Skip to main content
University of Wisconsin–Madison
Poverty-related issues in the news, from the Institute for Research on Poverty

Day: October 21, 2011

American Community Survey

  • Washington region has nation’s lowest poverty rate, By Carol Morello and Luz Lazo, October 20, 2011, Washington Post: “The Washington region had the lowest poverty rate of any major metropolitan area in the country during the past two years, even though poverty is up significantly and continues to rise. About 8.4 percent of the region’s residents lived in poverty in 2010, compared with 6.8 percent before the recession began in 2007. Although the rate represents a steep increase, it is far below the 15 percent national figure and that of urban areas in the West and the South, including Fresno, Calif., and El Paso, where more than 20 percent of people are poor. The region’s poverty rates have been among the lowest in the nation for many years. But although its rate has risen since the recession, other places have struggled more. Even the District, where the poverty rate is a staggering 19 percent, falls midway among other urban centers…”
  • Fresno County poverty near nation’s highest, By Russell Clemings, October 20, 2011, Fresno Bee: “Driven by rising unemployment, poverty increased sharply in Fresno County between 2009 and 2010, according to a report released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau. The percentage of people living below the poverty line, the exact value of which depends on family size and age of the householder, rose almost everywhere in those two years. Nationwide, that percentage was 14.3% in 2009 and 15.3% in 2010. But the Fresno metropolitan area, which consists of Fresno County, had a bigger rise – from 21.5% to 26.8%. That means more than 1 in 4 people here now live in poverty, compared to a little more than 1 in 5 before the recession-induced unemployment spike hit its peak. Because the census data is based on a survey that goes only to part of the population, the numbers are considered accurate only within 1 or 2 percentage points. But even that uncertainty is not enough to account for the change in Fresno County’s fortunes…”
  • As poverty climbs, Utah’s cash handouts hold steady, By Brooke Adams, October 20, 2011, Salt Lake Tribune: “More Utah families slipped into poverty last year, but that wasn’t reflected in the estimated number of households receiving cash help from the government. An analysis of American Community Survey data released by the U.S. Census Bureau on Thursday found about 3.3 million households nationwide received public assistance in 2010, an increase of about 300,000 households from 2009. The analysis looked only at cash assistance, not such benefits as Supplemental Security Income or food stamps. Participation rates increased in 14 states, decreased in 25 and stayed flat in another 11 states – including Utah. That is likely because of Utah’s three-year, lifetime limit on welfare through the general assistance and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF] programs, said Terry Haven, Kids Count director at Voices for Utah Children. While federal law sets a 60-month, lifetime limit on cash assistance, states can set shorter limits or no time frame. In Utah, the limit is 36 months…”
  • Census data show NH has nation’s lowest poverty rate, By Lisa Lambert, October 20, 2011, New Hampshire Union Leader: “The ranks of the poor rose in almost all U.S. states and cities in 2010, despite the end of the longest and deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression the year before, U.S. Census data released on Thursday showed. Mississippi and New Mexico had the highest poverty rates, with more than one out of every five people in each state living in poverty. Mississippi’s poverty rate led, at 22.4 percent, followed by New Mexico at 20.4 percent. New Hampshire had the lowest poverty rate, at 8.3 percent, making it the only state with a poverty rate below 10 percent. Twelve states had poverty rates above 17 percent, up from five in 2009, while poverty rates in 10 metropolitan areas topped 18 percent, the data showed…”
  • Maine’s poverty rate isn’t the highest, but it’s No. 2 on public assistance list, By Eric Russell, October 20, 2011, Bangor Daily News: “New Census data show that Maine had one of the highest rates of households accepting public assistance in 2010 despite the fact that the state’s poverty rate was not among the highest. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey released this week compared rates of public assistance for all 50 states. In 2010, Maine saw 28,213 households accept public assistance, or 5.2 percent of the state’s population. That was an increase from the 4.9 percent of households that collected assistance in 2009. Maine’s rate trailed only Alaska (6.7 percent) and was significantly higher than the 2.9 percent national rate of households accepting public benefits in 2010. At 1.5 percent, Wyoming had the lowest rate. No state saw a decrease in the number of households accepting assistance from 2009 to 2010…”

Poor Neighborhoods and Health

  • Poor neighborhoods may contribute to poor health, By Amina Khan, October 20, 2011, Los Angeles Times: “People who move from a poor neighborhood to a better-off one could end up thinner and healthier than those who stay behind, according to an urban housing experiment that tracked low-income residents in five major cities for 10 to 15 years. The research, set up by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, shows that health is closely linked to the environments people live in – and that social policies to change those environments or move people away from blighted areas could be a key tactic in fighting the ‘diabesity’ epidemic. The study released Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine took advantage of a 1990s social experiment approved by Congress primarily to track the changes in income, education and employment of people given the opportunity to move out of low-income housing in Los Angeles, Baltimore, Chicago, New York and Boston. At least 40% of the residents at the start of the study made less money than the federal poverty threshold. Researchers soon realized that the project could allow them to study residents’ changes in health as well, said study coauthor Dr. Robert Whitaker, a pediatrician at Temple University in Philadelphia…”
  • Study: Living in poor neighborhood can hurt health, By Mike Stobbe (AP), October 21, 2011, Seattle Post-Intelligencer: “Back in the 1990s, the federal government tried an unusual social experiment: It offered thousands of poor women in big-city public housing a chance to live in more affluent neighborhoods. A decade later, the women who relocated had lower rates of diabetes and extreme obesity – differences that are being hailed as compelling evidence that where you live can determine your health. The experiment was initially aimed at researching whether moving impoverished families to more prosperous areas could improve employment or schooling. But according to a study released Wednesday, the most interesting effect may have been on the women’s physical condition…”
  • Study: Better neighborhood lowers obesity, diabetes risk, By Nanci Hellmich, October 19, 2011, USA Today: “Low-income moms who move from very poor neighborhoods to less disadvantaged ones lower their risk of becoming extremely obese and developing type 2 diabetes, a study reveals. ‘This research shows how important the environment can be for people’s health,’ says the study’s lead author, Jens Ludwig, a professor of social service administration, law and public policy at the University of Chicago. Obesity increases people’s risk of developing type 2 diabetes, heart disease and other serious health problems. People in poorer neighborhoods are at a higher risk of becoming too heavy because they may not have access to grocery stores that are well-stocked with healthy fare such as fresh fruits and vegetables, often don’t have safe places to be physically active and may have greater concerns about safety, which could impact their psychological stress and eating habits, Ludwig says…”

State Benefit Eligibility Systems

States retool food stamp, benefits systems, By Pamela M. Prah, October 21, 2011, Stateline.org: “Food stamp applicants in California and Texas no longer have to be fingerprinted, a change both states hope will save money and improve the process of distribution. That makes Arizona and New York City the only remaining jurisdictions that fingerprint – a requirement that opponents say scares off the needy from applying for food stamps while doing little to combat fraud. The changes in California and Texas reflect a larger movement at the state level, spurred on by the recession and a record number of Americans getting food stamps and other public assistance: States are trying to make it easier for those seeking help and cheaper for state workers who process the applications and provide the benefits…”