Different cities approach the problem of urban poverty in different ways. And within these cities some plans come from the political authorities and others from the people, each with different focuses and different effects... What happens, however, when one considers the national outlook? Is urban poverty a domestic issue of top priority? Are there anti-poverty plans that treat the problem as a national one?

Here again we find a bifurcation of approach. On the federal level recent efforts to address poverty have focused on measurement devices. According to a recent report on MSNBC.com the Census Bureau is considering a new formula by which to calculate poverty. The new formula, devised by the National Academy of Sciences, takes into account variables that the old Census formula does not (e.g., expenses like clothing, housing, and medical costs; differences in the cost of housing per state and region; and additional non-cash income like food stamps, public housing, and free school lunches). Using data for 2008, then, the Census Bureau revised their poverty projections; while the old formula concluded that 40 million Americans lived at or beneath the poverty line, the revised number was 47 million.

Whether the new formula is a shoe-in to replace the old is an open debate. Proponents believe that the revised formula will produce more accurate calculations of American poverty and thus help lawmakers better allocate funds for the needy. Critics claim that the new formula has not gone far enough. Some assert that if health care benefits, which mostly benefit the poor and elderly, are accounted for then more people would be above the poverty line. The only ostensible consensus seems to be that the old formula inadequately measured poverty in America and needs to be revised.

I'm split on the new formula myself. On the one hand I believe that the first step to solving a problem is to understand it. In this sense the revised formula is an important contribution, providing what the article calls "a more refined picture of American poverty." On the other hand I fear that there are hidden costs to adding all these new variables to the formula. Take, for example, non-cash income for the poor: When this variable is added to the formula, one analyst noted, the poverty increase between 2007 and 2008 was less than it had been under the older formula. This is a good look for the country, but what will it mean for those in poverty? Will policymakers then use this data to suggest that food stamps, public housing, and free school lunches-the entitlements that caused the decrease in the poverty rate-are obsolete? 

What do you think?

Comments (0)

Title
Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Email
Website
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment