New State/Local Data for January 2008
New Poverty Estimates for States, Counties and School Districts
The U.S. Census Bureau released 2005 poverty estimates for each of the nation's almost 14,000 Title I-eligible school districts. The estimates are produced in order for the Department of Education to implement provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The school district data, part of the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, are contained in data tables showing the number of poor children ages 5 to 17 in families.
The tables also contain 2005 state- and county-level estimates of median household income and the total number of poor children younger than 18, related children between 5 and 17 in families; and for states, through age 4. Included as well are estimates of the total number of people of all ages in poverty in states and counties. These estimates are the only source of income and poverty data for counties and poverty statistics for school districts with populations of less than 65,000.
The estimate tabulations, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, are one of the criteria used to allocate federal funds to local jurisdictions. The Census Bureau has, for the first time, produced the estimates by using results from its American Community Survey (ACS). ACS data were combined with aggregate data from federal tax information, administrative records on food stamp program participation, Census 2000 statistics and annual population estimates. Caution should be used in comparing this year's data to previous years' estimates. The Census Bureau states that the estimates are unavoidably subject to errors, and that errors tend to be larger for smaller geographic areas (areas with less population). School districts that have a small number of total residents will likely have relatively larger statistical estimation errors (in percentage terms) than will districts with larger populations, though the estimates for small districts are no more likely to be too high than too low.
Southwest Colorado: A Demographic and Health Profile
This report from the Colorado Health Institute provides a profile of selected demographic, health care access and health status characteristics of southwest Colorado and compares these characteristics to the state as a whole. Nine southwest Colorado counties are included in this report: Archuleta, Delta, Dolores, La Plata, Montezuma, Montrose, Ouray, San Juan and San Miguel. Some key demographic findings include:
- The population in southwest Colorado has increased at a faster rate than the state and is forecasted to continue to outpace the state through 2016. However, growth has been uneven among counties.
- Much of the growth has been among the working-age population. This population tends to have higher uninsurance rates compared to other age groups.
- The region is likely to see significant percentage increases in the population of young children, a much larger increase than the state as a whole. Since young children tend to need an array of preventive health services, this trend should be taken into consideration during health care infrastructure planning.
There are a number of factors that potentially put vulnerable individuals at risk for compromised access to health care. While health care vulnerability is a complex phenomenon, an understanding of the dimensions of vulnerability can help inform how health care resources can be strategically allocated. Some dimensions of vulnerability considered in this report include geographic isolation, insurance coverage, poverty, income and employment status, and linguistic isolation.
Statistical Portrait of Hispanics in the US, 2006
This statistical profile of the Latino population is based on Pew Hispanic Center tabulations of the Census Bureau's 2006 American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is the largest household survey in the United States, with a sample of about 3 million addresses. It covers virtually the same topics as those in the long form of the decennial census. The ACS is designed to provide estimates of the size and characteristics of the resident population, which includes persons living in households and, for the first time, persons living in group quarters.
The specific data sources for this statistical profile are the 1% sample of the 2006 ACS Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) and the 5% sample of the 2000 Census IPUMS provided by the University of Minnesota. Thirty six tables are presented with US-level data by age, race, ethnicity, sex, marital status, linguistic ability, educational attainment, occupations and earnings. Some state-level data on population are also provided. This profile estimates that Colorado's 2006 Hispanic population is 927,453 individuals, comprising 19.5% of the total population (above the US average of 14.8%). The increase in Colorado's total Hispanic population from 2000 to 2006 is estimated at 26.1%.
Statistical Portrait of the Foreign-Born in the US
The Pew Hispanic Center compiled this report from its own tabulations of the Census Bureau's 2006 American Community Survey. Data are presented in 36 tables on the foreign-born population of the US by region of birth, country of birth, by nativity, race and ethnicity, age, sex, marital status, fertility status, household type, language spoken at home, educational attainment, occupation and earnings. The foreign-born population of Colorado is given as 484,697 or 10.2% of the state's total population, compared to 12.5% for the US as a whole. This component of the population increased by 30.8% from 2000 to 2006 in Colorado, compared to 20.4% for the US overall.
Quality Counts: 2008 Report & Education in Colorado
This year's report by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center (EPE) covers student achievement, standards and assessments, teacher pay and incentives for performance, and indicators of equity and spending across school districts. Most of the 50-state indicators that appear in Quality Counts are based on original data analyses and state-survey data from the EPE Research Center. States were awarded overall letter grades based on their ratings across six areas of performance and policy: chance-for-success; K-12 achievement; standards, assessments, and accountability; transitions and alignment; the teaching profession; and school finance. Some states performed consistently well or poorly across the full range of categories. But a closer examination of the rankings reveals that most states posted a strong showing in at least one area. Highlights from the Colorado report include:
- Higher ranking than the national average on elementary reading, middle school mathematics and high school graduation; lower than the national average in preschool and kindergarten enrollment, and post-secondary education.
- Wealthier school districts in Colorado have more district funding than poorer districts, compared to the national average but there is less variation across districts than the national average indicates.
- Adjusted per-pupil expenditures are $1,000 less per student in Colorado ($7,939; national ranking of 36) than the national average ($8,973). Only 25.3% of Colorado students are in school districts that have per-pupil expenditures at or above the national average.
- State expenditures on K-12 education are 3% of state taxable resources (with a national ranking of 43) compared to a national average of 3.6%.
This year's report also examined the teaching profession in each state: accountability for quality and results; incentives to attract and keep high-quality teachers; targeting teaching talent to high-needs schools and building capacity for effective teaching. In 40 states, public school teachers fail to make as much as workers in comparable professions, such as reporters and insurance underwriters. Nationwide, teachers earn only 88 cents for every dollar paid to workers in equivalent jobs.
The main focus of this year's report is states' teaching policies. States are ranked on factors such as how stringent their license requirements are, whether they provide mentoring programs for new teachers or incentives to teach in hard-to-staff subjects and schools, and working conditions such as class size and the level of school violence. It also includes a new analysis comparing teacher salaries to those of 16 jobs that require similar skill sets, such as museum curators, registered nurses and accountants. Teacher pay was found to be deficient in 40 states.
National Reports with Local Relevance:
Are Lower Income Households Willing and Able to Budget for Fruits and Vegetables?
Households have a number of needs and wants that all compete for scarce resources. Given this situation, are low-income households, in particular, generally willing and able to budget for healthful foods like fruits and vegetables, or are other goods and services, including other foods, more of a priority? For six out of seven selected types of food, ERS found that households with an income below 130 percent of the poverty line spend less money than higher income households. However, they also found that these households, when given a small increase in income-will allocate more money to only two out of the seven products, beef and frozen prepared foods. These foods may be priorities for reasons of taste and convenience. For additional money to be allocated to fruits and vegetables, a household's income needs to be slightly greater than 130 percent of the poverty line.
Effect of State Food Stamp and TANF Policies on Food Stamp Program Participation
The effectiveness of the Food Stamp Program (FSP) depends on the extent to which it reaches those who are entitled to benefits. In the mid- to late 1990s, participation fell sharply. In recent years, it rebounded somewhat, reaching 65.1 percent in 2005. Changes in participation patterns can be attributed partly to economic fluctuations, but they were also shaped by the rapidly changing State policy environment. This study, conducted by the Urban Institute, combines data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1996-2003, with data on state-level food stamp, welfare, minimum wage, and Earned Income Tax Credit policy to investigate the effects of policy on food stamp participation. The findings show strong evidence that some FSP policy reforms made after 1999 (such as more lenient vehicle-exemption policies, longer recertification periods, and expanded categorical eligibility) increased food stamp participation. The use of biometric technology, such as fingerprinting, however, lowered participation. The study shows less consistent evidence that more lenient immigrant eligibility rules, simplified reporting, Electronic Benefit Transfers, or outreach spending raised food stamp participation.
Education's Role in the Metro-Nonmetro Earnings Divide
The Economic Research Service finds that average earnings are lower in nonmetro areas than in metro areas, even after accounting for differences in the individual characteristics of nonmetro earners. The nonmetro-metro earnings gap is greater for workers with more education and more experience. For nonmetro households, lower earnings may be offset by factors difficult to measure, such as lower living costs or the value of rural amenities.
The most obvious worker characteristics that contribute to higher wages are those that enhance a worker's value to an employer because they indicate greater human capital and, hence, enable a worker to be more productive. Years of schooling or work experience are common indicators of human capital. Despite large gains in recent decades, the educational attainment of nonmetro workers is lower than that of metro residents. The remaining difference in high school completion is small: about 11 percent of nonmetro workers lacked a high school diploma in 2006, compared with 10 percent of metro workers. The disparity widens for college education, with 20 percent of workers in nonmetro areas having a degree versus 33 percent in metro areas.
Education's dual role in explaining the earnings gap suggests that policies to narrow the gap might seek to raise educational attainment in nonmetro areas, to raise nonmetro returns to education, or both. Improving local schools may help nonmetro areas to retain and attract education-oriented young people with families; this is likely to raise nonmetro educational attainment levels. Places with good schools may also be more appealing to migrants who bring creative and entrepreneurial skills-and presumably higher earnings-into the community. In addition, better schools may benefit rural youth by improving their preparation for either the labor market or further schooling, in either case raising their expected earnings. Firms that employ high-skill, highly paid employees may also be more likely to locate in areas with a better-educated workforce.
