...

 

by user

on
Category: Documents
1

views

Report

Comments

Description

Transcript

 
 A Demographic and Socio‐Economic Profile of Allen County, Indiana based on the 2010 Census and the American Community Survey Poverty
A Review of Census Data Related to the Poverty Status of Allen County, Indiana Residents Prepared by The Community Research Institute at IPFW June 2011 Table of Contents Poverty Areas................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Poverty by Age Group .................................................................................................................................................... 6 Location of Children in Poverty and Extreme Poverty Areas .................................................................................... 8 Location of Older Population in Poverty ................................................................................................................. 11 Poverty by Sex by Age Group ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Poverty by Households ................................................................................................................................................ 18 Poverty by Age (Under 65 Years and Seniors) by Household Type ......................................................................... 19 Poverty by Race ........................................................................................................................................................... 20 Financial support for this project is provided by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation Fund held at the Community Foundation of Greater Fort Wayne. Without the support of the Foundation this study would not have been possible. The Community Research Institute also wishes to thank Paul Spoelhof, Senior Planner with the City of Fort Wayne Community Development Division, for his assistance on this project. Poverty 1 POVERTY Note that the 2010 Census did not include income questions on the survey and therefore all Census data comes from the ACS surveys. This summary uses 2005‐09 ACS data and single year 2009 ACS. Key Points: 




The percent of Allen County population in poverty continues to rise, and was higher than the state and nation in 2009. 31 out of 91 census tracts were classified as poverty areas in the 2005‐09 ACS, up from 19 in 2000. In Allen County, poverty rates for children were significantly lower than the nation in 1990 and 2000, but not for the recent ACS period. Not only has the county experienced a sharp increase in the percent of children in poverty, but its increase is higher than what is occurring nationally. Should we be concerned with the rise in poverty rates among the age groups 45‐54 and 55‐64, or at least be watchful of the data and be prepared to discuss what ramifications this may have if the situation continues? In Allen County, the rates for these groups have risen faster than the state and nation from 2000 to 2009. All racial and ethnic groups have a higher percentage classified as being in poverty since the 2000 Census. Although “only” 9.9 percent of the white race was in poverty in 2009, the number of whites in poverty exceeded that of all other races combined, as was the case in 2000. A comparison of Allen County over time to the state and nation is shown below. Until the recent recession, Allen County’s poverty rate had been less than the nation or state. Note that the poverty rates for both the 2005‐09 ACS period and the 2009 ACS data are presented1. Chart 5.1 Percent in Poverty
Comparison of Poverty in Allen County, Indiana, and United States 1990, 2000, 2005‐09, and 2009
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
1990
2000
2005‐09
2009
Allen County
7.9%
9.1%
12.1%
14.6%
Indiana
10.7%
9.5%
13.2%
14.4%
United States
13.1%
12.4%
13.5%
14.3%
1
In the past, the decennial Census collected income data on the “long‐form” Census, and income and poverty data was analyzed based on the Census data. With the restructuring within the Census Bureau from the long‐form decennial survey to the annual American Community Survey, the review and comparison of poverty data is not as straight‐forward as is has been in the past. Added to that is the fact that there has been a severe recession, and the data tools provided by the Census at a census tract level are from surveys taken over a five‐year period, and include survey data from 2004 ‐2007, years not affected by the recession. In this chapter, 2009 data is presented to give a more recent view, although census tract data is not available with this one‐year survey. The 2005‐09 data is the only data available for recent tract analysis. We will use appendices and footnotes for those who want to know the details. Community Research Institute Poverty 2 Using the data from the 2005‐09 ACS, 12.1 percent of Allen County residents met the Census definition of living in poverty2. This is 41,114 Allen County residents, an increase of 11,307 since the 2000 Census3 which recorded 9.1 percent of the county population in poverty in 1999. While this 2009 ACS does not provide data at levels as small as census tracts, we can get a more recent picture of poverty and take into account the rough and turbulent 2008‐
09 economic recession. The 2009 ACS data identified 50,808 persons in poverty, or 14.6 percent of Allen County residents for whom income could be identified in 20094,5. This 14.6 percent figure most likely better reflects recent conditions. Table 5.1 identifies the number and percentage by census tract of the population of Allen County in poverty using the data available in the 2005‐09 ACS6, and Figure 5.1 represents this graphically. 2
Reference Appendix C for Poverty Thresholds, the basis upon which the US Census defines poverty. With all decennial censuses, the income data is based on the prior calendar year, so poverty data from the 2000 Census is based on 1999 income; ACS income is based on previous 12 months. 4
Note that the poverty status for 1.5 percent of the Allen County population could not be determined in 2009 and therefore are not included in any poverty calculations. 5
Part of the reason for this additional information concerning the 2009 ACS is to also demonstrate how poverty data can change from year to year, and that using the 2005‐2009 ACS data, while helpful for viewing data at a census tract area, has some implicit constraints when a major economic activity occurs during the middle of the sampling period. In general, some persons remain in poverty for long periods, while others move in and out as their circumstances change, and sometimes there are direct correlations to recent economic conditions, and sometimes the economy does not help to explain why poverty is changing. For example, in the review of the 2000 Census for Allen County done by CRI, it was noted that the increase in poverty from Census 1990 to Census 2000 occurred despite a decade of relatively strong employment. The consistent increase in the percentage of poverty is a trend which requires more analysis than this report can provide. 6
Census Tract data is not available in the 2009 ACS, only in 5‐year survey periods. 3
Community Research Institute Poverty 3 Table 5.1 Persons in Poverty in Allen County by Census Tract, 2005‐09 ACS Tract 29 28 17 18 30 27 12 14 20 6 31 16 21 38 7.01 113.03 106.04 25 13 23 113.02 5 35 15 112.01 10 41.02 22 113.04 11 40 8 33.04 34 115.01 4 26 36 108.02 119 7.03 112.02 106.02 108.03 106.03 Number 1,212 1,023 876 669 1,525 678 242 480 964 746 806 499 760 868 895 384 592 987 215 1,201 951 621 653 189 404 332 976 880 1,017 390 616 802 719 724 565 447 500 970 836 371 274 352 372 637 198 Percentage 52.5% 50.1% 48.8% 44.4% 42.1% 39.6% 36.7% 36.5% 34.0% 33.7% 33.5% 30.2% 29.9% 26.3% 26.1% 24.4% 23.7% 23.3% 23.1% 22.6% 22.4% 22.4% 22.4% 21.8% 21.4% 20.9% 20.3% 20.3% 20.3% 20.2% 20.1% 17.7% 17.6% 16.4% 16.4% 15.6% 15.1% 14.8% 14.4% 13.3% 12.5% 12.1% 11.8% 11.7% 11.6% Tract 3 9 1 39.02 33.01 32 108.07 108.09 41.01 108.05 37 117.01 108.11 115.02 101 111 105 39.01 108.13 109 107.03 107.05 116.05 102 108.14 107.06 108.12 108.08 112.03 116.03 116.01 103.01 116.02 116.04 104 110 106.01 103.03 108.04 118.01 118.02 117.02 103.04 107.04 Number 390 332 309 288 268 526 409 491 214 642 237 293 437 233 388 215 192 241 279 380 151 223 94 426 339 150 126 172 187 185 261 204 283 111 115 111 96 218 114 118 59 93 92 4 Percentage 11.3% 11.3% 11.2% 10.5% 9.9% 9.5% 9.4% 9.3% 9.1% 9.0% 8.4% 8.3% 8.2% 7.6% 7.3% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 6.4% 4.8% 4.8% 4.5% 4.0% 3.8% 3.5% 3.5% 3.3% 3.3% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 2.2% 2.2% 1.9% 0.3% Note: Census Tract 42 is excluded from analysis. See Appendix D. Community Research Institute Poverty 4 Figure 5.1 Community Research Institute Poverty 5 Poverty Areas The Census has long used definitions such as “poverty areas” and “extreme poverty areas” to identify census tracts (or census blocks) which have high concentrations of poverty. Poverty areas are defined as having 20 percent or more of the population in poverty, and extreme poverty areas have 40 percent or more. In the 2005‐09 ACS, the same 18 tracts which were identified as poverty areas in 2000 once more met that definition, and 13 more tracts joined them in meeting this criterion. In addition, in 2000, there was one census tract, 17, which met the definition for extreme poverty. For this most recent period, there were five tracts, 29,28,17,18, and 30 in extreme poverty, and also three more tracts to watch since their percentage was above 35 percent. Keep in mind that this census tract data is for the 5‐year period, and not for 2009 which had more persons in poverty. Although tracts 28 and 29 did have more than half of their population in poverty, in most cases, the majority of residents of poverty areas are not in poverty; of the five extreme poverty tracts identified above, 5,969 persons were above the poverty line, and 5,305 were in poverty. There are 31 tracts, more than one third of the tracts in Allen County, in poverty areas as of 2005‐09. In 2000, there were 19 census tracts that met this definition and 11 in 1990. Figure 5.2 identifies the changes in poverty areas since the 2000 Census. Figure 5.2 Community Research Institute Poverty 6 Poverty by Age Group with Special Emphasis on Children, Seniors, and Age Group 55‐64 The distribution of those in poverty by age category and the changes from 2000 are shown below in Table 5.2. Note that once again we have included 2009 data to provide a more robust picture. When we investigate the data at a census tract level (e.g. Table 5.3 and Figure 5.3), 2005‐09 data has to be used, but we believe that for this topic, poverty, the more recent data from the county‐wide 2009 ACS is more informative. Of the 50,808 individuals in poverty in 2009, 37.3 percent are children age 17 and under, i.e. 18,960 are children. Another way to look at this is the observation that 1 out of every 5 children in Allen County is in poverty, i.e. 20.5 percent. In the 2000 Census, 12.9 percent of children, or 11,601 children, in Allen County lived in poverty. Nationally, poverty rates are highest for families headed by single women. Note that by definition, all who live in a household in poverty are in poverty. Table 5.2 2000 Census Age Category Under 5 5 6 to 11 12 to 14 15 16 to 17 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 & over Total 2005‐09 ACS
% of Total in Poverty Change 2000 to 2005‐09 Number
% Change from 2000 2009 ACS
Number
Change 2000 to 2009
Number % of Total in Poverty Number % of Total in Poverty Number % Change from 2000 4,006 799 3,859 1,508 499 930 4,560 4,233 3,244 2,168 1,730 1,068 13.4% 2.7% 12.9% 5.1% 1.7% 3.1% 15.3% 14.2% 10.9% 7.3% 5.8% 3.6% 5,410 779 5,228 2,039 810 1,429 5,697 6,240 5,041 3,670 2,725 1,123 13.2% 1.9% 12.7% 5.0% 2.0% 3.5% 13.9% 15.2% 12.3% 8.9% 6.6% 2.7% 1,404 ‐20 1,369 531 311 499 1,137 2,007 1,797 1,502 995 55 35.0% ‐2.5% 35.5% 35.2% 62.3% 53.7% 24.9% 47.4% 55.4% 69.3% 57.5% 5.1% 5,915 1,072 6,941 2,634 609 1,789 6,108 8,187 6,161 5,077 3,562 1,522 11.6% 2.1% 13.7% 5.2% 1.2% 3.5% 12.0% 16.1% 12.1% 10.0% 7.0% 3.0% 1,909 273 3,082 1,126 110 859 1,548 3,954 2,917 2,909 1,832 454 47.7% 34.2% 79.9% 74.7% 22.0% 92.4% 33.9% 93.4% 89.9% 134.2% 105.9% 42.5% 1,203 4.0% 923 2.2% ‐280 ‐23.3% 1,231 2.4% 28 2.3% 29,807 100.0% 41,114 100% 11,307 37.9% 50,808 100% 21,001 70.5% In 2009, 20 percent of all children both in Indiana and in the nation live in poverty (see Chart 5.2). At 20.5 percent, Allen County’s percentage of children in poverty is slightly higher, but a significant change has occurred vis‐à‐vis the nation. In Allen County, poverty rates for children were significantly lower than the nation in 1990 and 2000. Not only has the county experienced a sharp increase in the percent of children in poverty, but its increase is higher than what is occurring nationally. Community Research Institute Poverty 7 Chart 5.2
Comparison of Children (17 and Under) in Poverty in Allen County, Indiana, and United States 1990, 2000, and 2009
Percent in Poverty
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1990
2000
2009
Allen County
10.5%
12.9%
20.5%
Indiana
14.2%
12.2%
20.0%
United States
18.3%
16.6%
20.0%
The four age groups: 25‐34, 35‐44, 45‐54, and 55‐64 all experienced dramatic increases in the percent of that age category in poverty. The number in each age group practically doubled, and age group 45‐54 was up 134 percent. This change is shown for the county, state, and nation in Table 5.3 below. Of all the people in age group 25‐34 in 2009 in Allen County, 16.8 percent were in poverty. This same age group experienced a 9.1 percent poverty rate in 1999 (the 2000 Census). Table 5.3 Percent in Poverty within Age Group 2000 and 2009 2000 Census: 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 2009 ACS: 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years United States 11.7% 9.4% 7. 6% 9.0% 14.5% 11.5% 9.8% 9.1% Indiana 9.1% 6.6% 5.2% 6.9% 15.8% 12.0% 9.5% 7.6% Allen County 9.1% 6.2% 4.8% 6.7% 16.8% 13.0% 10.1% 9.3% Some increase in poverty is expected given the severe recession and the high unemployment rates in 2008 and 2009, but the increase in Allen County for all four of these age groups is much higher than the state and nation. This does not bode well as some of these persons will be entering the retirement phase of their lives, and the other half are still considered to be in the prime productive phase of the lives. Not only are they in poverty now, but it is a safe bet to assume preparation for retirement income is not taking place at the level it needs to be. Chart 5.3 identifies unemployment rates since 1990 in Allen County, Indiana, and the United States. (10.3 in 2010 for Allen, 10.2 percent in 2009). Community Research Institute Poverty 8 Chart 5.3 Unemployment Rates: Allen County, Indiana, U.S.
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Allen County
Indiana
U.S.
When the data for the 2000 Census was reviewed after its release in 2003, there was a noticeable observation that seniors in Allen County were the only group to experience a decrease in poverty, despite the larger population of older people. Unfortunately, that cannot be said now. The older seniors, those age 75 and above or those that were in the age group 65 ‐74 in the last census, were stable in their income situation, but the age group 65‐74 experienced a 42.5 percent increase in poverty. This represents 7.1 percent of the age group 65‐74, and with almost 11 percent of the age group 55‐64 in poverty now, the future for seniors does not look as rosy as it once did. Some of this can most likely be attributed to the changes in pensions and retirement savings. Led by large, mostly manufacturing (usually unionized) companies in the prior decades, the pension plan was usually a defined benefit plan, and those days are largely over. Not only are the large manufacturing companies struggling to exist, if they still do exist, but a recent employer fringe benefit study done by CRI indicated that only 20 percent of companies (all companies, not just manufacturing) in this region offered a defined benefit plan. While some companies offer many options, the dominant plan is a defined contribution such as a 401 k or equivalent, and it may be that some combination of employer and employees contributions may not add up to the amounts necessary for future needs. Location of Children in Poverty and Extreme Poverty Areas Table 5.4 indicates the number and percent of children in poverty by Census Tract, and Figure 5.3 identifies these areas graphically. There are 33 tracts in which more than 20 percent of the child populations are in poverty, i.e. child poverty areas, and this represents more than 1/3 of all the census tracts in Allen County. Thirteen of these tracts qualify as extreme poverty tracts for children in poverty, i.e. over 40 percent of all children in those extreme poverty tracts live in poverty. Figure 5.4 indicates the change from the 2000 Census, and while there are more tracts with children in poverty areas (and extreme poverty areas) in this 2005‐2009 period than in 2000, seven of the tracts which met this criterion in 2000 no longer have more than 20 percent of the child population in poverty during this period. However, 13 more tracts increased in child poverty during this period to the extent that this 20 percent qualification has been met. While this is based on percentage, and not the count of children, a review of Table 5.2 indicates that more than 4,000 children were classified as being in poverty in 2005‐09 compared to the 2000 Census. This number is most likely low given what we know about the 2005‐09 data compared to 2009. Using the Community Research Institute Poverty 9 tract data that we have, though, 61 of the 89 Census Tracts in Allen County had a higher percentage of children in poverty compared to the 2000 data. Table 5.4 Children (17 And Under) in Poverty in Allen County by Census Tract, 2005‐09 ACS Tract 18 17 21 29 28 30 27 31 20 38 35 6 14 106.04 5 10 25 7.01 8 113.02 40 113.04 34 33.04 16 7.03 113.03 112.01 15 23 108.03 4 112.02 11 108.02 119 26 108.05 106.03 108.09 36 22 117.01 106.02 39.02 Number in Poverty Percentage of All Children in Tract who are in Poverty 401 398 366 525 379 839 380 347 313 365 291 342 149 216 287 132 588 350 379 352 295 447 289 292 121 119 148 134 82 454 376 188 137 48 285 145 188 350 68 263 300 177 159 113 99 Tract 71.0% 70.3% 64.3% 62.4% 61.9% 58.3% 50.3% 48.9% 48.6% 46.4% 44.5% 44.4% 42.5% 39.3% 37.5% 36.8% 36.2% 32.6% 32.6% 32.3% 31.3% 31.1% 30.8% 27.9% 27.4% 26.9% 26.7% 26.5% 25.9% 25.3% 24.6% 24.4% 20.5% 19.5% 19.3% 19.2% 18.8% 18.1% 17.8% 17.0% 16.5% 16.1% 15.6% 15.5% 15.3% 115.01 41.01 105 41.02 13 39.01 101 3 32 37 108.11 9 1 107.05 108.13 109 108.07 33.01 111 106.01 116.03 116.02 112.03 118.02 103.01 108.08 103.03 108.04 102 104 108.14 108.12 115.02 110 116.04 107.06 118.01 117.02 116.01 12 103.04 107.03 107.04 116.05 Number in Poverty 112 89 83 83 25 102 235 94 175 91 166 77 76 102 91 189 88 49 43 39 63 144 67 35 87 49 102 45 132 43 78 22 17 18 19 20 17 16 36 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage of All Children in Tract who are in Poverty 15.2% 14.2% 14.0% 13.8% 13.4% 13.1% 12.4% 12.4% 11.8% 11.7% 10.9% 9.8% 9.8% 9.2% 8.8% 8.3% 7.5% 7.2% 5.7% 5.6% 4.6% 4.5% 4.4% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 3.9% 3.9% 3.7% 3.5% 3.3% 2.4% 2.3% 2.0% 2.0% 1.8% 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Census Tract 42 is excluded from analysis. See Appendix D. Community Research Institute Poverty 10 Figure 5.3 Community Research Institute Poverty 11 Figure 5.4 Location of Older Population in Poverty Table 5.5 on the next page shows the location of the older population in poverty by census tract using the 2005‐09 ACS data for Allen County. Less than three percent of all seniors in Allen County live in poverty, but this does represent over 2,000 of Allen County seniors (i.e. when using 2005‐09 data. Eight hundred more were identified in the 2009 ACS, but this data is not available at tract level). When all seniors are considered, no census tract falls into the category of extreme poverty, although there are eight tracts that are considered poverty areas for seniors. All of these eight tracts are also classified as either poverty areas or extreme poverty areas for the general population. When the data is broken out by age group, “age 65 to 74” and “75 and above”, some tracts can be defined as extreme senior poverty areas: tract 30 has almost 54 percent of age group 65‐74 in poverty, and for seniors age 75 and older, tracts 14 and 29 are in extreme poverty. This is shown in Tables 5.6 and 5.7. Figure 5.5 maps the changes in older population (65 and older) in poverty since the 2000 Census (keeping in mind that there is age‐
movement between these periods). Some good news in this area is reflected in the fact that there are many tracts in which no seniors live in poverty. Community Research Institute Poverty 12 Table 5.5 Seniors (Age 65 and Older) in Poverty in Allen County by Census Tract, 2005‐09 ACS Tract 30 12 29 16 18 14 11 21 28 15 31 40 108.07 113.03 8 41.02 112.01 3 27 26 22 105 108.12 37 119 17 115.01 4 106.03 107.03 112.02 113.02 106.02 107.06 113.04 111 108.11 9 36 116.05 23 108.14 25 38 101 Number in Poverty Percentage of All Seniors (Age 65 and Older) in Tract who are in Poverty 81 55 30 34 32 19 22 27 36 23 22 45 85 20 73 84 26 47 17 27 73 49 76 42 40 14 45 13 25 22 27 37 25 27 26 26 53 21 32 28 23 52 11 19 18 Tract 38.2% 33.3% 26.8% 23.1% 21.8% 21.6% 21.6% 21.3% 19.6% 18.5% 15.9% 15.2% 14.6% 14.5% 14.1% 13.8% 13.5% 13.4% 13.3% 13.2% 12.5% 12.5% 12.0% 11.6% 11.1% 10.8% 9.6% 8.9% 8.4% 8.2% 8.0% 7.9% 7.3% 6.9% 6.6% 6.3% 6.3% 6.1% 6.1% 6.0% 5.9% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 4.9% 106.04 117.02 20 108.05 102 108.02 6 108.04 1 108.08 104 41.01 32 116.04 33.04 103.01 7.01 109 108.09 116.02 112.03 39.01 106.01 117.01 118.01 108.03 116.03 35 5 7.03 10 13 33.01 34 39.02 103.03 103.04 107.04 107.05 108.13 110 115.02 116.01 118.02 Number in Poverty 15 30 8 41 41 24 5 19 11 19 10 14 16 9 9 14 6 21 12 14 15 12 6 6 9 10 12 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage of All Seniors (Age 65 and Older) in Tract who are in Poverty 4.8% 4.8% 4.4% 4.1% 4.1% 3.9% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.4% 3.3% 3.2% 2.8% 2.8% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.3% 2.2% 2.0% 2.0% 1.8% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Census Tract 42 is excluded from analysis. See Appendix D. Community Research Institute Poverty 13 Table 5.6 Persons Age 65‐74 in Poverty in Allen County by Census Tract, 2005‐09 ACS Tract 30 11 12 18 113.03 28 21 8 16 108.07 4 15 108.12 41.02 17 119 115.01 31 27 25 3 112.02 29 37 22 107.03 38 40 Number in Poverty Percentage that Senior Population in Poverty in Allen County 67 22 17 27 15 36 18 61 24 68 13 17 44 44 14 31 29 17 17 11 31 27 10 26 42 22 19 15 Tract 53.6% 36.1% 35.4% 33.3% 29.4% 28.8% 23.4% 23.2% 22.2% 21.0% 19.7% 19.5% 17.1% 17.1% 15.9% 14.7% 14.4% 14.4% 14.0% 13.8% 13.4% 13.2% 13.2% 12.8% 12.0% 11.9% 11.1% 9.6% 113.04 106.03 41.01 113.02 36 6 20 32 106.04 106.02 33.04 9 105 108.08 112.01 108.09 117.02 107.06 108.02 116.05 108.05 116.02 108.03 102 108.14 39.01 112.03 Number in Poverty 26 16 8 18 18 5 8 16 15 12 9 11 14 19 5 12 17 9 12 8 14 14 10 17 12 6 8 Percentage that Senior Population in Poverty in Allen County 9.1% 8.0% 7.8% 7.2% 7.1% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.4% 6.2% 5.9% 5.4% 5.3% 5.2% 5.1% 5.0% 5.0% 4.5% 4.3% 3.1% 2.9% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.0% 1.9% 1.7% The remaining 34 tracts had NO seniors age 65‐74 in poverty. Note: Census Tract 42 is excluded from analysis. See Appendix D. Community Research Institute Poverty 14 Table 5.7 Persons Age 75+ in Poverty in Allen County by Census Tract, 2005‐09 ACS Tract 14 29 12 105 16 31 112.01 40 26 21 15 30 22 3 111 23 108.14 41.02 101 108.11 37 116.05 104 107.06 106.03 113.02 106.02 Number in Poverty Percentage that Senior Population in Poverty in Allen County 19 20 38 35 10 5 21 30 27 9 6 14 31 16 26 23 40 40 18 53 16 20 10 18 9 19 13 Tract 82.6% 58.8% 32.5% 26.9% 25.6% 25.0% 22.3% 21.4% 19.7% 18.0% 16.2% 16.1% 13.4% 13.2% 12.9% 12.5% 11.6% 11.6% 11.5% 10.1% 10.0% 9.6% 9.4% 9.2% 9.0% 8.8% 8.7% 108.12 18 9 116.04 1 108.04 7.01 108.07 102 119 115.01 103.01 113.03 108.05 36 8 109 117.02 118.01 117.01 108.02 106.01 116.03 112.03 41.01 39.01 Number in Poverty 32 5 10 9 11 19 6 17 24 9 16 14 5 27 14 12 21 13 9 6 12 6 12 7 6 6 Percentage that Senior Population in Poverty in Allen County 8.5% 7.6% 7.3% 7.0% 6.9% 6.7% 6.6% 6.6% 6.3% 6.0% 5.9% 5.9% 5.7% 5.3% 5.1% 4.7% 4.5% 4.5% 4.4% 3.8% 3.5% 2.9% 2.8% 2.6% 1.8% 1.7% The remaining 35 tracts had NO seniors age 75+ in poverty. Note: Census Tract 42 is excluded from analysis. See Appendix D. Community Research Institute Poverty 15 Figure 5.5 Since the poverty rates for the age group which is approaching retirement (i.e. age group 55‐64) are larger than those in that age group 10 years ago, census tracts were identified which have high numbers or percentages of age group 55‐64 in poverty. Table 5.8 identifies the poverty rates for age group 55‐64 as of the 2005‐09 ACS. The first ten tracts below are also poverty areas or extreme poverty areas for the general population. Community Research Institute Poverty 16 Table 5.8 Age Group 55‐64 in Poverty in Allen County by Census Tract, 2005‐09 ACS Tract Number in Poverty Percentage of Age 55‐
64 in Tract who are in Poverty Tract 13 74 46.5% 28 89 43.4% 113.03 65 43.3% 16 89 37.2% 27 51 36.4% 7.01 83 35.2% 23 96 34.3% 29 63 33.5% 14 43 29.3% 12 32 28.1% 9 77 24.6% 113.02 75 22.7% 111 71 21.7% 6 42 20.6% 30 51 19.2% 115.01 67 19.1% 32 107 18.6% 22 89 18.5% 11 35 18.1% 33.04 63 18.0% 1 57 17.1% 26 45 13.9% 106.04 44 13.5% 15 11 12.0% 20 31 11.9% 41.02 42 11.6% 18 10 11.4% 38 37 11.0% 113.04 72 10.7% 7.03 31 10.7% 40 25 9.8% 108.07 43 9.5% 107.06 38 9.2% 3 42 8.9% 106.02 39 8.9% 36 42 8.1% 5 12 8.1% 108.02 45 7.5% 35 18 7.3% 39.01 33 7.2% 119 21 7.1% 109 46 7.1% 102 77 6.9% 103.01 38 6.8% 31 16 6.6% Note: Census Tract 42 is excluded from analysis. See Appendix D. 103.04 105 108.03 115.02 103.03 108.11 116.01 108.13 41.01 116.04 10 25 37 108.05 108.09 8 33.01 107.05 116.05 112.02 117.02 108.12 112.03 108.14 4 17 21 34 39.02 101 104 106.01 106.03 107.03 107.04 108.04 108.08 110 112.01 116.02 116.03 117.01 118.01 118.02 Number in Poverty 40 18 37 22 30 36 44 20 9 20 6 12 11 25 18 14 8 13 9 9 14 9 9 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage of Age 55‐64 in Tract who are in Poverty 6.2% 6.0% 5.5% 5.4% 5.4% 5.3% 5.1% 4.4% 4.1% 3.6% 3.5% 3.1% 3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 2.9% 2.7% 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 2.2% 1.5% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Community Research Institute Poverty 17 Poverty by Sex by Age Group The distribution by age group and sex and the changes since 1990 are shown in Tables 5.9 and 5.10 below. There have been more females in poverty than males for each of these three decades, although the poverty rate for males has been increasing faster than that for females. As shown in Table 5.9 below, females constituted over 59 percent of those in poverty in 1990; in 2009, it was 54.7 percent. As practically every age group and each sex has experienced an increase in poverty, it is difficult to single any particular age group out for discussion. Although the number of females in poverty over age 65 has decreased from 1990 to 2009, there has been a bit of an upward tick in the past decade. Over the next few years, the poverty rate in the older age group is expected to grow. Table 5.9 Females In Poverty: 86.3% ‐0.5% 99.0% 57.5% 15.2% 82.8% 65.1% 129.0% 68.5% 10.4% 1.2% 62.8% Percent of Age Group in Poverty 2009 that is Female 60.7% 37.8% 55.6% 45.7% 53.2% 57.7% 52.1% 57.2% 51.4% 54.2% 73.9% 54.7% Change, 2000‐2009 Age Groups: 1990 2000 2009 Under 5 years 1,430 1,926 5 years 222 407 6 to 11 years 1,386 1,940 12‐17 years 1,116 1,460 18‐24 2,819 25‐34 2,586 7,614* 35‐44 1,943 45‐54 1,269 55‐64 1,086 65 to 74 years 1,000 747 75 years and over 1,058 899 Total 13,826 17,082 Percent of each sex in 59.1% 57.3% Poverty‐Females *note that a breakout by age group was not available in 1990 Number 3,589 405 3,861 2,299 3,248 4,727 3,208 2,906 1,830 825 910 27,808 Percent 1,663 ‐2 1,921 839 429 2,141 1,265 1,637 744 78 11 10,726 54.7% Table 5.10 Males In Poverty: 2,326 667 3,080 2,733 2,860 3,460 2,953 2,171 1,732 697 321 23,000 246 275 1,161 1,256 1,119 1,813 1,652 1,272 1,088 376 17 10,275 11.8% 70.2% 60.5% 85.0% 64.3% 110.1% 127.0% 141.5% 168.9% 117.1% 5.6% 80.7% Percent of Age Group in Poverty 2009 that is Male 39.3% 62.2% 44.4% 54.3% 46.8% 42.3% 47.9% 42.8% 48.6% 45.8% 26.1% 45.3% 45.3% Change, 2000‐2009 Age Groups: 1990 2000 2009 Under 5 years 1,576 2,080 5 years 302 392 6 to 11 years 1,508 1,919 12‐17 years 1,107 1,477 18‐24 1,741 25‐34 1,647 4,532* 35‐44 1,301 45‐54 899 55‐64 644 65 to 74 years 331 321 75 years and over 227 304 Total 9,583 12,725 Percent of each sex in 40.9% 42.7% Poverty‐Males *note that a breakout by age group was not available in 1990 Number Percent Community Research Institute Poverty 18 Poverty by Households Households are defined as all people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence, and this can include any type of family, including married‐couple families, families with one parent, families with grandparents, etc., as well as nonfamily households, i.e. persons who live alone, and non‐related persons living together. The head of the household or householder is one of the persons in whose name the home is owned, being rented, or being bought. Once again, 2009 ACS data is being used to present a more current overall view of households in poverty in Allen County. Households in poverty increased 61.5 percent since 2000, after increasing 28.2 percent from the prior decade. The 2009 data is from the middle of one of the more severe recessions, and hopefully rates will fall as the recession recedes. With annual data available from the ACS, we will be able to monitor these statistics on a timely basis. As noted in Chart 5.3, the unemployment rate had increased significantly beginning in 2008, and is still high in 2011 as this is written. Chart 5.4 Chart 5.5 Households in Poverty, 2009
Households in Poverty, Allen County
20,000
Male family, no wife
16,000
17,883 1,222
Married family
2,852
12,000
8,000
Female Head(no family)
11,071 8,637 3,814
Male Head(no family)
3,960
4,000
Female family, no husband
0
1990
2000
2009
6,035
0
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
As was the case in the 2000 Census, female head of household with a family represent the largest category of households in poverty. A third of all households in poverty are families with female head (no husband). In almost 90 percent of these families, the female has at least one child under the age of 18. Males as head of a family with no wife represented 6.8 percent of the households, and in 69 percent of these households, there was at least one child under the age of 18. Within family types, there are differing rates of poverty, as shown in Chart 5.6. That is, within all married couple families with children under 18, 6.6 percent were in poverty; of all male head of households with children under 18, no spouse, 31.5 percent were in poverty, and so forth. Community Research Institute Poverty 19 Chart 5.6 Poverty by Family Type and By Presence of Children Under 18
50%
40%
43.1%
30%
31.5%
20%
10%
22.2%
6.6%
13.5%
2.3%
0%
Married Couple Married Couple Male w/ Children Male w/ No
w/ Children
w/ No Children
Under 18, no Children Under
Under 18
Under 18
Spouse
18, no Spouse
Female w/
Children Under
18, no Spouse
Female w/ No
Children Under
18, no Spouse
There were 37,794 households in which the householder lived alone, and 6,358, or 16.8 percent, of these single person households were in poverty in 2009. Poverty by Age (Under 65 Years and Over 65) by Household Type Since 1990, the greatest percentage change in households in poverty has been in the male householder with no wife present, less than 65 years of age. This group increased from 232 households to 1,175, over a 400 percent increase. Older (65 and older) female family households also experienced a large increase, over 300 percent. The number of nonfamily households under age 65 has seen the largest number increase, from 2,344 to 6,792. The number of female family householders with no spouse, less than 65 years, has also had a large number increase, from 2,563 in 1990 to 5,684 in 2009. Table 5.11 1990 2000 2009 Percent Change 1990‐2009 Households less than 65 years of age in Poverty: Family Married Couple 1,227 1,434 2,446 99.3% Female Householder, no husband present 2,563 3,501 5,684 121.8% Male Householder, no wife present 232 467 1,175 406.5% Nonfamily* 2,344 3,846 189.8% Female Householder 3,189 Male Householder 3,603 Subtotal Households less than 65: 6,366 9,248 16,097 152.9% Households 65 years of age and older in Poverty: Family Married Couple 301 284 406 34.9% Female Householder, no husband present 86 106 351 308.1% Male Householder, no wife present 31 0 47 51.6% Nonfamily* 1,853 1,433 ‐47.0% Female Householder 625 Male Householder 357 Subtotal Households 65 years of age and older: 2,271 1,823 1,786 ‐21.4% TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 8,637 11,071 17,883 107.1% Source: 2009 ACS and 1990 and 2000 Decennial Census. *Census definitions have changed over the years, and what is now called nonfamily used to be “living alone” and “other”. A good number of the 2009 nonfamily households are living alone. Community Research Institute Poverty 20 Poverty by Race and Ethnicity Table 5.12 identifies data for the White and Black races as well as for those of Hispanic origin7. The “Other Races“ column in Table 5.12 below indicates the balance for Allen County, that is, the total less the data for Black and White. Data for race by age by poverty had high margins of error and in some cases, was not even released by the Census due to small numbers and high possibility of errors. Proceed with caution when reviewing Table 5.12, which represents data for individuals in poverty by race and ethnic origin8. Table 5.12 In Poverty 2009 ACS Total White Black Other Races* Hispanic Under 5 years 5,915 2,723 2,373 819 925 5 years 1,072 379 562 131 510 6 to 11 years 6,941 3,431 2,337 1,173 1,099 12‐17 years 5,032 2,721 1,853 458 646 18‐24 6,108 3,202 2,256 650 514 25‐34 8,187 5,361 2,005 821 866 35‐54 11,238 6,208 3,274 1,756 1,874 55‐65 3,562 2,238 894 430 120 65 to 74 years 1,522 1,109 277 136 66 75 years and over 1,231 698 136 397 462 TOTAL IN POVERTY 50,808 28,070 15,967 6,771 7,082 Total Population for which 348,399 283,126 40,330 24,943 21,941 poverty status is known: Percent in Poverty, 2009 14.6% 9.9% 39.6% 27.1% 32.3% Percent in Poverty, 2000 9.1% 6.4% 26.2% 15.6% 19.1% *This is any race other than black or white, i.e. the difference between the county totals and the white and black race data. This includes Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, “Some Other”, and 2 or More, and there are most likely high margins of error associated with this data. All racial and ethnic groups have a higher percentage classified as being in poverty since the 2000 Census. Although “only” 9.9 percent of the white race was in poverty in 2009, the number of whites in poverty exceeded that of all other races combined, as was the case in 2000. Another caution‐the margins of error are high for the following groups: Asian male households; the presence of children in male households with no wife; practically all data for “Two or more” race. Also, for NHPI and AIAN, data is available, but we chose not to present the data here due to the high margins of error. 7
For two reasons, the 2009 ACS data for Allen County is used for discussion of poverty by race. First, the 2009 data is more recent, and poverty is one of the areas in which conditions can change quickly, so recent data is better data. Secondly, much of the data at the census tract level by race and poverty have high margins of error and we question whether that data is helpful at that level. Given this, there is not much to be gained by using the 2005‐09 ACS data. 8
The 2010 data on households has not been released at this point and the 2005‐09 and 2009 ACS data are statistically tied to the 2000 Census. Analyzing household data by race by income or poverty status at this point may be a bit premature; it may be better to wait for the 2006‐2010 ACS data. Community Research Institute Poverty 21 Table 5.13 Households in Poverty by Race 2005‐09 ACS White Total Families in Poverty Married‐couple family: With related children under 18 years Other family: Male householder, no wife present With related children under 18 yrs Female householder, no husband present With related children under 18 yrs Black 5,043 1,633 987 3,410 501 332 2,909 2,701 Asian 2,423 301 251 2,122 82 60 2,040 1,837 279 215 196 64 0 0 64 48 Some Other 417 150 113 267 119 52 148 119 2 Or More 158 35 20 123 37 37 86 86 Hispanic 884 338 251 546 160 78 386 357 The same data, shown by percent and in chart form, are presented in chart set 5.7 to 5.13 (note: this type of detail is from the 2005‐09 ACS data, so most likely the poverty rates shown here are lower than the 2009 poverty rates). Chart 5.7 Percent of Families in Poverty by Race
30%
25%
25.8%
20%
19.6%
19.5%
15%
15.4%
15.2%
10%
5%
6.7%
0%
White
Black
Asian
Some Other
Chart 5.8 Hispanic
Chart 5.9
Of Those Families in Poverty, the Percent Which Are Married‐Couple Families
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2 or More
Of Those Married‐Couple Families in Poverty, the Percent Which Have Children under 18
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
77.1%
22.2%
12.4%
White
38.2%
36.0%
32.4%
Black
Asian
Some
Other
2 or
More
83.4%
75.3%
60.4%
White
Hispanic
91.2%
74.3%
57.1%
Black
Asian
Some
Other
2 or
More
Hispanic
Community Research Institute Poverty 22 Chart 5.10 Chart 5.11
Percent with Male Head, No Spouse
Percent with Male Head, No Spouse, and Children Under Age 18
30%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
28.5%
25%
23.4%
20%
18.1%
15%
10%
9.9%
5%
3.4%
0.0%
0%
White
Black
Asian
Some
Other
2 or
More
Hispanic
66.3%
73.2%
48.8%
43.7%
0.0%
White
Chart 5.12 Black
Asian
Some
Other
2 or
More
Hispanic
Chart 5.13
Percent with Female Head,No Spouse, and Children Under Age 18
Percent with Female Head, No Spouse
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
100.0%
100%
84.2%
80%
92.8%
100.0%
90.0%
75.0%
60%
57.7%
92.5%
80.4%
54.4%
40%
43.7%
35.4%
20%
22.9%
0%
White
Black
Asian
Some
Other
2 or
More
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Some
Other
2 or
More
Hispanic
Community Research Institute 
Fly UP