Poverty in the United Way Service Area

Transcription

1 Poverty in the United Way Service Area Year 4 Update The Institute for Urban Policy Research At The University of Texas at Dallas

2 Poverty in the United Way Service Area Year 4 Update Introduction The United Way of Metropolitan Dallas established community-wide goals in the areas of Income, Health, and Education. For Income, the United Way set a goal of 250,000 fewer persons in poverty than would otherwise have been expected without United Way involvement. This report details the state of poverty in the United Way service area in 2014 and compares this to the condition set at baseline in It compares changes in poverty since 2010 against what would have been expected had the trend at baseline continued uninterrupted. The process of developing these estimates and projections is technically complex. First, census boundaries do not precisely align with the United Way s service area. Furthermore, these boundaries were significantly changed in 2012, so a discussion of the precise methods used to approximate the geography is presented in Appendix 2. Second, because the estimates and projections below are derived from data sources that represent only a sample of the population, there is some margin of error around them. Appendix 2 contains a more robust discussion of the process used to generate the margins of error, an indicator of the reliability of each estimate, and an indicator of statistically significant changes from baseline for each indicator. Poverty in the United Way Service Area As has been documented in prior reports, the Institute s analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau s American Community Survey (ACS) indicated an estimated 563,874 persons were living in poverty in the United Way of Metropolitan Dallas service area (Dallas, Collin, Rockwall, and southern Denton counties) in That report also detailed the Institute s projection of approximately 967,515 persons living in poverty in the service area by Using the same estimation methodology as previous years, an estimated 613,192 persons were living in poverty in the service area in 2014, almost 65,000 fewer than the 677,704 that would have been anticipated with no additional intervention. Figure 1 depicts these data, with green dots representing the number estimated to be in poverty each year through The solid red line depicts the projected change through 2020 if the pattern established through baseline continues. Table 1 presents the year-by-year numbers estimated from the ACS, as well as projected numbers for the following years through P a g e 2

3 Figure 1. Number of Persons Living Below Poverty, P a g e 3

4 Table 1. Number of Persons Living Below Poverty, Number of Poor Persons Number of Poor Persons Expected With No to Current Trends , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,746 Table 2 presents the number of persons estimated to be in poverty, along with the percent of population. For reference, Table 4 presents the federal poverty threshold for the year This is the guideline that the Census Bureau employed in assigning poverty status to household members. Table 2. Number and Percent of Persons by Poverty Status, Poverty Status Poverty 2,910,063 3,059,956 3,095,304 3,165,426 3,189,065 3,113,406 3,151,335 3,239,031 3,285,512 3,352, Below Poverty 452, , , , , , , , , , Table 3. Number and Percent of Households by Poverty Status, Poverty Poverty 1,050,272 1,081,565 1,097,883 1,116,943 1,117,208 1,135,295 1,144,844 1,164,636 1,186,982 1,200, Below Poverty 144, , , , , , , , , , Source: Institute for Urban Policy Research Analysis of Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data from the American Community Survey 1 year estimates 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and P a g e 4

5 Table 4. Federal Poverty Threshold by Size of Family Unit and Number of Children Under Age 18, 2014 Household Income Number of Related Children Under 18 Years Old Size of Family Unit or More One Person Under 65 12, and Up 11,354 Two People HH Under 65 15,853 16,317 HH 65 and Up 14,309 16,256 Three or More People Three people 18,518 19,055 19,073 Four people 24,418 24,817 24,008 24,091 Five people 29,447 29,875 28,960 28,252 27,820 Six people 33,869 34,004 33,303 32,631 31,633 31,041 Seven people 38,971 39,214 38,375 37,791 36,701 35,431 34,036 Eight people 43,586 43,970 43,179 42,485 41,501 40,252 38,953 38,622 Nine people or more 52,430 52,685 51,984 51,396 50,430 49,101 47,899 47,601 45,768 Considerations in Assessing s in Estimates While the margins of error and statistical significance are discussed more fully in Appendix 2, the reader should be cautioned to consider the following information when assessing year-to-year changes. The ACS draws on responses from a small subset of the population, and the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data used to prepare this report draws on a still smaller subset of that data. Thus, all estimates presented for 2014 (and for prior years) are accompanied by a margin of error in Appendix 2. The narrower the margin, the more reliable the estimate. This, in essence, is the driver behind the symbols used to mark the estimates in Appendix 2 as high, moderate, or low reliability. The issue is further exacerbated when comparing estimates from two or more years. Quite simply, noise could be responsible for a shift in the percent or number of persons in poverty, particularly in smaller subsets of the population. To that end, Appendix 2 also presents indicators of statistical significance for each change figure. To guard against unwarranted conclusions, the report suppresses indications of statistically significant changes when one or both of the estimates being compared were marked as low reliability. in Poverty for Demographic Segments The sections below detail, for major demographic categories, the number and percent of persons or households living in poverty in 2014, as well as the change in both number and percent from 2010 estimates. Current year estimates, presented in the red shaded tables, are accompanied by margins of error and reliability estimates presented in Appendix 2. s from 2010 are presented in the blue shaded tables, and Appendix 2 also presents the accompanying margins of error for these change estimates. Narratives accompanying the tables below also make note of statistically significant changes. A more thorough discussion is presented in Appendix 2. P a g e 5

6 Race, Ethnicity, Sex, and Age Table 5 presents the variation in the number and percent of persons by poverty status and race/ethnicity in 2014, while Table 6 presents changes since As in previous years, non-hispanic African-Americans and Hispanics showed larger proportions of the population in poverty, at 21.8% and 25.06%, respectively. Though there were fewer Hispanics living in the United Way service area compared to non-hispanic Whites, there were nearly three times as many living in poverty (305,315 compared to 108,780). Table 5. Number and Percent of Persons in Poverty by Race/Ethnicity, 2014 Race / Ethnicity Non-Hispanic White 1,540, ,780 1,649, Non-Hispanic Black 531, , , Non-Hispanic Asian 260,572 32, , Non-Hispanic Other 81,970 19, , Hispanic 913, ,315 1,218, ,328, ,333 3,942, Table 6. in Number and Percent of Persons in Poverty by Race/Ethnicity, Race / Ethnicity Non-Hispanic White +25,101-1, , Non-Hispanic Black +64, , Non-Hispanic Asian +47, , , Non-Hispanic Other +9,031 +7, , Hispanic +68, , , , , ,097 The changes presented in Table 6 help illustrate the magnitude of the shift in the United Way service area. From 2010 to 2014, there were an estimated 265,097 persons added. Of that population increase, nearly 20% were below poverty. The largest relative change in poverty was for the non-hispanic Other race category, for which poverty rates rose by 5.4 percentage points. The poverty rates for non-hispanic P a g e 6

7 African-Americans and non-hispanic Whites both dropped, on the other hand, by 2.2 and 0.2 percentage points, respectively. Although the increase in poverty rates for non-hispanic Asians a 2.8 percentage point increase was less than that of those in the non-hispanic Other category, it was actually the only category that experienced a significant change. Similarly, Table 7 presents the number and percent of persons in poverty by age group in In the United Way service area, children continued to be more likely to live in poverty, with more than one in four children below the age of 5, and more than one in five children between the ages of 5 and 17, living in poor households. Table 8 presents the change in number and percent of persons in poverty by age group for In the United Way service area, poverty rates increased for all age groups, and no age group experienced an increase greater than 0.9 percentage points from 2010 to Despite the small relative changes in poverty, the number of persons in poverty aged 18 to 64 as well as those 65 and older increased significantly over the same time period. Table 7. Number and Percent of Persons in Poverty by Age Group, 2014 Age Group Under 5 211,656 74, , to , , , to 64 2,170, ,620 2,502, and Up 352,349 34, , ,328, ,333 3,942, Table 8. in Number and Percent of Persons in Poverty by Age Group, Age Group Under 5-4,280 +1,393-2, to , , , to , , , and Up +64,524 +9, , , , ,097 Table 9 and Table 10 present the number and percent of persons in poverty by sex, as well as the change over time. Women were more likely than men to be poor. Little change was seen from 2010 to P a g e 7

8 2014 with regard to poverty rates; however, the number of women in poverty has increased significantly from 2010 to 2014 in the service area. Table 9. Number and Percent of Persons in Poverty by Sex, 2014 Sex Male 1,667, ,165 1,939, Female 1,660, ,168 2,002, ,328, ,333 3,942, Table 10. in Number and Percent of Persons in Poverty by Sex, Sex Male +106, , , Female +108, , , , , ,097 Household Type Table 11 presents the variation in number and percent of persons living in poverty by household type. Consistent with studies in other cities and at the national level, those residing in households headed by females with no husband present continued to experience the greatest levels of poverty, with one third of persons living below the poverty line (235,281 persons). Care should be taken in interpreting the categories of this table, however, as a female-headed, no-husband household is not necessarily headed by a single female adult. This category includes households that may have one or more adults, but for which the female householder does not report being married to a male. The same is true for the category of male-headed households, no wife. Table 12 depicts the change in poverty by household type from 2010 to There were minimal changes in the poverty rate by household type, with all categories reporting less than a 2 percentage point change. Despite the small relative changes, persons in non-family households, regardless of the head of household, experienced a statistically significant increase in the number of persons in poverty from 2010 to P a g e 8

9 Table 11. Number and Percent of Persons in Poverty by Household Type, 2014 Household Type Married Couple 2,141, ,928 2,362, Male-Headed, No Wife 217,755 49, , Female-Headed, No Husband 476, , , Male-Headed, Non-Family 233,367 49, , Female-Headed, Non-Family 224,567 54, , ,293, ,071 3,902, Table 12. in Number and Percent of Persons in Poverty by Household Type, Household Type Married Couple +109,529 +4, , Male-Headed, No Wife +27,910 +3, , Female-Headed, No Husband +52, , , Male-Headed, Non-Family +11,612 +7, , Female-Headed, Non-Family +17,685 +9, , , , ,010 Table 13 presents a similar distribution, instead providing the number and percent of households in poverty by household type. The pattern is similar, though the disparities are somewhat reduced. Households in poverty tended to be slightly larger than those at or above poverty. Thus, when exploring poverty among households, the patterns often seen at the population level are compressed. Table 14 presents the change in poverty for households by household type for 2010 to The United Way service area has added nearly 100,000 households since 2010, and about a third of them 31,555 were in poverty. Male-headed households with no wife present was the only household type that saw a decrease in the number or percent of households living in poverty; however, this change was not statistically significant. On the other hand, non-family households experienced statistically significant increases in both the number and percent of households in poverty. Female-headed households with no husband present also experienced a significant increase in the percent of households living in poverty. P a g e 9

10 Table 13. Number and Percent of Households in Poverty by Household Type, 2014 Household Type Married Couple 628,859 49, , Male-Headed, No Wife 62,245 9,269 71, Female-Headed, No Husband 139,269 64, , Male-Headed, Non-Family 179,728 30, , Female-Headed, Non-Family 190,800 41, , ,200, ,175 1,397, Table 14. in Number and Percent of Households in Poverty by Household Type, Household Type Married Couple +31,953 +3, , Male-Headed, No Wife +5, , Female-Headed, No Husband +11, , , Male-Headed, Non-Family +5,976 +6, , Female-Headed, Non-Family +10, , , , , , Type of Housing Table 15 through Table 18 explore variation in the number and percent of persons and households in poverty by housing structure type and changes since As was the case in 2010, persons and households living in mobile homes and small apartment complexes (fewer than 10 units) continued to show the highest percentages living in poverty (29.6% and 31.33% of persons, respectively), and no group demonstrated a significant change in poverty rates. However, there has been a significant increase in the number of persons in poverty living in small apartment complexes. P a g e 10

11 Table 15. Number and Percent of Persons in Poverty by Housing Structure Type, 2014 Structure Type Mobile Home / Trailer 79,958 33, , Single Family - Detached 2,371, ,907 2,642, Single Family - Attached 96,574 20, , Apartments - Less than , , , Apartments - 10 to , , , Apartments - 50 or More 133,065 35, , Other 1, , ,293, ,071 3,902, Table 16. in Number and Percent of Persons in Poverty by Housing Structure Type, Structure Type Mobile Home / Trailer +8,066 +5, , Single Family - Detached +93, , , Single Family - Attached +9, , Apartments - Less than , , , Apartments - 10 to ,041 +1, , Apartments - 50 or More +16,215 +4, , Other , , ,010 P a g e 11

12 Table 17. Number and Percent of Households in Poverty by Housing Structure Type, 2014 Structure Type Mobile Home / Trailer 20,621 8,060 28, Single Family - Detached 775,647 76, , Single Family - Attached 38,925 5,729 44, Apartments - Less than ,507 47, , Apartments - 10 to ,704 41, , Apartments - 50 or More 81,730 17,636 99, Other ,200, ,175 1,397, Table 18. in Number and Percent of Households in Poverty by Housing Structure Type, Structure Type Mobile Home / Trailer -1, Single Family - Detached +16,378 +8, , Single Family - Attached -1, , Apartments - Less than , , , Apartments - 10 to ,976 +4, ,835 No No Apartments - 50 or More +12,317 +2, ,978 No No Other , , , As shown in Table 18, the overall percentage of households living in poverty has not changed dramatically since 2010; however, the largest changes in both the number and percent of households in P a g e 12

13 poverty was experienced by households residing in small apartment complexes; these changes are significant for both the number and percent. Additionally, the 1.6% increase in household poverty for those living in single-family attached homes was also significant. Educational Attainment Table 19 presents the variation in poverty rates across levels of educational attainment for the population aged 25 and up. At the margin, it continued to be true that higher levels of education were related to lower levels of poverty only 3.85% of persons with a graduate degree were living in poverty in 2013, compared to 28.65% for persons with less than a high school diploma. Table 19. Number and Percent of Persons in Poverty by Educational Attainment for the Population Age 25 and Up, 2014 Educational Attainment No Formal Education 36,535 11,161 47, Less Than High School 119,340 47, , Some High School, No Diploma 152,703 54, , High School Graduate 450,448 84, , Some College, No Bachelor's 615,245 64, , Four-Year Degree 550,552 24, , Graduate Degree 306,757 12, , ,231, ,469 2,531, Table 20 presents the change in the number and rate of persons in poverty from 2010 to At the margin, there was some difference in both the rates of poverty and the number of persons in poverty by educational attainment. All categories of persons with at least a high school diploma demonstrated a significant increase in the number of persons in poverty. Moreover, all of those categories, except those with a four-year degree and no advanced degree, also demonstrated a significant change in the percent of persons in poverty. P a g e 13

14 Table 20. in Number and Percent of Persons in Poverty by Educational Attainment for the Population Age 25 and Up, Educational Attainment No Formal Education +7, , Less Than High School +7,603 +1,411 +9, Some High School, No Diploma +2,531 +3,069 +5, High School Graduate +23, , , Some College, No Bachelor's +21, , , Four-Year Degree +51,499 +4, , Graduate Degree +56,086 +5, , , , , P a g e 14

15 Appendix 1: Additional Tables Table 21. Number and Percent of Persons in Poverty by Citizenship Status, 2014 Citizenship Status Non-Citizen 417, , , Citizen 2,910, ,987 3,385, ,328, ,333 3,942, Table 22. in Number and Percent of Persons in Poverty by Citizenship Status, Citizenship Status Non-Citizen +12,773 +9, , Citizen +201, , , , , , Table 23. Number and Percent of Households in Poverty by Household Language, 2014 Household Language English Only 825, , , Spanish 246,156 72, , Other Indo-European Languages 49,427 7,649 57, Asian and Pacific Islander Languages 60,663 9,429 70, Other Languages 19,016 4,445 23, ,200, ,175 1,397, P a g e 15

16 Table 24. in Number and Percent of Households in Poverty by Household Language, Household Language English Only +25,022 +8, , Spanish +19, , , Other Indo-European Languages +5,823 +3,442 +9, Asian and Pacific Islander Languages +12,923 +4, , Other Languages +2,092 +2,000 +4, , , , Table 25. Number and Percent of Persons in Poverty by Employment Status for the Civilian Population Age 16 and Up, 2014 Employment Status Not in Labor Force 704, , , Unemployed 90,319 34, , Employed 1,814, ,723 1,970, ,608, ,759 2,995, Table 26. in Number and Percent of Persons in Poverty by Employment Status for the Civilian Population Age 16 and Up, Employment Status Not in Labor Force +56, , , Unemployed -31,692-17,006-48, Employed +177, , , , , , P a g e 16

17 Table 27. Number and Percent of Households in Poverty by Family and Employment Status, 2014 Family & Employment Status Married Couple - Both in LF 365,579 9, , Married Couple - One in LF 198,929 30, , Married Couple - Not in LF 61,048 9,997 71, Male-Headed - In LF 54,563 6,579 61, Male-Headed - Not in LF 7,682 2,690 10, Female-Headed - In LF 113,902 42, , Female-Headed - Not in LF 25,367 21,525 46, , , , Table 28. in Number and Percent of Households in Poverty by Family and Employment Status, Family & Employment Status Married Couple - Both in LF +5,582-3,539 +2, Married Couple - One in LF +18,182 +3, , Married Couple - Not in LF +4,886 +3,653 +8, Male-Headed - In LF +4, , Male-Headed - Not in LF Female-Headed - In LF +7, , , Female-Headed - Not in LF +3, , , , , P a g e 17

18 Table 29. Number and Percent of Households in Poverty by Grandparent Head of Household Status, 2014 Grandparent Households Non-Grandparent Headed 1,195, ,769 1,388, Grandaparent Headed 4,928 3,406 8, ,200, ,175 1,397, Table 30. in Number and Percent of Households in Poverty by Grandparent Head of Household Status, Grandparent Households Non-Grandparent Headed +65, , , Grandaparent Headed ,684 +1, , , , P a g e 18

19 Table 31. Number and Percent of Households in Poverty by Multigenerational Status, 2014 Multigenerational Status Non-Multigenerational 59,020 8,831 67, Multigenerational 1,141, ,344 1,329, ,200, ,175 1,397, Table 32. in Number and Percent of Households in Poverty by Multigenerational Status, Multigenerational Status Non-Multigenerational -1,023, ,642-1,168, Multigenerational +1,089, ,197 +1,265, , , , P a g e 19

20 Appendix 2: Reliability of the Estimates A Summary of the Data Source The estimates presented in this report were derived from the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), which is a representative sample of individual records drawn from the American Community Survey (ACS). They represent a roughly 1% sample of the nation's households and all the persons in each of the sampled households. Because the estimates are drawn from a sample that is itself drawn from a sample of the population, significant care must be taken in estimating the reliability for each percentage or total computed. Considerations of geography and sampling strategy are outlined below. Geographic Implications The United Way of Metropolitan Dallas serves Dallas, Collin, Rockwall, and southern Denton counties. The data in PUMS are made available at a unit of geography known as the Public Use Microdata Area, or PUMA. PUMAs are sufficiently large so as to ensure confidentiality of census respondent information. In counties like Dallas, the sheer number of persons allowed there to be 15 PUMAs in 2000, increasing to 22 in When counties have smaller populations, they re often combined to create one PUMA. In the 2000 delineations, Rockwall and Kaufman counties were combined. For the 2010 delineations, Rockwall was combined with Hunt. This has implications for the analysis of ACS PUMS data for the United Way service area. Figure 2. Alignment of United Way Service Area and PUMAs, 2010 Figure 2 illustrates the alignment between the United Way service area, outlined in blue, and the 2000 Census PUMAs that were aggregated to comprise the approximations used in the 2010 and 2011 reports, outlined in red, and the 2010 Census PUMAs that were aggregated to comprise the

21 approximations used in the 2012 and subsequent reports, outlined in yellow. 2 While the counties of Dallas, Rockwall, and Collin are completely contained, the approximation area includes portions of Denton County that fall beyond the service area. In the 2010 and 2011 reports, it also included all of Kaufman County, while the 2012 and subsequent reports, which used the 2012 PUMAs, dropped Kaufman County and added Hunt County. The inclusion of Kaufman and Hunt counties over different years has minimal implications for relative prevalence (e.g., percentages), but Kaufman County and Hunt County do add approximately 80,000 to 100,000 persons into the formula. However, with an aggregate population in the approximation area of almost 3.7 million, the influence of 100,000 persons is negligible. For the overall measure of percent and number of persons in poverty, the 2014 estimates (based on the newly drawn PUMAs) were adjusted back to the 2010 and 2011 estimate boundaries using the methodology adopted in Dallas and Collin counties were included in their entireties, with no impact on estimations. Denton County s 2010 PUMAs were adjusted back to 2000 PUMAs by using the geographic correspondence service for population base counts hosted by the Missouri Census Data Center. The aggregate counts were adjusted downward by removing Hunt County s poor and non-poor populations, and adjusted upward by adding Kaufman County s poor and non-poor populations. All other estimates use the new geographies. Reliability of the Estimates Each record included in the PUMS data is weighted to reflect the probability of that record having been selected into the sample. This weighting is a method of controlling for variations in the sampling procedure designed to ensure representation across various dimensions. An additional set of 80 weights is generated by the Census Bureau for each record using a method known as Successive Difference Replicates (SDR) Weighting. To assess the reliability of the estimates prepared above, they are actually reproduced 80 times using each of the different SDR weights. Then, the standard error of the estimate is generated from the 80 differently weighted versions to produce a standard error that recognizes the sample from a sample issue peculiar to PUMS data. The tables that follow provide, for each percentage and total given in the report, the standard error for the estimate that was produced using the SDR methodology. The standard error can be thought of as one indicator of the reliability of the estimate, in that the larger the standard error, the less reliable the estimate is. The standard error is then used in the computation of a 95% confidence interval around the original estimate. The lower and upper bounds of the confidence interval are reported in the table as well. Finally, using the coefficient of variation as a guide, we provide an indicator of the reliability of each estimate. 3 When the coefficient of variation falls at or below 12%, the estimate is thought to be of high reliability. When the coefficient of variation falls above 40%, the estimate is thought to be of low reliability. When the coefficient of variation falls in between, the estimate is said to be of medium reliability. The level of reliability is indicated in the tables below by a green circle for high reliability, a yellow triangle for medium reliability, and a red diamond for low reliability. 2 The following 2000 PUMAs were aggregated to comprise the United Way Service Area: 2000, 2101, 2102, 2103, 2104, 2201, 2301, 2302, 2303, 2304, 2305, 2306, 2307, 2308, 2309, 2310, 2311, 2312, 2313, 2314, and For the 2012 report, the following 2010 PUMAs were aggregated: 900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2301, 2302, 2303, 2304, 2305, 2306, 2307, 2308, 2309, 2310, 2311, 2312, 2313, 2314, 2315, 2316, 2317, 2318, 2319, 2320, 2321, and For a complete discussion of the methodology, see National Research Council, Using the American Community Survey: Benefits and Challenges (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2007). P a g e 21

22 Table 33. Reliability Indicators for Percent of Persons in Poverty, Year Percent Reliability Table 34. Reliability Indicators for Number of Persons in Poverty, Year Reliability ,178 18, , , ,562 15, , , ,950 16, , , ,388 17, , , ,508 17, , , ,874 15, , , ,159 18, , , ,516 14, , , ,923 16, , , ,333 15, , , Table 35. Reliability Indicators for Percent of Persons in Poverty by Race/Ethnicity, 2014 Race / Ethnicity Percent Reliability Non-Hispanic White NH Black NH Asian NH Other Hispanic P a g e 22

23 Table 36. Reliability Indicators for Number of Persons in Poverty by Race/Ethnicity, 2014 Race / Ethnicity Reliability NH White 108,780 5, , , NH Black 148,322 6, , , NH Asian 32,524 3, , , NH Other 19,392 3, , , Hispanic 305,315 11, , , Table 37. Reliability Indicators for Percent of Persons in Poverty by Age Group, 2014 Age Group Percent Reliability Under to to and Up Table 38. Reliability Indicators for Number of Persons in Poverty by Age Group, 2014 Age Group Reliability Under 5 74,607 4, , , to ,593 6, , , to ,620 9, , , and Up 34,513 2, , , Table 39. Reliability Indicators for Percent of Persons in Poverty by Sex, 2014 Sex Percent Reliability Male Female Table 40. Reliability Indicators for Number of Persons in Poverty by Sex, 2014 Sex Reliability Male 272,165 8, , , Female 342,168 9, , , P a g e 23

24 Table 41. Reliability Indicators for Percent of Persons in Poverty by Household Type, 2014 Household Type Percent Reliability Married Couple Male-Headed, No Wife Female-Headed, No Husband Male-Headed, Non-Family Female-Headed, Non-Family Table 42. Reliability Indicators for Number of Persons in Poverty by Household Type, 2014 Household Type Reliability Married Couple 220,928 10, , , Male-Headed, No Wife 49,438 5, , , Female-Headed, No Husband 235,281 12, , , Male-Headed, Non-Family 49,395 2, , , Female-Headed, Non-Family 54,029 2, , , Table 43. Reliability Indicators for Percent of Persons in Poverty by Housing Structure Type, 2014 Structure Type Percent Reliability Mobile Home / Trailer Single Family - Detached Single Family - Attached Apartments - Less than Apartments - 10 to Apartments - 50 or More Other Table 44. Reliability Indicators for Number of Persons in Poverty by Housing Structure Type, 2014 Structure Type Reliability Mobile Home / Trailer 33,615 4, , , Single Family - Detached 270,907 11, , , Single Family - Attached 20,152 3, , , Apartments - Less than ,679 8, , , Apartments - 10 to ,901 7, , , Apartments - 50 or More 35,679 3, , , Other (56.54) P a g e 24

25 Table 45. Reliability Indicators for Percent of Persons in Poverty by Educational Attainment for the Population Age 25 and Up, 2014 Educational Attainment Percent Reliability No Formal Education Less Than High School Some High School, No Diploma High School Graduate Some College No Bachelor's Four-Year Degree Graduate Degree Table 46. Reliability Indicators for Number of Persons in Poverty by Educational Attainment for the Population Age 25 and Up, 2014 Educational Attainment Reliability No Formal Education 11,161 1, , , Less Than High School 47,924 2, , , Some High School, No Diploma 54,740 2, , , High School Graduate 84,229 3, , , Some College No Bachelor's 64,714 3, , , Four-Year Degree 24,421 2, , , Graduate Degree 12,280 1, , , Table 47. Reliability Indicators for Percent of Persons in Poverty by Citizenship Status, 2014 Citizenship Status Percent Reliability Non-Citizen Citizen Table 48. Reliability Indicators for Number of Persons in Poverty by Citizenship Status, 2014 Citizenship Status Reliability Non-Citizen 139,346 6, , , Citizen 474,987 12, , , P a g e 25

26 Table 49. Reliability Indicators for Percent of Persons in Poverty by Employment Status for the Civilian Population Age 16 and Up, 2014 Employment Status Percent Reliability Not in Labor Force Unemployed Employed Table 50. Reliability Indicators for Number of Persons in Poverty by Employment Status for the Civilian Population Age 16 and Up, 2014 Reliabilit Employment Status y Not in Labor Force 196,215 6, , , Unemployed 34,821 2, , , Employed 155,723 5, , , Statistical Significance of the s Recall that the ACS is a survey of a sample of the population. The PUMS data used to produce the estimates contained herein are a sample drawn from the ACS sample. For that reason, the estimates that were presented in this report were accompanied by a margin of error computed at the 95% level. Comparing each year to the previous year presents further complications. When we compute the change in the number of percent of persons living in poverty, we must treat that difference to the same cautious interpretation. The formula for the standard error of the difference between two years estimates is simply derived by taking the square root of the sum of each year s squared standard deviation. In that vein, we present the below tables detailing the margin of error and statistical significance of changes over time. For each change in either the number or percentage of persons or households, we provide the standard error of the difference as well as the lower and upper bounds of a 90% confidence interval. In addition, we graphically present the statistical significance of the change at the 0.10 α level. We depict statistically significant upward progress (fewer number of persons or percent poor) with a green upward-pointing arrow. Non-statistically significant change is presented with a yellow dash, while statistically significant negative change (higher number of persons or percent poor) is presented with a red downward-pointing arrow. P a g e 26

27 Table 51. Significance of Annual in Percent of Persons in Poverty, Year Percent Table 52. Significance of From Base Year in Percent of Persons in Poverty, Year Percent Table 53. Significance of Annual in Number of Persons in Poverty, Year ,285 24, , , ,643 23, , , ,407 21, , , ,410 22, , ,528.1 Table 54. Significance of From Base Year in Number of Persons in Poverty, Year ,285 24, , , ,642 21, , , ,049 22, , , ,459 22, , ,151.2 Table 55. Significance of in Percent of Persons in Poverty by Race/Ethnicity, Non-Hispanic White NH Black NH Asian NH Other Hispanic P a g e 27

28 Table 56. Significance of in Number of Persons in Poverty by Race/Ethnicity, Race / Ethnicity NH White -1,773 8, , , NH Black , , , NH Asian +13,218 4, , , NH Other +7,736 3, , , Hispanic +30,428 16, , , Table 57. Significance of in Percent of Persons in Poverty by Age Group, Age Group Percent Under to to and Up Table 58. Significance of in Number of Persons in Poverty by Age Group, Age Group Under 5 +1,393 5, , , to ,206 8, , , to ,294 13, , , and Up +9,566 2, , , Table 59. Significance of in Percent of Persons in Poverty by Sex, Sex Percent Male Female Table 60. Significance of in Number of Persons in Poverty by Sex, Sex Male +17,053 11, , , Female +33,406 13, , , P a g e 28

29 Table 61. Significance of in Percent of Persons in Poverty by Household Type, Household Type Percent Married Couple Male-Headed, No Wife Female-Headed, No Husband Male-Headed, Non-Family Female-Headed, Non-Family Table 62. Significance of in Number of Persons in Poverty by Household Type, Household Type Married Couple +4,614 15, , , Male-Headed, No Wife +3,849 7, , , Female-Headed, No Husband +22,794 16, , , Male-Headed, Non-Family +7,141 3, , Female-Headed, Non-Family +9,682 3, , , Table 63. Significance of in Percent of Persons in Poverty by Housing Structure Type, Structure Type Percent Mobile Home / Trailer Single Family - Detached Single Family - Attached Apartments - Less than Apartments - 10 to Apartments - 50 or More Other Table 64. Significance of in Number of Persons in Poverty by Housing Structure Type, Structure Type Mobile Home / Trailer +5,324 6, , , Single Family - Detached +11,444 16, , , Single Family - Attached , , , Apartments - Less than ,890 10, , , Apartments - 10 to 49 +1,740 10, , , Apartments - 50 or More +4,170 4, , , Other P a g e 29

30 Table 65. Significance of in Percent of Persons in Poverty by Educational Attainment for the Population Age 25 and Up, Educational Attainment Percent No Formal Education Less Than High School Some High School, No Diploma High School Graduate Some College No Bachelor's Four-Year Degree Graduate Degree Table 66. Significance of in Number of Persons in Poverty by Educational Attainment for the Population Age 25 and Up, Educational Attainment No Formal Education , , , Less Than High School +1,411 4, , , Some High School, No Diploma +3,069 4, , , High School Graduate +15,156 5, , , Some College No Bachelor's +13,703 4, , , Four-Year Degree +4,701 2, , Graduate Degree +5,168 1, , , Table 67. Significance of in Percent of Persons in Poverty by Citizenship Status, Citizenship Status Percent Non-Citizen Citizen Table 68. Significance of in Number of Persons in Poverty by Citizenship Status, Citizenship Status Non-Citizen +9,007 10, , , Citizen +41,452 17, , , Table 69. Significance of in Percent of Persons in Poverty by Employment Status, Employment Status Percent Not in Labor Force Unemployed Employed P a g e 30

31 Table 70. Significance of in Number of Persons in Poverty by Employment Status, Employment Status Not in Labor Force +27,335 8, , , Unemployed -17,006 3, , (10,737.07) Employed +26,538 8, , , Table 71. Significance of in Percent of Households in Poverty by Household Type, Household Type Percent Married Couple Male-Headed, No Wife Female-Headed, No Husband Male-Headed, Non-Family Female-Headed, Non-Family Table 72. Significance of in Number of Households in Poverty by Household Type, Household Type Married Couple +3,847 3, , , Male-Headed, No Wife , , , Female-Headed, No Husband +10,662 4, , , Male-Headed, Non-Family +6,729 2, , , Female-Headed, Non-Family +10,772 3, , , Table 73. Significance of in Percent of Households in Poverty by Housing Structure Type, Structure Type Percent Mobile Home / Trailer Single Family - Detached Single Family - Attached Apartments - Less than Apartments - 10 to Apartments - 50 or More Other P a g e 31

32 Table 74. Significance of in Number of Households in Poverty by Housing Structure Type, Structure Type Mobile Home / Trailer , , , Single Family - Detached +8,063 4, , , Single Family - Attached , , , Apartments - Less than ,817 3, , , Apartments - 10 to 49 +4,859 3, , Apartments - 50 or More +2,661 1, , Other Table 75. Significance of in Percent of Households in Poverty by Household Language, Household Language Percent English Only Spanish Other Indo-European Languages Asian and Pacific Islander Languages Other Languages Table 76. Significance of in Number of Households in Poverty by Household Language, Household Language English Only +8,553 4, , Spanish +13,269 4, , , Other Indo-European Languages +3,442 1, , , Asian and Pacific Islander Languages +4,291 1, , , Other Languages +2, , Table 77. Significance of in Percent of Households in Poverty by Family and Employment Status, Family & Employment Status Percent Married Couple - Both in LF Married Couple - One in LF Married Couple - Not in LF Male-Headed - in LF Male-Headed - Not in LF Female-Headed - In LF Female-Headed - Not in LF Significan t P a g e 32

33 Table 78. Significance of in Number of Households in Poverty by Family and Employment Status, Family & Employment Status Married Couple - Both in LF -3,539 1, , (569.97) Married Couple - One in LF +3,456 2, , , Married Couple - Not in LF +3,653 1, , , Male-Headed - In LF , , , Male-Headed - Not in LF , Female-Headed - In LF +10,694 3, , , Female-Headed - Not in LF -32 2, , , Table 79. Significance of in Percent of Households in Poverty by Grandparent Household Status, Grandparent Households Percent Non-Grandparent Headed Grandparent Headed Table 80. Significance of in Number of Households in Poverty by Grandparent Household Status, Grandparent Households Non-Grandparent Headed +29,871 6, , , Grandparent Headed +1, , Table 81. Significance of in Percent of Households in Poverty by Multigenerational Household Status, Multigenerational Status Percent Non-Multigenerational Multigenerational Table 82. Significance of in Number of Households in Poverty by Multigenerational Household Status, Multigenerational Status Non-Multigenerational -144,642 4, , , Multigenerational +176,197 4, , , P a g e 33

34 800 W. Campbell Road WT 20 Richardson, Texas Phone: Fax: Iupr.utdallas.edu