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

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Dynamics of Economic Well-Being:

Poverty 1996-1999

Household Economic Studies

P70-91

Issued July 2003

Current

Population

Reports

By 

John Iceland

Demographic Programs

Most poverty data come from studies conducted at one point in time, or from annual studies conducted on a different set of

people every year. In the 1970s and

1980s, when researchers began analyzing

information from longitudinal studies, a

dynamic view of poverty began to

emerge. The longitudinal data (collected

from the same set of people for several

years) show that a majority of poor individuals do not remain poor for very long

periods of time and a relatively high proportion of people have experienced

poverty at one point or another. Poverty is

Text Box 1. How Do We Measure Poverty? 

Average monthly poverty Average percent of people poor per month in each of

the 4 years (1996-1999). 

Episodic poverty Percent of people who were poor in 2 or more consecutive months in a given time period.

Chronic or long-term poverty Poor every month from 1996 through the end of 1999. 

Annual poverty Percent of people who are poor in a calendar year.

Calculated using the sum of family income over the

year divided by the sum of poverty thresholds that

can change from month to month if one’s family composition changes. 

Spells Number of months in poverty (excluding spells

underway in the first interview month of the panel).

Minimum spell length is 2 months. Spells are separated by 2 or more months of not being poor.

Individuals can have more than one spell. 

Entries Not poor in 1996 but poor in a subsequent year.

Uses an annual poverty measure. 

Exits Poor in 1996 but not poor in a subsequent year. Uses

an annual poverty measure. 

Annual official poverty Poverty thresholds are based on family composition 

measure in the Current in the interview month (which occurs in either 

Population Survey (CPS) February, March, or April), while income is based on 

(listed here for purposes reported annual income in the previous calendar year. 

of comparison). CPS collects only annual—not monthly—income. 
chronic for a small but significant

proportion of the poverty population.1

This report describes patterns of

poverty using measures with different time horizons and provides

a dynamic view of the duration of

poverty spells and the frequency of

transitions into and out of poverty.

It further examines how poverty

dynamics vary across demographic

groups. Data for this analysis were

collected in the 1996 panel of the

Survey of Income and Program

Participation (SIPP), the latest completed panel of the SIPP,2 and

reflect the dynamics of poverty

from January 1996 to December

1999.3 The population represented

is the civilian noninstitutionalized

2 U.S. Census Bureau

1 Examples of previous longitudinal studies on poverty include: Mary Naifeh,

“Dynamics of Economic Well-Being, Poverty,

1993-94: Trap Door? Revolving Door? Or

Both?” Current Population Reports, Series P70-

63 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1998). Signe-Mary McKernan

and Caroline Ratcliffe. “Transition Events in

the Dynamics of Poverty.” Urban Institute

Research Report, September 2002,

www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410575. Mary Jo

Bane and David Ellwood, “Slipping Into and

Out of Poverty: The Dynamics of Spells,”

Journal of Human Resources 21 (1986), 1-23.

Ann Huff Stevens, “The Dynamics of Poverty

Spells: Updating Bane and Ellwood,” AEA

Papers and Proceedings 84, 2 (1994), 34-37.

Ann Huff Stevens, “Climbing Out of Poverty,

Falling Back In: Measuring the Persistence of

Poverty Over Multiple Spells,” Journal of

Human Resources 34, 3 (1999), 557-88. 2 The 2001 SIPP panel, a 3-year panel, collects monthly data from February 2001

through January 2004. 3 The longitudinal estimates presented here

are based on people who were interviewed in

all waves of the reference period, or for whom

imputed information exists. Efforts were made

during the life of the panel to ensure that the

sample remained representative of the noninstitutional population of the United States.

People who moved were followed to their new

address. If the people included in the estimates have different experiences of poverty

than the people who did not respond initially,

left the sample, or missed two or more consecutive waves, these longitudinal estimates may

be biased. The panel consists of four rotations

interviewed in consecutive months. For rotations with missing data at the beginning of

1996 or end of 1999, imputations were made

on the basis of the closest month of data available. Rotation 3 had 1 month of data imputed

in 1996, rotation 4 had 2 months imputed in

that year, and rotation 1 had 1 month of

imputed data in 1999.

population of the United States.

The official source of annual federal poverty statistics is the Current

Population Survey (CPS), which provides data for poverty estimates in

a given year. Unlike the CPS, the

SIPP uses monthly data to measure

poverty, which allows one to calculate both monthly poverty rates

and poverty rates over longer periods of time.

This report examines poverty using

seven different measures: average

monthly poverty, episodic poverty,

chronic poverty, annual poverty,

poverty spells, poverty entry rates,

and poverty exit rates. The first text

box gives a brief description of

each of these measures.

HIGHLIGHTS4

• On average, nearly 40.9 (±0.7)

million people were poor in a

given month in 1996, representing an average monthly poverty

rate of 15.5 (±0.3) percent. By

1999, the number of people

who were poor fell to 34.8

(±0.8) million, indicating an

average monthly poverty rate of

12.8 (±0.3) percent in that year.

• About 34.2 (±0.4) percent of

people were poor for at least 2

months during the panel, but

only 2.0 (±0.1) percent were

poor every month of the 4-year

period between 1996 and 1999.

• Reflecting declines in poverty

from 1996 and 1999, more people exited poverty (14.8 (±0.5)

million) over that time than

entered poverty (7.6 (±0.4) million)—as measured by examining

4 The estimates in 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.

The figures in parentheses denote the 90-percent confidence intervals.

people’s poverty status in those

2 years using annual income and

poverty thresholds.

• Of those who were poor in 1996

(using an annual poverty measure), 65.1 (±1.2) percent

remained poor in 1997, 55.5

(±1.3) percent were poor in

1998, and 50.5 (±1.3) percent

were poor in 1999. Of those who

were not poor in 1996, only 2.9

(±0.2) percent became poor in

1997, 3.3 (±0.2) percent were

poor in 1998, and 3.5 (±0.2) percent were poor in 1999.5

• Poverty transitions occur more

frequently when using a monthly rather than an annual poverty

measure, indicating greater

short-term fluctuations in

income. Based on a monthly

poverty measure (and excluding

spells underway in the first

interview month of the panel),

51.1 (±0.7) percent of poverty

spells were over within 4

months, and about four-fifths

were over after a year.

• Non-Hispanic Whites had lower

poverty rates (measured using a

variety of time frames), shorter

median spell lengths, lower

poverty entry rates, and higher

poverty exit rates than Blacks

and Hispanics.6 Patterns for

Blacks and Hispanics were generally similar; Blacks showed a

higher prevalence of poverty

along a couple of measures

(median spell length and poverty entry rate), lower according

5 The percent of people who exited poverty in 1998 was not significantly different

from the percent who exited in 1999. 6 Because Hispanics may be of any race,

data in this report for Hispanics overlap slightly with data for the Black population. Based

on data in the 1996 SIPP panel and using the

panel weight, 3.5 percent of the Black population was of Hispanic origin. Data for Asians

and Pacific Islanders and American Indians and

Alaska Natives are not shown in this report

because of their small sample sizes.
to one (episodic poverty), and

were not different from

Hispanics among yet others

(average monthly poverty,

chronic poverty, and poverty

exit rate).

• Children tended to have higher

poverty rates than adults 18 to

64 and people 65 and over.

There were two exceptions: people 65 and over had higher

chronic poverty rates (poor for

the entire panel) and lower exit

rates than the other two age

groups, likely indicating less

variability in their income over

the panel.

• People in married-couple families

tended to have lower poverty

rates than people in other family

types. Conversely, people in families with a female householder

were more likely to be poor than

others along all measures. 

U.S. Census Bureau 3

Figure 1.

Selected Poverty Rates: 1996-1999

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation. 

Poor 48 months

Average monthly

poverty rate

Annual poverty rate

Poor 2 or more

months

1996

1997

1998

1999

1996-1999

(Percent poor)

2.0

23.3

21.7

20.4

19.5

34.2

12.5

11.4

10.5

10.1

15.5

14.3

13.5

12.8

Text Box 2. Average Monthly Poverty Rate: What Is It? 

Why Is It Higher Than the Annual Rate? 

Average Monthly Poverty

For each person, family income in a given

month is compared to the poverty threshold

for the family composition in that month.

The average monthly poverty rate in a

given year represents the percent all of the

months in a year in which people are poor. 

Computes poverty for each month. A person can be poor in some months and not

poor in other months. 

People are more likely to experience shortterm (monthly) shortfalls in income than

longer-term (annual) ones. Thus, people

who are poor for a few months of the year

will increase the average monthly poverty

rate. 

How is it computed? 

How do they differ? 

Why is the average

monthly poverty rate

higher than the

annual poverty rate

for a given year? 

Annual Poverty

For each person, the sum of family

income over the year is compared to

the sum of poverty thresholds. These

thresholds may change from month

to month if family composition

changes. 

Computes poverty status using

summed annual information. A person

is poor for the year if annual income is

less than the annual poverty threshold. 

This is an all or none measure. Even if

a person is poor for a few months of

the year (when using the monthly

measure), if his or her annual family

income is higher than the corresponding annual poverty threshold then the

person is counted as not poor. People

often make up periodic (monthly)

shortfalls in income with higher

income in other months of the year. 
• People in suburbs had lower

poverty rates than people in

central cities or in nonmetropolitan territory across nearly all

measures.

RESULTS

About 34.2 percent of the U.S.

population was poor for at least 

2 months during the 4-year period,

but only 2.0 percent were poor

continuously for a period of 48

months. Annual and average

monthly poverty rates declined

from 1996 to 1999.

Figure 1 shows poverty rates for

the U.S. population from 1996

through 1999 using a variety of

measures. While the average

monthly poverty rate was 15.5 percent (representing 40.9 million

people) in 1996, it dropped to 

12.8 percent (or 34.8 million people) by 1999. Annual poverty rates

also showed a decline over the

period, from 12.5 percent in 1996

to 10.1 percent in 1999. Text box

2 explains why average monthly

poverty rates differ from annual

ones. 

Also reflecting declines in poverty

over the 4-year period, Figure 2

indicates that fewer people entered

poverty than exited poverty. There

were 7.6 million people who were

not poor in 1996 (using an annual

measure of poverty) who were

poor in 1999. In contrast, 14.8 million people who were poor in 1996

were no longer poor by 1999.

About 4.9 million people were

poor for all 48 months of the

panel. This last value represents

2.0 percent of the overall population, but 5.8 percent of those who

were ever poor (for at least 2

months) during the panel. 

4 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 2.

Number of People Entering and Exiting 

Poverty: 1996 and 1999

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation. 

Poor in 1996 but

not poor in 1999

Not poor in 1996

but poor in 1999

(Number in millions)

7.6

14.8

Entries

Exits

Figure 3.

Poverty Exits

Percent of People Who Were Poor in 1996 

But Not Poor in 1997, 1998, or 1999

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation. 

1999

1998

1997

(Percent exiting poverty based on an annual poverty measure)

34.9

49.5

44.5

Figure 4.

Poverty Entries

Percent of People Who Were Not Poor in 1996 

But Poor in 1997, 1998, or 1999

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation. 

1999

1998

1997

(Percent entering poverty based on an annual poverty measure)

2.9

3.5

3.3
Figure 3 indicates that of those

who were poor in 1996, 34.9 percent had exited poverty in 1997

(using an annual measure of poverty). Conversely, this means that

65.1 percent of those who were

poor in 1996 remained poor in

1997. Over time, the percent of

those poor in the initial year who

were not poor in subsequent years

increased—44.5 percent were not

poor in 1998 and 49.5 percent

were not poor in 1999. So half of

those who were poor in 1996 were

poor 3 years later, in 1999 (some

of those people may not have been

poor at some point in the intervening years). Figure 4 shows that

only a very small proportion of the

nonpoor population in 1996

became poor in subsequent years,

indicating that entries into poverty

are relatively rare when using an

annual poverty measure.7

Episodic, monthly, and

chronic poverty rates varied

across demographic groups.

Figure 5 shows episodic poverty

rates (where people are poor for at

least 2 months), Figure 6 shows

average monthly poverty rates in

1999, and Figure 7 shows the percent of people who were poor

every month of 1996 through

1999, by family status, age, race

and Hispanic origin, and residential

location. Across all these poverty

measures, non-Hispanic Whites had

lower poverty rates than both

Blacks and Hispanics. Hispanics

had higher episodic poverty rates

than Blacks, though their average

monthly and chronic poverty rates

were not statistically different.

U.S. Census Bureau 5

Figure 5.

Episodic Poverty Rates: 1999

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation. 

(Percent of people poor at least 2 months)

Nonmetropolitan

Suburbs

Central city

Unrelated individual

Male householder

Female householder

Married-couple family

65 years and over

18 to 64 years

0 to 17 years

Hispanic

Black

White, not Hispanic

White

All

25.2

19.5

16.8

13.9

34.5

37.1

26.8

17.2

15.4

12.8

41.7

21.9

28.2

24.8

14.0

Figure 6.

Average Monthly Poverty Rates: 1999

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation. 

(Percent poor)

Nonmetropolitan

Suburbs

Central city

Unrelated individual

Male householder

Female householder

Married-couple family

65 years and over

18 to 64 years

0 to 17 years

Hispanic

Black

White, not Hispanic

White

All

16.3

12.8

10.7

8.7

24.8

24.7

18.3

10.9

10.7

7.0

30.4

12.4

21.0

16.8

8.9

7 Since the number of people who are not

poor is much larger than the number who

are poor, the base or denominator for entries

into poverty is larger than the one for exits.

As a result, even if the number of people

who entered poverty were the same as the

number who exited, entry rates would be

much lower than exit rates. 
Children had higher monthly and

episodic rates than adults 18 to 64

and those 65 and over, though the

people 65 and over had the highest chronic poverty rates (being

poor for the whole panel). 

People in married-couple families

had lower poverty rates than overall

averages across the three poverty

measures, while people in femalehouseholder families and unrelated

individuals had higher poverty rates

than average. People in the suburbs

had lower poverty rates than those

living in central cities and nonmetropolitan territory.

Poverty spells measured on a

monthly basis tended to be

short in duration—about half

were over after 4 months.

Figure 8 shows the duration of

poverty spells in the 1996 SIPP

panel. It should be noted that

these results are based on an

analysis of spells, while other statistics in this report are analyses of

individuals. People can have more

than one spell. These calculations

exclude poverty spells underway

during the first interview month of

the SIPP survey, as the actual starting point of these spells is

unknown.8 Figure 8 indicates that a

little over half of the poverty

spells, measured by using monthly

income and poverty thresholds,

were completed after 4 months.

Another 19.3 percent of spells

were over after 8 months. After 

6 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 7.

Chronic Poverty Rates: 1996-1999

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation. 

(Percent poor all 48 months)

Nonmetropolitan

Suburbs

Central city

Unrelated Individual

Male householder

Female householder

Married-couple family

65 years and over

18 to 64 years

0 to 17 years

Hispanic

Black

White, not Hispanic

White

All

2.7

2.0

1.5

1.0

5.1

5.6

2.6

1.4

3.8

0.6

5.7

0.8

5.2

2.9

1.1

Figure 8.

Duration of Poverty Spells: 1996-1999

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation. 

(Percent. Excludes spells underway during the first interview month)

More than 36 months

25 to 36 months

21 to 24 months

17 to 20 months

13 to 16 months

9 to 12 months

5 to 8 months

2 to 4 months

5.7

51.1

19.3

9.2

4.8

3.7

2.7

3.5

8 About 30 percent of poverty spells

began in or before the first interview month.

For spells still underway in the last month of

the SIPP panel, well-established statistical

methods involving survival analysis were

used to produce an estimate of the distribution of eventual spell lengths. See, for example, Paul D. Allison, Survival Analysis Using

the SAS System: A Practical Guide, Cary, NC:

SAS Institute Inc., 1995.
1 year, about four-fifths (79.6 percent) of monthly poverty spells

were complete. About 5.7 percent

of the spells lasted more than 

36 months.9

Figure 9 shows median poverty

spell lengths for various demographic groups, again using

monthly data over the 1996 to

1999 period. The overall median

spell length was 4.0 months.10 The

median spell lengths were longer

for Blacks (4.9 months) and

Hispanics (4.6 months) than for

non-Hispanic Whites (3.8 months).

Median spell lengths were longer

for children (4.4 months) than for

people 18-64 (3.9 months) and 65

and over (4.0 months). People living in families with a female

householder had longer median

spell lengths than those for other

family types. 

Poverty entry and exit rates

varied across demographic

groups. 

Figures 10 and 11 show poverty

entry and exit rates, using a measure based on annual income and

poverty thresholds (rather than

monthly information) and data

from 1996 and 1999. Overall, only

3.5 percent of the nonpoor population in 1996 had become poor in

1999. A lower proportion of nonpoor non-Hispanic Whites in 1996

were poor in 1999 (2.7 percent)

U.S. Census Bureau 7

9 If spells underway in the first interview

month (i.e., left-censored spells) are not

excluded from the analysis, and it is

assumed that such spells started in the first

interview month, then estimated spell durations are longer: 43.4 percent of poverty

spells were over after 4 months, 72.4 percent were over after a year, and 10.8 percent

lasted more than 36 months. 10 If no spells are excluded from the

analysis, and it is assumed that spells underway in the first month of the SIPP panel

started in that month, the median spell

length is 5.2 months instead of 4.0 months.

This indicates that poverty spells where the

beginning is not observed tended to be

longer than those that began after the start

of the panel.

Figure 9.

Median Poverty Spells: 1996-1999

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation. 

(Months. Excludes spells underway during the first interview month)

Nonmetropolitan

Suburbs

Central city

Unrelated Individual

Male householder

Female householder

Married-couple family

65 years and over

18 to 64 years

0 to 17 years

Hispanic

Black

White, not Hispanic

White

All

4.5

4.0

3.9

3.8

4.9

4.6

4.4

3.9

4.0

3.7

5.8

4.1

4.4

4.2

3.8

Figure 10.

Percent of the Nonpoor in 1996 Who Were Poor in 1999

Note: Poverty status calculated using annual income and thresholds.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation. 

(Entry rates in percent)

Nonmetropolitan

Suburbs

Central city

Unrelated Individual

Other family type

Married-couple family

65 years and over

18 to 64 years

0 to 17 years

Hispanic

Black

White, not Hispanic

White

All

4.7

3.5

2.9

2.7

7.4

5.4

4.5

3.1

3.3

1.9

6.8

6.0

4.2

2.6
than Blacks (7.4 percent) or

Hispanics (5.4 percent).

Children had higher entry rates 

(4.5 percent) than people 18 to 64

(3.1 percent) or 65 and over 

(3.3 percent), though there was no

significant difference between the

latter two age groups. People in

married-couple families had lower

entry rates (1.9 percent) than people in other family types (6.8 percent) or unrelated individuals 

(6.0 percent), whose rates did not

significantly differ.11 Finally, those

living in the suburbs had lower

entry rates (2.6 percent) than those

in central cities (4.2 percent) or

nonmetropolitan territory (4.7 percent), who had similar rates as well. 

Figure 11, which focuses on exit

rates using an annual poverty

measure, shows that half of those

who were poor in 1996 were not

poor in 1999. The exit rates for

Blacks (42.4 percent) and Hispanics

(41.6 percent), while not significantly different from each other,

were lower than that for nonHispanic Whites (57.1 percent).

The patterns by age differ a little

when looking at exit rates rather

than entry rates. When examining

exits, the elderly who were poor in

1996 were less likely to be not

poor in 1999 than children or

adults 18 to 64. This pattern is

consistent with the relatively high

rates of chronic poverty (poor for

all 48 months) among people 65

and over, shown in Figure 7.

Incomes for the 65-and-over population may vary less than those of

other groups.

Exit rates were considerably higher

for people in married-couple families (59.7 percent) than those in

other family types (39.4 percent) or

unrelated individuals (37.0 percent),

8 U.S. Census Bureau

11 Exits and entries into poverty by family

status are reported for people whose family

status was unchanged throughout the panel. 

though the rates between the latter

two did not significantly differ. Exit

rates were a little higher in the suburbs than in central cities or nonmetropolitan territory; there was no

significant difference between the

latter two. 

SOURCE OF THE DATA

The population represented (the

population universe) in the 1996

Survey of Income and Program

Participation (SIPP) is the civilian

noninstitutionalized population of

the United States. The SIPP is conducted at 4-month intervals. The

data in this report refer to the period from January 1996 through

December 1999. The institutionalized population, which is excluded

from the population universe, is

composed primarily of the population in correctional institutions and

nursing homes (91 percent of the

4.1 million institutionalized population in Census 2000).

ACCURACY OF THE

ESTIMATES

Statistics from surveys are subject

to sampling and nonsampling error.

All comparisons presented in this

report have taken sampling error

into account and are significant at

the 90-percent confidence level.

This means the 90-percent confidence interval for the difference

between the estimates being compared does not include zero.

Nonsampling errors in surveys may

be attributed to a variety of

sources, such as how the survey

was designed, how respondents

interpret questions, how able and

willing respondents are to provide

correct answers, and how

Figure 11.

Percent of the Poor in 1996 Who Were Not Poor in 1999

Note: Poverty status calculated using annual income and thresholds.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation. 

(Exit rates in percent)

Nonmetropolitan

Suburbs

Central city

Unrelated Individual

Other family type

Married-couple family

65 years and over

18 to 64 years

0 to 17 years

Hispanic

Black

White, not Hispanic

White

All 49.5

52.5

57.1

42.4

41.6

47.9

53.9

32.4

59.7

39.4

37.0

47.8

54.0

46.9
accurately the answers are coded For further information on the Housing and Household Economic 

and classified. The Census Bureau source of the data and accuracy of Statistics Division

employs quality control procedures the estimates including standard 301-763-3213

throughout the production process errors and confidence intervals, go jiceland@census.gov

including the overall design of sur- to www.sipp.census.gov/sipp Statistical Information Staff veys, the wording of questions, /sourceac/S&A96_030228.Long.pdf 301-763-3242 review of the work of interviewers or contact Timothy Stewart of the hhes-info@census.gov and coders, and statistical review of Census Bureau’s Demographic

reports to minimize these errors. Statistical Methods Division on the USER COMMENTS Internet at The Survey of Income and Program Timothy.D.Stewart@census.gov The Census Bureau welcomes the

Participation weighting procedure comments and advice of users of

uses ratio estimation, whereby sam- MORE INFORMATION its data and reports. If you have ple estimates are adjusted to inde- any suggestions or comments, pendent estimates of the national The report is available on the please send an e-mail inquiry to: population by age, race, sex, and Internet (www.census.gov); search

Hispanic origin. This weighting par- for poverty data by clicking on the hhes-info@census.gov

tially corrects for bias due to under- ‘Subjects A-Z’ link and selecting

coverage, but biases may still be ‘poverty data’ under “P.” Additional SUGGESTED CITATION

present when people who are tables presenting poverty informa- Iceland, John. Dynamics of missed by the survey differ from tion from the SIPP are also avail- Economic Well-Being, Poverty 1996- those interviewed in ways other able on the Internet site. 1999. Current Population Reports, than the age, race, sex, and P70-91. U.S. Census Bureau, Hispanic origin. How this weighting CONTACTS Washington, DC. 2003. procedure affects other variables in Poverty issues: the survey is not precisely known.

All of these considerations affect John Iceland

comparisons across different sur- Chief, Poverty and Health 

veys or data sources. Statistics Branch

U.S. Census Bureau 9
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