Topic Summary

Summary: Family Income and Poverty

All Indicators In This Topic
Children in Poverty, by Race/Ethnicity
Children Living in Areas of Concentrated Poverty
Children in Deep Poverty
Median Family Income, by Family Type
Household Income Distribution, by Quintile
Gini Index of Household Income Inequality
Income Level for Children Relative to Poverty
Income Level for Children Relative to Poverty, by Family Type
Children Living in Low-Income Working Families
Mothers with a Recent Birth Living in Families in Poverty
Mothers with a Recent Birth Living in Low-Income Families
Children in Poverty - Supplemental Poverty Measure (California & U.S. Only)
Poverty Thresholds - California Poverty Measure, by Family Composition and Housing Tenure
Children in Poverty - California Poverty Measure
Children in Deep Poverty - California Poverty Measure
Poverty-Reducing Effects of the Social Safety Net - California Poverty Measure, by Program Type and Poverty Level (California Only)
Self-Sufficiency Standard, by Family Composition
Families Living Below Self-Sufficiency Standard
Children Participating in CalWORKs
Spotlight on Key Indicators: Family Income and Poverty
Loading…

Learn More About Family Income and Poverty

Family Income and Poverty
Student Demographics
Early Care and Education
Food Security
Homelessness
Childhood Adversity, Resilience, and Positive Experiences
Housing Affordability and Resources
Immigrants
Unemployment
Health Care
Health Status
Why This Topic Is Important
Income and well being are intricately linked. Poverty can alter children's developmental trajectories in cognitive, socio-emotional, and physical health (1, 2). The effects of poverty on child health and well being can begin even before pregnancy, as low-income women are more likely to experience malnutrition and stress, and are less likely to receive adequate preconception and prenatal care (2). Children who face economic hardship when they are young, or who experience deep and prolonged poverty, are at greatest risk for adverse outcomes (1). The effects of poverty and the stress associated with it can be lasting, contributing to increased risk of poor academic, health, and employment outcomes into adulthood, among other negative consequences (1, 2).

The impacts extend beyond individuals, too. It is estimated that child poverty costs the U.S. on the order of $1 trillion annually in direct and indirect health costs, increased child maltreatment, loss of economic productivity, and costs associated with crime and incarceration (3). Research associates public investments in childhood poverty reduction strategies with positive economic returns (3).
The link between income and wellness is evident even for those living above the poverty threshold. A health gradient exists along the economic spectrum such that health status improves as income level increases; e.g., the health of those in the middle-income range tends to be inferior to those in higher-income groups (4, 5). This is especially concerning given that income inequality in the U.S. has been increasing for decades (6).

Rates of poverty tend to be highest among children under age 5, those in immigrant or single-parent families, and African American/black, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Hispanic/Latino children (1, 7).

For more information, see kidsdata.org’s Research & Links section.

Sources for this narrative:

1.  American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Community Pediatrics. (2021). Poverty and child health in the United States. Pediatrics, 137(4), e20160339. Retrieved from: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/137/4/e20160339/81482/Poverty-and-Child-Health-in-the-United-States

2.  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2023). Closing the opportunity gap for young children. National Academies Press. Retrieved from: https://www.nationalacademies.org/projects/DBASSE-BCYF-19-04/publication/26743

3.  Garfinkel, I., et al. (2022). The benefits and costs of a child allowance. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 13(3), 335-362. Retrieved from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-benefit-cost-analysis/article/benefits-and-costs-of-a-child-allowance/665380DF301F990D8FDB06A7BB3D5BD9

4.  Udalova, V., et al. (2022). Association of family income with morbidity and mortality among U.S. lower-income children and adolescents. JAMA, 328(24), 2422-2430. Retrieved from: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2799910

5.  Kim, Y., et al. (2023). Socioeconomic disparities in health outcomes in the United States in the late 2010s: Results from four national population-based studies. Archives of Public Health, 81, 15. Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13690-023-01026-1

6.  Price, C. C. (2025). Measuring the income gap from 1975 to 2023: Extending previous work. RAND Corporation. Retrieved from: https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-2.html

7.  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2024). Reducing intergenerational poverty. National Academies Press. Retrieved from: https://www.nationalacademies.org/projects/DBASSE-BCYF-20-04/publication/27058
How Children Are Faring
In 2024, an estimated 15% of California children lived below the federal poverty threshold ($31,812 annually for a family of two adults and two children in 2024). Across counties and county groups with data, official child poverty rates ranged from less than 6% to more than 28%. In Merced County, more than one in eight children lived in deep poverty—i.e., on annual income lower than half the federal poverty threshold ($15,906 for two adults and two children in 2024).

The Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) accounts for expenses (e.g., state-level differences in housing costs) and resources (e.g., government safety net program benefits) not captured in the official poverty measure. According to SPM estimates, 17% of California children lived in poverty in 2025. California's SPM child poverty rate consistently exceeds comparable U.S. figures. Hispanic/Latino children are more likely to live below their SPM threshold than their Asian and white peers—in 2023-2025, the percentage of Hispanic/Latino children in poverty according to the SPM was more than double the percentage for white children, statewide and nationally.

The California Poverty Measure (CPM) builds on the SPM by adjusting for California-specific safety net policies and for regional variation in the cost of living within the state. CPM data for early 2023 show that 14% of children statewide lived in poverty and 2.2% lived in deep poverty—up from 9% and 1.7%, respectively, in fall 2021. In the absence of social safety net programs, it is estimated that the child poverty rate would have been nearly 15 percentage points higher and the deep poverty rate more than 9 percentage points higher in early 2023. Local CPM child poverty rates for early 2023 varied from 11% to 18% across the state's ten most populous counties and from 5% to 30% across legislative districts with data. Overall, children whose parents are single, non-U.S. citizens, or who did not finish high school tend to experience higher rates of CPM poverty and deep poverty than children in families with married parents, U.S. citizens, and higher levels of educational attainment.

The Self-Sufficiency Standard (SSS) represents the estimated income a family needs to adequately meet its basic needs without public or private assistance. Across California counties, the SSS for a family of two adults and two school-aged children in 2018 ranged from $52,566 (Modoc) to $114,215 (Marin) annually. In 2016, nearly half (48%) of all families with children statewide lived on incomes below their SSS.
Rates of poverty among California women with a recent birth—and, by extension, their children—are especially high. Statewide, an estimated 41% of mothers with a birth in 2013-2014 lived in families with income below the federal poverty guideline ($23,850 for a family of four in 2014); for African American/black and Hispanic/Latina mothers, the poverty rate was 60%, compared with 20% or less for Asian/Pacific Islander and white mothers.

Income is not distributed evenly across California households and regions. Statewide and nationally, when households are divided by income into five equally sized groups, those in the highest quintile earned an estimated 52% of all household income in 2016-2020, compared with a 3% share of total income earned by households in the lowest quintile. Among counties with data, median annual income for families with children ranged from $48,294 in Tulare County to $182,607 in Marin County in 2016-2020. Marin County also had the highest level of household income inequality among counties with data in 2016-2020, as measured by the Gini index.

The CalWORKs program, which provides cash aid and services to needy families, served more than 665,000 California children—a rate of 77 per 1,000—in 2023. Among counties with data for 2024, participation in CalWORKs ranged from fewer than 9 children per 1,000 in San Mateo to more than 160 per 1,000 in Del Norte and Tulare.
Policy Implications
Poverty has multiple causes and dimensions, many of which public policy can address. Investments in public benefits for children, pregnant women, and families who lack adequate resources for food, clothing, health care, and shelter are highly cost-effective, as are tax credits, parental work support, and other safety net programs that help families meet basic needs in times of financial instability (1, 2). Reducing child poverty, and income inequality more broadly, requires long-term commitments from leaders at the local, state, and federal levels, as well as a broad policy strategy targeting poverty's diverse root causes.

Most low-income families in California have at least one working adult, and while the state has made substantial progress in supporting families in recent years—e.g., through the California Earned Income Tax Credit, Young Child Tax Credit, universal school meals, and minimum wage increases—additional work is needed to address disproportionately high poverty rates among children of color and immigrant families, and to ensure that all Californians have the opportunity to thrive (1, 3, 4).

Policy and program options that could influence family income and poverty include:
  • Ensuring that all eligible families benefit from safety net programs—e.g., cash aid, tax credits, and nutrition assistance—through outreach, elimination of administrative barriers, and increased coordination across programs; also, improving access to the safety net for families with mixed immigration status, who have particularly high poverty rates (1, 2, 3, 4)
  • Continuing to strengthen the CalWORKs program, which provides cash assistance and employment services, ensuring that monthly grants support an adequate living standard for all families, and moving away from work requirements (1, 5)
  • Promoting efforts to maintain and expand federal and state earned income and child tax credits, increasing the amount of cash provided, making credits fully refundable, and broadening eligibility (1, 2, 3, 6)
  • Continuing to increase investments in high-quality, affordable child care, expanding the number of low-income infants and toddlers receiving state-funded subsidies, and reimbursing providers at rates that are tied to the actual cost of effectively recruiting, retaining, and compensating a skilled child-care workforce (4, 7)
  • Strengthening California's Paid Family Leave program, increasing participation, and raising awareness that the rate of earnings replacement was recently increased to 70-90% (4, 8)
  • Promoting state and local policies to increase the supply of affordable housing, provide emergency rental assistance and legal aid for families at risk of losing their homes, and expand supportive services for those experiencing housing instability or homelessness (2, 3, 9)
  • Supporting ongoing efforts to ensure that all children—irrespective of income or immigration status—have comprehensive, continuous, and affordable health insurance coverage; as part of this, maintaining investments in Medi-Cal and Covered California to improve quality of care, streamline enrollment processes, and address structural issues affecting access and cost (2, 3, 4)
  • Using lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce fragmentation across safety net programs and plan effectively for future crises or economic downturns (2, 10)
  • Continuing to strengthen child support enforcement programs that work effectively with non-custodial parents and ensure that support reaches families in need (11)
  • Exploring ambitious poverty-reduction strategies that go beyond the current safety net and status quo, and addressing the root causes of poverty and income inequality through institutional reforms (5)
For more information, see kidsdata.org’s Research & Links section or visit Public Policy Institute of California and California Budget and Policy Center. Also see Policy Implications on kidsdata.org under Food Security, Housing Affordability and Resources, Health Care, and Early Care and Education.

Sources for this narrative:

1.  Bohn, S., et al. (2026). Poverty in California. Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from: https://www.ppic.org/publication/poverty-in-california

2.  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2024). Reducing intergenerational poverty. National Academies Press. Retrieved from: https://www.nationalacademies.org/projects/DBASSE-BCYF-20-04/publication/27058

3.  California Budget and Policy Center. (2025). California's persistent poverty crisis: 2024 rates remain alarmingly high. Retrieved from: https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/californias-persistent-poverty-crisis-2024-rates-remain-alarmingly-high

4.  Children Now. (2026). 2026 California children's report card: A survey of kids’ well-being and roadmap for the future. Retrieved from: https://www.childrennow.org/portfolio-posts/2026-california-childrens-report-card

5.  Grusky, D. B., et al. (n.d.). Ending poverty in California: A blueprint for a just and inclusive economy. End Poverty in California. Retrieved from: https://endpovertyinca.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/policy-paper.pdf

6.  Anderson, A. (2025). California's refundable income tax credits: $1.4 billion for Californians with low incomes. California Budget and Policy Center. Retrieved from: https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/californias-refundable-income-tax-credits-1-4-billion-for-californians-with-low-incomes

7.  Gibbs, C., et al. (2026). The economics of the market for early childhood care and education in California. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. Retrieved from: https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/economics-market-early-childhood-care-and-education-california

8.  Shabo, V. (2026). Explainer: Paid leave benefits and funding in the United States. New America. Retrieved from: https://www.newamerica.org/insights/explainer-paid-leave-benefits-and-funding-in-the-united-states

9.  Davalos, M., et al. (2026). Evictions in California and solutions to keep families housed. California Budget and Policy Center. Retrieved from: https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/evictions-in-california-and-solutions-to-keep-families-housed

10.  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2023). Addressing the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on children and families. National Academies Press. Retrieved from: https://www.nationalacademies.org/projects/DBASSE-BCYF-21-02/publication/26809

11.  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. (2023). Office of Child Support Enforcement annual report to Congress FY 2020. Retrieved from: https://acf.gov/ocse/research-data/Reports-Publications/fy-2020-report-congress
Websites with Related Information
Key Reports and Research
County/Regional Reports
More Data Sources For Family Income and Poverty