The Social Security Bulletin is for sale by the Superintendent of Docu- ments, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402. Price: $2.75 a year in the United States, Canada, and Mexico; $3.50 In all other countries; single copies, 25 cents. Price of the 1955 Supple- nent, 40 cents; 1956 Supplement, 15 cents; 1957 Supplement, 50 cents; 1959 Supplement, 55 cents; 1960 Supplement, 60 cents; 1962 Supple- Jse of funds for printing this pub- ication has been approved by the NOTE: Contents of this publication re not copyrighted; any items may DEPOSITED BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Social Security in Review HD 7123 A34 0.28 PROGRAM OPERATIONS SEPTEMBER'S increase of 53,000 in the number of persons receiving old-age, survivors, and disability insurance monthly benefits brought the total to 19.7 million. Retired or disabled workers made up almost three-fifths (11.5 million) of the beneficiaries. The remaining two-fifths (8.2 million) of the beneficiaries were dependents of retired- or disabled-worker beneficiaries or dependent survivors of deceased insured workers. The monthly benefit rate of $1,315 million at the end of September was $4 million higher than it had been at the end of August. Almost 211,000 monthly benefits were awarded in September. This number was 12,000 less than that in August and also less than the number awarded in September of any other year since 1960. The 2 million monthly benefits awarded during the first 9 months of the year were about 138,000 fewer than the number in JanuarySeptember 1963. Most of the decline occurred in awards of old-age and wife's or husband's benefits. New highs were set, however, for awards of widow's or widower's benefits (216,900) and nother's benefits (81,700) made during the first 9 months of a year. During January-September, 782,000 deceased Workers were represented in the 830,000 lump-sum death benefit awards, more than in any other 9month period in the program's history. The average lump-sum amount per worker was $213.58, a new high. Caseloads Lower in Four PA Programs The total number of persons receiving aid under the six public assistance programs declined in September for the fifth month out of the past six. About 7.8 million persons were assisted in September-roughly 228,000 fewer than in March. All programs except medical assistance for the aged and aid to the permanently and totally disabled showed decreases in the number of persons receiving assistance. The decline of 18,300 or 0.4 percent in the number of recipients of aid to families with dependent children reflected largely decreases in California (13,700) and Pennsylvania (7,400). More than half the States, however, reported increases in that program. There were 5,200 or 0.2 percent fewer aged persons aided under old-age assistance in September than in August. The decrease centered in Minnesota, which reported a sizable drop in the number of postpayments for medical care made in behalf of aged persons who had been transferred from old-age assistance to medical assistance for the aged in June. The decline of 10,900 in the number of persons receiving general assistance reflected a decrease of 14,000 in Ohio, where one county discontinued using general assistance funds to provide school clothing for children in families receiving aid to families with dependent children. Changes in the number of recipients were relatively small in aid to the blind (a drop of 200 or 0.2 percent), aid to the permanently and totally disabled (a rise o 3,300 or 0.6 percent), and medical assistance fo the aged (an increase of 1,000 or 0.5 percent). Expenditures for assistance, including vendo payments for medical care, totaled $423.7 millio in September-$1.5 million more than in Augus The largest changes in payments were the i creases of $1.4 million or 1.0 percent in aid families with dependent children and $600,000 1.5 percent in aid to the permanently and totall disabled, and the drop of $1.0 million or 2 percent in medical assistance for the aged. Counting the Poor: Another Look at the Poverty Profile When the Council of Economic Advisors used nnual income of less than $3,000 to define famiies living in poverty, it noted that this was a rude and approximate measure. Obviously the mount of cash income required to maintain any iven level of living will be different for the amily of two and the family of eight, for the -erson living in a large metropolitan area and a Ferson of the same age and sex living on a farm. An article published in the July 1963 issue of he Bulletin, "Children of the Poor," suggested ne way of deriving rough measures of the mounts needed by families of different size. This nalysis has now been carried considerably furher to define equivalent incomes at a poverty vel for a large number of different family types. 'he Social Security Administration obtained rom the Bureau of the Census special tabulations rom the March 1964 Current Population Survey lassifying families and unrelated individuals as bove or below these poverty cutoff points. The method used to derive this variable poverty ine is described in the following article, which lso gives a summary picture of the groups who ell below the line on the basis of their 1963 inomes. The total number of poor remains about he same as when the cruder measure of income is sed, but the composition of the group is notably 'ifferent. This article deals primarily with families of wo or more persons. A subsequent article will nalyze the situation of unrelated individuals and f aged persons living in families headed by ounger persons. The differences between Negro nd white families and individuals will also be 'xamined in more detail. The method of measuring equivalent levels of iving that is presented here is still relatively rude. The Division of Research and Statistics is ittempting to develop more refined measures based on the relationship of income and consump * Division of Research and Statistics. JULLETIN, JANUARY 1965 by MOLLIE ORSHANSKY* tion. Such studies will take time. Until they can be completed, the indexes used here provide a more sensitive method than has hitherto been available of delineating the profile of poverty in this country and of measuring changes in that profile over time. A REVOLUTION of expectations has taken place in this country as well as abroad. There is now a conviction that everyone has the right to share in the good things of life. Yet there are still many who must watch America's parade of progress from the sidelines, as they wait for their turn-a turn that does not come. The legacy of poverty awaiting many of our children is the same that has been handed down to their parents, but in a time when the boon of prosperity is more general the taste of poverty is more bitter. Now, however, the Nation is committed to a battle against poverty. And as part of planning the how, there is the task of identifying the whom. The initiation of corrective measures need not wait upon final determination of the most suitable criterion of poverty, but the interim standard adopted and the characteristics of the population thus described will be important in evaluating the effectiveness of the steps taken. There is not, and indeed in a rapidly changing pluralistic society there cannot be, one standard universally accepted and uniformly applicable by which it can be decided who is poor. Almost inevitably a single criterion applied across the board must either leave out of the count some who should be there or include some who, all things considered, ought not be classed as indigent. There can be, however, agreement on some of the considerations to be taken into account in arriving at a standard. And if it is not possible to state unequivocally "how much is enough," it should be possible to assert with confidence how much, on an average, is too little. Whatever the level at which we peg the concept of "too little," the measure of income used should reflect at least roughly an equivalent level of living for individuals and families of different size and composition. In such terms, it is the purpose of this paper to sketch a profile of poverty based on a particular income standard that makes allowance for the different needs of families with varying numbers of adults and children to support. It recognizes, too, that a family on a farm normally is able to manage on somewhat less cash income than a family living in a city. As an example, a family of father, mother, two young children, and no other relatives is assumed on the average to need a minimum of $1,860 today if living on a farm and $3,100 elsewhere. It should go without saying that, although such cutoff points have their place when the economic well-being of the population at large is being assessed, they do not necessarily apply with equal validity to each individual family in its own special setting. The standard itself is admittedly arbitrary, but not unreasonable. It is based essentially on the amount of income remaining after allowance for an adequate diet at minimum cost. Under the criteria adopted, it is estimated that in 1963 a total of 7.2 million families and 5 million individuals living alone or with nonrelatives (excluding persons in institutions) lacked the wherewithal to live at anywhere near a tolerable level. Literally, for the 342 million persons involved15 million of them children under age 18 and 5 million persons aged 65 or older-everyday living implied choosing between an adequate diet of the most economical sort and some other necessity because there was not money enough to have both. There are others in need not included in this count. Were one to add in the hidden poor, the 1.7 million elderly and the 1.1 million members of subfamilies-including 600,000 childrenwhose own income does not permit independent living at a minimum standard but who escape poverty by living in a household with relatives whose combined income is adequate for all, the number of poor rises to nearly 37.5 million persons. The aggregate income available to the 7.2 million families and 5 million individuals in 1963 was only 60 percent as much as they needed, or about $112 billion less than their estimated minimum requirements. THE POVERTY PROFILE From data reported to the Bureau of the Census in March 1964, it can be inferred that 1 in 7 of all families of two or more and almost hal of all persons living alone or with nonrelative had incomes too low in 1963 to enable them to ea even the minimal diet that could be expected t provide adequate nutrition and still have enoug left over to pay for all other living essentials Such a judgment is predicated on the assumptio that, at current prices and current standards, a average family of four can achieve an adequat diet on about 70 cents a day per person for all food and an additional $1.40 for all other itemsfrom housing and medical care to clothing and carfare. For those dependent on a regular pa check, such a budget would mean, for the family of four, total family earnings of $60 a week. By almost any realistic definition, individua and families with such income-who include mor than a fifth of all our children-must be counted among our undoubted poor. A somewhat less com servative but by no means generous standard calling for about 90 cents a day for food per per, son and a total weekly income of $77, would add 8. million adults and 6.8 million children to the ros ter. There is thus a total of 50 million personsof whom 22 million are young children-who liv within the bleak circle of poverty or at least hove around its edge. In these terms, though progres has been made, there are still from a fifth to fourth of our citizens whose situation reminds u that all is not yet well in America. Who are these people who tug at the nationa conscience? Are they all social casualties, visite by personal misfortune, like the woman left alon to raise a family? Are they persons who find litt opportunity to earn their living, like the aged and the unemployed? Or are they perhaps mainly Negroes and members of other minority groups living out the destiny of their years of discrimi nation? These groups, to be sure, are among the poorest of the poor, but they are not alone. The population groups most vulnerable to the risk of inadequate income have long been identi 1 Estimates are based on a per capita average for all 4-person nonfarm families. Costs will average slightly more in small households and less in larger ones. member of a 2-person family, for example, would need 74 cents a day for food and $2 a day for other items |