How Can We Reduce Poverty?

Section 1: Top 35 Countries with Lowest Percent of Persons Below the Poverty Line

The United States does not appear in the top 35 countries with the lowest poverty rates. According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2023 national poverty estimate, approximately 11.5 percent of the population lives below the federal poverty threshold. When compared across developed economies this places the United States roughly between rank 38 and 40.

Key drivers include higher income inequality, regional cost of living differences, limited universal social benefits, higher healthcare costs, and housing affordability challenges in major urban areas.

Sources: Gallup World Poll | World Bank Poverty Data | OECD Income Distribution Database | U.S. Census Bureau Poverty Statistics (www.gallup.com) (www.worldbank.org) (www.oecd.org) (www.census.gov)

Poverty rates reflect the economic and social policies of each nation. Countries that invest heavily in universal healthcare, education, and robust social safety nets consistently demonstrate the lowest poverty percentages. The data presented in this table draws from the most recent available survey research conducted by international organizations.

Top 8 Countries with Lowest Percent of Persons Below the Poverty Line

Section 2: What Other Countries Have Done to Have the Lowest Percent of Persons Below the Poverty Line

The nations that have achieved the lowest poverty rates share several common strategies: robust social safety nets, universal access to healthcare and education, active labor market policies, and strong employee protections. The following country profiles outline the specific mechanisms each nation employs.

Norge (Norway)

Norge's poverty reduction strategy centers on universal social insurance programs managed by the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration NAV . These programs integrate unemployment benefits, disability benefits, income assistance, and job placement services within a unified national administrative system. (www.nav.no)

The Norge government finances social protection programs using revenues from the Government Pension Fund Global, a sovereign wealth fund funded by petroleum revenues. This allows Norge to stabilize long-term social spending and maintain strong income redistribution policies.

Active labor market policies include government-funded vocational training, employer wage subsidies for hiring unemployed workers, and intensive job counseling programs coordinated through municipal employment offices.

Norge's national childcare guarantee program ensures that all families have access to subsidized early childhood education, which significantly increases labor force participation among parents.

Danmark (Denmark)

Danmark operates a flexicurity labor market model combining flexible hiring rules with strong unemployment insurance administered through the Danish Ministry of Employment . (bm.dk)

The Danmark unemployment insurance system provides income replacement benefits for unemployed workers while requiring participation in retraining and job placement programs coordinated by the Danish Agency for Labour Market and Recruitment . (star.dk)

Danmark invests heavily in adult education programs, allowing workers to receive government-funded skills training and professional certification throughout their careers.

Municipal governments administer housing support programs ensuring that low-income households receive rental subsidies and access to affordable housing developments.

Suomi (Finland)

The Suomi Social Insurance Institution Kela administers national benefits including income support, housing allowances, unemployment benefits, and student financial aid. (www.kela.fi)

Suomi prioritizes equal access to education through comprehensive public schooling funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture . (okm.fi)

The Suomi housing policy includes large-scale public housing investments and rent regulation mechanisms designed to stabilize housing costs in urban areas.

Labor market reintegration programs focus on long-term unemployed individuals through individualized employment plans and subsidized job placements.

Sverige (Sweden)

Sverige maintains universal welfare programs administered through the Swedish Social Insurance Agency including parental leave benefits, sickness insurance, disability benefits, and housing allowances. (www.forsakringskassan.se)

The Sverige Public Employment Service operates extensive employment counseling and retraining programs. (arbetsformedlingen.se)

Sverige's collective bargaining system establishes sector-wide wage agreements negotiated between trade unions and employer associations.

Extensive childcare subsidies enable parents to remain in the workforce while raising children.

Schweiz (Switzerland)

Schweiz relies on a decentralized welfare system coordinated through cantonal governments and federal oversight by the Swiss Federal Social Insurance Office . (www.bsv.admin.ch)

The Schweiz vocational training system integrates apprenticeships with classroom education through programs coordinated by the State Secretariat for Education Research and Innovation . (www.sbfi.admin.ch)

Many Schweiz companies participate in apprenticeship programs which provide young people with early entry into skilled professions.

Social assistance programs are administered locally allowing municipalities to tailor benefits to regional economic conditions.

Nederland (Netherlands)

The Dutch social protection system provides minimum income guarantees through municipal welfare programs funded by the national government.

The Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment oversees unemployment benefits, disability insurance, and income support programs. (www.government.nl)

The Employee Insurance Agency UWV administers job placement programs and disability employment services. (www.uwv.nl)

Affordable housing initiatives rely heavily on nonprofit housing associations which construct and manage large portions of the national housing stock.

Österreich (Austria)

Österreich provides strong family benefits including child allowances and parental leave payments administered by the Federal Ministry of Social Affairs . (www.sozialministerium.at)

The Österreich Public Employment Service administers training programs and job matching services for unemployed workers. (www.ams.at)

Österreich invests heavily in vocational education integrated with industry partnerships allowing students to enter skilled employment early.

Rent control policies and housing subsidies help maintain stable housing costs for lower-income households.

Deutschland (Germany)

Deutschland's social insurance model includes unemployment benefits, public health insurance, and pension systems administered through the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs . (www.bmas.de)

The Federal Employment Agency provides extensive job placement assistance and training programs. (www.arbeitsagentur.de)

The Hartz labor market reforms introduced structured job search requirements and employment services aimed at reducing long-term unemployment.

Deutschland's apprenticeship system integrates education with employment providing structured career pathways for young workers.

Figure 1: Lowest Percentage of Persons Below the Poverty Line by World Region (Approximate 2023 Data)

Section 3: What the U.S. Could Do to Reduce the Percent of Persons Below the Poverty Line

The United States has the capacity to meaningfully reduce poverty through coordinated federal action. The following policy recommendations reflect approaches that have proven effective in comparable economies and are attainable within existing governmental frameworks.

Department of Labor could expand national workforce retraining programs targeting displaced workers in declining industries.

Department of Housing and Urban Development could expand housing voucher programs and incentivize construction of affordable housing.

Department of Health and Human Services could increase funding for community health centers serving low-income populations.

Department of Education could increase Pell Grant funding to improve access to higher education.

Department of Agriculture could expand rural economic development initiatives and broadband infrastructure.

Internal Revenue Service could expand Earned Income Tax Credit eligibility and outreach.

Small Business Administration could expand microloan programs for low-income entrepreneurs.

Department of Transportation could fund affordable public transit systems in underserved communities.

Department of Energy could expand home energy assistance programs.

Department of Commerce could establish regional economic development zones.

Department of Labor could expand apprenticeship programs.

Department of Education could support community college workforce partnerships.

Department of Treasury could develop financial inclusion programs.

Department of Veterans Affairs could expand employment support programs for veterans.

HUD could expand housing development tax incentives.

HHS could expand childcare subsidy programs.

USDA could expand food security programs including SNAP.

Department of Commerce could support technology job training.

Department of Labor could strengthen wage theft enforcement.

Department of Justice could enforce fair employment laws.

Treasury could support community development financial institutions.

Department of Energy could support clean energy workforce development.

Department of Education could expand early childhood education funding.

HUD could support homelessness prevention programs.

HHS could expand mental health services.

Department of Commerce could support small business incubators.

Treasury could implement tax incentives for living-wage employers.

Department of Transportation could invest in infrastructure employment.

Department of Labor could expand youth employment programs.

Federal Reserve coordination with Treasury could support community investment.

Successful implementation of these recommendations requires sustained bipartisan commitment, adequate appropriations, and rigorous program evaluation. Coordination among federal departments is essential to eliminate redundancies and maximize impact on poverty reduction.

Section 3A: What Corporations, Organizations, and Private Individuals Can Do to Reduce Poverty

Federal and state government policy alone cannot eliminate poverty. The most durable and far-reaching poverty reduction in comparable nations has occurred when public investment has been matched by private sector commitment, civil society engagement, and individual action.

The following section identifies specific, actionable steps that corporations, nonprofit organizations, faith communities, philanthropists, and private individuals can take to meaningfully reduce poverty in the United States. These contributions complement the legislative framework established in the preceding sections and are essential to achieving lasting change.

A. Corporations and Businesses

Corporations are among the most powerful non-governmental actors in the American economy. Their decisions about wages, hiring, benefits, supplier relationships, and community investment have a direct and immediate impact on the economic conditions of millions of workers and families.

The following actions represent meaningful, proven strategies through which businesses of all sizes can contribute to poverty reduction.

Pay Living Wages and Adopt Transparent Pay Practices. The most direct corporate contribution to poverty reduction is paying all employees including part-time, hourly, seasonal, and contract workers wages sufficient to cover basic living costs in their geographic area.

Corporations could adopt the living wage standard calculated by the MIT Living Wage Calculator or an equivalent methodology, which accounts for actual local costs of housing, food, childcare, healthcare, and transportation rather than the federally mandated minimum wage, which in many regions falls far below a livable income.

Large employers with geographically diverse workforces could establish regional wage floors reflecting local cost-of-living differences. In addition, corporations could publish transparent pay scales and conduct annual internal equity audits to identify and correct gender, racial, and other pay disparities that disproportionately affect workers from low-income backgrounds.

Provide Comprehensive Employee Benefits to All Workers. Access to employer-provided benefits is one of the most significant economic divides between higher-income and lower-income workers.

Corporations could extend meaningful benefits packages to all full-time and part-time employees, including: affordable employer-sponsored health insurance with premiums at or below 5 percent of the employee’s gross wages; paid sick leave of not fewer than seven days per year; paid family and medical leave of not fewer than twelve weeks for the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child or for a serious health condition; access to a defined-contribution retirement plan with employer matching; and subsidized childcare assistance or access to an employer-operated or employer-subsidized childcare center.

Research consistently shows that employers who provide robust benefits experience lower turnover, reduced absenteeism, and higher workforce productivity—outcomes that offset the cost of expanded benefits in most industries within two to three years.

Adopt Equitable and Opportunity-Based Hiring Practices.—Corporate hiring practices often systematically exclude individuals from low-income backgrounds through degree requirements, credit checks, criminal background screening, and unpaid internship pipelines. Businesses committed to poverty reduction should: eliminate four-year degree requirements from job postings where the skills required can be demonstrated through experience, certification, or competency assessments; adopt “ban the box” policies delaying criminal history inquiries until a conditional job offer has been made; discontinue the use of consumer credit checks in hiring decisions for positions that do not involve direct financial fiduciary responsibility; expand paid internship and apprenticeship programs, actively recruiting from community colleges, vocational programs, and reentry employment programs; and partner with workforce development organizations, including those supported by programs described in Section 3 of this report, to build pipelines from training programs directly into employment.

Invest in Supplier Diversity and Local Procurement. Large corporations exert enormous economic influence through their procurement decisions. Directing a meaningful share of purchasing contracts to small businesses owned by women, racial and ethnic minorities, veterans, and individuals from economically distressed communities creates wealth, employment, and economic multiplier effects in communities that are disproportionately affected by poverty.

Corporations could set formal supplier diversity targets, provide technical assistance and mentorship to small business suppliers, and offer prompt payment terms (net 15 or net 30) to small and minority-owned businesses that depend on timely cash flow to sustain operations.

Anchor institutions including hospitals, universities, and major manufacturers could adopt local procurement policies committing a defined percentage of their purchasing budgets to vendors located within their regional communities.

Invest in Employee Training, Education, and Upward Mobility. Many low-wage workers are trapped in entry-level positions not because of lack of ability but because their employers provide no pathways to advancement. Corporations could establish tuition assistance programs allowing all employees to pursue further education while working, with reimbursement of at least $5,250 annually per employee the current IRS tax-exclusion limit for employer educational assistance. Internal promotion tracking systems could be implemented to identify workers who have been in the same role for more than two years and ensure they are receiving active career development support.

Skills-based promotion policies that evaluate workers on demonstrated competency rather than credentials or tenure alone can help workers from low-income backgrounds advance at rates that reflect their actual contribution and potential.

Direct Corporate Philanthropy and Community Investment Toward Root Causes of Poverty. Corporate charitable giving, foundation grants, and community investment programs represent a multi-billion-dollar annual resource that can be targeted with much greater precision toward poverty’s root causes.

Companies could direct their corporate social responsibility (CSR) budgets toward organizations and initiatives with demonstrated, measurable impact on economic mobility, including community development financial institutions (CDFIs), affordable housing developers, early childhood education programs, food security organizations, and workforce training nonprofits.

Corporate foundations could fund multi-year general operating support grants rather than restricted project grants, giving nonprofit partners the flexibility to respond to community needs rather than being constrained by narrow funder priorities.

Businesses could also consider establishing or contributing to employee volunteer programs that deploy skilled workers, accountants, attorneys, technologists, project managers, and others—as pro bono consultants to poverty-fighting nonprofits and small businesses in underserved communities.

Financial Institutions: Expand Access to Affordable Credit and Banking Services.—Banks, credit unions, and fintech companies have a significant role to play in reducing the financial exclusion that traps millions of low-income Americans in cycles of high-cost debt.

Financial institutions should: expand Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) investments in persistent poverty counties and economically distressed communities; offer low-cost or no-cost basic checking and savings accounts without minimum balance requirements or overdraft fees that disproportionately burden low-income customers; develop affordable small-dollar loan products as alternatives to predatory payday and installment loans; partner with employers to offer payroll advance programs allowing workers to access earned wages before payday at no or minimal cost; support financial literacy programs in schools and community organizations; and actively recruit and promote employees from low-income backgrounds into banking careers, addressing the sector’s persistent underrepresentation of low-income communities in its professional workforce.

B. Nonprofit Organizations, Foundations, and Faith Communities

The nonprofit sector, including foundations, advocacy organizations, social service providers, and faith-based communities, represents the primary delivery infrastructure for poverty-reduction services in most American communities. Beyond service delivery, these organizations play indispensable roles in advocacy, community organizing, data collection, and bridging the gap between government programs and the people those programs are designed to serve.

Strengthen and Coordinate Direct Service Networks.—Social service nonprofits providing food assistance, emergency shelter, housing navigation, job placement, childcare, healthcare navigation, and legal aid are the front line of America’s response to poverty.

These organizations can increase their impact by: adopting integrated case management systems that identify and address the multiple, intersecting needs of individuals and families rather than treating each need in isolation; co-locating services with other providers to reduce transportation barriers for clients; implementing evidence-based program models with documented effectiveness and committing to ongoing program evaluation; training staff and volunteers in trauma-informed care practices, recognizing that a high proportion of individuals experiencing poverty have also experienced trauma; and building relationships with government agencies to facilitate client enrollment in all public benefits for which they are eligible, including SNAP, Medicaid, EITC, housing assistance, and childcare subsidies that many eligible families fail to claim.

Engage in Policy Advocacy and Systems Change. While direct services address immediate needs, lasting poverty reduction requires changing the laws, policies, and institutional structures that generate poverty.

Nonprofit organizations and foundations are well-positioned to advocate for living wage legislation, expanded Earned Income Tax Credit eligibility, tenant protections, anti-discrimination enforcement in hiring and housing, expanded Medicaid coverage, and improved public transit.

Organizations could invest in developing the policy capacity of community members with lived experience of poverty, ensuring that advocacy reflects the perspectives and priorities of those most affected rather than solely the views of professional advocates. Coalitions that unite direct-service providers, community organizers, researchers, and faith communities around shared policy agendas are consistently more effective than single-organization efforts.

3. Foundations: Reform Grantmaking to Better Serve Low-Income Communities.—Private foundations control hundreds of billions of dollars in charitable assets and, under IRS rules, are required to distribute at least 5 percent of their assets annually in grants and qualifying distributions.

To maximize poverty-reduction impact, foundations should: increase annual payout rates above the 5 percent minimum to deploy more capital toward urgent community needs; provide multi-year general operating support grants rather than one-year restricted project grants, which are chronically insufficient for building organizational capacity; reduce burdensome reporting requirements that divert nonprofit staff time from service delivery to grant administration; fund organizations led by and accountable to low-income communities rather than primarily funding well-established organizations with professional development staff; prioritize CDFIs, community land trusts, worker cooperatives, and other wealth-building vehicles that address the structural roots of poverty rather than only its symptoms; and conduct participatory grantmaking processes that involve community members in setting funding priorities.

Faith Communities: Leverage Trust, Reach, and Assets for Community Well-Being.—Religious congregations and faith-based organizations possess unique assets in the fight against poverty: trusted relationships with community members who may not engage with government agencies or secular nonprofits; physical facilities that can serve as community hubs, emergency shelters, childcare centers, food pantries, and meeting spaces; volunteer networks that can be mobilized quickly for both service and advocacy; and a moral framework motivating sustained commitment to justice and human dignity.

Faith communities can expand their poverty-reduction impact by: partnering with local government and nonprofits to host social services on congregation premises; establishing or contributing to community benefit organizations that aggregate the resources of multiple congregations; advocating through denominational and interfaith networks for legislation that protects and advances the interests of low-income people; and ensuring that congregational resources, including discretionary funds for member assistance, are accessible to members experiencing financial hardship without stigma or burdensome qualification requirements.

C. Colleges, Universities, and Research Institutions

Expand Access, Affordability, and Support for Low-Income Students.—Colleges and universities that are committed to economic mobility should: adopt need-blind admissions policies and meet 100 percent of demonstrated financial need for all admitted students through grants rather than loans; establish robust retention support programs including emergency aid funds, food pantries, mental health services, and housing assistance for enrolled students experiencing poverty; recruit aggressively from community colleges and high schools in low-income communities; eliminate legacy admissions preferences that advantage applicants from wealthy families; and partner with local high schools to offer dual enrollment programs giving low-income students college credits while still in high school, reducing time-to-degree and total cost of attendance.

Deploy Institutional Assets as Anchor Institutions.—Universities are major employers, landowners, and consumers of goods and services in their communities.

As anchor institutions, they can direct their economic power toward poverty reduction by: paying all campus employees—including contracted food service, janitorial, and security workers—living wages; prioritizing local and minority-owned vendors in procurement; investing university endowments in CDFIs and affordable housing developers through mission-related investment programs; making university facilities, including libraries, fitness centers, and health clinics, available to community members who are not enrolled students; and conducting community-engaged research on local poverty and its root causes, sharing findings with municipal governments and community organizations in accessible, actionable formats.

D. Private Individuals and Households

Individual action, in the aggregate, constitutes an enormous force for change. While no individual bears sole responsibility for a systemic problem, the choices that millions of individuals make about how they give, vote, spend, volunteer, mentor, and treat others collectively shape the social and economic fabric of communities across the country. The following represent specific, evidence-supported actions that private individuals can take to contribute meaningfully to poverty reduction.

Engage in Informed Civic Participation.—The most impactful single action many individuals can take to reduce poverty is to vote in every election—federal, state, and local—with an informed understanding of candidates’ positions on poverty-related issues including housing affordability, minimum wage, Medicaid expansion, early childhood education funding, and tax policy.

Local elections in particular—for city council, county commission, school board, and state legislature—often directly determine the policies that shape economic conditions in low-income communities, yet typically attract very low voter participation, giving engaged citizens disproportionate influence.

Beyond voting, individuals can contact their elected representatives to express support for specific poverty-reduction legislation, attend public hearings on zoning, housing, and budget decisions that affect low-income communities, and volunteer for issue campaigns and candidate campaigns that prioritize economic equity.

Give Strategically and Generously to High-Impact Organizations.—Individual charitable giving is a powerful tool for poverty reduction when directed toward organizations with demonstrated effectiveness. Those who can afford to give could consider committing a defined percentage of their annual income—the historical tithe of 10 percent, or the “Giving What We Can” pledge of 10 percent, provide useful benchmarks—to organizations addressing poverty’s root causes.

Effective giving principles include: researching recipient organizations through tools such as Charity Navigator, GiveWell, and the Urban Institute’s Nonprofit Finance Fund to assess financial transparency and program effectiveness; prioritizing unrestricted gifts that allow organizations to use funds where they are most needed; donating to organizations led by and accountable to the communities they serve; contributing to local community foundations and CDFIs, which deploy capital directly within specific geographic communities; and considering impact investing, placing capital in community development loan funds, affordable housing projects, or worker cooperatives that generate both financial returns and measurable community benefit.

Volunteer Skills and Time in Ways That Serve Real Community Needs.—Effective volunteering requires matching skills and availability to genuine organizational needs rather than personal preferences for certain types of service.

High-impact volunteer opportunities include: tax preparation assistance through IRS Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) sites, which help low-income filers claim thousands of dollars in EITC and other refundable credits they might otherwise miss; financial coaching and credit counseling through certified nonprofit financial counseling organizations; tutoring and mentoring of students from low-income households through school-based and community-based programs; legal pro bono work through local bar associations and legal aid organizations; skilled volunteering in areas such as accounting, marketing, technology, human resources, and strategic planning for under-resourced nonprofits; and participating in Habitat for Humanity, affordable housing development organizations, and community land trusts that build and rehabilitate housing for low-income families.

Mentor Youth and Adults Navigating Economic Mobility.—Social capital—the networks of relationships that provide access to information, opportunities, and support—is distributed profoundly unequally in the United States. Individuals from middle- and upper-income backgrounds accumulate social capital through family networks, elite educational institutions, and professional associations, while individuals from low-income backgrounds often lack access to the mentors, references, and professional contacts that facilitate economic advancement.

Individuals who have access to such networks can help bridge this gap by: formally mentoring youth from low-income communities through programs such as Big Brothers Big Sisters, Year Up, and local school-based mentoring initiatives; providing informal career guidance, job search advice, and professional networking introductions to first-generation college students and recent graduates from low-income households; serving as references, sponsors, and advocates within their own professional networks for qualified candidates from underrepresented economic backgrounds; and hiring formerly incarcerated individuals, individuals with gaps in their employment histories, and others who face barriers to employment, based on demonstrated competence rather than credentialing proxies.

Make Consumer and Economic Choices That Support Low-Income Workers and Communities.—Every purchasing decision is also an economic choice about which businesses, workers, and communities to support. Individuals can align their spending with their values by: patronizing local and minority-owned businesses that pay their workers fairly and reinvest in local communities rather than exclusively shopping at national chains that often pay minimum wages and extract profits to distant shareholders; purchasing fair trade products, which certify that producers in low-income countries received equitable compensation; banking with credit unions and community banks rather than large national banks that have historically underinvested in low-income communities; investing personal retirement savings in ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) funds or community investment vehicles that include explicit commitments to worker welfare and community development; and choosing employers, when possible, that pay living wages and provide comprehensive benefits to all workers, thereby rewarding companies that invest in their workforce.

High Net Worth Individuals and Philanthropists: Commit Transformative Capital to Systemic Change.—Individuals who have accumulated significant wealth bear a particular opportunity and responsibility to deploy capital toward poverty reduction at scale.

High-impact strategies available to affluent individuals and philanthropists include: establishing or contributing to donor-advised funds or private foundations with explicit poverty-reduction missions and transparent grantmaking criteria; signing the Giving Pledge or equivalent commitment to donate the majority of their wealth to charitable causes during their lifetime; funding longitudinal research on poverty’s causes and evidence-based interventions, as rigorous research is chronically underfunded relative to its potential to improve policy; capitalizing CDFIs, community development loan funds, and affordable housing developers at scale, using program-related investments (PRIs) and mission-related investments (MRIs) to deploy charitable assets without fully sacrificing financial returns; advocating publicly for tax policies that reduce economic inequality, including robust estate taxes, higher marginal income tax rates on very high incomes, and stronger enforcement of existing tax laws—recognizing that a tax system that allows wealth to accumulate without limit across generations is itself a structural driver of poverty; and supporting participatory grantmaking initiatives that give low-income communities direct decision-making authority over how philanthropic dollars are spent in their communities.

Property Owners and Landlords: Provide Stable, Affordable, and Safe Housing.—Individual landlords own a majority of the rental housing in most American cities and towns. Their decisions about rents, maintenance standards, tenant selection, and lease enforcement have an immediate and profound impact on the housing security of low-income families. Property owners committed to reducing poverty can: charge rents that are affordable to households earning the median income for their area rather than maximizing rents to market ceiling; participate in Housing Choice Voucher programs, accepting tenants who use federal rental assistance; maintain properties to habitability standards that exceed minimum legal requirements; practice non-predatory lease enforcement, offering payment plans and mediation before initiating eviction proceedings; avoid discriminatory tenant screening practices that exclude individuals based on prior eviction records, criminal histories unrelated to tenancy, or source of income; and consider selling properties to community land trusts or affordable housing organizations when liquidating real estate assets, preserving long-term affordability rather than returning properties to market-rate use.

E. Collective Action: The Multiplier Effect

The most powerful poverty-reduction outcomes occur when the actions described above are pursued in concert rather than in isolation. A corporation that pays living wages and funds workforce training, whose executives mentor low-income youth and whose foundation supports affordable housing, operating in a city where engaged citizens have elected officials committed to equitable policy, partnering with a university that conducts community-engaged research and a faith community that provides emergency services—this network of interlocking commitments creates conditions in which poverty can be durably reduced. Research on community development consistently shows that cross-sector collaboration between government, business, philanthropy, nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, and engaged individuals produces outcomes that no single sector could achieve independently.

The nations that have achieved the lowest poverty rates described in Section 1 of this report have done so not solely through government programs but through a broad social compact in which employers, educational institutions, civil society organizations, and individual citizens each accept responsibility for the well-being of their fellow community members. Achieving comparable results in the United States will require nothing less than the same: a national recommitment to the proposition that poverty is not an inevitable condition but a solvable problem, and that every sector of American society has both the opportunity and the obligation to be part of that solution.

Section 5: U.S. Organizations Advocating to Reduce Poverty

The following organizations work at the national level to reduce poverty in the United States through direct service, policy advocacy, research, and community organizing.

Section 6: Individuals Advocating to Reduce Poverty

The following individuals have made significant contributions to reducing poverty in the United States through research, public advocacy, philanthropy, legal reform, and community organizing.

Section 4: References

The data and analysis presented in this document draw from the following authoritative sources. Readers are encouraged to consult these sources directly for the most current information.

World Bank Poverty and Inequality Database (www.worldbank.org)

OECD Income Distribution Database (www.oecd.org)

Gallup World Poll (www.gallup.com)

U.S. Census Bureau Poverty Statistics (www.census.gov)

U.S. Department of Labor (www.dol.gov)

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (www.hud.gov)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (www.hhs.gov)

Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (www.nav.no)

Danish Ministry of Employment (bm.dk)

Finnish Social Insurance Institution (www.kela.fi)

Swedish Social Insurance Agency (www.forsakringskassan.se)

Swiss Federal Social Insurance Office (www.bsv.admin.ch)

German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (www.bmas.de)

Austrian Federal Ministry of Social Affairs (www.sozialministerium.at)

Note: Data marked as approximate reflects survey-based estimates and may vary from official national statistics. All poverty rates are expressed as percentages of the national population living below nationally or internationally defined poverty thresholds.

Section 5: U.S. Organizations Advocating to Improve Poverty

Section 6: Individuals Advocating to Improve Poverty

Frequently Asked Questions

How does the United States poverty rate compare to other developed nations?

The United States poverty rate is estimated at approximately 11.5 percent, placing it between rank 38 and 40 among developed economies. In contrast, top-performing nations such as Norge (Norway) at 3.1 percent and Danmark (Denmark) at 3.3 percent achieve significantly lower poverty rates through comprehensive social safety nets, universal healthcare, and active labor market policies.

What are the main drivers of poverty in the United States?

Key drivers of poverty in the United States include housing instability, lack of access to affordable healthcare, low wages, higher income inequality, regional cost of living differences, and limited universal social benefits. Compared to peer nations, the U.S. invests less in early childhood education, workforce retraining, and income support programs.

What policies have helped other countries reduce poverty?

Nations with the lowest poverty rates share common strategies: robust social safety nets, universal access to healthcare and education, active labor market policies with strong workforce retraining programs, subsidized childcare, affordable housing investments, and strong employee protections including collective bargaining and living wage requirements.

What can U.S. corporations do to help reduce poverty?

U.S. corporations can meaningfully reduce poverty by paying living wages, providing comprehensive benefits to all workers including part-time employees, adopting equitable hiring practices, investing in employee training and upward mobility programs, directing supplier contracts to minority-owned businesses, and expanding corporate philanthropy toward organizations addressing poverty’s root causes.

What federal legislation is proposed to reduce poverty in the United States?

Section 5 of this report presents H.R. 7200, the National Poverty Reduction and Economic Mobility Act, which proposes coordinated federal investment in workforce retraining, affordable housing, healthcare access, and educational opportunity. The bill aims to reduce the national poverty rate to 8.5 percent or below within 10 years through programs coordinated by a new National Poverty Reduction Coordinating Council.

How much does poverty cost the United States economy?

Persistent poverty is estimated to cost the national economy in excess of $1 trillion annually in lost output, in addition to increased public expenditures on emergency healthcare, correctional facilities, homelessness services, and child welfare programs. Research consistently shows that investment in poverty reduction programs generates measurable long-term returns to both the federal government and the broader economy.

About the Author

Ronald Bonfilio has devoted his career to public service spanning more than five decades. His service began with the U.S. Army from 1966 to 1968, where he conducted medical laboratory research at Fort Detrick and at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. He subsequently held a distinguished series of federal positions, including roles with the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) (Vietnam), the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, and the U.S. State Department (Iraq), where he served as a Senior Economic Advisor and Agricultural Advisor. He also served 15 years with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) as a Program Analyst and Auditor.

Ronald Bonfilio holds a degree in Economics from the University of Maryland, and degrees in Chemistry and a Master of Business Administration (MBA) from the University of Massachusetts. He is a former Certified Public Accountant (CPA).

Return to topReturn to State of the Union Report