Poverty in the United States

views updated

Chapter 1
Poverty in the United States

THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF POVERTY

The federal government began measuring poverty in 1959. During the 1960s President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a national war on poverty. Researchers realized that few statistical tools were available to measure the number of Americans who continued to live in poverty in one of the most affluent nations in the world. To fight this "war," it had to be determined who was poor and why.

During the early 1960s Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration suggested that the poverty income level be defined as the income sufficient to purchase a minimally adequate amount of goods and services. The necessary data for defining and pricing a full market basket of goods was not available then, nor is it available now. Orshansky noted, however, that in 1955 the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had published the Household Food Consumption Survey, which showed that the average family of three or more people spent approximately one-third of its after-tax income on food. She multiplied the USDA's 1961 economy food plan (a no-frills food basket meeting the then-recommended dietary allowances) by three.

Basically, this defined a poor family as any family or person whose after-tax income was not sufficient to purchase a minimally adequate diet if one-third of the income was spent on food. Differences were allowed for size of family, gender of the head of the household, and whether it was a farm or nonfarm family. The threshold (the level at which poverty begins) for a farm family was set at 70% of a nonfarm household. (The difference between farm and nonfarm households was eliminated in 1982.)

The poverty guidelines set by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are based on the poverty thresholds as established by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The poverty thresholds are updated each year to reflect inflation. People with incomes below the applicable threshold are classified as living below the poverty level.

The poverty guidelines vary by family size and composition. In 2007 a family of four earning $20,000 or less annually was considered impoverished. (See Table 1.1.) A person living alone who earned less than $9,800 was considered poor, as was a family of eight members making less than $33,600. The poverty level is considerably higher in Alaska and Hawaii, where the cost of living is higher than in the contiguous forty-eight states and the District of Columbia.

The poverty guidelines set by the HHS are important because various government agencies use them as the basis for eligibility to key assistance programs. The HHS uses the poverty guidelines to determine Community Services Block Grants, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Block Grants, and Head Start allotments. The guidelines are also the basis for funding the USDA's Food Stamp Program, National School Lunch Program, and Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children. The U.S. Department of Labor uses the guidelines to determine funding for the Job Corps and other employment and training programs under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Some state and local governments choose to use the federal poverty guidelines for some of their own programs, such as state health insurance programs and financial guidelines for child support enforcement.

THE HISTORICAL EFFORT TO REDUCE POVERTY

Since the late 1950s Americans have seen both successes and failures in the battle against poverty. For the total population in 1959, 22.4%, or 39.5 million people, lived below the poverty level. (See Table 1.2.) After an initial decline through the 1960s and 1970s, the poverty rate began to increase during the early 1980s, coinciding with a downturn in household and family incomes for all Americans. The poverty rate rose steadily until it reached an eighteen-year high of 15.2% in 1983, a year during which the country was climbing out of a serious economic recession. The percentage of Americans living in poverty then began dropping, falling to 12.8% in 1989. After that, however, the percentage increased again, reaching 15.1% in 1993. It then dropped to 11.3% in 2000; however, because the nation's economy slowed, the poverty rate rose again to 12.7% in 2004, and then dropped slightly in 2005. Figure 1.1 provides a graphic representation of the number of poor people and the poverty rates between 1959 and 2005.

TABLE 1.1
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines, 2007
[For all states except Alaska and Hawaii and for the District of Columbia]
Size of family unit100 percent of poverty110 percent of poverty125 percent of poverty150 percent of poverty175 percent of poverty185 percent of poverty200 percent of poverty
Notes: For family units with more than 8 members, add $3,400 for each additional person at 100% of poverty, $3,740 at 110%, $4,250 at 125%, $5,100 at 150%, $5,950 at 175%, $6,290 at 185% and $6,800 at 200% of poverty. For optional use in federal fiscal year 2006 and mandatory use in federal fiscal year 2007.
Source: "2007 HHS Poverty Guidelines," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, National Center for Appropriate Technology, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Clearinghouse, September 6, 2006, http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/profiles/povertytables/FY2007/popstate.htm (accessed January 23, 2007)
1$9,800$10,780$12,250$14,700$17,150$18,130$19,600
2$13,200$14,520$16,500$19,800$23,100$24,420$26,400
3$16,600$18,260$20,750$24,900$29,050$30,710$33,200
4$20,000$22,000$25,000$30,000$35,000$37,000$40,000
5$23,400$25,740$29,250$35,100$40,950$43,290$46,800
6$26,800$29,480$33,500$40,200$46,900$49,580$53,600
7$30,200$33,220$37,750$45,300$52,850$55,870$60,400
8$33,600$36,960$42,000$50,400$58,800$62,160$67,200

Analysts believe the overall decline in poverty is because of both the growth in the economy and the success of some of the antipoverty programs instituted in the late 1960s; yet not all demographic subcategories have experienced the same level of change. For example, the poverty rate of those aged sixty-five and older has dramatically improved from 35.2% in 1959 to 10.1% in 2005. For related children under eighteen years of age in African-American families, however, the improvement from 65.6% in 1959 to 33.2% in 2005 shows that antipoverty programs still have not reached many people in need. Table 1.3 shows the differences in the nation's historical poverty for people by categories of age, race, and ethnic background.

RATIO OF INCOME TO POVERTY LEVELS

For purposes of analysis, the Census Bureau uses income-to-poverty ratios that are calculated by dividing income by the respective poverty threshold for each family size. The resulting number is then tabulated on a scale that includes three categories: poor, near-poor, and nonpoor. Poor people have a poverty ratio below 1. People above the poverty level are divided into two groups: the near-poor and the nonpoor. The near-poor have a poverty ratio between 1 and 1.24 (100% to 124% of the poverty level), and the nonpoor have an income-to-poverty ratio of 1.25 (125% of the poverty level) and above. In 2005, 12.6% of the total population had income-to-poverty ratios under 1; in other words, nearly thirty-seven million people in the United States had incomes below the poverty threshold, and 16.8% were classified as poor or near-poor.

HOW ACCURATE IS THE POVERTY LEVEL?

Almost every year since the Census Bureau first defined the poverty level observers have been concerned about its accuracy. Since the early 1960s, when Orshansky defined the estimated poverty level based on a family's food budget, living patterns have changed and food costs have become a smaller percentage of family spending. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports in the news release "Consumer Expenditures in 2005" (November 8, 2006, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cesan.pdf) that the average family spent $5,931, or 12.8% of its total expenditures, on food per year. By contrast, housing accounted for $15,167, or 32.7% of family spending. The proportion of family income spent on food is not the only change in family budgets since the 1950s. In families headed by two parents, both parents are far more likely to be working than they were in the 1950s. There is also a much greater likelihood that a single parent, usually the mother, will be heading the family. Child care costs, which were of little concern during the 1950s, have become a major issue for working mothers and single parents in the twenty-first century.

Critics of the current poverty calculations tend to believe that the official poverty level has been set too low, because they are based on a fifty-year-old concept of American life that does not reflect today's economic and social realities. Even among those who feel the poverty level should be changed to more accurately reflect how many Americans have trouble paying for basic expenses there is disagreement about what would make a more accurate benchmark. Should the amount spent on food be multiplied by a factor of eight instead of three? Should the poverty level be based on housing or other factors? What about geographical differences in the cost of living?

TABLE 1.2
Overall poverty status, 19592005
[Numbers in thousands. People as of March of the following year.]
YearAll peoplePeople in families
All families
TotalBelow poverty levelTotalBelow poverty level
NumberPercentNumberPercent
Source: Adapted from "Table 2. Poverty Status of People by Family Relationship, Race, and Hispanic Origin, 1959 to 2005," in Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, U.S. Census Bureau, September 6, 2006, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html (accessed December 1, 2006)
All races
2005293,13536,95012.6242,38926,06810.8
2004290,61737,04012.7240,75426,54411.0
2003287,69935,86112.5238,90325,68410.8
2002285,31734,57012.1236,92124,53410.4
2001281,47532,90711.7233,91123,2159.9
2000278,94431,58111.3231,90922,3479.6
1999276,20832,79111.9230,78923,83010.3
1998271,05934,47612.7227,22925,37011.2
1997268,48035,57413.3225,36926,21711.6
1996266,21836,52913.7223,95527,37612.2
1995263,73336,42513.8222,79227,50112.3
1994261,61638,05914.5221,43028,98513.1
1993259,27839,26515.1219,48929,92713.6
1992256,54938,01414.8217,93628,96113.3
1991251,19235,70814.2212,72327,14312.8
1990248,64433,58513.5210,96725,23212.0
1989245,99231,52812.8209,51524,06611.5
1988243,53031,74513.0208,05624,04811.6
1987240,98232,22113.4206,87724,72512.0
1986238,55432,37013.6205,45924,75412.0
1985236,59433,06414.0203,96325,72912.6
1984233,81633,70014.4202,28826,45813.1
1983231,70035,30315.2201,33827,93313.9
1982229,41234,39815.0200,38527,34913.6
1981227,15731,82214.0198,54124,85012.5
1980225,02729,27213.0196,96322,60111.5
1979222,90326,07211.7195,86019,96410.2
1978215,65624,49711.4191,07119,06210.0
1977213,86724,72011.6190,75719,50510.2
1976212,30324,97511.8190,84419,63210.3
1975210,86425,87712.3190,63020,78910.9
1974209,36223,37011.2190,43618,8179.9
1973207,62122,97311.1189,36118,2999.7
1972206,00424,46011.9189,19319,57710.3
1971204,55425,55912.5188,24220,40510.8
1970202,18325,42012.6186,69220,33010.9
1969199,51724,14712.1184,89119,17510.4
1968197,62825,38912.8183,82520,69511.3
1967195,67227,76914.2182,55822,77112.5
1966193,38828,51014.7181,11723,80913.1
1965191,41333,18517.3179,28128,35815.8
1964189,71036,05519.0177,65330,91217.4
1963187,25836,43619.5176,07631,49817.9
1962184,27638,62521.0173,26333,62319.4
1961181,27739,62821.9170,13134,50920.3
1960179,50339,85122.2168,61534,92520.7
1959176,55739,49022.4165,85834,56220.8

Some are concerned because the poverty threshold is different for elderly and nonelderly Americans. When the poverty threshold was first established, it was thought that older people did not need as much food. Therefore, the value of their basic food needs was lower. Consequently, when this figure was multiplied by three to determine the poverty rate, it was naturally lower than the rate for non-elderly people. (The U.S. government, however, uses the poverty rate for nonelderly Americans when determining the eligibility for welfare services for all people, including the elderly.) Critics point out that while the elderly might eat less than younger people, they have greater needs in other areas, which are not considered when their food needs are simply multiplied by three. Probably the most notable difference between the needs of the elderly and nonelderly is in the area of health care. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, in Consumer Expenditures in 2004 (April 2006, http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann04.pdf), finds that while the total population interviewed spent $2,574, or 4.7% of their income, on health care, those over sixty-five years of age spent $3,899, or 11.1% of their income, on health care. These critics feel that the poverty level should be the same for everyone, no matter what their age.

In Measuring Poverty: A New Approach (1995), the National Research Council's Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance raises several important issues regarding poverty thresholds or measurement of need. It recommends that new thresholds be developed using consumer expenditure data to represent a budget for basic needs: food, clothing, shelter (including utilities), and a small allowance for miscellaneous needs. This budget would be adjusted to reflect the needs of different family types and geographic differences in costs.

In June 2004 the Committee on National Statistics met to research alternative methods for measuring poverty, as recommended in 1995. The panel recommended adopting a new poverty measure, taking into account the current dollar value of food, clothing, shelter, and utilities, as well as taxes, the value of food stamps and other near-cash benefits, and child support payments. In addition, the panel workshop recommended adjusting the new poverty measure based not only on inflation but also on data on yearly consumer expenditures. John Iceland, the rapporteur for the committee, notes in "The CNSTAT Workshop on Experimental Poverty Measures, June 2004" (Focus, Spring 2005), "The reasoning here is that CE [consumer expenditure]-based calculations will allow the thresholds to retain their social significance for longer periods of time than absolute thresholds."

INCOME AND POVERTY

How Should Income Be Defined?

Critics point out that the definition of income used to set the poverty figure is not accurate because it does not include the value of all welfare services as

TABLE 1.3
People's poverty status, by age, race, and Hispanic origin, 19592005
[Numbers in thousands. People as of March of the following year.]
Year and characteristicUnder 18 years
All peopleRelated children in families
TotalBelow poverty levelTotalBelow poverty level
NumberPercentNumberPercent
All races
200573,28512,89617.672,09512,33517.1
2004m73,24113,04117.872,13312,47317.3
200372,99912,86617.671,90712,34017.2
200272,69612,13316.771,61911,64616.3
200172,02111,73316.370,95011,17515.8
2000l71,74111,58716.270,53811,00515.6
1999k71,68512,28017.170,42411,67816.6
199871,33813,46718.970,25312,84518.3
199771,06914,11319.969,84413,42219.2
199670,65014,46320.569,41113,76419.8
199570,56614,66520.869,42513,99920.2
199470,02015,28921.868,81914,61021.2
1993j69,29215,72722.768,04014,96122.0
1992i68,44015,29422.367,25614,52121.6
1991h65,91814,34121.864,80013,65821.1
199065,04913,43120.663,90812,71519.9
198964,14412,59019.663,22512,00119.0
198863,74712,45519.562,90611,93519.0
1987g63,29412,84320.362,42312,27519.7
198662,94812,87620.562,00912,25719.8
198562,87613,01020.762,01912,48320.1
198462,44713,42021.561,68112,92921.0
1983f62,33413,91122.361,57813,42721.8
198262,34513,64721.961,56513,13921.3
1981e62,44912,50520.061,75612,06819.5
198062,91411,54318.362,16811,11417.9
1979d63,37510,37716.462,6469,99316.0
197862,3119,93115.961,9879,72215.7
197763,13710,28816.262,82310,02816.0
197664,02810,27316.063,72910,08115.8
197565,07911,10417.164,75010,88216.8
1974c66,13410,15615.465,8029,96715.1
197366,9599,64214.466,6269,45314.2
197267,93010,28415.167,59210,08214.9
1971b68,81610,55115.368,47410,34415.1
197069,15910,44015.168,81510,23514.9
196969,0909,69114.068,7469,50113.8
196870,38510,95415.670,03510,73915.3
1967a70,40811,65616.670,05811,42716.3
196670,21812,38917.669,86912,14617.4
196569,98614,67621.069,63814,38820.7
196469,71116,05123.069,36415,73622.7
196369,18116,00523.168,83715,69122.8
196267,72216,96325.067,38516,63024.7
196166,12116,90925.665,79216,57725.2
196065,60117,63426.965,27517,28826.5
195964,31517,55227.363,99517,20826.9
White, not Hispanic
200144,0954,1949.543,4593,8878.9
2000l44,2444,0189.143,5543,7158.5
1999k44,2724,1559.443,5703,8328.8
199845,3554,82210.644,6704,45810.0
199745,4915,20411.444,6654,75910.7
199645,6055,07211.144,8444,65610.4
199545,6895,11511.244,9734,74510.6
199446,6685,82312.545,8745,40411.8
1993j46,0966,25513.645,3225,81912.8
1992I45,5906,01713.244,8335,55812.4
1991h45,2365,91813.144,5065,49712.4
199044,7975,53212.344,0455,10611.6
198944,4925,11011.543,9384,77910.9
198844,4384,88811.043,9104,59410.5
1987g44,4615,23011.843,9074,90211.2
198644,6645,78913.044,0415,38812.2
TABLE 1.3
People's poverty status, by age, race, and Hispanic origin, 19592005 [continued]
[Numbers in thousands. People as of March of the following year.]
Year and characteristicUnder 18 years
All peopleRelated children in families
TotalBelow poverty levelTotalBelow poverty level
NumberPercentNumberPercent
198544,7525,74512.844,1995,42112.3
198444,8866,15613.744,3495,82813.1
1983f44,8306,64914.844,3746,38114.4
198245,5316,56614.445,0016,22913.8
1981e45,9505,94612.945,4405,63912.4
198046,5785,51011.845,9895,17411.3
1979d46,9674,73010.146,4484,4769.6
197846,8194,5069.646,6064,3839.4
197747,6894,7149.947,4594,5829.7
197648,8244,7999.848,6014,6649.6
197549,6705,34210.849,4215,18510.5
1974c50,7594,8209.550,5204,6979.3
Black alone or in combination
200512,1594,07433.511,9753,97233.2
2004m12,1904,05933.312,0123,96233.0
200312,2154,10833.611,9893,97733.2
200212,1143,81731.511,9313,73331.3
Black alone
200511,1363,84134.510,9623,74334.2
2004m11,2443,78833.711,0803,70233.4
200311,3673,87734.111,1623,75033.6
200211,2753,64532.311,1113,57032.1
Black
200111,5563,49230.211,4193,42330.0
2000l11,4803,58131.211,2963,49530.9
1999k11,4883,81333.211,2603,69832.8
199811,3174,15136.711,1764,07336.4
199711,3674,22537.211,1934,11636.8
199611,3384,51939.911,1554,41139.5
199511,3694,76141.911,1984,64441.5
199411,2114,90643.811,0444,78743.3
1993j11,1275,12546.110,9695,03045.9
1992I10,9565,10646.610,8235,01546.3
1991h10,3504,75545.910,1784,63745.6
199010,1624,55044.89,9804,41244.2
198910,0124,37543.79,8474,25743.2
19889,8654,29643.59,6814,14842.8
1987g9,7304,38545.19,5464,23444.4
19869,6294,14843.19,4674,03742.7
19859,5454,15743.69,4054,05743.1
19849,4804,41346.69,3564,32046.2
1983f9,4174,39846.79,2454,27346.2
19829,4004,47247.69,2694,38847.3
1981e9,3744,23745.29,2914,17044.9
19809,3683,96142.39,2873,90642.1
1979d9,3073,83341.29,1723,74540.8
19789,2293,83041.59,1683,78141.2
19779,2963,88841.89,2533,85041.6
19769,3223,78740.69,2913,75840.4
19759,4213,92541.79,3743,88441.4
1974c9,4393,75539.89,3843,71339.6
1973(NA)(NA)(NA)9,4053,82240.6
1972(NA)(NA)(NA)9,4264,02542.7
1971b(NA)(NA)(NA)9,4143,83640.4
1970(NA)(NA)(NA)9,4483,92241.5
1969(NA)(NA)(NA)9,2903,67739.6
1968(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)4,18843.1
1967a(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)4,55847.4
1966(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)4,77450.6
1965(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)5,02265.6

income. If the value of these services was counted as income, they believe the proportion of Americans considered to be living in poverty would be lower. In the 1990s the Census Bureau developed several experimental methods of estimating income for evaluating poverty levels, but the bureau has had considerable

TABLE 1.3
People's poverty status, by age, race, and Hispanic origin, 19592005 [continued]
[Numbers in thousands. People as of March of the following year.]
Year and characteristicUnder 18 years
All peopleRelated children in families
TotalBelow poverty levelTotalBelow poverty level
NumberPercentNumberPercent
Asian alone or in combination
20053,47235910.33,43535210.2
2004m3,4063299.73,3673119.2
20033,31642012.73,27940612.4
20023,19935311.03,15933810.7
Asian alone
20052,87131711.12,84231211.0
2004m2,8542819.92,8232659.4
20032,75934412.52,72633112.1
20022,68331511.72,64830211.4
Asian and Pacific Islander
20013,21536911.53,16935311.1
2000l3,29442012.73,25640712.5
1999k3,21238111.93,17836711.5
19983,13756418.03,09954217.5
19973,09662820.33,06160819.9
19962,92457119.52,89955319.1
19952,90056419.52,85853218.6
19941,73931818.31,71930817.9
1993j2,06137518.22,02935817.6
1992I2,21836316.42,19935216.0
1991h2,05636017.52,03634817.1
19902,12637417.62,09835617.0
19891,98339219.81,94536818.9
19881,97047424.11,94945823.5
1987g1,93745523.51,90843222.7
Hispanic (of any race)
200514,6544,14328.314,3613,97727.7
2004m14,1734,09828.913,9293,98528.6
200313,7304,07729.713,5193,98229.5
200213,2103,78228.612,9713,65328.2
200112,7633,57028.012,5393,43327.4
2000l12,3993,52228.412,1153,34227.6
1999k12,1883,69330.311,9123,56129.9
199811,1523,83734.410,9213,67033.6
199710,8023,97236.810,6253,86536.4
199610,5114,23740.310,2554,09039.9
199510,2134,08040.010,0113,93839.3
19949,8224,07541.59,6213,95641.1
1993j9,4623,87340.99,1883,66639.9
1992I9,0813,63740.08,8293,44039.0
1991h7,6483,09440.47,4732,97739.8
19907,4572,86538.47,3002,75037.7
19897,1862,60336.27,0402,49635.5
19887,0032,63137.66,9082,57637.3
1987g6,7922,67039.36,6922,60638.9
19866,6462,50737.76,5112,41337.1
19856,4752,60640.36,3462,51239.6
19846,0682,37639.25,9822,31738.7
1983f6,0662,31238.15,9772,25137.7
19825,5272,18139.55,4362,11738.9
1981e5,3691,92535.95,2911,87435.4
19805,2761,74933.25,2111,71833.0
1979d5,4831,53528.05,4261,50527.7
19785,0121,38427.64,9721,35427.2
19775,0281,42228.35,0001,40228.0
19764,7711,44330.24,7361,42430.1
1975(NA)(NA)(NA)4,8961,61933.1
1974c(NA)(NA)(NA)4,9391,41428.6
1973(NA)(NA)(NA)4,9101,36427.8

difficulty determining the value of many of these subsidies. For example, it first tried to consider Medicare and Medicaid at full market value (this meant taking the total amount of money that the government spent on medical care for a particular group and then dividing it by the number of people in that group). The value was often

TABLE 1.3
People's poverty status, by age, race, and Hispanic origin, 19592005 [continued]
[Numbers in thousands. People as of March of the following year.]
Year and characteristic18 to 64 years65 years and over
All peopleRelated children in families
TotalBelow poverty levelTotalBelow poverty level
NumberPercentNumberPercent
All races
2005184,34520,45011.135,5053,60310.1
2004m182,16620,54511.335,2093,4539.8
2003180,04119,44310.834,6593,55210.2
2002178,38818,86110.634,2343,57610.4
2001175,68517,76010.133,7693,41410.1
2000l173,63816,6719.633,5663,3239.9
1999k171,14617,28910.133,3773,2229.7
1998167,32717,62310.532,3943,38610.5
1997165,32918,08510.932,0823,37610.5
1996163,69118,63811.431,8773,42810.8
1995161,50818,44211.431,6583,31810.5
1994160,32919,10711.931,2673,66311.7
1993j159,20819,78112.430,7793,75512.2
1992I157,68018,79311.930,4303,92812.9
1991h154,68417,58611.430,5903,78112.4
1990153,50216,49610.730,0933,65812.2
1989152,28215,57510.229,5663,36311.4
1988150,76115,80910.529,0223,48112.0
1987g149,20115,81510.628,4873,56312.5
1986147,63116,01710.827,9753,47712.4
1985146,39616,59811.327,3223,45612.6
1984144,55116,95211.726,8183,33012.4
1983f143,05217,76712.426,3133,62513.8
1982141,32817,00012.025,7383,75114.6
1981e139,47715,46411.125,2313,85315.3
1980137,42813,85810.124,6863,87115.7
1979d135,33312,0148.924,1943,68215.2
1978130,16911,3328.723,1753,23314.0
1977128,26211,3168.822,4683,17714.1
1976126,17511,3899.022,1003,31315.0
1975124,12211,4569.221,6623,31715.3
1974c122,10110,1328.321,1273,08514.6
1973120,0609,9778.320,6023,35416.3
1972117,95710,4388.820,1173,73818.6
1971b115,91110,7359.319,8274,27321.6
1970113,55410,1879.019,4704,79324.6
1969111,5289,6698.718,8994,78725.3
1968108,6849,8039.018,5594,63225.0
1967a107,02410,72510.018,2405,38829.5
1966105,24111,00710.517,9295,11428.5
1965(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)
1964(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)
1963(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)
1962(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)
1961(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)
1960(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)
195996,68516,45717.015,5575,48135.2
White not Hispanic
2001122,4708,8117.227,9732,2668.1
2000l121,4998,1306.727,9482,2187.9
1999k120,3418,4627.027,9522,1187.6
1998120,2828,7607.327,1182,2178.2
1997119,3739,0887.626,9952,2008.1
1996118,8229,0747.627,0332,3168.6
1995118,2288,9087.527,0342,2438.3
1994119,1929,7328.226,6842,5569.6
1993j118,4759,9648.426,2722,66310.1
1992I117,3869,4618.126,0252,72410.5
1991h117,6729,2447.926,2082,5809.8

greater than the actual earnings of the low-income family, which meant that, although the family's total earnings may not have been enough to cover food and housing, adding the market value of Medicare or Medicaid to its earnings put the family above the poverty threshold.

TABLE 1.3
People's poverty status, by age, race, and Hispanic origin, 19592005 [continued]
[Numbers in thousands. People as of March of the following year.]
Year and characteristic18 to 64 years65 years and over
All peopleRelated children in families
TotalBelow poverty levelTotalBelow poverty level
NumberPercentNumberPercent
1990117,4778,6197.325,8542,4719.6
1989116,9838,1547.025,5042,3359.2
1988116,4798,2937.125,0442,3849.5
1987g115,7218,3277.224,7542,47210.0
1986115,1578,9637.824,2982,49210.3
1985114,9699,6088.423,7342,48610.5
1984114,1809,7348.523,4022,41010.3
1983f113,57010,2799.122,9922,61011.4
1982113,71710,0828.922,6552,71412.0
1981e112,7229,2078.222,2372,83412.7
1980111,4607,9907.221,7602,86513.2
1979d110,5096,9306.321,3392,75912.9
1978107,4816,8376.420,4312,41211.8
1977106,0636,7726.419,8122,31611.7
1976104,8466,7206.419,5652,50612.8
1975103,4967,0396.819,2512,50313.0
1974c101,8946,0515.918,8102,34612.5
Black alone or in combination
200523,3384,73520.33,05370823.2
2004m22,8424,63820.33,00571423.8
200322,3554,31319.32,93368823.5
200222,1704,37619.72,92269123.6
Black alone
200522,6594,62720.43,00770123.3
2004m22,2264,52120.32,95670523.8
200321,7464,22419.42,87668023.7
200221,5474,27719.92,85668023.8
Black
200121,4624,01818.72,85362621.9
2000l21,1603,79417.92,78560721.8
1999k21,5184,00018.62,75062822.8
199820,8374,22220.32,72371826.4
199720,4004,19120.52,69170026.0
199620,1554,51522.42,61666125.3
199519,8924,48322.52,47862925.4
199419,5854,59023.42,55770027.4
1993j19,2725,04926.22,51070228.0
1992I18,9524,88425.82,50483833.5
1991h18,3554,60725.12,60688033.8
199018,0974,42724.52,54786033.8
198917,8334,16423.32,48776330.7
198817,5484,27524.42,43678532.2
1987g17,2454,36125.32,38777432.4
198616,9114,11324.32,33172231.0
198516,6674,05224.32,27371731.5
198416,3694,36826.72,23871031.7
1983f16,0654,69429.22,19779136.0
198215,6924,41528.12,12481138.2
1981e15,3584,11726.82,10282039.0
198014,9873,83525.62,05478338.1
1979d14,5963,47823.82,04074036.2
197813,7743,13322.71,95466233.9
197713,4833,13723.31,93070136.3
197613,2243,16323.91,85264434.8
197512,8722,96823.11,79565236.3
1974c12,5392,83622.61,72159134.3
1973(NA)(NA)(NA)1,67262037.1
1972(NA)(NA)(NA)1,60364039.9
1971b(NA)(NA)(NA)1,58462339.3

This did not make much sense, so the Census Bureau began trying a fungible value (giving equivalent value to units) for Medicare and Medicaid. When the bureau measures a household's income, if the earners cannot cover the cost of housing and food, Medicare and Medicaid are given no value. However, if the family can cover the cost of food and shelter, the Census Bureau figures the difference between the household income and the amount needed to meet basic housing

TABLE 1.3
People's poverty status, by age, race, and Hispanic origin, 19592005 [continued]
[Numbers in thousands. People as of March of the following year.]
Year and charactersitic18 to 64 years65 years and over
All peopleRelated children in families
TotalBelow poverty levelTotalBelow poverty level
NumberPercentNumberPercent
1970(NA)(NA)(NA)1,42268348.0
1969(NA)(NA)(NA)1,37368950.2
1968(NA)(NA)(NA)1,37465547.7
1967a(NA)(NA)(NA)1,34171553.3
1966(NA)(NA)(NA)1,31172255.1
1965(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)71162.5
Asian alone or in combination
20059,11599911.01,14414412.6
2004m8,7808199.31,10414713.3
20038,51095611.21,06515214.2
20028,2928049.7995868.7
Asian alone
20058,59194111.01,11814312.8
2004m8,2947749.31,08314613.5
20038,04490711.31,05215114.3
20027,8817649.7977828.4
Asian and Pacific Islander
20018,3528149.78999210.2
2000l8,5007568.9878829.3
1999k7,87980710.28649611.1
19986,95169810.07859712.4
19976,68075311.37058712.3
19966,48482112.7647639.7
19956,12375712.46228914.3
19944,40158913.45136713.0
1993j4,87168014.05037915.6
1992I5,06756811.24945310.8
1991h4,58256512.35557012.7
19904,3754229.65146212.1
19894,22551212.1465347.4
19884,03558314.44426013.5
1987g4,01051012.73755615.0
Hispanic (of any race)
200526,0514,76518.32,31546019.9
2004m25,3244,62018.22,19440318.4
200324,4904,56818.72,08040619.5
200223,9524,33418.12,05343921.4
200122,6534,01417.71,89641321.8
2000l21,7343,84417.71,82238120.9
1999k20,7823,84318.51,66134020.5
199818,6683,87720.81,69635621.0
199718,2173,95121.71,61738423.8
199617,5874,08923.31,51637024.4
199516,6734,15324.91,45834223.5
199416,1924,01824.81,42832322.6
1993j15,7083,95625.21,39029721.4
1992I15,2683,66824.01,29828722.1
1991h13,2793,00822.71,14323720.8
199012,8572,89622.51,09124522.5
198912,5362,61620.91,02421120.6
198812,0562,50120.71,00522522.4
1987g11,7182,50921.488524327.5
198611,2062,40621.590620422.5
198510,6852,41122.691521923.9
198410,0292,25422.581917621.5
1983f9,6972,14822.578217322.1
19828,2621,96323.859615926.6
1981e8,0841,64220.356814625.7
19807,7401,56320.258217930.8

and food costs. It then values the health services at this difference (up to the amount of the market value of the medical benefits). Even though this is complicated, the formula is believed to give a fair value to these services. Similar problems have developed in trying to determine the value of housing subsidies, school lunches, and other benefits.

TABLE 1.3
People's poverty status, by age, race, and Hispanic origin, 19592005 [continued]
[Numbers in thousands. People as of March of the following year.]
Year and characteristic18 to 64 years65 years and over
All peopleRelated children in families
TotalBelow poverty levelTotalBelow poverty level
NumberPercentNumberPercent
NA=Not available.
aImplementation of a new March Current Population Survey (CPS) processing system.
bImplementation of 1970 census population controls.
cImplementation of a new March CPS processing system. Questionnaire expanded to ask eleven income questions.
dImplementation of 1980 census population controls. Questionnaire expanded to show 27 possible values from 51 possible sources of income.
eImplemented three technical changes to the poverty definition.
fImplementation of Hispanic population weighting controls.
gImplementation of a new March CPS processing system.
hCPS file for March 1992 (1991 data) was corrected after the release of the 1991 income and poverty reports. Weights for nine person records were omitted on the original file.
iImplementation of 1990 census population controls.
jData collection method changed from paper and pencil to computer-assisted interviewing. In addition, the March 1994 income supplement was revised to allow for the coding of different income amounts on selected questionnaire items. Limits either increased or decreased in the following categories: earnings increased to $999,999; Social Security increased to $49,999; Supplemental Security Income and public assistance increased to $24,999; Veterans' benefits increased to $99,999; child support and alimony decreased to $49,999.
kImplementation of Census 2000 based population controls.
lImplementation of Census 2000 based population controls and sample expanded by 28,000 households.
mThe 2004 data have been revised to reflect a correction to the weights in the 2005 Annual Social Economic Supplement (ASEC).
Source: Adapted from "Table 3. Poverty Status of People, by Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2005," in Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, U.S. Census Bureau, September 6, 2006, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov3.html (accessed December 6, 2006)
1979d7,3141,23216.857415426.8
19786,5271,09816.853912523.2
19776,5001,16417.951811321.9
19766,0341,21220.146412827.7
1975(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)13732.6
1974c(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)11728.9
1973(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)9524.9

Still other observers point out that most income definitions do not include assets and liabilities. Perhaps the poor household has some assets, such as a home or a car, that could be converted into income. One experimental definition of income includes capital gains on earnings, although it seems to make little differenceabout 90% of all capital gains are earned by those in the upper fifth of the earnings scale. Michael Sherraden indicates in "Building Assets to Fight Poverty" (Shelterforce Online, March-April 2000) that including assets generally means little, because the overwhelming majority of poor families have few financial assets. For comparison purposes, the Census Bureau divides the population into five income groups (quintiles). According to Signe-Mary McKernan, in "Poor Finances: Assets and Low-Income Households" (June 7, 2006, http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/wrconference/presentations/Poor_ Finances.ppt), the bureau reports that the bottom quintile of the population in income has a median asset holding of $17,000, whereas the second quintile has a median of $78,300 and the top quintile has $808,100. Clearly, poor and low-income families have relatively insignificant assets from which they could earn income.

Another major issue is the question of income before and after income taxes. Even though the Tax Reform Act of 1986 removed most poor households from the federal income tax rolls, many poor households still pay state and local taxes. Naturally, some critics claim, the taxes paid to local and state governments are funds that are no longer available for feeding and housing the family and, therefore, should not be counted as income.

Table 1.4 lists the various experimental definitions for income that the Census Bureau has considered. Table 1.5 illustrates that the use of these selected definitions typically lowers the poverty rate.

Growing Income Inequality

The Census Bureau has released a number of studies showing a change in the distribution of wealth and earnings in the United States. This change has resulted in an increase in the gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike many short-term economic changes that are often the product of normal economic cycles of growth and recession, these changes seem to indicate fundamental changes in American society.

The growing inequality in income in the United States began in the 1980s. In 2005 the income differences between income quintiles were close to record highs, with only the top fifth having increased its percentage of the nation's income since the 1980s. (See Table 1.6.) Census data show that in 2005 the quintile of households with the highest incomes received 50.4% of the national income, up from 50.1% the year before, about the same as that received by the other 80% of the population combined. The lowest quintile received only 3.4% of the national income in 2005. (Table 1.7.)

TABLE 1.4
Median household income estimates based on alternative income definitions, 200203
[Income in 2003 dollars]
Alternative income definitionsMedian incomePercent change in real income 2002 to 2003Percent of money income
2002 Estimate2003 Estimate
*Twenty states (Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia have Earned Income Credit (EIC) or Low Income Credit (LIC) programs modeled in the state tax programs. The remaining states do not have such programs.
Note: Definition numbering reflects historical series identification.
Source: Robert W. Cleveland, "Table 1. Median Household Income Estimates Based on Alternative Income Definitions: 2002 and 2003," in Alternative Income Estimates in the United States: 2003Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, June 2005, http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-228.pdf (accessed December 13, 2006)
1.MI: Money income excluding capital gains or losses43,38143,3180.1100.0
1b.MITx: Definition 1 plus realized capital gains (losses), less taxes38,04938,306 0.788.4
2.Definition 1 less government cash transfers39,99839,8960.392.1
3.Definition 2 plus realized capital gains (losses)40,45040,2630.592.9
4.Definition 3 plus health insurance supplements to wage or salary income.42,42242,2950.397.6
5.Definition 4 less Social Security payroll taxes39,66439,695 0.191.6
6.Definition 5 less federal income taxes (excluding the Earned Income Credit [EIC])36,86837,274 1.186.0
7.Definition 6 plus the EIC*37,06137,490 1.286.5
8.Definition 7 less state income taxes36,19736,688 1.484.7
9.Definition 8 plus nonmeans-tested government cash transfers40,02440,605 1.593.7
10.Definition 9 plus the value of Medicare42,22242,679 1.198.5
11.Definition 10 plus the value of regular-price school lunches.42,23442,690 1.198.6
12.Definition 11 plus means-tested government cash transfers42,43242,876 1.599.0
13.Definition 12 plus the value of Medicaid43,01343,465 1.1*100.3
14a.MITx+NCMM: Definition 13 plus the value of other means-tested government noncash transfers, less Medicare and Medicaid.40,43740,924 1.294.5
14.MITx+NC: Definition 14a plus the value of Medicare and Medicaid43,15543,629 1.1100.7
15.MITx+NC+HE: Definition 14 plus imputed return on home equity.44,88445,154 0.6104.2

Why Is the Income Gap Growing?

Many reasons exist to explain the growing inequality, although observers disagree about which are more important. One reason is that the proportion of the elderly population, who are likely to earn less, is growing. According to the Census Bureau, 23.5 million of 114.4 million households in 2005 were headed by a householder sixty-five years of age or older. (See Table 1.8.) (A household may consist of a single individual or a group of related or unrelated people living together, whereas a family consists of related individuals.) In addition, more people than in previous years were living in nonfamily situations (either alone or with nonrelatives). In 2005, 37 million of 114.4 million households were nonfamily households. These nonfamily households earned a median income of $27,326 in 2005, compared with the $57,278 median income of family households.

The increase in the number of households headed by females, as well as the increased labor force participation of women, has also contributed to growing income inequality in the United States. In 2005, 14.1 million of 77.4 million family households, or 18.2%, were headed by women; 20.2 million of 37 million nonfamily households, or 54.7%, were headed by women. (See Table 1.8.) Female-headed households typically earn significantly less than other types of households. According to Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, in Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005Current Population Reports (August 2006, http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf), on average, women earned 77% of what men earned in 2005.

In The Changing Shape of the Nation's Income Distribution (June 2000, http://www.census.gov/prod/2000pubs/p60-204.pdf), Arthur F. Jones Jr. and Daniel H. Weinberg note that other factors contribute to the growing income gap, including the decline in the influence of unions and the changing occupational structure, in general, from better-paying manufacturing positions to lower-paying service jobs. In addition, DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, and Hill Lee indicate that the proportion of low-wage workers who receive employer-based health insurance and pension benefits dropped significantly between 1987 and 2005.

HOMELESSNESS

Homelessness is a complex social problem. According to the National Coalition for the Homeless fact sheet "How Many People Experience Homelessness?" (June 2006, http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/How_Many.pdf), approximately 3.5 million Americans, 1.3 million of them children, lack a place to sleep at some time during the year. Social researcherseducators, sociologists, economists, and political scientistshave studied homelessness in the past and present and have determined that homelessness is caused by a combination of poverty, misfortune, illness, and behavior.

TABLE 1.5
Poverty estimates based on alternative measures of income, 200203
[Numbers of people in thousands, poverty rates in percentage points]
Selected alternative income definitions20022003Change (2003 less 2002)*
Number below povertyPoverty rateNumber below povertyPoverty rateNumber below povertyPoverty rate
*Details may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Source: Joe Dalaker, "Table 1. Poverty Estimates Based on Alternative Measures of Income: 2002 and 2003," Alternative Poverty Estimates in the United States: 2003Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, June 2005, http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-227.pdf (accessed December 13, 2006)
Thresholds adjusted for inflation using CPI-U
MI (money income; used in official measure of poverty)34,57012.135,8611 2.51,2910.3
MITx (money income plus realized capital gains (losses), less income and payroll taxes)33,03511.634,4091 2.01,3740.4
MITx+NCMM (money income plus realized capital gains (losses), less income and payroll taxes, plus value of employer-provided health benefits and all noncash transfers except Medicare and Medicaid)28,0749.829,24310.21,1690.4
MITx+NC (money income plus capital gains (losses), less income and payroll taxes, plus value of all noncash transfers)26,6629.327,7929.71,1300.4
MITx+NC+HE (money income plus capital gains (losses), less income and payroll taxes, plus value of all noncash transfers, plus imputed return to home equity)24,5818.625,9569.01,3750.4
Thresholds adjusted for inflation using CPI-U-RS
MI (money income; used in official measure of poverty)28,90910.130,30410.51,3950.4
MITx (money income plus realized capital gains (losses), less income and payroll taxes)27,0389.528,2059.81,1670.3
MITx+NCMM (money income plus realized capital gains (losses), less income and payroll taxes, plus value of employer-provided health benefits and all noncash transfers except Medicare and Medicaid)22,3937.823,2248.18310.3
MITx+NC (money income plus capital gains (losses), less income and payroll taxes, plus value of all noncash transfers)21,8727.722,7047.98320.2
  MITx+NC+HE (money income plus capital gains (losses), less income and payroll taxes, plus value of all noncash transfers, plus imputed return to home equity)20,1887.121,2287.41,0400.3

What Does It Mean to Be Homeless?

During a period of growing concern about homelessness in the mid-1980s, the first major piece of federal legislation aimed specifically at helping the homeless was adopted: the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, today known as the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Part of the act officially defined a homeless person as:

  1. An individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and
  2. An individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is:
    1. A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
    2. An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
    3. A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.

The government's definition of a homeless person focuses on whether a person is housed. Broader definitions of homelessness take into account whether a person has a home. For example, Martha R. Burt et al. report in Helping America's Homeless: Emergency Shelter or Affordable Housing? (2001) that as late as 1980 the Census Bureau identified people who lived alone and did not have a "usual home elsewhere"in other words, a larger familyas homeless. In this sense the term home describes living within a family, rather than having a roof over one's head.

Burt et al. also state that homeless people themselves, when interviewed in the 1980s and 1990s, drew a distinction between having a house and having a home. Even when homeless people had spent significant periods of time in a traditional shelter, such as an apartment or

TABLE 1.6
Household income dispersion, 19672005
[Income in 2005 Consumer Price Index adjusted dollars]
Measures of income dispersion20052004a2003200220012000b1999c1998199719961995d1994e1993f1992g19911990198919881987h1986
Household income at selected percentiles
10th percentile upper limit11,28811,27111,18111,52811,78411,99512,11911,60211,17711,03811,03610,46010,22510,22710,37410,60210,94610,40810,25010,165
20th percentile upper limit19,17819,10419,08519,44819,81720,31420,07319,27518,67818,29418,31717,49317,25117,18117,59918,10418,39018,04717,74817,413
50th (median)46,32645,81745,97046,03646,56947,59947,67146,50844,88343,96743,34642,03841,56241,77442,10843,36643,94643,16842,82742,309
80th percentile upper limit91,70590,94592,18591,20292,08392,68892,81389,70386,72184,25682,84081,87880,22179,09579,33479,95381,65680,22179,47778,139
90th percentile lower limit126,090124,908125,436123,872125,308126,960126,252121,159118,453114,030111,556110,597108,746105,743106,065107,319109,393106,236104,852102,555
95th percentile lower limit166,000162,408163,555162,831165,969164,617166,340158,116153,490148,084143,740143,089139,209135,019134,742137,223139,489135,792132,993131,030
Household income ratios of selected percentiles
90th/10th11.1711.0811.2210.7510.6310.5810.4210.4410.6010.3310.1110.5710.6410.3410.2210.129.9910.2110.2310.09
95th/20th8.668.508.578.378.388.108.298.208.228.097.858.188.077.867.667.587.597.527.497.52
95th/50th3.613.573.573.543.573.463.523.413.433.403.323.413.373.273.213.173.173.163.113.10
80th/50th1.992.002.011.991.981.951.961.931.941.931.921.951.941.911.891.851.861.861.861.85
80th/20th4.784.764.834.694.654.564.624.654.644.614.524.684.654.604.514.424.444.454.484.49
20th/50th0.420.420.420.420.430.430.420.420.420.420.420.420.420.420.420.420.420.420.420.41
Mean household income of quintiles
Lowest quintile10,65510,58710,60810,84511,17811,51411,61411,03110,72110,64810,61610,0509,7909,89410,10110,37810,63310,25010,0779,813
Second quintile27,35727,08927,25027,57228,08628,74828,51827,85426,80226,13525,94625,04724,81924,79125,36926,11226,45525,87325,61125,240
Third quintile46,30145,89646,25646,46247,01147,87447,73546,60745,09143,95943,38442,19641,60341,76642,13943,13143,97643,27342,81842,236
Fourth quintile72,82572,36873,21873,08573,70974,42374,29372,08169,84068,03666,69165,66164,65464,11564,23665,03066,51865,41364,72163,629
Highest quintile159,583156,502156,082156,038160,975161,272158,432152,531148,898143,096139,175138,039134,704124,233123,179126,199130,031124,881123,082120,434
Shares of household income of quintiles
Lowest quintile3.43.43.43.53.53.63.63.63.63.63.73.63.63.83.83.83.83.83.83.8
Second quintile8.68.78.78.88.78.98.99.08.99.09.18.99.09.49.69.69.59.69.69.7
Third quintile14.614.714.814.814.614.814.915.015.015.115.215.015.115.815.915.915.816.016.116.2
Fourth quintile23.023.223.423.323.023.023.223.223.223.323.323.423.524.224.224.024.024.224.324.3
Highest quintile50.450.149.849.750.149.849.449.249.449.048.749.148.946.946.546.646.846.346.246.1
Summary measures
Gini index of income inequality0.4690.4660.4640.4620.4660.4620.4580.4560.4590.4550.4500.4560.4540.4330.4280.4280.4310.4260.4260.425
Mean logarithmic deviation of income0.5450.5430.5300.5140.5150.4900.4760.4880.4840.4640.4520.4710.4670.4160.4110.4020.4060.4010.4140.416
Theil0.4110.4060.3970.3980.4130.4040.3860.3890.3960.3890.3780.3870.3850.3230.3130.31 70.3240.3140.3110.310
Atkinson:
    e=0.250.0980.0970.0950.0950.0980.0960.0920.0930.0940.0930.0900.0920.0920.0800.0780.0780.0800.0780.0770.077
    e=0.500.1920.1900.1870.1860.1890.1850.1800.1810.1830.1790.1750.1800.1780.1600.1560.1560.1580.1550.1550.155
    e=0.750.2890.2860.2830.2790.2820.2750.2680.2710.2720.2660.2610.2680.2660.2420.2370.2360.2390.2360.2380.237
TABLE 1.6
Household income dispersion, 19672005 [continued]
[Income in 2005 Consumer Price Index adjusted dollars]
Measures of income dispersion1985i19841983j1982198119801979k19781977197619751974l19731972m1971n1970196919681967o
Household Income at selected percentiles
10th percentile upper limit10,20410,1879,7759,8019,96910,09710,22810,4109,9569,8429,78610,0679,9909,5408,9548,8219,0178,7818,073
20th percentile upper limit17,20216,98616,64016,26816,45916,7801 7,44217,22216,30216,34715,99016,82916,73416,37915,84116,05716,31415,82514,859
50th (median)40,86840,07939,08139,06439,12539,73941,01541,06138,58538,36837,73638,77440,00839,21637,63438,02638,28236,87335,379
80th percentile upper limit75,40673,99071,76570,49470,35770,63772,25971,65668,23266,75065,11166,94768,55266,72863,36363,83063,43160,42258,643
90th percentile lower limit98,90597,32493,92792,96591,90591,78293,53592,67787,02485,59283,46786,32588,48785,73581,28881,30680,48576,19474,493
95th percentile lower limit124,594122,481118,071116,365113,228113,677116,760114,633108,034105,856102,748105,963110,181107,391100,622100,89899,48294,52994,106
Household Income ratios of selected percentiles
90th/10th9.699.559.619.489.229.099.148.908.748.708.538.588.868.999.089.228.938.689.23
95th/20th7.247.217.107.156.886.776.696.666.636.486.436.306.586.566.356.286.105.976.33
95th/50th3.053.063.043.002.912.862.872.802.802.762.742.762.782.752.682.672.622.582.70
80th/50th1.851.851.851.821.811.781.771.751.771.741.731.741.731.711.691.691.671.651.68
80th/20th4.384.364.314.334.274.214.144.164.194.084.073.984.104.074.003.983.893.823.95
20th/50th0.420.420.430.420.420.420.430.420.420.430.430.440.420.420.420.420.430.430.43
Mean household encome of quintiles
Lowest quintile9,7149,7209,3959,2769,4409,6719,98210,0459,4819,5359,3049,6369,6639,2338,7218,6728,8168,5997,923
Second quintile24,61824,21023,60223,47523,51524,07124,82824,66923,33723,34122,85223,95124,29723,84923,05023,49223,80323,06021,955
Third quintile40,86340,12039,02138,85738,95539,72040,93440,73238,60638,38437,49438,60239,85338,92137,37037,83038,03636,57235,054
Fourth quintile61,46660,40858,55557,79058,06858,51760,06959,66656,56555,74254,47955,74857,33055,87653,12953,32453,27651,01849,045
Highest quintile114,816111,075107,509105,991103,726104,333107,803106,526100,86898,65496,18898,772102,579100,31494,13994,40393,64288,65188,263
Shares of household income of quintiles
Lowest quintile3.94.04.04.04.14.24.14.24.24.34.34.34.24.14.14.14.14.24.0
Second quintile9.89.99.910.010.110.210.210.210.210.310.410.610.410.410.610.810.911.110.8
Third quintile16.216.316.416.516.716.816.816.816.91 7.017.017.017.017.017.317.41 7.517.617.3
Fourth quintile24.424.624.624.524.824.724.624.724.724.724.724.624.524.524.524.524.524.524.2
Highest quintile45.645.245.145.044.344.144.244.144.043.743.643.543.943.943.543.343.042.643.6
Summary measures
Gini index of income inequality0.4190.4150.4140.4120.4060.4030.4040.4020.4020.3980.3970.3950.4000.4010.3960.3940.3910.3860.397
Mean logarithmic deviation of income0.4030.3910.3970.4010.3870.3750.3690.3630.3640.3610.3610.3520.3550.3700.3700.3700.3570.3560.380
Theil0.3000.2900.2880.2870.2770.2740.2790.2750.2760.2710.2700.2670.2700.2790.2730.2710.2680.2730.287
Atkinson:
    e=0.250.0750.0730.0720.0720.0700.0690.0700.0690.0690.0680.0670.0670.0680.0700.0680.0680.0670.0670.071
    e=0.500.1510.1470.1470.1460.1410.1400.1410.1390.1390.1370.1360.1340.1360.1400.1380.1380.1350.1350.143
    e=0.750.2310.2250.2260.2260.2200.2160.2160.2130.2130.2110.2100.2070.2100.2160.2140.2140.2090.2080.220

TABLE 1.6

Household income dispersion, 19672005 [continued]

aData have been revised to reflect a correction to the weights in the 2005 Annual Social Economic Supplement (AESC).

bImplementation of a 28,000 household sample expansion.

cImplementation of Census 2000-based population controls.

dFull implementation of 1990 census-based sample design and metropolitan definitions, 7,000 household sample reduction, and revised editing of responses on race.

eIntroduction of 1990 census sample design.

fData collection method changed from paper and pencil to computer-assisted interviewing. In addition, the 1994 ASEC was revised to allow for the coding of different income amounts on selected questionnaire items. Limits either increased or decreased in the following categories: earnings limits increased to $999,999; social security limits increased to $49,999; supplemental security income and public assistance limits increased to $24,999; veterans' benefits limits increased to $99,999; child support and alimony limits decreased to $49,999.

gImplementation of 1990 census population controls.

hImplementation of a new Current Population Survey (CPS) AESC processing system.

iRecording of amounts for earnings from longest job increased to $299,999. Full implementation of 1980 census-based sample design.

jImplementation of Hispanic population weighting controls and introduction of 1980 census-based sample design.

kImplementation of 1980 census population controls. Questionnaire expanded to allow the recording of up to 27 possible values from a list of 51 possible sources of income.

lImplementation of a new CPS ASEC processing system. Questionnaire expanded to ask 11 income questions.

mFull implementation of 1970 census-based sample design.

nIntroduction of 1970 census sample design and population controls.

oImplementation of a new CPS ASEC processing system.

source: Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, "Table A3. Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion: 1967 to 2005," in Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, August 2006, http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf (accessed December 1, 2006)

TABLE 1.7
Shares of household income, by quintile, 200405
[Income in 2005 dollars. Households and people as of March of the following year.]
Characteristic2004a2005Percentage change in real Median income (2005 less 2004)
Median income (dollars)Median income (dollars)
Number (thousands)EstimateNumber (thousands)EstimateEstimate
Households
All households113,34345,817114,38446,3261.1
Type of household
Family households76,85857,17977,40257,2780.2
   Married-couple57,97565,94658,17966,0670.2
   Female householder, no husband present13,98130,82314,09330,6500.6
   Male householder, no wife present4,90146,5265,13046,7560.5
Nonfamily households36,48527,12936,98227,3260.7
   Female householder19,94222,59420,23022,6880.4
   Male householder16,54333,08316,75334,0482.9
Raceb and Hispanic origin of householder
White92,88048,21893,58848,5540.7
   White, not Hispanic81,62850,54682,00350,7840.5
Black13,80931,10114,00230,8580.8
Asian4,12359,4274,27361,0942.8
Hispanic origin (any race)12,17835,41712,51935,9671.6
Age of householder
Under 65 years90,19252,56290,92652,2870.5
   15 to 24 years6,73328,4976,79528,7701.0
   25 to 34 years19,31446,98519,12047,3790.8
   35 to 44 years23,24858,57823,01658,0840.8
   45 to 54 years23,39363,06823,73162,4241.0
   55 to 64 years17,50352,07718,26452,2600.4
65 years and older23,15125,33623,45926,0362.8
Nativity of householder
Native98,84246,78699,57946,8970.2
Foreign born14,50240,69214,80642,0403.3
    Naturalized citizen6,74147,6426,99050,0305.0
    Not a citizen7,76135,7497,81536,7402.8
Region
Northeast21,18749,46221,05450,8822.9
Midwest25,93946,13426,35145,9500.4
South41,22442,10841,80542,1380.1
West24,99349,24525,17450,0021.5
Residence
Inside metropolitan statistical areas(NA)(NA)95,10748,474(X)
    Inside principal cities.(NA)(NA)38,00841,166(X)
    Outside principal cities(NA)(NA)57,09853,544(X)
Outside metropolitan statistical areasc(NA)(NA)19,27837,564(X)
Shares of household income quintiles
Lowest quintile22,6693.422,8773.40.7
Second quintile22,6698.722,8778.60.4
Third quintile22,66914.722,87714.60.5
Fourth quintile22,66923.222,87723.00.7
Highest quintile22,66950.122,87750.40.6

rented room, if they felt those houses were transitional or insecure, they identified themselves as having been homeless while living there. According to Burt et al., these answers "reflect how long they have been without significant attachments to people."

Burt et al. and other homeless advocates disagree with the narrow government definition of a homeless person, which focuses on a person's sleeping arrangements. They assert that the definition should be broadened to include groups of people who, while they may have somewhere to live, do not really have a home in the conventional sense. Considerable debate has resulted over expanding the classification to include people in situations such as the following:

  • People engaging in prostitution who spend each night in a different hotel room, paid for by clients
  • Children in foster or relative care
  • People living in stable but inadequate housing (for example, having no plumbing or heating)
TABLE 1.7
Shares of household income, by quintile, 200405 [continued]
[Income in 2005 dollars. Households and people as of March of the following year.]
Characteristic2004a2005Percentage change in real median income (2005 less 2004)
Median income (dollars)Median income (dollars)
Number (thousands)EstimateNumber (thousands)EstimateEstimate
(NA) Not available.
(X) Not applicable.
aThe 2004 data have been revised to reflect a correction to the weights in the 2005 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
bFederal surveys now give respondents the option of reporting more than one race. Therefore, two basic ways of defining a race group are possible. A group such as Asian may be defined as those who reported Asian and no other race (the race-alone or single-race concept) or as those who reported Asian regardless of whether they also reported another race (the race-alone-or-in-combination concept). This table shows data using the first approach (race alone). The use of the single-race population does not imply that it is the preferred method of presenting or analyzing data. The Census Bureau uses a variety of approaches. Information on people who reported more than one race, such as white and American Indian and Alaska Native or Asian and black or African American, is available from Census 2000 through American FactFinder. About 2.6 percent of people reported more than one race in Census 2000.
cThe "outside metropolitan statistical areas" category includes both micropolitan statistical areas and territory outside of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas.
dThe data shown in this section are per capita incomes and their respective confidence intervals. Per capita income is the mean income computed for every man, woman, and child in a particular group. It is derived by dividing the total income of a particular group by the total population in that group (excluding patients or inmates in institutional quarters).
Source: Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, "Table 1. Income and Earnings Summary Measures by Selected Characteristics: 2004 and 2005," in Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-231, August 2006, http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf (accessed December 1, 2006)
Earnings of full-time, year-round workers
Men with earnings60,08842,16061,50041,3861.8
Women with earnings42,38032,28543,35131,8581.3
Per capita incomed
    Totalb291,16624,655293,83425,0361.5
White234,11626,067235,90326,4961.6
   White, not Hispanic195,34728,357195,89328,9462.1
Black36,54816,56136,96516,8741.9
Asian12,24127,04012,59927,3311.1
Hispanic origin (any race)41,84014,57743,16814,4830.6
  • People doubled up in conventional dwellings for the short term
  • People in hotels paid for by vouchers to the needy
  • Elderly people living with family members because they cannot afford to live elsewhere

Official definitions are important because total counts of the homeless influence levels of funding authorized by Congress for homeless programs. With the availability of federal funds since the passage of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, institutional constituencies have formed that advocate for additional funding, an effort in which more expansive definitions are helpful.

Causes of Homelessness

In 2006 the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a nonpartisan organization of cities with populations higher than thirty thousand, surveyed the mayors of major cities on the extent and causes of urban homelessness, and most of the mayors named mental illness and lack of needed services, and lack of affordable housing as major causes of homelessness (eighteen and seventeen out of twenty-three mayors surveyed, respectively). (See Table 1.9.) The next three causes were, in rank order, substance abuse and the lack of needed services (identified by sixteen mayors), low-paying jobs (identified by thirteen mayors), and domestic violence and prisoner reentry (both identified by seven mayors). The lowest ranking causes, cited by five mayors each, were unemployment and poverty. These results indicate that in the Conference of Mayors opinion, homelessness is a complex social problem arising from three fundamental and interacting causes: lack of means, medical conditions, and behavioral problems.

COUNTING THE HOMELESS

Methodology

An accurate count of the U.S. homeless population has proved to be a problem for statisticians. The most formidable obstacle is the nature of homelessness itself. Typically, researchers contact people in their homes using in-person or telephone surveys to obtain information regarding income, education levels, household size, ethnicity, and other demographic data. Because homeless people cannot be counted at home, researchers have been forced to develop new methods for collecting data on these transient groups. Martha R. Burt explored this issue for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the HHS and published in August 1999 a table of the most common methods of data collection for homeless people. (See Table 1.10.)

Counting each and every person without a home would be the most accurate way to establish the number of homeless people. However, such a count is almost

TABLE 1.8
Selected characteristics of households, by income in dollars, 2005
[Numbers in thousands. Households as of March of the following year.]
TotalUnder $2,500$2,500 to $4,999$5,000 to $7,499$7,500 to $9,999$10,000 to $12,499$12,500 to $14,999$15,000 to $17,499$17,500 to $19,999$20,000 to $22,499$22,500 to $24,999$25,000 to $27,499
All races
All households114,3842,6221,1092,5133,1573,7863,5463,6913,4243,9343,0903,820
Type of household
Family households77,4021,2025658979541,2681,4791,6941,8832,1251,7872,237
   Married-couple families58,1794931622332956187238751,0621,2521,1401,461
   Male householder, nsp*5,130105507277116104134177160119190
   Female householder, nsp*14,093603353593582534652686644713528586
Nonfamily households36,9821,4215451,6162,2022,5182,0671,9971,5411,8091,3021,584
Male householder16,753546212501688900671739592806576695
       Living alone13,061480194471618852613660508709495576
   Female householder20,2308753321,1151,5141,6181,3961,2589491,003726889
        Living alone17,3928033161,0781,4701,5601,3431,192873912667773
Age of householder
Under 65 years90,9262,2118931,7421,7352,0471,9012,2632,1492,7831,9012,652
    15 to 24 years6,795381180265255317299325312383206358
    25 to 34 years19,120455237317325463393524482689480658
    35 to 44 years23,016467133360328373382498441585475589
    45 to 54 years23,731484167398410415399447485532362511
    55 to 64 years18,264425177403416480428469430595379536
65 years and over23,4594112167711,4221,7381,6451,4281,2751,1521,1891,168
    65 to 74 years11,68717677328554660612571524498568538
    75 years and over11,7722351394438681,0791,033857751654621630
Mean age of householder49.245.746.352.257.357.257.654.553.850.854.151.0
Size of household
One person30,4531,2835101,5492,0882,4121,9551,8521,3811,6211,1621,349
Two people37,7757292854635467418959701,1751,2561,1431,411
Three people18,924304164275259283312386420510336474
Four people15,99817493122142199221280231298253328
Five people7,3068238598293112115140167137167
Six people2,5623410302838294944463757
Seven people or more1,366188131120204033372334
Mean size of household2.571.972.041.761.661.711.841.992.102.112.142.21
Number of earners
No earners24,2242,0895921,6722,2462,2582,0181,6331,3811,2191,2081,111
One earner42,0664824617328121,3671,3301,7261,6622,2381,3972,026
Two earners or more48,095515510998161198332381478484684
    2 earners38,327485310490148191311361443452629
    3 earners7,33733461162017323149
    4 earners or more2,43000033022316
Mean number of earners1.360.230.520.390.330.460.500.670.730.840.790.93
TABLE 1.8
Selected characteristics of households, by income in dollars, 2005 [continued]
[Numbers in thousands. Households as of March of the following year.]
TotalUnder $2,500$2,500 to $4,999$5,000 to $7,499$7,500 to $9,999$10,000 to $12,499$12,500 to $14,999$15,000 to $17,499$17,500 to $19,999$20,000 to $22,499$22,500 to $24,999$25,000 to $27,499
Educational attainment of householder
Total, 25 yrs & over107,5892,2419302,2482,9023,4693,2473,3673,1123,5522,8843,462
Less than 9th grade6,088186108437590558389407340323244277
9th to 12th grade, no diploma9,130359162454600612554528450514380421
High school graduate (includes equivalency)32,3457853127549831,2561,2741,3141,2231,4661,1111,316
Some college, no degree19,311356184301358486507536518629478673
Associate degree9,56315754111129203204237213212231257
Bachelor's degree or more31,153398108191241354318346367407440518
    Bachelor's degree19,84326879148179264247237268287346363
    Master's degree7,94391183253635090779770110
    Professional degree1,78920366118719101623
    Doctorate degree1,57818844151312312821
$27,500 to $29,999$30,000 to $32,499$32,500 to $34,999$35,000 to $37,499$37,500 to $39,999$40,000 to $42,499$42,500 to $44,999$45,000 to $47,499$47,500 to $49,999$50,000 to $52,499$52,500 to $54,999$55,000 to $57,499
All races
All households2,7983,8822,5303,5062,4703,4642,3062,9132,3453,1421,9752,490
Type of household
Family households1,7422,4771,6862,1161,6772,2841,6582,0371,6672,1371,4531,840
    Married-couple families1,1811,6671,1531,3611,1941,6531,2131,5191,2341,6451,1021,454
    Male householder, nsp*145206140221150184109152129185111107
    Female householder, nsp*416604393534333447335366304307241279
Nonfamily households1,0561,4058441,3897931,1806488756791,005523649
    Male householder444758403738399627315445362566272315
        Living alone349650325626297480243339253430193233
    Female householder612648441651394553334430317439251334
        Living alone535567350569328497262347259340179261
Age of householder
Under 65 years1,9183,0811,8762,8321,8762,9101,8042,4091,9712,7401,6012,184
    15 to 24 years233283199264149218157174141210114110
    25 to 34 years459811449742438737368559481652374578
    35 to 44 years442731454699428725445637491768394574
    45 to 54 years401687424641445682461581467646379520
    55 to 64 years382571349486415548373458391465340401
65 years and over879800654674594554502504374402374306
    65 to 74 years454427355337315292272271203247233187
    75 years and over426374299337279262231232171155141119
Mean age of householder51.647.849.647.150.146.949.547.547.145.448.145.7
Size of household
One person8841,2176761,196624977506685511770371494
Two people1,1121,3559991,1069481,2288771,0268661,065709867
Three people334553384537389526419514425579413454
Four people246413295369287426284398293429278396
TABLE 1.8
Selected characteristics of households, by income in dollars, 2005 [continued]
[Numbers in thousands. Households as of March of the following year.]
$27,500 to $29,999$30,000 to $32,499$32,500 to $34,999$35,000 to $37,499$37,500 to $39,999$40,000 to $42,499$42,500 to $44,999$45,000 to $47,499$47,500 to $49,999$50,000 to $52,499$52,500 to $54,999$55,000 to $57,499
Five people133220108187143186124169156181124160
Six people527743775180546977845166
Seven people or more374825352641445218342953
Mean size of household2.302.382.392.362.492.462.602.602.622.602.722.75
Number of earners
No earners800676533521449416385342280252184169
One earner1,3342,2801,1981,9671,1511,8279201,3869261,500752967
Two earners or more6639267981,0188701,2201,0011,1851,1391,3901,0391,354
    2 earners6048317238777861,0888431,0069791,2208701,146
    3 earners48826712978119142159125151144179
    4 earners or more1114811713171936202429
Mean number of earners1.011.121.171.221.251.311.381.391.491.461.581.61
Educational attainment of householder
Total, 25 yrs & over2,5643,5992,3313,2422,3213,2462,1492,7392,2042,9321,8612,380
Less than 9th grade201258156183104145115101801125872
9th to 12th grade, no diploma298418241267248274178205140180135161
High school graduate (includes equivalency)9041,1768971,1698431,047676941740956599756
Some college, no degree494733456664451654483543477639394472
Associate degree248345178317207355243232213277178274
    Bachelor's degree or more420670403641467772454716553768497644
    Bachelor's degree300504267479324501291472391494329404
    Master's degree98116104138105219115184131219120202
    Professional degree133019122221203419271819
    Doctorate degree92113121730272512283019
$57,500 to $59,999$60,000 to $62,499$62,500 to $64,999$65,000 to $67,499$67,500 to $69,999$70,000 to $72,499$72,500 to $74,999$75,000 to $77,499$77,500 to $79,999$80,000 to $82,499$82,500 to $84,999$85,000 to $87,499
All races
All households1,7452,7021,7032,0731,6602,0941,4471,8931,2711,7041,2331,320
Type of householder
Family households1,3882,0451,3891,6331,3431,6531,1901,5021,0471,3721,0521,114
    Married-couple families1,0791,6331,1251,3171,0921,4011,0151,2609001,181885974
    Male householder, nsp*11016280106921085510551965249
    Female householder, nsp*199249184210159145120137969511591
Nonfamily households357657313440317441257391223332181206
    Male householder17434217423614423114923312720797110
        Living alone1082461201539314090152731065459
    Female householder183315139204173210108157961258496
        Living alone117212941371031387911048844459
Age of householder
Under 65 years1,4982,4321,4501,8611,4251,8821,2481,7151,1381,5751,0901,204
    15 to 24 years85127645897715510235594434
    25 to 34 years382628306423262453249391229314204235
TABLE 1.8
Selected characteristics of households, by income in dollars, 2005 [continued]
[Numbers in thousands. Households as of March of the following year.]
$57,500 to $59,999$60,000 to $62,499$62,500 to $64,999$65,000 to $67,499$67,500 to $69,999$70,000 to $72,499$72,500 to $74,999$75,000 to $77,499$77,500 to $79,999$80,000 to $82,499$82,500 to $84,999$85,000 to $87,499
    35 to 44 years376643428501364492327431315481280387
    45 to 54 years359583357566359528379507314449347354
    55 to 64 years296451295313343339239285245271216193
65 years and over246270253212235213199178133130143116
    65 to 74 years15917916312915214012511278939277
    75 years and over889089838373746555375139
Mean age of householder46.545.247.546.048.045.847.745.246.945.347.445.6
Size of household
One person22445821328919527816926112118998118
Two people657973665715701796528660467590439500
Three people376506328450356379290368257345268281
Four people290414289362225390259350244378256249
Five people117232126163119180126169140140110119
Six people567657684150475425474126
Seven people or more234124252222283116162126
Mean size of household2.872.822.892.932.802.883.002.953.043.013.103.00
Number of earners
No earners12813811184148110938573545851
One earner5611,108492668466655393597267485277293
Two earners or more1,0561,4561,1001,3211,0461,3299621,2119301,165898975
    2 earners8861,2408781,0898501,101764953706908671791
    3 earners142175182171157173153205162205180132
    4 earners or more284240623855445362524853
Mean number of earners1.701.631.791.811.741.771.821.821.981.891.971.94
Educational attainment of householder
Total, 25 yrs & over1,6602,5751,6392,0151,5622,0231,3931,7911,2361,6451,1891,285
Less than 9th grade336857564139203724162021
9th to 12th grade, no diploma9614990966272454744604045
High school graduate (includes equivalency)509794477589462576393488344432282306
Some college, no degree340466295392263394271333259296236270
Associate degree181258201206179239159215133184128142
Bachelor's degree or more500840518676556703505672431657483500
    Bachelor's degree311533353454367475331440262425313350
    Master's degree145250124166141164116163129170118115
    Professional degree182824332830223517232223
    Doctorate degree262817222033363424393012
TABLE 1.8
Selected characteristics of households, by income in dollars, 2005 [continued]
[Numbers in thousands. Households as of March of the following year.]
$87,500 to $89,999$90,000 to $92,499$92,500 to $94,999$95,000 to $97,499$97,500 to $99,999$100,000 and overMedian income Value (Dol.)Mean income Value (Dol.)
All races
All households1,0841,4568811,03885419,71646,32663,344
Type of household
Family households9261,21378791175517,21957,27874,390
    Married-couple families7981,06867780365815,62266,06783,757
    Male householder, nsp*355641363871546,75659,533
    Female householder, nsp*928868715888330,65041,131
Nonfamily households15824395128992,49627,32640,225
    Male householder1021526883571,49734,04847,355
        Living alone469136493082430,02041,279
    Female householder569227444299922,68834,321
        Living alone30629311953720,16629,233
Age of householder
Under 65 years9771,32882694278118,07452,28769,195
    15 to 24 years181918232633028,77037,265
    25 to 34 years1643071521881192,44547,37957,746
    35 to 44 years2663892422932435,13958,08474,259
    45 to 54 years3184042662872326,18162,42481,141
    55 to 64 years2102091501521613,98052,26071,155
65 years and over1071285597721,64126,03640,668
    65 to 74 years77824174461,17031,67049,477
    75 years and over314615222647121,84231,923
Mean age of householder47.745.746.045.946.747.8(X)(X)
Size of household
One person761534480501,36123,73634,400
Two people4054733092962396,58949,29465,336
Three people2613302042342144,23058,91774,879
Four people2253041912532214,64169,60586,517
Five people7815884120861,95666,48784,641
Six people252728372764561,34280,886
Seven people or more131120181729356,79675,543
Mean size of household3.033.033.253.293.333.20(X)(X)
Number of earners
No earners463921222850116,89324,032
One earner2443641372201454,25337,54152,562
Two earners or more7941,05372479668114,96175,29392,575
    2 earners58981351959448810,68870,95288,205
    3 earners1641941611541482,87487,905104,940
    4 earners or more42464349451,399100,000124,164
Mean number of earners1.981.952.172.062.122.10(X)(X)
Educational attainment of householder
Total, 25 yrs & over1,0661,4378641,01582719,38647,71664,991
Less than 9th grade191519171013120,22427,986
9th to 12th grade, no diploma425916432931224,67533,214
TABLE 1.8
Selected characteristics of households, by income in dollars, 2005 [continued]
[Numbers in thousands. Households as of March of the following year.]
$87,500 to $89,999$90,000 to $92,499$92,500 to $94,999$95,000 to $97,499$97,500 to $99,999$100,000 and overMedian income Value (Dol.)Mean income Value (Dol.)
Note:(X) Not applicable
*No spouse present
Source: Adapted from "HINC-01. Selected Characteristics of Households, by Total Money Income in 2005," in Current Population Survey, 2006 Annual Social and Economic Supplement, U.S. Census Bureau, August 29, 2006, http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/hhinc/new01_001.htm (accessed December 13, 2006)
High school graduate (includes equivalency)2863102002441463,01138,19149,131
Some college, no degree2042671861991842,96548,28460,963
Associate degree1271629898981,67954,70965,733
Bachelor's degree or more38862434541436011,28877,179100,272
     Bachelor's degree2584092332752346,37772,42491,421
     Master's degree9614684123883,10181,023104,274
     Professional degree941136201,011100,000154,278
     Doctorate degree2528151018799100,000130,187
TABLE 1.9
Main causes of homelessness, as reported by city officials, November 2005October 2006
Number of positive survey responsesCauses of homelessnessCities replying in the affirmative that the listed cause of homelessness was one of the main or primary causes in their city
Source: Adapted from "Main Causes of Homelessness," in Hunger and Homelessness Survey: A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's CitiesA 23-City Survey, U.S. Conference of Mayors and Sodexho, December 2006, http://usmayors.org/uscm/hungersurvey/2006/report06.pdf (accessed January 21, 2007)
18Mental illness and the lack of needed servicesBoston, Charleston, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Los Angeles, Louisville Metro, Miami, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Seattle, St. Paul, and Trenton
17Lack of affordable housingBoston, Charleston, Cleveland, Denver, Des Moines, Los Angeles, Louisville Metro, Miami, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Seattle, St. Paul, and Trenton
16Substance abuse and the lack of needed servicesChicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Louisville Metro, Miami, Nashville, Norfolk, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Seattle, St. Paul, and Trenton
13Low-paying jobsBoston, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Louisville Metro, Norfolk, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, St. Paul, and Trenton
7Domestic violenceCharleston, Chicago, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, and Seattle
7Prisoner re-entryBoston, Cleveland, Denver, Los Angeles, Louisville Metro, Phoenix, and San Francisco
5UnemploymentCharleston, Chicago, Denver, Des Moines, and Los Angeles
5PovertyCleveland, Phoenix, Seattle, St. Paul, and Trenton
TABLE 1.10
Common methods for collecting planning information
MethodUsual places to find people for studyUsual period of data collection and of estimateProbable complexity of data collected
Source: Martha R. Burt, "Table 3. Common Methods for Collecting Planning Information," in "Demographics and Geography: Estimating Needs," Practical Lessons: The 1998 Symposium on Homelessness Research, edited by Linda B. Fosburg and Deborah L. Dennis, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, August 1999, http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/progsys/homeless/symposium/1-demograp.htm (accessed January 2, 2007)
Full counts and other non-probability methods
Analysis of agency recordsSpecific agencyVaries; usually not done to develop a population estimateWhatever the agency routinely records in its case documents
Simple count, involving significant amounts of data by observation or from minimal agency recordsShelters, streets1 night; point-in-time estimateEnumeration+very simple population characteristics (gender, adult/child, race)
Simple count with brief interviewShelters, meal programs, streets1 night; point-in-time estimateEnumeration+basic information as reported by respondent
Screener, counts and brief interviews for anyone screened in, plus unduplication using unique identifiersService agencies of all typesSeveral weeks or months; point-in-time and period prevalence estimateEnumeration+basic information as reported by respondent
Complete enumeration through multiple agency search and referral followed by extensive interview (also unduplication)Service agencies and key informantsSeveral weeks or months; point-in-time and period prevalence estimateUsually extensive
Probability-based methods
Block probability with substantial interviewStreetsSeveral weeks or months; point-in-time estimateUsually extensive
Other probability approachesAbandoned buildings, conventional housing in poor neighborhoodsSeveral days or weeks; point-in-time estimateEnumeration+basic information as reported by respondent
Service-based random samplingUsually homeless assistance programsSeveral weeks, months, or years; point-in-time estimateUsually extensive
Shelter and other service tracking systems that allow unduplication across all services in a jurisdiction over timeService agenciesOn going; point-in-time or period prevalence for periods of any lengthWhatever the system collects, but usually simple data for administrative purposes
Other interesting methods
Surveys of the housed populationAt homeMulti-year; produces period prevalence for periods asked aboutBasic information as reported by respondent
Longitudinal studiesShelters, soup kitchens, streetsMulti-year; does not produce a population estimateExtensive information, collected from the same person at several points in time

impossible. Anita Drever, in Homeless Count Methodologies: An Annotated Bibliography (February 1999, http://weingart.org/institute/research/projects/pdf/HomelessCountMethodologies.pdf), discusses other methods. One way to estimate the number of homeless people is to search records at homeless service provider locations. Alternatively, a sampling of those records combined with projections, called probability-based methods, can be used to count the number of homeless. Another way to count the homeless is to count the number of homeless at one particular time in one particular place. This snapshot method estimates the number of homeless at any one time. Longitudinal studies are a way to estimate the proportion of people in a population who may become homeless at some point in their lives. These studies follow individuals over a period to determine if they become homeless.

As Table 1.10 reveals, methods vary in scope and design. Different designs will produce different results even if the intention is the samenamely to accurately enumerate the homeless population. For example, Table 1.11 shows results of surveys conducted in 2004 and 2005 by the Association of Gospel Rescue Missions (AGRM). The data presented are based on the snapshot methodcounts of a population at a point in time. The AGRM counted all people receiving homeless services during one specific night in each year.

Table 1.12 shows results of an Urban Institute study conducted in 1996. Data in Table 1.12 are based on a sample of seventy-six geographical areas selected by the Urban Institute as being representative of all service providers in the United States. The Urban Institute then compared its results by demographic characteristics with the total population as enumerated by the U.S. census. The male-female ratios in the AGRM study are quite different from the Urban Institute's study, with the AGRM finding that males were more than three-quarters of the homeless (76% in 2005), whereas the Urban Institute's study showed that males were just over two-thirds of the homeless population (68% in 1996). Both studies showed that males outnumbered females among the homeless, but the proportions were different.

Counting the Homeless for the U.S. Census

The official U.S. census, which takes place at ten-year intervals, is intended to count everyone in the United States. The results of the census are critical in determining how much federal money goes into different programs and to various regions of the country. Representation of the population in Congress is also based on the census. Because the Census Bureau counts people in their homes, counting the homeless presents special challenges.

TABLE 1.11
Demographic overview of the homeless population, 200405
20052004
Source: "Snapshot Survey of the Homeless Statistical Comparison," in Statistics and Studies: 2005 Snapshot Survey of the Homeless, Association of Gospel Rescue Missions, 2005, http://www.agrm.org/statistics/05-snap.html (accessed October 31, 2006)
Gender
Male76%77%
Female24%23%
Age groups
Under 1810%9%
18-2510%10%
26-3520%18%
36-4529%30%
46-6527%29%
65+4%4%
Race/ethnic groups
Caucasian45%44%
African-American38%40%
Hispanic10%10%
Asian1%1%
Native American5%5%
Women/children/families
Couples14%16%
Women with children61%60%
Men with children6%7%
Intact families19%17%
Other information
Veteransmale22%23%
Veteransfemale3%3%
Served in Korea4%5%
Served in Vietnam38%41%
Served in Persian Gulf12%12%
Homeless less than 1 year59%62%
Never before homeless34%35%
Homeless once before26%26%
Homeless twice before18%18%
Homeless 3+ times before22%21%
More than 6 month resident73%72%
Harder to find work today than 6 mos. ago55%58%
Lost government benefits in last 12 mos.19%20%
Prefer spiritual emphasis in services81%80%
Comes to the mission daily for assistance77%78%
In long-term rehabmale33%35%
In long-term rehabfemale32%25%

In "The 1990 Census Shelter and Street Night Enumeration" (March 1992, http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/papers/1992_029.pdf), Diane F. Barrett, Irwin Anolik, and Florence H. Abramson indicate that census officials, on what was known as Shelter and Street Night, or S-Night, counted homeless people found in shelters, emergency shelters, shelters for abused women, shelters for runaway and neglected youth, low-cost motels, Young Men's Christian Associations and Young Women's Christian Associations, and subsidized units at motels. Additionally, they counted people found in the early morning hours sleeping in abandoned buildings, bus and train stations, all-night restaurants, parks, and vacant lots. The results of this count were released the following year in the Census Bureau publication "Count of Persons in Selected Locations Where Homeless Persons Are Found."

TABLE 1.12
Basic demographic characteristics of homeless and formerly homeless individuals, 1996
CharacteristicsCurrently homeless clients (2,938)aFormerly homeless clients (677)bU.S. adult population
Note: Numbers do not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
NA=Not available.
*Denotes values that are less than 0.5 but greater than 0 percent.
aPopulation=2,938.
bPopulation=677.
cIncluded in "married."
Source: Martha R. Burt and others, "Table 3.1. Basic Demographic Characteristics, by Homeless Status," in Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve: Findings of the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients, Urban Institute, December 1999, http://www.huduser.org/publications/homeless/homelessness/ch_3b.html#fig3.1 (accessed January 2, 2007)
Sex
Male68(%)54(%)48(%)
Female324652
Race/ethnicity
White non-Hispanic414676
Black non-Hispanic404111
Hispanic11 9 9
Native American 8 2 1
Other 1 2 3
Age
17 1 0NA
18-21 6 2 7
22-24 5 2 5
25-34251721
35-44383622
45-54172617
55-64 61111
65 and older 2 617
Education/highest level of completed schooling
Less than high school384218
High school graduate/G.E.D.343434
More than high school282448
Marital status
Never married484523
Married 9 960
Separated1514 c
Divorced242510
Widowed 3 6 7
Living situation
Client ages 17 to 24
     Clients in families
        Men * *NA
        Women 3 1NA
     Single clients
        Men 5 2NA
        Women 4 1NA
Client ages 25 and older
     Clients in families
        Men 2 3NA
        Women 913NA
    Single clients
        Men6250NA
        Women1630NA
Veteran status232213

Homeless advocates criticized S-Night as inadequate, and sued the government alleging that the methodology of S-Night was unconstitutional. They charged the Census Bureau with excluding segments of the homeless population in the 1990 population count by not counting those in hidden areas and by not allocating adequate funds for S-Night. In National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty et al. v. Ronald H. Brown et al. (1994), the law center cited an internal Census Bureau memorandum that stated, in part, "We know we will miss people by counting the 'open' rather than 'concealed' (two studies showed that about two-thirds of the street population sleep concealed)." Advocates were greatly concerned that this underrepresentation would negatively affect the funding of homeless initiatives.

In 1994 the district court dismissed the case. The ruling, which was upheld on appeal, found that a failure to count all the homeless was not a failure to perform a constitutional duty, because the Constitution does not give individuals a right to be counted or a right to a perfectly accurate census. The court stated that the "methods used by the Bureau on S-Night were reasonably designed to count as nearly as practicable all those people residing in the United States and, therefore, easily pass constitutional muster."

The controversy surrounding the 1990 census had several consequences. The Census Bureau undertook a special operation, called Service-Based Enumeration (SBE), for the 2000 census. The SBE lasted longer than the old S-Night program and attempted to count homeless people at a wider variety of locations. The SBE methods were considered an improvement over the methods used in the 1990 census survey. Homeless citizens and advocates alike expected to see an increase in the number of homeless people reported by the Census Bureau in the 2000 census as compared with the 1990 census. Expectations that the higher population counts would translate into higher funding levels for services to the homeless were also raised.

These hopes were disappointed, because the Census Bureau chose not to release a specific count of the homeless due to the liability issues raised after the S-Night count in 1990. The homeless would be included among those living in "emergency and transitional shelters." or "other noninstitutional group quarters population." These categories included people not generally considered to be homeless, such as college students living in dormitories, and the homeless portion of the category could not be extracted.

People involved in the receipt or delivery of services to the homeless were worried that their programs would suffer from the lack of SBE night information. A detailed homeless count was thought to be essential for city officials and advocacy groups to plan budgets for shelters and other homeless outreach programs. Results from the 2006 Conference of Mayors study illustrate the negative impact that inadequate information and funding can have on the delivery of human services. (See Table 1.13.) For example, the needs of 54% of homeless people for shelter could not be met in Phoenix because of lack of resources. Homeless program funding for most cities was already strained. Almost two-thirds of cities surveyed (60.9%) in 2006 showed increased requests for emergency shelter services.

TABLE 1.13
City data on homelessness, November 2005October 2006
CityPercent increase in requests for emergency shelterPercent increase in requests by families for emergency shelterShelter bedsTransitional housing unitsFamily breakup for shelter?Family leave during dayPercentage need unmetTurn away families?Turn others away?
NA=Not available.
Source: "City Data on Homelessness," in Hunger and Homelessness Survey: A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's CitiesA 23-City Survey, U.S. Conference of Mayors and Sodexho, December 2006, http://usmayors.org/uscm/hungersurvey/2006/report06.pdf (accessed January 21, 2007)
Boston1228IncreasedIncreaseYesYes 15YesYes
Charleston7NAStay the sameStay the sameNoNo 16%YesYes
CharlotteNANANANANANANANA
Chicago3.31.2IncreasedIncreaseYesNo  0%NoNo
Cleveland1NAIncreasedDecreaseNoNoNoNo
Denver1810IncreasedIncreaseYesYes 12YesYes
Des Moines1414Stay the sameDecreaseNoYes 13%YesYes
Detroit00Stay the sameIncreaseNoYesYesYes
Kansas City1319Stay the sameStay the sameNoYes 29%YesYes
Los Angeles3020Stay the sameStay the sameYesYesYesYes
Louisville Metro4336DecreasedIncreaseYesNoNAYesYes
Miami00Stay the sameDecreaseYesYesYesYes
Nashville920Stay the sameStay the sameYesNo 15YesYes
Norfolk1010Stay the sameStay the sameNoYesYesYes
Philadelphia2.42.8IncreasedDecreaseYesNoNANoNo
Phoenix7.3520.32IncreasedIncreaseYesNo 54%YesYes
PortlandNANADecreasedIncreaseYesYes 27%YesYes
Salt Lake City812Stay the sameIncreaseNoNo 43YesYes
San Francisco5.3110DecreasedStay the sameNoNo  0YesNo
Santa Monica2025IncreasedDecreaseYesYesYesYes
SeattleNANAStay the sameDecreaseNoYesNAYesYes
St. Paul7.710.8Stay the sameStay the sameNoYes 10%YesYes
Trenton2815IncreasedIncreaseYesNoNAYesNo

Only Estimates Are Available

The actual number of homeless people is unknown. Most organizations consider the Urban Institute study America's Homeless II: Populations and Services (February 1, 2000, http://www.urban.org/Presentations/Amer icasHomelessII/toc.htm) the most authoritative estimate. That study estimated that 3.5 million people were homeless at some point of time during 1996.

The 2000 census counted 170,706 individuals in emergency and transitional shelters, down from 178,638 individuals in 1990. (See Table 1.14.) However, the Census Bureau expressly stated that this number was not a total count of the homeless. In the news release "Bush Administration Announces Record $1.4 Billion to Help Hundreds of Thousands of Homeless Individuals and Families" (January 25, 2005, http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?content=pr05-007.cfm), HUD estimates that 150,000 people in 2005 were chronically homelesshomeless for a year or moreand states that this population was only about 10% of all homeless individuals. This would put the overall homeless population at approximately 1.5 million people.

PUBLIC INTEREST IN HOMELESSNESS

Interest in and attitudes toward homelessness in the United States have changed over time. The mid- to late 1980s was a period of relatively high concern about homelessness. In 1986 the American public demonstrated concern over the plight of the homeless by initiating the Hands across America fund-raising effort. Some six million people locked hands across 4,152 miles to form a human chain across the country, bringing an outpouring of national attention and concern to the issue. In 1986 the comedians Robin Williams, Whoopi Goldberg, and Billy Crystal hosted the HBO comedy special Comic Relief to help raise money for the homeless. The show was a success and became an annual event. Magazines, art shows, books, and songs turned the nation's attention toward homelessness. Well-funded research studies came out by the dozens. The country was awash in statistical information regarding the homeless. All these activities pointed to the widely held belief that people became homeless because of circumstances outside their control.

TABLE 1.14
Population in emergency and transitional shelters by state, 1990 and 2000
Area19902000
NumberPercentNumberPercent
*Not applicable.
Source: Adapted from Annetta C. Smith and Denise I. Smith, "Table 1. Population in Emergency and Transitional Shelters for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: 1990 and 2000," in Emergency and Transitional Shelter Population: 2000, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR/01-2, U.S. Census Bureau, October 2001, http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/censr01-2.pdf (accessed January 2, 2007)
State/territory
Alabama1,530  0.91,177  0.7
Alaska447  0.3558  0.3
Arizona2,735  1.52,312  1.4
Arkansas489  0.3754  0.4
California30,806 17.227,701 16.2
Colorado2,554  1.42,281  1.3
Connecticut4,194  2.32,291  1.3
Delaware313  0.2847  0.5
District of Columbia4,682  2.61,762  1.0
Florida7,110  4.06,766  4.0
Georgia3,930  2.24,774  2.8
Hawaii854  0.5747  0.4
Idaho461  0.3703  0.4
Illinois7,481  4.26,378  3.7
Indiana2,251  1.32,384  1.4
Iowa989  0.61,013  0.6
Kansas940  0.5587  0.3
Kentucky1,284  0.71,626  1.0
Louisiana1,559  0.91,986  1.2
Maine419  0.2458  0.3
Maryland2,507  1.42,545  1.5
Massachusetts6,207  3.55,405  3.2
Michigan3,784  2.14,745  2.8
Minnesota2,253  1.32,738  1.6
Mississippi383  0.2572  0.3
Missouri2,276  1.32,164  1.3
Montana445  0.2477  0.3
Nebraska764  0.4913  0.5
Nevada1,013  0.61,553  0.9
New Hampshire377  0.2523  0.3
New Jersey7,470  4.25,500  3.2
New Mexico667  0.4934  0.5
New York32,472 18.231,856 18.7
North Carolina2,637  1.53,579  2.1
North Dakota279  0.2178  0.1
Ohio4,277  2.45,224  3.1
Oklahoma2,222  1.21,478  0.9
Oregon3,254  1.83,011  1.8
Pennsylvania8,237  4.65,463  3.2
Rhode Island469  0.3634  0.4
South Carolina973  0.51,528  0.9
South Dakota396  0.2414  0.2
Tennessee1,864  1.02,252  1.3
Texas7,816  4.47,608  4.5
Utah925  0.51,494  0.9
Vermont232  0.1239  0.1
Virginia2,657  1.52,692  1.6
Washington4,565  2.65,387  3.2
West Virginia451  0.3525  0.3
Wisconsin1,555  0.91,700  1.0
Wyoming183  0.1270  0.2
United States totals178,638100.00170,706100.00
Puerto Rico445  *586  *

By 2007, however, national concern about homelessness had faded. One could only see Comic Relief in reruns. The annual fund-raiser ran out of steamin 1996 except for a revival show two years later. After that, there was no resurgence of public interest in the homeless problem, even though the problem remained and the Conference of Mayors reported in 2006 that the demand for services continued to increase. In "The Real Face of Homelessness" (Time, January 13, 2003), Joel Stein explores a change in the national mood about homelessness. A campaign was launched in Philadelphia to discourage giving money to panhandlers. In San Francisco, Proposition N ("Care Not Cash") reduced county housing support payments from $395 to $59 a month. In Orlando, Florida, people could be jailed for sleeping on the sidewalk.

Treating the Homeless as Criminals

Orlando's jailing of people who sleep on the sidewalks is an example of what some call the criminalization of homelessness. Across the United States there have been efforts to force the homeless out by passing laws that make activities engaged in by homeless people, such as panhandling, illegal. This is because many consider the homeless to be a nuisance or an eyesore.

According to "Georgia County Outlaws Panhandling and 'Urban Camping'" (American City and County, November 22, 2006), Gwinnett County, Georgia, passed a law in November 2006 making panhandling and "urban camping" illegal. In "OK, Sister, Drop That Sandwich!" (Newsweek, November 6, 2006), Matthew Philips notes that in Orlando, Florida, city lawmakers have passed ordinances making it illegal to feed large groups of people in public parksmaking not only homelessness, but also helping the homeless, illegal.

There have been victories for those who oppose criminal penalties for homelessness. Betsy Streisand reports in "Homeless Sprawl" (U.S. News and World Report, December 10, 2006) that Los Angeles, the homeless capital of the nation, attempted to enforce a law that would prevent people from sleeping on the streets and sidewalks. The city was stopped when the American Civil Liberties Union sued. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that in a city without enough space in its homeless shelters for everyone, the law amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Forrest Norman, in "Proposed Ordinance Targeting Shantytown Pulled" (Miami Daily Business Review, January 9, 2007), discusses how an ordinance in Miami that would make it illegal for homeless people to sleep on vacant city-owned lots missed emergency passage in December 2006 by only one vote and was pulled from the agenda the following month because city commissioners "needed more time to consider the ordinance" because of community support of the targeted shantytown.

Addressing Homelessness Is a Low Priority

When asked, Americans in the twenty-first century stated that they continued to be troubled by the existence of homelessness. According to "Americans Say Homelessness in U.S. Is a Serious Problem" (February 26, 2005, http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2580), a survey of 1,001 adults by the Associated Press/Ipsos-Public Affairs, nine out of ten adults considered homelessness a serious or somewhat serious problem. However, only half of adults surveyed believed that chronic homelessness was caused by external circumstances (56%), and more than a third (38%) believed that homeless people were responsible for their homelessness. In a February 2007 Gallup Poll (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=1675 &pg=1), when asked about the most important problem facing the nation, just 3% of Americans stated that the combination of poverty, hunger, and homelessness was the most important problem facing the nation today.

Research studies, once so plentiful, were outdated by 2007, but some well-funded research centers and organizations continued to study the homeless population. Their studies are used throughout this book.

HOMELESS SERVICES

A substantial number of organizations provide services to homeless people across the country. Faith-based organizations have been providing assistance to the needy throughout history, including programs for the homeless. Many secular nonprofits (organizations with no religious affiliation) also provide such assistance. Since 1987, with the passage of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, federal funding targeted to help homeless people has been available. In August 2006 HUD announced in the Annual Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 2007 (http://www.hud.gov/offices/cfo/reports/pdfs/app2007.pdf) that President George W. Bush's proposed fiscal year 2007 budget contained a record level of funding for homeless programs, $1.54 billion, an increase of $209 million over 2006.

The most recent comprehensive study of assistance programs dates to 1996. In that year, according to the Urban Institute, about half of all assistance programs (19,388) were located in central cities, about one-fifth (7,694) in suburban fringe communities, and the rest in rural areas. (See Table 1.15.) All told, 39,664 programs operated nationwide, with the largest number in the South and Midwest and the lowest in the Northeast. (See Table 1.16.) Some of these programs were aimed directly at homeless people, such as homeless shelters. Others were programs open to a wider group of needy people but also intended to serve the homeless (for example, free health clinics for the poor).

Martha R. Burt et al. also study the utilization rates of homeless services. A section of their landmark study Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve, Findings of the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (December 1999, http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/homelessness.pdf) illustrates the scope of food programs: 26% of the surveyed providers expected between 101 and 299 requests daily, and 11% expected more than three hundred contacts per day. For walk-in services and health programs, about half this percentage expected the same volume of clients; 5% of walk-in programs and 4% of health programs expected more than three hundred people per day. Housing programs served the lowest number of people per day: On average only 2% of the programs expected three hundred contacts per day. Food, health, and walk-in services (such as job counseling) are geared toward multiple returns and have high traffic. By contrast, housing programs provide single-client service delivery over a longer period. Housing programs are also geared specifically toward helping the homeless, whereas many food, health, and walk-in programs are open to a wider group of people.

TABLE 1.15
Homeless assistance programs by sponsorship, type, and urban or rural status, 1996
Areas and program typesTotal number of programsPercentage by sponsor type
Faith-based non-profitSecular non-profitGovernmentFor-profit
NA=Not available.
Note: Rows may not add to 100 percent because programs that did not identify their source of sponsorship in the survey are not listed.
Source: Laudan Y. Aron and Patrick T. Sharkey, "Table 1a. NSHAPC Programs by Urban/Rural Status," in The 1996 National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients: A Comparison of Faith-Based and Secular Non-Profit Programs, The Urban Institute and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, March 2002, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/homelessness/NSHAPC02/report.htm (accessed January 2, 2007)
All program types39,66431.847.313.40.6
Central cities
All19,38836.845.99.90.7
Housing7,89428.753.89.60.8
Food6,01863.428.32.60.2
Health1,3797.556.829.10.7
Other4,09723.553.014.61.2
Suburbs
All7,69435.148.07.41.1
Housing3,23024.253.68.71.8
Food3,02053.040.02.60.4
Health2512.951.032.02.6
Other1,19226.252.911.00.4
Rural areas
All12,58321.948.922.60.2
Housing4,75415.556.618.6NA
Food3,96537.649.110.30.7
Health1,1101.811.168.4NA
Other2,75418.350.728.6NA

Secular nonprofit organizations provided nearly half (47.3%) of all homeless services in 1996. (See Figure 1.2.) Secular organizations also ran most of the housing programs (54.6%) and "other" services (52.2%), including outreach, drop-in centers, and financial/housing assistance. Faith-based organizations were most active in providing food services (53.1% of all such programs), including food pantries, soup kitchens, and mobile food distribution. Government agencies led in the provision of health services (45.3% of all such services).

TABLE 1.16
Homeless assistance programs by sponsorship, type, and region, 1996
Regions and program typesNumber of programsPercentage by sponsor type
Faith-based non-profitSecular non-profitGovernmentFor-profit
NA=Not available
Note: Rows may not add to 100 percent because programs that did not identify their source of sponsorship in the survey are not listed.
Source: Laudan Y. Aron and Patrick T. Sharkey, "Table 1b. NSHAPC Programs by Region of the Country," in The 1996 National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients: A Comparison of Faith-Based and Secular Non-Profit Programs, The Urban Institute and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, March 2002, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/homelessness/NSHAPC02/report.htm (accessed January 2, 2007)
All programs39,66431.847.313.40.6
Northeast
All programs7,09728.653.610.10.6
Housing2,87016.461.312.90.6
Food2,40153.137.23.60.5
Health3066.669.114.10.7
Other1,52117.462.114.50.7
South
All programs11,10139.040.713.60.5
Housing4,30930.050.310.31.1
Food4,11358.132.26.1NA
Health8634.726.957.00.1
Other1,81733.543.517.90.1
Midwest
All programs11,85331.643.716.20.5
Housing4,67824.547.616.90.4
Food3,94554.634.36.70.8
Health7362.839.735.5NA
Other2,49416.852.624.00.4
West
All programs9,33325.854.612.41.0
Housing3,89221.262.98.01.0
Food2,47842.451.01.70.2
Health8166.034.753.81.7
Other2,14722.351.317.21.6

Special Populations

Many homeless assistance programs are open to anyone who wants to use them, but other programs are designed to serve only specific groups of people. The population served may be defined in several different ways: for example, men by themselves, women by themselves, households with children, youth by themselves, battered women, or veterans. The Urban Institute reveals in The 1996 National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients: A Comparison of Faith-Based and Secular Non-Profit Programs (March 2002, http://aspe.hhs.gov/search/hsp/homelessness/NSHAPC02/report.htm) that 42.1% of all homeless service programs named a specific population group as a focus. After meeting the basic needs of food, shelter, and health care, these homeless programs provided for other special needs. When an emergency shelter had a specific focus, it was most likely to offer shelter to victims of domestic violence (30.3% of emergency shelters), followed by a focus on chemical dependency (8.6%), youth (8.3%), or families (5.6%). (See Table 1.17.) The transitional shelters that report specialized assistance programs divided their focus between domestic violence (14%) and chemical dependence (14.4%). Permanent housing programs that target specific population groups focused heavily on those in need of mental health services (15.7% of programs).

TABLE 1.17
Homeless assistance programs by type, sponsorship, and focus, 1996
Program type and focusPrograms by all sponsorsFaith-based non-profitSecular non-profitGovernment
NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent
NA=Not available
Source: Adapted from Laudan Y. Aron and Patrick T. Sharkey, "Table 6. What Special Focus Do NSHAPC Programs Have?" in The 1996 National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients: A Comparison of Faith-Based and Secular Non-Profit Programs, The Urban Institute and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, March 2002, http://aspe.hhs.gov/search/hsp/homelessness/NSHAPC02/report.htm (accessed January 2, 2007)
Emergency shelter with5,320 100%1,520 100%3,480 100%320 100%
No specialization40.663.230.444.6
Mental health (MH) focus 3.7 2.5 4.15.2
Chemical dependency (CD) focus 8.615.5 5.312.6
MH/CD focus 1.4 2.7 0.91.0
HIV/AIDS focus 1.4 1.8 1.30.3
Domestic violence focus30.3 5.242.120.1
Youth focus 8.3 1.711.36.8
Family focus 5.6 7.4 4.59.3
Transitional shelter with4,149 100%1,181 100%2,535 100%433 100%
No specialization43.454.835.657.6
Mental health focus 8.3 3.5 9.614.2
Chemical dependency focus14.416.615.24.2
MH/CD focus 5.2 2.9 6.35.2
HIV/AIDS focus 3.1 1.2 4.21.7
Domestic violence focus14.0 7.718.26.6
Youth focus 4.4 5.6 4.60.2
Family focus 7.1 7.6 6.310.2
Permanent housing with1,719 100%205 100%980 100%534 100%
No specialization63.661.652.884.2
Mental health focus15.7 8.822.16.6
Chemical dependency focus 5.211.0 5.22.9
MH/CD focus 5.8 5.6 7.82.2
HIV/AIDS focus 9.813.012.14.2
Soup kitchen with3,284 100%2,131 100%1,057 100%NA
No specialization83.284.979.4NA
Mental health focus 6.1 4.4 9.8NA
Chemical dependency focus 6.7 7.6 5.2NA
Family focus 2.4 2.9 1.6NA
HIV/AIDS focus 1.5 0.2 4.0NA

More From encyclopedia.com