Category: Population

The Working Poor in California

Today saw the release of the jobs report for March. California’s March unemployment rate was 8.1 percent, unchanged from February. Employers in California added 325,100 jobs over the past year–the largest increase in the nation. This is encouraging news for state residents who live near the bottom of the income ladder because, for a variety of reasons, workers in this category tend to be most affected by economic downturns.

Federal and state safety net programs target low-income families, and our work has shown that these programs play a major role in mitigating poverty. But a closer look shows that earnings from employment—not support from the social safety net—are the predominant source of income for working-age Californians living in poverty. Among poor adults with children, after-tax earnings made up 74 percent of family resources in 2011 (when the California unemployment rate was much higher than it is today, averaging 11.8 percent). In dollar terms, this translates into annual family earnings of about $22,200. For poor working-age adults with no children, earnings made up 69 percent of resources on average, or $10,400 (the much lower amount in part reflects the typically smaller family size of this group of adults).

Regionally, across California’s three most populous counties—Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego—earnings made up between 75 and 82 percent of resources for poor adults with children. For those without children, earnings were 70 to 74 percent of resources. In California’s Central Valley, an economically struggling region of the state, earnings still made up the majority of family resources for poor working age adults: 59 percent for adults with children and 62 percent for adults with no children.

Although similarly detailed statistics for 2014 are not yet available, we can expect that earnings play at least as large a role in the resources of California’s poor today, now that the economy is on the upswing.

Video Highlights New Survey’s Key Findings

The March PPIC Statewide Survey examines several major issues in California, including water, high-speed rail, marijuana legalization, and taxes. The survey also finds that three months before the primary, Governor Jerry Brown remains a strong favorite for re-election this year.

The wide-ranging survey also looks at Californians’ views on national issues—such as immigration and health care reform, and abortion —and provides approval ratings on federal elected officials.

PPIC research associate Jui Shrestha presented the results of the survey at a luncheon briefing in Sacramento.

Testimony: Poverty and the Safety Net

The Assembly Budget Subcommittee for Health and Human Services is considering the level of financial support to CalWORKs, California’s cash assistance program for families with children. The panel held a hearing on Wednesday that began with testimony from PPIC research fellow Sarah Bohn about recent poverty trends and the impact of anti-poverty programs. Here are her prepared remarks.

 

My name is Sarah Bohn. I am an economist and research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. I hope most of you are familiar with PPIC, but for those who are not, we are a nonpartisan, independent research institute focused on major policy issues in the state. I will present the most recent facts on poverty in California and discuss their implications.

In the midst of the slow recovery from the Great Recession, attention has turned to the causes, consequences, and possible solutions to growing poverty in California and the nation as a whole. These have been topics of importance to researchers for a long time. In fact, today’s economic realities are largely the result of long-term trends. But the recession and the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty have brought these issues into focus for the wider community and offers an opportunity for reassessment. For example, last December, the PPIC Statewide Survey found that a record-high share of Californians—66 percent—believe the state is divided into “the haves and the have nots.” Well below a majority identify themselves as part of the “haves”—a much higher share did so a decade ago.

The latest official poverty estimates suggest that about 16 percent of Californians are poor, and that as many as 22.5 percent of children in the state are poor. These numbers are an improvement over the year before, and are the first sign of a turnaround since the beginning of the Great Recession. But poverty rates today are 50 percent higher than they were five decades ago, when the War on Poverty began. Do today’s high rates of poverty mean that public investments aimed at mitigating poverty have not had their intended effect?

Unfortunately, official poverty statistics don’t give us the information we need to answer this question. The official poverty measure is based on a very simple formula developed in the 1960s. This formula has a number of shortcomings. First, it does not account for many of safety net programs—so it entirely misses the poverty-reducing effect of SNAP (food stamps) and the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit), for example. Second, the formula has not kept up with sweeping changes in the cost of living since the 1960s. It does not reflect the increase or variation in housing costs across different places. And it doesn’t account for the fact that many families face different sorts of expenses than they did in the 1960s—like higher medical out of pocket expenses and child care costs.

These shortcomings prompted a national effort to develop alternative measures of poverty, which began to coalesce in the 1990s. In 2011, this effort produced the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, which provides detailed new estimates of poverty for the U.S. In 2013, a collaborative effort between PPIC and Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality produced the California Poverty Measure, which provides similar detail for California. Both measures use the same underlying methodology to address the shortcomings I just described in the official poverty statistics. And I’d like to note that the creators of both measures are engaged in ongoing efforts to refine and improve the methodology, and for that reason—among others—their measures do not replace the official statistics but supplement them (hence the name of the Census measure).

Both the California Poverty Measure and Census’s Supplemental Measure account for the resources that families actually have to meet very basic needs and the actual costs of doing so. The California Poverty Measure finds that more Californians are poor than we thought, as of 2011. The California Poverty Measure estimate of 22 percent (or 8 million people) is higher than the official rate of 16.2 percent—this translates to an additional 2 million people in poverty. More people of all ages are poor under this new, better measure. Of particular interest is the child poverty rate, which is 25 percent, or 2 points higher in our measure. In other words, a quarter—or more than 2 million—of our children are poor.

These higher poverty rates stem from a combination of factors. Most important, the California Poverty Measure uses higher thresholds than the official poverty measure does—that is, a higher poverty line. This is because housing costs for the vast majority of Californians are significantly higher than what the federal poverty line accounts for. On average, a single parent with two kids needs $24,600 to be considered out of poverty and a four-person family needs $29,000 to be considered out of poverty under the California Poverty Measure. That’s about $6,000 above the federal poverty line, and about $4,000 more than a similar family would need to be above poverty level in other states under the Census Supplemental Measure. These higher costs of living explain in large part why California’s Supplemental Poverty Rate is higher than that of any other state in the country.

Cost of living differences also change the narrative about how poverty varies within California. As you can see from the map I’ve provided, in many ways our measure flips the official measure’s picture of poverty. The California Poverty Measure finds that coastal areas—where housing costs are generally higher—have among the highest poverty rates in the state, much higher than the official estimates. Our measure places inland areas like the Central Valley, where official poverty rates are typically the highest, in the middle to low range statewide. In some counties with relatively low costs of living, the California Poverty Measure estimates are lower than official poverty rates. In these areas, safety net benefits to low-income families more than offset the cost of living, driving down poverty rates. But the vast majority of Californians live in higher-cost counties, where safety net resources, despite playing an important role in family budgets, are not large enough to offset high costs of living.

The California Poverty Measure allows us to look closely at the role safety net programs play in mitigating poverty. And our research suggests that this role is powerful—especially for children. We find that without CalWORKs benefits the child poverty rate jumps 2.5 points—equivalent to about a quarter million more children in poverty. Similarly, without CalFresh benefits, the child poverty rate would jump 4 points—that is an additional 375,000 children. Of course, many families use both of these programs, as well as others that we’ve accounted for—including housing subsidies, SSI, school meals, and the EITC/CTC. When we look at the combined effect of all of these need-based safety net programs, we find that without them a stunningly high 39 percent—or 3.6 million—of California’s children would be poor. That is, the child poverty rate would jump nearly 14 points. This shows that low-income and poor families are making use of the social safety net and that it has a substantial effect on their poverty status.

These poverty-reducing effects could be even larger if changes were made to the safety net. For example, the USDA estimates that slightly more than half of eligible Californians participate in CalFresh—this is one of the lowest statewide participation rates in the nation. Participation also varies across California’s counties. This begs the question of how much lower poverty rates would be—would they still be the highest in the country?—if participation rates were higher. As this example shows, housing costs are not the only area in which California stands out. And, while policy clearly plays an important role in offsetting the higher cost of living in California (it more than offsets cost of living in families with children), it has the potential to move the needle on poverty even further.

As it stands, our estimates suggest that the safety net kept nearly 1.3 million children out of poverty in 2011. This matters a lot because research increasingly links poverty to adverse outcomes in many arenas—nutrition, health, education, even brain development—in addition to long-term economic opportunity and mobility. It’s my hope that our research can be used to inform the important decisions you make on policies that address family economic need and its consequences. Thank you for your time.

 

Chart source: The California Poverty Measure: A New Look at the Social Safety Net.

Health Care and California’s Undocumented Immigrants

Despite California’s embrace of federal health care reform, millions of Californians are expected to remain uninsured even five years from now. Undocumented immigrants are likely to be a large share of this uninsured group because they are excluded from coverage under the Affordable Care Act. At the state level, legislation has been introduced (SB 1005) to provide subsidized insurance options for all low-income Californians, regardless of immigration status.

California is home to an estimated 2.5 million undocumented immigrants. This population is distributed unevenly around the state, but undocumented immigrants reside in nearly every county. Los Angeles and other Southern California counties have the largest number of undocumented immigrants—nearly a million are estimated to reside in Los Angeles County alone—and this region is projected to have more than 60 percent of uninsured Californians in 2019.

What do we know about how undocumented immigrants use health care today? The limited body of research on health care use among undocumented immigrants finds lower levels of utilization and spending relative to the native born. Despite their limited access to other health care settings, noncitizens are less likely to have recently visited the emergency room than citizens, even when demographic and health factors are taken into account. In part, this is because undocumented immigrants are relatively young and likely to be working, which suggests that they may be healthier than the general population. However, some of these immigrants—particularly farm workers—face heightened health risks.

Without changes in state or federal law, we can expect that undocumented immigrants will continue to rely on the health care safety net—particularly health clinics and hospital emergency departments. Some counties provide services to undocumented immigrants under their indigent care programs—particularly counties that operate public hospital systems— but the majority do not and are not required to do so. Recent PPIC research suggests that California’s network of clinics is well positioned to serve low-income communities, including those with large numbers of undocumented immigrants. About 75 percent of California’s undocumented immigrants live within two miles of a health clinic, although proximity and access varies across counties.

Comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level could improve insurance coverage and access to care in the long-run, but recent proposals have specifically excluded undocumented immigrants on a path to citizenship from federally subsidized coverage. It’s hard to imagine that changing anytime soon. That leaves it up to the state to grapple with health care access for this sizeable group of residents.

Testimony: Californians and Poverty

A bipartisan legislative caucus, Ending Poverty and Inequality in California, held its inaugural meeting this afternoon. The caucus includes 23 members from both the state assembly and senate, and aims to examine issues related poverty in California, develop policy ideas, and raise awareness. This first meeting provided an overview of poverty and inequality in the state and examined what these issues mean for California’s future. Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, was invited to speak and prepared these remarks to reflect the contributions of PPIC research fellows Sarah Bohn and Caroline Danielson and the PPIC Statewide Survey team.

Hello, my name is Mark Baldassare and I am the president and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California. Thank you for the opportunity to speak as you launch this timely, historic, and “EPIC” effort to address poverty in California. For many years, PPIC has provided facts and reports with a range of significant findings on this important topic. For example, our work has shown that California’s poverty rate is higher than the U.S. average, and that one in four California children live in poverty. Recent PPIC studies have raised awareness about the growing income gap between the poor and the wealthy in the wake of the Great Recession. This work found that when we take into account the impact of government programs and the state’s high cost of living, 8.1 million Californians—accounting for 22 percent of our state’s residents—are living in poverty. I would encourage you to go to the PPIC website for our many publications in this area, and ask our staff experts to talk with you about their findings. I will also leave you with copies of the PPIC briefing kit on “California’s Future,” which includes some of our research and information on this topic and demonstrates how important it is to consider long-term challenges facing the state.

To date, PPIC’s research has documented the scale and scope of poverty and inequality in the state, and assessed the impact of programs intended to help those in need. In addition, the PPIC Statewide Survey provides a clear sense of what Californians themselves think about these issues. As the director of the survey, I’d like to focus my brief comments today on the public’s views—on the current economic landscape, the gap between the wealthy and the poor, and the role of government in addressing poverty. Since one goal of this caucus is to raise awareness about poverty and income inequality, results from our polling will help to show what the awareness level about these issues is right now. I’m going to concentrate on findings from our December and January surveys of all adults, and break out the results for those in our surveys with the lowest incomes—under $20,000 in annual household income—and other key groups.

First, let’s look at the broader context for this discussion: How are Californians viewing the state of the state? Our surveys show they are feeling more optimistic about the direction of the state, and more positive about the job performance of the governor and legislature than they were a few years ago. Still, only four in 10 say they personally are in excellent or good financial shape, only two in 10 say they are better off financially than a year ago, and just one in 10 expect their financial situation to improve a lot in the next year. Many also worry that the state could fall into bad economic times in the next 12 months. In other words, personal financial vulnerabilities and economic uncertainties are still widespread. As a result, Californians continue to name jobs and the economy as the most important issue facing people in California today, and many residents say they want the governor and legislature to work on this issue in 2014.

The widening gap between the wealthy and the poor has been a recent theme in federal and state policy discussions. And as the state’s economy is slowly recovering from the Great Recession, public opinion remains firmly in the camp that California is divided into two economic groups—the “haves” and “have nots.” A record-high 66 percent of Californians say that the state is divided into these two groups. A similar proportion, 63 percent, held this view two years ago, but when we first asked this question in January 1999, 56 percent did so. Today, of those with incomes under $20,000 a year, 67 percent view the state as divided into haves and have-nots. Majorities across income levels, political parties, education levels, racial/ethnic groups, age groups, and regions say that the state is divided into these two economic groups.

When asked to place themselves into one of these groups, 45 percent of Californians say they are among the have nots. Two years ago, a similar 48 percent said they were among the have nots, while 35 percent held this view when we first asked this question in January 1999. Today, among those with incomes under $20,000 a year, 69 percent say they are among the have nots. Sixty-seven percent of Latinos and 54 percent of blacks say that they are among the have nots, but just 31 percent of whites and 38 percent of Asians say this.

How do Californians view government’s role in these issues? Importantly, our state’s residents are steadfast in the belief that there is a role for government in providing a social safety net. Sixty-three percent of Californians agree that the government is responsible for taking care of people who can’t take care of themselves. Over the course of five surveys taken between September 1998 and December 2013, more than six in 10 Californians have consistently agreed on this point. Today, 70 percent of those earning less than $20,000 a year believe that it’s the government’s role to take care of those in need. Three in four Democrats view this as the government’s responsibility, and about half of independents agree. Fifty-five percent of Republicans disagree. At 81 percent, blacks are much more likely than other racial and ethnic groups to hold this view. Still, 67 percent of Latinos, 64 percent of Asians, and 59 percent of whites share this belief. And majorities across regions and most demographic groups see a role for government in taking care of people who need help.

When asked about the role of government benefits in the lives of poor people, 51 percent of Californians agree with the view that poor people have hard lives because these benefits don’t go far enough. In the six surveys that included this question, more than half of Californians have held this view. Today, 61 percent of those earning less than $20,000 a year think poor people have hard lives because government benefits don’t go far enough. Sixty-five percent of Democrats agree, compared with 42 percent of independents and 24 percent of Republicans. Seventy-one percent of blacks say that poor people have hard lives, as do 61 percent of Latinos, 53 percent of Asians, and 42 percent of whites.

Given these views, do Californians think government can do more? Today, forty-nine percent say that government should do more to make sure that all Californians have an equal opportunity to get ahead. In December 2011, 54 percent said the government should do more, while 45 percent held this view in January 1999. But Californians are sharply divided over this issue by income level and party affiliation. The belief that government should do more is held by 65 percent of those with incomes under $20,000 a year and 58 percent of Democrats, while four in 10 of higher-income adults and Republicans share this view.

As these findings demonstrate, PPIC’s public opinion polling provides considerable motivation for the work of the “EPIC” Caucus. There are many Californians who are personally financially challenged today, and most residents believe that California is divided into two economic groups—the haves and have nots. Many Californians believe that there is a role for government in taking care of those who need help, that government benefits don’t go far enough in helping the poor, and that the government should do more to make sure that all Californians have an equal opportunity to get ahead. While Californians are divided along party lines when asked about government programs, we found overwhelming support when we asked about raising the federal minimum wage in our March 2013 survey. Since the state recently passed a minimum wage increase, another state policy option that would be worth discussing is the earned income tax credit, or EITC. Although our polling has yet to explore the public’s views on this idea, other PPIC research has noted that the EITC has potential for increasing jobs and stimulating the economy.

In closing, I want to remind you that the poverty rate in our state is high—again, according to PPIC’s calculations, it is 22 percent—and it is higher than the national average. What these numbers tell us, what our survey results tell us, is that many Californians are struggling. If we don’t do something about poverty and income inequality in California today, we won’t have the California we want tomorrow. I hope that you will turn to PPIC as a resource as you grapple with defining the poverty problem in our state and work toward finding solutions to this critical public policy issue for California’s future. Thank you for your time today.

Will Uninsured Californians Get Health Care? Most Say Yes

California’s health insurance exchange, Covered California, has enrolled more than 625,000 people under the Affordable Care Act. However, many eligible enrollees have yet to sign up, including a disproportionate share of Latinos. But if residents follow through on the intentions they express in PPIC Statewide Surveys, enrollment should continue to grow for all groups. This is significant because Covered California will need to enroll a broad group of eligible Californians—particularly the young and healthy—to keep premiums low in the future.

In PPIC’s January survey, 72 percent of the uninsured say they will obtain insurance in accordance with the law, up slightly from our December survey (66%). We then combined the two surveys and found that solid majorities of the uninsured in all demographic groups say they plan to sign up, with particularly high numbers in the following groups:

  • Young people: 76 percent of residents ages 18 to 34 plan to enroll in health insurance. Of all the uninsured who say they will do this, 52 percent are in this age group.
  • Latinos: 72 percent say they will enroll. Latinos comprise just 20 percent of current enrollments, but in our survey 61 percent of all those who say they plan to sign up are Latino.
  • Spanish-preferring residents: 70 percent of those who took the survey in Spanish say they will sign up.
  • Lower-income residents: 75 percent of those with annual household incomes under $20,000 say they will obtain insurance. Of those with annual incomes of $20,000 to $40,000, 65 percent plan to enroll.
  • Women: 75 percent plan to enroll.

Chart Sources: PPIC Statewide Surveys, December 2013 and January 2014.

Refundable Tax Credits Ease Poverty in California

Poverty and income inequality have become hot topics in policy circles at the state and national levels. PPIC has been looking at these issues, too—recently analyzing the role that needs-based programs play in helping families make ends meet. In conjunction with researchers at the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality we measured poverty in California more comprehensively than the Census official poverty measure does. We found that the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit have the biggest impact in moderating poverty rates, relative to other safety net programs.

Both programs are aimed low- and moderate-income families with dependent children. Families must file tax returns to participate in these programs, which are funded by the federal government. (In addition, 25 states and the District of Columbia have their own smaller EITCs, although California does not.) The EITC is fully refundable, meaning that a family with earnings but no net tax obligation (after deductions) receives the full amount of the credit (based on their earnings) in the form of a tax refund. The Child Tax Credit is partially refundable.

Together, the EITC and CTC trimmed the 2011 poverty rate for working age adults from 24.0 percent to 21.4 percent. The child poverty rate dropped even more, from 31.1 percent to 25.1 percent. Put another way, an additional 600,000 California adults and 560,000 children would be considered poor without these programs.

Chart Source: The California Poverty Measure: A New Look at the Social Safety Net.

Californians Want the State to Lead

Californians have consistently supported their state government in making its own policies on national issues. Past PPIC Statewide Surveys have shown that residents want the state to address global warming, and they have also favored independent state action on health care. Now there is one more issue to add to the list: immigration. Our new survey shows that 58 percent support California acting on its own to improve the lives of undocumented immigrants in our state.

It is not surprising that Californians are looking to their state government to act on key issues like climate change, health care, and immigration. Residents increasingly view state government in a more positive light than the federal government. The governor’s job approval rating, which held steady for much of 2013, has now climbed to a record-high 58 percent. The legislature’s job approval rating, at 42 percent, is at a near-record high. In contrast, Congress’ rating—which fell to a record-low 18 percent in December—is now just 26 percent. And President Obama’s approval rating is near its lowest point, at 53 percent.

Californians are also optimistic that state elected officials can work together and accomplish a lot in the next year (57%), while far fewer hold this view of their federal leaders (37%).

California’s policymakers have been in sync with state residents. They’ve taken leadership on climate change, been proactive in implementing federal health care reform, and most recently enacted a series of laws affecting undocumented immigrants. In the last year, Governor Brown signed the Trust Act, which limits the criteria by which a local law enforcement agency can comply with federal deportation hold requests. He also signed bills allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain a California driver’s licenses and be admitted as attorneys. In doing so, Brown said, “While Washington waffles on immigration, California’s forging ahead.”

With few signs of gridlock easing at the federal level and one party in control in Sacramento, it will be interesting to see where else California decides to forge ahead.

Chart Source: PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government, January 2014.

Most New Immigrants Are From Asia

News that California has grown to 38.2 million people—the largest population increase in nine years according to the state Department of Finance—garnered a lot of attention. But this increase was actually modest, even slow, when compared to most years before 2005. However, there has been a much more dramatic demographic shift, pinpointed in data from the American Community Survey—a rise in Asian immigration and a decline in Latin American immigration. In 2011 and 2012, three times as many immigrants arrived from Asia as from Latin America.

For decades, Latin America immigrants were by far the largest group coming to California. Even as recently as 2005, 55 percent of all immigrants and 51 percent of those migrating within the past year were from Latin America. However, since then, the number of newly arriving immigrants from Latin America has declined sharply, while the number from Asia has increased.

What accounts for this dramatic change? During the recession, employment prospects for less educated workers fell dramatically and have not recovered as quickly as prospects for more highly educated workers. While only about 14 percent of recent immigrants from Latin America have a college degree, immigrants from Asia tend to be highly educated. About half of working-age Asian adults (ages 18–64) already have college degrees when they arrive in California. In that regard, then, the changing patterns of immigration make sense.

But other factors are undoubtedly at work. Increases in border enforcement and deportations are more likely to affect immigrants from Latin America than from Asia. And improved economic conditions in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America, along with slowing population growth, reduces the supply of potential immigrants to California. Still, it will be interesting to see if this new pattern of immigration to California becomes the new normal. If so, in the long run it would lead to a substantial change in the ethnic composition of the state’s population. Just as Latinos are about to surpass whites as the state’s largest ethnic group, perhaps someday Asians will surpass Latinos.

Chart Source: PPIC tabulations based on American Community Survey data.

Testimony: Measuring Poverty in California

On the 50th anniversary of President Johnson’s declaration of a “War on Poverty,” the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee held a hearing about California’s food stamp program, known as CalFresh. Although the hearing was called to explore federal complaints about high levels of fraud in the California program, it covered CalFresh more broadly, particularly the state’s very low participation rate in the program. PPIC research fellow Sarah Bohn was asked to testify about the impact of CalFresh on the state’s poverty rate. Here are her prepared remarks.

My name is Sarah Bohn. I am an economist and research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. I’m sure most of you are familiar with PPIC, but for those who are not, we are a nonpartisan, independent research institute focused on major policy issues in the state. I have been asked to discuss new measures of poverty in California to help set the context for your decisions.

The latest official poverty estimates suggest that about 16 percent of Californians are poor, and as many as 22 percent of the state’s children are poor. Official poverty statistics such as these are based on a very simple formula developed in the 1960s. The statistics have been useful for tracking trends and determining eligibility for many safety net programs. However, official statistics have not kept up with sweeping changes that have affected family budgets over the past five decades. Families now face higher costs of living and medical expenses, among others. And official statistics do not account for changes in public policy aimed at helping low-income people make ends meet—including programs stemming from the War on Poverty, which is having its 50th anniversary today.

With these shortcomings in mind, researchers have been developing alternative measures of poverty since the 1990s. These efforts culminated in the release of a new estimate of poverty by the Census Bureau in 2012 called the Research Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). It is called “supplemental” because is intended to supplement rather than replace official estimates. And it is called “research” because it is a work in progress, still being refined. It is that effort that researchers at PPIC and the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality have joined. We introduced our California Poverty Measure in October 2013. It uses basically the same methodology as the Supplemental Poverty Measure with a few refinements that make it a more accurate estimate for California that paints a much more detailed picture. (The Census Bureau’s measure for California is only a single number, averaging rates over three-year period).

Both the Census’ supplemental measure and our new California Poverty Measure provide a more comprehensive estimate of economic need today. For our California-specific measure we make adjustments to the poverty rate formula in three main areas. We use a more comprehensive estimate of family resources—including tax payments and credits (like the Earned Income Tax Credit) and in-kind benefits (like food stamps and housing subsidies). We also factor in nondiscretionary expenses like medical out-of-pocket, child care, and commuting expenses. Finally, our measure judges net family resources against a more up-to-date estimate of what it takes to maintain a basic standard of living (resources for clothing, food, shelter, utilities) and that accounts for geographic variations in housing costs, in particular. Whereas official poverty thresholds are the same for all states and counties, ours vary by county.

The Census supplemental measure and our California Poverty Measure produce similar results—but I will discuss our findings because they are more detailed. Under our measure, 22 percent of Californians were poor in 2011—about 8 million people. That is about 2 million more than the official estimate suggests. When we look at the findings we can see why the supplemental poverty measures are higher. Resources from safety net programs tend to push poverty rates down, while medical expenses and housing costs push poverty rates up. The net result is a higher statewide poverty rate. However, this is not the case in all places within California. Also, our findings vary across age groups. Child poverty under our measure is just a bit higher than the official measure—though still staggeringly high, at about 25 percent. As time allows I can discuss these findings further.

Among families with children, safety net resources play a prominent role in mitigating poverty. We calculate that without the CalFresh program, about 29 percent of California’s children would be considered poor—an additional 4 percent, or 375,000 children. I think it is worth noting that the impact of CalFresh on poverty is almost double the impact of CalWORKs.

If not for the full set of need-based safety net programs we include in our measure (CalFresh, CalWORKs, General Assistance, EITC and CTC, housing subsidies, SSI, and school meals), a stunning 39 percent of children—or 2.7 million—would be poor.

Under the Census supplemental measure and our California Poverty Measure, a higher fraction of California’s population is poor than in any other U.S. state. We know that housing costs are a major factor, because most Californians (70 percent) live in the most expensive counties, where the resources needed to maintain a basic standard of living are about $9,000 above the official poverty measure calculation. However, public programs also play a role. While CalFresh has a sizeable impact on family resources (as I mentioned), not all eligible families participate. In fact, according to the USDA, we have the second-lowest participation rate in CalFresh in 2012. This raises the question of how much more CalFresh could lower the poverty rate if participation increased. In our research, we find a correlation within California between access to CalFresh and the extent to which the program drives down poverty (the effect is about three times greater in counties with high access). More research is required to understand how the picture of poverty might change if the CalFresh program changed, but it is clear that the program plays a big role in mitigating poverty among Californians.