© 2012 legal services of new jerseypoverty.lsnj.org/pages/benchmarks2012.pdf · 2020. 9. 26. ·...

PovertyBenchmarks2012AssessingNewJersey’sProgressin

CombatingPoverty

TheSixthAnnualReportfromtheLegalServicesofNewJerseyPovertyResearchInstitute

May2012

Copyright2012LegalServicesofNewJersey


2

LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW JERSEY POVERTY RESEARCH INSTITUTE LegalServicesofNewJerseyheadsastatewidesystemofsevennon‐profitcorporationsthatprovidefreelegalassistanceincivilmatterstolow‐incomepeopleinalltwenty‐onecounties.ThePovertyResearchInstitute(PRI)wasestablishedbyLSNJin1997tocreategreaterpublicawarenessofpoverty’sscope,causes,consequencesandremedies,asawaytohelpalleviatesomeofthelegalproblemsofthoselivinginpoverty,andtherebyhelpmeetLSNJ’scoremissionofaddressingthoselegalproblems.Itisthefirstandonlyentityexclusivelyfocusedondevelopingandupdatinginformationonpovertyinthestate.LSNJ’sPRIconductssystemicresearchontheincidence,effectsandotheraspectsofpoverty—aswellastherelationshipamongpoverty,workandpublicpolicy—andmakesitsfindingsavailabletothepublic.InformationonNJPRIcanbefoundatwww.lsnj.org/PRI.Forfurtherquestions,[email protected]‐572‐9100.Tosubmitcommentsorideasinresponsetothisreport,[email protected].


3

Contents

Introduction....................................................................................................................................5Overview...........................................................................................................................................7TheGreatRecessionanditsAftermath............................................................................14CharacteristicsofPovertyinNewJersey.........................................................................23

VulnerablePopulations...................................................................................................23WorkingandPoor..............................................................................................................37Income.....................................................................................................................................41PlaceswithPoverty...........................................................................................................43AspectsofPoverty.............................................................................................................50

MajorStateResponsestoPoverty......................................................................................66IncomeSupport...................................................................................................................67Employment.........................................................................................................................72FoodandNutrition............................................................................................................74Housing...................................................................................................................................80HealthCare............................................................................................................................84

PolicyRecommendations.......................................................................................................90


4

Acknowledgements ThisreportofthePovertyResearchInstitute(PRI)ofLegalServicesofNewJersey(LSNJ)waswrittenbyShiviPrasadandAllanLichtenstein.SarahHymowitz,KevinLiebkemann,ConniePascale,MauraSanders,andJoshuaSpielbergofLSNJprovidedimportantadditionalinputonportionsofthereport.ThankstoSuePergerofLSNJforprintingcoordinationandtoLaurelIvesforhercoverdesign,WeareespeciallygratefultotheFundforNewJersey,whichprovidedgrantassistancetohelpsupportthisproject,andwhichhasprovidedfundingtothePovertyResearchInstitutesinceitsbeginningsin1997.AllopinionsarethoseofLegalServicesofNewJersey.

Melville D. Miller, Jr., President Legal Services of New Jersey Edison, New Jersey May 2012


5

Introduction

ThePovertyBenchmarksReportisanongoingprojectofthePovertyResearchInstitute.Inauguratedin2007,andpublishedonanannualbasis,itspurposeistoprovideasinglesourceforNewJerseypoverty‐relateddata.This2012PovertyBenchmarksreportisthesixthintheseries.Thisreportisorganizedbroadlyalongthreemajordimensions.ThefirstprovidesabroaddepictionofthecurrentstateoftheNewJerseyeconomyinthewakeoftheGreatRecession.Thesecondtrackschangesintheoccurrenceandextentofpovertyovertime,whilethethirdevaluatesselectedstateprogramsthataddressissuesofpovertyandinadequateincome.Thereportdrawsfromavarietyofdatasources,includingtheU.S.CensusBureau’sAmericanCommunitySurvey(ACS),whichareusedtodepictthestateofpovertyinNewJerseyin2010,themostrecentyearforwhichpovertydataareavailable.LastyearwestatedthatbecauseofthesloweconomicrecoveryandhighunemploymentratesfollowingtheGreatRecession,weexpectedthattheACSpovertydatafor2009andbenchmarkedinourreportoflastyearwouldunderstatetheseverityofprevailingsocio‐economicconditionsin2010.The2010dataconfirmsthissupposition.TheGreatRecessionmaybeover,butpovertyratesinNewJerseyhaverisensteadilysincethebeginningoftherecession,reachingrecordhighsin2010.Moreover,numerousotherdatashowthatmanyNewJerseyresidentscontinuedtofaceenduringhardshipsin2011.Asinpreviousreports,Benchmarks2012includesotherdatasourcesinordertoportrayascurrentlyaspossibletheongoingeconomiccrisisandhardshipsfacingmanyresidentsintheireffortstomakeendsmeet.Thisreportputsgreateremphasisthanpreviousreportsonpresentingpovertydataat200percentoftheofficialpovertymeasure,whereavailable,becauseitisabetterindicatorofneedthantheFederalPovertyLevel(FPL).Dataat50percentand100percentoftheFederalPovertyLevelcanbefoundintheAppendix.AsourvariousRealCostofLivingstudiesshow,200percentofthepovertymeasureisacloserapproximation,althoughstillinadequate,oftheactualincomeneededtomeetbasicnecessitiesinNewJersey.Bymakingabroadarrayofpovertydatareadilyavailable,thisreportisintendedtostimulateawarenessoftheplightofpeoplewithlowincomeswhoarenotabletomakeendsmeet.TheinformationalsochallengespersistentandwidespreadpreconceptionsaboutthenatureofpovertyandthepeoplewholiveinpovertyinNewJersey.NewJersey’scurrentanti‐povertyapproachisapatchworkinwhichthediversedepartmentsandprogramsthataddresselementsofpovertyexistandoperatewithintheirowndomains―theirsilos―withoutsignificantinteraction.Furthermore,inthisperiodofsevereeconomiccircumstances,stateagenciestaskedwithservingcitizensinneedhaveseentheirbudgetstightened,andserviceorganizationshavewatchedgovernmentgrantsandprivatecontributionsdecline.Inthisdifficulttimeofincreasedneedanddecreasedresources,astrongstateresponseismorethanevervitaltothesafetyandwell‐beingofthosepeoplelivinginpoverty.UntilNewJerseytakesonamorecoordinatedapproachtopoverty,andorganizesgovernmentprogramsandresponsestoaddresspovertycomprehensively,takingintoaccountthefullneedsofindividualsandfamiliesinpoverty,evaluationofthestate’santi‐povertystrategyisconfinedtoassessingindividualprograms.Thisreporttrackstheseprogramdevelopmentsfromyeartoyear,andeachprogram


6

“snapshot”providesanopportunityforadvocatesandlawmakerstoassessitsimpactandperformance.AsrecentCensusBureauanalysesshow,programssuchastheEarnedIncomeTaxCreditandFoodStamps,nowSNAP,makeasubstantivecontributioninreducingthepovertylevelandwithouttheseprograms,particularlyinthesetimesofeconomichardship,thepovertyratewouldhavebeenmuchhigherthanitalreadyis.


7

Overview

A. The Great Recession and its Aftermath TwoandahalfyearshavepassedsincetheendoftheGreatRecession,yettheNewJerseyeconomyremainsmiredinlacklustereconomicgrowth.Thehighanddisparateunemploymentratesthatpersistedthrough2011suggestthatthepovertyratesfor2011thatwillreleasedinSeptemberthisyearwillonceagainbenotablyhigh.1. Persistent high unemployment

UnemploymentinNewJerseyremainsmiredatthe9.0percentlevel,higherthanatanytimesinceJanuary1980.AsofMarch2012,unemploymentnumbered412,700people,adeclineofonly4,600workerssincetheconclusionoftheGreatRecessioninJune2009.

2. Extended periods of unemployment MorethanhalftheunemployedpopulationinNewJerseyhadbeenoutofworkformorethansixmonthsin2010.

3. High rates of unemployment among the recent entries to the workforce

SincetheconclusionoftheGreatRecession,theunemploymentrateforthe20to24agegrouprosefrom8.8percentin2008to14.8percentin2011.

4. Disparate impacts of unemployment WhiletheunemploymentratessincetheonsetoftheGreatRecessionhavegrownforthethreelargestethnicandracialgroups,ithasincreaseddisproportionatelymoreforBlacks.

5. Uneven geographical distribution of unemployment WhiletheunemploymentrateincreasedforallNewJerseycountiesbetween2007and2011,therewassignificantvariationintheunemploymentrateacrosscounties—unemploymentwashighestinsomeofthesoutherncountiesandlowestinsomeofthenortherncountiesin2011.

6. Limited job recovery AsofMarch2012,theemploymentlevelinNewJerseywasalittlemorethan200,000jobsbelowtheDecember2007levelattheoutsetoftheGreatRecessionandalmost10,000lessthanitwasattheconclusionoftherecessioninJune2009.

7. Manufacturing jobs disappearing PriortotheonsetoftheGreatRecession,NewJerseyhemorrhagedmanufacturingjobs;sincetheconclusionofrecession,thisprocesshascontinued.Almostallthejobgrowthhasbeenin


8

theprivateservice‐providingsector,primarilythelowwagepayingeducationandhealthservicessector.

8. The ranks of the middle class continued to shrink in 2010 Between2005and2010,thetwolowestincomegroups—thosewithhouseholdincomesbelow100percentandthosebetween100percentand200percentoftheFPL—weretheonlyincomegroupstoincreaseinnumber.Theformerincreasedbyalmost146,000peopleandthelaterbyalmost90,000people.Incontrast,thepopulationofthemiddle‐incomeandtop‐incomegroupsdeclined.

B. Characteristics of Poverty in New Jersey Vulnerable Populations AlthoughtheofficialconclusionoftheGreatRecessionwasJune2009,itsconsequenceshavecontinuedtoaffectalargesegmentofNewJersey’spopulationand,especially,morevulnerablegroups.Itsimpactshavebeenparticularlysevereforyoungadults,Hispanics,andfemale‐headedfamilieswithchildren,manyofwhombecameunemployedduringtherecession.Inaddition,highpovertyratesforBlacks,children,thedisabled,theelderly,andthosewiththeleasteducationalattainmentcontinuetobeanissueofconcern,whiletheranksofthemiddleclasscontinuedtoshrink.1. Record high number of people living in poverty in 2010

Therelentlessgrowthofpovertycontinuedin2010.Thenumberofpeoplelivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPL(FederalPovertyLevel)crossedthetwomillionmark(2,054,938)forthefirsttimeinthelastsixyearsin2010—theequivalentofalmostone‐quarterofthepopulation.Arecordhigh884,789peoplewerelivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelowtheofficialpovertylevel(FPL),and395,509peoplewerelivinginseverepoverty(below50percentoftheFPL).

2. Large increase in number of children living in households with low incomes since the beginning of the recession

SincethebeginningoftheGreatRecession,thenumberofchildrenlivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPLhasincreasedbymorethan75,000.Overall,30.4percentofallchildren(619,003innumber)werelivinginsuchhouseholds,while14.5percent(295,346innumber)werelivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelowtheofficialpovertylevel.

3. Young adults (18-24 years) especially likely to be living in households with low incomes

Theincreaseinthenumberofyoungadults(betweentheages18‐24years)livinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPLwaslargerthanforanyotheragegroup—39.1percentsince2006.Approximatelyone‐thirdofthisagegroupwaslivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPLin2010.


9

4. Hispanic population experienced the largest increase in poverty rates ThepovertyrateincreasedsharplyfortheHispanicpopulation,reaching19.9percentin2010—anincreaseof3.9percentagepointssince2007and1.5percentagepointshigherthan2009.Forthefirsttime,in2010,thenumberofHispanicsinpovertyexceededthenumberofnon‐Hispanicwhites.Inaddition,itsurpassedtheBlackpovertyrateasitalsodidin2009.

5. Poverty rate highest for Black children in 2010, but Hispanic child poverty rising more rapidly

AlthoughthepovertyratewashighestforBlackchildren—27.4percentin2010—thepovertyratesforHispanicchildrenhasincreasedmorerapidlysincetheconclusionoftherecession.Itincreasedfrom20.8percentin2007to26.6percentin2010.

6. Sharp increase in the poverty rate of female-headed minority families with children

ThepovertyrateforHispanicfemale‐headedfamilieswithchildrenincreasedsharply,reaching47percentin2010.Thisfigureis8.5percentagepointshigherthanitwasin2007,beforetheonsetoftherecession,and9.7percentagepointsgreaterthanitwasin2005.Theincreaseinthepovertyrateforfemale‐headedBlackfamilieswasalsosubstantial,risingfrom29.8percentin2007to37.8percentin2010,anincreaseofeightpercentagepoints.

7. Poverty rose more sharply during the recession for those residents with the least educational attainment

WhilethepovertyratehasincreasedatalllevelsofeducationalattainmentsincetheonsetoftheGreatRecession,itissubstantiallyhigherforthoseresidentswiththeleasteducationalattainment.Amongresidentswithlessthanahighschooldiploma,one‐fifthwaslivinginpoverty,anincreaseof2.3percentagepointssince2007.

Working and Poor 1. The poverty rate for working female-headed families continued to rise

from 2009 to 2010, as it did during the recession

Thepovertyrateforone‐workerfemalefamiliesincreasedfrom19.4percentin2008to21.4percentin2009and,then,to22.5percentin2010,theyearaftertheGreatRecessionended.Moreover,thepercentageofone‐workerfemalefamilieslivingbelowtheofficialpovertylevelwasdoublethatofone‐workermalefamilies,andalmostfourtimesthatofone‐workermarried‐couplefamilies.


10

2. Hispanics were more likely to be working full-time and year-round than either whites or Blacks; however, they were much more likely to be earning less than $30,000.

Overall,47.0percentofHispanicsworkingfull‐timeandyear‐roundearnedlessthan$30,000in2010,comparedto27.5percentofBlacks,and14.1percentofwhitenon‐Hispanics.

Income 1. Median household income for all households in New Jersey fell for the

second straight year in 2010, reaching its lowest point in six years

Afterpeakingat$71,764in2008,medianhouseholdincomefellto$69,571in2009,andthento$67,681in2010,allmeasuredin2010inflation‐adjusteddollars.

Places with Poverty 1. Large disparities between counties in percentage of people living in

households with low incomes

InPassaic,Hudson,andCumberlandcounties,morethan35percentofthepopulationwaslivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPLin2010.Ineightcounties,thepercentageofchildrenlivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPLexceeded35percent;insixofthose,itwasabove40percent.

2. Large disparities between municipalities in percentage of people living in households with low incomes

Inninemunicipalities,atleast50percentoftheresidentswerelivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPLin2010;thehighestbeingCamdenat63percent.

Aspects of Poverty Povertyaffectsthedailylivesofpeoplewithlowincomesandtheirabilitytomakeendsmeet.Itlimitstheiraccesstoopportunitiesanddistortstheirlong‐termlifeoutcomes.ThesurgeinpovertyratesastheGreatRecessionproceededandtheircontinuingupwardtrendevenaftertheofficialconclusionoftherecessionhavemademeetingbasicneeds—intheareasoffood,housing,health,education,andtransportation—achallengeforagreatershareofthepopulation.1. Food—Food insecurity level reached new high in 2008-10

About380,000NewJerseyhouseholds(approximatelyone‐eighthofallhouseholds)haddifficultyatsometimeduring2008‐10providingenoughfoodforalltheirmembersduetoalackofresources—morethaninanyoftheprior12years.Whilethefoodinsecurityindexdeclinedbetween2003andthebeginningoftheGreatRecession,itroserapidlythereafter,andhascontinuedtoincreaseevenaftertheGreatRecession’sofficialending.


11

2. Housing—Affordable housing a challenge for a growing share of households

Alargershareofrenterhouseholdsthaninanyofthepreviousfiveyearswasseverelycost‐burdened,thatis,theypaidmorethan50percentofhouseholdincomeonrentandutilitiesin2010.Nearly300,000NewJerseyrenterhouseholds,about30percentofallrenterhouseholds,spentmorethan50percentoftheirhouseholdincomeonrentin2010.SincethebeginningoftheGreatRecessionin2007,anadditional46,000householdshavebecomeseverelycost‐burdened.Whiletheproportionofrenterhouseholdspayingmorethan30percentofhouseholdincomeonrentandutilitieshasbeenincreasingforallincomegroups,ithasincreasedthemostformiddle‐classhouseholdswithincomesapproximatelytwicetothree‐timestheFPL.Between2007and2010,thepercentageofrenterhouseholdsinthisgroupincreasedby7.9percentagepoints.

3. Housing—Overcrowding in renter-occupied housing increased strikingly Since2007,thenumberandpercentageofovercrowdedrenter‐occupiedhouseholdshasincreasedsubstantially.Whilein2007therewereapproximately56,000overcrowdedrenterhouseholds,by2010thenumberhadjumpedtoalmost89,000,anincreaseof33,000households,or58percent.

4. Health Insurance—Coverage improved for children but deteriorated for adults

Healthinsurancecoverageforchildrenlivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPLimprovedforthethirdconsecutiveyearin2010‐11,reachingitslowestlevelinsevenyears.In2010‐11,14.2percentofchildrenlivinginsuchhouseholdshadnohealthinsurancecoverage—11.3percentagepointsbelowthe2007‐08levelof25.5percent.Incontrast,therateofmedicallyuninsuredadultslivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPLreacheditshighestlevelinsevenyearsin2010‐11.Alittlemorethan34percenthadnomedicalinsurancecoverage—anincreaseof6.2percentagepointssince2003‐04.

5. Health—The correlation between poor health and low household income remains consistent

Thepercentageofresidentsreportingpoorhealthincreasesashouseholdincomedeclines.Thehighestpercentageofresidentsreportingpoorhealthhasconsistentlybeenthoselivinginhouseholdswithlessthan$15,000inhouseholdincome.

6. Education—Socioeconomic status of school district still matters Grade4studentslivinginlowsocioeconomicstatusschooldistricts,asshowninthisreport,(althoughalsograde8andgrade11students)aremorelikelytobepartiallyproficientinlanguageartsthantheirpeerslivinginhighsocioeconomicstatusschooldistricts.Moreover,


12

Grade4studentsfromeconomicallyadvantagedhouseholdslivinginthesamelowsocioeconomicstatusschooldistrictsaremorelikelytobepartiallyproficientinlanguageartsthantheirpeersfromeconomicallyadvantagedhouseholdslivinginhighsocioeconomicstatusschooldistricts.

7. Education—Economic status of household still matters Grade4studentsfromeconomicallydisadvantagedhouseholds,asshowninthisreport,(althoughalsograde8andgrade11students)residinginhighsocioeconomicstatusdistrictsaremorelikelytobepartiallyproficientinlanguageartsthantheireconomicallyadvantagedpeersresidinginthesamedistricts.

C. Changes (or lack thereof) in Anti-poverty Programs

1. The erosion of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) grant continued in 2010; the value of the grant has dropped by 52 percent in the past twenty-five years

UndertheTANFprogram,themaximumgrantforafamilywithoneadultandtwochildrenis$424permonth.Thegrantlevelhasremainedunchangedinthepast25years.Asaresult,thevalueofthegranthasfallenbynearly52percentsince1987.Iftheassistanceamounthadkeptpacewithinflation,itwouldhaveincreasedto$876by2011.

2. Eighteen states, plus the District of Columbia, have minimum wages levels set above the federal minimum. The minimum wage in New Jersey, however, remains at the federal minimum, $7.25 an hour

Tenstatesannuallyincreasetheminimumwagetokeepupwiththeriseinthecostofliving.NewJersey,however,isamongthestatesthatdonotindextheirminimumwage.

3. New Jersey enacted an Earned income Tax Credit (EITC) credit reduction that increases financial hardship for families with low incomes

ThestateEITCreduceditscreditto20percent,downfromthe25percentofthefederalcreditbeginninginJanuary1,2011,whereitremainssince.

4. The number of households enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP; formerly Food Stamp Program) has increased by 92 percent since the beginning of the Great Recession

ParticipationintheFoodStampprogramjumpedsharplyattheoutsetoftheGreatRecessioninDecember2007.EvenaftertherecessionofficiallyendedinJune2009,theupwardtrendinthefoodstampcaseloadremainedsteep.AsofDecember2011,enrollmentstoodat393,739


13

households,anincreaseof188,940householdssincethebeginningoftheGreatRecession,or92percent.

5. Between 2009-10 and 2010-11, New Jersey’s rank in student participation in the School Breakfast Program dropped from the 46th worst to 48th worst in the country. New Jersey schools’ participation in the School Breakfast Program is now the worst in the nation

In2010‐11,only37.6percentofNationalSchoolLunchProgram(NSLP)studentparticipantsreceivedfreeorsubsidizedbreakfasts,unchangedfromthepreviousyear.Between2009‐10and2010‐11,NewJersey’snationalstudentparticipationrankingintheSchoolBreakfastProgramdroppedfromthe46thworstto48thworstinthecountry.InorderforachildtoparticipateintheSchoolBreakfastProgram,thechild’sschoolmustbeparticipatingintheprogram.NewJersey’srankingforschoolparticipationsignificantlylagsotherstatesinthenation.Since2005‐06,NewJerseyschoolrankinghasbeenamongthelowestinthenation.In2010‐11,itsrankdroppedtonumber50,thelowestschoolparticipationrateinthenation.

6. Resources for major state rental assistance and housing production programs lag far behind the need.

DespitecontinuedfundingfortheStateRentalAssistanceProgram,whichsupplementsfederalrentalassistance,theneedforrentalassistanceoutgrowsprogramresources.ThereiscurrentlynoavailablefundingfortheAffordableHousingTrustFundtobuildorrehabilitatenewaffordablehomes.

7. Because of cuts to New Jersey FamilyCare (NJFC) implemented in March 2010, parent enrollment has plummeted and reached a new low in February 2012

InMarch2010,NJFamilyCare(NJFC)wascutbyclosingtheChildHealthInsurancePlan(CHIPOnly)categorytoparentsandcaretakersfilingnewapplications.Thepracticaleffectwasthattheeligibilityfornewapplicantparentsdeclinedsharply.Asaresult,parentenrollmentintheCHIPOnlycomponentofNJFCdroppedprecipitously.Atitspeak,inMay2010,64,717parentswereenrolled;byFebruary2012enrollmentstoodatalowof23,714,adeclineof64percent.Theeligibilitycutoffat29percentoftheFPLforparentswithunearnedincomeisoneofthelowestinthenation.Currently,only14stateshavestricterincomeeligibilitycriteriaforparentswithunearnedincome.


14

The Great Recession and its Aftermath

TwoandahalfyearshavepassedsincetheendoftheGreatRecession,yettheNewJerseyeconomyremainsmiredinlacklustereconomicgrowth.ThissectionbrieflyexaminesthecurrentstateofemploymentinNewJersey—unemploymentrates,lengtheningperiodsofunemployment,highratesofunemploymentamongyoungeragegroups,thedisparateimpactsofunemploymentforBlacksandHispanicsincontrasttowhites,andtheunevengeographicaldistributionofunemployment.Inaddition,itshowsthatjobgrowthhasbeenslightatbestand,totheextentthatithastakenplace,ithasallbeeninthelowerwagepayingprivateservices‐providingsector,whilemanufacturingjobscontinuetoleavethestate.Thehighratesofunemploymentthatpersistedthrough2011,suggestthatthepovertyratesfor2011thatwillreleasedinSeptemberthisyearwillonceagainbehigh.

Persistent High Unemployment DuringtheGreatRecessiontheunemploymentrateinNewJerseydoubled,climbingfrom4.6percentinDecember2007to9.2percentinJune2009(seefigure1.1).Aftertherecession’sconclusion,itcontinuedtorise,reachingapeakof9.7percentinApril2010.Althoughitdeclinedsomewhatthereafter,asofMarch2012itwas9.0percent—stillhigherthanatanytimesinceJanuary1980.Figure1.1:UnemploymentRateinNewJersey,January1980toMarch2012

Source:U.S.BureauofLaborForceStatisticsandtheNewJerseyDepartmentofLaborandWorkforceDevelopmentNote:Shadedareasdenoterecessions.

4.6

9.2

9.7

9.0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Une

mploymen

t Rate (%

)

Year


15

Thecorrespondingunemploymentnumbersshowthatthenumberofunemployedpersonsrosefrom205,100peopleinDecember2007to417,300inJune2009,anincreaseof212,200people,or103.5percent.AttheApril2010peakunemploymentrate,443,700peoplewereunemployed.Sincethenthenumberhasdeclined,droppingto412,700inMarch2012.Overall,thenumberofunemployedpeoplehasdeclinedbyonly4,600sincetheendoftheGreatRecession.Onaveragefor2011,about424,400peoplewereunemployedeachmonth.Whiletheofficialunemploymentrateisthemostwidelycitedunemploymentstatistic,intimesofrecessionitdoesnotdoagoodjobdepictingthefullextentofunemployment.Itaccountsfortheshareofthelaborforcethatwasnotemployedduringagivenweek,wasavailableforworkduringthattime,andwasactivelyseekingemploymentduringthepreviousfour‐weekperiod.IntheperiodfollowingtheGreatRecession,whentheeconomyremainedmiredinlacklustergrowthandhighunemployment,manyworkersbecamesodiscouragedthattheystoppedactivelyseekingemployment.Tworatios—theemployment‐to‐populationratioandthelaborforceparticipationrate—arebetterindescribingtheextentoftheactualunemploymentintheeconomy.Figure1.2:Employment‐to‐PopulationRatio&LaborForceParticipationRateinNewJersey,January1980toMarch2012

Source:U.S.BureauofLaborForceStatisticsandtheNewJerseyDepartmentofLaborandWorkforceDevelopmentNote:Shadedareasdenoterecessions.Theemployment‐to‐populationratio,whichisthepercentageofthetotalworking‐agepopulationthatiscurrentlyemployed,was59.9percentinMarch2012(seefigure1.2).PriortotheGreatRecession,thisnumberhasnotbeensolowfor28years—inDecember1983,itlaststoodat59.9

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Percen

tage

Labor Force Participation Rate Employment‐Population Ratio


16

percent.DuringtheGreatRecession,itdeclinedfrom63.9percentinDecember2008to61.2percentinJune2009.Itcontinuedtodeclinethereafter,reachingalowof59.6percentinAugust2011.Inperiodsofeconomicexpansion,astheworking‐agepopulationgrows,thenumberofemployedpeoplegrows.Inarecession,however,therearenotsufficientjobsavailabletoemploynewentrantstotheworkforce.SincetheonsetoftheGreatRecession,thetotalworking‐agepopulationincreasedby241,100people,whilethenumberofemployedpeopledeclinedby120,600people.Thelaborforceisthesumofthenumberofemployedandofficiallyunemployedpeopleintheeconomy.Thelaborforceparticipationrateistheratioofthenumberofpeopleinthelaborforcetothetotalworking‐agepopulation.Whilethelaborforceparticipationrateroseslightlyduringtherecession,itdeclinedsubsequentlyasdiscouragedworkersceasedtoactivelyseekemployment.SincethebeginningoftherecessionthroughtoMarch2012,thelaborforcehasincreasedbyonly87,100people,whiletheworking‐agepopulationhasgrownby241,100people.Consequently,throughout2011thelaborforceparticipationrateremainedstuckbetween65.8percentand66.0percent(seefigure1.2).

Enduring Underemployment TheBureauofLaborStatisticspublishesvariousalternativemeasuresofunderemploymenttoaccountforworkerswhohavebecomesodiscouragedthattheyarenolongeractivelyseekingemployment.Themostcomprehensiveincludes,inadditiontotheofficialunemployednumber,workerswhoareworkingpart‐time,althoughtheywouldprefertoworkfull‐time,aswellasworkerswhofacesubstantialbarrierstoactivelyparticipatinginthelaborforce,becauseoffactorssuchasalackoftransportationornochildcare.Theseworkersareavailableforworkandwouldtakeajobifoffered,orwouldincreasetofull‐timeworkiftherewasanopportunitytodoso.Figure1.3showsthattheunderemploymentratehascontinuedtoriseinNewJersey,evenastherecessionhasended.Thegapbetweentheofficialunemploymentrate(thelowerline)andtheunemploymentrateplustheunderemploymentrate(thetopline)increasedin2011.Whiletheaverageunemploymentratefor2011was9.4percent,theunderemploymentratewas6.6percent,givingacombinedrateof16.0percentonaveragefor2011,thehighestlevelsince2003.The6.6percentunderemploymentdifferentialpointstoaconsiderableamountofunderutilizedpotentiallaborresourcesintheNewJerseyeconomy.In2011,asignificantshareofthelaborforcewasworkingeitherpart‐timewhentheywouldhavepreferredfull‐timeorhadgivenupsearchingforworkentirely,butwouldreadilyhavetakenajob,ifonewereavailable.


17

Figure1.3:OfficialandAlternativeMeasureofLaborUtilizationinNewJersey,2003to2011

Source:U.S.BureauofLaborForceStatisticsNote:Shadedareadenotesrecession.

Extended Periods of Unemployment Figure1.4:ShareofJobSeekerswhohavebeenUnemployedforMorethanSixMonthsinNewJersey,1997to2010

Source:U.S.BureauofLaborForceStatisticsNote:Shadedareadenotesrecession.Datamissingbetween1998and2000.

5.9%4.8% 4.4% 4.8% 4.2%

5.4%

9.1% 9.3% 9.4%9.0%7.7% 7.7% 7.8% 7.4%

9.5%

15.2% 15.7%16.0%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Unemployment Unemployment + Underemployment

51.4%

36.3%

20.6%

20.6%

18.3%20.5%

23.8%23.3%22.0%

15.4%16.6%16.7%

19.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997


18

TheprotractedperiodoflethargicgrowthandthehighunemploymentandunderemploymentratesfacingtheNewJerseyeconomysincetheendoftheGreatRecessionhasmeantthattheaverageperiodofunemploymenthasgrownovertime.Asfigure1.4shows,whiletheshareofjobseekerswhohavebeenunemployedformorethansixmonthstrendedaroundthe20.0percentmarkbetween1997and2008,justpriortotheGreatRecession,itincreasedsharplythereafter.In2009,itjumpedto36.3percentandthento51.4percentin2010.Morethanhalftheunemployedpopulationhadbeenoutofworkformorethansixmonthsin2010.

High Rates of Unemployment among the Under 25-Age Group Theenduringandextendedperiodsofunemploymenthavenotbeendistributedevenlyacrosstheworking‐agepopulation(seefigure1.5).WhileunemploymentincreasedforallagegroupsduringtheGreatRecessionandcontinuedtogrowthereafter,ithasbeenespeciallyhighinthepost‐recessionperiodfortheunder‐25agegroup.SincetheconclusionoftheGreatRecession,theunemploymentrateforthe16to19agegroupsurpassedthe20percentlevelandreachedahighof23.5percentin2011.Similarly,forthe20to24agegrouptheraterosefrom8.8percentin2008to14.8percentin2011.Figure1.5:UnemploymentRatebyAgeinNewJersey,1999to2011

Source:U.S.BureauofLaborForceStatistics

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

16‐19 20‐24 25‐34 35‐44 45‐54 55‐64


19

Disparate Impacts of Unemployment ThehighunemploymentratesthathavepersistedsincetheconclusionoftheGreatRecessionhavebeendisproportionatelydistributedamongthemajorracialandethnicgroups.WhiletheunemploymentrateforBlackshasconsistentlybeenhigherthanthatforeitherHispanicsorwhites,since2009thegaphasgrownconsiderablylarger(seefigure1.6).TheunemploymentrateforBlacksrosefrom14.2percentin2009to15.5percentin2010,andthento15.8percentin2011.Ontheotherhand,theunemploymentratepeakedforHispanicsat11.6percentin2009,droppedto10.2percentin2010,andthenroseto11.3percentin2011.Forwhites,theunemploymentraterosefrom8.4percentin2009to8.7percentin2010.In2011,itremainedat8.7percent.Figure1.6:UnemploymentbyRaceandEthnicityinNewJersey,1990to2011

Source:U.S.BureauofLaborForceStatisticsNote:Shadedareadenotesrecession.

Unequal Geographical Distribution of Unemployment TheeffectsoftheGreatRecessionwerefeltdifferentlyacrossthecountiesofNewJersey(seefigure1.7).Whiletheunemploymentrateincreasedforallcountiesbetween2007and2011,therewassignificantvariationintheunemploymentrateacrosscounties.Inanumberofthesoutherncountieswithhigherpovertyrates,thealreadyhighunemploymentratesgrewevenhigher,reachingasmuchas13.4percentinCumberland,12.9percentinAtlantic,and12.5percentinCapeMay.Ontheotherhand,threeofthenortherncounties—Hunterdon,Morris,andSomerset—hadthelowestunemploymentratesin2011—6.9percent,7.0percent,and7.1percent,respectively.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Black/African American Hispanic/Latino White


20

Figure1.7:UnemploymentRatebyCountyinNewJersey,2007and2011

Source:U.S.BureauofLaborForceStatisticsandtheNewJerseyDepartmentofLaborandWorkforceDevelopment

Limited Job Recovery BythetimetheGreatRecessionwasover,theemploymentlevelinNewJerseyhadretreatedtoapproximately3.89million,alevellastrecordedtenyearsearlierinmid‐1999(seefigure1.8).AlthoughtherecessionofficiallyendedinJune2009,employmentcontinuedtocontractinNewJersey,reachingalowofalittleunder3.84millioninJanuary2011.Sincethenemploymenthasincreasedslightly.ByMarch2012,theemploymentlevelhadclimbedtoalmost3.88million,althoughstill9,700shortoftheJune2009level.Moreover,asofMarch2012,NewJerseywasstill203,500jobsbelowtheDecember2007employmentlevelattheoutsetoftheGreatRecession.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16Cape

May

Cumbe

rland

Atlantic

Essex

Passaic

Hudson

Salem

Camde

nOcean

Union

Glou

cester

Sussex

Burlington

Mercer

Middlesex

Mon

mou

thWarren

Bergen

Somerset

Morris

Hunterdo

n

Percen

tage

2007 2011


21

Figure1.8:NonagriculturalandWageEmploymentinNewJersey,Jan.1990toMar.2012

Source:TheNewJerseyDepartmentofLaborandWorkforceDevelopment,LaborMarket&DemographicResearchNote:Shadedareasdenoterecessions.

Manufacturing Jobs Disappearing AlthoughNewJerseyhasbeguntoregainsomeofthejobslostduringtheGreatRecession,thesejobshaveallbeenintheservice‐providingsector,continuingatrendthathasbeengoingonforsometimealready.Figure1.9showsthebroadchangesinthemakeupoftheNewJerseyeconomyacrossfourtimeperiods.BetweenJanuary1990andApril1999,whentheemploymentnumberwaslastatapproximatelythesamelevelasinMarch2012,NewJerseygained194.1thousandjobs.However,itlost125.1manufacturingjobs,whilegaining328.1thousandprivateservice‐providingjobs.InthenextperiodleadinguptotheGreatRecession,theNewJerseyeconomyproducedanother201.0thousandjobs.Again,117.3thousandmanufacturingjobswerelost,whiletheprivateservice‐providingsectorcontributed217.8thousandjobsandthegovernmentsectoranother72.9thousand.DuringtheGreatRecession,bothmanufacturingandprivateserviceprovidingjobswerelost—40.0thousandand124.4thousand,respectively.SinceJune2009,themanufacturingsectorhascontinuedtodecline,losingafurther12.5thousandjobs,whiletheprivateservice‐providingsectorgained43.3thousandjobs.Thegovernmentsectoralsocontracted,losing30.0thousandjobs.Overall,ofthe464.8thousandprivateserviceprovidingjobsthathavebeenproducedinthe22yearsbetweenJanuary1990andMarch2012,morethanhalf(58percent)havebeeninthegenerallylowwagepayingeducationandhealthservicessector.Anotherone‐thirdhasbeenintheprofessionalandbusinessservicessector.Incontrast,294.9thousandmanufacturingjobshavebeenlost.

3,300

3,400

3,500

3,600

3,700

3,800

3,900

4,000

4,100

4,200

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Total N

onFarm

Employmen

t (00

0's)

Year


22

Figure1.9:ChangesinNonagriculturalandWageEmploymentinNewJersey,January1990toMarch2012

Source:TheNewJerseyDepartmentofLaborandWorkforceDevelopment,LaborMarket&DemographicResearch

‐125.1 ‐117.3

‐40.0‐12.5

328.1

217.8

‐124.4

43.3

5.3

72.9

4.3

‐30.0

‐150

‐100

‐50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Jan 90‐Apr 99 Apr 99‐Dec 07 Dec 07‐Jun 09 Jun 09‐Mar 12

Employmen

t '00

0s

MANUFACTURING PRIVATE SERVICE‐PROVIDING GOVERNMENT


23

Characteristics of Poverty in New Jersey

Vulnerable Populations AlthoughtheofficialconclusionoftheGreatRecessionwasJune2009,itsconsequenceshavecontinuedtoaffectalargesegmentofNewJersey’spopulationand,especially,morevulnerablegroups.Itsimpactshavebeenparticularlysevereforyoungadults,LatinosandHispanics,andfemale‐headedfamilieswithchildren,manyofwhombecameunemployedduringtherecession.Thehighernumbersofpeoplefromthesegroupslivinginpovertyattesttothis.Inaddition,highpovertyratesforBlackresidents,children,thedisabled,theelderly,andthosewiththeleasteducationalattainmentcontinuetobeanissueofconcern,whiletheranksofthemiddleclasscontinuedtoshrink.ThischapterdepictsthestateofpovertyinNewJerseyin2010andshowshowpovertyrateshavechangedsince2005,whentheCensusBureaufirstintroducedfullimplementationofitsannualAmericanCommunitySurvey.ThisannualsurveyproducesregulardataacrossawidevarietyofvariablesthatallowresearcherstodescribeindetailtheparametersofpovertyinNewJersey.The Real Cost of Living is three times the Federal Poverty Level in New Jersey

Figure2.1depictsfourdifferenthouseholdincomelevelsthatareusedtoportraytheextentofpoverty.Themostcommonmeasureistheofficialfederalpovertymeasure(FPL),whichwas$17,346forafamilyofthreeintheUnitedStatesin2008.TheFPL,whichhasbeentheofficialpovertymeasureintheUnitedStatesformorethan40years,isadjustedannuallytoaccountforchangesinthecostoflivingindex.Itdoesnotvarybystate.TheUSCensusBureauproducesannualdataforarangeofvariablesshowingthenumberofpeople,families,andhouseholdslivinginhouseholdsbelowtheFPL.Inaddition,theCensusBureauproducesdataat50percentoftheFPL,$8,673forafamilyofthreein2008.Thislevelisknownasseverepoverty.Finally,italsoproducesdataat200percentoftheFPL(doubletheFPL),$34,692forafamilyofthreein2008.TheFPL,however,isaninadequatemeasureofpoverty.ItwasdevelopedinaperiodwhentheUnitedStatessocietywasstructuredverydifferently.Consequently,thePovertyResearchInstitute,togetherwithDr.DianaPearce,hasproducedameasurecalledtheRealCostofLiving(RCL).Thismeasureincludesonlythosecoststhatafamilyneedsinordertomeetbasicneeds.TheadvantageoftheRCListhatitvariesbycountyandhouseholdcompositiontoaccountforcostvariationacrossgeographiesandforthedifferingneedsofchildren,dependingontheirage.In2008,themostrecentyearforwhichdatawasproducedfortheRCLinNewJersey,theRCLwasaboutthreetimestheFPL.Consequently,muchdatainthisreportareshownatthe200percentoftheFPL,becauseitisacloserapproximation,butstillinsufficient,oftherealcostoflivinginNewJersey.1


24

Figure2.1:HouseholdIncomeLevelsfora3‐PersonFamilyinNewJerseyin2008

Source:U.S.CensusBureauandthePovertyResearchInstitute

Record high number of people living in poverty in 2010

Theofficialpovertyratereachedanewhighin2010.Whiletheofficialpovertyrateremainedstablebetween2005and2008,itjumpedfrom8.7percentto9.4percentbetween2008and2009andthento10.3percentin2010(seefigure2.2).Almost885,000NewJerseyresidentswerelivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelowtheofficialpovertylevel—$17,346forafamilyofthreein2010.Thehouseholdincomeofanadditional58,000residentsdroppedbelowtheofficialpovertylevelin2009,andthenanother86,000,approximately,in2010.Similarly,thenumberofresidentslivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPL,amoreadequateapproximationoftheincomenecessarytomakeendsmeet,reachedanewhigh.Forthefirsttimeinthelastsixyears,thetwomillionmarkwascrossedin2010—theequivalentofalmostone‐quarter(2,054,938people)ofNewJersey’spopulation.Whilethepercentageofthepopulationbelow200percentoftheFPLpopulationdeclinedbetween2005and2007,itgrewsteadilyoncetheGreatRecessionstarted.Moreover,thepercentageandnumbercontinuedtoincreaseevenaftertheofficialconclusionoftherecessioninJune2009.In2010,nearly280,000morepeoplewerelivinginsuchhouseholdswithlowincomesthanin2007.Thenumberofpeoplelivinginseverepovertyalsorosetoasixyearhighin2010.About396,000peoplewerelivinginhouseholdswithincomesthatwereonlyhalftheofficialpovertymeasure—$8,673forafamilyofthree.Thiswastheequivalentof4.6percentoftheoverallpopulation.

$8,673

$17,346

$34,692

$54,930

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

50% FPL FPL (100%) 200% FPL Real Cost of Living


25

Figure2.2:ShareofPopulationLivinginHouseholdswithIncomesbelow50,100and200PercentoftheFederalPovertyLevelinNewJersey,2005to2010

Source:U.S.CensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey,2005to2010

Poverty by Age Percentage of the above 75-year elderly, young adults (18-24 years), and children highest among population age groups living in households with incomes below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level

Figure2.3:PercentageofPopulationbyAgeGroupLivinginHouseholdswithIncomesBelow200PercentoftheFederalPovertyLevelinNewJersey,2010

Source:U.S.CensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey,2010

4.0% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 4.1% 4.6%

8.7% 8.7% 8.6% 8.7% 9.4% 10.3%

21.4% 21.3% 20.9% 20.8%22.5%

23.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

50% FPL FPL (100%) 200% FPL

30.4% 31.3%

23.8%21.7%

17.2%15.7%

19.5%

31.6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Below 18Years

18‐24years

25‐34Years

35 to 44years

45 to 54years

55 to 64years

65 to 74years

75 yearsand over


26

In2010,alargerproportionoftheyoungandveryoldwerelivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPLthanthemiddleagegroups(seefigure2.3).Almostone‐thirdoftheabove75elderly,thosejustenteringtheworkforce(18to24years),andchildrenwerelivinginthesehouseholds—31.6percent,31.3percent,and30.4percent,respectively—orinnumbers,171,134oftheabove75elderly,220,188ofthe18to24yearoldagegroup,and619,003childrenunder18.Incontrast,almost16percentofthe55to64agegroupwerelivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPL,thelowestlevelamongthedifferentagegroups.Thepercentageofanagegrouplivinginthesehouseholdswithlowincomesdeclinedwithageoverthecourseofanadult’sworkinglifeandthenclimbedagainwithage.Young adults especially likely to be living in households with low incomes

Figure2.4:PercentageChangeinPopulationbyAgeGroupLivinginHouseholdswithIncomesBelow200PercentoftheFederalPovertyLevelinNewJersey,2006to2010

Source:U.S.CensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey,2006to2010Whileallagegroups,exceptthe65‐74agegroup,experiencedanincreaseinthenumberlivingbelow200percentofthepovertyratein2010,theincreasewashighestfortheyoungadultgroup(18to24years)(seefigure2.4).Between2006and2010,thenumberofyoungadultslivinginsuchhouseholdsincreasedby39.1percent;nodoubtaconsequenceofthedecliningemploymentopportunitiesfornewentrantstotheworkforceastherecessionprogressed(seefigure2.5).

13.9%

39.1%

8.5% 9.2%

31.4%

12.7%

2.5%

‐5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Below 18Years

18‐24years

25‐34Years

35 to 44years:

45 to 54years

55 to 64years:

65 to 74years:

75 yearsand over:


27

Figure2.5:PercentageofPopulationbyAgeGroupLivinginHouseholdswithIncomesBelow200PercentoftheFederalPovertyLevelinNewJersey,2006to2010

Source:U.S.CensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey,2006to2010Note:Dataat200%FPLnotavailablefor2005

Poverty by Race and Ethnicity Hispanic population experienced the largest increase in poverty rates

Figure2.6:PovertyRatebyRaceandEthnicityinNewJersey,2005to2010

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

White Non‐Hispanic 4.7% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.4% 5.8%

Black Non‐Hispanic 18.3% 17.3% 16.9% 17.5% 18.1% 18.9%

Hispanic or Latino 18.2% 16.5% 16.0% 16.5% 18.3% 19.9%

Source:U.S.CensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey,2005to2010Amongthelargerethnicandracialgroups,theincreaseinthepovertyratewaslargestfortheHispanicpopulation.TheHispanicpovertyratestoodat19.9percentin2010,anincreaseof3.9percentagepointssince2007,and1.5percentagepointshigherthan2009(seefigure2.6).Historically,thepovertyrateforHispanicshadbeenlowerthanthatforBlacks.In2010,however,theHispanicpovertyratesurpassedtheblackpovertyrate,asitalsodidin2009.Sincetheonsetoftherecession,thepovertyratehasalsorisenforbothBlacksandwhite‐Non‐Hispanics,althoughbysmalleramountsthanitdidforHispanics.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Below 18Years

18‐24years

25‐34Years

35 to 44years

45 to 54years

55 to 64years

65 to 74years

75 years& over

2006 26.3% 22.5% 22.5% 17.6% 13.6% 15.5% 21.8% 31.9%2007 26.2% 26.9% 22.0% 16.6% 13.5% 14.3% 20.4% 32.3%2008 26.8% 26.3% 21.3% 17.1% 13.7% 13.7% 22.0% 30.9%2009 29.2% 28.1% 22.1% 19.3% 15.9% 14.8% 20.5% 32.1%2010 30.4% 31.3% 23.8% 21.7% 17.2% 15.7% 19.5% 31.6%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


28

In 2010, the number of Hispanics in poverty exceeded the number of white non-Hispanics for the first time

Althoughminoritiesexperiencehigherratesofpoverty,alargernumberofwhitenon‐HispanicshavehistoricallylivedinhouseholdswithincomesbelowthepovertylevelthaneitherBlacksorHispanics.In2010,however,thenumberofHispanicslivinginpovertysurpassedthatforwhitenon‐Hispanicsforthefirsttime(seefigures2.7).Between2005and2010,thenumberofHispanicslivinginpovertyincreasedby29.3percent.Incontrast,thepercentageincreaseinthenumberofwhitenon‐Hispanicslivinginpovertywasmuchsmaller—17.2percent.In2010,therewerenearly10,000moreHispanicslivinginpovertythannon‐Hispanicwhites.Thisisadramaticchangefrom2005whentherewerealmost16,000morewhitenon‐HispanicsinpovertythanHispanics.Consequently,34.5percentofthepopulationlivinginpovertywasHispanic,upfrom32percentin2005(seefigure2.8).Incontrast,whitenon‐Hispanicsmadeup33.4percentofthepopulationlivinginpoverty,downfrom34.1percentin2005.ThelargeincreaseinthenumberofHispanicslivinginpovertysince2007—about88,600people—comparedtoanapproximately21,300increaseinthenumberofwhitenon‐HispanicspointstothedifferentialimpactoftheGreatRecession.TheconsequencesoftherecessionweremuchmoresevereforHispanicsthanforwhitenon‐Hispanics.Figure2.7:NumberofPeopleLivinginPovertybyRaceandEthnicityinNewJersey,2005to2010 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Percent increase

in number in poverty 2005‐10

White Non‐Hispanic 252,209 277,808 274,306 271,335 280,397 295,484 17.2% Black Non‐Hispanic 199,909 198,563 193,525 197,443 203,852 214,056 2.0% Hispanic or Latino 236,216 220,426 216,804 229,915 261,864 305,367 29.3%

Source:U.S.CensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey,2005to2010Figure2.8:ShareofPovertyPopulationbyRaceandEthnicityinNewJersey,2005‐10

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 White Non‐Hispanic 34.1% 37.4% 37.6% 36.6% 35.1% 33.4%Black Non‐Hispanic 27.1% 26.8% 26.5% 26.6% 25.5% 23.0%Hispanic or Latino 32.0% 29.7% 29.7% 31.0% 32.8% 34.5%



29

Poverty by Age and Race Poverty rate highest for Black children in 2010, but Hispanic child poverty rising more rapidly

ThepovertyratesforBlackandHispanicchildrenremainconsiderablyhigherthanthatforwhitenon‐Hispanics(seefigures2.9and2.12).Moreover,thedifferencesinthepovertyrateshavebeengrowingsincetherecession.AlthoughthepovertyratewashighestforBlackchildren—27.4percentin2010—thepovertyratesforHispanicchildrenhasincreasedmorerapidlysincetheconclusionoftherecession.ThepovertyrateforHispanicchildrenhasbeensteadilyclosinginontherateforBlackchildren,risingfrom20.8percentin2007to26.6percentin2010.Thewhitenon‐Hispanicchildpovertyhasalsorisen,butbymuchless—from4.9percentin2005to6.9percentin2010.Figure2.9:ChildPovertyRatebyRaceandEthnicityinNewJersey,2005to2010


Poverty rate for minority elders remains high, although it has declined in the past six years

ThepovertyratefortheHispanicelderlyhasdeclinedby11.4percentagepointssince2005(seefigures2.10and2.12).Whileitstoodat27percentin2005,by2010ithaddeclinedto15.6percent.Similarly,thepovertyratefortheBlackelderlydecreasedfrom18.4percentin2005to13.7percentin2010.Nevertheless,thepovertyratesforbothgroupswerestillwellabovetheelderlyaverageof7.2percentin2010.Thewhitenon‐Hispanicelderlypovertyrate,whichisconsiderablylowerthantheratefortheBlackorHispanicelderly,was5.4percentin2010.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

All ChildrenWhite, Not Hispanic or LatinoBlack or African‐American, Not Hispanic or LatinoHispanic or Latino


30

Figure2.10:ElderlyPovertyRatebyRaceandEthnicityinNewJersey,2005to2010


Poverty rose for all working age racial and ethnic groups

Thepovertyrateforworkingage(18‐64years)HispanicssurpassedthatofBlacksforthefirsttimesince2005(seefigures2.11and2.12).Itstoodat17.1percentin2010,comparedto16.1percentforBlacks.Incontrast,thepovertyratefortheworkingagewhitenon‐Hispanicpopulationhasbeenapproximatelyone‐thirdofthatforeitherHispanicsorBlacks.In2010,itwas5.5percent.Figure2.11:WorkingAgePovertyRatebyRaceandEthnicityinNewJersey,2005to2010


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

All ElderlyWhite, Not Hispanic or LatinoBlack or African‐American, Not Hispanic or LatinoHispanic or Latino

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total PopulationWhite, Not Hispanic or LatinoBlack or African‐American, Not Hispanic or LatinoHispanic or Latino


31

Figure2.12:PovertyRatesbyRaceandEthnicityinNewJersey,2005to2010Poverty by Race: Total Population

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Population 8.7% 8.7% 8.6% 8.7% 9.4% 10.3%White, Non‐Hispanic 4.7% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.4% 5.8% Black or African‐American, Non‐Hispanic 18.3% 17.3% 16.9% 17.5% 18.1% 18.9%Hispanic or Latino 18.2% 16.5% 16.0% 16.5% 18.3% 19.9%

Children 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 All Children 11.8% 11.8% 11.6% 12.5% 13.5% 14.5%White, Non‐Hispanic 4.9% 5.8% 5.7% 6.3% 6.4% 6.9% Black or African‐American, Non‐Hispanic 26.2% 23.6% 23.7% 25.9% 25.8% 27.4%Hispanic or Latino 23.7% 22.4% 20.8% 21.7% 25.4% 26.6%

Elderly (65 Years & over) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

All Elderly 8.5% 8.2% 8.4% 7.9% 7.9% 7.2% White, Non‐Hispanic 5.7% 6.3% 6.5% 5.9% 5.5% 5.4% Black or African‐American, Non‐Hispanic 18.4% 13.8% 14.7% 13.7% 14.0% 13.7%Hispanic or Latino 27.0% 21.3% 20.0% 19.8% 19.7% 15.6%

Working Age (18‐64 Years) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Population 7.5% 7.6% 7.5% 7.5% 8.1% 9.3% White, Non‐Hispanic 4.4% 4.7% 4.7% 4.6% 5.0% 5.5% Black or African‐American, Non‐Hispanic 14.3% 14.9% 14.2% 14.4% 15.4% 16.1%Hispanic or Latino 14.7% 13.4% 13.4% 13.7% 14.7% 17.1%


Poverty by Family Composition Sharp increase in the poverty rate of female-headed minority families with children

Female‐headedfamilieswithchildrenunder18yearsofageareparticularlyvulnerabletopoverty.In2010,alittlemorethanone‐third(34.2percent)ofallfemale‐headedfamilieswithchildrenunder18yearsofagelivedinhouseholdswithincomesbelowthepovertylevel(seefigure2.13).Whilethepovertyrateforfemale‐headedfamilieswithchildrenfellbetween2005and2007,itroseoncetheGreatRecessionbegan,andhascontinuedtogrowevenaftertherecessionended.Since2007,thepovertyrateforthisgrouphasincreased7.5percentagepoints.Incontrast,thepovertyrateformarried‐couplefamilieswithchildrenisaboutone‐eighththatforfemale‐headedfamilieswithchildren.Althoughtheirpovertyrateroseslightlysincethebeginningoftherecession,itwasonly4.5percentin2010.


32

Figure2.13:PovertyRatebyFamilyTypeandPresenceofChildreninNewJersey,2005to2010


Female-headed minority families with children are especially vulnerable to falling into poverty.

ThepovertyrateforHispanicfemale‐headedfamilieswithchildren,inparticular,hasincreasedsharply;reaching47percentin2010(seefigures2.14and2.15).Thisfigureis8.5percentagepointshigherthanitwasin2007,beforetheonsetoftherecession,and9.7percentagepointsgreaterthanitwasin2005.Theincreaseinthepovertyrateforfemale‐headedBlackfamilieswasalsosubstantial,risingfrom29.8percentin2007to37.8percentin2010,anincreaseofeightpercentagepoints.Incontrast,thepovertyrateforfemale‐headedwhitenon‐Hispanicfamiliesisbothconsiderablylowerandhasnotincreasedbythesameproportion.Theirpovertyraterosefrom16.1percentin2007to20.4percentin2010,anincreaseof4.3percentagepoints.Moreover,between2009and2010,theirpovertyratedecreased.Figure2.14:PovertyRateforFemale‐headedFamilieswithChildrenbyRaceandEthnicityinNewJersey,2005to2010 All Female‐headed

families with children White, not Hispanic

or Latino Black or African‐American, not Hispanic or Latino

Hispanic or Latino

2005 28.8% 18.4% 34.4% 37.3% 2006 27.3% 16.4% 30.5% 41.7% 2007 26.7% 16.1% 29.8% 38.5% 2008 27.8% 18.2% 31.4% 37.2% 2009 30.0% 21.4% 33.3% 38.0% 2010 34.2% 20.4% 37.8% 47.0%


3.7% 3.6% 3.7% 3.6% 3.7% 4.5%

28.8% 27.8% 26.7% 27.8%30.0%

34.2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Married‐couple Families with Children under 18

Female‐headed family with children under 18


33

Figure2.15:PovertyRateforFemale‐headedFamilieswithChildrenbyRaceandEthnicityinNewJersey,2005to2010

Source:U.S.CensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey,2005to2010While the poverty rate also increased for female-headed households without children, such households are less likely to fall into poverty

Figure2.16:PovertyRatebyFamilyTypeforHouseholdswithoutChildreninNewJersey,2005to2010


28.8%

34.2%

18.4%20.4%

34.4%

37.8%37.3%

47.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

All Female‐headed families with childrenWhite, not Hispanic or LatinoBlack or African‐American, not Hispanic or LatinoHispanic or Latino

2.7% 2.7% 2.3% 1.9% 2.2% 2.4%

7.1%5.7% 6.4% 6.4%

7.5% 8.5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Married couple family with no childrenFemale‐headed family with no children


34

Thepovertyrateforfemale‐headedhouseholdswithoutchildrenwas8.5percentin2010,aboutone‐quartertherateforfemale‐headedfamilieswithchildren(seefigure2.16).Since2007,ithasincreasedby2.1percentagepoints.Thepovertyrateformarried‐couplehouseholdsstoodat2.4percentin2010,moreorlessthesamelevelasin2007andlowerthanitwasin2005.

Poverty by Disability Status The poverty rate for the disabled has oscillated around 16 percent for five years

Althoughthepovertyrateforthedisabledhasoscillatedaroundthe16percentmarkforthepastfiveyears,itissubstantiallyhigherthantherateforpeoplewithnodisability(seefigure2.17).TheeffectsoftheGreatRecession,however,seemtohavebeenmoremutedforthedisabledpopulationthanthepopulationasawhole.Figure2.17:PovertyRatebyDisabilityStatusinNewJersey,2005to2010

Source:U.S.CensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey,2005to2010Note:CivilianNon‐institutionalizedPopulation

Poverty by Educational Attainment Poverty rose more sharply during the recession for those residents with the least educational attainment

WhilethepovertyratehasincreasedatalllevelsofeducationalattainmentsincetheonsetoftheGreatRecession,itissubstantiallyhigherforthoseresidentswiththeleasteducationalattainment(seefigure2.18).Amongresidentswithlessthanahighschooldiploma,one‐fifthwaslivinginpoverty,anincreaseof2.3percentagepointssince2007.Highschoolgraduateswerelesslikelytobeinlivingpoverty,althoughasizeable10.1percentwereclassifiedaslivinginpovertyin2010.In

15.2%16.5% 16.4% 16.0% 16.0% 16.1%

7.4% 7.2% 7.1%7.9%

8.6%9.6%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

With a Disability With No Disability


35

contrast,only3.2percentofresidentswithBachelor’sdegreeorhigherwerebelow100percentoftheFPLin2010.Figure2.18:PovertyRatebyEducationalAttainmentinNewJersey,2005to2010


Middle Income Groups The ranks of the middle class continued to shrink in 2010

TheimpactoftheGreatRecessionisreadilyapparentinthecontinuingdownwardshiftofthepopulationfromhighertolowerincomescategories.Inparticular,thenumberofpeoplebelowtheofficialpovertylevelandbetween100percentand200percentofthepovertylevelincreasedsubstantially.Between2005and2010,thepopulationbelow100percentoftheFPLincreasedby19.7percent,anadditional145,820people(seefigures2.19and2.20).Inthebetween100and200percentoftheFPLrange,theincreasewas8.3percent.Incontrast,therewasadeclineinthenumberofpeopleineachoftheincomerangesabove200percentoftheFPL.Thelargestdecreasewasinthemiddleincome400to500percentoftheFPLgroup—5.7percent.Theabove500percentoftheFPLgroupalsodecreasedinsize.Themajorpartofthisdecreaseoccurredinthepost‐recessionperiod.

17.8% 18.0% 18.2%18.5%

19.5%20.5%

8.6% 8.6% 8.4% 7.9%9.1%

10.1%

5.6% 5.4% 5.4% 5.9%6.3% 6.9%

2.5% 2.7% 2.8% 2.6%2.9% 3.2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Less than high school graduate

High school graduate (and equivalent)

Some College or associates's degree

Bachelor's degree or higher


36

Figure2.19:ChangeinNumberofPeoplewithinVariousMultiplesofthePovertyLevelinNewJersey,2005to2010

Source:U.S.CensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey,2005to2010Figure2.20:PercentageChangeinNumberofPeoplewithinVariousMultiplesofthePovertyLevelinNewJersey,2005to2010


145,820

89,546

‐11,212‐21,359

‐57,593

‐18,929

126,273

‐100,000

‐50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

Below100% FPL

Between100% &200% FPL




500% FPL &Above

TotalPopulation

19.7%

8.3%

‐1.0% ‐1.9% ‐5.7% ‐0.6% 1.5%

‐10%

‐5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Below 100%

100‐200%

200‐300%

300‐400%

400‐500%

Above 500%

New

Jersey


37

Working and Poor

Working and Living in Poverty In2010,asinpreviousyears,workingdidnotguaranteeapathoutofpoverty.Almost36percentofNewJerseyresidents16yearsandoverwhohadincomesbelowtheofficialpovertylevelworkedeitherfull‐timeorpart‐time(seefigure2.21).Thisamountedto222,009people.Inthecaseofmales,theproportionwashigher,withalmost40percentworkingeitherfull‐timeorpart‐time.Amongfemales,itwasaboutone‐third.Figure2.21:ShareofPeople16YearsandOverbyGenderwithIncomesbelowthePovertyLevelWhoWorkedeitherFull‐timeandYear‐roundorPart‐timeandPart‐year,NewJersey2010


Families Working and Living in Poverty Thenumberandshareofsingle‐headedfemalefamilieswithnohusbandpresenthasbeenslowlyincreasing,whilethenumberandshareofmarried‐couplefamilieshavebeendeclining.Concurrentwiththisincrease,hasbeenarisingshareoffemalefamilieswithnohusbandpresentlivinginpoverty,despitethefactthatthefemaleisworking.Thepovertyrateforone‐workerfemalefamiliesincreasedfrom19.4percentin2008to21.4percentin2009and,then,to22.5percentin2010,theyearaftertheGreatRecessionended(seefigure2.22).Moreover,thepercentageofone‐workerfemalefamilieslivingbelowtheofficialpovertylevelwasdoublethatofone‐workermalefamilies,andalmostfourtimesthatofone‐workermarried‐couplefamilies.Incontrast,theoverallshareofone‐workerfemalefamiliesamongallone‐workerfamilieslivingbelowthepovertyleveldeclinedin2010.Thiswasaconsequenceoftheincreaseinone‐workermarried‐couplefamilieslivinginpoverty.Theyincreasedfrom27.6percentin2009to31.5percentofalltheone‐workerfamilieslivinginpovertyin2010,comparedtothe58.1percentoffemale

7.9%

27.8%

10.2%

29.3%

6.3%

26.9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Full‐time Part‐time

Total Male Female


38

families.Almost16,800moreone‐workermarried‐couplefamilieswerelivinginpovertyin2010thanin2009.Figure2.22:PovertyRateandShareinPovertyinthePast12MonthsofOne‐WorkerFemaleFamilywithNoHusbandPresent,NewJersey2008to2010


Average Income Deficit Remains High Althoughthehighpovertyrateforone‐workerfemalefamiliesindicatesthattheincomesofthesefamilieswerebelowtheofficialpovertylevel,itdoesnotrevealbyhowmuchindollartermstheiractualincomesfellshortoftheofficialpovertylevel.Theaverageincomedeficitforallfemale‐headedfamilieswithnohusbandpresentistheamountofincome,onaverage,requiredtobringsuchafamilyuptothepovertylevel.In2010,theaverageincomedeficitforafemale‐headedfamilywithnohusbandwas$9,203in2010inflationadjusteddollars(seefigure2.23).Thisnumberincludesbothfemaleswhoworkedanddidnotwork.Althoughthisnumberhasdeclinedsinceapeakof$9,757in2008,thedeclineisaconsequenceofthelargeincreaseinthenumberoffemale‐headedfamilieswhohavefallenbelowthepovertylevelsincetheonsetoftherecession.Thenumberincreasedfrom78,720in2008to88,292in2009,andthento99,641in2010.Incontrast,theaggregateincomedeficitgrewataslowerpace.The$9,757amountstoabouthalfthefederalpovertythresholdforafamilyofthreein2010.

19.4% 21.4%22.5%

58.8% 62.0% 58.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

One‐Worker Family: 2008 One‐Worker Family :2009

One‐Worker Family: 2010

Poverty Rate Share in Poverty


39

Figure2.23:AverageIncomeDeficitforFemale‐headedFamiliesLivingbelowthePovertyLevel,NewJersey2004to2010

Source:U.S.CensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey,2010Note:2010Inflation‐AdjustedDollars

Disparities in Work Participation by Gender, Race, and Ethnicity In2010,ashasbeenthecaseinthepast,Hispanicsweremorelikelytobeworkingfull‐timeandyear‐roundthaneitherwhitesorBlacks.Moreover,theyweremuchmorelikelytobeearninglessthan$30,000.Overall,47.0percentofHispanicsworkingfull‐timeandyear‐roundearnedlessthan$30,000,comparedto27.5percentofBlacks,and14.1percentofwhitenon‐Hispanics(seefigure2.24).Similarly,amongmalefull‐timeandyear‐roundworkers,asubstantiallylargershareofHispanicmalesthaneitherwhiteorBlackmalesearnedlessthan$30,000.ForHispanics,thepercentagewas43.9percent,comparedto25.3percentforBlacksand10.7percentforwhitenon‐Hispanicmales.Likewise,alargerpercentageofHispanicfemalesworkingfull‐timeandyear‐roundearnedlessthan$30,000thaneitherBlacksorwhitenon‐Hispanicfemales—51.5percent,comparedto29.4percentand18.8percent,respectively.

$9,182

$9,571 $9,553

$9,467

$9,757

$9,427

$9,203

$8,000

$8,200

$8,400

$8,600

$8,800

$9,000

$9,200

$9,400

$9,600

$9,800

$10,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


40

Figure2.24:WorkExperiencebyGenderandEthnicityforthePopulation16+YearsWhoWorkedFull‐timeandYear‐roundandEarnedLessthan$30,000,NewJersey2010


21.7%

14.1%

27.5%

47.0%

18.5%

10.7%

25.3%

43.9%

26.0%

18.8%

29.4%

51.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Total White Non‐Hispanic

Black or AfricanAmerican

Hispanic or Latino

Total Male Female


41

Income

Median Household Income Fell Again in 2010 MedianhouseholdincomeforallhouseholdsinNewJerseyfellforthesecondstraightyearin2010,reachingitslowestpointinsixyears(seefigure2.25).Afterpeakingat$71,764in2008,itfellto$69,571in2009,andthento$67,681in2010,allmeasuredin2010inflation‐adjusteddollars.Between2005and2008,medianhouseholdincomeincreasedslightlyeachyear.Largedisparities,however,existbetweenracialandethnicgroups.Whitenon‐Hispanicshavethehighestmedianincome,althoughitdroppedfromahighof$80,863in2008toitslowestlevelinsixyearsat$75,974in2010.ThemedianhouseholdincomeforHispanicsisconsiderablylowerthanthatforwhitenon‐Hispanics,buthasbeenslightlyhigherthanthatforBlacksforallsixyears,withtheexceptionof2008.Theirmedianhouseholdincomereached$50,009in2007,butdecreasedto$47,166in2010,alsothelowestlevelinsixyears.ThemedianhouseholdincomeforBlackswasslightlylower—$45,825in2010.Itpeakedat$49,340in2008,beforefallingtoitslowestlevelinsixyearsin2010.Figure2.25:MedianHouseholdIncomeinNewJersey,2005to2010


Income Gains for Full-Time Workers but Disparities Remain Whilemedianincomeforthe15‐yearandoverpopulationinNewJerseyfellbetween2008and2010,forthoseworkerswhoworkedfull‐timeandyear‐roundthemedianincomeincreasedslightlyduringthisperiod(seefigure2.26).Overall,medianincomeforthetotalpopulationin2010inflationadjusteddollarsdeclinedfrom$33,755in2008to$32,464in2009andthento$31,709in

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

White Non‐Hispanic Black or AfricanAmerican

Hispanic or Latino All Households

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


42

2010.Likewise,medianincomedeclinedoverallforbothmalesandfemales—from$42,976in2008to$40,536in2010andfrom$26,250to$25,507,respectively.Formaleandfemaleworkerswhoworkedfull‐timeandyear‐round,however,themedianincomerosefrom$59,103in2008to$60,516in2010andfrom$46,746to$47,271,respectively.Despitetheincreaseinmedianincomeforbothfull‐time,year‐roundmaleandfemaleworkers,astheabovedatashowthereweresubstantialdisparitiesbetweenmaleandfemaleworkersandbetweenmalesandfemales,overall.In2010,themedianincomeforfemalesworkingfull‐timeandyear‐roundwas78percentthatformales,whiletheoverallmedianincomeforfemaleswas63percentthatformales.Figure2.26:MedianIncomebyGenderandWorkExperienceforthePopulation15+YearsinNewJersey,2008to2010


$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

Total Male(Total)

Male(Worked Full‐time & Year‐

round)

Female(Total)

Female(Worked Full‐time & Year‐

round)

2008 2009 2010


43

Places with Poverty NewJerseyisadiversestatewithglaringgeographicaldisparitiesintheincidencesofpoverty.Whilemanyplacesareparticularlyaffluent,othersendureextremeeconomichardships.Thischapterhighlightsspecificplaceswithaveryhighprevalenceofresidentslivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPL.Thefirstpartfocusesonthecountyleveland,thereafter,themunicipallevel.TheUSCensus’AmericanCommunitySurveythree‐yearestimatesprovidepovertydatafor80municipalitiesstatewide.

Poverty at the County Level In five of New Jersey’s 21 counties, at least 30 percent of residents were living in households with incomes below 200 percent of the FPL in 2010

Intworuralsoutherncounties—CumberlandandAtlantic—andthreeurbannortherncounties—Hudson,Passaic,andEssex—morethan30percentoftheresidentswerelivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentofthepovertylevelin2010(seefigure2.27).TheratewashighestinCumberlandCountry—36.8percent.EssexandHudsoncounties,however,hadthehighestnumberofresidentslivinginsuchhouseholdswithlowincomes—atleast225,000residentsinbothcases.Figure2.27:PercentageofPopulationLivinginHouseholdswithIncomesbelow200PercentoftheFederalPovertyLevelbyCountyinNewJersey,2009and2010

Source:U.S.CensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey,2009and2010

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Cumbe

rland

Hudson

Passaic

Essex

Atlantic

Camde

n

Ocean

Mercer

Salem

Union

Cape

May

Glou

cester

Warren

Middlesex

Mon

mou

th

Bergen

Sussex

Burlington

Morris

Somerset

Hunterdo

n

2009 2010


44

More than 40 percent of children in six counties and 30 percent of children in five other counties were living in households with incomes below 200 percent of the FPL in 2010

Morethan40percentofchildreninsixcounties—Passaic,Cumberland,Hudson,Atlantic,Ocean,andEssex—werelivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentofthepovertylevelin2010(seefigure2.28).Thehighestnumber,however,wasinEssexCounty(80,259),followedbyHudsonCounty(60,929).Infiveothercountiesmorethan30percentofthechildren,butlessthan40percent,werealsolivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPL.Morethan40,000childrenwerelivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPLinPassaic,Ocean,Camden,andUnioncounties.Figure2.28:PercentageofChildrenLivinginHouseholdswithIncomesbelow200PercentoftheFederalPovertyLevelbyCountyinNewJersey,2009and2010


In five counties, the percentage of elderly living in households with incomes below 200 percent of the FPL exceeded 30 percent in 2010

InHudson,Passaic,Cumberland,Essex,andAtlanticcounties,thepercentageofelderlylivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPLexceeded30percentin2010(seefigure2.29).MercerCountyhadthehighestincreaseinelderlylivinginsuchhouseholds—from17.8percentin2009to25.5percentin2010.Overall,however,thepercentagedeclinedin12countiesbetween2009and2010,reflectingthedecliningtrendintheelderlypovertyrate.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Passaic

Cumbe

rland

Hudson

Atlantic

Ocean

Essex

Camde

n

Salem

Mercer

Union

Cape

May

Sussex

Glou

cester

Warren

Middlesex

Mon

mou

th

Burlington

Bergen

Somerset

Hunterdo

n

Morris

2009 2010


45

Figure2.29:PercentageofElderlyLivinginHouseholdswithIncomesbelow200PercentoftheFederalPovertyLevelbyCountyinNewJersey,2009and2010

Source:U.S.CensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey,2009and2010

Poverty at the Municipal Level In nine municipalities, at least 50 percent of the residents were living in households with incomes below 200 percent of the FPL in 2010; the highest being Camden at 63 percent

In2010,62.9percentofCamden’sresidentswerelivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPL;thehighestforallmunicipalitiesinNewJersey(seefigure2.30).Inaddition,inanothereightmunicipalitiesatleast50percentoftheresidentswerelivinginsuchhouseholds—Lakewood,Passaic,AtlanticCity,NewBrunswick,Bridgeton,Paterson,Trenton,andNewark.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%Hu

dson

Passaic

Cumbe

rland

Essex

Atlantic

Cape

May

Camde

n

Mercer

Union

Salem

Ocean

Warren

Bergen

Glou

cester

Mon

mou

th

Middlesex

Sussex

Hunterdo

n

Burlington

Somerset

Morris

2009 2010


46

Figure2.30:PercentageofPopulationLivinginHouseholdswithIncomesbelow200PercentoftheFederalPovertyLevelbySelectedMunicipalityinNewJersey,2007and2010

Source:U.S.CensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey,Three‐YearEstimates:2007and2010

A number of municipalities experienced a considerable increase in the percentage of residents living in households below 200 percent of the FPL

Figure2.31PercentageIncreaseinPopulationLivinginHouseholdswithIncomesbelow200PercentoftheFederalPovertyLevelbySelectedMunicipalityinNewJersey,2007and2010

Source:U.S.CensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey,Three‐YearEstimates:2007and2010In46municipalities,morethan20percentoftheresidentswerelivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPL.Eightoftheseplacesexperiencedmorethanafivepercentagepoint

67.1%

53.6%49.5% 51.5%

53.9% 50.7% 51.4% 48.8% 48.0%

62.9% 60.1% 57.5% 57.2% 56.1% 55.9% 53.4% 51.2% 50.6%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

Camde

n city, Cam

den

Coun

ty

Passaic, Passaic Cou

nty

Atlantic City

, Atla

ntic

Coun

ty

New

Brunswick,

Middlesex Cou

nty

Bridgeton, Cum

berla

ndCo

unty

Lakewoo

d township,

Ocean

Cou

nty

Paterson

, Passaic

Coun

ty

Tren

ton, M

ercer C

ounty

New

ark, Essex Cou

nty

2007 2010

53.6%49.5% 51.5% 50.7%

34.9% 34.1%

21.1% 19.3%

60.1% 57.5% 57.2% 55.9%

46.4%41.3%

28.0%24.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Passaic Atlantic City NewBrunswick

Lakewood PerthAmboy

Plainfield Pemberton Linden

2007 2010


47

increaseinthenumberofpeoplelivinginsuchhouseholdssince2007—PerthAmboy,AtlanticCity,Plainfield,Pemberton,Passaic,NewBrunswick,Linden,andLakewoodTownship(seefigure2.31).In twenty municipalities, more than half the children were living in households below 200 percent of the FPL in 2010

Thepercentageofchildrenlivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPLwashighestinCamden—78percentofallchildrenin2010(seefigure2.32).InAtlanticCityandPassaic,thepercentageexceeded70percent.Itexceeded50percentinLakewood,Paterson,Bridgeton,Pleasantville,Newark,Trenton,NewBrunswick,UnionCity,WestNewYork,PerthAmboy,Elizabeth,Millville,Irvington,EastOrange,andPlainfield.Overall,in67municipalitiesmorethan20percentofchildrenwerelivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPLin2010.Figure2.32:MunicipalitieswherePercentageofChildrenLivinginHouseholdswithIncomesbelow200PercentoftheFederalPovertyLevelExceeded50PercentinNewJersey,2010

Source:U.S.CensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey,Three‐YearEstimates:2010

In five municipalities, the percent of children living in households with incomes below 200 percent of the FPL increased by more than ten percentage points

Infivemunicipalities,thepercentageofchildrenlivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPLincreasedbyatleast10percentagepointsbetween2007and2010—Orange,PerthAmboy,Pemberton,Millville,andPassaic(seefigure2.33).Infifteenmunicipalitiesitincreasedby6percentagepointsormore.Thehighestincreasedwas13.1percentagepointsinOrange.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Camde

n city

Atlantic City

Passaic

Lakewoo

d township

Paterson

Bridgeton

Pleasant‐ville

New

ark

Tren

ton

New

Brunswick

Union

West N

ew York

Perth Am

boy

City of O

range

Eliza

beth

Millville

Irvington

township

East Orange

Plainfield


48

Figure2.33:MunicipalitieswiththeHighestIncreaseinthePercentageofChildrenLivinginHouseholdswithIncomesbelow200PercentoftheFederalPovertyLevelinNewJersey,2007and2010


Percentage of elderly living in households with incomes below 200 percent of the FPL was highest in West New York, Newark, Camden, Paterson, and Passaic

Figure2.34:MunicipalitieswherePercentageofElderlyLivinginHouseholdswithIncomesbelow200PercentoftheFederalPovertyLevelExceeded50PercentinNewJersey,2010


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Atlantic City

Passaic

New

ark

Perth Am

boy

City of O

range

Millville

Plainfield

Pembe

rton

Lind

en

Winslo

w

Glou

cester

West O

range

North Brunswick

Toms R

iver Tow

nship

Ediso

n township

2007 2010

66.1%

52.1%58.5%

51.3%58.2%

55.4% 54.4% 53.7% 53.4% 50.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

West New York Newark Camden city Paterson Passaic

2007 2010


49

Thepercentageofelderlylivinginhouseholdswithincomesbelow200percentoftheFPLexceeded50percentinfivemunicipalitiesin2010(seefigure2.35).In61municipalities,itwasmorethan20percent.Sixmunicipalitiesexperiencedmorethanafivepercentagepointincreaseintherateofelderlylivinginhouseholdsbelow200percentoftheFPLbetween2007and2010—NorthBergen,Bloomfield,NorthBrunswick,KearnyandEggHarbor(seefigure2.35).In40municipalities,however,theratedeclinedbetween2007and2010.Figure2.35:MunicipalitieswiththeHighestIncreaseinthePercentageofElderlyLivinginHouseholdswithIncomesbelow200PercentoftheFederalPovertyLevelinNewJersey,2007and2010


37.9%

21.7% 23.4%19.8% 20.9% 18.4%

47.5%

30.5% 31.6%27.7% 28.3%

24.5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

North Bergen Bloomfield NorthBrunswick

West Orange Kearny Egg Harbor

2007 2010


50

Aspects of Poverty TheprevioussectionsdescribedthemagnitudeandextentofpovertyinNewJersey,aswellasthevariationsinpovertyratesaccordingtoage,race,householdcomposition,disabilitystatus,educationattainment,andworkingstatus.Inaddition,theyshowedthatthedistributionofpovertyisnotuniformacrossthestate,butvariesbycountyandmunicipality.Povertyaffectsthedailylivesofpeoplewithlowincomesandtheirabilitytomakeendsmeet.Itlimitstheiraccesstoopportunitiesanddistortstheirlong‐termlifeoutcomes.ThesurgeinpovertyratesastheGreatRecessionproceededanditscontinuingupwardtrendevenaftertheofficialconclusionoftherecessionhavemademeetingbasicneedsachallengeforagreatershareofthepopulation.Thischapterexaminesfiveareasofneed—food,housing,health,education,andtransportation—andprovidesdetailsonhowpovertyhasimpactedpeoplewithlowincomesineachoftheseareas.

Hunger and Food Security Accesstofoodisperhapsthemostbasicofhumanneeds;yetinNewJerseyanimportantpercentageofhouseholdsdidnothaveenoughfoodforallhouseholdmembers.Moreover,forasmaller,butalsoimportantpercentage,theirfoodintakewasreducedandtheireatinghabitsweredisruptedduetolimitedresources.Noticeably,thesepercentagesroseastheGreatRecessionprogressedandhavecontinuedtoriseevenastherecessionhasendedofficially.A larger percentage of New Jersey households had difficulty at some time during 2008-10 providing enough food for all their members than in any of the prior 12 years

Aboutone‐eighthofNewJerseyhouseholdshaddifficultyatsometimeduringthe3‐year2008‐10periodprovidingenoughfoodforalltheirmembersduetoalackofresources(seefigure2.36).AccordingtostatelevelsurveysconductedbyUSDAsincethemid‐1990s,the12.1percentfoodinsecurityrateforthemostrecent3‐yearperiodisthehighestrecorded.Whilethepercentageoffoodinsecurehouseholdsdecreasedintheearly2000’s,since2004‐06thetrendhasreversedandthepercentageoffoodinsecurehouseholdshasincreasedsteadily.TheeffectsoftheGreatRecessionandtheensuingpressureonhouseholdswithlowincomeswholackadequateresourcestomakeendsmeetisstronglyevidentinthisupwardtrendandcontinuedevenaftertheofficialendingoftherecession.Thepercentageofhouseholdswithverylowfoodsecurityalsogrewsteadilyastherecessionprogressedandcontinuedtogrowafteritsofficialconclusion(seefigure2.36).USDA’s“verylowfoodsecurity”indexestimatesthepercentageofhouseholdswhere“thefoodintakeofsomememberswasreducedandnormaleatingpatternsweredisruptedduetolimitedresources.”Forthe3‐year2008‐10period,4.2percentofNewJerseyhouseholdshadverylowfoodsecurity,doublethe2004‐06level.AseparatesurveyconductedbytheFoodResearchandActionCenter(FRAC)foundthatinNewJersey,the“foodhardship”ratewas13.0percentforhouseholdswithoutchildrenand19.2percentforhouseholdswithchildren.FRAC’sfoodhardshiprateisthepercentageofhouseholdsthatanswered“yes”tothequestion“whetherthereweretimesoverthepastyearwhenyoudidnot


51

haveenoughmoneytobuyfoodthatyouoryourfamilyneeded.”Althoughthe“foodhardship”measuredistinguishesbetweenhouseholdswithandwithoutchildren,thequestionaskedissimilartothoseusedbyUSDAtomeasurefoodinsecurity.Figure2.36:HouseholdFoodInsecurityIndicesforNewJersey,1996to2010

Source:UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture,HouseholdFoodInsecurityintheUnitedStatesNote:Publisheddatanotavailableforyears1997‐99and1998‐2000

Housing AffordinghousinginNewJerseyremainsachallengebecauseofthehighcostofhousing.Thechallengeisespeciallyoverwhelmingforthoseresidentswithlowincomeswhomustdevotesizeableproportionsoftheirincometomeettheirhousingneeds,leavinglimitedresourcestocovertheirotheressentialneeds.Thissectionshowshowthecostofhousingbecameevenmorechallengingforalargershareofhouseholds,especiallyrenterhouseholds,astheGreatRecessionproceeded.Moreover,despitetheofficialendingoftheGreatRecessionin2009,itsenduringimpactonpeoplewithlowincomescontinued—renterpovertyratesrose,alargershareofhouseholdswerecost‐burdenedandseverelycost‐burdened,andrenterovercrowdingincreased.The renter household poverty rate has been steadily increasing since the Great Recession

In2010,thepovertyrateforrenterhouseholdsreachedanewhigh—22.2percent(seefigure2.37).Afterdecliningbetween2005and2008,renterpovertyrategrewastheGreatRecessionprogressedandcontinuedtorisethereafter.In2010,itwas4.3percentagepointsgreaterthanitssix‐yearlowin2008.Incontrast,thepovertyrateforowner‐occupiedhouseholdshasremainedrelativelystablethroughoutthesix‐yearperiod.

7.3 7.88.5 8.6 8.5 8.1 7.7

8.8

10.311.5 12.1

2.8 2.4 2.73.1

2.9 2.62.1 2.7

3.4 4.04.2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1996

‐98

1997

‐99

1998

‐00

1999

‐01

2000

‐02

2001

‐03

2002

‐04

2003

‐05

2004

‐06

2005

‐07

2006

‐08

2007

‐09

2008

‐10

Percen

tage

Low or Very Low Food Security Very Low Food Security


52

Figure2.37:PovertyRatebyTenureinNewJersey,2005to2010


The proportion of cost-burdened and severely cost-burdened renter households has continued to grow.

Almost550,000renterhouseholdsinNewJerseypaidmorethan30percentoftheirhouseholdincomeonrentin2010.Thisnumber,whichisconsideredameasureofcost‐burden,represents54.3percentofallrenterhouseholds(seefigure2.38).Itis3.1percentgreaterthanthe2007levelattheoutsetoftheGreatRecession,whenabout500,000renterhouseholdswerecost‐burdened.Figure2.38:GrossRentasaPercentageofHouseholdIncomeinNewJersey,2005to2010

Source:U.S.CensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey:2005to2010

2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 2.5% 2.6%

19.8%18.4% 18.2% 17.9%

© 2012 legal services of new jerseypoverty.lsnj.org/pages/benchmarks2012.pdf · 2020. 9. 26. ·...

Documents