STUDY OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP - Issue Lab

STUDY OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP

ALICE®

ASSET LIMITED, INCOME CONSTRAINED, EMPLOYED

Winter 2014

UnitedWayALICE.org/California

ALICE RESEARCHAbout Rutgers University-Newark’s School of Public Affairs and Administration (SPAA)In developing the ALICE Project, United Way has partnered with Rutgers University-Newark’s School of Public Affairs and Administration (SPAA), an educational leader in government and non-profit management and governance. Ranked 10th nationally in public management and administration, SPAA promotes an ethics-based performance approach to effective, equitable, and accountable policy implementation through its innovative and comprehensive undergraduate, professional and graduate degrees and certificate programs. The school’s faculty generates knowledge and best practices in public service and administration, and collaborates with public and nonprofit sector organizations and professionals throughout the U.S. and the world. Guided by the principles of knowledge, competence, diversity, and service – with an emphasis on public service values and competencies for effective performance – SPAA promotes accountability, transparency, and performance in the public and nonprofit sectors.

The ALICE Research TeamStephanie Hoopes Halpin, Ph.D., assistant professor at the School of Public Affairs and Administration, Rutgers-Newark, and lead researcher and author of the United Way ALICE Report

Assisted by:Jeff Backstrand, Ph.D.Joanne DickQuintus Jett, Ph.D.Cynthia Stein LessickJyoti PunjabiKelly Robinson, Ph.D.Minglu Wang, M.A.Jonathan WoolleyandMarc Holzer, Ph.D., Founding Dean, Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, School of Public Affairs and Administration, Rutgers-Newark

NATIONAL ALICE ADVISORY COUNCILThe following companies are major funders and supporters of the United Way ALICE Project.

AT&T | Atlantic Health System | Deloitte | Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation | UPS

THE ALICE PROJECT

United Way is committed to ensuring that our communities are viable places to live and work. To do that, we promote current research, community dialogue, and data-driven policy solutions. These elements form the basis of one of United Way’s broadest and fastest-growing initiatives – the ALICE Project.

ALICE was coined by United Way in 2009 after a pilot research project looked at the low-income population in affluent Morris County, one of the five founding communities which merged in 2011 to become United Way of Northern New Jersey. The original study focused primarily on data from 2007, largely before the effects of the economic downturn, known as the Great Recession, were widespread.

The value of this research was immediately evident: ALICE became a part of the common vernacular in Morris County, helping define a need and a focus for United Way’s work. ALICE also began to appear in many grant applications, in the media, and in public forums discussing need in this “wealthy” community.

It quickly became clear that ALICE extended far beyond the borders of Morris County. In 2011 United Way commissioned a second ALICE study looking at all counties in New Jersey. That Report relied primarily on data collected in 2007 and 2010, measuring the impact of the Great Recession and offering a broader illustration of the challenges ALICE households face.

The Report’s findings were stark: fully 30 percent of New Jersey households earned too little to provide basic necessities, and more than half the state’s jobs paid less than $20 an hour.

With the forecast for low-wage jobs to continue to dominate the job market, the reality is that ALICE will continue to play an integral role in our communities for the foreseeable future. That is why ALICE has become a central part of all aspects of United Way’s work.

Now the ALICE Project has expanded, to better understand economic disparity in California, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, and New Jersey. The baseline information established in New Jersey’s 2012 study allows these new Reports to compare our progress as the country’s economic conditions continue to change and, in some cases, improve.

We challenge stakeholders in every state to consider the ALICE Reports and their measures as an opportunity for a new dialogue around how to make our communities viable places to live and work. As more and more states embrace ALICE, our hope is that this Report and its companions can serve as a model for the nation.

Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed Though we have chosen a woman’s name, this population is comprised of households with men and women alike, and includes children and seniors.

ALICE

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ��1

INTRODUCTION ��6

I� WHO IS STRUGGLING IN CALIFORNIA? ��9Measure 1 – The ALICE Threshold

II� HOW COSTLY IS IT TO LIVE IN CALIFORNIA? ��30Measure 2 – The Household Budget: Survival vs. Stability

III� WHERE DOES ALICE WORK? HOW MUCH DOES ALICE EARN AND SAVE? ��35

IV� HOW MUCH INCOME AND ASSISTANCE IS NEEDED TO REACH THE ALICE THRESHOLD? ��43Measure 3 – The ALICE Income Assessment

V� WHAT ARE THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS FOR ALICE HOUSEHOLDS IN CALIFORNIA? ��48Measure 4 – The Economic Viability Dashboard

VI� THE CONSEQUENCES OF INSUFFICIENT HOUSEHOLD INCOME ��58

CONCLUSION – FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR ALICE HOUSEHOLDS ��74

APPENDIX A – INCOME INEQUALITY IN CALIFORNIA ��87

APPENDIX B – THE ALICE THRESHOLD: METHODOLOGY ��88

APPENDIX C – THE HOUSEHOLD SURVIVAL BUDGET: METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES ��91

APPENDIX D – THE HOUSEHOLD STABILITY BUDGET: METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES ��93

APPENDIX E – THE ALICE INCOME ASSESSMENT: METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES ��95

APPENDIX F – THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY DASHBOARD: METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES ��98

APPENDIX G – HOUSING DATA BY COUNTY ��100

APPENDIX H – PUBLIC USE MICRODATA AREAS (PUMA) BY INCOME ��102

APPENDIX I – KEY FACTS AND ALICE STATISTICS FOR CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALITIES ��114

APPENDIX J – ALICE COUNTY PAGES ��129

BIBLIOGRAPHY ��189

ALIC

E IN

CAL

IFOR

NIA

1UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“California faced difficult economic times during the Great Recession. Yet the official California poverty rate of 15 percent obscures the true magnitude of financial instability in the state.”

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYAcross California, 46 percent of households struggle to afford the basic necessities of housing, child care, food, health care, and transportation.

Despite its diverse and growing population and the wealth of both the high-tech industry in Silicon Valley and the film and television industry in Hollywood, California faced difficult economic times during the Great Recession. Yet the official California poverty rate of 15 percent obscures the true magnitude of financial instability in the state. The official U.S. poverty rate, which was developed in 1965, has not been updated since 1974, and is not adjusted to reflect cost of living differences across the U.S. A lack of accurate measurements at the county and metropolitan levels and even language to frame a discussion about poverty has made it difficult for states – including California – to identify the full extent of the economic challenges that so many of their residents face.

This Report presents four groundbreaking instruments that measure the size and condition of households struggling financially, and it introduces the term ALICE – Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. The Report includes findings on households that earn below the ALICE Threshold, a level based on the actual cost of basic household necessities in each county in California. It outlines the role of ALICE households in the state economy, the public resources spent on households in crisis, and the implications of struggling households for the wider community.

Using the realistic measures of the financial survival threshold for each county in California, the Report reveals a far larger problem than previously identified. California has 1.88 million households with income below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) but also has 3.9 million ALICE households, which have income above the FPL but below the ALICE Threshold. These numbers are staggering: in total, 5.78 million households in California – fully 46 percent, more than triple the number previously thought – are struggling to support themselves.

ALICE households are working households; they hold jobs, pay taxes, and provide services that are vital to the California economy in a variety of positions such as retail salespeople, office workers, laborers and movers, and farm workers. The core issue is that these jobs do not pay enough to afford the basics of housing, child care, food, health care, and transportation. Moreover, the growth of low-skilled jobs is projected to outpace that of medium- and high-skilled jobs into the next decade. At the same time, the cost of basic household necessities continues to rise.

There are serious consequences for both ALICE households and their communities when these households cannot afford the basic necessities. ALICE households are forced to make difficult choices such as skipping preventative health care, accredited child care, healthy food, or car insurance. These “savings” threaten their health, safety, and future – and they reduce California’s economic productivity and raise insurance premiums and taxes for everyone. The costs are high for both ALICE families and the wider community.

2 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“All counties in California have more than 34 percent of households living below the ALICE Threshold.”

MAJOR FINDINGSWho is ALICE?Forty-six percent of households in California struggle to afford basic household necessities. Based on the most recent data from 2012, 1.88 million households live in poverty and another 3.9 million are ALICE households. Between the two categories, 5.78 million households in California have income below the ALICE Threshold.

ALICE households exist in all age groups. ALICE exists even in households headed by someone in their prime earning years, 25 to 64 years old. In fact, this age group represents the largest segment of ALICE households, underscoring the fact that most jobs in California do not pay enough to allow families to afford the most basic household budget.

ALICE and poverty-level households are spread across all counties in California. All counties in California have more than 34 percent of households living below the ALICE Threshold. In addition, most cities or towns (83 percent) have more than 30 percent of households living below the ALICE Threshold. California’s five largest cities – including Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Jose – have more than 38 percent of households with income below the ALICE Threshold.

ALICE households represent a cross-section of California’s population. Contrary to some stereotypes, ALICE households have a wide range of demographic compositions. As in California’s overall population, more than 67 percent of the state’s ALICE households are White (U.S. Census terminology). However, due to wage discrepancies that disproportionately affect certain groups, it is not surprising to find female-headed households, Blacks, Hispanics, people living with a disability, and unskilled recent immigrants over-represented in the population living below the ALICE Threshold.

What is the gap between ALICE’s household income and the cost of basic expenses?ALICE households are working or have worked. Yet having a job is not a guarantee ofsufficient income: eighty percent of California families with a worker have income belowthe ALICE Threshold. Overall, ALICE and poverty-level households earn only 44 percent of the income needed to reach the ALICE Threshold for basic economic survival.

Public and private assistance is not enough to lift ALICE households to economic stability. The income of ALICE and poverty-level households in California is supplemented with $102 billion in government, nonprofit, and health care resources. Despite this assistance, ALICE and poverty-level households remain 24 percent short of the income needed to reach the ALICE Threshold.

What causes the prevalence of ALICE households?The cost of basic household expenses in California is more than most jobs can support. California’s cost of living is beyond what most jobs in the state can provide to working households. The annual Household Survival Budget for the average California family of four is $56,328 and for a single adult is $21,084. These numbers highlight the inadequacy of the U.S. poverty rate as a measure of economic viability, at $23,050 for a family and $11,170 for a single adult. The annual Household Stability Budget – one that enables not just survival, but self-sufficiency in California – is almost double the cost of the Household Survival Budget for a family of four at $98,927, and for a single adult it is $29,592.

3UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Jobopportunitiesand communitysupport worsenedand housingaffordabilityremainedchallenging in all counties in California through the Great Recession.”

California became less affordable from 2007 to 2012. Despite the Great Recession and the low rate of inflation, the cost of basic housing, child care, transportation, food, and health care in California increased by 13 percent during this 5-year period.

Economic conditions worsened for ALICE households from 2007 to 2012. Jobopportunities and community support worsened and housing affordability remainedchallenging in all counties in California through the Great Recession as measured by theEconomic Viability Dashboard, a new index that tracks these three economic measures.Two years after the end of the Recession, conditions have improved slightly but not to 2007levels. Finding both housing affordability and job opportunities in the same location remainsa challenge for ALICE households.

California’s housing stock does not match current needs. Across the state, there are not enough rental units that are affordable: there are 62 percent more ALICE and poverty renters than there are rental units that they can afford. In addition, while there are manyhousing units where ALICE households can afford the mortgage, these households oftenlack sufficient resources for a down payment or do not qualify for a mortgage.

What are the consequences of insufficient income for ALICE families and their communities?To manage their day-to-day survival, ALICE households often utilize short-term strategies that are detrimental in the long run. When ALICE households do not have enough income, they have to make difficult choices to reduce their expenses. For example, if a family cannot afford child care in an accredited facility, they may substitute with an overworked neighbor or an inexperienced relative, jeopardizing their child’s safety and learning opportunities. Other short-term strategies such as skipping preventative health care, home maintenance, or a bill payment may have long-term consequences such as poor health, fines, and larger bills in the future.

Working families with children are struggling in California. Families with childrencomprise 53 percent of all families in California. Of these, 93 percent are families with atleast one worker, yet 61 percent have income below the ALICE Threshold.

ALICE households pay more for goods and services. ALICE households face higher expenses from both basic cost of living increases and the use of alternative financial products to finance routine and extraordinary expenses. Through the Great Recession, despite the low inflation and the decrease in cost of most goods and services, the cost of basic household necessities continued to rise. Without access to mainstream borrowing, many ALICE households in California resort to using riskier, more expensive financial options, such as “Buy Here Pay Here” car loans.

The whole community suffers when ALICE has insufficient income. When ALICE children are not ready for school, they add a burden to the educational system. When ALICE households cannot afford preventative health care, they are more likely to place future burdens on the health care system, increasing insurance premiums for all. When ALICE workers cannot afford an emergency, let alone invest in their neighborhood, communities may experience instability, higher taxes, or a decline in economic growth.

4 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“At least one-third of California’s ALICE households currently include caregivers – family members caring for ill or elderly relatives. That number will increase as the population ages.”

What challenges do ALICE households face in the future?In line with the national trend, low-income jobs dominate the economy in California now and will continue to dominate in the future. As a result of changes in the job market nationally over the last three decades, the California economy is now more dependent on low-paying service jobs than on higher-skilled and higher-paying jobs. Fifty-seven percent of all jobs in California pay less than $20 per hour ($40,000 per year if full-time).

Occupations with projected job growth have low wages and require minimal education. The most projected new job openings are in service jobs with wages below $20 per hour and requiring a high school education or less. These jobs – including retail salespeople, office clerks, food preparation workers, laborers and movers, and personal care aides – are projected to grow at double or triple the rate of medium- and high-skilled jobs over the next decade across California.

More seniors will become ALICE households. Though California is often viewed as a young state, the number of Californians age 65 or older is expected to increase by 75.4 percent between 2000 and 2020, and the ratio of retirees to taxpaying workers will increase from 21.6 seniors per 100 workers to 36 per 100 workers. And as they become seniors, many of California’s residents who used their savings and retirement accounts to weather the economic downturn will also fall below the ALICE Threshold.

More ALICE households will become family caregivers. At least one-third of California’s ALICE households currently include caregivers – family members caring for ill or elderly relatives. That number will increase as the population ages, adding additional burdens to their household budget in both direct costs and lost wages, and reducing future employment opportunities.

ALICE households are vulnerable to natural disasters. ALICE households are more vulnerable than households with higher incomes because they do not have the resources to prepare for or recover from inevitable natural disasters, including floods, droughts, wildfires, and earthquakes.

What would improve the economic situation for ALICE households? Public and private intervention can provide short-term financial stability. Short-term intervention by family, employers, nonprofits, and government can mitigate crises for financially unstable households and possibly prevent an economic spiral downward. For example, providing a month’s worth of food for a family may enable a father to repair a car transmission and get to work. If a family’s primary earner cannot get to work, he might lose wages or even his job. Without regular income, the family cannot afford rent or mortgage payments and risks becoming homeless.

Increasing the amount of housing that ALICE can afford without being housing burdened would provide stability for many California families. The cost of housing is especially high in many parts of California, and the units that are affordable to ALICE households are often far from jobs or in disrepair. Structural and zoning changes that make quality affordable housing more available or accessible would ease the housing burden on many California families.

5UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Improving California’s economy and meeting ALICE’s challenges are linked: improvement for one would directly benefit the other.”

An improvement in income opportunities would enable ALICE households to afford basic necessities, build savings, and become financially independent. Reducing the number of ALICE households requires a significant increase in the wages of current jobs or in the number of medium- and high-skilled jobs in both the public and private sectors in California. Structural economic changes would significantly improve the prospects for ALICE and enable hardworking households to support themselves.

Improving California’s economy and meeting ALICE’s challenges are linked: improvement for one would directly benefit the other. The tools presented in this Report provide the means for California stakeholders – policy makers, community leaders, and business leaders – to better understand the magnitude and variety of households facing financial hardship. These tools, and the enhanced understanding that they provide, can make more effective change possible.

ALICE is an acronym that stands for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed, comprising households with income above the Federal Poverty Level but below the basic cost of living.

The Household Survival Budget calculates the actual costs of basic necessities (housing, child care, food, health care, and transportation) in California, adjusted for different counties and household types.

The ALICE Threshold is the average level of income that a household needs to afford the basics defined by the Household Survival Budget for each county in California. (Please note that unless otherwise noted in this Report, households earning less than the ALICE Threshold include both ALICE and poverty-level households.)

The Household Stability Budget is greater than the basic Household Survival Budget and reflects the cost for household necessities at a modest but sustainable level. It adds a savings category, and is adjusted for different counties and household types.

The ALICE Income Assessment is the calculation of all sources of income, resources, and assistance for ALICE and poverty-level households. Even with assistance, the Assessment reveals a significant shortfall, or unfilled gap, between what these households bring in and what is needed for them to reach the ALICE Threshold.

Lastly, the Economic Viability Dashboard is comprised of three indices that evaluate the economic conditions that matter most to ALICE households – housing affordability, job opportunities, and community support. A Dashboard is provided for each county.

GLOSSARY

6 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“The top 20 percent of California’s population earns 51 percent of all income earned in the state, while the bottom 20 percent earns only 3 percent.”

INTRODUCTIONCalifornia is internationally known as the birthplace of the technology sector and the iconic home of Hollywood glamour. As the eighth largest economy in the world and the destination for entrepreneurs and immigrants from across the globe, the Golden State is rarely associated with significant poverty.

Yet California’s overall economic situation is more complex. While the median annual income of $58,328 is well above the U.S. median of $51,371, the state poverty rate is 15 percent, the same as the U.S. average. California’s unemployment and foreclosure rates are among the highest in the country, and it faces both large government deficits and the crippling effects of severe droughts on its key agricultural sector. None of the economic measures traditionally used to calculate the financial status of California’s households, such as the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), consider the actual cost of living in each county in California or the wage rate of jobs in the state. For that reason, those indices do not fully capture the number of households facing economic hardship across California’s 58 counties.

Current measures hide the reality that 46 percent of households in California struggle to support themselves. Because income is distributed unequally in California, there is both great wealth and significant economic hardship. That inequality increased by 18 percent from 1979 to 2012; now, the top 20 percent of California’s population earns 51 percent of all income earned in the state, while the bottom 20 percent earns only 3 percent (see Appendix A).

Moving beyond current poverty measures, this Report presents new measures and language to describe the sector of California’s population that struggles to afford basic necessities. It has been difficult to obtain a true and accurate picture of the economic reality in the state, especially regarding the number of households that face a wide range of economic challenges across an exceptionally diverse state. This Report fills that gap with new language and four new measures.

This Report uses the term “ALICE” to describe a household that is Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. As originally defined in the 2012 New Jersey ALICE Report, ALICE is a household with income above the FPL but below a basic survival threshold, defined here as the ALICE Threshold. ALICE households are composed of women and men, young and old, of all races and ethnicities.

The Report applies these ALICE measures to a state that is facing multiple economic challenges, in order to better understand how and why so many families are struggling financially. Some of these challenges are unique to California, while others are trends that have been unfolding nationally for at least three decades.

REPORT OVERVIEWWho is struggling in California? Section I introduces the ALICE Threshold: a realistic measure for income inadequacy in California that takes into account the current cost of basic necessities and geographic variation. In California there are 5.78 million households – 46 percent of the state’s total – with income below the realistic cost of basic necessities; 1.88 million of those households are living below the FPL and another 3.9 million are ALICE households. This section provides a statistical picture of ALICE household demographics, including race/ethnicity, age, geography, gender, family type, disability, language, education, and immigrant status. Except for a few notable exceptions, ALICE households generally reflect the demographics of the overall state population.

7UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“In California there are 5.78 million households – 46 percent of the state’s total – with income below the realistic cost of basic necessities.”

How costly is it to live in California?Section II details the average minimum costs for households in California simply to survive – not to save or otherwise “get ahead”. It is well known that the high cost of living in California easily outpaces the state’s low average wages. The annual Household Survival Budget quantifies the costs of the five basic essentials of housing, child care, food, health care, and transportation. Using the thriftiest official standards, including those used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the average annual Household Survival Budget for a California family of four (two adults with one infant and one preschooler) is $56,328, and for a single adult it is $21,084. These numbers vary by county, but all highlight the inadequacy of the 2012 U.S. poverty designation of $23,050 for a family and $11,170 for a single adult as an economic survival standard in California. The Household Survival Budget is the basis for the ALICE Threshold, which redefines the basic economic survival standard for California households. Section II also details a Household Stability Budget, which reaches beyond survival to budget for savings and stability at a modest level. It is almost double the Household Survival Budget for a family of four.

Where does ALICE work? How much does ALICE earn and save? Section III examines where members of ALICE households work, as well as the amount and types of assets these households have been able to accumulate. With more than half of jobs in California paying less than $20 per hour, it is not surprising that so many households fall below the ALICE Threshold. In addition, the housing and stock market crash associated with the Great Recession (2007–2010), as well as high unemployment, took a toll on household savings in California. Thirty-one percent of California households are asset poor, and 42 percent do not have sufficient liquid net worth to subsist at the FPL for three months without income.

How much income and assistance are necessary to reach the ALICE Threshold?Section IV examines how much income is needed to enable California families to afford the Household Survival Budget. This section also compares that level of income to how much families actually earn as well as the amount of public and private assistance they receive. The ALICE Income Assessment estimates that ALICE and poverty-level households in California earn 44 percent of what is required to reach the ALICE Threshold. Resources from hospitals, nonprofits, and federal, state, and local governments contribute another 32 percent. What remains is a gap of 24 percent for families below the ALICE Threshold to reach the basic economic survival standard that the Threshold represents.

What are the economic conditions for ALICE households in California?Section V presents the Economic Viability Dashboard, a measure of the conditions that California’s ALICE households actually face. The Dashboard compares housing affordability, job opportunities, and community support across the state’s 58 counties. These conditions worsened significantly in most counties from 2007 to 2010 and have improved only slightlysince. It remains difficult for ALICE households to find both housing affordability and jobopportunities in the same area.

8 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“The forecast for California’s economy projects is for more low-wage jobs that pay less than the cost of basic necessities, which, in turn, means that ALICE households will continue to make up a significant percentage of households in the state.”

What are the consequences of insufficient household income?Section VI focuses on how households without sufficient income and assets to meet the ALICE Threshold survive. It outlines the strategies they employ and the risks and consequences that result both for themselves and for the rest of the community. The forecast for California’s economy is for more low-wage jobs that pay less than the cost of basic necessities, which, in turn, means that ALICE households will continue to make up a significant percentage of households in the state.

Conclusion – Future prospects for ALICE households. The Report concludes by considering the implications of current trends – California’s growing but aging population, and the projected growth of low-wage and low-skilled jobs across the state – for ALICE households. This section also identifies a range of general strategies that would reduce the number of California households living below the ALICE Threshold.

DATA PARAMETERSThe ALICE measures presented in this Report are calculated for each county. Because California is economically, racially, ethnically, and geographically diverse, state averages mask significant differences between municipalities and counties. For example, the percent of households below the ALICE Threshold ranges from 34 percent in Contra Costa County to 59 percent in Mendocino County.

The ALICE measures are calculated for 2007, 2010, and 2012 in order to compare the beginning and the end of the economic downturn known as the Great Recession and any progress made in the two years since the technical end of the Recession. The 2012 results will also serve as an important baseline from which to measure both the continuing recovery and the impact of the Affordable Care Act in the years ahead.

This Report uses data from a variety of sources, including the U.S. Census, the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA), the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the U.S. Department of Labor (BLS), the InternalRevenue Service (IRS), Child Care Aware (formerly NACCRRA), and their California statecounterparts. In most cases, the data in this Report relies on the American CommunitySurvey estimates tabulated for specific geographic areas. In a few cases, additional insightcan be gained by using the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) files of untabulatedrecords about individuals and housing units (U.S. Census, 2009 and 2012). AmericanCommunity Survey summary statistics do not match exactly to the PUMS individual recordtotals; to avoid confusion, state-level data will be provided in percentages rather thannumbers that might not match American Community Survey tabulations exactly, and PUMSestimates will be the only data presented at the PUMA level (Public Use Microdata Areas,or PUMAs, are non-overlapping areas that partition each state into segments of about100,000 residents each). All other geographies will reflect American Community Surveydata. Detailed PUMA-level statistics are provided in Appendix H.

State, county, and municipal data is used to provide different lenses on ALICE households.In all cases, the data are estimates; some are geographic averages, others are 1-, 3- or 5-year averages depending on population size. The Report examines issues surroundingALICE households from different angles, trying to draw the clearest picture with the rangeof data available.

For purposes of this Report, percentages are rounded to whole numbers. In some cases, this may result in percentages totaling 99 or 101 percent instead of 100 percent.

9UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Until now, there has been no realistic measure to define the level of financial hardship in households across each county in the U.S. that is based on the actual cost of basic household necessities.”

I. WHO IS STRUGGLING IN CALIFORNIA?

Measure 1 – The ALICE Threshold

According to the 2012 Census, the federal poverty rate in California is 15 percent, or 1.88 million of the state’s 12.55 million households. However, increased demand for public and private welfare services over the last five years suggests that many times that number of California’s households struggle to support themselves.

Until now, there has been no realistic measure to define the level of financial hardship in households across each county in the U.S. that is based on the actual cost of basic household necessities. The Federal Poverty Level (FPL) was developed in 1965, and its methodology has not been updated since 1974. In addition, it is not adjusted to reflect cost of living differences across the U.S.

There have been extensive critiques of the FPL and arguments for better poverty measures (O’Brien and Pedulla, 2010; Uchitelle, 2001). The official poverty rate is so understated that many government and nonprofit agencies use multiples of the FPL to determine eligibility for assistance programs. For example, CalFresh, California’s food benefit program, uses 130 percent of the FPL to determine program eligibility (California Department of Social Services, 2014). Even Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) use multiples of the FPL to determine eligibility across the country (NCSL, 2014; Roberts, Povich and Mather, 2012).

Recognizing the shortcomings of the FPL, the U.S. Census Bureau has developed an alternative metric, the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which is based on expenditures reported in the Consumer Expenditure Survey and adjusted for geographic differences in the cost of housing. The SPM captures some of the additional struggling households: the 3-year average SPM for California is 23.8 percent, 8.8 percentage points higher than the official California poverty rate of 15 percent (Short, 2013; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2011). Yet the SPM still falls far short when compared to the ALICE measures. Other alternative measures have been developed for use in California and arediscussed later in this section.

Despite its shortcomings, the FPL has provided a standard measure over time to determine how many people in the U.S. are living in deep poverty. The needs and challenges that these people face are severe, and they require substantial community assistance. The definition of “poverty”, however, is vague, often has moral connotations, and can be inappropriately – and inaccurately – associated only with the unemployed. To further our understanding of the economic challenges that financially constrained, working households face across the country, this Report presents a measure of what it actually costs to live in each county in the state, calculates how many households have income below that level, and introduces new tools to describe both the challenges they and their communities face and the implications of those challenges now and in the future.

This is not merely an academic issue, but a practical one. The lack of accurate information underreports the number of people who are “poor”, which in turn distorts the identification of problems related to poverty, misguides policy solutions, and raises questions of equality, fairness, and transparency.

10 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“ALICE is a household with income above the official FPL but below a newly defined basic survival income level.”

INTRODUCING ALICEDespite being employed, many individuals and families do not earn enough to afford the five basic household necessities of housing, child care, food, transportation, and heath care in California. Even though they are working, their income does not cover the cost of living in the state and they often require public assistance to survive.

This group of people is often loosely referred to as the working poor, or technically, as the lowest two income quintiles. This Report introduces a more precise term to define these households: “ALICE” – Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. ALICE is a household with income above the official FPL but below a newly defined basic survival income level. In California, ALICE households are as diverse as the general population, composed of women and men, young and old, of all races and ethnicities.

THE ALICE THRESHOLDIn a state where the cost of living is high in many areas, it is especially important to have a current and realistic standard that reflects the true cost of economic survival and compares it to household incomes across each county. The ALICE Threshold, a new measure, is a realistic standard developed from the Household Survival Budget, a second measure that estimates the minimal cost of the five basic household necessities – housing, child care, food, transportation, and health care. (The Household Survival Budget is discussed fully in Section II). Based on calculations from the American Community Survey and the ALICE Threshold, 5.78 million households in California – 46 percent – are either in poverty or qualify as ALICE (Figure 1).

Figure 1�Household Income, California, 2012

The ALICE Threshold is calculated for each of the 58 counties in the state and adjusted for age by reflecting different household sizes: specifically, 3.45 people for households headed by someone younger than 65 years old, and 1.45 people for households headed by someone 65 years or older. The ALICE Threshold for California households headed by someone under 65 years old varies greatly across counties, ranging from $50,000 to $75,000 per year. This means the cost of living for many families is above the state’s median state household income of $58,328 per year. For older households, the ALICE Threshold ranges from $25,000 to $35,000 per year. ALICE Thresholds and the median income for each county are listed in Appendix J, ALICE County Pages.

Source: American Community Survey, 2012, and the ALICE Threshold

11UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“The ALICE Threshold can be put in context by comparing it to existing income measures used in California.”

Comparing the ALICE Threshold with other Income Measures The ALICE Threshold can be put in context by comparing it to existing income measures usedin California (Figure 2). The California Poverty Measure (CPM) developed by the Public PolicyInstitute of California and the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality provides a substantialimprovement over the FPL. It takes into account county-level variation in the cost of owningand renting as well as income from cash and nutritional assistance programs. The 2011 CPM(latest year data is available) shows that 22 percent of Californians are living in poverty. Interms of age, the CPM estimates that 19 percent of senior households and approximately 23percent of families headed by someone younger than 65 years old are living in poverty (PublicPolicy Institute of California, 2013). The comparison with ALICE percentages is not directbecause the CPM household estimates are at the individual level, and the ALICE data are atthe household level.

California’s Insight Center for Community Economic Development (ICCED) uses the Self-Sufficiency Standard developed by D . Diana Pearce of the University of Washington as a keymeasure of financial hardship. The Self-Sufficiency Standard is similar to the ALICE Thresholdin its emphasis on the actual cost of minimal basic needs in each county. The 2012 estimate forpercentage of California households with incomes below the Self-Sufficiency Standard is 38percent, which is 74 percent higher than the CPM, but lower than the percentage ofhouseholds below the ALICE Threshold (Pearce, 2009; ICCED, 2012).

The Household Survival Budget on which the ALICE Threshold is based is actually slightly lessthan the Self-Sufficiency Budget. But in calculating the number living below the threshold, theSelf-Sufficiency Standard counts only families with workers, and does not include seniors orthose with disabilities. By contrast, the FPL, the CPM, and the ALICE calculations include allhouseholds. To compare with the Self-Sufficiency Standard, if the ALICE Threshold is appliedonly to families headed by a worker less than 65 years old, the percentage of householdsbelow the ALICE Threshold is 39 percent. If families headed by someone with a disability arealso excluded, it falls to 36 percent.

The ALICE Threshold is able to present the most comprehensive measure of economicinsecurity in California and the most accurate reflection of the magnitude of the challengesthat struggling California households face. Figure 2�Comparison of Income Measures, California, 2012

NOTE: The comparison is not exact; CPM data is for individuals in 2011, Self-Sufficiency is for households headed by non-disabled adults ages 18 to 64,and FPL and ALICE data are for all households in 2012.

Source: Public Policy Institute of California, 2013; The Insight Center for Community Economic Development, 2012; and the United Way ALICE Report – California, 2014

12 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Household demographics have been largely shaped by the impact of the Great Recession on California’s economy, and the trends that emerged have continued following the technical end of the downturn.”

ALICE OVER TIMEHousehold demographics have been largely shaped by the impact of the Great Recession on California’s economy, and the trends that emerged have continued following the technical end of the downturn. The total number of households in California increased by 2.8 percent, from 12.2 million in 2007 to 12.4 million in 2010 to 12.55 million in 2012. The Recession had the biggest impact on those below the FPL, with the poverty rate increasing by 27 percent from 2007 to 2010 and then by another 10 percent from 2010 to 2012. The number of ALICE households increased by 2.1 percent through the Great Recession and then by an additional 4.4 percent from 2010 to 2012. The number of households above the ALICE Threshold decreased throughout the period by 5.2 percent.

Figure 3�Households by Income, California, 2007 to 2012

Though fluidity is not fully captured in these statistics, it is important to note that households move above and below the ALICE Threshold over time as economic and personal circumstances change. Nationally, the U.S. Census reports that from January 2009 to December 2011, 31.6 percent of the U.S. population was in poverty for at least two months. By comparison, the national poverty rate for 2010 was 15 percent (Edwards, 2014). Household income is fluid, and ALICE households may be alternately in poverty or more financially secure at different points during the year.

ALICE BY COUNTYThe total number of households and the number of households living below the ALICE Threshold vary greatly across California’s 58 counties. For example, Alpine County is the smallest county in the state, with 385 households, and Los Angeles County is the largest, with 3.2 million households. These two counties also have the smallest and largest number of households living below the ALICE Threshold, respectively: 138 in Alpine County, and 1.6 million in Los Angeles County.


13UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Households living below the ALICE Threshold constitute more than one-third of households in all California counties.”

Households living below the ALICE Threshold constitute more than one-third of households in all California counties (Figure 4). However, there is variation between counties in terms of overall magnitude as well as share of poverty and ALICE households:

• Below the ALICE Threshold (including households in poverty): Percentages range from 34 percent in Contra Costa County to 59 percent in Mendocino County

• Poverty: Percentages ranges from 7 percent in San Mateo and Mono counties to 28 percent in Lake County

• ALICE: Percentages range from 24 percent in Contra Costa County to 39 percent in Mendocino County

Figure 4�Percent of Households below the ALICE Threshold by County, California, 2012

DEMOGRAPHICSALICE households vary in size and makeup; there is no typical configuration. In fact, the composition of ALICE households mirrors that of the population in general. There are young and old ALICE households, those with children, and those with a family member who has a disability. They vary in educational level attained, race and ethnicity, and geographic location. These households move in and out of being ALICE over time. For instance, a young ALICE household may capitalize on their education and move above the ALICE Threshold. An older ALICE household may experience a health emergency, lose a job, or suffer from a disaster and move below the ALICE Threshold into poverty.


14 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“A young ALICE household may capitalize on their education and move above the ALICE Threshold. An older ALICE household may experience a health emergency, lose a job, or suffer from a disaster and move below the ALICE Threshold into poverty.”

While the demographic characteristics of households in poverty are well known from U.S. Census reports, the characteristics of ALICE households are not as well known. This section provides an overview of the demographics of ALICE households and compares them to households in poverty as well as to the total population. Except for a few notable exceptions, ALICE households generally reflect the demographics of the overall state population. Differences are most striking for those groups who traditionally have the lowest wages: women, racial/ethnic minorities, those with a disability, veterans, and unskilled recent immigrants. County statistics for race/ethnicity and age are presented in Appendix B.

AgeThere are ALICE households in every age bracket in California. The number of ALICE households and households in poverty generally reflect their proportion of the overall population, with the youngest households slightly overrepresented and the oldest underrepresented (Figure 5). Of California’s 12.55 million households:

• Those headed by someone under the age of 25 account for 3 percent of all households, 10 percent of households in poverty, and 4 percent of ALICE households

• Those headed by a 25- to 44-year-old represent 36 percent of all households, 41 percent of households in poverty, and 36 percent of ALICE households

• Those headed by a 45- to 64-year-old represent 40 percent of the total, 33 percent of households in poverty, and 40 percent of ALICE households

• Those headed by someone 65 or older represent 21 percent of the total, 16 percent of households in poverty, and 20 percent of ALICE households

Figure 5� Household Income by Age, California, 2012

When looking at income levels within each age group, younger California households are more likely to have income below the ALICE Threshold (Figure 6):

• For households headed by someone under the age of 25, 42 percent are in poverty and another 38 percent are ALICE households

• For households headed by a 25- to 44-year-old, 17 percent are in poverty and another 31 percent are ALICE households


15UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“ALICE households in California face specific challenges depending on age. Many senior households continue to work, some by choice and others because of low income.”

While older households are less likely to be in poverty, they are just as likely to be ALICE (Figure 6):

• For households headed by a 45- to 64-year-old, 12 percent are in poverty and another 31 percent are ALICE households

• For households headed by someone 65 years or older, 12 percent are in poverty and another 30 percent are ALICE households

Figure 6� Age by Household Income, California, 2012

ALICE households in California face specific challenges depending on age. Many senior households continue to work, some by choice and others because of low income. In California’s 65- to 69-year-old age group, 33 percent are in the labor force, as are 17 percent of California residents aged 70–74, and 6 percent of those 75 years and over. These rates are among the highest in the country (American Community Survey, 2012).

The comparatively low rate of senior households in poverty (12 percent) provides evidence that government benefits, including Social Security, are effective at reducing poverty among seniors (Haskins, 2011). But the fact that 30 percent of senior households qualify as ALICE highlights the reality that these same benefits often do not enable financial stability. This is especially true in California, where the cost of living is high in many areas.

Earning enough income to reach the ALICE Threshold is especially challenging for young households in California. As a result, households in this already small age bracket decreased by 15 percent from 2007 to 2012, despite immigration of younger workers.

Two main factors drove that decrease: some young workers moved in with their parents or other workers to save money, and others left California to look for other opportunities (Vespa, Lewis and Kreider, 2013; American Community Survey, 2012).


16 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“The race/ethnicity of ALICE households fairly closely mirrors that of the California population as a whole.”

Race/EthnicityWhile differences in race/ethnicity are often highlighted between households in poverty andthe total population, less is known about those who are struggling to afford the basics butearn more than the FPL. In fact, the race/ethnicity of ALICE households fairly closelymirrors that of the California population as a whole (Figure 7). While Latinos are becomingthe state’s largest demographic in terms of percentage of individual Californians, it isimportant to note that Whites still make up the majority of California households, which isthe unit of analysis for ALICE calculations. To gain better insight into the race and ethnicityof California’s households with income below the ALICE Threshold, we used the PUMSdata set, which is slightly different from the published American Community Surveyestimates used in the rest of the Report. Because even the most basic number estimatesfrom the two sources do not match, we present only the percentages here. More details areavailable in Appendix H.

Fifty percent of California’s households are headed by someone who is White not Hispanic(using U.S. Census classification), as are 46 percent of ALICE households. Because raceand ethnicity are overlapping categories, Californians of any race can also be ethnicallyHispanic. In fact, 26 percent of the state’s White households are also Hispanic.

In California: • Asians account for 13 percent of total households, 11 percent of ALICE households, and

12 percent of poverty households

• Black not Hispanic residents account for 7 percent of total households, 7 percent of ALICE households, and 11 percent of poverty households

• Hispanics account for 28 percent of total households, 36 percent of ALICE households, and 43 percent of poverty households

• Native Americans account for only 0.7 percent of households; there is insufficient data to accurately calculate their household income status

Because race and ethnicity are overlapping categories and California is a state with a large percentage of racial/ethnic minorities, the totals for each income category are greater than 100 percent. Also the totals vary because income data by race and ethnicity are not as complete as data for race and ethnicity alone.

Figure 7�Households by Race/Ethnicity and Income, California, 2012

NOTE: Data presented in this section is for households, not individuals. Groups with larger household sizes, notably Hispanics, will have different percentages for households than for individuals in the total population.


17UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“In 2014, Hispanics became the state’s largest single racial/ethnic group, making up 39 percent of the California population.”

The heritage of the White population (U.S. Census classification) in California includesGerman, Irish, English, and Italian ancestry. In addition, because race and ethnicity areoverlapping categories, residents can be of any race and be ethnically Hispanic.

The largest minority populations in California are Hispanic; their share of households more than doubled since 1990 and is now 28 percent. The majority of California’s Hispanic population, 83 percent, has Mexican origin. The next largest group, 9 percent, comes from Central America with the largest share being Salvadoran, followed by 2 percent from South America, and 1 percent each from Puerto Rico, Spain, and Cuba (American Community Survey, 2012). Because the average Hispanic household size is 25 percent larger than in the White population, their share of the California population is increasing faster than their share of households. In 2014, Hispanics became the state’s largest single racial/ethnic group, making up 39 percent of the California population, followed by non-Hispanic Whites, Asians, and non-Hispanic Blacks (CDF, 2013).

Asians are California’s second largest minority, according to the US Census. Their share ofCalifornia’s population increased from 9 percent in 1990 to 11 percent in 2012. The heritageof the Asian population in California includes China, Japan, the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam,Cambodia, Laos, Hong Kong, and Thailand. The majority of Asian Californians live in Fresno,Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, Sutter, and Yuba Counties (AmericanCommunity Survey, 2012; Migration Policy Institute, 2012).

Blacks represent 7 percent of the California population, increasing by 30 percent since2000. Though Blacks were among the early settlers to California, their numbers remainedbelow 1 percent of the population until World War II, when they began to move to urbanareas, especially in southern California. Today, the largest numbers of Black Californiansare located in the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego while the largest percentages are inCompton, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Oakland, and Richmond and their surrounding suburbs(U.S. Census, 2010; Suro, Wilson, and Singer, 2011).

GeographyALICE and poverty households represent more than 20 percent of households in almost alltowns and cities reporting households with income in California. Because there are largegeographic areas with small populations across California, it is difficult to map small citiesand towns. To provide a more complete visual view of local household income variation, thewide distribution of ALICE and poverty households is shown with county subdivisions inFigure 8. County subdivisions include cities and towns as well as their surrounding areas.Those with the highest percentages of households below the ALICE Threshold are shadeddarkest blue; those with the lowest percentages are shaded lightest blue. Data for cities andtowns are included in Appendices I and J.

18 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Eighty-three percent of California’s cities and towns, and 90 percent of county subdivisions, have more than 30 percent of households living on an income below the ALICE Threshold.”

Figure 8� Percent of Households below the ALICE Threshold by County Subdivision, California, 2012

NOTE: When geographies have small populations, the American Community Survey estimates of household income are often based on 3- or 5-year averages, making these ALICE estimates less precise than the county-level estimates.

Eighty-three percent of California’s cities and towns, and 90 percent of county subdivisions, have more than 30 percent of households living on an income below the ALICE Threshold. A further breakdown shows that:

• Only 1 percent (5 county subdivisions) have less than 19 percent of households below the ALICE Threshold

• 9 percent (34 county subdivisions) have 20 to 29 percent of households below the ALICE Threshold



• 35 percent (138 county subdivisions) have more than 50 percent of households below the ALICE Threshold


19UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“There is a large concentration of households with income below the ALICE Threshold in California’s largest cities.”

There is a large concentration of households with income below the ALICE Threshold in California’s largest cities. Of the 14 cities with more than 75,000 households, all have more than 33 percent of households with income below the ALICE Threshold, and five cities have 50 percent or more: Anaheim, Fresno, Los Angeles, Stockton, and Long Beach (Figure 9).

Figure 9�Households below the ALICE Threshold, Largest Cities and Towns in California, 2012

Largest Cities and Towns(above 75,000 Households)

Number of Households Percent Households below ALICE Threshold

Los Angeles 1,332,587 50%

San Diego 473,842 38%

San Francisco 346,842 46%

San Jose 310,126 42%

Sacramento 177,325 47%

Long Beach 164,220 50%

Fresno 162,149 55%

Oakland 156,482 46%

Bakersfield 111,053 41%

Anaheim 98,156 58%

Riverside 91,813 45%

Stockton 90,754 50%

Irvine 82,613 33%

Chula Vista 75,942 40%


For a more detailed look at ALICE households in Los Angeles and San Francisco, PublicUse Microdata Areas (PUMAs) provide the means to break down these large urbanareas. PUMAs are non-overlapping areas that partition each state into areas of about100,000 residents (Figures 10 and 11). While Los Angeles is only a small dot on the statemap, zooming into the city and its surrounding areas provides an important visual of thewidespread, if variable, distribution of ALICE households. Among the 69 PUMAs in the LosAngeles area, there is a wide range of income levels. The lowest percentage of householdswith income below the ALICE Threshold is 18 percent in Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Malibu, and Westlake Village Cities, and the highest percentage is 84 percent in Los Angeles City (Southeast/East Vernon). Most areas of Los Angeles (74 percent) have more than 40 percent of households with income below the ALICE Threshold.

20 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Most areas of Los Angeles (74 percent) have more than 40 percent of households with income below the ALICE Threshold.”

Figure 10� Percent of Households below the ALICE Threshold by PUMA, Los Angeles, California, 2012

In the San Francisco area, there is a wide network of interrelated communities. In SanFrancisco itself, there are seven PUMAs. The percent of households with income belowthe ALICE Threshold ranges from 36 percent in the Inner Mission and Castro area to 59percent in the South of Market and Potrero area. The surrounding areas of Richmond,Oakland City, and Oakland Northeast also have more than 60 percent of households withincome below the ALICE Threshold (Figure 11).

Figure 11�Percent of Households below the ALICE Threshold by PUMA, San Francisco, California, 2012



21UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Within the state, there is a striking difference in earnings between men and women at all educational levels. This, in part, helps explain why so many of California’s single-female-headed households have incomes below the ALICE Threshold.”

EducationIncome continues to be highly correlated with education. In California, 82 percent of the population has a high school diploma, but far less (31 percent) of the population 25 years and older has a bachelor’s or advanced degree, despite the fact that median earnings increase significantly for those with higher levels of education (Figure 12).

Figure 12�Education Attainment and Median Annual Earnings, California, 2012

Those individuals with the least education are more likely to have earnings below the ALICE Threshold. The median annual earnings for California residents with less than a high school diploma are $18,675, and they account for 19 percent of the population 25 years and over. Those with only a high school diploma account for 21 percent of the population and have median annual earnings of $26,921. Those with some college or a two-year associate’s degree account for 30 percent of the population and have median annual earnings of $35,524. Those with a bachelor’s degree account for 20 percent of the population and have median annual earnings of $53,033. And those with a graduate or professional degree account for 11 percent of the population and have median annual earnings of $76,648 (American Community Survey, 2012).

Within the state, there is a striking difference in earnings between men and women at all educational levels (Figure 13). Men earn at least 35 percent more than women across all educational levels; the highest earnings gap is 52 percent for those with a graduate or professional degree (American Community Survey, 2012). This, in part, helps explain why so many of California’s single-female-headed households have incomes below the ALICE Threshold.

Source: American Community Survey, 2012

22 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Economically disadvantaged students, students with limited English proficiency, and students with disabilities all have graduation rates below the state and national averages for all students.”

Figure 13�Median Annual Earnings by Education and Gender, California, 2012

Higher education alone is no longer a guarantee of a self-sufficient income. With theincreasing cost of education over the last decade, college has become unaffordable formany and a huge source of debt for others. California colleges and universities receivedmore than $3.5 billion in federal Pell Grants in 2012 (National Priorities Project, 2012). Yet inCalifornia’s Class of 2012, 52 percent still graduated with an average of $20,269 in studentdebt (Project on Student Debt, 2012).

ALICE households are more likely to have less education than households above the ALICEThreshold. While the cause and effect are debated, one clear outcome is that their childrenare also less likely to graduate from high school. According to the National Center forEducation Statistics, economically disadvantaged students, students with limited Englishproficiency, and students with disabilities all have graduation rates below the state andnational averages for all students (Stetser and Stillwell, 2014).

In California, the public high school graduation rate is 76 percent for all students but significantly lower for economically disadvantaged students (70 percent), those with limited English proficiency (60 percent), and those with disabilities (59 percent) (Stetser and Stillwell, 2014). It is not surprising that these same groups also earn lower wages later in life.

Household TypeWhile ALICE households come in all sizes and demographic configurations, two of the most common ALICE household types are seniors and households with children. This is not surprising as these demographics are associated with higher costs, especially in health care for seniors and child care for families with children. Senior ALICE households were discussed earlier in this section; ALICE households with children are examined further below.


23UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“While most children under 18 in California live in married-parent families (69 percent), children in families with income below the ALICE Threshold are more likely to live in single-parent families.”

In addition to these two categories, there are a number of “other” ALICE household types that have continued to increase, and they now make up the largest proportion of households with income below the ALICE Threshold in California (Figure 14). “Other” households include families with at least two members related by birth, marriage, or adoption, or people who share a housing unit with non-relatives – for example, boarders or roommates. Across the country, between 1970 and 2012, the share of households comprised of married couples with children under 18 decreased by half from 40 percent to 20 percent, while the proportion of single-adult households increased from 17 percent to 27 percent (Vespa, Lewis, and Kreider, 2013).

Figure 14�Household Types by Income, California, 2012

Families with Children Not surprisingly, the most expensive household budget is for a household with young children, due not only to these households’ larger size but also to the cost of child care, preschool, and after-school care (discussed further in Section II). While most children under 18 in California live in married-parent families (69 percent), children in families with income below the ALICE Threshold are more likely to live in single-parent families. Most single-parent families are headed by mothers, but single-father families account for 9 percent of families with children in California.

The biggest factors determining the economic stability of a household with children are the number of wage earners, the gender of the wage earners, and the number (and cost) of children. Variations of these are discussed below.

Married-Couple Households with ChildrenWith two income earners, married couples with children have greater means to provide a higher household income than households with one adult. For this reason, 64 percent of married-couple families in California have income above the ALICE Threshold. However, married-couple families are a large demographic in California and comprise 50 percent of the state’s families with income below the ALICE Threshold.


24 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“With only one wage earner, single-parent households are at an economic disadvantage. For women, this is compounded by the fact that in California, they still earn significantly less than men.”

For married-couple families with children, the Great Recession was a particularly difficult time. In California, these families experienced a 61 percent increase in unemployment for at least one parent, nearly twice the national average of 33 percent (Vespa, Lewis, and Kreider, 2013). As a result, the number of California families in poverty increased by 40 percent from 2007 to 2012, while the number of ALICE households fell by 4 percent and the number of households above the ALICE Threshold fell by 13 percent.

The total number of married-parent families with children in California fell by 5 percent from 2007 to 2012. That decrease may be an indicator that for some families – especially those facing unemployment or foreclosure – it is too expensive to raise children in California. Therefore, families may be delaying having children or moving to another state with better job opportunities or lower cost of living.

A subset of this group, families who own their own homes, faced an even greater decrease. Between 2005 and 2011, the number of households with children (under 18) that owned a home fell by 22 percent in California, more than the national average of 15 percent (Vespa, Lewis, and Kreider, 2013).

Figure 15�Households with Children by Income, California, 2012

Female-headed Households with ChildrenFemale-headed households with children account for 22 percent of California families with children but 37 percent of households below the ALICE Threshold. This rate is higher than the rough estimate by the Working Poor FamiliesProject that 29 percent of low-income working families in California wereheaded by women in 2012 – a significantly lower percentage than the national rate of 39 percent of low-income working families being female-headed (Povich, Roberts and Mather, 2014).

From 2007 to 2012, the number of female-headed households with children increased by 2 percent in California. Although the number of these households


25UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Those with adisability are morelikely to experiencefinancial hardshipbecause they arefar less likely to beemployed.”

that are ALICE decreased by 13 percent during the same period, the number in poverty increased by 29 percent and those above the ALICE Threshold decreased by 15 percent. With only one wage earner, single-parent households are at an economic disadvantage. For women, this is compounded by the fact that in California, they still earn significantly less than men, as detailed in Figure 13.

Male-headed Households with ChildrenHouseholds headed by single men with children account for 9 percent of all California families with children and 12 percent of families with income below the ALICE Threshold. From 2007 to 2012, the number of single-male-headed households with children increased by 6 percent in California. During the same period, the number of these households living in poverty increased by 75 percent, the number who qualified as ALICE increased by 4 percent, and those above the ALICE Threshold decreased by 23 percent.

Other HouseholdsWith so much of the focus on households with seniors (19 percent of households below the ALICE Threshold) and those with children (34 percent), the many other kinds of households that make up the ALICE population are often overlooked. These households account for 47 percent of all California households as well as 47 percent of the state’s households with income below the ALICE Threshold. This category includes married-couple households with children older than 18, couples with no children, single-adult households younger than 65 years, and non-married adult households.

DisabilityHouseholds with a member who is living with a disability often have increased health care expenses and reduced earning power. The national median income for households where one adult is living with a disability is generally 60 percent less than for those without disabilities (American Community Survey, 2006).

A total of 8 percent of households in California are headed by someone with a lastingphysical, mental, or emotional disability that impedes them from being independent or able towork. Of these households, 62 percent have income below the ALICE Threshold. Disability isdisproportionately associated with age; in California, 35 percent of households headed by someone 65 years or older include someone living with a disability. Of these senior households, 54 percent have income below the ALICE Threshold (PUMS, 2012).

Those with a disability are more likely to experience financial hardship because they are farless likely to be employed. Only 19.7 percent of people of working age (18 to 64 years old)with a disability are employed in California, compared to 57.1 percent of those with nodisability. And those who are working earn less: the median annual earnings for a Californiaresident with a disability are $21,158, which is 31 percent less than the $30,537 medianannual earnings for those without a disability (American Community Survey, 2012).Consequently, households with a member who has a disability are more likely to be inpoverty or to be ALICE.

The California numbers fit with national findings from the National Bureau of Economic Research, which estimates that 36 percent of Americans under age 50 have been disabled at least temporarily, and 9 percent have a chronic and severe disability. The economic consequences of disability are profound: 79 percent of Americans with a disability experience a decline in earnings, 35 percent in after-tax income, 24 percent in housing value, and 22 percent in food consumption. The economic hardship experienced by the chronically

26 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“California is home to more than 10 million immigrants. Immigrantworkers are animportant partof the California economy,contributing atleast $821 billion to the stateeconomy in2010.”

and severely disabled is often more than twice as great as that of the average household (Meyer and Mok, 2013). In addition, those with a disability are more likely to live in severely substandard conditions and pay more than one-half of their household income for rent (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, March 2011).

ImmigrantsCalifornia is home to more than 10 million immigrants – one-fourth of the foreign-born population nationwide – and has more immigrants than any other state. Half of all children in California have at least one immigrant parent. Though located throughout the state, foreign-born residents represent more than 30 percent of the population of seven California counties: Alameda, Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara. From 2010 to 2013, the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara metro area was the country’s fifth largest immigration hub, gaining more than 44,232 residents from abroad (Johnson and Mejia, 2014; Maciag, 2014).

Immigrant workers are an important part of the California economy, contributing at least $821 billion to the state economy in 2010. Immigrants comprised 27 percent of the state’s population and 34.3 percent of the state’s workforce in 2011, working in areas including agriculture, manufacturing, health services, and housing construction (Immigration Policy Center, 2013). Unauthorized immigrants comprised roughly an additional 6.8 percent of the state’s population and 9.7 percent of the state’s workforce in 2010, according to a report by the Pew Hispanic Center (Pew, 2011; Maciag, 2014).

Immigrant groups vary widely in language, education, age, and skills. Nationally, immigrantsare only slightly more likely to be poverty-level or ALICE households than non-immigrants.However, for some subsets of immigrant groups, such as non-citizens, recent immigrants,and the language-isolated, the likelihood increases (Suro, Wilson and Singer, 2012).

Foreign-born residents in California have a wide range of education attainment. For foreign-born residents age 25 and older, 36 percent have not graduated from high school, compared to 19 percent for all residents. But at the higher end, they are almost as well educated as the total population: 16 percent have a bachelor’s degree and 10 percent have a graduate or professional degree, compared to 20 and 11 percent, respectively, for all California residents. Interestingly, California residents born in other states are much better educated than the total state population, with 26 percent earning a bachelor’s degree and 24 percent earning a graduate or professional degree (American Community Survey, 2012).

The median annual income is lowest for native born residents, who earn $27,096, while themedian income for residents born outside of the U.S. is $32,057. These clearly mask widevariation: the median income is highest for residents born in another state, at $36,726(American Community Survey, 2012). This category most likely includes highly educatedAmericans moving to California for good jobs who can earn sufficient wages to cover thehigh cost of living in many areas of the state.

There are more than 39 different foreign languages spoken in California, with Spanish being the most common at 29 percent, followed by Asian and Pacific Island languages at 9.8 percent and other Indo-European languages at 4.6 percent. Of the population over five years old, 7.4 percent are linguistically isolated, meaning that no one in the household age 14 or older speaks English only or speaks English “very well” (U.S. Census, 2000; American Community Survey, 2012). These households face significant challenges to employment and use of social services, and are therefore more likely to be ALICE households.

When immigrants have less education and the challenge of language barriers, they are more likely to earn less than native-born California residents and are more likely to have income below the ALICE Threshold.

27UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Local reports of unemployed and homeless veterans suggest that many veterans live below the ALICE Threshold.”

VeteransCalifornia’s 1.86 million veterans account for 9 percent of veterans across the country, the largest percentage of any state. Local data about veterans in California is difficult to obtain, but local reports of unemployed and homeless veterans suggest that many veterans live below the ALICE Threshold. National data show that unemployment among post-9/11 veterans was significantly higher than for other veteran cohorts and worsened at an increased rate compared to other veterans and non-veterans throughout the Great Recession, peaking at 12 percent in 2011. That figure declined to 9 percent in 2013 but remains above the rate of 6.6 percent for veterans from all other service periods and is on par with the 9 percent rate for the total population. The rates are somewhat difficult to compare because 19 percent of Gulf War II-era veterans are not in the labor force – not a surprising number since 29 percent reported having a service-connected disability in August 2013, compared with 15 percent of all veterans (BLS, 2013).

The root causes of higher unemployment of veterans from recent deployments are uncertain, but the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago suggests two possibilities. First, wartime deployments may affect the physical or psychological abilities of new veterans or restrict the amount of training they receive that would be transferable to the civilian labor market. Second, deployments may also be a time of lax recruiting standards for the military, and the high unemployment rates may simply reflect the reentry into the labor force of individuals who would have had trouble finding work regardless of military service (Faberman and Foster, 2013; BLS, 2013).

Of California’s 1.86 million veterans, 74 percent are in the labor force (including those looking for work). Of those in the labor force, 11 percent are unemployed (American Community Survey, 2012). But these averages mask large differences between age groups. While 91 percent of California veterans are 35 years or older (Figure 16), the state’s most recent veterans, and therefore the youngest – the 176,486 veterans aged 18 to 34 years – are those most likely to be unemployed or in struggling ALICE households. Nationally, veterans aged 18 to 34 years old are almost twice as likely to be unemployed (11 percent in 2012) as those 35 years and older (6 percent) (BLS, 2013).The veterans most at risk of being in poverty or living in ALICE households are those who are unemployed, especially when they have exhausted their temporary health benefits and their unemployment benefits eventually expire. In addition to typically being younger, these veterans are more likely to have less education and training or to have a disability.

Figure 16�Veterans by Age, California, 2012

Age Number of Veterans (CA)

Percent of Total Vets (CA)

Percent of Veterans

Unemployed (US)

18 to 34 years 176,486 9% 11%

35 to 54 years 408,705 22% 6%

55 to 64 years 386,412 21% 6%

65 years and over 888,004 48% 6%

Source: American Community Survey, 2012; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013

28 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“ALICE households represent a substantial block of the electorate, accounting for 30 percent of those registered and 28 percent of the vote in the 2012 presidential election.”

There are more than 16,400 homeless veterans in California, almost 26 percent of all homeless veterans in the U.S. Most homeless veterans are clustered in urban areas, with Los Angeles County alone accounting for 10 percent of the nation’s homeless veterans. Younger veterans and veterans returning from the most recent conflicts are less likely to have stable housing than older veterans and veterans who returned in earlier eras, and are also more likely to have a disability (Blanton, 2013; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2010).

VotersContrary to many headlines about the voting rates of households in poverty, such as “Rich Americans are Nearly Twice as Likely to Vote as the Poor” (Kavoussi, 2013), the majority of ALICE households vote. While minimal data is available specifically for California, national figures show that those living in households with income below $50,000 per year (near the average ALICE Threshold) vote at only slightly lower rates than wealthier households: 68 percent were registered to vote compared to 76 percent of households with income above $50,000, and 56 percent reported voting compared to 67 percent of households with income above $50,000 (U.S. Census, 2012).

Nationally, voters with household income below $50,000 are almost as plentiful as those with annual incomes between $50,000 and $99,999 and exceed voters with household incomes above $100,000. Therefore, ALICE households represent a substantial block of the electorate, accounting for 30 percent of those registered and 28 percent of the vote in the 2012 presidential election (Figure 17).

Figure 17�Vote by Annual Income, U.S., 2012 Presidential Election

California exit polls show that 79 percent of voters in the 2012 presidential election had educational qualifications beyond a high school diploma. In terms of income, 42 percent of voters had family income of less than $50,000, which is below the Household Survival Budget for a family of four. Twenty-seven percent had income between $50,000 and $99,000, and 31 percent had income of $100,000 or more (NBC News, 2012).

Source: U.S. Census, November 2012

29UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“California exit polls show that 42 percent of voters had family income of less than $50,000, which is below the Household Survival Budget for a family of four.”

Figure 18�California Voters by Annual Income, U.S., 2012 Presidential Election

Source: NBCNews.com, 2012

30 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“The average annual Household Survival Budget for a four-person family living in California is $56,328, an increase of 13 percent from the start of the Great Recession in 2007.”

II. HOW COSTLY IS IT TO LIVE IN CALIFORNIA?

Measure 2 – The Household Budget: Survival vs. StabilityThe cost of basic household necessities increased in California from 2007 to 2012 despite low inflation during the Great Recession. As a result, 46 percent of households in California are challenged to afford the basic necessities. This section presents the Household Survival Budget, a realistic measure estimating what it costs to afford the five basic household necessities: housing, child care, food, transportation, and health care.

THE HOUSEHOLD SURVIVAL BUDGET The Household Survival Budget follows the original intent of the U.S. poverty rate as a standard for temporary sustainability (Blank, 2008). This budget identifies the minimum cost option for each of the five basic household necessities. A statewide average Household Survival Budget for California is presented in Figure 19 in two variations, one for a single adult and the other for a family with two adults, a preschooler, and an infant. A Household Survival Budget for each county in California is presented in Appendix J. As a frame of reference, it is worth noting that these budgets are even lower than the California Working Poor Families Project budget, which is based on 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), and the Economic Policy Institute’s Family Budget Calculator (Roberts, Povich and Mather, 2013; EPI, 2013)

The average annual Household Survival Budget for a four-person family living in California is $56,328, an increase of 13 percent from the start of the Great Recession in 2007. This translates to an hourly wage of $28.16, 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year for one parent (or $14.08 per hour each, if two parents work). The annual Household Survival Budget for a single adult is $21,084, also an increase of 13 percent since 2007. The single-adult budget translates to an hourly wage of $10.54. The rate of inflation over the same period was 7 percent.

Figure 19�Household Survival Budget, California Average, 2012

Monthly Costs – California Average – 2012

SINGLE ADULT 2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT, 1 PRESCHOOLER

2007 – 2012 PERCENT INCREASE

Housing $749 $1,059 17%Child care $0 $1,208 11%Food $190 $575 16%Transportation $327 $652 0%Health care $113 $451 23%Miscellaneous $160 $427 13%Taxes $218 $322 16%Monthly Total $1,757 $4,694 13%ANNUAL TOTAL $21,084 $56,328 13%Hourly Wage $10.54/hour $28.16/hour

Source: See Appendix C.

Line items are rounded to dollars; monthly and annual totals are calculated including cents. As a result, line items may not add up precisely to the totals.

31UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“The National Low Income Housing Coalition reports that California is the 12th most expensive state in the country for housing.”

In comparison to the annual Household Survival Budget, the U.S. poverty rate was $23,050 per year for a family of four and $11,170 per year for a single adult in 2012, and the California median family income was $58,328 per year.

Increased costs occurred primarily from 2007 to 2010, but increases continued through 2012. The 17 percent increase in housing is particularly surprising because it happened during a downturn in the housing market and in a period with low inflation of 7 percent. However, it is understandable when seen against the backdrop of the foreclosure crisis that occurred at the top and middle of the housing market during the Great Recession. As those foreclosed homeowners moved into lower-end housing, there was increased demand for an already limited housing supply, and housing prices rose accordingly.

The Household Survival Budget varies across California counties. The basic essentials are least expensive in Modoc County, where the cost was $43,982 per year for a family and $15,600 for a single adult. They were most expensive in Santa Clara County, where the cost was $77,222 per year for a family and $30,691 for a single adult. For each county’s Survival Budget, see Appendix J.

HousingThe cost of housing for the Household Survival Budget is based on HUD’s Fair Market Rent (FMR) for an efficiency apartment for a single adult and a two-bedroom apartment for a family. The cost includes utilities but not telephone service nor a security deposit.

Housing costs vary greatly across counties in California. Rental housing is least expensivein Modoc County at $584 per month for a two-bedroom apartment and$404 for an efficiency apartment. Rental housing is most expensive in San Francisco Countyat $1,905 for a two-bedroom apartment and $1,238 per month for an efficiency apartment.The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) reports that California is the 12th mostexpensive state in the country for housing (NLIHC, 2013).

In the Household Survival Budget, housing for a family accounts for 23 percent of the budget, well under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) affordability guidelines of 30 percent (HUD, 2012). However, for a single adult in California, an efficiency apartment accounts for 43 percent of the Household Survival Budget and the renter would be considered “housing burdened.” The availability of such housing units is addressed in Section V.

Child CareIn California, income inadequacy rates are higher for households with children at least in part because of the cost of child care. The Household Survival Budget includes the cost of registered home-based child care at an average rate of $1,208 per month ($621 per month for an infant and $587 per month for a four-year-old). Though home-based child care sites are registered with the state, the quality of care that they provide is not regulated and may vary widely between locations. However, licensed and accredited child care centers, which are regulated to meet standards of quality care, are significantly more expensive with an average cost of $1,620 per month ($955 per month for an infant and $665 per month for a four-year-old). The cost of child care in California was calculated using data collected bythe California Child Care Resource & Referral Network.

Child care for two children accounts for 26 percent of the family’s budget, by far their greatest expense. The cost of child care in California increased by 11 percent from 2007 to 2012. Costs vary across counties: the least expensive home-based child care for two children,

32 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Public transportation is typically the cheapest form of transportation but is available in only five of the 58 counties in California.”

an infant and a preschooler, is found in Modoc County at $947 per month, and the most expensive home-based child care is in San Francisco County at $1,513 per month.

FoodThe original U.S. poverty rate was based in part on the 1962 Economy Food Plan, which recognized food as a most basic element of economic well-being. The minimal food budget for the Household Survival Budget is based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Thrifty Food Plan, which is also the basis for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The cost for a family of two adults and two young children in California is $575 per month and for a single adult is $190 per month. Like the original Economy Food Plan, the Thrifty Food Plan was designed to meet the nutritional requirements of a healthy diet but includes foods that require a considerable amount of home preparation with little waste, plus skill in food shopping (Hanson, 2008).

Within the Household Survival Budget, the food category increased in California by a surprisingly large 16 percent from 2007 to 2012, more than double the rate of inflation. The original FPL was based on the premise that food accounts for one-third of a household budget. Yet with the large increases in the cost of other parts of the household budget, food now accounts for only 12 percent of the budget for a family or 11 percent for a single adult in California.

TransportationThe fourth item in the Household Survival Budget is transportation costs, a prerequisite for most employment in California. The average cost of transportation by car is more than seven times greater than by public transport. According to the Consumer Expenditure Survey, the average cost in the Los Angeles metropolitan area for gasoline and motor oil and other vehicle expenses is $507 per month, and slightly less in the rest of California at $456 per month. By comparison, the average cost for public transportation is $62 per month. The Household Survival Budget in Figure 19 shows the average of the two, adjusted for household size. Actual county costs are shown in Appendix J.

Transportation costs in the Household Survival Budget represent 14 percent of the family budget and 19 percent of the single adult budget. According to the Housing and Transportation Affordability Index, transportation costs in California are approximately 20 percent of the budget for low-income households in urban areas, and more than 30 percent in more rural areas (Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2011) – another indicator that the Household Survival Budget represents minimal costs.

Public transportation is typically the cheapest form of transportation but is available in only five of the 58 counties in California; only in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties does more than 8 percent of the population use public transportation as their primary means of getting to work. In the rest of the counties, less than 8 percent of the population uses public transportation (American Community Survey, 2012). Most households must have a car to get to work, which is a significant additional cost for ALICE households.

Health CareThe fifth item in the Household Survival Budget is health care costs. In 2012, the average health care cost in California was $113 per month for a single adult (6 percent of the budget) and $451 per month for a family (10 percent of the budget), which represents an increase

33UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“While not typically considered essential to survival, taxes are nonetheless a legal requirement of earning income in California, even for low-income households.”

of 23 percent from 2007 to 2012. The health care budget includes the nominal out-of-pocket health care spending indicated in the Consumer Expenditure Survey. Since it does not include health insurance, such a low health care budget is not realistic in California, especially if any household member has a serious illness or a medical emergency.

It is well documented that seniors in California have many additional health care costs beyond what is covered by Medicare (Insight Center for Community Economic Development, 2014). The Household Survival Budget does not cover these additional necessities, many of which can be a substantial additional budget expense. For example, poor health can add additional costs, according to the John Hancock 2013 Cost of Care Survey, and there is wide geographic variation in health care costs in California. Costs for daily adult day care range from $1,950 per month in Modesto to $3,120 in San Francisco; and costs for assisted living range from $2,334 per month in Hayward to $5,210 in Santa Monica (John Hancock, 2013).

TaxesWhile not typically considered essential to survival, taxes are nonetheless a legal requirement of earning income in California, even for low-income households. Taxes represent 7 to 12 percent of the average household budget. In the Household Survival Budget, a single adult in California earning around $21,000 per year pays on average $2,616 in federal and state taxes, and a family earning around $56,000 per year pays approximately $3,864. These rates include standard federal and state deductions and exemptions, as well as the federal Child Tax Credit and the Child and Dependent Care Credit. The California income tax rate and brackets increased from 2007 to 2012. The largest portion of the tax bill is for payroll deduction taxes for Social Security and Medicare. Even with the reduced payroll tax rates in 2012, the average tax bill for a single adult increased by 5 percent and the tax bill for a family increased by 27 percent from 2007 to 2012 (IRS and California Franchise Tax Board, 2007, 2010 and 2012). For tax details, see Appendix C.

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is not included in the tax calculation because the gross income threshold for EITC is below the ALICE Threshold, $41,952 vs. $56,328 for a family of four and $13,980 vs. $21,084 for a working adult. However, many ALICE households at the lower end of the income scale are eligible for EITC. The federal EITC (there is no state EITC in California) helps 3 million tax payers in California (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2014). Although California’s income taxes are slightly progressive, the state’s sales and property taxes are regressive and impact middle- and low-income residents more than the wealthiest residents (Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, 2013; Gibson, 2013).

What is Missing from the Household Survival Budget?The Household Survival Budget is a bare-minimum budget, not a “get-ahead” budget. The small Miscellaneous category, 10 percent of all costs, covers overflow from the five basic categories; it could be used for essentials such as toiletries, cleaning supplies, or work clothes; it could also be used for phone service (which is not included in rent) or for a cell phone, which is increasingly used as a home phone. It is not enough to purchase cable service, or automotive or appliance repairs. It does not allow for dinner at a restaurant, tickets to the movies, or travel. There is no room in the budget for a financial indulgence such as holiday gifts, a new television, a bedspread – something that many households take for granted.

This budget also does not allow for any savings, leaving a family vulnerable to any unexpected expense, such as a costly car repair, natural disaster, or health issue. For this reason, a household on a Household Survival Budget is described as just surviving. The consequences of this – for households, and the wider community – are discussed in Section VI.

34 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Reaching beyond the Household Survival Budget, the Household Stability Budget is a measure of how much income is needed to support and sustain an economically viable household.”

THE HOUSEHOLD STABILITY BUDGETReaching beyond the Household Survival Budget, the Household Stability Budget is a measure of how much income is needed to support and sustain an economically viable household. In California, the Household Stability Budget is $98,927 per year for a family of four – 76 percent higher than the Household Survival Budget (Figure 20). That comparison highlights how minimal the expenses are in the Household Survival Budget.

Figure 20� Average Household Stability Budget vs. Household Survival Budget, California, 2012


2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT, 1 PRESCHOOLER

Stability Survival Percent DifferenceHousing $1,645 $1,059 55%Child care $1,620 $1,208 34%Food $1,104 $575 92%Transportation $724 $652 11%Health care $836 $451 85%Miscellaneous $593 $427 39%Savings $593 $0Taxes $1,128 $322 250%Monthly Total $8,244 $4,694 76%ANNUAL TOTAL $98,927 $56,328 76%Hourly Wage $49.46/hour $28.16/hour

Source: See Appendix D.


The spending amounts in the Household Stability Budget are those that can be maintained over time and include median rent and housing prices, licensed and accredited child care, the USDA’s Moderate Food Plan plus one meal out per month, leasing a car, and participating in an employer-sponsored health plan. The Miscellaneous category represents 10 percent of the five basic necessities; it does not include a contingency for taxes, as in the Household Survival Budget. Full details and sources are listed in Appendix D, as are the Household Stability Budget figures for a single adult.

Because savings are a crucial component of self-sufficiency, the Household Stability Budget also includes a 10 percent savings category. Savings of $593 per month for a family is probably enough to invest in education and retirement, while $183 per month for a single adult might be enough to cover the monthly payments on a student loan or build towards the down payment on a house. However, in many cases, the reality is that savings are used for an emergency and never accumulated for further investment.

The Household Stability Budget for a California family with two children is moderate, not extravagant, yet still totals $98,927 per year. This is substantially more than the Household Survival Budget of $56,328 and the California median family income of $58,328 per year. To afford the Household Stability Budget for a two-parent family, each parent must earn $24.73 an hour or one parent must earn $49.46 an hour.

The Household Stability Budget for a single adult totals $29,592 per year, 40 percent higher than the Household Survival Budget, but below the California median income for a single adult of $32,590. To afford the Household Stability Budget, a single adult must earn $14.80 an hour.

35UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“The ability to afford household needs is a function of income, but ALICE workers have low-paying jobs. Similarly, the ability to be financially stable is a function of savings, but ALICE households have few or no assets.”

III. WHERE DOES ALICE WORK? HOW MUCH DOES ALICE EARN AND SAVE?More than any demographic feature, ALICE households are defined by their jobs and their savings accounts. The ability to afford household needs is a function of income, but ALICE workers have low-paying jobs. Similarly, the ability to be financially stable is a function of savings, but ALICE households have few or no assets and little opportunity to amass liquid assets. As a consequence, these households are more likely to use costly alternative financial services and to experience household dislocation in the event of an unforeseen emergency or health issue. This section examines the declining job opportunities and savings trends for ALICE households in California.

Changes in the labor market over the past thirty-five years, including labor-saving technological advances, the decline of manufacturing, growth of the service sector, increased globalization, declining unionization, and the failure of the minimum wage to keep up with inflation, have reshaped the U.S. economy. Most notable has been the contraction of middle-wage, middle-skill jobs and the expansion of lower-paying service occupations. These changes have greatly impacted the California economy as well, and they accelerated during the years of the Great Recession (2007 to 2010) and the two years following (Autor, 2010; National Employment Law Project, 2014).

With a growing population, California’s economy has also continued to expand, from employing 8.98 million workers in 1976 to 16.6 million in 2012. It is the eighth largest economy in the world, larger than those of Brazil, Canada, and Spain. The California economy is diverse with sectors including agriculture and mineral extraction, biotechnology, and telecommunications. But the largest sectors are government (14 percent including federal, state and local), leisure and hospitality (10 percent), retail trade (9 percent), manufacturing (8 percent), and financial businesses (5 percent). Other sectors are relatively smaller, including construction (4 percent), information (3 percent), and agriculture (2 percent) (Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2012a; California Department of Finance, 2014).

INCOME CONSTRAINEDOne of the defining characteristics of ALICE households is that they are “Income Constrained”. The changes in California’s economy have had a significant downward effect on the job opportunities for ALICE households. Through the Great Recession, California lost over 1.4 million jobs, and although by 2012 about 500,000 had been recovered, California’s unemployment rate of 10.4 percent remained 2 to 3 percentage points higher than the U.S. rate of 8.1 percent. From 2007 to 2012, despite a growing population, the number of jobs decreased by 4 percent from 14.87 million to 14.29 million. As a result, the participation rate in the labor force has declined and the unemployment rate has increased. In 2007, 62.2 percent of California residents were employed; in 2012, that figure was only 56.5 percent (BLS, 2012a; BLS, 2007 and 2012).

36 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“California’s economy has long adapted to changing environments, and the Great Recession has shifted the dynamics yet again.”

California now faces an economy dominated by low-paying jobs. In California, 57 percent of jobs pay less than $20 per hour, with the majority paying between $10 and $15 per hour (Figure 21). Another 28 percent of jobs pay between $20 and $40 per hour, with more than half paying between $20 and $30 per hour. Only 12 percent of jobs pay between $40 and $60 per hour; 2 percent pay between $60 and $80 per hour, and another 1 percent pay above $80 per hour. A full-time job that pays $20 per hour grosses $40,000 per year, which is less than the Household Survival Budget for a family of four in California.

Figure 21�Number of Jobs by Hourly Wage, California, 2012

California’s economy has long adapted to changing environments, and the Great Recession has shifted the dynamics yet again. Construction and manufacturing were two of the sectors hit hardest during the Recession, and they have not grown since. The recovery in most service sectors has been more substantial, with education and health services being the strongest. Regional variation is pronounced: the unemployment rate in inland counties is 12.2 percent, whereas unemployment in coastal counties (including the Bay Area counties) is 8.8 percent (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2013).

The impact of these changes is reflected in the loss of middle-wage jobs from 2007 to 2012. While the number of jobs paying less than $15 per hour increased by 12 percent, the number paying between $15 and $20 per hour decreased by 18 percent and the number paying between $20 and $30 per hour decreased by 45 percent. There are many fewer high-wage jobs in California, so although that job tier grew over the period – jobs paying $40 to $60 increased by 66 percent – it was not enough to offset the loss of middle-wage jobs (Figure 22).

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012

37UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“California’s economy is dependent on jobs with wages so low that workers cannot afford to live near their jobs even though they are required to work on-site.”

Figure 22�Number of Jobs by Hourly Wage, California, 2007 to 2012

Service sector jobs have become an essential and dominant component of California’s economy, with most of the occupations employing the largest number of workers now concentrated in this sector (Figure 23). Two hallmarks of the service sector economy are that these jobs pay low wages and workers must be physically on-site; cashiers, nurses’ aides, and security guards cannot telecommute or be outsourced. In fact, only six of the top 20 jobs pay more than $20 per hour: Sales Representatives and First-Line Supervisors of Office Workers pay just above $26 per hour, while accountants and auditors and elementary school teachers pay near $35 per hour, registered nurses pay $44 per hour, and general managers pay $52 per hour (Figure 23).This means that California’s economy is dependent on jobs with wages so low that workers cannot afford to live near their jobs even though they are required to work on-site.

Low-paid, service-sector workers also cannot afford the Household Survival Budget.Analysis of families using the PUMS data set shows that families with at least one workeraccount for 86 percent of California families, yet this is not a guarantee of sufficient income:80 percent of families with at least one worker have income below the ALICE Threshold.There is a striking difference for households with at least one worker and at least one child;these households account for 49 percent of families and only 29 percent of those below theALICE Threshold. (The PUMS dataset is slightly different from the published AmericanCommunity Survey estimates used in the rest of the Report. More details are available inAppendix H.)

This issue becomes more obvious when looking at the wages of the most prevalent jobs.For example, there are more than 448,440 retail sales jobs in the state, paying on average$10.58 per hour. These jobs fall short of meeting the family Household Survival Budget bymore than $35,000 per year.


38 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“While unemployment started to improve in 2011, the underemployment rate has continued to rise since 2003, when the rate was 11.7 percent.”

Figure 23� Occupations by Employment and Wage, California, 2012

Occupation Number of Jobs Median Hourly Wage

Retail Salespersons 448,440 $10.58

Cashiers 341,150 $9.87

Office Clerks 316,940 $14.43

Food Prep, Including Fast Food 282,590 $9.09

Registered Nurses 249,980 $43.88 Waiters and Waitresses 245,000 $9.00

General Managers 241,910 $51.62 Laborers and Material Movers 241,770 $11.64

Janitors and Cleaners 212,630 $11.34

Stock Clerks and Order Fillers 203,830 $11.08

Customer Service Representatives 200,450 $17.39

Secretaries and Administrative Assistants 192,180 $17.75

Bookkeeping Clerks 169,850 $19.17

First-Line Supervisors of Office Workers 166,030 $26.34 Farmworkers and Laborers 164,310 $8.88

Security Guards 136,120 $11.60

Teacher Assistants 134,840 $14.46

Accountants and Auditors 133,570 $33.16 Elementary School Teachers 132,560 $35.31 Sales Representatives 126,370 $26.56

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Wage Survey – All Industries Combined, 2012

In addition to those who are unemployed (10.4 percent) as defined by the official unemployment rate in 2012, there are many California residents who are employed part time for economic reasons or who have stopped looking for work but would like to work (19.3 percent). While unemployment started to improve in 2011, the underemployment rate has continued to rise since 2003, when the rate was 11.7 percent (BLS, 2012b).

In terms of full- and part-time employment, 66 percent of men and 54 percent of women work full time (defined as more than 35 hours per week, 50 to 52 weeks per year). However, one-third of men and one-half of women work part time (Figure 24). Jobs paying less than $20 per hour are less likely to be full time. With women working more part-time jobs, their income is correspondingly lower than that of their male counterparts.

39UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Jobs paying less than $20 per hour are less likely to be full time. With women working more part-time jobs, their income is correspondingly lower than that of their male counterparts.”

Figure 24� Full-Time and Part-Time Employment by Gender, California, 2012

Shifts in Sources of IncomeThe sources of income for California households shifted during the period from 2007 to 2012. Overall, the number of households earning a wage or salary income remained the same while the number of households with self-employment income decreased by 6 percent (Figure 25). Interest, dividend, and rental income decreased by 18 percent. The impact of both the aging population and the declining economy was evident in a 5 percent increase in the number of households receiving retirement income and a 12 percent increase in households receiving Social Security income. Other types of income increased by 18 percent, including child support, government unemployment compensation, and payments to veterans, which are discussed further in the next section (American Community Survey, 2012).

Figure 25�Percent Change in Household Sources of Income, California, 2007 to 2012



40 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“The second defining feature of ALICE households is their lack of savings. Given the combination of the cost of living and the preponderance of low-wage jobs, accumulating assets is difficult in California.”

The impact of the financial downturn on households was also evident in the striking increases in the number of households receiving income from government sources. While not all ALICE households qualified for government support, many that became unemployed during this period began receiving government assistance for the first time. The number of households receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or General Assistance (GA), programs that provide income support to adults without dependents, increased by 42 percent. At the same time, the number of households receiving Food Stamps (SNAP) increased by 117 percent. The number receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) increased by 27 percent; SSI includes welfare payments to low-income people who are 65 and older and to people of any age who are blind or disabled. The aggregate amount of income from SSI and Social Security increased by even more, suggesting that the amount of each payment increased as well.

ASSET LIMITEDThe second defining feature of ALICE households is their lack of savings. Given the combination of the cost of living and the preponderance of low-wage jobs, accumulating assets is difficult in California. The lack of assets makes ALICE households more vulnerable to emergencies, but it also increases their costs, such as alternative financing fees and high interest rates, and limits efforts to build more assets.

In 2011, 31 percent of California households were considered to be “asset poor”, defined by the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED) as not having sufficient net worth to subsist at the poverty level for three months without income. In other words, an asset poor family of three has less than $4,632 in savings or other assets. The percentage of California households without sufficient “liquid assets” was even higher at 42 percent. “Liquid assets” include cash or a savings account, but not a vehicle or home (CFED, 2012) (Figure 26).

Many more households would be considered “asset poor” if the criterion were lack of three months of subsistence at the ALICE Threshold instead of at the outdated Federal Poverty Level. For example, the Pew Research Center reports that almost half of Americans, 48 percent of survey respondents, state that they often do not have enough money to make ends meet (Pew Research Center, 2012).

Figure 26�Households by Wealth, California, 2012

Source: American Community Survey, 2012; Corporation for Enterprise Development, 2012

41UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“The national information available suggests that California fits within national trends of a decline in wealth for low-income households.”

Only 20 percent of California households have an investment that produces income, such as stocks or rental properties in 2012. The number of households with investments decreased by 25 percent through the Great Recession, a clear impact of the stock market crash. This large reduction in investment income fits with the national trend of reduced assets for households of all income types. When combined with an emergency, the loss of these assets forced many households below the ALICE Threshold (American Community Survey, 2007 and 2012).

Data on wealth at the state level is limited, but the national information available suggests that California fits within national trends of a decline in wealth for low-income households. From 1983 to 2010, middle-wealth families experienced an increase in wealth of 13 percent, compared to an increase of 120 percent for the highest-wealth families. At the other end of the spectrum, the lowest-wealth families – those in the bottom 20 percent – saw their wealth fall well below zero, meaning that their average debts exceeded their assets (Pfeffer, Danzngert, and Schoeni, 2013).

According to the Urban Institute, the racial wealth gap was even larger (McKernan, Ratcliffe, Steuerle and Zhang, 2013). The collapse of the labor, housing, and stock markets beginning in 2007 impacted the wealth holdings of all socio-economic groups, but in percentage terms, the declines were greater for less-advantaged groups as defined by minority status, education, and pre-recession income and wealth (Pfeffer, Danziger, and Schoeni, 2013).

A drop in wealth is also the reason many households become ALICE households. Drawing on financial assets that can be liquidated or leveraged, such as savings accounts, retirement accounts, home equity, and stocks, is often the first step households will take in the face of unemployment. Once these assets are used up, financial instability increases (Pew Economic Mobility Project, 2013).

Once assets have been depleted, the cost of doing business increases for ALICE households. Generally, access to credit can provide a valuable source of financial stability and, in some cases, does as much to reduce hardship as tripling family income (Mayer and Jencks, 1989; Barr and Blank, 2008). Just having a bank account lowers financial delinquency and increases credit scores (Shtauber, 2013). But many households in California do not have basic banking access. According to CFED, 7.8 percent of households in California are unbanked, and 18 percent are under-banked (i.e. households that have a mainstream account but use alternative and often costly financial services for basic transaction and credit needs) (CFED, 2014).

Because the banking needs of low- to moderate-income individuals and small businesses are often not filled by community banks and credit unions, Alternative Financial Products (AFPs) establishments have expanded to fill the unmet need for small financial transactions (Flores, 2012).

AFPs provide a range of services including non-bank check cashing, non-bank money orders, non-bank remittances, payday lending, pawnshops, rent-to-own agreements, and tax refund anticipation loans. In 2011, almost half (46 percent) of California households with an annual income below $30,000 had used an AFP. In contrast, for households with an annual income above $75,000, that figure was 27 percent (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2013).

The most commonly used AFPs in California are non-bank money orders, with 27 percent of all households and 61 percent of unbanked households having used a non-bank money order in 2011. The next most commonly used AFP is non-bank check cashing, used by 11 percent of all households and 52 percent of unbanked households, followed by non-bank remittances by 10 percent of all households and 20 percent of unbanked. The use of other AFPs by the total population is less than 7 percent. However, unbanked households make

42 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Low incomes and declining home values have made it financially difficult for many ALICE homeowners to maintain their homes.”

use of a range of other AFPs: 12 percent have used a pawn shop, 8 percent have used rent-to-own agreements, 6 percent have used payday lending, and 5 percent have used refund anticipation loans. (Figure 27) (FDIC, 2013).

Figure 27�Use of Alternative Financial Products by Banking Status, California, 2011

NOTE: FDIC reports 13.2 million households, a significantly higher number than the ACS estimate of 12.6 million households in California in 2011. The FDIC survey may have included seasonal visitors to the state, as well as undocumented immigrants, who were not counted in the census.

In California, 36 percent of households with income below the ALICE Threshold own their home, an asset that has traditionally provided financial stability. However, low incomes and declining home values have made it financially difficult for many ALICE homeowners to maintain their homes. Aging housing stock in California has exacerbated this problem, and consequently, the number of abandoned or derelict homes has increased across the state. For some who want to own a home but do not have funds for a down payment or cannot qualify for a mortgage, risky and expensive lease or rent-to-own options are used (Partnership for Strong Communities, 2013; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2013).

And for those households that stretched to buy a home in the mid-2000s, the drop in the housing market caused serious problems. From 2006 to 2012, housing values dropped by 67 percent in California according to the Federal Reserve’s Housing Price Index. This decline, combined with unemployment, underemployment, and reduced wages, meant that many households could not keep up their mortgage payments. The drop in homeownership was especially steep in California, falling from 60 percent in 2006 to 54.5 percent in 2012 (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2012). Many who sold their homes lost money, with some owing more than the sale price. California had the second highest number of completed foreclosures (79,374) in 2012–2013. Overall, the current mortgage foreclosure rate in California is 1.2 percent (CoreLogic, 2013).

Source: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2013

43UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“The total annual public and private spending on California households below the ALICE Threshold is $102 billion or 5 percent of California’s $2.05 trillion Gross Domestic Product.”

IV. HOW MUCH INCOME AND ASSISTANCE IS NEEDED TO REACH THE ALICE THRESHOLD?

Measure 3 – The ALICE Income Assessment

Forty-six percent of California households do not have enough income to reach the ALICE Threshold for financial stability. But how far below the ALICE Threshold are their earnings? How much does the government spend in an attempt to help fill the gap? And is it enough?

Until now, the amount of public and private social services spent on households below the ALICE Threshold has never been totaled for California. Recent national studies have quantified the cost of public services needed to support low-wage workers, specifically at big box retail chain stores and fast food restaurants (Allegretto et al., 2013; Dube and Jacobs, 2004; Wider Opportunities for Women, 2011). But to date the total cost of public and nonprofit assistance for struggling households has not been tallied on a state-by-state basis. The ALICE Income Assessment provides this information for California.

THE ALICE INCOME ASSESSMENTALICE Threshold – Earned Income and Assistance = Unfilled Gap

$320.6 billion – $243.4 billion = $77.2 billion

The ALICE Income Assessment is a tool to measure how much income a household needs to reach the ALICE Threshold compared to how much they actually earn. The ALICE Income Assessment is calculated by totaling the income needed to reach the ALICE Threshold (see the Household Survival Budget in Section II), then subtracting earned income, as well as government and nonprofit assistance. The remainder is the Unfilled Gap, highlighted in Figure 28.

The total annual income of poverty-level and ALICE households in California is $141.4 billion, which includes wages and Social Security. This is only 44 percent of the amount needed to reach the ALICE Threshold of $320.6 billion statewide; government and nonprofit assistance of $102 billion makes up an additional 32 percent. But an Unfilled Gap remains of 24 percent, or $77.2 billion, between the combined earned income and assistance for poverty and ALICE households in California and the ALICE Threshold. The consequences of the Unfilled Gap for ALICE households are discussed in Section VI.

The total annual public and private spending on California households below the ALICE Threshold, which includes families in poverty, is $102 billion (Figure 28) or 5 percent of California’s $2.05 trillion Gross Domestic Product (Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2012c). That spending includes several types of assistance:

• California nonprofits in the human services area provide $6.8 billion, or 2 percent of the total required for ALICE families to reach the ALICE Threshold

• Government programs spend $33.8 billion, or 11 percent

• Cash public assistance delivers $14.9 billion, adding another 5 percent

44 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Federally funded programs for California households below the ALICE Threshold total $35.8 billion and are the l argest source of assistance.”

• Health care spending is $46.4 billion, the largest single category, and adds another 14 percent

• Yet even the total amount of this assistance is not enough to fill the gap between earned income and the ALICE Threshold. The remaining 24 percent is the Unfilled Gap (additional details in Appendix E). In other words, it would require approximately $77.2 billion in additional wages or public resources for all California households to have income at the ALICE Threshold.

Figure 28�Categories of Income and Assistance for Households Below the ALICE Threshold, California, 2012

Definitions• Earned Income = Wages, dividends, Social Security

• Nonprofits = Human services revenue not from the government or user fees

• Cash Public Assistance = Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

• Government Programs = Head Start, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), housing, and human services, federal and state

• Health Care = Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), community health benefits

• Unfilled Gap = Shortfall to ALICE Threshold

Details for Spending Categories in CaliforniaFederally funded programs for California households below the ALICE Threshold total $35.8 billion and are the largest source of assistance. (Figure 29).These programs account for 35 percent of spending on low-income households in the state. The programs can be broken into four categories:

Source: National Priorities Project’s Federal Priorities Database, NCCS Data Web Report Builder, Fiscal Year 2012 California State Budget; see Appendix E.

45UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Health careaccounts forthe largestsingle amountof assistance tolow-incomehouseholds inCalifornia:$46.4 billion, or46 percent ofall spending.”

• Social services is the largest category, spending $15.1 billion on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Social Services Block Grant.

• Education spending is $6.9 billion, which includes Pell grants, adult education, Title I grants to local educational agencies, and child care programs, including Head Start.

• Food programs provide $9.8 billion in assistance, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), school breakfast and lunch programs, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

• Housing programs account for $4 billion, including Section 8 Housing Vouchers, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG).

State and local government assistance for households below the ALICE Threshold in California totals $12.9 billion, accounting for 13 percent of spending. This includes funding for a wide array of community and human services programs for child care, youth, veterans, seniors, and people with disabilities. This figure excludes $16 billion in state spending on health care, particularly the California Medical Assistance Program (Medi-Cal), which provides health care services to low-income individuals and families who meet defined eligibility requirements. That amount is instead included in the health care spending category below.

Nonprofit support from human services organizations in California is $6.8 billion, or 7 percent of assistance to households below the ALICE Threshold. Although many nonprofits also receive government funding to deliver programs, the $6.8 billion figure does not include government grants or user fees. Most of the funds are raised by the nonprofits from corporations, foundations, and individuals. Human services nonprofits provide a wide array of services for households below the ALICE Threshold including job training, temporary housing, and child care.

Health care accounts for the largest single amount of assistance to low-income households in California: $46.4 billion, or 46 percent of all spending. This figure includes Medi-Cal, Medicaid, Hospital Charity Care, and community benefits provided by California hospitals.

Figure 29�Sources of Public and Private Assistance to Households below the ALICE Threshold, California, 2012

Source of Assistance Spending in Millions

Federal Social Services $15,113

Education $6,946

Food $9,765

Housing $3,994

State and Local Government $12,919

Nonprofits $6,837

Health care $46,448

TOTAL $102,023

Source: National Priorities Project’s Federal Priorities Database, 2012

46 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Despite the seemingly large amounts of welfare and health care spending nationwide, theymake up a smallpercentage of GDP,and they fall wellshort of what isnecessary to providefinancial stabilityfor a family.”

Public and Nonprofit Spending Per HouseholdWhen looking at each household (not individuals) below the ALICE Threshold in California, the average benefit from federal, state and local government and nonprofit sources (excluding health care) is $9,616 per household. On average, each household also receives $8,037 in health care resources from government and hospitals. In total, the average household below the ALICE Threshold receives a total of $17,653 in cash and services, shared between all members of the household and spread throughout the year.

Despite the seemingly large amounts of welfare and health care spending nationwide, they make up a small percentage of GDP, and they fall well short of what is necessary to provide financial stability for a family (Weaver, 2009). According to Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW), a Washington, D.C.-based research organization, relying on a basic assistance package means that a three-person family earns minimum wage, leaving them 50 percent short for basic household expenses in almost every state. WOW also notes that a worker earning slightly more than the federal minimum wage may not be much closer to economic security than those earning below it, as those who earn above minimum wage lose eligibility for many benefits (WOW, 2011).

Without public and nonprofit spending, however, ALICE households would face great hardship; many more would be qualified as living below the FPL, particularly in the wake of the Great Recession. Nationally, federal spending per capita grew significantly during the Recession, especially in SNAP, EITC, Unemployment Insurance, and Medicaid programs. These programs were widely shared across demographic groups, including families with and without children, single-parent families, and two-parent families (Moffitt, 2013).

Health Care ConsiderationsHealth care assistance to households requires special consideration. Many studies have found that a few people use a disproportionately large share of health care, while the rest use small amounts (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2010; Silletti, 2005; Culhane, Park and Metraux, 2011). So while California households below the ALICE Threshold receive an average of $8,037 in health care assistance, it is likely that many ALICE and poverty households actually receive far less. A very few probably receive much larger amounts of health care assistance, as illustrated in Malcolm Gladwell’s famous anecdote about the homeless man who cost the system a million dollars a year at the emergency room (Gladwell, 2006). For those households that do not receive health care assistance, however, the Unfilled Gap goes up to 38 percent – the average Unfilled Gap of 24 percent plus 14 percent from the health care assistance they did not receive.

Earned Income Tax CreditAnother source of relief for many ALICE households is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). In fact, ALICE and poverty-level households in California received an aggregate $14 billion to reduce their taxes through the EITC in 2012 (Brookings, 2012). Households that are eligiblebenefit from a reduction in taxes owed. Since the net refund amount in California is positivefor all income brackets, the EITC contribution to the ALICE Unfilled Gap is not included in thecalculations above (IRS, 2012).

EITC filing data provides another window into households with income below the ALICE Threshold. In 2012, 20 percent of tax filers in California were eligible for EITC. In terms of household type, 27 percent were married households, 49 percent were single heads of households, and 24 percent were single adults. The median Adjusted Gross Income was

47UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Families facing unemployment and other financial hardship during the Great Recession turned to government, nonprofit, and private institutional resources as a safety net.”

$14,143. In terms of industries that employ EITC-eligible workers, the most common was retail trade, followed by health care, accommodation and food service, manufacturing, and construction (Brookings, 2012).

The National ContextWhile government and nonprofit spending on households with income below the ALICE Threshold is not enough to lift all households into financial stability, it makes a significant difference to many ALICE families. In fact, without it, their situation would be much worse. The Pew Economic Mobility Project, a national survey of working-age families from 1999 to 2012, found that families facing unemployment and other financial hardship during the Great Recession turned to government, nonprofit, and private institutional resources as a safety net. More than two of every three families interviewed drew on one or more of these institutional resources, receiving help in categories as varied as income, food, health care, education and training, housing and utility assistance, and counseling. Many had never depended on social welfare programs before and were surprised to find themselves in need.

Unemployment insurance was the most common form of assistance; 20 percent of families surveyed used it to make ends meet. However, many part-time, temporary, and self-employed workers had not paid into the unemployment insurance program and did not have access to other types of collective insurance programs. Even for those eligible, unemployment insurance was not always sufficient; these households often needed other safety net programs as well (Pew Economic Mobility Project, 2013).

48 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“In order to understand the challenges that the ALICE population faces in California, it is essential to recognize that economic conditions do not impact all socio-economic and geographic groups in the same way.”

V. WHAT ARE THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS FOR ALICE HOUSEHOLDS IN CALIFORNIA?

Measure 4 – The Economic Viability Dashboard

Local economic conditions largely determine how many households in a county or state fall below the ALICE Threshold. These conditions also determine how difficult it is to survive without sufficient income and assets to afford basic household necessities.

In order to understand the challenges that the ALICE population faces in California, however, it is essential to recognize that economic conditions do not impact all socio-economic and geographic groups in the same way. For example, California’s GDP obscures the lack of high-skilled jobs in many counties.

By contrast, county unemployment statistics clearly reveal where there are not enough jobs. Yet having a job is only part of the economic landscape for ALICE households. The full picture requires an understanding of the types of jobs available and their wages, as well as the cost of basic living expenses and the level of community support in each county.

The Economic Viability Dashboard is a new instrument developed to present three indices – Housing Affordability, Job Opportunities, and Community Support – for each county in California. The Dashboard builds on the work of earlier indices and fills a gap in understanding economic conditions for ALICE households in particular.

EXISTING INDICESThe Human Development Index, a project of the Social Science Research Council, measureshealth (life expectancy), education (school enrollment and the highest educational degreeattained), and income (median personal earnings) for each state in the U.S. Californiaranked 12th for social and economic development, driven primarily by the state’s high lifeexpectancy, but had relatively lower levels of education attainment and median earnings(Lewis and Burd-Sharps, 2014). A more recent report on California examines threedimensions in detail: a long and healthy life, access to knowledge, and a decent standard ofliving (Lewis and Burd-Sharps, 2014a).

Be the Change’s Opportunity Index measures the degree of opportunity – now and inthe future – available to residents of each state based on measurements of that state’seconomic, educational, and community health. California ranks 33rd overall, with slightlybelow average scores in each category. This Index also breaks opportunity scores down bycounty (Opportunity Nation, 2013).

The Institution for Social and Policy Studies’ Economic Security Index measures not conditions, but changes – the size of drops in income or spikes in medical spending and the corresponding “financial insecurity” level in each state. California residents face more financial insecurity than the national average, but like the national average, insecurity scores have improved since 2010 (Hacker, Huber, Nichols, Rehm and Craig, 2012).

49UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“The Economic Viability Dashboard provides a window directly into the economic conditions that matter most to ALICE households.”

The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index provides a view of life in California at the state level in terms of overall well-being, life evaluation, emotional health, physical health, healthy behavior, work environment, and feeling safe, satisfied, and optimistic within a community. Overall, California scored slightly above the national average in 2012 and near the top in healthy behaviors, though near the bottom in terms of basic access to food, shelter, health care, and a safe and satisfying place to live (Gallup-Healthways, 2012).

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index measures the share of homes sold in a given area that would be affordable to a family earning the local median income, based on standard mortgage underwriting criteria. Out of 225 metro areas across the country, California’s 26 metro areas rank from the 121st most affordable to the very least affordable: the San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City metro area ranks 225th (NAHB/Wells Fargo, 2014).

ECONOMIC VIABILITY DASHBOARDBecause they focus on the median, each of the above indices conceals economic conditions for low-income households. By contrast, the Economic Viability Dashboard provides a window directly into the economic conditions that matter most to ALICE households. The Dashboard offers the means to better understand why so many households struggle to achieve basic economic stability throughout California, and why that struggle is harder in some parts of the state than in others.

The Economic Viability Dashboard reports how counties perform on three dimensions: Housing Affordability, Job Opportunities, and Community Support. Each is an Index with scores presented on a scale from 1 (worst economic conditions for ALICE) to 100 (best economic conditions). The Indices also provide the means to compare counties in California and to see changes over time.

The results for each Index are presented in the following maps in summary format (Figures31, 32, and 33); they are color coded by thirds into “poor”, “fair”, and “good” scores for eachcounty. The full scores between 1 and 100 are in the table at the end of this section (Figure34). Score results for each county are in Appendix J, and the methodology and sources arein Appendix F.

ALICE households have to navigate a range of variables, and The Economic Viability Dashboard shows them clearly. A common challenge is to find job opportunities in the same counties that are affordable for ALICE households as places to live. In addition, many affordable counties do not have much community support. Thus, the ideal locations are those that are affordable and have high levels of both job opportunities and community support.

The Economic Viability Dashboard also enables comparison over time for the threedimensions that it measures. To visualize the change over time, the scores for all counties(with data available in all three years) are added together and presented in Figure 30. Thechange in Dashboard scores from 2007 to 2012 provides a striking picture of conditionsworsening in every California county over the course of the Great Recession. From 2007to 2010, scores worsened on average 21 percent in each county, and Del Norte, Plumas,Santa Clara, Shasta, Siskiyou, and Tulare counties fell by more than 30 percent. Conditionsimproved on average 5 percent from 2010 to 2012, but not nearly enough to return to 2007levels.

50 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Counties along thecoast and especiallythe metro areas ofLos Angeles, SanDiego, and SanFrancisco are theleast affordable.The further inland acounty is, the moreaffordable housingbecomes.”

Each of the indices also performed differently over time. Although California is one of themost expensive states for housing, Housing Affordability actually improved on average by8 percent from 2007 to 2012. The driver of poor conditions was the large decline in JobOpportunities, which fell by 24 percent from 2007 to 2010 and then improved by 8 percentfrom 2010 to 2012. Even more drastically, Community Support fell on average 33 percentfrom 2007 to 2010 and only recovered by 2 percent from 2010 to 2012.

Figure 30�Economic Viability Dashboard, California, 2007–2012

The three Indices are reviewed below. Each Index is comprised of three indicators.

The Housing Affordability Index

Key Indicators: Affordable Housing Stock + Housing Burden + Real Estate Taxes

The three key indicators for the Housing Affordability Index are the housing stock that ALICE households can afford, the housing burden, and real estate taxes. The more affordable a county, the easier it is for a household to be financially stable. In California, there is wide variation between counties on Housing Affordability scores (Figure 31). The least affordable county is San Francisco, with a score of just 17 out of 100; the most affordable is Alpine County, with a score of 72. Even the most affordable counties are well below the possible 100 points. In terms of regions, counties along the coast and especially the metro areas of Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco are the least affordable. The further inland a county is, the more affordable housing becomes.

Source: See Appendix F.

51UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“With many of California’s metro areas ranking among the least affordable in the country, it is not surprising that many California households are housing burdened.”

Figure 31�Housing Affordability by County, California, 2012

The Housing Affordability Index: Affordable Housing Stock IndicatorThe first key indicator in the Housing Affordability Index is the amount of the local housing stock that is affordable for households with income below the ALICE Threshold. To measure this, the Index includes the number of ALICE households minus the number of rental and owner units that ALICE can afford, controlled for size by the percent of the overall housing stock. The higher the percent, the harder it is for ALICE households to find affordable housing, and for this Index, the lower the score. The average affordable housing gap in California is 20 percent of the rental housing stock, but there is wide variation between counties. Solano County has the lowest gap with only 3 percent, but San Francisco County has the highest with 45 percent.

The Housing Affordability Index: Housing Burden IndicatorThe second key indicator in the Housing Affordability Index is the extreme housing burden, defined as housing costs that exceed 35 percent of income. This is even higher than the threshold for housing burden defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as housing costs that exceed 30 percent of income. That standard is based on the premise established in the United States Housing Act of 1937 that 30 percent of income was the most a family could spend on housing and still afford other household necessities (Schwartz and Wilson, 2008).

With many of California’s metro areas ranking among the least affordable in the country, it is not surprising that many California households are housing burdened. In fact, 48 percent of renters pay more than 35 percent of their household income on rent, and 30 percent of owners pay more than 35 percent of their income on monthly owner costs, which include their mortgage. There is wide variation across counties,

Source: American Community Survey, 2012 and the ALICE Threshold

52 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“The more evenly income is distributed across the quintiles, the greater the possibility ALICE households have to achieve the county’s median income.”

with the highest housing burden (total renters and owners) in Lake County at a rate of 48 percent; the lowest is 26 percent in Alpine County (American Community Survey, 2012). For the Housing Affordability Index, the housing burden is inversely related so that the greater the housing burden, the less affordable the cost of living and, therefore, the lower the Index score.

The Housing Affordability Index: Real Estate Taxes IndicatorThe third key indicator in the Housing Affordability Index is real estate taxes. While related to housing cost, they also reflect a county’s standard of living. The average annual real estate tax in California is $2,412, but there is wide variation across counties. According to the American Community Survey, average annual real estate taxes are lowest in Modoc County at $1,199 and highest in Marin County at $5,933. For the Housing Affordability Index, property taxes are inversely related so that the higher the taxes, the harder it is to support a household and, therefore, the lower the Index score.

The Job Opportunities Index

Key Indicators: Income Distribution + Unemployment Rate + New Hire Wages

The Job Opportunities Index focuses on job opportunities for the population in general and for households living below the ALICE Threshold in particular. The key indicators for job opportunities are income distribution, the unemployment rate, and new-hire wages. The more job opportunities there are in a county, the more likely a household is to be financially stable. There is less variation across California counties in Job Opportunities than in Housing Affordability. The fewest job opportunities are in Imperial and Riverside counties with scores of 34 each, and the most are in San Luis Obispo County with a score of 74. Interestingly, many of the most expensive areas for housing are those that have the most job opportunities – primarily counties along the coast, especially around San Francisco. But there are also opportunities spread throughout the state.

Figure 32� Job Opportunities by County, California, 2012


53UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Community support provides stability and resources that enable a household to function more efficiently.”

The Job Opportunities Index: Income Distribution IndicatorThe first indicator in the Job Opportunities Index is income distribution as measured by the share of income for the lowest two quintiles. The more evenly income is distributed across the quintiles, the greater the possibility ALICE households have to achieve the county’s median income, and therefore the higher the Index score. In California, income is most unequal in San Francisco County, where the lowest two quintiles earn only 9 percent of the income. The highest percentage these two quintiles earn is 16 percent in Mono County (American Community Survey, 2012).

The Job Opportunities Index: Unemployment Rate IndicatorThe second indicator in the Job Opportunities Index is the unemployment rate. Having a job is obviously crucial to financial stability; the higher the unemployment level in a given region, the fewer opportunities there are for earning income, therefore the lower the Index score. California’s unemployment rate is above the national average of 8.1 percent in all counties. The lowest rate is in Marin County, at 6.3 percent, and there are two counties with unemployment rates of more than 20 percent: Colusa County with 20.1 percent and Imperial County with 27.2 percent.

The Job Opportunities Index: New Hire Wages IndicatorThe third indicator in the Job Opportunities Index is the “average wage for new hires” as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). While having a job is essential, having a job with a salary high enough to afford the cost of living is also important. This indicator seeks to capture the types of jobs that are available in each county. The higher the wage for new hires, the greater the contribution employment can make to household income and, therefore, the higher the Index score. The average wage for a new hire in California is $2,405 per month, but there is wide variation between counties; new hires in Trinity County earn $1,418 per month while new hires in three counties earn more than $4,000 per month: San Francisco County at $4,388 per month, San Mateo County at $4,652 per month, and Santa Clara County at $4,723 per month. This significant variation indicates that there are very different kinds of jobs and/or wage levels available in different locations.

The Community Support Index

Key Indicators: Violent Crime Rate + Nonprofits + Access to Health Care

Community support provides stability and resources that enable a household to function more efficiently. The key indicators for the Community Support Index are the violent crime rate, the size of the human services nonprofit sector, and access to health care.

In California, there is more variation across counties in Community Support than in either of the other Indices. The county scores for Community Support range from a low of 18 in Alpine County to a high of 74 in Riverside County.

54 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“It is clear thatliving in an area where one feels unsafe makesit difficult to meet daily livingrequirements easily, including working, food shopping, accessing child care, or even trying to maintain better health by walking outdoors.”

Figure 33� Community Support by County, California, 2012

The Community Support Index: Violent Crime IndicatorThere is nothing more basic to economic prosperity than personal safety. The first indicator of Community Support is how well the population is protected and able to live and work in safety. The indicator used to assess safety is the Violent Crime Rate per 1,000 residents as reported in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. Higher crime rates make it literally harder to survive and also depress the availability of good jobs nearby; therefore, a high crime rate lowers the Index score. In California, Calhoun County has the lowest rate at 1.37 violent crimes per 1,000 residents, while four counties have rates above 7 violent crimes per 1,000 residents: Escambia, Franklin, Madison, and Putnam (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2012).

High crime rates drive down rent and property values, so the housing stock that low-income households can afford is often in less safe neighborhoods (Shapiro and Hassett, 2012; Ihlanfeldt and Mayock, 2010; Lynch and Rasmussen, 2001; Gibbons, 2004). While there is much debate on the cause and effect, it is clear that living in an area where one feels unsafe makes it difficult to meet daily living requirements easily, including working, food shopping, accessing child care, or even trying to maintain better health by walking outdoors.

The Community Support Index: Nonprofits IndicatorThe second indicator in the Community Support Index is the impact of human service organizations in a given area, as measured by the annual payroll of human services nonprofits per capita (not including hospitals, universities, or houses of worship). For the Index, nonprofits with higher payroll per capita are assumed to have more community impact and provide more support to local households living below the ALICE Threshold, resulting in a higher Index score.


55UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Health insurance is especially important for households living below the ALICE Threshold, who do not have the resources to pay for a health emergency.”

In California, the average size of the nonprofit sector, as measured by the nonprofit payroll per capita per year, is $3,377, but there is enormous variation in nonprofit sector activity across counties. The smallest nonprofit sector is in Alpine County, where the nonprofit payroll is just $207 per capita. The largest by far is in San Francisco County with $35,035 per capita, benefitting from the success of Silicon Valley. The next largest nonprofit sector is in Santa Clara County with $8,295 per capita. Interestingly, Sacramento County, the home of the state capital, ranks as only the eighth largest nonprofit sector per capita with $5,489 – whereas nonprofits in other state capitals generally have a higher impact because of the higher concentration of nonprofit head offices in capital areas.

Another sign of the impact of the Great Recession is the fact that nonprofit revenues in California in 2012 were down sharply from 2007. The average size of the nonprofit sector per capita was $11,741 in 2007, almost three times higher than $3,377 in 2012. Unfortunately, this was the same time period when demand for services increased in these areas.

The Community Support Index: Health Care IndicatorThe third indicator in Community Support, and fundamental to economic opportunity, is access to health care. Because health insurance is a vital part of access to health care in the U.S., coverage is used as a proxy here for access to health care. With funding for coverage of the uninsured provided at the federal and state levels, the extent of coverage is an indicator of the effectiveness of local health outreach. For community health, the higher the rate of health insurance coverage, the higher the Index score.

Health insurance alone (especially Medicaid) is not a guarantee of access to basic health care, but it is especially useful to note the level of coverage in 2012 as a baseline from which to measure change from the Affordable Care Act going forward.

The level of health insurance coverage in California decreased slightly over the last decade, from an average of 83 percent of the population with health insurance in 2003–2005 to 81 percent in 2010–2012 (U.S. Census. 2013), and wide variation exists across counties. The county with the lowest health insurance coverage rate is Madera County with 75 percent, and the highest is Marin County with 88 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013).

Health insurance is especially important for households living below the ALICE Threshold, who do not have the resources to pay for a health emergency. Even with eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP, low-income households are less likely than high-income households to have insurance in California. In fact, 33 percent of the population under the age of 64 with annual income under 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level did not have health insurance in California in 2012, compared to 21 percent of the total non-elderly population (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2012).

OVERVIEW OF ECONOMIC VIABILITY FOR ALICE HOUSEHOLDS IN CALIFORNIA’S COUNTIESFor ALICE households, locations where there are job opportunities near affordable livingand community support are both most needed and hardest to find. The EconomicViability Dashboard shows that only Sierra County scores in the highest third on all threeindices, and Alpine, Amador, Inyo and Tuolumne counties scored in the top third on bothHousing Affordability and Job Opportunities. At the other end of the spectrum, San Benitoand San Diego counties scored in the bottom third on all three indices (Figure 34).

56 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“The Economic Viability Dashboard shows that only Sierra County scores in the highest third on all three indices, and Alpine, Amador, Inyo and Tuolumne counties scored in the top third on both Housing Affordability and Job Opportunities.”

Figure 34� Economic Viability Dashboard, California, 2012

• Index scores are from a possible 1 (worst) to 100 (best)

• The scores are color coded by thirds: poor = bottom third; fair = middle third; good = top third of scores for each index

County Housing

Affordability (scores range from

17 to 72)

Job Opportunities

(scores range from 34 to 74)

Community Support


Alameda poor (50) good (67) poor (29) Alpine good (72) good (61) poor (18) Amador good (63) good (60) fair (53) Butte fair (56) fair (50) fair (50) Calaveras good (61) fair (50) fair (52) Colusa good (64) poor (35) fair (52) Contra Costa poor (51) fair (57) poor (43) Del Norte fair (57) fair (57) good (59) El Dorado good (60) fair (57) good (62) Fresno fair (52) fair (55) poor (42) Glenn fair (54) poor (48) fair (55) Humboldt poor (44) fair (57) fair (48) Imperial good (59) poor (34) good (63) Inyo good (62) good (68) poor (45) Kern fair (58) fair (55) fair (53) Kings fair (58) poor (43) poor (45) Lake poor (46) poor (45) fair (47) Lassen good (68) fair (50) fair (50) Los Angeles poor (44) fair (56) good (58) Madera fair (56) fair (51) fair (46) Marin poor (22) good (58) good (57) Mariposa good (66) fair (56) good (62) Mendocino fair (56) good (68) fair (55) Merced fair (58) poor (44) fair (50) Modoc good (67) poor (48) good (65) Mono good (61) fair (51) fair (49) Monterey fair (56) poor (46) poor (43) Napa poor (45) good (61) good (57) Nevada poor (46) good (59) good (63) Orange poor (25) good (72) good (56) Placer fair (54) poor (47) fair (55) Plumas good (65) fair (54) poor (42) Riverside fair (57) poor (34) good (74) Sacramento fair (52) good (61) fair (47) San Benito poor (45) poor (45) poor (45) San Bernardino fair (53) fair (56) fair (48) San Diego poor (40) poor (38) poor (45) San Francisco poor (17) fair (57) poor (45) San Joaquin fair (53) poor (42) fair (49) San Luis Obispo fair (55) good (74) fair (50) San Mateo poor (22) good (63) good (68) Santa Barbara poor (41) fair (51) poor (45)

57UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“For ALICE households, locations where there are job opportunities near affordable living and community support are both most needed and hardest to find.”

County Housing

Affordability (scores range from

17 to 72)

Job Opportunities


Community Support


Santa Clara poor (26) fair (54) poor (45) Santa Cruz poor (26) good (69) fair (51) Shasta good (59) fair (51) poor (38) Sierra good (63) good (59) good (59) Siskiyou fair (55) fair (56) good (63) Solano good (62) fair (56) poor (44) Sonoma fair (52) good (65) poor (37) Stanislaus fair (52) fair (55) fair (49) Sutter fair (56) fair (56) fair (48) Tehama good (66) poor (42) fair (53) Trinity fair (52) poor (48) good (58) Tulare fair (57) poor (40) poor (45) Tuolumne good (59) good (66) fair (52) Ventura poor (37) good (68) good (71) Yolo fair (52) good (63) fair (49) Yuba good (59) fair (54) good (56)

Sources and Methodology: See Appendix F.

58 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“For ALICE households, difficult economic conditions create specific problems in the areas of housing, child care and education, food, health and health care, and transportation, as well as income and savings.”

VI. THE CONSEQUENCES OF INSUFFICIENT HOUSEHOLD INCOME When households face difficult economic conditions and cannot afford basic necessities, they are forced to make difficult choices and take risks. When the overall economic climate worsens, as it did from 2007 to 2012 during and after the Great Recession, more households are forced to make even harder trade-offs. How do these households survive?

For ALICE households, difficult economic conditions create specific problems in the areas of housing, child care and education, food, health and health care, and transportation, as well as income and savings. Yet what is not always acknowledged is that these problems have consequences not just for ALICE households, but for their broader communities as well (Figure 35).

Figure 35�Consequences of Households Living Below the ALICE Threshold in California

Impact on ALICE Impact on Community

HOUSING

Live in substandard housingInconvenience; health and safety risks; increased maintenance and utility costs

Stressed worker; absenteeism

Move farther away from jobLonger commute; costs increase; less time for other activities

More traffic on road; workers late to job

Homeless Disruption to job, family, education, etc.

Costs for homeless shelters, foster care system, health care

CHILD CARE AND EDUCATION

SubstandardSafety and learning risks; health risks; limited future employment opportunity

Future burden on education system and other social services; less productive worker

NoneOne parent cannot work; forgoing immediate income and future promotions

Further burden on education system and other social services

FOOD

Less healthy Poor health; obesityLess productive worker/student; future burden on health care system

Not enough Poor daily functioning Even less productive, future burden on social services

59UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Homelessness is the worst possible outcome for households below the ALICE Threshold, but there are lesser consequences that still take a toll, including excessive spending on housing, living far from work, or living in substandard units.”

Impact on ALICE Impact on Community

TRANSPORTATION

Old carUnreliable transportation; risk accidents; increased maintenance costs

Worker late/absent from job

No insurance/registration Risk of fine; accident liability; license revoked

Higher insurance premiums; unsafe vehicles on the road

Long commute Less time for other activities; more costly

More traffic on road; workers late to job; burden on social services

No carLimited employment opportunities and access to health care/child care

Reduced economic productivity; higher taxes for special transportation; greater burden on emergency vehicles

HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE

Underinsured Forgo preventative health care; more out-of-pocket expenses

Workers report to job sick; spread illness; less productive; absenteeism

No insuranceForgo preventative health care; use Emergency Room for non-emergency care

Higher premiums for all; more expensive health costs

INCOME

Low wagesLonger work hours; pressure on other family members to work (drop out of school); no savings

Tired or stressed worker;higher taxes to fill the gap

No wages Cost of looking for work and finding social services

Less productive society; higher taxes to fill the gap

SAVINGS

Minimal SavingsMental stress; crises; risk taking; use costly alternative financial systems to bridge gaps

More workers facing crisis; unstable workforce; community disruption

No savings Crises spiral quickly, leading to homelessness, hunger, illness

Costs for homeless shelters, foster care system, emergency health care

Suggested reference: United Way ALICE Report – California, 2014

HOUSINGHousing is the cornerstone of financial stability, so the cost of housing plays a critical role inan ALICE household’s budget. Homelessness is the worst possible outcome for householdsbelow the ALICE Threshold, but there are lesser consequences that still take a toll, includingexcessive spending on housing, living far from work, or living in substandard units. For thesehouseholds, housing is challenging in California due to the lack of available low-cost units.Among ALICE homeowners, the drop in the housing market, unemployment or reducedwages, and an aging housing stock have forced many into foreclosure.

60 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“With a statewide vacancy rate of 8.4 percent, compared to the national average of 12.4, California has one of the tightest housing markets in the country. As a result, to obtain housing at all, many ALICE families accept poor housing conditions and higher prices.”

The national rankings of California’s 27 metro areas vary, but none are in the top 100 most affordable. The National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index (NAHB/Wells Fargo) measures the share of homes sold in a given area that would be affordable to a family earning the local median income, based on standard mortgage underwriting criteria. California’s Hanford-Corcoran metro area is the most affordable, ranking 121 nationally (out of 225) and 14th in the Western U.S. region. The six least affordable metro areas out of 225 in the country are all located in California: Salinas, Napa, Santa Cruz-Watsonville, Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, and San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City. In addition, 15 of the 25 least affordable metro areas are located in California (NAHB/Wells Fargo, 2014) (Figure 36).

With a statewide vacancy rate of 8.4 percent, compared to the national average of 12.4percent, California has one of the tightest housing markets in the country. As a result, to obtain housing at all, many ALICE families accept poor housing conditions and higher prices (American Community Survey, 2012; Metzger, 2012).

Figure 36� NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index for California Metro Areas, 2014

Affordability Rank

METRO AREA REGIONAL RANKING NATIONAL RANKING

Hanford-Corcoran 14 121

Madera-Chowchilla 18 136

Chico 25 154

Merced 28 160

Visalia-Porterville 35 174

Redding 36 175

Yuba City 37 177

Vallejo-Fairfield 40 182

El Centro 43 187

Modesto 44 188

Bakersfield-Delano 45 189

Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville 50 201

Stockton 52 204

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario 54 208

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura 55 211

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta 57 213

Oakland-Fremont-Hayward 58 214

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos 59 215

Santa Rosa-Petaluma 60 216

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara 61 217

San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles 62 218

Salinas 63 220

Napa 64 221

Santa Cruz-Watsonville 65 222

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale 66 223

Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine 67 224

San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City 68 225

Source: NAHB/Wells Fargo, 2014

61UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“The housing bubble and subsequent housing crisis led to an increase in the demand for rental housing in California.”

Another indicator of the lack of housing affordability in California is the extent to which households are housing burdened. As discussed in Section V, 48 percent of renters pay more than 35 percent of their household income on rent, and 30 percent of owners pay more than 35 percent of their income on monthly owner costs. According to the American Community Survey, owners and renters with lower incomes are more likely to be housing burdened than those with higher incomes (American Community Survey, 2012). When households with income below the ALICE Threshold spend more than 35 percent of income on rent and utility costs, they are often forced to forgo other basics such as food, medicine, child care, or heat (NLIHC, 2012).

RentersOverall, Californians are more likely to be owners than renters, with 46 percent of units renter-occupied. However, ALICE households in California have a higher percentage of renters with 64 percent of households with income below the ALICE Threshold renting, comprising 62 percent of all rental units. Renting allows for greater mobility; people can move more easily for work. In fact, renters are more likely than homeowners to have moved in the last few years (American Community Survey, 2012). However, any change in housing location has a range of associated costs, from financial transition costs and reduced wages due to time off from work to social start-up costs for new schools and the process of becoming invested in a new community.

The housing bubble and subsequent housing crisis led to an increase in the demand for rental housing in California. The percent of households renting increased from 42 percent in 2007 to 46 percent in 2012, mirroring the decline in the rate of homeownership, already much lower in California than the rest of the nation – 54 percent of occupied housing units versus 65 percent in the rest of the country (Johnson and Mejia, January 2014; American Community Survey, 2012).

The rental stock in California does not match current needs. Analysis of each countyin California reveals that there are approximately 3.7 million renters with income belowthe ALICE Threshold, yet there are only 2.3 million rental units that ALICE and povertyhouseholds can afford, assuming the household spends no more than one-third of itsincome on rent (Figure 37). In order for all households below the ALICE Threshold not tohave an extreme housing burden – that is, not to spend more than 35 percent of theirincome on housing – California would need at least 1.4 million more affordable rental units.In California, 38 percent of renters below the ALICE Threshold do not have affordablehousing options.

The ALICE rental housing deficit is based on the actual cost of housing and household income, rather than a percentage of Area Median Income. This method reveals a much larger rental housing deficit than previous estimates. NLIHC’s statewide California estimate of a shortage of 899,414 units affordable and available for extremely low-income renters is based on affordability to residents earning less than 30 percent of the median income (NLIHC, 2013). Nevertheless, both indices confirm the significant shortage of affordable housing in California.

California’s rental market has not had the same booms and busts that have characterized the homeownership market. In fact, rents have increased steadily through the Great Recession, especially at the low end of the market, making affordable rental housing difficult to find in many parts of California. In terms of regions, rents increased by more than 10 percent in the Bay Area and Orange County through the Great Recession, and by more than 20 percent in the metropolitan areas of Fresno, Los Angeles, Riverside-San Bernardino, and San Diego. Only in the Sacramento metropolitan area were rents up by less than 10 percent (Johnson and Mejia, January 2014).

62 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Low-cost housing units are often in areas with high crime rates, run-down infrastructure, no public transportation, or long distances from grocery stores and other necessities.”

Initially, some vacant foreclosed properties became rental units. But most foreclosed unitsthat remain are in outlying suburban areas, so they do not meet the needs of either youngadults or many older Californians for smaller homes close to services, amenities, andtransit (State of California, 2010).

Figure 37� Rental Stock, Affordable Units vs. Renters Below the ALICE Threshold, California, 2012

Of the 2.3 million rental units that households with income below the ALICE Threshold can afford, 22 percent are subsidized. California’s affordable rental housing programs reached 508,683 households across the state in 2010 (HUD, 2013). Because the cost of housing is high in many parts of California, market rate housing fails to provide enough rental units that ALICE households can afford. The extent of California’s affordable rental housing programs, and the gap in low-cost units that still remains, reveal the burden that the high cost of housing imposes on the entire state.

In this market, most California renters continue to spend larger portions of their income on housing. The estimated mean wage for a California renter in 2013 was $17.99 per hour. At this wage, according to NLIHC, in order to afford the Fair Market Rate (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment ($1,341 per month) without becoming housing burdened, a renter must work 57 hours per week, 52 weeks per year (NLIHC, 2013).

Problems with Low-cost Housing Units Many housing units cost less because they are in undesirable locations, lack basic kitchen or bath facilities, or are in need of repair. Low-cost housing units are often in areas with high crime rates, run-down infrastructure, no public transportation, or long distances from grocery stores and other necessities. This is especially a problem for California’s cities, where there


63UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“When ALICE households are homeowners, they are more likely to have a sub-prime mortgage. Almost by definition, most sub-prime mortgages are sold to low-income households, and now these households make up the majority of foreclosures.”

continue to be neighborhoods with housing stock characterized by vacancies, structural deficiencies, and lagging upkeep (California Policy Institute, 2014).

While the age of California’s housing stock is the same as the national average with 30 percent of housing units built before 1960 (American Community Survey, 2012), many of the units that are available to ALICE families at lower rents are those that are older or in disrepair. Substandard housing conditions are more common among low-income households in California, who suffer, in turn, a disproportionate burden of housing-related health conditions (State of California, 2010). In California’s low-cost housing stock, 51,482 units lack complete plumbing facilities and 142,812 lack complete kitchen facilities (American Community Survey, 2012). Older and less expensive housing units often need maintenance, so ALICE households living in these units face both the cost of upkeep and the safety risks of do-it-yourself repairs, or possibly greater risks when repairs are not made. A costly repair can threaten the safety or livelihood of an ALICE household.

Rental housing stock is also especially vulnerable to removal. Nationally, 5.6 percent of the rental stock was demolished between 2001 and 2011, but the loss rate for units with rent under $400 per month (i.e., those most affordable for ALICE households) was more than twice as high, at 12.8 percent (Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2013).

HomeownersIn California, there are 2 million homeowners with income below the ALICE Threshold and there are even more owner units that are affordable (i.e., do not consume more than one-third of their income), assuming they have a 30-year mortgage at 4 percent and they provided a 10 percent down payment. However, the fact that 30 percent of owners pay more than 35 percent of their income on monthly owner costs reveals that ALICE homeowners are living in more expensive houses than they can afford, made low down payments, or have higher interest rate mortgages. The extent of foreclosures in California suggests that all of these factors were present through the Great Recession.

When ALICE households are homeowners, they are more likely to have a sub-prime mortgage. Almost by definition, most sub-prime mortgages are sold to low-income households, and now these households make up the majority of foreclosures. In 2013, California ranked second in the nation (after Florida) with 79,374 completed foreclosures. Its current foreclosure inventory rate has returned to 1.2 percent, near the historic U.S. average of 1.1 percent (CoreLogic, 2013; Demarco, 2011).

For an ALICE household, a foreclosure not only results in the loss of a stable place to live and an owner’s primary asset but also reduces the owner’s credit rating, creating barriers to future home purchases and rentals. With few or no other assets to cushion the impact, ALICE households recovering from foreclosure often have difficulty finding new housing (Federal Reserve Board, 2008; Kingsley, Smith, and Price, 2009; Frame, 2010).

In addition, with the tightening of mortgage regulations, those who do not qualify look for alternatives, leading to an increased interest in the use of “contract for deed” or “rent-to-own” mortgages (Popoff, 2013).

Homelessness Ultimately, if an ALICE household cannot afford their home or it becomes too unsafe, they can become homeless. This starts a downward spiral of bad credit and destabilized work, school, and family life. Some households move in with relatives, threatening the stability of another household. Others move to public assistance housing and homeless services.

64 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Early learning experiences that help build both social skills and pre-learning skills have social and economic benefits for children, parents, employers, and society as a whole, both now and in the future.”

In California in 2013, there were 136,926 homeless people, down 14 percent from 2007. Less than one-fifth of the homeless are families. These figures include 16,461 homeless veterans, down from 19,163 in 2010. However, the rate of homelessness in California is 360 per 100,000 population, compared to the national rate of 200 per 100,000 (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2013; U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2014; National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans, 2010).

The evidence is clear that the cost of preventing homelessness is significantly less than the cost of caring for a homeless family or returning them to a home – one-sixth the cost, according to the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2005). The National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) estimates that the cost to help a household recover from a homeless episode is $11,439, including shelter, transitional housing, counseling, and other services (NAEH, 2005). And Philip Mangano, former executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, reports that the cost of keeping people on the street ranges between $35,000 and $150,000 per person per year, while the cost of keeping formerly homeless people housed ranges from $13,000 to $25,000 per person per year, based on data from 65 U.S. cities (Mangano, 2008).

CHILD CARE AND EDUCATIONThe consequences for a family of not having child care are twofold: the child may not gain pre-learning skills necessary for success in kindergarten and beyond, and one parent has to forgo work, limiting future earning potential. As discussed in the Household Survival Budget, child care in California is often the most expensive item in a family’s budget. The average cost of licensed, accredited child care centers in California is $1,620 per month for an infant and a four-year-old, and less, but still expensive, for unlicensed, non-accredited, home-based child care at $1,208 per month for an infant and a four-year-old.

The value of good child care – for children, their families, and the wider community – is well documented. Early learning experiences that help build both social skills and pre-learning skills have social and economic benefits for children, parents, employers, and society as a whole, both now and in the future. Alternatively, poor quality child care can slow intellectual and social development, and low standards of hygiene and safety can lead to injury and illness for children. Inadequate child care negatively affects parents and employers as well, resulting in absenteeism, tardiness, and low productivity (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2011 and 2013; Haskins, 2011; Childhood Trends, 2011; McCartney, 2008).

Some child care needs can be covered by publicly subsidized preschools, which provide great savings to ALICE families. California State Preschool Programs enroll 147,413 children statewide. In 2012, California ranked 13th nationally in terms of spending per pre-kindergarten student, at $4,986 per month. In terms of quality, however, these programs scored 3 out of 10 in the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) Quality Standards Checklist (NIEER, 2013). Overall, 53 percent of children ages three to four do not attend preschool in California, almost matching the national average of 54 percent (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2014).

One impact of the Great Recession has been the decrease in demand for formal child care for three-year-olds and before- and after-care for four-year-olds, as unemployed parents save money by caring for preschool-age children at home. Employed parents may also use more unlicensed home-based child care to save money, but home-based care is unregulated,

65UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“The difference in the net fiscal contributions of a high school graduate versus a high school dropout in the U.S. is $305,000 over that person’s lifetime.”

so the safety, health, and learning quality that it provides are sometimes questionable. Alternatively, ALICE parents may rely on friends, family, or neighbors for child care.

These options all highlight the fact that attendance at preschool remains strongly tied to income. In California, 63 percent of children in households with income roughly below the ALICE Threshold are not enrolled in preschool, compared to 43 percent for those in families with income roughly above the ALICE Threshold (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2014; Sell, Zlotnik, Noonan, Rubin, 2010). The empty spaces in preschools also create economic problems for child care centers. In some cases, centers raise rates for remaining children, but that is often not possible for government-subsidized spots. In other cases, centers are forced to close.

One area of particular concern for California’s ALICE households is the achievement gap in California’s public schools. State and national data show that students from low-income families, as well as Black students, Hispanic students, students with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency are significantly less likely to graduate than their peers. The graduation rate for White students in California was 86 percent in 2011–2012, but in the same year, only 66 percent of Black students and 73 percent of Hispanic students earned diplomas. In addition, the graduation rate was only 61 percent for students with disabilities, 62 percent for students with limited English proficiency, and 73 percent for economically disadvantaged students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014).

The difference in the net fiscal contributions of a high school graduate versus a high school dropout in the U.S. is $305,000 over that person’s lifetime, according to a 2009 estimate by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. The gap between high school graduates and those who hold a bachelor’s degree is $512,000. Included in these calculations are income from tax payments minus cost of government assistance, institutionalization, and incarceration. The evidence is clear on the importance of needing, at a minimum, a solid high school education in order to achieve economic success. The lack of a basic education has repercussions society-wide as well, including lower tax revenues, greater public spending on public assistance and health care, and higher crime rates. Closing the achievement gap would benefit not only lower-income individuals and families, but all Californians (Tyler and Lofstrom, 2009; Center for Labor Market Studies, 2009 and 2009a).

Another problem for ALICE households is the cost of college and the burden of college loans. Because college graduates have greater earning power, more Americans than ever before are attending college, but at the same time, more are dropping out and defaulting on their loans. In California, 35 percent of workers have some college or an associate degree, but not a bachelor’s degree. These residents are more likely to have debt that they cannot repay. Nationally, 58 percent of borrowers whose student loans came due in 2005 hadn’t received a degree, according to the Institute for Higher Education Policy. Of those, 59 percent were delinquent on their loans or had already defaulted, compared with 38 percent of college graduates (Cunningham and Kienzl, 2011).

FOODHaving enough food is a basic challenge for ALICE households. Between 2010 and 2012, 15.6 percent of California households experienced food hardship (U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2012). Feeding America estimates that 16.2 percent of the overall California population and 26.3 percent of children are food insecure. The rate is even higher for low-income households: the California Food Policy Advocates (CFPA) estimate that 42

66 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“In California, 30 percent of adults do not eat fruit or vegetables daily. This may be explained in part by the fact that only 82 percent of California neighborhoods have a healthy food retailer within a half-mile.”

percent were food insecure in 2012, according to the USDA’s measure of lack of access, at times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members and limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate foods (CFPA, 2014; Feeding America, 2014).

The need for food assistance has increased over time as well. From 2007 to 2012, the total number of California households receiving federal food stamps (SNAP) more thandoubled, from 526,622 to 1.14 million (American Community Survey, 2007 and 2012). While data is not available for the whole state, the Feeding America system provides insight into three of California’s counties. Emergency food was provided to more than 416,800 different people in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties and 64,100 people in Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties in 2010. Of the households served in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, 52 percent had at least one employed adult, and 50 percent reported having to choose between paying for food and paying for utilities. Of the households served in Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties, many fewer were employed – only 23 percent had at least one employed adult – and 35 percent reported having to choose between paying for food and paying for utilities (Feeding America, 2010).

Access to healthy food options is another challenge for the ALICE population. Many low-income households work long hours at low-paying jobs and are faced with higher prices for and often minimal access to fresh food, which often makes healthy cooking at home difficult and unaffordable. More convenient options like fast food, however, are usually far less healthy. In California, 30 percent of adults do not eat fruit or vegetables daily. This may be explained in part by the fact that only 82 percent of California neighborhoods have a healthy food retailer within a half-mile; however, this percentage is higher than the national average of 70 percent (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2013).

Not having enough income to afford healthy food has consequences not only for ALICE’s health, but also for the strength of the local economy and the future health care costs of the community. Numerous studies have shown associations between food insecurity and adverse health outcomes such as coronary heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, hypertension, and osteoporosis (Seligman, Laraia and Kushel, 2010; Kendall, Olson and Frongillo, 1996). The USDA argues that healthier diets would prevent excessive medical costs, lost productivity, and premature deaths associated with these conditions (USDA, 1999).

Households facing food insecurity are also more vulnerable to obesity. ALICE households often lack access to healthy, affordable food or time to prepare it, and they may have fewer opportunities for physical activity because of long hours at work and poor access to recreational spaces and facilities. In addition, stress often contributes to weight gain, and ALICE households face significant stress from food insecurity and other financial pressures (Hartline-Grafton, 2011). In California, 25 percent of adults are overweight or obese, slightly less than the national average of 28 percent (CDC, 2013). These rates have increased over time in California, from 22 percent in 2001 to 25 percent in 2012 (CDC, 2012).

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUTINGWith limited public transportation in California, having a car is essential in order to live and work in most parts of the state. Most residents in California get to work and school, as well as to shopping and doctors’ appointments, by car. There are nearly 32 million vehicles in California, and they traveled more than 331 billion miles throughout the state in 2013 (California State Transportation Agency, 2014).Only five counties – Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo – have sufficient public transportation for workers to get to work (American Community Survey, 2012).

67UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Because many ALICE households work in the service sector, they are required to be on the job in person, making vehicles essential for employment.”

Without a car in California, ALICE households have difficulty getting to their jobs, grocery stores, schools, and health care centers. Also, because many ALICE households work in the service sector, they are required to be on the job in person, making vehicles essential for employment.

Nationally, families with a car are more likely to live in neighborhoods with greater environmental quality, safety, and social quality than the neighborhoods of households without cars (Pendall, Hayes, George, and McDade, 2014). There are consequences for the wider community when households do not have access to a car and cannot get to work or to health care facilities, including reduced economic productivity and a greater burden on health services, particularly emergency vehicles.

Figure 38�Percent of Workers Commuting Outside Home County, California, 2012

Commuting impacts many workers in California (Figure 38). The mean commute time for California workers is 28 minutes to work, slightly more than the national average of 26 minutes (American Community Survey, 2012). In many of the large counties, fewer than 10 percent of workers commute to work outside their home county. However, in 17 counties, more than 30 percent of workers commute outside their home county, and in Yuba County, 51 percent of workers commute (American Community Survey, 2012) (Figure 39).


68 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Because owning a car is essential for work, many ALICE households need to borrow money in order to buy a vehicle. Low-income families are twice as likely to have a vehicle loan as all families.”

Figure 39�Highest Percent of Workers Commuting Outside Home County, California, 2012

County Percent Commuting Outside Home County

Yuba 51%

San Benito 49%

Calaveras 47%

Sutter 47%

El Dorado 45%

San Mateo 42%

Alpine 41%

Solano 41%

Contra Costa 40%

Sierra 39%

Placer 38%

Yolo 37%

Marin 35%

Madera 33%

Alameda 33%

Mariposa 31%

Riverside 30%


Some of the worst commutes, in terms of time, money, and aggravation are not across counties, but across cities. According to a study by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Los Angeles and San Francisco have two of the five most expensive commutes, with congestion costing the average auto commuter more than $1,260 in 2011 (Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 2012).

Long commutes add costs (car, gas, child care) that ALICE households cannot afford. Long commutes also reduce time for other activities, such as exercise, shopping for and cooking healthy food, and community and family involvement. This is another instance in which ALICE workers use short-term cost saving measures that impose long-term risks.

Because owning a car is essential for work, many ALICE households need to borrow money in order to buy a vehicle. Low-income families are twice as likely to have a vehicle loan as all families. Many workers cannot qualify for traditional loans and are forced to resort to non-traditional means, such as “Buy Here Pay Here” used car dealerships and Car-Title loans. The aggregate cost of interest rate overcharges on used cars in California is more than $49 billion, the highest in the country (Center for Responsible Lending, 2012).

In 2010, approximately 33 percent of ALICE households nationally bought a new vehicle through installment debt, a drop from 44 percent in 2007, reflecting the national decrease in the purchase of new vehicles. With that national decrease, the average value of vehicles dropped across the country. Nationally, for low-income families, the median car value is

69UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Physicians report that their patients frequently express health concerns caused by unmet social needs, including the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age.”

$4,000, or about one-third of the $12,000 median value of cars owned by middle-income families (Bricker, Kennickell, Moore, and Sabelhaus, 2012).

One way low-income households try to close the income gap is by skimping on expenses, and those expenses often include car insurance. Despite the fact that driving without insurance is a violation in nearly every state, 15 percent of California motorists were uninsured in 2009, down from 18 percent in 2007 (latest figures available from the Insurance Research Council, 2009 and 2011). Vehicles without insurance increase costs for all motorists; uninsured and under-insured motorists add roughly 8 percent to an average auto premium for the rest of the community (McQueen, 2008).

Another cost-saving strategy is not registering a vehicle, saving the annual fee and possibly the repairs needed for it to pass inspection. These strategies may provide short-term savings, but they have long-term consequences such as fines, towing and storage fees, points on a driver’s license that increase the cost of car insurance, and even impounding of the vehicle. Low-income households also often defer car maintenance. Again, this short-term cost saving measure creates hazards for the wider community as older and poorly maintained vehicles on the roads pose safety and environmental risks to all drivers.

These cost saving strategies all have risks for ALICE households as well as for the wider community. Older cars that may need repairs make driving less safe and increase pollution for all. When ALICE workers cannot get to work on time, productivity suffers. And when there is an emergency such as a child being sick or injured, if an ALICE household does not have reliable transportation, their options are poor – forgo treatment and risk the child’s health, rely on friends or neighbors for transportation, or call an ambulance, increasing costs for all taxpayers.

HEALTH AND HEALTH CAREQuality of health directly correlates to income. Low-income households are more likely than higher-income households to be obese and to have poorer health in general (CDC, 2011; CDC, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2010). There is a two-way connection: having a health problem can reduce income and increase expenses, often moving a family below the ALICE Threshold or even into poverty. But trying to maintain a household with a low income and few assets can also cause poor health and certainly mental stress (Choi, 2009; Currie and Tekin, 2011; Federal Reserve, 2013; Zurlo, Yoon, and Kim, 2014).

A 2011 survey of U.S. physicians by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation concluded that “medical care alone cannot help people achieve and maintain good health if they do not have enough to eat, live in a dilapidated apartment without heat, or are unemployed.” Physicians report that their patients frequently express health concerns caused by unmet social needs, including the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age. Four in five physicians surveyed say unmet social needs are directly leading to poor health. The top social needs include: fitness programs (75 percent), nutritious food (64 percent), transportation assistance (47 percent), employment assistance (52 percent), adult education (49 percent), and housing assistance (43 percent) (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, December 2011).

A contributing factor to poor health in California is a shortage of health care professionals. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, there are 540 Primary Care Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSA) in California, with 69 percent of need being met, above the national rate of 60 percent for HPSAs across the country. In addition, there are approximately 341 Dental Care and Mental HPSAs in California, with only 41 percent of need being met (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2012).

70 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Across the U.S., funding has been cut for mental health services while demand has increased. According to the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, only 38 percent of individuals with mental health issues have received appropriate services.”

ALICE households try to save on health care in many ways. Unfortunately, most have downside risks, many of them significant.

Preventative Health CareA common way to save on health care costs is to forgo preventative health care, which typically includes seeing a doctor, taking regular medication, and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. For many ALICE households, visits to doctors are often seen as too expensive. In California, 16 percent of adults went without preventative health care in 2011, but among low-income adults, 26 percent went without (Commonwealth Fund, 2014). Forgoing preventative dental care is even more common, and nationally low-income adults are almost twice as likely as higher-income adults to have gone without a dental check-up in the previous year. Yet poor oral health impacts overall health and increases the risk for diabetes, heart disease, and poor birth outcomes (U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, 2012).

Untreated mental health issues are also a pressing problem. In 2012, 18 percent of California residents aged 18 or over had a diagnosed mental Illness and 1 in 20 suffered from a serious mental illness that makes it difficult to carry out major life activities. The rate for serious mental illness among children was even higher, at 1 in 13. In addition, for both children and adults, the prevalence of serious mental illness varied by income, with significantly higher rates of mental illness at lower income levels (SAMHSA, 2014; California Healthcare Almanac, 2013). Across the U.S., funding has been cut for mental health services while demand has increased. According to the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, only 38 percent of individuals with mental health issues have received appropriate services. The result has been longer waiting lists for treatment, less money to help patients find housing and jobs, and more people visiting emergency rooms for psychiatric care (Glover, Miller and Sadowski, 2012). Untreated mental health issues shift problems to other areas: they increase emergency department costs, increase acute care costs, and add to caseloads in the criminal, juvenile justice, and corrections systems, as well as increasing costs to assist the homeless and the unemployed. It should be noted that nationally, each $1 spent on substance abuse treatment saves $7 in future health care spending (Glover, Miller, and Sadowski, 2012; Hutchings and Shern, 2012).

One of the primary reasons that people do not seek mental health treatment is cost. In recent national surveys, over 65 percent of respondents cited money-related issues as the primary reason for not pursuing treatment, and over half of individuals with private insurance said that the number one reason they do not seek mental health treatment is because they are worried about the cost. For those without comprehensive mental health coverage, treatment is often prohibitively expensive (Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 2012; Parity Project, 2003).

In California two-thirds of adolescents with mental health needs do not get treatment (California Healthcare Almanac, 2013). Untreated mental health problems in children and teens carry serious implications for both the child and the community. According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, nationally, 44 percent of youth with mental health problems drop out of school; 50 percent of children in the child welfare system have mental health problems; and 67 to 70 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have a diagnosable mental health disorder (Stagman and Cooper, 2010). National research also shows that consistent with other areas of health, children in low-income households (such as ALICE) and minority children who have special health care needs have higher rates of mental

71UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Nationally, 44 percent of youth with mental health problems drop out of school; 50 percent of children in the child welfare system have mental health problems; and 67 to 70 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have a diagnosable mental health disorder.”

health problems than their White or higher-income counterparts, yet are less likely to receive mental health services (VanLandeghem and Brach, 2009).

In addition to the high costs of health care, low-income and minority families across the country may experience other barriers to care, including language and cultural barriers, transportation challenges, and difficulty making work and child care arrangements (U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, 2012). When care is hard to access, a health problem worsens, and the cost of treatment increases significantly for the patient or, if the patient cannot pay, for the state.

Health problems also cost employees lost wages for absenteeism, and their companies feel that cost in decreased productivity. A National Alliance on Mental Illness study estimated that the annual cost to employers for mental-health absenteeism ranged from $10,000 for small organizations to over $3 million for large organizations (Harvard Mental Health Letter, 2010; Parity Project, 2003).

Insurance CoverageAnother way to save on health care costs is to forgo health insurance. California has the highest number of uninsured residents of any state (7 million) and the seventh largest percentage in the country of uninsured under 65 years old. While 21 percent of the total California population under 65 years old did not have health insurance in 2012, 33 percent of those roughly under the ALICE Threshold were without insurance (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2012). In general, the national rate of health insurance coverage for low-wage workers has fallen steadily over the last three decades. In particular, health insurance coverage has fallen by more than 14 percent for the lowest two quintiles (Schmitt, 2012).

With the changing economy, one of the shifts, along with lower wages, has been fewer employee benefits. Many of California’s uninsured are employed; the percentage of residents who receive coverage through their jobs has declined dramatically, dropping from 63 percent in 1988 to 54 percent in 2012. While public insurance has offset some of this decline, a gap remains, especially for those who do not qualify for government assistance, such as undocumented workers (California HealthCare Foundation, 2013).

Forgoing dental insurance is even more common, as it is often not included in private health insurance packages. Dental care has restrictive coverage through Medicaid in most states, including California, and as a result, only 67 percent of California adults visited a dentist in 2012 (Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, June 2012; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2012).

Emergency Room UseThe consequences of forgoing preventative care and health insurance include poorer health status and increases in emergency room use, hospitalizations, and cardiovascular events (Heisler, Langa, Eby, Fendrick, Kabeto, and Piette, 2004; Piette, Rosland, Silveira, Hayward, and McHorney, 2011). The number of emergency room visits in California was 294 per 1,000 people in 2011, lower than the national average of 415 per 1,000 (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2012).

When health care is expensive, many ALICE families only seek care when the illness is advanced and pain is unbearable. It is at that point that many people go to the more expensive emergency room for help because their condition has reached a crisis point and they have no other option. The wider community feels the consequences of emergency room use in increases in health insurance premiums, charity care, Medicare, and hospital

72 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Insufficient household income can also put pressure on other family members to work, sometimes forcing young adults to drop out of school.”

community assistance (Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2010; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2011).

CaregivingAnother hidden health care cost is that of caring for a sick or elderly family member or someone living with a disability. The AARP estimates that there were more than four million family caregivers in California in 2009 (AARP, 2011). With 12.55 million households, that means that one in three households in California has a caregiver. Because of the cost constraints under which ALICE households operate, it is likely that even more ALICE households have a caregiver.

Caregiving for a family member is costly for families both in the time devoted to care and in the time taken away from employment. Many caregivers are forced into the role because they cannot afford outside care. However, families of all income levels may choose to care for family members themselves.

In 2009, California caregivers donated 3.85 billion hours to care for elderly parents or family members who were sick or had a disability. At the hourly wage of $12.17 for a typical home health aid, that totals more than $46.9 billion in unrealized income provided by family caregivers (AARP, 2011) – almost twice as much as California’s total Medicaid spending of $25.6 billion in 2012.

A 2010 MetLife Mature Market Institute study quantifies the opportunity cost for adult children caring for their elderly parents. For women, who are more likely to provide basic care, the total per-person amount of lost wages due to leaving the labor force early and/or reduced hours of work because of caregiving responsibilities was on average $142,693 over the care period. The estimated impact of caregiving in lost Social Security benefits was $131,351, and a very conservative estimate for reduced pensions was approximately $50,000. In total, nationally, the cost impact of caregiving on an individual female caregiver in terms of lost wages and Social Security benefits was $324,044 (MetLife, 2010).

INCOMEAs discussed in Section III, low wages for ALICE households make it more difficult to meet their basic budget, and in many instances they also face higher costs. A reduction in income has forced many to turn to government assistance for the first time. ALICE households use many strategies to increase their income, including working longer hours or taking an additional job. Despite a high unemployment rate, 3.4 percent of workers in California were multiple jobholders in 2012, but estimates of the “off-the-books” economy indicate that thisfigure is more likely as high as 18 percent (Cebula and Feige, 2011; BLS, 2013).

Insufficient household income can also put pressure on other family members to work, sometimes forcing young adults to drop out of school. Ironically, in many areas of California – and especially in Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Jose – the graduation rate is low and the unemployment rate is high (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014; BLS, 2014). In 2011, there were 375,000 California youth aged 16 to 19 (18 percent) and an additional 1.6 million 20- to 24-year-olds (56 percent) who neither worked nor attended school. Nationally, according to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Blacks, Latinos, and low-income young adults have been particularly affected by the intersection of low graduation rates and high unemployment. Among Blacks, 45 percent of young people do not work or attend school, followed by 39 percent of Latinos, 28 percent of Whites, and 26 percent of Asians (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2012).

73UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Without savings, it is impossible for a household to become economically independent. Without asset building stakeholders, communities may experience instability and a decline in economic growth.”

Without sufficient income, many ALICE households do not qualify for traditional financial products. The alternatives carry higher fees and interest rates and more associated risks.

Ultimately, low wages also mean that ALICE households cannot afford to save, and the loss of a job means that any savings accumulated in better times are used. ALICE families have both the greatest risk of job loss and the least access to resources to soften the blow. The Pew Economic Mobility Project found that families that experienced unemployment suffered not only lost income during their period of not working, but also longer-term wealth losses, compromising their economic security and mobility (Pew Economic Mobility Project, 2013).

TaxesThe conventional view may be of low-income households receiving government assistance, but from this Report it is clear that ALICE households contribute to the economy by working, buying goods and services, and paying taxes. While there is some relief for the elderly and the lowest-income earners, most ALICE households pay about 10 percent of their income in federal taxes. Only very low-income households, earning less than $20,000 per year for a couple or $10,000 per year for a single individual (below the poverty rate), are not required to file taxes (IRS, Form 1040, 2012). However, when households cannot afford to pay their taxes, they increase the cost to those who do. They also incur the risk of being audited and paying fines and interest in addition to the original amount due.

SAVINGSWithout assets, ALICE households risk greater economic instability, both in the present through an unexpected emergency as discussed above, and in the future because they lack the means to invest in education, home ownership, or a retirement account. Without savings, it is impossible for a household to become economically independent. Without asset building stakeholders, communities may experience instability and a decline in economic growth.

The assets of an ALICE household are especially vulnerable when workers lose their jobs. According to the Pew Economic Mobility Project, during unemployment, a common strategy is to draw down retirement accounts. Penalties are charged for early withdrawals, and retirement savings are diminished, putting future financial stability at risk (Pew Economic Mobility Project, 2013).

Few assets and a weak credit record mean that many ALICE families are forced to use costly alternative financial products, as discussed in Section III. They are also vulnerable to predatory lending practices. This was especially true during the housing boom, which in part led to so many foreclosures in California (McKernan, Ratcliffe, and Shank, 2011).

High-interest, unsecured debt from credit cards and payday loans can be a useful alternative to even higher-cost borrowing or the failure to pay mortgage, rent, and utility bills. For example, the cost of restoring utilities is often greater than a payday loan fee. But the repeated use of payday loans and credit card debt increases the fees and interest rates and decreases the chance that they can be repaid. Repeated use of payday loans is linked to a higher rate of moving out of one’s home, delaying medical care or prescription drug purchases, and even filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy (CRSA, 2006; Campbell, Jackson, Madrian, and Tufano, 2011; Boguslaw, 2013).

For military personnel, payday loans are associated with declines in overall job performance and lower levels of retention. Indeed, to discourage payday loans to military personnel, the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act caps rates on payday loans to service members at a 36 percent annual percentage rate (Campbell, Jackson, Madrian, and Tufano, 2011).

74 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“The majority of government programs are intended to help the poor obtain basic housing, food, clothing, health care, and education, not to enable economic stability.”

CONCLUSION – FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR ALICE HOUSEHOLDSAs this Report has documented, despite aggregate ALICE household earnings of more than $141 billion, and despite another $102 billion in spending by government, nonprofits, and hospitals, there are still 5.78 million households in California struggling financially. Without public assistance, ALICE households would face even greater hardship, and many more would be in poverty. However, the majority of government programs are intended to help the poor obtain basic housing, food, clothing, health care, and education (Haskins, 2011), not to enable economic stability. Accordingly, these efforts have not solved the problem of economic insecurity among ALICE households. This is clearest with Social Security spending: senior households are largely above the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) but often still below the ALICE Threshold for economic survival.

This section of the Report identifies the future obstacles to economic stability in Californiafor ALICE households. The most immediate impediment is the stubbornly high rate ofunemployment; while the 2013 rate of 8.9 percent has improved from the 2010 peak of 12.4percent, it remains significantly higher than the pre-Recession rate of 3.3 percent in 2000.The state faces three other major challenges as well: a growing and diverse population, butone that is aging; a large economy with a wide range of sectors but with a growing number oflow-wage jobs in the service sector; and the increasing frequency and severity of naturaldisasters that disproportionately affect California, including droughts and wildfires.

While California is often seen as the state with the youngest population, the percent of its population aged 65 years and older is projected to increase from 11.4 percent in 2010 to 18.6 percent in 2030 (Pitkin and Myers, 2012). At the same time, the overall population is growing, both through births to immigrants and, to a lesser extent, through national and international migration. With the increasing number of households, the demand for low-cost housing and child care increases, and there is greater need for health care and other services as well as maintenance and expansion of infrastructure. With additional competition for resources, ALICE households will face problems such as the lack of supply of low-cost housing and longer commutes.

ALICE households are also more susceptible to the downside impacts of natural disasters since they are more likely to live in less expensive areas that are in flood plains or drought-prone areas. They have fewer resources to prepare for natural disasters, and they have no savings with which to recover from even minor damage to their homes or cars, or from the loss of wages.

This section reviews the short-term interventions that can help sustain ALICE households through an emergency, as well as medium-term strategies that can ease the consequences and hardship for those struggling to achieve economic stability in California.

Finally, this section also considers the long-term, large-scale economic and social changes that would significantly reduce the number of households with income below the ALICE Threshold.

75UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“California has been growing faster than the rest of the country for decades and is already the country’s most populous state.”

GROWING POPULATIONCalifornia has been growing faster than the rest of the country for decades and is already the country’s most populous state. According to projections by the California Department of Finance (CDF), the state population will grow to more than 50 million by 2049 and to nearly 52.7 million by 2060. The rate of both domestic and international migration has slowed in recent years. As a result, the majority of projected growth will be comprised of native-born residents who are children of immigrants. This means that California will remain more ethnically diverse than the rest of the U.S. (California Budget Project, 2008; CDF, 2013; Pitkin and Myers, 2012).

Figure 40�Population by Origin, California, 1990 to 2040

Some of the more rural counties will see an older population gradually replaced, but growth will tend to be more limited in those counties. In counties closer to metropolitan areas, populations are likely to become more diverse, with younger populations moving in and contributing to more rapid growth. Southern California will lead the state’s growth over the next 50 years (2010 to 2060), growing by 8.3 million to a population of 31 million (CDF, 2013).

As part of California’s growth from 2000 to 2010, the number of urbanized areas increased from 28 to 30 and the proportion of the state’s population contained within urbanized areas increased from 84 to 87 percent. Of the 10 most densely populated urbanized areas in the United States, seven are in California, including the nation’s most densely populated urbanized area of Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, with nearly 7,000 people per square mile. All of California’s urbanized areas have continued to grow over the last decade, and two California Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) – Riverside-San Bernardino and Sacramento – are represented in the top ten fastest-growing MSAs in the U.S. (U.S. Census, 2012).

Source: U.S. Census, 1990, 2000, 2010; Pitkin and Myers, 2012

76 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“The number of Californians age 65 or older is expected to increase by 75 percent between 2000 and 2020 to almost 7 million.”

This growth has put pressure on city resources, infrastructure, and job markets. The results of the State of California’s Community Needs Assessment found that 75 percent of respondents ranked the severity of infrastructure needs in their communities as significant or severe, especially in terms of improvements to roads, water, and sewer systems (State of California, 2010). While there are great opportunities in growth, it also poses significant challenges. These are outlined further below.

AGING POPULATIONBetween 2005 and 2050, the share of the population age 60 and over is projected to increase in almost every country in the world. Insofar as this shift will tend to lower both labor force participation and savings rates, it raises bona fide concerns about a future slowing of economic growth (Bloom, Canning, and Fink, 2011). The number of Californians age 65 or older is expected to increase by 75 percent between 2000 and 2020 to almost 7 million (California Budget Project, 2008). For the population as a whole, the median age will increase from 35.2 to 41.9 years old.

Aging will have an impact on the ethnic composition of California as well. As Californians retire in the next two decades, a lower percentage of the working-age population will be White and a larger percentage will be Hispanic and Asian. These younger and more diverse cohorts will help maintain the labor force over the next two decades. The CDF estimates that by 2030, more of the state’s White population will be 65 and older (4.1 million) than will be less than 25 years old (3.8 million). In comparison, there will be 7.2 million Hispanics under 25 years old compared to 2.2 million who will be 65 and older (CDF, 2013).

With shifts in population, there may also be fewer workers to support the greater numbers of retired households. From 1970 to 2010, the ratio of retirees to taxpaying workers in California has been 21.6 seniors per 100 workers, but it is expected to increase to 36 per 100 workers (Pitkin and Myers, 2012).

This shift in demographics, as well as the impact of the housing boom and bust, will likely produce more senior ALICE households and increase their economic challenges. In particular, many aging householders have seen the value of their houses decline, their retirement assets go toward emergencies, and their wages decrease so that they cannot save. In combination with population growth and the dominance of a low-wage service sector, population aging has significant consequences for both ALICE households and the wider community. First, there will be increased pressure in the housing market for smaller rental units. Unless changes are made to California’s housing stock, the current shortage will increase, pushing up prices for low-cost units and making it harder for ALICE households to find and afford basic housing. In addition, homeowners trying to downsize may have difficulty realizing the value they had estimated in better times, which they had thought would support their retirement plans. Second, there will be a need for even more caregivers in the future. Currently, one-third of California households have a caregiver. Because ALICE households often cannot afford outside care or residential facilities, the demand for ALICE caregivers will increase, but there will be relatively fewer family members available to provide care. Households with caregivers risk future financial instability due not just to reduced work opportunities but also to lost Social Security benefits and reduced pensions.

77UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“More than 88 percent of the openings in the top 20 projected jobs in California, as well as the majority of existing jobs, pay less than $20 per hour, which equates to an annual full-time salary of less than $40,000.”

Third, there will be increased pressure for low-cost assisted living and nursing facilities and home health care. The cost of these facilities and services will be a major concern for senior ALICE households. Lower costs for health care services also have consequences for ALICE workers: for example, the rate Medicare pays health aides – one of the most common ALICE jobs – impacts not only the federal budget, as total spending increases, but the ALICE household budget as well, as wages for those jobs decline.

EMPLOYMENTWith a 2013 unemployment rate of 8.9 percent and an underemployment rate of 17.3percent, it will take significant job growth in California to absorb both the unemployed andthe underemployed (Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2014). Long-term unemploymentcontinues to be a problem. As former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernankeexplained, “Because of its negative effects on workers’ skills and attachment to the laborforce, long-term unemployment may ultimately reduce the productive capacity of oureconomy” (Bernanke, 2012).

In addition, there is the challenge of finding jobs that cover the basic cost of living. While some of the highest-skilled jobs in the country are located in California’s Silicon Valley and the state’s defense industry, the majority of jobs that make up California’s largest sectors are low-skilled service jobs. Much attention has been given to the need for more college-educated workers, especially to replace retiring baby boomers (Johnson and Sengupta, 2009), but the reality of the service sector economy is that most new jobs do not require higher education. Looking ahead, of the occupations with the most projected job openings from 2010 to 2020, low-skilled jobs have the largest share (Figure 41) (BLS, 2012).

More than 88 percent of the openings in the top 20 projected jobs in California, as well as the majority of existing jobs, pay less than $20 per hour, which equates to an annual full-time salary of less than $40,000. The majority of these jobs pay between $10 and $15 per hour.

Figure 41� Projected Occupational Demand by Wage, Education, and Work Experience, California, 2010–2020

Occupations Current Employment #

Annual Openings due

to Growth, 2010 – 2020

Current Hourly Wage

Typical Education

Needed for Entry

Work Experience Required

Personal Care Aides 324,700 13,820 $10.34 Less than high

school None

Retail Salespersons 436,900 10,370 $10.71 Less than high

school None

Food Prep, Including Fast Food

267,900 7,330 $9.18 Less than high school None

Cashiers 342,500 6,460 $9.96 Less than high school None

Waiters and Waitresses 231,200 5,970 $9.09 Less than high

school None

Laborers and Movers, Hand 232,700 4,590 $11.99 Less than high

school None

78 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“The state’s economic recovery is being led by the technology sector along with industries related to foreign trade, tourism, and agricultural sales and exports.”

Occupations Current Employment #

Annual Openings due

to Growth, 2010 – 2020

Current Hourly Wage

Typical Education

Needed for Entry

Work Experience Required

Home Health Aides 61,100 3,200 $10.44 Less than high

school None

Cooks, Fast Food 103,600 3,080 $9.00 Less than high

school None

Landscaping & Groundskeeping 138,500 2,990 $12.04 Less than high

school None

Stock Clerks and Order Fillers 192,600 2,710 $11.13 Less than high

school None

Janitors and Cleaners 221,600 2,680 $11.53 Less than high

school None

Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners

132,600 2,600 $10.33 Less than high school None

Office Clerks, General 326,700 5,160 $15.10 High school

diploma None

Customer Service Representatives

197,300 3,650 $17.47 High school diploma None

Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers

128,900 2,540 $19.79 High school diploma 1-5 years

Registered Nurses 251,800 5,420 $43.06 Associate's

degree None

First-Line Supervisors of Administrative Support

179,000 2,640 $26.75 High school diploma 1-5 years

Sales Representatives 129,400 2,880 $27.53 High school

diploma None

Bookkeeping and Auditing Clerks

197,800 2,800 $19.24 High school diploma None

Cooks, Restaurant 101,900 2,790 $11.37 Less than high

school 1 year


The future path of employment in California depends, of course, on the outlook for the industries that make up the state economy. Over the period of 2010 to 2020, the forecast is for total employment to grow slowly, but there is a wide variation in the projected performance of different industries, and because they are located in different areas, there will be vast geographic differences in economic growth, recovery, and the composition of the labor force.

The state’s economic recovery is being led by the technology sector along with industries related to foreign trade, tourism, and agricultural sales and exports. In terms of prospects for ALICE families, while the information and technology sectors provide a boost to California’s GDP, they do not provide many low-wage or low-skilled jobs. Tourism, administrative support, and agriculture, on the other hand, are known for their dependence on large numbers of low-wage, low-skilled jobs.

79UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Areas with growth in the technology sector pose some of the biggest challenges for ALICE families: these areas are among the most expensive housing markets in the state, yet many of the support jobs that they offer do not pay enough to cover the higher cost of living.”

With these factors in play, each region of the state faces its own unique set of challenges. Areas with growth in the technology sector, particularly the Bay Area, pose some of the biggest challenges for ALICE families: these areas are among the most expensive housing markets in the state, yet many of the support jobs that they offer do not pay enough to cover the higher cost of living. The San Diego region has a mix of technology, trade, and tourism, with more opportunities for ALICE workers. In contrast, the Sacramento region is highly concentrated in government jobs, which were cut back substantially during the Recession and created a drag on the regional economy (Levy, 2014).

Despite these regional differences, however, with job growth concentrated in sectors with low wages, two common challenges emerge for California’s ALICE households. First, all modern economies depend on a range of service sector jobs that cannot be outsourced or even telecommuted. ALICE workers will have to be on-site for work, but it will continue to be difficult for them to afford to live in some of the higher-cost communities where their jobs are located.

Second, investment in education will have little payoff, reducing the means by which ALICE families can raise their income to a more financially stable level. Of the top 20 projected openings in California, an associate’s degree is the highest level of education required, and is needed for only 6 percent of job openings. Seventy-three percent of these job openings require less than a high school degree, and 21 percent require only a high school diploma. None require a bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degree (BLS, 2012d).

These projections fit with the research on national trends. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the education and training levels necessary for the labor force of 2020 will not require a significantly greater level of education than workers currently possess (Thiess, 2012). And the experience of recent college graduates shows that they are less likely to be gainfully employed than previous generations (Stone, Van Horn, and Zukin, 2012). With this employment outlook, the number of ALICE households will increase, as will demand for resources to fill the gap to financial stability.

IMMIGRANTSProviding an influx of both workers and entrepreneurs, immigration has been an important part of California’s economic growth. International immigrants increased from 22 percent of the state population in 1990 to 27 percent in 2010. While many immigrants to California have found economic success, many others have become ALICE households.

California’s 566,573 Latino-owned businesses had sales and receipts of $80.3 billion and employed 458,922 people in 2007, the last year for which data is available, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Survey of Business Owners. In addition, the state’s 508,969 Asian-owned businesses had sales and receipts of $181.3 billion and employed 905,957 people. Together, businesses owned by Latinos and Asians comprised more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state (Immigration Policy Center, 2013).

Even undocumented workers remain important to California’s economy. According to an estimate by the Perryman Group, if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from California, the state would lose $164 billion in economic activity, $73 billion in gross state product, and approximately 717,352 jobs (Perryman Group, 2008). Workers in these jobs are notoriously underpaid, and are among the most vulnerable to living in ALICE and poverty households.

80 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“While ALICE households consist of all races and ethnicities, economic disparities in race and ethnicity continue to be marked in California.”

The availability of low-skilled immigrant workers, such as child care providers and housecleaners, has enabled American women to work more and to pursue careers while having children (Furman and Gray, 2012). However, job opportunities and wages need to be sufficient to attract these workers. And as California’s population ages, the importance of immigrant workers will become even more pronounced, both to fill the jobs vacated by retirees and to provide essential senior services. By 2030, Hispanics will be the largest group in California in the prime working ages of 25 to 64, at 9.6 million; non-Hispanic Whiteswill total 7.2 million and Asians will total 3.1 million. And by 2060, there will be 12.1 millionHispanics compared to 7.4 million non-Hispanic Whites and 3.2 million Asians in the laborforce (CDF, 2013).

RACE/ETHNICITYWhile ALICE households consist of all races and ethnicities, economic disparities in race and ethnicity continue to be marked in California. The employment and wage differences between Whites, Hispanics, and Blacks are especially pronounced. In California, in 2012, the unemployment rate for Whites was 10.1 percent, for Blacks was 17.3 percent, and for Hispanics was 12.7 percent (BLS, 2012a). Similarly, as discussed in Section VI, there are educational achievement disparities in race and ethnicity across California, in part demonstrated by that fact that test scores and high school graduation rates for Black and Hispanic students lag behind those of White students.

The percentage of California’s Black and Hispanic school-age population is expected to grow to 56.2 percent by 2020, and a sizable minority of students are likely to be English language learners (California Budget Project, 2008). Given these projections, California schools will need to close the existing achievement gap. Unless California can improve the levels of educational attainment for these students, they are more likely to become ALICE individuals and families as they reach adulthood.

NATURAL DISASTERSCalifornia faces a host of environmental issues from rising sea levels to droughts, wildfires, earthquakes, and poor air quality. Without resources to prepare for or recover from inevitable disasters, ALICE households are more vulnerable than households with higher incomes. The housing that ALICE households can afford is often less expensive because it is located in flood- or drought-prone areas. With a tight budget, most ALICE households cannot afford insurance or even preventative maintenance, let alone state-of-the-art earthquake-resistant architecture (Hanak, 2014; Hoopes, 2013; Cooley, Moore, Heberger, and Allen, 2012).

The areas and populations that are vulnerable to specific disasters are well known and were most recently documented in a 2012 study by the California Energy Commission and the Pacific Institute. There are areas of vulnerability to different threats throughout the state; for example, the regions with a high vulnerability to heat exposure and wildfires are largely concentrated within the San Joaquin Valley and in the southeastern portion of California (Cooley, Moore, Heberger, and Allen, 2012).

Natural disasters are one reason why many California households fall below the ALICE Threshold. With no savings, many households have no way to pay for expenses such as even minor damage to their home or car. Their situation can become even more precarious if they work at hourly paid jobs and are forced to miss work, as they are not paid during those absences.

81UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Both geography and current zoning laws limit the potential for new small or low-cost housing units to be built in economically prosperous areas in California.”

HOUSINGThe high cost of housing in California will continue to be the biggest drain on the Household Survival Budget. The housing market continues to change: with the rate of homeownership falling and the changing demands of both seniors and young workers, the pressure on the market for smaller and lower-cost units is expected to increase over the next two decades. In fact, the Urban Land Institute estimates that between 2010 and 2035, the demand for townhouses and small-lot homes will more than double, while that for multi-family units will increase by up to half in some metropolitan areas. Meanwhile, the demand for homes on conventional lots will fall by more than a third (Nelson, 2011).

Both geography and current zoning laws limit the potential for new small or low-cost housing units to be built in economically prosperous areas in California. Given this combination of factors, unless the price for single-family homes on large lots decreases substantially or zoning laws are changed to allow for townhouses and multi-family units, many ALICE households will continue to live farther away from their jobs (Public Policy Institute of California, 2014; Prevost, 2013).

Demand will be highest in areas with public transportation. According to the State ofCalifornia’s 2010 Community Needs Survey, Californians consider transit options tobe far more important in choosing a location in which to live than does the rest ofthe nation – 71 percent in California compared with 47 percent nationally. By 2035,the demand for housing located within one-half mile of public transit stations will exceedthe aggregate amount of current supply plus all new residential units being built in thesemetropolitan areas between 2010 and 2035 (Nelson, 2011).

The high cost of housing in many metropolitan areas is also an area of concern for ALICE households. Not only can they not afford to live in these areas, but the extreme ratios of median income to median house price are now near those that existed at the peak of the housing crisis in California. House prices in California’s six major markets have risen nearly 40 percent relative to incomes since bottoming out in 2009. The relative cost of housing compared to income is highest in San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, and Los Angeles (Bertaud, 2013).

A future collapse in the housing market would not only impact homeowners who stand to lose their homes or their equity, but it would disrupt the entire state economy. Households with income below the ALICE Threshold increased by 9 percent through the Great Recession. With jobs coming back slowly and job openings still concentrated in low-wage jobs, these families have not been able to save, and they will be less able to withstand another economic downturn.

CHILD CARE AND EDUCATIONThere are challenges for ALICE households to find quality affordable education at all levels in California. Starting with child care but moving through high school, the state’s current facilities do not match the existing need.

California’s State Preschool Program provides assistance for over 147,000 children, but 63 percent of the state’s three- and four-year-olds from families with income below the ALICE Threshold still do not attend preschool. Without enough public preschool programs, and

82 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“The state facesthree major challengesin preparingCalifornia’s futureworkforce: thereduction in jobsrequiring highereducation, thepersistent demandfor job training,and the educationalachievement gap.”

given the expense of both home-based and licensed and accredited child care facilities in California, ALICE families often rely on friends and relatives for child care.

In terms of education, the state faces three major challenges in preparing California’s future workforce: the reduction in jobs requiring higher education, the persistent demand for job training, and the educational achievement gap. Education has traditionally been the best guarantee of higher income, and the two are strongly correlated. Short- and long-term factors, however, may be changing the equation, especially for ALICE households. First, longer-term structural changes have limited the growth of medium- and high-skilled jobs, changing the need for education as well as incentives to pursue higher education and take on student debt. Second, tuition has increased beyond the means of many ALICE households and burdened many others. Almost half of California college freshman took out a student loan in 2010, up from a third in 2000 (Johnson, Mejia, Ezekiel and Zeiger, 2013).

At the same time, there has been significant national public attention on the importance of job training, and surveys show the number of jobs unfilled due to lack of qualified candidates (Manpower, 2012). Further research has found that many of these jobs were not filled because the wage being offered was too low or because applicants did not have the experience (rather than skills) required. The lack of technical skills therefore accounted for only one-third of the increase in unemployment during the Great Recession (Altig and Robertson, 2012). And there was no evidence that jobs remained open because of geographic location. The National Bureau of Economic Research concludes that labor demand shortfalls, more than skill mismatches, are the primary determinant of the current labor market performance (Rothstein, 2012).

However, there is wide disparity in employment and earnings among young workers based on their level of education and also among college graduates based on their major. The unemployment rate for young workers without a college degree is significantly higher than for those with a degree. Degree majors that provide technical training (such as engineering, math, or computer science), or majors that are geared toward growing parts of the economy (such as education and health), have done relatively well. At the other end of the spectrum, those with majors that provide less technical and more general training, such as leisure and hospitality, communications, the liberal arts, and even the social sciences and business, have not tended to fare particularly well in recent years; hence the increase in well-educated ALICE households. For example, the mid-career annual median salary for those with a social work degree is less than $47,000, while those with a petroleum engineering degree earn $160,000 (PayScale, 2014; Abel, Deitz and Su, 2014).

Nevertheless, basic secondary education remains essential for any job. One area of particular concern for California’s ALICE households is the performance and graduation rates of California’s public schools, especially for low-income and minority students. The evidence is clear on the importance of a solid high school education for economic success. The lack of a basic education also has repercussions for the wider society, as discussed in Section VI.

TRANSPORTATIONHousing and transportation are tightly linked in California as proximity to public transportation and employment can have a significant impact on the household budget. According to the Urban Land Institute, as many as 9 million California households would like the option to live in locations served by public transit, but today only about 1.2 million households actually do (Nelson, 2011).

83UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Poor health is a common reason why many households face a reduction in income and become ALICE households in the first place, and without sufficient income, it is even harder to stay healthy or improve health.”

Transportation costs vary between and within regions in California depending on neighborhood characteristics. According to the Center for Neighborhood Technology’s (CNT) Housing and Transportation Affordability Index, most people who live in location-efficient neighborhoods – compact, mixed-use, and with convenient access to jobs, services, transit, and amenities – have lower transportation costs. Many California workers live in location-inefficient areas, which require automobiles for most trips and are more likely to have high transportation costs (CNT, 2011).

Without a statewide public transportation system, most ALICE workers drive to work, adding additional expense. California’s poor road and bridge infrastructure adds to household costs by increasing vehicle repairs and costs created by transportation delays (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2013). Commuting long distances will only increase as lack of affordable housing persists and pushes people away from employment centers.

HEALTH CAREThe trend for low-income households to have poor health will increase as health costs rise and the California population ages. Poor health is a common reason why many households face a reduction in income and become ALICE households in the first place, and without sufficient income, it is even harder to stay healthy or improve health. Low-income households are more likely to be obese and have poor health status, both long-term drivers which will increase health care needs as well as costs in the future.

The situation may be reversed or at least slowed by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), though its impact is not yet clear. New research from the Harvard School of Public Health shows that health insurance coverage not only makes a difference in health outcomes but also decreases financial strain (Baicker and Finkelstein, 2011). Expanded health insurance coverage and more efficient health care delivery would improve conditions for all households below the ALICE Threshold.

However, California currently has 540 Primary Care Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSA). Going forward, there will be increased demand resulting from an aging and an increasingly insured population due to the ACA. To maintain current rates of utilization, California will need an additional 8,243 primary care physicians (PCPs) by 2030, a 33 percent increase compared to the state’s 25,153-PCP workforce in 2010 (Robert Graham Center, 2012).

A geographic analysis of availability of health care by the Public Policy Institute of California found that several areas in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties have low clinic access (measured by number of employees and hospital Emergency Department beds) and high demand, making it harder for ALICE families in these areas to access health care even if they have health insurance (Lee, Hill, and McConville, 2012).

Accessing and affording health care will be most difficult for those who are not covered by the ACA, primarily non-citizens; one in two non-citizens lacked insurance coverage in California in 2010. More broadly, the Public Policy Institute of California found that unauthorized immigrants typically live in areas with the least robust health care safety-net systems relative to other groups (California HealthCare Foundation, 2010; Lee, Hill, and McConville, 2012).

84 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“For ALICE households to be able to support themselves, structural economic changes are required to make California more affordable and provide better income opportunities.”

TAXESALICE households pay income, property, and wage taxes. While federal tax credits have made a difference for many ALICE households nationally, they have not matched those received by higher-income households. Taxes paid after federal deductions result in the lowest income quintile paying more than 10 percent in income tax while the highest income quintile pays less than 8 percent. In terms of payroll taxes, on average, the lowest income group pays more than 8 percent of their income in payroll taxes, while those at the highest income quintile pay less than 6 percent. In addition, the lowest income group pays almost 8 percent of their income in state sales and excise taxes, while those at the highest income quintile pay less than 3 percent (Marr and Huang, 2012; Springer, 2005).

ALTERNATIVE SERVICESBecause ALICE households have low incomes, they often do not qualify for traditional financial or banking services. In California, there are numerous examples of ALICE households turning to alternatives to cope with their economic situation. In housing, there is an increase in the use of “contract for deed” mortgages. In early education, with the high cost of private child care facilities and with California’s public preschool program not providing opportunities for many three- and four-year-olds, ALICE families are often forced to rely on friends and family for child care. In K–12 education, where the public education system has produced poor results, teens and young adults turn to under-the-table jobs or wind up neither working nor in school. And in terms of banking, without access to traditional banks, many ALICE households use costly non-bank financial products such as “Buy Here Pay Here” auto loans.

These systems fill a need. Some are helpful; some cause additional problems. However, they all represent additional challenges to California in terms of regulation, oversight, and greater inequality in the state.

SHORT-, MEDIUM-, AND LONG-TERM STRATEGIESEfforts to assist ALICE and poverty households in supporting themselves can be broken down into short-, medium-, and long-term actions. Short-term intervention by family, employers, nonprofits, and government can be essential to supporting a household through a crisis and preventing a downward spiral to homelessness. The chief value of short-term measures is in the stability that they provide; food pantries, TANF, utility assistance, emergency housing repairs, and child care subsides all help stabilize ALICE households potentially preventing much larger future costs.

To permanently reduce the number of ALICE households, broader and more strategic action is needed. For ALICE households to be able to support themselves, structural economic changes are required to make California more affordable and provide better income opportunities. The costs of basic necessities – housing, child care, transportation, food, and health care – are high in California relative to the income currently available to ALICE households. Broad improvement in financial stability is dependent upon changes

85UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“Some households become ALICE after an emergency, while others have been struggling near the poverty line since the Great Recession.”

to the housing market and the health care delivery system. Investments in transportation infrastructure, affordable quality child care, and healthy living would also help.

An improvement in job opportunities, in the form of either an increase in the wages of current low-wage jobs or an increase in the number of higher paying jobs, would enable ALICE households to afford to live near their work, build assets, and become financially independent. To increase the wages of low-income workers in California so that they can afford the Household Survival Budget for a single person would mean increasing the wages of 2.1 million (out of 14.3 million) jobs to $10.54 per hour. Allowing low-income workers to afford the Household Survival Budget for a family would mean increasing the wages of 4.9 million jobs to $14.08 per hour (for both working parents).These wages are higher than California’s minimum wage of $9 per hour.

The biggest impact on income opportunity would be made through a substantial increase in the number of medium- and high-skilled jobs in both the public and private sectors. Such a shift would require an influx of new businesses and possibly new industries, as well as education and training.

Not only does the kind of job matter, but the kind of employer can make a big difference as well. Even within occupations, there is wide variation in wage level, job security, predictability of schedule, opportunities for advancement, and benefits. Strategies to attract employers who understand the importance of providing well-structured jobs would make a difference for ALICE households. Research shows that these employers make a particular difference for workers with a disability (Ton, 2012; Schur, Kruse, Blasi and Blanck, 2009).

Finally, the extensive use of alternative financial services suggests that more cost-effective financial resources, such as better access to savings, auto loans, and sound microloans, would also help ALICE households become more financially stable.

SUMMARYThis Report on Asset Limited, Income Constrained, and Employed (ALICE) households across California offers a new set of tools – on both the state and the county level – that policymakers and stakeholders in California’s future can use to understand more completely the families that are struggling to make ends meet in California and the specific obstacles they face.

Remedies for California’s ailing economy will benefit from addressing the fact that 46 percent of California families do not earn enough to meet the basic Household Survival Budget, and that these families take risks in order to get by, such as forgoing health insurance and medical care, that can be harmful to the family as well as costly to the wider community.

ALICE families differ in their composition, obstacles, and magnitude of need. ALICE households range from young families with children to senior citizens, and face challenges ranging from low-wage jobs located far from their homes and the associated increased cost of commuting, to financial barriers that limit access to low-cost community banking services, to having few or no assets to cushion the cost of an unexpected health emergency or caregiving. Some households become ALICE after an emergency, while others have been struggling near the poverty line since the Great Recession. Effective policy solutions will need to reflect this reality.

86 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

“ALICE families differ in their composition,obstacles, andmagnitude of need.Effective policysolutions willneed to reflectthis reality.”

The ALICE Economic Viability Dashboard, a tool presented in the Report, provides insight into the economic challenges ALICE households face in each county in California. With this tool, policymakers can better identify where housing is affordable for local wages, where there are job opportunities, where there is community support for ALICE households – and where there are gaps.

The ALICE Income Assessment tool demonstrates that significant government and nonprofit assistance is already being spent on ALICE households across all California counties, but it also quantifies a gap of $77.2 billion. Quantifying the problem can help stakeholders best decide whether to fill that gap through efforts to increase income for ALICE households or decrease expenses for basic household necessities.

Improving California’s economy and meeting ALICE’s challenges are linked: improvement for one would directly benefit the other. Ultimately, if ALICE households earned more income, they would be financially stable and would no longer require assistance from government and nonprofits. Greater household stability would also lead to a reduction in risk-taking, and greater stability for all of California’s stakeholders.

87UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

APPENDIX A – INCOME INEQUALITY IN CALIFORNIAIncome Inequality in California, 1979–2012

The Gini index is a measure of income inequality. It varies from 0 to 100 percent, where 0 indicates perfect equality and 100 indicates perfect inequality (when one person has all the income). The distribution of income in California has grown more unequal over time.

Income Distribution by Quintile in California, 2012

Income distribution is a tool to measure how income is divided within a population. In this case, the population is divided into five groups or quintiles. In California, the top 20 percent of the population – the highest quintile – receives 51percent of all income, while the bottom quintile earns only 3 percent. If five California residents divided $100 according to the current distribution of income, the first person would get $51, the second would get $23, the third, $14, the fourth, $8, and the last $3.

Source: American Community Survey, 1979–2012


88 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

APPENDIX B – THE ALICE THRESHOLD: METHODOLOGYThe ALICE Threshold determines how many households are struggling in a county based upon the Household Survival Budget. Using the Household Survival Budgets for different household combinations, a pair of ALICE Thresholds is developed for each county, one for households headed by someone younger than 65 years old and one for households headed by someone 65 years and older.

• For households headed by someone under 65 years old, the ALICE Threshold is calculated by adding the Household Survival Budget for a family of four plus the Household Survival Budget for a single adult, dividing by 5, and then multiplying by 3.45, the average household size for California households headed by someone under 65 years old.

• The ALICE Threshold for households headed by someone 65 years old and over is calculated by multiplying the Household Survival Budget for a single adult by 1.45, the average senior household size.

• The results are rounded to the nearest Census break ($30,000, $35,000, $40,000, $45,000, $50,000, $60,000 or $75,000).

The number of ALICE households is calculated by subtracting the number of households in poverty as reported by the American Community Survey (ACS), 2007–2012, from the total number of households below the ALICE Threshold. The number of households in poverty by racial/ethnic categories is not reported by the ACS, so when determining the number of ALICE households by race/ethnicity, the number of households earning less than $15,000 per year is used as an approximation for households in poverty.

NOTE: ACS data for California counties with populations over 65,000 are 1-year estimates; for populations between 20,000 and 65,000, data are 3-year estimates; and for populations below 20,000, data are 5-year estimates. Because there was not a 5-year survey for 2007, the data for the least populated counties (see chart below) is replaced with 2009 5-year data where possible or extrapolated from the larger counties. For statewide totals, the numbers from counties are extrapolated from overall percentages.

Least Populated Counties in California, no 2007 ACS data availableAlpine County Inyo CountyMariposa County Modoc CountyMono County Sierra CountyTrinity County

89UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

ALICE Threshold and ALICE Households by Race/Ethnicity and Age, California, 2012

County Total HHs HHs below

ALICE Threshold

Percent HH below AT – Race/EthnicityPercent

HH below AT – Age

ALICE Threshold

Asian Black Hispanic White Seniors

ALICE Threshold –

HH under 65 years

ALICE Threshold – HH 65 years

and over

Alameda County 548,274 214,115 30% 61% 56% 34% 35% $60,000 $30,000

Alpine County 385 138 20% NA 100% 31% 48% $50,000 $25,000

Amador County 14,146 6,763 44% 100% 51% 47% 36% $60,000 $30,000

Butte County 85,388 43,334 57% 66% 67% 49% 37% $50,000 $30,000

Calaveras County 18,819 7,455 54% 27% 42% 38% 39% $50,000 $30,000

Colusa County 6,882 2,923 30% 71% 56% 36% 37% $50,000 $25,000

Contra Costa County 380,397 129,921 27% 57% 52% 30% 29% $60,000 $30,000

Del Norte County 9,474 4,698 35% 0% 63% 48% 45% $45,000 $25,000

El Dorado County 65,558 22,748 13% 26% 57% 34% 23% $60,000 $30,000

Fresno County 292,280 153,743 51% 67% 65% 47% 42% $50,000 $30,000

Glenn County 9,577 4,560 83% 48% 59% 45% 40% $45,000 $25,000

Humboldt County 52,241 26,807 59% 63% 65% 49% 35% $50,000 $25,000

Imperial County 46,747 24,819 24% 45% 58% 54% 51% $45,000 $25,000

Inyo County 7,910 3,622 69% 100% 57% 42% 41% $50,000 $25,000

Kern County 255,967 121,889 32% 62% 61% 45% 39% $50,000 $25,000

Kings County 40,376 20,440 37% 47% 64% 48% 45% $50,000 $30,000

Lake County 26,228 15,266 40% 66% 65% 54% 34% $50,000 $25,000

Lassen County 10,206 4,051 70% 53% 37% 40% 35% $50,000 $25,000

Los Angeles County 3,231,660 1,638,399 45% 62% 63% 46% 47% $60,000 $35,000

Madera County 41,035 21,586 56% 53% 58% 53% 36% $50,000 $25,000

Marin County 102,427 37,299 36% 71% 71% 34% 35% $75,000 $40,000

Mariposa County 7,256 2,808 19% 0% 43% 38% 31% $50,000 $25,000

Mendocino County 35,203 20,482 43% 87% 74% 56% 43% $60,000 $30,000

Merced County 76,451 37,736 41% 58% 57% 44% 38% $50,000 $25,000

Modoc County 3,903 1,665 0% 100% 59% 42% 22% $45,000 $20,000

Mono County 5,056 2,233 28% 100% 67% 42% 31% $60,000 $30,000

Monterey County 124,171 57,490 40% 50% 59% 45% 37% $60,000 $35,000

Napa County 48,224 17,377 20% 36% 53% 35% 35% $60,000 $35,000

Nevada County 41,632 17,231 54% 71% 55% 41% 30% $60,000 $30,000

Orange County 995,368 461,608 45% 53% 63% 44% 41% $75,000 $40,000

Placer County 133,093 45,607 28% 34% 56% 33% 30% $60,000 $30,000

Plumas County 8,412 3,599 37% 65% 67% 42% 41% $50,000 $25,000

Riverside County 685,260 340,941 44% 55% 62% 46% 45% $60,000 $35,000

Sacramento County 516,645 220,734 41% 60% 56% 38% 34% $50,000 $30,000

San Benito County 16,893 6,899 43% 58% 53% 41% 41% $60,000 $30,000

San Bernardino County 600,688 276,762 32% 55% 51% 44% 47% $50,000 $35,000

San Diego County 1,079,653 502,147 36% 60% 61% 46% 46% $60,000 $40,000

San Francisco County 346,842 162,462 54% 73% 62% 38% 54% $75,000 $40,000

San Joaquin County 215,761 96,482 44% 53% 55% 41% 38% $50,000 $30,000

San Luis Obispo County 101,897 43,083 44% 31% 65% 40% 30% $60,000 $30,000

San Mateo County 258,888 104,416 36% 54% 66% 38% 34% $75,000 $40,000

Santa Barbara County 141,639 62,958 43% 47% 58% 43% 41% $60,000 $40,000

Santa Clara County 613,810 237,432 32% 56% 61% 38% 43% $75,000 $45,000

Santa Cruz County 93,253 43,839 42% 52% 69% 46% 37% $75,000 $35,000

Shasta County 68,165 29,744 58% 79% 51% 42% 33% $50,000 $25,000

90 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

County Total HHs HHs below

ALICE Threshold

Percent HH below AT – Race/EthnicityPercent

HH below AT – Age

ALICE Threshold

Asian Black Hispanic White Seniors

ALICE Threshold –

HH under 65 years

ALICE Threshold – HH 65 years

and over

Sierra County 1,338 603 100% 0% 72% 45% 22% $50,000 $25,000

Siskiyou County 19,500 10,127 66% 66% 54% 50% 42% $45,000 $25,000

Solano County 141,139 60,989 32% 49% 61% 40% 41% $60,000 $35,000

Sonoma County 184,348 77,931 38% 46% 63% 40% 29% $60,000 $30,000

Stanislaus County 167,497 80,445 44% 60% 61% 45% 39% $50,000 $30,000

Sutter County 31,259 14,607 50% 35% 63% 45% 44% $50,000 $25,000

Tehama County 23,441 10,992 61% 0% 54% 46% 38% $45,000 $25,000

Trinity County 5,811 2,937 32% 0% 49% 50% 30% $50,000 $25,000

Tulare County 132,614 66,935 36% 61% 62% 50% 41% $45,000 $25,000

Tuolumne County 21,733 9,442 22% 69% 42% 43% 27% $50,000 $25,000

Ventura County 267,877 98,196 24% 39% 53% 36% 35% $60,000 $35,000

Yolo County 71,568 36,337 58% 56% 67% 45% 37% $60,000 $30,000

Yuba County 24,842 12,066 35% 53% 53% 47% 34% $50,000 $25,000

Source: American Community Survey, 2012. Estimates depend on population size: population above 65,000, 1-year estimate; population between 20,000 and 65,000, 3-year estimate; population below 20,000 people, 5-year estimate.

91UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

APPENDIX C – THE HOUSEHOLD SURVIVAL BUDGET: METHODOLOGY AND SOURCESThe Household Survival Budget provides the foundation for a threshold for economic survival in each county. The Budget is comprised of the actual cost of five household essentials plus a 10 percent contingency and taxes for each county. The minimum level is used in each category for 2007, 2010, and 2012. The line items and sources are reviewed below.

HOUSINGThe housing budget is based on HUD’s Fair Market Rent (40th percentile of gross rents) for an efficiency apartment for a single person, a one-bedroom apartment for a head of household with a child, and a two-bedroom apartment for a family of three or more. The rent includes the sum of the rent paid to the owner plus any utility costs incurred by the tenant. Utilities include electricity, gas, water/sewer, and trash removal services, but not telephone service. If the owner pays for all utilities, then the gross rent equals the rent paid to the owner. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

CHILD CAREThe child care budget is based on the average annual cost of care for one infant and one preschooler inRegistered Family Child Care Homes (the least expensive child care option). Data are compiled by local childcare resource and referral agencies and reported to the California Child Care Resource & Referral Network.When data is missing, state averages are used, though missing data may mean child care facilities are notavailable in those counties and residents may be forced to use facilities in neighboring counties. Source: California Child Care Portfolio, Child Care Regional Market Rate Survey 2009 and 2012, CaliforniaChild Care Resource & Referral Network. http://www.rrnetwork.org/child_care_data

FOODThe food budget is based on the Thrifty Level (lowest of four levels) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home, U.S. Average, June 2007. State food budget numbers are adjusted for regional price variation, “Regional Variation Nearly Double Inflation Rate for Food Prices,” Food CPI, Price, and Expenditures, USDA, 2009.Sources:http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodCost-Home.htm http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/FoodPlans/2007/CostofFoodJun07.pdf

TRANSPORTATIONThe transportation budget is calculated using average annual expenditures for transportation by car and by public transportation from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES). Since the CES is reported by metropolitan areas and states, California’s counties were matched with the most local level. Costs are adjusted for household size (divided by CES household size except for single-adult households, which are divided by two). In the counties where 8 percent or more of the population uses public transportation,

http://www.rrnetwork.org/child_care_data

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodCost-Home.htm

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/FoodPlans/2007/CostofFoodJun07.pdf

92 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

the cost for public transportation is used; in those counties where less than 8 percent of the population uses public transportation, the cost for auto transportation is used instead. Public transportation includes bus, trolley, subway, elevated train, railroad, and ferryboat. Car expenses include gas and motor oil and other vehicle maintenance expenses, but not lease payments, car loan payments, or major repairs.Source: http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxmsa.htm#y0607

HEALTH CAREThe health care budget includes the nominal out-of-pocket health care spending, medical services, prescription drugs, and medical supplies using the average annual health expenditure reported in the CES. Since the CES is reported by metropolitan areas and states, California’s counties were matched with the most local level. Costs are adjusted for household size (divided by CES household size except for single-adult households, which are divided by two). The health budget does not include the cost of health insurance. Source: http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxmsa.htm#y0607

MISCELLANEOUSThe Miscellaneous category includes 10 percent of the total to cover cost overruns.

TAXESThe tax budget includes both federal and state income taxes where applicable, as well as Social Security and Medicare taxes. Federal and California state taxes include income tax using standard deductions and exemptions, as well as the federal Child Tax Credit and the Child and Dependent Care Credit and the California rent credit, for each household type. The federal tax brackets increased slightly from 2007 to 2010 to 2012, though rates stayed the same. Federal taxes also include the employee portions of Social Security and Medicare at 6.2 and 1.45 percent, respectively. The employee Social Security tax holiday rate of 4.2 percent was incorporated for 2012. California tax rates and brackets increased slightly from 2007 to 2010 and then the rates returned to the 2007 levels by 2012, but the brackets increased slightly.

California Franchise Tax Board, Instructions for Form 540/540A — California Resident Income Tax Return, 2007, 2010 and 2012.https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2012/12_540a_540ins.pdfhttps://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2010/10_540a_540ins.pdfhttp://www.pmstax.com/ftp/forms/2007/ftbi540-540a.pdf

Internal Revenue Service 1040: Individual Income Tax, Forms and Instructions, 2007, 2010 and 2012.http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--2012.pdfhttp://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--2010.pdfhttp://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--2007.pdf

HOUSEHOLD SURVIVAL BUDGET The Household Survival Budget for all household variations by county can be found at:http://spaa.newark.rutgers.edu/united-way-alice

http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxmsa.htm#y0607

http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxmsa.htm#y0607

https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2012/12_540a_540ins.pdf

https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2010/10_540a_540ins.pdf

http://www.pmstax.com/ftp/forms/2007/ftbi540-540a.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--2012.pdf



http://spaa.newark.rutgers.edu/united-way-alice

93UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

APPENDIX D – THE HOUSEHOLD STABILITY BUDGET: METHODOLOGY AND SOURCESThe Household Stability Budget represents the cost of living in each county at a modest but sustainable level, in contrast to the basic level of the Household Survival Budget. The Household Stability Budget is comprised of the actual cost of five household essentials plus a 10 percent savings item and a 10 percent contingency item, as well as taxes for each county. The data builds on the sources from the Household Survival Budget; differences are reviewed below.

HOUSINGThe housing budget is based on HUD’s median rent for a one-bedroom apartment, rather than an efficiency, at the Fair Market Rent of 40th percentile, for a single adult; the basis is a two-bedroom apartment for a head of household with children; and housing for a family is based on the American Community Survey’s median monthly owner costs for those with a mortgage, instead of the Household Survival Budget’s rent for a two-bedroom apartment at the 40th percentile. Real estate taxes are included in the tax category below.

CHILD CAREThe child care budget is based on the cost of a fully licensed and accredited child care center. These costs are typically more than 30 percent higher than the cost of registered home-based child care used in the Household Survival Budget. Data is compiled by the California Department of Education.

FOODThe food budget is based on the USDA’s Moderate Level Food Plans for cost of food at home (second of four levels), adjusted for regional variation, plus the average cost of food away from home as reported by the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES).

TRANSPORTATIONWhere there is public transportation, family transportation expenses include public transportation for one adult and gas and maintenance for one car; costs for a single adult include public transportation for one, and half the cost of gas and maintenance for one car. Where there is no public transportation, family expenses include costs for leasing one car and for gas and maintenance for two cars, and single-adult costs are for leasing, gas and maintenance for one car as reported by the CES.

HEALTH CAREThe health care costs are based on employer-sponsored health insurance at a low-wage firm as reported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Also included is out-of-pocket health care spending as reported in the CES.

94 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

Sources: http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/summ_tables/insr/state/series_2/2012/tiic2.htmhttp://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/summ_tables/insr/state/series_7/2012/tviid2.htm

MISCELLANEOUSThe Miscellaneous category includes 10 percent of the total (not including taxes or savings) to cover cost overruns.

SAVINGSThe Household Stability Budget also includes a 10 percent line item for savings, a category that is essential for sustainability. This provides a cushion for emergencies and possibly allows a household to invest in their education, house, car, and health as needed.

TAXESTaxes increase for the Household Stability Budget, but the methodology is the same as in the Household Survival Budget. The one difference is that a mortgage deduction is included for families who are now homeowners. In addition, while real estate taxes were included in rent in the Household Survival Budget, they are added to the tax bill here for homeowners.

HOUSEHOLD STABILITY BUDGETAverage Household Stability Budget, California, 2012


SINGLE ADULT 2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT, 1 PRESCHOOLER

Housing $1,047 $1,645

Child care $0 $1,620

Food $357 $1,104

Transportation $234 $724

Health care $195 $836

Miscellaneous $183 $593

Savings $183 $593

Taxes $267 $1,128

Monthly Total $2,466 $8,244

ANNUAL TOTAL $29,592 $98,927

Hourly Wage $14.80/hour $49.46/hour


The Household Stability Budget for all household variations by county can be found at:http://spaa.newark.rutgers.edu/united-way-alice

http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/summ_tables/insr/state/series_2/2012/tiic2.htm

http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/summ_tables/insr/state/series_7/2012/tviid2.htm

http://spaa.newark.rutgers.edu/united-way-alice

95UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

APPENDIX E – THE ALICE INCOME ASSESSMENT: METHODOLOGY AND SOURCESThe ALICE Income Assessment is a tool to measure how much households need to reach the ALICE Threshold compared to their actual income, which includes earned income as well as cash government assistance and in-kind public assistance. The Unfilled Gap is calculated by totaling the income needed to reach the Threshold, then subtracting earned income and all government and nonprofit spending. Household Earnings include wages, dividends, and Social Security.

There are many resources available to low-income families. The ones included here are those that benefit households below the ALICE Threshold, not resources that benefit society in general. For example, spending on free and reduced-price school lunches is included; public education budgets are not. Data is for 2012 unless otherwise noted.

Sources:Federal spending data was gathered from the National Priorities Project’s Federal Priorities Database. http://nationalpriorities.org/interactive-data/database/search/

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) data from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Data and Statistics website. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap

Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies data from the U.S. Department of Education, ESEA Title I LEA Allocations, FY 2012. http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/titlei/fy12/index.html

FEDERAL SPENDINGSocial Services

• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) – Provides cash assistance to low-income families.

• Social Security Disability Insurance – Provides funds to offset the living costs of disabled workers who formerly contributed to Social Security but are not old enough to draw it.

• Social Services Block Grant – Funds programs that allow communities to achieve or maintain economic self-sufficiency to prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency on social services.

Child Care and Education• Head Start – Provides money for agencies to promote school readiness for low-income children by

providing health, education, nutritional, and social services to the children and their parents.

• Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants – Provide grants to financially needy undergraduate students.

• Vocational Education Basic Grants to States – Provide money to states to offset the costs of running vocational programs for secondary and postsecondary students.

http://nationalpriorities.org/interactive-data/database/search/

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/titlei/fy12/index.html

96 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

• Pell Grants – provide grants to undergraduate students with demonstrated financial need.

• College Work Study Program – Funds part-time jobs for undergraduate students with demonstrated financial need.

• Adult Education – Funds local programs for adult education and literacy services as authorized by the Title II Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Programs include workplace literacy services, family literacy services, and English literacy and integrated English literacy-civics education programs.

• Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies – Provide funds to school districts and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children who are disadvantaged to support a variety of services.

Food • Food Stamps – Provide money to low-income households to supplement their food budgets. Also known

as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP.

• School Lunch Program – Subsidizes lunches for low-income children in schools or residential institutions.

• School Breakfast Program – Provides funds to schools to offset the costs of providing a nutritious breakfast and reimburses the costs of free and reduced-price meals.

• Child and Adult Care Food Program – Provides grants to non-residential care centers, after-school programs, and emergency shelters to provide nutritious meals and snacks.

• Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) – Provides pregnant women and children through age five with money for nutritious foods and referrals to health services.

Housing • Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers – Tenant-based rental assistance for low-income families; includes

Fair Share Vouchers and Welfare-to-Work Vouchers, the Section 8 Rental program, or the former Section 8 Certificate program.

• Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) – Provides funds to nonprofits to help low-income homeowners afford heating and cooling costs. The program may give money directly to a homeowner or give to an energy supplier on the homeowner’s behalf.

• Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) – Provide annual grants to develop decent housing and a suitable living environment and to expand economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income people.

HEALTH CARE• Medicaid – Provides money to states, which they must match, to offer health insurance for low-income

residents. Also known as the Medical Assistance Program.

• Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) – Provides funds to states to enable them to maintain and expand child health assistance to uninsured, low-income children and, at a state’s discretion, to low-income pregnant women and legal immigrants.

• California Medical Assistance Program (Medi-Cal) – Public health insurance program which provides needed health care services for low-income individuals including families with children, seniors, persons with disabilities, foster care, pregnant women, and low income people with specific diseases.

97UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPENDINGSpending estimates for state and local government include budget categories: Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, Children and Families Commission, Department of Health Care Services, Department of Developmental Services, Mental Health Services Oversight Commission, Department of Rehabilitation, Department of Child Support Services, Department of Social Services, Department of Housing & Community Development, and Employment Development Department. Source: State of California, “State and Local Government Spending,” compiled by Christopher Chantrill, 2012. http://www.usfederalbudget.us/year_spending_2012FLms_15ms2n#usgs302

NONPROFIT ASSISTANCE• Non-Profit Revenue for Human Services – Nonprofits as reported on Form 990EZc3 and 990 c3 minus

program service revenue, dues, and government grants as reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Most current data is for 2010. Data retrieved from the NCCS Data Web Report Builder, Statistics of Income 990EZc3 Report and 990 c3 Report, Urban Institute. Source: http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/dw/index.php?page=CHome&s=1

• Community Health Benefit – Spending by hospitals on low-income patients that includes charity care and means-tested expenses, including Unreimbursed Medicaid minus direct offsetting revenue as reported on the 990 c3 Report. Most current data is for 2010. Data retrieved from the NCCS Data Web Report Builder, Statistics of Income 990 c3 Report for 2010, Urban Institute. Source: http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/dw/index.php?page=CHome&s=1

http://www.usfederalbudget.us/year_spending_2012FLms_15ms2n#usgs302

http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/dw/index.php?page=CHome&s=1


98 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

APPENDIX F – THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY DASHBOARD: METHODOLOGY AND SOURCESThe Economic Viability Dashboard is composed of three indices: The Housing Affordability Index, the Job Opportunities Index, and the Community Support Index. The methodology and sources for each are presented below.

INDEX METHODOLOGYEach index in the Dashboard is composed of different kinds of measures. The first step is therefore to create a common scale across rates, percentages, and other scores by measuring from the average. Raw indicator scores are converted to “z-scores”, which measure how far any value falls from the mean of the set, measured in standard deviations. The general formula for normalizing indicator scores is:

z = (x – μ)/ σ

where x is the indicator’s value, μ is the unweighted average, σ the standard deviation for that indicator and z is the resulting z-score. All scores must move in a positive direction, so for variables with an inverse relationship, i.e., the violent crime rate, the scores are multiplied by -1. In order to make the resulting scores more accessible, they are translated from a scale of -3 to 3 to 1 to 100.

INDICATORS AND THEIR SOURCESHousing Affordability Index

• Affordable Housing Stock – Measures the number of units needed to house all ALICE and poverty households spending no more than one-third of their income on housing, controlled for size by the percent of total housing stock. The gap is calculated as the number of ALICE households minus the number of rental and owner-occupied housing units that ALICE households can afford. Source: American Community Survey (ACS) and ALICE Threshold calculations

• Extreme Housing Burden – Households spending more than 35 percent of income on housing. Source: American Community Survey

• Real Estate Taxes – Median real estate taxes. Source: American Community Survey

Job Opportunities Index• Income Distribution – Share of Income of the Lowest Two Quintiles.

Source: American Community Survey.

• Unemployment Rate – U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Source: http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables

• New Hire Wages – Quarterly Workforce Indicators (QWI), U.S. Census Source: LED Extraction Tool: http://ledextract.ces.census.gov/

http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables

http://ledextract.ces.census.gov/

99UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

Community Support Index• Violent Crime Rate per 1,000 Residents

Source: Uniform Crime Reports, FBI

• Nonprofits – Revenue of human services nonprofits per capita, as reported on Form 990EZc3 and 990 c3 minus program service revenue, dues, and government grants as reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Does not include hospitals, universities, or houses of worship. Most current data is for 2010. Source: Data retrieved from the NCCS Data Web Report Builder, Statistics of Income 990EZc3 Report and 990 c3 Report, Urban Institute. http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/dw/index.php?page=CHome&s=1

• Health Care – Percent of population under 65 years old with health insurance. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates, American Community Survey

NOTEDue to the small size of the following California counties, there was not enough data to calculate 2007 scores; therefore, they were not included in the comparison of scores over time.

Alpine County Inyo CountyMariposa County Modoc CountyMono County Sierra CountyTrinity County


100 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

APPENDIX G – HOUSING DATA BY COUNTYRental and Owner Gaps – The number of additional rental and owner units needed that are affordable to households with income below the ALICE Threshold so that all of these households would pay less than 35 percent of income on housing.

Housing Data by County, California, 2012

County Owner Occupied Units Renter Occupied Units Source

Owner Occupied

Percent Owned by HHs Below

ALICE Threshold

Extreme Housing Burden: Percent

Owners Pay more than 35%

of Income

Renter Occupied

Percent Rented by HHs Below

ALICE Threshold


Renters Pay more than 35%

of Income

Gap in Rental Stock Affordable

for All HHs Below ALICE Threshold

American Community

Survey

Alameda County 286,205 18% 26% 262,069 54% 43% 2,259 1 year estimate

Alpine County 311 31% 21% 74 78% 46% 38 5 year estimate

Amador County 10,572 33% 30% 3,574 68% 54% 79 3 year estimate

Butte County 50,752 36% 24% 34,636 70% 54% 13,739 1 year estimate

Calaveras County 14,930 33% 32% 3,889 60% 41% 1,485 3 year estimate

Colusa County 4,216 34% 23% 2,666 72% 36% 1,099 3 year estimate

Contra Costa County 244,208 20% 29% 136,189 49% 46% 2,528 1 year estimate

Del Norte County 5,835 51% 29% 3,639 71% 48% 1,103 3 year estimate

El Dorado County 47,733 24% 28% 17,825 57% 41% 877 1 year estimate

Fresno County 150,354 34% 27% 141,926 71% 50% 52,274 1 year estimate

Glenn County 6,037 48% 31% 3,540 77% 32% 1,397 3 year estimate

Humboldt County 28,072 37% 28% 24,169 72% 54% 9,421 1 year estimate

Imperial County 26,517 44% 27% 20,230 75% 49% 8,340 1 year estimate

Inyo County 4,980 42% 21% 2,930 74% 49% 1,257 5 year estimate

Kern County 147,900 34% 23% 108,067 67% 48% 37,923 1 year estimate

Kings County 19,777 33% 23% 20,599 67% 39% 7,845 1 year estimate

Lake County 15,542 49% 41% 10,686 74% 58% 7,866 1 year estimate

Lassen County 6,580 34% 19% 3,626 70% 45% 996 3 year estimate

Los Angeles County 1,481,122 27% 34% 1,750,538 61% 51% 95,235 1 year estimate

Madera County 24,555 39% 30% 16,480 75% 56% 7,411 1 year estimate

Marin County 63,948 22% 28% 38,479 59% 47% 22,719 1 year estimate

Mariposa County 5,230 40% 26% 2,026 67% 35% 348 5 year estimate

Mendocino County 18,959 30% 26% 16,244 75% 55% 2,194 1 year estimate

Merced County 40,931 32% 25% 35,520 72% 48% 12,132 1 year estimate

Modoc County 2,834 56% 23% 1,069 81% 47% 414 5 year estimate

Mono County 2,854 51% 36% 2,202 73% 51% 335 5 year estimate

Monterey County 60,584 26% 29% 63,587 55% 47% (921) 1 year estimate

Napa County 29,220 34% 29% 19,004 64% 43% 3,352 1 year estimate

Nevada County 29,567 26% 30% 12,065 60% 47% 7,188 1 year estimate

Orange County 565,956 31% 29% 429,412 66% 48% 282,679 1 year estimate

Placer County 92,455 25% 27% 40,638 52% 46% 141 1 year estimate

Plumas County 6,031 45% 32% 2,381 63% 37% 662 3 year estimate

Riverside County 442,164 35% 32% 243,096 63% 51% 24,784 1 year estimate

Sacramento County 289,227 29% 25% 227,418 66% 49% 78,763 1 year estimate

San Benito County 10,790 29% 38% 6,103 55% 46% (52) 3 year estimate

101UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

County Owner Occupied Units Renter Occupied Units Source

Owner Occupied

Percent Owned by HHs Below

ALICE Threshold


Owners Pay more than 35%

of Income

Renter Occupied

Percent Rented by HHs Below

ALICE Threshold


Renters Pay more than 35%

of Income

Gap in Rental Stock Affordable

for All HHs Below ALICE Threshold

American Community

Survey

San Bernardino County 360,060 34% 29% 240,628 66% 52% 94,269 1 year estimate

San Diego County 573,530 38% 31% 506,123 72% 48% 99,683 1 year estimate

San Francisco County 124,739 28% 29% 222,103 57% 39% 126,310 1 year estimate

San Joaquin County 121,799 29% 27% 93,962 64% 50% 34,204 1 year estimate

San Luis Obispo County 56,105 26% 28% 45,792 57% 46% 542 1 year estimate

San Mateo County 148,728 26% 31% 110,160 59% 44% 64,704 1 year estimate

Santa Barbara County 73,176 35% 29% 68,463 70% 49% 16,209 1 year estimate

Santa Clara County 344,484 27% 25% 269,326 56% 40% 150,836 1 year estimate

Santa Cruz County 52,900 33% 29% 40,353 66% 45% 26,805 1 year estimate

Shasta County 42,265 34% 24% 25,900 65% 51% 8,305 1 year estimate

Sierra County 1,018 45% 21% 320 86% 53% 163 5 year estimate

Siskiyou County 12,138 46% 29% 7,362 75% 53% 2,661 3 year estimate

Solano County 83,408 24% 24% 57,731 59% 49% 1,647 1 year estimate

Sonoma County 110,476 26% 30% 73,872 58% 48% 2,246 1 year estimate

Stanislaus County 93,081 36% 29% 74,416 69% 52% 27,939 1 year estimate

Sutter County 18,517 34% 26% 12,742 68% 46% 4,850 1 year estimate

Tehama County 15,358 43% 27% 8,083 70% 39% 2,665 3 year estimate

Trinity County 4,251 55% 23% 1,560 84% 45% 819 5 year estimate

Tulare County 75,044 40% 26% 57,570 74% 50% 21,376 1 year estimate

Tuolumne County 14,947 33% 29% 6,786 72% 50% 2,709 3 year estimate

Ventura County 172,028 32% 30% 95,849 69% 54% 26,202 1 year estimate

Yolo County 35,683 26% 22% 35,885 69% 50% 4,184 1 year estimate

Yuba County 14,671 37% 24% 10,171 68% 52% 3,533 1 year estimate

Housing Data by County, California, 2012

102 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

APPENDIX H – PUBLIC USE MICRODATA AREAS (PUMA) BY INCOMEKnowing the extent of local variation is an important aspect of understanding the challenges facing households earning below the ALICE Threshold in California. This appendix presents key data and ALICE statistics using the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) database. It is important to note that these PUMS estimates do not match the American Community Survey tables used in the rest of the Report. PUMS files are a set of untabulated records about individual people or housing units. The results are presented for California’s 265 Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs), which are non-overlapping areas that partition each state into segmentsof about 100,000 residents each. The estimates are 1-year estimates for 2012, though note that the housing burden numbers are a percentage of household income in 2011.

ALICE Households by Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMA), California, 2012

PUMA Population Households Poverty % ALICE % Above ALICE Theshold %

Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Alameda County (North)–Berkeley & Albany Cities 133,260 52,921 20% 23% 57% 0.54 9% 92% 31% 52%

Alameda County (Northwest)–Oakland (Northwest) & Emeryville Cities

160,392 70,465 22% 38% 40% 0.48 13% 80% 42% 51%

Alameda County (Northeast)–Oakland (East) & Piedmont Cities 130,312 55,137 8% 19% 73% 0.49 6% 94% 33% 44%

Alameda County (North Central)–Oakland City (South Central) 127,058 39,410 28% 40% 32% 0.45 20% 78% 46% 70%

Alameda County (West)–San Leandro, Alameda & Oakland (Southwest) Cities

167,072 61,666 8% 31% 61% 0.44 10% 86% 29% 44%

Alameda County (North Central)–Castro Valley, San Lorenzo & Ashland

137,378 46,072 11% 31% 58% 0.43 13% 87% 31% 54%

Alameda County (Central)–Hayward City 152,083 45,694 15% 27% 58% 0.46 13% 83% 33% 57%

Alameda County (Southwest)–Union City, Newark & Fremont (West) Cities

140,383 40,570 7% 20% 72% 0.39 9% 90% 33% 48%

Alameda County (South Central)–Fremont City (East) 196,323 61,948 6% 20% 74% 0.41 8% 90% 31% 39%

Alameda County (East)–Livermore, Pleasanton & Dublin Cities

210,459 74,391 5% 18% 77% 0.42 6% 92% 37% 45%

Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono & Tuolumne Counties

188,044 72,491 12% 28% 60% 0.43 18% 84% 36% 51%

Butte County (Northwest)–Chico City 113,105 43,055 20% 30% 50% 0.47 12% 82% 34% 57%

Butte County (Southeast)–Oroville City & Paradise Town 108,434 42,333 18% 33% 49% 0.45 19% 84% 29% 61%

Colusa, Glenn, Tehama & Trinity Counties 126,091 45,174 18% 34% 48% 0.43 17% 83% 34% 42%

Contra Costa County (Far Southwest)–Richmond (Southwest) & San Pablo Cities

121,006 40,625 21% 39% 39% 0.47 11% 78% 42% 56%

Contra Costa County (Far Northwest)–Richmond (North), Hercules & El Cerrito Cites

116,981 44,262 8% 26% 66% 0.43 9% 87% 36% 54%

Contra Costa County (Northwest)–Concord (West), Martinez & Pleasant Hill Cities

132,409 48,273 9% 26% 64% 0.41 10% 87% 33% 49%

Contra Costa County–Walnut Creek (West), Lafayette, Orinda Cities & Moraga Town

127,523 49,363 BAT*– 22% 78% 0.5 5% 94% 37% 46%

*Below the ALICE Threshold

103UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA



Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Contra Costa County (South)–San Ramon City & Danville Town 128,505 46,586 BAT*– 15% 85% 0.39 6% 97% 38% 48%

Contra Costa County (Central)–Concord (South), Walnut Creek (East) & Clayton Cities

111,181 44,623 6% 20% 74% 0.42 8% 92% 31% 50%

Contra Costa County (North Central)–Pittsburg & Concord (North & East) Cities

123,629 38,644 14% 32% 54% 0.42 11% 85% 40% 58%

Contra Costa County (Northeast)–Antioch City 109,711 34,997 17% 28% 55% 0.44 12% 87% 42% 67%

Contra Costa County (East)–Brentwood & Oakley Cities 108,652 33,024 BAT*– 30% 70% 0.39 10% 86% 45% 59%

Del Norte, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas & Siskiyou Counties 134,376 49,876 18% 27% 55% 0.44 15% 85% 29% 47%

El Dorado County–El Dorado Hills 180,561 65,558 8% 27% 65% 0.42 12% 90% 36% 49%

Fresno County (West)–Selma, Kerman & Coalinga Cities 144,151 38,423 28% 33% 39% 0.45 14% 74% 33% 46%

Fresno County (North Central)–Fresno City (North) 180,838 66,148 13% 24% 63% 0.46 13% 87% 31% 52%

Fresno County (Central)–Fresno City (East Central) 111,918 31,998 32% 36% 32% 0.43 19% 77% 36% 62%

Fresno County (Central)–Fresno City (Southwest) 172,666 53,263 32% 33% 35% 0.47 19% 75% 36% 65%

Fresno County (Central)–Fresno City (Southeast) 101,881 29,415 34% 28% 38% 0.51 19% 74% 42% 69%

Fresno County (Central)–Clovis City 105,321 35,501 14% 24% 63% 0.45 10% 88% 33% 49%

Fresno County (East)–Sanger, Reedley & Parlier Cities 131,120 37,532 22% 27% 52% 0.45 19% 80% 38% 50%

Humboldt County 134,827 52,241 21% 30% 49% 0.46 10% 79% 38% 56%

Imperial County–El Centro City 176,948 46,747 24% 29% 47% 0.47 20% 79% 34% 52%

Kern County (West)–Delano, Wasco & Shafter Cities 194,014 49,547 22% 29% 49% 0.47 12% 78% 31% 50%

Kern County (Central)–Bakersfield City (West) 208,576 66,678 13% 19% 68% 0.43 10% 87% 33% 48%

Kern County (Central)–Bakersfield City (Northeast) 156,356 47,722 29% 31% 39% 0.47 19% 77% 33% 62%

Kern County (Central)–Bakersfield City (Southeast) 114,927 29,115 25% 34% 41% 0.41 19% 73% 43% 53%

Kern County (East)–Ridgecrest, Arvin, Tehachapi & California City Cities

182,285 62,905 18% 28% 53% 0.44 14% 84% 23% 50%

Kings County–Hanford City 151,364 40,376 18% 33% 49% 0.46 17% 81% 29% 46%

Lake & Mendocino Counties 151,411 61,431 23% 30% 46% 0.45 14% 81% 40% 59%

Los Angeles County (North/Unincorporated)–Castaic 141,593 40,951 9% 23% 68% 0.43 8% 89% 41% 50%

Los Angeles County (Northwest)–Santa Clarita City 194,475 63,339 10% 22% 68% 0.43 9% 87% 41% 51%

Los Angeles County (North Central)–Lancaster City 166,887 50,108 21% 35% 44% 0.45 12% 81% 37% 52%

Los Angeles County (North Central)–Palmdale City 165,819 44,206 20% 35% 45% 0.44 14% 79% 38% 71%

Los Angeles County (North)–LA City (Northwest/Chatsworth & Porter Ranch)

174,812 56,659 12% 27% 61% 0.45 10% 85% 49% 62%

Los Angeles County (North)–LA City (North Central/Granada Hills & Sylmar)

139,209 38,252 13% 30% 56% 0.42 10% 82% 46% 68%

Los Angeles County–LA (North Central/Arleta & Pacoima) & San Fernando Cities

143,369 33,680 19% 35% 47% 0.39 16% 74% 50% 56%

Los Angeles County (North)–LA City (Northeast/Sunland, Sun Valley & Tujunga)

140,484 41,342 20% 30% 50% 0.43 13% 75% 51% 58%


104 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Los Angeles County (Central)–San Gabriel Valley Region (North) 109,254 39,648 BAT*– 27% 73% 0.47 10% 89% 34% 46%

Los Angeles County–Baldwin Park, Azusa, Duarte & Irwindale Cities

176,233 45,334 15% 35% 50% 0.41 11% 75% 41% 56%

Los Angeles County (East Central)–Glendora, Claremont, San Dimas & La Verne Cities

168,931 55,280 9% 26% 65% 0.45 11% 90% 39% 49%

Los Angeles County (East Central)–Pomona City 148,714 37,763 20% 39% 41% 0.43 13% 74% 42% 64%

Los Angeles County (East Central)–Covina & Walnut Cities 113,517 32,509 9% 26% 65% 0.42 12% 86% 37% 51%

Los Angeles County–Diamond Bar, La Habra Heights (East) Cities & Rowland Heights

111,316 33,194 BAT*– 36% 64% 0.42 7% 81% 38% 56%

Los Angeles County (East Central)–West Covina City 122,306 31,804 11% 32% 57% 0.41 14% 79% 42% 57%

Los Angeles County (East Central)–La Puente & Industry Cities

117,582 25,367 11% 35% 53% 0.37 12% 73% 43% 53%

Los Angeles County (East Central)–Arcadia, San Gabriel & Temple City Cities

189,815 64,674 11% 30% 59% 0.49 8% 84% 41% 52%

Los Angeles County (Central)–Pasadena City 137,179 55,594 14% 29% 57% 0.51 11% 84% 36% 48%

Los Angeles County (Central)–Glendale City 192,875 68,537 13% 38% 49% 0.47 10% 82% 45% 64%

Los Angeles County (Central)–Burbank City 117,431 46,173 13% 30% 57% 0.44 10% 86% 48% 50%

Los Angeles County (North)–LA City (Northeast/North Hollywood & Valley Village)

141,625 52,772 18% 44% 38% 0.49 14% 68% 42% 60%

Los Angeles County (Northwest)–LA City (North Central/Van Nuys & North Sherman Oaks)

170,164 57,906 23% 37% 40% 0.48 12% 71% 48% 62%

Los Angeles County (North)–LA City (North Central/Mission Hills & Panorama City)

154,622 39,431 25% 39% 36% 0.44 13% 69% 52% 68%

Los Angeles County (Northwest)–LA City (Northwest/Encino & Tarzana)

169,604 59,108 15% 31% 53% 0.48 12% 79% 51% 55%

Los Angeles County–LA City (Northwest/Canoga Park, Winnetka & Woodland Hills)

174,470 59,982 14% 27% 59% 0.43 9% 84% 49% 58%

Los Angeles County–Calabasas, Agoura Hills, Malibu & Westlake Village Cities

99,510 36,259 BAT*– 18% 82% 0.48 10% 94% 45% 54%

Los Angeles County (Central)–LA City (Central/Pacific Palisades) 148,957 68,083 6% 24% 70% 0.55 10% 91% 43% 44%

Los Angeles County (Southwest)–Santa Monica City 104,183 49,917 13% 28% 59% 0.53 11% 87% 40% 49%

Los Angeles County (West Central)–LA City (West Central/Westwood & West Los Angeles)

197,430 86,026 15% 29% 56% 0.54 8% 87% 39% 51%

Los Angeles County (West Central)–LA City (Central/Hancock Park & Mid-Wilshire)

176,156 73,753 18% 34% 49% 0.55 10% 78% 44% 59%

Los Angeles County (Central)–West Hollywood & Beverly Hills Cities

110,557 57,273 16% 30% 55% 0.57 12% 85% 45% 55%

Los Angeles County (Central)–LA City (East Central/Hollywood) 184,529 78,574 25% 43% 32% 0.53 15% 69% 58% 56%

Los Angeles County (Central)–LA City (Central/Koreatown) 115,727 46,023 28% 52% 21% 0.42 12% 58% 0% 62%

Los Angeles County–LA City (East Central/Silver Lake, Echo Park & Westlake)

204,784 75,111 24% 43% 33% 0.51 12% 64% 42% 54%

Los Angeles County–LA City (Mount Washington, Highland Park & Glassell Park)

189,537 58,697 21% 35% 43% 0.46 15% 74% 45% 62%


105UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA



Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Los Angeles County (Central)–Alhambra & South Pasadena Cities

115,283 41,441 13% 34% 53% 0.45 6% 81% 31% 42%

Los Angeles County (Central)–Monterey Park & Rosemead Cities

129,417 36,687 19% 37% 44% 0.48 13% 76% 36% 60%

Los Angeles County (Central)–El Monte & South El Monte Cities 129,976 32,926 24% 42% 34% 0.41 15% 72% 46% 65%

Los Angeles County (Southeast)–Whittier City & Hacienda Heights 170,705 51,609 10% 29% 61% 0.44 8% 81% 35% 52%

Los Angeles County (Central)–Pico Rivera & Montebello Cities 129,812 34,972 13% 39% 48% 0.41 11% 74% 39% 59%

Los Angeles County (Central)–Bell Gardens, Bell, Maywood, Cudahy & Commerce Cities

142,963 33,580 29% 46% 25% 0.39 16% 63% 50% 63%

Los Angeles County (Central)–Huntington Park City, Florence-Graham & Walnut Park

133,277 30,601 31% 41% 27% 0.43 15% 67% 46% 64%

Los Angeles County (Central)–East Los Angeles 124,407 29,818 29% 42% 29% 0.41 14% 63% 41% 59%

Los Angeles County (Central)–LA City (East Central/Central City & Boyle Heights)

170,161 55,907 34% 39% 27% 0.51 15% 68% 55% 60%

Los Angeles County (Central)–LA City (Southeast/East Vernon) 116,245 26,569 45% 39% 16% 0.41 11% 61% 57% 73%

Los Angeles County–LA City (Central/Univ. of Southern California & Exposition Park)

115,275 31,815 43% 36% 21% 0.51 15% 71% 53% 64%

Los Angeles County (Central)–LA City (Central/West Adams & Baldwin Hills)

155,914 60,841 23% 43% 34% 0.47 13% 75% 50% 62%

Los Angeles County–LA (Southwest/Marina del Rey & Westchester) & Culver City Cities

183,306 80,799 10% 25% 66% 0.47 11% 86% 38% 49%

Los Angeles County (Central)–Inglewood City 114,304 37,454 20% 45% 35% 0.45 15% 74% 51% 59%

Los Angeles County (South Central)–LA City (South Central/Westmont)

162,285 48,483 34% 42% 24% 0.47 17% 70% 56% 71%

Los Angeles County (South Central)–LA City (South Central/Watts)

151,150 36,959 42% 36% 22% 0.46 17% 70% 58% 71%

Los Angeles County (South)–South Gate & Lynwood Cities 173,275 39,670 25% 38% 37% 0.41 12% 70% 51% 65%

Los Angeles County (South)–Downey City 111,285 32,930 13% 32% 55% 0.43 10% 81% 39% 56%

Los Angeles County (Southeast)–La Mirada & Santa Fe Springs Cities

138,025 37,716 9% 27% 64% 0.41 8% 82% 38% 53%

Los Angeles County (Southeast)–Norwalk City 123,989 32,023 13% 32% 55% 0.39 12% 78% 40% 49%

Los Angeles County (Southeast)–Bellflower & Paramount Cities 116,822 32,691 24% 37% 39% 0.43 12% 78% 44% 59%

Los Angeles County (South Central)–Compton City & West Rancho Dominguez

155,357 37,376 27% 40% 34% 0.44 19% 73% 51% 66%

Los Angeles County (South Central)–Gardena, Lawndale Cities & West Athens

151,732 50,698 18% 41% 41% 0.44 10% 74% 47% 61%

Los Angeles County (South Central)–Hawthorne City 115,322 35,598 23% 43% 35% 0.47 11% 75% 50% 62%

Los Angeles County–Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach & Hermosa Beach Cities

137,746 57,516 BAT*– 21% 79% 0.46 6% 94% 33% 38%

Los Angeles County (South Central)–Torrance City 127,733 48,468 9% 27% 64% 0.42 8% 88% 34% 46%

Los Angeles County (South Central)–Carson City 115,901 31,946 10% 27% 63% 0.38 16% 83% 42% 52%


106 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Los Angeles County (South Central)–Long Beach City (North) 144,321 44,821 19% 36% 45% 0.44 14% 78% 44% 57%

Los Angeles County (South)–Lakewood, Cerritos, Artesia & Hawaiian Gardens Cities

159,221 50,132 9% 27% 64% 0.39 7% 86% 33% 52%

Los Angeles County (Southeast)–Long Beach City (East) 133,539 54,111 11% 27% 62% 0.45 8% 90% 37% 49%

Los Angeles County (South)–Long Beach City (Southwest & Port)

99,558 32,906 32% 39% 28% 0.51 13% 74% 53% 65%

Los Angeles County (South)–LA City (South/San Pedro) 180,701 57,824 16% 40% 44% 0.44 12% 79% 44% 54%

Los Angeles County (Southwest)–Palos Verdes Peninsula 114,995 43,588 BAT*– 27% 73% 0.5 7% 90% 32% 49%

Los Angeles County (Southeast)–Long Beach (Central) & Signal Hill Cities

105,131 37,856 26% 40% 34% 0.46 15% 74% 47% 57%

Madera County–Madera City 152,218 41,035 22% 30% 47% 0.47 10% 77% 38% 54%

Marin County (North & West)–Novato & San Rafael (North) Cities

110,928 44,225 BAT*– 39% 61% 0.47 7% 91% 37% 54%

Marin County (Southeast)–San Rafael (South), Mill Valley & Sausalito Cities

145,141 58,202 8% 26% 66% 0.54 7% 91% 34% 48%

Merced County (West & South)–Los Banos & Livingston Cities 104,832 29,185 20% 29% 52% 0.45 17% 79% 31% 46%

Merced County (Northeast)–Merced & Atwater Cities 157,473 47,266 23% 27% 50% 0.45 18% 84% 34% 53%

Monterey County (North Central)–Seaside, Monterey, Marina & Pacific Grove Cities

184,106 64,903 10% 29% 60% 0.44 8% 82% 36% 52%

Monterey County (Northeast)–Salinas City 165,017 43,161 18% 35% 47% 0.41 10% 77% 39% 58%

Monterey (South & East) & San Benito Counties 134,523 33,146 15% 34% 51% 0.42 12% 81% 44% 59%

Napa County–Napa City 139,045 48,224 9% 27% 64% 0.45 10% 85% 35% 48%

Nevada & Sierra Counties 101,692 43,345 11% 32% 58% 0.43 10% 86% 37% 52%

Orange County (Southwest)–San Clemente, Laguna Niguel & San Juan Capistrano Cities

183,494 71,346 8% 32% 61% 0.47 8% 86% 39% 60%

Orange County (South Central)–Mission Viejo & Rancho Santa Margarita (West) Cities

109,785 38,959 BAT*– 32% 68% 0.4 7% 91% 38% 53%

Orange County (West Central)–Newport Beach, Aliso Viejo & Laguna Hills Cities

195,151 83,949 8% 28% 64% 0.54 8% 90% 40% 44%

Orange County (Central)–Irvine City (Central) 219,355 77,729 11% 26% 64% 0.43 8% 91% 35% 44%

Orange County (Northeast)–Lake Forest, Irvine (North) Cities & Silverado

209,150 67,721 8% 30% 61% 0.44 7% 88% 38% 52%

Orange County (North)–Yorba Linda, La Habra & Brea Cities 182,119 58,997 7% 36% 57% 0.42 10% 86% 37% 56%

Orange County (North Central)–Fullerton & Placentia Cities 196,293 61,579 13% 40% 47% 0.47 12% 80% 36% 58%

Orange County (Northwest)–Buena Park, Cypress & Seal Beach Cities

182,849 61,020 9% 39% 52% 0.45 8% 85% 32% 55%

Orange County (North Central)–Anaheim City (West) 136,427 41,857 17% 49% 34% 0.43 11% 77% 41% 67%

Orange County (North Central)–Anaheim City (East) 204,641 54,987 15% 38% 47% 0.45 11% 73% 37% 59%

Orange County (Central)–Orange & Villa Park Cities 139,006 43,743 11% 34% 55% 0.44 10% 82% 37% 61%

Orange County (Northwest)–Westminster, Stanton & Garden Grove (West) Cities

171,597 51,564 16% 40% 44% 0.43 10% 81% 35% 62%

Orange County (Northwest)–Garden Grove City (East) 160,526 43,176 18% 46% 36% 0.44 11% 78% 40% 60%


107UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA



Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Orange County (Northwest)–Huntington Beach City 195,842 70,420 8% 32% 60% 0.45 10% 88% 34% 53%

Orange County (Southeast)–Rancho Santa Margarita City (East) & Ladera Ranch

100,617 32,107 NA NA NA 0.41 4% 96% 39% 54%

Orange County (Central)–Santa Ana City (West) 153,737 32,146 19% 44% 37% 0.41 9% 69% 41% 58%

Orange County (Central)–Santa Ana City (East) 166,879 37,314 21% 49% 30% 0.41 8% 66% 43% 62%

Orange County (Central)–Costa Mesa & Fountain Valley Cities 182,664 66,754 11% 38% 51% 0.43 9% 81% 36% 55%

Placer County (Southwest)–Roseville City 128,673 47,722 7% 26% 67% 0.42 9% 90% 33% 51%

Placer County (Central)–Rocklin, Lincoln Cities & Loomis Town 115,729 42,321 9% 26% 65% 0.41 12% 89% 39% 55%

Placer County (East/High Country Region)–Auburn & Colfax Cities 117,280 43,050 10% 25% 65% 0.46 11% 86% 39% 50%

Riverside County (East)–Indio, Coachella, Blythe & La Quinta (East) Cities

185,888 49,020 23% 40% 38% 0.45 21% 73% 41% 55%

Riverside County (Central)–Cathedral City, Palm Springs & Rancho Mirage Cities

124,060 54,883 16% 39% 45% 0.52 13% 77% 42% 59%

Riverside County (Southwest)–Temecula City 130,199 38,011 6% 25% 69% 0.38 9% 87% 42% 50%

Riverside County (Southwest)–Murrieta & Wildomar Cities 133,574 41,131 10% 32% 58% 0.39 12% 84% 47% 61%

Riverside County (Southwest)–Menifee, Lake Elsinore & Canyon Lake Cities

181,366 55,987 11% 36% 53% 0.38 16% 81% 40% 58%

Riverside County (Southwest)–Hemet City & East Hemet 154,752 51,108 21% 40% 39% 0.47 16% 83% 39% 56%

Riverside County (North Central)–San Jacinto, Beaumont, Banning & Calimesa Cities

149,178 47,184 16% 35% 49% 0.43 15% 80% 34% 56%

Riverside County (Northwest)–Moreno Valley City 187,690 49,943 18% 37% 45% 0.38 14% 77% 40% 65%

Riverside County (West Central)–Perris City, Temescal Valley & Mead Valley

128,309 30,403 25% 39% 36% 0.44 17% 76% 46% 60%

Riverside County (Northwest)–Riverside City (East) 151,191 44,206 16% 32% 52% 0.46 14% 80% 30% 53%

Riverside County (Northwest)–Riverside City (West) 173,856 50,339 18% 38% 44% 0.41 16% 76% 35% 59%

Riverside County (West Central)–Corona City (South), Woodcrest & Home Gardens

114,990 30,871 10% 21% 69% 0.39 11% 83% 45% 55%

Riverside County (West Central)–Corona (Northwest) & Norco Cities

149,523 41,618 9% 31% 59% 0.41 11% 81% 41% 59%

Riverside County (Northwest)–Jurupa Valley & Eastvale Cities 152,058 36,425 15% 27% 58% 0.39 17% 75% 41% 53%

Riverside County–Palm Desert, La Quinta (West) & Desert Hot Springs Cities

152,149 64,131 16% 34% 50% 0.49 17% 83% 39% 59%

Sacramento County (North Central)–Citrus Heights City 104,284 41,364 12% 32% 56% 0.4 16% 84% 37% 54%

Sacramento County (Central)–Rancho Cordova City 113,979 42,061 15% 27% 57% 0.43 14% 85% 34% 55%

Sacramento County (North Central)–Arden-Arcade, Carmichael & Fair Oaks (West)

111,570 44,980 13% 25% 62% 0.51 15% 86% 29% 57%

Sacramento County (North Central)–North Highlands, Foothill Farms & McClellan Park

124,532 47,028 24% 34% 42% 0.45 16% 80% 34% 58%

Sacramento County (Northwest)–Sacramento City (Northwest/Natomas)

117,619 39,728 14% 25% 61% 0.42 15% 83% 33% 48%


108 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Sacramento County (North)–Sacramento City (North), Antelope & Rio Linda

117,900 34,725 20% 27% 54% 0.41 14% 79% 36% 59%

Sacramento County (West)–Sacramento City (Central/Downtown & Midtown)

112,580 56,417 22% 24% 54% 0.53 9% 86% 27% 51%

Sacramento County–Sacramento City (Southeast/Fruitridge, Avondale & Depot Park)

136,818 44,944 32% 31% 37% 0.47 19% 76% 32% 66%

Sacramento County–Sacramento City (Southwest/Pocket, Meadowview & North Laguna)

131,525 45,221 17% 29% 54% 0.44 17% 85% 32% 60%

Sacramento County (Central)–Elk Grove City 158,650 47,360 9% 16% 75% 0.39 11% 91% 34% 49%

Sacramento County (South)–Galt, Isleton Cities & Delta Region 111,259 33,341 15% 21% 63% 0.43 14% 84% 40% 49%

Sacramento County (Northeast)–Folsom City, Orangevale & Fair Oaks (East)

109,405 39,476 BAT*– 24% 76% 0.39 11% 90% 34% 50%

San Bernardino County (Northeast)–Twentynine Palms & Barstow Cities

137,677 46,916 20% 36% 44% 0.43 18% 85% 25% 49%

San Bernardino County (West Central)–Victorville & Adelanto Cities

165,887 42,430 26% 27% 47% 0.45 20% 80% 35% 66%

San Bernardino County (West Central)–Hesperia City & Apple Valley Town

173,321 52,751 25% 31% 45% 0.45 15% 79% 36% 65%

San Bernardino County (Southwest)–Phelan, Lake Arrowhead & Big Bear City

109,277 38,892 14% 31% 56% 0.42 12% 85% 35% 53%

San Bernardino County (Southwest)–Redlands & Yucaipa Cities

141,526 49,256 15% 24% 61% 0.44 10% 83% 34% 49%

San Bernardino County (Southwest)–Colton, Loma Linda & Grand Terrace Cities

106,475 30,710 17% 34% 50% 0.43 12% 79% 38% 63%

San Bernardino County (Southwest)–San Bernardino City (East)

107,692 29,184 22% 30% 48% 0.44 18% 78% 32% 57%

San Bernardino County (Southwest)–San Bernardino City (West)

174,210 44,582 32% 32% 36% 0.44 20% 74% 37% 63%

San Bernardino County (Southwest)–Rialto City 109,080 25,490 17% 27% 56% 0.41 14% 74% 41% 61%

San Bernardino County (Southwest)–Fontana City (East) 108,462 26,100 23% 32% 45% 0.43 17% 72% 41% 58%

San Bernardino County (Southwest)–Rancho Cucamonga City

171,431 53,200 9% 19% 71% 0.41 12% 85% 37% 51%

San Bernardino County (Southwest)–Upland & Montclair Cities

125,274 40,107 15% 30% 55% 0.46 8% 83% 40% 61%

San Bernardino County (Southwest)–Ontario City 171,153 46,121 16% 28% 56% 0.38 12% 75% 48% 58%

San Bernardino County (Southwest)–Chino & Chino Hills Cities

157,465 46,396 11% 21% 68% 0.42 10% 83% 45% 58%

San Bernardino County (Southwest)–Fontana City (West) 122,383 28,553 BAT*– 31% 69% 0.34 13% 74% 44% 52%

San Diego County (Northwest)–Oceanside City & Camp Pendleton

190,655 56,843 13% 35% 51% 0.43 10% 84% 40% 60%

San Diego County (North & East)–Fallbrook, Alpine & Valley Center 116,501 40,364 14% 33% 53% 0.48 11% 83% 39% 53%

San Diego County (Northwest)–Vista City 110,273 35,752 16% 42% 42% 0.44 7% 75% 39% 50%

San Diego County (Northwest)–Carlsbad City 121,923 48,453 BAT*– 38% 62% 0.48 8% 87% 36% 48%

San Diego County (Northwest)–San Marcos & Escondido (West) Cities

119,354 44,143 19% 40% 41% 0.48 9% 84% 35% 62%


109UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA



Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

San Diego County (Northwest)–Escondido City (East) 140,957 41,434 16% 40% 43% 0.47 9% 78% 43% 63%

San Diego County (Central)–Lakeside, Winter Gardens & Ramona

103,684 35,299 10% 34% 56% 0.42 8% 86% 39% 57%

San Diego County (Central)–San Diego (Northeast/Rancho Bernardo) & Poway Cities

126,244 45,115 5% 20% 75% 0.4 6% 94% 35% 48%

San Diego County (West)–San Diego (Northwest/San Dieguito) & Encinitas Cities

161,925 58,192 5% 21% 74% 0.46 6% 90% 37% 46%

San Diego County (West)–San Diego City (Southwest/Central Coastal)

165,170 69,535 8% 31% 61% 0.49 7% 88% 38% 48%

San Diego County (West Central)–San Diego City (Northwest/Del Mar Mesa)

110,184 37,325 BAT*– 19% 81% 0.4 5% 93% 34% 37%

San Diego County (Central)–San Diego City (Central/Mira Mesa & University Heights)

110,925 39,594 14% 28% 58% 0.44 8% 89% 37% 50%

San Diego County (Central)–El Cajon & Santee Cities 186,308 64,144 17% 37% 46% 0.45 13% 83% 38% 61%

San Diego County (Central)–San Diego (East Central/Navajo) & La Mesa Cities

146,041 58,761 10% 33% 57% 0.46 8% 88% 32% 60%

San Diego County (West Central)–San Diego City (Central/Clairemont & Kearny Mesa)

153,163 60,009 12% 34% 54% 0.42 8% 86% 39% 51%

San Diego County (South Central)–San Diego City (Central/Centre City & Balboa Park)

169,752 74,709 17% 39% 44% 0.48 9% 76% 45% 48%

San Diego County (South Central)–San Diego City (Central/Mid-City)

167,154 54,972 21% 43% 35% 0.45 12% 77% 34% 60%

San Diego County (South)–San Diego City (Southeast/Encanto & Skyline)

173,023 42,375 21% 34% 44% 0.41 15% 76% 44% 60%

San Diego County (South Central)–Lemon Grove City, La Presa & Spring Valley

140,473 42,530 12% 34% 54% 0.43 13% 84% 45% 56%

San Diego County (Southwest)–Sweetwater Region–Chula Vista City (East)

134,796 39,837 BAT*– 31% 69% 0.36 11% 85% 48% 49%

San Diego County (Southwest)–Chula Vista (West) & National City Cities

180,129 52,514 22% 42% 37% 0.42 15% 73% 41% 62%

San Diego County (South)–San Diego City (South/Otay Mesa & South Bay)

148,429 37,753 17% 38% 45% 0.42 15% 75% 42% 61%

San Francisco County (North & West)–Richmond District 136,364 61,219 15% 33% 51% 0.55 6% 93% 37% 45%

San Francisco County (North & East)–North Beach & Chinatown 114,917 60,667 15% 29% 56% 0.56 6% 92% 32% 38%

San Francisco County (Central)–South of Market & Potrero 129,695 62,814 22% 37% 41% 0.58 8% 84% 39% 49%

San Francisco County (Central)–Inner Mission & Castro 108,442 50,440 10% 26% 64% 0.46 8% 91% 35% 39%

San Francisco County (Central)–Sunset District (North) 109,866 41,773 12% 29% 59% 0.48 5% 92% 30% 50%

San Francisco County (South Central)–Sunset District (South) 116,514 38,374 12% 30% 59% 0.47 9% 90% 39% 55%

San Francisco County (South Central)–Bayview & Hunters Point 110,065 31,555 16% 39% 45% 0.43 13% 85% 41% 60%

San Joaquin County (Central)–Stockton City (North) 177,166 58,005 18% 25% 57% 0.46 17% 86% 31% 58%

San Joaquin County (Central)–Stockton City (South) 150,656 43,692 29% 33% 38% 0.44 20% 77% 36% 60%

San Joaquin County (South)–Tracy, Manteca & Lathrop Cities 212,200 60,697 10% 25% 66% 0.41 15% 85% 34% 53%


110 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

San Joaquin County (North)–Lodi, Ripon & Escalon Cities 162,590 53,367 14% 30% 56% 0.47 14% 81% 33% 49%

San Luis Obispo County (West)–Coastal Region 166,445 64,485 12% 32% 56% 0.44 7% 88% 34% 51%

San Luis Obispo County (East)–Inland Region 108,359 37,412 13% 26% 61% 0.44 8% 85% 39% 51%

San Mateo County (North Central)–Daly City, Pacifica Cities & Colma Town

139,653 43,273 7% 41% 52% 0.42 9% 87% 44% 55%

San Mateo County (North Central)–South San Francisco, San Bruno & Brisbane Cities

120,651 40,028 8% 37% 55% 0.42 10% 90% 38% 49%

San Mateo County (Central)–San Mateo (North), Burlingame & Millbrae Cities

114,741 42,964 9% 33% 58% 0.51 8% 88% 40% 52%

San Mateo County (South & West)–San Mateo (South) & Half Moon Bay Cities

116,939 45,876 BAT*– 32% 68% 0.41 6% 95% 40% 40%

San Mateo County (East Central)–Redwood City, San Carlos & Belmont Cities

130,377 49,092 5% 32% 63% 0.47 6% 87% 33% 52%

San Mateo County (Southeast)–Menlo Park, East Palo Alto Cities & Atherton Town

116,950 37,655 BAT*– 39% 61% 0.58 8% 89% 36% 54%

Santa Barbara County (Northwest)–Santa Maria City & Orcutt

128,645 36,474 17% 34% 49% 0.41 9% 76% 34% 57%

Santa Barbara County (North)–Lompoc, Guadalupe, Solvang & Buellton Cities

96,476 33,357 14% 33% 53% 0.46 13% 84% 33% 59%

Santa Barbara County–South Coast Region 206,128 71,808 12% 27% 60% 0.48 8% 84% 36% 56%

Santa Clara County (Northwest)–Mountain View, Palo Alto & Los Altos Cities

201,153 78,951 6% 20% 75% 0.53 5% 93% 30% 42%

Santa Clara County (Northwest)–Sunnyvale & San Jose (North) Cities

150,706 56,102 6% 18% 76% 0.41 8% 89% 25% 32%

Santa Clara County (Northwest)–San Jose (Northwest) & Santa Clara Cities

136,940 49,533 11% 23% 68% 0.42 9% 91% 29% 42%

Santa Clara County (North Central)–Milpitas & San Jose (Northeast) Cities

131,495 37,879 8% 21% 73% 0.39 9% 87% 33% 39%

Santa Clara County (North Central)–San Jose City (East Central) & Alum Rock

102,465 27,210 10% 27% 65% 0.42 12% 87% 41% 62%

Santa Clara County (East)–Gilroy, Morgan Hill & San Jose (South) Cities

111,225 34,125 12% 24% 67% 0.47 11% 86% 41% 58%

Santa Clara County (Southwest)–Cupertino, Saratoga Cities & Los Gatos Town

142,249 51,010 BAT*– 16% 84% 0.43 6% 96% 34% 31%

Santa Clara County (Central)–San Jose (West Central) & Campbell Cities

145,994 51,923 9% 28% 66% 0.44 7% 85% 32% 50%

Santa Clara County (Central)–San Jose City (Northwest) 128,175 45,919 17% 37% 48% 0.49 11% 82% 33% 52%

Santa Clara County (Central)–San Jose City (Central) 157,391 53,149 13% 25% 65% 0.49 9% 89% 33% 52%

Santa Clara County (Central)–San Jose City (South Central/Branham) & Cambrian Park

101,833 36,585 BAT*– 29% 71% 0.4 7% 88% 33% 55%

Santa Clara County (Central)–San Jose City (Southwest/Almaden Valley)

108,303 35,045 7% 16% 79% 0.41 8% 93% 36% 51%

Santa Clara County (Central)–San Jose City (Southeast/Evergreen) 109,969 30,635 10% 22% 70% 0.43 12% 87% 42% 55%

Santa Clara County (Central)–San Jose City (East Central/East Valley)

109,606 25,744 21% 34% 51% 0.43 11% 77% 39% 62%

Santa Cruz County (North)–Watsonville & Scotts Valley Cities 139,704 44,131 10% 35% 54% 0.46 8% 86% 40% 53%


111UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA



Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Santa Cruz County (South & Coastal)–Santa Cruz City 127,072 49,122 14% 34% 52% 0.47 8% 85% 36% 52%

Shasta County–Redding City 178,586 68,165 16% 28% 56% 0.44 12% 83% 30% 55%

Solano County (Southwest)–Vallejo & Benicia Cities 146,451 50,781 16% 32% 52% 0.44 18% 83% 34% 60%

Solano County (Central)–Fairfield & Suisun City Cities 140,373 44,489 12% 32% 56% 0.43 12% 87% 36% 57%

Solano County (Northeast)–Vacaville & Dixon Cities 133,933 45,869 10% 27% 62% 0.42 11% 90% 30% 53%

Sonoma County (North)–Windsor Town, Healdsburg & Sonoma Cities

178,863 72,169 10% 30% 59% 0.5 10% 85% 38% 55%

Sonoma County (South)–Petaluma, Rohnert Park & Cotati Cities

124,683 44,989 9% 30% 60% 0.41 8% 85% 38% 54%

Sonoma County (Central)–Santa Rosa City 188,283 67,190 11% 34% 54% 0.44 10% 85% 36% 57%

Stanislaus County (Southwest)–Ceres, Patterson & Newman Cities

121,911 34,853 19% 31% 50% 0.4 19% 83% 41% 51%

Stanislaus County (Central)–Modesto City (West) 120,363 38,164 22% 36% 43% 0.49 20% 80% 38% 57%

Stanislaus County (Northeast)–Turlock, Riverbank, Oakdale & Waterford Cities

173,597 56,509 15% 28% 57% 0.45 15% 84% 36% 53%

Stanislaus County (Central)–Modesto City (East) 105,855 37,971 15% 29% 56% 0.43 16% 84% 32% 57%

Sutter & Yuba Counties–Yuba City 167,948 56,101 19% 29% 52% 0.45 15% 84% 33% 55%

Tulare County (Northwest)–Visalia City 140,836 45,701 21% 20% 59% 0.45 12% 84% 33% 50%

Tulare County (West Central)–Tulare & Porterville Cities 153,574 43,902 24% 27% 49% 0.44 10% 78% 34% 51%

Tulare County (Outside Visalia, Tulare & Porterville Cities) 157,567 43,011 31% 29% 40% 0.47 19% 74% 34% 55%

Ventura County (Southeast)–Simi Valley City 116,325 39,275 8% 20% 72% 0.42 10% 88% 34% 62%

Ventura County (Southeast)–Thousand Oaks City 150,462 52,921 7% 21% 72% 0.46 11% 89% 39% 64%

Ventura County (Southwest)–Oxnard & Port Hueneme Cities 199,689 51,134 15% 35% 50% 0.42 12% 75% 43% 65%

Ventura County (Southwest)–San Buenaventura (Ventura) City 123,031 45,334 10% 33% 58% 0.4 10% 85% 36% 55%

Ventura County (North)–Santa Paula, Fillmore & Ojai Cities 118,075 38,190 13% 31% 57% 0.46 10% 84% 38% 57%

Ventura County (South Central)–Camarillo & Moorpark Cities 128,399 41,023 BAT*– 26% 74% 0.42 8% 87% 36% 53%

Yolo County–Davis, Woodland & West Sacramento Cities 204,118 71,568 15% 36% 49% 0.48 11% 87% 28% 59%


112 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

Percent of Households below the ALICE Threshold by PUMA, Fresno, California, 2012

Percent of Households below the ALICE Threshold by PUMA, Sacramento, California, 2012

113UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

Percent of Households below the ALICE Threshold by PUMA, San Diego, California, 2012

Percent of Households below the ALICE Threshold by PUMA, San Jose, California, 2012

114 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

APPENDIX I – KEY FACTS AND ALICE STATISTICS FOR CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALITIESMunicipal data is used to provide a different lens on ALICE households so as to draw the clearest picture with the range of data available. When the geographic area gets smaller, and the corresponding population is smaller, the data are estimates over time. For municipalities with populations over 65,000, the data are 1-year estimates; for populations between 20,000 and 65,000, data are 3-year estimates; and for populations below 20,000, the data are 5-year estimates.

We include data for 635 towns and cities, both county subdivisions and places. In some cases, there is overlap:• County Subdivisions are the primary divisions of counties. They include cities and towns as well as their

surrounding areas. In California, they are not official entities and they include Census County Divisions (CCDs).

• Census County Divisions (CCDs) have boundaries that usually follow visible features and usually coincide with census tract boundaries. The name of each CCD is based on a place, county, or well-known local name that identifies its location.

• Places are those areas incorporated under the laws of their state and reported to the Census Bureau as legally in existence as of January 1, 2010 under the laws of their state. Places are always within a single state or equivalent entity, but may extend across county and county subdivision boundaries. They also include Census Designated Places (CDPs).

• Census Designated Places (CDPs) are the statistical counterparts of incorporated places, and are delineated to provide data for settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name but are not legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located.

Key Facts and ALICE Statistics by Municipality, California, 2012

Municipality Population Households Poverty % ALICE % Above ALICE Theshold %

Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Source, American

Community Survey

Adelanto City, San Bernardino County

31,040 7,101 29% 32% 39% 0.41 24% 76% 53% 67% 5 year estimate

Agoura Hills City, Los Angeles County

20,431 7,086 5% 16% 79% 0.45 9% 94% 42% 51% 5 year estimate

Alameda City, Alameda County

75,632 30,582 8% 19% 72% 0.47 9% 90% 29% 42% 5 year estimate

Alhambra City, Los Angeles County

84,322 29,217 14% 29% 57% 0.43 6% 81% 31% 43% 5 year estimate

Aliso Viejo City, Orange County 48,746 18,269 5% 27% 68% 0.37 8% 90% 42% 49% 5 year

estimate

Altadena CDP, Los Angeles County

44,118 15,025 9% 17% 74% 0.48 10% 82% 37% 52% 5 year estimate

Anaheim City, Orange County 343,241 98,156 16% 41% 42% 0.45 12% 74% 38% 64% 5 year

estimate

Antelope CDP, Sacramento County

48,621 14,369 9% 27% 64% 0.38 10% 83% 48% 56% 5 year estimate

115UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA



Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Source, American

Community Survey

Antioch City, Contra Costa County

105,495 33,563 17% 21% 62% 0.43 11% 87% 42% 67% 5 year estimate

Apple Valley Town, San Bernardino County

70,682 22,603 21% 31% 48% 0.47 14% 84% 34% 71% 5 year estimate

Arcadia City, Los Angeles County

56,930 19,036 12% 21% 67% 0.49 6% 87% 42% 47% 5 year estimate

Arden-Arcade CDP, Sacramento County

88,995 39,940 22% 27% 51% 0.51 16% 82% 32% 57% 5 year estimate

Arvin City, Kern County 19,729 4,440 33% 38% 29% 0.36 17% 60% 47% 56% 5 year

estimate

Ashland CDP, Alameda County

22,984 7,606 14% 40% 47% 0.41 15% 79% 48% 54% 5 year estimate

Atascadero City, San Luis Obispo County

28,634 11,077 11% 22% 67% 0.41 6% 87% 40% 53% 5 year estimate

Atwater City, Merced County 28,520 8,643 22% 31% 47% 0.49 18% 83% 36% 53% 5 year

estimate

Azusa City, Los Angeles County 46,822 11,286 18% 27% 55% 0.42 8% 72% 42% 58% 5 year

estimate

Bakersfield City, Kern County 358,600 111,053 17% 24% 59% 0.45 13% 83% 33% 53% 5 year

estimate

Baldwin Park City, Los Angeles County

76,437 17,397 16% 29% 54% 0.39 15% 70% 42% 61% 5 year estimate

Banning City, Riverside County

30,029 12,272 14% 39% 47% 0.39 14% 79% 32% 54% 5 year estimate

Barstow City, San Bernardino County

22,884 8,094 24% 29% 47% 0.43 15% 87% 22% 51% 5 year estimate

Bay Point CDP, Contra Costa County

23,791 6,695 22% 27% 51% 0.41 16% 80% 41% 65% 5 year estimate

Beaumont City, Riverside County

38,445 12,821 12% 23% 65% 0.38 10% 87% 45% 60% 5 year estimate

Bell City, Los Angeles County 35,652 8,844 28% 42% 30% 0.39 17% 62% 55% 68% 5 year

estimate

Bell Gardens City, Los Angeles County

42,380 9,868 28% 37% 35% 0.39 15% 62% 42% 63% 5 year estimate

Bellflower City, Los Angeles County

77,334 23,680 21% 29% 50% 0.44 11% 80% 39% 61% 5 year estimate

Belmont City, San Mateo County

26,183 10,349 6% 26% 69% 0.44 8% 93% 34% 45% 5 year estimate

Benicia City, Solano County 27,231 10,412 7% 17% 76% 0.40 9% 89% 34% 45% 5 year

estimate

Berkeley City, Alameda County

115,417 45,674 21% 17% 62% 0.54 9% 92% 30% 50% 5 year estimate

Beverly Hills City, Los Angeles County

34,370 14,252 10% 15% 75% 0.64 11% 91% 47% 49% 5 year estimate

Bloomington CDP, San Bernardino County

23,474 5,007 22% 32% 46% 0.38 19% 69% 50% 60% 5 year estimate

Blythe City, Riverside County

20,436 5,316 15% 33% 52% 0.44 22% 82% 24% 50% 5 year estimate

Brawley City, Imperial County 25,271 7,307 27% 20% 53% 0.47 20% 84% 38% 51% 5 year

estimate

116 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Source, American

Community Survey

Brea City, Orange County 39,928 13,856 5% 35% 59% 0.38 10% 87% 38% 50% 5 year

estimate

Brentwood City, Contra Costa County

52,769 16,342 6% 16% 78% 0.37 11% 92% 45% 51% 5 year estimate

Buena Park City, Orange County

82,152 23,548 10% 40% 50% 0.39 8% 82% 39% 56% 5 year estimate

Burbank City, Los Angeles County

104,380 40,484 13% 23% 64% 0.44 10% 85% 48% 48% 5 year estimate

Burlingame City, San Mateo County

29,270 12,677 7% 37% 56% 0.50 6% 92% 43% 47% 5 year estimate

Calabasas City, Los Angeles County

23,748 8,751 6% 13% 81% 0.52 8% 92% 47% 56% 5 year estimate

Calexico City, Imperial County 38,992 9,139 28% 15% 56% 0.46 20% 75% 47% 59% 5 year

estimate

Camarillo City, Ventura County 65,972 24,226 6% 17% 77% 0.41 8% 88% 34% 55% 5 year

estimate

Campbell City, Santa Clara County

39,852 16,017 9% 34% 57% 0.44 6% 89% 39% 45% 5 year estimate

Carlsbad City, San Diego County

109,333 43,309 11% 20% 69% 0.49 7% 87% 34% 49% 5 year estimate

Carmichael CDP, Sacramento County

61,565 25,430 13% 26% 61% 0.47 18% 86% 33% 60% 5 year estimate

Carson City, Los Angeles County

92,992 24,646 9% 19% 72% 0.36 15% 83% 40% 50% 5 year estimate

Castro Valley CDP, Alameda County

60,847 22,055 7% 19% 74% 0.42 10% 90% 31% 50% 5 year estimate

Cathedral City, Riverside County

52,108 16,141 17% 35% 48% 0.43 12% 70% 48% 62% 5 year estimate

Ceres City, Stanislaus County

45,471 13,145 22% 28% 50% 0.42 19% 80% 45% 58% 5 year estimate

Cerritos City, Los Angeles County

49,357 14,954 7% 17% 77% 0.39 8% 88% 34% 59% 5 year estimate

Chico City, Butte County 87,712 33,405 23% 30% 47% 0.44 12% 81% 37% 58% 5 year

estimate

Chino City, San Bernardino County

80,181 22,287 12% 23% 65% 0.41 10% 83% 41% 61% 5 year estimate

Chino Hills City, San Bernardino County

76,462 23,594 7% 21% 72% 0.41 9% 86% 48% 56% 5 year estimate

Chula Vista City, San Diego County

252,424 75,942 12% 28% 60% 0.41 13% 81% 46% 59% 5 year estimate

Citrus Heights City, Sacramento County

84,862 33,628 13% 30% 56% 0.39 15% 83% 35% 50% 5 year estimate

Claremont City, Los Angeles County

35,227 11,865 9% 18% 74% 0.43 12% 92% 34% 44% 5 year estimate

Clovis City, Fresno County 98,626 33,177 14% 23% 63% 0.46 11% 88% 35% 49% 5 year

estimate

Coachella City, Riverside County

41,891 9,000 25% 37% 38% 0.41 24% 66% 46% 62% 5 year estimate

Colton City, San Bernardino County

52,735 14,485 23% 36% 41% 0.43 17% 71% 41% 63% 5 year estimate

117UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA



Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Source, American

Community Survey

Compton City, Los Angeles County

97,560 22,834 26% 32% 42% 0.44 20% 72% 51% 65% 5 year estimate

Concord City, Contra Costa County

124,717 44,634 9% 22% 68% 0.41 9% 84% 30% 51% 5 year estimate

Corcoran City, Kings County 23,952 3,610 25% 41% 34% 0.43 19% 81% 36% 53% 5 year

estimate

Corona City, Riverside County

158,388 44,677 9% 23% 68% 0.40 11% 81% 40% 57% 5 year estimate

Coronado City, San Diego County

23,660 8,983 8% 17% 75% 0.46 6% 94% 43% 49% 5 year estimate

Costa Mesa City, Orange County

111,910 41,997 12% 42% 45% 0.42 9% 76% 41% 57% 5 year estimate

Covina City, Los Angeles County 48,077 15,418 12% 24% 63% 0.41 15% 85% 45% 57% 5 year

estimate

Cudahy City, Los Angeles County

23,919 5,671 34% 34% 32% 0.39 16% 61% 38% 60% 5 year estimate

Culver City, Los Angeles County 39,105 16,613 10% 18% 71% 0.45 10% 88% 39% 46% 5 year

estimate

Cupertino City, Santa Clara County

59,341 20,868 6% 15% 79% 0.39 6% 96% 32% 31% 5 year estimate

Cypress City, Orange County 48,380 15,633 6% 36% 59% 0.39 7% 86% 35% 52% 5 year

estimate

Daly City, San Mateo County 103,677 29,976 8% 44% 48% 0.40 11% 84% 44% 62% 5 year

estimate

Dana Point City, Orange County 33,745 14,521 6% 33% 61% 0.46 8% 85% 39% 59% 5 year

estimate

Danville Town, Contra Costa County

42,616 15,796 4% 6% 90% 0.44 8% 98% 41% 52% 5 year estimate

Davis City, Yolo County 66,009 24,361 21% 24% 55% 0.52 8% 90% 20% 63% 5 year

estimate

Delano City, Kern County 53,023 10,335 31% 32% 37% 0.40 16% 73% 47% 55% 5 year

estimate

Desert Hot Springs City, Riverside County

27,474 8,799 26% 43% 32% 0.41 20% 70% 41% 62% 5 year estimate

Diamond Bar City, Los Angeles County

55,972 17,275 6% 18% 76% 0.41 8% 84% 40% 53% 5 year estimate

Dinuba City, Tulare County 22,401 5,864 24% 20% 56% 0.43 18% 75% 42% 51% 5 year

estimate

Downey City, Los Angeles County

112,878 33,310 13% 27% 60% 0.43 10% 82% 38% 55% 5 year estimate

Duarte City, Los Angeles County 21,493 7,058 9% 30% 61% 0.41 12% 82% 45% 52% 5 year

estimate

Dublin City, Alameda County

47,156 15,349 4% 10% 85% 0.36 6% 94% 41% 37% 5 year estimate

East Los Angeles CDP, Los Angeles County

126,918 30,707 30% 34% 35% 0.41 15% 63% 40% 59% 5 year estimate

East Palo Alto City, San Mateo County

28,542 6,808 20% 45% 35% 0.46 13% 74% 57% 68% 5 year estimate

Eastvale City, Riverside County

54,261 13,983 3% 14% 82% 0.32 10% 87% 54% 48% 5 year estimate

El Cajon City, San Diego County

101,449 33,891 21% 33% 46% 0.46 17% 79% 38% 61% 5 year estimate

118 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Source, American

Community Survey

El Centro City, Imperial County 42,933 12,774 26% 17% 57% 0.48 18% 80% 32% 56% 5 year

estimate

El Cerrito City, Contra Costa County

23,830 10,210 7% 18% 75% 0.43 11% 88% 30% 52% 5 year estimate

El Dorado Hills CDP, El Dorado County

43,807 14,122 3% 8% 89% 0.39 9% 95% 39% 42% 5 year estimate

El Monte City, Los Angeles County

115,113 29,423 25% 33% 42% 0.41 17% 72% 47% 65% 5 year estimate

El Paso De Robles (Paso Robles) City, San Luis Obispo County

30,203 11,495 10% 29% 61% 0.42 10% 86% 40% 56% 5 year estimate

Elk Grove City, Sacramento County

159,064 47,747 9% 15% 76% 0.38 10% 91% 34% 47% 5 year estimate

Encinitas City, San Diego County

60,321 22,544 10% 20% 71% 0.47 8% 87% 41% 48% 5 year estimate

Escondido City, San Diego County

147,556 44,909 17% 36% 47% 0.47 8% 77% 38% 64% 5 year estimate

Eureka City, Humboldt County

27,117 10,914 22% 37% 42% 0.44 11% 79% 38% 61% 5 year estimate

Fair Oaks CDP, Sacramento County

32,110 13,021 8% 21% 71% 0.46 13% 91% 30% 63% 5 year estimate

Fairfield City, Solano County 107,676 34,238 13% 24% 63% 0.42 12% 87% 38% 55% 5 year

estimate

Fallbrook CDP, San Diego County

32,910 10,885 15% 30% 55% 0.46 11% 79% 44% 53% 5 year estimate

Florence-Graham CDP, Los Angeles County

63,284 13,733 33% 35% 31% 0.42 15% 65% 45% 66% 5 year estimate

Florin CDP, Sacramento County

50,237 14,986 22% 32% 46% 0.43 21% 79% 37% 63% 5 year estimate

Folsom City, Sacramento County

73,381 24,967 5% 12% 83% 0.36 9% 93% 31% 43% 5 year estimate

Fontana City, San Bernardino County

201,817 48,641 15% 24% 61% 0.39 14% 74% 41% 58% 5 year estimate

Foothill Farms CDP, Sacramento County

34,467 12,189 20% 31% 49% 0.38 15% 83% 42% 56% 5 year estimate

Foster City, San Mateo County 31,247 12,012 5% 19% 76% 0.38 6% 96% 39% 32% 5 year

estimate

Fountain Valley City, Orange County

55,970 18,581 7% 31% 62% 0.41 9% 90% 33% 56% 5 year estimate

Fremont City, Alameda County

222,001 69,398 6% 13% 81% 0.40 8% 91% 30% 38% 5 year estimate

French Valley CDP, Riverside County

22,855 6,294 3% 27% 71% 0.31 11% 90% 59% 37% 5 year estimate

Fresno City, Fresno County 505,870 162,149 26% 29% 45% 0.49 17% 79% 35% 61% 5 year

estimate

Fullerton City, Orange County 138,589 44,685 14% 39% 47% 0.47 12% 80% 36% 58% 5 year

estimate

Galt City, Sacramento County

24,059 7,447 14% 27% 59% 0.38 19% 82% 43% 53% 5 year estimate

Garden Grove City, Orange County

174,401 48,514 18% 43% 40% 0.45 11% 81% 38% 59% 5 year estimate

119UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA



Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Source, American

Community Survey

Gardena City, Los Angeles County

59,179 21,004 13% 33% 54% 0.44 11% 78% 41% 51% 5 year estimate

Gilroy City, Santa Clara County

49,735 14,694 14% 30% 56% 0.42 13% 84% 43% 54% 5 year estimate

Glendale City, Los Angeles County

194,501 68,952 12% 33% 54% 0.47 10% 81% 45% 64% 5 year estimate

Glendora City, Los Angeles County

50,486 16,358 9% 20% 70% 0.44 11% 88% 43% 53% 5 year estimate

Goleta City, Santa Barbara County

30,101 11,056 8% 21% 72% 0.41 6% 90% 35% 48% 5 year estimate

Granite Bay CDP, Placer County

22,204 7,529 4% 7% 90% 0.45 8% 95% 39% 68% 5 year estimate

Hacienda Heights CDP, Los Angeles County

57,294 16,243 8% 21% 71% 0.42 9% 81% 39% 59% 5 year estimate

Hanford City, Kings County 54,205 16,812 17% 23% 60% 0.43 13% 84% 28% 49% 5 year

estimate

Hawthorne City, Los Angeles County

85,682 28,649 20% 40% 39% 0.47 11% 77% 50% 60% 5 year estimate

Hayward City, Alameda County

149,398 45,451 16% 22% 62% 0.46 13% 82% 36% 57% 5 year estimate

Hemet City, Riverside County

81,041 28,354 25% 41% 34% 0.45 19% 80% 31% 63% 5 year estimate

Hercules City, Contra Costa County

24,402 8,013 7% 17% 77% 0.38 8% 91% 43% 73% 5 year estimate

Hesperia City, San Bernardino County

92,066 27,082 29% 31% 40% 0.44 17% 74% 37% 62% 5 year estimate

Highland City, San Bernardino County

53,725 14,716 17% 27% 57% 0.43 15% 81% 36% 65% 5 year estimate

Hollister City, San Benito County

35,625 10,036 9% 26% 65% 0.37 15% 83% 50% 57% 5 year estimate

Huntington Beach City, Orange County

194,712 70,689 8% 32% 60% 0.45 9% 88% 34% 53% 5 year estimate

Huntington Park City, Los Angeles County

58,414 14,668 28% 38% 33% 0.40 16% 65% 56% 64% 5 year estimate

Imperial Beach City, San Diego County

26,611 8,571 17% 33% 51% 0.40 17% 84% 36% 57% 5 year estimate

Indio City, Riverside County

79,308 22,504 19% 30% 51% 0.43 16% 74% 39% 59% 5 year estimate

Inglewood City, Los Angeles County

111,174 36,292 19% 39% 43% 0.45 15% 75% 49% 59% 5 year estimate

Irvine City, Orange County 230,005 82,613 11% 23% 67% 0.44 8% 92% 33% 43% 5 year

estimate

Isla Vista CDP, Santa Barbara County

24,502 4,936 56% 23% 22% 0.54 15% 90% 17% 73% 5 year estimate

Jurupa Valley City, Riverside County

97,419 23,813 19% 28% 53% 0.40 19% 69% 34% 52% 5 year estimate

La Ca±Ada Flintridge City, Los Angeles County

20,381 6,751 3% 12% 85% 0.47 8% 94% 39% 49% 5 year estimate

120 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Source, American

Community Survey

La Crescenta-Montrose CDP, Los Angeles County

19,995 7,071 7% 19% 74% 0.42 7% 90% 42% 38% 5 year estimate

La Habra City, Orange County 60,929 18,677 13% 43% 44% 0.43 11% 77% 40% 62% 5 year

estimate

La Mesa City, San Diego County

57,673 23,220 13% 30% 57% 0.44 11% 85% 33% 60% 5 year estimate

La Mirada City, Los Angeles County

48,784 14,042 6% 24% 70% 0.41 9% 85% 39% 56% 5 year estimate

La Presa CDP, San Diego County

34,522 10,118 12% 27% 61% 0.38 14% 81% 42% 57% 5 year estimate

La Puente City, Los Angeles County

40,069 9,206 13% 32% 55% 0.37 11% 72% 41% 55% 5 year estimate

La Quinta City, Riverside County

38,241 15,157 8% 22% 70% 0.45 11% 89% 45% 53% 5 year estimate

La Verne City, Los Angeles County

31,214 10,876 7% 25% 68% 0.43 10% 89% 36% 55% 5 year estimate

Ladera Ranch CDP, Orange County

22,534 7,161 5% 14% 81% 0.37 5% 98% 49% 51% 5 year estimate

Lafayette City, Contra Costa County

24,251 9,315 3% 12% 85% 0.45 6% 97% 32% 37% 5 year estimate

Laguna Beach City, Orange County

22,992 11,289 7% 29% 63% 0.54 8% 92% 42% 53% 5 year estimate

Laguna Hills City, Orange County

30,682 10,808 6% 31% 64% 0.47 10% 85% 42% 58% 5 year estimate

Laguna Niguel City, Orange County

63,834 23,951 5% 28% 67% 0.44 8% 91% 41% 56% 5 year estimate

Lake Elsinore City, Riverside County

54,015 13,959 13% 26% 61% 0.38 14% 79% 45% 59% 5 year estimate

Lake Forest City, Orange County

78,853 26,688 7% 33% 60% 0.40 5% 90% 42% 49% 5 year estimate

Lakeside CDP, San Diego County

21,803 7,144 9% 30% 62% 0.40 11% 86% 42% 46% 5 year estimate

Lakewood City, Los Angeles County

80,835 27,003 8% 20% 73% 0.37 8% 87% 34% 54% 5 year estimate

Lancaster City, Los Angeles County

159,041 46,483 22% 29% 49% 0.46 12% 81% 38% 53% 5 year estimate

Lawndale City, Los Angeles County

32,958 9,496 19% 35% 46% 0.40 13% 69% 56% 58% 5 year estimate

Lemon Grove City, San Diego County

25,672 7,959 15% 31% 54% 0.40 15% 78% 47% 56% 5 year estimate

Lemoore City, Kings County 24,592 8,020 12% 30% 57% 0.44 13% 80% 28% 45% 5 year

estimate

Lennox CDP, Los Angeles County

22,160 5,328 31% 41% 29% 0.42 8% 62% 63% 64% 5 year estimate

Lincoln City, Placer County 43,781 16,683 10% 13% 77% 0.38 11% 90% 42% 49% 5 year

estimate

Livermore City, Alameda County

83,541 29,482 5% 15% 80% 0.40 6% 89% 35% 44% 5 year estimate

Lodi City, San Joaquin County 62,825 21,871 16% 30% 55% 0.47 16% 81% 34% 60% 5 year

estimate

121UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA



Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Source, American

Community Survey

Loma Linda City, San Bernardino County

23,434 8,657 13% 25% 62% 0.47 9% 85% 31% 48% 5 year estimate

Lomita City, Los Angeles County 20,411 7,763 12% 31% 57% 0.45 9% 78% 41% 45% 5 year

estimate

Lompoc City, Santa Barbara County

42,586 13,375 17% 31% 52% 0.42 14% 80% 38% 55% 5 year estimate

Long Beach City, Los Angeles County

467,888 164,220 21% 29% 50% 0.48 12% 80% 42% 57% 5 year estimate

Los Altos City, Santa Clara County

29,496 11,250 3% 15% 82% 0.49 7% 98% 35% 41% 5 year estimate

Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County

3,857,786 1,332,587 21% 29% 50% 0.52 12% 75% 48% 59% 5 year estimate

Los Banos City, Merced County 36,453 10,098 24% 27% 50% 0.45 20% 77% 39% 52% 5 year

estimate

Los Gatos Town, Santa Clara County

29,816 12,148 5% 20% 75% 0.47 7% 96% 36% 40% 5 year estimate

Lynwood City, Los Angeles County

70,720 14,759 26% 31% 43% 0.42 13% 69% 53% 66% 5 year estimate

Madera City, Madera County 62,065 16,067 26% 28% 46% 0.40 8% 76% 42% 52% 5 year

estimate

Manhattan Beach City, Los Angeles County

35,439 14,463 3% 11% 86% 0.49 5% 96% 34% 35% 5 year estimate

Manteca City, San Joaquin County

71,070 23,010 9% 32% 59% 0.42 15% 83% 36% 54% 5 year estimate

Marina City, Monterey County

19,982 6,612 17% 28% 55% 0.46 10% 80% 43% 52% 5 year estimate

Martinez City, Contra Costa County

36,316 13,791 7% 17% 76% 0.40 9% 90% 38% 50% 5 year estimate

Maywood City, Los Angeles County

27,530 6,283 28% 37% 35% 0.39 12% 62% 49% 59% 5 year estimate

Mead Valley CDP, Riverside County

20,118 4,107 24% 37% 39% 0.44 24% 63% 37% 64% 5 year estimate

Menifee City, Riverside County

81,467 27,132 11% 31% 59% 0.37 17% 86% 40% 57% 5 year estimate

Menlo Park City, San Mateo County

32,493 12,483 6% 23% 71% 0.49 7% 93% 33% 34% 5 year estimate

Merced City, Merced County 80,799 25,497 27% 29% 44% 0.47 18% 84% 35% 57% 5 year

estimate

Millbrae City, San Mateo County

21,847 7,863 6% 28% 66% 0.43 7% 89% 41% 48% 5 year estimate

Milpitas City, Santa Clara County

68,807 19,646 6% 23% 70% 0.39 10% 87% 32% 36% 5 year estimate

Mission Viejo City, Orange County

95,289 33,343 6% 26% 68% 0.41 7% 92% 38% 56% 5 year estimate

Modesto City, Stanislaus County

203,560 69,451 17% 30% 53% 0.46 18% 83% 35% 58% 5 year estimate

Monrovia City, Los Angeles County

36,800 13,318 12% 23% 66% 0.44 9% 84% 42% 45% 5 year estimate

Montclair City, San Bernardino County

37,208 9,980 17% 33% 49% 0.39 13% 73% 46% 58% 5 year estimate

122 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Source, American

Community Survey

Montebello City, Los Angeles County

62,941 19,133 14% 37% 50% 0.44 9% 77% 42% 58% 5 year estimate

Monterey City, Monterey County

28,492 11,812 10% 26% 64% 0.44 7% 85% 33% 51% 5 year estimate

Monterey Park City, Los Angeles County

60,630 18,426 16% 27% 57% 0.45 12% 78% 36% 53% 5 year estimate

Moorpark City, Ventura County 34,858 10,475 5% 14% 81% 0.36 6% 90% 44% 54% 5 year

estimate

Moreno Valley City, Riverside County

199,561 53,127 18% 27% 55% 0.39 14% 76% 40% 64% 5 year estimate

Morgan Hill City, Santa Clara County

38,741 12,455 12% 27% 61% 0.47 13% 88% 40% 66% 5 year estimate

Mountain View City, Santa Clara County

76,612 32,271 8% 29% 63% 0.48 6% 88% 33% 37% 5 year estimate

Murrieta City, Riverside County

106,809 33,478 7% 22% 71% 0.38 11% 84% 44% 58% 5 year estimate

Napa City, Napa County 78,332 28,062 10% 23% 67% 0.41 10% 85% 36% 47% 5 year

estimate

National City, San Diego County

59,021 16,004 25% 38% 38% 0.44 12% 68% 41% 57% 5 year estimate

Newark City, Alameda County

43,111 13,086 7% 16% 77% 0.36 7% 89% 39% 45% 5 year estimate

Newport Beach City, Orange County

87,060 36,893 8% 20% 71% 0.56 7% 91% 39% 40% 5 year estimate

Norco City, Riverside County

27,263 7,127 9% 18% 73% 0.39 11% 89% 46% 58% 5 year estimate

North Highlands CDP, Sacramento County

45,215 14,772 23% 33% 44% 0.42 14% 80% 35% 60% 5 year estimate

North Tustin CDP, Orange County

25,204 8,937 3% 16% 81% 0.45 6% 94% 37% 35% 5 year estimate

Norwalk City, Los Angeles County

106,286 27,258 13% 25% 62% 0.40 13% 78% 41% 47% 5 year estimate

Novato City, Marin County 52,721 20,743 8% 37% 56% 0.46 9% 91% 47% 57% 5 year

estimate

Oakdale City, Stanislaus County

20,939 7,130 15% 26% 60% 0.45 16% 83% 39% 51% 5 year estimate

Oakland City, Alameda County

400,740 156,482 20% 27% 54% 0.52 13% 83% 38% 55% 5 year estimate

Oakley City, Contra Costa County

36,552 11,089 9% 19% 72% 0.41 12% 87% 44% 60% 5 year estimate

Oceanside City, San Diego County

171,272 58,115 13% 26% 61% 0.43 9% 82% 38% 57% 5 year estimate

Oildale CDP, Kern County 31,400 11,507 31% 33% 36% 0.46 17% 80% 35% 60% 5 year

estimate

Ontario City, San Bernardino County

167,207 44,699 17% 29% 54% 0.38 12% 75% 48% 58% 5 year estimate

Orange City, Orange County 139,425 42,515 12% 32% 56% 0.42 10% 82% 36% 56% 5 year

estimate

Orangevale CDP, Sacramento County

32,878 12,607 8% 27% 65% 0.41 16% 87% 41% 62% 5 year estimate

Orcutt CDP, Santa Barbara County

30,578 10,973 7% 21% 73% 0.38 9% 86% 35% 51% 5 year estimate

123UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA



Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Source, American

Community Survey

Oxnard City, Ventura County 201,565 50,282 15% 26% 60% 0.41 11% 76% 39% 64% 5 year

estimate

Pacifica City, San Mateo County

37,732 14,169 5% 26% 69% 0.39 8% 93% 38% 39% 5 year estimate

Palm Desert City, Riverside County

49,369 23,489 9% 31% 60% 0.50 13% 85% 40% 53% 5 year estimate

Palm Springs City, Riverside County

45,306 22,648 14% 35% 51% 0.51 13% 79% 42% 55% 5 year estimate

Palmdale City, Los Angeles County

155,660 40,878 20% 29% 51% 0.44 15% 78% 38% 71% 5 year estimate

Palo Alto City, Santa Clara County

66,359 26,610 6% 20% 74% 0.51 6% 95% 29% 45% 5 year estimate

Paradise Town, Butte County 26,176 11,657 12% 36% 52% 0.43 16% 85% 35% 64% 5 year

estimate

Paramount City, Los Angeles County

54,377 13,378 22% 32% 46% 0.38 15% 71% 50% 63% 5 year estimate

Pasadena City, Los Angeles County

138,553 55,992 14% 23% 63% 0.50 11% 84% 37% 48% 5 year estimate

Patterson City, Stanislaus County

20,541 5,624 13% 30% 57% 0.37 14% 85% 50% 50% 5 year estimate

Perris City, Riverside County

71,327 15,842 25% 32% 43% 0.34 17% 75% 53% 61% 5 year estimate

Petaluma City, Sonoma County 58,420 21,318 8% 20% 72% 0.41 8% 86% 36% 53% 5 year

estimate

Pico Rivera City, Los Angeles County

63,238 16,262 14% 28% 59% 0.37 13% 75% 40% 58% 5 year estimate

Pittsburg City, Contra Costa County

65,655 19,746 16% 26% 58% 0.42 13% 84% 43% 62% 5 year estimate

Placentia City, Orange County 51,210 15,579 10% 33% 57% 0.42 12% 83% 41% 60% 5 year

estimate

Pleasant Hill City, Contra Costa County

33,494 13,712 8% 17% 74% 0.43 8% 91% 38% 49% 5 year estimate

Pleasanton City, Alameda County

72,326 26,104 5% 13% 82% 0.43 6% 94% 38% 44% 5 year estimate

Pomona City, Los Angeles County

150,817 38,417 20% 33% 47% 0.43 13% 74% 42% 63% 5 year estimate

Port Hueneme City, Ventura County

21,772 7,032 15% 35% 50% 0.42 16% 75% 48% 61% 5 year estimate

Porterville City, Tulare County 54,691 15,749 22% 18% 60% 0.45 15% 79% 35% 54% 5 year

estimate

Poway City, San Diego County 48,575 15,675 6% 18% 76% 0.42 7% 91% 36% 50% 5 year

estimate

Ramona CDP, San Diego County

21,708 6,387 12% 26% 62% 0.41 12% 81% 46% 58% 5 year estimate

Rancho Cordova City, Sacramento County

66,999 24,202 17% 31% 52% 0.42 14% 84% 38% 55% 5 year estimate

Rancho Cucamonga City, San Bernardino County

170,740 52,957 9% 19% 71% 0.42 12% 85% 37% 51% 5 year estimate

124 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Source, American

Community Survey

Rancho Palos Verdes City, Los Angeles County

42,002 15,535 4% 12% 84% 0.44 5% 96% 31% 55% 5 year estimate

Rancho San Diego CDP, San Diego County

22,531 8,358 4% 23% 73% 0.39 12% 90% 46% 61% 5 year estimate

Rancho Santa Margarita City, Orange County

48,430 16,759 4% 29% 67% 0.39 6% 92% 41% 52% 5 year estimate

Redding City, Shasta County 90,750 35,360 16% 28% 55% 0.45 11% 82% 29% 59% 5 year

estimate

Redlands City, San Bernardino County

69,908 25,137 11% 23% 66% 0.44 8% 88% 31% 52% 5 year estimate

Redondo Beach City, Los Angeles County

67,683 28,628 5% 16% 79% 0.43 5% 94% 32% 42% 5 year estimate

Redwood City, San Mateo County

79,005 28,871 7% 35% 58% 0.46 6% 84% 39% 57% 5 year estimate

Reedley City, Fresno County 24,629 6,291 19% 28% 53% 0.39 13% 75% 30% 62% 5 year

estimate

Rialto City, San Bernardino County

101,747 23,880 20% 31% 49% 0.43 17% 74% 43% 63% 5 year estimate

Richmond City, Contra Costa County

106,526 38,952 19% 26% 56% 0.48 9% 81% 40% 54% 5 year estimate

Ridgecrest City, Kern County 28,002 10,856 11% 23% 65% 0.39 10% 88% 17% 43% 5 year

estimate

Riverbank City, Stanislaus County

23,076 6,526 15% 28% 57% 0.39 19% 82% 42% 57% 5 year estimate

Riverside City, Riverside County

313,700 91,813 17% 29% 55% 0.45 15% 79% 33% 57% 5 year estimate

Rocklin City, Placer County 58,219 21,467 8% 23% 69% 0.41 12% 92% 42% 57% 5 year

estimate

Rohnert Park City, Sonoma County

41,085 15,875 12% 26% 62% 0.41 12% 85% 45% 53% 5 year estimate

Rosemead City, Los Angeles County

54,109 14,271 19% 34% 47% 0.43 14% 73% 41% 66% 5 year estimate

Rosemont CDP, Sacramento County

22,158 8,610 16% 24% 60% 0.38 14% 84% 33% 59% 5 year estimate

Roseville City, Placer County 124,525 46,372 7% 19% 75% 0.40 9% 90% 32% 51% 5 year

estimate

Rowland Heights CDP, Los Angeles County

52,087 14,408 11% 24% 65% 0.44 7% 75% 42% 55% 5 year estimate

Sacramento City, Sacramento County

475,524 177,325 21% 26% 53% 0.48 15% 83% 31% 55% 5 year estimate

Salinas City, Monterey County

154,463 39,429 19% 29% 52% 0.41 10% 76% 39% 58% 5 year estimate

San Bernardino City, San Bernardino County

213,298 56,187 28% 31% 41% 0.44 18% 75% 34% 61% 5 year estimate

San Bruno City, San Mateo County

41,666 14,672 7% 34% 59% 0.40 8% 88% 40% 46% 5 year estimate

San Buenaventura (Ventura) City, Ventura County

107,755 40,725 9% 28% 64% 0.40 10% 85% 36% 54% 5 year estimate

San Carlos City, San Mateo County

28,769 11,413 3% 23% 73% 0.45 8% 94% 35% 43% 5 year estimate

125UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA



Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Source, American

Community Survey

San Clemente City, Orange County

64,336 24,286 7% 31% 62% 0.46 8% 90% 45% 53% 5 year estimate

San Diego City, San Diego County

1,338,354 473,842 13% 25% 62% 0.47 9% 83% 38% 52% 5 year estimate

San Dimas City, Los Angeles County

33,570 11,698 8% 22% 70% 0.43 10% 87% 37% 49% 5 year estimate

San Fernando City, Los Angeles County

23,767 6,187 16% 26% 58% 0.39 9% 75% 45% 65% 5 year estimate

San Francisco City, San Francisco County

825,863 346,842 15% 31% 54% 0.52 8% 90% 36% 46% 5 year estimate

San Gabriel City, Los Angeles County

39,958 12,174 11% 33% 56% 0.45 7% 78% 35% 54% 5 year estimate

San Jacinto City, Riverside County

44,910 13,113 18% 32% 50% 0.40 23% 82% 38% 61% 5 year estimate

San Jose City, Santa Clara County

982,783 310,126 12% 31% 58% 0.44 10% 86% 35% 52% 5 year estimate

San Juan Capistrano City, Orange County

35,058 11,538 12% 31% 57% 0.52 12% 80% 47% 66% 5 year estimate

San Leandro City, Alameda County

86,884 29,828 10% 24% 67% 0.39 10% 84% 30% 46% 5 year estimate

San Lorenzo CDP, Alameda County

24,290 7,362 9% 14% 77% 0.36 16% 89% 37% 46% 5 year estimate

San Luis Obispo City, San Luis Obispo County

45,527 17,774 26% 23% 51% 0.50 11% 88% 38% 61% 5 year estimate

San Marcos City, San Diego County

86,756 30,911 15% 32% 53% 0.48 10% 84% 38% 59% 5 year estimate

San Mateo City, San Mateo County

99,653 37,129 6% 34% 60% 0.45 9% 88% 42% 51% 5 year estimate

San Pablo City, Contra Costa County

29,466 8,875 21% 35% 44% 0.41 19% 76% 45% 64% 5 year estimate

San Rafael City, Marin County 58,206 22,782 10% 34% 56% 0.51 8% 86% 38% 58% 5 year

estimate

San Ramon City, Contra Costa County

73,160 26,506 3% 7% 91% 0.36 7% 94% 39% 46% 5 year estimate

Sanger City, Fresno County 24,450 6,998 20% 32% 48% 0.43 18% 79% 38% 57% 5 year

estimate

Santa Ana City, Orange County 330,913 71,272 20% 46% 35% 0.41 8% 67% 41% 61% 5 year

estimate

Santa Barbara City, Santa Barbara County

89,638 34,234 12% 22% 66% 0.45 8% 78% 38% 55% 5 year estimate

Santa Clara City, Santa Clara County

119,307 42,493 11% 27% 62% 0.43 8% 90% 30% 45% 5 year estimate

Santa Clarita City, Los Angeles County

179,005 58,774 10% 17% 74% 0.43 9% 88% 39% 52% 5 year estimate

Santa Cruz City, Santa Cruz County

61,372 20,865 18% 36% 46% 0.48 7% 87% 37% 60% 5 year estimate

126 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Source, American

Community Survey

Santa Maria City, Santa Barbara County

101,469 26,420 21% 31% 48% 0.41 11% 72% 36% 57% 5 year estimate

Santa Monica City, Los Angeles County

91,814 43,729 12% 21% 67% 0.53 11% 88% 39% 49% 5 year estimate

Santa Paula City, Ventura County

29,732 8,411 17% 28% 55% 0.44 12% 80% 40% 62% 5 year estimate

Santa Rosa City, Sonoma County

170,684 62,825 11% 28% 61% 0.45 10% 85% 35% 59% 5 year estimate

Santee City, San Diego County 54,492 18,790 8% 22% 70% 0.37 10% 89% 39% 49% 5 year

estimate

Saratoga City, Santa Clara County

30,347 10,823 4% 14% 82% 0.44 7% 97% 35% 39% 5 year estimate

Seal Beach City, Orange County 24,476 12,704 12% 38% 51% 0.53 7% 94% 31% 52% 5 year

estimate

Seaside City, Monterey County

33,454 10,318 16% 29% 55% 0.42 13% 71% 39% 57% 5 year estimate

Selma City, Fresno County 23,507 6,595 28% 28% 44% 0.42 16% 75% 42% 57% 5 year

estimate

Simi Valley City, Ventura County 125,794 42,642 7% 16% 76% 0.41 10% 89% 34% 63% 5 year

estimate

Soledad City, Monterey County

25,892 3,748 18% 38% 45% 0.39 14% 77% 42% 56% 5 year estimate

South El Monte City, Los Angeles County

20,219 4,532 18% 38% 44% 0.36 6% 71% 33% 53% 5 year estimate

South Gate City, Los Angeles County

95,297 23,460 25% 30% 45% 0.41 12% 71% 50% 64% 5 year estimate

South Lake Tahoe City, El Dorado County

21,359 8,580 17% 36% 47% 0.46 13% 78% 48% 56% 5 year estimate

South Pasadena City, Los Angeles County

25,742 10,245 8% 19% 73% 0.45 8% 86% 36% 40% 5 year estimate

South San Francisco City, San Mateo County

65,565 21,417 8% 38% 54% 0.41 12% 91% 35% 49% 5 year estimate

South San Jose Hills CDP, Los Angeles County

21,531 4,183 13% 28% 58% 0.33 9% 67% 43% 46% 5 year estimate

South Whittier CDP, Los Angeles County

57,412 15,398 13% 21% 66% 0.37 10% 80% 39% 57% 5 year estimate

Spring Valley CDP (San Diego County), San Diego County

30,103 9,440 11% 24% 64% 0.40 11% 83% 39% 55% 5 year estimate

Stanton City, Orange County 38,633 12,032 17% 50% 32% 0.41 13% 72% 44% 67% 5 year

estimate

Stockton City, San Joaquin County

297,975 90,754 23% 27% 50% 0.47 17% 83% 34% 59% 5 year estimate

Suisun City, Solano County 28,398 8,450 10% 23% 67% 0.39 12% 88% 39% 60% 5 year

estimate

Sunnyvale City, Santa Clara County

146,199 54,075 6% 23% 72% 0.41 8% 89% 24% 32% 5 year estimate

Temecula City, Riverside County

105,213 29,877 7% 19% 74% 0.36 9% 87% 42% 53% 5 year estimate

Temescal Valley CDP, Riverside County

23,090 7,641 5% 18% 77% 0.36 100% 89% 57% 46% 5 year estimate

127UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA



Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Source, American

Community Survey

Temple City, Los Angeles County

35,856 11,683 11% 28% 61% 0.43 8% 84% 41% 57% 5 year estimate

Thousand Oaks City, Ventura County

128,411 44,979 6% 18% 75% 0.46 11% 89% 38% 65% 5 year estimate

Torrance City, Los Angeles County

147,036 56,709 8% 23% 69% 0.43 8% 88% 36% 46% 5 year estimate

Tracy City, San Joaquin County 84,682 23,332 9% 23% 68% 0.41 13% 87% 31% 58% 5 year

estimate

Tulare City, Tulare County 60,127 17,865 20% 18% 62% 0.44 13% 79% 35% 54% 5 year

estimate

Turlock City, Stanislaus County

69,735 23,922 15% 27% 58% 0.45 14% 86% 39% 52% 5 year estimate

Tustin City, Orange County 78,044 25,315 11% 38% 51% 0.43 10% 82% 45% 59% 5 year

estimate

Twentynine Palms City, San Bernardino County

25,427 8,057 12% 46% 42% 0.40 15% 91% 18% 49% 5 year estimate

Union City, Alameda County

71,749 20,137 7% 18% 75% 0.43 10% 89% 35% 56% 5 year estimate

Upland City, San Bernardino County

75,208 26,452 13% 29% 59% 0.44 8% 86% 37% 62% 5 year estimate

Vacaville City, Solano County 93,899 31,090 11% 20% 68% 0.40 11% 91% 31% 53% 5 year

estimate

Valinda CDP, Los Angeles County

20,419 4,447 10% 23% 67% 0.35 12% 76% 43% 66% 5 year estimate

Vallejo City, Solano County 117,814 39,666 17% 28% 55% 0.43 19% 81% 37% 62% 5 year

estimate

Victorville City, San Bernardino County

120,327 31,479 21% 30% 49% 0.43 18% 80% 31% 68% 5 year estimate

Vineyard CDP, Sacramento County

26,509 7,630 10% 19% 70% 0.38 12% 87% 47% 72% 5 year estimate

Visalia City, Tulare County 127,072 41,717 21% 11% 68% 0.44 11% 84% 34% 50% 5 year

estimate

Vista City, San Diego County 96,046 31,892 18% 37% 45% 0.43 7% 74% 46% 53% 5 year

estimate

Walnut City, Los Angeles County 29,591 8,115 6% 14% 81% 0.39 7% 89% 39% 43% 5 year

estimate

Walnut Creek City, Contra Costa County

65,696 29,359 5% 16% 79% 0.47 7% 94% 39% 47% 5 year estimate

Wasco City, Kern County 25,667 5,239 28% 31% 40% 0.40 15% 73% 35% 46% 5 year

estimate

Watsonville City, Santa Cruz County

51,595 13,587 21% 48% 31% 0.43 10% 79% 49% 63% 5 year estimate

West Carson CDP, Los Angeles County

20,476 7,083 7% 34% 59% 0.41 12% 81% 47% 45% 5 year estimate

West Covina City, Los Angeles County

107,472 29,980 11% 24% 65% 0.41 14% 82% 43% 55% 5 year estimate

West Hollywood City, Los Angeles County

34,607 22,070 16% 29% 55% 0.52 10% 80% 47% 52% 5 year estimate

West Puente Valley CDP, Los Angeles County

23,824 5,059 10% 26% 64% 0.32 15% 76% 42% 56% 5 year estimate

128 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


Gini Coefficient

Unemployment Rate

Health Insurance

Coverage %

Housing Burden:

Owner over 30%

Housing Burden:

Renter over 30%

Source, American

Community Survey

West Rancho Dominguez CDP, Los Angeles County

21,613 6,246 17% 40% 44% 0.38 16% 78% 50% 65% 5 year estimate

West Sacramento City, Yolo County

49,148 17,184 18% 25% 57% 0.44 14% 83% 38% 60% 5 year estimate

West Whittier-Los Nietos CDP, Los Angeles County

25,858 6,484 11% 26% 64% 0.39 15% 76% 46% 47% 5 year estimate

Westminster City, Orange County

91,355 26,057 15% 42% 43% 0.44 13% 81% 38% 66% 5 year estimate

Westmont CDP, Los Angeles County

29,817 9,888 35% 37% 28% 0.49 17% 74% 48% 76% 5 year estimate

Whittier City, Los Angeles County

86,159 28,237 12% 27% 61% 0.48 9% 82% 33% 55% 5 year estimate

Wildomar City, Riverside County

32,840 9,909 10% 29% 61% 0.41 15% 81% 52% 67% 5 year estimate

Willowbrook CDP, Los Angeles County

19,945 4,672 30% 38% 33% 0.43 20% 69% 58% 60% 5 year estimate

Windsor Town, Sonoma County 26,982 9,333 5% 20% 75% 0.38 9% 91% 43% 56% 5 year

estimate

Winter Gardens CDP, San Diego County

21,662 7,093 9% 27% 64% 0.37 13% 81% 38% 57% 5 year estimate

Woodland City, Yolo County 55,853 19,363 12% 28% 60% 0.43 12% 85% 35% 55% 5 year

estimate

Yorba Linda City, Orange County

66,739 21,886 3% 22% 75% 0.40 9% 94% 37% 65% 5 year estimate

Yuba City, Sutter County 65,105 21,338 20% 29% 52% 0.48 13% 85% 34% 53% 5 year

estimate

Yucaipa City, San Bernardino County

51,887 17,478 12% 29% 59% 0.42 14% 82% 33% 50% 5 year estimate

Yucca Valley Town, San Bernardino County

20,936 7,498 16% 36% 48% 0.42 21% 80% 37% 56% 5 year estimate

129UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

APPENDIX J – ALICE COUNTY PAGESThe following section presents a snapshot of ALICE in each of California’s 58 counties, including the number and percent of households by income, Economic Viability Dashboard scores, Household Survival Budget, key economic indicators, and data for each municipality in the county.

Because state averages often obscure local variation, these county pages are crucial to understanding the unique combination of demographic and economic circumstances in each county in California.

The breakdown of ALICE households by local area provides further insight into each county. We include data for 635 towns and cities, both county subdivisions and places. In some cases there is overlap, as outlined in Appendix I.

Building on American Community Survey data, for counties with populations over 65,000, the data are 1-year estimates; for populations between 20,000 and 65,000, data are 3-year estimates; and for populations below 20,000, the data are 5-year estimates.

Line items in the Household Survival Budget are rounded to dollars; monthly and annual totals arecalculated including cents. As a result, line items may not add up precisely to the totals.

130 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

NOTE: Municipal-level data may not match county-level data; municipal-level data often relies on 3- and 5-year averages, is not available for the smallest towns that don’t report income, and may overlap with Census Designated Places (CDP).

STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Alameda County

SINGLE ADULTFAMILY (INFANT AND PRE-K)

Housing $980 $1,402


Food $190 $575




Taxes $228 $407

Monthly total $1,815 $5,055

ANNUAL TOTAL $21,780 $60,662

Hourly wage $10.89 $30.33

ALICE IN ALAMEDA COUNTY

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and state Treasury, and ChildCare Aware, 2012; American Community Survey, 1 year estimate.

Alameda County, 2012

Town Total HH% ALICE

& Poverty

Alameda City 30,582 28%

Ashland CDP 7,606 53%

Berkeley City 45,674 38%

Castro Valley CDP 22,055 26%

Dublin City 15,349 15%

Fremont City 69,398 19%

Hayward City 45,451 38%

Livermore City 29,482 20%

Livermore-Pleasanton CCD 70,193 22%

Newark City 13,086 23%

Oakland City 156,482 46%

Pleasanton City 26,104 18%

San Leandro City 29,828 33%

San Lorenzo CDP 7,362 23%

Union City 20,137 25%

Population: 1,554,720 | Number of Households: 548,274Median Household Income: $70,500 (state average: $58,328)Unemployment Rate: 9.0% (state average: 10.4%)Gini Coefficient (zero = equality; one = inequality): 0.48 (state average: 0.48)

How many households are struggling?ALICE, an acronym for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed, are households that earn more than the U.S. poverty level, but less than the basic cost of living for the county. Combined, the number of poverty and ALICE households equals the total population struggling to afford basic needs.

Poverty ALICE Above ALICE 69,076 HH 145,039 HH 334,159 HH 13% 26% 61%

What are the economic conditions?The Economic Viability Dashboard evaluates community conditions for ALICE in three core areas. Each is an index with a scale of 1 (worst) to 100 (best).

Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support poor (50) good (67) poor (29)

What does it cost to afford the basic necessities?This bare-minimum budget does not allow for any savings, leaving a household vulnerable to unexpected expenses. Affording only a very modest living in each community, this budget is still significantly more than the U.S. poverty rate of $11,170 for a single adult and $23,050 for a family of four.

131UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Alpine County


Housing $605 $866


Food $190 $575




Taxes $176 $247


ANNUAL TOTAL $18,893 $52,577


ALICE IN ALPINE COUNTY


Alpine County, 2012


& Poverty

Markleeville CCD 385 36%

Population: 1,197 | Number of Households: 385Median Household Income: $59,931 (state average: $58,328)Unemployment Rate: 13.3% (state average: 10.4%)Gini Coefficient (zero = equality; one = inequality): 0.43 (state average: 0.48)


Poverty ALICE Above ALICE 31 HH 107 HH 247 HH 8% 28% 64%


Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support good (72) good (61) poor (18)


132 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Amador County


Housing $707 $1,088


Food $190 $575




Taxes $207 $326


ANNUAL TOTAL $20,648 $56,579


ALICE IN AMADOR COUNTY


Amador County, 2012


& Poverty

Ione CCD 3,060 45%

Jackson CCD 3,002 50%

Pine Grove-Silver Lake CCD 4,515 42%

Sutter Creek-Plymouth CCD 3,659 48%

Population: 37,445 | Number of Households: 14,146Median Household Income: $49,660 (state average: $58,328)Unemployment Rate: 11.6% (state average: 10.4%)Gini Coefficient (zero = equality; one = inequality): 0.47 (state average: 0.48)




Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support good (63) good (60) fair (53)


133UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Butte County


Housing $625 $896


Food $190 $575




Taxes $182 $236


ANNUAL TOTAL $19,234 $51,997


ALICE IN BUTTE COUNTY


Butte County, 2012


& Poverty

Biggs CCD 1,085 49%

Chico City 33,405 53%

Durham CCD 2,041 30%

Feather Falls CCD 2,102 53%

Gridley CCD 3,492 52%

Oroville CCD 14,433 53%

Palermo CCD 3,000 53%

Paradise Town 11,657 48%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support fair (56) fair (50) fair (50)


134 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Calaveras County


Housing $707 $851


Food $190 $575




Taxes $207 $245


ANNUAL TOTAL $20,648 $52,473


ALICE IN CALAVERAS COUNTY


Calaveras County, 2012


& Poverty

Angels City CCD 5,652 39%

Arnold-West Point CCD 4,196 42%

San Andreas CCD 8,770 38%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support good (61) fair (50) fair (52)


135UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Colusa County


Housing $579 $756


Food $190 $575




Taxes $170 $176


ANNUAL TOTAL $18,467 $48,952


ALICE IN COLUSA COUNTY


Colusa County, 2012


& Poverty

Central Colusa CCD 3,426 42%

East Colusa CCD 3,132 41%

West Colusa CCD 326 41%



Poverty ALICE Above ALICE 995 HH 1,928 HH 3,959 HH 14% 28% 58%


Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support good (64) poor (35) fair (52)


136 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Contra Costa County


Housing $980 $1,402


Food $190 $575




Taxes $228 $377


ANNUAL TOTAL $21,780 $59,174


ALICE IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY


Contra Costa County, 2012


& Poverty

Antioch City 33,563 38%

Bay Point CDP 6,695 49%

Brentwood City 16,342 22%

Briones CCD 2,016 25%

Central Contra Costa CCD 183,420 27%

Concord City 44,634 32%

Danville Town 15,796 10%

East Contra Costa CCD 37,444 31%

El Cerrito City 10,210 25%

Hercules City 8,013 23%

Lafayette City 9,315 15%

Martinez City 13,791 24%

Oakley City 11,089 28%

Pittsburg City 19,746 42%

Pleasant Hill City 13,712 26%

Richmond City 38,952 44%

San Pablo City 8,875 56%

San Ramon City 26,506 9%

Tassajara CCD 17,188 15%

Walnut Creek City 29,359 21%

West Contra Costa CCD 86,089 42%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support poor (51) fair (57) poor (43)


137UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Del Norte County


Housing $585 $767

Child care $0 $947

Food $190 $575




Taxes $172 $141


ANNUAL TOTAL $18,566 $47,182


ALICE IN DEL NORTE COUNTY


Del Norte County, 2012


& Poverty

Crescent City CCD 7,781 47%

Klamath CCD 492 59%

Smith River-Gasquet CCD 1,430 43%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support fair (57) fair (57) good (59)


138 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, El Dorado County


Housing $736 $1,021


Food $190 $575




Taxes $216 $379


ANNUAL TOTAL $21,148 $59,248


ALICE IN EL DORADO COUNTY


El Dorado County, 2012


& Poverty

El Dorado Hills CDP 14,122 11%

North El Dorado CCD 11,982 35%

Placerville CCD 6,548 45%

South El Dorado CCD 37,574 27%

South Lake Tahoe City 8,580 53%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support good (60) fair (57) good (62)


139UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Fresno County


Housing $638 $829


Food $190 $575




Taxes $186 $191


ANNUAL TOTAL $19,458 $49,728


ALICE IN FRESNO COUNTY


Fresno County, 2012


& Poverty

Caruthers-Raisin City CCD 2,622 54%

Clovis City 33,177 37%

Coalinga CCD 4,707 50%

Firebaugh CCD 2,429 66%

Fowler CCD 2,990 45%

Fresno City 162,149 55%

Huron CCD 1,900 80%

Kerman CCD 6,031 54%

Kingsburg CCD 4,148 41%

Laton CCD 973 55%

Mendota CCD 3,072 76%

Orange Cove CCD 2,746 79%

Parlier-Del Rey CCD 4,812 63%

Reedley CCD 7,784 46%

Reedley City 6,291 47%

Riverdale CCD 1,559 52%

San Joaquin-Tranquillity CCD 1,648 76%

Sanger City 6,998 52%

Selma City 6,595 56%

Sierra CCD 6,841 32%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support fair (52) fair (55) poor (42)


140 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Glenn County


Housing $548 $739


Food $190 $575




Taxes $163 $161


ANNUAL TOTAL $17,959 $48,175


ALICE IN GLENN COUNTY


Glenn County, 2012


& Poverty

Orland CCD 5,717 45%

Willows CCD 3,823 48%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support fair (54) poor (48) fair (55)


141UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Humboldt County


Housing $572 $882


Food $190 $575




Taxes $168 $252


ANNUAL TOTAL $18,353 $52,798


ALICE IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY


Humboldt County, 2012


& Poverty

Arcata CCD 9,369 57%

Eureka City 10,914 58%

Ferndale CCD 1,323 44%

Fortuna CCD 6,533 48%

Garberville CCD 4,810 56%

North Coastal CCD 9,427 47%

Willow Creek-Hoopa Valley CCD 2,132 61%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support poor (44) fair (57) fair (48)


142 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Imperial County


Housing $538 $751

Child care $0 $947

Food $190 $575




Taxes $160 $135


ANNUAL TOTAL $17,795 $46,897


ALICE IN IMPERIAL COUNTY


Imperial County, 2012


& Poverty

Brawley City 7,307 47%

Calexico City 9,139 44%

Calipatria-Westmorland CCD 3,002 61%

East Imperial CCD 419 67%

El Centro City 12,774 43%

Holtville CCD 2,623 48%

West Imperial CCD 1,810 62%

Winterhaven-Bard CCD 897 67%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support good (59) poor (34) good (63)


143UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Inyo County


Housing $578 $788


Food $190 $575




Taxes $170 $218


ANNUAL TOTAL $18,451 $51,082


ALICE IN INYO COUNTY


Inyo County, 2012


& Poverty

Bishop CCD 5,431 43%

Death Valley CCD 303 63%

Independence CCD 1,016 41%

Lone Pine CCD 1,160 58%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support good (62) good (68) poor (45)


144 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Kern County


Housing $617 $793

Child care $0 $984

Food $190 $575




Taxes $180 $163


ANNUAL TOTAL $19,096 $48,303


ALICE IN KERN COUNTY


Kern County, 2012


& Poverty

Arvin City 4,440 71%

Bakersfield CCD 126,408 51%

Bakersfield City 111,053 41%

Buttonwillow CCD 963 45%

Delano City 10,335 63%

Delano-Mcfarland CCD 13,708 62%

East Kern CCD 27,651 40%

Greenfield-Panama CCD 13,071 37%

Lake Isabella CCD 7,275 58%

Oildale CDP 11,507 64%

Ridgecrest City 10,856 35%

Rosedale CCD 22,015 18%

Shafter CCD 5,253 55%

Tehachapi CCD 11,960 33%

Wasco City 5,239 60%

West Kern CCD 9,206 46%







145UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Kings County


Housing $659 $815

Child care $0 $948

Food $190 $575




Taxes $193 $158


ANNUAL TOTAL $19,820 $48,061


ALICE IN KINGS COUNTY


Kings County, 2012


& Poverty

Avenal CCD 3,032 68%

Corcoran City 3,610 66%

Hanford City 16,812 40%

Hanford Northeast CCD 1,206 44%

Lemoore CCD 10,681 46%

Lemoore City 8,020 43%

Stratford CCD 1,137 56%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support fair (58) poor (43) poor (45)


146 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Lake County


Housing $586 $895


Food $190 $575




Taxes $172 $243


ANNUAL TOTAL $18,582 $52,360


ALICE IN LAKE COUNTY


Lake County, 2012


& Poverty

Clearlake CCD 6,726 70%

Clearlake Riviera CCD 2,469 44%

Cobb CCD 1,586 41%

Kelseyville CCD 2,151 50%

Lakeport CCD 3,964 46%

Lower Lake CCD 1,484 47%

Lucerne-Clearlake Oaks CCD 2,822 59%

Middletown CCD 2,829 35%

Upper Lake-Nice CCD 2,072 63%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support poor (46) poor (45) fair (47)


STRUGGLING

147UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


Household Survival Budget, Lassen County


Housing $576 $887

Child care $0 $986

Food $190 $575




Taxes $169 $197


ANNUAL TOTAL $18,418 $50,016


ALICE IN LASSEN COUNTY


Lassen County, 2012


& Poverty

Big Valley CCD 452 38%

Honey Lake CCD 946 44%

Madeline Plains CCD 72 44%

Susanville CCD 7,653 39%

Westwood CCD 1,004 53%







STRUGGLING

148 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

Household Survival Budget, Los Angeles County


Housing $961 $1,447


Food $190 $575




Taxes $274 $448


ANNUAL TOTAL $24,170 $62,777


ALICE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY


Population: 9,962,789 | Number of Households: 3,231,660Median Household Income: $53,001 (state average: $58,328)Unemployment Rate: 10.9% (state average: 10.4%)Gini Coefficient (zero = equality; one = inequality): 0.5 (state average: 0.48)


Poverty ALICE Above ALICE 562,122 HH 1,076,277 HH 1,593,261 HH 17% 33% 49%


Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support poor (44) fair (56) good (58)


LOS

ANGE

LES

COUN

TY

149UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

ALICE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Los Angeles County, 2012


& Poverty

Agoura Hills City 7,086 21%

Alhambra City 29,217 43%

Altadena CDP 15,025 26%

Arcadia City 19,036 33%

Azusa City 11,286 45%

Baldwin Park City 17,397 46%

Bell City 8,844 70%

Bell Gardens City 9,868 65%

Bellflower City 23,680 50%

Beverly Hills City 14,252 25%

Burbank City 40,484 36%

Calabasas City 8,751 19%

Carson City 24,646 28%

Cerritos City 14,954 23%

Claremont City 11,865 26%

Compton City 22,834 58%

Covina City 15,418 37%

Cudahy City 5,671 68%

Culver City 16,613 29%

Diamond Bar City 17,275 24%

Downey City 33,310 40%

Duarte City 7,058 39%

East Los Angeles CDP 30,707 65%

East San Gabriel Valley CCD 261,872 41%

El Monte City 29,423 58%

Florence-Graham CDP 13,733 69%

Gardena City 21,004 46%

Glendale City 68,952 46%

Glendora City 16,358 30%

Hacienda Heights CDP 16,243 29%

Hawthorne City 28,649 61%

Huntington Park City 14,668 67%

Inglewood City 36,292 57%

La Ca±Ada Flintridge City 6,751 15%

La Crescenta-Montrose CDP 7,071 26%

La Mirada City 14,042 30%

La Puente City 9,206 45%

La Verne City 10,876 32%

Lakewood City 27,003 27%

Lancaster City 46,483 51%

Lawndale City 9,496 54%

Lennox CDP 5,328 71%

Lomita City 7,763 43%

Long Beach City 164,220 50%

Long Beach-Lakewood CCD 196,151 50%

Los Angeles City 1,332,587 50%

Lynwood City 14,759 57%

Manhattan Beach City 14,463 14%

Los Angeles County, 2012


& Poverty

Maywood City 6,283 65%

Monrovia City 13,318 34%

Montebello City 19,133 50%

Monterey Park City 18,426 43%

Newhall CCD 80,602 29%

North Antelope Valley CCD 57,633 53%

Norwalk City 27,258 38%

Palmdale City 40,878 49%

Palos Verdes CCD 33,843 24%

Paramount City 13,378 54%

Pasadena City 55,992 37%

Pico Rivera City 16,262 41%

Pomona City 38,417 53%

Rancho Palos Verdes City 15,535 16%

Redondo Beach City 28,628 21%

Rosemead City 14,271 53%

Rowland Heights CDP 14,408 35%

San Dimas City 11,698 30%

San Fernando City 6,187 42%

San Fernando Valley CCD 599,175 47%

San Gabriel City 12,174 44%

Santa Clarita City 58,774 26%

Santa Monica City 43,729 33%

South Antelope Valley CCD 58,006 46%

South Bay Cities CCD 59,134 25%

South El Monte City 4,532 56%

South Gate City 23,460 55%

South Pasadena City 10,245 27%

South San Jose Hills CDP 4,183 42%

South Whittier CDP 15,398 34%

Southwest San Gabriel Valley CCD 98,818 51%

Temple City 11,683 39%

Torrance City 56,709 31%

Upper San Gabriel Valley CCD 97,571 47%

Valinda CDP 4,447 33%

Walnut City 8,115 19%

West Carson CDP 7,083 41%

West Covina City 29,980 35%

West Hollywood City 22,070 45%

West Puente Valley CDP 5,059 36%

West Rancho Dominguez CDP 6,246 56%

West Whittier-Los Nietos CDP 6,484 36%

Westmont CDP 9,888 72%

Whittier City 28,237 39%

Willowbrook CDP 4,672 67%

LOS

ANGE

LES

COUN

TYPopulation: 9,962,789 | Number of Households: 3,231,660Median Household Income: $53,001 (state average: $58,328)Unemployment Rate: 10.9% (state average: 10.4%)Gini Coefficient (zero = equality; one = inequality): 0.5 (state average: 0.48)

150 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Madera County


Housing $599 $802


Food $190 $575




Taxes $175 $191


ANNUAL TOTAL $18,795 $49,738


ALICE IN MADERA COUNTY


Madera County, 2012


& Poverty

Chowchilla CCD 5,227 47%

Madera City 16,067 54%

Madera Southeast CCD 1,702 43%

Madera West CCD 316 66%

Oakhurst-North Fork CCD 5,564 42%

Yosemite Lakes CCD 5,069 36%







151UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Marin County


Housing $1,238 $1,905


Food $190 $575




Taxes $316 $614


ANNUAL TOTAL $26,357 $70,839


ALICE IN MARIN COUNTY


Marin County, 2012


& Poverty

Bolinas CCD 1,032 39%

Northwest Marin CCD 3,750 47%

Novato City 20,743 44%

Ross Valley CCD 23,022 31%

San Rafael City 22,782 44%

Southeast Marin CCD 23,908 30%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support poor (22) good (58) good (57)


152 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Mariposa County


Housing $581 $831


Food $190 $575




Taxes $171 $235


ANNUAL TOTAL $18,500 $51,952


ALICE IN MARIPOSA COUNTY


Mariposa County, 2012


& Poverty

Coulterville CCD 1,307 42%

Mariposa CCD 5,517 37%

Yosemite Valley CCD 432 52%







153UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Mendocino County


Housing $648 $971


Food $190 $575




Taxes $189 $351


ANNUAL TOTAL $19,630 $57,834


ALICE IN MENDOCINO COUNTY


Mendocino County, 2012


& Poverty

Covelo CCD 982 79%

Fort Bragg CCD 4,806 61%

Hopland CCD 732 62%

Laytonville-Leggett CCD 1,597 65%

Mendocino CCD 4,629 53%

Point Arena CCD 1,650 60%

Redwood Valley-Potter Valley CCD 4,499 51%

Ukiah CCD 10,037 55%

Willits CCD 5,296 58%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support fair (56) good (68) fair (55)


154 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Merced County


Housing $570 $789


Food $190 $575




Taxes $168 $207


ANNUAL TOTAL $18,320 $50,537


ALICE IN MERCED COUNTY


Merced County, 2012


& Poverty

Atwater City 8,643 53%

Dos Palos CCD 2,579 61%

Gustine CCD 2,887 60%

Hilmar-Irwin CCD 3,022 38%

Livingston-Delhi CCD 7,845 51%

Los Banos City 10,098 50%

Merced City 25,497 56%

Planada-Le Grand CCD 2,223 58%

Snelling CCD 348 51%







155UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Modoc County


Housing $404 $584

Child care $0 $947

Food $190 $575




Taxes $128 $81


ANNUAL TOTAL $15,600 $43,982


ALICE IN MODOC COUNTY


Modoc County, 2012


& Poverty

Adin-Lookout CCD 374 28%

Alturas CCD 2,373 38%

Newell CCD 502 66%

Surprise Valley CCD 654 50%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support good (67) poor (48) good (65)


156 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Mono County


Housing $796 $1,225


Food $190 $575




Taxes $235 $502


ANNUAL TOTAL $22,191 $65,466


ALICE IN MONO COUNTY


Mono County, 2012


& Poverty

Mammoth Lakes CCD 4,184 42%

North Mono CCD 872 57%







157UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Monterey County


Housing $919 $1,187


Food $190 $575




Taxes $278 $415


ANNUAL TOTAL $24,374 $61,077


ALICE IN MONTEREY COUNTY


Monterey County, 2012


& Poverty

Big Sur CCD 428 34%

Carmel Valley CCD 2,398 37%

Castroville CCD 5,513 43%

Gonzales CCD 2,640 51%

Greenfield CCD 3,661 51%

King City CCD 3,740 55%

Marina City 6,612 45%

Monterey City 11,812 36%

Pajaro CCD 4,593 45%

Salinas City 39,429 48%

San Ardo CCD 1,163 44%

Seaside City 10,318 45%

Seaside-Monterey CCD 41,486 42%

Soledad City 3,748 55%

Toro Park CCD 3,981 18%







158 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Napa County


Housing $898 $1,307


Food $190 $575




Taxes $270 $533


ANNUAL TOTAL $24,001 $66,959


ALICE IN NAPA COUNTY


Napa County, 2012


& Poverty

Angwin CCD 1,705 35%

Calistoga CCD 2,457 45%

Lake Berryessa CCD 696 24%

Napa City 28,062 33%

St. Helena CCD 3,509 29%







159UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Nevada County


Housing $709 $1,091


Food $190 $575




Taxes $208 $381


ANNUAL TOTAL $20,682 $59,384


ALICE IN NEVADA COUNTY


Nevada County, 2012


& Poverty

Donner CCD 6,663 43%

Grass Valley CCD 28,666 42%

Nevada City CCD 6,297 46%







160 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Orange County


Housing $1,226 $1,652


Food $190 $575




Taxes $366 $579


ANNUAL TOTAL $28,893 $69,184


ALICE IN ORANGE COUNTY


Orange County, 2012


& Poverty

Aliso Viejo City 18,269 32%

Anaheim City 98,156 58%

Brea City 13,856 41%

Buena Park City 23,548 50%

Central Coast CCD 97,165 43%

Costa Mesa City 41,997 55%

Cypress City 15,633 41%

Dana Point City 14,521 39%

Fountain Valley City 18,581 38%

Fullerton City 44,685 53%

Garden Grove City 48,514 60%

Huntington Beach City 70,689 40%

Irvine City 82,613 33%

Irvine-Lake Forest CCD 80,160 33%

La Habra City 18,677 56%

Ladera Ranch CDP 7,161 19%

Laguna Beach City 11,289 37%

Laguna Hills City 10,808 36%

Laguna Niguel City 23,951 33%

Lake Forest City 26,688 40%

Mission Viejo City 33,343 32%

Newport Beach City 36,893 29%

North Coast CCD 133,862 45%

North Tustin CDP 8,937 19%

Orange City 42,515 44%

Placentia City 15,579 43%

Rancho Santa Margarita City 16,759 33%

San Clemente City 24,286 38%

San Juan Capistrano City 11,538 43%

Santa Ana City 71,272 65%

Seal Beach City 12,704 49%

Silverado CCD 1,047 29%

South Coast CCD 123,627 39%

Stanton City 12,032 68%

Tustin City 25,315 49%

Westminster City 26,057 57%

Yorba Linda City 21,886 25%







161UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Placer County


Housing $736 $1,021


Food $190 $575




Taxes $216 $336


ANNUAL TOTAL $21,148 $57,061


ALICE IN PLACER COUNTY


Placer County, 2012


& Poverty

Auburn CCD 18,244 43%

Colfax-Monumental Ridge CCD 7,603 38%

Foresthill-Back Country CCD 2,330 40%

Granite Bay CDP 7,529 10%

Lake Tahoe CCD 4,013 43%

Lincoln City 16,683 23%

Rocklin City 21,467 31%

Roseville City 46,372 25%







162 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Plumas County


Housing $613 $946


Food $190 $575




Taxes $178 $261


ANNUAL TOTAL $19,024 $53,265


ALICE IN PLUMAS COUNTY


Plumas County, 2012


& Poverty

Chester CCD 2,136 40%

Feather River Canyon CCD 94 51%

Graeagle CCD 722 25%

Greenville CCD 1,228 47%

Portola CCD 2,005 58%

Quincy CCD 2,924 40%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support good (65) fair (54) poor (42)


163UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Riverside County


Housing $886 $1,149


Food $190 $575




Taxes $248 $293


ANNUAL TOTAL $22,837 $54,922


ALICE IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY


Riverside County, 2012


& Poverty

Banning City 12,272 53%

Beaumont City 12,821 35%

Blythe City 5,316 48%

Cathedral City 16,141 52%

Chuckwalla Valley CCD 919 67%

Coachella City 9,000 62%

Coachella Valley CCD 53,073 53%

Corona City 44,677 32%

Desert Hot Springs City 8,799 68%

Eastvale City 13,983 18%

Elsinore Valley CCD 32,344 41%

French Valley CDP 6,294 29%

Hemet City 28,354 66%

Idyllwild CCD 4,574 52%

Indio City 22,504 49%

Jurupa CCD 39,043 39%

Jurupa Valley City 23,813 47%

La Quinta City 15,157 30%

Lake Elsinore City 13,959 39%

Lake Mathews CCD 6,510 43%

Mead Valley CDP 4,107 61%

Menifee City 27,132 41%

Moreno Valley City 53,127 45%

Murrieta City 33,478 29%

Norco City 7,127 27%

Palm Desert City 23,489 40%

Palm Springs City 22,648 49%

Perris City 15,842 57%

Perris Valley CCD 74,462 50%

Riverside City 91,813 45%

San Gorgonio Pass CCD 31,685 50%

San Jacinto City 13,113 50%

Temecula City 29,877 26%

Temescal Valley CDP 7,641 23%

Wildomar City 9,909 39%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support fair (57) poor (34) good (74)


164 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Sacramento County


Housing $736 $1,021


Food $190 $575




Taxes $216 $294


ANNUAL TOTAL $21,148 $54,956


ALICE IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY


Sacramento County, 2012


& Poverty

Antelope CDP 14,369 36%

Arden-Arcade CDP 39,940 49%

Carmichael CDP 25,430 39%

Citrus Heights City 33,628 44%

Elk Grove City 47,747 24%

Fair Oaks CDP 13,021 29%

Florin CDP 14,986 54%

Folsom City 24,967 17%

Foothill Farms CDP 12,189 51%

Galt City 7,447 41%

Isleton CCD 1,734 41%

North Highlands CDP 14,772 56%

Orangevale CDP 12,607 35%

Rancho Cordova City 24,202 48%

Rosemont CDP 8,610 40%

Sacramento City 177,325 47%

Sloughhouse CCD 2,711 14%

Vineyard CDP 7,630 30%







165UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, San Benito County


Housing $799 $1,204


Food $190 $575




Taxes $236 $494


ANNUAL TOTAL $22,243 $65,087


ALICE IN SAN BENITO COUNTY


San Benito County, 2012


& Poverty

Hollister City 10,036 35%

San Benito-Bitterwater CCD 269 41%

San Juan Bautista CCD 1,779 39%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support poor (45) poor (45) poor (45)


166 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, San Bernardino County


Housing $886 $1,149


Food $190 $575




Taxes $248 $267


ANNUAL TOTAL $22,837 $53,559


ALICE IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY


San Bernardino County, 2012


& Poverty

Adelanto City 7,101 61%

Apple Valley Town 22,603 52%

Barstow City 8,094 53%

Big Bear CCD 10,192 50%

Bloomington CDP 5,007 54%

Chino City 22,287 35%

Chino Hills City 23,594 28%

Colton City 14,485 59%

Fontana City 48,641 39%

Hesperia City 27,082 60%

Highland City 14,716 43%

Lake Arrowhead CCD 7,810 42%

Loma Linda City 8,657 38%

Montclair City 9,980 51%

Mount Baldy-Wrightwood CCD 2,737 30%

Needles CCD 2,921 62%

Newberry Springs-Baker CCD 3,601 53%

Ontario City 44,699 46%

Rancho Cucamonga City 52,957 29%

Redlands City 25,137 34%

Rialto City 23,880 51%

San Bernardino City 56,187 59%

Searles Valley CCD 946 53%

Twentynine Palms City 8,057 58%

Upland City 26,452 41%

Victorville City 31,479 51%

Yucaipa City 17,478 41%

Yucca Valley Town 7,498 52%







167UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, San Diego County


Housing $984 $1,378


Food $190 $575




Taxes $320 $511


ANNUAL TOTAL $26,537 $65,927


ALICE IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY


San Diego County, 2012


& Poverty

Alpine CCD 5,347 38%

Borrego Springs CCD 1,411 68%

Camp Pendleton CCD 6,659 64%

Carlsbad City 43,309 31%

Chula Vista City 75,942 40%

Coronado City 8,983 25%

El Cajon City 33,891 54%

Encinitas City 22,544 29%

Escondido City 44,909 53%

Fallbrook CCD 17,235 42%

Imperial Beach City 8,571 49%

Jamul CCD 4,674 22%

La Mesa City 23,220 43%

La Presa CDP 10,118 39%

Laguna-Pine Valley CCD 1,771 44%

Lakeside CDP 7,144 38%

Lemon Grove City 7,959 46%

Mountain Empire CCD 2,121 52%

National City 16,004 62%

Oceanside City 58,115 39%

Palomar-Julian CCD 2,266 50%

Pauma Valley CCD 2,187 31%

Poway City 15,675 24%

Ramona CCD 11,334 37%

Rancho San Diego CDP 8,358 27%

San Diego City 473,842 38%

San Marcos City 30,911 47%

Santee City 18,790 30%

Spring Valley CDP (San Diego County) 9,440 36%

Valley Center CCD 8,115 32%

Vista City 31,892 55%

Winter Gardens CDP 7,093 36%

Population: 3,177,063 | Number of Households: 1,079,653Median Household Income: $60,330 (state average: $58,328)Unemployment Rate: 8.9% (state average: 10.4%)Gini Coefficient (zero = equality; one = inequality): 0.47 (state average: 0.48)




Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support poor (40) poor (38) poor (45)


168 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, San Francisco County


Housing $1,238 $1,905


Food $190 $575




Taxes $316 $614


ANNUAL TOTAL $26,357 $70,839


ALICE IN SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY


San Francisco County, 2012


& Poverty

San Francisco City 346,842 46%







169UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, San Joaquin County


Housing $643 $904


Food $190 $575




Taxes $188 $272


ANNUAL TOTAL $19,544 $53,830


ALICE IN SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY


San Joaquin County, 2012


& Poverty

Escalon CCD 4,662 38%

Linden-Farmington CCD 1,789 35%

Lockeford CCD 3,732 35%

Lodi City 21,871 45%

Manteca City 23,010 41%

Ripon CCD 5,574 25%

Stockton City 90,754 50%

Thornton CCD 4,120 23%

Tracy City 23,332 32%







170 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, San Luis Obispo County


Housing $806 $1,162


Food $190 $575




Taxes $238 $479


ANNUAL TOTAL $22,366 $64,338


ALICE IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY


San Luis Obispo County, 2012


& Poverty

Arroyo Grande CCD 29,355 42%

Atascadero City 11,077 33%

El Paso De Robles (Paso Robles) City 11,495 39%

North Coast CCD 16,128 40%

Paso Robles CCD 18,080 41%

San Luis Obispo City 17,774 49%







171UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, San Mateo County


Housing $1,238 $1,905


Food $190 $575




Taxes $316 $613


ANNUAL TOTAL $26,357 $70,822


ALICE IN SAN MATEO COUNTY


San Mateo County, 2012


& Poverty

Belmont City 10,349 31%

Burlingame City 12,677 44%

Daly City 29,976 52%

East Palo Alto City 6,808 65%

Foster City 12,012 24%

Half Moon Bay CCD 10,403 34%

Menlo Park City 12,483 29%

Millbrae City 7,863 34%

Pacifica City 14,169 31%

Redwood City 28,871 42%

San Bruno City 14,672 41%

San Carlos City 11,413 27%

San Mateo City 37,129 40%

South San Francisco City 21,417 46%







172 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Santa Barbara County


Housing $1,073 $1,344


Food $190 $575




Taxes $331 $457


ANNUAL TOTAL $27,117 $63,223


ALICE IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY


Santa Barbara County, 2012


& Poverty

Carpinteria CCD 6,910 36%

Cuyama CCD 371 53%

Goleta City 11,056 28%

Guadalupe CCD 1,878 61%

Isla Vista CDP 4,936 78%

Lompoc City 13,375 48%

Orcutt CDP 10,973 27%

Santa Barbara City 34,234 34%

Santa Maria City 26,420 52%

Solvang-Santa Ynez CCD 8,462 35%







173UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Santa Clara County


Housing $1,165 $1,623


Food $190 $575




Taxes $402 $748


ANNUAL TOTAL $30,691 $77,222


ALICE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY


Santa Clara County, 2012


& Poverty

Campbell City 16,017 43%

Cupertino City 20,868 21%

Diablo Range CCD 434 28%

Gilroy City 14,694 44%

Lexington Hills CCD 1,676 26%

Llagas-Uvas CCD 1,535 24%

Los Altos City 11,250 18%

Los Gatos Town 12,148 25%

Milpitas City 19,646 30%

Morgan Hill City 12,455 39%

Mountain View City 32,271 37%

Palo Alto City 26,610 26%

San Jose City 310,126 42%

Santa Clara City 42,493 38%

Saratoga City 10,823 18%

South Santa Clara Valley CCD 31,846 41%

Sunnyvale City 54,075 28%

West Santa Clara CCD 2,799 21%







174 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Santa Cruz County


Housing $978 $1,504


Food $190 $575




Taxes $298 $601


ANNUAL TOTAL $25,422 $70,256


ALICE IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY


Santa Cruz County, 2012


& Poverty

San Lorenzo Valley CCD 9,599 41%

Santa Cruz City 20,865 54%

Summit Road CCD 1,258 30%

Watsonville City 13,587 69%

West Santa Cruz CCD 1,572 39%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support poor (26) good (69) fair (51)


175UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Shasta County


Housing $595 $843


Food $190 $575




Taxes $174 $232


ANNUAL TOTAL $18,729 $51,802


ALICE IN SHASTA COUNTY


Shasta County, 2012


& Poverty

Central Shasta CCD 4,806 43%

East Shasta CCD 2,960 55%

Redding City 35,360 45%

Sacramento Canyon CCD 664 45%

Southwest Shasta CCD 1,484 41%







176 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Sierra County


Housing $520 $800


Food $190 $575




Taxes $156 $226


ANNUAL TOTAL $17,500 $51,503


ALICE IN SIERRA COUNTY


Sierra County, 2012


& Poverty

East Sierra CCD 906 49%

West Sierra CCD 432 38%



Poverty ALICE Above ALICE 248 HH 355 HH 735 HH 19% 27% 55%


Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support good (63) good (59) good (59)


177UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Siskiyou County


Housing $469 $720


Food $190 $575




Taxes $144 $143


ANNUAL TOTAL $16,665 $47,312


ALICE IN SISKIYOU COUNTY


Siskiyou County, 2012


& Poverty

Butte Valley CCD 711 55%

Dunsmuir CCD 1,068 59%

Etna CCD 1,475 47%

Fort Jones CCD 755 45%

Happy Camp CCD 1,023 61%

Hornbrook-Hilt CCD 338 53%

Mccloud-Medicine Lake CCD 787 50%

Montague CCD 1,754 53%

Mount Shasta CCD 3,240 39%

Tulelake CCD 568 64%

Weed CCD 2,980 48%

Yreka CCD 4,886 52%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support fair (55) fair (56) good (63)


178 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Solano County


Housing $995 $1,229


Food $190 $575




Taxes $304 $415


ANNUAL TOTAL $25,725 $61,067


ALICE IN SOLANO COUNTY


Solano County, 2012


& Poverty

Benicia City 10,412 24%

Dixon CCD 7,103 38%

Fairfield City 34,238 37%

Rio Vista CCD 3,893 39%

Suisun City 8,450 33%

Vacaville City 31,090 32%

Vallejo City 39,666 45%







179UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Sonoma County


Housing $767 $1,178


Food $190 $575




Taxes $226 $458


ANNUAL TOTAL $21,686 $63,292


ALICE IN SONOMA COUNTY


Sonoma County, 2012


& Poverty

Cloverdale-Geyserville CCD 5,051 43%

Healdsburg CCD 16,300 36%

Petaluma City 21,318 28%

Rohnert Park City 15,875 38%

Russian River-Sonoma Coast CCD 9,939 47%

Santa Rosa City 62,825 39%

Sebastopol CCD 11,898 36%

Sonoma CCD 17,113 41%

Windsor Town 9,333 25%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support fair (52) good (65) poor (37)


180 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Stanislaus County


Housing $732 $952


Food $190 $575




Taxes $215 $269


ANNUAL TOTAL $21,079 $53,701


ALICE IN STANISLAUS COUNTY


Stanislaus County, 2012


& Poverty

Ceres City 13,145 50%

Hughson CCD 4,014 43%

Modesto City 69,451 47%

Newman CCD 3,782 52%

Oakdale City 7,130 40%

Patterson City 5,624 43%

Riverbank City 6,526 43%

Salida CCD 6,160 31%

Turlock City 23,922 42%

Waterford CCD 4,551 40%

Westport CCD 1,200 55%







181UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Sutter County


Housing $618 $857


Food $190 $575




Taxes $180 $205


ANNUAL TOTAL $19,113 $50,430


ALICE IN SUTTER COUNTY


Sutter County, 2012


& Poverty

Live Oak CCD 3,045 53%

Meridian-Robbins CCD 567 37%

South Sutter CCD 905 29%

Sutter CCD 1,256 32%

Yuba City 21,338 48%

Yuba City Southwest CCD 710 46%







182 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Tehama County


Housing $524 $777

Child care $0 $950

Food $190 $575




Taxes $157 $146


ANNUAL TOTAL $17,566 $47,420


ALICE IN TEHAMA COUNTY


Tehama County, 2012


& Poverty

Corning CCD 4,530 46%

East Tehama CCD 1,594 58%

Red Bluff CCD 15,554 46%

West Tehama CCD 1,874 52%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support good (66) poor (42) fair (53)


183UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Trinity County


Housing $512 $705


Food $190 $575




Taxes $154 $182


ANNUAL TOTAL $17,369 $49,277


ALICE IN TRINITY COUNTY


Trinity County, 2012


& Poverty

Hayfork CCD 1,314 58%

Mad River CCD 314 48%

Northwest Trinity CCD 975 53%

Weaverville CCD 3,208 47%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support fair (52) poor (48) good (58)


184 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Tulare County


Housing $558 $725

Child care $0 $960

Food $190 $575




Taxes $165 $131


ANNUAL TOTAL $18,123 $46,662


ALICE IN TULARE COUNTY


Tulare County, 2012


& Poverty

Dinuba City 5,864 44%

Earlimart CCD 3,363 75%

Exeter CCD 8,198 52%

Ivanhoe CCD 2,132 48%

Lindsay CCD 4,540 55%

Orosi-Cutler CCD 4,340 58%

Pixley CCD 1,500 66%

Porterville City 15,749 40%

Springville-Johnsondale CCD 2,275 38%

Strathmore CCD 2,157 54%

Terra Bella CCD 1,747 57%

Tipton CCD 1,590 61%

Tulare City 17,865 38%

Visalia City 41,717 32%

Woodlake-Three Rivers CCD 4,112 43%







185UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Tuolumne County


Housing $605 $929


Food $190 $575




Taxes $176 $269


ANNUAL TOTAL $18,893 $53,701


ALICE IN TUOLUMNE COUNTY


Tuolumne County, 2012


& Poverty

East Sonora-Phoenix Lake CCD 5,393 33%

Groveland CCD 2,258 37%

Sonora CCD 7,536 46%

Twain Harte-Tuolumne City CCD 6,918 39%





Housing Job Community Affordability Opportunities Support good (59) good (66) fair (52)


186 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Ventura County


Housing $1,022 $1,436


Food $190 $575




Taxes $295 $476


ANNUAL TOTAL $25,254 $64,159


ALICE IN VENTURA COUNTY


Ventura County, 2012


& Poverty

Camarillo City 24,226 23%

Fillmore CCD 5,503 45%

Las Posas CCD 978 24%

Los Padres CCD 332 55%

Moorpark City 10,475 19%

Ojai-Mira Monte CCD 10,990 39%

Oxnard City 50,282 40%

Port Hueneme City 7,032 50%

San Buenaventura (Ventura) City 40,725 36%

Santa Paula City 8,411 45%

Simi Valley City 42,642 24%

Thousand Oaks City 44,979 25%

Triunfo Pass-Point Mugu CCD 655 23%

Ventura CCD 42,003 41%







187UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Yolo County


Housing $767 $992


Food $190 $575




Taxes $226 $316


ANNUAL TOTAL $21,686 $56,044


ALICE IN YOLO COUNTY


Yolo County, 2012


& Poverty

Clarksburg CCD 509 53%

Davis City 24,361 45%

East Yolo CCD 17,430 49%

Esparto CCD 1,674 49%

Knights Landing CCD 1,330 53%

West Sacramento City 17,184 43%

Winters CCD 2,749 45%

Woodland City 19,363 40%







188 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA


STRUGGLING

Household Survival Budget, Yuba County


Housing $618 $857

Child care $0 $980

Food $190 $575




Taxes $180 $184


ANNUAL TOTAL $19,113 $49,375


ALICE IN YUBA COUNTY


Yuba County, 2012


& Poverty

East Yuba-Beale Afb CCD 1,447 45%

Linda CCD 5,505 56%

Marysville CCD 4,634 58%

Marysville Northeast CCD 2,600 25%

Olivehurst CCD 6,516 44%

Wheatland CCD 1,454 39%

Yuba Foothills CCD 1,977 48%







189UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

BIBLIOGRAPHYAARP Public Policy Institute, “Valuing the Invaluable: 2011 Update - The Economic Value of Family Caregiving in 2009,” Fact Sheet, AARP, 2011. http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ppi/ltc/fs229-ltc.pdf

Abel, Jaison, Richard Deitz and Yaqin Su, “Are Recent College Graduates Finding Good Jobs?” Current Issues in Economics and Finance, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Vol 20, No 1, 2014. http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci20-1.pdf

Allegretto, Sylvia, “Basic Family Budgets: Working families’ incomes often fail to meet living expenses around the U.S.,” Briefing Paper, Economic Policy Institute, 2005. http://www.earncentral.org/members/minwage/documents/epi-familybudgets.pdf

Allegretto, Sylvia, Marc Doussard, Dave Graham-Squire, Ken Jacobs, Dan Thompson and Jeremy Thompson, “Fast Food, Poverty Wages: The Public Cost Of Low-Wage Jobs in The Fast-Food Industry,” UC Berkeley Labor Center, October 2013. http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/publiccosts/fast_food_poverty_wages.pdf

Alliance for Excellent Education (AEE), “Saving Futures, Saving Dollars: The Impact of Education on Crime Reduction and Earnings,” Issue Brief, September 2013. http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/SavingFutures.pdf

Alliance for Excellent Education (AEE), “The Economic Benefits of Increasing the High School Graduation Rate for Public School Students in the United States,” Issue Brief, October 2013. http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/US_econ.pdf

Altig, Dave and John Robertson, “The Skills Gap: Still Trying to Separate Myth from Fact,” Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, June 7, 2012. Retrieved May 20, 2014. http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/2012/06/the-skills-gap-still-trying-to-separate-myth-from-fact.html

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), “America’s Infrastructure Report Card,” 2013. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/home

Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF), “Restoring Teen and Young Adult Connections to Opportunity,” KIDS COUNT Policy Reports, March 2012. http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-YouthAndWork-2012-Full.pdf

Autor, David, “The Polarization of Job Opportunities in the U.S. Labor Market: Implications for Employment and Earnings,” Center for American Progress and the Hamilton Project, 2010. http://economics.mit.edu/files/5554

Baicker, Katherine and Amy Finkelstein, “The Effects of Medicaid Coverage - Learning from the Oregon Experiment,” New England Journal of Medicine, August 2011. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1108222

Baker, Dean, “Who’s Dreaming? Homeownership Among Low Income Families.” Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2005. http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/housing_2005_01.pdf

Baker, Dean, and Simone Baribeau, “Homeownership in a Bubble: The Fast Path to Poverty?” Center for Economic and Policy Research, August 2003. http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/housing_2003_08.pdf

Barr, Michael S., and Rebecca M. Blank, “Access to Financial Services, Savings, and Assets Among the Poor,” National Poverty Center, University of Michigan, November 2008. http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief13/PolicyBrief13.pdf

http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ppi/ltc/fs229-ltc.pdf

http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci20-1.pdf

http://www.earncentral.org/members/minwage/documents/epi-familybudgets.pdf

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/publiccosts/fast_food_poverty_wages.pdf

http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/SavingFutures.pdf

http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/US_econ.pdf

http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/2012/06/the-skills-gap-still-trying-to-separate-myth-from-fact.html

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/home

http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-YouthAndWork-2012-Full.pdf

http://economics.mit.edu/files/5554

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1108222

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/housing_2005_01.pdf

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/housing_2003_08.pdf

http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief13/PolicyBrief13.pdf

190 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

Bernanke, Ben S., “Recent Developments in the Labor Market,” at the National Association for Business Economics Annual Conference, Washington, D.C., March 26, 2012.

Bernstein, Jared, “Let the War on the Poverty Line Commence,” Working Paper Series, The Foundation for Child Development, New York, 2001. http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/LetTheWarOnThePovertyLineCommence.pdf

Bertaud, Alain, “Urban Planning and Housing Affordability,” 10th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, 2013. http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf

Blank, Rebecca M., “Presidential Address: How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2008, pp. 233-254. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/58071/20323_ftp.pdf;jsessionid=9C48A50AD7A23C8D6E293F7FBA9AA046?sequence=1

Blanton, Rebecca, “Overview of Veterans in California,” California State Library, Testimony before the Joint Hearing of the Assembly Committee on Veterans Affairs and the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development, March 2013. http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/13/13-020.pdf

Bloom, David, David Canning and Gunther Fink, “Implications of Population Aging for Economic Growth,” Program on the Global Demography of Aging Working Paper No. 64, Harvard University, January 2011. http://diseaseriskindex.harvard.edu/pgda/WorkingPapers/2011/PGDA_WP_64.pdf

Boguslaw, Janet, Hannah Thomas, Laura Sullivan, Tatjana Meschede, Sara Chaganti, and Thomas Shapiro, “Hard Choices: Navigating the Economic Shock of Unemployment,” Economic Mobility Project, The Pew Charitable Trusts, April 2013. http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/2013/Hard_Choices.pdf

Brault, Matthew, “Americans With Disabilities: 2010,” Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, July 2012. http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf

Bricker, Jesse, Arthur B. Kennickell, Kevin Moore, and John Sabelhaus, “Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2007 to 2010: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, Vol 98, No.2, June 2012. http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2012/pdf/scf12.pdf

Brookings, “Characteristics of EITC-Eligible Tax Units in 2012 by State,” 2012. http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/eitc

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), “Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States, 2012 Annual Averages,” Local Area Unemployment Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2014. http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt12q4.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Education and training assignments by detailed occupation, U.S. Department of Labor, 2012d. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_112.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Employment Situation of Veterans Summary, U.S. Department of Labor, March 2014. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/vet.pdf

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), “Employment Status of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population, Annual Averages,” Local Area Unemployment Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2012a. http://www.bls.gov/lau/rdscnp16.htm

http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/LetTheWarOnThePovertyLineCommence.pdf

http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/58071/20323_ftp.pdf;jsessionid=9C48A50AD7A23C8D6E293F7FBA9AA046?sequence=1

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/58071/20323_ftp.pdf;jsessionid=9C48A50AD7A23C8D6E293F7FBA9AA046?sequence=1

http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/13/13-020.pdf

http://diseaseriskindex.harvard.edu/pgda/WorkingPapers/2011/PGDA_WP_64.pdf

http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/2013/Hard_Choices.pdf

http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf

June 2012. http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2012/pdf/scf12.pdf

http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/eitc

http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt12q4.htm

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_112.htm

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/vet.pdf

http://www.bls.gov/lau/rdscnp16.htm

191UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), “Health Care Spending: 1998, 2003, and 2008, Consumer Expenditure Survey: 2008,” U.S. Department of Labor, August 2010, Volume 1, Number 8. http://www.bls.gov/opub/focus/volume1_number8/cex_1_8.pdf

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), “Multiple Jobholding in States in 2012,” U.S. Department of Labor, 2013. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/multiple-jobholding-in-states-in-2012.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey, May 2007 and 2012. http://www.bls.gov/oes/

California Budget Project, “Planning For California’s Future: The State’s Population Is Growing, Aging, And Becoming More Diverse,” 2008. http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2008/0808_bb_demographics.pdf

California Department of Finance (CDF), “New Population Projections: California To Surpass 50 Million in 2049,” January 2013. http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/P-1/documents/Projections_Press_Release_2010-2060.pdf

California Department of Finance (CDF), “California Economic Forecast,” April 2014. http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/LatestEconData/FS_Forecasts.htm

California Department of Housing and Community Development, “Highlights of the State of Housing in California: Affordability Worsens, Supply Problems Remain,” Division of Housing Policy Development, 2014. http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/shp/web_hcd_stateofhousing_april2014.pdf

California Department of Social Services, “CalFresh: Eligibility and Issuance Requirements,” 2014. http://www.calfresh.ca.gov/Pg841.htm#inc

California Food Policy Advocates, “Nutrition & Food Insecurity Profile: California,” 2014. http://cfpa.net/county-profiles

California Healthcare Almanac, “Mental Health Care in California: Painting a Picture,” California Healthcare Foundation, July 2013. http://www.chcf.org/~/media/MEDIA%20LIBRARY%20Files/PDF/M/PDF%20MentalHealthPaintingPicture.pdf

California Healthcare Foundation, “California’s Uninsured: By the Numbers,” California Healthcare Almanac, 2013. http://www.chcf.org/publications/2013/12/californias-uninsured

California State Transportation Agency. “California Transportation Infrastructure Priorities: Vision and Interim Recommendations,” February 2014. http://www.calsta.ca.gov/res/docs/pdfs/2013/CTIP%20Vision%20and%20Interim%20REcommendations.pdf

Campbell, John Y., Howell Edmunds Jackson, Brigitte C. Madrian, and Peter Tufano, “Consumer financial protection,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 25(1), 2011, pp. 91-114. http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9887620/JEP_consumer_financial_protection_11.pdf?sequence=1

Carasso, Adam, and Signe-Mary McKernan, “Portraits of the Assets and Liabilities of Low-Income Families,” Opportunity and Ownership Project, Urban Institute, Vol.9, May 2008. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411678_low-income_families.pdf

Cebula, Richard, and Edgar L. Feige, “America’s Underground Economy: Measuring the Size, Growth and Determinants of Income Tax Evasion in the U.S.,” University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2011. http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/econ/archive/wp2011-1.pdf

http://www.bls.gov/opub/focus/volume1_number8/cex_1_8.pdf

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/multiple-jobholding-in-states-in-2012.htm

http://www.bls.gov/oes/

http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2008/0808_bb_demographics.pdf

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/P-1/documents/Projections_Press_Release_2010-2060.pdf

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/P-1/documents/Projections_Press_Release_2010-2060.pdf

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/LatestEconData/FS_Forecasts.htm

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/shp/web_hcd_stateofhousing_april2014.pdf

http://www.calfresh.ca.gov/Pg841.htm#inc

http://cfpa.net/county-profiles

http://www.chcf.org/~/media/MEDIA%20LIBRARY%20Files/PDF/M/PDF%20MentalHealthPaintingPicture.pdf

http://www.chcf.org/~/media/MEDIA%20LIBRARY%20Files/PDF/M/PDF%20MentalHealthPaintingPicture.pdf

http://www.chcf.org/publications/2013/12/californias-uninsured

http://www.calsta.ca.gov/res/docs/pdfs/2013/CTIP%20Vision%20and%20Interim%20REcommendations.pdf

http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9887620/JEP_consumer_financial_protection_11.pdf?sequence=1

http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9887620/JEP_consumer_financial_protection_11.pdf?sequence=1

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411678_low-income_families.pdf

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/econ/archive/wp2011-1.pdf

192 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, “Results from the 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Mental Health Findings,” Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, November 2012. http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k11MH_FindingsandDetTables/2K11MHFR/NSDUHmhfr2011.pdf

Center for Labor Market Studies, “Left behind in America: the Nation’s Dropout Crisis,” Center for Labor Market Studies Publications, Northeastern University, Paper 21, 2009. http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d20000598

Center for Labor Market Studies, “The Fiscal Consequences of Dropping Out of School and Failing to Complete Years of Post-Secondary Schooling in Connecticut,” Northeastern University, 2009a. http://www.opp.org/About/docs/dropout_crisis/FiscalImpactsPaperforCT.pdf

Center for Neighborhood Technology, Housing and Transportation Affordability Index, 2011. http://htaindex.cnt.org/map/

Center for Responsible Lending, “The Cost of Bad Lending,” State Fact Sheets, August 2010. http://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/tools-resources/factsheets/

Center for Responsible Lending, “The State of Lending in America and Its Impact on U.S. Households,” 2012. http://www.responsiblelending.org/state-of-lending/#sthash.opdeLUph.dpuf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Health Disparities and Inequalities Report, United States, 2011,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, January 14, 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/other/su6001.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Risk Factors and Health Indicators from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System,” 2001 to 2012. Retrieved May 28, 2014. http://wwwn.cdc.gov/sortablestats/

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables,” 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/downloads/State-Indicator-Report-Fruits-Vegetables-2013.pdf

Childhood Trends, “Research-Based Responses to Key Questions about the 2010 Head Start Impact Study,” Early Childhood Highlights, Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011. http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends-2011_01_28_ECHH_2010HSStudy.pdf

Choi, Laura, “Financial Stress and Its Physical Effects on Individuals and Communities,” Community Development Investment Review, December 2009. http://www.frbsf.org/community-development/files/choi.pdf

CNN Politics, “Races and Results: President: California,” CNN Election Center, December 10, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/CA/president

Cohen, Robin A., Whitney K. Kirzinger, and Renee M. Gindi, “Strategies Used by Adults to Reduce Their Prescription Drug Costs,” National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief, No. 119, April 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db119.pdf

Commonwealth Fund, “California Low-Income Population Scorecard,” Health System Data Center, 2014. http://datacenter.commonwealthfund.org/scorecard/low-income/6/california/

Cooley, Heather, Eli Moore, Matthew Heberger, and Lucy Allen, “Social Vulnerability to Climate Change in California,” California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CEC-500-2012-013 (Pacific Institute), 2012. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-500-2012-013/CEC-500-2012-013.pdf

http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k11MH_FindingsandDetTables/2K11MHFR/NSDUHmhfr2011.pdf

http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d20000598

http://www.opp.org/About/docs/dropout_crisis/FiscalImpactsPaperforCT.pdf

http://htaindex.cnt.org/map/

http://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/tools-resources/factsheets/

http://www.responsiblelending.org/state-of-lending/#sthash.opdeLUph.dpuf

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/other/su6001.pdf

http://wwwn.cdc.gov/sortablestats/

http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/downloads/State-Indicator-Report-Fruits-Vegetables-2013.pdf

http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends-2011_01_28_ECHH_2010HSStudy.pdf

http://www.frbsf.org/community-development/files/choi.pdf

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/CA/president

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db119.pdf

http://datacenter.commonwealthfund.org/scorecard/low-income/6/california/

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-500-2012-013/CEC-500-2012-013.pdf

193UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

CoreLogic, “National Foreclosure Report,” April 2013. http://www.corelogic.com/research/foreclosure-report/national-foreclosure-report-april-2013.pdf

Corporation for Enterprise Development, Asset and Opportunity Scorecard, 2012. http://assetsandopportunity.org/scorecard/state_data/

Corporation for Enterprise Development, Asset and Opportunity Scorecard, 2014. http://scorecard.assetsandopportunity.org/2012/measure/asset-poverty-rate

Culhane, Dennis P., Jung Min Park, and Stephen Metraux, “The Patterns and Costs of Services Use among Homeless Families,” Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 2011, pp. 815–825. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20473

Cunningham, Alisa, and Gregory Kienzl, “Delinquency: The Untold Truth of Student Loan Borrowing,” Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2011. http://www.usafunds.org/USAFunds%20ResourceLibrary/DelinquencyTheUntoldTruth.pdf

Currie, Janet, and Erdal Tekin, “Is There a Link Between Foreclosure And Health?” NBER Working Paper Series, August 2011. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17310.pdf

DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Bernadette Proctor, and Jessica Smith, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010,” Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, September 2011. http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf

Dube, Arindrajit and Ken Jacobs, “Hidden Cost of Wal-Mart Jobs: Use Of Safety Net Programs by Wal-Mart Workers In California,” UC Berkeley Labor Center, August 2004. http://Laborcenter.Berkeley.Edu/Retail/Walmart.pdf

Eberts, Randall W., “U.S. Employment Outlook for 2013,” International Labor Brief 11(2), February 2013, pp. 4-14. http://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=perarticles

Economic Policy Institute, Family Budget Calculator, 2013. Retrieved May 22, 2014. http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/

Economic Policy Institute, “What Families Need to Get By: The 2013 Update of EPI’s Family Budget Calculator,” EPI Issue Brief #368, 2013. http://s4.epi.org/files/2013/ib368-basic-family-budgets.pdf

Economic Security Index, Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University. http://economicsecurityindex.org

Edwards, Ashley N., “Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Poverty, 2009–2011,” Household Economic Studies, U.S. Census, January 2014. http://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p70-137.pdf

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), “Addendum to the 2011 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households: Uses of Alternative Services,” June 2013. http://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2013_AFSAddendum_web.pdf

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), “FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households,” 2011. http://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/Full_Report.pdf

Federal Reserve, “Insights into the Financial Experiences of Older Adults: A Forum Briefing Paper,” Federal Reserve Board Report, July 2013. http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/conferences/older-adults-forum-paper-20130717.pdf

http://www.corelogic.com/research/foreclosure-report/national-foreclosure-report-april-2013.pdf

http://assetsandopportunity.org/scorecard/state_data/

http://scorecard.assetsandopportunity.org/2012/measure/asset-poverty-rate

http://www.usafunds.org/USAFunds%20ResourceLibrary/DelinquencyTheUntoldTruth.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w17310.pdf


http://Laborcenter.Berkeley.Edu/Retail/Walmart.pdf

http://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=perarticles

http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/

http://s4.epi.org/files/2013/ib368-basic-family-budgets.pdf

http://economicsecurityindex.org


http://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2013_AFSAddendum_web.pdf

http://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/Full_Report.pdf

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/conferences/older-adults-forum-paper-20130717.pdf

194 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, “Home Ownership Rate for California,” Economic Research, 2014. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CAHOWN

Feeding America, “Map the Meal Gap,” March 2012. Retrieved May 28, 2014. http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-studies/map-the-meal-gap.aspx#

Flores, G. Michael, “Serving Consumers’ Needs for Loans in the 21st Century,” Bretton Woods, Inc., June 2012. http://www.mynafsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Bretton%20Woods%20Study%20Serving%20Consumers’%20Needs%20June%202012.pdf

Frame, W. Scott, “Estimating the Effect of Mortgage Foreclosures on Nearby Property Values: A Critical Review of the Literature,” Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Economic Review, Volume 95, Number 3, 2010. http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/others/region/foreclosure_resource_center/more_frame_externalities.pdf

Frazão, Elizabeth, “High Costs Of Poor Eating Patterns In the United States,” in America’s Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences, U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 1999. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/91018/aib750a_1_.pdf

Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, “State of American Well-Being,” 2013. http://www.healthways.com/solution/default.aspx?id=1125

Gibbons, Steve, “The Costs of Urban Property Crime”, The Economic Journal, 2004, Vol. 114, pp. 441-452. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00254.x/

Gladwell, Malcolm, “Million-Dollar Murray: Why Problems Like Homelessness May Be Easier To Solve Than To Manage,” The New Yorker, February 13, 2006. http://www.newyorker.Com/Archive/2006/02/13/060213fa_Fact

Glover, Robert, Joel Miller and Stephanie Sadowski, “Proceedings on the State Budget Crisis and Behavioral Health Treatment Gap: The Impact on Public Substance Abuse and Mental Health Treatment Systems,” National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, Washington, DC, March 22, 2012. http://www.nasmhpd.org/docs/Summary-Congressional%20Briefing_March%2022_Website.pdf

Hacker, Jacob, Gregory Huber, Austin Nichols, Philipp Rehm and Stuart Craig, “Economic Insecurity Across the American States: New State Estimates from the Economic Security Index,” Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University and the Rockefeller Foundation, June 2012. http://economicsecurityindex.org/assets/state_reports/ESI_cross_state.pdf

Hanak, Ellen, “California’s Future: Climate Change,” Public Policy Institute of California, January 2014. http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_610BKR.pdf

Hanson, Kenneth, “Mollie Orshansky’s Strategy to Poverty Measurement as a Relationship between Household Food Expenditures and Economy Food Plan,” Review of Agricultural Economics, Volume 30, Number 3, 2008, pp. 572–580. http://handle.nal.usda.gov/10113/20301

Hartline-Grafton, Heather, “Food Insecurity and Obesity: Understanding the Connections,” Food Research and Action Center, Spring 2011. http://frac.org/pdf/frac_brief_understanding_the_connections.pdf

Harvard Mental Health Letter, “Mental Health Problems in the Workplace,” Harvard Medical School, February 2010. Retrieved May 28, 2014. http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/February/mental-health-problems-in-the-workplace

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CAHOWN

http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-studies/map-the-meal-gap.aspx#

http://www.mynafsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Bretton%20Woods%20Study%20Serving%20Consumers’%20Needs%20June%202012.pdf

http://www.mynafsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Bretton%20Woods%20Study%20Serving%20Consumers’%20Needs%20June%202012.pdf

http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/others/region/foreclosure_resource_center/more_frame_externalities.pdf

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/91018/aib750a_1_.pdf

http://www.healthways.com/solution/default.aspx?id=1125

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00254.x/

http://www.newyorker.Com/Archive/2006/02/13/060213fa_Fact

http://www.nasmhpd.org/docs/Summary-Congressional%20Briefing_March%2022_Website.pdf

http://economicsecurityindex.org/assets/state_reports/ESI_cross_state.pdf

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_610BKR.pdf

http://handle.nal.usda.gov/10113/20301

http://frac.org/pdf/frac_brief_understanding_the_connections.pdf

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/February/mental-health-problems-in-the-workplace

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/February/mental-health-problems-in-the-workplace

195UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

Haskins, Ron, “Fighting Poverty the American Way,” The Brookings Institution, June 2011. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/6/20%20fighting%20poverty%20haskins/0620_fighting_poverty_haskins.pdf

Heisler, Michele, Kenneth Langa, Elizabeth Eby, A. Mark Fendrick, Mohammed Kabeto, and John Piette, “The Health Effects of Restricting Prescription Medication Use Because of Cost,” Medical Care 42(7), July 2004, pp. 626-34. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15213486

Homeless Research Institute, “The State of Homelessness in America 2013,” U.S. National Alliance to End Homelessness, April 2013. http://b.3cdn.net/naeh/bb34a7e4cd84ee985c_3vm6r7cjh.pdf

Hoopes Halpin, Stephanie, “ALICE (Asset-Limited, Income-Constrained, Employed): A Study of Financial Hardship in New Jersey,” United Way of Northern New Jersey, 2012. http://www.unitedwaynnj.org/documents/UWNNJ_ALICE%20Report_FINAL2012.pdf

Hoopes Halpin, Stephanie, “The Impact of Superstorm Sandy on New Jersey Towns and Households,” Rutgers-Newark, School of Public Affairs and Administration, October 2013. njdatabank.newark.rutgers.edu/special-superstorm-sandy

Housing and Community Development of New Jersey (HCDNJ), New Jersey Future and Fair Share Housing Center, open letter to Secretary Shaun Donovan, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, April 4, 2013. http://www.hcdnnj.org/assets/documents/sandy%20action%20plan%20letter%20to%20donovan.pdf

Human Development Index, “The Measure of America 2013–2014,” Social Science Research Council, 2014. http://www.measureofamerica.org/human-development/

Ihlanfeldt, Keith and Tom Mayock, “Crime and Housing Prices,” Department of Economics and DeVoe Moore Center, Florida State University, February 2009. http://coss.fsu.edu/dmc/sites/coss.fsu.edu.dmc/files/CrimeHousingPricesFEB25.pdf

Ihlanfeldt, Keith and Tom Mayock, “Panel Data Estimates of the Effects of Different Types of Crime on Housing Prices” Regional Science and Urban Economics, May 2010, Volume 40, Issues 2–3, pp. 161–172. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166046210000086

Immigration Policy Center, “New Americans In California: The Economic Power of Immigrants, Latinos, and Asians in the Golden State”, 2013. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/new_americans_in_california_2013_1.pdf

Insight Center for Community Economic Development, “Elder Economic Security Index for California,” 2014. http://www.insightcced.org/communities/besa/cal-eesi/calcElderIndex.html

Insight Center for Community Economic Development, “The Self-Sufficiency Standard for California,” 2012. http://www.insightcced.org/communities/besa/besa-ca/ca-sss.html

Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), “Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States,” 4th Edition, January 2013. http://www.itep.org/pdf/whopaysreport.pdf

Insurance Research Council, Uninsured Motorists, 2011 Edition, 2011. http://www.insurance-research.org/sites/default/files/downloads/IRCUM2011_042111.pdf

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), data retrieved from the NCCS Data Web Report Builder, Statistics of Income 990EZc3 Report and 990 c3 Report, Urban Institute, 2007, 2010 and 2012.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/6/20%20fighting%20poverty%20haskins/0620_fighting_poverty_haskins.pdf

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/6/20%20fighting%20poverty%20haskins/0620_fighting_poverty_haskins.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15213486

http://b.3cdn.net/naeh/bb34a7e4cd84ee985c_3vm6r7cjh.pdf

http://www.unitedwaynnj.org/documents/UWNNJ_ALICE%20Report_FINAL2012.pdf

njdatabank.newark.rutgers.edu/special-superstorm-sandy

http://www.hcdnnj.org/assets/documents/sandy%20action%20plan%20letter%20to%20donovan.pdf

http://www.measureofamerica.org/human-development/

http://coss.fsu.edu/dmc/sites/coss.fsu.edu.dmc/files/CrimeHousingPricesFEB25.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166046210000086

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/new_americans_in_california_2013_1.pdf

http://www.insightcced.org/communities/besa/cal-eesi/calcElderIndex.html

http://www.insightcced.org/communities/besa/besa-ca/ca-sss.html

http://www.itep.org/pdf/whopaysreport.pdf

http://www.insurance-research.org/sites/default/files/downloads/IRCUM2011_042111.pdf

196 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), “Earned Income Tax Credit for 2012; Do I Qualify?” FS-2013-1, January 2013. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Earned-Income-Tax-Credit-for-2012;-Do-I-Qualify%3F

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Form 1040 Instructions, 2007, 2010 and 2012. http://www.irs.gov/instructions/ i1040/ar01.html#d0e397

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 1040: Individual Income Tax, Instructions, 2007, 2010 and 2012. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--2012.pdf http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--2010.pdf http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--2007.pdf

Internal Revenue Service, “SOI Tax Stats – County Data – 2012,” 2012. http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-County-Data-2012

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), “Tax Guide 2012 for Individuals,” Publication 17, Catalog Number 10311G, 2007, 2010 and 2012. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p17--2012.pdf http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p17--2010.pdf http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p17--2007.pdf

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Tax Tables, 2007, 2010 and 2012.

Jaimovich, Nir, and Henry Siu, “The Trend is the Cycle: Job Polarization and Jobless Recoveries,” National Bureau of Economic Research, August 14, 2012. http://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/annual/Jaimovich.pdf

Johnson, Hans, and Marisol Cuellar Mejia, “California’s Future: Housing,” Public Policy Institute of California, January 2014. http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_114HJ2R.pdf

Johnson, Hans, and Marisol Cuellar Mejia, “Immigrants in California,” Public Policy Institute of California, 2014. http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=258

Johnson, Hans, and Ria Sengupta, “Closing the Gap: Meeting California’s Need for College Graduates,” Public Policy Institute of California, 2009. http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_409HJR.pdf

Johnson, Hans, Marisol Cuellar Mejia, David Ezekiel, and Betsey Zeiger, “Student Debt and the Value of a College Degree,” Public Policy Institute of California, 2013). http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_613HJR.pdf

Joint Center for Housing Studies, “America’s Rental Housing: Evolving Markets and Needs,” Harvard University, 2013. http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/jchs_americas_rental_housing_2013_1_0.pdf

Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, “Oral Health and Low-Income Nonelderly Adults: A Review of Coverage and Access,” Kaiser Family Foundation, June 2012. http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/7798-02.pdf

Kaiser Family Foundation, Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, June 2012. http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/8322_hsw-may2012-update.pdf

Kaiser Family Foundation, State Health Facts, 2012. http://kff.org/statedata/

Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust, “Employer Health Benefits 2011,” Annual Survey, September 2011. http://www.nahu.org/meetings/capitol/2012/attendees/jumpdrive/2011%20Employee%20Benefits%20Survey%20by%20KFF.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Earned-Income-Tax-Credit-for-2012;-Do-I-Qualify%3F

http://www.irs.gov/instructions/ i1040/ar01.html#d0e397




http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-County-Data-2012

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p17--2012.pdf



http://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/annual/Jaimovich.pdf

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_114HJ2R.pdf

http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=258

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_409HJR.pdf

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_613HJR.pdf

http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/jchs_americas_rental_housing_2013_1_0.pdf

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/7798-02.pdf

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/8322_hsw-may2012-update.pdf

http://kff.org/statedata/

http://www.nahu.org/meetings/capitol/2012/attendees/jumpdrive/2011%20Employee%20Benefits%20Survey%20by%20KFF.pdf

http://www.nahu.org/meetings/capitol/2012/attendees/jumpdrive/2011%20Employee%20Benefits%20Survey%20by%20KFF.pdf

197UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

Kavoussi, Bonnie, “Rich Americans Are Nearly Twice As Likely To Vote As The Poor,” Huffington Post, April 17, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bonnie-kavoussi/

Kendall, Anne, Christine M. Olson, and Edward A. Frongillo Jr., “Relationship of Hunger and Food Insecurity to Food Availability and Consumption,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1996, 96(10), pp. 1019–24. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8841164

Kingsley, G. Thomas., Robin Smith, and David Price, “The Impacts of Foreclosures on Families and Communities,” Urban Institute, May 2009. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411909_impact_of_forclosures.pdf

Kneebone, Elizabeth, “Job Sprawl Revisited: The Changing Geography of Metropolitan Employment,” Metro Economy Series for the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, April 2009. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/06%20job%20sprawl%20kneebone/20090406_jobsprawl_kneebone.pdf

Lee, Helen, Laura Hill, and Shannon McConville, “Access to the Health Care Safety Net in California,” Public Policy Institute of California, October 2012. http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1012HLR.pdf

Legislative Analyst’s Office, “2013 Cal Facts,” California Legislature’s Nonpartisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor, January 02, 2013. http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/calfacts/calfacts_010213.aspx#Californias_Economy

Lerman, Robert, and Signe-Mary McKernan, “The Effects of Holding Assets on Social and Economic Outcomes of Families: A Review of Theory and Evidence,” Urban Institute, November 2008.

Levy, Stephen, “The California Economy: Looking Ahead”, Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy County Auditors Conference, April 23, 2014. http://www.ccsce.com/PDF/County_Auditors_4.23.2014.pdf

Lewis, Kristen, and Sarah Burd-Sharps, “American Human Development Report, 2013-2014,” Measure of America, 2014. http://ssrc-static.s3.amazonaws.com/moa/MOA-III-June-18-FINAL.pdf

Lewis, Kristen, and Sarah Burd-Sharps, “A Portrait of California 2014-2015,” Measure of America, 2014a. http://ssrc-static.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Portrait_of_California2014-15.pdf

Lynch, Allen K. and David W. Rasmussen, “Measuring the Impact of Crime on House Prices,” Applied Economics, 2001, 33, pp. 1981-89. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036840110021735#preview

Mangano, Philip, “Ending Homelessness,” Op-Ed, The Washington Times, September 1, 2008. Accessed 05/25/2014. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/1/ending-homelessness/?page=all

ManpowerGroup, “2012 Talent Shortage Survey,” ManpowerGroup, 2012. Retrieved May 28, 2014. http://www.manpowergroup.us/campaigns/talent-shortage-2012/

Mayer, Susan and Christopher Jencks, “Poverty and the Distribution of Material Hardship,” The Journal of Human Resources, Winter 1989, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 88-114. http://www.vanneman.umd.edu/socy699j/MayerJ89.pdf

McCartney, Kathleen, “Easy as ABC: Quality Childcare Matters for Low-Income Families,” Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2008. http://www.uknow.gse.harvard.edu/leadership/LP309-608.html

McKenzie, Brian, and Melanie Rapino, “Commuting in the United States: 2009,” American Community Survey Reports, September 2011. http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bonnie-kavoussi/


http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411909_impact_of_forclosures.pdf

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/06%20job%20sprawl%20kneebone/20090406_jobsprawl_kneebone.pdf

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/06%20job%20sprawl%20kneebone/20090406_jobsprawl_kneebone.pdf

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1012HLR.pdf

http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/calfacts/calfacts_010213.aspx#Californias_Economy

http://www.ccsce.com/PDF/County_Auditors_4.23.2014.pdf

http://ssrc-static.s3.amazonaws.com/moa/MOA-III-June-18-FINAL.pdf

http://ssrc-static.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Portrait_of_California2014-15.pdf

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036840110021735#preview

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/1/ending-homelessness/?page=all

http://www.manpowergroup.us/campaigns/talent-shortage-2012/

http://www.vanneman.umd.edu/socy699j/MayerJ89.pdf

http://www.uknow.gse.harvard.edu/leadership/LP309-608.html

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf

198 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

McKernan, Signe-Mary, Caroline Ratcliffe and Trina Williams Shank, “Is Poverty Incompatible With Asset Accumulation?” Urban Institute, 2011. http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412391-Poverty-Incompatible-with-Asset-Accumulation.pdf

McKernan, Signe-Mary, Caroline Ratcliffe, Eugene Steuerle and Sisi Zhang, “Less Than Equal: Racial Disparities in Wealth Accumulation,” Urban Institute, April 2013. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412802-Less-Than-Equal-Racial-Disparities-in-Wealth-Accumulation.pdf

McQueen, M.P., “Road Risks Rise as More Drivers Drop Insurance: Higher Premiums, Joblessness Contribute to Alarming Trend; What to Do When You’re Hit,” Wall Street Journal, December 17, 2008. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122947388659212351.html

MetLife Mature Market Institute, “Market Survey of Long-Term Care Costs: The 2012 MetLife Market Survey of Nursing Home, Assisted Living, Adult Day Services, and Home Care Costs,” MetLife, November 2012. https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/2012/studies/mmi-2012-market-survey-long-term-care-costs.pdf

MetLife Mature Market Institute, “The MetLife Study of Working Caregivers and Employer Health Care Costs,” February 2010. https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/2011/mmi-caregiving-costs-working-caregivers.pdf

Meyer, Bruce and Wallace Mok, “Disability, Earnings, Income and Consumption,” NBER Working Paper No. 18869, March 2013. http://www.nber.org/papers/w18869

Migration Policy Institute, “State Immigration Data Profiles”, 2012. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/state-immigration-data-profiles

Miller, George, Representative (D-CA), “Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart,” A Report by the Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, February 16, 2004. http://www.amiba.net/assets/files/studies/everyday-low-wages-georgemiller-walmartreport.pdf

Moffitt, Robert, “The Great Recession and the Social Safety Net,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, March 31, 2013. http://www.econ2.jhu.edu/people/Moffitt/moffitt%20annals%204-26-2013.pdf

Mortgage Bankers Association, “Delinquencies Rise, Foreclosures Fall in Latest MBA Mortgage Delinquency Survey,” August 22, 2011. http://www.mbaa.org/NewsandMedia/PressCenter/77688.htm

NBCNews.com, “Presidential Election Results – Exit Poll,” November 2012. http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/

National Alliance to End Homelessness, “Chapter Two: The Economics of Homelessness,” The State of Homelessness in America, 2012. http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/4364

National Association for the Education of Young Children, Required Criteria for NAEYC Accreditation, 2008. http://www.naeyc.org/files/academy/file/Required_Criteria%5B1%5D.pdf

National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)/Wells Fargo, “The NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index,” 2014. http://www.nahb.org/reference_list.aspx?sectionID=135

http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412391-Poverty-Incompatible-with-Asset-Accumulation.pdf

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412802-Less-Than-Equal-Racial-Disparities-in-Wealth-Accumulation.pdf

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122947388659212351.html

https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/2012/studies/mmi-2012-market-survey-long-term-care-costs.pdf

https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/2012/studies/mmi-2012-market-survey-long-term-care-costs.pdf

https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/2011/mmi-caregiving-costs-working-caregivers.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18869

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/state-immigration-data-profiles

http://www.amiba.net/assets/files/studies/everyday-low-wages-georgemiller-walmartreport.pdf

http://www.econ2.jhu.edu/people/Moffitt/moffitt%20annals%204-26-2013.pdf

http://www.mbaa.org/NewsandMedia/PressCenter/77688.htm

http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/

http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/4364

http://www.naeyc.org/files/academy/file/Required_Criteria%5B1%5D.pdf

http://www.nahb.org/reference_list.aspx?sectionID=135

199UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

National Center for Children in Poverty, Young Child Risk Calculator using 2007-2009 American Community Survey. http://www.nccp.org/tools/risk/

National Conference of State Legislatures, “Medicaid and CHIP Eligibility Table by State,” 2014. http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/medicaid-eligibility-table-by-state-state-activit.aspx

National Conference of State Legislatures, “Tax Credits For Working Families: Earned Income Tax Credit,” 1/30/2014. http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/earned-income-tax-credits-for-working-families.aspx

National Employment Law Project, “Super-sizing Public Costs: How Low Wages at Top Fast-Food Chains Leave Taxpayers Footing the Bill,” Data Brief, October 2013. http://www.nelp.org/page/-/rtmw/uploads/NELP-Super-Sizing-Public-Costs-Fast-Food-Report.pdf

National Employment Law Project, “The Low-Wage Recovery: Industry Employment and Wages Four Years into the Recovery,” Data Brief, April 2014. http://www.nelp.org/page/-/Reports/Low-Wage-Recovery-Industry-Employment-Wages-2014-Report.pdf?nocdn=1

National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), “Out of Reach 2013,” 2013. http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2013_OOR.pdf

National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), “State Housing Profile,” 2013a. http://nlihc.org/library/SHP

National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), “The Shrinking Supply of Affordable Housing,” Housing Spotlight, February 2012, Volume 2, Issue 1. http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/HousingSpotlight2-1.pdf

National Priorities Project’s Federal Priorities Database. Local Spending Data, http://nationalpriorities.org/interactive-data/database/search/

National Urban League, “One Nation Underemployed: Jobs Rebuild America,” The State of Black America 2014, 38th Edition. New York, NY: National Urban League, 2014. http://iamempowered.com/soba/2014/home

Nelson, Arthur, “The New California Dream: How Demographic and Economic Trends May Shape the Housing Market,” Voices on the Future, Urban Land Institute, 2011. http://www.uli.org/uli-in-action/housing/the-new-california-dream-new-report

O’Brien, Rourke and David Pedulla, “Beyond the Poverty Line,” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall 2010. http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/beyond_the_poverty_line

Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Homeless Prevention Programs,” OEI-07-90-00100; 2/91, 2002-06-21. http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-90-00100.pdf

Opportunity Nation, “Opportunity Index 2013,” Be the Change, Inc., http://www.opportunitynation.org/pages/2013-opportunity-index-measuring-mobility

Parity Project, “Untreated and Under-Treated Mental Health Problems,” NAMI-New York City Metro, May 13, 2003. http://www.mentalhealthpromotion.net/resources/untreated-and-undertreated-mental-health-problems-how-are-they-hurting-your-business.pdf

PayScale, “2013-2014 PayScale College Salary Report”. http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/majors-that-pay-you-back

http://www.nccp.org/tools/risk/

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/medicaid-eligibility-table-by-state-state-activit.aspx

http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/earned-income-tax-credits-for-working-families.aspx

http://www.nelp.org/page/-/rtmw/uploads/NELP-Super-Sizing-Public-Costs-Fast-Food-Report.pdf

http://www.nelp.org/page/-/Reports/Low-Wage-Recovery-Industry-Employment-Wages-2014-Report.pdf?nocdn=1

http://www.nelp.org/page/-/Reports/Low-Wage-Recovery-Industry-Employment-Wages-2014-Report.pdf?nocdn=1

http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2013_OOR.pdf

http://nlihc.org/library/SHP

http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/HousingSpotlight2-1.pdf

http://nationalpriorities.org/interactive-data/database/search/

http://iamempowered.com/soba/2014/home

http://www.uli.org/uli-in-action/housing/the-new-california-dream-new-report

http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/beyond_the_poverty_line

http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-90-00100.pdf

http://www.opportunitynation.org/pages/2013-opportunity-index-measuring-mobility

http://www.mentalhealthpromotion.net/resources/untreated-and-undertreated-mental-health-problems-how-are-they-hurting-your-business.pdf

http://www.mentalhealthpromotion.net/resources/untreated-and-undertreated-mental-health-problems-how-are-they-hurting-your-business.pdf

http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/majors-that-pay-you-back

200 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

Pearce, Diana, “Overlooked and Undercounted 2009: Struggling to Make Ends Meet in California,” United Way, Insight Center for Community Economic Development, and Center for Women’s Welfare, 2009. http://www.selfsufficiencystandard.org/docs/CA%20Overlooked%20%20Undercounted%202009.pdf

Pendall, Rolf, Christopher Hayes, Taz George, and Zach McDade, “Driving to Opportunity: Understanding the Links among Transportation Access, Residential Outcomes, and Economic Opportunity for Housing Voucher Recipients,” Urban Institute, March 2014. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/413078-Driving-to-Opportunity.pdf

Perryman Group, “An Essential Resource: An Analysis of the Economic Impact of Undocumented Workers on Business Activity in the US with Estimated Effects by State and Industry,” April 2008. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/ipc/Impact%20of%20the%20Undocumented%20Workforce%20April%2015%202008.pdf

Pew Hispanic Center, “Unauthorized Immigrant Population: National and State Trends, 2010,” Pew Research Center, February 2011. http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf#page=24

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, “American Values Survey: Question Database,” Pew Research Center, 2012. Retrieved May 30, 2014. http://www.people-press.org/values-questions/q41t/i-often-dont-have-enough-money-to-make-ends-meet/#total

Pfeffer, Fabian T., Sheldon Danziger, and Robert F. Schoeni, “Wealth Disparities before and after the Great Recession,” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #13-05, University of Michigan, April 2013. http://npc.umich.edu/publications/u/2013-05-npc-working-paper.pdf

Piette, John D., Anne Marie Rosland, Maria J. Silveira, Rodney Hayward, and Colleen A. McHorney, “Medication Cost Problems among Chronically Ill Adults in the US: Did the Financial Crisis Make a Bad Situation Worse?” Patient Preference and Adherence, 2011, 5, pp. 187–94. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3090380/

Pitkin, John, and Dowell Myers, “Generational Projections of the California Population by Nativity and Year of Immigrant Arrival,” Population Dynamics Research Group, Sol Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, 2012. http://www.usc.edu/schools/price/research/popdynamics/futures/2012_Pitkin-Myers_CA-Pop-Projections.pdf

Povich, Deborah, Brandon Roberts and Mark Mather, “Low-Income Working Mothers and State Policy: Investing for a Better Economic Future,” Working Poor Families Project, 2012. http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WPFP_Low-Income-Working-Mothers-Report_021214.pdf

Prah, Pamela, “States Confront ‘New Mindset’ on Home Care Workers Wages,” Pew Charitable Trusts, April 25, 2014. Retrieved May 30, 2014. http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/states-confront-new-mindset-on-home-care-workers-wages-85899544323

Prevost, Lisa, Snob Zones: Fear, Prejudice, and Real Estate, Beacon Press, 2013.

Project on Student Debt, “Student Debt and the Class of 2012,” The Institute for College Access & Success, 2012. http://projectonstudentdebt.org/files/pub/classof2012.pdf

Public Policy Institute of California, “California’s Future Population, Just the Facts,” September 2008. http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_FuturePopulationJTF.pdf

http://www.selfsufficiencystandard.org/docs/CA%20Overlooked%20%20Undercounted%202009.pdf

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/413078-Driving-to-Opportunity.pdf

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/ipc/Impact%20of%20the%20Undocumented%20Workforce%20April%2015%202008.pdf

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/ipc/Impact%20of%20the%20Undocumented%20Workforce%20April%2015%202008.pdf

http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf#page=24

http://www.people-press.org/values-questions/q41t/i-often-dont-have-enough-money-to-make-ends-meet/#total

http://npc.umich.edu/publications/u/2013-05-npc-working-paper.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3090380/

http://www.usc.edu/schools/price/research/popdynamics/futures/2012_Pitkin-Myers_CA-Pop-Projections.pdf

http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WPFP_Low-Income-Working-Mothers-Report_021214.pdf

http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WPFP_Low-Income-Working-Mothers-Report_021214.pdf

http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/states-confront-new-mindset-on-home-care-workers-wages-85899544323

http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/states-confront-new-mindset-on-home-care-workers-wages-85899544323

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0807001570/reasonmagazineA/

http://projectonstudentdebt.org/files/pub/classof2012.pdf

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_FuturePopulationJTF.pdf

201UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

Public Policy Institute of California, “California’s Housing Market Is Recovering, But the State Faces Many Challenges,” January 2014. http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_114HJ2R.pdf

Public Policy Institute of California, “The California Poverty Measure: A New Look at the Social Safety Net,” Sarah Bohn, Caroline Danielson, Matt Levin, Marybeth Mattingly, and Christopher Wimer, October 2013. http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1013SBR.pdf

Rampell, Catherine, “As New Graduates Return to Nest, Economy Also Feels the Pain,” New York Times, November 16, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/business/economy/as-graduates-move-back-home-economy-feels-the-pain.html

Reid, Caroline K., “Achieving the American Dream? A Longitudinal Analysis of the Homeownership Experiences of Low-Income Households,” Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology, University of Washington, Working Paper No. 04-04, 2004. https://csde.washington.edu/downloads/04-04.pdf

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, “Health Care’s Blind Side: The Overlooked Connection Between Social Needs and Good Health: Summary of Findings from a Survey of America’s Physicians,” December 2011. http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/RWJFPhysiciansSurveyExecutiveSummary.pdf

Roberts, Brandon, Deborah Povich and Mark Mather, “Low-Income Working Families: The Growing Economic Gap,” Working Poor Families Project, Winter 2012-2013. http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Winter-2012_2013-WPFP-Data-Brief.pdf

Rohe, William M., Shannon Van Zandt, and George McCarthy, “Social Benefits and Costs of Homeownership,” in Low-Income Homeownership: Examining the Unexamined Goal, edited by N.P. Retsinas and E.S. Belsky. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2002.

Rothstein, Jesse, “The Labor Market Four Years into the Crisis: Assessing Structural Explanations,” NBER Working Paper 17966, March 2012. Retrieved May 30, 2014. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17966

Scanlon, Edward, and Deborah Page-Adams, “Homeownership and Youth Well-Being: An Empirical Test of Asset-Based Welfare,” Center for Social Development, Washington University in St. Louis, 2000. http://csd.wustl.edu/Publications/Documents/40.HomeownershipAndYouth.pdf

Schmitt, John, “Health-insurance Coverage for Low-Wage Workers, 1979-2010 and Beyond,” Center for Economic and Policy Research, February 2012. http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/health-low-wage-2012-02.pdf

Schur, Lisa, Douglas Kruse, Joseph Blasi and Peter Blanck, “Is Disability Disabling in All Workplaces? Workplace Disparities and Corporate Culture,” Industrial Relations, July 2009, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 381-410. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1402968

Schwartz, Mary, and Ellen Wilson, “Who Can Afford To Live in a Home?” U.S. Census Bureau, 2008. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/special-topics/files/who-can-afford.pdf

Seligman, Hilary, Barbara Laraia, and Margot Kushel, “Food Insecurity Is Associated with Chronic Disease among Low-Income NHANES Participants,” The Journal of Nutrition, February 2010, 140(2). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2806885/

Shapiro, Robert, and Kevin Hassett, “The Economic Benefits of Reducing Violent Crime: Cast Study of 8 American Cities,” Center for American Progress, June 2012. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2012/06/19/11755/the-economic-benefits-of-reducing-violent-crime/

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_114HJ2R.pdf

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1013SBR.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/business/economy/as-graduates-move-back-home-economy-feels-the-pain.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/business/economy/as-graduates-move-back-home-economy-feels-the-pain.html

https://csde.washington.edu/downloads/04-04.pdf

http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/RWJFPhysiciansSurveyExecutiveSummary.pdf

http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Winter-2012_2013-WPFP-Data-Brief.pdf

http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Winter-2012_2013-WPFP-Data-Brief.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w17966

http://csd.wustl.edu/Publications/Documents/40.HomeownershipAndYouth.pdf

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/health-low-wage-2012-02.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1402968

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/special-topics/files/who-can-afford.pdf


http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2012/06/19/11755/the-economic-benefits-of-reducing-violent-crime/

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2012/06/19/11755/the-economic-benefits-of-reducing-violent-crime/

202 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

Short, Kathleen, “The Research: Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2010,” Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, November 2011. http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/Short_ResearchSPM2010.pdf

Short, Kathleen, “The Research: Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2012,” Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, November 2013. http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-247.pdf

Shtauber, Assaf, “The Effects of Access to Mainstream Financial Services on the Poor,” Columbia Business School Research Paper No. 14-11, June 1, 2013. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2403335

Silletti, Leslie, “The Costs and Benefits of Supportive Housing,” Center for Urban Initiatives and Research, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, June 2005. http://www.metropolisstrategies.org/documents/CostsandBenefitsofSupportiveHousing-areview.pdf

Stagman, Shannon, and Janice L. Cooper, “Children’s Mental Health: What Every Policymaker Should Know,” National Center for Children in Poverty, April 2010. http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_929.pdf

State of California, “2010-2015 Consolidated Plan and 2010-2011 Annual Plan,” Business, Transportation and Housing Agency and Department of Housing and Community Development, May 2010. http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/rep/fed/2010-2015_conplan_final.pdf

Stetser, Marie, and Robert Stillwell, “Public High School Four-Year On-Time Graduation Rates and Event Dropout Rates: School Years 2010–11 and 2011–12,” First Look (NCES 2014-391), National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April 28, 2014 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

Stone, Charley, Carl Van Horn, and Cliff Zukin, “Chasing the American Dream: Recent College Graduates and the Great Recession,” John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, Rutgers University, May 2012. http://www.heldrich.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/content/Chasing_American_Dream_Report.pdf

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “NSDUH Report: State Estimates of Adult Mental Illness from the 2011 and 2012 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health,” Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, February 28, 2014. www.samhsa.gov/data/2k14/NSDUH170/sr170-mental-illness-state-estimates-2014.htm

Sullivan, James, “Borrowing During Unemployment: Unsecured Debt as a Safety Net,” Chicago Federal Reserve, February 2005. http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/others/events/2005/promises_and_pitfalls/paper_borrowing.pdf

Suro, Roberto, Jill H. Wilson, and Audrey Singer, “Immigration and Poverty in America’s Suburbs,” Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institution, August 2011. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2011/0804_immigration_suro_wilson_singer/0804_immigration_suro_wilson_singer.pdf

Texas A&M Transportation Institute, “National Congestion Tables,” Annual Urban Mobility Report, 2012. http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/ums/congestion-data/national/national-table-all.pdf

The Pew Charitable Trusts Economic Mobility Project, “Hard Choices: Navigating the Economic Shock of Unemployment,” April 2013. http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/2013/Hard_Choices.pdf

Thiess, Rebecca, “The Future of Work: Trends and Challenges for Low-Wage Workers,” Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper No. 341, April 2012. http://www.epi.org/files/2012/bp341-future-of-work.pdf

http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/Short_ResearchSPM2010.pdf


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2403335

http://www.metropolisstrategies.org/documents/CostsandBenefitsofSupportiveHousing-areview.pdf

http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_929.pdf

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/rep/fed/2010-2015_conplan_final.pdf

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

http://www.heldrich.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/content/Chasing_American_Dream_Report.pdf

www.samhsa.gov/data/2k14/NSDUH170/sr170-mental-illness-state-estimates-2014.htm

http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/others/events/2005/promises_and_pitfalls/paper_borrowing.pdf

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2011/0804_immigration_suro_wilson_singer/0804_immigration_suro_wilson_singer.pdf

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2011/0804_immigration_suro_wilson_singer/0804_immigration_suro_wilson_singer.pdf

http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/ums/congestion-data/national/national-table-all.pdf

http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/2013/Hard_Choices.pdf

http://www.epi.org/files/2012/bp341-future-of-work.pdf

203UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

Ton, Zeynep, “Why ‘Good Jobs’ Are Good for Retailers,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 2012. http://retailactionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/WhyGoodJobsAreGoodforRetailers_ZTon.pdf

Tyler, John, and Magnus Lofstrom, “Finishing High School: Alternative Pathways and Dropout Recovery,” America’s High Schools, The Future of Children, Princeton-Brookings, Volume 19, Number 1, Spring 2009. http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=30&articleid=49&sectionid=175

U.S. Census Bureau, “A Compass for Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What PUMS Data Users Need to Know,” February 2009. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/handbooks/ACSPUMS.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2007, 2010 and 2012; 1-, 3-, and 5-year estimates. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t

U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/state.htm#healthinsurance

U.S. Census Bureau, “Experimental Poverty Measures Publications,” 2010. http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/publications/index.html

U.S. Census Bureau, “Growth in Urban Population Outpaces Rest of Nation, Census Bureau Reports,” 2012b. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html

U.S. Census Bureau, “Poverty Thresholds,” 2007, 2010 and 2012, Poverty Data. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html

U.S. Census Bureau, “PUMS Accuracy of the Data, 2012,” 2012. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/pums/Accuracy/2012AccuracyPUMS.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau, “Reported Voting and Registration of Family Members, by Age and Family Income,” Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2008, Table 8, November 2008. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2008/tables.html

U.S. Census Bureau, “Reported Voting and Registration of Family Members, by Age and Family Income,” Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2012, Table 7, November 2012. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2012/tables.html

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Nutrition Service, Program Data: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), “Food Security in the United States: Definitions of Food Security,” USDA Economic Research Service, 2014. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security.aspx#.U8geSJRdXmc

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), “Key Statistics & Graphics,” USDA Economic Research Service, 2012. http://ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Regional Data, GDP and Personal Income, 2012c. http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_regional.cfm

U.S. Department of Education, “ESEA Title I LEA Allocations – FY 2012,” http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/titlei/fy12/index.html

http://retailactionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/WhyGoodJobsAreGoodforRetailers_ZTon.pdf

http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=30&articleid=49&sectionid=175

http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=30&articleid=49&sectionid=175

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/handbooks/ACSPUMS.pdf

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/state.htm#healthinsurance

http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/publications/index.html

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/pums/Accuracy/2012AccuracyPUMS.pdf

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2008/tables.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2012/tables.html

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security.aspx#.U8geSJRdXmc

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security.aspx#.U8geSJRdXmc

http://ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_regional.cfm

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/titlei/fy12/index.html

204 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2009 Worst Case Housing Needs of People With Disabilities: Supplemental Findings of the Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress, Office of Policy Development and Research, March 2011. http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/WorstCaseDisabilities03_2011.pdf

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “Affordable Housing,” definition of housing burden, 2012. http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “Bridging the Gap: Homelessness Policy,” Insights into Housing and Community Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, 2011. http://www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/insight/insight_1.pdf

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “Costs Associated with First-Time Homelessness for Families and Individuals,” Office of Policy Development and Research, March 2010. http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/Costs_Homeless.pdf

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Summary of all HUD Programs, 2013 based on 2010 Census, 2013. http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/picture/yearlydata.html

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, “National Survey of Veterans, Active Duty Service Members, Demobilized National Guard and Reserve Members, Family Members, and Surviving Spouses,” prepared by Westat, October 2010. http://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/surveysandstudies/nvssurveyfinalweightedreport.pdf

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Threat to Credit Access in The United States,” Staff Report, U.S. House of Representatives, 112th Congress, December 14, 2012. http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Access-to-Credit-Report-12.14.12.pdf

U.S. National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans, “Veteran Homelessness: A Supplemental Report to the 2010 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress,” Department of Veterans Affairs, 2010. https://www.onecpd.info/resources/documents/2010AHARveteransreport.pdf

U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, “Dental Crisis in America: the Need to Expand Access,” A Report from Chairman Bernard Sanders, Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, February 29, 2012. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DENTALCRISIS.REPORT.pdf

Uchitelle, Louis, “How to Define Poverty? Let Us Count the Ways,” New York Times, May 26, 2001. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/26/arts/how-to-define-poverty-let-us-count-the-ways.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, “State Homeless Resources Map: California,” 2013, accessed May 28, 2014. http://usich.gov/usich_resources/maps/overall_homelessness_rates/

USA Today, “State-by-State Day Care Costs,” June 20, 2007. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-20-day-care-table_N.htm

Vandell, Deborah Lowe, Jay Belsky, Margaret Burchinal, Laurence Steinberg, and Nathan Vandergrift, “Do Effects of Early Child Care Extend to Age 15 Years? Results From the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development,” Child Development, Published Online: May 13, 2010. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2938040/

http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/WorstCaseDisabilities03_2011.pdf

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/

http://www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/insight/insight_1.pdf

http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/Costs_Homeless.pdf

http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/picture/yearlydata.html

http://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/surveysandstudies/nvssurveyfinalweightedreport.pdf

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Access-to-Credit-Report-12.14.12.pdf

https://www.onecpd.info/resources/documents/2010AHARveteransreport.pdf

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DENTALCRISIS.REPORT.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/26/arts/how-to-define-poverty-let-us-count-the-ways.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/26/arts/how-to-define-poverty-let-us-count-the-ways.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://usich.gov/usich_resources/maps/overall_homelessness_rates/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-20-day-care-table_N.htm


205UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

VanLandeghem, Karen and Cindy Brach, “Mental Health Needs of Low-Income Children with Special Health Care Needs,” CHIRI™ Issue Brief No. 9, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, April 2009. AHRQ Pub. No. 090033. http://www.ahrq.gov/cpi/initiatives/chiri/Briefs/brief9/brief9.pdf

Vespa, Jonathan, Jamie M. Lewis, and Rose M. Kreider, “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2012, Population Characteristics,” U.S. Census Bureau, August 2013. https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-570.pdf

Weaver, R. Kent, “The Politics of Low-Income Families in the United States,” in Making the Work-Based Safety Net Work Better: Forward-Looking Policies to Help Low-Income Families, edited by Carolyn J. Heinrich and John Karl Scholz. New York, NY: Russell Sage, September 2011.

Wessen, Paul and Brandon Hooker, “Economic Profile of California’s Veterans’ Population,” Employment Development Department, .State of California, 2012. http://www.calmis.ca.gov/specialreports/Economic_Profile_Of_CA_Veterans_Population.pdf

Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW), “Coming Up Short: Wages, Public Assistance and Economic Security Across America,” Spring 2011. http://www.wowonline.org/documents/ComingUpShort2011.pdf

Working Poor Families Project (WPFP), “Framework of Indicators and Source Data,” 2013. http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/FrameworkofIndicators20135-1-13.pdf

Zavodny, Madeline, “Immigration and its Contribution to our Economic Strength,” Testimony before the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Senate, May 8, 2013. http://www.aei.org/files/2013/05/08/-zavodny-immigration-and-its-contribution-to-our-economic-strength_141729556780.pdf

Zurlo, Karen A., WonAh Yoon, and Hyungsoo Kim, “Unsecured Consumer Debt and Mental Health Outcomes in Middle-Aged and Older Americans,” Journals of Gerontology, 69(3), May 2014, pp. 461-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24637231

http://www.ahrq.gov/cpi/initiatives/chiri/Briefs/brief9/brief9.pdf

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-570.pdf

http://www.calmis.ca.gov/specialreports/Economic_Profile_Of_CA_Veterans_Population.pdf

http://www.wowonline.org/documents/ComingUpShort2011.pdf

http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/FrameworkofIndicators20135-1-13.pdf

http://www.aei.org/files/2013/05/08/-zavodny-immigration-and-its-contribution-to-our-economic-strength_141729556780.pdf

http://www.aei.org/files/2013/05/08/-zavodny-immigration-and-its-contribution-to-our-economic-strength_141729556780.pdf


206 UNIT

ED W

AY A

LICE

REP

ORT

– CA

LIFO

RNIA

ALICE is a registered trademark of the United Way of Northern New Jersey.

© Copyright 2009–2014 United Way of Northern New Jersey. All rights reserved. No further use, copying, dissemination, distribution, or publication is permitted without the express written permission

of United Way of Northern New Jersey.

STUDY OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP - Issue Lab

Documents

Transcript of STUDY OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP - Issue Lab