No.

1713 January 5, 2004

Understanding Poverty in America

Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.
If poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 35 million people identified as being in poverty by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor. While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity. The average poor person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. The following are facts about persons defined as poor by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports: Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher. Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his familys essential needs. While this individuals life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians. Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nations poor: There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. In contrast to the 25 percent of poor households that have cell
This paper, in its entirety, can be found at: www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1713.cfm Produced by the Domestic Policy Studies Department Published by The Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE, Washington, D.C. 200024999 (202) 546-4400 heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.

No. 1713 phones and telephone answering machines, approximately one-tenth of families in poverty have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care. The good news is that the poverty that does exist in the United States can readily be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents dont work much, and their fathers are absent from the home. In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a yearthe equivalent of 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per yearthe equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the yearnearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

January 5, 2004 As noted above, father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three-quarters of the nations impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty. Yet, although work and marriage are reliable ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, the nations remaining poverty would quickly be reduced. This is, perhaps, the best news about poverty in the United States. Robert E. Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., is Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Fellow in Statistical Welfare Research in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

No. 1713 January 5, 2004

Understanding Poverty in America

Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.

Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country in 2002, a small increase from the preceding year. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbersto look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word poverty suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of Americas poor live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.1
1. Comparison of the average expenditure per person of the lowest quintile in 2001 with the middle quintile in 1973. Sources: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey: Integrated Diary and Interview Survey Data, 197273, Bulletin No. 1992, released in 1979, and U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditures in 2001, Report No. 966, April 2003. Figures adjusted for inflation by the personal consumption expenditure index.

Talking Points
The good news is that the poverty that does exist in the United States can readily be reduced, particularly among children. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per yearthe equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the yearnearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly threequarters of the nations impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, the nations remaining poverty would quickly be reduced.

This paper, in its entirety, can be found at: www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1713.cfm Produced by the Domestic Policy Studies Department Published by The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE Washington, DC 200024999 (202) 546-4400 heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.

No. 1713 The following are facts about persons defined as poor by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports: Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-anda-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher. As a group, Americas poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II. While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a

January 5, 2004 temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is shortterm. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have enough food to eat, while only 2 percent say they often do not have enough to eat. Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his familys essential needs. While this individuals life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians. Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, over a quarter of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines, but, at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care. The best news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced further, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents dont work much, and fathers are absent from the home. In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per yearthe equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty. Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in sin-

page 2

No. 1713 gle-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty. While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, remaining poverty would drop quickly.
Table1

January 5, 2004
B 1713

Ownership of Property and Consumer Goods Among Poor Households

(Percentage of Poor Households) 45.9% 72.8% 30.2% 75.6% 98.9% 64.7% 55.6% 33.9% 29.7% 73.3% 97.3% 55.3% 62.6% 25.3% 78.0% 25.3% 58.6% 35.3% 26.6% 24.6% 18.0%

What Is Poverty?

Own Home* Car or Truck* 2 or More Cars or Trucks* Air Conditioner* Refrigerator* Clothes Washer* Clothes Dryer* Dishwasher* Garbage Disposal* Microwave** Color Television** 2 or More Color Televisions** Cable or Satellite TV** Large Screen TV** Video Cassette Recorder or DVD** 2 or More VCR's/DVD's** Stereo** Telephone Answering Machine** Cell Phone** Personal Computer** Internet Access**

American Housing Survey 2001 For most Americans, the Note: *Figures fromDepartment of Energy, Housing Characteristics 2001 ** Figures from U.S. word poverty suggests destitution: an inability to pro- Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American vide a family with nutritious Housing Survey for the United States in 2001, Current Housing Reports H150/01; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Housing Characteristics 2001. food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. For example, But if poverty means lacking nutritious food, the Poverty Pulse poll taken by the Catholic Camadequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, paign for Human Development in 2002 asked the relatively few of the 35 million people identified as general public the question: How would you describe being poor in the U.S.? The overwhelm- being in poverty by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor.3 While material hardship ing majority of responses focused on homelessness, does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not 2 in scope and severity. The average poor person, as being able to meet basic needs. defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines.

2. See Campaign for Human Development, Poverty Pulse, January 2002, at www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/povpulse.htm. Interestingly, only about 1 percent of those surveyed regarded poverty in the terms the government does: as having an income below a specified level. 3. The Census Bureau defines an individual as poor if his or her family income falls below certain specified income thresholds. These thresholds vary by family size. In 2002, a family of four was deemed poor if its annual income fell below $18,556; a family of three was deemed poor if annual income was below $14,702. There are a number of problems with the Census Bureaus poverty figures: Census undercounts income, ignores assets accumulated in prior years, and disregards non-cash welfare such as food stamps and public housing in its official count of income. However, the most important problem with Census figures is that, even if a familys income falls below the official poverty thresholds, the familys actual living conditions are likely to be far higher than the image most Americans have in mind when they hear the word poverty.

page 3

No. 1713

January 5, 2004

Ownership of Property and Amenities Among the Poor

Chart 1

B 1713

Table 1 shows the ownership of Housing of Poor Households property and consumer durables among poor households. The data are taken from the American Housing Survey for 2001, conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and 36.4% Live in Apartments Urban Development and the Census Bureau, and the Residential Energy Consumption Survey conducted by 54% the U.S. Department of Energy.4 Live in Single As the table shows, some 46 per- Family Homes cent of poor households own their own home. The typical home owned by the poor is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths. It has a garage or carport and a porch 9.6% or patio and is located on a half-acre Live in Mobile lot. The house was constructed in Homes 1967 and is in good repair. The median value of homes owned by poor households was $86,600 in Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 2001 or 70 percent of the median Development, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2001. value of all homes owned in the United States.5 while a quarter have personal computers. While Some 73 percent of poor households own a car or these numbers do not suggest lives of luxury, they truck; nearly a third own two or more cars or trucks. Over three-quarters have air conditioning; by con- are notably different from conventional images of trast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the general poverty. U.S. population had air conditioning. Nearly threeHousing Conditions quarters of poor households own microwaves; a A similar disparity between popular conceptions third have automatic dishwashers. and reality applies to the housing conditions of the Poor households are well-equipped with modern poor. Most poor Americans live in houses or apartentertainment technology. It should come as no surments that are relatively spacious and in good repair. prise that nearly all (97 percent) poor households As Chart 1 shows, 54 percent of poor households live have color TVs, but more than half actually own two in single-family homes, either unattached single or more color televisions. One-quarter own largedwellings or attached units such as townhouses. screen televisions, 78 percent have a VCR or DVD Another 36.4 percent live in apartments, and 9.6 perplayer, and almost two-thirds have cable or satellite cent live in mobile homes.6 TV reception. Some 58 percent own a stereo. More than a third have telephone answering machines,
4. U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2001; U.S Department of Energy, Housing Characteristics, 2001, Appliances Tables, at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ consumption. 5. U.S Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2001, Tables 3-1, 3-14.

page 4

No. 1713

January 5, 2004

Housing Space B 1713 Table 2 Both the overall U.S. Crowding: All Households Compared to Poor Households, 2001 population and the poor in America live, in general, in Persons Rooms All Poor very spacious housing. As Per Room Per Person Households Households Table 2 shows, 70 percent of all U.S. households have 0.50 or Less 2 or More 70.2% 67.9% two or more rooms per .51 - 1.00 1 to 2 27.8% 26.3% tenant. Among the poor, 1.01 - 1.50 0.99 to 0.75 2.0% 4.4% this figure is 68 percent. 1.51 or More Less Than .75 0.5% 1.3% Crowding is quite rare; only 2.5 percent of all Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban households and 5.7 perDevelopment, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2001. cent of poor households are crowded with more cent more square footage per capita than city dwellthan one person per room.7 By contrast, social ers in other industrialized nations.10 reformer Jacob Riis, writing on tenement living conAmericas poor compare favorably with the genditions around 1890 in New York City, described eral population of other nations in square footage of crowded families living with four or five persons per room and some 20 square feet of living space per living space. The average poor American has more square footage of living space than does the average person.8 person living in London, Paris, Vienna, and Housing space can also be measured by the num- Munich. Poor Americans have nearly three times ber of square feet per person. The Residential the living space of average urban citizens in middleEnergy Consumption survey conducted by the U.S. income countries such as Mexico and Turkey. Poor Department of Energy shows that Americans have American households have seven times more housan average of 721 square feet of living space per ing space per person than the general urban popuperson. Poor Americans have 439 square feet.9 Rea- lation of very-low-income countries such as India sonably comparable international square-footage and China. (See Appendix Table A for more data are provided by the Housing Indicator Pro- detailed information.) gram of the United Nations Centre for Human SetSome critics have argued that the comparisons in tlements, which surveyed housing conditions in Table 3 are misleading.11 These critics claim that major cities in 54 different nations. This survey showed the United States to have by far the most U.S. housing in general cannot be compared to spacious housing units, with 50 percent to 100 per- housing in specific European cities such as Paris or
6. Ibid., p. 42. 7. Ibid., p. 46. 8. Jacob Riis, How the Other Half Lives (New York: Dover Press, 1971), pp. 6, 41, 59. 9. U.S. Department of Energy, Housing Characteristics 1993, 1995, pp. 46, 47. The figures in the text refer to total living space, including both heated and non-heated living space. 10. United Nations Centre for Human Settlements and the World Bank, The Housing Indicators Program, Vol. II: Indicator Tables (New York: United Nations, 1993), Table 5. 11. See Katha Pollitt, Poverty: Fudging the Numbers, The Nation, November 2, 1998. Pollitt argues that it is misleading to compare the living space of poor Americans nationwide to that of average citizens in major cities in other nations, since European cities, in particular, have small housing units that are not representative of their entire nations. However, the author of the United Nations Housing Indicators report asserts that, in most cases, the average housing size in major cities can be taken as roughly representative of the nation as a whole. A comparison of the data in Table 4 and Appendix Table A would appear to confirm this.

page 5

No. 1713

January 5, 2004

London because housB 1713 Table 3 ing in these cities is Housing Space: Square Feet per Capita unusually small and does not represent the Housing-Average Income Range European housing stock Income Grouping Square Feet Per GNP Per Capita Typical Nations overall. To assess the United States Total NA NA 721.0 sq. ft. validity of this arguUnited States Poor NA NA 439.0 ment, Table 4 presents U.S. Poor Apartment Dwellings NA NA 320.0 national housing data High-Income Countries $14,360 - $23,810 United Kingdom, France Germany, Japan 376.8 for 15 West European High Middle-Income Countries 2,470 - 10,450 Hungary, Greece, Korea, Spain 236.6 countries. These data Middle-Income Countries 1,260 - 52,450 Turkey, Chile, Poland, Mexico 162.4 represent the entire Low-Income Countries 500 - 1,200 Egypt, Philippines, Morocco, Colombia 94.7 national housing stock Very Low-Income Countries 130 - 390 India, China, Nigeria, Pakistan 65.5 in each of the 15 countries. In general, the Source: United Nations Centre for Human Settlements and the World Bank, The Housing Indicators Program, Volume II: Preliminary Findings, p. 26 and Housing Characteristics, 1995. national data on housing size are similar to must share bathroom facilities with individuals in a the data on specific European cities presented in neighboring unit. This condition affects about 1 perTable 3 and Appendix Table A. cent of all U.S. households and 2 percent of all poor As Table 4 shows, U.S. housing (with an average households. About one-half of 1 percent (0.5 persize of 1,875 square feet per unit) is nearly twice as cent) of all households and 2 percent of poor houselarge as European housing (with an average size of holds have other severe physical problems. The 976 square feet per unit.) After adjusting for the most common are repeated heating breakdowns and number of persons in each dwelling unit, Americans upkeep problems. have an average of 721 square feet per person, comThe American Housing Survey also provides a pared to 396 square feet for the average European. count of households affected by moderate physical The housing of poor Americans (with an average problems. A wider range of households falls into this of 1,228 square feet per unit) is smaller than that of category9 percent of the poor and nearly 5 percent the average American but larger than that of the of total households. However, the problems affecting average European (who has 976 square feet per these units are clearly modest. While living in such units might be disagreeable by modern middle-class unit). Overall, poor Americans have an average of standards, they are a far cry from Dickensian squalor. 439 square feet of living space per person, which is The most common problems are upkeep, lack of a as much as or more than the average citizen in most full kitchen, and use of unvented oil, kerosene or gas West European countries. (This comparison is to the heaters as the primary heat source. (The last condiaverage European, not poor Europeans.) tion occurs almost exclusively in the South.) Housing Quality Hunger and Malnutrition in America Of course, it might be possible that the housing of There are frequent charges of widespread hunger poor American households could be spacious but and malnutrition in the United States.12 To understill dilapidated or unsafe. However, data from the stand these assertions, it is important, first of all, to American Housing Survey indicate that such is not distinguish between hunger and the more severe the case. For example, the survey provides a tally of problem of malnutrition. Malnutrition (also called households with severe physical problems. Only a undernutrition) is a condition of reduced health due tiny portion of poor households and an even smaller to a chronic shortage of calories and nutriments. portion of total households fall into that category. There is little or no evidence of poverty-induced The most common severe problem, according to malnutrition in the United States. the American Housing Survey, is a shared bathroom, which occurs when occupants lack a bathroom and

page 6

No. 1713

January 5, 2004

Table 4

B 1713

Comparison of Living Space: American and European Housing

Year of Survey
2000 1991 2001 1996 2000 1998 1991 2001 1991 2001 2000 1998 1991 1997 1996

Country Austria Belgium Denmark France Finland Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom European Average U.S. Poor Households U.S. All Households

Average Persons Per Dwelling

2.4 2.5 2.1 2.5 2.1 2.2 3.0 3.0 2.1 2.6 2.4 3.2 3.3 2.1 2.4 2.5

Average Floor Space Per Dwelling in Square Feet

974.9 928.6 1171.8 946.9 823.1 932.9 856.5 950.1 971.6 1345.0 1054.5 893.1 917.8 966.2 914.6 976.5 1228.0 1875.0

Average Floor Space Square Feet Per Person

406.2 371.4 558.0 378.8 392.0 424.0 285.5 316.7 462.7 517.3 439.4 279.1 278.1 460.1 381.1 396.7 438.6 721.2

1993 1993

2.8 2.6

Source: Housing Statistics in the European Union, 2002; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Housing Characteristics, 1993, Table 3.4.

page 7

No. 1713 Hunger is a far less severe condition: a temporary but real discomfort caused by an empty stomach. The government defines hunger as the uneasy or painful sensation caused by lack of food.13 While hunger due to a lack of financial resources does occur in the United States, it is limited in scope and duration. According to the USDA, on a typical day, fewer than one American in 200 will experience hunger due to a lack of money to buy food.14 The hunger rate rises somewhat when examined over a longer time period; according to the USDA, some 6.9 million Americans, or 2.4 percent of the population, were hungry at least once during 2002.15 Nearly all hunger in the United States is short-term and episodic rather than continuous.16
Chart 2

January 5, 2004
B 1713

American Children in Hunger: 1995 to 2002*

1,000 Thousands of Children
917

900

887

800
716

700
651

600
562 511

567

500

467

400

300 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Note: *Children residing in households where at least one child is "food insecure with hunger." Source: USDA Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002, p. 7. Additional data provided by USDA.

12. See, for example, A Survey of Childhood Hunger in the United States (Washington, D.C.: Food Research Action Center, Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project, 1995) and 1997 National Research Study, in Hunger 1997: The Faces and Facts (Chicago, Ill.: Americas Second Harvest, 1997). 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Household Food Security in the United States in 1995: Summary Report for the Food Security Measurement Project, 1997, p. 5. 14. In all cases, the figures concerning hunger in this paper refer solely to hunger caused by a lack of funds to buy food and do not include hunger that is attributed to any other cause. 15. Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002, U.S. Department of Agriculture, October 2003, p. 7. The numbers in the text were taken from Table 1 of the USDA publication. Many individuals reside in households where at least one family member but not all family members experienced hunger. This is particularly true among families with children where the adults are far more likely than the children to experience hunger. According to Table 1of Household Food Security in the United States, 2002, 9.3 million persons lived in a household where at least one household member experienced hunger; however, not all of these persons experienced hunger themselves. The number of persons who experienced hunger individually was lower: 6.8 million people, including 6.3 million adults and 567,000 children. 16. The numbers of persons identified as hungry throughout this paper correspond to individuals that the USDA identifies as food insecure with hunger. The USDA also has a second, broader category: food insecure without hunger. As the term implies, these individuals are not hungry. They may, however, at certain times in the year be forced to eat cheaper foods or a narrower range of foods than those to which they are ordinarily accustomed. According to the USDA, 7.6 percent of all households were food insecure without hunger in 2002. Food advocacy groups often inaccurately include the households that are food insecure without hunger in the count of households that are deemed hungry.

page 8

No. 1713
Chart 3

January 5, 2004
B 1713

Some 92 percent of those who experienced hunger in Poverty and Food Shortages During Year 2002 were adults, and only 8 Percent of Households percent were children. Overall, some 567,000 children, 9.0% or 0.8 percent of all children, were hungry at some point in 2002. In a typical month, roughly one child in 400 skipped one or more meals because the family lacked funds to buy food. Not only is hunger relatively rare among U.S. chil2.6% dren, but it has declined 2.0% sharply since the mid-1990s. As Chart 2 shows, the num0.5% ber of hungry children was cut by a third between 1995 Sometimes Did Not Have Often Did Not Have Sometimes Did Not Have Often Did Not Have Enough Food to Eat Due Enough Food to Eat Due Enough Food to Eat Due Enough Food to Eat Due and 2002. According to the to Lack of Money to Lack of Money to Lack of Money to Lack of Money USDA, in 1995, there were 887,000 hungry children: by All Households Poor Households 2002, the number had fallen 17 to 567,000. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population Survey, December 2001, Food Security Supplement. Overall, some 97 percent When asked, some 89 percent of poor houseof the U.S. population lived in families that reported they had enough food to eat during the entire year, holds reported they had enough food to eat duralthough not always the kinds of foods they would ing the entire year, although not always the kinds of have preferred. Around 2.5 percent stated their fam- food they would prefer. Around 9 percent stated ilies sometimes did not have enough to eat due to they sometimes did not have enough to eat money shortages, and one-half of 1 percent (0.5 per- because of a lack of money to buy food. Another 2 cent) said they often did not have enough to eat percent of the poor stated that they often did not due to a lack of funds. (See Chart 3.) have enough to eat due to a lack of funds.20 (See Chart 3.) Hunger and Poverty Among the poor, the hunger rate was obviously Poverty and Malnutrition higher: During 2002, 12.8 percent of the poor lived It is widely believed that a lack of financial in households in which at least one member experi- resources forces poor people to eat low-quality enced hunger at some point.18 Among poor chil- diets that are deficient in nutriments and high in dren, 2.4 percent experienced hunger at some point fat. However, survey data show that nutriment denin the year.19 Overall, most poor households were sity (amount of vitamins, minerals, and protein per not hungry and did not experience food shortages kilocalorie of food) does not vary by income during the year. class.21 Nor do the poor consume higher-fat diets
17. Nord, Andrews, and Carlson, Food Security in the United States, 2002, p. 7. Additional data provided by USDA. 18. Nord, Andrews, and Carlson, Food Security in the United States, 2002, p. 16. 19. Ibid., p. 17. 20. Calculated from USDA food security survey for 2001.

page 9

No. 1713 than do the middle class; the percentage of persons with high fat intake (as a share of total calories) is virtually the same for low-income and upper-middle-income persons.22 Overconsumption of calories in general, however, is a major problem among the poor, as it is within the general U.S. population. Examination of the average nutriment consumption of Americans reveals that age and gender play a far greater role than income class in determining nutritional intake. For example, the nutriment intakes of adult women in the upper middle class (with incomes above 350 percent of the poverty level) more closely resemble the intakes of poor women than they do those of upper-middle-class men, children, or teens.23 The average nutriment consumption of upper-middle-income preschoolers, as a group, is virtually identical with that of poor preschoolers but not with the consumption of adults or older children in the upper middle class. This same pattern holds for adult males, teens, and most other age and gender groups. In general, children aged 011 years have the highest average level of nutriment intakes relative to the recommended daily allowance (RDA), followed by adult and teen males. Adult and teen females have the lowest level of intakes. This pattern holds for all income classes. Nutrition and Poor Children Government surveys provide little evidence of widespread undernutrition among poor children; in fact, they show that the average nutriment consumption among the poor closely resembles that of the upper middle class. For example, children in families with incomes below the poverty level actually consume more meat than do children in families with incomes at 350 percent of the poverty level or

January 5, 2004 higher (roughly $65,000 for a family of four in todays dollars). Table 5 shows the average intake of protein, vitamins, and minerals as a percentage of the recommended daily allowance among poor and middleclass children at various age levels.24 The intake of nutriments is very similar for poor and middle-class children and is generally well above the recommended daily level. For example, the consumption of protein (a relatively expensive nutriment) among poor children is, on average, between 150 percent and 267 percent of the RDA. When shortfalls of specific vitamins and minerals appear (for example, among teenage girls), they tend to be very similar for the poor and the middle class. While poor teenage girls, on average, tend to underconsume vitamin E, vitamin B-6, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, iron, and zinc, a virtually identical underconsumption of these same nutriments appears among upper- middle-class girls. Poor Childrens Weight and Stature On average, poor children are very well-nourished, and there is no evidence of widespread significant undernutrition. For example, two indicators of undernutrition among the young are thinness (low weight for height) and stuntedness (low height for age). These problems are rare to nonexistent among poor American children. The generally good health of poor American children can be illustrated by international comparisons. Table 6 provides data on childrens size based on the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Data Base on Child Growth: Children are judged to be short or stunted if their height falls below the 2.3 percentile level of standard height-to-age tables.25 Table 6 shows the percentage of children

21. C. T. Windham et al., Nutrient Density of Diets in the USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey, 19771978: Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Dietary Density, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, January 1983. 22. Interagency Board for Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research, Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995), p. VA 167. 23. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrient Intakes by Individuals in the United States, 1 Day, 198991, Nationwide Food Survey Report No. 91-2, 1995. 24. Ibid., Tables 10-1, 10-4. Table 4 in the present paper also provides the mean adequacy ratio for various groups. The mean adequacy ratio represents average intake of all the nutriments listed as a percent of RDA. However, in computing mean adequacy, intake values exceeding 100 percent of RDA are counted at 100, since the body cannot use an excess consumption of one nutriment to fill a shortfall of another nutriment.

page 10

No. 1713
Table 5

January 5, 2004
B 1713

under age five in developing nations Average Nutrient Intakes as a Percentage of Recommended Daily Allowance who are judged to be All Children 5 Males Females Males Females stunted by this and Under ages 6-11 ages 6-11 ages 12-19 ages 12-19 standard. Under Over Under Over Under Over Under Over Under Over 100% 350% 100% 350% 100% 350% 100% 350% 100% 350% In developing naPoverty Poverty Poverty Poverty Poverty Poverty Poverty Poverty Poverty Poverty tions as a whole, some 168% 184% 150% 145% 246% 220% 225% 231% 267% 274% Protein 43 percent of children Vitamin A (IU) 102 153 85 124 131 116 131 167 180 210 96 89 90 107 74 104 72 78 107 91 are stunted. In Africa, Vitamin E 181 207 169 217 173 231 153 183 203 223 Vitamin C more than a third of Thiamin 155 143 147 155 124 143 125 125 166 169 133 158 126 137 165 167 159 174 198 207 young children are Riboflavin 122 141 117 120 138 141 127 153 143 149 affected; in Asia, near- Niacin B- 6 97 113 93 97 115 112 104 124 117 126 Vitamin 26 By contrast, 245 262 241 268 163 186 126 139 339 376 Folate ly half. 328 287 302 316 253 342 180 172 450 537 in the United States, Vitamin B-12 109 113 106 112 80 105 62 71 98 107 Calcium 116 145 95 95 148 142 141 148 120 125 some 2.6 percent of Phosphorus 83 96 77 77 141 131 135 142 187 213 young children in Magnesium 132 161 79 77 121 135 118 122 109 119 Iron 96 86 90 95 80 102 80 74 76 76 poor households are Zinc Average Nutrient stunted by a compara161% 157% 152% 169% 127% 158% 108% 114% 184% 200% Intake ble standarda rate Mean Adequacy 99 98 99 100 94 100 90 91 98 98 Ratio only slightly above the Source: United States expected standard for Tables 10-1, 10-4. Department of Agriculture, September 1995, Food and Nutrient Intakes by Individuals in the United States, 1Day, 198991, healthy, well-nourished children.27 While concern for the well-being of poor American children is always prudent, the data pounds heavier than American doughboys back in 28 overall underscore how large and well-nourished World War I. poor American children are by global standards. Poverty and Obesity Throughout this century, improvements in nutriThe principal nutrition-related health problem tion and health have led to increases in the rate of among the poor, as with the general U.S. populagrowth and ultimate height and weight of American children. Poor children have clearly benefited from tion, stems from the overconsumption, not underthis trend. Poor boys today at ages 18 and 19 are consumption, of food. While overweight and actually taller and heavier than boys of similar age obesity are prevalent problems throughout the U.S. in the general U.S. population in the late 1950s. population, they are found most frequently among Poor boys living today are one inch taller and some poor adults. Poor adult men are slightly less likely 10 pounds heavier than GIs of similar age during than non-poor men to be overweight (30.4 percent World War II, and nearly two inches taller and 20 compared to 31.9 percent); but, as Chart 4 shows,
25. The World Health Organization uses standard height-for-age tables developed by the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the U.S. Department and Health and Human Services. 26. M. de Onis and J. P. Habicht, Anthropometric Reference Data for International Use: Recommendations from a World Health Organization Expert Committee, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1996, pp. 650658. 27. Calculation by the authors using National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey III data and WHO standard tables for shortness for age. Shortness for age is the result of genetic variation as well as nutritional factors. The World Health Organization standards assume that even in a very well-nourished population, 2.3 percent of children will have heights below the stunted cut-off levels due to normal genetic factors. Problems are apparent if the number of short children in a population rises appreciably above that 2.3 percent. 28. Bernard D. Karpinos, Current Height and Weight of Youths of Military Age, Human Biology, 1961, pp. 336364. Recent data on young males in poverty provided by the National Center for Health Statistics of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, based on the second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

page 11

No. 1713

January 5, 2004

Table 6

B 1713

Prevalence of Stuntedness (Low Height for Age): Children in Developing Countries and Poor Children in the United States
% Stunted* Africa Asia Latin America Oceania All Developing Countries United States
All Children Under Five All Children Under Five All Children Under Five All Children Under Five All Children Under Five Poor Children Under Five 38.6% 47.1 22.2 41.9 42.7 2.6

Sources: de Onis, Mercedes, C. Monteiro, J. Akre, and G. Clugston, "The Worldwide Magnitude of Protein-Energy Malnutrition: An Overview from the WHO Global Database on Child Growth," Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 71(6): 703-712 (1993). U.S. Data calculated by the authors from the Third National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey. *Stunted refers to height for age below 2 standard deviations on the WHO/NCHS reference norms (2.3 percentile).

Chart 4

B 1713

Obesity Among Adult Women

60%
Percent Overweight

50

50.0% 47.3 % 46.9 %

49.0%

50.5 % 44.4 %

40
32.2 % 30.1%

30

20

10

Poor Not Poor All Women

Poor Not Poor White Women

Poor Not Poor Black Women

Poor Not Poor Hispanic Women

Source: Interagency Board for Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research, Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring, Vol. 2, p. VA 219.

page 12

No. 1713 poor adult women are significantly more likely to be overweight than are non-poor women (47.3 percent compared to 32 percent).29

January 5, 2004

Chart 5

B 1713

Living Conditions and Hardships Among the Poor

Percent of Poor Households that Were Able to Meet All Essential Expenses During Last Year*

Overall, the living standards of most poor Americans are far higher No than is generally appreciated. The 29.8% overwhelming majority of poor families are well-housed, have adequate food, and enjoy a wide range of modern amenities, including air conditioning and cable television. Some 70 percent of poor households report that during the course of the Yes past year they were able to meet all 70.2% essential expenses, including mortgage, rent, utility bills, and important medical care.30 (See Chart 5.) However, two caveats should be applied to this generally optimistic *Percentage of poor households that report being able to meet essential picture. First, many poor families household expenses such as mortgage or rent, utility bills and important medical care have difficulty paying their regular bills and must scramble to make Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1998 ends meet. For example, around one-quarter of poor families are late in paying the rent or utility bills at some point dur- the preceding year, some 20 percent of poor households reported they were unable to pay their fuel, ing the year. gas, or electric bills promptly; around 4 percent had Second, the living conditions of the average poor their utilities cut off at some point due to nonpayhousehold should not be taken to represent all poor ment. Another 13 percent of poor households failed, households. There is a wide range of living condi- at some point in the year, to make their full monthly tions among the poor; while more than a quarter of rent or mortgage payments, and 1 percent were the poor have cell phones and answering machines, evicted due to failure to pay rent. One in 10 poor a tenth of the poor have no telephone at all. While families had their phones disconnected due to nonmost of Americas poor live in accommodations with payment at some time during the preceding year. two or more rooms per person, roughly a tenth of Overall, more than one-quarter of poor families the poor are crowded, with less than one room per experienced at least one financial difficulty during person. the year. Most had a late payment of rent or utility These points are illustrated in Table 7, which lists bills. Some 12 percent had phones or utilities cut the financial and material hardships among poor off or were evicted. households in 1998.31 During at least one month in
29. Interagency Board for Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research, Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring, Vol. 2, p. VA 219. 30. Calculated from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Survey of Income and Program Participation, Extended Measures of Well-being Module, 1998. 31. Ibid.

page 13

No. 1713 Poor households also experienced the material problems listed on Table 7.32 Some 14 percent lacked medical insurance and had a family member who needed to go to a doctor or hospital but did not go; 11 percent experienced hunger in the household; and around 9 percent were overcrowded, with more than one person per room. Slightly less than 4 percent of poor households experienced upkeep problems with the physical conditions of their apartments or homes, having three or more of the physical problems listed in Table 7.
Table 7

January 5, 2004
B 1713

Financial and Material Problems

% Experiencing Problems at Any Time During Prior Twelve Months Financial Problems Failed to Pay Full Gas, Oil or Electric Bill on Time Failed to Pay Full Rent or Mortgage on Time Had Phone Disconnected Due to Non-Payment Had Gas, Oil or Electricity Cut Off Due to Non-Payment Evicted for Not Paying Rent or Mortgage Material Hardships Lacked Medical Insurance and Needed to Go to a Doctor or Hospital but Were Unable to Go Hunger in Household Crowded: More than One Person Per Room Three or More Physical Upkeep Problems in Home All Households Poor Households

9.1% 5.4% 3.8% 1.3% 0.3%

19.9% 12.9% 10.0% 3.6% 0.9%

6.1% 3.2% 3.2% 1.5%

13.8% 10.9% 8.6% 3.4%

Overall Hardship Total Financial and Material Problems Altogether, around 58 per- Had Zero Financial and Material Problems 81.2% 58.5% cent of poor households expe- Had One Problem 10.4% 19.6% rienced none of the financial or Had Two or More Problems 8.4% 21.8% physical hardships listed in Table 7 These families were Total Problems Excluding Late Payment of Utilities, Rent or Mortgage Had Zero Problems 86.1% 66.1% able to pay all their bills on Had One Problem 9.9% 21.8% time. They were able to obtain Had Two Problems 2.8% 8.2% medical care if needed, were Had Three or More Problems 1.2% 3.9% not hungry or crowded, and had few upkeep problems in Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1998 the home. Another 20 percent While it is appropriate to be concerned about the of poor households experienced one financial or difficulties faced by some poor families, it is impormaterial problem during the year. Around 10 pertant to keep these problems in perspective. Many cent of poor households had two financial or matepoor families have intermittent difficulty paying rent rial problems, while 12 percent had three or more. or utility bills but remain very well-housed by hisThe most common problem facing poor housetoric or international standards. Even poor families holds was late payment of rent or utilities. While who are overcrowded and hungry, by U.S. stanhaving difficulty paying monthly bills is stressful, in dards, are still likely to have living conditions that most cases late payment did not result in material are far above the world average. hardship or deprivation. If late payment problems are excluded from the count, we find that two-thirds of poor households had none of the remaining problems listed in Table 7. Some 22 percent had one problem, and 12 percent had two or more problems.

Reducing Child Poverty

The generally high living standards of poor Americans are good news. Even better is the fact that our nation can readily reduce remaining poverty, espe-

32. The Survey of Income and Program Participation, Extended Measures of Well-being Module also contains a question about whether members of the household needed to see a dentist but did not go. Because the question does not specify whether or not the failure to visit the dentist was due to an inability to pay, we did not include the question in this report.

page 14

No. 1713

January 5, 2004

cially among children. To B 1713 Table 8 accomplish this, we must focus on the main causes of child povPhysical Upkeep Problems in Houses or Apartments erty: low levels of parental work and high levels of single parentAll Poor hood. % With Problem Households Households In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family 1) Leaking Roof or Ceiling 6.9% 10.5% with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during 2) Broken Window Glass or Windows That Cannot Shut 4.1% 7.9% a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work 3) Electrical Wires Running on Outside of in each family were raised to Wall in Finished Areas of Home 0.8% 1.9% 2,000 hours per yearthe 4) Toilet, Hot Water Heater, or Other equivalent of one adult working Plumbing That Does Not Work 2.6% 4.5% 40 hours per week through the 5) Holes in Walls or Ceiling or Cracks yearnearly 75 percent of poor Wider Than Edge of a Dime 4.0% 7.1% children would be lifted out of 6) Holes in Floor Big Enough for Someone official poverty.33 to Catch Their Foot On 0.9% 2.1% The decline in marriage is the second major cause of child Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Survey of Income and Program Participation, Adult Well-Being Topical Module, 1998 poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in singleparent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million meted and employment of single mothers increased children are born out of wedlock. Increasing mar- in an unprecedented manner. As employment of riage would substantially reduce child poverty: If single mothers rose, child poverty dropped rapidly. poor mothers married the fathers of their children, For example, in the quarter-century before welfare almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted reform, there was no net change in the poverty rate out of poverty.34 of children in single-mother families; after reform In recent years, the United States has established was enacted, the poverty rate dropped in an a reasonable record in reducing child poverty. Suc- unprecedented fashion, falling from 53.1 percent in cessful anti-poverty policies were partially imple- 1995 to 39.8 percent in 2001.35 mented in the welfare reform legislation of 1996, In general, however, welfare reform has been which replaced the old Aid to Families with Depen- limited in both scope and intensity. Even in the dent Children (AFDC) program with a new pro- TANF program, over half the adult beneficiaries are gram called Temporary Assistance to Needy idle on the rolls and are not engaged in activities Families (TANF). leading to self-sufficiency. Work requirements are A key element of this reform was a requirement virtually nonexistent in related programs such as that some welfare mothers either prepare for work food stamps and public housing. Even worse, or get jobs as a condition of receiving aid. As this despite the fact that marriage has enormous finanrequirement went into effect, welfare rolls plum- cial and psychological benefits for parents and chil33. Robert E. Rector and Rea S. Hederman, Jr., The Role of Parental Work in Child Poverty, Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA0301, January 27, 2003. 34. Robert E. Rector, Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., Patrick F Fagan, and Lauren R. Noyes, Increasing Marriage Would Dramatically . Reduce Child Poverty, Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA0306, May 20, 2003. 35. Robert Rector and Patrick F Fagan, The Continuing Good News About Welfare Reform, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder . No. 1620, February 6, 2003.

page 15

No. 1713 dren, welfare reform has done little or nothing to strengthen marriage in low-income communities. Overall, the welfare system continues to encourage idle dependence rather than work and to reward single parenthood while penalizing marriage. If child poverty is to be substantially reduced, welfare must be transformed. Able-bodied parents must be required to work or prepare for work, and the welfare system should encourage rather than penalize marriage.

January 5, 2004 funds in the past year to meet his familys essential needs. While this individuals life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians. But the living conditions of the average poor person should not be taken to mean that all poor Americans live without hardship. There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. Roughly a third of poor households do face material hardships such as overcrowding, intermittent food shortages, or difficulty obtaining medical care. However, even these households would be judged to have high living standards in comparison to most other people in the world. Perhaps the best news is that the United States can readily reduce its remaining poverty, especially among children. The main causes of child poverty in the United States are low levels of parental work and high numbers of single-parent families. By increasing work and marriage, our nation can virtually eliminate remaining child poverty. Robert E. Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., is Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Fellow in Statistical Welfare Research in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

Conclusion
The living conditions of persons defined as poor by the government bear little resemblance to notions of poverty held by the general public. If poverty is defined as lacking adequate nutritious food for ones family, a reasonably warm and dry apartment to live in, or a car with which to get to work when one is needed, then there are relatively few poor persons remaining in the United States. Real material hardship does occur, but it is limited in scope and severity. The typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient

page 16

No. 1713
Appendix A

January 5, 2004

B 1713

International Housing Conditions

Floor Area per Person (ft 2)
721.0 439.0 320.0 738.95 545.73 452.09 442.40 430.56 376.74 348.75 343.69 333.68 327.23 266.95 263.72 262.64 256.18 252.95 249.72 215.28 208.28 202.36 200.00 187.29 182.99 177.39 172.22 171.04 169.96 164.69 129.17 129.17 119.48 111.95 109.47 107.64 100.54 96.88 94.72 92.79 92.68 92.57 91.92 87.19 85.04 76.42 76.42 75.35 71.47 69.64 64.58 54.57 54.47 53.82 40.04

Country, City U.S. Total* U.S. Poor* U.S. Poor Apartment Dwellers** U.S.A. (Washington, D.C.) Australia (Melbourne) Norway (Oslo) Canada (Toronto) Sweden (Stockholm) Germany (Munich) France (Paris) United Kingdom (London) Austria (Vienna) Finland (Helsinki) Israel (Tel Aviv) Greece (Athens) Spain (Madrid) The Netherlands (Amsterdam) Hungary (Budapest) Slovak Republic (Bratislava) Singapore (Singapore) Brazil (Rio de Janeiro) Republic of Korea (Seoul) Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur) Poland (Warsaw) Turkey (Istanbul) Thailand (Bangkok) Venezuela (Caracas) Chile (Santiago) Japan (Tokyo) Jamaica (Kingston) Egypt (Cairo) The Philippines (Manila) South Africa (Johannesburg) Ghana (Accra) Indonesia (Jakarta) Jordan (Amman) China (Beijing) Nigeria (Ibadan) Colombia (Bogota) Mexico (Monterey) Ecuador (Quito) India (New Delhi) Algeria (Algiers) Senegal (Dakar) Cote dIvoire (Abidjan) Pakistan (Karachi) Hong Kong (Hong Kong) Zimbabwe (Harare) Malawi (Lilongwe) Tunisia (Tunis) Morocco (Rabat) Kenya (Nairobi) Madagascar (Antananarivo) Tanzania (Dar es Salaam) Bangladesh (Dhaka)

Persons Rooms per per Room Person

0.46 0.54 na 0.39 0.69 0.50 0.50 0.56 0.56 0.80 0.75 0.90 0.67 1.00 0.82 0.63 0.63 1.33 1.06 1.40 1.00 1.48 1.67 0.94 2.00 2.01 2.00 1.18 0.77 1.50 1.50 3.00 na 3.20 1.28 3.30 1.48 2.00 1.70 1.15 1.75 2.47 2.62 2.30 2.22 3.00 na 2.28 1.80 1.87 2.27 3.70 5.53 2.20 3.50 2.17 1.85 na 2.56 1.45 2.00 2.00 1.79 1.79 1.25 1.33 1.11 1.49 1.00 1.22 1.59 1.59 0.75 0.94 0.71 1.00 0.68 0.60 1.06 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.85 1.30 0.67 0.67 0.33 na 0.31 0.78 0.30 0.68 0.50 0.59 0.87 0.57 0.40 0.38 0.43 0.45 0.33 na 0.44 0.56 0.53 0.44 0.27 0.18 0.45 0.29

Permanent Structures (%)

na na na 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 100 99 99 97 86 100 95 97 90 85 100 80 94 80 66 100 67 97 94 100 97 93 70 86 97 84 88 97 90 83 67 96 94 67 43 76 55

Water Connection (%)

na na na 100 100 100 100 100 99 97 100 95 99 100 100 98 100 99 99 100 97 100 94 98 94 76 70 99 100 87 71 66 95 49 66 97 86 63 99 91 76 38 95 49 33 66 95 97 31 86 86 40 36 52 60

Note: *Data from U.S. Department of Energys Energy Information Administration. **Data depict average heated square feet per multi-family housing unit. Source: United Nations Centre for Human Settlements and the World Bank, The Housing Indicators Program, Volume II: Indicator Tables, Table 5; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Housing Characteristics 1993, Table 3.4.

page 17