U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

Demographic Programs

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Extended Measures of Well-Being:

Living Conditions in the United

States: 1998

Household Economic Studies

Issued March 2003

Current

Population

Reports

By 

Kurt J. Bauman

P70-87

INTRODUCTION

The mid-1990s were

a time of strong economic growth.1 In

the wake of this

growth, questions

arose about the

extent to which all

U.S. households

were benefiting.

How did increased

national income

translate into everyday lives? Were

Americans better off

in their homes and

neighborhoods?

Could they afford to

buy the things they

wanted and also pay

for necessities? The

U.S. Census Bureau

asked about these

issues in the Survey

of Income and

Program

Participation (SIPP).2

1 See U.S. Census

Bureau, Statistical Abstract

of the United States: 2001

(121st Edition), Washington, DC, Table 567, p. 367

and Table 647, p. 422. 2 The data in this report

were collected from

August through November

of 1998 in the eighth wave

(interview) of the 1996

Survey of Income and

Program Participation. The

population represented

(the population universe) is

the civilian noninstitutionalized population of the

United States. 

What Is Well-being?

Agreement on specific criteria for measuring the concept of

well-being is hard to find. Different measures are used

depending on the topic of immediate concern, whether it be

poverty, health issues, or the developmental achievements of

children.3 The topical module on “extended measures of wellbeing” in the SIPP, on which this report is based, provides one

of the most extensive sets of measures available anywhere,

although even this source cannot claim to be complete. 

In this module, the Census Bureau asked about five topical

areas or “domains”: (1) whether the household possessed

selected appliances and electronic goods, such as refrigerators, televisions, dishwashers, telephones, and computers;

(2) housing conditions, including physical problems such as

broken windows and leaky roofs, as well as the household’s

evaluation of warmth, space, privacy, overall housing repair,

and other aspects of housing comfort; (3) neighborhood

and community conditions, such as the threat of crime,

problems with traffic, abandoned buildings, relations with

neighbors, police and fire protection, medical services, and

quality of schools; (4) ability to meet basic needs, paying

rent and utility bills, avoiding eviction, and having enough

food in the household; and (5) whether help would be available from family, friends, or other sources if it were needed

in the household.

Items lacking from the topical module on extended measures of well-being can often be found in other sections of

the SIPP and in other SIPP reports. For example, other topical modules have questions on money assets, types of vehicles owned, child-care arrangements, health status, and disability. In addition, the SIPP devotes a topical module to

children’s well-being.

3 A general reference on measuring well-being is D. Kahneman, E. Diener

and N. Schwarz (1999),Well-being: the Foundations of Hedonic Psychology,

New York: Russell-Sage. For more information on children’s well-being, see

Jason M. Fields, Kristin Smith, Loretta E. Bass, and Terry Lugaila, (2001), A

Child’s Day: Home, School, and Play (Selected Indicators of Child Well-Being),

Current Population Reports, P70-68. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

Table A.

Households Possessing Selected Consumer Durable Items: 1998

Item Number of

households

(thousands)

Telephone

Clothes

washer

(percent)

Air conditioning

(percent)

Dishwasher

(percent)

Computer

(percent)

Cellular

phone

Percent (percent)

90-percent

confidence

interval (±)

Total ........................

Age of Householder

102,652 96.2 0.2 82.1 77.7 56.0 42.0 36.3

15 to 29 years . . ................. 12,686 92.7 0.7 66.2 77.4 47.4 40.4 35.4

30 to 44 years . . ................. 34,628 95.8 0.3 83.0 78.0 59.2 53.7 43.1

45 to 64 years . . ................. 33,550 96.8 0.3 86.5 77.9 60.6 46.9 40.9

65 years and older ...............

Sex of Householder

21,788 97.8 0.3 82.9 77.0 49.0 16.8 18.8

Male . . . ......................... 56,448 96.3 0.2 84.2 78.5 60.2 47.5 40.0

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

Race/Ethicity of Householder

46,204 96.0 0.3 79.4 76.8 51.0 35.2 31.7

White ........................... 86,272 97.0 0.2 84.7 78.4 59.1 44.0 37.7

Non-Hispanic .................. 78,219 97.3 0.2 86.2 79.3 61.8 45.9 39.3

Black . . . ........................ 12,474 90.9 0.8 67.5 77.5 34.8 26.3 27.2

Other race ....................... 3,906 94.9 1.0 70.9 63.0 55.2 48.5 34.5

Hispanic (of any race) .............

Household Income Quintile

8,794 93.8 0.8 67.8 69.2 32.8 25.4 22.0

Lowest quintile ................... 20,520 90.1 0.6 64.4 70.3 29.0 16.0 12.5

2nd quintile ...................... 20,527 94.9 0.5 77.4 74.5 43.3 25.3 21.3

3rd quintile ...................... 20,538 97.7 0.3 83.4 79.7 56.1 39.6 33.7

4th quintile . . ..................... 20,530 98.8 0.2 90.5 81.3 68.2 55.9 48.3

Highest quintile ...................

Education of Householder

20,533 99.5 0.1 94.5 82.7 83.5 73.2 65.5

Less than high school graduate .... 17,744 91.6 0.6 73.5 70.6 27.6 11.9 13.2

High school graduate ............. 31,111 95.4 0.4 83.2 77.8 50.8 31.1 31.1

Some college .................... 29,009 97.1 0.3 82.8 78.7 61.6 48.3 40.8

Bachelor’s or higher ..............

Householder Disability

24,788 99.4 0.1 85.8 81.4 76.5 69.8 54.0

Disabled ......................... 9,720 91.2 0.8 73.9 71.3 37.7 27.4 20.8

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

Household Type

Nonfamily household

92,932 96.7 0.2 82.9 78.4 58.0 43.5 37.9

Lives alone . . .................. 28,005 94.8 0.4 67.4 74.2 43.7 25.0 23.5

Lives with others ...............

Family Household

3,647 95.2 1.0 68.8 73.0 53.4 45.4 39.7

Married, no children ............ 27,345 98.7 0.2 93.0 82.6 68.4 45.8 43.1

Married, children ............... 26,955 97.5 0.3 92.3 81.3 67.5 62.1 49.6

Unmarried, no children .......... 5,804 95.6 0.8 79.2 73.5 42.6 30.9 25.6

Unmarried, children .............

Tenure

10,896 90.5 0.8 73.0 69.3 36.4 31.2 23.6

Owner . . ........................ 68,632 98.2 0.1 95.5 81.4 66.0 47.7 42.6

Renter ..........................

Region

34,020 92.0 0.4 54.8 70.3 35.9 30.5 23.4

Northeast ........................ 19,808 97.3 0.3 76.9 68.4 50.0 42.0 33.6

Midwest ......................... 25,144 96.8 0.3 83.8 82.9 52.2 42.1 37.9

South . . . ........................ 36,086 94.9 0.3 85.5 94.0 58.6 38.5 36.1

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

Metropolitan Status

21,614 96.6 0.4 79.0 53.0 61.7 47.6 37.1

Central city ...................... 13,104 93.8 0.6 65.7 75.1 55.4 42.5 33.9

Metropolitan, outside central city . . . 72,974 96.8 0.2 83.1 78.4 58.5 44.1 38.1

Nonmetropolitan .................. 16,573 95.5 0.5 90.3 76.7 45.7 32.3 30.0

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1996 Panel Wave 8.
The living standards of U.S. house- WHAT DID PEOPLE HAVE?

holds are traditionally measured by WHAT DID THEY LACK?

income. This report takes a differ- EXTENDED MEASURES OF

ent approach. It measures living WELL-BEING IN 1998

standards in terms of extended The questions in the 1998 SIPP cov- measures of well-being of house- ered many specific items, such as holds (see box) tracked in the SIPP possessing a telephone, having a to help deepen our knowledge leaky roof, and whether there were about household conditions in abandoned buildings in the neigh- ways not captured by money borhood. In addition, respondents alone. Some aspects of well-being, were asked to rate their satisfaction

such as fear of crime or quality of with items such as the coolness of

local public services, are only their homes in summer, the safety loosely connected with money. of their neighborhoods, and the Other measures are more closely quality of police services in their related to income but are also communities. Together, these indi- affected by other factors, such as cators help to provide a portrait of cost of living, age, disability sta- the overall level of well-being peo- tus, and sudden changes in cir- ple experience. cumstances. Extended measures

of well-being provide a fuller, more Appliances and 

complete, and detailed picture of Electronic Goods 

living conditions of households in Possession of common types of the United States than income appliances and electronic goods is alone provides. an important measure of well-being.

A household that has items such as

a telephone and a refrigerator meets

minimum standards of functioning

in modern American society. Items

such as air conditioning, dishwashers, and clothes washers show the

ability to reap the rewards of past

economic growth. Possession of

computers and cellular phones indicate the ability and willingness to

take advantage of new technology.

In 1998, overall possession of different appliances and electronic

goods varied considerably (Table

A). Telephones were nearly universal — 96 percent of households

had one. At the other extreme,

less than half of all households

had computers or cellular phones

(42 percent and 36 percent,

respectively). In between were

several appliances providing comfort and convenience. Clothes

washers were found in 82 percent

of U.S. households; over threequarters of households had air

conditioning; and a majority had

dishwashing machines.4

The relationship between levels of

income and possession of appliances and electronic goods was

especially strong (Figure 1). Only a

minority of households in the lowest income quintile had dishwashers, computers, or cellular telephones. Among high-income

households, 65 percent had cellular phones, 73 percent had computers, and 84 percent had dishwashers. Among households in the

lowest income quintile, 90 percent

had telephones, compared with 

99 percent in the highest quintile.

U.S. Census Bureau 3

4 The estimates of this report are based

on responses from a sample of the population. As with all surveys, estimates may

vary from the actual values because of sampling variation or other factors. All comparisons made in this report have undergone

statistical testing and are significant at the

90-percent confidence level unless otherwise

noted.

Figure 1.

Households Possessing Selected Consumer 

Durables by Income Quintile: 1998

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

1996 Panel Wave 8.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Highest

quintile

Lowest Second Third Fourth

quintile

Percent

Cellular phone

Telephone

Clothes washer

Dishwasher

Computer
Housing Conditions lower likelihood of being pest-free. group that came close was houseIn all these groups, 80 percent or holds with unmarried parents In 1998, most households in the less said they were free from (91 percent, not significantly differ- United States were satisfied with

pests. The vast majority (93 per- ent from 90 percent). These their housing. Very few reported cent) of all households also said households fared badly in nearly specific problems such as leaking they did not have a leaking roof or all housing measures. They were roofs or problems with pests (Table ceiling. Households whose refer- less likely than married household- B). The majority reported being ence person was disabled stood ers without children to be satisfied somewhat satisfied or very satis- out as more likely to cite this prob- with their home (91 percent com- fied with their home and its comlem, but even in this group 88 per- pared with 98 percent), its repair fort in summer and winter. 

cent had no leaks. (84 percent compared with 95 perAssessment of their home’s state cent), its coolness (82 percent

of repair was overwhelmingly Similar to the high level of satisfac- compared with 94 percent), and its

favorable, with 92 percent of tion with household repair, homes warmth (84 percent compared with

households at least somewhat sat- were almost always considered 95 percent). 

isfied. Freedom from problems cool enough in summer and warm

with pests such as rats, mice, enough in winter. When asked to Neighborhood Conditions and

give an overall rating of their Community Services roaches, or other insects was cited

by 87 percent of households. homes, 96 percent were somewhat Neighborhood and community are

Hispanic households, disabled or very satisfied. No subgroup had important aspects of well-being.

households, and households less than 90 percent express satis- The SIPP questionnaire asked

unmarried with children had a faction with their housing, but one households if they sometimes

4 U.S. Census Bureau

Air Conditioning 

Although income is important,

other factors also influence

possession of appliances and

electronic goods. Air conditioning illustrates one such

case. The SIPP questionnaire

asked respondents to rate the

coolness of their homes in

summer, allowing comparison

of the effect of air conditioning

in each of the four regions of

the country (Figure 2). At least

90 percent of households with

air conditioning were satisfied

with the coolness of their

homes, whatever their region

of residence. The lack of an air

conditioner affected household

comfort more strongly in the

South than in other regions.

Only 67 percent of Southern

households without air-conditioning were satisfied with the

coolness of their homes in

summer, compared with 83

percent of Northeastern households without air conditioning. 

Figure 2.

Households Satisfied with Coolness of Home in 

Summer by Possession of Air Conditioner 

and Region: 1998

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

1996 Panel Wave 8.

Satisfied with coolness of home, have air conditioning

Satisfied with coolness of home, no air conditioning

(In percent)

Northeast Midwest South West

91.5

83.0

93.0

76.4

95.1

67.4

90.6

76.6
U.S. Census Bureau 5

Table B.

Households Reporting Satisfactory Housing Conditions: 1998

(In percent)

Item Home in

good repair

No insects

or pests

Roof does

not leak

House is cool

in summer

House is warm

in winter

Overall housing

satisfaction

Total . . ........................

Age of Householder

92.2 87.3 93.1 89.7 91.2 95.7

15 to 29 years ...................... 90.2 86.5 93.6 85.2 83.7 94.1

30 to 44 years ...................... 91.3 86.3 93.1 87.6 89.7 94.7

45 to 64 years ...................... 92.8 87.6 92.9 91.1 92.9 96.1

65 years and older ..................

Sex of Householder

94.1 89.2 93.2 93.8 95.2 97.5

Male .............................. 93.5 88.5 93.8 90.7 92.4 96.3

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

Race/Ethnicity of Householder

90.7 85.9 92.3 88.6 89.7 95.0

White ............................. 93.0 88.3 93.6 90.2 91.6 96.2

Non-Hispanic . . . . ................. 93.5 89.4 93.8 90.8 92.0 96.6

Black . . . ........................... 87.5 80.9 91.0 87.3 89.4 92.6

Other race ......................... 90.3 85.7 90.1 86.5 88.2 93.4

Hispanic (of any race) ...............

Household Income Quintile

88.3 78.2 90.9 84.9 86.9 92.8

Lowest quintile . . . .................. 87.9 82.2 90.4 86.3 87.7 93.1

2nd quintile ........................ 90.7 86.2 92.4 87.8 89.1 94.7

3rd quintile ......................... 92.8 87.9 93.8 89.9 91.3 96.0

4th quintile ......................... 94.1 89.3 94.5 91.3 93.1 96.9

Highest quintile .....................

Education of Householder

95.7 91.1 94.5 93.5 94.7 97.8

Less than high school graduate ...... 88.1 81.5 90.3 86.8 89.2 93.6

High school graduate ............... 91.9 87.9 93.4 89.9 91.2 95.4

Some college ...................... 92.6 87.7 93.5 89.3 90.5 95.7

Bachelor’s or higher .................

Householder Disability

95.2 90.4 94.3 92.2 93.3 97.5

Disabled ........................... 86.3 79.3 88.1 83.6 87.0 92.1

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

Household Type

Nonfamily household

92.8 88.2 93.6 90.4 91.6 96.1

Lives alone ...................... 92.3 88.1 92.6 89.7 90.9 96.1

Lives with others .................

Family household

91.0 87.4 93.1 84.7 85.5 95.1

Married, no children ............... 95.3 90.5 94.7 93.7 94.8 97.5

Married, children .................. 92.9 87.0 93.4 90.0 91.5 95.7

Unmarried, no children ............ 90.4 85.9 91.6 88.4 90.6 95.2

Unmarried, children ...............

Tenure

84.2 78.9 90.6 81.7 84.2 90.6

Owner . . ........................... 94.0 89.5 93.6 92.5 94.3 97.4

Renter .............................

Region

88.6 83.0 92.2 84.3 84.9 92.2

Northeast .......................... 91.7 89.3 92.4 88.8 90.7 95.3

Midwest ........................... 92.9 90.9 94.5 90.2 90.9 96.4

South ............................. 92.3 85.9 93.2 93.4 92.9 96.1

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

Metropolitan Status

91.8 83.8 92.0 84.0 88.9 94.5

Central city . ....................... 91.3 86.2 94.4 85.4 82.0 94.4

Metropolitan, outside central city ...... 92.5 87.8 93.1 90.2 92.3 95.8

Nonmetropolitan .................... 91.8 86.3 92.3 91.3 93.6 96.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1996 Panel Wave 8.
stayed at home due to fear of this question, with 77 percent of

crime. The questionnaire had them the lowest-income households and

rate police, health services, trash 94 percent of the highest-income

or litter in the neighborhood, rela- households able to say they did

tions with neighbors, and overall not stay home due to fear.

satisfaction with the neighborhood Education also had a large impact.

in which they lived. As with hous- Nearly 79 percent of householders

ing conditions, most households with less than a high school diplorated all these qualities favorably ma, but 91 percent of households

(Table C). with a bachelor’s degree, were not

constrained by fear. The vast majority of U.S. households was satisfied with police Other aspects of neighborhood and

services, with few dramatic differ- community were also satisfactory

ences across groups, and most did to the great majority of housenot fear for their safety when leav- holds. Of all U.S. households, 

ing their homes. When asked if 89 percent were satisfied with hosthey stayed at home at certain pitals, health clinics, and doctors;

times because they thought it 92 percent said there was no probmight be unsafe, 87 percent of lem with trash or litter in the area;

households said no. Strong and 95 percent were satisfied with

income differences appeared on their relations with neighbors.

Overall, 95 percent of households

were somewhat or very satisfied

with the neighborhood in which

they lived.6

Attitudes about neighborhood

depended on where a person lived.

The differences across region and

metropolitan status were not large,

but interesting patterns emerged.

Of the four regions in the United

States, the West contained the

smallest proportion of people satisfied with neighborhood conditions.

For example, 90 percent of Western

households were satisfied with

police services, compared with 

93 percent of Southern households.

Among Western households, 

6 U.S. Census Bureau

6 Overall ratings of relations with neighbors and satisfaction with neighborhood

were not significantly different.

Man’s Best Friend

Some households react to fear of

crime by getting a dog. According to

data from the SIPP, 33 percent of U.S.

households had a dog (Figure 3), but

safety was not always the reason.

Less than one-third (30 percent) of

the 34 million households with dogs

said they got their dog in part to

keep their homes safe from thieves

or intruders.5

Households that considered their

neighborhoods safe were more likely

to have a dog than households that

considered their neighborhoods

unsafe: 33 percent and 29 percent,

respectively; however, households in

unsafe neighborhoods were much

more likely to cite safety as the reason for getting a dog — 52 percent

compared with 28 percent.

5 The SIPP asked a slightly different question than other surveys, with much different

results than have been reported elsewhere.

Surveys by the American Pet association indicated that 79 percent of owners considered

security when acquiring a dog. American Pet

Association, “Fun Pet Statistics,” Taken from

American Pet Association Polls,

www.apapets.com/petstats2.htm, April 2002.

Figure 3.

Ownership of Dogs and Reason for Acquiring 

Dogs by Rating of Neighborhood Safety: 1998

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

1996 Panel Wave 8.

All

Neighborhood is safe

Neighborhood is unsafe

(In percent)

Of households with a dog,

percent saying it is for safety

Of all households,

percent having a dog

32.7 33.1

28.8 30.1 28.3

52.5
U.S. Census Bureau 7

Table C.

Households Reporting Satisfactory Neighborhood and Community Conditions: 1998

(In percent)

Does not Satisfied Satisfied with No litter, Good relaItem stay home with police health trash in tions with Satisfied with

due to fear services services vicinity neighbors neighborhood

Total . . .............................. 87.1 91.9 89.2 91.8 95.1 95.0

Age of Householder

15 to 29 years ............................ 88.2 87.0 84.3 89.8 92.2 93.5

30 to 44 years ............................ 89.5 91.1 88.6 91.1 94.3 94.2

45 to 64 years ............................ 88.0 92.0 89.5 92.1 95.4 95.2

65 years and older ........................ 81.4 95.7 92.6 93.6 97.3 97.0

Sex of Householder

Male .................................... 91.9 92.3 89.4 92.9 95.6 96.0

Female . . ................................ 81.4 91.3 88.9 90.5 94.4 93.8

Race/Ethnicity of Householder

White ................................... 88.6 92.3 89.3 93.1 95.3 95.8

Non-Hispanic . . . . ....................... 89.5 92.5 89.3 93.8 95.5 96.2

Black . . . ................................. 77.9 89.2 89.1 83.2 93.5 89.8

Other race ............................... 85.2 89.8 87.2 90.5 94.7 94.4

Hispanic (of any race) ..................... 78.9 91.3 89.0 86.3 93.1 91.2

Household Income Quintile

Lowest quintile . . . ........................ 77.2 89.9 88.2 88.5 94.1 92.8

2nd quintile .............................. 85.5 91.2 88.4 90.2 94.5 93.9

3rd quintile ............................... 88.7 91.7 87.6 91.5 95.0 95.1

4th quintile ............................... 90.6 92.8 89.8 93.8 95.2 96.0

Highest quintile ........................... 93.8 93.7 91.9 95.1 96.6 97.3

Education of Householder

Less than high school graduate ............ 78.7 92.0 89.4 87.9 94.4 92.8

High school graduate ..................... 87.1 91.1 88.5 92.0 95.2 95.0

Some college ............................ 88.8 91.1 88.2 91.8 94.6 94.8

Bachelor’s or higher ....................... 91.4 93.7 91.1 94.4 96.0 96.9

Householder Disability

Disabled ................................. 78.7 87.4 84.9 86.5 92.1 91.4

Not disabled ............................. 88.0 92.3 89.6 92.4 95.4 95.4

Household Structure

Nonfamily household

Lives alone ............................ 83.6 92.1 89.8 91.7 95.4 95.3

Lives with others ....................... 87.8 89.4 86.1 89.8 93.8 94.1

Family household

Married, no children ..................... 90.3 93.2 90.1 93.5 96.5 96.6

Married, children ........................ 90.6 92.3 89.0 93.1 94.8 95.3

Unmarried, no children .................. 84.1 91.3 89.6 91.2 95.1 94.4

Unmarried, children ..................... 81.1 87.9 86.5 85.6 91.6 90.1

Tenure

Owner . . ................................. 89.6 92.8 90.2 93.8 96.3 96.5

Renter ................................... 82.3 89.9 87.1 87.9 92.6 92.0

Region

Northeast ................................ 88.1 92.5 90.6 90.5 94.9 94.6

Midwest ................................. 88.9 91.9 90.7 92.9 94.9 95.8

South ................................... 86.3 92.7 88.8 92.3 96.4 95.6

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.6 90.0 86.9 91.1 93.2 93.6

Metropolitan Status

Central city . ............................. 85.4 86.9 85.5 89.8 93.5 93.1

Metropolitan, outside central city ............ 86.7 93.1 90.9 92.0 95.1 95.1

Nonmetropolitan .......................... 90.6 90.5 84.7 92.8 96.0 96.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1996 Panel Wave 8.
94 percent expressed overall satisfaction with their neighborhoods,

compared with 96 percent of

Midwestern households.

In metropolitan areas, householders were likely to give a good rating to available health services

(doctors and hospitals). This was

especially true for households in

metropolitan areas outside the central city (Figure 4). Nonmetropolitan households, on the other

hand, were more likely to give a

high mark to their relations with

neighbors, to report that there was

no nearby place where they would

be afraid to walk, and to express

satisfaction with their neighborhood. No significant differences

between city residents and others

appeared in the rating of public

schools.

Meeting Basic Needs 

For some households, making ends

meet is a central challenge to wellbeing. The topical module on

extended measures of well-being

asked households if there were a

time in the last 12 months when

they did not meet “essential

expenses.” In addition, the questionnaire asked about specific difficulties meeting basic needs, such

as not paying utility bills, not paying mortgage or rent, needing to

see the doctor or dentist but not

going, having telephone or utility

service shut off, being evicted, or

not getting enough to eat. In 1998,

just over one U.S. household in five

(21 percent) had at least one difficulty meeting basic needs in the

previous 12 months (Figure 5). 

The most commonly-mentioned

specific difficulty, mentioned by 

9 percent of households, was not

paying utility bills. After that, it

was most common to skip needed

dental or medical care (8 percent

8 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 4.

Households with Favorable Rating of Neighborhood 

and Community by Metropolitan Residence: 1998

* Includes only households with children under 18.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

1996 Panel Wave 8.

Central city

Metropolitan outside city

Nonmetropolitan

(In percent)

No place nearby

where afraid to walk

Satisfied with

public schools*

Satisfied with

health services

85.5

90.9

84.7

88.1

86.7

87.1

67.3

70.7

76.9

Figure 5.

Households with Difficulty Meeting Basic Needs in 

Past 12 Months, by Type of Difficulty: 1998

Note: Some households experienced more than one difficulty meeting basic needs.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

1996 Panel Wave 8.

(In percent)

Were evicted

Had utility service cut

Did not have enough food

Had phone service cut

Didn't pay rent/mortgage

Needed to, but did not visit doctor

Needed to, but did not visit dentist

Didn't pay utility bill

Didn't meet essential expenses

Experienced any difficulty 21.2

14.0

9.2

7.9

6.1

5.4

3.9

2.2

1.3

0.3
U.S. Census Bureau 9

Table D.

Households Experiencing Difficulty Meeting Basic Needs in Past 12 Months: 1998

(In percent)

Item Any

difficulty

Did not pay

utility bills

Food

insecurity

Needed to

visit dentist

Needed to

visit doctor

Did not pay rent

or mortgage

Total . . . ............................

Age of Householder

21.2 9.2 9.1 7.9 6.1 5.4

15 to 29 years ........................... 30.8 13.9 12.7 11.8 7.9 8.3

30 to 44 years ........................... 26.3 12.4 10.8 9.9 7.4 7.8

45 to 64 years ........................... 19.6 8.0 8.4 7.4 6.4 4.6

65 years and older .......................

Sex of Householder

9.9 3.0 5.3 3.2 2.7 1.1

Male ................................... 17.5 6.9 7.1 6.8 5.1 4.5

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

Race/Ethnicity of Householder

25.7 11.8 11.5 9.2 7.4 6.5

White .................................. 19.0 7.6 7.6 7.5 5.6 4.7

Non-Hispanic .......................... 17.7 7.1 6.4 7.2 5.4 4.1

Black ................................... 36.4 20.0 18.2 10.8 9.5 10.4

Other race .............................. 20.5 7.8 13.6 7.8 6.5 5.5

Hispanic (of any race) . ...................

Household Income Quintile

32.8 13.8 19.3 10.9 8.9 10.3

Lowest quintile .......................... 33.9 14.7 20.2 11.8 11.2 9.3

2nd quintile ............................. 27.0 12.8 12.0 11.0 8.3 7.4

3rd quintile .............................. 22.3 9.6 7.5 8.6 5.9 5.2

4th quintile . . . ........................... 14.9 6.1 4.0 5.4 3.6 3.3

Highest quintile ..........................

Education of Householder

7.9 2.6 1.7 2.7 1.7 1.6

Less than high school graduate ........... 29.4 12.4 17.0 10.1 9.5 7.1

High school graduate . . . ................. 23.0 10.8 9.6 8.4 6.3 6.3

Some college ........................... 23.1 10.1 8.5 9.1 6.7 6.0

Bachelor’s or higher ......................

Householder Disability

10.8 3.7 3.3 4.4 2.9 2.2

Disabled ................................ 42.5 19.2 24.8 16.5 16.2 11.8

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

Household Structure

Nonfamily household

19.0 8.1 7.4 7.0 5.1 4.7

Lives alone ........................... 20.1 7.2 9.6 7.7 6.7 4.5

Lives with others ......................

Family household

24.4 7.6 9.0 11.7 9.1 4.9

Married, no children .................... 10.8 3.8 3.8 4.2 3.3 2.2

Married, children ....................... 21.4 10.0 7.6 8.0 5.6 5.7

Unmarried, no children ................. 24.2 9.8 10.8 9.4 8.1 5.8

Unmarried, children ....................

Tenure

46.7 25.8 23.6 15.5 11.3 14.7

Owner .................................. 14.9 6.1 5.2 5.5 4.3 3.2

Renter . .................................

Region

33.9 15.3 16.8 12.8 10.0 9.8

Northeast ............................... 19.6 9.2 8.5 6.8 4.4 5.0

Midwest ................................ 20.1 9.4 8.1 6.9 5.8 5.1

South .................................. 21.8 9.0 9.2 8.6 7.0 5.2

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

Metropolitan Status

22.9 9.2 10.5 9.0 6.6 6.3

Central city ............................. 30.9 14.0 14.3 11.7 9.2 9.1

Metropolitan, outside central city ........... 19.7 8.5 8.3 7.3 5.5 5.0

Nonmetropolitan ......................... 20.3 8.3 8.3 7.6 6.4 4.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1996 Panel Wave 8.
and 6 percent, respectively), followed by mortgage or rent payments (5 percent). Few households got so far in arrears that

their phone service or utility service were cut, and less than 1 percent of households reported being

evicted from their home for nonpayment of rent or mortgage in the

preceding 12 months.

As with other measures of wellbeing, characteristics of the householder, particularly age and

income, made a large difference in

meeting basic needs. Among

households with householders 

65 and older, 10 percent had at

least one difficulty meeting basic

needs. By contrast, 31 percent of

households with householders

under the age of 30 had difficulties

(Table D). Similarly, 8 percent of

households in the upper income

quintile, compared with 34 percent

of those in the lowest income quintile, had at least one difficulty

meeting basic needs.

Two other notable factors which

affected basic needs were disability and household structure.

Approximately 43 percent of

households with householders

with work-related disabilities experienced difficulty meeting basic

needs, and about half of all unmarried-with-children households 

(47 percent) had at least one difficulty meeting basic needs. 

Differences by metropolitan location were not large. Central city

households reported more difficulty meeting basic needs than

households in nonmetropolitan

areas or in metropolitan areas outside central cities. Difficulties

meeting basic needs were not significantly different between the latter two areas. 

While income was important, even

the highest-income households had

incidents of difficulty meeting basic

needs. For example, 8 percent of

households in the highest income

category (over $5,640 per month)

had at least one difficulty meeting

basic needs, 3 percent did not pay

utility bills, and 2 percent needed to

see a doctor but did not go. 

A high-income household might

have problems meeting basic

needs for several reasons. In some

households, individuals such as

roommates or boarders may live

on a separate budget, and may

have difficulty although total

income in the household is high.

In addition, income and household

composition can fluctuate greatly

over the course of time, leading to

financial shortfalls, and some people extend their resources to the

limit, despite their high income. 

Getting Help When in Need 

When households do run into trouble, they are likely to need help.

The vast majority (86 percent) of

households believed they could

find most or all of the help they

needed if the need arose (Table E).

The most commonly cited sources

were family (43 percent) and

friends (31 percent). Community

groups, churches, and social service agencies were considered a

probable source of help by only 

17 percent of households.7

Unlike most other extended measures of well-being, the expectation

that help would be available if

needed did not vary greatly by

characteristics. However, when

households did need help, their

characteristics affected their chance

of receiving it. Only 19 percent of

households that experienced difficulty meeting basic needs reported

actually receiving help from friends,

family, or others, but the proportions ranged from 30 percent

10 U.S. Census Bureau

7 These values sum to more than 86 percent because multiple choices were allowed.

8 See Kurt J. Bauman, “Direct Measures of

Poverty as Indicators of Economic Need:

Evidence from the Survey of Income and

Program Participation,” Working Paper Series,

no. 30, Population Division, U.S. Census

Bureau, 1998.

among households in the lowest

income quintile to 7 percent among

those in the highest. That is to say,

those with the greatest chance of

getting help were also those with

the greatest chance of experiencing

difficulties. 

WHO IS DOING WELL? 

THE DISTRIBUTION OF

WELL-BEING IN 1998

While income is strongly related to

well-being, household characteristics such as age, race and Hispanic

origin, and place of residence are

also important, even controlling for

income. Earlier analyses of wellbeing showed that measures of

income and assets explain part,

but not all, of the differences in

well-being across types of households.8 In fact, sometimes a group

with less money had a higher level

of well-being. The leading example is age, as examined in the next

section. 

To obtain a better overview of the

relation between household characteristics and well-being, it is convenient to examine selected measures from topical areas or

“domains” of well-being (see box

on page 1). In addition, one can

create measures that provide an

overall summary of a domain. An

example of a summary measure is

“fewer than two difficulties meeting basic needs,” which indicates

there were fewer than two

instances of households not meeting expenses, not paying utility

bills, or any of the other measures

from the section on difficulty meeting basic needs. A summary measure of housing repair is whether

households reported any problems

with pests, leaky roofs, broken
U.S. Census Bureau 11

Table E.

Households Expecting Help and Receiving Help When in Need: 1998

(In percent)

Item

Help expected from:

Help received

Family Friend Agency Any source when in need*

Total

Age of Householder

43.8 31.4 16.7 86.5 19.2

15 to 29 years . . . . . ............................ 46.3 32.3 12.9 89.4 21.2

30 to 44 years . . . . . ............................ 39.4 29.8 13.9 86.2 19.2

45 to 64 years . . . . . ............................ 40.6 30.0 16.8 84.1 18.1

65 years and older . ............................

Sex of Householder

54.3 35.4 23.2 89.1 18.5

Male ......................................... 43.2 32.2 16.8 86.4 15.8

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

Race/Ethnicity of Householder

44.5 30.4 16.5 86.7 22.0

White ......................................... 45.0 32.7 17.0 87.4 18.2

Non-Hispanic ................................ 45.3 33.3 17.5 88.0 17.9

Black ......................................... 37.0 23.8 16.4 81.2 22.3

Other race .................................... 37.8 25.5 10.8 83.9 20.0

Hispanic (of any race) ..........................

Household Income Quintile

40.8 26.0 12.4 81.3 19.9

Lowest quintile ................................ 45.8 29.0 18.4 84.7 30.0

2nd quintile ................................... 44.2 31.3 17.3 85.7 17.3

3rd quintile .................................... 44.0 32.1 16.4 87.2 13.4

4th quintile . . .................................. 42.7 31.5 15.7 87.1 13.2

Highest quintile ................................

Education of Householder

42.4 32.9 15.7 88.0 7.2

Less than high school graduate .................. 46.7 28.5 18.5 83.8 23.0

High school graduate ........................... 47.2 31.6 16.9 87.5 20.3

Some college .................................. 42.2 31.3 16.1 86.1 16.9

Bachelor’s or higher ............................

Householder Disability

39.3 33.1 15.8 87.9 14.5

Disabled . . . ................................... 37.6 24.6 15.2 80.0 27.4

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

Household Structure

Nonfamily household

44.4 32.1 16.8 87.2 17.2

Lives alone .................................. 46.9 34.9 17.8 88.2 21.5

Lives with others .............................

Family household

36.5 32.4 11.2 85.3 14.5

Married, no children .......................... 47.4 33.3 19.3 87.0 14.6

Married, children ............................. 41.2 29.5 15.9 86.8 14.5

Unmarried, no children ....................... 44.5 28.7 16.4 85.8 20.7

Unmarried, children ..........................

Tenure

35.1 23.0 11.2 80.9 25.0

Owner ........................................ 46.0 33.4 18.6 87.8 15.6

Renter ........................................

Region

39.3 27.3 12.8 83.9 22.3

Northeast ..................................... 44.3 29.8 14.8 86.6 17.3

Midwest ...................................... 43.8 28.9 14.8 87.3 18.2

South ......................................... 46.0 34.1 21.4 86.5 20.0

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

Metropolitan Status

39.5 31.0 12.7 85.6 20.3

Central city .................................... 39.6 29.7 12.7 84.6 22.3

Metropolitan, outside central city . ................ 43.9 30.9 16.1 86.7 17.8

Nonmetropolitan ............................... 46.8 34.6 22.4 87.1 21.0

* The universe for this question includes only households that had a difficulty meeting basic needs.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1996 Panel Wave 8.
12 U.S. Census Bureau

windows, exposed wires, plumbing, cracks in walls, or holes in the

floor. Similarly, a summary measure of neighborhood conditions is

whether problems existed with

street repair, traffic, trash or litter,

abandoned buildings, commercial/

industrial buildings, or smoke or

odors. A household was counted

as having a “full set” of appliances

if it had a clothes washer and

dryer, a refrigerator, a stove, a

dishwasher, and a telephone. 

Age Differences in Well-Being 

Age was associated with nearly all

measures of well-being examined in

this report. The general pattern

was that older householders had

higher levels of well-being (Figure

6). This was true of difficulties

meeting basic needs: 97 percent of

households with householders 

65 or older had fewer than two difficulties, compared with 85 percent

of households with householders

age 15 to 29. For problems with

the state or repair of homes, the 

65 and over group was better off

than the 15 to 29 group (82 percent

compared with 78 percent, respectively). Problems with neighborhood conditions affected 66 percent

of the oldest group and 58 percent

of the youngest group. In addition,

households with householders aged

65 or over fared better than some

younger groups in terms of help

expected when in need. However,

the group with the lowest expectation was households with householders aged 45 to 64, with only 

84 percent expecting help, compared with 89 percent of the older

group. 

Two exceptions to the pattern of

higher well-being among households with householders aged 

65 and over were fear of crime and

possession of appliances and electronic goods. Households with

householders 65 or older

expressed greater fear of crime

(were more likely to stay at home)

than any other age group. They

were also less likely to possess a

full set of appliances than households with householders in the 

30 to 44 year-old range or the 

45 to 64 year-old range. 

The relation between well-being

and age is not easily explained.

Lack of appliances and fear of

crime seem to reflect the relatively

low income of households with

householders 65 or older.9

9 The median income of households

maintained by people aged 65 and over was

$21,729 in 1998, compared with $43,167 in

the 55 to 64 year-old group. Households

headed by 15- to 24-year-olds had the lowest income of any group under 65, but their

income was significantly higher than the 65

and over group, at $23,564. See U.S.

Census Bureau, Money Income in the United

States: 1998, Series P60-206, 1999.

However, their lack of

neighborhood problems, lack of

home repair problems, and their

ability to avoid difficulties meeting

basic needs are in the opposite

direction from what would be predicted by income differences.

More than any other factor, these

age-related patterns illustrate that

extended measures of well-being

do not depend on income alone.

Well-Being by Race and

Ethnicity 

Race and ethnicity made a significant difference in all domains of

well-being. Both Hispanic households and Black households had

lower levels of well-being than

White non-Hispanic households on

measures of difficulty meeting

basic needs, expectation of help,

fear of crime, housing repair,

Figure 6.

General Indicators of Household Well-Being 

by Age of Householder: 1998

1

A "full set of appliances" includes a stove, a refrigerator, a clothes washer, a clothes 

dryer, a dishwasher, and a telephone.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

1996 Panel Wave 8.

0

20

40

60

80

100

15 to 29 30 to 44 45 to 64 65 or older

Percent

Age of householder

Help expected

if need arose

Full set of appliances1

Satisfactory 

neighborhood 

conditions

No problem with 

housing repair

Never stayed home 

due to fear of crime

Fewer than two 

difficulties meeting 

basic needs
neighborhood conditions, and

possession of appliances and electronic goods (Figure 7).10

The largest difference in well-being

was in possession of appliances.

While more than half of White nonHispanic households possessed a

full set of appliances, this was true

of only one-quarter of Hispanic

U.S. Census Bureau 13

10 Because Hispanics may be of any race,

data in this report for Hispanics overlap

slightly with data for the Black population.

Based on data from Wave 8 of the 1996

Panel of the SIPP, 4 percent of Black householders were also of Hispanic origin. Data

for Asians and Pacific Islanders and for

American Indian and Alaska Native populations are not shown in this report because of

their small sample size in the 1998 Panel of

the SIPP.

households. Black households

were not far ahead of Hispanic

households, with 28 percent owning a full set of appliances. At the

other extreme, differences in

expectation of help when in need

were fairly small, with between 

80 percent and 90 percent of all

three groups reporting they could

find most or all of the help they

needed if the situation arose. 

Significant differences existed

between Hispanics and Blacks in

some domains. Hispanics were

worse off than Blacks with respect

to the state of repair of their

homes and possession of appliances. Blacks were comparatively

worse off in their ability to meet

basic needs, in fear of crime, and

in neighborhood conditions.

WHERE DO WE STAND?

CHANGES IN WELL-BEING,

1992-98.

The period 1992 to 1998 was one

of rising economic prosperity.

After a mild recession in 1990 and

1991, the period 1992 to 1998

produced 6 years of growth in percapita gross domestic product

averaging 2.6 percent per year.11

At the same time, poverty fell and

the relative position of households

with the lowest incomes stabilized

or even improved slightly.12

Extended measures of well-being

can be used to answer several

questions about the impact of this

economic growth. The first question addressed here is how economic growth translated into

changes in everyday lives. Did

households have more possessions, were people more satisfied

with their homes and neighborhoods, and were they more likely

to meet basic needs? A second

question has to do with the distribution of rewards. Was this a period when all types of households

benefited? 

Ownership of Appliances 

and Electronic Goods 

In 1998, more U.S. households possessed basic appliances and electronic goods than in 1992 (Table F).

Possession of refrigerators and

stoves was nearly universal in both

1992 and 1998. However, a significantly larger share of the U.S.

11 Per-capita inflation-adjusted gross

domestic product, from U.S. Census Bureau,

Statistical Abstract of the United States:

2001 Table No. 647, page 422. 12 See Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Robert W.

Cleveland, and Marc I. Roemer, Money

Income in the United States: 2000, Current

Population Reports, P60-213, U.S. Census

Bureau, Washington, DC, 2001; and Joseph

Dalaker, Poverty in the United States: 2000,

Current Population Reports, Series P60-214,

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2001.

Figure 7.

General Indicators of Household Well-Being by 

Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder: 1998

1

A "full set of appliances" includes a stove, a refrigerator, a clothes washer, a clothes 

dryer, a dishwasher, and a telephone.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

1996 Panel Wave 8.

White, not Hispanic

Black

Hispanic (of any race)

(In percent)

Full set of appliances1

No neighborhood

problems

No problem with state

of repair of home

Never stayed home due

to fear of crime

Help expected

if need arose

Fewer than two difficulties

meeting basic needs

24.6

92.2

80.8

83.2

88.0

81.2

81.3

89.5

77.9

78.9

81.5

72.7

68.7

63.6

54.9

56.5

56.8

28.3
14 U.S. Census Bureau

Rating Local Schools 

Differences across broad

domains of well-being can be

examined by characteristics

such as income, age, and race.

Other characteristics make a

large impact within a single

domain, such as school enrollment and rating of local

schools. In the 1998 SIPP

questionnaire, households with

children were asked whether

they were satisfied with local

public schools. Those with

children attending school were

asked what type of school they

attended and if they would like

a different school for a child in

their family. 

The vast majority of households with children in public

school were satisfied with the

local public schools. Only 

8 percent expressed dissatisfaction (Figure 8). Even though

they were satisfied, however,

many would be happy to have

a better school, if it were available. Among public-school households, 18 percent

answered yes to the question “Would you prefer a different school for any child in this household?” 

Households with children attending other types of

schools expressed much less satisfaction with the

local public schools. About one-quarter of the

households reporting they had a child in a “magnet,

charter or other public school apart from the

assigned school” rated their local schools less than

satisfactory. Compared with public-school households, they were more likely to say that they would

prefer a different school for at least one child in the

household. This may be because other children in

the household did not attend the magnet or other

program, or it may show that the program itself was

a substitute for other programs that were more highly desired. Private-school households were even less

satisfied with public schools than were households

with children in magnet programs. On the other

hand, private school households were significantly

less likely than public school households to say they

would prefer a different school for a child. 

Households with children schooled at home were a

small fraction of all households (around 2 percent).

Like private-school households, they were likely to

have a less favorable opinion of local public schools

than households with children in public schools.

However, they were more likely than public-school

households to say they would like a different school

for a child in their household. 

Figure 8.

Dissatisfaction With Schools of Households With 

Children, and Desire to Have a Child in a Different 

School by Type of School Attended: 1998

Note: Households where children attended more than one type of school were counted 

more than once in constructing this chart.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

1996 Panel Wave 8.

Not satisfied with local schools

Want different school for child

(In percent)

Home school

Private school

Magnet/special

Public school

Number of

households

(in thousands)

26,242

2,190

3,792

688

8.3

18.0

24.6

20.9

35.4

15.5

37.3

27.5
population had many other possessions in 1998 than in 1992, including telephones, microwave ovens,

videocassette recorders, air conditioners, and dishwashers. Even television ownership increased. In

1992, 97 percent of U.S. households had a color television, and by

1998 the percentage increased an

additional 2 points. As has been

reported elsewhere, the percentage

of households with computers rose

rapidly in the middle of the 1990s,

reaching 42 percent by 1998.13 The

one exception to the general rule of

U.S. Census Bureau 15

13 See Eric Newburger, “Home Computers

and Internet Use in the United States: August

2000,” Current Population Reports, Series

P23-207, (September 2001).

increasing ownership of appliances

and electronic goods was freezers.

A smaller share of households

owned stand-alone freezers in 1998

than in 1992. 

Other Measures of Well-Being 

Ownership of appliances and electronic goods was not the only condition that improved from 1992 to

1998. Households became

increasingly free of budget and

housing problems. Households

with fewer than two difficulties

meeting basic needs grew from 

88 to 90 percent of all households

from 1992 to 1998 (Figure 9).14

Housing and neighborhood conditions also improved. Households

that had no housing repair problems (no broken windows, plumbing problems, pests, leaks, holes,

or cracks) grew from 73 to 79 percent of all households over this

period. Households that had satisfactory neighborhood conditions

(no problems with traffic, litter,

odors, abandoned buildings, or

street repair) grew from 54 to 

62 percent. 

Not surprisingly, a summary indicator measuring whether a household possessed a stove, a refrigerator, a dishwasher, a clothes

washer, a clothes dryer, and a telephone showed an increase. This

indicator is not meant to reflect a

set of “necessary” items, but rather

a set of items of practical value

that are commonly possessed by

U.S. households. From 1992 to

1998 the percentage of households having all these items grew

from 45 percent to 51 percent.

The only indicator of well-being

included in this report that did not

increase during this period was

related to crime and safety. When

14 The criterion of two difficulties meeting

basic needs was chosen because it shows

better reliability over time than a single difficulty.

Table F.

Households Possessing Chosen Consumer Durables and

Electronic Goods: 1992 and 1998

(In percent)

Item

1992 1998

Percent Standard error Percent Standard error

Refrigerator. . . ............. 99.1 0.1 99.3 0.1

Stove ..................... 99.0 0.1 98.7 0.1

Television ................. 96.6 0.2 98.4 0.1

Telephone ................. 94.7 0.2 96.7 0.2

Microwave oven ........... 82.2 0.4 90.7 0.3

Videocassette recorder ..... 73.8 0.4 85.2 0.4

Air conditioner . . . .......... 68.8 0.5 77.7 0.4

Dishwasher................ 49.3 0.5 56.0 0.5

Computer ................. 20.7 0.4 42.0 0.5

Stand-alone freezer ........ 37.1 0.5 34.9 0.5

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1991 Panel Wave 6,

1992 Panel Wave 3, 1996 Panel Wave 8.

Figure 9.

General Indicators of Household 

Well-Being: 1992 to 1998

Never stayed home

due to fear of crime

Fewer than two

difficulties meeting

basic needs

Help expected

if need arose

No problem with

housing repair

Satisfactory

neighborhood

conditions

Full set of

appliances1

(in percent)

1992

1998

1

A "full set of appliances" includes a stove, a refrigerator, a clothes washer, a clothes 

dryer, a dishwasher, and a telephone.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

1996 Panel Wave 8.

87.0

45.3

51.1

53.6

61.8

72.8

79.1

84.2

86.6

88.4

90.4

89.2
respondents were asked if they

stayed at home at certain times

because they thought they might

be unsafe, 89 percent of households in 1992 answered in the

negative, that is, they felt safe

enough that they did not have to

stay at home. In 1998 the percentage that felt safe in this way had

declined to 87 percent — an unexpected result, given that crime victimization was falling during the

same period.15

The Relationship Between

Income and Extended

Measures of Well-Being 

All income groups saw most measures of well-being improve

markedly from 1992 to 1998

(Table G). The lowest income quintile benefited as much as, or more

than, other income groups in each

area that improved, particularly in

percentage terms.16 On the other

hand, the lowest quintile was the

one most affected by the increase

in fear of crime. The percentage of

households whose members felt

safe to leave their homes fell by 

5 percent in the lowest income

quintile from 1992 to 1998, while

it remained the same in the highest quintile.

16 U.S. Census Bureau

15 See Kathleen Maguire and Ann L.

Pastore, eds. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice

Statistics [Online]. Available:

www.albany.edu/sourcebook/ [July 16,

2002]. Trends reported there from polling

organizations and the Bureau of Justice

Statistics show a continuing decline in fear

of crime into the year 2000 and beyond that

might be reflected in future collections of

SIPP data. 16 Income quintiles are five groups of

equal size, ranked according to income,

from the lowest fifth to the highest. In the

1998 SIPP data described here, the lowest

income quintile consisted of households

with income under $1,270 per month for the

previous 4-month period; the second quintile

had incomes between $1,270 and $2,350

per month; the third quintile had incomes

between $2,350 and $3,670 per month; the

fourth quintile had incomes between $3,670

and $5,640 per month; and the highest

quintile consisted of households with average incomes above $5,640 per month.

The lowest income quintile From 1992 to 1998, the increase in

improved more than the highest the proportion of the lowest quintile

quintile with respect to housing possessing a full set of consumer

and neighborhood conditions. The durables equaled the increase in

1992 to 1998 improvement in any other income quintile. The lowhousing conditions for the lowest est quintile’s freedom from difficulty

quintile was 10 percentage points meeting basic needs was higher by

(to 73 percent); that for the highest 3 percentage points (83 percent in

quintile was 3 percent (to 84 per- 1998, compared with 80 percent in

cent). In 1992, 48 percent of low- 1992), an improvement that

income households were free from equaled or surpassed that of any

neighborhood problems. By 1998 other income group. 

this percentage climbed 11 points The only cloud in the picture to 59 percent of low-income examined here was fear of crime, households, while the percentage which climbed from 1992 to 1998, of high-income households especially for low-income house- climbed 7 points to 70 percent.

Table G.

Households With Satisfactory Ratings on Summary

Measures of Well-Being by Income Quintile: 1992 to 1998

(In percent)

Measure of well-being Household

income quintile 1992 1995 1998

Experienced fewer than two

difficulties meeting basic needs .

Never stayed home due to

fear of crime .................

No problem with state of

repair of home ...............

Satisfactory neighborhood

conditions ....................

Possessed full set of

appliances1 ..................

Lowest quintile

2nd quintile

3rd quintile

4th quintile

Highest quintile

Lowest quintile

2nd quintile

3rd quintile

4th quintile

Highest quintile

Lowest quintile

2nd quintile

3rd quintile

4th quintile

Highest quintile

Lowest quintile

2nd quintile

3rd quintile

4th quintile

Highest quintile

Lowest quintile

2nd quintile

3rd quintile

4th quintile

Highest quintile

79.9

83.4

88.3

92.8

97.0

82.5

87.9

90.1

91.7

93.9

63.5

69.5

72.9

77.5

81.2

47.8

50.2

52.4

56.0

62.6

18.5

30.5

42.8

57.2

75.5

81.8

87.9

91.4

95.5

97.8

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

83.0

86.1

90.7

94.5

97.7

77.2

85.5

88.7

90.6

93.8

73.3

76.7

79.9

81.9

84.1

58.7

59.9

59.4

62.4

69.5

23.0

36.2

49.6

64.0

80.7

NA Not available.

1

A ‘‘full set of appliances’’ includes a stove, a refrigerator, a clothes washer, a clothes dryer, a dishwasher, and a telephone.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1991 Panel Wave 6,

1992 Panel Wave 6, 1993 Panel Wave 9, 1996 Panel Wave 8.
holds. In other respects there

were solid gains. Most households

reported better housing conditions,

more satisfaction with their neighborhoods, more appliances and

electronic goods, and fewer difficulties meeting basic needs.

Americans of all economic standing clearly had better material living conditions in 1998 than in

1992.

SOURCE OF THE DATA

A detailed look at how U.S. households were faring during the 1990s

can be derived from three surveys

on “extended measures of wellbeing.” As a supplement to the

SIPP in 1992 and 1998, the Census

Bureau asked about possession of

appliances and electronic goods,

housing conditions, neighborhood

conditions, and ability to meet

basic needs. In 1995, as part of

the same survey program, the

Census Bureau asked a shorter

series of questions focused on ability to meet basic needs. Previous

reports have described the results

of the 1992 and 1995 questionnaires. This report concentrates

on the results from 1998.17

The data in this report were collected from August through

November 1998 in the eighth wave

(interview) of the 1996 Survey of

Income and Program Participation.

The SIPP is a longitudinal survey

U.S. Census Bureau 17

17 Previous reports on this subject

include: Kathleen Short and Martina Shea,

“Beyond Poverty, Extended Measures of WellBeing: 1992,” Current Population Reports,

Household Economic Studies, Series P70 No.

50RV, 1995; and Kurt J. Bauman, “Extended

Measures of Well-Being: Meeting Basic Needs,

1995,” Current Population Reports,

Household Economic Studies, Series P70-67,

June 1999. For further background see Larry

M. Radbill and Kathleen Short, “Extended

Measures of Well-Being: Selected Data from

the 1984 Survey of Income and Program

Participation,” Current Population Reports,

Household Economic Studies, Series P70, No.

26, 1992. 

conducted at 4-month intervals. people who are missed by the surThe population represented (the vey differ from those interviewed

population universe) is the civilian in ways other than age, race, sex,

noninstitutionalized population of and Hispanic origin. How this

the United States. The institution- weighting procedure affects other

alized population, which is exclud- variables in the survey is not preed from the population universe, is cisely known. All of these considcomposed primarily of the popula- erations affect comparisons across

tion in correctional institutions and different surveys or data sources. 

nursing homes (91 percent of the For further information on the 4.1 million institutionalized popu- source of the data and accuracy of lation in Census 2000). the estimates including standard

errors and confidence intervals, go ACCURACY OF THE

ESTIMATES to www.sipp.census.gov/sipp

/sourceac/s&a96_040501.pdf or

Statistics from surveys are subject contact Reid Rottach of the Census

to sampling and nonsampling error. Bureau Demographic Statistical

All comparisons presented in this Methods Division on the Internet at

report have taken sampling error reid.a.rottach@census.gov. into account and are significant at

the 90-percent confidence level. More Information 

This means the 90-percent confi- The electronic version of this report dence interval for the difference is available on the Internet at the between the estimates being com- Census Bureau’s Web site pared does not include zero. (www.census.gov). Detailed tabula- Nonsampling errors in surveys may tions are also available that show be attributed to a variety of demographic characteristics of the sources, such as how the survey population by extended measures was designed, how respondents of well-being. Once on the site, interpret questions, how able and click on “W” under the “Subjects willing respondents are to provide A-Z” heading, and then “Well-being.” correct answers, and how accurately the answers are coded and classi- Contacts 

fied. The Census Bureau employs

For additional information on these quality control procedures throughtopics, contact Kurt J. Bauman, out the production process includEducation and Social Stratification ing the overall design of surveys,

Branch, 301-763-2464 or via the wording of questions, review of

Internet e-mail the work of interviewers and

(kurt.j.bauman@census.gov). coders, and statistical review of

reports to minimize these errors. User Comments 

The Survey of Income and Program The Census Bureau welcomes the Participation weighting procedure comments and advice of data uses ratio estimation whereby users. If you have suggestions or sample estimates are adjusted to comments, please write to: independent estimates of the

national population by age, race, Chief, Population Division

sex and Hispanic origin. This U.S. Census Bureau 

weighting partially corrects for Washington, DC 20233-8800 

bias due to undercoverage, but or send e-mail to pop@census.gov. biases may still be present when