- DOCUMENT RESUBE
BD 141 435°, uUD- 016 929
AUTHOR :.. || Brown, Lawrence lL. III; Miller, Renee *
TITLE = Characteristics cf Low-Income Populations Under
/ : - Alternative Poverty Definitions. The Measure of
yt mA Poverty, Technical Paper VI. ne
. INSTITUTION. | Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, - ; et
no Washington, D.c. Offige of the Assistant Secretary . ee
ms for Planning and Evaluation. —— -
PUB DATE ©. .1°Cct 76 © =. . : a
NOTE 156p.3+:For related documents, see UD 016 918-929 and
Ot —s UD 017 087; Best copy available ‘ oe
“ AVAILABLE FRCM Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
. Evaluation, »Department.of Health, Education and.
welfare, 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room - *
443D-South Portal Building, Washington, D.C. 20201.
: ‘ ry . . g ®y
‘.. EDRS PRICE ' ME-$0.83 HC-$8.69 Plus Postage. —_ . 3
DESCRIPTORS . Blacks; Children;. *Definitions; Demography; 7
DG Fatherless Family; *Individual Characteristics; *Low
Income; *Low Income Groups;- Measurement Instruments; |
=e *Measurement Techniques; Older Adults; Poverty ~
Programs; *Foverty Research .
ABSTRACT 4. 9 a ;
Re ke a ee, oo This technical paper examines how different poverty
_ standards can change the statistical description of the low income
| population. It supplements a chapter in a report submitted to the
* 9.8. Congress in 1976 titled, "The Measure of Poverty". The poverty -»?
_--geasure currently used in Title I of the ElemeAtary and Secondary § °
-Bducation Act (the Census Bureau definition of poverty) and
alternative peverty definitions which weré.selected for analysis by. 4
- the Poverty Studies Task. Force are described in this paper. The
characteristics of the poverty population in 1974, under the current *
federal definition and under the various alternative poverty
d@efintions are presented based on data from the March 1975 Current
' Population Survey. In addition, changes over time in the size and
' composition cf: poverty populations such.as the elderly, female headed
families, schcol aged children, and. blacks under the alternative ‘1
measures are analyzed. A discussion of the impact of the alternative
‘ . @efinitions cn the geographic distribution of the, poor based on the
€ne Percent Sample of the 1970 Census of Population is also included.
the effect of the alternative pcverty definitions on the number and a
charactéggstics of the poor varies the ngst with two basic changes in
_,.the poverty definitions first, large increments in-the level of
‘thresholds, and second, elimination of the val jiations by family size. ©
_.' fhe subgroups. that deviated most from the general pattern noted for
-, the total population of declining poverty rates under the fixed .
measures and fairly constant poverty rates under the relative |
- ‘measures betwéen 1967 and’ 1974 were the elderly and persons in :
families with a female head. (Author/AM)— . pear 2 =
;
bo
Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished materials: not available from other ‘sources. ERIC makes every
effort to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the-
quality of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS).
ae is not responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from”
1 oe ar a | : |
ae ee Cae
=
THE MEASURE OF POVERTY
ne Aw — a
‘ Technical | Paper XVII
' . (« haracteristics of Low-Income Populations )
’ Under: Alternative Poverty Definitions —_,
NN? . a
—_
fu
\ i
;
By: Lawrence L. Brown, Hl
epartment of Health, ale on, and vee BEST COPY AVAABLE
with Renee, Miller, Bureau of he Census
ppo 169 29 oe
OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE |’ -
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY ;
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201.
- October 1, 1976 _?
.
”
~
| Virginia Trptter
| | Assistant Secretary for Education. . 2
é - Department/ of’ Health, Education, g. a8
'; (+ and Welfare — OG
“William A, Morrill ee eo Rs 4
, Assistant) Secretary for Planning - i a’
and Evaluation . eG oe 4 _ =
Department of Health, Edycation | a a oe
. and Wélfare : i a .
I.am pldased to issue Technical Paper XVIFI, "Characteristics of: '
Low-Inc Populations Under Alternative Abts > nner nate Tt
_ contains supporting data for Chapter V of the €eport entitled ~° .
. The Measure of Poverty which was prepared. in’ compliarte with,section
| ° @ Education Amendments of 1974." The paper was prepared for '
the Poyerty Studies Task. Force by. Vawrénce L.-Brawn III, Dept. of
Health} Education, and Welfare, with Renee Miller, Bureau of the . + ~-
Census... = _ 2
b 2 7 oy : . : ee : a |)
\". The analysis contained in this paper is based on a set of special
tabulations prepared by the Bureau of Census. The paper examines .
the way in which different poverty standards affect the statistical
description of the low+income population. . Changes over time in the
\ size and composition of the poverty population under the alterna-
‘.\ tive poverty definitions’ are also analyzed, along witif a discussion ®.
AS the impact of these definitions ‘on the geographic distribution
(Of the poor. ms : .
ee he Mirah
| ; , 64 aa Bette Mahoney a
. o ‘ Chairman, ;
f an — Poverty Studies Task, Force
fi
s* = 2" .
¥ . , 3
=: .
5 ; P
a : : - . ¢
TABLE OF CONTENTS —
Page sos
5 ‘FORWARDING LETTER «os .ssesceeseederenseesensscesesscrsesenceceseness BELT
’
PREFACE wc rccccrccccvessscccesessscovesecsessveescscssrerccreesscc eee vi
POVERTY STUDIES TASK FORCE senpecsecaeedeneececsseecaateecceserses ees, viii
4
Fi
TECHNICAL PAPERS seaeeseaeneersenesesssnenesneneenedensensneetes eet dy
TECHNICAL PAPER XVIII = CHARACTERISTICS ‘OF LOW INCOME POPULATIONS - ;
UNDER ALTERNATIVE POVERTY DEFINITIONS wtaececsseceseeeeenseeoegeres 1
fi \ ‘
INTRODUCTION ca leceenerseesessesnenenenenseneagecasnenenentaatenenges . dl
‘ THE FEDERAL POVERTY’ DEFINITION serensccubureceeesnsenscereesnererees me
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POVERTY ‘pene, 1974, USING THE EDERAL °
DEFINITION OF POVERTY se teeeceeeecceseeeesaeeaeesceeeseeensee see ees 8
a:
ee : aking the Measure sovesneesenagpacenengetecenconseneeteenegey. 11
-§ Lifications of the Poverty Definition reer ed 14
*’
s ngle=PoLtar Poverty Definitions nae ct pagecnaaay b
°°
fe Median-Based Poverty Définitions aie eee 16
: - Summary seseeegeetigenennnnennnnssneensseaguatacessseeeteeeeseee) 18
_ - DIFFERENCES OVER TINE ne eee et eee 20,
oo ee aes ie oe ed 21
_ Female-Headed Families | sCoesevemecasesbiglecerdnaeneeeterionsy 22 ,
Ge, soon
_ School iged Children ‘and Blacks ee rey en
: "Summary soipnnssensnsneesebaumeneeleperennegabiseseadgecessene! 23,
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF POVERTY seencesetecerecscsceseceaseceees | 24.0:
Differences Between CPS and Decennial Census Statistics wcecccee 24
‘ Changes in Shares of Poverty Population Codiikigeesecaienneseeeen 24
ay
‘<)
ERIC
. ings
-tion Act was given the most detailed treatment, to
' exaniple of application of the concepts of poverty ,measurement to Federal
- programs. The'findings of ,the study are published in a report entitled,
t Lad
i
& 6 '
>
F PREFACE
Section 823 of the Edycagion Amendments ,of 1974-(PL 93-380) |.
“+> requires a thorough ctodhot the manner in which the 7” | .
relative measure ‘ef poverty.for use in the €inancial | , j _.
assistance program, authorized by Title I of the Elementary.’ :
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, may be more accurately
and currently developed. -- ae
That financial assistance program is administered by the Commissioner .
of Education, tfirough the Office of Education,’Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare. An important featuré is the use of a formula pre- .
‘scribed by Section 103 o e Elementary and Secondary Education Act for, |
the annual distribution, of Federal funds to school districts... A signifi- .
cant’factor in the formula, is the number of schéol-age children 5 to 17 in
poor families within each school district.’ The’measure of poverty which oe
is used, and which is the subject of the study mandated by Section 823, - bs
is the Federal government's-official statistical definition of poverty ~ nae
(also known as the Orshansky, ‘OMB, Census Bureau, or Social ‘Security pov- ae ine
erty lines). . a ce, “SE
Other work related to poverty measurement has been cal. ed for in re- z
cent legislative acts. .In the Comprehensive Employment and Training yrctr °
the Secrétary of Labor. is directed to develop and maintain comprehensive —
household budget data at different levels of living, including a “level -
of adequacy." Any such review of the level of adequacy must necessarily
be closely related to measures of poverty. The Housing Community De- ~‘ e-
velopment Act of 1974 gives the Secretary, of, HUD authority to adjust the
_ poverty measure to reflect local variations in the cost of living. The a
- Conference. Report accompanying it directs the Secretary tO develop or ob- «sy .2°
tain data with ‘respect to the "extent of poverty" by metropolitan areas oper?
and to submit such data to the Congress as part of a Mar 31, .1977, ~..
: . 7 , ‘ .
report.
Because of the broad scope of the subject matter, ¢ovérage of™“the tas
study of the measure of poverty mandated by Section 823/of the Education ‘: ue
paeg sabge of .1974 was extended to include implications of the study find-
or the poverty-related programs of’ all affected Federal departments
and agencies. The Title I program of ‘the Elementary Secondary Educa-
t the legislatively-
mandated specifications for the study as well as to serve as a primary
"The Measure of Poverty.". An important jobjective of the study was full "I
discussion and documentation of the major elements of currently, applied
‘ and potentially usable poverty measures. Material containing essential ae:
supporting documegtation for the study/was assembled as techriical papers. -*,
These have been written to stand along as complete technical treatments
of specific subjects. 7 | . is
/ . % ¢ ‘o
‘
=
;
‘
*
e
’ ; a
a : a SH
- >
’ , |
3 . . }
o *°
. , . “toe : . . e »
The studg was.performed under the direct guidance'of a Powerty
Studies Task Force of the Subcommittee on the Education of the Disadvan>
taged and Minorities, Federal Inter-Agency Committee on Education., Tech-
’ nical papers. were prepared at the request of, under the direction of, and
subject to review by the Task Force members. Some papers are primarily
~ the work of one or two persons; thesesare’attributed to their authors.
Others result ‘from-the collective -input of Task Force members or advisors
and. no specific attribution is ‘given except to the Task Force, as a whole. |
The following listings show members,of the Poverty Studies Task -
‘Force by appropriate Federal departments ‘and agencies, and the titles and
authars of the technical papers.” - ;
This report contains Technical Paper XVIII, Character istics of Low-
Income Populations Under Alternative Poverty*Definitions. It was prepared
by
a
wrence L. Brown III, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning
and’Evdluations, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, with Renee
Miller, Population Division, Bureau of.the Census. Special thanks are due .~
to Arno Winard, Richard Hornseth, and Roger Herriott, also of the Census
Bureau; to Jane Lee, Office. of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Eval~
uation, Department of ‘Health, Education, and Welfare; and to Jill. King,
7
Mathematica, Inc. a : \
At the request of the Poverty Studies Task Force, the
a sf ‘ . : a
Bureau of the
“.Cénsus prepared the set” of tabulations showing selected characteristics of ,
the population by alternative measures of poverty. ‘The data from these
tabulatiens underlie the analysis contained in this paper. The tabulations
_were run from the March Current’ Population. Survey (CPS). files for the income
years 1967, 1969, 1971, 1973, and 1974.’ -They were also,run from the 1970
Census one-in-hundred samile for income year 1969, by States th ok
To obtain copies of the report, "The Measure of Poverty,” or any of __,.
the technical papers, please write to: : ~ oe
’
ny
f 2
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
. Department of Health,*Edycation, and Welfare :
200 Independence Avenue, S.W._ -
Room 443D -.South Portal Building -
Washington, D. C. 20201 eB ’ a2 >
‘
. . .
. et or) &
a
v : 3 “ . .
. P e s B.
. J . .
= '
e
co
ro)
|
= . vii
“ . - ’ _ 7 .
“e ee i :
oo ‘ ‘ : oer
. th x
te fs . . : é 7 :
‘ ; .
ae re
iy
. - = a s
_o nq " Federal Interagency Committee on Babation :
§ “ Subcomnittee an Education, for the Gisacvantsged and Minorities |
j oy a ~
~ re : . POVERTY STUDIES TASK FORCE
1 — . Chairman i oa
. Bette:S. Labia : .
‘ Be Office of the Assis tc Secketaty’ : : a
Z ek ‘ for Planning- and Evaluation
t Department of Healthy, ial and Welfare,
. Co-Chairman: fot Education ey . a x
. Abdul Khan. nae .
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Education soe
Department of Health, Roeat ion and Welfare
: David Arnaudo , Eva Jacobs . a
Social and Rehabilitagion Services ' - Bureau of Labor Statistics - “
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Department of Labor -
Richard 84, Clemmer * Jane Lampmann) st = :
* Office of the Assistant Secretary. , Office of the Assistant: Secretary '
for Policy Development and’Research for Human Development
Department of Housing and Urban Development Department’ of Health, Edudat ion, and Welfare
Genevieke O. Dane Daniel Levine 7 ,
Office of Education Bureau of the Census F
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Department of Commerce *
William Dorfman Nelson icClung 7
National Center for Educational Statistics Office. Bf: Tax matey
tment of Health, Education, and Welfare Department of the Treagury
an L. Ginsburg ; an June O'Neil: . .
Office of the Assistant Secretary Council of Economic Advisors .
for Planning and Evaluation:
Department of Health, Equcation, and Welfare Mollie Orshansky
o Social Security Idministeatioh
George E.,Hall Department of Health, Education, and yelfare,
Social Statistics Branch. ‘
- Office of Management and Budget ‘Ysrael Putnam ‘e
— . . . Community Setwices Administratiop
* Paul T. Hill
-National Institute for Education
re)
ERIC
Stephen Hiemstra
Food and ‘Nutrition Saviano sa — ‘
Department of Agriculture ° wed
Department of Health, Edudation, and Welfare
7 . for
. Juhie Jetvey. Mitchell
Staff Directdr
. George F. Grab.
Office ‘f the Assistant oe
Lanning and Ealuation -.
Robert!L. Rizek
Agricultural Research Service
Department of Agricylture
¢
” Gooloo Wunder lich id
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health ©
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Research Assistant ‘:
. Office of the Assistant-Secretary _ .
for Planning and Eval uat ion: a =. 2
t +? o ha = * om
; . ‘» ; eS :
. 2 7 . : 6 { *
eee Le
. v1il
*
oe |
Administrative and Legislative Usage
‘Budgets Program
|
S
Documentation of Background
and Rationale for Curreht Povert
Infor. tion
Matrix:
of
Income, 'T
the Terms "Poverty," "
‘Other Related Terms’
A iReaview of the Def inition and
Mdasurement of Povert
,
Bureau of Labor Statistics Family
ba
The Consumer Price Index .
, 4) =
Wealth aria the Accounting period in
the Measurement of Means-_
In-kind Income arid) the Measurement of
Poverty, 7
H «
The 1972-73 Consumer Expenditure
‘Survey — e
Inventory of Federal Data Bases Related
_ to the.Measurement of Poverty
Relative Poverty -
.- The Sensitivity of the Incidence of
(A) Non-Censug Data Bases.
(B) Census Data Bases -
Effect of Using a Poverty Definition
Based on-Housekold Income
Update of the. Ordhansky Index
2
Food Plans for’ Poverty Measurement
¢ 0 . ae oo
’ . N
Relative Measure of Poverty
Analytic Support for Cost-of-Living
Differentials .in the Poverty Thresholds
»
Impdications of Alternative Measures
of Poverty on Title I of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act
Poverty to Different Measures of
Income: School-aged Children and
Families aan lacs.
XVIII. Characteristics of Low-Income na
Pofulations Under Alternative
Poverty oo initions
3s
¢
‘a .
TECHNICAL PAPERS -~ >
. Mollie Orshansky
Soctal Security Administration
Poverty Studies Task Force
with assistance from Ellen Kraus
: ,
Urban Systems Research
and Engineering, Inc.°
Mark Sherwood i
Bureau ‘of Labor Statistics,
. ill King ©
Mathematica, Inc.
Nelson McClung and Eugene Steuer le
- Department of the Treasury
Janice Peskin ‘
Health, Education, and Welfare
S41) King * :
Mathematica, Inc.
Connie Citro, Mathematica, Inc.
Bureau of the Census © ha
Jack McNeil, Doug Sater, Arno Winard
Bureau of the Census —
Mollie Orshansky .
Social Security Administration .
Betty Peterkin. .
Department of Agriculture
Jack McNeil ° .
Bureau of the Census —
Stanley Stephenson .
Health, Education, and Welfare
Thomas Carlin
Department of Agriculture
Abdul Khan and Herman Miller
Health, Education, and Welfare
ao
Survey Research Center
.., University of Michigan 7, 3 f ’
- °
Lawrente Brown |
Hiaithy Beoeation: and Welfare |
b]
TABLE 1. >
TABLE 2.
TABLE 3.
TABLE 9.
TABLE -10.
TABLE 11.
" TABLE 12.
' Children Under 18 ‘Years Old, by Farm-Nonfarn
‘Families by Sex of Head, Presence of Related Childten
‘Under. 18 nearest -and Povetty Status in 1974 ee wee eceee
LIST OF TABLES .
te
e
Income Thresholds at the ee in 1974 by. .*.-
Sex: of Head, Size of Family, and Number of Related
RESIdENCE ...ee ee eeeeeeeceneces errr TTT tte wees
Equivalence Matrix Implicit in Current Poverty
MEASULE wee pecce rece cree nc eeeseeccenees Poe ono a
Race, Spanish Origin and Family Status of Persons by .
Poverty Status in 4974. shy serssio ones s pee cecesees eoccceee :
Poverty Status of Persons in 1974 by Family Status
and Sex and Race of JHEAD were ence even vcnccceeneceeenvens
Persons 65 Years and Over ‘by Family Status and |
age | Status in 1974 st ee eee ee eee eeeeeaeesetareae eats
Work ‘Ekper ience of Fainily Heads by Poverty Status’
in 1974 and Sex of Head’ nnpneunae tans mere renner
t
Distribution of Families and Unrelated Individuals
by Type of Income, Poverty Status and Sex of Head
in 1974 nogtannib en picee baagacinginng=ns Seenpeng eres HesPe tn 4
Selected Character istics. of the Popuiation Above and
BeDOn the Current Poverty. Level in 1974 by Race ....seee.
Persons Below'the Current Poverty Level and 12
Alternative Poverty Levels in 1974 ...ssessseeeeeeeveens
_ Number and Poverty Rates — Selected Characteristics
of Persons Below the Current Poverty Level and Below
"Three re Scalings of the Current Poverty. Level fle
.in 1974. eeeee2 8282 8282882828888 8888 eenetevnve eeeees8 eeeeee eee
Percent Distributions — Selected Characteristics
of Persons Below the Current Poverty Level and- Below
Three Upward Scalings of the Current Poverty Level
in 1994 ....ccnereccccees, sete e beeen teres eeeeen eens ee
‘
Number ‘nd: Poverty Rates _ - Belectea Characteristics.
of Families Below the Current Poverty Level and Below
Three Upward Scalings of the Current *Poverty Level ©
in 1974 eeeee Pare eevee eee8 i a Sais
28
29°
31
32
33
34
37
38
39
40
4l
-? Percent Distributions -- Sele
_ »Families Below the Curfent Poverty Levei and Below/Thr
ted Characteristics .
of Families Below the Current’ Poverty Level and Below
Three Upward Scalings of the Current Poverty Level .
in i ee 43
Number and Poverty Rates -- Selected Character istics
®£ Persons Below the Current Poverty Level and Below
Simplifications of the Current Poverty Level of 1974 .... 44
Percent Distributions — Selected: Characteristics of
Persons Below the Current Poverty Level, and Below ° 4
Simplifications of on Cutrent. Poverty Level in 1974 ...
ry
>
wn
Number and Poverty Rates -- Selected Characteristics 4
of Families. Below the Current Poverty Level and Below
Simplifications of the Current’ Poverty Level in 1974 .... .46
Percent Distributions -- Selected Charaeteristics of .
Families Below the Current Poverty Level and Below
‘simplifications 9f the Current Poverty Level in 1974 ... 48
_ Numbér and Poverty tes —- Selected Characteristics of
Persons Below the Gurrent Poverty Level and Below Two 5
ae Dollar Cuto fs in 1974 yececheceeeesperereeteres: ‘49
Persons Below the Current Poverty Level and Below Two ~
Fefens below the Goren Selected Characteristics of Ux,
Single Dollar Cutoffs in 1974 cenccccccccccesececccceere 50
oN xr and Poverty, Rates — Selected Characteristics of
Families Below the Current Poverty Level and Below Two .
Single Dollar Cutoffs in 1974 eareeeer eraser ee yess - 51
Percent Distributions — Selected Characteristics of | «
Families Below the Current Poverty Levél and Belaw Two
Single Dollar Cutoffs in 1974... cccee eoeceesceseaeeeeesese?e $ 52
—_ '
Number and Poverty Rates -- Selected Characteristics of
Persons Below the Current Poverty Level and Below Three -
Median Based Poverty Measures in 1974 sccacccccecccssees 93
Percent Distributions — Selected Characteristics of: -
Median Based Payerty Measures in 1974 ..ccccceccedeceess 54°
Number and Poverty Rates —~ Selected Characteristics of
- Pamilies Below the Current Poverty Level and Below Three
bd Median Based Poverty Measures in 1974 eaceereveeaereeeeese : 55 .
., *
rs a
- TABLE 36. —
TABLE 37.
TABLE 38.
- Percent Distributions -—- Selected Characteristics of
‘Persons ‘65 Years and Over Below the Pove
. and’ 1974 Pere rrr rs) eevee eveveen eeeecccece ooccee eovvee eee
1973, and 1974
_Alternative’ Poverty Definitions:
Families Below the Current Povérty Level and Below
Three Median Based Poverty Measures in 1974 ........ weve
_ Hersons Below the Poverty Level Using Alternative
Poverty Definitions: 1967, 1969, 1971, 1973, and
and 1974 osee eee ee aed cae, eeeeeee eseeeeveeseneted
Alternate Poverty Measures: 1967, 1969, 17], 1973, and
1974 eooee eeeveeeoveosteseeeen @eoeveeee cierou a eeeveehs oven Seecevvece
~
y Level. Using
Alternative Poverty Def initions:. 1967, 1969, 1971,"
197%, and 1974 oon eoeoee eee rocceees eeeveeveeeveeeseeeeeeeeee
Persons in Families with a Female Head Below the Poverty
Level Using Alternative Poverty Definitions: 1967, 1969,
1971, 1973, and 1974 eeeoevoovoevevee eeeeeeveeee riers eevovoveeeeeee ;
Families with Public. Assistance Below the Poverty Level .
Using Alternative Poverty: Definitions: 1967, 1969,
1971, a and 1974 ee
palated Children 5 to 17 Years Below the Poverty Level
Using Alternative Poverty Definitions: 1967, 1969,
1971, _ 1973, and 1974 vote cece rece eereteecneceeenseeetees .
" Blacks Below the Poverty Level Using pitecaatiee.
Poverty Definitions: 1967, 1969, 1971, 1973,
7”
Families with eariines Below the Poverty Level Using.
Alternative. Poverty Definitions: 1967, 1969, 1971,
i]
Unrelated individuals Below the Poverty. Level. Using
1967, 1969, 1971,
1973, and 1974 ..... cee weawne SEM scatiedessesennaees _
: ¢ ee : are?
Families Below the Poverty Level Using Alternative
Poverty Definitions: 1967, 1969, 1921, 1973, - *
_and 1974
. Families With Social Security Income Below the Poverty
. Level Using Alternative Poverty Den TTtOnse.
1967, 1969,
oot ese cece ccccces eeeoeeseeeeseseeeeee
1971, 1973, and 1974
Percent of Population in Poverty for Alternative Poverty
‘Definitions, by State, 1969 ........... eeesceee oecccccee ao
ee
. xii a @
ze
56
57
58
59
60 °°
61
62
66.
67
68
TABLE D2.
TABLE D3.
Percent of Related Chjldreh Aged 5-17 Years in Poverty
for Fikernavlve Def ns by State, 1969 .....ceeeevees
sie ion of, Per xis by State for Alternative Poverty
Definitio J 19 9 Joccncccsccnccesdscsssessssoverssrerer®
Distribution of Related Children 5 to 17 Years by State
for Alternative Poverty Definitions, 1969 .cccgecccenece
State Shame af Poor Persons Under Alternative Poverty
Definitions as a Ratio of State Share Under Current
Poverty Definition, 1969 weer en ccc cence ces eseereseeseees,
State Share of Poor Children 5 to 17 Years Under
Alternative Poverty Definitions as a Ratio of State
Share Under Current Poverty Definition, 1969 ...cecevces
DETAILED TABLES »
Selected Characteristics of Persons by Alternative
Measures of Poverty: .1974 vee ceenccceseeeeeseeeesener eee ee.
Selected Character istics of Families by Alternative |
fieasures of Poverty: 1974 ..ccccccccevaccceseccccncescsers
Selected’ Characterstics of Unrelated Individuals 14 Years
Old and Over by Alternative Measures of Poverty: 1974 ....
Persons by Alternative Poverty Definitions by State,
1969 ch uhbud decile nae wneeesnaienn Beee Sees Sseea ee wnewennes see
oe S| . \
Related Children 5 to 17 Years by Alternat ive Poverty”
Definitions by State, 1969 cps Negean oeueessaennes ese
-
69
76
87
90
91
_ EIST.OF CHARTS:
Seg mes :
* ‘ . : ae 0, Se ao,
1GURE ae School-age Children: :: poveceys Rates and Percent. of
' - * the Povetty Population Under Alternative. Poverty *
: : y . Definitions, 1974 once cceccccceccsescccugeccsseccesesess 92 Lae
IGURE 2. :. | ely Persons: ~ Poverty Rates nd Percent of. the a :
~. * f.\ Povlrty Population Under Alternative Poverty -
be Definitions,: al sraeaeqaengeasestsegeqaeatenetstaeoge! 93 -
TGURE’ 3. “Hig: Brack: Persons: _Poverty Rates and Pexcent of the 0 rf
- . * Poverty. Population Under Alternative. Poverty 7s
ee ‘Mefinitions, (1974 ca teeddeaeccesseceeeeceeesenseneseeses .- 94.
IGURE 4..0 Persons in, emale-Headed Families: Poverty Rates _ me
a . and Percegifof the Poverty Ropulation Under ee - 8
‘ a : Definitions, “1974 codeccccriacicorageconsons , 95 =
. ze
IGURE 5... Numbet: 9 sons in Povert Under Alternative Poverty
a ae : , Definitions; for: Selected ¥ aly 1967-1974 © cecensccdocce : 96 vot
as ., & 3 sade
TGURE 6: te : Percent. ‘of Persons in poverty Under mete Poverty
he. Definitions, for Selected Years, 1967-1974 woccccescceee OT.
revi 7: "poverty Rates for Related Children 5 to 17 Years’and -
ce -, ‘Person 65 Years and’ Gver., Under ‘Selected Alternative. “
Pxtag Wall Poverty Definitions: . 1967 and 1974) .ceseecceccccecceees “98
IGURE 8. ° Elderly as a Percent of All Poverty Persons Under; : E a
ve = Selected Alternative Poverty Definitions: 1967-1974 eee 99.
IGURE 9. | Persons in Families with a Female Head as a Percent: . a 7
° of All Pover ty Persons Under; Selected Alternative pole
rover ty. Definitions: 1967-1974 geteiaiensapinwesedieges te" 100.
‘IGURE 10.. - Families Public Assistance: - Poverty Rates and. brake
os . Percent’ o Poverty Population Under Selected ue” ae ee
=e Definitions 1967 and ‘1974S cceeeeeee 101.
IGURE 11. . Families ‘with Earnings asa Percentage of All Poverty .
- ek Families Under Selected scalciauay be Poverty Definitions:
1967-1974 wee cece cence eecetaccecacsccccccccscccasesesees 102
'IGURE 12: a Regional Share’ of Poor Persons Under Alternative.
Poverty Definitions as a Ratio of Regional Share
Under Current Poverty Definition, . 11969 seccccasescseesser 103
IGURE 13. Regional Share of Poor School-Age Children Under .
Alternative Poverty Definitions as a Ratio of Regional -
’ Share Under Current Poverty. Definition, 1969 st eeeseeeds 104,
xiv \ |
130.
‘<)
ERIC
i ee ee
. March 1975 Curren
e : ; , ee eee ie
is ee
ae
dae This paper. examines how different poverty standards can’ change ‘ the stati-
‘"gtical description of-the low-income population. It supplements Chapter V --.
. J "Alternative Poverty: Coutits Based on Available Data" of The-Measure;of- Poverty ©
“(a report to; Congress’ as mandated’ by the Education Amendment s- pf . , U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, April 1976).. The poverty measure.
* eukrently used in Title “t of.the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Census
; Burgau definition of poverty): and alternative.poverty definitions which have
‘Keen selected for analysis by the Povérty Studies Task Force (which produced
te The “Measure “of “ Poverty) are described. , The characteristics of the poverty pop-
‘ulation in er the current Federal definition and under the.various
alternative abel: Beaune eae are then presented based on. data. from the ~
‘ :
Population Survey (CPS). In addition, changes over time in
the size and composition.of the poverty population under the alternative
“ measures are analyzedvs A discussion of the impact:of the alternative defini-
- tions-on the geographic distr ibution of the. poér based on the One Percent .
_
sample of the 1970 Census of Population is also ae
_ ‘One reason for. performing this analysi% is to enable those who administer
social service programs to identify subgroups of the population which would be
a ‘reached ‘by .their’ programs if. a particular: poverty measure were. to be used as a
'... program parametér -or in a funding formala. ' The characteristics of potentially
- eligible persons are of vital’ interest to administrators who must plan and bud-
get for programs that are intended to serve ‘target groups with specific. char-
acteristics. , Consequently,. the material in this. paper ‘should prove useful to
at administrators and analysts ‘in many programs which are designed to help the
., poor. (needy, low-income, disadvantaged) and which make. us? of a poverty measure
or income eligibility standard. 9 Se - e
Different programs use different measures, which is not surprising in view
’ \of the broad spectrum of objectives covered by such programs. Some examples ’-
'. are: Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which uses the
official Federal measure aS part of an.allocative forma; ‘the College Work~
Study: program authorized by the Higher Education Act of 1965, which uses a
single dollar threshold (unchanged for family. °size); Title XX of the Sgcial
Security Act, which adopted 80 to 115 percent of median, family income in each
- ‘state.as, its standard; the Comprehensive Employment and’ Training Act, which
uses a. single-dollar ‘threshold with. the allocation.based partly on the number
_ | a INTRODUCTION . - ; a o: : : :
oS
e
“2
“Of families in an area with income below that. level; and the Community S@gvices -
‘ Administration, which issues income eligibility standards ‘directly based on
o-
ERIC
variations. that remain smoothed. .
‘the official F eral measure, but without many of the distinctions, and with -
14. = /
-
Pie
‘THE FEDERAL POVERTY. DEFINITION oe
The current: Federal definition of poverty is based gn a definition developed
by Maqllie Orshansky at the Social Security Administration (SSA) in.1964 and re-
|. vised by a’Federal Interagency Committee in 19692 0 0 2 7) 2 tt, as
‘The ‘SSA: (Orshansky) index provided a range of income cutoffs adjusted by
such factors as family size, séx of head, number of children under 18 years old,
... -and farm-nonfarm residence. At the core of this definition of poverty was the
-.* economy food plan, the least costly’ of four food plans that are nutritionally:
_.. sound, designed by the Department of Agriculture. It was determined from the
Department of Agriculture's 1955 survey of food consumption that families ri
of three or more persons spend approximately one-third of their after tax |’ a
income on food; the poverty level for ‘these families was, therefore, ‘set at- =’ "
‘three times the cost of the economy food plan. For smaller’ faitities and -. _. Ps
‘persons: living alone, the cost of the economy food plan was eee 8
‘factors. that were slightly higher in order to compensate for the relativ ioe :
larger fixed ‘expenses of these smaller households. - Annual revisions of the
‘poverty cutoffs were based on price changes of the items in the economy”
budget. a _— es a fl
Re a result of deliberations of a Federal Interagency Committee in/A969,
' -. the fbllowing two modifications to the original SSA definition of poverty were
‘+ ‘recommended: (1) that the SSA thresholds for nonfarm families be retained for
‘the base year: 1963, but that annual adjustments in the levels be based on. changes"
in the Consumer-Price Index (CPI). rather than on changes in.the cost of food in-
Cluded*in the economy food plan; and (2) that. the farm thresholds be raised from:
70 to 85. percent of the corresponding nonfarm levels. The reasons for making ,
- these changes are discussed in Technical Paper I of The Measure of Poverty.
Currently, the cutoffs used by the Bureau of the’ Census to determine the
low-income status-of. families and unrelated individuals consist of a set of.
124. thresholds arranged in.a four-dimensional matrix. The matrix consists of
a family size dimension (from one person, ie., unrelated individuals, to sevens,
or more person families) cross-classified by presence and number of children ,
under 18 years old (from no children present to six or more children present),
sex of head, and farm-nonfarm residence. Unrelated individuals and two-person —
families.are further differentiated by age of head (under 65 ‘years and 65: years
and over). The total income of each family and each unrelated individual’ in the
sample is tested against the appropriate dollar threshold to determine the low-—
- income status of that family or unrelated individual. If the family's total
incomé is ‘less than its corresponding cutoff, the family is classified-as below: .
the low-income level. “Table 1 -reproduces the. poverty matrix for income year .
. 1974. (See page. 28.) : :
- yy,
' Data.on- income collected in the CPS are limited to money income received — -
before payments. for personal income ‘taxes, Social Security, union dues, Medicare
deductions,: etc. Money: income is the sum of the amounts received from earnings;
Social Security and public assistance payments; dividends, interest, and rent; ~
. unemploymént and workmen's compensation; government and private employee pensions
, _and other periodic income. See Chapter II of The Measure of Poverty and Techni-. ~
cal Papers VI, VII, and X for details on the limitations of the income concept. '
\
2 . a _
1B,
‘<)
ERIC
+
4 a : goa ee ee i Se : : a
ae ? ' 3 : : - . :
: a ry ere
: *
er > :
[pt OEE le #) ALTERNATIVE POVERTY DEFINITIONS
oe Bet eM a Eg 2.5 2
wot a Yet ne ek * ye = re
ER EE EEO Senta ok cae eRe
et
‘i ¢ o*
‘
: his section investigates the “effect ‘of some alternative poverty measures
on the statistical description of poor ‘populations. It deals with the poverty
\. -eutoffs, not with the definition of income. In Chapter IV of ‘The “Measure “of
voi Rover ty report, it was shown that modifying the. income definition by Including
+): Some: cash equivalent value of in-kind. benefits: or assets would lower the poverty.
“. ‘eount if the poverty cutoffs were not simultaneously changed to be consistent
with the new -income definition.*, Similarly, poverty counts would be reduced= ’
. “if underreporting of cash income were corrected in the ‘census. and CPS suftveyS, ©
‘ +/or if irregular cash income were counteds: However, these commonly proposed
changes. to the definition of income carinot, be incorporated into the poverty —-
“measure'without modifying the census or CPS surveys or developing new surveys: a
- from which. to derive.a poverty count. Furthermore; the statistical effect. of
a these modifications is not .approximated by simple adjustments of the poverty .
cutoffs, such as by lowering them, because. subgroups of. the poor population
are affected differently by changes in the income definition. ‘For, example, |
_. -the income of the elderly would probably be raised: more, by’ the inclusion of .
- the value of assets than would the income of young: family heads. _: ot
The change which is- most. commonly proposed in‘ connection with the poverty —
cutoffs is: to raise them. This reflects a presumption that the standard of
living, however. defined, has risen in this country .since the official. poverty
level was originally established.’ ‘Also, it is not generally believed thate-.. 2...”
U.S. citizens need less now than they did in the past... These notions are im,
{ plicit in such proposals as: revising the Orshansky matrix on the basis of
=: current food plans and consumption patterns; identifying the lowest quintile
-"": of the income distribution as the poverty income level; setting the-poverty .
tevel at 50 percent of median income; using public opinion polls to determine’
a generally accepted level. of income adequacy; Or using the lower BLS family
- budget as a poverty budget. Similarly, most administrative adaptations of the,
, poverty line in Federal programs have the effect of enlarging the population ae
re... O£ program beneficiaries beyond those, identified as poor by the official poverty
“VC “PNBASUEC « : 7S ten
a
.
7 However, not all commonly proposed changes to the poverty cutoffs or in-
“come definition can be linked simply to higher or lower poverty counts. For
example, if the thrifty food plan.were used as a. basis for the poyerty cut—
_ offs, but without simultaneously raising ‘the ratio of income-to-food costs,
the cutoffs for some families would be lowered and others. raised. Similarly, ~—
if poverty cutoffs were: annually updated using d price index based on food ‘or
on items in a special poor person's index, rather than on the Consumer Price
Index, the poverty cutoffs could be higher ir\’some years and lower in others
than the current. cutoffs. ‘Presumably, geographic adjustments to the poverty
. s eutoffs would ‘aise them in some places and lower them in others; removing
", . the current adjustments for farm residence would raise the poverty counts
‘only slightly. Simplifying the current poverty matrix by ‘removing distinc-
tions: for sex of head .and presence of children would affect the poverty |, status
of families according to: sex and age of family members. If Federal or state .
and ‘local income taxeS, Social Security payroll deductions, or other taxes
were excluded from the income definition (and the poverty cutoffs were not
ae . ea. : :
| 16
oO
ERIC
P
a coe a .¢ .?
- simultaneously. changed), the. poverty count would be increased, although this
_ could’ be offset if the Federal ‘tax credit for earned income were counted as
‘income, . Changing the definition of family or using households rather than
families as accounting units could raise or lower the count depending on the .
, Change made. Applying a recently proposed index of employment. and earnings. ~
. inadéquiacy and a price index for the elderly might cause poverty ‘counts of ,
‘these groups to differ from counts under a single national poverty méasure.
"It is not practical. to describe, here the statistical effects of adopt~
_ ing all of the variously proposed alternative measures. Of the many, possi-
- ‘pilities, ‘the analysis here considers four groups of definitions totalling 13
4, “specific alternatives (the current poverty measure and: 12 others, Selected for
‘analysis by the. Poverty Studies Task Force). “These were ‘selected because:° .
- | they. can be studied with readily accessible .data;. they are similar to, admin-_
| istrative poverty ‘measures or income ‘eligibility. criteria. currently used:in. -
- Péderal programs; and they can be used. to approximate the effects: of” adopting
aha
.. $0me concepts discussed in The Measure of Poverty. —. -
ee : The four broad groups of alternatives ate’: ‘proportionate increases or .
-., decreases of the.current poverty matrix (scaling), simplifications ‘of ‘the cur-
°. xent poverty matrix, single-dollar thresholds, and relative measures based on
. median income. a ey ae ee
ee group consists of four sets of cutoffs derived by multiplying
~ each of the tutoffs in the official poverty matrix for 1974 by 75. percent,
125 percent, 150 percent, .and 200: percents: As.noted earlier, many commonly
' proposed poverty measures have the effect oftraising the poverty income
‘levels. The statistical effect of such changes can be approximated by ref-
erence to one of the higher sets‘of poverty cutoffs included here. Also,
some Federal programs, such as those of the Department of Agriculture; define ~
eligibility qn the basis of simple proportional increases.in the official po-
verty cutoffs.’., A poverty matrix set at 75 percent of the current matrix is
‘also analyzed. This is provided’to identify those groups of people who are
“most Seyerely in need. Furthermore, in making administrative adaptations
of the poverty line, program administrators may desire to raise income eligi-
bility criteria above the poverty line in’some places and lower the criteria
below the poverty line in other places, -in ordér to accommodate variations in |
local labor’ markets, local prices, the extent of poverty, or other conditions.
. Poverty matrixes consisting of. poverty cutoffs at 75 percent, 125 percent,.
“150° percent, and 200 percent of the current measure are not reproduced here;
_ however, a sense of the size of,the.cutoffs can be obtained by. :reviewing Table
1 and the following simple scalings-of the 1974 poverty cutoffs for a.nonfarm
Pa
>
male-headed family of four with,two children:. | 7 bh
ar " ae eee te ae | :
75% of 3 125% .of ‘150% of ' 200% of
Current .” Current. Current . “Current == Current
Measure ' Measure Measure . Measure Measure «_
$3,750 $5,000 * .$6,250- $7,500, $10,000
ee Ly rr oe: :
3 “a Se 17 = : - Ne
i 4
‘<)
ERIC
ar bamily-Size ig Oe Pa 1 Avetage ees
.. sand. ‘Type _ _ 7°... \__ Poverty) Cutoffs Eee oye
» + T'Person -. - 4. $2,610 oe eae
Under 65 Le tetse £2 Se 88 - 4 =
arr By” Ower 65 an reas . ot + 2,387
hee 2fersons = 2. - 7. 3,220
oh eed under 68 Se ee 3,329 “
i Head over 65° 8 Oe ee BRM wa
". "3 Pergons a SF ee - 3,957 ’
4 Persons po 040
“§ Persons... ; * §,957 ©
6 Persons: — eo ; 6,706 | ;
7. or. more Persons os 8278 <
“o£ the refinements in the current poverty matrix. For..example
-@ligibility: guidelines of the Community Services Administrati
: family size and farm-nonfarm residence, but‘not on sex of he
“vehildren under 18. Other administrative guidelines incliide
“for family size. For this analysis, first the farm-nonfa}m
‘= eliminated by using the nonfarm thresholds of the current
“and male-headed family cutoffs, see} Table 1.
-. . Thre ‘progressive ~simplifications of the current poverty measure were,
- Studied use it’ has been argued that the various adjustments for residence
and family composition are not accurate or necessary. Also, mogt administrative
‘uses of the poverty measure aS an eligibility criterion do not incorporate all
-the income
n are based on
or number..of
both, farm and nonfarm families? Next, the distinction ba
was eliminated by using the nonfarm male-headed family thr, sholds for ail
families. Finally, the-distinctions for the number of related children unden |
18 were. eliminated -by: using weighted; average thresholds: for each family ‘size
elow. For nonfarm
category: - Simplified poverty cutoffs: in’ 1974 are shown
oe
~§ * 1974 Weighted
oa ‘ gwo Single-dollar poverty thresttblds, which are invariant with respect to
. family.’size, were included ‘inthe analysis. ‘The first, the low threshold, was
uals; that. amount was’ chosen because. =
$3,200 for all families and unrelated individ
, it yielded a poverty Count equal to the number of poor persons derived by the
a.
current poverty matrix, equal to $5,038 in 1974. . "
’ “eurrent poverty measure in'1969 from the 1970 Census of Population. . The high
‘threshold is the average weighted threshold for a nonfarm family of four in the
?
; . ' ; i : \
. Such measures serve aS a point of reference to illustrate the effect of .
variations for family size on the composition ef the poor. Single-dollar cut-
offs are sometimes used for analytical purposes or ‘as administrative criteria
“or distributing Federal funds. - The Coitprehensive Employment and. Training Act,
-for example, distributes. manpower révenue-sharing funds to local governments
in part (by a weighting factor of 12.5 percent) based on the numbér..o§ fami ies. :.
in each unit of a government's jurisidiction,with an income less than a :-£ix¢d «= -
amount. A $2,000 threshold was used for distributing Title I funds under the a
Elementary and Secondary Education Act until 1974. Although in this analysis .
the high threshold (like the current measure) was varied over time by the annual
rise in athe Gopsonee “pedce foe ‘the low ‘chreshold was held sonstant at: {i700 | “=
' Over. the eight-year pariod of analysis, 1967-1974. Thus, the? low threshold also, .
‘illustrates the effect of a poverty measure which is not - annually. ‘oma Te
pane otee cutoffs in 1974 are aan: below. ee.
Low Cutoff _ | High CutsfEe ss et
$3,200 + $5,038 3 ee
Finally, the study investigated the effect of three ‘@ifterent relavive
Measures of poverty. Each measure is based on 50 percent Of some median income.
as Fifty is an arbitrary percentage which was selected because it, is frequently used :
in discussions of relative poverty measures./ ‘The interest in these measures is g
primar ily in their behavior over time’ and their relat tonship to: the more conven-. wee
tional measur e(s) updated by ithe Constimer Price’ ‘Index. ;
-” The first relative measure. examined ' was a double threshold distinguishing’ .
between families :and unrelated: individuals: . for families, the poverty threshold °
- was set at 50 percent of. medzan family income ($67418 in 1974, or 50 percent
$12 7836) ;_:for unrelated individuals, the’ threshold was set. .at -50. percent ‘of
“median income for unrelated individuals ($2,220. in 1974, ‘or 50 percentfof $4,439).
- This large difference ‘in the thresholds fox these. two groups of people reflects. —
cs faet ‘that: unrelated individuals. as: a aEOUP | receive much lower.’ incomes, on
ilies. = ie,
i : im.
‘i “
: _ The remaining two. Felative measures Ssacideved use 50° percent of base me-
dian: income and adjust it’ for family. size by using the equtivalence scales im- ts
plicit in the current: poverty measure. (These equivalence scales are described
in Chapter IV of The Measure of Poverty and are illustrated in Table 2.) In one »
, Case, the base median income is that for all ‘families. ($12,836'.in 1974); in. the*
-other, ihe median income/ is that for a nonfarm family of four with a male head
and two: children ($14,004 in 1974). In both cases, 50 percent of the.baseme- 9 |”.
_.*dian income was: assumed 'to represent the poverty threshold for the typical fam-
. ily. of four just described, and the equivalence scale was uséd to calculate the ~
_ comparable cutoffs .for the” 123 other’ family sizes and” types. Incotie eligibility ~
'' @riteria based on median income have been ‘included ‘in recently enacted legisla~"/
tion, such as Title II of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and!
Title XX of the Social Security Act.’ Those definitions, however, use local me-
dian incomes rather than the national median. Title XX requires the median in-
come for each state to be used in establishing its income eligibility standard,
and the Housing Act uses median income for a metropolitan a in establishing
_ the income eligibility evel for = area. National median inomes in 1974
- were as follows: | eg. 88 ° We”
. AL families peenenls era cecccneee aeevvee sc ce ccc econ eee $12,836 a
"ale-headed OT} or Bee Wade & Oy
- Nonfarm familjes ‘of. four with two children.......++..$14,004 |
‘Unrelated Indiviupldi ss iiyieeversecnerdetclecenestoc8 4,439":
oe ‘6
{ * =
@
ERIC
\ it : 1 3 2
An impor tant, consid io in analyzing the ier. definitions of -pov-
‘
- erry is the composition of iffering poverty populatjons. ‘Knowing precisely
_. wo is counted’as poor is as important was knowing~the number of poor.
ae é * : a . ey, brad ‘
. Several generalizations can be made about the alternativ@® poverty popula-
tionss Those definitions which most alter the size of the poverty population
also have the greatest effect on the characteristics of the poor. As the.cur~.
rent poverty, measure is successively. scaled by 75 percent, 125 percent, 150
percent, and 200 percent, the poverty rate for each subgroup.-increases, but at
a different rate. The composition of the ever larger: poverty ‘population ap-
proaches that of the total population. Progressive simplifications of the cur~—
.. rent’ measure, on the other, hand, Have negligible impact on the composition of
_‘the poor. The single-dollar thresholds, ‘which are: invariant with respect to
family size, change thé c ition of .the poor.to a large extent because of
‘their differential screening of large and small families. ‘ane
72 er ee ee ee ’
‘
j . ; ”
ef “ ;
”
«) os
ERIC
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POVERTY POPULATION, 1974,
"_ USING THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF POVERTY ;
“this” section provides a description of the characteristics of th&peverty
population using the current definition of poverty. and thereby'serves aS a |.
point of. reference for the section on the description of the poor under . alter- -
native. measures. These data as well as the data for the alternative measures are
‘°
.. based on the March 1975 Current Population Survey (CPS).
‘The cps is a scientifically designed sample survey of ‘about: 47, ,000 house-
holds in the United States with coverage in each of the 50 states and the
District of Columbia. 1/ The present sample used for the CPS was selected to. -
produce accurate. estimates of (lentogr aphic characteristics, especially labor.
force characteristics ‘at ‘the national “level, Since the estimates from the E.
’. @PS*are’ sample estimates, they may, differ somewhat from the figures that would.
‘have been obtained if-a complete census had been taken’ using the same sche@ules,
. instructions, and enumerators. As in any survey work, the results are subject
tq errors of response and of reporting as well as being subject to sampling
‘variability. For example! for many different reasons there is a, tendency in oe
household surveys for respondents to underreport their income. Under repor ting
is especially pronounced for income sources that are not derived from earnings,.
‘guch as'Secial Security, public assistance, - interest, dividends, net income
from rentals, etc. 2/ : | 8 poe Te a
ik ee Following are some ‘of the highlights of the data’, on poverty obtained oy
‘the March 1975 CPS: . 7 ., te. = a
ie
e Using ‘the present Kee seandeta, there were jabout 24.3 inil-- ”
lion. persons below the poverty level int 1974.¢ comprising 12 =
percent of the U. s. population. (Table 3). 2 *
* .
e@ As indicated in Table 3, the majority of these low-income” persons |
(56 pércent) were either young (related children under 18 years) -
or elderly (65 years and over).- By comparison, ,these two.age
groups combined. ati about 40 percent of the honpoor
population. pp
@ Table 3 also shows that the ieee rate for blacks was ecnsiaee
. ably higher than that for whites. The figures were -32 percent
and 9 percent respectively. In addition, blacks were overrepre-
_ sented in the poverty population. About 31 percent of all persons.
below the poverty level were black compared to oie 9 percent oF
persons above the poverty level.
- @ Of the 24.3 million persons below the poverty level, about 19.4
: million or 80 percent were family members while the remaining
‘ 20 percent were unrelated individuals (persons living’ alone or
with nonrelatives). Only about 8 percent of the nonpoor popula-
. tion in 1974 was living alone’or with nonrelatives. Unrelated.
‘individuals have higher poverty rates than family member S (26 -
se serecne sl a to 10 percent). _ (Table 3) ge a
- 4
‘
rey
*
Ney e There were differences lirf the composi't ibn of the low-income
white and black populations. in terms of family ae and ©
age.. (Table 4). a to ; a
For example, of the 7.5 million blacks below the poverty level, about: ce mt
percent were family members. ~A large proportion: of low-ifcome black family - _.
members were related children under 18 years (59 percent)} about 70 percent ,
of these children. were.in.families with a female-head. |
‘tion .of blacks below the low-income’ level were, aged (8 percent). (Table 9)
On the other hand, about three-fourths of the 16.3 million low-income whites.
were living in families. (Table 4) Of thesé family members, about one-half
were Ghildren under 18. years, and 43’percent of these children were in families .
headed by women. Persons: aged 65 and over comprised 16 percent of the low-income:
“white population. : (Table 9) - ae
.@ Families headed by women wag another group that was overrepre~ .
‘sented, among the poor. ,Of the 5.1 million’ low-intome families
/'.. in 1974, about 46 percent weje headéd by a female. By compari-
‘ee gon, only about.10 percent Of all nonpoor families were female-
-. headed. Practically all of these low-income ;female-headed
+" families had at least one child under 1&years present. (Table’5)
@ In general, low-income families were more ‘likely to,have children |
: under. 18 years present than families above the low-income level. t
. (76 percent and 54 percent respectively). (Tablq 5)
@. Over one-half (53 percent). of the 10.2 million children below the .
poverty level in 1974 were in female-headed families. - To reverse
the perspective, children.in. female-headed families were\far more
likely to be below the low-income level than those in male-headed
‘
families (52 percent compared to 9 percent). (Table 4)
—_) School-age ‘children, (between 5 and-17 years), comprised 31 percent 7 at ps
~ :@f all poor persons ip 1974 and 23 percent of persons, above: the
“poverty level. (Table 3) . oe ree -
@ About 3.3 million’ aged persons were below. the poverty line. in
F _ 1974. This amounts to 16 percent of all persons 65 years and
.* over and accounts for 14 percent of all poor. persons. By com -
.parison, the aged comprised about 10 percent of the population ",
- above the poverty: line. (Table 3) 7 .. 4
The majority of aged poor persons were unrelated individuals (62 percent).
The poverty rate for aged unrelated individuals was much higher than that for
elderly persons who were family members (32 percent compared to Xpersent).-
“About three-fourths of aged unrelated individuals below the poverty line were
‘women living alone. (Table. 6) = aia —
‘ vey * -_
'. @ ‘About 53 percerit of all poor families had a family head who
worked at some time during 1974, and off these low-income’
44
9 ; ft
.
* ,
, wee
_ Percent).
. oo ae
es :
me 7 :
a ite, , %
.
families headed by a worker; 36 percent. were headed by a year- ae
- gound full-time worker. . (Table 7) As wouldybe expected, a..." |
- higher proportion of low-income families with a male head than
with a female head worked in 1974 (63 percent compared to’ 40
-
s
» About 62 percent of all low-income families received somp\in~
ve from earnings. (Table 8) Not surprisingly, a larger \pro- _ :
portion of low-income families with male heads have income from a
wit _, earnings than families headed.by a female (72 percent compared
to 50 percent) ,.. Social urity was the largest category of in-
come other than earningsjfor low-income families headed by a man
while public assistance was the largest category for families —
headed by a woman. ae ee ee
persons in families with a female head, and elderly than both the lation”.
* above the poverty level andi the’ total populatiqn..: (Table 9). Special. attention
will be focused on thee groups along with the working poor in the following —
sections on the characteristics of the poverty population under alternative
"measures in 1974 and on the changes in the poverty population over’ time. ‘Sepaf-
ate consideration has also been given to school-age children because of the. ~ |.
.focus of this study on Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.‘ .. 5°
ahs
2 a
In summery, the current poverty population has a higher proportion of blacks,”
a
he
Jee ak
7 - 7
a 7 4 »
ra ;
. - a
My
9 ae og
r a * ; %
- % rs 7 x
i
e t
as os
a8 y ‘
ie
10
: : :
2
NITIONS...-
fg i e . oe ae
- | This section deals with the characteristics of the different poverty :popyla~ _,, ;
tions whieh result when the various alternative definitions are used. Comparisons _
will be made between the low-income population in 1974 based on the current defi- |
nition and.the populations which result from use of, each of the alternative stan— .
dards. Selected detailed statistics. summarizing the different poverty populations.
rare furnished for persons, families, and unrelated individuals in.Tables D-1
thraugh-D=3. " : 7 a cae ee ro tos at be isp it ie ay
rT
gf Au * . eo . P : Z ‘ —_ ats ae anes
Scaling the Measure : ; a ee 2 F
CHANGES RESULTING FROM ALTERNATIVE POVERTY DEF!
es
lccessively scaling the current poverty thresholds by 75 percent, 125. per~-
ent, 150 percent, .and 200 percent has the latgest impact on the.number-of poor .
persons; the poverty population is largest for 200 percent*of the current measure: ‘,
. and smallest for 75 percent of the current measure. A pattern of increase-is ‘ob- “7
' gérved with the upward shifts: . for every 5 percent increase in the current cut> —-
offs, approximately two. million persons are addgd to the poverty population, and _
the percentage of the popiilation:counted as poor inpreases one’ percentage point.
This pattern was also-observed for the.downward shift to 75 percent of the cur-
“xent measure. As shown in Table 103° tie number ‘of/poor persons in 1974 rises
from 14.5 million with 75 percent of the current ure, or 7-percent of the -
, population to 69.4 million, or 33 percent of.she Tation with 200 percent of
‘the current measure. — ry : en 4 o
: a Scaling the current measure. brings changes. in the composition of the poor:_as
“well as in the number ‘of poor. When the poverty thresholds are increased, the
_Number of poor increases the composition of the ever larger poverty popula~
_, tion approaches that of th total population. ~~
Raising the Léveleto 125 Percent - | eet |
° o Py ‘ oo tS ze , J
Raising the currert thresholds to the 125 percent level increased the low- |
income populatiori by about 10.4 million persons in 1974 and resulted ima total
poverty population of about 34.6 million persons. (Table 11) Of the 10.4 mil-
lion persons who were added, about 7.8 million were'white, 2.4 million were black, .
and .2 million were of other races. This addition increased the total peg of 4”
low-income white persons from 16.3 million to about 24 million and the total num-
ber of low-income blacks from 7.5:million to about 9.8 millign. Although, blacks
increased in absolute numbers, their share of the low-income population declined
from 31 percent under the current measure to about 28 percent at the 125 percent ;
evel. (Table 12) This is still about 2.5 times the 11 percent share which blacks ¢ ;
‘ comprised of the total -pSpulation, but the decrease is an example of a pattern of S
declining minority representation which persisted when the thresholds were raised —
to the 150 and 200 percent levels. ~ a
". .. ‘About 8.3 million or 81 percent of the persons who were added to the low-
income population when the thresholds were raised to the 125 percent, ("near poor")
leyel were family members. Of these additional family members, about 6.2 million
or 74 percent were living in male-headed families and the remaining 2.1 million
or 26 percent were living in female-headed families. e number of persons in
Oe
ERIC
. : - . a e ;
: e a * +
-
we 7
**\ iuale-headed families therefore increased from about 11 million under’ the current.
at os evens ees.
measure to about 17 million, and.their share of the low-income population in-
creased from 56° to about. 62 percent. Correspondingly, persons in female~headed
families represented a smal
ler proportion of the poverty population at 125 per-
oe! cent, of the poverty level than at the current ‘level. . (Tablegg}2) -
- As thé poverty thtesholds are raised from the current measure to the 125
] - percent: level, the proportion of the poverty population comprised of school-age
Children (children, 5 to 17 years) ’declined from 31 percent to 29 percent. On .
"+ the other hapd; the proportion of, low-income aged persons increased from 14 per-.
' Cent ‘to 16
there were
(26 nt/of all aged per
¢ ela@ly ‘Social Securi
2 eurrent thresholds are
’ fran 4.1 million to about 7
rcent of,all poor persons. (Table 12) At the 125 percent level,’ -
t 5.5 million persons 65 years and over- below the poverty level
sons). As the poverty thresholds are raised, many
ty and pension income is oniy ‘marginally higher than - .
“recaptured".as poor. (Table 11)", — a Sar
ging the thresholds by: 25 percent added about 2.3 million families (Table
about 2.0 million unrelated individuals to the low-income universe in
_ (Table 11) The number of low-income families is, therefore, increased
.4 million. About 6.8 million or 36 percent of all
unrelated individuals are below 125 percent of the low-income level.
Many of the patterns observed for persons are paralleled by families when
the’ thresholds are raised to the 125 percent level. For example, at the 125 peg- .
cent level compared to the
became a smaller proportion
current level, families headed by blacks and women ;
of dll low-income families whereas families headed
‘by an elderly person increase their share of all low-income families. (Table 14)
Selected poverty rates, universe totals, and proportions: are shown in fables _
11 through 14 for persons and families at the various alternate poverty. levels. °
a, °A review of these data reveals the following additional information: a oe
e Families with child
families below the
ren coniprised a smaller proportion of
"near poor" level than of families
below the current level in 1974 (71 ‘compared to 76 percent).
Nevertheless,..the p
was, Still. dispropor
representatio
families). —
e Small families (of
- 9£ all low-income families when the thresholds were raised.
to the 125 percent level. P
e@ Compared with their
roportion of such families’ with children
tionately high when compared with their
n in the total population (56 percent of all
2 persons) increased.from 33 to 35 percent
current poverty level ‘counterparts, family
heads below the "near poor" level were more likely to have.
worked at some time
during the year. More were likely to
have received earnings. income (65 percent compared to 62
percent) and fewer were likely to have received public /
“ assistance income (35 compared to’ 40 percent). A larger
“~ | proportion of "near poor”. families than current measure —
~<* families received some Social Secyrity incdme (28 percent
ne compared to 24 percent). —— .
° Raising to HigherCLevels — 150 and 200 Percent «8
: ‘Generally, the patterns of change which occurred when the low-income thresh-
. olds were raised to'the 125 percent level persisted when the thresholds were
increased.to the 150 and 200 percent levels. A,review of the poverty univer se
. totals and rates furnished in“Tables 11 and 13 reveals the magnitude of the
across-the-board ,jncreases which occur. As may be seen, increasing the thresh-
_ e1dS*to the. 150 percent Ievel raised the total number of poor persons to about _
45.2 million of 22 percent of all’persons. When the currerit- thresholds were oy
doubled, the number of poor reached 69.4 million asd the poverty rate was 3300 + ©
ian : oF A eae mae a » AS
"At the°150 percent level, the poverty rate for persons in families with a
_ female head was about 53 percent and at the 200 percent level, the rate reached
64 percent. The poverty rates for blacks were also quite high at these levels
(49 percent\and 62 percent respectively). ‘(Table 11) _ , 3
4 . e.-
+
Although the poverty rates for persons in*families with a. female head and .
blacks were very higMat these increased poverty levels, the share of the low-
income population that these groups have is smaller than at the lower levels,
more closely reflecting their representation in the total population. (Table.
12). While persons in families with a female head represented 44 percent of all
poor family members using the current measure, and 39 percent at the 125 percent —
level, they represented 33.percent of all poor ‘family members at th 150 percent
level and declined to 25 percent of poor family members at the 200 perkent level. °
As the poverty level is raised from the current measure to 125 percent and ~
“3450 percent and then 200 percent, the proportion.of the low-income populati6n °
that was compr ised of blacks declined from 31 percent to 28 percent, to 26 per-
cent, and then to 21 percent. > a co.
Both the elderly and school-aged ghildren comprised a more stable propor-.
. tion of the poverty population than blacks and persons in female-headed families
as the thresholds are raised to higher levels. At the 200 .percent level 28 per-
_ gent of the low-income population was comprised of school-aged children;. the
- Figures were not much different at the 125 percent. and 150 percent levels, and
at. the current level, the proportion was 31 percent. (Table 12)
similarly, about’ 15 percent of the poverty population was elderly at the 200
percent level; the figures were about the same at~the 125 percent and 150 percent
. levels. and about. 13.6 percent of the poverty population was elderly using the,
current measure. (Table 12) — :
. ' As the poverty levels are raised from the current level to the 200 percent
level, the proportion of low-income families in 1974 that were headed by workers
reased from'53 percent to 63 percent. (Table 14) | ees =
» «+ 26
23
<) 7
ERIC
an < . .
2 . *.
ne eae .
i 7 a) 4, :
. wee Lg
a ‘ : ” Me 3
: ae,
3% af- the Current Level <a. 7 .
At the 75% level, there were 14.5 million persons below the poverty. level in
174.°'(Table D-1). This was the lowest poverty figure produced by any of the 12 :
Lternatives. While this figure can be used in some instances ‘to identify those 4
st severely in need, it is important to note the limitations of the income con- é
spt at this level. . a
«
Of -the families with incomes below 75 percent of the poverty level, about 2
srcent had incomes of under $1,000. 3/ This figure includes. those families that -
are classified as having no income in the income year along with those reporting _
loss in net income from’farm and nonfarm self-employment or. in rental income.
1‘addition, many of these families were living on income "in kind," savings, -
¢ gifts: These sources are not included aS income in the CPS. Many were-newly
mstituted. families ‘or ‘families in which the sole breadwinner had recently died
c had left the household and whose income was, therefore, not counted as part of
re family's income.. On.the basis of available data, it is not possible. to’ de~. .
armine. accurately the economic well-being of’ these families. AS the poverty.
avel -is. raised, these families become a‘ smaller proportion of the low-income ~~
ypulation. | = ee ey
In any event, the low-income population at the 75 percent level in 1974 was - |
jre Jikely to. be comprised’of blacks and persons in families with a female head
yan the. poverty population at the current jevel. (Table D-1) On the other
and, the elderly. comprised only 10 percent of all poor at. the 75 percent level
ympared-to.14 percent’at the’ current level. School-aged children and Families
2aded by workers represented ‘about the same proportion of the poor at the 75
ercent level as :at the current level. = . é
implifications of the Poverty Definition a ; See . ear Se
e >
In contrast to the sharp changes observed in the size and composition. of’ the
ow-income population when the poverty measure was scaled, very Slight changes:
ccur whep the current poverty measure is simplified. ee ea
_ Shifting from the current 124 census thresholds to the 62 nonfarm poverty
utoffs inc#éased. the size of the low-income population by about. 274,000 persons
from 24.3 million persons to. 24.5 million). . (Table 15) Further simplifying
he current definition to 31 male nonfarm thresholds yields a poverty count of
bout. 25.1 million persons as does ‘the’last simplification to the weighted male
onfarm. thresholds. : ee | S .
o
4
~ Not surprisingly, such small changes in the total: number of persons in pov-
rty.do not alter the composition of the. current poverty population. . Under the
hree simplifications, blacks still comprise 31 percent.of all poor persons, per-
ons in. families with female heads comprise about: 44 percent of all poor family
embers (45-perdent under the 2nd simplification), the elderly comprise. about 14:
ercent of poor persons,: and school-aged. children’ represent 31 percent. (Tables .
6, 17, and 18) a 7 = a F - @
ares
ae,
: ”
« e
°, Single-Dollar Poverty Definitions aa. ,
. «3 Using the low single-dollar standard ($3,200) resulted. in a poverty popula-
. tion’ in 1974 of 17.4 million persons which 4s considerably lower than the fig--
gre, of 24/3 million,derived from the current freasure, and is, -in facf, the lowest
¥ of.all the alternatives with the exception of/75 percent of the current theasure.
On, the other hand, the high standard (weigh average threshold for a nonfarm |
4—person family of $5,038 in 1974) resulted’ in a poverty population of 32,%,mil-
~ lion which was somewhat lower than the figure of 34.6 million that resulted from
the 125 percent. level. (Table 19). s
. *
_. Use of the single-dollar standard greatly altered the composition of the
_ poverty population in terms’ of family status and ‘age. While. unrelated individ-
¢uals represented about 20 percent of the current povérty poptilation, they repre-
sented abouff. 42° percent of the poverty population using the low staridard and 32
percent using the high standard. (Table 20) Use of the low standard increased
the number of: pobr unrelated individuals from 4.8 million under the current
standard to 7.3 hillion, and use of the high: standards:further increased their =.
~* number to, 10.5: ‘Lion. The only figure for unrelated individuals from the other °*
‘ alternatives that approached this figure was that of 10.3 million at the 200 per-’
* eent level. (Table 11) This is not surprising since the single-dollar cutoff of
-’ $5038 for an unrelated individual was considerably higher than the cutoff for
fost of the other alternatives. . ‘
Closely related to the increase in the proportion of unrelated individuals,
. in the poverty populations derived from the two single-dollar cutoffs is the:in-”
-crease in the proportion of the elderly in these poverty populations. (Table-20)
While the elderly-represented 14 percent of the poor under th¢ current measure,
they represefted 29 percent of, the poor under the low standard and 27 percent —
-under the high standard. « — ° : \ 7
id
eS
»
_.. Conversely/ schd$l-aged children repress. a much smaller proportion of
' the poor under these single-dollar alternatives than under the current measure.
The proportion dropped from 31: percent under the current measure to 17 .percent
for ‘the low standard and 18 percent for the high staridard. (Table 20): ~
‘. ™ Blacks also /represented a smaller proportion of the poverty population under
_, these two alternatives ‘than under the current measure, but the change was not as
“ @ramatic-as for school*aged children.’ (Table 20) —
:/+. About 3.4-million“famflies had incomes below $3,200. (Table. 21). This was ©
ithe smallest number of poor familiés produced by any of the various alternatives .
"that ate being tested with the exception of the 75 percent alternative. _ .
-7.5 million families had incomes below ‘the nonfarm 4-person ‘threshold of $5038.) .
; : 6 ee ae ear : eae ae ;
. SPable-22 shows that compared with their census low-incomecounterparts, fam-
_ ilies whose incomes are’ below $3,200 or $5,038 were more’ likely to be small (less
_. thah three persons) - This is because the single-dollar cutoffs do not allow for
differences in family: size; large and small families have the same cutoff.
While the $3,200 level is near-the cutoff for small familiés: under ‘the..current
definition, it is lower than the cutoff for large families, thus resulting in a
ve
. . aaa oe ee Hs ‘ : ” : BS oe eg a
a rn ae I aca ‘ ae = é
: eo, Pee : : hae mo P ‘
. disproportionately high number of small families. On the othér- hand, the $5,038
- cutoff. is much higher. than the census cutoff for smal} families, again resulting .
_in a disproportionaly high, number of sm¥ll families. In addition, Table 22 shows ~
:-". that Iow-income’families under the single-dollar cutoffs compared to. families be--
‘low the current definition were more likely to be childless, headed by an aged _
- “pergon, white, and to be receiving Social Security income and less likely to have
“worked at’ some time during 1974. Families headed by women represented about the. ce
_Same proportion of all poverty families under the $3,200 cutoff as under the cur- .
7 rent measure whereas ‘they ‘represented a smallexg@proportion under the high single- _—
.) , dolar cutoff than, under the: current’ measure. ht a ee Se
” . Median-Based Poverty Definitions p Be ee ea ee ee ee ee: &
In 1974, 36.4 million persons or. about 17.4 percent of the population were —
in families or were urfrelated individuals with incomes of less than one-half -the
*. ational median ($6,418 for families and $2,220 for unrelated individuals).
=" (fable 23) This figure of 36.4 million poor. was considerably higher than
_,, -the census figure of 24.3 million; in fact it was somewhat higher than the
" ., figure: of 34.6 million at the 125 percent level. (Table 11)
ar an bo ae a r : , ‘
Sere Although’the total: number. df poor was higher when one-half the median was
ei Niseqg'than when the current poverty level was used, the number of unrelated indir 3.
" ‘:widuals was lower under this alternative. (Table 23),''This is to be expected’ be~...". .
~ >.“ eause the cutoff of $2,220 representing one-half. the median for unrelated individ-
“gals in 1974 was lower than the census nonfarm thresholds for unrelated individu-
. als. . Unrelated individuals comprised about 20 percent of the ‘current poverty pop-_
y ulation, but they represented only 12 percent of the poverty population generated...
“\” “by one-half the national median. (Table 24) - Pg 4 ere.
- °. While unrelated individuals represented a smaller proportion of the poverty
__ «3population below one-half the median than below the current poverty level, the
elderly::represented’a higher proportion (21 percent compared to 14 percent). |
(Table 24) The elderly population resulting from.this poverty definition was
‘unique ‘because it included so many family members. About 76 percent of the poor a
' elderly below one-half the median were family members compared to 38 percent for .
the current poverty level. (Table D-lj 0 ° >
. oo In contrast to the*elderly,. scheéol-aged children comprised .a.smaller propor~. ...
- »,. tion Of the population below one-half the median thah below ,the current poverty
“:Jevel. (23 percent compared te 31 percent). (Table 24)" In fact, the proportion _
-.,°:@£ children in the poverty population below.one-half the median ‘was very Close'to
“ - the proportion of school-aged children in the total population. ‘Only. the two. .
+ (gingle-dollar standards yielded populations comprised of, smaller: proportions of -
“-. “gehool-aged children. -. . re 2 a ie "
. . Blaeks and persons in families with a female head also comprised smaller
proportions of the. poverty population below, one-half the median than below the = =
current ‘poverty.definition. (Table 24) es oe a fo
next ‘
ae About 10.9 million ‘families’ have incomes of less than one-half the median
(Table 25) — the second largest number of poor families resulting from the’
; 29 ; . > . ‘ a : a
= : Sate
Oe
ERIC
alternatives “tested. “Only by doubling the. current poverty threshol
poor families produced. (Table 13) - One-half the median is, in effect, a.single-
we
are more. -
dollar threshold for families and thus families below $6,418 have character istics
tional: median family income as the base. <
-'male-headed family with @ children) and .
types using the need’ equivalence rates showmr vy Table 2.,4/ ° a
similar to those below the two other single-dollar thresholds; i.e., they: are
~* «More likely to be small, elderly, and childless than their current measure counter-
_ parts. (Table, 26) oe : i
a. ee
Tne second median-based measure was, Y
¥
e.:
iweting it for the: remaining Samily
€
_.. ‘Moving from a median-based poverty measure. that is not adjusted for family _
““sl¥e, to one that is adjusted has a pronounced effect on thie distribution of the —
w-income population by family stat 1s even: though the size .o e total low .
income population is not affected much. (It remained at about ‘36 million for
-. both relative measures.). As ilay be seen from Table 23, adjusting fof family com
position. and "need" increases the total number of poor unrelated individuals from °
4.2 million to 7.1 million. Unrelated individuals now represent about the same
. proportion of the poverty population as under the current measure (20 -percent)..
«. Million to ;7.8 million. .(Table 25)
- the median-generated poverty population.more like the current poverty population, .
iedy
(Table" 24) On the other hand, the number of poor families decreased from 10.9 —
4 CY
“
In addition, adjusting the median for family size makes. the eomposition of
b
median poverty population compared to’ 23: percent for the ‘unadjusted median and “31-.: ;
percent for the current theasure..” The elderly declined from 21 percent of the
in terms of age... School-aged children 1 presented 29 percent of the adjusted
. poverty population using the unadjusted median ‘to 16 percent using the adjusted
’ median while. the proportion for the current poverty population was 14 percent. °-
-(Table 24) ae ee a .
Actually, the ‘composition of the poverty population for the adjusted median +
; in terms of race and sex of head as well as age was very similar to the composi- _
- tion of the poverty population below 125 percent of
cutoffs for the base family were close ($6,418 for
e poverty level because the
alf the’median and $6,250. for
125 percent) and the equivalence scales were the~Same. ses
gable 25 shows that moving from’ an unadjusted median to a median-based méa-
ss gure! adjusted for family size’ cduSes the following: chahges .to océur.tosthe pov-
= “erty rate for families in terms of age of family head; size of family, and’
presence of children: ; os fe
“t,he poverty rate for older families declined from 43 percent using ~
the unadjusted standard to about 18 percent using the adjusted
median-based thresholds. The poverty rate for 2-person families » |
_ declined from 29 percent to 13 percent while the poverty rate for
large: (five: plus: person) families increased from 13 percent £0 *20,.
percent. ‘There way a dramatic reduction in the poverty rate for. -
childl@ss families (from 22 percent to 11 percent). : oe
38000.
47 a : a . ; Pa
oe.
nstructed by using ‘one-half the «fi. eee
family threshold (nonfarm 4~person "° -
e
g
ge
. ye
of a "typicdi”™ or. base case family is adjusted us
: t.
ge
> When the third median-based measure is used and one-half the median income
ing the current poverty measure
equivalence scale, the population which results is close. in number: and composition
to the pdpulation which results when the current thresholds are increased by 50
percent because yeing the equivalence scale to adjust one-half a "typical" a
+n
- family's ‘median,
come ($7,002 -in:1974} yields a matrix of poverty thrésholds:. 8 bie
that is very similar: to. the one whi@ results when the poverty thresholds
/ , ake. raised to ‘the 150 percent level. ($7,500 is the cutoff for a "typical"
“i. # family at the 150 percent level.) An examination
“pscextént of these similarities.’
e
's 7 wy
The effect of the alternative poverty defini
i acteristics of those who would be counted as poor
tidh' of ‘the variations by family size. =
“While there were sharp changes in the number
of the appropriate columns
‘Vand-data items in Tables 23 through. 26 and 11 through 14 will indicate the
-~ =
-
tidéns on the’nvinber. and ichar- ~~
: is substantial,"in “some casés
sition of the poor varies the most with two basic charges in the poverty *
_ definitjfon: “€irst, large increments in the level
‘of the thresholds, and second,
:
eee et ee
of poor under the 12 alter- 0°"
native measures, the proportion of the poverty population composed of school-aged
«+ @hildren. was fairly stable,. ranging from 28 perce
sures tested with the exdeption of those that wer!
(the two single-dollar cutoffs ‘and half the. U. Ss.
- portion was considerably lower under these méasur
nt to 32 percent for all the mea~ -
not adjusted for family size ~ ;
dian unadjusted). The pro~-
es.(17 percent for the low |; —
single-dollar cutoff, 18 percent for the high single-dollar cutoff, and 23 per*".
cent for the unadjusted median). (Figure 1)
wot : a. Pecos ' 3 :
Similarly, the pEoportion of the: poverty population composed of the elderly :
£anged “from 13 to 17 percent for all the measures tested with the exception of _
those invarian® with:respect: to family size and the 75 percent level. ‘In this
_ ‘situation, the proportion was considerably higher
measures than for most of the other measures. The elderly represented about 29
. “ percent of the poverty population under the low s
under the high single-dollar cutoff ;:and 21 perce
median. .‘In ‘contrast, the. elderly represented onl
ulation :below the 75 percent level. (Figure.2) °° ae ade
| \. )Generally, as the poverty levels were increa
- income population. in terms of race, sex, and wor k
using the family size, invariant
ingle-dollar cutoff, 2? percent
nt using half the unadjusted ~
y 10 percent of ‘the poverty pop- .
sed the composition of the low-”
experience of the family head
approached that of, the,total population. When the cutoffs were raised, families.
’ headed by workersbecame a larger proportion of poor families while blacks and
_ persons: in families with a female head became a smaller proportion of the ‘poor., :,..
However, even at ‘the 200 percent level, blacks and pezsons in families with a_ ms
** gemale head were overrepresented among the ‘poor c
ompared to the total population.- .
(Pigures 3 and.4)~ The invariant poverty . resholds, “én the, other hand, produce a
‘ poverty population: with proportionately’fewer families. (especially large fami- - |
hee’
lies), more untelated individuals, fewer “fémale-h
a ee | eo
eaded, and more elderly.
ve
. e
The simplifications of the current
“-:tfons' for sex of head, farm residence, and presence of children, have a negligi-
_ble effect on both the size and composition of the poverty population.
. * §
poverty measure, by eliminating distinc— - - 2
‘ Pos
eet gee | af ae a a ;
~ , ‘- ie sa a : ,
“aes 2 ° 4 s s : ' 2h ,
‘e: A ae _# « ‘ ote c ae ;
F re :
: of . eas "ONG ie f
: i \ .
. tee e.
. » ‘it o :
‘ ‘
Ma is
‘ .
{
e 5 ;
on 1 é
%. ; ; .
mer : ;
og :
. : ;
+
y ¥
" +t A . ae,
eed *. “f “"s
" . heer te a af :
on be ‘5
fae My
Pe: ne
'
.
cae .
-«@ .
<
ran ’
: ,
: , * '
, " a)
. “ ca . * a. :
7 oe “ss } : , ts : . 4 :
. age te . F .
hy * bd mi 7 . Po
J : ; t ! ’ .
; . 5
a ! eg : ;
> se “ . Sy at ee
. iy jit oi . oa
; i‘ t ' ™ 2 ? cal ‘ 4X fe a0
- 7 . ’ . .
- 7 : ‘* ¢ ty . é a ;
> ° . <n “ .
H 3 r ‘
2 ' ‘ :
» t toy
i Cal f
- : rs 4 2,
le Vf : 7 ,
° ‘i
we “ é :
F a
eyo Ly
5s i
” fs ‘ 4 e ey + . oer eed pa .
ae ‘ 7 toe .
. vy “68 + .
.
: ad m4 7
e . . 3
g ‘ uN 5
. ‘ P ; ,
. =
ee
‘ :
ar . ie P Bo ‘<
* a Bao a
¢ : o
a
. e
32 .
w oe .
2
a . rs
. - Va
- ; F ;
- 7 FY , :
.
" e ~
s .
: ¢ ,
e
ae ;
ra - e . ff .
A
o 74
" 2 a ei
# é ra ‘
a
-.. hé dedian income for four-person f
re oe aoe oe j .
Ho gs + DIFFERENCES OVER TIME
ns a , ' ‘ ae a s
Poverty definitions differ in th tianner in-which they are updated over time.
All measures based on‘ the current.'definition are updated each year by the percent-,
‘.- age increase in the cp apne es atone gee ae fixed measures). +
|The relative measures, baged*on median income, aré updated each year as income
Mevets change. Only one of th verty measures analyzed, the $3,200 single-. _
dollar threshold (low single-doflar threshold) was ‘invarant over time; ‘This: °
section considers changes in the effect of the different poverty measures over *
time, with a view to determinikg the’ stability of the patterrs obServed:in the ,,
1974 data... The analysis in this efe for 1908, 1f"0, IDS, 1594, ang 9) from’). *
_ the March Current Population Surveys for 1968, 1970, 1972, 1974, and.1975.*,
(calendar or income years-1967, 1969, 1971, 1973!, and 1974).: For this analysis, .
it is convenient to distinguish between the relative measures and all of the
others. For this purpose, the term "fixed measures” will be used throughout
this section to connote the non-relative measures. ° ja
‘ ‘ we
: ; : . ; v a> 2 usta - . * , oy /
exc. Begween.1967,.and 1974, the total populatioh_increased by almost 15 million
‘persons,’ and- the ‘poverty population under the current definition dropped from
_+almost 28 million to 24 million. (Table:27). The descent was not smooth, how-
ever, with increases occurring between 1969 and 1971 and between:1973: ang.1874. .
(Figure 5) This same trend was reflected «in the three progressive simplifica-
ons of the current measure, in the four scalings*of the current measure (75 .
ypercent,'125 percent, 150 percent, and 200 percent) and with the high single-
. @pllar cutoff. 5/ As would be expected, the invariant’ threshold of $3,200 re~ -
‘ghlted-in a Jarge and stéady.fall.in the number of poor persons-from 29 million ©
ir 1967 to 17 million in 1974. This illustrated what would happen, if poverty -
cutoffs were not adj&sted for rising prices or a rising’ standard of Living.
~” qhe ‘poverty counts fromthe relative measur¢s, based on median income, ex- °
hibited much legs vi&riation: over time than the fixed méasures..’ For 50 percent of .
amiies, adjysted, the counts, were, virtually
- invariant, and for*50 percént.of median family income, adjusted, only slightly
“more change over time wag apparent. With thé unadjustéd 50 percent U.je“median |
_ income, the number of poofpersons increased between"1967 and 1973, and remained Be
about the Same between 1973 and ‘1974. In fact, none of the relative measures
¢ resulted in ah increase in the number of poor between 1973 and 1974 as Gid the
' fixed measures. (Table. 27): ne a
oe 8 “8 . i - ee : . a é ; :
“ "2" the difference’ in the changes in the number of poor between 1967 asa 10h
using fixed and relative measures can be explained by the difference in. the pro-
_ cedure used to update thesé measures. As ‘shown in;Table 28 the poverty threshs __
olds updated by chariges’ in the Consumer Price Index (all but the median-based - "|
relative measures and the low single-dollar cutoff) have increased about 48 per-
cent between 1967 and 1974 whereas -the relative cutoffs’ have increased by about |
a
<< | + @2 percent during this game period. In other words,-between 1967 and 1974 me-
" “ @ian income ‘has’ increas§d more than the cost of living as measured by the CPI.--
«. ... Because the cutoffs for the median-based measures have kept pace with the. over;
v: ° ath increase in income level between 1967.and 1974, -the number of poor based on
ee* these measures did not decline.:- However, singg the cutoffs. for thé measures
os . ON SES. » 2000 ae = fag
. . : . 7 : .
updated by the CPI did not keep pace with the overall increase in income level,
the number of poor based on these measures decreased.
There. were two time periods, however, during which real median income did
aa
8
e
not: increase — 1969-1971, and! 197371974. During the 1969-1971 period there was ,. =
‘no significant change. in real median income, and between 1973 and 1974-real me-
‘dian income declined., , Parallelling the decline in real median income between
(1973,.and .1974, the ‘cutoffs, -for the median~based relative measures did not in-
“e@gea@se-as much as the ‘eutoffssfor the fixed measures “and, therefore, the poverty
“dalint based on’ the- relative measures did nodt increase as, did, the count, based on . d
the fixed -measures. ee Rae el eee 1S
Figure 6 shows that the poverty, rate for at .'persons undér the sgh ole
: a‘ Tey 0 Oy base
measures followed the same trend’ as the number of poor between 1967 ani
_ Elderly _ ; .
a “« The largest, differences from the general pattern of poverty rates over time _
“were observed among the elderly and-petsons in female-headed ‘families. For .the
elderly, the poverty rates under all définitions displayed a Strong and steady:
downward trend’ from 1967 to 1973 ‘(particularly between 1971 and 1973). As would
be ,expected, the decline in: the poverty rate for the elderly was not as sharp
using the relative measutes as.for the fixed measures; and the constant $3,200 ©
cutoff yielded the largest decline. \Table 29) This improvement ‘in the economic
‘position of the elderly is largely a result of increases in Social Security bene-
- fits after 1970, and to a’ lesser extent, larger and more widespread private
pensions. .
‘Me ey * c the :
oy
rate as the CPI in'contiast the larger increases observed in the early 197!
- The poverty rates for. the elderly appeared to decliné Sonfewhat -for. all measures
‘between 1973..and 1974. However, because of sampling variability, a definite state-
“ment can only be made about the,.differences for the relative measures;. other small
qifterences were not statistically significant at “the 95 percent confidence level.
- Nevertheless, the poverty Yate for the, elderly',in ‘1974 wasywell below the
_ rate in 1967 under, all the alternatives. Figure 7 shows that in 1974 the’poverty
rate for the elderly under the current measure was approximately the same as for "
school-aged children, whereas in 1967 the rate for the elderly was considerably
«higher than that for school-aged children (30 percent compared to 16 percent). .
“he gap ‘between the poverty rate for the elderly and school-aged children has
narrowed under the other alternatives too..- ..
“ * x: _ 3 ; \ ; e ~ _* : .
- Reflecting the overall: decline in poverty incidence for the. elderly, the
elderly, have become a smaller proportion of the poor gince 1967 under all ;
measuffes:with the exception.of the 150, and 200 percent levels. At the 150 ©
percent level, they represented about the same proportion of the poor as in |
r
we
aes
i ; ! a 2 fae : : a ‘
. Between 1973" and. p74 Special Security benefits increased at, about the’ sane. a
6 ‘Se
oe
ie
:. 1967;. and at the 200. percent level, they represented a higher proportion. rs
(Figure 8).
r ~ " ad
= : ,
Ae
1M ng
' : ' oe 9 23 : re . ‘
Female-Headed Families me
_ '* «Tn contrast, to the steady decrease in the poverty rate for the elderly be- —
“tween: 1967 and 1973, the poverty rate for persons in families with a female head
increased under: all three relative measures during this period. (Table 30)
’ Between’ 1973 arid: 1974, however, tHe poverty rate for persons in families headed
we a woman decreased under these. measures. ‘This pattern of a rising poverty rate ..
{ to 1973 followed by a dtOp was even soa aera for families receiving public
_‘ assistance under the’ relative measures. .In fact, for all: poverty definitions,
“| jthe decline in the poverty rate from’ 1973 to. 1974 was very strong for families
' rec@iving public assistance. (Table 31)’ he oye oe ee rere
'-¥-; “In-contrast to the relative measures, under the fixed measures: thé paver ty”
' rate for persons in families with a ‘female head @ither, showed,a slight decrease
—-’* -bpetweeri-1967 and 1974, or else the char§e was n&t statistically significant.’ -—
Under the’low single-dollar chtoff,-there-was a..sharp decrease in the poverty
tatg for persons in families with a female head between 1967 and 1974. oa
: . ; 3 : . % . na. A 7 ee — :
Persons in families with a female head represented an increasing proportion -
of,all poverty persons under -each measure between 1967: and 1974. While growing
' 02 from 9 to 11 percent of the general population, this group rose from 25 percent
Of the poverty populatiori under: ‘the current measure in 1967 to 35 per¢ent in
_- 1974.. (Figure 9) "Gains of.5 to 10 percentage. points were made under the alter-
' mative measures. Families receiving public assistance experienced an ever larger
growth over the. period, from 4 percent to 8 percent of all families and from 21 _
percent to 40 percent of poor families under the current measure. ' (Figure 10).
School-Aged Children and Blacks
_ ee | on
constant propostion of. © ~
fween 1967 and 1974 ,
-, School-aged children and blacks remained a fairl
: ‘the low-income population under all the alternatives
-, «:(Bables 32 and 33) while ¥, iliés with'earnings have become a*declihing pro- . |
portion: of the’ poor-undef @H definitions since 1967. le 34; Figure 11)
.In both 1967 and 1974 they represented the lowest propdrtidn: of tHe poor under,
“the low single-dollar cutoff and the highest proportion under’ the 200 percent —
alternative. Unrelated. individuals have become an inéreasing proportion of
_ the low-income population,urder'all alternatives with the exception of the
“75 percent measure. ,The increase was sharpest -for the two single-dollar cut-
. offs. ‘(Table 35)" ee we te OR Ce Oe ae pee og
Although there were changes in the composition of the poor in terms. of the
- elderly. and persons in families with a female. head between 1967 and 1974, the
, finding ‘from the 1974 data that even at the 200 percent,level these two groups _
- as well.as blacks were overrepresentéd among’ the poor held true for other years.
hg . r : .
4... ‘The regularity of the increase in the number of poor persons observed for
” the.1974 data as+the current poverty, threshalds: are raised successively to the
200: percent level was also’ observed for the 1973 data ~~i.e., for each increase
of 5 percent in the current poverty matrix, an additional 2 million persons were -
‘counted as Nor . The increase in the poverty count for the 1969 an@1971 data
4
22
bet a 7 ; fo : vo + . é
, A wee a : 4 C
‘<)
ERIC
a ae — . . .
be ee “ae 4 e : i y
vaveraged about .2.4. million for each 5 percent increase in the poverty cutoff and .
in. 1967 the increase. averaged about: 2.6 million\ For all years, the increase in
{ the poverty colint was shightly highes for the 150-200 percent interval than for
the other intervals; (Tables .36;. 3%) ° } os
\ Summarg . ah
‘The subgroups that deviated most from the general pattern noted for the
_. total, population of declinirig poverty rates under the fixed measures and fairly
constant poverty rates.under the es vith a fenale. between 1967 and 1974 were
’ is
the elderly and persons ‘in: families with a female head. The poverty rate for
~ the elderly declined under the relative Measures as well as under the fixed,
im, Measures during the 1967 to 1974 period. while the poverty rate ‘for persons ine iets
'"\+ families with a female head reniained ‘fairly constant under the “fixed measures.” “+ 2
.» between 1967: and 1974, ‘but showed.an incyease under, the, nelative measures be-
tween 1967 and 1973/and ‘then a drop betwedn 1973 and’ 194g OE a
ae ae e :
For some of ‘th Subgroups such 40, blacks’and unrelated indlividua§s, Qov-
erty rates.do not 4 O w “the We general S as. “thé: 1 POP ee
ulation; in fact in e ifstances it is difficult to pinpoint a pattern. Tiiése,
“Groups , however, comprise relatively small proportions of the total’ population r]
and consequently small-changes over time are difficult to measure. from sample
‘gurvey results. © - : ar,
t
| . In-general, there are two differences in the trends. for Subgroups compared to
-- tthe overall trends for the general population. The poverty rates under the rela-
"tive measures were not as stable and constant: for the subgroups over the period, —
“ glthough the difference was not consistent among the subgroups. Both upward and. -
downward trends were observed in addition to greater variability in both diréc-
tiong from one year to the next. The greater variability observed for the sub- ¥ ~
'- groups may Tiot actually ‘mean thatthe im distribution of-subgroups is ©; =»,
net a& stable as the distribution for the population as a whole, but rather’ '
that we’ have “a harder ‘timé measuring.the distribution for subgroups over time ~
. because of the small sample size of some of the groups. Also, these differences
‘may reflect’ changes in the composition of. the population as a-whole. .A;second
difference was that the poverty rates of the subgroups at successively higher
» Jevels.of the current thresholds, especially 200 percent of the current measure,
-did-not exactly mirror the pattern over time of the poverty rates with the
current measure. =.” _ - - 7 4
aaa a ;
a”
a
ry
_«.# Although .some..cather large changes in poverty rates and in the conipdsition | :
_ ‘of the poor occurred over ‘thé eight-year ‘period’, the differences between any two”
_ adjacent years were not large. Furthermore, the same groups were overrepresenteg
among the poor in 1974 as in 1967. aoe, _ / ee
: ; , : f : as ~ . : ‘
a’ Vd a . a : : : a 3 mm) ; ra
a
a
‘ ac : ot ‘ . ‘ ,
o 7 ‘ ” e.. . ‘eet ‘ 1, ote ete” “ ”
a: * + Y < . : :
. Be = . . 3 “ '
‘ os a -°
a. f- a ad 2 . : : a a a too: ge hic a *
s bs ‘ : . 4 < ar ot ‘eo
(
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF POVERTY
The preceding sections have dealt with the ,impact of the thirteen poverty
definitions at the national level, based on tabu¥ations from the March Current »
~*- Population Surveys. «Although the CPS ig geographically representative, ‘the
sample size of about 47,000 households is not large. #nough to yield statistically
_--. geliable estimates of the number of poor at the state level; chis point has been
- further ‘elaborated in Chapter III of ope -Measure of Poverty: Therefore, in Order *.
* to investigate the impact of the definitions on the geographic distribution of .*.
./ the poor, it was necessary: to use the. One Percent Sample.of the. 1970 Census of: t:
Population, which contains over 6 milliop, households. This section discusses °
‘data, for the poverty population by ‘states: in. 1969, nae 2 a ; ,
ee Ray ar a tee oS 7% eg
“Differences Between CPS and Decennial ‘Census Statistics," 0.
¥ : . . a” 3
for that year from the Current’ lation Survey of March. 1970 despite the fact
_, that the same bagic concept was u in both instances. In general, the number -
_ of persohs and ilies below*thé poverty level reported in the cansus is higher.
than that reported in the Current Population Survey. The number of poor persgns
if the 1970 census was 27.1 million compared to 24.1 million derived from the
“March 1970 Current Population Survey. The comparable. figures for low-income
| families were 5.5 million and 5.0 million, respectively, | -
i “tg Statistics on-income in, ion collected in the 1970 census differ from data
_ 4 Tere are several reasons for these differences. ,In the first place, the
"| small group. of Current ,Population Survey interviewers was more experienced, and *’.
had more intensive training and supervision than the large number of tempotary’
census’ enumerators and may have more often obtained more accurate answers from
respondents. Furthermore,, approximately 60 percent of the households were self- —
_ enumeratéd in the 1970 census. Moreover, income data in the Current Population
.. Survey-are based.on responses to separate questions:on eight types of income, as
well as responses to additional yes=no circles within three of these questions,
‘whereas in the census six questions were used. In addition, college students are
generally enuniérated at their own homes-in the Current Population Survey and
1... Classified as family members, but were enumerated at their college residence in:
the census, usually as secondary individuals. * . . 7 '
: Changes a of Poverty Population = i
Concerm about the geographic distribution of poverty arises from the manner
in which funds are distributed under Title I of the Elementary and. Secondary Ed- * |
‘ucation Act.” The formula allocates available funds according to the number of
.. school-aged children in families with incomes below the appropriate poverty cut~ +
offs. Thus, the relevant criterion is a state's share of the pool of eligible
_children (i.e., of the national count of poor, school-aged children). Therefore,
ry, the analysis in this section is concerned with changes in the share of the total’ .
poverty popu¥ation from the share‘existing under.,the current, official poverty ~
measure. . Tables 38 to 41 show the distribution of poor persons and children by
state for the alterhative measures, of poverty, as,well as the poverty, rates for
of
these groups under the alternative measures. F
4
37 ‘
24. a
“XN.
Q-
ERIC
a 4 me . : ‘
Figure 12"illustrates the changes. in the share of poverty for each region
under the alternative poverty definitions. In each case, the bar onthe graph
relative to its share under the current: defikition, As an aid in comparing
' effects, we introduce the notion,of a share ratio, defined as a region's per-
- eantage of the nation's poor population resulting from an alternative measure .
' Aivided by its percentage resulting from the current definition. (Both percent~
esents the region's share of the me detlgicion, he under each definition —
6 are based.on the same year’, 1969.) A ratio of 1.0 indicates that a region's .
are ip unchanged by the alternative measure; a ratio smaller ‘than 1.0 indicates 9“
> @ decr share. For example, the’ Northeast contains .17.9 .petcent of the 27.4°
‘million poor persons ‘in the United States under the current definition: in 1969;
raising the current, poverty thresholds by .25.percent results in a poverty popula-
' tion of 37.5 million persons, of which 18.4 percent ‘reside in the Northeast.
. Therefore, the share ratio for the Northeast under the upward scaling of the cur=
‘rent measure by 25 percent is 1.03: (18.4/17.9).
,
Several broad, regional patterns emerge £rom Figure 12. The South's share of
' poor persons generally decreases, Or remains unchanged, for every alternative pov-’.
erty measure, with the exception of 75 percent of the current measure. In this
-, gitudtion,, the South's share’ increases slightly. Conversely, the other regions
generally increase their share of the poverty population..
These regional changes, for the most part, are rot largé. - Significant
changes’ (5 permpent or More) from the share of poverty under the current ‘measure
- gecur only wheh the current official poverty matrix is raised by 50 percent or
100’ percent or when the single-dollar thresholds are used. The progressive ‘sir
ions of the current official measure have a negligible im@act on the re-
‘gional distributions.of poverty. Both single-dollar ‘thresholds: reduce the South's = --
,, Share of poor persons. by 9.percent, increase the North Central's by 9 percent, and
_. increase the West's and the Northeast's by about 6 to 7 percent. . Raising the cur-
rent official poverty matrix by 100 percent decreases the South's share by 13 per-
' cent, increases the Northeast's and North Central's shares by 12 to 13 percent,
-. and increases the West's share by 6 percent. =
mn _. . These broad regional patterns obscure some. differences at the state level. -
Por example, by using 75 percent. of the current measure, Mississippi and the
ner
* @oes the South as a whole, while Delaware, Oklahoma, and Texas decrease their |
District of Columbia increase their share of the poverty population more than .
_ shares... Not all Southern States consistently reduce their share of the poverty -
* population for the other’ 1] alternative poverty measures, aS does the South as
“a whole.’
Several alternatives increase the positions of Florida, Maryland, Oklahoma,
“sand Virginia, although usually only slightly. Several Southern States have
“" greater losses than does’the South as a whole. Three states in the North Central
region experience a significant loss (i.e., larger than 5 percent of their pre-
sent share of the national poverty population): North Dakota under both the |
$3200 single-dollar cutoff and 75 percent of the current measure, and Iowa and
Minnesota under 75: percent of: the current measure. Other states in this region -
experience slight losses for some alternatives, .and the pattern of significant
“gains varies among the states for the different alternatives. All Northeastern
O-
ERIC
25.
38 ar
°
States with the exception of Rhode Island and Connecticut experience ‘significant
losses at 75 percent of the current measure. Rhode Island is the only exception ~
to the general rise in the share of the poor in the Northeast States under the
frher altegnatives; its share is reduced consistently,: although significantly
only once. New York does not exhibit a significant gain or loss in its share
of .the poor ‘under any alternative studied with the exception of the 75 percent
measure. A mixed pattern.is observed among the states in the Western region,
with more states experiencing a relative decline in their share of poverty than
_in the Northeast and North Central regions. However, few of these losses are
. “gighificant. New Mexico and Arizona are the most consistent losers under the
s. alternatives, and Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming the most consistent and signifi-
‘cant gainers in the West. Tables 42 and D-4 provide detail on the effect of
the alternative poverty measure on each state's share of the poor.
Similar patterns of regional changes are apparent for poor school-aged chil-
dren in Figure.13. In all regions except the West, the gains and losses ‘are
- génerally larger and more significant than in Figure 13. Two important differ-
ences, from the geographic distribution of poor persons just described can be
7 noted. First; with the two single-dollar thresholds, the South's share of poor
“ school-aged children does not significantly decrease. Also under these two pov- ~
“--erty measures, fewer North Central, Northeastern, and Western States experience
"an increase in their share of poor school-aged children than experience an in-
_ crease. in their share of all poor persons.
‘Second, the relative measures based on median indome, which have very little
impact on the geographic distribution of the total poverty population, do affect
the geographic distribution of poor school-aged children. Under these definitions
. Of poverty, the South's share of poor school-aged children declines relative
a
to its share under the current poverty measure. Many Southern States exper i-
ence significant losses; only the District of Columbia significantly increases
its share of.poor school-aged children with the unadjusted 50 percent of median
income, and only Delaware does so with the two adjusted relative measures.
(Tables 43, D-5) States in the North@ential, Northeast, and Western regions
generally increase their share of poor schfol-aged children under these relative
measures, frequently significantly. The relative measure defined &s 50 percent
-of the median ing@Mie of a nonfarm family of four with a male head and two chil-
| . dren (adjusted or family size and composition with the equivalence scale in the»
current poverty matrix) produces the largest regional differegces of these three
measures. Under this measure, the South's. share of poor school-aged children is
' reduced by 7 percent; the share in the North Central and Northeast regions is
increased by 10 percent and 8 percent, respectively. Only the West does not
vappreciably change its share under this measure.” ; a 3
_ «In addition to the regional patterns, it can be observed that the more
populated states as a group increase their share of poor persons more than other
states as the poverty lines are increased. When the poverty lines are set at
‘150 percent of the official threshoids, the national poverty rate is increased by
10.4 percentage points; however, over half of this increase is attributable to
‘low-income persons living in the eleven most populatef states. As a group, these
* "states contain 48 percent Of the poverty population nder the current poverty
i thresholds and 51 percent of the poverty population under the thresholds set at
150 percent of the current thresholds.
O-
ERIC
26
FOOTNOTES TO TECHNICAL PAPER XVIII ie
the Current Population Survey.
2. ‘See Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 102, "Characteristics
--@f the Population Below the Poverty Level: 1974," for more detail on the ,
‘limitations of the income data derived from the CPS. ‘
‘3. Table D-1 and Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 102,
‘ "Characteristics of the Population Below,the Poverty Level: 1974," Table 35.
4. See Chapter IV of The Measure of Poverty for more details on the
equivalence scales. :
1. See Chapter [II and Technical Paper IX for additional details on
5. It is. impossible to distinguish these measures on the graph in
Figures 5 and 6. Because of their similarity with, the current measure,
these measures were not included in'Tables 27 and 29 to 37.
elt Y a
. .
re
‘ : a
' ;
a
',
. »
= “*
a
V4
>»
i | |
4 | 5 ae a .
- F ™ ry .
a
27 ; 1
‘<)
ERIC
» f , : : * ~ of “ Pek:
‘Table le “Income Thresholds’ ‘at the Cietenk: ner Teel in 974: a Sex’ of
ee Size of : ous and. Numbeis of: Related Children voles 18 Years Ql4,. os
by Parm-Nonfarm Residence -
Bn Bene : a , Husber of related fhildren under 18 ydars old °
~“ S#ze of: family. unit ~~ : : 3 z
NONFARM
A pas
vg. oc. Mate Head
arson (unrelated indiv,.):
ndér 65 years.......seeeeeee a
5 years and WEF cee cceccees :
ersons:, .
ead. under OB yeata ecccocess
ead 65 years and over.......° : .
OFBONS, occ cele cee ce sec ecnes 3,870 |.. 3,996 $4,223
BISONS ve ecec ccc ssccrsocene 5,103 5,178 5,000 $5,252 :
BISONS oc 6 6060058 a6 80s 8% 8% 6,158 |- 6,232 | ° 6,032] ~ 5,88r $6,006 =
BPSONG ois s Sosa ore nis Se 95-0 ee. esses 7,063 73087 6,937 6,786! . 6,585; $6,686
C more personS.....essoceeee 8,896 |. 8,972 8,796, ‘8,645 | - 8B, 445 8,142 I". $8,068
' | Female Head / - > < : .
arson (unrelated indiv.): :
Ader 65 years. .ccssocscracee $2,458
5 years and over...scsececes 2,357 ‘ , .
arsons: : —
bad under 65 years.......... 3,072 $3,353 - . .
sad 65 years and over.,...:. 2,948. 3,353 . *.
PYSONS. ce cess saceeweceseeees 3,745 | 3,568} ..$3,946
PTSONS Sc. cere ccccaccccccces 4,900 5,075 | | 5,053 $5,000 | - .
IPNDNE: (aye beesstasasaenanve: | 5,881 6,058 6,032 | 5,982 | $5,781 I
SESONB cou code u'eg wedeaescans "6,862 6,987 | ~ 6 "937, 6,886 6,660 $6,457 F
r more PEFSONS.....s0ee eee i a 8,746 |- 8,720} . 8,645 | 8,419 8,244 $7,841
Pan | os
Male Head
2rson (unrelated indiv,): ,
ader 65 years...ec.ceceeseee Sea 8
3 years: and OVEr....ccseeeee - 2,030 :
?rgons: a ¢;
rad under 65 YEArS...ceeceee "2,8 . $3, 165 +
rad 65 years and over......: 2,5 3,165 &
ITSONS. cee eccecce access se 3,29 3,397 $3,590 .
WPBONS sees eeveciadseeccesses | 4,33 4,402] . 4,249] $4,465
SPSONS ose wecsccccncccccencce 5,23 5,298}. 5,127 4,998 45,106
PPSONS. cece cscs cecegeeteeces 6,003 6,024 : 5,897 5,768 5,597 $5,683
s more persons....c.seeeeee. | © 7,562 =. ,627 7,477 | 7,348; 7 "Ba ) 6 1921 $6,858
: Ys
-Female Head os a ee
trson (unrelated indiv.): '
ider 65 yearS....c.eeeseeeee 32,089
d years and over....-sseeeee 2,002
irsons: : .
rad under 65 years,.....+... 2,611
vad 65 years and over....... 2,506
IPSONS ccc ccsccseesdceteedees 3,183 oS
EE SONG oe 5 os ieitsig:a/9: aie iss ies Sia eteis 4,165 ‘
IPBONS ws seccssactecscccecees aa
TYSONS. ceccsscscccsesecsace
* MOTE pe€rsonsS....-cessceceas
e@
ERIC
@- sae a nu | . zane ae , =
Table 2. ‘Bauitahente Matrix x Implicit in Current preety: Measure
’ 7/7,
‘ 4 -
err of — @hildren Under 1 “Years”
Size of Family Unit | es eae ‘None 17 | 6 Or
e FeF5 no a : ae poet _ more
~-NONFARM ae f Pe a -_
. Male Head . a * 7
. Ww
'1. person (unrelated . individual ):
Under 65 years . — 2» 98
65 years and over 5 48
2 ‘persons: . . °
Head un unger 65 years . ‘67 ~|°=~+74
Head 65 Yeats and over 60 74
3 peteons® a : 77.80 84 ©
44 pezsons “ | - , 102 104 100 105
| 5° persons — A 123) 12s 121 118° 120
6 persons ga 142-139-136 132134 :
7. persons or more _ #178 «179 «176 173 169° «163161.
Female: Head — q 3 ; oc ; ” . = : : : as ‘ 1, ;
1 person (unrelated individual): 7 : eae a
Under 65 years 49 .
65 years | and over: a 47 —
| 3 eatcans: a , : . a a: -
’ Head under 65 years — 61° ~=—«67 ete
Head 65 ‘years and over: 59 67 o
3 persons 2 0 5 71 79
4 persons | a i y phd, “hy 98 102 101 100 |
5. persons 47g) ole az 120 te +
6 persons 137. 140 139 138 -133 eo | a:
7 persons or more’ > . 172 175 174 173° 168. 168 167
en ,
29 ; ; ‘
| . oe _ Table 2. Continued i
oe ae = , ’ NuNBer of Related Children Under 16 Years
- + + Size of Family Unit | None I 2 3—lC~« 5 6 or
om \ a more
ge ae : . “4
3 2
Male Head .
2 person fugcerated. “individual ): ; *
' -’ Under..65 years . 45
65 years and over eA Sal as
‘2 persons: —_, et
..’ Head under. 65 years — ame 57 63 os :
' Head 65 years.and over. | - | Sle 63 : lf
“5 persons ; : e? 66 68 © 72°. a
4 persons tS 87 88. 85 BD:
5 persons 105-106 103 100 = 102
ye te AD ag? ho ie @ 4
6 persons. se 120. 120 :118°115°..212 114,
oe | persons or more oe o8 - 151. 153° 150 147 (144 138. 137
Feniale Head | : ~
1- person (unrelated individual ):
.. + Under 65 years rn 7
, 65 years’ and over. ; 40
; f
p82 persons
Head under 65 years ‘52 57
Head .65 years and over 50 57
3. persons | & _ . 64 61 67 © |
_ “4 persons «| et 83. 86 86 8 -
5 persons s — 100 103 103102. 98
6 persons ; 117 119 118°117.. 113110 b.
7 persons or.more _ 147 149 148 1479 143) «140133
i eg 4
; 43° « wey
30 \
‘<)
ERIC
. ’ oa : Table 3.
aa
Race, Spanish Ori
gin, and Family Status, of Persons ‘by
Poverty Status in 1974 (Persons as of March 1975).
“Above _
f 1 ae — current
3% All” Below current poverty level poverty —
ie a f _ income oe es Level’
‘Characteristic levels Total Poverty... Percent Percent
{ thousands) (thousands) ‘rate . distribution distributio
RACE AND SPANISH ORIGIN © . .
- Mota 209,343,” 24,260 11.6. 100.0 .. 100.0
Spanish origin 11,202 2,601 23.2 10.7 4.6
white’ wt 182,355 16,310 8.9 67.2 - 89.7
Black oe ao 23,704 ° 7,455 31.5 _30,7 . 8.8
Other kaces 4 3,284 495 15.1. 20 6s) Te8
‘FAMILY STATUS, ae ‘
" motal 209, 343 (24,260 «11.6 100.0 100.0
65 years and over 21,127 3,308 15.7 13.6 9.6
‘In families 190,471 19,440 10.2 80.1 92.4
Head _ 55,712 5,109 9.2 21.1 27.3
“Related children under Pius Wi
18 years . 653802 *= 10,196. °15.5 42.0 30.0
5 to 17 years 49,800 7,526 * .». 15.21 31.0 22.8°:
Other family members 68,957 4,135 * 6.0 17.0 . 35.0
‘Unrelated individuals: 18,872 ° 4,820 25.5 19.9. - 7.6
Aisa Persons of Spanish origin may be of any race, but. the vast majority are white.
SOURCE: Special tabulations’ by the Census Bureau from the, March 1975 Current Population .
Survey. ; ; ; a -
a
y
a
~ ’ ‘
Le a 2705 os .
: % 7 ‘ > : * and
\
31 : _ ;
re)
ERIC
By. $ : cae 7 : seh tte
Pd Bis
Table 4.
‘ aoe Sat er es eS ee ea Persons as of March 1975)
a ge 2a Fanily Status and sex and race * ALL Below current poverty. Teel
i oe of head “ . >. income ; bi, -~ . Poverty
” levels ‘ Total rate —
: Total tT 209, 343 24,260 11.6
soa, . In families . 190,471 <19, 440° 10.2
ee With female head 23, 245° 8,563 ' 36.8
Head 7,242 2,351 32.5
Related children. meee years. 10,458 .. | 5,387 ~ 51.5
, With male head _ 167,227 "10,877 . 6.5
: Head . - 48, 470% 2,757 5.7
.Related children unber 18 years. 55,345 4,809 8.7
Unrelated individuals 18.,872 4,820 25.53
7 Male” ; a a ; 7,890 ; 1,607 20.4 NY
oe co. Ag 65 years ana’ over "77,455 "390 26.8
nee ; : » Female ' _ 10,981 3,212 29.3
Bg 65 years and over 5,047 . - 1,675 33.2
: WHITE
- Total 182,355 16,310 8.9
- In families 166,103 12,537 7.5
| With female head ‘a 15,458 4,275 . 2747
or Head 5,212 — 1,297 924.9
es Related children under 18 ‘years. 6,278 2,671 4236
. With male head . , 150,645 "8,262 5.5-
Head oo i 44,238 2,185 4.9
.. Related children under 18 years. 49,038 ~~ 3,508 7.2
Unrelated individuals : 16,252 ‘ 3,773 23.2 ;
Male . oe , 6,544 - 1,200 18.3
65 years and over 1,233 : 292 23.7
Female. 9,708 2,573 26.5
65 years and over : 4,641 1,405 30.3
BLACK so :
: Total 23,704 7,455 31.5 .
In families 5 21,356 6,494 30.4
With female head 4 17523 4,194 155.7
Head "1,940 1,024 52.8
Related children under 18 Years: 4,095 2,678 65.4
With male head 13,833 2,300 16.6
Head 3,558 506 14.2
. Related children under 18 years. 5,293 | 1,146 21.7
Unrelated individuals . 2,347 961 41.0
Male .- 1,171 ae 351 29.9 ;
: 65 years and over 195 ~ 86 44.30 23
Female 1,176 611 51.0 "":
65 years and over _ 381 262 68.8 2:
a
. = eg ' : : . i .
Spécial tabulations by the Census Bureau from the March 1975 Current
"(= SOURCE:
~~ Population Survey.
e
re)
ERIC
t
Poverty Status of Persons in 1974 by Race, Family. Status,
ee
re)
ERIC
‘ wae _ > Table 5. ramilies by Sex of Head, Presence: of Related enlace
_ Under 18 Years, and Poverty Status in 1974 >..
a ae (Families as of March 1975)
, y co Above
All .curvent pov-
‘Children under 18 yedrs. (thousands) _ (thousands) rate. distribution. distribution
All families 55,712 5,109 -—s«9 100.0 - 100.0
- With children under e oan * 2 bas a
18 years . *31,331 3,875. «© (12.4 © 75.8 54.3
No children under nA ca
18 years . 24,381 1,234 5.1 "24.2. - 45.7,
Male head - 8,470. "2,757 5.7. 54.0 90.3
With children under eo Zz ;
18 years, . 26,409 oy, 716 | * 6.5 33.6 ° , 48.8
No children under eee = _ a
, 18 years - 22,061 1,041 - 4.7 20.4 41.5
wmale head’ . ° .; “t242° ° (2,381 32.5 46.0> 9.7
With children under ne
18 years 4,922 2,158 43.8 - 42.2 5.5.
_ No Children -ynder Te ¢ ;
_ 18 years a 2,320 : 193 8.3 ' 3.8 4.2
SOURCE: Current Population Reports, Ser iés P-60, No. 102, Table 21. - :
, i . = ( t ark
a
: Sex: of head apd * “3 income .- Below current povert , level . erty level
presence . of related ' levels - Total ‘Poverty Percent Percent
t
ie : te * Neagy . ic ~f : : Be at =
‘e . ‘ wy oa "ve
“~ Mable 6. Persons 65 Years and Over & Family Status an Poverty Status -in- 1974 apt
"| (Numbers in aaa il Persons as of March 1975) _~
~~.
Below current poverty level
vt = _ _ Percent ~ j - Percent
Feidly status ; «0+. digtri- i Poverty ;distri- —
eS : Number’ bution Number ~ rate *:**. bytion _
Persong, 65 years and over “27,127. ° 100.0°" 3,308 © 15.7. * 100.0°-
: i out : . ; Ba” OS
is All fanily n nenbers ae 14,625 69.2. 1,243 8.5: 37.6
- Head. P . 8,034 - 38.0 © 760 9.5 23.0,
= Wife . 4,589 21.7 382 8.3 11.5
Other relative’ 2,002 9.5 101 5.0 3.1
ae ‘Of head under 65 years 1,498 J.1 ~" 65 - 4.3 . 2.0.
.° Unrelated individuals 6,502 - 30.8 2,065 31.8 62.4
Male. ‘ : 1,455 6.9 , 390 26.8 “11.8
, Female : 5,047 23.9 1,675 33.2. 50.6 |
-". Biving alone ee oy aie" 2.3 1,544 32.7 7 46.7
Male family member s 74367 100.0 6438.8 100.0 -
‘head re "6, 95.3 616 8.9 95.8
‘Other relative » = 342. 4,7 °27.: 7.9 4.2.
Of head under 65 years ae . 228 3.1, 13 5.7 . 2.0
_ Female family members a 7,357 100.0 . 600 8.2 100.0
Head ‘ rs 1,108 15.1 144 ++13.0 24.0
Wife of head 2 ot 4,589 62.4 382 8.3. 63.7
' Other relative - “4 .1,660° 22.6 74 4.5. ‘12.3
Qf head under 65 years 1,270 17.3 52 ~ 4.2 - 8.7.
‘SOURCE: Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 102, Table:G.
: : 4 re oe j
ar
£
>
,
—
I)
¢
wo,
—
@
ERIC
Work experience and. levels “ To Poverty x Percent Percent
sex of head « (thousands ) (thousands rate distribution distribution
» ,,ALl families - . 55,712 5,109 ~ 9.2 100.0 100.0
Head worked in 1974 45,146 2,691 6.0 52.7 83.9
- Year round full time 34,195 + 980 2.9 19.2 65.6
Head did not work in 1974 9,639 / 2,390 ~ 24.8 46.8 14,3
In armed Forces *. 927 + 27 - 2.9 0.5 ' , 1-8
Male head : 48,470. 2,757 5.7" - 100.0 © 100.0
Head worked in “1974 40,820 W745 | 4.3, _ 63.3 ' 85.5.
., Year round full time 31,836 785. 2.5 28.5 67.9
Head did -not work in 1974 6,723 . ‘ 986 14.7 35.8 12.6
In Armed Forces-* ie 927 me 2h 2.9 1.0. 2.0
Female head. . 7,242 - . 2,351 32.5 100.0 100.0
Head worked in 1974 + 4,326 947 21.9 ,- 40.3 69.1
. Year round full time _ ' 2,359 195 . 8.3 ¢ _ 8.3. | 44.2.
48.2 . 59.8 30.9:
Head did not work in 1974 2,916 1,405
3 - ; - able 7. Work Exper ience of Family Heads by Poverty status
in 1974 and Sex of Head
(Familtes as of March 1975)”
’ income —
SOURCE: Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 102, Table 27.
Woke x : ‘ a Fn
¢ t.
; es
*.
2
" . we 5
ae | 7 ne,
35
e@
ERIC
3
Table 8. " Distr ibution of Families and Unrelated Individuals by | of Income, ”
ve Ss | ‘Poverty Status and Sex of Head in 1974
He 2 7 ge Pras la ds of March 1975)
. FAMILIES re a nr)
¥. Total (thougands) 5,109 2,957 2,351 / 50,603 45,713. 4,891"
’ Pércept 2/ ; 109.0. °° 100.0 : ° 100.0 4. 100.0 100.0 . 100. 0.
barnitae:. = * “ee "92,3 S02 01.6 °° '92,0 ° "87.8
~ Incotte other than earnings: - ' é
Public Assistance Income 40.0 20.7 62.7 4.6 3.1. 18.5
, Social Security Income © 23.9 © 30.0 . 16.7 21.6 19.5 41.8
Other Transfer Income b/ ~° 10.0 14.1 . 543. ,. 19.3 - 19.3 19.8
_ Other Unearned Income CS : 22.2 23.4 = 20.8 56.9 57.1 - 55.3
| UNRELATED. INDIVIDUALS, . a re
Total (thousands) 4,820 1,607 3,212 14,052 . 6,283 7,769"
Percent a/ * -100.0 100.0" ° /100.0 . 100.0 100.0 100.0 |
“paxttinas, . 35.1 50.8 i "2.2 70.6 84.3 59.5...
Income other than earnings: . ‘ we
Public Assistance Income °21.6.: © 17.1 © 23.8 °° 4.4 | 3.1 :. 5.4 °
Social Security Income “44.5 29.1 | 52.3 34.4 19.4 46.67
Other Transfer Income.b/. |. 7.4 . 8.9 6.7 . 15.9 17.5. 14.5
’ Other Unearned Income cf 27.3 .20.4-' © 30.8. 53.5 44:8 », 60.4
income specified.
b/ Unemployment and workmen's compen tion, government employee pensions, le
. payments.
-of Private pensions, annuities, regula contr ibut ions from baal outside the
a _ household, etc.. /
-a/. Detail does ‘not add to SS some families have More than one of the types of
SOURCE: Current Population Reports, Seried 102, Tables 38 and 49.
> e Ao . ae
36
‘<)
ERIC
. ~§ . , . ene
. r ve"
ae Ae et. ne . . = &
ade Table 9. selected Gumi ofthe Population Below and Above
oe, > the Current Poverty Level ‘in 1974 by Race :
(Persons and families ‘as of March 1975) © .. (:
“ otal persons (thousands) 24,260 16,310 7,455 «185,083. 166, 045 - 16, 249
Percent who are: ; - cine
isan ‘members 80.1 76.8 87.1 92.40: : 92. 5° 91.5
, Percent who are: ae
tie _in families with a ge = ee
female head 44.0 34.2 64.3 8.6 ° 7.3 . 22.1
“Related children under ar ere : 3 ie :
18 years 52.4 49.4 . 58.7 32.5 . 32.0 37.2 ©
Unrelated individuals ‘3. 19.9 23.2 12.9 7.6 7.5 °8.5
65 years and over *, 13.6 16.2 8.4 . 966 © 10.05 © 6.7
Percent who are: es tes
Unrelated individuals 62.4, 64.2 55.8 . 2439 - 25,2 20.8
P Female . 68.8 69.8 66.6 —— «56.8 57232. , 52.7
= we
. Total families (thousands) ° 5,109. 3,482 1,530° 50,603 45,969 3,968
Percent with: _ fe 5
. Head who worked at some Fi :
_ time in 1974 - 52.7 55.6 46.5 83.9 - 84.0 82.7
, Income from earnings | 62.1 63.0 59.6. 91.6 91.4 © 92.5
‘ i
—= z ‘a 7 ~ & ’ : .
SOURCE: Current Population Reports, Series P-60,4No. 102, Tables 6, 8, 39, and D.
‘<)
ERIC
as
iS
Poverty measure .
we ‘Current poverty level
Scaling of. the current covecty level:
‘DS percent of current level - Po
_ 125"percent of current level
“ 150 percent of current. level
200. percent. of current level
Simplification of the current poverty level:
Nonfarm
Male nonfarm
_- Weighted male nonfarm
Single-dollar cutoffs: -
High ($5,038) my
Low ($3200)
‘Relative cutoffs:
50 percent U.S. median unadjusted
50 percent U.S. family median.adjusted
50 percent 4-person family median adjusted
. 2 ‘Table 10. Persons Below the Curren
the. 4, _ Alternative Poverty
(Persons . as of March’ neh),
- Poverty Level and 12
1
s in 1974
r j
‘specified ,
poverty level Poverty rate
-(thousands ; =
24,260 11.6
(14,538 © - 6.9.
34,615 16.5
45,211 21.6
69,389 _ 33.1
24,5342. 0) LT
25,146 - ~ © 12.0
25,060 12.0 |
32,653 ©. .15.6 ~
17,392 + 83
_ 36,400 _f 17.4
36,148 . - wy “Tas”
41,167, - 19.7
. / . es ‘ ;
\
; "SOURCE: Special tabulations by the Census Bureau from the March 1975 Current —
Population Survey.
51
38
‘<)
ERIC
.
“Cline ,
6e
+ ae total
&
pe ; 4
{ Other Taces,
a/ Includes only telated chiltcen,
b/ Includes a small’ nunber of heads, wives, and unrelated individuals 14- “17 years of age,
é e
SOURCE: Special tabulations by the Census Bureau fron the March 1975 Current Population Survey,
Table Il, nber and Poverty Rate ~ Seletad Caractersties of Prams Below te Curent
Per] Level ani Belov toe Oar Salig ofthe Curent Port Lee in 17
Qers in thowans, Pers a of exch 1985)
Number below specify mt eve Povert tate
All Current a Corre
incone poverty
Character istic
12
"10
200
ar 13
150
200
levels level __percent percent percent level percent percent “percent _
«+ LIVING ARRANGEMENTS
ear tome
Total * 209,343
Infanilies =. = 190,471
With male head - 167,227
With female head =, 23,245,
° Untelated individuals 18,872
Related children
under 18 years 65,802
In families with
nale head 55,345
In families with
female head 10,458
AGE
total 209,343
Under 5 years 16,002
9 to'l7 years a/ 49,800
1 to 64 years b/ 122,414
65 years and over 21,127
"RACE
209,343"
182,355
23,704
4,284
24,260
19,440
10,871
8,563
4,820
10,196
4,809
5,387
4260 *
2,670
7,526
10,756
3,308
24,260
16,310
7,455
495°
M65
27,783
17,085
10,69
6,632
13,784
1,20.
6,544
44,615
4360
10,137
15,357
5a
f
44,615
24,06)
9,41
113
45, 1
16,928
24,896
12,332
| 0,284
17,57
10,28
45,211
4,686
112,891.
0,216 32,
7,418. 10,
4,211
32,669
11,669
853
69,389
59,055
4417
14,938 -
10,333
16,517.
18,113
8,403
69,889
533,336
14,780
1,273
“i
4
1.6
6,9
415
15,1
15.
16
10,2
6.0
16.2
20.9
“11
62.6
165
28
20.4
12,5
23,9
16,5
13,2
415
al.
‘gable 12. Percent ‘Distribution — Selected Characteristics of Persons.
_ Below the Current Poverty Level and Below Three Upward Scalings of
the Current Poverty Level in 1974
“” ~~ (Persons.as of March 1975)
oe oe urren a
‘ Character istic Pe income poverty 125 150 200 Sx,
: — lévels —_—s level percent’ percent _percent_ _
- .Botal persons (tholsands). "+ 999,343 «24,2602 *s«34,615 45,211 69,389
Percent. “ - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
‘» In families 91.0 80.1 80.3 -. 81.7 85.1
a Uirelated individuals. es 90 .- 19.9 19.7 18.3 14.9
In families (thousands) 190,471 © 19, 440<- 27,783 36,928 59,055
Percent. . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 — 100.0 * 100,0
_. In families with male head 87.8 56.0 ‘61.5 - 66.6 » 74.7
' In families with female head . 12.2 44.0 38.5 33.4 25.3
Related children (thousands) 65,802 10,196 13,784 | 17,577. «26,517
Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 . 100.0 100.0
In families with male head 84.1 47.2, — $2.5 58.3 . 68.3
In families with female head 15.9 52.8 - 47.5 41.7 31.7
’ Total (thousands), - 209 , 343 24,260 34,615 45,211 _ 69,389
: Percent 100.0° © 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0
Under 5 years. 7.6. 11.0 ~ 10.5 10.4 10.2
5 tol7 yearssa/ | 23.8 31.0 29.3 28.5: - 28.0
18 to 64 years b/ 58.5 ~ 44.3 44,4. 44.7 46.5
65 years and over 10.1 13.6 15.8 16.4 15.3.
- Total (thousands) 209 , 343 24,260 34,615 . 45,211 69,389
’ Percent : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
White _ 87.1 67.2 69.5 72.3 76.9
Black 11.3 > 30.7 © 28.4 25.8 21.3
Othdr races : 1.6 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.8
$$ ; SN ™
vi Includes only related children.
/ Eneludes a small number of heads, wives, and unrelated individuals 14-17 years of age.
SOURCE! Special tabulations by the Census Boreau from the March 1975 Current Population
re ‘Survey.
ce 8
40 -
a
yle 13. Number and Poverty Rate -- Selected Characteristics of Families Below the Current
Poverty Level and Below Three: Upward Scalings of the Current Poverty Level in 1974
(Numbers ss ieaienaialans Families as of March 1975) a
j N rt Ow S 1 ver eve. ; erty rate j
; “All . Current : surrent
tharacter istic income poverty 125 150 .° 200 . poverty 125 150 200
levels level percent percent percent. level .__percent__ percent __ percent ; ;
SEX OF HEAD
' Total 55,712 5,109 . 7,437 9,948 16,036 9.2 13.3 17.9 28.8
Male:head ' 48,470 2,757 4,483 6,502 11,731 5. 2s 9.2 13.4 24.2
Female head 7,242 2,351 2,953 3,446 4,306 32.5 40.8 47.6 59.5
RACE OF HEAD — .
_ ‘Total - §5,712 «5,109 7,437 9,948 16,038 .9.2 13.3 17.9 28.8
Nhite =: 49,451 3,482 5,236 7,297 12,565 7.0 10.6 14.8 25.4
Black ‘ 5,498 1,530 2,056 2,474 3,200 . 27.8 37.4 45,0 58.2
ther races 763 97 145 177 271 12.7 19.0 23.2 35.5
NGE OF HEAD _
Total 55,712 5,109 7,437 9,948 - 16,036 9.2 13.3 17.9 28.8
Under 25 years 4,225, 733 1,024 1,246 1,884 17.3 24.2 29.5 44.6
25 to 64 years 43,454. 3,616 5,063 6,722 10,835 = 8.3 11.7 15.5 24.9
65 years and over. 8,034 760 1,350 1,980 3,316 9.5 16.8 24.6 41.3
PRESENCE OF CHILDREN
3 , —
Total 55,712 5,109 7,437 9,948 16,036 9.2 13.3 17.9 28.8
No related children : an a
under 18 years 24,381 1,234 2,126 3,099 5,385 5.1 8.7 12.7 22.1
Nith related children
under 18 years 31,331 3,875 5,310. 6,848 10,651 12.4 16.9 21.9 34.0
Male head 26,409 1,716. 2,671 . 3,848 7,046 6.5 10.1 14.6 26.7
3.9 53.6 61.0° 73.3
Female head . 4,922 2,159 2,639 3,001 3,606 43.
re)
ERIC
ze
oe Mable 13, "Continued
ot
P
se. verty rate
. All urrent Current: ; —
Characteristic « income, poverty 125 150 200 = poverty «125s 150 200
. = ‘levels —_level__percent__percent__percent___level__ percent __percent__percent
Ag MILE Site | | _ 4 |
he re
Total 55,712. ;° 5,109 7,437: 9,948 = -:16, 036 9,2
2 persons = © 0,823 1,705 2,621 3,508" 5,829. 8,2 126 17.2 © 28.0-
3 and 4 persons 23,139 1,615 2,614 3,436 ' 5,549 oe 2
5 or more persons 11,750 =: 1,588: 2,202 2,923 4,658 13.5
WORK EXPERIENCE ; _ ge
total ” 55,712 5,109 ~—-7,437 «= «9,94B(16,036 «= 9.213179 28,8
Head worked Yast year 45,146 2,691 4,078 5,720 10,081 6.0 9,0 12.7 + ‘22,3
Year. round ;
full time 34,195 980 1,618 ,2,506 5,391 29 °° 47 WI 15.8
Head did not work | 43) : A
last: year 9,639 + 2,390 3,270 4,059 5,595 24.8 33.9 42,1 58.0
Head in Armed Forces 97 CT 89 = 169 360 2.9 9,5 18.2, 38.8
ee oe | oe? + ae
Total a/ 55,712 5,109 7,437 9,948, © 16,036: 9.23.3 N79 dai
parnings 49,529 3,172 4,835 = 6,768,777" 6.4 9B; NT #238
“Social Security . 12,162 1,220, 2,054 2,993 4,848. 10.0, 16.9 23 389,
Public Assistance 4,359 «2,043 «2,589 «2,979 «3,478 46,9 = 59.4 683798
Other transfer oe oe 3 Lg
incone b/ 10,296 =-513' 900 s«1,389,,.. 2,552 5.0 by 13.5) | 24.8
Dividends, interest, . :
and rent 27,23 68L sd, 773,793,952 SHS
Private pensions, ‘ oO .
alimony, etc. 6,581 547 610 «1,096 = 1,936 83) 13167 OO
a/ Detail will not add to total since some families have more than one of the types of incone specified.
b/ Includes unemployment and workmen's compensation, goverment employee pensions, and veterans’ payments,
SOURCE:, Special tabulations by the Census Bureau from the March 1975 Current Population Survey. .
ial
* . em 1 a
7 . , » ‘i
Table 14. Percent Distribution — Selected Characteristics of Families
Below thd Current Poverty Level and Below Three Upward Scalings of |
the Current Poverty Level in 1974 (Families as of March 1975)
vy . t
55,712 5,109 7,437 9,948 . 16,036
100.0: * 100.0 100.0° 100.0 100.0
87.0 $4.0 60.3 65.4 73.2
13.0 46.0 39.7 34.6 26.9
;
$5,722 . 5,109 7,437 9,948 16,036
% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
$8.8 °° 68.2 70.4 73.4 78.4
9.9 ° 29.9 27:6 26.9 20.0
1.4 1.9 1.9. 1.8 1.7
. 7
: 55,712 $,109Ss«=7,437—s«9, 948 16,036
Sia 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
7.6 146.3 13. 12:5 11.7
E.- 7.0 . 70.8 66.1 67.6 67.6
ay 144 16.9 10.2 19.9 20.7
a 55,712 5,109 7,437 9,948 1,036
o 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
i 43.8- 26.2 28.6 31.2 33.6
i. 56.2 73.8 71.4 a 66.4
ve 31,331 4es 5,210 6,848 10,651
° 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
66.300. 443 50.3 56.2 66.2
15.7 58.7 49.7 43.8 33.9
2 aN
1 $5,712 5,109’ 7,437 9,948 16,036 3
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 200.0
37.4 i 35.2 36.1 36.3
as 35.5 35.1 34:5 34.6
2.1 31.1 29.6 29.4 29.0
55,712 5,109 7,437 9,948 16,036
* 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0. 100.0
“aio $2.7 54.8 57.5 62.9
61.4 19.2 21:8 25.2 33.6
Bead did not work last year 17.3 46.8 4.0 40.8 34.9
; Head .in Armed Forces 7 0.5 Wy 4 Ra
Total (thousands) 55,712 5,109 7,7 9,948 16,036
78 ‘s s
: Percent a/ 1100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
$8.9 *- 62.1 65.0 63.0 73.4
Social Security | 21.8 23.9 27.6 29.7 30.2
Public assistance 3.8 40.0 34.8 29.9 21.7
Other transfer incane b/ 18.5 10.0 12.1 14.0 15.9
Dividends, interest, and cent 4.9. 13.3 15.8 17.9 24.6
.* Private pensions, aliaony, etc. 11.3 ~ 10.7 10.9 12.0 12.1
¥ Detail will not add to total since some families have more than one of the types of
income specified. A
by Includes unemployment and worknen's compensation, government exployee pensions, and
. veterans’ payments. — ’
a SOURCE: Special tabulations by the Census Bureau from the March 1975 Current
, : Population Survey.
ee |
a mblé 15, lanier atd Poverty Rate ‘~~ Selected Chatacteristice of Persons below the Cute.
‘gee | overty evel and Belov Simplifications of the urrent Poverty Level in 197
| | (Numbers in thousans, ue as of March 1975)
cat ong 0 citrent measure
’
All Current
i. es . q rent
a _ Characteristic Income poverty "Wale =omale = poverty Mle alk
, levels level Nonfarm nonfarn nonfacn level males nonfarm nonfarm
;
LIVING ARRANGEMENTS. |
= _ Total =. 209,343 24,260 24,594 25,146 25,060: ‘W6 M7 120 12,0 r
With male head 167,227. 10,877 1,29 1,829 12,296 65° 6700 67 68
With fenale head 23,245 8,563 8,566 8,990 8746 36.8 69 387 © 37.6
Unrelated individuals 18,072 4,820 4,039 5,026 5,0 5.5 (56 266 | 066
"—felated children _ 2 3 fas
ed TH years” $5,802 10196 10,294 10,837 10,8 IS 156 160
" Tn families with | as cr 2 os | ) si
wleted «== t«S, HS 4,008 GMB 5G TP BPM,
ae: In families with | : oo -
| a 4 fenale head. 10,458 1 5,307 5,630, 5,478 55 SS he) “
Age | |
Total 209,343 24,260 24,594 25,146 25,060 = L,6 7 120 12.0
Under 5 years 36,002 2,670 2,689» 2,742 2,732 167 6.6 11 Wl
ne ta 5 to 17 years a/ 49,800 752% 7,605 7,795 = (7,762 MSL 53° 17° 156
é 18 to 64 years b/ 122,414 10,756 10,886 11,28 11,280 #8 6 89) 92
65 years and over 21127 3,308 3,354 4,391 3,386. 5.7 15.9 “161 16,0
. ’ ee
ms | | )
Total 209,33 “24,260 4,534 | Blt 3, wo 11.6 7 12.0
White 182,355 16,310 16,550«" 16,934 16, 906° 89 aK} 93
Black. 23,704 7,455 7,490 (7,693 1638 ws WE & ; 32.2 .
other ees NEL EBT
Se
5g a/ Includes only related children, 4 a
b/ clas a saa] nunber of heads, wives, and uncelated individuals 14-17 years of age. why
SOURCE’ ei tabulations by the Census bureau from the March 1975 leet hatin Survey, an |
wir
: | “
: @ A
“ERIC
‘
Table 16, - Percent Distribution — Selected Characteristics of Persons Below
the Current Poverty Level and Below Simplifications of the Current a
Poverty Level in 1974
(Persons as of March 1975)
x, All Currest
Characteristic income poverty male
; levels level Nonfarm eee nonfarm
3 » EEVING ARRANGEMENTS.
: Total Bersons polenta) 209,343 24,260° 24,534 25,146 25,060
| erount* 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
- Xie) Eamil ies. 91.0 80.1 80.3 80.0 80.0
“Unrelated q Andividual s 9.0 ~ 19.9 19.7 20.0 20.0
th fomipies (thousands) x 190,471 19,440 19,695 20,119 20,042
yPercent ae 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 - 100.0
In fanillies-with male head - 87.8 56.0 56.5 55.3 56.4
In families with female head 12.2 * 44.0 43.5 44.7 43.6 °
Related, childret (cnoisanae) - 65,802 10,196 10,294 10,537 10,494
.. Percent * 100.0: 100.0 ~ 100.0 100.0 100,0
-dn familfes with male head 4.1 47.2 | 47.7 46.6 48
_ tn a with tesale head 15.9 52.8 52.3 53.4. 52.2
| = a3 , .
* e . .
“‘Tptal. \thqusands) 209,343 24,260 24,534 25,146 ~~ 25,060
a - Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 . 100.0
Under 5:years + 7.6 11.0 11.0 - © 10.9 10.9
‘5 to 17 years EG 23.8 31.0 31.0 “31.0 - 31.0
18*to 64 years’ b/ 58.5 44,3 44.4 44.6 44.6
65 years and over 10.1 13.6 43.7 13.5. 13.5.°
f : - ; z .
a |
Total : (thousands) . 209,343 24,260 24,534 25,146 © 25,060
\"-. Bercent 100.0 100.0 100.0 -° 100.0 —-:100.0
White: 87.1 | 67.2 67.5 67.3 - 67.5
Black 11.3 30.7 30.5 30.6 — 30.5
/Othér races 1.6 2.0 2.0 2.1 | 2.1.
oy ook % ae
ae a
* ncluges only related children. ,
y Nnglodes. a small number of heads, wives, and ans individuals 14-17 years of age.
ications 0 current measure
Weighted
SOURCE: "Special Tabulations by the Census Bureau from the March 1975 Current
Population Survey.
ERIC”
» 45
RI
¥ :
‘Table 17. Number and Poverty Rate —- Selected Characteristics of Families Below the Current
"Poverty Level and Below Simplifications of the Current Poverty’ Level in 1974
(Nunbers in thousands. Families as of March 1975) —
t below § rty leve rty rate.
7 cations of current measure cations of current measure
sg _ All’ Current Welgnted Current ‘ Weight,
Characteristic income poverty Male male’ poverty Male male 7
level Nonfarm nonfarm nonfarm
levels level Nonfarm nonfarm nonfarm
SEK OF HEAD
otal 55,712 5,409 5,179 5,323 5,256 2 9.3 . 9.6 9.4
Male head 48,470 2,757 2,826 «2,826 © 2,856, 547 5.8 060 548° 59
Female head 7,242 2351 2,353, 2,497, 2,400 32.5 3S MS 3AM
“TRACE OF EAD : ’ i
Total 55,712 5,109 5,179 5,323 5,256 9.2 9.3 9.6 9,4
White 49,451 3,482 «3,547 3,627 «3,595 7.0 120. «743 7.3
Black 5,498,530 1,535, 1,593 1,563 27.8 37.9. 29.0 28.4 ‘
Other races 763 97 97 103 98 12.7 .°127 135 12.8
AGE OP HEAD, - = ee
Total "55,712 5,109 «5,179. 5,323 5,256 9.2 9.3 9.6 9.4
Under 25 years. - 4,225 733 ae 756744173 17.4 17.9 17.6
25 to 64 years’ 43,454 3,616 = 3,660° 3,776 ~—«3,721, 8.3 84° 8.7 8.6
65 years and over 8,034 760 785 791 792 9,5 9.8 9.8 9.8
PRESENCE OF CHILDREN ‘
ee \ a . ‘
Total 55,712. 5,109 5,19 5,12) SASH .2 93K 8A
No related children . ‘ ‘ .. “3 ote
under. 18 years 24,381 1,284 1,270 1,221,299 5. 5.2 5.3 5.3
With related children :
under 18 years 31,331 3,875 «3,909 = 4,031 «3,957 124 1255 129 12.6
Male head, 26,409 1,716 1,750 1,750 * 1,776 6.5 6.6 6.6 6.7
Female head 4,922 2,159, 2,159 2,281 2,180 43,9 43.9 46.3 44,3:
PAMILY SIZE e
Total + yy 55125109 5,179 5,323 5,256 9.2 9.3 9.6 9.4
2 persons * : 5% 20,823 1,705- 1,740 1,801 1,754 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.4
3 and 4 persons 23,139 1,815 1,827 1,895 1,863 7.8 19 (BA2 8,1
5 or more persons 11,750» 1,588 1,612 1,626 1,638 © 13.5 13.7 13.8. 13.9 )
. ‘ a,
@
ERIC
; ; = 17. Continued =
n . : :
Nurber below 8 rty leve. rty ca
Cations of current measure cal of current measure
All Current ; : ' rtent - j
Character istic! income poverty Male male poverty Male male
levels level Nonfarm »nonfarm_nonfarm level Nonfarm nonfarm nonfara ;
WORK EXPERIENCE -
total 455,712 5,109 «5179-53235, 256 9.2 9.3 9.6 9.4
lead worked last year 45,146 «2,691 «2,752 2,843 2,801 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2
Year round full time 34,195 980 ~--:1,010 1,042 «1,033 * 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0
Head did not work : i t
_ Yast year 9,639. 2,390 2,400 2,453 2,425 | 48 95.425.
Head’ in Armed Forces 927 er | ie 30 299 3.3
TYPE OF INCOME ‘
Total a/ . =! 55,712 5,109 5,179 5,323 5,256 9.2 9.3 9.6 9.4
Earnings ~ 49,529. 3,172 3,236 «3,342 3,295 6.4 6.56.7 6.7
Social Security 12,162 1,220 1,245 14266 1,267 10,0 10,2 10.4 0A
Public assistance. 4359 2,083 2,048 2,119 2,078 «46.9 47,0 48,6 4747
Other transfer incone b/ 10,296 ° 513 519 © 530.—Ss«- 537 5.0 5.0 5.2 5:2
Dividends, interest, f)
and rent 3 * 27,2426 M07 2.5 246° 27> 26
Private pensions, , : +
alimony, etc. 658} 547 57,576 559 BLD 8.3. 8.8 8.5
: 2
ry
a/ Oetail will not add to, total since some families have more than one of the types of income specified.
b/ Includes unemployment and workmen's ne government employee pensions, and veterans’ payments.
SOURCE: Special tabulations by the Census Bureau from the March iii Current “Population Survey.
re)
ERIC
Table 18. Percent Distribution — Selected Characteristics
of Families Below the Current Poverty Level and .
Simplifications of the Current Poverty Level
in 197 (Families as of March 1975)
Chacacter istic ireome vy wale male
SEX OF BEAD ‘ .
Total (thousands) $$}712 5,109 «5,179 «S,323 5,288
Petoent 100.0, 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Hale head 87.0 $4.0 54,6 $3.1 $4.3
Penale heed 13.0 4.0 48.4 “6.9 45.7
wes OF m2, .. ad .
Total (thousands) 55,712 3,109 «5,179 $,323 8,286
Percent , 100.0 .,, 200.0 "100.0 100.0 400.0
waite “S @@.2 3 @.1 6.4
Black 9 29.9 29.8 29.9 29.7
Othec races 1.4 1.9 « 1.9 1.9 1.9
MGB OP MEAD
Total (thousands) U $9,712 $,109 $,179 $,329 $,2396
Peccent : - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Under 25 yeare 7.6 14.3 14.2 14.2 14.2
25 to 64 yeere 78.0 70.8 70.7 70.9 10.8
65 years and over : 14.4 14.9 1$.2 14.9 15.0
PRESEXCE OF CHILDREN
total (thousands) $5,712 5,109 $,179 $,323 5,236
Percent 100,0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
No colated children under 18 re 4.8 24.2 24.8 24.3 24.7
with related children under 18 yrs. 36.2 75.8 73.3 78.7 73.3
With related children (thousands) 31,331 3,878 3,909 4,02. 3,957
Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Male head ; 84.3 “3 “4.8 43.4 44.9
Penale head 15.7 55.7 58.2 56.6 58.1
PMAILY SI2Z
Total (thousands) 55,712 5,109 5,179 5,023 5,
Percent . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 pecsons 37.4 33.4 0. (33.6 33.8 33.4
3 and 4 peceons . as 38.5 35.3 35. 35.4
5 oc sore pecsons a. : 31.1 31.1 30.5 . 2.2
v
Total (thousands) 55,712 $,109 5,179 5,323 5,256
Percent : . .
Head worked last yeer 61.0 52.7 53.1 53.4 $3.3
Year round full time 81.4. 19.2 19.5 19.6 — 19.7
Head did not work last 17.3 6.8 6.3 46.1 446.1
feed in Arsed Forces. . 1.7. 0.5 0.5 0.5 °
TE OF DOME
Total (thousands) 55,712 5,109 5,179 5,323 5,256
Percent a/ * 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 48.9 62.1 5 ~ 62.8 7
Social Security 21.8 2.9 24.0 23.8 24.1
Public sasistance 7.8 40.0 39.5 39.8
Other transfer income b/ 18.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.
Dividends, interest, and rent “a. 13.3 13.7 13.7 13.
Private pensionéy aliaony, etc. 11.8 10.7 10.6 10.8 _ 10.6
Wy Derall vill not add to total since some families have sore than one of the frees of
income specified. ;
y Includes unemployment and woclmen's compensation, govecnment ployee pensions, and
vetecans' payments.
SOURCE: Special tabulations by the Census Bureau from the March 1975 Current Population
66
48
6F
»
[ r sei
NN
Table 19. Number and Poverty Rate ~~ Selected Characteristics of Persons Below the Current
Poverty Level and.Below Two Single-Dollar Cutoffs in 1974
: (Numbers in thousands. ‘Persohs as of March 1975)
a
- a Nunber below specified poverty :
7 ‘ level . Poverty rate ‘
Average Kverage
. : 4-person se 4-per son
‘ All Current nonfarm Current - nonfarm
Income poverty $3,200 threshold poverty $3,200 threshold
Character istic l
levels level Low) “(High level Low High
&
LIVING ARRANGEMENTS a ee:
Total 209,343 24, 260 17,392 32,65 11.6 - 8.3 15.6
In familles — 190,471 19,440 10,102 = 22,1 10.2 ' 5.3 11.6 rn
with male head 167,227 10,877 5,371 + 43,17 6.5 3.2 7.9
* with female head ° : 23,245 8,563 4,731 - 8,972 36.8 | 20.4 38.6
Unrelated Inaividuals 18,872 j 4,820 7,290 10,506 25.5 38.6 55.7
Related children under 18 yrs. 65,802 10,196 4,255 8,437 15.5 6.5 12.8
In families with male head 55,345 4,809 1,528 3,394 8.7 2.8 6.1
In families with female head 10,458 5,387 2,727 5,043 51.5 26.1 48.2
AGE
‘Total 209, 343 24,260 17,392 32,653 11.6 8.3 35.6
' Under 5 years 16,002 2,670 1,330 2,534 16.7 8.3 15.8
5 to 17 years a/ 49,800. 7,526 2,925 5,903 15.1 5.9 11.9
18 to: 64 years b/ 122,414 10,756 8,116 15,269 * 8.8 a 6.6 12.5
65 years and over. * 21,127 3,308 5,021 8,947 15.7 23.8 42.4
“ ‘
RACE
Total 209,343. 24,260 17,392 32,653 11.6 8.3 15.6
White 192,355 16,310 12,815 . 24,558 8.9 7.0 13.5
Black ; 23,704 7,455 4,27)... 7,51 31.5 18.0 31.7
Other races | & 3,284 495 306 584. 15.1 9.3 17.8
i
a/ Includes only related children. 4 a a ‘ {
b/ Includes a small number of heads, wives, and unrelated individuals 14-12 years of age. Py
. SOURCE: Special tabulations by the Census Bureau from the March 1975 Current Population Survey.
‘
re)
ERIC
*
_ Table 20. Percent ‘Distribution — Selected Characteristics of Persons
wm .. . Below the Carrent Poverty. Level and: Below Two .
> - Single-Dollar Cutoffs in 1974 a . :
aia ca as of March ania . :
_ Average
4~person
. # All Current . = nfarm
Characteristic , ~~ income poverty $3,200. reshold .
levels. level (Low) High).
LIVING ARRANGEMENTS
‘Tot person’s (thousands) "5 999/343 24,260. «17,392.32, 653
Percent ©, . ® 100.9 100.0 100.0 100.0
In families . Bo 910 80.1 58.1 67.8.
Unrelated individuals ; ore. 9.0 ' 19.9 41.9 Pd .
In families (thousands) - ar ~ 190,471 19,440 10,102 22,147
Percent - - | 100.0. ~ 100.0. 100.0 100.0
“In families with male head’ ~ , 87.8 56.0 , 53.2 - 59.5
Tn: families ‘with female head °° j 12.2 , 44.0 46.8. - 40.5
“Rélated children (thousands) eee 65,802 : 10,196 .. 4,255 8,437
Percent. 7 100.0 * 100.0° 100.0 - 100.0
In families with male head . 84.1 ¢» 47.2 35.9 40.2
In families with female head — * 15.9 | 52.8 64.1 59.8
af a ae
AGE Y ns :
Total (thousands) - ‘ ". . 4? 209,343 . (24,260 17,392 32,653
‘ Pereent ° 100.0 - + 100.0 100.0. ~~ 100.0
Under 5 years Sew 706 Ii.0 7.6 7.8 °
5 to 17 years a/ tS ~~ 23.8 - 31.0 16.8 18.1
18 to 64 years b/ - 5855. 44.3 46.7 46 48
- 65 yéars. and over iy 10.1, 13.6 28.9 27.4
RACE | a oA . r
Total (thousands) - © = ~~ —«209,343 > 24,260 17,392" 32,653
Percent. © -% 0°) 100.0 100.0 100.0 ™ 100.0:
. White a er 87.1 | 67.2 73.7 75.2 |
Black. 9 oe 11.3 30.7 + 24.6 23. Gab -
Other races — ees fs . en) 1.6 2.0 . 1.8 : 1. .
a/ Includes only related children. :
y ‘Includes a small number of heads, wives, and unrelated individuals 14-17 years of age...
SOURCE: Speciak tabulations by the Census Bureau from the March ee Current , ’ :
: Reputation: Survey. . :
“@¢
* | ° 50
: AY
# G9 “ . ~ ow :
¥ .
ale es he ey, °F oe ce
2
Table 21. Number and Poverty Rate — Selected Characteristics
of Families Below the Current Poverty Level and Below Two .
Single-Dollar ffs in 1974 (Numbers in thousands.
t . e ;
Families as of March 1975) :
rc Ow 12k ver eve. * ig rate
verage eis 8 ; verage
. . 4-person — : 4-per@on
; : All Current nonfarm Current ‘ nonfarm
ek Characteristic income poverty $3,200 threshold poverty: $3,200 threshold
é levels level level (Low) |__ (Hi
/ SEX OP HEAD , . e
Total . "55,712 5,109 3,400 = 7,823 2 6.1 13.5
Male head Ee 48 ,470 2,757; «1,835 58° 4, BR2 5.7 3.8 9.6
Female head. ; 7,242 2,351 1,565 ($2,891 + 3235 21.6 39.4
RACE OF HEAD ee ee .
. Total . 55,712 5,109. 3,400 f 7,523 9,2 6.1 13.5
White 49,451 3,482 = - 2,428. 5,654 7.0 4.9 11.4
“Black + 5,498 1,530 921 1,749 27.8 16.8 31.8
Other races 763 97 51 120 12.7 6.7 15.7
AGE OF HEAD
Total 55,712 5,109 3,400 7,523 “ied ~~ 6.1 13.5
Under 25: years 4,225 733 579 1,046 17. 13.7 24.8
25 to 64 years 43,454 3,616 2,005, 4,148 8.3 4.6 . 9.5
65 years and over ' 8,034 760 816 2,330 9.5 10.2 29.0
PRESENCE OF CHILDREN , !
Total 55,712 5,109 3,400 7,523 9.2 6.1 13.5
No related children under 18 years = 24, 381. _ 1,234 1,336" *% 3,585" ; 5.1 5.5 14.7
‘with related children under 18 yrs. 31,331 3,875 2,064 3,939 12.4 6.6 12.6
Male head 26,409 1,716 700 = -::1,581 6.5 2,7 6.0
Female head - : 4,922 2,159 1,364 2,357 43.9 27.7 47.9
: PAMILY SIZE 3
;
Total a 55,722 5,109 3,400 7,523 9.2 6.1 13.5
2 persons 20,823 1,705 1,814 4,164 . 82 8.7 20.0
3 and 4 persons a 23,139 1,815 1,128 2,345 ~ 7.8 4.9 10.1
5 or more persons 11,750 1,588 458 1,014 13.5 “3.9 8.6
WORK EXPERIENCE a . - “n
_ $5,712 5,109 3,400 7,52) ° ~ “92 6.1 13.5
45,146 2,691 1,586 3,542 6.0 3.5 7.8
34,195 980 538 1,235 2.9 -; 1.6 3.6,
9,639 2,390 1,805 | 3,917 24.8: °° 18.7 40.6
927 27 9 65 . 2.9 1.0 7.0
55,712 5,109 3,400 9.2 6.1 13.5
49,529 3,172 1,820 6.4 3.7 8.5
2, ,Social Security 12,162 1,220 1,029 10.0 . 8.5 24.5
“+" public assistance » 4,359 2,043 1,220 | 46.9 | 28.0 53.9
"+ Other transfer income b/ 10,296- 513, 252 5.0 . 2.4 8.8
Dividends, interest, and rent 27,243 681° - 568 1,669 i. 2.5 2.1 6.1
Private pensions, alimony, etc. 6,581 _ $47 341°” 888 8.3 5.2 13.5
. he i
+' a/ Detail-will not add to total since. some families have more than one of the types of income $pecified.
"4 Includes unemployment and workmen's compensation, government employee pensions, and veterans’ payments.
SOURCE: Special tabulations by the Census Bureau from the March 1975 Current Population Survey. -
‘ 4 : “
: or
7) « @* 5
a 2. - eet oe
‘<)
ERIC
fe
table 22. Percent® Distribution — Selected Characteristics. of
Families Below the Current Poverty Level arid Below. Two:
Single-Dollar Cutoffs in@974.
(Families as of March 1975)
: P as od .. parson
All Current _ nonfarm
%, Characteristic income poverty $3,200 threshold
levels level * &
SEX OF HEAD - : i
Total (thousands) - $5,712 $5,109 3,400 3). 7,523
Ed 5 oF
Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 ~~ -100,0
Male head 87.0 54.0 54.0 | 62.1
Female head 13.0 46.0 00020379
a RACE OF HEAD
9.- : . i
— Total (thousands) $5,712 * $,109 3,400 7,523 s?
‘ “ ‘Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
white 88.8 68.2 71.4 75.2
Black 9.9 29.9 27.1 23.2
Other caces : a 1.9 1.5 1.6
AGE OP BEAD oe ot
. Total (thousands) = + 55,22 5,209 3,400 + (7,523
Percent 100.0 100.0 «:100.0 * ~——«100.0
Under 25 years 7.6 14,3 17.0 13.9
25 to 64 years : ; 78.0 70.8 $9.0 $5.1
65 years and over * 14.4 ¢ 14.9 24.0 31.0
PRESENCE OP CHILDREN ; “ a .
“ gotal (thousands) - §$,712 5,109 3,400 7,623
Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
No related children index 18 years 43.8 24.2 39.3 47,7
With related children under 18 years 56.2 75.8 60.7 $2.4
With related children (thousands) 31,331 3,875 2,064 3,939
Percent : 100.0 . 100.0 100.0 . 100.0
Male head 84.3 443 33.9 40.1
Female head ° 15.7 55.7 . 66.2 59.8
, PAMILY SIZE
Total (thousands) 55,712 5,109 4 3,400 7,823
Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 :
2 parsons 37.4 «334 $3.4 55.4
3 and 4 persons 4.5 35.5 33.2 Bh
3 oc more persons a... 31.1, - 13.5 13.5
: pe :
WORK EXPERIENCE ‘
es Total (thousands) 7 $5,712 5,109 3,400 7,523
oe Percent a 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
cuts" Head worked last year a glo. . $2. i 46.6 wl
Year cound full time 61.4 19.2 15.8 16.4
Head did not work last year : 17.3 46.8 53.1 . . 52.2
Head in Armed Forces = 1.7 0.5 0.3 é 0.9
55,712 5,109 3,400 7,523
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
a 88.9 62.1 53.5 56.1
ay AES fey) ~ . 21.8 23.9 30.3 39.5 :
oy Public ie antec a 7.8 40.0 35.9 31.2 :
.) Other transtes b/, 18:5 10.0 7.4 12.1
"Dividends, dnterest, and’ gent 48.9 13.3 16.7 22.2
a 10.7 . * 10.0 a
“PEeaDE: ‘ Paid etc. ll.
: ee a al will me add to total since some families have,more than one of the types of
fae aS ingonte: specified.
Ha tof ‘Includet unemployment and workmen's ceeeeaitty, government pensions, _ veterans’
ghee
oe ‘source: Special: tabulations by the Census Bureau from the March 1975 Current Population
: : Survey.
r)
’ 52 _ %
71
ne
oe
.
oth
a of
a e ; iP
:
uae
a
ee
é , , A
as
Loy.
ara re
"ble 2, Nuber ad Poverty Rate — Selected characteritice of Persons Below 3
‘ Level :
| Characteristic income
LIVING ARRAN,
ard Below Three Meian-Baved Poverty Meagues in 1974 TS" ° |
Quubers in thousands, Peraons as of March 1975) oS a
hunter below specif : aa
a Caren SUS. NUS. T pers. Se Tis. HOS. BON per.
poverty median family mel= family med- povertff median fail nef y med
r jan adj. level. ured) ian adj.
nad
. dna,
levels
‘ rn :
Mota ' 909 343 24,260» 36,400 ° 36,148 TT ee 0 9.7
‘ty families «|=«=«(UMOATL. 19,44 32,222 28,048 332 69 n3
with male head 167,227 10,877 20,642 18,107 on Cae es 5 ee
With fenale baad 23,45 9,563 11,580 10,93 AL, 64 69°48 (420 Aled
unrelated indy uals 13,972 4,820 4/178 7,107,813 5 | kG, A
Std chilren under 18 66,802 10196 1,760 M3 1612 a5 og 5,
‘In families : oe . od /
a. With male bead 5,05 4,009 5,397 «7,682,014 rh en eh ee
ith ena head 10,458 5,287 6,363 6,652 7,108 515 * 608 6346 68.0
a. _ |
Total 219,343 24,260 36,400 36,148 41,167 ue 4 13 19.7
Under 5 years 46,002 “267 3,466 3,787 4,283 67 0 TD. 26.8
5 to 17 years 49,800 7,526 8,294 10,6 11,839 1 167 he 2.8
18 to 64 years b/ ©, -‘Ua2,Ald 10,756 16,971 16,043 18.327 38° «9 |B 15.0
65 years afd over aly 3,308 7,669 57M GTB ee ee
rae | , "
~ tbtal | 109,343 24,260 36,400 36.148 41,167 us Wd 13 19.7
White . ' 182,355 16pil0 26,773 525129 364 89038 It
Black 13,704 7,485 8,937 10,072 OB Te ee 46.5
Other races m5 HHS Bl dad 2.9
a/lncludes only related children.
gall number of heads, wives, and unrelatal individuals 14-17 years of age.
b/Includes a
osidis Breau from the March 1975 Current. Population survey.
Ss . :
SOURCE: Special tabulations by the
P ple oe a ees Pa x a ‘ a i : Se
po . ae anne F Ri : pete :
r Table 24. Percent Distribution — .SeJected pects nacre S of ‘Pérsans._ ‘5
: Below the Current Poverty’ Level. and Be 17 :
ae he 3
Poverty Measures in 1974. (Persons as° bas 197),
a - | aN eo - 508,: an sy: Spee ig .
; )° Alf cagcelt “ess. nily <"family * ee “eee
Characteristic * pee 4 ac tee! median ‘ enti ?median aad
: leve level,’ ‘ unadj.* “adj. adj wy,
; a as — oy hae
Total persons (thousands) 209,343, 24,260 34,600 °: 36/1482» 41 1,167 .
. : . fos hi ,
Percent " ; 100.0 100.0 “100: 0’ 4100.0 ' 200. 0
In families . 91.0 . 80.1 88.5. 80.4. 81.0
Unrelated individuals 9.0 19.9 11.5 19.6 19.0
In families (thousands 2 190,471 19,440. 32,228 29,048 33,354
Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
In families with male head 87.8 . 56.0 64.1 62.4 64.5
In families with female head 12.2 44.0 35.9 37.6 «35.5
Related children (thousands) 65,802 10,196 11,760 14,333 16,122
Percent 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0
-In families with male head 84.1 ° 47.2 45.9 53.6 55.9
In families with female head 15.9 52.8 54.1 46.4 44.1
7 AGE :
Total persons (thousands) 209, 343 24,260 36,400 36,148 41,167
_ Percent . “100.0 100.0 100.9 100.0 100.0
Under 5 years 7.6 11.0 9.5 10.5 . 10.4
.5 to 17 years a/ ' 23.8 “31.0 22.8 29.2 . +7. 28.8
13 to 64 years b/ : : 58.5 44.3 46.6 44.4 — 44.5
65 years and over 10.1 13.6 21.1 16.0 , 16.3
. RACE —
Togal persons (thousands) 209 ,343 24,260 36,400 36,148 41,167 |
Percent 100.0 ~ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
white oo . 87.1 67.2 73.6 69.9 71.3
4 Black 23 - 30.7 24.6 28.1 26.8
Other races 1.6 2.0 - - 19 : 2.0 1.9
a/ Includes only related children.
Y Includes a smal] Mumber of neads, wives, and unrelated individuals ia- 17 years of age..
SOURCE: Special’ tabulations by the Census Bureau from the ices 1975, Current Population
Survey. : = ,
. i * n Na 7
» thas
- ‘": Table 25. Number and Poverty Rate —- Selected Characteristics ,
m4 * of Families Below the Current Poverty Level and Below. Three
‘an Cf ; Median-Based Poverty Measures in 1974 “¢:
Male head 48,470
Female head 7,242
RACE Of HEAD
Total 55,712
White 49,451
Black 5,493
Other races 763
AGE OF HEAD
Total 55,712
Under 25 years 4,225
25 to 64 years 43,454
65 years and over 8,034
PRESENCE OF CHILDREN
Total . 55,712
3'Ro related children
under 18 years 24,381
With related children .
under 18 years 31,331
Male head 26,409
Female head “ , 4,922
FAMILY SIZE
Total 55,712
2 persons 20,823
3 and 4 persons . 23,139
5 or more persons 11,750
Public assistance 4,359
Other transfer incame b/ 10,296
Dividends, interest,
and rent 27,243
Private pension§, .
‘alimony, etc. 6,581
10,894
5,432
5,462
2,537
2,925
10,894
6,039:
3,372
1,482
10,894
5,510
2,160
5,238
"146
10,894
6,629
4,415
2,880
1,543
2,787
‘1,513
a/Detail will not add to total since sam. familieg
by Includes unemployment and workmen's compensation,
SOURCE: Special tabulations by the Census Bureau £
re)
ERIC
a “a . (Numbers in thousands. Families < as of March 1975)
9.2 19.6 4.0 1
1 4,753 5,676 5.7 15.0 9.8 7 a
3,028 3,291 32.5 50.3 41.8 45.4
\ = «
7,781 8,967 9.2 19.6 #. 14.0 16.1
5,499 6,483 7.0 17.1 11.1 13.1
2,136. 2,323 27.8 41.4 38.8 42.3
146 161 12.7 22.5 19.1 21.1
7,781 8.967 * 9.2 19.6 14.0 16.1 :
1,050 1,144 17.3 34.4 24.9 27.1
5,309 6,097 8.3 13.8 12.2 14.0
1,422 1,726 9.5 42.8 17.7 21.5 ‘
7
7,781 8.967 9.2 19.6 14.0 16.1
2,238 2,709 5.1 22.3 9.2 11.1
5,544 6,258 12.4 17.4 17.7 20.0
2,841 3,372 6.5, 9.6 10.8 12.8
2,703 2,886 43.9 59.4 54.9 58.6
7,781 8,967 9.2 16.1
2,743 3,193 8.2 15.3
2,732 3,136 7.8 13.6
2,306 2,637 13.5 22.4
7,781 8.967 9.2 16.1
4,319 5,085 6.0 11.3
1,755 2,145 2.9 6.3
3,360 3,738 24.8 38.8
102 143 2.9 15.4:
. Fi .
7,781 “ 8,967 9.2 S161
5,117 6,026 6.4 “12.2 \
2,157 2,604 10.0 21.4
2,647 2,848 46.9 65.3
958 1,188 5.0 11.5
1,249 1,532 2.5 5.6
847 985 8.3 0
have more than one of the types of incane specified.
goverhment employee pensions, and veterans’ payments. ¢
rom the.March 1975 Current Population Survey. “
75 7 3
2%, ast
a Table 26. Percent pietribstica: _ Selected Characteristics of
ME Sam SS Families Below the Curre&t Poverty Level and Below
me Three Median-Based Poverty Measures in 1974
2 (Families as of March 1975) A
soe U.8. 4-person
, Al Current 0.8. feally ftanily
vs * Characteristic income
levels A A .
7 SX OF HEAD
‘s Total (thousands) 55,712 5,109 10,894 7,782 8,967 *
Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Male head 87.0 $4.0 6.6 61.1 @.3
, Penale head 13.0 46.0 33.6 34.9 46.7
PACE OF HEAD ;
Total (thousands) 55,712 ' 5,109 10,896 Pra 8,
‘ ’ Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0. . .20860
white 68.8 68.2 S 70.7 i723
Black 9.9 29.9 9 7.5.” 25.9
Other races 1.4 1.9 1.6 to ‘1.8
AGE OF HEAD ase
1 , i
7 Total (thousands) 5$,712 5,109 10,894 7,70. 8.9672.”
‘ Percent 100.0 100.0 160.0 106.0 2 ‘tho.0
Onder 25 years 7.6 14.3 13.3 5 12.8
25 to 64 years 78.0 70.8 55.1 68.2 68.2
re = 65 years end ovec 16.4 16.9 4.6 18.3 19.2
° PRESENCE OF CHILDREN -
” fotal. (thousands) 55,712 $109 10,894 7,781. 8,967
Peccent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
, No related children under 18 years 43.8 26.2 49.9 20.8 30.2
. Wditly related children under 18 years $6.2 15.8 50.1 ng 69.8
np Mth related Guitéren (thousands) ==) 67s5aez 5a E6288
ms Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Male head ; 86.3 “4.3 46.4 $1.2 53.9
: Female head 3 2 55.7 53.6 48.8 46.1
PMAILY SIZE *
© Total (thousands) 55,712 5,109 10,894 7,761 8,967
- Percent : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 persons . 37.4 33.4 55.6 35.3 35.6
' 3 and 4 per 41.5 35.5 31.0 35.1 35.0
‘ S oc moce per 2.1 31.1 13.6 29.6 29.4
WORK EXPERIENCE
‘Tgtal (thousands) + 55,712 5,109 10,894 7,781 6,967
Percent 100.0. 100.0 100.0 100.0 = 100.0
Head worked last year 61.0 52.7 6 55.5 $6.7 £
Year round full time 61.4 19.2 19.8 22.6 23.4
Bead did not work last year 17.3 46.8 48.1 43.2 41.7
Head in Armed Forces. 1.7 0.5 1.3 1.3 1.8
innate tt
Total (thousands) 55,712 5,109 - 10,894 . 7,781 6,967 5
‘ Percent a/ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Barnings 9 62.1 60.9 65.8 67.2
Social Security 21.8 9 40.5 27.7 29.0
Public Assistance 7.6 40.0 26.4 34.0 31.8
Other transfer incone b/ 18.5 10.0 14.2 12.3 13.2
Dividends, interest, and rent 40.9 °° 13,3 25.6 16.1 17.1
ignite pensions, alimony, etc. 11.8 10.7 13.9 10.9 11.0
ly Detail vill not add to total since some families have more than one of the types of
t incope specified.
Y Includes unemployment and workmen's compensation, government employee pensions, and
veterans’ payments.
SOURCE: Special tabulations by the Gensus Bureau from the March 1975 Current Population
Survey.
. +
™ 76
‘<)
ERIC
yh FRY
&
7} atte 21, Peres Below te Poverty Lave tsing Alternative Poverty Definitions
| a | 1967, 1969, 1971, 1973, ‘and 1974
-Obnbers in hosed fa of ah of ello 3
| } at :
io Scaling of cutrent measute cutoffs Relative mug
508 U.S, 4-person
500 US. family family
- Current. ;
om Yeat poverty " tow -sedian = Median median
= , reasure 758 (15825082008 unadj. adj.
. ve ‘ .
"MBER
w : 4
1974 24,260 14,538 34,615 45,21) 69,389 32,653 17,382 6,400 36,148 41,167
. 1973 2,973 13,849 32,611 42,997 65,789 30,349 18,121 76,431 36,325 41,720
igi is ISA) 36,585 M8716 14,67. 3100 1 4,976 36,604 4,14
- (1969 04,167 14,507 34,689 45,988 71,479 18,620 20,877 32,770 35,480* 40,239
‘1961 ree Le a1) 28,987 31,86 35,845 40,282
POMEROY RATE | ead
on tr ¢
r 1974 a6 6g. SB a3 Od 8 } an)
N 1973 ny 6? 18 7 BT 515 EO
1971 Te (2 2 108 0) ON
we ' 1969 Mig Md BO 8 MN id B02 “f
196 rvs ee CC 20.6
+ ;
ye ¥ | SOURCE: Special tabdlations by the Census Bureau from the Harch 1975 Current Population a |
an i
a ‘ " . . F \
| : ¢ |
'
4
‘
“
4
Table 28. Alternate Poverty Measures: 1967, 1969, 1971, 1973, sat od
»
.# =. Poverty measure
Sealing of Current Poverty Measur
(cutoffs are shown for base famfly)’
5 percent of current measure
Current measure —
125 percent .of current measure
150 percent of currerit measure
‘200 ‘Percent of current measure
Simplification of Current Poverty Measure
Nonfarm thresholds (base. family)
Male head nonfarm thresholds (base family)
_ Weighted male nonfarm:
‘<)
ERIC
1 person under 65 years
1 person over 6 years
2 persons, head under 65 years
2 persons, head over 65 years ~~
3 persons
4 persons
5 persons
6 persons :
7 persoris or more .
re
“Bingle Dollar Cutoffs
Low ($3,200) 4
High (weighted average threshold for
nonfarm family of four ):
Relative ‘Poverty Measure
50 percent U.S. median unadjusted:
Families
Unrelated individuals
50 percent U.S. family median adjusted
50 percent 4-person family median adjusted
$ 3,750 $3,379 $3,078
5,000 4,505 4,104
6,250 5,631 5,130
7,500 6,758 6,156
10,000 .9,010 8, 208
5,000 4,505. 4,104
5,000 4,505 4,104
2,658 2,395 2,181
2,387 2,1 1,959
3,329 2,999 2,731
2,984 7690 \ 2,450
3,957 3,565 3,246
5,040 4,542 4,139
5,957 5,364 4,884
6,706 6,034 .5,492
-8,278 7,455 -6,771
3,200 3,200 3,200
5,038 4,540 4,137_
a
6,418 6,026 La
2,220 2,067 1,658
6,418 6,026 5,143
7,002 Cia 8,571
$2,786
3,715
4,644
5,973
» 7,430
3,715
3,715
1,974
1,773
2,473
2,217
2,937
3,745
4,418
4,962
6,116
Income year. ;
.o
.
* mble 08, Persons 65 Year and Over Below the Poverty Level Using Altemative Poverty Definitions:
6S
4967, 1969, 1971, 1973, and 1974
thousands, ae of Narch of the following year)
& ; oe .
o (tunbeyy
é
ar
\ Scal ing of current measure cutoffs Relative measuce
| sob US. person
| Current : . 500 U.S, family family
Year poverty a median median —nedian
measure 756 -1258_ 1508 2008 unad} ad} adj,
Number | an | /
1974 3,308 1,425 5,474 7,418 10,623 8,947 5,021 7,669 5702 6,718
1973 3,354 MA 5,521 7,361 10,638 8,940 NA 48,213 6/159 7,130
1971 4,276 NA 6,283 9,057 10,946 9,196 tA C7924 ‘6,301 7,043
1969 4,895 NA 6,742 9,331 10,832 9,352 = MA §,228 Vi 6,064° 7,962
197. 5,393 3,138 7,286 8,799 11,125 9,589: 9,151 na 6,721 7,398
: 1
Poverty Rate rd -
69 Yl 80.3 49 23,8 / Hi md LE
my) 5.7 67
73 16.3 MA 6.8 35.7 S644 m/ 9,9 29.9 Mb
. i 21.6 MM 37 406 55.2 46,4. NK 40.0 1.8 35,5
{ 1969 en ee eS 56.8 48,9 °/NA 43,2 36.0 9,7
1967 29.6 12 399. 46.2 61.0 52.6 / 0.2 43.8 36.8 40.6
. /
Persons 65 years and - .
over as a percent of bf
alll poor-per'sons €
1 1.698 158 164 / 153274, 28.9 2.1 16.0: 16,3
13 146 ACS ee Ab2 29,9 MA” 225 i di
1971 16,7 A 1.2 167 14,7 29.6 22.7 20,0
1969 6 230 M94 WB 5.2 426 MM 2.1 19,3 18.8
1967 19.4 18.3 18,5 16.7 Be 30.8 316 31 18.8 18.4
NA - Not: available | ay 7 | .
hot \
SOURCE special tabulations by the cea Bureau fron the Hach 195 Cuget Population Surieys _
\
ey
ce ‘able i, en i i vith a eae Had Blow the Hovey Le Using tet toy a
oe ae ."~ Definitions:’. 1967, 1969, 1971, 1973, and 1974, a ‘f
ge | (turbers in thousanis. esos as of Mh of te flloing yen) | eae
:
ty . i : i ( ‘ es
a ¥ ; sat of offtrent neasure a ee ‘Relative neasuce ——
be ; 4 15, oe
co . 8 F we 508 US. 4-peraon - ye
Ye _ 2 Current 7 | os family family = i
- | “Year Boverty oy — , nedian edianomedian eae
“ neasuce’ 154-105 15082000 —_—High Low nati. a aye
Sg ; ret . os er ee
. ‘ - . , haber oe ue : 4), on “ . he - 4 \
i : . y ' . a ; ' - - 7 y nat : nS wv , : | ‘te , ‘
eee 0 B56) 546M 10,698.) 12,332, 14,938 8,972 4,931 11,880 20,991 “at AE
posh B17 5,313°. 20,034 1,711 14,222 83468 5,085. 11,320% 10,677 10,521, Ae
eee :) 7,003" 5,288 9,761 51,109 13,661 7,986 5,885 = 10,151 9,76 10,86) 2A
PS ge gpk end yok 9A 1,616 1/017. 50R2' 9,009 a8 Sn:
967 6,898 4,885 240 908, 11,827,040, 6,554,262 7,08
, i . és ae _ - ryg _ . . ‘ . i i
: saa a - : Poverty Rate “ye is ‘ oy — om Pe oe, 3 | ie F :
ere | eS a? W'S YD
ees 0, MD 15° M2 460 57 5.2 4 BO 9, SLD MS Sete al
ye Ms TX 6 387 0 B82 8 SOB SL ie
tN Me 36257 B80 56 HY WO. IB 502° a8 4 Pata ee
ne 15 69. 1 6d 6. as cS nS ee Bie 3
° od J : ‘ - ' , ; ' a 5 ws é, aN , i ‘a oe eo .
cot 4 Persona din female head Sy a ce Fs Mie | + ji My 8
hy 0 4% families aga percent a 7 ae a ye we &
oe gia oi = ® ee re . | ES as, Me
7 vob ‘ ni _ he) e 88. 4 2,3 a5. 21,5 21.2 : «Ab wy 0,2. “28.8 jee ies
Se am we ae bmn me me oS i
em om MO a OE BO BL gece tg
WS Mg ss a oe BG
ye = 16 4.8 85 212 186" 149 “ae 22.6 25,9 “tut a rs S e -
82 * SOURCE Special ta tabulation oy the Census Bureau fiom the March 1975 Curent Population Survey. He 2 an ty "
‘ + t 7 ws : ae . : : : : me
- he a: : :
‘ ‘ a. ‘ : " “4 j . we ite
ig a . 4 : teh
& 1 “" is ¥ { : 1 " . s F ? Y
an) : poy A!
a ne f 8 yok
' ‘ : ! ve ag ee
a 1 ; ‘ . se
fe ye 43 “it ar A ae
i. oe ee ‘ : oe a
‘ | \ \ s : ie. -~ a 74 ‘ a, =
Fy ey
Mh
© he i th il
Poverty Definitions:gl?
t
Number
on
973
fig
1969?
1967
Poverty Rate
1974
1973.
1911.
1969
7
14
“19
~ 4901
1969
1M)
panties with Public.
, Assistance 28 a percent
of all poor fanilies
ners in tims, ania 2
peagure
2,043
1,854
1,801
, 1,372
af ‘
“
1,175
Current
poverty
i i 316
4,
mde
m
ma 65.2
#61
6
Sealing of current measure
1508
2,979
615
150
3
3,478
£3,026
“12,50
2,175
1,789
47
19, 20.1
ee ae
2 17
o. 1d
—
soc ety
967, 1969, 971, 1973, pat }
500 my
medlary
* onal.
7 US. (erton
*"tmily
nedian
ad
2,647
ois
2,292
1,38
Aad
60,7
66,1
, 65,4
66,5
6. &
Ol.
fanily
nedian
2,848
2/59.
a
+ ),830
1 422
aris
17
68.9 7
69,4
65,7
! .
A
= i) +“ y oy Ws . “ ow Yayo
: "a ian ae a a — * : -
rs Nee ae Ts
4
ble 32, pelted chien 5 to 2 ilo the Poverty level Using tensive oe |
| Definitions: 1967, W§od;'1371, 1973, and 1974 a |
| _ ier in ths Related Children as of tac of the following’ BL
a Ae,
m . “yt WS ‘ wel Ca, ‘
ee \_ Scaling of current measure »_ cutoffs lan sie ee
7 re ia i tus tpeson ne
re * # , - Current y DO 500 U.S, ~ fanily family “yd e ae
Sond Year poverty ; - median median sal oy) -
; measure 758 1250 Low nat aj re “
—_ ‘Number . ‘ -*
” . : ” eo : ee 4
WM A 1,506 4,605 1017 12881 19,489, 5,90 2,825 BAK 10506 1,8
os, ere UL) 6,800 NA 9,570 2,443 18,786 5,281 NA 8,087 10,483 12,055 ‘
TD M10) 14,205, 22127 $3687, bg ld iy
eet 6.966 MA WOM 13,718 21,79) 0) 7,09 TS
: a : a Q140 4,949 11,633 16,14 24,890 5,571 5,064, 7,020 | M94 | a,
i ad fos . oo a ae ' 1 7 mo :
A A, 7 Be : " a , ne
| aly 4 9° Bl Ug! 59 17 _ Pe
: £190 M83 1S ML MOY ye |
ath : 09 207 32105. MOL 208 7
i te : 9.8 165 442 93 WOO OC
piety 36 6 dS 1 AT G8
,
Mie Ss
te me : ‘ ‘ 1!
2 Pacoent f : a oo A : . @
,. vt oo 4 . 3 :
n ‘ |
pv 4 17°93 BS BO 18 Ks 28° 292,
an a eh a re 2. 9
ore o3° M4 6 10 ML 93 é
= Be 5 9.8. 305 168 Mi BO
at) Bh 0S 09 113 on ho “Bs ie
7 hs
I wah
iJ
\ | a i : e _ : :
tele 3. ‘th Parsons Below the vey tevel Using Alternative Poverty Definitions:
3967; 1969), 197) 2973, and 197K
"tnt in thousands... ae as of March of the following a
{ ‘'t
7h ae |
Scali of current measure
ae . 5000.8, 4-person
/ Current. g 500 U.S, ‘gfanily family
pwerty nedian fees nedian
vy 12581508 2008 —_Hlgh—— Low! : :
measure
Wi.
1969 -
16) + yh
Nunber
1) a
73° 7,367 |
yn 1,385
1969 7,036
1967 4,487
- Poverty rate i
oe fe, *. 5
¢ Am 5
191 4
1969 32.2
1967 a
: Black petsing as a perm. aks di
cent of all poor persone
j ie
yy “ape,
4973
11,669
11,280
11,677
11,553
12,909
14,700
14,549
15,159
14,787
15,674
DS.
Pea
8,856
ay)
7,8 Ps
~ 6,070
7
37.8
36.2
35,8
7.4
246
4,3
23,6
244:
*
qo
40,172 11,018
1,037 11,080
9,764 10,690
1669 10,434
Hg,067 10,849
t
42.9
a9 43
42.8. 46.9
age 3
46,6 g 903
(
Bl 06.8
16 66,
PB]
“2° Bas
te, 28.1
at
5
Bo.
26.9
o)
) Table $a. - Families with Earnings Below the Poverty Level Using Altémative
ry
¥
Soli
A
Number
Poverty Definitions:
-
Current
poverty
1974 5 3,172
‘1973 2,983
1971 3,397,
1969 3,216
1967 13,800 z
Poverty Rate “Neo "
1974 644
* 1973 : 6.1
1971 7.0
1969 6.8
; 1967 8.3
enities with earnings
' as a percent-of all :
poor families
1974! $2.1
1973 - 61.7
197). 64.0
1969 64.2
1967 67.0
NA = Not available, :
SOURCE: Special tabu.
¥
[oe
measure .
, BE
cutoffs
1967, 1969, 1971, 1973, and .1974
(Numbers in thousands. Families as of March of the following year)
508 U.S.
median
/ ed
1,820 6,629 «
NA ee
NA 6,662
6,28
53.55 + 60.9
NA sCGL2
NA. 64
NA: 64.
60.5 64.7
ot. “~@
lations by the Census Bureau from the March ‘1975 Current Population Survey. -
Relative
‘measure
‘®t
%
4.
b
an)
$ e
*
‘4 .
7 & e if
ee
i ge
Bay rye . :
© pate 3, unelaad maivdal i. the Poverty Level oly Mbanatie Roy petting:
: 1967) 1969, 1971, 1973, and 1914
_. (thmbag) in thousands. inelated individuals as of March of the fll year)
2
\ : nledollar
Scaling of current measure cutoffs __—_—_—Relat ive measur
| S04 U8, pang
Gprrent . : 5000S, fanily —fanfly
Year & . Pverty ; redian median nedian
measure TSN 12581508 2008 Hi s: ;
on ( : : 4
1974 4,80 6p 4,284 10,333 10,506 7,280 4178 7,100 (7,813
* ! 197 4,674 a 6,318 7,703 9,787 9,987 7,295 4,08 6,657 7,574
ee 11 5,6) 3,389 6,566 7,727 941d 9,40 7,943 * 3,954 6,583 7,071
rs 1969 4,978 3,386 6,11 7,066 , 8/836 "631 7,631, 3,851 6,217 6,660:
. ‘11 4,998 3,583 6,021 6,764 * 90) 6,163 7,893 3,303... 5,710 6,085
| poecty pate. _ - an
a. 19 65 BA wd OS She TG Ea
an 73. 6 18S M6! 4,2 7506 7 405 600 6 LS
mn 191 6 6-08 403 405 LT M4. Qh!
; a 1969 4,0 20 4d. 4) 584 $9.0 $2.8 26,3425 45.5
_- 1967 , Bul 1) 69 $6 617, &22 62 5b SON
fa : ' v)
a het ro) . | . ee .
lets eat “alba percent of all: 5 . ae
\ ae Riern nas Ae > poor paces | ae me . aan
ee | Ce ns 6
- “WY 30 MT ld 189 2.9 40.7 8 18,9 1B
“g. 102 2.0 18,0 160 ‘126 06 89 WD BO
6 22 176 A 0.2 24 1B oS 16.6
167 f8,0-' 20,9 15,3 1.8 10,0 26.2 21.3 10.6 BS ul
¥
| SOURGE: Special tabulations by the Census ute tiacch 1975 Current Population Sucvey.
ge
i : ry
a eS eae! oT ke wy
- 4 ov aT a a |
oe ee te te : | P : ‘ "
wf ' : ; ‘ we », ay
ble ‘6, Fnilies Belo the Poverty Level thing Alternative Poverty tition , Wy,
1967, 1969, 1971, 1973, and 1974
* (unbers in thousands, ii of a of ly a) >.
t - . . a at aii
—*_Sealing of current, ensure cutofts Relative noamure
Curcent SOU U8, faally,... famlly:,
tear pomety win mln pain
+
ee EM eC Mk
ig AMG. AMO 7,049,397 5,085" 1/085 3,710,879 7,880 9,08
S13) UIT 7168 0A) 16/182 49571087718,
sal} 86 73d 9,9 SM 6S Sa
| men I aa an 18 709,288,988
: 5 Poet rate . = | |
» | uM y2058 Bd oy Be OS 6h BEML
bf 197 Term ey
m =O NS
7 rr hc
et meen eX DY YC
1 en re SND : | ousetite
_-cs: Special ablatigs bythe Ces Ben frente ch 15 caret plato re,
tem a j . ' te a | § Qh
q{ a as
7 ' ™ ;
{ : .
| : te ot _ 3
‘) sae : .
_ ENC: is - 7
q an ‘ " ‘ u ee . an a. |
; }
?
ble 3, Ponidies vith social Security Income Below the Poverty i Using Alternative
en el EE LE
Scaling of cytrent “measure
Definitions: 1967, 1969, 1971, 1973, and 1974,
‘ (\iunbers in thousands, Famtilies as of March of the following year) -
SIngle-dol lar
_ cutoffs
kel at ive measure
S08 0.5,
50H U.S, ‘ {person
9
: o Current 904 US, fanily ’ family
Year poverty , ' median .fedian median
__ measure 758258 150R. uu ‘+ ynadj, ad), ad),
a . ; 4
+ Number . —
1974 1,200 = 547 2,054 2,953 4849 «2,978 1009410, 1575 Zhu”
WW 12 OMA “U2 2,989 4,836 2,971 NA, 4,665 2,422, ,
* 1L 1,406 NA 2,264 3,081. 4,739 yg 3,032 MA 4,20) 2,268 2,999
+ 1969 1,623 NA 2, 07 3,27 ‘4, Ne 3185° NA gg 4,209 2,535 2,849
"1967: 1,860 979 2,H0 3,61 5,078 = 3,508 3,255 4,160 2,520 2,063
, Poverty. Rate . f i es “ .
JIU AS 9 MDS Bd Td
1973 * 14 WA, 180 5,2 407 25.0 NA 3 05° he
* 1971 13.) Ye 28.6. NA od a4.
1969 161 NA 246 32.2 46,9 ee | | 2 ib.J
1967 19.0 10,0 286 38.9 5),9 3.9 333, 42.5, 5.8. WS
ae : , r t a , : ’ ;
a) , aos ‘ a :
Families with Social 5 : :
Security income as . [
‘a percent of all bg ¥ '
poor families ' . :
ye ‘ . "4 wee ; . a ' : _ .
Wy, FAY 26 I 2. HS WJ 0.5 21d 29.05
WI). 56. WAy 309 OB FD Aad NA 42.9° 309 °° 36
re 1) ce Cs 1.2 Mm. 4 2
CS a
1967 38 Bl 38 20" rH 46.0 46.3, 8 yb YL
NA ~ Not available ;
: ¢ 4 t ‘ / »
SOURCE: Special tabulations by the Census Bureau from the March 1975 Current plato Survey. : ;
, . . | -
4 : : t: vy
{ i. ” 4 :
/ nN
\ ‘ r aah
\ . : ac ‘ . ‘
a . te : =
a ; . so ; 7
t : : o i F ; fe
. . a . * . . aid
» : if v
F ; F 7 4
; Table 38. Percent of Popylat ion in Poverty for Alternative
Poverty Definitions, ay State, 1969 . :
me ’ . *
i joo. = + a oe a . Single- a a : . :
, 8 | | Scaling vf Current Measure »/) + Simpliticattons at * dollar ' Retatave Metin |
* ' . . m4 . a a 7 ,
y i Universe | Current ae a ee ere ant Meanate. Cutoffs ys a ae
titte i (unos) — | ( | : ' ths Family
* a 7 F | | jd Male : " val a Median, Medan,
“ I a4 st 125% 1So% | 200%" |Nonfarm|Nonfarm | Voady. | Ad3. | Ady
, are ai, Slee Reet nae Sie SaSe! Gs GEAMESBSS: \etebes Mee pape e
SONET ED STATES 197,810 139% 9.5% IGOR 24.3% GLB 16.0% | 1a 2 et |e. a
: ' _ 4 .
Alabama * 4,47 25.7 PH.0 S332 7 BOLD 58.6 25.9 26.2 Wee
Vb inka : 278 11s" 8.9 16.59 21,2 31.3 1.5 11.9 17.
é Artisonas 9. T,rl8 Is.%- 11.0 20.9 26.4 40.6 15.4 19.5 lave
. Ark ania ane 27.5 20.0 > 36.3) ff 44.2 §7.3 27.4 28,3 Wey
atbekernia wide lie 7.8 17 20.3) 30,5 11.3 1.5 eae :
. . 1
rt tobortude * Poe res p79 17.2 23,2 35.4 12.8 di.4 4 1.9 basa Tut YH. wre
senpertteut Ba Le 0.9 5,0 9.6 Fa den) eM 6.9 5 1.0 7.0 wy 9.2. a0 yea l.d
wel adware oe oe eo 2s Mob 11.6 12.0 11.8 lts2 a) ti P42 on
Utat gant rol. £20 17.8 13.2 23.3 ° 28.8 40.8 17,8 18.1 18.4 V?.6 20.4 Zt.t oon Mie
Slortda 7 Hots 16.8 11.6 2302 29.2 42,3 leA@ AO a 17.0 13.5 J0.4 28 aon Bee
Sorat, rr ed | 1448 22.6 od hT. eg dd 2.5 216% 1k. 2 hie was
Co Heed . 73a 1. 6.5 Lad 18.8 30,0 10.4 10. 1.5 9.9 ae baat
Sikes Co an Pe) 7.2 18,7 24, 40.5 ot vat 13.1 Li.6 1k by.
illinois, '' 10,835 10.8 mA 14,2 18.2 28.47 10,5 10,6 10, rh ees wy ee
“todrana 5, OA] 9.b 0.4 14,0 19,0 Mele 9.8 10.0 10.0 1.8 | bide, let
; 27 Was OT w.5 6 2277 be 11,9 Wy 3.9. 15.4 Las tae
° : 2,161 13.8 91 8.87 24.8 38.4 14.2 14,4 14.5 15.4 17h. 1 eat '
J WLM 2b io.8 V3. 37.0 50.1 23.8 24,0 Md 409 : tee
oe . 3,547 37.1 19.5% 34.5 41,5 $3.7 22,3 2724 IW.4 26.4 tee
952° 13.3 BAG 20.4 2B. 49.7 83.4 IS *ES c) tea Cit
a is . . . 7 te -
= Mor 19.0 7.200 MD TBF | RQ KO. F102 ae Oa ed
: Mave a . 4,907 ° BR. 2.6. MY 16.4 28,2 R.67 RR a8 Se 2 re an 7
eo Myth 4,695 9.4 4.8 13.0 17.1 27,6 9.5 9.6 oe 10.2 ll.t er re =
Weir. sae RI <1? #9 t$,2 20.8 ° 34, lid 11.4 11.4 12.2 Tat law) 15K
7 Miostssappl 2,1hb 15.3 27,3 ay.4 S1.2 64.4 35.8 Mid 6.0 so.) Mos a3 wet
‘ 4,558 19.2 10.0, 20. 26.8 39.6 1.5 15.7 18.7 Iu? 1a.? 20,4 Py ee wad .
: : 675 13.6 8.5 20,0 26.5, 41,6 13.8 Med 13.8 14.) 17.3 17.4 fle Jal
arenes i Uraska 1,4at 13.8 9.3 19,5- 45.9 41.6 14.4 ~ Lavo 14.6 16.0 18.2 19.8 20.5 24.67
’ ; wha 480 8.5 5.4 2.7 ha 28.8 8.5 2 AB 8.8 10.0 163 1i.4 re) 15.8
teu Fiampah tre 75 9.9 6.5 st No 35.0 lo.) 10.3 10.3 os 13a ba6 sb 44 Peo
: ~ . ’ 2 . Pa | 7
fon Siew Tersey 1,048 8.0 | 5.2 11.6 14.9." 24,7 8.0. BS 8.2 R.a 9.9 10,7 12.0 Li.
i aw Mexton 99} 23.4 1752 1,3 38.7 52 23,5 4 21.7 23.8 18.9 28.2 a aE0 4 Ste?
e.g York eat-Cee S ee) 75 15.4 20.2 30,7 1.5 \ 11.8 Ih.6 11.9 13.48 Is. Lowa 1K.6
. é ren Garolina 489) 19.9 “Th 7.0 33,9 47.8 2053 25 20,4 17.2 20,3 6 29.4 2k. 1 iA
: Sorth Dakota 594 1578 \. 9.8 22.1 29.8 46.8 16.5 16.7 16.7 14.5 1K. 22.4 23.6 D6
i : / ae \ a a0" a
/ , roth 4 10,424 10.2 7.2 14.4 19,1 JLo 10,4 10.6 | 10.6 11.1 17 13,2 rs.u land
: 2 Rhone. 2,469 1B.5 12.0 25.8 32.4 42,0 18.9 19.3 19.2 19,4 2h 2a 247 2444
i . Uren ; 2.04Q- 12.1 8,1 14.4 2.7 34.3 12,2 12.4 12.3 13.8 15.9 1A. Le, 20.0
‘Pennselyvania 11,531 g10.9 71 15,4 20.8 34.4, 10.9 ir,2 11.1 11.9 13.4 Mat Led Kix
: Rite Tstand 902 12.4 8.7 16,6 21.0 4.0 12.4 12.7 12.7 13,3 15.1 14.9 i 14.2
4 Snoth Carolina 2,482 24.7 17,6 32.2 33.9 51.9, 25.1 25.3 # 25.0 20.24. 23.3 28.1 i)
South bakooa 643° J)7,7 1259 25.3 33.7 49,8 . 19,0 19,0 19.'1 16.7 22.1 24.7 thas?
Tennessee, 3,833 21.8 15.2 18.6 .. 35.8 50.0 22,2 22.4' 22,3 19.5 22.6 oth 2dab
oot Texas : 10,885. 18.7 12.4 25.5 Youn 44.8 1878 19,0 9.9 16.5 19,4 aPih 26.5
: Dean! 1,038 12.7, 7.4 16.5 14 40°93 11.8 11.8 T2,0 11.8 13.5 g ait 1?
2 Vermont “GUM 12.3 N74 8 17.2 24.8 39.2 12.2 12.5 12.3 12.8 14.8 1s. 1Ks
Virginia 4,452 1585 "10.8 22.7 7.5 19.9 15.7 15.8 15.7 ba.2 oh 19.5 Ps
Washington 3,299 10,0 6.6 13.9 18.2 29.3 10.1 +7 20.4 10.3 11.9 13.8 12.3 1474
dest Virginta 1,709 23,2 16.7 w.5 38.3 53,2 23.3 23.5 23.6 224 759 24.4 Mts
Wisconsin, 4,292 9.8 6.8 14.2 19,2 32.6 10.3 10.4 10.4 «1.1 | 14.2 13.1 an ;
. Wyoming 32d ARAL 7.45 17.6 .23,5 38.4 12.4 12.600 12.7 re 1562 15,8 19 O83
é .
- SOURCE: Special tabulations by the Census Bureau from the 1:100 Sample of the 1970 Census of Population. : oe
uF : o 7 7 € i
- . : .
> - 5 "
. aw ~
‘Y (> 4 . ny
’ i ¢
; : u :
’
a
“ i
~
‘ wf . ‘
; ,
. 2 4 ;
. a c Fi 1
ERIC 3 | =
: : | :
JA Fuirtoxt Provided by ERIC
7 ¥
fe é cd , z ‘ . ;
+ ‘ a ee
. + s..
at 4
Table 39. Percent of Related Children 5-17 Years in Poverty:
y ‘ [ee ec ‘
for Alternative Poverty Definitions, by State, 1969
a , ‘
eee : ee eee 4 . get Ss
i tT 1 ° Sangle-
‘ 4 ! ; Scaling of current: Measure | Stinplatasarbons at i dollar - | Wed at Sa draco ¥
oN " ' : Current Me gsure Curoffs
Stave \ Universe | Current [Ee a. 1 ‘ ares . poet ' ay el F ar Feat cith
E (uoOOs) : ' ' : : 1 \ . tea Reet
yo p (000s ene ' ! i : : , | ioe Poa sn Pamaly Family
- | | “eas ; { : SoMa Age .ofeGan, Meduan, Median,
‘ i ie boomy tese | tsey Ff a Nontarminentarm oa Stee ho lew 0 High city” Ady. ad).
me . Y r .
UNITED STATES be ar Paces Tose A eee Peay ir es i ‘
‘ ; « :
Alabama 4 ty sO.4 Pa) aa iHon wh 5
. “Alysha ity bo? Plt
Arisona ahh ars) Weel
WATKAT aS 500 Barres cee
Calttornia & YS? Pare)
a Colarade s95 1 ee
: Connect tout Tod ta run
De Laware a? Lids Nwigal
Dast. of Col. , loeb tae so
Florida “, 2,599 rw! a)
«
Georgta e224 25.2 Leet yyo wl? y Seal 4
Hawal dt 202 10.9 6.9 17.3 y we?
dato, : 196 rs nd 18.4 aden
‘Thlineds » 2 ala 1.9 fat 15.4 Sebo v3
tndfana L475 Ba oe oe a
oe
Towa . Paty LO. YY is.) # WwiaA
Kansas ru 14.0 Sa) iM 3 ale?
Kentucky Ho 2500 1 is? nN
Lodisiana 1,950 Ug Pan a | 44.5
Maine 256 lal Det 20 ° ;
Maryland , EOle odbet a) a Pee) ‘
Massachusetts . Lgon' "827 a0 1d. tie *
Michf gan 2,451 9.0° ‘6.2 Pw! 17.4 ’
Minnesota 1,037 9.4 5.905 13.9 Lo
Mississippi \ 640 WO. Jo.2 Sb.o 59
Missourl L,)84 ra.9 4 Qu4 270.9
Montana 196 13.3 ae Plea
Nebragka 386 13.7 9.1 29.9 hb
Nevada * 125 8.8 S'S 13.6 i220
New Hampshire Ado Bos. a3 14.7 3a :
i : ’ a 2
New Jersey .. . 1,794 y 8.4 ae Ea RAL ee 24.8
New Mexic M4 Tyd8.0 20.4. 836.9 246.9 * Sa1n
es New York YG, 340° “12-9 8.0,
North Cargligy, 1,316" . 23,5: 16.0 m
‘Nore Dakota ,. 177 16.9 1.3 6 ‘
oe * . 7
Ohio, (26826 LOL e722 .
Oklahoma s*) 6330 19.1 12.7
Ogegon. 528 11.2 7.4
Pennsylvania * 2,893 11.0 w«b.7
Rhode Island 229 Bek Rt
South Carolina “718 30.2 7 21.4 i
South Dakota 189 16.9 12.0
Tennessee 2,011 24.9 16-6 7
Texas id 2,995 ea 14,2
Utah “sb 10.30 5.9 :
Vermont 118. 11.9 6.5
Virginia _ 1,182 18.4 12.7
Wrsh ington 880 B.9 o.t
“West, Virginia 449 25.2 18.4
Wisconsin 1,199 9.0 4.2 at
Wyoming ‘90 10.0 6.3 e
, . : . “
. vy . Se ere ern ny ye Se eG . ;
a SOURCE: . Special cabulacions by the Census Bureau from the 1:100 Sample of the 1970 Census of Ponfflacion. _ o'7
i ° we *%
* 4
. . J :
. ‘ 2 - *
4 7: '
y - 8 2 . « ‘ ‘
‘ of Pe .
s = z
. : 71? " _ . 1
= ;
. . * 69
@ : “ . * * 7 al . .
ve ; \ : 7
: . e - t
ERIC . ,
FullText Provided by ERIC
~
sO | 7 r ; 7 fl hy
a Table 40, Distribution of Persons by State ‘for Alternative
Poverty Defihitions, ¢l969
pT fee es Lae Pe ee SRE Ce alten aera ooo
~ Ea a Sinjle-dol lar
Seal ing of curpent measure ~ cutoffs Kelative measure
RL et alse di a
; : - aS
2 as _ : 1 908 U.S, 4-person
es _ Curent ® | ‘00S, family tanjfy : 4
- gions yan, poverty © median omiediah hed dan
ro and States measure OR UH TSOR 0 thigh LAM unad). al}. ad). j
United Staves, Total 27,397 16,780 J7,522 49,029 71,807 31,777" 27,40 34,637 BRT 44,278
percent JuU.0 10.0 100.0" 1000 10),0" 00,0 * 100.0 Ud 08,0" 100.0
2) NORMIEAST ; ~ , i. co _ r
New England a m4 —_
Maine 05 4, 0S, SS OG
: “New Hampshire U3 Ud OF OF DS OS OG OE Od 08
Veemt * 2 U2 2 2 02 22 0.2
“Massachusetts 1,7 Lo, 48 LP 22 agile “ad eo 1.8 119
Hhode Island” 0.4 Ud Od Od Od OO 04
- * © Connecticut Oh 8 OB O89 OD, BT 8 00
. : i oa _
a _ Middle Atlantic ne ;
New York VA ME TE TR, Te Oe a
Mew Jersey LM, DD MD iu 12’
— Pennsylvania BD AT 5D 5 BAT 4 4.8
6 opr cam 2 ee ee
| ? = , ‘ ’ ; ; J
~ / °° ast North Central . ae o> oH
Meg this nee 1 ee Fe oP
: diana. 16 ALD LD 20) 22 OOF 1 1 =
f+ Ubinois AL AD Ad A AD AO A
j Michigan MO MG M2
i / Wisconsin LS Og LG LD OG LB A BT
it : ae ; ; i F . : 7 |
bl ' ; ' f i ok” ; ou : ; 1 !
|" dest North central + ae 7 , oak A ws
~/ .% Nimmesptd: Lo” de a eb we LOA 1.6 oe oe
© Towa ' Bl ahO° NR: he dd Eh fee BS ont Ld,
100 | Nisgouri i 3 ie 2S a oe 25 i 4
/ Worth Dakota 03° 03 O03 O04 ° 64 O03 03 04 0.4 4
fos + South Dakota’ A OES 4 05
p * Nebraska es ee
Kansas ie a ede OA hl. tt
- ; \ ‘ ‘ a }
” a oe ee ‘
ry : Table 40, Continued ? pia
. . Cy ; | | ;
4 / ners a ye aan Tek teas en re eee ‘a
- 7 sang emu’ atl: tative mae <
r . e404. 7
aa WO US. | dpefson oa
\ 2 Curent \ WBS family) tamly "s
, quem, Divisions, Patty "OY mo os onednanomedian peda
ud tates rashes ae eV 2 High een, Ae "
: ’ 4 ; ‘ 7 ‘4
cum | ’ oot )
‘ Sd iN 4 |
Me “South Athantae’ 4 ; . ' l.
‘pela ee ee ae We Oe Au hoe io I.
‘aaylnd bee A ORS LO ha! os Ld
Distuiet of Chlumbia 0,5 iy 4 dad Hoy 0.4 U4 04 to
Virgina fo, 4 eb Lh 2h uw fe: dd aD 2,6 Hh i ae i
West, Virginia 1.4 ee Oe Os Fe Ld} 14 i
Jorwardlina Kee Sa hh 7d se 11 }, oe a
"South Carol ing ee Eh a Oe DR A te hl BY Dian
Georgia ee eS cer), ee | ee |? ia ;
» loti re ee 0 SS wt
ee ' \, , ; |
<j Rast South Central, af
we Kentucky dl Xb. Bh Ld to 25 Zt os. \
Tennessee 2 he i ee ee A eae ha | a
Alabutia.' ne Fe Me 2
Migsissippl Oe ee Ss eC a
. 4 ’ :
West South Central © ce ae
Arkansas ee ee ee ee ie ke Ge
. (bai siana a ee ee ee ee ee vee ae
|. Uklahon see) PU 6 a
rt a ftids OY eS 2
: an : 4 4 F : ; ‘a
i ae ar a: 3 |
4 | / 3
Mountaid’* : oo j '
Montana U3 Od 04 OO 0) Ud. Oe, OF Pa
/ Idaho 03 03 W304 Od OE Odd oO) oe,
/*raming Of UL 2 OOS) 02 OR + OI ie. = ia7r as
, Culorade WW 09 Oe Lk ORT AO Oe 0
yt HRW Mexico 08 09 08 708 07 07 7 OB OB BES
1° Atizona ee .
_ Ugah I, U4 ‘dd 05 05 06 Od Od Od 05 cy
; “Newalu Ut Ob 02 O27 02, 2 U2 WO 2
Pacific F 3 ; : :
mim Ld QM |
Oregon a
California i002 TB ;
A ais "Alaska 01 "Ol Bl OL Ol OL 1 Ob. OL Us |
10¢ lava Je 03 03 0, OF OF O38 O2 OF OD, 14:
; 4 ’ : ie
Y,
2 ¢ ;
{8 :
' * ; - a ok .
Table . Distribution of plated chile, 5 to 0 Years by State for Mternative: oo e |
, ss Definitions, 1969 | . *. .* os
' : i \ ‘ ‘
orn oe ann nnn
sical ing of cuttent_ measure | cutotts "Relative measure
F - Wh Uo, . ot
\ ‘ OL US, dperaon a
Curregt : - Sgn ins, family family
Ryjions, Divisions, poverty mstian’ median mecian ” er)
measure 5858508 2008 High Law unad),
n United States, Total 7,930 * 5,381 11,048 14,178 22,008 9,930 4,98)" 6,168 * "Ltt 13,168
Percent, °100,0 100.0 100,0 100.0 "100.0" 1000 J00,0°. 1000 = 100.0» 100.0 a
NORTHEAST | | —
New England - e , _ o>, _ = ;
Kine 05 OWS 6 Ob f ee
New llanpshire U2, G2 03. OF 02 02 02 0 2° 0 3
Vermat. et 02 OL 2 OP 22 eae
Massachusetts LS SY ODD aR Lb LS I)
Rhode Island =O ns)
.* * Connecticut Q7 QR O77 OP Ody 07-2 07 7 0)
os a 4 m~m ‘ 1
Niddle Atlantic oe ee - a
Teton en Moo le ae
Hew Jersey ee Ce) a) | 2)
Pysanephigia 406 ASAD BT a
NORTH CENTRAL Coa -* , .! a
y ; i ‘ 4 oo
East North Central . me a . | re .
i: ce) es | ee Nolo AOD |
, Mndiana ILS AT LD BT ds
| Albino - ay ee Ge eV 8 FS |
(1) ichigan ee es 2 ee 2) Ao.
Hisomsin = MAA ee)
! | ‘ : ' : é : , ; e mee
West North Central tet eh gas ,
Mimestae Lk AS dS
: ova 096 OB 2 2 2 LO 0% 10 hho Le
(Nin Missouri REM O22. MA A
Vi'Ae, dort Dakota 04.03 04 OF 08 00M 03° OF Od ON hi |
: South kota OOM OSS OM Oa LY
Nebrasta eO0 W2 07 07 08 070 07 OT OPT,
Kansas nA 4 us 1 My bl os hn re
. . , me &
FRIC :
eZ
- ACPA The LEAL REG +
’ t
( 4 4 :
Fees i iy e @kisicete Gainey i dee Says
OSL cuetent ineasure eculolly Ke Dative meaiite
toy teria Fp lees) remo, wah em RRLTe ican Pie. oo Ac TENG 9 deena Meecha ewe RE See Co re, Ca oonaas
TOU.
“ ‘ a SUES. A pedo
Curtent f WR. Lunily tumly 1
© Wyton, UivEtan a, paverty i o ostinato med tan :
i NE sae cm oat ge age i eee al ee A
aun | eS a =
1 ' ;
epomith PeLant te ; r
inte a a gb
Mau yfian ba ee A ie 3ST A ee
Wyateact ut (lst i i, , 4 ap iy ‘| 4 . 4 v5 5 Wi» AS
Virginia ee ee es re | Se) aH AT,
Med Viana Fe Pc FY SO Po FY Pe
North Carel ing j0 1 1A 1,6 1s ee en 4 su \,/
Sail HC atl pad . oe ee? ae || re 4 te 4
booty y A 2
Flovia w All Fr A aA AU) 4,4 it
+t oth coal "oy so |
Kentucky db Lb Ad il il (8 ja ’
Tanne ote ha og iA ‘AD Ml 1, a ‘
Alalvata Cb TUN Ob
Mistiaty a Oe ee
, in 3 t
est gout Central ' ' ae '
7 ne 2
banddsydatlia , q,| 4,5 1th hw 4 4). 4d 14
UK Lalo hd [A eee ee Fi 1.6 ia.” :
Was eee ! Fe o
Wat — tt ' a
/ ' ; fs . a o ol
Mountain
Moon A OO eh
lata ee ey Db
Wyitl tn 0,1 hy Wp OO oe Me
_ Polotade . Ld ee 1.0 I. Ur ol 1,0 1 1,0
liew Mealuy fe ee Cr CU 0) COO
AC Lana ee eee ae eo hd su
ita U4. Ud Od 05 Ob od OA" 5
thevata ” re ce 7 | Pe
{ ;
Mee 4S . .
inediingtyn i Wet 1d COC vA
Uren ee ee | UB “08 0° Ca, 0.8 ,
“Caliatma eT D9 BoB |
* Abaoka "uh Ht UL U1 1 eA wl Ul 0.) Ub 406 i
(hat . Wi op 03 Ed Wd US Us Nj 4
| . ' x]
o. % eo ‘ ’
ERIC ; | oO
’ aod
“4 : : ' |
“table " State. share of Poor Persons Under Altemative Poicty pefnition as ar
~Tatio of State Stare _ one eis Pei, 136 : I. |
Sealing of current measure ° ~~ cutoffs se Relative neasutes
Coe -
o _ - gi es a, me an 5080.5, 4-person .
gt ots | Current ® . S08 US. family + family
a fegios, divisions, poverty So pedian—meddan median
ty and States measure 75812550. 200k Highs Low unad}, adj, a,
Sey inst Lt) G8 ASL LAB A005 1.06)
New England | ‘f ae, a ey Sige a
aie 1,000 SIR NBS 126 S189 oF do 1.208
soy New Aampshice” 400095) M15 21169 1,081 1608911
Merman 4.00 873° 1.020 N52. L217 LOM 07570?
eo a 7 Massachugetts 100° 947" 14047" 1,084 1,247 LG LS) L026 1057 1,070
—\it+ thode Island 1,000 °. 1.020.978» 963 joe 07 1.0) 96ST 856
_ : "Comet ict 1,000 1.058 1.00) 1.032 UGG L150 LT 0003.06
so ne eo - ee hig 8 Be Oe o . |
Rew Tort 9620 1,008 025+ 1,008 1.00 "BL 1008 1.007
CM Nee dersey 000" 098 NOSE NO LIE O69 071056 5B 1.081
| 4 Femsylvaia HO 4B 1035 1.09 1.1957 1,059 1.056 1026, LOB 1,008
_ 7 . ‘a oe . , a . 4s os ; ‘ a a
re atu COMA = 100° 38 1022" 1.057 16125 1025 L081 1.098 15.082.
‘ fast North Central os : —- Z _ ee 7
(ho, . age 1.000 1,030 1,027 ° 1.063 " Y16) 1,069 1,088 1,023, 0BE «1.048
Indiana 1000 972 T6730" 237-1127 1100 1,069 1,098
I1Linois . E000 4,020 1,002 1,003,004 1065 1,082" 986 999 1,003
on Michigan _ : 1,000 1.013) 1,007 1.034 1119 1,062. 1,082 98 1,005 1,009 - ‘
Sisooin’ ONO ALL LOS LTS 26 ISEB HBS
7 “West North central. | i ke ge ee ee
an Minnesota y 4000. 932° 1,035. 10? 23 7 8 1.085 71039 1,084
Towa 1,000 © 931058 MAL 2281205186 1,169 6’ 1.084 1,12]
Missouri” ° 1,000 964. 1,000 1,010 99!) 1,063 = 1,071 1,057 1,006 1',000
North Dakota 1.000 902 1.018 1,004 1,128 1,000. 915. NIN 1,039 1,053
(4 South Dakota 1.000 1,010 er 044 «1.086 = 107] 1.074 wh O32, «1,10 1,061 1,091 ‘
. Nebraska ~ 1.090. 986. 1.031 1,069 483585 1,042 1,057
fn, Kansas, L000. 968, ae 1.028 -. 1,063 2102 SUR 1,063 1.005 1,022
’ Ww ‘
' , a '
L
e ‘ \ ', Hl 4
ENC : ; |
and: States °
ad
ie fs. is ae : — pooner pin en :
‘ ' .. ; be J . ‘7 : $1ng e@ oll t, } ; “ 3, ‘ : . ; :
- ve it Scal ing ot ‘cuttent ‘neasute ‘cutofis - - Relative measure f :
- t of wo ” e : 4 ; . : 4 , : uf oi U.S,
ae eS Be eo ae 2 508 US.* 4-person
tape EN Current oe _ S08 U.S, « family family
Hegions, Divisions, poverty oo median median
Ma We] * ad). ad},
- MRASUCE.-
Ce ee
roce 1. South Atlantic _ es OS , _ ae ,
ms pee SiO0D 0861010580960 TB LOO
Stevan 1.000 1.07105 ON L066 LTT OB,
"4". pistrict of alumbia 1.00 Logi 9 eg SD
| virginia“. » 1.000 ° 1.016 1.024 10d 980805 gle SOTO 05
Wt Virginia 1,00 1.052 GL 982 875.965 962 1008 HDD
North Cardling = 1,000
* South Caroling => (1,000 LD.
Georgia, «+ ~. 1.000 |
flocida ' 1000 ©,
East South Central
oo Rentucky——=—«LWUO him 958,909 OES 2M DT
a > Tennessee = UU ¥ 2) a
Mabata =” 1000 53895 TO B88 LT
“'Mississippt 100027 $09 B29, 9 HBO, 860
a / =: a ¢
Hest South Central pe a hh ee ee oe
rans SSSC*«wCOOY 8,908 TMG S12
“ ——— Touisiana 1,008 1,080.93) 8d 786 BA) B62 BLT A
: UkLaiona | 1000, 94 1089979691057 10481054 ONS,
a Texas 1.000 969988979 SSBB] SB HE
sh! Atv 99) "108 LOM LOT fd 106819023 BO)
“Mountain, - 2 - hs a ye,
- Rontana, = 100090707 LO, 1.165 1,096 1,032 1,006 1,005 1,096
a ‘Idaho = 7 L000 BI9 #079 LQ, 22) 09709086 1097
) wyoming’ 1,000,898 1,067 N12 223 1,088 102 OE 0
Colorado 0092s 999 1,050 1,088 1,029 bos 988 OAL O58
New Mexico = (ité«éiz«z TTY BSS GBI 960 958
oy Athan 1.000, 1048994995 1.006 SSB, SBT BN
Pah 100096 OBL SB 9981008 1,000 1.0801 OB
en a 0
” ‘ / . : ‘ 8 si : ‘ :
Washington 1.000 962 1006 1.039 LBS 1059 4,020 1,037
Oregon 1.000.977 994 1.025 0861136142 058 1,041,008
California «1,000. 1,006, 1,021 1.030 1.035 1.021.095 1.09 1,006 * 1.00
Alaska 1,000 1.126 1,050 1.052 1.037943 1,000,865 LO 1,235
taba 1.000, 918: ‘ (1,06 1104 9304608831080
J
" *
“4 at
i
Table 43. State Share of Poor Related Children 5 to 17 Years Under Alternative Poverty
Definitions as a Ratio of State Share-Under Current Poverty Definition, 1969 +
- and States
NORTHEAST. «
ars
* New England."
Oe Mabie
_, New Hampshire
Vermont’
" Massachusetts
= khode Island
_ * Connecticut
- Middle Atlantic
“Hew York
New Jersey °
- Pennsylvania
Q \ { . ‘
“NORTH CENTRAL’
_ ‘bast North Central
peal med
“Chto
Indiana,
4 ULinois
Michigan.
Wisconsin
Hest North Central.
Mannesota « :
Towa
Missourd
North Dakota
‘ 4 south Dakota
A L Nebraska
Kansas
¥
| o
ERIC ©
ica Current
_fegions, Divisions
poverty
i Measure = 758
4.000
Scaling of current measure
; eae “Siegle-del lar 7 aie
.
ol .
ee au
1258
1508 «2008
High
1,060 ° 1.086 1.213 988
910
“1000 956 ka a L380.
1,000 960° L257" 1.716 1,688
1,000 7. 1288 #1,30Le 1.389
1.000 8421077. 1.36" 1.44
1000° 1.059 “1.026 986 Le
1.000 1.072 21,050 1.099 1.330
1,000 915 1.020 1.021 1,089
1,000 86 “1.099 La 117
1,000. 906 1,087. -1.17§ 1,338
. oe ‘ ma ‘
‘Lod 9957105) L271. 95
1.000" "1.055 12056 L094
1.000" 9781153 1.085. 1.415
1, 1,086 ‘1.018-*, 1.085 1,094
1,000 1.014 1.088 1,099 1.252
1.000 1.022 LI L22P1.490
1.000, 980 1.08.12) Lat
1000 863°, 1.087 1,253 1.421
1,000 3928 “1.002 1,057 1,058
1,000, 885 1.005 1.089 1.104
1.000 1,036 1.100 4.156 1.182
000985 1.043 aud 1,223
(1.0005 970 1.01) LO 1.159
ee
1,004
: 956
1020
1,099.
LH2
1.002
992
956
1,00
1.061
1,023
“1,050
+ 1,034
1028
566
1.049
978
937
1.129
1,035
990
cutoffs
* yeh
‘
a eH
‘
La
‘ Low
*
Relative measure
eS
os +, 508 US,
080.5.
unad].
is
‘4-person
fanily family
median median
median
ad}. ad
Mh 1,001,009
99052 M1286
995. 1032.12 1,280
S05 Tb BR 1205
979 LOU 1,085 LL2b
LIM 9M) QD 990
LB) 06, L039 1.078
oo |
986 1,008. 017 1,017
938 081 tO 1.105
OM AOL 1,090 LO
1037 1028 1,06) 1,098 -
o oe ae — 7
1.106," 1.029 L060. 1097.
1070 U7? 1158 1,230
1.068 99710151040
1.056 = 99} 1042057
9B LUNE 14P2 113
968 1.092 1093. 1193
A a PC ES
Se AU) C8)
19% LN) 1,039
1,09 = 1,062. «1,471,186
“L051. 108) 1,085 1,091
38 9981025 1,048
hr re
uA
ae esas, Divisions
Z|
Current
poverty’ ”
measure
r ‘and States
SOUTH 1000 | 1.030
South Atlantic
Delaware 1,000 76
oy * Matyland 1,000: 1.036
, District of Columbia -1.00) 1,099
*Vigginia = 1,000" 1.008
' “West Virginia» = 1,000 1.078
North Carolina = 1,000 1,005
ae South Caroling 1,000. 1.044
oe Georgia 1,000. + 1.036 .
Florida 1,000 1.015
va are ae \
NY ++ Bast South Central
; _ Kentucky "4,000 1.081
_ Tennessee L000 79
os - Alabama “4,000 1,041
oe “Mississippi, 1,000 1.16)
af West_ South Central ;
eo Arkansas, + 1,000, «1.120
louisiana 1,000. 1,091
. Oklahopa 1,000 980
hae Texas 1,000. 1966
yest 1.000932
““hoontain a
= Se "1,000. .843
Idaho" “1,000 + 834
ie ~ Wyoming L000" «923
| Colorado 1,000. “91
0 Hee Mexico. 1,000 1,078
Arizona 1,000° 1,065 -
; ‘Utah 1,000 866
he Wav gp fl 6
, Pacific ' J ; me :
Wash ington 1,000 1.019
; 7 * Oregon 1,000 1.000
Poe, California 1,000 996
(1 f} ~ Alaska 1,000 1.182
Alu Hawaii 1,000 938
wae
ERIC:
* Scaling of current measure
DY
“Table 4, Contin
4 T
158150
2008
3191082
1.096 1.075 1.023, 715-
1.096 1.065 1,096 1.054
994, 948 886-1098
L019 -.982 921 980
960.94} 60,1089
S14 932.836 HB
930.84 75880
940891 TL. SG
567380. 01,0
r . ! ‘
ay eR ee
952 9h BS OTR
i) ae
905.8) 638 1,047
a BT 1072
509 BAL 6981.02,
997976.) 958. 1.028
98947855 23
1,009 1,025 1,260, 1,006
L160 “123. 1,288, 7 978
1.077 "1150. 1.275, 948
LQ? 1,349 1.520" 1.04)
982 1,027, 1.076 932
94). (6k 651.00
9809 99H
1100 1.242 S64 G62”
LO 1.254 1300-973
1,022 1,090 1,260 1.081
986 1,085 22k 1.04
996.995 1,000 . 1.011
VAN 1105 L162 1.189
1.143 1,104
"M6 972
High”
: ein
ye ea Meagure
*
¢
ty me
633
1028
1071
7
1102.
901, ‘
8: 92 920.
6" 1094 4.078
997 Lal 1,024
TMs ° 59 + 988
998 1.012 1.002
ot) er ae ae
398
357.
1.046 *
1,076,
7
1,058"
1,063 ~
a
3929,
; 206
ie #907
vt O59
- 993
360,
me
"068
«
ant, bn
i
gue
? bit 1.018
918
‘ 50S,
508 U.S. family | fanily.
. nedian nedian y pedian
wad},
a ly Y ad).
1.003, .975 950
Bl Mb. 869
95393)
1011 °° 965. J
996 9B 907
a
A) a
i, 032
952°. 919 96
U
iO (1,024
\ '
TTY) + 208
HO 1.068 1405
Ml 18
9 9917 1,045
ys
l, se |
1,04]
1.079
1010
1,238
1023
ee 6
LM 205
1108 1.090 -1,08)
©4087 4,093 1,082
1.00 997395
a - 1018 128
960 929"
960° 9788
$2 TM
feperson 7
WM
- 80)
fi Ashlea, BL
00 * .990 716"
9
11230
' ees ' , . ’
; . i
\ '
tO 7 eee as .
‘ VIABLE D1. Selectad Characteristics of Persons by Alternative seasurs of Poverty in 154 ‘ 7 choos as
nee Persons as of March 1995) | i
_ a ae Seal in Tent Measures of Current Measure’
fe . MM Current , ; 208 U.S. |
, Family Status and Race, Income Poverty Male / Male Median Fondly Mel snag Mel
ae | a i of a iaels Measue 754 1254 15082000 tonfam Nena Nonfarm igh Low Ub. “ian, Adj, ian, dj,
a ; ; i “a . 7 . ’ rail ; i 3 : a
| ALL RACES | a PR g j
a so oe 4 re ae,
ALL Persons, total "+ 209,343 24,260 14,538 34,615 45,211 69,389 24,534 25,186 25,060 + 32,653 17,398 36,400 36,148. 41,167
2 OS years andor 217 35S 18 10,623 1,34 JBL 5,386 8,987 5,01. 7,609 5,79. 6 718
f d é : : $ :
$e Bien 8 oo a : at ; oo | : ; : “4 . :
In families, total 190,471 19,440. + 11,698 27,783 36,928) 59,055 19,695 20/119 20,082 20,147 JO,102 12,222 29,048" 33,354. ‘
Head B/M2 5109 3,052 7,437 9/948 16,036 5,179 5,40) 5,286 7,503 3,400 10,894 7,781. 8,967
Related children a pie a GR Sal - 3 | oo ;
wile 18 years 65,802 10,136 6,389 13,684 17,577 26,517 10,29 10,937 10,45) 8.437 “4,28 UL Te0 M33} 16,122 ere
Related children , a ” . ; _ 2
" 5 to 17 years 49,800 7,526 4,605" 10,7 12,891 19,85) 1,608 7,795 7,262. 5,903 2,995. 8,294 J0,9%6 , 118i ray
other family members 68,957 4,159 2,297 6,562 9403 16,502 4,222. 4,259 4.293 187 2,447 9,569» 6,934 6, 265 ,
~! . ’ : : 7 Q . esis 4,
4 » Unrelated individuals, . ne | 4 , e : re
5 T8ib72 4,820 - + 2,86) 6,52 6,284 10,339 4,639 5/006, 5,018 10,506 7,20 4°18 10 7H ,
' Mile H890 L007 102 2,206 2,079" 3,514 1,620 Laue Lal) 442,218 U3 22" 2,521 er aioe
; Female W)3BL 3,212 1,798 $620 5,601 byl9 219 ddd JAUF 11005 5,072. 2,815 £4, fle an “he,
Fees ish fant labs with . oe ; 4 . i :
nale eed, tclal » (167,20? en Bodbt 17,085 24396 ANY 129 MQ 1,296 11S 57h 20s MW? “TBI? 514 :
uh years cueltwver LEA MG" 4oy 1,820 * 2,90 Subs Luk Lu. 1,078 4.4904 1.165 5,20) °2,0% = 2,508
lead, 48470 2787, 1 PAGS vySD ATO 2yHab 2 ANE 2,856 Ay? 185,57 5,695 ;
Welate) chileen a a er. A Cae os ‘.
* — cxtef |B years. PAD. HAD, 2M TU LET 498. 4,908. Sole 1,828 | Ye |
“Belated children oe . i " ; pe i. '
- - So Myers SGN YE 197 S28 2 deh LAT 485 = 3,62) 3,709 2,269 1,086 3,585 9,997. 6,486 Lae -
| ‘er fa amy ears ONAL SSH TA Td a 920083990 eg i
| Persons: In sails with e Be . . . ee 7 we ' - fi . '
female’ bead, total © 0245 4)560) UN WO 2 928 8,506. Oro 8,746 8972 4,731. 1,580 40,981 “Ubgtl. i
a US yours ad over AB LOS AB a Y BW La
fied © Ae eM LSS TG) LM 400 89) 807 4g SL Lag 3619 $02e ay) 0, “
* Related chuldryn . 2 . . ee ee Oe ee
a | under 18 years WSK 587 SNF SM 129 840d 5 g87 530 5A 5,08 2,77 6,363 6,658 du :
115. Helated children ; i | eee
§ to 17 years De a 3 4880 392 MUG 3,980 4170 4,056 36M 1,899 4,709" 4,908 ae
Utler family mambers ' 5 gyn ye ¢ Hos Sane ed ; t a. Oo
y Dyas ah "120 ee eS | US. 126) 1 AML
. ow
) : ty Me
: Ma “68 . re
‘ ‘i 4
. , ' ‘ t ‘
¥ a , ,
* ms A ‘(
: , 4 '
. e
' . : = \ ay
: mu : - a , ad
TALE DI. Selected characteristics of Persons by Alternapive Musures of Poverty in. 1974 '
Om , oe |
' (Nmbers in thousands, Persons as of March 1975) ,
- * ; ae
Spl ficat ions ~Simlellar
" Soality of Gurent Measure of Uurrent Maswes Cutoff Relative Measures
All Current Ta. ee ieightal To ‘US. SUS. OU Ses, » ‘
Family Status und Race == Incune Poverty a tile Mile ‘. - Malan Family Med> Family Mad
wal Sx of lal "ayes sure 15a 12541504200 Nata tar far fgh tow Stag A. Jar, |
WaT . mg . _ a, ;
A . 7 bi ; ! ‘ ‘ _ ‘
ALL Persons, total. 182,255 16,J10 9,470 24,061 12,689 54,230: 16,580 16H “Le,886 24,556 12,605 26,773 deal Hs
"5 years and ower 19,206 2682 ALY ANI 62H 94208 4685 Dy Sly 2720 TTT AAT bab LT
* Jn faralies, total Yo] 12,537 7,301 18,558 24,902 44,104 12,760 igs! “Lol 15/59 6,882 25,41 19,54 rh)
ste, 49,451 5,882 2406 5,24 7,27 A 5bS STEED TSH 2A BOO EON abd te
Related chudren Pg <a o a a ere _
me eur 1B years Sh:315 6178 3,705 BON 11,660 19,22) ob dod by Bel G2TS 2 SHH TAB 400) 7 10,090”
+ Related children i” j oe , * . _ ;
* +5 to 1? ypars 41,998 458) 2,083 0,250 BANS 15,059 ASEH AS bed LP Gy1eT SSB 18M)
r os) other tamly mabers 1,47 ,87e mn WT) ae PTE) Oe PC na) DE a)
’ ' ty : ‘ ei : ;
. \ .
predated individuals, + oe. ; a : ;
Total ; 16,252 I, 79, 2269 5,502 0,787 B62 47H NG NS WTP) TT b, 301
Male a: 6,544 Tytud °° ASS bo 205) TN LM bE Le 2,720 1,090 1,005 1,744 1 hes
fale 910 2ST TANG SBM ATM 5,858 59 21 TA yO A aydey A Ah
: -
\ Persons in families Wit) gi ar h
male head, total” 50,645 Byebe * 4,30 15049 15,83 to,035, BABE BBL Byte TN, TO 4,26 17,000 13,867. 16,768
OS yuars and over L189 Bal HU 4,59 AD) ANY PR BiH BATU dle .
—— Ttead 44,238 2,185 1,19 579 5,300 4,906 2c fit Cyl 3,49 1,507 203» 5, 19¢ 1,548
4 feelated ‘children i or i ft oe ge ES 7 .
— under 16 years 1 49,038 3, 60H 1,942 5,235° TB)? 14jc08 4,59) 4,591 bil: L589 T, 127 4UrS 5,005 6,774
Helatul children aa _ SS os ;
Sta? years Some? 2,589 1,487 4, Th6 5,5}0 10,289 2,615 tlh. 2,6bb 1,654 4 2yb)s, 4,0h0 4,401
: y . utter famly mates, S579 2,509. LAY re byddy LL f2l 2, Ode othe 2b 4,289 dtd 670 4 ASU 5,49]
ae ‘ ca a si vt i . : : : } ,
a, Persons in families ‘wiih vo ot -
a "tigate hoad, total 5458 4,275 BNE SENG 559 UO 42194506 AE ASH MUS PST AT 6,235
65 years a over 1,436 10) oT bn lo tt re 103 i li . dod
Head Alle 1a? BS A yuoh 1,497. pity eT Te aC PP
elated children * oe r /
uder 18 years 71 ey) ee FP Ce FC a Ye Py ’
' Related children ae te Shy ~ hcg Ml oe
5 to 17 years’, 5021 L9H 26 2,484 2,895 3,550 1,934 2,029 1,955 1,908 yo 2,40 2,54 2,784
Other tam li, members 3,69 i07 16} ‘)] NS 1,197. 309 228 8 “47h a2 ) 649 :
t « bs
F | ‘ ‘ { ‘
al . o =
; . C ; ’ ‘
: : . n . . »
' 1 f é '
- 5° 4° ery ¢ ;
7 7 », age : \
! . ab, a1
TABLE DL. Selected) Character bf es of berseny by Altemitive Measures of Puverty an Ly '
' ; ;
rkegs ae Jus, Persons as ct Much Ly! : :
| 4 _ / ee . ‘ . Supliticatinys TSaylesiob lar os ’
: ~ a ‘alli of Cunfent Baamae of Curent Masur." Cutofts™ telative Muasuryy
NL ¥ current ae Weighkel. SN US. 5000S. 8 S00 pers,
Family status und ier Inoue Raverty ye » Mle Mle Madiqn Faruly Mal- Pandy Mad
\ ud ae Ot Hl rls Moet Ua 200 atin farm Sonform Hay lod hay. any Adj dan, Ay,
All Weise, total 34,708 74M) 4,18) 944L HL 06) yl 7490 3,69) 1,0 ML al 37 ud dad
yoy, UO years and over 7 a 7) Sr 2 | 7) LY Pr |
4 ' . . '
7 a
:
In tatues, total AM OAM 47 Baal 10296 13,22) 0,527 6,09 08k Sb 5,005 B65 84199, 5
Head © - 5,498 Fyusu Wyo, Obe x Y200 Udo 1,59) Ast ay oe er ey ee ee | 8)
lated cha dren ; na
wilt TB pears 4248 ET ed AM SAN BOOST MIT 25MM Ao Awol 4,
belated clu ldgen \ i ee ce
o , oto Uy years 7 "7,000 2,901 ABD, yo A220 Sb 2 YIS 2,448 . Ser 7rd) ee ye) 8
O Gihet tamily msnbers 04701 Lb 1 Cn Os aS oe 2 0,047
(urelated antividusls, a 2 m .
Total 2,347 96] Da lg) 1,574 45557 4d 494 98? 1 td 1,246 #72 1,242 Le,
Mile 7b) a 1 Se) eS a |) | AY)
Fale I Lh | a 413
frases Wa) Landes with 2 i 4 m i ;
fa "rule tad, total 13,052 2)300 © 1,408 3,97 4,669 6,425 2,55) dN gD 076 6,7 22]
1 Oo wars vid ver dl Ly Prt), ee) Cee Bo ih, diy Sb. Tb 4h? iM) s]
lac ere Oe yy 87 Jos”
Related cluldren on) rn pe” ey.
uuler 18 yours 52M Le Od UI BO 5,083 LAL TH TFL 1, BOY 1, 96
Wlated children of . , ,
2 tw wars 4,905). BBS SEAS 9B a 1d 16
Other famuly manbers ary dg ee tS oe YS eS OT) 659 6) To Hd 1,092 1,04 1,208,
~ Persons an families with os _ °
furale teal, twtal 7922 4AM 284d SME 50S GU IM 4107 I "SB 2089 4,911 510) ANB
65 years and ower LC CS nt
"Head TL se
( lvlated chi dren, ue ar , ae ae rae ;
1] ) wren 18 years 4,095 678. LyB6d 5,129 ald 124 267d 2,75 TU eye 2 bee 4,324
* Helated children : oe A .
5 to 17 ywars ¢ 108 2016 LAW 219 STF 2,800 206 2,100 rat), 1,66 875 2,1 DG,
sehen tanily mmbers 148849) Ltd 8 yr 709
| : : a ' oe '
po\ > te - ) . a A
" @ a . on : i : a : fg it
ERIC. , i - -
: ws
q ete renee .
“TABLE D2. Selectal Character isticg of FaniLies by Alternative Measures of Poverty Lv14
- (Wanker in thousands, Fanilues as ot March 1975) re
nee Evweee = Senay CUNT R Ce Oe TERRE cere erie emt ee Maree ne oe Serene
. . Simi’ ia + Shigle-da}lar ere.
| " nt 7 - Sealing of Current Measure o ore Measure Qutoffs Relative Méagures’
a FER ao All Current a ee welghited 500 U5, 508 U.S. 508 d+perg,
Inoore +Poverty® tule (Male Median Family Mol» Family Nee
Selectal Characteristics | Lovels Measure 75612581508 2008 Honfaum Nonfarm tonfana_ Nonfarm igh tow rad), tan, Ad, dan, Ad,
ALL FAMILIES . ; Hg t y
. ’ FS ' E é ry \
4, Age of toad
Mtal $5,712 4 5,109. ° 3,052 7,437 9,NB 16,030 5,179 55327 5,256 7,52) 3,400 10,004 1,788,967
' Under 25 jears - 42 73 S07 LON 1,246 180816 ,0NG 579 AB} 10501144
"8B ty Gt oars’, 43,458 3,616 2,204 * 5,06) 6,722 26,039 5,600 1,770 S72. 4,148 2,005 6,002. $4300 «6,097
Ao years dad ne B08 2-760 322 1,350 1,980 3,3 785 THM 2,300 BE 14H 121,726
’ : ' a ws ‘ :
~ Sige of Fanily a of : .
0 ' "Dtal , 5,712 5,109 4,052 7,437 9,948 16,036 ° $179 5,323 5,256. , 7,523 3,400 10,894 7,781,987
H 2 persons 20,823 1,709 1938 2,62) 3,888 5,829 1,740 1,80 1,74 4104 LB 6,09 2 I
-flead 65 yours and over 6429-5899 DA 1,057, 1,583 2,786 58587, BG 2,079 123,034 tle: ot
} persons . 12,177 9 61S L,JE 1,802 2,79 976126 989 NAIF 2B 2,075 A ASLO
os A'persons! , 1002 E5994 OH 2,758 BSL BO BTM 8 400 1,297 1,281 1,496.
5 persons 6,313 be 308 BTA 1,146 2,022 6) AK ST 1,079
* 6 persuns ¢ ey SS YW CLL “603 "67
T persons or mre = + 2,42 = S80 BGS db) SOY ST HBO 2 eh T 671
+ Presence Of Related ae 4 7 ;
ChildrmS17 i” ff a ee
( Total -§5,712°°$,109 3,052 7437+ 9,948 16,036 - 5,179" 5,323 Sth 79823 3,400" 10,804 978) 8,967
‘No children . 30,692 2,010, 1,213 3,292 4,531 7,64) 2,088 = 2,051 2,078 4,638 1,913. 6888 1,389 | 3,997
With children”, 021 3,499 1,940 4,20) S417 8,997 3,233,282 3,178 2,905 2487 4,036 4,392 4,976
HOA 1 child 10,317 4791326 1,759 2,749 988 1,033," 996 1,280,670 TOL 11, 687
' - 2) children 7,767 799, 522 «1,095 1,46 2,389 «807 BBL 71 423. 1,08} 1,091,298
. \ -} children “4,008 605374 4G 10,621 OLY, O45 0 HH 87D 5
‘ 4 children 190536) AB? D3 ST L608 $14
: “Schildten or more’. «IN 35} 19} 459 SOL M6356 HL HRA ' 9h)
‘ Presence of Related Ae iss
~ Children Under 18 :f : .
toa . Total 55,712 $109 3,052 7,437 9,948 16,036 5,179 530 286, 7,523 3,400 10,894. 7,781 >, 8,967
og, NM children = A/38L 1,034” 610 2,126 3,099 5,385 2,270 1,292. ee 3585 1,396 5,432 2,238 2,709
With children . , 31,331 3,875 © 2,442 5,310 6,848 10,691 3,909 * 4,031 3,957 - 3,939 2,064 5,462 5,544,258
se, Techie 140 1,086 oh A 1936, 3016 1 1,099 1/14, 1 087g 1562 877 2,176 1,554 1,782 |
+ * 2 children > 10,285 996 "624 ‘40 1/821 °3, 28 982 «1,017 3,003 EW 1499 1,46). 1,680 4
| Jchildren * BAD Ys M65. 1,029" 1,336, 21h 1647 TOA TY 6G yr 9B FMT ALT a
«4 children 246997 S860 1,276 199506 S08 M156 BP BH,
{2h + Schildren or more = 1,728 985 JMG 727.896 1189S. STB SN 0 Wi 0 2 BB
. ; i ¢ :
a ' , ae may
ERIC | f ; |
—— ‘ ' i \. 1.
TNE D2, Selected characteristics of Fanilies by Alteratlve Measures’ of Paverty in 137
a
‘ (Nmbers in thousavds, Panilies as of March 1975) a
aan — Simplifications Single-dol lar 7
soaling of Curren’ Curent Hataure of Current Measure Cutoffs Relative Measures jy
. All Qurrett feos helg —— NUS. STS, re
So Income Poverty . a ‘ Male Male et
of ; bectal Characteristics levels Measure 758 1254 1504 - 2001’ Nonfarm Nonfarm Nonfarm High low = i.
; aor : : a “ i Nec ; s a im e : a et
- i os POR © eae aaa a oy ; hae
ee: Je ‘y aa _ ‘ -—. it ve oar
gmat at 6 Mage 7 7 |
pf er ee hae ; ae
; tol | 95,712" 5,109» 3,082 2,437 "9,948 16,036 5,179 y 5,256" 7,523 3,400 “10,887,781 87
* Incivilian labor force 43,216 2,497 1,512 3,794 5,305 7,452 is 2,595 3,188 1,454 4,969 4,026 7
Employed 40,419 2,048 1,207 3,156 4,499 8,248 2 a * 2673 1/185 4,210 3,389 3,988
Unemployed 2,797 449 5" 6B alt 1,209 ir N 458 S15. 269 19 667 mp}
alt in civilian labor - a. i ae 3 é vy
force 12,497 2,611 1,540 3,642 4,632 6,585 2,629" - 2,697 2,661 4,395 M6 5,923,755 A SF
0 Work Experience of Had = as
N) Total 55,712 5,109 3,052 7,437 9,948 16,036 5,179 5,323 5,296 7,523 3400 10,894 7,781 8,967
‘Worked last year 45,106 2,691 1,620 4,078 5,720 10,081 2,752 2,843 2,801 3,542. 1,586 5,510 - 4,919. * 5,085 -
30-52 weeks 35,601 1,160 664 1,903 2,878 5,969 1,224 1,267 1,248 1,555 * 669 4,644 2,054 2Hgh. ,
Pull time Mj 980 M4 1,618 2,506 5,391 1,010 1,041 1,033 1,235 508 2,160) 1,755,345 5
1-45 weeks 9,545 1,511 956 2,175 2,843 4,121 1,529 2,575 1,552 1,986 = 918 2,866 2,266 2,59) |
Reason for working r . 3 vo 4
1 ath year rr eran ‘( , (
aes Unemployed: 4,317 43. . 370 991,260 1,91) ie 668 660 7697s, 994 LM
oy) Other 5,208 86856” 1,285 153 2,210 7877 907,892,218 600 1,689 1,271 1,45).
> Did not work » 9,639 2,390 1,419. 3,270 4,059 3,593. 2,400 2,453 2,425 , dal ~ 3,238 3560 SB.
fead in med Foret TB. PD By lt Wk 7
Type of Income | a cae . * we * ast s
, ; s : ’ fs 5 ; 1 e . 7 : ‘ P é at es am. &
Bamed incre 49,529 3,172, 1,806 "4,835 6,768 L777 3,236) 382 3,295 4,223 1,820 fed SLIT” 66.
. _ Soial Security 12,162 1,220 M7 2,054 2,953 4,040 1,245 1,266 1,267 2,974 { 0,029. 4415 2,157 = 2,604
* Dividends, interest, . ’ . i =
j and rent . 27,2438) 42. 1,173 1,779 3,952 ML aT. 91,669 568 2,787 1,249 1,532 :
Ms » Public assistance 4,359 2,043 1,196. 2,589 2,979 3,478 2,048 2,119 2,078 = 2,481,220 2,880 2,647 2,840 | it
" Other transfer incon a/ 10,29 = 413 57900 1,389 2,552 519580537 07 282 1,3 958 118
Private pensions, ‘ an -
alimony, etc, 6,581. 547 37 LO 1,096 1,996 54756559888 MLL 33 985,
O° : é > :
i)
- 4/Includes unemployment and worknen's conpensation, goverrment. employee pensions, and veterans’ payments,
A
4
“1 child
nae D2. select carter istics of Families by Alternativ Mutsures of boy in 1974
" Nunbers in thousands, Fanilies as of March 1975)
‘FAMILIES WITH MALE {IFAD
Aye of Head
Total
Under 25 years 4
25 to 64 years.
66 ae
Sie: ae Bay
"tal | . i y
2 persons ow
Head 65 ‘jears and over
} persons
4 pereons
5-persons
6 persons
_ 1 persons of more
Presence of Related
Children 5-17
Total
No children
With children
Echildren .
~ Schildrén
. 4 children
5 children or more
Presence of Related
Children Under 18
Total ..
No. children
- with children
ne
‘1 child
2 children ,
Jehildren 0
4 children
5 children or more
48,470
2,081
26,409
9,461
8,917
- 4,673
1,989
\! Incore Poverty
- Selected Characteristics Levels _ Measure 154
2,79
2]
1,854
616
469
424
421
339
45
* m0
2/751
1,380
1,376
92
Wo
1 292
“4 ‘ kobe,
19g"
2,751
1,041
1,116
419
43
» 368
mm
, 230
1,921
116
1,093
291
1,52)
42
:
"266
200
AY
1S
1,421
1,321
+ $20
1,001
tg
Ang a , ; — . i Es ;
a ae reece acer Soa iy of, Current Measure Measure
\ 1 , 4 .
A current ao.
t
~ Simplifications “Singeblla Wa ax
of Current Measure.» Cuboffai 5 Ue eg
as Waghtal . ‘ wn . ' ,
Maley Mile. Median og Med~ Family Med-
125% 13020 2008 hte a! Nwifarm High
6,502 11,73)
696° 1,258
4,118 7,617
1,608 2,056
aa 4
“6,802 11,731
2,430 4,267
1,389 2,44
919° 1,783
1,039 2,051
“a2, 1,7)
Y 99
ny Alo
6,502 1,731
1519 6,202
~ 2,983 3,468
903” 1,887
Tp 1,936
395 1 ld,”
34
' 354 412
1 safl
‘ '
6,802 11,731
2,654 * 4,685
* 3,838 -7,046
91 1,773
1,031 2,037
783 1,529
495879
568 831
2,826
ray
1,898
6400.
2,826
991
492
430
427°
38)
M6
Aig
2,826
Ki
dol
MW,
300
170
.1m,.
2,026
1,076.
1,750
a
420
382
228
2%
2,826
288
1,998
4 640
2,026
991
492
430
47
33,
246
39
2,826
1,416
1,410 °
40)
»
300°".
110
192
2,826
1,076
1,750°
” 44
» 420
382
228
* 296
\
2,856
4,672
24 516
1,9}6 2,138
4. 2,018
rd ‘
2,850 4,672
‘$8 2,938
492 1,834
44126
449, 449
398 266
248 155)
186.138
a
2,856 4,672
1,423 3,984
1,433. 1,068
40490457
1 28S
17 84
ae
2,856 46%
1,080. 3,091
1,776 1,58)
dl. 640
44027
389275
26 0S.
eee
1,835
198
949
688
1,835
1,087
626
4,58
B55.
3,407
2,942
7,255
4,497
2,695
27 1,169
1994
mol
4 * 10
5
6)
230
228
1,255 4
5,532.
mW
1B 0
45)
289
"12
123°
1255
4718"
2,537
. 10M
nd
4,753 5,676
526 605
304,61)
11931489
113), «S66
1,76 2%, Wy
» 964" fad j
"70 i
ML gg OT
MM
398 459
$59 639
i510" 5,696
2542 1,089
2,012» 2,627
wi 646 00.
3 fae
4a 533
1a
7.) re
‘ en
4,753 5,676
L912 2,304
284 4,372
m5" (6
nl 4
|
7) es!)
ao, 499
low Und), fan, Adj. ian My.
5
i
t
Fo 19%
4 . a : 7
a ‘ : .
TNE D2, Selevtat Churactertutics of Fand lies by nlenithe Mausures of Pverty in me
4
(Nanbers in thous, . Families as of: aac nA -
Scien ad aaa: name Nees Pie. PS yy Aaa at Mg
ed a aa oe. . i i. Singh jebllar way 9 as ° *
ro TS ia ‘ , . scaling of ¢ (uctent Mousure of Curtent Hastie Cutolfg pelitiy ieares * : - ;
al ot OAM", Current | re ay Wht Dot. TUS NS. — oi Thee,
. “Taye Potty, Male, Mller Phe" Median Vamily’Mad~ Fant Md Ned
att ot aah istics _ levels hs Moasure” i) ee li AON __Nonfann “Nonfat Sonfarte Migh Tow __ thal) ian, My, ian, Mj.
— setae ene
~-FANIMIES wim vr . |
Arploynent Status of
“Head | a an on ; ‘i .
‘Total i. MBA70 2,757 L,S2t- 4,48) 5,508 HTL 2,826 2,826 2,856 4,072 1,835 7,255 $4,753 5,676
In.civilian labor force 39,281 1,656. 9Q3 2647 3,988 7,884 1,708 1,708 1,732 2 1t0 8 3,460 2,83) 3,37)
+ « Employed 36,877 1,416 839 2,257 3,391 8,598 LdeB 1 d68: 1,488 1,837 03 2,987. 2,416 2 BY
Uneanplayad 2405" 40, M390 517 MOMS aS
y, Not an civilian 3 me 4 ES _
** Jator fore 9,189 1,10) 538 1,036 2,614 4,247 16 UM 1d 2,560 OT 3,995 1,922 6° 20
‘ ‘ = bag er : i —_ n
ne Experience of is te — ' :
"sd 48,470 2,757 1,52) 4483 6,502 11,73. 2,826 - 2,826 28 4,072 1,835 7,255 4,75) > 5,676 i
> ork Last vig 40,800 LS. A013 2,778 igh 198) 1,604, 1,804 182 2 97) BW ST,
50-42 Woks # . 32,083 884 sto 1,442 12,250. 4,955" 926 $26 935? 1,132 | 531,966, 1,566 1,917
Full’ tine’ 31,836 785 493. 1,294 2,040 4595 4 Bld; 825. M439, 1662° LAD 1,227 -
1-49 weeks 7937. B61. 503 1,338 1,851 2,926 878 8, BN 460° 1,882 1,40) 1,640
Reason for working - ae . _
part year a
Unemployed Cn a. eC oe TE y bu:
of "y 0" 4,)20e 44 do3 652, 9071,409 44S 44 429 ih 276 997 684 805
Did atc 6,721. 486 495 (1,619 %2,232 3,480 = 994 999 1,000 2,293 B53 4,301 1,685, 1,976
tha in as Forges aa 2 13. 8y 164,. 3602 i 30 6 9 Mb _ ‘1, 143
MPa ae Nao " ed : me e
he of Inooe . oe ; . i
! ' , a
"famed inoue: 44,054 1,992 olan 16 aio 9,06L 2,085 2,095 2,078, 2,716 1,084° 4,513 pas 4,138
Social Security , ae 828 458: 1 480, 2,206 «4, 142 852 652 B57 .2,355 | 3516 1,565 1,922 7
vient, interest, a to . |
‘and rent 25,108 539 JO 955 1,480 3,383 567567 671,398 440. 2,344 1,017 } ,256
bublic assistance , 1/982 -870 mt. 840 1,049 1,39 5755 30 M238 0879, 88
Other transfer‘ ‘ingone af 4,205 89M 692 Ll2> 2,110 395 M5 all 68b 141,211 14 90,
Private pensions, , | i ea 4 ; at a
salinony, ate, Nee 8. 78 Oh 445 8 tt a Wy 401 13 BN} I M1
a/ Ielie oni and workmen's canpensat ion, goverment se pensions, and wear! ‘5 nas - 4 ae y .
‘ e
: r
Y é u 4 « is 7 ji
’ : : oy
|
b
_—*
ERIC
‘
i
)
ee eo : " “
TAB RE. Selected Churdeteristaes of Fuudtes by Alter give Measures of Maerty a 144
“inate an tfaueudy, Families as of Mare 1475)
RMS HIN ANNE JED
AL.
Ihum
“Solevtal Characteristics avels
Aw of teal 7M YS
Ttal. eG hale
Under 23 yuars 13
mec to bd year 529.
bi wars’and omg 8" 1/108
r ‘Suee Sait ae ar
total be Tede
yt per ans 3,224
* flead*65 years‘und over». 780
Jperons 1,847 |
{-yeranns 1,005
"9 persons! 995
b persons 38
7 pergons oF sore 2)
. "Prestnce of Rejated
Children ze ; ‘
total 1 1,02
No children i133
With oluldren 4,109
1 child 1,791
é cluldren 1,156
} children J 629
dchildren» * M5
5 chil dren of yore ; 13,
Presence of ela,
Children Under 18
>) Rtal 7,242
No onli “220
With children a 4,922
1 child } 2,003-
Dehildren | 1,368
3 children 19
4 children 427
5 children or mye 168
a:
” i h
Aurrent
rawity
Marstue|
oe
’
t é
2,351
44
1,71
144
a
4
\ ND
1 S32.
dob
\'
It
AL
1 ; “ se i 7
Scaling of Ciitent Maasare
debt S50 Lt
ae
: a
2,95) dddb AyWb 2,344
“519 550° be? ME
Ja e,bud 3,219 1,70)
a es) ee |
7
- ee ae
295) HUANG E4100 2S
9 L/1SH 1,582 TNH
Mh IM Wh.
“OT ARYS 1089 #546
52495, }
ye 9 AS OTT
020 B M167
a es rs)
Par
2,953 3,440 4,346 2,35)
wy} },013 1,859 ool
yyy 24d 97 LL
72 850-1, 182987
3) 655 BND
95459 60S
40 026328097
193.207. Mb
2,95) 3,446 4,306 2,393
ge 700 194
2,639 3/01 3,806 2,159 °
$10 955124), 669
698 790 «S989 «SER
490 552 624m 38
W365 GM
0 38 JM OTS,
ey
,
4
hi Lifcations |
ut ae Meastte
al
Vo Mile Mile
Nonfiarin Manta) Nona High ast
Bil 1,565
930 381
"2,009 1,056
oe os
pee ‘
Moe 4
2,051 - “1,565
2491 “aD
dob 448
1878-1804
pelle WB.
2
devi 2,400
80 Tb)
5 44
A 565
42435
‘Ho
16) =
1. * DY
2,497, 2,400
675 655
B22 1,745
6) 592
490 460
8°
5.
ates eI
2,497 2,400
16: 220
“D201 24180
0. 672,
fg) 56
42° 38)
m om
oa
a.
1,22
Mh
145
425
230
"115°
Ng
2851 1,565
1,05 $8
Lgl) 980
Mm 466
sh 280
UB
0. 72
5 HS
;
rhs, 1,565
wm.
Bist 1264
93 595
668 407
ee
mW
I 89
\
a
‘
{
‘
; ‘ * :
’
Canplestallar 7”
(italy Welative Measured
SOW US, ie th +e
Ve
“Td dpers.
Mectian | Family Mal Fuily Maks
Mal) dati, hij. day Ae
iy
a : ’
yt) ee ee FL) a
Te ee
2595 dh Ad
a a Pan
Hb S02, Sah
he Oe i on
wy MB, : Pons Mn
Wh nf" 78
$76) Wy
301 3be oy
15728 wo
re. a
1,039 3,028 3,29
1,426 BM 48
2dld 2/8) MS
93748 407
(25%
eee 4
| ee 260
9 1
\ ;
™ wo ‘ , ve
309 3,028 BL
Me 35
24925 2,703 2,886,
113. 839 |. 896
19 72 166
am 498 SM
(76
24530 Mi
A
a. ‘ Ly )
4 "
i wd a
_ felative Mase
CISTI Mine) etc
“Misty Family Med Fund ly Med
Wal) lal Aly
“
~ # |
1 \ i ' * ‘
ry
| v |
' '
my! - TAL: U2. Sella Characteristics ot Fant leg by Alte nite Measures af Puente uy 19/4.
He, . yee 4 , ae & ‘ eo
gr! (Mab s i thouswads, Fam lies, as of Murch J9 74) 4 :
fi re ‘
. oe ane Sumglesllay
, og telling Ob Queen Haste Of creme pewsate o, Hitotts
. AL tient : Weightel
ee” lum Poverty a Mile Mile!
_ oe Melectl uracturistics level Muse 758 Se 1h Hk Mayan Netarm Natae High tw
\ | EAMIIMES WEIN FHYALE HEAD
is "s se ‘
ge Broloymant. Statusrof A ** “ ‘
Hox) .
‘ Total Lo TM UNL LAI 2,955 WMO dish edb) 2 a9. 2,400 Ol 1,905 1,639
Invcwrltan Labbe tore’ 9M L308 Bag) ae alg Hof 108 Sy 0g
Enplayed a a Ch TY) a B47 BP 2a
' Unamploy! CO) YT
"Nut in civaliys 2 a :
ao lator force HJ08 1,50” 1,002 1,806 2,088 2,349 “1,510! UDG" 1, 5Y, V1 1,029 2,130
4 ee
0 Work Experience of {ual ; t ,
a Tal * TQ ISL 15H 295) 5,846 sO 2,599 CAST 2,400 2,852 1,565 3,639
‘ ; kel last year 4326942, 607 1,302 1,620 2,200 NBL yyy MS NBD IQ
F. » 150852 works “215 26 1d dol 628 1,005 24y 1° (31) 4 156 678
ALL tine a oe ee |
1-49 weeks” 1,608 650 49} Hdl $92 11980 097 ob] 03 457 1,025
Reason for working :
» Pat year . : ' ‘
Unemployed «500 1¥% -HO dW 184146 24° _ 19 256 13 Yo’
bea " Other 1}t08 454 72 | ee |) |) |) MO 325 9D
Did-mot work "4916 1,405 925 1,652 1,826 2,109 1,405 1,458 1,425 "1 ybes 524,437
, . ‘ ey i ‘ '
: Type of Income ad .
Famed inom") + 541180139 1,200 2716 BY a8) Lt 1,507 5M
Social Security 447 Wo 7447 109 414 ll 619 253 900
1 Dividends, interest
* and rent 7 209 Me We 8a 160 152 2] 129 44}.
i) Public assistance 2,38 147) RA 1749 1,930 2,3) 1,473 1,541,495 1,607 8691, 900
i , Other transfer income a/ 1,098" ‘124. 6 208 Mal MD Yn ey)
Private pensions, . .
s * —— alimny, etc, - 1,68 379 299” S519 SL BRB 408 385 8B 680
a/ Includes unemployment and workmen's cunpetisation, goverment enployee pensions, and veterans' payments,
1
' 7 ; *
. 4a oe ’ "3 :
. oe ‘eo
‘<) : t 4 * .
ERIC |» ,
. =,
, , tn ry f 4 4
'
a
| lay Me |
J.
,
108° 4,294
eT
dds 1,069
Ol, vari
i832]
Liss 404
448 67)
Ms al
8b 45
mn 106
587 bb
1,6 1,783
1,68. 1,848
592 682
2 6
1,769 1,800
aD 258
a ae
}
il
l : ' i t
’ .
' ‘i '
1,
n 1 4 “4 1
/ if
\ : ; 7 ne ‘
'
. : 4 A ;
AML bg decal Micaterqelne. ) Peel ated faded hale Hoes Thad ity by at ibie Magares at deity, dn oh d
rabets Ui Teuaiate, Peelatad aadieidils aot Mant bea 3‘
1a gate ‘ ;
é ; 3 rybiaiia “dle owl Lar
yo ; Soatbidiy of CWE tent Mivbeudhe ot arent Marat tolls by LAE Matatate
‘ os ; ‘ ' wa : i
. Abe catuent Wer hates] OAR ety er,
\ Nile Mile fo Mahan Danlly Mab uty Ml
4,
Ins Bavity
pe fate uk fate Aerdbann fiuhae High aw Wald. lay ft}. dh, AY,
. ‘ a a * a
iy + wo
ortetad pinweba tat hs teed Suh
if
Al) UUWILATH (MITA “ \
Me ; -
Mab Bybee 4, Bey Far FO Pn re eee A
Ato AE atta ies Te POT ee Oe FT ae ml, Hh
ote pas TT a) A | Ph ee Pa, A cyte
teva ad ow en ar OT eC elu gut Wb Wav Kes
Hq Layment Satis ! :
‘Dal Were die , or ee “yuh Lit, fub eee FO “Ads
in craalban bale to Ua AU DEG ght ee Le) See)
= Q Ayduyat boy 1,4 a | ees vO FC) 0
~! “aapluy i) Hi A x ane tH fel pel id tt
: rot ced ea : p38 :
labo dpe ued ju aE Ge PS eS De 1, i4h ubbe ahve RT tld .
Work | ecenee , .
et tal HB)? 4 Ru 2a thie dB WU SAMY 5 ib Ly 418 flu “ANI
; “atked Last judd cn) OY ECO A Ve Fk Ve Fe FC gil age
Ate waka H4ed uh ee eS Wok, 1, 80d bil 1} >) Wi
Nall tame bbe SUS ee Ge ee ye eh Wow 4 Lead AWS il re
1-4 weeks 4,00 1,)8u Le Le Pe boul Ltd yy bby 1,41?
Heagon for working
“ », At year i my . fo
Unempluyed \4c8 Wb ay dey Hh 0H ee B14 491 24506 Shy
une Srey Sn CeO "Aydt
; thd dot work megs J Ldu 1,16? YALL 5,287 6,044 jb! S215 1,206 Ae Pd a 4 4,005
ry “Ly Armed foros a -¢ bw ‘ 4 { 4] b h It:
Dype off Lacan: ;
Karnal ucate 11,609 1,690 1,008 2424 3,001 $308 1,708 LL) DB 4d 2,402 -LAlB 2,52] 2,4
: soclal Security bike: 2de BSS, Sb 4,387) 9,283 PAM rays) eee 4,910 1,2BH 4,658 4,11)
Dividends, inter, -* ‘ , :
ard rent dale 10st So LTH? 2378 4,296 1066 1818 Yo 4d Lg Bt 184 2,ltd
Public assistance , 1,656 1,039 Sib 4,322 1,5 1,562 1,04 1,074 1,0 1,588 1,195 271,394, 1 Aad
ther transfer uncune a/ 2, 568 wy 457 085 BP LW 59 383 je) 1,318 750 a ae
Private pensions, ' “ ;
al Anon te 2,089 = 360 755d Se 1,08] 380 88 JHB 1 140 ‘a4 {84 a hb
“days Polihides aertineeat wabwedgen's veteiat on, meetiennt emploaie persons apt vettran iagg ; : : ae :
130. 7
: 13
4 : ‘
Q : ‘
ERIC , : ‘
Paro rose] 4
; - | L {ew '
ate .
88.
LE, D3. Selected Characteristics of Unrelated Individuals. 14 Years Old and Over by Alternative Measures of. Poverty in 1974 tee a
ei "(Numbers a thousands. Unrelated individuals as of March 1975) ° - *
“Single-dollar s
oO Ee 4. i Simplifications ; ;
- = : * . Scaling of Qurrent Measure of Current Measure. Cutoffs . Relative Measures
mor, ; all Current ; : a Weighted ~~ 508 U.S. 508 U.S. 7508 4-pers.
a Income’. Poverty ' “Male -” Male . Median Family Med- Fainily ema
,Setected Characteristics Levels Measure 758. 1258 1508 2008 Nonfarm Nonfarm. Nonfam High low
“MALE: UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS
: : : i
. Age ie i ‘ . 7 Le ie <i yo a : on
Total : 7,890 1,607 1/042 2,206 2,679 3,914. 1,820 — 1,620" = 1,613 3,441 2,218 1,363 2,284 2,521
14 to.24 years 1,652 * 445- 336 606 7 951: 449 449 449 923 580. 396 «+ 622 678
25 to 64 years . 4,784 72 516 1,010° 1,202 . 1,890 WwW). TH 777 1,544 965 622 1,034 ~ 1,127
65 Years and over. ~ «1,455 390 190 . 290+° 766 933 394 394 388 974 » 674 340 629. gs 716
Vv Biployment. Status. Slagle a : ari . : “
7,890. 1,607 :* 1,042 2,206 2,679 -3,914 1,620- 1,620 1,683 . 3,441 2,218 1,363 2,284 2,521.
‘ ine euian labor force 5,608 757 529. 1,040 1,285 1,800 767 767 765. 1,755 1,002 645 1,070) 1,192
Employed 4,994 "578 398 822 1,032 1,495 - 588 588 586° 1,424 790 "495 + Bag 951
‘ ~ Unemployed yo 4. 610 179 131, 217 253 345 1799. 179 179° 330 212 193 a 241
i Not in divilian. . , :
labor force * * 2,286 851 ~ 513 1,167 1,395 1,874 854. B54. *. B48 1,686 . 1,216 715 1,214 1,329
Wark . Brperience ; a So a a OP RGR
‘Total - 7,890 1,607 1,042 2,206" 2,679 . 3,914 1, 620. 1,620 1,613 3,441. 2,218 1,363 2,284 2,521 4
Worked last year ; 5,980 817 515 1,157 1,439 2,081 = * ‘827 022? 827 1,952 illo. 672 1,192 1,336 -
. 90-52 weeks “3,810 249 145°) (379 494 791 ° 259 - “259 2590 754‘: "362: 201 396 438+
‘Pull time 3,511 184 101° 274~ 361.° «618 192 192 192 577 259 “140 288 / 320.
1-49 weehe ' - 2,180 968 370, - 778. $46 1,250 568 568 568 -. 1,198 748 471 797, 897
Reason for working ' Ma ow Os a a een a oa
. part year . at Sad - . : . : : ee ~ :
‘oy’ Unemployed’... * ae 899 189 123. 271 335. 160 1g9 +189 189° 444 265 ‘159.280 319
Other 1,281 . 379 . ye 507. 610 798 379 379 379 “754 483 312 516 579.
Did not work - 1,797 786° 526 3, 043 1,224 1,424 + 789 789 382 =. «1,448 1,103 688 1,086 1,169
In Armed Forces ; » 103 4. 1 + 6: 16 49 4 4: 4 /, Al. 6" ES a 6 16 -
Type of Incame galt . , : if . ‘
Earned incame ‘ 6,111 817 Stl 1,160 1,454 2,894 826 826 826 2,002 1,113"? 671 1,197 | 1,349, Au
Social Security ? 1,686° 467 209 132 “939 1,159 AM’. ATA 467 1,192 © 802» = 372! 781 880 ; 136
: Dividends, interest, we : A ' : . r oe a .
rent - 2,801 259 168 391 @ 27 776 869 269 269 758 aid 209, 4118 * 480
Public assistance 468 =. 274 155° (346 406 834.274 274 274. ~ 430 35 231 357 7 380 : o
Other transfer income a/ 1,245 143 77 258. 374 524° 48s 143 143 * 511 262 103 276 335 ="
Private pensions, ae , r & > a : ; ;
alimony, ete. 733 95 53 165 21300 332 95 95 95 344 164 68 174 194
a7 Includes anu Loyfrent aad workman's compensttion, covernment employee Pensions, and veterans' payments,
' -
ca
o..
ERIC
xf ae hts . \
TIBLE 03, Selected Characteristics of Unrelated Individuals 14 Years Qld and Over by Alternative Measutes of Poverty in 1374
"Qambers in thousands, Unrelated individuals as of March 1975)
. * Ginpl ifications Single-dollar
Scaling of Curent Measure. of Current Measure Cutoffs ° Relative Measures
AL Current : , Weighted - 59D U.S, 508 U.S. 500 d-pers,
: _ Incore, Poverty vale Male Median Family Mad~ Family Med-
"Selected faracteristics Levels Measure 758 1258 1508 2008 Nonfarm Nonfarm Yonfarm igh Low had}, iany Adj. dan, Ad}.
- ti fg F - 8 “a o ! ie ; x“
FEMALE UNRELATED INDIVIOUNS — i= Pa
ioe ‘ ; . : . BY
Total 10,981 3,212. 1,798 4,626 5,604 6,819 3,219 3,406 3,403. 7,065 = 5,072 2,815 4,816 5,291
14 to 24 years 1313 503407 TO BHO 503 SHR SHR a7) 656 46S 651 680
25 to 64 years 462. 1,095 674" 1,336 1,585 2,870 2,038 1,18 1,148 2,189 LAL = 887° 4,390 1,504
65 years and over 5,047 . 1,675 AD 2,645 3,309 3,909 1,678. 1,706 1,704 4,030 3,004 1,463 2,774 3,107
Enel oymeit Status i a :
Total 10,981 , 3,212 1,798 4,626 5,604 6,819 3,219 3,406 3,405 7,065 5,072 2,815 4,816 5,291
In civilian labor force 4,986 819-56 1142 1,889 1,995 62k 908908 2,090 22 51,189 1,300
Employed 4666 6960 475985 «1,221°51,747 608770 701, B73 1,057 610. 1,030 1/197
Unemployed 120, 123 9 156169 20 Vee Cee OL 217. «1605180 163
“Not in civilian labor force 5,895: ” 1,235 3,484 4,25 4,865 2,398 2,499 2,497 4,975 3,855 2,080 3,627, 3,992
fork Experience | | . ey | gar ae :
Mal. | - 10/981 3,212" 1,798 4,626 5,604 6,819 3,219 3,406 3,405 7,065 S02 2,815 4,816 5,291
Worked last year 16,405. 868 = 587 1,258. 1,561 2,200 871980, 980 2, 360 LM M1318 1488
50-52 weks 3,659 256 17429 SBM. 58309309 }1,051 M4 212 456 536
Full time 31719 7 «200029957620 NMS "666 205 % dl6 267
1-49 weeks 1,827 62 40 = 830 980s«1,257 614 él’ 671 = 1,309 993 529 863 SY
Reason for working arr ' ;
pat year = | _ | 2
Unenployed 59 156 8S 6: MB OSS aS me.. Wi 1% 235
Other » 1,298 455 6 612725909455 496" 496 938 665 = 403 637° 685
‘Did not wrk: * 5,496 2,344 1,24. 3,368 4,043 8,69 2,347 2,462,424 4,705 3,708 2,074 3,497 3,836 .
- vs te ee . a
on" : ‘ Heo 4
Famed Incae 5,499 874° 557 1,264 1,567 2,204 879986 + 986,369,369 746,324 1,461
Social Security 5,296 1,079 * 625 2,731 3,448 4,124 1,684 1,760 1,759 4,249 3,008 1,415 2,81 3,231
and rent 5212195 M1, 38h 1,852 2,528. 197 BHD, 2,656 1,562 666» 1,415 us
Public assistance 1,188 765391. 976 1,097 1,258 767 800800 1,158 1,038 6% 99 1,061
* Other transfer income a/ 1,342 216 §0 «407,589... 770 216 | 239 239 807 493 170.444 508
Private pensions, _ we ee . |
alimony, ete. 1,336 266 163-389 523, «49266 29) 293 796 435' a 408 463
a
a/ Includes unemployment and workmen's compensation, goverment employee pensions, and veterans! payments.
: | ; | as i 3 { ,
| : nk
CF . x
&
‘>
i
1
DLE DA, Parsons by Alteritive Povepty Definitions by State, 1969
‘i Bg Hs inp Ingleollae
‘ 4 Scaling of Current Measure af Current Maasure Cutoffs "Relative Meagure
; AL Outten Weigel STS. SOE SO
_—— Trethe Poverty) 7 Male Hale Median» Panily Med- Family Med=
State levels «Measure 75412581508 2008 Nonfarm Nonfarm Nonfarm High Unad}. ian, Adj. ian, Adj.
‘
tuted Stes Toe + 167,610 21,397 18,780 37,592 $8,008 1,807 2111 2B 28,086 31,777" 27406 S407 3778
So, : ‘
Alabura "3,36. 667 607 1,120 1,361 1,81. 876k BRD gO 1,027 1,161 1,25
i Aaa mpg gg 9 8. 2 YR DZ B RR % +469 3.
7 oO Aizoa a LTB 066 ML 62464 TOL 86 88, eS SY 427
. ' Arkansas y 8B, 5k aT 688320256 $67 BB GBB’ 705. 7m
ide > California + "29,389 218) 1,505 305. 3,937 5,917 2,187. 2,238 2,203 2,784,388 2,797 3,184 3,633
i : Bat :
Colorado 215 29 168 SPD. SoH 6 O62 458
é Connecticut G92 dB 8} 9 208207 ay), ee 5
Delaware 4H 6 HAS? eg rn) cn ; ee 7 10 9] 107
lastrict of Colunbia 120-128 9. 168 ' 207 2° Bd * da M50 0°.27 Ba 191
‘ Florida so Hyb25 MG 167 1,505 1,932 2,802 LM 1,291,108 "35) 1262 1,503 1,562 1,780
Georgia | 4465 M3" 661 1,233 1,528 20 9518608 5g, 82 12s 1,201 1425
ws Hawai ™M 76. BBCi aH 1 B21 @ 129
Idaho a) nn: 0 PH 5 M136 156
Ullanis 10,835 1,12 76 1,543 1,976 4,086 25133. 14152 LSS 1,389 1,217 1,40 1/597 1,852
Indian 5,06. | 486 WN, 963156497 5B 8G GD 6 19.86
_ , y . 4 : ‘ :
low 2 UAT 1 482624100. 36 a8 aa 4° 70 46a 565
kansas Jie): 98 198 407537830306 eC) ee nS |) |)
entucky SLM NT 526950 1,159 1,570 Tg 78315 7806859 982.089
louisiana 3547 961 692 1,225 1473 1,98 96797] 780107 2,289 1,392
Mune * i Cr: is i |, a, 30 IRB
Ne vary Land A aR MOSH) 7 1,067 RS 388 30 430.381 583 630
fe) “assachusetts i, 5,507 405 308 681903158245? TT. - ah
Michigan 3,695 alg 368 1,129 10,484 240L 826 898393009 agg 1,093 1,17) 1,336
' Mumhesota BL 398 2 542 L265 flea. a 45) HG SARS 697
af 2 Yussi ssippi "Tele Th 59095) LO 1,395 9 "7 57 BD 9h" 41662
Susur, a 4,558 a \ 457. 946 1,223 1,78 706°? ns 82°40 929g 1,17
Montana a i 5 9 \3 WW % ol ow 163
: ebraska Lal 199 M5. 2173599, B Ug 2 30M
nevada ve dl 8 6 85 a ? 42 4 8. 55 od 6.
Se Hampshare HS er Ce |: 14 44 ee Le
» New Jersey 12564 36 B10 1,736, 565 58D. 595 9 SR gy? “958
' gS Mexico 3 oR MLM 52a 2G 6225 1B Ng 359
New York Vdd 2,037 FLY 2826 3,600 5,472 2,043 2,194 2015 2,452 2,115 2,526 2,985. 3,315
’ North Carolina 4,99] 975 678 1,32. Lib87 2,437 994 1003999 92 421,24) 1,376 1,546
North Lakota > a 9 99 10 nn oS sy) 160
hi. AONE 1,066" 752) 1,499 1,987 3,245 1,080 WlOL 1,102 1,322" 2,160 1,378 1,565 1,805
dilaton , Li} 2% 6H Seo. ae”. ge 560 79,609. G0 138
Oreaan . 8 20 M6 15, "HS 2 700g 253SL 7 | a 408
_-Pennsylyarua y 2 1,254 BSL 2,39) 3,927 1,260 1,236 * 2,289 a,540 1,324 1,627 1,852 2167
- Role Island —. M2 ID 499 156 43°07 25S OMe Bb oa
- South Caroluna ' 24BL 6, 488199564 1,289 6) 6° «627 579502898 997
4 south takota , aM 9 163 Ota 19-175 220. -
Tennessab + 3,838? 393 1,097 1,3 1915852 B58 SG ag] 052 1,037 1,277
Texas, 10,985 20M L351 2,781 3,491 4,880 2,050. 2,071 2,071 2,107 1,79 Gia 2,882 3,248
vi Mah 1,08 12) Ls a) PY re ee
. . F F a : i
8: J Vemont a ry 53) Me 83 64 4 6S 40 ay"
Virginia; M52 688 9965-122), 1,767 697 5. 70078286? 1,40
Wishington 39. BD Ga W985 HL, ag 53.
' "west Virgania | a) eS) 7) 430043 l 503,549 607.
o. fiscontin , AE BAS, 565 SL 65 785
ERIC Wong a | a” i n
J
SHE U6; Related Chu}drn 5 to 17 Yang by Alternative Poverty Definitions by State, 1369
Lote 4 a .
al
. Income
gute
ited Stites, Total 52,324 7,990 5,381 O48 14,378 22,038 8,090
ad
rm)
Alabama 936
Alaska ee on
Ariozna 483
Adan, e500
california 4,957
Colorado: 59
+ Connecticut . 18
Delaware a
pistrict of Columbia. . 168
Florida 1,599
(eorgua “ag, bay
Hawa 1 ;
Idaho 196
Thanos 2,828
Indiana 1,3%
low MM
Kansas 56)
Kentucky 840
Louisiana 1,950
Naine o 256
Maryland 1,018
Massachusetts 1,400
Michigan 2,451
Munnesota 1,047
MASSLSS1[X)2 640
Missouri 1,184
Montana 436
Nebraska 16
Nevada
New Hampshire = * 190
New Jersey 1,794
NeW Moxioo “4
New York: 4,340
North Carolina 1,316
North Dakota 7
Ohio, 2,016
Oklahoma 633
Oregon, 528
-Pennsylvands * 2,683
Rhode Island 229
\y to te
South Carolina 714
South dakota ‘ 189
Tennessee” AOU:
‘Texas 2,995
btah Ml
Veomont, hia
Virgina 1,182
Washington 88)
West Virginia 449
Wisconsin ) 1,199
oni
Qurrent
Poverty
levels Measure 758
Scaling of Curent Measure
Yl
Eh
16
a0
957
21
16
198
419
42
419
168
al:
480
40
2)
1
9
150
u)
1,14
0.
Mh.
1,040
522
5]
4
568
Sie
of Curren
“oy
268
Acatlons -
it Measure
Welg
iMale '
~ Sungle-collar «
Cutoffs # tiie aire
SUS, SOUS, SON A-pers,
: Median Panily Med Fanily ved>
5,930 4,983 8,168 11,456 13/168
ity
mom om sy |” fe
8 7 9 II.
0 os wD 138
Ma 26
46) (392655 BAP LOAD
5 6 9 Wy oT
Hoy of BO
nb. 1 be Wa’
Wom wo 6
38)! ea S02
28. 187305 AN 430
hb uw. a dt mM
y oM Bd 44
Ml 9 25 0S 450 30
| ae 6)
Fe ee ee)
ee ee) ty
los 2) 29 304
MBs 29M qe
6 a2 8 4 1"
.. om .
9 7 le lb 192
ee ee ee m7
0 M6 SH 186
| , () ee CS
us ' 1 66
1391689 306
Wb lb BW 53
.4a 8 9 B a
8 Bp. ks
2 elo 1, 8 ae
2 89182 m
6 5}. UB ae
Pre a a a
29 m5 i)
a ob 4 4 a
2% 180k YB 519
9 5 1S, ID “196:
6 4 66 8 106
7 a |)
2 0 Bb &@ 96
1891620887
2 @ 8 8 63
lg 18258 MS 392
i077, 6B 920 ON
ao 9 Ww Sl 62
0 8 MN 2B #
IC a ©) 72)
6. SL FG 140
2 1% le 15? 97
8 0?) HC
> 6 9 FW 20.
;
22511508 2008 Nonfarm Nonfarm Nonfarm High Low rad), tah) Ad). ian, Adj. fa
9,143, 8/175
2 ff
Vv
Family, Adjusted
, 40
A
30
CJ
6
& 20 :
: z
a
8
10 &
*
w
4 a
7 R
« OG eee ; —
. : : Qcaling . . Relative °
of Current. > Poverty
’* Measure : Cutoffs Messures
/ . ‘ 3 :
; ,
. ‘ ve
5 e
, & ‘i et
' — .
. . .
School~Age
Children ‘ir
Total Population ‘ Poverty Population
40
30
in
@
@
Percent
50Z U.S. Hedian
Family, Adjusted
50% 4-Person Median
502 U.S. Median, 8
Family, Adjusted
Unadjusted
Male Nonfare
Age & Size
Current Scaling Simplificstions. : Single- Relative é
Measure . of Current * of Currenc | Doller .. 1° Poverty’ ;
_Messure ~ Measure : Cutof{s Messures” -
SOURCE: Special tabulations by the Census Buresu from the March 1975 Current Populstion Survey. °
a —_ FIGURE 1 School-Age Children: Poverty Rate and Percent
} a of the Poverty Population Under Alternative
, Poverty Definitions, 1974
& ~ -
92‘ .
1439 | _ 8s
aoe Poverty Rate’.
~~
Fi
2 3
* 3
—*
a-]
s
c c
s o
“
Fy aids
§ | siy2
15.9 3 33 ¢
15:59) fy Dado
= xa} 2
s < be
=" a a -]> om
es 3 E s |s2]e
. ° ~ — -
. = = ~~
3 5 Ss 1s4]s
=z z Pal A le w
Currenc Scaling Simplifications Single- Relative
: Measure 4 of Current of Current ‘Dollar “ Povercy
Measute Measure Cucoffs . Measures
‘
Elderly Persons
in Tocal . ‘
Populac ion Poverty Population -
, I L Fi
40
c
9
34
a]
as #8
—_— A
30 7 3 ¢ 3
#7 33
. Su v
oer aes
. 32 42
3 =
vy 20 21.1 28 wa
» * - Aw A tae
oe c
8
. = 3
al
is
10 ; ayaa
g nan
fh a
a oa
-_ al
= 3
3 ces
a =z Aa
0 - -
United . . Current Scaling " Simplifications Si ; Relucive
® Scaces Measure |. , of Currenc of Currenct Poverty
“3 Measure 7 Measure Cucoffs Measures
SOURCE: Special tabulations bw the Census 3ureal from che March 1975 Current Population Survey.
° a
ee . ty
FIGURE 2 Elderly Persons: Poverty Rate and Percent of
the Poverty Population Under Alterriative:
\
‘ . Poverty Definitions, 1974 fl ic \ , #2
i ba
~
93
SS 145 a
»b
a : Poverty Rate
c~
c
©
uv
ow
a
a .
>
‘on
=
, 2 o =
£ &
ww ~
: 3
= = z
E z t §
a] e xtvyet we
7 ~ Nn a »
Cc ~ aE Sat -30 a:
£ oO wn w min & fe
: © ve wi) zsafs ¢
x ‘c = « we Ele ole
P E : wes %
‘ z Ze = fe ELS 2
Current Scaling Simplifications Single- F Relative
. Meaaure a of Current of Current ~ , Dol lar “Poverty .
. . Pe Measure Measure, Cutofts Measures
: °
ie _ & hohe
Blacks in’
Total Population
Poverty Population
-
~ 26.8
§ 24.6 =
-
- ‘ - <
o : 7
& E PELE =
-_ =v, co
£ = 7c ae ie,
w Zz] #T]e 7
~ N a <7 y
. is ~ carey . .
e ° u « uw Pa ane
© = wr afro pr
< = © hak ts
Eis |& efSse fe
z < - aad vrs
United Current Scaling : Simplifications «+ Single- Kelative .
puayee ' ‘Measure of Current ‘of Current Dollar Poverty
™ Measure feasure Cutoffs Measures ae
¢
SOURCE: Special tabulations by the Cenaus Bureau from the March 1975 Current Population Survey.
. FIGURE :3 Black’ Persons: Poverty Rate and Percent” of
, the Pov Population Under Alternative :
Ppverty a . 1974
. ke : » oa
@
ERIC
* Poveray Rate
70 z " f
y .
‘ ss
60 .
a a
30 '
ee, “3
40
2 : S
¢ e
e 7° 3
mM rs _
8. fy 3
a, s <
30 z = ES
~~ < =
s - ry
‘= = we
« _
¢ & ec
20 = Pa =
= = vc
i & § #
: ; 74 E18
: S e # # rs
10 \ rs = ” ‘ is
i “ Ww me &
. z + ° i '
CJ —) = wv
ev
| & efe|s
: ze ,< z a &
0
Current “ Scaling 2. Simplifications - Relative
Measure of Current of Currenr Poverty -"
ie Measure Measure Measures
’
4 7 .
'
z “
- : °
» Persons in Female- a) °
Headed Families in- .
Total Population Poverry Population
28.8
€
¢
ry s
- oe es
é e [eyes
€ = ee
4 c= =
© (7 £vjis ez
es]: Dies ie
i ep 2) % ac gees hake
e “ 2s S352]
: 7 e z tient
_ no og
°
z 2 < SEUREPRS
United Current Scaling > Simplifications: » Single- Rehetive
ptates Measuref of Current . of Currenc Dollar Poverrs
. Measure Measure . Cutoffs. , Measures
. >
SOURCE: Special tabulations by the Census Bureau from the March 1975 Currert Population Survey.
FIGURE 4+ Persons in Female~Headed Families: Poverty Rate
/ 7 and Percent of the Poverty Population Under
“~~ ry Alternative Poverty Definitions, 1974 ‘ te
140
95 © a ae
. 2 a .
Peraons . :
(tn milapone; : . ,
“SOURCE
: . 1 #
Ss , F 2 4
7002 Current Mesaure
!
1502 Current Measure
7 :
= : . SO. U.S Media Famil. Income, : A
--~ : 2 ges SO0,~L.5. Median Income. (nad).
aie _— . “. wes cee emiee 000mm eos mmm +e. memes -
2 ~~ ——a_- a oe i253 f/Current, Measure
P; —" eee,
~ , : Male Nonfarm Family of 5
)m..: |. Simpiafacarion.of tureene Measure : (High. Single-foilar Cutoff) PI
i . .
tNonferr? ° ome °° * Ce
2 eagaieerrs — Ir a. —
: ts ee 88S,
Current Meastire
. ° : : $3,20C Tnresncoid °,
. a (Loe Single-Dellar Cureff)
« x
752 Current Measure. ;
15 -
197 1946 197z ts 1953 . 14%
~
. ~ ee 2
Special tabulations my the Census Bureau from the March Current Populat.or Survey for 196E, 1970, 1972, 1974, and 1974,
‘ ,
’
FIGURE 5 Number of Persons in Poverty Under Alternative ~
Poverty Definitions, for Selected Years,. 1967-1974
. z ’ ‘
— ; AAG —_
45 ; e
. P : :
Percent of ° :
Persons in |- , 4
Poverty - ; ioe ; A
. 40 >
& e
, ' i Ae
: ee :
$ .
35 + . = ’ - » 7
: - “ 3 a m=. 2002 Currant Measure
: ; x
: . ; 2
* - ‘ e
\ 7 eo V - so ‘ ,
30 m4 . : Meo < # 5
A : SS ca . °
.
25 oe ‘ ‘ . a
°
‘ ' : é
, 1505 Current Measure —
: : : 50% 4-Person Medien Family Income, Adj.
A 20 ; — ;
: pS ; 4 a _
—, .
‘ ; ~~, : - $02 U.S. Median Family Income, Adj. ’
: $00 cet oes ee ts
MN cps terme a me re sn a
. ; : . ee (502 «C.S, Median Income, Lnadj. *
~~ : oe
. *. 1253 Current Measure = we
: ° ws , : : 080 mes ad om
i cr ee cae ee eT ee
a eae SS “Male Nonfarm Family of &
= (High Single-Doller Cutoff,
. — en i ?
2 mee eee ee ee ee ee ee Simplification of Current Measure
SY (Nontare) ;
F ‘ — es —_— a = .
eet a » ome gee a F
: ie eit at Current Measure s
10 . : - 2 ’.
- $3,200' Threshold we _
(Low Single-Doller Cutoff) je
4. =
® »
752 Currant anueae “hy . . \
‘ j we
7 ‘.
-
1967 so 1969 : 1972 1973 | 197%
- 8 ‘
SOURCE: Special tabulations’ by the Census Bureau from the Merch Current Population Survey for 1968, 1976,
1972, 1974, and 1975, °- .
& FIGURE 6 Percent of Persons in Poverty Under Alternative
* Poverty Definitions, for Selected Years, 1967-1974
4 _ 148 ' ,
97
. Pe a 2 ,
tf . . bg
a
. . t
P : a Zz é
» . ~ al
4 . ey ge
= . :
+
Children
ae F _ 5 to 7 yrs
65 years ,
i ' and over,
, o& “ : 7
nf of
- , . = a
‘ 1967 -_ 1974 .
. ‘ ; ‘ ear , 40° ;
< , : r) ay ;
' . i »
31.4 .
‘ 8
ng eas U.S. deat Current .- Low 50% U.S. family
measure 150% Cutoff median adjusted Measure = 150% Cutoff median adjusted
FIGURE 7 Poverty Rates for. Related Childten 5 to 17 years
and Persons 65 yéars and over Unddr.Selected
: Alternative Poreney Definitions 1967 and 1974 .
a 98 |
149
O- -
ERIC
*e,
. + e : _ ; .
‘ ‘ = a é b
a . % 7
pi - ‘
‘ a : of ¢ *
re ‘‘y ' ol ~ es 7 ‘
im “|, . : : nee . ;
7 . CURRENT 4 150% CF CURRENT MEASURE
"30 + . : é
Va tnd 7 TT
"67 69: .'7L.°°73 174 67 69 72173174 |
7 an : = HIGH pee DOLLAR
a 32.6 CUTOFF
. - a 29-6 29,5
: . a ili 27.4 a
a“ “967 169° '72:«°730=«O*74 '67 "69 '71 '73 = '74
; 2 2 , : .
*50% U.S. FAMILY MEDIAN ADJ. . =
30 :
. ‘4 .
\ J . » my
19.3 : :
20 18.8
17.2 17.0
16.0 \
Bese | | | | | ;
, :
"467 69 «'7L-°'73—«7 ft
; ‘ eae 4
_s wf ;
FIGURE 8 “Elderly as a Percent of All Poverty Persons Under ~~
Selected Alternative
Definitions 1967-1974
o 7
"67 "69 71
_ &
50% U.S. FAMILY MEDIAN ADJ.
aan 467 69 7L 9374 67 "69 ‘71 "73°74
7
FIGURE 9 Persons in Families with a Female Head as a Percent
YY Persons Under Selected Alternative
of All Povert
as ' Poverty .DefNiitions 1967-1974 :
| NI ss
: 100
ERIC
a ws
6
vs : 1967
cs of ‘
PERCENT OF POVERTY POPULATION ; in 1974
$1508 of Low Single - 508 U.S.
*° Current Dollar | Family
' * . Measure , Cutoff . Median Adj.
POVERTY
RATE FOR FAMILIES WITH PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
150% of Low Single 50% U.S.
Current Dollar Family ;
Measure - Cutoff _ Median Adj.
70 '
62.7' 69.7
60
_. 30
40*
30
20
lo
FIGURE 10 Families with Public Assistance Poverty Rates and
Percent of the Poverty Population Under Selected
Alternative Poverty Definitions 1967 and 1974
= | 152 Ms
101
&
O_
ERIC
ry
(<)
ERIC
Percent ©
80
70
60
50
40
30
10
200% of Current
‘ Measure
* : ie 4 80.5
peuesent
= Measure
67.0 III
+ s
50% U.S
Family
: Median Adj
Low Single
Dollar Cutoff 69.4
FIGURE 11 Families with Earnings as a Percent of All Poverty |
Families Under Selected
Definitions 1967-1974 :
102,
153
Alternative Poverty
| e
F 4 7
” ‘ *
4 . «
‘ '
Share .
Ratic . :
ae oe . Northeast . si :
1
?
1. Z <i
e = fs
e bes :
a E> Ma
ow < i
& $ : Ee
iL + 2 og L
Co SbAts
i tes e ma ae :
-
c 7 ad c cc
z x Aw aa)
=J
~
uw
Nonfarm
Male Nonfarm ¢
Age & Size
302% U.S. Medtan,
Unadjusted
50% 4-Pers.Hed.
Fama; Ady.
aI
Ps
8°Size f
AIRS. Hed
ROX &-Pers.
Kgxe
a4
Med. Fag.,Adj.
Mnad just eh*
o? e Uv .
- &ele
’ “e se 4k |
ke ‘2 =
f ZTLR.
oars < Ws.
: ig aes res
eo = ca =
z: weber
. = Fegan
aS e Boe : ae = : : « > . e +
: a Scaling ' “Simplifications . 4 Single; ey yf Relative eo,
"he i he fe of current » -cfBurrent , : > Dodlar . . PBverty. i a 8 Oe
an ~o sMeasure . Medsure . Cutoffs ‘~ Measures. ,¥ . +
. . ’ Cn a oa ane . “a ae ay
aa aA. . * .
‘ : SOURCE: ° pecial tabulations by chelgpagte Bureau - -frow the 1:100 Sample of the. 1970. & . 7 < <
yo et «|, Cengns of Population. era, 8, ¢ . a a
a ; rye bie ect ’ Roy 3
+. ioral Share’ éf-Baor Personss0gder Alternative aa
Defi ti dtis apa RatiO of Régional Share, > ‘°°.
' rent xOierty Posie ionn 1969 . ent
a : 4 te , . a ee
me 4 — . ae anaes! rh
° : _- . ah Se,
f rE ; " a
oa . > oe PO ee
to = Sa
; : } : 2 a o a 4
@
ERIC
a
Northease
=
oO
~~
wo
Sc
Qo)
&
-998
o
o
e
“9 5972"
. Unad}.
hfarm
Oo
oa
wn
a
1;
a
Male
N
i
Med.
.
$02 4-Person Med.
Family, Adjusted
Nonfarca
$02 U.S..
d
1502
High
50% U.S. Median:
Family, Adjusted
Age & Size
North Central
-
[7
<
=
, Adjusted
Fam., Adj
-Pers.
Scaling Simplificacions Single-~ wRe lative
of Currence of Current Dollar Poverty
Measure Medsure Cutoffs Measures
SOURCS: Special cabulacions by the Census anaes from che 1:100 Sample of the 1970
Census of Populacion.
FIGURE 13 Regional Share of Poor School-Aged Children Under’:
Alternative Poverty Definitions as a Ratio of Regional
Share Under Current Poverty: ‘Definition, A969) «Gs
de
»
_ To obtain copies of the report, The Measure of Poverty.
or additional copies of this or any of the other
Technical Papers. please write to:
, . Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evatuation
Department of Health. Education. and Welfare Ni
-200 Independence Avenue. S. W. '
Room 443D. South Portal Building ©
ieee D.C. 20201
ie |
att
t i5v
‘)
ERIC
JA Fuirtoxt Provided by ERIC
os
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11