We’re using 1960s guidance to measure poverty in 2022

U.S. Census Bureau data released this fall sparked national attention over the historic drop in U.S. child poverty statistics for 2021. Many believe these figures will climb again following the expiration of many pandemic stimulus programs. 

Still, lessons can be learned from these numbers regarding what we as a nation can do to lower the suffering millions of Americans face every day. The biggest one: The way we measure poverty in America today is horribly outdated and requires a serious overhaul. 

The first poverty thresholds were established back in the 1960s during President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty when Mollie Orshansky, then an economist with the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA), used a set of criteria to estimate the level of income insufficiency in America.  

She used a complex formula to arrive at these thresholds, but in simple terms, she calculated the costs of the Economy Food Plan — which determined food stamp eligibility — for families of three or more people and multiplied it by a factor of three. This became the basis for the income threshold for those living in poverty in the U.S.  

“[I]f it’s not possible to state unequivocally ‘how much is enough,’” Orshansky wrote, “it should be possible to assert with confidence how much, on average, is too little.”  

Over the years efforts have been made to adjust the poverty thresholds to accommodate minuscule standard-of-living increases. But this multiplier is still used today to determine the U.S. poverty line.  

The 2022 poverty line for a family of four in America is $27,750. It’s risen by nearly  $10,000 since the year 2000. During this same time period, the median price of a home in America increased by over $300,000. The Center for American Progress noted in the early 1960s the poverty line represented roughly 50 percent of the median income for a family of four and today it only represents about 28 percent.

The methodology in how we measure the U.S. poverty line relies on data and analysis developed over 50 years ago, with small increases adjusted for inflation. The world has changed dramatically since the 1960s. Yet the way we measure the problem remains stuck in time. 

The national poverty line is an outdated benchmark. Even as a measurement of food reliance it is extraordinarily low given the dramatic rise in the cost of groceries — especially now in light of record-high inflation. Add the financial demands of today’s world which weren’t envisioned back in the 1960s and are now vital to a household’s basic infrastructure — internet access and cell phone service as just two examples — the income of those identified as living under the poverty line evaporates rapidly. And there are millions more who don’t fall under the poverty limit yet face tremendous challenges and don’t qualify for assistance, based on the antiquated way in which the U.S. Census Bureau calculates its statistics. 

The very idea of having a universal poverty limit makes little sense. It assumes the needs of a family living in a major metropolitan city are the same as those living in a rural part of the country.  

No one has been a bigger advocate for changing this policy, for this reason, than Mark Bergel, co-founder of the anti-poverty group, Shared Humanity Project (SHP). Bergel has long argued that a universal threshold is a misguided way of measuring poverty in America. As an alternative, his group has created National Poverty Plan Standards that are based on 50 percent of the median income for every county in the nation, similar to the way in which the original thresholds were established. They also include standard-of-living increases, not just based on inflation, and provide a more accurate understanding of true financial needs. Bergel and his group’s mission are featured in a powerful new four-part documentary by Public Interest Registry addressing SHP’s national plan to eradicate poverty across America.  

The way we measure poverty might seem like a bureaucratic exercise — but critical policies are based on it, and millions of people depend on it. It determines eligibility for a wide range of programs, such as Medicaid, food stamps, Head Start, and maternal and child health services, among many other initiatives.   

The way we’ve been measuring poverty is fundamentally flawed. It grossly underestimates the number of people who live in poverty in America. It denies access to reliable data to better understand the true scope of suffering in America.

The problem is getting worse, not better. It’s time to change it so that we can help those who need it most. 

Lyndon Haviland, DrPH, MPH, is a distinguished scholar at the CUNY School of Public Health and Health Policy.