Fifth Edition Diana M. DiNitto The University of Texas at Austin Allyn and Bacon Boston London Toronto Sydney Tokyo SingaporeAPTER Defining Poverty: Where to Begin? WHAT IS POVERTY? 66 States lies in confit over the definition of the problem. Defining poverty is a political activity. Proponents of increased governmental suppot for social, welfare programs frequently make high estimates of the number and percentage of the population that is poor. They view the problem of poverty as a persistent ‘one, even in a generaly affluent society. They argue that many milliors of Ameri- cans suffer from hunger, inadequate housing, remediable illness, hopelessness, and despaic, Given the magnitude of the problem, their definition of poverty practically mandates the continuation and expansion of a wide variety of public welfare programs. In contrast, others minimize the number of poor in the United States. They see poverty as diminishing over time. They view the poor in America today as consider- ably better off than the middle class of fifty years ago and even wealthy by the stan- dards of most societies in the world. They deny that people need to suffer ‘rom hunger ‘or temediable illness If they make use of the public services already available. They believe that there are many opportunities for upward mobility in the United States and that no one need succumb to hopelessness or despair. This definition of the prob Jem minimizes the need for public welfare programs and encourages policymakers to limit the number and size of these programs. Political conflict over poverty, then, begins with contending definitions of the prob- Jem of poverty. In an attempt to influence policymaking, various political interests try to win acceptance for their own definitions of the problem. Political stientist B. B. Schattschneider explained, Te ‘very first obstacle to a rational approach to reducing poverty ir the UnitedDenne Pores Where 0 Beon? 6 Political confit ts not lke an intercollegiate debate in wick the opponents agree i advance on a deftion of the issues. AS a matter of fact, the definition ofthe alter- patives isthe supreme instrument of power; the atagonists can rarely agree on what the iesnes are becouse power is involved tn the definition.» Although inadequate income has always been a concem during economic depres- sions, poverty has been a politica issue only forthe last forty years. Prior to the 1960s, the problems of the poor were almost always segmented. According to James ‘Sundquist, not until the Kennedy and Johnson administrations did the nation begin tosee that these problems were tied together ina single "bedrock" problem—zoverty ‘The measures enacted, and those proposed, were dealing separately with suck prob- lemsas slur housing, jveniledetinguency, dependency, unernployment, literacy but they were separately inadequate because they were striking only at surface aspeds of tuhat seemed to be some kind of bedrock problem, and i: was the bedrock problem hat had tobe (dentified so tht could be attacked in concerted, unified, and innove- tive way... The Bedrock problem, in a word, was “poverty.” Words and conceps de- termine programe; once the target was reduced to a single word, the timing became right fora unified program? But even politcal consensus that poverty isa problem does not necessarily mean that everyone defines poverty in the same fashion. The following paragraphs elaborate on five different approaches to the conceptualization of poverty—as deprivation, as equality, as culture, as exploitation, and as structure. Poverty as Deprivation ‘One way to define poverty is as deprivation—insulficiency in food, housing, cloth- ‘ng, medical care, and other items required to maintain a decent standard of living. ‘This definition assumes that there isa standard of living below which individuals and families can be considered “deprived.” This standard is admittedly arbitrary; no one ‘knows for certain what level of material well-being is necessary to avoid deprivation. But each year the federal government calculates the cash income required for indi- tals and families to satisfy minimum living needs, These figures are called the poverty level, poverty line, poverty index, or poverty threshold.” Official calculations of the poverty level were first developed by the Social Secu- rity Administration (SSA) in 1964. Economist Mollie Orshansky was the key figure in developing the original poverty levels, and there was great debate over whether her ‘poverty guidelines are simplified versions ofthe thresholds, While the thestols are primary used for stata purposes, the gudelnes are used to determine who quai for federally suppor publi =~ ‘Stance. These igves are similar. 1999, poverty guidelines forthe freight contiguous sates were {5240 for ane peaon nd $16.700 fora lamlyof foo The uldlines sre usualy published every Rebra= diy inthe deal eiture tne conceptualization was to0 high or too low.? Several revisions have been made in the calculations over the years. For example, since 1981, lower poverty-level figures are no longer used to calculate poverty rates of female-headed households and farm fam- illes. Some distinctions based on whether a household is headed by an elderly or nonelderly person are still made. Originally, the poverty level was derived by estimating a low-cost but mutri- tious food budget for a household (similar to today’s U.S. Departmen: of Agricul- ture Thrifty Food Plan, described in Chapter 7). This figure was then multiplied by 3, since surveys indicated that about one-third of an average household budget vas spent on food. Orshansky recently told Tite Wall Stret Journal that her formula was intended only for the aged; nevertheless, it became the government's official definition ‘Since 1969, theprevious year’s poverty levels are simply adjusted ta reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). There are several variations of the CPI. The mea- sure used today is the CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). It includes the living costs of more segments of the population than the measure previously used, Even so, the poverty level remains a crude measure of poverty. In 1997 the povery level for a {amily of four was $16,400, up from poverty levels of $8,414 in 1980, $3,968 in 1970, and $3,022 in 1960.5 Poverty levels are also determined for households of varying sizes and compositions as shown in Table 3-1. ‘The poverty level is an absolute measure of poverty because it provides one figure for the number of poor in the country, and individuals and families fll either above or below it. According to this definition, 14.5 percent of Americans were poor in 1994 compared with 13.8 percent in 1995. John Crudele, financial columnist for the New mate Poverty Threshold by Family Size: 1997 Size of Family Unit ae eee wea oe oe a abate $7,698 ‘Six persons $21,886 Bd inicio yen persons 524,802 Soot ures gs IE ese Householder 65 and over $9,712 ‘Eight persons é smo ee ee ‘Source: Joseph Dalat and Mary Naileh, Poverty in she United tates: 1997, Bureawof the Census, Current Population Reports, Consumer Income P6020) (Washington, DC: US. Government Pasting Of, 1938), bl ‘Thresholds foreach fly sae vary somewhat by the numberof dls and clden inthe household,‘ie Posee Wee 0 Been? 69 ae [Number of Poor and Poverty Rete: 1959-1997 ‘_ ters : ol ery | 30 1 = | a Poverty te { | 13.3% ° : A a a a a ‘ote: Th datapoints opresent to miei of he respecte years. Te est eeosionay erbapan ny 1900 a ged Mare 1291 “source U.S, Bureau f the Census, March 1998, Current Populaton Survey aseperted in Josep Dalake nd Mary Naleh, Poverty inthe United States 1997, 1S. Bure ofthe Census, Curent Population Repos, Consumer incom P6020, (Washington, DC: US, Government Prnting fie, 1998), p. York Post and frequent critic of how the goverment counts things, says that while newspapers touted the declin, they did not report that the government surveyed 57,000 people to obtain its 1994 figures but only 50,000 in 1995, making the method- ology less reliable. Some of those cut were from areas like Los Angeles that might have rade a diference in just how much poverty was found. The 1995 figures were e- ported in 1996, According to Crudele, poverty “apparently never ss in a resin tial election year. There were an estimated 35.6 million poor people in the United States in 1997 or about 13.3 percent ofthe population (see Figutes 3-1 and 3-2).* Ofall families in the United States, 7.3 million or 10.3 percent of them were poor in 1997 (see Figure 3-3) Ie would have taken an average of $6,602 to bring cach family in poverty tothe poverty «hreshold in 1996,” This igure is called the poverty gap or tne averageincome deficit. ‘ven if we were to agree that poverty should be defined as deprivation, there are sull many problems in establishing an offical poverty level based on the federal gov- ernment’ definition as described earlier. Fist of al this definition ofpovertynciudes only cash income (such as wages, Social Security and public assistance che:ks, and ‘tye margin fer fr thee estimates ar plus ox inus 0.9 milion people and puso mins 03 pe cet espectvey.7 ‘outer Tie Poverty Rates for Individuals with Selected Characteristics ‘At Pereons Wie (non-Hispanic) Black ‘Asian and Paci leiander Hispanic OF Under 18 Years 181064 Years 65 Yeare and Over Cental Ces ‘Suburban arose Nonmetropotan (ura) Areas South Midwest Wiest Percentage a. Face and Hispanic Origin a ss a +. Ey Se ae Fear ———__ ia a «05 Resience in ES <= ——_ EE a EE hn ee bh 7 182 as ‘Source: Joseph Dalaher and Maty Naifeh, Poverty inthe Ute State: 1997 (8. Buren of the Census, Curren Popalation Reports, Consumer Income P6201 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Pring Of fee, 1998), pp. vs & vs interest from bank accounts, all before taxes) and excludes in-kind beneiits such as ‘medical care, food stamps, school lunches, and public housing. Ifthese benefits were “costed out” (calculated as cash income), there would be fewer poor people in Amer- {ca than shown in offical statistics. Also, many people (poor and nonpoor) appar- ently underreport their incomes.® Taking this into account would further reduce the ‘number of people counted as poor There are other problems with this definition of poverty. I does not take into account regional differences in the cost of living, climate, or styles of ving. It is unlikely that a family of four can live on $16,400 in New York City, even if it might be possible in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. t does not account for family assets. An older family that has paid off its mortgage does not usually devote as mush to hous-Denne Poe Wise 1 Bean? Poverty Rates for Families with Selected Characteristics AlLFamibes Menied Couple ale Householder, No Wie Prosent Female Housaholdor, No Husband Present Worked Year-Round Ful-ine Worked Less Than Year-Round, Fuse Di Not Work Bachelors Doge ot More ‘Some College, But No Bacholo's Degree High School Gradua wih No Cologe id Not Gomplate High Schoo! unser 6s Years (65 Years end Oiser Percentage a 103 ‘Type ot Family mam s2 —— eg ‘Work Experience of Householder mmo eT 2 EE Eduoation of Householder ma20 rs Eo SN © = ‘Age of Householder ams a rr a a ‘owes: Joveph Dalaker and Mary Nach, Pour in the United States: 1997 US. Bureatof the Census, Curent Popul tion Reports, Cansumer Income P.2M(Kashinglon, DC: US, Govemmeat Printing Ofc, 1998, p. Wy 17 and Tbe 2s Bureau of Labr Stats and Buse othe Consus, nna Derographe ure, March Supplement, Tle, up: ene bis. census gv /mcro/031998/90"/8000 i, eee ing as a young family that rents or has recently purchased a home. 1t does net recog nize differences in the status of individuals or families—for example, whether family ‘members are students or retirees. Some of these people may not consider themselves “poor” although they are counted as poor in official government statistics. This definition also does not recognize the needs of families that may have incomes above the poverty level but have special problems or hardships that drain away income— chronic illnesses, large debts, or other problems. Finally, the estimate that one-third of family income is spent on food is outdated. The high cost of housing, in par- ticular, has changed the composition of the family budget. In 1995, the poorest 20, percent of American families spent 17 percent (nearly one-fifth) of their before-tax income on food while the richest 20 percent spent 12 percent; the national average is 14 percent.? Multiplying the family food budget by 5, would yleld a considerably higher poverty level. Economist Patricia Ruggles believes that given current consumer spending patterns, the poverty level would have to be increased by at least SO percent to bring it up to date.! Besides considering urban-rural and regional cost-of-livingn cure Te differences, she says that one poverty evel may not be enough, depending on our pur- ‘poses, But as the president of the Urban Institute once sai: However contentious, drawing a poverty line is essential. Iisa way of knoving how muh progress we are making in reducing the numbers of underprivileged in America ‘and, tn very practical rerms, isa standard used by federal and state governments to ‘implement programs that aid the poor ® Of course, we do need some convention for measuring poverty. As another ob- server noted 30 years ago, “Some arbitrary lines are needed, and these serve well sim- ply because they already exist asa convention. To reopen an azgument as to whether they ae ‘correct’ seems a fruitless exercse.*!2 In-Kind Benefits: How Much Are They Worth? According tothe U.S. Bureau of the Census's annual survey, the national poverty rate Is about the same as it was a decade ago. In addition to the official definition of in- come used to calculate poverty the bureau now defines income seventeen additional ways, Some of these definitions consider income from capital gains (proceeds from the sale of property, stocks, or other assets), health care benefits to workers, in-kind benefits (such as food and housing), and home equity. Although official poverty was 13.3 percent in 1997, using these various definitions, poverty ranged from 10 percent to 21.4 percent.43 Several of the alternative definitions of income include in-kind benefits. Since this form of assistance has grown faster than cash benefits, most serious students of so- ‘ial welfare agree that they must be considered if poverty isto be measured more ac- ccuately." But in-kind benefits can be dificult to measure, so in 1980 the bareau began conducting research on several approaches to doing this, ‘Two of these approaches were given extensive consideration in 1987." One is the ‘market-value approach. Using this approach, the value of welfare benefits is based ‘on what it would cost a private consumer to purchase the good or service. In some cases, this approach is relatively easy to use. For example, the value of food stamps spent on an item is equal to the amount it would cost any shopper to purchase the same item using cash. Calculating the value of other benefits, such as public hous- ing, is not as easy. Estimates are made, but surveys that equate the value of compa- rable public and private housing are lacking. Calculating the value of health care benefits is a major headache. It has been said that health care benefits should not be included since they were not used in developing the poverty thresholds and they are not added to the incomes of those above the poverty line. But if health care costs ‘were included for everyone, should we use the cash value of the medical service it- self, the value of employer- or government-provided health care benefit, or should u-of-pocket costs only be considered? ‘A second methiod used to determine the value of in-kind benefits is te reeipient or cash equivalent approach. This isthe cash value that recipients place on the in-Dae Pov Weer Bean? B kind benefits they receive, which is not always the same.as the face value of the item. tis based on the amount of money a poor family or individual not receiving benefits ‘uses to obtain the same goods or services. This approach is difficult to use because individual preferences vary. What is very valuable to one person is nat necessarily as, ‘valuable to another, For example, a person who is ll would likely place a higher value ‘on medical care than a person who is well. The market value of welfare benefits is considered to be higher than the recipient or cash equivalent value, becauseit is be- lieved that recipients would prefer cash to in-kind benefits. For example, tt is esti- ‘mated that recipients would trade $1,500 worth of food stamps for $1,440 in cash. ‘The market and recipient approaches produce relatively similar estimates of an- ‘nual food benefits for those in poverty (in the 1987 study, $1,605 and $1,519, respec- tively). But the estimates of housing and medical benefits differ substantially. For ‘example, the market value of housing was $1,786 and of medical benefits was $3,443. For the recipient method, the figures were $952 for housing and $1,010 for medical benefits, In 1987, the market value approach reduced official poverty figures for all people by 5 percent, while the recipient approach reduced poverty rates by 2.5, percent. ‘We can also consider the effects of cash and in-kind social welfare benefts using the poverty gap. In 1996, the total poverty gap was $196 billion. Social insurance pro= {grams reduced it to $107; adding cash public assistance benefits reduced it tc $82 bil- lion, in-kind benefits to $63 billion, and federal ax provisions (like the eamecincome credit) to $60 billion, The number of people in poverty before these government trans~ fer programs was 57 milion. The respective reductions with each type of benefit were 39 milion, 37 million, 32 million, and 31 milion. The poverty rate was 21.5 percent before transfers and the cortesponding reduction after transfers were 14.8, 12.7, 12.1, and 11.5 percent, Social insurance programs resulted in a 31 percent decrease in the ‘number of poor; cash public assistance reduced the number of poor by 5.1 percent, in-kind benefits by 7.5 percent, and tax provisions by 3 percent.!? ‘In 1992 Congress commissioned a major study of the poverty measure. Mest mem- bers ofthe study panel recommended changes to address long-noted problems with the current measure (eg., adjusting for costs across geographic regions, counting ben- efits like food stamps). John F. Cogan of the conservative Hoover Institution was the lone dissenter, calling the suggested measure “value judgements made by scientists— ‘with a particular point of view.”"® There is no indication thatthe government will set- tleon a method of valuing in-kind benefits or will make other adjustments in its official, estimates of poverty anytime soon. And there may be no rush to do since tke House Committee on Ways and Means noted that public assistance has had a dirtinishing {impact on reducing poverty in recent yeats.'* Who Are the Poor? Poverty occurs among all segments ofthe population and in all areas of the country; however, the incidence of poverty varies among groups (see Figures 3-2, 3-3, nd 3-4. In absolute figures, mote whites are poor than blacks. Of the 35.6 million people |% SCS Poverty Rates by Age: 1966-1997 \ [es years + sed yehes 1968 1972 1978 1988 1990) 1906 1997 Sources Latha Lamison-White,Povery inthe United States: 1996, U.S. Bureau ofthe Census, Curent Pepulatin Re ‘ots, Consumes Income 860-188 (Washington, DC: U.S Coveenmeat Printing Office, 1987), p. C5; Joseph Dale and ‘Mary Nae, Povey nthe United States: 1997, U.S. Bureau ef the Census, Current Population Repods, Consumer In come P6020 (Washington, DC: U.S. Goveenmen Printing Ofie 198). counted as poor by government definition in 1997, approximately 16.5 milion were ‘white (not of Hispanic origin) while 9.1 million were black.”® However, thelikelihood of blacks experiencing poverty is more than three times greater than It is for whites: ‘The 1997 poverty rate forthe nation’s black population was 26.5 percent compared to 8.6 percent forthe white (non-Hispanic) population. In other words, whites outnum- ber blacks among the poor, but a much larger percentage of the nation’s black popu- lation is poor. There are 8.3 million poor people of Hispanic origin in the United States (they may be of any race). Their poverty rate is 27.1 percent. Since 1994 the poverty rate for those of Hispanic origin has been higher than that of blacks. From 1996 to 1997, the poverty rate declined significantly for blacks and those of Hispenic origin and stayed te same for whites. ‘The primary source of poverty today is families headed by women where no hus- barad is present.* The poverty rate for these female-headed households is 31.6 per- cent compared ta §.2 percent for families headed by married couples. Fer farailies headed by white women, the rate is 27.7 percent. The rates for families ueaded by black women and women of Hispanic origin are much higher—39.8 and 47.6 percent, respectively ‘There are approximately 14.1 million poor children under age 18 in the United States, or 19.9 percent of this age group. In 1959 poverty among children was 27.4 percent. By 1969 it had reached a low of 14 percent, much better than we could report * Additonal information on poverty among bac and lpante Americans and among womea Is found in Cchapte . ietsDew Poe Wax Bean? 5 for 1997. For children of Hispanic origin and black children, the situation is espectally bad: 36.8 percent of all children of Hispanic origin and 37.2 percent of all black chil- dren in the United States live in poverty. compared to 16.1 percent of white cldren, ven worse are the poverty figures for children under age 6 residing in femaleheaded ‘households: 56.9 percent for whites, 67.9 percent for those of Hispanic origi, and 60.8 ‘percent for blacks, ‘There is some better news in the official poverty figures. Poverty rates for Amnesi- cans 65 years of age and older have dropped substantially over the years —fruim 35.2 percent in 1959 to 24.6 percent in 1970 and 10.5 percent in 1997. The rate for older ‘women is 13.1 percent, compared with ? percent for older men. Among olde: Amer- ‘cans, poverty is 26 percent for blacks, 23.8 percent for those of Hispanic origin, and 9 percent for whites. Today, the 10.5 percent poverty rate for those aged 6S and older is not statistically different from the 10.9 rate for those age 18 to 64. However, more bider than younger people have incomes that fall just above the poverty level, and re- ‘member that official poverty thresholds for elderly households ate lower than for younger ones, Poverty occurs not only in large, urban areas but in rural America as well. In 1996 about 18.8 percent of the residents of central cities were poor, and about 15.9 percent of rural residents were poot. Suburban aieas have less poverty (a rate of 9 percent) because those with low incomes are unlikely to find affordable housing there ‘There fs always more poverty in the South than in other regions af the country. Atout 39, percent of all poor people live in the South, 25 percent live in the West, and in both, the Midwest and the Northwest the poverty rate is 18 percent. ‘An important question we must ask about poverty is whether Its a temporary or transient rather than a persistent, long-lasting problem. information on this issue comes largely from the University of Michigan’s Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PID), which has tracked 5,000 U.S. families since 1967.2 Two analyses of PSID data indicate that about 2.6 percent of the total population will be poor for at least eight out often years, There is some consolation in the fact that the circumstances of most ‘people who experience poverty will change—~although they may lose theit jobs, sep- arate, divorce, or become il, ater they may find work, rematry, or get well, thus im- proving their financial condition. But there are clearly two groups of poor people, those who experience poverty for a relatively short period of time and those who are persistently poor. Other methodologically sensitive studies of “spells of povery”in- ® ‘Mead contends that the welfare state has been too permissive by falling to “set be- havioral standards for the poor."®® Mead rejects notions that low wages, lack of jobs, discrimination, and lack of access to child care and health care are whal cause peo- ple not to work and to consequently fall into hard core poverty. He believes that lib- tals have failed the country because they do not give poor people “credit to advancearwas Poeen: ene Be? ” their own interests.” With Increased public assistance benefits, poor people simply ‘were no longer motivated to work, and poverty became personal, not structural. Com- placency developed by thinking ofthe poor as “victims” rather than "workers.” Mead describes the poor as “dutiful but defeated,” and he says: ‘Tagen extent, nonwork occurs simply because work isnot enforced. Overall Stink conservatives have the beter of the barriers debate—the chance to get ahead is widely wuilabl, But Uberals have the more realistic view ofthe psychology of poverty the poor do not believe she have te opportunity, an this stil Reeps them from working. © Mead’s analysis is that the poor respond well to structure, including the structure imposed by work programs. He notes that in the debate over poverty, communication between liberals and conservatives as broken down." But conservatives have clearly ‘won the latest round of attempts to address poverty. The following chaptess, espe- cially Chapters 6 and 9, show that there has been a strong shift in the wind. As the znew millennium dawns, poverty is no longer viewed as a problem of too littleincome. It is construed as dependency; therefore, poor people must be motivated to be like ‘most Americans who toil at jobs to try to better themselves. “Work, not welfare" is the order of the day. For many people who have devoted themselves to theorizing about poverty and to helping poor people directly, the latest round of welfare reform, particularly the restructuring of AFDC, has been a bitter pill to swallow. SUMMARY Defining poverty is a politcal activity rather than a rational exercise, This chapter in cluded five approaches to defining poverty—as deprivation, as inequality, asculture, as exploitation, and as structure. Americans have not agreed on any best a2proach {or defining this socal construct. we use the official government poverty level as our arbitrary measure of depri- vation, there were nearly 36 milion poor people in the United States in 1997, or about 13.3 percent ofthe population. If we count in-kind welfare benefits as well as cash benefits, the number of poor people is somewhat lower. Since the government began counting around 1960, poverty has declined substantially, but the lows of 1! te 12 per- ‘cent achieved in the 1970s have yet to be achieves! again. Poverty is most frequently found among black and Hispanic Americans and in households headed by women. “Although poverty among older Americans has declined, ithas increased ameng chil dren, Homelessness is also a concern. ‘There will always be differences among people in economic wealth, so itis partic- ulatly dificult to define poverty for public policy purposes as inequality. The real con- cem of society isthe inequality that results in squalos. Poverty has many causes. Some people are poor because they lack the resources and opportunities of the nonpoos, and some, such as the elderiy, children, and those with disabilities, are not able to ‘work. Discrimination is another source of poverty. Equality of opportunity cemains an obstacle tothe elimination of poverty in the United States i | | i98 ‘owner Tee ‘The way in which poverty is defined has important implications for sirategies to alleviate the problem, Human service professionals have a commitment toincreasing ‘opportunities for poor people as a means of reducing poverty. They reject the defini- tion of poverty as culture, believing that disadvantaged people will make use of op- portunities if only given the chance. Tnereases in the number of poor people may also be defined by structural changes {in social institutions such as the economy that leave people without jobs or other ad- ‘equate means for survival. If hiss the case, then solutions should not beditected at individual inadequacies. Educational, economic, and social institutions should be _made more responsive to those who are disadvantaged. Others view poverty as a form of exploitation by the ruling classes. The dominant classes maintain poverty in order to produce a source of cheap labor and fo “use” the poor economically, socially, and politically. This definition magnifies class conflict ‘and suggests a restructuring of the social system to reduce poverty. ‘Several well-publicized books blame the worsened condition of the poot on social welfare policies, Their authors believe that public assistance programs in particular hhave destroyed incentives to self-sufficiency and undermined the spirit of the poor, ‘making welfare a more attractive alternative than low-paying jobs. Congress and the Clinton administration have moved to “end welfare as we know it.” Indications are that poverty rates are decreasing, but reductions seem more closely related to an im proved economy than to changes in the welfare system. Time will tell ifthe neocon- servatives are correct. In the meantime, the topics of poverty and dependency, their causes, and their solutions are among the great debates of the American people. eg ee 1. E.B, Schattachneidet, The Sem-Soverign Feo ple (Neu Yorks Hol, Rineban & Winston, 196), p. 68. 2, Jonge L.Sundqus, Polis and Poy (Wash ‘ington, Des Brookings lnstttion, 1968, pp. M-I2 3. Patricia Ruggles, raving the Line: tematve overt Measure an Ther Implitions or Public Petey {Wshingion, DC: Urban astute Press, 190), p36 4, Dana Milbank, “Olé Flaws Undermine New owety Level Dat," Waits Journal, October 1995, p-51.8. 5, Jose Dalakerand Mary Naif, Poverty in he United Sates 1997, Bureau of the Census, Carent Pop ‘ation Reports, Consumer income P0-20 (Washington, De: US, Government Printing Office, 1998), p. AS. 6 John Crudee (New York Pos, “Stay Showing Rise in Ameccane Income Misleading.” Astin Amer an Statesman, Qcibet 12,1996, p- Db 7 Dalaker and Nae, Povery inh hited States: 1997, i 8. See U.S, Buentof the Census, Measuring the EF Fatof Benefit Taxevon nese an Povey: 1982Car rent Popltion Reports Sees PSO-ARARD (Washington, De: U1. Government Peinng fee 1958), Appendix F 9. US. Butea of Labo Statistics, "Consumer Ex pencitire Survey, 1995," f//146.1824.25/oub/50e- ‘Sal equests/c/standara/1995/quinlet. 10, Rogge, Druin eine, pp. 2,17. ied ini, ph. 12, Robert, Levine, The Por Ye Need Not Have vt Yu (Carbide: MA: MIT Press, 187). 1. 13, Dalakerand Nae, Por) te Und States 197, 9p. C-15. 1H. Commitee on Ways and Mean, US, Howse of ‘Representatives, Osersew of ntl! Programs, 1993 {Geen Book (Washingon, DC: 1S, Government Priating Offs, 1993), 9.1317 15, Mu ofthe remainder ofthis section s based 00 US. Bureau ofthe Census, Estimates of Poverty lading the Value of Noncask Benefis: 197, techies paper Se (Washington, DC-U.S. GovemnentPating Ot Hee. August 1988); also see U.S. Bure ofthe Census, Measuring the fet. 198216, See Commitee on Ways and Means, 1993 Green ‘oot, p. 1318: Commits on Ways and Means, US. Hous o Representatives, 1996 Gren oaks Background ‘terial ant Daa on Progr whi the arson of the Commitee on Ways and Means (Washington, DC 1. Government Printing Oe, 1956), 1232; Contance Gm and Rober. Michael is, Masurng Power A ‘Naw approach (Washing, GC: National Academy Pres, 1995) Ruggles, Drawing te na chapter 7. 17, Comite on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 1998 Gren Book: Background Marat tnd Data on Programs within the Joist of the Commitee on Ways ard Means (Washlngion, DC: US. {Covement ning Oe, 198), pp. 1335, 1341-1303, 18. Committee on Ways and Means, 1993 Green Book, p. 1319 19, SeeCiroand Michael, es. Mousuring Poverty {A New Approach, Cogan quotes rom p. 386. 20, Poverty figures are from Dalaker and Nafeh, Bove the Une Sates 1997. 2I. Theseus aresummarized in Ruggles, Dru ng the Line chapter 8 22, Mary Jo Bane and David T: Elwood, “Sipping into and out of Poverty: The Dyas of Spell." The ‘oamal of Hamar Resources, Vol. 21, No. 1, 1986, pp. 1-28, especialy pp I-18. Also see Mactha 8. Hi, "Some Denamie aspers of Poet” in MS. il D.H till, and J.N. Morgan, eds. Foe Thousand America Fans Pater of emmomi Pregl. (Ans Aber, [Mins fr Socal Research, Univesity of Michigan Press, 198); Mary Bane, “Household Composition and Poverty” in Sheldon H, Danzinger and Daniel H. Wela- borg, Fighting Poverty: What Works and Wat Des- rer (Camldge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), p.209-251 and p 398, notes; Willan Julies son and Keduya Neckerran, “Poverty aod Fail Stuur: The ‘Witening Gap Between Evidence and Public Policy I ses" in Daninger and Weinberg, eepeill p- 241: William Julus Wilson, The Truly Disadeaniaged: The Inner the Underclass, and Publ (Chieago: ie etsy of Chlago Pres, 1987), pp. 9-10 23. TBs, "Who Stays Poor? Who Does," D> namics of onan Welleng: very 1982-1993, Cut rent Population Reports, Household Economic Stiles, 70-55 (Washington, Dc: US. Bureau ofthe Census, June 1986) 24. Ano Hu Stevens, “The Dynamics of Poverty Spel: Updating Bane and Ewood,” American Ezonae evaw, Vol. 84, No.2, 199, pp, 34-37; also see Elle, Who Stays Por? Who Doesnt” 25, On the subject of relative deprivation, ee Bd ‘ward Banfield, The Unfeaventy City Rested (Boston Ul, Bren, 1972), expecta ehepir 6 26. VitorR Fuchs, "Redefining Poverty and Redis- bing Income,” Public terest, No. 8, Summer 1967, Pl Dew Pv Wii 0 Baa? 99 27. US. Bureau oftheCenes, Mone Income nthe United States: 1996, Crtent Population Reports, Con sumer Income, 0-200 (Washington, DC: US. Gave ‘ment Pining Otic, 1998), Table B3. 28, Testimony of reg Duncan Before te House Se. lect Committe on Children, Youth and Fries, Feb sy 1992, based on Greg. Duncan, Timothy Smeeding. ‘and Willard Rodgers,“ Whither the Mile as: A Dy ‘amie View?” Universy of Michigan, Surv Research Centee, 159, cited in Commies oa Ways and Meats, 1993 Gren Book, pp. 14d?-1448; also see Gieg J. Dur an, Timothy Smeeding, and Wild Rodgers, Wy the DMidle Class I Shrinking,” December 1992, cited in Commitee on Ways and Means, 1993 Geen Book, pp. 188-1450 29, Cited in Richard Holstadte, The American Po- eal Traine (New Yorke Knopf, 1948), p42. 30, Tid. pS. 431, Edward C. Uanlild, The Unteasnty City (exon: Lite, Brown, 1968): Banileld, The Dahoavenly iy Revised; ako see Wiliams A. Kskanen, "Welfare and ‘he Cultureof Povey” Cat Journal, VOI. 16, 2.11996, p15, 232, Nicolas Lemann, “The Origins ofthe Under- sass" Alone Monty, une 1986, pp 31-85 and July 1986, pp. 54-58 33, Herbert). Gans, “The Uses of Poverty: The Foor ay All” Soi Poy Wl. 2, No.2, Jalj-Angost 1971, vp. 20-24 ‘A. Thomas H. Walz and Gay Askeroo The Up- side Down Wore State (nneapalis:Ebwoed Pintng, 1973). ps 35, Frances Fox Pven and Richa @ Clsvard Reg- ring the Poor The Rancion of Pb ware (Nee York: Random use, 1971), quote from px 436, Frances Fox Pven and Richard A Coward, The Dew Clase War (Woo Yorks Pantheon Books, 1982); 08 the rlationtip between soa wellare and labor force paretption lose John Mylesand J Quaagi. ts. Sate, Labor Markets, ad the Fear of lage Pai (Phiadephia: Temple Univesity Press, 199). 37, ances Fox Piven and Richard A. Coward, The ‘reakingof tae America Social Compa (New York: The News res, 1987). Also se Frances fx Piven and Richard ‘A Cloward, Regulating te Poor Me unto of Public ‘Welfare. updated ed. (Nev Yorke Vintage Books, 1993) 38. Thisparagrophoieson Michiel Harington, Tae Nw American Rover (New ark: Penguin Boks, 1958), 438, For discussion of the term underclass s8¢ Wie sn, The Trt Disadvantaged, expecily P7 40, tb 41, The remainder of this selon sles on Wilson, ‘The Pay Disadoaage, and Leman, “The Origins of ‘he Undercass."