Total DC Poverty Rate Ticks Down Again (Barely). Rates for Blacks Rise.

September 15, 2016

CORRECTION: The overall poverty rate change for DC falls within the margin of error. A preview table I saw indicated it didn’t. But I should have verified.

The Census Bureau has taken to blasting out all its major poverty reports in rapid-fire succession. So we now have the results of the American Community Survey — not a report in the usual sense, but a huge number of online tables.

They cover a wide range of topics. And the ACS sample is much larger than what the Bureau uses for its two other annual reports. So we can get reasonably reliable figures for states and smaller jurisdictions.

I’ve again dug into a few tables for the District of Columbia — mainly those most directly related to poverty. We could, I suppose, take heart from another year of progress. But it’s modest and mixed. Both the extent of poverty in the city — and related inequalities — remind us how much remains to be done.

Poverty and Deep Poverty Rates for DC Residents Still High

About 110,380 District residents — 17.3% — lived in poverty last year. The new rate is just 0.4%* lower than the rate reported for 2014. It’s 2.6% higher than the new ACS national rate — and rates for all but eight states.

It’s also nearly 1% higher than the local rate for 2007, just before the recession set in. The population has grown since then. So the seemingly small rate difference means that the District is now home to about 18,600 more poor people. And they’re very poor indeed, for reasons I’ll touch on below.

Roughly 58,700 District residents — 9.2% of the total — lived in deep poverty, i.e., had incomes less than half the maximum set by the poverty threshold the Census Bureau uses for a household like theirs.

The new rate is perhaps 0.1% lower than the rate for 2014 — in other words, basically the same. It too is higher than the rate for the nation as a whole.

Child Poverty Rate Still Far Higher Than Overall Rate

The child poverty rate has consistently exceeded the rate for the population as a whole, both in the District and nationwide. The local rate last year was 25.6%. Like the overall rate, it’s 0.4% lower than the 2014 rate.

But it still represents about 29,710 children — about 300 more than in 2014 because, again, the rate reflects a somewhat larger population. It too is higher than the disproportionately high national rate.

More than half the District’s poor children — 15,088 — were deeply poor. The new rate is higher than the 2014 rate — 13%, as compared to 12.4%.

Race/Ethnicity Gaps Still Large

Poverty is not an equal opportunity condition here in the District or anywhere else. As in the past, we see this writ in black and white in the ACS figures. Brown and tan also, though to a lesser extent.

Last year 26.6% of black District residents were officially poor, as compared to 6.9% of non-Hispanic whites. The deep poverty rate for the former was 13.3%, while only 4.5% for the latter.

Both rates for blacks were higher than in 2014. The plain vanilla rate for non-Hispanic whites was the same then, but their deep poverty rate somewhat higher.

For Hispanics, the poverty rate was 11.6% and the deep poverty rate 5.5%. The rates for Asians were 12.3% and 9.4%.

We see the same large disparities in the ACS figures for household incomes — a related, but broader indicator than the poverty rates.

The median household income for non-Hispanic whites was nearly three times the median for black households — $120,400, as compared to $41,520. Median incomes for Hispanic and Asian households fell in between.

The median for non-Hispanic white households was an eye-popping $63,400 more than the national median — an even larger difference than reported for 2014.

More Residents Suffering Hardships Than Poverty Rates Show

I always remark, at least in passing on the fact that the poverty thresholds the Census Bureau uses for analyses like these are very low.

They’re almost surely too low to accurately reflect the number of households without enough money for basic needs in communities nationwide. But they’re egregiously too low in high-cost communities like the District.

Consider, for example, a single mother with two children. They’re officially not poor if her income, before taxes was roughly $19,100 last year.

An affordable apartment for them would have had to cost no more than about $477.50 a month. But a modest two bedroom apartment, plus basic utilities cost roughly $980 more. It would have left the mom with about $1,580 for all her family’s other basic needs over the course of the year.

Even with SNAP (food stamp) benefits, she’d have been hard pressed to put enough food on the table in part because groceries here cost far more than the nationwide average, according to a cost-of-living database.

And the benefits assume she’ll spend 30% of her own adjusted income. So there goes a quite a bit of the money she’d have left after paying the rent. Probably more than her expected share, in fact. If not, then some hungry days for her.

She’d still have to pay for a host of other things, of course, e.g., clothes, soap, toothpaste and cleaning supplies, transportation. These aren’t necessarily costlier in the District than elsewhere. But we know daycare is.

She’d have to pay some part, even with a subsidy. The subsidy’s not a sure thing for a working woman like her, however. Without it, the average of cost even just after-school care for her kids would exceed her total income.

I don’t think I need to flog this point further. But we do need to put the new District poverty figures in perspective. [Your policy message here.]

* All the ACS tables include margins of error, i.e., how much the raw numbers and percents could be too high or too low. For readability, I’m reporting both as given. The overall poverty rate beats the statistical text, but others Small year-over-year changes may mean no real differences.

Advertisements

U.S. Poverty Rate Slides Down

September 13, 2016

The Census Bureau has just reported that 13.5% of people in the U.S. — about 43.1 million — were officially poor last year. One wouldn’t pop a champagne cork over numbers like these. But they’re lower than reported for 2014, when the rate was 14.8%, representing roughly 46.7 million very poor people.

Rates declined for every major population group the report breaks out, except working-age adults with disabilities, whose rate remained 28.5%. All reported groups, except Asians also had lower deep poverty rates, i.e., household incomes less than half the thresholds the Bureau uses to separate the poor from the non-poor.

On the flip side, we still see large disparities. And the somewhat improved rates don’t necessarily reflect meaningful income gains.

Children Still the Poorest, Seniors Still the Least

The child poverty rate has exceeded the overall poverty rate since at least 2006, when I started tracking. Last year it dipped to 19.7%, just 1.4% lower than in 2014. The new rate represents about 14.5 million children — more than a third of all the poor people in our country.

About 6.5 million children — 8.9% — lived in deep poverty. This too is somewhat fewer than in 2014, but still alarming, especially given what we know about the lifelong damages that even just plain poverty can wreak on young children.

As in the past, people 65 years and older had the lowest poverty and deep poverty rates among the major age groups — 8.8% and 2.8% respectively. We can chalk this up largely to Social Security retirement benefits, as the Census Bureau’s new report on its Supplemental Poverty Measure shows.

Race/Ethnicity Gaps Still Yawning

Nothing much new here, except the rates. For example, the poverty rate for blacks was still more than two and a half times the rate for non-Hispanic whites — 24.1%, as compared to 9.1%.

The deep poverty rates nearly mirror these gaps — 10.9% for blacks and 4.3% for non-Hispanic whites.

Hispanics fared better than blacks, but hardly well. Their poverty rate was 21.4% and their deep poverty rate 8.5%.

Rates for Asians were lower — 11.4% and 6.2% respectively. But several analyses suggest we’d see some larger gaps — and in other cases, virtually none or even reversed — if the Bureau differentiated among the subpopulations this group comprises.

Low Inflation a Factor in Poverty Rate Drops

We should take always take poverty rates like these with a large grain of salt because the thresholds are so very low. One dollar over the threshold and everyone living in the household (except for some children) is officially not-poor.*

The thresholds aren’t altogether fixed, however. The Bureau adjusts them annually, based on the CPI-U — what consumers in metro areas spend on a market basket of goods and services.

The CPI-U remained virtually flat in 2015. So even a miniscule increase in household income could boost all its members over the applicable threshold.

In other words, the new, lower poverty rates don’t necessarily signal substantial, widespread income gains. They do, however, mean that more workers got paid somewhat more — and more who wanted to work got jobs that paid more than a pittance.

* Children under 15 who aren’t related by birth, marriage or adoption to any of the adults in the household are not part of the “poverty universe,” so far as the official measure is concerned.


Better Poverty Measure Changes Rates, Strengthens Case for Safety Net

September 21, 2015

As I noted last week, the Census Bureau published the results of its latest Supplemental Poverty Measure analysis at the same time as its official poverty measure rates for 2014.

As in the past, the SPM produces a somewhat higher nationwide poverty rate — 15.3%. Though a tad lower than the comparable rate last year, slides from the Bureau say it’s not enough to pass the statistical test.

We also see different rates, both higher and lower, for the major population groups the Bureau breaks out. For example, the child poverty rate is 4.8% lower — 3.5 million or so fewer children. At the same time, the senior poverty rate rises by nearly as much.

We see shifts among major race/ethnicity groups as well. The largest are for blacks (3% lower) and for Asians (4.8% higher).

All these shifts and others reflect four major ways the SPM differs from the official measure — the base it proceeds from, adjustments it makes for certain basic living and other “necessary” costs, whom it includes as part of a family and what it counts as income.

This last gives us a glimpse — imperfect, but the best we’ve got — of how well some of our major federal anti-poverty measures work. And once again, we get reliable hard data proving that they do work, right-wing canards notwithstanding.

For example, we generally see lower deep poverty rates, i.e., the percent of the population overall or of a particular group that lived on incomes no greater than half the applicable poverty threshold — about $9,535 for a parent with two children.

The overall deep poverty rate is 1.6% lower than what the official measure produces. The deep poverty rate for children drops more markedly — from 9.7% to 4.3%.

The Census Bureau attributes the lower deep poverty rates to non-cash benefits targeted to low-income people — a type of income the SPM captures, while the official measure doesn’t. Seniors are the exception here, it notes.

Their deep poverty rate goes up to 5.1%, making it the same as the rate for the population as a whole. This is mainly because both the official measure and the SPM count Social Security benefits as income, but only the latter adjusts for medical out-of-pocket costs, along with others deducted from the base.

It’s nevertheless still the case that Social Security proves the single most effective anti-poverty program we’ve got. Without Social Security benefits, half of all people 65 and over would fall below the poverty threshold.

The Census Bureau shows this and the effects of other benefits — mostly parts of the safety net — by deducting their value and displaying the new poverty rate.

So we learn, for example, that not counting the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit would make the SPM poverty rate 3.1% higher. Little back-of-the-envelope math tells us that the tax credits effectively lifted about 9.8 million people out of poverty, including more than 5.2 million children.

SNAP (food stamp) benefits rank third among the anti-poverty impacts. They account for about 4.7 million fewer poor people, almost half of them children.

On the other hand, LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program) benefits lifted only about 316,000 people above the poverty threshold — and so few in the working-age (18-64) group as to make no nick in their poverty rate whatever.

Now, the analysis doesn’t reflect the way benefits work in the real world. Most families that receive federally-funded help with their heating bills probably also get SNAP benefits, for example. Likewise low-income working families that get an annual budget boost from the refundable tax credits.

We don’t yet have an analysis that rolls all such safety net benefits together, though we do have one for 2012 that shows they cut the SPM poverty rate by nearly half and the child poverty rate by even more.

Do we nonetheless have policy lessons here? Well, of course, we do. Don’t want to try your patience, followers, but can’t restrain myself from flagging (flogging?) a few.

LIHEAP has become a pitiful thing, partly because it got whacked by the 2013 across-the-board cuts, partly because this came on top of earlier cuts and partly because, in case you hadn’t noticed, home heating costs have increased.

So fewer households are getting such help as LIHEAP provides and they’re getting less — so much less that the average grant didn’t cover even two months of heating during the 2014-15 winter season.

Not going to see much improvement, if any so long as the Congressional Republican majority insists on keeping appropriations for non-defense programs below the caps set by the Budget Control Act. The House Appropriations Committee has, in fact, approved a $25 million cut for LIHEAP.

Changes in the refundable tax credits that help account for the effectiveness the SPM analysis indicates will expire at the end of 2017. And what seems a bipartisan sentiment in favor of expanding the EITC for childless workers is thus far little more than that — and not all that bipartisan, if we judge by cosponsors of bills pending in Congress.

Though SNAP clearly lifts people of all ages out of poverty, it doesn’t prevent a goodly number from going hungry at least some of the time. More about this in an upcoming post — and more perhaps about other issues one can tease out of the new SPM report.

 


DC Poverty Rate Dips Down

September 17, 2015

Hard on the results of the Census Bureau’s latest annual Current Population Survey supplement come the vastly more detailed results of its American Community Survey. As the headline says, they indicate what seems a drop in the overall poverty rate for the District of Columbia — down from 18.9% in 2013 to 17.7% last year.*

In human terms, this means that roughly 5,120 fewer District residents lived in poverty, as the Census Bureau’s official measure defines it.

At the same time, fewer residents lived in deep poverty, i.e., with household incomes no greater than 50% of the applicable poverty threshold — 9.1%, as compared to 10.3% in 2013.

These figures are obviously good news. But they’re hardly good enough to pop a champagne cork for. Several major reasons we should remain very concerned.

First, as I’ve said before, the poverty thresholds are extraordinarily low. A single parent and her two children, for example, were counted as poor only if the family’s pre-tax cash income was less than $19,073 — this in a city where the family’s basic needs cost roughly $104,000. Perhaps even more, as the DC Fiscal Policy Institute has noted.

Second, the District’s poverty rate is still high, even comparatively. The national poverty rate, according to the ACS, was 15.5% last year. The District’s poverty rate also exceeds all but 11 state-level rates.

Third, the poverty rate for children in the District is far higher than the rate for the population as a whole — 26% or more than one in four residents under 18 years old. The deep poverty rate for children is also higher — 12.4%.

True, these rates are lower than in 2013, when they were 27.2% and 16.2%. But we’ve got more children in the District now. So the rate dips — for plain vanilla poverty in particular — reflect less progress than they seem to.

Fourth, we still have large gaps among major race/ethnicity groups in the District — one, though far from the only sign of persistent income inequality, rooted in discriminatory policies and practices. For example:

  • The new poverty rate for blacks is 25.9%, as compared to 6.9% for non-Hispanic whites.
  • 12.7% of blacks lived in deep poverty, while only 4.8% of non-Hispanic whites did.
  • The rates for Hispanics fall in between, as they have in the past — 16.9% and 7.5%.

We find the same sort of divide in household incomes. The median for non-Hispanic white households was $117,134 — $57,512 higher than their median nationwide. The median household income for black residents was barely more than a third of what non-Hispanic whites here had to live on — $40,739.

For the poverty rates themselves, we can find some ready explanations in other ACS figures. For example, the poverty rate for District residents who were at least 25 years old and had less than a high school diploma or the equivalent was 33.7%, as compared to 5.8% for their counterparts with at least a four-year college degree.

Only a small fraction of working-age (16-64 year-old) residents who worked full-time, year round were officially poor — 2.1% — while 45.9% who lived in poverty didn’t work (for pay) at all.

They presumably include residents too disabled to work and dependent on Supplemental Security Income benefits. These, at a maximum, left a single individual about $3,660 below the poverty threshold.

But that leaves 23.4% who worked for at least part of the year, less than full time or both. They were not, by any means, all workers who chose part-time and/or temporary work, as a recent report by DCFPI and partners tells us.

The report includes some policy recommendations to help low-wage hourly workers who are now jerked around — and economically disadvantaged — by unpredictable, erratic work schedules. One can readily find other policy proposals that would, in various ways, significantly reduce poverty rates in the District and nationwide.

Though the ACS gives us new numbers, neither the story they tell nor the solutions they imply are new. Still worth knowing how the prosperity we witness in our gentrifying neighborhoods, as well as our traditionally upper-income havens has egregiously failed to reach so many District residents.

* All the ACS tables include margins of error, i.e., how much the raw numbers and percents could be too high or too low. For readability, I’m reporting both as given. However, the high side of the margin for the overall rate could mean no change from 2013.

 


U.S. Poverty Rate Flat-Lines

September 16, 2015

Defying predictions, the Census Bureau just reported that 14.8% of people in the U.S. — roughly 46.7 million — were officially poor last year. Both the rate and the raw number are so little different from 2013 as to be statistically the same.

The newest rate is 2.3% higher than in 2007, shortly before the recession set in. This is yet further evidence that our economic recovery hasn’t brought recovery to everybody.

Much has rightly been made of flaws in the official measure the figures reflect. These include what the Census Bureau counts and doesn’t as income and the thresholds it perforce uses, i.e., the household incomes that set the upper limits for poverty.

The figures nevertheless represent reasonably accurate trends over time. So they’re disheartening, especially because improvements in the labor market suggested we’d see somewhat lower rates.

Also disheartening is the essentially unchanged deep poverty rate, i.e., the percent of people who lived (who knows how?) on pre-tax cash incomes less than half the applicable threshold — 6.6%. This is a full percent higher than in 2007.

Poverty rates for the major age groups the report breaks out also flat-lined. We thus still see basically the same large disparities.

As in the past, the child poverty rate was markedly higher than the overall rate — 21.1%. It translates into well over 15.5 million children — a third of all poor people in our country. About 6.8 million children — 9.3% — lived in deep poverty.

The senior poverty rate was again the lowest of the three the age groups — 10% or roughly 4.6 million people 65 and older. For seniors, the deep poverty rate apparently ticked up to 3.2%.

We still see marked disparities among major race/ethnicity groups too. For example:

  • The poverty rate for blacks was more than two and a half times the rate for non-Hispanic whites — 26.2%, as compared to 10.1%.
  • For blacks, the deep poverty rate was 12%, while only 4.6% of non-Hispanic whites were that poor.
  • The poverty rate for Hispanics was 23.6% and the deep poverty rate 9.6%.
  • By contrast, the poverty rate for Asians was 12% and the deep poverty rate 5.6%. Several analyses suggest we’d see a quite different picture if the Census Bureau differentiated among the sub-populations this group comprises.

Bottom line, I suppose, is that we’ve got new numbers, but no real change. So they tell the same old story. We’ve got a lot of prosperity in this country, but it’s far from equally shared.

We know quite a bit about how we could move toward greater economic and social justice. What we don’t have is the political will where we most need it.

NOTE: The Census Bureau simultaneously released the results of its Supplemental Poverty Measure — a departure from past practice. I’ll deal with them separately.

UPDATE: I’ve learned that the reason the U.S. poverty rate for 2014 isn’t statistically different from the 2013 rate is that the Census Bureau reported results from a redesigned survey it began using last year, along with the old survey. Last year, it reported what the old survey showed. This year, what the new one did.


A Bold, Smart Bill to End Child Poverty in America

June 15, 2015

Four Congressional Democrats have introduced a bill to reduce — indeed, to end — child poverty in our country. Will it pass? Not in this Congress. But as a lobbyist friend used to remind me, it took eight years to pass the Family and Medical Leave Act.

So should we press for a law like the proposed Child Poverty Reduction Act? I think so, as do some of our leading children’s advocates. Three reasons, with an asterisk.

Far Too Many Poor Children. Well over 14.6 million children in the U.S. are officially poor, according to the latest report. That’s nearly one in five. We’ve got too many poor adults as well, but children are the poorest age group the Census Bureau counts.

This is still true when the Bureau uses its better poverty measure, which factors in major near-cash benefits like SNAP (food stamps), as well as refundable tax credits. These lower the child poverty rate, but still leave nearly 12.2 million children below the applicable poverty threshold.

Lifelong Consequences. Children born to poor parents are more likely than others to die while infants. Research tells us that those who survive, as most do, can soon suffer damages to their brain and other systems caused by toxic levels of stress.

They’re at high risk for physical and mental health problems due to a wide range of poverty-related factors — inadequate nutrition, unstable (or no) housing, parental abuse and (more often) neglect, neighborhood violence and exposure to toxins, e.g., mold, lead paint, air pollution from nearby power plants, dumps and/or highways.

Needless to say (I hope), children suffering from such problems don’t arrive at school ready to learn — or in some cases, behave themselves, as classroom decorum dictates.

They’re more likely to miss school days because they’re ill, can’t get to school or have to stay home to care for a younger child — or because they’re suspended for misbehaving, especially likely if they’re black, Hispanic or Native American.

They may choose to miss school days because they don’t want to sit in classrooms where they can’t understand the lessons and to suffer humiliation because of that and/or because their peers gang up on them.

Ultimately, far too many drop up — mostly, though perhaps not always because they’re failing academically. Or they graduate, even though they can barely read or do basic math. Barring further education, most will face a lifetime of low-wage employment — if they’re lucky. Some, as we know, will find more gainful employment in drug dealing and the like.

A somewhat dated but still indicative study estimated that child poverty costs our country $500 billion a year in lost earnings, higher crime-related costs and increased health expenditures.

So if we need a cost-benefit rationale, which I’d like to think we don’t, then making child poverty rare and brief would seem a sensible priority.

Not a National Priority. We’ve already got programs to break the poverty cycle — too many to even simply list here. We’ve got research indicating other promising initiatives, e.g., the housing pilot evaluation I blogged on recently. We’ve got at least one full-blown agenda for dramatically reducing child poverty.

But, as First Focus President Bruce Lesley observes, tackling child poverty isn’t a national priority to the extent that top-level policymakers feel they must actually do something about it — or that we, the public, demand they do.

The Child Poverty Reduction Act aims to change this by importing elements of an approach that worked in the UK. Adopted there in 2000, it drove policy changes and investments that cut the child poverty rate, as we measure it,* in half by 2008.

The proposed approach has three major prongs. Like the UK’s, it sets goals — half as many children living in poverty and none in deep poverty in 10 years and no children in poverty at all 10 years thereafter.

The proposal doesn’t include new and/or reformed policies and programs to achieve these goals. Here too, it’s like the initial UK law. It does, however, differ somewhat in how the agenda would develop.

The elements of the UK’s child poverty initiative emerged over time, though the goal-setting law required both the overarching government and the nation-level governments the UK comprises to issue strategies.

The CPRA would instead set the stage for policymaking by mandating a national plan for achieving the reduction-elimination goals, plus recommendations for achieving related goals, e.g. understanding the root causes of child poverty, eliminating race, ethnicity and other disparities.

A working group of officials in at least six federal agencies would be responsible for developing the plan and other recommendations. It would first, however, have to commission workshops and research papers from the independent National Academy of Sciences.

So we’d have a blueprint of sorts, based on research already conducted — and perhaps new studies — to launch the actual war on child poverty.

Then, much as in the UK, the working group would monitor relevant programs and services and annually publish results. Reports would include states’ child poverty reduction efforts and recommendations for further legislation.

Political Will. As Lesley says, all major parties in the UK have embraced the child poverty goals there. And their leaders apparently feel they’re accountable to the public for the impacts of their policies and other decisions.

They face a major test because recent projections suggest the child poverty rate will rise, as a report for First Focus notes. The policy largely responsible for bringing the rate down would cost too much to replicate, it says, “even if the political appetite were there.”

The lesson here isn’t one we have to learn from the UK. We’ve had goals before. Then-candidate Obama was going to end child hunger by this year, for example.

We’ve had recommendations from independent research agencies, including the recently overridden exclusion of white potatoes from foods mothers could use their WIC benefits to buy. We’ve had reams of plans to achieve worthy goals — more than 243 to end homelessness, for example.

Don’t mean to sound cynical. My point is simply that even if Congress passed the CPRA, we’d still be merely looking at the annual Census reports and shaking our heads unless we create — and sustain – enough political will to convince our elected officials that they have to show progress toward the goals.

* Countries in the European Union ordinarily use a poverty measure based on their median income. Our official measure uses incomes adjusted only for inflation to divide the poor from the not-poor year after year. The UK now uses both types of measures for child poverty.

 


Better Poverty Measure, Worse Poverty Rate, But Not for Everybody

October 16, 2014

As in the past, the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure yields a higher poverty rate than the official measure that was the basis for the reports the Bureau issued last month. According to the just-released SPM report, the rate last year was 15.5%, rather than 14.5%.*

This means that about 2.9 million more people — roughly 48.7 million in all — were living in poverty. At the same time, 1.3% fewer people lived in deep poverty, i.e., at or below 50% of the income threshold that determines who’s counted as poor.

These differences as well as the many others reflect the fact that the SPM is constructed differently from the official measure. There’s a brief explanation of how it’s built in the last section below.

Other Shifts in Poverty Rates

We see shifts up and down for state-level rates. For example, the rate for the District of Columbia rises from 19.9% to 22.4%. Rates fall in 26 states and rise in 13. (These reflect three-year averages to compensate for the relatively small sample sizes.)

As in the past, rates also shift for major race/ethnicity groups. Most of the shifts are relatively small. An exception here for Asians, whose poverty rate was 5.9% higher, and for blacks, whose deep poverty rate was 4.6% lower.

The most marked shifts are again for the young and the old.

  • The child poverty rate drops from 20.4% to 16.4%, reducing the number of poor children by about 2.9 million.
  • The deep poverty rate for children is less than half the official rate — 4.4%, as compared to 9.3%.
  • By contrast, the poverty rate for people 65 and older rises from 9.5% to 14.6%.
  • And the deep poverty rate for seniors ticks up from 2.7% to 4.8%.

Poverty Rates Without Key Federal Benefits

The changes for seniors largely reflect the fact that the SPM factors in medical out-of-pocket costs. But the SPM report also tells us that the senior poverty rate would have been 52.6% without Social Security payments. In other words, Social Security protected about 23.4 million seniors from poverty last year — more than three and a half times as many as were poor.

This is only one of the policy-relevant figures the SPM report provides in a section that shows how poverty rates would change if some particular benefit weren’t counted as income. Some examples Census has helpfully translated into raw numbers:

  • The refundable Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit lifted 8.8 million people out of poverty.
  • But for SNAP (food stamp) benefits, about 4.8 million more people would have fallen below the poverty threshold.
  • Unemployment insurance benefits lifted 2 million people over the threshold.

So we see that the much-maligned safety net programs work. But we also see that policy choices have impaired the impacts some of the biggies formerly had.

For example, SNAP benefits lifted about 5 million people out of poverty in 2012, before the across-the-board cuts became effective. We’ve yet to see the effects of the further, targeted whack at benefits that’s part of the new Farm Bill.

The anti-poverty impacts of UI benefits shrunk further — a trend dating back to 2010, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The number of people the benefits lifted out of poverty last year was nearly half a million fewer than in 2012.

And that was before Congress let the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program die at the end of last year. The new UI figure almost surely reflects reductions it made when it last renewed the program, however.

SPM 101

As I’ve explained before, the SPM is a more complex — and generally viewed as better — poverty measure than the one that’s used for official purposes, e.g., as the basis for the federal poverty guidelines that help determine eligibility for many safety net and other means-tested programs.

The Bureau begins by setting initial thresholds based on what the roughly 33rd percentile of households with two children spend on four basic needs — food, shelter, clothing and utilities.

It then bumps the amount up a bit to account for some other needs, e.g., household supplies, transportation that’s not work-related. It also makes some housing cost adjustments based on differences between major geographic areas and whether households rent or own — and in the latter case, with or without a mortgage.

Next, it deducts for certain other necessary expenses, e.g., work-related expenses, out-of-pocket costs for health care. And, as income, it adds the value of some non-cash benefits that households can use for the four basic needs. It also, for the same reason, folds in the refundable tax credits.

The report I link to at the beginning of this post provides a fuller — and considerably more wonkish — explanation.

* This is the same rate the Census Bureau reported last month. However, most of the official rates in the SPM report differ somewhat because the Bureau has included children under 15 who are unrelated to anyone they’re living with, e.g., foster children. The official measure doesn’t include them as part of a family unit.

I’m using the adjusted rates so we can have apples-to-apples comparisons. But the rates reported last month are those that should be used for other purposes.

UPDATE: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that the refundable tax credits lifted 9.4 million people out of poverty. This figure, it says, is based on its analysis of the SPM data. I don’t know why it’s higher than the Census Bureau figure I linked to.