are shown by their origin but
not by their race and persons not of Hispanic origin are shown by race.
21. Wagmiller, Robert L. Jr.; Adelman, Robert M. 2009. Childhood and
Intergenerational Poverty: The Long-term Consequences of Growing
up Poor. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty,
Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health.
22. Duncan, Greg J.; Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne. 1997. Consequences of
Growing up Poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
23. Purmort, Jessica. 2010. Making Work Supports Work: A Picture of
Low-wage Workers in America. New York, NY: National Center for
Children in Poverty, Columbia University, Mailman School of Public
Health.
24. Ibid.
25. Currie, J.; Yelowitz, A., 2000. Are Public Housing Projects Good for
Kids? Journal of Public Economics 75: 99-124
26. Martinez-Beck, Ivelisse; George, Robert M. 2009. Employment
Outcomes for Low-income Families Receiving Child Care Subsidies
in Illinois, Maryland, and Texas. Final Report to U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families.
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Chicago, Chapin Hall at
the University of Chicago. Forry, Nicole D. 2008. The Impact of Child
Care Subsidies on Low-income Single Parents: An Examination of
Child Care Expenditures and Family Finances. Journal of Family and
Economic Issues 30(1): 43-54.
27. Stebbins, Helene; Knitzer, Jane. 2007. State Early Childhood Policies.
New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia
University, Mailman School of Public Health.
28. Knitzer, Jane. 2007. Testimony on the Economic and Societal
Costs of Poverty. Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means. Jan. 24, 2007.
29. Aratani, Yumiko; Chau, Michelle. 2010. Asset Poverty and Debt
among Families with Children in the United States. New York, NY:
National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University, Mailman
School of Public Health.
30. Conley, Dalton. 2001. Capital for College: Parental Assets and
Postsecondary Schooling. Sociology of Education 74: 59-72. Yeung, W.
Jean; Conley, Dalton. 2008. Black–white Achievement Gap and Family
Wealth. Child Development 79(2): 303-324.

endnotes