A poverty program that lets families set their own goals has been showing promising results.

Mr. Miller [President and CEO, Family Independence Initiative] wondered what would happen if, instead of paying for professional caseworkers, some of the money went directly to families and they were allowed to set their own goals. The result of that experiment is the Family Independence Initiative, a $2-million charity that has run pilot projects in Oahu, Hawaii; Oakland, Calif.; and San Francisco, and expands to Boston this year. Mr. Miller's ideas-and the strong initial results he has achieved while spending far less money than traditional charities-have intrigued a small but growing group of donors frustrated with the failure of other attempts to reduce poverty in the United States.

Preston, C. (2010, April 18). A Veteran antipoverty activist finds a cheaper way to achieve results, The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved from http://philanthropy.com [posted 7/2/2010]

A federal government program to prevent homelessness is handing out money to people but with limited guidelines on who should get the money, social service agencies are left to their own discretion, prompting the question if this program will work.

Much like the Great Depression, when millions of previously working people came to rely on a new social safety net for their sustenance, a swelling group of formerly middle-class Americans like Mr. Moore, 30, is seeking government aid for the first time. Without help, say economists, many are at risk of slipping permanently into poverty, even as economic conditions improve. The question is whether the modern-day safety net has enough money and the right initiatives to aid those who need it most. The answer could shape whether a considerable slice of the American population will recover from the trauma of recent years, and how long that will take.[...] The severity of the situation prompted the Obama administration to create the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing program within the $787 billion economic stimulus package. The program rests on the assumption that intervention is the best course because once people become homeless, the odds and costs of regaining their lives escalate sharply.[...] But a nagging set of questions threatens to constrain the program, say some of the social service agencies administering the money: How should these dollars be distributed, and for whose benefit? In a time of extraordinary need and limited aid, who deserves help?

Goodman, P.S. (2010, April 19). U.S. offers a hand to those on eviction's edge, The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/business/economy/22prevent.html [posted 7/2/2010]

The current recession is likely to push more people into poverty and the already poor into deeper poverty.

Like previous recessions, the current downturn is likely to cause significant increases both in the number of Americans who are poor and the number living in "deep poverty," with incomes below half of the poverty line.... Goldman Sachs projects that the unemployment rate will rise to 9 percent by the fourth quarter of 2009 (the firm has increased its forecast for the unemployment rate a couple of times in the last month). If this holds true and the increase in poverty relative to the increase in unemployment is within the range of the last three recessions, the number of poor Americans will rise by 7.5-10.3 million, the number of poor children will rise by 2.6-3.3 million, and the number of children in deep poverty will climb by 1.5-2.0 million.

NOVEMBER 24, 2008, Recession Could Cause Large Increases In Poverty And Push Millions Into Deep Poverty: Stimulus Package Should Include Policies to Ameliorate Harshest Effects of Downturn, by Sharon Parrott, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, DC, http://www.cbpp.org/11-24-08pov.pdf [posted 1/22/2009]

Suburban areas have begun to feel the sting of poverty.

• In 1999 large cities and their suburbs had nearly equal numbers of poor individuals, but by 2005 the suburban poor outnumbered their city counterparts by at least 1 million. Still, the percentage of all people in poverty rose in both cities and suburbs between 1999 and 2005, following the national trend.
• Poverty rates rose significantly in Midwestern and Southern metropolitan areas, but remained steady in the West and Northeast.
• Nearly half of large cities nationwide saw a significant rise in their poverty rates, versus about one-third of their suburbs.
• In cities and suburbs where overall poverty rates rose from 1999 to 2005, child poverty rates rose faster.

Economic conditions during the early 2000s brought a rise in poverty nationwide and in many cities and suburbs. Regional impacts, however, have been uneven. These findings emphasize that federal and state labor market supports like the Earned Income Tax Credit and unemployment insurance can act as powerful tools for helping families suffering the effects of economic downturns. At the local level, the enduring social and fiscal challenges for cities that stem from high poverty are increasingly shared by their suburbs. Public and private efforts that give growing suburban poor populations access to economically integrated neighborhoods and in-work supports could enhance economic security and mobility for a significant number of Americans.

DECEMBER 2006, Two Steps Back: City and Suburban Poverty Trends 1999-2005, by Alan Berube and Elizabeth Kneebone, The Brookings Institution, Living Cities Census Series, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2006/12poverty_berube/20061205_citysuburban.pdf. [posted 4/24/2008]