The Impact of the Great Recession on Low-Income Households and the Food Assistance Safety Net in...
14
The Impact of the Great Recession on Low-Income Households and the Food Assistance Safety Net in Rural and Urban Areas Mark Edwards, Rural Studies Program, School of Public Policy, Oregon State University Suzanne Porter, Oregon Department of Human Services Bruce Weber, Rural Studies Program, Oregon State University From a presentation made at the 2011 Rural Sociological Society meetings in Boise, ID.
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
3
Transcript of The Impact of the Great Recession on Low-Income Households and the Food Assistance Safety Net in...
The Impact of the Great Recession on Low-Income Households and the Food
Assistance Safety Net in Rural and Urban Areas
Mark Edwards, Rural Studies Program, School of Public Policy, Oregon State University
Suzanne Porter, Oregon Department of Human Services
Bruce Weber, Rural Studies Program, Oregon State University
From a presentation made at the 2011 Rural Sociological Society meetings in Boise, ID.
SNAP use, by county, over time
• The following maps show the change in the percentage of working age people and their children (ages 0 to 59) who were receiving SNAP in each Oregon county.
• The darker the county becomes over time, the higher the percentage climbs.
Receipt rate:
Metro: 10.5%
Non-metro: 15.2%
Receipt rate:
Metro: 10.3%
Non-metro: 15.3%
Receipt rate:
Metro: 10.7%
Non-metro: 15.8%
Receipt rate:
Metro: 12.9%
Non-metro: 18.9%
Receipt rate:
Metro: 17.2%
Non-metro: 23.6%
Lane
Douglas
Linn
Coos
KlamathJackson
Jose
ph
ine
Lake
Malheur
Baker
Umatilla
Wasco
JeffersonL
inco
ln
Time and Place Analysis for Working Poor
• The following figures show that among new SNAP cases in 2005, 2008 and 2009, the numbers did not grow dramatically for single mother households, but did grow dramatically for groups that some have called “the new poor” – people who had full year jobs and families with two adults.
• They also show that rural areas were hit first and worst, but then urban areas caught up during the height of the great recession.
2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Urban
Rural
New Oregon SNAP Households, by Location and Year
Pe
rce
nta
ge
inc
rea
se
in c
oh
ort
2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Urban
Rural
Oregon SNAP Recipients Who are Single Mothers and Their Children, by Location and Year
Per
cen
tage
incr
ease
in c
ohor
t
2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Urban
Rural
Oregon SNAP Households With Multiple Adults and Children Starting SNAP, by Location and Year
Pe
rce
nta
ge
inc
rea
se
in c
oh
ort
2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Urban
Rural
Oregon SNAP Households With a Full-Year Worker Prior to Starting SNAP, by Location and Year
Pe
rce
nta
ge
inc
rea
se
in c
oh
ort
2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
Urban
Rural
Oregon SNAP Recipients Recently Working in Construction by Location and Year
Per
cen
tage
incr
ease
in c
ohor
t
For more information, contact:
Mark Edwards [email protected]
Sue Porter [email protected]
Bruce Weber [email protected]
