Experimental Poverty Measures: Summary of a Workshop (2005)
Chapter: Appendix A Workshop Agenda
APPENDIX A
Workshop Agenda
Workshop on Experimental Poverty Measures
The Melrose Hotel
2430 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC
June 15-16, 2004
Day 1
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
|
8:30 am |
Continental Breakfast |
|
9:00 |
Welcome and Opening Remarks Timothy Smeeding, Syracuse University Katherine Wallman, Office of Management and Budget |
|
9:10 |
Session 1: Overview of What Has Happened Since the 1995 NRC Study Chair: Timothy Smeeding, Syracuse University Nancy Gordon, U.S. Census Bureau Katherine Wallman, Office of Management and Budget |
|
9:30 |
Session 2: Work-Related and Child Care Expenses The Census Bureau has explored the use of multiple methods to account for work-related and child care expenses. Is there one approach that should be carried forward? Discussion of alternatives and future research priorities may prove helpful. |
|
|
Chair: |
Rebecca Blank, University of Michigan |
|
|
Presenter: |
Kathleen Short, U.S. Census Bureau |
|
|
Discussants: |
Sandra Danziger, University of Michigan Douglas Besharov, American Enterprise Institute and University of Maryland |
|
10:30 |
Break |
|
|
10:45 |
Session 3: Incorporating Medical Out-of-Pocket Expenses (MOOP) |
|
|
|
Recent reports that have published experimental poverty measures, P60-219 and P60-222, have used three approaches to incorporating MOOP. The first subtracts MOOP from income, the second incorporates MOOP into the thresholds, and the third combines the first two, adjusting both income and the threshold. |
|
|
|
Chair: |
Barbara Wolfe, University of Wisconsin-Madison |
|
|
Presenter: |
Jessica Banthin, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, DHHS |
|
|
Discussants: |
Richard Bavier, Office of Management and Budget David Betson, Notre Dame University Gary Burtless, The Brookings Institution |
|
12:45 |
Lunch |
|
|
2:00 |
Session 4: Equivalence Scales |
|
|
|
The Census Bureau appears to have adopted a three-parameter equivalence scale to adjust thresholds for differences in family size. A quick overview of why the three-parameter scale was chosen and a discussion of related research priorities for the future may be helpful. Units of analysis for the measure will be discussed in this session, including the question of how to treat cohabitators, foster children, and roomers and boarders. |
|
|
|
Chair: |
Timothy Smeeding, Syracuse University |
|
|
Presenters: |
David Betson, Notre Dame University |
|
|
Discussants: |
David Johnson, Bureau of Labor Statistics |
|
3:00 |
Break |
|
|
3:15 |
Session 5: Geographic Adjustments |
|
|
|
The Census Bureau has been producing estimates that are adjusted for geographic differences based on differential housing costs and that are not adjusted for geographic differences. Is the Fair Market Rents method the most appropriate? Are there viable alternatives to Fair Market Rents as a basis for the adjustment? Are the methods used to adjust for geographic differences technically sound? |
|
|
|
Chair: |
Graham Kalton, Westat |
|
|
Presenter: |
Charles Nelson, U.S. Census Bureau |
|
|
Discussants: |
John Ruser, Bureau of Economic Analysis Mark Shroder, Department of Housing and Urban Development |
|
4:15 |
Session 6: Incorporating the Value of Housing |
|
|
|
(a) Imputing Rent for Owner-Occupied Housing (b) Valuing Housing Subsidies |
|
|
|
The NAS report stressed the importance of accounting for the flow of services homeowners obtain from their home in counting resources, but noted limitations in data and measurement that made this impractical for poverty measurement. What new data and methods are available to impute rent or otherwise account for home ownership? |
|
|
|
The second experimental poverty measure report, P60-216, includes measures using two alternative approaches to valuing housing subsidies, one based on Fair Market Rents and the |
|
|
|
other based on the 1999 American Housing Survey. What are the strengths and limitations of these approaches? |
|
|
|
Chair: |
Barbara Wolfe, University of Wisconsin-Madison |
|
|
Presenters: |
Thesia Garner, Bureau of Labor Statistics (imputing rent) Sharon Stern, U.S. Census Bureau (valuing housing subsidies) |
|
|
Discussants: |
Stephen Malpezzi, University of Wisconsin-Madison (on imputing rent) Ronald Sepanik, Department of Housing and Urban Development (on valuing housing subsidies) |
|
5:15 |
Open discussion |
|
|
5:30 |
Adjourn |
|
Day 2
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
|
8:30 am |
Continental Breakfast |
|
|
9:00 |
Session 7: Issues for the Poverty Thresholds |
|
|
|
What are the different methodological options for setting the thresholds? What are the technical implications for each option? How do alternative methods to account for other components of the poverty measure interact with these options for setting the threshold? What are the implications of these options for the different uses of poverty measures (e.g., for administrative and policy purposes or for statistical purposes)? |
|
|
|
Given these different options, how can the thresholds be updated? Should CPI or CE or other surveys be used for updating the poverty thresholds? How often should the thresholds be updated? |
|
|
|
Chair: |
David Betson, University of Notre Dame |
|
|
Presenter: |
Constance Citro, Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council |
|
|
Discussants: |
June O’Neill, Baruch College Nancy Folbre, University of Massachusetts |
|
10:15 |
Break |
|
|
10:30 |
Session 8: Data Issues |
|
|
|
(a) What adjustments ought to be considered for SIPP, if we were to consider moving away from CPS as the source of official poverty statistics in the future? (b) What are the strengths and weaknesses of applying CE data to poverty measurement? (c) How often do other data sources used in alternative poverty measures (the CE and the MEPS) need to be updated? (d) What are the data needs for non-income surveys that also collect data relevant for poverty measurement research? (e) How can the American Community Survey be used to estimate poverty at the state and local levels and what are the complications involved with using the ACS? (f) What are the issues raised by the need for state-level estimates? (g) How does the problem of underreporting of income interplay with alternative methods? |
|
|
|
Chair: |
Graham Kalton, Westat |
|
|
Presenter: |
Daniel Weinberg, U.S. Census Bureau |
|
|
Discussant: |
John Czajka, Mathematica Policy Research |
|
11:30 |
Session 9: Leftover topics |
|
|
|
Chair: |
Rebecca Blank, University of Michigan |
|
|
This session will be devoted to the discussion of topics that have arisen during the workshop and that are important overall, but were not precisely relevant to the sessions in which they arose. |
|
