short research about poverty

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Unfuzzy math: U.S. needs to do better 

What to expect when you’re elected

Defining and confronting campus antisemitism

Robert Sampson, Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences, is one of the researchers studying the link between poverty and social mobility.

Rose Lincoln/Harvard file photo

Unpacking the power of poverty

Peter Reuell

Harvard Staff Writer

Study picks out key indicators like lead exposure, violence, and incarceration that impact children’s later success

Social scientists have long understood that a child’s environment — in particular growing up in poverty — can have long-lasting effects on their success later in life. What’s less well understood is exactly how.

A new Harvard study is beginning to pry open that black box.

Conducted by Robert Sampson, the Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences, and Robert Manduca, a doctoral student in sociology and social policy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, the study points to a handful of key indicators, including exposure to high levels of lead, violence, and incarceration as key predictors of children’s later success. The study is described in an April paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“What this paper is trying to do, in a sense, is move beyond the traditional neighborhood indicators people use, like poverty,” Sampson said. “For decades, people have shown poverty to be important … but it doesn’t necessarily tell us what the mechanisms are, and how growing up in poor neighborhoods affects children’s outcomes.”

To explore potential pathways, Manduca and Sampson turned to the income tax records of parents and approximately 230,000 children who lived in Chicago in the 1980s and 1990s, compiled by Harvard’s Opportunity Atlas project. They integrated these records with survey data collected by the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, measures of violence and incarceration, census indicators, and blood-lead levels for the city’s neighborhoods in the 1990s.

They found that the greater the extent to which poor black male children were exposed to harsh environments, the higher their chances of being incarcerated in adulthood and the lower their adult incomes, measured in their 30s. A similar income pattern also emerged for whites.

Among both black and white girls, the data showed that increased exposure to harsh environments predicted higher rates of teen pregnancy.

Despite the similarity of results along racial lines, Chicago’s segregation means that far more black children were exposed to harsh environments — in terms of toxicity, violence, and incarceration — harmful to their mental and physical health.

“The least-exposed majority-black neighborhoods still had levels of harshness and toxicity greater than the most-exposed majority-white neighborhoods, which plausibly accounts for a substantial portion of the racial disparities in outcomes,” Manduca said.

“It’s really about trying to understand some of the earlier findings, the lived experience of growing up in a poor and racially segregated environment, and how that gets into the minds and bodies of children.” Robert Sampson

“What this paper shows … is the independent predictive power of harsh environments on top of standard variables,” Sampson said. “It’s really about trying to understand some of the earlier findings, the lived experience of growing up in a poor and racially segregated environment, and how that gets into the minds and bodies of children.”

More like this

Cities’ wealth gap is growing, too

Racial and economic disparities intertwined, study finds

The study isn’t solely focused on the mechanisms of how poverty impacts children; it also challenges traditional notions of what remedies might be available.

“This has [various] policy implications,” Sampson said. “Because when you talk about the effects of poverty, that leads to a particular kind of thinking, which has to do with blocked opportunities and the lack of resources in a neighborhood.

“That doesn’t mean resources are unimportant,” he continued, “but what this study suggests is that environmental policy and criminal justice reform can be thought of as social mobility policy. I think that’s provocative, because that’s different than saying it’s just about poverty itself and childhood education and human capital investment, which has traditionally been the conversation.”

The study did suggest that some factors — like community cohesion, social ties, and friendship networks — could act as bulwarks against harsh environments. Many researchers, including Sampson himself, have shown that community cohesion and local organizations can help reduce violence. But Sampson said their ability to do so is limited.

“One of the positive ways to interpret this is that violence is falling in society,” he said. “Research has shown that community organizations are responsible for a good chunk of the drop. But when it comes to what’s affecting the kids themselves, it’s the homicide that happens on the corner, it’s the lead in their environment, it’s the incarceration of their parents that’s having the more proximate, direct influence.”

Going forward, Sampson said he hopes the study will spur similar research in other cities and expand to include other environmental contamination, including so-called brownfield sites.

Ultimately, Sampson said he hopes the study can reveal the myriad ways in which poverty shapes not only the resources that are available for children, but the very world in which they find themselves growing up.

“Poverty is sort of a catchall term,” he said. “The idea here is to peel things back and ask, What does it mean to grow up in a poor white neighborhood? What does it mean to grow up in a poor black neighborhood? What do kids actually experience?

“What it means for a black child on the south side of Chicago is much higher rates of exposure to violence and lead and incarceration, and this has intergenerational consequences,” he continued. “This is particularly important because it provides a way to think about potentially intervening in the intergenerational reproduction of inequality. We don’t typically think about criminal justice reform or environmental policy as social mobility policy. But maybe we should.”

This research was supported with funding from the Project on Race, Class & Cumulative Adversity at Harvard University, the Ford Foundation, and the Hutchins Family Foundation.

Share this article

You might like.

Ed School expert has some ideas, including a rethink of homework bans, after ‘discouraging’ results

Bipartisan group of lawmakers gets to know Washington by way of the IOP

Scholars in Jewish Studies say education, conversation can bolster efforts to defeat hate

Time for a rethink of colonoscopy guidelines?

Change informed by new findings would help specialists focus on those most at risk, researcher says

Three Harvard students named Marshall Scholars

‘Chance of a lifetime’ for recipients whose fields include history, genomics, K-12 education

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Poverty, Stress, and Brain Development: New Directions for Prevention and Intervention

Clancy blair , phd, mph, c cybele raver , phd.

• Author information
• Copyright and License information

Address correspondence to Clancy Blair, PhD, MPH, Department of Applied Psychology, Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development, New York University, 246 Greene St, Kimball Hall 8th Floor, New York, NY 10003 ( [email protected] )

We review some of the growing evidence of the costs of poverty to children’s neuroendocrine function, early brain development, and cognitive ability. We underscore the importance of addressing the negative consequences of poverty-related adversity early in children’s lives, given evidence supporting the plasticity of executive functions and associated physiologic processes in response to early intervention and the importance of higher order cognitive functions for success in school and in life. Finally, we highlight some new directions for prevention and intervention that are rapidly emerging at the intersection of developmental science, pediatrics, child psychology and psychiatry, and public policy.

Keywords: brain development, early childhood, executive function, infancy, parenting, poverty, stress

Scientific attention has focused on the toxic consequences of stress for brain function and mental and physical health. It is has become increasingly clear that one of the mechanisms through which poverty affects the health and well-being of children and adults is through the toxic effects of stress on the brain. A growing body of evidence indicates that effects of poverty on physiologic and neurobiologic development are likely central to poverty-related gaps in academic achievement and the well-documented lifelong effects of poverty on physical and mental health. 1 – 5

Here we review studies delineating the substantial effects of poverty on children’s biological and psychologic development, thus emphasizing the importance of early experience and the malleability of developmental processes that are shaped early in life to establish a foundation for later competence. We also review studies that demonstrate the efficacy of early intervention for children at risk, highlighting implications for policy.

Poverty and Brain Development

Although examinations of direct relations between income and brain structure and function are relatively recent, 2 prominent reports demonstrate that effects are particularly large and seen early in development for children in poverty. One study examined a cross-sectional sample of 389 children aged 4 to 22 years and found that children in families in poverty had reduced gray matter volumes in the frontal and temporal cortex and the hippocampus. When families were at 150% of poverty, these reductions were 3% to 4% below developmental norms. For children in families at 100% of poverty or below, reductions in these regions were 8% to 9% below developmental norms. Given the association of these regions with school readiness and school achievement, this analysis further examined the extent to which these gray matter reductions account for the well-known effect of poverty on academic outcomes. Mediation analysis of standardized achievement test data indicated that the measures of gray matter in frontal and temporal regions accounted for between 15% and 20% of the income-related achievement gap. 2 In a similar analysis examining cortical surface area with 1099 children and young adults aged between 3 and 20 years, both parental education and income were found to be positively related to surface area. Associations were greatest in the frontal, temporal, and parietal regions. 6 As with the analysis of Hair et al, 2 this study also found that the effects of income on brain development are largest for children in families whose incomes fell below the poverty line.

Effects of poverty on brain development start early and are seen in infancy. In a longitudinal analysis of 77 children participating in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) MRI Study of Normal Brain Development and seen between the early postnatal period and age 4 years, those in low-income or poor families were found to have total gray matter volumes that were nearly half a standard deviation smaller than their better-off counterparts. These reductions were particularly large in the frontal and parietal regions associated with executive function abilities. 7 Growth modeling indicated that these associations are developmental, with reduced growth trajectories for total, frontal, and parietal gray matter volumes that were most pronounced for children in poverty. These results are consistent with an EEG study of 6- to 9-month-old infants that found reduced high-frequency electrical oscillations in the frontal cortex, the seat of executive function abilities, among children in poverty relative to their higher-income counterparts. 8 A second analysis from the NIH MRI study of 283 children aged 11 years found that parental education as an indicator of socioeconomic status was positively associated with regional gray matter in the left superior frontal gyrus and right anterior cingulate gyrus, both regions associated with executive function abilities. 4 Similar longitudinal findings were seen in an analysis of 145 children followed longitudinally from preschool and who underwent MRI when they were approximately 10 years old. In this analysis, household income-to-need was positively related to gray and white matter volumes; the quality of parenting that children received in early childhood and the number of stressful life events experienced were found to mediate some of the effects of income on the volume of the hippocampus. 9

In combination, available evidence confirms that the shaping of children’s biology and behavior by experience starts early and happens rapidly. The burgeoning research evidence of the costs of poverty to children’s early development and the parallel evidence of the benefits of early intervention have triggered a call to action on the part of many to “preserv[e] and support our society’s most important legacy, the developing brain.” 10 Here we outline some developmental foundations that underlie the effects of poverty on brain development and consequences for early learning. We underscore the importance of addressing the negative consequences of poverty-related adversity early in children’s lives. In doing so, we also emphasize the need for an increased scientific focus on the malleability and plasticity inherent in development, particularly given the relatively slow time course of brain development in areas that underlie the higher-order self-regulation associated with executive function. Finally, we highlight some new directions for prevention and intervention that are rapidly emerging at the intersection of developmental science, pediatrics, child psychology and psychiatry, and public policy.

Adverse Effects of Poverty on Developing Brain

Traditionally research on child development in the context of poverty has focused on reduced stimulation and reduced opportunity for learning relative to children in higher-income homes. Increasingly, however, research in a variety of disciplines is converging on the idea that in addition to reduced opportunity for types of stimulation that positively affect development, such as a rich and varied language environment, 11 poverty is also characterized by an overabundance of types of stimulation that negatively affect development. Key mechanisms that link children’s exposure to poverty-related adversity and brain development include the presence of chronic stressors such as noise, including background noise such as that associated with ongoing and unmonitored television, household chaos, and conflict among family members that alter the physiologic response to stress, leading to potentially teratogenic effects of stress-related hormones on the developing brain and to a range of negative cognitive, emotional, and behavioral sequelae. 12 , 13 Importantly, poverty-related stressors have been theoretically argued and empirically shown to tune or program the physiologic response to stress in ways that alter neuroendocrine activity and consequently neural activity, thereby influencing the course of brain development and function 14 (Text Box 1). Controlled experiments in rodents and to some extent nonhuman primates demonstrate that exposure to chronic stressors and the resulting corticosterone/cortisol increase from the prenatal period through adulthood is associated with alterations to the volume of the amygdala, atrophy of the hippocampus, and atrophy of pyramidal dendrites, neurons that are integral to prefrontal cortex function and communication between prefrontal cortex and numerous regions throughout the brain, including limbic structures that activate and terminate the stress response. 15 – 18 Further, patterns of neural activity in the brain are altered under conditions of stress, suggesting that experience-dependent neural and behavioral responses to stimulation will be progressively established over time, biasing the developing individual to be reactive and defensive, rather than to engage in reflective and approach-oriented responses to stimulation. 19 , 20

A number of studies have shown that cortisol and other stress markers are elevated in children in poverty. 21 – 23 In addition, these studies have shown that effects of poverty on the stress response in part underlie the effects of poverty on the development of executive function and the regulation of emotion and attention. These effects are consistent with animal models demonstrating that glucocorticoids influence activity in, and thereby the development of, brain structures and neural circuitry that are important not only for regulating the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical (HPA) response to stress but also for executive function abilities. 16 Executive function is essential for self-regulation and school readiness and is a basic building block of early cognitive and social competence. Available evidence indicates that effects of socioeconomic and early psychosocial disadvantage on cortisol and brain structure partially mediate effects of poverty on the development of executive function in childhood. 24 – 26 Effects of poverty on brain development and executive function are likely one key pathway, along with reduced stimulation for learning, through which poverty is associated with gaps in school readiness and achievement and positive life outcomes. These effects are consistent with, albeit perhaps less severe than, those seen in studies examining effects of extreme stress and trauma, such as that associated with institutional rearing. Findings from studies of traumatic early rearing experience indicate alterations to the volume of the amygdala and hippocampus and total gray and white matter volumes in brain areas that underlie executive function and emotion regulation capabilities. 27 , 28

Caregiving as a Key Mechanism

The foregoing provides an initial neurobiologic model detailing the ways in which early experience affects the development of stress-response physiology and the brain in areas that underlie the development of executive function and the self-regulation of behavior. In supportive and resource-rich environments, stress-response systems are understood to shape brain development in ways that are conducive to executive function and high levels of self-control. In lower-resource, unpredictable environments, however, stress-response systems are understood to shape the brain in ways that promote highly reactive behavior and poor executive function ability—an adaptation appropriate for an unpredictable and threatening environment (Text Box 2).

A central aspect of this experience early in life is the quality of caregiving the infant receives. 20 Importantly, the presence of toxic aspects of poverty have been argued to have a corrosive effect on the quality of caregiving provided by adults in ways that can exacerbate rather than mitigate effects of stress on children’s brains. 29 Chronic stress in the context of poverty can adversely affect the style of caregiving that parents provide. 30 , 31 As well, the maternal brain during pregnancy and the postpartum period is highly plastic for both good and for ill: While it is undoubtedly adaptive for new caregivers to experience substantial shifts in brain and neuroendocrine function that allow for greater attunement to infant cues after the birth of a new child, this plasticity also means that caregivers’ brains are open to insult neurologically, physiologically, and psychologically by stress, including the stresses associated with parenting. 32 , 33 Here, early caregiving is understood to function as a mediator of the effects of stress on development. In rats, creation of poverty-like conditions by restricting the availability of material for nesting increases the likelihood of lower levels of caregiving competence that are in turn associated with problems with stress regulation and adverse cognitive and behavioral outcomes in offspring. 34 Also in rats, an influential epigenetic model of early experience has demonstrated that specific aspects of maternal behavior in what can be considered the typical range alter gene expression in the pup hippocampus, with widespread downstream consequences for social and cognitive development, including intergenerational transmission of this maternal behavior. 35 This demonstration of epigenesis, albeit in rodents, makes clear that typical variation in context can affect the type of caregiving the infant receives, with meaningful implications for later development. 36

In a body of emerging research with human caregivers, studies have shown that when families are faced with stressful psychosocial and physical conditions within the home, parents are at greater risk for becoming less sensitive and warm in their patterns of early caregiving. In turn, lower level of maternal sensitivity increases the likelihood that children will demonstrate elevated cortisol levels and lower executive function ability, with commensurate difficulty regulating emotion and behavior. 37 Notably, however, just as early caregiving functions in a mediating role as a conduit for stressors in the environment, it also functions as a moderator, or a buffer of stress. 38 To be sure, many families provide high levels of sensitive and nurturing caregiving despite the struggle to make ends meet. In families where parents are able to maintain positive, responsive styles of caregiving, the presence of the mother is inherently regulating for offspring, serving to dampen the HPA response to stress. This has been shown most clearly in experiments with rodents in which the presence versus absence of the mother can be manipulated and the effects on pups’ HPA activity, gene expression, and later development examined. The physical presence of the mother as a buffer on the HPA axis is seen even in the instance of low-quality early care in which neural systems associated with approach behavior and with early learning override the HPA response and potential learned aversions to the primary caregiver. 39

In both rats and monkeys, however, intermittent stress induced by brief periods of separation from the mother is associated with benefits to the regulation of the stress response. These benefits are seen not only in the activity of the HPA axis but also in terms of the regulation of behavior in response to challenge and in terms of cognitive abilities, including performance on measures of working memory and inhibitory control. 40 , 41 These data suggest the potential benefits of moderate stress and emphasize the importance of stress regulation as a central aspect of the influence of experience on development.

Opportunities for Repair

Given the inherently moderating or buffering effect of the primary caregiver on the HPA axis, efforts to ensure consistent high-quality care are particularly important for children in poverty. Extant research indicates that care-giving can serve as a key lever of change through which effects of disadvantageous experience on biology and behavior can be altered. The limits on malleability and the extent to which the developing child may be more or less sensitive to the effects of caregiving and experience at specific points in development—so-called sensitive periods—are not yet fully known (although parameters are being discerned from the study of infants reared in conditions of severe deprivation 42 ). Acquiring this information about the process of development constitutes a major scientific goal. To date, however, a focus on early caregiving provides partial explanation for why we find resilient outcomes or high levels of competence among a significant proportion of children experiencing exposure to economic stressors and high levels of adversity. This recurrent finding of resilience in the face of high levels of stressors is seminal: It alerts our fields of developmental science, neuroscience, pediatrics, and child psychology and psychiatry that it is time move past the broad-brush recognition of the negative sequelae of poverty-related adversity for brain development to a more complex model of biological, interpersonal, and sociologic mechanisms that lead to individual differences among infants and children exposed to adversity. In so doing, we will gain new insights to the ways that children’s emotional and cognitive regulation can be supported in conditions of hardship and toxic stress.

Research examining optimal ways to support and ensure competent, contingent, responsive caregiving for children in poverty is paramount. Positive parenting behavior represents a tremendously valuable resource within communities affected by poverty. We would be well served to learn from parents and community leaders about ways to preserve, strengthen, and extend this care as a way to safeguard infant and child development in communities hard hit by economic disadvantage; several models of public health messaging to reinforce positive parenting practices have been recently launched to support parents’ positive practices as an important, population-level effort to support early “brain health” 43 (eg, the Best Start Initiative in California, and the Talk to Your Baby, Their Brain Depends on It campaign in New York). Caregivers’ own mental health and management of stress becomes a viable target for community and public health support.

Pediatric primary care settings have proven to be an excellent venue for initial screening of parent and child mental health risk and for service provision. Screening of infants and toddlers as well as parents for mental health risk and referral to services leads to improvements in mental health and parenting behavior. 44 , 45 The Reach Out and Read program, which provides parents with children’s books along with guidance and modeling of reading interactions during the pediatric primary care visit, has demonstrated effectiveness on child language development and parent–child interaction. 46 An innovative expansion of this program using video-based feedback to enhance parent–child interaction has been shown to increase parent stimulation for development and to reduce maternal depression. 47

In addition, several targeted parenting interventions delivered through social service agencies supporting children in the context of disadvantage are currently underway. 48 , 49 Few completed studies, however, have incorporated measures of child physiology or neuroimaging. Several have indicated in high-risk samples of children that programs that increased the quality of care that children received from parents were associated with beneficial alterations to diurnal activity of the HPA axis, HPA axis reactivity to challenge, or both. 50 , 51 Further, evaluation of a program focused on selective attention for preschool children in poverty demonstrated effects at the neural and behavioral levels from the combination of information for parents with attention training activities for children. 52 In our own ongoing research, home visitors use a program incorporating video feedback to alert and focus parents’ attention to their own emotions, behaviors, and appraisals of their infants in the context of ongoing, everyday parenting tasks. Prior evaluations of this program, the Play and Learning Strategies (PALS) program, indicate that it is effective at increasing parenting stimulation and sensitivity with concomitant changes in child development indicators for families in poverty. 53 We are midway through our empirical test of this model using a randomized controlled trial design examining physiologic and behavioral measures of parent and child outcomes.

This increased integration of service delivery (such as child-focused educational supports combined with services targeting parenting) is not new. For example, early education programs serving young children (such as Early Head Start) have long recognized the importance of involving and supporting parents to attain goals of economic self-sufficiency as well as maintaining and strengthening positive caregiving skills. Increased awareness of the costs of poverty to infant and toddler brain development has arguably sparked greater policy interest in ways that various platforms of service delivery can be more effectively integrated. For example, a new set of “2 Generation” programs that primarily target adult postsecondary education and workforce development have been reengineered to also support parent–child relationships and early child health and development (eg, the Ascend Initiative led by the Aspen Institute). Family-serving community-based agencies and policy partners are often at the forefront of the design and implementation of innovative models of integrated service delivery, where child and parent health, educational attainment, and economic and housing security are approached in holistic and comprehensive ways (eg, http://www.liveworkthrive.org/ ).

In addition, we note that single-platform interventions involving one policy area (eg, center-based early education and universal prekindergarten) can significantly reduce poverty’s negative sequelae when delivered with levels of high quality. Classic early intervention studies of the latter half of the 20th century indicated initial effects on general mental ability with long-term effects on academic achievement and a number of indicators of health and well-being. 54 While neuroscientific methods have been of great value in highlighting the brain-based benefits of reading interventions with older children, we are aware of only one early education study that has directly examined treatment-related effects of preschool intervention targeting self-regulation on brain development using neuroimaging methods. 52 There are, however, relevant examples from reading and language interventions with older children. 55 , 56 Even without this neuroimaging evidence, the extant findings from behavioral studies are impressive and persuasive with regard to the benefits of high-quality preschool education. For example, several studies have demonstrated that high-quality early education is associated with significant gains on measures of neurocognitive ability, such as executive function, greater skill in perspective taking (or theory of mind), the ability to regulate attention in response to emotional stimuli, and speed of information processing. 57 – 61 Further, one evaluation of a high-quality kindergarten program found that children in treatment classrooms in high-poverty schools had moderately elevated levels of cortisol indicative of positive stress relative to their counterparts in control classrooms. 58 Finally, long-term follow-up of the Abecedarian early intervention program, which began in the 1970s, found that as adults, participants randomly assigned to the intervention group had greatly reduced prevalence of indicators of risk for stress-related disease. 62 Even though resilient functioning may come with some biological wear and tear for low-income children, greater self-regulation and cognitive control (or executive function) are robust predictors of greater health, greater wealth, lower substance use, and lower involvement in crime in adulthood 63 ; investments in early classroom-based interventions that support executive function and related self-regulation skills may pay major dividends across the life course for decades to come.

In supporting children’s physiologic reactivity, cognitive control, and self-regulation through parenting- and classroom-based interventions, prevention scientists, policy makers, and practitioners are essentially working hard to alleviate the costs of poverty for human development. Yet it is equally imperative to work further upstream—to lower parents’ and children’s exposure to poverty and associated stressors in the first place. Two avenues of policy innovation include supporting families in building higher levels of human capital so as to increase earnings and increasing federal and state income and non-income transfers (such as the Earned Income Tax Credit or Section 8 housing subsidies) to families so that they are less likely to be poor. Legislation introduced into the US Senate and the House of Representatives in summer 2015 for America’s College Promise Act would accomplish both of those things at once: It would potentially provide a federal match of $3 for every $1 invested by states to dramatically lower the cost of tuition for community, technical, and tribal colleges for low-income young adults ( https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/progressreportoncommunitycollege.pdf ). In so doing, such policy would not only strengthen the earning potential of college-going young parents but would also lower their debt, leaving them with more income, reduced levels of poverty-related stressors, and more time and energy for their children. Such policy approaches to lifting families out of poverty provides tremendous opportunity for scientists to test ways that reducing poverty may benefit public health through key mechanisms of lowered allostatic load, improved caregiving, and healthier brain development. Reversing the negative consequences of poverty for children’s brain development is not just imaginable but is also actionable. Through home-, school-, pediatric medical home-, and community-based intervention, we can and must take those important steps—now.

Text Box 1.

Effects of early stress on development have been demonstrated most clearly in the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis component of the stress response system. The HPA axis is characterized by a cascade of activity in which stimulation of the amygdala initiates the release of corticotropin releasing hormone (CRH) from the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus leading to the secretion of adrenocorticotropic hormone from the pituitary and resulting release of the glucocorticoid hormone cortisol (corticosterone in rodents) from the adrenals. Circulating glucocorticoid then feeds back on the HPA system to inhibit CRH and the resulting production of cortisol. 1 Although increase in circulating glucocorticoids resulting from HPA activity is relatively slow and enduring, on the scale of minutes and hours, CRH also stimulates the sympathetic adrenal system, the faster-acting component of the stress response (on a scale of seconds), leading to complex interactions between the HPA axis and the autonomic nervous system. 2 – 4 In addition to fast and slow effects of stress on brain function, glucocorticoids affect brain structure through epigenetic processes. Levels of circulating cortisol/corticosterone affect processes in the cell nucleus and influence DNA transcription and gene expression. 5 , 6 Interactions among the components of stress physiology are intricate, and more research is needed on how they are related to one another developmentally.

• 1. Gunnar M, Quevedo K. The neurobiology of stress and development. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:145–173. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085605. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Groeneweg FL, Karst H, de Kloet ER, Joëls M. Mineralocorticoid and glucocorticoid receptors at the neuronal membrane, regulators of non-genomic corticosteroid signalling. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2012;350:299–309. doi: 10.1016/j.mce.2011.06.020. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Ladd CO, Huot RL, Thrivikraman K, et al. Long-term adaptations in glucocorticoid receptor and mineralocorticoid receptor mRNA and negative feedback on the hypothalamo–pituitary–adrenal axis following neonatal maternal separation. Biol Psychiatry. 2004;55:367–375. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2003.10.007. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Sapolsky RM, Romero LM, Munck AU. How do glucocorticoids influence stress responses? integrating permissive, suppressive, stimulatory, and preparative actions 1. Endocr Rev. 2000;21:55–89. doi: 10.1210/edrv.21.1.0389. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. de Kloet ER, Karst H, Joëls M. Corticosteroid hormones in the central stress response: quick-and-slow. Front Neuroendocrinol. 2008;29:268–272. doi: 10.1016/j.yfrne.2007.10.002. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Joëls M, Baram TZ. The neuro-symphony of stress. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10:459–466. doi: 10.1038/nrn2632. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Text Box 2.

The adaptability of stress physiology in response to experience is referred to as allostasis or biased homeostasis. 1 Allostasis refers to the adjustment of resting levels of stress response physiology in response to experience. Unlike homeostatic systems that must maintain functioning within a relatively narrow band around a given set point to support the optimal functioning of the organism (eg, body temperature around 98.6°F), stress response systems are allostatic, able to adaptively adjust set points and ranges in response to experience as needed. In this process of allostatic adjustment, the brain plays the key mediating role as it is shaped by experience to adjust physiologic systems to meet an expected future. 2 The process of the interactive adjustment of biological development by experience is referred to as experiential canalization. 3 As applied to self-regulation development, 4 experiential canalization refers to the way in which experience shapes stress response physiology in ways that promote behaviors appropriate for the context in which development is occurring. In the context of poverty, in which resources are scarce and the future unpredictable, stress physiology is hypothesized to shape brain development in ways that promote fast reactive and automatic responses to stimulation. In contrast, in high-resource, supportive environments, experience is hypothesized to shape brain development in ways that promote executive function and the intentional, thoughtful regulation of behavior.

• 1. McEwen BS. The neurobiology of stress: from serendipity to clinical relevance. Brain Res. 2000;886:172–189. doi: 10.1016/s0006-8993(00)02950-4. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05331.x. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Gottlieb G. Experiential canalization of behavioral development: theory. Dev Psychol. 1991;27:4. [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Blair C, Raver CC. Individual development and evolution: experiential canalization of self-regulation. Dev Psychol. 2012;48:647–657. doi: 10.1037/a0026472. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Acknowledgments

Support for this research was provided by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (grants R01 HD51502 and P01 HD39667) with cofunding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the US Administration for Children and Families (grant 90YR0057).

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

• 1. Brito NH, Noble KG. Socioeconomic status and structural brain development. Front Neurosci. 2014;8:276. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2014.00276. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Hair NL, Hanson JL, Wolfe BL, et al. Association of child poverty, brain development, and academic achievement. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169:822–829. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1475. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Krishnadas R, McLean J, Batty GD, et al. Socioeconomic deprivation and cortical morphology: psychological, social, and biological determinants of ill health study. Psychosom Med. 2013;75:616–623. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3182a151a7. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Lawson GM, Duda JT, Avants BB, et al. Associations between children’s socioeconomic status and prefrontal cortical thickness. Dev Sci. 2013;16:641–652. doi: 10.1111/desc.12096. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Miller GE, Chen E, Parker KJ. Psychological stress in childhood and susceptibility to the chronic diseases of aging: moving toward a model of behavioral and biological mechanisms. Psychol Bull. 2011;137:959–997. doi: 10.1037/a0024768. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Noble KG, Houston SM, Brito NH, et al. Family income, parental education and brain structure in children and adolescents. Nat Neurosci. 2015;18:773–778. doi: 10.1038/nn.3983. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Hanson JL, Hair N, Shen DG, et al. Family poverty affects the rate of human infant brain growth. PLoS One. 2013;8:e80954. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080954. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. Tomalski P, Moore DG, Ribeiro H, et al. Socioeconomic status and functional brain development—associations in early infancy. Dev Sci. 2013;16:676–687. doi: 10.1111/desc.12079. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. Luby J, Belden A, Botteron K, et al. The effects of poverty on childhood brain development: the mediating effect of caregiving and stressful life events. JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167:1135–1142. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.3139. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 10. Luby JL. Poverty’s most insidious damage: the developing brain. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169:810–811. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1682. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 11. Fernald A, Marchman VA, Weisleder A. SES differences in language processing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Dev Sci. 2013;16:234–248. doi: 10.1111/desc.12019. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. Coley RL, Lynch AD, Kull M. Early exposure to environmental chaos and children’s physical and mental health. Early Child Res Q. 2015;32:94–104. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.03.001. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 13. Deater-Deckard K, Sewell MD, Petrill SA, et al. Maternal working memory and reactive negativity in parenting. Psychol Sci. 2010;21:75–79. doi: 10.1177/0956797609354073. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 14. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05331.x. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 15. Huizink AC, Mulder EJ, Buitelaar JK. Prenatal stress and risk for psychopathology: specific effects or induction of general susceptibility? Psychol Bull. 2004;130:115. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.115. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 16. Holmes A, Wellman CL. Stress-induced prefrontal reorganization and executive dysfunction in rodents. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2009;33:773–783. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.11.005. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 17. Liston C, Miller MM, Goldwater DS, et al. Stress-induced alterations in prefrontal cortical dendritic morphology predict selective impairments in perceptual attentional set-shifting. J Neurosci. 2006;26:7870–7874. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1184-06.2006. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 18. McEwen BS. Stress and hippocampal plasticity. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1999;22:105–122. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.22.1.105. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 19. Arnsten AF. Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10:410–422. doi: 10.1038/nrn2648. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 20. Loman MM, Gunnar MR. Early experience and the development of stress reactivity and regulation in children. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2010;34:867–876. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.05.007. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 21. Blair C, Raver CC, Granger D, et al. Allostasis and allostatic load in the context of poverty in early childhood. Dev Psychopathol. 2011;23:845–857. doi: 10.1017/S0954579411000344. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 22. Chen E, Cohen S, Miller GE. How low socioeconomic status affects 2-year hormonal trajectories in children. Psychol Sci. 2010;21:31–37. doi: 10.1177/0956797609355566. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 23. Evans GW. A multimethodological analysis of cumulative risk and allostatic load among rural children. Dev Psychol. 2003;39:924. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.39.5.924. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 24. Blair C, Granger DA, Willoughby M, et al. Salivary cortisol mediates effects of poverty and parenting on executive functions in early childhood. Child Dev. 2011;82:1970–1984. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01643.x. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 25. Evans GW, Schamberg MA. Childhood poverty, chronic stress, and adult working memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106:6545–6549. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0811910106. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 26. Hanson JL, Chung MK, Avants BB, et al. Structural variations in pre-frontal cortex mediate the relationship between early childhood stress and spatial working memory. J Neurosci. 2012;32:7917–7925. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0307-12.2012. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 27. Nelson CA. A neurobiological perspective on early human deprivation. Child Dev Perspect. 2007;1:13–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• 28. Tottenham N, Sheridan MA. A review of adversity, the amygdala and the hippocampus: a consideration of developmental timing. Front Hum Neurosci. 2010;3:68. doi: 10.3389/neuro.09.068.2009. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 29. Repetti RL, Taylor SE, Seeman TE. Risky families: family social environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychol Bull. 2002;128:330–366. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 30. Blair C, Raver CC. Child development in the context of adversity: experiential canalization of brain and behavior. Am Psychol. 2012;67:309–318. doi: 10.1037/a0027493. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 31. McLoyd VC. Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. Am Psychol. 1998;53:185. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.53.2.185. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 32. Feldman R. The adaptive human parental brain: implications for children’s social development. Trends Neurosci. 2015;38:387–399. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2015.04.004. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 33. Kim P, Strathearn L, Swain JE. The maternal brain and its plasticity in humans. Horm Behav. 2016;77:113–123. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2015.08.001. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 34. Perry R, Sullivan RM. Neurobiology of attachment to an abusive caregiver: short-term benefits and long-term costs. Dev Psychobiol. 2014;56:1626–1634. doi: 10.1002/dev.21219. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 35. Meaney MJ. Maternal care, gene expression, and the transmission of individual differences in stress reactivity across generations. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2001;24:1161–1192. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.1161. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 36. Hofer MA. Hidden regulators in attachment, separation, and loss. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 1994;59:192–207. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 37. Evans GW, Gonnella C, Marcynyszyn LA, et al. The role of chaos in poverty and children’s socioemotional adjustment. Psychol Sci. 2005;16:560–565. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01575.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 38. Hostinar CE, Sullivan RM, Gunnar MR. Psychobiological mechanisms underlying the social buffering of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical axis: a review of animal models and human studies across development. Psychol Bull. 2014;140:256–282. doi: 10.1037/a0032671. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 39. Callaghan BL, Sullivan RM, Howell B, et al. The international society for developmental psychobiology Sackler symposium: early adversity and the maturation of emotion circuits—a cross-species analysis. Dev Psychobiol. 2014;56:1635–1650. doi: 10.1002/dev.21260. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 40. Parker KJ, Buckmaster CL, Sundlass K, et al. Maternal mediation, stress inoculation, and the development of neuroendocrine stress resistance in primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:3000–3005. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506571103. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 41. Tang AC, Akers KG, Reeb BC, et al. Programming social, cognitive, and neuroendocrine development by early exposure to novelty. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:15716–15721. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0607374103. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 42. McLaughlin KA, Sheridan MA, Tibu F, et al. Causal effects of the early caregiving environment on development of stress response systems in children. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112:5637–5642. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1423363112. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 43. Metzler CW, Sanders MR, Rusby JC, et al. Using consumer preference information to increase the reach and impact of media-based parenting interventions in a public health approach to parenting support. Behav Ther. 2012;43:257–270. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2011.05.004. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 44. Berkule SB, Cates CB, Dreyer BP, et al. Reducing maternal depressive symptoms through promotion of parenting in pediatric primary care. Clin Pediatr. 2014;53:460–469. doi: 10.1177/0009922814528033. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 45. Briggs RD, Stettler EM, Silver EJ, et al. Social–emotional screening for infants and toddlers in primary care. Pediatrics. 2012;129:e377–e384. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-2211. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 46. Klass P, Dreyer BP, Mendelsohn AL. Reach Out and Read: literacy promotion in pediatric primary care. Adv Pediatr. 2009;56:11–27. doi: 10.1016/j.yapd.2009.08.009. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 47. Mendelsohn AL, Huberman HS, Berkule SB, et al. Primary care strategies for promoting parent–child interactions and school readiness in at-risk families: the Bellevue Project for Early Language, Literacy, and Education Success. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165:33–41. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.254. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 48. Landry SH, Smith KE, Swank PR, et al. A responsive parenting intervention: the optimal timing across early childhood for impacting maternal behaviors and child outcomes. Dev Psychol. 2008;44:1335–1353. doi: 10.1037/a0013030. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 49. Brotman LM, Gouley KK, Huang K, et al. Effects of a psychosocial family-based preventive intervention on cortisol response to a social challenge in preschoolers at high risk for antisocial behavior. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64:1172–1179. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.64.10.1172. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 50. Fisher PA, Gunnar MR, Dozier M, et al. Effects of therapeutic interventions for foster children on behavioral problems, caregiver attachment, and stress regulatory neural systems. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006;1094:215–225. doi: 10.1196/annals.1376.023. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 51. Dozier M, Peloso E, Lewis E, et al. Effects of an attachment-based intervention on the cortisol production of infants and toddlers in foster care. Dev Psychopathol. 2008;20:845–859. doi: 10.1017/S0954579408000400. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 52. Neville HJ, Stevens C, Pakulak E, et al. Family-based training program improves brain function, cognition, and behavior in lower socioeconomic status preschoolers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110:12138–12143. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1304437110. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 53. Landry SH, Smith KE, Swank PR. Responsive parenting: establishing early foundations for social, communication, and independent problem-solving skills. Dev Psychol. 2006;42:627–642. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.627. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 54. Reynolds AJ, Temple JA. Cost-effective early childhood development programs from preschool to third grade. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2008;4:109–139. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091411. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 55. Ylinen S, Kujala T. Neuroscience illuminating the influence of auditory or phonological intervention on language-related deficits. Front Psychol. 2015;6:137. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00137. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 56. Barquero LA, Davis N, Cutting LE. Neuroimaging of reading intervention: a systematic review and activation likelihood estimate meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e83668. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083668. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 57. Bierman KL, Domitrovich CE, Nix RL, et al. Promoting academic and social-emotional school readiness: the head start REDI program. Child Dev. 2008;79:1802–1817. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01227.x. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 58. Blair C, Raver CC. Closing the achievement gap through modification of neurocognitive and neuroendocrine function: results from a cluster randomized controlled trial of an innovative approach to the education of children in kindergarten. PLoS One. 2014;9:e112393. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112393. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 59. Diamond A, Barnett WS, Thomas J, et al. Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science. 2007;318:1387–1388. doi: 10.1126/science.1151148. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 60. Miller GE, Brody GH, Yu T, et al. A family-oriented psychosocial intervention reduces inflammation in low-SES African American youth. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111:11287–11292. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1406578111. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 61. Raver CC, Jones SM, Li-Grining C, et al. CSRP’s impact on low-income preschoolers’ preacademic skills: self-regulation as a mediating mechanism. Child Dev. 2011;82:362–378. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01561.x. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 62. Campbell F, Conti G, Heckman JJ, et al. Early childhood investments substantially boost adult health. Science. 2014;343:1478–1485. doi: 10.1126/science.1248429. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 63. Moffitt TE, Arseneault L, Belsky D, et al. A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:2693–2698. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010076108. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (70.7 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

The World Bank Group is committed to fighting poverty in all its dimensions. We use the latest data, evidence and analysis to help countries develop policies to improve the lives of the poorest and most vulnerable people.

Global poverty reduction has slowed to a near standstill, with 2020-2030 set to be a lost decade.

8.5 percent of the global population – almost 700 million people – live today on less than $2.15 per day, the extreme poverty line relevant for low-income countries. Three-quarters of all people in extreme poverty live in Sub-Saharan Africa or in fragile and conflict-affected countries.

44 percent of the global population – around 3.5 billion people – live today on less than $6.85 per day, the poverty line relevant for upper-middle-income countries. The total number of people living under this poverty line has barely changed since 1990 due to population growth.

Progress on shared prosperity has stalled since the pandemic, due to slow economic growth and a divergence in mean incomes. Today, incomes around the world, on average, would have to increase five-fold to reach the level of $25 per person per day, the minimum prosperity standard for high-income countries.

Around one-fifth of the world’s population lives in economies with high inequality, concentrated mostly in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. Only 7 percent of the global population lives in countries with low inequality.

Climate change poses a fundamental risk to poverty and inequality reduction. Nearly 1 in 5 people globally are likely to experience a severe weather shock in their lifetime from which they will struggle to recover.

Climate change also threatens to increase global inequality, as poorer countries and people are likely to suffer more from the negative consequences.

Find out more:  Poverty, Prosperity, and Planet Report 2024: Pathways Out of the Polycrisis

Last Updated: Oct 15, 2024

AROUND THE BANK GROUP

Find out what the World Bank Group's branches are doing to reduce poverty.

STAY CONNECTED

Faces of Resilience: Standing Strong in the Central African Republic

Stories of people in the Central African Republic who are saving lives, protecting the Congo basin forests, improving food security, and looking to the future.

COVID-19 Dealt a Historic Blow to Poverty Reduction

The 2022 Poverty and Prosperity Report provided the first comprehensive analysis of the pandemic’s toll on poverty in developing countries and of the role of fiscal policy in protecting vulnerable groups.

Umbrella Facility for Poverty and Equity

The Umbrella Facility for Poverty and Equity (UFPE) is the first global trust fund to support the cross-cutting poverty and equity agenda.

IDA: Our Fund for the Poorest

The International Development Association (IDA) aims to reduce poverty by providing funding for programs that boost economic growth.

High-Frequency Monitoring Systems to Track the Impacts of COVID-19

The World Bank and partners are monitoring the crisis and the socioeconomic impacts of COVID-19 through a series of high-frequency phone surveys.

Poverty Podcast

Join us and poverty specialists as we explore the latest data and research on poverty reduction, shared prosperity, and equity around the globe in this new World Bank Group podcast series.

Stepping Up the Fight Against Extreme Poverty

To avert the risk of more backsliding, policymakers must put everything they can into the effort to end extreme poverty.

Additional Resources

This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. If you continue to navigate this website beyond this page, cookies will be placed on your browser. To learn more about cookies, click here .

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications

• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Income, Wealth & Poverty

Most americans feel good about their job security but not their pay.

U.S. workers feel their jobs are secure and few are seeking a job change. But only half are highly satisfied with their job overall.

Among unmarried adults, women without children have as much wealth as single men

Are you in the american middle class find out with our income calculator, americans are split over the state of the american dream, sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

A look at the state of affordable housing in the U.S.

About seven-in-ten Americans (69%) say they are very concerned about the cost of housing.

Income inequality is greater among Chinese Americans than any other Asian origin group in the U.S.

Among all Asian origin groups in the U.S., Chinese American households had the highest income inequality in 2022.

The State of the Asian American Middle Class

The share of Asian Americans in the U.S. middle class has held steady since 2010, while the share in the upper-income tier has grown.

The State of the American Middle Class

As the financial divide has grown, a smaller share of Americans now live in middle-class households. Here are key facts about this group.

Is College Worth It?

Americans have mixed views on the importance of having a degree. 47% say the cost is worth it only if someone doesn’t have to take out loans.

7 facts about Americans and taxes

A majority of U.S. adults say they’re bothered a lot by the feeling that some corporations (61%) and some wealthy people (60%) don’t pay their fair share.

Key facts about Asian Americans living in poverty

Burmese (19%) and Hmong Americans (17%) were among the Asian origin groups with the highest poverty rates in 2022.

1 in 10: Redefining the Asian American Dream (Short Film)

Of the 24 million Asians living in the United States, about 2.3 million live in poverty. This short film explores their diverse stories and experiences.

The Hardships and Dreams of Asian Americans Living in Poverty

About one-in-ten Asian Americans live in poverty. Pew Research Center conducted 18 focus groups in 12 languages to explore their stories and experiences.

A booming U.S. stock market doesn’t benefit all racial and ethnic groups equally

Nearly two-thirds of White families (66%) owned stocks directly or indirectly, compared with 39% of Black families and 28% of Hispanic families.

REFINE YOUR SELECTION

Research teams.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Notifications