Poverty statistics published in the P-60 series of the Current Population Reports rely on an established set of definitions. Poverty thresholds that are adjusted annually by the Office of Management and the Budget are compared to cash incomes. Debate on the meaning of this comparison has raised questions about both the threshold and the resources to which thresholds are compared. The Bureau of the Census held a conference on treatment of non-cash income (1985); the Institute for Research on Poverty held a symposium on the role of asset tests for defining eligibility for welfare programs (1977); the economics profession has had extensive debate on the appropriateness of alternative techniques for comparing the well-being of different kinds of families (Deaton and Muellbauer, 1980; Danziger, et al., 1984; van der Gaag and Smolensky, 1982.)

In this paper we demonstrate that the official poverty measure is conceptually deficient, and discuss how to remedy those deficiencies that have varying impact on measures defined on alternative accounting periods. In order to avoid confusion, we refer to a generic problem of understanding problems of deprivation a s measuring poverty. The procedures used in P-60 and other government reports are designated official poverty measurements. We introduce an alternative that we refer to as crisis measurement.