, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 1207–1218 | Cite as

Progress on Poverty? New Estimates of Historical Trends Using an Anchored Supplemental Poverty Measure

  • Christopher WimerEmail author
  • Liana Fox
  • Irwin Garfinkel
  • Neeraj Kaushal
  • Jane Waldfogel


This study examines historical trends in poverty using an anchored version of the U.S. Census Bureau’s recently developed Research Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) estimated back to 1967. Although the SPM is estimated each year using a quasi-relative poverty threshold that varies over time with changes in families’ expenditures on a core basket of goods and services, this study explores trends in poverty using an absolute, or anchored, SPM threshold. We believe the anchored measure offers two advantages. First, setting the threshold at the SPM’s 2012 levels and estimating it back to 1967, adjusted only for changes in prices, is more directly comparable to the approach taken in official poverty statistics. Second, it allows for a better accounting of the roles that social policy, the labor market, and changing demographics play in trends in poverty rates over time, given that changes in the threshold are held constant. Results indicate that unlike official statistics that have shown poverty rates to be fairly flat since the 1960s, poverty rates have dropped by 40 % when measured using a historical anchored SPM over the same period. Results obtained from comparing poverty rates using a pretax/pretransfer measure of resources versus a post-tax/post-transfer measure of resources further show that government policies, not market incomes, are driving the declines observed over time.


Poverty Social policy Trends Income 



We are grateful for funding support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) through grant R24 HD058486-03 to the Columbia Population Research Center (CPRC). We benefited from research assistance from Madeleine Gelblum, Nathan Hutto, JaeHyun Nam, and Ethan Raker. We are also grateful to seminar participants at CPRC and Russell Sage Foundation, as well as many colleagues who provided helpful insights and advice, in particular, Jodie Allen, Ajay Chaudry, Sheldon Danziger, Daniel Feenberg, Gordon Fisher, Jason Furman, Thesia Garner, Charles Hokayem, David Johnson, Mark Levitan, Jordan Matsudaira, Laryssa Mykyta, Trudi Renwick, Kathy Short, Tim Smeeding, and Betsy Stevenson.


  1. Bavier, R. (2008). Reconciliation of income and consumption data in poverty measurement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27, 40–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Shalom, Y., Moffitt, R., & Scholz, J. K. (2011). An assessment of the effectiveness of anti-poverty programs in the United States. Retrieved from
  3. Betson, D., & Michael, R. (1993) A recommendation for the construction of equivalence scales (Unpublished memorandum prepared for the Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance, Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council). South Department of Economics, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, IN.Google Scholar
  4. Blank, R. M., & Greenberg, M. H. (2008). Improving the measurement of poverty (The Hamilton Project Discussion Paper No. 2008-17). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  5. Citro, C. F., & Michael, R. T. (Eds.). (1995). Measuring poverty: A new approach. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  6. Council of Economic Advisers. (2014). The war on poverty 50 years later (Progress report). Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President of the United States.Google Scholar
  7. Fisher, G. M. (1998). Setting American standards of poverty: A look back. Focus, 19, 47–52.Google Scholar
  8. Fox, L., Wimer, C., Garfinkel, I., Kaushal, N., & Waldfogel, J. (2015). Waging war on poverty: Poverty trends using a historical supplemental poverty measure. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34, 567–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garner, T. (2010). Supplemental poverty measure thresholds: Laying the foundation (BLS report). Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.Google Scholar
  10. Hutto, N., Waldfogel, J., Kaushal, N., & Garfinkel, I. (2011). Improving the measurement of poverty. Social Service Review, 85, 39–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Meyer, B. D., Mok, W. K. C., & Sullivan, J. X. (2009). The under-reporting of transfers in household surveys: Its nature and consequences (NBER Working Paper No. 15181). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  12. Meyer, B. D., & Sullivan, J. X. (2012a). Identifying the disadvantaged: Official poverty, consumption poverty, and the new supplemental poverty measure. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26, 111–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Meyer, B. D., & Sullivan, J. X. (2012b). Consumption and income poverty in the United States. In P. N. Jefferson (Ed.), Oxford handbook of the economics of poverty (pp. 49–74). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Meyer, B. D., & Sullivan, J. X. (2012c). Winning the war: Poverty from the Great Society to the Great Recession. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 45(2), 133–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Short, K. (2011). The research supplemental poverty measure: 2010 (Current Population Reports P60-241). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  16. Short, K. (2012). The research supplemental poverty measure: 2011 (Current Population Reports P60-244). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  17. Short, K. (2013). The research supplemental poverty measure: 2012 (Current Population Reports P60-247). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  18. Short, K. (2014). The research supplemental poverty measure: 2013 (Current Population Reports P60-251). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  19. Short, K. (2015). The research supplemental poverty measure: 2014 (Current Population Reports P60-254). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Wimer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Liana Fox
    • 2
  • Irwin Garfinkel
    • 1
  • Neeraj Kaushal
    • 1
  • Jane Waldfogel
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Social WorkColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Swedish Institute for Social ResearchStockholm UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations