Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

OP 1202DROP

Authors

OP 1202DROP

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3742 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(15) "OP_1202DROP.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "752756" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(19805) "3GGEWMSREP 4ETIVW 4SZIVX] MR 'EPMJSVRME (IGIQFIV  (IFSVEL 6IIH 8IWXMQSR] FIJSVI XLI 'EPMJSVRME 7XEXI 7IREXI 7IPIGX 'SQQMXXII SR XLI 7XEXYW SJ )RHMRK 4SZIVX] MR 'EPMJSVRME 7IREXSV 6MGLEVH %PEVGºR 'LEMV October 22, 2002 Public Policy Institute of California The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens – William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller – recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or state and federal legislation nor does it endorse or support any political parties or candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Preface This Occasional Paper has been revised from the handout distributed at the committee session in order to cover several issues that were provided in the testimony in response to committee questions. This testimony draws heavily on Reed, D. and R. Van Swearingen (2001), “Poverty in California: Levels, Trends, and Demographic Dimensions,” California Counts, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California. Percentage poor What are the poverty trends for California? The good news is that poverty has declined substantially in recent years. The California poverty rate fell from a peak of over 18 percent in 1993 to 12.6 percent in 2000 (Figure 1). With the recent slowing of the economy, poverty held steady at 12.6 percent in 2001.1 20 18 California 16 14 12 Rest of the nation 10 8 6 4 2 0 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 Source: Author’s calculations from the March CPS, 1968-2002. Figure 1. Poverty Rates in California and the Rest of the Nation, 1967-2001 The bad news is that the longer trend has been one of rising poverty in California. The poverty rate fluctuates with business cycle conditions, growing during recessions and falling during prosperous times. Comparing across business cycle peak years, the poverty rate of 12.6 percent in California in 2000 was only slightly lower than the 12.9 percent in 1989 but substantially higher than the 10.2 percent in 1979 and the 9.1 percent in 1969. 1 Beginning with 2000, the poverty rates are based on an expanded sample and weighted based on the 2000 Census. Without these adjustments, the 2000 poverty rate was 12.8 percent in California. The adjustments do not affect the national poverty rate. See Proctor, B. and J. Dalaker (2002). 1 The state’s poverty rate caught up and passed the poverty rate in the rest of the nation in the late 1980s. Earlier, in 1969, the poverty rate in California was more than 3 points below the rate for the rest of the nation (9.1 percent compared to 12.5 percent). By 2001, California was 1 point higher (12.6 percent compared to 11.6 percent). Looked at in another way, California’s poverty rate ranked 30th in the nation in 1980; by 2001, it was 14th. In that year year, the highest poverty state was New Mexico, followed by Mississippi and Arkansas.2 The poverty trend in Figure 1 is based on the federal definition of poverty. Under this definition, a family is considered poor if their pretax money income is below a federal threshold. For example, in 2001, a family with two adults and two children was considered poor if its annual income was below $17,960. The federal poverty measure is reported here because it is the only measure with widespread acceptance. It should be noted that the federal measure has several weaknesses including that it does not adjust for regional costs or living standards, it does not incorporate the different needs of working families (e.g., childcare), and it does not take into account health insurance, taxes (e.g., EITC), and nonmonetary benefits (e.g., food stamps).3 As an alternative to measuring poverty based on a specific threshold, we can investigate trends in income for low-income families. For example, the tenth percentile is the level of income at which only ten percent of people live in families with lower income. In 1979, the tenth percentile in California was $17, 500 (in inflation-adjusted, 2000 dollars).4 During the 1980s and early 1990s, the tenth percentile fell substantially so that by 1994, it had fallen 36 percent (Figure 2). Between 1994 and 2000, the tenth percentile grew so that in 2000 it was $14,800—15 percent below its 1979 level. Similarly, family income at the 25th percentile fell 27 percent between 1979 and 1993 but grew substantially in the late 1990s so that by 2000, income at the 25th percentile was $27,000 or 12 percent below the 1979 level of $30,800. Indeed, throughout the lower half of the income distribution, family income declined substantially between 1979 and 1993, but grew substantially in the late 1990s. Thus, for any statewide poverty threshold (as long as it is adjusted annually only for inflation), we would find a decline in poverty during the 2 State poverty comparisons are based on a three-year average for 1980 and a two-year average for 2001. Rankings for 2001 come from Proctor, B. and J. Dalaker (2002). 3 For a discussion of problems with the official measure of poverty, see Citro C.F., and R. Michael, eds. (1995). 4 Family income in Figure 2 is adjusted for inflation and family size as described in Reed, D. (2000). 2 recent economic boom5 but substantial growth in poverty between 1979 and 1993. Percentage change since 1979 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 Median 25th 10th 1994 1997 2000 Source: Author’s calculations from the March CPS, 1980-2001. Figure 2. Family Income Trends in California by Income Percentile, 1979-2000 Alternatively, we can measure “relative poverty.” For example, one relative poverty measure considers a family to be poor if its annual income is less than half of the statewide median family income. In 2000, the relative poverty threshold for a family of four was $26,347 and the relative poverty rate was 24.3 percent. During the economic boom of the late 1990s, relative poverty declined only when the incomes of low-income families grew faster than the incomes of middle-income families. Compared to the official measure of poverty (in Figure 1), relative poverty has not shown as marked an improvement in recent years, but it has consistently fallen from a high of 26.2 percent in 1993 (Figure 3). Relative poverty shows a very strong upward trend from 16.4 percent in 1969 to 24.3 percent in 2000. Compared to the rest of the nation, California has 5 Reed and Van Swearingen (2001) find that using poverty thresholds adjusted by regional housing costs leads to a fall in the poverty rate from 20 percent in 1996 to 15 percent in 2000. By this measure California had the fifth highest poverty rate in 2000, behind Washington, D.C., New Mexico, New York, and Louisiana. 3 Percentage poor had higher relative poverty since the early 1970s; and relative poverty has also grown faster in California than in the rest of the nation. In 2000, California had the second highest level of relative poverty in the nation, after Washington, D.C. 30 26 22 18 14 California Rest of United States 10 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 Source: Reed and Van Swearingen (2001). Figure 3. Relative Poverty for California and the Rest of the Nation, 1969-2000 Role of Immigration In addition to the business cycle, the immigrant make-up of the California population is an important factor for understanding poverty rates in the state. Among people in families headed by a U.S. native, the poverty rate in California was 9 percent in 2001 (Table 1). For people in families headed by an immigrant who arrived before 1990, the poverty rate was 15 percent, and for those in families headed by a more recent immigrant, the poverty rate was 27 percent. Compared to the rest of the nation, California has a substantially larger share of immigrants. Almost half (44 percent) of Californians lived in an immigrant family in 2001, compared to only 13 percent of people in the rest of the nation. Thus, California’s poverty rate tends to be high relative to the rest of the nation in large part because of new populations of poor people who have come to the state. 4 Table 1. Poverty by Foreign-born Status, California and the Rest of the Nation, 2001 California Poverty Share of Rate population Rest of the Nation Poverty Share of Rate population U.S.-born family head 9 56 11 87 Foreign-born family head, arrived before 1990 15 31 15 8 Foreign-born family head, arrived 1990 and later 27 13 21 5 Source: Author’s calculations from the March CPS, 2002. Who is poor? Poverty rates vary substantially across demographic groups in California. Among racial and ethnic groups, white non-Hispanics had the lowest poverty rate of 8 percent in 1999 (Table 2, column 2).6 Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans had substantially higher rates of 22 percent. Among Asians, the poverty rate was 13 percent. The poverty rate among all Asians masks the very high rate among Southeast Asian refugees (Cambodian, Laotian, Vietnamese, and Hmong), which tends to be more than twice that of other Asian groups. Another way to measure demographic dimensions of poverty is to ask, “Who are the poor?” That is, of those who are poor, what is their racial and ethnic make-up? Just over half of the poor in California were Hispanic and about one-fourth were white (Table 2, column 4). Poverty rates for U.S.-born natives were lower than that of foreign-born noncitizens—12 versus 25 percent. Nevertheless, because most Californians were U.S.-born, nearly two-thirds of the poor were natives. Foreign-born citizens had relatively low poverty rates of 11 percent, which suggests that relative to non-poor immigrants, poor immigrants are less likely to become citizens. 6 In order to accurately measure poverty rates for small population groups such as Native Americans, Census 2000 data are necessary (measures poverty in 1999). Statistics for racial groups do not include multiple race respondents. 5 Poverty rates in California were particularly high for children – 20 percent for those 5 and under and 19 percent for older children. People of retirement age, 65 and older, were much less likely to be poor with 8 percent poverty rates. The majority of the population and the majority of poor people were prime-age adults (18 to 64). Table 2. Poverty in California by Demographic Group, 1999 Statewide poverty 1. Share of Population (%) 100 2. Poverty Rate (%) 14 3. Number of Poor (1000s) 4,706 4. Share of Poor (%) 100 Race and ethnicity White, non-Hispanic Hispanic Asian African American Native American 47 8 1,210 26 32 22 2,378 51 11 13 466 10 6 22 470 10 1 22 67 1 Place of birth U.S.-born Foreign-born citizen Foreign-born non-citizen 73 12 3,030 64 10 11 366 8 16 25 1,310 28 Age Children 5 and under Youth 6 to 17 Adults 18 to 64 Adults 65 and older 9 20 597 13 18 19 1,160 25 62 13 2,669 57 10 8 280 6 Source: Census 2000, Summary File 3. The demographic groups described in Table 2 are limited by the partial release of the 2000 Census. With new releases of the data, planned for later this year, we will create measures of poverty for Asian and Hispanic subgroups, for immigrant groups by generation, and for families and children characterized by family structure and work status.7 This data will be important for understanding the "feminization of poverty" across race, ethnic, 7 Testimony on poverty by demographic group was provided by Professor Michael Stoll of UCLA based on the March Current Population Survey. The statistics in Table 2 were provided to complement his testimony with data from the 2000 Census. For a fuller discussion of the demographic dimensions of poverty in California, see Reed, D. and R. Van Swearingen (2001). 6 and immigrant groups and the interaction between female poverty, family structure, and work.8 8 The testimony included a brief reference to commute patterns for women. See Doyle, G. and B. Taylor (2000). 7 Where do California’s poor live? The San Joaquin Valley has some of the highest poverty rate counties in California with poverty rates over 20 percent in 1999: Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, and Kern (Table 3 and county map). Only four other counties of the 58 in California had similarly high poverty rates: Del Norte, Modoc, Yuba, and Imperial. The San Francisco Bay Area has many of the lowest poverty counties with poverty rates less than 10 percent: Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and San Mateo. The Sierra foothill counties in the Lake Tahoe area also had low poverty: Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, and Amador. The only other county with poverty lower than 10 percent was Ventura. Alternatively, we can consider the counties in terms of the number of poor people (second county map). By this measure, Los Angeles County stands out with over 1.7 million poor people – 35 percent of all poor people in California. Orange County and Riverside County also had large numbers of poor people, although they did not have particularly high poverty rates. Despite a relatively high poverty rate, sparsely populated Modoc had just over 2,000 poor people. Data by census tract provides a neighborhood view of the geographic dimension of poverty in the state (see census tract maps). Census tract data can be used for targeting programs and resources to the poorest neighborhoods in the state and/or to the neighborhoods with the largest numbers of poor people. Every region of the state had at least a few census tracts with very high poverty rates of over 30 percent, although this was less common in the San Francisco Bay region. 8 References Citro C.F., and R. Michael, eds. (1995), Measuring Poverty: A New Approach, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Doyle, G. and B. Taylor (2000), “Variation in Metropolitan Travel Behavior by Sex and Ethnicity,” in Travel Patterns of People of Color: Final Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, pp. 181-244. Proctor, B. and J. Dalaker (2002) Poverty in the United States: 2001, U.S. Census Bureau. Reed, D. (2000), California’s Rising Income Inequality: Causes and Concerns, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California. Reed, D. and R. Van Swearingen (2001), “Poverty in California: Levels, Trends, and Demographic Dimensions,” California Counts, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California. 9 Alameda County Alpine County Amador County Butte County Calaveras County Colusa County Contra Costa County Del Norte County El Dorado County Fresno County Glenn County Humboldt County Imperial County Inyo County Poverty Rate 11.0 19.5 9.2 19.8 11.8 16.1 7.6 20.2 7.1 22.9 18.1 19.5 22.6 12.6 Number of Poor 158,812 236 3,229 40,228 4,785 3,027 72,110 5,556 11,097 183,064 4,788 24,671 32,174 2,261 Table 3. Poverty by California County, 1999 Share of Poverty Poor Rate 3.3 Orange County 10.3 0.0 Placer County 5.8 0.1 Plumas County 13.1 0.8 Riverside County 14.2 0.1 Sacramento County 14.1 0.1 San Benito County 10.0 1.5 San Bernardino County 15.8 0.1 San Diego County 12.4 0.2 San Francisco County 11.3 3.8 San Joaquin County 17.7 0.1 San Luis Obispo County 12.8 0.5 San Mateo County 5.8 0.7 Santa Barbara County 14.3 0.0 Santa Clara County 7.5 Number of Poor 293,168 14,407 2,728 219,445 172,513 5,323 270,091 348,915 87,771 99,757 31,575 41,015 57,107 126,194 Share of Poor 6.1 0.3 0.1 4.6 3.6 0.1 5.6 7.2 1.8 2.1 0.7 0.9 1.2 2.6 Kern County 20.8 Kings County 19.5 Lake County 17.6 Lassen County 14.0 Los Angeles County 17.9 Madera County 21.4 Marin County 6.6 Mariposa County 14.8 Mendocino County 15.9 Merced County 21.7 Modoc County 21.5 Mono County 11.5 Monterey County 13.5 Napa County 8.3 Nevada County 8.1 Source: Census 2000, Summary File 3. 137,622 25,245 10,262 4,736 1,703,962 26,345 16,321 2,535 13,716 45,690 2,032 1,478 54,238 10,315 7,455 2.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 35.4 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.2 0.2 Santa Cruz County Shasta County Sierra County Siskiyou County Solano County Sonoma County Stanislaus County Sutter County Tehama County Trinity County Tulare County Tuolumne County Ventura County Yolo County Yuba County 11.9 30,417 15.4 25,141 11.3 402 18.6 8,240 8.3 32,747 8.1 37,148 16.0 71,520 15.5 12,234 17.3 9,695 18.7 2,435 23.9 87,957 11.4 6,213 9.2 69,294 18.4 31,033 20.8 12,526 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.8 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.8 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.3 10 Poverty Rate by County, 1999 Very High (20+) High (15-19.9) Moderate (10-14.9) Low (<10) 11 Number Poor by County, 1999 More than 75,000 20,000 - 75,000 5,000 - 20,000 Less than 5,000 12 Poverty Rate by Tract, 1999 Very High (30+) High (20-20.9) Moderate (8-14) Low (<8) 13 Number Poor by Tract, 1999 2,000 or More 1,000 - 2,000 300 - 1,000 Less than 300 14 PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company William K. Coblentz Senior Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates A. Alan Post Former State Legislative Analyst State of California Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Thomas C. Sutton Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Harold M. Williams President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Advisory Council Clifford W. Graves Vice Chancellor, Physical Planning University of California, Merced Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director California Policy Research Center University of California, Berkeley, Office of the President Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415) 291-4400 Fax: (415) 291-4401 www.ppic.org info@ppic.org" } ["___content":protected]=> string(108) "

OP 1202DROP

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(69) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/poverty-in-california-2/op_1202drop/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8193) ["ID"]=> int(8193) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:35:37" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3331) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(11) "OP 1202DROP" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(11) "op_1202drop" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(15) "OP_1202DROP.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "752756" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(19805) "3GGEWMSREP 4ETIVW 4SZIVX] MR 'EPMJSVRME (IGIQFIV  (IFSVEL 6IIH 8IWXMQSR] FIJSVI XLI 'EPMJSVRME 7XEXI 7IREXI 7IPIGX 'SQQMXXII SR XLI 7XEXYW SJ )RHMRK 4SZIVX] MR 'EPMJSVRME 7IREXSV 6MGLEVH %PEVGºR 'LEMV October 22, 2002 Public Policy Institute of California The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens – William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller – recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or state and federal legislation nor does it endorse or support any political parties or candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Preface This Occasional Paper has been revised from the handout distributed at the committee session in order to cover several issues that were provided in the testimony in response to committee questions. This testimony draws heavily on Reed, D. and R. Van Swearingen (2001), “Poverty in California: Levels, Trends, and Demographic Dimensions,” California Counts, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California. Percentage poor What are the poverty trends for California? The good news is that poverty has declined substantially in recent years. The California poverty rate fell from a peak of over 18 percent in 1993 to 12.6 percent in 2000 (Figure 1). With the recent slowing of the economy, poverty held steady at 12.6 percent in 2001.1 20 18 California 16 14 12 Rest of the nation 10 8 6 4 2 0 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 Source: Author’s calculations from the March CPS, 1968-2002. Figure 1. Poverty Rates in California and the Rest of the Nation, 1967-2001 The bad news is that the longer trend has been one of rising poverty in California. The poverty rate fluctuates with business cycle conditions, growing during recessions and falling during prosperous times. Comparing across business cycle peak years, the poverty rate of 12.6 percent in California in 2000 was only slightly lower than the 12.9 percent in 1989 but substantially higher than the 10.2 percent in 1979 and the 9.1 percent in 1969. 1 Beginning with 2000, the poverty rates are based on an expanded sample and weighted based on the 2000 Census. Without these adjustments, the 2000 poverty rate was 12.8 percent in California. The adjustments do not affect the national poverty rate. See Proctor, B. and J. Dalaker (2002). 1 The state’s poverty rate caught up and passed the poverty rate in the rest of the nation in the late 1980s. Earlier, in 1969, the poverty rate in California was more than 3 points below the rate for the rest of the nation (9.1 percent compared to 12.5 percent). By 2001, California was 1 point higher (12.6 percent compared to 11.6 percent). Looked at in another way, California’s poverty rate ranked 30th in the nation in 1980; by 2001, it was 14th. In that year year, the highest poverty state was New Mexico, followed by Mississippi and Arkansas.2 The poverty trend in Figure 1 is based on the federal definition of poverty. Under this definition, a family is considered poor if their pretax money income is below a federal threshold. For example, in 2001, a family with two adults and two children was considered poor if its annual income was below $17,960. The federal poverty measure is reported here because it is the only measure with widespread acceptance. It should be noted that the federal measure has several weaknesses including that it does not adjust for regional costs or living standards, it does not incorporate the different needs of working families (e.g., childcare), and it does not take into account health insurance, taxes (e.g., EITC), and nonmonetary benefits (e.g., food stamps).3 As an alternative to measuring poverty based on a specific threshold, we can investigate trends in income for low-income families. For example, the tenth percentile is the level of income at which only ten percent of people live in families with lower income. In 1979, the tenth percentile in California was $17, 500 (in inflation-adjusted, 2000 dollars).4 During the 1980s and early 1990s, the tenth percentile fell substantially so that by 1994, it had fallen 36 percent (Figure 2). Between 1994 and 2000, the tenth percentile grew so that in 2000 it was $14,800—15 percent below its 1979 level. Similarly, family income at the 25th percentile fell 27 percent between 1979 and 1993 but grew substantially in the late 1990s so that by 2000, income at the 25th percentile was $27,000 or 12 percent below the 1979 level of $30,800. Indeed, throughout the lower half of the income distribution, family income declined substantially between 1979 and 1993, but grew substantially in the late 1990s. Thus, for any statewide poverty threshold (as long as it is adjusted annually only for inflation), we would find a decline in poverty during the 2 State poverty comparisons are based on a three-year average for 1980 and a two-year average for 2001. Rankings for 2001 come from Proctor, B. and J. Dalaker (2002). 3 For a discussion of problems with the official measure of poverty, see Citro C.F., and R. Michael, eds. (1995). 4 Family income in Figure 2 is adjusted for inflation and family size as described in Reed, D. (2000). 2 recent economic boom5 but substantial growth in poverty between 1979 and 1993. Percentage change since 1979 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 Median 25th 10th 1994 1997 2000 Source: Author’s calculations from the March CPS, 1980-2001. Figure 2. Family Income Trends in California by Income Percentile, 1979-2000 Alternatively, we can measure “relative poverty.” For example, one relative poverty measure considers a family to be poor if its annual income is less than half of the statewide median family income. In 2000, the relative poverty threshold for a family of four was $26,347 and the relative poverty rate was 24.3 percent. During the economic boom of the late 1990s, relative poverty declined only when the incomes of low-income families grew faster than the incomes of middle-income families. Compared to the official measure of poverty (in Figure 1), relative poverty has not shown as marked an improvement in recent years, but it has consistently fallen from a high of 26.2 percent in 1993 (Figure 3). Relative poverty shows a very strong upward trend from 16.4 percent in 1969 to 24.3 percent in 2000. Compared to the rest of the nation, California has 5 Reed and Van Swearingen (2001) find that using poverty thresholds adjusted by regional housing costs leads to a fall in the poverty rate from 20 percent in 1996 to 15 percent in 2000. By this measure California had the fifth highest poverty rate in 2000, behind Washington, D.C., New Mexico, New York, and Louisiana. 3 Percentage poor had higher relative poverty since the early 1970s; and relative poverty has also grown faster in California than in the rest of the nation. In 2000, California had the second highest level of relative poverty in the nation, after Washington, D.C. 30 26 22 18 14 California Rest of United States 10 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 Source: Reed and Van Swearingen (2001). Figure 3. Relative Poverty for California and the Rest of the Nation, 1969-2000 Role of Immigration In addition to the business cycle, the immigrant make-up of the California population is an important factor for understanding poverty rates in the state. Among people in families headed by a U.S. native, the poverty rate in California was 9 percent in 2001 (Table 1). For people in families headed by an immigrant who arrived before 1990, the poverty rate was 15 percent, and for those in families headed by a more recent immigrant, the poverty rate was 27 percent. Compared to the rest of the nation, California has a substantially larger share of immigrants. Almost half (44 percent) of Californians lived in an immigrant family in 2001, compared to only 13 percent of people in the rest of the nation. Thus, California’s poverty rate tends to be high relative to the rest of the nation in large part because of new populations of poor people who have come to the state. 4 Table 1. Poverty by Foreign-born Status, California and the Rest of the Nation, 2001 California Poverty Share of Rate population Rest of the Nation Poverty Share of Rate population U.S.-born family head 9 56 11 87 Foreign-born family head, arrived before 1990 15 31 15 8 Foreign-born family head, arrived 1990 and later 27 13 21 5 Source: Author’s calculations from the March CPS, 2002. Who is poor? Poverty rates vary substantially across demographic groups in California. Among racial and ethnic groups, white non-Hispanics had the lowest poverty rate of 8 percent in 1999 (Table 2, column 2).6 Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans had substantially higher rates of 22 percent. Among Asians, the poverty rate was 13 percent. The poverty rate among all Asians masks the very high rate among Southeast Asian refugees (Cambodian, Laotian, Vietnamese, and Hmong), which tends to be more than twice that of other Asian groups. Another way to measure demographic dimensions of poverty is to ask, “Who are the poor?” That is, of those who are poor, what is their racial and ethnic make-up? Just over half of the poor in California were Hispanic and about one-fourth were white (Table 2, column 4). Poverty rates for U.S.-born natives were lower than that of foreign-born noncitizens—12 versus 25 percent. Nevertheless, because most Californians were U.S.-born, nearly two-thirds of the poor were natives. Foreign-born citizens had relatively low poverty rates of 11 percent, which suggests that relative to non-poor immigrants, poor immigrants are less likely to become citizens. 6 In order to accurately measure poverty rates for small population groups such as Native Americans, Census 2000 data are necessary (measures poverty in 1999). Statistics for racial groups do not include multiple race respondents. 5 Poverty rates in California were particularly high for children – 20 percent for those 5 and under and 19 percent for older children. People of retirement age, 65 and older, were much less likely to be poor with 8 percent poverty rates. The majority of the population and the majority of poor people were prime-age adults (18 to 64). Table 2. Poverty in California by Demographic Group, 1999 Statewide poverty 1. Share of Population (%) 100 2. Poverty Rate (%) 14 3. Number of Poor (1000s) 4,706 4. Share of Poor (%) 100 Race and ethnicity White, non-Hispanic Hispanic Asian African American Native American 47 8 1,210 26 32 22 2,378 51 11 13 466 10 6 22 470 10 1 22 67 1 Place of birth U.S.-born Foreign-born citizen Foreign-born non-citizen 73 12 3,030 64 10 11 366 8 16 25 1,310 28 Age Children 5 and under Youth 6 to 17 Adults 18 to 64 Adults 65 and older 9 20 597 13 18 19 1,160 25 62 13 2,669 57 10 8 280 6 Source: Census 2000, Summary File 3. The demographic groups described in Table 2 are limited by the partial release of the 2000 Census. With new releases of the data, planned for later this year, we will create measures of poverty for Asian and Hispanic subgroups, for immigrant groups by generation, and for families and children characterized by family structure and work status.7 This data will be important for understanding the "feminization of poverty" across race, ethnic, 7 Testimony on poverty by demographic group was provided by Professor Michael Stoll of UCLA based on the March Current Population Survey. The statistics in Table 2 were provided to complement his testimony with data from the 2000 Census. For a fuller discussion of the demographic dimensions of poverty in California, see Reed, D. and R. Van Swearingen (2001). 6 and immigrant groups and the interaction between female poverty, family structure, and work.8 8 The testimony included a brief reference to commute patterns for women. See Doyle, G. and B. Taylor (2000). 7 Where do California’s poor live? The San Joaquin Valley has some of the highest poverty rate counties in California with poverty rates over 20 percent in 1999: Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, and Kern (Table 3 and county map). Only four other counties of the 58 in California had similarly high poverty rates: Del Norte, Modoc, Yuba, and Imperial. The San Francisco Bay Area has many of the lowest poverty counties with poverty rates less than 10 percent: Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and San Mateo. The Sierra foothill counties in the Lake Tahoe area also had low poverty: Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, and Amador. The only other county with poverty lower than 10 percent was Ventura. Alternatively, we can consider the counties in terms of the number of poor people (second county map). By this measure, Los Angeles County stands out with over 1.7 million poor people – 35 percent of all poor people in California. Orange County and Riverside County also had large numbers of poor people, although they did not have particularly high poverty rates. Despite a relatively high poverty rate, sparsely populated Modoc had just over 2,000 poor people. Data by census tract provides a neighborhood view of the geographic dimension of poverty in the state (see census tract maps). Census tract data can be used for targeting programs and resources to the poorest neighborhoods in the state and/or to the neighborhoods with the largest numbers of poor people. Every region of the state had at least a few census tracts with very high poverty rates of over 30 percent, although this was less common in the San Francisco Bay region. 8 References Citro C.F., and R. Michael, eds. (1995), Measuring Poverty: A New Approach, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Doyle, G. and B. Taylor (2000), “Variation in Metropolitan Travel Behavior by Sex and Ethnicity,” in Travel Patterns of People of Color: Final Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, pp. 181-244. Proctor, B. and J. Dalaker (2002) Poverty in the United States: 2001, U.S. Census Bureau. Reed, D. (2000), California’s Rising Income Inequality: Causes and Concerns, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California. Reed, D. and R. Van Swearingen (2001), “Poverty in California: Levels, Trends, and Demographic Dimensions,” California Counts, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California. 9 Alameda County Alpine County Amador County Butte County Calaveras County Colusa County Contra Costa County Del Norte County El Dorado County Fresno County Glenn County Humboldt County Imperial County Inyo County Poverty Rate 11.0 19.5 9.2 19.8 11.8 16.1 7.6 20.2 7.1 22.9 18.1 19.5 22.6 12.6 Number of Poor 158,812 236 3,229 40,228 4,785 3,027 72,110 5,556 11,097 183,064 4,788 24,671 32,174 2,261 Table 3. Poverty by California County, 1999 Share of Poverty Poor Rate 3.3 Orange County 10.3 0.0 Placer County 5.8 0.1 Plumas County 13.1 0.8 Riverside County 14.2 0.1 Sacramento County 14.1 0.1 San Benito County 10.0 1.5 San Bernardino County 15.8 0.1 San Diego County 12.4 0.2 San Francisco County 11.3 3.8 San Joaquin County 17.7 0.1 San Luis Obispo County 12.8 0.5 San Mateo County 5.8 0.7 Santa Barbara County 14.3 0.0 Santa Clara County 7.5 Number of Poor 293,168 14,407 2,728 219,445 172,513 5,323 270,091 348,915 87,771 99,757 31,575 41,015 57,107 126,194 Share of Poor 6.1 0.3 0.1 4.6 3.6 0.1 5.6 7.2 1.8 2.1 0.7 0.9 1.2 2.6 Kern County 20.8 Kings County 19.5 Lake County 17.6 Lassen County 14.0 Los Angeles County 17.9 Madera County 21.4 Marin County 6.6 Mariposa County 14.8 Mendocino County 15.9 Merced County 21.7 Modoc County 21.5 Mono County 11.5 Monterey County 13.5 Napa County 8.3 Nevada County 8.1 Source: Census 2000, Summary File 3. 137,622 25,245 10,262 4,736 1,703,962 26,345 16,321 2,535 13,716 45,690 2,032 1,478 54,238 10,315 7,455 2.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 35.4 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.2 0.2 Santa Cruz County Shasta County Sierra County Siskiyou County Solano County Sonoma County Stanislaus County Sutter County Tehama County Trinity County Tulare County Tuolumne County Ventura County Yolo County Yuba County 11.9 30,417 15.4 25,141 11.3 402 18.6 8,240 8.3 32,747 8.1 37,148 16.0 71,520 15.5 12,234 17.3 9,695 18.7 2,435 23.9 87,957 11.4 6,213 9.2 69,294 18.4 31,033 20.8 12,526 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.8 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.8 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.3 10 Poverty Rate by County, 1999 Very High (20+) High (15-19.9) Moderate (10-14.9) Low (<10) 11 Number Poor by County, 1999 More than 75,000 20,000 - 75,000 5,000 - 20,000 Less than 5,000 12 Poverty Rate by Tract, 1999 Very High (30+) High (20-20.9) Moderate (8-14) Low (<8) 13 Number Poor by Tract, 1999 2,000 or More 1,000 - 2,000 300 - 1,000 Less than 300 14 PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company William K. Coblentz Senior Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates A. Alan Post Former State Legislative Analyst State of California Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Thomas C. Sutton Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Harold M. Williams President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Advisory Council Clifford W. Graves Vice Chancellor, Physical Planning University of California, Merced Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director California Policy Research Center University of California, Berkeley, Office of the President Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415) 291-4400 Fax: (415) 291-4401 www.ppic.org info@ppic.org" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:35:37" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(11) "op_1202drop" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:35:37" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:35:37" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(53) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/OP_1202DROP.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }