Enhancing Our Understanding of Human Poverty: an Examination of the Relationship
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Enhancing Our Understanding of Human Poverty: An Examination of the Relationship Between Income Poverty and Material Hardship DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Robert Michael Bennett, Jr Graduate Program in Social Work The Ohio State University 2017 Committee: Lisa Raiz, Advisor Audrey Begun Joseph Guada Erinn Hade Copyrighted by Robert Michael Bennett, Jr. 2017 Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the Official Poverty Measure’s (OPM) classifications and predictions of ten material hardships: unmet essential need, rent or mortgage nonpayment, eviction, skip or cut meal, a day without food, utility nonpayment or disconnection, phone disconnection, unmet medical need, and unmet dental need. The basis for the OPM was developed in 1965, and it has been used by the United States’ federal government to estimate the prevalence of poverty since 1969. Many criticized the OPM for its single price index, its definition of income and family, and its lack of geographic variation in prices. These limitations were expected to affect the OPM’s accuracy to identify and predict hardship. Respectively, classification and predictive probabilities are statistical metrics of a binary test’s efficacy to indicate the presence or absence of a condition (e.g., material hardship) and the trustability of that indication. The OPM’s correct positive classifications (i.e., sensitivity) exceeded the evaluative guideline for interpretation, nevertheless, they were low. The probabilities of true-positive results (i.e., OPM and hardship positive) were lower than those for false- negatives (i.e., OPM negative but hardship positive). It was more likely the OPM would ii erroneously classify families as nonpoor. The correct negative classifications (i.e., specificity) for all but one hardship indicator failed the evaluative criterion and were uninterpretable. The probabilities of false-positive results (i.e., OPM poor but without hardship) were too near the probabilities of OPM positives. The OPM’s capability to predict a true-positive or true-negative was also low or uninterpretable. Therefore, a positive or negative OPM prediction had little association with the presence or absence of hardship. The OPM’s sensitivity to material hardship (i.e., the odds of a true-positive result) varied across the sociodemographic and labor-power variables associated with poverty. Families with an unemployed primary person had statistically significantly greater odds of an OPM true-positive result for all ten hardship indicators. The presence of two, three, or four children in a family was statistically significantly associated with greater sensitivity across all hardship indicators, except three children and an adult without food for a day. Families with a lone-parent or without a high school diploma were not statistically significantly associated with greater odds of a true-positive result for eviction, a day without food for a lone man or a primary person with no high school diploma, or utility disconnection and phone disconnection for family heads with no high school diploma. African American racial identification had no statistically significant association with OPM sensitivity. Asian identification was associated with greater odds of a true- positive for unmet essential need and eviction but lower odds of a true-positive for skip or cut meal. Indigenous or Native Persons identification was associated with lower odds iii of a true-positive for a day without food. Hispanic or Latino(a) families had greater odds of a true-positive for five of the hardships. Families with a physical or mental disability had statistically significantly lower odds of a true-positive for skip or cut meals. Veteran status was not associated with any of the ten hardships. iv This work is dedicated to my mother, Christy, my brothers, Kasey and Nickolas, my grandparents, JoAnn and Rodney, and my red, Kevin. v Acknowledgments I sincerely thank my dissertation chair and longtime advisor and mentor, Dr. Lisa Raiz. Her consistent support, critical perspective, and openness helped me complete my dissertation and PhD education. I also thank my dissertation committee members, Drs. Guada, Begun, and Hade. Dr. Guada was contemplative and steadfast. Dr. Begun was resourceful and patient. Dr. Hade was singular. Finally, I am deeply indebted to other passionate scholars, including Drs. Lee, Davis, Bowen, Root, and Lobao, who supported my academic and professional development. vi Vita January 29, 1986 ............................................Born in Zanesville, Ohio 2004................................................................High School Degree, Zanesville High School 2008................................................................B.A. Psychology & Sociology, The Ohio State University 2010................................................................M.S.W. Social Work, The Ohio State University 2010—2012....................................................Clinic Fellow, Counseling and Consultation Service, The Ohio State University 2013—2014....................................................Albert Schweitzer Fellow, Columbus- Athens 2013 to present ...............................................Graduate Teaching Associate, College of Social Work, The Ohio State University Publications Bennett, R. M., Raiz, L., & Davis, T. (2016). The development and validation of the poverty attribution survey. Journal of Social Work Education, 52(3), 347-359. vii Hwang, B. J., Bennett, R. M., Beauchemin, J. (2014). International students’ utilization of counseling center services. College Student Journal, 48(3), 347-354. Fields of Study Major Field: Social Work viii Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. vi Vita .................................................................................................................................... vii Publications ....................................................................................................................... vii Fields of Study ................................................................................................................. viii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... ix List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x List of Figures .................................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ............................................................................ 1 Chapter 2: Review of Theory and Literature .................................................................... 21 Chapter 3: Study Method .................................................................................................. 50 Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................. 72 Chapter 5: Discussion and Implications ........................................................................... 95 References ....................................................................................................................... 116 ix List of Tables Table 1. Material Hardship Items from the Basic Needs & Food Insecurity Measure of the Survey of Income and Program Participation Adult Well-Being Module ...................58 Table 2. Sample Characteristics of Lone Families with Adult Heads in the United States ..................................................................................................................... 74 Table 3. Estimates of Official Poverty Measure Sensitivity and Specificity to Material Hardship Indicators for Lone Families in the United States ............................................. 77 Table 4. Estimates of Official Poverty Measure Predictive Values for Material Hardship Indicators for Lone Families in the United States ............................................................ 81 Table 5. Logistic Regression Analysis of Poverty Risk Variables on Official Poverty Measure Sensitivity to Material Hardship Indicators ....................................................... 88 Table 6. Logistic Regression Analysis of Poverty Risk Variables on Official Poverty Measure Sensitivity to Material Hardship Indicators ....................................................... 90 x List of Figures Figure 1. Longitudinal Prevalence of Poverty in the United States .....................................8 Figure 2. Five-Year Prevalence (2010-2015) of Poverty in the United States as Measured by the Official Poverty Measure and Supplemental Poverty Measure ..............................12 Figure 3. Cross-Classification of Test and True Indicator Results ....................................52 Figure 4. Cross Plot of Official Poverty Measure Sensitivity Values and Tau Values ................................................................................................................................78 Figure 5. Cross Plot of 1.0 Minus Official Poverty Measure Specificity Values and Tau Values ................................................................................................................................80