Mapping Quality of Life in Nebraska: The Geographic Distribution of Poverty

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Mapping Quality of Life in Nebraska 217 Mapping Quality of Life in Nebraska: The Geographic Distribution of Poverty Grant Daily University of Nebraska-Lincoln Rodrigo Cantarero University of Nebraska-Lincoln, rcantarero1@unl.edu Maria Rosario de Guzman University of Nebraska-Lincoln, mguzman2@unl.edu Soo-Young Hong University of Nebraska-Lincoln, shong5@unl.edu Sarah Taylor University of Nebraska-Lincoln See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/mapquallifene Part of the Demography, Population, and Ecology Commons, Family, Life Course, and Society Commons, Human Geography Commons, Income Distribution Commons, Regional Sociology Commons, Rural Sociology Commons, Urban, Community and Regional Planning Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Daily, Grant; Cantarero, Rodrigo; de Guzman, Maria Rosario; Hong, Soo-Young; Taylor, Sarah; Garcia, Aileen; Choi, Jeong-Kyun; and Xia, Yan Ruth, "Mapping Quality of Life in Nebraska: The Geographic Distribution of Poverty" (217). Mapping Quality of Life in Nebraska. 1. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/mapquallifene/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mapping Quality of Life in Nebraska by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.

Authors Grant Daily, Rodrigo Cantarero, Maria Rosario de Guzman, Soo-Young Hong, Sarah Taylor, Aileen Garcia, Jeong-Kyun Choi, and Yan Ruth Xia This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/mapquallifene/1

Copyright 217, the authors. Used by permission. COMMUNITY & REGIONAL PLANNING PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY STUDIES REACHING ONE, REACHING ALL INTEREST GROUP, NEBRASKA EXTENSION MAPPING QUALITY OF LIFE IN NEBRASKA: THE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF BY: GRANT DAILY RODRIGO CANTARERO MARIA ROSARIO T. DE GUZMAN SOO-YOUNG HONG SARAH TAYLOR AILEEN GARCIA JEONG-KYUN CHOI YAN XIA

Recommended citation: Daily, G., Cantarero, R., de Guzman, M. R. T., Hong, S-Y, Taylor, S., Garcia, A., Choi, J-K., & Xia, Y. (217): Mapping Quality of Life in Nebraska: The Geographic Distribution of Poverty. QOL Series, 1. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The Quality of Life for Minorities in Rural Nebraska project was funded by a Research and Engagement Grant from the Rural Futures Institute, University of Nebraska. For questions, please contact: Maria de Guzman 135 Mabel Lee Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-236 mguzman2@unl.edu 42.517.1445 The University of Nebraska does not discriminate based upon any protected status. Please see go.unl.edu/nondiscrimination. 217 2

WHAT IS? Poverty is most commonly understood in economic terms: those with little money are in a state of poverty. A wider perspective understands being poor as a more comprehensive state of deprivation involving both political and social components. More broadly, poverty includes empowerment and access to services in addition to income and assets (Sabates, 28). FEDERAL DEFINITIONS OF : THE LINE While serving as an economist for the Social Security Administration, Mollie Orshansky developed the methodology to determine poverty status, the primary marker of poverty used today. Frequently referred to as the poverty line, it was based on the Economy Food Plan developed by the Department of Agriculture in 1961 (Fisher, 28). Due to the lack of universally accepted criteria for the essentials of living, additional costs other than food were not introduced into the methodology of calculating poverty. Instead, the 1963 Economy Food Budget was multiplied by three to approximate these additional essential costs of living, and determine the cutoff for poverty status (Fisher, 28). Pre-tax incomes falling below the cutoff level are considered in poverty, and are adjusted to account for family size, composition, and age of householder. The U.S. Census Bureau continues to update the poverty thresholds using the Consumer Price Index to adjust for inflation (Fisher, 28) (Fig. 1). FIGURE 1. THRESHOLDS FOR 215 BY SIZE OF FAMILY AND THE NUMBER OF RELATED CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS FAMILY SIZE RELATED CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+ 1 PERSON (UNRELATED INDIVIDUAL) Under 65 years 12,331 65+ years 11,367 2 PEOPLE Householder under 65 years 15,871 16,337 Householder 65+ years 14,326 16,275 3 PEOPLE 18,54 19,78 19,96 4 PEOPLE 24,447 24,847 24,36 24,12 5 PEOPLE 29,482 29,911 28,995 28,286 27,853 6 PEOPLE 33,99 34,44 33,342 32,67 31,67 31,78 7 PEOPLE 39,17 39,26 38,421 37,835 36,745 35,473 34,77 8 PEOPLE 43,637 44,23 43,23 42,536 41,551 4,3 38,999 38,668 9+ PEOPLE 52,493 52,747 52,46 51,457 5,49 49,159 47,956 47,658 45,822 Source: US Census Bureau, Federal Poverty Thresholds 3

GENERAL AND BRACKETS In addition to the primary threshold of in poverty and above poverty levels, additional brackets are computed to determine near poverty and deep poverty levels. These additional status groups help articulate the depth of the poverty gap, or the difference between household income and the poverty line (Kids Count, 217) (Hoyakem & Heggeness, 214). The following summarizes the various status groups: Households with income above 1.% of their poverty threshold is considered above the poverty level. Households with income above 1.% but below 125.% of poverty are considered to be near poverty. Households with incomes at or below 1.% are considered in poverty. Households with incomes at or below 1.%, but at or above 5.%, are considered to be in moderate poverty. Households with incomes below 5.% of their poverty threshold are considered to be in severe or deep poverty (Fig. 2). FIGURE 2. PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION BY BRACKETS FOR THE UNITED STATES AND NEBRASKA (214) NEBRASKA Above Poverty Brackets Above 1.% of the poverty level (i.e., not in poverty) Near Poverty Bracket 1.% - 125.% of the poverty level Moderate Poverty Bracket 5.% - 1.% of the poverty level Deep Poverty Bracket Below 5.% of the poverty level UNITED STATES In 214, 47,755,66 Americans, or 15.6% of the population for whom poverty status is determined, were considered in poverty (incomes below 1.% of the poverty line). Poverty rates for Nebraska were slightly lower, with 231,762 Nebraskans, or 12.9% of the population for whom poverty status is determined. Changes in the poverty rate for Nebraska tend to closely follow national trends, but fall just below national poverty rates. Over the past decade Nebraska has had a consistently lower poverty rate than the U.S. by about 2-3 percentage points (Fig. 3.1 and 3.2). Note that poverty figures (rates and counts) represented in this document are estimates subject to margin of error. FIGURE 3.1. RATES 25-214, THE UNITED STATES AND NEBRASKA YEAR NEBRASKA UNITED STATES 25 26 27 28 29 21 211 212 213 214 186,178 1.9% 197,37 11.5% 192,822 11.2% 186,727 1.8% 214,765 12.3% 29,118 11.9% 224,416 12.7% 22,244 12.4% 228,789 12.8% 231,762 12.9% 38,231,474 13.3% 38,757,253 13.3% 38,52,247 13.% 39,18,422 13.2% 42,868,163 14.3% 42,931,76 14.4% 45,768,84 15.2% 44,852,527 14.9% 46,663,433 15.4% 47,755,66 15.6% 4

FIGURE 3.2. RATES 25-214, THE UNITED STATES AND NEBRASKA PERCENT OF POPULATION IN Nebraska United States 25 26 27 28 29 21 211 212 YEAR 213 214 In 214, the five counties with the highest rates of poverty were Thurston (3.6%), Box Butte (2.3%), Loup (2.2%), Richardson (18.1%), and Sheridan (17.2%) (Fig. 6.1). Although the 214 Nebraska counties poverty rates suggest a mostly dispersed pattern of poverty throughout the state, a few clusters of poverty can be identified. A cluster of four counties with poverty rates that exceed U.S. and Nebraska figures is located in North Central Nebraska (Loup, Blaine, Brown, Keya Paha), a cluster of three counties is located in North Western Nebraska (Box Butte, Dawes, and Sheridan) and two smaller clusters are located in North Eastern Nebraska (Thurston and Dakota) and South Eastern Nebraska (Pawnee and Richardson). Poverty in terms of population numbers was highest in the metropolitan counties (Lancaster, Douglas, Sarpy). Outside metropolitan areas, the highest numbers were found in Hall (9,229), Buffalo (5,526), Madison (5,87), Scotts Bluff (4,957), and Lincoln (4,442) (Fig. 4). Of counties that have poverty rates higher than the national figures, six experienced persistent poverty, defined here as poverty higher than US averages in the years 2, 21, and 214. These counties were Thurston, Loup, Sheridan, Dawes, Blaine, and Keya Paha (Fig. 5). The counties with the lowest poverty rates were Pierce, Cass, Kearney, Phelps, and Sarpy (Fig. 6.2). FIGURE 4. COUNT AND RATES BY COUNTY 5.3% - 1.% 1.1% - 12.% 12.1% - 15.% 15.1% - 2.% 2.1% - 3.6% Note: Numbers within counties indicate the estimated number of residents for the related poverty statistic 5

FIGURE 5. COUNTIES WITH PERSISTENT FROM 2-214 2 21 COUNTY POP.* POP. IN RATE COUNTY POP.* POP. IN RATE THURSTON 7,52 1,88 25.6% THURSTON 6,782 1,972 29.1% LOUP 78 125 17.7% LOUP 635 121 19.1% SHERIDAN 6,56 8 13.2% SHERIDAN 5,27 872 16.5% DAWES 8,17 1,548 18.9% DAWES 8,67 1,829 22.7% BLAINE 583 113 19.4% BLAINE 539 67 12.4% KEYA PAHA 983 264 26.9% KEYA PAHA 74 168 22.7% 214 2-214 COUNTY POP.* POP. IN RATE COUNTY POP.* CHANGE POP. IN RATE ** CHANGE THURSTON LOUP SHERIDAN DAWES BLAINE KEYA PAHA 6,84 2,81 3.6% THURSTON -248 273 5.% 559 113 2.2% LOUP -149-12 2.5% 5,235 93 17.2% SHERIDAN -821 13 4.% 7,978 1,345 16.8% DAWES -192-23 -2.% 594 97 16.3% BLAINE 11-16 -3.1% 739 113 15.3% KEYA PAHA -244-151 -11.6% *Refers to the population for whom poverty status is determined, not necessarily the total county population **Poverty rate 214 - Poverty rate 2 FIGURE 6.1. HIGHEST COUNTIES FIGURE 6.2. LOWEST COUNTIES 214 214 COUNTY POP.* POP. IN RATE COUNTY POP.* POP. IN RATE THURSTON BOX BUTTE LOUP RICHARDSON SHERIDAN 6,84 2,81 3.6% PIERCE 7,18 371 5.3% 11,82 2,246 2.3% CASS 24,968 1,458 5.8% 559 113 2.2% KEARNEY 6,423 379 5.9% 8,65 1,462 18.1% PHELPS 8,919 565 6.3% 5,235 93 17.2% SARPY 164,293 11,156 6.8% *Refers to the population for whom poverty status is determined, not necessarily the total county population 6

AND VULNERABLE POPULATIONS Poverty intersects with other social factors that can make its effects especially serious for vulnerable populations, such as children and the elderly. Because the very young and very old are often dependent on others for assistance, the impact of poverty can be much greater. Thus, high levels of poverty can compound with problems of healthcare access, such as cost and transportation issues, resulting in health disparities for vulnerable populations (Vanderbilt et al., 213). For children, early deprivation can have immediate and long-term harmful consequences on health and academic performance. For these reasons, it is important to monitor poverty trends for these vulnerable populations. CHILD (UNDER 18 YEARS) Child poverty rates, for Nebraska as well as the United States, tend to be higher than total poverty rates for all other age groups. The child poverty maps for 214 depict a relatively dispersed pattern of child poverty throughout the state. However, the panhandle counties all have child poverty rates exceeding 13.%, suggesting an especially high level of child poverty in that area (Fig. 7). The counties with the highest rates of child poverty were Keya Paha (4.7%), Thurston (4.3%), Loup (39.5%), Box Butte (39.1%), and Richardson (35.4%). Each of these counties had poverty rates that were at least twice the national rate. The counties with the highest poverty rates are scattered throughout the state. However, these counties (with the exception of Loup) tend to be found in the peripheral areas of Nebraska, away from commercial hubs along the centrally located interstate highway. The distance from transportation networks and economic opportunity may play a role in the high child poverty rates. Counties with lowest child poverty rates, Rock (.4%), Arthur (.6%), Kearney (4.2%), Pierce (4.7%), and Phelps (6.3%), are also relatively scattered. Counties with rates of 5. - 13.% are concentrated around the east-central portion of the state. These counties have comparatively easy interstate access, and are close to the largest cities in Nebraska: Omaha, Lincoln, and Grand Island (Fig. 7). FIGURE 7. BY COUNTY FOR CHILDREN UNDER 18 Dawes 281 Sioux 39 Box Butte 197 Scotts Bluff 197 Morrill 244 Banner 42 Kimball Cheyenne 128 525.% - 5.% 5.1% - 13.% 13.1% - 19.% Sheridan 47 Garden 51 Deuel 132 Grant 22 Arthur 1 Keith 341 Perkins 66 Chase 182 Dundy 5 Cherry 147 Keya Paha Brown 14 46 Rock 1 Boyd 59 Holt 319 Knox Cedar Dixon 257 434 264 Dakota 1441 Antelope Pierce Wayne Thurston 263 83 331 967 Madison Cuming Burt Hooker Thomas Blaine Loup Garfield Wheeler Stanton 179 44 113 3 2 23 49 49 21 233 Boone 151 Colfax Dodge McPherson Logan Valley Platte Washington Greeley 54 1426 8 34 19 115 682 73 Nance Custer Douglas 18 2732 314 Polk Butler Saunders Sherman Howard Merrick 199 644 Sarpy 154 184 136 192 4716 Lincoln 1684 Cass 48 Dawson Hall Hamilton York Seward Buffalo 143 3555 31 371 394 Lancaster 144 124 Otoe 531 Clay Hayes Frontier Saline Gosper Phelps Kearney Adams Fillmore 218 22 534 Johnson 13 46 14 65 1215 125 Nemaha 126 18 Gage Hitchcock Thayer Furnas Harlan Franklin Webster Nuckolls Red Willow Jefferson 747 Pawnee Richardson 131 425 372 113 132 19 247 456 151 61 188 19.1% - 28.% 28.1% - 4.% Note: Numbers within counties indicate the estimated number of residents for the related poverty statistic 7

YOUNG CHILD ( - 5 YEARS) Poverty is especially precarious to young children, ages -5, as poverty at a very young age can have lasting negative effects on children s development and learning. Children who grow up in poverty have poorer physical, psychological, social, and cognitive outcomes than those who grow up in affluent environments. The negative impact of poverty is much greater when children grow up in persistent and chronic poverty rather than in transitory poverty (NICHD EECRN, 25). The impacts are of special concern given the prevalence of child poverty both in Nebraska and nationwide. In 214, almost a quarter of young children (24.7%) throughout the United States lived in poverty with only slightly lower (21.2%) in Nebraska. While difficult to discern, young child poverty rates appear slightly higher in the southeast, northeast, and southwest portions of the state. As with child poverty in general, economic opportunities may be limited in these peripheral counties (Fig. 8). The counties with the highest rates of young child poverty were: Richardson (48.8%), Box Butte (48.2%), Thurston (43.9%), Grant (39.4%), and Hitchcock (39.%), with poverty rates roughly between 4.% and 5.%. The counties with the lowest rates of young child poverty were Arthur (%), Sioux (%), Thomas (%), Rock (1.2%), and Pierce (3.4%). These areas have lower population and fewer children (less than 1 children each, with the exception of Pierce County). FIGURE 8. YOUNG CHILD BY COUNTY: - 5 YEARS Keya Paha Boyd 2 Dawes 5 Cedar 114 Sheridan Knox 18 Dixon Sioux 8 Cherry Brown Rock 16 87 Dakota 56 69 1 Holt 81 Box Butte 113 Antelope Pierce 356 118 19 Wayne Thurston 185 357 Cuming Grant Madison 148 Hooker Thomas Blaine Loup Garfield Wheeler Stanton Scotts Bluff 13 846 Burt 779 16 2 6 4 2 61 41 Morrill 63 Boone Garden Logan Dodge Banner Arthur McPherson 26 5 22 21 Valley Greeley Platte Colfax Washington 691 2 37 29 313 21 256 Nance Custer Douglas 23 76 11463 Kimball Cheyenne Butler Saunders 71 232 Keith 139 Sherman Howard Polk Deuel Merrick 64 24 4 283 Sarpy 32 1579 27 Lincoln 8 611 Cass York 183 24 Dawson Buffalo 1812 Hamilton Seward 515 Hall 126 171 Perkins 162 Lancaster 645 5239 Otoe 225 5.3% - 1.% 1.1% - 15.% 15.1% - 2.% 2.1% - 3.% 3.1% - 48.8% Chase Hayes Frontier Adams Clay Saline Gosper Fillmore Phelps Kearney 94 18 37 61 51 17 Johnson 433 Nemaha 9 62 32 46 13 Gage Pawnee Dundy Hitchcock Red Willow Furnas Harlan Franklin Webster Nuckolls Thayer Jefferson Richardson 267 36 17 71 18 1 71 43 66 27 125 149 223 Note: Numbers within counties indicate the estimated number of residents for the related poverty statistic 8

SCHOOL-AGE (6-17 YEARS) The category school-age poverty includes two census age categories (6-11, 12-17) to distinguish older school children from young children who have not entered the school system. In Nebraska, poverty rates tend be lower for school-age children than for young children: 15.7% of school-age children lived in poverty in 214, while 21.2% of young children lived in poverty. School-age poverty was also lower nationally, with 2.5% of school-age children living in poverty, compared to 24.7% of young children. The counties with the highest rates of school-age poverty include: Keya Paha (47.1%), Loup (46.2%), Thurston (38.5%), Box Butte (35.9%), and Sheridan (34.8%), with poverty rates roughly between 35.% and 5.%. The counties with the lowest rates of schoolage poverty include: Rock (.%), Arthur (1.1%), Hayes (2.2%), Kearney (3.%), and Phelps (5.2%). These poverty rates should be interpreted with caution due to the low population of school-age children in these counties. As with other categories, the school-age poverty map shows a scattering of high and low poverty rates throughout Nebraska s counties. However, as in the case with child poverty in general, a cluster of schoolage poverty can be identified in the panhandle. With the exception of Kimball, all counties in the panhandle have school-age poverty rates exceeding 15.% (Fig. 9). FIGURE 9. SCHOOL-AGE BY COUNTY: 6-17 YEARS Keya Paha Boyd 39 Dawes 41 167 Sheridan Knox Cedar Dixon Sioux 327 Cherry 274 149 Brown Rock 177 Dakota 39 91 71 Holt 64 Antelope Box Butte 26 Pierce Wayne Thurston 741 145 64 146 61 Scotts Bluff 1128 Morrill Banner 181 Garden 37 29 Kimball Cheyenne 57 293 Deuel 15.% - 1.% 1.1% - 15.% 15.1% - 2.% 2.1% - 3.% 3.1% - 47.1% Grant Hooker Thomas Blaine Loup Madison Cuming Garfield Wheeler Stanton Burt 9 14 2 43 944 256 21 45 172 72 19 Boone Platte Arthur 125 Colfax DodgeWashington McPherson Logan Valley Greeley 837 735 426 1 6 339 72 44 13 Nance Custer Douglas 85 238 15857 Polk Butler Saunders Keith Sherman Howard Merrick 135 361 Sarpy 13 144 14 22 112 3137 Lincoln York Cass 173 297 Hall Perkins Dawson Buffalo Hamilton 2 Seward 42 888 759 1743 184 232 Lancaster 681 Otoe 36 Chase Clay Hayes Frontier Saline Gosper Adams Fillmore Phelps Kearney 88 4 66 37 157 78 782 74 427 JohnsonNemaha 33 8 77 Gage Dundy Hitchcock Furnas Harlan Thayer 48 Pawnee Red Willow Franklin Webster Nuckolls Jefferson Richardson 33 6 245 272 117 7 66 37 115 387 82 122 Note: Numbers within counties indicate the estimated number of residents for the related poverty statistic 9

ELDERLY (65+) The elderly are also especially vulnerable to the effects of poverty, as aging may come with limited mobility, rising healthcare costs, and inability to work due to medical conditions. Where poverty occurs amongst the elderly, the impacts on health and quality of life can be extreme (Herd, House, & Schoeni, 26). However, poverty is less prevalent among the elderly than for any other age group. American Community Survey estimates for 214 place Nebraska s poverty rate at 7.8% for the elderly, versus 12.9% for all other age groups. This pattern also exists nationally: 9.4% for the elderly residents versus 15.6% for all other age groups. In Nebraska, elderly poverty rates tend to be lower in south-central band across the state, close to Interstate 8. As with child poverty, counties with lower population in the peripheral areas tend to have higher poverty rates, due to the relationship between transportation access and economic opportunity. In 214, the areas of high elderly poverty were Rock (17.1%), Thurston (16.4%), Blaine (15.3%), Boyd (15.1%) and Nance (14.9%). The counties with the lowest rates of elderly poverty were Perkins (2.6%), Loup (3.4%), Wayne (3.7%), Nemaha (4.2%), and Sarpy (4.5%) counties (Fig. 1). FIGURE 1. ELDERLY BY COUNTY: 65+ YEARS 78 Dawes Sioux 17 Box Butte 24 Scotts Bluff 481 85 Banner Morrill 9 Kimball Cheyenne 66 125 2.6% - 6.% 6.1% - 8.5% 8.6% - 11.% Sheridan 144 Garden 3 Deuel 5 Grant 11 Arthur 6 Keith 144 Perkins 15 Chase 84 Dundy 44 Keya Paha 24 Cherry Brown Rock 15 65 49 Loup Hooker Thomas Blaine 4 16 13 13 McPherson Logan 12 12 Custer 229 Lincoln 435 Dawson 323 Boyd 79 Knox Cedar Dixon 195 153 8 Holt Dakota 276 21 Antelope Pierce Wayne Thurston 46 167 115 131 StantonCuming 24 Garfield Wheeler Madison 9 Burt 65 17 384 159 Boone Colfax Dodge Washington Valley Greeley 12 Platte 14 554 199 148 68 377 Nance Douglas 97 Butler Saunders 4423 Sherman Howard Polk 19 75 121 Merrick 232 Sarpy 56 675 18 Cass 188 Buffalo Hall Hamilton York 16 88 29 667 177 SewardLancaster 17 Otoe 245 Hayes Frontier Clay Fillmore Saline Gosper Phelps Kearney Adams 12 39 8 23 138 79 344 79 227 Hitchcock Red Willow Furnas Harlan Franklin Webster Nuckolls Thayer Jefferson 8 218 113 55 66 85 93 16 125 Gage 49 JohnsonNemaha 11 51 Pawnee Richardson 78 159 11.1% - 14.% 14.1% - 17.1% Note: Numbers within counties indicate the estimated number of residents for the related poverty statistic 1

COMPARING CHILD, ADULT, AND ELDERLY Comparing elderly poverty rates to child poverty rates reveals some surprising results. A higher proportion of children are in poverty or near poverty than the adults and elderly (who have the lowest rates of poverty or near poverty) (Fig. 11). While Thurston County shows a high poverty rate across all age brackets, poverty rates for Rock and Loup counties are widely contrasting across age brackets; child poverty was virtually non-existent in Rock County (.4%), but the county had an exceedingly high elderly resident poverty rate of 17.1% (the highest elderly poverty rate for all counties in Nebraska). Loup County, on the other hand, was the opposite, with high rates of child poverty and low rates of elderly poverty. Loup was ranked third highest in child poverty with a rate of 39.5% in 214, as well as second highest for school-age poverty at 46.2%. However, Loup had the second lowest rank of poverty among the elderly, with only 3.4% of elderly residents living in poverty (Fig. 8-1). FIGURE 11. RATES OF CHILD, ADULT, AND ELDERLY POPULATIONS PERCENT OF POPULATION IN Deep Poverty Moderate Poverty Near Poverty CHILDREN: UNDER 18 ADULTS: 18-64 ELDERLY: 65+ AGE GROUP AGE GROUP DEEP MODERATE NEAR CHILDREN: UNDER 18 7.% 17.1% 23.% ADULTS: 18-64 5.2% 12.1% 16.% ELDERLY: 65+ 2.1% 7.8% 13.2% 11

MINORITY In the United States, poverty and race intersect in many important ways. According to the National Poverty Center of the University of Michigan, Racial disparities in poverty result from cumulative disadvantage over the life course, as the effects of hardship in one domain spill over into other domains (Lin, 29, p. 1). While various types of disadvantage can be examined in great length, figures from the US Census Bureau are helpful in understanding the extent of the racial disparities in poverty. For the broader United States population, poverty rates were higher for racial/ethnic minorities than non-hispanic whites. For African- Americans and Native Americans nationally, this rate was almost twice that of non-hispanic whites; 27.3% of Black Americans and 28.8% of Native Americans lived in poverty, while only 1.8% of non-hispanic whites lived in poverty. Similarly, 2.7% of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders were in poverty, as well as 24.8% of Hispanic/Latino Americans. Asian poverty rates, at 12.7%, were only slightly higher than non-hispanic white poverty rates at 1.8%. The poverty rates for these last two groups were lower than the total United States poverty rate, 15.6%. The disparity in poverty rates between white and minority groups was even greater in Nebraska. The poverty rate for non-hispanic whites (9.7%) was lower than national figures for the same racial group (1.8%) and was less than the overall state poverty rate of 12.9%. The poverty rate for all other racial groups exceeded the total state poverty rate of 12.9%, and with exception of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, statewide poverty rates exceeded national poverty rates for each racial group. Poverty among Black Nebraskans (33.%) was higher than national figures (27.3%) in 214. For the United States population, poverty rates were higher for racial/ethnic minorities than for non-hispanic whites. An even greater poverty disparity existed for Native American Nebraskans, with a poverty rate of 43.2%. Poverty for Native Americans in Nebraska is much higher than the national 28.8% poverty rate for Native Americans. This was more than four times the rate of poverty for non-hispanic whites (Fig. 12). FIGURE 12. RATE FOR AGE AND RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUPS GROUP NEBRASKA UNITED STATES OVERALL 12.9% 15.6% CHILDREN: UNDER 18 ADULTS: 18-64 ELDERLY: 65+ NON-HISPANIC WHITE AMERICAN INDIAN/ALASKAN NATIVE NATIVE HAWAIIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER HISPANIC/LATINO BLACK ASIAN 17.6% 12.1% 7.8% 9.7% 43.2% 2.3% 26.2% 33.% 16.7% 21.9% 14.6% 9.4% 1.8% 28.8% 2.7% 24.8% 27.3% 12.7% 12

FIGURE 13. RATE OF MINORITIES BY COUNTY Dawes 225 Sioux 9 Box Butte 892 Scotts Bluff 2294 Morrill 136 Banner 16 Kimball Cheyenne 92 375.% - 1.% 1.1% - 2.% 2.1% - 3.% 3.1% - 4.% Sheridan 383 Garden 2 Deuel 85 Keya Paha Boyd 8 8 Cedar Knox 59 Dixon Cherry 418 Brown Rock 217 Dakota 9 29 8 Holt 257 111 Antelope Pierce Wayne Thurston 9 88 96 183 Loup Madison Cuming Grant Hooker Burt Thomas Blaine 19 Garfield Wheeler Stanton 9 5 3 11 1 1927 284 51 55 Boone 27 Platte Colfax Dodge Arthur McPherson Logan Valley Greeley 16 76 31 1343 848 1221 Washington 17 Nance Custer Douglas 5 52 Butler 43633 Polk Saunders Keith Sherman Howard 27 32 Merrick 115 Sarpy 159 39 59 57 3557 Lincoln 181 Dawson York Cass Hall 69 1897 Hamilton Seward Perkins Buffalo 23 181 168 39 5239 Lancaster 114 1314 Otoe 364 Chase Frontier Clay Saline Hayes Phelps Adams Fillmore Gosper Kearney 12 12 19 4 3 7 675 154 57 954 Johnson Nemaha 65 99 Gage Dundy Hitchcock Red Willow Furnas Harlan Franklin Webster Nuckolls Thayer Jefferson Pawnee Richardson 177 2 4 1 11 13 56 36 56 18 112 134 191 4.1% - 89.% Note: Numbers within counties indicate the estimated number of residents for the related poverty statistic Poverty was lower for Asians than other minority groups. Asians in Nebraska have a poverty rate of 16.7%, which is higher than for white Nebraskans (9.7%), but is lower than any other minority group. However, poverty for Asians in Nebraska was higher than the national rate of 12.7%. The poverty rate for Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders was roughly the same nationally and statewide, with poverty rates of 2.7% and 2.3%, respectively. In Nebraska, their poverty rates were roughly double the rates of non-hispanic whites. Hispanic/Latino Nebraskans had slightly higher rates of poverty than Hispanic/Latinos nationally, with poverty rates of 26.2% and 24.8%, respectively. In Nebraska, the poverty rates for Hispanics/ Latinos were more than double the rates of non- Hispanic whites. The map of minority poverty across Nebraska shows rough clusters of higher and lower poverty rates. In 214, minority poverty rates tended to be slightly lower in the east-central area of the state. Many of the counties along the southern border of Nebraska showed higher rates of poverty. The panhandle, as well as the north-central area of the state, showed slightly higher rates of poverty. The counties with the highest rates of minority poverty were Keya Paha (88.9%), Valley (7.4%), Grant (69.2%,), Nuckolls (63.5%), and Thayer (58.6%). The counties with the lowest rates of minority poverty were Hooker (%), Arthur (%), McPherson (%), Kearney (1.8%), and Pawnee (2.7%) (Fig. 13). 13

The map of Hispanic/Latino poverty across Nebraska also shows some discernible clusters of poverty. Although it is difficult to discern a general region of low poverty, high poverty regions include the southeast corner, the northeast corner, and the western portion of the state extending into the panhandle. The counties with the highest rates of Hispanic/Latino poverty were Loup (1.%), Thomas (1.%), Valley (71.2%), Grant (69.2%), and Furnas (67.1%). While these exceedingly high poverty rates are concerning, viewers should keep in mind that very few Hispanic/Latino individuals may live in these counties. For example, Loup, Thomas, and Grant counties were estimated to have only 11, 4, and 13 Hispanic/ Latino residents, respectively. Conversely, eight other counties with small Hispanic/Latino populations (Hooker, Wheeler, Rock, McPherson, Sherman, Kearney, Nance, and Pawnee) were estimated to have Hispanic/ Latino povery rates of.% (Fig. 14). FIGURE 14. RATE OF HISPANIC/LATINOS BY COUNTY 32 Dawes 9 Sioux Box Butte 472 Scotts Bluff 19 Morrill Banner 17 16 Kimball Cheyenne 9 331.% - 1.% 1.1% - 2.% 2.1% - 3.% 3.1% - 4.% 4.1% - 1.% Sheridan 86 Garden 13 Deuel 84 Keya Paha Boyd 5 Knox Cedar Dixon Cherry 44 25 Brown Rock 197 Dakota 47 2 Holt 1532 69 Antelope Pierce Wayne Thurston 72 3 76 128 Madison Cuming Burt Grant Blaine Loup Stanton Hooker Thomas 2 271 1498 9 4 11 3 12 Garfield Wheeler Boone 26 Platte Colfax Dodge Arthur McPherson Logan Valley Greeley 12 42 19 1236 766 197 Washington 1 Nance Custer Butler Douglas 35 17921 Sherman Howard Polk 13 Saunders Keith Merrick 27 Sarpy 123 16 59 1833 Lincoln 42 Cass 799 York 29 Perkins Dawson Buffalo Hall Hamilton Seward 88 35 155 544 4491 21 164 Lancaster Otoe 5517 265 Chase Clay Hayes Frontier Phelps Fillmore Saline Gosper Kearney Adams 111 56 12 141 799 JohnsonNemaha 4 4 13 396 94 29 Gage Dundy Hitchcock Red Willow Furnas Harlan Franklin Webster Nuckolls Pawnee Thayer Jefferson Richardson 89 4 2 8 36 98 4 1 13 63 4 115 Note: Numbers within counties indicate the estimated number of residents for the related poverty statistic 14

KEY POINTS Several key points can be gleaned from current data on poverty in Nebraska. NEBRASKA VS. UNITED STATES Generally, Nebraska poverty rates are lower than the national poverty rates. Whereas 2.4% of the United States population lived at or near poverty levels, in Nebraska that figure was around 17.5% (214). Since 25, Nebraska has had a poverty rate consistently lower than that of the United States. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION Counties with relatively large populations also tended to have the highest number of people in poverty (Douglas, Lancaster, Hall, Buffalo, Madison, Scotts Bluff, Lincoln), but varied in their poverty rates. Despite these counties having the highest number of people in poverty, the counties with the highest poverty rates tended to have relatively small populations. Clusters were identified in the North Central (Loup, Blain, Brown, Keya Paha), West and Northwest (Scotts Bluff, Dawes, Sheridan), Northeast (Thurston, Dakota) and Southeast (Pawnee, Richardson), having proportions higher than the general United States population. Six counties (Thurston, Loup, Sheridan, Dawes, Blaine, and Keya Paha) were in persistent poverty, which we define as having poverty rates higher than the United States general population from 2-214. IN CHILDREN AND THE ELDERLY Poverty rates for children (under age 18) tended to be higher than the rates for the general population. Keya Paha, Thurston, Loup, Box Butte and Richardson counties had the highest rates of childhood poverty. Rock, Arthur, Kearney, Pierce and Phelps counties had the lowest rates of childhood poverty. Mirroring national trends, poverty rates in Nebraska for people 65 and older (7.8%) is lower than for the general population (12.9%). RATES FOR RACIAL/ ETHNIC MINORITIES Generally mirroring national trends, poverty rates for non-hispanic whites in Nebraska were lower than for all racial/ethnic minority groups. In Nebraska, the highest poverty rate was for Native Americans (43.%), followed by African Americans (33.%), Hispanic/Latinos (26.2%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders (2.7%), and Asians (12.7%). In contrast, the poverty for non- Hispanic whites was 9.7%. The geographic distribution of poverty varied in Nebraska depending on the specific ethnic group. Thurston County was in the top five highest poverty counties for every subgroup and is the home of two Native American reservations (Winnebago and Omaha). By understanding the various facets of poverty and its distribution across the state, lawmakers, educators, and responders can be better prepared in addressing issues related to financial challenges and general deprivation. Ultimately, such information is essential towards addressing and improving the quality of the Nebraska population. 15

REFERENCES Fisher, G. M. (28). Remembering Mollie Orshansky the developer of the poverty thresholds. Social Security Bulletin, 68(3), 1-5. Retrieved from: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v68n3/v68n3p79.html. Herd, P., House, J., &. Schoeni, R. (26). Income support policies and health among the elderly. National Poverty Center, 6(27). Retrieved from: http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/workingpaper6/paper27/working_ paper6-27.pdf Hoyakem, Charles and Heggeness, Misty L. (214). Living in near poverty in the United States: 1966-212. US Census Bureau. Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/prod/214pubs/p6-248.pdf Kids Count. (217). Children in extreme poverty (5 percent poverty). Retrieved from: http://datacenter.kidscount. org/data/tables/45-children-in-extreme-poverty-5-percent-poverty#detailed/1/any/false/573,869,36,868,867/ any/325,326 Lin, A. C. (29). Policy brief #6: the colors of poverty: why racial & ethnic disparities persist. The National Poverty Center, University of Michigan. http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief16/ Sabates, R. (28). The impact of lifelong learning on poverty reduction. National Institute of Adult Continuing Education. Retrieved from: http://www.learningandwork.org.uk/lifelonglearninginquiry/docs/public-valuepaper-1.pdf?redirectedfrom=niace United States Census Bureau. 21-214 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. (B172 and S171). American FactFinder. Retrieved from: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml Vanderbilt, A. A., Isringhausen, K. T., Vanderwielen, L. M., Wright, M. S., Slashcheva, L. D., & Madden, M. A. (213). Health disparities among highly vulnerable populations in the United States: a call to action for medical and oral health care. Medical Education Online, 18(1), 2644. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc369999/ 16