The California Poverty Measure
Poverty and Deep Poverty in California
Christopher Wimer,
M a ry b e t h M at t i n g ly, S a r a K i m b e r l i n ,
Caroline Danielson, and Sarah Bohn
Key findings
• In 2012, 21.8 percent of Californians were poor
according to the California Poverty Measure
(CPM), a rate that is statistically indistinguishable from the 2011 rate. The CPM rate for children is 24.9 percent.
• The CPM rates are especially high for those
without a high school degree (53.2%), those
with just a high school degree (33.7%), the unemployed (36.7%), Hispanics (31.7%), and immigrants (29.1%).
• The CPM deep poverty rate, which refers to families with income below half the poverty threshold, is 5.9 percent. The highest rates of CPM
deep poverty are for the unemployed (13.8%)
and those without a high school degree (13.5%).
• The poverty rate based on the Official Poverty
Measure (OPM), 16.5 percent, is much lower
than the CPM rate mainly because it fails to take
California’s high cost of living into account. The
OPM deep poverty rate, 7.1 percent, is higher
than the CPM rate mainly because it fails to take
into account poverty-reducing programs that are
available at the bottom of the income distribution.
• The poverty-reducing effects of government policies and programs are especially important for
vulnerable subgroups. If key safety net programs
were eliminated, CPM poverty rates would have
been at least 20 percentage points higher, all
else equal, for blacks, those with a high school
education or less, and adults aged 65 and older.
• The most important poverty-reducing policy for
the elderly is Social Security, whereas the most
important poverty-reducing policies for children
are refundable tax credits, CalWORKs, and CalFresh.
• The poverty rate for Los Angeles County, 26.1
percent, is the highest across nine broad regions
in California. The deep poverty rate for Los Angeles County, 6.7 percent, is the second highest
in the state.
T
he California Poverty Measure (CPM) is released annually to document the overall poverty rate, demographic
differences in poverty, county and regional differences
in poverty, and the effects of government policies and programs on poverty. The CPM was first released with 2011 data
by a team of researchers from the Public Policy Institute of California and the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality.1 It will
continue to be released annually and with a reduced time lag as
the CPM protocol comes to be regularized.
The CPM, which is closely modeled on the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), addresses the many weaknesses of the
Official Poverty Measure (OPM). The OPM uses an outdated
food-based formula for poverty thresholds, does not adjust for
geographic differences in the cost of living, and considers only
pre-tax cash income in its measure of family resources.2 The
CPM, by contrast, sets poverty thresholds based on contemporary spending patterns on a core basket of necessities and
adjusts those thresholds for geographic differences in the cost
of housing. It also includes an expanded definition of family
resources that includes post-tax income and in-kind benefits,
and excludes necessary expenditures such as medical costs
and work and child care expenses. The CPM additionally takes
into account major changes in family structure (e.g., the rise in
cohabitation) that affect who should be included in resourcesharing units for the purpose of measuring poverty.
Although the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics
release a state SPM for California, it is based on three years
of pooled data (given sample size constraints in the Current
Population Survey), thus precluding annual sub-state esti-
1
Poverty and Deep Poverty in California
mates. By contrast, the CPM is based on the American
Community Survey, which is large enough to measure
poverty annually and to do so at the sub-state level.
The CPM also builds upon the SPM by taking into
account (a) variation in housing costs across counties
and by tenure (renter, owner with a mortgage, owner
without a mortgage), (b) the large unauthorized immigrant population, and (c) California-specific safety net
policies. Unlike the SPM, the CPM further adjusts for
survey underreporting of key safety net programs, like
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (known
as CalFresh in California) and Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (known as CalWORKs in California).
For full details on CPM construction, please refer to the
technical appendices.3
How Much Poverty Is There?
It might be thought that California, sometimes characterized as the “land of plenty,” would have a low poverty
rate. Indeed, given that the median household income in
California is 15 percent higher than the national median,
one might reasonably suppose that Californians are
relatively protected from poverty.4
As shown in Figure 1, the CPM indicates otherwise.
Figure 1. Poverty and Deep Poverty in California Under
the Official Poverty Measure (Opm) and the California
Poverty Measure (Cpm): 2012
Deep Poverty
The CPM poverty rate for 2012, 21.8 percent, means
that 8.1 million Californians were in poverty. This figure
implies that the official measure, which stands at 16.5
percent for California in 2012, substantially underestimates the number of Californians who do not have the
resources to meet their basic needs.
The CPM also shows that official statistics are misleading with respect to deep poverty. Under the CPM,
5.9 percent of Californians are in deep poverty, where
this refers to families with incomes that are less than
half of the poverty threshold. As Figure 1 indicates, a
somewhat smaller proportion of Californians are in
deep poverty under the CPM (5.9 percent) than under
the OPM (7.1 percent).5 The OPM is misleadingly high
in this case because it does not count the noncash
resources from many safety net programs that serve to
lift Californians out of deep poverty.
Sources of Poverty in California
The overall poverty rate is higher under the CPM than
the OPM. Why is this? The main reason is that, unlike
the OPM, the CPM takes into account California’s high
cost of housing. As Figure 2 shows, approximately 70
percent of Californians live in “high-cost” counties,
Figure 2. Proportion of Californians Living in Low-Cost,
Mid-Cost, and High-Cost Counties: 2012
Overall Poverty
25
21.8%
9.8%
20
percent
16.5%
20.7%
15
69.5%
10
5
0
7.1%
5.9%
OPM
CPM
Note: Both OPM and CPM poverty are calculated using the California sample of
the 2012 ACS, excluding those in group quarters and certain college students
(see technical appendices at www.inequality.com/cpm for details).
2 california povert y measure
Low-cost county (avg.
CPM threshold $23,891)
Mid-cost county (avg.
CPM threshold $26,091)
High-cost county (avg.
CPM threshold $30,862)
Note: Counties are partitioned into three groups based on the average CPM threshold
for a two-adult, two-child household (weighted by the proportions of renters, mortgage
holders, and owners without a mortgage). The official poverty threshold for a two-adult,
two-child household is $23,283.
Poverty and Deep Poverty in California
which are defined here as counties for which the average CPM poverty threshold for a four-person family (i.e.,
two adults and two children) is within the top third statewide, that is, $30,862 or more in 2012. This is a very
high poverty threshold: It is $7,579 more than the OPM
threshold for this same family type. And yet seven of
ten Californians live in counties in which the threshold
is at this level. Moreover, in some of California’s most
populous counties, housing costs drive the CPM poverty threshold still higher. In San Francisco, for example,
the threshold for a family of four is more than $35,000
for renters and mortgage holders.
How Does Poverty Vary by Demographic
Characteristics?
The overall CPM rate is very high, but of course some
demographic groups face yet higher risks of poverty.
We show CPM rates by gender, race and ethnicity,
immigration status, and age in Figure 3, and by education, employment, and family structure in Figure 4.
The most striking result of Figure 3 is that nearly a third
of Hispanics (31.7%) are in poverty. The poverty rate for
blacks (20.8%) is much lower; indeed, it’s only barely
higher than the rate for Asians (18.4%). The rate for
Figure 3.
Hispanics is especially high for many reasons, but it is
especially important that (a) many Hispanics are immigrants and (b) immigrants have a much higher risk of
poverty than non-immigrants (see Figure 3).
The most striking result of Figure 4 is the sharp education gradient in poverty. The rate for high school
dropouts, 53.2 percent, is nearly six times higher than
the rate for college graduates, 9.3 percent. The key role
of employment is also clear: Of those working full-time
and year-round, only 9.0 percent are in poverty, a rate
that’s approximately one-fourth that of the unemployed
(36.7%). High poverty rates are also found among single
parents, unmarried families with children, and unmarried people with no children.
How Do Government Safety Net Programs Affect
Poverty?
The main advantage of using the CPM, as compared
with the OPM, is that it incorporates the poverty-reducing effects of all government programs, even those
based on noncash transfers. This makes it possible to
use the CPM to assess which government programs
are doing the most poverty-reducing work.
CPM Poverty Rates by Gender, Race-Ethnicity, Immigration Status, and Age: 2012
Deep Poverty
Overall Poverty
55
percent
45
35
25
31.7%
21.8%
22.4%
24.9%
21.1%
20.8%
18.4%
18.1%
18.9%
5.2%
20.9% 19.7%
13.7%
15
5
29.1%
5.9%
6.0%
5.7%
4.9%
4.6%
7.0%
5.9%
5.8%
Overall
Female
Male
White
Black Hispanic Asian
Other
7.6%
Non- Immigrant
Immigrant
5.1%
6.3%
5.2%
Children Working- Elderly
Aged
the stanford center on povert y and inequalit y
3
Poverty and Deep Poverty in California
would increase from 21.8 percent to 26.9 percent if
Social Security payments were not counted and all
else remained the same. The second largest increase
in poverty would come from excluding tax credits (e.g.,
the Earned Income Tax Credit), and the third largest
We do just this in Figure 5. It shows the extent to which
CPM poverty increases when the benefits provided
by each of the major government safety net programs
are excluded from family resources. The biggest effect
is, not surprisingly, that of Social Security: The CPM
CPM Poverty Rates by Education, Employment, and Family Structure: 2012
Figure 4.
Deep Poverty
Overall Poverty
60
53.2%
50
percent
40
36.7%
33.7%
30
37.1%
33.7%
33.0%
29.4%
28.0%
21.8%
24.1%
22.2%
18.8%
20
9.3%
10
0
5.9%
13.5%
Overall
Less
than
High
School
8.3%
5.9%
3.1%
14.0%
13.9%
4.2%
4.5%
9.0%
13.8%
8.8%
High
Some College UnemSchool College or More ployed
Grad
PartTime
7.1%
1.0%
12.5%
3.3%
5.7%
9.4%
12.4%
Full-time Full-time Not in Married, Cohab., Single, Married, Cohab., Single,
No
No
No
Part Year Full Year Labor Children Children Children
Force Present Present Present Children Children Children
Present Present Present
Notes: Educational attainment represents the highest education attained by any individual in the poverty unit. Labor force participation is calculated at the individual level only for the
working-age population (ages 18–64).
Figure 5.
CPM Poverty Rates without the Safety Net: 2012
Deep Poverty
Overall Poverty
40
34.4%
35
29.8%
percent
30
25
24.2%
25.0%
26.9%
23.0%
23.1%
5.9%
6.4%
7.1%
7.1%
6.2%
7.2%
6.9%
10.4%
CPM
CalWorks
(TANF) + GA
SSI
CalFresh
(SNAP)
School
Meals
EITC +
Refundable
CTC
Housing
Subsidies
Social
Security
21.8%
22.4%
23.0%
20
15
10
5
0
13.7%
18.5%
All govt. All govt. prog.
prog. except including
SS
SS
Note: Government programs include CalWORKs and General Assistance, SSI, CalFresh, school breakfast and lunch, EITC and CTC (refundable portions), housing subsidies, and
Social Security. We do not consider LIHEAP or WIC, but these have only a very modest poverty-reducing effect in the SPM (see Short 2014). Because CPM rates are adjusted for
underreporting of SNAP (CalFresh) and TANF (CalWORKs), they register a larger poverty-reducing effect than does the SPM, which does not adjust for underreporting.
4 california povert y measure
Poverty and Deep Poverty in California
increase would come from excluding CalFresh. The
effect of excluding all programs is even more dramatic:
The CPM would increase to 29.8 percent if all programs
except Social Security were not counted, and it would
soar to 34.4 percent if all programs, including Social
Security, were not counted.
The impact of safety net programs on deep poverty
rates is equally noteworthy. If all safety net programs
were not counted, more than half of the poor would be
in deep poverty (whereas, by contrast, less than a third
of the poor population is in deep poverty with safety net
resources included).
The foregoing results, as important as they are, only
speak to the mechanical effects of safety net resources
on family budgets. We have made no attempt here
to model how families might change their behavior in
response to changes in the availability of safety net programs. For example, some changes in the safety net
(e.g., eliminating Social Security) might induce families to seek employment or increase work hours, while
others (e.g., eliminating EITC) might conversely induce
them to reduce their labor supply.
Figure 6.
0
Which Groups Benefit Most from the Safety Net?
We next examine how the aggregate impact of government programs differs by demographic and employment
characteristics. The first two figures for this section
(Figures 6 and 7) pertain to the reduction in overall and
deep poverty for key demographic categories, and
the second two figures (Figures 8 and 9) pertain to the
reduction in overall and deep poverty for key labor market and family structure categories.
The poverty-reducing effects of government programs
are especially prominent for more disadvantaged groups
that are thus more likely to be eligible for government
programs. As shown in Figures 6 and 8, the largest
reductions in overall poverty occur among the elderly,
blacks, those with a high school education or less, and
those who are not working (either unemployed or not
in the labor force). These poverty-reducing effects are
sometimes very substantial: For example, the poverty
rate for blacks is trimmed by more than half (a 52.1%
reduction), as is the poverty rate for the elderly (a 58.3%
reduction).
The effects of the safety net on deep poverty are even
The Effect of the Safety Net on Overall Poverty by Gender, Age, Race-Ethnicity, and Immigration Status: 2012
Overall
Female
Male
White
Black Hispanic Asian
Other
NonImmigrant Immigrant
Children
Workingage
Elderly
-10
-20
percent
-30
-40
-50
-36.6%
-28.8%
-32.1% -32.2%
-37.4% -35.8%
-37.9%
-43.2%
-40.7%
-29.8%
-37.3%
-52.1%
-60
-58.3%
-70
-80
-90
Relative Reduction in Overall Poverty
Note: Government programs include CalWORKs and General Assistance, SSI, CalFresh, school breakfast and lunch, EITC and CTC (refundable portions), housing subsidies, and
Social Security.
the stanford center on povert y and inequalit y
5
Poverty and Deep Poverty in California
more prominent for these groups. The deep poverty rate
for blacks and the elderly is reduced by over 80 percent,
and it is reduced substantially for many other groups as
well. These results reveal that the safety net is very successful in reducing—albeit not eliminating—the most
extreme forms of poverty. Although California has a very
high poverty rate even after the safety net does its work,
the results in Figures 6–9 imply that, for many groups,
the rate would be catastrophically high in the absence
of the safety net.
It is nonetheless important to remember that not all
groups benefit in the same ways from government programs. For example, the elderly are assisted mainly
by Social Security, while children benefit mainly from
other programs, especially refundable tax credits, CalWORKs, and CalFresh.
How Do Poverty Rates Vary Across California?
We next ask whether there is substantial variability in
CPM poverty rates across the state. This variability may
Figure 7.
0
be driven by county-level differences in demographics,
earnings, receipt of government benefits, and housing
costs.
We proceed by examining CPM poverty rates within
nine broad regions of the state. As shown in Figure 10,
Los Angeles County has the highest poverty rate, with
more than one in four residents living below the CPM
threshold. Because Los Angeles County has a large
population, and because its underlying poverty rate is
so high, it has more of California’s poor (over 650,000)
than any other region in California.
The deep poverty rate for Los Angeles is also very high
(6.7%). There is, however, much less variability in deep
poverty than in overall poverty. Although the highest
rates of deep poverty are in Los Angeles County, San
Diego County, Orange County, and the northernmost
counties of the state, the rates for these regions are at
most 1.7 percentage points higher than the rate for the
lowest region.
The Effect of the Safety Net on Deep Poverty by Gender, Age, Race-Ethnicity, and Immigration Status: 2012
Overall
Female
Male
White
Black Hispanic Asian
Other
NonImmigrant Immigrant
Children
Workingage
Elderly
-10
-20
percent
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-57.5%
-60.2%
-68.2%
-69.6%
-66.7%
-67.7%
-67.6%
-62.3%
-67.6%
-70.9%
-80
-90
-74.3%
-84.0%
Relative Reduction in Deep Poverty
Note: Government programs include CalWORKs and General Assistance, SSI, CalFresh, school breakfast and lunch, EITC and CTC (refundable portions), housing
subsidies, and Social Security.
6 california povert y measure
-85.2%
Poverty and Deep Poverty in California
Figure 8.
0
The Effect of the Safety Net on Overall Poverty by Education, Employment, and Family Structure: 2012
Overall
Less
than
High
School
High
School
Grad
Some College or
College
More
Unemployed
PartTime
Full-time, Full-time,
Part Year Full Year
Not in
Labor
Force
Married,
Children
Present
Cohab.,
Children
Present
Cohab.,
No
Single, Married,
Single, No
Children No Children Children Children
Present Present Present Present
-10
-20
percent
-30
-26.0% -25.4% -25.5%
-29.8%
-40 -36.6%
-38.0% -39.5%
-36.5%
-30.7%
-35.9%
-37.6%
-35.0%
-31.3% -30.5%
-38.4%
-42.6%
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
Relative Reduction in Overall Poverty
Notes: Government programs include CalWORKs and General Assistance, SSI, CalFresh, school breakfast and lunch, EITC and CTC (refundable portions), housing subsidies, and
Social Security. Educational attainment reflects the highest education attained by any individual in the poverty unit. Labor force participation is calculated at the individual level only
for the working-age population (aged 18–64).
Figure 9.
0
The Effect of the Safety Net on Deep Poverty by Education, Employment, and Family Structure: 2012
Overall
Less
than
High
School
High
School
Grad
Some College or
College
More
Unemployed
PartTime
Full-time, Full-time,
Part Year Full Year
Not in
Labor
Force
Married,
Married, Cohab., Single,
No
Children Children Children Children
Present Present Present Present
Cohab.,
No
Single, No
Children Children
Present Present
-10
-20
percent
-30
-40
-50
-53.0% -51.1%
-60
-70 -68.4%
-48.3%
-59.0%
-70.3% -71.6%
-68.8%
-56.5% -57.6%
-60.0%
-69.3%
-80
-72.0%
-76.6% -74.9%
-70.8%
-90
Relative Reduction in Deep Poverty
Notes: Government programs include CalWORKs and General Assistance, SSI, CalFresh, school breakfast and lunch, EITC and CTC (refundable portions), housing subsidies, and
Social Security. Educational attainment reflects the highest education attained by any individual in the poverty unit. Labor force participation is calculated at the individual level only for
the working-age population (aged 18–64).
the stanford center on povert y and inequalit y
7
Poverty and Deep Poverty in California
We conclude this report by examining regional differences in the poverty-reducing effects of the safety net
(see Figures 11 and 12). The most dramatic reductions
in both overall and deep poverty are in the northern
region, the Central Valley and Sierra region, the Sacramento area, and the Inland Empire. By contrast,
residents of Los Angeles County do not benefit as much,
which explains in part why poverty rates are so high in
Los Angeles County. The reductions are also relatively
small in the Bay Area, Orange County, and San Diego
County, some of the most prosperous and highest-cost
areas of the state. The reductions are likely smaller
here because, within more prosperous regions, those in
CPM poverty may have somewhat higher incomes that
may more often make them ineligible for safety net benefits. The higher cost of living in these areas may also
make it more difficult for safety net benefits to lift family
resources above the poverty threshold.
Figure 10.
Discussion
The CPM is the best available measure of whether California’s families can meet their basic needs. It improves
upon the OPM because it incorporates noncash benefits and adjusts for differences in the cost of living. And it
builds upon the SPM by better representing California’s
large unauthorized immigrant population, incorporating
adjustments and corrections for underreporting of key
safety net benefits, and accounting for some Californiaspecific policies that affect housing costs and safety net
benefit levels.
The results reported here reveal that the 2012 poverty
rate remains very high and is in fact statistically indistinguishable from the 2011 rate. The OPM rate is much
lower than the CPM rate mainly because it fails to take
California’s high cost of living into account.
CPM Poverty Rates by Region: 2012
Deep Poverty
Northern Region
6.6%
Sacramento Area
5.1%
Bay Area
5.2%
Central Valley and Sierra
5.3%
Central Coast Region
5.8%
Inland Empire
5.2%
Los Angeles County
6.7%
Overall Poverty
18.9%
18.3%
18.9%
20.5%
22.4%
20.4%
26.1%
Orange County
6.5%
San Diego County
6.8%
21.7%
State Overall
5.9%
21.8%
0
22.5%
5
10
15
20
25
30
percent
Note: Northern Region = Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Nevada, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity Counties
Sacramento Region = El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba Counties
Bay Area = Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma Counties
Central Valley and Sierra Region = Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare, Tuolumne Counties
Central Coast Region = Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura Counties
Inland Empire = Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino Counties
California’s three largest counties—Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego—shown separately
8 california povert y measure
Poverty and Deep Poverty in California
Figure 11.
The Effect of the Safety Net on Overall Poverty by Region: 2012
Relative Reduction in Overall Poverty
-48.7%
Northern Region
-43.9%
Sacramento Area
-30.7%
Bay Area
-49.4%
Central Valley and Sierra
-34.8%
Central Coast Region
-42.5%
Inland Empire
-32.8%
Los Angeles County
-27.0%
Orange County
-30.9%
San Diego County
State Overall
-36.6%
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
percent
Figure 12.
The Effect of the Safety Net on Deep Poverty by Region: 2012
Relative Reduction in Deep Poverty
-72.2%
Northern Region
Sacramento Area
-72.5%
Bay Area
-64.6%
Central Valley and Sierra
-77.3%
Central Coast Region
-65.2%
Inland Empire
-72.3%
Los Angeles County
-67.8%
-58.1%
Orange County
-57.8%
San Diego County
State Overall
-68.2%
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
percent
the stanford center on povert y and inequalit y
9
Poverty and Deep Poverty in California
The CPM rate is especially high for those without a high
school degree (53.2%), those with just a high school
degree (33.7%), the unemployed (36.7%), Hispanics
(31.7%), and immigrants (29.1%). It is also especially
high in Los Angeles County (26.1%).
We have further reported that, as high as the 2012
CPM is, it would be far higher if safety net benefits
were not counted. Without counting such benefits, the
CPM would increase from 21.8 percent to 34.4 percent,
implying that these benefits play an important role in
protecting many Californians.
The potential of the CPM as a tool for research and
policy analysis has not been fully realized. It could be
used, for example, to analyze not just the effects of current government programs on poverty rates but also the
effects of potential future changes to these programs.
These analyses could be used to sort out which policies
would best assist low-income families and individu-
als, how their impact would differ across demographic
groups, and which regions of California would be most
affected. ■
Sarah Bohn is a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). Caroline Danielson is a senior
fellow at the PPIC. Sara Kimberlin is a postdoctoral
scholar at the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality
(CPI). Marybeth Mattingly is a research consultant at the
CPI and Director of Research on Vulnerable Families at
the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of
New Hampshire. Christopher Wimer is a research consultant at the CPI and a research scientist at Columbia
University. The authors are grateful to Veronica RossCuevas, Shannon McConville, and Monica Bandy for
research assistance and to the California Department of
Social Services for assistance with analyses of CalFresh
and CalWORKs administrative records.
Endnotes
1. Bohn, Sarah, Danielson, Caroline, Levin,
Matt, Mattingly, Marybeth, & Wimer, Christopher (2013). The California Poverty Measure: A New Look at the Social Safety Net.
Public Policy Institute of California. Wimer,
Christopher, Mattingly, Marybeth, Levin,
Matt, Danielson, Caroline, & Bohn, Sarah
(2013). The California Poverty Measure: A
Portrait of Poverty within California Counties and Demographic Groups. Stanford
Center on Poverty and Inequality.
2. See Short, Kathleen (2014). The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2013. Current
Population Reports, P60–251, U.S. Census
Bureau.
3. See www.inequality.com/cpm.
4. When averaged from 2009 to 2013,
median household income in California is
$61,094, compared with $53,046 for the
United States as a whole. See http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html.
10 california povert y measure
5. All data presented derive from the authors’ calculations using California ACS
data for 2012, downloaded from the IPUMS
website. Ruggles, Steven, Alexander, J.
Trent, Genadek, Katie, Goeken, Ronald,
Schroeder, Matthew B., & Sobek, Matthew
(2010). Integrated Public Use Microdata
Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable
database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Imputations were derived from
various data sources, including the Current
Population Survey, as described in the
technical appendices (see www.inequality.
com/cpm). All OPM estimates are based on
our analyses of ACS data downloaded from
IPUMS using the same poverty universe as
the CPM, which takes into account major
changes in family structure (e.g., the rise
in cohabitation) that affect who should be
included in resource-sharing units for the
purpose of measuring poverty. The resulting universe differs somewhat from the
OPM universe in Census Bureau official
poverty figures.
The Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality
The Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality (CPI) monitors
and publicizes trends in poverty and inequality, publishes the
country’s leading magazine on poverty and inequality, supports
research on the causes of poverty and inequality, and examines
the effects of public policy on poverty and inequality.
The CPI is a program of the Institute for Research in the
Social Sciences (IRiSS) and is partly supported by Grant
Number AE00101 from the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation (and awarded by the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration). Additional funding
for this research was generously provided by The Elfenworks
Foundation to the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality
and by The Walter S. Johnson Foundation to the Public Policy
Institute of California. The contents of this report are solely
the responsibility of the authors and do not represent those
of the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, the Public
Policy Institute of California, the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, the Elfenworks Foundation, or the Walter S.
Johnson Foundation.
Center on Poverty and Inequality
Stanford University
Building 370, 450 Serra Mall
Stanford, CA 94305
650.724.6912
[email protected]
the stanford center on povert y and inequalit y
11