Demographic Programs

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Issue

P60-216

Report Title

Program Subtitle

Current Population Reports

Experimental Poverty

Measures: 1999 Issued October 2001

By Kathleen Short Current Population Reports

Consumer Income
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was prepared under the general direction of Charles T. Nelson,

Assistant Division Chief for Income Poverty, and Health Statistics, Housing and

Household Economic Statistics Division.

Important contributors were Richard

Bavier of the Office of Management and

Budget, David Betson of the University of

Notre Dame, and Thesia I. Garner of the

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Alemayehu

Bishaw and Bernadette Proctor provided statistical assistance.Sampling

review was conducted by Alfred G. Meier

of the Demographic Statistical Methods

Division.

Barbara M. Abbott, Li Ying Chen, and

Laurene V. Qualls of the Administrative

and Customer Services Division, Walter C.

Odom, Chief, provided publications and

printing management, graphics design and

composition, and editorial review for print

and electronic media.
Experimental Poverty

Measures: 1999 Issued October 2001

P60-216

Current Population Reports

Consumer Income

U.S. Department of Commerce

Donald L. Evans,

Secretary

Samuel W. Bodman,

Deputy Secretary

Economics

and Statistics

Administration

Kathleen B. Cooper,

Under Secretary for

Economic Affairs

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

William G. Barron, Jr.,

Acting Director
SUGGESTED CITATION

Short, Kathleen, U.S. Census Bureau,

Current Population Reports, P60-216,

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999,

U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC, 20001

ECONOMICS

AND STATISTICS

ADMINISTRATION

Economics

and Statistics

Administration

Kathleen B. Cooper,

Under Secretary

for Economic Affairs

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

William G. Barron, Jr.,

Acting Director

William G. Barron, Jr.,

Deputy Director

John H. Thompson,

Principal Associate Director

for Programs

Nancy M. Gordon,

Associate Director

for Demographic Programs

Daniel H. Weinberg,

Chief, Housing and Household

Economic Statistics Division

For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
CONTENTS

iii

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

Executive Summary ............................... 1

Introduction ................................... 1

New Measures ................................. 3

Work-Related Expenses Including Child Care ................ 3

Housing Subsidies .............................. 4

Medical Out-of-Pocket Expenses (MOOP) .................. 4

Geographic Indexes for Thresholds ..................... 6

New Measures—Putting the Pieces Together .................. 6

Description of Measures and Poverty Rates ................. 6

Distribution of the Poverty Population ................... 8

Concluding Remarks, Future Research, and Data Needs ........... 8

Further Research Areas ........................... 11

Data Improvements ............................. 12

Alternative Criteria for Poverty Measures .................. 13

Notes and Users’ Comments ......................... 13

References.................................... 14

Appendixes

A. Technical Appendix .......................... A-1

Poverty Thresholds: Consumer Expenditure Survey 1997-99 ..... A-1

Equivalence Scales ........................... A-2

Geographic Adjustments ........................ A-2

NAS Panel’s Method .......................... A-4

New Method .............................. A-4

Work-Related Expenses ......................... A-5

Child Care Expenditures ....................... A-5

New CPS Questions on Paid Child Care................ A-7

Other Work-Related Expenses..................... A-9

Housing Subsidy Valuation ....................... A-9

Medical Care ............................... A-10

Use of Four Complete Quarters of CE Interview Data to

Compute Poverty Thresholds With MOOP .............. A-12

B. Source and Accuracy of the Data .................. B-1

Source of the Data ............................ B-1

Accuracy of the Estimates ........................ B-1
Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents experimental measures of poverty

in the United States. These measures are illustrative variations of the recommendations of the Panel on Poverty and

Family Assistance: Concepts, Information Needs, and Measurement Methods of the National Research Council of the

National Academy of Sciences.1 This report extends work

previously published by the Census Bureau in Experimental Poverty Measures: 1990 to 1997.2 The experimental

measures presented here:

• Incorporate, in a way that the official measure does not,

the effects of key government policies aimed at the

most needy families in the U.S.

• Use an after-tax income measure

• Add the value of in-kind benefits, such as food stamps,

to income

• Take account of expenses that are necessary to hold a

joband to obtain medical care.

Key findings from experimental poverty measures presented here and in our last report include the following:

• Due to the Earned Income Tax Credit, deducting taxes

from income on balance reduces the percent of people

who are viewed as being poor.

• Adding in-kind benefits to income reduces poverty

rates, but the reductions from any single program are

generally quite small.

• The resulting increase in poverty rates when one

accounts for necessary expenses can be substantial but

depends on the method used to value those expenses.

• The experimental measures show a poverty population

that is more like the total population in terms of socioeconomic characteristics than results from using the

current official measure.

This report addresses measurement issues and presents

alternative ways of accounting for the calculation of workrelated expenses including child care, the value of housing

1

Citro, Constance F. and Robert T. Michael (eds.), Measuring

Poverty: A New Approach, Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 1995. 2

Short, Kathleen, Thesia Garner, David Johnson, and Patricia

Doyle. Experimental Poverty Measures: 1990 to 1997, U.S. Census

Bureau, Current Population Reports, Consumer Income, P60-205,

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1999.

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 1

U.S. Census Bureau

subsidies that is added to income as a noncash transfer,

the valuation of medical out-of-pocket spending, and

adjustments for geographic cost-of-living differences in

the threshold.

Key findings from the measures shown in this report

are:

• Experimental poverty rates are more comparable in

magnitude to official rates than those reported in earlier

studies.

• Updated estimates of work-related expenses, including

child care, are lower than those used in previous experimental measures, resulting in lower experimental poverty rates overall.

• Improved methods for including the value of housing

subsidies result in increased imputed income for those

families who benefit from these programs.

• Estimates of medical-out-of-pocket spending that are

based on more recent data and alternative techniques

have a considerably smaller effect on experimental poverty measures than those previously reported.

• Alternative geographic adjustments yield slightly higher

experimental poverty rates but may provide better estimates of state-level poverty than those presented in the

NAS and earlier Census reports.

This report represents continuing work toward improving the official measure of poverty. We invite comments

from readers on any of the issues presented in this report.

INTRODUCTION

In the spring of 1995 the National Academy of Sciences

(NAS) Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance released a

report (Citro and Michael, 1995) that evaluated the current

method of poverty measurement in the United States and

recommended change. Based on practices from the 1960s,

the current official poverty statistics compare before-tax

cash income of families to poverty thresholds intended to

approximate the cost of basic necessities at that time,

updated for inflation since then. Poverty rates published

each year by the Census Bureau (Dalaker and Proctor,

2000) represent the proportion of individuals whose family incomes are below the poverty thresholds.

The NAS panel recommended changing the definition of

both the poverty thresholds and the family resources that

are compared with those thresholds to determine poverty
status. The NAS panel further suggested several improve- examined the effects of each part of the recommendaments to the current official poverty measures, aimed at tions, plus reasonable alternatives. Estimates of poverty

producing a measure of economic well-being that was rates using these experimental measures were calculated

more accurate in portraying the kinds of families and indi- from 1990 through 1997 to examine the different trends

viduals facing serious income hardship in the U.S. The that would have been observed. Comparisons were also

panel recommended a revised measure of poverty, herein- made across various demographic subgroups in order to

after referred to as the NAS measure, based on two sets of illustrate how their poverty rates were affected by the difconsiderations: ferent measures.

That work suggested that with these new measures a

Poverty threshold recommendations. The NAS panel somewhat different population would be identified as

recommended that the poverty thresholds should repre- poor. This new group of poor would be consist of a larger

sent a dollar amount for a basic set of goods that includes proportion of elderly people, working families, and

food, clothing, shelter (including utilities), and a small married-couple families than are identified by the official

additional amount to allow for other needs (e.g., house- poverty measure. Trends in poverty rates, however, were

hold supplies, personal care, nonwork-related transporta- similar to those found using the official measure, except

tion). This threshold should be developed first for a refer- for a somewhat steeper decline in poverty rates during the

ence family of two adults and two children using recent economic expansion and following expansion of

Consumer Expenditure Survey data, and it should be the EIC program.

adjusted (using a specified equivalence scale) to reflect The official poverty report, released in fall of 2000 by

the needs of different family types and geographic differ- the Census Bureau, updated estimates through 1999 for a

ences in housing costs. Adjustments to thresholds should subset of these experimental measures. Table A shows

be made over time to reflect real growth in expenditures poverty rates based on these measures with each column

on this basic bundle of goods. representing a different way of calculating the experimental thresholds: Family resource recommendations. The NAS panel recommended that family resources should be defined as the • Column one shows standardized poverty rates for

value of money income from all sources, plus the value of 1999. The experimental thresholds used in those calcunear-money benefits that are available to buy the basic lations were computed for 1997 using the Consumer

bundle of goods, minus necessary expenses for critical Expenditure Survey (CE) in the manner recommended by

goods and services not included in the thresholds. Near- the NAS panel and updated from 1997 with the Conmoney benefits include food stamps, subsidized housing, sumer Price Index (CPI-U). Also, these estimates were

school lunches, and home energy assistance. Necessary standardized, or set equal to, the official poverty rate

expenses that must be subtracted include income taxes, for all people in 1997. Any differences in these rates

Social Security payroll taxes, child care and other work- across measures represent different trends in the mearelated expenses, child support payments to another sures since 1997. Note that poverty rates based on the

household, and household contributions toward the costs experimental measures are not very different from the

of medical care and health insurance premiums, or medi- official poverty rate.3

cal out-of-pocket costs (MOOP). • Column two shows the unstandardized rates. (More One of the goals of the NAS panel was to produce a detailed estimates for these CPI-based measures are measure of poverty that explicitly accounted for govern- available in detailed Tables 1-1 to 1-3 and 2-1 to 2-3.) ment spending aimed at alleviating the hardship of lowincome families. Thus, taking account of tax and transfer • Columns three and four in Table A are based on experipolicies, such as the food stamp program and the earned mental thresholds calculated with more recent CE data

income (tax) credit (EIC), in the measure can show the for 1999. For each of the years following 1997, these

effects of these policies on various targeted subgroups, thresholds have been calculated using expenditure data

for example, families with children. The current official referring to each of these time periods. Thresholds

measure, which does not explicitly take account of these based on CE data have increased more than the CPI

benefits, yields poverty statistics that are unchanged since 1997, and thus poverty rates based on CE threshregardless of changes in those policies. olds are slightly higher than those updated for price

In the summer of 1999, the Census Bureau released a changes only (see Technical Appendix and detailed

report on experimental poverty measures covering the Tables 3-1 to 3-3 and 4-1 to 4-3 for details).

1990-97 period (Short et al., 1999). That report presented The official poverty rates are compared with the follow- a set of experimental poverty measures based on recom- ing experimental poverty measures in Table A: mendations of the 1995 NAS panel report. Some additional variations on that measure were included in order to 3

These estimates differ slightly from those published in Pov- shed light and generate discussion on the various dimen- erty in the United States: 1999 because of a correction to the

sions included in the proposed revision. The report also experimental thresholds. See the Technical Appendix for details.

2 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
• The NAS measure that most closely implements the NAS

panel’s recommendations.

• The DCM (Different Child Care Method) uses a different

method of calculating the cost of child care while parents work. This difference from the NAS measure results

in higher poverty rates because this method assumes

that all working parents with children must find suitable

arrangements for their care while working.

• The NGA (No Geographic Adjustment) experimental

measure does not adjust thresholds for geographic differences in costs of living. Poverty rates adjusting for

differences in housing costs by place, as the NAS measure does, are slightly lower than the NGA measure that

does not. This suggests that there are more families living in lower-cost areas who move from poor to nonpoor

than there are families in high-cost areas who are classified as poor when housing costs are considered.

• The DES measure, uses a Different Equivalence Scale

from the NAS measure to adjust for changes in

expenses as family size increases or the number of children and adults in the family differs. Generally, an

equivalence scale accounts for the fact that economies

of scale result from the sharing of resources among

more people. As shown in the table, the DES measure

employs an equivalence scale that results in a somewhat higher threshold, and thus higher poverty rates,

than the NAS measure. Details on these methods are

available in the Technical Appendix and in Short et al.,

1999. Time-series estimates of poverty rates using

these measures from 1990 are presented in detailed

Tables 5-1 to 5-25.

Table A. Poverty Rates Calculated Using

Various Measures: 1999

Characteristic

Consumer price indexbased thresholdsConsumer expenditurebased thresholds

Standard- Unstandardized5 ized

Standard- Unstandardized5 ized

Official

NAS1

DCM2

NGA3

DES4

......

.......

.......

.......

.......

11.8

11.7

11.9

11.6

11.7

11.8

13.7

14.3

14.0

14.2

11.8

12.2

12.4

12.2

12.2

11.8

14.4

15.0

14.6

15.0

1

NAS: National Academy of Science proposed measure

2

NAS measure with child care method based on SIPP medians

3

NAS measure with no geographic adjustment

4

NAS measure with different equivalence scale (three-parameter equivalence

scale).

5

Experimental measures adjusted to equal official poverty rates for all people

in 1997

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, March 2000 Current Population Survey.

Since the release of the Census Bureau report on experimental measures in 1999, there has been increasing consensus among poverty researchers concerning the use of a

three-parameter equivalence scale used in the DES measure, rather than the two-parameter scale recommended

by the NAS panel. An equivalence scale is used in a poverty measure to take account of differences in costs due to

differences in family size and composition. The cost of

food and clothing, for example, would be higher for a

family of four than a two-person family, but not twice as

high. The equivalence scale makes this adjustment.

The NAS panel originally employed a two-parameter

scale in its illustrative calculations. The three-parameter

scale, used in the DES measure, has been shown to more

adequately represent the relative needs of families with

and without children, and it is generally agreed that this

scale should be used (Betson, 1996, Short et al., 1999,

and Open Letter, 2000). For this reason, the next section

of this report uses the DES measure as the main comparison measure. This report continues to use the March 2000

Annual Demographic Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS) to compute poverty rates for 1999.

NEW MEASURES

The measures presented in this report draw upon the

considerable research and discussion that followed publication of the first report. A series of papers (available on

the Census Bureau Website) have presented improved

methods for computing the various dimensions of the

poverty measure, including

• The calculation of work-related expenses including child

care

• The value of housing subsidies that is added to income

as a noncash transfer

• The valuation of medical out-of-pocket spending

• Adjustments for geographic cost-of-living differences in

the threshold. These elements are addressed individually in this section.

Beginning with the DES measure, then, this section of

the report will discuss each new item in turn, incorporate

each item in the DES measure separately, and compare the

newer version with the DES measure before the change.

This shows the differences that are observed in poverty

rates after each change. For each item there is a brief discussion of the concept and the changes being incorporated. (For further details, see the Technical Appendix and

the relevant papers cited.)

Work-Related Expenses Including Child Care

The NAS panel recommended that expenses necessary

to work should be subtracted from family income before

determining poverty status. The panel suggested one that

subtracted a flat weekly amount for these expenses for

each week worked. These expenses were restricted to not

exceed the lowest-paid person’s earnings (where all adults

worked). The NAS panel used data from the 1987 Survey

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 3

U.S. Census Bureau
of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the most that more recent data should be used to update these valrecent data then available, to obtain an estimate of the ues.4 Furthermore, there is agreement that, while the

median value of work expenses of $17.12 (in 1999 dol- value of a housing subsidy can free up a family’s income

lars) for each week reported working by each person in to purchase food and other basic items, it will only do so

the family. to the extent that it meets the need for shelter. Thus,

while the new approaches presented here revise the val- Responding to the fact that these data were relatively ues for housing subsidies upward with more recent data, out of date, the Census Bureau introduced a new set of the values are limited to the proportion of the threshold questions on work-related expenses in the 1996 SIPP. that is allocated to shelter costs. From estimates based on These data were used to compute a new estimate of threshold calculations from the CE, this limit is set at 44 weekly median expenses. The amount estimated from percent of the calculated experimental threshold for each these newer data is very similar to the previously esti- family. mated dollar amount; in fact, at $16.83 per week in 1999, Two new housing subsidy valuation methods are pre- it is a bit lower than the previously employed figure. sented here. The first application uses Fair Market Rents Child care expenses while parents work are more diffi- (FMRs) to value housing subsidies.5 In this method, the cult to determine. The NAS panel modeled child care FMR represents the market rent for a metropolitan or non- expenses in their measure using information from the metropolitan territory in a given state. Given the average 1990 SIPP. They used a two-step procedure for each of two FMR for each state by metropolitan status, subsidy separate groups — two-parent families where both parents amounts are calculated by subtracting 30 percent of worked, and single parents who worked. The first step of household income from market rent, based on program the calculation established the probability that a family rules. Poverty rates fall when these subsidies are added to had incurred child care expenses. If the family was deter- family income. The resulting subsidy estimates are consid- mined to have incurred expenses, then the second step erably higher than subsidy amounts estimated under the subtracted an estimated dollar amount from the income of old method, and, even when limited to not exceed 44 per- the family before determining poverty status. cent of the poverty threshold, bring the overall poverty

Responding to the lack of information on child care rate down from 15.0 percent to 14.4 percent (see Figure 1

expenses, the Census Bureau added to the CPS in 1999 to and detailed Tables 6-1 to 6-3.)

elicit information from the household about whether they A second method of valuing housing subsidies has

had paid for child care while they worked. While these been calculated using 1999 AHS data. The calculation

data can now be used to determine whether a CPS family method differs considerably from the previous method,

incurred child care expenses, it is still necessary to model including a statistical matching procedure that imputes

amounts spent. This measure uses an improved model market rent for individual housing units. Because this

similar to the NAS model (see Technical Appendix and Ice- method results in subsidy values that are lower than those

land and Ribar, 2001, for details). resulting from the FMR calculations, the poverty rate does

When work-related expenses are based on these newer not decline as much as it does using FMRs. The overall

data, the poverty rate falls from 15.0 percent to 14.8 per- poverty rate is 14.6 percent using this 1999 AHS-based

cent. This decline reflects the fact that fewer families are valuation method, 15.0 percent using the current (1985

assigned child care expenses with the new CPS question AHS-based) valuation method, and 14.4 percent with the

and other work-related expenditures are calculated using FMR method. (See Figure 1 and detailed Tables 6-1 to 6-3.)

an amount that is slightly lower per week. (See Figure 1 Medical Out-of-Pocket Expenses (MOOP) and detailed Tables 6-1 to 6-3).

The NAS panel was aware that expenditures for health

Housing Subsidies care are a significant portion of a family budget and have

become an increasingly larger budget item since the

The Census Bureau values housing subsidies and 1960s. The panel considered including health care in the

releases estimates of these values every year with the thresholds with food, clothing, and shelter needs, but

March CPS Supplement. While the CPS collects information decided against it. They argued that medical care needs

on whether a household is in a public or subsidized hous- differ from the need for food or housing in that not every

ing unit it does not collect information on the value of the family requires medical care in a given year, but when they

subsidy received. Currently, the Census Bureau data from do, the associated costs may be extraordinarily large.

the 1985 American Housing Survey (AHS) to calculate sub- They concluded that it would be impossible to capture the

sidy amounts and then assigns values in the CPS based on

region, family income, and family size. Each year these

amounts are adjusted according to a price index for rents. 4

Steffick, 1993.

5

Fair Market Rents are used to set reimbursement levels for There is some general agreement that these valuations Section 8 housing vouchers given to low-income families trying to

underestimate the actual value of subsidies received and find adequate affordable housing in the private rental market.

4 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
actual variation of medical needs by variations in the 2001). Betson also recommends no adjustment to a

thresholds and that this could lead to what the panel national benchmark total, such as was done in the earlier

termed ‘‘erroneous poverty classification.’’ Instead, they version of the MOOP model. When this newer NAS valuadeveloped a method that was intended to represent tion method is employed, the poverty rate falls to 12.6

‘‘actual’’ MOOP spending. These expenses include the pay- percent from 15.0 using the older MOOP estimate included

ment of health insurance premiums plus other medically in the DES measure. (See Figure 1 and detailed Tables 6-1

necessary items such as prescription drugs and doctor to 6-3.)

copayments that are not paid for by insurance. Subtract- Thus far, the Census Bureau has only employed the NAS ing these ‘‘actual’’ amounts from income, like taxes and method of valuing MOOP in our examination of experi- work expenses, leaves the amount of income that the fam- mental poverty measures. However, the NAS recommenda- ily had available in 1999 to purchase the basic bundle of tions have raised issues of implementation (see Bavier, goods (food, clothing, shelter, and utilities (FCSU) and a 1999 and Bavier, 2000). Their treatment of medical needs ‘‘little bit more’’).

would require surveys and administrative data sets either That method used data from the 1987 National Medical

to ask families directly and extensively about out-of- Expenditure Survey (NMES) to model expenses that were pocket medical expenditures or, as was done for the ear- then subtracted from family income. One criticism of the

method was the outdated nature of the data, particularly lier report, to use statistical methods to assign amounts to

each family. In light of both the conceptual and practical in the area of health care spending, which has seen con- issues raised by the panel’s proposal for handling medical siderable changes in recent years. For this reason, David needs, this report includes an alternative treatment. This Betson (University of Notre Dame) has reestimated the treatment parallels the panel’s recommendations for pov- valuation procedure using more recent data from the 1996

6 erty thresholds based on expenditures for food, clothing, and 1997 CE. He also incorporated considerable improvements to the calculation including respecification of the shelter, and a little more, but adds ‘‘expected’’ out-ofmodel used to calculate MOOP amounts (see Betson, pocket medical spending to those thresholds (see Banthin

et al., 2001).

6 This second method of accounting for medical needs More recent data on medical spending including health insurance premiums are not yet available from the Medical Expenditure produces a set of ‘‘expected’’ amounts of medical spendPanel Survey. ing for a broad set of families. Using quarterly data from

Figure 1. 

DES Experimental Poverty Measure With Variations: 1999

(Percent poor)

15.0 14.8 14.4 14.6 

12.6 13.1 13.3 

15.2 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, March 2000 Current Population Survey.

Notes: NAS = National Academy of Sciences, DES = NAS measure with different equivalence scale, FMR = Fair market rents, AHS = American Housing Survey, 

 NAS MOOP = Medical out of pocket expenses subtracted from income, MOOPITT = MOOP in the threshold

FMR Geographic

Adjustment

Combined

MOOP

DES Work-related FMR housing AHS housing NAS MOOP MOOPITT

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 5

U.S. Census Bureau
the CE and from the 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Sur- by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for

vey (MEPS), a threshold for food, clothing, shelter, and out- 1999. While problems still remain, using FMRs does

of-pocket medical expenses (FCSUM) is calculated for dif- improve upon the panel’s procedure (see the Technical

ferent family types based on differences in health Appendix and Short, 2001).

insurance coverage, self-reported health status, presence The primary difference between the indexes used by

of elderly family members, and family size. In addition, the NAS report and those used here comes from the panel

since these figures represent ‘‘expected’’ spending, they putting counties into 41 groups by census division and

population size of metropolitan area, versus the FMR include an adjustment for the uninsured, whose need for

method putting counties into 100 groups, two numbers health care may exceed their ‘‘actual’’ spending. Adding for each state and the District of Columbia. These num- these expenses to thresholds rather than subtracting them bers correspond to metropolitan and nonmetropolitan sta- from income changes poverty rates considerably. Overall, tus within each state. This method allows for more hetero- the poverty rate falls from 15.0 percent to 13.1 percent geneity of prices and leads to a slightly higher poverty when we change the method of valuing MOOP to this rate (15.2 percent in 1999) than the panel’s index (15.0 ‘‘MOOP in the threshold’’ (MOOPITT) measure. This esti- percent in 1999, see Figure 1 and detailed Tables 6-1 to mate lies between the estimate using the old and that 6-3).7

using the revised NAS MOOP method. (See Figure 1 and

detailed Tables 6-1 to 6-3.) NEW MEASURES—PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER

A final approach to valuing medical expenses is to com- Description of Measures and Poverty Rates

bine the two approaches above into a single measure. This This section combines several of the newer estimation combined approach includes the addition of an ‘‘expected’’ methods together in a new set of six experimental poverty MOOP value in the thresholds in a way similar to the mea- measures. All of these new measures, like those in the sures described above. The next step is to calculate the previous section, begin with the DES measure and then difference between an estimate of MOOP that preserves change the combination of elements as listed below. the inherent variation, such as the method used by the Therefore, in this section, as in the previous one, the DES

NAS panel, and the ‘‘expected’’ MOOP value that has been measure serves as the point of comparison. These meaadded into the thresholds. This net MOOP amount is then sures combine new work-related expenses including the

subtracted from family income. new method of valuing child care with geographic cost-ofThis method has the advantage of including medical living adjustments to the thresholds. They then use the

needs in the poverty threshold (thus allowing the thresh- various methods of valuing housing subsidies and out-ofold to represent a broader range of needs), while, at the pocket medical expenses. The new measures are:

same time, replicating the actual MOOP distribution by MSI = new work-related expenses, housing subsidies using

accounting for the substantial variation that typifies the FMRs, new NAS MOOP, and new geographic adjustments.

observed distribution of MOOP in the population. While MSI-AHS = new work-related expenses, housing subsidies MOOP is included in the poverty thresholds in this mea- using AHS, new NAS MOOP, and new geographic adjust- sure, families with unexpectedly large MOOP expenses are ments. more appropriately classified as poor, while families with

unexpected good health are characterized as being better MSI-NGA = new work-related expenses, housing subsidies

off than they otherwise would be if an expected value using FMRs, new NAS MOOP, and no geographic adjustapproach is used alone. Doing this reduces the poverty ments.

rate overall from 15.0 percent to 13.3 percent, suggesting MIT = new work-related expenses, housing subsidies that, according to these calculations, individuals experi- using FMRs, MOOP in thresholds, and new geographic enced slightly higher than expected health care costs on adjustments. average in 1999. (See Figure 1 and detailed Tables 6-1 to

6-3.) CMB = new work-related expenses, housing subsidies

using FMRs, combined MOOP method, and new geoGeographic Indexes for Thresholds graphic adjustments.

MSI-CPI = new work-related expenses, housing subsidies The NAS panel calculated a set of indexes used in their using FMRs, new NAS MOOP, and new geographic adjust- report as well as in Short et al., 1999, to take account of ments, but uses CPI-based threshold updating method geographic differences in cost of living. The panel stated from 1997 to 1999. that their indexes, while an improvement over the current

official thresholds that take no account of these differences, could be improved upon with better data and valu- 7

These figures use CE-based thresholds to update from 1997 ation methods. This report includes a different valuation to 1999. Comparable CPI-based measures are found in detailed

procedure that employs Fair Market Rents (FMRs) prepared Table G.

6 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
The first three measures, MSI (MOOP Subtracted from the smaller work-related expenses, the lower estimates of

Income) and the variations MSI-AHS and MSI-NGA, repre- MOOP, and the higher valued housing subsidies using the

sent measures for which MOOP is subtracted from income. newer methods. The first of these experimental measures,

All of the measures use FMRs to value housing subsidies MSI, starts with the DES measure but includes the newly

except MSI-AHS, which uses the alternative estimates from measured work-related expenses, updated housing subsithe AHS. All of the new measures adjust thresholds using dies valued using FMRs, geographic adjustments based on

geographic indexes, except MSI-NGA, which has no geo- FMRs, and MOOP values using the updated NAS model.

graphic adjustment. The MIT measure accounts for MOOP The experimental poverty rate for all people using In the Thresholds only and the CMB measures both sub- CE-based thresholds and this combination of methods is

tracts MOOP from income and includes MOOP in the 12.0 percent, quite a bit lower than the DES measure of threshold. 15.0 percent and nearly equal to the official rate of 11.8 The last measure, MSI-CPI, is the same as the first, MSI, percent for all people. (The comparable measure using but uses the 1997 FCSU (food, clothing, shelter, and utili- CPI-based thresholds, MSI-CPI, is lower than the official ties) threshold that has been updated to 1999 with the measure, 11.3 percent poor in 1999.) Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). A CPI-based measure is

shown here only for the MSI measure to illustrate the Poverty rates calculated using these experimental meaeffect of updating thresholds with the CPI-U, as is done sures differ as expected given the previous discussions.

with the official measure of poverty, rather than reestimat- All are below the DES measure, with the four measures

ing the thresholds annually with CE data. (There are no using the updated NAS MOOP method being the lowest,

experimental MOOPITT thresholds available for 1997.) from 11.3 percent to 12.3 percent. The measure with

Table B and Figure 2 show poverty rates based on these MOOP in the threshold, MIT, yields a slightly higher povnew experimental measures. Overall poverty rates are erty rate, 12.6 percent; and the measure combining these

considerably lower than with the DES measure because of two, CMB, is numerically the highest, at 12.7 percent poor.

Figure 2. 

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

(Percent poor)

11.8 

15.0 

12.0 12.3 12.1 12.6 12.7

11.3 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, March 2000 Current Population Survey.

Note: See text for description of experimental measures.

Official DES MSI MSI-AHS MSI-NGA MIT CMB MSI-CPI

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 7

U.S. Census Bureau
Table B. Poverty Rates Under Official and

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

Characteristic Number poor Percent poor

Official . .................. 32,258 11.8

DES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,895 15.0

MSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,825 12.0

MSI-AHS ................. 33,552 12.3

MSI-NGA ................. 33,082 12.1

MIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,434 12.6

CMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,830 12.7

MSI-CPI . . ................ 31,005 11.3

Note: See text for description of experimental measures.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, March 2000 Current Population Survey.

Distribution of the Poverty Population

While the level of poverty overall differs among the

various measures, differences in the makeup of the poverty population by various demographic and socioeconomic characteristics may be more important. As the

panel showed in their report, the experimental measures

tend to present a poverty population that looks more like

the total population in terms of the type of individuals

who are indicated as poor. This section examines the

makeup of the poverty population by demographic subgroups. By comparing the official measure with the experimental measures, or comparing the experimental measures against each other, it is possible to show how

methods for measuring poverty affect the perception of

who is poor.

Figure 3 shows the proportion of the population under

18 years old using the different measures. The first column shows that children constitute 26.2 percent of the

total population and a much larger percentage of the poverty population, particularly using the official measure.

Under that measure, 37.5 percent of the poor are children

below the age of 18. However, under the experimental

measures, that percentage falls to about 31 to 32 percent

of the poor because transfer programs aimed at alleviating

poverty in families with children are taken account of

explicitly in all of the experimental measures.

Figure 4 shows the percentage of the population that is

elderly and reveals a more dramatic change in the opposite direction. While the elderly were underrepresented in

the poverty population using the official measure, they

make up a larger percentage of the poor under most of

the experimental measures. Overall, about 11.9 percent of

the total population is 65 years old and over, with only 9.8

percent of the official poor in that age group. However,

based on the experimental measures that account for relatively large medical out-of-pocket expenses, the elderly

constitute 14 to 15 percent of the poverty population,

except using MIT, which measures poverty by including

MOOP in the threshold. In that case, the elderly are 12.1

percent of the poor.

African Americans are another group for whom representation in the poverty population changes with the

experimental measures. Figure 5 shows the distribution of

this group as a percent of the total, and illustrates that for

each of the poverty measures, Blacks typically make up a

larger percentage of the poverty population than the total

population. However, they constitute a lower percentage

—around 22 percent—under the experimental measures

than under the official measure, 25.9 percent. In comparison, White-not-Hispanic individuals are a slightly larger

part of the poor using the experimental measures, about

50 percent as compared with 46.1 percent using the official measure (see Table 8-2).

Hispanics made up 11.9 percent of the total population

in 1999 and 23.1 percent of the official poor (Figure 6).

Their representation in the poverty population increases

somewhat under the experimental measures, particularly

under the MIT measure, which shows that Hispanics are

25.3 percent of the poor. Under the other experimental

measures with a geographic adjustment the proportion is

somewhat lower, about 24 percent. This result reflects the

fact that when we include MOOP in the threshold we are

also making an adjustment for a lack of health insurance.

Since Hispanics are more likely to lack health insurance

than other groups (see Mills, 2000), this adjustment

shows up here as a slightly greater probability of being

poor. Most notable, however, is the MSI-NGA measure,

which is the only measure presented here that does not

adjust for geographic differences in housing costs. This

result suggests that Hispanics tend to live where housing

costs are higher.

CONCLUDING REMARKS, FUTURE RESEARCH, AND

DATA NEEDS

This report extends previous experimental poverty

measures by taking advantage of more recent information

from the 1999 American Housing Survey, the 1996 panel

of the Survey of Income and Program Participation, the

March 2000 Current Population Survey, the 1996 Medical

Expenditure Panel Survey, the 1996 to 2000 Consumer

Expenditure Surveys, and 1999 Fair Market Rents from the

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

While the methods discussed here are considered to be

improvements over the previously published experimental

poverty measures, most of the changes represent only

small measurement variations on the originally designed

measure as prescribed by the National Academy of Sciences panel. Variations from the NAS proposals all retain

the basic structure but explore alternatives that reflect

remaining measurement or conceptual issues.

Overall, we believe the measures presented in this

report represent an advance in consideration of the NAS

recommendations for experimental poverty measures.

However, improved implementation does not affect most

of the previous conclusions about the relative incidence of

poverty for various subgroups. These measures, like the

measures in the NAS report and the previous Census

Bureau report on experimental poverty measures, show

8 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
Figure 3. 

Children as a Percent of the Total and Poverty Population Using Experimental 

Poverty Measures: 1999

(Percent of population)

26.2 

37.5

32.9 

30.9 31.6 30.8 

32.4 

31.0 30.6

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, March 2000 Current Population Survey.

Total Official DES MSI MSI-AHS MSI-NGA MIT CMB MSI-CPI

population

Figure 4. 

Elderly as a Percent of the Total and Poverty Population Using Experimental 

Poverty Measures: 1999

(Percent of population)

11.9

9.8

13.8 15.0 14.7 15.4 

12.1 

15.0 15.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, March 2000 Current Population Survey.

Total Official DES MSI MSI-AHS MSI-NGA MIT CMB MSI-CPI

population

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 9

U.S. Census Bureau
Figure 5. 

Blacks as a Percent of the Total and Poverty Population Using Experimental

Poverty Measures: 1999

(Percent of population)

12.9

25.9

22.2 21.9 22.6 22.8 22.2 21.8 22.0

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, March 2000 Current Population Survey.

Total Official DES MSI MSI-AHS MSI-NGA MIT CMB MSI-CPI

population

Figure 6. 

Hispanics as a Percent of the Total and Poverty Population Using Experimental

Poverty Measures: 1999

(Percent of population)

11.9

23.1 23.0

24.2 24.4 

21.1

25.3 24.4 24.0

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, March 2000 Current Population Survey.

Total Official DES MSI MSI-AHS MSI-NGA MIT CMB MSI-CPI

population

10 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
that there are more elderly, more married-couple families, For homeowners with high or no mortgage payments

more families in the West and Northeast, and in suburban or other expenses, out-of-pocket shelter expenditures can

areas, classified as poor than are currently identified with differ substantially from those paid by renters. The NAS

the official poverty measure. panel noted that this difference could be taken into

account if a measure were developed indicating the

Further Research Areas amount that homeowners would pay if they were renting

their homes. Two more general issues for further research are the 8 This could be used as a proxy for the flow

of services from housing. This measure, the estimated treatment of cohabitants in the unit of analysis and the

treatment of the flow of services from owner-occupied shelter costs for owner occupants, could replace the ownhousing. These areas were discussed in our last report, er’s out-of-pocket expenditures on the threshold side. To

and remain on our research agenda for further improve- balance this, a measure of the implicit income of homements to a poverty measure. ownership should be included in the incomes of homeowners to adjust for their advantaged situation regarding

The unit of analysis. The NAS panel recommended that housing costs. The NAS panel used an out-of-pocket meathe definition of family should be broadened for the pur- sure for ‘‘processing convenience,’’ but their preferred

poses of poverty measurement to include cohabiting approach would account for the cost of the flow of sercouples and their children, and that research should be vices for homeowners.9

conducted on the extent of resource sharing among room- The Census Bureau publishes annually a poverty mea- mates and other household and family members to deter- sure that includes a measure of net return to home equity mine if the unit of analysis should be modified further. for homeowners. This value represents the hypothetical This research, as recommended by the panel, should income that a household would receive if it chose to shift include an assessment of the effects on poverty rates of

the amount held as home equity into an interest-bearing changing the unit of analysis by treating cohabiting

couples as ‘‘families.’’ account. Although this measure provides a basis for illustrating the potential importance of developing and imple- The panel noted that while cohabiting couples, roommates, and other household members benefit from econo- menting a well-founded measure of imputed rent, it is not

mies of scale, the current measure overstates the poverty complete. It is not consistent with a threshold measure

rate for such people. The panel also noted that cohabiting that only counts out-of-pocket expenses as reported in the

couples typically pool resources, and many exhibit consid- CE.

erable stability in their living arrangements, so that it The previous report included a measure that substimakes sense to treat them like married-couple families for tuted out-of-pocket shelter expenditures with estimated

purposes of poverty measurement. rental shelter costs for homeowners in the calculation of

Our previous report pursued the panel’s recommenda- thresholds and that added net return to home equity to

tions regarding the family definition used to measure pov- resources (Short et al., 1999). That calculation made the

erty by implementing four new units of analysis (see Short poverty measure consistent, because both the resource

et al. 1999). Further work in this area (see Iceland, 2000) and threshold sides accounted for the implicit costs and

extends the measures presented in that report. Additional the implicit income of homeownership. However, further

research is planned to evaluate questions added to the refinement of these measures is an item for continued

2001 SIPP that concern the sharing of expenses among research (see Garner and Rozaklis, 2001, for some addimembers of a household. These questions are similar to tional insights).

those already used in the CE to determine a consumer In addition to accounting for imputed shelter costs for unit. homeowners, this method would also allow us to value

the total cost of subsidized housing in our thresholds, Owner-occupied housing. Accounting for the flow of rather than the out-of-pocket costs that would be counted services from owner-occupied housing would affect both without this imputation. This method of constructing the thresholds and resources. As noted by the panel, econo- thresholds would also be consistent with the addition of mists have long argued that the economic resources for housing subsidies received as income on the resource owners and renters should be treated comparably because side, as shown earlier, because it would then reflect the the resources available are related to a household’s

total cost of housing that subsidized renters face. Without expenses. For example, if the household owns its home this imputation on the threshold side, it is inconsistent to without a mortgage, then more money is available to pur- add the value of housing subsidies to income. chase other needed goods and services. This study

defines thresholds using the out-of-pocket shelter

expenses reported (not including the reduction in mort- 8

The panel referred to this value as ‘‘imputed rent.’’ This value gage principal) by the reference units for both renters and would include expenditures for maintenance as well as rent.

owners. 9

Citro and Michael, p.148.

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 11

U.S. Census Bureau
Data Improvements While the MEPS was designed to collect highly detailed

and accurate estimates of medical expenses, the lack of Consumer Expenditure Survey. The NAS panel recom- adequate information on household insurance premiums mended that the CE be used for deriving and updating the is a severe problem. In our application, we have used poverty thresholds, as was done in this report. These cal- imputed data to calculate total MOOP for families with dif- culations used 3-year averages to estimate median expen- ferent characteristics. These estimates were then used to

ditures for a reference family of two adults and two chil- calculate ‘‘medical equivalence scales’’ for the thresholds dren on the basic bundle of commodities. Three years of that include MOOP. Obviously, spending on insurance pre- data were used to compensate for the relatively small miums is an important element in the health care spend- sample sizes of the survey (approximately 5,000 house- ing for families. An improved method of collecting these holds, increasing to 7,800 households in 1999) and to data would greatly benefit our calculations of poverty smooth any fluctuations from year to year. thresholds that include MOOP.

The panel recommended improvements to the CE.

Among these were to increase the sample size to improve Interarea price indexes. This report followed the recthe quality of the data for updating poverty thresholds; an ommendations of the panel and adjusted the poverty

increase of 76 percent has already been made.10 They also thresholds for geographic differences in cost of living. We

suggested development of methods to reduce reporting have done this only for housing costs using Fair Market

errors and to improve response rates. In addition, the Rents as prepared by HUD. While this represents a marked

panel recommended an evaluation of the CE in terms of improvement in measuring geographic variation in the

overall design, which might include following family mem- cost of housing, an improved poverty measure would benbers over time to collect expenditures on an annual basis, efit from considering how prices of other goods and serthe reference period used here to assess poverty status. vices vary geographically.

Particularly in the area of health care coverage there are Interarea indexes for all areas based on preliminary

important contributions that could be made to the calcula- research at BLS by Kokoski, Cardiff, and Moulton (KCM),12

tion of poverty thresholds. While expenditures on food, for example, would be very beneficial to this application.

clothing, and shelter are very likely to be similarly mea- These researchers used an hedonic methodology and

sured across four quarters in a given year, expenses on monthly CPI-U price data for July 1988 through June 1989

health care are not. Since health care expenditures for a to produce experimental price indexes for the 44 CPI pubfamily are likely to occur on an irregular basis, quarterly lication geographic areas.13 These experimental interarea

estimates of MOOP expenses are often nonpositive due to price indexes were created at the lowest level of CPI price

health insurance reimbursements. An annual measure of data available and were aggregated to form index factors

expenditure is a better representation of the expenses for 11 major expenditure categories. This was accomincurred by a family. An appropriately calculated sample plished by weighting lower level indexes using expendiweight that allows longitudinal estimates of these expen- ture shares from CE Survey data. The resulting 11 expenditures to be computed would improve the accuracy of diture categories constitute about 85 percent of total

poverty thresholds that include MOOP. consumer spending. Further work in this area should be

encouraged. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The 1996 MEPS

experienced substantial nonresponse to the household Survey of Income and Program Participation. One

question on health insurance premiums, and the analysis important recommendation of the NAS panel was to make

in this report instead makes use of imputed premiums for the SIPP rather than the CPS the official source for measurfamilies. These imputations rely on a combination of hot- ing income or resources in our poverty statistics. The

deck and regression-based imputations. However, for the panel made this recommendation because SIPP collects

purposes of this report, a provisional imputation method more information that is relevant to the measurement of

was used. Average premium contributions were imputed poverty. Because the SIPP is an income survey rather than

to privately insured families with employer-provided cov- a supplement to a labor force survey, as is the CPS, the

erage, based on data from the 1996 MEPS - Insurance SIPP is designed to satisfy the increased data requirements

Component for the list sample of employers.11 These data for an improved measure of poverty.

provide nationally representative estimates of average pre- Started in 1983 by the Census Bureau, the SIPP is a conmium contributions for employer-sponsored private health tinuing panel survey in which all respondent household

insurance plans by single and family policies, industry, members are followed even if they move. Until 1993, the

state, and other variables. design introduced a new sample panel each February.

10This increase only affected the urban portion of the sample

because the Consumer Price Index market basket is calculated 12Kokoski, Cardiff, and Moulton, 1994.

from the CE only for urban consumers. 13The KCM research is still in progress and the current indexes 11These data are publicly available in tabular form at are of experimental status. They do not reflect official BLS pubwww.meps.ahrq.gov. lished data.

12 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
Beginning in 1996, an enlarged 4-year panel was intro- in examining each of these alternative methods is the

duced, with no further panels planned until 2000. The amount of time that the estimates would require and the

sample covers the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized popu- possibility of creating these estimates in a production

lation and members of the Armed Forces living off post or environment. Other considerations are the ease with

with their families on post. Sample size historically has which researchers outside the Census Bureau can replicate

varied from 12,500 to 23,500 households per panel; the such statistics, and further, if these experimental mea1996 panel is composed of 36,700 households. The sures can even be calculated using other survey data that

reporting unit is the household, with unrelated individuals do not collect the wide variety of information required.

and families also identified. The calculation of MOOP is a good example. Concern

Methodological investigation by the Census Bureau has has been expressed about the difficulty in using a comconcluded that a time series of official statistics, such as plex statistical model to calculate a complete experimental

poverty, must be based on surveys with consistent design measure. The alternative of having a threshold that

characteristics. For a longitudinal survey like the SIPP, this includes MOOP and a set of medical equivalence scales

means that the characteristics of the sample (consisting of allows relatively easy adaptation of these measures to

households that stay in sample for several years) must not other federal surveys. While the second method does not

change from year to year. But we know from past research capture the actual distribution of MOOP in the population,

that families in poverty leave the sample at higher rates ease of implementation can be an important considerthan nonpoverty families. As a consequence, direct survey ation.

estimates cannot be used without accounting for and cor- Another example would be the valuation of housing

recting the bias introduced by this differential attrition. subsidies. We present two approaches in this report. One

To address this problem, an alternative survey redesign uses a data-intensive hedonic regression method coupled

has been proposed for SIPP with constant attrition bias with a statistical match to the AHS. The other method sim-

(similar to the design of the CPS) that allows measuring ply applies average FMRs to adjust poverty thresholds.

year-to-year changes accurately (if both years’ estimates The second method is much simpler to implement than

are biased in the same way, their difference is not biased). the first, lends itself to a production mode of data estimaConstant attrition bias for an annual statistic like poverty tion, and is accessible to researchers working in other

can be obtained by starting a new SIPP panel each year, data environments. However, it also produces values of

just as the CPS adds a new sample each month to permit housing subsidies that may be considered, on average, to

accurate measurement of month-to-month changes in be overestimates of these amounts.

unemployment. Specifically, the proposal is to field a new Further work in this area will continue to take account

SIPP panel each year, with each panel collecting data for 3 of these important issues: replicability of measures, timeliyears.14 As part of this design the sample size must be ness of data needed for measures, and concerns about

sufficient to produce a time series of poverty statistics confidentiality that could preclude public use of data. Balwith the same variance as the March CPS estimates (or ancing these concerns with precise and accurate measures

less). Each panel would provide a complete measure of continues to be a goal of this research.

calendar-year income. The current proposal is to supplement the existing longitudinal panel with two additional Notes and Users’ Comments

smaller panels. These additional panels would yield stable The information in this report was collected in the 50 cross-section estimates and allow valid time-series com- states and the District of Columbia and does not include

parisons. residents of Puerto Rico. The CPS, from which these data

were taken, samples approximately 50,000 households Alternative Criteria for Poverty Measures nationwide. The estimates in this report are controlled to

This report has presented several alternative measures national population estimates by age, race, sex, and Hisof poverty which demonstrate various measurement meth- panic origin. The population controls used in the preparaods. While the choice of measurement method should be tion of the estimates are based on results of the 1990 cendriven by accuracy, an official measure that is too burden- sus carried forward to 1999.

some to produce will delay release of these important sta- We are interested in your reaction to the usefulness of

tistics and preclude researchers from replicating related the information provided in this report, and we welcome

statistics. your recommendations for improving our products. Many

One theme likely to drive the adoption of a particular of the papers cited in this report are accessible through

method is the overriding need to produce official poverty the Census Bureau home page. www.census.gov, by clickstatistics from the March CPS Supplement or the SIPP for ing on ‘‘Poverty’’ and then on ‘‘Recent Poverty Measuretimely publication and release. An important consideration ment Research.’’ If you have suggestions or comments,

please write to: Kathleen Short, Housing and Household

Economic Statistics Division U.S. Census Bureau Washing- 14Weinberg, Short, and Hernandez, 1998. ton, DC 20233-8500; or kshort@census.gov.

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 13

U.S. Census Bureau
REFERENCES Bureau of Labor Statistics, Urban Family Budgets and Comparative Indexes for Selected Urban Family Budgets and (Many of the unpublished working papers listed here are Comparative Indexes for Selected Urban Areas. USDL available at www.census.gov/www/hhes/povmeas.htm.) 82-139. Washington, DC, Autumn 1982.

Banthin, Jessica S. and Thomas M. Selden (1999), Citro, Constance F., and Robert T. Michael (eds.), Measur- ‘‘Accounting for Medical Care Burdens in Poverty Mea- ing Poverty: A New Approach, Washington, DC: National sures,’’ Working Paper, Agency for Healthcare Research Academy Press, 1995. and Quality, Rockville, MD. Presented at the American

Economic Association meetings, January 2000. Dalaker, Joseph and Bernadette D. Proctor, Poverty in the

United States: 1999, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Popula- Banthin, Jessica, Thesia I. Garner, and Kathleen Short, tion Reports, Consumer Income, P60-210, U.S. Govern- ‘‘Medical Care Needs in Poverty Thresholds: Problems ment Printing Office Washington, DC, September 2000. Posed by the Uninsured.’’Agency for Healthcare Research

and Quality, Presented at the American Economic Asso- Garner, Thesia I., Stephanie Shipp, Geoffrey Paulin, Kathciation meetings, January 2001. leen Short, and Charles Nelson, ‘‘Poverty Measurement in

the 1990s,’’ Monthly Labor Review, March 1998, pp. Bavier, Richard, ‘‘Medical Needs and the Poverty Thresh- 39-61. olds’’, Poverty Measurement Working Paper, Census

Bureau, 1998. Garner, Thesia I., and Patricia Rozaklis, ‘‘Owner-Occupied

Housing: An Input For Experimental Poverty Measure- Bavier, Richard, ‘‘Three False Steps’’, Poverty Measurement ment Thresholds’’, Presented at the American Economic Working Paper, Census Bureau, June 1999. Association meetings, January 2001.

Bavier, Richard, ‘‘Medical Out-of-Pocket Spending in Pov- Iceland, John, ‘‘The ’Family/Couple/Household’ Unit of erty Thresholds,’’ Poverty Measurement Working Paper, Analysis in Poverty Measurement’’, U.S. Census Bureau, Census Bureau, October 2000.

Poverty Measurement Working Paper, August 22, 2000.

Betson, David, ‘‘Effect of Home Ownership on Poverty MeaIceland, John and David Ribar, ‘‘Childcare Expenditures in a surement,’’ University of Notre Dame, Poverty Measurement Working Paper, Census Bureau,1995a. New Measure of Poverty’’, Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the Population Association, Washington, DC,

Betson, David, ‘‘Poor Old Folks: Have Our Methods of Pov- March 2001.

erty Measurement Blinded Us to Who is Poor?’’ University

of Notre Dame, Poverty Measurement Working Paper, Institute for Research on Poverty, ‘‘Revising the Poverty

Census Bureau,1995b. Measure,’’ Focus, Volume 19, Number 2, Spring 1998.

Betson, David, ‘‘Is Everything Relative? The Role of Equiva- Johnson, David, Stephanie Shipp, Thesia I. Garner, ‘‘Devellence Scales in Poverty Measurement,’’ University of Notre oping Poverty Thresholds Using Expenditure Data,’’ in ProDame, Poverty Measurement Working Paper, Census ceedings of the Government and Social Statistics Section.

Bureau, 1996. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association, August

1997, pp. 28-37.

Betson, David, ‘‘Imputing Medical Out-of-Pocket Expenditures from NMES Data,’’ University of Notre Dame, Pov- Malpezzi, Stephen, Gregory Chun and Richard Green, ‘‘New

erty Measurement Working Paper, Census Bureau, Decem- Place-to-Place Housing Price Indexes for U.S. Metropoliber 1997a. tan Areas, and Their Determinants: An Application of

Housing Indicators,’’ Real Estate Economics, 26(2), SumBetson, David, ‘‘In Search of an Elusive Truth, ’How Much mer 1998, pp. 235-75.

Do Americans Spend on Their Health Care?’ ’’ University

of Notre Dame, Poverty Measurement Working Paper, Mills, Robert J., Health Insurance Coverage: 1999, U.S.

Census Bureau, April 7, 1997b. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Consumer

Income, P60-211, U.S. Government Printing Office WashBetson, David M., Constance F. Citro, and Robert T. ington, DC, September 2000.

Michael, ‘‘Recent Developments for Poverty Measurement

in U.S. Official Statistics,’’ Journal of Official Statistics, Moulton, Brent R, ‘‘Interarea Indexes of the Cost of Shelter

Vol.16, No. 2, 2000. Using Hedonic Quality Adjustment Techniques,’’ Journal

of Econometrics, 86(1), 1995, pp. 181-204. Betson, David M., ‘‘Imputation of Medical Out of Pocket

(MOOP) Spending to CPS Records.’’ University of Notre Open Letter on Revising the Official Measure of Poverty,

Dame, Poverty Measurement Working Paper, U.S. Census Conveners of the Working Group on Revising the Poverty

Bureau, February 2001. Measure, August 2, 2000.

14 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
Ruggles, Patricia, Drawing the Line—Alternative Poverty U.S. Census Bureau, Measuring the Effect of Benefits and

Measures and Their Implications for Public Policy, Wash- Taxes on Income and Poverty: 1979 to 1991, Washingington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1990. ton, DC, August 1992.

Short, Kathleen, Martina Shea, David Johnson, and Thesia

I. Garner, ‘‘Poverty-Measurement Research Using the Con- U.S. Census Bureau, Measuring the Effect of Benefits and

sumer Expenditure Survey and the Survey of Income and Taxes on Income and Poverty: 1992, Washington, DC,

Program Participation,’’ American Economic Review, Vol. September 1993.

88, No. 2, May 1998, pp. 352-356.

Short, Kathleen, Thesia Garner, David Johnson, and Patricia U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ‘‘Low

Doyle, Experimental Poverty Measures: 1990 to 1997, Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Report to ConU.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Con- gress for Fiscal Year 1995,’’ August 1997.

sumer Income, P60-205, U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC, 1999. U.S. General Accounting Office, Poverty Measurement:

Short, Kathleen, ‘‘Where We Live: Geographic Differences in Adjusting for Geographic Cost-of-Living Difference,

Poverty Thresholds,’’ U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty Mea- GAO/GGD-95-64, March 1995.

surement Working Paper, January 2001.

Weinberg, Daniel, Kathleen Short, and Donald Hernandez, Social Security Administration, Annual Statistical Supplement, 1997, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washing- ‘‘The Census Bureau’s Plans for Poverty Measurement

ton, DC, December 1997. Research,’’ Poverty Measurement Working Paper, Census

Bureau, 1998. Steffick, Diane, ‘‘Housing Subsidies,’’ Unpublished memorandum, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC, 1993. Wolfe, Barbara, ‘‘Incorporating Health Care Needs into a

Stern, Sharon, ‘‘Valuing Housing Subsidies: A Revised Measure of Poverty: An Exploratory Proposal,’’ Focus,

Method for Quantifying Benefits in a New Measure of Pov- Volume 19, Number 2, Spring 1998, pp.29-31. erty,’’ U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty Measurement Working

Paper, June 2000.

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 15

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 1-1. Standardized Poverty Rates: 1999

Characteristic Official

measure

CPI-based experimental measures (standardized to match the 1997 official rate)

NAS NGA DCM1 DCM2 DES-DCM2 DES

All persons ...........................

Children ................................

Nonelderly adults ........................

Elderly..................................

White. ..................................

Black ...................................

Other . ..................................

Hispanic origin...........................

No workers..............................

One or more workers.....................

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . .....................

Male householder . . ....................

Female householder ...................

Geographic regions:

Northeast .............................

Midwest ..............................

South.................................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city. ...........................

Not central city . .......................

Nonmetropolitan area ....................

11.8

16.9

10.0

9.7

9.8

23.6

14.4

22.8

32.7

8.6

5.8

14.9

27.5

10.9

9.8

13.1

12.6

16.4

8.3

14.3

11.7

14.7

10.1

13.3

10.2

19.8

14.2

22.6

31.1

8.8

6.7

14.8

24.5

12.6

9.2

11.5

13.7

16.1

9.3

11.4

11.6

14.5

10.0

13.6

10.2

20.1

13.2

20.6

31.5

8.6

6.6

14.7

24.3

10.4

10.0

13.0

12.2

14.9

8.8

14.4

11.9

15.5

10.2

13.0

10.4

20.9

14.4

23.3

30.6

9.1

6.7

14.9

25.4

12.9

9.3

11.8

13.9

16.7

9.4

11.6

11.7

14.8

10.1

13.2

10.3

19.9

14.6

22.7

31.0

8.8

6.7

14.8

24.6

12.5

9.3

11.6

13.8

16.2

9.3

11.5

11.8

14.4

10.3

13.6

10.3

20.3

14.3

22.4

31.3

8.8

6.3

15.7

25.5

12.6

9.3

11.6

13.8

16.4

9.3

11.3

11.7

14.3

10.3

13.7

10.2

20.3

13.9

22.3

31.5

8.7

6.3

15.7

25.5

12.6

9.2

11.6

13.8

16.3

9.3

11.3

Table 1-2. Distribution of the Population: 1999

Characteristic

Total

population

Poverty population

Official

measure

CPI-based standardized experimental measures

NAS NGA DCM1 DCM2 DES-DCM2 DES

All. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Children. . ...........................

Nonelderly adults.....................

Elderly . . . ...........................

White ...............................

Black ...............................

Other ...............................

Hispanic origin . . . ....................

No workers ..........................

One or more workers .................

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . ...................

Male householder . .................

Female householder................

Geographic regions:

Northeast .........................

Midwest ...........................

South .............................

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ........................

Not central city. ....................

Nonmetropolitan area .................

100.0

26.2

61.8

11.9

82.0

12.9

5.0

11.9

13.1

86.9

65.5

11.8

22.7

19.0

23.2

35.0

22.8

29.3

51.7

19.1

100.0

37.5

52.6

9.8

68.0

25.9

6.1

23.1

36.3

63.7

32.3

14.8

52.8

17.6

19.2

38.9

24.3

40.7

36.2

23.1

100.0

33.0

53.5

13.6

71.9

22.0

6.1

23.1

34.8

65.2

37.5

14.9

47.5

20.4

18.2

34.6

26.8

40.3

41.1

18.6

100.0

32.8

53.2

14.0

71.9

22.4

5.7

21.2

35.4

64.6

37.5

14.9

47.6

16.9

20.0

39.2

23.9

37.5

38.9

23.6

100.0

34.1

52.9

13.0

71.3

22.6

6.1

23.4

33.6

66.4

37.0

14.7

48.3

20.6

18.2

34.5

26.7

40.9

40.6

18.5

100.0

33.2

53.4

13.5

71.8

21.9

6.2

23.2

34.5

65.5

37.5

14.9

47.6

20.3

18.3

34.5

26.9

40.5

40.9

18.7

100.0

32.2

54.1

13.8

71.6

22.3

6.1

22.8

34.8

65.2

35.1

15.7

49.2

20.3

18.4

34.5

26.7

40.8

40.9

18.3

100.0

31.9

54.2

13.9

71.7

22.4

6.0

22.7

35.2

64.8

35.0

15.7

49.3

20.5

18.2

34.6

26.7

40.6

41.0

18.4

16 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 1-3. Standardized Poverty Rates by Selected Characteristics: 1999

Characteristic Number

(1,000)

Official

measure

CPI-based experimental measures (standardized to match the 1997 official rate)

NAS NGA DCM1 DCM2 DES-DCM2 DES

All persons . ......................

Age groups:

Less than 3 years . . ................

3 to 5 years .......................

6 to 11 years ......................

12 to 17 years . ....................

18 to 21 years . ....................

22 to 44 years . ....................

45 to 54 years . ....................

55 to 59 years . ....................

60 to 64 years . ....................

65 to 74 years . ....................

75 years and over..................

Race/origin:

White, not Hispanic.................

White, Hispanic . ...................

Black, not Hispanic .................

Black, Hispanic ....................

Other, not Hispanic . ................

Other, Hispanic ....................

Number of persons in family:

1 person ..........................

2 persons .........................

3 persons .........................

4 persons .........................

5 persons .........................

6 persons .........................

7 or more persons. . ................

Marital status:

Married, spouse present . . . .........

Married, spouse absent .............

Widowed . . . .......................

Divorced ..........................

Never married .....................

Gender:

Male . . ............................

Female ...........................

Education (25 years of age and over):

No high school diploma .............

High school diploma . . . .............

Some college ......................

College degree ....................

Citizenship status:

Native ............................

Naturalized citizen. . . . . .............

Not a citizen .......................

Disability status:

Not disabled . ......................

Disabled . . ........................

Severe disability ...................

Self-reported health status:

Excellent ..........................

Very good .........................

Good . ............................

Fair...............................

Poor . . . ...........................

273,493

11,593

11,762

24,536

23,839

15,777

93,346

36,631

12,868

10,519

17,796

14,825

193,334

31,039

34,306

1,066

13,184

564

43,432

64,290

50,002

59,169

33,158

13,581

9,861

113,002

2,730

13,665

24,360

119,737

133,647

139,846

27,853

58,086

44,445

44,846

245,146

10,620

17,728

157,725

19,498

13,341

96,951

83,332

62,658

21,249

9,305

11.8

18.9

17.9

17.4

14.9

17.8

10.2

6.7

9.2

9.8

8.9

10.7

7.7

22.7

23.6

25.2

14.1

21.7

19.1

7.8

9.9

8.8

12.4

16.9

23.9

4.9

18.5

16.1

16.9

16.6

10.3

13.2

22.4

9.2

6.1

2.8

11.2

9.1

21.3

8.7

23.3

26.0

8.9

9.9

14.2

19.3

25.5

11.7

16.9

17.1

14.9

12.1

18.0

10.2

6.9

9.2

9.4

11.8

15.1

8.2

22.7

19.8

22.1

14.0

18.9

17.4

9.9

10.5

8.6

11.4

15.0

18.5

6.4

19.4

16.6

15.0

15.2

10.6

12.7

22.6

10.1

6.6

3.5

10.8

11.1

24.4

9.3

18.1

19.4

8.9

10.2

13.9

18.5

23.1

11.6

17.4

16.5

14.7

12.0

17.9

10.1

6.7

9.3

9.7

12.0

15.5

8.5

20.8

20.2

18.4

13.0

17.6

17.6

10.1

10.3

8.8

11.1

13.5

17.9

6.4

18.4

16.9

15.0

15.1

10.5

12.7

22.5

10.2

6.6

3.4

11.0

10.0

21.1

9.1

18.5

19.9

8.9

10.1

13.8

18.5

23.9

11.9

18.1

17.7

15.8

12.8

18.1

10.5

6.8

9.0

9.2

11.6

14.8

8.3

23.4

20.8

24.0

14.2

18.9

17.1

10.2

10.9

8.8

11.6

15.3

20.3

6.4

19.0

16.3

15.2

15.8

10.7

13.0

22.5

10.1

6.7

3.6

11.0

11.4

24.6

9.4

17.9

19.0

9.3

10.5

14.1

18.4

22.8

11.7

17.4

17.1

15.2

12.1

18.1

10.3

6.9

9.1

9.4

11.7

15.1

8.2

22.9

19.8

22.1

14.4

17.7

17.4

9.9

10.5

8.6

11.7

14.9

19.4

6.4

19.3

16.5

15.1

15.3

10.6

12.8

22.6

10.1

6.6

3.5

10.8

11.1

24.5

9.3

18.1

19.3

8.9

10.3

13.9

18.5

23.0

11.8

17.2

16.8

14.6

11.8

18.7

10.4

7.0

9.0

9.6

11.8

15.7

8.3

22.5

20.2

23.0

14.1

18.6

18.9

9.7

11.1

8.4

11.0

13.3

17.7

6.0

19.6

17.9

16.1

15.5

10.5

13.0

22.9

10.2

6.7

3.6

10.9

11.2

24.2

9.4

18.5

19.8

8.9

10.4

14.0

18.6

23.7

11.7

16.8

16.6

14.3

11.8

18.7

10.4

7.0

9.0

9.7

11.8

15.9

8.3

22.4

20.2

22.5

13.7

18.6

19.0

9.7

11.1

8.4

10.9

13.3

16.9

6.0

19.8

18.1

16.0

15.3

10.5

12.9

23.0

10.2

6.7

3.6

10.9

11.3

24.0

9.4

18.6

19.9

8.9

10.3

13.9

18.6

23.7

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 17

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 2-1. Poverty Rates: 1999

Characteristic Official

measure

CPI-based experimental measures

NAS/U NGA/U DCM1/U DCM2/U

DESDCM2/U DES/U

All persons ...........................

Children ................................

Nonelderly adults ........................

Elderly..................................

White. ..................................

Black ...................................

Other . ..................................

Hispanic origin...........................

No workers..............................

One or more workers.....................

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . .....................

Male householder . . ....................

Female householder ...................

Geographic regions:

Northeast .............................

Midwest ..............................

South.................................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city. ...........................

Not central city . .......................

Nonmetropolitan area ....................

11.8

16.9

10.0

9.7

9.8

23.6

14.4

22.8

32.7

8.6

5.8

14.9

27.5

10.9

9.8

13.1

12.6

16.4

8.3

14.3

13.7

17.5

11.8

15.7

12.0

23.3

17.0

26.7

34.8

10.6

8.3

16.7

27.9

14.7

10.8

13.6

16.1

18.8

11.0

13.5

14.0

17.9

11.8

16.2

12.3

23.7

16.0

24.9

35.2

10.8

8.6

16.5

28.1

12.5

12.1

15.6

14.7

17.9

10.4

17.4

14.3

18.7

12.2

15.7

12.5

24.8

16.8

28.2

34.8

11.2

8.6

16.9

29.4

15.4

11.2

14.3

16.6

19.5

11.4

14.0

13.8

17.7

11.8

15.7

12.1

23.4

16.9

26.9

34.8

10.7

8.3

16.7

28.1

14.8

10.8

13.8

16.2

19.0

11.0

13.5

14.3

18.0

12.4

16.5

12.5

24.8

17.3

27.6

36.0

11.1

8.1

18.2

30.2

15.5

11.3

14.2

16.7

19.9

11.4

14.0

14.2

17.8

12.3

16.5

12.4

24.7

17.3

27.3

36.0

11.0

8.1

18.1

30.1

15.4

11.3

14.1

16.6

19.7

11.3

13.8

Table 2-2. Distribution of the Population: 1999

Characteristic

Poverty population

CPI-based experimental measures

Total

population

Official

measure NAS/U NGA/U DCM1/U DCM2/U

DESDCM2/U DES/U

All. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Children. . ...........................

Nonelderly adults.....................

Elderly . . . ...........................

White ...............................

Black ...............................

Other ...............................

Hispanic origin . . . ....................

No workers ..........................

One or more workers .................

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . ...................

Male householder . .................

Female householder................

Geographic regions:

Northeast .........................

Midwest ...........................

South .............................

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ........................

Not central city. ....................

Nonmetropolitan area .................

100.0

26.2

61.8

11.9

82.0

12.9

5.0

11.9

13.1

86.9

65.5

11.8

22.7

19.0

23.2

35.0

22.8

29.3

51.7

19.1

100.0

37.5

52.6

9.8

68.0

25.9

6.1

23.1

36.3

63.7

32.3

14.8

52.8

17.6

19.2

38.9

24.3

40.7

36.2

23.1

100.0

33.4

53.0

13.7

71.9

21.9

6.2

23.2

33.1

66.9

39.6

14.3

46.1

20.4

18.2

34.7

26.7

39.9

41.3

18.8

100.0

33.7

52.5

13.8

72.2

22.0

5.8

21.3

33.0

67.0

40.3

14.0

45.7

17.0

20.1

39.0

23.9

37.6

38.6

23.8

100.0

34.3

52.6

13.1

71.7

22.4

5.9

23.6

31.8

68.2

39.4

13.9

46.7

20.5

18.1

35.0

26.4

40.0

41.4

18.6

100.0

33.5

52.9

13.6

72.0

21.9

6.2

23.3

32.9

67.1

39.6

14.2

46.2

20.4

18.1

34.9

26.7

40.2

41.2

18.7

100.0

32.9

53.4

13.7

71.6

22.4

6.1

23.0

32.8

67.2

37.2

14.9

47.8

20.5

18.4

34.6

26.5

40.5

40.9

18.6

100.0

32.8

53.4

13.8

71.5

22.4

6.1

22.9

33.0

67.0

37.2

15.0

47.9

20.5

18.4

34.5

26.6

40.5

41.0

18.5

18 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 2-3. Poverty Rates by Selected Characteristics: 1999

Characteristic Official

measure

CPI-based experimental measures

NAS/U NGA/U DCM1/U DCM2/U

DESDCM2/U DES/U

All persons ...........................

Age groups:

Less than 3 years......................

3 to 5 years ...........................

6 to 11 years ..........................

12 to 17 years .........................

18 to 21 years .........................

22 to 44 years .........................

45 to 54 years .........................

55 to 59 years .........................

60 to 64 years .........................

65 to 74 years .........................

75 years and over .....................

Race/origin:

White, not Hispanic . ...................

White, Hispanic . . ......................

Black, not Hispanic. . . ..................

Black, Hispanic ........................

Other, not Hispanic. . ...................

Other, Hispanic ........................

Number of persons in family:

1 person ..............................

2 persons .............................

3 persons .............................

4 persons .............................

5 persons .............................

6 persons .............................

7 or more persons . . ...................

Marital status:

Married, spouse present ................

Married, spouse absent. . ...............

Widowed..............................

Divorced . . . ...........................

Never married .........................

Gender:

Male . . ...............................

Female ...............................

Education (25 years of age and over):

No high school diploma.................

High school diploma....................

Some college..........................

College degree . . ......................

Citizenship status:

Native ................................

Naturalized citizen .....................

Not a citizen...........................

Disability status:

Not disabled. . .........................

Disabled . . . ...........................

Severe disability . . . ....................

Self-reported health status:

Excellent..............................

Very good.............................

Good . . ...............................

Fair ..................................

Poor. .................................

11.8

18.9

17.9

17.4

14.9

17.8

10.2

6.7

9.2

9.8

8.9

10.7

7.7

22.7

23.6

25.2

14.1

21.7

19.1

7.8

9.9

8.9

12.4

16.9

23.9

4.9

18.5

16.1

16.9

16.6

10.3

13.2

22.4

9.2

6.1

2.8

11.2

9.1

21.3

8.7

23.3

26.0

8.9

9.9

14.2

19.3

25.5

13.7

20.0

20.0

17.9

14.6

20.2

12.0

8.0

10.8

11.1

13.8

18.1

9.7

26.8

23.2

26.3

16.8

21.4

19.6

11.5

12.2

10.4

14.1

18.4

23.3

7.8

21.8

19.4

17.3

17.8

12.5

15.0

26.8

11.8

7.9

4.2

12.7

13.8

28.3

10.8

21.3

22.8

10.5

12.0

16.4

21.7

26.8

14.0

21.0

20.3

18.5

14.7

20.4

12.1

8.0

10.8

11.2

14.3

18.4

10.2

25.1

23.8

22.0

15.9

19.3

19.8

11.8

12.4

10.6

14.3

17.9

23.8

8.1

20.1

19.9

17.7

17.9

12.7

15.2

26.8

12.4

7.9

4.0

13.2

12.0

25.2

10.8

21.9

23.5

10.7

12.1

16.5

22.2

28.2

14.3

21.9

20.9

19.2

15.5

20.8

12.6

8.1

10.8

11.2

13.8

18.1

10.0

28.3

24.7

28.2

16.5

24.5

19.6

11.9

12.8

11.1

14.8

19.2

24.4

8.0

21.9

19.5

17.8

18.7

12.9

15.6

27.2

12.2

8.2

4.2

13.2

14.0

29.1

11.2

21.4

22.9

11.1

12.7

16.9

22.1

26.9

13.8

20.3

19.9

18.2

14.7

20.3

12.1

8.1

10.8

11.1

13.8

18.1

9.7

27.0

23.3

26.3

16.7

22.2

19.6

11.6

12.2

10.5

14.2

18.3

23.9

7.9

21.8

19.4

17.4

17.9

12.5

15.1

26.9

11.9

7.9

4.2

12.8

13.8

28.3

10.9

21.3

22.8

10.5

12.1

16.5

21.7

26.8

14.3

21.2

20.3

18.4

14.9

21.6

12.6

8.4

11.2

11.4

14.4

19.1

10.1

27.6

24.7

28.9

17.0

24.3

21.9

11.6

13.2

10.8

13.8

17.6

22.4

7.6

23.3

21.7

19.1

18.7

12.9

15.7

28.1

12.4

8.2

4.4

13.3

14.3

29.3

11.3

22.4

23.9

10.9

12.5

17.2

22.9

28.1

14.2

20.8

20.3

18.1

14.8

21.6

12.5

8.4

11.2

11.4

14.4

19.1

10.0

27.4

24.6

28.3

17.1

23.5

21.9

11.5

13.2

10.7

13.7

17.6

21.5

7.6

23.2

21.7

19.0

18.5

12.8

15.6

28.0

12.3

8.2

4.3

13.2

14.3

29.1

11.3

22.4

23.9

10.8

12.4

17.0

22.7

28.0

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 19

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 3-1. Standardized Poverty Rates: 1999

Characteristic Official

measure

CE-based experimental measures (standardized to match the 1997 official rate)

NAS NGA DCM1 DCM2 DES-DCM2 DES

All persons ...........................

Children ................................

Nonelderly adults ........................

Elderly..................................

White. ..................................

Black ...................................

Other . ..................................

Hispanic origin...........................

No workers..............................

One or more workers.....................

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . .....................

Male householder . . ....................

Female householder ...................

Geographic regions:

Northeast .............................

Midwest ..............................

South.................................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city. ...........................

Not central city . .......................

Nonmetropolitan area ....................

11.8

16.9

10.0

9.7

9.8

23.6

14.4

22.8

32.7

8.6

5.8

14.9

27.5

10.9

9.8

13.1

12.6

16.4

8.3

14.3

12.2

15.3

10.5

14.0

10.7

20.5

14.9

23.7

32.0

9.2

7.1

15.3

25.4

13.1

9.5

12.1

14.3

16.8

9.7

11.9

12.2

15.4

10.5

14.2

10.7

20.9

13.9

21.6

32.5

9.1

7.1

15.1

25.3

11.0

10.5

13.6

12.7

15.7

9.2

15.0

12.4

16.1

10.6

13.5

10.8

21.5

14.9

24.3

31.4

9.5

7.1

15.2

26.2

13.3

9.6

12.3

14.6

17.1

9.8

12.0

12.3

15.6

10.6

13.9

10.8

20.7

15.3

23.8

31.9

9.3

7.1

15.3

25.5

13.1

9.6

12.2

14.4

16.9

9.8

12.0

12.3

15.1

10.7

14.1

10.7

21.1

15.0

23.5

32.3

9.3

6.6

16.2

26.5

13.1

9.7

12.1

14.4

17.1

9.7

11.8

12.2

15.0

10.7

14.1

10.7

21.1

14.6

23.4

32.4

9.2

6.6

16.2

26.4

13.1

9.7

12.1

14.3

17.0

9.7

11.8

Table 3-2. Distribution of the Population: 1999

Characteristic

Total

population

Poverty population

Official

measure

CE-based experimental measures

NAS NGA DCM1 DCM2 DES-DCM2 DES

All. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Children. . ...........................

Nonelderly adults.....................

Elderly . . . ...........................

White ...............................

Black ...............................

Other ...............................

Hispanic origin . . . ....................

No workers ..........................

One or more workers .................

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . ...................

Male householder . .................

Female householder................

Geographic regions:

Northeast .........................

Midwest ...........................

South .............................

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ........................

Not central city. ....................

Nonmetropolitan area .................

100.0

26.2

61.8

11.9

82.0

12.9

5.0

11.9

13.1

86.9

65.5

11.8

22.7

19.0

23.2

35.0

22.8

29.3

51.7

19.1

100.0

37.5

52.6

9.8

68.0

25.9

6.1

23.1

36.3

63.7

32.3

14.8

52.8

17.6

19.2

38.9

24.3

40.7

36.2

23.1

100.0

33.0

53.4

13.7

72.1

21.8

6.1

23.2

34.3

65.7

38.0

14.7

47.3

20.5

18.0

34.8

26.7

40.2

41.2

18.6

100.0

33.0

53.1

13.9

72.1

22.2

5.7

21.1

34.9

65.1

38.3

14.6

47.1

17.1

20.0

39.1

23.8

37.6

38.9

23.5

100.0

34.1

52.9

13.0

71.5

22.4

6.1

23.5

33.1

66.9

37.5

14.5

48.0

20.5

18.0

34.7

26.8

40.6

41.0

18.4

100.0

33.3

53.2

13.5

71.9

21.8

6.3

23.2

34.0

66.0

38.1

14.7

47.2

20.3

18.1

34.8

26.8

40.4

41.0

18.6

100.0

32.4

53.9

13.7

71.6

22.2

6.1

22.9

34.4

65.6

35.4

15.5

49.1

20.3

18.4

34.6

26.8

40.7

40.9

18.3

100.0

32.2

54.0

13.8

71.7

22.3

6.0

22.9

34.6

65.4

35.4

15.6

49.0

20.3

18.4

34.7

26.6

40.7

41.0

18.3

20 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 3-3. Standardized Poverty Rates by Selected Characteristics: 1999

Characteristic Number

(1,000)

Official

measure

CE-based experimental measures (standardized to match

the 1997 official measure)

NAS NGA DCM1 DCM2 DES-DCM2 DES

All persons . ......................

Age groups:

Less than 3 years . . ................

3 to 5 years .......................

6 to 11 years ......................

12 to 17 years . ....................

18 to 21 years . ....................

22 to 44 years . ....................

45 to 54 years . ....................

55 to 59 years . ....................

60 to 64 years . ....................

65 to 74 years . ....................

75 years and over..................

Race/origin:

White, not Hispanic.................

White, Hispanic . ...................

Black, not Hispanic .................

Black, Hispanic ....................

Other, not Hispanic . ................

Other, Hispanic ....................

Number of persons in family:

1 person ..........................

2 persons .........................

3 persons .........................

4 persons .........................

5 persons .........................

6 persons .........................

7 or more persons. . ................

Marital status:

Married, spouse present . . . .........

Married, spouse absent .............

Widowed . . . .......................

Divorced ..........................

Never married .....................

Gender:

Male . . ............................

Female ...........................

Education (25 years of age and over):

No high school diploma .............

High school diploma . . . .............

Some college ......................

College degree ....................

Citizenship status:

Native ............................

Naturalized citizen. . . . . .............

Not a citizen .......................

Disability status:

Not disabled . ......................

Disabled . . ........................

Severe disability ...................

Self-reported health status:

Excellent ..........................

Very good .........................

Good . ............................

Fair...............................

Poor . . . ...........................

273,493

11,593

11,762

24,536

23,839

15,777

93,346

36,631

12,868

10,519

17,796

14,825

193,334

31,039

34,306

1,066

13,184

564

43,432

64,290

50,002

59,169

33,158

13,581

9,861

113,002

2,730

13,665

24,360

119,737

133,647

139,846

27,853

58,086

44,445

44,846

245,146

10,620

17,728

157,725

19,498

13,341

96,951

83,332

62,658

21,249

9,305

11.8

18.9

17.9

17.4

14.9

17.8

10.2

6.7

9.2

9.8

8.9

10.7

7.7

22.7

23.6

25.2

14.1

21.7

19.1

7.8

9.9

8.8

12.4

16.9

23.9

4.9

18.5

16.1

16.9

16.6

10.3

13.2

22.4

9.2

6.1

2.8

11.2

9.1

21.3

8.7

23.3

26.0

8.9

9.9

14.2

19.3

25.5

12.2

17.5

17.7

15.6

12.8

18.6

10.7

7.2

9.6

10.0

12.3

15.9

8.6

23.8

20.5

22.9

14.7

20.5

17.9

10.4

11.0

8.9

12.0

16.6

19.1

6.8

20.0

17.5

15.5

15.9

11.0

13.3

23.8

10.5

6.9

3.7

11.2

12.0

25.5

9.7

18.9

20.3

9.3

10.7

14.5

19.4

24.1

12.2

18.4

17.4

15.6

12.6

18.5

10.6

7.0

9.8

10.1

12.6

16.1

8.9

21.7

21.0

19.9

13.7

17.6

18.1

10.5

11.0

9.2

11.7

14.6

19.5

6.9

19.1

17.5

15.7

15.8

11.0

13.3

23.5

10.8

6.9

3.6

11.5

10.6

22.1

9.5

19.4

20.8

9.3

10.6

14.4

19.4

25.1

12.4

19.0

18.5

16.5

13.1

18.7

10.9

7.0

9.3

9.7

12.0

15.3

8.6

24.4

21.4

24.2

14.6

20.8

17.5

10.6

11.3

9.2

12.2

16.7

20.4

6.7

19.6

16.9

15.7

16.4

11.2

13.5

23.4

10.6

6.9

3.7

11.4

11.9

25.6

9.8

18.5

19.7

9.6

10.9

14.6

19.0

23.5

12.3

18.0

17.9

16.0

12.8

18.6

10.7

7.2

9.5

10.0

12.4

15.8

8.6

23.9

20.7

22.5

15.1

20.4

17.9

10.4

10.9

9.1

12.2

16.7

20.3

6.8

19.8

17.3

15.6

16.0

11.1

13.4

23.8

10.6

6.9

3.8

11.3

12.0

25.7

9.7

18.9

20.3

9.3

10.8

14.7

19.4

24.0

12.3

17.8

17.3

15.5

12.5

19.1

10.9

7.3

9.3

9.9

12.2

16.3

8.6

23.5

21.0

24.8

14.8

18.9

19.5

10.0

11.6

8.9

11.6

14.1

18.2

6.3

20.7

18.6

16.5

16.1

11.0

13.5

23.8

10.7

7.0

3.7

11.3

12.0

25.1

9.8

19.2

20.5

9.3

10.8

14.6

19.5

24.3

12.2

17.6

17.2

15.2

12.5

19.2

10.8

7.3

9.4

10.0

12.2

16.4

8.6

23.5

21.0

24.4

14.5

18.9

19.6

10.0

11.7

8.9

11.5

14.1

17.5

6.3

20.6

18.7

16.5

16.0

11.0

13.4

24.0

10.7

7.0

3.7

11.3

12.0

25.1

9.8

19.3

20.6

9.3

10.7

14.5

19.6

24.3

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 21

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 4-1. Poverty Rates: 1999

Characteristic Official

measure

CE-based experimental measures

NAS/U NGA/U DCM1/U DCM2/U

DESDCM2/U DES/U

All persons ...........................

Children ................................

Nonelderly adults ........................

Elderly..................................

White. ..................................

Black ...................................

Other . ..................................

Hispanic origin...........................

No workers..............................

One or more workers.....................

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . .....................

Male householder . . ....................

Female householder ...................

Geographic regions:

Northeast .............................

Midwest ..............................

South.................................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city. ...........................

Not central city . .......................

Nonmetropolitan area ....................

11.8

16.9

10.0

9.7

9.8

23.6

14.4

22.8

32.7

8.6

5.8

14.9

27.5

10.9

9.8

13.1

12.6

16.4

8.3

14.3

14.4

18.3

12.3

16.6

12.6

24.6

17.5

28.0

35.8

11.1

8.8

17.2

28.9

15.4

11.4

14.2

16.8

19.7

11.5

14.0

14.6

18.8

12.4

17.0

12.9

24.7

17.1

26.2

36.2

11.4

9.1

17.2

29.2

13.1

12.6

16.3

15.4

18.8

10.9

18.3

15.0

19.7

12.7

16.6

13.1

26.0

18.1

29.5

35.8

11.9

9.2

17.5

30.4

16.2

11.8

14.9

17.4

20.5

12.1

14.6

14.4

18.5

12.3

16.6

12.6

24.7

17.5

28.3

35.8

11.2

8.9

17.3

29.0

15.5

11.4

14.3

16.9

19.8

11.5

14.0

15.0

18.9

13.0

17.3

13.2

25.8

17.8

29.0

37.1

11.7

8.7

18.8

31.3

16.2

11.9

14.9

17.4

20.7

12.0

14.6

15.0

18.8

12.9

17.3

13.1

25.6

17.7

28.8

37.1

11.6

8.7

18.8

31.1

16.2

11.8

14.8

17.4

20.6

11.9

14.5

Table 4-2. Distribution of the Population: 1999

Characteristic

Poverty population

CE-based experimental measures

Total

population

Official

measure NAS/U NGA/U DCM1/U DCM2/U

DESDCM2/U DES/U

All. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Children. . ...........................

Nonelderly adults.....................

Elderly . . . ...........................

White ...............................

Black ...............................

Other ...............................

Hispanic origin . . . ....................

No workers ..........................

One or more workers .................

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . ...................

Male householder . .................

Female householder................

Geographic regions:

Northeast .........................

Midwest ...........................

South .............................

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ........................

Not central city. ....................

Nonmetropolitan area .................

100.0

26.2

61.8

11.9

82.0

12.9

5.0

11.9

13.1

86.9

65.5

11.8

22.7

19.0

23.2

35.0

22.8

29.3

51.7

19.1

100.0

37.5

52.6

9.8

68.0

25.9

6.1

23.1

36.3

63.7

32.3

14.8

52.8

17.6

19.2

38.9

24.3

40.7

36.2

23.1

100.0

33.5

52.8

13.8

71.7

22.1

6.1

23.3

32.6

67.4

40.3

14.1

45.6

20.3

18.4

34.5

26.7

40.1

41.3

18.6

100.0

33.7

52.5

13.9

72.3

21.8

5.9

21.4

32.4

67.6

40.9

13.8

45.3

17.0

20.0

39.1

24.0

37.6

38.5

23.8

100.0

34.4

52.4

13.2

71.5

22.4

6.1

23.5

31.1

68.9

40.3

13.7

46.0

20.5

18.3

34.8

26.5

39.9

41.6

18.5

100.0

33.6

52.7

13.7

71.8

22.1

6.1

23.4

32.4

67.6

40.2

14.1

45.6

20.4

18.3

34.6

26.7

40.2

41.3

18.5

100.0

33.0

53.3

13.7

71.9

22.2

5.9

23.1

32.2

67.8

38.0

14.7

47.3

20.5

18.3

34.7

26.4

40.3

41.2

18.6

100.0

32.9

53.3

13.8

71.9

22.2

5.9

23.0

32.4

67.6

38.0

14.8

47.3

20.5

18.4

34.6

26.5

40.2

41.2

18.5

22 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 4-3. Poverty Rates by Selected Characteristics: 1999

Characteristic Official

measure

CE-based experimental measures

NAS/U NGA/U DCM1/U DCM2/U

DESDCM2/U DES/U

All persons ...........................

Age groups:

Less than 3 years......................

3 to 5 years ...........................

6 to 11 years ..........................

12 to 17 years .........................

18 to 21 years .........................

22 to 44 years .........................

45 to 54 years .........................

55 to 59 years .........................

60 to 64 years .........................

65 to 74 years .........................

75 years and over .....................

Race/origin:

White, not Hispanic . ...................

White, Hispanic . . ......................

Black, not Hispanic. . . ..................

Black, Hispanic ........................

Other, not Hispanic. . ...................

Other, Hispanic ........................

Number of persons in family:

1 person ..............................

2 persons .............................

3 persons .............................

4 persons .............................

5 persons .............................

6 persons .............................

7 or more persons . . ...................

Marital status:

Married, spouse present ................

Married, spouse absent. . ...............

Widowed..............................

Divorced . . . ...........................

Never married .........................

Gender:

Male . . ...............................

Female ...............................

Education (25 years of age and over):

No high school diploma.................

High school diploma....................

Some college..........................

College degree . . ......................

Citizenship status:

Native ................................

Naturalized citizen .....................

Not a citizen...........................

Disability status:

Not disabled. . .........................

Disabled . . . ...........................

Severe disability . . . ....................

Self-reported health status:

Excellent..............................

Very good.............................

Good . . ...............................

Fair ..................................

Poor. .................................

11.8

18.9

17.9

17.4

14.9

17.8

10.2

6.7

9.2

9.8

8.9

10.7

7.7

22.7

23.6

25.2

14.1

21.7

19.1

7.8

9.9

8.8

12.4

16.9

23.9

4.9

18.5

16.1

16.9

16.6

10.3

13.2

22.4

9.2

6.1

2.8

11.2

9.1

21.3

8.7

23.3

26.0

8.9

9.9

14.2

19.3

25.5

14.4

20.9

20.7

18.9

15.3

21.0

12.5

8.4

11.2

11.6

14.6

19.0

10.1

28.1

24.5

28.9

17.3

22.1

20.3

12.0

12.5

11.0

14.8

19.4

24.7

8.3

22.5

20.2

18.1

18.5

13.0

15.6

28.0

12.4

8.3

4.3

13.3

14.5

29.5

11.2

22.1

23.7

11.0

12.5

17.3

22.6

27.9

14.6

21.8

21.1

19.5

15.5

21.2

12.7

8.4

11.4

11.8

15.0

19.4

10.7

26.4

24.7

23.2

16.9

21.3

20.5

12.4

12.9

11.1

15.2

18.9

25.4

8.6

21.1

21.0

18.5

18.7

13.3

15.9

28.1

13.1

8.3

4.2

13.9

13.0

26.3

11.3

23.0

24.8

11.2

12.8

17.2

23.5

29.6

15.0

23.2

22.0

20.3

16.2

21.6

13.2

8.4

11.3

11.6

14.6

18.9

10.4

29.6

25.9

29.7

17.8

25.2

20.3

12.6

13.3

11.8

15.7

20.5

25.6

8.6

22.7

20.3

18.6

19.5

13.6

16.4

28.6

12.8

8.6

4.4

13.9

14.7

30.6

11.8

22.3

23.9

11.5

13.3

17.9

23.2

28.0

14.4

21.2

20.7

19.1

15.4

21.1

12.6

8.4

11.2

11.6

14.6

18.9

10.1

28.3

24.5

29.4

17.2

22.9

20.3

12.1

12.6

11.1

14.9

19.2

25.2

8.3

22.5

20.2

18.1

18.6

13.1

15.7

28.1

12.5

8.3

4.3

13.3

14.4

29.7

11.3

22.2

23.7

11.0

12.6

17.3

22.7

27.9

15.0

22.0

21.3

19.4

15.7

22.5

13.2

8.9

11.7

11.9

15.0

20.0

10.6

29.1

25.6

30.1

17.5

24.3

22.7

12.1

13.9

11.4

14.8

18.6

23.6

8.1

24.0

22.8

19.8

19.5

13.5

16.5

29.4

13.1

8.6

4.6

13.9

14.9

30.4

11.9

23.4

25.2

11.4

13.2

18.0

23.8

29.4

15.0

21.8

21.3

19.1

15.7

22.3

13.2

8.8

11.7

11.8

15.0

20.0

10.6

28.8

25.5

30.1

17.4

23.5

22.7

12.0

13.8

11.4

14.6

18.4

23.5

8.1

23.9

22.8

19.8

19.4

13.5

16.4

29.3

13.0

8.6

4.6

13.8

14.9

30.4

11.8

23.4

25.1

11.3

13.1

17.9

23.8

29.3

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 23

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5-1. Official Poverty Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons .................

Children .......................

Nonelderly adults ...............

Elderly ........................

White .........................

Black .........................

Other . . .......................

Hispanic origin .................

No workers . ...................

One or more workers ...........

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............

Male householder . . . . ........

Female householder . .........

Geographic regions:

Northeast....................

Midwest .....................

South .......................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ..................

Not central city ...............

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........

13.5

20.7

10.8

12.2

10.7

31.9

15.4

28.1

40.2

8.9

6.9

15.5

33.1

11.4

12.5

15.8

13.0

19.0

8.7

16.3

14.2

21.8

11.4

12.4

11.3

32.7

17.6

28.7

40.5

9.5

7.2

16.3

34.8

12.2

13.2

16.1

14.3

20.2

9.6

16.1

14.8

22.4

11.9

12.9

11.9

33.4

17.4

29.6

42.0

10.0

7.7

17.9

34.9

12.6

13.3

17.1

14.9

20.9

9.9

16.9

15.1

22.7

12.4

12.2

12.2

33.1

18.9

30.6

42.4

10.2

8.0

18.0

34.8

13.3

13.4

17.2

15.6

21.5

10.3

17.2

14.6

21.8

11.9

11.7

11.7

30.6

21.1

30.7

40.7

9.9

7.4

18.3

34.2

12.9

13.0

16.1

15.3

20.9

10.3

16.0

13.8

20.8

11.4

10.5

11.2

29.3

17.8

30.3

38.2

9.6

6.8

16.9

32.4

12.5

11.0

15.7

14.9

20.6

9.1

15.6

13.7

20.5

11.4

10.8

11.2

28.4

17.6

29.4

38.1

9.6

6.9

16.2

32.0

12.7

10.7

15.1

15.4

19.6

9.4

15.9

13.3

19.9

10.9

10.5

11.0

26.5

16.1

27.1

36.3

9.5

6.4

16.1

31.5

12.6

10.4

14.6

14.6

18.8

9.0

15.9

12.7

18.9

10.5

10.5

10.5

26.1

14.5

25.6

35.3

9.1

6.2

15.8

29.7

12.3

10.3

13.7

14.0

18.5

8.7

14.4

11.8

16.9

10.0

9.7

9.8

23.6

14.4

22.8

32.7

8.6

5.8

14.9

27.5

10.9

9.8

13.1

12.6

16.4

8.3

14.3

Table 5-2. NAS Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons ................. 14.3 15.1 15.6 16.6 15.3 14.3 13.7 13.3 12.8 12.2

Children ....................... 20.0 21.2 21.6 22.6 20.7 19.0 18.0 17.6 17.0 15.3

Nonelderly adults ............... 11.8 12.3 12.7 13.7 12.7 12.0 11.4 11.1 10.8 10.5

Elderly ........................ 15.4 15.9 17.0 17.6 16.8 15.5 15.7 15.0 13.9 14.0

White ......................... 12.2 12.8 13.1 14.0 13.2 12.3 11.8 11.5 11.1 10.7

Black ......................... 28.1 29.3 31.1 31.4 27.1 25.9 24.4 23.3 23.0 20.5

Other . . ....................... 16.3 18.8 18.3 21.5 22.0 18.4 16.8 17.0 15.7 14.9

Hispanic origin ................. 32.1 33.6 33.1 34.3 33.0 30.8 29.5 27.0 26.6 23.7

No workers . ................... 36.4 37.1 39.7 40.3 39.0 36.5 35.9 34.4 33.6 32.0

One or more workers ........... 10.5 11.2 11.3 12.2 11.2 10.5 10.0 9.8 9.5 9.2

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............ 8.9 9.4 9.8 10.5 9.3 8.6 8.2 7.8 7.4 7.1

Male householder . . . . ........ 16.3 17.1 18.1 19.5 18.4 17.6 16.0 15.6 15.1 15.3

Female householder . ......... 30.5 31.8 32.1 33.1 31.9 29.0 28.3 27.8 27.1 25.4

Geographic regions:

Northeast.................... 13.3 14.3 15.1 16.1 15.0 14.8 14.3 14.1 13.4 13.1

Midwest ..................... 12.8 12.8 13.2 14.1 12.9 11.1 10.0 10.0 9.9 9.5

South ....................... 15.1 15.8 16.6 17.1 15.3 14.6 13.9 13.1 12.7 12.1

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.0 17.4 17.1 18.8 18.4 16.8 16.6 16.1 15.6 14.3

Metropolitan area:

Central city .................. 19.8 21.1 21.8 23.2 21.0 20.7 19.0 18.5 18.3 16.8

Not central city ............... 10.7 11.5 11.7 12.6 12.3 10.8 10.7 10.2 9.9 9.7

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........ 14.8 14.7 15.3 16.2 14.7 13.5 13.2 13.1 12.1 11.9

24 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5-3. DCM1 Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons .................

Children .......................

Nonelderly adults ...............

Elderly ........................

White .........................

Black .........................

Other . . .......................

Hispanic origin .................

No workers . ...................

One or more workers ...........

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............

Male householder . . . . ........

Female householder . .........

Geographic regions:

Northeast....................

Midwest .....................

South .......................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ..................

Not central city ...............

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........

14.3

20.1

11.6

15.0

12.1

28.1

16.5

32.0

35.6

10.6

8.8

16.2

30.4

13.2

12.7

15.2

15.7

19.6

10.5

15.0

14.9

21.1

12.2

15.5

12.6

29.4

18.3

33.1

36.3

11.1

9.2

16.7

31.7

14.0

12.6

15.7

17.2

20.8

11.3

14.6

15.6

21.8

12.7

16.5

13.1

31.2

18.5

33.2

38.8

11.4

9.7

18.0

32.1

15.0

13.3

16.7

16.9

21.8

11.7

15.4

16.4

22.6

13.6

17.2

13.8

31.6

22.0

34.0

39.4

12.2

10.3

19.4

33.1

16.0

13.9

17.0

18.7

22.9

12.6

16.0

15.2

20.7

12.5

16.3

13.0

27.1

22.0

32.6

38.1

11.1

9.2

18.2

31.7

14.9

13.0

15.0

18.0

21.0

12.0

14.5

14.3

19.3

11.9

15.0

12.2

26.2

18.6

30.7

35.6

10.6

8.5

17.5

29.2

14.6

11.1

14.6

16.7

20.7

10.8

13.3

13.8

18.6

11.5

15.3

11.9

25.3

16.7

29.6

35.1

10.2

8.2

16.2

28.7

14.2

10.4

14.3

16.3

19.3

10.8

13.3

13.3

17.9

11.0

14.5

11.5

23.5

16.7

27.1

33.8

9.9

7.7

15.6

28.1

14.1

10.0

13.3

15.9

18.5

10.2

13.2

12.9

17.4

10.8

13.5

11.1

23.5

15.1

26.3

33.1

9.6

7.3

15.1

27.5

13.7

9.9

12.7

15.4

18.4

9.9

12.3

12.4

16.1

10.6

13.5

10.8

21.5

14.9

24.3

31.4

9.5

7.1

15.2

26.2

13.3

9.6

12.3

14.6

17.1

9.8

12.0

Table 5-4. DCM2Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons ................. 14.3 15.0 15.6 16.5 15.3 14.3 13.7 13.3 12.8 12.3

Children ....................... 20.0 21.2 21.7 22.6 20.7 19.1 18.2 17.6 17.0 15.6

Nonelderly adults ............... 11.7 12.3 12.7 13.7 12.7 12.0 11.4 11.0 10.8 10.6

Elderly ........................ 15.3 15.8 17.0 17.6 16.7 15.5 15.6 14.9 13.8 13.9

White ......................... 12.2 12.8 13.1 14.0 13.1 12.3 11.9 11.5 11.0 10.8

Black ......................... 28.1 29.0 31.0 31.4 27.1 25.9 24.5 23.2 23.0 20.7

Other . . ....................... 16.2 18.5 18.5 21.6 22.0 18.7 16.8 16.9 15.5 15.3

Hispanic origin ................. 32.0 33.4 33.0 34.2 32.7 30.9 29.5 26.9 26.6 23.8

No workers . ................... 36.3 36.9 39.5 40.1 38.8 36.3 35.7 34.3 33.5 31.9

One or more workers ........... 10.5 11.1 11.3 12.2 11.1 10.5 10.1 9.8 9.5 9.3

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............ 8.9 9.3 9.8 10.5 9.3 8.6 8.2 7.8 7.3 7.1

Male householder . . . . ........ 16.2 17.0 18.1 19.4 18.3 17.6 16.0 15.6 15.1 15.3

Female householder . ......... 30.4 31.6 32.0 32.9 31.8 29.1 28.4 27.8 27.2 25.5

Geographic regions:

Northeast.................... 13.2 14.3 15.1 16.1 15.0 14.7 14.3 14.0 13.4 13.1

Midwest ..................... 12.8 12.7 13.2 14.1 12.9 11.1 10.2 9.9 9.8 9.6

South ....................... 15.1 15.7 16.6 17.0 15.2 14.7 14.0 13.3 12.6 12.2

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.8 17.3 17.0 18.8 18.3 16.8 16.5 16.0 15.5 14.4

Metropolitan area:

Central city .................. 19.8 21.0 21.7 23.0 20.9 20.7 19.2 18.4 18.3 16.9

Not central city ............... 10.6 11.4 11.7 12.6 12.2 10.8 10.7 10.2 9.9 9.8

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........ 14.8 14.7 15.4 16.1 14.8 13.6 13.3 13.2 12.1 12.0

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 25

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5-5. DES-DCM2Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons .................

Children .......................

Nonelderly adults ...............

Elderly ........................

White .........................

Black .........................

Other . . .......................

Hispanic origin .................

No workers . ...................

One or more workers ...........

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............

Male householder . . . . ........

Female householder . .........

Geographic regions:

Northeast....................

Midwest .....................

South .......................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ..................

Not central city ...............

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........

14.3

19.5

11.8

15.5

12.1

28.0

16.5

31.8

36.7

10.4

8.4

17.2

31.3

13.2

12.7

15.0

15.9

19.9

10.6

14.6

15.0

20.7

12.4

15.9

12.7

29.0

18.4

32.8

37.2

11.0

8.7

18.1

32.6

14.2

12.8

15.7

17.0

21.1

11.3

14.6

15.7

21.4

12.9

17.1

13.2

31.1

18.6

32.8

39.6

11.4

9.4

19.4

33.2

15.1

13.3

16.7

17.1

21.9

11.8

15.5

16.5

22.1

13.8

17.6

13.9

31.5

21.8

33.8

40.5

12.1

10.0

20.5

33.8

16.0

14.0

17.1

18.7

23.0

12.6

16.1

15.3

20.3

12.8

16.5

13.0

27.3

21.9

32.1

38.8

11.1

8.8

19.3

32.5

15.0

13.0

15.1

18.1

21.1

12.1

14.7

14.4

18.6

12.2

15.9

12.3

26.4

18.3

30.7

37.0

10.4

8.1

18.6

30.3

14.9

11.1

14.6

16.9

21.1

10.7

13.4

13.8

17.8

11.6

15.8

11.9

24.9

16.6

28.9

36.3

10.0

7.7

16.9

29.5

14.3

10.1

14.0

16.6

19.3

10.6

13.4

13.3

17.3

11.2

14.9

11.5

23.4

16.9

26.5

34.4

9.8

7.3

16.6

28.7

14.2

10.0

13.2

16.0

18.4

10.3

13.0

12.8

16.7

10.8

14.1

11.0

23.0

15.7

25.9

33.9

9.4

6.9

15.9

27.9

13.3

9.8

12.6

15.5

18.2

9.8

12.2

12.3

15.1

10.7

14.1

10.7

21.1

15.0

23.5

32.3

9.3

6.6

16.2

26.5

13.1

9.7

12.1

14.4

17.1

9.7

11.8

Table 5-6. NGA Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons ................. 14.6 15.2 15.8 16.5 15.4 14.4 13.6 13.3 12.7 12.2

Children ....................... 20.2 21.1 21.7 22.5 20.8 19.2 17.9 17.4 16.7 15.4

Nonelderly adults ............... 12.0 12.4 12.9 13.7 12.7 12.1 11.4 11.1 10.7 10.5

Elderly ........................ 15.7 16.4 17.5 17.8 16.9 15.8 15.6 15.3 14.1 14.2

White ......................... 12.4 13.0 13.4 14.0 13.2 12.5 11.9 11.5 11.0 10.7

Black ......................... 28.8 29.2 31.2 31.4 27.4 25.8 24.5 23.2 22.6 20.9

Other . . ....................... 14.6 18.1 17.6 20.5 20.4 17.6 15.2 16.3 14.7 13.9

Hispanic origin ................. 28.4 29.6 29.7 30.7 29.9 29.6 26.3 24.9 23.8 21.6

No workers . ................... 36.2 36.9 39.4 40.3 38.6 36.2 35.7 34.9 33.5 32.5

One or more workers ........... 10.8 11.3 11.6 12.2 11.3 10.7 9.9 9.7 9.3 9.1

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............ 9.2 9.6 10.1 10.5 9.5 8.8 8.1 7.8 7.4 7.1

Male householder . . . . ........ 16.3 17.2 17.9 18.9 18.1 17.6 15.9 15.3 15.1 15.1

Female householder . ......... 30.3 31.4 32.0 33.0 31.4 29.0 28.2 28.0 26.5 25.3

Geographic regions:

Northeast.................... 11.0 11.8 12.6 13.4 12.6 12.6 12.1 12.0 11.3 11.0

Midwest ..................... 14.0 13.9 14.6 15.1 13.9 12.2 11.2 10.8 10.4 10.5

South ....................... 17.4 18.0 18.8 19.2 17.3 16.4 15.6 14.8 14.2 13.6

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 15.4 15.2 16.6 16.3 15.3 14.4 14.4 13.8 12.7

Metropolitan area:

Central city .................. 18.5 19.7 20.5 21.6 19.9 19.5 17.7 17.2 16.8 15.7

Not central city ............... 9.9 10.8 11.1 11.8 11.5 10.2 9.9 9.7 9.3 9.2

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........ 19.1 18.7 19.3 19.9 18.5 17.6 17.1 16.5 15.3 15.0

26 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5-7. DES

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons .................

Children .......................

Nonelderly adults ...............

Elderly ........................

White .........................

Black .........................

Other . . .......................

Hispanic origin .................

No workers . ...................

One or more workers ...........

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............

Male householder . . . . ........

Female householder . .........

Geographic regions:

Northeast....................

Midwest .....................

South .......................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ..................

Not central city ...............

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........

14.3

19.6

11.9

15.6

12.2

28.2

16.6

31.9

36.9

10.4

8.4

17.3

31.6

13.3

12.8

15.0

16.1

20.0

10.7

14.6

15.1

20.8

12.5

16.0

12.8

29.3

18.7

33.1

37.4

11.1

8.8

18.3

32.8

14.2

12.9

15.8

17.2

21.3

11.4

14.7

15.7

21.3

12.9

17.2

13.2

31.1

18.6

33.1

39.8

11.4

9.4

19.4

33.1

15.2

13.2

16.7

17.2

22.0

11.8

15.4

16.5

22.1

13.9

17.6

13.9

31.6

21.7

34.1

40.6

12.1

9.9

20.6

34.0

16.1

14.1

17.0

18.7

23.1

12.5

16.1

15.3

20.3

12.8

16.6

13.1

27.4

21.9

32.5

39.0

11.1

8.8

19.5

32.6

15.0

12.9

15.1

18.3

21.1

12.1

14.6

14.3

18.5

12.2

15.9

12.3

26.3

18.2

30.6

37.1

10.4

8.1

18.6

30.2

15.0

11.1

14.5

16.9

21.1

10.7

13.4

13.7

17.7

11.6

15.9

11.8

25.1

16.5

28.8

36.4

9.9

7.6

17.0

29.5

14.3

10.1

14.1

16.5

19.3

10.6

13.4

13.3

17.2

11.2

14.9

11.4

23.5

16.9

26.4

34.6

9.7

7.3

16.5

28.7

14.2

10.0

13.1

16.0

18.6

10.2

13.1

12.8

16.6

10.9

14.2

11.0

22.8

15.7

25.9

34.0

9.3

6.9

15.9

27.8

13.4

9.8

12.5

15.5

18.3

9.8

12.0

12.2

15.0

10.7

14.1

10.7

21.1

14.6

23.4

32.4

9.2

6.6

16.2

26.4

13.1

9.7

12.1

14.3

17.0

9.7

11.8

Table 5-8. NAS/U Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons ................. 16.9 17.7 18.2 19.1 17.8 16.9 16.1 15.3 14.8 14.4

Children ....................... 23.6 24.8 25.0 25.9 23.8 22.5 21.3 20.3 19.6 18.3

Nonelderly adults ............... 13.8 14.5 14.9 15.8 14.8 14.1 13.5 12.8 12.4 12.3

Elderly ........................ 18.0 18.8 20.3 20.7 19.5 18.2 18.4 17.3 16.4 16.6

White ......................... 14.3 15.0 15.5 16.2 15.3 14.5 14.0 13.4 12.8 12.6

Black ......................... 33.4 34.5 35.0 35.8 31.3 30.3 28.7 26.7 26.5 24.6

Other . . ....................... 19.6 21.8 22.4 25.0 25.2 21.4 19.4 18.7 17.5 17.5

Hispanic origin ................. 37.2 38.6 38.3 39.6 37.3 36.8 34.6 31.5 30.5 28.0

No workers . ................... 41.1 41.8 44.1 44.8 43.1 40.8 40.3 38.3 36.9 35.8

One or more workers ........... 12.7 13.4 13.6 14.4 13.3 12.7 12.1 11.5 11.2 11.1

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............ 10.8 11.3 12.0 12.5 11.3 10.6 10.0 9.4 8.9 8.8

Male householder . . . . ........ 18.6 19.6 20.7 21.7 20.9 19.7 18.4 17.5 16.9 17.2

Female householder . ......... 35.0 36.4 35.9 37.4 35.5 33.4 32.5 31.3 30.3 28.9

Geographic regions:

Northeast.................... 15.7 16.6 17.6 18.6 17.5 17.6 17.0 16.2 15.6 15.4

Midwest ..................... 14.8 15.1 15.6 16.1 14.8 12.9 12.3 11.6 11.3 11.4

South ....................... 17.9 18.7 19.3 19.7 17.9 17.2 16.2 15.3 14.6 14.2

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.8 20.1 19.9 21.8 21.0 19.9 19.2 18.6 17.8 16.8

Metropolitan area:

Central city .................. 23.1 24.3 25.3 26.2 24.3 24.1 22.4 21.2 20.7 19.7

Not central city ............... 12.5 13.5 13.8 14.7 14.2 12.8 12.6 11.9 11.6 11.5

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........ 17.9 17.7 18.1 18.8 17.2 16.2 15.5 15.4 14.1 14.0

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 27

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5-9. DCM1/U Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons .................

Children .......................

Nonelderly adults ...............

Elderly ........................

White .........................

Black .........................

Other . . .......................

Hispanic origin .................

No workers . ...................

One or more workers ...........

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............

Male householder . . . . ........

Female householder . .........

Geographic regions:

Northeast....................

Midwest .....................

South .......................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ..................

Not central city ...............

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........

17.2

24.4

14.1

18.0

14.7

34.0

19.7

37.9

41.1

13.1

11.1

18.8

35.8

16.0

15.1

18.5

18.9

23.6

12.8

18.2

18.1

25.6

14.7

18.8

15.3

35.2

22.4

39.4

41.8

13.8

11.6

19.5

37.2

16.8

15.5

19.1

20.3

24.7

13.9

18.1

18.7

25.9

15.2

20.3

15.8

35.8

22.8

39.3

44.1

14.1

12.2

20.9

37.0

18.0

16.1

19.7

20.3

25.7

14.1

18.6

19.5

26.8

16.1

20.7

16.5

37.0

25.3

40.2

44.8

14.9

12.7

22.0

38.3

18.9

16.5

20.3

22.0

26.7

15.0

19.3

18.3

24.8

15.2

19.5

15.7

32.2

25.8

38.2

43.1

13.9

11.7

21.2

36.5

18.0

15.4

18.4

21.3

24.8

14.6

17.8

17.4

23.5

14.5

18.2

15.0

31.1

22.2

38.0

40.8

13.3

10.9

20.1

34.5

18.1

13.3

17.7

20.6

24.6

13.3

16.7

16.7

22.6

13.9

18.4

14.4

30.4

20.5

35.9

40.3

12.8

10.4

18.9

33.8

17.5

12.6

17.1

19.7

23.4

13.0

16.1

15.9

21.4

13.2

17.3

13.8

27.9

19.1

33.0

38.3

12.2

9.7

18.0

32.5

16.6

12.0

16.0

19.2

22.0

12.3

15.6

15.4

20.9

12.8

16.5

13.3

28.1

17.8

31.9

36.9

11.9

9.3

17.3

31.8

16.4

11.9

15.3

18.4

21.5

12.1

14.7

15.0

19.7

12.7

16.6

13.1

26.0

18.1

29.5

35.8

11.9

9.2

17.5

30.4

16.2

11.8

14.9

17.4

20.5

12.1

14.6

Table 5-10. DCM2/U Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons ................. 16.9 17.8 18.3 19.2 17.9 17.0 16.2 15.4 14.9 14.4

Children ....................... 23.6 25.0 25.2 26.1 24.0 22.8 21.5 20.5 19.9 18.5

Nonelderly adults ............... 13.8 14.5 14.9 15.9 14.9 14.2 13.5 12.9 12.5 12.3

Elderly ........................ 18.0 18.8 20.3 20.6 19.5 18.2 18.4 17.3 16.4 16.6

White ......................... 14.3 15.1 15.5 16.3 15.4 14.7 14.1 13.5 12.9 12.6

Black ......................... 33.4 34.5 35.2 35.9 31.4 30.5 28.8 26.8 26.9 24.7

Other . . ....................... 19.5 21.9 22.5 25.1 25.4 21.7 19.4 18.7 17.5 17.5

Hispanic origin ................. 37.3 38.6 38.4 39.5 37.5 37.0 34.8 31.6 31.1 28.3

No workers . ................... 41.1 41.8 44.1 44.8 43.1 40.8 40.3 38.3 36.9 35.8

One or more workers ........... 12.7 13.5 13.7 14.5 13.4 12.9 12.2 11.6 11.4 11.2

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............ 10.8 11.4 12.0 12.6 11.4 10.7 10.1 9.4 9.1 8.9

Male householder . . . . ........ 18.6 19.5 20.9 21.8 20.8 19.9 18.4 17.6 17.1 17.3

Female householder . ......... 35.0 36.5 36.1 37.4 35.7 33.6 32.7 31.5 30.5 29.0

Geographic regions:

Northeast.................... 15.6 16.6 17.7 18.7 17.7 17.7 17.0 16.3 15.7 15.5

Midwest ..................... 14.8 15.3 15.7 16.2 15.0 13.0 12.5 11.6 11.4 11.4

South ....................... 17.9 18.8 19.4 19.7 17.9 17.4 16.3 15.4 14.8 14.3

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.7 20.1 20.1 21.9 21.1 20.0 19.3 18.6 18.1 16.9

Metropolitan area:

Central city .................. 23.1 24.3 25.3 26.3 24.4 24.1 22.6 21.2 20.9 19.8

Not central city ............... 12.5 13.6 13.9 14.8 14.3 13.0 12.7 12.0 11.7 11.5

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........ 17.8 17.8 18.3 19.0 17.3 16.5 15.6 15.4 14.2 14.0

28 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5-11. DES-DCM2/U Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons .................

Children .......................

Nonelderly adults ...............

Elderly ........................

White .........................

Black .........................

Other . . .......................

Hispanic origin .................

No workers . ...................

One or more workers ...........

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............

Male householder . . . . ........

Female householder . .........

Geographic regions:

Northeast....................

Midwest .....................

South .......................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ..................

Not central city ...............

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........

17.6

24.0

14.5

19.0

15.0

34.4

20.5

38.1

42.8

13.2

10.8

20.3

37.5

16.4

15.4

18.7

19.4

24.2

12.9

18.5

18.4

25.3

15.2

20.0

15.7

35.5

22.1

39.5

43.3

14.0

11.2

21.7

38.8

17.4

15.9

19.3

20.7

25.2

14.2

18.1

19.1

25.7

15.8

21.1

16.1

36.9

23.3

39.4

45.6

14.3

12.0

22.8

38.8

18.4

16.4

20.2

20.7

26.3

14.5

18.9

20.0

26.6

16.7

21.6

17.0

37.5

25.5

40.7

46.2

15.2

12.6

23.9

39.9

19.5

16.9

20.7

22.4

27.4

15.4

19.7

18.5

24.4

15.5

20.2

15.9

32.5

25.9

38.7

44.4

13.9

11.2

23.0

38.0

18.3

15.5

18.4

21.8

25.3

14.7

17.8

17.6

23.1

14.9

19.3

15.2

31.6

22.0

37.8

42.5

13.3

10.6

21.7

35.9

18.3

13.5

18.1

20.7

25.0

13.4

17.1

17.0

22.1

14.3

19.2

14.7

30.3

20.4

35.6

41.9

12.8

10.0

20.5

35.2

17.9

12.9

17.1

20.1

23.7

13.2

16.3

16.1

20.8

13.6

18.4

14.0

28.1

19.0

32.6

39.9

12.2

9.3

19.6

33.7

17.1

12.2

16.1

19.2

22.2

12.5

16.0

15.6

20.3

13.2

17.4

13.5

27.8

18.4

32.0

38.6

11.9

9.0

18.8

32.8

16.6

12.0

15.4

18.7

21.8

12.2

14.7

15.0

18.9

13.0

17.3

13.2

25.8

17.8

29.0

37.1

11.7

8.7

18.8

31.3

16.2

11.9

14.9

17.4

20.7

12.0

14.6

Table 5-12. NGA/U Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons ................. 17.5 18.0 18.8 19.5 18.1 17.2 16.4 15.7 15.1 14.6

Children ....................... 24.4 25.1 25.7 26.4 24.4 22.9 21.4 20.9 19.9 18.8

Nonelderly adults ............... 14.3 14.7 15.3 16.1 15.0 14.3 13.7 13.1 12.7 12.4

Elderly ........................ 19.0 19.3 21.1 21.3 20.0 19.3 18.9 17.9 17.1 17.0

White ......................... 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.8 15.8 15.0 14.3 13.8 13.2 12.9

Black ......................... 34.0 34.1 36.1 35.7 31.4 30.3 29.1 27.1 26.9 24.7

Other . . ....................... 18.6 20.5 21.8 23.2 24.1 20.7 18.2 18.5 17.0 17.1

Hispanic origin ................. 34.6 35.2 35.1 36.2 35.1 34.7 32.0 30.1 29.1 26.2

No workers . ................... 41.6 41.7 44.6 45.1 43.1 41.6 40.6 39.1 37.9 36.2

One or more workers ........... 13.3 13.7 14.2 14.8 13.7 13.0 12.3 11.9 11.5 11.4

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............ 11.6 11.8 12.5 13.0 11.9 11.1 10.3 9.7 9.3 9.1

Male householder . . . . ........ 18.7 19.3 21.0 21.5 20.8 20.1 18.4 17.4 17.2 17.2

Female householder . ......... 35.5 36.2 36.6 37.5 35.5 33.5 32.6 32.0 30.7 29.2

Geographic regions:

Northeast.................... 13.4 14.0 15.1 15.8 15.0 14.9 14.1 14.0 13.4 13.1

Midwest ..................... 16.7 16.7 17.4 17.9 16.6 14.4 13.6 12.9 12.5 12.6

South ....................... 20.9 21.2 22.2 22.6 20.3 19.8 18.7 17.6 16.9 16.3

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.1 18.1 18.2 19.5 19.1 18.1 17.5 17.2 16.5 15.4

Metropolitan area:

Central city .................. 22.1 23.1 24.1 25.1 23.2 23.0 21.2 20.5 20.1 18.8

Not central city ............... 12.1 12.8 13.3 13.8 13.5 12.2 11.8 11.4 11.0 10.9

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........ 22.9 22.2 23.2 24.1 22.3 21.4 20.6 19.8 18.2 18.3

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 29

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5-13. DES/U Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons .................

Children .......................

Nonelderly adults ...............

Elderly ........................

White .........................

Black .........................

Other . . .......................

Hispanic origin .................

No workers . ...................

One or more workers ...........

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............

Male householder . . . . ........

Female householder . .........

Geographic regions:

Northeast....................

Midwest .....................

South .......................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ..................

Not central city ...............

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........

17.5

23.9

14.5

19.0

14.9

34.4

20.4

38.0

42.8

13.1

10.7

20.3

37.4

16.3

15.3

18.6

19.4

24.2

12.9

18.4

18.3

25.1

15.1

20.0

15.6

35.4

22.0

39.5

43.3

13.8

11.1

21.7

38.7

17.4

15.7

19.2

20.6

25.1

14.1

18.0

19.0

25.6

15.7

21.1

16.1

36.6

23.2

39.4

45.6

14.2

12.0

22.7

38.6

18.4

16.3

20.2

20.7

26.4

14.4

18.8

19.9

26.5

16.7

21.6

16.9

37.3

25.4

40.7

46.2

15.1

12.5

23.8

39.9

19.4

16.9

20.6

22.3

27.3

15.3

19.6

18.4

24.1

15.5

20.2

15.8

32.3

25.8

38.6

44.4

13.8

11.1

23.0

37.8

18.1

15.4

18.4

21.7

25.1

14.6

17.8

17.5

22.8

14.8

19.3

15.1

31.4

21.8

37.5

42.5

13.2

10.5

21.4

35.7

18.3

13.4

17.9

20.5

25.0

13.3

16.8

16.8

21.8

14.2

19.2

14.6

30.0

20.3

35.4

41.9

12.6

9.9

20.4

34.9

17.9

12.7

17.0

20.0

23.5

13.1

16.2

16.0

20.6

13.6

18.4

14.0

28.1

19.0

32.4

39.9

12.1

9.3

19.6

33.5

17.0

12.1

16.0

19.2

22.1

12.4

16.0

15.4

20.0

13.1

17.4

13.4

27.4

18.2

31.4

38.6

11.7

8.8

18.6

32.6

16.5

11.9

15.3

18.4

21.6

12.1

14.7

15.0

18.8

12.9

17.3

13.1

25.6

17.7

28.8

37.1

11.6

8.7

18.8

31.1

16.2

11.8

14.8

17.4

20.6

11.9

14.5

Table 5-14. NAS-CPI Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons ................. 13.7 14.5 15.1 15.8 14.6 13.8 13.6 13.3 12.5 11.7

Children ....................... 19.0 20.3 21.0 21.7 19.7 18.4 17.8 17.6 16.5 14.7

Nonelderly adults ............... 11.2 11.8 12.3 13.1 12.1 11.6 11.3 11.1 10.5 10.1

Elderly ........................ 14.8 15.2 16.4 16.8 16.1 14.9 15.6 15.0 13.5 13.3

White ......................... 11.6 12.3 12.7 13.4 12.5 11.8 11.7 11.5 10.7 10.2

Black ......................... 26.7 28.1 30.3 30.1 25.9 25.1 24.2 23.3 22.4 19.8

Other . . ....................... 15.6 17.7 17.9 21.0 21.1 17.8 16.7 17.0 15.1 14.2

Hispanic origin ................. 30.9 32.2 32.1 32.9 31.4 29.5 29.2 27.0 25.7 22.6

No workers . ................... 35.1 35.9 38.5 38.8 37.8 35.4 35.5 34.4 33.1 31.1

One or more workers ........... 9.9 10.6 10.9 11.6 10.5 10.1 9.9 9.8 9.2 8.8

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............ 8.4 8.9 9.4 9.9 8.8 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.1 6.7

Male householder . . . . ........ 15.8 16.4 17.7 18.8 17.8 17.0 15.9 15.6 14.8 14.8

Female householder . ......... 29.0 30.6 31.1 31.8 30.6 28.3 28.0 27.8 26.4 24.5

Geographic regions:

Northeast.................... 12.6 13.5 14.6 15.3 14.2 14.2 14.1 14.1 13.1 12.6

Midwest ..................... 12.2 12.3 12.8 13.4 12.3 10.8 10.0 10.0 9.6 9.2

South ....................... 14.3 15.2 16.1 16.3 14.6 14.1 13.8 13.1 12.2 11.5

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2 16.6 16.6 18.2 17.5 16.2 16.4 16.1 15.2 13.7

Metropolitan area:

Central city .................. 18.8 20.3 21.2 22.2 20.1 20.1 18.8 18.5 17.9 16.1

Not central city ............... 10.2 11.0 11.4 12.1 11.6 10.4 10.6 10.2 9.6 9.3

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........ 14.1 14.0 14.9 15.4 14.1 13.0 13.1 13.1 11.8 11.4

30 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5-15. DCM1-CPI Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons .................

Children .......................

Nonelderly adults ...............

Elderly ........................

White .........................

Black .........................

Other . . .......................

Hispanic origin .................

No workers . ...................

One or more workers ...........

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............

Male householder . . . . ........

Female householder . .........

Geographic regions:

Northeast....................

Midwest .....................

South .......................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ..................

Not central city ...............

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........

13.6

19.2

11.1

14.4

11.5

26.9

16.0

30.6

34.5

10.0

8.4

15.6

29.1

12.5

12.0

14.5

15.0

18.8

10.1

14.2

14.3

20.2

11.7

14.7

12.1

27.9

17.6

31.8

35.0

10.6

8.7

16.2

30.6

13.3

12.1

14.9

16.6

20.0

10.8

13.9

15.0

21.0

12.2

16.0

12.6

29.8

17.9

32.2

37.7

11.0

9.4

17.6

30.9

14.3

12.7

16.1

16.5

20.9

11.4

14.8

15.7

21.6

13.0

16.3

13.1

30.5

21.4

32.3

38.0

11.6

9.7

18.8

31.9

15.2

13.3

16.2

17.9

22.0

12.0

15.1

14.5

19.7

12.0

15.6

12.4

25.6

21.0

31.4

36.8

10.5

8.7

17.4

30.2

14.1

12.3

14.4

17.2

20.0

11.4

14.1

13.8

18.6

11.5

14.5

11.8

25.2

17.9

29.5

34.6

10.2

8.1

17.0

28.3

14.1

10.8

14.2

16.1

20.1

10.4

12.8

13.7

18.4

11.4

15.2

11.8

25.1

16.6

29.3

34.9

10.2

8.1

16.1

28.5

14.1

10.3

14.2

16.1

19.2

10.7

13.2

13.3

17.9

11.0

14.5

11.5

23.5

16.7

27.1

33.8

9.9

7.7

15.6

28.1

14.1

10.0

13.3

15.9

18.5

10.2

13.2

12.5

17.0

10.5

13.2

10.8

23.0

14.7

25.7

32.5

9.3

7.1

14.8

26.9

13.4

9.6

12.3

15.1

17.9

9.6

11.8

11.9

15.5

10.2

13.0

10.4

20.9

14.4

23.3

30.6

9.1

6.7

14.9

25.4

12.9

9.3

11.8

13.9

16.7

9.4

11.6

Table 5-16. DCM2-CPI Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons ................. 13.6 14.4 15.1 15.8 14.6 13.8 13.6 13.3 12.4 11.7

Children ....................... 19.0 20.2 21.0 21.6 19.7 18.4 18.0 17.6 16.6 14.8

Nonelderly adults ............... 11.1 11.7 12.3 13.0 12.1 11.5 11.3 11.0 10.5 10.1

Elderly ........................ 14.7 15.1 16.3 16.7 16.0 14.8 15.5 14.9 13.4 13.2

White ......................... 11.6 12.2 12.6 13.3 12.5 11.8 11.7 11.5 10.7 10.3

Black ......................... 26.6 27.7 30.2 30.0 25.8 25.1 24.4 23.2 22.4 19.9

Other . . ....................... 15.6 17.8 18.1 21.1 20.9 17.8 16.7 16.9 15.0 14.6

Hispanic origin ................. 30.8 32.0 31.9 32.8 31.2 29.5 29.1 26.9 25.7 22.7

No workers . ................... 35.0 35.7 38.3 38.6 37.5 35.1 35.3 34.3 32.9 31.0

One or more workers ........... 9.9 10.6 10.9 11.6 10.5 10.1 9.9 9.8 9.2 8.8

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............ 8.4 8.8 9.4 9.9 8.8 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.1 6.7

Male householder . . . . ........ 15.6 16.3 17.6 18.7 17.6 17.0 15.9 15.6 14.8 14.8

Female householder . ......... 29.0 30.4 31.0 31.6 30.3 28.2 28.1 27.8 26.5 24.6

Geographic regions:

Northeast.................... 12.5 13.5 14.4 15.3 14.2 14.1 14.1 14.0 13.1 12.5

Midwest ..................... 12.2 12.2 12.8 13.3 12.3 10.7 10.1 9.9 9.5 9.3

South ....................... 14.4 15.1 16.1 16.2 14.5 14.1 13.9 13.3 12.3 11.6

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2 16.5 16.5 18.2 17.3 16.2 16.3 16.0 15.1 13.8

Metropolitan area:

Central city .................. 18.8 20.3 21.0 22.0 20.0 20.1 19.0 18.4 17.8 16.2

Not central city ............... 10.1 10.9 11.4 12.1 11.6 10.3 10.5 10.2 9.5 9.3

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........ 14.1 13.9 14.9 15.3 14.1 12.9 13.2 13.2 11.9 11.5

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 31

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5-17. DES-DCM2-CPI Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons .................

Children .......................

Nonelderly adults ...............

Elderly ........................

White .........................

Black .........................

Other . . .......................

Hispanic origin .................

No workers . ...................

One or more workers ...........

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............

Male householder . . . . ........

Female householder . .........

Geographic regions:

Northeast....................

Midwest .....................

South .......................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ..................

Not central city ...............

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........

13.5

18.4

11.2

14.8

11.5

26.3

15.6

30.5

35.3

9.7

7.9

16.4

29.8

12.5

12.0

14.2

15.2

18.8

10.0

13.8

14.3

19.7

11.9

15.3

12.2

27.8

17.9

31.2

36.0

10.5

8.2

17.5

31.5

13.6

12.3

15.0

16.2

20.3

10.8

13.8

15.1

20.6

12.4

16.6

12.7

30.2

18.1

31.3

38.6

10.9

8.9

18.7

32.2

14.5

12.7

16.2

16.5

21.0

11.4

14.9

15.7

21.1

13.2

16.6

13.3

30.0

21.1

32.5

39.0

11.5

9.4

19.9

32.5

15.1

13.4

16.2

18.0

22.1

11.9

15.3

14.5

19.2

12.2

15.7

12.4

25.9

20.7

30.9

37.1

10.5

8.3

18.5

31.1

14.2

12.3

14.5

17.2

20.0

11.5

14.0

13.8

18.0

11.7

15.2

11.9

25.2

18.1

29.5

35.8

10.1

7.7

18.1

29.3

14.6

10.7

14.0

16.3

20.3

10.4

12.9

13.6

17.5

11.5

15.6

11.7

24.7

16.5

28.6

36.0

9.8

7.6

16.8

29.2

14.1

10.1

13.8

16.4

19.0

10.5

13.2

13.3

17.3

11.2

14.9

11.5

23.4

16.9

26.5

34.4

9.8

7.3

16.6

28.7

14.2

10.0

13.2

16.0

18.4

10.3

13.0

12.4

16.2

10.6

13.5

10.7

22.4

15.1

25.2

33.1

9.1

6.6

15.6

27.2

13.1

9.4

12.3

15.1

17.8

9.6

11.7

11.8

14.4

10.3

13.6

10.3

20.3

14.3

22.4

31.3

8.8

6.3

15.7

25.5

12.6

9.3

11.6

13.8

16.4

9.3

11.3

Table 5-18. NGA-CPI Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons ................. 13.8 14.6 15.2 15.8 14.6 13.9 13.5 13.3 12.3 11.6

Children ....................... 19.1 20.3 21.0 21.5 19.7 18.4 17.7 17.4 16.3 14.5

Nonelderly adults ............... 11.3 11.9 12.4 13.0 12.1 11.6 11.3 11.1 10.3 10.0

Elderly ........................ 14.9 15.6 16.9 17.0 16.2 15.1 15.4 15.3 13.5 13.6

White ......................... 11.8 12.4 12.9 13.3 12.6 12.0 11.7 11.5 10.7 10.2

Black ......................... 27.3 28.0 30.3 30.3 26.3 25.0 24.3 23.2 21.8 20.1

Other . . ....................... 13.9 17.3 16.9 19.6 19.5 17.0 15.1 16.3 14.3 13.2

Hispanic origin ................. 26.8 28.5 28.7 29.2 28.3 28.6 26.0 24.9 23.1 20.6

No workers . ................... 34.7 35.7 38.4 38.9 37.5 35.2 35.4 34.9 32.6 31.5

One or more workers ........... 10.1 10.8 11.1 11.5 10.6 10.2 9.8 9.7 9.0 8.6

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............ 8.6 9.1 9.7 9.9 8.9 8.4 8.0 7.8 7.1 6.6

Male householder . . . . ........ 15.7 16.6 17.4 18.3 17.3 17.0 15.7 15.3 14.8 14.7

Female householder . ......... 29.0 30.3 31.1 31.8 30.3 28.1 28.0 28.0 25.8 24.3

Geographic regions:

Northeast.................... 10.4 11.3 12.1 12.9 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 10.8 10.4

Midwest ..................... 13.3 13.3 14.0 14.4 13.2 11.6 11.1 10.8 10.1 10.0

South ....................... 16.4 17.3 18.2 18.2 16.5 15.8 15.4 14.8 13.8 13.0

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 14.8 14.7 15.9 15.5 14.8 14.2 14.4 13.4 12.2

Metropolitan area:

Central city .................. 17.5 18.9 19.8 20.6 18.9 18.9 17.5 17.2 16.3 14.9

Not central city ............... 9.4 10.3 10.8 11.3 10.9 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.0 8.8

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........ 18.0 18.0 18.6 19.0 17.5 16.8 16.8 16.5 14.8 14.4

32 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5-19. DES-CPI Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons ................. 13.6 14.4 15.1 15.8 14.6 13.8 13.6 13.3 12.4 11.7

Children ....................... 18.6 19.8 20.6 21.1 19.3 17.9 17.5 17.2 16.2 14.3

Nonelderly adults ............... 11.3 11.9 12.5 13.2 12.3 11.8 11.5 11.2 10.6 10.3

Elderly ........................ 14.9 15.4 16.6 16.7 15.9 15.4 15.7 14.9 13.7 13.7

White ......................... 11.6 12.3 12.7 13.3 12.5 11.9 11.7 11.4 10.7 10.2

Black ......................... 26.7 27.8 30.3 30.1 26.0 25.1 24.7 23.5 22.4 20.3

Other . . ....................... 15.6 17.8 17.9 21.0 20.7 18.1 16.3 16.9 15.4 13.9

Hispanic origin ................. 30.6 31.6 31.6 32.5 31.1 29.6 28.5 26.4 25.2 22.3

No workers . ................... 35.4 36.1 38.8 39.2 37.4 36.0 36.1 34.6 33.3 31.5

One or more workers ........... 9.9 10.5 10.9 11.5 10.5 10.0 9.8 9.7 9.1 8.7

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............ 7.9 8.3 9.0 9.4 8.3 7.8 7.5 7.3 6.7 6.

Male householder . . . . ........ 16.6 17.6 18.9 20.1 18.6 18.2 16.9 16.5 15.6 15.7

Female householder . ......... 30.1 31.6 32.1 32.6 31.3 29.2 29.2 28.7 27.2 25.5

Geographic regions:

Northeast.................... 12.7 13.6 14.6 15.3 14.3 14.5 14.2 14.2 13.1 12.6

Midwest ..................... 12.1 12.4 12.7 13.4 12.3 10.7 10.0 10.0 9.5 9.2

South ....................... 14.3 15.1 16.2 16.2 14.5 14.0 13.9 13.1 12.2 11.6

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 16.3 16.6 18.0 17.3 16.2 16.4 16.0 15.2 13.8

Metropolitan area:

Central city .................. 18.9 20.4 21.1 22.2 20.1 20.3 19.0 18.6 17.9 16.3

Not central city ............... 10.1 10.9 11.4 12.0 11.6 10.3 10.5 10.2 9.6 9.3

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........ 13.9 13.9 14.8 15.3 14.0 13.0 13.1 13.1 11.5 11.3

3

Table 5-20. NAS/U-CPI Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons ................. 16.0 16.9 17.6 18.3 17.0 16.3 16.0 15.3 14.4 13.7

Children ....................... 22.4 23.8 24.2 24.8 22.8 21.7 21.1 20.3 19.0 17.5

Nonelderly adults ............... 13.1 13.8 14.4 15.2 14.1 13.6 13.3 12.8 12.1 11.8

Elderly ........................ 17.1 17.9 19.4 19.7 18.5 17.6 18.3 17.3 16.0 15.7

White ......................... 13.6 14.4 14.9 15.5 14.6 14.0 13.9 13.4 12.4 12.0

Black ......................... 31.4 33.1 34.0 34.5 30.0 29.4 28.4 26.7 25.7 23.3

Other . . ....................... 18.7 20.1 21.5 24.0 23.9 20.8 19.2 18.7 17.0 17.0

Hispanic origin ................. 35.7 37.2 37.1 37.9 36.0 35.3 34.2 31.5 29.8 26.7

No workers . ................... 39.7 40.3 42.9 43.4 41.8 39.9 40.0 38.3 36.4 34.8

One or more workers ........... 11.9 12.7 13.1 13.7 12.6 12.2 12.0 11.5 10.8 10.6

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............ 10.2 10.6 11.5 11.8 10.6 10.1 9.9 9.4 8.6 8.3

Male householder . . . . ........ 17.7 18.8 20.0 21.1 20.1 19.2 18.3 17.5 16.5 16.7

Female householder . ......... 33.6 35.2 34.9 36.0 34.4 32.5 32.2 31.3 29.6 27.9

Geographic regions:

Northeast.................... 14.8 15.9 17.0 17.8 16.6 16.9 16.8 16.2 15.1 14.7

Midwest ..................... 14.1 14.4 14.9 15.5 14.2 12.5 12.1 11.6 11.0 10.8

South ....................... 17.0 17.8 18.6 18.9 17.0 16.6 16.1 15.3 14.2 13.6

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.9 19.2 19.3 20.8 20.2 19.1 19.0 18.6 17.3 16.1

Metropolitan area:

Central city .................. 22.1 23.4 24.4 25.3 23.3 23.3 22.2 21.2 20.2 18.8

Not central city ............... 11.9 12.9 13.3 14.0 13.6 12.3 12.5 11.9 11.2 11.0

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........ 16.7 16.8 17.4 18.0 16.2 15.6 15.3 15.4 13.6 13.5

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 33

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5-21. DCM1/U-CPI Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons .................

Children .......................

Nonelderly adults ...............

Elderly ........................

White .........................

Black .........................

Other . . .......................

Hispanic origin .................

No workers . ...................

One or more workers ...........

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............

Male householder . . . . ........

Female householder . .........

Geographic regions:

Northeast....................

Midwest .....................

South .......................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ..................

Not central city ...............

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........

16.4

23.2

13.4

17.1

13.9

32.3

18.9

36.4

39.7

12.4

10.4

17.9

34.5

15.2

14.3

17.6

18.1

22.5

12.2

17.1

17.3

24.5

14.1

17.9

14.6

34.0

20.6

37.8

40.3

13.1

10.9

18.9

35.9

16.0

14.9

18.3

19.5

23.7

13.2

17.1

18.0

25.0

14.7

19.4

15.2

34.8

21.6

38.1

42.9

13.5

11.7

20.2

36.0

17.4

15.4

19.0

19.6

24.9

13.6

17.8

18.7

25.8

15.5

19.7

15.8

35.9

24.7

38.7

43.4

14.2

12.1

21.5

37.1

18.2

15.9

19.5

21.2

25.9

14.4

18.4

17.5

23.9

14.5

18.5

15.0

30.9

24.6

37.0

41.8

13.2

11.0

20.4

35.4

17.2

14.8

17.5

20.5

23.9

14.0

16.8

16.8

22.7

14.0

17.6

14.4

30.2

21.7

36.4

39.9

12.8

10.4

19.5

33.5

17.4

12.8

17.1

19.8

23.9

12.8

16.0

16.6

22.4

13.7

18.3

14.3

30.1

20.1

35.4

40.0

12.7

10.3

18.7

33.6

17.3

12.5

17.0

19.5

23.2

13.0

15.8

15.9

21.4

13.2

17.3

13.8

27.9

19.1

33.0

38.3

12.2

9.7

18.0

32.5

16.6

12.0

16.0

19.2

22.0

12.3

15.6

15.0

20.3

12.5

16.0

12.9

27.3

17.2

31.1

36.4

11.5

8.9

17.0

31.1

15.8

11.5

14.9

17.9

21.0

11.7

14.3

14.3

18.7

12.2

15.7

12.5

24.8

16.8

28.2

34.8

11.2

8.6

16.9

29.4

15.4

11.2

14.3

16.6

19.5

11.4

14.0

Table 5-22. DCM2/U-CPI Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons ................. 16.1 17.0 17.6 18.3 17.1 16.4 16.1 15.4 14.5 13.8

Children ....................... 22.6 23.9 24.4 25.0 23.0 22.0 21.3 20.5 19.3 17.7

Nonelderly adults ............... 13.2 13.8 14.4 15.2 14.2 13.7 13.4 12.9 12.1 11.8

Elderly ........................ 17.1 17.9 19.3 19.7 18.5 17.6 18.3 17.3 16.0 15.7

White ......................... 13.7 14.4 14.9 15.6 14.6 14.1 14.0 13.5 12.5 12.1

Black ......................... 31.7 33.1 34.0 34.6 30.2 29.6 28.6 26.8 26.0 23.4

Other . . ....................... 18.6 20.1 21.7 24.1 24.2 21.1 19.2 18.7 17.1 16.9

Hispanic origin ................. 35.9 37.1 37.1 37.9 36.0 35.5 34.3 31.6 30.2 26.9

No workers . ................... 39.7 40.3 42.9 43.4 41.8 39.9 40.0 38.3 36.4 34.8

One or more workers ........... 12.0 12.8 13.1 13.8 12.7 12.3 12.1 11.6 11.0 10.7

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............ 10.2 10.7 11.5 11.9 10.7 10.2 10.0 9.4 8.7 8.3

Male householder . . . . ........ 17.6 18.7 20.1 21.1 19.9 19.4 18.3 17.6 16.6 16.7

Female householder . ......... 33.7 35.2 35.1 36.0 34.6 32.7 32.5 31.5 29.9 28.1

Geographic regions:

Northeast.................... 14.9 15.9 17.1 17.8 16.8 17.0 16.8 16.3 15.2 14.8

Midwest ..................... 14.2 14.5 14.9 15.6 14.4 12.6 12.4 11.6 11.1 10.8

South ....................... 17.1 17.9 18.7 18.9 17.0 16.8 16.2 15.4 14.3 13.8

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.9 19.3 19.4 20.9 20.2 19.2 19.1 18.6 17.6 16.2

Metropolitan area:

Central city .................. 22.2 23.4 24.3 25.3 23.4 23.4 22.4 21.2 20.4 19.0

Not central city ............... 11.9 12.9 13.4 14.1 13.6 12.5 12.6 12.0 11.3 11.0

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........ 16.8 16.9 17.5 18.1 16.3 15.8 15.4 15.4 13.7 13.5

34 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5-23. DES-DCM2/U-CPI Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons .................

Children .......................

Nonelderly adults ...............

Elderly ........................

White .........................

Black .........................

Other . . .......................

Hispanic origin .................

No workers . ...................

One or more workers ...........

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............

Male householder . . . . ........

Female householder . .........

Geographic regions:

Northeast....................

Midwest .....................

South .......................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ..................

Not central city ...............

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........

16.8

22.9

13.9

18.1

14.3

32.7

19.4

36.4

41.2

12.5

10.2

19.5

36.0

15.6

14.8

17.7

18.6

23.1

12.4

17.4

17.6

24.3

14.5

18.9

15.0

34.1

21.7

37.8

42.0

13.3

10.7

21.0

37.3

16.7

15.1

18.5

20.0

24.3

13.6

17.3

18.4

24.8

15.2

20.3

15.5

35.5

22.4

38.2

44.5

13.7

11.4

22.1

37.6

17.7

15.8

19.5

20.0

25.4

13.9

18.3

19.1

25.6

16.0

20.6

16.3

35.8

24.2

39.2

44.9

14.4

11.9

22.9

38.6

18.5

16.2

19.8

21.7

26.3

14.7

18.8

17.6

23.3

14.8

19.3

15.1

31.0

25.1

36.9

43.2

13.1

10.5

22.2

36.6

17.4

14.8

17.6

20.9

24.0

14.1

17.0

17.0

22.3

14.3

18.5

14.6

30.8

21.5

36.3

41.4

12.7

10.0

20.8

34.9

17.6

13.1

17.4

19.9

24.3

12.8

16.3

16.8

21.8

14.1

19.0

14.5

29.8

20.3

35.0

41.5

12.6

9.8

20.2

34.8

17.8

12.7

16.9

19.8

23.4

13.0

16.2

16.1

20.8

13.6

18.4

14.0

28.1

19.0

32.6

39.9

12.2

9.3

19.6

33.7

17.1

12.2

16.1

19.2

22.2

12.5

16.0

15.1

19.8

12.8

16.9

13.1

27.0

17.9

31.2

37.9

11.5

8.6

18.3

32.1

16.1

11.6

14.9

18.2

21.3

11.8

14.4

14.3

18.0

12.4

16.5

12.5

24.8

17.3

27.6

36.0

11.1

8.1

18.2

30.2

15.5

11.3

14.2

16.7

19.9

11.4

14.0

Table 5-24. NGA/U-CPI Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons ................. 16.5 17.3 18.1 18.6 17.3 16.6 16.2 15.7 14.6 14.0

Children ....................... 23.0 24.2 24.9 25.2 23.3 22.1 21.2 20.9 19.2 17.9

Nonelderly adults ............... 13.5 14.1 14.8 15.4 14.3 13.8 13.5 13.1 12.3 11.8

Elderly ........................ 17.9 18.6 20.3 20.1 19.1 18.5 18.7 17.9 16.7 16.2

White ......................... 14.2 14.8 15.4 15.9 15.0 14.4 14.1 13.8 12.7 12.3

Black ......................... 32.4 33.0 34.9 34.4 30.3 29.1 28.9 27.1 26.0 23.7

Other . . ....................... 17.6 19.9 20.8 22.6 23.1 19.9 18.1 18.5 16.5 16.0

Hispanic origin ................. 32.7 33.8 34.0 34.5 33.6 33.5 31.6 30.1 27.8 24.9

No workers . ................... 40.0 40.5 43.5 43.7 41.9 40.4 40.4 39.1 37.0 35.2

One or more workers ........... 12.5 13.1 13.6 14.0 13.0 12.5 12.1 11.9 11.0 10.8

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............ 10.8 11.2 12.0 12.2 11.2 10.5 10.2 9.7 8.9 8.6

Male householder . . . . ........ 17.9 18.8 20.2 20.8 19.9 19.5 18.3 17.4 16.8 16.5

Female householder . ......... 33.9 35.0 35.7 36.2 34.3 32.5 32.4 32.0 29.8 28.1

Geographic regions:

Northeast.................... 12.5 13.4 14.5 15.0 14.4 14.4 14.0 14.0 13.0 12.5

Midwest ..................... 15.7 16.1 16.9 17.0 15.8 13.9 13.4 12.9 12.2 12.1

South ....................... 19.7 20.3 21.4 21.6 19.4 19.0 18.6 17.6 16.3 15.6

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2 17.3 17.5 18.7 18.2 17.5 17.3 17.2 15.9 14.7

Metropolitan area:

Central city .................. 21.0 22.3 23.4 24.1 22.2 22.1 21.0 20.5 19.4 17.9

Not central city ............... 11.3 12.3 12.8 13.2 12.9 11.7 11.7 11.4 10.6 10.4

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........ 21.8 21.3 22.3 22.7 21.1 20.5 20.4 19.8 17.7 17.4

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 35

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5-25. DES/U-CPI Measure

Characteristic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All persons .................

Children .......................

Nonelderly adults ...............

Elderly ........................

White .........................

Black .........................

Other . . .......................

Hispanic origin .................

No workers . ...................

One or more workers ...........

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . . ............

Male householder . . . . ........

Female householder . .........

Geographic regions:

Northeast....................

Midwest .....................

South .......................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ..................

Not central city ...............

Nonmetropolitan area . . . ........

16.7

22.7

13.8

18.1

14.2

32.4

19.5

36.3

41.2

12.4

10.1

19.6

35.8

15.5

14.6

17.6

18.6

23.1

12.3

17.3

17.6

24.2

14.5

18.9

14.9

34.1

21.6

37.8

42.0

13.2

10.6

20.9

37.3

16.7

15.0

18.4

19.9

24.2

13.5

17.3

18.3

24.7

15.2

20.2

15.5

35.4

22.1

38.1

44.5

13.6

11.4

21.9

37.5

17.7

15.7

19.4

19.9

25.4

13.8

18.2

19.0

25.4

15.9

20.6

16.2

35.7

24.1

39.1

44.9

14.3

11.8

22.8

38.5

18.4

16.2

19.7

21.5

26.3

14.7

18.7

17.5

23.0

14.7

19.3

15.1

30.7

25.0

36.9

43.2

13.0

10.4

22.2

36.4

17.2

14.6

17.5

20.9

23.9

14.0

16.9

16.8

22.0

14.3

18.5

14.5

30.5

21.2

36.1

41.4

12.6

10.0

20.7

34.7

17.6

12.9

17.2

19.8

24.2

12.7

16.1

16.6

21.5

14.1

19.0

14.4

29.6

20.2

34.9

41.5

12.5

9.8

20.2

34.5

17.7

12.5

16.8

19.7

23.2

13.0

16.1

16.0

20.6

13.6

18.4

14.0

28.1

19.0

32.4

39.9

12.1

9.3

19.6

33.5

17.0

12.1

16.0

19.2

22.1

12.4

16.0

15.0

19.5

12.8

16.9

13.0

26.8

17.7

30.8

37.9

11.4

8.6

18.3

31.9

16.0

11.6

14.8

18.0

21.1

11.8

14.3

14.2

17.8

12.3

16.5

12.4

24.7

17.3

27.3

36.0

11.0

8.1

18.1

30.1

15.4

11.3

14.1

16.6

19.7

11.3

13.8

36 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 6-1. Experimental Poverty Rates: 1999

Characteristic

DES measure

CE-based experimental measures (selected new methods)

WorkrelatedFMR AHS NAS Combined

housing housing MOOP MOOPITT MOOP

FMR

geographic

adjustments

All persons . ......................

Children. . ...........................

Nonelderly adults.....................

Elderly . . . ...........................

Some private health insurance .........

Only public health insurance...........

No health insurance . . ................

White ...............................

Black ...............................

Other ...............................

Hispanic origin . . . ....................

No workers ..........................

One or more workers .................

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . ...................

Male householder . .................

Female householder................

Geographic regions:

Northeast .........................

Midwest ...........................

South .............................

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ........................

Not central city. ....................

Nonmetropolitan area .................

15.0

18.8

12.9

17.3

8.3

41.4

36.4

13.1

25.6

17.7

28.8

37.1

11.6

8.7

18.8

31.1

16.2

11.8

14.8

17.4

20.6

11.9

14.5

14.8

18.5

12.8

17.2

8.2

40.9

35.9

13.0

25.6

17.2

28.8

37.1

11.5

8.5

18.7

31.0

16.2

11.4

14.7

17.2

20.4

11.8

14.3

14.4

17.6

12.6

16.9

8.2

38.1

36.0

12.8

23.7

16.7

27.5

35.6

11.2

8.5

18.7

29.3

15.1

11.3

14.4

16.9

19.3

11.6

14.4

14.6

18.1

12.7

17.0

8.2

39.4

36.2

12.9

24.5

17.0

28.2

36.1

11.4

8.5

18.7

30.1

15.6

11.4

14.5

17.2

19.8

11.8

14.4

12.6

15.6

10.9

15.3

6.0

39.3

33.5

10.8

22.9

16.0

25.0

35.1

9.3

6.7

16.6

27.9

14.1

9.6

12.4

15.0

17.9

10.0

11.8

13.1

16.8

11.6

13.1

6.5

38.2

36.6

11.1

24.4

16.7

26.9

33.6

10.1

7.1

17.4

28.4

14.7

9.8

12.7

15.9

19.1

10.2

11.9

13.3

16.4

11.4

16.1

6.4

41.1

34.8

11.4

24.3

16.6

26.6

36.1

9.9

7.1

17.5

29.1

15.0

10.0

12.9

15.9

18.9

10.6

12.2

15.2

19.1

13.0

17.5

8.4

41.9

36.9

13.3

25.5

18.7

30.0

37.1

11.9

9.0

18.7

31.3

16.6

11.6

14.8

18.2

21.1

12.2

13.9

Table 6-2. Distribution of the Population: 1999

Characteristic

Total

population

Poverty population

DES

measure

CE-based selected new methods

WorkrelatedFMR

Housing

AHS NAS

Housing MOOP MOOPITT

Combined

MOOP

FMR

geographic

adjustments

All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Children . ........................

Nonelderly adults .................

Elderly . . ........................

Some pivate health insurance ......

Only public health insurance .......

No health insurance . .............

White ...........................

Black............................

Other ...........................

Hispanic origin . . . ................

No workers ......................

One or more workers .............

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . ................

Male householder ..............

Female householder ............

Geographic regions:

Northeast . . . ...................

Midwest .......................

South . ........................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ....................

Not central city .................

Nonmetropolitan area .............

100.0

26.2

61.8

11.9

78.5

12.9

8.5

82.0

12.9

5.0

11.9

13.1

86.9

65.5

11.8

22.7

19.0

23.2

35.0

22.8

29.3

51.7

19.1

100.0

32.9

53.3

13.8

43.5

35.8

20.7

71.9

22.2

5.9

23.0

32.4

67.6

38.0

14.8

47.3

20.5

18.4

34.6

26.5

40.2

41.2

18.5

100.0

32.7

53.4

13.9

43.7

35.7

20.6

71.8

22.4

5.8

23.2

32.7

67.3

37.6

14.9

47.5

20.8

17.9

34.9

26.4

40.3

41.2

18.5

100.0

32.0

54.0

14.0

44.5

34.3

21.3

72.9

21.3

5.8

22.8

32.4

67.6

38.6

15.3

46.2

19.9

18.2

35.0

26.8

39.2

41.7

19.0

100.0

32.5

53.7

13.8

44.0

34.9

21.1

72.5

21.6

5.9

23.0

32.3

67.7

38.3

15.1

46.7

20.3

18.1

34.8

26.9

39.7

41.6

18.7

100.0

32.3

53.2

14.4

37.2

40.2

22.5

70.2

23.5

6.3

23.7

36.3

63.7

34.5

15.5

50.0

21.1

17.6

34.3

27.0

41.5

40.8

17.8

100.0

33.5

54.6

11.9

38.6

37.7

23.7

69.5

24.1

6.4

24.5

33.4

66.6

35.3

15.6

49.1

21.2

17.3

33.9

27.6

42.4

40.3

17.3

100.0

32.4

53.2

14.4

37.8

40.0

22.3

70.1

23.6

6.3

23.9

35.5

64.5

34.9

15.5

49.6

21.4

17.4

34.1

27.2

41.5

41.1

17.4

100.0

33.1

53.1

13.8

43.5

35.8

20.7

72.0

21.8

6.2

23.6

32.0

68.0

38.7

14.5

46.8

20.8

17.8

34.1

27.3

40.8

41.7

17.5

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 37

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 6-3. Experimental Measures Poverty Rates by Selected Characteristics: 1999

Characteristic

Total

DES measure

CE-based experimental measures (selected new methods)

WorkrelatedFMR AHS NAS Combined

housing housing MOOP MOOPITT MOOP

FMR

geographic

adjustments

All persons ........................

Age groups:

Less than 3 years...................

3 to 5 years ........................

6 to 11 years .......................

12 to 17 years ......................

18 to 21 years ......................

22 to 44 years ......................

45 to 54 years ......................

55 to 59 years ......................

60 to 64 years ......................

65 to 74 years ......................

75 years and over ..................

Race/origin:

White, not Hispanic . ................

White, Hispanic . . ...................

Black, not Hispanic. . . ...............

Black, Hispanic .....................

Other, not Hispanic. . ................

Other, Hispanic .....................

Number of persons in family:

1 person ...........................

2 persons ..........................

3 persons ..........................

4 persons ..........................

5 persons ..........................

6 persons ..........................

7 or more persons . . ................

Marital status:

Married, spouse present .............

Married, spouse absent. . ............

Widowed...........................

Divorced . . . ........................

Never married ......................

Gender:

Male . . ............................

Female ............................

Education (25 years of age and over):

No high school diploma..............

High school diploma.................

Some college.......................

College degree . . ...................

Citizenship status:

Native .............................

Naturalized citizen ..................

Not a citizen........................

Disability status:

Not disabled. . ......................

Disabled . . . ........................

Severe disability . . . .................

Self-reported health status:

Excellent...........................

Very good..........................

Good . . ............................

Fair ...............................

Poor. ..............................

273,493

11,593

11,762

24,536

23,839

15,777

93,346

36,631

12,868

10,519

17,796

14,825

193,334

31,039

34,306

1,066

13,184

564

43,432

64,290

50,002

59,169

33,158

13,581

9,861

113,002

2,730

13,665

24,360

119,737

133,647

139,846

27,853

58,086

44,445

44,846

245,146

10,620

17,728

157,725

19,498

13,341

96,951

83,332

62,658

21,249

9,305

15.0

21.8

21.3

19.1

15.7

22.3

13.2

8.8

11.7

11.8

15.0

20.0

10.6

28.8

25.5

30.1

17.4

23.5

22.7

12.0

13.8

11.4

14.6

18.4

23.5

8.1

23.9

22.8

19.8

19.4

13.5

16.4

29.3

13.0

8.6

4.6

13.8

14.9

30.4

11.8

23.4

25.1

11.3

13.1

17.9

23.8

29.3

14.8

21.5

20.9

18.8

15.6

22.1

13.1

8.7

11.7

11.8

14.9

20.0

10.4

28.7

25.5

30.9

16.8

27.5

22.7

12.1

13.8

11.2

14.2

17.8

22.7

8.0

23.9

22.8

19.6

19.2

13.3

16.2

29.1

12.9

8.5

4.5

13.7

14.7

30.2

11.7

23.3

25.0

11.2

13.0

17.6

23.8

29.3

14.4

20.5

20.1

17.7

14.7

21.8

12.8

8.6

11.5

11.6

14.7

19.6

10.4

27.7

23.7

24.8

16.5

23.2

22.5

11.6

13.3

10.9

13.6

17.1

22.3

7.9

23.2

22.3

19.2

18.4

13.0

15.7

28.3

12.8

8.4

4.5

13.3

14.5

29.2

11.5

22.8

24.4

10.9

12.6

17.1

22.9

28.4

14.6

21.1

20.8

18.4

15.0

21.9

13.0

8.7

11.5

11.6

14.7

19.6

10.4

28.3

24.4

26.5

16.8

23.2

22.5

11.7

13.5

11.2

14.1

17.7

22.8

7.9

23.7

22.3

19.3

18.9

13.2

16.0

28.7

12.8

8.5

4.5

13.5

14.6

29.8

11.6

23.0

24.6

11.1

12.8

17.5

23.2

28.6

12.6

18.7

17.9

15.6

12.9

19.5

10.9

7.5

10.2

10.2

13.1

17.9

8.5

25.1

22.9

25.8

15.7

21.7

20.6

9.9

12.2

8.8

11.3

16.1

20.4

6.3

21.1

20.7

17.5

16.6

11.3

14.0

26.0

10.8

7.0

3.7

11.6

13.4

26.8

9.8

21.1

22.9

9.3

10.7

15.3

20.9

27.8

13.1

20.4

19.1

16.8

13.8

20.5

11.8

7.9

10.7

10.8

12.0

14.4

8.6

26.9

24.3

30.2

16.4

24.3

20.4

10.0

12.7

9.8

12.2

17.3

21.8

6.5

21.8

18.3

17.8

17.6

11.9

14.4

25.7

10.9

7.3

3.8

12.0

14.0

28.4

10.5

22.0

23.5

10.1

11.3

15.7

21.3

26.5

13.3

19.6

18.9

16.5

13.6

20.3

11.6

7.8

10.6

10.7

13.7

18.9

8.9

26.6

24.1

30.4

16.3

23.0

21.4

10.4

12.9

9.4

11.9

17.1

21.4

6.7

22.4

21.7

18.2

17.4

11.9

14.7

27.2

11.3

7.5

4.0

12.2

14.4

28.4

10.3

22.2

24.0

9.8

11.2

16.2

22.0

28.7

15.2

22.2

22.0

19.4

15.9

22.5

13.4

8.9

11.6

11.8

15.2

20.2

10.6

29.9

25.3

31.1

18.3

28.8

22.9

12.0

14.0

11.6

14.8

19.3

24.1

8.3

24.4

22.9

19.9

19.6

13.7

16.6

29.7

13.2

8.7

4.5

14.0

15.3

31.0

11.9

23.6

25.3

11.4

13.3

18.3

24.0

29.3

38 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 7-1. Experimental Poverty Rates: 1999

Characteristics

DES measure

CPI-based experimental measures (selected new methods)

WorkrelatedFMR AHS NAS Combined

housing housing MOOP MOOPITT MOOP

FMR

geographic

adjustments

All persons.......................

Children ............................

Nonelderly adults . . ..................

Elderly. . ............................

Health insurance:

Some private ......................

Only public health insurance ........

No health insurance. ...............

Race:

White.............................

Black . ............................

Other.............................

Hispanic origin.....................

Family workers:

No workers........................

One or more workers...............

Persons in family of type:

Married couple ....................

Male householder. .................

Female householder ...............

Geographic regions:

Northeast .........................

Midwest . . . .......................

South.............................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city........................

Not central city ....................

Nonmetropolitan area . . . .............

14.2

17.8

12.3

16.5

7.8

39.3

35.3

12.4

24.7

17.3

27.3

36.0

11.0

8.1

18.1

30.1

15.4

11.3

14.1

16.6

19.7

11.3

13.8

14.1

17.4

12.2

16.5

7.8

38.7

34.6

12.3

24.6

16.9

27.3

36.0

10.8

8.0

17.9

29.8

15.4

10.9

14.0

16.4

19.5

11.2

13.7

13.7

16.5

12.0

16.2

7.7

36.1

34.8

12.1

22.7

16.3

26.1

34.5

10.5

7.9

18.0

28.1

14.4

10.8

13.7

16.1

18.5

11.0

13.6

13.9

17.1

12.1

16.2

7.7

37.4

35.0

12.2

23.5

16.5

26.8

35.0

10.7

8.0

18.1

28.9

14.8

10.9

13.8

16.3

18.9

11.1

13.7

11.9

14.5

10.3

14.6

5.6

37.1

31.8

10.2

21.8

14.9

23.3

34.1

8.6

6.1

15.8

26.7

13.4

9.2

11.6

13.9

17.0

9.3

11.1

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

14.4

17.9

12.4

16.6

7.9

39.7

35.6

12.6

24.0

17.8

28.1

35.8

11.1

8.3

18.1

29.9

15.8

11.0

14.0

17.2

20.1

11.5

13.2

NA Not available.

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 39

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 7-2. Distribution of the Population: 1999

Characteristic

Total

population

Poverty population

DES mea- sure

CPI-based selected new methods

WorkrelatedFMR

Housing

AHS NAS

Housing MOOP MOOPITT

Combined

MOOP

FMR geographic

adjustments

All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Children . ........................

Nonelderly adults .................

Elderly . . ........................

Health insurance:

Some private...................

Only public health insurance .....

No health insurance ............

Race:

White .........................

Black..........................

Other .........................

Hispanic origin . ................

Family workers:

No workers ....................

One or more workers ...........

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . ................

Male householder ..............

Female householder ............

Geographic regions:

Northeast . . . ...................

Midwest .......................

South . ........................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ....................

Not central city .................

Nonmetropolitan area .............

100.0

26.2

61.8

11.9

78.5

12.9

8.5

82.0

12.9

5.0

11.9

13.1

86.9

65.5

11.8

22.7

19.0

23.2

35.0

22.8

29.3

51.7

19.1

100.0

32.8

53.4

13.8

43.2

35.7

21.0

71.5

22.4

6.1

22.9

33.0

67.0

37.2

15.0

47.9

20.5

18.4

34.5

26.6

40.5

41.0

18.5

100.0

32.5

53.6

13.9

43.5

35.6

20.9

71.4

22.6

6.0

23.2

33.4

66.6

37.0

14.9

48.0

20.7

17.9

34.8

26.5

40.6

40.9

18.5

100.0

31.7

54.2

14.1

44.2

34.1

21.6

72.5

21.5

6.0

22.8

33.0

67.0

37.9

15.5

46.7

20.0

18.2

35.0

26.8

39.5

41.5

19.0

100.0

32.2

53.9

13.9

43.8

34.8

21.4

72.2

21.8

6.0

23.0

33.0

67.0

37.5

15.3

47.2

20.3

18.2

34.8

26.8

39.8

41.4

18.8

100.0

32.1

53.3

14.6

36.8

40.4

22.7

70.0

23.7

6.3

23.4

37.5

62.5

33.5

15.6

50.9

21.4

17.9

34.2

26.6

41.7

40.6

17.7

100.0

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

100.0

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

100.0

32.7

53.5

13.8

43.1

35.8

21.1

72.2

21.6

6.2

23.4

32.6

67.4

38.0

14.8

47.2

20.9

17.7

34.1

27.2

40.9

41.6

17.5

NA Not available.

40 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 7-3. Experimental Measures Poverty Rates by Selected Characteristics: 1999

Characteristic

Total

DES measure

CPI-based experimental measures (selected new methods)

Workrelated

Com- FMR geoFMR AHS NAS MOOP- bined graphic

housing housing MOOP ITT MOOP adjustments

All persons ...........................

Age groups:

Less than 3 years . . . . . ...............

3 to 5 years..........................

6 to 11 years.........................

12 to 17 years . . .....................

18 to 21 years . . .....................

22 to 44 years . . .....................

45 to 54 years . . .....................

55 to 59 years . . .....................

60 to 64 years . . .....................

65 to 74 years . . .....................

75 years and over ....................

Race/origin:

White, not Hispanic ...................

White, Hispanic ......................

Black, not Hispanic . . . . . ..............

Black, Hispanic.......................

Other, not Hispanic . . .................

Other, Hispanic.......................

Number of persons in family:

1 person ............................

2 persons ...........................

3 persons ...........................

4 persons ...........................

5 persons ...........................

6 persons ...........................

7 or persons .........................

Marital status:

Married, spouse present...............

Married, spouse absent ...............

Widowed ............................

Divorced ............................

Never married. .......................

Gender:

Male . . ..............................

Female. . ............................

Education (25 years of age and over):

No high school diploma ...............

High school diploma . . . ...............

Some college ........................

College degree. . .....................

Citizenship status:

Native. . . ............................

Naturalized citizen ....................

Not a citizen .........................

Disability status:

Not disabled . ........................

Disabled.............................

Severe disability. . . ...................

Self(NA)reported health status:

Excellent . ...........................

Very good ...........................

Good . . .............................

Fair . . ...............................

Poor ................................

273,493

11,593

11,762

24,536

23,839

15,777

93,346

36,631

12,868

10,519

17,796

14,825

193,334

31,039

34,306

1,066

13,184

564

43,432

64,290

50,002

59,169

33,158

13,581

9,861

113,002

2,730

13,665

24,360

119,737

133,647

139,846

27,853

58,086

44,445

44,846

245,146

10,620

17,728

157,725

19,498

13,341

96,951

83,332

62,658

21,249

9,305

14.2

20.8

20.3

18.1

14.8

21.6

12.5

8.4

11.2

11.4

14.4

19.1

10.0

27.4

24.6

28.3

17.1

23.5

21.9

11.5

13.2

10.7

13.7

17.6

21.5

7.6

23.2

21.7

19.0

18.5

12.8

15.6

28.0

12.3

8.2

4.3

13.2

14.3

29.1

11.3

22.4

23.9

10.8

12.4

17.0

22.7

28.0

14.1

20.3

19.9

17.6

14.7

21.4

12.4

8.3

11.2

11.4

14.3

19.1

9.9

27.3

24.4

29.5

16.5

25.3

21.9

11.6

13.1

10.7

13.3

16.6

21.3

7.5

23.2

21.6

18.8

18.3

12.7

15.5

27.8

12.2

8.1

4.3

13.0

14.1

29.0

11.2

22.2

23.7

10.7

12.3

16.7

22.8

27.9

13.7

19.4

19.1

16.7

13.8

21.0

12.2

8.2

10.9

11.2

14.1

18.6

9.8

26.2

22.7

23.2

16.0

23.2

21.8

11.1

12.6

10.2

12.6

16.3

20.2

7.4

22.6

21.2

18.4

17.6

12.4

14.9

27.0

12.1

8.0

4.3

12.6

14.0

28.0

11.0

21.8

23.2

10.3

12.0

16.3

22.0

27.0

13.9

19.9

19.8

17.2

14.2

21.2

12.3

8.3

10.9

11.2

14.1

18.7

9.9

26.9

23.4

25.2

16.2

23.2

21.8

11.2

12.7

10.5

13.2

16.9

20.8

7.5

22.9

21.2

18.5

18.0

12.6

15.2

27.3

12.1

8.1

4.3

12.8

14.1

28.4

11.1

22.0

23.4

10.5

12.2

16.7

22.2

27.3

11.9

17.4

16.8

14.5

12.0

18.7

10.3

7.0

9.4

9.5

12.6

17.0

8.0

23.4

21.7

24.9

14.7

18.4

19.9

9.6

11.3

8.1

10.8

15.0

17.8

5.8

20.6

19.5

16.5

15.7

10.6

13.2

24.7

10.1

6.6

3.5

10.9

12.7

24.8

9.2

20.0

21.7

8.7

10.1

14.3

19.9

26.4

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

14.4

20.7

20.8

18.3

14.8

21.5

12.7

8.4

11.2

11.4

14.6

19.1

10.1

28.1

23.8

28.5

17.4

26.4

22.0

11.5

13.4

10.7

13.9

18.9

21.3

7.8

23.9

21.8

19.0

18.6

13.0

15.7

28.1

12.5

8.4

4.3

13.3

14.5

29.4

11.3

22.5

24.0

10.8

12.6

17.4

22.5

27.8

NA Not available.

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 41

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 8-1. Experimental Poverty Rates: 1999

Characteristic Official

measure

CE-based experimental measures (combined new methods)

DES MSI MSI-AHS MSI-NGA MIT CMB MSI-CPI

All persons . ......................

Children. . ...........................

Nonelderly adults.....................

Elderly . . . ...........................

Health insurance:

Some private ......................

Only public health insurance.........

No health insurance ................

Race

White .............................

White, not Hispanic...............

Black .............................

Other .............................

Hispanic origin . . ...................

Family workers

No workers ........................

One or more workers ...............

Persons in family of type:

Married couple . . ...................

Male householder . .................

Female householder................

Geographic regions:

Northeast .........................

Midwest ...........................

South .............................

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city ........................

Not central city. ....................

Nonmetropolitan area .................

11.8

16.9

10.0

9.7

4.9

41.2

31.0

9.8

7.7

23.6

14.4

22.8

32.7

8.6

5.8

14.9

27.5

10.9

9.8

13.1

12.6

16.4

8.3

14.3

15.0

18.8

12.9

17.3

8.3

41.4

36.4

13.1

10.6

25.6

17.7

28.8

37.1

11.6

8.7

18.8

31.1

16.2

11.8

14.8

17.4

20.6

11.9

14.5

12.0

14.1

10.5

15.1

5.8

35.9

32.7

10.5

8.3

20.3

15.0

24.3

33.8

8.7

6.4

16.3

26.0

13.4

8.5

12.0

14.4

16.7

9.7

11.0

12.3

14.8

10.7

15.1

5.9

37.0

33.0

10.6

8.3

21.5

15.3

25.0

34.2

9.0

6.5

16.4

26.8

13.9

8.7

12.1

14.8

17.4

9.9

11.0

12.1

14.2

10.5

15.6

5.8

36.7

32.5

10.5

8.8

21.3

14.3

21.4

34.2

8.8

6.4

16.5

26.2

10.5

9.9

14.1

12.6

15.6

9.0

15.3

12.6

15.5

11.3

12.8

6.4

34.9

36.2

11.0

8.5

21.7

15.6

26.7

32.2

9.6

6.9

17.1

26.6

13.9

8.9

12.3

15.7

17.9

10.1

11.1

12.7

15.0

11.1

16.1

6.3

37.8

34.2

11.2

8.8

21.5

15.9

26.1

35.2

9.4

6.9

17.2

27.2

14.2

8.9

12.6

15.6

17.9

10.3

11.4

11.3

13.2

10.0

14.4

5.4

33.9

31.3

9.9

7.8

19.3

14.2

22.7

32.4

8.2

5.9

15.6

24.8

12.7

8.0

11.3

13.7

15.8

9.1

10.5

42 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 8-2. Distribution of the Population: 1999

Characteristic

Total

population

Poverty population

Official

measure

Combined new methods

DES MSI MSI-AHS MSI-NGA MIT CMB MSI-CPI

All. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Children. . ........................

Nonelderly adults..................

Elderly . . . ........................

Health insurance:

Some private . ..................

Only public health insurance......

No health insurance . . ...........

Race:

White ..........................

White, not Hispanic............

Black . . ........................

Other . .........................

Hispanic origin ..................

Family workers:

No workers .....................

One or more workers ............

Persons in family of type:

Married couple..................

Male householder ...............

Female householder. . . . .........

Geographic regions:

Northeast ......................

Midwest........................

South . . . .......................

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan area:

Central city . ....................

Not central city. .................

Nonmetropolitan area..............

100.0

26.2

61.8

11.9

78.5

12.9

8.5

82.0

70.7

12.9

5.0

11.9

13.1

86.9

65.5

11.8

22.7

19.0

23.2

35.0

22.8

29.3

51.7

19.1

100.0

37.5

52.6

9.8

32.4

45.3

22.3

68.0

46.1

25.9

6.1

23.1

36.3

63.7

32.3

14.8

52.8

17.6

19.2

38.9

24.3

40.7

36.2

23.1

100.0

32.9

53.3

13.8

43.5

35.8

20.7

71.9

50.0

22.2

5.9

23.0

32.4

67.6

38.0

14.8

47.3

20.5

18.4

34.6

26.5

40.2

41.2

18.5

100.0

30.9

54.1

15.0

38.1

38.7

23.2

71.9

48.9

21.9

6.3

24.2

36.8

63.2

34.9

15.9

49.2

21.2

16.5

34.9

27.4

40.8

41.7

17.5

100.0

31.6

53.7

14.7

38.1

39.1

22.9

71.1

48.0

22.6

6.3

24.4

36.4

63.6

34.7

15.7

49.6

21.6

16.5

34.5

27.5

41.4

41.5

17.0

100.0

30.8

53.9

15.4

37.9

39.3

22.9

71.3

51.2

22.8

5.9

21.1

36.9

63.1

34.8

16.0

49.2

16.5

18.9

40.7

23.8

37.6

38.3

24.1

100.0

32.4

55.5

12.1

39.7

35.8

24.4

71.5

47.5

22.2

6.2

25.3

33.5

66.5

36.1

16.0

47.9

20.9

16.4

34.2

28.5

41.6

41.6

16.8

100.0

31.0

54.0

15.0

38.7

38.5

22.9

71.9

48.7

21.8

6.3

24.4

36.1

63.9

35.7

15.9

48.4

21.2

16.3

34.6

28.0

41.1

41.8

17.1

100.0

30.6

54.3

15.1

37.7

38.8

23.5

71.7

49.0

22.0

6.3

24.0

37.4

62.6

34.2

16.2

49.6

21.2

16.4

34.8

27.5

40.7

41.7

17.6

Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999 43

U.S. Census Bureau
Table 8-3. Combined Measures Poverty Rates by Selected Characteristics: 1999

Characteristic

Total

Official

measure

CE-based experimental measures (combined new methods)

DES MSI MSI-AHS MSI-NGA MIT CMB MSI-CPI

All persons .........................

Age groups:

Less than 3 years . . . . . ...............

3 to 5 years..........................

6 to 11 years.........................

12 to 17 years . . .....................

18 to 21 years . . .....................

22 to 44 years . . .....................

45 to 54 years . . .....................

55 to 59 years . . .....................

60 to 64 years . . .....................

65 to 74 years . . .....................

75 years and over ....................

Race/origin:

White, not Hispanic ...................

White, Hispanic ......................

Black, not Hispanic . . . . . ..............

Black, Hispanic.......................

Other, not Hispanic . . .................

Other, Hispanic.......................

Number of persons in family:

1 person ............................

2 persons ...........................

3 persons ...........................

4 persons ...........................

5 persons ...........................

6 persons ...........................

7 or more persons. . . .................

Marital status:

Married, spouse present...............

Married, spouse absent ...............

Widowed ............................

Divorced ............................

Never married. .......................

Gender:

Male . . ..............................

Female. . ............................

Education (25 years of age and over):

No high school diploma ...............

High school diploma . . . ...............

Some college ........................

College degree. . .....................

Citizenship status:

Native. . . ............................

Naturalized citizen ....................

Not a citizen .........................

Disability status:

Not disabled . ........................

Disabled.............................

Severe disability. . . ...................

Self-reported health status:

Excellent . ...........................

Very good ...........................

Good . . .............................

Fair . . ...............................

Poor ................................

273,493

11,593

11,762

24,536

23,839

15,777

93,346

36,631

12,868

10,519

17,796

14,825

193,334

31,039

34,306

1,066

13,184

564

43,432

64,290

50,002

59,169

33,158

13,581

9,861

113,002

2,730

13,665

24,360

119,737

133,647

139,846

27,853

58,086

44,445

44,846

245,146

10,620

17,728

157,725

19,498

13,341

96,951

83,332

62,658

21,249

9,305

11.8

18.9

17.9

17.4

14.9

17.8

10.2

6.7

9.2

9.8

8.9

10.7

7.7

22.7

23.6

25.2

14.1

21.7

19.1

7.8

9.9

8.8

12.4

16.9

23.9

4.9

18.5

16.1

16.9

16.6

10.3

13.2

22.4

9.2

6.1

2.8

11.2

9.1

21.3

8.7

23.3

26.0

8.9

9.9

14.2

19.3

25.5

15.0

21.8

21.3

19.1

15.7

22.3

13.2

8.8

11.7

11.8

15.0

20.0

10.6

28.8

25.5

30.1

17.4

23.5

22.7

12.0

13.8

11.4

14.6

18.4

23.5

8.1

23.9

22.8

19.8

19.4

13.5

16.4

29.3

13.0

8.6

4.6

13.8

14.9

30.4

11.8

23.4

25.1

11.3

13.1

17.9

23.8

29.3

12.0

17.3

16.6

13.9

11.6

19.0

10.5

7.3

9.9

9.8

13.2

17.5

8.3

24.3

20.2

23.8

14.5

24.7

20.6

9.7

11.9

8.0

9.9

14.2

18.1

6.1

20.6

19.9

16.8

15.5

10.8

13.2

24.9

10.5

6.9

3.6

11.0

12.9

25.4

9.4

20.4

22.2

8.7

10.2

14.5

20.4

26.5

12.3

18.1

17.1

14.6

12.1

19.3

10.7

7.3

9.8

9.8

13.2

17.5

8.3

25.0

21.3

26.3

14.9

25.0

20.6

9.7

12.0

8.3

10.5

15.2

19.1

6.2

20.9

20.0

16.9

16.0

11.1

13.4

25.2

10.6

6.9

3.6

11.2

13.0

26.0

9.6

20.7

22.4

8.9

10.4

14.9

20.6

26.6

12.1

18.1

16.3

13.6

11.8

19.1

10.5

7.3

10.1

10.2

13.3

18.3

8.8

21.4

21.3

19.5

13.9

22.7

20.9

10.0

11.8

7.9

9.8

14.5

17.8

6.2

20.0

20.6

17.3

15.5

10.8

13.3

25.1

10.8

6.8

3.5

11.4

11.7

22.3

9.4

21.2

23.2

8.9

10.1

14.2

20.9

28.2

12.6

19.3

17.7

15.3

12.9

20.2

11.4

7.7

10.4

10.4

11.7

14.1

8.5

26.7

21.5

26.0

15.1

27.5

20.4

9.6

12.2

9.2

11.1

16.3

20.4

6.4

21.1

17.9

17.0

16.7

11.4

13.7

24.7

10.6

7.2

3.7

11.5

13.1

27.7

10.2

21.3

22.8

9.6

10.9

15.0

20.3

25.1

12.7

18.5

17.4

14.8

12.4

19.8

11.1

7.7

10.5

10.6

13.9

18.6

8.8

26.0

21.3

26.8

15.5

27.3

21.4

10.4

12.5

8.6

10.7

15.0

19.8

6.6

21.6

21.3

17.6

16.3

11.5

13.9

26.4

11.1

7.3

3.9

11.6

14.0

27.0

10.0

21.6

23.4

9.2

10.9

15.4

21.5

27.6

11.3

16.3

15.5

13.0

10.8

18.2

10.0

6.8

9.3

9.2

12.6

16.5

7.8

22.7

19.2

23.2

13.7

24.3

19.8

9.2

11.1

7.6

9.4

13.3

15.5

5.7

19.5

19.0

16.0

14.6

10.2

12.4

23.4

9.9

6.5

3.5

10.4

12.3

24.2

9.0

19.1

20.7

8.2

9.7

13.7

19.2

25.0

44 Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999

U.S. Census Bureau
Appendix A.

Technical Appendix

POVERTY THRESHOLDS: CONSUMER EXPENDITURE

SURVEY 1997-99

The thresholds presented in this report differ slightly

from previously published estimates because of changes

in the computation method and corrections to the data

files. Previously published thresholds, calculated to correspond to the Census Bureau definition of family, did not

include spouses under the age of 18 in the family composition. For this very small number of families, a slightly

lower poverty threshold was assigned. Insofar as the

application to poverty estimates was based on the reference family of two adults and two children, this limited

further the effect on estimates of experimental poverty

measures. Recalculated poverty thresholds are shown in

Table A-1.

In this study, as in the panel’s study and in previous

work (Short et al., 1999), the thresholds are obtained by

following six steps.

1. Median expenditures (adjusted to current dollars) for

reference units are obtained using their food, clothing,

shelter, and utilities (FCSU) expenditures.

2. Percentages of median expenditures are selected that

reflect the 30th and 35th percentiles of the distribution

of FCSU expenditures. These percentiles translate to

approximately 78 and 83 percent of the median. The

panel concluded in their study that these percentiles

seem to represent a ‘‘reasonable range’’ for the FCSU

component of the reference family’s threshold.1

3. Expenses for their other needs (e.g., household supplies, personal care, and nonwork related expenses)

are accounted for through the use of a small multiplier. The panel recommended a lower and upper

value for the multiplier of 1.15 and 1.25, respectively.

In this study, as in the panel’s work, the base-year

threshold is computed by taking the midpoint or average of these upper and lower values for both the percentages and multipliers (i.e., Threshold =

0.5*(1.15*.78 + 1.25*.83)* median FCSU), with the

result being that the threshold equals 0.96725*

median FCSU expenditures for the basic bundle.

Hence, the resulting threshold is almost equal to

median expenditures on FCSU.

4. Adjustments are made to reflect geographic differences in costs. The panel used interarea housing cost

indexes calculated from the 1990 census data on

gross rent (including utilities) for apartments with

specified characteristics, adjusted for the share of

housing in the proposed poverty budget.2 3

5. An equivalence scale adjusts the reference units’

threshold to produce thresholds for household units

with different characteristics from those of the reference unit. The panel used a two-parameter equivalence scale that accounts for the differing needs of

adults and children and the economies of scale of living in a larger household. This scale is (A+PC)F

, where

A and C represent the number of adults and children,

P represents the adult-equivalent of one child, and F

represents the scale economy factor. In the earlier

report, we used P=0.7 and F=0.65 since these scales

minimized the effect on overall poverty and were

1

Betson, 1995b. David Betson was a member of the NAS Panel.

2

The Panel set this share at 44 percent.

3

Johnson et al., 1997 found that these indexes produced similar results to those using interarea price indexes that account for

more expenditure categories than housing.

A-1. Poverty Thresholds for Reference

Family of Two Adults and Two Children:

1989-99

FCSU FCSU CPI- FCSUM Year Official CE-based based1 CE-based

1989 .......... $12,575 $12,734 $12,350 (NA)

1990 .......... 13,254 13,398 13,017 (NA)

1991 .......... 13,812 13,917 13,565 (NA)

1992 .......... 14,228 14,284 13,973 (NA)

1993 .......... 14,654 14,806 14,391 (NA)

1994 .......... 15,029 15,169 14,760 (NA)

1995 .......... 15,455 15,514 15,178 (NA)

1996 .......... 15,911 15,710 15,626 (NA)

1997 .......... 16,276 15,985 15,985 (NA)

1998 .......... 16,530 16,517 16,234 (NA)

1999 .......... 16,895 17,036 16,592 18,671

Percent change:

1989-99........ 34.4 33.8 34.4 (NA)

1989-97........ 29.4 25.5 29.4 (NA)

1997-99. . . . . . . . 3.8 6.6 3.8 (NA)

NA Not available.

1

The CPI-based thresholds use the CE-based threshold in 1997 only. Thresholds for other years are obtained by applying changes in the CPI-U to the 1997

CE-based threshold.

Notes: FCSU Food, clothing, shelter, and utilities.

FCSUM Food, clothing, shelter, utilities, and medical.

CE Consumer Expenditure Survey.

CPI Consumer Price Index.

Source: Author’s tabulations of Consumer Expenditure Survey data.

Technical Appendix A-1

U.S. Census Bureau
most similar to the current scales (see Citro and The NAS panel’s choice of a two-parameter scale was an

Michael, 1995 and Johnson et al., 1997). For this attempt to be consistent with the cost-of-children literareport, we used a three-parameter scale described ture and to smooth out the increases in the scale for larger

below. family sizes. However, this scale may not be appropriate

for childless families. The three-parameter scale proposed 6. The base-year thresholds are updated using a price by Betson attempts to reconcile the differences between adjustment factor. While the panel recommended singles and childless couples, single-parent and twoupdating by the change in median expenditures each parent families, and the cost-of-children literature. Comyear, they also recommended that an alternative set of pared with the panel’s recommendation, the threethresholds be produced during the first several years parameter scale provides more economies of scale

after the new poverty measure is implemented which between singles and childless couples and more similarity

are updated for price change only.4 Therefore, this between the scales for families with one parent and two

report shows the alternative threshold computed for children and two-parent families with one child. Use of

1997 and updated to 1999 with the CPI-U (see this three-parameter scale represents the main difference

Table A). between the NAS measure and the measure referred to as

the DES measure. The thresholds presented here are based on data from All of the new experimental measures in this report use the 1987 through 2000 quarterly CE data on expenditures. this three-parameter scale. Specifically, this scale fixes the Median estimates for a reference family of expenditures ratio of the scale for two adults and one adult to a con- on a basic bundle of goods were used. A simple 3-year stant value, 1.41. For single parents the scale adds the average across the data collection quarters forms the number of adults to 0.8 for the first child plus 0.5 times basis for these estimates.

all other children raised to a power of 0.7, that is (A + 0.8

+ 0.5 * C)0.7. All other families use the formula (A + 0.5 * EQUIVALENCE SCALES C)0.7. The calculated values for different families using this

In their report, the NAS panel recommended using a scale and others described above are shown in Table A-2.

two-parameter equivalence scale over a range of values. The other main difference between all these scales and

The two-parameter scales are given by the following the official scales is the treatment of the elderly. None of parameter values: P=0.7 and F=0.65 (the panel’s lower the experimental scales distinguish between elderly and bound), P=0.7 and F=0.75 (the panel’s upper bound), nonelderly families, while the official scales assign a single P=0.85 and F=0.65 (a modified NAS scale suggested in elderly person a scale of 0.473 and an elderly couple a Betson, 1996). The one-parameter scale, also called scale of 0.597 (versus 0.513 and 0.660, the values for constant-elasticity scales, is basically a two-parameter nonelderly which are shown in the table). scale that treats adults and children similarly (i.e., P=1.0).

This scale is calculated as the square root of family size GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENTS

(A+C)0.5. As noted by the NAS panel, ‘‘There is wide agreement

4 that it is desirable to adjust poverty thresholds for differ- Citro and Michael, 1995, p. 7. ences in prices...[however]...There are no geographic area

Table A-2. Alternative Equivalence Scales

Family type

Official

Two-parameter scales Threeparameter

F=0.65; P=0.7 F=0.75; P=0.7 F=0.65; P=0.85 F=0.5 P=1.0 scale

Single adult.........................

Two adults. .........................

Three adults . . . .....................

Two adults, one child . . . . . ...........

Two adults, two children. . ............

Two adults, three children ............

One adult, one child .................

One adult, two children...............

Ratios of scale for:

Single adult to two adults. ..........

Single parent with two children to

two adults with one child . . ........

*0.513

*0.660

0.771

0.794

1.000

1.177

0.680

0.794

0.777

1.000

0.451

0.708

0.922

0.861

1.000

1.129

0.637

0.797

0.637

0.926

0.399

0.672

0.910

0.841

1.000

1.151

0.595

0.770

0.595

0.915

0.427

0.700

0.873

0.844

1.000

1.144

0.637

0.815

0.637

0.965

0.500

0.707

0.866

0.866

1.000

1.118

0.707

0.866

0.707

1.000

0.463

0.653

1.000

0.880

1.000

1.114

0.699

0.830

0.714

1.000

Two-parameter scale = (adults+p* children)f

Three-parameter scale = ratio of the scale for 2 adults and one adults is 1.41

For single parents (adults + .8 + .5 * (children-1)).7

All other families (adults + .5 * children).7

* Nonelderly adults

Source: Johnson et al, 1997.

A-2 Technical Appendix

U.S. Census Bureau
cost-of-living indexes that correspond to the Consumer accounting for differences in prices by geographic area is

Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U).’’5 Yet, various explained first and is followed by the method presented in

approaches have been proposed to estimate interarea this report using FMRs.

price differences. In this section, the panel’s method for

5

Citro and Michael, 1995, pages 182-183.

Table A-3.

Adjustments for Housing Costs for NAS Poverty Thresholds1

Area and population size Index

value Area and population size Index

value

NORTHEAST

New England (Connecticut, Maine,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,

Vermont)

Nonmetropolitan areas and Metropolitan areas

under 250,000 ...................................

Metropolitan areas 250,000-500,000.................

Metropolitan areas 500,000-1,000,000 . . .............

Metropolitan areas 1,000,000-2,500,000 .............

Metropolitan areas 2,500,000 or more ...............

Middle Atlantic (New Jersey, New York,

Pennsylvania)

Nonmetropolitan areas and Metropolitan areas

under 250,000 ...................................

Metropolitan areas 250,000-500,000 ................

Metropolitan areas 500,000-1,000,000 . . ............

Metropolitan areas 1,000,000-2,500,000 .............

Metropolitan areas 2,500,000 or more ...............

MIDWEST

East North Central (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,

Ohio, Wisconsin)

Nonmetropolitan areas and Metropolitan areas

under 250,000 ...................................

Metropolitan areas 250,000-500,000.................

Metropolitan areas 500,000-1,000,000 . . .............

Metropolitan areas 1,000,000-2,500,000 .............

Metropolitan areas 2,500,000 or more ...............

West North Central (Iowa Kansas, Minnesota,

Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South

Dakota)

Nonmetropolitan areas and Metropolitan areas

under 250,000 ...................................

Metropolitan areas 250,000-500,000 ................

Metropolitan areas 500,000-1,000,000 . . ............

Metropolitan areas 1,000,000-2,500,000 .............

Metropolitan areas 2,500,000 or more (use areas

1-2.5 million) ....................................

1.128

1.128

1.148

1.141

1.209

0.908

0.997

1.020

0.975

1.187

0.896

0.959

0.987

0.995

1.059

0.861

0.962

0.981

1.028

(NA)

SOUTH

South Atlantic (Delaware, District of Columbia,

Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South

Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia)

Nonmetropolitan areas and Metropolitan areas

under 250,000 ...................................

Metropolitan areas 250,000-500,000 ................

Metropolitan areas 500,000-1,000,000 ..............

Metropolitan areas 1,000,000-2,500,000 .............

Metropolitan areas 2,500,000 or more ...............

East South Central (Alabama, Kentucky,

Mississippi, Tennessee)

Nonmetropolitan areas and Metropolitan areas

under 250,000 ...................................

Metropolitan areas 250,000-500,000 ................

Metropolitan areas 500,000-1,000,000 ...............

Metropolitan areas 1,000,000-2,500,000 .............

Metropolitan areas 2,500,000 or more ...............

West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana,

Oklahoma, Texas)

Nonmetropolitan areas and Metropolitan areas

under 250,000 ...................................

Metropolitan Areas 250,000-500,000 ................

Metropolitan areas 500,000-1,000,000 ..............

Metropolitan areas 1,000,000-2,500,000 .............

Metropolitan areas 2,500,000 or more ...............

WEST

Mountain (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,

Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming)

Nonmetropolitan areas and Metropolitan areas

under 250,000 ...................................

Metropolitan areas 250,000-500,000 ................

Metropolitan areas 500,000-1,000,000 ..............

Metropolitan areas 1,000,000-2,500,000 .............

Metropolitan areas 2,500,000 or more ...............

Pacific (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon,

Washington)

Nonmetropolitan areas and Metropolitan areas

under 250,000 ...................................

Metropolitan areas 250,000-500,000 ................

Metropolitan areas 500,000-1,000,000 ..............

Metropolitan areas 1,000,000-2,500,000 .............

Metropolitan areas 2,500,000 or more ...............

0.899

0.961

1.007

1.043

1.119

0.827

0.935

0.947

(NA)

(NA)

0.858

0.911

0.942

0.962

1.005

0.888

0.976

1.039

1.003

(NA)

0.969

1.018

1.028

1.104

1.217

NA Not applicable.

1

Table copied from Table 1-1, page 41: Constance F. Citro and Robert T. Michael (eds.) Measuring Poverty: A New Approach, Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 1995.

Technical Appendix A-3

U.S. Census Bureau
NAS Panel’s Method problems with the release of microdata files. While other

groupings were considered, mean indexes by state and The panel developed an interarea price index for shel- in , which includes housing plus utilities.6 metropolitan status were computed, resulting 100 ter They focused indexes, two per state (except for only metropolitan on shelter because housing expenditures are the largest indexes in New Jersey and the District of Columbia) by component of the poverty budget and because variations which thresholds are adjusted for the cost of housing dif- in housing costs are significant by region and population ferences (see Short, 2001, for more details and variations, size. They used a modified version of a method developed and Malpezzi et al., 1998). by the Department of Housing and Urban Development These new indexes were calculated using Fair Market (HUD) for the administration of Section 8 rental housing Rents for 1999. HUD Fair Market Rents are estimated subsidies. HUD uses a combination of data from the most

annually for 2,416 counties that are outside metropolitan recent American Housing Survey, the most recent decen- areas and for all 341 metropolitan areas. FMRs are defined nial census, and a random-digit dialing (RDD) survey to to be gross rent (with utilities) at the 40th percentile for develop a set of Fair Market Rents each year that vary by the rent distribution of a standard quality of rental hous- geographic location. The panel used census data only and ing. One problem with FMRs is that they do not fully con- computed index values for each of 341 metropolitan areas trol for housing quality since the definition of ‘‘standard’’ (setting the U.S. average equal to 1.0). The index values is not a strict one. Only recent movers are included in the were based on the cost of housing at the 45th percentile of calculations, and because long-term renters may pay the value of the distribution for each area. The data were

lower rents on average, this measure of the cost of hous- then grouped into six population size categories within ing is biased upward. Finally, there are also some legisla- each of the nine census divisions. The nonmetropolitan tive adjustments that present some inconsistencies across territory was considered by region, and new index values

areas. recomputed, which produced a final set of 41 index values. Analysts at HUD have described why FMRS should not

The index values were further adjusted for the esti- be used to adjust a poverty threshold.7 The 12 reasons are

mated fraction of the poverty budget of the reference fam- reproduced here:

ily accounted for by housing (including utilities)—44 per- 1. FMRs were developed to run HUD’s Section 8 certifi- cent. This effectively created a fixed-weight-interarea price cates and vouchers program, and for no other pur- index with two components: housing, and all other goods pose. We are satisfied that they work satisfactorily for and services, where the price of other goods and services this purpose. was assumed not to vary. This narrowed the range of

index values. As the panel pointed out, the proposed pro- 2. FMRs are not intended to reflect levels or changes in

cedure should not be viewed as the last word on the issue owner-occupied housing costs. They measure market

of adjusting poverty thresholds for the area differences in rents, not total housing costs.

prices. Their procedure accounts only for housing differences and does not account for differences within an area, 3. FMRs measure gross rents (rents plus tenant-paid utilidifferences in quality of a unit, or significantly higher ties) of recent movers, not of the entire rental housing

housing costs in Alaska or Hawaii. Their indexes are stock. ‘‘Recent movers’’ are those who had moved into

shown in Table A-3. In this report and in the earlier report, the unit within the past 15 months, not the past 5

the indexes were adjusted for each year of the CPS sample years as stated in the [NAS] report (page 195). These

so that the average of the indexes across all people was represent well under one-half of all rental units.

1.00. For example, for 1999 the indexes were divided by a 4. All areas are calibrated to the census once a decade factor of 1.025 to yield an average of 1.00 using the (the last was in 1994), and most major metropolitan March 2000 CPS. areas are checked once or twice a decade using RanNew Method dom Digit Dialing (RDDs), but this leaves unevenness

in other areas. A problem with the NAS indexes was the implicit

assumption that housing costs were homogeneous within 5. Rental markets can be quite volatile, and many of

the census divisions for which summary indexes were cal- these are caught by areas RDDs, of which HUD conculated. For some states, especially in New England, this ducts about 50 to 60 a year. For example, a 1997 RDD

assumption resulted in experimental poverty rates that of Los Angeles resulted in an FMR reduction of almost

differed radically from the official rates. $140. While adjustments of the magnitude of Los

To improve state-level poverty rates, a new method that Angeles’ are very rare, changes can be unpredictable

regroups housing costs at smaller levels of geography was and sudden.

tried. This was done while keeping in mind disclosure

6

Citro and Michael, 1995, pages 194-197. 7

Personal communication from staff at HUD.

A-4 Technical Appendix

U.S. Census Bureau
6. For 99 large FMR areas, rents are adjusted using CPI In spite of these problems, we argue that the FMR

rent and utility factors. However, the CPIdata are methodology is straightforward and applicable to all areas

available only for 32 consolidated MSAs, and they are of the United States. The data are also updated on a reguapplied to all primary MSAs8 within CMSAs. lar basis from the base year of 1990. The information is

very detailed and provides a good indication of the vari7. We update FMRs for smaller areas using the results of ability of housing costs in different areas of the country.

longitudinal Random Digit Dialing (RDD) surveys of Table A-4 shows mean state indexes as calculated in

the metropolitan9 and nonmetropolitan portions of the the March 2000 CPS. The first column shows NAS indexes

ten HUD regions. This is a substantial improvement and the last two columns show the FMR indexes, when

over the previous system of using CPIrent changes used directly for individual MSAs and counties, and when

for the four Census regions, but it still results in gen- state and metropolitan-nonmetropolitan means are applied

eralizations of rent changes that might not be appli- as in this report. We do not argue for the use of separate

cable to individual areas. FMRs for all areas because confidentiality concerns preclude identifying many such areas on the public use 8. The percentile standard has changed. FMRs were th microdata files from the CPS and the SIPP. based on the 50 percentile from 1975 to 1983, the

45th percentile from 198510 to 1994, and the 40th per- WORK-RELATED EXPENSES centile starting in 1995. It is possible to splice the

series form 1985 onward, using the difference Under the experimental measure of poverty, two types

between the 45th and the 40th percentile in 1995, but of work-related expenses are subtracted from a family’s

this is a rough approximation. resources: 1) child care expenditures, and 2) ‘‘other’’ workrelated expenses. These expenses are described sepa9. The percentile measure is administratively deter- rately below.

mined; it is doubtful that statisticians, policymakers,

and above all, the general public, would call the 45th ChildCare Expenditures

percentile a good measure of central tendency, much th The method of valuing child care expenditures used in less the 40 percentile. the NAS and the first Census Bureau reports involved

using data from the 1992 SIPP to estimate child care 10. The treatment of nonmetropolitan counties has expenses for CPS families (the March CPS contained no changed over time. Between 1975 and 1983, FMRs

were based on county groups of 250,000 or more. questions on child care expenses). In the SIPP, parents or

guardians of children under 15 years of age who were in From 1984 to 1993 they were based on county groups the labor force or attended school during the reference of 100,000 or more. Only starting in 1994 have FMRs period were asked about their child care arrangements been based on data for individual counties, but with

and costs during the last month. Expenses were limited to an important adjustment - the state minimum. the earnings of the parent with the lower earnings, or to

11. In 1996 we instituted a state minimum FMR. 11This the dollar amount of the dependent care tax credit—which

had the effect of raising FMRs substantially in many is $2,400 for one child or $4,800 for two or more

nonmetropolitan counties. children—whichever was lower.

A two-step procedure was used to estimate the

12. For all of these reasons, FMRs are published with a expenses for each of two separate groups of families: two60-day comment period, giving housing authorities parent families where both parents worked and families

and other interested parties a chance to try to alter with a single working parent. First, one estimates the

their FMRs. probability of incurring child care expenses based on the

race/ethnicity of the head, the number of children of various ages, region, and family income. Second, one esti- 8

FMR areas do not always coincide with OMB-defined MSAs. At mates the weekly expenses of working parents who paid present, selected outlying counties are treated as different FMR for child care using the same set of explanatory variables. areas in six MSAs: Chicago, Cincinnati, Dallas, Flagstaff, New

Orleans, and Washington, DC. Both steps used the 1992 SIPP panel (see Tables A-5 and 9

For the metropolitan surveys, metropolitan areas that are cov- A-6). ered by the CPIare excluded; these are therefore the smaller

MSAs and PMSAs. Another method for valuing child care expenses was 10No FMR was published in 1984. included in the Census Bureau report as the DCM measure. 11In nonmetropolitan counties the FMR is the higher of the That method involves simply subtracting a fixed amount local FMR or the statewide average of nonmetropolitan counties,

subject to a ceiling rent cap. The state minimum also affects a from the earnings of families with no nonworking parents

small number of metropolitan areas whose rents could otherwise and with children under the age of 12, and to limit this

fall below the state minimum. This state minimum replaces one deduction to the earnings of the lower earner. For the that was in effect for the 1994 FMRs: for counties with fewer than

100 recent-mover 2-bedroom cases, the rent was based on the DCM measure, we subtracted fixed amounts equal to 85

lowest-rent county in the state with 100 cases or more. percent of median annual expenses as reported in SIPP

Technical Appendix A-5

U.S. Census Bureau
Table A-4. Mean NormalizedIndexes, Poverty Rates, andMean FMRs by State: 1999

Region

Indexes Poverty rates 1999 Mean FMRs

NAS FMR

FMR

state/MSA

FMR

Official DES state/MSA

Metro- Nonmetropolitan politan

United States .....................

Alabama ............................

Alaska ..............................

Arizona . ............................

Arkansas ............................

California............................

Colorado ............................

Connecticut..........................

Delaware. ...........................

District of Columbia...................

Florida . . ............................

Georgia . . ...........................

Hawaii . . . ...........................

Idaho ...............................

Illinois...............................

Indiana. . ............................

Iowa . . . . ............................

Kansas . . ...........................

Kentucky ............................

Louisiana............................

Maine. . .............................

Maryland ............................

Massachusetts . ......................

Michigan . ...........................

Minnesota . . . ........................

Mississippi ..........................

Missouri.............................

Montana ............................

Nebraska. . ..........................

Nevada .............................

New Hampshire ......................

New Jersey..........................

New Mexico . . .......................

New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina .......................

North Dakota . .......................

Ohio . . . . ............................

Oklahoma . ..........................

Oregon . . ...........................

Pennsylvania ........................

Rhode Island ........................

South Carolina .......................

South Dakota ........................

Tennessee ..........................

Texas ...............................

Utah . . . . ............................

Vermont. . . ..........................

Virginia..............................

Washington..........................

West Virginia . .......................

Wisconsin . ..........................

Wyoming ............................

1.00

0.86

0.95

0.96

0.85

1.14

0.95

1.15

1.02

1.09

0.98

1.00

0.99

0.89

1.00

0.93

0.87

0.90

0.86

0.89

1.10

1.07

1.16

0.99

0.92

0.84

0.94

0.87

0.89

0.98

1.15

1.16

0.92

1.09

0.95

0.84

0.98

0.88

1.02

1.02

1.11

0.94

0.84

0.89

0.92

0.95

1.10

0.99

1.10

0.91

0.92

0.87

1.00

0.84

1.14

0.99

0.84

1.12

1.02

1.14

1.02

1.17

1.01

0.96

1.23

0.88

1.04

0.90

0.87

0.88

0.85

0.86

0.94

1.05

1.15

0.98

0.97

0.83

0.87

0.88

0.89

1.06

1.07

1.19

0.91

1.17

0.92

0.85

0.93

0.85

0.98

0.98

1.05

0.89

0.89

0.88

0.95

0.98

0.99

1.01

1.01

0.85

0.92

0.88

1.00

0.84

1.13

0.99

0.84

1.13

1.02

1.13

1.02

1.17

1.01

0.95

1.23

0.88

1.03

0.90

0.87

0.88

0.85

0.87

0.94

1.05

1.16

0.97

0.97

0.83

0.87

0.88

0.89

1.06

1.07

1.18

0.92

1.16

0.92

0.85

0.92

0.85

0.98

0.97

1.05

0.89

0.89

0.89

0.95

0.98

0.99

1.00

1.01

0.86

0.92

0.88

11.80

15.10

7.60

12.00

14.70

13.80

8.30

7.10

10.40

14.90

12.40

12.90

10.90

14.00

9.90

6.70

7.50

12.20

12.10

19.20

10.60

7.30

11.70

9.70

7.20

16.10

11.60

15.60

10.90

11.30

7.70

7.80

20.70

14.10

13.60

13.00

12.00

12.70

12.60

9.40

9.90

11.70

7.70

11.90

15.00

5.70

9.70

7.90

9.50

15.70

8.60

11.60

15.00

13.70

8.20

15.30

15.90

20.50

10.20

11.50

13.70

20.30

15.00

15.90

13.30

14.30

11.90

10.10

9.30

13.60

13.70

19.30

18.10

10.80

18.60

12.00

8.80

13.40

13.10

18.20

10.50

14.90

12.30

14.10

19.70

19.60

15.60

13.00

14.20

13.60

18.60

12.50

13.50

14.20

7.70

12.80

16.40

7.90

15.90

10.40

12.50

17.40

11.10

10.30

15.20

13.20

10.90

16.20

15.40

21.30

12.10

11.70

15.40

22.70

15.80

15.60

22.60

13.60

12.60

9.70

9.70

13.20

13.50

17.90

12.80

10.60

18.30

11.50

9.60

12.60

11.90

18.60

10.20

16.70

10.90

14.80

20.00

21.60

14.60

13.20

13.10

12.70

17.20

12.10

12.00

13.00

8.50

12.00

17.60

8.50

12.80

10.50

11.50

14.80

11.20

11.20

468.84

773.00

623.64

485.25

769.32

654.64

772.79

659.20

820.00

628.39

635.62

863.00

540.00

685.24

552.59

521.57

525.71

505.31

480.90

597.70

696.93

798.61

600.37

638.83

495.98

493.04

496.96

563.22

695.97

724.61

830.73

577.25

826.81

553.63

531.29

538.65

482.39

624.20

594.63

663.68

515.93

577.49

535.23

600.31

619.90

692.00

651.00

680.86

510.50

569.45

539.84

348.75

777.01

503.71

375.68

603.36

589.74

750.28

579.00

(NA)

553.77

415.84

957.98

441.53

409.28

419.97

419.87

406.50

383.35

362.35

529.98

526.46

691.63

425.16

447.51

378.57

368.92

477.83

409.97

614.11

637.47

(NA)

439.54

546.68

433.42

381.75

437.20

362.12

518.96

471.13

828.95

410.26

438.77

363.72

395.74

471.59

573.56

502.88

493.86

374.00

423.25

435.79

NA Not applicable.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau tabulations of March 2000 Current Population Survey.

A-6 Technical Appendix

U.S. Census Bureau
from these families. We used estimates from the 1993 SIPP

panel updated to 1997 using the CPIfor child care and

nursery school and calculated six separate medians

depending on the number and age of children (see Table

A-7). This method has the advantage of imputing child

care costs for all families with working parents and children and takes into account the opportunity costs

involved in arranging for child care. For example, a family

that cannot afford child care might opt to leave a child

unsupervised during working hours. This family might not

be poor, even though subtracting an adequate amount to

pay for child care would render this family poor. Likewise,

some families with high child care costs might be counted

as poor, even though their overall level of well-being

might be higher than that of some nonpoor families with

lower or no child care costs. Subtracting fixed amounts

from a family’s resources overcomes this problem.

New CPS Questions on PaidChildCare

The newer method of estimating child care presented in

this report replaces the first step of this procedure with

responses to questions introduced in the CPS about

spending on child care. These questions ask if anyone in

the household paid for the care of their children while

they worked in 1999. If the response is ‘‘yes,’’ then the

children who needed care are listed. The probability model

based on SIPP data estimates that 12.9 percent of people

are in families with child care expenses, but the direct

question in the CPS shows only 10.5 percent. If the family

has children for whom care is paid, then the amount paid

is modeled using a somewhat different specification than

the one described above.

One problem with the expenditure imputations in the

NAS method is that nothing constrains the expenditures to

be positive. Iceland and Ribar (2001), using the 1993

panel of SIPP, found that the NAS procedure imputes negative amounts to roughly a quarter of the families who

were predicted to pay something. While our calculations

prevent negative amounts from being used, Iceland and

Ribar further refined the specification.

The first modification in the imputation procedure was

to remove outliers from the conditional expenditure

regressions by dropping families who reported more than

$750 a week in child care costs (roughly 1 percent of the

families with positive expenditures). Removing these

observations led to large improvement in the fit statistics

for the conditional linear regressions for unmarried families, the R2 increased from 0.12 to 0.18, while for married

families, the R2 increased from 0.17 to 0.21. This simple

step lead to fewer initial out-of-range predictions, better

average imputations, and more highly correlated imputations than the NAS procedure. Table A-8 shows the results

of these procedures.

Table A-5. Logit Coefficients Predicting

Whether a Family IncurredChild

Care Expenses: 1992

Characteristic

Singleparent

family

1992

Marriedcouple

family

1992

Intercept . . ............................

African American family head............

Hispanic family head . . . ................

Number of kids 0-5 years old ............

Number of kids 6-11 years old ...........

Number of kids 12-15 years old..........

Number of kids 16-18 years old..........

Midwest. . .............................

South.................................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Log of family income ...................

Percent of family’s income earned

by the mother ........................

Number of observations ................

2.523

0.137

0.207

– 1.074

– 0.116

1.018

0.128

– 0.040

– 0.078

– 0.648

– 0.150

(NA)

902

8.672

0.289

0.170

– 1.127

0.107

1.211

0.259

– 0.630

– 0.853

– 0.693

– 0.640

– 1.167

2,533

NA Not applicable.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau tabulations of Survey of Income and Program

Participation.

Table A-6. Ordinary Least Squares Coefficients

for ImputedChildCare Expenses:

1992

Characteristic

Single

parent

1992

Married

couple

1992

Intercept . . ............................

African American family head............

Hispanic family head . . . ................

Number of children 0-5 years old ........

Number of children 6-11 years old .......

Number of children 12-15 years old ......

Number of children 16-18 years old ......

Midwest. . .............................

South.................................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Log of family income ...................

Percent of family’s income earned by the

mother...............................

Number of observations ................

Root Mean Square Error from unweighted

regressions ..........................

– 105.406

7.96

– 3.343

40.59

18.602

19.539

– 16.055

– 16.501

1.526

1.707

12.432

(NA)

306

68.033

– 332.173

– 4.25

– 9.975

59.364

23.809

– 9.965

18.428

– 7.558

3.14

3.537

29.584

54.66

826

93.247

NA Not applicable.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau tabulations of Survey of Income and Program

Participation.

Table A-7. Median Child Care Costs by Number

andAge of Children: 1991-93

Characteristic 1991 1992 1993

1 child under 12 years old

none under 5 years old. . . . . ....... 1,820 1,560 1,820

1 under 5 years old ............... 2,600 3,120 3,120

2 or more children under 12 years old

none under 5 years old. . . . . ....... 1,560 2,080 2,548

1 under 5 years old ............... 3,380 3,640 3,380

2 under 5 years old ............... 4,160 4,680 4,836

3 under 5 years old ............... 4,940 7,150 5,200

Source: U.S. Census Bureau tabulations of Survey of Income and Program

Participation.

Technical Appendix A-7

U.S. Census Bureau
Table A-8. Estimated Coefficients of Various Models of Family Expenditures on Child Care

Characteristic

Single parent/other families Married couple families

NAS Trimmed Log NAS Trimmed Log

Intercept...............................

Family head Black. . ....................

Family head Hispanic ...................

Children 0-5 ...........................

Children 0-2 ...........................

Children 3-5 ...........................

Children 6-11 ..........................

Children 12-15 .........................

Children 16-18 .........................

Midwest . ..............................

South .................................

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In family income........................

Proportion from mother’s earnings........

Average hours .........................

Average hours 2 (/100). . . ...............

Number of adults in household. . . ........

Some High school . . ....................

High school. ...........................

Some college . . ........................

College................................

Urban residence........................

Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Age 2 (/100) ...........................

Root MSE .............................

R2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Observations...........................

***– 451.1

– 124.8

21.9

– 20.2

11.5

– 26.8

***73.9

– 14.6

–

–

***46.4

– 13.0

– 26.1

– 23.0

– 18.1

– 34.0

– 21.4

– 25.2

– 7.1

– 22.9

38.2

– 25.0

***44.0

– 11.5

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

153.2

0.12

372

***– 238.7

– 67.2

10.9

– 10.7

**31.3

– 14.3

***51.7

– 7.8

–

–

**14.5

– 7.0

– 6.8

– 12.2

– 4.4

– 18.1

**– 29.1

– 13.4

– 18.3

– 12.2

– 10.7

– 13.4

***26.9

– 6.2

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

81.5

0.18

372

– 0.83

– 1.16

**0.23

– 0.12

0.24

– 0.16

–

–

***0.82

– 0.12

***0.57

-0.10

*0.13

– 0.08

***– 0.39

– 0.14

– 0.12

– 0.21

***– 0.45

– 0.15

***– 0.35

– 0.13

– 0.03

– 0.15

***0.37

– 0.09

–

**0.03

– 0.01

*– 0.03

– 0.02

**– 0.15

– 0.06

**– 0.97

– 0.41

**– 0.81

– 0.40

**– 0.86

– 0.40

*– 0.74

– 0.41

0.08

– 0.12

0.07

– 0.05

– 0.10

– 0.08

0.88

0.31

372

***– 436.4

– 76.7

1.4

– 16.6

13.8

– 15.5

***54.6

5.5

–

–

**11.5

– 5.4

– 12.0

– 8.1

– 24.1

– 15.7

***– 55.9

– 10.7

***– 46.5

– 10.8

– 17.7

– 11.9

***44.5

– 6.8

***64.0

-18.0

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

115.9

0.17

1029

***– 369.5

– 56.6

11.6

– 12.1

– 1.0

– 11.5

***45.6

– 4.1

–

–

2.6

– 4.0

– 5.9

– 6.0

– 18.3

– 11.5

***– 41.0

– 7.9

***– 35.8

– 8.0

– 13.2

– 8.8

***38.1

– 5.1

***64.8

– 13.2

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

84.8

0.21

1029

– 1.02

– 0.90

0.06

– 0.12

0.10

– 0.12

–

–

***0.69

-0.05

***0.45

-0.05

– 0.01

– 0.04

– 0.07

– 0.06

– 0.18

– 0.12

***– 0.39

– 0.08

***– 0.26

– 0.08

– 0.06

– 0.09

***0.26

– 0.06

0.15

– 0.16

***0.03

– 0.01

0.01

– 0.01

0.05

– 0.08

0.09

– 0.26

0.01

– 0.23

0.09

– 0.24

0.17

– 0.24

**0.13

– 0.06

0.06

– 0.04

0.09

– 0.06

0.84

0.31

1029

* Significant at .10 level.

** Significant at .05 level.

*** Significant at .01 level.

NAS NAS reestimated model.

Trimmed NAS reestimated excluding outliers.

Log Augmented model with natural logarithms

Note: Estimates based on observations from th

Because of differences in dependent variables

Source: Iceland and Ribar, 2001.

specification of dependent variable.

e 9th wave of the 1993

and models, coefficient

panel of the SIPP (Fall

s are not comparable ac

1995).

ross specifications. Standard errors shown below estimates.

–

–

–

–

–

A-8 Technical Appendix

U.S. Census Bureau
Next, Iceland and Ribar augmented the regression equa- To have more recent information, very similar questions

tions to include controls for the mother’s average weekly were added as a topical module to the 1996 panel of SIPP.

hours, the square of her hours, education (some high These updated responses are included in the estimate of

school, high school, some college, or college), age, age- other work-related expenses presented in this report. Simisquared, an indicator for metropolitan residence, finer lar calculations as the above resulted in an estimated

controls for the age distribution of children, and the num- work-expense value of $16.83 in 1999, a figure slightly

ber of adults in the household. The added variables were below that of the original calculation udpated for inflation.

jointly significant. The fit statistics for all of the models

improved considerably and mean predictions were very HOUSING SUBSIDY VALUATION

close to the true mean expenditure levels. Correlation Rent subsidies, one of the noncash benefits valued in coefficients between the actual and imputed expenditures the March supplement to the CPS, are estimated as part of were higher than those for the other two approaches; Census Bureau processing of the CPS microdata file. These however, the absolute values of the correlation coeffi- values are currently calculated using American Housing cients remained low. Survey data from 1985, updated to current dollars, using The first of the nonlinear specifications replaced the the CPIResidential Rent Index (details on this method can dependent variables with their natural logarithms. (Impu- be found in Short et al., 1999). tations are formed by taking the exponential of the pre- Two new methods are used in this report to value hous- dicted outcome.) Besides being constrained to predict ing subsidies. The first method uses FMRs. Mean 1999 positive expenditures, the log-linear approach has the FMRs by state and metropolitan status are used to esti- advantage that it tends to reduce the effect of outliers. mate monthly market rent amounts of subsidized units. The means and standard deviations of the imputed values These estimates are also those used in the previously were both very close to the corresponding statistics for described geographic indexes based on FMRs. Table A-4 the actual values. The correlations with the actual values, above shows the relative values of the amounts used by however, were not quite as strong as from the augmented state. linear model. In the calculations, we assign FMRs for 0 to 4 bedrooms, based on the number of individuals in the house- Other Work-RelatedExpenses hold following HUD program rules for section 8 housing.

We then calculate subsidy amount by subtracting 30 per- The panel proposed subtracting a flat amount for

cent of total household income. This calculated subsidy is ‘‘other’’ work-related expenses to be updated annually for

then prorated among families in each household, based on inflation. Following the panel’s recommendations, the flat

the number of people in each family. If market rent is amount represents 85 percent of the median amount

smaller than 30 percent of household income, the subsidy spent on other work-related expenses, as reported by SIPP

value is set to zero. If the value of the subsidy is greater respondents (no questions on other work-related expenses

than 44 percent of the family threshold, then it is capped are asked in the CPS). This amount is restricted to not

at that amount. This is done to include as a noncash ben- exceed the person’s earnings. The panel used data from

efit only the amount deemed to be necessary to meet shel- the 1987 SIPP, the most recent data then available. More

ter needs. The mean subsidy amount from this procedure specifically, the 1987 SIPP collected information on workis $274 per month. related expenses from people who had at least one

The second method of valuing housing subsidies used employer in the reference period. Three types of expenses

were identified: in this report employs a statistical match, imputing values

of market rent from the AHS to the CPS. Because subsi1. Annual expenses—annual work-related expenses, such dized renters in the AHS report what they pay rather than

as union dues, licenses, permit, special tools, or uni- the market value of the housing unit, monthly rents for

forms. subsidized units in the AHS are estimated using a hedonic

regression model for unsubsidized units. 2. Mileage expenses—the number of miles usually driven To calculate market rents using standard methods, the to and from work in a typical week, for people who do housing price equation in semilog form is calculated with some driving to work. An estimate of 22.5 cents per the characteristics of the housing unit as independent mile was used to convert mileage to expenses. variables and the log of rent paid as the dependent variable. To determine which geographic areas were signifi- 3. Other expenses—other expenses incurred in getting to cant in explaining housing market variation, the equation and from work, such as bus fares or parking fees, in a was estimated repeatedly using a stepwise procedure. At typical week. the outset, all metropolitan statistical areas in the United

Using these data, the panel calculated 85 percent of States were possibilities for inclusion as an indicator of

median work expenses, which resulted in $14.42 per differences in the housing market. One geographic variweek in 1992, or $17.12 in 1999 dollars. able at a time was added until no additional improvements

Technical Appendix A-9

U.S. Census Bureau
to R-squared could be made. Further, the set of geographic

indexes was tested with F-tests to assure that the set of

geographic indexes was significant.

Although the above procedure yielded 139 significant

metropolitan areas, the model was estimated with only 50

uniquely identified metropolitan areas in its final version.

This group was chosen for its probable stability over time.

The coefficients on the geographic dummy variables are

the incremental difference in the rental price between a

unit in a particular MSA and a unit that is either not in an

MSA or is in an MSA whose rental price is not significantly

different from non-MSA units. The estimated coefficients

from this hedonic equation were applied to the subsidized

renters to get an estimate of the market value of subsidized units. Details of these calculations are found in

Stern, 2001.

The next step was to perform a statistical match

between the subsidized units in the CPS and the AHS,

based on characteristics found in both data sets. A predictive mean match method was used to obtain estimates for

market rent on the CPS. This method uses two stages:

1. In the first stage, a regression model estimates coefficients in the relationship between the shared characteristics and the market rent on the AHS. Once market

rents were modeled in the AHS, the model was used

to predict market value of subsidized rental units in

both the AHS and CPS.

2. In the second stage, the predicted values are statistically matched.

An important element in the model that predicts market

rent on the AHS and the CPS is the involvement of geographic areas. All the geographic entities represented in

the data sets were grouped according to the appropriate

two- bedroom Fair Market Rent. The resulting clusters

assure that areas with the same level of housing prices are

treated as having a similar housing market. For example,

Cluster 1 includes all the geographic areas with very low

rents. At the other end of the scale, Cluster 14 includes all

geographic areas with the very high rents, like New York

City. The estimates from this model are shown in Table

A-9. The parameters were used to find the predicted market rent on both the AHS and the CPS file, the basic matching key of the statistical match.

Once the market rents are attached to households in

the CPS, the value of the housing subsidy is calculated by

subtracting 30 percent of household income as in the

above method using FMRs. The mean subsidy amount

from this procedure is $245 per month.

MEDICAL CARE

In this report we use three different approaches toward

the treatment of medical care in the poverty measure. The

first approach deducts family obligations for the cost of

medical care out-of-pocket (MOOP) expenses from

resources as the NAS panel recommended. The second

approach adds average obligations for the cost of medical

care to the threshold. The third approach combines the

above two approaches in a single measure.

Method 1: Medical out-of-pocket expenses deducted

from resources-two versions. A description of the

imputation process initially used by the NAS panel is

described in detail in the earlier report (see Short et al.,

1999, also Betson, 2001). For that model, the expenditure

data were obtained from the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey (NMES), aged to represent 1991. The imputation procedure assigned a predicted expenditure to each

family, based on the characteristics of that family, and

adjusted the imputed amount to ensure that aggregate

total imputed out-of-pocket expenditures agreed with

aggregate expenditures estimated from an independent

source.12

The imputation model consisted of three components.

The first component of the model determined whether a

family incurred any MOOP in the course of the year. The

second component of the model assigned actual values of

MOOP to those who incur such expenses. The panel

assumed that the cumulative distribution of medical

expenses could be described by a log-logistic function and

estimated parameters for this equation:

Ln(c/(1-c)) = a + bX (h) + g ln(moop) + d X (h) * ln(moop) + e

12Note that we do not adjust any other income source to meet

a benchmark amount.

Table A-9. EstimatedCoefficients on the Model

of Market Rents in the American

Housing Survey Dependent

Variable: Market Rent

Characteristic Estimate

Standard

error

Constant/intercept .......................

Number of people in household ...........

Percent of the household who are children. .

Householder 65 years old or over..........

Householder married .....................

Householder male .......................

Cluster 21 ..............................

Cluster 3................................

Cluster 4................................

Cluster 5................................

Cluster 6................................

Cluster 7................................

Cluster 8................................

Cluster 9................................

Cluster 10 ..............................

Cluster 11...............................

Cluster 12 ..............................

Cluster 13 ..............................

Cluster 14 ..............................

R-square = 0.5. ........................

424.43

35.32

– 36.81

– 43.20

30.16

2.31

– 21.69

1.52

17.22

16.17

31.50

53.74

79.91

144.44

150.34

190.50

224.90

265.12

493.59

0.5

18.65

2.75

13.69

7.29

7.43

6.02

25.79

20.02

20.83

19.90

19.49

19.86

20.11

19.69

19.63

21.05

23.64

19.11

21.11

–

1

Cluster 1, the groups of areas with the lowest housing prices, is the omitted

category.

Source: Stern, 2001.

A-10 Technical Appendix

U.S. Census Bureau
where ln(moop) = natural log of MOOP spending and c is associated with variations in medical care utilization and

the percentile in the cumulative distribution of MOOP in cost. In the case of the uninsured, an adjustment was

the NMES data. made to reflect the underutilization of health care by the

The final value of MOOP was computed as the sum of uninsured (see Banthin et al., 2001 for details).

the Medicare part B premiums and the imputed value of The next step of the formulation of thresholds that

MOOP, adjusted for cost of living, and calibrated to the include MOOP incorporates an expanded set of characterindependent control totals. The aggregate totals used istics. To accomplish this, information from the 1996 MEPS

were based on an aggregate total for 1992 used by the is used to adjust the thresholds to vary by important

panel, adjusted to other years according to changes in the determinants of expenditures that differ from those of the

CPIfor medical care.13 two-adult, two-child reference family. Table A-10 shows

This earlier method estimated that 94 percent of all risk factors for MOOP expenditures by size of family, numpeople in the CPS were in a family with at least some bers of persons in various age groups in the family, and

MOOP. The average assigned amount spent in 1999 was insurance coverage as calculated from median MOOP with

$2,793. Since all amounts were calibrated to aggregate an adjustment for the uninsured. The table also shows

totals, the aggregate-spending total was calculated to be means for comparison.

$291 billion for 1999. To produce the MEPS-based table, total expenditures An updated version of this model is included in the esti- were calculated directly except for the uninsured, for mates in this report. This updated model uses data from whom a predicted expenditure based on total expendi- the 1996 and 1997 CE (see Betson, 2001). This version of tures of the insured with similar characteristics was subthe MOOP model differs in some important ways from the stituted. This procedure was done in response to concerns earlier model. These differences are summarized by Bet- that medical expenditures of those without insurance are son in a series of recommendations that are made to so constrained that they do not provide reasonable esti- guide the estimation of this model. The first recommenda- mates of adequate medical care (see Wolfe, 2000). tion is that the MOOP amounts predicted by the model In the final step, these factors are used to adjust the should not be calibrated to aggregate totals, as was done medical care portion of the basic threshold bundle. Using in the earlier version. A second recommendation is that the estimate from the CE that medical care spending repre- the model should be periodically updated to capture any sents approximately 6 percent of spending on food, cloth- changes in utilization of health care and shifting of costs ing, shelter, utilities and medical care (FCSUM) in 1999, the between employers and families. Betson uses a third order MOOP portion of the thresholds based on risk factors of log-logistic approximation to the cumulative probability in families by the relevant characteristics was calculated. this version and limits the imputation of MOOP values to This MOOP portion of the threshold was added to the the lower 99 percent of the estimated MOOP distribution. remaining portion of the threshold, representing the FCSU Elderly adults in families with income below 120 percent expenditures. The FCSU portion of the thresholds was of their poverty threshold were not assigned medicare adjusted for family size differences using the three- part B premiums. (Medicaid pays the part B premium for parameter equivalence scale, as discussed elsewhere. low-income elderly.) Table A-10 shows the amounts added to thresholds for the Implementing this model of MOOP yields considerably family types listed under this method. For comparison to lower amounts of expenses that are to be deducted from the method used in the MSImeasures, the table also income than using the original model. For all people, the shows computed mean amounts subtracted from income mean amount is $1,706 per year, compared with the for these groups using the revised NAS method. $2,793 noted above.

Method 3: Combining methods 1 and 2. The final Method 2: Medical out-of-pocket expenses included method considered is computed by combining the two in the thresholds. This measure departs from the methods above. The purpose of constructing this measure approach taken by the panel to move the accounting for is to include the need for medical care in the threshold, medical needs from the resource side of a poverty mea- but to retain the variability of ‘‘actual’’ MOOP that the first sure to the threshold side. The first step of this calculation method more precisely captures. This method is com- includes medical out-of-pocket expenditures in our calcu- puted by using the thresholds constructed in method two, lation of the basic bundle of the two-adult, two-child refer- and then calculating net MOOP by subtracting the amount ence family, thus expanding the set of basic needs to of ‘‘expected’’ MOOP spending used in the thresholds from include medical expenses that are generally paid by the ‘‘actual’’ MOOP described in the first method. This differ- individual or family. Additional variability in the thresholds ence represents ‘‘unexpected’’ spending for medical care was assigned to each family, based on characteristics and is subtracted from income. The amounts used for

‘‘expected’’ MOOP in this calculation are the same as those

13Betson, 1995b. David Betson was a member of the NAS used in the MIT MOOP measure. These amounts are shown

Panel. in Table A-10 as the amounts added to thresholds.

Technical Appendix A-11

U.S. Census Bureau
Use of Four Complete Quarters of CE Interview expenditures for all four of their interviews. Of these, only

Data to Compute Poverty Thresholds With MOOP 9 percent (767 consumer units) represent the reference

family of two adults and two children. This sample is simi- The NAS panel used 3 months of annualized data to lar to the sample derived by assuming quarterly data are produce the FCSU thresholds, although they recommended independent. Two-adult, two-child families represent 9.0 using only those consumer units who reported a complete percent (6,917 consumer units) of all interviews con- year of expenditures. The thresholds used in this report ducted (76,792) during this same time period. The numfollow the independent quarter assumption with regard to ber of reference person consumer units is adequate statisthe CE data. However, this appendix examines the pos- tically to produce thresholds based on the full four

sible impact on reference person thresholds of the inde- quarters of data. However, cells sizes are quite small when

pendent quarters assumption. the data are disaggregated for the production of the mediA caution is warranted, however, with regard to these cal risk index adjustment using the CE means or mediresults: this analysis uses the cross-sectional weights ans.14

available in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ internal CE data For comparison purposes only, median expenditures,

file. However, it would have been more appropriate to use thresholds, and MOOP shares are presented in Table A-11

longitudinal weights for this exercise; such weights are for thresholds based on data for which there is no adjustnot available for the CE. ment in the expenditures for the underutilization of mediOf the 76,692 consumer units interviewed between cal care due the reference families’ lack of health insurquarter two of 1997 and quarter one of 2000, only 11.0 ance. Results are for two sets of weighted samples. One

percent of the consumer units (8,447 consumer units)

have the same number of adults and children and report 14Unpublished data from Thesia Garner (BLS).

Table A-10. Mean and Median MOOP, MEPS 1996, (With Adjustment for Uninsured) 1999 Dollars

Characteristics

MOOP estimated using MEPS

Risk factors NAS model mean

MOOP in

Mean Median thresholds

Reference family . ............................

Families With No Elderly Members

Private, 1 person

Good health ...............................

Fair/poor health ............................

Private, 2 people

Good health ...............................

Fair/poor health ............................

Private, 3 more people

Good health ...............................

Fair/poor health ............................

Public, 1 person

Good health ...............................

Fair/poor health ............................

Public, 2 or more people

Good health ...............................

Fair/poor health ............................

Uninsured, 1 person

Good health ...............................

Fair/poor health ............................

Uninsured, 2 or more people

Good health ...............................

Fair/poor health ............................

Families With Eelderly Members

Private, 1 person

Good health ...............................

Fair/poor health ............................

Private, 2 or more people

Good health ...............................

Fair/poor health ............................

Public, 1 person

Good health ...............................

Fair/poor health ............................

Public, 2 or more people

Good health ...............................

Fair/poor health ............................

$2,352

1,157

1,974

2,131

2,979

2,409

2,660

371

501

300

574

1,127

2,023

2,301

2,766

2,534

3,163

4,169

4,863

1,123

1,199

2,173

2,425

$1,800

762

1,394

1,596

2,029

1,804

2,263

32

124

60

165

866

1,625

1,829

1,952

2,144

2,356

3,461

4,132

880

808

1,629

1,825

1.00

0.42

0.77

0.89

1.13

1.00

1.26

0.02

0.07

0.03

0.09

0.48

0.90

1.02

1.08

1.19

1.31

1.92

2.30

0.49

0.45

0.91

1.01

$1,781

858

850

1,908

1,950

1,862

1,802

506

461

295

355

229

196

594

535

2,080

1,986

3,128

3,055

1,896

1,848

2,917

2,619

$1,181

500

915

1,047

1,331

1,184

1,485

21

81

39

108

568

1,066

1,200

1,281

1,407

1,546

2,271

2,711

577

530

1,069

1,197

Source: March 2000 Current Population Survey,1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, and Banthin et al., 2001.

A-12 Technical Appendix

U.S. Census Bureau
for which the quarterly expenditure data are assumed to

be independent, and another for which four complete

quarters of data are used and are thus not assumed to be

independent for the same reference family.

All the thresholds based on four complete quarters of

data are higher than the thresholds produced when the

assumption of independent quarterly data is made. For the

FCSU based threshold, the four complete quarter based

threshold is 3.7 percent higher than the threshold resulting when quarterly data are assumed to be independent.

This percentage is slightly higher than that reported by

Johnson, Shipp, and Garner (1997). For that study, consumer units rather than families were the focus of the

analysis and an age-housing tenure adjustment was made

to the cross-sectional weight. Also, the percentages of the

median were not reestimated. The CE based FCSUM

threshold is 4.6 percent higher when four complete quarters of data are used as opposed to when the quarterly

data are assumed to be independent. (For more details see

Banthin et al., 2001.)

These differences are particularly important to the

MOOP estimates presented in this report, as the two

MOOP methods use the CE data differently. The new NAS

model presented here uses only three- and four-complete

quarter data for 1996 and 1997. The MOOPITT estimates

use the assumption of independent quarters in the calculation of the FCSUM thresholds shown here for 1999. Further work on developing longitudinal weights for CE families is necessary for improved estimates on MOOP

expenditures.

Table A-11. Reference Family Annual

Thresholds and Medical Out of

Pocket Shares: 1999

Characteristic FCSU

threshold

FCSUM

thresholds

Median expenditure

Independent . . . ......................

4 complete quarters ..................

Thresholds

Independent . . . ......................

4 complete quarters ..................

MOOP share of median

Independent . . . ......................

4 complete quarters ..................

MOOP share of threshold

Independent . . . ......................

4 complete quarters ..................

17,613

18,206

17,036

17,610

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

(NA)

19,424

20,269

18,671

19,527

0.08

0.10

0.06

0.08

NA Not available.

Source: Unpublished data available from T. Garner (BLS), and Banthin et al.,

2001.

Technical Appendix A-13

U.S. Census Bureau
Appendix B.

Source and Accuracy of the Data

SOURCE OF THE DATA sample survey estimate has two possible types of error:

sampling and nonsampling. The standard errors provided This report includes data from the following sources: in most Current Population Reports primarily indicate the

Current Population Survey (CPS). magnitude of sampling errors. They also partially measure The CPS collects primathe effect of some nonsampling errors in response and rily labor force data about the civilian noninstitutional

enumeration, but do not measure any systematic biases in population.

the data. Bias is the average over all possible samples of

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). The the differences between the sample estimates and the

SIPP is a continuing panel survey, sponsored and con- desired value. The accuracy of a survey result depends on

ducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, which collects informa- the net effect of sampling and nonsampling errors. Partion from households about sources of income. ticular care should be exercised in the interpretation of

figures based on a relatively small number of cases or on

Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE). There are two compo- small differences between estimates.

nents to the CE survey—the Quarterly Interview Survey

and the Diary Survey. The Quarterly Interview Survey col- Sampling Variability. Standard errors are primarily

lects data on large expenditures and those which occur on measures of sampling variability, that is, of the variations

a fairly regular basis. The diary survey provides data on that occur by chance because of selecting a sample rather

other items by asking respondents to keep diaries to than surveying the entire population. Standard errors are

record all purchases made during the two 1-week periods. not provided for all estimates in this report because of the

wide variety of data sources. Instructions for calculating American Housing Survey (AHS). The AHS is conducted in standard errors for estimates in this report can be odd numbered years for the Department of Housing and obtained via e-mail. Urban Development. The population covered by the

sample for the AHS includes all housing units in the United Survey estimates Contact States.

CPS or general Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). The MEPS is questions DSMDS&A@census.gov cosponsored by the Agency for Heathcare Research and SIPP Mahdi.S.Sundukchi@census.gov Quality (AHRQ) and the National Center for Health Statis- CE Padriac.A.Murphy@census.gov tics to collect information on the health care use, expenditures, sources of payment, and insurance coverage for the AHS Alphonso.M.Mason@census.gov

civilian noninstitutional population in the United States. MEPS KCarper@AHRQ.gov

Survey Estimates. The estimation procedures used for Nonsampling Variability. As in any survey work, the these surveys inflate weighted sample results to indepen- results are subject to errors of response and nonreporting dent estimates of the civilian noninstitutional population in addition to sampling variability. We can attribute non- of the United States by age, gender, race, and Hispanic/ sampling errors to several sources; for example, inability non-Hispanic categories. The independent estimates are to obtain information about all cases in the sample, defini- based on statistics from decennial censuses; an adjust- tional difficulties, differences in the interpretation of ques- ment for undercoverage in the census; statistics on births, tions, respondents’ inability or unwillingness to provide deaths, immigration, and emigration; and statistics on the correct information, respondents’ inability to recall infor- size of the Armed Forces. The independent population mation, errors made in data collection such as in recording estimates used for 1994 and later are based on updates to or coding the data, errors made in processing the data, controls established by the 1990 decennial census. errors made in estimating values for missing data, and

failure to represent all units with the sample (undercover- ACCURACY OF THE ESTIMATES age).

Since the estimates in this report come from a sample,

they may differ from figures from a complete census using Comparability of Data. Data obtained from sample surthe same questionnaires, instructions, and enumerators. A veys and other sources are not entirely comparable. This

Source and Accuracy of Data B-1

U.S. Census Bureau
results from differences in interviewer training and experi- computer assisted interviewing environment. Because of

ence and in differing survey processes. This is an example these and other changes, one should use caution when

of nonsampling variability not reflected in standard errors. comparing estimates from data collected in 1994 and earUse caution when comparing results from different lier years with estimates from later years.

sources. Data users should also use caution when comparing

A number of changes were made to the CPS in data col- estimates in this report (which reflect 1990 census-based

lection and estimation procedures beginning in January, population controls) with estimates from 1993 and earlier

1994. The major change was the use of a new question- years (which reflect 1980 census based controls). This

naire. The Bureau of Labor statistics redesigned the ques- change in population controls had relatively little impact

tionnaire to measure the official labor force concepts more on summary measures, such as means, medians, and perprecisely, to expand the amount of data available, to cent distributions. It did have a significant impact on

implement several definitional changes, and to adapt to a levels.

B-2 Source and Accuracy of Data

U.S. Census Bureau
U.S. Department of Commerce FIRST-CLASS MAIL Economics and Statistics Administration POSTAGE & FEES PAID U.S. CENSUS BUREAU U.S. Census Bureau Washington, DC 20233 Permit No. G-58

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300