Suchergebnisse

ObjectiveTo examine the association of family structure, family‐level employment, and receipt of adult public disability benefits on poverty levels among working‐age persons with disabilities in the United States.BackgroundWorking‐age persons with disabilities are more likely than their counterparts without disabilities to live in poverty. However, prior research has not fully examined differences in poverty that control for family structure, family‐level employment, receipt of adult public disability benefits, and other family‐level characteristics.MethodCouched within a conceptual model of family resilience, data from the 2016 Current Population Survey (N = 110,865) were used to estimate binary logistic regression models predicting the likelihood of living in poverty, controlling for family structure, family‐level employment, receipt of adult public disability benefits, and other family‐level characteristics.ResultsMarried or cohabiting households that include an adult with a disability had equal odds of living in poverty as married or cohabiting households without an adult with a disability. However, in single‐adult households, the risk of living in poverty was higher among those households where the adult had a disability than among those who did not. Employment and receipt of public disability benefits moderated the risk of living in poverty for persons with disabilities, particularly for single‐headed households.ConclusionFamily structure, family‐level employment, and receipt of public disability benefits are associated with the risk of living in poverty among adults with disabilities in the United States. In short, the public disability benefit system in the United States can reduce but not totally alleviate the risks of poverty for working‐age adults with disabilities.ImplicationsContinued investment into furthering the employment of adults with disabilities, while protecting the availability of public disability benefits can reduce the risks of poverty for Americans with disabilities.

ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to develop a measure of multiple deprivations for the United States that is similar to those used on the international stage as multidimensional poverty. The latter is understood broadly as a deprivation of well‐being across multiple dimensions rather than purely as a lack of income or other financial resources.MethodsUsing Current Population Survey and American Community Survey data, this study develops a measure of the joint distribution of multiple deprivations in the United States, in other words, a measure of the extent to which different deprivations are experienced by the same individuals.ResultsThe experience of multiple deprivations affects 15 percent of Americans. An estimated 17.1 million Americans, 5.5 percent of the population, experience multiple deprivations while they are not income poor. The odds of experiencing multiple deprivations are significantly higher for Hispanics, immigrants, and persons with disabilities.ConclusionsIncome poverty is not a reliable proxy to measure multiple deprivations. Further measurement efforts are needed on overlapping multiple deprivations in the United States as such measures can be used in policy evaluation and monitoring.

AbstractThis study examines the effect of Social Security benefits received in old age on food security among older adults. Using repeated cross sections from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and an instrumental variable approach to address the endogeneity between the decision to claim Social Security and household food security, we find that an increase in Social Security benefits or becoming a Social Security beneficiary significantly increases the probability of being food secure. Our results were robust to changes of the dependent variable or the endogenous variable but were sensitive to some of the expansions or contractions of the sample.

AbstractPeople with disabilities are at increased risk of food insecurity (FI). In the United States, the Current Population Survey is used to provide official FI estimates. Other federal surveys that include disability and FI measures as well as additional health, housing, nutrition, and functioning measures offer opportunities to examine determinants of FI more fully for people with disabilities. We estimate FI prevalence for people with disabilities across four surveys, finding that all sources identify disability as a risk factor for FI, with some variation in estimates. We identify policy‐specific areas each source could inform and suggest avenues for future research.

Objective This article examines whether disability is a correlate of poverty when poverty is measured using (1) the official poverty measure; (2) the supplemental poverty measure (SPM); and (3) two multidimensional poverty measures created by the authors. Methods Data from the Current Population Survey are used to explore the relationship between poverty and disability for each measure. Differences across disability status were tested for statistical significance. Results Disability is associated with poverty, irrespective of the poverty measure under use. The gap in poverty rates between persons with and without disabilities is smaller when using the SPM as compared to the official poverty measure. The gap in poverty rates between persons with and without disabilities is highest when using multidimensional poverty measures. Conclusion Working-age persons with disabilities are more likely to be poor whatever the measure under use. They are a disadvantaged group in the United States. Adapted from the source document.

ObjectiveThis article examines whether disability is a correlate of poverty when poverty is measured using (1) the official poverty measure; (2) the supplemental poverty measure (SPM); and (3) two multidimensional poverty measures created by the authors.MethodsData from the Current Population Survey are used to explore the relationship between poverty and disability for each measure. Differences across disability status were tested for statistical significance.ResultsDisability is associated with poverty, irrespective of the poverty measure under use. The gap in poverty rates between persons with and without disabilities is smaller when using the SPM as compared to the official poverty measure. The gap in poverty rates between persons with and without disabilities is highest when using multidimensional poverty measures.ConclusionWorking‐age persons with disabilities are more likely to be poor whatever the measure under use. They are a disadvantaged group in the United States.