Citation: 2005 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Social Statistics Section [CD-ROM], Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association: 

pp-pp. 

Developing Poverty Thresholds 

1993-2003 

Thesia I. Garner 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), U.S. Department of Labor 

Abstract 

In 1995 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 

released a report recommending revisions to the current 

official measure of poverty for the U.S. Since then, 

research has been conducted at the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics to test and examine the NAS recommendations 

for poverty thresholds. In June 2004, the NAS held a 

workshop to review the work that had been conducted 

since the initial report was released, to obtain feedback 

from the scientific community on which approaches are 

methodologically sound, to gain consensus regarding the 

measures produced, and to specify topics for further 

research. The purpose of the current research is to 

produce the thresholds that were discussed during the 

workshop and to show these over a 10-year period. Three 

basic thresholds are produced: one based on the official 

CE publication definition of expenditures, one based on 

out-of-pocket spending using CE data, and one based on 

spending with an adjustment for consumption primarily 

for owner-occupied shelter. 

Keywords: Consumer Expenditures, Poverty Thresholds, 

Experimental Poverty Measures 

1. Introduction 

In 1995, the National Academy Sciences (NAS) Panel on 

Poverty and Family Assistance, under the auspices of the 

Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT), published a 

report, Measuring Poverty, A New Approach (Citro and 

Michael, 1995). In this report, recommendations were 

made that the current official measure of poverty should 

be revised. The Panel emphasized the importance of first 

determining the threshold and then the resource measure. 

The concept underlying the threshold and resource 

measure should be the same, resulting in an internally 

consistent measure of poverty. 

The Panel justified their position to recommend a revised 

official poverty measure for the U.S. indicating that with 

the exception of minor changes, the thresholds have not 

been altered since 1965. The Panel noted that the 

thresholds have not been updated for real growth in 

consumption, only price change. The resulting poverty 

threshold “no longer represents the concept on which it 

was originally based—namely, food times a food share 

multiplier—because that share will change (and has 

changed) with rising living standards. Rather, the poverty 

threshold reflects in today’s dollars the line that was set 

some 30 years ago” (Citro and Michael, 1995, p. 25). 

The Panel noted that the total expenditures of families 

have increased in real terms, and spending on nonfood 

items has risen more rapidly than spending on food. 

While expenditures on food accounted for one-third of the 

total in the 1950s they account for less than one-sixth of 

the total in the 1990s. “If the original approach were used 

to develop the poverty thresholds today, their value would 

be significantly higher” (Citro and Michael, 1995, p. 30). 

In the report, the Panel recommended a procedure to 

calculate poverty thresholds that would, by design, be 

updated on a continuous basis and would reflect changes 

in levels of living over time that are relevant to a poverty 

budget rather than for changes in total expenditures. 

Since the release of the report, staff members within the 

Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 

have collaborated in producing the proposed thresholds in 

a series of papers and reports (for example, see Garner et 

al., 1998, Johnson et al., 1997, Short et al., 1999, and 

Short, 2001). 

In June 2004, CNSTAT convened a workshop (hereafter 

referred to as the NAS Workshop) to review BLS and 

Census Bureau research that had been conducted since the 

1995 report was released, and to make recommendations 

regarding next steps. The workshop had been requested 

by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget to evaluate 

the progress that had been made in moving towards a new 

measure of poverty based on the NAS report. Issues 

related to thresholds and resources were discussed. Some 

degree of agreement was reached regarding the 

implementation of selected recommendations. For other 

recommendations, further research was suggested. It was 

further recommended that a time series be produced since 

there was no consistent time series of alternative poverty 

statistics based on the NAS recommendations. 

The threshold topics discussed during the 2004 workshop 

include setting and updating the reference family 

threshold, updating the threshold, selecting an 

equivalence scale, and accounting for medical needs and 

owner-occupied housing. Geographic adjustments were 

also discussed, but not recommended to be made in the 

near future. As noted by Iceland (2005), “...many felt 

that the methods currently available to make these 

adjustments were too technically problematic and too 

crude, especially in light of their substantial effect on 

state-level poverty rates – a politically sensitive issue.” 
2

This paper follows the discussion and recommendations 

for thresholds presented at the workshop, including a 

review of the conceptual issues that underlie the NAS 

Panel’s approach to poverty threshold construction. 

Themes underlying much of the discussion at the 

workshop and earlier research are the differences among 

needs, consumption, and expenditures, and the treatment 

of health care and owner-occupied housing in poverty 

measurement. 

Three thresholds are produced. The first is follows the 

NAS Panel approach as presented in the NAS report: 

thresholds are based on expenditures as defined by the 

BLS for official publications. A second measure differs 

from the first in that out-of-pocket expenditures are used. 

The third measure accounts for consumption needs with 

the major adjustment being for owner-occupied housing. 

A time series of thresholds is produced and presented for 

1993-2003. The thresholds are based on the same 

methodologies over time and are estimated using data 

from the U.S. Consumer Expenditure Survey Interview. 

Differences in the thresholds over time result due to 

changes in expenditures but in some cases due to changes 

in the survey instrument. 

2. Poverty Thresholds: Concept and Measurement 

Poverty is most often defined in terms one’s ability to 

meet his/her basic or minimum needs for survival or 

participation in society. Basic needs can be defined in 

terms of inputs or outputs, or the costs of providing for 

these at some minimum level. For example, there may be 

a minimum number and amount of nutrients needed for a 

certain level of output or energy. In the U.S., we have 

most often been concerned with the costs, at least 

officially, of some minimum or basic bundle of goods and 

services (inputs) that can be used to meet one’s needs, and 

the income or resources available to meet those needs. 

A poverty threshold based on “costs” could be measured 

in terms of the dollar spending necessary to pay for a 

basic bundle of goods and services, or it could be 

measured in terms of the dollar value of a consumption 

bundle. For a spending-based threshold, expenditures 

would most appropriately be used to derive the 

thresholds. Cash and near-cash income, adjusted for 

required spending (e.g., income taxes paid) that reduces a 

family’s income to meet its basic spending needs, would 

be compared to a spending-based threshold. 

In contrast, a consumption-based poverty threshold would 

refer to what is needed in dollar terms to meet minimum 

consumption needs in contrast to spending needs. Let’s 

say public policy dictates, through the creation of a 

poverty line, that there is a basic consumption level of 

food, clothing, shelter, and utilities that individuals and 

families living in the U.S. should have for them not to be 

considered poor. Expenditures for food, clothing, and 

utilities could be used as proxies of the value of the 

consumption of these goods and services. Thus spendingand consumption-based thresholds that are based on these 

three commodities alone would be expected to be the 

same. However, when shelter is included in the set, the 

thresholds would be expected to differ, given the current 

renter-owner housing mix in the U.S. The full costs or 

value of the consumption would be the market value of 

the shelter service, not what the family spends for shelter. 

Let me explain, families living in subsidized rental 

housing consume more than they spend for the shelter. 

Homeowners with very little shelter expenditures are 

likely to consume more shelter than would be reflected in 

their spending. The value of shelter consumption, not the 

spending for shelter, would be reflected in a consumptionbased threshold. 

The resource measure used to compare to a consumptionbased threshold would include cash and near-cash income 

with adjustments for reduced spending power as before, 

plus the value of non-cash transfers (e.g., rental subsidies) 

and the implicit income from owning one’s home. A 

consumption-based poverty measure would consider the 

homeowner to be both a renter and a landlord of his/her 

current residence. The threshold would include the value 

of the implicit rent for shelter consumption while 

resources would include a value for the implicit income 

from renting the house to one self. This implicit income 

includes both net rent (i.e., implicit rent minus landlord 

expenses) and the change in market value (an unrealized 

capital gain or loss). Most poverty measurement 

discussions have focused on including the implicit net 

rent only rather than the full value of the implicit income. 

Spending and consumption both underlie the official and 

NAS recommended thresholds. The official thresholds 

and the NAS thresholds presented in the Panel’s report 

are based on spending, yet both are assumed to reflect 

needed consumption (e.g., Citro and Michael, 1995, pp. 1, 

4, 148). 

The current official measure was developed in the early 

1960s as an indicator of the number of people with 

inadequate income to meet needed consumption of food 

and other goods and services (see Citro and Michael, 

1995 for details). The official measure is based on the 

share of food spending in after-tax money income (onethird) using data from the 1955 Food Consumption 

Survey. The food need (or consumption) standard was 

based on the U.S.D.A. Economy Food Plan. Since the 

multiplier to create the thresholds was based on spending 

data, the implicit assumption is that the consumption of 

all other goods and services, in addition to food, can be 

valued in terms of out-of-pocket spending. 
3

Since the first official thresholds were released, the 

primary change to the thresholds has been to update them 

by the Consumer Price Index for urban consumers (CPIU). The CPI-U represents the change in prices of some 

fixed market basket of goods and services, with relative 

prices changing while utility remains constant for a 

particular market basket of goods and services. The CPI 

market basket changes on a periodic basis. In addition to 

this regular change in the CPI, other changes have been 

made in the production of the index over the years. For 

example, since the early 1980’s the CPI-U has 

incorporated the value of housing services for owneroccupants using reported rental equivalence in the 

weights; changes in the value of these services are 

determined using the change in rents of comparable rental 

properties. In this way, owners and renters are 

consistently treated in the index. The CPI-U reflects 

changes in the value of shelter services, not the change in 

spending or expenditures for owner-occupied housing. 

The updating mechanism for the official poverty measure 

is based on the relative change in prices of goods and 

services purchased by an average consumer unit (using 

plutocratic, not democratic, weightsTP

1

PT). 

To develop the NAS thresholds, the Panel used spending 

data. However, a consumption based measure for the 

value of shelter for homeowners was recommended, and 

the recommend updating mechanism was to be based on 

changes in consumption. Unlike the official measure 

which accounts primarily for changes in prices holding 

utility constant, the NAS Panel recommended a new 

measure of poverty that places importance on creating a 

poverty threshold that would maintain a relationship to 

the overall standard of living in the nation over time and 

would allow for changes in utility. The Panel's report 

states that, “The major reason, in our view, to revise the 

threshold concept for the U.S. poverty measure is its 

implications for updating the thresholds over time” (Citro 

and Michael, 1995, p. 102). The NAS Panel 

recommended that the poverty thresholds, once 

determined, would be updated over time using the change 

 

1

 Plutocratic weights are based on the value of goods and 

services across all consumer units for each commodity 

represented in the index. For example, the weight for food 

is total spending on food for all consumer units divided by 

the value of all goods and services for all consumer units. 

These weights are then combined with prices to produce 

the index. Democratic weights reflect the distribution of 

consumer units in the population. For example, consumer 

unit specific price indexes would be created based on the 

value of goods and services of each consumer unit and the 

prices that the consumer unit faces. To obtain an overall 

index for the population, the consumer unit specific price 

indexes would be averaged using demographic population 

weights to reflect the value of goods and services and 

price experience of all consumer units. 

in expenditures at the median for a basic set of goods and 

services for a specified reference family. The Panel “... 

propose[d] a conservative updating procedure that adjusts 

the thresholds for changes in consumption that are 

relevant to a poverty budget, rather than for changes in 

total consumption” (Citro and Michael, 1995, p.4). 

To summarize, the official measure is based on spending 

patterns in 1955 and a food consumption standard defined 

for the early 1960s; the NAS measure reflects more recent 

living standards and a poverty relevant budget. Since the 

early 1980’s, the updating in official poverty thresholds, 

using the CPI-U, reflects changes in prices of all goods 

and services purchased by the average consumer in the 

U.S., with owner-occupied housing valued in terms of 

implicit rental equivalence. The official thresholds are 

based on spending, not on the costs of goods and services 

as defined in the CPI-U. The NAS threshold is updated to 

account for changes in levels of living over time, using 

either spending or consumption, depending upon the 

concept underlying the thresholds. 

3. Poverty Thresholds: The Recommendations

The NAS Panel’s recommendations for revising the 

threshold follow. 

Recommendation 2.1: A poverty threshold with which to 

initiate a new series of official U.S. poverty statistics 

should be derived from Consumer Expenditure Survey 

data for a reference family of four persons (two adults and 

two children). The procedure should be to specify a 

percentage of median annual expenditures for such 

families on the sum of three basic goods and services—

food, clothing, and shelter (including utilities)—and apply 

a specified multiplier to the corresponding dollar level so 

as to add a small amount for other needs (Citro and 

Michael, 1995, p. 6). 

Recommendation 2.2: The new poverty thresholds should 

be updated each year to reflect changes in consumption of 

the basic goods and services contained in the poverty 

budget: determine the dollar value that represents the 

designated percentage of the median level of expenditures 

on the sum of food, clothing, and shelter for twoadult/two-child families and apply the designated 

multiplier. To smooth out year-to-year fluctuations and to 

lag the adjustment to some extent, perform the 

calculations for each year by averaging the most recent 3 

years’ worth of data from the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey, with the data for each of those years brought 

forward to the current period by using the change in the 

Consumer Price Index (Citro and Michael, 1995, p. 7).. 

The percentage of the median was to approximate the 30-

35P

thP

 percentile of the value of the sum of expenditures for 

food, clothing, shelter, and utilities (Citro and Michael, 
4

1995, p. 149). In 1992, the percentages of the median 

applied were 0.78 and 0.83. The multipliers recommended 

by the Panel were based on an examination of CE 

Interview data for 1989-1991. A range of multiplier 

values, from 1.15 to 1.25, was recommended to account 

for other needs (e.g., household supplies, personal care, 

and non-work related transportation) in addition for food, 

clothing, shelter, and utilities. 

 

The Panel made two other recommendations regarding 

the initial thresholds. Recommendation 2.3 noted that 

when the new threshold concept is first implemented, that 

the Census Bureau should produce another set of poverty 

rates using the new thresholds updated only for price 

changes for evaluation purposes. Recommendation 2.4 

notes that part of the implementation of a new measure 

would also include a reevaluation of the threshold level 

derived by the Panel. 

The Panel called for adjustments to the thresholds in 

Recommendations 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4. In 3.1 the Panel 

stated that the reference family threshold should be 

adjusted to reflect the needs of different family types and 

recommended a specific equivalence scale. In 3.2 the 

Panel noted that the thresholds should be adjusted to 

reflect geographic differences in housing costs. In 3.3 the 

Panel called for research to update the geographic housing 

cost component of the threshold and in 3.4 they called for 

additional research to improve the estimation of 

geographic cost-of-living in all components of the poverty 

budget. 

 

4. Poverty Thresholds: Implementation of NAS 

Workshop Recommendations

Discussions during the 2004 NAS Workshop that focused 

on thresholds included setting and updating a reference 

family poverty threshold, equivalence scales, and 

accounting for health and medical care needs and implicit 

housing transfers (e.g., from subsidies and owneroccupancy). There was consensus regarding certain issues 

but not others. For example, accounting for owneroccupied housing in a new measure was discussed, but 

there was no recommendation regarding how this should 

be done. Discussion ensued regarding counting unrelated 

partners in the household when producing poverty 

statistics, but again, no recommendation was made to 

include unrelated partners when producing the thresholds. 

Another topic discussed but with no recommendation was 

whether child care costs should be included in the 

thresholds rather than a subtracted from resources. 

The reminder of this section is divided into five parts. 

The first reviews issues related to setting the threshold, 

the second with adjusting the threshold, the third with 

computing the threshold, and the fourth and fifth with 

data and results from implementing the NAS Workshop 

recommendations. 

4.1 Setting the Threshold 

Setting the threshold has several parts. These include 

selecting the reference family, identifying the goods and 

services upon which the threshold would be based, and 

specifying percentages of the median and multipliers. 

Particular attention is given to the treatment of 

medical/health care and shelter in defining the threshold 

bundle. 

4.1.1 Reference family 

 

Following the Panel’s recommendations, calculation of 

the poverty thresholds begins with the choice of a 

reference family for whom an estimate of median 

expenditures is obtained. The reference family chosen by 

the Panel was one including two adults and two children, 

specifically, a married couple with two children of their 

own. The criteria used to select the family type was that 

the reference family would “fall near the center of the 

family size distribution rather than at one of the 

extremes...also, it is preferable for the reference family to 

be one that accounts for a relatively large proportion of 

the population because its spending patterns observed in a 

sample survey will be the basis for the poverty 

threshold...” (Citro and Michael, 1995, p. 101). 

In earlier work, Garner (2002) found that about 9 percent 

of all families were two-adult/two-child families, using 

1998 quarter two through 2001 quarter one Consumer 

Expenditure Interview Survey data. Of families with 

children, those with two adults and two children were the 

largest group. Since children make up a large portion of 

the poverty population it is reasonable that the reference 

family represent spending patterns for that group. 

4.1.2 Expenditures 

Once the reference family is chosen, median expenditures 

for a select group of goods and services are calculated. 

The Panel specified that this group of commodities would 

include food, clothing, shelter (including utilities), and a 

small additional amount to allow for other needs (e.g., 

household supplies, personal care, and non-work-related 

transportation). They defined expenditures as in official 

CE publications: the transaction costs, including excise 

and sales taxes, for commodities acquired during the 

interview period. The interview reference period for the 

quarterly CE survey is three months. 

A topic not discussed by the Workshop participants was 

whether the CE publication definition is the most 

appropriate for defining median expenditures or if an outof-pocket measure of expenditures would be better. Since 
5

people often think about expenditures as out-of-pocket, an 

additional set of thresholds are produced to show the 

effect of moving from a CE publication definition to one 

that is out-of-pocket. An outlays definition was used to 

produce NAS based thresholds in earlier work by Garner 

and Short (2001). 

At the Workshop, significant discussion ensued regarding 

the treatment of medical/health care and owner-occupied 

shelter in a new poverty measure. The following two 

sections focus on these and how they are dealt with in this 

study. 

4.1.2.1 Medical/ Health Care 

Not included in Panel’s threshold set of goods and 

services were those for medical/health care. Rather the 

Panel recommended that actual medical care expenditures 

be subtracted from resources. At the Workshop, there 

was broad agreement that medical needs be accounted for 

but there was no clear consensus on how this would be 

done. The method that received the greatest support was 

to include expected medical out-of-pocket expenses in the 

poverty thresholds. Thus, medical care would be treated 

as a basic need, along with food, clothing, shelter, and 

utilities. An advantage of this change would be that the 

thresholds would be more portable. This means that the 

thresholds could be used with other types of survey data 

more easily by researchers outside the Census Bureau. 

Portability of a poverty measure is an important 

consideration in the framework of an official poverty 

measure that can be used across programs. For earlier 

research with medical care included in the thresholds, see: 

Banthin, et al. (2001), Bavier (2001), Short (2001), Short 

and Garner (2002). 

For this study, the threshold based on the CE publication 

definition is referred to as FCSUM-CE. The threshold 

based on an out-of-pocket definition is referred to as 

FCSUM-OOP. 

The CE publication definition for FCSUM-CE threshold 

includes the following. 

• Out-of-pocket spending on: 

 Food 

 Clothing 

 Utilities (includes telephone) 

 Medical care 

 For renters, shelter expenditures 

• For homeowners, non-vacation shelter 

expenditures that include: 

 Mortgage interest payments (no principal 

repayments) 

 Prepayment penalties 

 Property taxes 

 Maintenance, repairs, insurance and other 

related expenditures. 

Out-of-pocket expenditures for the FCSUM-OOP 

threshold include the following: 

 FCUMR-CE expenditures 

 Repayments of mortgage principal for homeowners 

4.1.2.2 Shelter 

The Panel used the official CE publication definition of 

shelter to define expenditures for the thresholds that they 

produced for the 1995 report. However, the Panel noted 

that using the CE definition of shelter was for “processing 

convenience; a preferable definition would include actual 

outlays for mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, and 

maintenance and repairs, together with an imputed 

amount for the estimated rental value of the home net of 

such outlays” (Citro and Michael, 1995, p. 148). For the 

threshold measure, the Panel’s recommendation is 

equivalent to replacing shelter expenditures for owneroccupiers in the thresholds with the implicit rent of this 

shelter. 

Detailed information was presented at the Workshop on 

methods to account for owner-occupied shelter and 

subsidized rents in a poverty measure, but there was little 

discussion concerning which method or methods should 

be adopted. Workshop attendees agreed that homeowners 

and subsidized renters have more available resources to 

meet basic needs due to their housing situation. Yet, as 

noted by the Panel, a threshold should first be chosen 

followed by a consistent measure of resources. The 

question then became how would one account for owneroccupied housing and subsidized rents in the production 

of the threshold. Workshop participants encouraged BLS 

and Census Bureau researchers to continue working on 

this topic. The remainder of this section highlights the 

issues related to homeownership and poverty 

measurement. 

To account for homeownership in a poverty threshold, 

following the Panel’s recommendation, shelter spending 

would be replaced by implicit rents from homeownership. 

Such an approach results in a threshold based on 

consumption needs. 

The implicit assumption in a consumption-based 

threshold is that there is a basic level of consumption that 

is needed so as not to be poor. A consumption-based 

threshold would include the value of shelter services 

regardless of who paid for them (e.g., they could have 

been paid for by a person not living in the household or 

another entity) or if there were very low expenditures for 

the services (e.g., there is no mortgage and the 

homeowner only pays for property insurance). Shelter 

consumption would most appropriately be valued using 

market rents for subsidized renters and for homeowners. 

The resource measure consistent with such a threshold 

would include the subsidy for subsidized renters and for 
6

homeowners, the implicit income from renting to oneself 

minus deductible landlord expenditures associated with 

this rental. See Garner and Rozaklis (1999, 2001) for an 

hedonic approach to account for owner occupied housing 

and subsidized rents in poverty thresholds, and Garner 

and Short (2001) for out-of-pocket spending- and 

consumption-based thresholds using homeowners rental 

equivalence for the year 2000. These earlier studies did 

not include medical care in the thresholds. 

In this study, consumption-based thresholds are 

developed and produced. For simplicity, and due to data 

constraints, owner-occupied housing services are the 

primary consumption item considered. The implicit rent 

or value of shelter services consumption for owneroccupants is based on the responses of consumer units to 

the following question: 

If someone were to rent your home today, how 

much do you think it would rent for monthly, 

unfurnished and without utilities? 

The expenditures for food, clothing, utilities, medical 

care, and rent for renters are assumed to measure 

consumption, with a few noted exceptions.TP

 2PT One 

exception is medical care. In this case, an adjustment is 

made in the thresholds so that the expected medical 

consumption needs of families are considered rather than 

medical expenditures only (see “Adjusting the 

Threshold”). 

The consumption-based threshold, FCSUM-R, is defined 

as follows: 

• Out-of-pocket spending on 

 Food 

 Clothing 

 Utilities (includes telephone) 

 Medical care 

• Food as pay 

• Rent as pay 

• Rent of renters 

• Rental equivalence of owner-occupants 

• Adjustment for the medically uninsured using 

CE data 

 

2

 For a more complete consumption-based threshold one 

would also need information on rent-controlled and 

government subsidized housing, free or reduced price 

school breakfasts and school lunches, WIC benefits, 

energy assistance, medical consumption not financed outof-pocket, and any other goods and services received as 

gifts or transfers to the family. The value of the transfers 

or gifts received would need to be added to resources for 

consistency. Since the CE expenditure include those 

made for gifts given to others, the value of gifts received 

would need to be subtracted from the expenditures made 

for gifts given. 

4.1.3 Percentage of the Median 

The NAS panel recommended that percentile values for 

expenditures, based on percentages of the median, be used 

to drive the poverty thresholds. The use of the percentage 

links updates in the threshold to changes in expenditures 

at the median rather than those below the median. The 

percentages selected correspond to the reference family’s 

expenditures between the 30P

thP

 and 35P

thP

 percentiles of the 

distribution of the sum of food, clothing, shelter, and 

utilities (FCSU) expenditures. The Panel noted that, “The 

designation of a percentile value...is obviously a matter 

of judgment” (Citro and Michael, 1995, p. 149). 

In the work conducted by the BLS and Census Bureau 

staff, rather than selecting a specific percentage, our 

applications have used the midpoint of the recommended 

range to set the value of the thresholds. Workshop 

participants did not comment on the percentage chosen or 

the use of the midpoint of the range. 

The Panel recommended that a base year threshold would 

be established first and then the same percentage would 

be used to produce the thresholds for other years. 

However, it seems reasonable that if the bundle were 

redefined, as is the case in this study when shelter is 

valued in terms of service flows, re-estimation of the 

percentage of the median that corresponds to the 30-35P

thP

percentile range would be needed (Citro, 1999). 

Calculations conducted for this study reveal a stable 

relationship between the percentiles and the relevant 

percentages of the median that the Panel had in mind 

when spending is used. Using the CE publication 

definition of the expenditure bundle (FCSUM-CE), the 

percentages are 78 or 79 to 83 or 84 over the years 1993-

2003. When an out-of-pocket expenditures definition 

(FCSUM-OOP) is used the percentages are slightly lower: 

77 or 78 to 82 or 83. In contrast, the percentages for the 

consumption-based threshold (FCUMS-R) are higher: 79 

or 80 to 84 to 85. 

4.1.4 Multipliers 

The Panel recommended that, once the percentage of 

median expenditures on a basic bundle had been 

estimated, multipliers would be applied to the basic 

bundle to add a small additional amount to allow for other 

needs. A range of multipliers was proposed to represent 

smaller and larger groups of commodities. Two 

commodity bundles were considered by the Panel: (1) the 

basic bundle plus those for personal care and one-half of 

transportation; and (2) the basic bundle plus personal 

care, one-half transportation, education, and reading 
7

materials costs.TP

 3PT The Panel stated that, in the NAS report, 

“we arbitrarily chose to exclude one-half of transportation 

costs because the CE Interview Survey does not 

distinguish between work expenses, which we propose to 

deduct from resources, and personal transportation for 

errands, vacations, etc.” (Citro and Michael, 1995, p. 

151). This allocation is consistent with other studies.TP

4

PT 

The multipliers used by the Panel, and in this study, are 

1.15 to represent the smaller bundle and 1.25 to represent 

the larger bundle. Again, the midpoint of the two 

multipliers is used in the estimation of the thresholds. 

There was no discussion at the NAS Workshop regarding 

the multipliers. 

4.2 Adjusting the Threshold 

4.2.1 Adjustment for Differences in Family Needs 

The Panel applied an equivalence scale to the reference 

family threshold to obtain thresholds for families of other 

sizes and composition. The Panel recommended a twoparameter scale to account for the different needs of 

adults and children, and for the economies of scale of 

living of living in larger families. 

Workshop participants mostly favored a three-parameter 

scale that allowed for a different adjustment for single 

 

3 Transportation expenditures were defined by the Panel 

to include vehicle finance charges, expenses for gasoline 

and motor oil, maintenance and repairs, vehicle insurance, 

public transportation (including air fares), and vehicle 

rentals, licenses and other charges. In addition, 

transportation included the total purchase price (minus the 

trade-in value) on new and used vehicles. 

Personal care includes products for hair, oral hygiene, 

and shaving, cosmetics and bath products, electric 

personal care appliances, other personal care products, 

and personal care services. 

Education includes tuition, fees, textbooks, supplies and 

equipment for public and private nursery schools, 

elementary, and high schools, colleges, and universities, 

and others schools 

Reading materials includes subscriptions for newspapers, 

magazines, and books through book clubs, purchase of 

single copy newspapers, and magazines, newsletters, 

books, encyclopedias, and other reference books. 

4

 In constructing the cost of raising a child, the 

Department of Agriculture used data from a 1990 study 

by the Department of Transportation which found that 

employment-related transportation activities account for 

about 40 percent of travel costs for families with children. 

See Expenditures on Children by Families, 1995 Annual 

Report, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 

USDA, page 5, and U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1994, 1990 Nationwide 

Personal Transportation Study.

parents. The three-parameter scale had been used in 

several BLS and Census Bureau studies prior to the 

Workshop. The three-parameter scale is shown below. 

One and two adults: scale = 0.7 ( ) adults

Single parents: scale = 

( )0.7 adults firstchild otherchildren + + 0.8* 0.5*

All other families: scale = 

( )0.7 adults children + 0.5* .

The economy of scales factor was set at 0.70; the Panel 

recommended a range of 0.65 to 0.75. Workshop 

participants supported continuing the use of the threeparameter scale, but suggested that equivalence scale 

research continue. Iceland (2005) noted that several 

participants suggested that future research should address 

expanding the scale to account for addition factors related 

to needs (e.g., age of children, household production by 

stay-at-home parents). 

4.2.2 Adjustment for the Medically Uninsured 

Workshop participants mostly agreed that medical/health 

care would be included as a basic need in the thresholds; 

however, the question arose regarding how to account for 

the needs of the medically uninsured. Workshop 

participants agreed that an adjustment should be applied. 

There was no discussion regarding whether the 

adjustment would be for both spending- and 

consumption-based thresholds. After considerable 

discussions with Kathleen Short of the Census Bureau, 

she and I decided that the adjustment would only be 

appropriate for the consumption-based threshold since the 

adjustment is to account for “expected” needs, not actual 

expenditures. Even with this adjustment, the full costs of 

providing for medical consumption needs are not counted 

in the production of the thresholds; thus, the consumption 

thresholds will be underestimated. 

In earlier work, Short and Garner (2002) made an 

adjustment for medical needs using data from the 1996 

Medical Expenditure Panel Survey with input from 

Banthin (see Banthin et al. 2001). Medical care 

expenditure risk indexes were created that accounted for 

variations in family expenditures as related to family size, 

and the age, health status, and health insurance coverage 

of family members. 

One of the goals of the current research was to use the CE 

Interview Survey only for the production of the 

thresholds. Since the CE does not include information on 

the health status of members, only the remaining factors 

were used in the production of the CE-based indexes. An 

additional challenge in using the CE to produce the 

medical indexes is that the CE does not collect health 

insurance information for each member; data are collected 

on whether the consumer unit as a whole has various 

private health insurance policies. However, data are 
8

collected concerning the total number of people who are 

covered by Medicaid and Medicare. 

The medical risk indexes are calculated as the ratio of 

median medical out-of-pocket expenditures for different 

groups, varied by the factors noted previously, compared 

to the median expenditures of the reference family. For 

the uninsured, the medical risk index for a family with 

health insurance and the same family size and age of 

members was assigned to a family without health 

insurance. 

4.3 Computing the Threshold 

The general formula for deriving the reference family 

threshold, using food, clothing, shelter, utilities, and 

medical care is shown in the equation below. 

 

 

where 

 s B

medical B= medical share of threshold value 

 PB

L B = lower percentage of median costs 

 PB

H B= higher percentage of median costs

 MB

 B= median expenditures for reference family. 

The multipliers of 1.15 and 1.25 are applied to the nonmedical part of the threshold, (1-sB

medicalB), since they are 

based on the relationship between the sum of food, 

clothing, shelter, and utilities expenditures and 

expenditure for smaller and larger other bundles of 

needed goods and services as noted in the 1995 report. 

The three-parameter equivalence scale is also only 

applied to the non-medical part of the threshold. This is 

because the medical care needs of children are not 

expected to be less than those of adults and because there 

are few inherent scale economies in medical care 

consumption with increasing family size. Only the 

medical part of the threshold is adjusted by the medical 

risk index. 

4.4 Updating the Thresholds Over Time 

There was broad agreement at the Workshop that the 

Panel’s quasi-relative approach for annually updating the 

thresholds continue. The Panel’s original recommendation 

was that the most recent three years of CE data be used, 

with earlier years’ data updated to current dollars. This 

approach would allow for “...changes in real 

consumption but in a conservative manner” (Citro and 

Michael, 1995, p. 154). The three-year approach was 

recommended to increase the sample size and also to 

smooth out year-to-year changes in the thresholds. Using 

three years of data however produces thresholds that lag 

somewhat behind changes in real consumption. Yet, such 

thresholds are more reflective of current consumption that 

the official threshold that is updated by the CPI-U. 

4.5 Data 

For this study, Consumer Expenditure Quarterly 

Interview Survey (CE) data are used to produce the 

thresholds for 1993 through 2003. CE Interview data are 

made available on a quarterly cycle. Data collected in an 

interview refer to expenditures made during the three 

months prior to the interview month. It is assumed that 

data from each reference quarter is independent of the 

data from other quarters, just as for CE publications. 

Three years of quarterly data are used to produce each 

threshold. For example, for the 1993 threshold, data from 

1990 quarter two through 1993 quarter one are used; for 

the 2003 threshold, data from 2000 quarter two through 

2003 quarter one are used. Data from earlier years in the 

three-year cycle are updated to the threshold year using 

the annual all items consumer price index, U.S. city 

average (CPI-U).TP

5

PT 

When the current research began, it was expected that the 

Census Bureau would be publishing the thresholds from 

this study. Given the CE data release dates and Census 

Bureau publication dates, the data chosen to produce the 

thresholds are from the three most recent years minus one. 

However, shortly before this work was completed, it was 

determined that the NAS-based thresholds would not be 

published; thus, the three most recent years of data could 

have been used as in the earlier BLS and Census Bureau 

studies previously cited. If the earlier approach had been 

used, the 2003 threshold would have been based on data 

from 2001 quarter two through 2004 quarter one and the 

thresholds would be more reflective of more recent 

consumption and spending patterns.TP

6

PT

 

As noted earlier, data from 1990-2003 were used to 

produce the thresholds. Over this time period, the data 

collection for the rental equivalence by owner-occupants 

changed. Up until 1993 quarter three, rental equivalence 

was asked in the General Housing Characteristics Section 

(1B) and was only asked during the consumer unit’s first 

interview. The value then was carried over to the 

 

5

 Medians were also produced based on an updating of the 

expenditures of threshold components using their 

corresponding CPI-Us; there was essentially no difference 

in the medians in threshold year dollars with this 

approach or when the overall CPI-U was used for the sum 

of expenditures. 

6

 The FCSUM-CE threshold using the most recent three 

years of data, rather than using data from the most recent 

three years minus one year (as done in this study), was 

$21,635; the FCSUM-R threshold was $25,026. Using 

more recent CE data results in thresholds that are slightly 

lower than those produced for this study. 

( * )( * ) () ) 2

L H

medical

PM P M s +

(1.15* * ) (1.25* * ) (1 ) ) 2

L H

medical

PM P M s +

− +
9

following interviews. Beginning with 1993 quarter 3, the 

rental equivalence question has been asked each quarter 

and is located in the Owned Living Quarters and Other 

Owned Real Estate Section (3I). By asking rental 

equivalence each quarter, the consumer unit has the 

opportunity to update rental equivalence as the market 

value of comparable rental units change or as the 

consumer unit makes changes to his or her housing 

structure. 

4.6 Results Based on Implementation 

The three experimental thresholds and the official poverty 

line for a family with two adults and two children are 

presented in Table 1. The experimental thresholds 

increase over the 1993 to 2003 period, just as the official 

threshold increases. However, the rate of increase for the 

experimental thresholds is greater. The different rate of 

increase appears to begin around 1998. From 1993 to 

1996, the experimental thresholds are relatively closer to 

each other. Then there is a larger increase in the 

consumption-based threshold (FCSUM-R). The 1993-

1996 FCSUM-R thresholds are based on the rental 

equivalence data that is collected in the first, and not the 

following, interview. 

The official threshold in 1993 is $14,654 and in 2003 it is 

$18,660 (a 27 percent increase). The FCSUM-CE 

threshold is about $1,500 a year high in 1993 ($16,192) 

and about $3200 higher in 2003 ($21,900) than the 

official threshold (a 35 percent increase in FCSUM-CE). 

When mortgage principal payments are included in 

spending (FCSUM-OOP), the 1993 threshold ($16,797) is 

about $600 higher than the FCSUM-CE threshold, the one 

without principal payments included. By 2003, the 

difference in the two spending thresholds (FCSUM-CE 

and FCSUM-OOP) is doubled at $1,200. The FCSUMOOP threshold increases by 38 percent from 1993 to 

2003. The FCSUM-R threshold is about $1,700 greater 

than the FCSUM-CE threshold in 1993 and $3,260 

greater in 2003. 

Table 1. Experimental Poverty Thresholds for the 

Reference Family 

 FCSUM

Year Official CE OOP R

1993 $14,654 $16,192 $16,797 $17,949

1994 15,029 16,723 17,346 18,421

1995 15,455 17,237 17,871 18,981

1996 15,911 17,672 18,390 19,792

1997 16,276 17,773 18,511 20,154

1998 16,530 17,938 18,711 20,408

1999 16,895 18,408 19,414 21,052

2000 17,463 19,298 20,309 21,839

2001 17,960 20,091 21,177 22,797

2002 18,244 20,899 22,036 23,867

2003 18,660 21,900 23,170 25,162

Table 2 compares the official and experimental poverty 

thresholds to published Current Population Survey before 

tax money income and published CE total expenditures. 

Before-tax money income for all households increases 

more rapidly than do total expenditures for all consumer 

units and than do the reference family thresholds until 

about the year 2000 when income flattens out. CE total 

expenditures and the thresholds appear to follow a similar 

pattern from 1993 to 1995 and then total expenditures 

increase at a faster rate. From the year 2000 to 2003, 

thresholds are increasing at a faster rate than total 

expenditures. 

Table 2. Average Annual CPS Household Income, CE 

Total Expenditures, and Thresholds 

 FCSUM 

Year 

BTM 

Income CE Total CE OOP R

1993 $41,428 $30,692 $16,192 $16,797 $17,949

1994 43,133 31,731 16,723 17,346 18,421

1995 44,938 32,264 17,237 17,871 18,981

1996 47,123 33,797 17,672 18,390 19,792

1997 49,692 34,819 17,773 18,511 20,154

1998 51,855 35,535 17,938 18,711 20,408

1999 54,737 36,995 18,408 19,414 21,052

2000 57,135 38,045 19,298 20,309 21,839

2001 58,208 39,518 20,091 21,177 22,797

2002 57,852 40,677 20,899 22,036 23,867

2003 59,067 40,817 21,900 23,170 25,162

The thresholds can be examined further by examining the 

expenditure budget components underlying the 

thresholds. The thresholds are based on percentages of the 

median, 78 and 83 percent, corresponding to the 30-35P

thP

percentiles of the distribution based on the sum of 

expenditures or costs of consumption for the commodity 

bundle. Presented in Table 3 are the annualized 

expenditures of the reference family, using the CE 

publication definition (FCSUM-CE), in the 30-35P

thP

percentile range. Medical and clothing expenditures have 

remained fairly flat from 1993 to 2003 in current dollars, 

with a slight increase in medical spending in 2001. 

Expenditures for food, shelter, and utilities have been 

climbing steadily during 1993-2003. The largest increase 

has been for shelter: a 56.1 percent increase. (The results 

for FCSUM-OOP are available from the author upon 

request.) 

Table 4 includes the spending for the reference family in 

the 30-35P

thP

 percentile range when consumption is used to 

derive the thresholds. The value of shelter services based 

on reported rental equivalence for owner-occupants and 

rents for renters is not that much higher than food 

expenditures in 1993 ($4,695) versus $5,086); however 

by the year 2003, the difference is quite large ($5,961 

versus $8,556). The percentage increase for shelter over 

the 1993 to 2003 period is 68.2 percent, the largest 

increase among the budget items. This large increase is 
10

likely due to the increase in expected implicit rents 

associated with increased market values of homes 

beginning in the year 2000. The second largest increase 

is for medical care (47.7 percent). 

Table 3. Reference Family Annualized Spending in the 

30-35P

thP

 Percentile for FCSUM-CE 

Year Food Clothing Shelter Utilities Medical

1993 $4,658 $1,184 $3,815 $2,089 $1,156 

1994 4,720 1,166 4,167 2,206 1,210 

1995 4,747 1,254 4,355 2,264 1,264 

1996 4,871 1,229 4,494 2,366 1,265 

1997 4,989 1,264 4,460 2,347 1,287 

1998 5,053 1,231 4,721 2,420 1,184 

1999 5,289 1,217 4,798 2,581 1,140 

2000 5,423 1,210 5,070 2,668 1,143 

2001 5,566 1,220 5,488 2,650 1,328 

2002 5,675 1,319 5,587 2,918 1,471 

2003 5,923 1,286 5,956 3,047 1,594 

 

Table 4. Reference Family Annualized 

Spending/Owner Consumption in the 30-35P

thP

Percentile for FCSUM-R 

Year Food Clothing Shelter Utilities Medical

1993 $4,695 $1,235 $5,086 $2,149 $1,122

1994 4,846 1,238 5,425 2,201 1,135

1995 4,862 1,150 5,807 2,263 1,250

1996 4,857 1,167 6,310 2,343 1,258

1997 4,901 1,169 6,468 2,435 1,313

1998 4,990 1,155 6,625 2,578 1,353

1999 5,266 1,119 6,945 2,640 1,221

2000 5,412 1,171 7,148 2,716 1,145

2001 5,591 1,288 7,549 2,760 1,256

2002 5,726 1,302 8,023 2,902 1,463

2003 5,961 1,273 8,556 3,034 1,657

 

The results presented in Tables 3 and 4 indicate that the 

dollars that the reference family is spending or the value 

of their consumption has been increasing for most items 

in the budget. But why are they going up? Is it due to 

prices or due to the fact that reference families spend 

differently than the average consumer unit? By 

examining the CPI-U for all items and for the items in the 

thresholds this can at least in part be explored. 

Table 5 includes the CPI-Us (U.S. city average) for all 

items and for the items included in the thresholds. This 

table reveals that relative prices in shelter and medical 

care are increasing at faster rates than the overall CPI-U, 

the index used to adjust official poverty thresholds. The 

average change in the medical care CPI-U (48.8 percent) 

is approximately the same as the change in medical care 

spending in the 30-35P

thP

 percentile for the reference family 

using FCSUM-R (47.7 percent in Table 4). 

Underlying the consumer price indexes are the relative 

importances of the items that make up the index. The 

relative importances are derived from the expenditure 

base weights, adjusted by monthly price changes. Relative 

importances indicate which items more heavily influence 

the consumer price index. 

Table 5. CPI-U for All and for Selected Categories 

Year CPI-U Food Clothing Shelter Utilities Medical

1993 1.45 1.41 1.34 1.56 1.21 2.01

1994 1.48 1.44 1.33 1.61 1.23 2.11

1995 1.52 1.48 1.32 1.66 1.24 2.21

1996 1.57 1.53 1.32 1.71 1.28 2.28

1997 1.61 1.57 1.33 1.76 1.31 2.35

1998 1.63 1.61 1.33 1.82 1.29 2.42

1999 1.67 1.64 1.31 1.87 1.29 2.51

2000 1.72 1.68 1.30 1.93 1.38 2.61

2001 1.76 1.71 1.29 1.98 1.52 2.69

2002 1.80 1.76 1.24 2.08 1.44 2.86

2003 1.84 1.80 1.21 2.13 1.55 2.97

Relative importances for 2003 and shares of the FCSUMR threshold are presented in Table 6. The FCSUM-R 

component shares are presented since the CPI-U assumes 

that owners’ equivalent rent is used to value the cost of 

shelter services. As seen in Table 6, the share of the 

FCSUM-R threshold for food is 25 percent while the 

relative importance of food in the 2003 CPI-U is 15 

percent. Shelter accounts for 35 percent of the threshold 

but 30 percent of the CPI-U. Utilities account for almost 

twice as much of the total in the threshold (13 percent) as 

in the CPI-U (7 percent). The other large difference is the 

share or relative importance for other goods and services: 

16 percent in the threshold as compared to 38 percent in 

the CPI-U. 

Table 6. Threshold Shares and CPI-U Relative 

Importances: 2003 

FCSUM-R CPI-U

Food 0.246 0.154

Clothing 0.052 0.040

Shelter 0.352 0.299

Utilities 0.125 0.071

Medical 0.068 0.061

Other 0.156 0.376

5. Conclusions 

The thresholds presented in this study, unlike the official 

thresholds, reflect recent spending and consumption needs 

in levels and patterns. They account for changes in living 

standards over time, unlike the official measure. A focus 

on meeting spending needs versus consumption needs 

dictates which threshold is more appropriate. Both types 

have been produced in this study. The thresholds 

produced follow the same procedure over the 1993-2003 

period. This is the most recent series of thresholds 

available that uses the same method over time. The 
11

results presented reveal thresholds that have been 

increasing at a faster rate than official poverty thresholds. 

This is not surprising given the different assumptions 

underlying the NAS approach and the official measure. 

The NAS-based thresholds in this study represent the best 

that could be produced at this time. However, 

refinements could be made. More research is needed 

regarding equivalence scales and how best to account for 

medical care needs in the thresholds. The question of how 

and whether to adjust the thresholds for differences in 

living costs across geographic areas was not addressed in 

this study. Yet, the NAS Workshop participants indicated 

that this is an important topic for continued work. 

Other topics that need further thought and consideration 

are whether spending or consumption should be the 

underlying concept driving the choice of poverty 

measurement and deciding whose experience updates are 

to represent. Regarding this last point, are strictly price 

changes faced by the average consumer (as in the official 

poverty measure where the change from year to year only 

reflects changes in prices) the only relevant issue in 

producing thresholds, or are the changing levels of living 

of particular families or households important. This latter 

issue is left to policymakers. 

Acknowledgements 

Special thanks are extended to Kathleen Short (U.S. 

Census Bureau), my friend and colleague, for her 

comments and suggestions on this and all of our previous 

poverty measurement research. Short (2005) used the 

thresholds produced in this study for her 2005 Joint 

Statistical Meetings (JSM) paper on estimating resources 

for poverty measurement. The comments of Tim 

Smeeding, discussant at the JSM session, are also 

appreciated, as are those of other participants in the 

session.. Thanks are extended to my colleagues in the 

BLS Division of Price and Index Number Research who 

provided comments on an earlier version of this work; the 

comments of Ralph Bradley, Rob McClelland, and Uri 

Kogan are especially appreciated. The views expressed in 

this research are solely those of the author and do not 

necessarily reflect the official positions or policies of the 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics or the views of other staff 

members. The author accepts responsibility for all errors. 

A summary of the CNSTAT workshop is presented in a 

National Research Council report (2005). 

References 

(Many of the unpublished working papers listed here are 

available at: 

HTUhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/povmeas/papers.htmlUTH

Banthin, Jessica, Thesia I. Garner, and Kathleen Short, 

“Medical Care Needs in Poverty Thresholds: Problems 

Posed by the Uninsured.” Agency for Healthcare 

Research and Quality, Presented at the American 

Economic Association Meetings, January 2001. 

Bavier, Richard, “Do the Current Poverty Thresholds 

Include Any Amount for Health Care”, Poverty 

Measurement Working Paper, March 2001. 

Citro, Constance F., personal communication regarding 

the use of shelter consumption as opposed to shelter 

expenditures in deriving the thresholds, 1999. 

Citro, Constance F., and Robert T. Michael (eds.), 

Measuring Poverty: A New Approach, Washington, D.C.: 

National Academy Press, 1995. 

Garner, Thesia I., unpublished tabulations of U.S. 

Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey data from 

1998Q2-2001Q1, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, 

DC, 2002. 

Garner, Thesia I. and Patricia Rozaklis, “Accounting for 

Owner Occupied Housing in Poverty: Focus on 

Thresholds,” American Statistical Association (ASA)

Proceedings of the Section on Government Statistics and 

Section on Social Statistic, 1999. 

Garner, Thesia I. and Patricia Rozaklis, “Owner-Occupied 

Housing: An Input for Experimental Poverty 

Thresholds,” paper presented at session organized by the 

Society of Government Economists at the annual meeting 

of the Allied Social Sciences Associations, January 6, 

2001.

Garner, Thesia I., Stephanie Shipp, Geoffrey Paulin, 

Kathleen Short, and Charles Nelson, “Poverty 

Measurement in the 1990s,” Monthly Labor Review, 

March 1998, pp. 39-61. 

Garner, Thesia I. and Kathleen S. Short, “OwnerOccupied Shelter in Experimental Poverty Measures,” 

paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern 

Economic Association, Tampa, Florida, November 1, 

2001. 

Iceland, John. "The CNSTAT Workshop on Experimental 

Poverty Measures, June 2004." Focus 23, 3 (Spring) 

2005, pp. 26-30. 

Johnson, David, Stephanie Shipp, and Thesia I. Garner, 

“Developing Poverty Thresholds Using Expenditure 

Data,” in Proceedings of the Government and Social 

Statistics Section. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical 

Association, August 1997, pp. 28-37. 
12

National Research Council. Workshop on Experimental 

Poverty Measures: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, 

D.C.: National Academy Press, 2005. 

Short, Kathleen, “Estimating Resources for Poverty 

Measurement: 1993-2003,” paper prepared for the Joint 

Statistical Meetings, Social Statistics Section, 

Minneapolis, Minnesota, August 10, 2005. 

Short, Kathleen, Experimental Poverty Measures: 1999,

U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, 

Consumer Income, P60-216, U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Washington, DC, 2001. 

Short, Kathleen and Garner, Thesia I. “Experimental 

Poverty Measures Under Alternate Treatments of Medical 

Out-of-Pocket Expenditures.” Monthly Labor Review,

August 2002, pp. 3-13. 

Short, Kathleen, Thesia Garner, David Johnson, and 

Patricia Doyle, Experimental Poverty Measures: 1990 to 

1997, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, 

Consumer Income, P60-205, U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Washington, DC, 1999.