Understanding Supplemental Poverty Measures: Their Development and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Understanding Supplemental Poverty Measures: Their Development and Application Dr. Trudi Renwick Dr. Marybeth Mattingly Dr. Mark Levitan Thursday, December 5, 2013 2:00PM EST Purpose of the SSRC Create a Virtual Repository of Research on
Trudi Renwick Poverty Statistics Branch U.S. Census Bureau December 5, 2013
1
nation was 15.0 percent. There were 46.5 million people in poverty. Neither estimate was statistically different from last year.
for
care, work)
structure
since 1965
regions
Observations from the Interagency Technical Working Group - March 2, 2010
poverty measure
allocation or program eligibility
responsible for improving and updating the measure
improvement
recommendations
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2013 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/ research/ Short_ResearchSPM2012.pdf
Official Poverty Measure Supplemental Poverty Measure Thresholds 48 thresholds by age of head, size of family and number of children. Derived from USDA food budgets. Derived from latest five years of CE data on spending on food, clothing, shelter and utilities; adjusted for tenure and geography Resources Cash income before taxes Cash income before taxes PLUS noncash benefits and tax credits MINUS taxes and necessary expenditures Unit of Analysis Related by blood, marriage
excludes unrelated children < 15 Resource unit includes cohabiting partners, their relatives and unrelated children under age 15
15.1 22.3 13.7 9.1 16 18 15.5 14.8 5 10 15 20 25 Total Population Children Nonelderly Adults 65+ Official** SPM
**Includes unrelated individuals under age 15. Source: Current Population Survey, 2013 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. 11
2009 2010 2011 2012 SPM 15.1 15.9 16.1 16.0 Official 14.3 15.1 15.0 15.0 15.1 16.0 14.3 15.0 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 SPM Official
Percentage point change in SPM rate after including each element
Social Security
Refundable Tax Credits
SNAP
SSI
Housing subsidies
Unemployment Compensation
Child support received
School lunch
Public Assistance
WIC
LIHEAP
0.1
Child support paid
0.4
Federal income tax
1.1
FICA
1.9
Work expenses
3.4
Medical Out of Pocket
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supple mental/research/ Short_ResearchSPM2011.pdf
22
Percentage point change in SPM rate after including each element
Social Security
Refundable Tax Credits
SNAP
SSI
Housing subsidies
Unemployment Compensation
Child support received
School lunch
Public Assistance
WIC
LIHEAP
0.1
Child support paid
0.4
Federal income tax
1.1
FICA
1.9
Work expenses
3.4
Medical Out of Pocket
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supple mental/research/ Short_ResearchSPM2011.pdf
22
Percentage point change in SPM rate after including each element
Social Security
Refundable Tax Credits
SNAP
SSI
Housing subsidies
Unemployment Compensation
Child support received
School lunch
Public Assistance
WIC
LIHEAP
0.1
Child support paid
0.4
Federal income tax
1.1
FICA
1.9
Work expenses
3.4
Medical Out of Pocket
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supple mental/research/ Short_ResearchSPM2011.pdf
22
Percentage point change in SPM rate after including each element
Social Security
Refundable Tax Credits
SNAP
SSI
Housing subsidies
Unemployment Compensation
Child support received
School lunch
Public Assistance
WIC
LIHEAP
0.1
Child support paid
0.4
Federal income tax
1.1
FICA
1.9
Work expenses
3.4
Medical Out of Pocket
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supple mental/research/ Short_ResearchSPM2011.pdf
22
6.7 5.2 8.4 10.8 19.2 31.2 30 34.6 35.7 18.2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Official** SPM 4.0 or more 2.0 to 3.99 1.0 to 1.99 0.5 to .99 Less than 0.5
17
** Includes unrelated individuals under age 15. Source: Current Population Survey, 2013 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
18
alternative poverty measure using the American Community Survey
– Produce estimates for smaller geographies – counties, MSAs – particularly important in states like California and New York with local administration of human services programs – Incorporate administrative data
– Address state-specific policy concerns
– Experiment with new and improved methods to impute missing data
data
– http://www.nyc.gov/html/ceo/html/poverty_research/poverty_rese arch.shtml
– http://www.irp.wisc.edu/
– http://www.urban.org/publications/412063.html – Also working with Minnesota: http://www.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/lcep/
– http://www.coopercenter.org/demographics/VPM
– http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/october/poverty-index- california-100113.html
21
May 1995 report, Measuring Poverty: A New Approach The official measure does not account for
Recommended Changes to Improve the Measure of Poverty in the U.S.
22
23
http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/index.html
24
25
26
27
28
29
Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality and the Public Policy Institute of California Christopher Wimer, Marybeth Mattingly, Matt Levin, Caroline Danielson, and Sarah Bohn December 5, 2013
CENTER ON POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
Background Five Questions
vary across the main competing measures of poverty?
STANFORD CENTER ON
POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
Official poverty measure (OPM) devised in 1960s
STANFORD CENTER ON
POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
SPM is an improvement but…
Many factors make California unique
STANFORD CENTER ON
POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
Data
Population Survey, California administrative data and other sources Innovation
cash-out
STANFORD CENTER ON
POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
Family resources
Family expenses
35
Poverty threshold
STANFORD CENTER ON
POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
CALIFORNIA IS LAND OF POVERTY
OPM: 5.9 MILLION CALIFORNIANS IN POVERTY
(16% OF POPULATION)
CPM: 8.0 MILLION CALIFORNIANS IN POVERTY
(22% OF POPULATION)
AN EXTRA 2.1 MILLION CALIFORNIANS IN POVERTY
36
STANFORD CENTER ON
POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
How much poverty is there in California and how do estimates of poverty vary across the main competing measures of poverty?
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% All People Children Under 6 Children Adults Elderly OPM CPM SPM
STANFORD CENTER ON
POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
38
Average poverty threshold (family of four)
69% Highest-cost counties: $31,300 22% Mid-range counties: $27,200 9% Lowest-cost counties: $23,900 Official poverty threshold: $22,811
STANFORD CENTER ON
POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
CPM POVERTY RATES OPM POVERTY RATES
STANFORD CENTER ON
POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
(19.9,29.4] (15.55,19.9] (12.8,15.55] [6.7,12.8]
OFFICIAL POVERTY MEASURE
(21.2,26.9] (19,21.2] (16.1,19] [13.6,16.1]
CALIFORNIA POVERTY MEASURE
How do patterns of poverty vary by demographic characteristics?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% OPM CPM
STANFORD CENTER ON
POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
By how much do social safety net programs reduce poverty rates?
0% All Children Under 6 All Children Adults Elderly CPM Minus SNAP & Tax Credits & CalWORKs CPM Minus Total Safety Net Benefits
STANFORD CENTER ON
POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
Which demographic groups benefit the most from safety net programs?
0% CPM Minus Total Safety Net Benefits
STANFORD CENTER ON
POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
the most populous counties.
underreporting of key social safety net programs; but higher than OPM estimates in large part because of the high cost of living.
STANFORD CENTER ON
POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
lifted above poverty by measured safety net programs.
STANFORD CENTER ON
POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
Investigate the effect of social safety net programs on different kinds of low-income families Estimate impact of increases or decreases in program expenditures Consider potential impacts of other policy change Status of undocumented immigrants Examine regional differences that shape poverty
SNAP Impact on Poverty
0.0% Low PAI Moderate PAI High PAI
STANFORD CENTER ON
POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
Widely Well Received – Many Requests for Further Analyses Consider a Range of Policy Scenarios and Counterfactuals Compute Analyses for More Demographic Groups Family Structure Work Status Construct CPM for 2012 and earlier years Combine Years to Address Smaller Geographies Test alternative imputation methods Compare to other state and local SPM-style measures
STANFORD CENTER ON
POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
Stanford Brief
PPIC Report
Technical Appendices
Interactive Map
STANFORD CENTER ON
POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
CPI and PPIC Colleagues and Reviewers Research Assistance
Funding
Partial funding for this research came from The Walter S. Johnson Foundation’s funding for PPIC and from Grant Number AE00101 to CPI from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, and awarded by Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views
for Planning and Evaluation) or the Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration. STANFORD CENTER ON
POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
50
Based on the U.S. wide SPM before the adjustment for housing status. U.S.-wide threshold is adjusted for inter-area differences in housing costs.
Resources available to meet the needs represented in the threshold. All differences in housing status are accounted for on income side of measure.
51
Sources: US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey and US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development Fair Market Rents.
52
53
$22,811 $30,945 $22,944 $30,195 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 Official CEO Official CEO Official CEO Thresholds Income Poverty Rates 19.3% 21.3%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and American Community Survey Public Use Micro Sample as augmented by CEO. Notes: Thresholds are for two-adult, two-child families. Incomes are measured at the 20th percentile and stated in family size and composition-adjusted dollars. Official poverty rates are based on the CEO poverty universe and unit of analysis. 6
2 4
Percentage Point Change in Poverty Rate Cash Transfers
Housing Adjustment
Food Stamps
Income Taxes
School Meals
WIC
Energy Assistance
.0
Childcare
.2
Commuting
1.7
Payroll Taxes
1.8
Medical Expenses
2.9
Source: American Community Survey Public Use Micro Sample as augmented by CEO. 7
7.9% 13.1% 19.3% 25.1% 30.6% 5.6% 11.3% 21.3% 34.1% 45.8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Less than 50% Less than 75% Less than 100% Less than 125% Less than 150%
Cumulative Percent Multiple of the respective thresholds Official CEO
Source: American Community Survey as augmented by CEO. 8
$8,519 $20,027 $27,539 $35,026 $42,334
$0 $15,000 $30,000 $45,000 $60,000 $75,000
Below 50% 50% - 74% 75% - 99% 100% - 124% 125% - 149% Median Income Within Each Income Group
Percent of the CEO Threshold
CEO Income is More Sensitive to Program Phase Outs as Incomes Rise
Official CEO
Note: Incomes are stated in family-size adjusted dollars. Source: American Community Survey as augmented by CEO. 9
20.3% 19.8% 19.8% 19.0% 19.7% 20.9% 21.3% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 22% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Percent of the Population
Source: American Community Survey Public Use Micro Sample as augmented by CEO. Note: Ovals identify statistically significant year-to-year changes. 10
– Economic Recovery Rebate – Child Tax Credit – Earned Income Tax Credit – American Opportunity Credit – Economic Recovery Payment – Making Work Pay Credit – Payroll tax cut
– Increase in benefit levels – Intensive outreach by City to eligible families
59
$1,530 $2,408 $2,502 $2,594 $2,764 $1,625 $1,588 $1,709 $1,842
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011* Aggregate Value, In Millions Actual Income Tax Effect Hypothetical Income Tax Effect
* 2011 includes effect of two percentage point cut in Payroll Tax. Source: American Community Survey Public Use Micro Sample as augmented by CEO. Notes: Hypothetical assumes no change in policy and is not calculated for 2007. 60
$1,290 $1,440 $2,005 $2,714 $2,860 $1,387 $1,620 $2,116 $2,259
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Aggregate Value, In Millions Actual Food Stamp Benefits Hypothetical Food Stamp Benefits
Source: American Community Survey Public Use Micro Sample as augmented by CEO. Notes: Hypothetical assumes no change in policy and is not calculated for 2007. 61
62
19.0% 19.7% 20.9% 21.3% 19.8% 20.5% 22.0% 23.2% 23.6%
14% 16% 18% 20% 22% 24% 26% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Actual Hypothetical
Source: American Community Survey Public Use Micro Sample as augmented by CEO. Notes: Hypothetical assumes no change in policy and is not calculated for 2007.
63
17.7% 18.2% 24.7% 19.7% 19.1% 28.9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Citizen by Birth Naturalized Citizen Not a Citizen Percent of the Population 2008 2009 2010 2011
Source: American Community Survey Public Use Micro Sample as augmented by CEO. Note: Ovals identify statistically significant changes from 2008 to 2011. 64
24.7% 17.7% 28.5% 20.6% 18.8% 16.5%
28.1% 45.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Non-Citizens Citizens Less than 100% 100% -149% 150% -199% 200% and above
Source: American Community Survey Public Use Micro Sample as augmented by CEO. 65
Non-Citizens Citizens
Earnings 95.4% 74.3% Other Cash Income 5.7% 27.2% Net Income Tax 5.5% 2.7% Payroll Taxes
Child Care
Commuting expenses
Nutritional Assistance 3.8% 3.7% Housing Adjustment 7.4% 10.8% Medical Expenses
100.0% 100.0%
Source: American Community Survey Public Use Micro Sample as augmented by CEO. 66
67