Peer-reviewed article
The safety net and child health and well‐being: evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom
Anna Aizer, Adriana Lleras‐Muney ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001This review examines how social safety net programmes—including cash benefits and services like nutrition, early childhood education, housing, and healthcare—affect child health, well-being, and future earnings in the United States and United Kingdom. The evidence shows that safety net spending helps children growing up in poverty and produces positive long-term outcomes, especially for the most disadvantaged. While parents may change behaviour to maintain programme eligibility, these changes are small and children are generally better off overall.
Key points
- Safety net programmes with cash and in-kind benefits produce positive long-term gains for child health and well-being
- Effects are strongest for the most disadvantaged children
- Some parental behaviour changes occur in response to eligibility incentives, but these are small
- Children appear better off on net despite any behavioural responses to programme structures
- Recent changes to safety nets in the US and UK may affect child outcomes
Limitations
This is a review article that summarises existing evidence rather than presenting new data, so it cannot provide details on the specific mechanisms through which individual programmes work or comparative effectiveness between different safety net designs. The review does not provide comprehensive information on the magnitude of effects for different types of benefits or outcomes.
Abstract
Abstract Children are often a major beneficiary of social safety net programmes because they have higher rates of poverty. We review the evidence on whether, and to what extent, safety net spending via cash and in‐kind benefits (nutrition, early childhood education, housing and health care) affects child health and well‐being and, ultimately, children's income in adulthood. We also consider how recent changes to the safety net in the United States and the United Kingdom may affect child outcomes. We conclude that the safety net can and does help children who are growing up in poverty, with positive long‐term gains, especially among the most disadvantaged. While there is some evidence that parents may change their behaviours in response to incentives to maintain eligibility for safety net programmes, these changes appear small and, on net, children appear to be better off as a result of these programmes. A comprehensive study of the impact of the generosity and structure of the safety net on child outcomes and intergenerational mobility remains for future research.