Home / Glossary / Disadvantaged
Disadvantaged
Also written: Underprivileged, At-risk, The poor, The needy, In need
deficit-framingevolving-usage
At a glance
Source-by-source
“questioned by economic justice activists … at-risk … basic … classy … culture of poverty … disadvantaged”
SumOfUs places "disadvantaged" — alongside "at-risk," "basic," "classy," and "culture of poverty" — in the column of terms avoided or questioned by economic justice activists, opposite preferred framings like "low-income," "economic opportunity," and "people experiencing" a given condition.
“we've repeatedly seen language that refers to Black people as "vulnerable," "at risk," or in need of "charity." This language, while well-meaning, portrays those being harmed as powerless, and shifts blame from the real actors”
Color of Change cautions that well-meaning labels like "vulnerable," "at risk," and in need of "charity" portray harmed Black people as powerless and shift blame away from the actors — corporations and leaders — actually causing the harm. It urges coverage that keeps the focus on those in power.
“Do not use descriptors or phrases including: Upper-class or lower-class … At-risk … The poor … In need, the needy … Wrong side of the tracks … Welfare queen/king … Disadvantaged … Underprivileged”
Sierra Club lists "disadvantaged," "underprivileged," "at-risk," "the poor," and "the needy" together on a single do-not-use list, treating them as deficit framings that tie a person's worth to economic status. It points readers to the SumOfUs guide for the underlying anti-classist framework.
“the poor → people whose incomes are below the federal poverty threshold … Many people find the terms "low-class" and "poor" pejorative. Conversely, class solidarity exists in "poor people's movements." …”
APA's second edition suggests replacing "the poor" with "people whose incomes are below the federal poverty threshold," but explicitly builds in nuance: while many find "low-class" and "poor" pejorative, class solidarity lives in "poor people's movements" and many proudly identify as "working class." The page treats these as terms to use with care, not blanket avoidance.
Synthesis
The deficit descriptors — “disadvantaged,” “underprivileged,” “at-risk,” “the poor,” “the needy” — are rejected for locating the problem in the person rather than the system. Sierra Club groups them on a single “do not use” list, treating them as framings that tie a person’s worth to economic status. Color of Change says the same thing about the mechanism: well-meaning labels like “vulnerable,” “at risk,” and “in need of charity” “portray those being harmed as powerless, and shift blame from the real actors,” the corporations and leaders actually causing harm. SumOfUs puts “disadvantaged” and “at-risk” among the terms “questioned by economic justice activists,” opposite preferred framings like “low-income” and “people experiencing” a given condition.
The shared point is agency. Prefer specific, neutral economic descriptors (“low-income,” “under-resourced,” “people whose income is below the poverty line”) and keep the blame on the systems and actors rather than the people affected. These terms are the adjective-level version of what “classism” names structurally.
APA marks the one boundary worth holding onto. It suggests replacing “the poor” with “people whose incomes are below the federal poverty threshold,” but builds in a qualification: while many find “low-class” and “poor” pejorative, “class solidarity exists in ‘poor people’s movements’” and many people proudly identify as “working class.” The rule, then, is not to scrub “poor” from the language. It is to retire the outsider’s deficit framing while respecting how communities name themselves. The guidance is stable from SumOfUs (2016) through 2023. This page pairs with classism and ghetto.
Audience notes
- Journalists and editors. Replace “disadvantaged,” “underprivileged,” and “at-risk” with specific, neutral descriptors — “low-income,” “under-resourced,” “people whose income is below the poverty line.” Keep the blame on the actors and systems, not the people harmed.
- Advocates and internal comms. Charity framing (“vulnerable,” “in need”) portrays people as powerless; lead with their agency and name who holds the power.
- Self-identification governs. “Poor” and “working class” are claimed with pride in organizing contexts — APA flags this directly. Follow how a community describes itself; the caution is about outsiders’ deficit framing, not the words themselves.
Related terms