Olsen K A
Soc Secur Bull. 1999;62(3):3-19.
The U.S. Census Bureau recently released new, experimental measures of poverty based on a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel's recommendations. This article examines the effects of the experimental measures on poverty rates among persons aged 65 or older in order to help inform policy debate. Policymakers and analysts use poverty rates to measure the successes and failures of existing programs and to create and defend new policy initiatives. The Census Bureau computes the official rates of poverty using poverty thresholds and definitions of countable income that have changed little since the official poverty measure was adopted in 1965. Amid growing concerns about the adequacy of the official poverty measure, a NAS panel undertook a study of the concepts, methodology, and data needed to measure poverty. The panel concluded in its 1995 report that the current measure no longer provides an accurate picture of relative rates of poverty for different groups in the population or of changes in poverty over time. The panel recommended changes in establishing the poverty thresholds, defining family resources, and obtaining the required data. The Census Bureau report shows how estimated levels of poverty would differ from the official level as specific recommendations of the NAS panel are implemented individually and how estimated trends would differ when many recommendations are implemented simultaneously. It computes nonstandardized and standardized poverty rates. (The latter constrains the overall poverty rate under the experimental measures to match the official rate.) This article reports poverty rates that have not been standardized and provides considerably more detail than the Census report about the effects of the experimental measures on poverty among the aged. It examines the effects of changing the poverty thresholds and the items included or excluded from the definition of available resources. It also explores the effects of the experimental measures on persons aged 65 or older by age group, gender, race and ethnicity, and marital status. Results indicate that: Poverty rates in 1997 for persons aged 65 or older under the experimental NAS poverty measure are 17.3 percent, compared with 10.5 percent under the official poverty measure. This 65-percent increase is largely driven by the NAS-based measure's subtraction of medical out-of-pocket (MOOP) expenses from resources. Under the NAS-based measures, poverty rates increase for all major groups of older persons, and increase the most for groups for whom the incidence of official poverty is the lowest. The experimental NAS poverty measure shows narrower differences between genders, racial and ethnic groups, and among persons of different marital statuses than the official poverty measure. For example, white Hispanic women aged 65 or older have poverty rates that are 450 percent higher than those for white non-Hispanic men under the official poverty measure and 181 percent higher under the NAS measure. The NAS-based measure's subtraction of MOOP expenses from resources has a disproportionate effect on poverty rates among non-Hispanic whites and men as compared with other groups. However, changes in relative poverty between groups appear to be most influenced by the NAS midpoint equivalence scale. Because this scale decreases poverty rates for persons who live alone or with unrelated individuals and increases them for persons who live with others, poverty rates differ meaningfully under the NAS and official measures among demographic groups. This article highlights issues concerning the elements of the experimental NAS poverty measure that are particularly important to the measurement of poverty among the aged population. Results suggest that the research community's future efforts to refine, enhance, and build upon the NAS panel's recommendations will yield important insights about poverty among the older population.
美国人口普查局最近发布了基于美国国家科学院(NAS)一个专门小组建议的新的贫困实验性衡量标准。本文研究这些实验性衡量标准对65岁及以上人群贫困率的影响,以便为政策辩论提供参考。政策制定者和分析人士利用贫困率来衡量现有项目的成败,并制定和捍卫新的政策举措。人口普查局使用贫困门槛和可计收入定义来计算官方贫困率,自1965年采用官方贫困衡量标准以来,这些定义变化不大。在对官方贫困衡量标准的充分性日益担忧的背景下,一个NAS专门小组对衡量贫困所需的概念、方法和数据进行了研究。该小组在其1995年的报告中得出结论,当前的衡量标准不再能准确反映不同人群的相对贫困率或贫困随时间的变化。该小组建议在确定贫困门槛、定义家庭资源和获取所需数据方面进行变革。人口普查局的报告展示了随着NAS专门小组的具体建议逐一实施,估计的贫困水平与官方水平会有怎样的不同,以及当许多建议同时实施时,估计的趋势会有怎样的不同。它计算了非标准化和标准化贫困率。(后者将实验性衡量标准下的总体贫困率限制为与官方贫困率相匹配。)本文报告的是未标准化的贫困率,并且比人口普查报告提供了更多关于实验性衡量标准对老年人贫困影响的详细信息。它研究了改变贫困门槛以及可利用资源定义中包含或排除的项目所产生的影响。它还按年龄组、性别、种族和族裔以及婚姻状况探讨了实验性衡量标准对65岁及以上人群的影响。结果表明:1997年,根据NAS实验性贫困衡量标准,65岁及以上人群的贫困率为17.3%,而官方贫困衡量标准下为10.5%。这65%的增长主要是由于基于NAS的衡量标准从资源中减去了自付医疗费用(MOOP)。在基于NAS的衡量标准下,所有主要老年人群体的贫困率都有所上升,官方贫困发生率最低的群体上升幅度最大。与官方贫困衡量标准相比,NAS实验性贫困衡量标准显示出不同性别、种族和族裔群体以及不同婚姻状况人群之间的差异更小。例如,65岁及以上的西班牙裔白人女性在官方贫困衡量标准下的贫困率比非西班牙裔白人男性高450%,在NAS衡量标准下高181%。与其他群体相比,基于NAS的衡量标准从资源中减去MOOP费用对非西班牙裔白人和男性的贫困率有不成比例的影响。然而,群体之间相对贫困的变化似乎受NAS中点等值量表影响最大。由于该量表降低了独居或与非亲属同住者的贫困率,提高了与他人同住者的贫困率,在NAS和官方衡量标准下,不同人口群体的贫困率存在显著差异。本文强调了与NAS实验性贫困衡量标准要素相关的问题,这些问题对于衡量老年人口贫困尤为重要。结果表明,研究界未来在完善、改进和基于NAS专门小组的建议进行拓展方面所做的努力,将为老年人口贫困问题带来重要见解。