U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration

Current

Population

Household Economic Studies

 Reports

s

n

Beyond Poverty,

Extended Measures of 

Well-Being: 1992

By Kathleen Short and Martina Shea

C E N S U S B U R E A U P70-50RV

November 1995

 How well off are we?

Quality of life can be

measured by the things

that we own, our ability

to afford shelter, the

safety of our neighborhoods, our health and

nutrition, as well as our

incomes. Two groups

which score very low on

many measures of

material well-being are

those whose family

income is below the

poverty line and those

who participate in the

Aid to Families with

Dependent Children

(AFDC) program. In

fact, on all measures

reported here, the poor

are significantly worse

off than the nonpoor.

Additionally, on a

majority of the

measures, those

participating in AFDC

are worse off than those

classified as income

poor.

 This brief report uses

data collected in the

Survey of Income and

Program Participation

(SIPP) to present measures of material

well-being for all person

in families, in families

classified as poor, and i

families who report receiving AFDC. Data are

based on the 4-month

period from September

to December of 1992.

Consumer Durables

 Owning or having 

access to consumer 

Table 1. 

Access to Consumer Durables: September–December 1992

 (In percent)

Persons in Families Who Are

Consumer durables 

NonpoorStd.

error Poor

Std.

error

Receiving

AFDC

Std.

error

Percent of persons with—

Washing machine

Clothes dryer

Dishwasher

Refrigerator

Freezer

Color television

Stove

Microwave

VCR

Air conditioner

Personal computer

Telephone

92.7

87.3

58.3

99.5

46.0

98.5

99.5

89.8

86.2

71.9

28.3

97.2

0.16

0.20

0.30

0.04

0.30

0.07

0.04

0.18

0.21

0.27

0.27

0.10

71.7

50.2

19.6

97.9

28.6

92.5

97.7

60.0

59.7

49.6

7.4

76.7

0.71

0.79

0.62

0.23

0.71

0.45

0.24

0.77

0.77

0.79

0.41

0.66

66.3

44.8

13.6

98.2

22.6

92.2

98.0

52.6

54.6

40.7

4.2

67.5

1.19

1.25

0.86

0.34

1.05

0.68

0.35

1.26

1.26

1.23

0.50

1.17

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Washing machine

Clothes dryer

Dishwasher

Refrigerator

Freezer

Color television

Stove

Microwave

VCR

Air conditioner

Personal computer

Telephone

Nonpoor Poor AFDC

Access to Consumer Durables

Figure 1.

 (In percent)
2 P70-50

durables affects the

quality of life. Almost

all persons in poor

families have access

to refrigerators and

stoves (see table 1

and figure 1 on page

1). The poor were

less likely to own or

have access to a

telephone than the

nonpoor. For several

other goods, the poor

had significantly lower

rates than the

nonpoor, although for

most goods measured, they were still

above 50 percent.

For example, 72

percent of persons in

poor families (66

percent of AFDC

families) had access

to washing machines.

 Having access 

to a computer at home and at

school can play an important role

in preparing children for the future.

Twenty-eight percent of nonpoor

families reported having access to

a personal computer at home,

while only 7 percent of persons in

poor families and 4 percent of

those in AFDC families had access to a personal computer.

Crime and Neighborhood

 Poor families were less likely to

report living in safe neighborhoods

than the nonpoor. Ninety-three

percent of the nonpoor lived in

families where the family head 

reported that their neighborhood

was safe from crime, compared 

to only 78 percent of the poor and

67 percent of persons in families

receiving AFDC (see table 2).

Similarly, the nonpoor were less

likely than the poor to live in 

families where the head reported

being afraid to go out.

 Overall, the poor were more

likely than the nonpoor to express

dissatisfaction with their communities. Eighteen percent of persons

in poor families, and 28 percent of

AFDC families reported that their

neighborhood conditions were bad

enough that they would like to at some time in the last year. The

move, compared with only 7 per- poor were more than four times

cent of nonpoor families. Similarly, as likely to have their utilities cut

a higher percentage of persons in off, while AFDC families were over

poor families and in AFDC fami- five times as likely as nonpoor

lies than persons in families persons. Finally, the poor were

classified as nonpoor reported that over four times as likely as the

community services in their neigh- nonpoor to have their telephone

borhoods were bad enough that service disconnected and AFDC

they would like to move. families were six times as likely.

Basic Needs Health and Nutrition

 Twenty-six percent of the poor The poor were about twice as

and 29 percent of those on AFDC likely as the nonpoor to live in

lived in families that were unable households that reported that a

to pay the full rent or mortgage at member did not go see a doctor

some point in the last year (see or dentist when needed. Twenty

table 3). The rate for persons in percent of the poor (15 percent of

nonpoor families was only one those in AFDC families) had at

third as much as those in poor least one member in the past year

families, 8 percent. Similarly, who did not seek needed medical

although eviction is rare for all attention, compared with 7 percent

groups, the poor had much higher of the nonpoor. Similarly, a higher

eviction rates than nonpoor per- percentage of persons in poor or

sons. AFDC families had a member

who needed to see a dentist and The poor had problems paying did not go. utility bills and were more likely to

have services cut off in their The poor were more likely to go

homes as a result. The poor were without food or not have enough

more than three times as likely as money to buy food, than were the

the nonpoor to have difficulty pay- nonpoor. Ninety-nine percent of

ing their gas, oil, or electricity bill the nonpoor reported having

Table 2.

Living Conditions: September–December 1992

(In percent) Persons in Families Who Are

Non- Std. Std. Receiving Conditions poor error Poor error AFDC

Std.

error

Percent of persons with—

Own home 76.5 0.25 33.6 0.73 16.1 0.90

 Number of rooms 6.3 0.01 5.1 0.03 4.9 0.04

 Upkeep problems:

Leaking roof or ceiling 8.5 0.17 15.8 0.58 14.9 0.90

Toilet, hot water heater, plumbing not working 4.8 0.13 12.0 0.51 11.9 0.82

Broken windows 8.2 0.17 18.6 0.61 20.4 0.10

Exposed wiring 1.3 0.07 4.0 0.31 5.5 0.58

Rats, mice, roaches 13.9 0.21 39.4 0.77 45.8 1.26

Holes in floor 0.8 0.05 4.8 0.34 4.5 0.52

Cracks or holes in walls or ceiling 4.1 0.12 13.5 0.54 17.6 0.96

Living condition bad enough that one would like to move 9.5 0.18 26.6 0.70 34.5 1.21

Neighborhood:

Neighborhood safe 93.0 0.16 78.1 0.66 67.4 1.20

Home safe from crime 95.0 0.13 85.0 0.57 80.4 1.01

Afraid to go out 8.7 0.17 19.5 0.63 24.6 1.09

Crime a problem 16.3 0.23 30.4 0.49 42.5 1.26

Trash/litter 10.0 0.18 22.7 0.66 29.6 1.15

Rundown/abandoned structure 9.6 0.18 18.8 0.62 23.5 1.07

Neighborhood condition bad enough that one would like to move 6.5 0.15 18.4 0.61 27.5 1.13

Community services bad enough that one would like to move 5.5 0.14 15.1 0.57 20.5 1.03
P70-50 3

enough food to eat, while only nine variables, all of which indicate adds up quickly. Fifty-five percent

89 percent of the poor and rare events, even for the poor: of the poor lived in families with at

86 percent of those in AFDC eviction in the past year, gas or least one deprivation, compared

families said the same. electricity turned off in the past with 13 percent of nonpoor peryear, phone disconnected in the sons. Similarly, a much higher A Deprivation Index past year, not having enough percentage of persons in poor When there are insufficient food in the last month, crowded families (27 percent) faced two 

resources to meet all needs, housing, moderate to severe 

or more deprivations compared people respond in different ways. upkeep problems, no access to a with only 3 percent of persons in Some choose to consume less refrigerator, no access to a stove, all nonpoor families. Worst of all, food, others choose to live in less and no access to a telephone.

comfortable housing. To address 65 percent of AFDC families sufthis, we have created an ad hoc Although each of these events fered at least one deprivation and

index of deprivation (see table 4). is relatively rare even for poor 34 percent experienced two or

The index is the simple sum of families, the cumulative index more.

Table 3.

Ability to Meet Basic Needs: September–December 1992

(In percent) Persons in Families Who Are 

Basic needs Nonpoor

Std.

error Poor

Std.

error

Receiving 

AFDC

Std.

error

Percent of persons—

Could not pay full

 rent/mortgage

Evicted

Could not pay full utility bill

Had gas/electric service turned off

Had telephone service disconnected

Household members didn’t seek

 needed medical attention

Household members needed to see

 dentist but didn’t go

All/most of the help needed

 available from family

All/most of the help needed

 available from friends

All/most of the help needed available 

 from community service

Food adequacy in past 4 months:

 Enough food

 Days without food last month 

 none

7.5

0.4

9.8

1.8

3.2

7.4

10.0

73.2

65.7

40.0

98.6

94.3

0.16

0.04

0.18

0.08

0.11

0.16

0.18

0.28

0.29

0.32

0.07

0.14

25.9

 2.1

 32.4

 8.5

 16.0

 19.6

 24.0

 62.1

 47.2

 36.2

 89.0

 85.2

0.70

0.23

0.74

0.44

0.58

0.63

0.68

0.79

0.81

0.83

0.49

0.55

29.1

 2.6

40.7

10.5

20.3

15.2

20.8

59.3

43.7

37.7

85.8

81.9

1.15

0.40

1.25

0.78

1.02

0.91

1.03

1.28

1.28

1.33

0.88

0.94

Table 4.

An Index of Deprivation: September–December 1992

(In percent)

Number of deprivations

Percent of persons with at least :

NonpoorStd.

error

Perso 

Poor

ns in Famili

Std.

error

es Who Are

Receiving 

AFDC

Std.

error

One deprivation 13.1 0.20 55.1 0.76 65.4 1.16

Two deprivations 3.3 0.11 26.9 0.68 33.6 1.15

Three deprivations 1.0 0.06 11.8 0.50 14.6 0.86

Four deprivations 0.3 0.03 4.0 0.30 4.9 0.53

Five deprivations 0.1 0.01 1.1 0.16 1.7 0.32

Six deprivations – – 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.08

Seven deprivations – – – – – –

– Represents zero

Note: See text for definition.
4 P70-50

Accuracy of the Estimates and Accuracy Statement for the nonresponse levels for these

All statistics in this report are sub- 1992 Public Use Files From the questions were in the range of 

ject to sampling error, as well as Survey of Income and Program 1 or 2 percent.

nonsampling error such as survey Participation.” The poverty measure used in design flaws, respondent classifi- Notes these tabulations compares cation errors, and data processing family income (or person income mistakes. The Census Bureau These data were compiled from for unrelated individuals) over the has taken steps to minimize the “Extended Measures of 4 month reference period to the

errors, and analytical statements Well-Being” topical module appropriate poverty threshold for have been tested and meet statis- collected as part of Wave 6 of these 4 months. Families are de- tical standards. However, the 1991 panel and Wave 3 of fined using the census definition. because of methodological differ- the 1992 panel of the SIPP. ences, use caution when The combined panels make up AFDC families are defined as

comparing these data with data responses on living conditions by persons in families which received

from other sources. The standard reference persons representing AFDC payments in month 4 of the

errors in the tables estimate the almost 85,000 persons. The reference period and with own

magnitude of the SIPP sampling reference period is September children under the age of 18.

error. We do not provide esti- through December of 1992.

mates of total error, which (The data presented here are 

includes nonsampling error. For These data were not imputed for part of a larger report prepared

information on the source of data nonresponse and therefore fre- with David Levine and Maya 

and the accuracy of estimates, in- quencies are based only on the Federman of the Council of 

cluding the use of computation of proportion of persons answering Economic Advisers.)

standard errors, see the “Source the questions. For the most part,