tence. Since, however, these allowances are in fact above the level of social welfare assistance, the legislature is acting within the scope of its margin of appreciation by not removing these households from the determination of consumer expenditure […]. (3) There is no constitutional objection to the calculation of the level of benefits to cover standard needs because the legislature has also taken into consideration in the reference group of one-person households those people who did not claim social benefits although they were entitled to them and therefore had to cover their expenses from other and possibly lesser means (cf. BVerfGE 125, 175 <236>). The legislature has complied with its obligation […] to refine its needs assessment accordingly (cf. BVerfGE 125, 175 <236 and 237>) in its evaluation of the 2008 income and consumption survey. Scientific studies […] stated that the number of households living in hidden poverty can only be estimated […]. Even an educated estimate is shrouded in uncertainty, which is why the legislature is not compelled to base the determination of the level of social benefits on a calculation that is merely approximate (cf. BVerfGE 125, 175 <236 and 237 >). 105 (4) The Constitution did not require the legislature to remove all those households from the survey that received benefits under the Federal Educational Assistance Act. […] There is no indication that the inclusion of these households distorts the level of standard needs by any relevant degree. 106 (5) The objection raised to the calculation of standard needs with the argument that people claiming benefits under the Asylum Seekers‘ Benefits Act were not removed as reference households is not tenable. In any event, asylum seekers living in communal accommodation are excluded, since only people running their own households […] were included in the 2008 income and consumption survey. The Federal Statistical Office carried out a special evaluation of the 2008 income and consumption survey and found that the households taken into consideration with foreign women and men from non-EU countries had received no other payments from public funds […]. This means that the legislature was justified in presuming that no households were included in the survey that received benefits under the Asylum Seekers’ Benefits Act. 107 (6) It was permissible to include households with people who had previously received unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance in the calculation of standard needs. This does not result in a circular conclusion, because their net income was above the level of benefits under the Second and Twelfth Books of the Code of Social Law – at least at the time of the survey. 108 e) Insofar as the legislature deviates from orientation to the average consumer expenditure of part of the population under the statistical model, the level of standard needs can still be justified in a way that stands up to scrutiny for the period relevant for the decision when considered in the called-for overall assessment. The removal of certain items from the calculation of standard needs cannot be challenged in constitutional terms for using a characteristic of the basket-of-goods model, meaning that a mix of methods results. Such calculation does not necessarily violate the Constitu- 109 19/29