What Does it Mean to be 

Poor in America?

An examination of a variety of measures of material 

well-being shows those individuals living in poor 

families, in single parent families, and in families 

receiving welfare to be significantly worse off than 

those living in nonpoor families

Maya Federman, 

Thesia I. Garner, 

Kathleen Short W 

Boman Cutter IV, John 

Kiely, David Levine, 

Duane McGough, and

Marilyn McMillen

 To understand the relationship between poverty 

and living conditions, a multifaceted understanding 

of what it means to be poor is required. In one 

sense, the answer to the question "What does it 

mean to be poor?" is straightforward-having cash 

income below the official poverty line for a given 

family size. In a broader sense, the living 

conditions of the poor are difficult to measure, 

both because annual cash income is only one factor 

related to living conditions; and because the poor 

are quite heterogeneous.

This article represents an effort to get closer to 

the answer by summarizing findings from nine 

national surveys that shed light on the living 

conditions of individuals living in poor and 

nonpoor families. It differs from earlier 

examinations of living conditions and the material 

well-being of American families in that it draws 

upon a broader set of household surveys and 

attempts to maximize uniformity in the definition 

of family types and poverty. This work represents 

a coordinated effort of representatives of various 

Federal agencies that produce and analyze data 

from nationally representative surveys.1 The aim in 

this process has been to produce measurements of 

material well-being for an expanded set of 

dimensions, following a methodology that would 

promote comparability across surveys as much as 

possible.

Related research 2

Although the official poverty measure in the 

United States is defined in terms of current 

before-tax cash income, some aspects of economic 

welfare can be more accurately gauged by 

measuring consumption or other dimensions of 

living conditions. Income measures ignore 

homeownership and other assets that can be 

important sources of consumption. Thus, some 

people, such as those who are retired or those 

whose incomes are only temporarily low, may be 

classified as poor based on income but do not have 

low consumption. Furthermore, the official poverty 

rate does not account for taxes or in-kind transfers 

such as food stamps or government-provided 

medical insurance, which improve living 

conditions without affecting a family's official 

poverty status.3

To address some of the limitations of basing the 

measure of poverty solely on cash income, David 

M. Cutler and Lawrence F. Katz compare poverty 

rates constructed using consumption expenditure 

data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey with 

the official poverty rates based on income from the

Current Population Survey. They find that, while 

the poverty rate is lower when measured using 

expenditures, trends in poverty rates based on both 

income and expenMonthly Labor Review May 1996 3

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Reprinted from May 1996

Monthly Labor Review

Authors' affiliations are on 

page 13. The interpretations 

presented an this article are 

the authors' own, and do not 

represent those of agencies 

with which they are, or have 

been, affiliated.
ditures are similar, and both rates rose during the 1980's, 

particularly for the nonelderly.

Daniel T. Slesnick also finds that consumption expenditurebased poverty rates are lower than income-based measures.5

 He 

notes that the reported postwar trend poverty is sensitive to the 

equivalence scale used and, for the late 1970’s and the 1980’s, 

to the price indexes used for the analysis.

Other researchers have analyzed measures of specific 

dimensions of material and economic well-being such as 

housing, neighborhood quality, consumer durables, income 

sources, spending patterns, and health to study the living 

conditions of low-income children and families. For example, 

Robert Rector analyzes the 1989 American Housing Survey and 

finds that nearly 40 percent of all households with incomes 

below the official poverty line own their own homes, but that 

only 18 percent of poor, single-parent families are 

homeowners.6 The median value of homes owned by the poor is 

58 percent of the median value of all homes owned in the 

United States. In addition, he reports that only 8 percent of poor 

households are overcrowded (defined as more than one person 

per room), and 53 percent of poor households have some type 

of air conditioning.

A recent Children's Defense Fund report summarizes findings 

along a large number of dimensions of disparities in resources 

and outcomes between poor and nonpoor children.7 The 

evidence ranges from analysis of national data sources to studies 

limited to a specific State or community. According to the 

report, poor children have higher rates of various health 

problems, inferior housing, inferior schools, less access to 

computers and educational materials at home, inferior child care, 

higher rates of child abuse, higher rates of parental substance 

abuse, more frequent moves, more exposure to toxic chemicals 

and pollution, higher rates of lead poisoning, and other 

disadvantages.

Using data from the American Housing Survey, the decennial 

census, the Consumer Expenditure Survey, and the National 

Health Interview Survey, Susan Mayer and Christopher Jencks 

examine trends in various measures of the material well-being of 

children from 1969 to 1989.8 They find that children in families 

in the lowest quintile of income have made both absolute and 

relative gains over time across a variety of measures of housing 

quality. Low-income children are now less likely to live in 

crowded housing and more likely to live in homes with indoor 

plumbing, central heat, and major appliances such as air 

conditioners and dishwashers. In addition, they are now more 

likely to have seen a doctor in the preceding year. At the same 

time, low-income children are now less likely to live in 

households that own their own homes or have access to an 

automobile, and are more likely to live in neighborhoods 

identified by their parents as having a crime problem.

Mayer and Jencks suggest that some of the improvement 

in

housing conditions may have resulted because newer housing 

for low-income families became available as their more 

affluent counterparts moved to the suburbs. Govemment 

programs may also have played a role in improving living 

conditions in some dimensions. For example, these researchers 

report that the proportion of low-income children having access 

to a telephone grew during the 1970's, when universal access 

was a government policy, but ceased growing during the 1980’s 

when universal access declined as a policy priority. In 

summary, Mayer and Jencks note that, despite the gains 

experienced by low-income children, their measured living 

conditions remain significantly lower relative to other 

children's.

 Using data from the 1992-94 Consumer Expenditure Survey, 

William D. Passero9examines selected characteristics and 

spending patterns of working poor and nonworking poor 

consumer units. A consumer unit is defined as poor if it 

received welfare income10 at any time during the preceding 12 

months, and as working poor if the unit had at least one 

member who worked outside the home for at least 27 weeks 

over the preceding 12 months.11

Passero reports that consumer units in the working poor group 

are larger; these units have an average of more than 4 persons, 

compared with 3.5 persons in the nonworking poor group. 

Consumer units in the working group report average total 

expenditures that are 85 percent higher than those of the 

nonworking group. Not surprisingly, the nonworking poor 

apportion a greater share of expenditures to commodities such 

as food, shelter, and utilities. About 40 percent of spending is 

for shelter and utilities and 30 percent is for food among the 

nonworking group, while only 30 percent of the total is for 

shelter and utilities and 20 percent is for food among the 

consumer units with at least one working member. The 

spending share on transportation for the working poor is almost 

twice (18 percent) that of the nonworking poor. Ownership of 

various durable items, or access to them in the home, is 

significantly lower for the nonworking poor. However, home 

computers are scarce among both groups; about 10 percent of 

the working poor report home access to or ownership of 

computers, while 4 percent of the nonworking poor do so.

Mark Lino examines income sources, spending patterns, and 

characteristics of poor households with at least one child, using 

the 1990-92 Consumer Expenditure Survey.12 Lino applies a 

stricter definition of poverty than has generally been used by 

others: a household is poor if its before-tax income is below the 

official poverty threshold and its total expenditures are below 

the official poverty threshold.13 He reports that a majority of 

these poor households have reference persons who are single 

parents (51 percent) and that 97 percent of these single parents 

are mothers. Food stamps is the most commonly reported source 

of income for poor households with children. (Sixty-nine 

percent of these households reported income from food stamps
during the survey period.) Fifty-four percent of the poor 

households report receiving wages or salaries, and 54 percent 

report receiving some type of public assistance. In addition, 

Lino finds that, of those households with reference persons who 

are unemployed, 65 percent report not working because they 

were taking care of family members and 18 percent report not 

working because of illness.

Scope and method

Nine nationally representative surveys were analyzed to create a 

comprehensive picture of the living situations of families: the 

1993 American Housing Survey, the 1992-93 Consumer 

Expenditure Survey, the 1993-94 Current Population Survey 

(October 1993 Education Supplement and March 1994 Annual 

Demographic Supplement), the 1992 High School and Beyond 

Survey, the 1992-93 National Crime Victimization Survey, the 

1993 National Health Interview Survey, the 1993 National 

Household Education Survey (School Readiness Component and 

School Safety and Discipline Component), the 1989-90 National 

Maternal and Infant Health Survey, and the 1992 Survey of 

Income and Program Participation-Extended Measures of 

Well-Being topical module. Here, the year of the survey refers 

to the interview or collection period. Reference periods are 

noted in the table footnotes and in the survey descriptions 

presented in appendix A.

In general, results are shown for individuals living in both 

poor and nonpoor families. Families are defined as including a 

household head, or reference person, and household members 

related to the head by blood, marriage, or other legal 

arrangement. Thus, individuals living alone and unrelated 

individuals living in the household are not included. An 

exception is the analysis of the National Crime Victimization

Survey; for this survey, results of all households are presented 

because data on families were not available.

For all surveys but one, the poor are defined as those 

individuals living in families whose before-cash incomes fall 

below the official poverty thresholds for their family type.14 For 

the Consumer Expenditure Survey, total family expenditures, 

rather than incomes, are compared to the official thresholds. In 

each of tire other surveys, the definition of family before-tax 

income is designed to be as close as possible to the definition of 

income used by the Census Bureau in calculating official 

poverty rates. The definition of family expenditures is the same 

as that used in official Bureau of Labor Statistics publications. 

(See appendix A.) Because of differences in the questions asked 

and in the definition of income used, it is not possible to match 

income levels exactly across surveys. However, because poverty 

rates for individuals in each family type are similar across most 

of the surveys, any differences are likely to be minimal."

All of the estimates presented in this article were tabulated on 

a person-weighted, rather than family-weighted, basis.16

This is in contrast to the procedure followed in most of the 

previous research cited above. In those other studies, averages 

across families rather than across individuals are produced when 

results by family characteristics of the poor and nonpoor are 

tabulated. With the approach used here, one can make 

statements about the living conditions of individuals. For 

example, in 1993, 40.8 percent of all poor individuals living in 

families lived in homes that their families owned. In most cases, 

the use of person-weights has little impact on the findings. For 

example, results from the American Housing Survey and those 

from the Survey of Income and Program Participation differ 

only marginally when estimated with person-weights versus 

family-weights (results not shown). For the Consumer 

Expenditure Survey and the Current Population Survey, the use 

of person-weights leads to slightly higher mean total family 

expenditures and incomes than when family-weights are used; 

however, the percent distributions of expenditures and income 

change little.17

Person-weights, rather than family-weights, were used here 

for two reasons. First, person-weighted results for surveys in 

which the unit of data collection is the family (the American 

Housing Survey; the Consumer Expenditure Survey; data on 

income sources, taxes, and benefts in the Current Population 

Survey; and the Survey of Income and Program Participation) 

are more directly comparable to results from the surveys in 

which the unit of data collection is the individual (the remaining 

five surveys, and the educational attainment and health insurance 

receipts components of the Current Population Survey). Second, 

the material living conditions of family members are the focus of 

this article and weighting each family's characteristics by the 

number of people in the family gives the best approximation of 

that concept. There is, however, no adjustment for differences in 

economies of scale in the household, nor is account taken of 

differences between adults and children in terms of their needs; 

this is most relevant for understanding the income and 

expenditure results. One can say, for example, that the average 

family income of individuals living in poor families is $8,501; 

however, this. does not mean drat each person has full access to 

this income, but only that the average individual lives in a 

household with this income. With greater family size, 

individuals would likely be worse off in a welfare sense than 

members of smaller families with the same income.

In addition to estimates for individuals living in poor and 

nonpoor families, results also are produced for two 

subpopulations: individuals in poor, single-parent families and 

individuals in families receiving welfare. Poor, single-parent 

families are defined as families that have incomes below the 

official poverty threshold and that have an unmarried head of 

household and at least one child under age 18.18 Families 

receiving welfare are defined as families with chil-
dren19 that report receiving welfare assistance sometime during 

the reference period. To allow for maximum comparability of 

results, the following discussion usually focuses on poor, 

single-parent families because the definition of families 

receiving welfare varies across some surveys and is absent in 

others.20 The accompanying tables present data for all 

individuals living in families receiving welfare assistance, rather 

than for persons in poor families that receive assistance. It is not 

uncommon for families who receive welfare at some point over 

the reference period to have income above the poverty line 

measured over the entire interval. For example, job loss or 

divorce could make a family eligible for welfare assistance at 

some point in the period, even if the average income over the 

whole period is above the poverty line. In addition, some 

programs have eligibility thresholds above the poverty line. 

Because results are similar for both groups, we present 

tabulations for only one. In those cases in which results are 

substantially different, results for poor families receiving 

welfare also are noted.

Percent distributions of persons and of mean income and 

expenditures of families are presented for four family types: 

nonpoor families; poor families; poor, single-parent families; 

and families receiving welfare.

A portrait of the poor

The results for individuals living in poor and nonpoor families 

are divided into seven categories: income sources, spending 

patterns, housing, consumer durables and utilities, crime and 

neighborhood, health and nutrition, and education. In the first 

four categories, the unit of data collection is the family; thus, 

results are presented by family characteristic. For example, the 

mean total expenditures of poor families is

$11,596. The unit of data collection for the last two categories is 

the individual in general; thus, results are for the average 

individual of the relevant population. For example, 27 percent of 

poor children aged 5 to 7 years have fewer than 10 books. The 

crime and neighborhood category has measures of both family 

(or household) and individual characteristics. The final table 

presents an "index of deprivation" for individuals that reflects 

several family characteristics.

Summary tables of all variables discussed in the text are 

provided for each category. The source survey for each variable 

is noted in each table. All differences discussed below are 

statistically significant at the I -percent level.

Income sources. Poor families differ from nonpoor families both 

in the levels and sources of their incomes. (See table 1.) The 

average poor person lives in a family whose income is about a 

sixth as much as the family income of the average nonpoor 

person ($8,501 versus $55,394). For the single-parent poor and 

those in families receiving welfare, average

family incomes are $6,794 and $12,678.21

The average nonpoor person lives in a family that receives 

85.1 percent of its income from wages, salaries, and 

self-employment earnings, compared to 52 percent for the poor 

and only 36 percent for those in poor, single-parent families. A 

larger proportion of the income of poor families comes from 

public assistance and welfare: 20 percent, compared with only 

0.2 percent for the nonpoor. For those in poor, singleparent 

families, 40 percent of family income comes from public 

assistance and welfare.

Not surprisingly, poor families pay less in taxes and receive 

more in government transfers than do the nonpoor. On average, 

the Earned Income Tax Credit fully offsets the Federal and State 

income and FICA payroll taxes for the family of the average poor 

person. Additional taxes, such as sales taxes, are not included in 

these calculations. The family of the average nonpoor person 

pays an estimated $11,660 in Federal and State income and FICA 

taxes (less the Earned Income Tax Credit). The average poor 

person lives in a family that receives $1,727 in public assistance 

and welfare and $1,392 in food stamps. For those in poor, 

single-parent families, welfare and food stamp transfers are 

$2,701 and $1,871($4,381 and $2,241 for families receiving 

welfare).

Spending patterns. In this section, expenditure data from the 

Consumer Expenditure Survey, in conjunction with the official 

poverty thresholds, are used to determine if an individual lives 

in a poor family. Individuals defined as poor using expenditure 

data may not have the same family charac-
teristics as individuals identified as income-poor in other 

sections of this article.22 Poverty rates, measured using 

expenditure data, are generally lower than in the other surveys, 

although trends across family types are similar.

Differences between the poor and the nonpoor in average 

family expenditures are smaller than differences in average 

family incomes. (See table 2.) While average family incomes of 

the non-income-poor are over 6 times as large as those for the 

income-poor ($55,394 versus $8,501), average family 

expenditures of the non-expenditure-poor are only about 3 times 

as large as those for the expenditure-poor ($36,926 versus 

$11,596). For the single-parent poor and those in families 

receiving welfare, average family expenditures are $9,172 and 

$16,280.23

According to the data presented in tables 1 and 2, total family 

expenditures exceed total before-tax family income for all but 

the nonpoor. Transfer benefits, such as food stamps, are not 

reflected in the income figures, nor are taxes paid by families. 

When these are accounted for in income, the spending power of 

poor families increases. For example, if the value of food 

stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit are added to 

before-tax income, and taxes paid are subtracted, the ratio of 

expenditures to income becomes smaller, falling from 1.36 to 

1.16 for poor families, from 1.35 to 1.04 for single-parent poor 

families, and from 1.28 to 1.13 for welfare families. The fact 

that expenditures still exceed income is likely related to how 

expenditures are defined (appendix A), possible underreporting 

of income compared to expenditures, differences in the types of 

families that are considered poor on the basis of income versus 

expenditures, and differences in income and expenditure 

distributions.24

The composition of spending also varies by family type.

Not surprisingly, a greater share of poor people's total expenditures is allocated to purchasing items frequently considered

necessities: food, shelter, utilities, and apparel. Seventy-one

percent of poor persons' family expenditures are spent on

these necessities, compared to 46 percent for the nonpoor.

For those in expenditure-poor, single parent families, an even

larger share of total family expenditures, 80 percent, is spent

on necessities. Spending a larger share of total expenditures

on necessities leaves a smaller portion for other items such as

transportation, health care, personal insurance and pensions,

and entertainment (including admissions to events, television,

toys, and pets). 

Housing. Rates of homeownership vary dramatically across both 

income levels and family types. (See table 3.) Seventyeight 

percent of the nonpoor live in homes that their families own, 

compared with only 41 percent of the poor. For those in poor, 

single-parent families and those in families receiving welfare, 

the homeownership rate is even lower, 24 percent. Thus, the 

nonpoor are 3 times more likely to live in homes they own than 

are those in poor, single-parent families.

The main reason for the difference in ownership rates 

between all individuals in poor families and individuals in poor, 

single-parent families is the high rate of ownership among 

individuals in poor, elderly families, 63 percent of whom live in 

homes they own (results not shown). In addition, 51 percent of 

people in poor two-parent families live in homes they own.

The poor are at greater risk of being evicted from their home 

or apartment, with eviction rates 5 times as high as those of the 

nonpoor. While only 0.4 percent of the nonpoor were evicted in 

the previous 12 months, 2.1 percent of the poor, 2.4 percent of 

the single-parent poor, and 2.6 percent of those in 

welfare-recipient families lost their homes. Twenty-six percent 

of the poor and 29 percent of those receiving welfare were in 

families that did not pay the full rent or mortgage at some point 

in the survey year: The rate for the nonpoor was much lower, 

only 7.5 percent.

Those in poor and nonpoor families differ according to the 

characteristics and condition of their housing as well. For 

example, poor individuals are more than twice as likely to live 

in crowded housing; 19 percent of those in poor families live in 

housing with more than one person per room, compared to only 

4 percent of the nonpoor. Similarly, those in poor families are 

about twice as likely to live in housing with upkeep problems 

as are the nonpoor. Eleven percent of the poor have housing 

with moderate upkeep problems and 4 percent have severe 

upkeep problems. Among persons living in nonpoor families, 4 

percent have housing with moderate problems and 2 percent 

have severe problems.25

Consumer durables and utilities. For some major consumer
durables, the poor and nonpoor differ 

little in access. (See table 4.) Almost all 

of the poor, like the nonpoor, have 

access to refrigerators and stoves: 98 

percent versus 99.5 percent. Also, 92 

percent of people in poor and in 

single-parent poor families and 98 

percent of people living in nonpoor 

families have access to a color 

television.26

For several other consumer durables, 

the poor have considerably lower rates 

of access, although for most of the items 

measured, their access rates are still 

above 50 percent. For example, 77 

percent of the poor and 70 percent of the 

single-parent poor have access to a 

telephone, compared with 97 percent of 

the nonpoor. Similarly, 72 percent of the 

nonpoor live in families that have air 

conditioning (central or room), while 50 

percent of those in poor families and 46 

percent of those in poor, single-parent 

families do. People in poor families also 

are considerably less likely to have 

access to washing machines and apparel 

dryers. (Because the Survey of Income 

and Program Participation asks whether 

the family has these items in either the 

home or the building, actual ownership 

rates of some items are likely lower.) 

About 77 percent of the poor and 64 

percent of those in poor, singleparent 

families have a household car or truck 

available, compared to 97 percent of the 

nonpoor.

Finally, the poor are more likely to 

have problems paying utility bills and to 

have services cut off. The poor and the 

single-parent poor are more than 3 tunes 

as likely as the nonpoor to have not paid 

their utility bill at some time during a 

12-month period. The poor are more 

than 4 times as likely to have their 

utilities cut off, while the singleparent 

poor are more than 5 times as likely. 

Finally, the poor are 5 times as likely as 

the nonpoor to have their telephone 

service disconnected because payments 

were not made, while the single-parent 

poor are 6 times as likely.
Crime and neighborhood. Individuals who live in poor 

households,27 especially those in poor, single-parent 

households, are much more likely to be victims of crime than 

are those who live in other households. (See table 5.) Those 

living in poor households are twice as likely as the nonpoor to 

be victims of violent crimes (rape, assault, and robbery); those 

in poor, single-parent households are more than 3 times as 

likely.

The difference in the incidence of personal theft between the 

poor and the nonpoor is not statistically significant, but those in 

poor, single-parent households again suffer crimes at a higher 

rate. Rates of theft for the nonpoor are 60 per 1,000 people per 

year, compared to 66 for the poor and 85 for those in poor, 

single-parent households. The rates of incidence for household 

crimes (burglary, household theft, or motor vehicle theft) are 

high for both the poor and the poor in single-parent families. 

Poor households are almost one and a half times as likely and 

poor, single-parent households are more than twice as likely as 

nonpoor households to suffer these crimes.

Consistent with the statistics on crime victimization, the poor 

are less likely to report living in safe neighborhoods. 

Ninety-three percent of the nonpoor live in families whose 

family head reports that the neighborhood is safe from crime, 

compared to only 78 percent of the poor, 72 percent of those in 

poor, single-parent families, and 67 percent of those in families 

receiving welfare. Similarly, the poor are more likely to live in 

families whose head reports being afraid to go out28: this was 

the case for only 9 percent of the nonpoor, compared with 19.5 

percent of the poor, 21 percent of those

in poor, single-parent families, and 25 percent of those in 

families receiving welfare.

Overall, the poor are more likely to express dissatisfaction 

with the communities in which they live: 18 percent of the poor 

and 25 percent of those in poor, single-parent families are in 

households that report that their neighborhood is bad enough that 

they would like to move, compared with only 7 percent of the 

nonpoor. Similarly, 15 percent of the poor and 20 percent of 

persons in poor, single-parent families are in families that report 

that community services in their neighborhoods are bad enough 

that they would like to move, compared with only 6 percent of 

the nonpoor.

Given that these measures of safety and neighborhood quality 

are subjective, it is plausible that differences would be greater if 

measured on an absolute scale, because people tend to adjust 

their expectations according to their experiences.'

Health and nutrition. Poor mothers are much more likely than 

are nonpoor mothers to experience problems in birth and 

pregnancy. (See table 6.) The number of infant deaths within the 

first year is higher: 13.5 per 1,000 live births for poor mothers 

and 14.6 for poor, single mothers, compared to 8.3 for nonpoor 

mothers. Similarly, the percentage of live births with low weight 

and the rate of preterm births is about twice as high for poor and 

for single, poor mothers as for nonpoor mothers.'

Poor and nonpoor mothers also differ in quality of prenatal 

care. The Centers for Disease Control defines inadequate 

prenatal care as lack of prenatal doctor visits in the first 

trimester,

a strong predictor of birth outcomes. 

Forty-three percent of poor mothers and 

49 percent of poor, single mothers 

reported no prenatal doctor visits in the 

first trimester, compared with only 16 

percent of nonpoor mothers.

Poor children are more likely to have 

had a disability or health impairment 

lasting more than 6 months: 24 percent 

of poor children (aged 3 through 7) 

suffered such problems, compared to 18 

percent of nonpoor children. Similarly, 

25 percent of poor children in 

single-parent families have had a 

disability.

Poor children also are less likely to 

have a particular clinic, health center, or 

doctor's office that they usually visit 

when sick, and are more likely to use an 

emergency room as their usual clinic, if 

they have one. Twenty-three percent of 

poor children usually use an emergency 

room or have no usual clinic when sick, 

compared to only 8 percent of nonpoor
children. Poor and nonpoor children do not differ as to whether 

they have a usual place to which they go for routine care.

Poor and nonpoor children under age 18 do not differ 

significantly in terms of whether they had visited a doctor in the 

past year, perhaps because medicaid is available to poor 

children. However, poor children are less likely to see a dentist 

regularly. Sixty-,two percent of nonpoor children have seen a 

dentist within the last year, compared with only 41 percent of 

the poor.

Differences also exist in the presence and source of health 

insurance coverage. Thirteen percent of those in nonpoor 

families, compared with 29 percent of those in poor families, are 

not covered by health insurance at any time during the year. 

Those in poor, single-parent families actually have a lower rate, 

19 percent, than do all poor families. The higher coverage of the 

single-parent poor most likely results from their access to 

medicaid. The poor are less likely to be covered by private 

health insurance and are more likely to be covered by medicaid 

for all or part of the year. Only 24 percent of the poor (17 

percent of those

in poor, single-parent families) have private health insurance, 

while 46 percent are covered-by medicaid (68 percent of the 

single-parent poor). In contrast, 78 percent of the nonpoor have 

private health insurance and only 6 percent are covered by 

medicaid.

Finally, the poor are more likely to live in families that report 

sometimes or often not having enough food to eat. Ninety-nine 

percent of the nonpoor live in families where the head reports 

having enough food to eat, compared to 89 percent of persons in 

poor families and 87 percent of persons in poor, single-parent 

families.

Education. Poor students are more likely to have repeated a 

grade and to have been expelled from school. (See table 7.) 

Thirty-one percent of poor youth (grades 3 through 12) are 

reported by their parents to have repeated a grade, which is 

twice the rate for nonpoor students, 15 percent. Poor students 

are more than 3 times as likely as are nonpoor students to be 

expelled from school, 3.4 percent versus 1.41 percent. Also,
poor students are considerably more likely to attend schools 

with security guards and metal detectors.

Both poor and nonpoor students have high expectations that 

they will attend and graduate from college. Ninety percent of 

poor students expect to attend school after high school and 83 

percent anticipate graduating. Ninety-six percent of nonpoor 

students expect to continue their education, and 90 percent 

expect to graduate college. On the other hand, actual attendance 

and graduation rates exhibit differences. Forty-eight percent of 

poor students and 70 percent of nonpoor students attend either a 

2- or 4-year college; 17 percent of poor students and 33 percent 

of nonpoor students complete a bachelor's degree.31

Home computer use by children (aged 14 and younger) varies 

dramatically by income, although it was not prevelant for either 

the poor or the nonpoor. Twenty-three percent of children in 

nonpoor families use a computer at home, compared with only 3 

percent of children in poor families and 2.5 percent of children 

in poor, single-parent families. Children

have more equitable use of computers at school: 63 percent of 

nonpoor students compared with 55 percent of poor students and 

52 percent of students in poor, single-parent families use a 

computer at school.

Most poor and nonpoor prekindergarten children are enrolled 

in a nursery or preschool program; only 9 percent of poor and 6 

percent of nonpoor children did not attend such a program. The 

poor are much more likely to attend a Head Start program or 

other public preschool.

Young children (aged 5 to 7) in poor families watch more 

television than do those in nonpoor households and have fewer 

books. Almost one-third of them watch more than 4 hours of 

television per day, compared to only 15 percent of nonpoor 

children. Twenty-seven percent of poor children and 29 percent 

of poor children in single-parent families have fewer than 10 

books, compared to only 5 percent of nonpoor children.

Finally, poor children change residence more often. 

twenty-eight percent of poor children aged 5 to 7 move 3 or
more times before their fifth birthday, compared to 20 percent 

of nonpoor children. The pattern is similar for older children as 

well.

Overall deprivation. The previous discussion provides 

information on the distribution of various assets, consumption 

commodities, and income. However, correlations across 

measures are not apparent. Families with limited resources may 

choose different allocations of commodities in order to make

ends meet. Examining one dimension of living conditions at a

time probably understates the extent to which families forego 

important other elements of material well-being.

To address this issue, an index of deprivation was created 

using data from the Survey of Income and Program 

Participation. (See table 8.) Deprivations were defined on nine 

family characteristics: evicted in the past year, gas or electricity 

turned off in the past year, phone disconnected in the past year, 

did not have enough food in the past 4 months, lives in crowded 

housing (more than one person per room), lives in housing with 

moderate or severe upkeep problems,32 lives without a 

refrigerator, lives without a stove, and lives without a telephone. For each individual, the number of deprivations reported 

is the total number of these characteristics reported by the 

individual's family. The number of deprivations is between 0 

and 9 for each individual. Each of these hardships was chosen 

because it is relatively rare in the overall U.S. population and 

represents an element of material well-being important in 

day-to-day life in this country that has been forgone.33

The majority of the poor live with at least one of these 

deprivations: 55 percent of the poor, compared with 13 percent 

of the nonpoor. Similarly, 27 percent of the poor face two or 

more deprivations, compared with only 3 percent of the 

nonpoor. Fifty-seven percent of those in poor, single-parent 

families suffer at least one deprivation and 30 percent live with 

two or more; 65 percent of those in families receiving welfare 

suffer at least one deprivation and 34 percent live with two or 

more. Overall, the average number of deprivations for the poor, 

the poor in single-parent families, and those in families 

receiving welfare is 5 to 6 times higher than for the nonpoor.

Some Caveats

There are several factors that may lead to over- or 

underestimates of the differences in living conditions between 

the poor and nonpoor. For example, the measures presented here 

may overstate the actual deprivation of the poor because 

differences in possessions may reflect differences in preferences 

rather than differences in resources. These data do not permit 

one to distinguish, for each difference in living conditions 

identified here, the relative importance of choice versus limited 

resources. Moreover, an individual's lack of interest in material 

goods would be reflected in lower expenditures and fewer 

possessions. This lack of interest might also translate into lower 

income.

The use of short-term measures of poverty, such as those 

employed in this study, probably understates the relationship 

between persistent poverty and various outcomes. Roughly half 

of those who are poor in one year will remain poor for some 

years to come.34 Some past studies have found that differences 

are more pronounced for the persistently poor than for those who 

are poor in only one year. For example, poverty is associated 

with deficits in children's cognitive development; the correlation 

is roughly twice as great for children who are in poor families 3 

years in a row as for those poor a single year.35 Jane E. Miller 

and Sanders Korenman find that differentials in children having 

low height for their age (stunting) and low weight for their height 

(wasting) also are greater for those living in long-term rather 

than short-term poverty.36

An understatement of the difference between poor families 

and the general population is likely to result because, in

accordance with standard procedure, negative and zero
income and expenditure values were considered to be valid 

responses and were included in the calculation for the 

below-poverty populations. Negative incomes often are due to 

business losses or capital losses, and thus are a poor indicator 

that a family is poor. Calculations from the American Housing 

Survey suggest that excluding families that report negative or 

zero annual incomes from the poverty population increases the 

gap between the poor and the nonpoor for most variables. For 

example, homeownership among persons in poor families falls 

from 41 percent to 36 percent when such persons are excluded. 

Persons in families with negative or zero income have relatively 

high homeownership rates, 64 percent.

The difference in living conditions also may be understated 

due to a lack of adjustment for quality. If, for example, the 

durables owned by the poor were older or of lower quality, the 

differences between poor and nonpoor families would be 

understated.

Finally, certain populations, such as the homeless or persons 

who are institutionalized, are rarely included in the sample 

design of Federal household surveys such as these. It is likely 

that the most severe deprivation is concentrated among some of 

these unrepresented groups. If so, the results presented here 

understate the differences between the poor and the nonpoor. To 

more accurately identify the poor, changes in sample design and 

survey instruments need to be developed to specifically get at 

these vulnerable populations.

THE RESULTS PRESENTED 1N THIS ARTICLE paint a broad 

picture of the living conditions of individuals in American 

families across a variety of measures of well-being, and allow 

comparisons across family types and income levels. Clear 

differences between the poor and nonpoor are evident. However, the 

analysis makes it clear that generalizations across the entire 

poverty population can be misleading. For example, 

homeownership rates for people in poor, single-parent families 

and for people in families receiving welfare are only three-fifths 

the rate for those in all poor families.

It is also important to note that the findings do not necessarily 

reflect a causal relationship between income and living 

conditions. By definition, raising a family's income will end its 

poverty. At the same time, higher income may not remove the 

differences in the living conditions or deprivations that have 

been identified. For example, if low parental education is highly 

related to both low income and a low probability that a child 

will attend college, then raising family income will not 

necessarily lead to an increase in the likelihood that the child 

will attend college. Determining the causality of these 

relationships is a subject for further study.

The current study can be extended along a number of 

dimensions. While data from a large number of surveys are 

analyzed here, many important aspects of living conditions 

remain unmeasured. For example, measures of assets, access to 

credit, employment patterns, homelessness, environmental 

hazards, accumulation of "cultural capital" such as connections 

to social networks, and more objective characteristics of 

neighborhoods could be included in future research. Further 

separating tile family categories along other dimensions such as 

length of poverty spells, income to poverty threshold ratios, 

race, ethnicity, and geographic region would be useful. 

Similarly, different resource measures than before-tax cash 

income or expenditures and different thresholds than the official 

poverty threshold could be used. For greater progress to be made 

towards understanding the poor, these

and other dimensions also need to be examined. Q

Footnotes

AUTHORS' IDENTIFICATION: Maya Federman is a doctoral candidate in the 

Department of Economics, Harvard University; at the time this study was 

prepared, she was serving with the Council of Economic Advisors. Thesia I. 

Gainer is a senior research economist with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Kathleen 

Short is Chief of the Poverty and Health Statistics Branch, U.S. Bureau of the 

Census. W Boman Cutter IV, formerly a research assistant with the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury, is currently serving with the Peace Corps. John Kiely 

is Director of Housing and Demographic Analysis, with the National Center for 

Health Statistics. David Levine is an associate professor in the Haas School of 

Business, The University of California at Berkeley; at the time this study was 

prepared, he was serving with the Council of Economic Advisors. Duane 

McGough is Chief of the Infant and Child Health Studies Branch. U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development. Marilyn McMillen is a senior statistician at 

the National Center for Education Statistics.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Comments, statistical assistance, and direction 

from Richard Bavier and John Greenlees were integral to the project. Additional 

comments and statistical assistance were provided by Stacy Bondanelia, Paul 

Burke, Kathryn Chandler, Aurora D'Amico. Barbara Hawkins. Tom Kane, Chuck 

Nelson, Joanne Pascale, Bill Passem, Phil Rones, Anna Sanders. Kathryn 

Silbersiepe, Beth Schlaline, Martina Shea, Stephanie Shipp,

Toby Stickler, Wolf Weber, and Barbara Wootton.

1This article is drawn from a larger report containing results for additional 

variables and family types. The complete tables are available in Maya Federman 

and others, "Living Conditions of Individuals Living in Poorand Non-Poor 

Families," Institute of Industrial Relations Working Paper No. 64 (The University 

of California at Berkeley, May 1996).

2The following works, although not referenced separately also provided 

background for the present study: Robert Cage, Thesia I. Lamer, Richard Miller, 

William Passero, and Elizabeth Reise, "Data Comparability Across Federal 

Household Surveys,„ Working Document (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1992); 

David M. Cutler and Lawrence F Katz, "Macroeconomic Performance and the 

Disadvantaged," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, no. 2 (Washington, The 

Brookings Institution, 1991); Klaas de Vos and Thesia I. Garner, "An Evaluation 

of Subjective Poverty Definitions: Comparing Results from the U.S. and the 

Netherlands," Review of Income and Wealth Series 37, no. 3, September 1991; 

Hiram E. Fitzgerald, Barry M. Lester, and Barry Zuckerman, eds., Children of 

Poverty: Research, Health Care, and Policy Issues (New York, Garland, 1995); 

Aletha C. Huston, ed., Children in Poverty: Child Development and Public Policy 

(New York, Cambridge University Press, 1991); Aletha C. Huston, Vonnie 

McLoyd, and Cynthia
Garcia Coll, "Children and Poverty: Issues in Contemporary Research," Child 

Development (Special Issue: "Children and Poverty"), vol. 65, no. 2, 1994, pp. 

275-82- Paul A. Jargowsky "Beyond the Street Comer. The Hidden

Diversity of Ghetto Neighborhoods," mimeo. (University of Texas at Dal

las, 1995); Christopher Jencks and Kathryn Edin, "Do poor women have a

right to bear children?" The American Prospect, Winter 1995, pp. 43-52;

Susan Mayer and Christopher Jencks, "Recent Trends in Economic inequal

ity in the United States: Income versus Expenditure versus Material Well

being," in Dimitri B. Papadimitriou and Edward N. Wolff, eds., Poverty and

prosperity in the USA in the late twentieth century (New York, St. Martin's

Press, 1993); C.T. Ramey, p.m. Bryant, B.H. Wasik, J.J. Sparling, K.H. Fendt,

and LM. LaVange, "Me Infant Health and Development Program for low

birth weight premature infants: Program elements, family participation,

and child intelligence," Pediatrics, March 1992, pp. 454-56; Martina Shea,

"Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Poverty, 1990-1932," Current Popu

lation Reports Series P70-42 (Bureau of the Census„ 1995); Peter Townsend,

Poverty in the United Kingdom: A Survey of Household Resources and Stan

dards of Living (Harntondsworth, England, Penguin Books, 1979); and Pe

ter Townsend. The Internation Analysis of Poverty (Heme) Hempstead. England, Harvester-Wheatsheaf, 1992).

3The National Academy of Sciences Poverty Panel recently released a report 

recommending several changes to the official poverty measure, including 

adjusting for taxes and transfers. See Constance R Cino and Robert T Michael, 

eds., Measuring Poverty: A New Approach (Washington, National Academy 

Press, 1995).

4David M. Cutler and Lawrence F Katz,"Rising Inequality: Changes in the 

Distribution of Income and Consumption in the 1980's," American Economic 

Review, May 1992, pp. 546-51.

5Daniel T Slesnick, "Gaining Ground: Poverty in the Postwar United States;' 

Journal of Political Economy, February 1993, pp. 1-38.

6Robert Rector, "How the Poor Really Live: Lessons for Welfare Reform," 

Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 875 (The Heritage Foundation, Jan. 31, 

1992).

7Arloc Sherman, Wasting America's Future: The Children's Defense Fund 

Report on the Costs of Child Poverty (Boston, Beacon Press, 1994).

8

Susan Mayer and Christopher Jencks, "Has Poverty Really Increased Among 

Children Since 1970?" Working Paper 94-14 (Northwestern University, Center 

for Urban Affairs and Policy Reasearch, 1995).

9William D. Passem, "Spending Behavior of Families Receiving Wel

fare or Public Assistance, 1992 94," Paper presented at the 42nd Annual

Conference of the American Council on Consumer Interests, Nashville, TN,

March 27-30, 1996. This paper is available from its author at the Bureau of

Labor Statistics. Washington, DC.

10Welfare is defined as including Aid to Families with Dependent Children, 

general assistance, emergency assistance. Cuban Refugee Assistance, Indian 

Assistance, Alaska Longevity pay, and job training grants, such as Job Corps.

 11To be considered working, the member had to be over 15 years of age

and employed full time or part time; whether the member was paid for working 

was not relevant for Passero's definition. His analysis is limited to consumer units 

with a reference person under the age of 65 years.

12 Mark Lino, "Income and Spending of poor Households With Children," 

Family Economics and Nutrition Review, vol 9, no. 1, 1996.

13About 9 percent of all households with children were classified as poor using 

this definition, compared to the 16 to 18 percent of families with children classified 

as poor by the Census Bureau for the same period,

14Thresholds are adjusted for age, family size. and number of children. 

(Poverty rates are published annually in U.S. Department of Commerce, Poverty in 

the United Stares. Series P-60-185.)

15For each survey, appendix B lists poverty rates for individuals and 

descriptions of the calculation of poverty status.

16Person-weights are available in the Survey of Income and Program 

Participation. For the American Health Survey, the Consumer Expenditure Survey 

and the Current Population Survey, person-weights were developed using tine 

population household or consumer-unit weight, multiplied by the number persons 

in the family.

17See tables C- l and C-2 in appendix C.

18 The Consumer Expenditure Survey, the Current Population Survey and the 

Survey of Income and Program Participation include only families in which the 

child is related to the household head by birth or legal arrangement.

 

19The family had to have at least one child under age 18.

20For this study, welfare for the Consumer Expenditure Survey is defined to 

include Aid to Families with Dependent Children, general assistance, emergency 

assistance, Cuban Refugee Assistance, Indian Assistance, Alaska Longevity Pay, 

,job training grants such as Job Corps, and supplemental security income; the 

American Health Survey defines welfare as in

cluding Aid to Families with Dependent Children, general assistance, and 

supplemental security income; the Current Population Survey includes Aid to 

Families with Dependent Children and public assistance; and the National 

Maternal and Infant Health Survey and the Survey of Income and Program 

Participation includes only Aid to Families with Dependent Children. A 

comparable measure of welfare assistance is not available in the other surveys.

 

21For those individuals who both are poor and receive welfare, family income 

is $7,769, of which 56.0 percent comes from public assistance and welfare (based 

on person-weighted results).

 22Garner; Johnson, and Kokoski found that 52 percent of the income poor 

(based on before-tax income) had total consumer unit expenditures less than the 

poverty line, while 61 percent of expenditure-poor consumer units, had incomes 

below the thresholds. Their results are based on Consumer Expenditure Survey 

data from 1982-84. (See T1aesia 1. Garner, David S. Johnson, and Mary F 

Kokoski, "Experimental Consumer Price Index for the Poor" [BLS Working Paper. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1996]. This paper is available from the authors at the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics.) Rogers and Gray found similar results when they 

examined quintiles of income and expenditure outlays. (See John Rogers and 

Maureen Gray, "CS data: quintiles of income versus quintiles of outlays," Monthly 

Labor Review. December 1994, pp. 32-37.)

 23It is important to point out that these are arithmetic means, and not medians or 

modes. If the distribution off income is positively skewed, and that of expenditures 

is negatively skewed, higher mean expenditures would result. Skewness is not 

examined for in this study, however.

 24Family expenditures for those individuals who both are poor and receive 

welfare are $11,012, and the share spent on necessities is 78.6 percent (bast on 

person-weighted results).

 

25The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development defines moderate 

(severe). upkeep problems as the presence of 3 (5) or more of the following 6 

problems: broken plaster or peeling paint, rats or mice, cracks in the wall, pipes or 

plumbing leaks, dents or holes in the floor, and roof, window, or basement leaks..

 26Mayer and Jencks note that color televisions are a low-cost form of 

entertainment for poor families. See Susan Mayer and Christopher Jencks, "Has 

Poverty Really Increased."

 

27The National Crime Victimization Survey did not have measures for families 

available; thus, crime results are presented for individuals in poor and nonpoor 

households.

 28The respondent reports that, in the past month, there were times when the he or 

she wanted to go somewhere but stayed home instead because he or she thought it 

would be unsafe to leave home.

 29R.Janoff-Bulman, "Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness 

Relative?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 

917-27; and Robert H. Frank, .'Frames of Reference and the Quality of Life," 

American Economic Review, May 1989, pp. 80-85.

 30 The income differentials in birth outcomes hold across age groups.

 31Students who drop out of school before their sophomore year of high

school are not included in the sample. Differences may be slightly greater if they 

are included.

 32For the Survey of Income and Program Participation, resides with moderate 

upkeep problems are defined as having three or four of the following: leaking roof 

or ceiling; toilet, hot water heater, plumbing not
working; broken windows; exposed wiring; holes in the floor, cracks or 

holes in wall or ceiling; and rats, mice, or roaches. Problems are severe if 

there are five or more of the above.

 33Specifically, we include all variables, except "lives without a color 

television," for which 95 percent or more of nonpoor individuals do not 

live in ffamilies that report the deprivation

 34Patricia Ruggles, Drawing the Line-tlrernative Poverty Measures and

Their Implication for Public Policy (Washington, The Urban Institute Press, 

1990)

 35Sanders Korenman, Jane E. Miller, and John E. Sjaastad, "Long-Term 

Poverty and Child Development in the United States: Results from the 

NLSY," Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 17, nos. 1 and 2, 1994.

 36Jane E. Miller and Sanders Korenman, "Poverty and Children's 

Nutritional Status in the United States," American Journal of Epidemiology, 

vol. 140, no. 3, 1994.

Appendix . Descriptions of the surveys

American Housing Survey

These data are from a sample of housing units interviewed between July 

and December 1993, and were collected by the Bureau of the census for 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The reference 

period is 1993. The same basic sample of housing units is interviewed 

every 2 years. The sample is updated by adding newly constructed 

housing units and units discovered through coverage improvement 

efforts.

For the 1993 American Housing Survey-National, a sample of 

approximately 56,700 housing units was selected for interview. About 

3,300 of these units proved to be ineligible because they no longer 

existed or because they did not meet the definition of a housing unit 

(intended for occupancy as separate living quarters, not as group 

quarters). About 2,300 of the remaining units (both occupied and vacant 

housing units) were classified as "type A" noninterview because (a) no 

one was at home after repeated visits, (b) the respondent refused to be 

interviewed, or (c) the interviewer was unable to find the unit.

Sampled units are followed up by telephone or personal visit until an 

interview is obtained or they are classified as type A's. There is no 

oversampling. Biases that arise from nonsampling errors, which are 

larger than those due to sampling errors, are corrected to the extent 

possible through weighting changes.

Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey

The expenditure results presented in this article are based on data 

collected from January 1992 through December 1993 in the quarterly 

interview portion of the Consumer Expenditure Survey. The period to 

which the expenditures refer is October 1991 through November 1993. 

The survey is sponsored by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, with data 

collected by the Bureau of the Census under contract to BLS.

The sample is designed to represent the total civilian noninstitutional 

population and persons living in group quarters such as housing facilities 

for workers and college students. Military personnel living on base are 

not sampled. Approximately 5,000 consumer units, similar to 

households, are interviewed each quarter.

Expenditures are defined as the transaction costs, including excise 

and sales taxes, of goods and services acquired during the interview 

period. Expenditures include those for gifts, but exclude the value 

purchases or portions of purchases directly attributable to business 

purposes. Also excluded are periodic credit or installment payments on 

goods or services already acquired, although data on interest payments 

are collected. For each durable, the full purchase price is included as the 

expenditure. Vehicle purchase expenditures include the net outlays 

(purchase price minus trade-in value) on new and used cars and trucks, 

and expenditures for other vehicles such as motorcycles and private 

planes. For owned housing, neither the full purchase price of the housing 

nor the mortgage principle payment is included in expenditures; 

however, mortgage interest and related charges are included. Each 

quarter is assumed to be an independent

sample and is treated as such when population weights are incorporated. 

Given this assumption, data from each quarterly interview are 

aggregated and expenditures are annualized for the purposes of this 

study.

Current Population Survey

Two supplements of the Current Population Survey are used for this 

study: the 1994 March Supplement or Annual Demographic 

Supplement, and the 1993 October Supplement on Education. The 

income and health insurance questions were asked in the 1994 March 

Supplement, with 1993 as the reference period. The collection and 

reference period for the education questions is October 1993.

The Current Population Survey is conducted by the Bureau of the 

Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The population covered 

includes the civilian noninstitutional population of the United States and 

members of the Armed Forces in the United States living off post or 

with their families on post, but excludes all other members of the 

Armed Forces. The sample is about 60,000 households, including 

families and unrelated individuals; data are reported for more than 

150,000 people. Coverage does not include residents of US. territories 

or other areas outside the 50 States and the District of Columbia.

High School and Beyond Survey

The data used here are drawn from the 1992 follow-up survey of the 

sophomores of 1980, conducted by the National Center for Education 

Statistics. Data were collected in 1992 and early 1993, with reference 

periods of fall 1980 through spring 1992 for education questions, and

1991 for total household income before taxes.

The High School and Beyond Survey was used to interview some 

15,000 sampled members of the sophomore cohort. The survey is a 

longitudinal study of students enrolled in public, private, and parochial 

secondary schools in 1980 at the sophomore and senior grades. Parents, 

teachers, and school officials also were surveyed. The schools were 

selected as a stratifed probability sample.

National Crime Victimization Survey

The data from this survey were collected by the Bureau of the Census 

for the Department of Justice between January 1992 and June 1993, and 

reflect incidents occuring from January 1 through December 31, 1992. 

The survey collects information on victimization events for a sample of 

60,000 households (130,000 persons). Usually, residents of each 

address are interviewed seven times over 3 years. Data are gathered 

from residents living throughout the United States, including persons 

living in group quarters, such as dormitories, rooming houses, and 

religious group dwellings. Crew members of merchant vessels, Armed 

Forces personnel living in military barracks, and institutionalized 

persons, such as
Correctional facility inmates, are not included in the scope of this 

survey. Similarly, U.S. citizens residing abroad and foreign visitors to 

this country are excluded. With these exceptions, individuals aged 12 or 

older living in units designated for the sample were eligible to be 

interviewed.

National Health interview surrey

The data for this survey are collected by the Bureau of the Census for 

the National Center for Health Statistics, through a continuing 

nationwide survey of the health and other characteristics of household 

members. A different, probability-sampled set of households with 

civilian, noninstitutionalized occupants is interviewed each week of the 

year. The data used for this study were collected between January and 

December 1993. The reference period is the 12 months prior to the date 

of the interview. The 1993 survey includes a total of 44,978 households 

containing 109,671 persons.

National Household Education Survey

Data used for this analysis were collected by Westat for the National 

Center for Education Statistics in two components: School Readiness 

and School Safety and Discipline. Data were collected from January 

through April 1993, and the reference period was the period since the 

beginning of the 1992-93 school year or "currently." The education 

survey is a telephone survey of the noninstitutional civilian population, 

with households selected using random-digit-dialing methods.

For the 1993 survey, nearly 64,000 households were screeened. 

Approximately 11000 parents of 3- to 7-year-olds completed interviews 

for the School Readiness component, and about 12,700 parents of 

children in grades 3 through 12 and about 6,500 youth in grades 6 

through 12 were interviewed for the School Safety and Discipline 

component.

National Maternal and Infant Health Interview Survey

Data for this survey were collected in 1989 and 1990 by the Bureau of 

the Census for the National Center for Health Statistics. The reference 

period is 1988 for data analyzed in this study.

Data were collected from stratified systematic samples drawn from 

calendar-year 1988 vital records from 48 States, the District of 

Columbia, and New York City. Mothers were mailed questionnaires 

based on information from vital records. In order to ensure a 

representative sample with regard to such variables as age of mother and 

marital status, implicit stratification was employed That is, after the live 

birth records were stratified, further sorting of vital records was done by 

age of mother and marital status within each of the live-birth strata. 

Similar subsorting was done for fetal and infant death records. 

Respondents included 9,953 women who had live births, 3,309 women 

who had late fetal deaths, and 5,332 women who had infant deaths.

Survey of Income and Program Participation

The data presented in the accompanying article were compiled from the 

Extended Measures of Well-Being topical module. Module questions 

were asked in wave 6 of the 1991 panel and wave 3 of the 1992 panel of 

the Survey of Income and Program Participation, an ongoing program of 

the Bureau of the Census. The collection and reference periods are 

September through December of 1992. The combined panels comprise 

responses on living conditions by reference persons representing 

households totaling almost 85,000 persons.

These data were not imputed for nonresponse, and frequencies thus 

are based only on the proportions of persons answering the questions. 

For the most part, nonresponse levels for these questions were in the 

range of I or 2 percent.

Appendix : Pave rates across surreys

Most of the surveys used for this analysis include a variable that can be 

used to determine whether a family or household's income was below 

the official Federal poverty threshold for its type during the reference 

period of the survey. In most cases, annual before-tax income is 

compared to the poverty thresholds. For example, when data from the 

Current Population Survey are used, annual before-tax cash income for a 

family is compared to the relevant poverty threshold for the 

corresponding year. However, when data from the Survey of Income and 

Program Participation are used, before-tax cash income over the 

4-month reference period is compared to a poverty threshold for the 

same 4 months. When data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey are 

used, quarterly total expenditure data are annualized and compared to 

the appropriate yearly poverty threshold.

Some of the surveys do not collect actual income amounts, but only 

information about whether the income fails in a particular dollar range. 

These data do not lend themselves to analyses using an exact poverty 

line. In the National Crime Victimization Survey, a household is 

considered under the poverty threshold if it has:
1 person and annual income under $7,500, 2 or 3 persons and annual 

income under $10,000, 4 persons and annual income under $15,000, 5 

persons and annual income under $17,500, 6 or 7 persons and annual 

income under $20,000, 8 persons and annual income under $25,000, or 

9 or more persons and annual income under $30,000. In the National 

Household Education Survey, a family is considered under the poverty 

threshold if it has: 2 or 3 persons and annual income under $10,000, 4 

or 5 persons and annual income under $15,000, 6 or 7 persons and 

annual income under $20,000; 8 persons and annual income under 

$25,000, or 9 or more persons and annual income under $30,000. For 

the High School and Beyond Survey, children who report family 

incomes

below $8,000 are considered poor.

Poverty rates across surveys are fairly similar. From 13 to 16 percent 

of persons living in families in the United States are poor based on data 

from the American Housing Survey, the Consumer Expenditure Survey, 

the Current Population Survey, the National Crime Victimization 

Survey, and the Survey of Income and Program Participation. For the 

National Health Interview Survey (persons under 18), the National 

Household Education Survey, aril the National Maternal and Infant 

Health Survey, the poverty rates are higher (20 percent or greater) 

because the samples consist of children in the relevant age group in the 

former two surveys and of mothers giving birth in the reference period 

in the latter.