Barbara County Department of Social Services 9/10/2013 2 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Snapshot of Poverty in Santa Barbara County

Department of Social Services 9/10/2013

Background

• The Recession resulted in a 52% increase in

residents living in poverty

• Child poverty increased by 61% from 2007-2010
• The Board authorized a geographically based

assessment on poverty in January 2012

• The Insight Center for Community Economic

Development was the contractor hired

2

Overview

• Purpose and Methodology
• Population Demographics
• Poverty in Santa Barbara County
• Indicators of Need Findings
• Service Inventory Results (Survey and

Interviews)

• Focus Areas
• What We’ve Learned
• Staff Observations
• Opportunities Moving Forward

3

4

Purpose of Assessment

• To analyze how well county resources and

services are strategically aligned to geographic areas and populations in greatest economic need and make recommendations for improvement

5

Methodology

• Data Collection/Analysis of 44 indicators in four

key categories of well-being (Employment & Financial, Education, Health and Family Well- Being)

• Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping
• f select demographic, poverty and well-being

indicators

• Survey distributed to 460 local public agencies,

foundations, service providers

• Stakeholder interviews of 16 public and non-

profit leaders

6

Data Sources

• US Census American Community Survey (ACS)

2006-2010 – demographics, poverty, financial/employment data, insurance coverage

• Local Agencies – 2007-2011 data collected to

supplement US Census on public benefits, probation data, health data, crime data, mental health and substance abuse, housing data, child and adult abuse, child care, truancy and drop-

• ut rates

7

County Regional Boundaries and Geography

8

9

County and Regional Demographics by Age Group

Children County

Distribution

• f Children

Adults County

Distribution

• f Adults

Seniors County

Distribution

• f Seniors

Total Persons County

Distribution

• f Total

Persons

County 94,795 24% 253,911 63% 51,878 13% 400,584 100% North County

40,593 43% 79,636 31% 14,625 28% 134,854 34%

Mid County

20,681 22% 45,729 18% 9,339 18% 75,749 19%

South County

33,521 35% 128,546 51% 27,914 54% 189,981 47%

Santa Barbara County had a population of 400,584*

*U.S. Census ACS 2006-2010 based on population for “whom poverty is determined.” Figures do not include people living in institutionalized group quarters, military group quarters, college dormitories, or unrelated individuals under 15.

10

Population Distribution by Ethnicity/Race

Non-Hispanic White, 31% Non-Hispanic White, 51% Non-Hispanic White, 58% Non-Hispanic White, 48% Latino, 61% Latino, 38% Latino, 32% Latino, 43%

1% 4% 1% 2% 4% 3% 6% 5% 2% 3% 2% 2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% North County Mid County South County Santa Barbara County

Non-Hispanic White Latino African American Asian/PI Native American All Other

11

Source: U.S. Census 2010 Decennial Count

Source: U.S. Census ACS 2006-2010 based on population for “whom poverty is determined”.

12

13

Use of Poverty Numbers vs. Rates

• Poverty numbers tell us how many people in a

given group are living in poverty ▫ Numbers help us demonstrate where the greatest concentration of poverty is in the County by groups

• Poverty rate is calculated by dividing the number
• f people in a group who live in poverty by the

total number of people in the group ▫ Poverty rates help us make comparisons between geographies and population groups

14

Poverty Guidelines

15

2010 Poverty Guidelines

Persons in family/household

Poverty Guidelines

1

$10,830

2

$14,570

3

$18,310

4

$22,050

5

$25,790

6

$29,530

7

$33,270

8

$37,010

The Federal Poverty Guidelines listed above are a simplification of the Federal Poverty Thresholds and used to determine financial eligibility for a broad array of public programs.

Where are People Struggling?

• Census Tracts where 20 percent or more of

individuals are living below 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Threshold are designated “high poverty tracts”

• There are 18 “high poverty tracts” identified and

all of them are congregated in 4 main areas and are designated as “high poverty areas”

16

High Poverty Areas

17

Individuals in Poverty by Race and Hispanic Origin

18

Source: US Census ACS 2006-2010 Note: The African American, Asian/Pacific Islander and American Indian categories may include people of Hispanic origin.

Non- Hispanic White Hispanic /Latino African American Asian or Pacific Islander American Indian Poverty Rate 10% 19% 16% 19% 26% Individuals in Poverty 19,454 31,499 1,159 3,757 1,052 Population 200,207 164,972 7,105 20,192 4,013

10% 19% 16% 19% 26%

50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Rate County Poverty Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin

Total County Individuals in Poverty =57,463

Individuals in Poverty by Race and Hispanic Origin

Total Individuals in Poverty Non- Hispanic White Hispanic/ Latino African/ American Asian/

Pacific

Islander American Indian

County 57,463 10% 19% 16% 19% 26% High Poverty Areas 30,503 30% 32% 32% 39% 46% Santa Maria HPA 12,297 16% 29% 35% 14% 37% Lompoc HPA 5,579 19% 37% 29% 0% 0% City of Santa Barbara HPA 3,983 17% 31% 22% 44% 83% Isla Vista HPA 8,644 50% 40% 42% 58% 43% 19

Source: US Census ACS 2006-2010 Note: The African American, Asian/Pacific Islander and American Indian categories may include people of Hispanic origin.

Which Age Groups are Struggling?

20

Source: US Census ACS 2006-2010

17% 15% 6% 14% 38% 31% 9% 32% 35% 24% 9% 27% 49% 23% 8% 31% 39% 25% 13% 26% 15% 53% 0% 57%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Child Poverty Rates Adults Poverty Rates Seniors Poverty Rates All Individuals in Poverty Rates Poverty Rates

County High Poverty Areas Santa Maria HPA Lompoc HPA City of SB HPA Isla Vista HPA

Where Are Individuals Struggling?

21

28% 61% 33% 20% 7% 1% 66% 53% 18% 6% 7% 22% 6% 16% 8% 3% 5%

100% 53% 21% 10% 7% 15%

County High Poverty Areas Santa Maria HPA Lompoc HPA City of SB HPA Isla Vista HPA

County Distribution of Individuals in Poverty by Age Group

Child Poverty Distribution Adult Poverty Distribution Senior Poverty Distribution All Individuals in Poverty Distribution

53% of All County Individuals in Poverty Live in High Poverty Areas

Source: US Census ACS 2006-2010

22

Median Household Income

23

• County median household income is $60,078

▫ 27-53% higher than in high poverty areas

• Santa Maria high poverty area - $40,436
• Lompoc high poverty area - $35,775
• City of Santa Barbara high poverty area -

$53,888

• Isla Vista high poverty area - $34,583

24

Source: US Census ACS 2006-2010

25% 27% 28% 28% 22% 25%

75% 74% 72% 72% 78% 76% 7% 10% 11% 11% 11% 5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

County High Poverty Areas Santa Maria HPA Lompoc HPA City of SB HPA Isla Vista HPA

Employment Status (16 and over) County and High Poverty Areas (HPA’s)

Not in the Labor Force In the Labor Force: Employed In the Labor Force: Unemployed

25

8% 18% 39% 11% 0% 2% 6% 6% 6% 7% 9%

2%

10% 9% 7% 9% 12% 11% 12% 12% 3% 6% 9% 32% 10% 8% 7% 11% 10% 6% 9% 13% 9% 17% 12% 20%

55% 66% 71% 61% 52% 72%

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

County HPA Santa Maria HPA Lompoc HPA City of SB HPA Isla Vista HPA

Percent of Employed Labor Force in Top 6 Employment Sectors, County and High Poverty Areas (HPA's)

Agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting Construction Retail trade Educational services Health care and social assistance Accommodation and food services

Source: US Census ACS 2006-2010 Table DPO3

26

41 % 38% 62% 72% 62% 49% 35% 29% 31% 22% 20% 28% 26% 15% 30% 31% 16% 8% 10% 25% 50%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

California County HPA's Santa Maria HPA Lompoc HPA City of Santa Barbara Isla Vista

Rate of Individuals by Educational Attainment (California, County, High Poverty Areas (HPA’s), 2006-2010

High School/GED or less Some College or AA BA or more

Source: US Census ACS 2006-2010

Primary Mode of Transportation to Work

County High Poverty Areas

27

Drove alone, 66%

Carpooled , 15% Public trans- portation, 4%

Other, 9% Worked at home, 6% Drove alone, 53%

Carpooled , 23% Public trans- portation, 5%

Other, 16% Worked at home, 3%

Source: US Census ACS 2006-2010

Housing Stock

County High Poverty Areas

Owner

Occupied

Units 50%

Renter Occupied Units 43%

Vacant Units 7%

Owner Occupied Units 22%

Renter

Occupied

Units 71% Vacant Unit 7%

28

U.S. Census ACS 2006-2010

Public Housing Units and Section 8 Vouchers

• North and Mid County show a gap in available housing units to

numbers of families in poverty

30% 19% 51% 44% 22% 34%

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

North County Mid County South County Housing Units and Section 8 Vouchers

Families in Poverty

2,152 3,467 1,364 1,695 3,635 2,648

Total County Units/Vouchers = 7,151 Total County Families in Poverty =7,810

29

Source: Santa Barbara County Housing Authority, Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara (2012); US Census ACS 2006-2010

• Average age of death in Santa Barbara County was 76 years of

age, compared to 73 years of age in high poverty area zip codes

• Age adjusted death rates allow us to make fairer

comparisons between zip codes that have overrepresentation of people in certain age groups

▫ The County rate is 590 per 100,000, compared to high poverty areas 767 per 100,000 ▫ The Santa Maria high poverty area has the highest rate at 1,153 per 100,000 persons

• Seventeen percent of County residents were uninsured,

compared to 21% in high poverty areas

▫ The City of Santa Barbara and Santa Maria high poverty rates uninsurance rates were the highest at 26% and 25%

30

Source: Santa Barbara Department of Public Health, 2010

Health Status and Access

31

Location of Health and Human Services Providers

32

Health and Human Service Locations: (Types of services include government and non-profit assistance programs, disability services, elder services, employment programs, nutrition programs, health clinics and medical services, mental health and substance abuse services, homeless shelters and social services.

Survey and Provider Interviews

• 39% Response Rate – 178 out of 460 agencies contacted

responded to a provider/funder survey

• Stakeholder interviews were done with 16 non-profit and

public agency leaders

• Collective findings were incorporated in the Focus Areas:

▫ Identified potential gaps in services and service areas ▫ Ideas for possible consolidation ▫ Programmatic and regional capacities ▫ Challenges facing local non-profit organizations and their clients ▫ Recommendations for improving service delivery, streamlining access to services, and holding

• rganizations accountable

33

34

Focus Areas

• Pursue holistic approaches

▫ Efforts are both people and placed-based

• Establish poverty reduction goals and track progress

▫ Need to improve the coordination and standardization

• f data collection
• Improve service delivery infrastructure and

efficiency

▫ Strategically site and/or co-locate services in targeted neighborhoods using a collective impact model ▫ Streamline and improve access to services ▫ Consider consolidating in specific areas

35

Focus Areas (cont’d)

• Address unmet needs in North County and

Lompoc

▫ Consider shifting some South County resources to Santa Maria, Lompoc, and Guadalupe

• Improve allocation of existing resources

▫ Adopt best practices in philanthropy ▫ Adopt best practices in public funding

• Expand targeted, impactful public programs

▫ Increase outreach and enrollment of CalFresh ▫ Create local tax credit programs

36

Focus Areas (cont’d)

• Address affordable housing, economic and

workforce development and public transportation

▫ Convene affordable housing experts in public, non-profit and private sectors ▫ Convene experts in education and workforce and economic development and community leaders to develop a shared vision of economic development ▫ Convene transportation experts and community leaders

37

What We’ve Learned

• Four areas of geographic concentration of

poverty in the County – No Outliers

▫ Promising from a service delivery perspective ▫ Challenging from a service capacity perspective

• Characteristics of those in living in poverty, their

service needs, and the impacts of poverty on health.

• Now have geographically based baseline of data

to track progress

▫ Demographics, poverty, employment, income, education, housing, transportation, childcare public benefits, and health

38

Staff Observations

• Fragmented data collection limited our ability to:

▫ Capture all desired data sets ▫ Capture data sets consistently down to the census tract level

• Key Indicators for future tracking (publically available

– U.S. Census Data)

▫ Poverty stats ▫ Educational attainment ▫ Housing Stock ▫ Employment/employment sectors ▫ Health (uninsurance rates) ▫ Transportation

39

Opportunities

• Share information with community partners,

municipalities by way of a link to the report from County and DSS websites

• Encourage community, foundations and public

agencies and groups to utilize this data as a springboard for further investigation

• Recommend the Board of Supervisors direct the

CEO to work in conjunction with appropriate departments to utilize data, assess findings and focus areas, and incorporate information as appropriate in program and budget development processes

40