Measuring Poverty A New Approach (1995) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
Pages 17-96
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 17... ...
. This measure had a set of poverty thresholds for different types of families that consisted of the cost of a minimum adequate diet multiplied by three to allow for other expenses.
|
From page 18... ...
The poverty measure influences policy making more broadly as an indicator of economic well-being to which policy makers, advocates, analysts, and the general public are sensitive. Trends in poverty rates over time and differences in poverty rates across population groups are often cited as reasons that a particular policy (or set of policies)
|
From page 19... ...
This overview presents the panel's findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a nontechnical way, for the general reader. The other chapters of this report discuss the issues involved in poverty measurement in detail: alternative concepts for developing and updating poverty thresholds (Chapter 2~; alternative adjustments of the thresholds for different family circumstances, such as family size and geographic location (Chapter 3~; alternative definitions of family resources (Chapter 4~; data requirements for implementing the panel's proposed poverty measure and the effects on the distribution of poverty (Chapter 5~; other issues in poverty measurement, such as the time period and unit of economic analysis covered (Chapter 6~; and the potential relationship of the poverty measure to government assistance programs, both generally (Chapter 7)
|
From page 20... ...
We contend that this relatively narrow conceptualization of poverty is appropriate for an official poverty measure for several reasons. First, it is a familiar concept that, in a broad sense, has formed the basis of official poverty measurement in the United States for the past several decades.
|
From page 21... ...
If the current measure were internally consistent and not flawed, in ways we describe below, we would be inclined to recommend its continuation. But we do find it unacceptably flawed for its important uses with respect to government policies and programs, academic research, and public understanding; thus, we recommend a new measure, but one that retains the concept of economic deprivation as the core notion of poverty.
|
From page 22... ...
, but to propose a measure that is a marked improvement over the current one just as the official measure, when first developed by Mollie Orshansky, was regarded as a marked improvement over competing measures at that time. Our measure includes a specific concept of economic poverty by which to develop a new poverty threshold for a reference family type: inadequate resources to obtain basic living needs.
|
From page 23... ...
Under our threshold concept, we propose that the values for food, shelter, and clothing-the basic bundle and for a small amount of other needed spending the multiplier-be developed by direct reference to spending patterns of American families below the median expenditure level. More important, we propose that real changes in spending on food, clothing, and shelter be used to update the poverty thresholds each year.
|
From page 24... ...
, by examining data on the food-buying patterns of lower income households from a 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey, modifying the patterns to develop a nutritionally balanced food plan, and costing out the items included in the plan. The USDA developed several food plans at varying cost levels; the one used as the basis of the poverty thresholds was the "Economy Food Plan," the lowest cost plan designed for "temporary or emergency use when funds are low."5 The plan allowed for no eating at restaurants, called for careful management of food storage and food preparation, and was acknowledged by its developers to provide a nutritious but monotonous diet.
|
From page 25... ...
Although the multiplier of three used in constructing the poverty thresholds was based on after-tax income, there was no methodology for calculating taxes from the March CPS, so income is defined on a before-tax basis. No valuations for inkind benefits, such as food stamps, are included in income, nor are asset holdings accounted for in any way.
|
From page 26... ...
Two questions in evaluating the current poverty measure are whether it makes sense to continue to use the real value of the original 1963 thresholds and, if not, whether the original SSA approach or some other procedure should be used to update them. From the perspective of providing accurate comparisons of poverty status across population groups and across time, there is also the important question of whether other aspects of the current measurc- namely, the adjustments to the thresholds for family size and type and the definition of family resources-remain relevant at the end of the twentieth century.
|
From page 27... ...
Work Patterns of Families with Children Over the period from 1955 (the date of the survey underlying the original poverty thresholds) to 1993, the percentage of women with a child under age 6 who were in the labor force more than tripled, increasing from 18 to 58 percent.
|
From page 28... ...
, although smaller in numbers, exhibited even higher growth rates over the 1960-1992 period, increasing from 2 to 5 percent of all households (Bureau of the Census, 1993d:Table 65~. The current poverty measure treats each member of such a household as a separate economic unit, but to the extent that cohabitors and roommates share resources and hence benefit from economies of scale, the current measure likely overstates the poverty rate for such people.
|
From page 29... ...
Interarea price differences appear to be especially large for shelter; housing costs ranged from 52 to 183 percent ofthe national average in one study of metropolitan areas for 1989 (Kokoski, Cardiff, and Moulton, 1992~. Yet the current poverty measure has the same poverty threshold for all regions and types of areas.
|
From page 30... ...
Families' total expenditures also increased in real terms, and spending on nonfood items rose more rapidly than spending on food: expenditures on food accounted for one-third of the total in the 1950s but less than one-sixth of the total in the 1990s (see Bureau of the Census, 1993d:Table 708~. Hence, if the original approach were used to develop the poverty thresholds today, their value would be significantly higher.
|
From page 31... ...
ALTERNATIVE POVERTY MEASURES AND CRITERIA FOR A MEASURE In this section we first consider different approaches to constructing poverty thresholds. We then consider the definition of family resources, which is the other side of the calculation needed to determine if a given person or family is poor.
|
From page 32... ...
poverty thresholds were based on expert standards for a key commodity, food. The experts were USDA home economists, and the poverty budget developed by Orshansky at SSA was based on the USDA estimates of the cost of the Economy Food Plan with a multiplier to account for other consumption items.
|
From page 33... ...
Although budget-based poverty thresholds are essentially relative in their development, and hence not as different as one might suppose from thresholds that are explicitly relative, they do have some distinctive features. By incorporating one or more explicitly named commodities, budget-based thresholds convey some type of paternalistic or normative concept of "needs," which may be more appealing to policy makers and the general public than a purely relative concept, such as one-half median family income.
|
From page 34... ...
Also, there tends to be wide variation in respondents' answers. Despite their problems, subjective poverty thresholds particularly a time series derived from consistent questions and procedures can provide information that helps determine the extent to which other kinds of thresholds are more or less in agreement with broad public perceptions.
|
From page 35... ...
developed a "deprivation index" that included 12 components, including such items as not having taken a vacation in the past year and having gone through one or more days in the past fortnight without a cooked meal. He used the scores on this index to attempt to determine income levels (poverty thresholds!
|
From page 36... ...
Definitions of Family Resources Given a set of poverty thresholds, one must then define the resources that are to be counted to determine if each family and individual is above or below the appropriate threshold. Common resource definitions pertain to family income, which is the definition used in the United States and Canada, or to family expenditures (or consumption)
|
From page 37... ...
Whichever type of family resource definition is used, decisions must be made about its precise components. In the case of an income definition, one must decide whether to include or exclude taxes or in-kind income and whether to take account of expenses involved in earning income (e.g., commuting or child care expenses)
|
From page 38... ...
The measure must be logically consistent. One of the central complaints against the current measure, as we note throughout this report, is that the poverty threshold is an after-tax concept, but the annual computation of the proportion and characteristics of people in poverty uses a before-tax family resource definition; this does not make sense.
|
From page 39... ...
measure of poverty should be revised to reflect more nearly the circumstances of the nation's families and changes in them over time. The revised measure should comprise a set of poverty thresholds and a definition of
|
From page 40... ...
· The reference family threshold should be adjusted to reflect the needs of different family types and to reflect geographic differences in housing costs. · Family resources should be defined consistent with the threshold concept as the sum of money income from all sources together with the value of near-money benefits (e.g., food stamps)
|
From page 41... ...
income and payroll taxes and other nondiscretionary expenses (e.g., child care and other work-related expenses; child support payments to another household; out-of-pocket medical care expenses, including health insurance premiums) Data Source (for March Current Survey of Income and estimating income)
|
From page 42... ...
We believe that the proposed poverty measure represents a marked improvement over the current measure, particularly for comparing the extent of poverty across population groups and geographic areas and across time. Periodic Reviews The procedure we propose for updating the poverty thresholds should link them more closely to societal norms about the appropriate level for a poverty line.
|
From page 43... ...
The review should address all aspects of the poverty measure, including the concepts underlying the thresholds and the family resource definition, the performance of the updating procedure, and whether better data are available with which to derive the thresholds and estimate resources. Should changes to the measure result from one of these periodic reviews, it will be important for policy makers, researchers, and other users to understand the implications for the time series of poverty statistics.
|
From page 44... ...
The Bureau of Labor Statistics will also have an important role in light of our recommendations for deriving and updating the reference family poverty threshold from consumer expenditure data (see below)
|
From page 45... ...
However, our approach has implications for comparing poverty thresholds across concepts: a reference family threshold developed as we propose will necessarily exclude some expenses that are typically averaged in for all such families. Third, we consider that the decision about whether (and to what extent)
|
From page 46... ...
In contrast, with such relative concepts as one-half median family income, changes in the distribution of income below the median can lower the poverty rate even when median income and hence the dollar value of the poverty threshold rises in real terms.) An alternative approach would be to conclude from the historical evidence as we do that poverty thresholds, when they are set, are inherently relative to time and place but argue that it is important to maintain a set of thresholds, once chosen, in absolute terms for reasonably long periods of time.
|
From page 47... ...
By comparison, the official 1992 two-adult/ two-child threshold is $14,228. (All the thresholds in Table 1-3 are after taxes; however, they average the needs of families with and without other types of TABLE 1-3 Poverty Thresholds for Two-Adult/Two-Child (or FourPerson)
|
From page 48... ...
We believe it will be more acceptable to update the poverty thresholds in a "conservative" manner, that is, to update them for growth in consumption of basic goods and services that pertain to a notion of poverty, rather than to update them for growth in consumption of all goods and services. Threshold Concepts: Assessment Having reviewed the many possible concepts for deriving and updating the official reference family threshold in light of our criteria (see above)
|
From page 49... ...
poverty thresholds to minimize the number of judgments required and, further, to link the thresholds directly, rather than indirectly, to actual spending patterns. A relative concept for the reference family poverty threshold, such as onehalf the median level of family income or expenditures (adjusted for family composition)
|
From page 50... ...
From the perspective of public acceptability and also from the view that the poverty level is inherently relative to a particular society, one could argue for using the responses of a representative sample of the population to set the level. In support of this approach, evidence from the Gallup Poll series and other studies show that subjective poverty thresholds tend to track changes in living standards, although on a less than one-to-one basis (i.e., they tend to change in a quasi-relative fashion)
|
From page 51... ...
Supporting the reasonableness of this degree of updating is the evidence that subjective poverty thresholds have an elasticity in the range of 0.65-0.80 with respect to median income: when people are asked in successive years to set a value for a minimum income, their answers reflect changes in living standards but on less than a one-for-one basis (see Figure 1-1~.
|
From page 52... ...
To smooth out year-to-year fluctuations and to lag the adjustment to some extent, perform the calculations for each year by averaging the most recent 3 years' worth of data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey, with the data for each of those years brought forward to the current period by using the change in the Consumer Price Index. A concern with an updating procedure that adjusts for real increases in consumption is that the poverty thresholds will be too closely tied to changes in the business cycle.
|
From page 53... ...
, we determined a two-adult/two-child reference family poverty threshold that, together with all of the other changes we recommend to the thresholds and family resource definition, produced the same overall poverty rate as the official rate for 1992. The purpose of this exercise was to illustrate the effects of the proposed measure, compared with the current measure, on the distribution of poverty among population groups and areas of the country.
|
From page 54... ...
The "as converted" amount was obtained by subtracting one-half average work-related, child care, and out-of-pocket-medical care expenditures as imputed by the panel to the March 1993 CPS for two-adult/two-child families with after-tax income around the median.
|
From page 55... ...
poverty measure, the current threshold level for the reference family of two adults and two children ($14,228 in 1992 dollars) should be reevaluated and a new threshold level established with which to initiate a new series of poverty statistics.
|
From page 56... ...
Analysis that we conducted with CEX data supports the range for the multiplier of 1.15 to 1.25. (In this analysis, we examined the amounts spent on such items as personal care and non-work-related transportation relative to the amounts spent on food, clothing, and shelter by two-adult/two-child 14 Both the lower and the upper ends of our suggested range for the initial reference family threshold could be expressed in terms of some other combination of values for food, clothing, and shelter and a multiplier for other expenditures.
|
From page 57... ...
Finally, we want to make clear that building a poverty threshold on food, clothing, and shelter plus a little more and linking changes in the thresholds to changes in consumption of these items do not imply that families must spend their income accordingly. For example, families that spend less on food, clothing, and shelter than implied in the poverty threshold are not necessarily poor-perhaps they grow some of their own food or make some of their own clothing in order to increase their income for other spending (e.g., on books, haircuts, or a vacation)
|
From page 58... ...
For family size, if one starts with some benchmark family of a specific size and with some specific expenditure level, there is no completely objective way to determine what level of expenditure by a family of some other size is in fact equivalent in terms of well-being or satisfaction. Thus, there is no way to specify the "scale economy factor" by which the poverty threshold for a reference family should be adjusted for different size families.
|
From page 59... ...
There is growing consensus, however, that the equivalence scale implicit in the official poverty thresholds is not internally consistent and exhibits an irregular pattern. The inconsistency comes from the fact that the scale is based on the dietary needs of family members even though the economies of scale appear to be different for food and for other goods, like housing or transportation.
|
From page 60... ...
, and then by raising this number to a power of Mom 0.65 to 0.75. Figure 1-2 portrays the equivalence scale for selected family types under our proposal compared with the scale implicit in the current poverty thresholds.
|
From page 61... ...
Despite data limitations, we believe that some adjustment to the poverty thresholds should be made for geographic cost-of-living variations. Research conducted by BLS analysts suggests that variations are minor for some items, such as food (Kokoski, Cardiff, and Moulton, 1994)
|
From page 62... ...
The adjustments that we developed from our analysis and used in estimating the effects of the proposed measure are provided in Table l-5~18 RECOMMENDATION 3.2. The poverty thresholds should be adjusted for differences in the cost of housing across geographic areas of the country.
|
From page 63... ...
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW TABLE 1-5 Poverty Thresholds Adjusted for Differences in Cost of Housing, Expressed as Percentages Above or Below a National Poverty Threshold 63 Region and Area Percentage Difference North New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont) Nonmetropolitan areas and metropolitan areas under 250,000 population Metropolitan areas 250,000-500,000 pop.
|
From page 64... ...
-14.2 -8.9 -5.8 -3.8 +0.5 -11.2 -2.4 +3.9 +0.3 N.A. -3.1 +1.8 +2.8 +10.4 +21.7 NOTES: Housing cost indexes are calculated from 1990 census data on gross rent for apartments with specified characteristics, adjusted to reflect the share of housing in the proposed poverty budget (see Chapter 3)
|
From page 65... ...
However, we believe that the current concept of gross money income is inadequate in many respects and needs to be modified in order to be consistent with the proposed threshold concept. We stressed earlier the importance of consistency between the concept underlying the poverty thresholds and the definition of resources.
|
From page 66... ...
E{ECOMMENDATION 4.1. In developing poverty statistics, any si~cant change in the definition of family resources should be accompanied by a consistent adjustment of the poverty thresholds.
|
From page 67... ...
(Employer-provided benefits that are necessary for work, such as subsidized child care, parking, or free uniforms or tools, should not be valued as part of income because the proposed definition of disposable income subtracts out-of-pocket costs for child care and other work-related expenses, net of any employer subsidy.) Medical Care Costs Perhaps the most striking omission from the list of in-kind benefit programs that we propose to count as family resources for purposes of measuring poverty is medical care benefits.
|
From page 68... ...
The original thresholds implicitly allowed for some out-of-pocket medical care expenditures in the multiplier, but not for the fact that such costs differ substantially by people's health status and other characteristics. Because the official thresholds do not reflect such differences, the poverty rate for some groups is underestimated, and for other groups it is overestimated.
|
From page 69... ...
19 69 The result is a consistent measure of economic Although the proposed measure excludes medical care from both the poverty thresholds and family resources, it does not ignore the effect of changes in health care policy on economic poverty. Thus, the proposed measure will capture the effects of policy changes (e.g., extension of health insurance coverage)
|
From page 70... ...
Sales and property taxes do not need to be subtracted since they are included in the CEX expenditure data and hence accounted for in the poverty thresholds. Work-Related Expenses To earn money from a job almost always requires a worker to use some of that money on work expenses.
|
From page 71... ...
At present, child support payments are counted as part of gross money income of the families that receive them, which is appropriate, because the payments are available for consumption by these families. However, the amounts are not deducted from the income of the families that pay them, which is inappropriate, because the payments are not available for consumption by those families.
|
From page 72... ...
Developing a few concrete examples of prototypical families and their poverty status under the two measures can help illustrate the differences between them. Figure 1-3 shows four examples of single-parent families with two children who, under our proposal, have different poverty thresholds-relative to the official threshold-depending on where they live.
|
From page 73... ...
NOTE: Revised thresholds are based on the 0.75 scale economy factor and the relevant housing cost adjustment factor.
|
From page 74... ...
To implement the proposed family resource definition with the March 1993 CPS, we performed imputations for such components as child care and out-of-pocket medical care expenses by using data from SIPP and the National Medical Expenditure Survey. We were able to take advantage of the Census Bureau's research and development program for other components, such as income and payroll taxes and nonmedical in-kind benefits.20 Although our data adjustments and imputations are not without problems, we believe the comparisons we obtained between gross money income and disposable money and near-money income for 1992 are reasonably accurate.
|
From page 75... ...
This table also shows the poverty rates for each group under the current and proposed measures. The greatest effect of the proposed measure is to decrease the percentage TABLE 1-6 Poverty Statistics, 1992: Current Measure and Proposed Measure, Keeping the Overall Poverty Rate Constant Percent of Poor Population Poverty Rate for Population Group (%)
|
From page 76... ...
People in families receiving cash welfare still have a much higher poverty rate than the people in working families, but the difference is not as large under the proposed measure: the poverty rate for people in welfare families is 44 percent under the proposed measure and 59 percent under the current measure; the rate for people in working families is 11 percent under the proposed measure and 9 percent under the current measure. Another effect of the proposed measure is to increase the poverty rate for people in families lacking health insurance coverage.
|
From page 77... ...
By region of the country, the poverty rates for residents of the Northeast and West are higher, and they make up larger percentages of poor people under the proposed measure, compared with the current measure. In contrast, the poverty rates for residents of the South and Midwest are lower, and they make up smaller percentages of poor people under the proposed measure; see Figure 1-5.
|
From page 78... ...
The subtraction of taxes, work expenses, and child care expenses increases the rate by 0.5, 0.8, and 0.3 of a percentage point, respectively.24 In addition, there is an interaction effect that decreases the rate by 0.2 of a percentage point: this effect occurs because a combination of changes may move a family above (or below) the poverty line when a single change does not.25 24 From tabulations with SIPP, we estimate that the subtraction of child support payments would also increase the poverty rate by a small fraction of a percentage point.
|
From page 79... ...
Under the proposed measure with a $14,800 reference family threshold and a 0.75 scale economy factor- 46.0 million people would have been classified as poor in 1992, for a poverty rate of 18.1 percent, compared with the official count of 36.9 million and the officialpoverty rate of 14.5 percent. Figure 1-7 shows the effects for both a 0.75 and a 0.65 scale economy factor, March 1993 CPS data 20 18 16 14 ~ 12 Ct ~ 10CL 8642 o SIPP data ...........
|
From page 80... ...
Certainly, the proposed measure will provide a more accurate picture of the effects of important government policy initiatives. For example, changes in the health care financing system that affect out-of-pocket medical care costs or changes in tax provisions that affect disposable income would be reflected in the proposed measure; they cannot affect the poverty rate under the current measure.
|
From page 81... ...
If the jobs obtained by former welfare recipients include child care and health insurance benefits, the proposed measure would likely show a different poverty rate than if the jobs do not provide such benefits; the current measure would not distinguish between those situations. Needed Data Clearly, the availability of relevant, high-quality, and timely data is critical for determining the poverty rate, in order to estimate resources for a representative sample of families and individuals to compare with the appropriate poverty thresholds.
|
From page 82... ...
This change should take effect when the slated improvements to SIPP are introduced in 1996. A decision to use SIPP to produce the official poverty rates means that the SIPP design and questionnaire must be reviewed to determine if modifications are needed to enhance the survey's ability to provide accurate statistics under the proposed measure.
|
From page 83... ...
A particularly important problem to address is population undercoverage, particularly of low-income minority groups. To aid in making the transition to a SIPP-based series of official poverty statistics and to help evaluate that new senes, it would be helpful for the Census Bureau to produce a concurrent time series of poverty rates from the March CPS on the basis of the proposed measure.
|
From page 84... ...
We encourage research on methods to adjust census small-area poverty estimates to more closely approximate the estimates that would result from using our proposed family resource definition. Also, while recognizing the constraints on the census questionnaire, we urge serious consideration of adding perhaps one or two simple yesno questions for example, whether a family received food stamps or paid for child care in the past year that would facilitate such adjustments.
|
From page 85... ...
The review should consider ways to improve the CEX for the purpose of developing poverty thresholds, for making it possible at a future date to measure poverty on the basis of a consumption or expenditure concept of family resources, and for other analytic purposes related to the measurement of consumption, income, and savings. Other Issues in Poverty Measurement Time Period The current measure of poverty compares family income for a year with a budget that reflects a year's worth of expenditures.
|
From page 86... ...
Appropriate agencies should develop poverty measures for periods that are shorter and longer than a year, with data from SIPP and the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, for such purposes as program evaluation. Such measures may require the inclusion of asset values in the family resource definition.
|
From page 87... ...
Other Measures Considerable thought has been given in the research literature to the development of poverty statistics that provide more information than the simple headcount ratio (the poverty rate or proportion of people who are poor)
|
From page 88... ...
Nonetheless, such indicators can enrich understanding of the nature and scope of economic poverty in the United States and how it changes over time. We also believe it would be useful to publish poverty statistics on the basis of measures in which family resources are defined net of government taxes and transfers.
|
From page 89... ...
We encourage research and development on a range of deprivation indicators. USE OF THE POVERTY MEASURE IN GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS The current official poverty measure plays a role in determining eligibility for a number of government assistance programs, and it is important to consider how or if the proposed measure is appropriate for program use.30 We first examine the implications of linking the proposed measure to program eligibility.
|
From page 90... ...
The proposed measure has an internally consistent equivalence scale by which to adjust the poverty thresholds for different types of families, it reflects geographic differences in the cost of housing in the thresholds, and its definition of family resources as disposable money and near-money income is consistent with the basic needs concept underlying the thresholds. This consistency means that two families with the same gross income would not be mistakenly treated as having the same income for consumption when one of them had nondiscretionary expenses (such as taxes or child support payments)
|
From page 91... ...
Other considerations, such as funding constraints and competing uses for scarce tax dollars, may dictate assistance program eligibility levels that are lower than the statistical poverty thresholds Finally, there are some other features of the proposed poverty measure that may not be suitable for program use. For example, we propose that need be measured on an annual basis and that asset values not be included in family resources.
|
From page 92... ...
. Near-cash programs (e.g., food stamps and assisted housing)
|
From page 93... ...
In the next review, states could consider the possible use of the proposed poverty measure as a need standard for AFDC. In their review, the states would need to look at the implications of the proposed measure-both the thresholds and the definition of family resources in relation to their current need standards (whether the current poverty guidelines or the states' own standards)
|
From page 94... ...
AFDC recipients are eligible for food stamps, and the nationalization of the Food Stamp Program has served to reduce the disparities in combined AFDC and food stamp benefits across the states.33 However, significant differences still remain that exceed what can be reasonably attributed to costof-living differences among the states. Thus, the maximum combined AFDC and food stamp benefit for a three-person family in January 1994 varied from $1,208 in Alaska to $415 in Mississippi; the median benefit was $658, which is 69 percent of the corresponding official 1993 poverty threshold (U.S.
|
From page 95... ...
may well limit the extent to which payments can approach the poverty threshold; in state-federal programs (such as AFD C) , the nature of the state-federal cost sharing provisions has an important effect on funding constraints.
|
From page 96... ...
In sum, many factors properly enter into a determination of program benefit standards, including judgments about the extent to which society is prepared to allocate scarce resources to support low-income people and the mix of goals that society wants government assistance programs to serve. The critical role of such judgments is the reason that a panel such as ours, chosen for expertise in measurement issues, cannot make recommendations about appropriate benefit levels for specific assistance programs.
|
Key Terms
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.