Measuring Poverty the Way We Understand It

August 22, 2016

It’s a well-known fact that the official poverty measure we use doesn’t accurately tell us how many poor people live in the U.S. It was never supposed to be more than an initial baseline for War on Poverty programs.

But here we are, more than 50 years later, and it’s still the basis for setting income eligibility levels for most safety net programs, plus some others that fund services in low-income communities.

The Census Bureau has a better measure — prudently named the Supplemental Poverty Measure so as to not imply it will supplant the official measure. It’s still unfinished in some important ways, e.g., sufficient adjustments for differences housing costs.

But even a more refined measure would still produce poverty rates based on pre-tax income, plus the income equivalent of some near-cash benefits, e.g., SNAP (food stamps), and the refundable tax credits.

We’ve had other measures proposed. Some economists, for example, recommend a consumption-based measure — basically, what a household owns, spends and, in some cases, has through government spending.

A team at Columbia University, supported by the Robin Hood Foundation is using a different definition to track poverty in New York City. The aim, the Foundation says, is to “take a deeper, more realistic look at disadvantage.”

This, we see, involves several things. First, the researchers use Census data, its poverty thresholds, adjusted for local rental housing costs, and an adapted version of the SPM to measure poverty in the city.

Second, the team surveys a sample of households in all income brackets, asking questions to identify those that experience “material hardships, i.e., deprivations due to lack of money.

In other words, the project uses a concept of poverty more like the way we actually think about it — not how much money a family has, but whether it has enough to meet basic needs. The survey implicitly defines them as food, housing, utilities and medical and dental care.

A household that sometimes comes up short is said to experience “moderate material hardship.” The hardship becomes “severe” if a household experiences it chronically or acutely — for example, is so short of money for housing that it has to move to a shelter.

The hardship concept isn’t altogether novel here in the U.S. For example, a household that has very low food security, as the U.S. Department of Agriculture defines it, can’t always afford to buy enough food for everyone to have enough to eat.

The Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation includes a section it classifies as “adult well-being.” The questions are actually about the household’s well-being, including food security, the conditions of the housing it lives in and whether it can afford housing-related expenses.

SIPP uses the same sample of households repeatedly — some for as long as four years. It’s similar, in this way, to the third aspect of the “deeper, more realistic look” that gives the Robin Hood Foundation project its name.

It too tracks the select material hardships over time by surveying the same households for several years running. But it’s focused on them, rather than participation in programs that compensate for lack of enough income.

The survey does, however, include some questions about receipt of public benefits as part of its effort to localize the SPM. And it asks what I infer are half a dozen questions about requests for help and responses. (I’ve looked in vain for a copy of the survey itself.)

The project aims ultimately to capture the dynamics of poverty — and certain related material hardships. Understanding them, the partners say, will better equip policymakers, nonprofits and private-sector donors to develop solutions.

We’ve had three reports thus far. Each slices and dices the survey results differently. Here’s a handful of things we learn about the poverty/hardship dynamics — none, I suspect, peculiar to New York, except at the data level.

Far more New Yorkers experienced at least one material hardship than fell below the relevant poverty line. Far more, in fact, experienced at least one severe hardship. Poverty was nevertheless a major factor, as you’d guess.

Very few New Yorkers lived in poverty both when first surveyed and a year later. Slightly more fell into or rose out of it, presumably by losing or gaining income, certain cash-equivalent benefits or both.

Material hardship seems more persistent. Of the eye-popping 48% identified as experiencing at least one, nearly half still experienced it — or maybe some other — a year later, if not longer. (The first survey, as reported, didn’t ask how long respondents had already experienced the hardships covered.)

Not all New Yorkers who suffered a material hardship sought help. But majorities did — more for some needs than others. Very few said they got all the help they needed — at least, within the short timeframe the survey then covered.

Help they may have received somewhat later didn’t do all that much good. Slightly less than a third no longer experienced the hardship — a troubling finding for the project’s target audience.

Help did even less to lift households out of poverty, though the survey asks about help that could have — finding a job, for example, or getting public benefits. Only 2% more households that said they got no help remained poor than those that said they got all the help they needed.

On the other hand, getting timely help apparently averted poverty for a higher percent of those that swiftly sought it and said they got all needed. This may include people who sought help with a health problem, rather than a hardship that a health problem may have caused.*

Some of the dynamics Poverty Tracker reports aren’t altogether new. The Census Bureau, for example, has used its survey data to follow near-poor people, including their lapses into full-blown poverty.

A study by an economist at the University of California, Davis tracked transitions in and out of poverty, linked to factors that help explain them. The Urban Institute cites many other studies that have parsed the in-and-out (and back in) dynamics.

But we don’t, to my knowledge, have anything as expansive for material hardship. Some other countries are far ahead of us, as a complex study by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) indicates.

The authors say what seems a suitable conclusion here. “Poverty is a complex issue, and a variety of approaches are required for its measurement and analysis.”

* The survey asks separate questions about health problems. These are certainly a disadvantage — the overall scope of the project. But analyses thus far have not linked them to material hardships, though one did look at the correlation to poverty.

 

 

 


More Earnings May Not Mean Less Hardship

August 20, 2014

Everyone with even a passing interest knows that the Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds are far too low — in part because they’re based on a long-outdated spending pattern.

The Urban Institute’s Molly Scott has a more fundamental objection. “All our national poverty statistics,” she says, “reflect economic poverty.” In other words, they measure total household income — both earnings and payments from programs like unemployment insurance and SSI.

The Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure also includes the value of some near-cash benefits, e.g., SNAP (food stamps), housing subsidies, home energy assistance.

But Scott has something quite different in mind than a better version of our poverty measure. “The problem,” she says, is that “the arbitrary poverty line is a bad measure of material poverty, the amount of hardship people experience meeting their basic needs.”

People both above and below the poverty line often struggle to get through the month. The only difference between them is “the mix of resources they use and the costs associated with work,” Scott says.

She gives us two hypothetical single mothers in the District of Columbia. Both have two school-age children. They live next door to each other, so the rent on their apartments is the same. They both have minimum wage jobs. The difference is that one works part time, the other 60 hours a week.

The part-time mom’s family gets a larger SNAP benefit because the household’s income is lower. She’s somehow managed to get a housing voucher — again because her income is extremely low.

At the same time, her transportation costs are lower, presumably because she doesn’t work every day. And she doesn’t have to pay for child care because she works only while her kids are in school.

The end result is that her gross income is much lower, but her family is actually somewhat better off. Probably still facing struggles, but not actually in the hole, like the family headed by the other mom, whose earnings put them nearly $10,000 above the federal poverty line.

The moral of this story is that policymakers — and others — who champion work requirements and other strategies “to get people to work more” are often actually looking for more ways to minimize spending on programs that help poor people make ends meet.

We may spend less, but achieve little or nothing to alleviate hardship, as Scott’s time-and-a-half working mom’s situation shows.

Scott’s conclusion is more cautionary than prescriptive. “[W]e need to make sure our policies and programs do more than swap out subsidies for low-income wages that won’t change people’s quality of life.”

She refers to “real ladders of opportunity and supports along the way.” Which is all very well and good, but we need to do something about those low-wage jobs as well — and about supports for people who, for various reasons, can’t climb a ladder into a genuine living wage job.

For our single mothers in the District, that would be a job paying $32.95 an hour, assuming full-time, year round work. This would give them an annual income nearly three and a half times higher than the poverty line for their families — and about $1,950 more than the median for all households in D.C.

We’ve got bills in Congress that would raise the floor the “ladders of opportunity” rest on. There’s the long-stalled minimum wage increase, of course, but also a pair of bills that would, among other things, ensure that workers don’t get shorted if they’re sent home early or required to work for awhile and then again later because their employers go in for “just-in-time” scheduling.

We’ve got bills that would guarantee most workers some time off with pay so they could stay home when they were sick or for other compelling reasons, e.g., childbirth, an ill family member who needs care.

We’ve even now got a bill that would help ensure that some of the 26 million or so workers employed by federal contractors get paid what they earn.

And, of course, President Obama has used his pen — or as some Republicans say, disregarded the Constitution — to both raise their wage floor and better protect them against wage theft, as well as some other prohibited labor practices.

But the mighty pen can’t boost federal funding for child care — the second largest item in the living wage budget for our D.C. single-mother families. It can’t do anything about the cost of housing, which, as you might expect, is the largest.

And it’s highly doubtful Congress will either — any more than it will raise the minimum wage or pass all the other bills that would somewhat improve the financial circumstances of low-wage workers.

What’s more frustrating, in a way, is that there is no silver bullet — or round of silver bullets — ready for policymakers to fire, if they choose. Material poverty seems to me even more complex than plain vanilla economic poverty.

Which isn’t an argument for doing nothing. There’s a lot that can be done, much of which we already know. It is an argument, however, as Scott implies, for rejecting out of hand solutions that rely solely on getting more people into the workforce.