Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
-
Upload
poweamansowk300 -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
1/30
1
CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007
Children Below Poverty Level by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1980-2007
Exercise #2 Problem Definition Paper: Secondary Data Tables
Amanda PoweSocial Work 300-01
J.L. McArthur
January 29, 2010
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
2/30
2
CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007
Abstract
This paper will take a look into the world of poverty in children. Children living below the poverty
level will be examined by race and origin. The problem when dealing with the subject of poverty is
finding out exactly how proportioned the matter is across the United States racially. The data table
used to research the different categories of race by percentage and number will identify a particular
race as the highest number of cases varying by year. The data table is provided by the U.S. Census
Bureau. The findings will be produced by analyzing the data table and considering the Census's
obstacles in collecting the data.
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
3/30
3
CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007
Problem Identification: The problem in identifying poverty levels in the United Statesbecomes the proportion of races. The level in the case of the data examined, is distributed
among a wide array of races, the numbers and percentages are solid when dealing with their
statistics. The current population in some ways supports individuals touched by poverty but in
some cases the data can be analyzed to examine the findings as a whole. The data contained in
the table looks at children an the problem derived from this data is that there is a significant
amount of Black children who live in poverty over other races.
Other issues exist when looking at the data table is that there is a significant jump for African
Americans and some other races during earlier years. African American
numbers are steady at other times as the table progresses by year. The problem will continue to
be looking a the variants in data and making sense of them. The problems posed by viewing the
table are embedded in reading the data and critically understanding how all the races compare
and contrast. The focus is African Americans and the distribution of data year by year is
fundamentally high across the table.
Problem Description: Because there are such high levels of poverty dealing with children inthe Black community, special attention must be paid to the statistics of this table. The poverty
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
4/30
4
CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007
Government Officials, politicians, non profit organizations, and the Black
community must find solutions to help these children and their families because
this problem can have a lasting effect on the population of Black living in the United
States. Many politicians have made promises to help the poor, numbers show that
there have only been slight changes as time goes on. Government has implemented
different subsidies, but there should be a special focus devoted to those who are
below the poverty level.
There should also be a discussion that will allow officials, communities, and
organizations to team up and help the nation of children that sit below poverty
level. It is evident that the members of this group are unable to acquire jobs or
even seek temporary employment that can assist them within their situations
because of their age. Attention needs to be paid and there are a number of
individuals who can support and fight to make life better for these children and
their parents of caretakers.
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
5/30
5
CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007
Findings: The data tables that will be used include, two U.S Census tables, a United Statespoverty measurement table, and a table developed by a website called Kidsdata.org. All of th
tables will be referenced and include data that is very important in researching the cause and
effect factors of children living below poverty level. The information included in the tables
come from reliable sources that are affiliated with the government or agencies that are credible.
The first chart that will be used was selected from the census data website and was is titled
Children Below Poverty Level by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1980 to 2007. This data table
takes a look at the the percentages and the number of children by race that are below the
poverty level. The next table used from the United States Census looks at the percentage of
people in poverty in the last 12 months by state. I found this table helpful because of the way in
which it worked with the previous table to prove that there is in fact an issue with the poverty
level in relation to children and their parents.
The data table that was developed by the NCCP.org website shows that there is a
the measurement of poverty does help in identifying the way in which children are
found to be below poverty level. The table uses figures such as state and number
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
6/30
6
CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007
relevant to the research that is being done. In order to look across the board at
different variables the variables have to be seen as important. I have found all the
variables that are being used as important and in order for poverty to be solved one
must develop a large amount of knowledge in each variable and event those that
may not be as evident
Magnitude: The data supplied by the Children Below Poverty Level by Raceand Hispanic Origin: 1980 to 2007, looks closely at the children that are
affected by living below poverty level identifies all races as participating. Blacks
are affected the most and had extremely high numbers from 1980 to 1997. The
numbers and percentagest started to work their way down after this but still
remained high.
Not only were these numbers high, they were the highest Whites
Hispanics, and Asians. The table shows that just as the numbers went
down for other races the same was true for Blacks but not at the same
magnitudes. In 2007 there was a 1.3 change in the data but the
question remains if the way in which these numbers are changing is
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
7/30
7
CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007
in which the data showed may show up different. There are no direct
indications on cost and how high these numbers could rise given the
current recession, but over the last ten years they have been proven
to be steady. Overall the magnitude of Black children affected by
living below poverty shows that there needs to be an implementation
of support directed to families and the economy as soon as possible.
Magnitude should be looked at through different tables and tables.
This table lets us know that a second look should be given to policy
and the black community as a whole. The data does not deny that
are large numbers of children who are not eating nor being supplied
the basic needs for their development. The Census data can also
develop a number of other problems because of the fact that it is
surveyed data.
Scope: In order to identify the scope of the issue of children living
below poverty level in the United States, I chose to use more census
data to look diligently into the problem. I viewed the the data table entitled
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
8/30
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
9/30
9
CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007
knowledge on calculations. The variables include persons in family
and an income standard.
The standards change and they are also certain guidelines that are
developed that include dividends, net worth, and property. In no way
should these variables be ignored but changes in the numbers over
may be dramatically affected if yearly they change. Changes made in
numbers were very small from 2007 to 2008 as viewed on the
Number and Percentage of People in Poverty in the last 12 month by
state and Puerto Rico 2007 and 2008.
In 2008 there was a average of a .1 percent change to a 1.4 percent
change in some areas. The way in which the data was compared
looked at both 2007 and 2008 to subtract and come up with the total
change. The percentages were very small and could possibly pose
some issues for children living below the poverty level and their
families.
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
10/30
10
CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007
solutions specifically.
Disparities: In terms of race the problem of living below povertyplagues the Black community. Yes, there are other races that are hit
by this issue, but the fact that there are such large numbers on the
data tables may make on think about the causes. The data table that has been
produced by kidsdata.org, recognizes that there is a need for
the problem.
The data collected used in this study does not look at people with
different disabilities or genders. Information contained in the table
does prove that there are a number of problems that will cause these
issues. The table recognizes that there are a number of areas in the
United States that have 0-11days missed from school because of
poverty. The issue then becomes how can one prevent these issues.
Without the proper amount of health care and access to the nutritious
food choices, there may be a growing disparity in the area of children
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
11/30
11
CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007
exist in the future. Race was found to be the number on problem that
the data compiled showed. Blacks are affected by poverty and even
more important children. The data used for this section shows the
ways in which the information can be used to make predictions for
these children and their families.
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
12/30
12
CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007
References
Bishaw, A., & Kenwick, T. J. (2009). Poverty:2007 and 2008. InAmerican Community Surveys (Sept.
2009, p. 4). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/acsbr08-1.pdf
Fass, S. (2009, April). Measuring Poverty in the United States Fact Sheet. National Center for Children
in Poverty p.1. http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_876.pdf
Impact of Special Health Care Needs on Children and Families [Fact Sheet]. (n.d.). Retrieved January
27, 2010, from Impact of Special Health Care Needs on Children and Families Kidsdata.org
Web site: http://www.kidsdata.org/cache/pdfs/Kidsdata-Overview_Impact-on-Children-and-
Families-(State-and-U.S.).pdf
US Census Bureau "Children Below Poverty Level by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1980 to 2007".
Retrieved January 27 2010.
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
13/30
13
CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007
APPENDIX
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
14/30
FA C T SH EE T
Measuring Poverty in the United StatesSarah Fass April 2009
Tis act sheet discusses how the U.S. government measures poverty,why the current measure is inadequate, and what alternative ways exist
to measure economic hardship.
Federal poverty guidelines, 2009
How does the U.S. measure poverty?
Te U.S. government measures
poverty by a narrow income stan-dard that does not include other
aspects o economic status, such
as material hardship (or example,
living in substandard housing) or
debt, nor does it consider nancial
assets (including savings or prop-
erty). Te ocial poverty measure
is a specic dollar amount that
varies by amily size but is the
same across the continental U.S.
According to the guidelines, the
poverty level in 2009 is $22,050
a year or a amily o our and
$18,310 or a amily o three (see
table).1
Te poverty guidelines are
used to determine eligibility or
public programs. A similar butmore complex measure is used or
calculating poverty rates.
Te current poverty measure was
established in the 1960s and is
now widely acknowledged to be
awed.2 It was based on research
indicating that amilies spent
about one-third o their incomes
on ood the ocial poverty level
was set by multiplying ood costs
by three. Since then, the gures
have been updated annually or
ination but have otherwise re-
mained unchanged.
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
15/30
Why is the current poverty measure inadequate?
Te current poverty measure isawed in two ways.
1)Te current poverty level that is, the specifc dollaramount is based on outdatedassumptions about amilyexpenditures.
Food now comprises only one-
seventh o an average amilys
expenses, while the costs o hous-
ing, child care, health care, and
transportation have grown dis-
proportionately. Tus, the poverty
level does not reect the true cost
o supporting a amily. In addi-tion, the current poverty measure
is a national standard that does
not adjust or the substantial
variation in the cost o living rom
state to state and between urban
and rural areas.
More accurate estimates o typicalamily expenses, and adjustments
or local costs, would produce
substantially higher dollar
amounts.
2) Te method used to deter-mine whether a amily is poor
does not accurately countamily resources.
When determining i a amily is
poor, income sources counted
include earnings, interest, divi-
dends, Social Security, and cash
assistance. But income is counted
beore subtracting payroll, in-come, and other taxes, overstat-
ing income or some amilies.
On the other hand, the ederal
Earned Income ax Credit isnt
counted either, underestimating
income or other amilies. Also,
in-kind government benets thatassist low-income amilies ood
stamps, Medicaid, and housing
and child care assistance are not
taken into account. Tis means
that ocial poverty statistics can-
not be used to analyze the efec-
tiveness o these programs.
Are there alternative ways to measure poverty?
Considerable research has been
conducted on better methods to
measure income poverty. In the
early 1990s, Congress asked the
National Academy o Sciences
(NAS) to investigate alterna-
tive measures. Te NAS panel o
experts issued a report in 1995
Adjust thresholds by region to
account or variation in the cost
o living.
When counting amilies
resources to determine whetherthey all below the poverty line:
use amilies post-tax income;
I the NAS recommendations
were adopted, millions more
people would be considered
ocially poor. But even these rec-
ommendations underestimate the
cost o amily expenses and thus
produce poverty thresholds well
below what it takes to make ends
M i P i h U i d S
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
16/30
Measuring Poverty in the United States
How much does it really take to make ends meet?
Given that the ederal povertylevel grossly understates how
much it takes to support a am-
ily, researchers have developed
budgets that realistically quantiy
basic living costs in specic locali-
ties.5 Building on earlier eforts,
NCCP has developed Basic Needs
Budgets that include only themost basic daily living expenses
and are based on modest assump-
tions about costs. For example,
the budgets in the table at right
assume that amily members have
employer-sponsored health cov-
erage, even though the majority
o low-wage workers do not have
employer coverage.6NCCPs Basic
Needs Budgets do not include
money to purchase lie or dis-
ability insurance or to create a
rainy-day und that would help
a amily withstand a job loss or
other nancial crisis. Nor do theyallow or investments in a am-
ilys uture nancial success, such
as savings to buy a home or or a
childs education. In short, these
budgets indicate what it takes or
a amily to cover their most basic
living expenses enough to get
by but not enough to get ahead.
Across the country, amilies typi-
In short, even i the ocial
poverty measure is revised along
the lines suggested by the NAS,
it would remain a measure o
deprivation and severe hardship.
In contrast, Basic Needs Budgets
provide a way to think about what
amilies need to maintain a mini-
mally decent standard o living.
Basic needs budgets for a family of four, in selected urban,suburban, and rural localities*
UrbAnnew Yok,
nY
UrbAnHousto,
TX
SUbUrbAnAuoa,
IL
rUrALDecatu
Couty, IA
Rent and utilities $15,816 $10,224 $11,328 $6,324
Food $7,878 $7,878 $7,878 $7,878
Child care $20,684 $15,422 $18,793 $11,682
Health insurance premiums $2,609 $2,834 $2,265 $2,436
Out-o-pocket medical $732 $732 $732 $732
Transportation $1,824 $4,808 $4,808 $6,288
Other necessities $6,397 $4,887 $5,185 $3,834
Payroll taxes $5,113 $3,873 $4,437 $3,270
Income taxes (includes credits) $5,787 -$34 $2,572 $304
TOTAL $66,840 $50,624 $57,998 $42,748
Percent of federal poverty level 315% 239% 274% 202%
*Assumes two-parent amily with one preschool-aged and one school-aged child.
Source: NCCPs Basic Needs Budget Calculator (available online at www.nccp.org/tools/budget).Results are based on the ollowing assumptions: children are in center-based care settings while theirparents work (the older child is in ater-school care); amily members have access to employer-basedhealth insurance; in New York amily relies on public transportation, in all other locations, costs refectprivate transportation.
basic needs budget Calculato
NCCPs basic needs budget Calculatoprovides access to budgets or nearly100 localities across 14 states, withmore states coming soon. Users select the
number o parents and number and ageso the amilys children. Budgets assumethat all amilies include at least one ull-time worker; or two-parent amilies, users
k h i b t th l t
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
17/30
Endnotes
1. Te ederal poverty guidelines areused or administrative purposes, suchas determining nancial eligibility orbenet programs. For statistical purposes,researchers use a diferent but quitesimilar version o the ederal povertymeasure, the ederal poverty thresholds,issued by the U.S. Census Bureau. Boththe guidelines and the thresholds are
commonly reerred to as the ederal
poverty level (FPL).2. Cauthen, Nancy K. 2007. estimony onMeasuring Poverty in America. esti-mony beore the House Subcommitteeon Income Security and Family Support,Committee on Ways and Means. Aug. 1,2007. Available at www.nccp.org/publi-cations/pub_752.html.
3. Betson, David M.; Citro, Constance
F.; Michael, Robert . 2000. Recent De-velopments or Poverty Measurement inU.S. Ocial Statistics.Journal o OfcialStatistics 16(2): 87-111.
4. Bernstein, Jared. 2007.More Povertythan Meets the Eye (Economic Snap-shots, April 11, 2007). Washington, DC:Economic Policy Institute. Accessed April23, 2007 at .
5. Tese eforts include Sel-SuciencyStandards developed by Diana Pearce orWider Opportunities or Women and theEconomic Policy Institutes Basic Family
Budgets.
6. Only 59 percent o all workers have ac-cess to employer-sponsored health cover-age; the proportion is much lower amonglow-wage workers. Krugman, Paul. 2007.Te Conscience o a Liberal. New York,NY: W.W. Norton& Co.
7. Dinan, Kinsey Alden. 2009. Budgetingor Basic Needs: A Struggle or Working
Families. New York, NY: National Centeror Children in Poverty, Columbia Uni-versity, Mailman School o Public Health.
NCCP wishes to give special acknowledgement to Nancy K. Cauthen, PhD,principal author of the original iteration of this fact sheet.
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
18/30
American Community Survey Reports
Poverty: 2007 and 2008
American Community Surveys
Introduction
This report is one o a series produced
to highlight results rom the 2008
American Community Survey (ACS),ocusing on changes between the 2007
ACS and the 2008 ACS. The report
series is designed to cover a variety o
economic topics, such as poverty, occu-
pation, home values, and labor orce
participation. This series provides inor-
mation about the changing economic
characteristics o the nation and states,
the District o Columbia, and PuertoRico. The ACS also provides detailed
estimates o demographic, social,
economic, and housing characteristics
or congressional districts, counties,
places, and other localities every year.
A description o the ACS is provided
in the text box What Is the American
Community Survey?
This report provides comparisons at
the national and state levels or poverty
during the 2007 to 2008 time period.
Such comparisons should be interpreted
with caution. Since adjacent ACS years
have income reerence months in com-
mon, comparing the 2008 ACS with
the 2007 ACS estimates is not an exact
comparison o the economic conditions
in 2008 with those in 2007.1
Issued September 2009
ACSBR/08-1
By
Alemayehu Bishaw
and Trudi J. RenwickWhat Is the AmericanCommunity Survey?
The American Community Survey (ACS)
is a nationwide survey designed to
provide communities with reliable and
timely demographic, social, economic,
and housing data every year. It has an
annual sample size o about 3 million
addresses across the United States and
Puerto Rico and includes both housing
units and group quarters. The ACS is
conducted in every county throughoutthe nation and every municipio in Puerto
Rico, where it is called the Puerto Rico
Community Survey.
Beginning in 2006, ACS data or 2005
were released or geographic areas with
populations o 65,000 and greater. In
2008, the rst set o multiyear estimates
was released or data collected betweenJanuary 2005 and December 2007.
These 3-year estimates were published
or geographic areas with populations
o 20,000 and greater. The U.S. Census
Bureau is planning to release the rst
5-year estimates in late 2010 or the
smallest geographic areas based on data
collected between January 2005 and
December 2009.
The data contained in this report are
based on the ACS sample interviewed in
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
19/30
The data contained in this reportare based on ACS samples that
were selected or interview in
2007 and 2008 and are estimates
o the actual gures that could
have been obtained by interview-
ing the entire population using
the same methodology. All com-
parisons presented in this report
have taken sampling error into
account and are signicant at the
90 percent condence level unless
Poverty
The 2008 ACS data show that an
estimated 13.2 percent o the U.S.
population had income below the
poverty threshold in the past 12
months. This is 0.2 percentage
points higher than the 13.0 percent
poverty rate estimated or 2007.
The estimated number o people inpoverty increased by 1.1 million to
39.1 million in 2008.
amily and every individual in itare considered to be in poverty.
Poverty status is determined or all
people except unrelated children
under 15 and individuals living in
institutions, military group quar-
ters, and college dormitories.2
The table shows the number and
percentage o people in poverty bystate or the 2007 ACS and 2008
ACS. The map displays the varia-
tion in poverty rates by state or
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008; and Puerto Rico Community Survey, 2008.
* DC is represented at 4.5 times the scale of other continental states.
MT
AK
NM
ORMN
KS
SD
ND
MO
WA
FL
IL IN
WI NY
PA
MI
OH
IA
ME
MA
CT
AZ
NV
TX
COCA
WY
UT
ID
NE
OK
GA
AR
AL
NC
MS
LA
TN
KY
VA
SC
WV
RI
DE
MD
NJ
HI
VTNH
PR
DC*
United States =13.2 percent
16.0 or more
11.0 to 12.9
Less than 11.0
13.0 to 15.9
Percentage of People in Poverty in the Past 12 Months byState and Puerto Rico: 2008
Percentage ofpeople living belowpoverty level
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
20/30
New Hampshire to a high o 21.2
percent in Mississippi.3
Seven states (Caliornia,
Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii,
Indiana, Oregon, and Pennsylvania)had increases in the number
and percentage o people in
poverty between 2007 and 2008.
In Michigan, the poverty rate
increased, but the number o
people in poverty did not show
a signicant change. In Arizona,
Georgia, and South Carolina, the
number o people in poverty
increased, but the rate was
statistically unchanged. In Alabama,
both the number and percentage
o people in poverty went down. In
Louisiana and Texas, there was a
decline in the poverty rate but no
signicant change in the number o
people in poverty. All the remainingstates and the District o Columbia
had 2008 estimates o poverty
3 New Hampshires 2008 ACS povertyrate was not statistically dierent rom thepoverty rates or Maryland (8.1 percent) andAlaska (8.4 percent).
rates and the number o people in
poverty that were not statistically
dierent rom the 2007 estimates.
These poverty statistics only
partially reect the impact o thecurrent economic downturn on
2008 personal income. According
to the National Bureau o Economic
Research, the recession began
in December 2007.4 The income
reported in the 2008 ACS spans the
period rom January 2007 through
November 2008, which includes
the months in 2007 beore the
ofcial start o the recession.5
4 The Business Cycle Dating Committeeo the National Bureau o Economic Researchdetermined that a peak in economic activityoccurred in the U.S. economy in December2007. The peak marks the end o the expan-sion that began in November 2001 and the
beginning o a recession.
5 Between January and December 2008,people 15 years and older were asked aboutincome or the previous 12-month period.For example, income data collected in January2008 reerred to the period rom January2007 to December 2007, while data collectedin December 2008 reerred to the periodDecember 2007 to November 2008.
The Census Bureau also publishes
poverty estimates based on the
Current Population Survey Annual
Social and Economic Supplement
(CPS ASEC).6 Following the
standard specied by the Ofce
o Management and Budget (OMB)
in Statistical Policy Directive 14,
data rom the CPS ASEC are used
to estimate the ofcial national
poverty rate, which can be ound
in the report Income, Poverty, and
Health Insurance Coverage in the
United States: 2008, available at.
6 For inormation on poverty estimatesrom the ACS and how they dier rom thosebased on the CPS ASEC, see DierencesBetween the Income and Poverty EstimatesFrom the American Community Surveyand the Annual Social and Economic
Supplement to the Current Population Surveyat .
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
21/30
Number and Percentage of People in Poverty in the Past 12 Months by State and PuertoRico: 2007 and 2008
(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/ACS
/accuracy2008.pdf)
State
Below poverty in 2007 Below poverty in 2008
Change in poverty
(2008 less 2007)
Number1
Margin
of
error2
()
Per-
centage1
Margin
of
error2
() Number1
Margin
of
error2
()
Per-
centage1
Margin
of
error2
() Number1
Margin
of
error2
()
Per-
centage1
Margin
of
error2
()
United States . . . 38,052,247 222,964 13.0 0.1
39,108,422 249,680 13.2 0.1 *1,056,175
334,744 *0.2 0.1
Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759,835 22,998 16.9 0.5 712,835 22,418 15.7 0.5 *47,000 32,117 *1.2 0.7Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,625 5,440 8.9 0.8 56,396 5,471 8.4 0.8 3,229 7,715 0.5 1.2Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881,257 31,475 14.2 0.5 938,924 27,514 14.7 0.4 *57,667 41,804 0.5 0.7Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492,052 16,318 17.9 0.6 480,551 18,818 17.3 0.7 11,501 24,909 0.6 0.9
California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,433,014 63,400 12.4 0.2 4,778,118 75,892 13.3 0.2 *345,104 98,889 *0.9 0.3Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569,386 19,957 12.0 0.4 552,889 22,387 11.4 0.5 16,497 29,992 0.6 0.6Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . 268,880 12,898 7.9 0.4 314,806 14,745 9.3 0.4 *45,926 19,590 *1.4 0.6Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87,956 7,512 10.5 0.9 85,094 7,055 10.0 0.8 2,862 10,306 0.5 1.2District of Columbia . . . . . . 91,934 7,937 16.4 1.4 96,769 7,324 17.2 1.3 4,835 10,799 0.8 1.9Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,158,832 38,730 12.1 0.2 2,370,808 41,243 13.2 0.2 *211,976 56,578 *1.1 0.3
Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,323,828 31,219 14.3 0.3 1,380,842 31,340 14.7 0.3 *57,014 44,236 0.4 0.5Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,051 6,916 8.0 0.5 115,131 8,921 9.1 0.7 *15,080 11,288 *1.1 0.9Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177,806 9,436 12.1 0.6 187,805 12,824 12.6 0.9 9,999 15,922 0.5 1.1Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,496,248 34,817 11.9 0.3 1,532,238 26,674 12.2 0.2 35,990 43,861 0.3 0.3Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757,813 19,999 12.3 0.3 807,506 21,723 13.1 0.4 *49,693 29,528 *0.8 0.5Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317,946 14,131 11.0 0.5 334,919 13,360 11.5 0.5 16,973 19,447 0.5 0.7Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,210 13,334 11.2 0.5 307,478 12,785 11.3 0.5 7,268 18,473 0.1 0.7
Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714,080 22,283 17.3 0.5 720,586 21,372 17.3 0.5 6,506 30,875 0.7Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 775,425 20,200 18.6 0.5 744,218 23,972 17.3 0.6 31,207 31,349 *1.3 0.7Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154,224 8,137 12.0 0.6 157,553 8,278 12.3 0.6 3,329 11,607 0.3 0.9
Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453,699 20,647 8.3 0.4 442,994 15,596 8.1 0.3 10,705 25,876 0.2 0.5Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . . 621,286 20,753 9.9 0.3 626,670 19,668 10.0 0.3 5,384 28,592 0.1 0.5Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,376,658 27,786 14.0 0.3 1,410,276 24,724 14.4 0.3 33,618 37,193 *0.4 0.4Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481,947 15,332 9.5 0.3 490,911 14,694 9.6 0.3 8,964 21,237 0.1 0.4Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581,534 18,361 20.6 0.7 601,617 24,259 21.2 0.9 20,083 30,424 0.6 1.1Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742,486 20,360 13.0 0.4 768,092 18,921 13.4 0.3 25,606 27,794 0.4 0.5Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131,790 7,822 14.1 0.8 139,707 8,881 14.8 0.9 7,917 11,834 0.7 1.3Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192,822 8,554 11.2 0.5 186,727 9,256 10.8 0.5 6,095 12,602 0.4 0.7Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269,953 16,905 10.7 0.7 290,197 15,922 11.3 0.6 20,244 23,222 0.6 0.9New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . 90,204 7,516 7.1 0.6 97,158 7,932 7.6 0.6 6,954 10,928 0.5 0.9
New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . 729,211 23,123 8.6 0.3 741,472 23,119 8.7 0.3 12,261 32,698 0.1 0.4New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . 349,159 15,809 18.1 0.8 332,769 14,316 17.1 0.7 16,390 21,327 1.0 1.1New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,570,014 41,542 13.7 0.2 2,581,491 39,884 13.6 0.2 11,477 57,588 0.1 0.3North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 1,258,988 29,318 14.3 0.3 1,301,929 34,042 14.6 0.4 42,941 44,927 0.3 0.5North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 74,035 5,225 12.1 0.9 73,622 5,620 12.0 0.9 413 7,674 0.1 1.3Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,464,133 29,352 13.1 0.3 1,492,154 29,624 13.4 0.3 28,021 41,702 0.3 0.4Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557,030 16,561 15.9 0.5 561,666 18,584 15.9 0.5 4,636 24,892 0.7Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474,189 18,770 12.9 0.5 506,145 17,700 13.6 0.5 *31,956 25,800 *0.7 0.7Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . 1,393,026 32,592 11.6 0.3 1,458,394 26,463 12.1 0.2 *65,368 41,982 *0.5 0.3Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . 122,128 9,249 12.0 0.9 118,556 8,064 11.7 0.8 3,572 12,270 0.3 1.2
South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 641,758 19,916 15.0 0.5 679,584 21,508 15.7 0.5 *37,826 29,314 0.7 0.7South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 100,699 5,842 13.1 0.8 96,490 6,997 12.5 0.9 4,209 9,115 0.6 1.2Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953,865 28,631 15.9 0.5 938,077 26,905 15.5 0.4 15,788 39,289 0.4 0.7
Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,791,183 49,333 16.3 0.2 3,760,431 54,049 15.8 0.2 30,752 73,179 *0.5 0.3Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251,084 13,213 9.7 0.5 257,649 13,167 9.6 0.5 6,565 18,653 0.1 0.7Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,589 5,292 10.1 0.9 63,288 5,151 10.6 0.9 2,699 7,384 0.5 1.2Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742,680 23,107 9.9 0.3 768,031 24,701 10.2 0.3 2,5351 33,824 0.3 0.4Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . 725,172 19,934 11.4 0.3 728,323 21,530 11.3 0.3 3,151 29,342 0.1 0.5West Virginia 298 172 11 487 16 9 0 6 300 670 13 037 17 0 0 7 2 498 17 376 0 1 1 0
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
22/30
Impact of Special Health Care Needs onChildren and FamiliesAn overview from kidsdata.org
Note: This PDF provides a summary of this topic. For more data on this and other topics, visit www.kidsdata.org.
Severity of Conditions Among Children with Special Health Care Needs: 2005-2006
United States: Percent
California: Percent
http://www.kidsdata.org/ -
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
23/30
Effect on Daily Activities Among Children with Special Health Care Needs: 2005-
2006
Definition: Percentage of children ages 0-17 with special health care needs, by the severity of the difficulties
caused by the child's health conditions.
Data Source: Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. National Survey of Children with Special
Health Care Needs, Data Resource Center. http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx Retrieved 11/05/2008.
Footnote: Children with special health care needs are those who have or are at increased risk for a chronic
physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a
type or amount beyond that required by children generally. Percentages are weighted to population
characteristics.
United States: Percent
http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx -
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
24/30
Emotional or Behavioral Difficulties Among Children with Special Health Care
Needs: 2005-2006
Definition: Percentage of children ages 0-17 with special health care needs, by how much their condition affects
their daily activities.
Data Source: Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. National Survey of Children with Special
Health Care Needs, Data Resource Center. http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx Retrieved 11/05/2008.
Footnote: Children with special health care needs are those who have or are at increased risk for a chronic
physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a
type or amount beyond that required by children generally. Percentages are weighted to population
characteristics.
United States: Percent
http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx -
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
25/30
Limitations on Activities Among Children with Special Health Care Needs: 2005-
2006
Definition: Percentage of children ages 0-17 with special health care needs who have one or more of the
following emotional or behavioral difficulties: anxiety or depression; behavior problems such as acting out or
bullying; making and keeping friends.
Data Source: Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. National Survey of Children with SpecialHealth Care Needs, Data Resource Center. http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx Retrieved 11/05/2008.
Footnote: Children with special health care needs are those who have or are at increased risk for a chronic
physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a
type or amount beyond that required by children generally. Percentages are weighted to population
characteristics.
United States Percent
No Difficulties Involving
Activities50.7%
One or More Difficulties
Involving Activities49.3%
Cali fornia Percent
No Difficulties Involving
http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx -
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
26/30
School Days Missed Among Children w ith Special Health Care Needs: 2000-2001 -
2005-2006
Family Time Spent on Health Care for Children w ith Special Health Care Needs:
2005-2006
Definition: Percentage of children ages 0-17 with special health care needs, by number of school days missed
due to illness during the past 12 months.
Data Source: Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. National Survey of Children with Special
Health Care Needs, Data Resource Center. http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx Retrieved 11/05/2008.
Footnote: Children with special health care needs are those who have or are at increased risk for a chronicphysical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a
type or amount beyond that required by children generally. Percentages are weighted to population
characteristics.
United States
Number of School Days Missed
Due to Illness2000-2001 2005-2006
0-3 Days Per Year 50.7% 51.7%
4-6 Days 20.3% 21.3%
7-10 Days 13.2% 12.6%
11 Days or More 15.8% 14.3%
California
Number of School Days Missed
Due to Illness2000-2001 2005-2006
0-3 Days Per Year 49.8% 53.5%
4-6 Days 18.8% 19.8%
7-10 Days 15.1% 11.3%
11 Days or More 16.2% 15.4%
United States: Percent
http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx -
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
27/30
D fi iti P t f hild 0 17 ith i l h lth d b b f h k
California: Percent
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
28/30
D fi iti P t f f ili f hild 0 17 ith i l h lth d b ff t f hild' h lth
California: Percent
-
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
29/30
More Data: www.kidsdata.org
This PDF Overview:http://www.kidsdata.org/pdf/default.aspx?ind=87
More Data Summaries: www.kidsdata.org/factsheets.aspx
Sign Up for Data Updates: www.kidsdata.org/signup.aspx
This PDF was generated on: Jan 29, 2010
Kidsdata.org is a program of the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health
www.lpfch.org - (650) 724-5778
generally. On kidsdata.org, indicators related to children with special health care needs include data on demographic
characteristics, the impact of chronic conditions on children's functioning, and access to health care and other services.
These data come from the National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs, and are available only at the state
and national level. The survey is conducted through telephone interviews with parents of children with special health care
needs.
Why This Topic Is Important
Chronic conditions can affect a child's ability to function and participate in activities important to his or her development.
In some cases, these conditions even can shorten a child's life. While some chronic conditions of childhood have
decreased since 1960, due to advances in medicine and better prevention efforts, the overall occurrence of chronic
conditions among children has grown in the U.S., with significant increases in asthma, attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder (ADD/ADHD), diabetes, and depression. (2) Medical advances also have enhanced survival rates for children with
severe conditions, dramatically increasing the likelihood that disabled children will survive to adulthood, and changing the
focus of their care from survival to improving the quality of life. (3) Children with special health care needs comprise 15-
18% of U.S. children, and account for 80% of medical expenditures on children. (4) Some studies have shown that chronicillnesses and conditions are more prevalent among low-income children and children of color. (5)
How Children Are Faring
In 2006, 12.1% of children with special health care needs in California had no functional difficulties (e.g. difficulty seeing,
hearing, breathing, moving around, self-care, learning, paying attention, or making friends) caused by their health
condition; 44.3% had minor difficulties; 36.0% had moderate difficulties; and 7.6% had severe difficulties. However, daily
activities, for most children with special health care needs were affected by their condition, with 41.5% having those daily
activities moderately affected and 23.6% severely affected. For just over one-third of these children (34.8%), daily
activities were not affected by their condition. About half (53.5%) of the children missed 0-3 days of school in the previous
12-month period; 19.8% missed 4-6 days; 11.3% missed 7-10 days; and 15.4% missed 11 days or more.
Impact of Conditions on Family: In 2006, 52.2% of children with special health care needs in California had family members
who spent more than one hour per week coordinating and/or providing care for the child, with 9.1% spending 11 or more
hours per week coordinating and/or providing care. About one in four of these children, in California and the U.S, had a
parent who cut back or stopped working due to the child's health needs.
Table 696. Children Below Poverty Level by Race and Hispanic Origin:1980 to 2007
[11 114 t 11 114 000 P f M h f th f ll i C l l t d hild i f ili d 18
http://www.kidsdata.org/pdf/default.aspx?ind=87 -
8/14/2019 Exercise 2 Amanda Powe (All Combined)
30/30
[11,114 represents 11,114,000. Persons as of March of the following year. Covers only related children in families under 18 yearsold. Based on Current Population Survey; see text, this section and Section 1, and Appendix III. For data collection changes overtime, see ]
Year
Number below poverty level (1,000) Percent below poverty level
Allraces 1 White 2 Black 3
Asianand
PacificIslander 4
His-panic 5
Allraces 1 White 2 Black 3
Asianand
PacificIslander 4
His-panic 5
1980 . . . . . 11,114 6,817 3,906 (NA) 1,718 17.9 13.4 42.1 (NA) 33.01985 . . . . . 12,483 7,838 4,057 (NA) 2,512 20.1 15.6 43.1 (NA) 39.61988 . . . . . 11,935 7,095 4,148 458 2,576 19.0 14.0 42.8 23.5 37.31989 . . . . . 12,001 7,164 4,257 368 2,496 19.0 14.1 43.2 18.9 35.5
1990 . . . . . 12,715 7,696 4,412 356 2,750 19.9 15.1 44.2 17.0 37.71991 . . . . . 13,658 8,316 4,637 348 2,977 21.1 16.1 45.6 17.1 39.81992 6 . . . . 14,521 8,752 5,015 352 3,440 21.6 16.5 46.3 16.0 39.01993 7 . . . . 14,961 9,123 5,030 358 3,666 22.0 17.0 45.9 17.6 39.91994 . . . . . 14,610 8,826 4,787 308 3,956 21.2 16.3 43.3 17.9 41.1
1995 . . . . . 13,999 8,474 4,644 532 3,938 20.2 15.5 41.5 18.6 39.31996 . . . . . 13,764 8,488 4,411 553 4,090 19.8 15.5 39.5 19.1 39.91997 . . . . . 13,422 8,441 4,116 608 3,865 19.2 15.4 36.8 19.9 36.41998 . . . . . 12,845 7,935 4,073 542 3,670 18.3 14.4 36.4 17.5 33.61999 8 . . . . 11,678 7,194 3,698 367 3,561 16.6 13.1 32.8 11.5 29.9
2000 9 . . . . 11,005 6,834 3,495 407 3,342 15.6 12.4 30.9 12.5 27.6
2001 . . . . . 11,175 7,086 3,423 353 3,433 15.8 12.8 30.0 11.1 27.42002 10 . . . 11,646 7,203 3,570 302 3,653 16.3 13.1 32.1 11.4 28.22003 . . . . . 12,340 7,624 3,750 331 3,982 17.2 13.9 33.6 12.1 29.52004 11 . . . 12,473 7,876 3,702 265 3,985 17.3 14.3 33.4 9.4 28.6
2005 . . . . . 12,335 7,652 3,743 312 3,977 17.1 13.9 34.2 11.0 27.72006 . . . . . 12,299 7,522 3,690 351 3,959 16.9 13.6 33.0 12.0 26.62007 . . . . . 12,802 8,002 3,838 345 4,348 17.6 14.4 34.3 11.8 28.3
NA Not available. 1 Includes other races not shown separately. 2 Beginning 2002, data represent White alone, whichrefers to people who reported White and did not report any other race category. 3 Beginning 2002, data represent Black alone,
which refers to people who reported Black and did not report any other race category.4
Beginning 2002, data represent Asianalone, which refers to people who reported Asian and did not report any other race category. 5 People of Hispanic origin maybe any race. 6 Implementation of 1990 census population controls. 7 The March 1994 income supplement was revised to allowfor the coding of different income amounts on selected questionnaire items. Limits either increased or decreased in the followingcategories: earnings increased to $999,999; social security increased to $49,999; supplemental security income and publicassistance increased to $24,999; veterans benefits increased to $99,999; child support and alimony decreased to $49,999.8 Implementation of Census 2000-based population controls. 9 Implementation of sample expansion to 28,000 households.10 Beginning with the 2003 Current Population Survey (CPS), the questionnaire allowed respondents to choose more than onerace. For 2002 and later, data represent persons who selected this race group only and excludes persons reporting more than onerace. The CPS in prior years allowed respondents to report only one race group. See also comments on race in the text for Section
1.
11
Data have been revised to reflect a correction to the weights in the 2005 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).Source: U.S. Census Bureau,Current PopulationReports, P60-235 (published August 2008). See also and .