Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Appendix D: Technical Appendixes to Select Chapters
Pages 291-454

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 291...
... , the Child Tax Credit, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, child care assistance, subsidized housing, and many other in-kind benefits are ignored in computing the poverty rate.
From page 292...
... Changing the poverty measure used in allocation formulas would affect the distribution of money among states and local areas, substantially in some cases. Relatedly, the official poverty thresholds (actually a variant of them)
From page 293...
... This appendix section describes and assesses the OPM, the SPM, and the adjusted SPM. It then discusses several contentious issues for income-based poverty measurement: relative versus absolute poverty; inflation adjustments; and the implications for income-based poverty, particularly deep poverty, of error in the underlying data source -- the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC)
From page 294...
... separately from changes in living standards. Relative Poverty Measure: A measure that regularly updates poverty thresholds for changes in the standard of living, such as a percentage of median income.
From page 295...
... that represents "hardship." KEY ELEMENTS OF ECONOMIC POVERTY MEASURES Threshold: The spending level at which minimum basic needs for food, shelter, and other goods and services can be satisfied. The minimum level may be set in a variety of ways -- with expert budgets for food, shelter, and other basics; from spending patterns on basics by units at the lower end of the distribution; as a percentage of median income or spending; or from people's opinions about basic needs for input to a so-called subjective poverty measure.
From page 296...
... dSee https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/measures-material-hardship-final-report/chapter-3-­ material hardship-indexes. family income is below a specific cutoff.
From page 297...
... , Adjusted SPM Measure/ Dimension Official Poverty Measure Supplemental Poverty Measure Adjusted SPM Kinds of Uses Statistical (from 1967 in annual Statistical (from 2011 in annual Policy: Census Bureau publications) : Census Bureau publications)
From page 298...
... ; of government income support and would likely be improvement over nondiscretionary costs (see Resource OPM for outcomes research (although Measure below) any reasonable way to identify low income groups can work)
From page 299...
... spending to food and a little more, derived from spending for families in a 1955 survey Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) (a so-called "expert" budget method of data for the 33rd percentile of FCSU establishing poverty thresholds)
From page 300...
... that resource units can use to meet FCSU types (see Data Quality below) needs, minus taxes (or plus tax credits)
From page 301...
... -- sample of 100,000 households benefits and nondiscretionary expenses; tax credits/debits are modeled by the Census Bureau continued 301
From page 302...
... NOTE: ACS = American Community Survey; CPI-U = Consumer Price Index-Urban Consumers; NRC = National Research Council; SIPP = Survey of Income and Program Participation; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; SSI = Supplemental Security Income; TANF = Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. a See, e.g., https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/24401/904570-Expanded-Poverty-Measurement-at-the-State-and-Local-Level.PDF [January 2019]
From page 303...
... The OPM has a limited measure of family resources, namely, regular money before-tax cash income, which was the definition used for data collection in the CPS. The definition was not unreasonable at the time before the expansion of tax credits and in-kind benefit programs.
From page 304...
... Specifically, the SPM definition subtracts work-related expenses including transportation and child care, child support payments to another family, out-of-pocket medical care payments (including premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and uncovered care) , and net taxes (federal income and payroll and state income)
From page 305...
... . At the heart of the difference between absolute and relative poverty measures is whether the basic needs that society deems that every family should have should be allowed to change over time.
From page 306...
... It further cited evidence that real increases in consumption on necessities lagged real increases in total expenditures as measured in the Bureau of Economic Analysis Personal Consumption Expenditures series as justification for its recommended updating procedure. Inflation Indexes All poverty measures that have any absolute element, including anchored measures, require a measure of price change or inflation to keep their thresholds constant in real terms.
From page 307...
... any more than officially deeply poor families. Further analysis would be required to assess these findings using the adjusted SPM measure, which in our analysis yields a very low deep poverty rate for children in 2015 -- 2.9 percent -- compared with a rate of 4.9 percent with the unadjusted SPM and a rate of 8.9 percent for the official measure.
From page 308...
... Research is also needed on better ways to collect self-employment income in the CPS ASEC and to evaluate imputation procedures to be sure they take relevant variables into account and do not impute high values of such sources as interest and dividends inappropriately. Advantages of the Adjusted SPM for Policy Analysis From what is known about the strengths and weaknesses of the three income-based poverty measures reviewed above, the committee concludes 9 Results presented for self-employment and interest and dividend income were performed at the committee's request by the Urban Institute using TRIM3.
From page 309...
... By contrast, the OPM counts only regular gross money income and thereby overstates the extent of child poverty and underestimates the positive effects of government programs in reducing child pov erty. Critical for the committee's purposes is that the OPM cannot be used to estimate the effects on child poverty of policy or pro gram options that involve in-kind benefit programs or tax credits.
From page 310...
... In addition, as experience is gained with the SPM going forward, particularly if our recommendations in Chapter 9 for improvements to the CPS ASEC are adopted so that the SPM can be derived from complete income information, we are confident that the SPM will continue to be useful and informative for research and policy. APPENDIX D, 2-3 CONSUMPTION-BASED POVERTY MEASURES All of the economic poverty measures discussed in Appendix D, 2-2, use variants of an income-based measure of resources.
From page 311...
... . The CE also has much smaller sample sizes than income surveys such as the CPS ASEC and especially the American Community Survey (ACS)
From page 312...
... They construct poverty thresholds by finding the threshold (after equivalizing consumption using equivalence scales from National Research Council, 1995) that leads to the same consumption and income poverty rates in some base year.
From page 313...
... increases in noncash benefits (e.g., SNAP) and tax credits over the period, which are not included in the OPM resource measure; and (2)
From page 314...
... That threshold was 97 percent of the official poverty threshold of $8,350 for 1980.17 The Meyer and Sullivan approach thus shares the OPM defect of using absolute needs in a particular year and then deriving poverty rates in other years without any direct assessment of whether needs are changing, unlike what is done in the SPM. Further, Meyer and Sullivan did not assess basic consumption needs against their 1980 thresholds to see if the thresholds made sense relative to living standards at the time.
From page 315...
... • For vehicles, replace purchases and loan payments with an estimated service flow based on the purchase value and a depreciation rate. [NOTE: Resource Measure for M-S income-based poverty measure: CE income (equivalent to census regular money income)
From page 316...
... ; 55 years as would be the case for the OPM if the CPI-U had not been found to overestimate inflation; or a shorter interval. Suffice it to say that the use of the bias-corrected CPI-U-RS by Meyer and Sullivan to keep their 1980 threshold constant over almost 40 years produces contemporary thresholds and poverty rates that seem unrealistically low compared with other thresholds and rates.
From page 317...
... Taking this all into account, income poverty measured with the adjusted SPM is the appropriate measure for our use. The ability to incorporate corrections for underreporting of government transfers, using the TRIM3 model, is clearly crucial.
From page 318...
... 13) improvements in the CE that could support c ­ onsumption-based poverty measures.
From page 319...
... So, for example, to achieve the poverty threshold, a one-parent, two-child family is assumed to require about 83 percent of the level of resources required by a two-parent, twochild family. In 2015, the reference renter family is assigned an SPM ­hreshold of $25,583, estimated using the CE.23 t Table D2-3, provides a comparison of the SPM equivalence scale to the equivalence scales implicit in the three government benefit programs: the EITC, SNAP, and the Child Tax Credit (CTC)
From page 320...
... The only exception is public housing allowances, which are implicitly tied to the cost of rentals and which vary widely across the nation. In this appendix section, we explore these differences in the treatment of COLAs on the threshold side and the benefit or income side of income-based poverty measures; we also describe how the OPM and SPM address COLAs.24 The Role of COLAs in Setting Poverty Thresholds While the income thresholds (the boundary designating who is and is not living in poverty)
From page 321...
... TABLE D2-3  Implied Equivalence Scales for EITC, CTC, and SNAP Programs by Household Size Basic SPM Implied EITC Implied CTC Implied SNAP Equivalence Equivalence Equivalence Equivalence Max EITC SNAP Max Household Size Scale Scale Scale Scale Credit 2016 Max CTC Benefit 1 Parent, 1 Child 69.94 60.53 50 55.01 $3,373 $1,000 $ 4,284 2 Parents, 1 Child 88.02 60.53 50 78.74 $3,373 $1,000 $ 6,132 1 Parent, 2 Children 83.03 100.00 100 78.74 $5,572 $2,000 $ 6,132 2 Parents, 2 Children 100.00 100.00 100 100.00 $5,572 $2,000 $ 7,788 1 Parent, 3 Children 95.29 112.51 150 100.00 $6,269 $3,000 $ 7,788 2 Parents, 3 Children 111.39 112.51 $6,269 $3,000 $ 9,252 SOURCE: Committee-generated, using data from Tax Policy Center (2017)
From page 322...
... . For example, based on Census Bureau data for 2015–2017, Mississippi's official poverty rate for the total population of 19.5 percent was more than 3 percentage points higher than the cost-of-living adjusted SPM for the same period.
From page 323...
... 2) found significant differences between poverty thresholds adjusted by the rent index only and those adjusted by an allitem RPP, "resulting in higher poverty rates for 15 states and lower rates for 26 states." Even when the narrower (food, clothing, and rent)
From page 324...
... , family resources in both the OPM and SPM poverty measures are the sum of money income from all sources, including earnings and government cash benefits such as Social Security and Unemployment Compensation. A key difference 28 Families with housing and utility costs that exceed one-half of net income are allowed a deduction for excess shelter costs, which may be more likely to occur in areas with h ­ igher-than-average housing costs generally.
From page 325...
... 30 Poverty data measured by the Supplemental Poverty Measure for this population were not available for all time periods covered in this analysis.
From page 326...
... 326 A ROADMAP TO REDUCING CHILD POVERTY TABLE D2-4  Difference Between OPM Resources and SPM Resources Resource Measures Market Income OPM SPM Poverty Market Income Wages and Salaries X X X Self-Employment Income X X X Farm Income X X X Returns from Assets X X X Child Support and Alimony X X X Private Disability and Retirement X X X Transfers AFDC/TANF X X Social Security Ret./SSDI X X SSI X X Unemployment Insurance X X Food Stamps X Free/Reduced Lunch X Housing Subsidies X LIHEAP X Veterans Payments, Workers Comp X X Taxes EITC X Child Tax Credit X Additional Child Tax Credit X Stimulus Tax Credits/Rebates X Federal Taxes, Other X State Taxes X Payroll Contributions to Social Security and X Medicare Deductions Child Support X Medical Out-of-Pocket Expenditures X Other Work Expenses X Child Care X NOTES: Market income poverty is a subset of either OPM or SPM poverty that researchers use when they want to compare the effects of market income on poverty separately from other income sources. AFDC/TANF = Aid to Families with Dependent Children; EITC = Earned Income Tax Credit; LIHEAP = Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program; OPM = Official Poverty Measure; SPM = Supplemental Poverty Measure; SSDI: Social Security Disability Insurance; SSI = Supplemental Security Income; TANF = Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.
From page 327...
... In comparison, Black (or African American) children experienced poverty rates that fell and then rose in roughly similar ways throughout this time period, suggesting that there were national trends that affected poverty in these different groups in approximately similar magnitudes.
From page 328...
... . Among the on-reservation child population, the poverty rates are on average about 10 percentage points higher at all points in time than the off-reservation AIAN population (Table D2-5)
From page 329...
... SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, obtained from Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (2017)
From page 330...
... . The increasing diversity of the child population -- driven largely by the growth in the Hispanic child population -- coupled with higher poverty rates among Hispanic, Black, and AIAN children has led to significant changes in the composition of the child population in poverty.
From page 331...
... NOTES: The SPM poverty measure is anchored in 2012 living standards and adjusted back to 1967 using the Consumer Price Index. Income data are not adjusted for underreporting.
From page 332...
... TRIM3-adjusted poverty rates for select demographic groups (defined by age of child, region, metropolitan/nonmetropolitan status, disability, and health insurance status) for 2015 are shown in Table D2-6, for deep poverty, poverty, and near poverty.
From page 333...
... Flood et al., 2017. PERSISTENTLY HIGH-POVERTY COUNTIES Child poverty rates vary greatly not only by child demographic characteristics but also geographically.
From page 334...
... In the following, we analyze the distribution of the child population across persistently poor and nonpoor counties, focusing on disparities between racial/ethnic groups, metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, and states. We then repeated the analysis using point-in-time poverty rates 32 This definition was adapted from the U.S.
From page 335...
... . In 33 We also repeated parts of the analysis using the 2015 poverty rate of the total population to classify counties as poor vs.
From page 336...
... 336 A ROADMAP TO REDUCING CHILD POVERTY TABLE D2-6  Percent of Children in Poverty based on TRIM3 -- Adjusted SPM for 2015 by Level of Poverty <50 percent <100 percent 100-149 SPM SPM percent SPM (deep (SPM poverty (near poverty) rate)
From page 337...
... poverty) Child is a Noncitizen, Unit 15.2 33.3 26.5 Contains Unauthorized Immigrant Child is a Noncitizen, Unit 7.3 31.8 32.3 Contains Recent Immigrant Child is a Noncitizen, Unit 4.7 22.5 40.6 Contains Other Immigrant Family Composition Married/Cohabitating Parents 1.9 9.3 18.2 Single Parent 5.0 22.4 35.5 No Parents 7.6 22.9 24.3 Employment/Health Status of Adults in Unit e, f 1+ Full-year/Full-time Worker 0.9 6.5 19.6 1+ Part-year or Part-time Worker 5.5 27.8 36.1 No Workers, 1+ Adult Neither 27.9 69.1 23.8 Elderly or Disabled No Workers, All Adults Elderly or 7.3 45.4 40.0 Disabled No Adults in Unit 81.5 90.3 5.1 Education of Biological Mother, Father, or Unit Head No HS Degree/No GED 6.5 32.5 38.2 HS degree/GED, No College 3.4 17.7 30.9 Some College, No BA 2.0 9.9 25.1 BA+ 1.5 4.8 8.8 Age of Mother, Father, or Unit Head g Under 25 Years 5.7 23.8 36.0 25 to 35 Years 3.2 14.4 28.1 35+ Years 2.3 11.4 19.0 Child's Health Insurance Has Private 2.0 7.0 14.2 Has Public 4.0 23.3 37.7 Uninsured 6.3 20.2 27.6 continued
From page 338...
... Some households do not have their metro status suppressed to preserve privacy, and are captured in the Metro Area, principal city status not disclosed category. For more information on this category, see the Current Population Survey Subject Definitions, available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-­ documentation/subject-definitions.html.
From page 339...
... Data as of July 1, 2015. 2015 county poverty rates from Census Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE)
From page 340...
... . While white children accounted for 35 percent of United States Population Estimates, 2016 Vintage, Census Bureau.counties, 1,they make up 44 SOURCE: children living in persistently poor Data as of July 2015.
From page 341...
... SOURCE: U.S. Population Estimates, 2016 Vintage, Census Bureau.
From page 342...
... Data as of July 1, 2015. 2015 county poverty rates from Census Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE)
From page 343...
... Data as of July 1, 2015. 2015 county poverty rates from Census Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE)
From page 344...
... Data as of July 1, 2015. 2015 county poverty rates from Census Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE)
From page 345...
... Program data. APPENDIX D, 2-10 ANCHORED AND UNANCHORED METHODS OF CALCULATING SPM POVERTY OVER TIME Changes in poverty measured using the SPM could be in part due to changes in poverty thresholds.
From page 346...
... Data as of July 1, SOURCE: U.S. Population Estimates, 2016 Vintage, Census Bureau.
From page 347...
... Data as ofof SOURCE: U.S. Population Estimates, 2016 Vintage, Census Bureau.
From page 348...
... Program2015. 2015 county poverty rates from Census Small Area Income and of July 1, data.
From page 349...
... As described in the text, the committee chose to focus on the anchored poverty measure because it wished to isolate the effects of income transfers from the effects of changes in living standards. This is especially salient for comparisons of the OPM to the SPM.
From page 350...
... The SPM also takes a different approach to equivalence scales. Poverty measurement typically adjusts income for family size using an equivalence scale (as described in Appendix D, 2-1)
From page 351...
... Based on this, we then define relative poverty lines across all five countries at the 40th percentile of their respective income distributions. The resulting child poverty rates, shown as LIS-SPM-40 in Figure 2-13 in Chapter 2 and Figure D2-16, produce a country ordering similar to that based on the OECD poverty measures, with U.S.
From page 352...
... 8.1 10.3 Poverty Line
 40.2 55.5 as a Fraction of
 51.8 40.7 LIS Median Income 40.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percentage FIGURE D2-16  Child poverty in the U.S. and other anglophone countries.
From page 353...
... and national price indices where years differ (Gornick and Jantti, 2013; Gornick and Nell, 2017; Rainwater and Smeeding, 2003) .34 Using these PPP-adjusted poverty thresholds, we can compare child poverty rates in the five countries in terms of absolute poverty; this is shown in Figure D2-16 and labeled LIS-SPM-PPP.
From page 354...
... rate of 12.5 percent is below the UK child poverty rate of 13.5 percent, as shown in Figure 2-13 in Chapter 2 and Figure D2-16.35 Using these LIS-based absolute poverty measures, we can extend this analysis to make a fuller comparison of poverty rates for the United States and theOriginal LIS analyses commissioned by the committee from D2-18 compares Center. SOURCE: four comparison countries.
From page 355...
... Canada (2013) 29.2 Child poverty
 46.4 at 150% of the
 37.2 Poverty Line 21.6 27.2 12.5 Child poverty
 13.5 at 100% of the
 11.3 Poverty Line 8.1 10.3 3.6 Child poverty
 1.4 at 50% of the
 1.8 Poverty Line 1.9 1.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percentage FIGURE D2-18  Child poverty rates by level of poverty in the U.S.
From page 356...
... in the U.S. and other anglophone countries for families with single parents, full-time workers, and immigrant families.
From page 357...
... poverty rate compared to other English-speaking rich nations without a significant racial minority. Cross-Country Comparisons of Income Given the differences in country rankings of absolute and relative poverty measures, we conclude this appendix with a discussion of disposable household income and other real income concepts to get a better understanding of living standards across the five English-speaking nations of interest.
From page 358...
... Hence the SPM poverty line, at 55 percent of LIS median adjusted income in the United Kingdom in the first column, reflects the lower real UK living standards (evident using three different measures)
From page 359...
... . The interaction of metropolitan cost-of-living and the federal Earned Income Tax Credit: One size fits all?
From page 360...
... . Identifying the disadvantaged: Official poverty, consumption poverty, and the new supplemental poverty measure.
From page 361...
... New estimates of historical trends using an anchored Supplemental Poverty Measure. Demography, 53(4)
From page 362...
... Poor and near-poor children are more than twice as likely to have experienced three or more ACEs than their more affluent peers (Anda et al., 2006; Figure D3-1)
From page 363...
... , families to experience maltreatment of any kind, three 2005 to 2006 times more likely to be physically or sexually abused, and seven times more likely to be neglected. Paxson and National Center – Higher poverty rates are associated with significantly Waldfogel, for Child Abuse more substantiated cases of child maltreatment, cases of 2003 and Neglect, physical abuse, and cases of neglect.
From page 364...
... . In a study looking at the impact of welfare reform, higher poverty rates were associated with significantly more substantiated cases of child
From page 365...
... Analyzed by the Health Resources and in Wisconsin to distinguish the causal effect of income from other causes of ofchild2012. OPM = Official Poverty Measure.
From page 366...
... This increased visibility may lead to greater attention to problems in these families than in families with higher incomes, who are less likely to use welfare and other assistance programs. MATERIAL HARDSHIP Material hardship -- broadly defined as the inability to meet basic needs -- is associated with poverty.
From page 367...
... . Even short spells of poverty seem to put families at greater risk for material hardships One or more hardships Two or more hardships Three or more hardships Four or more hardships 100 Experiencing Material Hardships 80 Percentage of Families 60 40 20 0 <50 50-99 100-149 159-249 250-349 >350 O cial Poverty Measure (percentage)
From page 368...
... Gershoff et al., Early Childhood – Material hardship is highly correlated 2007 Longitudinal Study, 1998 with parenting stress, which negatively to 1999 impacted parenting behaviors leading to worse outcomes in child social emotional competence. – Material hardship explained most of the impact of family income on social emotional outcomes.
From page 369...
... However, material hardship was highly correlated with parenting stress, which negatively impacted parenting behaviors leading to worse outcomes in child social emotional competence. In fact, material hardship explained most of the impact of family income on social-emotional outcomes.
From page 370...
... Khanam, Longitudinal Study of – There is an inverse relationship between Nghiem, and Australian Children, income and child health in Australia. Connelly, 2009 1999 to 2004 Condliffe and Medical Expenditure – Poor children experience more new chronic Link, 2008 Panel Survey, Panel Study health conditions than children in wealthier of Income Dynamics, families.
From page 371...
... Survey (NHANES) , – Compared with poor children not in deep the National Health poverty, children in deep poverty are more Interview Survey (NHIS)
From page 372...
... . Thus, at least part of the intergenerational transmission of poverty may be due to the impact of family income on children's health.
From page 373...
... . Using data from flu epidemics researchers have shown that influenza during pregnancy has negative effects on infant birth weights, primarily for mothers who have other indicators of poor health.
From page 374...
... BRAIN DEVELOPMENT Poor children are more likely than other children to have developmental, behavioral, and academic problems, such as serious emotional or behavioral difficulties and learning disabilities (Bradbury et al., 2015; Chaudrey and Wimer, 2016; Heckman, 2006; Moore et al., 2009; Yoshikawa, Aber, ­ and Beardslee, 2012; Table D3-5)
From page 375...
... – These relationships were most prominent in regions supporting language, reading, executive functions, and spatial skills. Mitchell et Fragile – Growing up in a disadvantaged environment is al., 2014 Families associated with a 19% shorter telomere, whereas a and Child doubling of family income is associated with a 5% Wellbeing increase in telomere length.
From page 376...
... Growing up in a disadvantaged environment is associated with a 19 percent shorter telomere, whereas a doubling of family income is associated with a 5 percent increase in telomere length (Mitchell et al., 2014)
From page 377...
... to 2009 Golberstein, National – Increases in state-level unemployment rates is Gonzales, and Health associated with greater prevalence of mental health Meara, 2016 Interview problems among children, controlling for parental Survey, 2001 to mental health. 2013 Gershoff et Early – Higher family income predicted decreased material al., 2007 Childhood hardship (e.g., less food insecurity, residential instability, Longitudinal and inadequacy of medical care)
From page 378...
... . Correlational studies that link family income and child mental health have produced evidence suggestive of several mediating mechanisms.
From page 379...
... investigation based on a representative national sample of kindergarteners showed that higher family income predicted decreased material hardship (e.g., less food insecurity, residential instability, and inadequacy of medical care) and decreased parent stress (i.e., lower levels of marital conflict, parenting stress, depressive symptomatology)
From page 380...
... documents the fact that this income-­ achievement gap is not stable, but has been increasing steadily over the past 50 years. He shows that the gap in achievement between a child at the 90th percentile of the family income distribution and a child at the 10th percentile of the family income distribution is almost twice as big as the gap in achievement between white and African-American students -- while 50 years ago the situation was reversed.
From page 381...
... Youth, 1986 to 2000 Brooks-Gunn National – Children in deep poverty had scores 6 to 13 points and Duncan, Longitudinal lower on standardized tests of IQ, verbal ability, and 1997 Survey of achievement compared with nonpoor children. Youth, Infant – Scores for children living in poverty but above deep Health and poverty were also lower than those who were nonpoor, Development but the differences were not as large.
From page 382...
... – However, family income, family structure, and race/ ethnicity, taken together, explained very little of the variance in these outcomes.
From page 383...
... with those at the highest end of the income distribution. In addition, the relationship was much stronger if the measure of family economic well-being included other family economic indicators in addition to income (e.g., savings, debts owed, inheritances)
From page 384...
... , but higher weapon-­ related violence, and greater likelihood of sexual intercourse, controlling for demographic variables related to family income. However, family income, family structure, and race/ethnicity, taken together, explained very little of the variance in these outcomes.
From page 385...
... . Language development diverges for poor and nonpoor children almost as soon as expressive language emerges at 15 or 16 months of age, and by 3 years of age poor children are markedly behind in their language acquisition (Hart and Risley, 1995)
From page 386...
... SEVERITY OF POVERTY In 2015, 2.9 percent of children in the United States, or 2.1 million children,38 lived in deep poverty, that is, had family income less than 50 percent of the Supplemental Poverty Measure. Families living in deep poverty experience even greater material hardship and parenting stress than those who are poor but living between 50 percent and 99 percent of the federal poverty level (Mayer and Jencks, 1989)
From page 387...
... . The effect of additional child support income on the risk of child maltreatment.
From page 388...
... . Young Children in Deep Poverty.
From page 389...
... . Income poverty and material hardship: How strong is the association?
From page 390...
... . Family income, parental education and brain structure in children and adolescents.
From page 391...
... . Socioeconomic status and functional brain development -- associations in early infancy.
From page 392...
... ; child tax allowances (amounts for children that are deducted from gross income and are not included in taxable income) ; and child tax credits, amounts that are deducted from the tax liability.
From page 393...
... report on the impact of the worldwide financial/economic crisis on child well-being in 41 high-income countries (Fanjul, 2014) , based on an anchored poverty line Australia experienced the third-best improvement over the 2008–2012 period, with its child poverty rate falling from just over 19 percent to 13 percent.
From page 394...
... . The Irish government also has programs intended to make quality child care more affordable and accessible.
From page 395...
... . Ireland, Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection.
From page 396...
... SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate: Men [LNS11300001]
From page 397...
... SOURCE: Data for 1952 to 2002 from March Current Population Survey; data for 2003 to 2017 from Annual Social and Eco nomic Supplement to the Current Population Survey (noninstitutionalized population, excluding members of the Armed Forces living in barracks) ; 1950 Census of Population and 1940 Census of Population (resident population)
From page 398...
... SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, June 1976–2016
From page 399...
... Explaining changes in child poverty over the past four decades APPENDIX D 399 1975-1993 1993-2011 150 Percent of Change in Poverty Explained 100 50 0 -50 -100 White
 White
 Black
 Black
 Hispanic
 Hispanic
 Children,
 Children,
 Children,
 Children,
 Children,
 Children,
 control for
 adding work
 control for
 adding work
 Control for
 adding work
 age and family
 by adults
 age and family
 by adults
 age and family
 by adults
 structure in family structure in family structure in family FIGURE D4-4  Explaining changes in child poverty over the past four decades. SOURCE: Adapted from Nichols (2013)
From page 400...
... workers, 1963–2012 400 A ROADMAP TO REDUCING CHILD POVERTY 1.50 Bachelor's Degree 1.40 Weekly Earnings Relative to 1963 1.39 1.30 1.20 High School Graduate 1.10 1.07 1.00 High School Dropout 0.93 0.90 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Year FIGURE D4-5  Changes in real median weekly earnings of full-time, full-year male workers, 1963–2012. NOTE: Conversion to real 2012 dollars using CPI-U-RS price series.
From page 401...
... was calculated by taking the total SPM resources and removing total taxes (tax credits and taxes paid) , SNAP, WIC, School Lunch, LIHEAP, Housing subsidies, TANF, SSI, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and a few smaller government insurance payments such as veteran's assistance.
From page 402...
... was calculated by taking the total SPM resources and removing total taxes (tax credits and taxes paid) , SNAP, WIC, School Lunch, LIHEAP, Housing subsidies, TANF, SSI, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and a few smaller government insurance payments such as veteran's assistance.
From page 403...
... was calculated by taking the total SPM resources and removing total taxes (tax credits and taxes paid) , SNAP, WIC, School Lunch, LIHEAP, Housing subsidies, TANF, SSI, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and a few smaller government insurance payments such as veteran's assistance.
From page 404...
... was calculated by taking the total SPM resources and removing total taxes (tax credits and taxes paid) , SNAP, WIC, School Lunch, LIHEAP, Housing subsidies, TANF, SSI, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and a few smaller government insurance payments such as veteran's assistance.
From page 405...
... was calculated by taking the total SPM resources and removing total taxes (tax credits and taxes paid) , SNAP, WIC, School Lunch, LIHEAP, Housing subsidies, TANF, SSI, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and a few smaller government insurance payments such as veteran's assistance.
From page 406...
... was calculated by taking the total SPM resources and removing total taxes (tax credits and taxes paid) , SNAP, WIC, School Lunch, LIHEAP, Housing subsidies, TANF, SSI, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and a few smaller government insurance payments such as veteran's assistance.
From page 407...
... No workers +15.4 No bio parents +6.1 Single bio/
 adoptive parent +10.8 Hispanic +6.9 Black +9.0 0 20 40 60 80 Child Poverty Rate (percentage) FIGURE D4-12  Child poverty rates using <100 percent TRIM3 SPM if SNAP program benefits were eliminated, by demographic focal group.
From page 408...
... +6.2 No workers 0.0 No bio parents +2.8 Single bio/
 adoptive parent +10.2 Hispanic +8.8 Black +8.6 0.0 17.5 35.0 52.5 70.0 Child Poverty Rate (percentage) FIGURE D4-13 Child poverty rates using <100 percent TRIM3 SPM if EITC and ACTC program benefits were eliminated, by demographic focal group.
From page 409...
... -- 11.7 13.4 36.1 30.6 Child Nutrition 1.5 9.1 12.7 18.3 22.3 WIC -- 1.6 4.8 6.4 5.0 Income Security 14.6 33.6 46.4 58.0 54.3 Social Security 7.0 17.7 18.6 22.3 20.8 AFDC/TANF 4.8 11.0 15.9 17.2 12.8 Supplemental Security Income -- 0.9 6.7 11.0 10.5 Veterans Compensation (Disability 2.5 3.5 2.1 3.5 6.8 Compensation) Child Support Enforcement -- 0.9 4.4 4.9 4.1 Other Income Security 0.3 -0.4 -1.3 -1.0 -0.6 Housing -- 2.8 8.3 10.7 9.5 Section 8 Low-Income Housing -- 1.4 6.5 8.0 7.7 Assistance Low-Rent Public Housing -- 0.6 1.1 1.3 1.0 Other Housing -- 0.8 0.8 1.4 0.7 Refundable Portions Of Tax Credits -- 3.1 34.5 81.8 74.0 Earned Income Tax Credit -- 3.1 33.3 54.8 53.1 Child Tax Credit -- -- 1.1 25.4 19.4 Premium Tax Credit -- -- -- -- 0.6 Other Refundable Tax Credits -- -- -- 1.6 0.8 Tax Reductions 41.2 50.1 93.1 105.1 106.2 Dependent Exemption 40.6 42.3 39.7 36.0 37.8 Exclusion for Employer-Sponsored NA 4.1 13.7 21.5 22.9 Health Insurance Child Tax Credit (Non-Refundable -- -- 26.8 33.4 29.9 Portion)
From page 410...
... , State Temporary Disability Benefits, and Black Lung Miner Benefits; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; SSI = Supplemental Security Income; UC = Unemployment Compensation; WC = Worker's Compensation. a Social Security includes Social Security Income (including Social Security Retirement, Social Security Disability, Social Security Survivors, and Railroad Retirement)
From page 411...
... . For example, evidence consistently suggests that the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
From page 412...
... Appendix F provides the details of these two proposed policy changes. Behavioral Responses to Expanding the EITC A central feature of the EITC is that it requires earned income to be eligible.
From page 413...
... • Single mothers / Intensive margin: We assume no adjustment in hours or earnings. • Single fathers: We assume no adjustment of labor supply.
From page 414...
... 41 As with all of the policy simulations in the report, data on earnings and employment changes are restricted to individuals living in families with incomes below 200 percent of the SPM poverty thresholds.
From page 415...
... Calculations based on the Current Population Survey indicated that for single working mothers with a child under age 5, median family earnings was $19,200 and median out-of-pocket child care costs was $3,000, with an interquartile range of $4,400 in out-of-pocket child care costs (interquartile range is the difference between the 75th percentile and the 25th percentile of out-of-pocket child care costs)
From page 416...
... This option does not include any changes to the states' other eligibility policies -- such as the definition of family units -- or to the states' methods for computing copayments. Behavioral Responses to Expanding Child Care Subsidies A large body of research indicates that government child care subsidy programs increase employment rates among mothers in low-income families.
From page 417...
... Further implementation details can be found in Appendix F The research literature focuses almost exclusively on the impacts of child care costs on employment rather than on hours of work conditional on employment.
From page 418...
... For example, a tolerance of 25 cents below the minimum wage is used to identify individuals in the Current Population Survey who report a wage slightly below the minimum but who may have simply been misreporting. They are considered to be paid the minimum wage.
From page 419...
... Of all of the program and policy options we consider, our minimum wage proposals are least targeted to children living below or near the poverty line.
From page 420...
... The Current Population Survey data on which the TRIM3 model is based has information on the employment status of individuals and the length of time they have been unemployed, so the simulated earnings impacts were conducted separately for each of these three groups. The MDRC experiment enrolled participants in the three employment-status groups in these rough proportions: 40 percent, 30 percent, and 30 percent, respectively.
From page 421...
... . SNAP Policy #2: Increase SNAP benefits by 30 percent and make adjustments for the number of children greater than or equal to 12 years of age in the home ($360 more per each teenager per year)
From page 422...
... This increases benefits for SNAP recipients at all income levels and also increases the income eligibility point in SNAP, although only in cases where the maximum income limit was not hit first. All other features of the SNAP benefit formula were left unchanged.
From page 423...
... The child poverty rate after implementation of the first policy would have been 11.0 percent in the absence of employment effects instead of the 11.3 percent we report in the text. For the second policy, the rate would have been 10.4 percent instead of the 10.7 percent we report.
From page 424...
... from program records, it is apparent that there are significant reporting errors. In particular, participation in housing voucher and public housing programs is underreported, and significant overreporting occurs as respondents say they are in those housing programs but are really in different housing programs.46 The committee had neither the time nor the resources to improve the accuracy of the Current Population Survey questions (e.g., by matching to HUD administrative records or by statistical imputation)
From page 425...
... proposed extending the mortgage interest rate deduction in the federal income tax to renters, making it refundable, and making it a flat percent independent of income bracket. Behavioral Responses to Expanding Housing Programs As with other programs, most research on the behavioral effects of subsidized housing programs has concerned their impact on employment and earnings.
From page 426...
... of the new housing subsidies. The impact on poverty rates of the employment effects were modest, for the child poverty rate after implementation of Housing Voucher Policy #1 would have been 10.8 percent in the absence of employment effects instead of the 10.9 percent we report in Chapter 5, whereas for Housing Voucher Policy #2, the rate would have been 9.8 percent instead of the 10.1 percent we report.
From page 427...
... APPENDIX D 427 TABLE D5-2  Recipients Under Age 18, by Diagnostic Group and Age, December 2016 Diagnostic Group All Ages Under 3 3-5 6-12 13-17 Number All Recipients Under Age 18 1,213,079 73,451 147,092 559,027 433,509 Congenital Anomalies 66,646 12,993 14,029 26,349 13,275 Endocrine, Nutritional, and Metabolic Diseases 9,114 593 1,862 4,264 2,395 Infectious and Parasitic Diseases 699 28 71 302 298 Injuries 5,800 495 940 2,570 1,795 Mental Disorders Autistic Disorders 174,866 1,782 26,682 96,311 50,091 Developmental Disorders 239,215 4,686 43,040 124,954 66,535 Childhood and Adolescent Disorders Not Elsewhere Classified 233,490 46 3,849 117,581 112,014 Intellectual Disability 117,646 472 4,376 46,979 65,819 Mood Disorders 38,412 6 238 11,338 26,830 Organic Mental Disorders 27,211 803 4,229 13,024 9,155 Schizophrenic and Other Psychotic Disorders 3,058 0 11 747 2,300 Other Mental Disorders 31,318 56 747 13,094 17,421 Neoplasms 10,886 777 2,316 4,955 2,838 Diseases of the -- Blood and Blood-forming Organs 11,557 395 1,610 5,726 3,826 Circulatory System 4,405 627 836 1,699 1,243 Digestive System 15,408 5,123 4,771 3,927 1,587 Genitourinary System 2,945 226 425 1,230 1,064 Musculoskeletal System and Connective Tissue 9,456 783 1,618 3,840 3,215 Nervous System and Sense Organs 95,835 5,590 15,117 45,594 29,534 Respiratory System 24,437 1,889 4,665 11,130 6,753 Skin and Subcutaneous Tissue 2,309 131 377 1,195 606 Other 74,818 34,807 13,397 16,104 10,510 Unknown 13,548 1,143 1,886 6,114 4,405 continued
From page 428...
... = less than 0.05 percent. SOURCE: Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Record, 100 percent data.
From page 429...
... The simulations show that SSI Policy #1 generated an earnings reduction of $434 million, while SSI Policy #2 showed earnings reductions totaling $1.05 billion. However, these reductions were too small to change the child poverty rates after the two policies are implemented (at 12.8% and 12.6%, respectively, both with and without the inclusion of employment effects)
From page 430...
... Phase out child allowance benefits using the same schedule as the cur rent Child Tax Credit. Child Allowance Policy #2: Pay a monthly benefit of $250 per month ($3,000 per year)
From page 431...
... To reduce its costs, we phase out the $3,000 benefits at lower income levels than current law -- between 300 and 400 percent of the SPM poverty level. Behavioral Responses to the Child Allowance Proposals In its simplest form, a universal child allowance with no phase-out simply provides additional income to each family with children in receipt of a benefit.
From page 432...
... The employment effects for Policy #2 reduced poverty reduction slightly -- from 5.4 to 5.3 percentage points. APPENDIX D, 5-10 A CHILD SUPPORT ASSURANCE PROGRAM The committee simulated the impacts of two options for a child support assurance policy: Child Support Assurance Policy #1: Set a guaranteed minimum child support of $100 per month per child.
From page 433...
... Those reductions are obtained by first calculating the percent increase in family income that the public child support payment represents and then by multiplying that percent by the same employment and hours-of-work elasticities used for the child allowance behavioral responses given above. The employment and hours effects from the simulation were negligible in size.
From page 434...
... Moreover, evidence suggests that an influx of low-skilled immigrant workers has a small negative impact on the employment and wages of U.S.-born workers with less than high school education, which may in turn increase the chances that the family incomes of the children of these nonimmigrant workers fall below poverty thresholds. In terms of fiscal impacts, in the short run, first-generation immigrants are more costly to state and local governments than the U.S.
From page 435...
... comprise about one quarter of the U.S. child population (25.2%, 18.2 million, 2015)
From page 436...
... However, the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997 restored eligibility to elderly and disabled immigrants who were receiving SSI benefits at the time PRWORA was enacted or who were already in the United States then and later became disabled. PRWORA originally restricted legal immigrant children's eligibility for SNAP (then food stamps)
From page 437...
... Furthermore, PRWORA and subsequent legislation gave states discretion to provide stateonly funded benefits to some immigrants ineligible for federal assistance, as well as to decide whether immigrants who entered the United States after 1996 should be eligible for public benefits (e.g., TANF) after the 5-year ban, and whether some subgroups of legal immigrants should be eligible during the 5-year ban (e.g., Medicaid for children and pregnant women)
From page 438...
... We assumed that each program would have the same employment effects that have been estimated for those programs in the general research literature, much of which we have already discussed for other policies such as SNAP and SSI. We first assessed the importance of behavioral effects by counting the number of immigrants with children who would be newly eligible for, and would participate in, each of the three programs, including counts of how many would be eligible for more than one.
From page 439...
... Because the employment effects in the research literature are almost always separated by marital status and gender, we conducted our counts separately for male heads with children, married mothers, and single mothers. These tabulations showed that receipt of SNAP, and SNAP alone, dominated the other two programs in terms of the number of immigrant households who would be newly eligible for them, with the SNAP counts 10 or 20 times the number newly eligible for the other two.
From page 440...
... These UBI payments would substitute for all personal and dependent deductions and tax credits in the federal income tax. The benefit would be counted as taxable income in the federal income tax.
From page 441...
... . As described in Chapter 5, the committee considered whether to simulate a UBI to meet the goal of reducing child poverty by one-half in the next 10 years.
From page 442...
... use a micro-­ simulation model similar to TRIM without labor supply effects on the Current Population Survey and find that modest income guarantee plans of around $4,000 per adult and $2,000 per child reduce poverty by one-half. The large-scale natural experiment is the Alaska Permanent Fund which since 1982 has paid all Alaska residents a yearly cash dividend of about $2,000 per resident.
From page 443...
... Ethnographic accounts of recipients of the work-promoting Earned Income Tax Credit program show that it appears to promote a strong sense of social inclusions (­ alpern-Meekin et al., 2015)
From page 444...
... showing whether poverty reductions across the various demographic subgroups presented in Chapter 2 were disproportionately large or small. To determine these relative impacts, we first calculated subgroup poverty rates for each of the 20 program and policy options.
From page 445...
... Old Baseline Poverty Rate 13.0% 17.8% 21.7% 32.5% 22.9% 22.4% 61.5% 33.3% 31.5% 23.8% Post-program Rate EITC 1 11.8 15.8 19.9 29.4 21.6 19.6 61.0 33.3 31.3 20.3 EITC 2 10.9 14.2 18.7 27.4 21.3 17.1 59.0 33.0 30.6 19.7 Child Care 1 11.8 15.9 19.7 29.2 21.4 18.8 59.6 32.6 29.2 20.7 Child Care 2 12.4 17.0 20.7 31.0 22.3 20.7 60.1 31.7 30.2 23.0 Minimum Wage 1 12.8 17.5 21.4 32.1 22.6 22.1 61.7 31.6 31.2 23.4 Minimum Wage 2 12.9 17.7 21.5 32.2 22.9 22.2 61.7 32.9 31.2 23.6 WorkAdvance 1 13.0 17.8 21.6 32.4 22.7 22.4 61.1 33.3 31.5 23.8 WorkAdvance 2 12.9 17.8 21.6 32.2 22.2 22.3 59.7 33.3 31.6 23.5 SNAP 1 11.3 15.3 18.9 28.3 19.6 20.2 55.8 32.7 27.2 20.8 SNAP 2 10.7 14.6 18.2 26.7 18.9 19.1 53.1 31.8 26.2 19.0 Housing Vouchers 1 10.9 14.7 17.2 25.9 20.4 18.6 52.6 32.1 26.4 19.6 Housing Vouchers 2 10.1 13.3 15.5 23.6 18.9 17.0 50.0 31.9 24.3 17.7 SSI 1 12.8 17.5 21.3 32.0 22.1 22.0 60.2 33.3 31.2 23.4 SSI 2 12.6 17.3 20.9 31.4 21.8 21.6 59.0 33.3 30.5 23.2 Child Allowance 1 9.6 11.8 17.3 23.9 16.6 15.9 44.7 34.8 24.9 17.1 Child Allowance 2 7.7 9.7 13.4 18.6 14.3 12.6 36.6 34.2 18.6 14.1 Child Support 1 12.8 17.4 21.4 32.1 22.9 21.5 60.1 33.3 31.5 23.6 Child Support 2 12.4 17.0 20.7 31.0 22.3 20.7 60.1 32.7 30.2 23.0 Immigration 1 12.9 17.7 21.4 31.9 22.8 22.4 61.5 34.3 31.5 23.9 Immigration 2 11.9 17.2 17.9 27.4 22.2 21.9 61.8 20.3 19.7 22.9 * One member in the household is an unauthorized citizen.
From page 446...
... Old EITC 1 0.112 0.083 0.095 0.057 0.125 0.008 0.000 0.006 0.147 EITC 2 0.202 0.138 0.157 0.070 0.237 0.041 0.009 0.029 0.172 Child Care 1 0.107 0.092 0.102 0.066 0.161 0.031 0.021 0.073 0.130 Child Care 2 0.045 0.046 0.046 0.026 0.076 0.023 0.018 0.041 0.034 Minimum Wage 1 0.017 0.014 0.012 0.013 0.013 -0.003 0.051 0.010 0.017 Minimum Wage 2 0.006 0.009 0.009 0.000 0.009 -0.003 0.012 0.010 0.008 WorkAdvance 1 0.000 0.005 0.003 0.009 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 WorkAdvance 2 0.000 0.005 0.009 0.031 0.004 0.029 0.000 -0.003 0.013 SNAP 1 0.140 0.129 0.129 0.144 0.098 0.093 0.018 0.137 0.126 SNAP 2 0.180 0.161 0.178 0.175 0.147 0.137 0.045 0.168 0.185 Housing Vouchers 1 0.174 0.207 0.203 0.109 0.170 0.145 0.036 0.162 0.176 Housing Vouchers 2 0.253 0.286 0.274 0.175 0.241 0.187 0.042 0.229 0.256 SSI 1 0.017 0.018 0.015 0.035 0.018 0.021 0.000 0.010 0.017 SSI 2 0.028 0.037 0.034 0.048 0.036 0.041 0.000 0.032 0.025 Child Allowance 1 0.337 0.203 0.265 0.275 0.290 0.273 -0.045 0.210 0.282 Child Allowance 2 0.455 0.382 0.428 0.376 0.438 0.405 -0.027 0.410 0.408 Child Support 1 0.022 0.014 0.012 0.000 0.040 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.008 Child Support 2 0.045 0.046 0.046 0.026 0.076 0.023 0.018 0.041 0.034 Immigration 1 0.006 0.014 0.018 0.004 0.000 0.000 -0.030 0.000 -0.004 Immigration 2 0.034 0.175 0.157 0.031 0.022 -0.005 0.390 0.375 0.038 NOTE: Relative change in poverty for a group is defined as: 1 - (Rpp/Rbaseline) , where Rpp is the post-program poverty rate and Rbaseline is the pre-­ program poverty rate.
From page 447...
... Old EITC 1 9.2% 2.0% -0.9% 0.3% -3.6% 3.3% -8.4% -9.2% -8.6% 5.5% EITC 2 16.2% 4.1% -2.3% -0.5% -9.2% 7.5% -12.1% -15.3% -13.3% 1.1% Child Care 1 9.2% 1.4% 0.0% 0.9% -2.7% 6.8% -6.1% -7.1% -1.9% 3.8% Child Care 2 4.6% -0.1% 0.0% 0.0% -2.0% 3.0% -2.3% -2.8% -0.5% -1.3% Minimum Wage 1 1.5% 0.1% -0.2% -0.3% -0.2% -0.2% -1.9% 3.6% -0.6% 0.1% Minimum Wage 2 0.8% -0.2% 0.2% 0.2% -0.8% 0.1% -1.1% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% WorkAdvance 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.9% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% WorkAdvance 2 0.8% -0.8% -0.3% 0.2% 2.3% -0.3% 2.2% -0.8% -1.1% 0.5% SNAP 1 13.1% 1.0% -0.2% -0.2% 1.3% -3.3% -3.8% -11.3% 0.6% -0.5% SNAP 2 17.7% 0.3% -1.6% 0.2% -0.2% -3.0% -4.0% -13.2% -0.9% 0.8% Housing Vouchers 1 16.2% 1.3% 4.6% 4.2% -5.2% 0.8% -1.7% -12.6% 0.0% 1.5% Housing Vouchers 2 22.3% 3.0% 6.3% 5.1% -4.8% 1.8% -3.6% -18.1% 0.5% 3.3% SSI 1 1.5% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 2.0% 0.2% 0.6% -1.5% -0.6% 0.1% SSI 2 3.1% -0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 1.7% 0.5% 1.0% -3.1% 0.1% -0.6% Child Allowance 1 26.2% 7.6% -5.9% 0.3% 1.4% 2.9% 1.2% -30.7% -5.2% 2.0% Child Allowance 2 40.8% 4.7% -2.5% 2.0% -3.2% 3.0% -0.3% -43.5% 0.2% 0.0% Child Support 1 1.5% 0.7% -0.2% -0.3% -1.5% 2.5% 0.7% -1.5% -1.5% -0.7% Child Support 2 4.6% -0.1% -0.0% 0.0% -2.0% 3.0% -2.3% -2.8% -0.5% -1.3% Immigration 1 0.8% -0.2% 0.6% 1.1% -0.3% -0.8% -0.8% -3.8% -0.8% -1.2% Immigration 2 8.5% -5.1% 9.0% 7.2% -5.4% -6.2% -8.9% 30.6% 29.0% -4.7% NOTES: The first column shows relative poverty reductions for all children for a given policy. Subgroup columns show the difference between subgroup poverty reductions and reductions for all children.
From page 448...
... To calculate social inclusion values, we subtracted the number of subgroups with poverty increases by the number of subgroups with poverty decreases such that larger values indicated the policy decreased relative poverty for more subgroups than the policy increased relative poverty. See the previous section detailing the construction of Table 5-1 section and Tables D5-4 to D5-6 for information regarding how social inclusion was defined.
From page 449...
... EITC 1 1.2 0.2 1.2 8.4 4.9 -1 Strong EITC 2 2.1 0.4 2.5 20.2 9.0 -2 Child Care 1 1.2 0.3 1.1 5.1 9.3 -1 No Evidence Child Care 2 0.6 0.2 0.4 6.9 4.2 -3 Minimum Wage 1 0.2 0.0 0.3 -3.7 3.5 0 No Evidence Minimum Wage 2 0.1 0.0 0.1 -2.0 1.9 -1 WorkAdvance 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.3 0.8 0 No Evidence WorkAdvance 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.8 2.4 1 SNAP 1 1.7 0.5 1.8 26.4 -3.2 -2 Strong SNAP 2 2.3 0.7 2.6 37.4 -3.6 -4 Housing Vouchers 1 2.1 0.6 0.6 24.1 -4.1 1 Some Housing Vouchers 2 3.0 0.9 0.7 34.9 -5.9 2 SSI 1 0.2 0.0 0.3 4.2 -0.4 0 No Evidence SSI 2 0.4 0.1 0.7 9.4 -1.1 0 Child Allowance 1 3.4 1.1 3.3 32.9 -1.6 2 Some Child Allowance 2 5.3 1.5 8.2 54.4 -3.9 7 Child Support 1 0.2 0.1 0.7 5.7 -0.2 -2 No Evidence Child Support 2 0.4 0.1 0.5 8.9 -0.4 -2 Immigration 1 0.1 0.0 0.1 3.9 -0.5 -1 Immigration 2 1.1 0.3 0.4 16.9 -2.2 -1 No Evidence 449
From page 450...
... Loss Earnings Loss Loss Earnings Gain Gain Social Inclusion Scale < -3 -3 -- -1 0 1 -- 3 3+ NOTE: All of these cutoffs should be mutually exclusive.
From page 451...
... . The Earned Income Tax Credit and fertility.
From page 452...
... . Labor supply response to the Earned Income Tax Credit.
From page 453...
... . Welfare, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the labor supply of single mothers.
From page 454...
... . Taxes, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and Marital Status.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.