exercise 2 amanda powe (all combined)

8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)

1/30

1

CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007

Children Below Poverty Level by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1980-2007

Exercise #2 Problem Definition Paper: Secondary Data Tables

Amanda PoweSocial Work 300-01

J.L. McArthur

January 29, 2010


2/30

2


Abstract

This paper will take a look into the world of poverty in children. Children living below the poverty

level will be examined by race and origin. The problem when dealing with the subject of poverty is

finding out exactly how proportioned the matter is across the United States racially. The data table

used to research the different categories of race by percentage and number will identify a particular

race as the highest number of cases varying by year. The data table is provided by the U.S. Census

Bureau. The findings will be produced by analyzing the data table and considering the Census's

obstacles in collecting the data.


3/30

3


Problem Identification: The problem in identifying poverty levels in the United Statesbecomes the proportion of races. The level in the case of the data examined, is distributed

among a wide array of races, the numbers and percentages are solid when dealing with their

statistics. The current population in some ways supports individuals touched by poverty but in

some cases the data can be analyzed to examine the findings as a whole. The data contained in

the table looks at children an the problem derived from this data is that there is a significant

amount of Black children who live in poverty over other races.

Other issues exist when looking at the data table is that there is a significant jump for African

Americans and some other races during earlier years. African American

numbers are steady at other times as the table progresses by year. The problem will continue to

be looking a the variants in data and making sense of them. The problems posed by viewing the

table are embedded in reading the data and critically understanding how all the races compare

and contrast. The focus is African Americans and the distribution of data year by year is

fundamentally high across the table.

Problem Description: Because there are such high levels of poverty dealing with children inthe Black community, special attention must be paid to the statistics of this table. The poverty


4/30

4


Government Officials, politicians, non profit organizations, and the Black

community must find solutions to help these children and their families because

this problem can have a lasting effect on the population of Black living in the United

States. Many politicians have made promises to help the poor, numbers show that

there have only been slight changes as time goes on. Government has implemented

different subsidies, but there should be a special focus devoted to those who are

below the poverty level.

There should also be a discussion that will allow officials, communities, and

organizations to team up and help the nation of children that sit below poverty

level. It is evident that the members of this group are unable to acquire jobs or

even seek temporary employment that can assist them within their situations

because of their age. Attention needs to be paid and there are a number of

individuals who can support and fight to make life better for these children and

their parents of caretakers.


5/30

5


Findings: The data tables that will be used include, two U.S Census tables, a United Statespoverty measurement table, and a table developed by a website called Kidsdata.org. All of th

tables will be referenced and include data that is very important in researching the cause and

effect factors of children living below poverty level. The information included in the tables

come from reliable sources that are affiliated with the government or agencies that are credible.

The first chart that will be used was selected from the census data website and was is titled

Children Below Poverty Level by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1980 to 2007. This data table

takes a look at the the percentages and the number of children by race that are below the

poverty level. The next table used from the United States Census looks at the percentage of

people in poverty in the last 12 months by state. I found this table helpful because of the way in

which it worked with the previous table to prove that there is in fact an issue with the poverty

level in relation to children and their parents.

The data table that was developed by the NCCP.org website shows that there is a

the measurement of poverty does help in identifying the way in which children are

found to be below poverty level. The table uses figures such as state and number


6/30

6


relevant to the research that is being done. In order to look across the board at

different variables the variables have to be seen as important. I have found all the

variables that are being used as important and in order for poverty to be solved one

must develop a large amount of knowledge in each variable and event those that

may not be as evident

Magnitude: The data supplied by the Children Below Poverty Level by Raceand Hispanic Origin: 1980 to 2007, looks closely at the children that are

affected by living below poverty level identifies all races as participating. Blacks

are affected the most and had extremely high numbers from 1980 to 1997. The

numbers and percentagest started to work their way down after this but still

remained high.

Not only were these numbers high, they were the highest Whites

Hispanics, and Asians. The table shows that just as the numbers went

down for other races the same was true for Blacks but not at the same

magnitudes. In 2007 there was a 1.3 change in the data but the

question remains if the way in which these numbers are changing is


7/30

7


in which the data showed may show up different. There are no direct

indications on cost and how high these numbers could rise given the

current recession, but over the last ten years they have been proven

to be steady. Overall the magnitude of Black children affected by

living below poverty shows that there needs to be an implementation

of support directed to families and the economy as soon as possible.

Magnitude should be looked at through different tables and tables.

This table lets us know that a second look should be given to policy

and the black community as a whole. The data does not deny that

are large numbers of children who are not eating nor being supplied

the basic needs for their development. The Census data can also

develop a number of other problems because of the fact that it is

surveyed data.

Scope: In order to identify the scope of the issue of children living

below poverty level in the United States, I chose to use more census

data to look diligently into the problem. I viewed the the data table entitled


8/30


9/30

9


knowledge on calculations. The variables include persons in family

and an income standard.

The standards change and they are also certain guidelines that are

developed that include dividends, net worth, and property. In no way

should these variables be ignored but changes in the numbers over

may be dramatically affected if yearly they change. Changes made in

numbers were very small from 2007 to 2008 as viewed on the

Number and Percentage of People in Poverty in the last 12 month by

state and Puerto Rico 2007 and 2008.

In 2008 there was a average of a .1 percent change to a 1.4 percent

change in some areas. The way in which the data was compared

looked at both 2007 and 2008 to subtract and come up with the total

change. The percentages were very small and could possibly pose

some issues for children living below the poverty level and their

families.


10/30

10


solutions specifically.

Disparities: In terms of race the problem of living below povertyplagues the Black community. Yes, there are other races that are hit

by this issue, but the fact that there are such large numbers on the

data tables may make on think about the causes. The data table that has been

produced by kidsdata.org, recognizes that there is a need for

the problem.

The data collected used in this study does not look at people with

different disabilities or genders. Information contained in the table

does prove that there are a number of problems that will cause these

issues. The table recognizes that there are a number of areas in the

United States that have 0-11days missed from school because of

poverty. The issue then becomes how can one prevent these issues.

Without the proper amount of health care and access to the nutritious

food choices, there may be a growing disparity in the area of children


11/30

11


exist in the future. Race was found to be the number on problem that

the data compiled showed. Blacks are affected by poverty and even

more important children. The data used for this section shows the

ways in which the information can be used to make predictions for

these children and their families.


12/30

12


References

Bishaw, A., & Kenwick, T. J. (2009). Poverty:2007 and 2008. InAmerican Community Surveys (Sept.

2009, p. 4). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/acsbr08-1.pdf

Fass, S. (2009, April). Measuring Poverty in the United States Fact Sheet. National Center for Children

in Poverty p.1. http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_876.pdf

Impact of Special Health Care Needs on Children and Families [Fact Sheet]. (n.d.). Retrieved January

27, 2010, from Impact of Special Health Care Needs on Children and Families Kidsdata.org

Web site: http://www.kidsdata.org/cache/pdfs/Kidsdata-Overview_Impact-on-Children-and-

Families-(State-and-U.S.).pdf

US Census Bureau "Children Below Poverty Level by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1980 to 2007".

Retrieved January 27 2010.


13/30

13


APPENDIX


14/30

FA C T SH EE T

Measuring Poverty in the United StatesSarah Fass April 2009

Tis act sheet discusses how the U.S. government measures poverty,why the current measure is inadequate, and what alternative ways exist

to measure economic hardship.

Federal poverty guidelines, 2009

How does the U.S. measure poverty?

Te U.S. government measures

poverty by a narrow income stan-dard that does not include other

aspects o economic status, such

as material hardship (or example,

living in substandard housing) or

debt, nor does it consider nancial

assets (including savings or prop-

erty). Te ocial poverty measure

is a specic dollar amount that

varies by amily size but is the

same across the continental U.S.

According to the guidelines, the

poverty level in 2009 is $22,050

a year or a amily o our and

$18,310 or a amily o three (see

table).1

Te poverty guidelines are

used to determine eligibility or

public programs. A similar butmore complex measure is used or

calculating poverty rates.

Te current poverty measure was

established in the 1960s and is

now widely acknowledged to be

awed.2 It was based on research

indicating that amilies spent

about one-third o their incomes

on ood the ocial poverty level

was set by multiplying ood costs

by three. Since then, the gures

have been updated annually or

ination but have otherwise re-

mained unchanged.


15/30

Why is the current poverty measure inadequate?

Te current poverty measure isawed in two ways.

1)Te current poverty level that is, the specifc dollaramount is based on outdatedassumptions about amilyexpenditures.

Food now comprises only one-

seventh o an average amilys

expenses, while the costs o hous-

ing, child care, health care, and

transportation have grown dis-

proportionately. Tus, the poverty

level does not reect the true cost

o supporting a amily. In addi-tion, the current poverty measure

is a national standard that does

not adjust or the substantial

variation in the cost o living rom

state to state and between urban

and rural areas.

More accurate estimates o typicalamily expenses, and adjustments

or local costs, would produce

substantially higher dollar

amounts.

2) Te method used to deter-mine whether a amily is poor

does not accurately countamily resources.

When determining i a amily is

poor, income sources counted

include earnings, interest, divi-

dends, Social Security, and cash

assistance. But income is counted

beore subtracting payroll, in-come, and other taxes, overstat-

ing income or some amilies.

On the other hand, the ederal

Earned Income ax Credit isnt

counted either, underestimating

income or other amilies. Also,

in-kind government benets thatassist low-income amilies ood

stamps, Medicaid, and housing

and child care assistance are not

taken into account. Tis means

that ocial poverty statistics can-

not be used to analyze the efec-

tiveness o these programs.

Are there alternative ways to measure poverty?

Considerable research has been

conducted on better methods to

measure income poverty. In the

early 1990s, Congress asked the

National Academy o Sciences

(NAS) to investigate alterna-

tive measures. Te NAS panel o

experts issued a report in 1995

Adjust thresholds by region to

account or variation in the cost

o living.

When counting amilies

resources to determine whetherthey all below the poverty line:

use amilies post-tax income;

I the NAS recommendations

were adopted, millions more

people would be considered

ocially poor. But even these rec-

ommendations underestimate the

cost o amily expenses and thus

produce poverty thresholds well

below what it takes to make ends

M i P i h U i d S


16/30

Measuring Poverty in the United States

How much does it really take to make ends meet?

Given that the ederal povertylevel grossly understates how

much it takes to support a am-

ily, researchers have developed

budgets that realistically quantiy

basic living costs in specic locali-

ties.5 Building on earlier eforts,

NCCP has developed Basic Needs

Budgets that include only themost basic daily living expenses

and are based on modest assump-

tions about costs. For example,

the budgets in the table at right

assume that amily members have

employer-sponsored health cov-

erage, even though the majority

o low-wage workers do not have

employer coverage.6NCCPs Basic

Needs Budgets do not include

money to purchase lie or dis-

ability insurance or to create a

rainy-day und that would help

a amily withstand a job loss or

other nancial crisis. Nor do theyallow or investments in a am-

ilys uture nancial success, such

as savings to buy a home or or a

childs education. In short, these

budgets indicate what it takes or

a amily to cover their most basic

living expenses enough to get

by but not enough to get ahead.

Across the country, amilies typi-

In short, even i the ocial

poverty measure is revised along

the lines suggested by the NAS,

it would remain a measure o

deprivation and severe hardship.

In contrast, Basic Needs Budgets

provide a way to think about what

amilies need to maintain a mini-

mally decent standard o living.

Basic needs budgets for a family of four, in selected urban,suburban, and rural localities*

UrbAnnew Yok,

nY

UrbAnHousto,

TX

SUbUrbAnAuoa,

IL

rUrALDecatu

Couty, IA

Rent and utilities $15,816 $10,224 $11,328 $6,324

Food $7,878 $7,878 $7,878 $7,878

Child care $20,684 $15,422 $18,793 $11,682

Health insurance premiums $2,609 $2,834 $2,265 $2,436

Out-o-pocket medical $732 $732 $732 $732

Transportation $1,824 $4,808 $4,808 $6,288

Other necessities $6,397 $4,887 $5,185 $3,834

Payroll taxes $5,113 $3,873 $4,437 $3,270

Income taxes (includes credits) $5,787 -$34 $2,572 $304

TOTAL $66,840 $50,624 $57,998 $42,748

Percent of federal poverty level 315% 239% 274% 202%

*Assumes two-parent amily with one preschool-aged and one school-aged child.

Source: NCCPs Basic Needs Budget Calculator (available online at www.nccp.org/tools/budget).Results are based on the ollowing assumptions: children are in center-based care settings while theirparents work (the older child is in ater-school care); amily members have access to employer-basedhealth insurance; in New York amily relies on public transportation, in all other locations, costs refectprivate transportation.

basic needs budget Calculato

NCCPs basic needs budget Calculatoprovides access to budgets or nearly100 localities across 14 states, withmore states coming soon. Users select the

number o parents and number and ageso the amilys children. Budgets assumethat all amilies include at least one ull-time worker; or two-parent amilies, users

k h i b t th l t


17/30

Endnotes

1. Te ederal poverty guidelines areused or administrative purposes, suchas determining nancial eligibility orbenet programs. For statistical purposes,researchers use a diferent but quitesimilar version o the ederal povertymeasure, the ederal poverty thresholds,issued by the U.S. Census Bureau. Boththe guidelines and the thresholds are

commonly reerred to as the ederal

poverty level (FPL).2. Cauthen, Nancy K. 2007. estimony onMeasuring Poverty in America. esti-mony beore the House Subcommitteeon Income Security and Family Support,Committee on Ways and Means. Aug. 1,2007. Available at www.nccp.org/publi-cations/pub_752.html.

3. Betson, David M.; Citro, Constance

F.; Michael, Robert . 2000. Recent De-velopments or Poverty Measurement inU.S. Ocial Statistics.Journal o OfcialStatistics 16(2): 87-111.

4. Bernstein, Jared. 2007.More Povertythan Meets the Eye (Economic Snap-shots, April 11, 2007). Washington, DC:Economic Policy Institute. Accessed April23, 2007 at .

5. Tese eforts include Sel-SuciencyStandards developed by Diana Pearce orWider Opportunities or Women and theEconomic Policy Institutes Basic Family

Budgets.

6. Only 59 percent o all workers have ac-cess to employer-sponsored health cover-age; the proportion is much lower amonglow-wage workers. Krugman, Paul. 2007.Te Conscience o a Liberal. New York,NY: W.W. Norton& Co.

7. Dinan, Kinsey Alden. 2009. Budgetingor Basic Needs: A Struggle or Working

Families. New York, NY: National Centeror Children in Poverty, Columbia Uni-versity, Mailman School o Public Health.

NCCP wishes to give special acknowledgement to Nancy K. Cauthen, PhD,principal author of the original iteration of this fact sheet.


18/30

American Community Survey Reports

Poverty: 2007 and 2008

American Community Surveys

Introduction

This report is one o a series produced

to highlight results rom the 2008

American Community Survey (ACS),ocusing on changes between the 2007

ACS and the 2008 ACS. The report

series is designed to cover a variety o

economic topics, such as poverty, occu-

pation, home values, and labor orce

participation. This series provides inor-

mation about the changing economic

characteristics o the nation and states,

the District o Columbia, and PuertoRico. The ACS also provides detailed

estimates o demographic, social,

economic, and housing characteristics

or congressional districts, counties,

places, and other localities every year.

A description o the ACS is provided

in the text box What Is the American

Community Survey?

This report provides comparisons at

the national and state levels or poverty

during the 2007 to 2008 time period.

Such comparisons should be interpreted

with caution. Since adjacent ACS years

have income reerence months in com-

mon, comparing the 2008 ACS with

the 2007 ACS estimates is not an exact

comparison o the economic conditions

in 2008 with those in 2007.1

Issued September 2009

ACSBR/08-1

By

Alemayehu Bishaw

and Trudi J. RenwickWhat Is the AmericanCommunity Survey?

The American Community Survey (ACS)

is a nationwide survey designed to

provide communities with reliable and

timely demographic, social, economic,

and housing data every year. It has an

annual sample size o about 3 million

addresses across the United States and

Puerto Rico and includes both housing

units and group quarters. The ACS is

conducted in every county throughoutthe nation and every municipio in Puerto

Rico, where it is called the Puerto Rico

Community Survey.

Beginning in 2006, ACS data or 2005

were released or geographic areas with

populations o 65,000 and greater. In

2008, the rst set o multiyear estimates

was released or data collected betweenJanuary 2005 and December 2007.

These 3-year estimates were published

or geographic areas with populations

o 20,000 and greater. The U.S. Census

Bureau is planning to release the rst

5-year estimates in late 2010 or the

smallest geographic areas based on data

collected between January 2005 and

December 2009.

The data contained in this report are

based on the ACS sample interviewed in


19/30

The data contained in this reportare based on ACS samples that

were selected or interview in

2007 and 2008 and are estimates

o the actual gures that could

have been obtained by interview-

ing the entire population using

the same methodology. All com-

parisons presented in this report

have taken sampling error into

account and are signicant at the

90 percent condence level unless

Poverty

The 2008 ACS data show that an

estimated 13.2 percent o the U.S.

population had income below the

poverty threshold in the past 12

months. This is 0.2 percentage

points higher than the 13.0 percent

poverty rate estimated or 2007.

The estimated number o people inpoverty increased by 1.1 million to

39.1 million in 2008.

amily and every individual in itare considered to be in poverty.

Poverty status is determined or all

people except unrelated children

under 15 and individuals living in

institutions, military group quar-

ters, and college dormitories.2

The table shows the number and

percentage o people in poverty bystate or the 2007 ACS and 2008

ACS. The map displays the varia-

tion in poverty rates by state or

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008; and Puerto Rico Community Survey, 2008.

* DC is represented at 4.5 times the scale of other continental states.

MT

AK

NM

ORMN

KS

SD

ND

MO

WA

FL

IL IN

WI NY

PA

MI

OH

IA

ME

MA

CT

AZ

NV

TX

COCA

WY

UT

ID

NE

OK

GA

AR

AL

NC

MS

LA

TN

KY

VA

SC

WV

RI

DE

MD

NJ

HI

VTNH

PR

DC*

United States =13.2 percent

16.0 or more

11.0 to 12.9

Less than 11.0

13.0 to 15.9

Percentage of People in Poverty in the Past 12 Months byState and Puerto Rico: 2008

Percentage ofpeople living belowpoverty level


20/30

New Hampshire to a high o 21.2

percent in Mississippi.3

Seven states (Caliornia,

Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii,

Indiana, Oregon, and Pennsylvania)had increases in the number

and percentage o people in

poverty between 2007 and 2008.

In Michigan, the poverty rate

increased, but the number o

people in poverty did not show

a signicant change. In Arizona,

Georgia, and South Carolina, the

number o people in poverty

increased, but the rate was

statistically unchanged. In Alabama,

both the number and percentage

o people in poverty went down. In

Louisiana and Texas, there was a

decline in the poverty rate but no

signicant change in the number o

people in poverty. All the remainingstates and the District o Columbia

had 2008 estimates o poverty

3 New Hampshires 2008 ACS povertyrate was not statistically dierent rom thepoverty rates or Maryland (8.1 percent) andAlaska (8.4 percent).

rates and the number o people in

poverty that were not statistically

dierent rom the 2007 estimates.

These poverty statistics only

partially reect the impact o thecurrent economic downturn on

2008 personal income. According

to the National Bureau o Economic

Research, the recession began

in December 2007.4 The income

reported in the 2008 ACS spans the

period rom January 2007 through

November 2008, which includes

the months in 2007 beore the

ofcial start o the recession.5

4 The Business Cycle Dating Committeeo the National Bureau o Economic Researchdetermined that a peak in economic activityoccurred in the U.S. economy in December2007. The peak marks the end o the expan-sion that began in November 2001 and the

beginning o a recession.

5 Between January and December 2008,people 15 years and older were asked aboutincome or the previous 12-month period.For example, income data collected in January2008 reerred to the period rom January2007 to December 2007, while data collectedin December 2008 reerred to the periodDecember 2007 to November 2008.

The Census Bureau also publishes

poverty estimates based on the

Current Population Survey Annual

Social and Economic Supplement

(CPS ASEC).6 Following the

standard specied by the Ofce

o Management and Budget (OMB)

in Statistical Policy Directive 14,

data rom the CPS ASEC are used

to estimate the ofcial national

poverty rate, which can be ound

in the report Income, Poverty, and

Health Insurance Coverage in the

United States: 2008, available at.

6 For inormation on poverty estimatesrom the ACS and how they dier rom thosebased on the CPS ASEC, see DierencesBetween the Income and Poverty EstimatesFrom the American Community Surveyand the Annual Social and Economic

Supplement to the Current Population Surveyat .


21/30

Number and Percentage of People in Poverty in the Past 12 Months by State and PuertoRico: 2007 and 2008

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/ACS

/accuracy2008.pdf)

State

Below poverty in 2007 Below poverty in 2008

Change in poverty

(2008 less 2007)

Number1

Margin

of

error2

()

Per-

centage1

Margin

of

error2

() Number1

Margin

of

error2

()

Per-

centage1

Margin

of

error2

() Number1

Margin

of

error2

()

Per-

centage1

Margin

of

error2

()

United States . . . 38,052,247 222,964 13.0 0.1

39,108,422 249,680 13.2 0.1 *1,056,175

334,744 *0.2 0.1

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759,835 22,998 16.9 0.5 712,835 22,418 15.7 0.5 *47,000 32,117 *1.2 0.7Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,625 5,440 8.9 0.8 56,396 5,471 8.4 0.8 3,229 7,715 0.5 1.2Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881,257 31,475 14.2 0.5 938,924 27,514 14.7 0.4 *57,667 41,804 0.5 0.7Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492,052 16,318 17.9 0.6 480,551 18,818 17.3 0.7 11,501 24,909 0.6 0.9

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,433,014 63,400 12.4 0.2 4,778,118 75,892 13.3 0.2 *345,104 98,889 *0.9 0.3Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569,386 19,957 12.0 0.4 552,889 22,387 11.4 0.5 16,497 29,992 0.6 0.6Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . 268,880 12,898 7.9 0.4 314,806 14,745 9.3 0.4 *45,926 19,590 *1.4 0.6Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87,956 7,512 10.5 0.9 85,094 7,055 10.0 0.8 2,862 10,306 0.5 1.2District of Columbia . . . . . . 91,934 7,937 16.4 1.4 96,769 7,324 17.2 1.3 4,835 10,799 0.8 1.9Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,158,832 38,730 12.1 0.2 2,370,808 41,243 13.2 0.2 *211,976 56,578 *1.1 0.3

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,323,828 31,219 14.3 0.3 1,380,842 31,340 14.7 0.3 *57,014 44,236 0.4 0.5Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,051 6,916 8.0 0.5 115,131 8,921 9.1 0.7 *15,080 11,288 *1.1 0.9Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177,806 9,436 12.1 0.6 187,805 12,824 12.6 0.9 9,999 15,922 0.5 1.1Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,496,248 34,817 11.9 0.3 1,532,238 26,674 12.2 0.2 35,990 43,861 0.3 0.3Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757,813 19,999 12.3 0.3 807,506 21,723 13.1 0.4 *49,693 29,528 *0.8 0.5Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317,946 14,131 11.0 0.5 334,919 13,360 11.5 0.5 16,973 19,447 0.5 0.7Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,210 13,334 11.2 0.5 307,478 12,785 11.3 0.5 7,268 18,473 0.1 0.7

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714,080 22,283 17.3 0.5 720,586 21,372 17.3 0.5 6,506 30,875 0.7Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 775,425 20,200 18.6 0.5 744,218 23,972 17.3 0.6 31,207 31,349 *1.3 0.7Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154,224 8,137 12.0 0.6 157,553 8,278 12.3 0.6 3,329 11,607 0.3 0.9

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453,699 20,647 8.3 0.4 442,994 15,596 8.1 0.3 10,705 25,876 0.2 0.5Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . . 621,286 20,753 9.9 0.3 626,670 19,668 10.0 0.3 5,384 28,592 0.1 0.5Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,376,658 27,786 14.0 0.3 1,410,276 24,724 14.4 0.3 33,618 37,193 *0.4 0.4Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481,947 15,332 9.5 0.3 490,911 14,694 9.6 0.3 8,964 21,237 0.1 0.4Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581,534 18,361 20.6 0.7 601,617 24,259 21.2 0.9 20,083 30,424 0.6 1.1Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742,486 20,360 13.0 0.4 768,092 18,921 13.4 0.3 25,606 27,794 0.4 0.5Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131,790 7,822 14.1 0.8 139,707 8,881 14.8 0.9 7,917 11,834 0.7 1.3Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192,822 8,554 11.2 0.5 186,727 9,256 10.8 0.5 6,095 12,602 0.4 0.7Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269,953 16,905 10.7 0.7 290,197 15,922 11.3 0.6 20,244 23,222 0.6 0.9New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . 90,204 7,516 7.1 0.6 97,158 7,932 7.6 0.6 6,954 10,928 0.5 0.9

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . 729,211 23,123 8.6 0.3 741,472 23,119 8.7 0.3 12,261 32,698 0.1 0.4New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . 349,159 15,809 18.1 0.8 332,769 14,316 17.1 0.7 16,390 21,327 1.0 1.1New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,570,014 41,542 13.7 0.2 2,581,491 39,884 13.6 0.2 11,477 57,588 0.1 0.3North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 1,258,988 29,318 14.3 0.3 1,301,929 34,042 14.6 0.4 42,941 44,927 0.3 0.5North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 74,035 5,225 12.1 0.9 73,622 5,620 12.0 0.9 413 7,674 0.1 1.3Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,464,133 29,352 13.1 0.3 1,492,154 29,624 13.4 0.3 28,021 41,702 0.3 0.4Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557,030 16,561 15.9 0.5 561,666 18,584 15.9 0.5 4,636 24,892 0.7Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474,189 18,770 12.9 0.5 506,145 17,700 13.6 0.5 *31,956 25,800 *0.7 0.7Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . 1,393,026 32,592 11.6 0.3 1,458,394 26,463 12.1 0.2 *65,368 41,982 *0.5 0.3Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . 122,128 9,249 12.0 0.9 118,556 8,064 11.7 0.8 3,572 12,270 0.3 1.2

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 641,758 19,916 15.0 0.5 679,584 21,508 15.7 0.5 *37,826 29,314 0.7 0.7South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 100,699 5,842 13.1 0.8 96,490 6,997 12.5 0.9 4,209 9,115 0.6 1.2Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953,865 28,631 15.9 0.5 938,077 26,905 15.5 0.4 15,788 39,289 0.4 0.7

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,791,183 49,333 16.3 0.2 3,760,431 54,049 15.8 0.2 30,752 73,179 *0.5 0.3Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251,084 13,213 9.7 0.5 257,649 13,167 9.6 0.5 6,565 18,653 0.1 0.7Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,589 5,292 10.1 0.9 63,288 5,151 10.6 0.9 2,699 7,384 0.5 1.2Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742,680 23,107 9.9 0.3 768,031 24,701 10.2 0.3 2,5351 33,824 0.3 0.4Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . 725,172 19,934 11.4 0.3 728,323 21,530 11.3 0.3 3,151 29,342 0.1 0.5West Virginia 298 172 11 487 16 9 0 6 300 670 13 037 17 0 0 7 2 498 17 376 0 1 1 0


22/30

Impact of Special Health Care Needs onChildren and FamiliesAn overview from kidsdata.org

Note: This PDF provides a summary of this topic. For more data on this and other topics, visit www.kidsdata.org.

Severity of Conditions Among Children with Special Health Care Needs: 2005-2006

United States: Percent

California: Percent
http://www.kidsdata.org/


23/30

Effect on Daily Activities Among Children with Special Health Care Needs: 2005-

2006

Definition: Percentage of children ages 0-17 with special health care needs, by the severity of the difficulties

caused by the child's health conditions.

Data Source: Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. National Survey of Children with Special

Health Care Needs, Data Resource Center. http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx Retrieved 11/05/2008.

Footnote: Children with special health care needs are those who have or are at increased risk for a chronic

physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a

type or amount beyond that required by children generally. Percentages are weighted to population

characteristics.

http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx


24/30

Emotional or Behavioral Difficulties Among Children with Special Health Care

Needs: 2005-2006

Definition: Percentage of children ages 0-17 with special health care needs, by how much their condition affects

their daily activities.






characteristics.



25/30

Limitations on Activities Among Children with Special Health Care Needs: 2005-

2006

Definition: Percentage of children ages 0-17 with special health care needs who have one or more of the

following emotional or behavioral difficulties: anxiety or depression; behavior problems such as acting out or

bullying; making and keeping friends.

Data Source: Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. National Survey of Children with SpecialHealth Care Needs, Data Resource Center. http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx Retrieved 11/05/2008.




characteristics.

United States Percent

No Difficulties Involving

Activities50.7%

One or More Difficulties

Involving Activities49.3%

Cali fornia Percent

No Difficulties Involving


26/30

School Days Missed Among Children w ith Special Health Care Needs: 2000-2001 -

2005-2006

Family Time Spent on Health Care for Children w ith Special Health Care Needs:

2005-2006

Definition: Percentage of children ages 0-17 with special health care needs, by number of school days missed

due to illness during the past 12 months.



Footnote: Children with special health care needs are those who have or are at increased risk for a chronicphysical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a


characteristics.

United States

Number of School Days Missed

Due to Illness2000-2001 2005-2006

0-3 Days Per Year 50.7% 51.7%

4-6 Days 20.3% 21.3%

7-10 Days 13.2% 12.6%

11 Days or More 15.8% 14.3%

California

Number of School Days Missed

Due to Illness2000-2001 2005-2006

0-3 Days Per Year 49.8% 53.5%

4-6 Days 18.8% 19.8%

7-10 Days 15.1% 11.3%

11 Days or More 16.2% 15.4%



27/30

D fi iti P t f hild 0 17 ith i l h lth d b b f h k

California: Percent


28/30

D fi iti P t f f ili f hild 0 17 ith i l h lth d b ff t f hild' h lth

California: Percent


29/30

More Data: www.kidsdata.org

This PDF Overview:http://www.kidsdata.org/pdf/default.aspx?ind=87

More Data Summaries: www.kidsdata.org/factsheets.aspx

Sign Up for Data Updates: www.kidsdata.org/signup.aspx

This PDF was generated on: Jan 29, 2010

Kidsdata.org is a program of the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health

www.lpfch.org - (650) 724-5778

generally. On kidsdata.org, indicators related to children with special health care needs include data on demographic

characteristics, the impact of chronic conditions on children's functioning, and access to health care and other services.

These data come from the National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs, and are available only at the state

and national level. The survey is conducted through telephone interviews with parents of children with special health care

needs.

Why This Topic Is Important

Chronic conditions can affect a child's ability to function and participate in activities important to his or her development.

In some cases, these conditions even can shorten a child's life. While some chronic conditions of childhood have

decreased since 1960, due to advances in medicine and better prevention efforts, the overall occurrence of chronic

conditions among children has grown in the U.S., with significant increases in asthma, attention-deficit/hyperactivity

disorder (ADD/ADHD), diabetes, and depression. (2) Medical advances also have enhanced survival rates for children with

severe conditions, dramatically increasing the likelihood that disabled children will survive to adulthood, and changing the

focus of their care from survival to improving the quality of life. (3) Children with special health care needs comprise 15-

18% of U.S. children, and account for 80% of medical expenditures on children. (4) Some studies have shown that chronicillnesses and conditions are more prevalent among low-income children and children of color. (5)

How Children Are Faring

In 2006, 12.1% of children with special health care needs in California had no functional difficulties (e.g. difficulty seeing,

hearing, breathing, moving around, self-care, learning, paying attention, or making friends) caused by their health

condition; 44.3% had minor difficulties; 36.0% had moderate difficulties; and 7.6% had severe difficulties. However, daily

activities, for most children with special health care needs were affected by their condition, with 41.5% having those daily

activities moderately affected and 23.6% severely affected. For just over one-third of these children (34.8%), daily

activities were not affected by their condition. About half (53.5%) of the children missed 0-3 days of school in the previous

12-month period; 19.8% missed 4-6 days; 11.3% missed 7-10 days; and 15.4% missed 11 days or more.

Impact of Conditions on Family: In 2006, 52.2% of children with special health care needs in California had family members

who spent more than one hour per week coordinating and/or providing care for the child, with 9.1% spending 11 or more

hours per week coordinating and/or providing care. About one in four of these children, in California and the U.S, had a

parent who cut back or stopped working due to the child's health needs.

Table 696. Children Below Poverty Level by Race and Hispanic Origin:1980 to 2007

[11 114 t 11 114 000 P f M h f th f ll i C l l t d hild i f ili d 18
http://www.kidsdata.org/pdf/default.aspx?ind=87


30/30

[11,114 represents 11,114,000. Persons as of March of the following year. Covers only related children in families under 18 yearsold. Based on Current Population Survey; see text, this section and Section 1, and Appendix III. For data collection changes overtime, see ]

Year

Number below poverty level (1,000) Percent below poverty level

Allraces 1 White 2 Black 3

Asianand

PacificIslander 4

His-panic 5

Allraces 1 White 2 Black 3

Asianand

PacificIslander 4

His-panic 5

1980 . . . . . 11,114 6,817 3,906 (NA) 1,718 17.9 13.4 42.1 (NA) 33.01985 . . . . . 12,483 7,838 4,057 (NA) 2,512 20.1 15.6 43.1 (NA) 39.61988 . . . . . 11,935 7,095 4,148 458 2,576 19.0 14.0 42.8 23.5 37.31989 . . . . . 12,001 7,164 4,257 368 2,496 19.0 14.1 43.2 18.9 35.5

1990 . . . . . 12,715 7,696 4,412 356 2,750 19.9 15.1 44.2 17.0 37.71991 . . . . . 13,658 8,316 4,637 348 2,977 21.1 16.1 45.6 17.1 39.81992 6 . . . . 14,521 8,752 5,015 352 3,440 21.6 16.5 46.3 16.0 39.01993 7 . . . . 14,961 9,123 5,030 358 3,666 22.0 17.0 45.9 17.6 39.91994 . . . . . 14,610 8,826 4,787 308 3,956 21.2 16.3 43.3 17.9 41.1

1995 . . . . . 13,999 8,474 4,644 532 3,938 20.2 15.5 41.5 18.6 39.31996 . . . . . 13,764 8,488 4,411 553 4,090 19.8 15.5 39.5 19.1 39.91997 . . . . . 13,422 8,441 4,116 608 3,865 19.2 15.4 36.8 19.9 36.41998 . . . . . 12,845 7,935 4,073 542 3,670 18.3 14.4 36.4 17.5 33.61999 8 . . . . 11,678 7,194 3,698 367 3,561 16.6 13.1 32.8 11.5 29.9

2000 9 . . . . 11,005 6,834 3,495 407 3,342 15.6 12.4 30.9 12.5 27.6

2001 . . . . . 11,175 7,086 3,423 353 3,433 15.8 12.8 30.0 11.1 27.42002 10 . . . 11,646 7,203 3,570 302 3,653 16.3 13.1 32.1 11.4 28.22003 . . . . . 12,340 7,624 3,750 331 3,982 17.2 13.9 33.6 12.1 29.52004 11 . . . 12,473 7,876 3,702 265 3,985 17.3 14.3 33.4 9.4 28.6

2005 . . . . . 12,335 7,652 3,743 312 3,977 17.1 13.9 34.2 11.0 27.72006 . . . . . 12,299 7,522 3,690 351 3,959 16.9 13.6 33.0 12.0 26.62007 . . . . . 12,802 8,002 3,838 345 4,348 17.6 14.4 34.3 11.8 28.3

NA Not available. 1 Includes other races not shown separately. 2 Beginning 2002, data represent White alone, whichrefers to people who reported White and did not report any other race category. 3 Beginning 2002, data represent Black alone,

which refers to people who reported Black and did not report any other race category.4

Beginning 2002, data represent Asianalone, which refers to people who reported Asian and did not report any other race category. 5 People of Hispanic origin maybe any race. 6 Implementation of 1990 census population controls. 7 The March 1994 income supplement was revised to allowfor the coding of different income amounts on selected questionnaire items. Limits either increased or decreased in the followingcategories: earnings increased to $999,999; social security increased to $49,999; supplemental security income and publicassistance increased to $24,999; veterans benefits increased to $99,999; child support and alimony decreased to $49,999.8 Implementation of Census 2000-based population controls. 9 Implementation of sample expansion to 28,000 households.10 Beginning with the 2003 Current Population Survey (CPS), the questionnaire allowed respondents to choose more than onerace. For 2002 and later, data represent persons who selected this race group only and excludes persons reporting more than onerace. The CPS in prior years allowed respondents to report only one race group. See also comments on race in the text for Section

1.

11

Data have been revised to reflect a correction to the weights in the 2005 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).Source: U.S. Census Bureau,Current PopulationReports, P60-235 (published August 2008). See also and .

exercise 2 amanda powe (all combined)

Documents