Poverty in the United States, Michigan and Metropolitan Detroit: An Analysis of Census 2000

Transcription

1 Center for Urban Studies July 2002 Working Paper Series, No. 9 Poverty in the United States, Michigan and Metropolitan Detroit: An Analysis of Census 2000

2 Center for Urban Studies-July 2002 Working Paper Series, No. 9 Poverty in the United States, Michigan and Metropolitan Detroit: An Analysis of Census 2000 Kurt Metzger Research Director and Jason Booza Geographic Information Specialist Center for Urban Studies Wayne State University Detroit, MI 48202

3 Quick Facts Nationally, Detroit experienced the largest total and percentage decreases in persons living below poverty among the 50 largest cities. Within the tri-county area, Detroit had the largest numerical losses in individuals, families, single female-headed families, and elderly living below poverty. Dearborn had the largest numerical increases in individuals and families living below poverty. Southfield had the largest numerical increase in single female-headed families living below poverty. Sterling Heights experienced the largest numerical increase in elderly living below poverty. Highland Park led all other tri-county communities in the percentage of individuals, families, single female-headed families, elderly and children living below poverty. Introduction The U.S. Census Bureau s release of 2000 Census Demographic Profiles in May and June 2002 brought the first glimpse of a number of social and economic variables for counties, cities, towns, villages, and townships across the United States. These variables represent a summary of the detailed socioeconomic data that will be available with the release of Summary File 3 (SF3) during the late summer and fall of While SF3 will greatly expand the geographic and data coverage, this early release still provides extensive information that can be analyzed to track changes that have occurred since the 1990 Census. Among the variables that are available is poverty. The profile allows one to begin to look at changes in poverty on a number of levels: for individuals overall; for children; working-age adults; the elderly; families with and without children; single-parent families; and related children by age. The 1990s were generally a decade of economic prosperity, culminating in an economy in 1999 that was significantly better than that which existed 10 years earlier. This economic improvement was mirrored by the change in the poverty rates at the national level, but even more so in the Detroit metropolitan area. Like many other midwestern and northeastern industrial cities, Detroit had experienced steady increases in poverty since the 1960s. However, the 1990s reversed this trend as Detroit s poor population decreased by 85,314 persons, or 26%. The purpose of this working paper is to analyze the poverty data contained in this first 2000 Census socioeconomic data release, and compare the changes that have occurred in Detroit with those of the nation s other large cities, as well as other communities in southeast Michigan. In addition, we use this analysis as the basis for posing several important questions that we plan to incorporate into the formulation of a poverty research agenda. We hope that this paper will start a discussion that will lead to the development of a number of research questions to be addressed with the release of SF3. 1

4 Poverty Definition Following the Office of Management and Budget s (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is poor. If a family s total income is less than that family s threshold, then that family, and every individual in it, is considered poor. The poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The official poverty definition counts money income before taxes and does not include capital gains and noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps). Poverty is not defined for people in military barracks, institutional group quarters, or for unrelated individuals under age 15 (such as foster children). They are excluded from the poverty universe that is, they are considered neither poor nor non-poor. 1 In 1999 (the year for which the 2000 Census assesses income), the poverty threshold was $17,029 for a family of four and $8,501 for a one-person household. The threshold for a single parent with child was $11,483. A Word About Poverty While the Decennial Census reports the poverty rate at a point in time (i.e., for calendar year 1999 in the 2000 Census), research by the Census Bureau, using seven different measures of poverty, concludes that being poor in America is a transitory condition for many and a chronic condition for a smaller percentage of the population. According to Mary Naifeh, Most people who experience poverty generally escape it within a few months. 2 Changes in poverty that are detailed in this report may be the result of several factors: 1. The improving economy resulted in lowered unemployment and increased wages. 2. The welfare-to-work initiatives moved many single mothers, and men who had dropped out of the labor force, from public assistance to jobs. 3. Gentrification in urban areas, spurred by the desire of younger professionals for city living, has displaced the poor and moved them to other areas. While the profile data provide us with the broad trends, the dynamics behind these trends will not be discernible until we are able to analyze the detailed geographic and demographic data that will be available with the release of SF3. National Summary According to the 2000 Census, the poverty rate for individuals in the United States decreased between 1989 and 1999 (see Table 1). 3 However, the total number of individuals living below poverty increased by 2,156,948. This seeming contradiction occurred because, while the number of persons living below poverty grew, the population living above poverty increased at a greater rate. Among the four regions, the South had the highest poverty rate (13.9%) and was home to 40 percent of the nation s poor. This compares to the region s 35.6% share of the nation s total population. While highest in the nation, 1999 marked the lowest poverty rate that the South had achieved since the concept of poverty began to be measured by the Census Bureau. The West region led all others in its numerical growth of poor people, which coincides with the fact that it also had the greatest total population increase. The 2

5 Northeast region saw its poverty rate increase more (0.8%) than any other as it added 700,000 poor to its total. The Midwest was the only region to experience a decrease in both the number and rate of persons in poverty, coming in well below the other three regions at 10.2%. One can assume the reasons for the Midwest s turnaround include both its strong economy and the fact that it attracted fewer immigrants than the other regions. Table 1 Persons Below Poverty for the United States by Region, 1969 to Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent United States 27,124, ,392, ,742, ,899, Northeast 4,820, ,342, ,214, ,919, South 12,388, ,284, ,065, ,569, Midwest 5,951, ,009, ,971, ,360, West 3,964, ,755, ,492, ,051, Source: MIMIC analysis of U.S. Census Data, 1970 to As there are disparities in poverty among the regions, so too are there disparities by states, metropolitan areas and cities. Of the 50 largest cities within the United States, New York not only has the largest population but the largest poor population (see Table 2). In fact, this relationship holds true for the five largest cities in the nation. However, the sixth largest poor population belongs to the 10th largest city Detroit due to the fact that its poverty rate is higher than all but four of the other 49 largest cities. While still maintaining a high rate of poverty, Detroit experienced one of the most dramatic changes in poverty (both in number and percent) between 1989 and In 1989, Detroit had the highest percentage of persons living below poverty with 32.4% and had the fifth highest total with 328,467 people. By 1999, Detroit s percentage had decreased to 26.1% as its numbers fell by 85,314. While Detroit led Philadelphia by just more than 15,000 poor in 1989, the tide reversed during the 1990s and, by 1999, Philadelphia led by 93,000. Even when total population change is controlled for, Detroit had the largest share decrease among the 50 largest cities in the United States (see Table 3). 4 Nationally and regionally, Detroit has had the most dramatic decreases in poverty. What is even more significant is the fact that this decrease has held up in all demographic segments total persons, children, the elderly, total families, and single female-headed families. 3

6 Table 2 50 Largest Cities by Total Persons Living Below Poverty, 1989 to 1999 Place Change Percent of Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total New York city, New York 1,384, % 1,668, % 283, % 1.9% Los Angeles city, California 643, % 801, % 157, % 3.2% Chicago city, Illinois 592, % 556, % -35, % -2.0% Houston city, Texas 332, % 369, % 36, % -1.5% Philadelphia city, Pennsylvania 313, % 336, % 22, % 2.6% Phoenix city, Arizona 137, % 205, % 67, % 1.6% San Diego city, California 142, % 172, % 30, % 1.2% Dallas city, Texas 177, % 207, % 29, % -0.2% San Antonio city, Texas 207, % 193, % -13, % -5.3% Detroit city, Michigan 328, % 243, % -85, % -6.3% San Jose city, California 71, % 77, % 6, % -0.5% Indianapolis city (balance), Indiana 89, % 90, % % -0.6% San Francisco city, California 90, % 86, % -3, % -1.4% Jacksonville city, Florida 80, % 87, % 7, % -0.8% Columbus city, Ohio 105, % 102, % -2, % -2.4% Austin city, Texas 80, % 92, % 11, % -3.5% Baltimore city, Maryland 156, % 143, % -12, % 1.0% Memphis city, Tennessee 136, % 130, % -6, % -2.4% Milwaukee city, Wisconsin 135, % 123, % -11, % -0.9% Boston city, Massachusetts 102, % 109, % 7, % 0.8% Washington city, District of Columbia 96, % 109, % 13, % 3.3% El Paso city, Texas 128, % 124, % -4, % -3.1% Seattle city, Washington 61, % 64, % 2, % -0.6% Denver city, Colorado 78, % 77, % % -2.8% Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee 62, % 69, % 6, % -0.1% Charlotte city, North Carolina 42, % 56, % 14, % -0.2% Fort Worth city, Texas 75, % 82, % 7, % -1.5% Portland city, Oregon 62, % 67, % 5, % -1.4% Oklahoma City city, Oklahoma 69, % 79, % 9, % 0.1% Tucson city, Arizona 79, % 86, % 7, % -1.8% New Orleans city, Louisiana 152, % 130, % -21, % -3.7% Las Vegas city, Nevada 29, % 56, % 26, % 0.4% Cleveland city, Ohio 142, % 122, % -19, % -2.4% Long Beach city, California 69, % 103, % 33, % 6.0% Albuquerque city, New Mexico 52, % 59, % 6, % -0.5% Kansas City city, Missouri 65, % 61, % -3, % -1.0% Fresno city, California 83, % 109, % 26, % 2.2% Virginia Beach city, Virginia 22, % 27, % 4, % 0.6% Atlanta city, Georgia 102, % 95, % -6, % -2.9% Sacramento city, California 62, % 79, % 17, % 2.8% Oakland city, California 68, % 76, % 7, % 0.6% Mesa city, Arizona 27, % 35, % 7, % -0.6% Tulsa city, Oklahoma 53, % 54, % % -0.9% Omaha city, Nebraska 41, % 43, % 1, % -1.3% Minneapolis city, Minnesota 65, % 62, % -3, % -1.6% Honolulu CDP, Hawaii 29, % 42, % 12, % 3.4% Miami city, Florida 109, % 100, % -9, % -2.7% Colorado Springs city, Colorado 29, % 30, % % -2.2% St. Louis city, Missouri 95, % 83, % -11, % 0.0% Wichita city, Kansas 37, % 38, % % -1.3% Source: MIMIC analysis of U.S. Census Data, 1990 to

7 Change in Share of Population Place in Poverty Long Beach city, California 6.0% Honolulu CDP, Hawaii 3.4% Washington city, District of Columbia 3.3% Los Angeles city, California 3.2% Sacramento city, California 2.8% Philadelphia city, Pennsylvania 2.6% Fresno city, California 2.2% New York city, New York 1.9% Phoenix city, Arizona 1.6% San Diego city, California 1.2% Baltimore city, Maryland 1.0% Boston city, Massachusetts 0.8% Virginia Beach city, Virginia 0.6% Oakland city, California 0.6% Las Vegas city, Nevada 0.4% Oklahoma City city, Oklahoma 0.1% St. Louis city, Missouri 0.0% Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee -0.1% Dallas city, Texas -0.2% Charlotte city, North Carolina -0.2% San Jose city, California -0.5% Albuquerque city, New Mexico -0.5% Indianapolis city, Indiana -0.6% Seattle city, Washington -0.6% Mesa city, Arizona -0.6% Jacksonville city, Florida -0.8% Milwaukee city, Wisconsin -0.9% Tulsa city, Oklahoma -0.9% Kansas City city, Missouri -1.0% Omaha city, Nebraska -1.3% Wichita city, Kansas -1.3% Portland city, Oregon -1.4% San Francisco city, California -1.4% Houston city, Texas -1.5% Fort Worth city, Texas -1.5% Minneapolis city, Minnesota -1.6% Tucson city, Arizona -1.8% Chicago city, Illinois -2.0% Colorado Springs city, Colorado -2.2% Cleveland city, Ohio -2.4% Columbus city, Ohio -2.4% Memphis city, Tennessee -2.4% Miami city, Florida -2.7% Denver city, Colorado -2.8% Atlanta city, Georgia -2.9% El Paso city, Texas -3.1% Austin city, Texas -3.5% New Orleans city, Louisiana -3.7% San Antonio city, Texas -5.3% Detroit city, Michigan -6.3% Source: MIMIC analysis of U.S. Census Data, 1990 to Table 3 Ranking of 50 Largest Cities by the Change in Share of Persons Living Below Poverty, 1989 to

8 Michigan Michigan, located within the Midwest region of the country, saw poverty decrease significantly in both total and percent of persons below poverty (see Table 4). The rural counties of Isabella, Lake and Houghton had the highest poverty rates in the state. While Lake County is populated by one of the few rural concentrations of African-American populations, Isabella and Houghton statistics are largely influenced by the student populations of Central Michigan and Michigan Technological universities, respectively. While dormitory (group quarters) populations are not counted in the poverty calculations, students living in off-campus housing are. The largest number of poor population is contained in Wayne County by far the largest county in the state. While leading the state in poverty, each of the four counties experienced a decrease in its poverty rate between 1989 and In fact, only nine of Michigan s 83 counties had increases in individual poverty rates (see Table 5). Wayne County, home to the City of Detroit, had the largest decrease in the number of persons in poverty down 85,669 persons. The largest total and percentage increase occurred in Macomb County, one of Wayne County s northern neighbors. Macomb County s poor population rose by 19.3 percent, or 7,128 persons, and its rate went from 5.2 to 5.6 percent. Oakland County, Wayne s other northern neighbor, saw its number of poor increase by 760 persons, while its rate dropped from 6.0 to 5.5 percent. Census Year Total Percent , % , % ,190, % ,021, % Table 4 Persons Below Poverty for Michigan, 1969 to 1999 Source: MIMIC analysis of U.S. Census Data, 1970 to

9 Table 5 Persons Below Poverty for Michigan Counties, 1989 to Change County Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Alcona 1, % 1, % % Alger 1, % % % Allegan 8, % 7, % % Alpena 4, % 3, % % Antrim 2, % 2, % % Arenac 3, % 2, % % Baraga 1, % % % Barry 4, % 3, % -1, % Bay 13, % 10, % -3, % Benzie 1, % 1, % % Berrien 23, % 20, % -3, % Branch 5, % 3, % -1, % Calhoun 18, % 15, % -3, % Cass 5, % 4, % % Charlevoix 2, % 2, % % Cheboygan 3, % 3, % % Chippewa 5, % 4, % % Clare 5, % 4, % % Clinton 3, % 2, % % Crawford 1, % 1, % % Delta 5, % 3, % -1, % Dickinson 2, % 2, % % Eaton 6, % 5, % % Emmet 2, % 2, % % Genesee 70, % 56, % -13, % Gladwin 4, % 3, % -1, % Gogebic 2, % 2, % % Grand Traverse 5, % 4, % % Gratiot 5, % 3, % -1, % Hillsdale 5, % 3, % -1, % Houghton 6, % 5, % -1, % Huron 5, % 3, % -1, % Ingham 43, % 38, % -5, % Ionia 5, % 4, % % Iosco 4, % 3, % % Iron 2, % 1, % % Isabella 12, % 11, % % Jackson 16, % 13, % -3, % Kalamazoo 28, % 27, % -1, % Kalkaska 1, % 1, % % Kent 44, % 49, % 5, % Keweenaw % % % Lake 2, % 2, % % Lapeer 6, % 4, % -1, % Leelanau 1, % 1, % % Lenawee 9, % 6, % -2, % Livingston 4, % 5, % % Luce % % % Mackinac 1, % 1, % % Macomb 36, % 44, % 7, % Manistee 3, % 2, % -1, % Marquette 8, % 6, % -1, % Mason 3, % 3, % % Mecosta 8, % 5, % -2, % Menominee 3, % 2, % % Midland 8, % 6, % -1, % continued on next page 7

10 Table 5, continued, Persons Below Poverty for Michigan Counties, 1989 to Change County Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Missaukee 2, % 1, % % Monroe 11, % 10, % -1, % Montcalm 7, % 6, % -1, % Montmorency 1, % 1, % % Muskegon 23, % 18, % -4, % Newaygo 5, % 5, % % Oakland 64, % 65, % % Oceana 3, % 3, % % Ogemaw 3, % 2, % -1, % Ontonagon 1, % % % Osceola 3, % 2, % % Oscoda 1, % 1, % % Otsego 1, % 1, % % Ottawa 10, % 12, % 1, % Presque Isle 2, % 1, % % Roscommon 3, % 3, % % Saginaw 36, % 28, % -7, % Saint Clair 15, % 12, % -3, % Saint Joseph 6, % 6, % % Sanilac 5, % 4, % -1, % Schoolcraft 1, % 1, % % Shiawassee 7, % 5, % -1, % Tuscola 6, % 4, % -2, % Van Buren 10, % 8, % -2, % Washtenaw 31, % 33, % 1, % Wayne 418, % 332, % -85, % Wexford 3, % 3, % % Source: MIMIC analysis of U.S. Census Data, 1990 to With regard to families living below poverty, only five counties experienced increases during the 1990s (see Table 6). Once again, the largest total increase (653 families) occurred in Macomb County, while the largest total decrease (26,083 families) occurred in Wayne County. Oakland County experienced a decrease of 936 families living below poverty. Much of the decrease in poverty for both families and individuals occurred in urban metropolitan counties, though many of Michigan s rural counties also experienced significant decreases. 8

11 Table 6 Families Below Poverty for Michigan Counties, 1989 to 1999 County Change Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Alcona % % % Alger % % % Allegan 1, % 1, % % Alpena % % % Antrim % % % Arenac % % % Baraga % % % Barry % % % Bay 3, % 2, % -1, % Benzie % % % Berrien 5, % 4, % -1, % Branch 1, % % % Calhoun 4, % 2, % -1, % Cass 1, % % % Charlevoix % % % Cheboygan % % % Chippewa 1, % % % Clare 1, % 1, % % Clinton % % % Crawford % % % Delta 1, % % % Dickinson % % % Eaton 1, % 1, % % Emmet % % % Genesee 16, % 11, % -4, % Gladwin 1, % % % Gogebic % % % Grand Traverse 1, % % % Gratiot 1, % % % Hillsdale 1, % % % Houghton 1, % % % Huron 1, % % % Ingham 7, % 5, % -1, % Ionia 1, % 1, % % Iosco % % % Iron % % % Isabella 1, % % % Jackson 3, % 2, % -1, % Kalamazoo 4, % 3, % -1, % Kalkaska % % % Kent 9, % 9, % % Keweenaw % % % Lake % % % Lapeer 1, % % % Leelanau % % % Lenawee 1, % 1, % % Livingston % 1, % % Luce % % % Mackinac % % % Macomb 7, % 8, % % Manistee % % % Marquette 1, % % % Mason % % % Mecosta 1, % % % Menominee % % % Midland 1, % 1, % % continued on next page 9

12 County Change Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Missaukee % % % Monroe 2, % 1, % % Montcalm 1, % 1, % % Montmorency % % % Muskegon 5, % 3, % -1, % Newaygo 1, % 1, % % Oakland 12, % 12, % % Oceana % % % Ogemaw % % % Ontonagon % % % Osceola % % % Oscoda % % % Otsego % % % Ottawa 1, % 1, % 4 0.2% Presque Isle % % % Roscommon % % % Saginaw 8, % 6, % -2, % Saint Clair 3, % 2, % -1, % Saint Joseph 1, % 1, % % Sanilac 1, % % % Schoolcraft % % % Shiawassee 1, % 1, % % Tuscola 1, % % % Van Buren 2, % 1, % % Washtenaw 4, % 3, % % Wayne 91, % 65, % -26, % Wexford % % % Table 6, continued, Families Below Poverty for Michigan Counties, 1989 to 1999 Source: MIMIC analysis of U.S. Census Data, 1990 to

13 Tri-County Detroit As stated above, while Wayne County had large decreases in both individuals and families in poverty, Macomb County increased in both. Oakland County saw an increase in its number of residents in poverty but a decrease in poor families (see Table 7). The following analysis is a breakdown, by county, of poverty for cities and townships within the tri-county area. Appendix tables 1 through 5 provide the detail for all cities and townships in the three counties. Table 7 Total Poverty for Tri-County Detroit, 1989 to 1999 County Individuals Families Female-Headed Families Elderly (65 years+) Change Change Change Change Macomb County 36,882 44, % 7,879 8, % 4,210 4, % 5,514 6, % Oakland County 64,718 65, % 12,942 12, % 7,415 5, % 8,110 8, % Wayne County 418, , % 91,421 65, % 67,678 43, % 34,275 27, % Source: MIMIC analysis of U.S. Census Data, 1990 to Oakland County While Oakland County increased in individuals living in poverty, it decreased in families and single female-headed families living in poverty. Within Oakland County, the largest total decreases in individual poverty occurred in the cities of Pontiac, Ferndale, Hazel Park and Oak Park (see Appendix 1). Even though these cities decreased in total population between 1990 and 2000, the share of individuals living in poverty showed a greater decrease. These cities also had large decreases in families, single female-headed families, and elderly living in poverty (see Appendix 2 through 4). Even though these cities experienced large decreases in their poverty populations, the county as a whole had an increase of 760 individuals in poverty. Roughly half of Oakland County communities had increases in the number of individuals living below the poverty threshold, with the largest increases occurring in Farmington Hills and Southfield a combined total of 2,447 persons. These cities had similar increases in family and elderly poverty, while Southfield had the greatest increase of all tri-county communities for single female-headed families living in poverty. Child poverty was far and away the highest, in number and percent, in Pontiac: 5,757 children, or 29%. Macomb County Among the three counties, Macomb poverty numbers increased the most for individuals, families, female-headed families and the elderly. Surprisingly, the majority of growth did not occur in older suburbs like Eastpointe, Roseville and Warren but, rather, in the next tier of communities such as Chesterfield Township and Sterling Heights. Chesterfield Township experienced strong population growth (44 percent) in the last decade, while Sterling Heights, which has little developable land remaining, grew by 5.7%. Chesterfield Township s poverty numbers increased for individuals, families and single female-headed families, while Sterling Heights led the county s increase in all three of these categories, as well as in elderly. The largest overall decreases in poverty occurred in Warren. As for children living below poverty, the largest cities had the highest numbers. Warren led all other Macomb communities with 3,099, and was followed at some distance by Sterling Heights at 2,023. However, in terms of percentage, Mount Clemens and Center Line led in share of children in poverty at 20.9 and 18.1 percent, respectively. 11

14 Wayne County Between 1989 and 1999, the number of Wayne County residents in poverty decreased by 20.5%, or 85,669 people. Detroit, the largest city in Wayne County and Michigan, led the state with 85,314 fewer people in poverty. It is important to note that while Detroit lost population during the last decade, its total population loss (76,704) was less than its loss of poor residents. Not only did Detroit have fewer individuals living in poverty, it also had fewer families, single female-headed families, and elderly. While Detroit leads all other communities in the number of poor, Highland Park and Hamtramck had higher percentages across all categories. Dearborn had the largest increase of any community in the tri-county area in the number of families living in poverty (up 977), and the largest increase in Wayne County for individuals living in poverty (up 6,116). 12

15 Conclusion/Discussion If we were to judge the economic prosperity of the tri-county area by the change in poverty, then we would have to conclude that the area did quite well over the last decade. Detroit led the nation in the numerical and percentage decrease of individuals, families and single female-headed families living in poverty. The region and state as a whole also decreased in poverty. However, these results pose a multitude of questions as to the extent, characteristics and causes that underlie them. The following set of questions represent some of the issues that we hope to explore further as more detailed data become available. We offer these up for other academics, politicians and policy makers to address as well. What is the role of welfare to work in reducing poverty rates? Have people moved from poverty to working poor? Have all racial and ethnic groups experienced similar changes in poverty? What role has changing family structure played? Why have cities like Detroit experienced declines in poverty, while cities like Sterling Heights have experienced growth? What role has immigration played in the poverty rates of cities? What is the pattern among the various age cohorts? Have economic conditions in 1989 and 1999 overstated the improvement? What changes have occurred since the census was taken as the economy has eroded and unemployment has increased? Urban researchers, such as William Julius Wilson, Douglas Massey and Paul Jarkgowski, have spent the last few decades trying to explain the increase in urban poverty and, more importantly, concentrated minority poverty, often using Detroit as their prime example. However, the latest census data show that Detroit s poverty has decreased dramatically. Are factors such as decreasing teenage birth rates, welfare to work, economic restructuring and neighborhood segregation playing an increasingly significant role in turning the problem around? Is this a harbinger of better things to come or merely a temporary reversal of a long-term trend? The answers will only come with more data and further research. The Center for Urban Studies plans to play an important role in this research agenda. 13

16 Footnotes 1 Dalaker, Joseph and Bernadette D. Proctor, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series P60-210, Poverty in the United States: 1999, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, Naifeh, Mary, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P70-63, Dynamics of Well-Being, Poverty : Trap Door? Revolving Door? Or Both? U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, The U.S. Census Bureau collects poverty decennially with the U.S. Census and annually with the Current Population Survey. For the purpose of this working paper, we are only including decennial census data because it is more comparable to previous census data. Economic measures are sensitive to yearly business cycles (farming, construction) and fluctuations in the national economy which is why we want to compare data that is collected in the same manner. 4 Change in Share of Population is the difference in percentage of population between 1989 and 1999 figures. For example, Detroit s poverty percentage was 32.4% in 1989 and 26.1% in 1999, which equates to a negative 6.3 percentage point difference. This means that not only did Detroit s poor population decrease, but also the poor population held a 6.3% smaller share of the total population. This calculation controls for total population change in cities. 14

17 Appendices Appendix 1 Individuals Living Below Poverty by Tri-County City Change Change in Share of Community Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Population Addison township % % % 1.5% Allen Park city 1, % % % -0.1% Armada township % % % -1.6% Auburn Hills city 1, % 1, % 0 0.0% -1.1% Belleville city % % % 0.9% Berkley city % % % -0.1% Birmingham city % % % 0.6% Bloomfield Hills city % % % -0.5% Bloomfield township % 1, % % 1.1% Brandon township % % % -0.6% Brownstown township 2, % 1, % % -4.0% Bruce township % % % -4.5% Canton township 2, % 2, % % -1.1% Center Line city % 1, % % 4.8% Chesterfield township 1, % 1, % % 0.4% Clarkston village % % 2 5.7% 0.2% Clawson city % % % -0.2% Clinton township 4, % 5, % % 0.2% Commerce township % 1, % % -0.1% Dearborn city 9, % 15, % 6, % 5.3% Dearborn Heights city 3, % 3, % % 0.6% Detroit city 328, % 243, % -85, % -6.3% East Detroit city 1, % 2, % % 1.5% Ecorse city 3, % 2, % % -4.3% Farmington city % % % -0.3% Farmington Hills city 2, % 3, % 1, % 1.1% Ferndale city 2, % 1, % % -2.5% Flat Rock city % % % -4.4% Fraser city % % % -1.2% Garden City city 1, % 1, % % 0.2% Gibraltar city % % % -0.7% Grosse Ile township % % % 0.3% Grosse Pointe city % % % 0.7% Grosse Pointe Farms city % % % 0.8% Grosse Pointe Park city % % % -0.6% Grosse Pointe Shores village % % % 2.4% Grosse Pointe Woods city % % % 0.7% Groveland township % % % 2.9% Hamtramck city 5, % 5, % % -1.5% Harper Woods city % % % 0.7% Harrison township 1, % 1, % % 0.6% Hazel Park city 2, % 2, % % -1.8% Highland Park city 8, % 6, % -2, % -4.1% Highland township % 1, % % 0.8% Holly township % % % -1.5% Huntington Woods city % % % 0.5% Huron township % % % 1.2% Independence township % % % 0.4% Inkster city 7, % 5, % -1, % -3.7% Keego Harbor city % % % -7.7% Lake Angelus city 2 0.6% 4 1.2% % 0.6% Lathrup Village city % % % -0.1% Lenox township % % % -2.8% Lincoln Park city 3, % 3, % % -0.8% Livonia city 2, % 3, % % 0.6% continued on next page 15

18 Appendix 1, continued, Individuals Living Below Poverty by Tri-County City Change Change in Share of Community Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Population Lyon township % % % 1.9% Macomb township % 1, % % -0.6% Madison Heights city 2, % 2, % % 0.5% Melvindale city 1, % 1, % % -0.7% Memphis city % % % 0.8% Milford township % % % 1.0% Mount Clemens city 2, % 2, % % 2.2% New Baltimore city % % % -4.5% Northville city % % % -1.4% Northville township % % % 0.9% Novi city 1, % 1, % % -1.1% Novi township 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% Oak Park city 3, % 2, % % -1.5% Oakland Charter township % % % -0.4% Orchard Lake Village city % % % -3.4% Orion township % 1, % % -0.7% Oxford township % % % -2.7% Pleasant Ridge city % % % -2.1% Plymouth city % % % -1.3% Plymouth township % % % 0.4% Pontiac city 18, % 14, % -3, % -4.6% Ray township % % % -3.5% Redford township 2, % 2, % % 1.0% Richmond city % % % 2.0% Richmond township % % % -0.2% River Rouge city 3, % 2, % -1, % -6.5% Riverview city % % % -2.0% Rochester city % % % -2.0% Rochester Hills city 1, % 2, % % 0.8% Rockwood city % % % -4.6% Romulus city 2, % 2, % % -0.3% Rose township % % % 1.4% Roseville city 3, % 3, % % 1.7% Royal Oak city 2, % 2, % % -0.3% Royal Oak township 1, % 1, % % -1.6% Shelby township 1, % 2, % 1, % 0.9% South Lyon city % % % -1.3% Southfield city 4, % 5, % 1, % 1.6% Southfield township % % % 0.8% Southgate city 1, % 1, % % 0.0% Springfield township % % % 1.3% St. Clair Shores city 2, % 2, % % 0.1% Sterling Heights city 4, % 6, % 2, % 1.6% Sumpter township % 1, % % 2.4% Sylvan Lake city % % % -1.1% Taylor city 8, % 7, % -1, % -1.1% Trenton city % % % 0.9% Troy city 2, % 2, % % -0.1% Utica city % % % 0.2% Van Buren township 1, % 1, % % -0.9% Walled Lake city % % % -3.4% Warren city 9, % 10, % % 0.9% Washington township % % % -1.5% Waterford township 3, % 3, % % -0.2% Wayne city 1, % 1, % % -0.5% continued on next page 16

19 Appendix 1, continued, Individuals Living Below Poverty by Tri-County City Change Change in Share of Community Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Population West Bloomfield township % 1, % % 0.9% Westland city 5, % 5, % % -0.3% White Lake township % % % -1.3% Wixom city % % % 1.9% Woodhaven city % % % -0.3% Wyandotte city 2, % 1, % -1, % -3.5% Source: MIMIC analysis of U.S. Census Data, 1990 to

20 Appendix 2 Families Living Below Poverty by Tri- County City Change Change in Share of Community Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Population Addison township % % % 0.8% Allen Park city % % % -0.3% Armada township % % % -1.2% Auburn Hills city % % % -2.2% Belleville city % % % 1.1% Berkley city % % % 0.1% Birmingham city % % 3 3.8% 0.1% Bloomfield Hills city % % % 0.5% Bloomfield township % % % 0.6% Brandon township % % 3 2.5% -0.6% Brownstown township % % % -5.1% Bruce township % % % -3.5% Canton township % % % -1.3% Center Line city % % % 4.6% Chesterfield township % % % 0.3% Clarkston village 5 1.8% 6 2.2% % 0.4% Clawson city % % % -0.6% Clinton township 1, % 1, % % -0.3% Commerce township % % % 0.0% Dearborn city 1, % 2, % % 4.0% Dearborn Heights city % % % 0.4% Detroit city 71, % 47, % -23, % -7.3% East Detroit city % % 9 2.5% 0.5% Ecorse city % % % -8.3% Farmington city % % % -0.4% Farmington Hills city % % % 0.7% Ferndale city % % % -1.2% Flat Rock city % % % -4.6% Fraser city % % % -0.9% Garden City city % % % 0.3% Gibraltar city % % % -0.3% Grosse Ile township % % % -0.3% Grosse Pointe city % % % 1.3% Grosse Pointe Farms city % % % 0.4% Grosse Pointe Park city % % % -0.3% Grosse Pointe Shores village 0 0.0% % 23 (x) 2.7% Grosse Pointe Woods city % % % 0.5% Groveland township % % % 0.3% Hamtramck city 1, % 1, % 7 0.6% -1.2% Harper Woods city % % % -0.5% Harrison township % % % -0.3% Hazel Park city % % % -2.3% Highland Park city 1, % 1, % % -6.5% Highland township % % 4 2.0% -0.3% Holly township % % % -2.3% Huntington Woods city % % % 0.4% Huron township % % % -0.5% Independence township % % % 0.5% Inkster city 1, % 1, % % -4.4% Keego Harbor city % % % -9.5% Lake Angelus city 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% Lathrup Village city % % % -0.8% Lenox township % % % -5.3% Lincoln Park city % % % -0.1% Livonia city % % % 0.3% continued on next page 18

21 Appendix 2, continued, Families Living Below Poverty by Tri-County City Change Change in Share of Community Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Population Lyon township % % % 2.0% Macomb township % % % -1.1% Madison Heights city % % % 0.1% Melvindale city % % % -2.6% Memphis city % % % 0.7% Milford township % % % 0.7% Mount Clemens city % % % 1.9% New Baltimore city % % % -5.6% Northville city % % % -0.4% Northville township % % % 0.4% Novi city % % % -0.6% Novi township 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% Oak Park city % % % -0.6% Oakland Charter township % % % 0.3% Orchard Lake Village city 7 1.1% 4 0.6% % -0.5% Orion township % % % -1.4% Oxford township % % % -2.6% Pleasant Ridge city % 9 1.2% % -1.4% Plymouth city % % % -0.9% Plymouth township % % % 0.1% Pontiac city 4, % 2, % -1, % -6.1% Ray township % % % -3.9% Redford township % % % 0.3% Richmond city % % % 1.2% Richmond township % % % 0.3% River Rouge city % % % -10.0% Riverview city % % % -2.7% Rochester city % % % -1.6% Rochester Hills city % % % 0.6% Rockwood city % % % -5.2% Romulus city % % % -1.3% Rose township % % % 0.7% Roseville city % % % 1.2% Royal Oak city % % % -0.9% Royal Oak township % % % -1.5% Shelby township % % % 0.6% South Lyon city % % % -1.0% Southfield city % 1, % % 2.3% Southfield township % % % 0.7% Southgate city % % % -0.7% Springfield township % % % -0.3% St. Clair Shores city % % % 0.0% Sterling Heights city % 1, % % 1.2% Sumpter township % % % 1.8% Sylvan Lake city 9 1.7% 3 0.6% % -1.1% Taylor city 2, % 1, % % -2.1% Trenton city % % % 0.8% Troy city % % % -0.3% Utica city % % % -0.4% Van Buren township % % % -0.6% Walled Lake city % % % -4.7% Warren city 2, % 1, % % 0.1% Washington township % % % -1.8% Waterford township % % % 0.1% Wayne city % % % -0.6% continued on next page 19

22 Appendix 2, continued, Families Living Below Poverty by Tri-County City Change Change in Share of Community Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Population West Bloomfield township % % % 0.5% Westland city 1, % 1, % % -0.9% White Lake township % % % -1.0% Wixom city % % % 3.0% Woodhaven city % % % -1.5% Wyandotte city % % % -3.3% Source: MIMIC analysis of U.S. Census Data, 1990 to

23 Appendix 3 Single Mother Families Living Below Poverty by Tri-County City Change Change in Share of Community Number Percent Total Percent Total Percent Population Addison township % % % -5.7% Allen Park city % % % -5.5% Armada township % % % -3.6% Auburn Hills city % % % -7.5% Belleville city 5 5.2% % % 5.3% Berkley city % % % 4.0% Birmingham city % % % 1.6% Bloomfield Hills city % % % 11.0% Bloomfield township % % % 3.2% Brandon township % % % -6.8% Brownstown township % % % -11.1% Bruce township % % % -7.7% Canton township % % % -7.7% Center Line city % % % 5.8% Chesterfield township % % % -2.2% Clarkston village % % 0 0.0% 2.8% Clawson city % % % -3.6% Clinton township % % % -5.6% Commerce township % % % 4.2% Dearborn city % % % 1.6% Dearborn Heights city % % % 2.9% Detroit city 55, % 34, % -21, % -16.2% East Detroit city % % % -2.8% Ecorse city % % % -19.2% Farmington city % 6 2.2% % -2.4% Farmington Hills city % % % -1.7% Ferndale city % % % -8.0% Flat Rock city % % % -4.7% Fraser city % % % -4.6% Garden City city % % 7 5.3% -1.2% Gibraltar city % % % -19.3% Grosse Ile township % % % -5.2% Grosse Pointe city 8 7.5% 6 3.4% % -4.1% Grosse Pointe Farms city 5 1.4% % % 5.8% Grosse Pointe Park city % % % 1.8% Grosse Pointe Shores village 0 0.0% % 5 (x) 12.5% Grosse Pointe Woods city % % % 5.1% Groveland township % % % -22.1% Hamtramck city % % % -7.3% Harper Woods city % % % -4.9% Harrison township % % % -0.8% Hazel Park city % % % -11.4% Highland Park city 1, % % % -16.7% Highland township % % % -7.7% Holly township % % % -0.5% Huntington Woods city % % % 3.1% Huron township % % % -3.1% Independence township % % % -1.1% Inkster city 1, % % % -12.4% Keego Harbor city % % % -27.1% Lake Angelus city 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% Lathrup Village city 7 9.1% 0 0.0% % -9.1% Lenox township % % % -23.2% Lincoln Park city % % % -1.7% Livonia city % % % -1.8% continued on next page 21

24 Appendix 3, continued, Single Mother Families Living Below Poverty by Tri-County City Change Change in Share of Community Number Percent Total Percent Total Percent Population Lyon township % % % 1.1% Macomb township % % % 0.5% Madison Heights city % % % -11.6% Melvindale city % % % -13.3% Memphis city % % % -13.7% Milford township % % % -0.3% Mount Clemens city % % % 1.8% New Baltimore city % 6 3.0% % -28.2% Northville city % % % -2.2% Northville township % % % 9.8% Novi city % % % -0.5% Novi township 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% Oak Park city % % % -3.4% Oakland Charter township % % % -1.0% Orchard Lake Village city % 0 0.0% % -12.5% Orion township % % % -8.4% Oxford township % % % -7.6% Pleasant Ridge city 0 0.0% 9 9.2% 9 (x) 9.2% Plymouth city % % % -8.4% Plymouth township % % 3 9.1% 0.6% Pontiac city 2, % 1, % -1, % -15.8% Ray township 5 8.3% % 0 0.0% 11.7% Redford township % % % -2.0% Richmond city % % % 4.3% Richmond township % % % -0.2% River Rouge city % % % -22.6% Riverview city % % % -10.8% Rochester city % 0 0.0% % -7.3% Rochester Hills city % % % 3.8% Rockwood city % 6 4.0% % -29.8% Romulus city % % % -9.3% Rose township 6 6.7% % % 10.4% Roseville city % % % 0.3% Royal Oak city % % % -5.1% Royal Oak township % % % 0.4% Shelby township % % % 0.5% South Lyon city % % % 0.5% Southfield city % % % 0.5% Southfield township % % 0 0.0% 0.8% Southgate city % % % -6.1% Springfield township % % 0 0.0% -5.0% St. Clair Shores city % % % 1.1% Sterling Heights city % % % 0.4% Sumpter township % % % -9.5% Sylvan Lake city 5 8.3% 0 0.0% % -8.3% Taylor city 1, % 1, % % -7.4% Trenton city % % 4 3.2% -1.1% Troy city % % % -3.9% Utica city % % % 4.1% Van Buren township % % 2 1.1% -3.6% Walled Lake city % % % -18.4% Warren city 1, % % % -4.0% Washington township % % % -6.2% Waterford township % % % -1.6% Wayne city % % % -7.5% continued on next page 22