IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/povpop/v3y2011i3p1-24.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determining Eligibility for Poverty‐Based Assistance Programs: Comparing the Federally Established Poverty Level with the Self Sufficiency Standard for Pennsylvania

Author

Listed:
  • Åsa Mukhopadhyay
  • John M. Shingler
  • Theodore R. Alter
  • Jill Findeis

Abstract

Because the official U.S. poverty level is too low to adequately assess need for assistance among low income households, assistance agencies set eligibility levels to multiples of the poverty level, such as 125 or 150 percent. The Self Sufficiency Standard provides an alternative measurement that accounts for many characteristics of modern society and geographical differences in cost of living. We use both measures to examine eligibility levels for customers seeking payment arrangements for their utility bill arrearage. Sensitivity analyses reveal that the two methods are in the greatest agreement when the poverty level is adjusted to 185 percent. We conclude that the Standard is a more accurate assessment of poverty and the need for assistance, but is unlikely to be politically feasible. Given this, we see it as a useful tool for determining the appropriate multiple of the official poverty level to use in setting eligibility levels for assistance programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Åsa Mukhopadhyay & John M. Shingler & Theodore R. Alter & Jill Findeis, 2011. "Determining Eligibility for Poverty‐Based Assistance Programs: Comparing the Federally Established Poverty Level with the Self Sufficiency Standard for Pennsylvania," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(3), pages 1-24, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:povpop:v:3:y:2011:i:3:p:1-24
    DOI: 10.2202/1944-2858.1088
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2858.1088
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1944-2858.1088?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patricia Ruggles, 2008. "Poverty Measurement and Politics: Why Is It So Hard to Change the Way We Measure Poverty?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(3), pages 591-599.
    2. Kenneth Hanson, 2008. "Mollie Orshansky's Strategy to Poverty Measurement as a Relationship between Household Food Expenditures and Economy Food Plan," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(3), pages 572-580.
    3. Jolliffe, Dean, 2006. "Adjusting for Living Costs Can Change Who Is Considered Poor," Amber Waves:The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pages 1-6, November.
    4. Sawhill, Isabel V, 1988. "Poverty in the U.S.: Why Is It So Persistent?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 26(3), pages 1073-1119, September.
    5. Jolliffe, Dean, 2006. "The Cost of Living and the Geographic Distribution of Poverty," Economic Research Report 7254, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. Short, Kathleen, et al, 1998. "Poverty-Measurement Research Using the Consumer Expenditure Survey and the Survey of Income and Program Participation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(2), pages 352-356, May.
    7. Patricia Ruggles, 2008. "Poverty Measurement and Politics: Why Is It So Hard to Change the Way We Measure Poverty? ," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(3), pages 591-599.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Partridge, Mark D. & Rickman, Dan S. & Ali, Kamar & Olfert, M. Rose, 2009. "Agglomeration spillovers and wage and housing cost gradients across the urban hierarchy," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 126-140, June.
    2. Daan Francois Toerien, 2022. "Linking Entrepreneurial Activities and Community Prosperity/Poverty in United States Counties: Use of the Enterprise Dependency Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, February.
    3. Korenman, Sanders D. & Remler, Dahlia K., 2016. "Including health insurance in poverty measurement: The impact of Massachusetts health reform on poverty," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 27-35.
    4. Flood, Cristina & Harriague, Marcela & Petrecolla, Diego, 1996. "Línea de pobreza y gastos públicos sociales," Sede de la CEPAL en Santiago (Estudios e Investigaciones) 34260, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    5. Ali Modarres, 2002. "Persistent Poverty and the Failure of Area-Based Initiatives in the U.S," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 17(4), pages 289-302, November.
    6. Bruce D. Meyer & James X. Sullivan, 2007. "Further Results on Measuring the Well-Being of the Poor Using Income and Consumption," NBER Working Papers 13413, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Stephanie Riegg Cellini & Signe-Mary McKernan & Caroline Ratcliffe, 2008. "The dynamics of poverty in the United States: A review of data, methods, and findings," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 577-605.
    8. Rolf Aaberge & Audun Langørgen & Magne Mogstad & Marit Østensen, 2008. "The Impact of Local Public Services and Geographical Cost of Living Differences on Poverty Estimates," Discussion Papers 551, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    9. Kapteyn, Arie, et al, 1997. "Interdependent Preferences: An Econometric Analysis," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(6), pages 665-686, Nov.-Dec..
    10. Chengze Simon Fan, 2003. "Human Capital, Study Effort, and Persistent Income Inequality," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(2), pages 311-326, May.
    11. Michael J. Puma & Nancy R. Burstein, 1994. "The national evaluation of the food stamp employment and training program," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 311-330.
    12. Garcia-Diaz Rocio, 2012. "Demand-Based Cost-of-Children Estimates and Child Poverty," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-32, January.
    13. Denise Kall & David Brady, 2007. "Nearly Universal, but Somewhat Distinct: The Feminization of Poverty in Affluent Western Democracies, 1969-2000," LIS Working papers 462, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    14. Michael D. Hurd & Susann Rohwedder, 2006. "Economic Well-Being at Older Ages: Income- and Consumption-Based Poverty Measures in the HRS," NBER Working Papers 12680, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Gary V. Engelhardt & Jonathan Gruber, 2004. "Social Security and the Evolution of Elderly Poverty," NBER Working Papers 10466, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Molnar, Joseph J. & Traxler, Greg, 1991. "People Left Behind: Transitions of the Rural Poor," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 75-83, July.
    17. Yan Miao & Zheng Li, 2023. "The poverty alleviation effect of transfer payments: evidence from China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, December.
    18. Jones, Carol Adaire & Milkove, Daniel & Paszkiewicz, Laura, 2009. "Measuring Farm Household Well-Being: Comparing Consumption and Income-based Measures," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49355, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Anirudh Krishna, 2010. "Who became poor, who escaped poverty, and why? Developing and using a retrospective methodology in five countries," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2), pages 351-372.
    20. Nancy Folbre & Marta Murray-Close & Jooyeoun Suh, 2018. "Equivalence scales for extended income in the U.S," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 189-227, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:povpop:v:3:y:2011:i:3:p:1-24. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1944-2858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.