Poverty Reports

This piece by LAANE analyzes the recently released data from the American Community Survey (ACS) of the U.S. Census Bureau. This new data includes new estimates for L.A. County for 2009 on poverty, income, housing costs and more. Included in LAANE’s analysis is the change in poverty in L.A. County, poverty by demographics, L.A. County income, unemployment and more.

Selected Findings:

• Over 1.5 million people in L.A. live in poverty (about 75,000 more than the previous year).
• Real median household income for L.A. County declined about $1,000 dollars from 2008 to 2009 (from $55,356 to $54,467).
• Nearly a quarter of L.A. County residents lack health insurance (22.6%) –higher compared to the state (18%) and the rest of the U.S (15.1%).
• Over half a million (555,000) children in L.A. County live in poverty.
• 29% of L.A. County full time workers earn less than $25,000 a year.

Read the report.

This policy brief examines the state of workers in California, who are currently caught between a recession and a nascent recovery. Included is a look at the unemployed across demographics by age, educational attainment, gender, race/ethnicity, length of unemployment (weeks, months), income (hourly wages over time, wages at the high end of the spectrum and wages at low end of the spectrum), income gains (and losses) among the middle class and more.

Selected Findings:

• The average time for unemployed young Californians (24 year olds and younger) searching for a job doubled between 2006 and 2009-from 11.4 weeks to about 23 weeks (pg. 4).
• Those workers at the bottom 20% saw their wages fall slightly between 1979 and 2009-from $11.43 an hour to $10.51 an hour (adjusted for inflation) (pg. 18).
• The wages/earnings of middle income Californians has dropped by at least 10% since 2000 (pg.5).
• The number of long term unemployed (without work for 6 months or more) in California has grown from 143,600 in 2007 to about 980,000 today (which is more people than the population of San Francisco) (pg. 9).

Read the report.

This policy brief examines the prevalence of obesity and diabetes in California. Data is provided across years, demographics (resident status, race/ethnicity), socio-economic status (poor and non-poor, educational attainment) and geographies (counties) and more.

Selected Findings:

• Nearly a quarter of adults (22.6%) are obese in L.A. County. (pg. 1).
• 8.8% of L.A. County adults are diagnosed with diabetes (pg. 9).
• The prevalence of Californians with obesity grew between 2001 and 2007 (from 19.3% to 22.7%) (pg. 1).
• The obesity rate is highest in the Imperial Valley (39.6%), and the lowest is in San Francisco (11.8%) (pg. 5).
• The rate with people with diabetes in California is almost twice as high for those in poverty compared to those at 3 times the poverty level (10% compared to 5.7%) (pg. 5).
• The prevalence of Californians with diabetes has gone up by 27% from 2001 to 2007. (pg. 1).
• Those with less than an 8th grade education in California have an obesity rate twice that of those with college degrees (30% to 15%) (pg. 4).

Read the report.

This study is based on a sample of low income 1,000 banked individuals and 1,000 unbanked individuals (those without any sort of bank account) in the greater Los Angeles area, looking at their financial behavior and strategies. Included is an examination of the products and services that people used (ATMs, checking, savings, money orders, remittances etc), demographics (age, race/ethnicity, education level), as well as what correlates to increased likelihood to save and other financial practices.

Selected Findings:

• There are an estimated 1–1.25 million unbanked individuals in Los Angeles County (pg. 12).
• The unbanked have a median income much lower than the banked. The banked have a median income range between $15,000 to $24,999 while the unbanked have a median income range between $10,000 and $14,999 (pg. 7).
• Nearly one third of the unbanked surveyed (those households without any bank accounts) use only cash for their transactions. This sample suggests that hundreds of thousands of people in the Greater Los Angeles area operate under the financial ‘radar’ or ‘off the grid’ of the mainstream economy (pg. 6).
• Most of the unbanked have never had a bank account (nearly two thirds, or 62%) (pg. 6).
• Those persons who are banked even when paid in cash are more likely to save than those persons who are unbanked. 41% of banked persons will deposit at least part of their cash pay into an account with intent to save, compared to 88% of the unbanked who spend their cash pay without intent to save (pg. 7).

Read the report.

This publication provides a means for identifying homeless individuals with the most severe needs-a particular population which would provide the greatest costs savings to the public when housed. This study looks at 10,193 homeless persons in L.A. County, of which, 1,007 exited homelessness via supportive housing. Supportive housing means permanent housing that is affordable with on-site case management for issues such as health, mental health, and substance abuse. The homeless population examined was portioned in ten equal sized groups ranked according to public costs that were incurred due to their homeless status (these costs include experiences with the justice system such as jails and healthcare services such as hospitals). Certain traits which were prevalent in the highest cost group were then identified. This report includes an interactive Excel tool using variable indicators (based on the certain traits mentioned above) which can be used to calculate the probability that a person will fall in the highest cost group (the top 10%). The report also offers general policy recommendations on addressing high need/high cost homeless populations in L.A.

Selected Findings:

• The most expensive (in terms of public costs) top 10% of homeless population in L.A. County incur public costs (due to hospital and jail use) is about $8,083 per month, compared to $710 for the other 90 percent of homeless persons. (pg. 1).
• The average local cost for residents in supportive housing is about $605 a month, compared to $2,897 a month for someone not housed (remaining homeless) (pg. 3).
• The most expensive (in terms of public costs) 10% of single adults who are homeless account for about 56% of all the public costs for single homeless individuals in L.A. (pg. 1).
• Healthcare costs decline 85% for homeless individuals entering permanent supportive housing (pg. 4).

Read the report.

This report by the California Budget Project examines what it takes to have a decent standard of living in California (without public assistance). The report looks at costs of housing, utilities, child care, transportation, food, income taxes, health care coverage for four different family compositions: a single adult; a two parent family with one worker and two children; a two parent family with two children and both parents working; or a single parent with two children. The report highlights state costs and family budgets as well as expenses, and wages needed for maintaining a decent standard of living for each county in California.

Selected Findings:

• On Average, a single adult in California requires an hourly wage of $14.64 ($30,445 a year) (pg. 5).
• A two parent family with one parent working in California needs an annual income of $54,039 a year to afford a decent standard of living- this is about $25.21 an hour, which exceeds the median wage in California by 6 dollars (pg. 5).
• A basic hourly wage required for a decent standard of living in Los Angeles County for a single adult is $14.17; for a single parent family with two children, $31.02 (pg. 38).
• Californians on averaged paid $283 a month for job based family health coverage (25.1% of the full cost of premiums) (pg. 10).

Read the report.

This survey examines how Californians feel about important issues facing education including perceptions about education quality, concerns about the state budget crisis as it relates to education, education funding (as well as mechanisms to fund education, such as taxes), teacher pay, per pupil spending, the drop out rate, student achievement, and more. Some survey items are broken down by region (Los Angeles, Orange/San Diego, San Francisco, Central Valley, and the Inland Empire), as well as race/ethnicity, and political party affiliation (Democrats, Republicans, Independents).

Selected Findings:

• Six in ten Californians are concerned that schools in low income areas have a shortage of good teachers compared to more affluent areas (pg. 12).
• Almost two thirds of California public school parents are very concerned that students in low income areas are less likely to be ready for college upon graduation from high school (pg. 12).
• 63% of African-Americans say that student achievement is a big problem compared to 51% of Latinos, 45% of Whites and 39% of Asians (pg. 11).
• 57% of L.A. County residents believe student achievement is a big problem, followed by those in the Inland Empire (53%), the Central Valley (at 46%), and Orange/San Diego (both at 41%), and 40% for those in San Francisco. (pg. 11).

Read the report.

This policy brief examines the impact the recession has had on women in California-specifically, their income and earnings, and their place in the labor market (change in hours worked within a week and more). Demographics of working women are discussed (including family composition, marital status and age). In addition, the plight of California’s working women in the latest recession is given in historical context, looking back at previous recessions as well as earnings going back to the late 1970’s.

Selected Findings:

• In 2009, California’s unmarried women with children were nearly twice as likely as married women (or men) with children to be unemployed (14.8% compared to 8.8% for married women with children and 8.9% for married men with children) (pg. 3).
• The median hourly wage of the female worker in California increased 27% between 1979 and 2009 (after adjusting for inflation). In the same time, the median hourly wages for men declined by 10.3% (pg. 6).
• The unemployment rate for California women in general doubled between 2006 and 2009-reflecting a 30 year high (pg. 2).
• The number of married couples in California relying only on the earnings of the wives increased by nearly 78% from 2006 to 2009 (pg. 1).

Read the report.

Read the report.

This policy brief examines the impact of EITC refunds (Earned Income Tax Credit Refunds) left unclaimed. The impacts examined include the full amount of EITC refunds lost to tax payers, to the local economy-in the form of tax revenue generated by refunds as well as by commercial sales to local businesses. Data provided includes the state of California as well as the 58 counties of California and major cities such as Los Angeles.

Selected Findings:

• In 2009, California will claim nearly 5 billion dollars in EITC refunds (pg. 1).
• These refunds will generate over 5 billion dollars in sales for California businesses, yielding 33,000 new jobs, and bringing in almost 400 million dollars in tax revenue to the state (pg.1).
• L.A. County left over 370 million dollars in unclaimed refunds in 2006. This meant a loss of over 440 million dollars to the economy in foregone sales. Over 2,700 jobs were forgone -not created-due to this loss to the economy. This translates into over 123 million dollars in forgone wages (pg. 15-16).
• The City of L.A. was the largest city in California with unclaimed EITC refunds at just over 124 million dollars in unclaimed refunds in 2006 (pg. 17).

Read the report.