New Congress Should Prioritize Improving People’s Economic Well-Being

Endnotes are available in the PDF version of this Fact Sheet.

As the 115^th Congress convenes this month, the US economy is in its seventh year of recovery from the Great Recession. Yet many communities in California have not shared in the nation’s recent economic gains. Statewide, nearly 6 million people, including almost 2 million children, are living in families with incomes below the US Census Bureau’s official poverty line, which is about $19,000 in annual income for a family of three.

Poverty affects communities in every one of California’s 53 congressional districts, but there are stark differences in the level of economic hardship across districts. The latest Census figures show that the official 2015 poverty rate ranged from a low of 6.8% in District 17 (D-Khanna) in the San Jose area to a high of 30.8% in District 16 (D-Costa) in the San Joaquin Valley. Also, poverty has increased in nearly every district since 2000, and the largest increases are concentrated in inland, suburban communities, reflecting a broader national trend. These findings highlight the urgent need for the new Congress to prioritize policies that give all people the opportunity to thrive and move up the economic ladder.

The latest Census data (see Maps below) show that:

• Three congressional districts are extremely distressed, with more than one-quarter of all residents living in poverty. These districts — 16 (D-Costa), 21 (R-Valadao), and 34 (D-Becerra) — include communities in the San Joaquin Valley and in Los Angeles.
• In eight districts, between one-fifth and one-quarter of all residents live in poverty. These districts — 6 (D-Matsui), 8 (R-Cook), 29 (D-Cárdenas), 36 (D-Ruiz), 40 (D-Roybal-Allard), 43 (D-Waters), 44 (D-Barragán), and 51 (D-Vargas) — include communities along the US-Mexico border as well as in Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, the San Fernando Valley, and the Sacramento region.
• Only 10 districts have fewer than 1 in 10 residents living in poverty. These districts — 4 (R-McClintock), 14 (D-Speier), 15 (D-Swalwell), 17 (D-Khanna), 18 (D-Eshoo), 19 (D-Lofgren), 33 (D-Lieu), 39 (R-Royce), 49 (R-Issa), 52 (D-Peters) — largely include communities in the Bay Area and along the southern California coast.

In addition, a recent Brookings Institution analysis shows that nearly every California congressional district was more economically distressed in recent years than in 2000, due largely to the impact of the Great Recession. The communities that have been hit the hardest tend to be those in inland, suburban areas (see Table below). Specifically:

• Poverty rates rose in 45 of California’s 53 congressional districts between 2000 and 2010-14. For example, the poverty rate increased by more than 4.0 percentage points between 2000 and 2010-14 in four districts: 5 (D-Thompson), 7 (D-Bera), 8 (R-Cook), and 41 (D-Takano), which include communities in the Inland Empire, the eastern Sierra, the Bay Area, and the Sacramento vicinity. In contrast, poverty rates declined in just two districts, while there was no statistically significant change in the remaining six districts.
• Growth in the number of people living in poverty far outpaced overall population gains in most districts. For example:

• Between 2000 and 2010-14, the number of people facing severe economic hardship more than doubled, rising by 112%, in District 42 (R-Calvert), which includes suburban communities in Riverside County. Although District 42 experienced the greatest population gains in California during this period (the number of district residents rose by about three-quarters), the increase in the number of residents living in poverty still far exceeded the growth in the overall population.

• In District 7 (D-Bera), which includes suburban communities east and south of Sacramento, the number of residents facing severe economic hardship increased by about 84% between 2000 and 2010-14, far outpacing the 25% increase in the district’s total population.

• Three other districts saw the number of economically distressed residents rise by more than 70% between 2000 and 2010-14, far exceeding overall population growth. These districts — 8 (R-Cook), 25 (R-Knight), and 45 (R-Walters) — include communities in the Inland Empire and Death Valley region, northern Los Angeles County, and Orange County. The vast majority of people living in poverty in these districts reside in suburban areas.

Endnotes are available in the PDF version of this Fact Sheet.

People in many communities across the state are not sharing in California’s recent economic gains. Statewide, nearly 6 million people (15.3 percent), including almost 2 million children (21.2 percent), lived in poverty in 2015, based on the US Census Bureau’s official poverty line, which is about $19,000 in annual income for a family of three. Among California’s counties, there are stark differences in people’s economic well-being. The latest Census figures show that:

• The share of people struggling to make ends meet varies widely throughout the state. The official 2015 poverty rates ranged from a low of 7.1 percent to a high of 27.6 percent, while the 2015 child poverty rates ranged from a low of 7.4 percent to a high of 38.5 percent. (See tables in this companion Fact Sheet for poverty rates and child poverty rates in each county).
• In 11 counties, more than 1 in 5 people lived in poverty in 2015 (see Map 1, below). This includes four counties — Fresno, Imperial, Merced, and Tulare — where more than one-quarter of all residents lived in poverty. Such high poverty rates are particularly striking given that 2015 marked the sixth year of recovery from the Great Recession, which ended nationally in 2009.
• In 21 counties, more than 1 in 5 children lived in poverty in 2015 (see Map 2, below). This includes five counties — Fresno, Madera, Merced, Tulare, and Yuba — where more than one-third of all children lived in poverty and another eight counties where between one-quarter and one-third of all children lived in poverty.

Map 1

Map 2

Endnotes are available in the PDF version of this Fact Sheet.

The share of Californians facing severe economic hardship remains higher than at the onset of the Great Recession, in 2007, in many communities throughout the state. Statewide, 15.3 percent of residents struggled to get by in 2015 — the most recent year for which data are available — based on the US Census Bureau’s official poverty measure. This was 2.9 percentage points higher than in 2007 (12.4 percent), when the state poverty rate fell to a recent low. In addition, 21.2 percent of California children lived in poverty in 2015 — 3.9 percentage points higher than in 2007 (17.3 percent). Specifically, the latest Census figures show that:

• Poverty remained more widespread in 2015 than at the onset of the recession in 30 out of the 40 counties for which data are available (see Map 1, below). This is especially notable given that 2015 marked the sixth year since the end of the national recession. There was no statistically significant difference in poverty rates between 2007 and 2015 in the remaining 10 counties for which data are available.
• Three counties stand out with severely higher poverty rates. In Kings, Madera, and Sutter counties the 2015 poverty rate was more than 8.0 percentage points higher than in 2007.
• Another 11 counties have poverty rates that substantially exceed 2007 levels. These counties, which include both Inland Empire counties and several counties in the Central Valley, had 2015 poverty rates that were between 4.1 and 8.0 percentage points higher than in 2007.
• In 16 counties, poverty rates modestly exceed 2007 levels. These counties had 2015 poverty rates that exceeded 2007 levels by up to 4.0 percentage points. Notably, these include counties, such as San Francisco and San Mateo, where the local job market has been booming for several years.

Also, child poverty rates in 19 counties are significantly higher than in 2007 (see Map 2, below). Specifically:

• Six counties stand out with severely higher child poverty rates. In Kings, Madera, Merced, and Sutter counties the 2015 child poverty rate was more than 12.0 percentage points higher than in 2007, and in San Bernardino and Stanislaus counties the 2015 child poverty rate was between 8.1 and 12.0 percentage points higher than in 2007.
• Another nine counties have child poverty rates that are substantially higher than in 2007. These counties, which include parts of the Central Valley, central coast, and southern California, had 2015 child poverty rates that were between 4.1 and 8.0 percentage points higher than in 2007.
• In four counties, child poverty rates are modestly higher than in 2007. Los Angeles, San Diego, San Mateo, and Sonoma counties had 2015 child poverty rates up to 4.0 percentage points higher than in 2007.

Map 1

Map 2

The following tables provide the underlying data for 2007, 2012, and 2015 that this Fact Sheet is based on. 

The federal Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which improves on the official poverty measure (see note), shows that:

• 1 in 5 Californians (20.6%) struggle to afford basic necessities, up from 14.9% under the official poverty measure.
• Nearly one-quarter of children (23.8%) live in families struggling to get by — a larger share than for adults regardless of which poverty measure is used.
• Seniors are nearly twice as likely to lack adequate resources under this more accurate measure.

• 1 in 4 black Californians (25.1%) and 3 in 10 Latinos (30.4%) are struggling financially based on the SPM (see chart below).
• Black Californians and Latinos are more likely to face economic hardship than whites, regardless of how poverty is measured.
• The share of Latinos struggling to get by is 9 percentage points higher based on this better measure of hardship.

• One-third of Latino children (33.2%) live in poverty based on the SPM, compared to 29.7% under the official measure (see chart below).
• Over one-quarter of black children (25.7%) live in poverty based on the SPM. Although this is unacceptably high, it is nearly 8 percentage points lower than the official poverty rate (33.5%) due to the impact of public supports like CalFresh food assistance and housing assistance.
• Latino and black children are more than twice as likely as white children to live in families that are struggling to get by.

• The share of seniors struggling to make ends meet is substantially higher under the SPM (see chart below).
• Nearly one-third of Latino seniors (32.4%) and nearly one-quarter of other seniors of color (23.7%) struggle financially.
• Seniors of color are more likely than white seniors to live in poverty regardless of which measure of hardship is used.