Census a poor way to measure poverty

OPINION:

Poverty is down, the latest Census Bureau report shows. Good news, to be sure, but some context is needed. A closer look at the data reveals that things aren’t necessarily the way they appear.

The poverty rate of families with children in 2015 was 16.3 percent. That’s down from the figure for 2014, but it’s still higher than it was before the last recession. More importantly, it’s almost 50 percent higher than the rate in the late 1960s.

Why measure from that time period? Because that’s when the War on Poverty was launched. The government has spent more than $25 trillion (yes, trillion — 12 zeroes) over the last five decades to combat poverty. Yet the rate today is significantly higher today.

A huge part of the reason for that — the extraordinary rise in single-parent families — is rarely reported. In 1960, only one in 10 families with children was headed by a single parent. Today that figure is closer to one in three.

That’s a real sea change, one that’s hardly ever talked about. But it makes a real difference. “Since two parents with two incomes will generally have a higher combined income than one parent alone,” writes welfare expert Robert Rector, “the absence of the second parent triples the odds of child poverty.”

Does this mean that there has been a decrease in material living conditions since the 1960s? No. The official poverty numbers must be taken with a grain of salt. This is because the Census Bureau actually omits a large portion of income when it compiles its figures — namely, means-tested welfare benefits.

Last year, government spent $221 billion on cash, food and housing benefits for low-income families with children. But when measuring poverty, Census ignored more than 90 percent of these benefits. Adding in these benefits cuts the poverty rate for children by half or more.

No wonder poor families routinely report spending $2.20 for every $1 of income that Census claims they have. Government surveys show that most of those counted as “poor” by the government don’t experience hunger or food shortages, they live in a house or apartment in good repair (with more space than many in Europe who aren’t considered poor), and enjoy a wide range of modern conveniences.

So if poverty isn’t as widespread as we think it is, does that mean the welfare state is a success? Hardly. As Mr. Rector points out in a recent piece with Rachel Sheffield: “The real aim of welfare should be to make families self-sufficient: capable of supporting themselves above the poverty income threshold without reliance on government welfare aid.”

The best ways to encourage self-sufficiency is through work and marriage, not ever-rising levels of government benefits. That’s why welfare reform is so essential. We need to build on the 1996 reform and require all able-bodied adults to work or prepare for work as a condition for receiving aid.

We did that in ’96 for one of the dozens of welfare programs that the government operates, and the results were very impressive. Expanding the principles of the ’96 reform to other welfare programs would drive poverty down even more.

We also should remove penalties against marriage in our welfare programs. It’s not simply a matter of adding a second income: According to research by economist Raj Chetty, the presence of marriage the “single strongest correlate of upward income mobility” among children.

Furthermore, as the number of broken families rise, so do social problems such as crime, school failure and drug abuse. Simply put, being in a household with two married parents is the best way to ensure that a child doesn’t experience poverty.

So if we think the recent dip in poverty is worth toasting, we can do even better. Let’s count poverty accurately — and encourage work and marriage. Then we’ll really have something to celebrate.

• Ed Feulner is founder of The Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org).