This week the U.S. House of Representatives voted 232-190 to eliminate all funding for the American Community Survey — the bedrock of a substantial body of information about child well-being, as well as overall population characteristics for every place in the country.

Five of the 10 key indicators monitored annually by the national KIDS COUNT project to evaluate child well-being in the states come from this survey. The survey collects data about poverty, employment, education, family status — many of the indicators used by communities to evaluate social and economic well-being. This information would no longer be available to track outcomes, guide public policy and assess community needs.

The vote was essentially along party lines, with all but 11 Republicans voting in favor of the amendment and all but four  Democrats voting against. (Michigan’s delegation voted along party lines.)

The amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill was sponsored by Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Fla. It would also make response to the ACS voluntary by prohibiting the Census Bureau and the Justice Department from using funds to enforce penalties in the Census Act that make survey response mandatory. This policy would seriously undermine the reliability of the data. The Senate is expected to take up the FY2013 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill next week. Our senators need to know how much we care about keeping the ACS funded. (Click here to email Sen. Stabenow and click here for Sen. Levin.)

The ACS represented a huge step forward in making current data more readily available to decision makers at the local, state and federal levels. In 2010 the ACS replaced the traditional census “long form” previously distributed to a sample of census takers at the time of the decennial census. Previously the social and economic data from the long form was available once every 10 years, but the ACS is ongoing—administered every month to a sample throughout the nation.

As of 2010, the ACS data has been released annually for places in every corner of the nation–providing vital information about the fast-moving changes in our country and communities. The implications of eliminating such a resource are troubling. We all have a huge stake in this decision.

As all successful business leaders know, good data are key to making good decisions. Why should government be any different? In fact, business leaders also use census data to gauge social and economic trends to make decisions about location, product development and marketing.

As we move into the 21st century, we need to capitalize on its technology and tools to inform and strengthen the efficiency and capacity of our public institutions to improve the lives of our families and children. Without a solid base of information, how can we as citizens and our representatives in government be held accountable for the outcomes of public policy decisions?

– Jane Zehnder-Merrell

May 11th, 2012 Posted to Blog: Factually Speaking,Census,Events,Health Care,Human Services,Kids Count,Racial equity | Comments (1)

Almost since its inception in 1969, the federal poverty measure has been critiqued as being an inadequate measure of true poverty. The official measure was developed in the early 1960s by Mollie Orshansky and was based on a 1955 survey on household food consumption. Though it has been adjusted for inflation each year, no substantial change has been made to how the government measures poverty. 

In the early ‘90s, the National Academy of Sciences established a panel to examine how to improve the measure of poverty.  These critiques have led to unofficial alternative measures being calculated over the years, but this year marks the first time that the Census Bureau has itself published an official Supplemental Poverty Measure.  This new measure tries to account for much of the criticism of the original by:

• Developing thresholds that take into account the dollar amount spent on the basics – food, clothing, shelter, utilities, and other similar expenses
• Adjusting for geographic differences in housing costs
• Including family resources other than just income – such as in-kind benefits like nutritional and utility assistance, and subsidized housing
• Excluding expenses such as income tax, social security payroll tax, child support, and work-related expenses, like transportation and childcare, as well as the cost of medical care, health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses.

The Supplemental Poverty Measure thus reports a higher monetary threshold under which people would be considered to be living in poverty.  In 2010, the official poverty threshold for a family of four (two children, two adults) was $22,113.  The Supplement Measure would set the threshold at $24,343 and result in another 2.5 million people considered to be living in poverty. 

A Supplemental Poverty Measure not only gives a more realistic view of who is living in poverty, but it also gives us a chance to see if programs aimed at helping low-income people  actually work. One of the most interesting results was the affirmation of the effectiveness of the Earned Income Tax Credit. When the EITC was removed from the calculation of family resources, the poverty rate jumped from 16 percent to 18 percent!  Food assistance, the school lunch program, housing subsidies and WIC also helped keep families out of poverty. The effect of these programs is especially important for kids.

Real differences come out when looking at the demographics of those in poverty under the Supplemental Measure — poverty increased for seniors 65 years and older, Asians, homeowners with a mortgage, persons with private health coverage and those living in urban and suburban areas. Yet poverty dropped for children under 18, African Americans, renters, people in rural areas and persons with public, not private health insurance. Differences were also seen in regional poverty. While poverty increased under the Supplemental Poverty Measure in the Northeast and the West, it decreased in the Midwest and South.

Most of these results are not surprising. When variations in geographical housing costs are taken into consideration, it is expected that urban and suburban poverty would rise while rural poverty would decrease. This also explains the changes noted in regional poverty. The increase in seniors living in poverty is a result of including out-of-pocket medical expenses, the decrease in poverty among children is likely due to government assistance programs targeted at helping those in poverty and increased costs in private health insurance can account for the differences in poverty by health coverage. 

Though the Supplemental Poverty Measure is a step in the right direction, it is still inadequate at giving a picture of all of those who are struggling. The Supplemental Measure shows a growth of 70 percent in the number of people with incomes between 100 percent and 200 percent of the poverty level, as compared to the official poverty thresholds.  At 200 percent of the Supplemental Poverty Threshold, a family of four would still only have an annual income of $48,686. 

It is important to note that poverty thresholds are used for statistical purposes only and the Supplemental Poverty Measure will have no effect on the Poverty Guidelines, which are used to determine income eligibility for programs such as food assistance, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and home energy assistance. State-level data is not available.

– Melissa K. Smith

As a lifelong Metro Detroiter, it’s heart-breaking to see the latest poverty statistics for our already troubled region.

Among the country’s 50 largest cities, Detroit has the dubious distinction of having the largest share of children living in poverty or in low-income families.
Four out of every five kids in Detroit lived at less than 200 percent of poverty — the level many experts consider necessary to cover the most basic needs, according to KIDS COUNT.

Statewide, one in every four kids lives in poverty. Overall the poverty rate is nearly 17 percent with the rate for African Americans double that – nearly 34 percent.
As troubling as the poverty numbers are, they don’t show the full picture of families struggling to make ends meet. The Census Bureau considers a family of four to be living in poverty if its income is below $22,314, but most studies suggest families need at least twice that to pay their bills.

Today, one in nine workers in Michigan, and one out of 11 nationally, are unemployed. Nationally, 6 million workers –- that’s how many total people live in Wisconsin plus the Upper Peninsula –-  have been out of work for at least six months. These workers have spent their savings and many have exhausted their unemployment benefits.

Poverty and unemployment also have longer term consequences. Unemployed workers lose critical job skills. Poor children’s health and development suffers, and they do worse in school, threatening their ability to become productive workers as adults. Seniors in poverty can’t afford the health care they need to stay strong and independent. 

By 2018, our country will have 3 million fewer new workers with bachelor’s or associate’s degrees than it will need. That limits our capacity for sustained economic growth and harms us all.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We know how to help people through hard times and prepare for a stronger economic future. For example, the availability of public health insurance meant that while the number of people with private health insurance fell this year, the share of Americans who are uninsured did not grow.

President Obama’s jobs package is a step in the right direction to reduce the number of people falling out of the middle class and build a stable, strong economy. Attempts to reduce the deficit through cuts in health care or other essential services are bound to fail because they will reduce jobs, cripple economic activity, and shrink tax revenues.

Right now we face a triple threat. Rising poverty creates more demand for critical services, just when states and the federal government have cut services. Here in Michigan we have already cut education, public safety and safety net programs.  Now Congress is considering additional cuts, which is exactly the wrong choice.
We need our leaders to have the courage to make the right choices. 

A congressional  “supercommittee” is developing a plan to reduce our federal deficit. The surest way to reduce the deficit is to get people back to work and paying taxes. The “supercommittee” should develop a plan that creates jobs and continues unemployment insurance. It should ask millionaires and profit-rich corporations to pay their share in taxes and cut expensive contracts and other waste in our defense budget. 

Our country and our state cannot thrive when so many people are struggling.  We must act now.

– Gilda Z. Jacobs

Grim news out recently from Kids Count finds that of the 50 largest U.S. cities, Detroit has the largest share of children living in poverty or in low-income families. Four out of every five children in Detroit live in households earning less than 200 percent of the poverty level. That’s the amount most studies show is needed to cover basic needs.

Other recent census data do show some good news for children in the state.

Young children in Michigan are more likely to have health insurance than those in 47 other states.  Michigan ties with New Hampshire and Maine in having only 4 percent of children under the age of 6 not covered, according to the latest data released by the Census Bureau.  Massachusetts and Hawaii with only 3 percent of young children lacking health insurance have the best ranking. This information and lots of other new data from the Census Bureau are constantly being updated on the Kids Count Data Center.

In 2009 almost 1 million children in Michigan were covered by a public health insurance program such as Medicaid or MIChild.  This coverage has allowed children to get necessary preventive care during this time of high and extensive unemployment among parents and substantial cutbacks in health insurance benefits among  the employed.  Roughly two of every five children in the state depends on these public health insurance programs—mostly Medicaid.

More good news is the emphasis in the governor’s health agenda on expanding Healthy Kids Dental program as a priority item in the next budget. This program increases access to dental care for children eligible for Medicaid. Over half of Michigan’s third graders have dental decay, and those without private insurance were at double the risk of untreated dental decay—one of every three compared with one of every six for those with private insurance. The regional disparity was particularly striking in those southeastern counties currently without access to Healthy Kids Dental.

While expansion of the Medicaid and MIChild programs has been critical in ensuring children are covered for health care, without adequate funding to ensure access to providers, the program is only a paper promise. Kudos to the governor for protecting and expanding access to oral health care for children.

– Jane Zehnder-Merrell

September 28th, 2011 Posted to Blog: Factually Speaking,Health Care,Human Services,Kids Count | Comments (2)

New Census data just out shows one in every seven people in Michigan live in poverty, a startling 50 percent jump over the decade.

Poverty rose from 9.8 percent in 1999-2000 to 14.8 percent in 2009-2010, reflecting the pain of Michigan families struggling with unemployment and underemployment, according to the Current Population Survey. A family of four lives in poverty with an income of about $22,000 or less.

In Michigan, 1.3 million people, including 121,000 children, went without health insurance. The big driver on this was the loss of employer-sponsored insurance, dropping from more than 76 percent covered a decade ago to 64 percent last year.

One of the more troubling findings for Michigan is that the median household income dropped by more than $12,000 per family over the decade – the biggest drop in the country. Average median income in 2010 was $46,600, below the national average of $50,000.

These findings speak to the need to not only invest in our workers, but make sure the safety net for children and families is in place as families struggle with unemployment and underemployment.

“Deep cuts alone will threaten the recovery and make it harder for Michigan to advance,’’ said Gilda Z. Jacobs, president and CEO of the Michigan League for Human Services  in a statement. “We know that rising poverty threatens our economic future.”

In Michigan, lawmakers and the administration should rethink deep cuts to business taxes combined with deep cuts to programs and services that help Michigan children and families. 

Unfortunately, Michigan is moving in the wrong direction. The state budget that starts Oct. 1:

• Eliminates cash assistance to 11,000 families with nearly 30,000 children
• Reduces back-to-school clothing allowance (cutting help for up to 12,4000 children to purchase a new set of clothes for school)
• Slashes the Earned Income Tax Credit for 800,000 working families from 20 percent to 6 percent of the federal credit
• Cuts mental health services (cutting funds that would pay for mental health services for 1,000 childless adults with serious mental illness who don’t qualify for Medicaid)

In addition, Michigan lawmakers reduced unemployment benefits from 26 to 20 weeks at a time when half of the jobless spend 26 weeks or longer searching for work.

Research shows that most people favor a mix of cuts and revenue increases. That balance is sorely missing in our state. The Census numbers point out that we need to try harder.

– Judy Putnam

September 13th, 2011 Posted to Blog: Factually Speaking,Census,Human Services,State Budget,Tax Policy,Workforce Development | Comments (1)

We knew it would be bad, but did we know it would be this bad?  Michigan was the only state in the country to lose population over the last decade, according to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau numbers released today.

The state’s population declined 0.6 percent, while the nation’s population grew 9.7 percent. Michigan will lose one congressional seat, but perhaps the greatest loss will be felt in the loss of federal funds.

About 140 federal programs use census numbers to allocate funds to the states. These programs include Medicaid, Head Start, road funding and more. In 2008, Michigan received $16 billion in federal assistance based on census numbers.

Our part of the federal pie is going to be smaller for the next 10 years because of the loss of population the state has experienced.  While population is down, the need for services and programs is not.  As we all know, Michigan’s economy has suffered more than most. Demand for services will continue to be high as the state recovers more slowly than other states.

Today’s news presents another challenge to the incoming governor and  lawmakers, who already face a $1.7 billion budget gap. Michigan has relied heavily on federal funds in the last few years to help close budget gaps during tough economic times. There will be a lot less of that money available as work begins on the next state budget. 

The likely loss of federal dollars makes a balanced approach to solving the budget gap all the more important.

December 21st, 2010 Posted to Blog: Factually Speaking,Census,Events,Health Care,Human Services,State Budget | Comments (3)

The U.S. Census Bureau Tuesday released the results of its annual American Community Survey, which surveys approximately 3 million households across the United States. This data reveals a lot about the economic conditions Michigan residents are facing and particularly how these challenges are hitting people of color the hardest.

According to this new data, which is much more comprehensive than the Current Population Survey released on September 16, not only did Michigan’s median household income continue to fall, but our poverty rate also increased.

Overall, Michigan’s inflation-adjusted median household income declined 6.2 percent between 2008 and 2009 and the poverty rate increased from 14.5 percent in 2008 to 16.2 percent in 2009. Child poverty jumped from 19.4 percent to 22.1 percent in just one year. This means more than 1 in 5 children under 18 are living in families where the total income is at or below $17,285 for a family of three. 

While things got worse for many Michigan residents in 2009, communities of color were harder hit. The median household income fell for all racial groups, but the drop was highest for African Americans  (7.5 percent) and Hispanics (6.6 percent). For white, non-Hispanics, it fell 5.6 percent, less than the overall decline of 6.2 percent.

Just as concerning is the poverty rate for communities of color. Over a third of African Americans (34.6 percent) and 29 percent of Hispanics lived below the poverty line in 2009. In 2008 the poverty rate was 30.3 percent for African Americans and 26 percent for Hispanics. The poverty rate was significantly lower for whites — 12 percent in 2009, up from 10.8 percent in 2008. 

With people of color experiencing higher rates of unemployment, thus lower income and higher rates of poverty, it is clear disparities between races still exist and that communities of color have been hit harder by this recession than whites.  But overall, more people, regardless of race, are turning to safety net programs just to make ends meet and are looking to job training programs such as No Worker Left Behind and adult education programs to increase their skills to be prepared for the knowledge-based jobs of the future.

However, cuts to job training programs, as well as safety net programs, will do nothing to help any Michigan resident, regardless of race, prepare for potential employment opportunities. And in an economy such as this, and in the state that has been hardest hit by this recession, we should be giving all people who want to increase their skills the opportunity to do so to help erase the disparities that clearly still exist.

I’ve seen the billboards, heard the public service announcements and have intellectually understood the importance of the upcoming census, but it wasn’t until I started to delve into the Michigan numbers that I really got it.  (See Hardest to Count, Most to Lose.)

Some of our most vulnerable populations here in Michigan really do stand to lose the most if they are not counted in the census. And ironically enough, they are the ones who are hardest to count.

Past experience shows that minorities, children, low-income folks and the unemployed are the most likely to be missed in the census count. And, if you are a child of color, you have the poorest chance of being counted.

There are a variety of reasons for this. These populations are more likely to move around, to live with others and to live in temporary housing. Kids living in larger households or with grandparents are also more likely to be overlooked. Those with lower education and literacy levels may have trouble understanding the census form. Some are fearful of the government, especially in this post 9-11 era.

Whatever the reason, substantial numbers of people here in Michigan will not be counted in the upcoming census. I recently learned that the U.S. Census Bureau actually designates certain areas as “hard to count” areas.

Apparently over 1.2 million people in our state live in hard to count areas. That’s just over 12 percent of the population. When you look at the hard to count areas in Michigan by race, the disparities are alarming. Among whites, 5.4 percent are in hard to count areas. In stark contrast, over 48 percent, almost half, of African Americans are in hard to count areas. And for Hispanics, it’s over 30 percent. No wonder minorities are missed at such a high rate, compared with whites.

So what’s really at risk here in Michigan? A look at the top 10 federal services and programs that use census data shows that, with the exception of highway planning and construction, they target low-income and vulnerable populations, including children and minorities. The big one, of course, is Medicaid, which provides health care for one in six people in our state. Other services include unemployment insurance, Head Start, and the State Children’s Insurance Program.

Arguably the need has never been greater here in Michigan. There is much at risk if people are not counted and if funding is not sufficient to meet the needs going forward, especiallyfor vulnerable families and children.

– Karen Holcomb-Merrill