Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
IB Bean Same Day Poverty

IB Bean Same Day Poverty

Ratings: (0)|Views: 437|Likes:
Published by Patricia Dillon

More info:

Published by: Patricia Dillon on Oct 28, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/28/2011

pdf

text

original

 
CARSEY
INSTITUTE
ISSUE BRIEF NO. 37
SUMMER 2011
A
merican Community Survey (ACS) data releasedon September 22, 2011 allow or a detailed look at child poverty by state and place, adding to theunderstanding o the economic landscape described by theCurrent Population Survey (CPS) data released last week.While the CPS data are useul or providing a snapshoto poverty across the nation, the larger sample size o theACS—three million addresses versus 100,000 addressesin the CPS—makes it better suited or nuanced analyseso poverty. In this brie, we use the ACS data released onSeptember 22 to ocus on child poverty.
1
 While understanding the overall landscape o nationalpoverty provides a valuable snapshot o economic distress,these overall rates mask dramatic diferences in poverty across age groups. In recent years, children have been themost likely citizens to live below the poverty line, with youngchildren being particularly vulnerable. In this brie, wehighlight changes in child poverty by region, state, and placetype, and in young child poverty by region and place type.
2
 We ocus on two time periods—change since 2007, as thenation entered the recession, and change since 2009, as therecession was ending. Our ndings show that child poverty persists in the rst ull year post-recession, continuing to risesignicantly in 22 states. ese efects are exacerbated amongyoung children (under age 6), who experienced both a higherrate o poverty and larger increase in poverty. It is importantto understand young child poverty specically, as childrenwho are poor beore age 6 are at risk or educational decitsand health problems, with efects that span the liecourse.
3
 
Key Findings
Between 2009 and 2010 an additional one millionchildren joined the ranks of those in poverty. Thisbrings the total to an estimated 15.7 million poorchildren in 2010, an increase of 2.6 million sincethe Great Recession began in 2007.Of the 15.7 million poor children in 2010, 5.9million are young (under age 6), an increase of 220,000 over one year.Across the United States, rural, suburban, andcentral city areas all realized signicant increasesin child poverty between 2009 and 2010 andsince the recent recession began in 2007.Twenty-nine percent of children in central citiesand 25 percent of children in rural places nowlive in poverty, signicantly higher than the 16percent in suburban areas.Dierences are even more striking among youngchildren. Thirty-one percent of children underage 6 in America’s central cities are poor, as are30 percent of young children in rural places. Incontrast, 19 percent of young children residingin the suburbs are poor.Poverty continues to be highest in the South,where nearly one in four children lives in poverty.Southern child poverty is even higher in ruralplaces and central cities, where rates top 30percent. Among young children, rural Southernpoverty now nears 36 percent.Between 2009 and 2010, only two placesexperienced declines in child poverty rates:suburban Hawaii and rural Illinois. All other placeshad rates that were unchanged or increased.
One Million Additional Children in Poverty Since 2009
2010 Data Reveal Nearly One in Four Southern ChildrenNow Live in Poverty 
MARYBETH J. MATTINGLY, JESSICA A. BEAN, AND ANDREW SCHAEFER
 
Young Child Poverty 
Table 1 shows 2010 poverty estimates or children under age 6,both nationally and regionally. Also included are the percentagepoint changes since 2007 and 2009, with statistically signicantchanges
 
indicated in bold.
4
Nationwide, 24.8 percent o youngchildren were poor in 2010, as compared a 1.9 percentage pointincrease rom 22.9 percent a year beore. Young child pov-erty increased across the South, the region which already hadthe highest rates o poverty among this age group. Nearly 28percent o young Southern children were poor in 2010. Ruralpoverty is particularly striking in this region, where nearly 36percent o children under age 6 were poor. Rates o young childpoverty also increased in the suburban and central city areaso the Midwest and West. e Northeast has the lowest youngchild poverty rate, at 20.6 percent.
Child Poverty rough Age 18
Table 2 shows national, regional, and state-level child poverty numbers by place type. As with Table 1, we present the per-centage point changes since 2007 and 2009, with statistically signicant changes indicated in bold. Estimates show that thereis wide variation in child poverty rates by state and region, withthe highest rates in the South and the lowest rates in the North-east. e largest increase in child poverty rom 2007-2010 wasin central cities in the Midwest (up 4.8 percentage points), whilethe largest one-year increase came in Northeastern central cities(up 3.4 percentage points). Child poverty increased signicantly in 38 states between 2007 and 2010. Increases or that periodwere evident in the rural areas o 19 states, in the suburbs o 29states and in the central cities o 26 states during these years.Children under age 18 are least oen poor in suburbanAmerica, where the rate is 16.1 percent nationally. Subur-ban rates are even lower in some states, with poverty ratesespecially low in Connecticut, Nebraska, and New Hampshire.In no rural or central city places are estimated child poverty rates below 10 percent.
1. Levels o urbanization are defned as ollows: rural consists o ACS geographic components “Not in metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area” and “in micropolitan statistical area”; suburban includes “In metropolitan statistical area—not in principal city” and central city includes “In metropolitan statistical area—in principal city”.2. Data are based on 2010 American Community Survey estimates. For corresponding margins o error, reer to the U.S. Census American Community Survey.3. Percentage point changes are based on unrounded poverty percentages and may dier slightly rom those that would be obtained using rounded fgures.4. Bold ont indicates statistical signifcance (p<0.05).
Table 1. Young Child (Under Age 6) Poverty by Place Size in 2010
Bk
On September 13, 2011 the U.S. Census Bureau releasedits nationwide estimates o poverty in 2010 rom theCurrent Population Survey (CPS). Poverty determinationis based on the U.S. Oce o Management and Budgetincome thresholds, which vary by amily size and compo-sition. In 2010, the poverty line or a amily o our (twoadults, two children) was $22,113.
5
e CPS data show thepoverty rate at 15.1 percent, rising nearly a ull percent-age point rom 14.3 percent in 2009, and translating into46.2 million people now living below the poverty line, thegreatest number since estimates were rst published in1959.
6
ese numbers, computed or the rst ull year ol-lowing the recent recession, show the toll o the economicdownturn and its persistent efects. Increases in poverty correspond with unemployment rates that remain dra-matically increased rom pre-recession levels; in August2011, unemployment was still at 9.1 percent, a rate thatdoes not include those who are discouraged rom ndingwork, those working ewer than their ideal hours, or thoseworking at jobs or which they are overqualied.
7
e CPSdata also reveal declines in household income (real medi-an incomes ell by 2.3 percent since 2009 and 6.4 percentsince 2007), and 0.9 million ewer individuals with healthinsurance coverage.
8
ese signs o a weak economy havedramatic implications or children, efects that may diferwidely based on the state and place o residence, the ocuso this brie.In our states, rural child poverty rates exceed those intheir central city places (Alaska, Arizona, North Carolina,and South Dakota). In an additional 24 states, rural childpoverty rates are similar to central city rates; suburban childpoverty did not exceed rural child poverty in any place.
2 CARSEY INSTITUTE
 
N/A = Not applicable.1 .Levels o urbanization are defned as ollows: rural consists o ACS geographic components “Not in metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area” and “in micropolitan statistical area”; suburban includes “In metropolitan statistical area—not in principal city” and central city includes “In metropolitan statistical area—in principal city”.2. Data are based on 2010 American Community Survey estimates. For corresponding margins o error, reer to the U.S. Census American Community Survey.3. Percentage point changes are based on unrounded poverty percentages and may dier slightly rom those that would be obtained using rounded fgures.4. Bold ont indicates statistical signifcance (p<0.05).
Table 2. Child Poverty by Place Size in 2010
CARSEY INSTITUTE 3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->