Do Anti-Poverty Programs Work Better Than We Think?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


Poverty data generally comes from the Census Bureau, which bases its analysis on the Current Population Survey. But do poor people under-report or underestimate the value of the programs they participate in? They might, and it seems to me it’s pretty easy to figure this out. Add up the value of, say, all SNAP reports from the CPS, and then compare it to the actual amount of SNAP money the government sends out. If it doesn’t match pretty closely, then the survey is off.

A pair of researchers recently took a look at how effective anti-poverty programs are, but they never mention this. I guess it must be harder than I think. Instead, they compare CPS data to detailed administrative data from the state of New York that’s known to be highly accurate. They did this for four programs: TANF (basic welfare), SNAP (food stamps), subsidized housing, and general assistance. It turns out that poor people underestimate their annual benefits by about $1,500. This produces two conclusions. First, the authors believe that survey data in general is becoming less reliable over time. Second, they believe that anti-poverty programs lift a lot more people out of poverty than we think.

The chart below shows their basic conclusion. The overall poverty rate, for example, is 13.65 percent. Using conventional CPS data, that goes down to 10.9 percent after benefits. Using the higher-quality data, however, it appears that anti-poverty programs actually reduce the poverty rate to 8.4 percent. The effect is even more dramatic in households headed by single mothers. Apparently the war on poverty is going better than we thought.

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. It's our first time asking for an outpouring of support since screams of FAKE NEWS and so much of what Trump stood for made everything we do so visceral. Like most newsrooms, we face incredibly hard budget realities, and it's unnerving needing to raise big money when traffic is down.

So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate