DC Poverty Rate Dips Down

September 17, 2015

Hard on the results of the Census Bureau’s latest annual Current Population Survey supplement come the vastly more detailed results of its American Community Survey. As the headline says, they indicate what seems a drop in the overall poverty rate for the District of Columbia — down from 18.9% in 2013 to 17.7% last year.*

In human terms, this means that roughly 5,120 fewer District residents lived in poverty, as the Census Bureau’s official measure defines it.

At the same time, fewer residents lived in deep poverty, i.e., with household incomes no greater than 50% of the applicable poverty threshold — 9.1%, as compared to 10.3% in 2013.

These figures are obviously good news. But they’re hardly good enough to pop a champagne cork for. Several major reasons we should remain very concerned.

First, as I’ve said before, the poverty thresholds are extraordinarily low. A single parent and her two children, for example, were counted as poor only if the family’s pre-tax cash income was less than $19,073 — this in a city where the family’s basic needs cost roughly $104,000. Perhaps even more, as the DC Fiscal Policy Institute has noted.

Second, the District’s poverty rate is still high, even comparatively. The national poverty rate, according to the ACS, was 15.5% last year. The District’s poverty rate also exceeds all but 11 state-level rates.

Third, the poverty rate for children in the District is far higher than the rate for the population as a whole — 26% or more than one in four residents under 18 years old. The deep poverty rate for children is also higher — 12.4%.

True, these rates are lower than in 2013, when they were 27.2% and 16.2%. But we’ve got more children in the District now. So the rate dips — for plain vanilla poverty in particular — reflect less progress than they seem to.

Fourth, we still have large gaps among major race/ethnicity groups in the District — one, though far from the only sign of persistent income inequality, rooted in discriminatory policies and practices. For example:

  • The new poverty rate for blacks is 25.9%, as compared to 6.9% for non-Hispanic whites.
  • 12.7% of blacks lived in deep poverty, while only 4.8% of non-Hispanic whites did.
  • The rates for Hispanics fall in between, as they have in the past — 16.9% and 7.5%.

We find the same sort of divide in household incomes. The median for non-Hispanic white households was $117,134 — $57,512 higher than their median nationwide. The median household income for black residents was barely more than a third of what non-Hispanic whites here had to live on — $40,739.

For the poverty rates themselves, we can find some ready explanations in other ACS figures. For example, the poverty rate for District residents who were at least 25 years old and had less than a high school diploma or the equivalent was 33.7%, as compared to 5.8% for their counterparts with at least a four-year college degree.

Only a small fraction of working-age (16-64 year-old) residents who worked full-time, year round were officially poor — 2.1% — while 45.9% who lived in poverty didn’t work (for pay) at all.

They presumably include residents too disabled to work and dependent on Supplemental Security Income benefits. These, at a maximum, left a single individual about $3,660 below the poverty threshold.

But that leaves 23.4% who worked for at least part of the year, less than full time or both. They were not, by any means, all workers who chose part-time and/or temporary work, as a recent report by DCFPI and partners tells us.

The report includes some policy recommendations to help low-wage hourly workers who are now jerked around — and economically disadvantaged — by unpredictable, erratic work schedules. One can readily find other policy proposals that would, in various ways, significantly reduce poverty rates in the District and nationwide.

Though the ACS gives us new numbers, neither the story they tell nor the solutions they imply are new. Still worth knowing how the prosperity we witness in our gentrifying neighborhoods, as well as our traditionally upper-income havens has egregiously failed to reach so many District residents.

* All the ACS tables include margins of error, i.e., how much the raw numbers and percents could be too high or too low. For readability, I’m reporting both as given. However, the high side of the margin for the overall rate could mean no change from 2013.


U.S. Poverty Rate Flat-Lines

September 16, 2015

Defying predictions, the Census Bureau just reported that 14.8% of people in the U.S. — roughly 46.7 million — were officially poor last year. Both the rate and the raw number are so little different from 2013 as to be statistically the same.

The newest rate is 2.3% higher than in 2007, shortly before the recession set in. This is yet further evidence that our economic recovery hasn’t brought recovery to everybody.

Much has rightly been made of flaws in the official measure the figures reflect. These include what the Census Bureau counts and doesn’t as income and the thresholds it perforce uses, i.e., the household incomes that set the upper limits for poverty.

The figures nevertheless represent reasonably accurate trends over time. So they’re disheartening, especially because improvements in the labor market suggested we’d see somewhat lower rates.

Also disheartening is the essentially unchanged deep poverty rate, i.e., the percent of people who lived (who knows how?) on pre-tax cash incomes less than half the applicable threshold — 6.6%. This is a full percent higher than in 2007.

Poverty rates for the major age groups the report breaks out also flat-lined. We thus still see basically the same large disparities.

As in the past, the child poverty rate was markedly higher than the overall rate — 21.1%. It translates into well over 15.5 million children — a third of all poor people in our country. About 6.8 million children — 9.3% — lived in deep poverty.

The senior poverty rate was again the lowest of the three the age groups — 10% or roughly 4.6 million people 65 and older. For seniors, the deep poverty rate apparently ticked up to 3.2%.

We still see marked disparities among major race/ethnicity groups too. For example:

  • The poverty rate for blacks was more than two and a half times the rate for non-Hispanic whites — 26.2%, as compared to 10.1%.
  • For blacks, the deep poverty rate was 12%, while only 4.6% of non-Hispanic whites were that poor.
  • The poverty rate for Hispanics was 23.6% and the deep poverty rate 9.6%.
  • By contrast, the poverty rate for Asians was 12% and the deep poverty rate 5.6%. Several analyses suggest we’d see a quite different picture if the Census Bureau differentiated among the sub-populations this group comprises.

Bottom line, I suppose, is that we’ve got new numbers, but no real change. So they tell the same old story. We’ve got a lot of prosperity in this country, but it’s far from equally shared.

We know quite a bit about how we could move toward greater economic and social justice. What we don’t have is the political will where we most need it.

NOTE: The Census Bureau simultaneously released the results of its Supplemental Poverty Measure — a departure from past practice. I’ll deal with them separately.

UPDATE: I’ve learned that the reason the U.S. poverty rate for 2014 isn’t statistically different from the 2013 rate is that the Census Bureau reported results from a redesigned survey it began using last year, along with the old survey. Last year, it reported what the old survey showed. This year, what the new one did.

Supreme Court Fair Housing Decision Means More Than May Appear

June 29, 2015

Quite a morning at the Supreme Court last Thursday. As you all know, a six-member majority preserved affordable health insurance for low and moderate-income people — and not only the 6.4 million whose subsidies were at immediate risk, for reasons I explained.

The Court also, by the slimmest possible majority, ruled that the Fair Housing Act prohibits policies and practices that have a discriminatory effect, even if an intent to discriminate can’t be proved.

This is how the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has interpreted the law — and how virtually all lower courts have interpreted it for 40 years, including all at the appellate level that have considered the issue.

But the ruling came as a pleasant surprise because advocates thought the Court wouldn’t have agreed to hear the case if it wasn’t likely to rule the interpretation over-broad.

The ruling removes a threat to HUD’s efforts to combat racial segregation, both the legacy of deliberately discriminatory policies and the effects of current policies and practices.

The just-decided case involved one of the latter — a local housing authority’s disproportionate awards of tax credits to developers with plans to locate low-cost housing in predominantly black inner-city neighborhoods.

The ruling will free HUD, from a legal standpoint, to issue a final version of its rule spelling out its responsibility — and thus the responsibility of state and local agencies — to “affirmatively further” equal housing opportunity, as the FHA requires.

This, in itself, has broader implications than the obvious because equal opportunities to rent and buy housing are closely linked to other opportunities — most, though not all related to advantages of living in a neighborhood where most fellow residents aren’t poor.

These include living closer to where a decent number of decent-paying jobs are available and/or to convenient public transportation, ready access to full-service grocery stores, better-funded — and therefore, generally better — nearby schools and less exposure to toxics in the environment, not to mention flying bullets.

They are all reasons that a plethora of research has found that place matters — including, as I wrote awhile ago, for children’s future prospects of moving up the income scale from the bottom fifth.

Now, it’s not only housing discrimination — intentional or otherwise — that tends to perpetuate income inequality and, with it, downright income insufficiency. We have ample evidence of discrimination in hiring, pay, promotions and the like.

We know that state and local funding for public schools can deny equal educational opportunities to children in high-poverty districts, which are often (though not always) predominantly black or Hispanic. And we’ve got evidence of what certainly seems to be discrimination in the way schools deal with students who’ve allegedly violated the rules.

Discrimination of these sorts affects not only racial and ethnic minorities, of course, but other groups our major federal civil rights laws are supposed to protect, e.g., women, people with disabilities, those whose religious beliefs and/or practices relegate them to minority status.

I’m off on what may seem an excursion because, as a lawyer-advocate friend of mine noted, the disparate impact (or effects) standard the Supreme Court upheld has also long been the basis for enforcement of the other laws.

What I, like many others said about fair housing applies equally to employment and to education, health care, social services, transportation and other programs that receive or benefit from federal funds.

You’re rarely, if ever going to be able to prove that a policy or practice has a greater negative impact on people who belong to a protected class because that’s what it was intended to do.

And indeed, some policies and practices with disparate impacts probably aren’t intentional, but rather “unconscious prejudices,” as Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said. Some, indeed, may not reflect prejudices at all, but a casual acceptance of the status quo, failures to think through consequences or not caring to address them.

Those policies and practices are nonetheless contrary to what Congress intended back in the days when it sought to level the playing field for people unjustly denied opportunities essential for upward mobility, personal well-being and full participation in our social and political institutions.

A decision for plaintiffs in the FHA case wouldn’t automatically have extended the overly-narrow intent standard throughout the fabric of our civil rights protections. But it would have given a new entering wedge to parties interested in constricting their reach.

So an altogether good Thursday at the Supreme Court. And as you all know, a great Friday too.

Low-Income Children Can Move Up If They Grow Up in a Good Place

June 11, 2015

We know you’ve got to choose the right parents if you want to wind up higher on the income scale — or so the research tells us. Now we’ve got a massive data analysis telling us they’ve got to choose the right zip code. And they’ve got to do it while you’re young, preferably before you turn ten.

The analysis was the focal point of a recent “conversation” about place, opportunity and policy hosted by the Brookings Institution. Featured speaker was the lead analyst, Harvard economics professor Raj Chetty.

Some mind-opening data, a handful of policy recommendations and a striking (to me) focus on race discrimination. Summary, brief as I could make it, follows.

Place Matters for Children’s Future, With Caveats

Children born in the bottom fifth of the income scale have a much better chance of moving to the top fifth as adults if they grow up in a community that gives them and their families advantages like decent schools, safe homes and streets, ready access to jobs and beneficial networks. No surprise here. But new numbers, some surprising.

Chances for low-income children raised in Washington, D.C. are 10.5%. This is better than the national average — 7.5%. And it’s a whole lot better than their counterparts’ chances in most of the deep South. But their chances would be better if they’d grown up in San Jose, California, hub of the Silicon Valley.

Shifting the income level, as the breakouts do, children whose families have incomes in the bottom quarter of the income scale will earn 5.8% more as young adults if they grow up in D.C. than if they’d grown up in “an average place.” But if they’d grown up in nearby Fairfax County, they could look forward to more than double that relative income gain.

In short, place matters, as another recent study also showed. This one, also co-authored by Chetty, reevaluated results of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Moving to Opportunity pilot.

Families got housing vouchers, but only if they moved to lower-poverty neighborhoods. An earlier evaluation measured increases in parents’ employment and income. Basically, zip.

But when Chetty and his colleagues looked at how preteens fared as adults, they found a 31% boost in earnings, compared to peers whose families didn’t get the MTO vouchers. This, I would guess, is at least partly because the young MTO beneficiaries had a higher college attendance rate.

For older children, however, moves to opportunity had negative effects on earnings, as well as other measures. The disruption of the move outweighed the advantages of living in a higher-income neighborhood, the researchers say.

What Public Policies Could Do

At the highest plane, these findings support two policy thrusts. The first is to help more families move out of high-poverty neighborhoods — and to do so while their children are very young. That would seem to require more housing vouchers, perhaps with subsidies scaled to encourage use in mixed-income neighborhoods.

But there’d have to be more relatively low-cost housing in those neighborhoods too. Several panelists at the Brookings event had quite a bit to say about exclusionary zoning, e.g., density limits that cap building height and/or prohibit multi-unit housing.

At the same time, it’s both practically and theoretically infeasible to move all poor and near-poor families out of high-poverty neighborhoods. And not all families want to move, fearing loss of “social capital,” e.g., connection to a local congregation, supportive friends nearby.

So the second major policy thrust is to improve those neighborhoods. Oddly, Chetty and panelists didn’t delve into the how issue, though one recommended diversifying public housing locations so as to dilute the poverty concentration.

Discussion focused mostly on affording families in high-poverty neighborhoods access to opportunities elsewhere — better schools especially. Recurrent, favorable references to vouchers, lotteries and charter schools. One panelist also mentioned redrawn public school attendance zones.

Chetty himself believes we need more “big data” analyses to pinpoint initiatives that would make economically-disadvantaged neighborhoods less disadvantageous for the children growing up in them.

But he did cite possibilities, based on his research to date — specifically, neighborhood characteristics correlated to better (and worse) outcomes for kids. Big news here is that the race in the place matters a lot.

Race Matters for All Children

We all know now, if we didn’t before that our public safety and criminal justice systems often make life worse — if they don’t end it — for residents in predominantly black neighborhoods. The victims are usually blacks.

What Chetty’s research tells us is that the racial makeup of a neighborhood affects economic mobility for whites, as well as blacks. Outcomes worsen as black density increases for both, he said.

We don’t need his research, though we’ve got it now to identify major factors — under-funded schools with over-crowded classrooms, less experienced teachers and insufficient resources to mitigate disadvantages that impair children’s ability to learn, lack of convenient public transportation, etc.

What Policies Have Done and Could

Plowing more money into the schools, transportation systems and the like would seem a solution to the drag on upward mobility that living in a predominantly black neighborhood exerts. And indeed, it is, but not the only one. Nor sufficient because it would address symptoms, but not root causes.

Several panelists zeroed in on the latter. Predominantly black neighborhoods —  and their attendant disadvantages — didn’t just happen, they stressed. The neighborhoods reflect housing segregation policies dating back to the 1920s.

And we’ve still got policies that perpetuate segregation. More widespread private-sector practices, however, e.g., selective treatment by real estate agents, egregiously unequal mortgage loan terms.

The 1968 Fair Housing Act was supposed to dismantle segregation and prevent further discrimination on various bases, including race.

But weak and/or co-opted local agencies let business go on as usual. And HUD has never had to resources to effectively enforce the law. Nor has it always been allowed to do what it could, as a ProPublica report indicates.

HUD has proposed new rules that would put teeth into the Fair Housing Act’s requirement that it — and thus state and local agencies — “affirmatively further” the purposes of the law. The final rules — assuming they’re issued and enforced — could make place matter less for low-income children’s chances of moving up the income scale. Make life better for their parents too.

But they won’t make every place a launching pad for upward mobility. For that, we need a broader range of policy initiatives. Bigger investments in equalizing opportunities too.



Some College Education Not Enough in DC’s Economy

February 5, 2015

As you may have noticed, this recovery that’s suppose to be more than five years old now hasn’t been one of those rising tides that lifts all boats. We’ve had scads of reports, media features and the like showing how more and more income is flowing to the already-rich, leaving the rest with a shrinking share.

A new report from the DC Fiscal Policy Institute zeroes in on one angle of this nationwide story — employment and wages in the District of Columbia. It does so mainly by comparing Census data for 2007, just before the recession set in, to comparable data for 2013.

The report’s subtitle tells that “DC’s Economic Recovery Is Not Reaching All Residents.” That’s an understatement. For example:

  • Low-wage workers, i.e., those with earnings in the bottom fifth, actually got paid a bit less per hour in 2013 than in 2007.
  • The unemployment rate for black workers was 6% higher late last summer than in 2007, though the overall unemployment rate in the District was just 2.1% higher.
  • About two and a half times as many black workers were jobless for at least six months in 2013 as in 2007.
  • Higher percents of black and Hispanic workers, especially the former, were working part time, though they wanted full-time jobs.

The big message underlying many of the figures and related graphs is that residents without at least a four-year college degree are no better off than they were before the recession. In some respects, they’re worse off.

We’re used to seeing dismal wage figures and relatively high unemployment rates for workers without a high school diploma or the equivalent. And we’ve surely got them in DCFPI’s report.

But the figures for District residents with some college education, including those with an associate’s degree are an eye-opener. We learn, for example, that:

  • The median hourly wage for the some-college group fell more, in dollars, than the median for workers with no more than a high school diploma.
  • At the same time, the median for residents with at least a four-year college degree increased by $2.00 an hour — roughly the same as what the some-college workers lost.
  • The unemployment rate for the some-college group was close to 15% in 2013. This is nearly three times the rate in 2007 — and only about 4% higher lower than the rate for residents without a high school diploma.
  • About 22% of the some-college workers were involuntary part-timers, i.e., wanted full-time work, but couldn’t get it.

Yet when DCFPI turns to what needs to be done, it focuses largely on the District’s lowest-wage workers — and those who either can’t get jobs or could, but can’t afford the collateral costs.

Our some-college workers may benefit from most of the recommendations, but only to the extent they’re as disadvantaged in our labor market as workers and potential workers without their formal education credentials.

For example, DCFPI puts in another plug for career pathways that integrate basic literacy and job training programs — not, one hopes, an approach our some-college residents need.

It also recommends that the District take better advantage of federal funds available for job training and related supports, e.g., transportation subsidies, through SNAP  (the food stamp program). This, I take it, means invest more local dollars because the U.S. Department of Agriculture will reimburse half of what’s spent on an approved plan.

Two other recommendations would help ease conflicts between work and family obligations. One would enable a worker to take paid leave in order to care for a new baby or ill family member. Obviously preferable to quitting, getting fired or, in the best of cases, losing wages you and other family members need.

Another recommendation — oft made and still not fully funded — would increase the reimbursement rates the District pays providers that care for children with publicly-funded subsidies.

We know that some providers won’t accept such children and that others limit the number they’ll accept because, in at least some cases, the reimbursements don’t even cover the costs of care.

Some parents who don’t work could. Others could work more. Wouldn’t do a thing for their wage rates or job prospects. But there’d be more income to spend on other needs.

Still another oft-made recommendation could boost earnings for thousands of workers in the District’s growing “hospitality” sector, as well as some others, e.g., hairdressers, the folks who deliver our pizzas. These are workers whom employers can pay as little as $2.77 an hour because they regularly receive tips.

DCFPI suggests a 70% increase in the tip credit wage — borrowing, it seems, from the long-stalled minimum wage bill in Congress. But it also notes that seven states have no tip credit wage at all — a model the District could follow, if policymakers would stand up to the restaurant and hotel industry lobbyists.

Don’t look to me — or, I would guess, other progressives — to argue against any of these recommendations. But, so far as I can see, none of them gets to the heart of the problem DCFPI illuminates.

If you live in the District, you’ll have a tough time getting — and keeping — a job that will pay enough to support a reasonably secure, comfortable lifestyle unless you’ve got at least a four-year college degree.

What our local policymakers can do about this I’m hard put to say. And I’m certainly not faulting DCFPI for teeing up a handful of quite modest recommendations they could adopt right now — or as part of the budget the mayor’s people are already working on.

But I don’t think we should just shrug our shoulders either. An economy that works for only about half the adults in the city isn’t, to borrow from DCFPI, “enabling all residents to succeed.”




DC Poverty Rate Rises to Nearly 19%

September 18, 2014

I was all set to write that the poverty rate for the District of Columbia dipped down last year, just as the official national rate had. But no, according to the just-released results of the American Community Survey.

The District’s poverty rate increased from 18.2% in 2012 to 18.9% in 2013,  Or so it seems. The increase is small enough increase to fall within the margin of error.*

Here’s more of what we’ve got, plus a few remarks here and there.

The Big Picture

The new poverty rate means that approximately 115,630 District residents lived on less than the very low applicable poverty threshold — just $23,624 for a two-parent, two-child family or about 26% of the family’s basic living costs in the D.C. area.

The rate is 2.5% higher than in 2007, just before the recession set in. It is also 3.1% higher than the 2013 national rate.

The deep poverty rate, i.e., the percent of residents living below half the applicable income threshold, was 10.3%. In other words, somewhat over 63,000 residents were devastatingly poor, especially when we consider the high costs of living in the District.

Young and Old

As in the past, the child poverty rate was much higher than the overall rate — 27.2%. This means that about 29,740 D.C. children were officially poor — well over half of them (16.2%) deeply so.

Both the total and the deep poverty rates for children were slightly higher than in 2012 — in both cases, by less than 1%. But they were considerably higher than in 2007, when the child poverty rate was 22.7% and the deep poverty rate for children 12%.

They were also both higher than the national rates. These, according to the ACS, were 22.2% and 9.9%.

Seniors had lower poverty and deep poverty rates — 17.5% and 4.5% respectively. These too, however, were higher than the nationwide rates. And a better poverty measure than the clunker the ACS uses would probably yield higher rates for seniors here in the District.

Non-Hispanic Whites v. Everybody Else

Race/ethnicity gaps in the District remain very wide. For example:

  • The black poverty rate was more than three and a half times greater than the rate for non-Hispanic whites — 28.7%, as compared to 7.7%.
  • For blacks, the deep poverty rate was 15.2%, while for non-Hispanic whites only 5.1%.
  • For Hispanics, the poverty rate was 12.6% and the deep poverty rate 5.6%. These are markedly lower than the 2012 rates, unlike the others here.
  • Rates for Asians were 18.7% and 13.2% respectively.

We see similar disparities in median household income, i.e., the midpoint between the highest and the lowest.

  • The median income for non-Hispanic white households was a very comfortable $118,402.
  • For black households, the median income was less than a third of that — $38,124.
  • Hispanic and Asian households fell in between, with a median incomes of $50,861 and $63,281 respectively.

The non-Hispanic white household median was a whole lot higher here than nationwide, by nearly $60,720.  The medians for black and Hispanic households were higher too, but the dollar differences were much smaller, especially the former. The median for Asian households was lower — a surprise, since it was considerably higher in 2012.

Work and Education

We’re told that work is the solution to poverty. The ACS figures support this, but only up to a point.

In 2013, 46.5% of poor residents between the ages of 16 and 64 didn’t work at all. An additional 25.7% worked less than full time or intermittently.

But that still leaves nearly 8,380 working-age residents who were employed full-time, year round and still not earning enough to lift themselves out of poverty — or at least, not them and dependent family members.

It’s a fair guess that these are mostly residents who don’t have the formal education credentials that living-wage jobs here, as elsewhere, increasingly demand. This is probably also the case for many of the part-time and some-time employed.

What we do know is that roughly 44.5% of residents 25-64 years old who had less than a high school education were employed during 2013 — and only 54.2% with no more than that.

Not surprisingly then, the poverty rate for those 25 years and older who had just a high school diploma or the equivalent was 27% last year — and for those with less, 39.3%. By contrast, the poverty rate for those with at least a four-year college degree was just 5.4%.

(Yes, I know these shifting age brackets are frustrating.)

Income Inequality

There’s obviously a lot of wealth in the District — and a lot of poverty. We see this in the figures I’ve cited, but also in the fact that the average household income — $102,822 — is so much greater than the median.

While 15.3% of households had incomes under $15,000, 12% had incomes of at least $200,000 — the highest bracket the Census Bureau reports.

There’s nothing new about this divide, except for the specific numbers. Nor is it unique to the District, though the disparity here seems unusually high. Nothing new about that either.

Most experts — and advocates as well — view the growing income inequality in this country as a bad thing in and of itself. They also see negatives specifically for people at the low end of the income scale. Many of the same arguments would apply to the District.

Nearly 10,860 families in the District had annual incomes, including cash benefits of less than $10,000 last year. Surely we can do better, though doing it won’t be simple.

* All the ACS tables include the margins of error, i.e., how much the raw numbers and percents could be too high or too low. In the interests of simplicity, I’m reporting both as given.

NOTE: I’ve revised several figures in this post because I’ve learned that I should use the ACS national figures for comparisons. I had originally used the Current Population Survey for these because that’s how I understood the Census Bureau advice.

Official U.S. Poverty Rate Finally Ticks Down

September 16, 2014

The Great Recession officially ended more than five years ago. Data from various sources indicate that the recovery has actually taken hold, even in the labor market. And now the official poverty rate does so too.

The Census Bureau just reported that the overall poverty rate for the U.S. population ticked down for the first time since 2006 — from 15% in both 2011 and 2012 to 14.5% last year.

But like the other indicators, the new rate shows we’ve still got a long way to go — and that such prosperity as the recovery has generated is far from equally shared.

The new poverty rate translates into 45.3 million people poor enough to fall below the Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds. These are very low — an annual income of less than $19,073 for a single parent with two children, for example.

More than 19.8 million people — 6.3% — lived in what’s commonly referred to as deep (or extreme or severe) poverty, i.e., had incomes below half the threshold applicable to their family size and configuration.

As in the past, the child poverty rate was considerably higher than the overall rate — 19.9%, representing well over 14.6 million children or about one in three of all our country’s poor. And the senior poverty rate was considerably lower — 9.5%.

Approximately 6.5 million children — 8.8% lived in deep poverty. This was true for only 2.7% of seniors.

But we’ve reasons to expect that the Census Bureau’s report on its more complex Supplemental Poverty Measure will show markedly higher rates for seniors, as well as somewhat lower rates for children.

Other disparities generally mirror those we’ve seen before. For example:

  • The black poverty rate was nearly triple the rate for non-Hispanic whites — 27.2%, as compared to 9.6%.
  • The deep poverty rate for blacks was 12.2%, while only 4.3% of non-Hispanic whites were that poor.
  • The poverty rate for Hispanics was 23.5% and their deep poverty rate 9.4%.
  • Rates for Asians were 10.5% and 5.2% respectively.

Disparities among family types also replicate a familiar patterns. The percent of married couples who were officially poor was 5.8%, while the percent for single-woman families was 30.6%. Families headed by a single man were again in between — 15.9%. And there were, as usual, far fewer of them.

Like the overall rate, most of these breakout rates were lower than in 2012. Not, however, the poverty rate for blacks or the ever-so-much-lower deep poverty rates for non-Hispanic whites and married couples.

None of the rates was as low as in 2007 — the last year before the Census survey reflected the recession. And those rates were nothing to cheer about.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 220 other followers