STATISTICIANS IN HISTORY
Mollie Orshansky (third from left) at the first Conference on Women in the War on Poverty on May 8, 1967. With her are Mary Keyserling, Josephine
Weiner, and Hyman Bookbinder. Near the end of her speech, Orshansky said, “…our statistics, imperfect though they may be, show us where prob-
lems are even if they cannot always reveal exact dimensions…[C]alculations … relating to poverty … exist only to help make them disappear, and so
if we can think bold solutions and dream the big dream, we can wipe out the scourge of poverty before we all agree on how to measure it.”
with $2,900 income … would be considered poor, but a family with
Orshansky was a member of this group. The technical working group
a husband, wife, and four little children with $3,100 income would
reviewed and contributed to the plan for what became the Income
not be.” In addition, the president’s declaration of a war on poverty
Survey Development Program—the research and development phase
evidently led SSA to give a higher priority to Orshansky’s poverty
for the Survey of Income and Program Participation.
work. As a result, Orshansky’s supervisors asked her to do an analysis
In 1982, Orshansky retired from SSA after a government career
extending her families-with-children poverty thresholds to the whole
that lasted for more than 40 years. She died on December 18, 2006,
population. She completed this analysis in late 1964 and it was pub-
in New York City.
lished in the Social Security Bulletin in January 1965 as “Counting the
Orshansky received a number of honors for her achievements.
Poor: Another Look at the Poverty Profile.”
She received a Commissioner’s Citation from the Social Security
The publication of Orshansky’s January 1965 article came when
Administration in 1965 for her creative research and analytical work
the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO)—the lead agency for
and the Distinguished Service Award (the department’s highest recog-
the War on Poverty—was being set up. OEO officials were enthusi-
nition of civilian employees) from HEW in 1976 for her “leadership
astic about Orshansky’s poverty thresholds, considering them to be
in creating the first nationally accepted measures of income adequa-
an advance over the CEA’s $3,000-for-all-family-sizes figure. OEO
cy and applying them diligently and skillfully to public policy.” In
research chief Joseph Kershaw commented, “Mollie Orshansky says
1974, she was elected a Fellow of the ASA for her leadership in the
that when you have more people in the family, you need more money.
development of statistics for the measurement of poverty. After her
Isn’t that sensible?” In May 1965, OEO adopted Orshansky’s thresh-
retirement, she received a national award from the Children’s Defense
olds as a working definition of poverty for statistical, planning, and
Fund in 1989 and an Award for Distinguished Contribution from the
budget purposes, and, in August 1969, her thresholds were made the
American Political Science Association in 1993.
federal government’s official statistical definition of poverty.
Orshansky’s achievements also were recognized in a very different
When she developed the poverty thresholds, Orshansky was “an
setting. She may be the only statistician to have been discussed on a
obscure civil servant” who worked “[d]own a dimly lit hall, among
major television show. One subplot of “The Indians in the Lobby,”
stacks of computer printouts [at] a paper-covered desk …” However,
an episode of “The West Wing” originally broadcast in November
after her thresholds were adopted as the federal government’s poverty
2001, involved the adoption of a new poverty measure, and one char-
line, she became much more well known. Because of frequent citations
acter alluded to how Orshansky developed the current poverty mea-
of her work in academic articles and books, someone once referred to
sure. While the discussion of issues relating to a new poverty measure
her as “the ubiquitous footnote.” Besides presenting papers at a num-
sounded plausible, the episode grossly mischaracterized the rationale
ber of professional meetings and publishing a number of articles, she
for Orshansky’s methodology for developing the poverty thresholds.
testified and/or provided written documents to congressional commit-
Of the contributions to American public policy that Orshansky
tees on 10 occasions between December 1967 and 1990.
made during her career, the greatest by far was her development of the
On five occasions between 1968 and 1980, Orshansky participated
poverty thresholds. The poverty line has become a major feature of
in federal interagency committees that reviewed the poverty thresh-
the architecture of American social policy. Although the measure may
olds. The 1968–1969 committee made two modest revisions in
have its shortcomings, the poverty line gives us a means of identifying
the thresholds, and it was the thresholds with these revisions that
and analyzing the makeup of the groups in our society with the least
were made the official federal statistical definition of poverty. In
resources. Orshansky’s thoughtful analyses of the poverty population
1981, several minor changes recommended by the 1979–1980
began a tradition, and there are now numerous researchers and advo-
committee were made.
cates who conduct such analyses and draw policy implications from
Following up on a 1973 subcommittee’s recommendation for a
them. Even though there may not be consensus on answers, the ques-
new income survey vehicle, the HEW Technical Working Group on
tion “How does it affect the poor?” has become a test for proposed
income data and models proposed that a new survey be developed
policies and programs. And a simplified version of the poverty line is
to provide better information on the income and related characteris-
used to determine eligibility not only for certain federal programs, but
tics of the population and on participation in government programs.
for a number of state, local, and private programs, as well. ■
18 AMSTAT NEWS SEPTEMBER 2008
SEPTEMBER AMSTAT FINAL.indd 18 8/20/08 2:26:55 PM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84