Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are the main criticisms of Census Bureau poverty measures?
Executive summary
The Census Bureau’s Official Poverty Measure (OPM) has long been criticized for under‑ or mis‑measuring hardship because it uses an outdated income definition, a narrow family unit, and ignores noncash benefits and taxes — issues that led to the creation of the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) in 2009–2011 [1] [2]. Analysts also fault how alternative measures are published and explained, noting some Census alternative measures lower reported poverty by as much as one‑third and that Census communication about experimental measures has sometimes frustrated outside researchers [3].
1. Family unit and who counts as sharing resources
A central criticism targets the OPM’s family unit: the Census-defined family includes only related persons (by birth, marriage, or adoption) and treats unrelated adults over certain ages as separate units, which critics say misses people who actually pool resources when living at the same address; proponents of the SPM argue for a unit that better captures shared living arrangements [4] [5].
2. Income concept: cash only vs. fuller resource accounting
The OPM counts pre‑tax cash income but omits the value of many noncash benefits, tax credits, and certain retirement resources; that omission means the OPM can overstate or understate poverty depending on which programs are in place. The SPM was designed to start with cash income and then add or subtract program benefits and tax effects to give a broader picture [1] [6].
3. Thresholds: outdated anchors and volatile adjustments
Critics say the original poverty thresholds were based on a 1960s food‑budget concept and haven’t reflected modern spending patterns. The SPM uses different threshold calculations tied to contemporary expenditures, but those thresholds can move sharply year‑to‑year (for example, a large SPM threshold increase in 2023 made interpreting SPM trend changes difficult), which complicates comparisons across years [1] [6].
4. Publication, transparency, and researcher frustration
While many social scientists welcomed Census work on alternative measures, some outside analysts have criticized how the Bureau posts and explains experimental or NAS‑recommended measures; the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities flagged that Census planned to post alternative measures online “with little or no public notice or explanation,” raising concerns about accessibility and continuity of the research record [3].
5. Differences in headline poverty rates and policy implications
Alternative measures produce substantially different headline rates — CBPP noted Census alternative measures can show poverty rates up to one‑third below the official rate — creating divergent narratives about progress against poverty. That divergence matters politically because which measure is used affects evaluations of policies and program impact [3] [6].
6. Senior poverty and measurement disputes
Some commentators argue OPM exaggerates elderly poverty because it doesn’t fully count the value of retirement benefits that can be drawn irregularly; Census’s experimental National Experimental Well‑Being Statistics (NEWS) and other research aim to show different patterns for older Americans, but those experimental series are limited in years and coverage [7]. Available sources do not mention definitive fixes adopted across all official releases [7].
7. Practical tradeoffs and why the SPM exists
The SPM responds directly to many OPM criticisms by changing the resource definition, altering family units, and adjusting thresholds to modern spending patterns; Census and BLS developed it to provide a more comprehensive “research” alternative while keeping the OPM as a consistent historical benchmark [1] [2].
8. Limitations and unresolved debates
Outside analysts continue to debate which measure best captures “need.” The Census role has been defensive and adaptive: it provides multiple measures but has drawn criticism both for leaving the OPM as the headline historical series and for the complexity and volatility of newer measures like the SPM and NEWS; the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explicitly warned that moving or burying NAS‑recommended measures could undermine public understanding [3] [1].
Conclusion — what readers should take away
Researchers and policymakers use both the OPM and SPM because each answers different questions: OPM gives a long‑run, consistent time series; SPM aims to reflect how taxes, noncash assistance, and modern living arrangements change real economic resources. The main criticisms of Census poverty measures therefore revolve around who counts, what counts as income, how thresholds are set, and how transparently alternative measures are presented — all issues the Census has acknowledged and partly addressed through the SPM and experimental series, even as debates about best practice continue [1] [3] [2].