A new study published on 11 March 2026 in the open-access journal PLOS One suggests that gender differences in poverty rates in the United States may be more closely linked to women’s life circumstances than to gender itself. The research, conducted by Patti Fisher of Virginia Tech, highlights how responsibilities such as caring for dependent children can shape economic outcomes. According to the findings, the higher poverty rates observed among women may reflect the structural and social conditions they are more likely to experience rather than an inherent effect of gender alone.

In the United States, women have long faced higher poverty rates than men and often encounter more limited access to financial resources and economic opportunities. A range of factors—including employment status, educational attainment, and overall health—are known to influence the likelihood that an individual will fall below the poverty threshold. However, it has remained unclear whether these factors affect men and women differently, or whether gender itself acts as a direct driver of poverty. The new study sought to explore this question by examining how personal and household circumstances interact with poverty risk.

To investigate these relationships, Fisher analysed data from 1,383 households headed by a single adult. The sample included 833 female-headed households and 550 male-headed households drawn from the 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances. By focusing on households with a single adult decision-maker, the research aimed to provide a clearer comparison of economic conditions between men and women. The analysis examined which factors were associated with living below the federal poverty line and whether these factors operated differently depending on the gender of the household head.

The results showed several patterns that applied similarly to both men and women. Working for an employer, being self-employed, attaining higher levels of education, and being older were all associated with a reduced likelihood of living in poverty. In contrast, individuals who reported their health as only “fair” or who experienced uncertainty about their future income were more likely to face poverty. For the most part, these relationships were consistent across genders, suggesting that many of the same social and economic influences shape poverty risk for both men and women. One notable difference, however, emerged in relation to employment: paid work tended to reduce poverty risk more strongly for men than for women.

Economic differences between the two groups were also reflected in household wealth. Male-headed households reported nearly double the average net worth of female-headed households, with figures of approximately $489,310 compared with $250,917. Yet when individual characteristics and circumstances were taken into account, simply being female was not independently linked with higher poverty rates. Instead, the analysis indicated that differences in their household situations largely explained women’s higher rates of poverty. Female-headed households were far more likely to include dependent children—38.3 per cent compared with 12.7 per cent among male-headed households—and they also reported poorer health and greater uncertainty about income.

These findings suggest that gender disparities in poverty may arise from unequal life conditions rather than gender alone. Fisher notes that these structural differences are important when considering how anti-poverty strategies are designed. For instance, childcare responsibilities can restrict women’s ability to fully benefit from employment opportunities, even when they participate in the labour market. As a result, policies that focus solely on increasing employment without addressing caregiving constraints may fail to reduce gender disparities in economic outcomes.

The study does have limitations. Because the analysis used cross-sectional data, it cannot establish direct cause-and-effect relationships between the factors examined and poverty outcomes. Nevertheless, the research highlights the importance of recognising how work, family responsibilities, and health interact in shaping financial security. Fisher emphasises that gender alone does not place individuals at risk of poverty; rather, everyday circumstances—such as balancing employment with childcare—can influence how economic opportunities translate into financial stability. These findings suggest that policies designed to reduce poverty may need to address specific barriers, particularly childcare responsibilities, to reduce gender gaps in poverty rates effectively.

More information: Patti J. Fisher, Gender and poverty in the United States: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances, PLOS One. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0343238

Journal information: PLOS One Provided by PLOS