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.

Less Poverty, Greater Income Inequality in DC

January 5, 2015

The new year seems a fitting time to check on how the District of Columbia is progressing toward two related goals — reducing poverty and achieving shared prosperity. A true good-news, bad-news story, according to indicators the Half in Ten campaign published last month.

As I’ve written before, Half in Ten created the indicators in 2011, when it restarted the clock on cutting poverty in half in ten years.

They’re organized under four main headings — poverty reduction (of course), good jobs, strong families and communities and economic security.

But they yield a fragmentary picture — in part, because Half in Ten has to use numbers already available for both the U.S. as a whole and states, plus the District. And for other reasons beyond its control, they’re not all current.

I’ve tried in the past to follow Half in Ten’s framework. A different approach this year, based on what I found most striking, especially when I looked back to the original indicator set.

Long story short: The District has a lower poverty rate than in 2010. But shared prosperity still seems a will o’ the wisp.

Poverty Reduction

The District’s poverty rate last year was 0.3% lower than in 2010 — 18.9%, as compared to 19.2%. The new rate is still higher than rates for all but five Deep South and Southwestern states.

The race/ethnicity breakout is one way we see income inequality in the District. For example, as I reported when the figures were released, the 2012 poverty rate for black residents is more than three times the rate for non-Hispanic whites.

Income Inequality

Half in Ten’s indicator is the ratio between the shares of income that went to households in the top and bottom fifths of the income scale last year, according to the American Community Survey. By this measure, income inequality in the District is extraordinarily high — 30.3. It’s far larger than any state’s — and more importantly, larger than in 2010.

But the ratio is, to me, a tad abstract. So let me translate it into actual shares. Of all the household income in the District, the top fifth enjoyed nearly 55.4%. The bottom fifth had to make do with slightly more than 1.8%.

Some Contributing Factors

On the one hand, 70.2% of young adults in the District have at least a two-year college degree — a slight uptick since 2010. As you’d expect, this is far higher than the percent in any state.

On the other hand, only 59% of teens who started high school graduated four years later, as of the 2011-12 school year. This is a slightly lower percent than the rate for the prior school year — and the lowest reported for 2011-12.

Not surprisingly, the District has a relatively high percent of “disconnected” youth, i.e., 16-24 year olds who were neither working nor in school in 2012. This latest “disconnected” rate — 17% — is exactly the same as in 2010, which again puts the District roughly mid-way in the state rankings.

No such flat-lining for the unemployment rate, which declined from 9.9% in 2010 to 8.3% last year. Pretty obvious who’s getting the jobs — and not — in our burgeoning local economy.

On the upside, the teen birthrate declined quite a lot. In 2012, there were 38.6 births for every 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 19. This is 6.8 fewer than in 2010. And though still high, it’s nowhere near rates in the bottom-ranked states.

Teen birthrates are often correlated to poverty — as cause, effect or some combination of both. Recent research suggests that income inequality is an additional factor because poor young women see little chance of improving their economic situation if they postpone motherhood.

The percent of children in foster care also has bearing on the poverty rate — again, as cause, effect or both. It’s still high in the District — 11 children per 1,000, as of 2012. But it was 20 per 1,000 in 2010.

Further Progress Possible

Some state and local governments are adopting policies that can reduce poverty and enable low-income people to gain a greater share of prosperity, as the report that includes and provides context for the indicators selectively shows.

Here in the District, for example, the minimum wage will step up to $11.50 in July 2016 — $4.25 more than the federal minimum. Ten states also raised their minimum wage last year, making 29 that now have minimums above the federal.

Proposals to raise the federal minimum have gone nowhere in Congress — and most surely won’t during the next two years. The same seems likely for other legislation that would boost low incomes and strengthen both work supports and safety net programs for people who can’t earn enough to meet basic needs.

So, as the report concludes, “the momentum for national change” of a progressive sort has to build at state and local levels. A call to action for advocates and grassroots organizers.

And, I suppose, a hopeful note to end on, since it implies that we’ll have a renewed federal commitment to reducing poverty and income inequality sooner or later. But in the meantime, we’ll have inequities at least as large as those we have now based on where people live.

More Than One in Three DC Residents With Disabilities in Poverty

October 27, 2014

My post on the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure report prompted a fine question: What is the poverty rate for people with disabilities in the Washington, D.C. area?

I knew the SPM had no answer, but was pretty sure other Census reports would. And indeed, I found some very disturbing figures.

Not to keep you in suspense, the relevant poverty rate for the metropolitan statistical area that includes the District of Columbia was 15.9% last year. But it was more than double that for the District itself. Now the deets.

Overall Poverty Rates for People With Disabilities

The American Community Survey — our best source for community-level data — tells us that 33.9% of District residents with disabilities lived in poverty last year. This is 15% higher than the poverty rate for the D.C. population as a whole. And it’s 11.5% higher than the rate for people with disabilities nationwide.

A third of poor District residents with disabilities lived in deep poverty, i.e., at or below half the applicable poverty threshold. This rate is also higher than the national rate.

All these rates, however, provide only a partial picture because the ACS limits most of its questions about disabilities to people who are at least five years old and all of them to disabilities that cause a “serious difficulty.” Questions limited to the five and older group refer to daily life activities.

What this means, among other things, is that young children who can see and hear just fine, but have some other physical disability — or any emotional or intellectual disability — don’t get counted. Nor, of course, do older people who choose not to acknowledge serious difficulties in such activities as making decisions for themselves.

More Older People With Disabilities, But Fewer Poor

As we’d expect, the percent of District residents with disabilities increases with age. The disability rate for children between the ages of five and seventeen was somewhat over 7.4% last year. It was barely higher for working-age adults, i.e., those 18-64 years old. But about a third of residents 65 and older had at least one disabling condition.

The poverty rates for disabled people in these age groups are just the opposite. A mind-boggling 45.5% of disabled children in the over-five age group lived in families with incomes below the poverty threshold last year — less than $23,865 for a couple with two children.

The poverty rate for working-age adults with disabilities was 36.9% — nearly two and a half times the rate of those whom the ACS classified as without a disability. It’s also about 10% higher than for seniors with disabilities.

So there are the numbers. How can we explain them? That’s a more complicated question than the one that prompted this post. But I’ll take a stab at it in the next.


Better Poverty Measure, Worse Poverty Rate, But Not for Everybody

October 16, 2014

As in the past, the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure yields a higher poverty rate than the official measure that was the basis for the reports the Bureau issued last month. According to the just-released SPM report, the rate last year was 15.5%, rather than 14.5%.*

This means that about 2.9 million more people — roughly 48.7 million in all — were living in poverty. At the same time, 1.3% fewer people lived in deep poverty, i.e., at or below 50% of the income threshold that determines who’s counted as poor.

These differences as well as the many others reflect the fact that the SPM is constructed differently from the official measure. There’s a brief explanation of how it’s built in the last section below.

Other Shifts in Poverty Rates

We see shifts up and down for state-level rates. For example, the rate for the District of Columbia rises from 19.9% to 22.4%. Rates fall in 26 states and rise in 13. (These reflect three-year averages to compensate for the relatively small sample sizes.)

As in the past, rates also shift for major race/ethnicity groups. Most of the shifts are relatively small. An exception here for Asians, whose poverty rate was 5.9% higher, and for blacks, whose deep poverty rate was 4.6% lower.

The most marked shifts are again for the young and the old.

  • The child poverty rate drops from 20.4% to 16.4%, reducing the number of poor children by about 2.9 million.
  • The deep poverty rate for children is less than half the official rate — 4.4%, as compared to 9.3%.
  • By contrast, the poverty rate for people 65 and older rises from 9.5% to 14.6%.
  • And the deep poverty rate for seniors ticks up from 2.7% to 4.8%.

Poverty Rates Without Key Federal Benefits

The changes for seniors largely reflect the fact that the SPM factors in medical out-of-pocket costs. But the SPM report also tells us that the senior poverty rate would have been 52.6% without Social Security payments. In other words, Social Security protected about 23.4 million seniors from poverty last year — more than three and a half times as many as were poor.

This is only one of the policy-relevant figures the SPM report provides in a section that shows how poverty rates would change if some particular benefit weren’t counted as income. Some examples Census has helpfully translated into raw numbers:

  • The refundable Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit lifted 8.8 million people out of poverty.
  • But for SNAP (food stamp) benefits, about 4.8 million more people would have fallen below the poverty threshold.
  • Unemployment insurance benefits lifted 2 million people over the threshold.

So we see that the much-maligned safety net programs work. But we also see that policy choices have impaired the impacts some of the biggies formerly had.

For example, SNAP benefits lifted about 5 million people out of poverty in 2012, before the across-the-board cuts became effective. We’ve yet to see the effects of the further, targeted whack at benefits that’s part of the new Farm Bill.

The anti-poverty impacts of UI benefits shrunk further — a trend dating back to 2010, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The number of people the benefits lifted out of poverty last year was nearly half a million fewer than in 2012.

And that was before Congress let the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program die at the end of last year. The new UI figure almost surely reflects reductions it made when it last renewed the program, however.

SPM 101

As I’ve explained before, the SPM is a more complex — and generally viewed as better — poverty measure than the one that’s used for official purposes, e.g., as the basis for the federal poverty guidelines that help determine eligibility for many safety net and other means-tested programs.

The Bureau begins by setting initial thresholds based on what the roughly 33rd percentile of households with two children spend on four basic needs — food, shelter, clothing and utilities.

It then bumps the amount up a bit to account for some other needs, e.g., household supplies, transportation that’s not work-related. It also makes some housing cost adjustments based on differences between major geographic areas and whether households rent or own — and in the latter case, with or without a mortgage.

Next, it deducts for certain other necessary expenses, e.g., work-related expenses, out-of-pocket costs for health care. And, as income, it adds the value of some non-cash benefits that households can use for the four basic needs. It also, for the same reason, folds in the refundable tax credits.

The report I link to at the beginning of this post provides a fuller — and considerably more wonkish — explanation.

* This is the same rate the Census Bureau reported last month. However, most of the official rates in the SPM report differ somewhat because the Bureau has included children under 15 who are unrelated to anyone they’re living with, e.g., foster children. The official measure doesn’t include them as part of a family unit.

I’m using the adjusted rates so we can have apples-to-apples comparisons. But the rates reported last month are those that should be used for other purposes.

UPDATE: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that the refundable tax credits lifted 9.4 million people out of poverty. This figure, it says, is based on its analysis of the SPM data. I don’t know why it’s higher than the Census Bureau figure I linked to.

How Does DC Stack Up Against States?

September 18, 2014

A few additional factoids from the new Census Bureau figures — all reinforcing the acute income divide I’ve already remarked on.

On the one hand, the median income for households in the District was higher than the medians in all but four states. Neighboring Maryland had the highest — $72,483. The District’s was $4,911 lower.

On the other hand, only five states had higher poverty rates than the District. And the District tied with Alabama for the sixth highest child poverty rate. Pretty remarkable when you consider that Alabama had the fourth lowest median income.

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.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 215 other followers