ohio association of community action agencies...ohio association of community action agencies philip...

Ohio Association of Community Action AgenciesPhilip E. Cole, J.D., Executive DirectorKathryn A. Clausen, Communications DirectorJosh Summer, Development Director50 West Broad Street, Suite 1616Columbus, OH 43215phone: 614-224-8500 fax: 614-224-2587www.oacaa.org

The Ohio Association of Community Action Agencies (OACAA) exists to support, unify, and strengthen the Community Action Network in Ohio. Serving the needs of low-income families and individuals, Ohio’s forty-eight Community Action Agencies provide resources and opportunities to alleviate poverty and help all Ohioans become fully self-sufficient. Each independent nonprofit agency is locally controlled and provides services unique to their communities so that low-income households can overcome their unique barriers. Agencies take a wholistic approach to not only assist with the emergency needs of today but to build a foundation for long-term success tomorrow. Our network employs 6,500 people who administer over $450 million and serve over 700,000 Ohioans annually. Our 50-year history of helping people and changing lives not only seeks solutions to strengthen families but also communities.

Community Research PartnersLynnette Cook, Ph.D., Executive DirectorMegan Johanson, Ph.D., Director of Research and Data ServicesBecky Zwickl, Assistant Director, Quality AssuranceMarcus Erridge, Senior Research AssociateJacob Cunliffe, Research AssociateBruce Jones, Research AssociateMarc Rostan, Research Associate

399 E. Main Street, Suite 100Columbus, Ohio 43215phone: 614-224-5917 www.researchpartners.org

Community Research Partners is a nonprofit research center that strengthens Ohio communities through data, information, and knowledge. CRP is a partnership of the City of Columbus, United Way of Central Ohio, The Ohio State University, and the Franklin County Commissioners. CRP is the Columbus partner in the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership.

Editorial PartnersLeah D. Hackleman-Good, Ph.D.Editorial.Partners740.654.1260Information design for research, education, and business

This report is supported in whole or in part through a grant from the Ohio Development Services Agency (ODSA). However, the information contained in the report does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of ODSA.

Sincerely,

Philip E. Cole

Executive DirectorOhio Association of Community Action Agencies

Letter from the Executive Director

Each of Ohio’s 88 counties has their own unique composition and challenges. From Cuyahoga County, in which 1.2 million people reside

with an 18.2% poverty rate, to Scioto County where just under 77,000 reside with a 23% poverty rate, the dynamics of each area vary as do the solutions. Though the causes and success strategies may differ, the common goal stays the same: to alleviate poverty.

Throughout this report, you will learn how growing trends across Ohio keep us connected. And by identifying those trends, we can move forward to develop solutions to combat the contributing causes or conditions.

In this report, you will learn about the growing number of grandparent caregivers and the challenges many are faced with while aging and surviving on a fixed income. You will learn about the growing number of food insecure college students and the campuses that are working to satisfy their immediate food needs. This report will illustrate the necessary steps to self-sufficiency in a single-parent, two-child home while earning minimum wage to anecdotally illustrate the likelihood of that parent being pulled up by their bootstraps. And you will learn some of the many hurdles faced by families in the foster care system.

Where unique challenges are present, unique solutions must be deployed. That is why over 6,500 Community Action professionals in Ohio work tirelessly to create innovative programs to alleviate poverty and strengthen communities by increasing self-sufficient households. Families and individuals can slip into poverty for any number of reasons, but by providing emergency assistance when necessary, and backing that up with tools and resources to build long-term success, Community Action continues to make a difference.

We encourage you to ask questions, get involved, and learn so we can together help low-income Ohioans become more than a poverty statistic and provide opportunities to help everyone reach their fullest potential.

Defining Poverty

2 Ohio Association of Community Action Agencies

In order to discuss poverty it is important to first understand some of the most frequently used defintions. The measures described in this section highlight the different ways we speak about poverty and provide important context to the remainder of the report.

The federal poverty measure (FPM) was developed in the early 1960s when President Lyndon Johnson declared the “War on Poverty.” It is the official measure of poverty in the United States and reports that cite the number or percentage “in poverty” are generally referring to the FPM. However, there is growing recognition that the FPM fails to sufficiently describe the population in poverty. Several other measures have been developed to provide a more holistic understanding of poverty in the United States.

The FPM is based on annual household income, and as such, fails to distinguish between long-term and short-term poverty. Using a monthly poverty threshold along with data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), a national household survey designed to track participants over multiple years, the Census Bureau estimates the number of Americans experiencing chronic and episodic poverty. The chronic poverty rate is defined as the percentage of the population in poverty every month in a 36-month period, whereas episodic poverty is defined as those in poverty for at least two consecutive months in a 36-month period.

32%16%

episodic poverty rate

official annual poverty rate

The episodic poverty rate in the United States is twice as high as the official annual poverty rate.

See Table 7, p. 15

Asset poverty is a measure of the financial cushion needed to withstand a financial crisis (i.e. medical emergency, job loss, etc.) and stay out of poverty for three months. Assets can be liquid or non-liquid. Liquid assets are those which can be easily exchanged for cash (e.g., gold, savings accounts, government bonds). Non-liquid assets typically must be sold (e.g., cars, homes, businesses). A household is considered asset poor if its combined assets are worth less than three months’ living expenses at the federal poverty level (FPL) threshold. Similarly, a household is considered liquid asset poor if its liquid assets alone are insufficient to meet those expenses.

Nearly half of Ohio households lack the liquid assets needed

to stay out of poverty for 3 months.

See Table 3, p. 13

Defining Poverty

State of Poverty 2016 3

A family of two adults and two school-age children in Ohio needs an annual in-come of at least 146% of

the federal poverty level to be self-sufficient.

See Table 5, p. 14

The Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) was first developed in 2010 to take into account factors that the official FPM does not consider. The differences between the official and the supplemental measures include: how needs are measured, local housing costs, and available resources.

The Self-Sufficiency Standard is a measure that identifies the minimum amount of income a given household would need to adequately meet basic needs without receiving any additional public or private assistance. The measure takes into account family composition—including the age of dependent children— and area cost of living to determine the minimum amount of income needed to meet basic needs.

Federal Poverty Measure

is based on 3 times the minimum food budget

Supplemental Poverty Measure

considers food, clothing, housing, and utilities

Use the Self-Sufficency Calculator to determine income needed to meet the basic needs of a particular family type in a specific county in Ohio:

www.oacaa.org/self-sufficiency-calculator/

See Table 2, p. 12

High end self-sufficiency wage: $56,220

Low end self-sufficiency wage: $35,078

Federal poverty level threshold: $24,036

Geography of Poverty


See Tables 10, 11, and 12 starting on p. 17

Data note: The yellow and green dots represent urban and suburban zip codes. Urban, suburban, and rural areas are defined by ZIP code boundaries and classified based on density of development. Classification was developed by Trulia, the real estate website, using a variety of thresholds including the density of households, business establishments, and jobs, as well as the share of auto commuters and single family homes. Rural zip codes are not marked on this map for ease of viewing.

Food Insecurity


Food insecurity, defined by the USDA as limited or uncertain access to adequate food, affects millions of people nationwide and hundreds of thousands of Ohioans. Children are particularly affected by food insecurity; nearly one-quarter of Ohio’s youth are food insecure and 20% of those children are likely ineligible for federal nutrition assistance, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

However, college students are also affected. Twelve Ohio colleges and universities have food pantries on campus.

An October 2016 report, Hunger on Campus, higlighted a number of startling statistics regarding hunger on college campuses, and the contributing causes, including:

• Housing insecurity and food insecurity often overlap, with 64% of food insecure stu-dents also reporting housing insecurity

• One in four college students are “highly nontraditional” and may struggle to pay for food because they have four of the following characteristics: financially independent, employed full time, a single parent, provide for dependents, attend college part-time, or do not have a standard high school diploma

• “Nontraditional” and “highly nontraditional” students have a number of barriers to food security that traditional college students often do not encounter

• Most (three-quarters) of food insecure students receive some form of financial aid

Source: Dubick, J., Mathews, B., Cady, C. Hunger on Campus, October 2016. See Table 14, p. 37

Families in Poverty


See Tables 4 and 5, p. 13-14

Families in Poverty


Source:The PEW Cheritable Trusts, < http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2016/11/02/why-more-grandparents-are-raising-children>

Nearly one third of households led by

a single female live in poverty; that rate increases to 43.1%

among single women with children under 18.

Ohio’s families experience poverty for a number of different reasons. However, households that deviate from the typical nuclear family - two parents and children - often experience even higher rates of poverty.

In some cases, children in Ohio move in with relatives other than parents, either through the foster care system or outside of the foster care system. The new caretaker is often reluctant to sue for legal custody for a variety of reasons, some of which are detailed in the graphic below. However, if the new caretaker continues to support the child outside of the foster care system, he or she can not access financial services available to foster parents. This can push families even deeper into poverty. See Table 21, p. 41 and Table 24, p. 43

Families in Poverty


The traditional role of a grandparent has long been one of nurturer, experienced

advisor, trusted confidant, and family historian. Today, however, that role has increasingly become primary caregiver. No two reasons for becoming a grandparent caregiver are the same, though some common themes have emerged including economic hardship, substance abuse, mental illness, or death. Whether a family finds themselves in a multi-generational home where families are living together, or a skipped-generation home where grandparents are the sole providers, grandparents are increasingly facing adjustments, or complete lifestyle changes, that were not planned.

At 65 years old, Nancy and Howard were enjoying their retirement. Howard built a new garage, and Nancy was enjoying the landscaping. Together, they were looking forward to meeting their first great-granddaughter, Chloe. Soon after she was born, Chloe’s mother often left her in Nancy and Howard’s care. When Chloe was 14 months old, her visits became permanent custody and guardianship. Though not part of their plan, Nancy said she would do what she needed to ensure her safety and well-being.

Howard passed away when Chloe was just four-years-old. Three years later, Nancy received a call asking for her to care for her youngest great-granddaughter, Rylie, who was removed from her parents’ home. Nancy accepted without hesitation and began learning to navigate Rylie’s special care needs which include developmental delays, significant behaviors, medical diagnoses, counseling, and education needs.

Grandparent caregivers often struggle financially since many already live on a fixed income that does not increase when they gain custody. Nearly one in three grandparent households live in poverty

while less than one in five traditional parent households are in poverty. Ohio has nearly 40,000 grandparent-caregiver households. Many relatives struggle with seeking legal guardianship for fear of hurting family members who are already struggling. Some have difficulty navigating the foster system or are unable to meet the housing requirements necessary to seek permanent custody. For whatever the reason, many non-parental caregivers do not have access to financial services available to foster parents.

Grandparents who find themselves in these long-term situations for which they had not prepared are faced with a constant struggle caring for their family and finding the financial means to do so. If they are able, often there is a struggle between returning to work and paying for childcare costs. Some have an added challenge of making room in their home for their unexpected family growth; others face transportation challenges. Most are working to help their grandchildren overcome the emotional distress of losing their parent(s) while also navigating school, health, and basic needs; all are doing their best to raise children who are both safe and loved.

While grandparents may not anticipate once again becoming full-time caregivers, that doesn’t make them any less capable of providing a safe, caring, and nurturing environment. The financial means, however, may not be as straightforward. Community Action, along with partner organizations across the state, strives to provide innovative short-term and long-term solutions to help local households similar to Nancy’s.

Note: Traditional parent households are led by either one or two parents with no grandparents present; skipped-generation households have a grandparent caregiver and no parent present. Some multi-generational families include both grandparents and parents.

Families in Poverty


Sources: (1) Kids Count Issue Brief: Ohio & Kinship Care: The Challenge for Grandparents and Other Caregivers. August 2007.(2) National report, GrandFacts: Data, Interpretation, and Implications for Caregivers, December 2009

Because many grandparents live on a fixed income, when they become grandparent caregivers they often struggle

because their income does not increase.

See Table 28, p. 44 for information on grandparents caring for grancdhildren with no parent pesent (skipped generation families)

Appendix


Defining Poverty Table 1. Federal poverty level thresholds by household size and number of related children,

in dollars, 2015 ........................................................................................................................................12

Table 2. Comparison between the Official and Supplemental Poverty Measures ......................12

Table 3. Chronic and episodic poverty rates, United States, 2005–2007 and 2009–2011 .....13

Table 4. Items included in the Self-Sufficiency Standard for Ohio .....................................................13

Table 5. Monthly expenses and self-sufficiency wages, three Ohio counties, 2015 ...................14

Table 6. Asset poverty rates for Ohio and the United States, 2002–2011 .....................................15

Table 7. Liquid asset poverty rates for Ohio and the United States, 2006–2011 ........................15

Geography of Poverty Table 8. Poverty rates for Ohio and the United States, 2010-2015 ..................................................16

Table 9. Change in poverty in Ohio, 2010-2015 ........................................................................................16

Table 10. Population, poverty rates, and other measures of economic need, Ohio counties ..17

Table 11. Change in poverty in Ohio’s urban, suburban, and rural areas, 2000–2015 ..............35

Table 12. Change in poverty in the urban cores and suburbs of Ohio’s largest metro areas, 2000–2015 ...............................................................................................................................................36

Food Insecurity: Youth and Young AdultsTable 13. Child poverty by age group, Ohio, 2015 ....................................................................................37

Table 14. Colleges and universities with food banks, Ohio, 2015 ......................................................37

Table 15. Intergenerational income mobility, Ohio, 1980–2012 .......................................................38

Table 16. Child food insecurity in Ohio and the United States, 2014 ...............................................39

Table 17. Free or reduced-price lunch eligibility in Ohio and the United States, 2013/14 school year ................................................................................................................................................39

List of Tables

Appendix


Families in PovertyTable 18. Income to poverty ratio by age group in Ohio, 2015............................................................40

Table 19. Poverty by race/ethnicity, Ohio, 2015 .......................................................................................40

Table 20. Poverty by race/ethnicity and age, Ohio, 2015 ......................................................................41

Table 21. Poverty by family type, Ohio, 2015 .............................................................................................41

Table 22. Poverty by race/ethnicity of householder and family type, Ohio, 2015 .......................42

Table 23. Poverty by work experience, Ohio, 2015 .................................................................................42

Table 24. Poverty by wage-earners, work experience, and family type, Ohio, 2015 ..................43

Table 25. Poverty by educational attainment, Ohio, 2015 ....................................................................43

Table 26. Seniors living in poverty by sex, Ohio, 2015 ............................................................................44

Table 27. Grandparents responsible for grandchildren, Ohio, 2015 ................................................44

Table 28. Grandparents responsible for grandchildren with no parent present, Ohio, 2015 .44

Appendix


Defining Poverty

Table 1. Federal poverty level thresholds by household size and number of children, 2015

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

▪ The U.S. Census Bureau calculates the federal poverty level (FPL) thresholds and estimates annually for the previous year, based on number of adults and number of related children under 18

▪ The FPL is based on the cash resources shared by related individuals in a household and varies based on the number of adults and related children

▪ The official measure does not account for differences in housing costs in different parts of the country

▪ The supplemental measure considers government assistance and necessary expenses to establish a more accurate amount of resources available

Household size Number of related children under age 18

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

One person, under age 65 $12,331

Age 65 and over $11,367

Two people, under age 65 $15,871 $16,337

Age 65 and over $14,326 $16,275

Three people $18,540 $19,078 $19,096

Four people $24,447 $24,847 $24,036 $24,120

Five people $29,482 $29,911 $28,995 $28,286 $27,853

Six people $33,909 $34,044 $33,342 $32,670 $31,670 $31,078

Seven people $39,017 $39,260 $38,421 $37,835 $36,745 $35,473 $34,077

Eight people $43,637 $44,023 $43,230 $42,536 $41,551 $40,300 $38,999 $38,668

Nine people or more $51,594 $52,747 $52,046 $51,457 $50,490 $49,159 $47,956 $47,658

Table 2. Comparison between the Official and Supplemental Poverty Measures

Official Poverty Measure Supplemental Poverty Measure

Measurement Units Families and unrelated individuals

All related individuals who live at the same address and any co-resident unre-

lated children who are cared for by the family (such as foster children) and any

co-habiters and their relatives

Poverty Threshold 3 times the cost of a minimum food dietMean of the 30th and 36th percentile of expenditures on food, clothing, shel-

ter, and utilities of consumer units with exactly 2 children, multiplied by 1.2

Threshold Adjust-

ments

Vary by family size, composition, and age of house-

holder

Geographic adjustments for differences in housing costs by tenure and a

3-parameter equivalence scale for family size and composition

Updating Thresholds Consumer Price Index 5-year moving average of expenditures on food, clothing, shelter, and utilities

Resource Measure Gross pre-tax cash income

Sum of cash income; plus noncash benefits that families can use to meet their

food, clothing, shelter, and utilities needs; plus tax credits; minus taxes, work

expenses, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and child support paid to another

household

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix


Table 3. Chronic and episodic poverty rates, United States, 2005–2007 and 2009–2011

Table 4. Items included in the Self-Sufficiency Standard for Ohio

Defining Poverty, continued

▪ Using a monthly poverty threshold as opposed to an annual one allows for a deeper understanding of the duration of poverty

▪ The episodic poverty rate (31.6%) in 2009-2011 was more than twice as high as the official annual poverty rate in 2013 (16.0%, see Table 8 on page 16)

▪ Episodic poverty rates capture the many people who filter in and out of poverty, unlike the overall annual poverty rate

2005–2007 2009–2011

Percentage of population in poverty every month in a 36-month period (chronic poverty rate) 3.0% 3.5%

Percentage of population in poverty for at least 2 consecutive months in a 36-month period (episodic poverty rate) 27.1% 31.6%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation

Notes: Monthly poverty thresholds were calculated by multiplying the base-year annual poverty thresholds by an inflation factor relevant to the reference month and then dividing the calculated annual threshold by 12. Study was based on three-year longitudinal panels of noninstitutionalized civilians participating for 36 consecutive months.

Cost What is included in each budget item

Housing Yes: Rent, utilities, and property taxes

No: Cable, internet, or telephone services (telephone service is included under miscellaneous costs)

Child care Yes: Full-time family day care for infants, full-time center care for preschoolers, and before and after school care for school-age children

No: After school programs for teenagers, extracurricular activities, babysitting when not at work

Food Yes: Groceries

No: Take-out, fast-food, restaurant meals, or alcoholic beverages

Transporta-

tion

Yes: car ownership cost (per adult)—insurance, gasoline (including gasoline taxes), oil, registration, repairs, monthly payments—or public

transportation when adequate (assuming only commuting to and from work and day care plus a weekly shopping trip)

No: Non-essential travel or vacations

Health care Yes: Employer-sponsored health insurance and out-of-pocket costs

No: Health savings account, gym memberships, individual health insurance

Taxes

Yes: Federal and state income tax and tax credits, payroll taxes, and state and local sales taxes

No: Itemized deductions, tax preparation fees or other taxes (property taxes and gasoline taxes are included under housing and transportation

costs, respectively)

Miscella-

neous

Yes: Clothing, shoes, paper products, diapers, nonprescription medicines, cleaning products, household items, personal hygiene items, and

telephone service

No: Recreation, entertainment, pets, gifts, savings, emergencies, debt repayment (including student loans), or education

Source: University of Washington, Center for Women’s Welfare, Self-Sufficiency Standard for Ohio

▪ The Self-Sufficiency Standard is a measure that identifies the minimum amount of income a given household needs to adequately meet basic needs without receiving any additional public or private assistance

▪ It only provides the minimum to meet daily needs and does not include any allowance for savings, college tuition, debt payments, or emergencies

Appendix



▪ The Self-Sufficiency Standard calculates the full costs of basic needs without help from public subsidies or informal assistance

▪ The measure takes into account an area’s cost of living to determine the minimum amount of income needed to meet basic needs

▪ A family of two adults and two school-age children in Ohio needs an annual household income of at least 146% FPL to be self-sufficient

▪ A family of one adult, an infant, and a preschooler needs to earn at least $45,715 a year to be self-sufficient (Erie County, mid-range for state)

Table 5. Monthly expenses and self-sufficiency wages, sample counties, 2015

Erie County (middle-

range, 1 adult, a

preschooler, and a

school-age child)

Coshocton County (low) Tuscarawas County (middle)

Warren County (high)

Monthly expenses

Housing $716 $634 $643 $958

Child Care $1,219 $491 $716 $1,014

Food $495 $696 $782 $812

Transportation $254 $482 $482 $535

Health Care $395 $473 $475 $462

Miscellaneous $308 $278 $310 $378

Taxes $689 $352 $487 $793

Self-sufficiency wages

Hourly wage per working

adult

$21.65 $8.30 $9.88 $13.31

Monthly household income $3,810 $2,923 $3,478 $4,685

Annual household income $45,715 $35,078 $41,730 $56,220

Minimum wage and poverty

threshold (for comparison)

2015 Ohio Minimum Wage

(hourly)

$8.10 $8.10 $8.10 $8.10

2015 federal poverty level

threshold (annual)

$19,096 $24,036 $24,036 $24,036

Sources: University of Washington, Center for Women’s Welfare, Self-Sufficiency Standard for Ohio; Ohio Department of Commerce; U.S. Census Bureau

Notes: Figures represent the monthly expenses and self-sufficiency wages for a family of two adults and two school-age children. These are not average or median amounts earned, but the amount needed to be self-sufficient for a family of four. Coshocton, Tuscarawas, and Warren Counties were chosen because they represent the low end (least expensive self-sufficiency wage), the middle (closest to the median of the self-sufficiency wages of all 88 counties), and high end (most expensive self-sufficiency wage) for that family type. Taxes were calculated as total tax burden minus tax credits (i.e., the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, and the Child Tax Credit).

Appendix



Table 6. Asset poverty rates for Ohio and the United States, 2002–2011

Table 7. Liquid asset poverty rates for Ohio and the United States, 2006–2011

2002 2004 2006 2009 2010 2011

Ohio 22.0% 24.2% 21.9% 27.3% 26.3% 23.7%

United States 25.2% 22.4% 22.4% 27.1% 26.0% 25.4%

2006 2009 2010 2011

Ohio 39.5% 43.6% 43.2% 44.7%

United States 41.4% 43.1% 43.9% 43.5%

Source: Corporation for Enterprise Development, Assets & Opportunity Scorecard; data was not collected every year

Source: Corporation for Enterprise Development, Assets & Opportunity Scorecard; data was not collected every year

▪ Asset poverty is a measure of the financial cushion needed to withstand a financial crisis (i.e. medical emergency, job loss, etc.)

▪ One out of every four households in Ohio does not have enough combined assets to cover three months’ living expenses at the FPL threshold

▪ Liquid assets are those which can be easily exchanged for cash (e.g., gold, savings accounts, government bonds)

▪ Four out of every ten Ohio households lack the liquid assets needed to stay out of poverty for three months

Appendix


Geography of Poverty

▪ The last report found that the population in poverty was growing far faster than the state population between 2008-2013; now, the population is growing while the poverty rate is decreasing.

Table 8. Poverty rates for Ohio and the United States, 2010-2015

Table 9. Change in poverty in Ohio, 2010-2015

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Ohio 15.8% 16.4% 16.3% 16.0% 15.8% 14.8%

United States 15.3% 15.9% 15.9% 15.8% 15.5% 14.7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-year estimates


▪ Both Ohio and U.S. poverty rates have decreased since 2010; the gap between the Ohio and U.S. poverty rates has also decreased and the two rates are now within 0.1% of each other

2010 2015 Change 2010-2015% Change 2010-

2015

Population for whom poverty status is determined 11,224,969 11,295,340 +70,371 +0.6%

Persons below the poverty level 1,779,032 1,674,415 -104,617 -5.9%

Appendix


Geography of Poverty, continued

Table 10. Population, poverty rates, and other measures of economic need, Ohio counties

Ohio Adams Allen Ashland Ashtabula

Population and population change

1 Total population, 2015 11,613,423 28,024 104,425 53,213 98,632

1 Percentage minority population, 2015 20.2% 3.5% 18.8% 4.1% 10.2%

1 Population change, 2010-2015 +72,657 -533 -1,980 -107 -2,768

1 Percentage population change, 2010-2015 +0.6% -1.9% -1.9% -0.2% -2.7%

Individual poverty rates

2 Population in poverty, 2015 1,670,487 5,893 15,229 7,190 17,636

2 Overall poverty rate, 2015 14.8% 21.3% 15.5% 14.1% 18.6%

2 Child (under age 18) poverty rate, 2015 21.2% 29.3% 23.4% 20.1% 28.6%

3 Senior (age 65 and older) poverty rate, 2015 7.6% 14.2% 7.8% 6.2% 10.5%

3 White (non-Hispanic) poverty rate, 2015 11.2% 24.0% 14.0% 14.8% 18.4%

3 Black/African American poverty rate, 2015 32.5% 51.1% 37.3% 36.0% 35.1%

3 Asian poverty rate, 2015 14.5% N 1.8% 15.9% N

3 Hispanic/Latino (of any race) poverty rate, 2015 26.4% 33.5% 37.1% 10.0% 37.5%

Family poverty rates

3 Families in poverty, 2015 313,539 1,398 3,325 1,461 3,626

3 Family poverty rate, 2015 10.7% 18.8% 12.7% 10.5% 14.4%

3 Married couples with related children in their care, poverty rate, 2015 6.6% 17.8% 6.5% 11.6% 10.8%

3 Single women with related children in their care, poverty rate, 2015 43.1% 54.2% 47.7% 41.3% 50.8%

Other measures of economic need

3 Percentage of population below 50% FPL, 2015 6.8% 10.3% 7.6% 5.9% 10.2%


2 Median household income, 2015 $51,086 $36,609 $49,297 $ 48,338 $44,258

4 Probability a child raised in the bottom fifth rose to the top fifth, 1980–2012 5.4% 8.1% 3.2% 11.0% 7.3%

4 Probability a child raised in the bottom fifth stayed in the bottom fifth, 1980–2012 38.1% 34.1% 38.5% 23.7% 33.3%

5 Child food insecurity rate, 2014 23.8% 30.0% 24.8% 25.3% 26.1%

5Percentage of children who are both food insecure and ineligible for food assistance,

2014 7.9% 5.7% 6.2% 5.8% 5.5%

6 Percentage of public school students K–12, free or reduced-price lunch, 2016 37.3% 60.6% 41.9% 42.5% 56.2%

7 Percentage of population receiving SNAP benefits, 2015 14.7% 15.5% 15.7% 11.1% 16.3%

8 Percentage of population who are enrolled in Medicaid, December 2014 25.0% 38.7% 25.4% 18.1% 29.9%

3 Percentage of population with no health insurance, 2015 6.8% 14.7% 10.0% 12.5% 12.6%

9 Unemployment rate, 2015 4.9% 7.9% 4.8% 5.1% 6.0%

10 Percentage of households receiving HEAP benefits, 2015 8.9% 25.1% 10.8% 5.6% 14.6%

3 Percentage of renters cost-burdened, 2015 43.3% 49.1% 48.8% 33.8% 47.9%

3 Percentage of owners cost-burdened, 2015 19.5% 23.9% 18.6% 21.9% 22.7%

Sources: (1) U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates; (2) U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE); (3) U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS); (4) Equality of Opportunity Project; (5) Feeding America, Map the Meal Gap; (6) Ohio Department of Education; (7) Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Public Assistance Monthly Statistics; (8) Ohio Department of Medicaid, Medicaid Expenditures and Eligibles Report; (9) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics; (10) Ohio Development Services Agency.

Notes: The first column identifies the source of the data by number. For (3), Ohio numbers and percentages represent 2015 ACS one-year estimates, whereas all county numbers and percentages represent 2011–2015 ACS five-year estimates. For county poverty rates by race, ethnicity, and family type, data are suppressed here if the denominator is less than 100 individuals, as indicated with the letter “N.” For (4), probabilities are based on the current family income of a cohort of adults born between 1980 and 1982 whose family income 30 years ago was in the bottom quintile of the national income distribution at that time. State-level probability is derived by weighting county-level probabilities based on annual birth data from the U.S. Census Bureau. For (6) includes applications at traditional schools only. For (7) Defiance and Paulding were listed together in the dataset so the same percentage was applied to both counties.

Appendix



Table 10. Population, poverty rates, and other measures of economic need, Ohio counties, continued

Athens Auglaize Belmont Brown Butler


1 Total population, 2015 65,886 45,876 69,154 43,839 376,353


1 Population change, 2010-2015 +663 -58 -1,164 -1,044 +7,289

1 Percentage population change, 2010-2015 +1.0% -0.1% -1.7% -2.3% +2.0%


2 Population in poverty, 2015 17,573 3,920 9,524 6,424 52,356






3 Asian poverty rate, 2015 53.1% 18.7% 4.8% 70.7% 14.3%



3 Families in poverty, 2015 2,450 762 1,736 1,443 8,928







2 Median household income, 2015 $38,400 $58,840 $45,675 $47,202 $58,954





2014 5.7% 5.8% 8.2% 5.6% 8.2%











Appendix




Carroll Champaign Clark Clermont Clinton




1 Population change, 2010-2015 -1,014 -1,072 -2,287 +4,268 +14

1 Percentage population change, 2010-2015 -3.5% -2.7% -1.7% +2.2% +0.0%








3 Asian poverty rate, 2015 12.7% N 8.9% 2.2% 20.9%



3 Families in poverty, 2015 814 878 4,748 3,973 1,437












2014 5.1% 7.7% 5.4% 9.0% 6.7%











Appendix




Columbiana Coshocton Crawford Cuyahoga Darke


1 Total population, 2015 104,806 36,569 42,306 1,255,921 52,076


1 Population change, 2010-2015 -3,057 -359 -1,463 -22,305 -886

1 Percentage population change, 2010-2015 -2.8% -1.0% -3.3% -1.7% -1.7%








3 Asian poverty rate, 2015 N 31.2% 44.7% 13.2% 19.8%















2014 6.4% 4.4% 5.4% 8.1% 6.1%











Appendix




Defiance Delaware Erie Fairfield Fayette




1 Population change, 2010-2015 -760 +17,867 -1,484 +5,023 -338

1 Percentage population change, 2010-2015 -1.9% +10.2% -1.9% +3.4% -1.2%











3 Families in poverty, 2015 980 1,542 1,726 2,936 1,189












2014 5.2% 9.6% 7.7% 8.2% 6.2%











Appendix




Franklin Fulton Gallia Geauga Greene


1 Total population, 2015 1,251,722 42,537 30,142 94,102 164,427


1 Population change, 2010-2015 +85,426 -79 -943 +684 +2,819

1 Percentage population change, 2010-2015 +7.3% -0.2% -3.0% +0.7% +1.7%








3 Asian poverty rate, 2015 14.3% N N 5.5% 15.3%



3 Families in poverty, 2015 35,804 906 1,321 1,263 3,816












2014 7.6% 6.9% 5.6% 6.9% 8.5%











Appendix




Guernsey Hamilton Hancock Hardin Harrison




1 Population change, 2010-2015 -878 +5,328 +893 -417 -399

1 Percentage population change, 2010-2015 -2.2% +0.7% +1.2% -1.3% -2.5%








3 Asian poverty rate, 2015 32.8% 14.2% 11.8% 22.9% N



3 Families in poverty, 2015 1,701 26,694 1,946 1,047 541












2014 5.4% 8.4% 6.9% 6.7% 6.8%











Appendix




Henry Highland Hocking Holmes Huron




1 Population change, 2010-2015 -299 -572 -979 +1,439 -1,109

1 Percentage population change, 2010-2015 -1.1% -1.3% -3.3% +3.4% -1.9%








3 Asian poverty rate, 2015 N 38.4% N N 2.7%



3 Families in poverty, 2015 615 1,796 1,032 991 1,634












2014 8.5% 3.6% 6.0% 0.4% 6.5%


7 Percentage of population receiving SNAP benefits, 2015 13.2% 12.8% NC 11.9% 10.0%









Appendix




Jackson Jefferson Knox Lake Lawrence




1 Population change, 2010-2015 -677 -2,265 -25 -759 -1,311

1 Percentage population change, 2010-2015 -2.0% -3.3% 0.0% -0.3% -2.1%








3 Asian poverty rate, 2015 N 19.7% N 8.6% 13.4%















2014 4.2% 5.9% 5.6% 8.1% 5.1%











Appendix




Licking Logan Lorain Lucas Madison




1 Population change, 2010-2015 +3,851 -384 +3,676 -7,886 +699

1 Percentage population change, 2010-2015 +2.3% -0.8% +1.2% -1.8% +1.6%























2014 7.4% 7.8% 7.9% 7.1% 8.2%











Appendix




Mahoning Marion Medina Meigs Mercer




1 Population change, 2010-2015 -6,498 -1,097 +3,853 -476 +186

1 Percentage population change, 2010-2015 -2.7% -1.7% +2.2% -2.0% +0.5%








3 Asian poverty rate, 2015 14.4% 28.3% 9.4% N 20.0%















2014 6.5% 7.2% 9.3% 5.9% 7.8%











Appendix




Miami Monroe Montgomery Morgan Morrow




1 Population change, 2010-2015 +1,745 -170 -3,958 -287 +259

1 Percentage population change, 2010-2015 +1.7% -1.2% -0.7% -1.9% +0.7%








3 Asian poverty rate, 2015 4.1% N 8.4% N N



3 Families in poverty, 2015 2,729 560 19,419 748 703












2014 7.3% 5.6% 7.1% 6.5% 7.4%











Appendix




Muskingum Noble Ottawa Paulding Perry




1 Population change, 2010-2015 +83 -308 -515 -599 -63

1 Percentage population change, 2010-2015 +0.1% -2.1% -1.2% -3.1% -0.2%








3 Asian poverty rate, 2015 6.5% N N N 5.4%



3 Families in poverty, 2015 3,286 278 831 494 1,496












2014 6.2% 5.6% 8.1% 6.3% 6.6%











Appendix




Pickaway Pike Portage Preble Putnam




1 Population change, 2010-2015 +1,253 -521 +827 -842 -417

1 Percentage population change, 2010-2015 +2.2% -1.8% +0.5% -2.0% -1.2%








3 Asian poverty rate, 2015 2.6% N 27.4% N 9.4%















2014 7.3% 3.0% 8.8% 5.6% 8.9%











Appendix




Richland Ross Sandusky Scioto Seneca




1 Population change, 2010-2015 -2,466 -931 -1,195 -2,703 -1,020

1 Percentage population change, 2010-2015 -2.0% -1.2% -2.0% -3.4% -1.8%























2014 5.8% 5.3% 4.9% 6.9% 7.7%


7 Percentage of population receiving SNAP benefits, 2015 14.1% NC 13.0% 18.3% 10.9%









Appendix




Shelby Stark Summit Trumbull Tuscarawas




1 Population change, 2010-2015 -412 -296 +297 -6,103 +361

1 Percentage population change, 2010-2015 -0.8% -0.1% +0.1% -2.9% +0.4%








3 Asian poverty rate, 2015 N 10.2% 15.4% 22.9% 18.7%



3 Families in poverty, 2015 977 10,648 14,715 7,323 2,713












2014 7.2% 7.1% 7.8% 6.4% 5.9%











Appendix




Union Van Wert Vinton Warren Washington




1 Population change, 2010-2015 +1,857 -103 -373 +10,945 -596

1 Percentage population change, 2010-2015 +3.5% -0.4% -2.8% +5.1% -1.0%








3 Asian poverty rate, 2015 1.6% N N 1.1% N



3 Families in poverty, 2015 879 715 579 2,291 1,774












2014 8.2% 5.1% 3.7% 10.1% 6.9%


7 Percentage of population receiving SNAP benefits, 2015 13.7% 14.6% NC 13.4% 17.8%









Appendix




Wayne Williams Wood Wyandot


1 Total population, 2015 116,063 37,120 129,730 22,243

1 Percentage minority population, 2015 6.1% 7.1% 11.4% 4.7%

1 Population change, 2010-2015 +1,624 -406 +3,790 -346

1 Percentage population change, 2010-2015 +1.4% -1.1% +3.0% -1.5%


2 Population in poverty, 2015 12,727 4,342 14,385 1,930

2 Overall poverty rate, 2015 11.3% 12.0% 11.7% 8.8%

2 Child (under age 18) poverty rate, 2015 16.9% 17.5% 10.9% 11.7%

3 Senior (age 65 and older) poverty rate, 2015 5.3% 9.1% 5.2% 9.5%

3 White (non-Hispanic) poverty rate, 2015 12.5% 14.2% 13.3% 11.7%

3 Black/African American poverty rate, 2015 43.2% 29.3% 36.9% 22.6%

3 Asian poverty rate, 2015 8.4% 7.6% 15.1% N

3 Hispanic/Latino (of any race) poverty rate, 2015 24.8% 26.1% 16.9% 15.5%


3 Families in poverty, 2015 2,947 1,019 2,387 454

3 Family poverty rate, 2015 9.7% 10.4% 7.7% 7.3%

3 Married couples with related children in their care, poverty rate, 2015 9.6% 8.5% 5.3% 7.1%

3 Single women with related children in their care, poverty rate, 2015 43.8% 50.7% 37.8% 35.9%


3 Percentage of population below 50% FPL, 2015 5.3% 6.7% 7.5% 4.3%

3 Percentage of population below 200% FPL, 2015 34.8% 40.5% 29.3% 34.1%

2 Median household income, 2015 $52,717 $49,031 $57,390 $51,109

4 Probability a child raised in the bottom fifth rose to the top fifth, 1980–2012 7.1% 9.4% 9.1% 11.8%

4 Probability a child raised in the bottom fifth stayed in the bottom fifth, 1980–2012 25.2% 22.4% 26.8% 11.8%

5 Child food insecurity rate, 2014 22.6% 23.5% 19.9% 20.7%


2014 3.8% 3.1% 8.2% 7.0%

6 Percentage of public school students K–12, free or reduced-price lunch, 2016 40.2% 41.1% 31.9% 32.6%

7 Percentage of population receiving SNAP benefits, 2015 14.5% 12.0% 14.8% 15.4%

8 Percentage of population who are enrolled in Medicaid, December 2014 18.8% 23.7% 14.5% 18.4%

3 Percentage of population with no health insurance, 2015 14.1% 8.1% 6.5% 8.8%

9 Unemployment rate, 2015 3.9% 4.4% 4.3% 3.7%

10 Percentage of households receiving HEAP benefits, 2015 7.6% 6.4% 4.2% 7.7%

3 Percentage of renters cost-burdened, 2015 39.8% 43.6% 45.5% 35.3%

3 Percentage of owners cost-burdened, 2015 20.4% 20.5% 19.9% 16.3%



Appendix



Table 11. Change in poverty in Ohio’s urban, suburban, and rural areas, 2000–2015

Geography

Population for whom

poverty can be

determined, 2000

Popula-tion in

poverty, 2000

Poverty rate,

2000

Share of Ohio’s

poor, 2000

Population for whom

poverty can be deter-

mined, 2015

Popula-tion in

poverty, 2015

Poverty rate,

2015

Share of Ohio’s

poor, 2015

% Change in

popula-tion,

2000–2015

% Change in poor

popula-tion,

2000–2015

Ohio 10,984,861 1,150966 10.5% 100.0% 11,243,227 1,773,421 15.8% 100.0% +2.4% +54.1%

Urban areas 2,075,971 436,702 21.0% 37.9% 1,867,752 586,626 31.4% 33.1% -10.0% +34.3%

Suburban

areas6,202,757 461,869 7.4% 40.1% 6,631,919 812,966 12.3% 45.8% +6.9% +76.0%

Rural areas 2,706,133 252,395 9.3% 21.9% 2,743,556 373,829 13.6% 21.1% +1.4% +48.1%

Source: Community Research Partners analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data

Notes: Urban, suburban, and rural areas are defined by ZIP code boundaries and classified based on density of development. Classification was developed by Trulia, the real estate website using a variety of thresholds including the density of households, business establishments, and jobs, as well as the share of auto commuters and single family homes.

▪ Over the last 15 years, the population of Ohio has grown by only 2.4% but the poor population has grown by 54.1%

▪ Urban areas have seen a decrease in population over the last 15 year period but a substantial increase in population in poverty

▪ Suburban areas have seen the largest increase in poor population between 2000-2015, at 76.0%

Appendix



Table 12. Change in poverty in the urban core and suburbs of Ohio’s largest metro areas, 2000–2015

Geography

Population for whom

poverty can be

determined, 2000

Population in poverty,

2000

Poverty rate, 2000

Population for whom

poverty can be

determined, 2015

Population in poverty,

2015

Poverty rate, 2015

% Change in population,

2000–2015

% Change in poor

population, 2000–2015

Urban core

Akron 159,072 31,303 19.7% 143,272 43,607 30.4% -9.9% +39.3%

Canton 57,216 12,316 21.5% 50,672 17,145 33.8% -11.4% +39.2%

Cincinnati 241,804 58,981 24.4% 217,766 74,822 34.4% -9.9% +26.9%

Cleveland 612,933 135,198 22.1% 509,792 159,961 31.4% -16.8% +18.3%

Columbus 341,681 71,529 20.9% 336,435 99,987 29.7% -1.5% +39.8%

Dayton 110,025 24,076 21.9% 117,855 45,334 38.5% +7.1% +88.3%

Lima 40,376 8,001 19.8% 37,390 10,801 28.9% -7.4% +35.0%

Springfield 37,452 6,893 18.4% 33,041 10,527 31.9% -11.8% +52.7%

Toledo 199,199 41,283 20.7% 176,999 57,231 32.3% -11.1% +38.6%

Youngstown 142,757 24,928 17.5% 123,352 34,999 28.4% -13.6% +40.4%

Suburbs

Akron 459,668 31,785 6.9% 429,260 50,009 11.7% -6.6% +57.3%

Canton 294,042 19,910 6.8% 299,361 34,990 11.7% +1.8% +75.7%

Cincinnati 1,486,635 102,390 6.9% 1,642,817 190,483 11.6% +10.5% +86.0%

Cleveland 1,355,056 83,117 6.1% 1,356,667 139,814 10.3% +0.1% +68.2%

Columbus 989,468 68,044 6.9% 1,249,215 145,900 11.7% +26.3% +114.4%

Dayton 579,828 41,930 7.2% 593,016 78,475 13.2% +2.3% +87.2%

Lima 22,741 2,395 10.5% 24,091 3,530 14.7% +5.9% +47.4%

Springfield 60,332 5,659 9.4% 58,723 9,729 16.6% -2.7% +71.9%

Toledo 311,408 25,749 8.3% 300,044 37,049 12.3% -3.6% +43.9%

Youngstown 300,366 29,985 10.0% 278,354 39,115 14.1% -7.3% +30.4%

Source: Community Research Partners analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data

Notes: Urban cores and suburbs are defined as the urban and suburban areas within metropolitan areas. Urban and suburban areas are defined by ZIP code boundaries and classified based on density of development. Classification was developed by Trulia, the real estate website using a variety of thresholds including the density of households, business establishments, and jobs, as well as the share of auto commuters and single family homes. There have been some reclassifications of boundaries since last year’s report that affect the poverty rates and counts for 2000 compared to the 2015 State of Poverty Report when the metropolitan areas are broken down by urban, subuirban, and ruraal.

▪ The poverty rates in the urban cores are often 2 to 3 times the poverty rates in the suburbs of the same metropolitan area

▪ The 2015 poverty rate was highest in the urban core of Dayton (38.5%) and the suburban core of Springfield (16.6%)

▪ About one-third of the population in Ohio’s biggest cities, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus, lived in poverty in 2015

Appendix


Food Insecurity and Youth

Table 14. Colleges and universities in Ohio with food banks, 2016

Table 13. Child poverty by age group, Ohio, 2015

▪ Younger children are experience higher poverty rates than older children

▪ Children under age 6 in Ohio experience poverty at the highest rate (25.4%) among child age groups

Under age 6 % Ages 6 to

11 % Ages 12 to 17 % All children

under 18 %

Total 811,156 100.0% 864,423 100.0% 911,084 100.0% 2,586,663 100.0%

In poverty 205,990 25.4% 183,177 21.2% 161,103 17.7% 550,270 21.3%


College or university Type Number of stu-dents

Cost per credit hour

Full-time tuition per year

Percent using

financial aid

Cincinnati State Technical and Community

CollegeCommunity college 10,600 $149 $3,568 76%

Cleveland State University Public 17,730 $402 $9,636 70%

Kent State University Public 28,981 $456 $10,012 80%

Lorain County Community College Community college 12,274 $118 $2,840 51%

Northwest State Community College Community college 4,603 $157 $3,776 72%

Ohio State University Public 58,663 $418 $10,037 67%

Owens Community College Community college 12,577 $153 $3,672 68%

The University of Toledo Public 20,381 $385 $ 9,242 80%

University of Akron Public 25,177 $457 $10,977 81%

University of Cincinnati Public 43,691 $459 $11,000 69%

Wright State University Public 17,070 $364 $8,730 70%

Xavier University Private 6,285 $1,497 $35,920 71%

▪ Most of the colleges and universities with food banks are public or community colleges, though Xavier University is private

▪ The percentage of students using financial aid varies widely from 51% (Lorain Community College) to 81% (University of Akron)

Source: College and University Food Bank Alliance Ohio data; college and university websites (for enrollment and cost data); cost data based on 2016-2017 in-state, full-time student load or cost of 12 credits. Cost per credit hour was extrapolated from per-semester cost, assuming 12 credit hours per semester, where necessary.

Appendix


Food Insecurity and Youth, continued

Table 15. Intergenerational income mobility, Ohio and the United States, 1980–2012

Probability a child raised in the bottom fifth rose to the top

fifth

Probability a child raised in the bottom fifth stayed in the

bottom fifth

Ohio 5.4% 38.1%

United States 7.5% 33.7%

Sources: Equality of Opportunity Project; Community Research Partners analysis of data from the Equality of Opportunity Project

Notes: Probabilities are based on the current family income of a cohort of adults born between 1980 and 1982 whose family income 30 years ago was in the bottom quintile of the national income distribution at that time. State-level probability was derived by weighting county-level probabilities based on annual birth data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

▪ One out of every 20 children born in the bottom fifth of the income distribution in Ohio climbs to the top as an adult, while eight remain at the bottom

▪ Children raised in the bottom fifth in Ohio are more likely to stay at the bottom (38.1%)—and less likely to rise to the top (5.4%)—than the national average for both probabilities (33.7% and 7.5%, respectively)

Appendix


Table 16. Child food insecurity in Ohio and the United States, 2014

Population under age 18,

2014

Number of children experiencing

food insecurity

Child food insecurity rate

Food insecure children likely ineligible for any

federal food assistance

% Children who are both food insecure and

ineligible for any fed-eral food assistance

Ohio 2,635,640 628,580 23.8% 207,431 7.9%

United States

73,577,423 15,323,000 20.9% 3,064,600 4.2%

Source: Feeding America, Map the Meal Gap, 2016 report

Notes: Food insecurity is defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as having limited or uncertain access to adequate food. Federal food assistance programs include: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); the National School Lunch Program (NSLP); and various other federal child nutrition programs. The income eligibility criteria for federal food assistance varies by state and program. For instance, in Ohio the SNAP threshold is 130% FPL, while the threshold for other nutrion programs (such as WIC and NSLP) is 185% FPL. Nationally, the highest threshold for any federal food assistance varies by state and is either 185% or 200% FPL.

▪ The child food insecurity rate in Ohio is higher than in the United States (23.8% vs. 20.9%)

▪ Ohio also has a higher percentage of children who are both food insecure and ineligible for any federal food assistance (7.9% compared to 4.2%)

▪ Over half a million Ohio children experience food insecurity

Food Insecurity and Youth, continued

Table 17. Free or reduced-price lunch eligibility, Ohio and the United States, 2013/14 school year

Public school stu-dents K–12 eligible

for free lunch

% Public school stu-dents K–12 eligible

for reduced-price lunch

% Public school stu-dents K–12 eligible

for free or reduced-price lunch

%

Ohio 675,108 39.2% 88,340 5.1% 763,448 44.3%

United States 21,747,144 45.0% 3,224,840 6.7% 24,971,984 51.7%

Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data

Notes: National data do not include Arizona or West Virginia due to NCES data quality standards. As such, the total number of public school students in Arizona and West Virginia are not included in the denominator for the calculation of percentages.

▪ Ohio students are less likely to be eligible for free or reduced price lunch (44.3%) than U.S. students in general (51.7%)

Appendix


Families in Poverty

Table 18. Income to poverty ratio by age group in Ohio, 2015

Table 19 Poverty by race/ethnicity, Ohio, 2015

▪ The percentage of the population in extreme poverty (below 50% of the Federal Poverty Level or FPL) decreases as the population gets older with 12.8% of children under age 6 living below 50% FPL and only 2.4% of adults age 65 and over living below 50% FPL.

▪ One-third of the population, and nearly half of children under age 6, live below 200% FPL

▪ Non-Hispanic whites make up the largest percentage of the population but have the smallest percentage of the population in poverty

▪ The poverty rate among Black / African Americans is the highest at 32.5%

▪ Over a quarter of Mixed race and Hispanic / Latino residents are living in poverty

Under age 6 % Under

age 18 % Ages 18 to 64 % Age 65

and over % Total all ages %

Total 811,156 100.0% 2,586,663 100.0% 6,938,508 100.0% 1,770,169 100.0% 11,295,340 100.0%

Below 50% FPL 103,881 12.8% 266,539 10.3% 463,049 6.7% 41,847 2.4% 771,435 6.8%

Below 100% FPL 205,990 25.4% 550,270 21.3% 989,765 14.3% 134,380 7.6% 1,674,415 14.8%

Below 200% FPL 392,654 48.4% 1,100,989 42.6% 2,081,351 30.0% 497,805 28.1% 3,680,145 32.6%


White (non-

Hispanic)%

Black/ African-

American% Asian % Mixed

race %Hispanic/ Latino (of any race)

%

Total 9,029,676 100.0% 1,366,319 100.0% 225,421 100.0% 295,396 100.0% 398,634 100.0%

In poverty 1,015,484 11.2% 443,788 32.5% 32,652 14.5% 83,299 28.2% 105,135 26.4%


Appendix


Families in Poverty, continued

▪ Over one quarter of children under age 6 in Ohio live in poverty

▪ The poverty rate for children under age 6 is highest for Black / African American persons (52.7%)

▪ Seniors age 65 and older have the lowest overall poverty rate, ranging from 6.5% (White, non-Hispanic) to 16.5% (Black / African Americans)

▪ Single women with related children in their care live in poverty at double the rate (43.1%) of single men with related children (21.6%) and nearly 7 times the rate of married couples with children in their care (6.6%)

▪ Married couples with no children have the lowest poverty rate (2.7%)

Table 20. Poverty by race/ethnicity and age, Ohio, 2015

Table 21. Poverty by family type, Ohio, 2015

Persons in poverty Total White (non-

Hispanic)Black/African-

American Asian Mixed race Hispanic/Latino (of any race)

All age groups 1,680,358 1,015,484 443,788 32,652 83,299 105,135

Under age 6 209,830 102,863 63,892 2,538 21,856 18,681

Under age 18 557,137 275,273 174,879 5,682 50,965 50,338

Ages 18 to 64 989,532 637,673 243,692 25,062 31,045 52,060

Age 65 and older 133,689 102,538 25,217 1,908 1,289 2,737

Poverty rates % % % % % %

All age groups 14.9% 11.2% 32.5% 14.5% 28.2% 26.4%

Under age 6 25.6% 17.9% 52.7% 14.9% 37.7% 38.1%

Under age 18 21.4% 14.7% 46.9% 11.0% 32.7% 34.1%

Ages 18 to 64 14.3% 11.4% 29.0% 16.3% 23.9% 22.6%

Age 65 and older 7.6% 6.5% 16.5% 9.5% 13.5% 13.2%


Married couples with

no related children in their care

%

Married couples

with related children in their care

%

Single men with related

children in their care

%

Single women with related chil-dren in their

care

%

Total 1,288,099 100.0% 835,787 100.0% 121,903 100.0% 383,530 100.0%

In poverty 35,267 2.7% 54,904 6.6% 26,313 21.6% 165,290 43.1%


Appendix



Table 22. Poverty by race/ethnicity of householder and family type, Ohio, 2015

Table 23. Poverty by work experience, Ohio, 2015

Families in poverty TotalWhite

(non-Hispanic)

Black/African-

AmericanAsian Mixed race

Hispanic/Latino (of any race)

All families 313,539 188,017 91,642 4,328 10,714 19,891

Married couples with no related children in their care 35,267 29,495 3,287 970 605 928

Married couples with related children in their care 54,904 38,716 8,164 1,697 1,078 5,333

Single men with related children in their care 26,313 15,268 7,164 343 1,420 2,286

Single women with related children in their care 165,290 84,752 62,664 1,125 7,049 10,360

Poverty rates % % % % % %

All families 10.7% 7.8% 28.4% 8.4% 25.4% 23.9%

Married couples with no related children in their care 2.7% 2.5% 4.7% 5.6% 5.6% 4.7%

Married couples with related children in their care 6.6% 5.4% 14.7% 6.2% 9.8% 18.5%

Single men with related children in their care 21.6% 16.7% 38.4% 29.6% 33.9% 33.0%

Single women with related children in their care 43.1% 36.6% 52.0% 37.7% 60.8% 54.9%


Worked full-time,

year round%

Worked part-time

or part-year

% Unem-ployed % Not in

workforce %

Total persons age 16 and older 3,805,089 100.0% 2,201,332 100.0% 366,727 100.0% 3,198,828 100.0%

In poverty 92,883 2.4% 422,270 19.2% 143,261 39.1% 656,566 20.5%


▪ Single women with children in their care continue to have the highest poverty rates, particularly among those listing Mixed race (60.8%), Hispanic/Latina (54.9%), and Black / African American (52.0%)

▪ The overall poverty rates for White (non-Hispanic) and Asian families are about one-third the poverty rates of other minority populations

▪ The poverty rate falls dramatically when looking at people employed full-time (2.4%) versus part-time (19.2%)

▪ Four out of every ten unemployed people live in poverty

Appendix



▪ There are more than twice as many single female householder families as single male householder families

▪ Married couple families where neither spouse works still have a lower poverty rate (9.3%) than single female householder families where the householder works full time

Table 24. Poverty by number of wage-earners, work experience, and family type, Ohio, 2015

Table 25. Poverty by educational attainment, Ohio, 2015

Total families Families in poverty Poverty rate

Married couple 2,123,886 90,171 4.2%

Both work, full or part time 1,183,220 17,033 1.4%

One spouse work 577,773 39,493 6.8%

Neither works 362,893 33,645 9.3%

Single male householder 210,633 34,698 16.5%

Works full time 124,069 5,527 4.5%

Works part time 39,730 14,525 36.6%

Does not work 46,834 14,646 31.3%

Single female householder 587,576 188,670 32.1%

Works full time 252,496 27,408 10.9%

Works part time 156,254 83,250 53.3%

Does not work 178,826 78,012 43.6%


▪ Less than 4% of Ohioans with a bachelor’s degree or higher live in poverty

▪ More than one in four people without a high school degree or GED live in poverty

No high school

diploma or GED

%High school

diploma or GED

%

Some college or associate

degree

%Bachelor’s degree or

higher%

Total persons age 25 and older 772,384 100.0% 2,602,156 100.0% 2,268,656 100.0% 2,103,523 100.0%

In poverty 210,705 27.3% 345,594 13.3% 247,367 10.9% 81,520 3.9%


Appendix



Table 26. Seniors living in poverty by sex, Ohio, 2015

▪ Women age 65 and older are more likely to live in poverty (8.8%) than men age 65 and older (6.1%)

Female, 65 and older % Male, 65 and

older % Total, age 65 and older %

Total seniors 990,576 100.0% 779,593 100.0% 1,770,169 100.0%

In poverty 86,881 8.8% 47,499 6.1% 134,380 7.6%


Table 27. Grandparents responsible for grandchildren, Ohio, 2015

▪ One in five grandparent caregivers live in poverty

▪ According to a national report, one in three grandparent caregivers who are solely responsible for their grandchildren, without parent involvement, live in poverty (see Table 28 for more on these families)

▪ The poverty rate for grandparents decreases in older grandparents (those 60 and older)

Under age 60 % Age 60 and older % Total, all ages %

Total grandparents 58,858 100.0% 34,536 100.0% 93,394 100.0%

In poverty 14,538 24.7% 5,698 16.5% 20,266 21.7%


Notes: This table shows grandparents responsible for their own granchildren; however, the next table shows grandparents responsible for grandchildren where the grandchild’s parent is not present.

Under age 60 % Age 60 and older % Total, all ages %

Total grandparents 58,858 100.0% 34,536 100.0% 93,394 100.0%

With no parent present 21,248 36.1% 17,924 51.9% 39,132 41.9%

Table 28. Grandparent caregivers responsible for grandchildren with no parent present, Ohio, 2015


▪ Nearly 40,000 grandparents are responsible for their grandchildren and live in a household where the grandchild’s parent is not present

▪ These families are often referred to as “skipped-generation families”

▪ Older grandparents (age 60 and older) are more likely to be solely responsible for their grandchildren than younger grandparents

▪ Nationwide, one in three grandparent households who raise their grandchildren without parents present live in poverty, according to Grandfacts: Data, Interpretation, and Implication for Caregivers published in December 2009

This page left intentionally blank.

ohio association of community action agencies...ohio association of community action agencies philip...

Documents