Hofstra University September 26, 2013 Trudi Renwick Poverty Statistics Branch Social, Economic and Housing Statistics Division U.S. Bureau of the Census

Hofstra University

September 26, 2013

Trudi Renwick

Poverty Statistics Branch

Social, Economic and Housing Statistics Division

U.S. Bureau of the Census

[email protected]

301-763-5133

Measuring Suburban Poverty: Concepts and Data Sources

mailto:[email protected]

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


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


ACS Data on Suburbs: Percent Change in Poverty Rates 2008-2012

All families

With related children under 18 years

Married couple families


Families with female householder, no husband present


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



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



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


22

Unemployment Insurance


-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


SNAP

SSI

Housing subsidies


School lunch

TANF

WIC

LIHEAP

Child support paid

Federal income tax

FICA

Work expense




22



-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


SNAP

SSI

Housing subsidies


School lunch

TANF

WIC

LIHEAP

Child support paid

Federal income tax

FICA

Work expense




22



-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


SNAP

SSI

Housing subsidies


School lunch

TANF

WIC

LIHEAP

Child support paid

Federal income tax

FICA

Work expense




22



-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


SNAP

SSI

Housing subsidies


School lunch

TANF

WIC

LIHEAP

Child support paid

Federal income tax

FICA

Work expense




22


29

30

31

32

33

34

How to get data on suburbs from AFF?

37

38

39

Contact Information

Trudi Renwick

[email protected]

301-763-5133

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Hofstra University September 26, 2013 Trudi Renwick Poverty Statistics Branch Social, Economic and Housing Statistics Division U.S. Bureau of the Census