October 18, 1999 Mr. Toby Harshaw, Letters Editor The New York Times via fax to 212/556-3622 Dear Editor: The article "Devising New Math to Define Poverty," (front page October 18) mischaracterizes the Census Bureau's role in defining poverty, and also mischaracterizes the content of a July Census Bureau report, "Experimental Poverty Measures: 1990-1997." The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officially defines poverty in the United States, not the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau has, however, been at the forefront of doing the research called for by a 1995 National Academy of Sciences report that recommended sweeping changes to the way poverty is measured to take into account taxes and non-cash benefits. Our role is to provide the information on which others will base their decisions. Our report does not advocate raising poverty thresholds, as stated in the article. Instead, it presents 12 alternative measures of poverty, so that researchers and policy makers can be better informed about the implications of any revised measure. The report, by design, discusses how using these alternative measures of poverty would change poverty trends and the characteristics of the poverty population, not as the article suggests the number of poor. Readers who want to know the analysis of poverty measurement in the U.S. will get a much more accurate picture from reading the entire Census Bureau report. Sincerely, Daniel H. Weinberg Chief, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division
