Many were a lot younger than Leo XIV
Before the pandemic, global poverty had been in steady retreat for four decades, falling to less than a quarter of its 1981 levels. But in 2020, progress hit a wall; nearly 100 million people were pushed back into “extreme poverty” (defined as living on less than US$1.90 per day), and the road to recovery remains uncertain. In the US, even after trillions in pandemic relief, the rebound has exposed deep-rooted inequalities, with women, Black Americans, and other historically marginalized groups bearing the brunt.
The silver lining? Researchers, activists, and policymakers are rallying behind bold, science-backed tools and programs that could reignite the fight against poverty and reshape what’s possible.
Click through to explore the smart solutions that might finally move the needle—for good.
The evidence-based policy movement, advocating for data-driven decisions, dates back over a century. Its rapid ascent came after the 2008 Great Recession, when collapsing tax revenues pushed policymakers to prioritize efficiency and effectiveness in tackling challenges.
Amid financial constraints, states turned to evidence-based processes to maximize scarce resources. Sara Dube, director of Pew Results First, highlights how this approach provided the tangible tools they needed.
Rather than relying on traditional approaches driven by good intentions, inertia, or politics, the evidence-based policy movement advocates applying scientific methods to ensure social support programs truly deliver effective results.
The once-popular "scared straight" intervention aimed to deter at-risk juveniles from crime by exposing them to the harsh realities of prison life. While seemingly rooted in common sense, its actual effectiveness invites scrutiny through evidence-based analysis.
When subjected to rigorous randomized controlled trials, scared-straight interventions prove counterproductive, often increasing criminal behavior. Many jurisdictions have since abandoned these programs.
Randomized controlled trials, celebrated by the 2019 Nobel Prize in economics, stand as one of the most impactful tools in the evidence-based policy movement, revolutionizing the evaluation and effectiveness of social programs.
In 1992, New Jersey raised its minimum wage while neighboring Pennsylvania did not. A comparative study of the two states' employment growth challenged traditional economic predictions, showing that higher labor costs did not hinder hiring.
Government agencies collect extensive administrative data, such as school attendance records, court documents, and housing inspection results. Aggregating these streams creates a comprehensive view of individuals' lives and the impacts of various programs.
While poverty remains deeply complex and entrenched, the evidence-based policy movement shifts the focus from ideology and guesswork to data-driven solutions, offering a more reliable and impactful approach.
For poverty tied to financial hardship, direct cash assistance offers an evident remedy. Developed nations already implement various forms of these transfers, including food stamps, unemployment benefits, child tax credits, and welfare payments.
The concept of basic income originated in Thomas More’s 1516 work 'Utopia.' It influenced the creation of Social Security during the 1930s, amid widespread calls for a universal basic income for elderly citizens during the Great Depression.
The concept of universal basic income has seen renewed interest in the US, particularly during the 2020 Democratic primaries. Andrew Yang's proposal to combat poverty and technological unemployment with $1,000 monthly payments for every adult sparked widespread attention.
Advocates on the political left champion basic income as a means to bring stability to chaotic lives. They emphasize its potential to help individuals meet essential needs like food and shelter, while restoring a sense of dignity.
The concept of basic income has garnered support from conservatives, including Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Libertarians argue it could replace the welfare state by eliminating bureaucratic micromanagement, giving individuals direct financial autonomy.
Critics, often from the right, argue against basic income due to its high cost and potential drawbacks. They worry it might discourage work, incentivize poor decisions, encourage dependency, and lead recipients to waste the funds irresponsibly.
Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, referencing the 2017 tax cut, highlighted its focus on rewarding investors rather than those who, in his words, spend "every darn penny" on indulgences like "booze, women, or movies."
From an evidence-based policy viewpoint, the effectiveness of basic income should be determined through data-driven analysis. This approach has led to a rich body of research exploring its impacts and outcomes.
Economist Ioana Marinescu reviewed various trials and natural experiments simulating aspects of basic income in North America. These included 1970s negative income tax trials, Alaska's Permanent Fund, Cherokee casino dividends, and even outcomes for lottery winners.
Across numerous studies, findings consistently reveal that while some individuals may misuse funds on "temptation goods," they are exceptions. Most recipients, even in impoverished populations, prioritize essentials like food, shelter, and education, or invest in businesses.
Research indicates that recipients of basic income are slightly more likely to secure jobs compared to control groups, likely due to financial stability easing job-seeking efforts. They also report marked improvements in nutrition, health, and education.
Even with promising data, critical questions remain about basic income, including its funding mechanisms, whether it should be universal or targeted, and whether it should supplement or replace current anti-poverty programs.
Carrie Cihak, a research affiliate at Stanford and policy director at King County Metro, emphasizes that poverty isn't just about financial hardship: it’s about a lack of opportunity.
Poverty extends beyond financial hardship, encompassing systemic barriers like inadequate childcare, healthcare, housing, and education. Mental health challenges, addiction, criminal records, and the lingering effects of racism further hinder access to opportunities.
Cihak highlights transportation as a frequent challenge for those in need. Human service agencies constantly work to secure ways for clients to reach vital appointments, education, and childcare.
Governments at all levels work to mitigate systemic barriers through various social programs, from transit subsidies to job training. Researchers, aided by databases like those from Results for America, assess these initiatives to ensure effectiveness through evidence-based evaluation.
Cihak explains that while randomized trials excel in evaluating specific interventions, broader systemic challenges demand innovative approaches beyond individual studies.
Encouraged by the evidence-based policy movement, agencies providing government services are embracing a culture of experimentation. Leaders are increasingly open to testing innovative ideas to better meet the needs of their communities.
The political landscape shows signs of embracing evidence-based approaches. The hope is that rigorous science not only informs effective policy but also fosters constructive politics, enabling consensus even amid deep ideological divides.
Richard Hendra, data chief at Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, acknowledges widespread cynicism about policymaking. However, his experience working across political lines reveals a promising trend in 2025: policymakers increasingly value evidence-based approaches.
Sources: (ResearchGate) (Nature) (Big Think) (BMJ)
Smart solutions: can data science end poverty for good?
How research and data analysis are giving new hope for the future
LIFESTYLE Science
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, global poverty had been in steady retreat for four decades, falling to less than a quarter of its 1981 levels. But in 2020, progress hit a wall; nearly 100 million people were pushed back into “extreme poverty” (defined as living on less than US$1.90 per day), and the road to recovery remains uncertain. In the US, even after trillions in pandemic relief funds, the rebound has exposed deep-rooted inequalities, with women, Black Americans, and other historically marginalized groups bearing the brunt.
The silver lining? Researchers, activists, and policymakers are rallying behind bold, science-backed tools and programs that could reignite the fight against poverty and reshape what’s possible.
Click through to explore the smart solutions that might finally move the needle—for good.