iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Elizabeth Lower-Basch

GET UPDATES FROM Elizabeth Lower-Basch
 

New Supplemental Poverty Measure Doesn't Change Reality

Posted: 11/08/11 04:27 PM ET

The new Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) released yesterday morning by the Census Bureau tells us that millions more are poor than what the standard poverty measure shows, but without government intervention poverty would be much worse.

The Supplemental Poverty Measure finds 49.1 million people in the United States are poor, compared to 46.6 million by the official measure. However, for some groups, including children, the poverty rate is lower using the new measure.

What does this mean, and why should we care? First, it is important to recognize that this is only a change in the measurement, and not a change in the underlying reality. Regardless of the numbers, people's everyday reality is the same. No senior citizen finds it easier to pay for medicine, and not one child is less hungry, as a result of this new report.

Nonetheless, the new measure is an important step forward. The SPM takes into account facts that are obvious on the ground but have previously not been reflected in poverty measurement: A family receiving a housing subsidy or SNAP benefits to pay for food has more money to spend on other necessities. Going to work increases a family's income, but payroll and income taxes and the cost of child care and other work-related expenses eat into that family's ability to afford other necessities. Even for people with health insurance, out-of-pocket medical costs such as premiums, deductibles and copayments add up and may leave low-income people without the money needed to pay other bills.

The new report's most striking fact is how much difference the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and in-kind benefits make in reducing poverty, particularly among children. The Supplemental Poverty Measure report finds that the EITC reduced poverty among children by 4.2 percentage points, SNAP benefits by 3 percentage points, housing subsidies by 1.3 percentage points, and school lunch by 0.8 percentage points. These programs have been among the most responsive parts of the safety net during the recent recession, and have made the difference between desperation and getting by for millions of families.

The new measure also shows that 47.8 percent of people are poor or low-income, compared to 33.9 percent under the conventional measure. Examining the number of people living at 200 percent or less of the poverty level more accurately captures the large number of individuals and families that are just scraping by and barely making ends meet. Many of these families are only one crisis -- one divorce, one hospitalization, one job loss -- away from financial disaster. Absent such a crisis, they may not be officially poor, but they can't seem to get ahead and can't save for a rainy day or to send their kids to college. Low-income families may benefit from the EITC, but they probably don't receive other benefits, and if they have modest savings, that can disqualify them from receiving help in times of crisis.

The new measure is not perfect, and the Census report highlights several areas where it continues to refine the measure and seeks new data sources to provide additional detail. But the new measure does a better job of capturing the full range of resources available to families to meet their basic needs and determining the impact of programs on reducing poverty. The Supplemental Poverty Measure thus provides an indicator of where we are, and where we need to go. However we measure it, poverty is unacceptably high and hardship is unacceptably widespread, and no focus on technical issues can obscure that fact.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:20 AM on 11/09/2011
How does the government decide how much a family needs? We make just below 24,000, and we're struggling­­, yes, but we've never been late with a house or utility payment - actually, never late with a payment for anything, ever, and we're not starving, either. I've noticed, with amusement, how some of our friends who get assistance drive new cars, eat better than we do, and even have nicer homes. I thought that odd, but put in these terms (people who get SNAP or the other things you mentioned having more money to spend on other things), I can see why this is. I hadn't considered the medical care, either - seems our "poor" friends are always seeing their doctors. Well, of course! We don't go because we can't afford the co-pay, but they have medicaid, so they don't have a co-pay. The real irony is that a couple of the families we know getting all this assistance have a higher income than we do. They do have three kids to our one, but we're able to pay our bills (barely), and I'm sure that if we added a kid or two to our household we'd probably still scrape by somehow. I understand medical care and food for kids, of course, but it seems our friends get far more than is needed to just feed the kids. The whole family is provided for, even though they are earning a paycheck. What constitute­­s "necessity­­", anyway?
01:45 PM on 11/09/2011
So, you have friends who earn less than $24k per year, receive government assistance, drive new cars, eat better than you, and have nicer homes? Doubtful.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:59 PM on 12/02/2011
No, WE are the ones who make less than 24K. But if you don't understand how this can happen, you clearly do not live in Ohio. Our friends have 3 kids, so their "household" number is enough to get help with utilities, food, health care, etc. We have 1 child, so don't qualify, even though we make 1000 less. They get the same for everyone in the household, see, even though small children don't eat as much as adults, and the heating bill would be the same whether 2 people or 5 lived there. I don't begrudge them that, I'm just making the point that their quality of life is higher. Or perhaps you're implying that they're doing something illegal, since they have a nicer car and home? I don't think so. I think it is simply that, since we are able to get buy on that salary, but chose to have a house we can afford and no car payment, THEY could have done the same thing, but since they are getting assistance for things like utilities, health care, and food, that frees up the money they would have had to spend on those things. Of course, you wouldn't be surprised at their having a nicer home if you'd SEEN our home. I should have qualified that statement by telling you we live in a pretty crumbly old ranch-style home, very small, that was built in 1910. But, as I say, that was the one we could afford.