California Poverty

A number of posts have dealt with poverty.

The US Census Bureau explains the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), a more accurate metric than the old measure:

The SPM, first released in 2011 and produced in collaboration with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), extends the official poverty measure by accounting for several government programs that are designed to assist low-income families but are not included in official poverty measure calculations. The SPM also accounts for geographic variation in housing expenses when calculating poverty thresholds and includes federal and state taxes, work expenses, and medical expenses.

By this measure, California ties Louisiana for the highest poverty rates among the 50 states: 17.7 percent.

Cash Payments and Child Development

A number of posts have dealt with poverty.

Kimberly Noble, et al.,  "The Effect of a Monthly Unconditional Cash Transfer on Children’s Development at Four Years of Age: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the U.S." NBER Working Paper 33844 DOI 10.3386/w33844 Issue Date May 2025

ABSTRACT: Developmental differences between children growing up in poverty and their higher-income peers are frequently reported. However, the extent to which such differences are caused by differences in family income is unclear. To study the causal role of income on children’s development, the Baby’s First Years randomized control trial provided families with monthly unconditional cash transfers. One thousand racially and ethnically diverse mothers with incomes below the U.S. federal poverty line were recruited from postpartum wards in 2018-19, and randomized to receive either $333/month or $20/month for the first several years of their children’s lives. After the first four years of the intervention (n=891), we find no statistically significant impacts of the cash transfers on four preregistered primary outcomes (language, executive function, social-emotional problems, and high-frequency brain activity) nor on three secondary outcomes (visual processing/spatial perception, pre-literacy, maternal reports of developmental diagnoses). Possible explanations for these results are discussed.

Dynamics of Families after Nonmarital Birth

 Dynamics of Families After a Nonmarital Birth

By Angela Rachidi

American Enterprise Institute

January 08, 2024

Abstract

Despite known links between poverty rates and unmarried parenthood, we know little about how changes in family situations after a nonmarital birth affect poverty. This study explores Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study data to document changes to the relationship status, employment status, and education level of a cohort of unmarried mothers who gave birth in urban areas in the late 1990s and the implications for poverty rates over a 15-year follow-up period. For children born to unmarried parents in urban areas, official poverty rates improved modestly in the 15 years after the birth, with maternal employment, education gains, and marriage corresponding to lower poverty rates on average over time. Using the success sequence as a framework, poverty rates were dramatically (and statistically) lower when mothers who were unmarried at the time of childbirth subsequently married, worked full-time, and had at least a high school education, suggesting the achievement of success-sequence milestones can lead to lower child poverty even after the birth of a child outside marriage

Ending Poverty in California?

A number of posts have dealt with homelessness.

The problem is highly visible in California. Because of its high cost of housing, the supplemental poverty measure puts its poverty rate as the highest in the nation.

 At Reason, Steven Greenhut writes about former Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs, who wants to end poverty in California:

Tubb's group is correct that poverty rates in California are atrocious. "California has the highest rate of poverty at 13.2% of any state in the U.S.," it notes. "28.7 percent of all California residents were poor or near poor in fall 2021." EPIC doesn't address that California's poverty rate is the worst in the nation—especially when cost-of-living factors are included—despite this being the nation's most progressive state. It offers the most generous welfare programs.

One would think that politicians who are serious about ending poverty would at least address that paradox. The video features union organizers who point to the need for an even more powerful union presence in our state, yet unions were on the vanguard of some of the state's most poverty-inducing policies—such as Assembly Bill 5, which tried to ban most forms of independent contracting and destroyed moderate-income jobs throughout the freelance economy.

With their progressive policies, lawmakers are destroying the incentive for developers to build more housing. They're always adding regulations and taxes that shutter businesses and discourage people from investing in new ones. Instead of recognizing that California's poverty problem largely is the result of government meddling, EPIC will propose more-aggressive interventions. At some point, lawmakers need to stop making unattainable high-school-level promises and begin wrestling with complex realities.

Social Security and Inequality

Gopi Shah Goda and Andrew Biggs at AEI:

Abstract:

• Almost one in every five Americans receives income support from Social Security.
• Social Security is financed on a pay-as-you-go basis, which means that today’s workers’ payroll taxes are used to pay benefits to today’s beneficiaries. 
• Changes in population demographics, including longevity improvements, have resulted in a sharp decline in the number of workers per beneficiary, and this trend is projected to continue. 
• As a result, Social Security is facing significant financial challenges and policymakers must take action to ensure its long-term sustainability

From the article:

In 2015, Social Security represented 30 percent of income on average for individuals age 65 and over. Forty percent of all seniors in 2015 received 50 percent or more of their income from Social Security. Meanwhile, 14 percent of all seniors received 90 percent or more of their incomes from the program.1 Social Security is a critical source of income for those who are widowed and low-income retirees, and Social Security represents a larger share of retirement income for women than for men. Inequality in life expectancy has significant implications for the distributional consequences of Social Security. Lower-income individuals tend to have lower life expectancies than higher-income individuals, meaning that they may receive fewer years of Social Security benefits. This means that the increasing gap in life expectancy by income works against the progressivity in the benefit formula.2

 1 Dushi, Irena, and Brad Trenkamp. “Improving the measurement of retirement income of the aged population.” Social Security Administration. ORES Working Paper No. 116 (January 2021).

2 See National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and Committee on Population. “The growing gap in life expectancy by income:Implications for federal programs and policy responses.” National Academies Press, 2015.

California Inequality

Income Inequality in California, by Tess Thorman, Daniel Payares-Montoya, and Joseph Herrera at PPIC

• The gap between high- and low-income families in California is among the largest in the nation—exceeding all but three other states in 2021 (the latest data available). Families at the top of the income distribution earned 11 times more than families at the bottom ($291,000 vs. $26,000 for the 90th and 10th percentiles, respectively). In 1980, families at the top earned 7 times more than those at the bottom, and the current gap reflects 63% income growth for the 90th percentile, and 7% growth for the 10th percentile over four decades.
• California’s income distribution reflects high rates of poverty. Income is frequently not enough to meet basic needs (on average a family of four requires about $37,000). Families in the bottom quarter of the income distribution are at risk of poverty absent major safety net programs.
• Wealth is more unevenly distributed than income. In California, 20% of all net worth is concentrated in the 30 wealthiest zip codes, home to just 2% of Californians.
• Californians are concerned. According to the PPIC Statewide Survey, 71% believe that the gap between rich and poor is increasing; a similar share think the government should do more to reduce that gap.

The COVID-19 pandemic widened income inequality.

• Income inequality was shrinking in the years leading up to the pandemic, due to notable gains for the lowest-income families. Incomes for families at the 10th percentile increased by 23% between 2016 and 2019, compared to 5% for families at the 90th percentile.
• Between 2019 and 2021, top incomes grew consistently, by 6% for the 90th percentile. Middle incomes (50th percentile) faltered in 2020 but rebounded in 2021. Low incomes (10th percentile) fell 7%.
• These estimates describe pre-tax income and include a conservative estimate of unemployment (UI) benefits, without which low incomes would have been lower by at least 12% in 2020, and 5% in 2021. They also take a conservative approach with inflation, which may impact lower- and higher-income families differently and exacerbate inequality. For instance, from 2017–20, those in the bottom 20% spent 69% of all pre-tax income on food and transportation (including gasoline)—areas where prices have risen most—while those in the top 20% spent 14% of their income on those same categories.

Rising income inequality is driven by a job market that favors highly educated workers.

• Shifts in technology and international trade have played key roles in reshaping jobs, creating advantages for college-degree holders. Among families in which any member holds a four-year degree or higher, median income has increased by 34% since 1980. Median income did not increase for families where no member holds a four-year degree.
• Families with college graduates earn $2.24 for every $1 that families without college graduates earn, as of 2021.

Inequality in Silicon Valley

 Alejandro Lazo at CalMatters:

A new study of Silicon Valley wealth, income and other economic measures shows vast disparities in one of the country’s wealthiest regions, with the top 10% of households holding 66% of the investable assets in the region last year.

In Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, just eight households held more wealth than the bottom 50% (nearly half a million households), according to the Silicon Valley Index, an annual report by the Silicon Valley Institute for Regional Studies, the research arm of Joint Venture Silicon Valley.

...

Santa Clara and San Mateo counties had 163,000 millionaire households in 2022, which the report defined as households that had more than $1 million in investable assets. That translates to less than 1% of the region’s population holding about 36% of its wealth.

And an estimated 8,300 households held more than $10 million in investable assets, according to the report.

Conversely there were about 220,000 Silicon Valley households with fewer than $5,000 in total assets.

About 23% of Silicon Valley residents lived below the poverty threshold in 2021, a 3 percentage point increase from 2019. Two percent of Silicon Valley households, or about 22,000 households, did not hold bank accounts.

Homeless in California

A number of posts have dealt with homelessness.  

The problem is highly visible in California.  Because of its high cost of housing, the supplemental poverty measure puts its poverty rate as the highest in the nation.

Emily Hoeven at CalMatters:

California accounted for 30% of the country’s homeless population in 2022, despite making up less than 12% of the total population, according to federal data released Monday. It was also home to 50% of the country’s unsheltered people, or those living in places such as streets, cars or parks.

Based on a biennial point-in-time tally of people sleeping in shelters, cars and on the street — which California cities and counties conducted earlier this year for the first time since 2019 due to pandemic postponements — the U.S. Department of Housing and Community Development estimated that more than 172,000 Californians experienced homelessness this year. That represents an adjusted total of raw numbers first calculated in October by CalMatters housing reporter Manuela Tobias. Nationally, the homeless population ticked up by 0.3% to more than 582,000.

The federal government also awarded California first place in a number of other categories: 

• It had the country’s highest homelessness rate, with 44 people out of every 100,000 experiencing homelessness.
• It had the largest increase in its homeless population of any other state from both 2020-22 (6.2%) and 2007-22 (23.4%), whereas Florida — a state often in Gov. Gavin Newsom’s crosshairs as he spars with its Republican governor Ron DeSantis — saw a 5.6% decrease from 2020-22 and notched the country’s biggest decrease from 2007-22 (46%).
• California had nine times more unsheltered people than Washington, the state with the next highest number (115,491 people compared to 12,668 people).

Poverty 2020

 Courtenay Brown at Axios:

In one of the worst years ever for the economy and labor market, America's poverty rate dropped, per one measure that takes into account pandemic-era aid, the government said Tuesday.

Why it matters: It underscores the colossal impact stimulus checks, expanded unemployment payments and other benefits had on households in 2020 — even as millions lost jobs. Without them (and other safety nets, like Social Security), the poverty rate jumped for the first time in five years by one percentage point to 11.4%.

The big picture: The poverty rate typically cited each year focuses solely on cash income. But an alternate rate that includes major aid programs took on new significance given the flood of pandemic-era stimulus injected into the economy.
That measure fell to 9.1% — the lowest rate since the government started publishing this estimate in 2009.

By the numbers: Stimulus checks lifted nearly 12 million Americans out of poverty, while expanded unemployment benefits lifted over 5 million.

Of note: There was no statistically significant change in the uninsured rate last year from 2018, the data shows. If someone lost their job, they were able to get coverage through Medicaid or other heavily subsidized individual health insurance.

David Wagner at LAist:

According to new U.S. Census Bureau statistics, California — once again — has the highest poverty rate of any state in the country.

However, despite the heavy economic toll of COVID-19, the state's poverty rate actually fell last year.

Why? Largely because of federal aid.

“Federal stimulus payments and unemployment insurance kept millions of citizens out of poverty,” said Caroline Danielson, senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California.

“We can see that those programs really did make a big difference,” she said.

The census measures poverty in a few different ways. Its supplemental poverty measure takes into account regional cost of living, as well as the effects of government aid.

Using this approach, California consistently has the highest poverty rate in the country — eclipsing states such as Mississippi, Florida and Louisiana.

And 2020 was no different. The latest supplemental poverty measure puts California’s poverty rate at 15.4%. No other state had a higher rate (though the District of Columbia came in at 16.5%).

Unaffordable housing costs are primarily to blame for California’s nation-leading poverty rate.

“

Poverty Plummets

At the Urban Institute, Laura WheatonLinda GiannarelliIlham Dehry have a report titled "2021 Poverty Projections: Assessing the Impact of Benefits and Stimulus Measures."  The abstract;

In an earlier brief, we estimated that the American Rescue Plan Act, enacted in March 2021, would reduce the 2021 annual poverty rate to 8.7 percent (Wheaton et al. 2021). We now project a 2021 poverty rate of 7.7 percent for 2021. The revised projection accounts for improvements in the economy, incorporates updated state-level information on pandemic-related policies, and improves the method for weighting the data to reflect 2021. Both the earlier poverty projections and these updated projections use the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which allows a more comprehensive assessment of families’ economic well-being than the official poverty measure. The projections, developed using the Urban Institute’s Analysis of Transfers, Taxes, and Income Security model, take into account expected levels of employment and income in 2021, safety-net benefits, taxes and tax credits, state “back to work” bonuses, and federal and state stimulus checks. Key findings include the following:

• Using the Supplemental Poverty Measure, the annual poverty rate projection for 2021 of 7.7 percent is well below the rate of 13.9 percent that we estimate for 2018.
• The projected poverty rate for children is 5.6 percent, for adults ages 18 to 64 it is 8.1 percent, and for people age 65 and older it is 9.2 percent.
• The 2021 poverty rate is projected to be higher for Black, non-Hispanic people (9.2 percent), for Hispanic people (11.8 percent), and for non-Hispanic Asian American and Pacific Islanders (10.8 percent) than for white, non-Hispanic people (5.8 percent).
• The federal stimulus checks have a larger antipoverty impact than any of the other programs; if all other programs were in place but the stimulus checks had not been paid, we project 12.4 million more people would be in poverty in 2021. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program alone keeps 7.9 million people out of poverty in 2021, and unemployment insurance benefits lower the number in poverty by 6.7 million (assuming all other programs are in place).
• The combined benefits have the largest impact on children, reducing their projected 2021 poverty rate 81 percent relative to what it would be without any benefits (from 30.1 percent to 5.6 percent).
• The benefits have the largest impact on Black non-Hispanic people (reducing their 2021 projected poverty rate 74 percent) and the smallest impact on non-Hispanic Asian American and Pacific Islanders (reducing their 2021 projected poverty rate 54 percent).

Race and Multigenerational Poverty

Scott Winship, Christopher Pulliam, Ariel GelrudShiro, Richard V. Reeves, and Santiago Deambrosi have an AEI report titled "Long Shadows: The Black-White Dap in Multigenerational Poverty,"  The executive summary:

Issues of racial inequality and injustice are center stage in America today—especially the position and treatment of Black Americans. This report presents evidence on long-term differences in opportunity by race. Previous research showed large racial gaps in poverty and mobility across two generations. We take a longer view, examining patterns of multigenerational poverty for Black and White Americans across three generations, drawing on data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics.

We find that Black families are over 16 times more likely than White families are to experience three generations of poverty (defined as the bottom fifth of the income distribution). Three-generation poverty occurs among one in 100 Whites, but it describes the experience of one in five Black adults. Black Americans are 41 percent more likely to be in third-generation poverty than White adults are to be poor. The grandparents of Black adults had much lower incomes than the grandparents of their White counterparts had; this initial inequality has been compounded by lower rates of subsequent Black upward mobility out of poverty and by greater Black downward mobility. These patterns mean that poor Black and White adults today have dramatically different family poverty trajectories. Half of Blacks in the bottom fifth of the income distribution have parents and grandparents who were also poor, compared to just 8 percent of poor Whites. We show that the longer the time frame, the starker the racial gaps. More than half a century since the civil rights victories of the 1960s, these racial gaps in poverty and opportunity remain a cause for national shame.

K-Shaped Recovery, 2021

 Hamza Shaban and Heather Long at WP:

As the extent of the coronavirus became clear in March, investors sent stocks tumbling 34 percent, a bear market. But it turned out to be the shortest downturn in U.S. history. Since the U.S. stock market bottomed on March 23, the S&P 500 has risen 68 percent, shattering all-time records along the way. The rebound reflects Wall Street’s optimism about 2021, but it also underscores the disconnect between the stock market’s wild success and struggling American households.
...

“The markets are dominated by the folks who are in the upper echelons. They don’t feel any pain. They read about it, but they don’t experience it,” said David Kotok, founder of Cumberland Advisors. “What they do experience is the flip side: We have had very substantial productivity gains with Zoom and other daily life efficiencies." ...

By the summer, the recession was largely over for the rich. The work-from-home crowd kept their jobs and experienced a major savings boost as they spent less on dining out, travel and entertainment. U.S. household savings increased by more than $1 trillion this year, driven by government stimulus checks and the wealthy not having much to spend money on. Economists predict that some of that savings will be spent in 2021, creating a major tail wind.

There’s “north of $1 trillion of accumulated saving,” Richard Clarida, vice chair of the Federal Reserve, said at a Brookings Institution event in November. “This is the only downturn in my professional career in which disposable income actually went up in a deep recession.”

In contrast, employment for low-wage workers remains about 20 percent below pre-pandemic levels, a staggering decline that has not improved in recent months, according to Opportunity Insights’ Economic Tracker. Economists began calling it a “K-shaped” recovery because of the diverging fortunes of the rich and poor.

“The recovery has been incredibly lopsided. High-income workers have been back to full employment for six months, but the recovery has stalled for low-income workers and we’re still missing millions of jobs," said John Friedman, a Brown University economist and co-director of Opportunity Insights. “If anything, things have gotten worse over the last few months for low-income workers.”

One in 8 Americans, more than 27 million adults, reported they sometimes or often didn’t have enough food to eat in the past week, according to Census Bureau survey data collected in late November and early December.

Rich College, Poor College

Many blog posts have discussed inequality in higher education, as well as elementary and secondary education.

Nick Hillman has a report at Third Way titled "Why Rich Colleges Get Richer & Poor Colleges Get Poorer: The Case for Equity-Based Funding in Higher Education"

Much like America’s household income inequality, American colleges and universities are deeply unequal when it comes to their finances. A small handful of colleges hold the vast majority of wealth and financial resources—and these colleges enroll far too few low-income students and students of color Meanwhile, the colleges enrolling the majority of the nation’s low-income students and students of color too often have the fewest financial resources. The divide is stark and, if left unaddressed, will only get worse, with rich colleges getting richer and poor colleges getting poorer.

 

Pandemic Gaps

At Axios, Drew Altman describes a KFF survey:

By the numbers: Almost a third (31%) of the American people say they’ve experienced problems paying the rent or mortgage, or for food, utilities, credit card bills or medical costs as a result of the coronavirus.

• Among African-Americans, that number climbs to 48%. Among Latinos, it’s 46%.
• And 47% of households with an annual income below $40,000 say they’ve had trouble paying their bills because of the pandemic.
• 45% of black adults and 39% of Latinos say they’ve either skipped meals or relied on charity or government food programs such as SNAP since February — compared with just 18% of white adults. Most of those people said their experiences were a direct result of the coronavirus’ financial impact.

 Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape survey:


 

Inequality, Coronavirus, and Close Quarters

Jason DeParle at NYT:

With the pandemic exposing and compounding inequality in matters large and small, access to private, controllable space has emerged as a new class divide — more valuable than ever to those who have it and potentially fatal to those who do not.

Inmates, farmworkers, detained immigrants, Native Americans and homeless families are among the discrete groups whose dilemmas have attracted notice. What they share may be little beyond poverty and one of its overlooked costs: the perils of proximity.

In addition to heightened risk of contagion, close quarters can worsen a host of ills, from flared tempers to child abuse and domestic violence.

...
Among those disproportionately affected are the incarcerated, with outbreaks hitting the Rikers Island jail complex in New York City (more than 850 cases among inmates and staff), the Cook County jail in Chicago (more than 350 cases), and the Oakdale Federal Correctional facility in Louisiana (at least five inmate deaths). Mounting evidence also indicates the virus disproportionately hurts minorities, with data from New York City suggesting blacks and Latinos dying at twice the rate of whites.

The share of poor families doubled up has been rising for at least two decades, said Hope Harvey, a Cornell University sociologist. After the Great Recession, researchers at the Census Bureau found 20 percent of children were living in shared households, including three-generation homes headed by grandparents. In urban areas, as many as half of children live in doubled-up housing by age 9.

...
Since infection rates among children appear to be low, the pandemic is often described as a blight that is sparing the young. But the social risks inherent in crowded housing may suggest the opposite. Research on the 2008 recession found evidence that rising foreclosures led to increased child abuse. And with schools closed, there is less monitoring.

California Drives Out Movie Production

Jen Maffessanti at the Foundation for Economic Education:

In fact, in 2017, only ten of the top 100 movies produced that year were made mostly in California.

It’s no secret that the entire state of California is experiencing a large and sustained out-flow of residents, but Los Angeles County, in particular, is showing the biggest losses. The question is why.

Why is the film industry abandoning its Mount Olympus?...

Sticking with labor costs, California has the second-highest minimum wage in the country at $13 an hour, though that’s set to increase to $15 an hour by 2022. And though there’s still some back-and-forthing going on regarding the notorious AB5 law, many businesses in the state are being told they need to hire their freelancers as (far more expensive) permanent employees.

Not only that, but California’s real estate and housing markets are among the most expensive in the country, a trend that shows no real sign of improving. The state’s zoning and building regulations make innovation difficult. Special preferential political treatment of the California agriculture industry has led to water rationing for individuals during drought conditions.

Take the high costs in California, combine it with fewer people going to the movies, and the result is a shrinking profit margin for production studios.

In fact, drinking water isn’t the only beverage subject to regulation in California. Furthermore, the state’s 2019 kerfuffle with electricity provider PG&E’s rolling blackouts for customers during high winds is also largely a problem created by the meddlesome state government.

Once all of these factors—and the above list is by no means comprehensive—are taken into account, California has the highest poverty rate in the US.

It isn’t that filmmakers don’t want to film in Los Angeles—they do. But all of these combined constraints significantly increase the total costs of filming and producing in California. Heck, not even films set in Los Angeles are being shot in Los Angeles these days.

Production is moving overseas or to states such as Georgia, with generous tax incentives.

The entire state is seeing residents of all kinds leaving. In 2018 alone, the state saw a net loss of about 190,000 residents. That’s slightly more than the entire population of Shreveport, Louisiana. According to a recent UC Berkeley poll, about half of the people still living in California have considered leaving. For Hollywood, history is repeating itself. When asked why, 71 percent cited the high cost of housing and 51 percent said it was because of the high tax burden.

Child Opportunity

A release from Brandeis:

New research shows that children’s access to neighborhood conditions that promote their health and development varies widely across the United States. The research also shows that a child’s race or ethnicity strongly predicts whether he or she lives in a place with access to good schools, healthy foods, parks and playgrounds, and living-wage jobs. Brandeis University’s updated Child Opportunity Index (COI 2.0) shows that black children are 7.6 times more likely than white children to live in neighborhoods with substantially lower opportunity to grow up healthy, and Hispanic children are 5.3 times more likely than white children to live in neighborhoods with lower opportunity. In contrast, the majority of white and Asian/Pacific Islander children live in higher-opportunity neighborhoods.

The data rank neighborhoods by level of child opportunity from very low to very high in the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, where two-thirds of children live. The COI shows vast inequities not only metro-by-metro, but also within metros. Children who live only short distances apart often experience completely different worlds of neighborhood opportunity that can influence how they develop and even how long they will live.

“The COI is unique because it provides for every U.S. neighborhood a consistent and current metric of whether children have what it takes to grow up healthy,” says lead researcher Dr. Dolores Acevedo-Garcia of Brandeis University. “This matters because the index gives us the ability to use contemporary data to identify child opportunity gaps and inform policy change that is needed to create more equitable neighborhood conditions so that all children can thrive.”

The COI 2.0 quantifies, maps, and compares neighborhood opportunity by looking at 29 neighborhood conditions—such as proximity to and enrollment in early care and education centers, high school graduation rates, high-skill employment, health insurance coverage, housing vacancy rates, and poverty levels—that matter for children. The data, which cover conditions within three areas: education, health and environment, and social and economic, are used to compare metros by their level of opportunity and to see whether children have equal access to neighborhood opportunity by race and ethnicity.

Key Findings

• There are vast differences in child opportunity across the United States. Madison, Wisconsin, ranked first among all U.S. metros for neighborhood opportunity (Child Opportunity Score of 83). Virtually no children of any race live in very low-opportunity neighborhoods there.
• Bakersfield, California, ranked last of all U.S. metros for the opportunities that it affords children (Child Opportunity Score of 20); Fifty-one percent of children live in very low-opportunity neighborhoods. The report provides a Child Opportunity Score for each of the 100 largest metros. Please see the end of the press release for lists of the best and worst opportunity metros for white, black, and Hispanic children.
• With few exceptions, metros in the southern portion of the country have notably lower opportunity scores than those in the northern portion. The highest opportunity metros are in the Plains states and in New England; California’s Central Valley and a couple of metros in Texas have some of the lowest-opportunity neighborhoods for children.
• The report also found low neighborhood opportunity is associated with lower life expectancy and lower economic mobility. In fact, across all metros, there is a seven-year difference in life expectancy at birth between very low-opportunity neighborhoods (75 years) and very high-opportunity neighborhoods (82 years). In some metros, the gap in life expectancy between very low- and very high-opportunity neighborhoods is even more extreme. For example, in Dayton, Ohio, the life expectancy gap is 10 years.
• Even in metros with high overall opportunity, the Child Opportunity Scores for black and Hispanic children are substantially lower than for white and Asian/Pacific Islander children, showing a deep racial/ethnic divide in children’s access to neighborhood opportunity. Nationally, about 60 percent of both black and Hispanic kids live in low- or very low-opportunity neighborhoods compared to about 20 percent of white and Asian/Pacific Islander children.
• Neighborhood opportunity for children is associated with economic mobility as an adult. Household income at age 35 for children who grew up in poor families ranges from $29,000 in very low-opportunity neighborhoods to $45,000 in very high-opportunity neighborhoods.
• Children’s race and ethnicity are strong predictors of access to opportunity

Progress and Poverty

At AEI, Richard Burkhauser have a study titled" Evaluating the success of President Johnson’s War on Poverty: Revisiting the historical record using a full-income poverty measure."  The abstract:

We evaluate progress in President’s Johnson’s War on Poverty. We do so relative to the scientifically arbitrary but policy relevant 20 percent baseline poverty rate he established for 1963. No existing poverty measure fully captures poverty reductions based on the standard that President Johnson set. To fill this gap, we develop a Full-income Poverty Measure with thresholds set to match the 1963 Official Poverty Rate. We include cash income, taxes, and major in-kind transfers and update poverty thresholds for inflation annually. While the Official Poverty Rate fell from 19.5 percent in 1963 to 12.3 percent in 2017, our Full-income Poverty Rate based on President Johnson’s standards fell from 19.5 percent to 2.3 percent over that period. Today, almost all Americans have income above the inflation-adjusted thresholds established in the 1960s. Although expectations for minimum living standards evolve, this suggests substantial progress combatting absolute poverty since the War on Poverty began.

Read the full PDF
Read the NBER working paper version here.

SNAP and Poverty

From the Census:

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) reduced poverty by just over 1 percentage point for the three-year period from 2016 to 2018, according to recently released U.S. Census Bureau data. 

The Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) shows that SNAP – formerly known as food stamps – cut the poverty rate from 14.2% to 13.1%. This means that with SNAP benefits, an average 3.5 million fewer people were living below the poverty line during that three-year period. 

However, there are notable state-level variations; New Mexico, Louisiana and Rhode Island were among the states where SNAP had the greatest anti-poverty impact (see Table 1 and Figure 1). 

Figure 1

 

Mixed Data on Well-Being

From the Census:

[Source: U.S. Census Bureau]

By the supplemental poverty measure, California has a poverty rate of 18.4 percent, the highest of the 50 states.