This study implements the modern poverty measure for Minnesota using the American Community Survey (ACS) and simulates the potential effects of alternative safety net policies on poverty. The analysis uses the TRIM3 microsimulation model to correct for survey underreporting and to add information required for this poverty measure, including near-cash benefits, taxes and nondiscretionary expenses. The alternative simulations apply new program rules and behavioral assumptions to recalculate family resources and poverty. The results show the importance of the modern poverty measure for analyzing state policies and also highlight the numerous decisions and imputations required to implement the new measure.
The text below is an excerpt from the complete document. Read the full report in PDF format.
Over the past several years, numerous states have initiated task forces and commissions focused on developing
policies to reduce poverty.1 States’ recommendations frequently include expanding income supports
such as the earned income tax credit (EITC), child care subsidies, nutritional assistance, and early
childhood and postsecondary education investments. Some states focus solely on reducing child poverty,
while others focus on options for reducing poverty more generally. States’ interest in reducing poverty
stems from their recognition of the economic costs of poverty, especially the toll that poverty exerts on
Most state commissions quickly recognize the need for a benchmark that would allow them to track
progress in reducing poverty and to test the effects of different policy proposals on poverty reduction.
Such a benchmark would incorporate all components of family resources as well as an up-to-date measure
of family needs in their state. The official measure of poverty used in the United States, based solely
on cash income and a national measure of need set back in the 1950s (and subsequently adjusted by
changes in prices), does not provide a good benchmark. For example, the official measure would not
capture the effects of increasing child care subsidies or the effects of increasing the EITC for low-income
The measure of poverty recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 1995 meets
states’ needs for a useful benchmark.2 The NAS measure includes all types of income, including that
received in kind and through the tax system. The measure accounts for the effects of nondiscretionary
work and out-of-pocket health expenses on net family income. The NAS measure also uses an updated
measure of the cost of basic needs and captures variations by geographic area.
This report describes a model that implements the NAS measure of poverty at the state level. We use the
American Community Survey (ACS) as the basic model input because this survey provides large, representative
samples of the population in each state. We use the Transfer Income Model, Version 3 (TRIM3)
for the model’s platform. The TRIM3 model includes procedures to impute in-kind resources and taxes,
and it corrects for underreporting of benefits from key government assistance programs. Since TRIM3
uses state-specific program rules to simulate benefit programs and taxes, it provides an excellent platform
for the remaining work required to estimate the NAS poverty measure using the ACS. The statistical
model measures poverty at the state level for the base year and can estimate the likely effects of a
variety of policies designed to reduce poverty.
This paper begins by describing the NAS poverty measure and how it differs from the official measure.
The next section describes how we implement the NAS poverty measure. We describe some key features
of the ACS, highlighting how it compares with the Current Population Survey—the Census survey used
for the official poverty measure—and how we implement the NAS poverty measure using the ACS. The
next section shows the results of the NAS poverty measure for Minnesota in 2006 compared with those
using the official measure. We chose this state and year because we had previously estimated the NAS
poverty measure in Minnesota using the Current Population Survey, and this provides an important
benchmark against we could validate and compare the ACS results.3 Then we demonstrate how the
model can be used to estimate the effects of alternative policies on poverty. We simulate several policies
similar to those that Minnesota has considered. Our final section summarizes the benefits and challenges
in implementing the NAS poverty using the ACS. The appendix provides more detail on model procedures,
including results of the baseline simulations.
(End of excerpt. The full report is available in PDF format.)
Usage and reprints: Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site and may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact email@example.com.
If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.
Disclaimer: The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute.