U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 1

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Issued June 1999

1995

P70-67

Extended Measures of Well-Being:

Meeting Basic Needs

Household Economic Studies

By Kurt J. Bauman

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

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

Current

Population

Reports

1 According to Federal Reserve

Statistical Release G.19 (Federal

Reserve Board, updated Nov. 10

1998), seasonally adjusted consumer debt levels doubled in 12

years — from $639 billion in September 1986 to $1,282 billion in

September 1998. Over a similar

period (from 1985 to 1996) the

number of nonbusiness bankruptcies grew from 298,000 to

989,000 (see U.S. Census Bureau,

Statistical Abstract of the United

States 1997, Table 856, p. 549).

Difficulty meeting basic needs:

How extensive is the problem?

In 1995, approximately 49 million people —

about 1 person in 5— lived in a household

that had at least one difficulty meeting basic

needs. These included households that

didn’t pay utility bills, didn’t pay mortgage or

rent, needed to see the doctor or dentist but

didn’t go, had telephone or utility service

shut off, were evicted, didn’t get enough to

eat, or otherwise didn’t meet essential

expenses. Eleven percent lived in households where more than one of these difficulties took place (Table 1).

Many also had problems paying specific

types of bills. Of the total population, 9.9

percent were in households that didn’t pay

gas, oil, or electricity bills. It was less

common to reside in a household that didn’t

pay the full amount of rent or mortgage or in

a household that didn’t get needed medical

care or dental care (Figure 1). (There was no

It should not be surprising that many

Americans have trouble paying bills and

making ends meet. There is evidence all

around — from rising consumer debt levels

to increases in personal bankruptcy.1 Doubtless, most people have had times when

paying the bills has been difficult. But how

extensive is the problem? What types of

people find their budget exceeding their

resources? How often do people end up

with serious problems like not getting

enough to eat or foregoing needed medical

care? Where do people get help when the

going gets rough?

Personal or household income is generally

regarded as the single best measure of the

degree to which people are “well off.”

However, other factors also contribute to

people’s well-being. To assess some of these

other dimensions, the Census Bureau

administered questions on basic needs, food

sufficiency, and income adequacy as a

supplement to the Survey of

Income and Program Participation in October 1995 through

January 1996. This report

presents the findings for

these extended measures

of well-being.

Demographic Programs
2 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Table 1.

Number and Percent With at Least One Difficulty

Meeting Basic Needs in Household, by Detailed Characteristics: 1995

Number who Percent who Percent who

experienced at least experienced at least experienced more than

Characteristic one difficulty4,5 (1,000) one difficulty4 one difficulty4

Total 48,600 20.2 11.0

Income Quintile Measures1

Lowest quintile 19,500 37.8 22.9

Second quintile 12,200 24.5 14.0

Third quintile 8,800 18.4 9.1

Fourth quintile 5,200 11.3 4.4

Fifth quintile 2,900 6.5 2.7

Age

0 to 9 years 10,400 28.5 16.1

10 to 17 years 7,700 27.8 16.3

18 to 29 years 8,800 22.3 12.6

30 to 39 years 8,500 21.1 11.5

40 to 49 years 6,200 17.9 9.4

50 to 59 years 3,300 14.8 7.5

60 to 69 years 1,800 10.1 4.0

70 years and over 1,700 8.4 2.6

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White, not Hispanic 30,000 17.0 9.0

Black, not Hispanic 8,900 32.3 18.1

Hispanic origin 8,500 32.1 18.5

Region

Northeast 9,900 20.2 10.4

Midwest 9,900 17.8 8.7

South 16,900 20.4 11.4

West 11,800 22.7 13.2

Gender

Male 22,900 19.5 10.7

Female 25,800 20.9 11.2

Gender of Householder

Male 26,600 16.3 8.4

Female 22,000 28.5 16.2

Educational Attainment

Less than high school diploma 9,200 26.3 14.6

High school graduate 12,200 18.7 9.9

Some college or associate degree 6,000 15.6 8.1

Bachelor's degree or more 3,100 8.4 3.3

Health Insurance Coverage

Not insured 19,600 35.8 22.7

Insured 29,000 15.7 7.5

Tenure

Renter occupied 26,500 33.0 19.8

Owner ocupied 22,100 13.8 6.5

Residential Mobility

Moved recently 17,400 27.2 16.0

Non-mover 31,300 17.7 9.1

Employment Status3

Unemployed 2,500 38.4 25.0

Not in labor force 10,300 17.6 9.1

Employed 17,700 16.0 8.1

Work Disability3

Work disability 7,600 29.1 16.9

Not disabled 22,900 15.3 7.7

Marital Status3

Not married 16,500 21.8 12.2

Married 14,000 14.0 6.6

1 Income quintiles group people according to household income, ranging from the lowest fifth of the population to the highest.

2 Data for White and Black exclude Hispanics. Hispanics may be of any race.

3 These items are tabulated for adults (age 18 and over) only. All other items cover the entire population.

4 At least one difficulty meeting basic needs includes those who didn't meet essential expenses, didn't pay utility bills, didn't pay rent or

mortgage, needed to see the dentist but didn't go, needed to see the doctor but didn't go, had phone service cut off, had utilities shut off,

were evicted or didn't get enough to eat. More than one difficulty refers to experiencing two or more types.

5 This number has not been adjusted for nonresponse.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 panel, administered 1995.
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 3

significant difference between the

proportion who didn’t pay rent or

mortgage and the proportion who

didn’t visit the dentist.) Least

common were situations where the

household got so far behind in

paying bills that they had their

utilities or phone service cut off or

were evicted from their apartment

or home.

When people did have difficulty

meeting basic needs, they often

faced more than one problem at a

time. Of those with difficulty

meeting basic needs, 54 percent

experienced more than one problem

(Table 2). For each of the specific

types of difficulties meeting basic

needs, at least 60 percent of people

lived in households with two or

more difficulties. Researchers who

have examined the “survival strategies” of families with limited budgets

have noted that they often play one

type of need off against another.

They might scrimp on food to buy

Christmas presents or forestall

paying one bill in order to pay

another.2 This implies that, over the

course of a year, those who have

limited resources would experience

more than one type of difficulty

meeting basic needs. This relationship is definitely borne out by the

data collected in this survey. For

most of those who were exposed

to at least one difficulty meeting

basic needs in 1995, it was not an

isolated incident.

Income and basic needs

Having low household income

greatly raised a person’s chance of

having difficulty meeting basic

needs. Levels of income can be

described by quintiles, i.e., dividing

households into five equal groups

ranging from those with the highest

incomes to those with the lowest. In

the lowest income quintile, 37.8

percent of people lived in households with at least one difficulty

meeting basic needs, and more than

one-fifth lived in households with

more than one type of difficulty

meeting basic needs (Table 1). A

majority of those in households with

at least one difficulty were in the two

lowest income quintiles (31.7 million

people). People in the lowest income

quintile were more likely than those

in the next income quintile to live in

households with difficulties meeting

basic needs of every type (Table 3).

Overall, income was very strongly

associated with the ability to meet

basic needs.

Age and basic needs

Nearly every type of difficulty was

more common among children than

among adults aged 60 and over

(Table 3). Children were more likely

than adults to live in households

that didn’t pay gas and electric bills,

didn’t pay rent or mortgage, didn’t

visit the dentist or doctor, or had

services disconnected. Among

children, 8.8 percent lived in a

household where someone needed

to see the dentist but didn’t go, and

7.0 percent lived in a house where

someone needed to see the doctor

but didn’t go. By contrast, around

3.0 percent of people 60 and over

lived in households where each of

these conditions was reported.

In 1995, more than a quarter of

children (28.5 percent of those

under age 10, 27.8 percent of those

ages 10 to 17)3 lived in a household

in which someone reported at least

one difficulty meeting basic needs.

Less than 10 percent of those in the

oldest age category (70 and older)

were in this situation (Table 1).

Overall, there were 18.1 million

children who were in households

with at least one difficulty meeting

Table 2.

People Living in Households Reporting Two or

More Difficulties Meeting Basic Needs: 1995

 Type of difficulty meeting basic needs

Didn't Didn't pay Needed Needed Had Had gas, Evicted

Not meet full gas, Didn't pay to see to see telephone electric, from

Any enough essential electric, full rent or dentist but doctor but dis- oil dis- house or

Number (base) and percent difficulty to eat expenses or oil bill mortgage didn't go didn't go connected connected apartment

Number reporting

difficulty (1,000) 48,600 11,600 29,600 23,400 16,100 16,500 13,700 8,900 4,400 1,000

Percent reporting at

least one additional

difficulty 54.1 73.4 64.2 77.1 82.3 80.7 86.8 80.6 96.3 100.0

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 panel, administered 1995.

2 See Kathryn Edin and Laura Lein, Making

Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Welfare

and Low-Wage Work, New York: Russell Sage

Foundation, 1997.

3 The difference between the percentage

of children under 10 with difficulty meeting

basic needs and the percentage of children

10 to 17 with difficulty meeting basic needs is

not significant.
4 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

basic needs. More than one-third of

all people living in households with

at least one difficulty meeting basic

needs were children.

The strong association between age

and difficulty meeting basic needs

indicates that the lack of resources

may not be the only explanation for

households not meeting their needs.

The oldest age groups reported they

were able to meet their basic needs

even though, on average, they had

low incomes. In fact, even with

control for income and other factors

associated with ability to meet basic

needs, the effect of age remained

essentially unchanged.4 There are

several possible explanations of this

pattern. Older respondents may

have experienced lower living

standards when they were younger

(for example, during the Great

Depression), they may have lower

expenses, or they may be more

reluctant to admit to problems. It

also might be that basic needs can

be met in households with stable

and predictable circumstances —

those without disruptions to income

or living situation. As people age,

they tend to have fewer life changing events such as marriage, childbirth, job change, and migration that

might lead to a temporary strain on

the budget and difficulties meeting

basic needs.5

Table 3.

People Living in Households With Difficulties Meeting Basic Needs, by Income Quintile,

Age, Race and Hispanic Origin, and Gender: 1995

(In percent)

 Type of difficulty with basic needs

Didn't meet Didn't pay full Didn't pay full Needed to Needed to Had Had gas, Evicted from

essential gas,electric, rent or see dentist see doctor telephone electric oil, house or

Characteristic expenses1 or oil bill mortgage but didn’t go but didn’t go disconnected disconnected apartment

Total 12.8 9.9 6.8 7.0 5.7 3.7 1.9 0.4

Income Quintile

 Measures2

Lowest quintile 25.019.9 14.012.1 10.7 8.8 4.01.1

Second quintile 15.8 12.2 8.2 9.2 7.9 5.2 2.1 0.4

Third quintile 10.9 8.5 6.0 6.7 4.8 2.1 1.5 0.5

Fourth quintile 6.5 4.4 3.03.8 2.8 1.3 1.00.1

Fifth quintile 4.2 2.8 1.5 2.1 1.7 0.6 0.4 0.0

Age

0 to 17 years 18.7 15.4 10.1 8.8 7.0 6.2 3.0 0.6

18 to 29 years 13.6 10.5 7.6 8.3 6.3 5.0 2.4 0.5

30 to 59 years 11.6 8.6 6.3 6.8 5.8 2.9 1.5 0.4

60 years and over 5.1 3.1 1.4 2.9 2.7 0.5 0.4 0.1

Race and Hispanic

Origin3

White, not Hispanic 10.9 7.8 5.5 6.5 5.3 2.5 1.3 0.3

Black, not Hispanic 21.3 18.2 11.07.06.6 9.5 4.2 1.0

Hispanic origin 18.2 16.2 11.6 10.6 8.2 6.8 3.4 0.4

Gender

Male 12.3 9.6 6.7 6.8 5.5 3.6 1.9 0.4

Female 13.3 10.1 6.8 7.2 5.9 3.9 1.8 0.4

Gender of

Householder

Male 10.1 7.5 5.3 6.0 4.9 2.4 1.2 0.3

Female 18.4 14.8 9.7 9.07.6 6.5 3.2 0.7

Health Insurance

Coverage

Not insured 22.8 18.013.1 15.5 14.9 6.6 3.9 0.8

Insured 9.9 7.5 4.9 4.5 3.1 2.9 1.3 0.3

1 Indicates response to the opening question in this section of the survey "During the past 12 months has there been a time when your

household did not meet its essential expenses?" This was asked independently of answers to questions about specific problems also listed on

this table.

2 Income quintiles group people according to household income, ranging from the lowest fifth of the population to the highest.

3 Data for White and Black exclude Hispanics. Hispanics may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 panel, administered 1995.

4 See Kurt 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.

5 For a discussion of this point, see Ronald R.

Rindfuss, “The Young Adult Years: Diversity,

Structural Change, and Fertility,” Demography,

November 1991.
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 5

Other characteristics and

basic needs

Besides income and age, a number

of other characteristics were associated with at least one difficulty

meeting basic needs in 1995 (Table

1). Race and ethnicity were associated fairly strongly. Blacks6 were

more likely than Whites to experience difficulty meeting basic needs.

Hispanics, who can be of any race,

were also more likely than (nonHispanic) Whites to experience a

difficulty meeting basic needs.

These differences may be partially

explained by differences in income,

education, and other characteristics

between these groups. Difficulty

meeting basic needs was also

associated with barriers to productive labor force participation.

Greater difficulty was observed

among those who were unemployed,

those who had a work disability, and

those who had low levels of education. Difficulty meeting basic needs

was also more common among

those who lacked health insurance

and those who were unmarried. In

all these groups, there is a large

share who lack the resources

necessary to meet basic needs in

their households.

Those who rented rather than owned

their homes were more likely to

experience at least one difficulty

meeting basic needs. Renters tend

to have lower incomes, fewer assets

and other resources to draw on, and

less stability in their circumstances.7

Those who moved within the last

year were also more likely to have

experienced at least one difficulty. It

could be that the instability of

moving contributed to unmet needs,

or it could be that the inability to

meet basic needs contributed to the

necessity of moving.

There was a 1.4 percent gender

difference in the experience of

difficulty meeting basic needs. The

difference is as small as it is because

most households contain both males

and females. When a household has

difficulty meeting basic needs, it

affects both genders at the same

time. By contrast, people living in

households with a female householder were significantly more likely

to experience difficulty meeting

basic needs than people in households with a male householder.

Lack of health insurance

and difficulties meeting

basic needs

People who were without health

insurance for at least 1 of the 4

months prior to interview were more

than twice as likely to live in a

household with any difficulty

meeting basic needs as those who

had continuous coverage (Table 1).

Likewise, the percentage with

multiple difficulties was much higher

for those without health insurance

than for those who were insured.

A growing number of people in the

United States lack health insurance.8

There is some question about the

extent to which those who lack

insurance do so out of choice or by

necessity. The finding in this report

of greater difficulty meeting basic

needs among those without insurance suggests that people who lack

health insurance may do so because

of other pressing needs. A greater

concern, perhaps, is the degree to

which those without health insurance are forced to go without

needed medical care. Lack of health

insurance strongly affected the

probability that there would be a

person in the household who

needed to see the doctor but did

not go. While only 3.1 percent of

the insured population lived in a

household where needed medical

care was not obtained, 14.9 percent

of those without health insurance

faced this situation.

Not getting enough to eat

Another measure of well-being is

food sufficiency — which can be

measured by looking at both the

quantity and quality of food. The

SIPP asks about the kind and amount

of food in a household, the length of

time food was in short supply, and

the amount of money it would have

taken to balance the food budget.

Approximately 1 person in 20 (4.8

percent) lived in a household

reporting that members sometimes

did not get enough to eat (Table 4).

A larger portion, nearly one in five

(18.8 percent), lived in households

that either did not get enough or did

not get the kind of foods they

wanted to eat. Thus, even though

the great majority of people lived in

households where adequate

amounts of nutritious food were

available, there was a small segment

of the population in 1995 that

lacked adequate amounts of food.

When they occurred, food shortfalls

were fairly large. Among those in

households that did not get enough

food in the last 30 days, the average

time they reported being short of

food was over a week, and on

average, it would have taken about

$100 for these households to bring

their food budget into balance.

Getting enough food was strongly

associated with income, age, race

and Hispanic origin, gender of

householder, and health insurance

coverage. The difference between

6 In this report, unless otherwise noted, data

for White and Black exclude Hispanics. Hispanics may be of any race.

7 See U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing

Survey for the United States in 1995, Current

Housing Reports H150/95, Washington, DC.:

U.S. Census Bureau, Issued April 1997, Tables

2-9 and 2-12.

8 Robert L. Bennefield, Who Loses Coverage

and for How Long? Dynamics of Economic Wellbeing: Health Insurance, 1993 to 1995, Current

Population Reports, P70-64, August 1998.
6 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

males and females was not significant. Among children, 7.3 percent

lived in households which didn’t

have enough to eat (Figure 2),

compared to 1.9 percent of those

age 60 and above. About one

person in ten (9.3 percent) among

Blacks lived in households with

insufficient food. Among Hispanics,

11.7 percent lived in households

where there wasn’t enough to eat. It

was rare for people in the top

income quintile to live in households

that did not have enough food, with

only 0.8 percent falling in this

category, but 11.2 percent of those

in the lowest income quintile were in

households that did not get enough

food. The percentage of low-income

households with not enough food

was not significantly different from

the percentage of Hispanics with not

enough food.

Where to go when the

going gets rough:

Getting help

Another measure of well being is

the availability of help to households

that had difficulty meeting basic

needs. The SIPP asked households

with difficulty meeting basic needs

whether they received any help, and

if so, where it came from — family,

friends, community organizations,

or government.

Only 17.2 percent of people who

experienced difficulties in their

household said they received help

from others (Table 5). Help was

most likely to come from family,

friends and community organizations — altogether, 13.1 percent.

Government agencies provided help

to 4.9 percent.9 Those whose

household incomes fell in the lowest

quintile were more likely to get help

than those with higher incomes.

9 Percentages do not add to totals due to

some households receiving help from more

than one source.

Table 4.

Food Sufficiency, Days Without Food and Food Budget

Shortfall, by Income Quintile, Age, Race, Hispanic Origin,

and Gender: 1995

 Not enough food

Not enough Avg. number Avg. budget

or not the kind of of days with- shortfall in

food wanted out food in last 30 days

Characteristic (Percent) Percent last 30 days (Dollars)

Total 18.8 4.8 9 95

Income Quintile Measures1

Lowest quintile 35.1 11.2 9 86

Second quintile 24.8 6.6 9 110

Third quintile 15.1 3.2 9 98

Fourth quintile 9.8 1.5 6 115

Fifth quintile 6.4 0.8 6 42

Age

0 to 17 years 25.1 7.3 8 100

18 to 29 years 20.6 5.6 9 91

30 to 59 years 16.7 4.1 9 96

60 years and over 11.5 1.9 11 67

Race and Hispanic Origin2

White, not Hispanic 14.6 3.2 10107

Black, not Hispanic 30.4 9.3 7 59

Hispanic origin 35.011.7 7 104

Gender

Male 18.3 4.7 8 96

Female 19.2 5.09 94

Gender of Householder

Male 15.9 3.3 8 93

Female 24.8 8.09 96

Health Insurance Coverage

Not insured 32.8 9.7 9 106

Insured 14.7 3.4 9 93

1 Income quintiles group people according to household income, ranging from the lowest fifth

of the population to the highest.

2 Data for White and Black exclude Hispanics. Hispanics may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 panel,

administered 1995.
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 7

One in four (26.0 percent) of the

lowest income group received help,

while lower portions of most other

income groups did. In the lowest

income quintile, people who experienced difficulties meeting basic

needs more often received assistance from government programs

than those with higher incomes who

experienced difficulties. Assistance

from non-governmental sources was

also more common among those in

the lowest income quintile than

those in higher income quintiles.

There was little variation in the rate

of receiving help between those of

different age groups, although there

were significant contrasts between

people in the 40-60 age range and

those under 30. There was no

significant difference in help received

by race. In a few other cases there

were significant differences between

groups. Those with college educations were less likely than others to

receive help. Compared to those

living with male householders,

people living with female householders were more likely to have received

help when they experienced difficulty meeting basic needs. Renters

were more likely to get help when in

need than were homeowners. There

was a higher probability of help for

those who recently moved compared

with those who didn’t, and for

unmarried people compared with

married people. Renters, movers,

and the unmarried might have

occasional problems paying bills

because of instability in their life

situations, and not always because

of lack of income. This may be why

they have less trouble getting help

when they have difficulty meeting

basic needs.

Who would be there if

help were needed?

Even if they didn’t have difficulty

meeting basic needs, all respondents

were asked about sources of help

that would be available if it were

needed. More than two-thirds were

in a household where all or most of

the help they need would be available from family (Table 5). Just over

half lived where help was available

from friends. Finally, less than onethird lived in households where they

could get help from community

agencies. Since the majority of

people did not experience difficulties

meeting basic needs in 1995, this

information provides a broader

picture of available help than

information from people who

actually experienced difficulties

meeting basic needs.

A majority of those in all groups (age

groups, race groups, etc.) lived in

households reporting that help

would be available if it were needed.

Moreover, the proportions fell in a

relatively narrow band. Children

under the age of 10 were quite likely

to live where help would be available, with 81.4 percent in such a

household. Help would be available

to around 80 percent of people in

various other groups — people

between the ages of 18 and 39,

people in the highest two income

quintiles, the college educated,

Midwesterners, and those who had

not moved recently. At the other

extreme, help would be available for

approximately 70 percent of those

with less than a high school education, those who were unemployed

and those with work disabilities. In

all other groups, the proportion

living where help would be available

was between 70 and 80 percent.

Help expected and

help received

The contrast between help people

received when they had actual need

and the help they expected if need

arose presents a seeming paradox.

People with lower incomes were

more likely than people with high

incomes to be in households that

received help from others when they

experienced difficulties meeting

basic needs. But when asked about

help available in a hypothetical

situation, low-income people were

less likely than high-income people

to be in households where help was

available. A possible explanation is

that poor people were caught in a

bind. Asking for help from others

usually generates feelings of obligation or actual obligations. Those

with low incomes might have been

reluctant to ask for help or might

have used up the generosity of

those willing to help, especially if

those available to help had similarly

low incomes.

There are other contrasts between

help anticipated and help received.

When asked about help they would

receive if needed, 77.3 percent said

help would be available from some

source. By contrast, when people

experienced financial troubles, only

17.2 percent did receive help (Table

5). Part of the reason for this

seeming contradiction may be the

difference between the hypothetical

situation posed (sickness or moving), and the actual situation where

help might have been needed (billpaying problems). In addition, the

hypothetical situation clearly specified that it would be one where the

respondent needed help. However,

part of the reason could well be that

people are overly optimistic about

the help that would be available to

them, or that they are reluctant to

ask for help when they need it.
8 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Table 5.

Help Received and Help Expected From Others, by Detailed Characteristics: 1995

(In percent)

 Help received when experiencing difficulties meeting basic needs Help expected if need arose

Help from Help from nongovernment sources Help from Help from Help from

any All nongov Community government any Others in

Characteristic source1 sources Family Friends organizations agencies source1 Family Friends community

Total 17.2 13.1 6.1 2.4 1.6 4.9 77.3 68.4 54.0 28.5

Income Quintile Measures2

Lowest quintile 26.018.6 9.1 2.9 2.6 8.7 73.2 63.9 47.2 28.6

Second quintile 14.6 11.4 4.8 3.4 1.2 4.075.5 67.1 52.9 29.3

Third quintile 9.7 8.5 4.3 0.9 0.5 1.2 78.8 70.6 55.2 31.4

Fourth quintile 4.2 4.1 2.1 1.4 0.0 0.2 79.7 71.4 57.1 28.3

Fifth quintile 13.5 12.4 3.01.8 4.3 1.2 80.1 69.8 58.3 25.3

Age

0 to 9 years 19.3 13.3 5.5 2.3 2.06.6 81.4 72.056.5 31.7

10 to 17 years 19.1 13.9 5.3 2.9 1.9 6.8 77.3 66.1 54.1 32.4

18 to 29 years 18.1 15.3 8.1 3.6 1.03.3 80.4 72.4 56.7 26.0

30 to 39 years 16.5 12.5 6.1 1.6 1.6 4.6 79.9 70.8 57.3 27.1

40 to 49 years 14.011.2 6.01.9 1.3 3.6 74.6 64.4 53.2 26.1

50 to 59 years 13.011.5 4.8 1.7 2.6 1.9 72.1 63.5 51.026.6

60 to 69 years 17.010.9 6.02.8 1.8 6.1 71.7 64.8 47.1 29.1

70 years and over 15.1 11.6 6.1 2.0 1.2 3.5 74.1 67.1 47.2 30.4

Race and Hispanic Origin3

White, not Hispanic 16.2 11.8 5.8 1.8 1.8 5.1 79.2 69.9 56.3 28.6

Black, not Hispanic 18.3 14.7 4.8 4.01.9 4.1 74.065.8 47.9 34.8

Hispanic origin 18.8 14.9 7.2 2.8 0.8 4.7 73.4 62.3 45.2 23.4

Region

Northeast 18.3 12.4 5.03.4 1.3 6.4 76.3 67.7 50.7 25.4

Midwest 16.5 11.5 4.1 2.9 2.4 5.1 80.7 72.1 56.9 27.7

South 17.7 14.8 6.02.1 1.5 3.5 77.2 68.2 55.5 34.9

West 16.4 12.5 8.9 1.7 1.4 5.4 74.7 65.1 51.4 21.7

Gender

Male 16.3 12.6 5.9 2.3 1.4 4.3 77.067.9 54.5 28.3

Female 18.1 13.5 6.3 2.5 1.9 5.4 77.7 68.8 53.4 28.7

Gender of Householder

Male 13.6 10.7 5.0 1.2 1.4 3.4 77.5 69.0 55.0 29.2

Female 21.5 15.9 7.5 3.9 1.9 6.6 77.066.9 51.8 26.9

Educational Attainment

Less than high

school diploma 17.6 14.06.8 3.2 1.3 4.8 71.2 63.7 46.9 28.8

High school graduate 15.8 12.4 6.6 2.00.9 3.8 76.7 69.1 53.2 27.5

Some college or

associate degree 16.4 13.2 6.5 2.03.03.6 78.2 69.3 55.5 26.6

Bachelor's degree

or more 11.4 10.7 5.5 1.8 1.4 0.9 79.3 68.7 57.7 25.6

Health Insurance Coverage

Not insured 18.7 15.7 7.8 2.9 1.3 3.7 71.9 64.1 48.7 26.0

Insured 16.1 11.2 4.9 2.1 1.9 5.7 78.9 69.6 55.5 29.2

Tenure

Renter occupied 21.4 16.1 7.03.3 2.2 6.5 74.5 63.9 50.6 26.8

Owner ocupied 12.1 9.4 5.01.4 1.0 2.9 78.7 70.6 55.7 29.3

Residential Mobility

Moved recently 21.9 17.3 8.2 2.8 1.8 5.3 76.6 68.8 55.1 26.4

Non-mover 14.5 10.7 4.9 2.2 1.6 4.6 79.4 68.2 53.6 29.2

Employment Status4

Unemployed 21.2 17.010.5 2.6 1.2 4.7 68.4 58.9 47.5 24.5

Not in labor force 19.014.6 7.6 2.7 1.9 5.2 73.1 65.3 48.5 29.9

Employed 13.6 11.2 5.3 2.1 1.3 2.9 78.7 69.9 56.2 25.9

Work Disability4

Work disability 20.6 15.07.8 2.7 2.3 6.6 69.3 59.7 45.7 25.4

Not disabled 14.5 12.1 6.1 2.2 1.2 2.8 77.7 69.4 54.8 27.5

Marital Status4

Not married 19.1 15.4 8.03.6 1.5 4.5 75.1 65.2 52.1 24.1

Married 12.2 9.7 4.7 0.8 1.5 2.9 77.5 70.1 54.4 29.4

1 Help from particular sources do not add to "help from any source," because households may get help from multiple sources.

2 Income quintiles group people according to household income, ranging from the lowest fifth of the population to the highest.

3 Data for White and Black exclude Hispanics. Hispanics may be of any race.

4 These items are tabulated for adults (age 18 and over) only. All other items cover the entire population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 panel, administered 1995.
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 9

As Figure 3 shows, there are also

contrasts involving the source of

help received. Among those in

households that expected to get

help, 88.4 percent lived where help

would be forthcoming from family.

Of those in households that had

difficulties meeting basic needs and

received help, a much smaller

percentage actually got help from

family, only 43.3 percent. A similar

situation existed when it came to

help from friends. Around 69.8

percent of people in households that

expected to get help said help would

be forthcoming from friends, but

friends accounted for only 17.2

percent of help received when need

arose. By contrast, other agencies in

the community were a larger part of

actual help received than they were

of help expected. Community

agencies were credited with being

able to offer needed help by only

36.9 percent, but when actual need

arose, the percentage who got help

from this source was 44.3 percent.10

Extended measures of

well-being

There are many aspects of wellbeing, including some that have

been examined in previous Census

Bureau reports.11 This report has

focused on several key aspects —

difficulty meeting basic needs, food

sufficiency, and getting help when it

is needed. Those least likely to

experience difficulties were those

who were older, had greater resources, and were more “established” in their living patterns

(married, employed, homeowners,

etc.). Those who experienced the

most serious difficulties — inadequate food or medical care — were

members of groups that lack needed

resources, especially income and

health insurance. Many people were

able to get help from others when

they ran into difficulties, but most

tried to deal with the problems on

their own.

Traditional measures of income,

wealth, and poverty provide basic

information about the well-being of

the population. On the other hand,

extended measures such as those

examined in this report can provide

insight into aspects of well-being not

fully captured by traditional measures. Collection and examination

of data on extended measures of

well-being will allow us to develop a

more complete picture of the quality

of life.

Source of the data

The estimates in this report come

from the Survey of Income and

Program Participation (SIPP). The

SIPP is a longitudinal survey of

people who are at least 15 years old,

conducted at 4-month intervals by

the Census Bureau. Although the

main focus of SIPP is information on

labor force participation, jobs,

income, and participation in federal

assistance programs, information on

other topics is also collected in

topical modules on a rotating basis.

Data shown in this report are from

the Basic Needs topical module

collected in the 4-month period from

October 1995 through January 1996

as part of the 1993 panel of the SIPP.

The Basic Needs topical module

included questions on ability to meet

10 The difference between receiving help

from family and receiving help from others is

not significant.

11 See Kathleen Short and Martina Shea, Beyond

Poverty, Extended Measures of Well-Being:

1992, Current Population Reports, Series P-70,

No. 50RV, 1995, and Larry M. Radbill and

Kathleen Short, Extended Measures of WellBeing: Selected Data from the 1984 Survey of

Income and Program Participation, Current

Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 26, 1992.
10 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

expenses, help when in need, food

adequacy, and minimum income.

One person in each interviewed

household was asked about the

material well-being of the entire

household. First, they were asked

about problems meeting basic

needs — bills that could not be paid,

services that were cut off for nonpayment, or needed medical care

that was not obtained. Those who

reported inability to meet expenses

were asked if they received help

from any person or organization

and, if so, who helped. People who

reported that their household did

not get enough to eat were asked

which months in the last 4 this

occurred, the reasons this occurred,

the number of days in the last

month without food, and the

amount of money their household

fell short on their food budget. A

final section, not analyzed in this

report, included questions on current

income, and a “split ballot” question

(alternate versions of the question

asked of randomly chosen portions

of those interviewed) on the minimum income to make ends meet or

minimum expenditure needed to

provide basic necessities. The

tabulations reported here refer to

experiences in the previous 12

months from the time of interview.

Because different households were

interviewed at different times, the

reference period was slightly different, depending on when the questionnaire was administered. Overall,

the reference period extended from

October 1994 to December 1995.

For the sake of brevity we refer to

this period as “1995.”

Accuracy of the

estimates

All survey statistics are subject to

sampling error, as well as nonsampling error such as survey

design flaws, respondent classification and reporting errors, data

processing mistakes, and

undercoverage. The Census Bureau

attempts to reduce errors made by

respondents, coders, and interviewers through the use of quality

control and editing procedures.

Ratio estimation to independent agerace-gender-Hispanic population

controls partially corrects for bias

due to survey undercoverage.

However, biases exist in the estimates when missed people have

characteristics different from those

of interviewed people in the same

age-race-gender-Hispanic origin

group. Analytical statements in this

report have been tested and meet

statistical standards. However,

because of methodological differences, use caution when comparing

these data with data from other

sources. The estimates of difficulty

meeting basic needs and other

measures of well-being presented in

this report may understate the true

values, as no imputation was done

for failure to answer the specific

topical module questions.

Contact Jennifer Guarino,

Demographic Statistical Methods

Division, at 301-457-4182

or on the Internet at:

Jennifer.A.Guarino@ccmail.census.gov

for survey design and estimation

questions. For information on the

source of data, the accuracy of

estimates, the use of standard

errors, and the computation of

standard errors, see the “Source

and Accuracy Statement for the

1993 SIPP Public Use File.” See

also the SIPP web site:

http//www.sipp.census.gov/sipp.

Contacts

Statistical Information Office

Population Division

pop@census.gov

301-457-2422

Kurt J. Bauman

Education and Social

 Stratification Branch

Population Division

kurt.j.bauman@ccmail.census.gov

301-457-2464

User comments

The Census Bureau welcomes the

comments and advice of data and

report users. If you have any

suggestions or comments, please

write to:

Chief, Population Division

U.S. Census Bureau

Washington, DC 20233

or send E-mail to:

pop@census.gov