Research Office A State Affiliate of the U.S. Census Bureau The Ohio Poverty Report February 2019 Inside front cover THE OHIO POVERTY REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Don Larrick, Principal Analyst Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency P.O. Box 1001, Columbus, Oh. 43216-1001 Production Support: Steven Kelley, Editor Robert Schmidley, GIS Specialist TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction and Executive Summary 1 Introduction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 Executive Summary 3 Ohio’s Poverty Rate History, with Comparisons to the U.S. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 Poverty Rate Trends Among Individuals 7 Poverty Rate Trends Among Families- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 The Relation of Ohio’s Poverty Rate with Selected Economic Variables The Geographic Distribution of Poverty in Ohio - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 13 Counties 2013-2017 15 Annual SAIPE Estimates for Counties - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17 Other Types of Areas 2013-2017 19 The Poor and the Near Poor: County Variations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21 The Poor and the Near Poor: Variations by Area Types 23 The Circumstances of Poverty: Variations and Trends in Ohio - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25 Employment Status, Family Type and the Working-Age Cohort 27 Employment Status, Married Couples and the Working-Age Cohort - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Household Type and the Presence of Related Children 31 Cash Public Assistance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 33 Educational Attainment 35 Age Groups, Overall- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 37 Age Groups, Sex and Minority Status 39 Race and Hispanic Details - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 41 The Distributions of Majority and Minority Populations and Poverty 43 Appendices - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 45 Defining and Measuring Poverty 46 Alternative Measures of Poverty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 48 Detailed Tables 51 Table A1: Table A2: Table A3: Table A4: Table A5a: Table A5b: Table A6: Table A7a: Table A7b: 52 53 54 55 58 62 65 68 71 Number and Percent of Poor Persons in Ohio and the U.S., 1959, 1969-2017 Number and Percent of Poor Families in Ohio and the U.S., 1959, 1969-2017 Poverty and Unemployment Rates and Per Capita Income in Ohio, 1998-2017 Number and Percentage of Poor Persons by Ohio County for Selected Years Annual SAIPE Percentages of Persons in Poverty by Ohio County, 2002-2017 Annual SAIPE Numbers of Persons in Poverty by Ohio County, 2007-2017 Number and Percentage of Poor Persons in Selected Ohio Areas for Selected Years Ratio of Income to Poverty Level for Persons by Ohio County, 2013-2017 Ratio of Income to Poverty Level for Persons in Selected Ohio Areas, 2013-2017 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Table A8a: Table A8b: Table A9: Table A10: Table A11: Table A12a: Table A12b: Table A12c: Table A13a: Table A13b: Page Poverty in Ohio by Family Type and Work Experience for Selected Years Poverty in Ohio by Family Type and Work Experience for 2016-2017 Poverty in Ohio by Household Type and Presence of Related Children for Selected Years Cash Public Assistance in Ohio by Poverty Status and Family Type for Selected Years Poverty in Ohio by Educational Attainment for Selected Years (Persons Age 25-Plus) Poverty in Ohio by Age Group for Selected Years Individual and Family Characteristics of Ohioans by Age Group, 2017 Poverty in Ohio by Age, Sex and Majority/Minority Status, 2016-2017 Poverty in Ohio by Race and Hispanic Status for Selected Years Number and Percent of Ohio Poor by Majority/Minority Status and Area Type, 2016-2017 Notes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sources and References Cited 74 78 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 94 iii INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION This report provides a general description of trends and variations in poverty in Ohio. Four sections follow this introduction and executive summary. The first shows how poverty rates in Ohio have changed over time, and compares them with rates for the nation. Comparisons and variations with contemporary unemployment rates and inflation-adjusted per capita income are discussed. The second notes variation between counties and other kinds of geographic areas. The third shows variations and trends in poverty rates by social circumstances and personal characteristics such as employment history, public assistance, education, household and family type, age, race, sex and Hispanic status. The fourth has detailed tables and discussions about measuring poverty. The graphs and many of the discussions herein are based on, and refer to, the detailed tables. Statistics used in this report come from the U.S. Census Bureau – specifically the 2000 decennial census, the Current Population Survey, the American Community Survey (the successor to the 2000 Census long form social and economic survey questions), and the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates program. Other sources include the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services’ Labor Market Information division for annual unemployment rates, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis for per capita income, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for consumer price index data. Clients of the Ohio Development Service Agency’s Research Office frequently request detailed and current information about poverty and the near poor in Ohio. Clients include governmental organizations such as the Departments of Aging, Health, Job and Family Services, Youth Services, other agencies in Development, the Legislative Services Commission and local governments as well as private sector advocacy organizations and the general public. All of them desire information regarding eligibility for programs such as Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance, and Head Start, among others, and Census Bureau data on poverty and the near poor help answer their questions. This report covers changes from 1959 through 2017, although the more in-depth sections focus on 1999 and selected later years. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The latest annual data show: o An estimated 1,583,000 people in Ohio were poor – that was 14.0 percent of all persons for whom poverty status was determined, and a poverty rate slightly greater than the national rate of 13.4 percent. o An estimated 290,000, or 9.8 percent, of Ohio families were poor; the corresponding U.S. rate was 9.5 percent (family poverty rates are lower because family members share resources, and not all persons are in families). • The latest American Community Survey data for sub-state areas show: o 47 of Ohio’s 88 counties had poverty rates below the national average of 14.6 percent; 41 were above the average (averages based on the 2013-2017 five-year dataset). o 17.2 percent of the people in Appalachian Ohio, a band of 32 counties stretching across the eastern and southern regions of the state, were poor; the poverty rate for the rest of Ohio averaged 14.4 percent (five-year averages). o Delaware, Warren, Medina and Geauga had the lowest poverty rates, ranging from 5.1 to 6.5 percent – all are suburban metropolitan area counties; Athens, Scioto, Adams and Meigs had the highest poverty rates, ranging from 30.2 to 22.5 percent – all are Appalachian (five-year averages). o 16.2 percent of the people in urban places (densely populated areas of 2,500 or more) were poor, compared with 10.3 percent in rural areas (farms and smaller places); within urban areas, 26.3 percent of those living in the central or principal cites of metropolitan areas were poor, while 10.3 percent of residents of other urban areas were poor (five-year averages of area-type summaries.) o 13 cities, including seven metropolitan area central cities and four small college towns, had poverty rates at or above Ohio’s metropolitan-area-central-city average of 26.3 percent (five-year averages). • Poverty rates for families and individuals in Ohio during 2016-2017 vary by circumstances and characteristics: o Married couples with a full-time/year-round worker had poverty rates of 4.0 percent or less (under 2.0 if the other worked) compared with poverty rates over 9.0 percent among couples lacking a full-time/year-round worker. o Other families headed by a full-time/year-round worker had poverty rates between four and 12 percent, while those without one had poverty rates greater than 29 percent. 3 o Families with related children had poverty rates ranging from 5.7 percent among married couples to 39.7 percent for those headed by a female single-parent; the corresponding poverty rates for families without children ranged from 2.9 percent to 10.4 percent; male single-parent families had poverty rates between the corresponding endpoints. o 24.7 percent of poor families received cash public assistance, compared with 6.3 percent of families not in poverty; however, such payments seldom boost families out of poverty. o Only 3.8 percent of adults with at least bachelor’s degrees were poor, while 27.3 percent of those who did not graduate from high school were poor; 13.4 percent of those with just a high school diploma or GED were poor, and 10.0 percent of those with some college or an associate’s degree were poor. o Children ages 0 to 11 years and young adults ages 18 to 24 years had poverty rates exceeding 20 percent; other working-age adults had poverty rates between 10 and 15 percent. o About 7.6 percent of people ages 65 years and older were poor, but between 43 and 62 percent would have been poor without either pensions or social security or both. o 10.7 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 14.3 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders were poor; poverty rates for other races and Hispanics (who may be of any race) ranged between 26 and 29 percent. o 64.7 percent of minority poverty was located in the central or principal cities of metropolitan areas, while 52.6 percent of non-Hispanic poor whites lived in other urban places. o Women ages 18 to 34 years have much higher poverty rates than men of comparable ages; the difference essentially disappears in late middle age (55 to 64 years), only to reappear in old age (65 years and over). • An alternative poverty measure estimated Ohio’s poverty rate at 11.4 percent for the 2015-2017 period after adjusting for clothing, shelter, utilities and out-of-pocket medical expenses, living arrangements, regional cost-of-living variations, and non-cash and tax benefits; this is less than Ohio’s official rate of 13.4 percent as well as lower than the corresponding alternative and official national rates for the same period. 4 POVERTY RATE HISTORY, WITH COMPARISONS TO THE U.S. 5 Percentage of Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined That Were in Poverty, Ohio and the U.S.: 1959-2017 25.0 22.1 20.0 16.4 15.8 16.3 16.0 15.8 15.2 15.0 15.9 15.9 15.3 Percent Poor 13.7 13.1 12.4 12.4 12.4 13.1 12.7 13.0 11.3 11.9 10.0 10.6 10.3 13.3 13.3 13.1 13.4 15.8 14.8 14.6 15.5 14.0 14.7 14.3 14.0 13.4 13.0 13.2 12.5 12.3 10.0 13.3 15.9 12.1 10.8 5.0 0.0 59^ 69^ Source: U.S. Census Bureau 79^ 89^ 99^ Ohio 00* 01-2 02-3 03-4 04-5 05-6 06-7 07-8 08-9 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 U.S. 6 Notes: * - CPS; ^ - decennial census; hyphenated - ACS POVERTY RATE TRENDS AMONG INDIVIDUALS The latest American Community Survey data show that an estimated 1,583,000 people in Ohio were poor during 20162017.1 This figure is 14.0 percent of the 11,331,000 persons for whom poverty status was determined. Both the number and percentage of poor people in Ohio are lower than the 1,846,000 and 16.4 percent seen in 2010-2011, but remain above the 1999 decennial census figures of 1,171,000 and 10.6 percent. The graph above illustrates variations in Ohio’s poverty rate since 1959, and data in Appendix Table A1 chronicle annual estimates beginning in 1969. The poverty rate fell from 15.9 percent to 10.0 percent by the end of the 1960s, and continued diminishing to 8.2 percent in 1974. The poverty rate rose thereafter to 13.3 percent in 1983 and 1984. It fluctuated around 13 percent for the next decade before falling to 10.6 percent in 1999. Ohio’s poverty rate after the turn of the century rose almost without interruption from 11.9 to 16.4 percent before gradually decreasing to 14.0 percent.2 The graph above and data in Appendix Table A1 also show a gradual convergence of Ohio’s poverty rate with that of the nation, which was substantially higher decades ago. The greatest convergence occurred in the 1960s when the gap fell from 6.2 percent (22.1 for the nation vs. 15.9 for Ohio) in 1959 to 3.7 percent (13.7 vs. 10.0, respectively) in 1969. The gap closed to 2.1 percent by 1979, and to 1.0 percent or less in the late 1980s. It widened to nearly 2.0 percent for most of the 1990s only to close after the turn of the century. Ohio’s poverty rate is now roughly the same as the national rate. The two poverty rates and their changes over the years almost always tracked one another in the direction, if not the magnitude of change, implying that changes in Ohio are more or less part of changes across the nation. See Table A1 7 Percentage of Families That Were in Poverty, Ohio and the U.S.: 1959-2017 25.0 20.0 18.4 Percent Poor 15.0 13.2 11.8 12.0 11.6 11.6 11.1 10.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 10.0 12.0 8.7 10.0 8.6 9.5 8.0 9.8 9.2 8.3 8.2 99^ 00* 10.1 9.4 11.7 10.2 9.8 9.9 9.8 9.7 9.8 9.5 9.7 11.3 10.5 11.8 10.7 11.6 10.5 11.3 9.8 10.6 10.0 9.5 7.6 5.0 0.0 59^ 69^ Source: U.S. Census Bureau 79^ 89^ Ohio 01-2 02-3 03-4 04-5 05-6 06-7 07-8 08-9 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 U.S. 8 Notes: * - CPS; ^ - decennial census; hyphenated - ACS POVERTY RATE TRENDS AMONG FAMILIES The latest American Community Survey data also show that about 290,000 families in Ohio were poor during 2016-2017. That figure represents 9.8 percent of approximately 2,951,000 families in the state. Both the number and percentage of poor families here are lower than the 350,000 and 12.0 percent seen in 2010-2011, but remain above the 1999 decennial census figures of 251,000 and 8.3 percent. The graph above illustrates variations in Ohio’s family poverty rate since 1959, and data in Appendix Table A2 chronicle annual estimates beginning in 1969. Ohio’s family poverty rate fell from 13.2 to 7.6 percent during the 1960s, and continued falling to 6.6 percent by 1974. It rose to 10.7 percent by 1982, and stayed above 10 percent for all but two years of the following decade. It peaked at 11.2 percent in 1993 before falling to 8.2 percent in 2000, the lowest level since 1979. Ohio’s family poverty rate rose to 12.0 percent in 2010-2012 before declining to 9.8 percent in 2016-2017. The graph above and data in Appendix Table A2 also show a gradual convergence between the national and state family poverty rates. The greatest convergence occurred in the 1960s when the gap fell from 5.2 percent (18.4 vs. 13.2) in 1959 to 3.1 percent in 1969. The gap closed to 1.6 percent by 1979 and to less than 1.0 in the late 1980s. It widened a bit for most of the 1990s, only to close after the turn of the century. Except for the 2008-2010 period when Ohio’s family poverty rate appeared slightly greater than the national rate, it has been nearly indistinguishable from national rate since. The two poverty rates and their changes over the years almost always tracked one another in the direction, if not the magnitude of change, again consistent with the idea that changes in Ohio are part of the changes across the country. Changes over time in individual and family poverty rates nearly parallel one another because most people live in families. Family poverty rates are lower than poverty rates for individuals because people not in families are assumed not to share their resources – ultimately income(s).3 See Table A2 9 Ohio's Poverty and Unemployment Rates and Real Per Capita Income, 1998-2017 (Income Standardized on 2017, Figures for Hyphenated Years Are Averages of the Components) 50.0 $50.000 $45.608 $46.272 $44.536 45.0 $45.000 $43.182 $42.448 $42.755 $38.074 $38.464 $41.178 $41.306 $40.730 $40.470 $41.361 $40.000 35.0 $35.000 30.0 $30.000 25.0 $25.000 20.0 $20.000 15.2 15.0 11.9 10.9 10.6 12.1 12.5 13.0 13.3 13.1 15.8 16.4 16.3 16.0 15.8 14.8 14.6 13.4 14.0 $15.000 10.8 10.0 $10.000 10.3 8.4 5.0 6.0 6.3 5.0 4.3 4.3 4.0 1998 1999 2000 6.1 5.7 5.5 6.0 9.6 8.1 7.4 6.6 $5.000 5.4 5.0 5.0 0.0 $0.000 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Real Per Capita Income Percent Poor Sources: U.S. Bureaus of the Census, Economic Analysis, and Labor Statistics, ODJFS/LMI 10 Percent Unemployed Real Per Capita Income (in thousands) Poverty and Unemployment Rates 40.0 $40.481 $39.942 $40.122 $39.127 $39.228 $39.529 THE RELATION OF OHIO’S POVERTY RATE WITH SELECTED ECONOMIC VARIABLES The graph above illustrates changes in the poverty rate for persons for whom poverty status was determined, the civilian unemployment rate and personal per capita income (PCI, adjusted for inflation and standardized on 2017) beginning with 1998. PCI is the broadest measure of income in a society, and because poverty is defined as income insufficient to avoid inadequate nutrition, it seems reasonable to expect that the poverty rate would decline as PCI increases and rise as PCI declines. This appears to be true for some years, as real PCI fell from $41,306 to $40,470 and the poverty rate rose from 13.4 to 15.8 percent during 2007-2010, followed by a rise from $41,361 to $46,272 with a decline from 16.4 to 14.0 percent. (The poverty rate change appears to lag the income change from 2009-2011.) However, both PCI and the poverty rate rose during the 1999-2008 period! The implicit assumption underlying the expected inverse relationship – that real income growth is at least equally distributed across the population, if not flowing in greater portion to the poor – is dubious at best. (It appears real PCI growth generally has flowed to the non-poor segments of society.) On the other hand, a relationship between the unemployment rate and the poverty rate is evident: they rose and fell together, although changes were not proportional and changes in the direction of the poverty rate may lag changes in the direction of the unemployment rate. It seems reasonable that poverty and unemployment rates would move up and down together because jobs are the major source of income for all but the retired and some of the very wealthy. The less-than-perfect association of changes in poverty rates with changes in unemployment rates and the questionable association with PCI suggests that other factors not incorporated here may come into play and/or the nature of the associations may be more complex than some people might initially think. Regarding the latter, it should be remembered that for most people poverty is defined in a family context, while PCI and unemployment refer to individuals. There are lots of possible combinations of a husband and wife (the most common type of family) and their labor force status – not in the labor force, unemployed, employed to varying degrees (full or part time, full-year or part year) – any change in which may or may not impact the family’s poverty status. For example, a husband losing his job will, all other things being equal, increase the unemployment rate (assuming he still looks for work) and decrease the family income. However, it may not put his family into poverty, perhaps depending on how long he is out of work, how much his wife works, her income level, and any unemployment compensation received. Conversely, a husband’s new job will reduce the unemployment rate and increase the family income, but it may not pull his family out of poverty – also depending on whether it is a full- or parttime job and how much income is earned. Non-economic factors also may play a role in the risk of poverty. Further complicating matters are segments of the population not in the labor force: children and retirees. These and other factors are discussed in the Circumstances section. See Table A3 11 This page intentionally blank. 12 THE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF POVERTY IN OHIO 13 Fulton 4,417 10.6% Williams 4,835 13.5% Defiance 4,113 11.0% Paulding 2,006 10.7% Van Wert 3,538 12.7% Putnam 2,416 7.2% Shelby 4,286 8.9% Hardin 4,844 16.6% Darke 5,919 11.6% Miami 10,150 9.9% Montgomery 92,085 17.9% Butler 47,018 12.9% Warren 11,016 5.1% Marion 9,846 16.6% Union 3,799 7.4% Champaign 4,211 11.1% Clark 21,956 16.6% Greene 19,093 12.3% Madison 3,926 10.2% Fayette 4,944 17.7% Clinton 5,962 14.7% Hamilton 134,499 17.0% Brown 7,641 17.8% Adams 6,537 23.8% Richland Ashland 7,230 17,674 14.2% 15.6% Morrow 3,347 9.7% Franklin 203,877 16.7% Pickaway 6,253 12.0% Scioto 17,432 23.9% Summit 72,232 13.6% Wayne 14,611 13.0% Knox 7,914 13.8% Coshocton 5,424 15.0% Licking 19,591 11.8% Fairfield 14,776 9.9% Muskingum 13,877 16.6% Perry 6,838 19.2% Hocking 3,947 14.2% Pike 5,565 20.0% Trumbull 34,254 17.2% Portage 22,493 14.5% Stark 50,921 14.0% Jackson 6,627 20.6% Tuscarawas 12,610 13.8% Columbiana 15,538 15.4% Jefferson 11,413 17.6% Harrison 2,371 15.7% Guernsey 7,857 20.2% Belmont 9,153 14.1% Poverty in Ohio by County 2013-2017 American Community Survey Statewide Poverty 1,683,890 14.9% Percentage County Population in Poverty 5.1% - 9.9% 10.0% - 14.9% 15.0% - 19.9% Noble 1,534 12.9% Morgan 3,110 21.5% Monroe 2,772 19.7% 20.0% - 30.2% Appalachian Ohio Washington 9,120 15.5% Athens 16,837 30.2% Vinton 2,747 21.1% Mahoning 39,616 17.6% Carroll 4,053 14.8% Holmes 5,132 12.0% Delaware 9,625 5.1% Ross 12,925 18.2% Highland 9,150 21.6% Clermont 19,660 9.8% Crawford 6,751 16.2% Medina 10,764 6.2% Ashtabula 18,854 19.8% Geauga 6,076 6.5% Cuyahoga 225,265 18.3% Lorain 40,477 13.7% Huron 8,224 14.2% Seneca 7,954 15.2% Wyandot 2,474 11.3% Logan 6,116 13.7% Erie 9,636 13.0% Sandusky 7,916 13.6% Hancock 8,878 12.1% Allen 15,088 15.0% Lake 18,837 8.3% Ottawa 4,219 10.5% Wood 16,409 13.4% Henry 2,437 9.0% Auglaize 4,079 9.0% Mercer 2,989 7.4% Preble 5,017 12.4% Lucas 83,744 19.8% This map shows the 2013-2017 American Community Survey estimates of the number and percentage of persons in poverty by county Meigs 5,179 22.5% Gallia 6,143 20.9% Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau Lawrence 11,201 18.6% 14 Prepared by: Office of Research Ohio Development Services Agency January 2019 R011119A COUNTIES 2013-2017 The map above shows the variation in poverty rates across Ohio during the 2013-17 period according to the latest American Community Survey dataset.4 The rates ranged from 5.1 percent in Delaware to 30.2 percent in Athens.5 Altogether, 15 counties had poverty rates less than 10 percent, 35 had rates ranging from 10 to 14.8 percent (less than the state poverty rate for this period), 27 counties had rates above the state average but less than 20 percent, and 11 counties had rates greater than 20 percent. The median county poverty rate in the state was 14.15 percent; 44 counties were below that mark and 44 were above it. Some types of areas had poverty rates higher than other types. Most notably, the 32-county Appalachian area, outlined above, had a poverty rate of 17.2 percent – 335,100 of its 1,946,000 people in Ohio. Although poverty rates among Appalachian counties range from 9.8 to 30.2 percent, the 11 counties with poverty rates of 20.0 percent or more were Appalachian. The poverty rates for counties in the remainder of Ohio ranged from 5.1 to 19.8 percent, with an area average of 14.4 percent – about 1,349,000 people out of 9,343,000. A closer look at the map above also reveals relatively high poverty rates in most of the counties with metropolitan area central cities. Allen (Lima), Clark (Springfield), Cuyahoga (Cleveland), Franklin (Columbus), Hamilton (Cincinnati), Jefferson (Steubenville), Lucas (Toledo), Mahoning (Youngstown), Montgomery (Dayton), Richland (Mansfield) and Trumbull (Warren) had poverty rates higher than the state average of 14.9 percent. Stark (Canton-Massillon) and Summit (Akron) were the exceptions. The 13 counties collectively had 1,003,000 poor out of nearly 5,917,000 people for whom poverty status was determined – a poverty rate of 16.9 percent. The 1,003,000 also comprised 59.5 percent of all poor people in Ohio; by comparison, the 13 counties have 52.4 percent of Ohioans for whom poverty status was determined. The data in Appendix Table A4 show that the poverty rate for the state was significantly higher in 2007-2011 when compared with 1999: 14.8 vs. 10.6 percent, with the rise evident for 72 of the 88 counties. The 14.9 percent state poverty rate for 2013-2017 shows no significant net change, although nine counties appeared to have even higher poverty rates while five have lower poverty rates.6 See Table A4 15 Ranges of SAIPE County Poverty Rates in Ohio, 2002-2017 Plus Ohio and U.S. Rates 40.0 35.0 34.7 35.0 33.3 31.5 31.5 31.0 29.4 30.0 29.9 29.6 28.8 28.8 14.5 13.9 27.6 Percent of Persons in Poverty 26.3 25.0 20.2 20.1 20.0 18.5 15.8 12.1 12.5 12.7 13.3 13.3 13.0 13.2 13.2 13.1 13.3 4.5 4.2 4.5 2005 2006 2007 13.0 15.1 16.2 15.9 15.8 15.9 15.9 15.8 15.5 14.8 14.3 15.0 16.3 15.3 14.7 14.0 13.4 11.7 10.0 10.2 10.7 5.0 5.8 4.2 4.6 5.0 4.9 5.1 2008 2009 4.5 5.0 5.6 4.8 4.4 4.7 4.7 2015 2016 2017 0.0 2002 2003 2004 Ohio Poverty Rate 2010 2011 2012 U.S. Poverty Rate Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 16 2013 2014 ANNUAL SAIPE ESTIMATES FOR COUNTIES In contrast to the sample-based five-year county averages in the preceding section, the Census Bureau publishes annual model-based estimates of poverty numbers and rates in its Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program for data users who need such figures. The graph above illustrates the range of the such county poverty rates, with the lowest to highest noted above and below the vertical black lines. The complete list for counties is in Appendix Table A5a. Summary percentages for the state (red) and the nation (blue) are included for comparison. The black boxes illustrate the gap when Ohio’s poverty rate was below the national average, the white boxes when it had an above-average rate, and the bars when the rates were nearly identical. The ranges shown above became wider – and the gap between Ohio and the U.S. narrower – with incorporation of American Community Survey data beginning in 2005. The estimated numbers for 2007-2017 are in Appendix Table A5b.7 See Tables A5a and A5b 17 Changing Poverty Rates in Ohio's 10 Largest Cities 1999, 2007-2011 and 2013-2017 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% Percent Poor 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1999 2007-11 2013-17 Akron* 17.5% 25.8% 24.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau Canton* 19.2% 28.8% 31.7% Cincinnati* 21.9% 27.4% 28.7% 1999 Cleveland* 26.3% 32.6% 35.2% Columbus* 14.8% 21.8% 20.8% 2007-11 Dayton* 23.0% 32.5% 32.7% 2013-17 18 Lorain 17.1% 28.8% 25.4% Parma 4.9% 8.3% 9.3% Toledo* 17.9% 25.6% 26.5% Youngstown* 24.8% 33.8% 36.8% Note: * - A metropolitan area central city. OTHER TYPES OF AREAS 2013-2017 The chart above shows how poverty rates in Ohio’s 10 largest cities have changed since 1999: all were significantly higher in 2007-2011 than in 1999. However, significant changes from 2007-2011 to 2013-2017 were seen in only two cities: Cleveland, which moved higher, and Columbus, which appeared lower. Changes in the remaining cities – whether increases or decreases – cannot be measured with the same degree of confidence and may be due to sampling variability. (See Appendix Table A6.) Collectively, the 10 cities have 20.9 percent of all Ohioans for whom poverty status was determined in 2013-2017, and 36.6 percent of all Ohioans in poverty. It also is noteworthy that nine of the 10 cities have higher poverty rates than the counties in which they are located; Parma (in Cuyahoga) is the sole exception. The central and principal cities of metropolitan areas (i.e., the largest cities for which the metropolitan areas are named) collectively had a higher poverty rate than metropolitan residents not in principal cities: 26.3 vs. 10.3 percent. Both are significantly higher than the corresponding rates of 25.6 and 10.0 during 2007-2011 and 18.9 and 6.5 percent in 1999. The American Community Survey (ACS) and decennial census (DC) data summarize poverty statistics for other types of areas within Ohio. Data in Appendix Table A6 show the summary poverty rate for urban areas (densely populated areas of at least 2,500 people) was estimated at 16.2 percent, not significantly different from the 16.4 rate in 2007-2011 but still higher than the 11.5 rate in 1999; the summary poverty rate for rural areas was estimated at 10.3 percent, also significantly above the 9.8 rate in 2007-2011 and the 7.6 rate in 1999. (Rural areas include people living on farms as well as densely populated areas of less than 2,500 people.) However, caution is warranted for such conclusions.8 The summary rise in the urban poverty rate is the aggregation of many local components. ACS and DC data for the 86 cities in Ohio with at least 20,000 people (a subset of all urban residents) show that 75 experienced significant increases in poverty rates from 1999 to 2007-2011, but only nine appear to have even higher rates in 2013-2017, while six appear to have lower rates than in 2007-2011. Beyond these summary statements, the experiences of cities varied widely. Ten cities had poverty rates exceeding 30 percent in 2013-17: Athens, Bowling Green, Canton, Cleveland, Dayton, Kent, Oxford, Portsmouth, Warren and Youngstown; the increased poverty rates since 1999 were significant for all but Athens and Oxford.9 Ten cities appeared at the other end of the spectrum with poverty rates below five percent: Avon, Avon Lake, Dublin, Hilliard, Hudson, Mason, North Royalton, Solon, Strongsville and Upper Arlington; all are suburbs in the metropolitan areas of Akron, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Columbus. See Appendix Table A6 for data for all 86 cities. See Table A6 19 Poor and Near-Poor Persons in Ohio: 12,000,000 100.0% 10,000,000 83.3% 8,000,000 66.7% 6,000,000 50.0% 32.5% 4,000,000 28.1% 29.9% 33.3% 23.6% 19.3% 2,000,000 14.9% 1,683,890 2,176,074 2,660,985 3,174,699 3,377,268 3,673,407 Under 185% Under 200% 0 16.7% 0.0% Under 100% Under 125% Under 150% Under 175% Ratio Values Source: U.S. Census Bureau 20 Percent of Persons Under Ratio Number of Persons Under Ratio The Ratio of Income to Poverty Level for 11,289,161 Persons, 2013-17 THE POOR AND THE NEAR-POOR: COUNTY VARIATIONS In addition to the number and percentage of poor people, there are programmatic needs to know the number and percentage of people who are more or less close to being poor. The chart above illustrates the progressively cumulating figures of Ohioans for whom poverty status was determined who were poor or relatively close to poverty. The left-most column shows the number poor persons (i.e., those whose income was less than 100 percent of the ratio of their income to their poverty level) was estimated to be 1,683,890 during 2013-2017, or 14.9 percent of the estimated 11,289,161 people for whom poverty status was determined. The right-most column shows about 3,673,407 people had incomes less than 200 percent of the poverty level; that was 32.5 percent of the total. The latter figures include the 1,683,890 who were poor and about 1,989,517 – 17.6 percent – more who were not poor, but were more or less close to being poor. The middle four columns show numbers and percentage of Ohioans in other commonly used categories: below 125, 150, 175 and 185 percent of the ratio of income to the poverty level. The percentages shown above all are within 0.4 percent of the corresponding national averages. (See Appendix Table A7a). As with county poverty rates, the variation of poverty-and-near-poverty rates within Ohio was notable. Appendix Table A7a shows Delaware County had the lowest percentage of those under 200 percent of the poverty level – 12.3 – while Adams County had the highest such percentage – 49.6. Altogether, 15 counties had poverty-and-near-poverty rates of at least 40 percent, 45 counties had rates in the 30-to-39 percent range, 25 counties had rates in the 20s, and three counties had rates less than 20 percent – Medina and Warren were the other two. Appalachian counties collectively had 37.6 percent below 200 percent of the poverty level. The corresponding rate for non-Appalachian counties was 31.5 percent. Appendix Table A7a also shows by county the numbers and percentages of persons below other poverty-and-near-poverty levels of 125, 150, 175 and 185 percent.10 See Table A7a 21 Poor and Near-Poor Persons by Area Type: The Percentages of Persons Under Selected Ratios of Income to Poverty Level, 2013-17 100.0% 90.0% Percent of Persons Under the Ratio 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 48.8% 40.0% 30.0% 32.5% 34.2% 28.3% 26.3% 26.8% 20.0% 14.9% 10.0% 16.2% 12.2% 10.3% 0.0% Poor: <100% of Poverty Level Ohio Urban: Overall Poor & Near-Poor: <200% of Poverty Level Urban: Central/Principal Cities Source: U.S. Census Bureau 22 Urban: Other Rural THE POOR AND THE NEAR-POOR: VARIATIONS BY AREA TYPES The chart above illustrates variations in poverty and near-poverty rates by the area types in which Ohioans live. An average of 14.9 percent of all Ohioans (gray column in the left set) were poor during 2013-2017; up to 32.5 percent were poor or near-poor (gray column in the right set). Poverty and near-poverty rates were noticeably lower in rural areas (green columns) – between four and eight percentage points lower than the corresponding state averages at every level, while urban areas (light blue columns with the red dots) were slightly higher than the state averages – between one and three points above the state averages. (The different magnitudes of departure from the statewide averages reflect the fact 77.8 percent of Ohioans for whom poverty status was determined live in urban areas). The chart above further subdivides urban areas into summaries for metropolitan area central and principal cities (dark blue columns) and all other urban areas (white columns with red dots). It shows the highest poverty and near-poverty rates generally are found in the former – rates range from 26.3 to 48.8 percent; the latter have rates between the state and rural averages, ranging from 12.2 to 28.3 percent. Despite these general tendencies, a wide range of variability is evident among individual places. Data in Appendix Table A7b lists poverty and near-poverty rates for the 86 cities with at least 20,000 people. Dublin, Hudson, Mason and Upper Arlington had the lowest percentages of people under 200 percent of the income-to-poverty-level ratio – all less than 10 percent. 20 cities ranged from 10 to 19.4 percent of the same poor and near-poor category, 15 ranged between 20 and 29.9 percent of their population, 12 were in the 30 to 39.9 percent range, 18 were in the 40 to 49.9 percent range, and 17 ranged from 50 to 63.9 percent of their populations under that ratio. Of the 16 metropolitan area central and principal cities in Ohio, only Mentor was below the state average with 16.1 percent of its poverty-status-determined population below 200 percent of the income-to-poverty-level ratio. See Table A7b 23 This page intentionally blank. 24 THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF POVERTY: VARIATIONS AND TRENDS IN OHIO 25 2016-2017 Ohio Poverty Rates by Family Type and Householder's Work Status All Families vs. Families without Social Security and Pensions Percent Poor 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 75.9% 60.0% 58.8% 50.0% 50.1% 55.6% 39.3% 40.0% 40.9% 30.0% 29.1% 15.5% 20.0% 19.3% 31.9% 7.8% 10.0% 22.2% 25.2% 33.7% 6.1% 3.3% 1.2% 0.0% 4.6% Overall MC 8.7% 11.4% Householder's Not FT/YR Work Status FT/YR DNW MH-NWP 3.6% 1.3% 4.8% FH-NHP Overall All Families: about 2,951,000 MC MH-NWP Families without Social Security and Pensions: about 1,991,000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 26 11.8% FH-NHP EMPLOYMENT STATUS, FAMILY TYPE AND THE WORKING-AGE COHORT There are two points to be made about employment status and the risk of poverty. The graph above illustrates the first point: there is nothing like a full-time/year-round (FT/YR) job for minimizing the risk of poverty. The overall family poverty rate in Ohio was 9.8 percent in 2016-2017 (from Appendix Table A2). The column at far left shows the overall poverty rate was 3.0 percent when the householder worked full-time/year-round (FT/YR – green column). This contrasts with a 19.3 percent poverty rate for householders working less than full-time/year-round (Not FT/YR – the light blue column). (Householders may be male or female; the Census Bureau’s tables make no distinction by sex among married couples.) Poverty rates varied with different types of families of FT/YR workers (green columns, left set): 1.2 percent among married couples (MC), 4.6 percent among male-householders-no-wife-present (MH-NWP) and 11.4 percent among female-householders-with-no-husband-present (FH-NHP). These contrast with the poverty rates when the householders worked less than FT/YR (blue columns, left set): 6.1 percent for married couples, 31.9 percent among male-householders-no-wife-present and 50.1 percent among female-householders-no-husband-present. Appendix Table A8a presents corresponding data for 2008-2009 (from the 2010 American Community Survey) and 1999 (from the 2000 decennial census). The family poverty rates when the householder did not work (DNW, red columns, left set) usually are a little less than the corresponding rates for householders not FT/YR: 15.5 vs. 19.3 percent overall, 29.1 vs. 31.9 percent among male-headno-wife families, 39.3 vs. 50.1 percent among female-head-no-husband families, but 7.8 vs. 6.1 percent among married couples (the exception). This curious set of facts suggests that the relationship between work and family poverty may be more complex than simple summaries can reveal, and that other factors may be involved. The relationship between the extent of employment and the risk of poverty for families is clarified in the set of columns of the right by excluding about 960,000 families receiving social security and/or retirement pensions – essentially retirees, which leaves the working-age cohort. The contrasts between FT/YR and not FT/YR employment this subset are roughly the same magnitudes as among all families: poverty rates of 3.6 vs. 25.3 percent overall, with married couples experiencing 1.3 vs. 8.7 percent, male-head-no-wife families at 4.8 vs. 33.7 percent and female-head-no-wife families at 11.8 vs. 55.6 percent. However, family poverty rates are much higher when the head did not work and the family had no social security or pension income. The overall rate among these jobless (red columns, right set) – excluding retirees again – was 40.9 percent, with married couples now at 22.2 percent, male-head-no-wife families at 58.8 percent and female-headno-husband families at 75.9 percent. These figures indicate the profound impact of under- and unemployment for this seg-ment of society (See Appendix Table 8b). See Tables A8a & A8b 27 2016-2017 Ohio Poverty Rates Among Married Couples by the Work Status of Both All Couples vs. Couples without Social Security and Pensions Percent Poor 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 66.5% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 42.9% 40.0% 33.2% 30.0% 11.9% 8.7% 11.4% 20.0% 10.0% 9.3% 3.8% 14.5% 4.0% 5.1% 1.2% 1.5% 0.0% 7.1% 0.2% DNW Not FT/YR DNW 1.4% 2.3% FT/YR Not FT/YR 0.2% FT/YR DNW All Couples: about 2,137,000 Not FT/YR Couples without Social Security and Pensions: about 1,364,000 Spouse's Work Status Source: U.S. Census Bureau 28 FT/YR Householder's Work Status EMPLOYMENT STATUS, MARRIED COUPLES AND THE WORKING-AGE COHORT The preceding section showed that married couples had the lowest family poverty rates for every level of householder employment. A substantial contributing factor is illustrated in the graph above and leads to the second point about employment and poverty: being married to someone working full-time/year-round (FT/YR) also reduces the risk of poverty. Among all married-couple families (the left set of columns) it is at-worst about 4.0 percent (light green columns). The risk of poverty was reduced to 1.5 percent or less when one worked FT/YR and the other worked part-time (Not FT/YR, dark green columns), and the risk of poverty nearly vanishes if both work FT/YR (the gold column). These poverty rates contrast with those for couples lacking a FT/YR job (the blue columns). Poverty rates for the latter ranged from 9.3 to 11.9 percent, depending on whether one (dark blue column) or both (light blue columns) had a part-time job. Appendix Table A8a has comparable figures for 2008-2009 and 1999; the poverty rates seen then for married couples in corresponding circumstances varied little from those shown above. The chart above also shows an anomalously low poverty rate of 8.7 percent among all couples when neither worked (red column). As in the preceding section, excluding about 773,000 couples receiving social security and/or pension incomes and focusing on the working-age cohort clarifies the relationship between the extent of employment and their families’ risk of poverty. Poverty rates are still relatively low – 7.1 percent at-worst – when at least one has FT/YR employment: specifically, compare the gold and green columns on the right with those on the left. On the other hand, poverty rates are much higher when FT/YR employment is absent, ranging from 33.2 to 66.5 percent (dark blue and red columns on the right). Excluding retired couples shows the profound effect of under- and unemployment on couples who actually need jobs (see Appendix Table 8b). However, it needs to be noted that despite the generally lower poverty rates for married couple families, marriage is not always a solution to poverty and associated problems, particularly for female-head-no-husband-present families. “The flaw in the argument is the assumption that all marriages are equally beneficial. In fact, however, the pool of potential marriage partners for single mothers in impoverished communities does not include many men with good prospects for becoming stable and helpful partners. Single mothers are especially likely to marry men who have children from other partnerships, who have few economic resources, who lack a highschool diploma, or who have been incarcerated or have substance abuse problems” (Williams, 2014). Such relationships tend to be of low quality, and are likely to end in divorce, subsequently leaving the women even worse off (cited by Williams, 2014). See Tables A8a &A8b 29 Poverty Rates In Ohio and Presence of Related Children by Household Type, 1999-2017 45.0% 40.0% P e 35.0% r c 30.0% e n 25.0% t 20.0% P o o r 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1999 Female Female Head, No Male Head, Head, No Husband Male Head, No Wife Married Present, with Husband Present, with No Wife Present, No Related Kids Present, No Couples with Related Kids Related Kids Related Kids Related Kids 2009* 2017* Married Couples, No Related Kids Non-family Households^ Family Households 2017* Female Head, No Husband Present, with Related Kids 39.7% Female Head, No Husband Present, No Related Kids 10.4% Male Head, No Wife Present, with Related Kids 18.7% Male Head, No Wife Present, No Related Kids 10.3% 2009* 43.6% 13.3% 25.2% 8.0% 1999 34.6% 7.9% 16.1% 6.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Married Couples with Related Kids Married Couples, No Related Kids Non-family Households^ 5.7% 2.9% 20.4% 6.9% 2.6% 21.4% 4.3% 2.6% 16.6% Notes: * - ACS estimates cover January of the prior year through November the listed year. ^ - Actually the poverty status of the householder. 30 HOUSEHOLD TYPE AND THE PRESENCE OF RELATED CHILDREN The risk of poverty varies not only by the type of household in which people live, but by the presence or absence of children, too. The chart above shows that regardless of family type – married couple, male- or female-headed – families with at least one child have a greater risk of poverty than families with no children. It also shows that female-headed families have the greatest risk of poverty, while married couples have the lowest risk. One factor contributing to the higher poverty rates of female-headed households is the generally lower incomes women earn.11 While the various types of households with children experience greater poverty rates than corresponding households with no children, it is difficult to argue that children cause poverty because other factors may come to bear. The oldest children may be employed and contributing to the family’s income, and mothers – the principal caretakers of children – are more likely to earn an income if all of their children are in school than are mothers with pre-school children.12 Both events increase the family’s income. In addition, older people (to a point in late middle age) generally have higher earnings than younger people do.13 Nevertheless – all other things being equal or unchanged – adding a child increases the family size and income threshold for poverty, with the possible consequence that the family income may no longer be adequate to keep the family out of poverty. The poverty rates for non-family households are similar to those of male-headed families with children, and show the same pattern of a lower risk in 1999 than in 2008-2009 or 2016-2017.14 The chart above also shows the variation in poverty rates over time. Poverty rates generally were lower in 1999 than in 2008-2009, while those for 2016-2017 usually were at a similar level or slightly lower than those for 2008-2009 but still greater than those for 1999. Those for households with a male head but no wife and no related children are the notable exception. See Table A9 31 Ohio Families Receiving Cash Public Assistance by Poverty Status and Type, 1999-2017 P e r c e n t R e c e i v i n g A s s i s t a n c e 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1999 Not Poor: Not Poor: All Not Poor: Not Poor: Families Married Male Couples Head, No Female Head, No Wife Present Husband Present 4.4% Not Poor: Male Head, No Wife Present 7.9% Not Poor: Female Head, No Husband Present 14.8% 3.7% 8.7% 12.3% 3.4% 6.1% 10.9% Not Poor: All Families Not Poor: Married Couples 2017* 6.3% 2009* 5.3% 1999 4.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2009* Poor: All Families Poor: Married Couples 2017* Poor: Male Head, No Wife Present Poor: Female Head, No Husband Present Poor: All Families Poor: Married Couples Poor: Male Head, No Wife Present 24.7% 19.4% 19.9% Poor: Female Head, No Husband Present 28.4% 24.6% 20.2% 22.5% 27.3% 29.4% 20.0% 20.6% 36.0% Note: * - ACS figures cover January of the prior year through November of the listed year. 32 CASH PUBLIC ASSISTANCE About 238,900, or 8.1 percent, of all families in Ohio received some form of cash public assistance (CPA) at some time in the preceding 12 months according to the latest data from the American Community Survey. 15 This is slightly greater than the 7.5 and 6.5 percent rates of 2008-2009 and 1999 (see Appendix Table 10). (Non-cash forms of assistance cannot be included here, but their impact in reducing poverty is evident in Fox (2018: Figure 8 and Tables A-6 and A-7).) The chart above shows poor families (red columns) uniformly are much more likely to receive CPA than are families at and above the poverty level (green columns), but not all poor families receive CPA. Poor families may not have received CPA because they did not apply for it or did not meet all of the eligibility requirements. The percentage of all poor families receiving CPA (left-most of the red columns) was higher in the past, dropping from 29.4 percent in 1999 to 24.6 in 20082009 and 24.7 in 2016-2017. On the other hand, less than seven percent of all families at or above the poverty level (leftmost of the green columns) received CPA in the year preceding the data collection. Families that are near poverty may receive CPA because eligibility may be cut-off above the poverty level, because members may have worked part of the 12 preceding months, or because they were poor and receiving CPA prior to resuming work. These percentages also vary by family type. Among those not in poverty, less than five percent of married couples received CPA during the years shown; at the other end of the spectrum families headed by women with no husband present ranged from 10.9 to 14.8 percent. Still all of these percentages are less than those for poor families. Among the latter, those headed by women with no husband present had the highest CPA rates – between 27 and 29 percent in 2008-2009 and 2016-2017, down from 36 percent in 1999. These contrast with the rates for families headed by men with no wife present and married couples, which showed relatively small net changes between the years and fluctuated between 19 and 23 percent. Finally, it is worth noting CPA boosts or keeps only a fraction of families out of poverty. About 238,900 families received CPA in 2016-2017, but CPA relieved the poverty of only 30,500-plus. For the rest, CPA either was insufficient for relieving poverty or was not critical for staying out of poverty (U.S. Bureau of the Census – ACS, 2018b). Figures for 20082009 were about 223,000 receiving CPA, with 24,800 boosted out of poverty (U.S. Bureau of the Census – ACS, 2010b); figures for 1999 were about 197,000 receiving CPA and 19,500 boosted out of poverty (U.S. Bureau of the Census – DC, 2003). (The same data sources estimated family poverty numbers and rates at almost 290,000 and 9.8 percent in 20162017, 348,000 and 11.7 percent in 2008-2009, and 235,000 and 7.8 percent in 1999.) See Table A10 33 Poverty Rates in Ohio by Educational Attainment Among Persons Age 25 Years and Older, 1999-2017 30.0% P e r c e n t P o o r 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 1999 2009 ACS* 0.0% Not a High School Graduate High School Graduate or GED 2017 ACS* Some College or Associate's Degree Educational Attainment Bachelor's Degree and/or Post Graduate Work Not a High School Graduate High School Graduate or GED Some College or Associate's Degree 2017 ACS* 27.3% 13.4% 10.0% Bachelor's Degree and/or Post Graduate Work 3.8% 2009 ACS* 26.4% 12.6% 10.4% 3.8% 1999 18.8% 7.8% 5.5% 2.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Note: * - ACS data cover January of the prior year through Novemer of the listed year. 34 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT The skills and knowledge acquired with greater educational attainment tend to be less common and in greater demand. Consequently, employment is steadier and earnings typically are higher. In this sense, greater educational attainment generally indicates the ability to earn more money over the years and to do so with greater consistency. Therefore, it is not surprising that the risk of poverty falls with more education. The chart above shows that poverty rates are highest among those not completing high school and lacking a general equivalency degree (GED), and lowest among those with a bachelor’s degree or more. Getting a high school diploma or GED reduces the risk of poverty more than subsequent educational attainment. Nevertheless, some college or an associate’s degree reduces the risk further, and a bachelor’s degree or post-graduate work reduces it even more. Nevertheless, poverty rates change over time regardless of educational level. American Community Survey data show higher poverty rates in 2008-2009 and 2016-2017 when compared with 1999. See Table A11 35 Poverty Rates in Ohio by Age Groups for Selected Years, 1999-2017 30.0% 25.0% P e r c e n t P o o r 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0-4 5 6-11 12-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75 & Over 2017 (ACS)* 23.2% 23.4% 20.8% 16.6% 22.2% 14.9% 11.9% 10.5% 10.8% 7.3% 8.2% 2009 (ACS)* 26.8% 23.7% 21.8% 17.8% 26.4% 17.0% 12.3% 10.5% 9.2% 7.4% 9.5% 1999 (DC) 17.3% 15.8% 14.8% 11.6% 19.5% 10.1% 7.7% 6.1% 7.8% 7.0% 9.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Note: * - ACS data cover from January of the prior year though November of the listed year. 36 AGE GROUPS, OVERALL The risk of poverty varies by age group, and the differences charted above may be best understood as part of life-cycle changes. As mentioned earlier, the addition of a child may tip a family into poverty. Sooner or later, though, children enroll in school and become more capable of caring for themselves. These changes eventually enable more adults to orient their activities more towards earning an income, and it is not uncommon for teenagers to earn money with part-time jobs. (However, the income of children under 15 is excluded from family income calculations.) Consequently, as the chart above illustrates, the poverty rates for children decline as they grow older. The risk of poverty is greater for 18-to-24-year-olds than for most other age groups for several reasons. Young adults often are living independently for the first time. They often are unmarried, have low-paying or part-time jobs, or may be enrolled in college and living off-campus. (As discussed elsewhere in this report, off-campus college students and unrelated individuals have higher poverty rates as consequences of how income is calculated and poverty status determined.) Poverty rates drop substantially with progressively older age groups. This reflects the converse of reasons offered above: there may be older, fewer or no children at home, which simultaneously lowers the poverty thresholds for families and enables more adults (and even older children) to earn more money; middle-age people work more and have higher incomes than young people. Appendix Table A12b summarizes age group figures supporting these explanations. On the other hand, those ages 75 and older are more likely to have lost a spouse – and, perhaps, some or all of any related income. Perhaps the most unexpected characteristics in the chart above are the consistently low poverty rates for people ages 65 to 74 and 75 and over. These may be partially due to social security and pensions income growth pegged to inflation rates. These little- or no-changed poverty rates seem remarkable given the in-household population of the 75-plus group rose 20.4 percent from 1999 to 2017, and that of the 65-to-74 year-olds rose 40.5 percent (Appendix Table A12a). Earlier sections of this report noted how the poverty rates for those not working became much higher after people receiving social security and retirement income were removed from the work/marital/poverty status analyses. This section adds a note on the importance of retirement and social security income in reducing poverty rates for those ages 65-plus. Appendix Table A12a shows removing retirement income alone increases the poverty rate from 7.6 to 43.1 percent; removing social security alone increases the rate to 53.6 percent, and removing both increases it to 61.5 percent (based on U.S. Bureau of the Census – ACS, 2018b). Fox (2018: Figure 8 and Tables A-6 and A-7) also demonstrates the impact of social security in reducing poverty rates for this age group. See Tables A12a & A12b 37 Poverty Rates in Ohio, 2016-2017 by Age Group, Sex and Minority Status 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% P e r c e n t 35.0% P o o r 20.0% 30.0% 25.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Non-Hispanic White Males 0-5 15.2% 6-11 15.2% 12-14 11.5% 15-17 12.1% 18-24 16.5% 25-34 8.7% 35-44 7.5% Non-Hispanic White Females 16.3% 13.5% 12.3% 10.6% 23.0% 15.1% 10.7% 9.8% 8.9% 7.3% 8.4% Minority Males 41.9% 35.4% 33.9% 26.6% 26.3% 19.3% 19.5% 17.0% 23.1% 17.0% 11.0% Minority Females 39.4% 36.4% 34.1% 30.1% 32.3% 29.1% 24.5% 17.0% 22.9% 14.4% 18.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 38 45-54 8.3% 55-64 8.4% 65-74 4.9% 75+ 5.7% AGE GROUPS, SEX AND MINORITY STATUS The chart above extends the analysis of the preceding section by illustrating how the risk of poverty varies by sex and majority/minority status within each age group. While the overall life cycle pattern is still evident for each segment, additional points are readily apparent: • • • • At every age, poverty rates are lower – usually much lower – for the majority (non-Hispanic whites, pink dots and light blue squares for females and males, respectively) than for minorities (everyone else, red dots and dark blue squares for females and males, respectively); The poverty rates for minority children are much higher than for majority children, ranging between 26 and 42 percent compared with 10 to 17 percent (children are less than 18 years old); however, there is little or no difference between the sexes within the majority and minority segments, possibly excepting minority females ages 15 to 17; Higher poverty rates for women vis-à-vis men first appear in the 18-24 age group and remain in the 25-34 age group, but diminish to the point of insignificance in the 55-64 age group; however, more modest differences re-emerge in old age; The declining poverty rates of children coincide with the declining poverty rates of persons 20 to 35 years older (i.e., roughly a generation older) – more so for women than for men. The last two points seem consistent with the fact 68.0 percent of poor families with related children were headed by women with no husband present in 2017 in contrast with 10.8 percent of such families headed by males with no wife present (approximately 149,700 and 23,700, respectively, out of 220,200 – see Appendix Table A9). Married couples comprise the remaining number and percentage of poor families with related children – 46,800 and 21.2 percent. See Tables A9 & A12c 39 Poverty Rates in Ohio, 1999-2017 by Race and Hispanic Identity 35.0% 30.0% P e r c e n t P o o r 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 2017 ACS* 14.0% 2009 ACS* 15.2% White, Not Hispanic 10.7% 12.0% 8.1% All Minorities Combined 26.4% 30.3% 24.2% Black 28.8% 33.2% 26.5% Asian/Pacific Islander 14.3% 11.3% 12.9% Amer. Indian/AK Native/Other^ 26.1% 32.0% 22.5% Bi/Multi-racial 26.6% 28.9% 21.3% Hispanics~ 26.8% 30.3% 20.3% Total Source: U.S. Census Bureau 1999 10.6% Notes: * - ACS data cover January of the prior year through November of the listed year; ^ - Estimates shown separately in Appendix Table A13a; ~ - Hispanics may be of any race. 40 RACE AND HISPANIC DETAILS The risk of poverty varies by race and Hispanic status.16 With the possible exception of Asians-and-Pacific-Islanders (yellow triangles), the chart above shows poverty rates for all other segments rising from 1999 to 2008-2009 and showing little or modest net change by 2016-2017. Non-Hispanic whites (white circles) – the majority segment in society – had the lowest poverty rates, ranging from 8.1 to 12.0 percent. These contrast with the overall poverty rate for minorities (brown squares), which rose from 24.2 to 30.3 percent before declining to 26.4 percent. The overall minority poverty rate largely reflects the experience of blacks (black stars), and blacks had the highest poverty rates in this time period, ranging from 26.5 to 33.2 percent. Similarly, poverty rates for American Indians, Alaskan Natives or some Other race (red crosses – Appendix Table A13 show the rates separately) and those claiming more than one race (gray diamonds) rose from the low 20s to around 30 percent in 2008-2009 with modest apparent declines since. Asians and Pacific Islanders are at the other end of the minority spectrum with rates from 11.3 to 14.3 percent – much closer to the majority.17 The poverty rate for Hispanics (orange “Xs”), who may be of any race (but choose white most of the time), rose from 20.3 to 30.3 percent in 2008-2009 before decreasing to 26.8 percent in 2016-2017. While minorities usually have higher poverty rates than the majority, most poor people in Ohio are non-Hispanic whites. The most recent American Community Survey estimated their numbers at 960,000 – 60.7 percent of the 1,583,000 total. Of the remaining 623,000 (minorities, 39.3 percent), blacks are the largest segment – 396,000 (25.0 percent), followed by Hispanics – about 113,000 (7.2 percent), bi- and multi-racial persons – 87,300 (5.5 percent), Asians-and-Pacific-Islanders – 36,600 (2.3 percent), and American Indians and Alaskan Natives – 6,100 (0.4 percent). 28,100 persons identifying as some other race were 1.8 percent of the poor. (The individual minority components sum to more than the 623,000 and 39.3 percent because Hispanics may be of any race.) See Table A13a 41 Distributions of Majority and Minority Populations in Ohio, Persons for Whom Poverty Status Determined and Poor, by Area Type, 2016-2017 100.0% Percentage Distributions for the Four Populations 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 64.7% 60.0% 58.0% 52.6% 50.0% 50.4% 44.8% 40.0% 32.8% 30.0% 26.9% 23.7% 20.0% 23.6% 15.1% 10.0% 4.8% 2.5% 0.0% All Non-Hispanic Whites All Minorities Poor Non-Hispanic Whites Urban: Central/Principal Cities Urban: Other Source: U.S. Census Bureau 42 Poor Minorities Rural THE DISTRIBUTION OF MAJORITY AND MINORITY POPULATIONS AND POVERTY The chart above illustrates the differing distributions of majority and minority populations. The six columns on the left show the distributions of all persons for whom poverty status was determined (“all,” for short), and the six columns on the right show the distributions of poor people. Each is subdivided by the area of residence: central and principal cities of metropolitan areas (blue), other urban places (red dots), and rural (green). 58.0 percent of all non-Hispanic whites – the majority population – live in other urban areas, followed by 26.9 percent in rural areas and 15.1 percent in the central or principal cities of metropolitan areas. This contrasts with the distribution of all minorities, 95.2 percent of whom are urban with 50.4 percent in central or principal cities; only 4.8 percent lived in rural areas. In short, minorities are much more urban than the majority. The distributions of poor majority and minority populations are similar. 52.6 percent of poor non-Hispanic whites are in other urban areas, with the remaining poor almost evenly split between central and principal cities and rural areas – 23.7 vs. 23.6 percent. By contrast, 97.5 percent of poor minorities are urban, with 64.7 percent central and principal cities and 32.8 in other urban areas; only 2.5 percent are in rural areas. Like their total population, minority poor are much more urban than the majority poor. Absolute numbers from Appendix Table A13b confirm the asymmetric distributions of poverty by area type: in central and principal cities, minority poor out-number majority poor by about 403,000 to 228,000. The composition is reversed elsewhere: in other urban areas majority poor out-number minority poor by about 505,000 to 204,000; and in rural areas majority poor out-number minority poor by about 227,000 to 15,600. In other words, the composition of the poverty population changes from mostly minorities to overwhelmingly non-Hispanic whites as one moves from big cities to the countryside – largely reflecting the urban residence of minorities for whom poverty status was determined. Still, differences in poverty rates by area type are similar – they just are more than doubled for minorities overall, but with 33.9 vs. 16.9 percent in central and principal cities, 19.3 vs. 9.7 percent in other urban areas, and 13.8 vs. 9.4 percent in rural areas. See Table A13b 43 This page intentionally blank. 44 45 APPENDICES DEFINING AND MEASURING POVERTY The definition of poverty originated in the Social Security Administration in 1964. It has been modified by Federal interagency committees since then, with the Office of Management and the Budget now prescribing it as the standard to be used by Federal agencies for statistical purposes. The Census Bureau notes: “At the core of this definition was the 1961 economy food plan, the least costly of four nutritionally adequate food plans designed by the Department of Agriculture. It was determined from the Agriculture Department’s 1955 survey of food consumption that families of three or more persons spend approximately one-third of their income on food; hence, the poverty level for these families [i.e., the minimum income required to avoid inadequate nutrition] was set at three times the cost of the economy food plan. For smaller families and persons living alone, the cost of the economy food plan was multiplied by factors that were slightly higher to compensate for the relatively larger fixed expenses for these smaller households” (U.S. Bureau of the Census – DC, 1992: B-27). A family consists of a householder and one or more other persons related by birth, marriage or adoption living in the same housing unit.18 Families (and all of the persons in them) with less than the minimum income required for the economy food plan are below the poverty threshold and are poor. Families (and all of the persons in them) at or above the minimum are not poor. The amounts of money needed to stay out of poverty vary by size and, for families of the same size, the number of related children under 18 years old. The threshold table for 2017 is reproduced below.19 The Minimum Family Income Needed in 2017 to Stay Out of Poverty, by Family Size and Number of Related Children _____ Number of Related Children Under 18 Size of Family Unit 1 (unrelated individual): Under 65 65 or older 2: Householder Under 65 65 or older 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 or more 0 1 2 3 $12,752 $11,756 $16,414 $14,816 $19,173 $25,283 $30,490 $35,069 $40,351 $45,129 $54,287 $16,895 $16,831 $19,730 $25,696 $30,933 $35,208 $40,603 $45,528 $54,550 $19,749 $24,858 $29,986 $34,482 $39,734 $44,708 $53,825 $24,944 $29,253 $33,787 $39,129 $43,990 $53,216 4 $28,805 $32,753 $38,001 $42,971 $52,216 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 46 5 $32,140 $36,685 $41,678 $50,840 ____________ 6 7 $35,242 $40,332 $49,595 $39,990 $49,287 8 or more $47,389 Altogether, the Bureau uses 48 different family income levels to determine poverty status. Larger families and families with more adults require more money. Between the two criteria, size is far more important than the number of children in determining minimum income levels. Also note the lower income requirements of one- and two-person households/families with householders age 65-plus compared with similar households/families with younger householders. All poverty thresholds are updated each year with the Consumer Price Index data (specifically the CPI-U). It is important to note how the Census Bureau calculates family income because it is at the core of determining poverty status. The Bureau collects information from every person in the family age 15 years and up regarding income sources. Sources include: wages, salaries, sales commissions, tips, piece-rate payments, bonuses, self-employment (farm and non-farm, net of expenses), interest, dividends, rents, royalties, trust fund payments, social security, retirement pensions or survivor benefits, disability benefits, unemployment compensation, Veterans Administration payments, alimony and child support, military family allotments, net gambling winnings, cash public assistance (including supplemental security), and regular, periodic payment from insurance policies, IRAs and KEOGH plans or a person outside of the family. The family’s income is the sum of all money received from the above-mentioned sources by any family member – all before deductions for taxes, payments into retirement funds, union dues, bond purchases, Medicare, etc. (U.S. Bureau of the Census – DC, 1992). Not included as income is money received from one-time or irregular transfers. Examples include gifts, inheritances, insurance payments, tax refunds, loans, bank withdrawals, exchanges of money between relatives in the same household, and capital gains or property sales (unless that was the recipient’s business). Similarly, non-cash benefits and income-in-kind – food stamps, public housing subsidies, medical care, or employer contributions for persons – are excluded from income calculations (U.S. Bureau of the Census – DC, 1992, 2002).20 The preceding discussion places poverty in a family context, but not everyone lives in a family. Individuals living by themselves are treated as families of one in the threshold table. Unrelated individuals living in the same housing unit (e.g., roommates) are treated as separate families, with poverty determinations done for each such person. The Bureau assumes unrelated individuals do not share their incomes with one another while family members do (Welniak, n.d.). Therefore, poverty status is determined for all persons with a few exceptions: those who are institutionalized, in military group quarters or college dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old. Institutionalized persons and those in military group quarters or college dormitories are excluded because they receive adequate nutrition even though they may have little or no income. (Recall that dormitory residents are included via their families of orientation in calculations based on the Current Population Survey). Unrelated individuals under 15 years old usually are foster children, for whom some extra-familial financial support may be provided. 47 ALTERNATIVE MEASURES OF POVERTY The Census Bureau’s definition of poverty has been criticized on a variety of points, and the Bureau has done extensive research addressing the issues raised. The latest results of its efforts are discussed in “The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2017” (Fox, 2018), which accounts for the impact of various changes made in response to those criticisms. Differences between the official and supplemental measures are highlighted as follows: Issue Official Poverty Measure* Supplemental Poverty Measure Measurement Units: Families or unrelated individuals Poverty Threshold: Three times the cost of the minimum 1963 food diet Varied by size, composition and the householder’s age Treats unrelated and foster children and cohabiting partners and relatives as families Adds clothing, shelter and utility expenses to food costs Also adjusts for variations in housing costs by geographic region, metropolitan residence and tenure Five-year moving averages of expenditures for food, clothing, shelter and utilities Adds tax credits and the value of non-cash^ benefits applying to food, clothing, shelter and utilities, then subtracts taxes, work and outof-pocket medical expenses, and child support paid to another household Threshold Adjustments: Updating Thresholds: Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) Resource Measure: Cash income before taxes Notes: * - specifics are discussed elsewhere in this report; ^ - non-cash benefits come from programs such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP), National School Lunch, Supplementary Nutrition for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), Low-Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP) and housing assistance. Using the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS-ASEC, still the official data source for national and state poverty statistics), Fox concluded the overall effect of changing to the supplemental measure raised the 2017 estimated U.S. poverty rate from 12.3 to 13.9 percent of all persons for whom poverty status was determined, a modest but significant increase. The effect was broadly based in many respects; rates were higher regardless of tenure and mortgage status, sex, nativity, educational attainment (for persons ages 25 and up), and the extent of employment among working-age persons (ages 18 to 64). Poverty rates also were higher regardless of race or Hispanic status, although increases among Asians and Hispanics were notably greater than for others (Fox, 2018: Table A-2). 48 The change also produced divergent results: poverty rates fell for children and rose for adults; they fell for cohabiting partners and rose for all other household types except those with female heads; they fell for those with public health insurance and rose for those with private or no coverage; they fell among the working-age with a disability and rose for those with none; they fell in the Midwest and rose among metropolitan residents (Fox, 2018: Table A-2). The impact of residential adjustments should not be underestimated. Specifically, the three-year moving average (20152017) for Ohio fell 13.4 to 11.4 percent with the switch from the official to supplemental measures, a significant reduction. Seventeen other states also saw significant rate reductions, but 16 states and the District of Columbia saw significant rate increases while 16 states saw no significant change. Overall, the three-year moving average for the U.S. rose from 12.9 to 14.1 percent with the switch from the official to the supplemental measure (Fox, 2018: Table A-5).21 It should be mentioned that both official and supplemental measures are limited in assessing a family’s ability to meet its needs when they consider only the family’s income. Poverty measures ignore any wealth families and individuals may have and use in meeting their needs, such as drawing upon savings to compensate for any short fall of income. However, this is a minor quibble because data show low-income households generally have fewer assets of any sort on which to draw if necessary (U.S. Bureau of the Census – Other, 2001: Table C). A brief discussion of the low- and moderate-income statistics used by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development for its programs also is warranted. They may resemble poverty statistics, but should not be interpreted as alternative poverty measures. The poverty thresholds determined by the Bureau concern minimum incomes necessary for adequate nutrition, given family size and composition. The low-moderate income thresholds determined by Housing and Urban Development are essentially modifications of local area median incomes for families of a given size. The local area is either a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or a non-MSA county, and family sizes range from one through eight. Low-moderate income thresholds start with the median-family-income-by-family-size-for-local-area from the decennial census. New estimates of medians are developed for the current fiscal year using mathematical formulas on data from County Business Patterns and the Current Population Survey. (The former is a Census Bureau product; the latter is accessible via a link at the Bureau’s website). Housing and Urban Development modifies the new estimates by multiplying them by 30, 50 and 80 percent – the first two are known as the “very low-income” and “low-income” limits. Consequently, any similarity between the three income limits and poverty thresholds is coincidental; in other instances, the income limits are far above or below the corresponding poverty thresholds. 49 This page intentionally blank. 50 51 DETAILED TABLES Table A1: Number and Percent of Poor Persons in Ohio and the U.S., 1959, 1969-2017 (in Thousands, Except for Percentages) Ohio U.S. Poor Ohio Poor Number Percent Total U.S. Poor Year Total Number Percent 1959^ 9,514 1,508 15.9 175,035 38,685 22.1 1969^ 1970* 1971* 1972* 1973* 1974* 1975* 1976* 1977* 1978* 1979^ 1980* 1981* 1982* 1983* 1984* 1985* 1986* 1987* 1988* 1989^ 1990* 1991* 1992* 10,435 10,874 11,013 10,765 10,563 10,441 10,515 10,512 10,503 10,452 10,568 10,650 10,697 10,712 10,668 10,641 10,650 10,680 10,771 10,724 10,560 10,837 11,027 11,152 1,042 1,027 998 902 872 860 921 980 971 996 1,089 1,168 1,260 1,394 1,414 1,412 1,387 1,401 1,399 1,375 1,298 1,347 1,375 1,443 10.0 9.4 9.1 8.4 8.3 8.2 8.8 9.3 9.2 9.5 10.3 11.0 11.8 13.0 13.3 13.3 13.0 13.1 13.0 12.8 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.9 198,060 202,183 204,554 206,004 207,621 209,362 210,864 212,303 213,867 215,656 220,846 225,027 227,157 229,412 231,700 233,816 236,594 238,554 240,982 243,530 241,978 248,644 251,192 256,549 27,057 25,420 25,559 24,460 22,973 23,370 25,877 24,975 24,720 24,497 27,393 29,272 31,822 34,398 35,303 33,700 33,064 32,370 32,221 31,745 31,743 33,585 35,708 38,014 13.7 12.6 12.5 11.9 11.1 11.2 12.3 11.8 11.6 11.4 12.4 13.0 14.0 15.0 15.2 14.4 14.0 13.6 13.4 13.0 13.1 13.5 14.2 14.8 Year(s) 1993* 1994* 1995* 1996* 1997* 1998* 1999^ 2000* 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Total 11,178 11,205 11,202 11,226 11,222 11,153 11,047 11,096 11,080 11,092 11,106 11,117 11,156 11,151 11,172 11,225 11,225 11,234 11,227 11,249 11,276 11,295 11,287 11,331 Poor Number Percent 1,471 1,439 1,427 1,313 1,303 1,218 1,171 1,201 1,314 1,343 1,388 1,451 1,486 1,464 1,492 1,710 1,779 1,846 1,825 1,797 1,786 1,674 1,645 1,583 13.2 12.8 12.7 11.7 11.6 10.9 10.6 10.8 11.9 12.1 12.5 13.0 13.3 13.1 13.4 15.2 15.8 16.4 16.3 16.0 15.8 14.8 14.6 14.0 Total 259,278 261,616 263,733 266,218 268,480 271,059 273,882 278,944 279,396 281,858 284,578 287,270 291,531 293,744 296,184 299,027 301,535 303,778 306,086 308,197 310,900 313,476 315,165 317,742 Number Percent 39,265 38,059 36,425 36,529 35,574 34,476 33,900 31,581 34,763 35,846 37,162 38,231 38,757 38,052 39,108 42,868 46,216 48,452 48,760 48,811 48,208 46,153 44,269 42,584 Notes: ^ Data from the decennial censuses; * - Ohio data are three-year moving averages mostly from the Current Population Surveys (CPSs), but also including data from adjacent decennial censuses; data after 2000 are from the American Community Survey (ACS). Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census - ACS (2003-2018); U.S. Bureau of the Census - CPS (1971-1979, 1981-1989, 1991-1999, 2001); and U.S. Bureau of the Census - DC (1975, 1983, 1993, 2002). Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 1/19). 52 15.1 14.5 13.8 13.7 13.3 12.7 12.4 11.3 12.4 12.7 13.1 13.3 13.3 13.0 13.2 14.3 15.3 15.9 15.9 15.8 15.5 14.7 14.0 13.4 Table A2: Number and Percent of Poor Families in Ohio and the U.S., 1959, 1969-2017 (in Thousands, Except for Percentages) Ohio U.S. Poor Ohio Poor Number Percent Total U.S. Poor Year Total Number Percent 1959^ 2,465 325 13.2 45,128 8,315 18.4 1969^ 1970* 1971* 1972* 1973* 1974* 1975* 1976* 1977* 1978* 1979^ 1980* 1981* 1982* 1983* 1984* 1985* 1986* 1987* 1988* 1989^ 1990* 1991* 1992* 2,691 2,850 2,906 2,860 2,826 2,810 2,820 2,810 2,831 2,842 2,864 2,898 2,930 2,936 2,919 2,902 2,885 2,882 2,900 2,911 2,909 2,924 2,952 2,988 205 215 218 199 189 185 194 205 199 206 229 247 274 314 316 311 297 299 302 296 278 291 297 327 7.6 7.6 7.5 6.9 6.7 6.6 6.9 7.3 7.0 7.2 8.0 8.5 9.4 10.7 10.8 10.7 10.3 10.4 10.4 10.2 9.5 9.9 10.1 11.0 51,169 52,227 53,296 54,373 55,053 55,698 56,245 56,710 57,215 57,804 59,190 60,309 61,019 61,393 62,015 62,706 63,558 64,491 65,204 65,837 65,049 66,322 67,175 68,216 5,483 5,260 5,303 5,075 4,828 4,922 5,450 5,311 5,311 5,280 5,670 6,217 6,851 7,512 7,647 7,277 7,223 7,023 7,005 6,874 6,488 7,098 7,712 8,144 10.7 10.1 10.0 9.3 8.8 8.8 9.7 9.4 9.3 9.1 9.6 10.3 11.2 12.2 12.3 11.6 11.4 10.9 10.7 10.4 10.0 10.7 11.5 11.9 Year(s) Total 1993* 1994* 1995* 1996* 1997* 1998* 1999^ 2000* 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 3,011 3,020 2,998 2,983 2,979 3,000 3,007 4,536 2,969 2,982 3,004 2,987 2,953 2,962 2,936 2,947 2,960 2,916 2,913 2,923 2,924 2,922 2,930 2,951 Poor Number Percent 338 335 321 284 283 259 251 371 273 280 301 297 290 287 289 328 348 350 349 340 340 314 307 290 11.2 11.1 10.7 9.5 9.5 8.6 8.3 8.2 9.2 9.4 10.0 9.9 9.8 9.7 9.8 11.1 11.8 12.0 12.0 11.6 11.6 10.7 10.5 9.8 Total 68,506 69,313 69,597 70,241 70,884 71,551 73,778 72,388 72,453 73,058 73,886 74,341 74,564 75,119 75,031 75,531 76,089 76,084 76,509 76,680 77,152 77,531 77,786 78,631 Number Percent 8,393 8,053 7,532 7,708 7,324 7,186 6,400 6,222 6,952 7,143 7,444 7,605 7,283 7,162 7,252 7,956 8,580 8,939 9,054 8,905 8,738 8,233 7,805 7,501 Notes: ^ Data from the decennial censuses; * - Ohio data are three-year moving averages mostly from the Current Population Surveys (CPSs), but also including data from adjacent decennial censuses; data after 2000 are from the American Community Survey (ACS). Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census - ACS (2003-2018); U.S. Bureau of the Census - CPS (1971-1979, 1981-1989, 1991-1999, 2001); and U.S. Bureau of the Census - DC (1975, 1983, 1993, 2002). Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 1/19). 53 12.3 11.6 10.8 11.0 10.3 10.0 8.7 8.6 9.6 9.8 10.1 10.2 9.8 9.5 9.7 10.5 11.3 11.7 11.8 11.6 11.3 10.6 10.0 9.5 Table A3: Poverty and Unemployment Rates and Per Capita Income in Ohio, 1998-2017 Year(s) 1998 1999 2000 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Percent Poor1 Unemployment Rates2 Per Capita Income ($1,000s)3 10.9 10.6 10.8 11.9 12.1 12.5 13.0 13.3 13.1 13.4 15.2 15.8 16.4 16.3 16.0 15.8 14.8 14.6 14.0 4.3 4.3 4.0 5.0 6.0 6.3 6.1 5.7 5.5 6.0 8.4 10.3 9.6 8.1 7.4 6.6 5.4 5.0 5.0 $38.074 $38.464 $39.127 $39.228 $39.529 $39.942 $40.122 $40.481 $41.178 $41.306 $40.730 $40.470 $41.361 $42.448 $42.755 $43.182 $44.536 $45.608 $46.272 Details Notes: 1 - From Table A1; 2 - The civilian unemployment rate; for hyphenated years, it's the sum of the average number unemployed for the two years divided by the sum of the average size of the civilian labor force for the two years; 3 - Total personal income divided by the estimated population size, in thousands of dollars adjusted for inflation and standardized on 2017 by using the unweighted means of the Cincinnati and Cleveland Consumer Price Indexes - All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for 2017 and the year; for hyphenated years, the sums of incomes, population estimates and consumer price indexes for the years were used. Sources: ODJFS/LMI (2019); U.S. Bureau of the Census - ACS (2003-2018); U.S. Burea of the Census - CPS (1998-2001); U.S. Bureau of the Census - DC (2002); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018); U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2019). Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614-466-2116 (DL, 1/19). 54 Table A4: Number and Percentage of Poor Persons by Ohio County for Selected Years 2013-17 (ACS) Area U.S. (numbers in thousands) Ohio Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined 313,048.6 2007-11 (ACS) Poor Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined Number Percent 45,650.3 11,289,161 1,683,890 14.6 H 14.9 1999 (DC) Poor Number Percent 14.3 H 11,213,528 1,654,193 14.8 H 16.7 ^ 14.3 ^ 1,981,503 9,065,484 257,780 912,918 13.0 10.1 22.8 18.0 14.6 17.2 31.5 7.2 14.2 12.2 12.8 13.9 15.1 16.9 9.6 14.8 15.9 16.7 14.8 17.1 11.5 12.6 4.5 12.6 11.5 18.5 17.4 10.3 20.2 8.0 12.8 17.1 27,002 102,300 50,238 100,870 53,844 45,636 66,997 41,684 321,387 28,404 38,096 141,106 176,027 39,397 108,138 36,240 46,296 1,365,658 52,534 38,723 107,078 77,628 119,747 27,822 1,045,966 41,597 30,069 89,980 140,103 40,179 4,687 12,374 4,755 12,162 14,728 2,814 9,768 4,856 27,946 3,245 2,890 15,054 12,462 3,386 12,478 3,301 4,831 179,372 4,212 2,180 4,118 6,439 7,064 2,810 121,843 2,255 5,454 4,096 11,847 6,426 17.4 12.1 9.5 12.1 27.4 6.2 14.6 11.6 8.7 11.4 7.6 10.7 7.1 8.6 11.5 9.1 10.4 13.1 8.0 5.6 3.8 8.3 5.9 10.1 11.6 5.4 18.1 4.6 8.5 16.0 17.2 ^ 14.4 ^ 1,981,354 9,232,174 331,147 1,323,046 Adams* Allen Ashland Ashtabula* Athens* Auglaize Belmont* Brown* Butler Carroll* Champaign Clark Clermont* Clinton Columbiana* Coshocton* Crawford Cuyahoga Darke Defiance Delaware Erie Fairfield Fayette Franklin Fulton Gallia* Geauga Greene Guernsey* 27,484 100,283 50,941 95,196 55,811 45,115 64,843 43,022 363,257 27,405 38,088 132,134 200,346 40,526 100,743 36,133 41,551 1,230,956 51,089 37,514 190,141 74,219 148,545 28,005 1,223,993 41,713 29,364 93,031 155,842 38,809 23.8 15.0 14.2 19.8 30.2 9.0 14.1 17.8 12.9 14.8 11.1 16.6 9.8 14.7 15.4 15.0 16.2 18.3 11.6 11.0 5.1 13.0 9.9 17.7 16.7 10.6 20.9 6.5 12.3 20.2 28,266 101,989 50,993 98,098 55,557 45,257 66,449 44,134 353,575 28,584 39,302 135,054 194,858 41,163 103,884 36,467 43,259 1,260,508 52,210 38,335 167,439 75,443 142,269 28,355 1,129,154 42,204 30,150 92,731 152,196 39,530 6,450 18,378 7,439 16,852 17,515 3,254 9,404 5,386 45,335 3,960 5,924 22,844 18,790 6,079 16,515 6,095 6,394 215,531 5,993 4,835 7,578 9,507 16,307 5,251 196,105 4,353 6,087 7,432 19,472 6,747 L H H L L 55 Number Percent 42,739.9 1,946,033 335,117 9,343,128 1,348,773 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 273,882.2 Poor 298,788.0 Appalachia* Not Appalachia 6,537 15,088 7,230 18,854 16,837 4,079 9,153 7,641 47,018 4,053 4,211 21,956 19,660 5,962 15,538 5,424 6,751 225,265 5,919 4,113 9,625 9,636 14,776 4,944 203,877 4,417 6,143 6,076 19,093 7,857 Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined 33,899.8 12.4 11,046,987 1,170,698 10.6 Table A4: Number and Percentage of Poor Persons by Ohio County for Selected Years 2013-17 (ACS) Area Hamilton Hancock Hardin Harrison* Henry Highland* Hocking* Holmes* Huron Jackson* Jefferson* Knox Lake Lawrence* Licking Logan Lorain Lucas Madison Mahoning* Marion Medina Meigs* Mercer Miami Monroe* Montgomery Morgan* Morrow Muskingum* Noble* Ottawa Paulding Perry* Pickaway Pike* Portage Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined 791,027 73,093 29,208 15,107 26,943 42,354 27,823 42,882 57,822 32,108 64,873 57,533 226,389 60,149 166,495 44,684 296,057 423,275 38,471 224,710 59,446 174,745 23,002 40,213 102,781 14,055 515,805 14,451 34,520 83,570 11,917 40,229 18,783 35,555 52,093 27,763 154,907 2007-11 (ACS) Poor Number Percent 134,499 8,878 4,844 2,371 2,437 9,150 3,947 5,132 8,224 6,627 11,413 7,914 18,837 11,201 19,591 6,116 40,477 83,744 3,926 39,616 9,846 10,764 5,179 2,989 10,150 2,772 92,085 3,110 3,347 13,877 1,534 4,219 2,006 6,838 6,253 5,565 22,493 Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined 17.0 H 12.1 16.6 15.7 9.0 21.6 H 14.2 12.0 14.2 20.6 17.6 13.8 8.3 18.6 11.8 13.7 13.7 19.8 10.2 17.6 16.6 6.2 22.5 7.4 9.9 19.7 17.9 H 21.5 9.7 16.6 12.9 10.5 10.7 19.2 12.0 20.0 14.5 784,093 72,864 29,960 15,539 27,904 43,006 28,570 41,350 58,894 32,841 67,651 57,259 226,805 61,825 161,125 45,345 290,849 432,916 38,539 233,118 61,307 169,702 23,375 40,423 101,069 14,564 515,734 14,898 34,223 83,570 12,073 40,924 19,315 35,526 50,665 28,256 153,554 56 1999 (DC) Poor Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined Number Percent 124,841 8,699 5,571 3,124 3,263 7,435 4,495 6,086 8,841 7,621 11,463 7,431 19,217 10,787 18,700 6,769 39,590 84,479 4,028 39,758 11,352 12,168 4,985 3,562 11,378 2,641 82,499 2,899 4,068 14,139 1,970 4,181 2,601 6,272 6,641 6,356 21,977 15.9 11.9 18.6 20.1 11.7 17.3 15.7 14.7 15.0 23.2 16.9 13.0 8.5 17.4 11.6 14.9 13.6 19.5 10.5 17.1 18.5 7.2 21.3 8.8 11.3 18.1 16.0 19.5 11.9 16.9 16.3 10.2 13.5 17.7 13.1 22.5 14.3 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 826,628 69,451 29,825 15,551 28,649 40,286 27,447 37,953 58,652 32,103 71,820 50,963 224,680 61,639 141,726 45,208 275,784 446,417 35,612 250,542 61,415 149,347 22,768 40,359 97,256 14,995 542,982 14,614 31,172 81,903 11,829 40,239 20,156 33,741 46,174 27,226 144,317 Poor Number Percent 97,692 5,176 3,928 2,069 1,992 4,760 3,711 4,884 4,998 5,286 10,862 5,159 11,372 11,645 10,602 4,186 24,809 62,026 2,790 31,328 5,963 6,849 4,506 2,571 6,531 2,085 61,440 2,691 2,820 10,565 1,346 2,374 1,546 3,970 4,402 5,061 13,395 11.8 7.5 13.2 13.3 7.0 11.8 13.5 12.9 8.5 16.5 15.1 10.1 5.1 18.9 7.5 9.3 9.0 13.9 7.8 12.5 9.7 4.6 19.8 6.4 6.7 13.9 11.3 18.4 9.0 12.9 11.4 5.9 7.7 11.8 9.5 18.6 9.3 Table A4: Number and Percentage of Poor Persons by Ohio County for Selected Years 2013-17 (ACS) Area Preble Putnam Richland Ross* Sandusky Scioto* Seneca Shelby Stark Summit Trumbull* Tuscarawas* Union Van Wert Vinton* Warren Washington* Wayne Williams Wood Wyandot Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined 40,596 33,688 113,627 71,020 58,345 72,911 52,490 48,191 364,660 532,372 199,476 91,132 51,313 27,887 13,024 216,399 58,995 112,016 35,743 122,541 21,798 2007-11 (ACS) Poor Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined Number Percent 5,017 2,416 17,674 12,925 7,916 17,432 7,954 4,286 50,921 72,232 34,254 12,610 3,799 3,538 2,747 11,016 9,120 14,611 4,835 16,409 2,474 12.4 7.2 15.6 18.2 13.6 23.9 15.2 8.9 14.0 13.6 17.2 13.8 7.4 12.7 21.1 5.1 15.5 13.0 13.5 13.4 11.3 41,770 34,099 118,257 71,291 60,043 75,859 54,442 48,510 366,939 534,074 207,276 91,354 48,452 28,201 13,275 204,586 60,160 110,966 36,694 118,018 22,218 H L H L H H 1999 (DC) Poor Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined Number Percent 4,286 2,153 15,844 12,495 8,179 16,522 7,672 5,836 49,834 77,375 33,896 12,526 3,211 2,568 2,767 12,869 9,109 11,754 4,183 15,695 1,720 10.3 6.3 13.4 17.5 13.6 21.8 14.1 12.0 13.6 14.5 16.4 13.7 6.6 9.1 20.8 6.3 15.1 10.6 11.4 13.3 7.7 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 41,755 34,353 122,277 67,870 60,823 75,683 57,264 46,961 368,573 533,162 220,572 89,481 38,511 29,168 12,643 152,000 61,383 108,474 37,996 113,406 22,457 Poor Number Percent 2,552 1,908 12,941 8,120 4,542 14,600 5,140 3,161 33,865 52,991 22,788 8,405 1,763 1,595 2,529 6,425 7,002 8,698 2,286 10,903 1,241 Notes: ACS - American Community Survey; DC - Decennial Census; ACS estimates are from sample data collected from January 2013 through December 2017 and January 2007 through December 2011; DC sample data were collected in April 2000, and refer to calendar year 1999; ACS estimates use family income of the 12 months preceding the month in which the data were collected, and have been adjusted for inflation; single-person households and unrelated adults with no children are considered one-person families; H & L - the odds are less than one in 20 that the percentage change from the earlier time moved higher (H) or lower (L) by sampling variability alone - i.e., the change appears real; ^ - significance testing would be unreliable; * - an Appalachian county. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census - ACS (2012c, 2018c); U.S. Bureau of the Census - DC (2002). Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 1/19). 57 6.1 5.6 10.6 12.0 7.5 19.3 9.0 6.7 9.2 9.9 10.3 9.4 4.6 5.5 20.0 4.2 11.4 8.0 6.0 9.6 5.5 Table A5a: Annual SAIPE* Percentages of Persons in Poverty by Ohio County, 2002-2017 Name 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 United States 12.1 12.5 12.7 13.3 13.3 13.0 13.2 14.3 15.3 15.9 15.9 15.8 15.5 14.7 14.0 13.4 Ohio 10.2 10.7 11.7 13.0 13.2 13.1 13.3 15.1 15.8 16.3 16.2 15.9 15.8 14.8 14.5 13.9 Adams Allen Ashland Ashtabula Athens Auglaize Belmont Brown Butler Carroll Champaign Clark Clermont Clinton Columbiana Coshocton Crawford Cuyahoga Darke Defiance Delaware Erie Fairfield Fayette Franklin Fulton 15.8 10.8 8.6 12.1 20.1 6.5 14.6 10.3 8.1 10.3 8.0 11.2 6.8 8.7 12.4 10.3 9.9 12.7 7.5 6.9 4.2 9.1 6.7 10.7 11.0 6.1 14.8 11.3 9.0 12.0 18.5 6.7 14.3 10.5 8.9 10.7 8.2 11.3 6.9 8.9 11.5 10.2 10.4 13.6 7.9 7.2 4.6 9.0 6.8 10.6 12.0 6.6 16.1 12.2 9.7 12.7 20.2 7.0 14.8 11.9 9.8 10.9 8.9 12.8 7.8 9.8 12.2 11.3 11.4 15.0 8.3 7.9 5.0 9.6 7.7 12.0 13.1 7.1 20.5 13.4 12.7 15.3 31.5 7.1 16.1 14.1 11.8 12.6 9.1 15.0 8.4 10.9 15.3 12.4 11.2 17.1 8.6 8.4 4.5 11.6 7.7 13.4 14.7 7.1 19.9 12.8 11.6 15.9 27.6 8.1 16.0 13.8 11.3 13.9 11.1 14.2 9.1 11.8 16.2 14.5 12.4 15.1 9.6 8.7 4.2 10.5 7.9 13.1 16.4 7.6 19.6 14.5 10.0 15.5 29.4 7.2 15.3 13.6 11.9 11.5 11.0 15.5 9.0 13.0 15.1 12.8 12.8 15.7 9.1 9.5 4.5 11.1 8.9 13.6 16.2 8.1 21.9 14.7 12.0 15.6 29.6 7.8 16.1 13.2 11.9 12.5 11.8 13.8 8.8 10.9 14.5 13.2 12.6 15.9 9.8 9.8 4.9 12.0 8.9 13.1 15.1 7.8 21.4 18.8 16.7 17.5 34.7 8.5 16.8 13.0 13.2 13.5 10.2 16.3 10.4 11.9 16.4 14.6 14.9 18.9 11.9 11.9 5.1 14.6 11.8 20.3 18.4 9.1 22.8 18.7 15.6 16.1 24.8 9.4 16.3 13.0 13.5 16.6 13.1 20.0 9.6 15.7 17.7 20.4 16.5 18.2 12.1 11.5 5.8 14.9 11.2 16.2 18.8 10.9 22.5 19.2 13.1 20.3 35.0 9.9 15.7 15.6 13.9 16.4 14.0 19.1 10.9 15.7 17.1 17.0 17.3 18.8 12.9 11.7 4.5 12.8 11.3 18.0 18.8 9.8 22.1 20.1 15.2 20.3 33.3 9.7 16.3 16.8 14.0 14.8 13.2 19.9 11.5 15.5 15.9 15.4 16.5 18.8 12.6 15.1 5.0 12.2 10.7 17.7 18.0 10.6 24.1 16.1 12.9 18.9 31.0 9.7 16.8 17.8 13.3 15.5 12.0 18.2 9.7 17.3 17.8 14.4 18.2 19.2 14.6 11.4 5.6 15.0 11.8 17.9 17.7 10.8 24.8 18.0 14.6 21.5 29.9 8.3 16.1 15.0 14.4 13.5 11.3 18.2 11.2 13.7 15.9 18.1 15.4 19.6 12.2 11.7 4.8 13.9 9.6 15.8 17.3 10.5 21.3 15.5 14.1 18.6 31.5 8.7 14.6 14.9 14.4 13.0 10.8 15.1 9.5 13.6 14.7 15.1 16.5 18.2 9.6 10.2 4.4 12.7 9.1 16.3 17.1 8.5 20.2 15.5 12.2 18.2 28.8 9.2 15.7 16.7 12.4 12.8 11.1 15.7 10.6 13.4 17.2 12.7 13.9 18.3 10.7 10.4 4.7 12.5 9.7 16.0 16.6 8.9 18.6 15.2 11.4 19.3 28.8 8.7 11.1 16.9 10.7 13.0 11.0 15.4 8.7 13.0 15.1 15.7 15.5 18.1 9.2 9.5 4.8 12.4 9.0 15.6 16.0 8.2 58 Table A5a: Annual SAIPE* Percentages of Persons in Poverty by Ohio County, 2002-2017 Name 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Gallia Geauga Greene Guernsey Hamilton Hancock Hardin Harrison Henry Highland Hocking Holmes Huron Jackson Jefferson Knox Lake Lawrence Licking Logan Lorain Lucas Madison Mahoning Marion Medina Meigs Mercer Miami 16.3 5.5 7.5 14.0 10.8 7.4 10.7 12.0 6.7 11.5 11.8 10.5 8.5 14.5 13.0 9.8 6.4 17.1 8.0 9.1 9.3 12.2 9.0 12.7 11.0 4.9 16.5 6.7 7.5 15.5 5.6 8.2 14.0 11.6 7.5 10.6 12.1 6.9 11.4 12.2 9.8 9.0 14.3 13.6 10.0 6.3 16.6 8.4 9.2 9.8 12.9 8.3 12.9 11.0 5.4 16.8 6.7 8.1 17.4 5.5 9.4 15.2 13.1 7.9 11.6 13.0 7.3 12.2 13.3 9.7 9.5 15.5 14.7 10.6 6.6 17.4 9.5 10.0 10.9 14.7 9.6 14.3 12.0 5.9 18.1 6.4 8.2 22.8 5.4 9.4 17.2 14.0 9.6 15.4 15.0 7.1 12.3 15.5 11.5 10.9 16.5 16.3 11.6 7.8 20.3 10.2 11.4 11.7 17.5 9.7 14.3 14.7 5.4 19.9 7.2 8.2 20.5 5.7 10.9 19.6 14.7 10.7 14.9 15.3 8.1 17.8 15.1 11.5 11.1 18.5 17.7 12.1 6.9 23.2 9.7 11.8 13.4 16.9 11.2 16.3 13.0 5.6 21.4 7.1 8.4 23.1 5.4 9.2 15.5 13.0 8.9 15.0 17.0 8.1 14.1 16.0 10.7 11.1 17.2 16.9 11.3 6.8 21.9 11.0 12.1 11.2 16.9 10.1 16.6 14.6 6.7 19.8 8.4 9.0 20.3 6.9 10.7 17.1 13.6 9.8 14.7 17.7 8.6 12.9 15.6 10.8 13.7 20.7 17.9 13.2 8.5 18.2 10.2 10.8 12.3 18.6 11.0 16.7 16.9 5.8 20.1 7.2 7.9 59 20.9 7.9 12.3 20.5 15.2 11.0 16.2 17.7 10.8 16.5 16.8 15.0 12.4 22.9 17.6 13.2 8.2 19.6 11.7 14.0 14.4 18.7 14.2 18.3 17.3 6.6 20.0 9.1 11.6 18.2 7.8 13.1 19.1 18.5 11.9 17.2 17.8 12.9 18.6 16.2 16.5 14.0 22.5 18.6 16.5 9.6 21.4 12.4 16.9 14.3 19.8 15.0 17.1 19.3 7.6 23.5 9.6 11.9 21.2 8.0 15.6 19.4 18.5 13.3 19.8 17.4 10.4 21.5 17.3 15.3 14.6 20.4 16.8 14.5 10.2 18.9 13.0 13.6 15.3 23.3 11.8 17.7 18.4 8.9 22.4 9.1 13.9 21.0 8.0 12.9 19.1 19.8 14.6 16.3 18.1 11.1 17.6 20.1 13.5 13.2 21.7 16.8 15.9 9.7 18.0 14.0 14.9 14.4 22.7 12.5 19.0 18.6 7.6 22.5 9.4 12.5 20.3 7.4 12.8 22.6 18.7 12.6 15.7 16.5 11.2 21.2 16.2 12.4 14.6 21.4 18.4 14.5 9.4 20.6 11.2 13.2 14.6 21.6 12.2 18.0 16.3 6.6 20.6 9.4 10.1 26.1 7.8 13.2 17.2 17.6 12.7 19.0 16.9 10.2 19.3 17.5 12.4 13.4 20.0 20.0 15.1 8.9 17.5 13.5 17.0 14.7 20.7 12.6 18.9 21.3 7.0 22.6 8.9 10.6 21.7 6.7 12.7 18.6 16.6 10.6 16.5 15.5 9.4 17.9 15.7 10.8 13.1 20.4 17.8 14.8 8.3 21.0 12.6 10.9 13.5 19.5 9.3 16.8 18.2 7.0 22.8 7.8 10.7 20.6 5.8 12.1 18.6 16.0 10.0 13.3 16.8 8.3 19.8 14.5 11.7 12.2 18.1 16.3 12.7 8.6 17.9 11.7 12.2 12.4 19.8 11.8 18.7 14.8 6.5 21.1 8.2 9.5 19.0 6.4 9.8 18.2 16.2 9.7 15.8 12.8 8.2 16.8 14.5 9.0 14.8 17.9 17.6 10.7 8.7 19.5 8.9 11.1 13.5 17.9 9.6 18.4 16.5 6.0 19.9 6.9 9.0 Table A5a: Annual SAIPE* Percentages of Persons in Poverty by Ohio County, 2002-2017 Name 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Monroe Montgomery Morgan Morrow Muskingum Noble Ottawa Paulding Perry Pickaway Pike Portage Preble Putnam Richland Ross Sandusky Scioto Seneca Shelby Stark Summit Trumbull Tuscarawas Union Van Wert Vinton Warren Washington 13.2 10.7 14.3 9.6 12.6 14.0 6.6 7.9 12.8 10.0 16.3 8.6 7.8 5.4 10.8 13.0 7.9 18.4 8.8 7.0 9.4 10.2 10.6 9.4 5.9 6.5 15.8 4.8 11.1 11.7 11.2 14.2 9.1 13.1 12.1 6.9 8.3 12.2 10.3 15.7 8.7 7.5 5.9 11.1 12.1 8.2 17.4 9.1 7.3 9.8 11.1 11.0 9.6 6.0 6.5 15.0 5.1 11.2 12.4 12.5 14.8 9.8 14.2 13.2 7.5 8.7 13.2 11.1 17.2 9.7 8.1 6.5 12.0 13.1 8.9 18.9 9.8 7.8 10.7 12.3 12.1 10.1 6.7 7.0 16.8 5.3 12.2 18.3 14.7 18.0 9.9 15.2 14.5 7.3 9.1 14.1 11.3 21.4 10.9 8.7 6.0 12.1 14.5 8.9 25.3 10.8 9.2 12.0 11.6 11.5 9.6 6.2 7.2 20.6 5.0 13.3 15.1 15.0 18.4 10.7 16.1 16.2 7.9 8.9 17.5 11.4 23.4 12.7 9.1 6.9 13.3 16.1 10.1 22.8 10.8 8.5 12.3 12.6 11.9 12.3 6.2 8.2 19.0 5.3 14.6 15.9 14.8 20.2 10.2 16.4 16.4 8.5 9.4 14.8 11.9 22.9 10.8 9.1 6.4 11.9 13.8 9.7 20.6 12.0 9.5 10.9 14.0 14.6 12.0 5.1 7.0 18.9 5.1 13.5 15.0 15.0 21.1 11.1 16.9 16.5 9.0 11.0 15.8 12.4 19.6 11.8 8.4 7.6 14.7 16.3 10.0 20.2 11.1 9.2 12.4 12.5 15.5 11.4 7.1 8.1 23.0 6.6 16.9 60 16.6 16.2 19.6 12.8 16.8 18.4 10.7 10.9 17.1 14.2 21.6 14.3 10.3 7.5 14.8 18.3 12.2 23.5 12.5 10.5 14.8 14.8 16.0 14.1 8.0 8.6 19.8 5.9 13.9 17.4 18.0 19.6 13.7 17.8 17.3 10.2 13.5 19.1 12.7 26.3 15.1 12.1 9.0 14.7 19.3 12.3 22.2 14.6 12.2 14.6 15.4 18.2 14.7 8.2 12.5 21.8 5.9 15.7 16.8 18.3 20.9 13.7 18.9 18.1 10.9 13.8 17.7 14.9 22.7 15.8 11.6 6.4 17.2 19.4 14.2 26.1 16.6 11.5 16.3 16.5 16.5 14.5 7.5 10.5 23.5 6.9 14.8 15.2 18.6 18.6 14.2 20.0 17.5 11.2 12.0 19.3 14.6 23.2 14.9 12.3 8.2 18.4 19.6 11.7 24.4 16.6 10.2 14.7 15.9 17.7 13.5 8.0 11.0 21.9 6.6 16.2 16.7 18.8 22.8 13.3 20.6 17.3 10.4 12.3 17.8 13.6 24.3 16.9 13.1 7.2 17.6 19.4 12.9 24.5 13.9 10.0 15.4 14.8 18.7 14.3 7.8 13.3 22.2 7.3 16.3 15.7 19.7 18.1 12.1 19.1 16.3 10.1 12.3 17.8 13.2 21.9 14.2 13.0 7.8 15.9 19.2 14.5 27.2 17.5 10.7 14.9 13.4 17.2 13.4 7.7 10.1 23.7 5.8 15.7 18.3 17.7 19.0 11.3 16.5 15.0 9.7 10.9 18.8 12.4 21.4 13.6 12.7 7.2 15.1 17.8 12.2 23.0 13.6 8.9 13.4 14.4 17.6 13.0 7.6 11.2 18.9 5.2 15.0 15.2 18.2 18.7 12.2 14.8 15.1 10.4 10.7 17.0 13.2 20.5 13.5 11.0 8.3 15.8 18.6 11.6 22.1 12.9 9.4 13.2 13.7 17.6 12.7 6.1 8.9 20.8 5.4 13.7 15.2 15.9 20.5 11.2 14.8 16.2 8.9 10.2 15.7 12.0 20.0 11.8 9.9 6.4 13.4 16.3 11.1 21.4 13.6 8.1 14.3 12.9 15.4 12.8 5.2 11.4 19.8 4.7 14.6 Table A5a: Annual SAIPE* Percentages of Persons in Poverty by Ohio County, 2002-2017 Name Wayne Williams Wood Wyandot 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 8.4 7.5 7.2 6.7 8.6 7.6 7.8 6.3 9.1 8.3 8.0 6.6 10.5 9.2 11.5 6.8 10.8 9.7 10.8 8.0 8.8 8.9 10.8 7.4 11.1 9.7 10.1 8.4 11.2 12.1 13.5 9.9 12.6 12.2 12.8 9.4 13.7 12.5 13.9 9.5 12.2 13.9 13.7 10.1 13.1 12.1 13.0 11.2 13.9 14.2 13.5 10.0 Note: * - SAIPE: Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates. Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census - SAIPE (2003-2018). Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 1/19). 61 11.3 12.0 11.7 8.8 11.9 9.7 11.4 8.6 12.9 10.7 10.8 8.8 Table A5b: Annual SAIPE* Numbers of Persons in Poverty by Ohio County, 2007-2017 Name United States Ohio Adams Allen Ashland Ashtabula Athens Auglaize Belmont Brown Butler Carroll Champaign Clark Clermont Clinton Columbiana Coshocton Crawford Cuyahoga Darke Defiance Delaware Erie Fairfield Fayette Franklin Fulton Gallia Geauga Greene Guernsey Hamilton Hancock Hardin Harrison Henry Highland Hocking 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 38,052,247 39,108,422 42,868,163 46,215,956 48,452,035 48,760,123 48,810,868 48,208,387 46,153,077 44,268,996 42,583,651 1,458,625 1,489,314 1,699,288 1,771,404 1,836,098 1,818,886 1,793,523 1,778,288 1,670,487 1,639,636 1,575,401 5,468 14,529 5,216 15,322 16,051 3,269 9,856 5,897 41,421 3,234 4,234 21,236 17,172 5,467 15,864 4,577 5,562 198,810 4,681 3,603 7,137 8,360 12,280 3,766 177,575 3,424 6,919 5,072 13,344 6,147 107,256 6,438 4,393 2,579 2,312 5,930 4,491 6,127 14,749 6,302 15,304 16,134 3,583 10,276 5,747 41,659 3,500 4,575 18,870 16,994 4,608 15,088 4,675 5,436 199,694 5,007 3,725 7,877 9,044 12,397 3,622 166,917 3,283 6,092 6,467 16,162 6,786 113,411 7,025 4,309 2,669 2,451 5,376 4,382 5,949 18,751 8,781 17,245 18,756 3,874 10,763 5,638 46,350 3,810 3,963 22,130 20,330 4,989 17,056 5,142 6,388 235,014 6,058 4,484 8,433 10,981 16,569 5,589 207,183 3,806 6,250 7,789 18,620 8,090 126,872 7,910 4,733 2,643 3,038 6,848 4,703 6,428 18,766 7,943 15,771 13,710 4,260 10,809 5,744 48,197 4,701 5,132 26,991 18,790 6,392 18,389 7,409 7,088 227,716 6,342 4,397 10,037 11,220 16,062 4,607 213,899 4,581 5,463 7,207 20,032 7,551 144,741 8,671 5,102 2,765 3,572 7,972 4,635 6,310 19,203 6,672 19,891 19,353 4,455 10,418 6,855 49,749 4,639 5,424 25,642 21,474 6,375 17,719 6,184 7,356 233,438 6,732 4,442 7,946 9,640 16,328 5,090 216,974 4,105 6,346 7,383 23,980 7,658 144,388 9,688 5,854 2,711 2,858 9,190 4,947 6,171 19,903 7,671 19,670 18,338 4,399 10,698 7,328 50,091 4,175 5,100 26,589 22,582 6,303 16,310 5,581 6,952 233,101 6,493 5,706 8,885 9,146 15,463 4,991 210,197 4,452 6,242 7,416 19,994 7,526 155,194 10,732 4,771 2,787 3,070 7,477 5,714 6,670 15,963 6,526 18,129 17,112 4,401 11,014 7,724 47,855 4,330 4,612 24,381 19,151 7,047 18,157 5,208 7,629 237,268 7,532 4,278 10,290 11,166 17,067 5,020 210,322 4,523 6,033 6,944 19,773 8,868 146,764 9,280 4,602 2,538 3,090 9,030 4,568 6,864 17,839 7,400 20,547 16,630 3,744 10,537 6,503 52,128 3,742 4,309 24,315 22,370 5,584 16,171 6,527 6,441 241,829 6,281 4,392 8,952 10,343 14,147 4,440 208,629 4,414 7,667 7,299 20,447 6,729 138,939 9,313 5,586 2,578 2,808 8,199 4,944 5,893 15,229 7,190 17,636 17,573 3,920 9,524 6,424 52,356 3,559 4,109 20,019 19,052 5,513 14,814 5,452 6,858 224,256 4,949 3,830 8,353 9,422 13,478 4,575 208,972 3,573 6,349 6,298 19,772 7,203 130,935 7,788 4,837 2,356 2,566 7,598 4,411 5,543 15,101 6,235 17,202 16,044 4,165 10,135 7,196 45,165 3,475 4,194 20,643 21,281 5,426 17,130 4,581 5,753 223,636 5,438 3,876 9,083 9,171 14,445 4,489 205,476 3,719 5,995 5,451 18,975 7,161 126,002 7,385 3,906 2,521 2,258 8,410 4,054 5,092 14,723 5,837 18,127 16,259 3,936 7,114 7,219 39,242 3,518 4,190 20,082 17,597 5,314 14,948 5,665 6,357 221,287 4,693 3,547 9,502 9,065 13,614 4,370 201,260 3,430 5,528 5,933 15,587 7,042 128,431 7,150 4,613 1,916 2,194 7,134 4,074 62 Table A5b: Annual SAIPE* Numbers of Persons in Poverty by Ohio County, 2007-2017 Name Holmes Huron Jackson Jefferson Knox Lake Lawrence Licking Logan Lorain Lucas Madison Mahoning Marion Medina Meigs Mercer Miami Monroe Montgomery Morgan Morrow Muskingum Noble Ottawa Paulding Perry Pickaway Pike Portage Preble Putnam Richland Ross Sandusky Scioto Seneca Shelby Stark Summit Trumbull 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 4,322 6,524 5,618 11,286 6,242 15,681 13,566 16,815 5,498 32,828 72,712 3,732 38,641 8,781 11,233 4,472 3,384 8,980 2,238 77,040 2,899 3,453 13,552 1,932 3,425 1,784 5,088 5,845 6,262 15,933 3,757 2,189 14,188 9,543 5,795 14,971 6,632 4,537 40,204 74,483 30,561 4,392 8,070 6,771 11,879 7,336 19,629 11,257 15,727 4,913 36,331 80,006 4,091 38,690 10,159 9,764 4,521 2,906 7,901 2,105 77,813 3,021 3,775 13,937 1,934 3,602 2,076 5,530 6,123 5,370 17,385 3,443 2,601 17,332 11,388 5,992 14,675 6,083 4,405 45,898 66,372 32,109 6,154 7,349 7,534 11,524 7,383 19,274 12,168 18,030 6,399 42,750 84,797 5,280 42,135 10,361 11,432 4,510 3,637 11,591 2,304 83,595 2,760 4,388 13,811 2,147 4,319 2,048 5,979 7,059 5,880 21,367 4,190 2,557 17,367 12,740 7,209 16,987 6,775 5,053 54,614 78,762 32,904 6,858 8,202 7,377 12,532 9,490 21,826 13,149 20,190 7,644 41,612 85,269 5,726 39,360 11,776 12,951 5,518 3,857 12,047 2,496 93,697 2,889 4,709 14,964 2,059 4,146 2,610 6,813 6,508 7,401 23,146 5,022 3,062 17,202 13,798 7,355 16,781 7,887 5,921 53,502 82,194 37,359 6,401 8,572 6,668 11,200 8,382 23,042 11,684 21,273 6,150 44,755 100,123 4,506 40,663 11,171 15,308 5,236 3,668 14,133 2,409 96,053 3,096 4,716 15,836 2,172 4,433 2,651 6,353 7,666 6,376 24,200 4,829 2,179 20,024 13,914 8,461 19,671 8,928 5,595 59,598 87,840 33,943 5,711 7,743 7,034 11,077 9,144 22,037 11,042 22,848 6,685 42,107 96,810 4,772 43,325 11,180 13,079 5,230 3,802 12,752 2,176 96,985 2,725 4,895 16,743 2,073 4,559 2,290 6,874 7,486 6,469 22,736 5,091 2,773 21,200 13,997 6,924 18,245 8,835 4,944 53,788 84,399 35,991 5,291 8,459 6,919 12,079 8,307 21,402 12,594 18,467 5,910 42,733 92,013 4,671 40,786 9,746 11,524 4,781 3,783 10,330 2,404 97,443 3,342 4,608 17,249 2,042 4,207 2,347 6,316 6,990 6,752 25,907 5,390 2,419 20,198 13,869 7,636 18,263 7,412 4,836 56,543 78,879 37,805 5,348 7,759 6,450 13,050 8,724 20,156 10,643 22,272 7,637 43,499 87,923 4,890 42,601 12,683 12,230 5,199 3,577 10,920 2,232 101,914 2,646 4,197 15,955 1,888 4,110 2,320 6,276 6,833 6,061 21,810 5,340 2,621 18,246 13,658 8,592 20,049 9,254 5,167 54,744 71,490 34,593 4,657 7,569 6,541 11,547 8,510 18,884 12,680 20,933 4,902 39,833 82,814 3,614 37,640 10,778 12,287 5,227 3,141 10,992 2,602 91,879 2,765 3,914 13,932 1,741 3,901 2,052 6,675 6,474 5,907 20,927 5,160 2,416 17,265 12,668 7,142 16,881 7,187 4,264 48,889 76,554 35,069 5,041 7,043 5,780 10,469 7,294 19,364 10,771 19,680 5,420 36,828 83,600 4,576 41,625 8,673 11,394 4,815 3,308 9,860 2,130 93,949 2,714 4,214 12,435 1,744 4,160 2,004 6,029 6,905 5,660 20,743 4,494 2,796 17,904 13,224 6,750 16,051 6,782 4,490 48,072 72,687 34,839 3,885 8,555 5,707 11,251 6,165 19,693 11,563 15,130 4,951 40,404 75,376 3,743 40,879 9,699 10,629 4,531 2,793 9,387 2,080 81,984 2,961 3,849 12,470 1,893 3,561 1,902 5,585 6,355 5,536 18,263 4,017 2,146 15,169 11,584 6,477 15,481 7,146 3,897 51,852 68,434 30,109 63 Table A5b: Annual SAIPE* Numbers of Persons in Poverty by Ohio County, 2007-2017 Name Tuscarawas Union Van Wert Vinton Warren Washington Wayne Williams Wood Wyandot 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 10,840 2,291 1,984 2,496 10,182 8,047 9,653 3,300 12,679 1,634 10,298 3,234 2,302 3,027 13,204 10,063 12,249 3,602 11,863 1,837 12,647 3,678 2,411 2,586 12,051 8,204 12,435 4,418 16,031 2,176 13,381 4,064 3,535 2,891 12,316 9,399 14,006 4,461 15,265 2,086 13,181 3,722 2,960 3,114 14,477 8,849 15,193 4,569 16,617 2,124 12,234 3,972 3,101 2,872 13,862 9,655 13,562 5,068 16,533 2,236 13,014 3,930 3,703 2,923 15,483 9,667 14,584 4,420 15,799 2,482 12,252 3,924 2,837 3,110 12,441 9,307 15,491 5,125 16,448 2,208 11,873 3,890 3,155 2,443 11,375 8,906 12,727 4,342 14,385 1,930 11,525 3,194 2,489 2,661 11,823 8,100 13,372 3,496 14,060 1,881 11,589 2,780 3,147 2,566 10,548 8,560 14,456 3,830 13,328 1,912 Note: * - SAIPE: Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates. Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census - SAIPE (2008-2018). Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 1/19). 64 Table A6: Number and Percentage of Poor Persons in Selected Ohio Areas for Selected Years 2013-17 (ACS) Area U.S. (numbers in thousands) Ohio Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined 313,048.6 2007-11 (ACS) Poor Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined Number Percent 45,650.3 11,289,161 1,683,890 14.6 H 14.9 1999 (DC) Poor Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined Number Percent 298,788.0 42,739.9 14.3 H 11,213,528 1,654,193 14.8 H 273,882.2 Poor Number Percent 33,899.8 12.4 11,046,987 1,170,698 10.6 Ohio Metropolitan Area Summary In Central or Principal City* Not in Central or Principal City 9,005,574 1,333,184 2,522,022 663,871 6,483,552 669,313 14.8 26.3 H 10.3 H 9,048,911 2,629,435 6,419,476 1,318,276 674,270 644,006 14.6 H 25.6 H 10.0 H 8,975,271 2,950,534 6,024,737 951,243 559,016 392,227 10.6 18.9 6.5 Urban Rural 8,778,988 1,425,930 2,510,173 257,960 16.2 10.3 H 8,361,714 2,851,814 1,374,153 280,040 16.4 H 9.8 H 8,504,728 2,542,259 977,155 193,543 11.5 7.6 196,655 20,440 18,488 15,917 19,932 22,161 26,218 44,062 23,293 34,077 71,192 23,500 21,426 286,940 393,493 45,655 760,414 49,225 128,979 31,877 40,180 53,983 48,490 31,148 42,165 39,628 50,669 4,623 2,867 8,483 1,254 997 5,343 2,458 7,161 2,316 20,536 2,083 4,279 78,629 128,463 8,802 165,662 5,602 41,950 3,233 1,234 8,890 8,222 7,050 3,680 6,551 211,891 21,344 19,302 13,955 11,170 18,093 27,517 37,665 22,796 33,062 78,073 22,767 21,437 318,152 466,305 49,597 693,771 48,928 155,531 23,213 31,400 54,739 52,094 30,904 41,416 37,692 36,975 3,835 2,031 7,247 208 416 3,656 886 5,761 1,513 14,957 929 2,668 69,722 122,479 5,276 102,723 2,991 35,756 1,704 845 6,393 5,055 4,358 1,757 3,444 17.5 18.0 10.5 51.9 1.9 2.3 13.3 2.4 25.3 4.6 19.2 4.1 12.4 21.9 26.3 10.6 14.8 6.1 23.0 7.3 2.7 11.7 9.7 14.1 4.2 9.1 Akron* Alliance Ashland Athens Avon Avon Lake Barberton Beavercreek Bowling Green Brunswick Canton* Centerville (Montgomery Co.) Chillicothe Cincinnati* Cleveland* Cleveland Heights Columbus* Cuyahoga Falls Dayton* Delaware Dublin Elyria* Euclid Fairborn Fairfield Findlay 193,133 20,214 18,253 16,092 22,282 23,355 25,875 45,898 25,378 34,320 69,199 23,231 20,820 287,371 377,997 44,077 828,296 48,895 129,585 35,956 44,265 53,222 47,147 32,438 41,989 39,335 46,450 4,824 2,802 8,301 646 964 4,675 2,359 8,605 2,431 21,937 1,457 4,511 82,356 133,144 8,226 172,653 5,105 42,382 3,372 1,265 11,767 10,318 6,783 2,949 6,308 24.1 23.9 15.4 51.6 2.9 4.1 18.1 5.1 33.9 7.1 31.7 6.3 21.7 28.7 35.2 18.7 20.8 10.4 32.7 9.4 2.9 22.1 21.9 20.9 7.0 16.0 H L H H 65 25.8 22.6 15.5 53.3 6.3 4.5 20.4 5.6 30.7 6.8 28.8 8.9 20.0 27.4 32.6 19.3 21.8 11.4 32.5 10.1 3.1 16.5 17.0 22.6 8.7 16.5 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Table A6: Number and Percentage of Poor Persons in Selected Ohio Areas for Selected Years 2013-17 (ACS) Area Gahanna Garfield Heights Green Grove City Hamilton Hilliard Huber Heights Hudson Kent Kettering Lakewood Lancaster Lebanon Lima* Lorain Mansfield* Maple Heights Marion Marysville Mason Massillon* Medina Mentor* Miamisburg Middletown* Newark North Olmsted North Ridgeville North Royalton Oregon Oxford Parma Parma Heights Perrysburg Piqua Portsmouth Reynoldsburg Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined 34,353 27,622 25,556 38,852 60,408 34,171 38,705 22,136 24,679 54,990 50,413 38,910 19,969 34,924 63,152 39,846 22,480 30,682 19,660 32,122 31,503 25,915 46,589 19,801 47,508 47,400 31,647 31,993 30,023 19,691 14,826 78,667 20,075 21,133 20,465 18,979 37,084 2007-11 (ACS) Poor Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined Number Percent 2,038 5,021 2,608 2,473 12,184 1,369 4,749 576 8,167 6,531 7,339 7,622 1,725 9,005 16,052 9,491 4,976 6,387 1,832 731 5,562 2,371 2,490 2,584 11,456 9,711 2,370 1,828 1,444 2,157 6,975 7,296 2,003 1,064 3,097 6,666 3,435 5.9 18.2 10.2 6.4 20.2 4.0 12.3 2.6 33.1 11.9 14.6 19.6 8.6 25.8 25.4 23.8 22.1 20.8 9.3 2.3 17.7 9.1 5.3 13.0 24.1 20.5 7.5 5.7 4.8 11.0 47.0 9.3 10.0 5.0 15.1 35.1 9.3 32,926 28,529 25,183 34,300 60,691 27,609 37,605 22,048 23,654 55,704 51,899 38,046 19,527 35,843 64,173 42,122 23,168 32,001 19,038 30,129 31,273 26,212 46,909 19,675 48,137 46,562 32,448 28,523 29,788 19,789 13,473 80,525 20,479 20,319 20,350 19,283 35,343 H H H L L L H L 66 1999 (DC) Poor Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined Number Percent 1,484 3,820 1,730 2,721 12,655 1,322 2,912 673 8,354 5,101 8,852 6,588 2,179 12,133 18,492 8,572 4,384 9,081 1,525 1,392 4,911 3,482 2,878 1,621 11,145 9,372 2,034 1,628 1,345 1,509 6,321 6,704 2,281 911 3,688 6,264 4,758 4.5 13.4 6.9 7.9 20.9 4.8 7.7 3.1 35.3 9.2 17.1 17.3 11.2 33.9 28.8 20.4 18.9 28.4 8.0 4.6 15.7 13.3 6.1 8.2 23.2 20.1 6.3 5.7 4.5 7.6 46.9 8.3 11.1 4.5 18.1 32.5 13.5 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 32,210 30,266 22,603 26,721 59,430 23,887 38,000 22,098 22,280 57,121 55,939 34,667 15,092 37,526 67,784 46,181 25,877 32,931 13,666 21,839 30,447 24,494 49,840 19,285 51,057 45,061 33,811 22,154 28,449 18,970 14,419 84,231 21,426 16,993 20,398 19,925 32,011 Poor Number Percent 1,184 2,586 1,136 1,218 7,969 514 2,234 372 5,622 2,656 4,956 3,675 971 8,509 11,582 7,540 1,531 4,540 782 601 3,249 1,408 1,366 1,183 6,444 5,858 1,376 706 662 918 6,296 4,157 1,620 476 2,489 4,701 1,767 3.7 8.5 5.0 4.6 13.4 2.2 5.9 1.7 25.2 4.6 8.9 10.6 6.4 22.7 17.1 16.3 5.9 13.8 5.7 2.8 10.7 5.7 2.7 6.1 12.6 13.0 4.1 3.2 2.3 4.8 43.7 4.9 7.6 2.8 12.2 23.6 5.5 Table A6: Number and Percentage of Poor Persons in Selected Ohio Areas for Selected Years 2013-17 (ACS) Area Riverside Rocky River Sandusky Shaker Heights Sidney Solon South Euclid Springfield* Stow Strongsville Toledo* Trotwood Troy Upper Arlington Wadsworth Warren* Westerville Westlake Willoughby Wooster Xenia Youngstown* Zanesville Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined 24,989 20,025 24,718 27,602 20,438 22,869 21,096 56,590 34,260 44,326 271,789 23,647 25,329 34,800 22,467 37,856 36,636 31,660 22,311 23,847 25,420 60,336 24,705 2007-11 (ACS) Poor Number Percent 3,536 1,021 5,660 2,363 2,981 1,020 2,762 14,486 1,915 1,907 71,924 6,054 2,801 1,288 1,585 13,108 2,504 1,716 1,831 4,403 5,787 22,174 7,043 Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined 14.2 5.1 22.9 8.6 14.6 4.5 13.1 H 25.6 5.6 4.3 26.5 25.6 H 11.1 L 3.7 7.1 34.6 6.8 5.4 8.2 18.5 22.8 36.8 28.5 25,230 19,945 25,390 28,187 20,706 22,953 21,918 58,133 34,188 44,123 282,108 24,003 24,292 33,551 21,141 39,574 34,385 31,391 21,948 23,394 24,916 63,606 24,770 1999 (DC) Poor Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined Number Percent 3,709 1,233 5,698 2,609 3,628 1,005 1,691 16,055 2,459 2,298 72,215 4,296 3,753 1,128 1,254 12,869 2,151 1,185 1,805 3,482 5,247 21,518 7,064 14.7 6.2 22.4 9.3 17.5 4.4 7.7 27.6 7.2 5.2 25.6 17.9 15.4 3.4 5.9 32.5 6.3 3.8 8.2 14.9 21.1 33.8 28.5 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 23,479 20,554 27,503 29,234 19,846 21,767 23,383 62,595 31,567 43,592 306,933 26,836 21,545 33,275 18,346 45,658 33,846 30,730 22,235 23,154 23,591 77,197 25,090 Poor Number Percent 2,373 478 4,201 2,004 2,291 553 1,063 10,577 1,260 947 54,903 4,105 1,776 800 985 8,847 1,179 765 1,284 2,412 2,726 19,127 5,623 Notes: ACS - American Community Survey; DC - Decennial Census; ACS estimates are from sample data collected from January 2012 through December 2016 and January 2007 through December 2011; DC sample data were collected in April 2000, and refer to calendar year 1999; ACS estimates use family income of the 12 months preceding the month in which the data were collected, and have been adjusted for inflation; single-person households and unrelated adults with no children are considered one-person families; H & L - the odds are less than one in 20 that the percentage change from the earlier time moved higher (H) or lower (L) by sampling variability alone - i.e., the change appears real; ^ - significance testing would be unreliable; * - a central or principal city of a metropolitan area. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census - ACS (2012c, 2018c); U.S. Bureau of the Census - DC (2002). Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 1/19). 67 10.1 2.3 15.3 6.9 11.5 2.5 4.5 16.9 4.0 2.2 17.9 15.3 8.2 2.4 5.4 19.4 3.5 2.5 5.8 10.4 11.6 24.8 22.4 Table A7a: Ratio of Income to Poverty Level for Persons by Ohio County, 2013-2017^ Area Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined Ratio of Income to Poverty Level U.S. 313,048,563 45,650,345 14.6% 60,018,198 19.2% 74,202,606 23.7% 88,741,566 28.3% 94,262,439 30.1% 102,523,670 32.8% Ohio 11,289,161 1,683,890 14.9% 2,176,074 19.3% 2,660,985 23.6% 3,174,699 28.1% 3,377,268 29.9% 3,673,407 32.5% Appalachia* Not Appalachia 1,946,033 9,343,128 335,117 1,348,773 17.2% 14.4% 433,376 1,742,698 22.3% 18.7% 530,212 2,130,773 27.2% 22.8% 631,279 2,543,420 32.4% 27.2% 670,662 2,706,606 34.5% 29.0% 731,193 2,942,214 37.6% 31.5% Adams* Allen Ashland Ashtabula* Athens* Auglaize Belmont* Brown* Butler Carroll* Champaign Clark Clermont* Clinton Columbiana* Coshocton* Crawford Cuyahoga Darke Defiance Delaware Erie Fairfield Fayette Franklin Fulton Gallia* Geauga Greene Guernsey* Hamilton Hancock Hardin Harrison* Henry 27,484 100,283 50,941 95,196 55,811 45,115 64,843 43,022 363,257 27,405 38,088 132,134 200,346 40,526 100,743 36,133 41,551 1,230,956 51,089 37,514 190,141 74,219 148,545 28,005 1,223,993 41,713 29,364 93,031 155,842 38,809 791,027 73,093 29,208 15,107 26,943 6,537 15,088 7,230 18,854 16,837 4,079 9,153 7,641 47,018 4,053 4,211 21,956 19,660 5,962 15,538 5,424 6,751 225,265 5,919 4,113 9,625 9,636 14,776 4,944 203,877 4,417 6,143 6,076 19,093 7,857 134,499 8,878 4,844 2,371 2,437 23.8% 15.0% 14.2% 19.8% 30.2% 9.0% 14.1% 17.8% 12.9% 14.8% 11.1% 16.6% 9.8% 14.7% 15.4% 15.0% 16.2% 18.3% 11.6% 11.0% 5.1% 13.0% 9.9% 17.7% 16.7% 10.6% 20.9% 6.5% 12.3% 20.2% 17.0% 12.1% 16.6% 15.7% 9.0% 8,530 21,102 9,578 24,925 19,659 6,352 12,349 10,060 59,834 5,067 6,043 29,350 26,898 7,730 20,639 8,105 9,360 283,536 8,657 5,518 12,101 13,041 20,683 6,506 255,977 5,699 7,454 9,048 24,021 9,559 168,418 11,854 6,362 2,957 3,299 31.0% 21.0% 18.8% 26.2% 35.2% 14.1% 19.0% 23.4% 16.5% 18.5% 15.9% 22.2% 13.4% 19.1% 20.5% 22.4% 22.5% 23.0% 16.9% 14.7% 6.4% 17.6% 13.9% 23.2% 20.9% 13.7% 25.4% 9.7% 15.4% 24.6% 21.3% 16.2% 21.8% 19.6% 12.2% 10,634 25,700 12,269 29,725 22,443 7,880 14,989 11,617 72,470 6,582 7,587 37,019 34,161 9,864 26,582 10,309 11,342 338,264 11,627 6,971 14,708 15,775 26,048 7,676 305,857 7,449 8,945 12,380 29,524 11,704 199,506 14,541 8,103 3,925 4,371 38.7% 25.6% 24.1% 31.2% 40.2% 17.5% 23.1% 27.0% 20.0% 24.0% 19.9% 28.0% 17.1% 24.3% 26.4% 28.5% 27.3% 27.5% 22.8% 18.6% 7.7% 21.3% 17.5% 27.4% 25.0% 17.9% 30.5% 13.3% 18.9% 30.2% 25.2% 19.9% 27.7% 26.0% 16.2% 12,060 30,813 14,342 35,836 24,862 9,734 18,391 14,002 85,676 8,058 9,402 44,231 41,123 11,872 31,301 12,452 13,772 393,965 14,201 8,165 18,948 19,684 32,637 9,071 361,384 9,152 10,449 15,279 34,512 13,855 234,153 18,699 9,638 4,814 5,277 43.9% 30.7% 28.2% 37.6% 44.5% 21.6% 28.4% 32.5% 23.6% 29.4% 24.7% 33.5% 20.5% 29.3% 31.1% 34.5% 33.1% 32.0% 27.8% 21.8% 10.0% 26.5% 22.0% 32.4% 29.5% 21.9% 35.6% 16.4% 22.1% 35.7% 29.6% 25.6% 33.0% 31.9% 19.6% 12,988 32,718 15,214 38,478 26,305 10,537 19,957 14,527 92,007 8,625 10,232 46,770 44,116 13,315 34,061 13,557 14,903 415,525 15,415 8,907 21,066 20,657 35,459 9,606 381,034 9,823 11,044 16,963 36,164 14,595 247,851 19,938 10,040 5,141 5,736 47.3% 32.6% 29.9% 40.4% 47.1% 23.4% 30.8% 33.8% 25.3% 31.5% 26.9% 35.4% 22.0% 32.9% 33.8% 37.5% 35.9% 33.8% 30.2% 23.7% 11.1% 27.8% 23.9% 34.3% 31.1% 23.5% 37.6% 18.2% 23.2% 37.6% 31.3% 27.3% 34.4% 34.0% 21.3% 13,628 35,374 16,931 40,912 27,584 11,633 21,672 16,093 100,524 9,612 11,226 50,640 49,043 14,609 37,830 14,763 16,018 447,443 16,806 10,145 23,442 22,224 38,695 10,738 412,395 11,064 11,914 18,792 39,470 15,877 265,613 21,716 10,825 5,438 6,640 49.6% 35.3% 33.2% 43.0% 49.4% 25.8% 33.4% 37.4% 27.7% 35.1% 29.5% 38.3% 24.5% 36.0% 37.6% 40.9% 38.6% 36.3% 32.9% 27.0% 12.3% 29.9% 26.0% 38.3% 33.7% 26.5% 40.6% 20.2% 25.3% 40.9% 33.6% 29.7% 37.1% 36.0% 24.6% Under 100% Under 125% Under 150% Under 175% Under 185% Under 200% Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 68 Table A7a: Ratio of Income to Poverty Level for Persons by Ohio County, 2013-2017^ Area Highland* Hocking* Holmes* Huron Jackson* Jefferson* Knox Lake Lawrence* Licking Logan Lorain Lucas Madison Mahoning* Marion Medina Meigs* Mercer Miami Monroe* Montgomery Morgan* Morrow Muskingum* Noble* Ottawa Paulding Perry* Pickaway Pike* Portage Preble Putnam Richland Ross* Sandusky Scioto* Seneca Shelby Stark Summit Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined 42,354 27,823 42,882 57,822 32,108 64,873 57,533 226,389 60,149 166,495 44,684 296,057 423,275 38,471 224,710 59,446 174,745 23,002 40,213 102,781 14,055 515,805 14,451 34,520 83,570 11,917 40,229 18,783 35,555 52,093 27,763 154,907 40,596 33,688 113,627 71,020 58,345 72,911 52,490 48,191 364,660 532,372 Ratio of Income to Poverty Level Under 100% Under 125% Under 150% Under 175% Under 185% Under 200% Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 11,256 5,666 6,791 11,555 9,107 14,523 10,280 25,751 13,816 25,959 8,248 52,392 105,502 5,231 51,738 13,875 14,604 6,309 4,033 15,029 3,262 116,799 4,325 4,700 18,639 1,951 5,938 2,666 8,365 7,806 7,104 28,057 6,679 3,411 24,621 17,149 10,758 21,960 9,997 6,420 66,482 94,937 13,529 6,851 8,804 14,613 10,608 17,838 12,021 33,602 17,578 33,246 9,653 63,902 125,704 6,776 62,961 17,019 18,375 7,528 6,340 20,586 4,080 142,602 5,127 6,925 23,806 2,542 7,462 3,466 10,108 9,736 8,719 33,639 8,591 5,004 29,926 20,665 13,316 25,530 12,394 8,485 83,247 118,803 15,339 8,106 11,296 17,593 12,722 21,368 15,638 42,921 21,992 39,642 11,831 75,768 144,630 8,174 74,676 19,995 24,797 9,239 8,017 25,634 4,951 169,298 5,906 8,531 28,586 3,228 9,312 4,527 12,812 11,987 10,305 39,647 10,793 6,075 36,527 24,161 16,305 29,077 14,800 10,335 100,296 142,918 16,325 8,686 12,275 18,936 13,377 22,483 16,947 47,098 22,751 43,295 12,716 80,306 152,982 8,627 78,510 21,386 27,131 9,723 8,601 27,505 5,172 178,887 6,064 9,209 29,795 3,676 10,159 4,965 13,661 12,946 11,153 42,576 11,611 6,962 39,252 25,475 17,236 30,229 15,927 11,455 108,148 150,912 17,605 9,633 13,871 20,590 14,584 24,364 18,156 52,943 24,611 47,282 14,038 86,629 164,927 9,618 85,785 23,215 30,769 10,322 9,632 29,966 5,520 191,773 6,692 10,041 32,093 4,166 10,888 5,801 15,007 14,428 12,104 46,797 12,846 7,728 43,224 27,423 18,761 32,454 17,434 12,758 119,020 165,678 9,150 3,947 5,132 8,224 6,627 11,413 7,914 18,837 11,201 19,591 6,116 40,477 83,744 3,926 39,616 9,846 10,764 5,179 2,989 10,150 2,772 92,085 3,110 3,347 13,877 1,534 4,219 2,006 6,838 6,253 5,565 22,493 5,017 2,416 17,674 12,925 7,916 17,432 7,954 4,286 50,921 72,232 21.6% 14.2% 12.0% 14.2% 20.6% 17.6% 13.8% 8.3% 18.6% 11.8% 13.7% 13.7% 19.8% 10.2% 17.6% 16.6% 6.2% 22.5% 7.4% 9.9% 19.7% 17.9% 21.5% 9.7% 16.6% 12.9% 10.5% 10.7% 19.2% 12.0% 20.0% 14.5% 12.4% 7.2% 15.6% 18.2% 13.6% 23.9% 15.2% 8.9% 14.0% 13.6% 26.6% 20.4% 15.8% 20.0% 28.4% 22.4% 17.9% 11.4% 23.0% 15.6% 18.5% 17.7% 24.9% 13.6% 23.0% 23.3% 8.4% 27.4% 10.0% 14.6% 23.2% 22.6% 29.9% 13.6% 22.3% 16.4% 14.8% 14.2% 23.5% 15.0% 25.6% 18.1% 16.5% 10.1% 21.7% 24.1% 18.4% 30.1% 19.0% 13.3% 18.2% 17.8% 69 31.9% 24.6% 20.5% 25.3% 33.0% 27.5% 20.9% 14.8% 29.2% 20.0% 21.6% 21.6% 29.7% 17.6% 28.0% 28.6% 10.5% 32.7% 15.8% 20.0% 29.0% 27.6% 35.5% 20.1% 28.5% 21.3% 18.5% 18.5% 28.4% 18.7% 31.4% 21.7% 21.2% 14.9% 26.3% 29.1% 22.8% 35.0% 23.6% 17.6% 22.8% 22.3% 36.2% 29.1% 26.3% 30.4% 39.6% 32.9% 27.2% 19.0% 36.6% 23.8% 26.5% 25.6% 34.2% 21.2% 33.2% 33.6% 14.2% 40.2% 19.9% 24.9% 35.2% 32.8% 40.9% 24.7% 34.2% 27.1% 23.1% 24.1% 36.0% 23.0% 37.1% 25.6% 26.6% 18.0% 32.1% 34.0% 27.9% 39.9% 28.2% 21.4% 27.5% 26.8% 38.5% 31.2% 28.6% 32.7% 41.7% 34.7% 29.5% 20.8% 37.8% 26.0% 28.5% 27.1% 36.1% 22.4% 34.9% 36.0% 15.5% 42.3% 21.4% 26.8% 36.8% 34.7% 42.0% 26.7% 35.7% 30.8% 25.3% 26.4% 38.4% 24.9% 40.2% 27.5% 28.6% 20.7% 34.5% 35.9% 29.5% 41.5% 30.3% 23.8% 29.7% 28.3% 41.6% 34.6% 32.3% 35.6% 45.4% 37.6% 31.6% 23.4% 40.9% 28.4% 31.4% 29.3% 39.0% 25.0% 38.2% 39.1% 17.6% 44.9% 24.0% 29.2% 39.3% 37.2% 46.3% 29.1% 38.4% 35.0% 27.1% 30.9% 42.2% 27.7% 43.6% 30.2% 31.6% 22.9% 38.0% 38.6% 32.2% 44.5% 33.2% 26.5% 32.6% 31.1% Table A7a: Ratio of Income to Poverty Level for Persons by Ohio County, 2013-2017^ Area Trumbull* Tuscarawas* Union Van Wert Vinton* Warren Washington* Wayne Williams Wood Wyandot Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined 199,476 91,132 51,313 27,887 13,024 216,399 58,995 112,016 35,743 122,541 21,798 Ratio of Income to Poverty Level Under 100% Under 125% Under 150% Under 175% Under 185% Under 200% Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 34,254 12,610 3,799 3,538 2,747 11,016 9,120 14,611 4,835 16,409 2,474 17.2% 13.8% 7.4% 12.7% 21.1% 5.1% 15.5% 13.0% 13.5% 13.4% 11.3% 42,527 17,355 5,408 4,834 3,478 15,841 11,853 19,600 6,450 21,414 3,352 21.3% 19.0% 10.5% 17.3% 26.7% 7.3% 20.1% 17.5% 18.0% 17.5% 15.4% 51,901 21,204 7,054 6,282 4,330 21,104 14,887 24,583 8,414 25,942 5,030 26.0% 23.3% 13.7% 22.5% 33.2% 9.8% 25.2% 21.9% 23.5% 21.2% 23.1% 61,886 25,833 8,981 8,131 4,967 27,792 17,626 30,598 10,699 30,488 6,133 31.0% 28.3% 17.5% 29.2% 38.1% 12.8% 29.9% 27.3% 29.9% 24.9% 28.1% 65,801 28,452 9,593 9,129 5,166 29,264 18,494 32,541 11,405 32,388 6,631 33.0% 31.2% 18.7% 32.7% 39.7% 13.5% 31.3% 29.1% 31.9% 26.4% 30.4% 72,703 31,906 10,360 9,921 5,579 32,632 20,405 36,298 13,001 34,970 7,127 Notes: * - Appalachian county; ^ - Estimates are based on sample data collected from January 2013 through December 2017; income for the preceding 12 months, from which the ratio of income to the poverty level was derived, was adjusted for inflation and standardized on 2017. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census - ACS (2018c). Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 1/19). 70 36.4% 35.0% 20.2% 35.6% 42.8% 15.1% 34.6% 32.4% 36.4% 28.5% 32.7% Table A7b: Ratio of Income to Poverty Level for Persons in Selected Ohio Areas, 2013-2017^ Area U.S. (numbers in thousands) Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined Under 100% Number Percent Under 125% Under 150% Number Percent Number Percent Under 175% Number Percent Under 185% Number Percent Under 200% Number Percent 45,650.3 14.6% 60,018.2 19.2% 74,202.6 23.7% 88,741.6 28.3% 94,262.4 30.1% 102,523.7 32.8% 11,289,161 1,683,890 14.9% 2,176,074 19.3% 2,660,985 23.6% 3,174,699 28.1% 3,377,268 29.9% 3,673,407 32.5% Ohio Metropolitan Area Summary In Central or Principal City* Not in Central or Principal City 9,005,574 1,333,184 2,522,022 663,871 6,483,552 669,313 14.8% 26.3% 10.3% 1,711,311 821,388 889,923 19.0% 32.6% 13.7% 2,084,680 965,315 1,119,365 23.1% 38.3% 17.3% 2,481,195 1,102,475 1,378,720 27.6% 43.7% 21.3% 2,634,616 1,155,055 1,479,561 29.3% 45.8% 22.8% 2,863,032 1,229,653 1,633,379 31.8% 48.8% 25.2% Urban Rural 8,778,988 1,425,930 2,510,173 257,960 16.2% 10.3% 1,826,315 349,759 20.8% 13.9% 2,209,074 451,911 25.2% 18.0% 2,615,397 559,302 29.8% 22.3% 2,771,138 606,130 31.6% 24.1% 2,999,509 673,898 34.2% 26.8% 24.1% 23.9% 15.4% 51.6% 2.9% 4.1% 18.1% 5.1% 33.9% 7.1% 31.7% 6.3% 21.7% 28.7% 35.2% 18.7% 20.8% 10.4% 32.7% 9.4% 2.9% 22.1% 21.9% 20.9% 7.0% 16.0% 5.9% 18.2% 10.2% 6.4% 20.2% 4.0% 59,872 6,394 4,077 8,865 1,626 1,276 6,468 3,527 10,398 3,062 26,451 2,283 5,724 99,501 162,182 10,772 214,336 7,096 51,196 4,549 1,632 14,592 13,039 8,059 5,129 7,947 2,688 6,196 3,223 3,710 15,551 2,240 31.0% 31.6% 22.3% 55.1% 7.3% 5.5% 25.0% 7.7% 41.0% 8.9% 38.2% 9.8% 27.5% 34.6% 42.9% 24.4% 25.9% 14.5% 39.5% 12.7% 3.7% 27.4% 27.7% 24.8% 12.2% 20.2% 7.8% 22.4% 12.6% 9.5% 25.7% 6.6% 73,198 7,889 5,201 9,235 1,814 1,754 8,092 4,235 11,214 3,768 30,843 2,845 6,792 115,003 187,204 12,441 253,140 8,888 60,296 5,548 1,849 16,875 15,663 10,007 6,136 9,506 3,424 7,831 3,695 4,847 19,210 2,834 37.9% 39.0% 28.5% 57.4% 8.1% 7.5% 31.3% 9.2% 44.2% 11.0% 44.6% 12.2% 32.6% 40.0% 49.5% 28.2% 30.6% 18.2% 46.5% 15.4% 4.2% 31.7% 33.2% 30.8% 14.6% 24.2% 10.0% 28.4% 14.5% 12.5% 31.8% 8.3% 85,394 9,427 5,989 9,742 2,266 2,468 10,407 5,051 12,242 4,997 35,157 3,589 8,146 128,808 208,432 13,757 296,312 10,745 69,087 7,320 2,251 19,322 18,373 11,751 7,635 11,693 4,083 9,848 4,111 6,485 22,177 3,901 44.2% 46.6% 32.8% 60.5% 10.2% 10.6% 40.2% 11.0% 48.2% 14.6% 50.8% 15.4% 39.1% 44.8% 55.1% 31.2% 35.8% 22.0% 53.3% 20.4% 5.1% 36.3% 39.0% 36.2% 18.2% 29.7% 11.9% 35.7% 16.1% 16.7% 36.7% 11.4% 89,112 9,980 6,407 9,977 2,398 2,670 11,070 5,516 12,486 5,352 37,243 3,779 8,476 133,626 217,243 14,202 312,501 11,536 72,241 7,997 2,421 20,271 19,226 12,223 8,344 12,516 4,530 10,522 4,344 6,923 23,960 4,083 46.1% 49.4% 35.1% 62.0% 10.8% 11.4% 42.8% 12.0% 49.2% 15.6% 53.8% 16.3% 40.7% 46.5% 57.5% 32.2% 37.7% 23.6% 55.7% 22.2% 5.5% 38.1% 40.8% 37.7% 19.9% 31.8% 13.2% 38.1% 17.0% 17.8% 39.7% 11.9% 95,754 10,729 6,983 10,284 2,466 2,974 11,761 5,873 13,103 5,897 39,406 4,030 8,898 141,136 227,744 15,083 335,462 13,329 76,008 8,862 2,839 22,097 20,645 13,110 9,459 13,575 5,337 11,635 5,127 7,527 25,790 4,706 49.6% 53.1% 38.3% 63.9% 11.1% 12.7% 45.5% 12.8% 51.6% 17.2% 56.9% 17.3% 42.7% 49.1% 60.3% 34.2% 40.5% 27.3% 58.7% 24.6% 6.4% 41.5% 43.8% 40.4% 22.5% 34.5% 15.5% 42.1% 20.1% 19.4% 42.7% 13.8% Ohio Akron* Alliance Ashland Athens Avon Avon Lake Barberton Beavercreek Bowling Green Brunswick Canton* Centerville (Montgomery Co.) Chillicothe Cincinnati* Cleveland* Cleveland Heights Columbus* Cuyahoga Falls Dayton* Delaware Dublin Elyria* Euclid Fairborn Fairfield Findlay Gahanna Garfield Heights Green Grove City Hamilton Hilliard 313,048.6 Ratio of Income to Poverty Level 193,133 20,214 18,253 16,092 22,282 23,355 25,875 45,898 25,378 34,320 69,199 23,231 20,820 287,371 377,997 44,077 828,296 48,895 129,585 35,956 44,265 53,222 47,147 32,438 41,989 39,335 34,353 27,622 25,556 38,852 60,408 34,171 46,450 4,824 2,802 8,301 646 964 4,675 2,359 8,605 2,431 21,937 1,457 4,511 82,356 133,144 8,226 172,653 5,105 42,382 3,372 1,265 11,767 10,318 6,783 2,949 6,308 2,038 5,021 2,608 2,473 12,184 1,369 71 Table A7b: Ratio of Income to Poverty Level for Persons in Selected Ohio Areas, 2013-2017^ Area Huber Heights Hudson Kent Kettering Lakewood Lancaster Lebanon Lima* Lorain Mansfield* Maple Heights Marion Marysville Mason Massillon* Medina Mentor* Miamisburg Middletown* Newark North Olmsted North Ridgeville North Royalton Oregon Oxford Parma Parma Heights Perrysburg Piqua Portsmouth Reynoldsburg Riverside Rocky River Sandusky Shaker Heights Sidney Solon South Euclid Springfield* Stow Strongsville Toledo* Trotwood Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined 38,705 22,136 24,679 54,990 50,413 38,910 19,969 34,924 63,152 39,846 22,480 30,682 19,660 32,122 31,503 25,915 46,589 19,801 47,508 47,400 31,647 31,993 30,023 19,691 14,826 78,667 20,075 21,133 20,465 18,979 37,084 24,989 20,025 24,718 27,602 20,438 22,869 21,096 56,590 34,260 44,326 271,789 23,647 Ratio of Income to Poverty Level Under 100% Number Percent 4,749 576 8,167 6,531 7,339 7,622 1,725 9,005 16,052 9,491 4,976 6,387 1,832 731 5,562 2,371 2,490 2,584 11,456 9,711 2,370 1,828 1,444 2,157 6,975 7,296 2,003 1,064 3,097 6,666 3,435 3,536 1,021 5,660 2,363 2,981 1,020 2,762 14,486 1,915 1,907 71,924 6,054 12.3% 2.6% 33.1% 11.9% 14.6% 19.6% 8.6% 25.8% 25.4% 23.8% 22.1% 20.8% 9.3% 2.3% 17.7% 9.1% 5.3% 13.0% 24.1% 20.5% 7.5% 5.7% 4.8% 11.0% 47.0% 9.3% 10.0% 5.0% 15.1% 35.1% 9.3% 14.2% 5.1% 22.9% 8.6% 14.6% 4.5% 13.1% 25.6% 5.6% 4.3% 26.5% 25.6% Under 125% Under 150% Number Percent 6,931 729 9,627 8,377 9,801 9,460 2,549 12,436 20,271 12,727 6,374 9,505 2,448 1,270 6,940 3,268 3,347 3,074 14,145 12,895 3,478 2,806 1,851 2,836 7,460 10,018 3,083 1,418 4,482 8,181 5,053 4,921 1,556 8,061 3,082 4,369 1,313 3,103 19,027 2,543 2,544 89,450 7,997 17.9% 3.3% 39.0% 15.2% 19.4% 24.3% 12.8% 35.6% 32.1% 31.9% 28.4% 31.0% 12.5% 4.0% 22.0% 12.6% 7.2% 15.5% 29.8% 27.2% 11.0% 8.8% 6.2% 14.4% 50.3% 12.7% 15.4% 6.7% 21.9% 43.1% 13.6% 19.7% 7.8% 32.6% 11.2% 21.4% 5.7% 14.7% 33.6% 7.4% 5.7% 32.9% 33.8% 72 Under 175% Under 185% Under 200% Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 8,749 855 10,578 10,795 11,765 11,405 3,686 14,638 24,692 15,421 7,428 11,669 3,370 1,687 8,916 4,199 4,404 3,971 16,835 16,396 4,455 3,464 2,607 3,597 7,853 13,347 3,975 1,898 5,848 9,171 6,254 6,512 1,799 9,400 3,505 5,548 1,537 3,764 22,655 3,544 3,547 106,113 9,773 10,521 1,064 11,550 13,364 13,898 14,172 4,427 16,826 27,924 17,202 8,334 13,545 4,146 2,168 10,665 5,787 5,799 4,726 19,001 18,971 6,035 4,398 3,363 4,356 8,920 18,229 5,309 2,482 7,366 10,077 7,463 8,467 2,418 11,201 4,202 6,274 1,843 4,709 26,288 4,301 4,432 119,852 11,148 11,359 1,092 11,991 14,193 15,056 14,909 4,762 17,661 29,155 18,250 8,745 14,176 4,450 2,416 11,432 6,039 6,647 5,131 20,064 20,639 6,489 5,056 3,552 4,678 9,034 19,822 5,798 2,780 7,574 10,392 7,907 9,242 2,695 11,674 4,416 7,010 2,044 5,128 27,656 4,671 4,968 126,369 11,501 12,789 1,278 12,572 15,534 15,916 16,142 5,031 18,699 30,705 19,573 10,049 15,450 4,773 2,994 12,324 6,666 7,488 5,559 21,896 22,009 7,144 5,660 4,313 5,269 9,210 22,380 6,488 3,079 7,871 10,974 8,493 9,840 2,878 12,390 4,925 7,484 2,397 5,568 29,911 5,563 5,313 134,926 12,207 22.6% 3.9% 42.9% 19.6% 23.3% 29.3% 18.5% 41.9% 39.1% 38.7% 33.0% 38.0% 17.1% 5.3% 28.3% 16.2% 9.5% 20.1% 35.4% 34.6% 14.1% 10.8% 8.7% 18.3% 53.0% 17.0% 19.8% 9.0% 28.6% 48.3% 16.9% 26.1% 9.0% 38.0% 12.7% 27.1% 6.7% 17.8% 40.0% 10.3% 8.0% 39.0% 41.3% 27.2% 4.8% 46.8% 24.3% 27.6% 36.4% 22.2% 48.2% 44.2% 43.2% 37.1% 44.1% 21.1% 6.7% 33.9% 22.3% 12.4% 23.9% 40.0% 40.0% 19.1% 13.7% 11.2% 22.1% 60.2% 23.2% 26.4% 11.7% 36.0% 53.1% 20.1% 33.9% 12.1% 45.3% 15.2% 30.7% 8.1% 22.3% 46.5% 12.6% 10.0% 44.1% 47.1% 29.3% 4.9% 48.6% 25.8% 29.9% 38.3% 23.8% 50.6% 46.2% 45.8% 38.9% 46.2% 22.6% 7.5% 36.3% 23.3% 14.3% 25.9% 42.2% 43.5% 20.5% 15.8% 11.8% 23.8% 60.9% 25.2% 28.9% 13.2% 37.0% 54.8% 21.3% 37.0% 13.5% 47.2% 16.0% 34.3% 8.9% 24.3% 48.9% 13.6% 11.2% 46.5% 48.6% 33.0% 5.8% 50.9% 28.2% 31.6% 41.5% 25.2% 53.5% 48.6% 49.1% 44.7% 50.4% 24.3% 9.3% 39.1% 25.7% 16.1% 28.1% 46.1% 46.4% 22.6% 17.7% 14.4% 26.8% 62.1% 28.4% 32.3% 14.6% 38.5% 57.8% 22.9% 39.4% 14.4% 50.1% 17.8% 36.6% 10.5% 26.4% 52.9% 16.2% 12.0% 49.6% 51.6% Table A7b: Ratio of Income to Poverty Level for Persons in Selected Ohio Areas, 2013-2017^ Area Troy Upper Arlington Wadsworth Warren* Westerville Westlake Willoughby Wooster Xenia Youngstown* Zanesville Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined 25,329 34,800 22,467 37,856 36,636 31,660 22,311 23,847 25,420 60,336 24,705 Ratio of Income to Poverty Level Under 100% Number Percent 2,801 1,288 1,585 13,108 2,504 1,716 1,831 4,403 5,787 22,174 7,043 11.1% 3.7% 7.1% 34.6% 6.8% 5.4% 8.2% 18.5% 22.8% 36.8% 28.5% Under 125% Under 150% Number Percent 4,730 1,587 2,010 15,521 3,113 2,139 2,773 5,524 7,113 27,340 9,472 18.7% 4.6% 8.9% 41.0% 8.5% 6.8% 12.4% 23.2% 28.0% 45.3% 38.3% Number Percent 6,223 1,886 2,808 17,639 3,769 2,997 3,511 6,561 8,679 31,310 11,428 24.6% 5.4% 12.5% 46.6% 10.3% 9.5% 15.7% 27.5% 34.1% 51.9% 46.3% Under 175% Number Percent 7,576 2,427 3,587 19,889 4,660 3,817 4,426 7,551 9,925 34,301 13,289 29.9% 7.0% 16.0% 52.5% 12.7% 12.1% 19.8% 31.7% 39.0% 56.8% 53.8% Under 185% Number Percent 7,968 2,495 3,927 20,406 5,045 4,481 4,812 7,855 10,230 35,435 13,576 31.5% 7.2% 17.5% 53.9% 13.8% 14.2% 21.6% 32.9% 40.2% 58.7% 55.0% Under 200% Number Percent 8,519 3,195 4,233 22,048 5,408 4,993 5,417 8,903 11,203 37,409 14,319 Notes: * - A central or principal city of a metropolitan area; ^ - Estimates are based on sample data collected from January 2013 through December 2017; income for the preceding 12 months, from which the ratio of income to the poverty level was derived, was adjusted for inflation and standardized on 2017. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census - ACS (2018c). Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 1/19). 73 33.6% 9.2% 18.8% 58.2% 14.8% 15.8% 24.3% 37.3% 44.1% 62.0% 58.0% Table A8a: Poverty in Ohio by Family Type and Work Experience for Selected Years `17 (ACS)* `09 (ACS)* `99 (DC)* 2,951,170 1,547,518 50,358 3.3% 2,947,214 1,504,851 44,750 3.0% 3,007,207 1,757,621 33,183 1.9% Householder Worked Less Than Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor 579,656 111,656 19.3% 675,009 134,339 19.9% 606,518 95,657 15.8% Householder Did Not Work Number Poor Percent Poor 823,996 127,941 15.5% 767,354 148,943 19.4% 643,068 106,186 16.5% 2,136,801 1,141,714 13,339 1.2% 2,171,033 1,155,013 14,488 1.3% 2,319,012 1,432,786 13,788 1.0% Spouse Worked Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor 649,496 1,146 0.2% 583,899 761 0.1% 633,663 879 0.1% Spouse Worked Less Than Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor 245,465 2,935 1.2% 331,812 3,572 1.1% 482,172 3,711 0.8% Spouse Did Not Work Number Poor Percent Poor 246,753 9,258 3.8% 239,302 10,155 4.2% 316,951 9,198 2.9% All Families Householder Worked Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor Married Couples Householder Worked Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor 74 Table A8a: Poverty in Ohio by Family Type and Work Experience for Selected Years Married Couples (continued) Householder Worked Less Than Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor Spouse Worked Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor Spouse Worked Less Than Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor Spouse Did Not Work Number Poor Percent Poor Householder Did Not Work Number Poor Percent Poor Spouse Worked Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor Spouse Worked Less Than Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor 75 `17 (ACS)* `09 (ACS)* `99 (DC)* 389,230 23,612 6.1% 458,020 30,346 6.6% 415,954 23,451 5.6% 195,592 2,940 1.5% 212,812 3,513 1.7% 135,158 1,184 0.9% 93,222 8,679 9.3% 129,660 11,704 9.0% 155,834 9,185 5.9% 100,416 11,993 11.9% 115,548 15,129 13.1% 124,962 13,082 10.5% 605,857 47,452 7.8% 558,000 50,067 9.0% 470,272 40,521 8.6% 153,876 6,176 4.0% 137,341 7,057 5.1% 71,197 2,120 3.0% 75,592 8,580 11.4% 83,139 12,286 14.8% 68,602 6,884 10.0% Table A8a: Poverty in Ohio by Family Type and Work Experience for Selected Years `17 (ACS)* `09 (ACS)* `99 (DC)* Married Couples/Householder Did Not Work (continued) Spouse Did Not Work Number Poor Percent Poor 376,389 32,696 8.7% 337,520 30,724 9.1% 330,473 31,517 9.5% Male Householder, No Wife Present Householder Worked Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor 228,915 137,022 6,366 4.6% 190,221 102,048 5,012 4.9% 166,791 98,153 3,114 3.2% Householder Worked Less Than Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor 40,556 12,920 31.9% 46,453 16,119 34.7% 35,957 7,624 21.2% Householder Did Not Work Number Poor Percent Poor 51,337 14,938 29.1% 41,720 13,385 32.1% 32,681 9,476 29.0% 585,454 268,782 30,653 11.4% 585,960 247,790 25,250 10.2% 521,404 226,682 16,281 7.2% 149,870 75,124 50.1% 170,536 87,874 51.5% 154,607 64,582 41.8% Female Householder, No Husband Present Householder Worked Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor Householder Worked Less Than Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor 76 Table A8a: Poverty in Ohio by Family Type and Work Experience for Selected Years Female Householder, No Husband Present (continued) Householder Did Not Work Number Poor Percent Poor `17 (ACS)* `09 (ACS)* `99 (DC)* 166,802 65,551 39.3% 167,634 85,491 51.0% 140,115 56,189 40.1% Note: * - American Community Survey (ACS) estimates based on the 12 months of income prior to the month collected in the listed year; decennial census (DC) estimates are for the calendar year. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census - ACS (2010, 2018); U.S. Bureau of the Census - DC (2002). Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 1/19). 77 Table A8b: Poverty in Ohio by Family Type and Work Experience for 2016-2017* `17 ACSSF All Families Householder Worked Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor `17 PUMS PUMS-XRS PUMS-RS 2,951,170 1,547,518 50,358 3.3% 2,945,114 1,540,243 49,952 3.2% 1,990,702 1,379,379 49,421 3.6% 954,412 160,864 531 0.3% Householder Worked Less Than Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor 579,656 111,656 19.3% 576,840 109,176 18.9% 406,989 102,737 25.2% 169,851 6,439 3.8% Householder Did Not Work Number Poor Percent Poor 823,996 127,941 15.5% 828,031 130,843 15.8% 204,334 83,571 40.9% 623,697 47,272 7.6% 2,136,801 1,141,714 13,339 1.2% 2,136,111 1,132,956 12,979 1.1% 1,363,810 987,753 12,674 1.3% 772,301 145,203 305 0.2% Spouse Worked Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor 649,496 1,146 0.2% 650,886 1,279 0.2% 613,013 1,279 0.2% 37,873 0 0.0% Spouse Worked Less Than Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor 245,465 2,935 1.2% 239,194 2,958 1.2% 207,469 2,882 1.4% 31,725 76 0.2% Spouse Did Not Work Number Poor Percent Poor 246,753 9,258 3.8% 242,876 8,742 3.6% 167,271 8,513 5.1% 75,605 229 0.3% Married Couples Householder Worked Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor 78 Table A8b: Poverty in Ohio by Family Type and Work Experience for 2016-2017* `17 ACSSF Married Couples (continued) Householder Worked Less Than Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor Spouse Worked Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor Spouse Worked Less Than Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor Spouse Did Not Work Number Poor Percent Poor Householder Did Not Work Number Poor Percent Poor Spouse Worked Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor Spouse Worked Less Than Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor 79 `17 PUMS PUMS-XRS PUMS-RS 389,230 23,612 6.1% 392,252 24,338 6.2% 247,427 21,559 8.7% 144,825 2,779 1.9% 195,592 2,940 1.5% 195,406 3,629 1.9% 160,459 3,629 2.3% 34,947 0 0.0% 93,222 8,679 9.3% 92,228 8,927 9.7% 58,536 8,490 14.5% 33,692 437 1.3% 100,416 11,993 11.9% 104,618 11,782 11.3% 28,432 9,440 33.2% 76,186 2,342 3.1% 605,857 47,452 7.8% 610,903 49,951 8.2% 128,630 28,544 22.2% 482,273 21,407 4.4% 153,876 6,176 4.0% 157,317 6,585 4.2% 89,685 6,395 7.1% 67,632 190 0.3% 75,592 8,580 11.4% 76,069 9,045 11.9% 15,931 6,834 42.9% 60,138 2,211 3.7% Table A8b: Poverty in Ohio by Family Type and Work Experience for 2016-2017* `17 ACSSF `17 PUMS PUMS-XRS PUMS-RS Married Couples/Householder Did Not Work (continued) Spouse Did Not Work Number Poor Percent Poor 376,389 32,696 8.7% 377,517 34,321 9.1% 23,014 15,315 66.5% 354,503 19,006 5.4% Male Householder, No Wife Present Householder Worked Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor 228,915 137,022 6,366 4.6% 228,233 140,188 6,470 4.6% 183,982 135,275 6,470 4.8% 44,251 4,913 0 0.0% Householder Worked Less Than Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor 40,556 12,920 31.9% 39,265 12,212 31.1% 34,408 11,609 33.7% 4,857 603 12.4% Householder Did Not Work Number Poor Percent Poor 51,337 14,938 29.1% 48,780 15,083 30.9% 14,299 8,413 58.8% 34,481 6,670 19.3% 585,454 268,782 30,653 11.4% 580,770 267,099 30,503 11.4% 442,910 256,351 30,277 11.8% 137,860 10,748 226 2.1% 149,870 75,124 50.1% 145,323 72,626 50.0% 125,154 69,569 55.6% 20,169 3,057 15.2% Female Householder, No Husband Present Householder Worked Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor Householder Worked Less Than Full-Time, Year-Round Number Poor Percent Poor 80 Table A8b: Poverty in Ohio by Family Type and Work Experience for 2016-2017* `17 ACSSF Female Householder, No Husband Present (continued) Householder Did Not Work Number Poor Percent Poor 166,802 65,551 39.3% `17 PUMS PUMS-XRS 168,348 65,809 39.1% 61,405 46,614 75.9% PUMS-RS 106,943 19,195 17.9% Notes: * - "`17 ASCSF" is a repeat of the first data column in table A8a - table B17016 from the 2017 American Community Survey Summary Files; "`17 PUMS" conceptually matches "`17 ACSSF," but is drawn from the 2017 ACS Public Use Microdata Sample; "PUMS-XRS" is a subset of "`17 PUMS" eXcluding families with either Retirement or Social security income; "PUMS-RS" estimates families with either Retirement or Social security income; figures are obtained by subtracting "PUMS-XRS" from "`17 PUMS." Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census - ACS (2018, 2018b). Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 1/19). 81 Table A9: Poverty in Ohio by Household Type and Presence of Related Children for Selected Years 2017 (ACS)* 2009 (ACS)* Poor Household Type All Households^ All Families with Related Children No Related Children Married Couples with Related Children No Related Children 1999 (DC)* Poor Total Number Percent Poor Total Number Percent Total Number Percent 4,667,192 640,484 13.7% 4,526,404 666,492 14.7% 4,446,621 474,607 10.7% 2,951,170 289,955 1,324,754 220,205 1,626,416 69,750 9.8% 16.6% 4.3% 2,947,214 328,032 1,413,842 264,004 1,533,372 64,028 11.1% 18.7% 4.2% 3,007,207 235,026 1,528,839 185,813 1,478,368 49,213 7.8% 12.2% 3.3% 2,136,801 820,620 1,316,181 84,403 46,778 37,625 3.9% 5.7% 2.9% 2,171,033 903,105 1,267,928 94,901 62,125 32,776 4.4% 6.9% 2.6% 2,319,012 1,070,155 1,248,857 77,760 45,556 32,204 3.4% 4.3% 2.6% Male Head, No Wife Present with Related Children No Related Children 228,915 126,855 102,060 34,224 23,691 10,533 15.0% 18.7% 10.3% 190,221 112,093 78,128 34,516 28,237 6,279 18.1% 25.2% 8.0% 166,791 99,938 66,853 20,214 16,044 4,170 12.1% 16.1% 6.2% Female Head, No Husband Present with Related Children No Related Children 585,454 171,328 377,279 149,736 208,175 21,592 29.3% 39.7% 10.4% 585,960 198,615 398,644 173,642 187,316 24,973 33.9% 43.6% 13.3% 521,404 137,052 358,746 124,213 162,658 12,839 26.3% 34.6% 7.9% 1,716,022 350,529 20.4% 1,579,190 338,460 21.4% 1,439,414 239,581 16.6% Non-family Households^ Notes: * - American Community Survey (ACS) estimates are based on data collected from January of the prior year through November of the year listed; decennial census (DC) estimates are for the calendar year. ^ - Poverty status for non-family households is the poverty status of the householder, and not necessarily that of any others in the household. Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census - ACS (2010, 2018); U.S. Bureau of the Census - DC (2002). Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 1/19). 82 Table A10: Cash Public Assistance in Ohio by Poverty Status and Family Type for Selected Years 2017 (ACS)* Recipients Percent 2,945,114 238,926 2,655,143 167,210 289,971 71,716 2,136,111 108,109 2,048,843 91,137 87,268 16,972 Total Total Families Above Poverty Level Poor Families Married Couple Subtotal Married Couples Above Poverty Poor Married Couples 2009 (ACS)* 1999 (DC)* Recipients Percent 8.1% 6.3% 24.7% 2,961,051 223,284 2,613,485 137,632 347,566 85,652 5.1% 4.4% 19.4% 2,171,081 2,066,021 105,060 Total Recipients Percent 7.5% 5.3% 24.6% 3,005,957 196,887 2,771,290 127,875 234,667 69,012 6.5% 4.6% 29.4% 97,247 76,005 21,242 4.5% 3.7% 20.2% 2,316,984 2,238,711 78,273 92,382 76,703 15,679 4.0% 3.4% 20.0% Total Male Head, No Wife Present Subtotal Male Head, No Wife Present, Above Poverty Poor Male Head, No Wife Present 228,233 194,468 33,765 21,992 15,271 6,721 9.6% 7.9% 19.9% 198,698 162,804 35,894 22,295 14,231 8,064 11.2% 8.7% 22.5% 163,419 143,865 19,554 12,833 8,810 4,023 7.9% 6.1% 20.6% Female Head, No Husband Present Subtotal Female Head, No Husband Present, Above Poverty Poor Female Head, No Husband Present 580,770 108,825 411,832 60,802 168,938 48,023 18.7% 14.8% 28.4% 591,272 103,742 384,660 47,396 206,612 56,346 17.5% 12.3% 27.3% 525,554 388,714 136,840 91,672 42,362 49,310 17.4% 10.9% 36.0% 238,926 167,210 71,716 100.0% 70.0% 30.0% 223,284 137,632 85,652 100.0% 61.6% 38.4% 196,887 127,875 69,012 100.0% 64.9% 35.1% Married Couples Above Poverty Poor Married Couples 91,137 16,972 38.1% 7.1% 76,005 21,242 34.0% 9.5% 76,703 15,679 39.0% 8.0% Male Head, No Wife Present, Above Poverty Poor Male Head, No Wife Present 15,271 6,721 6.4% 2.8% 14,231 8,064 6.4% 3.6% 8,810 4,023 4.5% 2.0% Female Head, No Husband Present, Above Poverty Poor Female Head, No Husband Present 60,802 48,023 25.4% 20.1% 47,396 56,346 21.2% 25.2% 42,362 49,310 21.5% 25.0% Counts and Distributions Among the Small Percentage of Ohio Families Receiving Cash Public Assistance: Total Recipients Families Above Poverty Level Poor Families Note: * - American Community Survey (ACS) estimates are based on 12 months of income prior to the month collected in the listed year; decennial census (DC) estimates are for the calendar year; cash public assistance includes supplemental security income and excludes non-cash assistance. Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census - ACS (2010b, 2018b); U.S. Bureau of the Census - DC (2003). Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 1/19). 83 Table A11: Poverty in Ohio by Educational Attainment for Selected Years (Persons Age 25-Plus) Status 2017 (ACS)* 2009 (ACS)* 1999 (DC)* Total Number Number Poor Percent Poor 7,831,806 860,109 11.0% 7,580,659 868,970 11.5% 7,251,494 576,622 8.0% Not a High School Graduate Total Number Number Poor Percent Poor 738,029 201,196 27.3% 903,135 238,427 26.4% 1,199,702 225,531 18.8% High School Graduate or GED Total Number Number Poor Percent Poor 2,599,197 347,263 13.4% 2,663,416 335,394 12.6% 2,622,343 205,676 7.8% Some College or Associate's Degree Total Number Number Poor Percent Poor 2,277,725 227,126 10.0% 2,158,168 224,934 10.4% 1,887,319 103,481 5.5% Bachelor's Degree and/or Post Graduate Work Total Number Number Poor Percent Poor 2,216,855 84,524 3.8% 1,855,940 70,215 3.8% 1,542,130 41,934 2.7% Persons Age 25 Years and Older for Whom Poverty Status Is Determined Note: * - American Community Survey (ACS) data actually cover January of the prior year through November of the listed year; Decennial Census (DC) data are for the calendar year. Source: U.S. Census Bureau - ACS (2010, 2018); U.S. Census Bureau - DC (2003). Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 1/19). 84 Table A12a: Poverty in Ohio by Age Group for Selected Years 2017 (ACS)* 2009 (ACS)* Poor Age Group All Ages All Poor Number Percent 11,330,762 1,582,931 1999 (DC)* 14.0% 0-4 5 6-11 12-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 65-74 75 & Over 681,962 125,213 852,309 894,238 945,234 1,498,613 1,362,720 1,502,497 1,597,788 1,870,188 1,101,186 769,002 158,169 29,273 177,458 148,338 209,584 223,580 162,753 157,277 172,475 144,024 80,784 63,240 23.2% 23.4% 20.8% 16.6% 22.2% 14.9% 11.9% 10.5% 10.8% 7.7% 7.3% 8.2% 65+ (PUMS): 1,859,436 141,990 1,859,436 802,059 1,859,436 997,576 1,859,436 1,144,079 7.6% 43.1% 53.6% 61.5% All Number Percent 11,225,133 1,709,971 727,864 139,332 875,568 930,963 970,747 1,444,535 1,509,282 1,733,379 1,373,943 1,519,520 817,372 702,148 Poor 195,089 33,038 190,708 165,475 256,691 246,096 186,131 182,871 126,571 127,301 60,719 66,582 15.2% 26.8% 23.7% 21.8% 17.8% 26.4% 17.0% 12.3% 10.5% 9.2% 8.4% 7.4% 9.5% All Number Percent 11,046,987 1,170,698 741,303 152,275 979,410 965,350 949,809 1,488,244 1,800,163 1,548,046 1,000,322 1,422,065 783,511 638,554 128,266 24,107 144,635 111,677 185,119 150,317 138,657 94,275 77,903 115,742 54,571 61,171 10.6% 17.3% 15.8% 14.8% 11.6% 19.5% 10.1% 7.7% 6.1% 7.8% 8.1% 7.0% 9.6% with social security and retirement income; with social security but no retirement income; with retirement income but no social security; with neither social security nor retirement income. Note: * - 2009 and 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates - whether from the summary files or the public use microdata sample (PUMS) - are based on data collected from January of the prior year through November of the year listed; decennial census (DC) estimates are for the calendar year. Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census - ACS (2010, 2018, 2018b); U.S. Bureau of the Census - DC (2002). Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 1/19). 85 Table A12b: Individual and Family Characteristics of Ohioans by Age Group, 2017 Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined Work in Previous 12 Months* Age Group^ 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Part-Time and/or Full-Time None Part-Year Full-Year 18.2% 12.8% 14.8% 17.5% 31.8% 79.0% 53.1% 26.6% 20.6% 18.8% 20.0% 13.0% 28.6% 60.7% 64.6% 63.7% 48.2% 8.0% Enrolled in Educational Organization Married Primary Families With At Least One Related Child Median Income* No Yes No Yes No Yes $8,898 $28,111 $36,403 $38,425 $32,358 $24,167 92.5% 58.8% 39.6% 38.2% 36.7% 43.4% 7.5% 41.2% 60.4% 61.8% 63.3% 56.6% 55.6% 88.7% 95.2% 97.5% 99.0% 99.5% 44.4% 11.3% 4.8% 2.5% 1.0% 0.5% 34.6% 22.3% 15.9% 48.5% 84.6% 93.4% 65.4% 77.7% 84.1% 51.5% 15.4% 6.6% Notes: * - "Full-Time Full-Year" is at least 50 weeks with usual hours per week 35 or more; "None" is 0 weeks of work; "Part-Time and/or Part-Year" is everyone else; "median income" - half above and half below that amount. ^ - "Age Group" refers to the age of the householder for primary families with related children; unrelated subfamilies living with a non-family householder are excluded. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2018b). Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 1/19). 86 Table A12c: Poverty in Ohio by Age, Sex and Majority/Minority Status, 2016-2017 Age Group Categories All Ages 0-5 6-11 12-14 15-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ All Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined Males Total 5,525,013 Poor 708,021 Pct. Poor 12.8% 411,055 95,058 23.1% 434,489 91,995 21.2% 227,874 39,393 17.3% 232,893 36,746 15.8% 475,647 90,040 18.9% 743,807 82,961 11.2% 669,798 67,274 10.0% 735,493 72,145 9.8% 769,097 80,550 10.5% 513,843 32,505 6.3% 311,017 19,354 6.2% Females Total 5,805,749 Poor 874,910 Pct. Poor 15.1% 396,120 92,384 23.3% 417,820 85,463 20.5% 211,026 37,621 17.8% 222,445 34,578 15.5% 469,587 119,544 25.5% 754,806 140,619 18.6% 692,922 95,479 13.8% 767,004 85,132 11.1% 828,691 91,925 11.1% 587,343 48,279 8.2% 457,985 43,886 9.6% Total 4,397,521 Poor 423,102 Pct. Poor 9.6% 288,862 43,855 15.2% 305,098 46,226 15.2% 169,169 19,483 11.5% 173,345 20,898 12.1% 356,021 58,584 16.5% 568,583 49,218 8.7% 529,694 39,886 7.5% 611,120 51,017 8.3% 660,617 55,479 8.4% 454,959 22,520 4.9% 280,053 15,936 5.7% Females Total 4,574,433 Poor 537,249 Pct. Poor 11.7% 275,764 45,013 16.3% 291,102 39,381 13.5% 157,173 19,272 12.3% 166,082 17,610 10.6% 343,989 78,994 23.0% 565,285 85,382 15.1% 537,793 57,475 10.7% 626,574 61,210 9.8% 698,112 61,961 8.9% 508,865 36,996 7.3% 403,694 33,955 8.4% Total 1,127,492 Poor 284,919 Pct. Poor 25.3% 122,193 51,203 41.9% 129,391 45,769 35.4% 58,705 19,910 33.9% 59,548 15,848 26.6% 119,626 31,456 26.3% 175,224 33,743 19.3% 140,104 27,388 19.5% 124,373 21,128 17.0% 108,480 25,071 23.1% 58,884 9,985 17.0% 30,964 3,418 11.0% Females Total 1,231,316 Poor 337,661 Pct. Poor 27.4% 120,356 47,371 39.4% 126,718 46,082 36.4% 53,853 18,349 34.1% 56,363 16,968 30.1% 125,598 40,550 32.3% 189,521 55,237 29.1% 155,129 38,004 24.5% 140,430 23,922 17.0% 130,579 29,964 22.9% 78,478 11,283 14.4% 54,291 9,931 18.3% Non-Hispanic Whites (Majority) Males Minorities* Males Note: * - Estimated numbers derived by subtracting "Non-Hispanic Whites (Majority)" from "All Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined." Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census - ACS (2018). Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 1/19). 87 Table A13a: Poverty in Ohio by Race and Hispanic Status for Selected Years Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined, 2017 ACS* Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined, 2009 ACS* Poor Race/Hispanic Status Total Only One Race Claimed: White Black Asian/Pacific Islander^ American Indian/Alaskan Native Others Bi- or Multi-racial Claimed ~ Hispanics White All Other Races White, Not Hispanic (Majority) All Minorities Combined Totals Persons for Whom Poverty Status Was Determined, 1999* Poor Number Percent Totals Poor Number Percent Totals Number Percent 11,330,762 1,582,931 14.0% 11,225,133 1,709,971 15.2% 11,046,987 1,170,698 9,239,891 1,375,348 256,399 22,700 108,162 328,262 1,029,100 395,660 36,645 6,056 28,147 87,323 11.1% 28.8% 14.3% 26.7% 26.0% 26.6% 9,455,790 1,301,667 176,853 19,361 74,401 197,061 1,171,222 431,791 20,027 5,864 24,121 56,946 12.4% 33.2% 11.3% 30.3% 32.4% 28.9% 9,407,672 1,227,364 131,912 25,769 86,596 167,674 766,827 325,857 17,022 5,678 19,640 35,674 8.2% 26.5% 12.9% 22.0% 22.7% 21.3% 423,405 267,937 155,468 113,301 68,749 44,552 26.8% 25.7% 28.7% 313,206 213,795 99,411 94,871 61,908 32,963 30.3% 29.0% 33.2% 207,134 100,618 106,516 42,104 17,067 25,037 20.3% 17.0% 23.5% 8,971,954 2,358,808 960,351 622,580 10.7% 26.4% 9,241,995 1,983,138 1,109,314 600,657 12.0% 30.3% 9,307,054 1,739,933 749,760 420,938 8.1% 24.2% Notes: * - American Community Survey (ACS) data cover January of the prior year through November of the listed year; 1999 data are from the 2000 decennial census; ^ - numbers calculated by subtraction for 2009 and 2017; ~ - Hispanics may be of any race. Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census - ACS (2010, 2018); U.S. Bureau of the Census - DC (2002). Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 1/19). 88 10.6% Table A13b: Number and Percent of Poor by Majority/Minority Status and Area Type, 2016-2017 Total Non-Hispanic Whites (Majority) Area - Component Summary Persons for Whom Status Was Determined Comparative Poverty Rates: Ohio All Urban Areas All in Central or Principal Cities Other Urban Areas* Rural 11,330,762 1,582,931 8,803,166 1,340,301 2,540,662 630,788 6,262,504 709,513 2,527,596 242,630 Percentage Distributions of the Populations: Ohio All Urban Areas All in Central or Principal Cities Other Urban Areas* Rural Poor Number Percent 14.0% 15.2% 24.8% 11.3% 9.6% Persons for Whom Status Was Determined Poor Number Percent 8,971,954 6,557,415 1,351,722 5,205,693 2,414,539 960,351 733,302 227,961 505,341 227,049 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 77.7% 22.4% 55.3% 22.3% 84.7% 39.8% 44.8% 15.3% 73.1% 15.1% 58.0% 26.9% 76.4% 23.7% 52.6% 23.6% Minorities Subtotals Persons for Whom Poor Status Was Determined Number Percent 10.7% 11.2% 16.9% 9.7% 9.4% 2,358,808 2,245,751 1,188,940 1,056,811 113,057 Note: * - Estimated counts obtained by subtracting "All in Central or Principal Cities" from "All Urban Areas." Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census - ACS (2018). Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 1/19). 89 622,580 606,999 402,827 204,172 15,581 100.0% 100.0% 95.2% 50.4% 44.8% 4.8% 97.5% 64.7% 32.8% 2.5% 26.4% 27.0% 33.9% 19.3% 13.8% NOTES 1 Poverty status is determined for all people except those in institutions, military group quarters or college dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old (children who are not related family members – typically foster children). The 2017 American Community Survey data were collected throughout 2017, and income data, from which poverty statistics are derived, refer to the 12 months prior to the month in which the survey was completed. Consequently, the time period covered by the Survey for income and poverty extends from January 2016 through November 2017. Release of datasets with 2017 Survey results began in the last quarter of 2018. 2 Numbers and percentages throughout the report frequently are rounded to avoid the impression of greater precision than warranted. Following the procedure recommended by the U.S. Bureau of the Census – Other (2002), all of the estimates for Ohio based on the Current Population Survey (CPS) data are three-year moving averages. That means that the estimates of poor in Ohio for any non-decennial census year are based not only on the Survey for that year, but on the data covering the preceding and following years as well. For example, the estimates for 1990 are based on data gathered for the years 1989 (from the decennial census) through 1991, and the estimates for 1991 are based on data gathered for the years 1990 through 1992. This procedure produces more reliable estimates – particularly percentages – because the sample sizes are larger. It also reduces the erratic changes seen when only one year of data is used. However, what is gained in reliability is lost in specificity; a three-year moving average for 1991, for example, refers to a three-year period centered on 1991. Furthermore, while CPS calculations exclude unrelated children under 15 years old and many group quarters residents, it – unlike the decennial census – counts college students in dorms as parts of their families of orientation, and therefore as persons for whom poverty status is determined. There is nothing that can be done to change this and its reduction of comparability with estimates from other Census Bureau programs. Fortunately, the effect is small. 3 This assumption is not always correct. Even when it is, unrelated persons sharing a housing unit (e.g., roommates) may split expenses such as utilities and rent, permitting more of their income(s) to be devoted to food and avoiding inadequate nutrition, which is at the core of the definition of poverty (see the Appendices section on Defining and Measuring Poverty). 4 The five-year dataset is the most recent covering areas of all sizes. The estimates are averages for the period, analogous to long-exposure photos, as opposed to the 2000 Census “snap shot” seen elsewhere. 5 The high poverty rate in Athens County is partially explained by the large portion of the population comprised of students living off-campus. Students often rely on various combinations of familial support, irregular gifts, savings, 90 loans, grants and scholarships – which may or may not count as income – to meet expenses. 6 Significant changes from 2007-11 in some larger counties rely on the greater confidence in larger sample sizes producing more reliable estimates, but changes – or lack thereof – also may be due to random sampling variability. 7 Model based estimates are based on mathematical formulas, incorporating data from the most recent surveys. Such estimates are highly reliable for large areas like states and the nation, but are much less so for small substate areas. The reader should be cautious with the SAIPE percentages and numbers in tables A5a and A5b. The narrow ranges for 2002-2004 may reflect a greater reliance on the Current Population Survey data, a labor force survey whose state-level data are more-or-less reliable, while ranges after 2004 probably include county-level data from the American Community Surveys, which are more representative of the general population and also are much larger and more reliable samples. 8 Several things need to be remembered when comparing the 2000 census data with American Community Survey data. First, metropolitan areas often were redefined as a result of the 2000 census, which means specific geographic areas may not be exactly the same. (This is certainly true for the summary figures.) The same may be true of the urban/rural dichotomy and one or more places listed in the Appendix Tables. Second, the validity of testing for significant changes in poverty rates is questionable to the extent that the geographic areas differ – but this is seldom a big problem. Finally, the urban/rural and metropolitan/non-metropolitan dichotomies are not identical because urban places and rural areas are located in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. 9 Similar to Athens County, the cities of Athens, Bowling Green, Kent and Oxford are small college towns in which off-campus students comprise relatively large portions of the populations. Off-campus students not living with their families of orientation frequently qualify as poor because some money they may receive is not counted as income by the Census Bureau, driving the communities’ person poverty rates to higher levels. In this circumstance, a place’s family poverty rate may be a more useful measure of the extent of poverty because students are less likely to be married. Indeed, the family poverty rates of Bowling Green and Oxford – 12.0 and 11.1 percent, respectively – are closer to the state’s family poverty rate of 11.1 percent than are the corresponding poverty rates for persons; family poverty rates for Athens and Kent were 25.9 and 23.3 percent (U.S. Bureau of the Census – ACS, 2018c). 10 More extensive ratio-of-income-to-poverty-level categories for persons and families are found in other tables from the American Community Survey summary files. However, such categories are few for households. (There are two types of households: families and non-family households; families are the more common type.) It also is possible to calculate other ratios of income to poverty level for customized research using the Public Use Microdata 91 Samples (PUMS): Ratio = Income / Poverty Threshold. As noted elsewhere, the poor have a ratio value less than 1.00; those at or above 1.00 are not poor. 11 Among those working at least 35 hours per week and 50 weeks in the preceding 12 months (i.e., full-time/yearround), women in every age group from under 20 to 70-plus generally earn less money than men in the same age group (U.S. Bureau of the Census – ACS, 2018b); reasons why are beyond the scope of this report. 12 See the U.S. Bureau of the Census – ACS (2018c: table B23003). 13 For people working at least 35 hours per week and 50 weeks in the preceding year, median earnings (wage and salary plus self-employment income) reach a plateau no later than their 40s and remain there through their 60s; mean earnings (the arithmetic averages) exceed medians (which divide distributions in half) by at least 20 percent beginning in people’s 30s (U.S. Bureau of the Census – ACS, 2018b). 14 These data points may be artifacts of the Census Bureau’s methodology. Members of family households are assumed to share the income of all members, while members of non-family households are not. Consequently, the poverty rate of non-family households is really the poverty rate of the householder, regardless of how many other people may live in the household and what their incomes may be. As mentioned earlier, unrelated people may have roommates to reduce housing-related expenses, thereby leaving larger portions of their incomes for food, other expenditures and/or savings. See the section on Alternative Measures of Poverty in the Appendices for the impact changing this assumption has on the risk of poverty. 15 Cash public assistance (CPA) includes payments received from various programs such as aid to families with dependent children (AFDC), temporary assistance to needy families (TANF) and general assistance (GA). It also includes supplemental security income (SSI) payments made to low income persons who are at least 65 years old, blind or otherwise disabled. Payments received for medical care are excluded (U.S. Bureau of the Census – DC, 1992). 16 Race and Hispanic status are based on self-identification. “Hispanic” is an ethnic status, and Hispanics may be of any race. Bi- and multi-racial categories were used for the first time in the 2000 Census. While only a small percentage of people identify themselves as such, the addition of this category means that the racial categories of 2000 and later are not entirely comparable with those of previous censuses. Similarly, data on Hispanics may not be entirely comparable over time due to slight differences in the ways the questions were asked during different censuses (U.S. Bureau of the Census – DC, 2002: Appendix B). 92 17 American Indian and Alaskan Native poverty rates are similar to Other rates; they are combined for ease of presentation in the graph, but shown separately in Appendix Table A13a. Asian/Pacific Islander figures often are shown separately in national statistics, but are combined here because reliable figures solely for Pacific Islanders in Ohio are not available. 18 The householder is the person in whose name the occupied housing unit is owned or rented. Persons related to one another by birth, marriage or adoption – but living with a householder to whom they are not related – comprise (specifically) an unrelated subfamily. Separate poverty status calculations are made for each for official poverty statistics (U.S. Bureau of the Census – DC, 1992), but an alternative measure of poverty would not. See the Alternative Measures of Poverty section and Fox (2018) for the impact of this change on poverty rates. 19 Thresholds for prior years are available at the Census Bureau’s website. The current poverty guidelines used for program eligibility determination are available at the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services’ website. 20 This definition of income has much in common with those used by the Internal Revenue Service and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, but it is not identical with the definitions used by the latter two. Consequently, area statistics produced by the latter may strongly correlate with poverty statistics, but do not substitute for them. 21 Ohio’s lower supplemental poverty rate is consistent with U.S. BEA (2019) data showing Ohio’s 2008-2016 per capita personal income at or above the U.S. average after adjusting inflation and regional price differences. 93 SOURCES AND REFERENCES CITED Fox, Liana, 2018 The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2017, a Current Population Report (P60-265). Report found at: . ODJFS/LMI (Ohio Dept. of Job and Family Services/Labor Market Information), 2019 Unemployment rates found at . U.S. Bureau of the Census – ACS, 2003-2018 2002-2017 American Community Survey Summary Files (Ohio and the U.S., 1-yr.) [machine-readable data files] and Technical Documentation / prepared by the Census Bureau. Washington, D.C.: the Bureau [producer and distributor]. Summary file tables P114 and P116 for 2002 and 2003, and summary file tables B17001, B17001h, B17002, B17010, B17015, B17016, C17001-C17003, C17010, and C17001A-I for subsequent years; also B19101, and Technical Documentation. Also available at . _______, 2010b, 2018b 2009 and 2017 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Samples (Ohio, 1-yr.) [machine-readable data files] and Technical Documentation / prepared by the Census Bureau. Washington, D.C.: the Bureau [producer and distributor]. _______, 2012c, 2018c 2007-2011 and 2013-2017 American Community Survey Summary Files (Ohio and the U.S., 5-yr. periods) [machine-readable data files] and Technical Documentation / prepared by the Census Bureau. Washington, D.C.: the Bureau [producer and distributor]. Tables B17001, B23003 & C17002. U.S. Bureau of the Census – CPS, 1971-1979, 1981-1989, 1991-1999, 2001 1971-1979, 1981-1989, 1991-1999 and 2001 Current Population Survey: March Supplement [machine-readable data files] and Technical Documentation / prepared by the Census Bureau. Washington, D.C.: the Bureau [producer and distributor]. The file also is known as the Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). U.S. Bureau of the Census – DC, 1975 1970 Census of Population Supplementary Report: Poverty Status in 1969 and 1959 of Persons and Families, for States, SMSA’s, Central Cities, and Counties: 1970 and 1960 [PC(S1)-105]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Table 10. 94 _______, 1983 Census of Population and Housing, 1980: STF3a (Ohio) & STF3c (U.S.) [machine-readable data files] and Technical Documentation / prepared by the Census Bureau. Washington, D.C.: the Bureau [producer and distributor]. Tables 73, 86 and 91. _______, 1992 1990 Census of Population and Housing: Summary Social, Economic, and Housing Characteristics (Ohio) CPH-537). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Appendices A and B. _______, 1993 Census of Population and Housing, 1990: STF3a (Ohio) & STF3c (U.S.) [machine-readable data files] and Technical Documentation / prepared by the Census Bureau. Washington, D.C.: the Bureau [producer and distributor]. Tables P107, P117, P119-P121, P124 and P127. _______, 2002 Census of Population and Housing, 2000: SF3 (Ohio & U.S.) [machine-readable data files] and Technical Documentation / prepared by the Census Bureau. Washington, D.C.: the Bureau [producer and distributor]. Tables P45, P76, P88, P90, P92, PCT49, PCT50, PCT60, and PCT75a through PCT75i. _______, 2003 Census of Population and Housing, 2000: Public Use Microdata Sample A (Ohio) [machine-readable data file] and Technical Documentation / prepared by the Census Bureau. Washington, D.C.: the Bureau [producer and distributor]. U.S. Bureau of the Census – Other, 2001 Current Population Reports, P70-71, Household Net Worth and Asset Ownership: 1995. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. _______, 2002 Current Population Reports, P60-219, Poverty in the United States: 2001. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of the Census – SAIPE, 2003-2018 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates found at . 95 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2019 Adjusted and unadjusted U.S. and Ohio personal per capita income found at . U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018 Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) data for Cleveland and Cincinnati found at . Welniak, Ed, n.d. U.S. Bureau of the Census, specialist in income and poverty subjects – phone conversation. Williams, Kristi, 2014 “Promoting marriage among single mothers: An ineffective weapon in the war on poverty?” Council on Contemporary Families. Found at . 96