Explore national- and state-level data for hundreds of health, environmental and socioeconomic measures, including background information about each measure. Use features on this page to find measures; view subpopulations, trends and rankings; and download and share content.
Michigan Value:
Percentage of children younger than 18 years who live in households below the poverty threshold
Michigan Rank:
Additional Measures:
Explore Population Data:
Appears In:
Percentage of children younger than 18 years who live in households below the poverty threshold
<= 11.7%
11.8% - 13.4%
13.5% - 15.8%
15.9% - 18.8%
>= 18.9%
US Value: 16.3%
Top State(s): New Hampshire: 6.9%
Bottom State(s): Mississippi: 26.4%
Definition: Percentage of children younger than 18 years who live in households below the poverty threshold
Data Source and Years(s): U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2022
Suggested Citation: America's Health Rankings analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, United Health Foundation, AmericasHealthRankings.org, accessed 2024.
Families with incomes below the federal poverty level may struggle to meet their children’s basic needs. Living in poverty can have negative effects on the physical health, development and educational achievement of children. Children who come from low-income families or neighborhoods are more likely to have health problems such as low birth weight and asthma. Children living in poverty are also more likely to experience adverse childhood experiences and less likely to be ready for school.
Living in poverty affects a child’s ability to succeed academically and may impact potential future earnings. Childhood poverty costs the United States an estimated $1.03 trillion annually, factoring in lost potential earnings and associated medical costs.
According to America’s Health Rankings analysis, the prevalence of poverty is higher among Black and American Indian/Alaska Native children compared with Asian and white children. Additional research shows that poverty is also higher among:
Many government programs and community interventions exist to help reduce the number of children in poverty and support low-income families:
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine has created a set of policy package proposals that could reduce child poverty in the U.S. by an estimated 50% by building on existing programs like EITC and SNAP to maximize effectiveness while expanding proven services.
Recent innovations to mitigate the adverse effects of childhood poverty use the two-generation approach, which promotes family resilience by combining support and education programs for parents with early childhood intervention programs to create a stronger, total family experience.
While not specific to children, reducing the proportion of people living in poverty is a Healthy People 2030 economic stability objective.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. “Two-Generation Approaches to Supporting Family Well-Being.” Issue Brief. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, 2023. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/bulletins-2gen.pdf.
Council on Community Pediatrics. “Poverty and Child Health in the United States.” Pediatrics 137, no. 4 (April 1, 2016): e20160339–e20160339. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-0339.
Duncan, Greg, and Suzanne Le Menestrel, eds. A Roadmap to Reducing Child Poverty. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.17226/25246.
Haider, Areeba. “The Basic Facts About Children in Poverty.” Center for American Progress, January 12, 2021. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/basic-facts-children-poverty/.
Hamad, Rita, and David H. Rehkopf. “Poverty, Pregnancy, and Birth Outcomes: A Study of the Earned Income Tax Credit.” Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 29, no. 5 (September 2015): 444–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.12211.
Hoynes, Hilary, Marianne Page, and Ann Huff Stevens. “Can Targeted Transfers Improve Birth Outcomes?: Evidence from the Introduction of the WIC Program.” Journal of Public Economics 95, no. 7 (August 1, 2011): 813–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.12.006.
Hoynes, Hilary W., and Ankur J. Patel. “Effective Policy for Reducing Inequality? The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Distribution of Income.” Working Paper 21340. National Bureau of Economic Research, July 2015. https://doi.org/10.3386/w21340.
McLaughlin, Michael, and Mark R. Rank. “Estimating the Economic Cost of Childhood Poverty in the United States.” Social Work Research 42, no. 2 (June 1, 2018): 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svy007.
Sandel, Megan, Elena Faugno, Angela Mingo, Jessie Cannon, Kymberly Byrd, Dolores Acevedo Garcia, Sheena Collier, Elizabeth McClure, and Renée Boynton Jarrett. “Neighborhood-Level Interventions to Improve Childhood Opportunity and Lift Children Out of Poverty.” Academic Pediatrics 16, no. 3 (April 2016): S128–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2016.01.013.
Wilson-Simmons, Renée, Yang Jiang, and Yumiko Aratani. “Strong at the Broken Places: The Resiliency of Low-Income Parents.” New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, April 2017. https://www.nccp.org/publication/strong-at-the-broken-places/.
America’s Health Rankings builds on the work of the United Health Foundation to draw attention to public health and better understand the health of various populations. Our platform provides relevant information that policymakers, public health officials, advocates and leaders can use to effect change in their communities.
We have developed detailed analyses on the health of key populations in the country, including women and children, seniors and those who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces, in addition to a deep dive into health disparities across the country.