Hofstra University September 26, 2013 Trudi Renwick Poverty Statistics Branch Social, Economic and...
-
Upload
charlotte-kelley -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Hofstra University September 26, 2013 Trudi Renwick Poverty Statistics Branch Social, Economic and...
Hofstra University
September 26, 2013
Trudi Renwick
Poverty Statistics Branch
Social, Economic and Housing Statistics Division
U.S. Bureau of the Census
301-763-5133
Measuring Suburban Poverty: Concepts and Data Sources
2
Sources of Poverty Data
• Current Population Survey - national• Decennial Census - historical• American Community Survey
– Single year - geographies 65,000+– Multi-year - smaller areas
• Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates– School district estimates
3
The 2012 official poverty rate for the nation was 15.0 percent
•No change from last year
•46.5 million people in poverty
• An increase of 2.7 percentage points since 2007
Official poverty threshold for a family with two adults, two children in 2012 was $23,283
Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement
Detailed tables, historical tables, customized tables using Table Creator
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf
Official Poverty Measure
1967
1975
1985
1995
2005
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Poverty rate
Percent
35
40
45
50
55
60
Real median household income
Income in thousands (2012 dollars)
Real Median Household Income and Poverty Rate: 1967 to 2012
Note: Income rounded to nearest $100.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 1968 to 2013 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.
15.0%
14.2%
Recession
$51,000
$42,900
5
5
The Current Population Survey enables researchers to look at poverty over long time periods for larger geographic entities. Nationally, we can see a trend toward a larger share of the poor living in suburbs.
19671969
19711973
19751977
19791981
19831986
19881990
19921994
19961998
20002002
20052007
20092011
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Share of the Poor living in Suburbs: 1967-2012
Outside metropolitan statis-tical areasOutside principal citiesInside principal citiesAxis Title
Source: Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement
6
Poverty rates in suburban areas continue to be lower than inside principal cities or outside metropolitan areas.
19671969
19711973
19751977
19791981
19831986
19881990
19921994
19961998
20002002
20052007
20092011
0
5
10
15
20
25
Poverty Rates
Inside principal cities Outside principal cities Outside metropolitan statistical areas
Source: Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement
7
Nationally over the past twelve years, poverty rates and the number of poor people have grown fastest in the suburbs.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
50.4%
59.5%
21.3%
Inside Prin-cipal Cities
Outside Principal Cities
Nonmetro
Percent Increase in Number of Poor: 2000 - 2012
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
20.9%
43.6%
32.1%
Percent Increase in Poverty Rate 2000-2012
Source: Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement
ACS Data on Suburbs: Percent Change in Poverty Rates 2008-2012
All families
With related children under 18 years
Married couple families
With related children under 18 years
Families with female householder, no husband present
With related children under 18 years
All people
Under 18 years
18 to 64 years
65 years and over
-5.0%0.0%
5.0%10.0%
15.0%20.0%
25.0%30.0%
35.0%40.0%
45.0%
Source: American Community Survey
9
ACS data on Nassau/Suffolk Counties• 2007 to 2012 American Community Survey• Poverty rates have increased in both counties but poverty rates are
fairly low– Nassau County up from 4.4 percent in 2007 to 6.6 percent in 2012
• Change between 2011 and 2012 not statistically significant
– Suffolk County up from 5.0 percent in 2007 to 6.9 percent in in 2012
• Change between 2011 and 2012 not statistically significant
• While the populations of the two counties have grown about 3 percent since 2007, the number of people in poverty has grown much faster– The number of people in poverty grew by almost 50 percent, from
128,000 to 190,000 (56 percent in Nassau, 43 percent in Suffolk)– The number of people between 100 percent and 200 percent of
the poverty level grew by 35 percent from 234,000 to 316,000 (19 percent in Nassau, 50 percent in Suffolk)
– Number of people below 50 percent of poverty grew by 50 percent from 56,000 to 83,000 (65% in Nassau, 40% in Suffolk)
11
12
New poor?
• Difficult to answer – most surveys are snapshots
• Only Survey of Income and Program Participation looks at poverty status over time.– Most poverty spells are short– Some poverty is chronic or persistent – Sample not large enough to look at Suffolk
County.
How does the Census Bureau measure poverty?
14
Poverty Threshold and Resources
Official Poverty Measure
• Cost of a minimum food basket times three
• Multiplier based on 1955 consumption survey
• Updated each year with the CPI
• Same for all areas in the US
15
• Gross (before-tax) cash income from all sources
• Unit of analysis is the family (those related by birth, marriage or adoption) and unrelated individuals
Thresholds Resources
16
17
Criticisms of Official Poverty Measure– Does not distinguish between needs of workers and nonworkers
• Child care• Other work expenses
– Does not reflect government policy initiatives • In-kind benefits – SNAP/WIC/LIHEAP • Tax credits • Tax policy
– Irregular family size adjustments – Does not reflect increases in standard of living since 1955 – Does not reflect new family structures: resources of unmarried
partners – Does not recognize variations in medical care costs and housing
costs– Does not reflect geographic price variations
Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM)
Observations from the Interagency Technical Working Group - March 2, 2010
•Will not replace the official poverty measure•Will not be used for resource allocation or program eligibility•Census Bureau and BLS responsible for improving and updating the measure•Continued research and improvement•Based on NAS panel 1995 recommendations
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/ Short_ResearchSPM2011.pdf
20
Comparison of SPM and Official Poverty Estimates: 2011
*Includes unrelated individuals under age 15.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
All People Under 18 years 18 to 64 years
65 years and older
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
15.1%
22.3%
0.137
8.7%
16.1%
18.1%
15.5% 15.1%
Percent SPMOfficial*
21
Comparison of SPM and Official Poverty Estimates: 2011
*Includes unrelated individuals under age 15.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0.151
0.201
0.114
0.1710.161
0.217
0.134 0.135
Percent SPMOfficial*
21
Comparison the Distribution of People: Total Population, SPM and Official Poverty Populations: 2011
*Includes unrelated individuals under age 15.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
Official*
SPM
Total Population
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
43.2%
43.8%
32.5%
39.4%
43.4%
52.2%
17.4%
12.8%
15.3%
Inside principal city Outside principal city Outside MSA
t
21
Comparing the Official and SPM Thresholds and Units
• Cost of a minimum food basket times three
• Updated each year with the CPI
• Same for all areas in the US
• Unit of analysis is the family (those related by birth, marriage or adoption) and unrelated individuals
22
• 33rd percentile of sum of expenditures for food, clothing, and shelter, and utilities (FCSU) plus “a little bit more”
• Updated each year with most recent 5 years of data
• Adjusted for differences in home ownership status and geography
• Unit of analysis expanded to include cohabiting partners and their relatives, unrelated children under 15, foster children under 22.
Official Measure Supplemental Measure
Income/Resource Definition
Official
• Gross (before-tax) cash income from all sources
Supplemental• Gross money income• PLUS value of near-money federal
in-kind benefits for FCSU – SNAP, school lunch, WIC– Housing subsidies– LIHEAP– Tax credits (EITC)
• MINUS federal and state income and payroll taxes and other nondiscretionary expenses
– Child care and other work expenses– Medical out of pocket expenses– Child support paid
23 23
Difference in SPM Rate After Including Each Element: 2011
-8.3-2.9
-1.6-1.1-1.1-0.9
-0.4-0.3-0.3-0.1-0.1
0.10.5
1.31.7
3.4
Social Security
Refundable tax credits
SNAP
SSI
Housing subsidies
Child support received
School lunch
TANF
WIC
LIHEAP
Child support paid
Federal income tax
FICA
Work expense
Medical Out of Pocket
Percentage point change in SPM rate after including each element
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/ Short_ResearchSPM2011.pdf
22
Unemployment Insurance
Difference in SPM Rate After Including Each Element: 2011
-8.3-2.9
-1.6-1.1-1.1-0.9
-0.4-0.3-0.3-0.1-0.1
0.10.5
1.31.7
3.4
Social Security
Refundable tax credits
SNAP
SSI
Housing subsidies
Child support received
School lunch
TANF
WIC
LIHEAP
Child support paid
Federal income tax
FICA
Work expense
Medical Out of Pocket
Percentage point change in SPM rate after including each element
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/ Short_ResearchSPM2011.pdf
22
Unemployment Insurance
Difference in SPM Rate After Including Each Element: 2011
-8.3-2.9
-1.6-1.1-1.1-0.9
-0.4-0.3-0.3-0.1-0.1
0.10.5
1.31.7
3.4
Social Security
Refundable tax credits
SNAP
SSI
Housing subsidies
Child support received
School lunch
TANF
WIC
LIHEAP
Child support paid
Federal income tax
FICA
Work expense
Medical Out of Pocket
Percentage point change in SPM rate after including each element
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/ Short_ResearchSPM2011.pdf
22
Unemployment Insurance
Difference in SPM Rate After Including Each Element: 2011
-8.3-2.9
-1.6-1.1-1.1-0.9
-0.4-0.3-0.3-0.1-0.1
0.10.5
1.31.7
3.4
Social Security
Refundable tax credits
SNAP
SSI
Housing subsidies
Child support received
School lunch
TANF
WIC
LIHEAP
Child support paid
Federal income tax
FICA
Work expense
Medical Out of Pocket
Percentage point change in SPM rate after including each element
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/ Short_ResearchSPM2011.pdf
22
Unemployment Insurance
Difference in SPM Rate After Including Each Element: 2011
-8.3-2.9
-1.6-1.1-1.1-0.9
-0.4-0.3-0.3-0.1-0.1
0.10.5
1.31.7
3.4
Social Security
Refundable tax credits
SNAP
SSI
Housing subsidies
Child support received
School lunch
TANF
WIC
LIHEAP
Child support paid
Federal income tax
FICA
Work expense
Medical Out of Pocket
Percentage point change in SPM rate after including each element
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/ Short_ResearchSPM2011.pdf
22
Unemployment Insurance
29
30
31
32
33
34
How to get data on suburbs from AFF?
37
38