What’s measured The study measures the percentage of families and individuals in the region living in poverty for the years 2000 and 2005. “Living in poverty” is defined by federally-determined income thresholds verifying what is needed to feed, clothe and economically sustain an individual or families of specified sizes (for example, “a family of four”). Any family or individual whose income does not reach the threshold amount is considered to be in poverty. Data from the American Community Survey through the U.S. Census Bureau is used to measure poverty for 2005, and covers most, but not all, of the region’s counties. (Anson, Chester, Lancaster and Stanly are not included in that Census report, and Lincoln County is included only for the data on individuals living in poverty but not on families living in poverty.) Among the 3 counties in South Carolina, data is only available for York, SC. However, data from the 2000 decennial census provides indicator information on all 14 counties and for the two states. In the absence of the appropriate weighting factors for the county data, the regional indicators are calculated as un-weighted averages of the county data. Why it’s measured Individuals and families that live in poverty are often times the most marginalized groups in society. Measurements of poverty give insight to the economic mobility or lack thereof of this region’s most vulnerable residents, who often times are unable to live within a minimum standard of living. Indicator results For 2005, the poverty rate for individuals averaged 13.6% across the 10 counties in the American Community Survey portion of the region; for families, the 2005 poverty rate averaged 10.5% across the 9 counties in the American Community Survey portion of the region. In 2000, the poverty rate for individuals averaged 10.9% across the 14 counties in the region; for families, the 14-county average 2000 poverty rate was 8.3%. Note that while the regional indicators for 2000 and 2005 are not directly comparable due to different counties being included in the two measures, county, state and national comparisons can be made. The percentage of the population living in poverty rose between 2000 and 2005 for both families and individuals in each county that reported data. The degree of increase varied from a low of 21 percent for Gaston County’s individual poverty rate (from 10.9% in 2000 to 13.2% in 2005) to a high of 66 percent in Iredell County’s family poverty rate (from 6.2% in 2000 to 10.3% in 2005). By comparison, during the same time period, North Carolina experienced a 23 percent increase in its individual poverty rate (from 12.3% to 15.1%) and South Carolina an 11 percent increase (from 14.1% to 15.6%), while the national individual poverty rate rose only 7 percent (from 2.4% to 13.3%). Family poverty rates in the two states and the nation increased even more: North Carolina saw a 30 percent increase (from 9.0% to 11.7%), and South Carolina experienced a 17 percent increase (from 10.7% to 12.5%), while the nation’s family poverty rate climbed 11 percent (from 9.2% to 10.2%). In 2000, Anson (17.8%) and Chester (15.3%) had the highest individual poverty rates in the 14-county region. Of the ten counties for which 2005 data is available, the two counties with the highest individual poverty rates were Cleveland (18.5%) and Rowan (16.1%). The same pattern held true with family poverty rates. For the 2000 family poverty rate, Anson (15.5%) and Chester (11.9%) had the highest rates in the 14-county region, and of the 9 counties for which 2005 data is available, Cleveland (15.9%) and Rowan (12.7%) had the highest rates. For the 10 counties that reported data in 2005, the county average individual poverty rate (13.6%) is slightly above the national average (13.3%) and below North Carolina and South Carolina averages (15.1% and 15.6%, respectively). For the 9 counties with data available on families living at or below the poverty level in 2005, the county average (10.5%) is slightly above the national average (10.2%) and below the NC and SC averages (11.7% and 12.5%, respectively). Evaluation For those counties with available data, the substantial increase of individuals and families living in poverty illustrates how pervasive poverty is in this region. Analysis of individuals and families living in poverty reveals that they are not a static social class. The overall composition of the poor changes continually, because some residents in this region near the top edge of poverty move above the poverty level after a year or two, while others slip below it. Other residents remained in poverty for many years at a time. Additional analysis is needed to identify ways the region can best reduce the number of individuals and families living in poverty. Connections A correlation between families living in poverty and child poverty rates can be drawn. Increases in the share of the population living in poverty drain financial, educational, and medical resources in the community, resources needed to assist the most vulnerable groups. Poverty is associated with health problems, problems in education, problems in families and parenting, and housing problems. These problems are interrelated and contribute to the perpetuation of poverty across generations, leading to a cycle of intergenerational poverty.
|