snapshot of poverty in santa barbara county...sep 10, 2013 · residents living in poverty •child...
TRANSCRIPT
Snapshot of Poverty in Santa
Barbara County
Department of Social Services
9/10/2013
Background
• The Recession resulted in a 52% increase in residents living in poverty
• Child poverty increased by 61% from 2007-2010
• The Board authorized a geographically based assessment on poverty in January 2012
• The Insight Center for Community Economic Development was the contractor hired
2
Overview
• Purpose and Methodology • Population Demographics • Poverty in Santa Barbara County • Indicators of Need Findings • Service Inventory Results (Survey and
Interviews) • Focus Areas • What We’ve Learned • Staff Observations • Opportunities Moving Forward
3
4
Purpose of Assessment
• To analyze how well county resources and services are strategically aligned to geographic areas and populations in greatest economic need and make recommendations for improvement
5
Methodology
• Data Collection/Analysis of 44 indicators in four key categories of well-being (Employment & Financial, Education, Health and Family Well-Being)
• Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping of select demographic, poverty and well-being indicators
• Survey distributed to 460 local public agencies, foundations, service providers
• Stakeholder interviews of 16 public and non-
profit leaders
6
Data Sources
• US Census American Community Survey (ACS) 2006-2010 – demographics, poverty, financial/employment data, insurance coverage
• Local Agencies – 2007-2011 data collected to supplement US Census on public benefits, probation data, health data, crime data, mental health and substance abuse, housing data, child and adult abuse, child care, truancy and drop-out rates
7
County Regional Boundaries and
Geography
8
9
County and Regional Demographics
by Age Group
Children
County Distribution
of Children Adults
County Distribution
of Adults Seniors
County Distribution
of Seniors Total
Persons
County Distribution
of Total Persons
County 94,795 24% 253,911 63% 51,878 13% 400,584 100%
North County 40,593 43% 79,636 31% 14,625 28% 134,854 34%
Mid County 20,681 22% 45,729 18% 9,339 18% 75,749 19%
South County 33,521 35% 128,546 51% 27,914 54% 189,981 47%
Santa Barbara County had a population of 400,584*
*U.S. Census ACS 2006-2010 based on population for “whom poverty is determined.” Figures do not include people living in institutionalized group quarters, military group quarters, college dormitories, or unrelated individuals under 15.
10
Population Distribution by
Ethnicity/Race
Non-Hispanic White, 31%
Non-Hispanic White, 51%
Non-Hispanic White, 58%
Non-Hispanic White, 48%
Latino, 61%
Latino, 38%
Latino, 32%
Latino, 43%
1%
4%
1%
2%
4%
3%
6%
5%
2%
3%
2%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
North County
Mid County
South County
Santa BarbaraCounty
Non-Hispanic White Latino African American
Asian/PI Native American All Other
11
Source: U.S. Census 2010 Decennial Count
Source: U.S. Census ACS 2006-2010 based on population for “whom poverty is determined”.
12
13
Use of Poverty Numbers vs. Rates
• Poverty numbers tell us how many people in a given group are living in poverty
▫ Numbers help us demonstrate where the greatest concentration of poverty is in the County by groups
• Poverty rate is calculated by dividing the number of people in a group who live in poverty by the total number of people in the group
▫ Poverty rates help us make comparisons between geographies and population groups
14
Poverty Guidelines
15
2010 Poverty Guidelines
Persons in
family/household
Poverty
Guidelines
1 $10,830
2 $14,570
3 $18,310
4 $22,050
5 $25,790
6 $29,530
7 $33,270
8 $37,010
The Federal Poverty Guidelines listed above are a simplification of the Federal Poverty Thresholds and
used to determine financial eligibility for a broad array of public programs.
Where are People Struggling?
• Census Tracts where 20 percent or more of individuals are living below 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Threshold are designated “high poverty tracts”
• There are 18 “high poverty tracts” identified and all of them are congregated in 4 main areas and are designated as “high poverty areas”
16
High Poverty Areas
17
Individuals in Poverty by Race and Hispanic Origin
18
Source: US Census ACS 2006-2010 Note: The African American, Asian/Pacific Islander and American Indian categories may include people of Hispanic origin.
Non-Hispanic
White
Hispanic/Latino
AfricanAmerican
Asian orPacific
Islander
AmericanIndian
Poverty Rate 10% 19% 16% 19% 26%
Individuals in Poverty 19,454 31,499 1,159 3,757 1,052
Population 200,207 164,972 7,105 20,192 4,013
10%
19% 16% 19% 26%
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Ra
te
County Poverty Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin Total County Individuals in Poverty =57,463
Individuals in Poverty by Race and
Hispanic Origin Total Individuals in Poverty
Non-Hispanic White
Hispanic/Latino
African/ American
Asian/ Pacific
Islander
American Indian
County 57,463 10% 19% 16% 19% 26%
High Poverty Areas
30,503 30% 32% 32% 39% 46%
Santa Maria HPA
12,297 16% 29% 35% 14% 37%
Lompoc HPA 5,579 19% 37% 29% 0% 0%
City of Santa Barbara HPA
3,983 17% 31% 22% 44% 83%
Isla Vista HPA 8,644 50% 40% 42% 58% 43%
19
Source: US Census ACS 2006-2010 Note: The African American, Asian/Pacific Islander and American Indian categories may include people of Hispanic origin.
Which Age Groups are Struggling?
20
Source: US Census ACS 2006-2010
17% 15%
6%
14%
38%
31%
9%
32% 35%
24%
9%
27%
49%
23%
8%
31%
39%
25%
13%
26%
15%
53%
0%
57%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Child PovertyRates
Adults PovertyRates
Seniors PovertyRates
All Individuals inPoverty Rates
Po
ve
rty
Ra
tes
County High Poverty Areas Santa Maria HPA Lompoc HPA City of SB HPA Isla Vista HPA
Where Are Individuals Struggling?
21
28%
61%
33% 20%
7% 1%
66%
53%
18%
6% 7% 22%
6%
16%
8%
3%
5%
100%
53%
21%
10% 7% 15%
County High PovertyAreas
Santa Maria HPA Lompoc HPA City of SB HPA Isla Vista HPA
County Distribution of Individuals in Poverty by Age Group
Child Poverty Distribution Adult Poverty Distribution
Senior Poverty Distribution All Individuals in Poverty Distribution
53% of All County Individuals in Poverty Live in High Poverty Areas
Source: US Census ACS 2006-2010
22
Median Household Income
23
• County median household income is $60,078 ▫ 27-53% higher than in high poverty areas
• Santa Maria high poverty area - $40,436 • Lompoc high poverty area - $35,775 • City of Santa Barbara high poverty area -
$53,888 • Isla Vista high poverty area - $34,583
24
Source: US Census ACS 2006-2010
25% 27% 28% 28% 22% 25%
75% 74% 72% 72% 78% 76%
7% 10% 11% 11% 11% 5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
County HighPovertyAreas
Santa MariaHPA
LompocHPA
City of SBHPA
Isla VistaHPA
Employment Status (16 and over) County and High Poverty Areas (HPA’s)
Not in the Labor Force In the Labor Force: Employed In the Labor Force: Unemployed
25
8%
18%
39%
11%
0% 2%
6%
6%
6%
7%
9% 2%
10%
9%
7%
9%
12%
11%
12%
12%
3%
6% 9%
32%
10%
8%
7%
11% 10%
6% 9%
13%
9%
17%
12%
20% 55%
66% 71%
61%
52%
72%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
County HPA Santa MariaHPA
Lompoc HPA City of SB HPA Isla Vista HPA
Percent of Employed Labor Force in Top 6 Employment Sectors, County and High Poverty Areas (HPA's)
Agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting Construction
Retail trade Educational services
Health care and social assistance Accommodation and food services
Source: US Census ACS 2006-2010 Table DPO3
26
41 % 38%
62% 72%
62% 49%
35%
29% 31%
22%
20% 28%
26%
15%
30% 31%
16% 8% 10%
25%
50%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
California County HPA's Santa MariaHPA
Lompoc HPA City of SantaBarbara
Isla Vista
Rate of Individuals by Educational Attainment (California, County, High Poverty Areas (HPA’s), 2006-2010
High School/GED or less Some College or AA BA or more
Source: US Census ACS 2006-2010
Primary Mode of Transportation to Work
County High Poverty Areas
27
Drove alone, 66%
Carpooled, 15%
Public trans-
portation, 4%
Other, 9%
Worked at home,
6%
Drove alone, 53%
Carpooled, 23%
Public trans-
portation, 5%
Other, 16%
Worked at home,
3%
Source: US Census ACS 2006-2010
Housing Stock
County High Poverty Areas
Owner Occupied Units 50%
Renter Occupied
Units 43%
Vacant Units
7% Owner
Occupied Units 22%
Renter Occupied Units 71%
Vacant Unit 7%
28
U.S. Census ACS 2006-2010
Public Housing Units and Section 8 Vouchers
• North and Mid County show a gap in available housing units to numbers of families in poverty
30%
19%
51% 44%
22%
34%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
North County Mid County South County
Housing Units and Section 8 Vouchers Families in Poverty
2,152
3,467
1,364 1,695
3,635
2,648
Total County Units/Vouchers = 7,151 Total County Families in Poverty =7,810
29
Source: Santa Barbara County Housing Authority, Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara (2012); US Census ACS 2006-2010
• Average age of death in Santa Barbara County was 76 years of age, compared to 73 years of age in high poverty area zip codes
• Age adjusted death rates allow us to make fairer comparisons between zip codes that have overrepresentation of people in certain age groups
▫ The County rate is 590 per 100,000, compared to high poverty areas 767 per 100,000
▫ The Santa Maria high poverty area has the highest rate at 1,153 per 100,000 persons
• Seventeen percent of County residents were uninsured, compared to 21% in high poverty areas
▫ The City of Santa Barbara and Santa Maria high poverty rates uninsurance rates were the highest at 26% and 25%
30
Source: Santa Barbara Department of Public Health, 2010
Health Status and Access
31
Location of Health and Human Services
Providers
32
Health and Human Service Locations: (Types of services include government and non-profit assistance programs, disability services, elder services, employment programs, nutrition programs, health clinics and medical services, mental health and substance abuse services, homeless shelters and social services.
Survey and Provider Interviews
• 39% Response Rate – 178 out of 460 agencies contacted responded to a provider/funder survey
• Stakeholder interviews were done with 16 non-profit and public agency leaders
• Collective findings were incorporated in the Focus Areas: ▫ Identified potential gaps in services and service areas ▫ Ideas for possible consolidation ▫ Programmatic and regional capacities ▫ Challenges facing local non-profit organizations and
their clients ▫ Recommendations for improving service delivery,
streamlining access to services, and holding organizations accountable
33
34
Focus Areas
• Pursue holistic approaches
▫ Efforts are both people and placed-based
• Establish poverty reduction goals and track progress
▫ Need to improve the coordination and standardization of data collection
• Improve service delivery infrastructure and efficiency
▫ Strategically site and/or co-locate services in targeted neighborhoods using a collective impact model
▫ Streamline and improve access to services
▫ Consider consolidating in specific areas
35
Focus Areas (cont’d)
• Address unmet needs in North County and Lompoc
▫ Consider shifting some South County resources to Santa Maria, Lompoc, and Guadalupe
• Improve allocation of existing resources
▫ Adopt best practices in philanthropy
▫ Adopt best practices in public funding
• Expand targeted, impactful public programs
▫ Increase outreach and enrollment of CalFresh
▫ Create local tax credit programs
36
Focus Areas (cont’d)
• Address affordable housing, economic and workforce development and public transportation
▫ Convene affordable housing experts in public, non-profit and private sectors
▫ Convene experts in education and workforce and economic development and community leaders to develop a shared vision of economic development
▫ Convene transportation experts and community leaders
37
What We’ve Learned • Four areas of geographic concentration of
poverty in the County – No Outliers ▫ Promising from a service delivery perspective ▫ Challenging from a service capacity perspective
• Characteristics of those in living in poverty, their service needs, and the impacts of poverty on health.
• Now have geographically based baseline of data to track progress ▫ Demographics, poverty, employment, income,
education, housing, transportation, childcare public benefits, and health
38
Staff Observations
• Fragmented data collection limited our ability to: ▫ Capture all desired data sets ▫ Capture data sets consistently down to the census tract
level
• Key Indicators for future tracking (publically available – U.S. Census Data) ▫ Poverty stats ▫ Educational attainment ▫ Housing Stock ▫ Employment/employment sectors ▫ Health (uninsurance rates) ▫ Transportation
39
Opportunities
• Share information with community partners, municipalities by way of a link to the report from County and DSS websites
• Encourage community, foundations and public
agencies and groups to utilize this data as a springboard for further investigation
• Recommend the Board of Supervisors direct the
CEO to work in conjunction with appropriate departments to utilize data, assess findings and focus areas, and incorporate information as appropriate in program and budget development processes
40