DOCSLIB.ORG

Income and Poverty in the United States: 2018 Current Population Reports

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Income and Poverty in the United States: 2018 Current Population Reports Income and Poverty in the United States: 2018 Current Population Reports By Jessica Semega, Melissa Kollar, John Creamer, and Abinash Mohanty Issued September 2019 Revised June 2020 P60-266(RV) Jessica Semega and Melissa Kollar prepared the income section of this report Acknowledgments under the direction of Jonathan L. Rothbaum, Chief of the Income Statistics Branch. John Creamer and Abinash Mohanty prepared the poverty section under the direction of Ashley N. Edwards, Chief of the Poverty Statistics Branch. Trudi J. Renwick, Assistant Division Chief for Economic Characteristics in the Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division, provided overall direction. Vonda Ashton, David Watt, Susan S. Gajewski, Mallory Bane, and Nancy Hunter, of the Demographic Surveys Division, and Lisa P. Cheok of the Associate Directorate for Demographic Programs, processed the Current Population Survey 2019 Annual Social and Economic Supplement file. Andy Chen, Kirk E. Davis, Raymond E. Dowdy, Lan N. Huynh, Chandararith R. Phe, and Adam W. Reilly programmed and produced the historical, detailed, and publication tables under the direction of Hung X. Pham, Chief of the Tabulation and Applications Branch, Demographic Surveys Division. Nghiep Huynh and Alfred G. Meier, under the supervision of KeTrena Phipps and David V. Hornick, all of the Demographic Statistical Methods Division, conducted statistical review. Lisa P. Cheok of the Associate Directorate for Demographic Programs, provided overall direction for the survey implementation. Roberto Cases and Aaron Cantu of the Associate Directorate for Demographic Programs, and Charlie Carter and Agatha Jung of the Information Technology Directorate prepared and pro- grammed the computer-assisted interviewing instrument used to conduct the Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Additional people within the U.S. Census Bureau also made significant contribu- tions to the preparation of this report. Gloria G. Guzmán, Bernadette D. Proctor, Bruce H. Webster, Jr., Kurt Bauman, and Jason Fields reviewed the contents. Census Bureau field representatives and telephone interviewers collected the data. Without their dedication, the preparation of this report or any report from the Current Population Survey would be impossible. Corey T. Beasley, Amanda J. Perry, and Christine E. Geter provided publication management, graphics design and composition, and editorial review for print and electronic media under the direction of Janet Sweeney, Chief of the Graphic and Editorial Services Branch, Public Information Office.William A. Burbano and George E. Williams of the Census Bureau’s Administrative and Customer Services Division provided printing management. Income and Poverty in Issued September 2019 the United States: 2018 Revised June 2020 P60-266(RV) U.S. Department of Commerce Wilbur Ross, Secretary Karen Dunn Kelley, Deputy Secretary U.S. CENSUS BUREAU Steven Dillingham, Director Suggested Citation Semega, Jessica, Melissa Kollar, John Creamer, and Abinash Mohanty, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-266(RV), Income and Poverty U.S. CENSUS BUREAU in the United States: 2018, Steven Dillingham, U.S. Government Printing Office, Director Washington, DC, Ron Jarmin, 2020 Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer Victoria A. Velkoff, Associate Director for Demographic Programs David G. Waddington, Chief, Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division Contents TEXT INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1 Summary of Findings ........................................... 1 INCOME IN THE UNITED STATES ................................ 1 Highlights ..................................................... 1 Household Income ............................................ 3 Caution for Historical Comparisons. 3 Type of Household ............................................. 4 Race and Hispanic Origin ....................................... 4 Age of Householder ............................................ 4 Nativity ....................................................... 5 Region ........................................................ 6 Residence ..................................................... 6 Income Inequality .............................................. 6 Equivalence-Adjusted Income Inequality ......................... 8 Earnings and Work Experience . 9 POVERTY IN THE UNITED STATES ............................... 12 Highlights ..................................................... 12 Race and Hispanic Origin ....................................... 15 Sex ........................................................... 15 Age ........................................................... 15 Nativity ....................................................... 16 Region ........................................................ 16 Residence ..................................................... 17 Work Experience ............................................... 17 Disability Status ................................................ 17 Educational Attainment ......................................... 17 Families ....................................................... 17 Shared Households ............................................. 18 Depth of Poverty ............................................... 18 Ratio of Income to Poverty ...................................... 18 Income Deficit ................................................. 19 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON INCOME AND POVERTY ......... 19 State and Local Estimates of Income and Poverty ................. 19 Longitudinal Estimates .......................................... 20 The Supplemental Poverty Measure .............................. 20 Interagency Technical Working Group on Evaluating Alternative Measures of Poverty .......................................... 21 SOURCE AND ACCURACY OF THE ESTIMATES .................. 21 U.S. Census Bureau Income and Poverty in the United States: 2018 iii FIGURES Figure 1. Median Household Income and Percent Change by Selected Characteristics ..................... 2 Figure 2. Real Median Household Income by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1967 to 2018 ..................... 5 Figure 3. Income Distribution Measures and Percent Change Using Money Income and Equivalence-Adjusted Income .............................................................. 7 Figure 4. Median Earnings and Percent Change by Selected Characteristics .............................. 9 Figure 5. Female-to-Male Earnings Ratio and Median Earnings of Full-Time, Year-Round Workers 15 Years and Older by Sex: 1960 to 2018 ................................................... 10 Figure 6. Total and Full-Time, Year-Round Workers With Earnings by Sex: 1967 to 2018 ................... 11 Figure 7. Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959 to 2018 ........................................... 12 Figure 8. Poverty Rate and Percentage Point Change by Selected Characteristics: People ................. 13 Figure 9. Poverty Rate and Percentage Point Change by Type of Family Families and People .............. 14 Figure 10. Poverty Rates by Age and Sex ............................................................. 15 Figure 11. Poverty Rates by Age: 1959 to 2018 ........................................................ 16 Figure 12. Demographic Makeup of the Population at Varying Degrees of Poverty: 2018 .................. 19 APPENDIXES Appendix A. Estimates of Income ................................................................... 23 How Income Is Measured ......................................................................... 23 Business Cycles .................................................................................. 23 Annual Average Consumer Price Index Research Series (CPI-U-RS) Using Current Methods All Items: 1947 to 2018 ........................................................................ 24 Cost-of-Living Adjustment ........................................................................ 24 Poverty Threshold Adjustment .................................................................... 24 Appendix B. Estimates of Poverty ................................................................... 49 How Poverty Is Calculated ........................................................................ 49 Poverty Thresholds for 2018 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years ......... 49 Weighted Average Poverty Thresholds in 2018 by Size of Family ..................................... 49 Appendix C. Replicate Weights ..................................................................... 69 References ...................................................................................... 69 Appendix D. Comparison of 2017 Income and Poverty Estimates using the Legacy and Updated Processing Systems ...................................................................... 71 Income ......................................................................................... 72 Poverty. 72 Appendix E. Additional Data and Contacts ........................................................... 77 Customized Tables .............................................................................. 77 New Data Platform ............................................................................ 77 Public Use Microdata ............................................................................. 77 CPS ASEC .................................................................................... 77 Taxes and Noncash Benefits ...................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Poverty and Food Security in La Crosse County, Wisconsin
    Poverty and Food Security in La Crosse County, Wisconsin Katherine J. Curtis, Judi Bartfeld, and Sarah Lessem Poverty in Wisconsin rose substantially in the 2000s and early 2010s. In 2012, 13.2% of the state’s population— roughly 737,356 people1—lived in poverty, as compared to 8.7% in 2000.2 Wisconsin residents are better off economically than the nation as a whole, which has a 15.9% poverty rate. Nonetheless, the official statewide poverty rate has remained well above 12% since 2009. Two recessions and persistently high unemployment have increased economic hardship in Wisconsin. As a result, a larger proportion of households in the state now live in poverty and struggle to secure adequate and nutritious food. What is poverty? ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– The poverty threshold is intended to indicate the do not account for geographic differences in costs income people need for a minimally adequate of living, they are one way to compare economic standard of living. The threshold varies according hardship among groups, across locations, and over to the number of household members and their time. ages, and is adjusted each year to account for Most researchers and many policymakers agree inflation. that poverty lines underestimate the minimum In 2012, the poverty threshold was $23,050 for a resources necessary to meet basic needs. At the family of four and $11,170 for one person.3 same time, Wisconsin residents with incomes Households are considered poor if their pre-tax higher than the federal poverty line still qualify for income is below this amount. While poverty rates several state and federal needs-based programs.
    [Show full text]
  • African Development Report 2015 Growth, Poverty and Inequality Nexus
    African Development Report 2015 African Despite earlier periods of limited growth, African economies Sustaining recent growth successes while making future growth have grown substantially over the past decade. However, poverty more inclusive requires smart policies to diversify the sources African Development and inequality reduction has remained less responsive to growth of growth and to ensure broad-based participation across successes across the continent. How does growth affect poverty segments of society. Africa needs to adopt a new development and inequality? How can Africa overcome contemporary and trajectory that focuses on effective structural transformation. Report 2015 future sustainable development challenges? This 2015 edition Workers need to move from low productivity sectors to those of the African Development Report (ADR) offers analysis, where both productivity and earnings are higher. Key poverty- Growth, Poverty and Inequality Nexus: synthesis and recommendations that are relevant to these reducing sectors, such as agriculture and manufacturing, should Overcoming Barriers to Sustainable Development questions. The objective of this Report is to guide policy be targeted and accorded high priority for public and private Growth, Poverty Growth, Development and Inequality Sustainable to Nexus: Overcoming Barriers processes by contributing to the debate analysing what has investment. Adding value to many of Africa’s primary exports happened during recent years, what has worked well, what may earn the continent a competitive margin in international hasn’t worked well, and what needs to be done to address markets, while also meeting domestic market needs, especially further barriers to sustainable development in Africa? Africa’s with regard to food security. Apart from the need to prioritise recent economic growth has not been accompanied by a real certain sectors, other policy recommendations emanating from structural transformation.
    [Show full text]
  • POOR MEASUREMENT: New Census Report on Measuring Poverty Raises Concerns by Jared Bernstein and Arloc Sherman
    820 First Street, NE, Suite 510 Washington, DC 20002 1333 H Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005 202-408-1080 www.cbpp.org 202-775-8810 www.epinet.org March 28, 2006 POOR MEASUREMENT: New Census Report on Measuring Poverty Raises Concerns By Jared Bernstein and Arloc Sherman On February 14, the Bureau of the KEY FINDINGS Census released its latest report on 1 alternative measures of poverty. • The Census Bureau recently unveiled new Among social scientists, there is alternative poverty measures “intended to provide considerable dissatisfaction with the a more complete measure of economic well- official approach to poverty being.” The new poverty measures, which measurement, and this document is produce poverty rates as much as one-third below part of a welcome research initiative the official poverty rate, contain some features by Census analysts to improve the that have been characterized by poverty experts way that poverty in America is and past Census reports as flawed or incomplete. measured and understood. The • Unlike past Census reports on alternative Census Bureau has consistently measures of poverty, this report does not include a produced important and insightful set of poverty measures that follow the work in this area, carrying on the recommendations of an expert panel of the mission set forth by a 1995 National National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and that are Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, more complete than either the official poverty rate Measuring Poverty: A New Approach. or the new measures. Poverty rates under the The NAS report has been widely NAS measures are generally higher than the viewed in the research community as official poverty rate.
    [Show full text]
  • NYC Opportunity 2018 Poverty Report
    The New York City Government Poverty Measure is released NYC Opportunity annually by the Mayor’s Office for Economic Opportunity. The measure is a more realistic metric than the official poverty measure released by the federal government and one that 2018 Poverty Report provides a detailed description of the nature of poverty in New York City. This year’s report contains data from 2005-2016, www1.nyc.gov/site/opportunity/poverty-in-nyc/poverty-measure.page the most recent data available. Highlights of our findings are shown below. What is the NYCgov NYCgov Poverty and Near Poverty Measure? Poverty Rates, 2014–2016 Measuring poverty involves setting a threshold (where is the poverty line?) and calculating income (how much of what?) The NYCgov poverty measure is a more realistic 45.1% NYCgov Near Poverty measure of poverty than the federal poverty measure. The NYCgov threshold is based on national spending on necessities: food, shelter, clothing and utilities and is adjusted for the higher cost of housing in New York City. The threshold varies by family size. 44.2% The NYCgov income measure includes multiple resources: after-tax earnings (including tax credits) and the value of cash and in-kind benefits (SNAP, housing vouchers, etc.). We subtract from this necessary expenses: medical spending plus commuting and 43.6% childcare for workers to derive total income. 20.6% NYCgov Poverty The poverty rate is the percent of the population whose NYCgov income is less than the NYCgov threshold. The near poverty rate shown here represents the percent 19.9% of the population with income up to 150 percent of their threshold.
    [Show full text]
  • State Income Limits for 2021
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov April 26, 2021 MEMORANDUM FOR: Interested parties FROM: Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director Division of Housing Policy Development SUBJECT: State Income Limits for 2021 Attached are briefing materials and State Income Limits for 2021 that are now in effect, replacing the 2020 State Income Limits. Income limits reflect updated median income and household income levels for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households for California’s 58 counties. The 2021 State Income Limits are on the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income- limits/state-and-federal-income-limits.shtml. State Income Limits apply to designated programs, are used to determine applicant eligibility (based on the level of household income) and may be used to calculate affordable housing costs for applicable housing assistance programs. Use of State Income Limits are subject to a particular program’s definition of income, family, family size, effective dates, and other factors. In addition, definitions applicable to income categories, criteria, and geographic areas sometimes differ depending on the funding source and program, resulting in some programs using other income limits. The attached briefing materials detail California’s 2021 Income Limits and were updated based on: (1) changes to income limits the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released on April 1, 2021 for its Public Housing, Section 8, Section 202 and Section 811 programs and (2) adjustments HCD made based on State statutory provisions and its 2013 Hold Harmless (HH) Policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Welfare Reduce Poverty?
    Research in Economics 70 (2016) 143–157 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Research in Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rie Does welfare reduce poverty? George J. Borjas a,b a Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy, Harvard Kennedy School, USA b National Bureau of Economic Research, USA article info abstract Article history: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 made Received 6 October 2015 fundamental changes in the federal system of public assistance in the United States, and Accepted 6 November 2015 specifically limited the eligibility of immigrant households to receive many types of aid. Available online 22 November 2015 Many states chose to protect their immigrant populations from the presumed adverse Keywords: effects of welfare reform by offering state-funded assistance to these groups. I exploit Immigration these changes in eligibility rules to examine the link between welfare and poverty rates in Poverty the immigrant population. My empirical analysis documents that the welfare cutbacks did Welfare reform not increase poverty rates. The immigrant families most affected by welfare reform responded by substantially increasing their labor supply, thereby raising their family income and slightly lowering their poverty rate. In the targeted immigrant population, therefore, welfare does not reduce poverty; it may actually increase it. & 2015 University of Venice. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The rapid growth of the welfare state spawned a large literature examining the factors that determine whether families participate in public assistance programs, and investigating the programs’ impact on various social and economic outcomes, such as labor supply, household income, and family structure.1 Remarkably, little attention has been paid to the impact of welfare programs on a summary measure of the family’s well being: the family’s poverty status.
    [Show full text]
  • Adults and Children in Poverty
    Socioeconomic Factors ‐ 1 MICHIGAN 2011 CRITICAL Adults and Children in Poverty HEALTH INDICATORS Indicator Definition: Percentage of individuals living below the United States Census Bureau income thresholds for poverty status. For 2010, the poverty threshold for a single individual was an income of $11,139 and for a family of four the threshold was $22,314. Indicator Overview: . Poverty rates are established with the ten‐year census, and percentages are then estimated annually based on the American Community Survey and/or the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey. Beginning with the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans fell from 22.4 percent. These numbers declined steadily, dropping as low as 11.1% in 1973. The poverty rate began to cycle up to as high as 15.2 percent in 1983. The national poverty rate has remained between 11 and 15 percent since 1973. Poverty rates can vary greatly across subpopulations. ← Trends: Prior to 2000, the poverty level in Michigan was consistently lower than the national average, reaching a low for the past decade of 10.2 percent. Since 2000, the poverty level in Michigan has remained more consistent with the national percentage, and is slightly higher than the national percentage for 2008‐2010 at 15.4 percent. According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, in 2009, 44 percent (1,012,918) of children lived in low‐income families (below 200% of the federal poverty level) in Michigan, compared to the national rate of 42 percent. Children living below the federal poverty threshold in 2008 was 22 percent compared to the national rate of 21 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Development Paper
    HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PAPER HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PAPER ON INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 1 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PAPER ON INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA Reduced inequality as part of the SDG agenda August 2018 2 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PAPER ON INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA FOREWORD “People are the real wealth of a nation. The basic objective of development is to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives. This may appear to be a simple truth. But it is often forgotten in the immediate concern with the accumulation of commodities and financial wealth.” (UNDP, Human Development Report, 1990). When the first Human Development Report was published in 1990, the UNDP firmly set out the concepts of dignity and a decent life as the essential to a broader meaning of human development. Ever since, the organization has been publishing reports on global, regional and national levels addressing the most pressing development challenges. In recent years, UNDP initiated a new product - Human Development Papers – that focus on a selected development issue with the aim to contribute to policy dialogue and policy-making processes. It is my pleasure to introduce the first Human Development Paper for Serbia, focusing on inequality. The Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development places a special emphasis on eradicating poverty worldwide while reducing inequality and exclusion, promoting peaceful, just and inclusive societies and leaving no one behind. The achievement of Sustainable Development Goals requires new approaches to how we understand and address inter-related challenges of poverty, inequality and exclusion. The paper analyses and sets a national baseline for SDG10 leading indicator 10.1.1 - Growth rates of household expenditure or income per capita among the bottom 40 per cent of the population and the total population and the related target 10.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Household Income and Wealth
    HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND WEALTH INCOME AND SAVINGS NATIONAL INCOME PER CAPITA HOUSEHOLD DISPOSABLE INCOME HOUSEHOLD SAVINGS INCOME INEQUALITY AND POVERTY INCOME INEQUALITY POVERTY RATES AND GAPS HOUSEHOLD WEALTH HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL ASSETS HOUSEHOLD DEBT NON-FINANCIAL ASSETS BY HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND WEALTH • INCOME AND SAVINGS NATIONAL INCOME PER CAPITA While per capita gross domestic product is the indicator property income may never actually be returned to the most commonly used to compare income levels, two country but instead add to foreign direct investment. other measures are preferred, at least in theory, by many analysts. These are per capita Gross National Income Comparability (GNI) and Net National Income (NNI). Whereas GDP refers All countries compile data according to the 1993 SNA to the income generated by production activities on the “System of National Accounts, 1993” with the exception economic territory of the country, GNI measures the of Australia where data are compiled according to the income generated by the residents of a country, whether new 2008 SNA. It’s important to note however that earned on the domestic territory or abroad. differences between the 2008 SNA and the 1993 SNA do not have a significant impact of the comparability of the Definition indicators presented here and this implies that data are GNI is defined as GDP plus receipts from abroad less highly comparable across countries. payments to abroad of wages and salaries and of However, there are practical difficulties in the property income plus net taxes and subsidies receivable measurement both of international flows of wages and from abroad. NNI is equal to GNI net of depreciation.
    [Show full text]
  • Nber Working Paper Series Income Growth and Its
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES INCOME GROWTH AND ITS DISTRIBUTION FROM EISENHOWER TO OBAMA: THE GROWING IMPORTANCE OF IN-KIND TRANSFERS (1959-2016) James Elwell Kevin Corinth Richard V. Burkhauser Working Paper 26439 http://www.nber.org/papers/w26439 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 November 2019 The views in this paper reflect those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Council of Economic Advisers, their staffs, or the National Bureau of Economic Research. Elwell’s work on this research was funded by The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation while he was a graduate student at Cornell University. Part of this work was undertaken while Burkhauser was employed by the Council of Economic Advisers. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2019 by James Elwell, Kevin Corinth, and Richard V. Burkhauser. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Income Growth and its Distribution from Eisenhower to Obama: The Growing Importance of In-Kind Transfers (1959-2016) James Elwell, Kevin Corinth, and Richard V. Burkhauser NBER Working Paper No. 26439 November 2019 JEL No. D31,H24,J3 ABSTRACT Using Census Bureau estimates of the market value of in-kind transfers and Current Population Survey (ASEC-CPS) data over the period 1979 to 2007, Burkhauser et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Poverty and Inequality Prof. Dr. Awudu Abdulai Department of Food Economics and Consumption Studies
    Poverty and Inequality Prof. Dr. Awudu Abdulai Department of Food Economics and Consumption studies Poverty and Inequality Poverty is the inability to achieve a minimum standard of living Inequality refers to the unequal distribution of material or immaterial resources in a society and as a result, different opportunities to participate in the society Poverty is not only a question of the absolute income, but also the relative income. For example: Although people in Germany earn higher incomes than those in Burkina Faso, there are still poor people in Germany and non-poor people in Burkina Faso -> Different places apply different standards -> The poor are socially disadvantaged compared to other members of a society in which they belong Measuring Poverty How to measure the standard of living? What is a "minimum standard of living"? How can poverty be expressed in an index? Ahead of the measurement of poverty there is the identification of poor households: ◦ Households are classified as poor or non-poor, depending on whether the household income is below a given poverty line or not. ◦ Poverty lines are cut-off points separating the poor from the non- poor. ◦ They can be monetary (e.g. a certain level of consumption) or non- monetary (e.g. a certain level of literacy). ◦ The use of multiple lines can help in distinguishing different levels of poverty. Determining the poverty line Determining the poverty line is usually done by finding the total cost of all the essential resources that an average human adult consumes in a year. The largest component of these expenses is typically the rent required to live in an apartment.
    [Show full text]
  • Income and Poverty in the United States: 2017 Issued September 2018
    IncoIncomeme andand P Povertyoverty in in the theUn Unitedited State States:s: 2017 2017 CurrentCurrent Population Reports ByBy KaylaKayla Fontenot,Fontenot, JessicaJessica Semega,Semega, andand MelissaMelissa KollarKollar IssuedIssued SeptemberSeptember 20182018 P60-263P60-263 Jessica Semega and Melissa Kollar prepared the income sections of this report Acknowledgments under the direction of Jonathan L. Rothbaum, Chief of the Income Statistics Branch. Kayla Fontenot prepared the poverty section under the direction of Ashley N. Edwards, Chief of the Poverty Statistics Branch. Trudi J. Renwick, Assistant Division Chief for Economic Characteristics in the Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division, provided overall direction. Susan S. Gajewski and Nancy Hunter, Demographic Surveys Division, and Lisa P. Cheok, Associate Directorate Demographic Programs, processed the Current Population Survey 2018 Annual Social and Economic Supplement file. Kirk E. Davis, Raymond E. Dowdy, Shawna Evers, Ryan C. Fung, Lan N. Huynh, and Chandararith R. Phe programmed and produced the historical, detailed, and publication tables under the direction of Hung X. Pham, Chief of the Tabulation and Applications Branch, Demographic Surveys Division. Nghiep Huynh and Alfred G. Meier, under the supervision of KeTrena Farnham and David V. Hornick, all of the Demographic Statistical Methods Division, con- ducted statistical review. Tim J. Marshall, Assistant Survey Director of the Current Population Survey, provided overall direction for the survey implementation. Lisa P. Cheok and Aaron Cantu, Associate Directorate Demographic Programs, and Charlie Carter, Agatha Jung, and Johanna Rupp of the Application Development and Services Division prepared and programmed the computer-assisted interviewing instru- ment used to conduct the Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Additional people within the U.S.
    [Show full text]