HHS201 Ashford Social Welfare System and Poverty and Income Stability Paper Discuss what you regard as the three most significant welfare programs or polic
HHS201 Ashford Social Welfare System and Poverty and Income Stability Paper Discuss what you regard as the three most significant welfare
programs or policies in the American human services system and describe how
they have changed how people have been helped over the course of time.Identify 10 groups you know who have been affected by poverty and need
human services. Advancing Opportunity,
Prosperity, and Growth
Who Is Poor in the United States?
A Hamilton Project Annual Report
Jay Shambaugh, Lauren Bauer, and Audrey Breitwieser
OCTOBER 2017
Who are the millions of people living in poverty in the United States?
In 2016, 40.6 million people, or 12.7 percent of the population, lived in poverty, as defined by the official poverty measure. 6 million
fewer people were living in poverty in 2016 than at the peak of 46.7 million in 2014. The official poverty measure is determined by
a households pre-tax income; for example, in 2016, a family of four earning less than $24,339 would be considered poor.
From 1980 to 2014, the number of people living in poverty in the United States grew from about 29.3 million to 46.7 million. Over
this same period, the pre-tax income of the bottom quintile of earnings grew 4 percent while incomes of the top 1 percent grew 194
percent. From 1980 to 2016, growth in the number of people in poverty has come largely from working-age adults.
In this economic analysis, we characterize those who were living in poverty in 2016, as we reported for 2014 and 2015. We then extend these snapshots to examine the population living in poverty over time: how have the characteristics of those living in poverty
FIGURE 1.
Characteristics of Individuals Living in Poverty, 2016
Source: Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement 2017; authors calculations.
1
The Hamilton Project Brookings
FIGURE 2.
Characteristics of Individuals Living in Poverty, 19862016
Source: Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement 19872017; authors calculations.
changed over the past 30 years? We focus particularly on the
working-age poor. What share of the working-age poor are in
the labor force? What are the most prevalent reasons for labor
force nonparticipation among the working-age poor? For those
who are working part-time and poor, is it involuntary or for
reasons specific to their circumstances?
participant, student, disabled, caregiver, and early retiree; for
example, if a working-age person in poverty is a student and
labor force participant, they were categorized as a labor force
participant.1
In 2016, one-third of those living in poverty were children under the age of 18 and 11 percent were senior citizens over the
age of 65 (figure 1). The remaining 56 percent of those living
in poverty were of working age (18 to 64). One quarter of all
those living in poverty were in the labor force and an additional
3 percent were early retirees. An additional 12 percent of the
total were of working-age and disabled. Another 15 percent
of those living in poverty were working-age adults who were
students or caregivers, while just 2 percentage points of those
living in poverty defied classification.
Characterizing Poverty in the United States
Each September, the U.S. Census Bureau releases a report on
the official rate of poverty in the United States for the previous
year. Calculated from the Current Population Survey Annual
Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC), a family is considered to be officially in poverty if their pre-tax income is below
a threshold set by the current value of three times a minimum
food diet in 1963, adjusted by family composition.
How has the population living below the official poverty line
changed in the past 30 years?
Using these same data, released by IPUMS, we characterize
those living below the official poverty line in the United States.
After identifying children and senior citizens in poverty, we
look at working-age (18- to 64-year-olds) poverty. We use additional questions in the ASEC to characterize those of workingage as labor force participants (working full- or part-time or
seeking work). If respondents were labor force nonparticipants,
we then classified them as students, caregivers, disabled, early
retirees, or labor force nonparticipants who defy classification
into one of those categories. These were mutually exclusive
categories and were assigned in descending order: labor force
There were approximately 13.3 million children in poverty in
2016, 3 million fewer children than at the thirty-year peak in
2010. Children made up a smaller share of those in poverty in
2016 compared with every previous year since 1986. In 2016,
18 percent of children were in poverty, 2 percent points below
the thirty-year average of 20 percent.
Senior citizens are decreasingly likely to be in poverty9 percent of seniors were in poverty in 2016 compared to 12 per-
2
The Hamilton Project Brookings
cent in 1986but due to population growth and aging, there
are more poor seniors today. Senior citizens now make up a
larger share of those in poverty than they have in over 30 years
and the number of seniors in poverty was the second highest
behind 2014 at 4.6 million. The number of seniors in poverty
has continued to increase even as the total number of those in
poverty has declined.
and utilities, like SNAP benefits. A third way to measure poverty is by consumption: if a family were to consume less than
an adjusted poverty threshold, excluding certain expenditures,
they would be considered poor. Both the consumption measure and the supplemental measure are improvements on the
official poverty measure because they address whether tax and
transfer policies and programs affect poverty.
As seen in figure 2, growth in the number of people living in
poverty has largely come from working-age adults. Over the
past 30 years, a growing number of working-age people were
poor (from 16 million in 1986 to 22.8 million in 2016). Since
1993, more than half of those living in poverty have been of
working-age with the 2016 share (56.1 percent) just slightly below the peak (57.3 percent in 2011).
Using data from 2015, the most recent year for which we have
data on all measurements, we look at how the analysis differs
between the three measures.
In figure 3, we compare the characteristics of individuals living in poverty by the official against the supplemental poverty
measure (SPM) for 2015, the most recent year of available data
for both. Acknowledging that survey respondents underreport
benefit receipt, this SPM is likely to overstate the number in
poverty. Nevertheless, there were almost three million fewer
children in poverty by the SPM than by the official poverty
measure in 2015. (For a complete treatment of the status and
trends of children in poverty, see a recent report by Isaac Shapiro and Danilo Trisi at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.) There were more working-age adults and senior citizens
in poverty by the SPM than the official poverty measure in
2015.
The official poverty measure is imperfect, but is valuable as a
consistent benchmark for tracking poverty over time and is
relevant because it determines eligibility for some programs.
There are two other prominent measures of poverty: the supplemental poverty measure and the consumption measure,
which differ from the official poverty measure on every dimension. The supplemental poverty threshold is based on expenditures on food, clothing, shelter, and utilities, and is geographically adjusted. While the official poverty measure only counts
pre-tax income as the resources available to a family, the supplemental poverty measure additionally counts refunded taxes
and noncash benefits that can be used for food, cloth, shelter,
While we cannot reproduce the working-age classifications
as we report in figure 3 for the consumption measure, Bruce
FIGURE 3.
Characteristics of Individuals Living in Poverty in 2015, Supplemental vs. Official Poverty Measures
Source: Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement 2016; authors calculations.
3
The Hamilton Project Brookings
Meyer and James Sullivan report rates of consumption poverty in the same age-based categories as ours. By their calculation, rates of consumption poverty in 2015 were 5.2 percent
for children under 18, 3.1 percent for working-age adults 18 to
64, and 1.8 percent for senior citizens. By the official poverty
measure in 2015, 20 percent of children, 12 percent of working-age adults, and 9 percent of seniors were poor in 2015. By
the supplemental poverty measure, 16 percent of children, 14
percent of working-age adults, and 14 percent of seniors were
poor in 2015.
work, over half of working-age adults living in poverty were
labor force nonparticipants. Using self-reported responses to
other questions on the ASEC, we characterize labor force nonparticipants living in poverty by their stated reasons for nonparticipation. In 2016, 20 percent of working-age adults living
in poverty reported being disabled, 15 percent reported being
caregivers, 13 percent reported being students, and 6 percent
reported being early retirees. Only 4 percent of working-age
adults were labor force nonparticipants who were not disabled,
caregivers, students, or early retirees.
Over the past 30 years, a growing share of working-age adults
in poverty have been labor force nonparticipants, rising from
42 percent in 1986 to 58 percent in 2016. These increases have
been driven primarily by larger numbers of those with a disability, as well as by students in poverty, and to a lesser extent
by early retirees. While the number of working-age students
living in poverty increased dramatically with the onset of the
Great Recession, the other labor force nonparticipant classifications have been steadily increasing over a longer time period.
The number of disabled working-age adults in poverty has increased nearly every year, rising from a 10.9 percent share of
the working-age poor in 1986 to a 20.5 percent share in 2016.
Trends in the Characteristics of the
Working-Age Poor
Returning to the official poverty measure, we take a deeper look
at the characteristics of the working-age poor. The working-age
poor are a diverse group (figure 4). More than 40 percent of
the working-age poor were working or actively seeking work in
2016. The largest group of working-age adults living in poverty
were employees working less than full-time and full-year: 28
percent. These workers could be working full-time for part of
the year, part-time for the full year, or some combination of the
two. One in ten working-age adults living in poverty is working full-time full-year. 4 percent of working-age adults living in
poverty were unemployed and seeking work.
In contrast, the increase in students in poverty has been a more
recent phenomenon. A worsening labor market during the recession may have lowered the opportunity cost of attending
school, encouraging people without jobs to enter degree pro-
As discussed in greater depth in previous Hamilton Project
FIGURE 4.
Characteristics of Working-Age Adults Living in Poverty, 2016
Source: Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement 2017; authors calculations.
4
The Hamilton Project Brookings
FIGURE 5.
Characteristics of Working-Age Adults Living in Poverty, 19862016
Source: Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement 19872017; authors calculations.
grams. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
increased the generosity of Pell Grants and introduced new
postsecondary education tax benefits. Furthermore, as Sarah
Turner documented in a Hamilton Project policy proposal,
the Departments of Education and Labor sent a guidance letter to states which informed them that unemployment insurance recipients were eligible for Pell Grants, in turn increasing postsecondary enrollment. But, as shown in figure 5, the
number of students who are poor has stayed large during the
recovery, possibly reflecting a declining share of students who
work while in school. Some students may have other resources,
from parents or loans, to support themselves while in school,
while others may face material wants.
Why Do Some Living in Poverty Work Only
Part-time?
Not surprisingly, the share of labor force participants living in
poverty increased overall during the Great Recession, though
the number in poverty who were working full-time decreased
as part-time work and unemployment increased. As the unemployment rate doubled, a much larger share of those in poverty were actively seeking employment (rising from 3.2 percent
in 2006 to 8.3 percent in 2010). In 2010, at the peak of both
unemployment and involuntary part-time work, 2.2 million
working-age adults were unemployed and living in poverty and
7.9 million were working part-time and living in poverty. In
2016, 850,000 working-age adults were unemployed and living
in poverty and 6.3 million were working part-time and living
in poverty.
Critically, one in three of these workers was working parttime involuntarily. This is the group most likely to be helped
by a strengthening economy. Other groups report an inability
to work full-time for a variety of reasons specific to their circumstances. Almost a quarter of part-time workers living in
poverty were working part-time because of caregiving responsibilities. One-fifth of part-time workers living in poverty were
working part-time while going to school. Five percent of parttime workers living in poverty were disabled and 2 percent
were early retirees.
Figure 6 describes the reasons given by adults living in poverty for working part-time in the past week (as of March 2017).
This is a different population than those who worked less
than full-time year-round in 2016 (figures 4 and 5). In 2016
there were 6.3 million workers who worked less than full-time
year-round. In March 2017 there were 3 million who reported
working part-time in the previous week. Looking at why parttime workers were working part-time is of particular interest
because working more hours would help to lift many of these
workers out of poverty.
In the past 20 years, growth in the number of part-time workers has been driven both by cyclical factors and other trends.
5
The Hamilton Project Brookings
FIGURE 6.
Characteristics of Working-Age Adults Living in Poverty and Working Part-time, March 2017
Source: Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement 2017; authors calculations.
Among the working-age poor, involuntary part-time work
spiked during the Great Recession, growing from approximately 950,000 in 2008 to 2 million in 2010. By 2016, this figure
had dropped to 980,000 (with 400,000 of that decline coming
between 2015 and 2016). Those who were working part-time
and living in poverty due to caregiving responsibilities were the
only group that grew in number from 2016 to 2017, from approximately 630,000 to 690,000.
FIGURE 7.
Characteristics of Working-Age Adults Living in Poverty and Working Part-time, 19972017
Source: Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement 19972017; authors calculations.
6
The Hamilton Project Brookings
Conclusion
To craft effective policies to combat poverty, it is critical to understand the various challenges faced by people living in poverty, and how these challenges have evolved over time.
a stronger economy, those struggling to find work cannot work
their way out of poverty when poverty is defined in part by
pre-tax income.
The decline in the share of children in poverty is a welcome development, but children still represent a large share of those in
poverty, and alternative measures of poverty also show millions
of children in poverty. Looking forward, population aging will
likely lead more seniors to slip into poverty, even if the share
of seniors who are poor continues to fall. As this trend continues, reforms to some senior support policies will be needed
to ensure that seniors in poverty do not become increasingly
commonplace.
On the opposite end of the spectrum are those who have a fulltime job, but still live in poverty. Over 2 million Americans
meet this criteria: working full-time all year long but not earning enough to work their way out of poverty. Rising wages are
needed to lift these individuals out of poverty.
Conversely, for the nearly six in ten working-age adults who are
in poverty and are not in the labor force, changes in wages or
hours will likely not move people out of poverty. Whether people are out of the labor force due to disability, being a caregiver,
or a student, more targeted interventions beyond the labor
market are likely necessary to substantially reduce the number
of Americans in poverty.
A stronger job market that provides more full-time opportunities would be helpful across the board, particularly for those
living in poverty who are unemployed or are working parttime involuntarily. This is an important reminder that even in
Endnotes
1. For a complete accounting of the categorization rules, please review the technical appendix.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Ryan Nunn, Kriston McIntosh, Robert Doar, and Arloc Sherman for insightful comments. We would
also like to thank Patrick Liu and Nicholas Fedorochko for excellent research assistance.
7
The Hamilton Project Brookings
Appendix Figures
APPENDIX FIGURE 1.
Characteristics of Individuals Living in Poverty, 19862016
Source: Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement 19872017; authors calculations.
APPENDIX FIGURE 2.
Characteristics of Individuals Living in Poverty, 19862016
Source: Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement 19872017; authors calculations.
8
The Hamilton Project Brookings
APPENDIX FIGURE 3.
Characteristics of Individuals Living in Poverty, 19932017
Source: Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement 19932017; authors calculations.
9
The Hamilton Project Brookings
The Hamilton Project seeks to advance Americas promise of opportunity,
prosperity, and growth. We believe that todays increasingly competitive global
economy demands public policy ideas commensurate with the challenges of the
21st Century. The Projects economic strategy reflects a judgment that long-term
prosperity is best achieved by fostering economic growth and broad participation
in that growth, by enhancing individual economic security, and by embracing a
role for effective government in making needed public investments.
Our strategy calls for combining public investment, a secure social safety net, and
fiscal discipline. In that framework, the Project puts forward innovative proposals
from leading economic thinkers based on credible evidence and experience,
not ideology or doctrine to introduce new and effective policy options into the
national debate.
The Project is named after Alexander Hamilton, the nations first Treasury Secretary,
who laid the foundation for the modern American economy. Hamilton stood
for sound fiscal policy, believed that broad-based opportunity for advancement
would drive American economic growth, and recognized that prudent aids and
encouragements on the part of government are necessary to enhance and guide
market forces. The guiding principles of the Project remain consistent with these
views.
www.hamiltonproject.org
@HamiltonProj
10
The Hamilton Project Brookings
Book
An Introduction to Human Services 9th Edition
Marianne Woodside
Tricia McClam
Discussion 1
The Social Welfare System
Prior to beginning work on this discussion, refer to your course text Chapter 3 and these
websites: Programs for Seniors (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., Help for
Families (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., What We Do (Links to an external
site.)Links to an external site., About VA (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., About
Us (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., What Is the Difference Between Medicare
and Medicaid? (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., and Supplemental Nutritional
Assistance Program (SNAP) (Links to an external site.)Links to an …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
