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 Self- Sufficiency • Provide a Forum to Engage Researchers, Practitioners and Policymakers • Advance Research to Practice • Move the Field of Self-Sufficiency Forward

How to Use the SSRC in Your Work • Find research to inform current/future programs and strategies for addressing emerging trends • Access tools to enhance your understanding of data/research • Connect with other self-sufficiency stakeholders

Topics • Asset-Building, Tax Policies and Subsidies • Child Care • Child Support • Community Development and Housing • Education and Training • Employment • Family Formation and Family Structure • Food Assistance • General Research on Income and Poverty • Health • TANF Policy, Services and Benefits • Transportation

Inclusion Criteria and Process Materials from: • Academic journals and search engines • Research clearinghouses, firms, and university research centers • Government Web sites • Policy institutes and advocacy organizations • Recommendations from users and TWG Broad Inclusion Criteria • Include all studies, regardless of methodology • Include traditional research studies • Include different types of resources (reports, articles, policy briefs, toolkits, etc.) Fatal Flaw Review • Ensure that documents meet identified standards of good research

Moving Forward • Join the SSRC for email blasts and newsletters – https://www.opressrc.org/content/subscribe-to-SSRC • Follow us on social media • Plan to attend Webinars – December 11 Webinar: Family Structure, Stability, and Child Wellbeing • Submit resources to grow collection • Share events for our calendar • Watch for MySSRC

Supplemental Poverty Measure(s) Trudi Renwick Poverty Statistics Branch U.S. Census Bureau December 5, 2013

Official Poverty Statistics: Current Population Survey • The 2012 official poverty rate for the nation was 15.0 percent. There were 46.5 million people in poverty. Neither estimate was statistically different from last year. • The official measure does not account for •In-kind benefits (SNAP/food stamps) •Necessary expenses (taxes, health care, work) •Changes in family or household structure •Higher standards and levels of living since 1965 •Geographic price differences among regions 1

Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) Observations from the Interagency Technical Working Group - March 2, 2010 •Will not replace the official poverty measure •Will not be used for resource allocation or program eligibility •Census Bureau and BLS responsible for improving and updating the measure •Continued research and improvement •Based on NAS panel 1995 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 Derived from latest five head, size of family and years of CE data on number of children. spending on food, clothing, Derived from USDA food shelter and utilities; budgets. 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 Resource unit includes or adoption – universe cohabiting partners, their excludes unrelated children relatives and unrelated < 15 children under age 15

Official vs SPM Poverty Rates: 2012 25 22.3 20 18 16 15.5 15.1 14.8 15 13.7 Official** 9.1 10 SPM 5 0 Total Children Nonelderly 65+ Population Adults **Includes unrelated individuals under age 15. Source: Current Population Survey, 2013 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. 11

Changes in SPM Poverty Rates Over Time 16.5 16.0 16.0 15.5 15.1 15.0 15.0 14.5 SPM Official 14.0 14.3 13.5 13.0 2009 2010 2011 2012 SPM 15.1 15.9 16.1 16.0 Official 14.3 15.1 15.0 15.0

Difference in SPM Rate After Including Each Element: 2012 Percentage point change in SPM rate after including each element -8.6 Social Security Refundable Tax -3.0 Credits -1.6 SNAP -1.1 SSI -0.9 Housing subsidies Unemployment -0.8 Compensation -0.4 Child support received -0.4 School lunch -0.2 Public Assistance -0.1 WIC -0.1 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. 22 http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supple mental/research/ Short_ResearchSPM2011.pdf

Difference in SPM Rate After Including Each Element: 2012 Percentage point change in SPM rate after including each element -8.6 Social Security Refundable Tax -3.0 Credits -1.6 SNAP -1.1 SSI -0.9 Housing subsidies Unemployment -0.8 Compensation -0.4 Child support received -0.4 School lunch -0.2 Public Assistance -0.1 WIC -0.1 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. 22 http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supple mental/research/ Short_ResearchSPM2011.pdf

Difference in SPM Rate After Including Each Element: 2012 Percentage point change in SPM rate after including each element -8.6 Social Security Refundable Tax -3.0 Credits -1.6 SNAP -1.1 SSI -0.9 Housing subsidies Unemployment -0.8 Compensation -0.4 Child support received -0.4 School lunch -0.2 Public Assistance -0.1 WIC -0.1 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. 22 http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supple mental/research/ Short_ResearchSPM2011.pdf

Difference in SPM Rate After Including Each Element: 2012 Percentage point change in SPM rate after including each element -8.6 Social Security Refundable Tax -3.0 Credits -1.6 SNAP -1.1 SSI -0.9 Housing subsidies Unemployment -0.8 Compensation -0.4 Child support received -0.4 School lunch -0.2 Public Assistance -0.1 WIC -0.1 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. 22 http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supple mental/research/ Short_ResearchSPM2011.pdf

Distribution of People by Income to Threshold Ratios: 2012 100% 18.2 90% 35.7 80% 70% 4.0 or more 34.6 60% 2.0 to 3.99 50% 30 1.0 to 1.99 40% 0.5 to .99 31.2 30% Less than 0.5 19.2 20% 8.4 10.8 10% 6.7 5.2 0% Official** SPM ** Includes unrelated individuals under age 15. Source: Current Population Survey, 2013 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. 17

18

SPM – Census Bureau • National estimates for 2009,2010,2011 and 2012 • State estimates using 3-year averages • SPM research files on line to enable researchers to replicate published tables BUT – cities and states have been releasing their own versions of the SPM, including NYC and California

Why state-specific/alternative poverty measures? • New York City Center for Economic Opportunity produced first alternative poverty measure using the American Community Survey • Advantages – 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 • useful to correct for underreporting • local efforts have access to timely, rich administrative data sources – Address state-specific policy concerns • Wisconsin thresholds reflect BadgerCare • California Poverty Measure – adjust for undocumented immigrants – Experiment with new and improved methods to impute missing data • Virginia using PROC MI to statistically match the ACS data to CPS ASEC data

Local Area Research • New York Center for Economic Opportunity: – http://www.nyc.gov/html/ceo/html/poverty_research/poverty_rese arch.shtml • Institute for Research on Poverty (Wisconsin): – http://www.irp.wisc.edu/ • Urban Institute: – http://www.urban.org/publications/412063.html – Also working with Minnesota: http://www.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/lcep/ • University of Virginia – http://www.coopercenter.org/demographics/VPM • California Poverty Measure – http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/october/poverty-index- california-100113.html 21