Poverty in Maine - 2003 Statewide Patterns People Poverty can be usefully evaluated both on the household and on the individual (population) level. Households and housing units are key analytic terms in the Census and in poverty studies. In the definition used by the Census, "a household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit. A house, an apartment or other group of rooms, or a single room, is regarded as a housing unit when it is occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. A household includes the related family members and all the unrelated people, if any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the housing unit. A person living alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated people sharing a housing unit such as partners or roomers, is also counted as a household." The household poverty rate is the percentage of all households below the federal poverty threshold. For the state of Maine as a whole, the household poverty rate in Census 2000 is 11.5%. Six counties have rates lower than the statewide rate: Cumberland, Hancock, Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc, and York, with the lowest rates being in the southern coastal counties of Cumberland, Sagadahoc, and York. The remaining ten counties have rates that are above the statewide figure. The highest poverty rate for households is found in Washington County (20.9%), more than 2.5 times greater than Cumberland, which had the lowest rate (8%). (Map 1) In the Census, a distinction is made between family households and non-family households. In the Census definition, a family is a "group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together; all such people (including related subfamily members) are considered as members of one family." A family household is a "household maintained by a householder who is in a family (as defined above), and includes any unrelated people who may be residing there." Family households are subdivided into several types: married-couple families (which includes common-law couples), and households where no spouse is present (with either male or female householder). A non-family household consists of a householder living alone (a one-person household) or a household where the householder shares the home exclusively with people to whom he/ she is not related.4 One of the most striking features of poverty in Maine is the preponderance of households below poverty that are one-person households. As can be seen in Figure 1, fully 45% of below-poverty households are people living alone (a type of "non-family" household). Statewide, more of these one-person households are individuals under the age of 65, but in some counties there are almost equal numbers of one-person households that are over age 65 and under age 65. Although the popular image of a household below poverty is a single mother with children, in fact only 22% of below-poverty households statewide are of this type. Another 18.2% of households below poverty are married-couple families. The household composition of those above poverty is very different. Statewide, a majority of all households above poverty consists of married-couple families, accounting for 58% of such households. Another 24.7% of above-poverty households are people living alone. (Interestingly, Maine is among the top 15 states in the United States in its proportion of one-person households, both below and above poverty.) The age distribution of the population is an important factor in policy and planning regarding poverty. The proportion of the population classified as "young" or "old" is termed the "dependent" population, so-called because they are not active in the labor force. An older dependent population is generally considered to be more expensive than a younger one. In the 1950s and 1960s, Maine and the nation experienced the effects of the "baby boom," with a high number of dependent younger people. Now, the population is aging, and the "baby boomers" will only increase this trend. Maine has the added phenomenon of population loss in many counties and slow growth in others, as increasing numbers of working-age people leave the county or the state to seek better employment or a different lifestyle.5 The relative proportions of younger, working-age, and older persons below poverty show a good deal of variation from one county to the next (Figure 2). Older persons (age 65 and older) are represented in the below-poverty population in greater proportions in Aroostook, Piscataquis, and Washington counties than in the state as a whole. It is clear that the aging of the population and out-migration by younger, working-age families is contributing to higher poverty rates in a number of Maine's counties. An exception is Lincoln County, which has one of the highest proportions of older persons (both above and below poverty) in the state, but has a poverty rate that is slightly below the state average. Lincoln County has seen an influx of relatively well-off retirees in recent years, many of them from out of state. In Androscoggin, Franklin, Oxford, Sagadahoc, Somerset, Waldo and York counties younger persons (under age 18) represent a higher proportion of the below-poverty population than in the state as a whole. One of the most important population characteristics impacting economic well-being is the level of educational attainment. Maine has a some-what higher percentage of high school graduates than the national average. However, Maine does not stand quite as well with regard to higher education attainment: 69.8% of Maine's population reports lacking a college degree (Associate or Bachelor's), compared with 69.3% nationally and 61.3% in the other New England states. As can be seen in Map 2, in several of Maine's counties, the population lacking a college degree is close to 80%. It is perhaps not surprising that these are among the counties with the highest poverty rates and lowest per-capita incomes. It also is not surprising that many of the counties with lower levels of educational attainment are counties with older populations. There are several reasons for this. First, for the older generation, reasonably well-paid employment was available in the past for those with a high school education, but there has now been a shift in job creation toward occupations that require at least some college education. Younger people who have attained higher educational levels are migrating from Maine's "rim" counties (Aroostook, Franklin, Oxford, Piscataquis, Somerset, and Washington) in search of better employment opportunities, leaving behind an older, less-educated population. Large regions of the state are caught in a spiral, where lack of economic opportunities leads younger, more-educated people to seek employment outside the area. The absence of an educated workforce, in turn, makes these regions less attractive to companies that would have higher-paying jobs to offer. Educational attainment of the population is certainly not the only factor influencing economic development and poverty in rural Maine. However, there can be no doubt that on the individual level, there is a very clear correlation between education and income, and that any efforts to address poverty need to pay close attention to education as a key force in raising people out of poverty. Income and Employment Maine's median and per-capita income are below national averages, and Maine is in the lower tier of states in both measures. The information on income in Figures 3 and 4 is from Census 2000, and is based on a sample of the population. People are asked to report on their cash income from all sources for the preceding year, so the numbers shown here represent respondents' reports of income for 1999. According to Census analysts, income is estimated to be higher than what is shown in figures from the decennial Census. Nonetheless, the income numbers in Figures 3 and 4 do display the relative income differences between various parts of the state. There is a tremendous range both in median household income and in per-capita income across counties. Median household income represents the midpoint of incomes; half of the households have incomes that are higher, and half have incomes that are lower. Three counties, Aroostook, Piscataquis and Washington, have median household incomes that are more than 20% lower than the statewide household median income of $37,240. Four counties, Aroostook, Piscataquis, Somerset and Washington, have per-capita incomes that are more than 20% lower than the statewide per-capita income of $19,533. Both median household income and per-capita income in Washington County (the lowest in the state) are 41% lower than in Cumberland County (the highest in the state). Employment is obviously a key factor in the poverty "picture." Changes in Maine's economy mirror those of the United States as a whole, with a decline in once-prevalent manufacturing and natural resource-based industries and jobs, and a move toward knowledge-and service-based occupations requiring higher levels of educational attainment. In addition, Maine and the United States as a whole are going through a period of severe declines in tax revenues. Individuals are impacted not only by the increasing difficulty of obtaining employment, but also by cutbacks in state and federal services necessitated by the declining tax revenues. One of the most widely used-and widely watched-measures of employment is the unemployment rate. Determination of the unemployment rate is a complex process, based primarily on data collected from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a household survey that is administered monthly to a sample of the population, combined with Current Employment Statistics (CES) data and data from state unemployment insurance systems. The unemployment rate is the percent-age of the labor force (age 16 and over) that is unemployed and actively seeking work. The unemployment rate methodology does not include discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor force after unsuccessfully seeking employment, and counts part-time workers as employed. The unemployment rate is, nonetheless, an important measure that not only serves as a "barometer" of the economy, but also has important practical policy ramifications in a number of programs. Maine's average unemployment rate of 4.4% in 2002 was close to the national average of 4.5%. Both in Maine and the country as a whole, there was an upward trend in the unemployment rate over the course of 2002. Four counties, Cumberland, Knox, Lincoln, and Sagadahoc, had unemployment rates that were lower than the state as a whole. Franklin, Oxford, Piscataqus and Washington counties had rates higher than the statewide average. Washington County's unemployment rate of 8.8% was double that of the state as a whole, and three times greater than in Cumberland County. Somerset's rate of 8.4% was not far behind that of Washington. (Figure 5) Another way of looking at employment is to consider how many people are working less than full-time, including those who work fewer than 40 hours a week and those who work less than year-round. Many working Mainers juggle seasonal work and various part-time jobs to piece together a living. In the county profiles in the next section, it is clear that a much higher proportion of households below poverty than above poverty have household members who work less than full-time, year-round. Although the Census includes older, presumably retired people in these work-history figures it is striking that in all but four counties (Oxford, Penobscot, Piscataquis, Washington), over 60% of households below poverty report having one or more members working either full-time or part-time. Housing and Transportation Access to affordable housing is a significant measure of economic well-being. Availability of transportation is an important factor impacting people's ability to take advantage of employment opportunities and to obtain various services. Maine's housing costs in absolute terms are below national averages both for homeowners and renters. However, for lower income people in Maine as elsewhere, housing costs represent a significant portion of the overall household budget. Figure 6 shows the proportion of households in Maine with incomes below $35,000 in Census 2000 who report paying more than 35% of their monthly income for housing. Even in counties with more "affordable" housing, such as Aroostook, Piscataquis, and Washington, over 25% of households in this income bracket are paying a significant amount in housing costs. The counties with the most unaffordable housing are those that look better on other economic measures such as income and employment. This is perhaps to be expected, because areas such as these have increasing populations as well as higher household and per-capita incomes, with subsequent increased housing demand and increased housing prices. Housing prices in desirable coastal and lake areas have risen because of the increasing numbers of vacation-home buyers and year-round retirees, many from out of state. In Cumberland County, 46.8% of households with incomes under $35,000 are paying more than 35% of monthly income for housing, and in York County 44.4% of such households are in a similar situation. Those with incomes under $20,000 are in the worst shape in all counties. The county profiles in the next section give a detailed breakdown of housing costs by various income brackets for owners, renters, and all households combined. In terms of transportation, Maine is a very rural state, with very little public transportation. Having access to a vehicle is crucial for people to be able to work, shop, and obtain services. Compared with many areas in the United States, a greater proportion of Maine households report having access to a vehicle. However, as shown in the county profiles, there are some areas where a higher proportion of households does not have vehicle access. These include both the more urban Androscoggin and Cumberland counties and rural Aroostook and Washington counties. Benefits and Assistance One of the standard ways of assessing poverty is to look at those who are receiving benefits designed to serve the low-income population. One of the drawbacks of this approach, of course, is that we are dealing with people who are already receiving at least some services. Is there some way we can use information regarding services received to assess the level of unmet needs? In this report, we combine data from benefits and assistance programs with Census data in order to create a picture of the proportion of households receiving several kinds of benefits. By comparing household poverty rates from the Census with the rate of receipt of various services, we can gain at least an approximate idea of possible service gaps and unmet needs. Since some benefit and assistance programs do not use the federal poverty guidelines in determining eligibility, and others use "multiples" of the guidelines (e.g., 125%, 150%), this kind of comparison serves only as a "proxy" measure of unmet need. Map 3 depicts the proportion of total households in each county that received TANF and/or food stamps in fiscal year 2002 (October 1, 2001-September 30, 2002). This is based on an average monthly unduplicated count of TANF and food stamp cases (if households received both TANF and food stamps, they are just counted once). Statewide, 10.7% of all households received TANF/food stamps. Aroostook, Somerset, and Washington counties had the highest household participation rates, with greater than 16% of all households receiving one or both of these benefits. By way of contrast, Hancock, Lincoln and Sagadahoc counties had less than 7% of households receiving TANF/food stamps. Hancock County's rate of 6.2% was the lowest in the state for the 2002 fiscal year. Viewing these benefits based on the number of individual recipients (Figure 7), two of the three counties with the highest household-level participation rates also had the highest proportions of overall population receiving TANF/food stamps. Somerset and Washington counties each had over 14% of their population receiving these benefits, while the statewide rate was 8.5%. The lowest rates were in Hancock, Sagadahoc, and York counties, where less than 6% of the population received TANF/food stamps, closely followed by Cumberland and Lincoln counties with rates slightly over 6%. The federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program exists to help meet the immediate home energy needs of low income households that pay a high proportion of their income on home energy. Because the "pot" of available money is allocated anew each year (with some years including supplemental funds), all potentially eligible households may not be served each year, and the amount of each household's LIHEAP allocation may change from one year to the next. LIHEAP is therefore different from the TANF and food stamp programs, or from programs such as Medicaid and social security disability program that provide specified benefits to all eligible applicants. Map 4 shows the rate of participation by households in LIHEAP in fiscal year 2002. Statewide, 9.1% of households participated in LIHEAP. That rate was lower than participation in the TANF/food stamp programs (10.7%) and lower than the household poverty rate in Census 2000 (11.5%). This is perhaps not surprising, given that LIHEAP has a limited amount of funds each year, and must prioritize how funds are disbursed. LIHEAP household participation rates at the county level ranged from under 4% (Cumberland and York counties) to over 17% (Aroostook, Piscataquis and Washington counties). Washington County's rate of 21.7% was the highest in the state. In some counties, close to one-quarter or more of all elderly households received LIHEAP in fiscal 2001- 2002 (Figure 8): Aroostook (27.5%), Washington (27.3%) and Franklin (24.4%). Other counties, Cumberland (6.8%) and York (7.1%), had lower rates of elderly LIHEAP participation. Statewide, 13.2% of all elderly households received LIHEAP. The county profiles present further details about the characteristics of households that received LIHEAP in 2001-2002. Statewide, 45.5% of LIHEAP households were one-person households, and 36% of applicants were age 65 or over. In terms of income and benefits, 57.5% of households had one or more members on Medicaid, 52.8% received social security or social security disability income, 22.9% received supplemental security income, 49.7% received food stamps, and 8.6% reported income from wages or self-employment. 6 Comparing participation rates in different benefits and assistance programs, the picture varies. Looking at the state as a whole, more households received TANF/food stamps than LIHEAP. However, in Franklin, Hancock, Piscataquis, Waldo, and Washington counties, participation in LIHEAP last fiscal year was considerably higher than participation in the TANF/food stamp programs. On the other hand, in Androscoggin, Cumberland, Kennebec, and York counties, there were substantially more households receiving TANF/food stamps than receiving LIHEAP. Reasons for the rather marked differences between counties in participation rates in the TANF/food stamp programs compared with LIHEAP may relate to local differences in the ways these programs are being implemented, to differences in the age and household structure of low-income households, and to differences in people's willingness to apply for benefits under different types of programs.
|
