Poverty affects millions of children around the world. Children under the age of 18 make up less than a third of the global population but more than half of those in extreme poverty. Estimates of children in poor households surely underestimate the total number of children in poverty, since many poor children are not in poor households; and even in poor households, efforts to disentangle resources across family members tend to show children getting less than their share. All poverty is bad, but child poverty is particularly harmful because it manifests in ways that affect those children throughout their lives—like childhood malnutrition or poor educational opportunity—even if the children manage to escape poverty later.
This post draws on two recent publications that share lessons on what has been effective in reducing child poverty across several countries, with a special analysis of Peru’s experience. Case studies can’t tell us everything: we don’t know if the same strategies will work in another context, and we don’t know what would have happened if the country had altered its strategy in some way. But demonstrated successes can give starting points for other countries battling child poverty, showing them that gains are possible, identifying crucial elements of those gains (economic growth and social safety nets, to start), and showing how those gains must be protected.
Lessons from around the world
Last year, the Global Coalition to End Child Poverty published a flagship report sharing insights from across the globe on what works to reduce child poverty. Drawing on a new trend analysis of child poverty, the report identifies countries that have made progress in reducing monetary or multidimensional child poverty. While progress differs across countries, a synthesis of case studies across seven countries points to several common factors:
- In most cases, poverty reduction coincided with periods of strong economic growth, which improved families' incomes and access to goods and services. This was particularly true where growth was driven by decent jobs, fair wages, and expanded opportunities for women. Yet economic gains could have translated into even greater poverty reduction had countries reduced income inequality alongside growth.
- Social protection programs are among the best-evidenced interventions for tackling child poverty. They improve families' financial situations and often enable better access to health, nutrition, and education. This lesson applies as much in lower-income countries as in high-income settings: Poland and the UK are just two recent examples.
- Child poverty is not only about income; it is also about whether children can access the things they need to thrive. When you ask people what they think it means for a child to be in poverty (as one approach to measuring child poverty does), respondents point to whether children attend school, are adequately nourished, can see a doctor when ill, or live in adequate housing with clean water and sanitation. Prioritizing investment in public services—especially where this spending is pro-poor—reduces child poverty, lessens financial burdens on families, and contributes to stronger long-term economic outcomes.
- In many countries, poverty is concentrated among historically excluded and marginalized communities. Reducing barriers to labor markets and public services—especially for girls, young women and children with disabilities—is essential for tackling both poverty and inequality.
What we can learn from Peru’s experience
A case study of Peru’s success in reducing child poverty—documented by Young Lives—demonstrates three lessons.
Lesson 1: Significant child poverty reduction is achievable
Peru’s experience shows how the factors listed above have contributed to significant reductions in child poverty over the past two decades. For example, childhood stunting in children under five in Peru fell from about 31 percent in 2000 to just 12 percent in 2023, alongside high economic growth and a significant expansion in social protection.
Lesson 2: Complementarity across interventions is crucial
By collecting data on the same individuals from infancy to adulthood, longitudinal data show why a broad, inclusive approach is essential for public policies to address the interconnected needs of disadvantaged children and young people. In Peru, Young Lives evidence highlights long-term benefits from programs such as the government’s flagship JUNTOS conditional cash transfers, the Cuna Más early child development program, and the Jornada Escolar Completa (JEC) secondary school reform, which included full-day schooling.
It is well understood that a child who is hungry struggles to learn, or that one without clean water is more likely to fall ill, miss school, and fall behind. These are not separate problems but interconnected deprivations that reinforce one another. Multidimensional child poverty measurement captures precisely this, assessing whether children's rights are being met across multiple dimensions simultaneously. This cross-cutting lens makes it a powerful tool for identifying the complementarities between sectors—and for making the case that governments need integrated plans and policies that work across silos.
Evidence from Peru illustrates this point. JUNTOS, Peru's flagship conditional cash transfer program, was designed to cross multiple sectors from the outset, combining income support with improved access to health care and education. Children whose households received JUNTOS in the first three years of life were less likely to be malnourished, with a dramatic 13.4 percentage point reduction in the risk of being stunted by ages 7–9. They also showed cognitive gains and spent less time doing paid work.
At a time when external assistance is declining and fiscal space is tight, governments would do well to learn from Peru and other contexts by identifying “accelerators”—public policies that drive progress across sectors and outcomes simultaneously.
Lesson 3: Reductions in child poverty can easily be reversed
While Peru's achievement in reducing child poverty over the past two decades is remarkable, it remains fragile. Young Lives data show poverty rates surging from 20 percent to 30 percent between 2019 and 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic; there has been barely any improvement since, with poverty rates hovering at 28 percent in 2024.
In 2023, El Niño worsened the situation and added further pressure, with Young Lives research indicating the impact of climate shocks on child welfare, especially in terms of children’s nutrition, growth, and learning—the exact areas Peru had worked the hardest to improve. The problem is aggravated by high political turnover—including 16 prime ministers since 2020!—that puts the sustainability of the programs implemented to address child poverty, such as JUNTOS, Cuna Más, and JEC, at risk. Evidence from Mexico illuminates this vulnerability: rolling back a flagship conditional cash transfer increased school dropout rates almost immediately. Peru’s story demonstrates that hard-won development gains are not self-sustaining; they require stable institutions, resilient social protection systems, and the political will to protect them.
Remember
It is possible to achieve major reductions in child poverty. Economic growth is crucial to that, as are social safety nets. And it’s not all about money: social services are essential so that whether children flourish isn’t entirely dependent on parents’ economic allocation decisions. For policymakers, sustained support can protect gains in child poverty over time. Researchers can support those policymakers by generating robust data and evidence, by translating that research and, crucially, by maintaining strong relationships with policymakers. Those relationships are built over many years. Ending child poverty is an ultramarathon, not a sprint, which is all the more reason to prioritize starting the race right now.
